HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.5 Grant Lk Terr Final Report June 2014 FINAL
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13212)
Terrestrial Resources Study
Final Report
Prepared for
Kenai Hydro, LLC
Prepared by
J. Gangemi, J. Blank, L. Shoutis, and A. Ajmi
ERM, Inc.
K. Beck
Beck Botanical Resources, LLC
June 2014
FINAL REPO
Grant Lake
FERC No.
TABLE
1 Intro
1.1.
1.2.
2 Stud
3 Bota
3.1.
3.1.
3.1.
3.1.
3.2.
3.2.
3.2.
3.2.
3.3.
3.3.
3.3.
3.3.
3.4.
3.4.
3.4.
3.4.
3.5.
3.5.
3.5.
3.5.
4 Bota
4.1.
4.2.
4.2.
4.2.
4.3.
4.3.
4.3.
ORT
e Hydroelectric
13212
OF CONTE
oduction .....
Proposed Pr
Terrestrial R
dy Objective
antical Reso
Study Area
1. Genera
2. Invasiv
3. Sensitiv
Methods ....
1. Genera
2. Invasiv
3. Sensitiv
Results ......
1. Genera
2. Invasiv
3. Sensitiv
Conclusions
1. Genera
2. Invasiv
3. Sensitiv
Variances fr
1. Genera
2. Invasiv
3. Sensitiv
antical Reso
Study Area
Methods ....
1. Wetlan
2. Functio
Results ......
1. Wetlan
2. Functio
c Project
ENTS
...................
roject Descr
Resources St
es ................
ources: Terre
...................
al Vegetation
ve Plant Surv
ve Plant Sur
...................
al Vegetation
ve Plant Surv
ve Plant Sur
...................
al Vegetation
ve Plant Surv
ve Plant Sur
s .................
al Vegetation
ve Plant Surv
ve Plant Sur
from FERC-A
al Vegetation
ve Plant Surv
ve Plant Sur
ources: Wetla
...................
...................
nd Delineatio
onal Assessm
...................
nds Delineati
onal Assessm
....................
iption ..........
tudy Area ....
....................
estrial Vegeta
....................
n Type Surve
vey ..............
rvey .............
....................
n ..................
vey ..............
rvey .............
....................
n ..................
vey ..............
rvey .............
....................
n ..................
vey ..............
rvey .............
Approved St
n ..................
vey ..............
rvey .............
ands & Othe
....................
....................
on Methods .
ment Method
....................
ion and Wate
ment Results
i
....................
....................
....................
....................
ation, Invasi
....................
ey ................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
tudy Plan an
....................
....................
....................
er Waters of
....................
....................
....................
ds .................
....................
ers Mapping
s ...................
....................
....................
....................
....................
ive Plants, an
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
nd Proposed
....................
....................
....................
f the U.S. ......
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
g ..................
....................
TERRESTRIA
....................
....................
....................
....................
nd Sensitive
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
Modificatio
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
AL RESOURCES
Kenai Hydro
June
....................
....................
....................
....................
e Plants ........
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
ons ...............
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
STUDY
o, LLC
e 2014
...... 1
...... 5
.... 11
.... 15
.... 17
.... 17
.... 17
.... 17
.... 17
.... 25
.... 25
.... 25
.... 25
.... 27
.... 27
.... 43
.... 44
.... 52
.... 52
.... 53
.... 56
.... 61
.... 61
.... 61
.... 61
.... 63
.... 64
.... 67
.... 67
.... 69
.... 75
.... 76
.... 97
FINAL REPO
Grant Lake
FERC No.
4.4.
4.4.
4.4.
4.4.
4.4.4
4.5.
4.6.
5 Wil
5.1.
5.1.
5.1.
5.1.
5.1.4
5.2.
5.2.
5.2.
5.2.
5.2.4
5.3.
5.3.
5.3.
5.3.
5.3.4
5.3.
5.3.
5.3.
5.4.
5.4.
5.4.
5.4.
5.4.4
5.5.
6 Refe
ORT
e Hydroelectric
13212
Potential Im
1. Depres
2. Lacustr
3. Riverin
4. Potenti
Conclusions
Variances fr
dlife Resour
Study Area
1. Raptor
2. Breedin
3. Waterb
4. Terrest
Methods ....
1. Raptor
2. Breedin
3. Waterb
4. Terrest
Results ......
1. Raptor
2. USFS S
3. Breedin
4. USFS S
5. Waterb
6. USFS S
7. Terrest
Conclusions
1. Raptor
2. Breedin
3. Waterb
4. Terrest
Variances fr
ferences .......
c Project
mpacts to We
sional Wetla
rine Wetland
ne Wetlands
ial Impacts b
s .................
from FERC-A
rces .............
...................
Nesting Sur
ng Landbird
birds ............
trial Mamma
...................
Nesting Sur
ng Landbird
birds ............
trial Mamma
...................
Nesting Sur
Sensitive Sp
ng Landbird
Sensitive Sp
birds ............
Sensitive Sp
trial Mamma
s .................
Nesting Sur
ng Landbird
birds ............
trial Mamma
from FERC-A
...................
etlands and W
ands.............
ds and Water
and Waters .
by Project In
....................
Approved St
....................
....................
rvey .............
ds and Shoreb
....................
als ................
....................
rvey .............
ds and Shoreb
....................
als ................
....................
rvey .............
pecies and Sp
ds and Shoreb
pecies and Sp
....................
pecies and Sp
als ................
....................
rvey .............
ds and Shoreb
....................
als ................
Approved St
....................
ii
Waters .........
....................
rs ................
....................
nfrastructure
....................
tudy Plan an
....................
....................
....................
birds............
....................
....................
....................
....................
birds............
....................
....................
....................
....................
pecies of Spe
birds............
pecies of Spe
....................
pecies of Spe
....................
....................
....................
birds............
....................
....................
tudy Plan an
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
Type ..........
....................
nd Proposed
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
ecial Interes
....................
ecial Interes
....................
ecial Interes
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
nd Proposed
....................
TERRESTRIA
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
Modificatio
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
st ..................
....................
st ..................
....................
st ..................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
Modificatio
....................
AL RESOURCES
Kenai Hydro
June
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
ons ...............
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
ons ...............
....................
STUDY
o, LLC
e 2014
.. 110
.. 113
.. 113
.. 114
.. 116
.. 116
.. 116
.. 117
.. 118
.. 119
.. 119
.. 120
.. 125
.. 125
.. 125
.. 126
.. 129
.. 130
.. 131
.. 131
.. 138
.. 138
.. 155
.. 156
.. 159
.. 159
.. 175
.. 180
.. 182
.. 183
.. 183
.. 184
.. 185
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 iii June 2014
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Terrestrial Vegetation
1a: Terrestrial Vegetation Tables
1b: Terrestrial Vegetation Related Materials
Appendix 2: Wetlands
2a: Wetlands Related Materials
Appendix 3: Wildlife
3a: Breeding Landbird and Shorebird Data
3b: Northern Goshawk Data
3c: Wildlife Related Materials
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.2-1. Known or suspected sensitive plants in the Seward Ranger District. ...................... 26
Table 3.3-1. 2013 upland vegetation types, acres, percentages, and NatureServe
Ecological Systems. ...................................................................................................................... 41
Table 3.4-1. General upland vegetation potential qualitative impact table, Grant Lake Project. . 54
Table 3.4-2. Sensitive plant potential qualitative impact table, Grant Lake Project. ................... 58
Table 4.2-1. Functions assessed for moving waters, from Fischenich (2006). ............................. 70
Table 4.3-1. Wetlands and waters—detailed. ............................................................................... 93
Table 4.3-2. Wetlands and waters– summary. .............................................................................. 97
Table 4.3-3. Results of waters functional assessment for moving waters functional classes. ...... 98
Table 4.3-4. Functional classes, acreages, and associated characteristics. ................................. 107
Table 4.3-5. Functional assessment ratings for each functional class. ....................................... 108
Table 4.3-6. Wetland acres per category by functional class. .................................................... 109
Table 4.4-1. Potential wetland impacts by Project infrastructure type. ...................................... 111
Table 5.2-1. 2013 Breeding birds survey point vegetation classifications and correlation. ....... 128
Table 5.3-1. Raptor breeding habitats. ........................................................................................ 132
Table 5.3-2. Raptors detected during site specific studies and year of study. ............................ 137
Table 5.3-3. 2010 breeding bird and shorebird surveys. ............................................................. 139
Table 5.3-4. 2013 breeding bird and shorebird surveys. ............................................................. 140
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 iv June 2014
Table 5.3-5. 2013 Breeding birds survey point vegetation survey. ............................................ 141
Table 5.3-6. Comparison of avifauna breeding habitat types (Kessel 1979) to vegetation
classifications (Ebasco 1984). ..................................................................................................... 143
Table 5.3-7. Bird species and breeding habitats in the 2013 wildlife study area. ...................... 145
Table 5.3-8. Qualitative assessment of avian species presence in sampled 2013 wildlife study
area by vegetation type. .............................................................................................................. 149
Table 5.3-9. Qualitative assessment of avian species presence in non-sampled Project area by
vegetation type. ........................................................................................................................... 153
Table 5.3-10. 2010 breeding waterbird surveys. ......................................................................... 157
Table 5.4-1. Grant Lake terrestrial resources - wildlife study impacts. ...................................... 176
Table 5.4-2. Recommended distances for Category A activities as defined by USFWS (2007) 181
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.0-1. General Project vicinity map. .................................................................................... 3
Figure 1.1-1. Project infrastructure and features. ........................................................................... 7
Figure 1.1-2. Natural resources study area. .................................................................................... 9
Figure 3.1-1. General vegetation study area. ................................................................................ 19
Figure 3.1-2. Invasive plant study area. ........................................................................................ 21
Figure 3.1-3. Sensitive plant study area. ....................................................................................... 23
Figure 3.3-1. Upland vegetation types - global indicator map. .................................................... 29
Figure 3.3-2. Upland vegetation types - Grant Creek. .................................................................. 31
Figure 3.3-3. Upland vegetation types - Grant Lake-intake. ........................................................ 33
Figure 3.3-4. Upland vegetation types - Grant Lake-NW elbow. ................................................. 35
Figure 3.3-5. Upland vegetation types - Grant Lake-island east. ................................................. 37
Figure 3.3-6. Upland vegetation types - Grant Lake-east end. ..................................................... 39
Figure 3.3-7. Sensitive plant survey area. ..................................................................................... 47
Figure 3.3-8. Sensitive plant population. ...................................................................................... 49
Figure 4.1-1. 2013 wetland assessment area. ............................................................................... 65
Figure 4.3-1. Wetland and waters types - global indicator map. .................................................. 81
Figure 4.3-2. Wetland and waters types - Grant Creek. ................................................................ 83
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 v June 2014
Figure 4.3-3. Wetland and waters types - Grant Lake-intake. ...................................................... 85
Figure 4.3-4. Wetland and waters types - Grant Lake-NW elbow. .............................................. 87
Figure 4.3-5. Wetland and waters types - Grant Lake-island east. ............................................... 89
Figure 4.3-6. Wetland and waters types - Grant Lake-east end. ................................................... 91
Figure 5.1-1. 2013 Wildlife Study area. ..................................................................................... 121
Figure 5.1-2. Potential nesting habitat for ducks (2010 effort). .................................................. 123
Figure 5.3-1. Cumulative point locations for Waterbird, Breeding Bird and Raptor surveys (2010
and 2013). ................................................................................................................................... 133
Figure 5.3-2. Cumulative point locations for raptors and dens (2008, 2010, 2012, and 2013). . 135
Figure 5.3-3. Major brown bear forage and denning habitat (Ebasco 1984). ............................. 163
Figure 5.3-4. Major brown bear forage and denning habitat (USFS 2008). ............................... 165
Figure 5.3-5. Mountain goat observations in study area (Ebasco 1984). ................................... 167
Figure 5.3-6. High value brown bear, mountain goat, moose habitat, and moose winter range
(USFS 2008). .............................................................................................................................. 169
Figure 5.3-7. Dall sheep observations in study area (Ebasco 1984). .......................................... 171
Figure 5.3-8. Moose Range in Study Area (Ebasco 1984). ........................................................ 173
LIST OF PHOTOS
Photo 1. Inlet Creek entering Grant Lake. Photo taken at east end of lake, looking west. .......... 12
Photo 2. Inlet Creek entering Grant Lake. Photo taken at southeast corner of Grant Lake,
looking northeast. .............................................................................................................. 12
Photo 3. Grant Lake outlet and the uppermost portion of Grant Creek, looking downstream
towards the west. ........................................................................................................................... 13
Photo 4. Representative photo of the canyon reach of upper Grant Creek. Photo taken
on the south side of Grant Creek looking upstream. ......................................................... 13
Photo 5. Representative photo of lower Grant Creek near Trail Lake confluence. Photo
taken on the north side of Grant Creek looking upstream. ........................................................... 14
Photo 6. Representative photo of a depressional wetland located on the south side of
Grant Creek. .................................................................................................................................. 14
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 vi June 2014
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ac ............................................acre
ac-ft ........................................acre-feet
ADEC……………………….Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
ADF&G..................................Alaska Department of Fish & Game
AEPIC ....................................Alaska Exotic Plant Information Clearinghouse
AKNHP ..................................Alaska Natural Heritage Program
ALMS ....................................Alaska Landbird Monitoring System
BE ..........................................Biological Evaluation
BGEPA ..................................Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
BMP .......................................best management practices
CFR ........................................Code of Federal Regulations
cfs ...........................................cubic feet per second
Corps Manual .........................1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual
CWA ......................................Clean Water Act
DLA .......................................Draft License Application
DP ..........................................Wetland determination point
EPA ........................................U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESA ........................................Endangered Species Act
FERC......................................Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FPA ........................................Federal Power Administration
ft .............................................feet
GIS .........................................Geographic Information System
GPS ........................................Global Positioning System
in ...........................................inch
KHL .......................................Kenai Hydro, LLC
kW ..........................................kilowatt
MBTA ....................................Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MW ........................................megawatt
NOI ........................................Notice of Intent
NWI........................................National Wetland Inventory
NAVD 88 ...............................North American Vertical Datum of 1988
NGVD 29 ...............................National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929
OP ..........................................Wetland observation point
PAD........................................Pre-Application Document
Project ....................................Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13212)
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 vii June 2014
Regional Supplement .............Alaska Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual
RGL........................................Regulatory Guidance Letter
RNA .......................................Research Natural Area
ROW ......................................right-of-way
Section 404.............................Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
Study Plan .............................March 2013 Grant Lake Terrestrial Resources Study Plan
SWE ......................................surface water elevation
TLP ........................................Traditional Licensing Process
USACE ..................................U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USFS ......................................U.S. Forest Service
USGS .....................................U.S. Geological Survey
USFWS ..................................U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 viii June 2014
[This page intentionally left blank]
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 1 June 2014
1 INTRODUCTION
On August 6, 2009, Kenai Hydro, LLC (KHL) filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; KHL
2009), along with a Notice of Intent (NOI) to file an application for original license, for a
combined Grant Lake/Falls Creek Project (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] No.
13211/13212 [“Project” or “Grant Lake Project”]) under Part I of the Federal Power Act (FPA).
On September 15, 2009, FERC approved the use of the Traditional Licensing Process (TLP) for
development of the License Application and supporting materials. As described in more detail
below, the Project has been modified to eliminate the diversion of water from Falls Creek to
Grant Lake.
The Project will be located near the community of Moose Pass, Alaska, in the Kenai Peninsula
Borough, approximately 25 miles north of Seward, Alaska, and just east of the Seward Highway
(State Route 9). Figure 1.0-1 provides a general vicinity map for the Project.
The Terrestrial Resources Study Report presents the results of the 2013 Project analysis
conducted in accordance with the approved March 2013 Grant Lake Terrestrial Resources Study
Plan (Study Plan; KHL 2013). This report builds upon previous Project-related reports (Ebasco
1984, HDR 2011, and KHL 2011) and presents a summary of existing information relative to the
scope and context of potential effects of the Project. Specifically, this report describes the 2013
study results of the five primary terrestrial study components outlined in the Study Plan: 1)
General Vegetation Type Mapping; 2) Sensitive Plant Survey; 3) Invasive Plant Survey; 4)
Wetland and Waters Mapping; and 5) Wildlife Resources. The Study Plan also included
provisions for Timber Resources assessment; however, given the probability that project design
and operation could eliminate any impact to the timber resource and that an existing timber
assessment currently exists, this assessment was not conducted at this time and is therefore not
included in this report.
The Terrestrial Resources Study Report is organized in the following manner: Section 1
provides an introduction to the Terrestrial Resource Study component of the Project and a
general description of the proposed Project; Section 2 reviews the overarching goals of the
Terrestrial Resources Studies; Section 3 is a focused review of the objectives, methods, results,
conclusions, and variances of the 2013 Botanical Resources, Invasive Species, and Sensitive
Plant Species Study; Section 4 is a focused review of the objectives, methods, results,
conclusions, and variances of the 2013 Wetland and Waters Study; and Section 5 is a focused
review of the objectives, methods, results, conclusions, and variances of the 2013 Wildlife
Resources Study.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 2 June 2014
[This page intentionally left blank]
Legend
Project FERC Boundary
ALASKA
Project Location
MAP NOTES:1. THIS MAP WAS DEVELOPED FOR KENAI HYDRO, LLC AS PART OF THE GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT(FERC NO. 13212), NATURAL RESOURCES STUDY DOCUMENTATION. THE LOCATION OF PROJECT FEATURES IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND IS SHOWN FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY.2. THIS MAP WAS DEVELOPED FROM THE FOLLOWING RESOURCES: A. USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP PROVIDED BY ALASKA MAPPED AND UAF-GINA. B. PROJECT FEATURE LOCATIONS PROVIDED BY KENAI HYDRO, LLC.3. THIS MAP PRESENTS DATA IN THE FOLLOWING GEOGRAHIC SYSTEMS: - HORIZONTAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983 (NAD83) - VERTICAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 1988 (NAVD 88) - PROJECTION: ALASKA 4 FIPS 5004 FEET STATE PLANE
GRANT LAKE TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Figure 1.0-1General Project Vincinity Map
Developed For:
Drawing Scale:
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - FERC PROJECT NO.13212±OFFICE: 208.342.4214FAX: 208.342.4216
REV DESCRIPTIONBYDATE
DRAWING
ISSUED DATE
CHECKED
DRAWN
DESIGNED
0 0.75 1.50.375
Miles 1/9/2014
J. Woodbury
M. Hjortsberg
J. Blank1401 SHORELINE DRIVEBOISE, ID 83702
10/20/2013 JW Internal Review SCALE: 1:42,000
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 5 June 2014
1.1. Proposed Project Description
The Project is located near the community of Moose Pass, (population of 206), approximately 25
miles north of Seward and just east of the Seward Highway. This highway connects Anchorage
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 1), which connects to the Seward Highway
approximately 10 miles northwest of Moose Pass.
The Project lies within Section 13 of Township 4 North, Range 1 West; Sections 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and
18 of Township 4 North, Range 1 East; and Sections 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36 of
Township 5 North, Range 1 East, Seward Meridian (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] Seward B-
6 and B-7 Quadrangles).
The Project would be composed of an intake structure at the outlet to Grant Lake, a tunnel, a
surge tank, a penstock, and a powerhouse. It would also include a tailrace detention pond, a
switchyard with disconnect switch and step-up transformer, and an overhead or underground
transmission line. The preferred alternative would use approximately 15,900 acre-feet of water
storage during operations between pool elevations of approximately 692 and up to 705 feet North
American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88)1. Note that the previous PAD (KHL 2009)
included diverting water from Falls Creek into Grant Lake to provide additional flows and power
generation at the Grant Creek powerhouse. The Falls Creek diversion has been removed from
the Project proposal.
An intake structure would be constructed approximately 500 feet east of the natural outlet of
Grant Lake. An approximate 3,200-foot-long, 10-foot diameter horseshoe tunnel would convey
water from the intake to directly above the powerhouse at about elevation 628 feet NAVD 88.
At the outlet to the tunnel, a 360-foot-long section of penstock will convey water to the
powerhouse located at about elevation 531 feet NAVD 88. An off-stream detention pond will be
created to provide a storage reservoir for flows generated during the rare instance when the units
being used for emergency spinning reserve are needed to provide full load at maximum ramping
rates. The tailrace would be located in order to minimize impacts to fish habitat by returning
flows to Grant Creek upstream of the most productive fish habitat.
Two concepts are currently being evaluated for water control at the outlet of Grant Lake. The
first option would consist of a natural lake outlet that would provide control of flows out of
Grant Lake. A new low-level outlet would be constructed on the south side of the natural outlet
to release any required environmental flows when the lake is drawdown below the natural outlet
level. The outlet works would consist of a 48-inch diameter pipe extending back into Grant
Lake, a gate house, regulating gate, controls and associated monitoring equipment. The outlet
would discharge into Grant Creek immediately below the natural lake outlet.
1 The elevations provided in previous licensing and source documents are referenced to feet mean sea level in
NGVD 29 [National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929] datum, a historical survey datum. The elevations presented
in the Grant Lake natural resources study reports are referenced to feet NAVD 88 datum, which results in an
approximate +5-foot conversion to the NGVD 29 elevation values.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 6 June 2014
In the second option, a concrete gravity diversion structure would be constructed near the outlet
of Grant Lake. The gravity diversion structure would raise the pool level by a maximum height
of approximately 2 feet (from 703 to 705 feet NAVD 88), and the structure would have an
overall width of approximately 120 feet. The center 60 feet of the structure would have an
uncontrolled spillway section with a crest elevation at approximately 705 feet NAVD 88.
Similar to the first option, a low-level outlet would be constructed on the south side of the natural
outlet to release any required environmental flows when the lake is drawn down below the
natural outlet level. The outlet works would consist of a 48-inch diameter pipe extending back
into Grant Lake, a gate house, a regulating gate, controls, and associated monitoring equipment.
The outlet would discharge into Grant Creek immediately below the diversion structure. Figure
1.1-1 illustrates the Project infrastructure and features.
Figure 1.1-2 displays the global natural resources study area for the efforts undertaken in 2013
and 2014. Further discussions related to specifics of the aforementioned Project infrastructure
along with the need and/or feasibility of the diversion dam will take place with stakeholders in
2014 concurrent with the engineering feasibility work for the Project. Refined Project design
information will be detailed in both the Draft License Application (DLA) and any other ancillary
engineering documents related to Project development. The current design includes two Francis
turbine generators with a combined rated capacity of approximately 5.0 megawatts (MW) with a
total design flow of 385 cubic feet per second. Additional information about the Project can be
found on the Project website: http://www.kenaihydro.com/index.php.
Grant Creek
Grant Lake
Tailrace
Powerhouse
Penstock
Detention Pond
Tunnel
Intake
Diversion Dam
Detention Pond Outlet
LowerTrailLake
UpperTrailLake
Legend
Seward Highway
Alaska Railroad
Access Roads
Transmission Line
MAP NOTES:1. THIS MAP WAS DEVELOPED FOR KENAI HYDRO, LLC AS PART OF THE GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT(FERC NO. 13212), NATURAL RESOURCES STUDY DOCUMENTATION. THE LOCATION OF PROJECT FEATURES IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND IS SHOWN FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY.2. THIS MAP WAS DEVELOPED FROM THE FOLLOWING RESOURCES: A. AERIAL IMAGERY DEVELOPED BY USFS. B. PROJECT FEATURE LOCATIONS PROVIDED BY KENAI HYDRO, LLC.3. THIS MAP PRESENTS DATA IN THE FOLLOWING GEOGRAHIC SYSTEMS: - HORIZONTAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983 (NAD83) - VERTICAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 1988 (NAVD 88) - PROJECTION: ALASKA 4 FIPS 5004 FEET STATE PLANE
GRANT LAKE TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Figure 1.1-1Proposed Project Infrastructure and Features
Developed For:
Drawing Scale:
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - FERC PROJECT NO.13212±OFFICE: 208.342.4214FAX: 208.342.4216
REV DESCRIPTIONBYDATE
DRAWING
ISSUED DATE
CHECKED
DRAWN
DESIGNED
0 600 1,200300
Feet 1/9/2014
J. Woodbury
M. Hjortsberg
J. Blank1401 SHORELINE DRIVEBOISE, ID 83702
10/20/2013 JW Internal Review SCALE: 1:6,000
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 11 June 2014
1.2. Terrestrial Resources Study Area
In general, from west to east, the Terrestrial Resources Study area extends from east of the
Seward Highway and Alaska Railroad adjacent to Moose Pass, to just past the eastern shoreline
of Grant Lake. From south to north, the study area extends south along the highway to just south
of Grant Creek and north to just beyond the north shoreline of Grant Lake (see Figure 1.0-1).
Grant Lake is located approximately 1.5 miles southeast from Moose Pass in the steep
mountainous terrain that rises above the community. It has a maximum depth of nearly 300 feet
and surface area of 2.6 square miles (Ebasco 1984). Grant Lake’s total drainage area is
approximately 44 square miles. Tributaries include Inlet Creek at the headwaters and numerous
glacial-fed streams and drainages that run down the steep mountain slopes to Grant Lake. The
slopes are heavily vegetated with deciduous and coniferous forest communities that end abruptly
at the lakeshore (approximately 700 feet NAVD 88). The lake is ringed by mountains of the
Kenai Mountain Range to the east, north, and south, with elevations ranging from 4,500 to 5,500
feet NAVD 88.
Grant Lake’s only outlet, Grant Creek, runs west approximately 1 mile from the south end of
Grant Lake to drain into the narrows between Upper Trail and Lower Trail lakes. Trail River
drains Lower Trail Lake, which subsequently flows into Kenai Lake. Kenai Lake drains to the
Kenai River at its west end near Cooper Landing (Ebasco 1984). Grant Creek has a mean annual
flow of 193 cfs and is 5,180 feet long with an average gradient of 207 feet/mile; its substrate
includes cobble and boulder alluvial deposits and gravel shoals (Ebasco 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 as it passes over gravel
shoals and diminishing boulder substrate (Ebasco 1984). A thick coniferous and deciduous
mixed forest flanks the north and south side of Grant Creek. Depressional wetlands and several
ponds are interspersed throughout the forest on the south side of the Project area. Several
intermittent/ephemeral drainages run down the steep slopes above the upper portion of Grant
Creek and contribute to seasonal flow volumes.
The terrestrial resources were evaluated with respects to each resource’s potential nexus to the
Project features described above and the Project’s potential influence on Grant Lake and Grant
Creek. Figure 1.1-2 illustrates the Terrestrial Resources Study area which captures all of the
Project features described in Section 1.1 above, including Grant Lake. The Terrestrial Resources
Study area includes the area determined to conservatively capture the spatial limits of potential
direct and indirect impacts to the five resource disciplines evaluated in this report. Within this
collective Terrestrial Resources Study area, each resource discipline has its own focused
assessment area which are presented in Section 3, Terrestrial Vegetation; Section 4, Wetlands
and Waters; and Section 5, Wildlife Resources.
FINAL REPO
Grant Lake
FERC No.
In additio
Photo 1. I
Photo 2. I
northeast.
ORT
e Hydroelectric
13212
on to Figure
Inlet Creek en
Inlet Creek en
c Project
1.1-2, Photo
ntering Grant
ntering Grant
os 1 through
t Lake. Photo
t Lake. Photo
12
h 6 show Proj
o taken at east
o taken at sout
oject area fea
t end of lake,
theast corner
TERRESTRIA
atures and lo
looking west
of Grant Lak
AL RESOURCES
Kenai Hydro
June
ocations.
t.
ke, looking
STUDY
o, LLC
e 2014
FINAL REPO
Grant Lake
FERC No.
Photo 3. G
looking d
Photo 4. R
Photo tak
ORT
e Hydroelectric
13212
Grant Lake ou
ownstream to
Representativ
en on the sou
c Project
utlet and the u
owards the we
ve photo of th
uth side of Gra
uppermost po
est.
he canyon reac
ant Creek loo
13
ortion of Gran
ch of upper G
oking upstream
nt Creek,
Grant Creek.
m.
TERRESTRIA
AL RESOURCES
Kenai Hydro
June
STUDY
o, LLC
e 2014
FINAL REPO
Grant Lake
FERC No.
Photo 5. R
confluenc
Photo 6. R
south side
ORT
e Hydroelectric
13212
Representativ
ce. Photo take
Representativ
e of Grant Cre
c Project
ve photo of lo
en on the nort
ve photo of a
eek.
ower Grant Cr
th side of Gra
depressional
14
reek near Trai
ant Creek look
wetland locat
il Lake
king upstream
ted on the
TERRESTRIA
m.
AL RESOURCES
Kenai Hydro
June
STUDY
o, LLC
e 2014
FINAL REPO
Grant Lake
FERC No.
2 STU
The Terr
informati
during co
Applicati
concerns
need for
The follo
In order t
objective
The refin
botanical
Survey, a
ORT
e Hydroelectric
13212
DY OBJEC
restrial Resou
ion for asses
ompilation o
ion, and con
. Study goa
additional in
owing study
Assess the
abundanc
Assess the
stages.
Assess the
Grant Lak
Assess the
Project ro
Assess the
Project fa
Assess the
habitat an
Assess the
facilities,
Assess the
riparian, a
Assess the
the bench
Assess the
bird popu
to achieve th
es for the ind
ned objective
l study comp
and Wetland
The objec
type map
photograp
The objec
Agricultu
plants on
The objec
invasive p
c Project
CTIVES
urces Study
ssment of po
of the PAD (K
nsideration o
als were then
nformation g
goals were i
e impact of P
e.
e impact of P
e impact of P
ke shoreline
e impact of P
oads and faci
e impact of P
acilities) on d
e impact of P
nd nesting su
e impact of P
and lake lev
e impact of P
and littoral h
e impact of P
h between Gr
e impact of P
ulations (pote
hese overall
dividual stud
es for the bo
ponents: Ve
d and Waters
ctive of the V
of the Proje
phy, and ava
ctive of the S
ure, Forest Se
lands under
ctive of the I
plants in area
was develop
otential resou
KHL 2009),
f subsequent
n developed b
gathering.
identified in
Project cons
Project cons
Project cons
vegetation a
Project cons
ilities) on dis
Project cons
distribution a
Project cons
uccess of wat
Project cons
vel fluctuatio
Project cons
habitats.
Project cons
rant, Upper T
Project trans
ential collisio
objectives, t
dy componen
tanical resou
egetation Typ
s Mapping.
Vegetation Ty
ect vicinity u
ailable satelli
Sensitive Pla
ervice (USFS
its jurisdicti
Invasive Plan
as potentiall
15
ped with the
urce impacts
, public com
t changes to
based on the
the Study P
struction and
struction and
struction and
and/or habita
struction and
stribution an
struction and
and abundan
struction and
terbirds on G
struction and
ons at the lak
struction and
struction and
Trail, and Lo
smission line
on deaths).
the Study Pla
nts of the bot
urces are list
pe Mapping,
Type Mappin
using existing
ite imagery.
ant Survey w
S) requireme
ion.
nt Survey wa
y affected by
goal of prov
s of the Proje
mment, FERC
Project desi
e potential im
Plan:
d operation o
d operation o
d operation (
ats used by w
d operation (
nd abundanc
d operation (
nce of rare p
d operation o
Grant Lake a
d operation (r
ke inlet) on w
d operation o
d operation o
ower Trail la
es (if not bur
an outlined a
tanical resou
ted below, an
, Sensitive P
ng was to ref
g GIS layers
was to satisfy
ents for a Bi
as to locate a
y Project con
TERRESTRIA
viding suppo
ect. Impacts
C scoping for
ign to addres
mpacts ident
on wildlife d
on wildlife d
lake level flu
wildlife spec
lake level flu
ce of invasive
lake level flu
lant species.
on breeding a
and Inlet Cre
road/transm
wetlands and
on wildlife u
on wildlife m
akes.
ried in the ro
a more refin
urces and wi
nd organized
Plant Survey
fine the exist
s, existing ae
y U.S. Depar
iological Eva
and documen
nstruction an
AL RESOURCES
Kenai Hydro
June
orting
s were identi
r the License
ss stakehold
tified and the
distribution a
during critica
uctuations) o
cies.
uctuations a
e plant speci
uctuations a
.
and rearing
eek.
mission corrid
d waters.
use of wetlan
movement ac
oad grade) o
ned set of
ildlife resour
d by the four
, Invasive Pl
ting vegetati
erial
rtment of
aluation (BE
nt populatio
nd operation
STUDY
o, LLC
e 2014
ified
e
der
e
and
al life
on
and
ies.
and
dor,
nd,
cross
on
rces.
r
lant
ion
E) of
ns of
n.
FINAL REPO
Grant Lake
FERC No.
The refin
Study co
Terrestria
ORT
e Hydroelectric
13212
The objec
wetlands
This objec
assessmen
affected b
ned objective
mponents: R
al Mammal
The prima
abundanc
survey eff
golden ea
locations
vicinity w
minimizat
and 2013.
goshawks
The objec
data on br
the object
study area
estimate t
occur in th
landbirds
area by br
data was c
additional
The purpo
fluctuatio
Creek and
specific o
waterbird
locations
water leve
waterbird
winter use
was collec
data for w
Survey is
The Terre
the distrib
Dall sheep
moose dis
The rema
field studi
c Project
ctive of the W
and other wa
ctive was fu
nt of potenti
by fluctuatin
es for the wi
Raptor Nesti
surveys.
ary objective
e, and nestin
fort focused
agles, norther
will be iden
will be compi
tion strategie
. Note, how
s only. An a
ctive of the B
reeding land
tives of this
a during the
the numbers
he study are
and shorebi
reeding land
collected in
l data for lan
ose of the W
n and flow c
d to determin
objectives for
ds using Gran
of nesting ar
el fluctuation
d species of c
e by waterbi
cted in 2010
winter waterb
planned for
estrial Mamm
bution and po
p, and bats.
stribution on
ining terrest
ies conducte
Wetlands and
aters of the U
urther refined
al secondary
g lake levels
ldlife resour
ing, Breedin
e of the Rap
ng status of l
on protected
rn goshawks
ntified and m
iled; and the
es will be as
wever, that th
additional Go
Breeding Lan
dbirds and sh
study were t
breeding sea
of landbird
ea, estimate t
irds in the stu
dbirds and sh
2010 and 20
ndbirds only
Waterbird Stu
changes on w
ne if winter w
r this study c
nt Lake and
reas for wate
ns on nesting
conservation
irds in open
0 and 2013.
bird habitat o
r 2014.
mal Survey i
opulation of
Note that th
nly. An addi
trial mamma
ed in 2010.
16
d Waters Ma
U.S. that wil
d after the St
y impacts to
s and an alte
rces were as
ng Landbirds
tor Survey w
large diurnal
d, sensitive,
s, and osprey
mapped; a list
e potential Pr
ssessed. Rap
he 2013 Rapt
oshawk Surv
ndbird and S
horebirds nea
to assess lan
ason, qualita
and shorebir
the relative a
udy area, an
horebirds. B
013. The 20
.
udy was to al
waterbird ne
waterbird ha
component w
Grant Creek
erbirds to all
g habitat, de
n concern tha
water habita
The 2013 st
on Grant Lak
includes an a
f black and b
he 2013 stud
itional winte
al data relies
apping was t
ll be potentia
tudy Plan wa
wetlands an
ered Grant C
follows, org
s and Shoreb
was to determ
l raptors nea
or high-prof
ys. Tree and
t of raptor sp
roject effect
ptor Survey d
tor Survey fo
vey is planne
Shorebird St
ar the Projec
ndbird and sh
atively determ
rd species of
abundance an
nd describe th
Breeding land
13 study foc
llow determi
sting habitat
abitat is pres
were to desc
k during bree
low determin
etermine the
at occur in th
at of Grant L
tudy focused
ke only. An
assessment o
brown bears,
dy effort focu
er Moose Sur
on informat
TERRESTRIA
to identify an
ally impacte
as finalized t
nd waters tha
reek flow re
ganized by th
birds, Winter
mine the dist
ar the Project
file species s
d cliff-nestin
pecies nestin
s and potent
data was col
ocused on no
ed for 2014.
tudy was to c
ct area. Mor
horebird spec
rmine the occ
f conservatio
and distributi
he habitat us
dbird and sh
cused on col
ination of th
t on Grant L
sent on Gran
cribe species
eding season
nation of eff
occurrence
he study area
Lake. Waterb
d on the colle
additional w
of potential P
, moose, mou
used on wint
rvey is plann
tion gathered
AL RESOURCES
Kenai Hydro
June
nd describe
ed by the Pro
to include an
at may be
egime.
he four Wild
r Waterbirds
tribution,
t area. The
such as bald
ng raptor nes
ng in the Proj
tial impact
llected in 20
orthern
collect basel
re specificall
cies use of th
currence and
on concern t
ion of breedi
se in the stud
orebird surv
lecting
e effects of
Lake and Gra
nt Lake. The
composition
n, determine
fects of pote
and number
a, and determ
bird survey
ecting additi
winter Water
Project effec
untain goats
ter surveys o
ned for 2014
d during prev
STUDY
o, LLC
e 2014
the
oject.
n
dlife
s, and
d and
st
oject
010
line
ly,
he
d
that
ing
dy
vey
ant
e
n of
ential
rs of
mine
data
ional
rbird
cts on
s,
of
4.
vious
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 17 June 2014
3 BOTANTICAL RESOURCES: TERRESTRIAL VEGETATION, INVASIVE PLANTS,
AND SENSITIVE PLANTS
This section provides a description of general upland vegetation types, their distribution within
the Project area, and descriptions of the occurrence of sensitive and invasive plant species in the
Project area.
3.1. Study Area
The study areas for the general upland vegetation survey, invasive plant survey, and sensitive
plant survey are different from each other and are described below.
3.1.1. General Vegetation Type Survey
The study area for the general vegetation mapping survey was based on the nexus to Project
effects, and includes the Project boundary and all Project facilities, as well as the outer extent of
the assessment areas for the wildlife, wetland, sensitive plants, and invasive plants surveys (see
Figure 3.1-1). Around Grant Lake, the general vegetation mapping survey area includes all areas
up to an elevation of 733 feet NAVD 88. The description of upland vegetation types is found in
this section, as opposed to the description of wetland vegetation types, which is found in Section
4, Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S.
3.1.2. Invasive Plant Survey
The study area for the invasive plant survey (see Figure 3.1-2) includes:
USFS, private, and State lands in the Project area;
5 vertical feet above Grant Lake normal maximum elevation of 703 feet NAVD 88,
A 50-foot buffer along the road and transmission line,
A 100-foot buffer around all other Project features.
3.1.3. Sensitive Plant Survey
The study area for the sensitive plant survey was limited to USFS lands within the study area
(see Figure 3.1-3), and includes:
5 vertical feet above Grant Lake normal maximum elevation of 703 feet NAVD 88,
A 50-foot buffer along the road and transmission line,
A 100-foot buffer around all other Project features.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 18 June 2014
[This page intentionally left blank]
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 25 June 2014
3.2. Methods
The methods used to conduct the general vegetation mapping study, the sensitive plant survey,
and the invasive plant survey are described in the Study Plan. Methods for each survey are
summarized below.
3.2.1. General Vegetation
The methods used to map and describe upland vegetation types in the study area involved a
combination of field observation, ground truthing the existing vegetation cover type maps, and
aerial photo interpretation. The following vegetation classification systems were used to update
vegetation types: NatureServe 2008, DeVelice et al. 1999, and Viereck et al. 1992. Existing
Geographic Information System (GIS) vegetation cover type layers and existing aerial
photographs were acquired from available sources. Vegetation boundaries in aerial photos or
other imagery were used to update vegetation polygon boundaries in the study area. A final
vegetation type map that displays vegetation type polygon boundaries, the study area, and
specific Project components and impact areas was produced. The vegetation type map was used
to produce a table of vegetation types and to calculate the total acres and percentages of each
vegetation type present in the study area.
3.2.2. Invasive Plant Survey
The following methods and activities were performed to document the presence of invasive
plants in the study area. For the purposes of this study, invasive plants are those not considered
native to Alaska. Existing information on nearby known locations of invasive vascular plants
was compiled and reviewed. Previous data collection points in GIS databases from prior studies
were identified. When invasive species were identified in the field, the location was recorded
with a Global Positioning System (GPS) unit. When large populations of a particular species
were found, only one data point was recorded to represent the general area of infestation. If a
particular species was found at many sites close to one another, only one data point was
recorded. At least one data point for each unique invasive plant species that was encountered
was recorded.
The Alaska Exotic Plants Information Clearinghouse (AKEPIC) field form is recommended for
use by AKEPIC and the USFS for invasive plant surveys on USFS land. When invasive plant
species were located, GPS location information, data, observers, observer affiliation, detailed site
information, detailed location information and specific species information were recorded. In
addition, completed field form copies were submitted to AKEPIC for the statewide database
record.
3.2.3. Sensitive Plant Survey
The study methods for the sensitive plant survey are based on the Procedures for Sensitive Plant
Biological Evaluations (Stensvold 2002). As referenced throughout the Study Plan, sensitive
plants are plant species formally identified by Region 10 of the USFS (Goldstein et al. 2009).
Prior to field surveys, a pre-field review of the study area was prepared (Beck 2013). A total of
17 plant species and 1 lichen species have been designated as Sensitive on the Alaska Regional
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 26 June 2014
Forester’s list (see Appendix 1a, Table A.1a-1, Alaska Region sensitive plants, February 2011);
13 of these are known or suspected to occur on the Chugach National Forest. No species on the
Alaska Region Sensitive Plant list have been documented previously in or near the study area,
although two species have been documented previously in the Seward Ranger District. The
potential presence of federally listed threatened or endangered plant species in the study area was
reviewed.
Habitat information in the study area was assessed based on information obtained from GIS,
reviews of aerial photographs and discussion with resource specialists. Habitat types potentially
occurring in the study area include: coniferous forest, deciduous forest, mixed conifer/deciduous
forest, forest edge, tall shrublands, rocky areas, rock outcrops, cliffs, gravel, scree, talus, seeps,
wet areas, riparian areas, streambanks, waterfalls, lake margins, shallow freshwater marshes,
sphagnum bogs, fens, and heaths. Based on the variety of habitats present, it was determined
that eight of the sensitive species on the Alaska Region Sensitive Plant List have a reasonable
potential to occur in the analysis area.
Of the species with habitats similar to those present within the Project area, only one of these
species, pale poppy, had been documented previously on the Seward Ranger District. The
Seward Ranger District is also within the potential range of an additional six species that are
suspected to occur on the District. Table 3.2-1 summarizes the general habitat requirements of
the plant species that have habitats potentially present within the study area that are either known
to occur or suspected to occur on the Seward Ranger District.
Table 3.2-1. Known or suspected sensitive plants in the Seward Ranger District.
Scientific Name Common Name Presence1 Habitat2
Aphragmus
eschscholtzianus
Eschscholtz’s little
nightmare
Known Alpine and subalpine heath meadows; wet
rocky or mossy seeps
Botrychium tunux Moosewort fern Suspected Well-drained sandy beaches and alpine
sites
Botrychium
yaaxudakeit
Moonwort fern Suspected Well drained open meadows, upper beach
meadows, coastal dunes
Cypripedium guttatum Spotted lady’s slipper Suspected Open forest, tall shrublands, wet meadows
Ligusticum calderi Calder’s lovage Suspected Limestone, wet to moist sites in the
subalpine and alpine, rock habitats,
meadows, forest edges
Papaver alboroseum Pale poppy Known Open areas, areas with sandy, gravelly,
well-drained soils, mesic to dry alpine,
recently deglaciated areas.
Piperia unalascensis Alaska rein orchid Suspected Dry open sites, tall shrub in riparian zones,
mesic meadows, dry forests, low elevation
to subalpine
Romanzoffia
unalaschensis
Unalaska mist-maid Suspected Rock outcrop ledges and crevices, gravelly
stream sides, beach terraces
Notes:
1. Known = known to occur in the Seward Ranger District;
Suspected = suspected to occur in the Seward Ranger District.
2. Habitat descriptions are taken from Goldstein et al. 2009.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 27 June 2014
Field surveys for sensitive plants included the USFS-owned portions of the Grant Lake shoreline.
There are no Project components on USFS land. A variety of habitat types and aspects were
surveyed. Surveys on the lake were primarily done with a boat traveling close to the shore
because steep terrain and dense vegetation restricted the ability for much of the shoreline to be
surveyed on foot. Sections of the shoreline were walked where slope and vegetation density
allowed.
Level 5 intuitive controlled surveys for sensitive plants were conducted in the study area. Refer
to USFS Survey Intensity Levels for Plants, found in Appendix 1b, for a general description of
survey intensity levels for plants. This survey type involves identifying suitable habitat for
targeted species and then focusing the survey effort within those identified habitats. Field
surveys were conducted at an appropriate time of year to identify targeted species.
A Biological Evaluation (BE) will be prepared for plants in the study area (lands under USFS
jurisdiction) with the baseline information collected during the sensitive plant survey.
3.3. Results
Field surveys were conducted in the general upland vegetation mapping, invasive plant, and
sensitive plant study areas from July 18 to July 24, 2013. The Grant Lake water level elevation
was estimated to be between 698 and 699 feet NAVD 88 at the time of the survey. Results of the
General Vegetation, Invasive Plant, and Sensitive Plant surveys are provided below.
3.3.1. General Vegetation
Upland vegetation types within the general vegetation study area were delineated and refined
using aerial photograph imagery obtained from the Chugach National Forest dating from
between 1996 and 2004 (see Figure 3.3-1). In addition, upland vegetation types were ground
truthed in the field. Figure 3.3-2 through Figure 3.3-6 are more detailed maps of the upland
vegetation in the study area. Wetland vegetation types are discussed in detail in Section 4,
Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S. The 570.5-acre study area contains a total of 5 upland
vegetation types, including Coniferous Forest, Coniferous-Deciduous Forest, Alder Scrub,
Grass-Forb Meadow, and Floodplain Forest and Scrub. The 2013 upland vegetation types, total
acres, percentages of the total study area, and their corresponding NatureServe ecological
systems (NatureServe 2008) are presented in Table 3.3-1. Each of the 2013 vegetation types is
widespread in the region. The characteristics and general distribution of the 2013 upland
vegetation types are described below.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 28 June 2014
[This page intentionally left blank]
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 41 June 2014
Table 3.3-1. 2013 upland vegetation types, acres, percentages, and NatureServe Ecological Systems.
2013 Vegetation
Type Acres1 Percent NatureServe Ecological System
Coniferous Forest 173.7 30.5%
Alaska Sub-boreal White-Lutz Spruce Forest and Woodland -
CES 105.102, Alaskan Pacific Maritime Mountain Hemlock
Forest - CES 204.142, Alaska Sub-boreal Mountain Hemlock-
White Spruce Forest - CES 204.103
Coniferous-
Deciduous Forest 177.1 31.0%
Alaska Sub-boreal White Spruce-Hardwood Forest - CES
105.136
Alder Scrub 34.5 6.0% Alaska Sub-boreal Avalanche Slope Shrubland - CES 105.111
Grass-Forb Meadow 2.2 0.4%
Western North American Sub-boreal Mesic Bluejoint Meadow -
CES 105.114
Floodplain Forest
and Scrub 106.0 18.6%
Western North American Boreal Montane Floodplain Forest and
Shrubland - CES 105.141
Wetlands 77.1 13.5%
WNAB Montane Floodplain Forest and Shrubland – CES
105.141, WNAB Riparian Stringer Forest and Shrubland – CES
104.144, WNAB Deciduous Shrub Swamp – CES.122, WNAB
Low Shrub Peatland – CES 105.140, WNAB Freshwater Aquatic
Bed – CES 105.125, WNAB Freshwater Emergent Marsh – CES
105.123, WNAB Wet Meadow – CES 105.124
Total 570.5 100.0%
Notes:
1. Differences in wetland acreages presented in Table 3.3-1 and Tables 4.3-1 and 4.3-2 are due to rounding errors
3.3.1.1. Coniferous Forest
Coniferous Forest is a common vegetation type in the study area, occurring on 173.7 acres, and
comprising 30.5 percent of the vegetated area. In the study area, this vegetation type is
represented by stands of Lutz spruce (Picea x lutzii), mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana),
and mixed Lutz spruce and mountain hemlock. Lutz spruce is a hybrid between Sitka spruce
(Picea sitchensis) and white spruce (Picea glauca). Much of the forest in the study area is old
growth. Evidence of past logging of some larger trees within the study area was observed in the
vicinity of the Alaska Railroad and the Seward Highway. Lutz spruce and mountain hemlock
trees average 50 feet in height in some forested stands. Spruce snags are common throughout
this forest type, most likely killed by the massive spruce beetle outbreak on the Kenai Peninsula
during the 1990s (Berg et al. 2006).
Large continuous stands of open to closed canopied coniferous forest occur along the upper
reaches of Grant Creek and the Project feature corridor, the Grant Lake elbow area, and the
southeast end of Grant Lake. Smaller patches of coniferous forest also occur along the Grant
Lake shoreline. The understory layer tends to be dense with tall shrub species. Common shrubs
include rusty menziesia (Menziesia ferruginea), early blueberry (Vaccinium ovalifolium), and
Alaska huckleberry (Vaccinium alaskaense). Common low-shrubs and forbs include: five-leaf
bramble (Rubus pedatus), twinflower (Linnaea borealis), lingonberry (Vaccinium vitis-idaea),
bunchberry (Cornus canadensis), crowberry (Empetrum nigrum), Labrador tea (Ledum
groenlandicum), oakfern (Gymnocarpium dryopteris), and northern comandra (Geocaulon
lividum). In many areas, moss and lichen species form a continuous cover on the forest floor.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 42 June 2014
Forest openings often support stands of Sitka alder (Alnus viridis ssp. sinuata), Sitka mountain-
ash (Sorbus sitchensis), trailing black currant (Ribes laxiflorum), fireweed (Chamerion
angustifolium) and bluejoint reedgrass (Calamagrostis canadensis).
3.3.1.2. Coniferous-Deciduous Forest
The Coniferous-Deciduous Forest is the most common vegetation type in the study area,
occurring on 177.1 acres, and comprising 31.0 percent of the vegetated area. It is characterized
by codominant stands of paper birch (Betula papyrifera) and Lutz spruce on typically well-
drained, upland terrain. Mountain hemlock, poplar (Populus balsamifera), and quaking aspen
(Populus tremuloides) may be present in the overstory canopy. Common understory shrubs
include rusty menziesia, trailing black currant, prickly rose (Rosa acicularis), Beauvard spiraea
(Spiraea stevenii) and highbush cranberry (Viburnum edule). Common low shrubs and forbs
include bunchberry, twinflower, crowberry, fireweed, oak fern, and bluejoint reedgrass. Open
sites often support stands of Sitka alder. In the study area, Coniferous-Deciduous forest occurs
intermittently along the northwest shore of Grant Lake, along the southeast shore of Grant Lake;
and in large stands along Grant Creek and the lower portion of the Project corridor in the vicinity
of Lower Trail and Upper Trail lakes.
