The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGrant Lake Falls Creek Draft Study Plans 2010Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydro Project Draft 2010 Study Plans October 15, 2009 Grant Lake/Grant Creek and Falls Creek Project (FERC No. 13211 and 13212) Aquatic Resources Draft 2010 Study Plan Prepared for: Kenai Hydro, LLC Suite 1234 A Street, Suite 200 Anchorage, AK 99503 Prepared by: ~'" HDR Alaska, Inc. 2525 C Street, Suite 305 Anchorage, AK 99503 15 October 2009 Kenai Hydro, LLC Table of Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 5 2 Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................................................ 5 2.1 Existing Information .................................................................................................................... 9 2. I .I 2009 Aquatic Resources Studies .................................................................................... 9 2.1.2 Pre-2009 Studies ........................................................................................................... II Need for additional information .......................................................................................................... 13 3 Methods ................................................................................................................................................ 14 3.1 Study Area ................................................................................................................................. 14 3.2 Field Study Design .................................................................................................................... 14 3.2.1 Grant Creek Salmon Spawning Distribution and Abundance ..................................... 16 3.2.2 Grant Creek Resident and Rearing Fish Distribution and Abundance ....................... 18 3.2.3 Grant Creek Aquatic Habitat Mapping and Critical Factors Analysis ....................... 22 3.2.4 Grant Creek lnstream Flow Study ............................................................................... 24 3.2.5 Falls Creek Fish Distribution and Abundance ............................................................. 28 3.2.6 Baseline Studies of Benthic Invertebrates in Grant Creek .......................................... 30 3.2.7 Baseline Studies of Periphyton in Grant Creek ........................................................... 31 3.2.8 Baseline Studies of Zooplankton in Grant Lake .......................................................... 31 3.2.9 Baseline Studies of Phytoplankton in Grant Lake ....................................................... 32 3.3 Quality Control .......................................................................................................................... 32 4 Agency Resource Management Goals .............................................................................................. 33 5 Project Nexus ....................................................................................................................................... 34 6 Consistency with Generally Accepted Practices ............................................................................. 34 7 Level of Effort ..................................................................................................................................... 35 7.1 Personnel and Responsibilities .................................................................................................. 35 8 Schedule for Conducting the Study .................................................................................................. 36 9 Provisions for Technical Review ....................................................................................................... 36 10 References ............................................................................................................................................ 38 Tables Table 1. Parameters used in the microhabitat utilization study .................................................... 26 Figures On or following page Figure 1. Study area figure .............................................................................................................. 7 Figure 2. Study reaches designated on Grant Creek, and proposed telemetry tower location ....... 8 ii ADF&G AEIDC AHRS APA AWC BLM oc cfs em CPUE DNR EPA FERC FL fps ft G&A GPS GWh HEP IFIM in KHI KHL KPB kWh LLC Kenai Hydro, LLC List of Acronyms 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 of Natural 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 iii mg/L milligrams per liter mi mile MIF minimum instream flow mm millimeter MSL Mean sea level MW Megawatt MWh Megawatt hours NWI National Wetlands Inventory O&M Operations & maintenance RM river miles RVDs Recreation visitor days TL total length TWG technical working group USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USFS U.S. Forest Service USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey YOY Young ofthe year IV Kenai Hydro, LLC Plan 1 Introduction The proposed Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project includes a Grant Lake/Grant Creek• development, and a Falls Creek development to divert water from Falls Creek to Grant Lake in order to supplement generation capacity at the powerhouse located on Grant Creek. The proposed Project generating facilities will be located on Grant Creek, near the outlet of Grant Lake. The proposed Project would be located near the community of Moose Pass, Alaska, approximately 25 miles (mi) north of Seward, Alaska, and just east of the Seward Highway (State Route 9; Figure 1 ). The proposed Project location is in the Kenai Peninsula Borough. Studies proposed herein will evaluate possible impacts to aquatic resources, including fish, macroinvertebrates, plankton, and periphyton in Grant Lake, Grant Creek and Falls Creek that may be affected by: • Changes in stream flow and temperature regime that could affect spawning and rearing habitat for anadromous fish species and habitat for all age classes of resident fish; • Changes in water surface elevation in Grant Lake that could affect aquatic biota in littoral areas, including fish, macroinvertebrates, and plankton; • Dredging and construction work in the vicinity of the proposed intake structure and dam in Grant Lake that could result in short-term impacts on benthic macroinvertebrates; and • Changes in water temperatures in Grant Lake that could be influenced by operation of the proposed Project and that could affect aquatic biota. Together with studies carried out in 2009, studies proposed will assess fish, macroinvertebrate, and aquatic habitat resources of Grant Lake, Grant Creek, and Falls Creek in order to address FERC licensing requirements and other regulatory agency permit requirements. 2 Goals and Objectives The overarching goal of the aquatic resources study program is to satisfy the needs of the FERC licensing process and the requirements of the other permitting agencies. Studies proposed to meet FERC licensing application requirements are detailed in the Preliminary Application Document (PAD; KHL 2009). Specific objectives of this study plan were formulated in response to input from the public, from the instream flow technical working group (TWG), and resource agency consultation. Proposed 2010 study components were strongly influenced by the results of the 2009 preliminary study program. The 2010 program emphasizes information that will complement earlier information and fill data gaps identified following analysis of 2009 results. General study objectives are as follows: • To characterize spawning salmon distribution and abundance in Grant Creek, including timing of different species, with special emphasis on Chinook salmon spawner distribution stream wide and within Reach 5 of Grant Creek. • To further characterize resident and rearing fish distribution and abundance in Grant Creek, with special emphasis on distribution and abundance of spawning rainbow trout in spring, fish presence during winter, and juvenile fish use by habitat. 5 • To further map fish habitat in Grant Creek and expand the critical factors analysis • To perform an instream flow study in Grant Creek that identifies aquatic habitats that are currently utilized by salmon and rearing fish, and evaluates potential impacts of the proposed Project on the utilized habitat areas. • To determine fish distribution and abundance in the lower 1 mile of Falls Creek • To collect baseline information on benthic macroinvertebrates and periphyton in Grant Creek • To collect baseline information for zooplankton and phytoplankton in Grant Lake. • To assess macroinvertebrate diversity and abundance in Grant Creek during varying seasonal conditions. • To assess zooplankton diversity and abundance in Grant Lake during varying seasonal conditions. • To collect periphyton samples in two locations within Grant Creek to determine chlorophyll a availability, a determining factor of primary productivity • To collect baseline information on population diversity and abundance of zooplankton in two locations within Grant Lake;, near the natural outlet and near the proposed Project intake. • To collect phytoplankton samples at locations and depths that are co-located with water quality samples to assess chlorophyll a availability, is a determining factor of primary productivity. 6 Figure 1. Study area figure. 7 Kenai Hydro, LLC Draft 2010 Aquatic Resources Study Plan Fl11ure 1 2010 Flth and Aqulltlc Resources Study Area Rail Seward Highway Lakes ""'-' Contours (10 It) -... Kenai Hydro Environmental Baseline Stud ies Upper Troll Loh Figure 2. Study reaches designated on Grant Creek, and proposed telemetry tower location. 8 Kenai Hydro, LLC Draft ZOJO Aquatic Resources Study Plan Figure 2 Fisheries FJeld Studies 2010GrMICreek Telemetry T_. t.ocMion (Proposed) ~ A T_T __ . ...,... __ -IMM .,.._ c...~-- """'·"'~ !llttor~a.....l -- Kenai Hydro. LLC Draft 2010 Aquatic Resources Study Plan than Dolly Varden (n=9), and were caught throughout the creek. Although their relative abundance was higher in Reaches 3 through 5 than in Reaches l and 2. Dolly Varden were captured in Reaches 1, 2, and 3; their relative abundance was highest in Reach 1. This study was also aimed at determining the timing of spawning of adult resident fish; however, it appears that spawning, if present, occurred before or after the 2009 study period, since little evidence of spawning fish was seen (HDR 2009a). Abundance and run timing of spawning anadromous fish was estimated through data collected during foot surveys (HDR 2009a). Foot surveys occurred approximately every 10 days beginning in mid-June and ending in late September. Both sockeye and Chinook salmon were seen in the lower five reaches. Chinook salmon reached Grant Creek first around the beginning of August. Sockeye salmon did not arrive until the end of August. Escapement of Chinook salmon was estimated to be 228 fish, and escapement of sockeye salmon estimated at 1,747 sockeye (preliminary estimate through 31 August -will likely increase; (HDR 2009a). Fish distribution and presence in Grant Lake and its tributaries was assessed using minnow traps, electrofishing, and gill nets (HDR 2009a). Sampling occurred at nine gill netting sites, 18 electrofishing sites, and 28 minnow trapping sites. Threespine stickleback was the dominant species in the lake followed by sculpin. No other species offish was captured (HDR 2009a). Fish presence and distribution on Falls Creek was assessed using minnow trapping (HDR 2009a). Seven minnow traps were placed from the mouth of Falls Creek to the canyon. Dolly Varden were the only species captured (n=24; HDR 2009a). Instream Flow. The collaboration process for a study of "instream flow" effects in Grant Creek was initiated in 2009 (HDR 2009a). The primary goal of the 2009 instream flow study program was to establish a TWG consisting of state and federal resource agency staff, Project staff and interested members of the local community. Once established, the TWG met three times throughout the 2009 study season to review the results of the 2009 aquatic baseline study efforts, discuss and agree upon an acceptable instream flow evaluation method, and request additional information to support the selection of an instream flow method (HDR 2009a). As part of the instream flow study, and at the request of the TWG, a sampling event was conducted from 23 to 25 June 2009 on Grant Creek in order to characterize the types of aquatic habitats utilized by resident fish and rearing fish (HDR 2009a). Aquatic habitat was described at each sample site by recording macro-, meso-, and micro-habitat characteristics. During the June sampling event, snorkeling was the primary method used to document fish presence. Electrofishing was used primarily to confirm species identification and calibrate fish length estimates (HDR 2009a). 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 (HDR 2009a). Data and analyses from these studies were shared with the TWG in July and September. Based on the knowledge gained of Grant Creek's fish and hydrologic resources, KHL presented a proposed instream flow approach to the TWG on 23 September (HDR 2009a). Macroinvertebrates, Plankton, and Periphyton. Benthic macroinvertebrate and periphyton samples were collected in August, 2009 (HDR 2009a). Macroinvertebrate population density and taxa diversity can be used to assess stream water and habitat health and are important factors in 10 availability of food sources for fish. Periphyton is used to assess chlorophyll a content, an indicator of primary productivity. The sampling event was scheduled to occur during the time of year that typically displays the peak of diversity and population densities. Examining the stream sites for macroinvertebrates and periphyton during the same time period for multiple years is necessary to understand yearly variability due to fluctuations between years and weather events (HDR 2009a). The sampling event in 2009 was postponed due to a large rain event (HDR 2009a). This rain event may have scoured Grant Creek, dislodging many larger genera of macroinvertebrate and washing them out of the system. The macroinvertebrates that were found were typically smaller genera although taxa diversity was at levels expected for south central Alaska streams. Periphyton is not affected as easily by such rain events because periphyton is algae that is attached to large rocky substrate (HDR 2009a). Zooplankton and phytoplankton were collected in Grant Lake during the same sampling event (HDR 2009a). Phytoplankton samples were analyzed for chlorophyll a concentrations similar to periphyton in the creek. Concentrations in the lake were lower than that found in the creek. 2.1.2 Pre-2009 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. Grant Creek Fish Resources Both anadromous and resident fish are present in Grant Creek, including salmon, trout, and other fish. Spawning Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), 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 (AP A 1984; Johnson and Klein 2009; Figure 1 ). Rearing Chinook, coho and rainbow trout are also present (APA 1984, Johnson and Klein 2009). Round whitefish (Prosopium cylindraceum) and Arctic grayling (Thymol/us arcticus) were caught during angling surveys, but not assumed to spawn in Grant Creek (APA 1984). Upper Grant Creek is impassable to salmon 0.5 mi (APA 1984) to 1 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 (AP A 1984). Substrate material is coarse throughout the entire length of the creek due to high water velocity, that tends to wash away smaller gravels (APA 1984 ). Isolated areas of suitable spawning gravels occur in the lower half of the stream (APA 1984). Periodic minnow trapping on Grant Creek from July 1959 through January 1961 captured Chinook salmon, coho salmon, Dolly Varden and sculpin (extent of sampling area unknown; USFWS 1961 ). Minnow trapping and electrofishing in lower reaches of Grant Creek for week- long periods in October 1981 and March, May, June, and August 1982 yielded higher catches of trout, salmon and Dolly Varden in the fall and summer than in winter and spring (AEIDC 1983). Catches of Dolly Varden were generally most abundant in minnow traps, followed by juvenile 11 Kenai Hydro, LLC Plan Chinook, juvenile rainbow trout, and juvenile coho. Juvenile Chinook were the most commonly caught fish during electrofishing surveys (APA 1984). APA (1984) estimated that Grant Creek supported 250 Chinook spawners and 1,650 sockeye spawners. These estimates were likely biased low due to the limitations of visual counting methods. The stream was also estimated to support 209 8-inch "trout" (including Dolly Varden and rainbow trout; APA 1984). Spawning coho were not surveyed (APA 1984), but have been recorded as being present at unknown levels in the stream by the A WC (Johnson and KJein 2009). Maximum counts from intermittent stream surveys by ADFG were 76 Chinook (1963) and 324 (1952) sockeye salmon.' Falls Creek Fish Resources Falls Creek is classified as anadromous in its lower 2,300 ft for the presence of Chinook salmon (Johnson and KJein 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 of the stream (USFWS 1961, AEIDC 1982, Johnson and Klein 2009). USFWS sampled Falls Creek in 1961 by setting minnow traps in lower 1 mi of the 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 the AEIDC in 1981 (AIEDC 1983). The results of this study determined the lower one mile 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 (AIEDC 1983). 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. Grant Lake Fish Resources Sampling during 1981-1982 found no fish in any of the tributaries of Grant Lake (AEIDC 1983). Sculpin and threespine stickleback were the only fish found to inhabit Grant Lake. A series of impassable falls 2 near Grant Lake's outlet prevents colonization of the lake by salmonids via Grant Creek (APA 1984 ). Density of threespine stickleback was ten times higher in the lower basin than the upper basin of Grant Lake (AEIDC 1983). Because of the impassable falls below Grant Lake's outlet, no anadromous fish species occur in Grant Lake and its tributaries (USFWS 1961, AEIDC 1983, APA 1984), and Grant Lake is not included in the Anadromous Waters Catalog (A WC) published by ADF&G (Johnson and Daigneault 2008). Grant Lake appears to support only resident populations of sculpin-including slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus) and coast range sculpin (Cottus aleuticus)-and threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) (AEIDC 1983, USFWS 1961, Johnson and Klein 2009). Although Sisson (1984) reported that Dolly Varden and a few rainbow trout occupied Grant 1 Anadromous Waters Catalog Stream Nomination #08-153, http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/SARR/FishDistribiNomination/FDDNomHome.cfm 2 2007 ADFG Stream survey referenced in Anadromous Waters Catalog Stream Nomination #08-153, http://www .sf. 7adfg.state.ak. us/S ARR!Fish Distrib/Nomination/FDDNomHome.cfm 12 Kenai Hydro. LLC Plan Lake, subsequent investigations (USFWS 1961, AEIDC 1983, Marcuson 1989) have documented only sculpin and stickleback. From 1983-1986, coho salmon fry were stocked in Grant Lake by ADF&G, with limited success, though some enhanced returns to Grant Creek were recorded (Marcuson 1989). lnstream Flow. During an information gathering effort, KHL found 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). Included were: 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 was drafted in 2009 detailing the results of the previous instream flow study efforts (HDR 2009b, included as Appendix A). 2.2 Need for additional information Early study programs and the 2009 preliminary study program sponsored by KHL have provided a significant amount of background information regarding aquatic resources in the Project area. Following analysis of the 2009 study results, information gaps were identified for further study to support the FERC licensing process and accompanying permit requirements. Additional field studies will be required to: • Determine juvenile fish use of winter habitats • Better define fish use of microhabitats and overall species composition and relative abundances in Reaches I through 4 • Determine an index of rainbow trout spawning in Grant Creek • Determine use of Reach 5 by juvenile and adult fish, with additional emphasis on spawning Chinook salmon use of Reach 5. • Delineate aquatic habitats available in Grant Creek; identify key habitats 3 for fish and describe and distinguish the factors that may influence fish use of the key habitats over those habitat units not occupied by fish in Grant Creek. • Provide an estimate of salmon spawning escapement in Grant Creek • Provide an estimate offish density in Falls Creek • Examine how important individual habitat units may be affected by changes in flow due to the operation of the proposed Project ) Key Habitats are defined as micro-or macro-habitat areas that receive disproportionate use as indicated by fish density or contain characteristics that allow special uses such as spawning or overwintering 13 • Collect benthic macroinvertebrates in Grant Creek to establish baseline diversity and abundance characteristics • Collect periphyton samples in conjunction with macroinvertebrate samples in Grant Creek to establish baseline chlorophyll a availability • Collect zooplankton samples from Grant Lake to establish baseline population diversity and abundance characteristics • Collect phytoplankton samples in Grant Lake in conjunction with water quality sampling to detennine chlorophyll a availability 3 Methods Aquatic resources of Grant Creek will be studied in 2009 through an integrated study program with three main disciplines: fish biology, instream flow and an element that includes macroinvertebrates, periphyton, and plankton. 3.1 Study Area The proposed Project generating facilities will be located on Grant Creek, near the outlet of Grant Lake, with a diversion tunnel constructed from Falls Creek. The proposed Project would be located near the community of Moose Pass, Alaska, approximately 25 miles north of Seward, Alaska, and just east of the Seward Highway (State Route 9). The proposed Project location is in the Kenai Peninsula Borough. The study area(s) are indicated on Figure 1. 3.2 Field Study Design Field studies in 2010 will include the following principle components: 1. Grant Creek salmon spawning distribution and abundance • Foot surveys of Grant Creek to detennine distribution and abundance of spawning salmon • Telemetry study of Chinook salmon spawning distribution with emphasis on the canyon section of Grant Creek (Reach 5). 2. Grant Creek resident and rearing fish distribution and abundance • Surveys to detennine timing, distribution and abundance of spawning rainbow trout in Grant Creek. • Surveys to detennine fish presence in suspected overwintering habitats. Surveys of Grant Creek to estimate distribution and abundance of juvenile fish by habitat type with emphasis on areas not surveyed in 2009 including Reach 5. 3. Grant Creek aquatic habitat mapping and critical factors analysis • Synthesis of fish use and aquatic habitat data for Grant Creek • Delineation of aquatic habitats in Reaches I though 5 of Grant Creek 14 • Surveys to ground-truth office based habitat delineation, fill spatial data gaps, and verify fish use of aquatic habitats • Identification of key habitats based on observed fish use • Analysis of habitat factors that distinguish key habitats from other habitats available in Grant Creek 4. Grant Creek Instream Flow Study, including the following components: • Lateral habitat connectivity • Fish use of microhabitats Vertical temperature profiles of spawning beds Integration of flow and temperature monitoring 5. Falls Creek fish distribution and abundance • Surveys of Falls Creek to determine distribution and abundance of spawning salmon • Surveys of Falls Creek to determine density and distribution of spawning salmon 6. Benthic macroinvertebrates in Grant Creek • Sampling using Alaska Stream Condition Index (ASCI) methods to determine diversity in a variety of habitats Sampling using pseudo-replication Surber sampling methods to estimate population density in riffle/run habitats. • Macroinvertebrate identification to genus level (when possible) identification for use in calculating population metrics. 7. Periphyton in Grant Creek Collecting ten periphyton samples from riffle areas at two locations within Grant Creek • Processing and filtration to prepare samples for laboratory analysis. Analyzing chlorophyll a concentration in individual samples. 8. Zooplankton in Grant Lake • Performing vertical tows ate two locations within Grant Lake to collect zooplankton samples. • Analysis of zooplankton samples including identification to order and estimation of relative abundance. 9. Phytoplankton in Grant Lake Collecting five phytoplankton samples co-located with water quality sampling locations and depths. • Processing and filtration to prepare samples for laboratory analysis. 15 Kenai Hydro, LLC Plan 3.2.1 Grant Creek Salmon Spawning Distribution and Abundance The purpose of this study component is to characterize spawning salmon distribution, run timing and abundance in Grant Creek that may be affected by Project activities. This study effort will consist of two components: • A continuation of foot surveys conducted during 2009 to describe overall distribution of all salmon species • A radio telemetry study to further assess the spawning distribution of Chinook salmon. 3.2.1.1 Overall Salmon Spawning Distribution and Abundance During the 2009 foot surveys, salmon counts were conducted approximately every 10 days from mid-June through September .. Based on the run timing in 2009, foot surveys in 2010 will be conducted later in the ice-free season, from August through November (or freeze up of Trail Lake). Foot surveys will be conducted weekly through early September, and approximately every 10 days thereafter. Foot surveys will be conducted to estimate the abundance of spawning fish in Grant Creek using methods similar to those employed in 2009. Survey crews will begin at the downstream terminus of each stream reach, visually counting fish as they walk upstream. The survey area will include all active channels including side channels and back water pool areas. Salmon that are obviously spawned out but still swimming (i.e., a live carcass) will be counted as a carcass rather than a live fish. Data collected will include: • A tally of all fish observed per reach, identified to species • GPS coordinates of all redds observed • Number of swimming carcasses observed (see above) • Number of carcasses observed • Turbidity of water (a metric of viewing conditions) • Survey conditions If the data are sufficiently complete, escapement for each salmon species observed will be estimated using an area-under-the-curve method that is based on a trapezoidal approximation using 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 is alive in the survey area, observer efficiency, and the proportion of fish actually seen by the observers will be determined based on professional judgment. Escapement will be 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 16 Kenai Hydro. LLC Plan fish present, then the estimate will be biased low and the adjustment for observer efficiency corrects this bias. Quantitative estimates of either survey life or observer efficiency do not exist for Grant Creek or Falls Creek. As such, subjective estimates of both values will be made based on professional judgment by the fish biologists conducting the foot surveys and assumed to be reasonable values. The primary tasks associated with this study are as follows: • Mobilize/breakdown field equipment/safety training (July and November) • Survey Grant Creek for fish (August through November) • Enter and QA/QC data (August through November) o Enter all survey data o Conduct QA/QC procedures • Data analysis of adult salmon escapement based on an area under the curve estimate 3.2.1.2 Chinook Salmon Spawning Distribution in Grant Creek During 2009, the crew was unable to access Reach 5 (Figure 2), except for the first 300 m beyond the reach-break between Reaches 4 and 5. Reach 5 was not accessed in the 1980s by previous investigators (AIEDC 1983) or during 2009 (HDR 2009a) due to high-velocity flows and cascades that prevented safe wading of the stream and precipitous terrain that prevented walking along the edge of the stream. As a result, the upstream extent of salmon spawning activity in Grant Creek has not been adequately characterized. Turbid water due to glacial runoff in Grant Creek also lowered observer efficiencies and added to uncertainty of escapement estimates and spawning distribution in the remainder of the stream (HDR 2009a). The purpose of a radio telemetry study of Chinook salmon in Grant Creek is to determine spawning distribution of Chinook salmon throughout the creek, including determining presence or absence and relative abundance in Reach 5. Approximately 50 Chinook salmon will be captured near the mouth of Grant Creek using a method to be determined in the field based on observed conditions. Captured fish will be radio tagged starting in early August, with the goal of distributing the tags proportionately throughout the run, which is expected to last from mid to late August. However, this run timing estimate is based on information from previous years, and inter-annual variability in run timing may occur. Possible capture methods include use of beach seines, dip nets, or large-mesh fyke nets. Once fish are captured, they will be anesthetized using C02 and a Lotek, Inc. coded gastric tag will be inserted. All radio-tagged fish will also be floy-tagged. Radio tags will be programmed to have a 60-day battery life. A radio telemetry receiver tower will be installed at the reach-break between Reaches 4 and 5 (Figure 2) in order to detect when fish enter or exit Reach 5. During the foot surveys described in Section 4.2.1.1, observers will also carry a handheld Yagi antenna in order to detect tagged fish that may be present in the vicinity. A trail will be established along a safe route on the canyon rim paralleling Reach 5. Once a fish is detected, the crew will walk until the signal is perpendicular to their position (Le., as close as possible), until signal strength is high enough to code the fish. Locations of the tagged fish will be recorded using GPS coordinates as well as marked on hand-held maps. The primary tasks associated with this study are as follows. 17 • Acquire field equipment (April & May) o Capture nets o Anesthesia equipment o Telemetry tags and receiver o Fixed receiving station components • Establish trail (May & July) o Cut and mark trail (May) o Brush trail (July) • Mobilize field equipment (July & August; October) o Transport field equipment to site o Install fixed telemetry towers Kenai Hydro. LLC Draft 2010 Aquatic Resources Study Plan o Breakdown and transport field equipment off site • Capture and tag Chinook salmon (August & September) o Tag 50 Chinook salmon • Track movement of tagged salmon (August through October) o Foot surveys o Download data from fixed receiving stations • Enter and QA/QC data (August through November) o Enter all capture data o Upload tracking data to GIS-enabled database o Conduct QAIQC procedures • Conduct a spatial analysis of tag location data 3.2.2 Grant Creek Resident and Rearing Fish Distribution and Abundance The purpose of this study component is to characterize distribution, abundance of all species of resident and rearing fish, and run timing of rainbow trout in Grant Creek that may be affected by Project activities. This study effort will consist of the following components: • Angling surveys to assess run timing and relative abundance of spawning rainbow trout, • A continuation/expansion of minnow trap sampling in Reach 5 of Grant Creek • Minnow trap and video sampling in late winter/early spring at likely overwintering habitats to determine salmonid overwintering presence in Grant Creek. • Snorkel sampling to determine fish use of microhabitats in Grant Creek 3.2.2.1 Rainbow Trout Spawning and Distribution in Grant Creek Due to logistical and funding limitations, angling sampling to assess rainbow trout spawning distribution in Grant Creek did not begin until 2 June 2009, which was likely after or near the end of rainbow trout spawning time period. The spawning condition of captured fish could not be determined with confidence during the 2009 angling surveys. As a result, the sampling events for 2010 will begin earlier, likely in mid-May, in order to characterize rainbow trout spawning activity and distribution in Grant Creek. Angling sampling will occur at stations previously established in 2009 and sampling will continue using the same methods as were used in 2009. Each angling station will be fished for 30 18 minutes, using rod and reel methods in accordance with ADF&G Sport Fishing Regulations and the ADF&G Fish Resource Permit. Fish will be marked with a caudal fin clip (0.25 inch) in order to detect recaptures. Angling surveys for rainbow trout will be timed to coincide with the probable spawning time, which occurs after breakup in late spring. Rainbow trout spawning normally begins after water temperatures warm to about 4°C. Grant Creek water temperatures will be monitored after ice-out to determine when surveys should be initiated. Surveys will occur once per week from mid-May (or ice-out) to mid-June. All fish captured will be immediately landed and netted. Each fish will be measured, sexed (if possible), and its spawning condition described. After being captured each fish will be walked down stream and released in a slow water area away from the angling station. The primary tasks associated with this study are as follows. • Acquire and inventory field equipment (April) • Mobilize/breakdown field equipment/safety training(May and June) • Capture, measure, mark and assess spawning condition of rainbow trout (May through June) • Enter and QA/QC data (May through July) o Enter all capture data o Upload tracking data to GIS-enabled database o Conduct QA!QC procedures • Conduct data analysis o Assess the relative abundance and distribution of spawning rainbow trout based on CPUE 3.2.2.2 Rearing Fish use of Study Reach 5 During 2009 minnow trap sampling, crews were unable to access Reach 5, except for the first 300 m beyond the reach-break between Reaches 4 and 5 (Figure 2). Most of Reach 5 was not accessed in the 1980s by previous investigators (AIEDC 1983) or during 2009 (HDR 2009a) due to high-velocity flows and cascades that prevented safe wading of the stream, and steep terrain that prevented safe upland access without climbing gear. In order to assess the presence of juvenile fish in Reach 5. minnow trap sampling will be expanded to areas not reached in 2009. An initial reconnaissance of Reach 5 will be conducted in late winter 2010 when the creek is frozen and can be accessed on foot at the bottom of the gorge; information will be gathered regarding potential summer access points, likely fish habitat and potential sample sites. Juvenile fish use of Reach 5 will be assessed using the same minnow trapping methods that were employed during 2009, except that special equipment will be used to access the creek in Reach 5 in a safe manner. Routine access of Reach 5 during high flow conditions will be accomplished by using roped protection. Sample site locations will be based on the ability to safely access this reach from the canyon rim, which will be influenced by following criteria: • Safe access via rappel/belay techniques • Proximity to safe anchor sites 19 • Proximity to likely fish habitats Kenai Hydro, LLC Drafl2010 Aquatic Resources Study Plan A crew of two will set minnow traps in as many locations as possible with 3 to 4 traps each within likely fish habitats, such as plunge pools and eddies. The three sites trapped in 2009 in the lower 300m of Reach 5 will also be re-sampled, for a total of 6 to 7 sites in Reach 5. Target species will include Chinook and coho salmon, Dolly Varden, rainbow trout, and sculpin. CPUE can be defined as the catch per trap-hour. All sampling sites will be marked by a GPS, staked, and flagged for future identification. Habitat characteristics will also be recorded. Once minnow trapping is complete, effort will be made to electrofish the area around which the traps were placed to confirm minnow trapping results and to collect species that may not be attracted to the traps. All sites in Reach 5 will be minnow trapped monthly from May through October. Fish captured will be identified to species level, and released near the point of capture. A target sample of fish will be sampled for length to the nearest millimeter (n=30 per sampling event for salmonids and n=IO for other species); salmonid length measurements will be based on fork length (tip of the snout to the fork in the tail), and other fish length measurements will be based on _total length (tip of snout to end of tail). The primary tasks associated with this study are as follows. • Acquire/inventory field equipment and complete safety training( April & May) o Climbing/ascension/and belay equipment o Fish sampling equipment o Safety equipment o Safety training for normal crew and two alternates • Establish trail (May & July) o Cut and mark trail (May) o Brush trail (July) • Mobilize field equipment (July & August; October) o Transport field equipment to site o Scout for best access points o Set up fixed ropes and anchors o Select sampling sites o Breakdown and transport field equipment off site • Conduct routine monthly sampling (mid May through October) • Enter and QA/QC data (August through November) o Enter all capture data o Conduct QA/QC procedures • Conduct data analysis based on CPUE, species composition and relative abundance. 3.2.2.3 Resident and Rearing Fish Use of Winter Habitats The results of the 2009 snorkel and minnow trapping surveys provide evidence that very few juvenile salmon observed were older than young-of-the-year fish (YOY; i.e., hatched in spring). Based on these results there is some question as to whether Grant Creek provides favorable overwinter habitat for juvenile salmon. This study component will assess juvenile salmon 20 presence in likely overwintering habitats such as open water, springs and seeps, deep pools, and backwater areas. Areas of unfrozen water will be sampled using both minnow traps and backpack elcctrofisher. In frozen areas where substantial unfrozen water is suspected under the ice, an ice auger would be used to gain access to water under the ice, if necessary. A baited minnow trap or bait container will be lowered into the water along with an underwater video camera. Under-ice conditions will be observed on a monitor. If fish are seen on the monitor, then video will be recorded for later review. Footage would then be analyzed in the office to determine species and age class of any fish attracted to the bait. This one-time sampling event would occur in late winter or early spring 2010 (approximately in March), before breakup occurs in Grant Creek. The study will likely need to be conducted before break-up in Trail Lake to ensure safe access to Grant Creek. The primary tasks associated with this study are as follows. • Identify likely overwintering habitats in the office based on existing habitat mapping, knowledge of study area, and 2009 data (February) • Identify additional likely overwintering habitats in the field based on observations, i.e., presence of open water (March). • Sample for fish in likely overwintering habitats (March) • Enter and QA/QC data (March through June) o Enter data into database and Conduct QA/QC o Review camera footage to determine fish species and approximate age 3.2.2.4 Resident and Rearing Fish Use of Open Water Habitats Findings from 2009 minnow trap sampling of Grant Creek indicated that Dolly Varden were the most abundant juvenile species present, but snorkel sampling detected the presence of relatively few Dolly Varden and instead detected Chinook and coho salmon as the dominant juvenile species fish species. YOY Chinook and coho may have been attracted to the minnow traps, but were able escape through the 0.25-inch mesh. It is also possible that YOY coho and Chinook were not attracted to the cured salmon eggs being used as bait in the minnow traps until later in the summer or that high flows prohibited fish from moving towards the trap (which would explain their presence in low numbers in June and July 2009). In August 2009, the numbers of Chinook and coho salmon caught in minnow traps increased as the size of the fish increased. The disparity between the minnow trapping and snorkeling results may also have been due to the habitats sampled. The minnow trapping sites were set mostly in margins of fastwater riffles (favoring an even spatial distribution along stream Reaches 1 through 4, Figure 2) whereas the snorkeling sites were set in a variety of microhabitats. Differences between minnow trapping and snorkeling results may also have been because Dolly Varden may be more difficult to detect while snorkeling. In Study Reaches 1-4, sample sites in which catch of juvenile salmon in minnow traps was poor or samples sites in habitats that were underrepresented by sampling in 2009 (e.g., low-velocity habitats, backwaters, undercut banks) will be identified in the office and in the field in 20 I 0. Each habitat type will be uniformly sampled using baited 0.125-inch mesh minnow traps to 21 Kenai Hydro. LLC Plan determine CPUE. CPUE can be defined as the catch per trap-hour. Sampling methods for this subcomponent are the same as those used in Reach 5 (Section 3.2.2.2), with the exception of the method of site determination, which will be based on habitat units. Where possible minnow trapping sites will also be electrofished or snorkeled to attempt to correct for gear bias of the minnow traps (i.e., document species that may not be captured in the minnow traps). Minnow trapping will take place at approximately 40 established sites once a month, from mid-May through October 2010. The primary tasks associated with this study are as follows. • Acquire and inventory field equipment (April) • Mobilize/breakdown field equipment/safety training (May and October) • Conduct in-water sampling on a monthly basis (May through October) • Enter and QA/QC data (May through October) o Enter all capture data o Conduct QA/QC procedures • Conduct data analysis based on CPUE, species composition and relative abundance. 