Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
5.7 GrantLk (P-13212) DLA Vl1 ExhE 03-27-15 FINAL
DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-1 March 2015 EXHIBIT E: ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 Introduction Kenai Hydro, LLC (KHL), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Homer Electric Association, Inc. (HEA), is filing this Draft License Application (DLA) for an original license for the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13212 [Project or Grant Lake Project]) under Part I of the Federal Power Act. 1.1. Purpose of Exhibit E The purpose of this Exhibit E is to describe the following: (1) existing lands and waters; (2) the proposed Project facilities and operations; (3) proposed protection, mitigation, and enhancement (PM&E) measures and their benefits, by resource area; and (4) the incremental impacts of the proposed Project and its operation, including direct, indirect, cumulative, and unavoidable adverse impacts, based on information generated by the licensing study program. The resource analyses contained in this Exhibit E will provide the foundation for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis. 1.2. Traditional Licensing Process (TLP) Schedule Table E.1-1 provides a summary of the major milestones of the licensing process, beginning with the Pre-Application Document (PAD) and ending with the DLA. The table also includes document filings associated with related mandatory processes, including the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) Section 401 water quality certification process, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 permit application process, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Section 7 Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation, and consultation pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Following the filing of the Final License Application (FLA), FERC will establish a firm schedule for the processing of the License Application and evaluate KHL’s licensing proposal through the NEPA process. KHL conducted a series of baseline natural resource studies in 2009 prior to and during the Notice of Intent (NOI)/PAD submittal. The Environmental Baseline Study Report was submitted to stakeholders for review in March 2010 (KHL 2010a). In May of 2010, KHL distributed draft study plans for natural resource efforts that they felt were commensurate with the size and scale of the Project (KHL 2010b through 2010f). After review of FERC Scoping Documents 1 and 2 and receiving comments on the 2010 study plans from stakeholders, it was evident that natural resources studies would need to be modified to become more quantitative in nature. As such, KHL chose to make the requisite quantitative revisions. KHL utilized most of 2011 and early 2012 to assess the internal licensing effort, revise natural resource planning, and select a biological consultant team to conduct the studies. In the interim, KHL’s first FERC Preliminary Permit expired. On March 23, 2012, FERC granted KHL’s request for a second Preliminary Permit. Once secured, KHL advanced their natural resource planning effort and on December 12, 2012, KHL held a meeting with stakeholders to present the more robust, comprehensive and quantitative set of natural resource studies. While not required per the process, KHL accepted subsequent comments from the stakeholders and to a great extent, DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-2 March 2015 incorporated the requested revisions prior to starting the studies in earnest in March 2013 (KHL 2013a through 2013e). Table E.1-1. Milestones associated with filing of the Project DLA. Milestone Date Preliminary Permit Order October 1, 2008 Notice of Intent (NOI) and Pre-Application Document (PAD) August 6, 2009 Revised PAD May 3, 2010 FERC Scoping Document 1 (SD1) May 11, 2010 Draft Study Plans May 2010 Partial Study Season (Pre-scoping) 2009–2010 FERC Scoping Meetings June 2-3, 2010 FERC SD2 August 23, 2010 Preliminary Permit No. 2 Application October 1, 2011 Preliminary Permit No. 2 Order March 23, 2012 Final Study Plans March 2013 Comprehensive Study Season March 2013 – July 2014 Draft Study Reports February 2014 Final Study Reports June 2014 Cultural Resources Study, Final Report February 2015 Draft License Application (DLA) March 2015 Draft Section 404 permit application Estimate April 2015 Draft Biological Evaluation for Plants (BE) Estimate April/May 2015 Draft management and monitoring plans: Operational Compliance Monitoring Plan (OCMP) Biotic Monitoring Plan Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) Avian Protection Plan (APP) Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) Estimate April/May 2015 A comprehensive package of documents including the Draft Biological Evaluation (BE) for sensitive plants in the Project area and a series of management/monitoring plans is under development and will be distributed for comment between 30 and 60 days after the distribution of this DLA. This schedule will facilitate a seamless review in conjunction with the DLA and allow comments on all documents to be completed at the same time given the 90 day review period for this document. The intent and general objectives of the BE and management/monitoring plans are described in the representative sections of this document. All specific measures and associated timelines associated with proposed monitoring, enhancement and mitigation measures are detailed in the BE and management/monitoring plans themselves. Once the comment period is complete, KHL will revise the DLA, BE and management/monitoring plans and synthesize all documents into a comprehensive package prior to filing in which, the BE and management/monitoring plans are appended to the FLA. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-3 March 2015 1.3. Document Organization This Exhibit E can be divided into two general parts: (1) Introduction, Proposed Action and Alternatives, and Consultation sections (Sections 1 - 3) and (2) the Environmental Analysis (Section 4), which makes up the bulk of Exhibit E. Following a general description of the basin, Section 4 has the following section headings for each resource area: Affected Environment – Describes the existing environment based on the results of licensing program studies.1 Environmental Analysis – Describes the impacts of the Proposed Action, based on the results of licensing program studies. Proposed Environmental Measures – Describes KHL’s proposed PM&E measures and their supporting rationales, based on study results and expected benefits of the PM&E measures. Cumulative Impacts – Indicates those resources for which cumulative effects have been identified and discusses whether or how the Proposed Action will contribute to such cumulative effects. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts – Characterizes any adverse impacts that will occur despite the implementation of the identified PM&E measures. 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2.1. Proposed Action 2.1.1. Proposed Project Boundary The Project boundary will encompass the Project features, including an intake, bypass pipe, penstock, surge chamber, powerhouse, detention pond, switchyard, transmission line, and access roads. Each of these Project features are identified on Figure E.2-1 and described in detail in Section 2.1.2 of this Exhibit E. The corridors for the access roads, penstock, and transmission line will be approximately 50-75 feet from each side of the centerline. Grant Lake up to approximately contour elevation 703 feet National American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88), and Grant Creek, flowing from Grant Lake to the Trail Lake Narrows, is entirely encompassed within the Project boundary. The Project sits on state (Alaska Department of Natural Resources [ADNR]) and federal (U.S. Forest Service [USFS]) land, and is directly adjacent to two private property parcels, as shown on the Exhibit G, G-3 drawing. Approximately 250 feet of the Alaska Railroad and of the Seward Highway (AK-9) cross through the west side of the Project boundary. 1 Many of the maps in this Exhibit E that accompany the corresponding text in the respective resource-specific sections were extracted directly from the previously filed natural resoures study reports to ensure consistency with study data. However it should be noted that some of the information on the Project infrastructure layer (such as the location of the detention pond drain and the tailrace location) and the Project boundary have since been updated as a result of the iterative engineering process and is not accurately depicted on some of these maps. Refer to Exhibit G of this DLA for an accurate depiction of the proposed Project boundary and infrastructure. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-4 March 2015 The proposed Project boundary is detailed in maps provided in Exhibit G of this DLA. 2.1.2. Proposed Project Facilities KHL was issued a preliminary permit to investigate a proposed hydropower development on Grant Creek near the outlet of Grant Lake. The Grant Lake Project will consist of the Grant Lake/Grant Creek development, an intake structure in Grant Lake, a tunnel, a potential surge shaft, a penstock, a powerhouse, tailrace channel with fish exclusion barrier, access roads, a step- up transformer, a breaker, an overhead transmission line, and a switchyard. The powerhouse will contain two Francis turbine generating units with a combined rated capacity of 5 MW with a maximum design flow of 385 cubic feet per second (cfs). The general proposed layout of the Project is shown in Figure E.2-1.2 Specific proposed facility characteristics are listed in Tables E.2-1 and described in more detail in Sections 2.1.2.1 through 2.1.2.10 of this Exhibit. Individual proposed facility design drawings are provided in Exhibit F and proposed locations of facilities within the Project boundary are shown in Exhibit G of this DLA. 2 The Project boundary alignment, in the vicinity of Grant Lake, follows the 703-foot contour line derived from USGS developed topographic data. Due to imprecision in the USGS topography, the Project boundary around Grant Lake does not currently align with the USFS-developed aerial imagery presented in some of the Exhibit A and Exhibit E figures. The Project boundary alignment will be refined as additional survey data of the Grant Lake shoreline becomes available. The updated Project boundary is anticipated to align more precisely with USFS imagery. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-7 March 2015 Table E.2-1. General characteristics of the proposed Grant Lake Project facility. Number of Generating Units 2 Turbine Type Francis Rated Generator Output Unit 1 2.5 MW Unit 2 2.5 MW Total 5.0 MW Maximum Rated Turbine Discharge Unit 1 192.5 cfs Unit 2 192.5 cfs Total 385 cfs Minimum Rated Turbine Discharge Unit 1 58 cfs Unit 2 58 cfs Total 116 cfs Turbine Centerline Elevation 526 ft NAVD 88 Normal Tailwater Elevation at Grant Creek at the confluence with the powerhouse and tailrace channel Minimum 517 ft NAVD 88 Maximum 518.3 ft NAVD 88 Average Annual Energy 18,600 megawatt-hours (MWh) Normal Maximum Lake Elevation 703 ft NAVD 88 Normal Minimum Lake Elevation 690 ft NAVD 88 Gross Head 184.7 ft Net Head at Maximum Rated Discharge 171.7 ft Grant Lake Drainage Area 44.2 miles (mi)2 Surface Area 1,703 acres Active/Net Storage Volume 18,790 ac-ft (elevation 703 to 690 feet NAVD 88) Gross Storage Volume 251,920 ac-ft Average Annual Natural Outflow 149,140 ac-ft Average Annual Natural Outflow 206 cfs Water Conveyance Intake Intake structure at lake Approximate dimensions of intake structure 25 ft x 38 ft Invert Elevation 675 ft NAVD 88 Bypass Pipe for Instream Flows Type Directional bore with HDPE liner Length 900 ft Diameter 18 in DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT A Table E.2-1, continued… Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-8 March 2015 Lower Pressure Pipeline Type Welded steel Length 200 ft Diameter 48 in Pressure Tunnel Type 10-ft horseshoe Length 3,300 ft Velocity at Maximum Turbine Discharge 3.9 fps Surge Chamber Diameter 120 in Base Elevation (preliminary) 680 ft NAVD 88 Top Elevation (preliminary) 785 ft NAVD 88 Penstock Type Welded steel Length 150 ft Diameter 72 in Tailrace Type Open channel Length 95 ft Fish Exclusion Barrier Type Picket barrier at tailrace outfall Maximum Design Flow 385 ft Tailrace Detention Pond Approximate Acreage 5 acres Approximate Capacity 15 ac-ft Outlet Conveyance Length 200 ft Powerhouse Approximate Dimensions 50 ft x 100 ft x 30 ft high Finished Floor Elevation 523 ft NAVD 88 Transmission Line Type Overhead Length Approximately 3.5 miles Voltage 115 kilovolt (kV) Powerhouse Access Road Type Two-lane gravel surfacing with turnouts Width 24 feet Length One (1) mile from Seward Highway to powerhouse Intake Access Road Type Two-lane gravel surfacing with turnouts Width 24 feet Length One (1) mile from the powerhouse to the intake DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-9 March 2015 2.1.2.1. Grant Creek Diversion The proposed Project consists of a reinforced concrete intake structure located on the south side of the natural lake outlet. No structural modifications would be made to the existing lake natural outlet. The Project will divert water up to a maximum of 385 cfs into the intake structure. When the lake level exceeds the natural outlet of 703 feet NAVD 88, a maximum of 385 cfs will be diverted into the intake structure and routed to the powerhouse. Flow in excess of 385 cfs would pass over the natural outlet to Grant Creek. 2.1.2.2. Grant Lake Intake The Project water intake would be a concrete structure located approximately 500 feet east of the natural outlet of Grant Lake and adjacent to the shore. The intake structure consists of a reinforced concrete structure extending from approximately elevation 675 NAVD 88feet up to a top deck elevation of 703 feet NAVD 88. The structure has an internal dimension of 38 feet by 15 feet. The structure includes intake trashracks, a selective withdrawal intake gates with wire rope hoist, and a roller gate located on the water conveyance intake. The intake is divided into three bays, each fitted with an intake gate to provide flexibility for delivering the full flow range of 58 cfs to 385 cfs. The gate position within the water column will be set to deliver the required water temperature to Grant Creek below the powerhouse. The roller gate would be 11 feet tall by 11 feet wide and fitted with a wire rope hoist lift mechanism. Electrical power will be extended from the powerhouse to the intake to operate the intake and isolation gates. Pressure transducers will be installed to monitor the water level at the lake as well as within the intake tower. An access bridge 16 feet wide would be installed from the lake shore out to the intake structure. The intake would allow for drawdown of Grant Lake to elevation 690 feet NAVD 88 thereby creating approximately 18,790 acre-feet of active storage for the project between elevations 703 feet NAVD 88 and 690 feet NAVD 88. The intake can be designed to allow the Project to draw water near the surface at various levels of storage, if deemed necessary. The invert of the intake would be at elevation 675 feet NAVD 88 to provide for adequate submergence to the tunnel. A bypass pipe would extend from the intake structure to the base of the existing water fall in Grant Creek. The installed pipe would be 900 feet long and approximately 18 inches in diameter allowing the minimum flow ranging from 5 to 10 cfs to be released. A control gate would be located within the intake structure to regulate and monitor the bypass flow releases. 2.1.2.3. Tunnel and Surge Chamber The intake structure would connect to a tunnel extending to the Project powerhouse. The tunnel would be approximately 3,300 feet long with a 10-foot-horseshoe shape. Drill and shoot techniques would be used to construct the tunnel using an entrance portal at the powerhouse for access. The lower 900 feet of tunnel would be constructed at a 15 percent slope. This section of the tunnel will be concrete lined. The upper 2,400 feet of tunnel would be constructed at a 1 percent slope and would be unlined. This proposed arrangement provides a low pressure hydraulic conduit in the upper tunnel reaches suitable for an unlined tunnel. A surge chamber is located at the transition between the two tunnel slopes. This chamber is approximately 10 feet in DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-10 March 2015 diameter and would extend from the tunnel invert elevation of 650 feet NAVD 88 to the ground surface at approximately elevation 790 feet NAVD 88. The surge chamber provides a non- mechanical relief for hydraulic transients that could occur if a load rejection occurs at the powerhouse. Rock anchors and shotcrete stabilization techniques would be used to stabilize the tunnel where required. A rock trap would be located at the surge chamber location to collect dislodged rocks from the unlined tunnel section. The tunnel would transition to a 6-foot diameter steel penstock approximately 150 feet from the powerhouse. The transition section would consist of a welded steel concentric structure which transitions from the 10-foot tunnel section to the 72-inch diameter penstock. A steel liner would extend from the downstream tunnel portal approximately 300 feet into the tunnel. The liner would be installed within the exposed rock surface with grout pumped behind the liner to provide an impermeable and structurally sound tunnel section. A similar steel tunnel liner section would be installed at the connection to the intake structure for a total distance of approximately 150 feet. 2.1.2.4. Penstock and Surge Chamber A 72-inch diameter steel penstock extends 150 feet from the downstream tunnel portal to the powerhouse. The welded steel penstock would be supported on concrete pipe saddles along the penstock route. The penstock would bifurcate into two 48 inch diameter pipes feeding each of the powerhouse turbines. The penstock fitted with welded steel thrust rings would be encased in concrete thrust blocks at the tunnel portal as well as the powerhouse. These thrust blocks would be designed to resist the full hydraulic load associated with the Project operation. An interior and exterior coating system would be applied to the penstock providing full corrosion protection. An access manway would be provided on the exposed penstock section allowing access for future inspection and maintenance. 2.1.2.5. Tailrace The powerhouse draft tubes would connect to a tailrace channel located on the north side of the powerhouse structure. The draft tubes would extend from a low point elevation of approximately 509 feet NAVD 88 up to the tailrace channel invert elevation of 515 feet NAVD 88. The channel would continue to the east bank of Grant Creek. Each of the draft tubes will be gated allowing the flow to be routed to the detention pond for spinning reserve. Isolation bulkheads would be provided allowing dewatering of the draft tubes for inspection and maintenance of the turbine. The tailrace channel would be trapezoidal in shape with a bottom width of 43 feet, side slopes of 2H:1V and a channel depth ranging from 13 feet at the powerhouse to 7 feet at the creek. A concrete structure would be constructed at the confluence of the channel and Grant Creek. A picket-style fish barrier would be placed on this concrete structure as well as provision for installation of stoplogs allowing the tailrace channel to be dewatered for inspection and maintenance. The channel would be excavated from native material and lined with riprap to provide a long term stable section. A staff gage and pressure transducer will be placed in the channel to monitor the water level in the channel. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-11 March 2015 2.1.2.6. Tailrace Detention Pond An off-stream detention pond would 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 into the electrical transmission grid. In this situation, the additional powerhouse flows would be diverted into the detention pond and then released slowly back into Grant Creek. It is anticipated that the discharge associated with a spinning reserve event would be dispersed via the tailrace channel which flows into Grant Creek. The detention pond would be located immediately south of the powerhouse and would have a capacity of approximately 15 acre-feet and a surface area of approximately 5 acres. 2.1.2.7. Powerhouse The powerhouse would be located on the south bank of Grant Creek immediately west of the downstream tunnel portal and adjacent to the detention pond. The powerhouse would consist of a concrete foundation and a pre-engineered metal building superstructure. The building would be approximately 100 feet long (east to west) and 50 feet wide (north to south). The penstock would tie into the powerhouse on the south side and the tailrace channel on the north side of the building. The building floor would be set at approximately elevation 523 feet NAVD 88 and the centerline of the turbine runner at elevation 526 feet NAVD 88. The draft tube floor would be set at elevation 509 feet NAVD 88 with an operating tailwater inside the draft tubes ranging from 518.0 feet to 519.3 feet NAVD 88. Two horizontal Francis type turbine/generator units with a rated total capacity of 5,000 kilowatt (kW) would be housed in the powerhouse structure. The powerhouse flow would range from a maximum of 385 cfs to a minimum of 58 cfs with each turbine operating flow ranging from 192.5 cfs to 58 cfs. Associated mechanical and electrical equipment would include hydraulic power units, turbine isolation valves, penstock drain, utility water system, lube oil system, oil water separator, battery system, and heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) system. A control room housing the motor control center (MCC), communication rack, fiber optic panels, computers, and related equipment would also be provided. The Project switchgear would be located within the powerhouse. A standby generator, transformer, and fused pad mounted switch assembly would be mounted on an enclosed switchyard located on the south side of the powerhouse. Dewatering pumps would be provided to support dewatering of the turbine draft tubes. A 30-ton bridge crane would be provided for equipment maintenance. The crane would travel on rails mounted on the steel building support columns. An energy dissipation valve would extend off the penstock and provide bypass flows into the Project tailrace. 2.1.2.8. Transmission Line/Switchyard An overhead 115-kilovolt (kV) transmission line will extend from the powerhouse to the existing 115-kV transmission line located on the east side of the Seward Highway. In addition to overhead transmission structures, the facilities would include a switchyard at the powerhouse consisting of a 115-kV fused pad-mounted disconnect switch and a pad-mounted 115-kV GSU transformer. The transmission line would run from the powerhouse parallel to the access road where it would intersect Chugach Electric’s transmission line. The interconnection would have a pole mounted disconnect switch. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-12 March 2015 Wooden poles would be designed as tangent line structures on about 250-foot centers. Design of the line would also incorporate the latest raptor protection guidelines. Collision avoidance devices would be installed on the line at appropriate locations to protect migratory birds. 2.1.2.9. Appurtenant Facilities The following pertinent mechanical and electrical equipment will be applicable to the Project: Intake selective withdrawal intake gate Intake trashrack system Intake roller gate used to isolate the tunnel and downstream generation facilities Control gate located on the bypass pipeline pipe A 30-ton bridge crane in the powerhouse Pumps located in the powerhouse used to dewater the draft tubes Pressure tranducers located throughout the project used to monitor the water level in the reservoir, tunnel and trailrace, as well as pressures in the tunnel and penstock Security cameras at the intake and powerhouse Sanitary waste holding tank at the powerhouse A power line extending from the powerhouse to the intake to supply electrical power to the gates and trashrack Temperature instrumentation at the intake structure and at various stream locations to monitor water temperature This equipment along with other identified miscellaneous mechanical and electrical equipment will be developed during the final design and included in the construction documents. 2.1.2.10. Access Roads The Project would require an access road to both the powerhouse located near the base of the Grant Creek canyon and to the intake at Grant Lake. The access road would be used to construct the Project and afterwards, to maintain the facilities. It is anticipated that the powerhouse would be visited approximately once a week and the intake visited approximately once a month beginning just after the ice melts and continuing until just before freeze up. The powerhouse access road would be maintained year around. The intake access road would not be maintained in winter. The 24-foot wide access road would tie into the Seward Highway at approximately MP 26.9. The route would travel eastward to cross Trail Lakes at the downstream end of the narrows between Upper and Lower Trail lakes and then continue eastward to the powerhouse. This route would be approximately one mile long. It would cross the Alaska Railroad (ARRC) tracks near an existing railroad crossing for a private driveway. The road would cross the narrow channel connecting Upper and Lower Trail lakes with an approximately a 110-foot-long single lane bridge. This bridge is proposed as a clear span with the west abutment located on bedrock and the east abutment on fill. The proposed route would avoid cuts and travel along the base of some DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-13 March 2015 small hills on the south side of Grant Creek to the powerhouse. This proposed access road would have one 90-degree crossing of the Iditarod National Historic Trail (INHT). The intake access road would be approximately one mile long, beginning at the powerhouse. The road would ascend a 230-foot bluff to get to the top of the southern lip of the Grant Creek canyon. A series of road switchbacks would be required to maintain a road grade of less than 8 percent. The road would then generally follow the southern edge of the canyon until it descends to Grant Lake. A small parking area and turn-a-round area would be provided at the intake structure. A 16 foot wide bridge will extend from the bank out to the intake structure. The road would be gravel with a 16-foot top width. Maximum grade would be 8 percent. Periodic turnouts would be provided to allow construction traffic to pass. Fifty-foot radius curves would be used to more closely contour around the small steep hills of bedrock to limit the extent of the excavation and the height of the embankments. 2.1.3. Proposed Project Safety Successful and safe construction of the Project will require an effective Site-specific Safety Plan which clearly outlines the construction activities, hazards associated with these risks, and measures required to mitigate these hazards. As a first step, the construction documents will require the engineer to prepare a detailed Site-specific Safety Plan which meets the state and federal guidelines for construction site safety. A detailed plan will be submitted and reviewed prior to the construction contractor being allowed to mobilize to the Project site. The engineer’s plan will include all trade work and subcontractor specialty work. Within this plan, daily job site safety meetings will be required as well as full training and certifications. A full time safety manager will be required onsite during the Project construction. Periodic independent safety reviews will be conducted by the corporate level safety officer to ensure all safety program features are fully implemented. Similarly, a Site-specific Construction Safety Plan will be required of the engineering and KHL staff which will be onsite during construction providing engineering support, construction oversight, and quality control functions. These entities will be required to have their own safety plans specific to their own work activities as well as work under the Site-specific Construction Safety Plan insuring integration of programs and a comprehensive Project safety program. All unaccompanied personnel entering the construction site will be required to complete a site specific project safety training and job site walk through. All safety training, certification, and inspections will be fully documented and available onsite for review. 2.1.4. Proposed Project Operations The Grant Lake Project will have an average annual energy production anticipated to be 18,600 MWh. The Project will operate to generate power throughout the calendar year based on inflow, available storage, lake elevation, and minimum flow requirements with Grant Creek. The lake will operate from the natural Grant Lake outlet elevation of 703 feet NAVD 88 down to a DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-14 March 2015 minimum lake elevation of 690 feet NAVD 88. The lake will be drawn down in the winter months utilizing a combination of Grant Creek inflows and stored water to meet the instream flows in Reach 5 while also maintaining power production. Water flow predictions will be used to estimate snowpack and the corresponding runoff volume. The Project operation will then be tailored to maximize winter power production while also ensuring the lake refills to elevation 703 feet NAVD 88. 