3.3.1.3. Alder Scrub
The Alder Scrub vegetation type is represented by stands of often closed canopy Sitka alder on
the steep, avalanche-prone slopes around Grant Lake. It occurs on 34.5 acres and comprises 6.0
percent of the vegetated area. High snowfall and frequent avalanche activity determine the
distribution of Alder Scrub and other plant communities on these slopes. These often dense
stands of Sitka alder frequently have a sparse understory or an understory that is dominated by
shorter shrubs, including goatsbeard, willow species, and devil’s club, as well as forbs such as
tall fireweed, cow parsnip, and lady fern. Smaller patches of herbaceous vegetation (Grass-Forb
Meadow, discussed below) are common within Alder Scrub, and form a matrix with it.
Coniferous tree seedlings and saplings were also observed in this vegetation type.
3.3.1.4. Grass-Forb Meadow
In the study area, the Grass-Forb Meadow vegetation type forms a mosaic with the Alder Scrub
vegetation type, as described above, and is mostly included as small, unmapped patches on the
steep slopes above Grant Lake. Several larger Grass-Forb Meadows are mapped in the study
area; one at the east end of Grant Lake and a larger one at the west end of the lake, south of the
Grant Creek outlet. The Grass-Forb Meadow vegetation type is the least common type in the
study area, occurring on 2.2 acres, and comprising 0.4 percent of the vegetated area. The
dominant plant species in this vegetation type is the tall, rhizomatous grass species bluejoint
reedgrass, which often forms extensive swards. Forb associates are often diverse and commonly
include tall fireweed, oak fern, northern geranium (Geranium erianthum), arctic starflower
(Trientalis europaea), cow parsnip (Heracleum maximum), larkspur (Delphinium glaucum),
Sitka burnet (Sanguisorba canadensis), tall Jacob’s-ladder (Polemonium acutiflorum), wood fern
(Dryopteris expansa), common horsetail (Equisetum arvense) and monkshood (Aconitum
delphinifolium). Shrub species include goatsbeard, red raspberry (Rubus idaeus), and highbush
cranberry. The relative abundance of grass and forbs from site to site is variable.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 43 June 2014
3.3.1.5. Floodplain Forest and Scrub
The Floodplain Forest and Scrub vegetation type covers 106.0 acres of the study area,
constituting 18.6 percent of the vegetated area. This vegetation type occurs on floodplain gravel
bars that are successively colonized by herbaceous, shrub, and tree species; and this type is often
comprised of a mosaic of upland and wetland areas. Vegetation succession on gravel bars can be
represented by the following seral stages: barren or herbaceous, willow or willow-alder, alder,
poplar or spruce-poplar, and then spruce (NatureServe 2008), all of which occur in the study area
on the wide floodplain associated with Inlet Creek, on outwash fans and floodplains associated
with the small drainages around Grant Lake, and on the floodplain where Grant Creek enters the
Trail Lake Narrows. The substrate of this vegetation type is typically well-drained sand, silt,
gravel, and cobble; it includes a diversity of habitats including bare areas, shrublands, forests,
oxbows, wet depressions and herbaceous wetlands. Wetlands included in this vegetation type
are described in the Wetlands section (Section 4). Upland portions within this type include:
forests comprised of Lutz spruce, balsam poplar, and sometimes paper birch; stands of large
poplar, stands of Sitka alder, and Sitka alder stands with willow species such as feltleaf willow,
Barclay willow, and Sitka willow (Salix alaxensis, S. barclayi, and S. sitchensis). In the earliest
seral areas, herbaceous meadows are dominated by sedge species (Carex species), river beauty
(Chamerion latifolium) bluegrass species (Poa species), bluejoint reedgrass, and horsetail species
(Equisetum species). Stands of mature poplar can be found on the extensive alluvial area
adjacent Inlet Creek.
3.3.1.6. Barren/Sparsely Vegetated
Barren and sparsely vegetated areas include talus slopes, cliffs, and avalanche chutes having less
than 10 percent vegetation cover. In the study area, barren and sparsely vegetated areas form a
mosaic with the Alder Scrub vegetation type on steep, avalanche prone, often dry, sometimes
seepy slopes around Grant Lake. These polygons are generally not large enough to be
individually mapped.
3.3.1.7. Wetland Communities
Refer to Section 4, Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. for a detailed discussion about the
distribution, types, and functions of the wetland and water resources throughout the Project area.
3.3.2. Invasive Plant Survey
Data about invasive plants were extracted from the USFS’s Natural Resource Information
System Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants and Invasive Species Application (USFS
NRIS 2013). This application supports national data collection standards from combined
Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive plants and invasive species surveys and inventories.
Populations of the following invasive plant species have been documented previously within
0.25 mile of the study area: timothy (Phleum pratense), common plantain (Plantago major),
annual bluegrass (Poa annua), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), common dandelion
(Taraxacum officinale), white clover (Trifolium repens) and alsike clover (T. hybridum). Most
of these invasive plants were located along the Seward Highway and Alaska Railroad in the area
between Upper Trail and Lower Trail lakes. Within the Project vicinity, few populations of
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 44 June 2014
invasive plants have been documented very far from highways, railroad right-of-ways (ROW),
and other developments (USFS NRIS 2013). A list of invasive plants considered most likely to
be located in the study area is presented in Appendix 1a, Table A.1a-2, Invasive plant
populations in the vicinity of Grant Lake, June 2013.
The invasive plant survey was conducted concurrently with the sensitive plant survey and took
place within areas potentially affected by the Project. Areas of particular focus included:
roadsides, motorized vehicle travel routes, boat traffic routes, existing trails, lake and stream
access points, developed and social recreation sites, and other human use areas.
Overall, very few populations of invasive plants were located in the invasive plant study area.
Populations of the following four invasive plants were documented: annual bluegrass, Kentucky
bluegrass, common dandelion, and white clover. Populations of each of these invasive species
have previously been mapped in the vicinity of the Project area on State of Alaska lands (USFS
NRIS 2013). AKEPIC Field Data Sheets for these invasive plant populations are included in
Appendix 1b.
In the study area, common dandelion and white clover were located along the Seward Highway
ROW. Common dandelion was located along the Alaska Railroad ROW. Annual bluegrass,
Kentucky bluegrass and common dandelion were located on the Grant Lake Trail where it enters
the study area on the west end of the north shore of Grant Lake (USFS land). Ten scattered
small- to medium-sized populations of common dandelion were scattered around Grant Lake in
areas with exposed soil or gravel on State of Alaska and USFS lands. Wave action and ice
scouring on exposed substrates along the Grant Lake shore constitute a natural disturbance
regime which favors the establishment of common dandelion. The Grant Lake dandelion
populations are comprised of a combination of common dandelion and horned dandelion
(Taraxacum ceratophorum). Horned dandelion is a native, noninvasive plant whose appearance
is similar to common dandelion and is distinguished with a combination of technical characters.
In the study area, invasive plants were most likely to be located in areas where the substrate has
been disturbed or where bare soil has been exposed. Except for the Grant Lake shoreline,
invasive plants were not observed in areas that do not experience appreciable human disturbance.
3.3.3. Sensitive Plant Survey
A map of areas surveyed for sensitive plants is included on Figure 3.3-7 and Figure 3.3-8. A list
of all plant species observed in the combined sensitive plant and invasive plant study areas is
included in Appendix 1a as Table A.1a-3. A USFS Plant Survey Field Form describing the
sensitive plant survey is included in Appendix 1b. The species list is divided into three areas: the
Project Corridor, which is located on State of Alaska land; the State of Alaska owned portion of
Grant Lake; and the USFS owned portion of Grant Lake. Aleutian shield fern (Polystichum
aleuticum) is the only federally listed or proposed plant species within the range of the Project
area (USFWS 2013). Because no habitat for it is present within the Project vicinity, it was not
expected to occur, and was not observed during fieldwork.
A BE for sensitive plants in the Project area on lands under USFS jurisdiction will be prepared
for the Draft License Application. A small population of the USFS sensitive plant pale poppy
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 45 June 2014
(Papaver alboroseum) was located in the sensitive plant study area and is discussed below. In
addition, two plant species tracked by the Alaska Natural Heritage Program as rare plants were
located in the combined sensitive plant and invasive plant study areas and are discussed below.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 46 June 2014
[This page intentionally left blank]
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 51 June 2014
3.3.3.1. Pale Poppy (Papaver alboroseum)
A small population of pale poppy was located on the north shore of Grant Lake, northwest of the
island (see Figure 3.3-8). Figure 3.3-8, above, presents a map of the pale poppy populations. A
USFS sighting form for the pale poppy is presented in Appendix 1b (R10 TES Plant Element
Occurrence Field Form), along with photographs of pale poppy plants and its habitat in the study
area (Appendix 1b, Photos A.1b-1 –A.1b-3). Fifteen pale poppy plants were growing on a semi-
stabilized, sparsely vegetated, south-facing creek outwash area near the Grant Lake shore, on a
cobble, sand, and gravel substrate. The population is located in the Floodplain Forest and Scrub
vegetation type. Vegetation present at the site was an early successional community with shrubs,
forbs, and graminoids. The plants nearest in proximity to the lake were located approximately
12 feet away. Plants were between 2 and 5 feet higher than the surface water level elevation
(SWE) at the time of the survey (SWE estimated to be between 698 and 699 feet NAVD 88).
Pale poppy is distributed from the Kuril Islands to south central Alaska and is disjunct to north
central British Columbia (Goldstein et al. 2009). Pale poppy requires an open, well-drained
habitat, and occasional disturbance either creates or maintains this habitat. One-time (as opposed
to recurring) disturbances by humans can create habitat for the poppy. Examples include
stabilized road sides, railroad trackbeds, and disturbed gravelly areas such as old gravel pits.
While some human disturbance may help maintain suitable open habitat, repeated disturbance
may have affect the plant’s ability to reproduce (Charnon 2007). Pale poppy plants observed on
nearby Cooper Lake are able to tolerate some inundation during the growing season (HDR
2005).
3.3.3.2. Additional Findings
A small population of Yellowstone draba (Draba incerta) was located on USFS land, on the
north shore of Grant Lake, southeast of the island. While it is not listed by the USFS as a
sensitive species, this yellow-flowered species in the mustard family is listed by the Alaska
Natural Heritage Program as an S3 species (AKNHP 2013). An S3 designation means that the
species is “Rare within the state; at moderate risk of extirpation because of restricted range,
narrow habitat specificity, recent population decline, small population sizes, and a moderate
number of occurrences” (AKNHP 2013). There are nearly 20 occurrences of this species in
Alaska, of which 2 are on the Kenai Peninsula (AKNHP 2013).
A small population of western fescue (Festuca occidentalis) was located within the 50-foot study
area buffer on State of Alaska land along the proposed access route west of the detention pond.
This grass species is listed by the Alaska Natural Heritage Program as an S1 species (AKNHP
2013). An S1 designation means that the species is “Critically imperiled within the state; at very
high risk of extirpation because of extremely few occurrences, declining populations, or
extremely limited range and/or habitat” (AKNHP 2013). There are a total of 4 occurrences of
this species in Alaska, of which 2 are on the Kenai Peninsula (AKNHP 2013). In the study area,
several western fescue plants were located in an opening in white spruce forest on a well-
drained, southwest-facing hummock.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 52 June 2014
3.4. Conclusions
This section summarizes the findings of the general upland vegetation study and the invasive
plant and sensitive plant surveys. In addition, potential qualitative direct and indirect impacts of
the construction and operation of the Project on general upland vegetation and sensitive plants
are discussed. In general, construction-related impacts are considered short-term, while impacts
associated with Project infrastructure and operations would likely be longer-term or permanent.
Direct impacts are those that would occur immediately or soon after the implementation of the
action (Dillman et al. 2009). Indirect impacts are those impacts that are reasonably likely to
occur at a later point in time after the Project has been implemented.
In general, potential direct impacts of the construction of the Project on upland vegetation or
sensitive plants involve physical damage to or inundation of individual plants, entire populations,
or vegetation habitat. Indirect impacts of the construction and operation of the Project may
include the following:
Changes in Grant Lake hydrology: increased water levels might result in the death or
decline in vigor of plants not adapted to higher sustained water levels; or, conversely, a
sustained decrease in water levels might result in the death or decline of plants adapted to
wetland conditions.
Changes in Grant Creek hydrology: changes to in-stream flow regime of Grant Creek
may result in the death or decline in vigor of plants, or a shift in riparian vegetation
community composition in response to the new flow regime.
Changes in light levels: partial or complete removal of tree canopy in forested areas or
shrub cover in dense scrub areas can result in increased light levels in the understory,
potentially resulting in light levels beyond the tolerance of shade dependent species.
Shifts to earlier successional vegetation types in disturbed areas.
Introduction and spread of invasive plants: ground disturbing activities and increased
light levels can create conditions conducive to the establishment of invasive plant
populations. Invasive plants compete with native plants for preferred habitat.
3.4.1. General Vegetation
Five general upland vegetation types were mapped within the study area, including Coniferous
Forest, Coniferous-Deciduous Forest, Alder Scrub, Grass-Forb Meadow, and Floodplain Forest
and Scrub.
Potential direct impacts of the construction of the Project on general upland vegetation may
include: clearing of vegetation, the smothering of vegetation by the placement of fill material,
damage to vegetation by machinery, soil disturbance, altering of the natural grade, and
inundation. Potential indirect impacts of the construction of the Project on upland vegetation
may include: the introduction and spread of invasive plant species, soil erosion, poor native
vegetation reestablishment, vegetation type changes due to changes in light or moisture levels,
and shifts to earlier successional vegetation types in disturbed areas.
The primary potential direct impact of the operation of the Project with regard to upland
vegetation is the loss of natural vegetation. Potential indirect impacts of the operation of the
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 53 June 2014
Project on upland vegetation may include: the introduction and spread of invasive plant species,
the alteration or loss of some vegetation types, and the maintenance of earlier successional
vegetation types. While these direct and indirect impacts have the potential to occur to some
degree, Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be collaboratively developed with the agencies
prior to the initiation of construction to minimize impacts to general vegetation. These potential
impacts to general upland vegetation are summarized by Project component in Table 3.4-1.
Refer to Section 4.4, Wetlands Conclusions, for a summary of potential impacts to wetland and
water communities. Engineering feasibility work is being conducted in parallel with the natural
resource investigations for the Project. The “Potential Qualitative Construction and Operational
Impacts” listed in Table 3.4-1 below will be further refined once the operational scenario(s) is
selected. This scenario will be developed collaboratively with the input of stakeholders. These
refinements will be detailed in the DLA.
3.4.2. Invasive Plant Survey
Few populations of invasive plants were documented in the study area. Invasive plant species
observed in the study area included common dandelion, white clover, Kentucky bluegrass, and
annual bluegrass. Except for the common dandelion populations around Grant Lake, all of the
invasive plant populations in the study area are associated with human disturbance areas.
Potential impacts of Project construction and operations on invasive plant populations include:
invasive plant populations in the Project area could become larger,
invasive plant populations could spread to new areas within the Project area,
new species of invasive plants could spread to areas affected by the Project, and
invasive plant populations could spread out of the Project area into adjacent areas.
Potential direct and indirect impacts of the construction and operation of the Project on upland
vegetation and sensitive plants with regard to invasive plants are summarized in Tables 3.4-1 and
3.4-2, respectively. While direct and indirect impacts have the potential to occur to some degree,
BMPs will be collaboratively developed with the agencies and incorporated into an Invasive
Plant Management Plan prior to the initiation of construction, in order to minimize potential
invasive plant impacts associated with the Project.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 54 June 2014
Table 3.4-1. General upland vegetation potential qualitative impact table, Grant Lake Project.
Project Component
Potential Qualitative Construction
Impacts1,2
Potential Qualitative Operational
Impacts1,2
Direct Indirect Direct Indirect
GRANT CREEK
DIVERSION
Natural Outlet Option
Vegetation
clearing, soil
disturbance, altered
natural grade, fill
material placement,
damage by
machinery
Weed infestation;
soil erosion; poor
native veg re-
establishment;
change of light or
moisture levels;
shift to earlier
successional
vegetation types
Loss of natural
vegetation;
inundation, Grant
Lake water level
fluctuations,
drawdowns, Grant
Creek flow regime
changes
Weed infestation;
effects of the new
lake level
fluctuation regime
and the new creek
flow regime on
upland vegetation;
alteration and/or
loss of upland
vegetation types
Concrete Dam Option
Vegetation
clearing, soil
disturbance, altered
natural grade, fill
material placement,
damage by
machinery
Weed infestation;
soil erosion; poor
native veg re-
establishment;
change of light or
moisture levels;
shift to earlier
successional
vegetation types
Loss of natural
vegetation;
inundation, Grant
Lake water level
fluctuations,
drawdowns, Grant
Creek flow regime
changes
Weed infestation;
effects of new lake
level fluctuation
regime and the new
creek flow regime
on upland
vegetation;
alteration and/or
loss of upland
vegetation types
WATER
CONVEYANCE
Intake Structure
Vegetation
clearing, soil
disturbance, altered
natural grade, fill
material placement,
damage by
machinery
Weed infestation;
soil erosion; poor
native veg re-
establishment;
change of light or
moisture levels;
shift to earlier
successional
vegetation types
Loss of natural
vegetation;
inundation, Grant
Lake water level
fluctuations,
drawdowns, Grant
Creek flow regime
changes
Weed infestation;
effects of new lake
level fluctuation
regime and the new
creek flow regime
on upland
vegetation;
alteration and/or
loss of upland
vegetation types
Tunnel
At surficial
entrance and exit of
tunnel: vegetation
clearing; soil
disturbance; altered
natural grade; fill
material placement;
damage by
machinery
At surficial
entrance and exit of
tunnel: weed
infestation; soil
erosion; poor native
veg re-
establishment;
change of light or
moisture levels,
shift to earlier
successional
vegetation types
At surficial
entrance and exit of
tunnel: loss of
natural vegetation
At surficial entrance
and exit of tunnel:
weed infestation;
soil erosion; poor
native veg re-
establishment;
alteration or loss of
upland vegetation
types
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Table 3.4-1, continued…
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 55 June 2014
Project Component
Potential Qualitative Construction
Impacts1,2
Potential Qualitative Operational
Impacts1,2
Direct Indirect Direct Indirect
Penstock
Vegetation
clearing, soil
disturbance, altered
natural grade, fill
material placement,
damage by
machinery
Weed infestation;
soil erosion; poor
native veg re-
establishment;
change of light or
moisture levels;
shift to earlier
successional
vegetation types
Loss of natural
vegetation
Weed infestation;
soil erosion, poor
native veg re-
establishment;
alteration or loss of
upland vegetation
types
Tailrace
Vegetation
clearing, soil
disturbance, altered
natural grade, fill
material placement,
damage by
machinery
Weed infestation;
soil erosion; poor
native veg re-
establishment;
change of light or
moisture levels;
shift to earlier
successional
vegetation types
Loss of natural
vegetation
Weed infestation;
soil erosion, poor
native veg re-
establishment;
alteration or loss of
upland vegetation
types
Tailrace Detention
Pond
Vegetation
clearing; soil
disturbance; altered
natural grade,
damage by
machinery, fill
material placement
Weed infestation;
soil erosion; poor
native veg re-
establishment;
change of light or
moisture levels;
shift to earlier
successional
vegetation types
Periodic inundation
of wetland and
adjacent upland
areas
Weed infestation;
possible expansion
of wetland fringe
around water edge
into upland
vegetation; soil
erosion,
sedimentation/burial
of upland
vegetation; poor
native veg re-
establishment. The
amount and nature
of upland vegetation
impacts will be
dependent on the
frequency, timing,
duration of
inundation
POWERHOUSE
Powerhouse Structure
Vegetation
clearing; soil
disturbance; altered
natural grade; fill
material placement;
damage by
machinery
Weed infestation;
soil erosion; poor
native veg re-
establishment;
change of light or
moisture levels;
shift to earlier
successional
vegetation types
Loss of natural
vegetation
Weed infestation;
soil erosion, poor
native veg re-
establishment;
alteration or loss of
upland vegetation
types
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Table 3.4-1, continued…
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 56 June 2014
Project Component
Potential Qualitative Construction
Impacts1,2
Potential Qualitative Operational
Impacts1,2
Direct Indirect Direct Indirect
TRANSMISSION
LINE/
SWITCHYARD
Above Ground Option Vegetation
clearing; soil
disturbance; altered
natural grade; fill
material placement;
damage by
machinery
Weed infestation;
soil erosion; poor
native veg re-
establishment;
change of light or
moisture levels;
shift to earlier
successional
vegetation types
Loss of natural
vegetation
Weed infestation;
soil erosion, poor
native veg re-
establishment. Shift
to earlier
successional
vegetation
community if ROW
is maintained clear
of woody vegetation
as many utility
corridors are
Below Ground Option
Vegetation
clearing; soil
disturbance; altered
natural grade; fill
material placement;
damage by
machinery
Weed infestation;
soil erosion; poor
native veg re-
establishment;
change of light or
moisture levels;
shift to earlier
successional
vegetation types
Loss of natural
vegetation
Weed infestation;
soil erosion; poor
native veg re-
establishment;
alteration or loss of
upland vegetation
types
ACCESS ROADS &
BRIDGE
Access Roads &
Bridge
Vegetation
clearing; soil
disturbance; altered
natural grade; fill
material placement;
damage by
machinery
Weed infestation;
soil erosion; poor
native veg re-
establishment;
change of light or
moisture levels;
shift to earlier
successional
vegetation types
Loss of natural
vegetation
Weed infestation;
soil erosion; poor
native veg re-
establishment;
alteration or loss of
upland vegetation
types
Notes:
1. The potential impacts discussed in this table are preliminary and based primarily on the terrestrial natural
resource studies and the limited amount of engineering feasibility work conducted prior to this report being
developed. This table and the associated impacts will be fully refined and vetted once the licensing associated
engineering work is completed. A full discussion of refined environmental impacts will be included in the
DLA.
2. Project would be constructed over a 30-36 month time period.
3.4.3. Sensitive Plant Survey
The sensitive plant survey occurred on USFS lands in areas potentially affected by the Project.
The survey was conducted at the proper time of year to identify sensitive plants recognized as
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 57 June 2014
having the potential to occur in the study area. A small population of pale poppy was located in
the study area.
Potential direct and indirect impacts to sensitive plants include potential impacts to known
populations and potential impacts to undetected populations on suitable habitat. Potential
impacts to USFS lands would primarily be Grant Lake level changes related to the
implementation of the Project. No components associated with the Project (Grant Lake
Diversion dam and Grant Lake Powerhouse, water conveyance, transmission line, or access
roads and bridge) are located on USFS lands, thus USFS lands would not be directly impacted by
their construction or operation. While direct and indirect impacts have the potential to occur to
some degree, BMPs will be collaboratively developed with the agencies and incorporated into a
Sensitive Plant Management Plan prior to the implementation of construction, in order to
minimize impacts to sensitive plant populations. Potential direct and indirect impacts of the
Project on sensitive plants are discussed below and are summarized in Table 3.4-2. Engineering
feasibility work is being conducted in parallel with the natural resource investigations for the
Project. The potential qualitative impacts listed in Table 3.4-2 below will be further refined once
the operational scenario(s) is selected. This scenario will be developed collaboratively with the
input of stakeholders. These refinements will be detailed in the DLA.
3.4.3.1. Eschscholtz’s Little Nightmare
Eschscholtz’s little nightmare grows in alpine and subalpine heath meadows and wet, rocky, or
mossy seeps (Goldstein et al. 2009). It is known to occur in the Seward Ranger District, but was
not observed during field surveys conducted for the Project. The study area does not have alpine
or subalpine habitats and is well below the alpine and subalpine zone, thus potential habitat is not
present in the study area. The Project would have no direct or indirect effects to known
populations or habitat of Eschscholtz’s little nightmare.
3.4.3.2. Moosewort Fern
Moosewort fern grows in well-drained sandy beaches and alpine sites (Goldstein et al. 2009). It
is suspected to occur on the Chugach National Forest, but was not observed during field surveys
conducted for the Project. The study area does not have well-drained sandy beaches and is well
below the alpine zone, thus potential habitat is not present within the study area. The Project
would have no direct or indirect effects to known populations or habitat of moosewort fern.
3.4.3.3. Moonwort Fern
Moonwort fern grows in well drained open meadows, upper beach meadows, and coastal dunes
(Goldstein et al. 2009). It is suspected to occur on the Chugach National Forest, but was not
observed during field surveys conducted for the Project. The study area does not have well
drained open meadows, upper beach meadows, or coastal dunes, thus potential habitat is not
present within the study area. The Project would have no direct or indirect effects on known
populations or habitat of moonwort fern.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 58 June 2014
Table 3.4-2. Sensitive plant potential qualitative impact table, Grant Lake Project.
Species
Potential
Habitats
Habitat
Present
in Study
Area?
Project
Effects1,2 Direct Impacts
Indirect
Impacts
Eschscholz's little
nightmare
(Aphragmus
eschscholtzianus)
Alpine and
subalpine heath
meadows; wet
rocky or mossy
seeps
No None none None
Moosewort fern
(Botrychium
tunux)
Well-drained
sandy beaches
and alpine sites
No None none None
Moonwort fern
(Botrychium
yaaxudakeit)
Well drained
open meadows,
upper beach
meadows,
coastal dunes
No None None None
Spotted lady's
slipper
(Cypripedium
guttatum)
Open forest, tall
shrublands, wet
meadows
Yes Shoreline
inundation, lake
water level
fluctuations,
drawdowns
Inundation of
potential habitat or
undetected plants
Spread of
invasive
plants; light or
moisture
changes
Calder's lovage
(Ligusticum
calderi)
Limestone, wet,
moist sites in
subalpine and
alpine, rock
habitats,
meadows, forest
edges
No None None None
Pale poppy
(Papaver
alboroseum)
Open areas,
sand, gravelly,
well-drained
substrates
Yes, a
small
population
was
located
Shoreline
inundation, lake
water level
fluctuations,
drawdowns
Partial or complete
inundation of some or
all documented
plants, potential
habitat, or undetected
plants; loss of
suitable habitat
Spread of
invasive
plants, light or
moisture
changes
Alaska rein orchid
(Piperia
unalascensis)
Dry, open sites,
forests; tall
shrub in
riparian zones,
mesic meadows
Yes Shoreline
inundation, lake
water level
fluctuations,
drawdowns
Inundation of
potential habitat or
undetected plants
Spread of
invasive
plants; light or
moisture
changes
Unalaska mist-
maid
(Romanzoffia
unalaschcensis)
Rocky outcrop
areas around
Grant Lake
Yes Shoreline
inundation, lake
water level
fluctuations,
drawdowns
Inundation of
potential habitat or
undetected plants
Spread of
invasive
plants; light or
moisture
changes
Notes:
1. The potential impacts discussed in this table are preliminary based primarily on the terrestrial natural resources
studies and the limited amount of engineering feasibility work conducted prior to this report being fully
developed. This table and the associated impacts will be fully refined and vetted once the licensing engineering
work is completed. A full discussion of refined environmental impacts will be included in the Draft License
Application.
2. Project would be constructed over a 30-36 month time period.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 59 June 2014
3.4.3.4. Spotted Lady’s Slipper
Spotted lady’s slipper orchid grows in open forests, tall shrublands, and wet meadows (Goldstein
et al. 2009). It is suspected to occur on the Chugach National Forest but was not observed during
field surveys conducted for the Project. The study area does have open forests, tall shrublands,
and wet meadows, thus potential habitat is present within the study area.
The Project would have no effects to known populations of spotted lady’s slipper orchid.
Although potential habitat is present, this species has not been found on the Chugach National
Forest or the study area and was not located during field surveys conducted for this Project.
Potential impacts in the study area resulting from Project implementation (Grant Lake level
change, inundation, water level fluctuations, lake drawdown) could affect potential habitat for
this species and thus potentially affect undetected populations. Direct effects could occur
through inundation, fluctuations, and drawdown. Indirect effects are also possible, including the
introduction and spread of invasive plant species, soil erosion, vegetation type changes due to
changes in light or moisture levels, and shifts to earlier successional vegetation types. Because
this species may grow in a variety of habitats, some of the potential impacts that would result
from Project implementation have the potential to disturb potential spotted lady’s slipper habitat
and undetected individuals.
3.4.3.5. Calder’s Lovage
Calder’s lovage typically grows on forest edges and dry and wet meadows in the subalpine and
alpine zones (Goldstein et al. 2009). It is suspected to occur on the Chugach National Forest but
was not observed during field surveys conducted for the Project. The study area does not have
calcareous substrates and is well below the alpine and subalpine zones, thus potential habitat is
not present within the study area. The Project would have no direct or indirect effects to known
populations or habitat of Calder’s lovage.
3.4.3.6. Pale Poppy
Pale poppy grows in open areas, areas with sandy, gravelly, well-drained soils; mesic to dry
alpine; and recently deglaciated areas (Goldstein et al. 2009). A small population of 15 plants
was located on USFS land during field surveys conducted for the Project. Other habitat with
similar sandy, gravelly well-drained soils was surveyed in the study area and no other
populations were found.
The Project could potentially have direct effects on the pale poppy population in the study area
because some or all of the plants might be partially or completely inundated by proposed
changes to the lake’s surface water elevation, although the duration and frequency of these lake
level fluctuations are unknown at this time. Indirect effects to plants not inundated are also
possible, potentially occurring as a result of light or water level changes resulting from
inundation or the introduction of invasive plants. The presence of additional undetected
populations in the study area is possible. Potential impacts to the study area resulting from
Project implementation (lake elevation changes, water level fluctuations, and drawdowns) could
affect potential habitat for this species and thus potentially affect undetected populations.
Indirect effects are also possible, including the introduction and spread of invasive plant species,
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 60 June 2014
soil erosion, vegetation type changes due to changes in light or moisture levels, and shifts to
earlier successional vegetation types. Because this species’ habitat is discontinuously present
around the perimeter of Grant Lake, some of the potential impacts that would result from Project
implementation would have the potential to disturb pale poppy habitat and undetected
individuals.
3.4.3.7. Alaska Rein Orchid
Alaska rein orchid grows in dry open sites, tall shrubs in riparian zones, mesic meadows, and dry
forests at low elevation to subalpine elevations (Goldstein et al. 2009). It is suspected to occur
on the Chugach National Forest but was not observed during field surveys conducted for the
Project. The study area does have dry open sites, tall shrubs in riparian zones, mesic meadows,
and dry forests, thus potential habitat is present within the study area.
The Project would have no effects on known populations of Alaska rein orchid. Although
potential habitat is present, this species is not known to occur in Chugach National Forest or the
study area and was not located during field surveys conducted for this Project. Potential impacts
to the study area resulting from Project implementation (Grant Lake level change, inundation,
water level fluctuations, drawdown) could affect potential habitat for this species and thus
potentially affect undetected populations. Direct effects could occur through inundation,
fluctuations and drawdown. Indirect effects are also possible, including the introduction and
spread of invasive plant species, soil erosion, vegetation type changes due to changes in light or
moisture levels, and shifts to earlier successional vegetation types. Because this species may
grow in a variety of habitats, some of the potential impacts that would result from Project
implementation have the potential to disturb potential Alaska rein orchid habitat and undetected
individuals.
3.4.3.8. Unalaska Mist-Maid
Unalaska mist-maid typically grows on gravelly stream sides, rock outcrop ledges, rock crevices,
and beach terraces (Goldstein et al. 2009). It is suspected to occur on the Chugach National
Forest but was not observed during field surveys conducted for the proposed Project. The study
area does have gravelly streamsides, rock outcrop ledges and crevices, thus potential habitat is
present within the study area.
The Project would have no effects to known populations of Unalaska mist-maid. Although
potential habitat is present, this species is not known to occur in Chugach National Forest or the
study area and was not located during field surveys conducted for this Project. Potential impacts
to the study area resulting from Project implementation (Grant Lake level change, inundation,
water level fluctuations, lake drawdown) could affect potential habitat for this species and thus
potentially affect undetected populations. Direct effects could occur through inundation,
fluctuations, and drawdown. Indirect effects are also possible, including the introduction and
spread of invasive plant species, soil erosion, vegetation type changes due to changes in light or
moisture levels, and shifts to earlier successional vegetation types. Because this species may
grow in a variety of habitats, some of the potential impacts that would result from Project
implementation have the potential to disturb potential Unalaska mist-maid habitat and undetected
individuals.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 61 June 2014
3.4.3.9. Additional Findings – Yellowstone Draba and Western Fescue
A very small population of Yellowstone draba was located in the invasive plant study area on
USFS lands on the north shore of Grant Lake, northwest of the island. This yellow-flowered
mustard species is listed by the Alaska Natural Heritage Program as an S3 species.
Implementation of the Project could cause potential impacts to the population, including light or
moisture level changes and the introduction of invasive species.
A small population of western fescue was located in the study area on State of Alaska land along
the access route west of the detention pond. This grass species is listed by the Alaska Natural
Heritage Program as an S1 species. Construction and operation of the Project access road and
transmission line could cause possible impacts to this population, including light or moisture
level changes and the introduction of invasive species.
3.5. Variances from FERC-Approved Study Plan and Proposed Modifications
3.5.1. General Vegetation
There were no variances to the FERC-approved general vegetation study plan.
3.5.2. Invasive Plant Survey
There were no variances to the FERC-approved invasive plants study plan.
3.5.3. Sensitive Plant Survey
There were no variances to the FERC-approved sensitive plants study plan.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 62 June 2014
[This page intentionally left blank]
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 63 June 2014
4 BOTANTICAL RESOURCES: WETLANDS & OTHER WATERS OF THE U.S.
This section describes the existing wetlands and other “Waters of the U.S.” that are associated
with the Project based on the 2013 study effort and relevant data from previous Project studies
(Ebasco 1984 and HDR 2011). Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA [Section
404]), activities that adversely affect wetlands and aquatic resources must be authorized through
a Section 404 permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and adverse
impacts must be mitigated to the extent practicable. Wetlands are defined for regulatory
purposes under the CWA as those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or
groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions. Waters are defined as any non-vegetated area with a bed and bank, including
intermittent, ephemeral, or perennial streams, rivers, or standing water (lakes and ponds).
Various wetland communities are located throughout the Project area and include herbaceous
dominated, scrub-shrub dominated, and forested dominated wetlands associated with Grant
Lake, Upper Trail Lake, Lower Trail Lake, Grant Creek, Inlet Creek, various tributaries and
drainages, and steep slopes. As noted in Table 3.3-1, wetlands comprise a relatively small
portion of the overall Terrestrial Resources Study area, but remain important to identify for the
purpose of future Project planning and permitting.
In addition to mapping and describing wetland communities, wetland functional assessments are
required as per general policies associated with USACE Section 404 permits (33 Code of Federal
Regulations [CFR] 320), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 404(b)(1)
guidelines for specification of disposal sites for dredged or fill material (40 CFR 230). Further,
the USACE Alaska District Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL) 09-01 states that a wetland
functional assessment is important to the wetland evaluation process because the “Alaska District
will determine what level of mitigation is appropriate based upon the functions lost or adversely
affected by permitted activities” (USACE 2009).
Wetlands provide numerous functions, which are defined as the natural chemical, physical, and
biological processes occurring within a wetland and between a wetland and adjacent non-wetland
areas that support overall ecosystem processes. Commonly-assessed wetland functions include
the ability to moderate or convey floods or provide habitat for sensitive wildlife or plant species.
Due to variables such as geomorphology, water source, and plant and animal communities, not
all wetlands perform these functions equally.
The 2013 Wetland and Waters Study was conducted in accordance with the approved Study Plan
(KHL 2013). The objectives of this study were to 1) delineate Project area wetlands and other
potential “Waters of the U.S.” in areas not previously mapped in 2010 that could potentially be
impacted by the Project and 2) to assess the functions of the wetlands within the Project area and
assign each wetland habitat to a USACE-defined functional category. The purpose of the
wetlands and waters mapping and functional assessment component is to provide information to
prepare a wetland report sufficient to apply for a Section 404 permit. The wetlands and waters
report will describe locations near the Project that are potentially subject to the authority of
Section 404 of the CWA and/or Executive Order 11990 (42 FR 26961, 3 CFR, 121).
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 64 June 2014
The subsections that follow provide a summary of the 2013 wetland delineation and functional
assessment methods, results, and conclusions, as well as a summary of any variances from the
2013 Study Plan.
Study Area 4.1.
The wetland and waters assessment area (referred to as the wetlands assessment area) mapped in
2013 is nested within the broader terrestrial resource assessment area that includes wetland and
waters mapping conducted in 2010. Figure 4.1-1 provides an illustration of the wetland
assessment area in relation to the collective terrestrial resource assessment area and the Project
boundary.
The 2013 wetland assessment area focused on those areas where the Project has potential to have
direct or indirect primary and/or secondary impacts on wetlands or waters, including surface
water features such as lakes, ponds, creeks, and drainages. More specifically, the 2013 wetland
assessment area includes the wetlands and waters that have the potential to be influenced by the
following:
• The estimated operational minimum and maximum lake level fluctuations (692 feet
NAVD 88 to 705 feet NAVD 88) around Grant Lake. Wetlands and waters were
delineated in the field to the estimated 705 feet NAVD 88 contour line to capture possible
hydrological influences from the operational maximum lake level.
• Project infrastructure (i.e. powerhouse, detention pond, access road, etc.). A 100-foot
buffer was applied to all Project features to capture wetlands and waters that could be
potentially affected by the construction and operation of these features.
• Secondary hydrological impacts associated with an altered flow regime in Grant Creek.
A 100-foot buffer was applied to the north and south side of Grant Creek to capture any
wetlands or waters that may be affected by a future operational flow regime in Grant
Creek.
q r
²³(û
Grant Lake
LowerTrailLake
UpperTrailLake
Grant Creek
Inlet
C
r
e
e
k
Legend
Project Features
q Diversion
r Intake
(û Penstock
²³Power House
Detention Pond
Project FERC Boundary
Access Roads
Tunnel
Transmission Line
Detention Pond Outlet
Tailrace
Seward Highway
Alaska Railroad
2013 Wetland Assessment Area
2013 Terrestrial Resources Study Area
GRANT LAKE TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Figure 4.1-12013 Wetland Assessment Area
Developed For:
Drawing Scale:
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - FERC PROJECT NO.13212±OFFICE: 208.342.4214FAX: 208.342.4216
REV DESCRIPTIONBYDATE
DRAWING
ISSUED DATE
CHECKED
DRAWN
DESIGNED
0 0.5 10.25
Miles 1/9/2014
J. Woodbury
M. Hjortsberg
J. Blank1401 SHORELINE DRIVEBOISE, ID 83702
10/20/2013 JW Internal Review SCALE: 1:32,000
MAP NOTES:1. THIS MAP WAS DEVELOPED FOR KENAI HYDRO, LLC AS PART OF THE GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT(FERC NO. 13212), NATURAL RESOURCES STUDY DOCUMENTATION. THE LOCATION OF PROJECT FEATURES IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND IS SHOWN FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY.2. THIS MAP WAS DEVELOPED FROM THE FOLLOWING RESOURCES: A. AERIAL IMAGERY DEVELOPED BY USFS. B. PROJECT FEATURE LOCATIONS PROVIDED BY KENAI HYDRO, LLC.3. THIS MAP PRESENTS DATA IN THE FOLLOWING GEOGRAHIC SYSTEMS: - HORIZONTAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983 (NAD83) - VERTICAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 1988 (NAVD 88) - PROJECTION: ALASKA 4 FIPS 5004 FEET STATE PLANE
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 67 June 2014
Methods 4.2.
In order to achieve the Wetland Study objectives noted in Section 4 above, the following tasks
were conducted in 2013:
• Prepared a preliminary wetland delineation map prior to field work using existing U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping (NWI
2013) and interpretation of the most current aerial photography or satellite imagery,
previous Project mapping (HDR 2011), and other available vegetation mapping and
regional habitat associations (NatureServe 2008).
• Created a wetland assessment area using conservative buffers around Project facilities
and potential maximum/minimum surface water fluctuations in Grant Lake and Grant
Creek such that wetland and waters with the potential to be influenced by these factors
were captured in the field-based and desktop analysis.
• Conducted a field survey of wetlands and waters in the road/transmission corridor,
facility locations, at the inlet of Grant Lake, and at the dam site. The field delineation
also included an assessment of potential secondary impacts to the wetlands and waters
along the Grant Lake shoreline and Grant Creek corridor per recommendations from the
USACE following the approval of the Study Plan (McCafferty 2013).
• Collected detailed information on soil conditions, hydrology, and plant community
composition in representative upland and wetland sites using guidelines from the 1987
wetland delineation manual (USACE 1987) and 2007 Alaska Regional Supplement
(USACE 2007), using standard 2007 Alaska Regional Supplement data sheets.
• Conducted a wetland functional assessment for all wetland and waters areas that have the
potential to be directly or indirectly affected by the Project using a functional assessment
methodology that was approved by the USACE on May 29, 2013 (McCafferty 2013).
• Collected coordinates of wetland data points and boundary points with a GPS unit in the
field.
• Prepared a final wetlands and waters map for areas potentially disturbed by Project
activities using field delineation and previous Project study results. Prepared
corresponding tables summarizing wetland and waters types and acreages within the
assessment area.
• Prepared a summary report (provided here) that includes a detailed map of the areas
potentially disturbed by Project activities, a general map of the entire study area, methods
and findings, a wetland functional assessment, and copies of the field data forms.
The methodologies discussed below were followed to conduct the 2013 wetland and waters
delineation and functional assessment.
4.2.1. Wetland Delineation Methods
Wetlands and waters within the entire assessment area were mapped by experienced wetland
scientists using a combination of desktop and field techniques. Wetland determinations were
performed according to the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Corps
Manual) (USACE 1987) and the Alaska Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual: Alaska Region (Regional Supplement; USACE 2007). Waters
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 68 June 2014
were mapped using GPS points in the field, with subsequent editing in GIS using aerial
photography and data collected by the Project aquatic habitat mapping study team (KHL 2014a)
for Grant Creek side channel areas. The primary tasks for wetlands and waters mapping
included the development of a preliminary wetland and waters map based on a review of existing
maps and ecological information; a field-based wetland delineation and waters mapping to
determine the presence or absence of wetlands and waters including characterization and
delineation of the boundaries separating non-wetlands and wetlands by habitat type; and a post-
field data analysis to refine and complete the wetlands and waters map within the wetland
assessment area and the broader terrestrial resource assessment area.
The 2013 field effort focused on the wetland assessment area illustrated in Figure 4.1-1.
Wetlands located outside of the 2013 wetland assessment area that are captured within the
broader Terrestrial Resources Study area were mapped using 2010 wetland delineation data,
NWI data, and aerial photo interpretation.
Wetlands and waters throughout the wetland assessment area and the broader terrestrial resource
assessment area were mapped to the NWI (Cowardin et al 1979) subclass level and Brinson
(1993) hydrogeomorphic position level, which describes communities based on site moisture
regime, dominant plant growth form, and physiognomic descriptor. This level of mapping relies
on aerial photo interpretation with extensive ground reference data. Prior to conducting the
field-based delineation effort, a preliminary wetland map was developed in ArcGIS using the
following data sources:
• 2010 Project area wetland delineation maps and data (HDR 2011)
• Aerial photography
• Elevation contours (4-foot vertical resolution)
• USFWS NWI mapping (NWI 2013)
• Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in Alaska (USDA-NRCS 2005)
• Alaska 2013 Regional Wetland Plant List (Lichvar 2013)
• Other supporting literature, reference materials, and data are listed in the References
Section.
The preliminary map was then groundtruthed during the 2013 field-based delineation effort,
which focused on collecting data within the wetland assessment area identified in Figure 4.1-1.
Data was collected in accordance with the currently accepted methods for wetland determination
in Alaska, described in the Regional Supplement. This “three parameter approach” employed in
wetland determination requires the three essential characteristics of wetlands (hydrophytic
vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology) be present to have a positive wetland
determination. A total of 41 field determination points (DP) (24 wetland DPs and 17 upland
DPs) and 82 observation points (OP) were collected within the wetland assessment area in 2013.
At each field determination point, wetland scientists completed a USACE wetland determination
form, took representative site photographs, documented the hydrogeomorphic position of the
wetland location, and documented general field observations. In addition, the location of
wetland DPs representative wetland/upland boundary points, and other notable features were
recorded with a Trimble GeoXH 2005 series GPS unit. Similar information was collected at
OPs; however, formal delineation datasheets were not filled out for these locations.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 69 June 2014
Following the field-based wetland delineation, a desktop analysis was then used to refine and
complete the vegetation mapping effort. This evaluation included an analysis of DP data, OPs,
existing vegetation mapping, NWI mapping, aerial photographs, and surface hydrology data.
Wetland boundaries were refined using GPS boundary points and corresponding vegetation
cover signatures in aerial photographs. NWI class codes (Cowardin et al. 1979), hydrologic
modifiers, and hydrogeomorphic classes were assigned to each wetland polygon through this
process.
For the purposes of mapping within the terrestrial resource assessment, wetland or vegetation
types were based on the predominant ecosystem and vegetation of the wetland as a whole and
not necessarily on narrow bands or inclusions of other wetland/vegetation types or uplands.
Many habitats in the Project area consisted of mosaics of wetland/vegetation types. Dominant
vegetation types were typically used to characterize habitats, but sometimes a combination of
vegetation types was used to describe habitat within the Project area, with multiple vegetation
communities comprising a single wetland type.
4.2.2. Functional Assessment Methods
This portion of the report presents the process of assessing wetland and waters functions, and
categorizing vegetated wetlands into USACE functional classification categories, per the
USACE Alaska District RGL 09-01 (USACE 2009). A preliminary version of the functional
assessment method for vegetated wetlands was presented to and approved by USACE
representative Katie McCafferty in May 2013 to ensure that all of the USACE-required elements
would be included. The functional assessment of the non-vegetated wetlands (waters) was
specifically discussed with Katie McCafferty as part of the March 18, 2014 agency meeting in
Anchorage, Alaska as well as in subsequent discussions.
4.2.2.1. Waters Functional Assessment Methods
Waters (non-vegetated wetlands) were divided into the following four functional classes for the
purpose of the functional assessment: small streams (tributary streams), rivers (Grant Creek and
Inlet Creek), the Trail Lake Narrows, and Grant Lake. The moving water functional classes
(small streams, Grant and Inlet creeks, and Trail Lake Narrows) were assessed using the
guidance provided in the streams functional assessment framework presented in the USACE’s
Functional Objectives for Stream Restoration (Fischenich 2006), which was further expanded
upon in the U.S. EPA’s A Function-Based Framework for Stream Assessment and Restoration
Projects (Harman et al. 2012). Fifteen functions were assessed, within five areas, as presented in
Table 4.2-1. A detailed description and indicators of each function are provided in Fischenich
(2006). Grant Lake was assessed using a similar framework and functions as presented in
Fischenich (2006) and Table 4.2-1, with adaptations made to better assess lake functions (e.g., an
assessment of natural lake level fluctuations and natural shoreline erosion, as part of the
hydrodynamics function).
For each moving water functional class, functions were assessed as being present or absent using
a tabular format, based on the presence of certain hydrogeomorphic (i.e., water source or
landscape position) or hydrologic characteristics, using field observations and data available in a
GIS. For all of the functional classes (including Grant Lake), a description and rational for the
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 70 June 2014
presence/absence determination were presented in the narrative text, including discussion of
whether a functional class might function at the lower or higher end for that function. While
intermittent and perennial small streams were assessed collectively as a single functional class, a
description of how these streams might function differently is also provided. No data form was
completed for the waters assessment, and waters functional classes were not categorized for
compensatory mitigation purposes.
Table 4.2-1. Functions assessed for moving waters, from Fischenich (2006).
4.2.2.2. Wetlands Functional Assessment Methods
Vegetated wetlands were grouped into functional classes based on vegetation and
hydrogeomorphic characteristics; each functional class was then evaluated for its ability to
perform 11 pre-defined functions. The following 11 hydrologic, biogeochemical, ecological, and
social functions were assessed using the recommendations provided in RGL 09-01 (USACE
2009) (these functions are defined later in this section):
1. Flood flow alteration
2. Sediment removal
3. Nutrient and toxicant removal
4. Erosion control and stabilization
5. Production and export of organic matter
6. General wildlife habitat suitability
7. Fish habitat
8. Native plant richness
9. Educational, scientific, recreational, or subsistence use
10. Groundwater interchange
11. Uniqueness and heritage
Stream evolution processes
Energy management
Riparian succession
Surface water storage processes
Surface/ subsurface water exchange
Hydrodynamic character
Sediment continuity
Substrate and structural processes
Quality and quantity of sediments
Biological communities and processes
Necessary aquatic and riparian habitats
Trophic structures and processes
Water and soil quality
Chemical processes and nutrient cycles
Landscape pathways
System Dynamics
Hydrologic
Balance
Sediment
Processes and
Character
Biological
Support
Chemical
Processes and
Pathways
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 71 June 2014
Based on their functional rating (low, moderate, high) for each of the above functions, the
wetland functional classes were assigned to one of the USACE Categories I-IV presented in
RGL 09-01 (USACE 2009), which are intended to describe the ecological service provided by
wetlands to the overall landscape or ecosystem. The categorization system used by USACE
contains four categories, I-IV, with Category I being the highest functioning wetlands and
Category IV being degraded and low functioning wetlands (USACE 2009).
Because wetland functions are difficult and time-consuming to measure directly, ecosystem
characteristics (e.g., vegetation, hydrologic regime, soil, and landscape variables) are used as a
surrogate to determine wetland function. Therefore, during the 2013 wetland delineation, the
characteristics of the wetlands associated with the 24 wetland DPs were assessed using the
Wetland Functions Data Form- Alaska Regulatory Best Professional Judgment Characterization
(USACE 2009) (referred to as the functional assessment data form). Wetlands were rated as
having a low, moderate, or high capacity to perform each function, based on the presence of
certain hydrogeomorphic (i.e. water source or landscape position) or vegetation characteristics.
The characteristics that were assessed at each DP are presented on the functional assessment data
forms, located in Appendix 2a. In addition to the data collected on the functional assessment
data form, information gathered by the Project’s fisheries (KHL 2014b), wildlife (Section 5 of
the Terrestrial Resources Report), cultural (KHL 2014c), recreation (KHL 2014d), water quality
(KHL 2014e) and geomorphology (KHL 2014f) teams was also used to evaluate wetland
functions.
The 24 wetland DPs were grouped into representative wetland functional classes based on an
integration of the vegetation, hydrogeomorphology, and the sub-set of the Project area where the
functional class was located, resulting in 15 wetland functional classes which are presented in
Section 4.3, Results section below. The 124 wetland polygons mapped within the 2013 wetland
assessment area were then assigned to one of the wetland functional classes, which provided the
framework within which each wetland function was evaluated. The 24 polygons where DPs
were located were assigned to the functional class associated with their DP; the remaining 100
polygons that were not directly assessed using a wetland DP were assigned to the most
applicable wetland functional class. Many of the remaining 100 mapped polygons were assessed
in the field using the OPs described in the wetland delineation section above; although functional
assessment data forms were not completed at OPs, the detailed OP descriptions were used to
assign these polygons to a functional class. Polygons with neither a DP nor an OP were assigned
to functional classes using the data gathered during the desktop portion of the wetlands
assessment described in the wetland delineation section above (e.g., with 2010 delineation data,
NWI mapping, elevation contours, and aerial imagery).