3.2.3 Grant Creek Aquatic Habitat Mapping and Critical Factors Analysis The purpose of this study is to fully delineate and map the aquatic habitats available in Grant Creek; identify key habitats for fish (i.e., rearing and resident fish; spawning salmon); and describe and distinguish the factors that may influence fish use of the key habitats over those habitat units not occupied by fish in Grant Creek. The approach of this study involves three primary phases. During the first phase, the team will spatially synthesize existing aquatic habitat and fish use data generated during various field efforts throughout the 2009 field season. This exercise will be completed primarily to identify spatial data gaps. In the second phase, the team will then verify (i.e., ground-truth) habitat data in the field, collect additional habitat and fish use data in Reaches I through 54 , and incorporate other suitable habitat and fish use data collected in 2010 (e.g., instream flow study, Section 4.2.4). Finally, the team will analyze the suite of habitats and fish use data to identify critical factors. The primary tasks associated with this approach will be to: • Prepare an office-based aquatic habitat map (i.e., based on habitat observations assembled throughout the 2009 field season) • Conduct field surveys to ground-truth the office-based mapping effort and fill spatial data gaps relative to aquatic habitat and fish use in Reaches 1 though 5 • Incorporate aquatic habitat fish use data to identify key rearing, spawning, and feeding habitats for salmon and resident fish; and potential overwintering habitats (i.e., see Section 4.2.2) and • Analyze and identify the factors that may influence fish use of the key habitats over those habitat units not occupied by fish in Grant Creek. 4 Due to physical access limitations. the field team may be unable to ground-truth aquatic habitats delineated in portions of Reach 5. 22 The office-based mapping exercise will incorporate existing habitat data overlain by fish use data into a spatial format, using ArcMap© geographic information system (GIS) software. The initial dataset will include habitat units mapped during a microhabitat fish use reconnaissance study completed in June 2009 5• The team will also plot locations of salmon spawning activity recorded during 2009 foot surveys and high-use spawning areas identified by historical data (APA 1984 ). The team will use the preliminary spatial fish habitat information to catalog and identify gaps in coverage. The team will conduct surveys to ground-truth the preliminary aquatic habitat delineation (i.e., generated through the office-based exercise) to identify where data gaps exist and to determine where to collect additional information. The team will delineate aquatic habitats at the microhabitat scale, consistent with the approach developed for the 2009 microhabitat reconnaissance study. Microhabitats identified in 2009 included: fastwater pools and fastwater riffles; margins with undercut bank, margins without undercut bank, large woody debris dams, and margin shelves associated with large wood debris; and backwater pools, sloughs, and pockets. Additional microhabitat characterizations will be added if deemed necessary. The field team will record fish presence (or absence) within discrete microhabitats, so that fish presence {or lack of fish presence) can be correlated with the microhabitat characteristics present (or absent) at each location sampled. A component of the instream flow study (see Section 4.2.4.2) will employ a similar sampling approach at specific locations in Reaches 1 through 4 (i.e., primarily at areas sampled in 2009). Data collection methods for the 2010 effort, described below, will be consistent with those developed for the 2009 microhabitat reconnaissance study. The field team will identify each fish observed to species and estimate its fork length using 20 mm size ranges, or bins. The team will rely on snorkeling as the primary method to document fish presence (or absence) within each microhabitat sample area. Electrofishing will be used primarily to confirm species identification and calibrate fish length estimates. Electrotishing will be used in lieu of snorkeling, if conditions preclude the effectiveness of snorkeling (i.e., shallow conditions). The field team will record dominant and subdominant types of cover for each separate observed group of fish. At fish observation locations, the team will record total depth using a wading rod and estimate nose depth (i.e., fish nose depth). The team will record mean column velocities and nose velocities using a vertical-axis current meter (Price-AA or similar) attached to a top-setting or standard wading rod, and water temperature. The team will identify key fish habitats in Grant Creek, based on observed fish use. This will be accomplished by analyzing the microhabitat fish utilization data collected in support of this study, data collected in support of the instream flow study (see Section 4.2.4.2), and data collected in 2009 during the reconnaissance study (HDR 2009a). These data will be incorporated into the spatial dataset. Other fish use habitat datasets (e.g., foot surveys, telemetry surveys, electrofishing) will be also be considered when developing key habitat designations The 2009 fish microhabitat use reconnaissance study was initiated 10 gain insight into the types of habitats that fish occupy in Grant Creek. The team identified discrete microhabitat types and sampled for fish presence at 16 sites in Gmnt Creek. 23 Kenai Hydro, LLC Plan The team will perform a critical habitat factors analysis to identify those factors (i.e., habitat components) which may be critical to fish in Grant Creek. The critical factors analysis will compare habitat factors found at key habitats (i.e., habitats utilized by fish) from other habitats available (i.e., not utilized by fish) in Grant Creek. The intent will be to distinguish those factors, potentially unique to key habitats and which may be critical to fish in Grant Creek, from the suite of habitat factors available in Grant Creek. 3.2.4 Grant Creek Instream Flow Study The Grant Creek instream flow study approach was collaboratively developed based on input from the TWG. Public meetings of the TWG were held in April and September, 2009, and a conference call was held in May 2009; input and suggestions were solicited during these meetings and also through email and phone communications with the TWG and TWG members. The instream flow study approach represents a detailed study of utilized habitat types, and addresses the desire of the TWG to examine how important individual habitat units may be affected by changes in flow due to the operation of the Project. Rather than applying a typical quantitative habitat study that generalizes mesohabitat units in a study reach, this approach uses several techniques to tie physical microhabitat to flow and timing, and applies in situ knowledge of fish habitat use in Grant Creek as tools to determine potential effects of the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project. For an instream flow study in Grant Creek, we propose an integrated effort that provides a cost- effective way of obtaining information that most directly answers the questions the TWG members have regarding the effects of the Project on fish habitat in Grant Creek. The approach includes I. A series of single transect analyses with each transect going through a known fish use area such as high use spawning or rearing areas; 2. Fish studies that help identify microhabitat factors that affect fish use within each key habitat type; 3. Measuring vertical water temperature differences at spawning locations to identify areas of upwelling or downwelling; and 4. Monitoring temperature and flows at multiple locations on Grant Creek to determine downstream flow accretion and temperature changes. These four components will be analyzed and compared to historical flow data (USGS gage 15246000, water years 1948 through 1958) to determine effects of different flow regimes on several factors that are important in the life stages of Grant Creek resident and anadromous fish. 3.2.4.1 Lateral Habitat Connectivity Study The purpose of the lateral habitat connectivity component of the instream flow study is to correlate currently utilized habitat units with stream flow, using observations of hydraulic connectivity and use by fish to determine at which flows a particular habitat unit may or may not be available. This information can be cross-referenced with historic hydrographs, recent hydrologic data, and potential flow scenarios in Grant Creek to determine discrete time periods when the habitat unit may be available for its designated use. 24 Kenai Hydro, LLC Plan Cross sections will be measured using methods developed for the wetted perimeter method. The method provides a graphical plot of wetted perimeter versus discharge, on which the range of flows at which habitat area is unavailable can be determined visually. Unlike some instream flow studies, site-specific flows are not collected at each cross-section; neither are vertical hydraulic measurements such as depth and velocity. Each site will include staff gages that will be read multiple times during the field season. The date, time, and gage height will be recorded in order to correlate cross-section stage to the continuous gage. A one-time cross section survey will be conducted to determine channel geometry and to tie the staff gage to the monument to the continuous gage. Proposed sites: • Reach 1 o 2 sites on the distributary channel in rearing habitat o 4 sites on the main channel in rearing habitat o 1 site on the main channel in spawning habitat • Reach 2 o 2 sites on the main channel in rearing habitat o 2 sites in off-channel pool rearing habitat o 1 site on the main channel in spawning habitat • Reach 3 o 1 site in off-channel pool rearing habitat o 2 sites in secondary channel rearing habitat o 1 site in tertiary channel rearing habitat o 1 site in main channel spawning habitat • Reach 4 o 3 sites in main channel rearing habitat o 1 site in main channel spawning habitat Proposed cross sections were located during a site visit 24 September 2009. The locations were set based on presence of physical microhabitat (i.e., undercut bank, overhead cover, bedrock outcrops, and pocket water) and observations of fish during the site visit and during snorkeling studies. The site locations will be refined and cross section geometry will be collected in late spring 20 I 0. 3.2.4.2 Microhabitat Utilization Study The purpose of the study is to learn what microhabitat factors the fish in Grant Creek occupy in order to assess whether the Project would have an effect on instream habitat. In order to maximize the knowledge of habitat selection factors for fish in Grant Creek, the observations 25 Kenai Hydro, LLC Plan would be made at the locations of the lateral habitat connectivity studies as described in the previous section on lateral habitat connectivity. Fish spawning and rearing microhabitat values will be recorded in 2010 at programmatically- selected sites (described in Section 3 .2.4.1) in Reaches 1 through 4. Measured microhabitat use parameters will vary by habitat units. During the TWG meeting on September 23, the following table was developed with input from TWG members. Table I. Parameters used in the microhabitat utilization study. Habitat use flladioa by Hfe history Habitat use parameters to measure Salmon rearing Depth, cover, habitat connectivity Salmon spawning Substrate, depth, temperature, vertical hydraulic gradient Rainbow trout spawning TBD Incubation Depth, temperature, wetted perimeter Resident rearing and spawning Salmon rearing will be used as a surrogate For this exercise, site-specific habitat suitability criteria (HSC) will not be developed. HSC are not required in the proposed assessment approach; however, the numbers of observations and subsequent analysis will proceed to the level sufficient to determine selection factors for each of the measured microhabitat variables. Since transects will, by definition, be within areas that are known to be suitable for fish use, those factors that are most likely to be influenced by flow changes will be emphasized. The approach will be similar to the sampling approach developed in 2009. However, the 2010 field effort will be expanded to include multiple sampling events at varying flow regimes, as discussed below. The primary tasks associated with this approach are to: • Identify and describe discrete microhabitat sample areas within each sample site, based on habitat factors observed; and • Record fish species presence (or absence) within each microhabitat sample area The field team established 16 sample sites in Grant Creek in June 2009. The sample sites comprise habitats expected to contain high densities of juvenile fish (i.e., backwater areas; along stream margins) as well as those not necessarily expected to contain high numbers of rearing fish (i.e., fast water near the thalweg). As a result, the team identified a number of key habitats for rearing and resident fish. The instream flow team considered the key habitats identified through the June 2009 effort and in September 2009, established lateral habitat connectivity cross- sections at these locations (as discussed in Section 4.2.4). In 2010, the field team will sample microhabitats associated with the lateral habitat connectivity transects. Most transects are co- located with at least one microhabitat unit sampled in June 2009. Additional sample sites will be established if deemed necessary. 26 Kenai Hydro. LLC Plan The field team will divide sites into discrete microhabitat sample areas based on microhabitat characteristics observed within the stream segment sampled. In 2009, the field team identified microhabitat sample areas: fast water pool, fast water riffle, margin with undercut bank, margin without undercut bank, large woody debris dam, and margin shelf associated with large wood debris, backwater pools, pockets, and sloughs; and "other" channels (i.e., distributary, secondary, tertiary). In many cases, one sample site would be comprised of multiple microhabitat sample areas. The field team will choose from these microhabitat categories; additional microhabitat categories will be added if encountered. Microhabitat factors taken into consideration will include: • Location relative to the main channel (i.e., stream margin; mid-channel; backwater slough; backwater pocket); • Depth and flow regimes (i.e .. shallow fast, shallow slow, deep fast, deep slow}; • Presence of cover (i.e., no cover; velocity; instream cover}; and • Type of instream cover when present (i.e., undercut bank; woody debris; overhanging vegetation; submerged vegetation; substrate). The field team will record fish presence (or absence} within discrete microhabitat sample areas, so that fish presence (or lack of fish presence) can be correlated with the microhabitat characteristics present (or absent) at each location sampled. The field team will identify each fish observed to species and estimate its fork length using 20 mm size ranges, or bins. The team will rely on snorkeling as the primary method to document fish presence (or absence) within each microhabitat sample area. Electrofishing will be used primarily to confirm species identification and calibrate fish length estimates. Electrofishing will be used in lieu of snorkeling, if conditions preclude the effective of snorkeling (i.e., shallow conditions). For rearing habitat and observed fish use near the stream margins, the field team will record dominant and subdominant types of cover for each separate observed group of fish. Total depth will be recorded using a wading rod at locations of observed fish use, and nose depth will be estimated by the snorkeler. Mean column velocities and nose velocities will be recorded using a vertical-axis current meter (Price-AA or similar) attached to a top-setting or standard wading rod. Water temperature will be recorded at each station, ideally mid-column and at or near the location of observed fish. In areas of observed spawning use, high stream depth and velocity may preclude field staff from measuring all microhabitat parameters. When possible, depth and velocity will be recorded as described above. Dominant and subdominant types of substrate size will be recorded by visual estimate using a modified Wentworth scale. When direct measurements are not possible, depth at the spawning habitat will be visually estimated, and a GPS point will be taken and the habitat area described. The field team will revisit spawning habitat areas in the fall when flows allow wading, and will record dominant and subdominant types of substrate type using a modified Wentworth scale for each observed redd. In all cases, surface water temperature will be measured near mid-column in a well-mixed area near the location of the observed redd. 27 Kenai Hydro, LLC Plan 3.2.4.3 Vertical Temperature Profiles of Spawning Beds Spawning locations that have upwelling of groundwater or downwelling of surface water may be highly selected by fish. However, this microhabitat variable is typically difficult to identify and measure in the field. Since the temperature of groundwater is typically constant and surface water temperature is highly variable, temperature is usually an effective water quality "tracer" that can indicate the presence of groundwater upwelling areas. Identifying the difference in water temperatures may be accomplished by the use of thermistor strings buried in the substrate. Three strings will be deployed at known spawning locations observed in the 2009 field season, and three strings will be deployed at spawning-appropriate locations that spawning activity was not observed during 2009. Each thermistor string will include three HOBO Pendant-type temperature data loggers spaced 20 em apart. The top thermistor will be on the substrate surface, the middle thermistor will be at 20 em depth, and the bottom thermistor will be at 40 em depth. The thermistor strings will be deployed in the spring when flows are at their lowest, and will be recovered about one year later in order to record temperatures for a full spawning and incubation cycle. Subsequent analyses of the temperature will identify whether temperature differentials between surface and subsurface water indicate if upwelling or downwelling is occurring at each location. The thermistor strings will be deployed in spring 2010 at 6 locations: 3 sites suitable for spawning with known use in 2009; and 3 sites suitable for spawning with no observed use in 2009. The actual locations will be field-identified; the three sites with known spawning use will be co-located with GPS points that identify 2009 spawning activity of sockeye and Chinook salmon. 3.2.4.4 Integration with Flow and Temperature Monitoring Grant Creek flow and temperature studies for 2010 are described in the Water Resources Draft 2010 Study Plan (HDR 2009c). Specifically, continuous flow and temperature monitoring stations that were set in 2009 will be continued and/or reestablished in 2010. The instream flow study relies on integration of the collected data, described in the previous sections, with the data collected per the Hydrology Study Plan. The data loggers will be downloaded at regular intervals to contribute to analysis during the 2010 field season. 3.2.5 Falls Creek Fish Distribution and Abundance The purpose of this study component is to characterize spawning salmon, resident fish, and rearing fish distribution, run timing and abundance in Falls Creek that may be affected by Project activities that could divert the lower 1 mi of the stream. Spawning salmon distribution, run timing, and abundance during 2010 will be characterized in Grant Creek with: • A continuation of foot surveys conducted during 2009 on Falls Creek and • Use of electrofishing with removal techniques to assess juvenile fish density in the lower mile of Falls Creek. 3.2.5.1 Salmon Spawning Distribution and Abundance Foot surveys to count spawning salmon were conducted approximately every 10 days from late August through September, 2009. Based on the timing of salmon presence in Grant Creek, foot 28 Kenai Hydro, LLC Plan surveys during 2010 will be conducted later in the ice-free season than in 2009, from August through November (or freeze up of Trail Lake). Surveys will be conducted weekly through early September, and approximately every 10 days thereafter, at the same frequency as foot surveys on Falls Creek. Foot survey methods will be the same as those outlined for Grant Creek in 4.2.1 1. Foot surveys will be conducted from the stream gauge to the mouth of Falls Creek. 3.2.5.2 Resident and Rearing Juvenile Fish Density in Falls Creek Reconnaissance-level minnow trapping during July 2009 confirmed the presence of juvenile Dolly Varden in Grant Creek. Past investigators have also documented the presence of juvenile Chinook and coho in Falls Creek. In order to estimate density of juvenile fish present in the lower 1 mi of Falls Creek, block and removal techniques (adapted from Zippin 1958) will be used. Three stream segments considered to be generally representative of habitat units available in the lower 1 mi of Falls Creek will be chosen in the field in which to perform block and removal sampling. Segments will vary in length but will generally range from 20 to 50 m. Sites will be sampled during lower flows, in May prior to high breakup flow and another sampling period in late summer at the time of maximum dispersal of juvenile fish. One of the following methods, based on field conditions, will be used: • Electrofishing removal method The selected habitat unit will be blocked at both ends using fine mesh netting. The full width of the stream will be sampled using a backpack electrofisher, working from the downstream end to the upstream end. All fish caught will be identified, measured, counted, and displaced outside the study unit (below the downstream block net). Sampling will be repeated a minimum of two additional times, again removing the fish from the census area. The number of captures at each sample period will be graphed as a function of accumulated prior catch. A regression will be calculated for the data, with the x-intercept of the negatively sloping regression line providing an estimate of total number. • Electrofishing total count method -In small, discrete habitat units with a minimum of cover, electrofishing may capture all or nearly all of the fish present in one pass. In this case, abundance within the unit will simply equal the total catch. • Electro_fishing saturation method-This method is less precise than the others and is most suitable in shallow, fast water areas where none of the above methods would be practical. The downstream end of the habitat will be blocked with a heavily weighted, small mesh net. The habitat unit will be electrofished using several rapid passes of the backpack electrofisher covering the entire area. The block net will then be immediately retrieved and any fish trapped in the net recovered and counted. Fish density within the sampled segment will be estimated based on the surface area or the length of the segment combined with the estimated number of fish within the segment. Numbers of fish within longer segments of Falls Creek will be estimated by extrapolation from the average segment density. The primary tasks associated with this study are as follows. • Identify three sites representative of habitat in the lower I mi of Falls Creek (May) 29 Kenai Hydro, LLC Draft 2010 Aquatic Resources Study Plan • Sample for fish in selected sites overwintering habitats (May and August ) • Enter and QA/QC data (May through June) o Upload tracking data to GIS-enabled database o Conduct QA/QC procedures • Conduct data analysis to determine fish density (fish/m 2 ) 3.2.6 Baseline Studies of Benthic Invertebrates in Grant Creek Benthic macroinvertebrates inhabit every wetted habitat within a stream system. The various genera of aquatic macroinvertebrates feed on multiple trophic levels ranging from primary consumers to predators. They are the primary food source for many fish species, so the abundance of macroinvertebrates can directly affect fish populations. For example, certain life stages and species of fishes will survive only if particular genera of macroinvertebrates exist in habitats in which the fish live. Benthic macroinvertebrates also serve a role in understanding long-term water quality trends within a stream system. Many benthic macroinvertebrate genera have been assigned "biotic index" values that rate their relative tolerance for environmental stress (e.g., organic pollution or sedimentation). Assigned biotic index values can be used to calculate an average score for a stream system. Repeated collection of macroinvertebrates in the same locations and using the same methods will contribute to overall understanding of stream condition!!. Continuing to collect macroinvertebrates consistently from year to year can provide an early indication of changes in aquatic habitat quality. Benthic macroinvertebrate data can be used for different purposes, and therefore, multiple data collection methods can be employed depending on how the data will be analyzed. Benthic macroinvertebrates will be examined using two study methods in order to describe population diversity and estimate population density in a riffle/run habitat; and also to develop a baseline understanding of overall tax£\. richness and stream condition. Samples will be collected during two field sampling events in 2010. One event will occur in early spring before break-up. The second sampling event will assess macroinvertebrates during mid-summer. The following tasks will be performed: • Alaska Stream Condition Index {ASCI) sampling methods will be used to collect baseline information on taxa richness of macroinvertebrates in a variety of stream habitats. The sampling protocol includes a habitat survey in which a variety of questions seek to ascertain the potential health of a stream based on habitat characteristics. This method entails collecting 20 sub-samples, which are divided among the available habitats based on the percent of the total of the wetted substrate occupied by a given habitat . ASCI sampling methods will be used only during the mid-summer sampling event (these methods are not practicable in ice-covered conditions). • The Surber sampling method requires five replicate samples to be collected. Each sample is collected from within the same riffle/run area of the stream. A specialized net is placed in the riffle/run which defines a 1 ft2 area that is then thoroughly examined for invertebrates by kicking, scrubbing and moving substrate and allowing the invertebrates to wash downstream into the net. This technique is used to accurately characterize population density and taxa richness in a single habitat within a stream system. Surber 30 Kenai Hydro, LLC Plan sampling methods will be used during both the pre-spring break-up and mid-summer sampling events. • Each sampling method listed above requires laboratory effort to sort the macroinvertebrates from the substrate material and to identify the organisms to the lowest practical taxa level, usually to genus. 3.2. 7 Baseline Studies of Periphyton in Grant Creek Periphyton are single-celled algae that typically grow on rocky substrates in streams and rivers. Periphyton will be collected to assess chlorophyll a concentration, representing primary productivity, in Grant Creek. Many genera of benthic macroinvertebrates and some fishes depend on periphyton as their primary food source. Chlorophyll a concentration also can provide an indication of stream condition. Periphyton will be collected twice during 2010 by isolating a space of known area on a rock and collecting the algae from the space. This material is then sent to a laboratory to be analyzed for chlorophyll a content. The following tasks will be performed: • Periphyton samples will be collected at two stream locations within Grant Creek twice in 2010. • Ten periphyton samples will be removed from a defined area on large gravel or cobble collected from the stream substrate. • The material scrubbed from the rocks will be rinsed and then filtered onto glass fiber filters, preserved, and then frozen. • The filters will be sent to a laboratory to assess chlorophyll a content. 3.2.8 Baseline Studies of Zooplankton in Grant Lake Zooplankton are small, typically free-swimming or drifting invertebrate organisms found throughout the water column in many water bodies. They typically feed on drifting phytoplankton and in turn are a primary food source for many fishes. The availability of zooplankton in the area of the natural outlet and the proposed Project intake affects the abundance of a primary food source for fish in Grant Lake and Grant Creek. Zooplankton in lakes is most abundant in the upper part of the water column due to the availability of a food source (phytoplankton) and thus easily enters streams from lake surface outflow. Zooplankton will be collected in Grant Lake twice in 2010. Samples will be collected once in early spring while the lake and creek are still frozen, and once during the summer when zooplankton population densities are typically at their peak. A vertical tow net will be used in two locations; the proposed Project intake and the natural outlet into Grant Creek. The following tasks will be performed: • Zooplankton will be collected twice during 2010 in two locations within Grant Creek; the natural outlet and in the area of the proposed Project intake. • Samples will be collected using a vertical tow net. The dimensions of the net and the depth of the water will allow the total volume of water that passes through the net to be calculated. 31 Kenai Hydro, LLC Draft 2010 Aquatic Resources Study Plan • Zooplankton will be preserved in the field and returned to HDR's laboratory for sorting and identification. 3.2.9 Baseline Studies of Phytoplankton in Grant Lake Phytoplankton are microscopic drifting algae and make up a large portion of the primary producers in a lake system. Chlorophyll a analysis is perfortned on phytoplankton samples to assess primary productivity within a water body. Zooplankton depend on phytoplankton as their primary food source. Chlorophyll a is often a good indicator of the condition of a water body. Phytoplankton samples will be collected in Grant Lake at the same locations and depths as water quality samples. Phytoplankton will be collected twice during 2010: once in early spring while the lake is still frozen and again in mid-summer when primary productivity should be at its peak. A Niskin bottle sampler will be used to collect phytoplankton samples. The following tasks will be perfortned: • Phytoplankton samples will be collected twice in 2010 at two locations. Phytoplankton samples will be collected at two depths at the natural outlet area of Grant Lake. Samples will be collected at three depths at the proposed Project intake area. • At each depth, I liter of water will be collected. The water will then be filtered through a glass fiber filter, preserved and then frozen. • The filters will be sent to a laboratory in order to assess chlorophyll a content. 3.3 Quality Control All data collection will be conducted by experienced personnel. Consistency and completeness will be assured in all field procedures. Data entry and management systems are described by study discipline above. Data will be recorded on custom standard datasheets; datasheets will be checked for accuracy and completeness by someone other than the recorder. Data entry and management will use a Microsoft Access Database, Excel spreadsheets or other project-specific system for data management. HDR will provide three levels of QA/QC, which are described below. QC Level 1 Field QC. At the end of each field day the task manager will review the data collected that day and make any needed comments or note any deficiencies that need to be addressed. This review will be noted on each data sheet. QC Level 2 Li11e by Line Review. After data has been entered and prior to analysis, all data will be checked for data entry errors and completeness. Any changes to the data relative to data sheets will be documented as will completion of QC Level 2. QC Level 3 Data A11oma/ies. Data outliers or inconsistencies identified, typically during analysis, will be evaluated to determine if they are erroneous, the result of sample bias or caused by natural variability. All data anomalies will be handled on a case-by-case basis for inclusion in subsequent analyses. 32 4 Agency Resource Management Goals Aquatic resources including fish and their habitats are generally protected by a variety of state and federal mandates. In addition, various land management agencies, local jurisdictions, and non-governmental interest groups have specific goals related to their land management responsibilities or special interests. These goals are expressed in various statutes, plans, and directives: • Alaska Statute 41.14.170 provides the authority for state regulations to protect the spawning, rearing, or migration of anadromous fish. Alaska Statute 41.14.840 regulates the construction of fishways and dams. State regulations relating to fish resources are generally administered by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G}. In addition to the state statutes, the following resource management plans and directives provide guidance and direction for protection of fish resources and aquatic habitats on lands within or adjacent to the Project area: • Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (PL 104-267} provides federal protection to "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity." NOAA's National Marine Fishery Service (NOAA Fisheries) is responsible for designating Essential Fish Habitat (EFH}. In the case of anadromous fish streams (principally salmon), NOAA Fisheries has designated the A WC prepared by ADF&G (Johnson and Klein 2009) as the definition of EFH within freshwater habitats. • Aquatic Resources Implementation Plan for Alaska's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, September 2006. Prepared by Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Div. of Sport Fish. • Our Wealth Maintained: A Strategy for Conserving Alaska's Diverse Wildlife and Fish Resources. Prepared by Alaska Department ofFish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. xviii+824 pp. • Kenai River Comprehensive Management Plan. Prepared by Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Land and Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation; in conjunction with Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Habitat and Restoration Division; Kenai Peninsula Borough. • Kenai Peninsula Borough Comprehensive Plan. Prepared by KPB Planning Department. In 2005. Soldotna, Alaska. • Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Zone Management Plan. Prepared by the Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Management Program and LaRoche and Associates. 2008. Kenai Peninsula Borough. Soldotna, Alaska. • Kenai River Special Management Area (KRSMA), ADNR • Final Environmental Impact Statement and the Revised Land And Resource Management Plan for the Chugach National Forest, Chapter 3 Environment and Effects. Prepared by the U.S. Forest Service, 2005. 33 5 Project Nexus Kenai Hydro, LLC Draft 2010 Aquatic Resources Study Plan The proposed Project will have a number of potential impacts on aquatic resources within Grant• Creek, Grant Lake, and Falls Creek. The studies described above are intended to provide sufficient information regarding the nature of the existing aquatic resources such that these potential impacts can be adequately assessed. Each study component is specifically designed to help evaluate potential impacts as well as aid in planning mitigation measures. Some of the direct and indirect Project effects that could impact aquatic resources are itemized below: • Alteration of the streamflow and temperature regime (depending on the depth of water withdrawal in Grant Lake) in Grant Creek as the result of potential Project operation could affect spawning and rearing habitat for anadromous fish species and habitat for all life stages of resident fish species, depending on the timing and magnitude of flow alteration. • Changes in water surface elevations in Grant Lake would likely affect aquatic biota in littoral areas, including fish, macroinvertebrates, and macrophytes; the timing and magnitude of lake level changes would dictate the level of effects (the proposed lake level changes would range from 9 feet (ft) above to 25 ft below the natural lake elevation of approximately 696ft). Areas of shoreline wetlands could also be affected. • Any dredging of Grant Lake in the vicinity of the proposed intake structure could result in short-term impacts on benthic macroinvertebrate populations in the area. • Water temperatures in Grant Lake could be influenced by operation of the proposed Project, depending on the depth of water withdrawal. • Alteration of streamflow in Falls Creek due to the diversion of flow from Falls Creek to Grant Lake, could affect spawning and rearing habitat for anadromous fish species and habitat for all life stages of resident fish species, depending on the timing and magnitude of flow alteration. The above studies will also provide information regarding the relative contribution of the Grant Creek drainage to area-wide fish resources and aquatic habitat values so that potential cumulative impacts to the Kenai River system can be reasonably assessed 6 Consistency with Generally Accepted Practices Sampling methodology for Grant Creek, Grant Lake, and Falls Creek was designed in consultation with the public, resource agency scientists, and members of the Instream Flow TWO. Quality control of all study plans is maintained by using established methods used elsewhere to assess similar potential resource impacts and are reviewed by outside expert scientific reviewers. Methods proposed herein (use of foot surveys, minnow trapping, angling, block and removal techniques, and radio telemetry) are generally-accepted practices for assessing fish resources. The instream flow approach, as a whole, is custom-designed for Grant Creek and its unique hydrology, geomorphology, and fish resources. However, each component of the study is a well- 34 ( Formatted: Justified known and accepted technique for study application in the field. The integration of these components is accomplished through post-processing and analysis of results. Macroinvertebrates will be collected using methods from the Alaska Stream Condition Index (ASCI), a modified version of the EPA Rapid Bioassessment methods and the EPA-approved Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater {Eaton et a!. 1998). ASCI methods have been developed specifically for Alaska streams. The Surber sampling method is a standard method as described by Eaton et al. (1998). Surber sampling is a preferred method of the USGS and ADF&G. Periphyton, zooplankton, and phytoplankton will be collected using methods from Eaton et al. (1998). Chlorophyll a analysis is commonly used to estimate production of periphyton (USGS 2001) and phytoplankton (USGS 2003 ) .