2.1.5. Proposed Environmental Measures Over the past year, based primarily on the results from the natural resource studies and preliminary engineering design discussions, KHL has collaborated with stakeholders to begin to establish a list of proposed PM&E measures. Table E.2-2 below represents an itemized listing of KHL’s proposed PM&E measures and permit and land use requirements for the Project. Further detail related to each specific measure and resource area can be found in the respective subsection in Section 4 of this Exhibit E. If not incorporated into an individual measure, all efforts associated with PM&E measures will be documented in an annual, Grant Lake Project Compliance Report, to be reviewed by stakeholders and ultimately, filed with FERC. Table E.2-2. KHL proposed environmental measures Measure Description Proposed/Agency Request Phase (Construction vs. O&M) Overall Project Compliance Environmental Compliance Monitor (ECM) KHL representative responsible for monitoring, confirming and documenting compliance with all environmental and construction measures Proposed by KHL Construction Annual Compliance Report Annual report summarizing all compliance activities for the previous year (may be accompanied by a meeting with stakeholders) Proposed by KHL Construction and O&M Best Management Practices (BMP) for multiple resource areas Minimize erosion potential and sediment deposition related to construction and maintenance of water quality, provide avian protection and ensure no impact to any sensitive plants or promotion of invasive plan species associated with construction Proposed by KHL Construction and O&M Section 404 404 Permit Required by USACE O&M Section 401 401 Permit certificate of reasonable assurance 1 Required by ADEC O&M Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (APDES) Permit APDES Permit Required by ADEC Construction and O&M Hazardous Materials Containment/Fuel Storage Plan Measures Required internally by KHL for all contractors Proposed by KHL Construction and O&M DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Table E.2-2, continued… Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-15 March 2015 Measure Description Proposed/Agency Request Phase (Construction vs. O&M) Spill Prevention, Control and Containment Plan (SPCCP) Measures Required internally by KHL for all contractors Proposed by KHL Construction and O&M Water Right – KHL Water right application Required by ADNR Construction and O&M USFS Land Use Special Use Permit Required by USFS Construction and O&M Fire Prevention Plan (FPP) Required internally by KHL for all contractors Proposed by KHL Construction Obtain easements ADNR, USFS, Railroad Land Owner Requirement Construction and O&M Geological and Soil Resources (Section 4.4) Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) Description of measures to be implemented during construction to minimize erosion and sediment deposition associated with construction activities Proposed by KHL Construction Hazardous Materials Containment/Fuel Storage Plan Required internally by KHL for all contractors Proposed by KHL Construction and O&M SPCCP Required internally by KHL for all contractors Proposed by KHL Construction and O&M Water Quality and Quantity (Section 4.5) Operational Compliance Monitoring Plan (OCMP) Describes methods to assess priority water quality parameters during and immediately after construction. Also defines procedures for monitoring water temperatures in Grant Lake and Grant Creek during “priority” periods. Proposed by KHL Construction and O&M Grant Creek Stream Gauge Continued monitoring and maintenance of stream gauge on Grant Creek Proposed by KHL Construction and O&M Aquatic Resources (Section 4.6) Biotic Monitoring Plan Describes methods to assess fish health during construction and the initial phases of Project operations Proposed by KHL Construction and O&M Terrestrial Resources (Section 4.7) Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) Describes methods to both minimize invasive plant development in the Project area and maintain existing populations of sensitive species documented during licensing studies Proposed by KHL Construction and O&M Avian Protection Plan (APP) Describes methods to minimize impacts to avian species both during the short- term construction period and operations Proposed by KHL Construction and O&M DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Table E.2-2, continued… Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-16 March 2015 Measure Description Proposed/Agency Request Phase (Construction vs. O&M) Recreation, Land Use and Aesthetic Resources (Section 4.8 & 4.9) Public Safety and Access Plan (PSAP) Describes the methods to implement and monitor the chosen public access allowance to the Project Area via Project constructed corridors. Public input and stakeholder collaboration will define the appropriate amount of access availability (if any) Proposed by KHL O&M INHT Re-route Per Section 4.8.3.3 of this Exhibit E, stakeholder collaboration will continue to select an appropriate INHT re-route corridor through the Project area. A plan for successful implementation will be developed once agreement has been reached Collaboratively developed between stakeholders and KHL O&M Iditarod National Historic Trail Re-routing Plan (INHTRP) Once a re-route is agreed to, the INHTRP will document the methods for implementation and management of the trail through the Project Area Collaboratively developed between stakeholders and KHL O&M Cultural Resources (Section 4.10) Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) Describes the known historic resources that may be impacted by Project construction and operation and define the methods for minimizing those impacts. Collaboratively developed between stakeholders and KHL Construction and O&M Socioeconomics (Section 4.11) No measures proposed Notes: 1. Given that the State of Alaska does not issue Section 401 Water Quality Certifications for hydropower projects, KHL will request a waiver of 401 Certification from the ADEC for the Grant Lake Project prior to filing the FLA 2.2. Requested PM&E Measures PM&E measures requested by stakeholders that are provided as part of the formal DLA commenting period will be detailed in the FLA. 2.3. No Action For an Original License, as is the case with the proposed Grant Lake Project, the no-action alternative would be denial of the license. Under the no-action alternative, the Project would not be constructed and environmental and human resources in the Project area would not be affected. The Grant Lake watershed and surrounding area in the vicinity of the proposed Project is in relatively natural condition. While periodic and seasonal, recreation (hiking, fishing, hunting, DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-17 March 2015 etc.) does occur in the area to a limited extent, the general lack of easy access tends to minimize the overall level of activity on the east side of Trail Lakes. As a result, both terrestrial and aquatic habitats in the area are relatively undisturbed and natural processes tend to dominate. Under the no-action alternative, it would be expected that this scenario would continue as no development related to the Project would occur and it is likely that the level of human influence would continue to be minimal overall. Section 4 of this Exhibit describes the current biological conditions in the Project vicinity along with the potential impacts (positive and negative) associated with Project development. From an environmental consequence standpoint, the no-action alternative would facilitate a continued commitment to fossil fuels as the primary driver of power generation and consumption for HEA’s members. The continued and long-term implications of continuing to utilize fossil fuels include atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions which contribute to climate change, poor air quality, and degradation of the aquatic environment. 2.4. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated 2.4.1. Project Site Alternatives 2.4.1.1. Crescent Lake On October 1, 2008, KHL received a preliminary permit from the FERC to study the potential development of a small hydroelectric projects at Crescent Lake (P-13209) on the Kenai Peninsula. Crescent Lake is located 4 miles south of the community of Moose Pass, Alaska and approximately 25 miles north of Seward, Alaska. KHL conducted a reconnaissance study to evaluate the feasibility of a hydroelectric project at this location. The reconnaissance study considered environmental conditions, recreation, subsistence use, cultural and historical resources, land ownership, mining claims and water rights, energy generation, anticipated development costs and an economic evaluation of the proposed project. Based upon the results of this evaluation, agency input and public comments the Grant Lake/Creek project was considered the more viable resource and selected for further evaluation. 2.4.1.2. Ptarmigan Lake/Creek On October 1, 2008, KHL received a preliminary permit from the FERC to study the potential development of a small hydroelectric projects at Ptarmigan Lake/Creek (P-13210) on the Kenai Peninsula. Ptarmigan Lake is located 6 miles south of the community of Moose Pass, Alaska and approximately 25 miles north of Seward, Alaska. KHL conducted a reconnaissance study to evaluate the feasibility of a hydroelectric project at this location. The reconnaissance study considered environmental conditions, recreation, subsistence use, cultural and historical resources, land ownership, mining claims and water rights, energy generation, anticipated development costs and an economic evaluation of the proposed project. Based upon the results of this evaluation, agency input and public comments the Grant Lake/Creek project was considered the more viable resource and selected for further evaluation. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-18 March 2015 2.4.1.3. Falls Creek On October 1, 2008, KHL received a preliminary permit from the FERC to study the potential development of a small hydroelectric projects, Falls Creek (P-13211) on the Kenai Peninsula. Falls Creek is located approximately 1.5 miles south of the community of Moose Pass, Alaska and approximately 25 miles north of Seward, Alaska. KHL conducted a reconnaissance study to evaluate the feasibility of a hydroelectric project at this location. Two alternatives were considered; a stand-alone project that would discharge water back into Falls Creek and a project that would divert water from Falls Creek north to Grant Lake, where water would be used to generate power from the Grant Lake Project. The reconnaissance study considered environmental conditions, recreation, subsistence use, cultural and historical resources, land ownership, mining claims, water rights, energy generation, anticipated development costs and an economic evaluation of the proposed project. Based upon the results of this evaluation, agency input and public comments the Grant Lake/Creek Project was considered the more viable resource and selected for further evaluation. Since the Grant Lake project was selected for further evaluation, the Falls Creek diversion into Grant Lake was carried forward for further evaluation. Additional investigation into the engineering feasibility and the economics associated with the Falls Creek diversion led Kenai Hydro to determine that the Falls Creek Diversion portion of the project was infeasible. On March 31, 2011 KHL petitioned FERC to surrender the Falls Creek project preliminary permit. 2.4.1.4. Grant Lake/Creek Hydroelectric potential at Grant Lake has been evaluated several times as a potential power source for the Kenai Peninsula area. In 1954, R.W. Beck and Associates (cited by Ebasco 1984) prepared a preliminary investigation and concluded that a project at the site had significant potential. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducted geologic investigations of proposed power sites at Cooper, Grant, Ptarmigan, and Crescent Lakes in the 1950s (Plafker 1955). In 1980, CH2M Hill (cited by Ebasco 1984) prepared a prefeasibility study for a Grant Lake project and concluded that a project developed at the site would be feasible. The Grant Lake Project was referenced in the 1981 USACE National Hydroelectric Power Resources Study (USACE 1981). The most extensive study was performed by Ebasco Services, Inc. in 1984 for the Alaska Power Authority (now Alaska Energy Authority; Ebasco 1984). The studies included a detailed examination of water use and quality; fish resources; botanical and wildlife resources; historical and archaeological resources; socioeconomic impacts; geological and soil resources; recreational resources; aesthetic resources; and land use (Ebasco 1984). Two of the alternatives evaluated by Ebasco included the diversion of adjacent Falls Creek into Grant Lake to provide additional water for power generation. During the 1986-87 periods a preliminary application document was filed by Kenai Hydro, Inc. (no relation to the current KHL) for a project at Grant Lake. Support for the application included an instream flow study. Because of competing projects, political considerations, and inexpensive natural gas the project was never pursued beyond the preliminary application phase. On October 1, 2008, KHL received a preliminary permit from the FERC to study the potential development of a small hydroelectric project at Grant Lake/Creek (P-13212) on the Kenai Peninsula. KHL conducted a reconnaissance study to evaluate the feasibility of a hydroelectric DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-19 March 2015 project at this location. The reconnaissance study considered environmental conditions, recreation, subsistence use, cultural and historical resources, land ownership, mining claims and water rights, energy generation, anticipated development costs and an economic evaluation of the proposed project. Based upon the results of this evaluation, agency input and public comments the Grant Lake/Creek project was considered the more viable resource and selected for further evaluation. On August 6, 2009, KHL filed a PAD along with a NOI to file an application for an original license for the Grant Lake/Falls Creek project (P-13211/13212) under Part I of the Federal Power Act (FPA). On September 15, 2009, FERC approved the use of the TLP for development of the license application and supporting materials. 2.4.2. Project Facility Designs, Processes, and Operations Alternatives 2.4.2.1. Configuration Alternatives Grant Lake has been studied on multiple occasions since the 1950s as a potential hydropower site. The previous study efforts included: 1954 – R.W. Beck and Associates preliminary investigation (as cited in Ebasco 1984) 1955 – USGS geological investigations of proposed power sites at Cooper, Grant, Ptarmigan, and Crescent Lake (Plafker 1955) 1980 – CH2M Hill prefeasibility study (CH2M Hill 1980) 1984 – Ebasco Services Project Feasibility Analysis (Ebasco 1984) Within these previous studies, development of the hydroelectric potential was considered under a range of alternative configurations. The alternatives analysis cumulated with a more robust evaluation by Ebasco in their 1984 engineering evaluation (Ebasco 1984). The Ebasco analysis included size alternatives. Alternatives A, B, and C (below) focused on building a dam on the Grant Lake outlet as well as a saddle dam on the north of the natural outlet. These alternatives were designed to provide storage for power generation as well as increase the operating head on the powerhouse. Alternative D consisted of a lake tap near the existing Grant Lake outlet with no dams proposed. The final two alternatives, E and F, re-routed the adjacent Fall Creek flow into grant Lake with a dam (Alternative A) and no dam (Alternative D) configuration. Alternatives A, B, C, and D would use only the natural inflow from Grant Lake. Alternatives E and F would use the Grant Lake inflow plus Fall Creek for power generation. KHL utilized these same alternatives as the starting point in the current licensing process. The previous work efforts were reviewed and updated, where required, to provide a basis for the alternatives development and analysis. A seventh alternative, Alternative G, was developed to reflect the additional environmental baseline data and the operational criteria required to address specific identified issues. A brief description of each alternative is presented in the following subsections. Further details regarding the configuration alternatives are provided in the Preliminary Supporting Design Report in Exhibit F (Attachment F-1) of this DLA. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-20 March 2015 2.4.2.1.1 Alternative A – Intake Upstream of Saddle Dam Alternative A consists of raising Grant Lake from its existing natural outlet at approximately elevation 703 feet NAVD 88 to a normal maximum lake elevation of 745 feet NAVD 88. The lake raise would be accomplished by constructing a main dam at the natural outlet of Grant Lake. A second dam would be constructed across a low saddle area located north of the main dam. Water would be conveyed from Grant Lake to a power house located on the east shore of Upper Trail Lake via a power conduit approximately 3,840 feet long with an intake structure located upstream from the saddle dam. The intake to the power conduit would be a submerged circular vertical concrete structure with vertical trashracks would be located approximately 1,300 feet upstream from the toe of the saddle dam. A steel pipeline would extend from the intake to a surge chamber. A steel penstock would continue from the surge chamber to the powerhouse. The discharge from the powerhouse would be through a tailrace channel to Upper Trail Lake. The powerhouse would house a single vertical Francis turbine operating with a maximum hydraulic capacity of 385 cfs at a net head of 247 feet. The powerhouse would have an installed capacity of 6 MW. The substation would be located adjacent to the powerhouse. The transmission line would extend from the powerhouse south to Grant Creek, then cross the Trail Lake Narrows to the existing 115 kV transmission line located adjacent to the Seward highway. A total of 5.1 miles of access road would connect the Project features to the Seward Highway. 2.4.2.1.2 Alternative B – Intake at Main Dam with Tunnel and Surface Conduit Similar to Alternative A, the Grant Lake elevation would be raised from 703 feet NAVD 88 to a normal maximum operating elevation of 745 feet NAVD 88 by constructing the main dam and saddle dam as described with Alternative A. With this alternative, the intake would be located at the main dam location. Water would be conveyed from the Grant Lake intake to a power tunnel using a 7-foot-diameter low pressure penstock. The first 300 feet of penstock under the dam would be placed in a rock trench and encased in concrete. The remaining 400 feet to the power tunnel would be installed on the surface supported by concrete saddles. The power tunnel would be horse shoe shaped and 9-foot-diameter fitted with an underground surge chamber. At the downstream end of the tunnel, a 5-foot-penstock would extend to a powerhouse with an installed capacity of 6 MW. The powerhouse would have essentially the same mechanical and electrical configuration as described for Alternative A. A short tailrace channel would carry the water from the powerhouse to the east bank of Upper Trail Lake. Approximately 2.0 miles of access roads would be required for the Project. The transmission line would follow the same approximate route across Trail Lakes Narrows. 2.4.2.1.3 Alternative C – Intake at Main Dam with Surface Conduit Similar to Alternatives A and B, Alternative C utilized the same two dams to raise Grant Lake from approximately 703 feet NAVD 88 to 745 feet NAVD 88. The intake would be located at the main dam using a similar intake configuration as Alternative B. A 6.75-foot-diameter steel power conduit would extend from the intake beneath the dam to a surge chamber located at the downstream toe of the main dam. A 5.35-foot diameter, 2,000-foot-long steel penstock would extend from the surge chamber to the powerhouse. The powerhouse would be located DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-21 March 2015 approximately 80 feet from the east bank of Upper Trail Lake. The powerhouse would consist of a concrete foundation and a steel superstructure. The mechanical and electrical equipment would be similar to Alternatives A and B as well as the 6 MW rated capacity. 2.4.2.1.4 Alternative D – Lake Tap with Powerhouse at Upper Trail Lake With this alternative, the main dam and saddle dam as proposed with the Alternatives A, B, and C would be eliminated. Alternative D does not involve the water elevation at Grant Lake. A lake tap would supply water from a low level power tunnel and a short length of penstock to a powerhouse located on Upper Trail Lake. The lake tap would have an intake invert at approximately elevation of 643 feet NAVD 88. The lake tap would consist of an inclined 10- foot-diameter circular tunnel which would incorporate a rock trap located just downstream of the intake portal. A trashrack would be placed on the intake portal to exclude debris from entering the power conduit. A 9-foot-diameter horseshoe shaped power tunnel would extend approximately 3,300 feet from the lake tap to the powerhouse. A 5-foot-diameter, 500-foot-long steel penstock would then extend from the downstream tunnel portal to the powerhouse located on the east bank of Upper Trail Lake. A gate shaft would be located approximately 200 feet downstream from the lake tap. An isolation gate would be located in the gate shaft. A conventional powerhouse with a concrete foundation and steel superstructure would be located approximately 180 feet from the east bank of Upper Trail Lake. The powerhouse would have a single vertical Francis turbine operating under a net head of 198 feet with an installed capacity of 5 MW. 2.4.2.1.5 Alternatives E and F – Diversion of Falls Creek These alternatives would divert runoff from the Falls Creek drainage, located directly south of the Grant Lake drainage, into Grant Lake for additional power production. For both of these alternatives, the diversion of Falls Creek would be accomplished using a diversion dam and conduit to convey water from Falls Creek into Grant Lake. For Alternative E, the diversion of Falls Creek is used in combination with raising Grant Lake from its existing elevation of 703 feet NAVD 88 to a maximum normal operating elevation of 745 feet NAVD 88. This is accomplished with the same two dam configuration as presented for Alternative A. The power conduits, powerhouse, transmission, and access would be similar to the configuration proposed for Alternative A. The powerhouse would have a rated capacity of 7 MW. Alternative F consisted of the Falls Creek diversion coupled with the no dam Alternative D configuration. The power tunnel, powerhouse, transmission, and access would be similar to the configuration proposed for Alternative A. The powerhouse would have a rated capacity of approximately 6 MW. 2.4.2.1.6 Alternative G – Lake Intake with a Powerhouse on Grant Creek Alternative G was developed essentially as an outgrowth of Alternative D with the basic features modified to address considerations raised as part of the environmental baseline studies completed in 2009 through 2014. These studies identified aquatic habitat and resources within Grant Creek from the confluence with Upper Trail Lake up to the outlet of the canyon area of Grant Creek (Reaches 1 through 4). The area within the canyon area (Reach 5), though not identified as DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-22 March 2015 productive habitat as the lower area of Grant Creek, provided limited habitat for specific species. Measures to protect and enhance these areas were then identified and incorporated into Alternative G. This alternative consists of a conventional intake tower located in Grant Lake fitted with a selective withdrawal intake gate and an isolation bulkhead gate. Water is conveyed via a 10-foot-diameter, 3,300-foot-long horseshoed shaped tunnel. The upper reach of the tunnel would be unlined and constructed on a 1 percent slope. The lower reach of the tunnel would be lined and constructed at 15 percent slope. A surge chamber is located at the junction between the two tunnel sections. A rock trap is located at the downstream end of the unlined tunnel directly under the surge chamber. Steel liners will be installed at both the upstream and downstream portals to provide structural strength of the tunnel through the transition areas. A 72-inch diameter steel penstock extends from the downstream tunnel portal to the powerhouse. The powerhouse would be a conventional concrete foundation with a steel superstructure. Two Francis turbines with a combined rated capacity of 5 MW at a maximum hydraulic capacity of 385 cfs and a net operating head of 171 feet. Water is conveyed from the powerhouse back to Grant Creek in an excavated tailrace channel with a fish barrier located at the outfall back into Grant Creek. The tailrace channel discharges into Grant Creek near the outlet of the canyon section of Grant Creek. A detention pond is located on the south side of the powerhouse providing the additional benefit of spinning reserve operation. The transmission line will extend approximately 1 mile from the substation located adjacent to the powerhouse west to the existing 115 kV transmission line. The transmission line will follow the powerhouse access road which extends from the Seward Highway across the Trail Lakes Narrows. An access road will also be provided to the intake structure. 2.4.2.1.7 Proposed Configuration In the previous alternatives analysis (Ebasco 1984), Alternative D was the recommended alternative with a consideration for diverting Fall Creek as presented within Alternative F. With this alternative, the powerhouse was located approximately 180 feet from the east bank of Upper Trail Lake. Under most operating conditions, Grant Creek would have been dewatered. As outlined in the alternatives description, development of Alternative G incorporated a number of design modifications which provided a net benefit in environmental conditions. These design modifications included: 1) Relocate the powerhouse for the bank of Upper Trail Lake on the north side of Grant Creek to the south side of Grant Creek to the outlet of the canyon reach (Reach 5). 2) Relocate the intake from the north side of the natural outlet of Grant Lake to the south side and replace the lake tap with a conventional intake structure with the capabilities of selective water withdrawal for downstream temperature considerations. 3) Re-align the access road to eliminate parallel alignment with the INHT. 4) Eliminate the 2-foot-tall diversion structure at the top of the Grant Creek natural outlet. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-23 March 2015 5) Provide a bypass pipe from the lake intake to the base of the existing falls at the Grant Lake outlet to provide a minimum flow of 5 cfs to 10 cfs in Reach 5. 6) Re-route the transmission line to follow the powerhouse access road directly west to the existing 115-kV transmission line. 7) Modify the proposed single Francis unit 5-MW powerhouse to a two unit configuration to provide more flexibility to release flows to meet downstream flow considerations for aquatic habitat in the winter months. Alternative G has been selected as the preferred alternative for the Project. This site configuration was selected because it represented the optimum environmental configuration by eliminating the dams, placing the powerhouse tailrace upstream of the prime aquatic habitat, and eliminated the Falls Creek water diversion. 2.4.3. Alternative Energy Sources South-Central Alaska has benefited from a surplus of natural gas discovered primarily in the 1960s as a byproduct of oil exploration in the Cook Inlet area. As a result of abundant and affordable natural gas, the heating and electrical infrastructure for South-Central Alaska was developed around this resource. Approximately 90 percent of the electrical needs of South- Central Alaska are met with natural gas fired turbines. However, gas production has dropped considerably since 2002 with a decline in annual production of 210 (billion cubic feet) Bcf to 103 Bcf in 2012. As a consequence of this precipitous production decline, the price of natural gas has gone from $2.50 to over $6.00/thousand cubic feet (Mcf) in that same time period. The current cost of gas in the region is about $6.90/Mcf in 2015, with the cost as high as $9.25/Mcf for contracted gas in 2019. The Alaska Division of Oil and Gas estimates that there are still proven and conventionally recoverable gas reserves in the Cook Inlet Region. Additionally, Alaska continues to work on ways to get North Slope gas to South-Central Alaska but none of the potential solutions indicate a shrinking natural gas price for the region. HEA, like the rest of the electric utilities, will continue to generate a majority of its electricity from natural gas. That said, HEA has a strong desire to diversify its energy mix, reduce its dependence on fossil fuels and develop responsible renewable energy resources. HEA’s power supply portfolio primarily consists of natural gas-fired generation and some hydroelectric power. The generation facilities are summarized in Table E.2-3. Table E.2-3. HEA generation facilities. Generation Facility Capacity No Units/Age Nikiski Combined Cycle Plant (Steam/Gas) 80 MW CT 1984, ST 2014 Soldotna Combustion Turbine Plant (Gas0 48 MW 2014 Bernice Lake Combustion Turbine (Gas) 80 MW 3 Units 1971, 1978, 1981 Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project (hydro) 14 MW 1991 DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-24 March 2015 HEA’s gas-fired generation makes up 91 percent of its current generation portfolio, strongly influences HEA’s rates and is subject to significant price volatility. HEA is seeking to diversify its generation portfolio. Part of this diversification is to develop renewable generation. The proposed Grant Lake Project would represent approximately 4 percent of HEA’s energy needs, and would represent a 45 percent increase in its renewable energy portfolio. 