The 15 wetland functional classes were stratified across three sub-areas within the wetland
assessment area, referred to as functional assessment areas: 1) the transmission corridor /
facilities area which includes the road/transmission line corridor, as well as associated Project
facilities; 2) the Grant Creek corridor which includes the area along Grant Creek, including
floodplain areas, between Grant Lake and Trail Lake; and 3) the Grant Lake area which includes
the area along the edge of Grant Lake. The Grant Lake area was further divided into three sub-
areas, the lake inlet (the flat area surrounding the lake inlet at the eastern end of Grant Lake
including along Inlet Creek), lake shore (the lake fringe where the steep shoreline meets the lake,
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 72 June 2014
outside of the inlet and outlet areas), and lake outlet (where Grant Creek exits Grant Lake).
Wetland functions were assessed collectively by wetland functional class (e.g., for all of the
herbaceous depressional wetlands within the assessment area) rather than for each individually
mapped wetland.
The RGL 09-01 (USACE 2009) lists the functions that the Alaska District of the USACE
recommends evaluating for Alaska wetlands, the characteristics associated with wetlands that
perform each function (on their wetlands assessment data form, see Appendix 2a), as well as the
number of characteristics required for a wetland to perform at a low, moderate, or high capacity
for a given function. Based on the RGL 09-01 method if a function is evaluated for a given
wetland, unless the evaluator is certain that the wetland did not perform the function, the wetland
is at a minimum rated as “low” for that function, even if it does not provide any of the listed
characteristics. Further, the provision of (i.e. answering “yes” to) a single characteristic
automatically ranks the wetland as “moderate” rather than “low”. For example, a wetland might
only have one of the characteristics listed (e.g. dense woody vegetation, for the “flood flow
alteration” function), yet the RGL 09-01 method would still rank this wetland as having a
moderate capacity to perform that function. Therefore, wetlands were only ranked as “low” for a
function if they did not provide any of the listed characteristics.
Wetlands that were not evaluated for a function because they did not meet certain criteria (e.g.
adjacency to a fish-bearing stream for the “fish habitat” function) were listed as “not applicable”
(NA). Note that wetlands were assessed based on their current condition, and not on their
potential future condition if the proposed Project were constructed.
While the RGL 09-01 provides characteristics associated with each wetland function, it does not
provide a specific definition for each function. Therefore, based on the characteristics listed in
the RGL 09-01 data form (see Appendix 2a), as well as best professional judgment by wetland
scientists, the 11 functions are defined as follows:
1. Flood Flow Alteration. This function is defined as a wetland’s capacity to reduce flood
flows (e.g. channelized or sheet flow) through storage and desynchronization in any area
of a watershed, including streams or floodplains, by temporarily storing or slowing water
passage. Most wetlands have topographic, soil, and vegetation attributes that contribute
to their ability to retain and detain storm flows and snowmelt runoff. Precipitation and
flood water is stored or used in wetlands via percolation into the soil, transpiration by
plants, evaporation from surface waters, and detention in depressions, micro-topography,
or low-lying landforms. Wetlands with no outlets, or constricted outlets, perform this
function best.
2. Sediment Removal. Sediment removal refers to a wetland’s capacity to remove
suspended sediment from surface water and stabilize it within the wetland. This can
occur, for example, when the energy associated with moving water is dissipated by dense
wetland vegetation or allowed to spread out and pool in wetland micro-topography or
depressions. None of the wetlands within the Project area are subject to an anthropogenic
sediment source; however, the Grant Lake inlet wetlands receive suspended glacial till
from Inlet Creek.
3. Nutrient and Toxicant Removal. This function is defined as the capacity of a wetland to
remove suspended or dissolved nutrients and/or toxicants from groundwater and/or
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 73 June 2014
surface water through the conversion to other forms (e.g. detention in vegetation or
transformation to a gas). Wetland soils, plants, and organisms provide complex physical,
chemical, and biological mechanisms for improving water quality. Nutrients, metals, and
contaminants are retained by vegetation and the physical structure of the wetland;
nutrients are incorporated into the vegetation biomass, absorbed by soils, or transformed
by chemical and microbial pathways. Wetlands that have restricted outlets, ponding, a
low slope angle, pronounced micro-topography, or are located in depressions provide a
high level of this function because they can detain or retain water for longer periods of
time.
4. Erosion Control and Shoreline Stabilization. This function is defined as the capacity of a
wetland to dissipate the erosive forces of waves and streamflow, due to the ability of
wetland vegetation to bind and stabilize soil within the root zone. This function was only
evaluated for wetlands that are associated with shorelines of ponds, lakes, or stream
banks.
5. Production and Export of Organic Matter. This function is defined as the capacity of a
wetland to produce organic matter (e.g. dissolved or particulate carbon or detritus), and to
export this organic matter to downstream or downflow environments. The exported
organic matter is important for the support of primary and secondary productivity.
Wetlands with dense deciduous vegetation, with a surface water (or inundated)
connection to downstream environments perform this function best.
6. General Wildlife Habitat Suitability. This function is defined as the capacity of a wetland
to provide general wildlife habitat support to birds and terrestrial mammals, including
denning, forage, or breeding/nesting habitat. This includes habitat support for species
that spend part or all of their life cycle in wetlands individually, or as part of a mosaic of
wetlands in a local landscape. Sensitive plant or animal species (e.g., threatened or
endangered species) were not evaluated as part of this function; they were instead
evaluated as part of the “uniqueness and heritage” function. In addition to the data
collected as part of the wetland delineation, this function was also evaluated using data
collected for the Wildlife Study associated with the Project.
7. Fish Habitat. Fish habitat includes those biological, physical, and chemical attributes
that support all life stages of fish. This function is defined as the capacity of a wetland to
directly provide habitat to anadromous or resident salmonids. This function was only
evaluated for wetlands that are associated with fish-bearing streams or lakes, such as
riparian fringe wetlands that might be inundated during periods of high water and provide
slower water refuge for salmonids. It was not assessed for wetlands providing indirect
fish habitat (e.g., hydrologic or water quality related functions); these indirect fish habitat
support functions were assessed as part of separate functions listed here. The fish habitat
function was not assessed for Grant Lake or tributaries because no salmonids are present
in the Grant Lake system upstream of Grant Creek. In addition to the data collected as
part of the wetland delineation, this function was also evaluated using data collected for
the Fish and Geomorphology Study associated with the Project.
8. Native Plant Richness. This function evaluates the capacity of a wetland to produce an
abundance and diversity of hydrophytic plant species. Wetland plant communities
contribute to many of the other functions (e.g., wildlife habitat). The production and
support of abundant wetland vegetation is vital to the maintenance of energy and nutrient
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 74 June 2014
cycling as well as other fundamental processes that are unique to wetlands and are a
significant part of overall ecosystem functioning at the landscape level.
9. Educational or Scientific Value. This function is defined as the capacity of a wetland to
provide educational or scientific opportunities to the public. These opportunities are
limited to those that are water dependent and are directly related to wetlands. This
function does not include general recreational activities. The entire Project area is
located on State or USFS public lands.
10. Uniqueness and Heritage. The Uniqueness and Heritage function is defined as the
capacity of a wetland to provide unique habitat due to biological, geological, cultural, or
other features that are considered to be rare. Regarding rare biological characteristics,
this function is provided by the following wetlands: 1) wetlands that are USFWS-
designated critical habitat for threatened or endangered species; 2) wetlands with
documented presence of threatened, endangered, or “priority” species designated by the
USFWS, with “priority” species defined as those listed as candidates for Endangered
Species Act (ESA) listing by the USFWS. This function is also provided by wetland
types that are considered highly valuable and/or vulnerable by the State, as discussed in
the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) Wildlife Action Plan (ADF&G 2006).
In addition to the data collected as part of the wetland delineation, this function was also
evaluated using data collected by the vegetation and wildlife teams associated with the
Project (Sections 3 and 5 of this Terrestrial Resources Report respectively).
11. Groundwater Interchange. Groundwater interchange is defined as the capacity of a
wetland to recharge and/or discharge to groundwater. Groundwater recharge is the
infiltration of groundwater from a wetland into the underlying aquifer. Recharge
replenishes the local or regional groundwater supply. Groundwater discharge is the net
upward movement of water from an aquifer source to the wetland. Discharge creates and
maintains wetlands and stream flows, supports plant and animal populations, and
provides water for other uses. In addition to the data collected as part of the wetland
delineation, this function was also evaluated using input by the water resources teams
associated with the Project (KHL 2014e, KHL 2014f).
4.2.2.3. Categorization
The functional assessment method for the vegetated wetlands described above ultimately
describes the capacity (low, moderate, high) of a functional class to perform a particular
function. The results of the functional assessment were then converted into the functional
Categories I, II, III, or IV as defined by RGL 09-01 (USACE 2009), with Category I being the
highest functioning wetlands and Category IV being degraded and low functioning wetlands.
These categories are used during the Section 404 permitting process to determine mitigation
ratios for unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, as part of compensatory mitigation
planning and sequencing (avoidance, minimization, etc.). For example, unavoidable impacts to
Category I wetlands may require a mitigation ratio of 2:1 to 3:1, meaning for every 1 acre of
Project-related Category I wetland impacts the applicant would be required to restore, enhance
and/or preserve 2 to 3 acres of similar wetland habitat or function to offset the loss (USACE
2009). Waters (non-vegetated wetlands) were not categorized as part of this report.
USACE (2009) RGL 09-01 defines the four categories as follows:
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 75 June 2014
• Category I – High Functioning Wetlands. These wetlands are the “cream of the crop.”
Generally, these wetlands are less common. These are wetlands that 1) provide a life
support function for threatened or endangered species that has been documented; 2)
represent a high-quality example of a rare wetland type; 3) are rare within a given region;
or 4) are undisturbed and contain ecological attributes that are impossible or difficult to
replace within a human lifetime, if at all.
• Category II – High to Moderate Functioning Wetlands. These wetlands are those that 1)
provide habitat for very sensitive or important wildlife or plants; 2) are difficult to
replace; or 3) provide very high functions, particularly to fish or wildlife habitat.
• Category III – Moderate to Low Functioning Wetlands. These wetlands can provide
important functions and values. They can be important for a variety of wildlife species
and can provide watershed protection functions depending on where they are located.
Generally, these wetlands will be smaller and/or less diverse on the landscape than
Category II wetlands. [Note that, for this assessment, Category III wetlands were
functioning at a moderate level, as none of the Category III wetlands assessed were low
functioning.]
• Category IV – Degraded and Low Functioning Wetlands. These wetlands are typically
the smallest, often isolated with very little vegetation diversity, and generally already
degraded by human activities. Regional differences allow for a more narrow definition of
this category.
Categories were assigned to functional classes using the Category definitions provided above
(USACE 2009), as well as being based on the percent functional capacity at which each
functional class was performing. Percent functional capacity was calculated as follows:
Functional ratings were assigned a value—1, 2, or 3—for a low, moderate or high rating,
respectively. The rating values were then summed for each functional class and divided by the
highest possible rating value for a given functional class if the class were performing at 100
percent capacity. For example, if a functional class were evaluated for 10 of the 11 functions
(e.g., for all functions except “fish habitat”), then the sum of the rating values would be divided
by 30, the total rating if the functional class were performing at its highest capacity. Wetlands
were then ranked as Category I, II, III, or IV based on their percent function capacity score. In
addition, due to the importance of threatened, endangered, or priority species habitat, as well as
salmonid habitat, if a functional class was rated as high for either the “uniqueness and heritage”
or “fish habitat” function it was automatically categorized at a minimum as Category I or II,
respectively.
Results 4.3.
The following subsections present the results of the field-based and desktop wetland delineation
and functional assessment. Data from the 2010 and 2013 field efforts provided a total of 41
field-based DPs and 82 OPs that were used to refine the wetland determination and functional
assessment results presented in this report. In addition, this section provides a brief synopsis of
the potential regulatory status of Project area wetlands with respect to USACE jurisdiction
(USACE 2010) and Executive Order 11990 (42 FR 26961, 3 CFR, 121).
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 76 June 2014
4.3.1. Wetlands Delineation and Waters Mapping
The field-based wetland delineation and waters mapping was conducted by qualified wetland
scientists between July 16 and July 26, 2013, within the wetland assessment area defined in
Figure 4.1-1. Weather conditions during the delineation were warm and dry; therefore, when
appropriate, the delineators erred on the conservative side and assumed wetland hydrology could
be present during cooler/wetter conditions.
A description of the wetland and waters types delineated within the wetland assessment area and
terrestrial resource assessment area is provided below. Figure 4.3-1 through Figure 4.3-6 is an
illustrative map set of the wetlands and waters. Table 4.3-1, Wetland and Waters – detailed,
summarizes the various wetland and waters types by dominant vegetative cover (for vegetated
wetlands), hydrogeomorphic positions (Brinson 1993), and NWI classification (vegetation and
water regime, Cowardin et al. 1979), as well as cumulative areas within the terrestrial resource
assessment area and 2013 wetland assessment area. Table 4.3-2, Wetland and Waters –
summary, provides a summary of acreage and percent cover for each primary vegetation and
surface water community within the terrestrial resource assessment area and the 2013 wetland
assessment area; tributary streams that were too narrow to map as polygons are reported in linear
feet.
Vegetated wetland communities mapped within the Grant Lake wetland assessment area include
herbaceous dominated, scrub-shrub dominated, forested dominated wetlands associated with
lacustrine, slope, and riparian areas. Waters mapped within the wetland assessment area include
small tributary streams, Grant Creek, Inlet Creek, Grant Lake, and the Trail Lake Narrows.
Ponds were also identified within the broader terrestrial resources assessment area, but not within
the wetlands assessment area.
4.3.1.1. Herbaceous Wetland Communities
Herbaceous dominated wetlands within the terrestrial resources assessment area are associated
with depressional, lacustrine, and riverine areas.
Depressional wetlands are those wetlands occurring within discrete topographic depressions
primarily located on the south side of Grant Creek in the vicinity of the access road and
transmission corridor. The largest individual wetland within the Project area is a depressional
wetland located in the proposed tailrace detention pond area. Vegetation composition and
hydrological conditions vary from strongly herbaceous to mixed herbaceous and scrub-shrub
communities with saturated to seasonally flooded hydrologic conditions.
Lacustrine wetlands include persistent and non-persistent emergent wetlands, aquatic beds, and
vegetated shoreline communities that are directly attached to or border Grant Lake or Upper
Trail and Lower Trail lakes. The majority of these lakeshore communities are purely
herbaceous, although some are mixed herbaceous and scrub-shrub types. Hydrological
conditions range from saturated, seasonally flooded, semi-permanently flooded, to permanently
flooded or inundated.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 77 June 2014
Riverine wetlands are those wetlands that are adjacent to and hydrologically influenced by Inlet
Creek, Grant Creek, and their tributaries, as well as drainages associated with Grant Lake. These
wetlands include both herbaceous only and herbaceous / scrub-shrub communities with
hydrological conditions ranging from saturated to seasonally flooded. Riverine wetlands also
include those wetlands found within an intricate wetland-upland mosaic associated with the
Grant Creek side-channel complex immediately downstream of the proposed powerhouse
location and along the Grant Creek side channel at its confluence with Upper Trail and Lower
Trail lakes. Wetlands within the riparian mosaic are found in small topographic depressions or
as intermittent wetland fringe along the side channels, typically occurring as saturated and
seasonally flooded herbaceous stands and/or herbaceous and scrub-shrub mixed communities.
Table 4.3-1 and Table 4.3-2 include details and a summary of the acreages, data points, and
dominant species associated for each herbaceous wetland type. Wetland datasheets, field notes,
and representative photos of herbaceous dominated wetlands are included in Appendix 2a.
4.3.1.2. Scrub-Shrub Wetland Communities
Scrub-shrub dominated wetlands within the terrestrial resource assessment area are associated
with depressional, lacustrine, and riverine areas.
Depressional scrub-shrub wetlands occur throughout or within portions of topographic
depressions (usually as concentric rings) primarily on the south side of Grant Creek in the
vicinity of the proposed access road and transmission corridor. Vegetation composition and
hydrological conditions vary from predominantly broadleaf and/or needle leaf scrub-shrub to
mixed scrub-shrub and herbaceous communities with saturated to seasonally flooded hydrologic
conditions.
Lacustrine scrub-shrub wetlands include persistent shoreline communities that are directly
attached to or border Grant Lake or Upper Trail and Lower Trail lakes. The majority of these
lakeshore communities are broadleaf shrub-shrub with some mixed scrub-shrub and herbaceous
types. Hydrological conditions range from saturated to seasonally flooded.
Scrub-shrub dominated riverine wetlands are broadleaf scrub-shrub and broadleaf scrub-shrub /
herbaceous mixed wetlands that are adjacent to and hydrologically influenced by Inlet Creek,
Grant Creek, and their tributaries, as well as drainages associated with Grant Lake. Seasonally
flooded hydrologic conditions are typical of the riverine scrub-shrub wetlands within the Project
area. Riverine wetlands also include scrub-shrub dominated wetlands found within an intricate
wetland-upland mosaic associated with the Grant Creek side-channel complex approximately
300 feet downstream of the proposed powerhouse location. There are also two small riverine
wetland-upland mosaics located on the north bank of Grant Creek immediately below the falls.
Scrub-shrub wetlands within the riparian wetland/upland mosaic are found in small topographic
lows or as intermittent wetland fringe along the side channels, typically occurring as temporarily
flooded, saturated to seasonally flooded scrub-shrub stands and/or scrub-shrub and herbaceous
mixed communities.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 78 June 2014
Table 4.3-1 and Table 4.3-2 include details and a summary of the acreages, data points, and
dominant species associated for each scrub-shrub wetland type. Wetland datasheets, field notes,
and representative photos of scrub-shrub dominated wetlands are included in Appendix 2a.
4.3.1.3. Forested Wetland Communities
There are two forest-dominated wetlands present within the Project area, occurring along a
seasonal drainage on a north-facing slope and as a narrow fringe on the east side of the proposed
tailrace detention pond area. In both cases, the wetland hydrology is more strongly influenced
by the surrounding sloped topography that presumably contributes to the saturated hydrologic
conditions found in both locations.
Tables 4.3-1 and 4.3-2 include details and a summary of the acreages, data points, and dominant
species associated with the forested wetland type. The wetland datasheets, field notes, and
representative photos of this wetland are included in Appendix 2a.
4.3.1.4. Waters
Waters within the Project area include the non-vegetated portions of Grant Lake (deep and
shallow lake margins) and Trail Lake Narrows, Grant Creek, Inlet Creek, Project area tributaries
and drainages (collectively referred to as small streams), and ponds. Waters assessed totaled
1,659.9 acres, with 1,650.1 assessed within Grant Lake and Trail Lake Narrows (99 percent), and
9.8 acres (9.8 percent) assessed within Grant and Inlet Creek channels. Small streams that were
too narrow to map as polygons (e.g. less than 20 feet wide) were mapped as lines and reported in
linear feet. A total of 13,582 linear feet of small streams were mapped within Project area (Table
4.3-2). All waters documented as part of the study had an ordinary high water mark, determined
by a distinct vegetation line (e.g. a transition from unvegetated to vegetated, or from wetland to
mesic or non-wetland vegetation), and/or geomorphic indicators (e.g., erosion line from wave
action or stream flow).
Surface water is persistent and perennial for the lakes, ponds, and main channels of Grant Creek
and Inlet Creek as well as for some of the primary tributary stream segments to these
waterbodies. In addition, there are intermittent non-vegetated floodplains and outwash fans
associated with Inlet Creek that were dry during the time of the delineation but are very likely
inundated during higher flow events. Table 4.3-1 and Table 4.3-2 include details and a summary
of the acreages for lakes, ponds, and rivers, and acreage or linear feet of small streams
(depending on width), as well as data points associated with each open water type. Field notes
and representative photos of open water features are included in Appendix 2a.
4.3.1.4.1. Small streams
The small streams included all of the tributary streams to Grant Creek, Grant Lake, and Trail
Lake, identified within the Project area. Perennial small streams were classified as Cowardin
R3UB, perennial unconsolidated bottom; intermittent streams were classified as R4SB,
intermittent stream bottom (Appendix 2a). All of the small streams were moderate to high
gradient, single channel streams.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 79 June 2014
Stream type and water regime are denoted by NWI type and water regime modifier in tables and
figures (i.e., R3UBH or R4SBC). All of these streams were moderate to high gradient, single
channel streams. Of the 17 streams within the transmission corridor and Grant Creek corridor,
only four were perennial (Figure 4.3-2). In contrast, most small streams at the Grant Lake inlet
were perennial. Tributaries to Grant Lake were both perennial and intermittent.
4.3.1.4.2. Grant and Inlet Creeks
Grant and Inlet creeks are the two primary large perennial streams within the Project area, with
Inlet Creek entering at the mouth of Grant Lake, and Grant Creek flowing out of Grant Lake, and
into the Trail Lake Narrows (Figure 4.3-1). Grant Creek is classified as Cowardin R2UB,
perennial unconsolidated bottom (Appendix 2a), with the entire length located within the
wetlands assessment area (approximately 1 mile long). Inlet creek while only the confluence
area (~200-300 feet) of Inlet Creek was located within the wetlands assessment area. Grant
Creek has a mean annual flow of 200 cfs. Grant Creek geomorphology, water quality, and
aquatic habitats and resources are described extensively in the resource reports completed for the
Project (KHL 2014f, KHL 2014e, KHL 2014a, KHL 2014b, respectively). Studies of Inlet creek
were limited to geomorphology studies associated with Grant Lake (KHL 2014f), and the
wetlands and waters study described in this report.
The Project divided Grant Creek into five reaches for study purposes; reaches are described in
detail in the geomorphology (KHL 2014f) report, but are summarized here. Reach 1 is the lower
gradient, alluvial fan section at the confluence with Trail Lake; Reaches 2 and 3 are also low to
moderate gradient, with extensive riparian side channel areas on the south side of the creek;
Reach 4 is slightly higher gradient with no side channel habitat; Reach 5 is a high gradient (>6
percent), high velocity bedrock channel, referred to as the canyon section; Reach 6 is the high
gradient section just below the outlet of Grant Lake.
4.3.1.4.3. Trail Lake Narrows
The Trail Lake Narrows area is located between Upper Trail and Lower Trail lakes (Figure 4.3-1
It is considered Cowardin lacustrine habitat (L1UB, lacustrine unconsolidated bottom) for the
purposes of the wetland and waters mapping.
4.3.1.4.4. Grant Lake
Grant Lake is an approximately 6-mile long, 1,649 acre1 oligotrophic lake classified primarily as
Cowardin lacustrine limnetic (deepwater) unconsolidated bottom, L1UB; a very small area was
lacustrine littoral (L2UB or L2US) at the lake outlet. Inlet Creek is the primary inlet stream
entering at the far eastern end; Grant Creek is the only surface water outlet flowing out of the
western end of the lake. It is separated into two portions by a shallow submerged bedrock ridge,
with the lower half trending north-south and 262 feet at its deepest point, and the upper half
trending east-west and 283 feet at its deepest point. Most of the lake shore is characterized by
steep slopes, with flatter shoreline areas limited to the inlet and outlet areas, and small areas of
wetland fringe. The shoreline is primarily bedrock, with more erodible areas where small
1 As calculated based on 2013 study data.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 80 June 2014
tributary drainages enter the lake forming alluvial fans. Grant Lake geomorphology and water
quality are described extensively by the respective Project teams (KHL 2014f, KHL 2014e,
respectively).
4.3.1.5. Regulatory Status of Project Area Wetlands
Regarding the potential jurisdictional status of Project area wetlands and waters, it is expected
that Grant Lake, Upper Trail and Lower Trail lakes, Inlet Creek, Grant Creek, and all of the
drainages and tributaries associated with those waterbodies will fall under the jurisdiction of the
USACE under Section 404 of the CWA (USACE 2010). In addition, all of the wetlands
associated with these waterbodies will also likely fall under the auspice of Section 404 (riverine,
lacustrine, and depressional wetlands with a hydrologic connection to a water body). The
jurisdictional status of the wetlands affected by the Project and how the Project would be
required to compensate for unavoidable losses (if any) will ultimately be determined by the
USACE during the Section 404 permitting process.
Federal agencies involved in the Project’s FERC application review and approval process are
required to consider impacts to wetlands under the directives of Executive Order 11990 (42 FR
26961, 3 CFR, 121). The purpose of Executive Order 11990 is “to avoid to the extent possible
the long and short term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of
wetlands and to avoid direct or indirect support of new construction in wetlands wherever there
is a practicable alternative.” Presumably, many of the potential wetland impacts described in
Section 4.4, Conclusions, will be avoided or minimized through the development of site-specific,
engineered controls and best management practices (BMP) during the Project’s upcoming
detailed engineering design phase.
q r
²³(û
LowerTrailLake
UpperTrailLake
G rantCreekGrant Lake
In l e t C r e e k
Grant Creek
Grant Lake - Intake
Grant Lake - NW Elbow
Grant Lake - Island East
Grant Lake - East End
Developed For:
Drawing Scale:
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - FERC PROJECT NO.13212
GRANT LAKE TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Figure 4.3-12013 Wetland and Waters TypesGlobal Indicator Map
±OFFICE: 208.342.4214FAX: 208.342.4216
REV DESCRIPTIONBYDATE
DRAWING
ISSUED DATE
CHECKED
DRAWN
DESIGNED
0 2,000 4,0001,000
Feet 6/9/2014
Legend
Project Features
q Diversion
r Intake
(û Penstock
²³Power House
Seward Highway
Tunnel
Alaska Railroad
Access Roads
Transmission Line
Intermittent Stream
Perennial Stream
Detention Pond
2013 WetlandAssessment Area
2013 TerrestrialResources Study Area
Project FERCBoundary
Wetlands
Wetland Type
Herbaceous Wetland
Herbaceous Wetland /Floodplain Forest &Scrub
Scrub-Shrub Wetland
Scrub-Shrub Wetland /Floodplain Forest &Scrub
Forested Wetland
Pond
Open Water
Other NonvegetatedWaterbody
M. Hjortsberg
M. Hjortsberg
J. Blank1401 SHORELINE DRIVEBOISE, ID 83702
Moose Pass
SCALE: 1:24,000
1 of 6
MAP NOTES:1. THIS MAP WAS DEVELOPED FOR KENAI HYDRO, LLC AS PART OF THE GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT(FERC NO. 13212), NATURAL RESOURCES STUDY DOCUMENTATION. THE LOCATION OF PROJECT FEATURES IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND IS SHOWN FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY.2. THIS MAP WAS DEVELOPED FROM THE FOLLOWING RESOURCES: A. AERIAL IMAGERY DEVELOPED BY USFS. B. WETLAND TYPES AND STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES WERE DRAWN BY ERM, INC 2013. C. PROJECT FEATURE LOCATIONS PROVIDED BY KENAI HYDRO, LLC.3. THIS MAP PRESENTS DATA IN THE FOLLOWING GEOGRAHIC SYSTEMS: - HORIZONTAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983 (NAD83) - VERTICAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 1988 (NAVD 88) - PROJECTION: ALASKA 4 FIPS 5004 FEET STATE PLANE
!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5 !5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
#0
#0
#0#0#0#0#0#0
#0
#0#0 #0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0 #0
#0#0
#0#0#0#0
#0#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0 #0
#0 #0 #0
#0 #0
#0#0
#0 #0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0 #0
#0 #0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0 #0
#0
#0
#0 #0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0#0
Detention Pond Outlet
Diversion Dam
Intake
Tunnel
Detention Pond
Penstock
Powerhouse
Tailrace
104
105
106
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117118
119
120
122123
124125
126
127
OP78
OP70
DP35DP36OP71OP72OP73OP74
OP75
DP37
DP38 OP76
DP39DP40
OP77 DP41
DP24
OP47
DP25 DP26 OP48
OP48OP49
OP50OP51OP52OP53
OP54OP55
OP44OP45DP23
OP46
DP17 DP18
OP36
DP19 DP20
OP37 DP21
OP38 DP22
OP39
OP40
OP41
OP42
OP43
OP26
DP14DP15
OP27
OP28OP29
OP30
OP31
DP16OP32
OP33
OP34
OP35
OP19 OP20
OP21
OP22
DP12DP13
OP22
OP23
OP24
OP25
Developed For:
Drawing Scale:
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - FERC PROJECT NO.13212
GRANT LAKE TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Figure 4.3-22013 Wetland and Waters Types Grant Creek
±OFFICE: 208.342.4214FAX: 208.342.4216
REV DESCRIPTIONBYDATE
DRAWING
ISSUED DATE
CHECKED
DRAWN
DESIGNED
0 550 1,100275
Feet
LowerTrailLake
6/9/2014
Legend
#0 2013 Wetland Data Points
#0 2013 Wetland ObservationPoints
!5 2010 Wetland Data Points
Seward Highway
Alaska Railroad
Access Roads
Transmission Line
Intermittent Stream
Perennial Stream
Detention Pond
2013 Wetland AssessmentArea
2013 Terrestrial ResourcesStudy Area
Project FERC Boundary
Wetland Type
Herbaceous Wetland
Herbaceous Wetland /Floodplain Forest & Scrub
Scrub-Shrub Wetland
Scrub-Shrub Wetland /Floodplain Forest & Scrub
Forested Wetland
Pond
Open Water
Other NonvegetatedWaterbody
G r a n tC r e e k
J. Woodbury
M. Hjortsberg
J. Blank1401 SHORELINE DRIVEBOISE, ID 83702
MAP NOTES:1. THIS MAP WAS DEVELOPED FOR KENAI HYDRO, LLC AS PART OF THE GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT(FERC NO. 13212), NATURAL RESOURCES STUDY DOCUMENTATION. THE LOCATION OF PROJECT FEATURES IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND IS SHOWN FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY.2. THIS MAP WAS DEVELOPED FROM THE FOLLOWING RESOURCES: A. AERIAL IMAGERY DEVELOPED BY USFS. B. WETLAND TYPES AND STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES WERE DRAWN BY ERM, INC 2013. C. PROJECT FEATURE LOCATIONS PROVIDED BY KENAI HYDRO, LLC.3. THIS MAP PRESENTS DATA IN THE FOLLOWING GEOGRAHIC SYSTEMS: - HORIZONTAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983 (NAD83) - VERTICAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 1988 (NAVD 88) - PROJECTION: ALASKA 4 FIPS 5004 FEET STATE PLANE
SCALE: 1:5,500
2 of 6
Grant Lake
UpperTrailLake
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5#0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0Diversion Dam
Intake
Tunnel
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
OP78
OP70
DP35
DP36
OP71
OP72
OP73
OP74OP75
DP37
DP38 OP76
DP39
DP40 OP77
DP41
OP67
DP31
OP68
OP21
OP22
DP32
Developed For:
Drawing Scale:
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - FERC PROJECT NO.13212
GRANT LAKE TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Figure 4.3-32013 Wetland and Waters Types Grant Lake - Intake±OFFICE: 208.342.4214FAX: 208.342.4216
REV DESCRIPTIONBYDATE
DRAWING
ISSUED DATE
CHECKED
DRAWN
DESIGNED
0 550 1,100275
Feet 6/9/2014
J. Woodbury
M. Hjortsberg
J. Blank1401 SHORELINE DRIVEBOISE, ID 83702
MAP NOTES:1. THIS MAP WAS DEVELOPED FOR KENAI HYDRO, LLC AS PART OF THE GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT(FERC NO. 13212), NATURAL RESOURCES STUDY DOCUMENTATION. THE LOCATION OF PROJECT FEATURES IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND IS SHOWN FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY.2. THIS MAP WAS DEVELOPED FROM THE FOLLOWING RESOURCES: A. AERIAL IMAGERY DEVELOPED BY USFS. B. WETLAND TYPES AND STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES WERE DRAWN BY ERM, INC 2013. C. PROJECT FEATURE LOCATIONS PROVIDED BY KENAI HYDRO, LLC.3. THIS MAP PRESENTS DATA IN THE FOLLOWING GEOGRAHIC SYSTEMS: - HORIZONTAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983 (NAD83) - VERTICAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 1988 (NAVD 88) - PROJECTION: ALASKA 4 FIPS 5004 FEET STATE PLANE
SCALE: 1:6,200
3 of 6
Legend
#0 2013 Wetland Data Points
#0 2013 Wetland ObservationPoints
Intermittent Stream
Perennial Stream
!5 2010 Wetland Data Points
2013 Wetland AssessmentArea
2013 Terrestrial ResourcesStudy Area
Project FERC Boundary
Wetland Type
Herbaceous Wetland
Herbaceous Wetland /Floodplain Forest & Scrub
Scrub-Shrub Wetland
Scrub-Shrub Wetland /Floodplain Forest & Scrub
Forested Wetland
Pond
Open Water
Other NonvegetatedWaterbody
Grant Lake
G r a n tC r e e k
#0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0OP66
OP67
DP31DP32
Developed For:
Drawing Scale:
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - FERC PROJECT NO.13212
GRANT LAKE TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Figure 4.3-42013 Wetland and Waters Types Grant Lake - NW Elbow
±
OFFICE: 208.342.4214FAX: 208.342.4216
REV DESCRIPTIONBYDATE
DRAWING
ISSUED DATE
CHECKED
DRAWN
DESIGNED
0 550 1,100275
Feet 6/9/2014
J. Woodbury
M. Hjortsberg
J. Blank1401 SHORELINE DRIVEBOISE, ID 83702
MAP NOTES:1. THIS MAP WAS DEVELOPED FOR KENAI HYDRO, LLC AS PART OF THE GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT(FERC NO. 13212), NATURAL RESOURCES STUDY DOCUMENTATION. THE LOCATION OF PROJECT FEATURES IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND IS SHOWN FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY.2. THIS MAP WAS DEVELOPED FROM THE FOLLOWING RESOURCES: A. AERIAL IMAGERY DEVELOPED BY USFS. B. WETLAND TYPES AND STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES WERE DRAWN BY ERM, INC 2013. C. PROJECT FEATURE LOCATIONS PROVIDED BY KENAI HYDRO, LLC.3. THIS MAP PRESENTS DATA IN THE FOLLOWING GEOGRAHIC SYSTEMS: - HORIZONTAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983 (NAD83) - VERTICAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 1988 (NAVD 88) - PROJECTION: ALASKA 4 FIPS 5004 FEET STATE PLANE
SCALE: 1:7,000
4 of 6
Legend
#0 2013 Wetland Data Points
#0 2013 Wetland ObservationPoints
Intermittent Stream
Perennial Stream
!5 2010 Wetland Data Points
2013 Wetland AssessmentArea
2013 Terrestrial ResourcesStudy Area
Project FERC Boundary
Wetland Type
Herbaceous Wetland
Herbaceous Wetland /Floodplain Forest & Scrub
Scrub-Shrub Wetland
Scrub-Shrub Wetland /Floodplain Forest & Scrub
Forested Wetland
Pond
Open Water
Other NonvegetatedWaterbody
Grant Lake
#0
#0
#0 #0
#0
#0 #0#0
#0#0
#0
#0
OP81
OP82
DP29 DP30
OP65
OP69
DP33
DP34
OP63
OP64
OP80
Developed For:
Drawing Scale:
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - FERC PROJECT NO.13212
GRANT LAKE TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Figure 4.3-52013 Wetland and Waters Types Grant Lake - Island East
±OFFICE: 208.342.4214FAX: 208.342.4216
REV DESCRIPTIONBYDATE
DRAWING
ISSUED DATE
CHECKED
DRAWN
DESIGNED
0 550 1,100275
Feet 6/9/2014
J. Woodbury
M. Hjortsberg
J. Blank1401 SHORELINE DRIVEBOISE, ID 83702
MAP NOTES:1. THIS MAP WAS DEVELOPED FOR KENAI HYDRO, LLC AS PART OF THE GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT(FERC NO. 13212), NATURAL RESOURCES STUDY DOCUMENTATION. THE LOCATION OF PROJECT FEATURES IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND IS SHOWN FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY.2. THIS MAP WAS DEVELOPED FROM THE FOLLOWING RESOURCES: A. AERIAL IMAGERY DEVELOPED BY USFS. B. WETLAND TYPES AND STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES WERE DRAWN BY ERM, INC 2013. C. PROJECT FEATURE LOCATIONS PROVIDED BY KENAI HYDRO, LLC.3. THIS MAP PRESENTS DATA IN THE FOLLOWING GEOGRAHIC SYSTEMS: - HORIZONTAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983 (NAD83) - VERTICAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 1988 (NAVD 88) - PROJECTION: ALASKA 4 FIPS 5004 FEET STATE PLANE
SCALE: 1:7,500
5 of 6
Legend
#0 2013 Wetland Data Points
#0 2013 Wetland ObservationPoints
Intermittent Stream
Perennial Stream
!5 2010 Wetland Data Points
2013 Wetland AssessmentArea
2013 Terrestrial ResourcesStudy Area
Project FERC Boundary
Wetland Type
Herbaceous Wetland
Herbaceous Wetland /Floodplain Forest & Scrub
Scrub-Shrub Wetland
Scrub-Shrub Wetland /Floodplain Forest & Scrub
Forested Wetland
Pond
Open Water
Other NonvegetatedWaterbody
Grant Lake
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0#0#0#0
#0
#0
#0#0 #0
#0#0#0#0#0 #0
#0
#0 #0#0
#0 #0
#0 #0#0
#0#0
#0
#0 #0#0
#0#0#0 #0 #0 Inlet Creek
OP79
OP56
OP57
OP58
DP27 DP28OP59OP60OP61
OP62
OP04 OP05OP06
OP07 OP08
OP09 OP10DP06
DP07
OP11
OP12
OP13
OP14
DP08DP09
DP10 OP15OP16
OP17DP11
OP18
DP01DP02
OP01
OP02
DP03OP03 DP04DP05
Developed For:
Drawing Scale:
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - FERC PROJECT NO.13212
GRANT LAKE TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Figure 4.3-62013 Wetland and Waters Types Grant Lake - East End±OFFICE: 208.342.4214FAX: 208.342.4216
REV DESCRIPTIONBYDATE
DRAWING
ISSUED DATE
CHECKED
DRAWN
DESIGNED
0 550 1,100275
Feet 6/9/2014
J. Woodbury
M. Hjortsberg
J. Blank1401 SHORELINE DRIVEBOISE, ID 83702
MAP NOTES:1. THIS MAP WAS DEVELOPED FOR KENAI HYDRO, LLC AS PART OF THE GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT(FERC NO. 13212), NATURAL RESOURCES STUDY DOCUMENTATION. THE LOCATION OF PROJECT FEATURES IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND IS SHOWN FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY.2. THIS MAP WAS DEVELOPED FROM THE FOLLOWING RESOURCES: A. AERIAL IMAGERY DEVELOPED BY USFS. B. WETLAND TYPES AND STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES WERE DRAWN BY ERM, INC 2013. C. PROJECT FEATURE LOCATIONS PROVIDED BY KENAI HYDRO, LLC.3. THIS MAP PRESENTS DATA IN THE FOLLOWING GEOGRAHIC SYSTEMS: - HORIZONTAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983 (NAD83) - VERTICAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 1988 (NAVD 88) - PROJECTION: ALASKA 4 FIPS 5004 FEET STATE PLANE
SCALE: 1:9,900
6 of 6
Legend
#0 2013 Wetland Data Points
#0 2013 Wetland ObservationPoints
Intermittent Stream
Perennial Stream
!5 2010 Wetland Data Points
2013 Wetland AssessmentArea
2013 Terrestrial ResourcesStudy Area
Project FERC Boundary
Wetland Type
Herbaceous Wetland
Herbaceous Wetland /Floodplain Forest & Scrub
Scrub-Shrub Wetland
Scrub-Shrub Wetland /Floodplain Forest & Scrub
Forested Wetland
Pond
Open Water
Other NonvegetatedWaterbody
Grant Lake
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 93 June 2014
Table 4.3-1. Wetlands and waters—detailed.
Wetland Cover
Type
Hydrogeomorphic
Position
NWI Class/
Subclass1
NWI
Hydro
Modifier1
Area Mapped (Acres)
Vegetation Description2
Terrestrial
Resource
Assessment
Area
Wetland
Assessment
Area
Acres Acres
Herbaceous
Wetland
Depressional
PEM1 B, E, F, H 1.83 0.05
Palustrine emergent wetlands with saturated hydrologic
conditions occurring throughout or within portions of
Project area depressional features. Dominated by
Drosera rotundifolia, Carex pauciflora, Rubus
chamaemorus, Calamagrostis canadensis, Equisetum
arvense. Wetland Points: OP55, (HDR 113, 116,
118,123); similar to DP14 but fewer scrub shrub.
PEM1/SS1 E 0.24 0.08
Palustrine emergent and deciduous scrub-shrub mixed
wetlands with saturated and seasonally flooded
conditions occurring in a single depressional area within
the transmission corridor west of Trail Lk. Dominated
by Equisetum fluviatile, Comarum palustre,
Sanguisorba canadensis, Calamagrostis canadensis,
Salix barclayi, Betula glandulosa, Picea glauca. Wetland
Points: DP14
Lacustrine
PEM1 B, E, F, H 4.28 4.26
Palustrine emergent wetlands with hydrologic
conditions ranging from saturated, seasonally flooded,
semipermanently flooded, to permanently flooded
typically occurring as a narrow fringe along portions of
the Grant Lake shoreline. Dominated by Podagrostis
aequivalvis, Poa palustris, Carex lenticularis, Carex
utriculata, Calamagrostis canadensis, Equisetum
arvense, Equisetum fluviatile, Carex aquatilis,
Deschampsia caespitosa, Sanguisorba canadensis.
Wetland Points: DP10, DP27, DP33, OP59, OP61,
OP62, OP65, OP67, OP82
PEM1/SS1 B, C, E 1.21 1.20
Palustrine emergent and deciduous scrub-shrub mixed
wetlands with hydrologic conditions ranging from
saturated to seasonally flooded occurring typically as a
narrow fringe along portions of the Grant Lake and
Trail Lake shoreline. Dominated by Chamerion
latifolium, Calamagrostis canadensis, Comarum
palustre, Equisetum arvense, Sanguisorba canadensis,
Alnus viridis, Betula glandulosa, Populus balsamifera,
Salix alaxensis, Salix barclayi, Salix sitchensis. Wetland
Points: DP01, DP35 (HDR107), OP60, OP68, OP69
Herbaceous Wetland Subtotal: 7.56 5.60
Herbaceous
Wetland /
Floodplain Forest &
Scrub
Riverine
PEM1 B, C, E 0.61 0.61
Palustrine emergent wetlands with hydrologic
conditions ranging from saturated to seasonally flooded
occurring as narrow fringe along stream channels or as
part of a complex wetland-upland mosaic complex
associated with Grant Creek side channels. Dominated
by Calamagrostis canadensis, Carex sitchensis,
Equisetum arvense, Sanguisorba canadensis. Wetland
Points: DP25, OP43, OP51, OP74
PEM1/SS1 C 2.50 2.50
Palustrine emergent and deciduous scrub-shrub mixed
wetlands with seasonally flooded hydrologic conditions
occurring in micro-topo lows within the complex
riparian wetland-upland mosaic associated with the
Grant Creek side channels. Dominated by
Calamagrostis canadensis, Equisetum arvense,
Athyrium felix-femina, Alnus viridis, Salix commutata.
NOTE: Wetlands account for only 20% of the acreage
associated with this mosaic community, the remaining
80% is upland. Wetland Points: DP23.
Herbaceous Wetland / Floodplain Forest & Scrub Subtotal: 3.12 3.11
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Table 4.3-1, continued…
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 94 June 2014
Wetland Cover
Type
Hydrogeomorphic
Position
NWI Class/
Subclass1
NWI Hydro
Modifier1
Area Mapped (Acres)
Vegetation Description2
Terrestrial
Resource
Assessment
Area
Wetland
Assessment
Area
Acres Acres
Scrub-Shrub
Wetland
Depressional
PSS1 B, E 5.97 0.21
Palustrine deciduous scrub-shrub wetlands with
saturated to seasonally flooded hydrologic
conditions occurring throughout or within
portions of Project area depressional features
Dominated by Ledum decumbens, Betula
glandulosa, Vaccinium uliginosum. Wetland
Points: (HDR 129); similar to DP22
PSS1/3 B, E 3.35 0.14
Palustrine deciduous and broadleaved evergreen
scrub-shrub wetlands with saturated conditions
occurring throughout or within portions of
Project area depressional features. Typically
dominated by Rubus chamaemorus, Cronus
canadensis, Emporium unigram, Betula
glandulosa, Andromeda polifolia, Ledum
decumbens. Wetland Points: None, similar
vegetation to DP17
PSS1/EM1 B, E 5.64 2.95
Palustrine deciduous scrub-shrub and emergent
mixed wetlands with saturated to seasonally
flooded hydrologic conditions occurring
throughout or within portions of Project area
depressional features, including the proposed
detention pond area south of Grant Creek.
Dominated by Picea glauca, Salix barclayi,
Equisetum fluviatile, and Calamagrostis
canadensis. Wetland Points: DP22
PSS3/EM1 B 3.56 0.60
Palustrine broadleaved evergreen scrub-shrub
and emergent mixed wetlands with saturated
hydrologic conditions typically occurring within
portions of Project area depressional features.
Dominated by Andromeda polifolia, Betula
glandulosa, Emporium unigram, Carex
pauciflora, Rubus chamaemorus, Equisetum
arvense. Wetland Points: DP17, DP20; (HDR
127)
PSS4 B 0.11 0.00
Palustrine needle leaved evergreen scrub-shrub
wetland with saturated hydrologic conditions
occurring in a single depressional feature south
of the transmission corridor on the west side of
Trail Lake. Outside of 2013 wetland assessment
area, plant species not documented. Wetland
Points: None, located outside of 2013 wetland
assessment area
PSS4/3/EM1 B 1.25 0.40
Palustrine needle leaved and broadleaved
evergreen scrub-shrub and emergent mixed
wetland with saturated hydrologic conditions
occurring in a depressional feature within the
transmission corridor. Dominated by Picea
glauca, Rubus chamaemorus, Andromeda
polifolia, Betula glandulosa, and Ledum
decumbens. Wetland Points: DP19 (HDR 125)
Lacustrine
PSS1 C, E 19.36 8.21
Palustrine deciduous scrub-shrub wetlands with
saturated or seasonally flooded hydrologic
conditions occurring as a narrow fringe along
portions of the Grant Lake shoreline. Dominated
by Salix alaxensis, Salix pulchra, Salix barclayi,
Alnus viridis. Wetland Points: OP12, OP15,
OP80; (HDR106)
PSS1/EM1 B, C, E 7.25 7.24
Palustrine deciduous scrub-shrub and emergent
mixed wetlands with saturated and seasonally
flooded hydrologic conditions occurring typically
as a narrow fringe along portions of the Grant
Lake shoreline, or as larger wetlands at the Grant
Lake inlet or outlet. Dominant plant species
include Salix sitchensis, Salix alaxensis, Salix
barclayi, Alnus viridis, Betula glandulosa, Carex
hyemale, Carex canescens, Carex lenticularis,
Equisetum arvense, Equisetum fluviatile,
Calamagrostis canadensis, Chamerion latifolium,
Sanguisorba canadensis. Wetland Points: DP03,
DP04, DP06, DP08, DP29, DP31, OP81
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Table 4.3-1, continued…
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 95 June 2014
Wetland Cover
Type
Hydrogeomorphic
Position
NWI Class/
Subclass1
NWI Hydro
Modifier1
Area Mapped (Acres)
Vegetation Description2
Terrestrial
Resource
Assessment
Area
Wetland
Assessment
Area
Acres Acres
Riverine
PSS1 C 0.07 0.03
Palustrine deciduous scrub-shrub wetlands with
seasonally flooded hydrologic conditions
associated with small drainages within the
Project area. Dominated by Salix sitchensis,
Salix alaxensis, Alnus viridis, Sanguisorba
canadensis, Rubus chamaemorus, Calamagrostis
canadensis, Cronus canadensis. Wetland Points:
OP58
PSS1/EM1 C, E 1.35 0.97
Palustrine deciduous scrub-shrub and emergent
mixed wetlands with saturated to seasonally
flooded hydrologic conditions associated with
small drainages within the Project area.
Dominated by Salix pulchra, Salix barclayi,
Alnus viridis, Tsuga mertensiana, Equisetum
arvense, Equisetum fluviatile, Calamagrostis
canadensis, Agrostis mertensii. Wetland Points:
DP12, DP39
Scrub-Shrub Wetland Subtotal: 47.91 20.75
Scrub-Shrub
Wetland /
Floodplain Forest
and Scrub
Riverine
PSS1 A, B, C, E 15.36 5.67
Palustrine deciduous scrub-shrub wetlands with
hydrologic conditions ranging from temporarily
flooded, saturated, to seasonally flooded
associated with Project area active floodplain and
outwash fan features. Dominated by Salix
sitchensis, Salix alaxensis, Alnus viridis, Populus
balsamifera, Calamagrostis canadensis,
Equisetum hyemale. Wetland Points: DP02,
DP09
PSS1/EM1 C, E 2.22 2.22
Palustrine deciduous scrub-shrub and emergent
mixed wetlands with saturated to seasonally
flooded hydrologic conditions occurring in
micro-topo lows within the complex riparian
wetland-upland mosaic associated with the Grant
Creek side channels. Dominated by Alnus
viridis, Salix commutata, Calamagrostis
canadensis. NOTE: Wetlands account for only
10% of the acreage associated with this mosaic
community, the remaining 90% is upland.
Wetland Points: DP24, OP73, OP74
PSS1/FO1 C 0.04 0.04
Palustrine deciduous scrub-shrub and deciduous
forested mixed wetlands with seasonally flooded
hydrologic conditions associated riparian fringe
along Grant Creek. Dominated by Salix
sitchensis, Salix alaxensis, Alnus viridis, Betula
papyrifera. Wetland Points: Documented on field
map only; similar to DP24 but with more mature
deciduous trees
Scrub-Shrub / Floodplain Forest & Scrub Wetland Subtotal: 17.62 7.94
Forested Wetland Slope
PFO4 B 0.81 0.81
Palustrine needle leaved evergreen forested
wetland with saturated hydrologic conditions;
within the Project area this includes one wetland
which is associated with the west-facing slope
adjacent to the detention pond. Dominated by
Picea glauca, Salix barclayi, Betula papyrifera,
and Agrostis stolonifera. Wetland Points: OP40
(HDR121)
PFO4/EM1 B 0.08 0.08
Palustrine needle leaved evergreen forested and
emergent mixed wetland with saturated
hydrologic conditions associated with a seasonal
drainage on a north-facing slope. Dominated by
Salix sitchensis, Salix alaxensis, Alnus viridis,
Tsuga mertensiana, Rubus chamaemorus, Cronus
canadensis. Wetland Points: DP37, (HDR 110)
Forested Wetland Subtotal: 0.89 0.89
Open Water Lacustrine
L1UB
(Grant Lk.) H 1648.20 1648.20 Unvegetated deep water (greater than 6.6 ft deep)
of Grant Lake. Wetland Points: None
L2UB
(Grant Lk.) H 0.82 0.82
Unvegetated shallow water (less than 6.6 ft deep)
associated with the outlet of Grant Lake. Wetland
Points: None
L2US
(Grant Lk.) C 0.09 0.09
Unvegetated shallow water (less than 6.6 ft deep)
associated with the outlet of Grant Lake. Wetland
Points: None
Total Grant Lk. 1649.11 1649.11
L1UB
(Trail Lk.