• 7 Level of Effort Completion of the 2010 aquatic resources studies for the proposed Project will require a multidisciplinary team of experienced aquatic biologists and field technicians. Field work will begin in the late winter of 2010 and extend through the ice-free season with the majority of the field effort occurring between mid-May and October. Sampling events on Grant Creek and Grant Lake will occur on a routine basis and periodically on Falls Creek. Given the high flow condition associated with Grant Creek and Falls Creek, that makes wading the creeks impossible throughout most of the open water season, a higher level of effort will be needed an than would normally be needed on creeks of similar size. 7.1 Personnel and Responsibilities John Morsel! Sr. Fish Biologist Duties: General study oversight, senior review reports and study plans, communications with KHL and resource agencies Paul McLarnon Aquatics Program Manager Duties: Direct study oversight; write reports and study plan, budget tracking and communications with KHL and resource agencies Jason Kent --Instream Flow Study Lead Duties: Develop and implement instream flow study plan, conduct study analysis and study integration, generate reports, serve as survey field crew. Amanda Prevel-Ramos and Erin Cunningham-Lead Fish Biologists Duties: Project management, prepare reports and study plan, budget tracking and communications with KHL and resource agencies, coordinate sampling schedule, conduct field work, QA!QC and data analysis, and reporting. Aquatic Invertebrate Lead-Isaac Watkins Duties: Prepare study plans, prepare field logistics, assign field teams, conduct field studies, assist in sorting and identification of macroinvertebrates and zooplankton, prepare draft reports, assist in calculations, assist in mapping, prepare final reports. 35 8 Schedule for Conducting the Study Kenai Hydro, LLC Draft 2010 Aquatic Resources Study Plan The start and end of field season, sampling events, and other notable Project licensing milestones are shown below: • February 20 I 0-Logistics, scheduling and secure fish sampling permit • March 2010 Fish use of winter habitat sampling event, benthic macroinvertebrates, periphyton, zooplankton, and phytoplankton. • April2010-Secure field equipment, telemetry tags, telemetry tower, traps etc. Break-up, no field work planed. • Mid-May 2010-Deployment of thermistor strings (deployed through December 2010); transect survey and staff gage survey conducted; begin reading of staff gages (through December 2010). Begin rainbow trout angling survey, data entry and QC for field data. • June 2010 complete rainbow trout survey, conduct fish use survey of open water habitats (monthly minnow trapping and snorkel surveys), data entry and QC for field data. • July 2010 Microhabitat utilization field trip (snorkeling). Benthic macroinvertebrates, periphyton, zooplankton, phytoplankton. conduct fish use survey of open water habitats (monthly minnow trapping and snorkel surveys), data entry and QC for field data. • August 2010-Begin foot surveys for spawning salmon , conduct fish use survey of open water habitats (monthly minnow trapping and snorkel surveys), conduct fish use survey of open water habitats (monthly minnow trapping and snorkel surveys), data entry and QC for field data. • September 2010 Continue foot surveys for spawning salmon, microhabitat utilization field trip (snorkeling), conduct fish use survey of open water habitats (monthly minnow trapping and snorkel surveys), data entry and QC for field data. • October 2010 Continue foot surveys for spawning salmon, conduct fish use survey of open water habitats (monthly minnow trapping and snorkel surveys), complete field work and demobilize field equipment, data entry and QC for field data. • November 2010 Complete data entry and QC for field data, begin development of draft baseline study reports • January 2011 Complete daft 2009 baseline study reports • February 2011 Complete final2009 baseline study reports 9 Provisions for Technical Review • November 2009: Distribution of draft study plans • Early December 2009: FERC Scoping meeting • Early February 20 .ill; End of scoping/study comment period • Late Februarv: Agencv review meeting to discuss study plans • February through March 2010: Revised draft study plans/distribute for review • May 2010: Issue final study plan • May through June 2010: Start of Study Season [varies by study area] • October 2010: End of Study Season [varies by study area] • December 2010: Agencv review meeting-presentation of studv results 36 Comment [apr1]: 2010? Deleted: 09 • Late 2010 through January 2011: Distribute 2010 study reports for review/discussion • January through April 2011: Prepare Draft License Application • May 2011: Issue Draft License Application • May through October 2011 complete additional aquatic resource baseline studies on an as-needed basis as determined by the results of the 2010 aquatic resource baseline study program. • September 2011: File Final License Application 37 10 References Kenai Hydro, LLC Draft 2010 Aquatic Resources Study Plan Alaska Power Authority (APA). 1984. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Detailed Feasibility Analysis. Volume 2. Environmental Report. Rep. from Ebasco Services Incorporated, Bellevue, Washington. 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. Eaton, A., L. Clesceri, A. Greenberg. 1998. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, Water Environment Federation, Washington, D.C. English, K.K., R.C. Bocking, and J.R. Irvine. 1992. A robust procedure for estimating salmon escapement based on the area-under-the-curve method. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49:1982-1989. Envirosphere. 1987. Instreamflow and habitat analysis Grant Lake hydroelectric project. Prepared for Kenai Hydro, Inc. HDR Alaska Inc. 2009a. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 Draft. Prepared for: Kenai Hydro, LLC. HDR. 2009b. Technical Memorandum Review of 1986-1987 Grant Lake FERC application documents for instreamflow considerations. Prepared for Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Technical Working Group. HDR Alaska Inc. 2009c. Water Resources Draft 2010 Study Plan. Prepared for: Kenai Hydro, LLC. Johnson, J. and K. Klein. 2009. Catalog of waters important for spawning, rearing, or migration of anadromous fishes-Southcentra/ 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 project FERC No. 7633-002 additional ififormation final report with agency license terms and conditions for selected alternative I and power contract information. Kenai Hydro, LLC. 2009. Pre-Application Document Grant Lake/Grant Creek and Falls Creek Project (FERC No. 13211 and 13212. 38 Kenai Hydro, LLC Draft 2010 Aquatic Resources Study Plan 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 ofSpawning Salmon from Spawner Residence Time and Aerial Counts. Transaction of the American Fisheries Society. Vol. 110. Pp. 554-556. Sisson, D. 1984. Fishing the Kenai Peninsula. Alaska Fieldbooks Co. 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. USGS, 2001-Chlorophyll a analysis 1s commonly used to estimate periphyton production CITATION NEEDED USGS, 2003-Chlorophyll a analysis is used to estimate phytoplankton production CITATION NEEDED Zippin, C. 1958. The removal method of population estimation. Journal of Wildl(fe Management. 22:82-90. 39 Grant Lake/Grant Creek and Falls Creek Project Water Resources Draft 2010 Study Plan Prepared for: Kenai Hydro, LLC Client Address Prepared by: -~ HDR Alaska, Inc. 2525 C Street, Suite 305 Anchorage, AK 99503 October 2009 Table of Contents Kenai Hydro, LLC Draft 2010 Water Resources Study Plan 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 5 2 Goals and Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Study Goals ............................................................................................................................... 6 2.1.1 Water Quality and Temperature ................................................................... 6 2.1.2 Hydrology ........................................................................................................ 6 2.1.3 Grant Lake and Grant Creek Fluvial Geomorphology .............................. 6 2.2 Study Objectives ........................................................................................................................ 6 2.2.1 Water Quality and Temperature ................................................................... 6 2.2.2 Hydrology ........................................................................................................ 7 2.2.3 Grant Lake and Grant Creek Fluvial Geomorphology .............................. 7 3 Existing Information and Need for Information ............................................................................. 7 3.1 Existing Information .................................................................................................................. 7 3.1.1 HDR 2009 Water Resources Studies ............................................................. 8 3.1.2 Pre-2009 Studies .............................................................................................. 8 3.2 Need for additional information ................................................................................................ 9 3.2.1 Water Quality and Temperature ................................................................... 9 3.2.2 Hydrology ........................................................................................................ 9 4 Methods ............................................................................................................................................... 9 4.1 Study Area ................................................................................................................................. 9 4.2 Field Study Design .................................................................................................................. 12 4.2.1 Water Quality and Temperature ................................................................. 12 4.2.2 Hydrology ...................................................................................................... 15 4.2.3 Grant Lake and Grant Creek Fluvial Geomorphology ............................ 20 5 Agency Resource Management Goals ............................................................................................ 21 6 ProjectNexus .................................................................................................................................... 21 6.1 Water quality and Temperature ............................................................................................... 22 6.1.1 Grant Lake ..................................................................................................... 22 6.1.2 Grant Creek ................................................................................................... 22 Kenai Hydro, LLC Draft 2010 Water Resources Study Plan 6.1.3 Falls Creek ..................................................................................................... 22 6.2 Hydrology ................................................................................................................................ 22 6.3 Grant Lake and Grant Creek Fluvial Geomorphology ............................................................ 22 7 Consistency with Generally Accepted Practices ............................................................................ 23 7.1 Water Quality and Temperature .............................................................................................. 23 7.2 Hydrology ................................................................................................................................ 23 7.3 Grant Creek Fluvial Geomorphology ...................................................................................... 23 8 Level of Effort ................................................................................................................................... 23 8.1 Water Quality and Temperature .............................................................................................. 23 8.2 Hydrology ................................................................................................................................ 24 8.3 Grant Lake and Grant Creek Fluvial Geomorphology ............................................................ 24 8.4 Personnel and Responsibilities ................................................................................................ 24 9 Schedule for Conducting the Study ................................................................................................ 25 9.1 Water Quality and Temperature .............................................................................................. 25 9.2 Hydrology ................................................................................................................................ 25 9.3 Grant Lake and Grant Creek Fluvial Geomorphology ............................................................ 26 10 Provisions for Technical Review ..................................................................................................... 26 11 References ......................................................................................................................................... 27 Tables Table 1 Water Quality Analytes ................................................................................................... 13 Figures Figure 1. Proposed water quality, temperature, and hydrology study locations-2010 ............... 11 Figure 2. Example staff gage and data logger installation ............................................................ 17 II ADF&G AEIDC AHRS APA AWC BLM oc cfs em CPUE DNR EPA FERC FL fps ft G&A GPS GWh HEP IFIM in KHI KHL KPB kWh LLC mg/L Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Water Resources Plan List of Acronyms 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 of Natural 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 iii Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Water Resources Plan mi mile MIF minimum instream flow mm millimeter MSL Mean sea level MW Megawatt MWh Megawatt hours NWI National Wetlands Inventory O&M Operations & maintenance RM river miles RVDs Recreation visitor days TL total length TWG technical working group USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USFS U.S. Forest Service USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey YOY Young of the year iv Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Water Resources Plan 1 Introduction Kenai Hydro, LLC (KHL) has contracted with HDR Alaska, Inc. to conduct baseline water resources studies, including studies of water quality, temperature, hydrology and geomorphology in Grant Lake, Grant Creek, and Falls Creek. The 2010 water resources study plan includes the continuation of most study plan elements which were begun in 2009 and also includes the addition of a fluvial geomorphology assessment. This proposed study plan is designed to address project needs and potential project impacts and is intended to support the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) process for the proposed hydroelectric developments at Grant Lake by KHL. 2 Goals and Objectives Three primary study efforts make up the 2010 Water Resources program which includes: • Water quality and temperature, • Hydrology, and • Fluvial geomorphology. The purposes of the water quality program include establishing natural ranges of in situ parameters and laboratory analytes and increasing the period of record for water quality information. Analytes will be added to the 2010 water quality program in order to identify possible water quality concerns and to fill data gaps recognized in the 2009 sampling effort. Surface water temperature data is also being collected in support of the Instream Flow Study. The 20 I 0 hydrology program is designed to characterize the hydrology of Grant and Fails Creeks and include increasing the hydrologic period of record on Grant and Falls Creeks; validating or calibrating the historical Grant Creek rating curve; and determining if Grant Creek gains or loses water. The purposes of the 20 l 0 fluvial geomorphology study include assessments of Grant Lake shore erosion processes and spawning substrate recruitment in Grant Creek. Studies to assess both these issues will be based on reviews of existing data and site visits to evaluate sediment transport functions. The goal of the lake shore erosion study is to produce a technical memorandum that compares current and potential erosion processes around Grant Lake using Cooper Lake and its associated Reservoir Shoreline Characteristics and Processes study (HDR 2004) as an example of future conditions. Cooper Lake has been impounded since 1957 as part of the Cooper Lake Hydroelectric Project, a 19.4 megawatt facility owned by Chugach Electric. The aim of the spawning substrate study is to produce a technical memorandum that qualitatively describes current spawning substrate recruitment processes and anticipates the fate of spawning substrates under a reduced f1ow condition in the canyon reach (Study Reach 5). 5 Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Water Resources Plan 2.1 Study Goals 2.1.1 Water Quality and Temperature The 20 I 0 water quality and temperature study goals are: • To gather baseline data on a combination of water quality parameters in Grant Creek, Falls Creek and Grant Lake • To determine baseline concentrations of limiting nutrients based on water quality samples • To collect baseline temperature data in Grant Lake to develop a temperature profile and determine seasonal temperature variation in the proposed intake area of the lake • To collect baseline water temperature data in Grant Creek and Falls Creek 2.1.2 Hydrology The 20 I 0 hydrology study goals are: • To increase the hydrologic period of record on Grant Creek and Falls Creek • To validate or calibrate the historical Grant Creek rating curve at discharges less than 400 cfs • To determine if Grant Creek gains or loses water 2.1.3 Grant Lake and Grant Creek Fluvial Geomorphology The Grant Lake and Grant Creek Fluvial Geomorphology study goals are: • To describe potential Grant Lake shore erosion resulting from anticipated hydroelectic facility operation • To describe potential spawning substrate recruitment changes in Grant Creek resulting from Project operation 2.2 Study Objectives 2.2.1 Water Quality and Temperature The 2010 water quality and temperature study goals will be met by achieving the following objectives: • Collect baseline water quality information in Grant Lake near the natural outlet to the lake and near the proposed intake. • Collect baseline water quality information in Grant Creek. • Collect baseline water quality information in Falls Creek. • Collect water temperature information in a vertical transect near the proposed intake in Grant Lake. • Collect continuously recorded surface water temperature data at four locations on Grant Creek in conjunction with the continually recording surface water elevation data to support the Instream Flow Study. • Build upon data collected in previous studies. 6 Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Water Resources Plan 2.2.2 Hydrology The 201 0 hydrology study goals will be met by achieving the following objectives: • Increase the 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 FCI 00. • Correlate the water surface elevation data, or stage data, to discharge through instantaneous discharge measurements taken near GC200. • Validate or calibrate historical Grant Creek rating curve developed by the USGS for flow less than 400 cubic feet per second (cfs) using discharge data and stage data. • Make instantaneous discharge measurements at or near the Grant Lake outlet and the proposed powerhouse location or the old USGS location to determine if Grant Creek gains or loses water. • Set up a tensioned line at GC200 to which a cataraft may be attached for the purpose of making discharge measurements as flow conditions require. 2.2.3 Grant Lake and Grant Creek Fluvial Geomorphology The Grant Lake and Grant Creek fluvial geomorphology study goals will be met by achieving the following objectives: • Conduct a boat-based GIS survey of the shore of Grant Lake to map existing erosion features along Grant Lake. • Qualitatively analyze potential lake shore erosion areas and impacts based on a comparison of existing Grant Lake shore conditions, hydroelectric power generation Alternative 3 identified in the 2008 Grant Lake Reconnaissance report (HDR 2009), compared to lake erosion studies on nearby Cooper Lake from 2005. • Assess sources of spawning size material on Grant Creek and near Grant Lake outlet. • Qualitatively determine likely effects of reduced flows on the Grant Creek canyon reach on spawning substrate recruitment in Grant Creek. 3 Existing Information and Need for Information 3.1 Existing Information Grant Lake, Grant Creek and Falls Creek have been studied in the past for hydroelectric feasibility. The following studies have generated information relevant to the Project: • Historical Grant Creek stream gage data (USGS 15246000) -11 years of continuous stream gage data from 1947-1958. • Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Detailed Feasibility Analysis, by EBASCO, (APA 1984), 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. • HDR 2009 hydrology and water quality study data for Grant Creek 7 Kenai Hydro, LLC Draft 2010 Water Resources Study Plan • HDR 2009 hydrology and water quality study data for Falls Creek • Kenai Hydro LLC 2009 pre-Application document • Chugach Electric/HDR 2005 Cooper Lake Reservoir Shoreline Characteristics and Processes Study 3.1.1 HDR 2009 Water Resources Studies Water quality samples were collected at a site located near the proposed project intake (GLTS) and a site located near the natural outlet of Grant Lake (GLOut) during June and August, 2009. In-situ parameters including temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, and oxygen reduction potential were collected using a YSI 556 multi-parameter meter at each site in a vertical transect at 1-meter increments. Water quality samples were collected at three depths at GL TS and two depths at GLOut. A string of logging thermistors was installed in the water column near the proposed intake, GL TS, to a depth of 20 meters. Ten HOBO Pro V2 data loggers began collecting temperature data at various depths in June, 2009 and will continue logging throughout the winter. Water samples were collected at three sampling sites in Grant Creek (GClOO, GC200, and GC300) and one site in Falls Creek (FCIOO) in June and August, 2009. Temperature data and other in-situ parameters including; pH, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, and oxygen reduction potential were collected using a YSI 556 multi-parameter meter. HOBO Pro V2 temperature data loggers were installed at water quality sampling sites GClOO and GC300 and also at GC250 in Grant Creek. The 2009 hydrology studies included establishing one gage each on Grant Creek (GC200), and Falls Creek (FCl 00), establishing temporary benchmark monuments at the gage sites and relating the elevations of the monuments to project datum, installing continuously recording stage loggers, and collecting instantaneous discharge measurements when stream flows allowed. Stage and temperature data were recorded at GC200 and FClOO with HOBO U20 Water Level Loggers. HOBO Pro v2 Water Temperature Data Loggers were installed in Grant Creek in runs at GClOO and GC300 and in pools at GCIOO and GC250. Temperature was also recorded at FClOO and GC 200. 3.1.2 Pre-2009 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 AP A 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 CH 2 M 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 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. 8 3.2 Need for additional information 3.2.1 Water Quality and Temperature Additional water quality field studies will be required to: Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Water Resources Plan • Collect water chemistry data in Grant Creek, Falls Creek and Grant Lake in accordance with Standard Methods for the Examination ofWater and Wastewater (Eaton et al., 2005) to define baseline water quality conditions. • Collect water temperature data in Grant Creek and Falls Creek, and establish a temperature profile in the proposed intake area of Grant Lake. • Examine laboratory and in-situ parameters and compare to aquatic life criteria for fresh water. 3.2.2 Hydrology Additional hydrology field studies will be required to: • Make medium and low flow discharge measurements on Grant Creek to validate or calibrate the historical rating curve. • Make discharge measurements at Grant Lake outlet and near the proposed powerhouse location during low flow conditions to attempt to determine of Grant Creek gains or loses water. 4 Methods The following sections describe the project study area and proposed 20 I 0 methods for the water quality and temperature, hydrology, and Grant Lake and Grant Creek fluvial geomorphology studies. 4.1 Study Area The project area is located near the town of Moose Pass, Alaska (pop. 206), approximately 25 miles north of Seward, Alaska (pop. 3,016), just east of the Seward Highway (State Route 9); this highway connects Anchorage (pop. 279,671) to Seward. The Alaska Railroad parallels the route of the Seward Highway, and is also adjacent to the project area. The town of Cooper Landing is located 24 miles to the northwest and is accessible via the Sterling Highway (State Route I) which connects to the Seward Highway approximately I 0 miles northwest of Moose Pass. Grant Creek is approximately 5,180 feet long (approximately one mile) and flows west from the outlet of Grant Lake to the narrows between Upper and Lower Trail lakes (see Figure 1 ). The Grant Creek watershed is approximately 44 square miles and the watershed contains Grant Lake, as well as a portion of the Kenai Mountain Range with glacier capped peaks as high as 5,500 feet. Grant Creek has a mean annual flow of 193 cfs, is 5,180 feet long, with an average gradient of 207 feet per mile; its substrate includes cobble and boulder alluvial deposits and gravel shoals (APA 1984 ). The stream is 25 feet wide on average. In its upper half, the stream passes through a rocky gorge with three substantial waterfalls; in its lower half, the stream becomes less turbulent 9 Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Water Resources Plan as it passes over gravel shoals and diminishing boulder substrate (APA 1984). Grant Creek's mobile substrate is comprised of well pack unsorted broken angular rock and there is minimal rounded material. Some fines may be found in small eddies and a few backwaters. Falls Creek flows into Trail River just downstream of Lower Trail Lake, approximately 1.8 miles downstream of the Grant Creek/Trail River confluence. The Falls Creek watershed drains steep terrain between the Grant Lake and Ptarmigan Lake watersheds and is approximately 11 square miles in area. The Falls Creek watershed contains no lakes and has no major tributaries. The estimated mean annual flow of Falls Creek is 38 cfs; stream flow during the winter is minimal. Falls Creek is 42,240 feet long (approximately 8 miles); its average stream gradient is 418 feet per mile and average Falls Creek stream width is 15 feet. Substrate composition for Falls Creek includes cobble, boulder deposits, a few gravel bars and a thin layer of fine silt near the mouth; the lower one mile 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 miles are covered with tailings and 100 yards ofthe streambed in this area has been relocated (AEIDC 1983). 10 Kenai Hydro Environmental Baseline Studies Figure 1. Proposed water quality, temperature, and hydrology study locotions -2010. 11 Kenai Hydro, ILC Drqft 2010 Water /luolfi'Ct8 Study Pion Figure 1 Proposed W;ater O!NIIty, TempeRture, iUid Hydrology Study Loarions 2010 -~ -11.5 tm Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Water Resources Plan 4.2 Field Study Design 4.2.1 Water Quality and Temperature The 20 I 0 water quality and temperature study contains the following subcomponents: baseline water quality studies in Grant Creek and Falls Creek and baseline water quality studies in Grant Lake. 4.2.1.1 Baseline water quality studies in Grant Creek and Falls Creek • Water quality samples will be collected at four creek sites; three on Grant Creek (GC 100, GC200, and GC300) and one on Falls Creek (FC 1 00). • In situ parameters will be collected using a YSI 556 multi-parameter meter at each creek location. • Water samples will be collected for laboratory analysis of the analytes listed in Table I. • Temperature data loggers will be downloaded at the four sites on Grant Creek (GClOO, GC200, GC250, and GC300), and one site on Falls Creek (FCIOO) during water quality sampling events. 4.2.1.2 Baseline water quality studies in Grant Lake • Water quality samples will be collected at two sites in Grant Lake. Samples will be collected at two depths at the natural outlet site (GLOut) and at three depths at the proposed intake location. • In situ parameters will be collected using a YSI 556 multi-parameter meter at each site in a vertical transect at one meter increments. • Water samples will be collected for laboratory analysis of the analytes listed in Table 1 • The thermistor string located near the proposed intake (GLTS) will continue to log temperature at ten depths in a vertical transect throughout 2010. Water quality studies wi11 continue in 201 0 in order to document baseline conditions in Grant Lake, Grant Creek and Falls Creek throughout the year. Describing the baseline conditions in each of these systems is necessary for understanding how Project operations may affect water quality. Water quality parameters were chosen for analysis based a several factors: those parameters sampled in previous studies; those parameters that may be affected by land use practices in the Project area; those parameters either necessary for aquatic life or which act as nutrients; and the drinking water and aquatic life criteria that have been developed for fresh water in Alaska;. Water quality criteria have been established in order to set limits on how much certain water quality parameters may change due to human activity. 12 Kenai Hydro. LLC Draft 2010 Water Resources Study Plan Table 1 Water Quality Analvtes Parameter Units Alkalinity (CaC03) mg!L Total dissolved solids (TDS) mg/L Total suspended sediment (TSS) mg/L Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg/L Nitrate/Nitrite mg!L Orthophosphate mg/L Total phosphorous mg/L Lead r.tg/L Hardness mg/L Calcium mg/L Magnesium mg/L Sodium mg/L Potassium mg/L Low level mercury ng/L Fluoride mg/L Chloride mg/L Sulfate mg/L pH STD Temperature oc Dissolved oxygen (DO) mg/L,% Specific and Relative Conductivity mS/cm, r.tS/cm Oxygen Reduction Potential (ORP) mV Turbidity NTU 13 Kenai Hydro, LLC Draft 2010 Water Resources Study Plan Water quality samples collected from Grant Creek (sampling sites GCIOO, GC200, and GC300) and Fails Creek (sampling site FC l 00) (Figure I) will use techniques determined by flow rate and water depth. In situ parameters will be measured using a YSI 556 multi-parameter meter. Bottles and preservatives for all water quality samples for laboratory analysis will be supplied by SGS Environmental Services in Anchorage, AK. Depth and width integrated sampling with a DH-81 sampler will be conducted when it is necessary to collect water from multiple locations within the cross section of either Grant or Falls Creeks. The DH-81 bottle collects one liter sub-samples at a time and the sub-samples will be mixed in one sampling bucket to integrate water collected across the width and depth of the cross section. Integrated grab samples will be collected when the width of the stream is wide enough to require multiple subsamples from the cross section, but the stream is not deep enough to warrant depth integration. Integrated grab sampling will be done by collecting multiple grab samples from across the creek and mixing them in a sampling bucket for one integrated sample. Laboratory sample bottles will be filled from the bucket when integrated sampling techniques are used. The third sampling technique, grab sampling, will be used when the creek is too narrow and too shallow to warrant integrated sampling, or when the creek is very well mixed. In both cases, grab samples will be collected from the most well mixed portion of the stream and transferred directly into the laboratory sample bottles. Grant Lake water samples will be collected from two sampling sites, GLOut and GLTS (Figure 1 ), using a Niskin bottle sampler. At GL TS, which is approximately 20 meters deep, samples will be collected at three depths: surface, mid-depth or just below the thermocline when present, and from one meter above the substrate. GLOut is more shallow, approximately 10 meters, and samples will be collected from the surface and mid-depth of the water column. Depths will vary seasonally at the lake sampling sites as the lake level elevation changes. All in situ water quality measurements will be recorded on a standard water quality study field data form (see appendix). Water quality samples will be sent to SGS Environmental Services in Anchorage, Alaska for analysis. Temperature sensors and data loggers have been installed at GCIOO, GC200, GC250, GC300, and GLTS (Figure 1). Temperature measurements will be collected using HOBO Pro V2 continually recording temperature loggers and HOBO U20 Water Level Loggers manufactured by Onset Computer Corporation. The HOBO Pro V2 logging thermistor has an operating range of -40 to 50°C, and is accurate to 0.2°C over 50°C. The HOBO U20 water level logger has a pressure operating range of 0-207 kP A, with a typical error of 0.05%, and a temperature operating range of -20 to 50°C and is accurate to 0.37°C at 20°C. Both HOBO units have 64K bytes of memory. Loggers in the lake and in pools at GCl 00, GC250 and near GC200 will continue to collect temperature data throughout the year. Water temperature data loggers will be downloaded periodically through out the ice-free season as conditions permit and in conjunction with other field efforts for the sake of safety and efficiency. Similar to 2009 studies, 20 I 0 stream temperature data loggers will be placed within the stream channel in areas expected to remain submerged during all flows. Temperature data loggers will be kept submerged by anchoring them to boulders using stainless steel wire cable. Each temperature data logger will also be anchored (i.e., tree, log, or boulder) along the shoreline. 14 Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Water Resources Plan Temperature measurements in Grant Lake will be made to create a temperature profile of the water column near the proposed intake. Water temperatures in Grant Lake will be measured both instantaneously and using continuously recording data loggers. At both GLOut and GL TS, temperatures will be measured in a vertical transect during water quality sampling events with a YSI 556 multi-parameter meter using a 20 meter cable calibrated at one meter intervals. The instantaneous water temperature measurements will be used to supplement the continually recorded temperature data. HOBO Pro V2 temperature data loggers are also used at the proposed intake site on Grant Lake. A thermistor string was installed in a vertical transect in this location to a depth of 20 meters. Data loggers were attached to the string at depths of 0.2, 0.5, 1.5, 3, 6, 9, I2, 15, 18 and I9.5 meters. The data loggers record temperature in four hour intervals. The thermistor string will remain in place through the winter and throughout 2010. 4.2.2 Hydrology The 20 I 0 hydrology studies will include measurements of surface water discharge on Grant Creek and Falls Creek. Results will be used in conjunction with data collected in 2009, as well as historical data, to support the Instream Flow Study, the engineering effort, and other related studies. A major goal for 20 I 0 is to validate or calibrate the historical rating curve at GC200 for discharges less than 400 cfs. Another goal is to determine if Grant Creek gains or loses water. To meet these goals, the study will have two components: 1) installation of staff gages and continuously recording stream gages and 2) making instantaneous discharge measurements. 4.2.2.1 Installation of staff gages and continuously recording stream gages • Install and uninstall staff gages at GC200, and FC 1 00 • Install and uninstall continuously recording water surface data loggers at GC200 and FCIOO • Survey staff gages and data loggers after spring installation and prior to autumn removal • Download data loggers bi-monthly • Process data, QA/QC • Analyze data • Annual reporting 4.2.2.2 Measure Instantaneous discharge • Make discharge measurements using the wading method for low flows • Make discharge measurements from a boat attached to a tensioned line for medium flows • Salt dilution method for determining gaining and losing characteristics during low flow conditions • Data entry, QAJQC • Analyze data and correlate stage and discharge • Annual reporting 15 Kenai Hydro, LLC Draft 2010 Water Resources Study Plan 4.2.2.3 Stream Gage Installation (Continuously Recording Data Logger) Following guidelines from previously permitted installation activities in 2009, a stream gage will consist of a staff gage and a continuous stage (CQ) data logger, each anchored individually to temporary posts driven into the stream bed near the shoreline to avoid catching floating debris. The data loggers used for this project will be HOBO U20 Water Level Loggers manufactured by Onset Computer Corporation. Each data logger records 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 are set to record water depth and temperature at 15-minute intervals. Each staff gage will be four inches wide by four feet long, mounted vertically on a post anchored in the stream bed. The data loggers will be housed in a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) sleeve that will be attached to post anchored in the streambed. A prefabricated one foot PVC housing will be connected to the post at the channel bottom with steel clamps. Holes will be 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 will be installed above the housing and connected to the post with steel clamps. Two data loggers will be suspended on a stainless steal cable affixed to a screw cap at the top of the long PVC housing. One data logger will be suspended approximately one inch from the top of the PVC housing to record barometric pressure. The second data logger will sit on a bolt passed through the bottom of the one foot PVC housing to record water pressure. This bolt is the survey reference point for the data logger elevation. The staff gage installation and logger installation will be placed far enough apart that the minor flow disturbances from one will not affect the other. Figure 2 shows a side view of the staff gage and data logger installation. The anchoring posts will be approximately six foot long pieces of angle iron. Grant Creek and Falls Creek will each have one stream gage at GC200 and FC 100 (see Figure 1). Project construction equipment will be limited to a hand held post driver, a cordless drill and small hand tools for assembly. 16 Kenai Hydro, UC Draft 2010 Water Resources Study Plan Figure 2. Example staff gage and data logger installation During field visits, manual readings of the staff gages and the time will be recorded. These manual staff gage readings will be compared with the stage values provided by the data logger during the same time interval. If either of the instruments physically moves, the movement will be detected by comparing the two gage readings. If movement is indicated, the gage will be resurveyed, and a mathematical adjustment will be applied to the data. A differential survey will be performed for each of the data loggers and associated staff gages following installation in the spring and prior to removal in the fall. Cross sections at these locations are typically surveyed once per year during low flow conditions. As noted above, an additional differential survey may be performed if elevation movement is observed while the data loggers are in place (i.e., during ice-free months). 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 and this elevation will be confirmed at installation. 