2.4.4. Consequence of License Application Denial Denial of the license application for the Grant Lake Project would mean that the Project could not be constructed as proposed by KHL. This would mean a continued reliance on an increasingly scarce and expensive Cook Inlet (Alaska) natural gas supply. Denial of the license application would result in the continued release of approximately 10,000 tons of CO2 annually to produce the equivalent amount of carbon-based energy. Denial of the license application would be a significant setback in the Cooperatives goal of generating 22 percent of its power from renewable energy resources. It would also result in a setback to the State of Alaska’s renewable energy goal of 50 percent renewable energy by 2025. Denial of the license application would mean the loss of approximately $5,100,000 to HEA ($3,000,000) and the State of Alaska ($2,100,000) in funds associated with the development of the Project. Lastly, it would mean that this low impact hydroelectric resource would remain undeveloped and of no benefit to the citizens of the State of Alaska. 3 Consultation and Scoping 3.1. Consultation KHL initiated consultation with federal and state resource agencies, Native Alaskan tribes, non- governmental organizations (NGO), and other interested parties in August 2009 with the filing of filing of the NOI and PAD (KHL 2009b). Stakeholders contacted as part of the consultation process are listed in Table E.3-1. Table E.3-1. List of consulted parties. Federal Agencies BLM Unites States Bureau of Land Management EPA Environmental Protection Agency NOAA Fisheries National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPS National Park Service USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Department of Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance USFS U.S. Forest Service USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Table E.3-1, continued… Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-25 March 2015 USGS U.S. Geological Survey State Agencies ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game ADNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources Kenai Peninsula Borough, Kenai River Center Native Alaskan Tribes Chenega Corporation Chugach Alaska Corporation CIRI Cook Inlet Region, Inc. Kenai Native Association Kenaitze Indian Tribe Native Village of Eklutna Ninilchik Traditional Council Quekcak Native Tribe Salamatof Native Association, Inc. Local Governments Moose Pass Chamber of Commerce NGOs ACE Alaska Center for the Environment Alaska Conservation Alliance Alaska Conservation Foundation Alaska Fly Fishers American Rivers The Center for Water Advocacy CIAA Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association Cook Inlet Keeper Friends of Cooper Landing Kenai Area Fisherman’s Coalition KRSA Kenai River Sportfishing Association KRWF Kenai River Watershed Foundation National Wildlife Federation NHI/HRC National Heritage Institute/Hydro Reform Coalition RBCA Resurrection Bay Conservation Alliance Sierra Club Trout Unlimited Resource agencies and other stakeholders were consulted throughout the Project licensing process, both during engagement required by FERC’s licensing regulations and during many additional consultation opportunities provided by KHL. The consultation record for the licensing (through March 1, 2015) is provided as a summary table in Attachment E-1, and with the official record available electronically on an accompanying compact disk. Table E.1-1 DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-26 March 2015 identifies the major filings to date and Table E.3-2 identifies the associated consultation engagements that have occurred thus far during the licensing process. Table E.3-2. Major consultation engagements to date. Engagement Date Information meeting with ADF&G and ADNR December 16, 2008 Information meeting with USFS December 18, 2008 Interactive stakerholder meetings January 20-21 and 28, 2009 Instream Flow Technical Working Group (TWG) meeting in Moose Pass to discuss draft 2009 study plans March 24, 2009 Instream Flow TWG meeting in Kenai to discuss draft 2009 study plans April 21, 2009 Instream Flow TWG conference call to discuss revised 2009 study plans May 19, 2009 Instream Flow TWG conference call to discuss 2009 baseline results July 16, 2009 Instream Flow TWG meeting to discuss 2009 baseline results and an instream flow incremental methodology (IFIM) approach September 22-24, 2009 Joint meeting November 12, 2009 Public meeting January 13, 2010 FERC site visit and scoping meetings June 2-3, 2010 Natural Resources Studies meeting to discuss 2013 study plans December 12, 2012 Cultural Resources Work Group (CRWG) conference call to discuss Area of Potential Effect (APE) April 3, 2013 Grant Creek Site Visit September 5, 2013 Iditarod National Historic Trail (INHT) meeting November 13, 2013 Natural Resources Work Group (NRWG) meeting to review 2013 study results March 18, 2014 Aquatic Resources Work Group (ARWG) meetings to review 2013 study results March 19-20, 2014 CRWG meeting to review 2013 study results March 21, 2014 Instream Flow Sub Group March 27, 2014 Instream Flow Sub Group April 18, 2014 Instream Flow Sub Group May 22, 2014 Operations Workshop July 7-8, 2014 INHT site visit July 15, 2014 Instream Flow Sub Group July 17, 2014 Public meeting November 6, 2014 3.2. Scoping The NEPA requires FERC to independently evaluate the environmental impacts of the Project as proposed and consider reasonable alternatives to KHL’s Proposed Action. FERC has indicated its intent to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) that describes and evaluates the probable impacts, both site-specific and cumulative, of KHL’s Proposed Action and any other action alternatives (FERC 2010b). The EA preparation is supported by the scoping process, which was DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-27 March 2015 undertaken to ensure that all potential issues associated with the Proposed Action were identified and analyzed. Scoping is the process whereby issues, concerns, and opportunities associated with a Proposed Action are identified. The purposes of scoping process are to invite participation of federal and state resource agencies, Native Alaskan tribes, NGOs, and the public to identify significant environmental and socioeconomic issues potentially related to the Proposed Action; determine the significance and depth of analysis needed to address issues in the EA; identify how the Project would or would not contribute to cumulative effects; identify reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Action to be evaluated in the EA; solicit from participants available information on the resources at issue; and determine the resource areas and potential issues that do not require detailed analysis. FERC issued Scoping Document 1 (SD1) (FERC 2010a) for the proposed Project on May 11, 2010. FERC conducted scoping meetings in Moose Pass, Alaska on June 2-3, 2010. During the meetings and subsequent comment period, FERC received comments on the Project’s PAD and the SD1. In response to those comments, FERC issued Scoping Document (SD2) August 23, 2010 (FERC 2010b). In its SD2, FERC discussed its preliminary view of the scope of environmental issues, as follows: Geology and Soils Resources o Effects of Project construction and operation on erosion and sedimentation of Grant Lake and its shoreline o Effects of Project construction and operation on erosion or sedimentation of the existing Inlet Creek delta o Effects of construction of the proposed outlet works, diversion structure, intake structure, tunnel, penstock, surge tower, powerhouse, tailrace detention basin, tailrace, access roads and transmission line on erosion and sedimentation of Grant Creek, the Narrows and Lower Trail Lake o Disposal/dispersion methods of spoil material resulting from construction of the proposed project facilities and impact on the surrounding areas Water Quantity and Quality o Effects of Project construction and operation on the water quality of Grant Lake, Grant Creek, Falls Creek3, Lower Trail Lake, and the Narrows o Effects of Project construction and operation on the hydrology of Grant Lake, Grant Creek, Lower Trail Lake, and the Narrows o Effects of project construction and operation on heavy metal leaking as a result of water level fluctuations of Grant Lake o Aquatic Resources o Effects of Project construction and operation on the fish and aquatic resources in Grant Lake, Grant Creek, Falls Creek, Lower Trail Lake, and the Narrows 3 As noted in Section 2.4.1.3 of this Exhibit E, KHL petitioned FERC to surrender the Fall Creek project preliminary permit on March 31, 2011, and therefore, is no longer part of the proposed project. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-28 March 2015 o Effects of diverted flows on fish and aquatic resources in the proposed bypass reach of Grant Creek o Effects of Grant Lake reservoir fluctuations on fish and aquatic resources o Effects of entrainment on fish populations in Grant Lake and Grant Creek o Effects of the loss of habitat connectivity and bi-directional passage on resident fish populations in Grant Lake and Grant Creek o Effects of project construction and operation on changes in distribution and abundance of aquatic insects o Effects of the proposed project construction and operations on sediment transport and materials recruitment downstream Terrestrial Resources o Effects of Project construction and operation on the distribution and abundance of plant species designated by the Forest Service as sensitive o Effects of Project construction and operation on the distribution and abundance of invasive plant species o Effects of Project construction and operation on forest/scrub, wetland, riparian, and littoral habitats used by wildlife on Grant Lake and Grant Creek o Effects of Project construction and operation on wildlife critical life stages, distribution, and abundance, including: Wildlife species designated by the Forest Service as Management Indicator Species, such as brown bear, moose, bats and mountain goat Wildlife species designated by the Forest Service as Species of Special Interest, such as Canada lynx, wolverine, river otter, marbled murrelet, Townsend’s warbler, Northern goshawk, bald eagle, and osprey Wildlife species designated by the State of Alaska as Species of Special Concern, such as olive-sided flycatcher, gray-cheeked warbler, blackpoll warbler, and brown bear o Effects of Project operation on availability of fish as food for wildlife o Effects of Project construction and operation on wildlife movement as well as displacement and disruption of seasonal movement patterns through the project area o Effects of project construction and operation on increased access to harvestable wildlife o Effects of Project operation on littoral wildlife habitat at the narrows between Upper and Lower Trail Lakes o Effects of Project construction and operation on breeding and rearing habitat and nesting success of shorebirds and waterfowl and other avian use in and around Grant Lake and Inlet Creek o Effect of Project transmission lines on raptors and other birds, including electrocution and collision hazards Threatened and Endangered Species o No federally listed threatened and endangered species are known to occur in the Project vicinity. No issues regarding threatened and endangered species have been identified at this time. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-29 March 2015 Recreation Resources and Land Use o Effects of Project construction and operation on existing recreation and land use in and around Grant Lake, Grant Creek, Falls Creek, Lower Trail Lake, and the Narrows o Effects of Project construction and operation on current and future (over the term of a license) recreation demand and use, including barrier-free access and the need for and benefit of interpretive opportunities (such as interpretive signs) at the Project o Effects of Project construction and operation on local residential land use o Effects of project construction and operation on the roadless character of the Kenai Mountains Roadless Area o Effects of the development of a project access road on the existing Vagt Lake Trail as well as the INHT right-of-way (ROW) o Effects of recreation use at Grant Lake on the potential to increase recreational use at nearby water bodies Aesthetic Resources o Effects of Project construction, facilities, and operation on the aesthetic values of the Project area, including noise and light pollution o Effects of the transmission line on Scenic Byway viewpoints from the Seward “All American” Highway and views from existing recreation trails such as the Iditarod National Historic Trail Cultural Resources o Effects of Project construction and operation on historical and archaeological resources and properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to Native Alaska tribes o Effects of Grant Lake reservoir fluctuations and reduced flows in Grant Creek on archaeological resources located along the reservoir shoreline o Effects of Project construction and operation on subsistence use (hunting, fishing, and gathering) involving Native Alaskan tribes and non-Native Alaskans Socioeconomics o Effects of Project construction and operation on local, tribal, and regional economies Detailed information on the scope of the environmental analysis, including the spatial and temporal scopes of the cumulative effects assessment, can be found in Section 4 of this Exhibit E. 3.3. Response to Comments on the Draft License Application KHL responses to comments submitted as part of the formal DLA commenting period will be detailed in the FLA. 3.4. REA Notice KHL will be filing its FLA with FERC in late 2015. Once FERC has determined that the application meets all filing requirements, studies have been completed, any deficiencies have DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-30 March 2015 been resolved, and no additional information is required, FERC will issue the notice of acceptance and ready for environmental analysis (REA). The acceptance/REA notice solicits comments, protests, and interventions – along with recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions, and preliminary fishway prescriptions – including all supporting documentation. Comments, protests, and interventions must be filed within 60 days of the notice. KHL then has 45 days to respond to submitted comments (105 days from the REA notice). KHL will direct responses to the entity providing the original comments and file a copy of the response with FERC. When the application is accepted, FERC provides public notice in the Federal Register, local newspapers, and directly to resource agencies and Native Alaskan tribes. In its notice, FERC invites protests and interventions and requests the final fish and wildlife recommendations, prescriptions, mandatory conditions, and comments from the resource agencies and Native Alaskan tribes. 4 Environmental Analysis The following sections describe the anticipated impacts of the Proposed Action on environmental resources, including discussion of resources that would not be affected by the action. The following topics are addressed for each resource: Affected Environment, Environmental Analysis, Proposed Environmental Measures, Cumulative Effects, Unavoidable Adverse Impacts, and Consistency with Comprehensive Plans. 4.1. Cumulative Effects According to the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing NEPA (50 C.F.R. 1508.7), a cumulative effect is the effect on the environment that results from the incremental effect of an action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions (FERC 2006). Based on preliminary staff analysis, FERC identified in its SD2 (FERC 2010b) the following resources that may be cumulatively affected by the proposed operation of the Project: Water quantity Water quality Fishery resources Recreation resources 4.1.1. Geographic Scope The geographic scope of analysis for cumulatively affected resources is defined by the physical limits or boundaries of the Proposed Action’s effect on resources and contributing effects from other hydropower and non-hydropower activities. In its SD2 (FERC 2010b) FERC tentatively identified the Kenai River Basin as the geographic scope of analysis for water quantity, water quality, fishery resources, and recreation resources. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-31 March 2015 4.1.2. Temporal Scope The temporal scope of cumulative effects analysis includes a discussion of past, present, and future actions and their effects on each resource. Based on the potential term of a license, FERC determined in its SD1 (FERC 2010b) that the temporal scope will evaluate a period of 30-50 years into the future, concentrating on effects on resources from reasonably foreseeable future actions; the quality and quantity of information related to potential future actions will diminish as the analysis proceeds further into the future. The historical discussion will, by necessity, be limited to the amount of available information for each resource. 4.2. Applicable Laws 4.2.1. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act As part of the licensing process, KHL is consulting with the ADEC regarding the development of an application for water quality certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The State of Alaska does not issue Section 401 Water Quality Certifications for hydropower projects. As such, KHL will request a waiver of 401 Certification from the ADEC for the Grant Lake Project prior to filing the FLA. 4.2.2. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act As part of the licensing process, KHL is consulting with the USACE regarding the development of an application commensurate with Section 404 of the CWA. The USACE, through the Section 404 application process will evaluate the potential for and plan to regulate the discharge of fill materials in the waters of the United States with a particular emphasis on wetlands. KHL has been in consistent communication with the USACE representative, and will be developing its Section 404 permit application in parallel with its DLA and anticipates submitting it to the USACE for review and processing in April 2015. The USACE review is anticipated to take approximately 2-4 months. 4.2.3. Endangered Species Act Section 7 of the ESA requires federal agencies to ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat of such sensitive species. A small population of the USFS sensitive plant pale poppy (Papaver alboroseum) was located during the sensitive plants survey on the north shore of Grant Lake. A Draft BE for sensitive plants in the Project area is under development and will be distributed for comment between late April and mid-May. Further description of the existing environment with specific respect to botanical communities along with species tables is discussed in Section 4.7 of this Exhibit E. 4.2.4. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, commonly referred to as the Magnuson-Stevens Act, is the primary law governing marine fisheries management in the United DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-32 March 2015 States. The Act was originally passed in 1976, amended by Congress in 1996, and reauthorized in 2006. Per the Catalog of Waters Important for Spawning, Rearing or Migration of Anadromous Fishes – Southcentral Region (ADF&G 2014), Grant Creek is designated as having Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for certain life stages of Chinook, coho and sockeye salmon. A significant amount of communication and collaboration between National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries and KHL has occurred throughout aquatic study development discussion of analysis and results and potential impacts (positive and negative) to the aquatic environment as a result of Project development and operation. This collaboration with NOAA Fisheries (and all stakeholders for that matter) has resulted in a PM&E package that KHL feels is consistent with stakeholder expectation. As stated previously, the detailed descriptions of these PM&Es and associated monitoring methods will be discussed in the management/monitoring plans to be distributed for comment between late April and mid-May. 4.2.5. Coastal Zone Management Act Congress passed the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) in 1972. The Act, administered by NOAA’s Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, provides for management of the nation's coastal resources and calls for balancing economic development with environmental conservation. The CZMA outlines two national programs, the National Coastal Zone Management Program and the National Estuarine Research Reserve System. The overall program objectives of the CZMA are to “preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance the resources of the nation's coastal zone.” On July 7, 2011, by operation of Alaska State law, the federally approved Alaska Coastal Management Program expired, resulting in a withdrawal from participation in the CZMA’s National Coast Management Program. 4.2.6. National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 of National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires FERC to take into account the effect of licensing a hydropower project on any historic properties, and allow the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment on the Proposed Action. ‘‘Historic Properties’’ are defined as any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The effect of the proposed Project on historic properties, as well as PM&E measures associated with historic properties, will be described in Section 4 of this Exhibit E and in the Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) to be filed in conjunction with this application. The HPMP will include documentation of consultation with the ACHP, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), the National Park Service (NPS), Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) and affected Native Alaskan tribes. 4.2.7. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Congress enacted the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to protect select rivers of the United States from development that would substantially alter their wild and scenic nature. Selected rivers are preserved because they possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geological, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other values. Designation as a wild and scenic river does not confer the same level of protections as a Wilderness Area designation; rather than mandatory conservation measures, the goal is often to preserve the character of the river. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-33 March 2015 National Wild and Scenic rivers are each managed by one or more agencies of the federal or state government. Based on current status, there are no river segments near the Project area designated as “wild”, “scenic” or “recreational”. As such, there is no action required with respect to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 4.2.8. The National Trails System The National Trails System is the network of scenic, historic, and recreation trails created by the National Trails System Act of 1968. These trails provide for outdoor recreation needs, promote the enjoyment, appreciation, and preservation of open-air, outdoor areas and historic resources, and encourage public access and citizen involvement. The INHT transits a significant portion of western Alaska from Seward to Nome. Certain portions of the trail are currently developed and in use while other sections are proposed, designed to various levels and have yet to be constructed. The section of the INHT through the Grant Lake Project area is proposed but not currently constructed, however, the USFS has secured an easement and initial delineation of the trail corridor has been conducted. A significant amount of communication and collaboration has occurred between the requisite stakeholders and KHL in regard to a potential re-route of the INHT through the Project area. KHL has modified certain aspects of its Project infrastructure to avoid multiple infrastructural interactions with the trail as it transits the Project area. However, under the current configuration, the trail would still bisect the powerhouse just prior to crossing Grant Creek. The aforementioned collaboration and associated effort toward reaching a re-route agreement that would avoid this interaction is discussed in detail in Section 4.8.1.3 and 4.8.2.3 of this Exhibit E. 4.3. General Description of River Basin The proposed Grant Lake Project will be located near the community of Moose Pass, Alaska (population 219) in the Kenai Peninsula Borough, approximately 25 miles north of Seward, Alaska (population 2,693), and just east of the Seward Highway (State Route 9)(Figure A.3-1); this highway connects Anchorage (population 291,826) to Seward. The Alaska Railroad parallels the route of the Seward Highway, and is also adjacent to the Project area. A map of Grant Lake and Grant Creek, including land ownership and the proposed Project boundary, is shown in Figure E.4-1. 4.3.1. Topography Grant Lake is a glacier-formed lake surrounded by the Kenai Mountain Range in south-central Alaska. Its right-angle bend is indicative of the diversion of a side glacier at its intersection with the major southward moving glaciers, a morphology characteristic of the east-west trending Grant Lake and Kenai Lake valleys, which have nearly right-angle bends where they intersect the major north-south trending lowlands. The surrounding mountains rise to over 5,000 feet elevation and contain many small glaciers at the heads of most of the major valleys. The geology of the proposed Project site and vicinity is associated with the upper Cretaceous age of the Mesozoic era and is between 64 and 100 million years old. Most of Grant Lake is underlain by low-grade metamorphosed sedimentary rock, predominantly greywacke and slate. This area of Alaska is also one of the most seismically active regions in the world, being located above the DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-34 March 2015 Alaska-Aleutian megathrust fault, which extends eastward along the Aleutian arc into south- central Alaska. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-37 March 2015 4.3.2. Hydrology Grant Lake is located approximately 1.5 miles southeast of Moose Pass, Alaska. It is located at an elevation of approximately 703 feet NAVD 88, with a maximum depth of nearly 300 feet, average depth of 91 feet, and surface area of 2.6 square miles. 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. The Grant Lake and Grant Creek watershed has a total drainage area of approximately 44 square miles. Inlet Creek is the predominant stream in the upper portion of the watershed and drains melting alpine glaciers and snow from the nearby mountains into Grant Lake on the eastern banks. In addition, there are several intermittent, snowmelt-fed streams that drain the steep terrain adjacent to Grant Lake. Grant Lake encompasses two almost separate bathymetric lake basins, which are separated by a shallow submerged ridge at the “narrows” that connects the two basins at right angles near the lake’s midpoint. The deepest point within the lower basin is approximately 262 feet deep and the upper basin is 283 feet deep (Ebasco 1984). 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 and Lower Trail Lake. Trail River drains Lower Trail Lake, and then flows into Kenai Lake. Kenai Lake drains into the Kenai River at its west end near Cooper Landing (Ebasco 1984). Based on U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) data from 1947-1958, Grant Creek has a mean annual flow of 192 cfs with average monthly flows ranging from a low of 20 cfs in March to a high of 518 cfs in July (Table E.4-1). Table E.4-1. Mean monthly and annual discharge data for Grant Creek in cfs. (Calculation period 9/1/1947-9/30/1958 at USGS Gage 15246000).1 Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 1947 260 263 200 116 1948 32 24 17 27 244 493 556 385 162 260 90 26 194 1949 15 12 15 17 137 409 474 325 446 194 197 71 193 1950 37 21 18 26 118 447 521 481 338 101 33 21 181 1951 19 16 14 27 124 325 519 376 505 88 52 30 175 1952 19 17 16 15 66 375 572 434 268 337 263 124 210 1953 58 45 30 61 281 928 711 513 294 257 69 40 275 1954 32 33 28 30 173 409 420 384 201 168 145 51 174 1955 42 24 18 18 72 291 643 407 273 82 42 25 163 1956 20 17 15 22 121 269 471 453 215 65 56 52 149 1957 22 19 20 29 166 449 359 370 565 207 161 56 202 1958 44 29 26 66 170 535 450 418 155 Mean 31 23 20 31 152 448 518 413 307 184 119 56 192 Notes: 1 http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ak/nwis/uv/?site_no=%2015246000&PARAmeter_cd=00065,00060 In addition to the 10-year streamflow record from USGS gage 15246000, there has been intermittent streamflow monitoring at Grant Creek in 1981-1983 and from 2013 to present (Ebasco 1984 and KHL 2014b). Statistics were applied to these intermittent data as well as DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-38 March 2015 developing a correlation to USGS gage 15258000 (Kenai River at Cooper Landing) to create a composite streamflow record for Grant Creek that represents of 66 years of daily streamflow data for calendar years 1948 through 2013. The monthly and annual flow statistics for the 66-year composite record are provided in Table E.4-2. Similar to the 10-year USGS record, minimal and peak average monthly flows occur in March and July, respectively. However, the 66-year composite record indicates a higher mean annual flow of 206 cfs, an increase of 7.3 percent from the USGS record. Table E.4-2. Mean monthly and annual discharge data for Grant Creek in cfs. (Calculation period 1/1/1948-12/31/2013 based on 66 year composite record). Years Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 1948-2013 52 43 33 36 146 409 503 444 367 233 123 73 206 Water level fluctuations within Grant Lake were studied from January 1982 through December of 1983 (Ebasco 1984). The maximum relative elevation difference observed during the 2 year period was 3.4 feet with a -5.3 foot elevation decrease from the maximum lake elevation of 703 feet NAVD 88. The greatest inter-monthly changes occur during ice breakup and snowmelt from late March through late June, with an average lake elevation increase of 0.8 feet per month. The maximum lake elevations were observed in July during both seasons with decreasing water levels in the fall and winter averaging about 0.33 feet per month. Historical calculations of retention time at Grant Lake were 672 days based on an average outflow volume of 180 cfs (Ebasco 1984). Updated calculations indicate that retention time is closer to 617 days based on full lake storage capacity of 251,920 acre-feet and an average annual outflow of 206 cfs. 4.3.3. Climate The proposed Project is surrounded by glaciated mountains that typically experience high average annual snowfall. Additionally, the Grant Creek valley can be affected by a maritime climate characterized by relatively warm temperatures and substantial rainfall events in the summer and fall. Historical monthly and annual precipitation data, as well as air temperatures are summarized in Table E.4-3. Compiled historical weather data from a NOAA weather station in Moose Pass, Alaska indicates average annual precipitation is 29.4 inches with an annual snowfall total of 77.8 inches that normally occurs from October through April. The mean annual temperature in Moose Pass and Grant Creek is 36.8°F and 34.7°F, respectively, with the winter months averaging ~22°F and summer months averaging ~52°F. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-39 March 2015 Table E.4-3. Mean monthly and annual precipitation and temperature based on NOAA records1 and Grant Creek weather station (GC 200 – based on 9/15/2011-6/17/2014 period of record). NOAA Moose Pass Weather Station 1981-2010 Monthly Normals GC200 Weather Station Precipitation (inches) Snowfall (inches) Temperature (F) Temperature (F) Month Mean Month Mean Month Mean Month Mean 1 2.43 1 13.9 1 19.0 1 18.9 2 2.73 2 10.7 2 21.2 2 24.5 3 1.31 3 12.2 3 26.9 3 23.9 4 1.10 4 3.2 4 36.3 4 32.9 5 1.05 5 0.0 5 45.3 5 43.6 6 0.86 6 0.0 6 52.9 6 51.5 7 1.43 7 0.0 7 57.2 7 54.6 8 3.09 8 0.0 8 55.7 8 52.7 9 4.51 9 0.0 9 47.0 9 44.4 10 4.26 10 3.5 10 35.0 10 34.5 11 3.5 11 13.6 11 24.2 11 19.1 12 3.11 12 20.7 12 21.0 12 15.2 Annual 29.38 Annual 77.8 Annual 36.8 Annual 34.7 Notes: 1 Moose Pass 3 NW, AK US Station: www.nrdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/normals 4.3.4. Land and Water Uses ADNR records were reviewed to gather information on land status, mining claims, and water rights within the proposed Grant Lake Development (KHL 2008). Land status in the proposed Project area is shown in Figure E.4-2. Lands surrounding Grant Lake are primarily federally owned and are managed by the Chugach National Forest, with state ownership west of Grant Lake to the Seward Highway and along Grant Creek. State lands are managed by the ADNR. There is limited private ownership (mainly rural residential) in the lower portions of the Grant Creek drainage. Four mining claims were identified on federal lands on the north side of Grant Lake’s lower basin (Figure E.4-2), with active mining occurring at these locations. No documented water rights were found within the Grant Lake drainage area (KHL 2008). DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-40 March 2015 [This page intentionally left blank.] DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-43 March 2015 4.4. Geological and Soil Resources 4.4.1. Affected Environment The Grant Lake watershed is situated on the Kenai Peninsula within the Kenai Mountain Range. Metasedimentary and Metavolcanic rocks from the Valdez Group (Mesozoic Era) dominate the bedrock geology of the Grant Lake watershed and the Project area (Tysdal and Case 1979). The Valdez group within the watershed is composed primarily of greywacke, slate, and sandy slates (Ebasco 1984). The area bedrock includes a large number of structural features, and joints are common. Joint orientations vary, although there are minor maxima orientated north-south to Northeast-Southwest, dipping between 50 and 90 degrees to the south or southeast (Ebasco 1984). The Trail Lakes valley is a long, north-trending valley that extends from the town of Seward northward to Upper Trail Lake. It has been called the “Kenai Lineament” since it is obvious on satellite imagery as a long, linear feature (Plafker et al. 1993). The valley runs parallel to the N-NW fault, and the Kenai Lineament may represent one of these fault zones that was extensively eroded during the glacial period. It is unlikely that the Kenai Lineament represents a major active fault. More likely it is a glacial valley whose orientation and location followed the N-NW trend of the minor fault set observed in other areas (Ebasco 1984). Minor faults and fracture zones were discovered during the geologic studies of the area in the early 1980s (Ebasco 1984). Two fracture directions are dominant. One set trends NE and the other N- NW. Grant Creek follows the most obvious NE feature, which is identified as the Grant Creek Fault. Recent geotechnical studies provide a more detailed assessment of lineaments within the Project area and are presented in Figure E.4-3 (Jacobs Associates 2014). The hillshade image included in Figure E.4-3 illustrates several strong lineament trends that are related to tectonic and bedding characteristics at the site. The primary lineament trend is to the east northeast, which includes the Grant Creek gorge lineament. These lineaments also form a number of the drainages feeding into the Trail Lakes system. The second primary lineament trend is a primarily north-south series of lineaments. These are subparrallel to bedding and in some cases may represent weak slate beds that were excavated through glacial scour. Others clearly cut across local bedding trends and are likely associated with tectonic deformation. One example of the latter is the lineament that crosses the tunnel alignment near the midpoint. This lineament is trending slightly north northeast and appears to cut across bedding. The Grant Lake watershed has been influenced by continental glaciers for much of its glacial history. However, the most recent glacial stade, the Elemendorf Stade, included mostly advances of Alpine glaciers that were concurrent with the continental glaciers. These glacial stades and interglacial periods have greatly altered the landscape by eroding bedrock, carving out the lake basin, steepening the valley walls, and depositing minor amounts of sediments. Glaciers have, for the most part, retreated to the upper limits of the watershed and only a few small alpine glaciers and snow fields are present today in the area near Solars Mountain. A map of all glacial features in the Project vicinity can be found in Ebasco (1984). Unconsolidated surficial deposits are relatively rare in the proposed Project area. Alluvium is found at the head of Grant Lake, in the area between Lower Trail Lake and Kenai Lake, within a few of the coves around the Trail Lakes, and within the small bogs found in the low, bedrock ridges flanking the Trail Lakes valley. These deposits are typically mixtures of silt, sand, and DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-44 March 2015 gravel. Minor sand and gravel deposits are also found at the mouth of Grant Creek and Falls Creek. Avalanche debris, the result of transport by snow avalanches during the winter and spring, consists of poorly sorted mixtures of cobbles, gravel, sand, and silt at the base of the major avalanche chutes. Avalanche debris is found on the north shore of Grant Lake where the lake bends to the east. Tallus deposits are rare in the proposed Project area, despite the steep slopes. A map of geologic features in the Project vicinity including glaciers and unconsolidated surficial deposits can be found in Ebasco (1984). Historically, there are portions of the Project area that have been mined for gold. As detailed in Section 4.3.4 of this Exhibit E, ADNR records from December of 2008 identified four mining claims on federal lands on the north side of Grant Lake’s lower basin (KHL 2009b). The soils on Kenai Peninsula, including the proposed Project area, are derived from glacial and other deposits associated with heavily glaciated alpine mountains. The investigations reported in Ebasco (1984) indicate extensive glacial till deposits are absent in the Project area. Minor glacial till deposits may exist at the base of some of the bogs and lakes and within some of the coves along Upper and Lower Trail lakes. Two exploratory borings, conducted in an area of alluvial deposits in the valley on the east side of Upper Trail Lake, penetrated 28 feet and 18 feet of soils ranging from sand and silt near the surface to poorly sorted mixtures of cobbles, gravel, sand, and silt at depth. The lower material may represent glacial till or outwash, while the upper material is likely younger stream or lake bed sediment. None of the material is consolidated (Ebasco 1984). Developed For: Drawing Scale: GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - FERC PROJECT NO. 13212 LICENSE APPLICATION Figure E.4-3Geologic Lineament, Grant Lake Project Area±1401 SHORELINE DRIVEBOISE, ID 83702 OFFICE: 208.342.4214FAX: 208.342.4216 REV DESCRIPTIONBYDATE DRAWING ISSUED DATE CHECKED DRAWN DESIGNED 0 750 1,500 2,250 3,000375 Feet 12/30/2014 P.Pittman J. Woodbury P. Pittman MAP NOTES: 1. THIS MAP WAS DEVELOPED FOR KENAI HYDRO, LLC AS PART OF THE GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (FERC NO. 13212), LICENSE APPLICATION. THE LOCATIONS OF PROJECT FEATURES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND ARE SHOWN FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. 2. THIS MAP WAS DEVELOPED FROM THE FOLLOWING RESOURCES: A. AERIAL IMAGERY DEVELOPED BY USFS B. MAPPED LINEAMENTS PROVDIDED BY JACOBS ASSOCIATES. C. PROPERTY OWNERSHIP BOUNDARY PROVIDED BY KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH'S GIS DEPARTMENT. 3. THIS MAP PRESENTS DATA IN THE FOLLOWING GEOGRAHIC SYSTEMS: - HORIZONTAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983 (NAD 83) - VERTICAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 1988 (NAVD 88) - PROJECTION: ALASKA 4 FIPS 5004 FEET STATE PLANE Legend Mapped Lineaments Previously Mapped Lineaments Proposed Tunnel Alignment Alaska Railroad Seward Highway SCALE: 1:16,000 Lower Trail Lake Grant Lake Vagt Lake DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-47 March 2015 Recent geotechnical investigations by Jacobs Associates (2014) provide the following description of soil conditions specific to the Project location: “Soils at the site are generally considered shallow, mantling the glacially-scoured bedrock. Along the tunnel alignment soils are primarily limited to a thin (less than 5 feet) organic silt to sandy silt overlying bedrock. In low-lying areas along the alignment these soils make be in excess of 20 feet. Recent alluvial deposits associated with Grant Creek are present in the vicinity of the powerhouse and downstream end of the penstock. Based on proximity to the creek and surface exposures, these soils are likely to consist primarily of gravels and sandy gravels. Organic-rich fine-grained interbeds may also be present in this area. These soils may be in excess of 20 feet thick. Soft organic-rich fine-grained deposits are present in low lying areas south of the powerhouse. These areas have formed peat bogs and may be in excess of 20 feet thick. The current access road alignments contour around this area.” Mass movements or slope failures, including landslides, rockfalls, avalanches, and slab failure, are discussed below as possible results of seismic activity. The rock cliffs along Upper Trail Lake from the east could be a source of small rockfalls, triggered either by seismic activity or seasonal freeze-thaw. Examination of the many cliffs in the area, however, suggests a high degree of stability (Ebasco 1984). The detailed feasibility analysis contained in Ebasco (1984) considered the following potential occurrence of seismic hazards at the proposed Project area: vibratory ground motion, ground rupture, seismically-induced slope failure, and seiche. Information from Ebasco (1984) on each of these hazards is excerpted below. Vibratory Ground Motion. Deterministic analysis of the sources of earthquakes, their distance from the proposed Project site, and the potential accelerations at the site indicate that the megathrust zone beneath southern Alaska and the random crustal event are the primary sources of seismic hazard. Random crustal events are then considered “floating” and potentially could occur anywhere. For calculation purposes, the random crustal event is considered to be directly beneath the Project site. All known sources of earthquakes that were close enough to the proposed Project area to have significant impact were identified in the Ebasco (1984) analysis. The maximum credible earthquake (MCE) for a random crustal event was chosen as magnitude 6.0, a conservative upgrade from the maximum recorded magnitude of 5.5. As indicated in Ebasco (1984), the maximum calculated acceleration at the proposed Project site is 0.40 gravity from the random crustal event and 0.37 gravity from the 1964-type Aleutian Arc megathrust. Return periods for these maximum earthquake events were established using historical and instrumental earthquake data. Based on the estimated return periods and the time since the last major event, the likelihood of such events was estimated by Ebasco for the life of the Project as DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-48 March 2015 proposed at the time. The likelihood of another 1964-type event on the megathrust was considered low for the life of that project. Because the return period exceeds 160 years, it is presumed that the calculations are still relevant and would apply to the currently proposed Project. The likelihood of a large random crustal event is moderate to high, with a recurrence interval of 50 to 100 years, and a low probability of such an event occurring in the proposed Project area. Ground Rupture. There are no known active faults crossing the proposed Project site. No seismic events have been associated with known structures around the site, and no geologic data have been found to suggest the presence of active faulting. Ground rupture is not considered a hazard for the Project. Seismically Induced Slope Failure. One of the most common features associated with moderate to large magnitude earthquakes is slope failure. Triggered by ground motion, naturally unstable slopes can fail. Slope failure can be broadly classified into landslides, rockfalls, avalanches, and slab or tumbling failures of rock faces. There is little material in the Project area that would be susceptible to landslides during seismic events. No evidence was found for the occurrence of major landslides or of their deposits (Ebasco 1984). Rockfalls from the steep cliffs could occur during seismic shaking. Some evidence of minor rockfalls has been found in the area, but the triggering mechanism is unknown. The rock cliffs along the Upper Trail Lake valley on the west slope below Grant Lake are a potential source of rockfalls. A second rockfall area has been identified on the steep slopes south of the proposed powerhouse (Jacobs Associates 2014). The proximity of this hazard is near the proposed access road to the intake structure and will need to be addressed as part of the final design package. Seismically induced avalanches could occur in the mountains above the Project. However, the topography around the proposed Project facilities does not appear to be subject to a hazard from avalanche. Slab or tumbling failure of rock faces during seismic events is common in areas of unstable rock slopes. The western shore of Grant Lake is particularly susceptible to such failures, as the slopes are steeply dipping slopes of bedrock. Data from exploratory boring in this area in the early 1980s suggest that bedding-plane slides have already occurred here. Seiche. Seiches are waves in lakes that are formed by water sloshing back and forth as the result of ground shaking during seismic events or the catastrophic inflow of material by slope failures around the lake’s rim. There are several areas surrounding Grant Lake that could be sources of earth or avalanche material for mass movements into Grant Lake, which could generate seiche waves. Fieldwork associated with the Ebasco (1984) analysis did not reveal any areas along the shoreline of Grant Lake where wave damage above normal high water levels was noted. This observation suggests that significant wave run-up did not occur during the 1964 earthquake. Further, the volumes of material that could enter Grant Lake are probably not sufficient to generate very large seiche waves. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-49 March 2015 Investigations around Lower and Upper Trail lakes indicate that the surrounding topography coupled with the shallowness of the lakes present significantly less hazard from seiche. There are no areas of material that could generate large waves by mass movement into these lakes. The proposed Project's facilities would be designed so that they are not susceptible to damage by seiches that could occur in Grant Lake. 4.4.1.1. Grant Lake Shoreline Assessment The primary study objective of the Grant Lake Geomorphology Study (KHL 2014a) was to provide a basis for predicting and assessing potential lake shore erosion in Grant Lake as a result of general reservoir operations. Operations will affect the timing, duration and range of water surface elevations (WSE), and thus change the Grant Lake shoreline geomorphic conditions. The Grant Lake shore geomorphic study was a qualitative inventory of shoreline conditions that affect erosion potential based on professional judgment. The erodibility assessment was initiated with a GIS desktop analysis. The analysis included remotely mapping the geomorphic features of the Grant Lake shoreline area. This was accomplished by evaluating a combination of spatial data sets in conjunction with historic studies and information and making an informed geological interpretation. The interpretation of landforms involved analysis of slope/relief, shape, contributing upland area, fluvial/non-fluvial influence, vegetation, texture and previous geological assessments. A “Geomorphic Unit” was developed based on geomorphic process for the landforms along the shoreline and each Geomorphic Unit was mapped within 200-foot buffer from the shoreline in GIS. The following Geomorphic Units were established for this analysis: Alluvial Deltaic Deposits Alluvial Fan Deposits Beach/Littoral Deposits Colluvial Deposits Landslide Deposits Bedrock The depositional units were characterized based on typical sediment size and character of depositional material (layered strata versus massive consolidated strata, sorted versus unsorted sediment) with the rationale that smaller sediment size and layered strata were relatively more susceptible to erosion than larger sediment sizes and massive consolidated deposits. As a result, a relative erodibility of the geomorphic unit was generated such that the aforementioned units are listed from most susceptible to erosion to least susceptible. The geomorphic units in the area buffering the shoreline were field validated. Mapping of geomorphic units is shown in Figure E.4-4. Wind generated waves are likely the predominant erosional process acting on the Grant Lake shoreline during present conditions. To evaluate the wind-generated wave erosion potential, an overlay of relative fetch potential was applied with the rationale that larger waves had more energy and were more effective at eroding the shoreline area than were smaller waves. Field DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-50 March 2015 observations of wave run-up potential were made during the boat-based survey and documented with photographs. "L!5""L!5" "L!5" "L!5" "L!5" "L!5" "L!5" "L!5" "L!5" "L!5""L!5" "L!5" "L!5" "L!5" "L!5" "L!5" "L!5" 9 8 7 6 54 3 2117 16 15 14 13 12 1110 Developed For: Drawing Scale: GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - FERC PROJECT NO. 13212 LICENSE APPLICATION Figure E.4-4Geomorphology Relative Shoreline Erosion ±1401 SHORELINE DRIVEBOISE, ID 83702 OFFICE: 208.342.4214FAX: 208.342.4216 REV DESCRIPTIONBYDATE DRAWING ISSUED DATE CHECKED DRAWN DESIGNED 0 750 1,500 2,250 3,000375 Feet 11/18/2014GrantLake P.Pittman J. Woodbury P. Pittman MAP NOTES: 1. THIS MAP WAS DEVELOPED FOR KENAI HYDRO, LLC AS PART OF THE GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (FERC NO. 13212), LICENSE APPLICATION. THE LOCATIONS OF PROJECT FEATURES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND ARE SHOWN FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. 2. THIS MAP WAS DEVELOPED FROM THE FOLLOWING RESOURCES: A. AERIAL IMAGERY DEVELOPED BY USFS B. SHORELINE GEOMORPHOLOGY AND SHORELINE EROSION POTENTIAL PROVIDED BY ELEMENT SOLUTIONS, 2013. 3. THIS MAP PRESENTS DATA IN THE FOLLOWING GEOGRAHIC SYSTEMS: - HORIZONTAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983 (NAD 83) - VERTICAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 1988 (NAVD 88) - PROJECTION: ALASKA 4 FIPS 5004 FEET STATE PLANE Legend "L!5"Photo PointsShoreline GeomorphologyGeomorphic Units Alluvial Deltaic Deposit Alluvial Fan Deposit Beach Deposit Bedrock Colluvium LandslideShoreline Erodibility PotentialRelative Erodibility High Low Moderate Moderate-High Moderate-Low Property Boundaries SCALE: 1:20,000 (Lower Basin) (Upper Basin)STATEUSFSLandslideScarp(Recent) LandslideScarp DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-53 March 2015 4.4.1.1.1 Evaluation The evaluation was initiated by compiling all existing spatial information into a GIS-based platform. The geomorphic units were integrated with the fetch parameters to determine relative erodibility (Table E.4-4). The resulting relative erodibility was mapped in GIS (Figure E.4-4). Table E.4-4. Relative erodability integrating erosion susceptibility with wave energy potential. Relative Fetch Distance Geomorphic Unit Alluvial Deltaic Alluvial Fan Beach Colluvium Landslide (bedrock) Bedrock Short Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Low Low Medium Moderate- High Moderate-High Moderate-High Moderate-Low Moderate-Low Low Long High High High Moderate Moderate Low The integration of the relative erodibility susceptibility of the Geomorphic Units with the fetch distance to determine relative erodibility along the shoreline relies upon the following assumptions: 1. As the fetch increases the wave size increases, and therefore the wave-generated erosional processes increase with fetch 2. The geomorphology/geology within each mapped unit was assumed to be consistent throughout that individual unit. In addition to wind-generated wave erosion potential, erosion due to changes in base elevation which could cause stream incision of streams that outlet along the shoreline during lower lake WSE conditions was considered. The shoreline conditions of Grant Lake are influenced by geologic conditions, geomorphic processes, and climate. Alluvial, colluvial and mass wasting processes, including avalanche, deliver sediment to the shoreline area and deposits of sediment locally bound the shoreline. The upper basin receives the dominant sediment load being transported to the lake via hill-slope and fluvial processes. While most geologic and geomorphic processes effecting the littoral zone occur at relatively slow rates, evidence of large mass wasting events in Grant Lake were observed, which can create punctuated change along shorelines and stream channels, including rapid change in sediment supply, shoreline boundary changes, and large pressure generated waves, and erosion. It is hypothesized that the alluvial plain morphology of Grant Creek was influenced by a relatively recent landslide generated wave originating from Grant Lake. Large mass wasting events can have dramatic effect on the landscape. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-54 March 2015 4.4.1.1.2 Natural Influences on Grant Lake Water Surface Elevations and Littoral Conditions Grant Lake shoreline geomorphology is influenced by climate and seasonal variability. The lake remains ice free for approximately half of the year. During the ice-free period, WSEs fluctuate in response to snow melt, glacial melt, and precipitation. Wind generated wave processes erode, rework, deposit, and transport sediment in the littoral zone during the ice-free periods. The narrow confined valleys flanking the lake control wind direction and intensity. Wind direction from east or west will have the greatest effect on the upper lake basin whereas this wind direction will have little effect on the lower lake basin. Conversely, wind directions from north or south will have the greatest effect on the lower lake basin and only negligible effect on the upper lake basin. Because the lake orientation is divided by a 90 degree “bend” approximately mid-point, the effective maximum fetch is only approximately 3-miles. The largest wind- generated waves will be at the shorelines at the end of the fetch runs. The near shore bathymetric conditions also effect wave height and run up potential. The highest WSEs typically occur in the summer months when snow melt and precipitation probability are highest or episodically in fall when transient snow and precipitation occur. WSE of Grant Lake is controlled by the Grant Creek outlet elevation (703 feet NAVD 88) and the hydrologic inputs from the watershed. The maximum WSE of the lake is at approximately 703 feet NAVD 88 based on previous estimates (Ebasco 1984). The ordinary high water mark has apparent elevation increases where wind generated wave run up occurs, including at the outlet at Grant Creek. Grant Lake WSE is lowest in the winter months when the watershed is frozen, virtually halting hydrologic input. During ice-on conditions, the effect of wind generated waves is likely negligible except during ice break-up conditions. 4.4.1.1.3 Grant Creek Spawning Substrate Studies The primary objective of the Grant Creek spawning substrate recruitment study was to provide a basis for predicting and assessing potential changes to material movement, sedimentation, and gravel recruitment that may occur in Grant Creek with proposed operational management, especially as related to the long-term maintenance of fish spawning substrate. Operation of the Project would alter the flow regime and create a situation where some amount of flow will bypass the canyon reach. The Grant Creek spawning substrate study combines quantitative and qualitative elements. The methods identified in the study plan to evaluate the sediment transport effecting salmon spawning substrate conditions following operational scenarios, included the following tasks: 1. Assessment of the substrate at existing spawning areas including aspects of embeddedness and substrate size composition; 2. Quantification of material transport conditions under the existing and projected flow regimes; and 3. Qualitative geomorphic assessment of existing sediment supply conditions. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-55 March 2015 The general operational scenario for the Project would result in bypassing some amount of flow from the canyon reach and the potential for an alteration of the natural flow regime. Specifically, the current natural flows would be modified so that peak flows would be decreased as a result of Project operations. The focus of this study was on the potential impacts to the spawning-size range of sediment. The following species of concern are documented to use Grant Creek for spawning: Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka), coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch), rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri Oncorhynchus mykiss) and Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma malma). The range of documented preferred spawning sediment size classes that encompass these species can typically range from 5- 50 cm, with rainbow trout preferring the smaller substrate range and Chinook utilizing the larger substrate range (Russell 1974; Jones 1975; Suchanek et al. 1984; Milhous 1998; Bovee 1982; Swan 1989; Kondolf 1993). Geomorphic interpretation of the alluvial plain landform indicates that relatively large hydrologic event(s) that are much larger than the historically observed hydrology have occurred and formed the broader alluvial plain. Substantial channel “rill” and fan topography near the canyon outlet and large alluvial transported boulders across a broad alluvial fan suggests a massive flow with sediment transport and deposition. The scale of the event(s) that formed the alluvial plain is likely substantially larger than snow-melt/rain flows where the largest recorded flow was 2,140 cfs (Ebasco 1984). It is hypothesized that the “event” was the result of an impact to Grant Lake that sent a surge of water over the Grant Creek outlet at the south end of Grant Lake. The event could have been a landslide or earthquake initiated seiche or an ice-jam dam break flood. The presence of very large sediment particles in the channel and on the alluvial plain that are beyond the transport capacity of the observed stream are relict of this event. The alluvial plain channel has predominant substrate size that ranges from boulder to cobble and decreases from boulder-dominant substrate into a cobble-dominant substrate in the downstream direction (Ebasco 1984). The Grant Creek alluvial plain is bound by bedrock topography. The alluvial plain stream channel is approximately 25 feet at bankfull width on average, whereas the width of the alluvial plain is substantially larger than the bankfull and active channel which suggests that Grant Creek has historically occupied and eroded the alluvial plain margins. Three generalized geomorphic channel form reaches currently exist in Grant Creek; the Canyon Reach, the Anastomosing Reach, and the Alluvial Fan Distributary Reach. The Canyon Reach (Reaches 5 and 6) is a confined bedrock channel and the primary source of sediment recruitment for Grant Creek. The channel in this section is steep and bedrock lined with limited sediment storage, both in volume and temporal duration. Most sediment is stored in the Canyon Reach sediment wedges formed behind boulder obstructions. Extremely large flows are capable of mobilizing these wedges and net incision into the bedrock is the trend. A series of headcuts (falls) are migrating up the stream in the direction of Grant Lake. In geologic time, these headcuts will migrate to Grant Lake and the lake water surface will drop to the new control elevation. The Anastomosing Reach is within the partially confined alluvial plain and is net depositional zone with periods of incision occurring during low sediment input rates. Loss in hydraulic DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-56 March 2015 confinement and a change in gradient allow for sediment deposition within this reach when sediment input rates are high and transport capacity is low. It is anticipated that these conditions are episodic and driven by upper watershed conditions (hydrologic or geologic events) coinciding with a large sediment supply stored within the Canyon Reach. A low flow, primary channel carries the predominant flow and a series of side channel and floodplain channels are wetted at various flow conditions. The anastomosing reach changes relatively rapidly in both horizontal and vertical orientation depending upon the sediment load and is a more dynamic geomorphic reach than the Canyon Reach. Horizontal movements result from either lateral channel erosion or avulsion. It is anticipated the alluvial deposits overlay a bedrock base and that there is a robust hyporheic-ground water interaction, and that there is minimal hydrologic loss in this reach. The Anastomosing Reach channel and bedforms are sensitive to changes in flow regime and sediment load. Loss of side channel connectivity will result in a single thread channel, which decreases hydraulic complexity, concentrates stream power, and often results in increased channel incision. The Alluvial Fan Distributary Reach is an unconfined, net depositional reach. Distributary channel networks that disperse flow to Lower Trail Lake and the Narrows are accessed at a wide range of flows. The Alluvial Fan Distributary Reach is likely the most dynamic reach in Grant Creek with respect to horizontal and vertical channel movements and avulsions. The reach is very sensitive to disturbances, particularly sediment supply and flow regime changes. Hydraulic complexity in the Alluvial Fan reach is hydraulically less complex than the Anastomosing Reach and it is probable that there is a slight hydrologic loss experienced in this reach. The Anastomosing Reach of Grant Creek likely provides the greatest overall ecological function and salmonid productivity relative to the other reaches. The rationale for this hypothesis is that the reach has: the greatest hydraulic complexity; the greatest wetted channel length at moderate flows a more balanced wetted perimeter to depth at moderate flows; a higher probability of maintaining low and hyporheic connectivity in the winter; is more stable than the Alluvial Fan Reach; and lower velocity and stream power than the Canyon Reach. 4.4.1.1.4 Sediment Supply and Transport Influences on Grant Creek Geomorphology A small amount of suspended and dissolved sediment load from the upper watershed reaches Grant Creek. However, Grant Lake acts to arrest all bedload sediment transport from the upper watershed area. Therefore, the sediment supply for Grant Creek, excluding the throughput suspended sediment load, is the Canyon Reach. With the majority of the sediment source for Grant Creek being derived from the canyon walls, the geological formations present along this length of stream channel play a critical role. The primary process for generating new bedload sediment in Grant Creek are the erosional forces that incise the canyon causing wall undermining and mass wasting (rock fall) from the canyon walls and exposing the geology to freeze-thaw and other surface erosion processes. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-57 March 2015 While Grant Creek within the alluvial plain exhibits net deposition over time, it is under “normal” hydrologic conditions a supply limited stream, meaning that the sediment transport capacity of the stream is greater than the sediment supply to the stream. A supply limited stream tends to migrate less laterally and vertically than a transport limited stream, and channel form is more “stable”. Supply limited streams also tend to be armored, incised, and exhibit a straight versus meandering channel form. 4.4.1.1.5 Sediment Form Influences on Grant Creek Geomorphology Of the three geological formations present along the creek channel, the greywacke is the most resistant rock type, whereas the sandy slate and slate are more friable and tend to supply the majority of sediment to the stream bed. The greywacke units control the base elevation in Grant Lake by creating the outlet sills and forming waterfalls. In geologic time, erosion of the greywacke and head-cut retreat of the canyon would lower Grant Lake. The sediment being recruited to Grant Creek is angular, with the slate having a “platy” particle morphology (A-axis and B-axis are similar, disproportionately small C-axis) and the greywacke having long “blocky or brick-like” particle morphology (large A-axis, similar disproportionately small B and C-axes). The high stream power in the canyon and the relatively short transport distance from the sediment source in the canyon to the depositional areas downstream results in relatively large grain size with high degree of angularity of the particles compared to other streams of similar discharge with a greater spatial extent of bedload sediment inputs. Blocky and platy sediment morphologies with the same B-axes dimensions have different volumes (think of a dinner plate versus a watermelon that both have similar B-axis diameter), and therefore a different surface area to mass, which effects transport characteristics. Angular sediment also transports across the channel bed (rolling and saltating) and entrains differently than does rounded. The particle morphology of Grant Creek likely increases the armoring qualities of the bed and thus adds to the overall stability of the channel form. 4.4.1.1.6 Hydrologic Influences on Grant Creek Sediment Transport and Geomorphology The hydrology of Grant Creek is predominantly driven by the cycle of melting snow and precipitation in the summer and frozen watershed conditions in the winter. It is the bankfull and peak flows that dominate the fluvial geomorphic processes at Grant Creek. The stream bed is comprised of large sediment particles and the bed is armored, so only the larger flows are able to mobilize the bed armoring, transport sediment en masse, and reorganize bedforms. The sustained flows offered by snow melt conditions allow for a longer duration of time for which to organize the substrate, construct and arrange the geomorphic channel bed structures, and allow channel form development. A larger, but unmonitored hydrologic event likely occurred on Grant Creek in September 2012 when many other gauged streams in the vicinity of Grant Creek experienced flows of record. Some residual high water marks on Grant Creek were observed which showed that the 2012 event was larger than the highest 2013 flow of approximately 1,000 cfs. Using the existing stage gage and rating curve to estimate the flows, the 2012 flow was likely between approximately 1,500 and 2,000 cfs. The September 2012 flow was short duration and occurred late in the DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-58 March 2015 season and winter conditions set in soon after, therefore reducing the amount of time for flows following the event to process the transported sediment and adapt to the modified channel bed forms. As a result, the 2013 higher flow season responded to the disturbances from the 2012 event and there were several channel changes, including recapture of some floodplain channels, an avulsion, and partial abandonment of previously occupied low flow channels. The primary driver for these changes was likely a redistribution of bedload sediment and localized vertical channel bed changes, which affected localized WSEs. The observation shows that the channel form and bed forms and the interaction with the floodplain and floodplain side channels are dynamic, and thus habitat that relies on the availability, extent, and quality of substrate are related to sediment transport processes. Non-climate driven hydrologic events likely occur within Grant Creek. The Grant Creek watershed is within an active seismic area and a large scale landslide, avalanche or earthquake caused seiche could occur. In the event that a large scale landslide did occur and deliver large volumes of material rapidly into Grant Lake, then large waves or seiches could propagate throughout the lake basin and into Grant Creek. It is probable that the hydrograph from one of these events, although brief in nature, would be substantially greater in magnitude than climate driven hydrographs. 4.4.1.1.7 Quantitative Sediment Characterization Summary The Grant Creek channel bed is vertically stratified with at least two distinct layers; armored or pavement layer, and subsurface. A sub-pavement layer was not distinct. The surface is highly armored which is enhanced by angular particle forms and the surface has low embeddedness and is relatively low in fine grained sediment. The subsurface is well-graded cobble and gravel with sand and nominal fines (less than 1 percent of sediment by volume is 1 millimeter (mm; medium sand) or smaller. The subsurface material is anticipated to be easily remobilized when the armoring is removed. 4.4.1.1.8 Surface Analysis Results Summary In summary, the wetted low-flow channel areas are substantially coarser and more armored than are the lateral and point bars. No trend in surface sediment decrease moving in the downstream direction was observed. It is hypothesized that local hydraulics and the two distinct particle forms (platy and blocky) influences particle size to transport relationship and deposition more than channel gradient in this turbulent system. The instream D50 is generally larger than literature referenced “preferred” spawning substrate size; however, in the case of Grant Creek the spawning species are utilizing the areas with large, armored surface substrate. 4.4.1.1.9 Subsurface Analysis Results Summary The subsurface is less coarse than the surface, except at one of the eight sampling sites, where the subsurface had a higher percentage by size class of large particles and yet a similar D50 size. It is hypothesized that the subsurface at this one sampling location represented a hyperconcentrated flow deposit as it lacked sorting and imbrication structure that was apparent in the other subsurface sample sites. Subsurface sediment was overall well-graded cobble and gravel with sand with minimal fines. Similar to the surface analysis, there was not a general DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-59 March 2015 trend in decreasing D50 particle size in the downstream direction because of the influence of localized hydraulics and relict hyperconcentrated lag deposits. It should be noted that inaccuracies in bulk sampling can be pronounced in bimodal distributions containing large clasts and where lag deposits from hyper-concentrated/dam outburst type alluvial deposits are found, as is the interpreted conditions of Grant Creek. 4.4.1.1.10 Embedment Results Field observations of embeddedness resulting from fine-grained sediment deposition in the interstitial spaces of the surface armoring were found to be extremely low. The reasons for this are hypothesized to be that: the Grant Creek system is relatively starved of fine sediment and that the current flow regime transports most fines through the system as throughput, and the low sediment delivery rate and high flows result in armored condition. General clast-to-clast embedment was difficult to measure because of the particle forms, particularly platy, and the generally well armored conditions. Qualitatively, clast-to-clast embedment appeared relatively high because of armoring. Because of the high percentage of imbricated platy sediment particles, there is low confidence in the values measured, and therefore it is our opinion that quantitative results are not reliable. In general, there is not expected to be an increase in fines filling the interstitial spaces of the surface sediment within the spawning reach. 4.4.1.1.11 Sediment Incipient Motion Analysis Results Grant Creek is an example of a complex system for the following reasons: Grant Creek is a high gradient, boulder dominated stream with turbulent flow. Bedform and channel bank irregularity, in addition to instream boulder and bedrock structures, create turbulence with secondary flow influences that can be much more influential on sediment transport than in planer bed conditions. Attempts to calculate or measure shear stress values in mountain rivers are complicated by the channel bed roughness and the associated turbulence and velocity fluctuations (Wohl 2000). Sediment particle shapes are unique and vary from referenced calibrated models. The sediment shapes present in the Grant Creek are angular platy particles and angular blocky or “brick” shaped particles. These two shapes will each mobilize and transport differently relative to each other. These two shapes are different from the assumed particle shape used to develop and calibrate models, which are spherical shapes. Spherical particle shapes will have a different transport characteristic than either platy or brick shapes. In addition, each particle form will lay and organize differently on the channel bed and each has a different mass to B-axis ratio; therefore, incipient motion will be different for each particle represented in Grant Creek as well as different than predicted by equations developed using spherical models. Sediment transport rates at Grant Creek are very low. There are three phases of sediment transport associated with very low bedload transport rates, also known as marginal transport. Incipient motion and net transport rates in these systems are very sensitive to changing hydraulic conditions and bed material moves only partially; thus entrainment is size-selective (Hassan et al. 2005; Wilcock and McArdell 1993). DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-60 March 2015 The Grant Creek channel bed is locally armored. Sediment transport characteristics, specifically incipient particle motion, in armored gravel-bed rivers is often controlled by patches of fine sediment and bedforms (e.g. Garcia et al. 1999). Bedload transport characteristics vary from the initiation of particle movement to the point when the breakup of the armor layer occurs when the channel becomes unstable at the reach scale. Inter-particle relationships are not represented in model assumptions, so hiding effect and “patches”, which can have significant influence on particle movement are not considered. The substrate particle forms, as previously described, are distinctly different and literature supporting Shield parameter values for both platy and blocky particle forms is extremely limited. It is hypothesized that platy particle forms in a cohesionless, heterogeneous particle shape planer bed will mobilize in lower flows and be more easily entrained than will blocky particle forms of similar B-axis dimensions in the same flow conditions if the platy particles are loose and unorganized. However, if the platy sediment has become highly imbricated in a more homogeneous particle shape grouping, thus increasing particle-to-particle contact forces and decreasing fluid forces acting on a given surface area (skin friction), then the platy particle will require a higher flow to initiate mobilization than the blocky sediment. Based on the lack of strongly imbricated, homogenous surface present at Grant Creek, it is anticipate that the platy particles will be mobilized more easily than the long axis blocky particles. It should also be noted that Grant Creek channel bed is, for the most part, not planer, thus bed shear stress is primarily associated with form drag rather than skin friction on individual particles, which is the force that moves particles. The incipient motion calculation estimated that the proposed maximum operational flow (385 cfs) will likely initiate mobilization of surface sediment within the preferred spawning substrate range (10 mm – 50 mm). At 385 cfs, it is anticipated that substrate mobility will be partial, limited to only smaller particles and that movement of particles will be intermittent, localized, and primarily from the deeper channel areas or where turbulence is high. Mobilization of particles will also depend upon the degree of armoring, bedform, and particle shape. Table E.4-5 is a summary of the estimated upper particle size threshold being mobilized at 385 cfs. Table E.4-5. Summary of incipient motion calculations at 385 cfs. Sample Site τ(blocky) τ(platy) τb (pounds/sf) Ds(blocky) mm Ds(platy) mm D50 surface mm D50 subsurface mm 1 0.06 0.03 1.85 92 183 59 52 2 0.06 0.03 0.79 39 79 48 21 7 0.06 0.03 1.32 65 131 77 28 8 0.06 0.03 1.12 55 111 83 74 Average 62.8 126 67 44 DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-61 March 2015 Field observations, marker analysis, and professional judgment would suggest that the predicted particle sizes are high for the platy particle forms using the Shield’s parameter of 0.03. It also is possible that the values obtained for the blocky substrate are too high as well. These outputs predict that there would be substantial bedload movement at a 385-cfs flow. Very little bedload sediment transport appeared to be occurring at flows near the proposed operational flow. Additionally, flows near the proposed operational flow also coincided with spawning activity. A point bar at sample location had only experienced minor sediment transport even with the 1,000- cfs flows, so it is unlikely that widespread surface sediment breakup occurred at 1,000-cfs flows. However, channel bed changes and resulting WSE changes occurred in 2013 occurred following the higher flows; therefore, some degree of local bedload transport does occur with flows between 350 cfs and 1,000 cfs. 4.4.1.1.12 Sediment Delivery Potential Results Sediment delivery and transport in Grant Creek is divided between two transport characteristics: suspended sediment load; and bedload sediment. Suspended sediment load passes through Grant Creek with very little deposition in the alluvial reach as a result of the steep stream gradient, turbulence and low sediment load. The primary source of suspended sediment is from the glacial headwaters. Much of the suspended sediment load settles out into Grant Lake. The suspended sediment that passes through Grant Lake is extremely fine and has a very low settling rate, which also decreases the potential for deposition to occur within Grant Creek. There are four primary sources of bedload sediment in Grant Creek; lakeshore littoral sediment input, Canyon Reach input, channel bed and channel bank remobilization (bank erosion, incision), and mechanical breakdown of instream sediment during mobilization. Field investigation determined that the bedload sediment supply in Grant Creek is extremely limited and that the canyon is the predominant source of bedload sediment. Bedload sediment delivery arrives episodically, either from a rock fall within the canyon, or a littoral contribution resulting from a large wind storm occurring at high lake WSEs. Remobilization of channel bank and channel bed sediment can provide a sediment input to lower reaches, but does not recharge or replenish the whole stream system. Large hydrologic events are necessary to mobilize and transport sediment from the canyon and deliver the sediment to the lower reaches as well as to mechanically breakdown instream sediment. 4.4.2. Environmental Analysis 4.4.2.1. Project Construction The lack of significant soil cover or alluvial deposits indicates that erosion would be minimal during construction of the Project (KHL 2009b). Slope stability is not anticipated to be a constraint for the tunnel alignment or the portals. The east portal would be located in gently sloping terrain, which would require a temporary portal cut into alluvial/colluvial deposits and the underlying rock. The west portal appears to be located in a steeply sloping rock face, above a bench in the otherwise steep slope. During the site reconnaissance this slope was inspected and found to be in good condition (Jacobs Associates 2014). DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-62 March 2015 Slope failure and rockfall hazards are a potential concern for the intake tunnel access road as it ascends the steep slopes south of the powerhouse. A rockfall area was observed at this location, where failure along adverse joints has produced historical rockfall and created an overhanging rock knob near the crest of the slope. Rock blocks associated with this slope extend beyond the toe of slope. The potential for future rockfall in this area is high and has the potential for producing rock blocks in excess of 5 feet in diameter. The proximity of this hazard relative to the access road will need to be addressed and mitigated for during final design. Another concern is the potential for major failures along the south side of the Grant Creek gorge. As viewed from the air during the 2010 feasibility study and as part of this investigation, the rock exposed in the side of the gorge appears sound. However, toppling failure along high angle joints trending sub- parallel to the canyon walls is possible. As summarized in the Geotechnical Report (Jacobs Associates 2014), the majority of the tunnel is quite a distance away from the gorge wall, and therefore it is considered unlikely that a failure of the slope would impact the proposed tunnel alignment. 4.4.2.2. Grant Lake Shoreline Erosion The anticipated impacts to shoreline erosion potential from the operation of the proposed Project are likely to be relatively minor over the long term for the following reasons: The change in WSE range is a decreased WSE that occurs in winter during ice-on conditions when wave and stream erosion processes are less active. The shoreline littoral area is predominantly bedrock or coarse, angular boulders with a low susceptibility to erosion. Influence of wind-generated waves in Grant Lake is not a substantial erosional process because the open fetch was limited to a maximum of approximately 3 miles, and therefore wind wave heights were limited. In the areas where fetch was greatest and bathymetric conditions favored high wave run up, only a slight increase in the ordinary high water mark elevation demonstrating that maximum wind-wave heights were estimated to be a maximum of approximately 5 feet at Inlet Creek and 3 feet at Grant Creek outlet. In the areas where erosion potential was greatest, only minimal erosion; in part because of the depositional nature of the geomorphic units these areas and the apparent high depositional rate. With the exception of the Beach geomorphic unit, all other areas are actively delivering sediment to the shoreline area at rates that are greater than the erosion potential. It is anticipated the WSE fluctuations under proposed operational conditions will decrease the duration of time that the WSE holds at any one elevation, especially peak WSE levels, therefore decreasing the frequency of wave events occurring at any one elevation and reducing the effects of wave erosion at any one shoreline elevation. Because of the limited extent of littoral transport observed in the field, the effects on the Beach geomorphic unit and other isolated pocket beaches is anticipated to be relatively minor. It should be noted that an interruption of limited littoral-transported sediment supply to Grant Creek will occur following the construction of the gravity diversion structure (if this option is selected), but it is anticipated that the sediment volumes and delivery rates are relatively small and only occur episodically and likely infrequently. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-63 March 2015 The areas most susceptible to erosion from stream incision caused by decreases in base elevation are the alluvial deposits (Alluvial Deltaic and Alluvial Fan geomorphic units). The potential effects of channel incision will be the steepening of stream gradient, coarsening of streambed sediments, straightening of stream channels, decreased floodplain connectivity, increased instream flow velocities and depths, and bank steepening and retreat. The greatest ongoing potential for geomorphic impact is the potential incision of the inlet streams at the shoreline margin, Inlet Creek at the east end of the lake in particular. The degree of impact will be limited by the timing of high flows in combination with the extent and duration of low lake WSE conditions. As lake WSE increases, the probability and extent of stream incision impacts decreases. 4.4.2.3. Grant Spawning Substrate Recruitment Grant Creek is a complex, steep stream that demonstrated a wide range of variability both with the substrate and bedform conditions and transport is not adequately captured using referenced Shield’s parameter values (Yager 2012). Regardless, the proposed operational conditions have the potential to affect geomorphic responses as summarized in Table E.4-6. Table E.4-6. Potential geomorphic responses from Project operational conditions. Proposed Change Potential Geomorphic Response Decreased frequency and magnitude of Grant Creek peak flows Reduced shear stress potential resulting in decreased net sediment transport potential Decreased movement potential for large sediment material Continued sediment transport of smaller and intermediate sediment sizes from the surface or subsurface following bioturbation (specifically spawning) Decreased potential for armor remobilization Increased relative armoring trend over time resulting from smaller particle “winnowing” (migrating in a downstream direction) Decreased remobilization of sub-surface sediment except in spawning areas Increased potential for channel stability (decreased lateral migration, net increase for channel incision potential) Increased potential for development of a single-thread channel Loss of floodplain connectivity Decreased potential for scour and organization of depositional channel bed forms Decreased bedform quantity and associated loss of hydraulic complexity Decreased sediment supply resulting from lateral migration Decreased frequency and duration of Grant Creek low flows Decreased potential for fine-grained sediment deposition Flow bypass of the Canyon Reach Reduced sediment supply availability Decreased ice-jam dam outburst potential Decreased potential for slope instability in Canyon Reach Decreased potential for bedrock outlet control degradation (erosion) and long- term Grant Lake WSE reduction DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-64 March 2015 Of the potential geomorphic responses listed above, the following geomorphic responses are anticipated to have impacts to spawning substrate. Many of the geomorphic response and the resulting impacts to spawning substrate are anticipated to occur incrementally over time measured in years and decades. It is anticipated that there will be potential for: An increased coarsening of surface bedload sediment as the sediment supply decreases from a bypass of the Canyon Reach and smaller surface sediment is transported out of the reach by operational flow. As a result, there is likely to be degradation spawning substrate quantity and quality resulting from this geomorphic response. Increased armoring and pavement depth in spawning areas as subsurface fines are mobilized and winnowed out of the system following bioturbation pavement breakup (from spawning). As a result, there is likely to be a degradation of spawning substrate quality resulting from this geomorphic response. Decreased geomorphic channel form complexity (loss of side-channel and floodplain connectivity, development of a single-thread channel) resulting from decreased sediment supply will increase primary channel incision and stream velocity. As a result, there will likely be a decrease in spawning substrate quantity resulting from this geomorphic response. Decreased quantity of channel bedforms (riffles and bars) resulting from decreased sediment supply and decreased sediment transport with a reduced flow regime. As a result, there will likely be a decrease in hydraulic complexity that is expected to degrade spawning substrate quality and reduce its availability resulting from this geomorphic response. 