Narrows)
H 1.54 1.02 Unvegetated deep water (greater than 6.6 ft deep)
of Trail Lake Narrows. Wetland Points: None
Open Water Subtotal: 1650.65 1650.12
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Table 4.3-1, continued…
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 96 June 2014
Wetland Cover
Type
Hydrogeomorphic
Position
NWI Class/
Subclass1
NWI Hydro
Modifier1
Area Mapped (Acres)
Vegetation Description2
Terrestrial
Resource
Assessment
Area
Wetland
Assessment
Area
Acres Acres
Pond Depressional PUB H 0.06 0.00
Shallow ponds (less than 20 acres in size)
associated with depressional features within the
Project area. All were outside the 2013 wetland
assessment area. Wetland Points: None, located
outside 2013 wetland assessment area
Pond Subtotal: 0.06 0.00
Non-Vegetated Riverine
R2UB
(Grant Cr.) H 6.74 6.74
Active channel and unvegetated portion of the
Grant Creek main channel and side channels.
Wetland Points: OP28, OP45, OP48, OP51
R3UB
(Outwash fans
and Inlet Cr.)
C 12.03 3.07
Unvegetated channel beds and outwash fan
located at the inlet of Grant Lake, including areas
of Inlet Creek channel that are flooded during
high flow and likely during high precipitation
events, but dry during low flows. Wetland
Points: OP14, OP56, OP79
R3UB
(Small streams,
perennial)
H 17,772 ft 8,303 ft
Unvegetated perennial permanently flooded
(flowing) active stream channels mapped as
stream lines throughout Project area. Includes
small stream tributaries to Grant Creek, Grant
Lake, and active channels of Inlet Creek. No
acreages associated with these stream lines.
Wetland Points: DP12,(HDR112), DP14, DP31,
DP39, OP01, OP02, OP03, OP07, OP08, OP09,
OP16, OP18, OP56, OP58, OP59, OP68, OP76
(HDR109), OP79; (HDR126)
R4SB
(Small streams,
intermittent)
C 10,818 ft 5,279 ft
Unvegetated intermittent seasonally flooded (not
flowing during survey) stream channels mapped
as stream lines throughout Project area. Includes
small stream tributaries to Grant Creek and Grant
Lake. No acreages associated with these stream
lines. Wetland Points: DP17, OP11, OP25,
(HDR117) OP32, OP33, OP43, OP64, OP80;
(HDR111)
Non-Vegetated Riverine Subtotal: 18.77 9.82
TOTALS 1745.04 1697.22
Notes:
1. NWI and hydro modifier codes are the Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats Classification table (Cowardin et al 1979) in Appendix 2b.
2. DP =wetland delineation point, ERM 2013 field; OP = observation point, ERM 2013 field; (HDR ##) = HDR data point, HDR 2010 field; Wetland types
w/o specific data points were assessed as part of the ERM 2013 field study, the HDR 2010 field study, or through a desktop analysis. Community
associations were determined based on field knowledge of the wetland communities.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 97 June 2014
Table 4.3-2. Wetlands and waters– summary.
Terrestrial Resources
Assessment Area
2013 Wetland
Assessment Area
Vegetated Wetland Communities Acres % Coverage Acres % Coverage
Herbaceous Wetlands 7.6 10% 5.6 15%
Herbaceous Wetland / Floodplain Forest & Scrub 3.1 4% 3.1 8%
Scrub-Shrub Wetlands 47.9 62% 20.8 54%
Scrub-Shrub Wetland / Floodplain Forest & Scrub 17.6 23% 7.9 21%
Forested Wetlands 0.9 1% 0.9 2%
Vegetated Wetland Subtotals 77.1 38.3
Non-Vegetated Waters- Lakes, Ponds, Rivers Acres % Coverage Acres % Coverage
Open Water - Grant Lake 1,649.1 99% 1,649.1 99%
Open Water - Trail Lake Narrows 1.5 0% 1.0 0%
Open Water - Ponds 0.1 0% 0 0%
Riverine- Grant Creek main and side channels 18.8 1% 9.8 1%
Riverine- Outwash fans and areas of Inlet Creek channel 12.0 1% 3.1 0%
Non-Vegetated Water Acres Subtotals 1,669.5 1,659.9
ACREAGE TOTAL 1,746.6 1,698.2
Non-Vegetated Waters1- Streams Feet Feet
Streams (perennial) 17,772 62% 8,303 61%
Streams (intermittent) 10,818 38% 5,279 39%
FEET TOTAL 28,590 13,583
Notes:
1. Streams that were mapped as lines rather than polygons due to width.
4.3.2. Functional Assessment Results
Due to the undisturbed nature of the Project area, most of the wetlands and waters within the
wetland assessment area were functioning at their highest potential, thus this functional
assessment is considered a rough measure of their undisturbed, “baseline” functional condition.
However, this does not mean that all of the evaluated functions were present or performing
equally for each of the functional classes, nor is the highest functional potential equal between
functional classes (i.e., for many functions, maximum functional potential is inherently greater
for certain functional classes as compared to others), due to differences in hydrology,
geomorphology, and vegetation (for the vegetated wetlands). Potential existing disturbance
sources within the Project area are limited to residences along the Trail Lake Narrows that could
cause shoreline erosion and water quality degradation, and walk-in fishing on Grant Creek.
Results of the functional assessment are presented for non-vegetated wetlands (referred to as
waters) and vegetated wetlands below. Note that this section is a summary of potential
functions, the characteristics of several of the functional classes are discussed in greater detail in
their respective resource reports (wildlife, vegetation, geomorphology, water quality, and
fisheries).
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 98 June 2014
4.3.2.1. Waters Functional Assessment
Four functional classes were assessed as part of the waters functional assessment: small streams,
Grant and Inlet Creeks, the Trail Lake Narrows, and Grant Lake. Table 4.3-3 presents the
functional assessment ratings (present, absent, or not assessed) for each of the three moving
water functional assessment classes. The small streams functional class included all of the
tributary streams to Grant Creek, Grant Lake, and Trail Lake, identified within the wetland
assessment area. Grant Creek included both the main and side channels.
Eight functions were present for small streams, all 15 functions were present for Grant Creek and
Inlet Creek, and for the Trail Lake Narrows. As a deepwater habitat, Grant Lake was not
evaluated as part of Table 4.3-3, but its assessment is presented in the narrative below.
Table 4.3-3. Results of waters functional assessment for moving waters functional classes.
Functional Class
Waters Function Small Streams
Grant and
Inlet Creeks
Trail Lake
Narrows
System Dynamics
Stream evolution processes X X X
Energy management X X X
Riparian succession ⃝ X X
Hydrologic Balance
Surface water storage processes ⃝ X X
Surface/ subsurface water exchange ⃝ X X
Hydrodynamic character X X X
Sediment Processes
and Character
Sediment continuity X X X
Substrate and structural processes X1 X X
Quality and quantity of sediments X X X
Biological Support
Biological communities and processes X1 X X
Necessary aquatic and riparian habitats X1 X X
Trophic structures and processes X X X
Chemical Processes
and Pathways
Water and soil quality ⃝ X X
Chemical processes and nutrient
cycles ⃝ X X
Landscape pathways X X X
Notes:
1. Limited to the moderate gradient perennial small streams
X Function present ⃝ Function not present
4.3.2.1.1. Small Streams
A total of 13,582 linear feet of small streams were mapped within the wetlands assessment area
(Table 4.3-2). Twenty-three of the small stream segments were perennial (8,303 feet); 36 stream
segments (5,279 feet) were intermittent with no water flowing in the channel during the 2013
assessment. Small streams were evaluated as having eight of the 15 functions present (Table4.3-
3). While perennial and intermittent streams were evaluated equally for this presence/absence
assessment, overall, perennial streams would be expected to perform all of the functions at a
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 99 June 2014
higher level than intermittent streams. The following is a summary of the results of the waters
functional assessment presented in Table 4.3-3. Two of the System Dynamics functions were
present; stream evolution was considered present but limited for this class due to their very
young nature and moderate to high gradient. These streams do dissipate energy, as many of
them had considerable alluvial fans at their mouths. Riparian succession was considered absent
(or very limited) due to their moderate to high gradient, high velocity channels, which lacked
significant movement required for riparian succession. Most of the vegetation succession along
these channels was due to natural slope vegetation succession (e.g., along Grant Lake associated
with alder monocultures in avalanche paths), or forest succession (e.g., along all other channels)
and not due to the stream channel. Stream banks were naturally stable for the small streams,
with minimal erosion.
Only one of the Hydrologic Balance functions was present for the small streams, maintenance of
hydrodynamic character, as the small streams do exhibit a natural flow regime. Due to their
steeper gradient, they do not contribute to surface water storage, and contribute only negligibly
to surface/subsurface water exchange. Small streams provide varying degrees of Sediment
Process and Character functions. These moderate to high gradient small streams maintain
sediment continuity, as they provide for natural erosion, transport, and deposition processes, as
well as maintenance of substrate sorting and armoring within their channel and downstream
receiving waters. They also maintain the quality and quantity of sediments, contributing to the
natural sediment regime within their channel and downstream waters. Although they have
limited habitat complexity, the more moderate gradient perennial (and possibly intermittent)
small streams entering Grant Creek likely contribute to the maintenance of the quality of
substrate and structural processes by providing rearing habitat for young fish. However, it is
unlikely that the steeper high gradient perennial or intermittent small streams provide this
habitat.
All the Biological Support functions were present for small streams (although minor), with
significantly greater support provided by the perennial streams as opposed to the intermittent
streams. The moderate perennial (and potentially intermittent) small streams likely provide
necessary aquatic habitats within their channel; however, with less habitat complexity and flow
they were not considered as productive as Grant Creek and Inlet Creek. They also maintain
trophic structure and processes at a minimal level by acting as pathways for riparian-derived
detrital inputs (e.g., leaf and needle litter) to the adjacent and downstream channels, contributing
nutrients to the system. Although minimal, the moderate gradient perennial tributaries to Grant
Creek likely provided some direct support for biological communities, e.g. rearing habitat for
young fish, although these small streams were not surveyed as part of the 2013 fisheries study.
The Project fisheries report (KHL 2014b) noted that during the1981-1982 fish surveys, sculpin
and three-spine stickleback were the only fish observed in Grant Lake, and no fish were observed
in Grant Lake tributaries.
One Chemical Processes and Pathways function was present in the small streams class. Small
streams, particularly perennial streams, act as landscape pathways, maintaining both longitudinal
and lateral (detrital inputs) connectivity. With their limited water retention time, steeper
gradient, and limited hydric riparian soils, the small streams do not likely function to improve
water and soil quality, nor maintain chemical processes and nutrient cycles.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 100 June 2014
4.3.2.1.2. Grant and Inlet Creeks
Salmonids species are present and spawn in reaches 1-4 of Grant Creek; the upstream end of
Reach 5 provides a barrier to upstream salmonids migration, and no salmonids are found in
Grant Lake (KHL 2014b). Where lower gradient side slopes allow riparian communities to exist
along Grant Creek they are primarily mid to later successional scrub shrub and non-wetland
forested areas, with limited herbaceous and scrub shrub wetland fringes and side channel areas
(as described in the vegetated wetland section above). The portion of Inlet Creek within the
wetland assessment area is a low gradient, dynamic, braided system with extensive sediment and
bedload deposition, forming an alluvial fan where it flows into Grant Lake. Due to a more active
disturbance regime, riparian areas along Inlet Creek are primarily early to mid-successional
herbaceous and scrub shrub communities, with some floodplain forest and scrub riparian areas
and backwater areas associated with beaver damming.
All of the functions were present for Grant and Inlet creeks (Table 4.3-3) with most of the
functions performing at a high level compared to small streams. Grant and Inlet creeks have
significant System Dynamic functions, with active stream evolution processes, energy
management, and riparian succession. The Grant Creek riparian area is in a later successional
state than the Inlet Creek riparian area, with less armoring, greater channel movement and
disturbance occurring along Inlet Creek. Both creeks have extensive side channel systems with
associated vegetated riparian wetlands (evaluated in the vegetated wetlands section below). The
exception to the extensive riparian is within the Grant Creek upper Canyon Reach. Hydrologic
Balance functions are also present, although surface water storage processes are more limited
than the lotic habitats (e.g., Grant Lake). Primary water storage areas include the side channel
areas and microtopographic features on both creeks, and the beaver ponds along Inlet Creek.
Surface/subsurface water exchange occurs within the hyporheic zones along both creeks, likely
to a greater degree than small streams. The rivers maintain their hydrodynamic character with
natural flow regimes, including the characteristic spring and fall peak flows resulting from
snowmelt and fall rains respectively, as well as additional flashy storm events spring through fall
(KHL 2014e). Banks are relatively stable for Grant Creek, which is well armored; Inlet Creek
banks are naturally eroding to the extent typical of a braided gravel bed channel.
Sediment Process and Character functions are performing at a high level in Grant and Inlet
creeks. They provide for sediment continuity (e.g., erosion, transport, and deposition processes),
as well as maintain the natural quality and quantity of sediments. Inlet creek is a dynamic
system, characterized by glacial sediment deposits, gravel, and cobble, which form a highly
erodible alluvial fan as it enters Grant Lake, providing a source of suspended sediment to Grant
Lake. Grant Creek is a steep bedrock canyon in the upper reach; the geomorphology report for
the Project (KHL 2014f) identified the Canyon Reach as the sole source of bedload material for
the downstream reaches. This material is thought to be carried downstream during episodic
events (e.g., a landslide into Grant Lake that pushes a surge of water into Grant Creek) providing
for the continued development of the alluvial fan at the confluence of Grant Creek with the Trail
Lake Narrows (KHL 2014f). With the exception of the Canyon Reach of Grant Creek, Grant
Creek and Inlet Creek have a high degree of structural complexity for maintenance of substrates
and structural processes. Both creeks have large woody debris, side channel habitat, diversity of
substrates, healthy overhanging riparian vegetation, and frequent disturbance events which are
important for maintaining this structural diversity (KHL 2014 a). Grant Creek also has habitat
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 101 June 2014
within undercut bank areas, and large boulders which create low velocity habitat. With the
presence of salmonids, Grant Creek provides habitat for a greater diversity of species than Inlet
Creek (KHL 2014b).
Grant Creek and Inlet Creek provide high quality Biological Support functions. Both streams
provide for maintenance of biological communities and processes with diverse assemblages of
native species and age classes, including fish and benthic macroinvertebrates (KHL 2014b, KHL
2014g, respectively), with Grant Creek providing greater aquatic species diversity than Inlet
Creek due to the presence of salmonids in Grant Creek (KHL 2014b). These creeks also provide
necessary aquatic and riparian habitats, with excellent in-channel and riparian habitat diversity,
as described above related to the substrate and structural process function described in the
paragraph above (e.g., large woody debris, side channel habitat, diversity of substrates, and
healthy overhanging riparian vegetation) (KHL 2014a). The exception to this habitat diversity is
the canyon section of Grant Creek (Reach 5), which provides minimal low velocity habitat
within a steep bedrock channeled reach (KHL 2014a). Reaches 2 and 3 of Grant Creek are
considered the most ecologically productive, due to the complex side channel habitat, and
increased habitat complexity in the main channel. Both creeks provide for trophic structure and
processes, with several trophic levels represented, including periphyton, benthic
macroinvertebrates, small resident fish (e.g., sticklebacks), as well as salmonids in Grant Creek.
Both creeks also provide habitat for stream-associated waterfowl, and a food source (fish) for
raptor species. These creeks also provide nutrient levels capable of sustaining the native species.
Chemical Process and Pathways functions are provided by Grant and Inlet creeks through the
maintenance of water and soil quality, chemical processes and nutrient cycles, and landscape
pathways. With the exception of the Canyon Reach on Grant Creek (Reach 5) Grant and Inlet
creeks likely provide moderate water and soil quality improvement, and chemical process and
nutrient cycling functions. Most of the potential water quality and nutrient processing likely
occurs in the lower velocity side channels, and in the hyporheic zones of the main and side
channels (e.g. dissolved nutrient processing), and within riparian wetlands (nutrient processing
and adsorption, and sediment and particulate retention). In-channel functions are expected to be
limited to nutrient cycling via the breakdown of detrital material, and sediment deposition in
Inlet Creek (Grant Creek appears to flush most of its suspended sediment through the channel
resulting in the alluvial fan at the confluence). It is important to recognize that although nutrient
processing functions are occurring, they are likely limited due to the low productivity of the
creeks which limits nutrient inputs (KHL 2014e). Grant and Inlets creeks do however have
significant natural suspended sediment inputs associated with upstream glaciers (KHL 2014f).
Both creeks maintain natural thermal regimes, with Grant Creek’s temperatures driven primarily
by the thermal regime of Grant Lake due to minimal groundwater or surface water inputs to the
creek (KHL 2014e).
Both creeks act as landscape pathways, maintaining both longitudinal and lateral (detrital inputs)
connectivity with downstream and riparian environments, as well as acting as habitat corridors
for fish and birds. The high gradient, high velocity sections of the Grant Creek Canyon Reach
also act as a barrier of longitudinal pathways for upstream salmonid passage (KHL 2014b), as
there are no salmonids in Grant Lake.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 102 June 2014
4.3.2.1.3. Trail Lake Narrows
Because the Narrows area between the lakes functions more like a riverine system than a
lacustrine habitat, it was assessed using the streams functional assessment method. All of the
functions were present for the Trail Lakes Narrows (Table 4.3-3). The System Dynamics
functions were present but were more limited than Grant and Inlet creeks. Due to its position
between two large lakes, Trail Lakes Narrows exhibits a more stable hydrologic regime than the
small streams, or Grant or Inlet creeks (KHL 2014e). As such, stream evolution processes,
energy management, and the resulting riparian succession are more limited for the Narrows.
Hydrologic Balance functions are also present, although as a larger “river” with limited side
channels, surface water storage processes are limited, with greater water conveyance functions
rather than storage functions (KHL 2014e). Surface/subsurface water exchange occurs within
the hyporheic zone. The Narrows area maintains its hydrodynamic character with a natural flow
regime, including the characteristic spring and fall peak flows resulting from snowmelt and fall
rains respectively, with these peak events buffered by the storage capacity of Upper Trail Lake.
Sediment Process and Character functions are performing at a high level in the Trail Lake
Narrows. It provides for sediment continuity (e.g., erosion, transport, and deposition processes),
as well as maintaining the natural quality and quantity of sediments. The Narrows area is not as
dynamic as Grant or Inlet creeks, but does carry suspended sediment from Upper to Lower Trail
Lakes. The water quality report for the Project (KHL 2014e) found that the Trail Lake Narrows
consistently had higher turbidity values than found in Grant Lake or Grant Creek, yet well below
the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) water quality standards. Trail
Lakes Narrows has a low to moderate degree of structural complexity for maintenance of
substrates and structural processes, with minimal large woody debris, and no off-channel habitat
areas. It does have a diversity of substrates, and healthy overhanging riparian vegetation. Trail
Lakes provides important salmonid habitat within the Kenai River watershed.
The Trail Lakes Narrows provides high quality Biological Support functions. The area provides
for maintenance of biological communities and processes with diverse assemblages of native
species and age classes, including fish and benthic macroinvertebrates (KHL 2014b, KHL
2014g, respectively). It also provides necessary aquatic and riparian habitats, with in-channel
and riparian habitat diversity, as described above, related to the substrate and structural process
function described in the paragraph above (e.g., large woody debris, and healthy overhanging
riparian vegetation) (KHL 2014a). The Narrows also provides for trophic structure and
processes, with several trophic levels represented, including periphyton, benthic
macroinvertebrates, juvenile and adult fish, as well as habitat for stream-associated waterfowl,
and a food source (fish) for raptor species. Trumpeter swans, a USFS Species of Special
Concern, were observed just downstream of the Trail Lake Narrows during the spring 2013
wildlife studies associated with the Project. The Narrows also provides nutrient levels capable of
sustaining the native species.
Chemical Process and Pathways functions are provided by the Trail Lake Narrows through the
maintenance of water and soil quality, chemical processes and nutrient cycles, and landscape
pathways. The Narrows likely provides moderate water and soil quality improvement, and
chemical process and nutrient cycling functions. Most of the potential water quality and nutrient
processing likely occurs in the hyporheic zone (e.g., dissolved nutrient processing); however, this
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 103 June 2014
is expected to be more limited than in Grant and Inlet creeks due to the lack of extensive side
channels and riparian wetlands where nutrient processing and adsorption, and sediment and
particulate retention would typically occur. In-channel functions (nutrient cycling via the
breakdown of detrital material, and sediment deposition) are expected to be rather limited, as
most of the suspended sediment and materials would be expected to be flushed through the
channel. The water quality report for the Project (KHL 2014e) found that levels of gas and
diesel range organic chemicals were below detectible limits within the Narrows. It is important
to recognize that although nutrient processing functions are occurring, they are likely limited due
to the low productivity of the Narrows water, which limits nutrient inputs. Trail Lake Narrows
also acts as a landscape pathway, maintaining both longitudinal and lateral (detrital inputs)
connectivity with downstream and riparian environments, as well as acting as habitat corridors
for fish and birds.
4.3.2.1.4. Grant Lake
The following is a summary of the functions potentially performed by Grant Lake. Although the
Fischenich (2006) stream functions assessment was not formally used to assess Grant Lake, the
applicable functions are described where applicable for consistency with the moving waters
assessment described above.
Grant Lake performs several hydrologic, biogeochemical, and ecological functions. Hydrologic
and hydraulic functions are functioning at a high level within the lake. The watershed is subject
to a natural hydrologic regime, with natural vertical lake fluctuations estimated at 7 feet,
fluctuating between approximately 696 and 703 feet in elevation (NAVD 88) due to snow melt,
glacial melt, and precipitation, with the ordinary high water surface elevation estimated at 700
feet elevation. The highest water surface elevations typically occur during the summer months,
the lowest occur during the winter months. Due to its steep shoreline, minimal riparian areas are
present, with all lacustrine fringe wetlands described in the vegetated wetland assessment below.
Grant Lake is important for surface water storage within the watershed.
Sediment functions are very important within the Grant Lake watershed. Grant Lake is subject to
natural wind-generated erosive forces that erode shoreline areas, deposit, and transport sediments
along the shoreline. However, the geomorphology report for the Project (KHL 2014f) indicated
that erosion due to wind-generated waves was minimal, even in the highly erodible alluvial fan
areas. They also reported that sediment loads in Grant Lake remain trapped in the lake, with
very little suspended sediment or bedload being transported into Grant Creek. Overall substrate
and structural habitat complexity is limited due to the steep bedrock shoreline in most areas, with
habitat complexity limited to the less steep shoreline areas, where some large woody debris, and
littoral zone vegetation is present.
Grant Lake provides high quality Biological Support Functions, providing for maintenance of
biological communities and processes with diverse assemblages of native species and age
classes, including fish (non-salmonids) and benthic macroinvertebrates. Grant Lake provides
relatively moderate quality aquatic and riparian habitat, with limited littoral and riparian habitat
diversity (e.g., large woody debris and diversity of substrates) due to the steep shoreline. Grant
Lake provides for trophic structure and processes, with several trophic levels represented,
including periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates, small resident fish (sticklebacks and sculpins).
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 104 June 2014
The Project fisheries report (KHL 2014b) noted that during the1981-1982 fish surveys, sculpin
and three-spine stickleback were the only fish observed in Grant Lake; based on additional
studies prior to 2013, no salmonids have been observed in Grant Lake. The littoral areas, as well
as open water areas during winter, also provide waterfowl habitat; the 2013 Project wildlife
study observed trumpeter swans, a USFS Species of Special Concern, in an open area within the
ice on Grant Lake.
Chemical Process and Pathways functions are provided by the natural limnology of Grant Lake
through the maintenance of natural water quality, chemical processes and nutrient cycles, and
landscape pathways. Grant Lake itself acts as a sediment sink, trapping sediment in its deep
basin, with almost no transport downstream into Grant Creek, thereby functioning to maintain
the water quality of downstream receiving waters (KHL 2014f). Grant Lake is naturally a highly
oligotrophic lake, with cold water and low nutrient inputs (KHL 2014e). Natural nutrient inputs
include detritus entering from shore and the littoral zone, and from biological sources (e.g., fish
and wildlife). Grant Lake also maintains a natural thermal regime, contributing to the natural
thermal regime of Grant Creek (KHL 2014e). The 2013 Project water quality study (KHL
2014e) found that temperatures in Grant Creek best matched Grant Lake outlet water
temperatures at a depth of 1.5 meters (during ice-free periods), rather than the lake surface
temperature. The water quality studies also indicate that Grant Lake is only minimally thermally
stratified, but does exhibit spring and fall turnover events where the lake mixes, important for re-
distribution of nutrients and the removal of temperature gradients within the water column.
Although there are limited riparian areas where nutrient processing and adsorption, and sediment
and particulate retention would typically occur, natural nutrient cycling occurs within the lake
water column. Grant Lake also acts as a landscape pathway, maintaining both longitudinal and
lateral (detrital inputs) connectivity with downstream and upstream environments, as well as
acting as habitat corridors for fish and birds.
4.3.2.2. Wetlands Functional Assessment
A total of 38.29 acres of vegetated wetlands were assessed within the wetlands assessment area,
with 6.34 acres (16.5 percent) assessed within the transmission corridor / facilities functional
assessment area, 4.39 acres (11.5 percent) in the Grant Creek functional assessment area, and
27.57 acres (72 percent) in the Grant Lake functional assessment area (Table 4.3-4). Fifteen
wetland functional classes were identified across the three functional assessment areas (Table
4.3-4). Table 4.3-3 also presents the DP (and functional assessment data form(s)) with which
each functional class is associated, as well as the associated vegetation types (NWI
Class/Subclass), as described in Table 4.3-1 and Table 4.3-2 in the wetland delineation results
section, Section 4.3.1 above.
Table 4.3-5 presents the functional assessment ratings (low, moderate, or high) for each of the
functional assessment classes. Each functional class was assessed for a minimum of nine
functions; and up to ten or eleven functions for some of the functional classes, depending on
whether the “erosion control and shoreline stabilization” or “fish habitat” functions were
assessed for a given functional class. Most of the functional classes rated as moderate or high for
the evaluated functions, with a few exceptions.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 105 June 2014
Several functional classes were not evaluated for the “erosion control and shoreline stabilization”
function because the wetlands associated with these functional classes were not located adjacent
to streams, ponds, or lakes. Similarly, only the two functional classes located within the Grant
Creek corridor were evaluated for the “fish habitat” function, as none of the other functional
classes were associated with fish-bearing (salmonid) waters. All of the functional classes were
rated as moderate for the “educational or scientific” function, as all of the functional classes were
located on public land, but none were noted for scientific/educational use and were not used for
wetland-focused recreation. All but two of the functional classes (forested slope wetland and
Grant Lake Inlet scrub shrub) were rated as high for the “nutrient and toxicant” removal
function.
All of the functional classes were rated equally as low for the “uniqueness and heritage”
function. Project area wetlands are not habitat for any USFWS-designated threatened or
endangered plant or animal species, or State-listed endangered plant or animal species, and as
such none were expected nor documented within the Project area wetlands. “Priority” species
were those listed as candidates for ESA listing by the USFWS. Two USFWS-designated ESA
candidate bird species were potentially present in the Project area, Kittlitz’s murrelet and the
yellow-billed loon, but neither was documented in the Project area during the 2010 or 2013
Wildlife surveys, nor during the 1981-1982 field surveys (see Section 5, Wildlife, for additional
details on Wildlife surveys within the Project area). While USFS Sensitive Species or Species of
Special Interest plant and bird species were detected by the Project sensitive plant and wildlife
teams during the 2013 surveys (as reported in Sections 3 and 5 respectively of the Terrestrial
Resources Report), the RGL 09-01 (USACE 2009) is focused exclusively on the documented
occurrence of “priority” species designated by the USFWS, and, as noted above, no priority
species were documented in wetlands (see the wetland functional assessment data forms
presented in Appendix 2a).
Lastly, according to the Project cultural resources team (KHL 2014c), none of the wetlands were
considered “culturally significant” (e.g., habitat for a culturally significant plant species). Note
that the proposed Iditarod National Historic Trail (INHT), as currently planned, bisects the
northwest corner of the wetland associated with the proposed tailrace detention pond, and
continues across Grant Creek immediately downstream of the powerhouse location. While the
proposed INHT is considered socially significant, it was not considered significant from a
wetlands perspective because wetlands do not inherently contribute to the social or historical
significance of the trail.
Characteristics and general rating of each functional class are discussed below by functional
area, with greater discussion focused on the functions that showed more variation between
functional classes (e.g., “erosion control and shoreline stabilization” and “fish habitat”).
4.3.2.2.1. Transmission Corridor / Facilities Area
Six functional classes were identified within the transmission corridor / facilities area: four of the
functional classes within this area were associated with depressional wetlands, grouped by
dominant vegetation type: herbaceous depressional, deciduous scrub shrub depressional,
broadleaved evergreen scrub shrub depressional, and needle leaved evergreen scrub shrub
depressional. One riverine wetland functional class, small stream scrub shrub riparian riverine
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 106 June 2014
wetland, and one slope wetland functional class, forested slope wetland, were also associated
with the transmission corridor / facilities area. These functional classes were rated as having a
moderate or high capacity to perform most of the functions. The exception was that the three
depressional scrub shrub functional classes were not evaluated for the “erosion control and
shoreline stabilization” function because they were not associated with a stream bank or
shoreline, and none of the functional classes in this area were evaluated for the fish habitat
function because they did not provide any direct fish habitat.
4.3.2.2.2. Grant Creek Corridor Area
The Grant Creek corridor includes only vegetated wetlands along Grant Creek; the Grant Creek
main and side channels are discussed in the waters functional assessment above. Within the
Grant Creek corridor, two riverine functional classes were identified: herbaceous riparian
wetlands and scrub shrub riparian wetlands. Both of these riparian functional classes were
associated with floodplain and wetland fringe areas along Grant Creek, with one small area
located along Upper Trail Lake. These functional classes were also rated as having a moderate
or high capacity to perform most functions. Because these were riparian fringe or floodplain
wetlands with dense vegetation, they ranked high for the “erosion control and shoreline
stabilization” function. These functional classes rated high for the “fish habitat” function
because they provide potential salmonid habitat within a narrow fringe along Grant Creek and its
side channels during high water events.
4.3.2.2.3. Grant Lake Area
The Grant Lake area includes only vegetated wetlands along Grant Lake; Grant Lake itself is
discussed in the waters functional assessment above. The bulk of the wetland acreage in the
wetlands assessment area was associated with the Grant Lake functional area. Four of the lake
functional classes were identified at the lake inlet area. Three were lacustrine classes: inlet
herbaceous wetlands, inlet herbaceous inundated wetland, and inlet scrub shrub wetland. One
was a riverine functional class, inlet scrub shrub riparian, located along the alluvial fan outwash
channels adjacent to Inlet Creek. Two functional classes were identified along the lake shore
outside of the inlet or outlet area; both were lacustrine fringe wetlands: herbaceous lake fringe
wetland and scrub shrub lake fringe wetland. Lastly, one functional class was identified at the
lake outlet area, outlet herbaceous wetland. These functional classes were also rated as having a
moderate or high capacity to perform most functions. Due to their adjacency to Grant Lake or
Inlet Creek, all of the lake wetlands were evaluated for the “erosion control and shoreline
stabilization” function; all of the functional classes scored high for this function, except the inlet
herbaceous wetland, and inlet herbaceous inundated wetland functional classes scored low due to
their lack of dense vegetation. No salmonids are present in Grant Lake or its tributaries (KHL
2014b); therefore, the lake functional classes were not evaluated for the “fish habitat” function.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 107 June 2014 Table 4.3-4. Functional classes, acreages, and associated characteristics. Functional Area1 Functional Class2 Wetland Cover Type Hydrogeomorphic Position Acres Percent Wetland Assessment Area Representative Data Point(s)3 NWI Codes Hydro Transmission Corridor / Facilities Herbaceous depressional wetland Herbaceous Wetland Depressional 0.14 0.36 DP14 PEM1, PEM1/SS1 B, E, F, H Deciduous scrub shrub depressional wetland Scrub Shrub Wetland Depressional 3.16 8.25 DP22 PSS1, PSS1/3, PSS1/EM1 B, E Broadleaved evergreen scrub shrub depressional wetland 0.74 1.93 DP17, DP20 PSS3/EM1 B Needle leaved evergreen scrub shrub depressional wetland 0.40 1.05 DP19 PSS4, PSS4/1, PSS4/3/EM1 B Small stream scrub shrub riparian Riverine 1.01 2.63 DP12, DP39 PSS1, PSS1/EM1 E, C Forested slope wetland Forested Wetland Slope 0.89 2.32 DP37 PFO4/EM1 B Total Transmission Corridor / Facilities 6.34 16.5 Grant Creek Corridor Grant Creek herbaceous riparian Herbaceous Wetland / Floodplain Forest & Scrub Riverine 3.11 8.12 DP23, DP25 PEM1, PEM1/SS1 B, C, E Grant Creek scrub shrub riparian Scrub-Shrub Wetland / Floodplain Forest & Scrub 1.28 3.34 DP24 PSS1/EM1, PSS1/FO1 C Total Grant Creek Corridor 4.39 11.5 Grant Lake Lake Inlet Grant Lake inlet herbaceous wetland Herbaceous Wetland Lacustrine 0.70 1.84 DP01 PEM1/SS1 C Grant Lake inlet herbaceous inundated wetland 1.23 3.22 DP10 PEM1 F Grant Lake inlet scrub shrub wetland Scrub Shrub Wetland 13.99 36.54 DP03, DP04, DP06, DP08 PSS1, PSS1/EM1 B, C, E Grant Lake inlet scrub shrub riparian Scrub-Shrub Wetland / Floodplain Forest & Scrub Riverine 6.66 17.39 DP02, DP09 PSS1 B, E Lake Shore Grant Lake herbaceous lake fringe wetland Herbaceous Wetland Lacustrine 3.03 7.91 DP27, DP33 PEM1, PEM/SS1 B, E, H Grant Lake scrub shrub lake fringe wetland Scrub Shrub Wetland 1.45 3.79 DP29, DP31 PSS1, PSS1/EM1 E Lake Outlet Grant Lake outlet herbaceous wetland Herbaceous Wetland 0.50 1.29 DP35 PEM1/SS1 E Total Grant Lake 27.56 72.0 TOTAL WETLAND ASSESSMENT AREA 38.29 Notes: 1. Functional area where the functional class was found; some areas overlap, e.g. transmission corridor at Grant Lake shoreline. Transmission Corridor includes corridor and Project facilities. 2. Functional class: developed based on integration of dominant vegetation type, hydrogeomorphic position, and primary area within Project. 3. Wetland DP functional assessment data form with which the functional class is associated.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 108 June 2014 Table 4.3-5. Functional assessment ratings for each functional class. Functional Area1 Functional Class2 Representative Data Point(s)3 Flood Flow Alteration Sediment Removal Nutrient, & Toxicant Removal Erosion Control and Shoreline Stabilization Production and Export of Organic Matter General Wildlife Habitat Suitability Fish Habitat Native Plant Richness Educational or Scientific Groundwater Interchange Uniqueness and Heritage Transmission Corridor / Facilities Herbaceous depressional wetland DP14 Moderate High High High High High NA Moderate Moderate High Low Deciduous scrub shrub depressional wetland DP22 Moderate Moderate High NA High High NA High Moderate High Low Broadleaved evergreen scrub shrub depressional wetland DP17, DP20 Moderate Moderate High NA Moderate-High High NA Moderate Moderate Moderate-High Low Needle leaved evergreen scrub shrub depressional wetland DP19 Moderate Moderate High NA High High NA Moderate Moderate High Low Small stream scrub shrub riparian DP12, DP39 Moderate Moderate-High High High High High NA Moderate-High Moderate Moderate-High Low Forested slope wetland DP37 Moderate Moderate Moderate NA Moderate High NA High Moderate High Low Grant Creek Corridor Grant Creek herbaceous riparian DP23, DP25 Moderate High High High High High High Moderate-High Moderate Moderate-High Low Grant Creek scrub shrub riparian DP24 Moderate High High High High High High High Moderate High Low Lake Inlet Grant Lake inlet herbaceous wetland DP01 Moderate Moderate High Low High High NA Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Grant Lake inlet herbaceous inundated wetland DP10 Moderate High High Low Moderate Moderate NA Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Grant Lake inlet scrub shrub wetland DP03, DP04, DP06, DP08 Moderate-High Moderate-High High High High High NA Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Grant Lake inlet scrub shrub riparian DP02, DP09 Moderate Moderate-High Moderate-High High Moderate-High Moderate NA Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Lake Shore Grant Lake herbaceous lake fringe wetland DP27, DP33 Moderate High High High High Moderate-High NA Moderate Moderate Moderate-High Low Grant Lake scrub shrub lake fringe wetland DP29, DP31 Moderate Moderate-High High High High High NA Moderate Moderate Moderate-High Low Lake Outlet Grant Lake outlet herbaceous wetland DP35 Moderate High High High High High NA Moderate Moderate High Low Notes: 1. Functional area where the functional class was found; some areas overlap, e.g. transmission corridor at Grant Lake shoreline. Transmission Corridor includes corridor and Project facilities. 2. Functional class: developed based on integration of dominant vegetation type, hydrogeomorphic position, and primary area within Project. 3. Wetland DP functional assessment data form with which the functional class is associated.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 109 June 2014
4.3.2.3. Wetlands Categorization
Table 4.3-6 presents the results of the categorization of the 15 wetland functional classes into
USACE categories (per USACE 2009) within the wetlands assessment area. A separate
categorization was not performed for the waters within the Project area. The wetlands within
each functional class were either moderate functioning Category III wetlands, or moderate to
high functioning Category II wetlands, based on the category definitions presented in RGL 09-01
(USACE 2009), as well as on the percent functional capacity at which each functional class was
performing. The two lowest-ranking functional classes were performing at 67 percent of their
functional capacity, while the highest-ranking functional class was performing at 88 percent of
its functional capacity. With this range of functional capacity ratings, a threshold between
Category III and Category II wetlands was established at 75 percent functional capacity. Five of
the functional classes were performing at less than 75 percent of their functional capacity and
were thus categorized as Category III wetlands (10.22 acres, or 27 percent of the wetlands within
the wetland assessment area). The remaining functional classes were functioning at greater than
75 percent of their functional capacity and were categorized as Category II wetlands (28.07
acres, or 73 percent of the wetlands within the wetland assessment area).
Table 4.3-6. Wetland acres per category by functional class.
Acres per Category
Functional
Area Functional Class
Percent
Functional
Capacity I II III IV
Transmission
Corridor /
Facilities
Herbaceous depressional wetland 83 / 0.14 / /
Deciduous scrub shrub depressional wetland 81 / 3.16 / /
Broadleaved evergreen scrub shrub
depressional wetland 74 / / 0.74 /
Needle leaved evergreen scrub shrub
depressional wetland 78 / 0.40 / /
Small stream scrub shrub riparian 82 / 1.01 / /
Forested slope wetland 74 / / 0.89 /
Total Transmission Corridor / Facilities 0.00 4.71 1.63 0.00
Grant Creek
Corridor
Grant Creek herbaceous riparian 85 / 3.11 / /
Grant Creek scrub shrub riparian 88 / 1.28 / /
Total Grant Creek Corridor 0.00 4.39 0.00 0.00
Grant
Lake
Lake
Inlet
Grant Lake inlet herbaceous wetland 67 / / 0.70 /
Grant Lake inlet herbaceous inundated
wetland 67 / / 1.23 /
Grant Lake inlet scrub shrub wetland 80 / 13.99 / /
Grant Lake inlet scrub shrub riparian 72 / / 6.66 /
Lake
Shore
Grant Lake herbaceous lake fringe wetland 80 / 3.03 / /
Grant Lake scrub shrub lake fringe wetland 80 / 1.45 / /
Lake
Outlet Grant Lake outlet herbaceous wetland 83 / 0.50 / /
Total Grant Lake 0.00 18.97 8.59 0.00
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 110 June 2014
None of the wetland functional classes were considered rare and had no documented occurrence
of a threatened, endangered, or priority species; therefore, none were categorized as high
functioning Category I wetlands. Due to the undisturbed nature of the wetlands, none of the
functional classes were categorized as low functioning Category IV wetlands.
Potential Impacts to Wetlands and Waters 4.4.
Potential Project-related impacts to wetlands and waters have been qualitatively evaluated for
direct and indirect impacts. The functional assessment described in Section 4.2, Methods and
Section 4.3, Results, illustrates the various direct and indirect interdisciplinary linkages between
wetlands and waters with other study disciplines evaluated for this Project. For example, direct
or indirect effects to Project area soils, vegetation, groundwater hydrology, or surface water
hydrology could result in localized impacts to wetland and water communities within the Project
area. Likewise, impacts to wetlands could have localized effects on the integrity and function of
Project area soils, vegetation, and water resources. Similarly, impacts or changes to wetland and
water resources could have direct or indirect effects to the level of use or benefits gained by fish,
wildlife, or humans that use wetlands and waters for habitat, food, protection, or recreation.
The following sections discuss the potential impacts to specific wetland or waters types
(depressional, lacustrine, or riverine); impacts by Project infrastructure type are presented in
Table 4.4-1. It is important to note that the potential impacts discussed in these sections are
preliminary and based primarily on the Terrestrial Resources studies and the current amount of
engineering feasibility work conducted prior to this report being developed. Many of the
potential wetland impacts described below will be avoided or minimized through the
development of site-specific engineered controls and best management practices (BMPs) during
the Project’s upcoming detailed engineering design phase. A full discussion of wetland impacts
will be included in the DLA.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 111 June 2014
Table 4.4-1. Potential wetland impacts by Project infrastructure type.
Project Component
Potential Qualitative Short Term Impacts1,2 Potential Qualitative Long Term/Permanent Impacts1
Direct Indirect Direct Indirect
GRANT CREEK DIVERSION
Natural Outlet Option
Vegetation clearing/grubbing;
soil disturbance;
shoreline/bank disturbance;
short-term reduced capacity
to perform certain wetland
functions (i.e. water quality,
wildlife habitat); temporary
surface water turbidity
Weed infestation; soil
erosion; sediment input to
water column; poor native
vegetation re-establishment;
short-term redacted capacity
to perform certain wetland
functions (i.e. water quality,
wildlife habitat)
Fills due to structure; altered
bank, shoreline and lakebed;
permanently reduced capacity
to perform certain wetland
functions (i.e. water quality,
wildlife habitat, stormwater
attenuation)
Effects of new max lake level
elevation on wetland
vegetation (i.e. inundation);
change in lakeshore
erosion/deposition; effect of
new Grant Creek in-stream
flow regime on
hydrologically connected
riparian wetlands; change in
capacity to perform certain
wetland functions (i.e.
shoreline stabilization,
wildlife habitat)
Concrete Dam Option
Vegetation clearing/grubbing;
soil disturbance;
shoreline/bank disturbance;
short-term reduced capacity
to perform certain wetland
functions (i.e. water quality,
wildlife habitat); temporary
surface water turbidity
Weed infestation; soil
erosion; sediment input to
water column; poor native
vegetation re-establishment;
short-term reduced capacity
to perform certain wetland
functions (i.e. water quality,
wildlife habitat)
Fills due to structure; altered
bank, shoreline and lakebed;
permanently reduced capacity
to perform certain wetland
functions (i.e. water quality,
wildlife habitat, stormwater
attenuation)
Effects of new max lake level
elevation on wetland
vegetation (i.e. inundation);
change in lakeshore
erosion/deposition; effect of
new Grant Creek in-stream
flow regime on
hydrologically connected
riparian wetlands; change in
capacity to perform certain
wetland functions (i.e.
shoreline stabilization,
wildlife habitat)
WATER CONVEYANCE
Intake Structure
Vegetation clearing/grubbing;
soil disturbance;
shoreline/bank disturbance;
short-term reduced capacity
to perform certain wetland
functions (i.e. water quality,
wildlife habitat); temporary
surface water turbidity
Weed infestation; soil
erosion; sediment input to
water column; poor native
vegetation re-establishment;
short-term reduced capacity
to perform certain wetland
functions (i.e. water quality,
wildlife habitat)
Fills due to structure; altered
bank, shoreline and lakebed;
permanently reduced capacity
to perform certain wetland
functions (i.e. water quality,
wildlife habitat, stormwater
attenuation)
Effects of new max lake level
drop on wetland vegetation
(i.e. wetland to upland
conversion); down cutting in
creeks may drain wetlands
and add suspended sediments
to water column; change in
lakeshore erosion/deposition;
effect of new in-stream flow
regime on hydrologically
connected riparian wetlands;
change in capacity to perform
certain wetland functions (i.e.
shoreline stabilization,
wildlife habitat)
Tunnel
At surficial entrance and exit
of tunnel: vegetation
clearing/grubbing; soil
disturbance; shoreline/bank
disturbance; short-term
reduced capacity to perform
certain wetland functions (i.e.
water quality, wildlife
habitat); temporary surface
water turbidity
At surficial entrance and exit
of tunnel: weed infestation;
soil erosion; sediment input
to water column; poor native
vegetation re-establishment;
short-term reduced capacity
to perform certain wetland
functions (i.e. water quality,
wildlife habitat)
Fills due to structure;
permanently reduced capacity
to perform certain wetland
functions (i.e. water quality,
wildlife habitat, stormwater
attenuation)
At surficial entrance and exit
of tunnel: weed infestation;
soil erosion, sediment input to
water column; poor native
vegetation re-establishment;
change in capacity to perform
certain wetland functions (i.e.
water quality, wildlife
habitat)
Penstock
Vegetation clearing/grubbing;
soil disturbance; short-term
reduced capacity to perform
certain wetland functions (i.e.
water quality, wildlife
habitat)
Weed infestation; soil
erosion; poor native
vegetation re-establishment;
short-term reduced capacity
to perform certain wetland
functions (i.e. water quality,
wildlife habitat)
Fills due to structure;
permanently reduced capacity
to perform certain wetland
functions (i.e. water quality,
wildlife habitat, stormwater
attenuation)
Weed infestation; soil
erosion; poor native
vegetation re-establishment;
change in capacity to perform
certain wetland functions (i.e.
water quality, wildlife
habitat).
Tailrace
Vegetation clearing/grubbing;
soil disturbance; short-term
reduced capacity to perform
certain wetland functions (i.e.
water quality, wildlife
habitat); temporary surface
water turbidity
Weed infestation; soil
erosion; sediment input to
water column; poor native
vegetation re-establishment;
short-term reduced capacity
to perform certain wetland
functions (i.e. water quality,
wildlife habitat)
Wetland excavation and fills;
permanently reduced capacity
to perform certain wetland
functions (i.e. water quality,
wildlife habitat, stormwater
attenuation)
Drainage of adjacent
wetlands; weed infestation;
soil erosion; sediment input
to water column; poor native
vegetation re-establishment;
change in capacity to perform
certain wetland functions (i.e.
water quality, wildlife
habitat)
Tailrace Detention Pond
Vegetation clearing/grubbing;
soil disturbance; bank
disturbance; short-term
reduced capacity to perform
certain wetland functions (i.e.
water quality, wildlife
habitat); temporary surface
water turbidity
Weed infestation; soil
erosion; sediment input to
water column; poor native
vegetation re-establishment;
short-term reduced capacity
to perform certain wetland
functions (i.e. water quality,
wildlife habitat)
Fills due to structures
associated with detention
pond and conveyance
pipeline; inundation of
wetland areas; sedimentation;
loss of certain wetland
functions and gain of others
(i.e. loss of wildlife habitat
functions tied to existing
vegetation, and gain of open
water habitat resulting from
inundation)
Possible expansion of
wetland fringe around water
edge; weed infestation; soil
erosion; sedimentation/burial
of existing wetland
vegetation; sediment input to
water column (if pipeline
conveys sediment laden
water); poor native vegetation
re-establishment; change in
capacity to perform certain
wetland functions (i.e. water
quality, wildlife habitat)
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Table 4.4-1, continued…
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 112 June 2014
Project Component
Potential Qualitative Short Term Impacts1,2 Potential Qualitative Long Term/Permanent Impacts1
Direct Indirect Direct Indirect
POWERHOUSE
Powerhouse Structure
Vegetation clearing/grubbing;
soil disturbance; short-term
reduced capacity to perform
certain wetland functions (i.e.
water quality, wildlife
habitat)
Weed infestation; soil
erosion; sediment input to
water column; poor native
vegetation re-establishment;
short-term reduced capacity
to perform certain wetland
functions (i.e. water quality,
wildlife habitat)
Fills due to structure;
permanently reduced capacity
to perform certain wetland
functions (i.e. water quality,
wildlife habitat, stormwater
attenuation)
Weed infestation; soil
erosion; poor native
vegetation re-establishment;
change in capacity to perform
certain wetland functions (i.e.
water quality, wildlife
habitat)
TRANSMISSION
LINE/SWITCHYARD
Above Ground Option
Vegetation clearing/grubbing;
soil disturbance; bank
disturbance; short-term
reduced capacity to perform
certain wetland functions (i.e.
water quality, wildlife
habitat); temporary surface
water turbidity
Weed infestation; soil
erosion; sediment input to
water column; poor native
vegetation re-establishment;
short-term reduced capacity
to perform certain wetland
functions (i.e. water quality,
wildlife habitat)
Fills where poles are installed
in wetlands or surface water
bodies; loss of certain
wetland functions (i.e. water
quality, wildlife habitat,
stormwater attenuation)
Weed infestation; soil
erosion; poor native
vegetation re-establishment;
change in capacity to perform
certain wetland functions (i.e.
water quality, wildlife
habitat). Change in wetland
vegetation community if
ROW is maintained clear of
woody vegetation.
Below Ground Option
Vegetation clearing/grubbing;
soil disturbance; bank
disturbance; short-term
reduced capacity to perform
certain wetland functions (i.e.
water quality, wildlife
habitat); temporary surface
water turbidity
Weed infestation; soil
erosion; sediment input to
water column; poor native
vegetation re-establishment;
short-term reduced capacity
to perform certain wetland
functions (i.e. water quality,
wildlife habitat)
Wetland excavation and fills
for buried utility line;
permanently reduced capacity
to perform certain wetland
functions (i.e. water quality,
wildlife habitat, stormwater
attenuation)
Drainage of adjacent
wetlands; weed infestation;
soil erosion; sediment input
to water column from
erosion; poor native
vegetation re-establishment;
change in capacity to perform
certain wetland functions (i.e.
water quality, wildlife
habitat). Change in wetland
vegetation community if
ROW is maintained clear of
woody vegetation.
ACCESS ROADS
Access Roads
Vegetation clearing/grubbing;
soil disturbance; bank
disturbance; short-term
reduced capacity to perform
certain wetland functions (i.e.
water quality, wildlife
habitat); temporary surface
water turbidity
Weed infestation; soil
erosion; sediment input to
water column; poor native
vegetation re-establishment;
short-term reduced capacity
to perform certain wetland
functions (i.e. water quality,
wildlife habitat)
Fills due to structure;
permanently reduced capacity
to perform certain wetland
functions (i.e. water quality,
wildlife habitat, stormwater
attenuation)
Weed infestation; soil
erosion; sediment input to
water column; poor native
vegetation re-establishment;
change in capacity to perform
certain wetland functions (i.e.
water quality, wildlife
habitat)
Notes:
1. The potential impacts discussed in this table are qualitative based primarily on the terrestrial studies and the limited amount of engineering design work
conducted prior to this report being developed. This table and the associated impacts will be refined as engineered designs are finalized for the Project. A
discussion of wetland impacts will be included in the DLA.