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 loggers will be operated during ice free months (i.e. May-October). The schedule for these installations is dependent on individual site conditions (e.g ., ice cover and water level). Installation of stream gauging equipment is expected to begin as soon as practicable after permit authorization has been given in the spring 201 0 . All installed equipment will be removed by late October 20 I 0 or prior to freeze-up. Each stream gage will be revisited at least bi-monthly through mid-October 20 I 0. During site follow-up visits the field team will download data from the data logger and take a manual stream discharge measurement when flows permit. 17 Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Water Resources Plan 4.2.2.4 Instantaneous Discharge Measurements Collecting instantaneous discharge data from Grant Creek and Falls Creek may require various methods depending upon seasonal variations in flow conditions. It is not possible to wade Grant Creek during high and medium summer flows, which are common to Grant Creek.. Potential instantaneous discharge measurement methods will include: • Current meter method: Wading method (low flow events on Grant Creek and all flows on Falls Creek) • Current meter method: Boat method (medium flow events on Grant Creek) • Salt dilution method (low flows on Grant Creek) Regardless of the method used, all instantaneous discharge measurements will yield comparable results and will follow field procedures laid out in Rantz et al (1982). Each stream gage site will be visited at least monthly and instantaneous discharge measurements will be taken until freeze- up 201 0 as stream conditions permit, to collect data to validate or calibrate the rating curve. Measurements at other sites within the Grant Creek and Falls Creek drainages will be conducted as those sites are determined, and when stream conditions permit. 4.2.2.4.1 Wading Method While using the wading method a Marsh McBimey Flo-Mate 2000 current meter will be used for taking instantaneous discharge measurements. Measurements will be taken by using top-setting wading rod with the current meter. During higher or fast water conditions the boat method will be employed to obtain discharge measurements. Procedures for taking discharge measurements using a current meter in ice-free conditions are outlined below. I. Visually check wading rod and current meter for damage. Repair damage to equipment and replace batteries as necessary. 2. Calibrate the current meter at the start of each field event according to manufacture protocols. 3. Anchor survey measuring tape tautly across the stream perpendicular to the direction of stream flow and attach on either side of the stream with the low numbers of the tape on the left side of the stream. Calculate the width of the entire stream cross section. 4. Determine the spacing of the vertical partial sections (referred to as "verticals"). This is typically accomplished by splitting the entire stream cross section into approximately 25 to 35 verticals. The number of verticals will be based on an estimated distribution of the discharge across the entire cross section. At locations with narrow stream cross sections, a smaller number of verticals may be used. Space the verticals to meet the USGS objective that no vertical partial section should contain more than 10 percent of the total discharge. The ideal measurement is one in which no partial section contains more than 5 percent of the total discharge. Equal widths of verticals across the entire cross section are not recommended unless the discharge is well distributed. Widths of the vertical partial 18 Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Water Resources Plan sections should become less as depths and/or velocities become greater (USDOI, 1969). Water column depth readings will be taken at each vertical. 5. The person wading in the stream will call out the location of the first vertical with respect to the surveyor's tape to the person on shore who is recording data (data recorder). The station or vertical location is recorded on the Kenai Hydro LCC hydrology field form (see example field forms at the end of this document) to the nearest 0.1 feet and the closest spacing for any velocity measurement will be 0.20 feet. 6. Using the wading rod, the person wading in the stream will, if possible, measure water depth at that vertical to the nearest 0.05 foot. The wading person will call out this depth reading to the data recorder, and adjust the height of the current meter on the top-set wading rod according to the depth at that vertical. For water columns less than or equal to 2.5 feet deep, a single measurement of velocity at 60 percent of the water column height from the stream bottom will be recorded. If the water is more than 2.5 feet deep, measurements should be made at 20 and 80 percent of the water-column height. 7. The person wading will stand downstream of the survey measuring tape, facing upstream and holding the wading rod vertical in the water with the current meter facing directly into the current. The wading person should stand to the side, rather than directly behind the meter, to avoid influencing velocity readings. Occasionally flow at a vertical may not be perpendicular to the tape due to a rock upstream or other flow restrictions. If the obstruction cannot be cleared and the flow is more than 20 degrees off perpendicular, the person in the stream should orient the meter directly into the flow and call out the angle of flow with respect to perpendicular. A correction will be applied to the velocity measurement from the vertical when calculating the discharge. 8. The person wading in stream will observe visual output of velocity measurements at each vertical. Velocity measurements will be made for 30 seconds, and velocity will be recorded. The time interval will be noted on the data sheet. In the event of extreme weather or flow conditions, a minimum of 20 seconds may be used for velocity measurements. 9. The person recording data will record this and other appropriate information on the field form. 10. Repeat above procedure at each vertical. 4.1.1.4.1 Boat Method When stream flows are high and swift and wading is not a safe option, a boat may be used as a stable platform from which to measure discharge. If a boat is used, it will be tethered to a tensioned safety line securely fastened to either side of the stream normal to flow. The hydrographer will use the current meter with the standard top-set wading rod as described above except work will be done from the boat. A range finder may be used to determine vertical spacing along the cross section. Conditions may require that the tethered boat and hydrographer be conveyed across the stream cross section manually by safety line operators on either bank. If 19 Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Water Resources Plan velocities are so high that it becomes difficult to hold the wading rod still, a suspended weight may be used to weight the current meter to allow for velocity measurements. 4.2.2.4.3 Salt Dilution Method HDR proposes to use the salt dilution method for a low flow field event involving measuring discharge from Grant Lake outlet in the event that this measurement can not be made safely or accurately by using the wading current meter method. The purpose of using the salt dilution method is to safely and more accurately measure discharge in Grant Creek where it is has been extremely difficult and unsafe to measure discharge with the current meter method due to the high velocities, turbulent flow and hazards such as waterfalls and strainers. Data collected with the salt dilution method is comparable to the current-meter method typically used for these data collection efforts when field conditions allow. The salt dilution method is a standard USGS method used to measure stream discharge. The basic premise is to introduce a known amount of salt at one point in the stream and measure the conductivity (i.e. concentration) wave as it passes a point downstream where it is completely mixed in the flow. Stream flow is calculated from the area under the resulting conductivity curve. The salt dilution method uses common table salt (NaCl) as a tracer to measure discharge without the use of a current meter. Salt is preferred as a tracer over other known tracers because it is non-toxic to aquatic organisms at the concentrations and exposure times associated with the measurements. It is also inexpensive, easily obtained and convenient to work with. Field measurements can be made with a conductivity meter read by a data logger. 4.2.3 Grant Lake and Grant Creek Fluvial Geomorphology The Grant Lake and Grant Creek Fluvial Geomorphology study consists of two study components; a Grant Lake erosion inventory and comparison, and a Grant Creek spawning substrate assessment. 4.2.3.1 Grant Lake shore erosion study • Summarize existing topographic, soils, and geology data of potential erosion features • Compile and analyze local wind intensity and direction data • Map high wave areas on Grant Lake • Conduct a boat-based GIS-enabled lake shore inventory • Conduct data analysis, and QA/QC • Produce a technical memorandum The purpose of the 2010 Grant Lake shore erosion inventory is to characterize the erosion potential along the shores of Grant Lake and its tributaries resulting from potential lake impoundment and drawdown scenarios. HDR proposes a boat-based inventory of areas of current erosion and potential erosion along the shore of Grant Lake. Location data, site characteristics and photos will be collected using GIS mapping techniques. The Grant Lake data will be compared to the Cooper Lake shore erosion data to allow for the general prediction and identification of possible erosion issues under an impoundment and drawdown scenario. 20 Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Water Resources Plan 4.2.3.2 Grant Creek spawning substrate recruitment study • Summarize and compile existing topographic, soils, and geology data, and data from previous studies. • Visit Grant Creek and the shores of Grant Lake near the outlet to qualitatively assess Grant Creek substrate recruitment processes. • Determine likely post impoundment substrate recruitment and/or sedimentation scenarios • Organize observations and photos into a technical memorandum The purpose of the 2010 Grant Creek spawning gravel recruitment study is to assess the existing processes that control the supply of substrate suitable for spawning in Grant Creek and to assess potential changes to substrate composition under the potential scenario of a dewatered canyon reach. HDR proposes a two day site visit exploring as much of Grant Creek as is safely possible, as well as allowing for a visit to the area near the Grant Lake outlet. A qualitative assessment of current and potential future processes will be summarized in a technical memo. 5 Agency Resource Management Goals Stated resource agency management goals resulting from coordination include: • Alaska Department ofFish and Game published "Our Wealth Maintained: A Strategy for Conserving Alaska's Diverse Wildlife and Fish Resources'' in 2006. The Strategy is intended to integrate new conservation methods with existing wildlife management and research programs. Maintaining diversity of wildlife (including fish) is the main goal of the Strategy. • The Kenai River Special Management Area (KRSMA) is managed under Alaska Department of Natural Resources. The area includes public lands and waters that contribute to sustaining Kenai River's fish resources. • The Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Chugach National Forest developed by the United States Forest Service lists multiple goals based around maintaining and/or improving fish habitat within the National Forest. • The Kenai River Comprehensive Management Plan is managed by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources is the basis for management of state lands within KRSMA • The Alaska Department of Fish and Game published "Aquatic Resources Implementation Plan for Alaska's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy" (CWCS) in 2007. The goal of the CWCS is to conserve the diversity of Alaska's fish and wildlife resources focusing on species and habitats of greatest concern. 6 Project Nexus The following are potential nexus between project operations and effects (direct, indirect, and cumulative) on the resources to be studied. Many of these issues were identified in the 2009 Pre- application document (PAD). 21 6.1 Water quality and Temperature 6.1.1 Grant Lake Kenai Hydro, LLC Drafl2010 Water Resources Study Plan • Higher than average change in lake level may occur if the project design incorporates a dam at the natural outlet • Water withdrawal from the lake could reduce lake levels and decrease the amount of shallow water areas around the lake perimeter. • Electricity production in winter months will likely draw the lake down below its natural level. This could further reduce the amount of shallow water areas around the lake. • Water quality could be affected by the diversion of Falls Creek water into Grant Lake 6.1.2 Grant Creek • Water quality in Grant Creek may be affected by the diversion of water from Grant Lake through the project generator. Temperature may be notably affected by this. • Winter draw down of Grant Lake may decrease the amount of water released from the lake during spring thaw events. Total flow in the spring may be lower than average. • Water quality in Trail Lake may be affected by water quality and temperature changes in Grant Creek 6.1.3 Falls Creek • Water quality may change in falls creek as a result of decreased flow if the project diverts water from Falls Creek into Grant Lake. • Temperature may change with reduced flow in Fails Creek. • Water quality in Trail River may be changed by water quality and temperature changes in Falls Creek. 6.2 Hydrology • Hydrologic regimes in Grant Creek may change seasonally with impoundment and water diversion; winter flows may be increased significantly and summer flows may be reduced significantly • Peak flows may be reduced in Grant Creek and Falls Creek • Stream flows may be reduced in Falls Creek 6.3 Grant Lake and Grant Creek Fluvial Geomorphology • Possible erosion and sedimentation may occur in the zone above normal full pond due to lake level fluctuation • Possible down-cutting of the Inlet Creek delta as a result oflowered water levels in Grant Lake. • Possible change in sediment influx to Grant Creek due to lake impoundment • Possible change in sediment transport in the canyon reach of Grant Creek due to reduced flows 22 Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Water Resources Plan 7 Consistency with Generally Accepted Practices 7.1 Water Quality and Temperature Water quality samples will be collected using standard methods approved by the EPA. Sampling equipment will be cleaned and decontaminated between each sampling site. Sample frequency during open water months can vary depending on the needs of the project. The HOBO Pro V2 logging thermistor has an operating range of -40 to 50°C, and is accurate to 0.2°C over 50°C. The HOBO U20 water level logger has a pressure operating range of 0-207 kPA, with a typical error of 0.05%, and a temperature operating range of -20 to 50°C and is accurate to 0.37°C at 20°C. Both HOBO units have 64K bytes of memory. 7.2 Hydrology Hydrology studies, including the installation and operation of surface water elevation data loggers, and instantaneous discharge measurement methods will be conducted using standard methods as described by Rantz et al (1982). These methods have been developed, standardized, and are in use by the US Geological Survey specifically for measuring stream discharges throughout the nation. 7.3 Grant Creek Fluvial Geomorphology Both components of the Grant Creek fluvial geomorphology study are designed to be reconnaissance-level efforts that rely on existing geologic and soils data, hydrologic and meteorological data as well as professional experience and judgment to produce technical memoranda of the processes and resulting issues involved in both studies. Both studies will incorporate methods used in previous studies including site visits and mapping of areas of potential erosion. 8 Level of Effort 8.1 Water Quality and Temperature There will be four water quality sampling events in 2010. No water quality samples for laboratory analysis will be collected during the first sampling event, but measurements of in situ parameters, including temperature, will be made. One site on Grant Creek (GC300) and two sites on Grant Lake (GL TS and GLOut) will be visited during the March event. Due to fewer sites being visited and less data being collected, the March event will require two days for two people. All in situ parameters and laboratory water quality samples will be collected during the remaining three sampling events in June, August and October. These events will require two people for three days. Preparations for a water quality field sampling event will require approximately one day for one person. Some analytes have a holding time of 48 hours. Because of this water quality samples will need to be shuttled back to Anchorage for analysis. Approximately four hours for one person will be needed to pick up and transfer samples to the laboratory during each of the last three sampling events. 23 Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Water Resources Plan Field supplies required for the sampling events will include field forms, clipboards, notebooks, GPS unit, satellite phone, camera, DH-81, Niskin, integration bucket, laboratory provided water quality collection bottles and safety gear. The March event will require winter sampling equipment including axes, shovels and an ice auger as well as the equipment listed previously. 8.2 Hydrology It is anticipated that it would take four people two days to set up a temporary line across Grant Creek and stage a lock box for storing rigging and cataraft tubes, as well as staging the cataraft near GC200. This activity needs to happen in early spring when the stream can be waded. Installing and surveying continuously recording surface water elevation data loggers and staff gages on Grant and Falls Creeks in May, and re-surveying and uninstalling data loggers and staff gages in October is anticipated to take a team of two one day in May and one day in October. Up to six IQ measurements will be made on Grant Creek in 2010 to validate or calibrate low to mid flows on the existing rating curve. Medium flows would be made from a cataraft and each measurement will take two to four people half a day depending on the flow conditions. The schedule of flow measurements depends on the flow conditions and methods used and may include two measurement in May and June and two measurements in October. Falls Creek IQ measurements take a team of two approximately two hours and it is anticipated that as many as nine measurements will be made in 20 I 0. Gaining and losing characteristics of Grant Creek would be determined during a low flow field event in the spring of 20 I 0 consisting of near simultaneous IQ measurements at the outlet of Grant Lake, and at either the proposed power house location, or at GC200. This effort is anticipated to take a team of four one day if current meters can be used. If the salt dilution method is used this effort is anticipated to take a team of six one day. 8.3 Grant Lake and Grant Creek Fluvial Geomorphology The Grant Lake shore erosion study will take one person two days to prepare, two people four and one half days to visit Cooper Lake erosion sites and then inventory Grant Lake erosion, and one person five days to post process data, QC data and prepare a technical memo. The Grant Creek spawning sediment recruitment study will take one person one day to prepare, two people two days to visit the site, and one person four days to compile photos, and field notes into a technical memo. 8.4 Personnel and Responsibilities Water quality lead Isaac Watkins Duties: Prepare Study Plans, assign field teams, prepare field logistics, conduct field studies, prepare draft and final reports, assist in data analysis, assist in other tasks as needed. Water quality specialist-Cindy Milligan Duties: Review Study Plans, conduct field studies, perform quality control reviews on draft reports, manage data entry, perform statistical data analysis, assist in other tasks as needed. 24 Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Water Resources Plan Field specialist Lynn Spencer Duties: Conduct pre-trip activities, conduct field studies, assist in draft report preparation, assist in other tasks as needed. Hydrology lead and geomorphologist-Ingrid Corson Duties: Prepare project study plan, coordinate field events and field staff, conduct field work, data analysis, reporting Hydrology specialist -Adinda Demske Duties: Reivew project study plan, coordinate field events and field staff, conduct field work, data analysis, reporting, data steward Surveyor~ Todd Heyworth Duties: survey installed data logging equipment, assist in field events Fluvial Geomorphology lead Brian Doeing Duties: prepare project study plan, conduct field work, data analysis, QA/QC, reporting Geomorphologist and soil scientist Lorene Lynn Duties: Review project study plan, coordinate field events and field staff, conduct field work, data analysis, QA/QC, reporting 9 Schedule for Conducting the Study 9.1 Water Quality and Temperature • March 2010 Two day field event to collect field parameters at Grant Creek and Falls Creek • May 201 0 ~One day field event to download theremistors • June 2010 -Three day field event to collect water quality samples at Grant Lake, Grant Creek, and Falls Creek, one day of preparation • August 2010 Three day field event to collect water quality samples at Grant Lake, Grant Creek, and Falls Creek , one day of preparation, download thermistors • October 2010 Three day field event to collect water quality samples at Grant Lake, Grant Creek, and Falls Creek, one day of preparation, download thermistors • November 2010-Complete QA/QC on all 2010 data, complete data processing and analysis 9.2 Hydrology • April 20 I 0 ~ Prepare equipment and materials for tensioned line and cataraft • April-May 2010 Set up tension line and cataraft; conduct gaining/loosing determination IQ measurements; install gages and data loggers on Grant and Falls Creeks, make up to 25 Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Water Resources Plan two IQ measurement on Grant Creek and Falls Creek. These measurements could also be made during autumn low flow conditions. • June 20 I 0 -Make one IQ measurements on Grant Creek and Falls Creek conditions permitting • July 2010 -Download data loggers in conjunction with other field efforts • August 2010-Make up to one IQ measurement on Grant Creek and Falls Creek • September 2010-Make up to one IQ measurement on Grant Creek and Falls Creek • October 2010-Make up to two IQ measurement on Grant Creek and Falls Creek, download data loggers, uninstall gages • December 2010-Complete QA/QC on all201 0 data, complete data processing and analysis, prepare final 20 I 0 hydrology data report 9.3 Grant Lake and Grant Creek Fluvial Geomorphology • May 201 0 -Prepare and conduct spawning gravel reconnaissance field visit during spring low flow conditions • June 2010 -Prepare draft spawning substrate technical memo • July 2010 Prepare for lake shore erosion inventory field event • August 2010 Conduct Cooper Lake calibration site visit and Grant Lake shore erosion inventory • September 2010-Process and analyze lake shore erosion data • October 2010-Draft lake shore erosion memo • November 2010-Prepare final technical memos 10 Provisions for Technical Review Provisions for periodic progress reports, including the manner and extent to which information will be shared; and sufficient time for technical review of the analysis and results. • Nov 2009: Distribution of draft study plans • Early-Dec 2009: FERC Scoping meeting • Early-Feb 2009: End ofscoping/study comment period • Feb-March 2010: Revised draft study plans/distribute for review • May 201 0: Issue final study plan • May-June 2010: Start of Study Season [varies by study area) • Oct 201 0: End of Study Season [varies by study area) • Late 2010-January 2011: Distribute 2010 study reports for review/discussion • January April 2011: Prepare Draft License Application • May 2011: Issue Draft License Application • September 2011: File Final License Application 26 11 References Kenai Hydro, LLC Draft 2010 Water Resources Study Plan Alaska Power Authority (APA). 1984. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Detailed Feasibility Analysis. Volume 2. Environmental Report. Rep. from Ebasco Services Incorporated, Bellevue, Washington. Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (AEIDC). 1983. Summary of environmental kno•vledge of the proposed Grant Lake hydroelectric project area. Final Report submitted to Ebasco Services, Inc., Redmond, Washington, University of Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska. CH 2 M Hill. 1980. Feasibility assessment -hydropower development at Grant Lake. City of Seward, AK. Chugach Electric/HDR. 2005. Final License Application Exhibit E, Cooper Lake Reservoir Shoreline Characteristics and Processes Study. FERC NO. 2170. EBASCO. 1987. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Detailed Feasibility Analysis, HDR. 2009, Grant Creek Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report. Draft. Prepared for: Kenai Hydro Inc. HDR. 2009 hydrology study data for Grant Creek. Prepared for: Kenai Hydro Inc. HDR. 2009 hydrology study data for Falls Creek. Prepared for: Kenai Hydro Inc. 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 1: Measurement of Stage and Discharge. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 217 5. R. W. Beck and Associates. 1982. Kenai Peninsula power supply and transmission study supplement. Still, P.J. 1976. Index of surface water quality records to September 30, 1973, southcentral Alaska. U>S> Geological Survey, Anchorage, AK. Open-file Report 80-6000. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1981. National Hydroelectric Povver Study, Regional Report. Regional Report: Volume XXIII -Alaska. USACE North Pacific Division, Portland, Oregon and Alaska District, Anchorage, Alaska. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1961. Ptarmigan and Grant Lakes and Falls Creek, Kenai Peninsula, Alaska, progress report on thefish and wildl(fe resources. Department of the Interior. Juneau, Alaska. 27 28 Kenai Hydro, LLC Draft 2010 Water Resources Study Plan Grant Lake/Grant Creek and Falls Creek Project Terrestrial Resources Draft 2010 Study Plan Prepared for: Kenai Hydro, LLC Prepared by: HDR Alaska, Inc. 2525 C Street, Suite 305 Anchorage, AK 99503 October 2009 Grant Lake/Grant Creek and Falls Creek Project Terrestrial Resources Draft 2010 Study Plan Prepared for: Kenai Hydro, LLC HDR Alaska, Inc. 2525 C Street, Suite 305 Anchorage,AK 99503 October 2009 Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Terrestrial Resources Plan Contents 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1 2 Botanical Resources Study: Goals and Objectives .......................................................................... 5 2.1 Study Goals ............................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Study Objectives ........................................................................................................................ 5 3 Botanical Resources: Existing Information and Need for Information ........................................ 5 3.1 Existing Infonnation .................................................................................................................. 5 3.2 Need for additional infonnation ................................................................................................ 9 4 Botanical Resources Study Methods ................................................................................................. 9 4.1 Study Area ................................................................................................................................. 9 4.2 Field Study Design .................................................................................................................. 11 4.2.1 Study Component #1 General Vegetation Type Mapping and Timber Resource Assessment .............................................................................................................................. 11 4.2.2 Study Component #2 Sensitive Plant Survey and Invasive Plant Survey ............... 13 4.2.3 Study Component #3 ~Wetland Mapping ................................................................. 16 4.3 Data Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 17 5 Wildlife Resources: Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................... 17 6 Wildlife Resources: Existing Information and Need for Information ......................................... 18 6.1 Need for additional infonnation .............................................................................................. 20 7 Wildlife Resources Study Methods ................................................................................................. 20 7.1 StudyArea ............................................................................................................................... 20 7.2 Field Study Design .................................................................................................................. 21 7.2.1 Study Component #1 RaptorNesting Surveys ........................................................ 21 7.2.2 Study Component #2 Breeding Landbirds and Shorebirds ..................................... 24 7.2.3 Study Component #3-Waterbirds ............................................................................ 25 7.2.4 Study Component #4 ~Terrestrial Mammal Surveys ................................................ 28 8 Agency Resource Management Goals ............................................................................................ 33 9 ProjectNexus .................................................................................................................................... 33 10 Consistency with Generally Accepted Practices ............................................................................ 34 11 Level of Effort ................................................................................................................................... 35 Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Terrestrial Resources Plan 11.1 Personnel and Responsibilities ................................................................................................ 35 12 Schedule for Conducting the Study ................................................................................................ 36 13 Provisions for Technical Review ..................................................................................................... 37 13.1 Quality Control ........................................................................................................................ 37 14 References ......................................................................................................................................... 39 Tables Table 1. Potential Botanical and Wildlife Resource Impact Issues Related to the Grant Lake/Falls Creek Project ................................................................................................................ 33 Figures Figure I: Project Facilities Map .................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2: Grant Lake Study Area Map .......................................................................................... 4 Figure 3: Vegetation, USDA Forest Service Cover Type Layer ................................................... 7 Figure 4: Wetlands, National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Classification, US Fish & Wildlife Service ............................................................................................................................ 8 Figure 5: Terrestrial Resources Locator Map .............................................................................. 10 Figure 6: Potential Raptor Nesting Habitat, 1982 ......................................................................... 23 Figure 7: Potential Nesting Habitat for Ducks, 1982 .................................................................... 27 Figure 8: Potential Brown Bear Forage Resources and Denning Habitat, 1982 .......................... 30 Figure 9: Moose Range ................................................................................................................. 32 Appendices Appendix A Alaska Region Sensitive Plant List Appendix B Procedures for Sensitive Plant Biological Evaluations Appendix C Pre-Field Review Fonn, Sensitive Plant Survey Form, and Sensitive Plant EO Form Appendix D AKEPIC Mapping Project Inventory Field Data Sheet Appendix E Wetland Determination Form Alaska Region Appendix F Point Count Data Form ll ADF&G AEIDC AHRS APA AWC BLM cfs em CPUE DNR EPA FERC FL fps ft G&A GPS GWh HEP IFIM in KHI KHL KPB kWh LLC mg/L mi Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Terrestrial Resources Plan List of Acronyms Alaska Department of Fish 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 of Natural 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 lll Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Terrestrial Resources Plan MIF minimum instream flow mm millimeter MSL Mean sea level MW Megawatt MWh Megawatt hours NWI National Wetlands Inventory O&M Operations & maintenance RM river miles RVDs Recreation visitor days TL total length TWG technical working group US ACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USFS U.S. Forest Service USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey YOY Young of the year iv Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Terrestrial Resources Plan 1 Introduction The proposed Grant Lake/Grant Creek and Falls Creek Project (Project) would be owned and operated by Kenai Hydro, LLC (Kenai Hydro). The Project facilities, as proposed, would be located at Falls Creek and Grant Lake near the community of Moose Pass, Alaska. All Project facilities would lie within the Chugach National Forest. The Project transmission line would be located on land in the Kenai Peninsula Borough and owned by different entities, including the Alaska Railroad, State of Alaska, and Chugach National Forest. The preferred Project alternative would provide active water storage by creating an impoundment at Grant Lake. Key features would include a 9-foot-high concrete gravity dam located at the outlet of Grant Lake. An intake and sluiceway would be constructed integral to the structure. An above-ground steel penstock supported on saddles would convey water to a powerhouse. A surge tank is assumed to be needed, and would be located near the top of the slope. A concrete-reinforced powerhouse structure would contain a single Francis-type turbine, synchronous generator, and associated switchgear and controls. A new acesss route beginning at the downstream end of Lower Trail Lake and continuing around the east side of Vagt Lake would split to provide access to the powerhouse and the intake sites. An overhead transmission line would connect directly from the powerhouse to the existing transmission line along the Seward Highway (Figure 1 Project Facilities Map and Figure 2 Grant Lake Study Area Map). The Project would provide additional active storage through drawdown of Grant Lake below its naturally occurring minimum elevation. Drawdown would be made possible by extending a pipeline into the lake and installing vacuum pump equipment. At low lake levels the intake would act as a siphon allowing the lake to be drawn down to an elevation of 675 ft. Another component of the Project would divert water from Falls Creek north to Grant Lake, where water would be used to generate power from the Grant Lake Project. This has the advantage of using Grant Lake for storage. Kenai Hydro has identified the need for additional information on existing botanical and wildlife resources of the Project area to evaluate potential resource impacts from predicted Project effects. This study plan briefly describes the existing information available on botanical and wildlife resources in the Project area and explains the methods that will be used to collect additional baseline data. The studies described in this plan will document vegetation, sensitive plants, invasive plants, wetlands, and wildlife resources within the Project area. The results of these studies will be used to evaluate possible Project effects on botanical and wildlife resources and will be used to develop potential protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures to address identified impacts. Kenai Hydro Envlronm~ntal Baseline Studies Figure 1 Project 2 Kenai Hydro, LLC Draft 2010 Te"estrial Resources Study Plan Proposed Project Facilities --"'" ...... -R- -.glollnngR- ~:z: li: ·-~ • 500 1.000 I ..................................... ....... ; ................ .. ---. ........... .... .... , ...... 1001 ...... .__. ............. ._ ..... __ _,_, ....................................... ... ...._ ............ _ .... _~ -.,.....a..--.._..__..,. __ ..., till Facilities Map 3 Kenai Hydro, LLC Draft 2010 Te"estrial Resources Study Plan Crant Lake Study Area legend ""'JI<l FdlUte> Tunnl!t A<conR~ • lntako f..lltH -"-lb-• C-oun (10 h) ... ....:i:: NORTH 0 1.000 l GOO ..... .._ . ._..... ..... ~-----~----......... ~---~.---d*o .... __ ..... -~-...-- ._ ______ .. tiE Figure 2-Grant Lake Study Area Map 4 Kenai Hydro. LLC Draft 2010 Terrestrial Resources Study Plan Kenai Hydro, LLC Draft 2010 Terrestrial Resources Study Plan 2 Botanical Resources Study: Goals and Objectives 2.1 Study Goals The overarching purpose of the Botanical Resources Study is to acquire the information needed to evaluate Project impacts. In addition, some study components are necessary to meet specific resource agency requirements for impact evaluation. The following are the individual study goals: • To map existing general vegetation types within the Project area. • To assess timber resources within the Project area. • To determine the presence and characterize populations of sensitive plants within the Project area. • To determine the presence and extent of invasive plants within the Project area. • To define the types and delineate the boundaries of wetlands and other "waters of the U.S." within the Project area. • To assess any pertinent soil concerns within the Project area. 2.2 Study Objectives The objectives outlined below will guide study component design to meet the goals of the overall Botanical Resources Study: • Map existing vegetation type boundaries within the Project area using existing GIS layers, existing aerial photos, and available satellite imagery. • Assess timber volume and value within the part of the Project area that occurs on National Forest lands, in accordance with Forest Service requirements. • Conduct a Level 5 sensitive plant survey sufficient to prepare a Biological Evaluation for Plants within the part of the Project area that occurs on National Forest lands, in accordance with Forest Service requirements. • Conduct an invasive plant survey within the part of the Project area that occurs on National Forest lands sufficient to evaluate the Project's effect on populations of invasive species, in accordance with Forest Service requirements. • Inventory and map the wetlands and other "waters of the U.S." that occur within and immediately adjacent to the Project area (with a boundary occurring on or partially within the Project area boundary), in accordance with Forest Service requirements. Wetland delineation will include an assessment of soil concerns for the Project. 3 Botanical Resources: Existing Information and Need for Information 3.1 Existing Information A number of investigations of botanical resources and issues have been performed in the past in the Project vicinity under the auspices of both the Alaska Power Authority (APA) and the USDA 5 Kenai Hydro, UC 2010 Terrestrial Resources Plan Forest Service (APA 1984; Baker, B. 0. 2005a; Baker, B. 0. 