4.4.3. Proposed Environmental Measures Global adherence to Best Management Practices (BMP) will be utilized in conjunction with all Project construction and operation related activities. A series of monitoring and management plans will be developed post-licensing to ensure that construction and operations of the Project do not change or adversely impact natural processes associated with erosion and sediment deposition. In addition, these plans will also address the methodologies associated with containment and avoidance of the spilling of all hazardous materials. KHL will develop these plans in advance of construction activities commencing and provide stakeholders with an agreed upon review and comment period prior to finalizing and filing with FERC. KHL will have an Environmental Compliance Monitor (ECM) on site monitoring construction activities during all phases to ensure adherence to all applicable BMPs and methods outlined in the monitoring and management plans. For reference, the proposed construction schedule is located in Figure C.2-1 in Exhibit C of this DLA. The plans are as follows: Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) Hazardous Materials Containment/Fuel Storage Plan Spill Prevention, Control and Containment Plan (SPCCP) In addition to the aforementioned implementation of BMPs and respective monitoring and management plan methodologies, KHL is committed to restoring all temporarily impacted areas DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-65 March 2015 associated with Project construction back to natural conditions. While it is not anticipated that these areas will be numerous or cover a large area, examples of areas to be restored may include temporary laydown areas for infrastructural materials or parking/pull-out areas for construction equipment. The list of areas to be restored will be refined as construction nears conclusion and will be reviewed with stakeholders prior to restoration occurring. A full summary of all measures, as well as the associated implementation timeframes, being proposed by KHL for the original license will be provided with the FLA. 4.4.4. Cumulative Effects Analysis Consistent with FERC’s SD2 (FERC 2010b), no cumulative effects were identified associated with geological and soil resources. Per Section 4.4.3 of this Exhibit E, a series of monitoring and management plans will be developed to ensure that construction and operations of the Project do not change or adversely impact natural processes associated with erosion and sediment deposition. In addition, these plans will also address the methodologies associated with containment and avoidance of the spilling of all hazardous materials. Given the remote nature of the Project and the fact that KHL intends to operate the Project remotely, use of the Project access road is expected to be minimal and will not have cumulative impact from an erosion or sediment deposition perspective. It is important to note that it is KHL’s intent to allow public and stakeholder comment to dictate the availability of the access road for acceptable public recreation activities. If it is determined that public access is preferred, the Public Safety Access Plan (PSAP), as discussed in greater detail in Section 4.8 of this Exhibit E, would address monitoring and maintenance measures related to the Project access road and the associated recreation that may occur as a result of public access being allowed. 4.4.5. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Based on the comprehensive set of natural resources and engineering analyses conducted and reviewed as part of this licensing process and the proposed monitoring and management plans, KHL has identified no geologic or soil-related unavoidable adverse impacts associated with construction and operation of the Project. 4.5. Water Quality and Quantity 4.5.1. Affected Environment 4.5.1.1. Water Quantity The general study area and delineation of monitoring locations in support of 2013 water quality and quantity investigations is shown in Figure E.4-5. Grant Lake is located at an elevation of approximately 703 feet NAVD 88, with a surface area of 2.6 square miles, a volume of almost 252,000 acre-feet, and a mean depth of 91 feet (Ebasco 1984). Grant Lake encompasses two almost separate bathymetric lake basins, which are separated by a shallow submerged ridge at the “narrows” that connects the two basins at right angles near the lake’s midpoint. The deepest point within the lower basin is approximately 262 DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-66 March 2015 feet deep and the upper basin is 283 feet deep. Historical calculations of retention time at Grant Lake were 672 days based on an average outflow volume of 180 cfs (Ebasco 1984). Updated calculations indicate that retention time is closer to 617 days based on full lake storage capacity of 251, 920 acre-feet and an average annual outflow of 206 cfs. Shoreline length for Grant Lake is 100,487 feet with much of the littoral zone comprised of steep bedrock (Ebasco 1984). Water level fluctuations within Grant Lake were studied from January 1982 through December of 1983 (Ebasco 1984). The greatest inter-monthly changes occur during ice breakup and snowmelt from late March through late June, with an average lake elevation increase of 0.8 feet per month. The maximum lake elevation was observed in July during both seasons with decreasing water levels in the fall and winter averaging about 0.33 feet per month. Grant Creek itself is approximately 5,800 feet long and flows west from the outlet of Grant Lake to the “narrows” between Upper and Lower Trail lakes. It has with an average gradient of 207 feet per mile. In its upper half, Grant Creek passes through a steep bedrock canyon with three substantial waterfalls. In its lower half, Grant Creek becomes less steep with boulder and cobble dominant alluvial substrate. A detailed gradient profile of Grant Creek is provided in Figure E.4- 6. TLN GLTS GLOUT GC 200 GC 600 GC 500 GC 300GC 250GC 100 GC 250-OC GC 200-OC Developed For: Drawing Scale: GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - FERC PROJECT NO. 13212 LICENSE APPLICATION Figure E.4-5Water Quality, Temperature, andHydrology Study Locations, 2013 ±1401 SHORELINE DRIVEBOISE, ID 83702 OFFICE: 208.342.4214FAX: 208.342.4216 REV DESCRIPTIONBYDATE DRAWING ISSUED DATE CHECKED DRAWN DESIGNED 0 200 400 600 800100 Feet LowerTrailLake 11/17/2014 G ra n tCr e ek Grant Lake J. Woodbury J. Woodbury C. Sauvageau MAP NOTES: 1. THIS MAP WAS DEVELOPED FOR KENAI HYDRO, LLC AS PART OF THE GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (FERC NO. 13212), LICENSE APPLICATION. THE LOCATIONS OF PROJECT FEATURES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND ARE 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. C. PROPERTY OWNERSHIP BOUNDARY PROVIDED BY KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH'S GIS DEPARTMENT. E. SAMPLING STATION LOCATIONS PROVIDED BY MCMILLEN-LLC. 3. THIS MAP PRESENTS DATA IN THE FOLLOWING GEOGRAHIC SYSTEMS: - HORIZONTAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983 (NAD 83) - VERTICAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 1988 (NAVD 88) - PROJECTION: ALASKA 4 FIPS 5004 FEET STATE PLANE Legend Sample Stations Property Boundaries StateUpperTrailLake SCALE: 1:4,522 Detention Pond Outlet Detention Pond Tailrace Powerhouse Tunnel Diversion dam Intake A ccessR oadsPenstock Transmission LinePrivateStateState DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-69 March 2015 Figure E.4-6. Grant Creek stream profile generated from LiDAR (2002). Vertical axis is in feet NAVD 88 and horizontal axis is in feet as measured from the outlet at Grant Creek. Grant Creek is a high energy stream with a wide variability in flow regime. Based on USGS data from 1947-1958, Grant Creek has a mean annual flow of 192 cfs with average monthly flows ranging from a low of 20 cfs in March to a high of 518 cfs in July (Table E.4-1). Stakeholders requested that a component of the Water Resources Study Plan (KHL 2013a) include the re-establishment of a stream gage at Grant Creek to be located at the historical USGS station (gage 15246000). The stream gage at site GC 200 has been operational since April 2, 2013 and provides an on-site streamflow record through the end of the 2013 calendar year. A comparison of the 2013 streamflow record vs. the 10-year USGS record is summarized in Figure E.4-7. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-70 March 2015 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Jan‐1Feb‐1Mar‐1Apr‐1May‐1Jun‐1Jul‐1Aug‐1Sep‐1Oct‐1Nov‐1Dec‐1Discharge (cfs)Date Grant Creek Historical Flow Records‐Mean Daily Discharge, CY 1948‐1958 and 2013 GC200 2013 Mean Daily Flow USGS 1948‐1958 Mean Daily Flow Figure E.4-7. Comparison of historical and 2013 mean daily flow records. In addition to the 10-year streamflow record from USGS gage 15246000 and 2013 streamflow record, there was intermittent streamflow monitoring at Grant Creek in 1981-83 (Ebasco 1984). Statistics were applied to these intermittent data as well as developing a correlation to USGS gage 15258000 (Kenai River at Cooper Landing) to create a composite streamflow record for Grant Creek that represents 66 years of daily streamflow data for calendar years 1948 through 2013. The correlation between the Cooper Landing gauge and the Grant Creek record resulted in a coefficficient of determination (r2) of 0.92, representing an excellent correlation between the two gauges. The monthly and annual flow statistics for the 66-year composite record are provided in Table E.4-7. Based on these updated results, the Grant Creek mean annual flow of 206 cfs represents a 7.3 percent increase from historical data. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-71 March 2015 Table E.4-7. Mean monthly and annual discharge data for Grant Creek in cfs. (Calculation period 1/1/1948-12/31/2013 based on 66-year composite record). Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 1947 79 359 466 422 260 262 200 116 1948 32 24 16 27 244 493 556 385 162 259 90 26 194 1949 15 12 15 17 137 409 474 325 446 194 197 71 193 1950 37 21 18 26 117 447 521 481 338 101 33 21 181 1951 19 16 14 27 124 325 518 376 505 88 52 30 175 1952 18 16 16 15 66 375 572 434 268 337 263 124 210 1953 58 44 30 61 281 928 711 513 294 257 69 40 275 1954 32 33 28 30 173 409 420 384 201 168 145 51 174 1955 42 24 18 18 72 291 643 407 273 82 42 25 163 1956 20 17 15 22 121 269 471 453 215 65 56 52 149 1957 22 19 20 29 166 449 359 370 565 207 161 56 202 1958 44 29 26 66 170 535 449 418 155 250 74 41 189 1959 28 20 18 25 149 504 437 381 190 129 102 48 170 1960 30 27 19 19 233 409 506 458 258 125 96 92 191 1961 105 86 37 32 186 403 532 473 389 325 82 45 226 1962 30 27 21 28 77 349 469 336 200 107 152 71 156 1963 53 40 45 35 101 268 505 390 329 176 69 55 173 1964 50 35 23 42 85 533 524 538 483 238 114 84 230 1965 48 36 33 65 119 231 365 410 355 198 69 53 166 1966 37 25 22 28 71 345 415 578 547 273 91 51 208 1967 39 33 26 24 97 371 447 653 852 226 109 71 246 1968 51 49 56 36 159 369 441 402 205 99 58 36 164 1969 26 24 24 27 114 466 428 253 178 572 180 139 204 1970 96 65 67 65 152 395 496 514 450 129 197 63 225 1971 44 38 33 30 56 355 618 568 320 172 71 43 197 1972 31 22 20 21 53 225 466 468 360 152 85 47 163 1973 33 27 22 24 98 259 387 348 246 109 58 38 138 1974 30 22 21 26 98 317 400 337 678 182 145 62 193 1975 45 33 28 26 165 338 547 402 289 225 71 41 185 1976 34 26 21 21 96 336 462 426 586 258 222 200 225 1977 109 129 73 41 136 524 764 846 540 252 114 59 300 1978 47 47 46 36 148 334 462 458 465 255 113 67 208 1979 45 25 22 27 143 335 494 592 414 654 257 150 265 1980 82 111 57 69 219 535 772 585 294 412 175 69 283 1981 193 139 71 56 233 498 608 741 441 175 180 101 287 1982 59 44 30 23 80 308 456 372 414 221 93 100 184 1983 58 45 33 42 169 461 476 386 173 127 108 81 181 1984 61 53 58 59 131 330 442 424 279 329 85 54 193 1985 64 61 36 23 71 327 539 373 273 201 91 241 193 1986 107 65 41 29 98 368 496 384 292 419 142 144 217 1987 96 67 39 47 156 399 544 445 291 298 124 66 216 1988 48 39 37 33 183 498 588 544 373 328 151 70 242 1989 47 37 29 33 136 288 490 551 518 348 100 69 222 1990 51 43 39 58 243 492 476 456 406 156 210 49 224 1991 35 31 28 27 105 328 440 404 403 193 80 61 179 1992 53 44 34 41 149 447 519 441 191 93 100 102 186 1993 43 36 39 61 224 443 460 463 595 262 112 73 235 1994 62 60 39 46 161 440 510 484 315 149 67 49 199 DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Table E.4-7, continued… Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-72 March 2015 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 1995 38 31 30 48 241 435 559 423 687 261 90 45 241 1996 34 23 19 27 108 242 343 461 234 96 45 31 139 1997 24 27 24 27 128 319 462 388 427 154 113 67 181 1998 37 38 37 62 145 542 613 361 335 316 110 61 223 1999 46 38 30 31 126 431 501 439 457 205 82 66 205 2000 68 49 40 40 141 416 563 376 189 154 92 74 185 2001 130 73 42 44 123 581 722 552 663 233 65 49 274 2002 103 59 40 31 196 483 487 395 292 403 485 262 271 2003 80 136 68 47 147 370 505 401 230 421 264 82 230 2004 52 50 47 59 300 485 476 380 187 236 95 78 205 2005 49 33 34 46 278 452 443 388 314 228 161 97 211 2006 67 45 32 29 121 463 465 472 380 346 77 56 214 2007 41 33 24 44 160 414 400 378 237 93 254 97 182 2008 40 31 33 29 120 375 501 404 436 174 73 47 189 2009 48 46 28 21 155 342 514 411 317 331 95 72 200 2010 40 36 46 39 177 453 508 448 217 251 94 56 198 2011 43 33 23 25 100 306 372 413 608 296 251 71 212 2012 42 32 29 43 154 456 579 429 657 326 95 57 243 2013 59 43 32 20 152 673 477 371 356 263 139 49 220 KHL addressed an additional study concern by assessing whether Grant Creek gains or loses water within the canyon reach (Reaches 5 and 6) under low flow conditions. In April 2014, under stable stage conditions, discharges of 18.1 cfs and 18.3 cfs were measured at the upstream and downstream segments of the canyon reach respectively. This result verified that no water is lost or gained as it is conveyed down the canyon under low flow conditions. As snowmelt occurs in the spring and flows begin to increase rapidly, there may be some seeps or small runoff channels that enter the canyon reach. However, the accretion volumes of these seasonal channels are not expected to increase flows in the lower section of the canyon reach by more than a few cfs. 4.5.1.2. Water Quality Field methods for the Water Resources Study (KHL 2014b) were designed to document current water quality conditions at selected locations and depths within Grant Lake, Grant Creek and Trail Lake Narrows (Figure E.4-5). Two sites were sampled in Grant Lake (GLTS and GLOut); three sites in Grant Creek (GC100, GC200, GC300); and one site in Trail Lake Narrows. Sampling frequencies varied for each site and included sampling one sampling event in August for the Grant Lake and Grant Creek sites and three sampling events (June, August and September) for the Trail Lake Narrows site. Parameters sampled at these study locations as well as ADEC criteria are specified in Table E.4-8. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-73 March 2015 Table E.4-8. Water quality parameters sampled in Grant Lake, Grant Creek and Trail Lakes Narrows, calendar year (CY) 2013. Parameter Units ADEC Water Quality Standards 1 Alkalinity (CaCO3) mg/L no criteria Total dissolved solids (TDS) mg/L ≤ 1000 mg/L Total suspended sediment (TSS) mg/L no criteria Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg/L no criteria Nitrate/Nitrite mg/L 10 mg/L Orthophosphate mg/L no criteria Total phosphorous mg/L no criteria Lead µg/L 16.4 µg/l (acute); 0.64 µg/l (chronic) Hardness mg/L no criteria Calcium mg/L no criteria Magnesium mg/L no criteria Sodium mg/L <2.55 mg/L Potassium mg/L no criteria Low level mercury µg/L 1.4 µg/l (acute); 0.77 µg/l (chronic) Fluoride mg/L no criteria Chloride mg/L 860 mg/L (acute); 230 mg/L (chronic) Sulfate mg/L no criteria pH S.U. ≥6.5 to ≤8.5 Temperature °C May not exceed 20°C at any time; maximum temperatures may not exceed, where applicable: migration routes: ≤15°C; spawning areas: ≤13°C; rearing areas: ≤ 15°C; egg/fry incubation: ≤13°C. Dissolved oxygen mg/L >7mg/L and <17 mg/L in waters used by anadromous fish; >5mg/L and <17 mg/L for waters not used by anadromous fish Specific Conductivity mS/cm no criteria Oxygen Reduction Potential (ORP) mV no criteria Turbidity NTU Not to exceed 25 NTU above natural conditions. For all lake waters, may not exceed 5 NTU above natural conditions. Notes: 1 Based on the following water use class/subclass: (1) fresh water/(C) growth and propagation of fish, shellfish, other aquatic life, and wildlife. 4.5.1.2.1 Grant Lake The 2013 sampling was repeated at the two original sites established in the lower basin from previous licensing studies (KHL 2010a; KHL 2014b). Station GLTS was located in the vicinity of the proposed intake structure and represents typical lake conditions of the lower basin while site GLOut represents outflow conditions into Grant Creek. All of the sampled water quality parameters exceeded ADEC standards during the August of 2013 sampling event. Results from 2013 as well as the 2009 and 2010 sampling events are presented in Tables E.4-9 and E.4-10. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-74 March 2015 Table E.4-9. Water quality sampling results for the Grant Lake GLTS site – 2009, 2010, and 2013. 1,2 Hydrolab Readings Jun-09 Jun-09 Jun-09 Aug-09 Aug-09 Aug-09 Jun-10 Jun-10 Jun-10 Aug-13 Aug-13 Aug-13 Depth m 0-Surf 10-Mid 19-Bot 0-Surf 9-Mid 17-Bot 0-Surf 6-Mid 17-Bot 0-Surf 9-Mid 17 - Bot Temp °C 8.64 5.41 4.33 14.66 10.37 6.09 9.36 9.25 4.41 12.29 10.98 6.24 Sp. Cond mS/cm 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.1 na na na 0.08 0.08 0.09 Dissolved Oxygen % Sat 68.4 61.3 55.5 56.2 52.1 48.4 76.2 74.1 66.5 103.6 100.9 94.5 Dissolved Oxygen mg/l 7.96 7.74 7.2 5.63 5.82 5.99 8.73 8.52 8.63 11.15 11.18 11.76 ORP mV na na na na na na 91 26 65 319 320 327 pH S.U. 7.43 7.49 7.06 7.56 7.2 7.06 6.68 6.82 6.43 7.26 7.42 7.42 Turbidity NTU 0.6 na na 3.87 na 4.8 0.81 1.14 1.17 3.9 7.8 4.8 Lab Analyses pH S.U. na na na na na na na na na 6.80 6.80 6.80 Turbidity NTU na na na na na na na na na 3.9 7.8 4.8 T. Alkalinity mg/l 23.5 24.5 24 24.8 24.6 25.4 25.8 25.3 25.8 20.2 20.9 22.6 T. Hardness mg/l na na na na na na na na na 36.1 36.9 39.7 TDS mg/l 75.0 68.8 61.3 46.3 48.8 45.0 67.0 64.0 63.0 43.0 45.0 49.0 TSS mg/l 0.7 1.0 0.8 1.9 2.6 2.8 0.5 ND 0.7 2.7 2.6 4.2 T. Nitrate/Nitrite mg/l 0.42 0.42 0.41 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.30 0.31 0.30 0.17 0.19 0.31 K. Nitrogen mg/l ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Orthophosphate mg/l ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.01 ND T. Phosphorus mg/l ND 0.021 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.02 0.04 Chloride mg/l na na na na na na 0.30 0.29 0.47 0.22 0.22 0.27 Fluoride mg/l na na na na na na ND ND ND ND ND ND Sodium mg/l na na na na na na 1.16 1.15 1.16 0.95 0.96 1.08 Calcium mg/l na na na na na na 13.5 13.3 13.4 11.6 11.6 13.0 Magnesium mg/l na na na na na na 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.3 Potassium mg/l na na na na na na 0.53 0.51 0.52 0.51 0.53 0.52 Sulfate mg/l na na na na na na 18.0 17.9 17.9 15.1 15.4 16.9 Lead µg/l ND 1.1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND LL Mercury µg/l ND ND ND 0.0015 0.0016 0.0017 ND ND ND 0.0011 0.0015 0.0015 Notes 1 na: not sampled 2 ND: not detected DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-75 March 2015 Table E.4-10. Water quality sampling results for the Grant Lake GLOut site – 2009, 2010, and 2013. 1,2 Hydrolab Readings Jun-09 Jun-09 Aug-09 Aug-09 Jun-10 Jun-10 Aug-13 Aug-13 Depth m 0-Surf 4-Mid 0-Surf 6-Mid 0-Surf 6-Mid 0-Surf 3-Mid Temp °C 7.95 7.27 14.87 11.49 9.38 9.30 12.17 11.81 Sp. Cond mS/cm na na 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 Dissolved Oxygen % Sat 64.4 63.8 55.2 52.3 75.5 74.0 103.3 101.9 Dissolved Oxygen mg/l 7.64 7.70 5.57 5.71 8.61 8.50 11.14 11.08 ORP mV na na na na 73 29 334 332 pH S.U. 7.27 7.37 7.24 7.24 6.98 7.06 6.28 6.59 Turbidity NTU 0.82 na 4.18 na 1.46 1.14 4.50 5.10 Lab Analyses pH S.U. na na na na na na 7.10 7.00 Turbidity NTU na na na na na na 4.5 5.1 T. Alkalinity mg/l 23.8 23.2 24.0 24.0 26.0 25.6 20.8 20.9 T. Hardness mg/l na na na na na na 35.6 36.5 TDS mg/l 51.3 40.0 32.5 47.5 57.0 64.0 46.0 52.0 TSS mg/l 0.60 0.50 1.96 2.77 ND 0.75 2.08 2.75 T. Nitrate/Nitrite mg/l 0.414 0.651 0.268 0.298 0.311 0.344 0.206 0.175 K. Nitrogen mg/l ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Orthophosphate mg/l ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND T. Phosphorus mg/l ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Chloride mg/l na na na na 0.298 0.291 0.221 0.220 Fluoride mg/l na na na na ND ND ND ND Sodium µg/l na na na na 1.16 1.12 0.95 0.95 Calcium µg/l na na na na 13.8 13.4 11.5 11.6 Magnesium µg/l na na na na 1.32 1.27 1.18 1.2 Potassium µg/l na na na na 0.53 0.53 0.51 0.51 Sulfate mg/l na na na na 17.6 17.9 15.3 15.4 Lead µg/l ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.24 ND LL Mercury µg/l ND ND 0.0014 0.0021 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0014 Notes 1 na: not sampled 2 ND: not detected DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-76 March 2015 In situ sampling during 2013 at the GLTS site was done from the surface down to a bottom depth of 17 meters. Dissolved oxygen ranged from 103.6 percent saturation at the surface to 94.5percent saturation at the bottom. A mid-depth (8.0 meters) reading was 100.9 percent saturation. Dissolved oxygen concentrations for these same depths ranged from a surface reading of 11.15 milligrams/liter (mg/L), increasing to 11.76 mg/L at the bottom. A mid-depth concentration was 11.18 mg/L. The pH levels ranged from 7.26 S.U. at the surface to 7.42 S.U. at the bottom. Instantaneous temperature readings ranged from 12.3 °C at the surface to 6.24 °C at the bottom. A mid-depth temperature was 10.98 °C. In situ sampling during 2013 at the GLOut site was done from the surface down to a mid-depth of 5 meters. Dissolved oxygen ranged from 103.3 percent saturation at the surface to 98.0 percent saturation at the mid depth. Dissolved oxygen concentrations for these same depths ranged from a surface reading of 11.14 mg/L to 10.69 mg/L at the mid depth. The pH levels ranged from 6.33 S.U. at the surface to 6.79 S.U. at the mid-depth. The instantaneous temperature readings ranged from 12.2 °C at the surface to 11.6 °C at the mid-depth. Data for the two lake sites was initially collected in 2009 and repeated in June of 2010. Results are similar for nearly all parameters where three years of data exists. Differences in sampling results for dissolved oxygen between 2009/2010 and 2013 may be a result of poor equipment calibration or a faulty sensor with the equipment used in 2009/2010. The 2013 sampling used duplicate multi-probe instruments in an attempt to alleviate this problem and insure accurate results. Differences at sites GLout and GLTS in dissolved oxygen and pH values were also noted between the 2013 results and the 2009-2010 results. It is unclear whether this is a result of fluctuating annual conditions or faulty sampling equipment. However, Grant Lake water quality data summarized by Ebasco (1984) indicate that the 2013 results are more in line with historical results. 4.5.1.2.2 Grant Creek There were three sampling sites on Grant Creek, all located below the canyon reach (Figure E.4- 5). Each site was sampled once in August 2013 (KHL 2014b). The 2013 results indicated all parameter levels were below ADEC standards. Little variability between these creek sites was observed in 2013. Turbidity values ranged from 4.0-4.6 NTUs, dissolved oxygen ranged from 10.95-11.02 mg/L, and pH values from 7.00-7.18 S.U. Three 2013 sampling stations were initially established in 2009 and sampled again in June of 2010 (KHL 2010a). Since there is little longitudinal variation between the water quality sampling locations, results from the three years of sampling data are presented for the mid- station site of GC200 in Table E.4-11. Grant Creek results also show little variation between years for all parameters with the exception of dissolved oxygen. Differences in sampling results for dissolved oxygen between 2009/2010 and 2013 may be a result of a faulty sensor with the equipment used in 2009-2010. Given the steep gradient and turbulent conditions of Grant Creek, dissolved oxygen levels would be expected to be near 100 percent saturation, as reported in 2013. Historical and recent sampling of Grant Lake, the source water for Grant Creek, also indicate dissolved oxygen saturation levels near 100 percent. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-77 March 2015 Table E.4-11. Water quality sampling results for the Grant Creek GC200 site – 2009, 2010, and 2013. 1,2 Hydrolab Readings Jun-09 Aug-09 Jun-10 Aug-13 Temp °C 7.4 11.26 8.51 12.46 Sp. Cond mS/cm na 0.07 0.09 0.06 Dissolved Oxygen % Sat 60.9 75.1 92.3 101.5 Dissolved Oxygen mg/l 7.31 8.22 10.79 10.89 ORP mV na na 216 408 pH S.U. 7.66 7.39 7.39 7.02 Turbidity NTU 0.75 11.10 1.17 4.00 Depth m na na na 1.9 Lab Analyses pH S.U. na na na 7.00 Turbidity NTU na na na 4.0 T. Alkalinity mg/l 25.0 23.5 25.5 20.6 T. Hardness mg/l na na na 34.4 TDS mg/l 60 44 50 51 TSS mg/l 0.8 3.4 0.7 2.9 T. Nitrate/Nitrite mg/l 0.455 0.292 0.269 0.190 K. Nitrogen mg/l ND ND ND ND Orthophosphate mg/l ND ND ND ND T. Phosphorus mg/l ND ND ND ND Chloride mg/l na na 0.284 0.225 Fluoride mg/l na na ND ND Sodium mg/l na na 1.14 1.18 Calcium mg/l na na 13.3 11.7 Magnesium mg/l na na 1.26 1.25 Potassium mg/l na na 0.52 0.54 Sulfate mg/l na na 17.9 15.1 Lead µg/l 3.09 ND ND ND LL Mercury µg/l ND 0.0016 ND 0.0013 Notes 1 na: not sampled 2 ND: not detected 4.5.1.2.3 Trail Lakes Narrows Three sampling events were conducted at this site (June, August, and September 2013; KHL 2014b). Table E.4-12 provides the results of 2013 sampling for this site. No parameter sampled exceeded water quality standards during any sampling event. Specific parameters of aquatic interest (dissolved oxygen, pH and temperature) met standards for all sampling periods. Compared to the Grant Lake and Grant Creek sites, Trail Lakes Narrows routinely had the highest turbidity readings of all sites in 2013. This site was also the only site sampled for diesel and gas components, both of which were below detection levels for all three sample events. Some minor variability was noted between in situ and laboratory pH values at the Trail Lake DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-78 March 2015 Narrows site. This discrepancy is most likely due to the accuracy of pH field probes, which tends to be less reliable than laboratory measurements. Table E.4-12. Water quality sampling results for the Trail Lake Narrows site – 2013. 1,2 Hydrolab Readings Hydrolab #1 June 2013 Hydrolab #2 June 2013 Hydrolab #1 August 2013 Hydrolab #2 August 2013 Hydrolab #1 Sept 2013 Hydrolab #2 Sept 2013 Temp °C 9.05 9.08 11.81 11.94 8.39 8.51 Sp. Cond mS/cm 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.04 0.07 0.07 Dissolved Oxygen % Sat 102.5 102.5 102.9 102.1 87.4 1 102.6 Dissolved Oxygen mg/l 11.88 11.85 11.19 11.09 10.8 1 11.82 ORP mV 399 385 526 315 387 335 pH S.U. 7.51 7.63 7.63 6.32 7.06 6.60 Turbidity NTU 9.4 --2 --2 --2 9.4 --2 Depth m 1.6 1.7 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 Analytical Lab Results DUP DUP pH S.U. 7.60 7.60 6.90 7.20 7.10 Turbidity NTU 8.5 8.8 13.0 11.0 11.0 T. Hardness mg/l 38.9 41.2 33.0 36.8 33.8 T. Alkalinty mg/l 25.1 25.5 18.7 22.0 21.8 TDS mg/l 44 49 43 54 50 TSS mg/l 3.1 5.7 11.3 4.1 3.8 T. Nitrate+Nitrite mg/l 0.35 0.39 0.14 0.27 0.25 K. Nitrogen mg/l ND ND ND ND ND T. Phosphorus mg/l ND ND 0.03 ND 0.01 Orthophosphate mg/l ND ND 0.02 0.02 0.02 Chloride mg/l 0.32 0.32 0.21 0.21 0.21 Fluoride mg/l ND ND ND ND ND Sodium mg/l 1.17 1.15 0.91 0.99 1.05 Calcium mg/l 13.6 14.4 11.3 12.5 11.4 Magnesium mg/l 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.3 Potassium mg/l 0.53 0.59 ND 0.62 0.56 Sulfate mg/l 16.0 16.0 13.1 15.0 15.0 Lead µg/l 0.2 ND 0.40 0.30 0.23 Low level Mercury µg/l 0.0017 0.0016 0.0036 0.0022 0.0022 Gas Range Organics mg/l ND ND ND ND ND Diesel Range Organics mg/l ND ND ND ND ND Notes ND: not detected 1. Manufacturer confirmed faulty LDO sensor on Sept. 2013 sample event – Hydrolab #1 values not accurate 2. Faulty turbidity probe. In situ readings not collected. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-79 March 2015 4.5.1.3. Temperature 4.5.1.3.1 Grant Creek Stream temperature data loggers were re-established at four previously monitored sites (GC 100, GC 200, GC 250, and GC 300) on Grant Creek (KHL 2010a; KHL 2014b). Two additional temperature data loggers were also established within the upper and lower canyon reach of Grant Creek (GC 500 and GC 600) as well as at two off-channel locations (GC 200-oc and GC 250-oc) where rearing salmonids were observed (Figure E.4-5). Daily mean temperature hydrographs for the six main channel Grant Creek sites are presented in Figure E.4-8. Mean daily temperatures at all sites are very similar to one another throughout longitudinal profile of Grant Creek. The exception is GC600 from early to mid-April and mid- late December. GC600 is located less than 100 feet from the outlet of Grant Lake and may be less affected by changes in air temperature and reflects the temperatures of surface outflows from an ice covered Grant Lake. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Temperature (C)Date All Grant Creek Sampling Stations ‐Mean Daily Stream Temperature, Jan 2013‐June 2014 GC600 GC500 GC300 GC250 GC200 GC100 Figure E.4-8. Daily mean water temperatures all Grant Creek main channel sites – 2013. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-80 March 2015 Winter temperature data was collected at one site (GC200) for the entire 2013-2014 study period. The January-April and December 2013 record indicates that the minimum daily mean water temperature for this period approach 0.0 °C and the maximum daily mean water temperature for this period was 1.8 °C. The 2013 daily mean average temperature for January was 1.2 °C; for February it was 1.3 °C; for March and April it was 0.9 °C; and for December it was 0.8 °C. The January-April 2014 record indicates that the minimum daily mean water temperature for this period is 0.7 °C and the maximum daily mean water temperature for this period was 4.1 °C. The 2014 daily mean average temperature for January and February was 1.5 °C; for March it was 2.0 °C; and for April it was 2.8 °C. Following the month of April, mean daily temperature values increase through the summer, before decreasing once again in September. Additional stream temperature data was collected at two off site channel locations. These backwater areas were selected in coordination with members of the Aquatic Resources study team that detected juvenile salmonids (resident and anadromous) rearing at these two locations. Figure E.4-9 shows the results of daily mean temperatures at both off channel sites (GC 200-oc and GC 250-oc) from June of 2013 through June 2014 in comparison to main channel temperatures. Site GC 200-oc temperatures remained cooler and more stable when compared to temperatures recorded at GC 250-oc. The cooler temperatures at GC 200-oc are likely due to different physical characteristics of site (greater depth, denser canopy cover, and more isolation from main channel flows) as well as more groundwater influence. In general, both off channel sites were slightly cooler when compared to main channel temperatures. Although GC 250-oc was slightly cooler than main channel temperatures, the inter-daily temperature fluctuations still appeared to follow patterns detected in the main channel. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-81 March 2015 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Temperature (C)Date Grant Creek Off Channel Sampling Stations and GC 200 ‐Mean Daily Stream Temperature, June 2013‐June 2014 GC 200 Off Channel GC 250 Off Channel GC200 Figure E.4-9. Comparison of daily mean water temperatures between two off channel rearing locations and the main channel of Grant Creek – 2013-2014. A thermologger recovered at station GC250 in April 2013 provides continuous temperature data for the fall of 2009, all of 2010, and for the first days 37 days of 2011. Site GC 200, approximately 450 feet downstream of GC250, has temperature data for last 21 days of December 2012 through mid-June of 2014. The consistent trend for Grant Creek temperatures is to be at or below 2.8 °C during the winter months (December through mid-April). Water temperatures begin to rise sometime in late April or early May depending upon ice break up in Grant Lake. Water temperatures continue to rise throughout June and July before peaking sometime between mid-July to mid-August. Figure E.4-10 summarizes all of the recent Grant Creek mean daily temperature records. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-82 March 2015 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Jan‐1Feb‐1Mar‐1Apr‐1May‐1Jun‐1Jul‐1Aug‐1Sep‐1Oct‐1Nov‐1Dec‐1Temperature (C)Date Grant Creek Historical Data ‐Mean Daily Stream Temperature, CY 2009 ‐2014 GC 250 ‐2009 GC 250 ‐2010 GC 250 ‐2011 GC 200 ‐2012 GC200 ‐2013 GC200 ‐2014 Figure E.4-10. A comparison of daily mean water temperatures for Grant Creek, CY 2009 – 2014. Data indicates that Grant Creek water temperatures, on average in 2010, were warmer (+0.5 °C) in the winter months and cooler (-3.5 °C) in the summer months when compared to 2013 results. Winter data from 2014 were also warmer (+0.9 °C) than in 2013. Grant Creek water temperatures peaked in mid-August 2010 near 13 °C and in late July 2013 near 16 °C. The 2009, 2010 and 2013 datasets provide temperature data for the fall period. The 2010 and 2013 data show similar late summer trends of slowly decreasing mean daily temperatures through mid-September before beginning a steady decline. The 2009 fall data also mirrors this steady and consistent temperature decline from ~8 °C to ~2 °C though late November before freeze-up occurs. 4.5.1.3.2 Grant Lake The historical continuous temperature monitoring site in Grant Lake (GLTS) was also re- established (KHL 2014b). At the Grant Lake site (GLTS), a thermistor string was installed in June 2013 along a vertical transect to a depth of 20 meters. HOBO® Pro v2 data loggers were attached to the string at ten distinct sampling depths of 0.2, 0.5, 1.5, 3.0, 6.0, 9.0, 12.0, 15.0, 18.0 and 19.5 meters. In addition to the installation of new temperature instrumentation, the thermistor string from earlier licensing studies (KHL 2010a) and last serviced in 2010 was DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-83 March 2015 recovered near GLTS. All data from the 2010 thermistor string was recovered and provides a temperature record at Grant Lake from September of 2010- June of 2013. Figure E.4-11 displays the seasonal temperature profile of Grant Lake in 2013. A noted temperature difference from top to bottom does exist throughout the year, but changes appear subtly during periods of ice cover and become more pronounced throughout the most of the summer. By mid and late September, the temperature gradient is substantially reduced with a nearly isothermal profile from 0-15m on September 30. These temperature profiles patterns have been consistent based on historical temperature profile results from earlier study efforts (AEIDC 1983; KHL 2010a). Grant Lake water temperature hydrographs are presented in Figure E.4-12. The temperature monitoring results show three distinct seasonal characteristics within Grant Lake. The first characteristic is that winter water temperatures increased with depth. This trend was noted from January through mid to late May. The second trend is that summer water temperatures decreased with depth, starting at ice breakup in May and extending through mid-October. A maximum difference of about 10 °C between the surface (0.2 meter) and the deepest sampling node (19.5 meter) was recorded in late July through early August. From mid-October to late November, Grant Lake water temperatures are similar throughout the water column. As ice begins to form on Grant Lake the winter temperature pattern becomes re-established. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 Depth (m)Temperature (C) Grant Lake ‐Mean Daily Temperature Profiles, CY 2013 1/15/2013 3/15/2013 5/15/2013 6/15/2013 6/30/2013 7/15/2013 7/30/2013 8/15/2013 8/30/2013 9/15/2013 9/30/2013 Figure E.4-11. Daily mean water temperature profiles in Grant Lake near the proposed intake structure. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-84 March 2015 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Jan‐1Feb‐1Mar‐1Apr‐1May‐1Jun‐1Jul‐1Aug‐1Sep‐1Oct‐1Nov‐1Dec‐1Jan‐1Feb‐1Mar‐1Apr‐1May‐1Jun‐1Jul‐1Temperature (C)Date Grant Lake 0.2m ‐19.0m ‐Mean Daily Lake Temperature, CY 2013‐June 2014 GL 0.2m GL 0.5m GL 1.5m GL 3.0m GL 6.0m GL 9.0m GL 12.0m GL 15.0m GL 18.0m GL 19.5m Figure E.4-12. Comparison of daily mean water temperatures in Grant Lake near the proposed intake structure – 2013-June 2014. Temperature results from Grant Lake and Grant Creek indicate lake water temperatures closely mirror and influence creek water temperatures during periods when the lake is ice-free. The strongest correlation appears to be between creek temperatures and the upper surface lake depths (0.2 – 3.0 meters). Figure E.4-13 shows a comparison of Grant Lake water temperatures from the four shallow sampling depths compared to Grant Creek (GC200) in 2009 and 2013. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-85 March 2015 a) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Jan‐1Feb‐1Mar‐1Apr‐1May‐1Jun‐1Jul‐1Aug‐1Sep‐1Oct‐1Nov‐1Dec‐1Jan‐1Feb‐1Mar‐1Apr‐1May‐1Jun‐1Jul‐1Temperature (C)Date Grant Lake 0.2m‐3.0m and Grant Creek ‐Mean Daily Stream Temperature, CY 2013‐June 2014 GL 0.2m GL 0.5m GL 1.5m GL 3.0m GC200 b) Figure E.4-13. A comparison of daily mean water temperatures for shallow depths (< 3 meters) of Grant Lake and Grant Creek in a) 2009 and b) 2013-2014. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-86 March 2015 During the winter period when Grant Lake is under ice cover, lake temperatures at a depth of 0.5 meters most closely match water temperatures in Grant Creek. During the ice-free period from May through October, Grant Creek temperatures are most similar to Grant Lake temperatures at a depth of 1.5 meters. Table E.4-13 summarizes mean monthly temperatures for all available data that simultaneously measure temperatures at Grant Lake and Grant Creek. Table E.4-13. Comparison of mean monthly temperatures at shallow Grant Creek depths and Grant Creek – 2009-2013. Grant Lake 0.2m Grant Lake 0.5m Grant Lake 1.5m Grant Creek - GC200 or GC250 Number of Mean Daily Temperature Records Avg Avg Avg Avg 0.2m 0.5m 1.5m GC January 0.3 1.0 2.2 1.2 79 124 93 124 February 0.2 1.2 2.4 1.5 59 90 62 90 March 0.1 1.4 2.6 1.6 60 93 62 93 April 0.1 1.4 2.8 1.9 56 90 60 90 May 4.0 4.8 5.2 5.1 62 93 62 93 June 9.5 9.3 8.7 8.9 46 49 46 49 July 12.1 11.9 11.4 11.5 62 62 62 62 August 12.4 12.3 12.0 12.2 62 62 62 62 September 10.9 10.8 10.7 10.4 60 60 60 60 October 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.8 62 82 62 82 November 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.6 60 90 60 90 December 0.5 1.3 2.0 1.0 83 114 83 114 4.5.2. Environmental Analysis Based on available hydrology data, the Grant Lake Project proposes to utilize a mean annual flow of 200 cfs for power production and 6 cfs for bypass flows. Table E-4-14 summarizes the monthly and annual powerhouse and bypass flow volumes in comparison to natural inflows from the watershed. Aside from power production, there are no other proposed or existing uses of Project waters. The proposed Project's facilities would be located on state land managed by ADNR. Currently, there are active mining claims on federal lands located on the north side of Grant Lake’s lower basin in addition to a small parcel of private ownership in the lower section of the Grant Creek drainage. However, documented water rights were not identified within the Grant Lake drainage area (KHL 2009b). DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-87 March 2015 Table E.4-14. Proposed monthly and annual powerhouse flows and watershed inflows for Grant Lake Project. Proposed Monthaly and Annual Streamflows for Grant Lake Project Inflow (cfs) Powerhouse Flows (cfs) Bypass Flow (cfs) Total Flows (cfs) Month Mean Month Mean Month Mean Month Mean 1 52 1 94 1 5 1 99 2 43 2 85 2 5 2 90 3 33 3 75 3 5 3 80 4 36 4 77 4 5 4 82 5 145 5 163 5 5 5 168 6 408 6 282 6 5 6 287 7 502 7 376 7 5 7 381 8 444 8 367 8 11 8 378 9 366 9 369 9 8 9 377 10 233 10 228 10 5 10 233 11 124 11 166 11 5 11 171 12 73 12 113 12 5 12 118 Annual 206 Annual 200 Annual 6 Annual 206 4.5.2.1. Water Quantity During construction of the Project there is expected to be limited to no impacts to water volumes. Construction of the intake tower will not require any dewatering activities. Construction of the penstock may require some near-shore coffer dams to be constructed, but any localized dewatering will be returned Grant Lake and conveyed downstream. Two modes of operation are likely for the Project: 1) block loading; and 2) level control (run-of- river). The primary operational mode will be block loading at a specific output level. Level control, or balancing of outflow to inflow, will occur during periods of low natural inflow to Grant Lake when the reservoir is at or near minimum lake elevation. There will be no consumption of water resources to generate power, just a re-allocation of the timing and volumes of water to be conveyed downstream. Operation of the Project is not expected to negatively affect the bypass reach (Reach 5). A consistent flow of water will be delivered to the Reach 5 based on volumes determined suitable to sustain fish habitat with Reach 5. Refer to Section 4.6 (Aquatics) for a more detailed discussion of bypass flow criteria. Reaches 1-4 of Grant Creek are not expected to have a negative effect from Project operations. In general, the higher winter base flows will maintain side channel flows that are typically frozen or dry during the annual low-flow winter period (December to April). In addition, minimizing some of the peak flow events in the summer will actually increase habitat availability for spawning and rearing salmonids. Section 4.6.1.2 of this Exhibit E provides a more detailed discussion of flow-habitat relationships in Reaches 1-4 or the powerhouse reach. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-88 March 2015 4.5.2.2. Water Quality Ground disturbing activities and tunnel construction have the potential to add turbid waters contaminated with suspended solid particles, hydraulic fluid residue, small amounts of oil, grease and fuel. Additionally, pH fluctuations are possible due to cement in grout and concrete. It is anticipated that a system to treat waters affected by construction activity would be employed (e.g filtration or settling ponds). Erosion and sediment control measures would also be utilized to minimize stormwater runoff of disturbed soils and limit the potential for increasing sediment loads to Grant Lake and Grant Creek. Operation of the Project is not expected to affect the water chemistry of Grant Lake or Grant Creek. The Project will utilize the natural inflowing water and diverting a portion of it downstream through a 3,300-foot portal system that includes a buried tunnel and penstock. The similarity of all water quality parameters between the shallow depths of Grant Lake and Grant Creek should not be affected by diversion through the portal system. 4.5.2.3. Temperature Operation of the Project is not expected to affect the water temperatures of Grant Lake or Grant Creek. The diversion of Grant Lake from shallow depths mimics the natural outflow conditions of how water is conveyed downstream to Grant Creek. By carefully monitoring water temperatures, the delivery of water through Project facilities should be able to match natural/ ambient water temperature conditions within 1 °C. Details of how water temperatures will be monitored and maintained to the pre-Project conditions can be found in the Draft Operational Compliance Monitoring Plan (OCMP). As previously described, this plan will be distributed for comment with the rest of the BE and management/monitoring plans between late April and mid- May. 4.5.2.4. Groundwater Based on results of the geotechnical exploration performed in 1982 as part of the Ebasco/R&M studies, groundwater depth is at or near the ground surface (Ebasco 1984). Groundwater along the current alignment may be lower due to the proximity of Grant Creek gorge, which acts as a natural groundwater discharge point. Groundwater conditions (including rock mass hydraulic conductivity and groundwater head) along the Grant Lake tunnel are anticipated to be similar to conditions encountered within the Cooper Lake tunnel, and the Whittier tunnels wherein groundwater inflows were minor and did not cause construction problems. It is noted that ground cover, and therefore the height of groundwater, above the nearby Cooper Lake tunnel are similar to conditions expected for the Grant Lake tunnel (Jacobs Associates 2014). There is expected to be limited effects on groundwater due to Project operations. The Project will only be diverting surface waters and stage levels will be maintained within typical bankfull condition of Reaches 1-4. In Reach 5 where surface water volumes will be substantially reduced, the steep-walled bedrock canyon has limited groundwater influence. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-89 March 2015 In addition to water quality and hydrology concerns, FERC listed the following environmental issue to address as part of the scoping process (FERC 2010b), effects of project construction and operation on heavy metal leaking as a result of water level fluctuations of Grant Lake. The Grant Lake Project is no longer proposing to raise lake levels beyond the maximum lake elevation of 703 NAVD 88 for construction or operation. Since shoreline vegetation shall not be inundated, the concern about heavy metal leakage (e.g. methyl mercury) is no longer relevant. 4.5.3. Proposed Environmental Measures Global adherence to BMPs will be utilized in conjunction with all Project construction and operation related activities. In conjunction with License Application development, a Draft OCMP is under development by KHL and will be distributed for comment with the rest of the BE and management and monitoring plans between late April and mid-May. This plan will assess water temperature and quantity conditions during and after construction of the Project. Additionally, during construction, specific attention will be paid to assuring that construction activities are not having a detrimental short-term impact on Grant Creek. Methods for monitoring short-term water quality associated with construction will be documented in an ESCP to be developed after license issuance and in collaboration with stakeholders. Explicit in the OCMP will be methods for tracking lake and creek temperature conditions to insure no net impacts to the spawning, incubation, and rearing of fish species that utilize Grant Creek. In addition, a mechanism will be defined in the plan to monitor and confirm that bypass flows in Reach 5 are being adhered to per the license. As mentioned in Section 4.4.3 of this Exhibit E, all construction work will be conducted per measures described in the ESCP to ensure that any soil disturbing activities have minimal impact on the water quality in Grant Creek. Once the license is acquired and prior to construction commencing, the ESCP will be developed by KHL and reviewed and commented on by stakeholders prior to filing with FERC. Additionally, all construction efforts will be carried out per the Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (APDES) Construction General Permit. These measures will be described in the ESCP. KHL will have an ECM on site monitoring construction activities during all phases to ensure adherence to all applicable BMPs and methods outlined in the monitoring and management plans. For reference, the proposed construction schedule is located in Figure C.2-1 in Exhibit C of this DLA. The stream gauge put in place on Grant Creek prior to the 2013 natural resource study season has continued to operate. KHL proposes to maintain and monitor streamflows on the creek utilizing this gauge for the life of the license. The data will be routinely collected, synthesized and provided to stakeholders and FERC as part of the Annual Compliance Report. Once the 10-year cycle has expired, KHL will meet with stakeholders to review the stream gauge data and determine if additional data is needed. A full summary of all measures, as well as the associated implementation timeframes, being proposed by KHL for the original license will be provided with the FLA. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-90 March 2015 4.5.4. Cumulative Effects Analysis FERC’s SD2 (FERC 2010b) identified potential cumulative effects related to construction and operation of the Project for both water quality and quantity. Based on the comprehensive set of natural resources and engineering analyses conducted and reviewed as part of this licensing process, KHL has identified no negative cumulative effects. 4.5.4.1. Water Quality and Temperature Given the remote location of the Project site and general lack of human activity in the area to the east of the Trail Lakes Narrows, water quality in the Grant Creek drainage is very good. It is not anticipated that any activities associated with Project construction or operation will alter water quality or temperature attributes in the lake or creek. Similarly, given the proposed infrastructural layout of the Project, there should be no impacts to water temperature on the creek associated with riparian canopy removal. It is anticipated that the overall temperature relationship between the lake and creek will remain consistent. The intake design described in Exhibits A and F, and careful monitoring of the water temperatures in the lake and the delivery of water through Project facilities, should accommodate a matching of natural/ambient water temperature conditions within 1 °C. A detailed description of water temperature monitoring in Grant Lake can be found in the draft OCMPwhich will be distributed for comment between late April and mid-May. 4.5.4.2. Water Quantity The primary impact associated with Project operations is the reduction of flows in Reach 5. While a limited amount of anadromous and resident fish habitat and associated use has been documented in Reach 5, the potential for eliminating a portion of the flow and associated habitat will be far offset in the positive direction by the additional habitat made consistently available in the Reach 2/3 side channels and the Reach 1 distributary. The increase in aquatic habitat availability in Grant Creek has the potential for higher populations of anadromous and resident species in Grant Creek and therefore, the Kenai River drainage as a whole. Further documentation of this positive impact can be found in Sections 4.5.2 and 4.6.2 of this Exhibit E. 4.5.5. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Based on the comprehensive set of natural resources and engineering analyses conducted and reviewed as part of this licensing process, the proposed monitoring and management plans, and collaboration with stakeholders, KHL has identified no water quality or water quantity related unavoidable adverse impacts associated with construction and operation of the Project. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-91 March 2015 4.6. Aquatic Resources 4.6.1. Affected Environment 4.6.1.1. Fisheries Upper Grant Creek is impassable to salmon one mile upstream of the mouth (Johnson and Klein 2009), with most fish habitat concentrated within the lower portion of stream. Habitat for juvenile fish exists mainly in stream margins, eddies, deep pools, and side channels offering reduced velocities (KHL 2014c; Ebasco 1984). Substrate material is coarse throughout the entire length of the creek due to high water velocity that tends to wash away smaller gravels (Ebasco 1984). Isolated areas of suitable spawning gravels occur in the lower half of the stream (Ebasco 1984). Grant Creek, for the purpose of research has been partitioned into six reaches (Figure E.4-14); with the lower half of Grant Creek comprised of four reaches (Reaches 1-4) each approximately 0.125 miles in length. Reaches 5 and 6 are within a confined canyon consisting primarily of plunge pool and cascade habitat of high gradient. Reach 5, the bypass reach, terminates at the upstream boundary with Reach 6 at the base of a series of waterfalls which preclude upstream passage of both anadromous and resident fish species, and is approximately 0.5 miles in length. Reach 6 extends from the base of the downstream waterfall to the lake outlet. Since the waterfalls pose a barrier to upstream migration of fish, Reach 6 and Grant Lake have not been included in recent research efforts. Grant Creek has not been subjected to recent anthropogenic impacts other than recreational use, such as hunting, fishing, hiking, snowmachining, snowshoeing, and cross-country skiing (KHL 2014g). Historically, Grant Creek has been subjected to mining activity on a relatively small scale; including a single prospect pit on the south side of Grant Creek and an engraved tree stump which appears to be the corner marker of a mining claim (KHL 2015a). However, Grant Lake has been mined historically to a much greater extent (KHL 2015a). Other anthropogenic impacts include the remains of a fish sampling trap and a cable crossing and stream gage, which were associated with earlier hydrological and fishery studies (KHL 2015a). The fish community within Grant Creek includes both resident and anadromous species. Resident species present includes Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), round whitefish (Prosopium cylindraceum), arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus), two species of sculpin; the Coast Range sculpin (Cottus aleuticus) and the Slimy sculpin (C. cognatus), and three-spine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus). In addition to resident species, a number of anadromous species have been documented within Grant Creek, which includes Chinook (O. tshawytscha), sockeye (O. nerka), coho (O. kisutch) and pink (O. gorbuscha) salmon. These species utilize Grant Creek to spawn as adult fish, and to rear within Grant Creek for varying lengths of time as juveniles. No species that reside within Grant Creek are currently listed, or are proposed for listing under the ESA. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-92 March 2015 4.6.1.1.1 Summary of Previous Fishery Investigations Historically, Grant Creek has been the subject of fisheries research of varying degrees of intensity. Periodic minnow trapping on Grant Creek from July 1959 through January 1961 captured juvenile Chinook salmon, coho salmon, Dolly Varden char, and sculpin (extent of sampling area unknown; USFWS 1961). Minnow trapping and electrofishing in the lower reaches of Grant Creek for week-long periods in October 1981 and March, May, June, and August 1982 yielded higher catches of trout, salmon, and Dolly Varden in the fall and summer than in winter and spring (AEIDC 1983). Catches of Dolly Varden were generally most abundant in the minnow traps, followed by juvenile Chinook, juvenile rainbow trout, and juvenile coho. Juvenile Chinook were the most commonly caught fish during electrofishing surveys (Ebasco 1984). Ebasco (1984) estimated that Grant Creek supported 250 Chinook spawners and 1,650 sockeye spawners. The stream was also estimated to support 209 8-inch “trout” (including Dolly Varden and rainbow trout) (Ebasco 1984). Spawning coho were not observed (Ebasco 1984) but had been recorded as being present at unknown levels in the stream by the Anadromous Waters Catalog (AWC) published by the ADF&G (Johnson and Klein 2009). Maximum counts from intermittent stream surveys by the ADF&G were 76 Chinook (1963) and 324 (1952) sockeye salmon. The 2009 aquatic resources study program was implemented to assist with the current FERC licensing effort. After collaboration with stakeholders, emphasis was placed on updating existing information, acquiring more complete data required for specific issue analysis, and providing background information needed to develop more focused studies after initiation of the formal FERC licensing process. The studies were continued in 2010 but the program was refined in July 2010 after further stakeholder collaboration in an effort to revise the study plans and make them more quantitative in nature. Consistent with studies conducted by AEIDC (1983), Grant Creek was divided into study Reaches 1 through 6 (Figure E.4-14). Relative abundance and distribution of juvenile fish were determined by minnow trapping and calculating the catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) for each reach. Dolly Varden were found to be the most abundant species in Grant Creek and distributed throughout Grant Creek Reaches 1 through 5, although they had a greater relative abundance in Reaches 4 and 5. Coho salmon was the next most abundant species and individuals were distributed throughout Reaches 1 through 5. However, coho appeared to have the greatest relative abundance in Reach 1. Chinook salmon was the next most abundant species. There was a noticeable decrease in Chinook abundance in upstream reaches, and they were not caught above Reach 4. Other fish present in small numbers were sockeye salmon, rainbow trout, sculpin, and three-spine stickleback. Most salmon captured were young-of-the-year with few larger juveniles present (KHL 2010a). Developed For: Drawing Scale: GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - FERC PROJECT NO. 13212 LICENSE APPLICATION±OFFICE: 208.342.4214 FAX: 208.342.4216 REV DESCRIPTIONBYDATE DRAWING ISSUED DATE CHECKED DRAWN DESIGNED 11/13/2014 Legend Water Bodies Grant Creek G ra nt C r eek J. Woodbury J. Woodbury Figure E.4-14Grant Creek Reaches0200400600100 Feet 1401 SHORELINE DRIVE BOISE, ID 83702 C. Warnock LowerTrail Lake MAP NOTES: 1. THIS MAP WAS DEVELOPED FOR KENAI HYDRO, LLC AS PART OF THE GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (FERC NO. 13212), LICENSE APPLICATION. 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. GRANT LAKE AND GRANT CREEK 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 (NAD 1983) - VERTICAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 1988 (NAVD 88) - PROJECTION: ALASKA 4 FIPS 5004 FEET STATE PLANE SCALE: 1:4,000 UpperTrail Lake TrailLakeNarrows Reach 6 Reach 5Reach 4Reach 3Reach 2Reach 1 DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-95 March 2015 Relative abundance of larger size resident salmonids (i.e., rainbow trout and Dolly Varden) was determined by calculation of angling CPUE (KHL 2010a). Rainbow trout (n = 68) were found to be more abundant than Dolly Varden (n = 9) and were caught throughout the creek, although their relative abundance was higher in Reaches 3 through 5 than in Reaches 1 and 2. Dolly Varden were captured in Reaches 1, 2, and 3; their relative abundance was highest in Reach 1. This study was also aimed at determining the timing of spawning of adult resident fish; however, it appeared that spawning, if present, occurred before or after the 2009 study period, since little evidence of spawning fish was seen (KHL 2010a). Rainbow trout angling studies were continued in the spring and early summer of 2010 to confirm the presence of spawning and determine fish numbers. The progression of reproductive condition and the presence of adult rainbow trout in spawning condition confirmed that spawning did occur in Grant Creek in 2010. Capture success was too low to allow population estimates. Adult rainbow trout were observed in the upper portions of the canyon reach. Abundance and run timing of spawning anadromous fish was estimated through data collected during foot surveys (KHL 2010a). Both sockeye and Chinook salmon were seen in the lower five reaches. Chinook salmon reached Grant Creek first around the beginning of August. Sockeye salmon did not arrive until the end of August. Escapement of Chinook salmon was estimated to be 231 fish, and escapement of sockeye salmon was estimated at 6,293; these estimates were based on the Area-Under-the-Curve (AUC) methodology (Bue et al. 1998). However, two critical components necessary to calculate abundance using the AUC methodology (stream life and observer efficiency) were based on professional judgment rather than empirical data, potentially biasing estimates. 