2. Short term impacts would occur primarily during construction; Project would be constructed over a 30-36 month time period.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 113 June 2014
4.4.1. Depressional Wetlands
Depressional wetlands within the Project area include those wetlands occurring within discrete
topographic depressions primarily located on the south side of Grant Creek in the vicinity of the
access road and transmission corridor (Figure 4.3-2). Due to their geographic position, these
wetlands experience little to no hydrologic influence from Grant Lake or Grant Creek.
Therefore, there are no anticipated impacts to depressional wetlands associated with changes to
lake level elevations and fluctuations, nor are there any anticipated impacts to depressional
wetlands associated with the proposed changes to Grant Creek Project flows.
Potential indirect and direct impacts to depressional wetlands will primarily result from the
construction, operation, and maintenance of the following Project features noted in Table 4.4-1:
detention pond and small segments of the access road and transmission line corridor. While the
water conveyance tunnel would pass under several depressional wetlands, it is assumed the
underground tunnel would be constructed in a manner that would not alter wetland hydrology
and, therefore, would not result in any impacts to depressional wetlands.
4.4.2. Lacustrine Wetlands and Waters
Vegetated Lacustrine Wetlands – Lacustrine wetlands include persistent and non-persistent
emergent wetlands, aquatic beds, and vegetated shoreline communities that are directly attached
to or border Grant Lake (Figure 4.3-1). Note that there were no vegetated lacustrine fringe
wetlands associated with Upper Trail and Lower Trail lakes; therefore, this section refers to
potential impacts to Grant lake lacustrine wetlands only (Figure 4.3-4 through Figure 4.3-6).
Grant Lake lacustrine wetlands could be affected by proposed changes to the lake’s surface water
elevations and fluctuations, as well as impacts associated with the construction and operation of
Project features on the lake. As noted in Section 1.1, there are two concepts currently being
considered for water control at the outlet of Grant Lake: the natural outlet option and the
concrete diversion dam option. The new outlet control structure and low level intake structure
will result in a new minimum pool elevation of approximately 692 feet NAVD 88, which is 4
feet lower than the current estimated minimum pool elevation of 696 feet NAVD 88. The
maximum pool elevation, if the diversion structure option is implemented, is estimated to
increase to 705 feet NAVD 88, up 2 vertical feet from the current estimated maximum pool
elevation of 703 feet NAVD 88. Lake level and associated fluctuations will be further assessed
with engineering studies. If it is determined that lake level changes would constitute a
measurable gain or loss of jurisdictional wetlands it will be discussed with stakeholders and
documented in the draft license application along with potential options for mitigation. In
general, if minimum pool elevations occur during the growing season for prolonged periods of
time (e.g., weeks), lacustrine wetlands, particularly herbaceous wetlands, may dry out and
convert to uplands. Alternatively, if maximum pool elevations occur during the growing season
for prolonged periods of time (e.g., weeks), lacustrine wetlands, especially herbaceous wetlands
along the current wetted shoreline may drown. There is also the potential for areas of new
wetland fringe to become established along the wetted shoreline if a new consistent pool
elevation is maintained during the Project’s normal operational conditions.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 114 June 2014
Other potential impacts associated with Grant Lake lacustrine wetlands include those resulting
from the construction, operation, and maintenance of the following Project features noted in
Table 4.4-1: outlet control structure, low level intake structure, surficial entrance to the tunnel,
and a small portion of the access road that approaches the low level intake structure.
Non-Vegetated Lacustrine Waters – Lacustrine waters, also referred to as ‘open water’ in this
report, includes the non-vegetated portions of Grant Lake and Upper Trail and Lower Trail lakes
(deep and shallow lake margins). Depending on the timing, frequency, and duration of the new
Grant Lake level fluctuations, the open water component of the lake may increase or decrease.
Lake level and associated fluctuations will be further assessed with engineering studies. If it is
determined that lake level changes would constitute a measurable gain or loss of jurisdictional
waters it will be discussed with stakeholders and documented in the draft license application
along with potential options for mitigation. Lake level fluctuations are not expected to change
significantly for Upper Trail and Lower Trail lakes as a result of the Project; therefore, there are
no anticipated gains or losses to the open water component of the Trail Lake system.
Potential impacts to the open water portion of Grant Lake and the Upper Trail and Lower Trail
lakes include those resulting from the construction, operation, and maintenance of the following
Project features noted in Table 4.4-1 that could potentially affect the bed, bank and surface water
of the lakes: outlet control structure (Grant Lake), low level intake structure (Grant Lake), the
initial segment of the conveyance tunnel (Grant Lake), and the access road, bridge, and
transmission line that crosses the Trail Lake Narrows.
4.4.3. Riverine Wetlands and Waters
Vegetated Riverine Wetlands - Riverine wetlands are those wetlands that are adjacent to and
hydrologically influenced by Inlet Creek, Grant Creek, and their tributaries, as well as drainages
associated with Grant Lake.
Riverine wetlands associated with Inlet Creek and Grant Lake drainages have the potential to be
affected by the new lake level elevations that would result from the outlet control structure and
low level intake structure on Grant Lake. The Project is not expected to alter the current
instream flows for Inlet Creek or surrounding lake tributaries/drainages. HEA’s current
operation plan is to draw the lake down no further than 4 ft below the current natural low and,
under the concrete dam option, raise the lake level no further than 2 ft above its current natural
maximum. However, the new minimum and maximum lake levels could cause erosion or
depositional changes to stream channels and their associated floodplains and outwash fans at the
Grant Lake interface. Changes to channel bed and form could, in turn, affect the hydrology of
adjacent wetlands. Depending on the timing, duration and frequency, a drop in the lake level
elevation commissariat with operations could cause the Inlet Creek and lake drainage channels to
downcut or become incised, and possibly drain the adjacent riverine wetlands at the Grant Lake
shoreline. Fortunately, the majority of the Grant Lake shoreline is well-armored with angular
rocks which would likely minimize the potential for channels to become incised. Alternatively,
an increase in the lake level elevation could create a backwater effect at the stream channel/Grant
Lake interface, which could cause some low lying riverine wetlands to drown from excessive
inundation, or be buried by increased sedimentation or deposition, while other wetland areas may
expand and/or become enhanced by the additional hydrology.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 115 June 2014
There are no additional anticipated impacts associated with Project construction, operational, or
maintenance for Inlet Creek or the tributaries/drainages that terminate at Grant Lake.
Instream flows associated with the various steep drainages and tributaries to Grant Creek are not
expected to be affected by the changes in surface water elevations in Grant Lake or by the
changes to instream flows in Grant Creek. Several seasonal drainages could be affected,
however, by the construction, operations, and maintenance of several Project features described
in Table 4.4-1, including: tailrace detention pond and outlet, access road, and transmission line.
The water conveyance tunnel would pass under several seasonal drainages; however, it is
assumed the underground tunnel would be constructed in a manner that would not alter stream
hydrology and, therefore, would not result in any impacts to those drainages or their associated
wetlands.
One of the most significant changes associated with the Project will be changes to instream flows
in the main channel and primary side channels of Grant Creek (refer to Section 5.2 and Section
6.2 of the Water Resources Report for a detailed description). Instream flows will be reduced in
the upper portion of Grant Creek, also referred to as the ‘Canyon Reach,’ between the Grant
Lake outlet and the powerhouse tailrace (Reach 4/5 break). The majority of the water that
naturally flows down this reach would be diverted to the powerhouse via the low elevation intake
structure and tunnel to produce power. A limited amount of water would continue to flow down
Grant Creek’s Canyon Reach to provide a consistent baseflow throughout the year. This drop in
flow would expose more channel bed and bank, reduce sediment transport, and most likely cause
the four small wetland fringe communities mapped within the Canyon Reach to be drained and
convert to uplands (a total wetland loss of approximately 0.2 acres) (Figure 4.3-2). Steep
seasonal drainages that contribute to instream flows are not expected to be affected.
Annual average instream base flows from the powerhouse tailrace downstream to the Grant
Creek outlet are expected to increase with Project operations; however, peak flows will be
reduced, allowing for quality main stem habitats to be maintained for longer periods. Note that
during annual periods of high water when lake inflows exceed the Project’s maximum capacity
of 350 cfs, the excess water will bypass the diversion structure and flow naturally through the
Grant Creek channel, and continue to access the adjacent floodplain. It is fully anticipated that
Grant Creek will continue to see peak flows well above what the Project can accommodate. The
new instream flow pattern is expected to keep side channels wetted spring through fall. As noted
in Section 4.3.1, wetlands located along the lower portion of Grant Creek are predominantly
associated with complex wetland/upland floodplain mosaics that are supported by flood and
baseflow hydrology. The anticipated instream flow changes to lower Grant Creek could affect
associated riverine wetlands in a variety of ways. Wetland areas located in the distal fringes of
the existing Grant Creek floodplain that are supported by current natural peak flows may be
negatively affected by reduced peak flow hydrology (although it is unknown at this time what
proportion of the wetland hydrology is supported by groundwater baseflows vs. surface water
contributions). Alternatively, wetland areas supported by an increase in baseflows would
experience a longer hydroperiod that could have beneficial results like expanded and enhanced
wetland areas.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 116 June 2014
Non-Vegetated Riverine Waters - The riverine waters include the nonvegetated bed and bank of
Inlet Creek channel, Grant Lake tributaries/drainages, Grant Creek tributaries/drainages, the
Grant Creek channel, and numerous unvegetated floodplain and outwash fans that are likely
inundated with surface water during spring breakup and flood events. Potential impacts to
riverine waterbodies associated with Grant Lake and Grant Creek tributaries are noted in riverine
wetland discussion above. Refer to Section 5.2 and Section 6.2 of the Water Resources Report
for further discussion of anticipated impacts or changes to Grant Creek channel geomorphology
resulting from changes to instream flow.
In addition, there are several construction, operational, and maintenance-related impacts noted in
Table 4.4-1 that could affect the riparian wetlands associated with Grant Creek and the Grant
Creek bed and bank including: the outlet control structure, the tailrace outlet, the detention pond
outlet, the bridge, and small segments of the access road and transmission line corridor that cross
small seasonal side channels and drainages. All other Project features have been intentionally
configured to avoid unnecessary impacts to Grant Creek and other Project area stream channels.
4.4.4. Potential Impacts by Project Infrastructure Type
Table 4.4-1 summarizes the types of potential direct and indirect impacts associated with Project
construction and operations, summarized by short term versus long term/permanent impacts.
This table and the associated impacts will be fully refined, vetted, and incorporated into the DLA
once the engineering designs are finalized. Table 4.4-1 combined with wetland maps will help
guide Project engineering designs for Project infrastructure components as well as for the
development of mitigation plans for the construction and operation phases.
Conclusions 4.5.
This report provides the technical summary of the assessment methods, results, and conclusions
of the 2013 Wetlands and Waters Study. The objective of the 2013 Wetlands and Waters Study
was to delineate and describe wetlands and other potential “waters of the U.S.” potentially
impacted by the Project. The 2013 field effort delineated wetlands and other potential waters in
the Project study area. Specifically, preliminary wetland maps were prepared; a field survey of
wetlands and waters was conducted throughout the areas needing further study described in the
Study Plan; a wetland functional assessment was conducted; and final wetland and waters maps
were prepared using wetland data collect for the Project in 2010 and 2013. In addition, the
potential impacts associated with Project construction and operational activities were evaluated.
As Project designs are further refined, the data provided in this report will be applied to conduct
a quantitative analysis of potential impacts to wetlands and waters. This analysis will be
included in the DLA. Additionally, all of the wetland and waters information associated with
this report (including appendices and GIS data) can be used in support of future Section 404
application packages and other Project-related technical environmental reports.
Variances from FERC-Approved Study Plan and Proposed Modifications 4.6.
The 2013 Wetland and Waters Mapping effort followed the March 2013 Study Plan objectives
and methodologies. There were no variances to report.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 117 June 2014
5 WILDLIFE RESOURCES
This section describes the existing wildlife resources associated within the Grant Lake
Hydroelectric Project based on the 2013 study effort and relevant data from previous Project
studies. Under 18 CFR Ch. 1§5.6 (4-1-12 Edition), wildlife studies are required to obtain
information requested by resource agencies as part of the informed decision process regarding
the merits of the application. The ESA of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection
Act (BGEPA) of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.) are also regulatory drivers for the permitting
process.
The 2013 Terrestrial Resources Study incorporates field work on wildlife resources associated
with three distinct study efforts: 1) wildlife studies completed in the 1980s as part of a hydro
licensing effort referred to as Ebasco (1984); 2) wildlife studies conducted in 2010, referred to as
the 2010 wildlife studies (HDR 2011); and 3) the 2013 wildlife studies. The Ebasco 1984 report
and the 2010 wildlife studies as well as other readily available sources of information have been
assimilated for a better understanding of Grant Lake wildlife resources. Data sources used in the
wildlife resources results section are referenced.
The 1984 Ebasco wildlife investigation conducted for the Project included various literature
reviews and field investigations on amphibians, birds (waterfowl, loons, grebes, gulls, terns,
shorebirds, raptors, grouse and ptarmigan), and mammals (rodents, bats, hares, marmots,
squirrels, beaver [Castor canadensis], porcupine [Erethizon dorsatum], wolf [Canis lupus],
coyote [Canis latrans], red fox [Vulpes vulpes], black bear [Ursus americanus], brown bear
[Ursus arctos], mink [Neovison vison], wolverine [Gulo gulo], lynx [Lynx lynx], moose [Alces
alces], mountain goat [Oreamnos americanus], and Dall sheep [Ovis dalli]). The Ebasco (1984)
report served as the initial comprehensive assessment of wildlife resources within the Project
area. The wildlife studies conducted in 2010 and 2013 build upon this study and serve to provide
additional data for wildlife resources that required more research.
The 2010 wildlife studies collected information on breeding landbirds and shorebirds, Northern
goshawks (Accipiter gentilis), waterbirds, and little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus), as well as
various incidental mammal observations that included moose, bear, and goats. In addition,
USFS 2010 observations of bear and wolverine dens and raptor nests within the wildlife study
area were provided to KHL and are referred to in this report.
The 2013 wildlife studies conducted by the Project encompassed breeding landbird and shorebird
studies, Northern Goshawk surveys, Winter Moose surveys, and Winter Waterbird surveys on
Grant Lake. The Breeding Landbird, Shorebird, and Northern Goshawk surveys were conducted
in the spring and summer of 2013. The 2013 Winter Moose and Winter Waterbird surveys were
performed in December 2013. Field studies to be undertaken in 2014 include a second Winter
Moose and Winter Waterbird survey to be conducted in February/March 2014 and two additional
Northern Goshawk surveys to be completed in the summer of 2014. These data, once collected
and analyzed, will be provided to stakeholders for review and collaboration and incorporated into
the DLA.
FINAL REPO
Grant Lake
FERC No.
The 2013
2013). T
D
av
w
Q
ac
D
sh
C
R
The subs
studies:
Mammal
the 2013
Project w
S5.1.
The Gran
mountain
described
forest, fo
margins,
The varie
non-gam
forests (O
nesting h
goshawk
concealm
moose, b
and steep
found in
cavity ne
Wildlife
mortality
trees in S
beetle in
changes (
beetle inf
some site
competin
delaying
ORT
e Hydroelectric
13212
3 Wildlife St
The objective
Document pre
void impacts
waterbirds, an
Quantify the
ctivity in the
Document the
horebirds, an
Classify and m
Resources Stu
sections that
Raptor Nest
ls. The meth
Study Plan
wildlife studi
Study Area
nt Lake area
nous interior
d in Section
orested shrub
and small m
ety of habita
me wildlife sp
Oliver 1996)
habitat for bi
ks, neotropica
ment from pr
bear, wolveri
p slope areas
successiona
esting birds (
habitat with
y due to spru
Southcentral
the last 20 y
(Holsten et a
festations ou
es in Southce
ng vegetation
reestablishm
c Project
tudy was con
es of this wil
esence and d
s to protecte
nd landbirds
distribution
e study area;
e species com
nd waterbird
map wildlife
udy.
follow prov
ting survey,
hods, results
are provided
ies are also i
is a characte
r of the Kena
3 and Sectio
b communiti
meadows.
ats in this reg
pecies. Early
), provide fee
rds. Old gro
al migrants,
redators, den
ine, and wolv
s with bluebe
al stages betw
(songbirds, r
hin the Projec
uce bark beet
Alaska have
years, resulti
al. 1995). So
utlined in US
entral Alask
n quickly inv
ment of tree
nducted in a
ldlife study w
distribution i
d species, in
s of special in
and abundan
mposition of
ds; and
e habitat in th
vide a summa
Breeding La
, and conclu
d for each stu
ncorporated
eristic comp
ai Peninsula.
on 4 and incl
es, grass com
gion of Alask
y seral stand
eding habita
wth forests p
and other ra
nning and be
ves, and win
erry provide
ween mixed
raptors, and w
ct area has b
tle (Dendroc
e experience
ing in signifi
ome of the im
SFS (2006) i
a, blue-joint
vade stands w
species. Wil
118
accordance w
were to:
information
ncluding bald
nterest;
nce of target
f avian comm
he study are
ary of the pr
andbirds and
usions, as we
udy compon
d within the r
ponent of the
. The plant c
lude conifero
mmunities, r
ka sustains a
ds found in c
at for moose,
provide pote
aptors, while
dding areas
nter foraging
good foragi
and conifer
waterfowl).
been, and con
ctonus rufipe
ed extensive
icant vegetat
mpacts to wi
include long
t grass (Cala
where spruc
ldlife species
with the appr
to allow the
d eagles and
t wildlife spe
munities, par
ea in conjunc
rimary comp
d Shorebirds
ell as a summ
nent. Releva
relevant sect
e diverse veg
communities
ous forests, m
riparian area
an array of la
onifer and /
, wolves, sno
ential nesting
e also provid
for large ma
g areas for m
ing areas for
forest types
ntinues to be
ennis) and w
mortality in
tion compos
ildlife specie
term stand c
amagrostis c
ce beetles hav
s dependent
TERRESTRIA
roved Study
e Project to m
d other raptor
ecies during
rticularly lan
ction with th
ponents of th
, Waterbirds
mary of any v
ant data from
tion.
getation mos
s in the study
mixed conif
as, stream ba
arge game as
or mixed co
owshoe hare
g habitat for
ding thermal
ammals, trav
mountain goa
r bears. Pape
provide goo
e, influenced
windthrow ev
n response to
sitional and s
es associated
conversion.
canadensis) a
ve “opened
on live, mat
AL RESOURCES
Kenai Hydro
June
Plan (KHL
minimize or
rs, shorebird
key seasons
ndbirds,
he Botanical
he 2013 wild
s, and Terres
variances fro
m the previou
saic found in
y area are
fer/deciduou
anks, lake
s well as oth
onifer / decid
e, and lynx, a
r Northern
cover,
vel corridors
ats. Canopy g
er birch snag
od habitat fo
d by tree
vents. Spruc
o the spruce b
structural
d with spruce
For example
and other
up” the cano
ture spruce
STUDY
o, LLC
e 2014
ds,
s of
dlife
strial
om
us
n the
us
her
duous
and
for
gaps
gs,
or
ce
bark
e
e, on
opy,
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 119 June 2014
stands may decline due to long term stand conversion (e.g., red squirrels [Sciurus vulgaris],
spruce grouse [Falcipennis canadensis], Townsend’s warblers [Dendroica townsendi], and ruby-
crowned kinglets [Regulus calendula]). Species that benefit from early successional vegetation
(willow and aspen) like moose may increase in number as stand composition changes. Increases
in large mammals may also result in an increase in predators including wolf and bear.
This area of the Kenai Peninsula is subject to windthrow; a cataclysmic abiotic factor that can
generate an entire new chain of seral plant succession in a given area. Trees already stressed by
infestation may be more susceptible to windthrow events. This was evident during the 2013 field
season along the proposed Project access route. Many areas were difficult to traverse due to high
concentrations of downed trees.
The 2013 Wildlife Study area represents the combined area that was assessed for each wildlife
study component. It is also the same area previously defined as the collective terrestrial
resources assessment area in Figure 1.2-1 and the general vegetation study area shown in Figure
3.1-1. Changes in the access route, Project design, and field efforts necessitated a revision of
both the Breeding Bird and Northern Goshawk surveys; resulting in a revised definition of the
2013 ‘Wildlife Study area.’ Figure 5.1-1 illustrates the revised 2013 Wildlife Study area in
relation to the proposed FERC Project boundary. The delineated study areas specific to each
component of the Study Plan are defined by their geographic nexus to the Project and are
described below for the four 2013 field studies.
5.1.1. Raptor Nesting Survey
The Raptor Survey area is defined by the 2013 Study Plan as follows:
The proposed development footprint of the Project (access roads, transmission line, Grant
Creek, Grant Lake, powerhouse, and tunnel) and a buffer of 660 feet around Project
development features. The 2013 field efforts occurred within the 2013 wildlife
assessment area (see Figure 5.1-1) and focused exclusively on Northern Goshawk
Broadcast Surveys along the newly defined Project route, as all other Raptor surveys
were deemed complete.
The 2010 study area encompassed the entire shore area of Grant Lake, including several
rocky cliff faces and outcroppings above Grant Lake and potential nesting habitat for
raptors, Grant Creek, and the access route (as defined at the time).
5.1.2. Breeding Landbirds and Shorebirds
The 2013 study area for breeding landbirds and shorebirds is defined by the Study Plan as
follows:
Grant Lake outlet delta area near the proposed tower intake (includes 500 feet on either
side of Tower Intake);
Trail Lake narrows access road alignment (100 feet on either side of the centerline of new
road), as access allows;
Powerhouse, detention pond, tailrace, and penstock (100 feet on either side of the
centerline); and
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 120 June 2014
Transmission line corridor (includes up to 100 feet on both sides of centerline of
transmission line), as access allows.
The 2010 study area for breeding landbirds and shorebirds incorporated the above; however, the
access route (as defined at the time) paralleled Falls Creek extending from the highway south of
Lower Trail Lake, north to Grant Creek, and then to Grant Lake. Appendix 3a contains further
information on breeding landbirds and shorebirds.
5.1.3. Waterbirds
The study area for nesting and wintering waterbirds is defined by the 2013 Study Plan as
follows:
The survey area for wintering waterbirds is located within the 2013 wildlife assessment
area (see Figure 5.1-1) at the southern-most portion of Grant Lake at the source of Grant
Creek. Two surveys are planned for the winter of 2013 and 2014, one of which was
performed in December 2013 and the other is slated for February/March 2014.
The 2010 field effort included surveys of Grant Lake and the lower reaches of Grant
Creek below the Canyon Reach for nesting harlequin ducks (Histrionicus histrionicus)
(see Figure 5.1-2). Waterbird surveys to determine the distribution and abundance of
waterbirds nesting in the study area were considered complete at the conclusion of the
2010 summer field season.
q r
²³(û
Grant Lake
LowerTrailLake
UpperTrailLake
Grant Creek
Legend
Project Features
q Diversion
r Intake
(û Penstock
²³Power House
Detention Pond
Project FERC Boundary
Access Roads
Tunnel
Transmission Line
Detention Pond Outlet
Tailrace
Seward Highway
Alaska Railroad
2013 Terrestrial Resources Study Area
GRANT LAKE TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Figure 5.1-12013 Wildlife Study Area
Developed For:
Drawing Scale:
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - FERC PROJECT NO.13212±OFFICE: 208.342.4214FAX: 208.342.4216
REV DESCRIPTIONBYDATE
DRAWING
ISSUED DATE
CHECKED
DRAWN
DESIGNED
0 0.5 10.25
Miles 1/9/2014
J. Woodbury
M. Hjortsberg
J. Blank1401 SHORELINE DRIVEBOISE, ID 83702
10/20/2013 JW Internal Review SCALE: 1:32,000
MAP NOTES:1. THIS MAP WAS DEVELOPED FOR KENAI HYDRO, LLC AS PART OF THE GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT(FERC NO. 13212), NATURAL RESOURCES STUDY DOCUMENTATION. THE LOCATION OF PROJECT FEATURES IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND IS SHOWN FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY.2. THIS MAP WAS DEVELOPED FROM THE FOLLOWING RESOURCES: A. AERIAL IMAGERY DEVELOPED BY USFS. B. PROJECT FEATURE LOCATIONS PROVIDED BY KENAI HYDRO, LLC.3. THIS MAP PRESENTS DATA IN THE FOLLOWING GEOGRAHIC SYSTEMS: - HORIZONTAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983 (NAD83) - VERTICAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 1988 (NAVD 88) - PROJECTION: ALASKA 4 FIPS 5004 FEET STATE PLANE
Inle
t
C
r
e
e
k
GRANT LAKE TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Figure 5.1-2Potential Nesting Habitat for Ducks (2010 Effort)
Developed For:GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - FERC PROJECT NO.13212±OFFICE: 208.342.4214FAX: 208.342.4216
REV DESCRIPTIONBYDATE
DRAWING
ISSUED DATE
CHECKED
DRAWN
DESIGNED
1/8/2014
J. Woodbury
M. Hjortsberg
A. Ajmi1401 SHORELINE DRIVEBOISE, ID 83702
10/20/2013 JW Internal Review
FINAL REPO
Grant Lake
FERC No.
5.1.4.
A study a
surveys o
during th
to be con
observati
The 2013
1) and in
commun
Study are
Project fa
(see Figu
Mammal
goats, Da
all 2010
except w
M5.2.
Field inv
collection
goshawk
fulfill Ra
noted, a n
the 2010
Changes
Breeding
surveys n
specific t
described
5.2.1.
2010 Rap
Ranger D
ground-b
raptor ne
detailed i
Region (2
bald eagl
did not fe
indicated
ORT
e Hydroelectric
13212
Terrestr
area was not
of the study
he winter 201
nducted in Fe
ions will con
3 Moose Stu
ncludes the ar
ity of Moose
ea extends so
acilities alon
ure 5.1-1).
l Survey task
all sheep, an
surveys. All
winter moose
Methods
vestigations f
n methods d
ks, waterbird
aptor and Lar
number of th
field season
in the acces
g Bird and N
not complete
to each comp
d below.
Raptor N
ptor Nesting
District Wild
based survey
ests. The surv
in the USFS
2000) and in
le nests that
eel it was ne
d in the Study
c Project
ial Mamma
t defined spe
area will be
13 and 2014
ebruary/Mar
ntinue to be c
udy area will
rea east of th
e Pass, exten
outh between
ng Grant Lak
ks for the 20
d bats. Incid
l component
presence an
for the Terre
during the 20
s, and little b
rge Mamma
he Terrestria
n.
ss route, Proj
Northern Gos
ed in 2010 w
ponent of the
Nesting Su
g Surveys - B
dlife Biologis
ys for Northe
vey methods
Survey Met
n Woodbridg
included the
ecessary for t
y Plan.
als
ecifically for
conducted t
, one of whi
rch 2014. In
collected as
occur withi
he Seward H
nding past th
n the highwa
ke, Grant Cr
10 studies fo
dental obser
s of the Mam
nd use of the
estrial Wildli
010 field seas
brown bats.
al Survey req
al Wildlife st
ject design, a
hawk survey
were incorpor
e 2010 and 2
urvey
Based on disc
st (May 200
ern goshawk
s are based o
thodology fo
ge and Hargi
e Grant Lake
the 2010 bio
125
r mammals in
o determine
ch was perfo
ncidental rec
other studie
n the 2013 w
Highway and
he eastern sh
ay and Gran
eek, and acc
ocused on br
vations of ot
mmal Study
Project area
ife studies w
son were spe
Data were a
quirements a
tudies were c
and field eff
ys. The Moo
rated into th
2013 Terrest
cussions with
9), the Study
nests and te
on the Broad
or Northern G
is (2006). Th
e study area
ologists to co
n the 2013 S
the presenc
ormed in De
ords of 2013
es are perform
wildlife asse
d Alaska Rai
horeline of G
nt Lake to Gr
cess road and
rown and bla
ther species
plan were co
a.
were undertak
ecific to bree
also collecte
as stipulated
considered c
forts necessit
ose surveys
he 2013 Stud
trial Study p
h Mary Ann
y Plan metho
erritories inst
dcast Acousti
Goshawks in
he USFS con
on May 7, 2
onduct an ae
TERRESTRIA
Study Plan.
e and travel
ecember 201
3 and 2014 w
med.
essment area
ilroad adjace
Grant Lake. T
rant Creek, a
d transmissio
ack bears, m
were also re
onsidered co
ken in 2010.
eding birds,
ed from other
by the Study
complete at t
tated a reiter
and Winter
dy Plan. The
plans, respect
n Benoit, US
ods were mo
tead of an ae
ical Survey
n the Pacific
nducted an a
2010. Theref
rial Raptor N
AL RESOURCES
Kenai Hydro
June
Two winter
paths of mo
3 and the ot
wildlife
(see Figure
ent to the
The Moose
and includes
on line route
moose, moun
ecorded duri
omplete in 2
. Field data
Northern
r sources to
y Plan. As
the conclusio
ration of bot
Waterbird
e study meth
tively, are
FS Seward
odified to inc
erial survey
Method as
c Southwest
aerial survey
fore, the USF
Nest Survey
STUDY
o, LLC
e 2014
oose
ther
5.1-
s all
es
ntain
ing
010,
on of
th the
hod
clude
for
y for
FS
as
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 126 June 2014
2013 Northern Goshawk Broadcast Surveys - A ground-based survey for Northern goshawk
territories was conducted along all linear Project facilities (access road, transmission line,
powerhouse, detention pond, tailrace, intake, and penstock). The 2013 survey methods utilize the
same methods used for the 2010 study effort; the USFS Survey Methodology for Northern
Goshawks in the Pacific Southwest Region (2000) and Woodbridge et al. (2006). Appendix 3b
contains further information about the Northern Goshawk Survey.
ArcMap was used to identify 15 sample points for calling stations prior to going in the field. The
calling stations were positioned roughly 200 meters (~219 yards) apart along the revised Project
access route and facilities. Pre-selected calling stations were located in the field using a GPS
receiver; each point was physically marked with flagging for ease of relocation. At each calling
station, the surveyors utilized a broadcast speaker amplifier to broadcast 10 second recordings of
an adult Northern goshawk wail call (3-call sequence) and a fledgling goshawk begging call
(separate 3-call sequence). After each broadcast, the surveyors watched and listened for 30
seconds before continuing with the next broadcast. At each calling station, the calls were
broadcast at 60 degrees, 120 degrees, and 300 degrees (the 3-call sequence). This 3-call sequence
was completed twice at each call station. After the last sequence, the surveyors progressed to the
next station, listening and watching carefully for Northern goshawk signs and presence along the
way. The food-delivery call was not used as indicated in the USFS methodology for Northern
goshawks.
At each survey calling station, the following information was recorded on the data form:
Dates, start and stop times
Station number
Description (type) of the detection, if any
Age of birds detected, if any
Location of detection, if any, relative to survey station and transect, including details
about habitat, and
Incidental birds
5.2.2. Breeding Landbirds and Shorebirds
2010 Breeding Landbird and Shorebird Surveys – The 2010 Breeding Landbirds and Shorebirds
Survey used a modified point count approach based on the Alaska Landbird Monitoring System
(ALMS) protocol. Point count locations were selected along the route corridor based on
representative habitat types from aerial photography. The survey area included the Grant Lake
outlet area, the Project access road and transmission line alignment, and the powerhouse and
penstock. Sample points were mapped in the office and when possible were located at least 400
meters (~437 yards) apart. Point counts were conducted between 0500 (5:00am) and 1000
(10:00am). Point-count locations were accessed on foot using a GPS receiver to locate pre-
selected point-count locations. Some of the office-based point count locations were modified in
the field due to rough terrain or inaccessibility. If the location was modified, a new GPS point
was taken.
The point-counts were conducted in standard 10-minute intervals at each point-count location.
All species observed visually or aurally were recorded during each count. Observations were
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 127 June 2014
categorized into distance-estimated categories of <50 meters (~55 yards) or >50 meters (~55
yards) as measured horizontally from the observers. In addition, species were documented based
on the time interval at which they were detected (0-3 minutes; 3-5 minutes; and 5-10 minutes).
Birds that were flying over during the count were also recorded. General vegetation types were
recorded for eight points. ALMS-associated habitat information was not collected at any point.
Data were recorded on a modified point count data sheet, and photos of the general vegetation at
19 point locations were taken. Incidental sightings of shorebirds, birds of conservation concern,
or nest sites that were observed in transit between survey points were also documented.
2013 Breeding Landbird and Shorebird Surveys–ArcMap was used to identify 14 sample points
for survey points prior to going in the field. The sample points were positioned roughly 250
meters (~273 yards) apart along the revised Project access route and facilities. Pre-selected
survey points were located in the field using a GPS receiver; each point was physically marked
with flagging for ease of relocation and then removed after the last survey.
Resident breeding birds begin nesting earlier than migrants on the Kenai. The different breeding
timelines between residents and migrants manifests in distinct peak singing periods in May and
June. To capture the peak singing periods for both groups of breeders, the 14 points were
surveyed twice in 2013. The first time period (May 21st and 22nd) was surveyed for early nesting
resident birds; the second time period (June 15th and 16th) was surveyed to capture later breeding
migrants. Vegetation and habitat documentation were conducted within a 50 meter (~55 yards)
radius for each point. Photo documentation at each cardinal direction (4 pictures per point), as
specified by ALMS protocol, was also obtained. Habitat types were 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). All data were recorded on standard ALMS datasheets.
Surveys were initiated one half hour after sunrise and were completed by 0900 (9:00am). Each
point was sampled for 10-minutes; all species observed visually or aurally were recorded during
each count. Observations were categorized into standard ALMS distance-estimated categories in
the field as measured horizontally from the observers; distances were later grouped as either <50
meters (~55 yards) or >50 meters (~55 yards) for analysis and compilation with 2010 data. Birds
that were detected while flying over the point during the count were also recorded as well as
their estimated horizontal distance from the observer. All point count data were recorded on
standard ALMS datasheets.
Incidental observations of wildlife encountered while in transit between surveys points or while
conducting surveys for other wildlife were also documented. Only the birds recorded within the
50 meter (55 yard) radius during each count were qualitatively analyzed for habitat association.
2013 Vegetation Classification and Correlation – In order to place the 2010 and 2013 breeding
landbird and shorebird data in context with the vegetation community types located throughout
the Project area, a vegetation community correlation was developed for this report. The
correlation described below provides a linkage between the various habitat and vegetation cover
types described for breeding landbirds and shorebirds from previous Project reports and literature
sources, with the 2013 vegetation community classification types presented in Section 3 and
Section 4 of this report.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 128 June 2014
The USFS (2007) cover types provided for this study originated from much older timber type
coverages that were developed by the Alaska Regional Office in 1978 using 1:15,840 aerial
photography flown in the 1950s-1970s. Part of the 2013 effort was to update and re-classify the
cover types within the delineated study area, as described in Section 3 and Section 4. The
breeding bird survey points (14), originally categorized by USFS (2007) vegetation types, were
given new designations after the 2013 classification and then correlated to Ebasco (1984) for
understory species comparisons and loose habitat associations (see Table 5.2-1). The only
exceptions are the southern-most portion surrounding the Lower Trail Lake classified as birch,
and the area immediately to the east classified as white spruce. These areas were outside of the
designated 2013 study area. The 2010 breeding bird data were utilized for the overall qualitative
assessment and all birds detected in the vegetation classifications either retained the old USFS
(2007) designation of birch, or were re-named and incorporated into the 2013 Coniferous Forest
classification. The bird species detected during the 2010 and 2013 field efforts were collectively
summarized by the 2013 vegetation type classification.
Table 5.2-1. 2013 Breeding birds survey point vegetation classifications and correlation.
2013
Mapped
Point
Vegetation Type
USFS Cover
Code (2007)
2013
Vegetation
Types
EBASCO
1984
Crosswalk
Classification
EBASCO 1984
Common Associated
Understory Plants
Additional
Associated
Understory Plants
1 Other-Non
Forested
Coniferous
Deciduous
Forest
Mixed
Broadleaf /
Needleleaf
Forest
MENFER, VIBEDU,
VACOVA, RIBTRI,
ROSACI, OPLHOR,
ALNVIR, CORCAN,
VACVIT, MOSS
LINBOR, SPIBEA,
CHAANG,
EMPNIG,
GYMDRY,
CALCAN.
2
Mixed
Hardwood-
softwood
Coniferous
Deciduous
Forest
Mixed
Broadleaf /
Needleleaf
Forest
MENFER, VIBEDU,
VACOVA, RIBTRI,
ROSACI, OPLHOR,
ALNVIR, CORCAN,
VACVIT, MOSS
LINBOR, SPIBEA,
CHAANG,
EMPNIG,
GYMDRY,
CALCAN.
3 Cottonwood Coniferous
Forest Conifer Forest
MENFER,VACOVA,
SPIBEA, OPLHOR,
ALNVIR, RIBTRI,
VACVIT, LEDSPP,
RUBPED, MOSS
VACALA,
CORCAN,
CHAANG,
EMPNIG, LINBOR,
CALCAN,
EQUARV,
DRYEXP,
GYMDRY
4 White Spruce
Coniferous
Deciduous
Forest
Mixed
Broadleaf /
Needleleaf
Forest
MENFER, VIBEDU,
VACOVA, RIBTRI,
ROSACI, OPLHOR,
ALNVIR, CORCAN,
VACVIT, MOSS
LINBOR, SPIBEA,
CHAANG,
EMPNIG,
GYMDRY,
CALCAN.
5
Mixed
Hardwood-
softwood
Coniferous
Deciduous
Forest
Mixed
Broadleaf /
Needleleaf
Forest
MENFER, VIBEDU,
VACOVA, RIBTRI,
ROSACI, OPLHOR,
ALNVIR, CORCAN,
VACVIT, MOSS
LINBOR, SPIBEA,
CHAANG,
EMPNIG,
GYMDRY,
CALCAN.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Table 5.2-1, Continued…
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 129 June 2014
2013
Mapped
Point
Vegetation Type
USFS Cover
Code (2007)
2013
Vegetation
Types
EBASCO
1984
Crosswalk
Classification
EBASCO 1984
Common Associated
Understory Plants
Additional
Associated
Understory Plants
6
Mixed
Hardwood-
Softwood
Scrub Shrub
Wetland
Bog (Wet
Meadow)
LEDSPP, VACVIT,
EMPNIG, RUBCHA
BETNAN,
VACOVA
7 White Spruce
Herbaceous
Wetland /
Floodplain
Forest &
Scrub
Riparian Scrub
SALSPP, CHALAT,
CHAANG, EQUSPP,
CALCAN
EQIARV,ALNVIR
8 & 9 Birch
Coniferous
Deciduous
Forest
Mixed
Broadleaf /
Needleleaf
Forest
MENFER, VIBEDU,
VACOVA, RIBTRI,
ROSACI, OPLHOR,
ALNVIR, CORCAN,
VACVIT, MOSS
LINBOR, SPIBEA,
CHAANG,
EMPNIG,
GYMDRY,
CALCAN.
10, 11, 12
& 14
Hemlock-
Spruce
Coniferous
Forest Conifer Forest
MENFER,VACOVA,
SPIBEA, OPLHOR,
ALNVIR, RIBTRI,
VACVIT, LEDSPP,
RUBPED, MOSS
VACALA,
CORCAN,
CHAANG,
EMPNIG, LINBOR,
CALCAN,
EQUARV,
DRYEXP,
GYMDRY
13 Hemlock-
Spruce
Scrub Shrub
Wetland Riparian Scrub
SALSPP, CHALAT,
CHAANG, EQUSPP,
CALCAN
SALALA, ALNVIR
5.2.3. Waterbirds
2010 Waterbird Breeding and Brood-Rearing Surveys –Boat-based, intense area surveys were
conducted along the entire nearshore habitat of Grant Lake in late June and mid- July 2010 to
search for waterbird nests and broods. The survey was conducted by two observers motoring
slowly along the lakeshore, documenting waterbirds and other wildlife observed. No effort was
made to search for nest sites (except potential loon nesting habitat) since broods were already on
the lake during the June 23, 2010 survey (the first 2010 survey). Additionally, the nesting
waterbirds documented on Grant Lake were mainly cavity-nesting species that utilize standing
dead trees. Therefore, nest searches along the entire shoreline were not conducted. However,
areas with potential for loon nesting habitat (marshy habitat, emergent vegetation, and islands),
which was limited to a few isolated areas on Grant Lake, were searched. Potential waterbird
nesting habitat and broods were documented along the shoreline. The following information was
recorded for each brood observed: species, descriptive location (no coordinates), number of
ducklings and adults, approximate age of brood, behavior, and distance from shoreline.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 130 June 2014
2010 Harlequin Duck Survey –A foot survey of Grant Creek (below the falls to the outlet) was
conducted on July 12, 2010, to identify harlequin duck broods and other waterbirds using Grant
Creek. For each harlequin duck observation, the following data were recorded: GPS location,
total number of birds in the group; numbers of pairs, males, and females; number of young;
physical description of location (i.e., in the water, creek banks, flying); and a brief description of
the creek habitat where the bird or birds were documented. Other notable species such as
common merganser (Mergus merganser) and red-breasted merganser (Mergus serrator) were
counted, but locations were not recorded.
2013 Winter Waterbird Surveys–In order to determine if this area is still being utilized by
waterbirds in the winter, wildlife biologists conducted a survey of the Grant Lake outlet area in
December 2013 and will conduct a second survey of the same area in February/March 2014 to
document waterbird use and the amount of open water habitat available. Biologists will
document species, number of individuals, and percent open water during a daylight survey
period of 4-6 hours. The biologists will also document any wildlife species or tracks observed in
the study area while en route to and from Grant Lake. These data, once collected and analyzed,
will be provided to stakeholders for review and collaboration and incorporated into the DLA.
5.2.4. Terrestrial Mammals
2010 Terrestrial Mammal Surveys –A Bat Survey was conducted to document roosting of little
brown bats (Myotis lucifugus) in an abandoned historic cabin on the west side of Grant Lake.
While no other specific surveys were conducted, all wildlife observed during other field studies
in 2010 were documented and reported as incidental information.
Bear - The Study Plan stated that a bear den emergence aerial survey would be conducted in
early to mid-May 2010 to capture bear activities as they were leaving their dens in the spring.
Based on discussions with Mary Ann Benoit, USFS Seward Ranger District Wildlife Biologist,
the USFS assumed responsibility for Bear Denning surveys in concert with their annual survey
for bald eagle nests and trumpeter swans on May 6, 2010. Ms. Benoit provided the ArcGIS
shapefiles and findings to use in determining Project effects on bears. The survey effort included
habitat along Grant Creek (covering the area of Trail Lake narrows access route) and around
Grant Lake.
Mountain Goat and Dall Sheep - Observations of suitable habitat around Grant Lake were made
in 2010 using binoculars and spotting scopes from a boat during the Waterbird surveys.
Bats - Biologists conducted a bat survey of the historic cabin on July 23, 2010, based on standard
USFS Bat Survey protocols for abandoned buildings and mine sites (Reynolds and Leffler 1994).
A high powered flashlight was used to search the cracks and crevices of the cabin, and crews
searched for bat signs (guano and carcasses). Photos were taken inside and outside of the cabin.
Observations of all species including moose were recorded incidentally during all 2010 Wildlife
surveys.
2013-2014 Winter Moose Surveys– Managers suspect that many moose depart the area in the late
fall and winter in the Trail river drainage as well as the northeast portion of Grant lake through
FINAL REPO
Grant Lake
FERC No.
the low p
conducte
The first
planned f
as describ
followed
stakehold
R5.3.
The follo
from the
Field inv
in 2013.
The 2010
Rearing,
were also
stipulated
necessita
the 2013
The terre
studies th
seasonall
complete
year of th
In additio
Decembe
Winter M
compone
the four p
5.3.1.
Tree-nest
broadleaf
raptors ar
above Gr
AEIDC f
Hawks an
and hunti
seabirds,
ORT
e Hydroelectric
13212
pass into Mo
ed to determi
of the two W
for February
bed in detail
d during the s
ders for revie
Results
owing subsec
Ebasco (198
vestigations f
Figure 5.3-
0 field data a
Harlequin D
o collected fr
d by the Stud
ated a reitera
results secti
estrial wildlif
hat are in pro
ly-specific sa
e for this rep
he two-year
on, the first o
er 2013. The
Moose survey
ents as stipul
primary com
Raptor N
ting raptor h
f forest, and
re not abund
rant Lake. Po
field studies
nd other owl
ing. Prime f
shorebirds,
c Project
oose Creek (S
ine the prese
Winter Moos
y/March 201
l in Gasaway
surveys. The
ew and colla
ctions presen
84) and the 2
for the Terre
1 illustrates
are included
Duck, and Li
from the USF
dy Plan. Ch
ation of both
ion.
fe results sec
ogress. Thes
ampling met
ort. The Bre
Northern Go
of the two W
e 2014 North
ys are not co
lated in the S
mponents of t
Nesting Su
habitats in th
coniferous f
dant near the
otential nest
conducted in
ls commonly
foraging area
and shallow
Selinger 201
ence and trav
se surveys w
4. Surveys w
y et al. (1986
ese data, onc
aboration and
nt the results
2010 Wildlif
estrial Wildli
the Wildlife
in this resul
ittle Brown B
FS to fulfill R
hanges in the
the Breedin
ction reports
se latter stud
thods. As a
eeding Land
oshawk Surv
Winter Moos
hern Goshaw
omplete as o
Study Plan a
the Terrestri
urvey
he Project vic
forests (see T
e Project but
ting habitat f
n the Project
y use woodla
as for many
w or clear wa
131
13.). Two w
vel paths of m
was conducte
will use met
6). USFS fli
ce collected a
d incorporat
s of the 2013
fe studies.
ife studies w
e Survey loca
lts section fo
Bat surveys
Raptor and L
e access rout
ng Bird and N
s on studies t
dies require e
result of the
d Bird survey
vey was also
e and Winte
wk (second y
f the drafting
are deemed c
ial Wildlife S
cinity includ
Table 5.3-1)
include seve
for raptors, a
t vicinity in
ands, forests
raptors inclu
aterbodies th
winter survey
moose durin
ed in Decemb
thods for ful
ight regulati
and analyzed
ted into the D
3 Wildlife St
were undertak
ations from b
or Waterbird
as well as in
Large Mamm
te, project de
Northern Go
that are com
either two ye
e ongoing fie
ys were com
o completed
er Waterbird
year) Survey
g of this rep
complete. Th
Study Plan.
de mixed bro
). Suitable h
eral rocky cl
at that time, w
1981-1982 (
s, and foreste
ude wetland
hat carry app
TERRESTRIA
ys of the stud
ng the winter
ber 2013, th
ll coverage o
ons and requ
d, will be pr
DLA.
tudy as well
ken in 2010
both of these
d Breeding an
ncidental obs
mal Survey r
esign, and fie
oshawk surve
mplete as wel
ears of data
eld efforts, re
mpleted in 20
along the ne
surveys wer
y, Winter Wa
ort. Howev
he results ar
oadleaf/conif
habitats for c
liff faces and
was delineat
(Ebasco 198
ed wetland a
ds containing
ropriate fish
AL RESOURCES
Kenai Hydro
June
dy area will b
r 2013- 2014
he second is
of the study a
uirements w
ovided to
as relevant
and then aga
e field effort
nd Brood
servations. D
requirements
eld efforts
eys included
ll as several
collection an
esults are no
013. The firs
ew Project ro
re completed
aterbird, and
er, all other
re organized
ferous forest
cliff-nesting
d outcroppin
ted during th
84).
areas for nes
g waterfowl,
h prey.
STUDY
o, LLC
e 2014
be
4.
area
ill be
data
ain
ts.
Data
s as
d in
nd/or
ot yet
st
oute.
d in
d
by
ts,
ngs
he
sting
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 132 June 2014
Table 5.3-1. Raptor breeding habitats.
Raptor Breeding Habitat
Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos)
Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus)
Rough-legged Hawk (Buteo lagopus)
Coastal or inland cliffs, bluffs, or other steep terrain
Osprey (Pandion haliaetus)
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis)
Large trees for stick nest placement
Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus)
Northern Goshawks (Accipiter gentilis)
Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus)
Northern Hawk Owl (Surnia ulula)
Boreal Owl (Aegolius funereus)
Northern Saw-whet Owl (Aegolius acadicus)
Forest
Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus)
Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus) Open meadows, marshes or tundra
Great Gray Owl (Strix nebulosa)
Merlin (Falco columbarius) Semi-open country including open coniferous woodland
Black Merlin (Falco columbarius suckleyi)
Rivers and coastal areas, and possibly near alpine
meadows; edges of forest habitat adjoining open areas,
such as muskegs, ponds, and lakes
American Kestrel (Falco sparverius)
Cavity nesters, utilizing natural holes in trees,
abandoned woodpecker holes, holes in buildings or
cliffs, abandoned magpie nests, and similar sites. This
species is also found in alpine and tundra areas not far
from treeline and in open spruce and mixed
spruce/aspen forests (Alexander et al. 2003)
2010 Raptor Nesting Surveys - Bald Eagle Nest surveys were conducted by the USFS in 2010.
The surveys provided two nest locations (see Figure 5.3-2). Three sightings of bald eagles were
noted as incidental during the 2010 season. There were no indications that these individuals were
near or in nests.
2010 Northern Goshawk Broadcast Surveys –One survey was completed in 2010. No Northern
goshawk responses (vocal or non-vocal) were detected and no Northern goshawk nests or
territories were identified. There were no confirmed sightings of Northern goshawks in the study
area during the 2010 effort.