2005b; Bella, E. 2009; Bella, E. 2006; Bella, E. 2004; Benoit, M. A. et al. 2005; Caveney, S. and N. McCusker 2005; DeVelice, R. 2004; Duffy, M. 2003; Holden, T. 2005; Malony, P. 2005; Oja, W. 2004; USDA Forest Service 2007a; and USDA Forest Service 2007b). As a result, a variety of vegetation community types are known to occur throughout the Project area (USDA 2007b). Vegetation communities encompass a wide range of types, including coniferous forests, deciduous forests, mixed conifer/deciduous forests, tall shrublands, low shrublands, muskeg, riparian areas, stream banks, lake margins, ponds, alpine tundra, and grasslands. Coniferous forest types are generally Lutz spruce (Picea x lutzii, a hybrid between Sitka spruce [Picea sitcltensis] and white spruce [P. glauca]), mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana), and mixed spruce-hemlock stands, with some small pockets of black spruce (P. mariana). Hardwood forests include mainly birch (Betula papyr({era), and scattered stands of cottonwood (Populus balsam(fera) and aspen (Populus tremuloides). Non-forested communities include grasslands (including Calamagrostis stands, sedge meadows [Carex spp.], and other mixed graminoid vegetation types), alder (mainly Alnus sinuata var. crispa), willow (Salix spp.), and alpine tundra (including a variety of low forb species, lichens, and subshrubs). Rock, along with snow and ice fields, is present at higher elevations across the landscape. Major shrub species include rusty menziesia (Menziesia ferruginea), tall blueberry (Vaccinium ovalifolium), devil's club (Oplopanax ltorridus), and Sitka alder (Alnus crispa var. sinuata). Among the ground-cover plants, the most common include five-leaf bramble (Rubus pedatus), bunchberry (Comus canadensis), crowberry (Empetrum nigrum), and low-bush cranberry (Vaccinium vitis-idaea). Mosses produce a continuous ground cover on parts of the Project area. General vegetation type, as mapped by USDA Forest Service (USDA 2007b), is shown in Figure 3-Vegetation Map. A high percentage of the large-diameter spruce is dead or dying due to the ongoing spruce bark beetle outbreak (Caveney and McCusker 2005). In addition to beetle-affected spruce, a variety of fungal diseases affect the old-growth spruce and the hemlock that dominate the forests of the Project area. There is little evidence of recent fire. Evidence of previous railroad tie logging of hemlock is widespread, and evidence of past logging of larger trees occurs within the Project area. Fuel reduction activities have taken place around Moose Pass within the past 8 years. There are no recorded occurrences of sensitive, rare, or threatened plants within the Project area. The nearest four known occurrences of three different rare plants are 3.4 miles to the southeast, 5.5 miles to the south, and 5 miles to the southeast. Invasive plant species are known to be present on the Chugach National Forest and adjacent State, Borough, and private lands. The Forest Service has conducted several inventories and studies to determine presence, type, and risk of spread of invasive species (Bella 2009, DeVelice 2004, Duffy 2003). National Wetlands Inventory mapping exists for the Project area (Figure 4-Wetlands). Wet1ands in the project area are concentrated in the area between Grant Lake and Trail Lake and at the east end of Grant Lake. Other waters of the U.S. include lakes and ponds such as Grant Lake, Upper Trail Lake, Lower Trail Lake, and Vagt Lake; and streams, such as Grant Creek and Falls Creek. Previous studies describe wet meadows ranging from extremely wet, floating mats to firm, treed bogs with many shrubs (APA 1984). Many of the bogs are described as having a wet spot or small pond in the center (APA 1984). 6 Kenai Hydro Envir<!_nrJ)en~LBaseline Stu_dies ..._ _ __;;;ap I ---- ~~. :·,~ V-•· . r: Figure 3. Vegetation, USDA Forest Service Cover Type Layer 7 Kenai Hydro, LLC Draft 2010 Terrestrial Resources Study Plan '-- le-T---...... . ~ M H-----.,...Siouco R- VegetatiOn Legend ProjiCI FoaurH . ·-· -oct Tumol T .... ..,. .. ~on Uno Acces•R<>Id bilfln9~- -Troll• -Alulta Rallr..S --d~ Lll<ft ...,_ Rlwn c-a.nuortl iA .... NORTH o 1100 ·-........ trMD., ................... . .... ._._.t.IIRIIIIl ..... tu.J.-...... ... ,.,., ............. . ....... OIIItllr,.. ................. ......_. .... "' ... -..... =-~-=====--= -~-...-..... .... .,.... _____ _ lenai Hadm W: DB Kenai Hydro EnvironmentaJ Baseline Stud ies Figure 4. Wetlands, National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Classification, US Fish & Wildlife Service 8 Kenai Hydro, LLC Draft 2010 Te"estrial Resow-ces Study Plan ~.Panel., Rlolr I --------- Wetlands Legend Pl'ojt<t ftMu,.• ........ ~o<- Tumol r,.,.,.,. .. ~on ~Aw AttesRGM EliiUing-.gRGM Trwlt --Ala.U R.lrad -Stwont HIQIIoool¥ Uillt< ......,_Riw" c_,....ooru • . ... NORTH o .... ··- '-'~MAD·I-..u.._ ..... ,._.,_. a........-: ..... ,..,UK&,_---· tell ..,.,. ............. . 0..14~,.. ... ,.. __ ................ _. -· ... -~--...-. ...... -_________ ... __ _ _ ,......,........_ ,_ __ ...... ~.., . ~enai Ogtlrn W: till Kenai Hydro, UC 2010 Terrestrial Resources Plan 3.2 Need for additional information Despite the existing information available for the Project area, this is a new Project and additional data are needed to effectively evaluate Project impacts. Additional field studies will be required to: • Inventory areas not previously assessed for timber resources, in accordance with Forest Service practices and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) requirements. • Identify the presence and location of any sensitive plant species in accordance with Forest Service guidelines and practices, to develop a Biological Evaluation. • Locate any populations of invasive plant species in accordance with Forest Service guidelines and practices. • Identify and classify existing wetlands and other "waters of the U.S." in accordance with US Army Corps of Engineers practices to define areas subject to federal regulation and policies. • Identify pertinent soil concerns during the wetland delineation. 4 Botanical Resources Study Methods 4.1 Study Area The study area includes the area east of the Seward Highway and Alaska Railroad adjacent to Moose Pass, extending past the eastern shoreline of Grant Lake. The study extends south along the highway to just south of Falls Creek and north to just beyond the north shoreline of Grant Lake. The study area includes all proposed Project facilities along Grant Creek, Falls Creek, and the Seward Highway (Figure 5-Terrestrial Resources Map). 9 -~~~a!~~~~q_E~~r~nmen~~I ~Ba~s~e~li~ne~~~u~d~l~es~----------------- Figure 5. Terrestrial Resources Locator Map 10 Kenai Hydro, LLC Draft 2010 Terrestrial Resources Study Plan P: : = ' X<-· I Terrestlal Resouces Locator Map Legend ""'jl<! Fo .. u,.s • lruk• Pomtock Tunnol Trw11mtnkwll.lne A<c .. sRoad Exosllng Minong Rood Tnoft• --Alatlla R.lnNod -SowlrciH!glioM\< Ullo .. ... -NORTH o ,..., ··- ,__._... ........... " ........ ____ ... ~......-----.~-. ------------~ -~------------- leoai ludm W: W3 4.2 Field Study Design Kenai Hydro, LLC Drafl2010 Terrestrial Resources Study Plan The Botanical Resources Study is comprised of three components that will include a combination of office and field based efforts: Study Component # 1 General Vegetation Type Mapping and Timber Resource Assessment; Study Component #2 Sensitive Plant Survey and Invasive Plant Survey; and Study Component #3 Wetland Mapping. A review of existing information will be conducted for all three study components as an initial study task. The field work for the study components will include the following activities: • Conduct a timber stand survey in areas not previously surveyed. • Conduct a sensitive plant survey to produce a Biological Evaluation for Plants. • Conduct an invasive plant survey (concurrent with sensitive plant survey). • Conduct wetland delineations sufficient to determine the locations of resources subject to authority ofthe Clean Water Act and Executive Order 11990. The wetland survey will include a detailed survey of Project activity areas and a general survey of the larger Project area. 4.2.1 Study Component #1-General Vegetation Type Mapping and Timber Resource Assessment Vegetation Type Mapping The purpose of this study is to prepare an accurate vegetation type map for the Project area using existing GIS layers, existing aerial photography, and available satellite imagery (Figure 3). The map will be used to locate timber stand survey plots; to plan routes for the sensitive and invasive plant surveys; and to assist in delineating wetlands prior to field work. The map will include information on private land ownership within the Project area. Field studies are required only on Forest Service lands within the Project area. Private lands will not be accessed and are not included the study area; the State of Alaska did not request timber surveys to be conducted on State-owned land. Vegetation cover information is available for the Project area from the Forest Service and the Kenai Peninsula Borough. Vegetation layers, including the CovType and the TimType layers, are out-of-date as they were created in the late 1960s and early 1970s. IKONOS satellite imagery is available for part of the Project area, as well as several aerial photography sets from different years. Methods In order to prepare a vegetation type map for the Project area, the following tasks will be performed: • Acquire and compile existing GIS vegetation cover type and timber type layers from available sources, including the Forest Service and the Kenai Peninsula Borough. • Acquire and compile existing aerial photography and satellite imagery from the Forest Service and the Kenai Peninsula Borough to overlay on the existing cover type layers. Examine any visible vegetation boundaries in the photos or imagery to fix or update type polygon boundaries, if possible. II Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Terrestrial Resources Plan • Determine specific locations to conduct the timber stand survey, the sensitive and invasive plant surveys, and the detailed wetland delineation. Specific areas for survey will be those that may experience physical disturbance during Project activities. These areas include the perimeter of Grant Lake, which will be affected by the changes in the water surface elevation; a corridor including the Grant Lake outlet and Grant Creek, which will encompass construction of an intake and sluiceway, a raised penstock, a tailrace, a powerhouse, and electrical transmission line towers and anchors; and a corridor that includes road construction extending north from existing mining roads north of Falls Creek. • Produce a final vegetation type map that displays vegetation type polygon boundaries, the Project area, and specific Project components and impact areas. Timber Resource Assessment The purpose of this study is to assess timber resources that may be affected by Project activities. The study will estimate and calculate value for the volume of trees with commercial value, including Sitka, white, and Lutz spruce; paper birch; and mountain hemlock. These are referred to as the "species of interest" for this study. The Project area was partially delineated into timber stands in a past study (Caveney and McCusker 2005). Plot-level stand exams were conducted to a level of detail sufficient to calculate timber volume. Existing information may reduce the amount of field work required to obtain field data sufficient to conduct the assessment. Methods The following tasks will be performed: • Request a copy of existing field data for the Grant Lake Wildlife Habitat Vegetation and Fuels Report (Caveney and McCusker 2005) from the Forest Service. Review plot locations to determine the extent of coverage. • Determine if existing data cover the Project activity area (Figure 3). Determine areas, if any, of spruce bark beetle kill within the Project activity area using a Kenai Peninsula Borough GIS layer. Exclude these areas from field data collection. Field data collection may not be necessary if data exist for the Project activity area, or if the area has been severely affected by spruce bark beetle kill. • If field data collection is necessary, identify individual vegetation stands that include the species of interest in the Project activity area using the vegetation type map. Calculate the number of acres in the target field data collection area for each vegetation type with species of interest. Types will include Sitka spruce, white spruce, Lutz spruce, mixed hardwood-softwood, birch, hemlock, and hemlock-spruce. Place one plot per acre in Project activity areas that require field data collection such that all types with species of interest are included. If one plot per acre is impractical for time or access reasons, scale back to one plot for every five acres with coverage in all types. Place plots within stand boundaries to avoid ecotonaVtransition areas. • Collect timber cruise data in the planned field plots using standard timber cruise field equipment. Assemble a crew of two people. Locate plots by GPS and paper map. Record the plot location using a GPS unit. Record data either in a field notebook or with a 12 Kenai Hydro, LLC Draft 2010 Terrestrial Resources Study Plan handheld field computer with a field form designed to include the data collection fields. Record date, observers, slope, aspect, canopy cover in percent class (0, 1-15, 16-30, 31- 45, 45-60, 61-75, 75-90, 90+), and vegetation type (DeVelice et al. 1999). Sample trees in the plot with a BAF 30 prism for variable area plots. Record the species of each live tree that is in the plot. Record the DBH in em using a diameter tape. Record the tree height in meters using a clinometer. Include notes on snags, site characteristics, and other site features if applicable. • Enter timber cruise data into an Excel spreadsheet for volume calculations. Apply standard timber volume calculation formulas to calculate volume per acre (in board-feet per acre) for each species. Incorporate current market values for each species of interest using up-to-date information on rates from the US Department of Agriculture. Compile volume calculation totals and value assessments in a table form. • Prepare a technical memorandum with summary information on timber volume and value for Project activity areas. Include a map of the existing data plot locations and any new plot locations. 4.2.2 Study Component #2 -Sensitive Plant Survey and Invasive Plant Survey Sensitive Plant Survey Sensitive plants, as referenced throughout this study plan, are plant species formally identified by Region 10 of the Forest Service in 2009. These plant species are listed in Appendix A. There are no federally listed threatened or endangered plant species in the Project area. The Forest Service documents its protection of sensitive plant species in conjunction with Projects on lands under its jurisdiction through preparation of a Biological Evaluation for Plants. The objectives of the Biological Evaluation for Plants are specified in the Forest Service Manual Part 2672.41 (USFS 1995) as: ( 1) to ensure that actions do not contribute to loss of viability of any native or desired nonnative plant or animal species; (2) to incorporate concerns for sensitive species throughout the planning process; and (3) to ensure that activities will not cause a species to move toward federal listing as a threatened or endangered species. In addition, the Chugach Land and Resource Management Plan (USFS 2002) directs the Forest Service to "avoid, minimize, or mitigate the effects of human activities in areas containing sensitive plant populations" (page 3- 27). It further directs the Forest Service to conduct surveys to determine abundance and distribution of sensitive plants in areas affected by management activities (page 5-8). The purpose of this study is to develop the information necessary for Kenai Hydro LLC to meet Forest Service goals and objectives related to sensitive plant species. This study will determine the locations and abundance of sensitive plants in the Project activity area to complete a Biological Evaluation for Plants. The Biological Evaluation for Plants will be completed when future Project operations and activities, including protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures, are fully defined. At that time, the following tasks necessary for completion of the Biological Evaluation will conducted: • Determine the proposed actions' potential effects on sensitive plant species. • Develop appropriate mitigation measures if needed to avoid, minimize, reduce over time, and compensate for adverse effects on sensitive plants. • Assess the risk the Project would pose to sensitive plants based on the consequence and likelihood of adverse effects. 13 Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Terrestrial Resources Plan The findings from the above tasks will be presented in the Biological Evaluation for Plants, for Kenai Hydro LLC submission to the Forest Service. Methods The study will begin with a review of existing information on sensitive plants and their habitats, and conditions that may be found in the project vicinity. The body of existing information includes: • List of Alaska Region Sensitive Plants (2009) (see Appendix A). • Forest Service protocols for sensitive plant surveys and Biological Evaluations (Stensvold 2002; see Appendix B). • Known habitat preferences and general geographic distributions of listed sensitive plants (Forest Service sensitive plant manual [Stensvold 2002]). • Known geographic locations of sensitive species on the Kenai Peninsula (Forest Service digital records; Alaska Natural Heritage Program database). • Existing vegetation mapping of the Project area (Forest Service GIS database). • Existing aerial photography (IKONOS). • Locations and results of past surveys for sensitive plants on the Kenai Peninsula (Forest Service files). The study methods are based on the Procedures for Sensitive Plant Biological Evaluations, May 2002, contained in Stensvold (2002) and included here as Appendix B. Prior to field work, the following tasks will be performed. Staff will compile and review existing information on known locations, habitat preferences, and general geographic distributions of sensitive vascular plant species. The records to be reviewed may be obtained from the Chugach National Forest Supervisor's Office, the Forest Service Alaska Region Botanist, and the Alaska Natural Heritage Program. Based on the available information, staff will identify locations of habitats suspected to support sensitive species within the Project area. Habitat may also be identified through interpretation of aerial photographs, existing GIS vegetation layers, known plant locations, consultation with Forest Service and other resource experts, and incidentally in conjunction with other ecological studies being performed for the relicensing. The following field tasks will be performed: • Conduct a Level 5 (intuitive controlled) intensity survey in Project activity areas (Figure 5) using a two-person crew. This level allows intensive searches in those portions of the Project activity area with the highest potential for finding sensitive plants. Areas of focus for the sensitive plant survey will be habitats known or suspected to support sensitive plants in Chugach National Forest, as directed in the Procedures for Sensitive Plant Biological Evaluations within the Forest Service sensitive plant manual (Stensvold 2002). These may include heath, alpine and subalpine areas, wet meadows, shallow fresh water, forest edges, rock outcrops, well drained open areas, open forests, waterfalls, and stream banks. The exact areas of focus will be determined after review of available information and based on professional judgment in the field. • Keep records of field surveys according to current Forest Service protocols for sensitive species surveys, including use ofthe RIO 2008 TES Plant Element Occurrence Form, the RIO 2009 Pre-Field Review Worksheet, and the National2008 Forest Service Plant 14 Kenai Hydro, LLC Draft 2010 Terrestrial Resources Study Plan Survey Field Form (Appendix C). Survey locations will be recorded with GPS. Habitats likely to support sensitive plants will be thoroughly searched. The searches will employ the concepts of the timed meander method (Goff et al. 1982) without following that method exactly; each area will be searched until the surveyors are comfortable that further searches would not find any sensitive species. Any sensitive plant populations discovered will be described according to current Forest Service protocols. A voucher specimen from each sensitive plant population will be collected, pressed, and submitted to the Herbarium, University of Alaska-Fairbanks, if the population includes over 20 individuals and if a voucher is needed for positive identification. • Identify in the field, or collect for identification, any unknown plants observed in the field. • Compile field data and develop GIS coverage of survey areas and any sensitive plant sightings. • Submit voucher specimens and report sensitive plant locations to the Forest Service and Alaska Natural Heritage Program. • Prepare draft Biological Evaluation for Plants. Invasive Plant Survey Invasive plants, for the purposes of this study, are those that are not considered native to Alaska (considered synonymous with exotic for this study). The Chugach National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 2002) cites as a goal to "prevent introduction and spread of exotic plants and reduce areas of current infestation," and as objectives to "identifY infestations of exotic plant species" and "treat infestations with a high potential to spread" (page 3-4). It suggests incorporating exotic plant control into project planning and design (page 3-25), and conducting surveys to determine abundance and distribution of exotic plants, particularly in areas affected by management activities (page 5-8). Many invasive species are known to exist on Forest Service lands and on the Kenai Peninsula (Duffy 2003, DeVelice 2004). A subset of invasive plants is designated as "noxious weeds", which are plants that are especially destructive and difficult to control and are legally controlled under Alaska Administrative Code II AAC 34.020. Forest Service guidance directs the Forest Service to manage and control noxious weeds (USDA Forest Service 1995). Methods The survey will be conducted at the same time as the sensitive plant survey, and will take place within project activity areas (Figure 5). Areas of likely infestation for invasive species are contained within the project activity area. These include roadsides, soil disturbance areas, motorized vehicle travel routes, boat traffic routes, exiting trails, lake and stream access points, developed or social recreation sites, and other disturbances and human use areas. The following tasks will be performed: • Compile and review existing information on any nearby known locations of invasive vascular plants. • Identify and map disturbances in the project activity area using available GIS layers for roads, trails, access points, cleared areas, or other infrastructure features. 15 Kenai Hydro, LLC Draft 2010 Terrestrial Resources Study Plan • Identify previous data collection points in the GIS database from prior studies (Duffy 2003, DeVelice 2004, and Bella 2009). • While conducting the sensitive plant survey, observe any invasive species. If invasive species are identified, record the location with a GPS unit. If large populations of a particular species are found, record only one data point to represent the general area of infestation. If a particular species is found at many sites close to one another, record only one data point. Record at least one data point for each unique invasive species that is encountered. Use judgment in the field to decide if a population represents a unique infestation or is likely to have spread from an adjacent infestation. • Complete the field form recommended by AKEPIC, which is also recommended for use by the Forest Service for invasive plant surveys on Forest Service land (Appendix D). Record GPS location information, data, observers, observer affiliation, detailed site information, detailed location information, and specific species information. This includes: exotic plant species code, infested area, canopy cover, disturbance age, stem count, collection information, control action, and aggressiveness. Details on what these field form terms mean is included on the field form. Not all fields must be filled out. but investigators will attempt to answer most of them. The important point in this study is to note location by GPS, species name, and approximate size of the infestation. • Collect and preserve voucher specimens from populations that are not known from this area. Collect any unknown specimens to preserve for later identification. • Submit field form data copies to AKEPIC for the statewide database record. • Prepare a brief technical memorandum for the project activity area that describes the current infestations of invasive species. Discuss the impact that project activities may have on existing populations. Discuss the potential of project activities to introduce new populations. 4.2.3 Study Component #3-Wetland Mapping The purpose of this study is to identify and describe wetlands and other "waters of the U.S." within the Project area (Figure 5), in order to prepare a wetland report sufficient to apply for a permit from the US Anny Corps of Engineers (USACOE). The wetland report will describe locations within the Project area that are potentially subject to the authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or Executive Order 11990. Methods Wetland mapping will include the following tasks: • Prepare a preliminary wetland delineation map prior to field work using existing NWI mapping and interpretation of the most current aerial photography or satellite imagery and the vegetation type map. • IdentifY any particular soil concerns within the project area, as per FERC requirements. If applicable, soil concerns will be identified within the jurisdictional determination report. The nature of the concern will be explained. Concerns may include a particular damage to a particular type of soil caused by Project activity, or identification of soils that may be of concern to building or construction. The reporting will only identify the nature of the concern, but will not discuss mitigation measures. 16 Kenai Hydro, LLC Draft 2010 Terrestrial Resources Study Plan • Conduct a field survey of Project activity areas. By a review of topographic mapping, aerial photographs, access, NWI mapping, and other information collected during the pre- mapping process, plan the route needed to determine where wetlands, streams, and ponds occur within the Project activity areas. • Collect detailed information on soil conditions, hydrology, and plant community composition in representative upland and wetland sites using guidelines from the 1987 wetland delineation manual (USACOE 1987) and 2007 Alaska Regional Supplement (USACOE 2007). Use standard 2007 Alaska Regional Supplement data sheets (Appendix E). • Map the rest of the Project area, including any adjacent wetlands as requested by the Forest Service, based on aerial photo interpretation and use ofNWI mapping. • Prepare a final wetland map for the Project activity areas using field delineation results. Prepare a general Project area wetland map using results from aerial photograph and NWI map interpretation. ClassifY wetlands and other waters by NWI type. Show field data collection locations. Prepare a table of acres per NWI class using data and maps. • Prepare a wetland report that will include a detailed map of Project activity areas, the general map of the entire Project area, and methods and findings, and copies of the field data forms. 4.3 Data Analysis The vegetation type mapping component will calculate the percent acres of each vegetation type present in the study area. Data will be presented in a summary table. The timber resources survey will calculate the volume per valued tree species (spruce, hemlock, and birch), using standard timber stand volume estimate software and calculations. The total board-feet per acre will be calculated for each tree species. The value of each species, as standing, will be calculated using current market value for each species, for the Project area. Volume, value, and stocking density details will be presented in a summary table. The sensitive and invasive plant surveys require no specific data analysis. Locations of both types of plants will be noted and mapped. Records of daily surveys will be completed and filed per study plan direction. The wetland delineation will include a calculation of acres of each NWI class of wetland and other types of"waters of the U.S.". The calculated acres will be presented in a summary table. 5 Wildlife Resources: Goals and Objectives Wildlife groups of importance were identified in consultation with the USFS, Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The primary objective of wildlife surveys for the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project is to provide existing baseline distribution and abundance information on target species. This information will be used to guide the impact evaluation and mitigation planning as a result of potential adverse impacts of the proposed Project In addition, some study components are necessary to meet specific resource agency requirements. The following objectives outlined below have been identified to assess potential impacts to wildlife in the Project area: 17 Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Terrestrial Resources Plan • Document presence and distribution information to allow the Project to minimize or avoid impacts to protected species, including bald eagles and other raptors, shorebirds, waterbirds, and landbirds of special interest; • Quantify the distribution and abundance of target wildlife species during key seasons of activity in the Project area; • Document the species composition of avian communities, particularly landbirds, shorebirds, and waterbirds; and • Classify and map wildlife habitat in the Project area in conjunction with the Botanical Resources Study 6 Wildlife Resources: Existing Information and Need for Information A series of reconnaissance-level foot and aerial field surveys were conducted between October 1981 and September 1982 by AEIDC to ascertain the presence, distribution, relative abundance, and use patterns of wildlife species and to identify the distribution and relative value of seasonally-limited habitats in the Grant Lake/Falls Creek Project vicinity. Limited additional information on wildlife populations is available in more recent ADF&G reports for some species. For detailed information on wildlife documented during the 1981-1982 surveys refer to the (APA 1984) or the Pre-Application Document (Kenai Hydro, LLC 2009). There are no federally listed wildlife species within the Project area (USFWS 2009). The USFS has identified three management indicator species (MIS) (brown bear (Ursus arcto:..), moose (A lees alces), and mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus)) and eight species of special interest (SSI) lynx (Lynx canadensis), gray wolf (Canis lupus), wolverine (Gu/o gulo), river otter (Lutra Canadensis), marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmora/us), Townsend's warbler (Dendroica townsendi), northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and osprey (Pandion haliaetus) that may occur in the Project area (USFS 2005b). Several species on the State of Alaska list of Species of Special Concern (ADF&G 1998) likely occur in the proposed Project area, including the olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), gray-cheeked thrush (Catharus minimus), Townsend's warbler, Blackpoll warbler (Dendroica striata), and the Kenai population of the brown bear. The AEIDC report estimated that 1 08 bird species, 34 mammal species, and one amphibian inhabit the Grant Lake and Falls Creek Project area at some time during the year (including lake, wetland, terrestrial, and alpine habitats). However, the Grant Lake and Falls Creek Project areas provide only a small to moderate amount of habitat for wildlife resources relative to other areas of the northern Kenai Peninsula (APA 1984 ). The AEIDC study documented a small area at the outlet of Grant Lake into Grant Creek that remains open during winter and provides a winter feeding area for a flock of mallards (Anas platyrhynchos). As many as 30 individuals were observed in this opening during winter 198 1- 1982 field studies. With the exception of the two pools in Grant Creek, this was the only area within the Project area boundaries remaining ice-free and possessing an abundant, available food supply during the 1981-1982 winter (AP A 1984 ). Because this relatively unique habitat may be impacted by the construction of a dam, changes in water flow at the outlet, and lake level rise, this area warrants additional investigation. 18 Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Terrestrial Resources Plan The Inlet Delta is a gently sloping riparian wetland complex at the eastern end of Grant Lake that is dominated by willow species. AEIDC found the area to be preferred habitat within the Grant Lake Project area for snowshoe hares (Lepus americanus), lynx, beavers (Castor canadensis), and moose. The area likely also provides nesting habitat for some species of waterfow I and passerines (APA 1984). Recent studies by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) have documented habitat use by terrestrial mammals and birds in the Project area (USFS 2003, 2004, 200Sa). A bald eagle nest was documented near the Inlet Delta during 2003 Vegetation surveys (USFS 2003). In addition, two recent nests have been documented by the USFS during aerial surveys of the Project area: one nest was documented near the outlet of Grant Creek and the other nest was documented at the east end of Grant Lake (Benoit 2009). There are no known goshawk nests in the Project area however a suspected goshawk nest is located near the proposed Falls Creek Intake (USFS 2004, Benoit 2009). The USFS conducts yearly aerial trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator) and bald eagle nesting surveys throughout the Kenai Peninsula that include Grant Lake. No swans have been documented nesting on Grant Lake during these surveys (Benoit 2009). The ADF&G conducts regular surveys (approximately every 1-3 years) of mountain goats, moose, and bears throughout the Kenai Peninsula, including the Grant Lake watershed (Selinger 2009). The Kenai Peninsula mountain goat population is subject to considerable short-term annual fluctuations and shifts in ranges that occur primarily due to winter weather conditions and recently to hunting pressures. In the summers of 1979 and 1981, ADF&G conducted a population study, and estimated a population of 246 goats. Of this group, about one-quarter (an average of SO) commonly use the Grant Lake basin through much of the year. Although the entire drainage is used by mountain goats, the principal area of use is the north side of Grant Lake on the south-facing slopes-generally small vegetated benches and ridges between I ,000 to 3,200 feet elevation. The primary areas of interchange between Grant Lake and other subpopulations are the Moose Creek drainage and across the glacier to the Kings River-Kings Bay area (APA 1984). Specific mountain goat surveys are not a component of this study plan because they mainly occur on the higher ridges and slopes above the Project area. The Grant Lake area constitutes the southern limit of Dall sheep (Ovis dalli) range in Alaska. Dall sheep reportedly range over the entire Grant Lake and Falls Creek drainages in several small bands. During the 1981-1982 field studies, however, they were only noted on the northern half of the Grant Lake drainage. Frequent interchange apparently occurs with the Moose Creek herd, particularly during summer. As with goats, mid-elevations of the slopes constitute favored range, especially vegetated benches, and the upper edges of timbered areas and exposed ridges where some forage plants are available. Sheep were observed during various seasons from the Lark Mountain ridge line above Moose Pass to slopes in the upper basin of the drainage (APA 1984). Winter range is the principal limiting factor for sheep. Good winter range in the Grant Lake basin consists of snow-free sites near escape terrain at mid-altitude. In early spring, sheep sometimes move to lower altitudes into subalpine tree cover, where emergent vegetation appears soon after the snow recedes. Sheep scats were found in open bluejoint meadows as low as I ,000 feet. The most recent survey of the Kenai Peninsula Dall sheep population was conducted in 19 Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Terrestrial Resources Plan 1992, when 1600 sheep were counted by ADF&G (McDonough 2008). Specific Dall sheep surveys are not a component of this study plan because they mainly occur on the higher ridges and slopes above the Project area. Moose are common in the Project area, but were not particularly abundant during the 1981-1982 field studies. Snow depth and a corresponding lack of winter forage limit moose numbers in the Project area. Few moose were documented overwintering in the Project area during the 1981- 1982 studies (AP A 1984 ). The Project area lies within Game Management Unit 7 (GMU 7), which extends from the Resurrection Bay to North of Moose Pass. While little moose monitoring has been conducted, ADF&G estimates moose populations at between 700 and 1,000 in GMU 7 based on harvest information in the Eastern Kenai Peninsula (McDonough 2007). Brown bears are sparsely distributed throughout much of the region surrounding the Project area. During the 1981-1982 field studies, only 16 widely scattered sets of tracks and three individuals, a female with one yearling and a mature individual, were observed. Three units of potential denning habitat were delineated based on sightings of individual bears and their sign at the time of den emergence and on the basis of geomorphic and vegetation characteristics. No more than one or two families and possibly two or three solitary animals would den within the proposed Project area in any given year. The slopes west of Solars and Lark mountains and the bench partitioning Grant and Trail lakes constitute the principal travel routes to and from the Grant Lake valley, although some travel occurs in the pass intersecting the headwater areas of Moose Creek and Snow River. The period of greatest activity during the 1981-1982 studies was the last half of May, coinciding with den emergence and breeding. Few, if any, brown bears resided year-round within the Project vicinity due to lack of food, limited denning habitat, and residential development along the Seward Highway (APA 1984). The State of Alaska developed a Kenai Peninsula Brown Bear Conservation Strategy (ADF&G 2000) to address impacts of human activities on brown bear habitat. Kenai Peninsula brown bears are listed as a Species of Special Concern by the State of Alaska and a MIS species by the USFS. The USFS developed a brown bear denning habitat model to identify potential denning habitat on the Kenai Peninsula (Goldstein et al. 2009). This model predicts that potential denning habitat is abundant on the steep slopes in the Trail River Watershed (USFS 2007). 6.1 Need for additional information Despite the existing information available for the Project area, this is a new Project and data need to be collected to fill gaps in available data on species presence, abundance, distribution, and habitat use in the Project area. Previous baseline data collected for the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project in the 1980s provide a general understanding of wildlife in the region of the proposed Project, but those data are now almost 30 years old and do not provide adequate information on current wildlife use to evaluate potential impacts of the proposed Project. 7 Wildlife Resources Study Methods 7.1 Study Area The wildlife study area includes the area east of the Seward Highway and Alaska Railroad adjacent to Moose Pass, extending past the eastern shoreline of Grant Lake. The study area 20 Kenai Hydro, LLC Drafl2010 Terrestrial Resources Study Plan extends south along the highway to just south of Falls Creek. The study area includes all proposed Project facilities along Grant Lake, Grant Creek, Falls Creek, and the Seward Highway (Figures 1 and 2). 