2013 Northern Goshawk Broadcast Surveys - Two separate survey events were conducted in
2013: the first on June 16th and 17th and the second on July 8th and 9th. One adult female
Northern goshawk response was detected both audibly and visually during the first survey on
June 16, 2013 (see Figure 5.3-2). The individual responded to an adult wail call during the first
3-call sequence. The female was detected in a coniferous hardwood forest with False Azalea
(Menziesia ferruginea), Dwarf Dogwood (Cornus canadensis), Devil's Club (Oplopanax
horridus) and Nagoonberry (Rubus arcticus) dominant woody plant understory. Other non
woody species included Pink Wintergreen (Pyrola asarifolia), Fireweed (Chamerion
angustifolium), Oak Fern (Gymnocarpium dryopteris), Wood Fern (Dryopteris expansa), and
moss species. No other individuals were detected during the surveys.
q r
²³(û
#0
#0
#0 #0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0#0#0
#0#0 #0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0#0#0
#0#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0 #0#0
#0 #0 #0
#0 #0
#0
#0 #0 #0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0 #0
#0
#0 #0
#0
#0
#0 #0
#0 #0
#0#0
Grant Lake
LowerTrailLake
UpperTrailLake
Grant Creek
Legend
#0 2013 NOGO Surveys
#0 2013 ALMS Surveys
#0 2010 Waterbird Surveys
#0 2010 Breeding Bird Surveys
Project Features
q Diversion
r Intake
(û Penstock
²³Power House
Detention Pond
Project FERC Boundary
Access Roads
Tunnel
Transmission Line
Detention Pond Outlet
Tailrace
Seward Highway
Alaska Railroad
2013 Terrestrial Resources Study Area
GRANT LAKE TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Figure 5.3-1Cumulative Point Locations for Waterbird,Breeding Bird, and Raptor Surveys (2010 and 2013)
Developed For:
Drawing Scale:
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - FERC PROJECT NO.13212±OFFICE: 208.342.4214FAX: 208.342.4216
REV DESCRIPTIONBYDATE
DRAWING
ISSUED DATE
CHECKED
DRAWN
DESIGNED
0 0.5 10.25
Miles 1/9/2014
J. Woodbury
M. Hjortsberg
A. Ajmi1401 SHORELINE DRIVEBOISE, ID 83702
10/20/2013 JW Internal Review SCALE: 1:32,000
MAP NOTES:1. THIS MAP WAS DEVELOPED FOR KENAI HYDRO, LLC AS PART OF THE GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT(FERC NO. 13212), NATURAL RESOURCES STUDY DOCUMENTATION. THE LOCATION OF PROJECT FEATURES IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND IS SHOWN FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY.2. THIS MAP WAS DEVELOPED FROM THE FOLLOWING RESOURCES: A. AERIAL IMAGERY DEVELOPED BY USFS. B. WATERBIRD, BREEDING BIRD, AND RAPTOR LOCATIONS PROVIDED BY ERM, INC 2013. C. PROJECT FEATURE LOCATIONS PROVIDED BY KENAI HYDRO, LLC.3. THIS MAP PRESENTS DATA IN THE FOLLOWING GEOGRAHIC SYSTEMS: - HORIZONTAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983 (NAD83) - VERTICAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 1988 (NAVD 88) - PROJECTION: ALASKA 4 FIPS 5004 FEET STATE PLANE
Inle
t
C
r
e
e
k
q r
²³(û
XY
XYXY
XY
XY
XY
XYXY
Grant Lake
LowerTrailLake
UpperTrailLake
Grant Creek
Inle
t
C
r
e
e
k
Legend
XY 2013 Incidental RaptorSightings
XY 2012 Eagle NestLocations
XY 2010 Eagle NestLocations
XY 2006 Wolverine & BearDens
Project Features
q Diversion
r Intake
(û Penstock
²³Power House
Detention Pond
Project FERC Boundary
Access Roads
Tunnel
Transmission Line
Detention Pond Outlet
Tailrace
Seward Highway
Alaska Railroad
2013 TerrestrialResources Study Area
GRANT LAKE TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Figure 5.3-2Cumulative Point Locations for Raptors and Dens(2008, 2010, 2012, and 2013)
Developed For:
Drawing Scale:
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - FERC PROJECT NO.13212±OFFICE: 208.342.4214FAX: 208.342.4216
REV DESCRIPTIONBYDATE
DRAWING
ISSUED DATE
CHECKED
DRAWN
DESIGNED
0 0.5 10.25
Miles 1/9/2014
J. Woodbury
M. Hjortsberg
A. Ajmi1401 SHORELINE DRIVEBOISE, ID 83702
10/20/2013 JW Internal Review SCALE: 1:32,000
MAP NOTES:1. THIS MAP WAS DEVELOPED FOR KENAI HYDRO, LLC AS PART OF THE GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT(FERC NO. 13212), NATURAL RESOURCES STUDY DOCUMENTATION. THE LOCATION OF PROJECT FEATURES IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND IS SHOWN FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY.2. THIS MAP WAS DEVELOPED FROM THE FOLLOWING RESOURCES: A. AERIAL IMAGERY DEVELOPED BY USFS. B. RAPTOR AND DEN LOCATIONS PROVIDED BY USFS. C. PROJECT FEATURE LOCATIONS PROVIDED BY KENAI HYDRO, LLC.3. THIS MAP PRESENTS DATA IN THE FOLLOWING GEOGRAHIC SYSTEMS: - HORIZONTAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983 (NAD83) - VERTICAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 1988 (NAVD 88) - PROJECTION: ALASKA 4 FIPS 5004 FEET STATE PLANE
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 137 June 2014
2013 Incidental Raptor Sightings – A bald eagle nest in a large cottonwood along Grant Creek
was recorded with a pair of adults in attendance; they appeared to be incubating eggs as assessed
by behavior on May 22, 2013 (see Figure 5.3-2). This nest sight has been documented in
previous years (2010 and 2012). The pair was re-sighted on June 14th -17th and again appeared to
be incubating eggs. During the last field visit (July 8th -9th), the pair was once again sighted in
the nest and appeared to have at least one hatched young as assessed from observed feeding
behavior. An immature bald eagle was observed on July 19, 2013, attempting to capture a
duckling (see Figure 5.3-2).
A pair of merlin was detected on May 21, 2013, during the first field visit on the small island just
south of the Trail Lake narrows (see Figure 5.3-2). The Trail Lake Narrows area is defined as
the section of water between the Upper Trail and Lower Trail lakes. The merlin did not appear
to be incubating at that time; however, they did appear to have established a breeding territory
based on assessed behavior. The pair was detected again during the second and final field visits
at the same location; however, no effort was made to locate a nest due to high water near the
suspected location of the nest.
An adult male osprey (based on plumage) was detected flying over the Trail Lake Narrows
during the June 14th – 17th field visit.
Compilation of 2010 and 2013 Results - There are eleven diurnal raptor species that potentially
occur in the delineated Project area: osprey, Northern harrier, golden eagle, bald eagle, sharp-
shinned hawk, Northern goshawk, red-tailed hawk, rough-legged hawk, American kestrel,
merlin, and peregrine falcon. There are also and six owls species that potentially occur in the
delineated Project area: short-eared, great horned, great gray, Northern saw-whet, Northern
hawk, and boreal. Occurrence includes migration and/or residence. All species listed are
protected by the MBTA 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.). The bald eagle is protected under the
BGEPA (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.) and is considered a species of special interest for the USFS
(2008). Northern goshawks are also considered a species of special interest for the USFS (2008).
Table 5.3-2 provides a summary of the various raptors that have been detected during site-
specific studies in the Grant Lake Project area:
Table 5.3-2. Raptors detected during site specific studies and year of study.
Raptor Species Detected in Project Area Study Year
Bald Eagle Ebasco 1984, 2010 and 2013
Northern Goshawk 2013
Sharp-shinned Hawk Ebasco 1984
Osprey 2013
American Kestrel Ebasco 1984
Golden Eagle Ebasco 1984
Merlin 2013
Based on vegetation classification, nesting habitat is available for all the listed diurnal raptors in
the area. No owls were detected during any field studies; however, based on vegetation
classification, suitable habitat exists throughout the Grant Lake area.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 138 June 2014
5.3.2. USFS Sensitive Species and Species of Special Interest
Osprey: The osprey is a Region 10 sensitive species. Ospreys were not documented using the
Grant Lake area during the Trail River Watershed landscape assessment (USFS 2008), but
potential nesting and foraging habitat was observed in the study area during the 2013 field
efforts. An adult male Osprey was documented in 2013; however, its breeding status was
unknown. Ospreys are very individualistic and type specific with regards to tolerance to human
activities (Poole 1981).
Bald Eagle: Approximately 80 percent of all detected bald eagle nests on the Seward Ranger
District are located in mature cottonwood trees with an average diameter of 31 inches and within
0.25 mile of an anadromous fish-bearing stream (USFS 2008). The breeding pair documented on
Grant Creek in 2013 did not appear to be impacted by human activity and presence.
Northern Goshawks: This species is a year-round resident of the Chugach National Forest (USFS
1984). The majority of Northern goshawk nests discovered on the Seward Ranger District have
been documented in old growth hemlock-spruce stands characterized by a closed canopy, large
average diameter, gap regeneration, and an open understory (USFS 2008). A small stand of old
growth hemlock and spruce at the east end of Grant Lake may provide additional nesting habitat
(USFS 2008). The spruce bark beetle has affected approximately 95 percent of large conifer
trees on the Kenai; a portion of these stands may yet provide nesting or foraging habitat, but the
bark beetle is likely reducing the value of these stands for Northern goshawk nesting habitat as
the canopy becomes more open (USFS 2008).
5.3.3. Breeding Landbirds and Shorebirds
Bird species are diverse in their forms and lifestyles; therefore, their habitat also needs to vary.
However, regardless of location, a habitat must fulfill basic needs of: 1) cover (shelter) from
weather and predators; 2) food and water for nourishment; and 3) space to obtain food, water,
and to attract a mate. A bird’s need for cover may depend on the age and breeding status of the
individual. Birds, nestlings in particular, need shelter from predators and the elements. Cover,
including trees, grasses, and rocks, also harbors foods for birds and provides space or materials
for nesting. The requirements for cover can be quite specific. Species often show a marked
preference for nesting and foraging at certain heights and in certain structures of vegetation.
Cavity nesters, such as woodpeckers, require trees of the age and size to support suitable holes.
The type of food that a bird selects depends on availability, and during periods of abundance (for
example, during a spring fish spawning or fall fruiting) its diet may become very repetitive. A
bird’s diet also depends on its nutritional requirements, which change with season and age.
Breeding adults and developing chicks need additional protein, for example. Birds that eat plant
matter much of the year will turn to insects to fulfill that need. Birds undertaking strenuous
migrations will increase and alter their diets prior to their journeys in order to accumulate large
amounts of energy in the form of fat. Water is also an essential as a medium for feeding and
other activities. Most species of birds will space themselves out during breeding, with males or
breeding pairs defending their territory. In contrast, some bird species nest in colonies. Space or
territory needs also depend on food sources and availability.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 139 June 2014
2010 Breeding Landbird and Shorebird Surveys - Point-count surveys for breeding landbirds and
shorebirds were conducted in the study area in June 19th and 20th, 2010. A total of 20 point-
counts were conducted in the study area. A total of 232 birds (27 species) were detected during
the surveys at 19 points (see Table 5.3-3). The 2010 efforts did not include the 50 meter (~55
yards) radius vegetation survey for habitat delineation at each survey point; therefore, these
species can only be compiled and assessed for presence in the Project area and a very loose
forest type association.
Table 5.3-3. 2010 breeding bird and shorebird surveys.
2010 Species Total Detected
Wilson's Snipe Gallinago delicata 1
Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus 1
Alder Flycatcher Empidonax alnorum 1
Gray Jay Perisoreus canadensis 2
Black-billed Magpie Pica hudsonia 3
Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapilla 1
Boreal Chickadee Poecile hudsonicus 9
Brown Creeper Certhia americana 3
Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa 3
Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula 16
Swainson's Thrush Catharus ustulatus 7
Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus 32
American Robin Turdus migratorius 9
Varied Thrush Ixoreus naevius 33
Orange-crowned Warbler Oreothlypis celata 17
Yellow Warbler Setophaga petechia 4
Yellow-rumped Warbler Setophaga coronata 23
Townsend's Warbler Setophaga towsendi 12
Wilson's Warbler Cardellina pusilla 13
Northern Waterthrush Parkesia noveboracensis 3
American Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea 2
Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca 3
Lincoln's Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii 3
Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis 12
Pine Grosbeak Pinicola enucleator 2
Pine Siskin Spinus pinus 4
Redpoll Species Acanthis sp. 13
Total Detections
Total Species
232
27
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 140 June 2014
Additional 2010 Incidentals – The following species were recorded as incidental observations
during the 2010 field effort: American dipper (Cinclus mexicanus), American three-toed
woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus), violet-green swallow (Tachycineta thalassina), common
raven (Corvus corax), Steller’s jay (Cyanocitta stelleri), alder flycatcher (Empidonax alnorum),
spotted sandpiper (Actitis macularia), gray-cheeked thrush (Catharus minimus), golden-
crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia atricapilla), herring gull (Larus argentatus), Western wood-
pewee (Contopus sordidulus), olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), solitary sandpiper
(Tringa solitaria), and belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon).
2013 Breeding Landbird and Shorebird Surveys - Point-count surveys for breeding landbirds and
shorebirds were conducted in the study area in May 21st – 22nd and June 15th – 16th, 2013. A
total of 279 birds (31 species) were detected during the surveys at 14 points (see Table 5.3-4).
The 2013 effort did include vegetation and habitat delineation at each point (see Table 5.3-5);
however, due to the small sample size, only a qualitative assessment may be compiled for loose
bird habitat associations in the Project area as a whole.
Table 5.3-4. 2013 breeding bird and shorebird surveys.
2013 Species Total Detected < 50 m
Common Loon Gavia immer 1 1
Barrow’s Goldeneye Bucephala islandica 2
Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator 2
Merganser Species Mergus sp. 1
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 1
Merlin Falco columbarius 1 1
Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis 5
Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca 1 1
Wilson's Snipe Gallinago delicata 4 2
Mew Gull Larus canus 1
Glaucous-winged Gull Larus glaucescens 1
Chestnut-backed Chickadee Poecile rufescens 6 3
Pacific Wren Troglodytes pacificus 1
American Dipper Cinclus mexicanus 5 1
Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula 34 12
Swainson's Thrush Catharus ustulatus 8 3
Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus 15 4
American Robin Turdus migratorius 6 4
Varied Thrush Ixoreus naevius 53 18
Orange-crowned Warbler Oreothlypis celata 20 12
Yellow Warbler Setophaga petechia 1
Yellow-rumped Warbler Setophaga coronata 13 2
Townsend's Warbler Setophaga townsendi 7
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Table 5.3-4, Continued…
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 141 June 2014
2013 Species Total Detected < 50 m
Wilson's Warbler Cardellina pusilla 12 3
Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca 3
Golden-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla 2 2
Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis 6 3
White-winged Crossbill Loxia leucoptera 6 6
Pine Grosbeak Pinicola enucleator 3 3
Pine Siskin Spinus pinus 47 41
Redpoll Species Acanthis sp. 11 10
Total Detections
Total Species
279 132
31 20
Table 5.3-5. 2013 Breeding birds survey point vegetation survey.
Point
Point Vegetation Type
% of 50m radius and
Type of Upper Story
Tree Species
Upper Story
Trees
(% Canopy
Cover,
% Coniferous)
Mid-story Shrub
Species
Non-woody Plant Cover
Species
1 [85%] * BETPAP,
POPTRE, PICGLA
(PICSIT / PICLUT)
75%, 10% VACOVA, VIBEDU,
VACVIT,EMPNIG,
SPIBEA
Graminoids,
GEOLIV,CHAANG,
VIOLAN, GYMDRY,
DRYEXP and Moss species [15%] * Developed
Railroad
2 [55%] * PICGLA
(PICSIT / PICLUT),
BETPAP
90%, 85% SALSPP , EMPNIG,
VACOVA, LINBOR,
ALNSPP
Graminoids,
GEOLIV,CHAANG,
GERERI, GYMDRY,
DRYEXP and Moss species [45%] * Grant Creek
3 [60%] * BETPAP,
PICGLA (PICSIT /
PICLUT)
85%, 50% VIBEDU, ROSACI,
OPLHOR, CORCAN
Graminoids,
PYRASA,STRAMP,
GERERI, GALTRI,
GYMDRY, DRYEXP and
Moss species
[40%] * Grant Creek
4 [100%] * PICGLA
(PICSIT / PICLUT),
BETPAP
10%, 90% MENFER, LEDGRO,
RIBTRI, OPLHOR,
ALNSPP
Graminoids,
TRIARC,CHAANG,
GYMDRY, DRYEXP and
Moss species
5 [70%] * PICGLA
(PICSIT / PICLUT),
BETPAP
85%, 60% MENFER, LINBOR,
VIBEDU, ROSACI,
EMPNIG
Graminoids, PYRASA,
GERERI,CHAANG,
GYMDRY and Moss species
[30%] * PICGLA
(PICSIT / PICLUT)
7%, 100% SALSPP, BETGLA,
VIBEDU, ANDPOL
Graminoids, PYRASA,
COMPAL, ANERIC,
VIOLAN and Moss species
6 [60%] * PICMAR,
BETPAP
10%, 100% SALSPP, BETGLA,
LEDDEC, VACOVA
Graminoids and Moss species
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Table 5.3-5, Continued…
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 142 June 2014
Point
Point Vegetation Type
% of 50m radius and
Type of Upper Story
Tree Species
Upper Story
Trees
(% Canopy
Cover,
% Coniferous)
Mid-story Shrub
Species
Non-woody Plant Cover
Species
[40%] * PICMAR,
BETPAP
85%, 30% MENFER, EMPNIG,
VACVIT, RUBCHA
GEOLIV, CHAANG and
Moss species
7 [50%] * BETPAP,
PICGLA (PICSIT /
PICLUT), POPBAL
65%, 20% VIBEDU, RIBTRI,
OPLHOR, ROSACI
Graminoids, HERLAN,
CHAANG, STRAMP,
PYRASA, GERERI,
GYMDRY, DRYEXP and
Moss species
[50%] * Grant Creek
8 [55%] * TSUMER,
PICMAR, BETPAP
90%, 90% MENFER, SALSPP,
RIBTRI, OPLHOR
Graminoids, CHAANG,
STRAMP, GYMDRY,
DRYEXP CLASPP and Moss
species
[45%] * PICMAR,
BETPAP
65%, 70% MENFER, RIBTRI,
RUBARC, VACOVA
Graminoids, CHAANG,
GYMDRY and Moss species
9 [100%] * BETPAP,
PICGLA
(PICSIT/PICLUT)
85%, 45% MENFER, CORCAN,
OPLHOR, RUBARC
Graminoids, PYRASA,
CHAANG, GYMDRY,
DRYEXP and Moss species
10 [100%] * TSUMER,
PICGLA (PICSIT /
PICLUT)
92%, 99% MENFER, VACOVA,
VACVIT, EMPNIG
GEOLIV, GYMDRY,
PELBRI and Moss species
11 [100%] * TSUMER,
PICGLA (PICSIT /
PICLUT), BETPAP
92%, 99% MENFER, OPLHOR,
VACOVA, RUBARC,
ALNSPP
GEOLIV, GYMDRY,
PELBRI and Moss species
12 [100%] * TSUMER,
PICGLA (PICSIT /
PICLUT)
87%, 99% MENFER, CORCAN,
VACVIT, EMPNIG,
ALNSPP
Graminoids and Moss species
13 [30%] * PICGLA
(PICSIT / PICLUT)
50%, 5% ROSACI, VACOVA,
RIBTRI, VACVIT,
ALNSPP
Graminoids, VIOLAN,
GYMDRY and Moss species
[20%] * PICGLA
(PICSIT / PICLUT)
15%, 5% VIBEDU, ROSACI,
SALSPP, VACOVA,
ALNSPP
Graminoids, VIOSPP,
COMPAL and GYMDRY
[50%] * Grant Lake
14 [50%] * TSUMER,
PICGLA (PICSIT /
PICLUT)
85%, 100% BETNAN, LEDDEC,
EMPNIG, VACOVA
Graminoids and Moss species
[50%] * Grant Creek
Additional 2013 Incidentals – Species that were observed incidentally during the 2013 field
season include: Black-capped chickadee, boreal chickadee, brown creeper, belted kingfisher,
spruce grouse, spotted sandpiper, violet-green swallow, common raven, alder flycatcher, tree
swallow (Tachycineta bicolor), gray jay, and Arctic tern (Sterna paradisaea).
Compilation of Results - Compilation of site specific data (Ebasco 1984, 2010 field work, and
2013 field work) and the documented species list from the Kenai Lake-Black Mountain Research
Natural Area (RNA) (2007) (4 miles to the southwest of the Project area) provided sufficient
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 143 June 2014
information for an assessment of presence / absence of breeding birds in the immediate
surrounding area. Observed species in the Kenai Lake-Black Mountain RNA include all species
detected during the site specific Grant Lake studies, except for the Northern harrier, ptarmigan
(Lagopus sp.), green sandpiper (Tringa ochropus), Northern shrike (Lanius excubitor), and
savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis) (USFWS 2008).
Breeding bird presence in the Project area is contingent on many variables including habitat.
Habitat includes vegetation as well as landform characteristics important to specific species.
Bird species utilize forested and non-forested vegetation communities differently depending on
nesting, cover, and foraging requirements. Landform characteristics important to species include
elevation, slope, aspect, and rock ledges. Avifauna habitat types were developed by Kessel
(1979) and utilized by Ebasco (1984). Ebasco (1984) correlated the avian breeding habitat types
developed by Kessel (1979) to the general vegetation classifications developed for their study
(see Table 5.3-6).
Table 5.3-6. Comparison of avifauna breeding habitat types (Kessel 1979) to vegetation classifications
(Ebasco 1984).
Avifauna Habitat Types
EBASCO (1984)
Vegetation Classifications Lacustrine Waters and Shorelines Riverine Waters and Shorelines Cliffs, Cutbanks, and Block Fields Wet Meadow Dwarf Shrub Meadow Dwarf Shrub Mat Low Shrub Thicket Medium Shrub Thicket Tall Shrub Thicket Deciduous Forest Coniferous Forest Mixed Deciduous-Coniferous Forest Scattered Woodland and Dwarf Forest Conifer Forest X X X X X X X
Broadleaf Forest X X X X
Mixed Broadleaf / Needleleaf
Forest
X X X X X X
Riparian Scrub X X X X X
Upland Scrub X X X
Grass / Forbe Meadow X X
Bog (Wet meadow) X X X X X X
Alpine Tundra X X X X
Barren X
For this report, all site-specific bird data has been incorporated into the Ebasco (1984) table
format to include species detected during each site-specific study and their primary breeding
habitats as described by Kessel (1979) (see Table 5.3-7).
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 144 June 2014
[This page intentionally left blank]
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 145 June 2014
Table 5.3-7. Bird species and breeding habitats in the 2013 wildlife study area1.
Species Potentially Occurring in the
Project Area Observed or Reported During 2013 Field Season Observed During 2010 Field Season Observed During 1981-82 AEIDC Field Season 2 Known Breeders Inferred Breeders Abundance 3 Lacustrine Waters and Shorelines Riverine Waters and Shorelines Cliffs, Cutbanks, and Block Fields Wet Meadow Dwarf Shrub Meadow Dwarf Shrub Mat Low Shrub Thicket Medium Shrub Thicket Tall Shrub Thicket Deciduous Forest Coniferous Forest Mixed Deciduous-Coniferous Forest Scattered Woodland and Dwarf Forest Migratory Only Red-throated Loon* Gavia stellata R XX X
Pacific Loon Gavia pacifica X X X U XX X
Common Loon Gavia immer X X X FC XX X
Yellow-billed
Loon*
Gavia adamsii R X
Horned Grebe Podiceps
auritus
U XX X
Red-necked Grebe Podiceps
grisegena
R XX X
Tundra Swan Cygnus
columbianus
R X
Trumpeter Swan*** Cygnus
buccinator
X U X XX X
Greater White-
fronted Goose*
Anser albifrons U X
Canada Goose Branta
canadensis
X U X X XX
Mallard Anas
platyrhynchos
X X X C XX X X X
Gadwall Anas strepera R X
Green-winged Teal Anas crecca X X U XX
American Widgeon Anas americana X X U X XX X
Northern Pintail Anas acuta FC XX X X
Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata C X
Blue-wing Teal Anas discors R X XX X
Canvasback Aythya
valisineria
R X
Greater Scaup Aythya marila R XX
Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis X U X XX
Harlequin Duck Histrionicus
histrionicus
X X X X R XX XX XX
Common
Goldeneye
Bucephala
clangula
X X X FC X X XX
Barrows Goldeneye Bucephala
islandica
X X X FC X X XX
Bufflehead Bucephala
albeola
U X X XX
Common
Merganser
Mergus
merganser
X X X C X X XX
Red-breasted
Merganser
Mergus serrator X X X FC X X X X
Osprey*** Pandion
haliaetus
X R XX X X
Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus R XX X
Golden Eagle Aquila
chrysaetos
X X C XX X
Bald Eagle*** Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
X X X FC XX X X
Sharp-shinned
Hawk
Accipiter
striatus
X C X XX X
Northern
Goshawk***
Accipiter
gentilis
X X U X X XX
Red-tailed Hawk Buteo
jamaicensis
U X X X X X
Rough-legged
Hawk
Buteo lagopus U XX
American Kestrel Falco
sparverius
X R X X XX
Merlin Falco
columbarius
X R X X X XX
Peregrine Falcon Falco
peregrinus
R XX
Spruce Grouse Falcipennis
canadensis
X X X FC X XX
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Table 5.3-7, continued…
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 146 June 2014
Species Potentially Occurring in the
Project Area Observed or Reported During 2013 Field Season Observed During 2010 Field Season Observed During 1981-82 AEIDC Field Season 2 Known Breeders Inferred Breeders Abundance 3 Lacustrine Waters and Shorelines Riverine Waters and Shorelines Cliffs, Cutbanks, and Block Fields Wet Meadow Dwarf Shrub Meadow Dwarf Shrub Mat Low Shrub Thicket Medium Shrub Thicket Tall Shrub Thicket Deciduous Forest Coniferous Forest Mixed Deciduous-Coniferous Forest Scattered Woodland and Dwarf Forest Migratory Only Willow Ptarmigan Lagopus
lagopus
X X C X XX X
Rock Ptarmigan Lagopus muta X X C XX X
White-tailed
Ptarmigan
Lagopus
leucura
U XX X
Sandhill Crane Grus
canadensis
X R XX X
Black-bellied
Plover
Pluvialis
squatarola
U X XX
Semipalmated
Plover
Charadrius
semipalmatus
U XX XX
Greater Yellowlegs Tringa
melanoleuca
X X X C X XX
Lesser Yellowlegs* Tringa flavipes X X C XX
Wandering Tattler* Tringa incana X U X XX
Solitary Sandpiper* Tringa solitaria X X U X XX
Spotted Sandpiper Actitis
macularius
X X X X FC XX XX X X
Whimbrel Numenius
phaeopus
R XX X X
Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri U X
Least Sandpiper Calidris
minutilla
U XX X
Short-billed
Dowitcher
Limnodromus
griseus
U XX X X
Wilson's Snipe Gallinago
delicata
X X X X FC X XX
Red-necked
Phalarope
Phalaropus
lobatus
U XX X
Bonaparte's Gull Chroicocephalu
s philadelphia
R X X
Mew Gull Larus canus X X U X XX
Herring Gull Larus
argentatus
X R X XX X
Glaucous-winged
Gull
Larus
glaucescens
X U XX
Arctic Tern Sterna
paradisaea
X FC XX X
Kittlitz's Murrelet* Brachyramphus
brevirostris
R X
Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus R XX X X
Great Horned Owl Bubo
virginianus
U X X X X
Great Gray Owl Strix nebulosa U X XX X
Northern Saw-whet
Owl
Aegolius
acadicus
U X XX X
Northern Hawk Owl Surnia ulula U X X XX
Boreal Owl Aegolius
funereus
U XX X
Rufous
Hummingbird
Selasphorus
rufus
U X XX
Belted Kingfisher Megaceryle
alcyon
X X X X C XX
Northern Flicker Colaptes
auratus
X U XX X X
Downy Woodpecker Picoides
pubescens
R XX X X
Hairy Woodpecker Picoides
villosus
X X X U XX X X
American Three-
toed Woodpecker
Picoides
dorsalis
X X X FC XX X
Olive-sided
Flycatcher*
Contopus
cooperi
X U XX X X
Western Wood-
pewee
Contopus
sordidulus
X U XX X X
Alder Flycatcher Empidonax
alnorum
X X X FC X XX X X
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Table 5.3-7, continued…
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 147 June 2014
Species Potentially Occurring in the
Project Area Observed or Reported During 2013 Field Season Observed During 2010 Field Season Observed During 1981-82 AEIDC Field Season 2 Known Breeders Inferred Breeders Abundance 3 Lacustrine Waters and Shorelines Riverine Waters and Shorelines Cliffs, Cutbanks, and Block Fields Wet Meadow Dwarf Shrub Meadow Dwarf Shrub Mat Low Shrub Thicket Medium Shrub Thicket Tall Shrub Thicket Deciduous Forest Coniferous Forest Mixed Deciduous-Coniferous Forest Scattered Woodland and Dwarf Forest Migratory Only Willow Flycatcher Empidonax
traillii
X X FC X XX X X
Say's phoebe Sayornis saya R X
Northern Shrike Lanius
excubitor
X U X X X
X
X X X X
Steller's Jay Cyanocitta
stelleri
X X U XX X
Gray Jay Perisoreus
canadensis
X X X C X XX X X
Black-billed Magpie Pica hudsonia X X C X
X
XX X X
Northwestern Crow Corvus caurinus C X
Common Raven Corvus corax X X X C X X X X
Tree Swallow Tachycineta
bicolor
X X A
X X X X
Violet-green
Swallow
Tachycineta
thalassina
X X X X A X X X X X
Bank Swallow Riparia riparia X X C XX
Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon
pyrrhonota
U XX
Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica R X X X X XX
Black-capped
Chickadee
Poecile
atricapillus
X X X X A X XX X X
Chestnut-backed
Chickadee
Poecile
rufescens
X X FC X XX X
Boreal Chickadee Poecile
hudsonicus
X X FC X X XX X
Red-breasted
Nuthatch
Sitta
canadensis
R X XX X
Brown Creeper Certhia
americana
X X U X XX X
Pacific Wren Troglodytes
pacificus
X U X X X
American Dipper Cinclus
mexicanus
X X X X A XX
Golden-crowned
Kinglet
Regulus satrapa X U XX X
Ruby-crowned
Kinglet
Regulus
calendula
X X X X A XX X
Gray-cheeked
Thrush
Catharus
minimus
X X X R XX X X
Swainson's Thrush Catharus
ustulatus
X X X X FC X
X
XX X X
Hermit Thrush Catharus
guttatus
X X X X C X X XX X X
Varied Thrush* Ixoreus naevius X X X X C X XX X X
American Robin Turdus
migratorius
X X X X C X XX X X
American Pipit Anthus
rubescens
X X C X XX
Bohemian Waxwing Bombycilla
garrulus
X X U XX X X
Orange-crowned
Warbler
Oreothlypis
celata
X X X X C X XX X
Yellow-rumped
Warbler
Setophaga
coronata
X X X X A XX X
Townsend's
Warbler***
Setophaga
townsendi
X X X X A X XX X
Blackpoll Warbler* Setophaga
striata
U XX X
Yellow Warbler Setophaga
petechia
X X X X C X X X
X
Wilson's Warbler Cardellina
pusilla
X X X X A X XX X
Northern
Waterthrush
Parkesia
noveboracensis
X X FC X X XX X
American Tree
Sparrow
Spizella arborea X X FC X X XX
Fox Sparrow Passerella X X X U XX X X
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Table 5.3-7, continued…
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 148 June 2014
Species Potentially Occurring in the
Project Area Observed or Reported During 2013 Field Season Observed During 2010 Field Season Observed During 1981-82 AEIDC Field Season 2 Known Breeders Inferred Breeders Abundance 3 Lacustrine Waters and Shorelines Riverine Waters and Shorelines Cliffs, Cutbanks, and Block Fields Wet Meadow Dwarf Shrub Meadow Dwarf Shrub Mat Low Shrub Thicket Medium Shrub Thicket Tall Shrub Thicket Deciduous Forest Coniferous Forest Mixed Deciduous-Coniferous Forest Scattered Woodland and Dwarf Forest Migratory Only iliaca
Savannah Sparrow Passerculus
sandwichensis
X X C XX X X X
Lincoln's Sparrow Melospiza
lincolnii
X X U X XX X
Song Sparrow Melospiza
melodia
X U XX X
White-crowned
Sparrow
Zonotrichia
leucophrys
X X X C XX X X X
Golden-crowned
Sparrow
Zonotrichia
atricapilla
X X X X A X XX X X
Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis X X X X FC XX X
Lapland Longspur Calcarius
lapponicus
U X XX
Snow Bunting Plectrophenax
nivalis
U X
Gray-crowned Rosy
Finch
Leucosticte
tephrocotis
X FC XX
White-winged
Crossbill
Loxia
leucoptera
X U XX X
Pine Grosbeak Pinicola
enucleator
X X X X C XX X
Pine Siskin Spinus pinus X X U XX X
Hoary Redpoll Acanthis
hornemanni
U XX X X
Common Redpoll Acanthis
flammea
X C XX X X X X X
Redpoll Species Acanthis sp. X C XX X X X X X
Notes:
A - Abundant
C - Common
FC - Fairly common
U - Uncommon
R - Rare
XX – Primary breeding habitat
X - Secondary breeding habitat
(I) - Habitat types follow Kessel 1979
(2) - As reported in Ebasco 1984
(3) - Abundance categories follow U.S. Forest Service unpublished. Applies to study area only
* - Alaska Audubon's Red-listed Species (2010)
*** - USFS Sensitive Species or Species of Special Interest (USFS 2008)
Sources:
Ebasco 1984
Kessel 1979
Ehrlich et al. 1988
Gabrielson and Lincoln 1959
U.S. Forest Service unpublished.
Tarres 1980
Bellrose 1980
Kortright 1967
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 149 June 2014
The Project area previously described by the USFS cover class was updated in 2013. All
reclassified vegetation is defined and discussed in Section 3 and Section 4 and summarized in
Table 5.2-1. The assessment of the 2013 breeding bird point vegetation data indicates the
following: Five breeding bird points sampled in 2013 matched closely to the 2013 vegetation
classifications; three points did not, and the final six sites shared attributes with the 2013
vegetation classifications. Also, distinct differences existed between the reported shrub and
understory communities. Reasons for differences are attributed to the sampling methods for
ALMS points.
Table 5.3-8 provides the 2013 vegetation types, the number of points that fell into each class, and
the bird species detected in each class. The reader should keep in mind that the birch category is
retained from the USFS (2007) cover class and was not located within the 2013 study area.
Utilizing the species and the general point vegetation information collated from the 33 points
(2010 and 2013), qualitative extrapolation may suggest that the non-sampled identical vegetation
classes in the study area will have similar species. Appendix 3c contains further information on
vegetation classes.
Table 5.3-8. Qualitative assessment of avian species presence in sampled 2013 wildlife study area by
vegetation type.
2013 Vegetation Types
Grass-
Forb
Meadow
Coniferous
Forest
Birch
(Original
USFS
Classification)
Coniferous
Deciduous
Forest
Scrub
Shrub
Wetland
Herbaceous
Wetland /
Floodplain
Forest &
Scrub
Number of points in
Vegetation Class 1 16 1 12 2 1
Species Detected
Alder Flycatcher X
American Dipper X X X
American Robin X X
American Tree Sparrow X
Bald Eagle X
Barrow’s Goldeneye X X
Black-billed Magpie X
Black-capped Chickadee X
Boreal Chickadee X X
Brown Creeper X X
Chestnut-backed Chickadee X X
Common Loon X
Dark-eyed Junco X X X X
Fox Sparrow X X X
Glaucous-winged Gull X
Golden-crowned Kinglet X
Golden-crowned Sparrow X
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Table 5.3-8, continued…
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 150 June 2014
2013 Vegetation Types
Grass-
Forb
Meadow
Coniferous
Forest
Birch
(Original
USFS
Classification)
Coniferous
Deciduous
Forest
Scrub
Shrub
Wetland
Herbaceous
Wetland /
Floodplain
Forest &
Scrub
Number of points in
Vegetation Class 1 16 1 12 2 1
Species Detected
Gray Jay X
Greater Yellowlegs X
Hairy Woodpecker X
Hermit Thrush X X X X X
Lincoln's Sparrow X
Merganser Species X
Merlin X
Mew Gull X
Northern Waterthrush X
Orange-crowned Warbler X X X X X
Pacific Wren X
Pine Grosbeak X X
Pine Siskin X X X
Red-breasted Merganser X X
Redpoll Species X X X
Ruby-crowned Kinglet X X X X X
Sandhill Crane X
Swainson's Thrush X X X X
Townsend's Warbler X X X
Varied Thrush X X X X X X
White-winged Crossbill X X X
Wilson's Snipe X
Wilson's Warbler X X X X
Yellow Warbler X X X X
Yellow-rumped Warbler X X X X
Additional Species that may be
Present in 2013 Vegetation Class
Alder Flycatcher X X X X X
American Dipper X X X
American Pipit X X
American Robin X X X
American Three-toed
Woodpecker X X X
American Tree Sparrow X X X X X
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Table 5.3-8, continued…
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 151 June 2014
2013 Vegetation Types
Grass-
Forb
Meadow
Coniferous
Forest
Birch
(Original
USFS
Classification)
Coniferous
Deciduous
Forest
Scrub
Shrub
Wetland
Herbaceous
Wetland /
Floodplain
Forest &
Scrub
Number of points in
Vegetation Class 1 16 1 12 2 1
Species Detected
Arctic Tern X X
Black-billed Magpie X X X X
Black-capped Chickadee X X X X
Bohemian Waxwing X X X
Boreal Chickadee X X X
Brown Creeper X X
Chestnut-backed Chickadee X X
Common Raven X X X X
Common Redpoll X X X X
Fox Sparrow X X X
Golden-crowned Kinglet X X
Golden-crowned Sparrow X X X X
Gray-cheeked Thrush X X X X X
Gray Jay X X X
Greater Yellowlegs X
Hairy Woodpecker X X X
Hermit Thrush X
Herring Gull X X X X X
Lesser Yellowlegs X X
Lincoln's Sparrow X X X
Mew Gull X X
Northern Flicker X X X X
Northern Shrike X X X X X
Northern Waterthrush X X X X
Olive-sided Flycatcher X X X
Orange-crowned Warbler X
Pacific Wren X X X
Pine Grosbeak X X
Redpoll Species X X
Rock Ptarmigan X X
Sandhill Crane X X
Savannah Sparrow X X X X
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Table 5.3-8, continued…
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 152 June 2014
2013 Vegetation Types
Grass-
Forb
Meadow
Coniferous
Forest
Birch
(Original
USFS
Classification)
Coniferous
Deciduous
Forest
Scrub
Shrub
Wetland
Herbaceous
Wetland /
Floodplain
Forest &
Scrub
Number of points in
Vegetation Class 1 16 1 12 2 1
Species Detected
Solitary Sandpiper X X
Song Sparrow X X
Spotted Sandpiper X X X X X
Spruce Grouse X X X
Steller's Jay X X X
Swainson's Thrush X
Townsend's Warbler X X
Tree Swallow X X X X
Violet-green Swallow X X X X
Wandering Tattler X X X X X
Western Wood-pewee X X X
White-crowned Sparrow X X X X X
White-winged Crossbill X
Willow Flycatcher X X X X X
Willow Ptarmigan X X X X
Wilson's Snipe X X
Wilson's Warbler X X
Yellow Warbler X X X
Yellow-rumped Warbler X
Vegetation classes not sampled include: Alder Scrub, Forested Wetland, and Herbaceous
Wetland. Table 5.3-9 qualitatively evaluates the species most likely found in these habitats
based on Kessel (1979) and the descriptions for these habitats provided in Section 3 and
Section 4.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 153 June 2014
Table 5.3-9. Qualitative assessment of avian species presence in non-sampled Project area by vegetation
type.
Species that may be Present in
2013 Vegetation Types Alder Scrub Forested Wetland Herbaceous Wetland
Alder Flycatcher X X X
American Dipper X
American Pipit X X
American Robin X
American Three-toed Woodpecker X X
American Tree Sparrow X X
Arctic Tern X X
Black-billed Magpie X X
Black-capped Chickadee X
Bohemian Waxwing X X
Boreal Chickadee X
Brown Creeper X
Chestnut-backed Chickadee X
Common Raven X X
Common Redpoll X
Dark-eyed Junco X X
Fox Sparrow X
Golden-crowned Kinglet X
Golden-crowned Sparrow X
Gray Jay X X
Gray-cheeked Thrush X X
Greater Yellowlegs X
Hairy Woodpecker X X
Hermit Thrush X X
Herring Gull X
Lesser Yellowlegs X X
Lincoln's Sparrow X X
Mew Gull X
Northern Flicker X X X
Northern Shrike X X
Northern Waterthrush X
Olive-sided Flycatcher X
Orange-crowned Warbler X
Pacific Wren X
Pine Grosbeak X
Pine Siskin X X
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Table 5.3-9, continued…
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 154 June 2014
Species that may be Present in
2013 Vegetation Types Alder Scrub Forested Wetland Herbaceous Wetland
Redpoll Species X
Ruby-crowned Kinglet X X
Sandhill Crane X X
Savannah Sparrow X X
Solitary Sandpiper X X
Song Sparrow X X X
Spotted Sandpiper X
Spruce Grouse X
Steller's Jay X X
Swainson's Thrush X X
Townsend's Warbler X
Tree Swallow X X
Varied Thrush X
Violet-green Swallow X X X
Wandering Tattler X
Western Wood-pewee X X
White-crowned Sparrow X
White-winged Crossbill X X
Willow Flycatcher X
Willow Ptarmigan X X
Wilson's Snipe X
Wilson's Warbler X
Yellow Warbler X
Yellow-rumped Warbler
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 155 June 2014
5.3.4. USFS Sensitive Species and Species of Special Interest
Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus): A USFS species of special interest, this
medium sized seabird is documented to inhabit inland freshwater lakes and nest in inland areas
of old-growth conifer forest or on the ground (Carter and Sealy 1986; Marshall 1988). Marbled
murrelets have not been observed in the Grant Lake area. Murrelets are known to select mature
or old growth conifers for nesting, and this habitat is found within the area in mature hemlock
and spruce-hemlock forests.
Townsend’s Warbler: A USFS species of special interest, this species is found throughout
forested locations on the Kenai and Seward Ranger District (USFS 2008). They are associated
with older, mature spruce and hemlock forests and are not found as often in young coniferous or
hardwood forests. Seward Ranger District Breeding Bird surveys indicate that Townsend’s
warblers are found in higher numbers in older spruce and hemlock forests, and that they have
declined in numbers between 1994 and 2000 (Prosser 2002). Townsend’s warblers were
detected during the Ebasco (1984), 2010, and 2013 Grant Lake surveys and their habitat occurs
throughout forested sections of this area, in mature hemlock and spruce-hemlock forests.
Audubon’s Red-Listed Species - The Alaska WatchList is Audubon Alaska’s science-based, early
warning system to identify bird species at risk. It is a tool to focus attention and resources on
vulnerable and declining bird populations across the state. Species and subspecies on the
WatchList face some combination of population decline, small population size, or limited
geographic range. The Red List has the highest level of concern: species are vulnerable and
currently declining, or depressed from a prior decline. The species listed below are identified on
the Alaska WatchList.
Varied Thrush: This species is found in spruce forests, deciduous (balsam poplar and dense alder
stands), and mixed forests (Kessel 1989; Kessel 1998; George 2000). Shrub understory appears
important to breeding; shady, mossy forests, deciduous shrub, dense alder thickets, and isolated
cottonwood patches are all apparently preferred habitat (Kessel 1998). Varied thrushes were
detected during the Ebasco (1984), 2010, and 2013 Grant Lake surveys and their habitat occurs
throughout forested sections of this area.
Lesser Yellowlegs: Breeds in muskegs and freshwater marshes in open boreal forests and forest /
tundra transition habitats. Nesting habitat is typically a combination of shallow wetlands, trees,
shrubs, and open water. The species will forage in boreal forest wetlands (Tibbitts and Moskoff
1999). Lesser yellowlegs were only detected during the Ebasco (1984) surveys and their habitat
occurs throughout sections of this area.
Wandering Tattler: Mostly restricted to the alpine zone, this species usually breeds along rocky
or scrubby vegetated edges of mountain streams and lakes; frequents rapidly-flowing streams
and tundra habitats, wet meadows, moraine deposits, scree slopes, braided rivers, and is
sometimes found in forest clearings away from water. These birds often nest on the ground in a
rocky or gravelly site (Weeden 1965; Johnsgard 1981; Weeden 1959). Nests have also been
observed in dwarf shrub tundra near streams or lakes (Spindler et al. 1980; Gill et al. 2002).
Wandering tattlers were detected during the Ebasco (1984) surveys; however, their habitat does
not likely occur in the study area.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 156 June 2014
Solitary Sandpiper: This species nests in wooded wetlands in muskeg bogs, spruce forests, and
deciduous riparian woodlands (Moskoff 1995) and, occasionally, riparian tall shrub thickets
(Spindler and Kessel 1980; McCaffery and Harwood 2004). More specifically, on the Kenai
Peninsula, this sandpiper is closely associated with wet forest gaps 10 to 20 meters (~11 to 22
yards) wide (Collins et al. 1999). Solitary sandpipers were only detected during the 2010
surveys and their habitat likely occurs in the study area.
Kittlitz’s Murrelet: A ground nesting species with nests constructed on barren scree slopes, a
short distance below a peak or ridge (Day et al. 1983; Day 1995; Piatt et al. 1999). Breeding
generally occurs in high elevation alpine areas, with little or no vegetative cover. When present,
vegetation is primarily comprised of lichens and mosses (Day et al. 1983). Kittlitz’s murrelets
have not been observed in the Grant Lake area and their habitat does not likely occur in the study
area.
Olive-sided Flycatcher: The species shows a preference for forest edges, including harvested
areas and open canopied forested habitats where forests are naturally open or semi-open. This
species, although considered an indicator for coniferous forests, is also found in mixed deciduous
/ coniferous forests. Further, this species is associated with openings and water (e.g., bogs,
wetlands) and dead standing trees, and is closely associated with recently burned areas (Wright
1997). Olive-sided flycatchers were detected during the 2010 surveys and their habitat likely
occurs in the study area.
Blackpoll warbler: This species is found predominantly along rivers, streams, or bogs in mixed
or coniferous forests and tall shrub thickets (especially Salix alaxensis and Alnus incana) with
mixed spruce-paper birch overstory ([Betula papyrifera] Gabrielson and Lincoln 1959; Kessel
1989; McCaffery 1996; Kessel 1998; Cotter and Andres 2000). These species will also inhabit
riparian areas and ecotones between treeline alpine tundra (Kessel 1998; Kessel and Gibson
1978). Blackpoll warblers have not been observed in the Grant Lake area; however, their habitat
does occur in the study area.
5.3.5. Waterbirds
Ducks can be categorized as either "puddle ducks" or "diving ducks." Puddle ducks frequent
shallow water areas such as marshes, ponds, and creeks and nest on adjacent dry uplands. Puddle
ducks generally feed in shallow water on the seeds and tubers of aquatic plants, grass, and
insects. Mallards, pintails, American widgeons, Northern shovelers, and green–winged teals are
common Alaskan puddle ducks. Diving ducks, mergansers, and loons are primarily observed on
the larger and deeper ponds, lakes, and rivers. Some species nest in tree cavities while others nest
over water among aquatic emergent plants or along the shore lines. Goldeneyes, buffleheads,
common loons, and red-breasted mergansers are common in Alaska and feed by diving for a
variety of aquatic animals and plants.
2010 Waterbird Surveys - A total of four boat-based, intense area searches for waterbird broods
and nesting habitat were conducted on Grant Lake (6/23/2010, 7/9/2010, 7/16/2010, and
7/23/2010). In addition, a foot survey of Grant Creek was conducted on 7/12/2010 to search for
harlequin duck broods and other waterbirds.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 157 June 2014
2010 Waterbird Breeding and Brood-Rearing Surveys – Four Waterbird surveys were conducted
in 2010. Identified species as well as brooding status is provided in Table 5.3-10. Incidental
bird species identified during the surveys included herring gull, solitary sandpiper, and spotted
sandpiper.
2010 Harlequin Duck Survey - No harlequin ducks were detected during the survey on Grant
Creek. Three individual adult American dippers were documented during this survey
Table 5.3-10. 2010 breeding waterbird surveys.
Date Waterfowl Adults Pairs Adult
Females
Adult
Females
+ Young
23-Jun-10 Barrow’s Goldeneye Bucephala islandica 3 0 4 (3 + 5)
Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula 1 0 2 (1 + 7);
(1 + 7)
Goldeneye Species Bucephala sp. 2
Common Loon Gavia immer 2
Common Merganser Mergus merganser 2
Red-breasted
Merganser Mergus serrator 1 5
Merganser Species Mergus sp. 3
Harlequin Duck Histrionicus
histrionicus 1
9-Jul-10 Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula 1 1 2 (1 + 8)
Goldeneye Species Bucephala sp. 1
Common Loon Gavia immer 1 1
Common Merganser Mergus merganser 2
16-Jul-10
Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula 4 9
(1 + 3);
(1 + 6);
(2 + 3)
Common Loon Gavia immer 1
Red-breasted
Merganser Mergus serrator 3
(1 + 1);
(1 + 1);
(1 + 8);
(1 + 9)
Harlequin Duck Histrionicus
histrionicus 1
23-Jul-10 Barrow’s Goldeneye Bucephala islandica (1 + 6)
Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula 1
(1 + 3);
(1+5)
Goldeneye Species Bucephala sp. 7
Common Loon Gavia immer 4
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Table 5.3-10, continued…
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 158 June 2014
Date Waterfowl Adults Pairs Adult
Females
Adult
Females
+ Young
Pacific Loon Gavia pacifica 1
Red-breasted
Merganser Mergus serrator 1
Merganser Species Mergus sp. 6
Harlequin Duck Histrionicus
histrionicus 1
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 1
2013 Winter Waterbird Surveys - Winter Waterbird surveys are scheduled for December 2013
(completed) and February/March 2014 and will verify whether the outlet of Grant Lake,
purportedly ice-free throughout the winter, affords winter habitat and is utilized by waterbirds.
This area was documented as a winter feeding area for a flock of mallards during the 1981-1982
field studies (Ebasco 1984). Open water habitat that supports waterbirds in the Seward Ranger
District is limited during the winter (Benoit 2009).
Additional 2013 Incidentals – A pair of common loons were observed daily by the wetland crew
during field work in various locations on Grant Lake in July 2013. A female merganser and
brood were also seen during this time on Grant Lake. A female red-breasted merganser and a
brood of nine chicks were documented in June 2013 along the shoreline above the Trail Lake
narrows (defined as the section of water between the Upper Trail and Lower Trail lakes). A
harlequin duck female was also recorded in June on Grant Creek just above the Trail Lake
narrows.
Trumpeter swans were detected on March 3, 2013, on the east side of Lower Trail Lake. It is
purported that these birds over winter in this area. Apparently the location remains ice-free due
to the high pressure of water flow through the Trail Lake narrows.
Compilation of Results - The 2010 data provided information on seven species of waterfowl on
Grant Lake (see Table 5.3-10). Ebasco (1984) reported two additional species of waterfowl,
American widgeon and green-winged teal. Barrow’s and common goldeneye species as well as
red-breasted mergansers were also observed with broods. All three species are considered diving
ducks and feed primarily on aquatic invertebrates (goldeneyes) and crustaceans and fish
(merganser). Ebasco (1984) documented the availability of the following aquatic food resources
for diving ducks: Diptera, Plecoptera, Tricoptera, Bivalvia, Gastropoda and Gammaridae. Prey
concentrations and availability appear to sustain reproduction and brood rearing on Grant Lake.
Both goldeneye species are cavity nesters. Presence and availability of nest sites are a natural
limiting factor. Females will often return to the same nest if reproduction is successful in
previous years. The red-breasted merganser is a ground nester, and habitat for nest selection
may not be as limited for this waterbird species in the Grant Lake area.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 159 June 2014
There is suitable habitat available for ground-nesting ducks including the for-mentioned puddle
ducks in certain areas of Grant Lake. Winter Waterbird surveys will delineate any use of the
area by non-migratory waterfowl.