7.2 Field Study Design The Wildlife Resources Study is comprised of four main field based survey efforts: Study Component #1 -Raptor Nesting Surveys; Study Component #2 -Breeding Landbirds and Shorebirds; Study Component #3 -Waterbirds; and Study Component # 4 -Terrestrial Mammals. A review of existing information will be conducted for all three study components as an initial study task. Additional wildlife studies may be recommended as a result of new information that is documented during 201 0 field studies. The field work for the study components will include the following activities: • Conduct an aerial survey for nesting raptors in the Project area • Conduct breeding landbird and shorebird point-count surveys in the Project area • Conduct harlequin duck nesting surveys, waterbird nesting surveys, waterbird brood- rearing surveys and waterbird wintering surveys in the Project area • Conduct an aerial survey for brown and black bear spring den emergence in the Project area • Document incidental observations of moose and other terrestrial mammal locations, habitats, and behavior during all wildlife studies 7.2.1 Study Component #1-Raptor Nesting Surveys Raptor species are included in these studies because of their legal or conservation status, sensitivity to disturbance, and traditional use of nesting territories. All raptors are currently protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712) and bald and golden eagles are afforded special protection under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC, Section 668). Additionally, the northern goshawk and osprey) are listed as USFS Species of Special Interest (SSI) (USFS 2005). A 660-foot buffer around bald eagle nests is recommended to minimize the chances that eagles might abandon an active nest (USFWS n.d.). These laws require any significant development Project to identify and protect current nest sites because many raptor species are susceptible to human disturbance during the nesting season. Determining the location of raptor nests is a critical item that needs to be established to avoid impacts to nesting raptors from other field study events and Project features. The primary objective of the raptor survey is to determine the distribution, abundance, and nesting status of large diurnal raptors in the Grant Lake Project area. The survey effort will focus on protected, sensitive, or high-profile species such as bald and golden eagles, northern goshawks, and ospreys although all raptor species that are observed will be recorded. The objectives of the 2010 rap tor survey include the following: • Locate, identify, and map tree and cliff-nesting raptor nest locations • Compile a comprehensive list of raptor species nesting in and using the Project area • Develop strategies to avoid and minimize impacts to raptors 21 Raptor Survey Area Kenai Hydro, LLC Draft 2010 Terrestrial Resources Study Plan The survey area for raptors includes the proposed development footprint of the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (access roads, transmission line, Grant and Falls Creek, Grant Lake, powerhouse and tunnel) and a buffer of 660 feet around Project development features. Tree- nesting raptor habitats in the Project area include mixed broadleaf/coniferous forests, broadleaf forest, and coniferous forests. Suitable habitats for cliff-nesting raptors are not abundant in the Project area but include several rocky cliff faces and outcroppings above Grant Lake. Potential nesting habitat for raptors was delineated during the AEIDC field studies conducted in the Project area in 1981-1982 (APA 1984) and is shown on Figure 6 -Potential Raptor Nesting Habitat. Raptor Nest Survey Methods A helicopter-based aerial survey will be conducted in all suitable cliff habitats and forested areas in the Project area that could provide nesting habitat for cliff-and tree-nesting raptors. The surveys will generally follow linear routes (i.e., along Grant and Falls Creek, Grant Lake, and along access road and transmission lines) and will include a 660-foot buffer around proposed Project development. The survey will be conducted before deciduous tree leaf-out (early to mid- May). The helicopter will fly a slow and low-level (<150 feet above ground level (agl)) flight pattern during the aerial survey. Two observers will be seated on the same side of the aircraft during the surveys. All suitable nesting habitat will be scrutinized for raptor nests and other signs of occupancy (e.g., aggressive or perched birds). Standard operating procedures for raptor species include searching suitable woodland stands in riparian areas, lakeshores and other suitable habitat. Cliffs and other suitable habitat areas may require multiple passes at different distances and angles to view them sufficiently. When a nest or potential nesting pair is observed, observers will record the location on a USGS map and with a hand-held GPS. The following additional data will be recorded on a data sheet: • Species (if determined, otherwise "unknown") • Number of adults and their behavior (particularly if defensive) • Nest status (inactive or unoccupied, active or occupied, and undetermined) • Tree species or substrate type (cliff, bluff top) • Habitat type (riparian, broadleaf, coniferous) • Nest condition and approximate location on substrate • Height and exposure (for cliff nests) A nest will be recorded as active (occupied) if an adult was observed to be incubating eggs, if eggs and/or young are observed, or if a pair of adults was closely associated with a nest (either exhibiting defensive behaviors near the nest or perched in or adjacent to the nest). A nest will be recorded as inactive (unoccupied) if the nest was located but no adults or signs of nesting activity are obvious. Incidental observations of large mammals and other wildlife will be recorded during the raptor surveys. 22 Figure 6: Potential Raptor Nesting Habitat, 1982 23 Kenai Hydro, LLC Draft 2010 Terrestrial Resources Study Plan ... .-e NORTH o >.... •ooo ...................... ., .... __ _ ,......._........,._ ... ,..._....,._ ... -......-.. ... -.... ..... --~ -. ........... __ ,_..._ ___ ..._._...., ~enai Hudm W: till Kenai Hydro, LLC Draft 2010 Terrestrial Resources Study Plan 7.2.2 Study Component #2 -Breeding Landbirds and Shorebirds Concerns regarding landbirds have increased in recent years because of population declines of neotropical migrants and an increased awareness of threats to landbird populations, both on the breeding and wintering grounds and during migration (Boreal Partners in Flight Working Group 1999; USFWS 2008). Several species of landbirds are listed on the State of Alaska list of Species of Special Concern (ADF&G 1998) and likely occur in the proposed Project area. These include the olive-sided flycatcher, gray-cheeked thrush, Townsend's warbler, and blackpoll warbler. The objective of the breeding landbird study is to collect baseline data on breeding landbirds and shorebirds in the Grant Lake Project area. This information is required for the licensing process and will aid in quantifying and evaluating impacts of loss of breeding bird habitats by development of the proposed hydroelectric Project features. The specific objectives of the breeding landbird and shorebird studies are to: • Determine which species of landbirds and shorebirds use the Grant Lake Project area during the breeding season; • Determine the occurrence and numbers of landbird and shorebird species of conservation concern that occur in the Project area; • Determine the relative abundance and distribution of breeding land birds and shorebirds in the Project area; and • Quantify habitat use by breeding landbirds and shorebirds in the Project area. Breeding Landbird and Shorebird Study Area The study area for breeding landbirds and shorebirds includes the following project areas: • Grant Lake outlet delta area near proposed Tower Intake (includes 500 feet on either side of Tower Intake) • Grant Lake Access Road and Falls Creek pipeline and existing mining road (1 00 feet on either side of the centerline of new road) • Powerhouse and Tunnel ( 100 feet on either side of the centerline) • Transmission Line (includes up to 100 feet on both sides of centerline of Transmission Line) Grant and Falls Creek are not included in the study area for landbirds because it is virtually impossible to detect singing male songbirds along a loud creek corridor. Only the outlet delta area of Grant Lake is included in the study area for breeding landbirds because the forested habitat type along the shoreline of Grant Lake is common in the project area and will be sampled during surveys of the transmission line and access road. In addition, the steep shoreline features would make foot-based point count surveys difficult. All habitat types that are considered potential habitat for landbirds in the Project area will be sampled during the point count surveys. Breeding Landbird and Shorebird Methods Point count surveys for landbirds and shorebirds will be conducted in the Grant Lake Project area in early June 2010. Early June coincides with peak passerine singing and breeding activity in southcentral Alaska. The intent of this survey effort is to sample enough points to ensure that all breeding landbirds in the area are documented and to accurately assess the habitat preferences 24 Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Terrestrial Resources Plan of breeding bird species. Breeding birds will be surveyed using point-count methods based on an established protocol as described in the Alaska Landbird Monitoring System (Handel 2003). Point-count surveys are designed primarily to detect singing male passerine birds defending territories and have become the standard method for surveying breeding landbirds in remote terrain in Alaska (USGS 2006). Point-count locations will be selected within the available habitats in the survey area using aerial photography in the office. The survey points will be selected non randomly in order to make sure that all habitat types evident on the photography are included. Sample points will be located within each habitat type and points will be at least 437 yds (400 m) apart. Pre-selected point-count locations will be found using a GPS receiver. Sample points will be accessed on foot Pre-selected point-count locations may have to be modified slightly in the field due to rough terrain or an inaccessible location. Point-count surveys will be conducted between 0400-1200 h by observers trained in distance estimation and who are experts in identifying birds by sight and song. The point counts will be conducted in standard I 0-minute intervals at each sample point location. All species encountered either visually or aurally will be recorded, as well as the detection mode, behavior, habitat type, and other observations. Data will be collected on a standardized data sheet (Appendix F) and multiple photos of the habitat at each point location will be taken. Point count survey observations will be categorized into distance-estimated categories (e.g. 0-50 m, 50-lOOm, 100-200m) by measuring distance to landmarks on either side of the vocalizing bird by using visual estimation or a laser rangefinder. Habitat types will be categorized in the field to at least level III of the Alaska Vegetation Classification, and further classified to Level IV when possible (Viereck et al. 1992). Incidental observations of wildlife encountered while in transit between surveys points or while conducting surveys for other wildlife will be documented. The surveyors will document and obtain GPS coordinates for incidental sightings of birds of conservation concern, state of Alaska Species of Special Concern, MIS, or SSI species or nest sites that were observed in transit between survey points. 7.2.3 Study Component #3-Waterbirds Waterbird nesting habitat is limited within the Grant Lake Project area. There are no known concentrations of any waterbird nesting or feeding areas within the Project area (AP A 1984; Benoit 2009). Several species of waterbirds that nest in Alaska and have been recorded in the Grant Lake Project area are currently considered of conservation concern for various reasons. These species include the trumpeter swan, harlequin duck, and yellow-billed loon. The harlequin duck may nest along Grant and Falls Creek. Harlequin ducks were formerly listed as a species of special concern by the USFWS. Although their current conservation status is unclear, they are listed in the Sea Duck Joint Venture Species Status Report and are of particular concern to resource agencies (Seaduck Joint Venture 2008; Benoit 2009). Trumpeter swan nesting has not been documented in the Project area (Benoit 2009). Common loons and yellow-billed loons have been observed on Grant Lake and nesting habitat for loons is present on Grant Lake ( AP A 1984; Benoit 2009). Potential nesting habitat for waterfowl was delineated on Grant Lake during the AEIDC surveys conducted in 1981-I 982 and is shown on Figure 7 Potential Nesting Habitat for Ducks. 25 Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Terrestrial Resources Plan In addition to potential nesting habitat for waterbirds, there is an area of Grant Lake that was observed during the 1981-1982 field studies to be ice-free during winter months. This area of open water near the outlet of Grant Lake may provide winter feeding areas for waterbirds (AP A 1984) (Figure 7). The purpose of the waterbird study is to determine the effects of water level fluctuations on waterbird nesting habitat on Grant Lake, Falls Creek and Grant Creek and to determine if winter waterbird feeding areas are present on Grant Lake. For this study, waterbirds are defined as freshwater waterfowl (ducks, geese, swans), shorebirds, gulls, loons, and terns. Waterbird surveys will be conducted during the 2010 field season to determine the distribution and abundance of waterbirds nesting in the Project area. Our specific objectives are to: • Describe species composition of waterbirds using Grant Lake, Grant Creek, and Falls Creek during breeding; • Determine locations of nesting areas for waterbirds to determine effects of potential water level fluctuations on nesting habitat; • Determine the occurrence and numbers of waterbird species of conservation concern that occur in the Project area; and • Determine winter use by waterbirds in open water habitat of Grant Lake Waterbird Study Area The survey area for nesting and wintering waterbirds includes Grant Lake. For nesting harlequin ducks, the survey area includes both Grant and Falls Creeks below the intake or diversion. Waterbird Survey Methods Harlequin Duck Surveys. The purpose of this survey is to determine the location and density of harlequin ducks nesting on Grant and Falls creeks. This information will be used to assess the potential impact that modifications in creek flow may have on harlequin duck nesting habitat. A foot survey of Grant and Falls creeks will be conducted in late June or early July to identify harlequin duck broods and other waterbirds. For each waterbird observation, the following data will be recorded: creek name; species; total number of birds in the group; numbers of pairs, males, and females; number of young; the birds' location (i.e., in the water, creek banks, flying); and a brief description of the creek habitat where the bird was documented. GPS locations of all harlequin duck observations will be recorded. Other species that are encountered along fast moving streams such as common and red-breasted mergansers will be documented. Waterbird Breeding Surveys. The survey methods will vary depending on the potential inundation area that is delineated. Boat-based intense area surveys will be conducted to survey the entire nearshore habitat of Grant Lake in mid-to late June to search for waterbird nests. In addition, any islands, emergent vegetation or other features will be searched for nests. This survey will be conducted by two observers motoring slowly along the lakeshore looking for nests or pairs of waterbirds. Any waterbirds or nests encountered will be identified and the location documented with GPS. For each nest, the following data will be recorded onto a standardized data sheet: vertical distance above the water surface or distance from ground nests to water edge, habitat type (including microhabitat and photo of nest and habitat), and number of eggs (if applicable). 26 ~na_j_ ~ro Environmental Baseline Studies Figure 7: Potential Nesting Habitat for Ducks, 1982 27 Kenai Hydro, LLC Draft 2010 Te"estrial Resources Study Plan Potential Nesting Habitat for Ducks -Oucll-.-o --"-mii -.aH- ... ·-NORTH o ,_..., •.eoo ..... ro; ' ··-... ~enai Hudm W: tiD Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Terrestrial Resources Plan Waterbird Brood-Rearing Survey. A boat-based survey for brood-rearing waterbirds will be conducted in mid-July on Grant Lake. Two observers will circumnavigate Grant Lake in a skiff to identify, count, map, and age broods. Researchers will record the following detailed information for each sighting: number and sex of adults; the number of young and the brood age class; habitat type; and behavior. Winter Waterbird Survey. Winter waterbird surveys will verify whether the outlet of Grant Lake remains ice-free as documented during the 1981-1982 field studies. This area was documented as a winter feeding area for a flock of mallards ( AP A 1984 ). Open water habitat that supports waterbirds on the Kenai Peninsula is limited (Benoit 2009). In order to determine if this area is still being used by waterbirds in the winter, researchers will conduct a snowshoe survey or helicopter overflight of the outlet area of Grant Lake in February or early March 2010 to document waterbird use and the amount of open water habitat available. Surveyors will document species, number of individuals, and percent open water. While transiting to and from Grant Lake, surveyors will document any wildlife species or tracks observed in the Grant Lake Project area. 7.1.4 Study Component #4-Terrestrial Mammal Surveys Approximately 30 species of terrestrial mammals have been documented or are thought to occur in the Grant Lake Project area (APA 1984 ). Mammal surveys for the 2010 studies will focus on moose and brown and black bears, but observations of other species will be recorded incidentally during all wildlife surveys. Bears. Brown and black bears are found throughout the Project area during the spring, summer, and fall. They may be found in a variety of habitat types, but brown bears tend to prefer open habitats, particularly shrub and tundra communities at higher elevations, while black bears tend to prefer forested habitats at lower elevations (APA 1984). Forage resources and denning habitat as determined during 1982 surveys are shown in Figure 8 -Potential Brown Bear Forage Resources and Denning Habitat (APA 1984). The distribution ofboth species ofbears is affected strongly by food availability. Emerging grasses, forbs, and other herbaceous plants are critical foods in spring, whereas spawning salmon and berries are critical foods in late summer. Both species enter dens during October or November and remain there until late April or May, with maternal females entering dens before and emerging later than males. Brown bears tend to den at higher elevations, largely outside of the proposed Project area, but black bears den in tree- covered slopes at both lower and higher elevations (APA 1984). Disturbance to denning bears could result in human/bear conflicts and abandonment of dens and/or cubs. Brown bears are known to den at all elevations, from alpine snow chutes in the Kenai Mountains down to small upland areas scattered around the Kenai Lowlands. Brown bears denning in the Grant Lake Project area could be disturbed by the development of an access road and penstock alignment. The analysis for this study will include a discussion of the potential direct and indirect effects on brown bears resulting from construction of the penstock and access route, as well as the anticipated effects of increased human-wildlife interaction due to use of the new access road. Peak brown bear denning activity in the Grant Lake Project area was documented as mid-May during aerial denning surveys conducted in 1982 (APA 1984 ). A bear den emergence aerial survey will be conducted in early to mid-May 20 I 0 as bears are leaving their dens in the spring 28 Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Terrestrial Resources Plan (before snow melts and leaves emerge in the area). Exact timing of surveys and information regarding existing dens in the area will be determined through coordination with the USFS, USFWS and ADF&G in winter 2010. The den emergence survey will encompass all potential denning habitat in the Project area. The surveyors will fly at a low altitude of 200-400 feet agl with 2 observers and the pilot looking for bears, dens, and tracks. Recently vacated dens will be identified by the characteristic presence of soil over the snow in den entrances and the presence of fresh tracks around dens or trails leading away. The location, species, and number of cubs and adults will be recorded as well as any prominent movement corridors that are visible in the snow. Impacts from increased public access into the Grant Creek drainage area by way of the proposed access road and other project features will be discussed in the technical memorandum. Moose. Moose inhabit the Project area, but were not particularly abundant during 1981-1982 field studies. Figure 9 Moose Range Map shows summer and winter ranges and travel routes, with one travel route identified that crosses the bench between Grant and Trail lakes as documented during the 1981-1982 field studies. Snow depth and a corresponding lack of winter forage limit moose numbers in the Project area (APA 1984). While little moose monitoring has been conducted, ADF&G estimates moose populations at between 700 and 1,000 in the Eastern Kenai Peninsula Game Management Unit 7 based on harvest information (McDonough 2007). No specific surveys for moose are proposed for the 2010 field season, however all observations of moose during 2010 wildlife survey events will be recorded. All incidental observations of moose will include the following data: number of moose, approximate location using a GPS receiver, habitat type observed in, sex and age (if possible), and behavior. 29 Ke!'_ai !:fY9ro Environmental :Ba~s~e~ll~ne~St:!!ud=le:::s~------- Figure 8: Potential Brown Bear Forage Re sources 30 Kenai Hydro, LLC Draft 2010 Terrestrial Resources Study Plan and Brown Bear Forage Resources and Denning Habitat, 1982 For.,. ~"""en and OeMong Hlbttll {/!/) c----o---,...!'YO.... ........ . ~ NORTH o noo •-- ... _._,._ ............. _ .. :.-=.-==::=:::-..: ______ .....,. ____ ,.._..., ~ Denning Habitat , 1982 Kenai Hydro Environmental Baseline Studies 31 Kenai Hydro, LLC Draft 2010 Terrestrial Resources Study Plan Moose Range. 1982 ... NORTH o -·-··- ~ Kenai Hydro, LLC Draft 2010 Terrestrial Resources Study Plan 8 Agency Resource Management Goals Impacts and information needs identified for wildlife and botanical resources (including wetland, riparian, and littoral habitat) include: a need for baseline mapping and field confirmation of existing information regarding wildlife habitat and vegetation cover types; assessment of potential impacts to species with cultural or recreational value and other species of concern (Alaska non-game species, sensitive, rare, threatened or engendered species, etc); impacts related to general Project activity, including potential disturbance to wildlife due to increased human activity in the area; potential for loss of, or increase in, shoreline or wetland habitats used by wildlife species due to lake level rise and increased water surface level fluctuations and potential effects on wildlife, riparian vegetation, and wetlands; need for assessment of potential impacts to sensitive species; potential disturbance to plants and wildlife due to transmission lines or corridor maintenance; and the potential for spread of invasive species during Project construction and operation. 9 Project Nexus A number of impacts to botanical and wildlife resources from Project operations and effects can be estimated. Project operations and effects and their potential impacts are listed in Table 1 below. Table 1. Potential Botanical and Wildlife Resource Impact Issues Related to the Grant Lake/Falls Creek Project Potential Impact Issue Category Potential Impact Issue General Project activity, including air General disturbance (e.g. from helicopter overflights) of and ground disturbance, which may wildlife species during critical life stages. be associated with pre-Project studies, construction and operation. Increased Grant Lake water level Changes in shoreline vegetation, resulting in a fluctuation reduction of vegetation cover around the shoreline. This could also result in a reduction of shelter and habitat for wildlife species. Loss of, or increase in, shoreline habitats used by wildlife species due to lake level fluctuations; resulting effects on wildlife populations. Potential changes in distribution and/or number of fish used by wildlife species. Changes in breeding and rearing habitat and nesting success of waterbirds in Grant Lake and Inlet Creek. Changes in shoreline vegetation due to lake level fluctuation, resulting in an increase in the number and type of invasive plant species. Changes in wetland, riparian, and littoral habitats along Grant Lake, at Inlet Creek and at Grant Creek outlet due to lake level fluctuation. Loss of, or increase in, littoral habitats due to lake level fluctuations. 33 Seasonal flow changes in Grant Creek and Falls Creek Flow changes in Grant Creek and Falls Creek (due to Project operations and potential diversion from Falls Creek) Construction of Intake, Sluiceway, Penstock, and Powerhouse Roads and Transmission Lines Kenai Hydro, LLC Draft 2010 Terrestrial Resources Stu(~y Plan Potential changes in riparian vegetation due to hydrologic changes. Potential reductions in the abundance of fish used by wildlife species. Loss or increase in riparian habitats used by wildlife species due to hydrologic changes; resulting effects on wildlife populations. Changes (reduction) in riparian and littoral wetland habitats due to hydrologic changes in Grant Creek and Falls Creek. Potential Changes in riparian habitat in Grant Creek and adjacent littoral habitat at the mouth of Grant Creek at the narrows between Upper and Lower Trail Lakes due to hydrologic changes. Changes in riparian habitat in Falls Creek may occur due to reduced flows. Loss of existing habitat. Potential disruption of wildlife movement across the bench between Grant Lake and Trail lakes. Introduction of new populations of invasive species. Potential loss of existing riparian, and littoral wetland habitat on the shore of Grant Lake and at the outlet to Grant Creek. ~ntial construction and maintenance impacts on rian habitat of Grant Creek. Construction and maintenance impacts on vegetation. Disturbance to wildlife populations due to initial habitat disturbance and subsequent corridor maintenance. Potential for bird deaths because of collisions with the transmission lines. Potential construction and maintenance impacts on forested/scrub wetlands. 10 Consistency with Generally Accepted Practices Botanical Resources: Mapping techniques and timber stand delineation will follow standard practice used by the Forest Service (Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2409.12) and the Kenai Peninsula Borough, and will employ GIS expertise by HDR staff Timber resource assessments, including stand selection, cruise techniques, calculation techniques, and resource assessments, follow standard practice, guidelines, and regulations used by the Forest Service. The sensitive plant survey and completion of a Biological Evaluation for Plants will follow guidelines and protocols established by the Forest Service. The invasive plant survey will follow guidelines and protocols established by the Alaska Natural Heritage Program and the Forest Service. 34 Kenai Hydro, LLC Draft 2010 Terresll"ial Resources Study Plan Wetland delineation follows regulations and practices established by the US Army Corps of Engineers and the USFWS National Wetland Inventory. Wildlife Resources: The Raptor nesting surveys will follow standard operating procedures for conducting raptor nesting surveys as required by the USFS. Breeding landbird and shorebird surveys bird will be surveyed using point-count methods based on an established protocol as described in the Alaska Landbird Monitoring System (Handel 2003). Point-count surveys are designed primarily to detect singing male passerine birds defending territories and have become the standard method for surveying breeding landbirds in remote terrain in Alaska (USGS 2006). 11 Level of Effort Botanical Resources: Vegetation mapping, field map preparation, field work activity planning, and all other pre-field activities will require approximately twenty days for one person. Timber resource assessment, sensitive plant survey, and invasive plant survey will require approximately five to seven days for two people. Wetland delineation will require approximately five to seven days for two people. Biological Evaluation and technical reporting will require approximately twenty days for one person. Some field supplies will be required, including field forms, safety gear, reference materials, clipboards, pencils, field notebooks, a wetland delineation kit, a plant press, a GPS unit, a digital camera, and logistical support to access work areas. Wildlife Resources: The review of existing wildlife information prior to field work will require approximately fice days for one person. Field map preparation, field work activity planning, and all other pre-field activities will require approximately five days for two people. The raptor nesting survey will require approximately two days for two people. Breeding landbird and shorebird surveys will require approximately six days for two people. Waterbird surveys will require a total of approximately ten days with two people. Bear denning surveys will require approximately two days with two people. Wildlife Technical Reports will require approximately three weeks for one person. Some field supplies will be required, including field forms, safety gear, reference materials, clipboards, pencils, field notebooks, a GPS unit, a digital camera, binoculars, and spotting scope. 11.1 Personnel and Responsibilities Botanical Resources: Person # 1: Botanical Resource Project Lead -TBD Duties: Prepare field logistics, conduct field studies, prepare draft reports, assist in calculations, assist in mapping, prepare final reports, and assist in other tasks as needed. Person #2: Anne Leggett 35 Kenai Hydro, LLC Draft 2010 Terrestrial Resources Study Plan Duties: Review Study Plans; assign field team; conduct field studies; perform quality control reviews on draft reports, maps, and calculations; assist in other tasks as needed. Person #3: Biologist-TBD Duties: Conduct field studies, assist in draft report preparation, assist in calculations, assist in vegetation and wetland mapping, and assist in other tasks as needed. Wildlife Resources: Person # 1 : Wildlife Biologist Sirena Brownlee Duties: Study plan development, prepare field logistics, coordinate with resource agencies, lead for all wildlife field studies, prepare technical reports, and other tasks as needed. Person #2: Senior Wildlife Ecologist--Donna Robertson Duties: Review study plans, provide quality control reviews of technical reports, assist with field studies as needed. Person #3: Field Biologist -Lynn Spencer Duties: Conduct field studies for wildlife and assist in other tasks as needed. 12 Schedule for Conducting the Study Botanical Resources: Vegetation Mapping and Timber Resource Assessment Existing information will be acquired and preliminary maps prepared between April and May 20 I 0, prior to field work in 2010. Timber cruise plot data collection timing is flexible. Plot data can be collected to maximize efficiency with other planned vegetation surveys between late June and late August 2010. The technical memorandum will be prepared in Winter 2010. Sensitive Plant Survey Field surveys will be conducted between mid-July and late August 2010. Data will be compiled and a draft Biological Evaluation for Plants will be prepared in Winter 2010. Invasive Plant Survey Field surveys will be conducted between mid-July and late August 2010. Data will be compiled and a technical memorandum of the results will be prepared in Winter 2010. Wetland Mapping Field surveys will be conducted during the growing season in Summer 2010. Data will be compiled and a wetland report will be prepared in Winter 201 0. • March 20 I 0 Begin vegetation mapping in office. • April201 0-Complete vegetation mapping and begin to prepare for field tasks. • May 20 I 0-Prepare field logistics, including gear and maps. Design field approach for specific study tasks. • June 20 I 0 -Finalize field plans. At the end of the month, begin field tasks. 36 Kenai Hydro, LLC Drafl2010 Terrestrial Resources Study Plan • July 20 I 0 -Perform all field tasks, including timber resource assessment, sensitive plant survey, invasive plant survey, and wetland mapping. Perform daily quality checks on data collected. Download any data as needed. • August 2010-Perform quality control checks on all entered data. Begin to prepare the Biological Evaluation for Plants, final vegetation cover maps, timber resource assessment calculations, and wetland mapping. • Autumn 2010-Prepare all reports, maps, and technical memoranda. Submit to senior scientist for quality review. Complete quality review of all products. • Winter 2010-Prepare final versions of reports, maps, and technical memoranda. Wildlife Resources: Raptor Nesting Surveys The raptor nest surveys will be conducted in early to mid-May 2010. The Raptor Nest Survey Report will be prepared in Summer 2010. Breeding Landbird and Shorebird Surveys The breeding landbird and shorebird surveys will be conducted during the first two weeks of June 2010. Data will be compiled and a draft Breeding Bird Survey Report will be prepared in Fall2010. Waterbird Surveys Harlequin duck surveys will be conducted in late June or early July 2010. Waterbird Breeding surveys on Grant Lake will be conducted in mid to late June 2010. Waterbird brood-rearing surveys on Grant Lake will be conducted in mid-July 2010. Winter waterbird surveys on Grant Lake will be conducted in February or March 2010. The waterbird survey data will be compiled and a draft Waterbird Survey Report will be prepared in Winter 2010. Terrestrial Mammal Surveys A bear den emergence aerial survey will be conducted in early to mid-May 2010. A Terrestrial Mammal Technical Report will be drafted in Winter 2010 and will incorporate all incidental observations of terrestrial mammals and results from the bear denning survey. 13 Provisions for Technical Review Adequate time will be given for technical review of all Terrestrial Resource studies in accordance with the Project schedule. Adjustments to the schedule will be made as needed, as agreed upon by all Project participants. 13.1 Quality Control All field work will be performed to professional industry standards by qualified team members. Senior staff will conduct pre-field work reviews of all study plan components. 37 Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Terrestrial Resources Plan Botanical Resources: All field forms will be reviewed daily if possible, or otherwise within a week of field work completion. Field forms and data entry will be reviewed by a qualified team member. Draft reports, maps, and calculations will be reviewed by a senior scientist. The vegetation type map will be reviewed by a senior scientist. Timber volume and value calculations will be reviewed by a senior scientist for accuracy in calculations, correct use of formulas, and use of current values. Timber cruise results will be checked for accuracy by a qualified team member. Data entry will be checked for accuracy by a qualified team member. The sensitive plant survey results, including the preparation of a Biological Evaluation for Plants, will be reviewed and approved by a senior scientist. Field forms will be checked for accuracy by a qualified team member. All unknown plants will be collected and identified if the populations can support their collection. The invasive plant survey results, including the preparation of a technical memorandum, will be reviewed and approved by a senior scientist. Field forms will be checked for accuracy after completion. Data entry will be checked for accuracy by a qualified team member. All unknown plants from the Project activity area will be collected, identified by a qualified botanist, and preserved as voucher specimens. Wetland field forms and data entry will be checked for accuracy by a qualified team member. Final reports and the delineation map will be reviewed by a senior scientist. Wildlife Resources: The technical reports will be in a form suitable for supporting FERC's National Environmental Policy Act analysis of the proposed Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project. All field forms will be checked for accuracy and completeness at the end of each survey effort. Field forms and data entry will be reviewed by a qualified team member. Draft reports, maps, and calculations will be reviewed by a senior scientist. 38 14 References Kenai Hydro, LLC Draft 2010 Terrestrial Resources Study Plan Alaska Power Authority (APA). 1984. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Detailed Feasibility Analysis. Volume 2. Environmental Report. Rep. from Ebasco Services Incorporated, Bellevue, Washington. ADF&G (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 1973. Alaska's Wildlife and Habitat. Juneau, AK. I vol. ADF&G (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 1998. Alaska Species of Special Concern (Effective November 27, 1998). Available at: http://www .adfg.state.ak.us/special/esa/species _ concem.php. Accessed July 13, 2009 ADF&G. 2000. Kenai Peninsula brown bear conservation strategy. Juneau, Alaska. June 2000. 42 pp. Baker, B. 0. 2005a. Biological Evaluation for Plants, Grant Lake Wildlife Habitat Improvement Project. USDA Forest Service, Seward, AK. Baker, B. 0. 2005b. Grant Lake Wildlife Habitat Improvement Project, Noxious Weed Report. USDA Forest Service, Seward, AK. Bella, E. 2009. Predicting invasion through species identity, habitat, or trail use levels in southcentral Alaska. Invasive Plant Science and Management, in review. Bella, E. 2006. Biological Evaluation for Plants, Crown Point A TV Adventures Proposal. USDA Forest Service, Seward, AK. Bella, E. 2004. Victor Creek Fuel Reduction Environmental Assessment. USDA Forest Service, Seward, AK. Benoit, M. A. et al. 2005. Trail River Landscape Assessment. USDA Forest Service, Seward, AK. Benoit, M.A. 2009. Personal communication with Sirena Brownlee discussing wildlife studies conducted by the USFS in the Grant Lake Project area. September 30. BPIFWG (Boreal Partners in Flight Working Group). 1999. Landbird conservation plan for Alaska biogeographic regions, Version 1.0. Unpublished report, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. 45pp. (http://www .absc. usgs.gov /researchlbpif/priority _ spp.html ). Caveney, S. & N. McCusker. 2005. Grant Lake Wildlife Habitat Improvement Project, Vegetation and Fuels Report. USDA Forest Service, Seward, AK. DeVelice, R.L, C.J. Hubbard, K. Boggs, S. Boudreau, M. Potkin, T. Boucher and C. Wertheim. 1999. Plant community types of the Chugach National Forest: south-central Alaska. USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest, Alaska Region Technical Publication RIO-TP-76. Anchorage, Alaska. 375 p. 39 Kenai Hydro, LLC Draft 2010 Terrestrial Resources Study Plan DeVelice, R. 2004. Non-Native Plant Inventory: Kenai Trails. RlO-TP-124. USDA Forest Service, Anchorage, AK. Duffy, M. 2003. Non-native Plants ofthe Chugach National Forest. RlO-TP-111. USDA Forest Service, Anchorage, AK. Goff, F.G., G.A. Dawson, and J.J. Rochow. 1982. Site examination for threatened and endangered plant species. Environmental Management, Vol. 6, No.4. pp. 307-316. Goldstein, M. 1., A. J. Poe, L. H. Suring, R. M. Nielson, and T. L. McDonald. 2009. Brown bear den habitat and winter recreation in south-central Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management: In Press Handel, C. 2003. Alaska Landbird Monitoring System Protocol for Setting up and Conducting Point Counts. USGS Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, Alaska. Holden, T. 2005. Grant Lake Wildlife Habitat Improvement Project, Scenic Resources Report. USDA Forest Service, Seward, AK. Kenai Hydro, LLC. 2009. Pre-Application Document. Grant Lake/Grant Creek and Falls Creek Project (FERC No. 13211 and 13212). Malony, P. 2005. Grant Lake Wildlife Habitat Improvement Project, Watershed/Soils Report. USDA Forest Service, Seward, AK. McDonough, T. 2007. Unit 7 moose management report. Pages 110-115 in P. Harper, editor. Moose management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2005-30 June 2007. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Juneau, Alaska. McDonough, T. 2008. Units 7 and 15 Dall sheep management report. Pages 1-7 in P. Harper, editor. Dall sheep management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2004 -30 June 2007. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Juneau, Alaska. Oja, W. 2004. Fiscal year 2005 Chugach National Forest Hazardous Fuels Program White Paper. December 8. USDA Forest Service, Anchorage, AK. Selinger, J. 2009. Personal communication with Donna Robertson discussing wildlife studies conducted by ADF&G in the Grant Lake Project area. March 18. Seaduck Joint Venture. Sea Duck Information Series. Accessed at http://www.seaduckjv.org/infoseries/hard_sppfactsheet.pdf, October 8, 2009. Stensvold, M. 2002. Sensitive Plants, Chugach National Forest, July 2002. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center. 2007. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Alaska Region (Version 2.0). Vicksburg, MS. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Laboratory (USACOEEL). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Vicksburg, MS. USDA Forest Service (USFS). 1995. Forest Service Manual. Part 2600 -Wildlife, Fish, and Sensitive Plant. Habitat Management, WO Amendment 2600-95-7. Effective 6/23/95. Chapter 2670 -Threatened, endangered, and sensitive plants and animals. 40 Kenai Hydro, LLC Draft 2010 Terrestrial Resources Study Plan USDA Forest Servcie. 2002. Timber Cruising Handbook. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/cgi-bin/Directives/get dirs/fsh?2409.12! .. USDA Forest Service (USFS). 2002. Revised Land and Resource Management Plan: Chugach National Forest. Alaska Region, Chugach National Forest. Rl0-MB-480c. May 2002. USDA Forest Service (USFS). 2003. Grant Lake Vegetation Surveys-August 2003, Summary Results. USDA Forest Service (USFS). 2004. Grant Lake Wildlife Survey -5-6 September 2004. USDA Forest Service (USFS). 2005a. Trail River Landscape Assessment 2005. USDA Forest Service. 2005b. Final Environmental Impact Statement and Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Chugach National Forest. Available at: http://maps.fs.fed.us/chugach/. Accessed June 12, 2009. USDA Forest Service. 2007a. Kenai Winter Access Environmental Impact Statement. Rl 0-MB- 595. USDA Forest Service, Anchorage, AK. USDA Forest Service. 2007b. Trail River Landscape Assessment. USDA Forest Service, Seward, AK. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern. Accessed at http://www .fws.gov /migratorybirds/N ewReportsPublications/SpecialT opics/BCC2008/B CC2008.pdf on 9/3/09. USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2006. Alaska landbird monitoring survey. Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, AK. (http://www.absc.usgs.gov/researchlbpif/Monitor/alms2.html). Viereck, L. A., C. T. Dymess, A. R Batten and K. J. Wenzlick. 1992. The Alaska vegetation classification. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical Report PNW- GTR-286. 278 pp. 41 Appendix A Alaska Region Sensitive Plant List .... _ ••• ... .. .... ... .. .. ... i -" . .. ... ,_ . • • • -.. • .. ... I -...... • " .... -..... • • .. .. ._ ... • • • • I .... ..... .... . . " ·-•••• • • • ·-at••• •• .. . " ........ • •• •• .. " . -••••• .. .. • --"' "'"" --"" --.. .. .. ___ )( .. -"' .. ... ~-.. "' .... __ .. -.. .... _ .. .. l .. .. .. .. --== I I -·-.. .. I --.. ... I -.. I --.. .. " _ ... I -·--"= ...... .. --·-...... "' ... --.. ~II( .lit J ---... -= " " ! I I I t I I 't I I ·l~i 1ltrl ~1 1 I J lllllllllailiillll I I I I M !u1 1,1111 rl,l ioo..-llllllllllllllllll Appendix B Procedures for Sensitive Plant Biological Evaluations PRE-FIELD REVIEW WORKSHEET FOR SENSITIVE PLANTS Biological Evaluation for Sensitive Plants USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region (Revised Feb. 2009) In some cases this document can serve as a Biological Evaluation (BE) PROJECT NAME (from Project Initiation Form, insert here): PROJECT DESCRIPTION (from Project Initiation Form, include description of vegetation types, insert here): LOCATION (from Project Initiation Form, insert here): SENSITIVE PLANTS KNOWN: Check maps (GIS, herbarium databases, ANHP records, floras, hand-made), contact the Regional Botanist, Forest/District Botanists/Ecologists. Document sources of information. Record the plant's habitat, location and distance from the Project area: Species: Location: Date of records search: SENSITIVE PLANT HABITAT & SENSITIVE PLANTS SUSPECTED IN THE PROJECT AREA: A) Obtain habitat information from people familiar with the Project area, Project proponent, GIS ( eg. soil map units, timber types, channel type covers), aerial photo interpretation, and/or site visits. Highlight methods used. Highlight or underline the following habitats that are likely to occur in the Project area: coniferous forest, deciduous forest, mixed conifer/deciduous forest, dwarf tree forest, forest edge, tall shrublands, low shrublands, rocky areas, rock outcrops, ridgetops, cliffs, serpentine, calcareous areas, gravel, scree, talus, boulder fields, seeps, wet areas, riparian areas (give channel type, if known), streambanks, waterfalls, lake margins, ponds, shallow freshwater, marshes, swamps, estuaries, sphagnum bogs, fens, heath, subalpine meadows, alpine, area dominated by moss or lichen, dry meadows, moist-wet meadows, upper beach meadows, grasslands, maritime beaches, sandy areas, other (describe here). B) Using your knowledge of sensitive plant habitat needs, or any other sources, indicate the plants (R-1 0 sensitive plants listed below) suspected that correspond to the above habitats (highlight them below): Aphragmus eschscholtzianus Ligusticum calderi Botrychium spathulatum Lobaria amplissima Botrychium tuma Papaver alboroseum Botrychium yaaxudakeit Piperia unalascensis Cochlearia sessilifolia Platanthera orbiculata Cirsium edule var. macounii Polystichum kruckebergii Cypripedium guttatum Romanzoffia zmalaschcensis Cypripedium montanum Sidalcea hendersonii Cypripedium parv~florum var. pubescens Tanacetum bipinnatum subsp. huronense Appendix C Pre-Field Review Form, Sensitive Plant Survey Form, and Sensitive Plant EO Form PRE-.FIELD RE\lEW WORKSHEET FOR SENSD1\"E PL-\.NTS Bi.olopcal E\-alutiu for s....sitm Plots tTSD.-\ Fonst Seniu. Alaska R~poa (Rnisrd Feb. 2009) In some cases this docummt am se.nre IS a Biological Evaluation {BE) PllOJECT :NA.UE (i'om Pn1jt!ct llli1illtiGil Farm, imen lim!): PllOJECT DESCJUPTIQN (flom Plvjea llliliatii:Jil Fana. iDcl1lde clesaipcioll of vtp!tlliQIIII)'pi!S, iu!n 111m!): SENSI'l'IVE PL\llfi"S ENOWN: C'lll!d 1DipS (GIS, llerbllliam dmbuu, ANBP l1!alll:ds, fllns, ~). coaiXt lb! ~ Bolaist, FansziDisll:ict ~psts.. Dcx:aalem soart:e of iJtfornwriqp Record lb!plm(s laabilal, loa1ioll md disaDI:• *-lb! project-: SENSll'l\"E I'I.ANT BABJ.'IAT A SENSiln"E IIAlii'1S SUSPECI'ED IN TBE PJtOJECT AREA.: A) Ol:llllilllllbi1llt jn1inwlicw i'om l*'Jiil! fi1mi1i1r widliM praj111:t -, prajiiCt JllllliCIIIB1, GIS (•J !lail1111J1aait5, 1i:!11b1!r types, clllmle1 typR aM!n), ..w pllalo ~ mdiCII'-vism. HiPJilbr Jlll!lllods usad. BicllliPt• 111111a1iM llllt...,....lllllitlll5 818t.-e li'II:I!IJ •-ia lllit)ll'ejett .... : cOIIiisvlls fiRst, ~ fanl!ll, miRd. caEi!rld«iillaDDI!! ilnst, dlnaf IDI! fllftst, liansledce, laD ~low sllnlllluds, mcky--. rod; GUial1p5, ~ diffs, !lll!lpalille, ~ II'BS, Pll\'1!1, ICift, lalla, bollkll!r fields, S8llp5, ... .-, lipuim -(r;ive cm..l!Jpe, n-.), SUIIIIIIIIbllib Wlllll:lidl5, lake -Pas, pmlds, llilllklw fr8slnna', mmlll5, Sllllllllp5, t!5lllll1ll5, -~blip, 1m, Md,lllbllpiae---. .... -claalillllllld by-Cll' lit:'bi!B, dly-.rllnrs, Jlllllisl..- ~ 1IIIPC belc.ll-*'ws, I!DSsl.ads. IIIEitime budl!s, smdy mas, odB" (cll!!aile lllre) ., c.diiMrir s.tmiljlllia Cl'l:mlllt ..... \'Jr.-- ll:flll/lllll1lt p__.~ l'iJMritl~ P,._lwnl~ ~.-. ~ Endos~1 1)5~1):8 USDA FOREST SERVICE 2008 PLANT SURVEY FIELD FORM (® = Reqlllin!d Fields e = A1asb Rlequftd) ~J-. Geoerallnf011118tion 122 IMVEY NAME: 3t S~ STATUI: 8 14lTAitGET:. TESP: INPA• 80nt ISl SOURcE OF WORK.: Gt Sumw TVDe: 8 . 7) Sumw Focus:. II Eslimale f1l Survey ~ .. Sile laoresl: ht)No.GIT..__: 10) Ell!viltion: Min: Max: A~: 111) EleYidion UOM: 12} Sf..lll.o: 8 13) Courtly: • 14) Reaian:. 151 Fo.-t:8 16) District: e 17) Pilr.lml!'flers Gl Survey (DNaile any~ pil/lilfllltlle ~ aiil!tia or~ aflt!Ne IMd lo tlocus 11M! l!UM!Y· (I.e., norltl ~ :spNfil: habitat fW*!, CE'I'Iai1 $011 llllill'li'l cetta1on florNt COIIdiliDtJs, -..y firnoilg, et::.}: 18) Survey eor-.ts {Dirf!c:lionB, iV'INi ~ apeci1ic comments by IIRiit dale, etc.}: St.wvey Visits Rlll!quired. Enter I Date (MMlDDIYYYY) aDd Exomainrn mr each \isit made. 11) YllfT DATE 8 September 2008 E~2 R1 0 TES PLANT ELEMENT OCCURRENCE -AELD FORM-USDA FOREST SERVICE 12108 • = IWqUftd field. • = cardiDMIIr requilwl field. e•!Wqllftd li8d Alaa Regian General Information 1) SITE ID:@) IZDATE:® (3) SI'TE NAME: I~ NRCS PlAJfT COllE:@) l5l 5aEif11FIC NAME : @) 161 REcORD SOURCE: @) In sURVEY 10: • Ill Survev "-te: 9) EXIMNER(I}-LAIT:@) I FIRST:@) 1 MmDLE MTIAL: LAIT: I FIRST: I MmDLE NnAL.: 10) OWiffRitW':@) lu 1 L.oc. u.-t e (12) Uncert. Dist: .. 13)E.0 .• (1.C)STATE:®" (15) COUNTY: @J" 161 REGIOM: ®" (17) foREIT: @J" (18) DllllUCT:. 19)AIH.(Est): f201 ArN UOII: ®" 2tl CMioPY Cover .a.itlod @J" fcirde one): COYER PERCENT· DAIJIIEN· NIIIICOV Element Occurrence Data 22) EO CillnODv Coww: ~"'IICc:N: «Cover Class Code: 1231 Lmfonn: U) Number of sub s : .,25) Plilnt Found ~Revisit): YH or No 26lPI..t Count:® I271Count Tvoe :~~ed (281Count: &4cfu;tlor &~ 29) Revisit Meded -Yes or No 1301 Rftisit o•= 31) Revisit .Jatstificaion: 32J"henoloay.., ~ 33) Populiltion C-.nls: {I!.D~ distrilulian, vigor. densily. phenology. chpersal) tsum liD 100.}: Veg~MattYe ••••• _ F'low81Bud ••• -:MJ E~ af disN5e, competition, prMation, c ~tillft, trampling, or FruiWDispersed . -hettlivol,.. v .. _ .. ..,_ Seedingsl 35) Evide11ce c-.ents: .luw!nie ....... - 361 Pollirwltor ob5efwd-Yes or No 371 Pollinator tvDelsl: 38) PolllirYtof" Cllllllllenls: Site Morphometry Mcudinal: : ... -........,. G)S..UOII:8' Min: Soil Chanlderistics and Uaht Conditions 4t) Subsba ... which EO CICCUI'll: e) Pared ....W: ,.,Sail~: I Q)SaiiTalur'e: .. , Sail Type: ,., Liaht &posu .. : .. DU/1812008 P-a-1 of5 Appendix D AKEPIC Mapping Project Inventory Field Data Sheet n s-.vey Date: __ 1__J. __ '"Observers: -------.--------------- mm/ dd IWW LMI~ Fht ,_,..ln&L (e.g.: S'IIIWJ, J.; WlliMJa, R} Observers Affiliation: (cft:le one) AKNHP ARS BLM q'S NPS SCS 5CWD TECI UAF USFS USFWS USGS OCher A. Site lnfonnation "Sile Code: VISit Type: R199" Mqrjlgrim R=:mb Cm!rpl lslhis a Revisit: .:tr:::i...lils "Study Type: Exhaustiy! Species Inventory Highest Priority species Single Species sludy "ArM~ - (He*!: 1110-=-37fttw:lius,112-.. 83ftr.dius.1111ft= 118ft.-.dius) ~~~~~----c-~--~~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: B. Location Information ~=·--------------~~-----------~--------~· NcU: Da11111 is MAD U Mel Coantin• F-•Js tleai.-1 ...... (·148.1234er) -"CoiKiion Melhod (cRIR one ~ oarnplete dltllih): GPS 15 min tcpo Aen.l phD1D ~ Oltw QuM name QIIMI number f .... A.1, B2.C3. 04) -------- ~pec:i!iion It (0-6.1J..30. B-100. B-1000. 1000+) 115 min T!?F!!V!!It!;c Mep was used: Source Scllle D.tllle -------- C. Survey lnfoonation ~Piart "lnfesled "'-"Cancpy Dis1urbance Stem "Colection Conlrol Species (MRS) ec-r AGe Count lnlormatian Action ~leSS Code ~belcwrJ (Yrs.) (aee (aee (aeebelotir} (see below) r-~ (_,..., I;.,., (_,__, below I 0. Notes tspecles): Appendix E Wetland Determination Form-Alaska Region WETl.JUID DE'J"ER-.ATION DATA FORM-Naslc.a Region ~: ____________ Domugi\'CIJ: _______ SilqlllngDa!: ___ _ ~ ~Pih: ___ _ ~~ -------------LinCIIIlrm (lll.a.!.l!ll'al:e.IUT'r'IIOI:II&, 1!11:.~--------- UICill .-r 1-. CDIM!II. rme): SIDpe !%): __ _ ~: ________ Lil: _____ l.flng: __ -;;;;;;;:;;;;;;;;:-can: ___ _ SalllllllplMIName.: NWIC1iM111310!1: -------- M. c:llllliii:J ~ IDIC8ln5 01111! liiii!IJPICilllllr llllllme rll)"Yf? Ye6 __ NO __ (If 1'10. eiJlliln In Rl!l'rlall&.) M.Wgl!ti8ill___, Sail____, IW ~--~ diiU'IieG? M. Wg!!ti81n_ Sali-m~ _NIInly pllllll!male? Ne~~~ Ye6 __ NO __ (If neeciiKI. ..., II'IJ -~~~ Al!na!IL) SUIIIIARY OF fllmiNGS -A1tach sie map slxMing samplng pointlocalions. transects, impoltant features. etc. ~Vegetilllll PN&ent! .,.._No_ ......... Aile H!diiC sat "'-!!? Yer;_NO_ ...... Wli4IIIMI'? YM Nil 'lllll!llilnd ltJIIOia!lr Pn!Mnl? Yer;_ NO_ -- -- Re!NI'IIIi: VEGETATION-Use scientific niMM5 d plants. List al species in 1he plot. AbliOIUE IJIIIImft lriiiCi1lor ~™ DM:Mf'm ~ .lilllillll! ....... ~rllllllll*lilll SpeciK 1. ---lNI M. OIL FN!W, Of FAC. (A) 2. ------TIIIIIIUIIIII!I' rll DOftlil'l l. ------Spi!CIK~MSir.lllll: (B) ... ---PeRienl 0/I:ICIMNn Spi!l::le6 Tlll3 QM!r:_ lNI M. Qllll, FN!W, Of FAC. (AlB) SalllnD'SIIn.ll SlnUft ~0/llltiiiiXWII!r:_ 2ll'Ao rlliEJiiiiCCM!I"-.... 1. Tlllill'!l. CINi!f Df. M1811V!!J; ------Ofll&peae& z1- 2. ---FltCW...-:12• 3. ---FN:.&peae5 :13-... ---FACU&peae5 .... 5. ---------UPI.. .... xs-6. ------ Tlllii!QM!r:_ t::olllm Tala: (A) (81 Her!! Pi!Mn 511'11. rlllalallDB:-20'11. 01111111 CVIII!r-I'I1!V1III!ncl! ll'llla • BIA • 1. ----------DOII!I-Tl!llll& >60'4 2. ---------Pl'evlllel1l» lndel a s3Jl 3. -----~AIIilptiiiDnli' ~~ ... ----In Alllninli 0101101 M(JIIilll!llll!l!l} 5. ----I'Rlbl-H}OqlllylcVl!gl!lliiDn' (Ellplalni 6. --------- 7. ---------'lnlleani OIIIJIIIIC 101 and lll!lli1nd h)'lroiOgy 11'111! 3. be paeiiii'IIBA ~Of fiRICIII!IniiiC ---9. ---10. ---Tlllill QM!r: --- 511'!1. 0/lalallDB: ---20'11. aiiiiiii~XMK: ___ IIJihlllrJIC Plat &a (filldlli. Of~ llllliSII '!l.llift GIIIUnd :::'::n %CIM!rOI'IIIII!IIilnd~ rca eo-rlllir)'llllllrll! 'YM --No --(Wilen! <JAIIICillll!) Rtm.illlili: Appendix F Point Count Data Form Point Count-Area Search Data Form Surveyors: DatefTime: Point#: Tide Cycle: Site Conditione Precipitation (none, approx. Air Temperature (" F) Habitat Description (Viereck Veg. in/hour) Type): % Cloud Cover: O=no Wind: O=calm, 1=1ight breeze, 2=moderate breeze , 3=strong clouds, 1=1ess than 50%, breeze, 4=too windy for survey 2=50%, 3=more than 50%, Notes: 4=100% Obeerv•ttone Flyover Status: Comments: (include Detection status: Breeding F=Fiying over or information such as sex, adults Species Number of Distance from Singing (S), Calling (C), Status: through site, with food, mobbing behavior, individuals observer Confirmed (c), FA=Fiew away, pair interactions, nest building I Visual (V), Drumming (D) Probable (p) Fl=flew in, activity, feeding, resting and, c___ __ ~ - - FS=Soaring predator avoidance) -_i Grant Lake/Grant Creek and Falls Creek Project (FERC No. 13211 and 13212) Cultural Resources Draft 2010 Study Plan Prepared for: Kenai Hydro, LLC Suite 1234 A Street, Suite 200 Anchorage, AK 99503 HDR Alaska, Inc. 2525 C Street, Suite 305 Anchorage, AK 99503 15 October 2009 Grant Lake/Grant Creek and Falls Creek Project (FERC No. 13211 and 13212) Cultural Resources Draft 2010 Study Plan Prepared for: Kenai Hydro, LLC Suite 1234 A Street, Suite 200 Anchorage, AK 99503 Prepared by: ._\.'L_..-y) '"f~~ ~~ ;;? ~ HDR Alaska, Inc. 2525 C Street, Suite 305 Anchorage, AK 99503 15 October 2009 Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Cultural Resources Plan Contents 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 4 2 Goals and Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Study Goals ............................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Study Objectives ........................................................................................................................ 5 3 Existing Information and Need for Information ............................................................................. 5 3.1 Existing Information: Literature Review ................................................................................... 5 3.2 Potential for cultural resources .................................................................................................. 8 4 Methods ............................................................................................................................................... 9 4.1 Study Area ................................................................................................................................. 9 4.2 Consultation .............................................................................................................................. 9 4.3 Subsistence and Cultural Use Study ........................................................................................ 10 4.4 Historical and Archaeological Field Study Design ................................................................. 10 4.4.1 Cultural Resources Evaluation ..................................................................... ll 4.4.1 Data Analysis ................................................................................................... 12 S Project Nexus ...................................................................................................................................... 12 6 Quality Control ................................................................................................................................. 16 7 Personnel and Responsibilities ........................................................................................................ 16 8 Schedule for Conducting the Study ................................................................................................ 16 9 References ......................................................................................................................................... 17 Tables Table 1 Cultural resource surveys completed within 1 mile of proposed APE ........................................... 6 Table 2 Previously recorded cultural resource located within proposed APE ............................................. 6 Table 3 Cultural Resource located within 1 mile of proposed APE ............................................................ 7 Table 4 Potential Cultural Resource Impact Issues Related to the Grant Lake/Falls Creek Project.. ........ 12 Figures On or following page Figure 1 Study Area Figure ........................................................................................................................ 13 Figure 2 Area of Potential Effect (APE), based on 740ft. contour ........................................................... 14 Figure 3 Aerial view of APE ..................................................................................................................... 15 ADF&G AEIDC AHRS APA AWC BLM oc cfs em CPUE DNR EPA FERC FL fps ft G&A GPS GWh HEP IFIM in KHI KHL KPB kWh LLC mg/L Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Cultural Resources Plan List of Acronyms Alaska Department of Fish 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 of Natural 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 11 mi MIF mm MSL MW MWh NWI O&M RM RVDs TL TWG US ACE USFS USFWS USGS YOY mile minimum instream flow millimeter Mean sea level Megawatt Megawatt hours National Wetlands Inventory Operations & maintenance river miles 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 111 Kenai Hydro, LLC Draft 2010 Cultural Resources Study Plan 1 Introduction Kenai Hydro, LLC Drafl2010 Cultural Resources Study Plan Kenai Hydro LLC contracted with HDR Alaska, Inc. to provide baseline data to support Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license applications for a proposed hydroelectric project at Grant Lake near Moose Pass, Alaska. The Grant Lake Project is considered a federal undertaking under Section I 06 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) because it involved the acquisition of a license from a federal agency, i.e., FERC. An undertaking is defined as a "project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a Federal agency, including those carried out by or on behalf of a Federal agency; those carried out with federal financial assistance; those requiring a Federal permit, license or approval; and those subject to State or location regulations administered pursuant to a delegation or approval by a Federal agency" (36CFR 800.16(y)). The project area is described as encompassing the following locations, as measured from the Seward Base Line and Meridian, on the following USGS (I :63,360) quadrangles: • Seward C-7, T5N, RlE, Sections 27, 28, 28, and 30 • Seward C-6, T5N, RlE, Sections 26 and 27 • Seward B-7, T5N, RlW, Section 36; T5N, RlE, Sections 27-34; T4N, RlW, Sections 1 and 12; T4N, RlE, Sections 3-8 • Seward B-6, T5N, RlE, Sections 26, 27, 34, 35, and 36; T4N, RlE, Sections I -3 2 Goals and Objectives The overarching purpose of the cultural resources study is to provide information on cultural resources in the Project area to meet requirements of Section 106 and to provide information sufficient to evaluate potential Project impacts. The goals of the 2010 cultural resources field effort were identified following a literature review, research, and consultations conducted during 2009. Study goals and objectives are described below. 2.1 Study Goals The goal of the study is to provide FERC with cultural resources data to fulfill its Section 1 06 responsibilities and to make determinations of eligibility of cultural resources encountered during the 201 0 field season, in support of the KHL' s effort to submit a license application for the proposed Project. • Determine if historic properties are present in the proposed project APE. • Determine if the project will have an effect on identified historic properties (i.e., those cultural resources evaluated and recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP). • Determine if additional investigations are necessary for evaluation of historic properties, and to determine recommendations on potential mitigation and consultation strategies in resolving any possible adverse effects. 4 Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Cultural Resources Plan • Determine if sites of cultural significance are present in the proposed project APE. • Determine what subsistence activity occurs in the proposed project APE. • Determine if the project will have an effect on either sites of cultural significance or subsistence activity. 2.2 Study Objectives The objectives of the 20 l 0 cultural resources study program are • To consult with concerned Tribal entities, USFS, FERC, and SHPO regarding sites of archaeological, historical, or cultural significance and subsistence activities in the proposed project APE. • To obtain an Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) permit from USFS for cultural resources surveys conducted on forest land. • To obtain state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) permit for cultural resource surveys conducted on DNR land. • To conduct a pedestrian survey in the proposed Area of Potential Effect (APE). • To conduct sub-surface shovel tests in areas identified as high probability for containing potential cultural resources in the APE, and verifying boundaries of previously recorded sites, as appropriate. • To evaluate potential cultural resources for eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and prepare Determinations of Eligibility (DOE) for all potential historic properties located within the proposed project APE. • To prepare a Finding of Effect (FOE) for FERC submittal to consulting parties. 3 Existing Information and Need for Information Existing information regarding project area cultural resources comes from studies conducted as part of previous licensing efforts, resource agency records, and from licensing studies conducted during 2009 as part of this licensing effort. 3.1 Existing Information: Literature Review A total of thirteen cultural resources studies have been completed within one mile of the proposed Grant Lake and Grant Creek project area, resulting in the identification of thirty-nine historic properties. A total of nine historic properties fall within the proposed project area. One of these properties, the Solars Sawmill along Grant Lake at the head of Grant Creek, has been previously determined not eligible for listing in the NRHP. The Case Mine (Grant Lake Placer Mine), on the north side of Grant Lake, has previously been determined eligible for listing in the NRHP. The remaining seven recorded historic properties 5 Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Cultural Resources Plan within the proposed project area have not been formally evaluated for listing in the NRHP. Recorded historic properties identified in the area primarily relate to historic logging and mining activities, and the early historic settlement of the Kenai Peninsula. Table I Cultural resource surveys eompleted within I mile of proposed APE. AHRS Citation No. Survey Name/Description Reference 3931 Moose Pass Prescribed Bum Project Alden 1996a Not Applicable Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Arndt 1982 3932 Moose Pass Prescribed Bum Project Vinson 1997 4435 Moose Pass Prescribed Bum Project Schick 2005a 3930 Moose Pass Prescribed Bum Project Alden 1996b 6976 Evaluation of Case Mine Bruder 2002 6878 Evaluation of Crown Point Mine Bruder 2003 3889 Crown Point Mine Petroleum Removal White 2001 6853 Closure of ad its at Crown Point and Largaespada 2003 Nearhouse Mines 4033 Cultural Resources Monitoring at Grant Gilliam 1999 Lake Placers, Case Mine 3894 Inventory of Mull Cabins and Case Mines Nelson 2002a 3895 Inventory of Mull Cabins and Case Mines Nelson 2002b 4435 Grant Lake Wildlife Habitat Improvement Schick 2005b Table 2 Previously recorded cultural resource located within proposed APE. AHRSNo. Site Name Description Eligibility SEW-Solars Sawmill Collection of wooden structures, operated Determined Not 00258 between 1920-1941 Eligible SEW-Case Mine (Grant Lake Cabin, bunkhouse, and 4 associated structures, Determined Eligible 00659 Placer Mine) 1900-l940s SEW-Upper Trail Lake Pole and beam garage ruins No Determination of 00678 Garage Eligibility SEW-Grant Lake Cabin Frame cabin, dating to historic prospecting, No Determination of 00768 mining, hunting, or trapping Eligibility SEW-Grant Lake Prospect Prospecting pit with channel or ditch No Determination of 00822 Eligibility SEW-North Grant Lake Cabin No Determination of 00823 (Case Mine Dynamite Log cabin/dynamite storage for area mines Eligibility Shack) 6 AHRSNo. SEW- 01142 SEW- 01143 SEW- 01144 AHRSNo. SEW- 00024 SEW- 00029 SEW- 00097 SEW- 00098 SEW- 00140 SEW- 00148 SEW- 00192 SEW- 00251 SEW- 00573 SEW- 00580 SEW- 00581 SEW- 00582 SEW- 00583 SEW- 00584 SEW- 00585 SEW- 00586 Kenai Hydro, LLC Draft 2010 Cultural Resources Study Plan Table 2 Previously recorded cultural resource located within proposed APE (cont.). Site Name Description Eligibility USFS No available information No Determination of Eligibility USFS No available information No Determination of Eligibility USFS No available information No Determination of Eligibility Table 3 Cultural Resource located within I mile of proposed APE. Site Name Description Eligibility Moose Pass RR Station Established in early 20th century No Determination of Eligibility Alaska Railroad Constructed between 1915-1923 Nomination closed Christainsen Roadhouse Built by Oscar Christainsen and Mickey Natt No Determination of in 1909. tom down in 1941 Eligibility Estes Brothers Store Erected in 1934 by Frank Hilo Determined Not (Hilo Roadhouse) Eligible Crown Point Mine Trail Switch-back trail connecting Crown Point No Determination of Mine to Falls Creek Mine Trail Eligibility Seward-Moose Pass Trail dating to prehistoric use; also part of Nomination Pending Trail Iditarod Trail Crown Point Mine Complex of building ruins, tramways, mining Determined Not equipment, tailings, and shafts Eligible Moose Pass-Portage Portion of the Iditarod Trail that runs from No Determination of Moose Pass to Portage Eligibility Moose Pass Military Connecting road for the Iditarod Trail, Determined Not Road constructed by AK RR 1909-1912 Eligible Lyle Saxon House Framed cottage, associated with dates 1929-Determined Eligible 1948 Wood's Cabin No available information Determined Not Eligible Racine Cabin No available information Determined Not Eligible Loucher/T olsten Cabin Mining cabin, 1929-1948 Determined Eligible Hilo House Small frame cottage, dating to 1929-1948 Determined Eligible Christensen Mink Pens No available information Determined Not Eligible Stafford House and No available information Determined Not Garage Eligible 7 Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Cultural Resources Plan Table 3 Cultural Resource loeated within 1 mile of proposed APE (cont.). AHRSNo. Site Name Description Eligibility SEW-First School No available information Determined Not 00587 Eligible SEW-Vern Saxton Cabin No available information Determined Not 00588 Eligible SEW-Estes Brothers Utilities No available information Determined Not 00589 Building Eligible SEW-The Roof No available information Determined Not 00590 Eligible SEW-The Moose Pass No available information Determined Not 00591 Highway Department Eligible and Maintenance Shop SEW-Moose Pass Inn Two-story gable-roofed structure, ca. 1929-Determined Eligible 00592 1948 SEW-Warburton's Cottage No available information Determined Not 00601 Eligible ~~~~ I Lower Trail Ca !Historic homestead site, includes cabin and No Determination of storage rack Eligibility SEW-Upper Trail Lake Cabin Collapsed 1-room log cabin and scatter of No Determination of 00677 household items Eligibility SEW-Crown Point Mine Remains of tram associated with Crown Point Determined Eligible 01054 Tram line Mine SEW-Listed site within the 01068 Loop HD Telephone line between Portage and Spencer boundaries of a property determined eligible SEW-Carter Lake Trail Trail constructed ca. 1955 No Determination of 01077 Eligibility SEW-USFS Building No available information No Determination of 01141 Eligibility SEW-ARRC Timber Bridge 285-foot timber trestle with 15-foot spans No Determination of 01351 at MP 29.5 Eligibility 3.2 Potential for cultural resources The Kenai Peninsula has been occupied historically and prehistorically by both Eskimo and Dena'ina Athapaskan groups. Additionally, historic mining, lumber, and settlement sites have been previously identified within the proposed Grant Lake/Creek project area; the community of Moose Pass, for example, immediately adjacent to the project area to the west, possesses numerous historic properties either listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP (AHRS n.d.). However, the perimeters of Grant Lake and Grant Creek have not been previously surveyed for cultural resources; subsequently, it is likely that additional cultural resources related to the long history of the area, as well as the development of Moose Pass, exist within the proposed project area. 8 Kenai Hydro, LLC Drafl2010 Cultural Resources Study Plan Several historic properties have been previously identified near the shores of Grant Lake and Grant Creek (see Table 3); these properties may be adversely affected by raising the water level of the lake and thus flooding the properties, and possible shore erosion related to lowering water levels within the lake. 4 Methods Cultural resources in the proposed APE will be studied in 2010 through consultation with Tribal governments and organizations, SHPO and additional interested consulting parties, and with field survey and evaluation. The purpose of this study plan is to outline a methodology for cultural resources research for the proposed project. The proposed cultural resources methodology follows the Secretary of Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation, which establishes a comprehensive approach to the identification, evaluation, and management of historic properties. 4.1 Study Area The proposed Project intake will be located near the outlet of Grant Lake, generating facilities will be located on Grant Creek, , and with a diversion tunnel may be constructed from Falls Creek to Grant Lake. The proposed Project would be located near the community of Moose Pass, Alaska, approximately 25 miles north of Seward, Alaska, and just east of the Seward Highway (State Route 9). The proposed Project location is in the Kenai Peninsula Borough (Figure 1 ). The proposed undertaking has the potential to effect historic properties, primarily in the forms of inundation and erosion. The current pool lake level sits at 700 ft AMSL. The proposed undertaking would fluctuate the lake level between a minimum of 67 5 ft, to a maximum of 709 ft. Recession of water levels may likewise cause erosion and undercutting of banks where historic properties may be located. Furthermore, lowering of lake levels may expose previously- unidentified cultural resources. Consequently, it is proposed that the APE delineates an area extending 30 ft (1Om) above the proposed high water mark, or 740 ft AMSL. This area would encompass all probable effects, with a conservative buffer to fully identify all potential historic properties that may be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed project. 4.2 Consultation Consulting parties will be contacted in writing and invited to attend meetings to share knowledge of cultural resources and any concerns regarding potential project effects to historic properties. Consultation meetings are anticipated to occur at varying phases of the Section 106 process. Section 106 meetings will occur with either smaller, focused groups or large groups as the situation requires. A consultation meeting would occur following completion of fieldwork to discuss survey and research findings. If no additional cultural resources are identified during survey, and there are no further concerns raised by consulting parties, these meetings would complete the Section I 06 consultation. However, should additional resources be identified or 9 Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Cultural Resources Plan should consulting parties have additional concerns, meetings will also follow the fonnal distribution of the cultural resources fieldwork report, and will continue on an ad hoc basis, depending on potential issues arising once fieldwork is complete. A list of identified Section 1 06 consulting parties includes: • Kenai Peninsula Borough • City of Seward • City of Kenai • Qutekcak Native Tribe • Kenaitze Indian Tribe • Village of Salamatoff • Native Village of Eklutna • Kenai Natives Association, Inc . • SalamatofNative Assoc., Inc . • Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (CIRI) • Chenega Corporation • Chugach Alaska Corporation • Ninilchik Natives Association, Inc . • Alaska Railroad Corporation • U.S. Forest Service, Chugach National Forest • Office of Historic and Archaeology (OHA), State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) 4.3 Subsistence and Cultural Use Study Through consultation with identified Tribal governments and organizations, an assessment will be conducted to detennine subsistence use, in tandem with biological and wildlife studies and cultural resources consultation. This effort will establish areas of traditional cultural use and evaluate project effects on potential continued subsistence use areas in the proposed APE. The field methods for this work will depend primarily on consultation with Tribal governments and organizations during cultural resources consultation, as well as research and coordination with US Fish and Wildlife and Alaska Department of Fish and Game records, along with terrestrial and aquatic studies generated for the FERC licensing process. 4.4 Historical and Archaeological Field Study Design Probability areas will be established prior to field mobilization, based on topographic features and the locations of previously recorded sites. Areas that represent low topography, or are adjacent to streams or lake shores will be considered to possess a higher probability for cultural resources than steep sheer mountainsides. These latter areas, although possessing a lower probability for cultural resources, may still possess such features as mine adits. These areas will be examined as thoroughly as possible, depending on terrain and safety precautions. 10 Kenai Hydro, LLC Draft 2010 Cultural Resources Study Plan The field effort will involve cultural resources specialists meeting the Secretary of Interior standards for historic preservation professionals (36 CFR 61 ). Pedestrian surveys will be conducted by walking in parallel transects no more than 15 meters (50 feet) apart within the project APE, and visually observing the ground for surface indications of cultural materials (including but not limited to: lithic scatters, cabins, mining properties, cache pits and semi- subterranean houses, and historic can and bottle scatters). Survey of built environment resources (i.e., structures, cabins, bridges, mining features) will occur concurrently with the archaeological pedestrian survey. Sub-surface shovel tests measuring 30 em x 30 em (1 ft square) will be conducted during survey in areas determined to represent locations of high probability for cultural resources. Shovel tests will be excavated to a depth of up to 1 meter (39 inches); any soil strata containing cultural materials will be recorded as to depth and characteristics. All recovered artifacts will be photographed, measured, and described. After detailed field recording, all cultural materials will be re-deposited in place. In the event that human remains are encountered either on the ground surface or contained within a shovel test, examination will proceed only until remains can be unequivocally determined to be human, and the area protected and secured against further erosion. The principal archaeologist will then notify FERC, appropriate project leaders, and assist in contacting and consultation support with appropriate Tribal governments and organizations, agency officials and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), as appropriate. 4.4.1 Cultural Resources Evaluation The project team will use NRHP criteria to evaluate significance and eligibility of identified resources as part of the reconnaissance level survey process. For those cultural resources that have been identified but have not been formally evaluated for eligibility for listing in the NRHP, a one square meter test unit will be excavated within site boundaries to evaluate vertical integrity of any identified cultural deposits. All recovered artifacts from sub-surface evaluations will be photographed, measured, described and recorded in detail. Artifacts will not be collected, except in the rare cases of items that may be considered threatened by erosion or looting. All materials collected will be curated at a facility meeting the Secretary of the Interior's standards for appropriate cultural resource storage. Upon completion of the survey and evaluation efforts, a report will be prepared including Alaska Heritage Survey Records (AHRS) site forms, and DOEs, with recommendations on eligibility of identified sites within the APE. For those cultural resources that have been determined not eligible for listing on the NRHP, they will be photo-documented, and any changes observed in the character of the resource from its previous recordation will be recorded, and AHRS site card documentation at the Office of History and Archaeology (OHA) will be updated. Any data collected as a result of the field effort would include field notes, UTM locational information, photographs, field maps and descriptions. These data will be used to create graphics for report documentation, as well as aid FERC in assessing adverse effects, and making determinations of eligibility on historic properties within the proposed project APE. Recorded 11 Kenai Hydro. LLC 2010 Cultural Resources Plan sites and boundaries, where known, will be plotted on map figures for project planning purposes, in order to identify possible avoidance and/or minimization efforts. Following the significance evaluation, a formal recommendation on determination of eligibility will be prepared for FERC review and subsequent review and concurrence by consulting parties, pursuant to 36 CFR 800.4(2) Further consultation with FERC, Tribal governments and organizations, SHPO, and other interested consulting parties will follow to address any potential adverse effects to historic properties. 4.4.1 Data Analysis Any data collected as a result of the field effort would include field notes, UTM locational information, photographs, field maps and descriptions. These data will be used to create graphics for report documentation, as well as aid FERC in assessing adverse efiects, and making determinations of eligibility on historic properties within the proposed project APE. 5 Project Nexus A number of impacts to cultural resources from Project operations and effects can be estimated. Project operations and effects and their potential impacts are listed in Table 4 below. Table 4 Potential Cultnral Resource Impact Issues Related to the Grant Lake/Falls Creek Project Potential Impact Issue Category Potential Impact Issue General project activity, including air and ground disturbance, which may be General ground disturbance. associated with pre-project studies, construction and operation. Increased Grant Lake water level Shoreline inundation and increased erosion due to lake level fluctuation fluctuation. Construction of Intake, Sluiceway, General ground disturbance. Penstock, and Powerhouse Roads and Transmission Lines General ground disturbance. 