5.3.6. USFS Sensitive Species and Species of Special Interest
Trumpeter Swan: A USFS sensitive species prefers large ponds, lakes, and marshes; constructing
massive nest mounds in areas of reeds, sedges, or similar emergent vegetation, primarily on
stationary fresh waterbodies (Mitchell 1994). Swans are considered shy waterfowl easily
disturbed during nesting; however, once cygnets are mobile, adults become very protective.
Trumpeter swans were observed north of the Grant Lake study area during USFS surveys (2008);
however, no nests or cygnets were observed during these USFS (2008) surveys. Trumpeters
were also sighted during spring 2013 below the Trail Lake narrows; however, they were not re-
sighted during summer field work. Suitable habitat likely occurs in the wildlife study area.
5.3.6.1. Audubon’s Red-Listed Species
Red-throated Loon: This species will typically select marshy islands for nest sites or on dry
shores. They will nest on small oligotrophic lakes in diverse habitats, such as forests or tundra up
to 1,070 meters (~3,510 feet) in elevation. The availability of freshwater fish limits this species’
distribution (Soper 1946; Palmer 1962; Davis 1972; Bundy 1976; Bergman and Derksen 1977;
Cramp and Simmons 1977; Merrie 1978; Derksen et al. 1981; Furness 1983; Reimchen and
Douglas 1984; Johnsgard 1987; Douglas and Reimchen 1988; Eberl and Picman 1993; Barr et al.
2000). Red-throated loons have not been observed in the Grant Lake area however their nesting
habitat does occur in the study area.
Yellow-billed Loon and Greater White-fronted Goose: Both species are considered non-breeders
in this area and warrant no further discussion as their primary breeding habitats also do not occur
in this area.
5.3.7. Terrestrial Mammals
Terrestrial mammals in the Project area have specific habitat requirements including: 1) cover
(shelter) from weather and predators; 2) food and water for nourishment; and 3) space to obtain
food, water, and to attract a mate. Moose use cover for shelter against weather and predators.
Thermal cover is used to help moose control their body temperature, especially during extreme
weather and temperatures in the summer and winter. Wildlife diet selection is driven by the
quantity and quality of available food in concert with the nutritional needs of the animal. Food
availability to a predator equates to prey availability. Carnivores may expend a large amount of
energy in searching for, chasing, capturing, and killing their food. Herbivores or plant eaters
may become nutritionally stressed by a lack or shortage of food (quantity) or by a lack of highly
nutritious food (quality). Although woods and meadows may look green and be covered with
lush plants, this does not mean moose and other herbivores have adequate food.
Each wildlife species requires a certain amount of space to avoid or escape potential predators,
locate a mate, obtain sufficient food and water for survival, and rest. Space requirements protect
behavioral and social responses that ensure an animal’s well-being. Wildlife space requirements
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 160 June 2014
vary by species, but, generally, the amount of space required is determined by the quantity and
quality of food, cover, and water (habitat) found in an area. Other factors affecting space needs
of wildlife include how large the animal is (larger animals require more space); the animal’s
dietary preferences (carnivores generally require more space than herbivores); and how well the
animal can withstand crowded conditions. Space requirements (as a function of habitat quantity
and quality) essentially determine the carrying capacity of the site for wildlife.
2010 Terrestrial Mammal Surveys - The following species were included in the 2010 Terrestrial
Mammal surveys:
Bear: The USFS provided one brown bear den location collected in 2008 (see Figure 5.3-2).
Three sightings of black bears and one sighting of a brown bear were noted as incidentals during
the 2010 field season. The coordinates were not provided. No other field work was conducted
in 2010 to document bear den locations. Denning surveys are considered complete, as stipulated
in the Study Plan.
Mountain Goat and Dall Sheep: Six mountain goats (5 adults, 1 kid) were noted during the
Waterbird Nesting Survey on July 23, 2010. The coordinates were not provided. This survey is
considered complete, as stipulated in the Study Plan.
Bats: The survey was conducted on July 23, 2010, at an abandoned historic cabin near the inlet
of Grant Lake. No bats or any evidence of bats were detected. Bat surveys are considered
complete, as stipulated in the Study Plan.
Additional 2010 Incidentals – A moose, three beaver, a coyote, and a porcupine were all
recorded during the various survey activities in 2010. The coordinates were not provided.
Additional Information – The USFS provided one wolverine den location collected in 2008 and
again in 2010 (see Figure 5.3-2).
2013 – 2014 Terrestrial Mammal Surveys –The following species are included in the 2013 and
2014 Terrestrial Mammal surveys:
Moose: Two Moose surveys are scheduled for the winter 2013-2014, the first was conducted in
December 2013 and the second to be conducted in February/March 2014. Results from these
surveys will be amended to this study report when completed.
Additional 2013 Incidentals – A moose / calf pair were sighted at the Trail Lake narrows area in
June 2013. Various crews from other resource studies reported individual moose sightings along
Grant Creek and Grant Lake. Beaver activity, an active dam, and at least two active lodges, were
reported by crews doing surveys around Grant Lake. Two black bears were sighted in the study
area, one on Grant Creek and the other on Grant Lake. A lynx was observed in the study area on
July 21, 2013. The coordinates were not provided.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 161 June 2014
5.3.7.1. Compilation of Results
Bear: Ebasco (1984) surveyed for the presence of black bears in their defined study area and
reported detecting nine bears during three field surveys. They did not discover activity in the
upper Grant Lake valley.
Important black bear habitat in the study area includes the lower alpine zone near the shrubline,
which is important in July and August for the young, succulent forbs and sedges it produces.
During August and September, salmon present in Grant Creek are sought by black bears.
Because salmon are unavailable in great numbers, bears intermittently forage in the subalpine
zone and on lowland berries at this time. Elderberries, blueberries, rosehips, salmon berries and
low and highbush cranberries are probably utilized heavily.
Likely denning habitat for those black bears residing locally year-round in the Grant Lake area
includes the bench between Grant Lake and Upper Trail and Lower Trail lakes.
On the Kenai Peninsula, the primary limiting factor for brown bear is spring and summer feeding
habitat. Spring and summer habitat includes south-facing hillsides and avalanche chutes, big
game winter ranges, and salmon streams that provide the high quality foods that bears need to
develop fat reserves before denning and to replenish fat stores depleted after denning. Carrion,
berries, and fish sources in the watershed provide a diversity of food sources for bears (USFS
2008). Ebasco (1984) delineated denning habitat for brown bear based on sightings of individual
bears and their sign at the time of den emergence, and on the basis of certain geomorphic and
vegetation characteristics. Three units of potential denning habitat were delineated in this
manner (see Figure 5.3-3).
The USFS (2008) also delineated high value brown bear denning habitat in the more general
Trail River Landscape Assessment (2008) (see Figure 5.3-4). The model predicted the
probability of denning across the landscape. Potential denning habitat is abundant and well
distributed on steep slopes. The identified habitat is most likely to be used by females with cubs
after den emergence, which is also important for foraging (USFS 2008).
Mountain Goat: The 2010 wildlife study field efforts reported sighting six mountain goats
during Waterbird surveys. Ebasco (1984) delineated goat habitat based on assessment of
ADF&G information (see Figure 5.3-5).
The principal area of goat use in the Grant Lake basin is the north side of the lake.
These south-facing slopes are utilized in fall, winter, spring, and into early
summer. Occupied areas reach from alpine benches downslope into stringers of
mountain hemlock. This plant was present in 70 percent of all fecal samples
collected from alpine winter ranges at Grant Lake (Hansen and Archer 1981).
The primary area of interchange between Grant Lake and other subpopulations is
into the Moose Creek drainage to the northeast and across the glacier to the east to
the Kings River-Kings Bay area.
Based on Chugach National Forest GIS data, mountain goat winter range primarily occurs on
south-facing alpine slopes within the Trail River Watershed (USFS 2008). Predictive modeling
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 162 June 2014
delineated mountain goat winter habitat well outside the 2013 wildlife study area
(see Figure 5.3-6).
Dall Sheep: The Grant Lake area is purportedly considered the outer boundary of sheep range on
the Kenai Peninsula covering the entire Grant Lake drainage in several small bands. During the
Ebasco (1984) field studies, sheep were only noted on the northern half of the Grant Lake
drainage, which may be the most favored range (see Figure 5.3-7). Dall sheep habitat does not
likely occur in the study area.
Bat: The little brown Myotis is the only bat found in Interior and South Central Alaska, and has
only been documented in forested regions of Alaska (Parker 1996, Parker et al. 1997). This
species favors old-growth forests and riparian habitats (Parker et al. 1996), and will roost in
building, trees, under rocks and wood, and caves (MacDonald and Cook 1996). Currently, there
is not enough information for this species in Alaska to assess the presence or absence of habitat
in the Project area.
Moose: This species is primarily associated with early to mid-succession habitat and riparian
areas and are dependent on early seral vegetation types including young hardwoods (willow,
birch, aspen, and, to a smaller extent, cottonwoods). Ebasco (1984) delineated moose habitat
based on assessment of ADF&G information (see Figure 5.3-8).
Primary limiting factors for moose in Alaska and the Kenai Peninsula are the availability of
winter range, predation, collision mortality from vehicles and trains (Lottsfeldt-Frost 2000), and
distance between feeding and hiding/ thermal cover (Renecker and Schwartz 1998).
Chugach National Forest GIS data indicated that high-quality habitat is primarily in riparian
areas along the river valleys, but is distributed throughout the Trail River Watershed on all but
the highest elevations (USFS 2008). The ADF&G considers the overall habitat on the Seward
Ranger District to be of low quality and capable of supporting only 2 to 5 moose per square mile.
Predictive modeling of moose winter range is displayed in Figure 5.3-6 (USFS 2008).
Results from the 2013 / 2014 Winter Moose surveys once collected and analyzed, will be
provided to stakeholders for review and collaboration and incorporated into the DLA.
GRANT LAKE TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Figure 5.3-3Major Brown Bear Forage and Denning Habitat (Ebasco 1984)
Developed For:GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - FERC PROJECT NO.13212±OFFICE: 208.342.4214FAX: 208.342.4216
REV DESCRIPTIONBYDATE
DRAWING
ISSUED DATE
CHECKED
DRAWN
DESIGNED
1/8/2014
J. Woodbury
M. Hjortsberg
A. Ajmi1401 SHORELINE DRIVEBOISE, ID 83702
10/20/2013 JW Internal Review
GRANT LAKE TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Figure 5.3-4 Major Brown Bear Forage and Denning Habitat (USFS 2008).
Developed For:GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - FERC PROJECT NO.13212±OFFICE: 208.342.4214FAX: 208.342.4216
REV DESCRIPTIONBYDATE
DRAWING
ISSUED DATE
CHECKED
DRAWN
DESIGNED
1/8/2014
J. Woodbury
M. Hjortsberg
A. Ajmi1401 SHORELINE DRIVEBOISE, ID 83702
10/20/2013 JW Internal Review
GRANT LAKE TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Figure 5.3-5 Mountain Goat Observations in Study Area (Ebasco 1984)
Developed For:GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - FERC PROJECT NO.13212±OFFICE: 208.342.4214FAX: 208.342.4216
REV DESCRIPTIONBYDATE
DRAWING
ISSUED DATE
CHECKED
DRAWN
DESIGNED
1/9/2014
J. Woodbury
M. Hjortsberg
A. Ajmi1401 SHORELINE DRIVEBOISE, ID 83702
10/20/2013 JW Internal Review
GRANT LAKE TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Figure 5.3-6 High Value Brown Bear, Mountain Goat, Moose Habitat, and Moose Winter Range (USFS 2008)
Developed For:GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - FERC PROJECT NO.13212±OFFICE: 208.342.4214FAX: 208.342.4216
REV DESCRIPTIONBYDATE
DRAWING
ISSUED DATE
CHECKED
DRAWN
DESIGNED
1/9/2014
J. Woodbury
M. Hjortsberg
A. Ajmi1401 SHORELINE DRIVEBOISE, ID 83702
10/20/2013 JW Internal Review
GRANT LAKE TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Figure 5.3-7 Dall Sheep Observations on Study Area (Ebasco 1984)
Developed For:GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - FERC PROJECT NO.13212±OFFICE: 208.342.4214FAX: 208.342.4216
REV DESCRIPTIONBYDATE
DRAWING
ISSUED DATE
CHECKED
DRAWN
DESIGNED
1/9/2014
J. Woodbury
M. Hjortsberg
A. Ajmi1401 SHORELINE DRIVEBOISE, ID 83702
10/20/2013 JW Internal Review
GRANT LAKE TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Figure 5.3-8 Moose Range on Study Area (Ebasco 1984)
Developed For:GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - FERC PROJECT NO.13212±OFFICE: 208.342.4214FAX: 208.342.4216
REV DESCRIPTIONBYDATE
DRAWING
ISSUED DATE
CHECKED
DRAWN
DESIGNED
1/9/2014
J. Woodbury
M. Hjortsberg
A. Ajmi1401 SHORELINE DRIVEBOISE, ID 83702
10/20/2013 JW Internal Review
FINAL REPO
Grant Lake
FERC No.
C5.4.
This repo
of the 20
to:
D
av
w
Q
ac
D
sh
C
R
The 2010
waterbird
study are
breeding
area. Th
species in
sheep, m
informati
associate
direct and
the data p
impacts t
Wildlife
is compri
(tempera
of a spec
fulfill the
factor of
wildlife s
Vegetatio
various s
ArcGIS l
of vegeta
resources
General v
compared
correlatin
and use o
section in
ORT
e Hydroelectric
13212
Conclusion
ort provides
10 and 2013
Document pre
void impacts
waterbirds, an
Quantify the
ctivity in the
Document the
horebirds, an
Classify and m
Resources Stu
0 field effort
ds, bear, bea
ea. The 2013
waterbirds,
e Ebasco (19
nformation.
mountain goat
ion regardin
ed with Proje
d indirect im
provided in t
to wildlife sp
presence in
ised of resou
ature, predato
ies. Wildlif
e requiremen
vegetation (
study area.
on character
sources, inclu
layer, and 20
ation classifi
s was necess
vegetation ch
d. More spec
ng all availab
of the 2013 w
ncludes a qu
c Project
ns
the technica
3 wildlife stu
esence and d
s to protecte
nd landbirds
distribution
e study area;
e species com
nd waterbird
map wildlife
udy.
t documented
aver, moose,
3 field effort
breeding rap
984) site-spe
The Ebasco
ts, moose, an
g wildlife re
ect construct
mpacts in the
this report w
pecies and th
the Project a
urces (water,
ors, and com
fe exhibits a
nts necessary
(food and co
ristics utilize
uding the sit
013 field wo
ication varie
sary to discer
haracteristic
cific habitat
ble sources (
wildlife stud
ualitative eva
al summary o
udies. The o
distribution i
d species, in
s of special in
and abundan
mposition of
ds; and
e habitat in th
d presence o
coyote, porc
t documente
ptors, bear, b
ecific study i
o (1984) doc
nd bear. Th
esources in th
tion and oper
e subsections
will be applie
heir habitat.
area is contin
, food, and s
mpetitors) tha
propensity t
y for the con
over) to quali
ed for this qu
te-specific E
rk reported i
s for each so
rn habitat sp
cs (cover typ
characteristi
(see Table 5
dy area is pre
aluation of P
175
of the assess
objectives of
information
ncluding bald
nterest;
nce of target
f avian comm
he study are
of breeding b
cupine, and m
d presence o
beaver, moo
is referred to
cument suppl
e 2013 non-
he Project ar
rational activ
s to follow.
ed to conduc
ngent on ma
shelter) and e
at determine
to occupy tho
ntinuance of
itatively asse
ualitative ass
Ebasco (1984
in Section 3
ource; theref
pecific to the
pe), as define
ics (understo
.2-1). A qua
esented in th
Project impac
sment metho
f the 2010 an
to allow the
d eagles and
t wildlife spe
munities, par
ea in conjunc
birds and sho
mountain go
of breeding b
ose, and lynx
o extensively
lements info
field effort c
rea. In addit
vities are qu
As Project d
ct a quantitat
any variables
environment
the presenc
ose habitats
that species
ess species p
sessment hav
4) report, the
and Section
fore, an amal
e component
ed or mapped
ory species)
alitative asse
e following
cts.
TERRESTRIA
ods, results, a
nd 2013 wild
e Project to m
d other raptor
ecies during
rticularly lan
ction with th
orebirds, bre
oats in the 20
birds and sho
x in the 2013
y to provide
ormation reg
combined all
tion, the pote
ualitatively e
designs are f
tive analysis
s including h
tal requirem
ce, survival, a
that provide
. This sectio
presence and
ve been obta
e USFS (200
n 4 of this rep
lgamation of
ts of the wild
d by each so
were then d
essment of s
section com
AL RESOURCES
Kenai Hydro
June
and conclusi
dlife studies
minimize or
rs, shorebird
key seasons
ndbirds,
he Botanical
eeding
010 wildlife
orebirds,
3 wildlife stu
additional
garding Dall
l the site-spe
ential impac
evaluated for
further refine
of potential
habitat. Hab
ments
and reprodu
e the resourc
on utilizes th
d use of the 2
ained from
07) cover-typ
port. The le
f all these
dlife study.
ource, were
delineated by
pecies prese
mponents. Ea
STUDY
o, LLC
e 2014
ions
were
ds,
s of
udy
ecific
cts
r
ed,
l
bitat
ction
ces to
e
2013
pe
evel
y
ence
ach
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 176 June 2014
Impacts are categorized as construction-related or operations-related, each having direct and
indirect effects. In general, construction-related impacts are considered temporary or short-term
whereas operational impacts are considered longer-term or permanent. Table 5.4-1 summarizes
potential Project impacts on wildlife as related to habitat, disturbance of biological activities, and
possible direct mortality. It is important to note that the potential impacts discussed in Table 5.4-
1 are preliminary and based primarily on the terrestrial natural resource studies and the limited
amount of engineering feasibility work conducted prior to this report being developed. This
table and the associated impacts will be fully refined and vetted once the engineering designs are
finalized. A full discussion of wildlife impacts will be included in the DLA. Best Management
Practices (BMP’s) associated with construction and development activities will be
collaboratively developed with stakeholders and implemented during those activities.
Table 5.4-1. Grant Lake terrestrial resources - wildlife study impacts.
Project Component
Potential Qualitative Construction
Impacts
Potential Qualitative Operational
Impacts
Direct Indirect Direct Indirect
GRANT CREEK
DIVERSION
Natural Outlet Option
Vegetation
clearing and
disturbance;
shoreline/bank
disturbance; short-
term reduction of
wildlife habitat
(nesting, foraging,
and cover).
Auditory
disturbance to
wildlife and
associated
biological
activities.
Species introduction
and competition;
soil erosion,
sediment input to
water column and
reduced clarity;
poor native veg re-
establishment;
short-term changes
in prey availability.
Permanent changes
in habitat due
vegetation clearing,
filled wetlands, and
altered banks
/shoreline/bed.
Changes to natural
lake level elevation
on wildlife habitat
include permanent
changes to nesting,
foraging and cover,
and changes to
species dynamics
including predator-
prey interactions.
Concrete Dam Option
Vegetation
clearing and
disturbance;
shoreline/bank
disturbance; short-
term reduction of
wildlife habitat
(nesting, foraging,
and cover).
Auditory
disturbance to
wildlife and
associated
biological
activities.
Species introduction
and competition;
soil erosion,
sediment input to
water column and
reduced clarity;
poor native veg re-
establishment;
short-term changes
in prey availability.
Permanent changes
in habitat due
vegetation clearing,
filled wetlands, and
altered banks
/shoreline/bed.
Changes to natural
lake level elevation
on wildlife habitat
include permanent
changes to nesting,
foraging and cover,
and changes to
species dynamics
including predator-
prey interactions.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Table 5.4-1, continued…
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 177 June 2014
Project Component
Potential Qualitative Construction
Impacts
Potential Qualitative Operational
Impacts
Direct Indirect Direct Indirect
WATER
CONVEYANCE
Intake Structure
Vegetation
clearing and
disturbance;
shoreline/bank
disturbance; short-
term reduction of
wildlife habitat
(nesting, foraging,
and cover).
Auditory
disturbance to
wildlife and
associated
biological
activities.
Species introduction
and competition;
soil erosion,
sediment input to
water column and
reduced clarity;
poor native veg re-
establishment;
short-term changes
in prey availability.
Permanent changes
in habitat due
vegetation clearing,
filled wetlands, and
altered banks
/shoreline/bed.
Changes to natural
lake level elevation
on wildlife habitat
include permanent
changes to nesting,
foraging and cover,
and changes to
species dynamics
including predator-
prey interactions.
Tunnel
At surficial
entrance and exit
of tunnel:
Vegetation
clearing and
disturbance; short-
term reduction of
wildlife habitat
(nesting, foraging,
and cover).
Auditory
disturbance to
wildlife and
associated
biological
activities.
At surficial entrance
and exit of tunnel:
Species introduction
and competition;
soil erosion,
sediment input to
water column and
reduced clarity;
poor native veg re-
establishment;
short-term changes
in prey availability.
At surficial entrance
and exit of tunnel:
Permanent changes
in habitat due
vegetation clearing
and altered
succession stage.
At surficial entrance
and exit of tunnel:
Permanent changes
to nesting, foraging
and cover, and
changes to species
dynamics including
predator-prey
interactions.
Penstock
Vegetation
clearing and
disturbance;
shoreline/bank
disturbance; short-
term reduction of
wildlife habitat
(nesting, foraging,
and cover).
Auditory
disturbance to
wildlife and
associated
biological
activities.
Species introduction
and competition;
soil erosion,
sediment input to
water column and
reduced clarity;
poor native veg re-
establishment;
short-term changes
in prey availability.
Permanent changes
in habitat due
vegetation clearing
and altered banks
/shoreline/bed.
Permanent changes
to nesting, foraging
and cover, and
changes to species
dynamics including
predator-prey
interactions.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Table 5.4-1, continued…
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 178 June 2014
Project Component
Potential Qualitative Construction
Impacts
Potential Qualitative Operational
Impacts
Direct Indirect Direct Indirect
Tailrace
Vegetation
clearing and
disturbance;
shoreline/bank
disturbance; short-
term reduction of
wildlife habitat
(nesting, foraging,
and cover).
Auditory
disturbance to
wildlife and
associated
biological
activities.
Species introduction
and competition;
soil erosion,
sediment input to
water column and
reduced clarity;
poor native veg re-
establishment;
short-term changes
in prey availability.
Permanent changes
in habitat due
vegetation clearing
and altered banks
/shoreline/bed.
Permanent changes
to nesting, foraging
and cover, and
changes to species
dynamics including
predator-prey
interactions.
Tailrace Detention
Pond
Vegetation
inundation and
disturbance;
changes in wildlife
habitat (nesting,
foraging, and
cover). Auditory
disturbance to
wildlife and
associated
biological
activities.
Changes in species
and dynamics; soil
erosion, sediment
input to water
column and reduced
clarity; poor native
veg re-
establishment;
changes in prey
availability.
Permanent changes
in habitat due
vegetation clearing
and filled wetlands.
Permanent changes
to nesting, foraging
and cover, and
changes to species
dynamics including
predator-prey
interactions.
POWERHOUSE
Powerhouse Structure
Vegetation
clearing and
disturbance; short-
term reduction of
wildlife habitat
(nesting, foraging,
and cover).
Auditory
disturbance to
wildlife and
associated
biological
activities.
Species introduction
and competition;
soil erosion; poor
native veg re-
establishment;
short-term changes
in prey availability.
Permanent changes
in habitat due
vegetation clearing
and altered
succession stage.
Auditory
disturbance to
wildlife and
associated
biological activities.
Permanent changes
to nesting, foraging
and cover, and
changes to species
dynamics including
predator-prey
interactions.
Auditory
disturbance to
wildlife and
associated
biological activities.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Table 5.4-1, continued…
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 179 June 2014
Project Component
Potential Qualitative Construction
Impacts
Potential Qualitative Operational
Impacts
Direct Indirect Direct Indirect
TRANSMISSION
LINE/SWITCHYARD
Above Ground Option
Vegetation
clearing and
disturbance; short-
term reduction of
wildlife habitat
(nesting, foraging,
and cover).
Auditory
disturbance to
wildlife and
associated
biological
activities.
Species introduction
and competition;
soil erosion; poor
native veg re-
establishment;
short-term changes
in prey availability.
Permanent changes
in habitat due
vegetation clearing,
filled wetlands and
altered succession
stage. Possible
direct mortality to
avifauna not
accustomed to
power lines.
Permanent changes
to nesting, foraging
and cover, and
changes to species
dynamics including
predator-prey
interactions.
Below Ground Option
Vegetation
clearing and
disturbance; short-
term reduction of
wildlife habitat
(nesting, foraging,
and cover).
Auditory
disturbance to
wildlife and
associated
biological
activities.
Species introduction
and competition;
soil erosion; poor
native veg re-
establishment;
short-term changes
in prey availability.
Permanent changes
in habitat due
vegetation clearing,
filled wetlands and
altered succession
stage.
Permanent changes
to nesting, foraging
and cover, and
changes to species
dynamics including
predator-prey
interactions.
ACCESS ROADS &
BRIDGE
Access Roads &
Bridge
Vegetation
clearing and
disturbance; short-
term reduction of
wildlife habitat
(nesting, foraging,
and cover).
Auditory
disturbance to
wildlife and
associated
biological
activities.
Species introduction
and competition;
soil erosion; poor
native veg re-
establishment;
short-term changes
in prey availability.
Permanent changes
in habitat due
vegetation clearing,
filled wetlands and
altered succession
stage. Possible
direct mortality to
wildlife not
accustomed to
access vehicles.
Permanent periodic
auditory disturbance
to wildlife and
associated
biological activities.
Permanent changes
to nesting, foraging
and cover, and
changes to species
dynamics including
predator-prey
interactions from
road and bridge
infrastructure, and
backwater effects
from bridge.
Permanent periodic
auditory disturbance
to wildlife and
associated
biological activities.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 180 June 2014
The following sections discuss the potential species-specific impacts that are not covered in
Table 5.4-1 and are based solely on the 2013 Terrestrial Resources Study investigations. Impact
assessments will be refined based upon engineering feasibility work that will document
infrastructural locations in relation to habitat for the species mentioned below, and will be
included in the DLA.
5.4.1. Raptor Nesting Survey
Potential Impacts to Raptors - Removal or loss of vegetation affects raptors in several ways that
include loss of old growth trees for nesting platforms (bald eagles, osprey, and red-tailed hawks)
and perches. Project-related tree removal may be direct or indirect. Indirect removal includes
tree species influenced by changes in creek levels, causing tree mortality and eventual structure
loss. Tree platforms utilized for large raptor nests and perches are lost naturally every year.
Raptors often construct multiple nests in a season (osprey) or build new structures every year.
The loss of the tree or the nest from the previous season is not a detriment to successful breeding,
and is not predicted to impact the overall raptor population on the Kenai Peninsula. The direct
removal of any nest structure utilized by bald eagles, regardless of activity state, without a permit
is prohibited; the USFWS (2007) has published recommendations to avoid disturbance to
occupied bald eagle nests during development activities. The USFWS (2007) recommend the
following:
(1) Keep a distance between the activity and the nest (distance buffers),
(2) Maintain preferably forested (or natural) areas between the activity and around nest
trees (landscape buffers), and
(3) Avoid certain activities during the breeding season.
The buffer areas serve to minimize visual and auditory impacts associated with human
activities near nest sites. Ideally, buffers would be large enough to protect existing nest
trees and provide for alternative or replacement nest trees. The size and shape of effective
buffers vary depending on the topography and other ecological characteristics
surrounding the nest site.
The height of the nest above the ground may also ameliorate effects of human activities;
eagles at higher nests may be less prone to disturbance.
In addition to the physical features of the landscape and nest site, the appropriate size for
the distance buffer may vary according to the historical tolerances of eagles to human
activities in particular localities, and may also depend on the location of the nest in
relation to feeding and roosting areas used by the eagles. Increased competition for nest
sites may lead bald eagles to nest closer to human activity (and other eagles).
Seasonal restrictions can prevent the potential impacts of many shorter-term, obtrusive
activities that do not entail landscape alterations (e.g. fireworks, outdoor concerts). In
proximity to the nest, these kinds of activities should be conducted only outside the
breeding season. For activities that entail both short-term, obtrusive characteristics and
more permanent impacts (e.g., building construction), we [USFWS] recommend a
combination of both approaches: retaining a landscape buffer and observing seasonal
restrictions.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 181 June 2014
USFWS (2007) provides information regarding specific buffer distances (660 feet – ½ mile)
depending on activities (Categories A - H) (Table 5.4-2). Category A (construction of roads,
trails, canals, power lines, and other linear utilities) have the following buffer recommendations:
Table 5.4-2. Recommended distances for Category A activities as defined by USFWS (2007)
If there is no similar activity
within 1 mile of the nest
If there is similar activity closer
than 1 mile from the nest
If the activity
will be visible
from the nest
660 feet. Landscape buffers are
recommended.
660 feet, or as close as existing tolerated activity
of similar scope.
Landscape buffers are recommended.
If the activity
will not be
visible from the
nest
330 feet. Clearing, external
construction, and landscaping
between 330 feet and 660 feet should
be done outside breeding season
(~March – August).
330 feet, or as close as existing tolerated activity
of similar scope.
Clearing, external construction and landscaping
within 660 feet should be done outside breeding
season (~March – August).
The Federal eagle nest take permit (OMB Control No. 1018-0022) authorizes a ‘take’ (removal
and/or relocation) of a bald or golden eagle nest to protect human safety or eagles, and under
other limited circumstances. Title 50 Parts 10, 13, and 22.27 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) will provide addition regulatory information. This permit may be used to authorize the
removal of a bald or golden eagle nest where the removal is: (a) necessary to alleviate a safety
emergency to people or eagles; (b) necessary to ensure public health and safety; (c) the nest
prevents the use of a pre-existing human-engineered structure; or (d) the activity or mitigation
for the activity will provide a net benefit to eagles. Only inactive nests may be taken, except in
the case of safety emergencies. Inactive nests are defined by the continuous absence of any adult,
egg, or dependent young at the nest for at least 10 consecutive days leading up to the time of
take. Permittees may be required to monitor the area and report whether eagles attempt to build
or occupy another nest at another site in the vicinity for the duration specified in the permit.
Permittees must submit a report to the Regional Migratory Bird Permit Office within 30 days
after the permitted nest removal (except for programmatic permittees who must report each nest
removal within 10 days after the take and submit an annual report by January 31 of the calendar
year). The report must include all the information required by Service Form 3-202-16. All
permittees will be required to avoid and minimize the potential for take to the degree practicable,
and for programmatic permits, to the point where take is unavoidable. Where feasible, if suitable
conditions are present, the permittee may be required to relocate the nest, construct an alternate
nest, or improve conditions at alternate nest sites in the territory. Compensatory mitigation may
be appropriate depending on the biological value of the nest and the type of circumstances
necessitating its removal. In general, little or no compensatory mitigation will be required for
emergency nest-take if the permittee could not foresee or prevent the eagles from nesting. The
time needed by the Service to process a permit application depends on the complexity and scope
of the activity and associated take, whether tribal consultation is warranted, what additional
environmental analyses may be required, and other factors.
In general, applicants may expect the following approximate permit processing times from the
time we receive a complete application:
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 182 June 2014
Emergency nest-take permit: (2 to 5 days)
Standard permit: (90 days)
Standard or programmatic permit requiring an environmental assessment: (4 to 6 months)
Standard or programmatic permit with EIS: (18 to 24 months)
Removal of vegetation will also impact forest nesting and foraging raptor species including
Northern goshawks and sharp-shinned hawks. Impacts include loss of nesting and foraging
habitat. Both species are considered shy and may be sensitive to disturbance. Activities related
to forest removal and anthropogenic access may cause these two species to move to other less
disturbed areas; however, the movement of these accipiters is not predicted to impact the overall
population of the Kenai Peninsula. The USFWS (2005) has published recommendations for time
periods to avoid vegetation clearing. These recommendations are provided to help avoid
vegetation removal during the breeding season.
Direct mortality to forest raptors may increase with the placement of power lines along the
access route. Birds, especially resident species, unaccustomed to these lines may be impacted by
flying into the line or injury by electrocution. Collision and nesting deterrent methods will be
considered during the Project design phase to avoid or minimize impacts if the overhead power
line alternative is selected.
Disturbance associated with construction and operational phases of the Project may impact raptor
presence and distributions in the area; however, the movement of these species is not predicted to
impact the overall population of the Kenai Peninsula.
5.4.2. Breeding Landbirds and Shorebirds
Potential Impacts to Breeding Birds and Shorebirds - Removal or loss of vegetation affects
breeding birds and shorebirds in several ways that include loss of old growth trees for nesting,
foraging, and cover habitat. Project-related tree and vegetation removal may be direct or
indirect. Indirect removal includes understory changes to plant species influenced by direct tree
removal; causing mortality and eventual structure loss or alteration. Breeding birds and
shorebirds often construct a new nest every season and habitat is often lost to natural events like
flooding and fire. The loss of nesting habitat from the previous season is not a detriment to
successful breeding and is not predicted to impact the overall breeding birds and shorebirds
population on the Kenai Peninsula. The direct removal of any active nest structure is prohibited.
The USFWS (2005) has published recommendations for time periods to avoid vegetation
clearing. These recommendations are provided to help avoid vegetation removal during the
breeding season.
Removal or loss of vegetation will impact songbirds by decreasing the availability of habitat for
cover from predators and for foraging. Loss of cover may increase predation on both breeding
adults as well as nests. Activities related to forest removal and anthropogenic access may also
cause more shy or sensitive species to move to other less acoustically disturbed areas; however,
these movements are not predicted to impact the overall songbird population of the Kenai
Peninsula. The USFWS (2005) has published recommendations for time periods to avoid
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 183 June 2014
vegetation clearing. These recommendations are provided to help avoid vegetation removal and
disturbance during the breeding season.
Direct mortality to breeding birds and shorebirds may increase with the placement of power lines
along the access route. Birds, especially resident species, unaccustomed to these lines may be
impacted by flying into the line or injury by electrocution. Collision deterrent methods will be
considered during the Project design phase to avoid or minimize impacts if the overhead power
line alternative is selected.
5.4.3. Waterbirds
Potential Impacts to Waterfowl - Removal or loss of vegetation affects waterfowl directly by loss
of old growth trees for nesting habitat. Nest and trees are lost naturally every year to natural
events that include flooding and fire. Cavity-nesting ducks make efficient use of hard to find
tree-cavity nest sites, and are capable of identifying new cavities as trees age. The loss of the
tree from the previous season can be a limiting factor in successful breeding, but this is not
predicted to impact the overall waterbird population on the Kenai. The direct removal of any
active nest structure is prohibited; the USFWS (2005) has published recommendations for time
periods to avoid vegetation clearing. These recommendations are provided to help avoid
vegetation removal during the breeding season.
Changes in lake and creek levels may indirectly impact waterfowl and waterbirds like American
dippers by decreasing or altering prey availability. Lake level changes will also directly impact
shorebirds by limiting available nesting and foraging habitat. Spotted sandpipers are known
breeders along the shoreline of Grant Lake (2010 field data) and will place nests along the
perimeter of lakes and rivers. Typical breeding habitat includes the edge of an open or semi-
open area adjacent to water, with low ground cover, such as shrub-dotted or lightly treed
meadows or grassland. This species prefers shores with rocks, wood, or debris (NatureServe
2007). Changes in the predator-prey dynamics and nesting surface availability may be
temporary or permanent depending on the species and extent of lake level change.
Construction and operational activities may cause more shy or sensitive species to move to other
less acoustically disturbed areas; however, these movements are not predicted to impact the
overall waterfowl population of the Kenai Peninsula.
Direct mortality to waterfowl may increase with the placement of power lines along the access
route. Waterfowl unaccustomed to these lines may be impacted by flying into the line or injury
by electrocution. Collision deterrent methods will be considered during the Project design phase
to avoid or minimize impacts if the overhead power line alternative is selected.
5.4.4. Terrestrial Mammals
Potential Impacts to Terrestrial Mammals – Removal or loss of vegetation may impact mammals
(moose, bear, mountain goats, lynx, and other small mammals) by decreasing the availability of
forest cover from predators and foraging. Loss of cover may increase predation on both breeding
adults as well as young. Activities related to forest removal and anthropogenic access may also
cause more shy or sensitive species to move to other less acoustically disturbed areas; however,
FINAL REPO
Grant Lake
FERC No.
these mo
Peninsula
with brow
may redu
encounte
an increa
Frate 200
heavily u
humans a
V5.5.
The 2013
methodo
ORT
e Hydroelectric
13212
ovements are
a. Black bea
wn bear, as i
uce the quali
ers. On the K
ase in the num
02). During
used by peop
and injury or
Variances f
3 wildlife res
logies. Ther
c Project
e not predicte
ar are very a
impacts of ro
ity of availab
Kenai Penins
mber of brow
the summer
ple; several e
r death to br
from FERC
sources effor
e are no vari
ed to impact
adaptable to h
oads and trai
ble habitat an
sula, habitat
wn bears kil
r, bears conc
encounters h
own bears (U
C-Approved
rt followed t
iances to rep
184
t the overall
human distu
ils resulting
nd increase t
modificatio
led in defens
centrate alon
have occurred
USFS 2008)
d Study Pla
the March 20
port.
mammal po
urbance. Thi
from new de
the number o
on and human
se of life or
ng salmon str
d at salmon
).
an and Pro
013 Study P
TERRESTRIA
opulation of t
is is not nece
evelopment
of negative b
n activities h
property (Su
reams in area
streams resu
oposed Mo
Plan objectiv
AL RESOURCES
Kenai Hydro
June
the Kenai
essarily the c
in the water
bear-human
have resulted
uring and De
as that are
ulting in inju
odifications
ves and
STUDY
o, LLC
e 2014
case
rshed
d in
el
ury to
s
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 185 June 2014
6 REFERENCES
ADF&G (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 2006. Our Wealth Maintained: A Strategy for
Conserving Alaska’s Diverse Wildlife and Fish Resources. Juneau, Alaska.
xviii+824p. Accessed March 28, 2013. Website: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/
index.cfm?adfg=species.wapview
AKNHP (Alaska Natural Heritage Program). 2013. Alaska Natural Heritage Program Rare
Vascular Plant Tracking List. Website accessed October 2013. Website
http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/botany/rare-plants-species-lists/rare-vascular-hulten/#content
Barr, J.R., C. Earl, and J.W. McIntyre. 2000. Red-throated loon (Gavia stellata). In: A. Poole and
F. Gill (eds.). The Birds of North America, No. 513. The Academy of Natural Sciences,
Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C.
Beck, K.A. 2013. Pre-Field Review Worksheet for Sensitive Plants for the Grant Lake Project.
Prepared for the Seward Ranger District, Chugach National Forest by Kathryn Beck,
Beck Botanical Services. June 2013.
Bellrose, F.C. 1980. Ducks, Geese and Swans of North America. Third ed., Stackpole Books,
Harrisburg, PA. 540 p.
Benoit, M.A. 2009. Personal communication with Sirena Brownlee discussing wildlife studies
conducted by the USFS in the Grant Lake Project area. September 30.
Benoit, M.A. 2010. Personal communication with Sirena Brownlee discussing wildlife studies
conducted by the USFS in the Grant Lake Project area. June 4.
Berg, E.E., J.D. Henry, C.L. Fastie, A.D. De Volder, S.M. Matsuoka. 2006. Spruce beetle
outbreaks on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska, and Kluane National Park and Preserve,
Yukon Territory: relationship to summer temperatures and regional differences in
disturbance regimes. Forest Ecology and Management 227 (2006) 219-232.
Bergman, R. D. and D. V. Derksen. 1977. Observations on Arctic and Red-throated loons at
Storkersen Point, Alaska, Arctic 30:41-51.
Brinson, Mark M. 1993. A gydrogeomorphic Classification for Weltands. Prepared for U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. Technical Report WRP-DE-4. 101p. August 1993.
Bundy, G. 1976. Breeding biology of the red-throated diver. Bird Study 23:149-256 Cramp, S.
and K. E. L. Simmons, eds. 1977. The Birds of the Western Palearctic. Vol. 1. Oxford
Univ. Press, Oxford, UK.
Carter, H.R., and S.G. Sealy, 1986. Year-round use of coastal lakes by Marbled Murrelets.
Condor 88: 473-477.
Charnon, B. 2007. Conservation Assessment for the Pale Poppy (Papaver alboroseum).
Unpublished Administrative Paper. USDA Forest Service Region 10, Glacier Ranger
District, Chugach National Forest, Girdwood, Alaska.
Collins, W.B., D. Williams, and T. Trapp. 1999. Spruce beetle effects on wildlife. Federal Aid in
Wildlife Restoration Research Progress Report. ADF&G, Division of Wildlife
Conservation. Grant W-27-1, Study 1.53.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 186 June 2014
Cotter, P. A. and B. A. Andres. 2000. Breeding bird habitat associations on the Alaska Breeding
Bird Survey: USGS, Biological Resources Division Information and Technology Report
USGS/BRD/ITR-2000-0010, 53 p.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of
Biological Services, Washington, D. C. FWS/OBS-79/31.
Cramp, S. and K.E.L. Simmons (eds.). 1977. The birds of the western Palearctic. Vol.1. Oxford
Univ. Press, Oxford, U.K.
Davis, R.A. 1972. A comparative study of the use of habitat by arctic loons and red-throated
loons. Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Western Ontario, London.
Day, R.H. 1995. New information on Kittlitz's Murrelet nests. The Condor 97:271-273.
Day, R.H., K.L. Oakley, and D.R. Barnard. 1983. Nest sites and eggs of Kittlitz's and Marbled
Murrelets. Condor 85(3):265-273.
Derksen, D.V., T.C. Rothe, and W.D. Eldridge. 1981. Use of wetland habitats by birds in the
National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. Resource Pub. 141. USFWS, Washington, D.C. 27
pp.
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.
USFS, Chugach National Forest, Alaska Region Technical Publication R10-TP-76.
Anchorage, Alaska. 375 p.
Dillman, K.L., P.C. Krosse, and C. Sever. 2009. Tongass National Forest - Guidance for
Biological Evaluations: Sensitive Plants. USDA Forest Service, Tongass National Forest.
March 2009. documents/2009_revised_r10_ss_report.pdf
Douglas, S.D. and T.E. Reimchen. 1988. Habitat characteristics and population estimate of
breeding red-throated loons, Gavia stellata, on the Queen Charlotte Islands, British
Columbia. Canad. Field-Naturalist 102:679-684.
Ebasco (Ebasco Services Incorporated). 1984. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Detailed
Feasibility Analysis, Volume 2 Environmental Report. Prepared for the Alaska Power
Authority. January 1984. 325pp.
Eberl, C. and J. Picman. 1993. Effect of nest-site location on reproductive success of Red-
throated loons (Gavia stellata). The Auk 110: 436-444.
Ehrlich, P. R., D. S. Dobkin and D. Wheye.1988. The Birder's Handbook: A Field Guide to the
Natural History of North American Birds. Simon and Schuster Inc., New York.
Fischenich, J.C., 2006. Functional Objectives for Stream Restoration, EMRRP Technical Notes
Collection (ERDC TN-EMRRP-SR-52), US Army Engineer Research and Development
Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/sr52.pdf
Furness, R. W. 1983. Pages 18-30 in Foula, Shetland, Volume 4. Birds of Foula. The Brathay
Hall Trust, Amblesidae, Cumbria.
Gabrielson, I. N. and F. C. Lincoln. 1959. The Birds of Alaska. The Stackpole Company,
Harrisburg, PA and Wildl. Manage. Inst., Washington, D.C. 922 pp.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 187 June 2014
Gasaway, W. C., S. D. DuBois, D. J. Reed, and S. J. Harbo. 1986. Estimating moose population
parameters from aerial surveys. Biological Papers University of Alaska No. 22.
George, T. L. 2000. Varied Thrush (Ixoreus naevius). In The Birds of North America, No. 541
(A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences;
Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists' Union.
Gill, R. E., B. J. McCaffery and P. S. Tomkovich. 2002. Wandering tattler (Heteroscelus
incanus). In The Birds of North America, No. 642, (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.).
Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American
Ornithologists' Union.
Goldstein, Michael I., D. Martin, and M.C. Stensvold. 2009. 2009 Forest Service Alaska Region
Sensitive Species List: Assessment and Proposed Revisions to the 2002 List. U.S. Forest
Service, Tongass National Forest. Website: http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/ro/policy-reports/
Hansen, R.M., and S.R. Archer. 1981. Range survey of mountain goat wintering areas.
Unpublished. Final report for the U.S. Forest Service, Chugach National Forest. 24 pp.
Harman, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, C. Miller. 2012. A
Function-Based Framework for Stream Assessment and Restoration Projects. US
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds,
Washington, DC EPA 843-K-12-006.
HDR Alaska, Inc. 2005. Sensitive Plant Survey Cooper Lake Project (FERC No. 2170) Final
Report. Prepared for Chugach Electric Association. February 2005.
HDR. 2011. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13212) Summary of 2010 Field
Investigation. Prepared for Kenai Hydro, LLC. April 11, 2011. 12pp.
Holsten, E.H., R.A. Werner, and R.L. DeVelice. 1995. Effects of a spruce beetle (Coleoptera:
Scolytidae) outbreak and fire on Lutz spruce in Alaska. Environmental Entomology
24:1539-1547.
Johnsgard, P. A. 1981. The plovers, sandpipers, and snipes of the world. Univ. of Nebraska
Press, Lincoln.
Johnsgard, P.A. 1987. Diving birds of North America. Univ. Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE. 292
pp.
Kessel, B. 1979. Avian Habitat Classification for Alaska. The Murrelet. Vol. 60, No. 3, pp. 86-
94.
---. 1989. Birds of the Seward Peninsula, Alaska: their biogeography, seasonality, and natural
history. Univ. of Alaska Press, Fairbanks, AK. 330 pp.
---. 1998. Habitat characteristics of some passerine birds in western North American taiga.
University of Alaska Press, Fairbanks, AK.
Kessel, B., and D.D. Gibson. 1978. Status and distribution of Alaska birds. Studies Avian
Biology. In: Studies in Avian Biology No. 1. R. J. Raitt, Ed. Cooper Ornithological
Society. 1:1-100.
KHL (Kenai Hydro, LLC). 2009. Pre-Application Document. Grant Lake/Grant Creek and Falls
Creek Project (FERC No. 13211 and 13212). August 2009. 134 pp.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 188 June 2014
---. 2011. Second Preliminary Permit Application No. 2 for Kenai Hydro, LLC - Grant Lake
Project (FERC No. 13212). October 2011. 34pp.
---. 2013. Grant Lake Project (FERC No. 13212) Terrestrial Resources Study Plan. March 2013.
56pp.
---. 2014a. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13212). Aquatic Resources Study –
Grant Creek Aquatic Habitat Mapping and Instream Flow Study, Final Report. Prepared
by McMillen LLC for Kenai Hydro, LLC. June 2014.
---. 2014b. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13212). Aquatic Resources Study –
Fisheries Assessment, Final Report. Prepared by BioAnalysts, Inc. for Kenai Hydro,
LLC. June 2014.
---. 2014c. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13212). Cultural Resources Study,
Draft Report. Prepared by Cultural Resource Consultants, LLC for Kenai Hydro,
LLC. March 2014.
---. 2014d. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13212). Recreational and Visual
Resources Study, Final Report. Prepared by USKH, Inc. for Kenai Hydro, LLC. June
2014.
---. 2014e. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13212), Water Resources Study –
Water Quality, Temperature and Hydrology, Final Report. Prepared by McMillen, LLC
for Kenai Hydro, LLC. June 2014.
---. 2014f. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13212), Water Resources –
Geomorphology, Final Report. Prepared for Kenai Hydro, LLC. Prepared by Element
Solutions for Kenai Hydro, LLC. June 2014.
---. 2014g. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13212). Aquatic Resources Study –
Baseline Studies of Macroinvertebrates and Periphyton in Grant Creek, Final
Report. Prepared by Northern Ecological Services for Kenai Hydro, LLC. June 2014.
Kortwright, F.H. 1967. The Ducks, Geese and Swans of North America. Stackpole Co.,
Harrisburg, PA. and Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. 476 p.
Lichvar, R.W. 2013. The national wetland plant list: 2013 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2013-
49: 1-241.
Lottsfeldt-Frost, J., 2000. Draft Specialist Report on Moose (Alces alces). USDA Forest Service,
Chugach National Forest, Anchorage, Alaska. 19 pp.
MacDonald, S.O. and J.A. Cook. 1996. The land mammal fauna of Southeast Alaska. The
Canadian Field-Naturalist 110(4):571-598.
Marshall, D.B., 1988. Status of the Marbled Murrelet in North America: with special emphasis
on populations in California, Oregon, and Washington. U. S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Biol.
Rep.88.
McCaffery, B.J. 1996. Distribution and relative abundance of gray-cheeked thrush (Catharus
minimus) and blackpoll warbler (Dendroica striata) on Yukon Delta National Wildlife
Refuge, Alaska. Unpub. Report USFWS. Bethel, Alaska.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 189 June 2014
McCaffery, B. J. and C. H. Harwood. 2004. Species at risk: Solitary Sandpiper (Tringa solitaria),
summary of ecology, abundance, and population trends in North America. Unpublished
poster presented at the 10th Alaska Bird Conference, Anchorage, AK.
McCafferty, K. 2013. Personal Communication with K. McCafferty, USACE-Alaska. May 29,
2013.
Merrie, T.D.H. 1978. Relationship between spatial distribution of breeding divers and the
availability of fishing waters. Bird Study 25: 119-122.
Mitchell, C. D. 1994. Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus buccinator). In The Birds of North America,
Vol. 3, No. 105 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural
Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists' Union.
Moskoff, W. 1995. Solitary Sandpiper (Tringa solitaria). In The Birds of North America, No.156
(A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences;
Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists' Union.
NatureServe. 2007. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application].
Version 6.2. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Website:
http://www.natureserve.org/explorer.
NatureServe. 2008. International Ecological Classification Standard: Terrestrial Ecological
Classifications. Ecological Systems of Alaska. NatureServe Central Databases, Arlington,
VA. Data current as of 18 December 2008.
NWI (National Wetlands Inventory). 2013. USFWS Wetlands Online Mapper. Accessed
February 2013. Website: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html
Oliver, C.D. and B.C. Larson, 1996. Forest Stand Dynamics. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
424 p.
Palmer, R. S., ed. 1962. Handbook of North American birds. Vol. 1: loons through flamingoes.
Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Parker, D.I. 1996. Forest ecology and distribution of bats in Alaska. M. S. thesis. Univ. of
Alaska, Fairbanks. 73 pp.
Parker, D.I., B.E. Lawhead, and J.A. Cook. 1997. Distributional limits of bats in Alaska. Arctic
50(3):256-265.
Piatt, J. F., N. L. Naslund and T. I. van Pelt. 1999. Discovery of a new Kittlitz's Murrelet nest:
clues to habitat selection and nest-site fidelity. Northwest Nat. 80:8-13.
Poole, A. 1981. The Effects of Human Disturbance on Osprey Reproductive Success. Colonial
Waterbirds, Vol. 4. pp. 20-27.
Prosser, S.M., 2002. The Effects of Boreal Forest Succession on Bird Abundance and Species
Diversity on the Kenai Peninsula, Southcentral Alaska. Unpublished manuscript.
Reimchen, T.E. and S. Douglas. 1984. Feeding schedule and daily food consumption in red-
throated loons (Gavia stellata) over the prefledging period. Auk 101:593-599.
Renecker, L.A. and C.C. Schwartz. 1998. Food habits and feeding behavior. Ecology and
Management of the North American Moose. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 190 June 2014
Reynolds R. and J. Leffler. 1994. Bat Survey of Prince William Forest Park, Final Report. 16 pp.
Soper, J. D. 1946. Ornithological results of the Baffin Island expeditions of 1928-1929 and 1930-
1931, together were more recent records. Auk 63:1-24, 223-239, 418-427.
Spindler, M. A. and B. A. Kessel. 1980. Avian populations and habitat use in interior Alaska
taiga. Syesis 13:61-104.
Spindler, M. A., M. A. Mouton and S.O. MacDonald. 1980. Biological surveys in the Firth-
Mancha Research Natural Area, Alaska, 1979-1980. Fairbanks, AK: William O. Douglas
Arctic Wildlife Range, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 91 pp.
Stensvold, M. 2002. Sensitive Plants, Chugach National Forest. July 2002.
Suring, L.H., and G. Del Frate. 2002. Spatial Analysis of Locations of Brown Bears Killed in
Defense of Life or Property on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska, USA. Ursus 13:237–245.
Tarres, J.K. 1980. The Audubon Society Encyclopedia of North American Birds. Alfred A.
Knopf, New York, NY. 1109 p.
Tibbitts, T. L., and W. Moskoff. 1999. Lesser Yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes). In The Birds of
North America, No. 427 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of
Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists' Union.
USACE (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual. Environmental Laboratory Department of the Army Waterways Experiment
Station, U. S. Corps of Engineers. January 1987.
---. 2007. Regional Supplement to the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual: Alaska Region
(Version 2.0). Engineer Research and Development Center. September 2007.
---. 2009. Alaska District Regulatory Guidance Letter, RGL No. 09-01. Guidance on Alaska
District implementation of the Federal Rule on Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of
Aquatic Resources; Final Rule (33 CFR Parts 325 and 332), dated April 10, 2008.
---. 2010. Special Public Notice (SPN) 2010-45. Corps of Engineers Regulatory Program
Consultant-Supplied Jurisdictional Determination Reports. January 29, 2010. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Alaska District Regulatory Division.
USDA-NRCS. 2005. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in Alaska, A Users Guide. United States
Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources Conservation Services. Major Land
Resource Region 17. Issued 2005.
USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 1984. Birds of the Chugach National Forest. Alaska Region Leaflet
Number 69. Chugach National Forest, Anchorage, Alaska. 19 pp.
---. 2000. Survey methodology for northern goshawks in the Pacific Southwest Region. Vallejo,
CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 148 p.
---. 2006. Forest Health Conditions in Alaska – 2005. Compiled by Cyndi Snyder, written by
Forest Health Protection staff (USDA Forest Service) with contributions from Forest
Health Specialist as the State of Alaska Dept of Natural Resources, Div. of Forestry and
the Univ. of Alaska Coop Ext. Service. USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, R10-PR-5
92 pgs.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 191 June 2014
---. 2007. Establishment Record for the Kenai Lake-Black Mountain Research Natural Area
within the Chugach National Forest, Alaska. 56pp.
---. 2008. Trail River Landscape Assessment. Prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
Chugach National Forest Seward Ranger District. 156 p.
USFS NRIS (U.S. Forest Service NRIS). 2013. National Resource Information System. Data
extracted June 27, 2013.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2005. Recommended Time Periods for Avoiding
Vegetation Clearing in Alaska in order to Protect Migratory Birds. 2p.
---. 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. 25p
---. 2013. Aleutian shield fern. Website: http://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/endangered/
species/aleutian_shield_fern.htm
Viereck, L. A., C. T. Dyrness, 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.
Weeden, R.B. 1959. A New Breeding Record of the Wandering Tattler in Alaska. The Condor
76(2):230-232.
Weeden, R.B. 1965. Further notes on Wandering Tattlers in central Alaska. Condor 67:87–89.
Woodbridge, B. and C.D. Hargis. 2006. Northern goshawk inventory and monitoring technical
guide. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-71. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service. 80 p.
Wright, J.M. 1997. Preliminary study of olive-sided flycatchers. July 1994-April 1997. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game. Final research Report. Endangered species conservation
fund federal aid studies SE-3-3, 4 and 5. Juneau, Alaska. 34pp.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 192 June 2014
[This page intentionally left blank]
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 June 2014
Appendix 1: Terrestrial Vegetation
Appendix 1a: Terrestrial Vegetation Tables
Appendix 1b: Terrestrial Vegetation Related Materials
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 June 2014
Appendix 1a. Terrestrial Vegetation Tables
Table A.1a-1. Alaska Region sensitive plants, February 2011
Table A.1a-2. Invasive plant populations in the vicinity of Grant Lake, June 2013.
Table A.1a-3. Plants observed during vegetation surveys of the Grant Lake Project, 2013
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 Appendix 1a Page 1 June 2014
Table A.1a-1. Alaska Region sensitive plants, February 2011
Scientific Name Common Name
Known/Suspected on
the Seward RD
Aphragmus eschscholtianus Eschscholtz's little nightmare Known
Botrychium spathulatum Spatulate moonwort
Botrychium tunux Moosewort fern Sensitive
Botyrychium yaaxudakeit Moonwort fern Sensitive
Cirsium edule var. macounii Edible thistle Sensitive
Cochlearia sessilifolia Sessileleaf scurveygrass
Cypripedium guttatum Spotted lady's slipper Sensitive
Cypripedium montanum Mountain lady's slipper
Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens Large yellow lady's slipper
Ligusticum calderi Calder's lovage Sensitive
Lobaria amplissima Lichen, no common name
Papaver alboroseum Pale poppy Known
Piperia unalascensis Alaska rein orchid Sensitive
Platanthera orbiculata Lesser round-leaved orchid
Polystichum kruckebergii Kruckeberg's swordfern
Romanzoffia unalaschcensis Unalaska mist-maid Sensitive
Sidalcea hendersonii Henderson's checkermallow
Tanacetum bipinnatum ssp. huronense Dune tansy Sensitive
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 Appendix 1a Page 2 June 2014
Table A.1a-2. Invasive plant populations in the vicinity of Grant Lake, June 2013.
USDA Plant Code Common Name Comments
ACMIM2 common yarrow
ALGE2 water foxtail
ALPR3 meadow foxtail
ARGL tower rockcress
BRRA field mustard
CABU2 shepherd's purse
CEFO2 common mouse-ear
CEGL2 sticky chickweed
CHALA lambsquarters
CIAR common thistle Not present in vicinity. High invasive potential.
CRTE3 annual hawksbeard
DAGL orchardgrass
ELRE4 quackgrass
GABI3 splitlip hempnettle
HIAU orange hawkweed Not present in vicinity. High invasive potential.
HIUM narrowleaf hawkweed
HOJU foxtail barley
LEDE common peppergrass
LEVU oxeye daisy
LIVU2 butter and eggs High potential invasiveness.
LOPEP perennial ryegrass
LOCO bird's foot trefoil Not present in vicinity. High invasive potential.
LUPOP4 bigleaf lupine
MADI6 disc mayweed
MEAL12 yellow sweetclover High potential invasiveness.
PANU3 Icelandic poppy
PHAR3 reed canarygrass Not present in vicinity. High invasive potential.
PHPR3 timothy
PLMA2 common plantain
POAN annual bluegrass
POAV prostrate knotweed
POPR Kentucky bluegrass
RUAC3 common sheep
RUCR curly dock
SOAR2 field sowthistle Not present in vicinity. High invasive potential.
SPRU red sandspurry
STME2 common chickweed
TAOF common dandelion
TRHY alsike clover
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Table A.1a-2, continued…
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 Appendix 1a Page 3 June 2014
USDA Plant Code Common Name Comments
TRPE21 scentless false
TRPR2 red clover
TRRE3 white clover
VESES thymeleaf speedwell
VICRC bird vetch High potential invasiveness.
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 Appendix 1a Page 4 June 2014
Table A.1a-3. Plants observed during Vegetation surveys of the Grant Lake Project, 2013.
Species
Grant Lake/State
Lands
Grant Lake/
USFS Lands
Project
Features /
State
Lands
Invasive
Species
TREES
Betula papyrifera var. kenaica x x x
Picea glauca x x x
Picea mariana x
Picea x lutzii x x x
Populus balsamifera x x
Populus tremuloides x x
Salix scouleriana x x
Tsuga mertensiana x x x
SHRUBS
Alnus incana ssp. tenuifolia x
Alnus viridis ssp. sinuata x x x
Amelanchier alnifolia x
Andromeda polifolia x x
Arctostaphylos uva–ursi x
Betula glandulosa/nana x x x
Dasiphora fruticosa x x x
Empetrum nigrum x x x
Juniperus communis x x
Ledum groenlandicum x x
Ledum palustre ssp. decumbens x x x
Linnaea borealis x x x
Menziesia ferruginea x x x
Oplopanax horridus x x x
Oxycoccus microcarpus x x x
Ribes laxiflorum x x x
Ribes triste x x
Rosa acicularis x x
Rosa nutkana x x x
Rubus idaeus x x x
Salix alaxensis x
Salix barclayi x x x
Salix communtata x x
Salix sitchensis x
Salix sp. x x x
Sambucus racemosa x x x
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Table A.1a-3, continued…
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 Appendix 1a Page 5 June 2014
Species
Grant Lake/State
Lands
Grant Lake/
USFS Lands
Project
Features /
State
Lands
Invasive
Species
Sibbaldia procumbens x
Sorbus sitchensis x x
Spiraea stevenii x x x
Vaccinium alaskaense x x x
Vaccinium caespitosum x x x
Vaccinium ovalifolium x x x
Vaccinium uliginosum x x
Vaccinium vitis–idaea x x x
Viburnum edule x x x
FORBS
Achillea millefolium var. borealis x x x
Aconitum delphiniifolium x x x
Actaea rubra x x
Allium schoenoprasm x
Anemone narcissiflora x
Anemone parviflora x
Anemone richardsonii x
Angelica genuflexa x x
Antennaria monocephala x x
Aquilegia formosa x x x
Arabis lyrata x x
Arabis sp. x
Arnica latifolia x x
Artemisia arctica x x
Artemisia tilesii x x
Aruncus dioicus x x x
Aster sibiricus x
Astragalus alpinus x
Barbarea orthoceras x x
Boschniakia rossica x x
Caltha sp. x
Campanula rotundifolia x x x
Cardamine pratensis x
Cardamine sp. x
Cardamine umbellata x x x
Castilleja unalaschcensis x
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Table A.1a-3, continued…
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 Appendix 1a Page 6 June 2014
Species
Grant Lake/State
Lands
Grant Lake/
USFS Lands
Project
Features /
State
Lands
Invasive
Species
Cerastium arvense x
Chamerion angustifolium x x x
Chamerion latifolium x x
Chrysosplenium tetandrum x x
Circaea alpina x x x
Comarum palustre x x x
Cornus canadensis x x x
Delphinium glaucum x x x
Draba incerta x
Draba palanderiana x
Drosera anglica x
Drosera rotundifolia x x
Epilobium anagallidifolium x x
Epilobium glandulosum x x
Epilobium leptocarpum x
Epilobium leptophyllum x
Erigeron peregrinus x x
Galium boreale x
Galium trifidum x x
Galium triflorum x x x
Geocaulon lividum x x x
Geranium erianthum x x x
Geum macrophyllum x x x
Heracleum maximum x x x
Heuchera glabra x x x
Impatiens noli-tangeri x
Iris setosa x
Leptarrhena pyrolifolia x
Listera cordata x
Lloydia serotina x
Lupinus nootkatensis x x
Menyanthes trifoliata x
Mimulus guttatus x x
Moehringia lateriflora x
Moneses uniflora x x
Orthilia secunda x x x
Oxytropis campestris x
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Table A.1a-3, continued…
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 Appendix 1a Page 7 June 2014
Species
Grant Lake/State
Lands
Grant Lake/
USFS Lands
Project
Features /
State
Lands
Invasive
Species
Packera pauciflora x
Papaver alboroseum x
Parnassia kotzebuei x
Parnassia palustris x x x
Pedicularis labradorica x
Pedicularis verticillata x
Petasites hyperboreus x
Platanthera dilatata x x
Polemonium acutiflorum x x x
Polemonium pulcherrimum x x
Polygonum bistortum x
Polygonum viviparum x x x
Potentilla norvegica x x
Potentilla villosa x
Potentilla virgulata x
Prenanthes alata x x
Prunella vulgaris ssp. lanceolata x
Pyrola asarifolia x x x
Ranunculus abortivus x
Ranunculus eschscholtzii x
Ranunculus lapponicus x
Ranunculus uncinatus x
Rhinanthus minor x x
Rhodiola integrifolia x x x
Romanzoffia sitchensis x
Rubus arcticus x x
Rubus chamaemorus x x x
Rubus pedatus x x x
Rumex sp. x
Sagina saginoides x
Sanguisorba canadensis x x x
Saxifraga ferruginea x
Saxifraga lyallii ssp hultenii x
Saxifraga punctata x x x
Saxifraga rivularis x
Saxifraga sp. x
Saxifraga tricuspidata x x x
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Table A.1a-3, continued…
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 Appendix 1a Page 8 June 2014
Species
Grant Lake/State
Lands
Grant Lake/
USFS Lands
Project
Features /
State
Lands
Invasive
Species
Senecio triangularis x
Solidago multiradiata x x x
Stellaria spp. x x
Streptopus amplexifolius x x x
Swertia perennis x x x
Taraxacum ceratophorum x
Taraxacum officinale x x x x
Tellima grandiflora x x
Thalictrum sparsiflorum x x x
Tiarella trifoliata x x
Trientalis europaea x x x
Trifolium repens x x
Triglochin palustre x
Urtica dioica x x x
Valeriana sitchensis x x
Veronica americana x
Veronica wormskjoldii x x
Viola langsdorffii x x
Viola sp. x x x
Zigadenus elegans x
GRAMINOIDS
Agrostis aequivalvis x
Agrostis mertensii x x x
Agrostis scabra x x x
Alopecurus aequalis x x
Anthoxanthum monticola subsp. alpinum x
Arctagrostis latifolia x
Calamagrostis canadensis x x x
Carex aquatilis var. aquatilis x x
Carex atrosquama x
Carex brunnescens x
Carex canescens x x x
Carex crawfordii x
Carex disperma x
Carex echinata x
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Table A.1a-3, continued…
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 Appendix 1a Page 9 June 2014
Species
Grant Lake/State
Lands
Grant Lake/
USFS Lands
Project
Features /
State
Lands
Invasive
Species
Carex lenticularis x x
Carex leptalea x x
Carex limosa x
Carex livida x
Carex loliacea x
Carex macrochaeta x x
Carex magellanica x
Carex media x x
Carex mertensii x x x
Carex pachystachya x
Carex pauciflora x x
Carex saxatilis x x x
Carex scirpoides x
Carex sitchensis var. dives x
Carex sp. x
Carex utriculata x x
Cinna latifolia x
Deschampsia caespitosa x x x
Elymus trachycaulus x
Elymus violaceus x x x
Eriophorum angustifolium x
Eriophorum russeolum x x
Eriophorum scheuchzeri x
Festuca brachyphylla x
Festuca occidentalis x
Festuca saximontana x
Festuca sp. x
Hordeum brachyantherum x x
Juncus castaneus x
Juncus mertensianus x x
Juncus sp. x
Luzula multiflora x x
Luzula parviflora x x
Luzula spicata x
Phleum alpinum x x x
Poa alpina x x
Poa annua x x
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Table A.1a-3, continued…
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 Appendix 1a Page 10 June 2014
Species
Grant Lake/State
Lands
Grant Lake/
USFS Lands
Project
Features /
State
Lands
Invasive
Species
Poa arctica x stenantha x
Poa interior x x x
Poa palustris x
Poa pratensis x x
Poa spp. x x x
Trichophorum alpinum x
Trichophorum caespitosum x
Trisetum spicatum x x x
Vahlodea atropurpurea x x
FERNS AND FERN ALLIES
Athyrium americanum x
Athyrium filix–femina x x x
Botrychium lunaria x
Botrychium minganense x
Cryptogramma acrostichoides x
Cystopteris fragilis x x x
Dryopteris expansa x x x
Equisetum arvense x x x
Equisetum fluviatile x x x
Equisetum hyemale x x x
Equisetum scirpoides x
Equisetum sylvaticum x x x
Equisetum variegatum x x x
Gymnocarpium dryopteris x x x
Lycopodium annotinum x x x
Lycopodium clavatum x x
Lycopodium complanatum x
Lycopodium selago x
Matteucia struthiopteris x x
Thelypteris phegopteris x x x
Woodsia ilvensis x x
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 June 2014
Appendix 1b. Terrestrial Vegetation Related Materials
R10 TES Plant Element Occurrence Field Form, Grant Lake Project, 2013.
AKEPIC Field Data Sheet, Grant Lake Project
USFS Plant Survey Field Form, Grant Lake Project, 2013
USFS Survey Intensity Levels for Plants
Photo A.1b-1. Blooming pale poppy plant
Photo A.1b-2. Pale poppy habitat.
Photo A.1b-3. Pale poppy habitat from Grant Lake
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 Appendix 1b Page 1 June 2014
R10 TES PLANT ELEMENT OCCURRENCE
FIELD FORM -
USDA FOREST SERVICE 12/08
® = required field, ®* = conditionally required field, ® = required field Alaska Region
General Information
1) SITE ID: ® 2) DATE: ® 07/19/2013 3) SITE NAME: GRANT LAKE 1
4) NRCS PLANT CODE: ® PAAL5
5) SCIENTIFIC NAME: ® PAPAVER ALBOROSEUM
6) RECORD SOURCE: ® FS 7) SURVEY ID: ®* 8) Survey Name: Grant Lake
9) EXAMINER(S)- LAST: ® BECK FIRST: ® Kathryn MIDDLE INITIAL: A
LAST: FIRST: MIDDLE INITIAL:
10) OWNERSHIP: ® USFS 11) Loc. Uncert: ® 12) Uncert. Dist: ®*
13) E.O. # 14) STATE: ®* AK 15) COUNTY: ®* KENAI
16) REGION: ®* 10 17) FOREST: ®* CHUGACH 18) DISTRICT: ®* SEWARD
19) Area (Est): 10’ x 25’ 20) Area UOM: ®* FEET
21) Canopy Cover Method ®* (circle one): COVER PERCENT; DAUBEN; NRMCOV DAUBEN
Element Occurrence Data
22) EO Canopy Cover: ®%Cov: or Cover Class Code: T 23) Lifeform: FB
24) Number of subpopulations: 0 25) Plant Found (Revisit): Yes or No
26)Plant Count:® 15 27)Count Type: ®Genets/Ramets/Undetermined 28)Count: ®Actual or Estimate
29) Revisit needed - Yes X or No 30) Revisit Date:
31) Revisit Justification:
32)Phenology by %®
(Sum to 100%): Vegetative . . . . . 20_ Flower/Bud . . . _50 Fruit/Dispersed . ___ Seedlings/ Juvenile . . . . . _30
33) Population Comments: (e.g., distribution, vigor, density, phenology, dispersal) Moderately vigorous, small population. Flowering adults and juveniles present.
34) Evidence of disease, competition, predation, collection, trampling, or
herbivory: Yes___ or No _X__
35) Evidence Comments:
36) Pollinator observed – Yes or No 37) Pollinator type(s):
38) Pollinator comments:
Site Morphometry
39) Percent Slope: ® 2% 40) Slope position: ® TS
41) Aspect: ® azimuth: 160o or cardinal:
42) Elev.: Ave: 703 Min: 702 Max: 705 43) Elev UOM: ®* FEET
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 Appendix 1b Page 2 June 2014
Soil Characteristics and Light Conditions
44) Substrate on which EO occurs: R
45) Parent Material: ALLU 46) Soil Moisture: M 47) Soil Texture: S
48) Soil Type: 49) Light Exposure: ® PSH
Site Classifications
Record taxonomic units of the given type(s) if published classifications exist for the area.
CLASSIFICATION TYPE CLASS CODE CLASSIFICATION SHORT NAME CLASSIFICATION SET
50) Existing Veg®
51) Potential Veg
52) Ecotype
Habitat Quality and Management Comments
53) Habitat Description: Plants growing on semi-stabilized, sparsely vegetated, south-facing creek outwash area near shore of Grant Lake, on cobble, sand, gravel substrate, in open early successional shrub-forb-graminoid community. Plants 12 feet from lake edge. Plants from 2 to 6 feet higher than the estimated water level of 700 feet.
54) Dominant Process: 50, 70
55) Process Comment: At base of steep avalanche slopes, with creek nearby. Area is likely prone to flood and avalanches which could affect the population.
56) Community Quality (L, M, H): H 57) Landscape Integrity (L, M, H): H
58) Disturbance/Threats (present or imminent): EX, RC, SU
59) Disturbance/Threats Comment: There is an historic cabin on same gravel bar. There are also at least 2 fire rings, and an obvious campsite in the vicinity. It is possible that the trees and shrubs growing near the population might eventually shade it out. The population is small to begin with.
60) Non-Native Comment: There were estimated to be > 100 Taraxacum plants in and around the poppy population. It is possible that some of them were the native dandelion species Taraxacum ceratophorum, which was collected elsewhere on the lake in similar habitats.
61) Current Land Use Comment:
Canopy Cover
Record % canopy cover by actual percent, or by cover class (as indicated in General Information Block).
Lifeform Canopy Cover 62) % Cov or Code Ground Cover 63) % Cov or Code
Tree Bare
SITE ID:
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 Appendix 1b Page 3 June 2014
Shrub Gravel
Forb Rock
Graminoid Bedrock
Non-vascular Moss
Lichen Litter/Duff
Algae Basal Veg
Water
Road surface
Lichen
Associated Species
List species directly associated with the EO species on this site. Record the NRCS Plant Code, scientific name or both. If desired, indicate lifeform, dominant species, % cover for each species and flag non-native species.
64) Completeness of Species List: ®* C, R, OR S ®
65) Species List Comment: Complete
66) ®
NRCS
Plant Code
67) ®
Scientific Name
68)
Life
Form
69)
Dom.
(Y/N)
70)
% Cov or
Class
71)
Non-
native
Picea x lutzii T 2
Alnus viridis sinuata S 2
Populus balsamifera S T
Taraxacum officinale/ceratophorum F 2 ?
Aquilegia formosa F 1
Cerastium arvense F 1
Heracleum maximum F t
Astragalus alpinus F t
Chamerion latifolium F 1
Oxytropis splendans F t
Artemisia arctica F t
Carex pachystachya G t
Festuca brachyphylla G 1
Elymus violaceus G t
Trisetum spicatum G 1
Poa alpina G 1
Sibbaldia procumbens F 1
Arabis lyrata F t
SITE ID:
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 Appendix 1b Page 4 June 2014
EO Specimen Documentation
72) Reference for ID: Hulten
73) Primary Collector – ®Last Name: Beck First Name: Kathryn M.I. A
Other Collectors – ®Last Name: First Name: M.I.
74) Collection #: ®* 201334 75) ID Confirmed: ®* Y: X or N: or Questionable:
76) Verification: ® K. BECK
77) Specimen Repository: ®* WTU (UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON)
Image Information ® (IF IMAGES TAKEN)
78) Image ID 79) Image Description
Location Information
(State, County, Region, Forest, District will be auto-populated by the database application when the spatial feature is entered)
80) USGS Quad Number: 81) USGS Quad Name:
82) Forest Quad Number: 83) Forest Quad Name:
84) Legal Description: Required where public land survey is available.
Meridian: Township and Range: T05N R01E
Section:__ 29 Q Sec:_SW__ QQ Sec: __NE__ QQQ Sec: ____ QQQQ Sec: ____
85) Latitude and Longitude ®FOR TONGASS (either in degrees, minutes, seconds or in decimal
degrees)
Geodetic Datum:
Latitude: Degrees __ __ N Minutes Seconds __ __.__ __
Longitude: Degrees __ __ __ W Minutes Seconds __ __.__ __
GPS Datum:
GPS Lat. Dec. Degrees: 60.4914885 N lat GPS Long. Dec. Degrees: -149.3043653 W lon
86) UTM® FOR CHUGACH
UTM Datum: UTM Zone:
SITE ID:
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 Appendix 1b Page 5 June 2014
Easting: __ __ __ __ __ __ Northing: __ __ __ __ __ __
87) GPS Equipment Used (Manufacturer and Model):
Garmin Trek
88) Metes and Bounds
89) Directions to Site
Use GPS to help located. Population located on the north shore of lake, at the base of large
avalanche slopes, northwest of the island on cobble shore visible from water. It is just west of
small historic cabin.
90) Sketch of Site or Area
91) General EO Comments
SITE ID:
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 Appendix 1b Page 8 June 2014
USDA FOREST SERVICE 2008
PLANT SURVEY FIELD FORM
(® = Required Fields ® = Alaska Required)
DECEMBER 2008
General Information
1) SURVEY ID: ® 2) SURVEY NAME: GRANT LAKE PROJECT
3) SURVEY STATUS: ® COMPLETED 4) TARGET: ® TESP; INPA;
BOTH
5) SOURCE OF WORK: CONTRACT
6) Survey Type: ® FOCUSED INTUITIVE CONTROLLED
7) Survey Focus: ® FEATURES
8) Estimate of Survey Area Size (acres): 9) No. of Traverses:
10) Elevation: Min: 700 Max: 710 Average: 705 11) Elevation UOM: Feet
12) State: ®
13) County: ® 14) Region: ® 15) Forest: ® 16) District: ®
AK Kenai 10 Chugach NF Seward
17) Parameters of Survey (Describe any ecological parameters, survey criteria or combinations of these used
to focus the survey. (I.e., north slopes, specific habitat types, certain soils within certain forest conditions, survey
timing, etc.): Survey was done around USFS owned portions of Grant Lake between lake level (700 feet) and five feet above normal high lake level (est. 705 feet). Habitats similar to those of targeted Sensitive plant species were focused on. Survey was done by boat in steep areas and walking surveys were done where walking was possible. Intuitive controlled survey was performed at proper time of year to identify all targeted species.
18) Survey Comments (Directions, area description, specific comments by visit date, etc.):
Survey Visits
Required. Enter a Date (MM/DD/YYYY) and Examiners for each visit made.
19) VISIT DATE ® 20) LAST NAME ® AND FIRST NAME ® OF EXAMINERS FOR EACH VISIT
7/18-7/23/2013 BECK, KATHRYN / BECK BOTANICAL SERVICES
LOHR, ROB / MCMILLEN LLC
Target Species
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 Appendix 1b Page 9 June 2014
Required. List all targeted plant species (TES, INPA, special forest products, or other species of concern)
that are the focus of the survey. It may be helpful to separate TES from INPA species by page or block if
survey is for both purposes. Enter all the species individually using the NRCS PLANTS code and/or
scientific name. All columns are required.
21) ®
NRCS
Plant
Code
22) ®
Scientific name
23) ® Suitable
habitat found
24) ®
Plant
found
25) ®
FS Site ID(s) for EOs
(If EO forms
completed)
APES Aphragmus eschscholtzianus no No
BOTU3 Botrychium tunux no No
BOYA Botrychium yaaxudakeit no No
CYGU Cypripedium guttatum yes No
LICA15 Ligusticum calderi no No
PAAL5 Papaver alboroseum yes Yes Grant Lake 1
PIUN3 Piperia unalascensis yes No
ROUN Romanzoffia unalaschensis yes No
Species List of Surveyed Area
Optional. List other species found during the survey. Record the NRCS PLANTS Code, scientific name or both. Indicate habitat (locally defined), lifeform and cover abundance (all optional). Indicate non-native plants with “X”
26) Completeness of species list:
®COMPLETE 27) Cover Method (if cover recorded): Dauben
28) Comments (e.g. details about species list approach, habitat focus, vegetation types or structure,
etc.): ® An attempt was made to compile a complete species list.
Optional Location Information Location information to represent the survey area may be recorded, in addition to entering the spatial feature in the application
29)
NRCS
Plant
Code
30)
Scientific Name
31)
Life
Form
32)
Habitat
33)
% Cover
or Class
34)
Non-
native
See Appendix A.8-1 of Grant Lake Project
Terrestrial Resources Report for complete
species list
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 Appendix 1b Page 10 June 2014
35) USGS Quad Number: 36) USGS Quad Name:
37) Forest Quad Number: 38) Forest Quad Name:
39) Legal Description: Required where public land survey is available.
Meridian: Township and Range:
Section:__ Q Sec:___ QQ Sec: ____ QQQ Sec: ____ QQQQ Sec: ____
40) Latitude and Longitude (either in degrees, minutes, seconds or in decimal degrees) ® FOR TONGASS
Geodetic Datum:
Latitude: Degrees __ __ N Minutes Seconds __ __.__ __
Longitude: Degrees __ __ __ W Minutes Seconds __ __.__ __
GPS Datum:
GPS Lat. Dec. Degrees: GPS Long. Dec. Degrees:
41) UTM® FOR CHUGACH
UTM Datum: UTM Zone:
Easting: __ __ __ __ __ __ Northing: __ __ __ __ __ __
42) GPS Equipment: Manufacturer: Model:
43) Metes and Bounds
44) Directions to Survey Area
Hike or fly into Grant Lake near Moose Pass, Alaska.
45) Sketch of Survey Area
USFS Survey Intensity Levels for Plants
Level 1 – “Field Check”
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 Appendix 1b Page 11 June 2014
USFS Survey Intensity Levels for Plants
The surveyor gives the area a quick “once-over” but does not walk completely through the
project area. The entire project area has not been examined.
Level 2 – “Cursory”
The surveyor gives the area an “once-over” by walking through the project area. The entire
project has not been examined.
Level 3 – “Limited Focus”
The surveyor closely examines one or more habitat-specific locations within the project area, but
does not look at the rest of the area.
Level 4 – “General”
The surveyor gives the area a closer look by walking through the project area and walking
around the perimeter of the area or by walking more than once through the area. Most of the
project area is examined.
Level 5 – “Intuitive Controlled”
The surveyor has a closer look by conducting a complete examination of specific areas of the
project after walking through the project area an perimeter or by walking more than once through
the area.
Level 6 – “Complete”
The surveyor has walked throughout the area being examined until nearly all of the area has been
examined.
FINAL REPO
Grant Lake
FERC No.
Photo A.1
Photo A.1
ORT
e Hydroelectric
13212
1b-1. Bloom
1b-2. Pale po
c Project
ming pale popp
oppy habitat.
Appen
py plant
ndix 1b Page 12
TERRESTRIA
AL RESOURCES
Kenai Hydro
June
STUDY
o, LLC
e 2014
FINAL REPO
Grant Lake
FERC No.
Photo A.1
ORT
e Hydroelectric
13212
1b-3. Pale po
c Project
oppy habitat f
Appen
from Grant La
ndix 1b Page 1
ake
3
TERRESTRIA
AL RESOURCES
Kenai Hydro
June
STUDY
o, LLC
e 2014
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 Appendix 1b Page 14 June 2014
[This page intentionally left blank.]
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 June 2014
Appendix 2: Wetlands
Appendix 2a: Wetlands Related Materials
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 June 2014
Appendix 2a. Wetlands Related Materials
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitat Classification Chart
Wetland Determination Datasheets
Wetland Functional Assessment Datasheets
Fieldnotes
Photo A.2a-1. Representative photo of an herbaceous dominated depressional wetland.
Photo A.2a-2. Representative photo of an herbaceous dominated lacustrine fringe wetland.
Photo A.2a-3. Representative photo of an herbaceous floodplain forest & scrub dominated riverine wetland on Grant Creek.
Photo A.2a-4. Representative photo of an herbaceous floodplain forest & scrub dominated riverine wetland in the complex wetland/upland mosaic associated with the Grant Creek side channels.
Photo A.2a-5. Representative photo of scrub-shrub dominated depressional wetland.
Photo A.2a-6. Representative photo of scrub-shrub dominated lacustrine wetland
Photo A.2a-7. Representative photo of scrub-shrub dominated riverine wetland.
Photo A.2a-8. Representative photo of a scrub-shrub floodplain forest & scrub dominated riverine wetland.
Photo A.2a-9. Representative photo of a scrub-shrub floodplain forest & scrub dominated riverine wetland in the complex wetland/upland mosaic associated with the Grant Creek side channels.
Photo A.2a-10. Representative photo of a forest dominated slope wetland
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 June 2014
Photo A.2a-11. Representative photo of an open water lacustrine water body. Aerial photo of Grant Lake looking west towards narrows.
Photo A.2a-12. Representative photo of an active riverine water body.
Photo A.2a-13. Representative photo of non-vegetated and intermittent/ephemeral (dry) channel areas associated with Inlet Creek on west end of Grant Lake.
Photo A.2a-14. Representative photo of an intermittent/ephemeral (inactive) riverine water body.
FINAL REPO
Grant Lake
FERC No.
Photo A.2
DP14 (PE
Photo A.2
at OP86 o
ORT
e Hydroelectric
13212
2a-1. Repres
EM/PSS1E) o
2a-2. Repres
on 7.24.13.
c Project
entative phot
n 7/19/13.
entative phot
Appe
to of an herba
to of an herba
endix 2a Page 1
aceous domina
aceous domina
1
ated depressio
ated lacustrin
TERRESTRIA
onal wetland.
ne fringe wetl
AL RESOURCES
Kenai Hydro
June
. Photo taken
and. Photo ta
STUDY
o, LLC
e 2014
n at
aken
FINAL REPO
Grant Lake
FERC No.
Photo A.2
wetland o
Photo A.2
wetland in
taken at D
ORT
e Hydroelectric
13212
2a-3. Repres
on Grant Cree
2a-4. Repres
n the complex
DP23 on 7.2
c Project
entative phot
k. Photo take
entative phot
x wetland/upl
21.13.
Appe
to of an herba
en at OP51 on
to of an herba
land mosaic a
endix 2a Page 2
aceous floodp
n 7.22.13.
aceous floodp
associated wit
2
lain forest &
lain forest &
th the Grant C
TERRESTRIA
scrub domina
scrub domina
Creek side ch
AL RESOURCES
Kenai Hydro
June
ated riverine
ated riverine
hannels. Phot
STUDY
o, LLC
e 2014
to
FINAL REPO
Grant Lake
FERC No.
Photo A.2
DP17 on 7
Photo A.2
on 7.16.13
ORT
e Hydroelectric
13212
2a-5. Repres
7.20.13.
2a-6. Repres
3.
c Project
entative phot
entative phot
Appe
to of scrub-sh
to of scrub-sh
endix 2a Page 3
hrub dominate
hrub dominate
3
ed depression
ed lacustrine w
TERRESTRIA
nal wetland. P
wetland. Pho
AL RESOURCES
Kenai Hydro
June
Photo taken at
oto taken at D
STUDY
o, LLC
e 2014
t
DP04
FINAL REPO
Grant Lake
FERC No.
Photo A.2
7.25.13.
Photo A.2
wetland.
ORT
e Hydroelectric
13212
2a-7. Repres
2a-8. Repres
Photo taken a
c Project
entative phot
entative phot
at DP02 on 7.
Appe
to of scrub-sh
to of a scrub-s
.16.13
endix 2a Page 4
hrub dominate
shrub floodpl
4
ed riverine we
lain forest & s
TERRESTRIA
etland. Photo
scrub domina
AL RESOURCES
Kenai Hydro
June
o taken at DP3
ated riverine
STUDY
o, LLC
e 2014
39 on
FINAL REPO
Grant Lake
FERC No.
Photo A.2
wetland in
taken at D
Photo A.2
7.25.13.
ORT
e Hydroelectric
13212
2a-9. Repres
n the complex
DP24 on 7.22.
2a-10. Repre
c Project
entative phot
x wetland/upl
.13.
esentative pho
Appe
to of a scrub-s
land mosaic a
oto of a forest
endix 2a Page 5
shrub floodpl
associated wit
t dominated s
5
lain forest & s
th the Grant C
slope wetland
TERRESTRIA
scrub domina
Creek side cha
d. Photo taken
AL RESOURCES
Kenai Hydro
June
ated riverine
annels. Photo
n at DP37 on
STUDY
o, LLC
e 2014
o
FINAL REPO
Grant Lake
FERC No.
Photo A.2
looking w
Photo A.2
taken on 7
ORT
e Hydroelectric
13212
2a-11. Repre
west towards n
2a-12. Repre
7.21.13.
c Project
esentative pho
narrows, taken
esentative pho
Appe
oto of an open
n on 7.16.13.
oto of an activ
endix 2a Page 6
n water lacust
ve riverine wa
6
trine waterbo
aterbody. Ph
TERRESTRIA
dy. Aerial ph
hoto of Grant C
AL RESOURCES
Kenai Hydro
June
hoto of Grant
Creek at OP4
STUDY
o, LLC
e 2014
t Lake
45
FINAL REPO
Grant Lake
FERC No.
Photo A.2
associated
Photo A.2
taken at O
ORT
e Hydroelectric
13212
2a-13. Repre
d with Inlet C
2a-14. Repre
OP32 on 7.19.
c Project
esentative pho
Creek on west
esentative pho
.13.
Appe
oto of non-veg
end of Grant
oto of an inter
endix 2a Page 7
getated and in
t Lake. Photo
rmittent/ephem
7
ntermittent/ep
taken on 7.17
meral (inactiv
TERRESTRIA
phemeral (dry
7.13.
ve) riverine w
AL RESOURCES
Kenai Hydro
June
y) channel are
waterbody. Ph
STUDY
o, LLC
e 2014
eas
hoto
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 Appendix 2a Page 8 June 2014
[This page intentionally left blank.]
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 June 2014
Appendix 3: Wildlife
Appendix 3a: Breeding Landbird and Shorebird Data
Appendix 3b: Northern Goshawk Data
Appendix 3c: Wildlife Related Materials
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 June 2014
Appendix 3a. Breeding Landbird and Shorebird Data
June 15-16, 2013 Breeding Bird Surveys
June 15-16, 2013 Breeding Bird Point Vegetation Data
May 21-22, 2013 Breeding Bird Surveys
Photos A.3a-1 through A.3a-14: Breeding Bird Point Vegetation Pictures
FINAL REPO
Grant Lake
FERC No.
Breeding
Photo A.3
PhotoA.3
ORT
e Hydroelectric
13212
g Bird Poin
3a-1. Point 1
3a-2. Point 2 F
c Project
t Vegetatio
Facing East.
Facing East.
Appe
on Pictures
endix 3a Page 11
TERRESTRIA
AL RESOURCES
Kenai Hydro
June
STUDY
o, LLC
e 2014
FINAL REPO
Grant Lake
FERC No.
Photo A.3
PhotoA.3
ORT
e Hydroelectric
13212
3a-3. Point 3
3a-4. Point 4 F
c Project
Facing East.
Facing East.
Appeendix 3a Page 2
2
TERRESTRIAAL RESOURCES
Kenai Hydro
June
STUDY
o, LLC
e 2014
FINAL REPO
Grant Lake
FERC No.
Photo A.3
PhotoA.3
ORT
e Hydroelectric
13212
3a-5. Point 5
3a-6. Point 6 F
c Project
Facing East.
Facing East.
Appeendix 3a Page 3
3
TERRESTRIAAL RESOURCES
Kenai Hydro
June
STUDY
o, LLC
e 2014
FINAL REPO
Grant Lake
FERC No.
Photo A.3
PhotoA.3
ORT
e Hydroelectric
13212
3a-7. Point 7
3a-8. Point 8 F
c Project
Facing East.
Facing East.
Appeendix 3a Page 44
TERRESTRIA
AL RESOURCES
Kenai Hydro
June
STUDY
o, LLC
e 2014
FINAL REPO
Grant Lake
FERC No.
Photo A.3
PhotoA.3
ORT
e Hydroelectric
13212
3a-9. Point 9
3a-10. Point 1
c Project
Facing East.
0 Facing Eas
Appe
st.
endix 3a Page 55
TERRESTRIA
AL RESOURCES
Kenai Hydro
June
STUDY
o, LLC
e 2014
FINAL REPO
Grant Lake
FERC No.
Photo A.3
PhotoA.3
ORT
e Hydroelectric
13212
3a-11. Point 1
3a-12. Point 1
c Project
11 Facing Eas
2 Facing Eas
Appe
st.
st.
endix 3a Page 66
TERRESTRIA
AL RESOURCES
Kenai Hydro
June
STUDY
o, LLC
e 2014
FINAL REPO
Grant Lake
FERC No.
Photo A.3
ORT
e Hydroelectric
13212
3a-13. Point 1
c Project
13 Facing Eas
Appe
st.
endix 3a Page 7
7
TERRESTRIAAL RESOURCES
Kenai Hydro
June
STUDY
o, LLC
e 2014
FINAL REPO
Grant Lake
FERC No.
PhotoA.3
ORT
e Hydroelectric
13212
3a-14. Point 1
c Project
4 Facing Eas
Appe
st.
endix 3a Page 8
8
TERRESTRIAAL RESOURCES
Kenai Hydro
June
STUDY
o, LLC
e 2014
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 June 2014
Appendix 3b. Northern Goshawk Data
July 8-9, 2013 Northern Goshawk Surveys
July 16-17, 2013 Northern Goshawk Surveys
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 June 2014
Appendix 3c. Wildlife Related Materials
Table A.3c-1. Plant Species and Codes
Wildlife Fieldnotes
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 Appendix 3c Page 1 June 2014
Table A.3c-1. Plant species and codes.
Tree Codes Common Name Scientific Name
PICGLA White Spruce Picea glauca
PICLUT Lutz Spruce Picea x lutzii
PICMAR Black Spruce Picea mariana
PICSIT Sitka Spruce Picea sitchensis
TSUMER Mountain Hemlock Tsuga mertensiana
POPBAL Cottonwood Populus balsamifera
BETPAP Birch Betula paperifera
Shrub Codes Common Name Scientific Name
ALNSPP Alder Species Alnus sp.
ALNVIR Sitka Alder Alnus viridis ssp. Sinuata
ANDPOL Dwarf Bog-rosemary Andromeda polifolia
BETGLA Dwarf Birch Betula glandulifera
BETNAN Bog Birch Betula nana
CORCAN Dwarf Dogwood Cornus canadensis
EMPNIG Mossberry Empetrum nigrum
LEDDEC Narrow-leaf Labrador Tea Ledum decumbens
LEDGRO Labrador Tea Ledum groenlandicum
LEDSPP Labrador Tea Species Ledum sp.
LINBOR Twinflower Linnaea borealis
MENFER False Azalea Menziesia ferruginea
OPLHOR Devil's Club Oplopanax horridus
RIBTRI Wild Red Current Ribes triste
ROSACI Prickly Rose Rosa acicularis
RUBARC Nagoonberry Rubus arcticus
RUBCHA Cloudberry Rubus chamaemorus
RUBPED Five-leaved Bramble Rubus pedatus
SALALA Felt-leaf Willow Salix alaxensis
SALSPP Willow Species Salix sp.
SALSTI Sitka Willow Salix stichensis
SHECAN Soapberry Shepherdia canadensis
SPIBEA Steven's Spirea Spiraea beauverdiana
VACALA Alaska Huckleberry Vaccinium alaskensis
VACOVA Tall (early) Blueberry Vaccinium ovalifolium
VACVIT Lingonberry Vaccinium vitis-idaea
VIBEDU High-bush Cranberry Viburnum edule
FINAL REPORT TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY
Table A.3c-1, continued…
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 Appendix 3c Page 2 June 2014
Herbaceous Codes Common Name Scientific Name
ANERIC Yellow Anemone Anemone richardsonii
CALCAN Bluejoint Calamagrostis canadensis
CHAANG Fireweed Chamerion angustifolium
CHALAT River Beauty Chamerion latifolium
COMPAL Marsh Cinquefoil Comarum palustre
DRYOCT Eight-petaled Dryas Dryas octopetala
EQUARV Common Horsetail Equisetum arvense
EQUSPP Horsetail Species Equisetum sp.
GALTRI Small Bedstraw Galium trifidum
GEOLIV Bastard Toad-flax Geocaulon lividum
GERERI Northern Geranium Geranium erianthum
HERLAN Cow Parsnip Heracleum lanatum
LUPSPP Lupine Species Lupinus sp.
PYRASA Pink Wintergreen Pyrola asarifolia
STRAMP Clasping Twistedstalk Streptopus amplexifolius
TRIARC Northern Starflower Trientalis arctica
VIOLAN Alaska Violet Viola langsdorfii
VIOSPP Violet Species Viola sp.
Fern Codes Common Name Scientific Name
DRYEXP Wood Fern Dryopteris expansa
GYMDRY Oak Fern Gymnocarpium dryopteris
Lichen Codes Common Name Scientific Name
CLASPP Reindeer Lichen Species Cladina sp.
PELBRI Freckle Pelt Peltigera britannica
Moss Codes Common Name Scientific Name
HYLSPL Step Moss Hylocomium splendens
PLESCH Red-stemmed Feathermoss Pleurozium schreberi
Field Notes for July 8-9 Northern Goshawk Surveys:
The second Northern Goshawk survey was completed July 9, 2013. A total of 15 points were surveyed using the methods
described in the study plan.
Logistics: Mark Miller helped with shuttling Amal and Bobby across the river. Amal and Bobby were based a short
distance out of the man-camp.
Monday: Travel, set up camp, and surveyed goshawk points: 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 5 and 6.
Tuesday: surveyed goshawk points: 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15. Traveled back to Anchorage / Fairbanks.
Field data: The forms have been uploaded into SharePoint along with notes.
Bald Eagle Nest: Eagles are currently feeding hatched young as assessed from their behaviour.
Merlins: The pair are currently still in the area and actively defending a “nest” territory as assessed from their behaviour.
The survey was completed. The vegetation was not difficult on Monday, but was very difficult on Tuesday further in
towards the lake. It took 1/3 longer to do the last 8 points. The Devil’s club and False Azalea impede travel, the fern are
so developed you can’t see the ground for sure footing, and the humidity is up making rocks and branches very slick. The
survey was more challenging, but doable especially because we broke it down into “2” days rather than one long one.
Incidental list: Varied Thrush; Ruby-crowned Kinglet; Yellow-rumped Warbler; American Dipper; Bald Eagle;
Chestnut-backed Chickadee; Merlin; Mew Gull; Swainson’s Thrush; Hermit Thrush; Slate-colored Junco; Orange-
crowned Warbler; Spotted Sandpiper; Tree Swallow; Gray Jay; Yellow Warbler; Wilson’s Warbler; Arctic Tern; Pine
Siskin; Redpoll; Pine Grosbeak; White-winged Crossbill; Fox Sparrow; Pacific Wren.
There was more, fresher bear sign in the form of scat (3).
Field Notes for May 21-22 Breeding Bird Surveys:
The first field survey of Breeding birds went well. I flew down to Anchorage on Monday 20 May, Bobby
Beckmen picked me up and we set out for Moose Pass. I contacted John Stevenson along the way to let
him know we were coming and we all converged at the house in Moose Pass. John took us out across the
Narrows in the boat and we made camp on the south side of the creek. We decided to find a few points
and get an idea of the habitat and terrain. Tuesday morning we surveyed points: 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13,
14. Wednesday we surveyed points: 9, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. The crossing in the canoe was uneventful and easy.
We completed surveys for all 14 points. The weather was very agreeable. The forms will be uploaded
into SharePoint by the end of the day, along with notes, the few picture we took and incidental
information. We took coordinates for the Bald Eagle nest at the camp sight. They are currently
incubating eggs from their behaviour. Bobby and I were curious about a pair of Merlin in the immediate
area, so we found them and took coordinates of a suspected nest sight, however, I do not believe they are
incubating yet (based on their behaviour).
NAD83
60.45676; 149.36002 Bald Eagle Nest (Incubating)
60.45599; 149.36365 Suspected Merlin Nest site.
We decided NOT to take the Vegetation information this time around as most of the plants were senesced
and very difficult to ID. We will accomplish that in June when the vegetation is in a better state (leaves
and flowers).
I will be honest and say that we had it easy this time around. I feel we will have more complications once
the vegetation grows up, it will make traveling slower, more difficult and more painful. I got slapped
with a Devils club (not bad, but certainly could do without), and foresee a lot more of that in June and
July. I am hoping this will not affect my assessment of travel time and survey time. We will try to keep
up the pace.
I have included some pictures for your view. Grant lake is still very much iced over. However, the snow
has pretty much receded from the whole survey area, with only small pockets here and there. The birds
were singing, but there was a marked lack of certain species, especially the insectivores. I suspect that
they will be arriving soon and our June surveys will pick them up.
Our incidental list: Varied Thrush; Ruby-crowned Kinglet; Yellow-rumped Warbler; American Dipper;
Bald Eagle; Chestnut-backed Chickadee; Black-capped Chickadee; Boreal Chickadee; Merlin; Mew Gull;
Brown Creeper; Hermit Thrush; Loon Species (either Pacific or Common, was very bad lighting and
couldn’t tell); Slate-colored Junco; Orange-crowned Warbler; Belted Kingfisher; Greater Yellowlegs;
Golden-crowned Sparrow; Spruce Grouse; Harlequin Ducks. There was Moose sign everywhere. The
crews reported seeing a moose the day before we arrived. There was NO bear sign.
Field Notes for June 14-17 Breeding Bird & Northern Goshawk Surveys:
The second and final songbird survey was completed June 16, 2013. A total of 14 points were surveyed using the
methods described in the study plan.
Logistics: John Stevenson helped with shuttling Amal and Bobby across the river. Amal and Bobby were based a short
distance out of the man-camp.
Friday: Travel, obtained waders and rope from Seward, shuttle across the river, set up camp, tested safety of weir, visual
inspection of water levels
Saturday: surveyed breeding bird points: 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. Vegetation survey of points: 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
9 and 6.
Sunday: surveyed breeding bird points: 9, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. Vegetation survey of points: 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1. Surveyed
goshawk points: 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 5 and 6.
Monday: surveyed goshawk points: 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15.
Field data: The forms have been uploaded into SharePoint along with notes, the few picture we took and incidental
information.
Bald Eagle Nest: Eagles are currently incubating eggs as assessed from their behaviour.
Merlins: The pair are currently still in the area and suspected to be incubating eggs.
All surveys were completed. The Breeding Bird surveys are now finished. The last 2013 Goshawk survey is scheduled
for July 8-10. I have included some pictures, for your view. Grant Lake is now ice free, and the snow only remains in the
highest elevations. All expected birds were singing, and we documented a Red-breasted Merganser hen with 10 downy
chicks (roughly 1-7 days old).
Incidental list: Varied Thrush; Ruby-crowned Kinglet; Yellow-rumped Warbler; American Dipper; Bald Eagle;
Chestnut-backed Chickadee; Boreal Chickadee; Merlin; Glaucous-winged Gull; Brown Creeper; Hermit Thrush; Common
Loon; Slate-colored Junco; Orange-crowned Warbler; Belted Kingfisher; Spotted Sandpiper; Golden-crowned Sparrow;
Harlequin Ducks; Violet-green Swallow; Common Raven; Wilson’s Snipe; Alder Flycatcher; Osprey; Pacific Wren.
A cow moose and calf came through our camp one night, but left without incident. There was moose sign everywhere
along our survey routes. There was bear sign in the form of scat.