12 Figure 1 Study Area Figure 13 Kenai Hydro, LLC Draft 2010 Cultural Resources Study Plan Field Srudles Vicinity Map Legend -RAJI --dHighwey lakA!S ~RiVen Conloln (10 ft) Mla.tt 0.5 ,. ___ .__.. ... ._. ......... __, ,. __ ...,_ ....... ,.... ....... .... ..................................... .......... -...... -"--__ ........ __ .., till ....... Figure 2 Area of Potential Effect (APE), based on 740 ft. contour 14 Kenai Hydro, LLC Draft 2010 Cultural R esources Study Plan Legend contour _740ft Highway Alasu RallrtMd -.2,000 4,000 liD Figure 3 Aerial view of APE. 15 Kenai Hydro, LLC Draft 2010 Cultural Resources Study Plan Legend Area of Potential Effect Highway Alaska Railroad .... 2,0CIO 4,000 1m Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Cultural Resources Plan 6 Quality Control All work performed by HDR will be conducted directly by cultural resources specialists meeting the Secretary of the Interior Professional Standards for Archaeology and Historic Preservation (36 CFR 61). 7 Personnel and Responsibilities Kirsten Anderson: Lead Cultural Resources Specialist Duties: Manage the field effort, draft investigations reports, and work with appropriate individuals and agencies to initiate and move through the Section 106 consultation with SHPO and other entities. Act as quality control reviewer for documents produced for the Kenai Hydro project. Elizabeth Grover: Cultural Resources Specialist Duties: Provide cultural resources support, particularly with expertise relating to historic, built environment structures. 8 Schedule for Conducting the Study • Ongoing: consultation meetings as appropriate • February April 20 I 0: review background information and research; establish survey strategy based on identification of high probability areas • May July 20 I 0 Conduct field studies and evaluation, as appropriate • August -September 201 0 Finish evaluations and begin draft report and DOEs • October 2010 Review draft report • November 201 0 December 2010 Consultation meetings to discuss project, field findings and address additional concerns • December 2010-Finalize report based on field studies and consultation; prepare Finding of Effect, as appropriate, for review, submittal and concurrence to consulting parties 16 9 References Kenai Hydro, LLC Draft 2010 Cultural Resources Study Plan Alaska Power Authority (APA). I984. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Detailed Feasibility Analysis. Volume 2. Environmental Report. Rep. from Ebasco Services Incorporated, Bellevue, Washington. Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 2003a. Determinations of Eligibility. Historic Preservation Series No. 7. http://www.dnr.state.ak.us/parks/oha/hpserieslhp07.pdf Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 2003b. Review and Compliance Program Guidelines for Section I 06 Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office. Historic Preservation Series No.8. http://www.dnr.state.ak.us/parks/oha/hpseries/hp08.pdf Alaska Department ofNatural Resources. 2003c. Alaska Heritage Resources Survey. Historic Preservation Series No.9. http://www.dnr.state.ak.us/parks/oha/hpseries/hp09.pdf Alaska Department ofNatural Resources. 2003d. Review and Compliance Program Review Process. Historic Preservation Series No. 1 0. http://www .dnr.state.ak.us/parks/oha/hpserieslhp I O.pdf Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 2003e. Standards and Guidelines for Investigating and Reporting Archaeological and Historic Properties in Alaska. Historic Preservation Series No. 11. http://www.dnr.state.ak.us/parks/ohalhpseries/hpll.pdf Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 2004. Guidelines for Preparing a Historic Properties Survey Report. Historic Preservation Series No.3. http://www.dnr.state.ak.us/parks/oha/hpseries/hp03.pdf Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Office of History and Archaeology. n.d. Alaska Heritage Resources Survey database. Alaska Department ofNatural Resources, Office of History and Archaeology. Anchorage, Alaska. National Park Service. n.d. National Register of Historic Places database. http://www.nr.nps.gov/ National Park Service. n.d. Secretary oflnterior's Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation. http://www .nps.govlhistory/local-law/arch _ stnds _ O.htm 17 National Park Service. Kenai Hydro, LLC Draft 2010 Cultural Resources Study Plan 1985. Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning. National Register Bulletin No. 24. http: I /www. nps. gov /history/nr/pub lications/bulletins/nrb24/nrb24. pdf National Park Service. 1997. How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register Bulletin No. 15. http:/ /www.nps.gov /history/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb 15/nrb 15 .pdf National Park Service. 1998. Researching a Historic Property. National Register Bulletin No. 39. http://www .nps. gov/history/nr/pub lications/bulletins/nrb3 9/nrb3 9. pdf 18 Grant Lake/Grant Creek and Falls Creek Project Recreational and Land Use Resources Visual and Aesthetic Resources 2010 Study Plan Prepared for: Kenai Hydro, LLC Prepared by: - ......... , ~ ~ HDR Alaska, Inc. 2525 C Street, Suite 305 Anchorage, AK 99503 October 2009 Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Recreation and Visual Resources Study Plan Contents 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1 2 Goals and Objectives .......................................................................................................................... I 2.1 Study Goals ............................................................................................................................... 1 2.2 Study Objectives ........................................................................................................................ 2 3 Existing Information and Need for Information ............................................................................. 2 3.1 Existing Information .................................................................................................................. 2 3.2 Need for additional information ................................................................................................ 4 4 Methods ............................................................................................................................................... 4 4.1 StudyArea ................................................................................................................................. 4 4.2 Field Study Design .................................................................................................................... 6 4.2.1 Study Component #1 -Recreation Use Study ............................................................. 6 4.2.2 Study Component #2-Visual Resources Study .......................................................... 7 5 Agency Resource Management Goals .............................................................................................. 8 6 ProjectNexus ...................................................................................................................................... 8 7 Consistency with Generally Accepted Practices .............................................................................. 9 8 Level of Effort ................................................................................................................................... 10 8.1 Personnel and Responsibilities ................................................................................................ 10 9 Schedule for Conducting the Study ................................................................................................ 10 10 Provisions for Technical Review ..................................................................................................... 11 10.1 Quality Control ........................................................................................................................ 11 10.2 Data Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 11 11 References ......................................................................................................................................... 12 Tables Table 1. Potential recreation and visual resource impact issues related to the Grant Lake/Falls Creek Project. ................................................................................................................. 9 Figures Figure 1. Recreation and Visual Resource Project Locator Map .................................................... 5 ADF&G AEIDC AHRS APA AWC BLM oc cfs em CPUE DNR EPA FERC FL fps ft G&A GPS GWh HEP IFIM in KHI KHL KPB kWh LLC mg/L Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Recreation and Visual Resources Plan List of Acronyms 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 of Natural 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 11 Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Recreation and Visual Resources Plan mi mile MIF minimum instream flow mm millimeter MSL Mean sea level MW Megawatt MWh Megawatt hours NWI National Wetlands Inventory O&M Operations & maintenance RM river miles RVDs Recreation visitor days TL total length TWG technical working group US ACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USFS U.S. Forest Service USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey YOY Young of the year 111 1 Introduction Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Recreation and Visual Resources Study Plan The proposed Grant Lake/Falls Creek Project (Project) would be owned and operated by Kenai Hydro, LLC (Kenai Hydro). The Project facilities, as proposed, would be located at Falls Creek and Grant Lake, located near the community of Moose Pass, Alaska. All project facilities would lie within the Chugach National Forest. The Project transmission line would be located on land located in the Kenai Peninsula Borough and owned by different entities, including the Alaska Railroad, State of Alaska, and Chugach National Forest. The preferred project alternative would provide active water storage by creating a small impoundment at Grant Lake. Key features would include a 9-foot-high concrete gravity structure located at the outlet of Grant Lake. An intake and sluiceway would be constructed integral to the structure. An above-ground steel penstock supported on saddles would convey water to a powerhouse. A surge tank is assumed to be needed, and would be located near the top of the slope. A concrete-reinforced powerhouse structure would contain a single Francis-type turbine, synchronous generator and associated switchgear and controls. A new route beginning at the downstream end of Lower Trail Lake and continuing around the east side of Vagt Lake would split to provide access to the powerhouse and the intake sites. An overhead transmission line would connect directly to the existing transmission line along the Seward Highway. The project would provide additional active storage through drawdown of Grant Lake below its naturally occurring minimum elevation. Drawdown would be made possible by extending a pipeline into the lake and installing vacuum pump equipment. At low lake levels the intake would act as a siphon allowing the lake to be drawn down to an elevation of675 ft. Another component of the project would divert water from Falls Creek north to Grant Lake, where water would be used to generate power from the Grant Lake project. This has the advantage of using Grant Lake for storage. Kenai Hydro has identified the need for information related to possible project effects on recreation resources and land use (recreation) and visual and aesthetic resources (visual) of the project area. The purpose of this study plan is to describe the methods that will be used to document recreation use, land use, and visual and aesthetic resource issues within the project area. The results of this study will provide input into an evaluation of possible project effects on recreation and visual resources and will be used to identify potential protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures to address identified effects. 2 Goals and Objectives 2.1 Study Goals The overarching purpose of the Recreation and Land Use (Recreation) and Visual and Aesthetic (Visual) Resource Study is to acquire the information necessary for accurate evaluation of Project impacts. In addition, some study components are necessary to meet specific resource Kenai Hydro. LLC 2010 Recreation and Visual Resources Plan agency requirements for impact evaluation. The following individual study goals will accomplish the data collection needed: • To determine the level of recreational use within project area, in order to predict recreational trends for the project area and assess potential change. • To understand public use and perception of recreational use of the area. • To define recreational opportunities in terms of the Forest Service's Recreational Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) and other designations as defined the Chugach National Forest Plan (2002). • To determine the visual quality of the project area in terms of the Forest Service's Scenic Integrity Values, in order to assess potential change. • To understand public perception of the visual and aesthetic quality of the area. 2.2 Study Objectives The objectives outlined below will guide study component design to meet the goals of the overall Recreation and Visual Resources Study: • Conduct a site visit to both preliminarily assess the current state of recreational and visual resources and identify potential Project related changes. • Quantify levels of recreational use of the project area by reviewing available published information and by interviewing user groups. • Determine potential changes to recreational use opportunities due to proposed project activities, including changes to Grant Creek levels and Grant Lake shoreline fluctuations. • Create renderings at various project locations to illustrate current visual and aesthetic quality. • Create renderings at various project locations to project potential visual and aesthetic change due to proposed project activities, including water level alterations in Grant Creek and Grant Lake, addition of transmission lines, and construction of facilities. 3 Existing Information and Need for Information 3.1 Existing Information A number of investigations of recreation and visual resources have been performed in the past in the Project vicinity under the auspices of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR), the Kenai Peninsula Borough, and the USDA Forest Service (USFS) (ADNR 2009, ADNR 200 I, KPB 2005, USFS 2007a, USFS 2007b, USFS 2005, USFS No Date). As a result, recreation access and visual resources have been documented for the area. For recreational access, the Grant Lake Mine Road and the Grant Lake Portage Trail routes receive very light summer use and light winter use. There is no developed trailhead or signage. Users boat across Lower Trail Lake to the trailhead. Once the lakes freeze, some snowmachine and cross-country ski use occurs. The construction of the Iditarod National Historic Trail (INHT) will create overland access for these trails and their use may increase. Some recreational users travel across the Alaska Railroad trestle bridge by foot or A TV and then continue over the ridge into the Grant Lake basin. The trestle is owned by ARRC and use by the public is illegal and unsafe. Access via 2 Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Recreation and Visual Resources Plan the railroad trestle is not encouraged or condoned by the Forest Service. Falls Creek is accessible directly off the Seward highway (USFS 2007b, USFS No Date, ADNR 2001). Due to the limited access and lack of game fish in the lake, the Grant Lake area receives low use and few visitors. Some hunting, fishing, and hiking occur. In addition to the road and trail, other evidence of human impacts includes an abandoned mine and a cabin on the west end of the lake. The cabin, owned by the Forest Service, is located where the Grant Lake Trail and the Grant Lake Mine Road meet. The cabin is not managed for recreational use but is sometimes used by visitors (USFS No Date). In the Chugach Forest Plan (USFS 2005), the Grant Lake Area designated land use is Fish, Wildlife, and Recreation Prescription. The very east end of the lake is Back country Prescription. The highway corridor is non-National Forest land. There is area that is designated Mining Claim with Approved Plan of Operations on Falls Creek road. In the Recreational Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), the Grant Lake area is designated Semi-Primitive Motorized. The mining claim on Falls Creek road is designated Rural. In Scenic Integrity Values, most of the Grant Lake area is designated Moderate. The east side of the lake in the Backcountry Prescription is designated High. The mining claim is designed Low. The area in winter is open to all motorized use. In summer, the area is open to motorized use on designated routes only and is open to helicopters. The backcountry section on the east end of the lake is open to helicopters and closed to Off Highway Vehicles (OHVs). The Ptarmigan/Grant unit is a particular unit designated for analysis under the Kenai Winter Access EIA (USFS 2007a). The analysis area was divided into twelve geographic units to separately analyze for winter and summer potential motorized or non motorized uses. The Ptarmigan/Grant unit, which the Project area falls within, is described as receiving very little use from any user group (USFS 2007a). A limited number of requests were received during the scoping process for the Kenai Winter Access EIS to make this unit either motorized or non- motorized. Due to the limited number of requests, there appeared to be little existing conflicts in use type. The Ptarmigan/Grant unit allows exploratory helicopter skiing in special use areas where a Special Use Permit for commercial guides may be applied for. The entire unit is designated for winter motorized use. The unit boundaries are the railroad on the north, the north boundary of the Snow River unit to the south, the Seward Ranger District boundary on the east, and the Seward Highway and State lands to the west. Guided helicopter skiing would be permitted in the deferred exploratory area of the Ptarmigan/Grant unit (USFS 2007a). The area has Borough-selected lands near the project area, including lands between Grant Lake and Upper Trail Lake, south arm, in Unit 380F (ADNR 2001 ). The Kenai Peninsula Borough may select portions of Units located on the south end of Grant Lake for addition to the Kenai River Special Management Area (KRSMA) (ADNR 2001). The area north and east ofthe Trail Lakes has the potential to support a hut-to-hut trail or trailhead system using existing or new trails and connecting with Grant Lake, Moose Creek (upstream to Grandview), the Johnson Pass Trail, and/or the Summit Lakes area (ADNR 200 1). These areas have specific value for the hut- to-hut concept, and the area supports modest-scale recreation and tourism development (ADNR 2001). 3 Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Recreation and Visual Resources Plan The area has had past mining use and has current mining claims. Scattered claims exist east of Trail Lake in the vicinity of Grant Lake, Ptarmigan Creek, and Quartz Creek (ADNR 2001 ). Prehistorically, this area was used for subsistence, transportation, and trade routes. The town of Moose Pass was established in association with the railroad construction of 1904 and a roadhouse at milepost 29 in 1909. The first business to open in Moose Pass after the roadhouse was a water-powered sawmill on Grant Lake, constructed by AI Solars (USFS 2007b). Historical lode gold and placer gold mining has occurred mainly in the southern half of the area, from Falls Creek to Grant Lake. Present day mining is small-scale and sporadic (USFS 2007b ). The area is described as having scenic value (ADNR 2001). There is a scenic waterfall at the outlet of Grant Lake, with mountain walls at over 3,500-foot relief on the east shore of the lake. The Iditarod National Historic Trail traverses this area. Other trails in the unit include the Grant Lake Trail, Fails Creek Road, Vagt Lake Trail, Crown Point Mine Road and Trail. The project area is not visible from the Seward Highway or any other easily accessed area, except from the a! f. 3.2 Need for additional information Despite the existing information available for the Project area, this is a new project and data needs to be collected to effectively address specific project impacts. Additional studies will be required to: • Assess the effects of a raised lake level for Grant Lake on recreational travel, fishing, hunting, and boating around the shoreline in summer and in winter by examining access points, trails, and by interviewing stakeholders. • Asses the effects of altered or reduced flows on Grant and Falls Creek on fishing or other recreational use of the creeks by examining access points and interviewing stakeholders. • Evaluate the potential for increased recreational use of the area, such as hunting, fishing, and backcountry activities (hiking, skiing, boating, and snowmachining), due to increased access. • Evaluate current visual and aesthetic value by selecting specific assessment points at which to take photographs and create renderings, including areas of access, high scenic value, high recreational use, or project construction activity. 4 Methods 4.1 Study Area The study area includes the area east of the Seward Highway and Alaska Railroad adjacent to Moose Pass, extending past the eastern shoreline of Grant Lake. The study extends south along the highway to just south of Falls Creek. The study area includes all proposed project facilities along Grant Creek, Falls Creek, and the Seward Highway (Figure 1). 4 Figure 1. Recreation and Visual Resource Projec:t Locator Map 5 Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Recreation and Visual R esources Study Plan Rec VIs Locator Map -· ,.,,.,od< Tunnol Tr..aKtton Unt ~·-ExhllnO Ml'*'ll - --AlalkoiiAIIIrCMd -s--IHI~ IAkH ,_ UGO 1.- DE Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Recreation and Visual Resources Plan 4.2 Field Study Design The Recreation and Visual Resources Study is comprised of two components that will include a combination of office and field based efforts: Study Component #1 -Recreation Use Study; and Study Component #2-Visual Resources Study. HDR may coordinate with Land Design North (LON) to conduct all or part of the recreation and visual resources study. A review of existing information will be conducted for both study components as an initial study task. The field work for the study components will include the following activities: • Conduct a site visit by foot and boat to survey and document existing trails, access points, and other recreational use areas to determine potential affects of fluctuating lake or creek level. • Conduct a recreation use survey by interviews with or questionnaires mailed to area stakeholders, including residents, vendors, and other user groups. • Visit pre-selected sites for visual assessment, by walking on existing trails, viewing known scenic features, and taking photographs and GPS points at potential sites for renderings. 4.2.1 Study Component #1-Recreation Use Study The purpose of this study is to assess recreation resource use level within the study area in order to analyze potential impacts to recreational resources. Work includes the identification of data sources, a literature review, a preliminary assessment of levels and type of recreational use, and identification of user groups to survey. The study will include a review of management plans, studies, and data that have been developed by resource agencies or governmental bodies, including the USDA Forest Service (Forest Service) and the Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB). Documents to be reviewed will also include specific studies that have been done in the project area, including those identified above. Coordination with the Forest Service will include recommendations for management prescriptions and objectives with specific attention to the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) within the study area. The literature review will provide an understanding of other existing and proposed actions within the region as well as an understanding of the expectations of users and the public as described in the Chugach Forest Plan (USFS 2002). A questionnaire will be developed that will solicit input with respect to the role of recreationalists in the economic and social patterns within the study area. The questionnaire will be developed with input from Kenai Hydro and the USDA Forest Service. The questionnaire is proposed to be administered on a door to door basis via interview in order to allow a better understanding of responses to questions. Specific delivery may be reassessed, and may include mailing questionnaires. Staff will work with Forest Service personnel familiar with the project area to determine key stakeholders that may be affected by the project. Stakeholders may include local residents, local business owners, summer and winter recreational users, and boat and air traffic. Existing regional plans and studies and the stakeholder interviews should provide detailed information about users of recreation resources, duration of use, activities, and what secondary characteristics may be generated by their use, such as contributions to the economy. Both winter and summer use will be analyzed. 6 Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Recreation and Visual Resources Study Plan Foot and boat surveys will provide direct information on the condition of trails, boat access points, and possibly may provide information about current use. Trail and boat access points in project areas that may be affected by changing water levels will be photographed to illustrate potential change. An accurate recreation features map for the project area will be prepared prior to the field visit using existing GIS layers, existing aerial photography, and available satellite imagery (Figure 1 ). The map will be used to locate known recreation areas and access points. The map will include information on private land ownership parcels within the project area. Trail location information is available for the project area from the Forest Service and the Kenai Peninsula Borough. IKON OS satellite imagery is available for part of the project area, as well as several aerial photography sets from different years. 4.2.2 Study Component #2-Visual Resources Study The study will rely on previous work for the area completed by the Forest Service as part of the Chugach Forest Plan (USFS 2005). Methods for scenery management assessment will follow standard Forest Service protocol (USFS 1995). Landscape Units are defined based on a number of landscape criteria, described later in this study plan. Available Forest Service scenery layers will be mapped using a Geographic Information System (GIS). Project elements will be simulated using Computer Aided Drafting (CAD) and graphic software in order to create renderings of what project elements might look like if constructed. Electronic models of the project will be constructed in three dimensions and then manipulated such that they can be inserted into images of the landscape as seen from key viewpoints in order to better determine project effects. Digital Elevation Model (OEM) information will be used to create a Triangulated Irregular Network (TIN) in ArcGIS. The TIN will be used to model viewsheds from project elements and from various key viewpoints. The TIN can be modified to reflect project changes to allow an evaluation of how alterations to the existing features may or may not be seen by the specific constituents. As an example, though an area may not be seen from the air under existing conditions, the area may be seen once a dam and penstock are constructed due to changes to vegetation or exposure of soils. Key viewpoints will be determined by the recreation site visit, by examining available GIS scenic, elevation, contour, and other pertinent layers, and possibly through the stakeholder interview. Staff will work with Forest Service personnel to determine where key viewpoints are located. This will be coordinated with the interviews discussed as part of the recreation analysis. Photos taken from these key view points will serve for the existing and simulated scenery conditions for the assessment of changes that may be posed by the project. Staff may provide visual simulation of up to eight images of project facilities from key viewpoints. Simulations will be based on project photos taken from the site visit. Project images will be constructed from images of the project facilities, imposed over the existing landscape for the key photo locations. Also, the extent and number of images will require discussion prior to the development of the images. Staff will review existing scenery management information in the Chugach Forest Plan {USFS 2005). The scenery management analysis completed as part of that plan will be reviewed. Specifically, staff will review criteria with respect to "landscape units," "scenic integrity," 7 Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Recreation and Visual Resources Study Plan "concern levels," "scenic attractiveness," and "landscape visibility," (USPS 1995). An understanding of the scenic criteria will help determine the degree to which proposed project components may affect those designations or conflict with management objectives. Evaluation of change to the existing character will include an examination of proposed project components with respect to the ability of the landscape to accept change. This evaluation is based on the "seen areas" and "distance zones'' as determined by computer analysis, the "scenic integrity," and the magnitude of change to existing "scenic attractiveness." Within this will be an analysis of vegetation, soils colors, and other landscape attributes, an analysis of these components to accept change, a description of the effect of the change, and a description of the effect to stakeholders. This information will be weighed against the objectives that were delineated within the Chugach Forest Plan (USPS 2005). If necessary, analysis will include an evaluation of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation options. Work will include the evaluation of seen areas from different viewpoints, analysis of the location of facilities and infrastructure, and the evaluation of design options to minimize impacts. 5 Agency Resource Management Goals Information collected by the proposed studies will be used to describe the existing environment, assess potential impacts, and provide essential information that will help to avoid or mitigate Project impacts on recreation and existing land use, and visual and aesthetic resources. 6 Project Nexus Information collected by the proposed studies will be used to describe the existing environment, assess potential impacts, and provide essential information that will help to avoid or mitigate Project impacts on recreation and existing land use, and visual and aesthetic resources. Potential impacts identified are shown in Table 1. 8 Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Recreation and Visual Resources Study Plan Table 1. Potential recreation and visual resource impact issues related to the Grant Lake/Falls Creek Project. Potential Impact Issue Category Potential Impact Issue General project activity, including air and ground Discourage recreational use due to noise, decreased disturbance, which may be associated with pre-access, or construction activities preventing use. project studies, construction and operation. Increased Grant Lake water level fluctuation Changes in shoreline substrate due to lake level fluctuations, creating poorer access points for fishing. Loss of, or increase in, shoreline habitats used by wildlife species due to lake level fluctuations, changing hunting patterns or access. Effects on travel around the shoreline of Grant Lake in summer and winter Potential changes in distribution and/or number of fish for anglers. Potential to limit recreational uses such as boating, fishing, and hunting by reducing access points Seasonal Flow Changes in Grant Creek and Falls Potential changes shoreline stability due to hydrologic Creek changes, preventing hiker access. Potential reductions in the abundance of fish for anglers. Construction of Intake, Sluiceway, Penstock, and Loss of recreational access and perception of the area Powerhouse as remote and pristine. Increase in recreational use due to better infrastructure and more access points within the project area. Roads and Transmission Lines Loss of visual quality. Increase in recreational use due to better infrastructure and more access points within the project area. New road or transmission line corridors may impact aesthetic or visual resources Potential impacts on road viewpoints and views from existing recreational trails 7 Consistency with Generally Accepted Practices Assessment of recreation potential in terms of the ROS wi11 follow Forest Service standards (Clark & Stankey 1979). Scenic Integrity Value assessment and scenery analysis with follow the Chugach Forest Plan (USFS 2005) goals and objectives and the Forest Service Landscape Aesthetics Handbook (USFS 1995). Interview and questionnaire responses will be analyzed for content using the standards of the USFS's NEPA Services Group (NSG) (http://www.fs.fed.us/cmc/nsg/index.htm). 9 Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Recreation and Visual Resources Plan 8 Level of Effort Recreation and visual literature review, visual site selection, and all other pre-field activities will require approximately four days for one person. Conducting interviews or preparing mailed questionnaires, along with processing responses will require approximately five to seven days for two people. A site visit for recreation resource assessment, and a site visit for visual photography and assessment, will require three to four days for people. Some field supplies will be required, including safety gear, reference materials, field map, clipboards, pencils, field notebooks, a GPS unit, a digital camera, and possibly other equipment. 8.1 Personnel and Responsibilities Person # 1: Recreation and Visual Resources Study Lead -TBD Duties: Prepare Study Plans, prepare field logistics, assign field team, conduct field site visit, assist in developing questionnaire, conducting interviews and compiling responses, prepare draft reports, prepare final reports, and assist in other tasks as needed. Person #2: Recreation Specialist-TBD Duties: Review Study Plan; conduct field site VISit; assist in developing questionnaire, conducting interviews and compiling responses, perform quality control reviews on draft report; assist in other tasks as needed. Person #3: Visual Specialist -TBD Duties: Develop GIS maps of visual resources, create renderings at specific visual sites, work with recreation specialists on final report. 9 Schedule for Conducting the Study Recreation Resources Study Review existing information, prepare a site map, and prepare interview questionnaire between March and May 2010. Conduct site visit in July 2010. Schedule interviews or mail questionnaires between May and July 2010. Prepare the recreation resources report in September 20 I 0, with a final report in October 2010. Visual Resources Study Review existing information. Conduct site visit in July 2010. Design site visits. Coordinate with Visual specialists to accurately design sites for photos and locations for renderings. Create renderings in August to September 20 l 0. Coordinate with LDN (if desired) and Forest Service to ensure visual approach meets Forest Service standards. Prepare the visual resources report in September 20 I 0, with a final report in October 20 I 0. • March 20 l 0 Assign full time. Conduct literature review, begin questionnaire development. • April2010 Continue literature review, quality control review of questionnaire. Compile stakeholder list for interviews/questionnaires. 10 Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Recreation and Visual Resources Study Plan • May 20 I 0 Plan site visit for visual site points. Create field map. Prepare any field logistics, including gear and maps. • June 20 I 0 Finalize field site visit plans for both recreation and visual study. Being to conduct interviews or mail questionnaires. • July 20 I 0 -Perform field site visit for recreation and visual point survey. Continue interviews. Process completed interview information. Coordinate efforts with Forest Service, LON (if desired), and Kenai Hydro. • August 20 I 0 -Perform quality control checks on data, including recreation and visual GPS data, photos, and other information. Perform quality check on interview and questionnaire information. Complete any remaining interviews, if necessary. • September 20 I 0 Prepare all reports, maps, and technical memoranda. Submit to senior scientist for quality review. Complete quality review of all products. • October 20 I 0 -Prepare final versions of reports, maps, and technical memoranda. 10 Provisions for Technical Review Adequate time will be given for technical review of all recreation and visual resource study components in accordance with the project schedule. Adjustments to the schedule will be made as needed, as agreed upon by all project participants. 10.1 Quality Control All field work will be performed to highest accuracy standards by qualified team members. Senior staff will conduct pre-field work reviews of all study plan components prior to conducting field work. All field data and interviews will be reviewed daily if possible, or otherwise within a week of completion. Photography, GPS data, and interview entries will be reviewed by a qualified team member. Draft reports, maps, and calculations will be reviewed by a senior scientist. Final reports will be reviewed by a senior scientist. 10.2 Data Analysis Interview and questionnaire responses will be analyzed for content using the standards of the Forest Service's NEPA Services Group (NSG) (www.fs.fed.us/emc/nsg/index.htm). A visual analysis will include renderings of viewpoints at selected sites, using GIS (Geographic Information System) and CAD (computer aided design) technology. 11 Kenai Hydro, LLC 2010 Recreation and Visual Resources Plan 11 References Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR). 2009. Alaska's Outdoor Legacy Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) 2004-2009. ADNR Division of Park and Outdoor Recreation. Juneau, AK. 237 pp. ADNR. 2001. Kenai Area Plan. ADNR, Division of Mining, Land, and Water, Resource Development and Assessment Section, Juneau, AK. 505 pp. ADNR. 1998. Kenai River Comprehensive Management Plan. ADNR, Division of Land, Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation, in conjunction with Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), Habitat and Restoration Division, and Kenai Peninsula Borough. 130 pp. Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB). 2005. Kenai Peninsula Borough Comprehensive Plan. KPB Planning Department. Soldotna, AK. 348 pp. Clark, R.N. and G. H. Stankey. 1979. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: A Framework for Planning, Management, and Research. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report PNW-98. USDA Forest Service, Seattle, WA and Missoula, MT. 39 pp. USDA Forest Service (USFS). 2007a. Kenai Winter Access EIS. R10-MB-595. USDA Forest Service, Anchorage, AK. 243 pp. USDA Forest Service (USFS). 2007b. Trail River Landscape Assessment. USDA Forest Service, Seward, AK. 148 pp. USDA Forest Service (USFS). 2002. Final Environmental Impact Statement and the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Chugach National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Anchorage, AK. USDA Forest Service (USFS). 1995. Landscape aesthetics: a handbook for scenery management. Agricultural Handbook No. 701. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC. USDA Forest Service (USFS). No Date. Draft Grant Lake Scenic Resource Analysis, Grant Lake Wildlife Habitat Improvement Project. US Forest Service, Chugach National Forest, Seward, AK. 12