4.6.1.1.2 2013 Fishery Investigations In 2013, a multi-faceted fisheries research project was conducted, which was one component of an intense multi-discipline research effort. This overall effort included investigations into fisheries (including habitat and instream flow incremental methodology [IFIM]), hydrology, wildlife, botanical, wetlands, cultural, macroinvertebrates, geomorphology, and recreation. The fisheries component was structured to expand on previously collected fisheries information, and to continue investigations based on the scope of work and research developed and implemented in 2009 (KHL 2010a), with the addition of objectives geared towards filling information gaps identified by stakeholders. In general, the objectives of the 2013 research effort focused on both adult and juvenile fish of anadromous and resident species within Grant Creek. For anadromous adults, the run timing, abundance, spawning distribution, and various biometrics were assessed (i.e., sex, length, weight, age, and egg voidance in females). In addition, genetic samples were collected and a sub-sample of fish was tagged with radio and Floy tags (genetic samples were provided to ADF&G and were not summarized within the study report). For adult resident species (i.e., rainbow trout and Dolly Varden), the objectives were to assess abundance, spawning and feeding distributions, and use of Reach 5. As with anadromous species, a sub-sample of resident adults were tagged with both radio and Floy tags and scales were collected in order to age the fish. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-96 March 2015 For juveniles of all species, both anadromous and resident, the objectives were to assess distribution by reach and habitat, and to assess overall abundance within Grant Creek, with an interest in partitioning those estimates into two segments; Reach 5 and Reaches 1-4. In addition to those primary objectives, overwintering by juveniles in Grant Creek was assessed as was fish use of the Narrows, downstream of where Grant Creek enters the Trail Lake system. In order to accomplish the objectives for adult salmonids discussed above, a weir was placed about 150 meters upstream of the Grant Creek confluence (Figure E.4-15). Adult fish of both resident and anadromous species were captured at the weir, which allowed the collection of biological samples, enumeration by species, and the tagging (Floy and radio) of Chinook, sockeye, coho, rainbow and Dolly Varden adults. Juvenile salmonids were sampled using a variety of methods, which included collection at two incline plan traps, minnow trapping, snorkeling and beach seining. The following sections summarize findings from the 2013 fisheries research. Detailed descriptions of the methodologies used to conduct the study can be found in KHL (2014c). Figure E.4-15. The A-frame weir used on Grant Creek to count adult salmon, rainbow trout and Dolly Varden in 2013. 4.6.1.1.3 2013 Study Results In the following sections, results of the 2013 fisheries study are provided KHL (2014c). DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-97 March 2015 Grant Creek Salmon Salmon Abundance Weir Count There were 1,439 salmon that passed upstream of the weir on Grant Creek while 52 of those salmon passed back downstream of the weir for a net passage of 1,387 salmon (Table E.4-15). Sockeye salmon were the dominant run of salmon entering Grant Creek with 1,117 counted above the weir. There were 10 pink, 23 Chinook and 237 coho salmon counted above the weir. The net passage of salmon across the weir does not include salmon that entered and potentially spawned in Grant Creek downstream from the weir. Table E.4-15. Upstream, downstream and net passage of pink, Chinook, sockeye and coho salmon across the weir in Grant Creek, 2013. Species Upstream Passage Downstream Passage Net Passage Pink Salmon 12 2 10 Chinook Salmon 35 12 23 Sockeye Salmon 1,153 36 1,117 Coho Salmon 239 2 237 Total 1,439 52 1,387 Escapement Estimate: Area-under-the-curve (AUC) Several different types of surveys (i.e., visual, telemetry and carcass) were performed on Grant Creek to estimate escapement with the AUC methodology (Bue 1998). The information was used to document estimates for stream life, observer efficiency, and escapement for 2013 and 2009 (recalibrated count). Stream life was estimated as the mean of the pooled recovery of Floy tagged and radio tagged salmon in Grant Creek. The pooled information was used because radio tags alone did not adequately cover the entire passage distribution of fish across the weir. Stream life estimates are provided for pooled data, radio tags only and Floy tags only. Mean stream life for the pooled data for Chinook, sockeye and coho salmon was 11 days, 14 days and 16 days, respectively (Table E.4-16). DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-98 March 2015 Table E.4-16. Stream life estimates for the combined recovery of Floy tagged and radio tagged Chinook, sockeye and coho salmon in Grant Creek, 2013. Species Percent Recovered Stream Life Tagged Recovered Mean SD Min Max Combined Recovery Chinook 33 14 42 11 6.2 4 22 Sockeye 533 195 37 14 5.9 2 30 Coho 176 77 44 16 5.9 1 37 Radio Tags Only Chinook 9 7 78 8 3.9 4 14 Sockeye 65 40 62 9 2.6 2 15 Coho 50 32 64 14 4.6 1 22 Floy Tags Only Chinook 33 7 21 13 7.5 4 22 Sockeye 533 155 33 15 5.8 4 30 Coho 176 45 26 18 6.3 8 37 Observer efficiency was estimated from the relationship of visual survey counts to weir counts on Grant Creek. For salmon in Grant Creek, observer efficiency (slope of the line) was 0.60 for Chinook, 0.72 for sockeye, and 0.75 for coho (Figure E.4-16). y = 0.72x + 7.1642 R² = 0.9836 0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800Visual CountAdjusted Weir Count Grant Creek Relationship between visual counts and adjusted weir counts Sockeye Salmon DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-99 March 2015 y = 0.5968x - 0.4317 R² = 0.935 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15Visual CountAdjusted Weir Count Chinook Salmon y = 0.7478x - 6.0237 R² = 0.8884 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 0 25 50 75 100 125 150Visual CountAdjusted Weir Count Coho Salmon Figure E.4-16. Observer efficiency relationships for sockeye, Chinook and coho salmon in Grant Creek, 2013. Stream life and observer efficiency estimates for salmon in Grant Creek were used to estimate total escapement to Grant Creek. Stream life and observer efficiency estimates were also applied to calculations of AUC estimates for Chinook and sockeye provided in the 2009 escapement (KHL 2010a). In the 2009 escapement estimates, outside literature sources and professional judgment were used to estimate both stream life and observer efficiency. No escapement estimates for coho in Grant Creek were provided in 2009. Two escapement estimates were provided for Grant Creek based on visual counts (Table E.4-17; and Figures E.4-17 through E.4-19). The first estimate is the estimated escapement above the weir and the second estimate is for the entire stream. Peak visual counts (above the weir) for Chinook, sockeye and coho salmon occurred on August 29, September 6 and October 10, 2013, respectively (Figure E.4-20). DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-100 March 2015 Table E.4-17. Visual counts of sockeye, Chinook and coho salmon above and below the weir in Grant Creek, 2013. Date Day of Year Sockeye Chinook Coho Below Weir Above Weir Below Weir Above Weir Below Weir Above Weir 8/2/2013 214 0 0 0 0 0 0 8/9/2013 221 0 2 0 0 0 0 8/16/2013 228 8 3 14 1 0 0 8/23/2013 235 43 85 22 6 0 0 8/29/2013 241 59 442 19 11 0 0 9/6/2013 249 45 543 2 4 0 0 9/16/2013 259 12 211 0 0 0 6 9/21/2013 264 10 52 0 0 0 10 9/28/2013 271 0 2 0 0 14 29 10/4/2013 277 0 0 0 0 7 71 10/10/2013 283 0 1 0 0 8 127 10/18/2013 291 0 0 0 0 4 88 10/24/2013 297 0 0 0 0 3 63 11/1/2013 305 0 0 0 0 2 12 11/7/2013 311 0 0 0 0 1 2 DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-107 March 2015 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 214 221 228 235 241 249 259 264 271 277 283 291 297 305 311Visual CountDay of the Year Grant Creek Chinook visual counts Above weir (AUC=180) Entire stream (AUC=590) 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 214 221 228 235 241 249 259 264 271 277 283 291 297 305 311Visual CountDay of the Year Coho visual counts Above weir (AUC=2,763) Entire stream (AUC=3,021) 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 214 221 228 235 241 249 259 264 271 277 283 291 297 305 311Visual CountDay of the Year Sockeye visual counts Above weir (AUC=10,483) Entire stream (AUC=11,787) Figure E.4-20. Plots of visual counts used to estimate area-under-the-curve for Chinook, sockeye and coho salmon in Grant Creek, 2013. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-108 March 2015 Estimates of escapement above the weir based on visual counts (AUC) were within ±12 percent of the weir counts (Table E.4-18). Escapement estimates for the entire stream were 90 Chinook, 1,169 sockeye and 252 coho salmon. Table E.4-18. Escapement estimates for salmon in Grant Creek at the weir and estimated from area- under-the curve with stream life and observer efficiency. Species Stream Life (s) Observer Efficiency (v) Escapement Estimates 2013 Escapement Estimate 2009 Weir Count Above Weir (AUC) Entire Stream (AUC) Estimate Adjusted Pink --- --- 10 --- --- --- --- Chinook 11 0.60 23 27 (112%) 90 (391%) 231 148 Sockeye 14 0.72 1,117 1,040 (93%) 1,169 (105%) 6,293 2,705 Coho 16 0.75 237 231 (97%) 252 (106%) --- --- The AUC estimates for sockeye and coho salmon for the entire stream add an additional 52 sockeye and 15 coho salmon to the weir count. These additional fish downstream from the weir fit within our expectation of the number of spawning fish for both sockeye and coho salmon. However, the difference in the Chinook weir count (23 fish) and the estimate for the entire stream (90 fish) implies that 67 additional Chinook spawned downstream of the weir. That estimate appears to be biased high since minimal additional spawning activity was observed below the weir. Given the level of movement (downstream) for Chinook across the weir, it is likely that the Chinook observed during visual counts downstream of the weir may have spawned in the Trail Lake Narrows or elsewhere. That is, the visual surveys counted fish that moved into lower Grant Creek but did not remain there to spawn, which inflated the number of fish in Grant Creek downstream of the weir. In 2009, the estimated escapement using AUC methodology was 231 Chinook and 6,293 sockeye salmon (KHL 2010a), which relied on stream life and observer efficiency values based on professional judgment since empirical data was not available. Recalibrating those counts by stream life and observer efficiency from 2013 adjusted those counts to 148 Chinook and 2,705 sockeye salmon (Table E.4-18). Life History Characteristics Adult salmon were counted and subsampled at the weir and during carcass surveys to describe life history characteristic of the spawning population. The information documents the run timing, fish size, spawning success and age structure of returning salmon to Grant Creek. Run Timing Run timing for adult salmon to Grant Creek extended over a 13-week period beginning at the end of July and finishing near the end of October. Chinook and pink salmon both entered Grant Creek over a four week period (Table E.4-19). Pink salmon passed the weir on Grant Creek DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-109 March 2015 from the first week of August to the end of August. Chinook salmon passed the weir from the second week of August through the first week of September. Peak passage for pink and Chinook salmon occurred on weeks 32 and 33, respectively. The adult migration for sockeye occurred over a ten week period beginning the last week of July and ending the second week of October with a peak at the end of August. Two individual sockeye extended the run timing an additional three weeks after the majority of the run was complete. Coho salmon began entering Grant Creek the second week of September, peaked the first week of October and ended the last week of October when the weir was removed (October 24). Table E.4-19. Run timing by week of the year for pink, Chinook, sockeye and coho salmon assessed at the weir on Grant Creek, 2013. Week of Year Dates Pink Chinook Sockeye Coho 31 Jul 28- Aug 03 0 0 5 0 32 Aug 04 - Aug 10 6 0 3 0 33 Aug 11- Aug 17 2 11 16 0 34 Aug 18 - Aug 24 1 3 220 0 35 Aug 25 - Aug 31 1 7 601 0 36 Sep 01 - Sep 07 0 2 201 0 37 Sep 08 - Sep 14 0 0 65 16 38 Sep 15 - Sep 21 0 0 4 17 39 Sep 22 - Sep 28 0 0 0 40 40 Sep 29 - Oct 05 0 0 1 96 41 Oct 06 - Oct 12 0 0 1 42 42 Oct 13 - Oct 19 0 0 0 21 43 Oct 20 - Oct 26 0 0 0 1 Total 10 23 1,117 237 Size (length and weight) Length and weight measurements were collected at the weir to describe the size of returning salmon to Grant Creek (Table E.4-20). Female Chinook salmon were larger than males (mean length and weight). Male and female sockeye were similar with males slightly heavier and longer than females. For coho salmon, the size of males and females was similar. On average, male coho salmon tended to be heavier than females but females were on average longer than males. For pink salmon, males tended to be longer and heavier than females. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-110 March 2015 Table E.4-20. Mean, maximum, and minimum length and weight of Chinook, sockeye and coho salmon measured at the weir on Grant Creek, 2013. 1 Species Sex Length cm (mid-eye to fork) Weight (kg) Mean SD Max Min Number Mean SD Max Min Number Chinook F 88 5.8 98 81 6 10.4 2.6 14.5 7.6 6 M 71 13.7 104 38 27 5.9 3.8 16.4 0.6 27 Coho F 59 4.0 68 45 116 3.3 0.7 5.0 1.4 116 M 58 4.3 67 45 116 3.5 1.0 6.5 1.5 116 Sockeye F 54 3.5 60 42 415 2.6 0.5 3.8 1.0 415 M 55 4.6 77 33 361 3.0 0.7 4.9 0.5 360 Pink F 42 2.3 46 39 9 1.0 0.2 1.3 0.8 9 M 45 3.8 51 40 6 1.3 0.4 2.1 0.9 6 Notes: 1. Samples size for fish measured may include some fish that past upstream of the weir and subsequently passed back downstream. Age Structure Chinook salmon returned to Grant Creek at 3 to 6 years of age with most (84 percent) returning as 4 and 5-year old fish (Table E.4-21). Three year old fish made up about 4 percent and 6-year old fish made up about 3 percent of the fish sampled. The age structure of male and female Chinook salmon differed slightly with one male returning at three years of age. Coho salmon returned at three to five years of age with most (90 percent) returning as 4-year old fish. Three year old fish made up about 4 percent and 5-year old fish made up about 7 percent of the fish sampled. The age structure of male and female coho salmon was similar in age-at-return with slightly more male fish returning at five years of age than females. Sockeye salmon returned at four to six years of age with most (95 percent) returning as 5-year old fish. Female sockeye returned as 4 and 5 year old fish. Males returned as 4, 5 and 6-year old fish. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-111 March 2015 Table E.4-21. Age-at-return for coho, Chinook and sockeye salmon sampled in Grant Creek, 2013. Sex Total Age Total Age-3 Age-4 Age-5 Age-6 No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent Chinook Salmon Female 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 80.0 1 20.0 5 Male 1 5.0 12 60.0 5 25.0 2 10.0 20 Total 1 4.0 12 48.0 9 36.0 3 12.0 25 Coho Salmon Female 3 3.5 78 91.8 4 4.7 0 0.0 85 Male 3 3.6 73 88.0 7 8.4 0 0.0 83 Total 6 3.6 151 89.9 11 6.5 0 0.0 168 Sockeye Salmon Female 0 0.0 3 5.9 48 94.1 0 0.0 51 Male 0 0.0 0 0.0 47 95.9 2 4.1 49 Total 0 0.0 3 3.0 95 95.0 2 2.0 100 In general, mean length increased with age for returning salmon to Grant Creek. Mean length increased the most for Chinook between 3 and 4-year old fish (Table E.4-22). Female coho salmon were slightly larger than males as 4-year old fish, smaller as 3-year old fish and the same as 5-year old fish. Like Chinook, mean length increased the most for coho between 3 and 4-year old fish. For sockeye salmon, males tended to be larger than females and the largest increase in mean size was between 4 and 5-year old fish. Table E.4-22. Length-at-age for returning coho salmon sampled at the Grant Creek weir in 2013. Length (cm) was measured from mid-eye to the fork of the caudal fin. Sex Age-3 Age-4 Age-5 Age-6 No. Mean Length (cm) No. Mean Length (cm) No. Mean Length (cm) No. Mean Length (cm) Chinook Salmon Female 0 --- 0 --- 4 86.0 1 97.5 Male 1 37.5 12 65.1 5 77.0 2 100.3 Total 1 37.5 12 65.1 9 81.0 3 99.4 Coho Salmon Female 3 52.1 78 59.0 4 60.3 0 --- Male 3 60.6 73 58.4 7 60.3 0 --- Total 6 56.4 151 58.7 11 60.3 0 --- Sockeye Salmon Female 0 --- 3 48.6 48 56.1 0 --- Male 0 --- 0 --- 47 57.1 2 58.1 Total 0 --- 3 48.6 95 56.6 2 58.1 DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-112 March 2015 The European method of age designation documents the general freshwater life history for adult salmon returning to Grant Creek. For Chinook, all fish spent 1 winter (1.x) in freshwater before migrating to the ocean (Table E.4-23). The amount of time that coho spent in freshwater varied the most of returning salmon. Most (88 percent) coho salmon spent two winters (2.x) in freshwater while about 2 percent migrated to the ocean in their first year of life (0.x). Coho salmon that had spent one winter in freshwater (1.x) made up 4 percent and fish that spent 3 winters (3.x) in freshwater made up about 6 percent. Most (97 percent) adult sockeye returning to Grant Creek spent one year in freshwater (1.x) before migrating to the ocean. A few (3 percent) sockeye remained in freshwater for two years (2.x) before they migrated to the ocean. Table E.4-23. General freshwater life history of Chinook, coho and sockeye salmon returning to Grant Creek, 2013. Species 0.x 1.x 2.x 3.x Total No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent Chinook 0 0 25 100 0 0 0 0 25 Coho 3 2 7 4 148 88 10 6 168 Sockeye 0 0 97 97 3 3 0 0 100 Notes: European Age Designation 0.x = Juvenile fish migrated to the ocean in its first year of life (no freshwater annulus). 1.x = Juvenile fish migrated to the ocean in its second year of life (one winter in freshwater). 2.x = Juvenile fish migrated to the ocean in its third year of life (two winters in freshwater). 3.x = Juvenile fish migrated to the ocean in its fourth year of life (three winters in freshwater). Egg Voidance Female carcasses were examined to describe spawner success (egg retention). Table E.4-24 presents the number of carcasses recovered, mean egg retention and the number of females assessed. Table E.4-24. Number of Chinook, sockeye, pink, and coho salmon recovered during carcass surveys on Grant Creek, 2013. Species Females Males Total Recovered Mean Egg Retention Number Females Assessed Chinook 5 10 15 255 5 Coho 28 35 63 289 28 Pink 8 3 11 100 2 Sockeye 266 218 484 81 257 Timing, Distribution and Habitat of Spawning Salmon Redd surveys and mobile telemetry surveys were used to assess the time of spawning, distribution and habitats selected by spawning salmon in Grant Creek. Redd surveys were DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-113 March 2015 conducted at least once a week during the spawning period to document the location, number, and time of redd construction in Grant Creek. Radiotelemetry surveys were conducted twice per week to track the movements of tagged fish within the study area. The number of new redds observed during each week of the study period was documented by week of the year (1-52). Time of Spawning Pink, Chinook, sockeye and coho salmon spawned in Grant Creek during the summer and fall of 2013. Salmon began building redds the first week of August and ended spawning activity at the end of October (Table E.4-25). Pink salmon began spawning in early August with only two redds constructed near the weir in Reach 1. Chinook salmon began spawning in mid-August and built six redds in a three week period. Sockeye began spawning at the end of August building 308 redds within the first two weeks. By the third week (week 37) new redds and old redds could not be distinguished in the mass spawning aggregates. Spawning activity (active digging) was observed until the last week of September. Coho began spawning the first week of October and were complete at the end of the month constructing 72 redds in Grant Creek. Table E.4-25. Number of new redds constructed in Grant Creek by week of the year for pink, Chinook, sockeye and coho salmon in 2013. A designation of “MS” (Mass Spawning) means that new redds and old redds for could not be distinguished in the mass spawning aggregates. Week Dates Species Total Pink Chinook Sockeye Coho 31 Jul 28 - Aug 03 0 0 0 0 0 32 Aug 04 - Aug 10 2 0 0 0 2 33 Aug 11 - Aug 17 0 0 0 0 0 34 Aug 18 - Aug 24 0 1 0 0 1 35 Aug 25 - Aug 31 0 3 200 0 203 36 Sep 01 - Sep 07 0 2 108 0 110 37 Sep 08 - Sep 14 0 0 MS 0 0 38 Sep 15 - Sep 21 0 0 MS 0 0 39 Sep 22 - Sep 28 0 0 MS 0 0 40 Sep 29 - Oct 05 0 0 0 5 5 41 Oct 06 - Oct 12 0 0 0 47 47 42 Oct 13 - Oct 19 0 0 0 13 13 43 Oct 20 - Oct 26 0 0 0 6 6 44 Oct 27 - Nov 02 0 0 0 1 1 45 Nov 03 - Nov 09 0 0 0 0 0 Total 2 6 308 72 388 Spawning Distribution The distribution of spawning salmon in Grant Creek was documented with both redd surveys and mobile telemetry surveys (Figures E.4-21 through E.4-24 and E.4-25 through E.4-27). DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-114 March 2015 The distribution of salmon redds was concentrated (95 percent) within Reaches 1-3 of Grant Creek (Table E.4-26). DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-129 March 2015 Table E.4-26. Number and proportion of redds counted in each reach of Grant Creek for pink, Chinook, sockeye and coho salmon in 2013. Reach Species Total Proportion Pink Chinook Sockeye Coho 1 2 4 144 18 168 0.433 2 0 0 52 7 59 0.152 3 0 1 102 38 141 0.363 4 0 1 7 7 15 0.039 5 0 0 3 2 5 0.013 Total 2 6 308 72 388 1.000 Sockeye and coho salmon spawned in every reach of Grant Creek while Chinook only spawned in Reaches 1, 3 and 4. The spawning locations of sockeye and coho salmon often overlapped in several locations in Reaches 1 and 3. Pink salmon only spawned in Reach 1. There was less spawning in Reach 2 (15 percent), Reach 4 (4 percent) and Reach 5 (1 percent). Spawning only occurred in a few locations in Reaches 4 and 5. As expected, the distribution of redds closely follows the distribution of visual detections (Figures E.4-17 through E.4-19) and mobile telemetry surveys (Figures E.4-25 through E.4-27). Radio telemetry tracking occurred throughout the spawning period for Chinook, sockeye and coho salmon. Radio tracking was used to determine the distribution of salmon within Grant Creek (Figures E.4-25 through E.4-27). Those distributions likely include migration (wandering), spawning and resting (pools) behaviors within Grant Creek. Of the nine Chinook that were radio-tagged, seven were detected within Reach 1, three within Reach 2, none in Reaches 3 and 4, and five within Reach 5 (Table E.4-27). While five Chinook were detected within Reach 5, no redds were associated with these detections nor were any Chinook redds observed in Reach 5. In Reaches 3 and 4 there were no unique fish detections but at least two redds were observed in those reaches. In Reach 2 there were 3 fish detected but no redds were observed in that reach. In Reach 1 there were 7 fish detected and 4 redds observed. Table E.4-27. The number of unique detections of radio-tagged adult salmon by species and reach within Grant Creek. Reach Chinook (n = 9) Sockeye (n = 65) Coho (n = 50) Total Proportion 1 7 48 40 95 0.41 2 3 14 12 29 0.13 3 0 18 30 48 0.21 4 0 3 6 9 0.04 5 5 20 26 51 0.22 Total 15 103 114 232 1.00 DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-130 March 2015 Unique detections by reach for sockeye more closely resemble observed redds by reach as presented in Table E.4-26. Of the 65 radio-tagged sockeye, 48 were detected in Reach 1, 14 in Reach 2, 18 in Reach 3, 3 in Reach 4, and 20 in Reach 5 (Table E.4-27). There were 20 sockeye detected in Reach 5 and at least 3 redds were observed. In Reach 3 there were 18 sockeye detected and 102 redds were observed. In Reach 2 there were 14 fish detected and 52 redds observed. Reach 1 had 48 fish detected and there were 144 redds observed in this reach. Of the 50 coho salmon radio-tagged, 40, 12, 30, 6, and 26 tagged fish were observed in Reaches 1-5, respectively (Table E.4-27). Coho were detected in all reaches of Grant Creek and indeed spawned in all reaches of Grant Creek like sockeye salmon. The majority of coho salmon were detected in Reaches 1 and 3 and these were the areas where most of the spawning occurred. Spawning Habitat In Grant Creek, most redds were located in the mainstem areas, but also occurred in side channels and backwater areas (Table E.4-28). Sockeye and coho both spawned in mainstem, side channel and backwater areas while pink and Chinook only spawned in mainstem areas. In mainstem areas, spawning usually occurred along the stream margins or in areas protected from the main current. Chinook were the exception, building redds mid-channel within the stronger current. In side channels, salmon spawned throughout the wetted width of the channel and in backwater areas, salmon usually selected locations close to the mainstem where suitable stream velocity and substrate were present. Table E.4-28. Location of salmon redds within different channel areas of Grant Creek. Species Backwater Areas Mainstem Areas Side Channel Areas Total Chinook 0 6 0 6 Coho 4 49 19 72 Pink 0 2 0 2 Sockeye 27 239 42 308 Total 31 296 61 388 The majority of redds in Grant Creek were located in riffle (71 percent) and pool (19 percent) habitat (Table E.4-29). In Reach 1, spawning for pink, sockeye and coho salmon most often occurred in riffle and pool habitat along the stream margins in the mainstem areas away from the thalweg and the highest stream velocities. Chinook spawned only in riffle habitat most often mid-channel where higher velocity and larger spawning substrates occurred. In Reach 2, most spawning occurred in mainstem riffle habitat along the stream margins for sockeye and coho salmon. Irregularities along the stream margin (large woody debris [LWD], bedrock, boulders) of riffle habitat created areas of lower velocity and suitable spawning substrate. Sockeye and coho also spawned in the stream margins of some pool habitat (lateral scour pool) of Reach 2. In Reach 3, most spawning occurred in pool habitat in mainstem (scour pools) and side channel areas (dammed pools). One large backwater area (pool habitat) was also used by sockeye and coho salmon. In Reach 4, spawning occurred in mostly riffle habitat along the stream margins of the right bank. Spawning also occurred along the left bank in pocket water (riffles w/ pockets) DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-131 March 2015 formed by velocity breaks such as boulders or tree roots that allowed spawning gravels to accumulate. In Reach 5, spawning occurred in step pool habitat along the stream margins often behind large boulders or bedrock outcroppings (velocity breaks) where gravels and cobbles accumulated. Table E.4-29. Location of pink, Chinook, sockeye and coho salmon redds within reaches and aquatic habitats of Grant Creek. A designation of “NA” means that the habitat type was not available in that reach of Grant Creek. Species Reach - Area Riffle Pool Back -water Step Pool Glide Pocket Water Total Pink 1 - Mainstem 2 2 2 - Mainstem 3 - Mainstem 3 - Predominate Side Channel 3 - Secondary Side Channel 4 - Mainstem 5 - Mainstem Chinoo k 1 - Mainstem 4 4 2 - Mainstem 3 - Mainstem 1 1 3 - Predominate Side Channel 3 - Secondary Side Channel 4 - Mainstem 1 1 5 - Mainstem Sockey e 1 - Mainstem 129 15 144 2 - Mainstem 47 4 1 52 3 - Mainstem 18 19 23 60 3 - Predominate Side Channel 27 11 1 39 3 - Secondary Side Channel 3 3 4 - Mainstem 6 1 7 5 - Mainstem 3 3 Coho 1 - Mainstem 15 3 18 2 - Mainstem 6 1 7 3 - Mainstem 6 10 3 19 3 - Predominate Side Channel 7 8 15 3 - Secondary Side Channel 1 3 4 4 - Mainstem 5 2 7 5 - Mainstem 2 2 Total: 275 75 31 5 2 0 388 Proportion: 0.71 0.19 0.08 0.01 0.01 0.00 1.00 DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-132 March 2015 The majority of radio tagged salmon were detected in riffle (62 percent) and pool (24 percent) habitat (Table E.4-30). The proportion of detections in aquatic habitats of Grant Creek follows the distribution of redds. Table E.4-30. Number of detections for radio tagged Chinook, sockeye, and coho salmon in aquatic habitats of Grant Creek, 2013. Species Reach Riffle Pool Back- water Step Pool Glide Pocket Water Total Chinook 1 - Mainstem 10 10 2 - Mainstem 6 2 2 10 3 - Mainstem 2 1 3 3 - Predominate Side Channel 0 3 - Secondary Side Channel 0 4 - Mainstem 0 5 - Mainstem 1 1 Sockeye 1 - Mainstem 49 2 51 2 - Mainstem 6 4 7 17 3 - Mainstem 9 7 4 20 3 - Predominate Side Channel 4 4 3 - Secondary Side Channel 0 4 - Mainstem 3 3 5 - Mainstem 0 Coho 1 - Mainstem 57 1 58 2 - Mainstem 6 3 10 19 3 - Mainstem 12 27 7 46 3 - Predominate Side Channel 6 14 20 3 - Secondary Side Channel 1 1 4 - Mainstem 3 3 6 5 - Mainstem 2 4 6 Total: 171 67 31 5 1 0 275 Proportion: 0.62 0.24 0.11 0.02 <0.01 0.00 1.00 Grant Creek Resident and Rearing Fish Abundance and Distribution Adult Rainbow Trout Abundance, Distribution, and Spawning in Grant Creek Dolly Varden and rainbow trout were intercepted at the weir to help facilitate radio tagging and to collect biometric data. Fish captured at the weir that were radio-tagged were also Floy-tagged. The migration period for rainbow trout lasted 6 weeks from May 24 to June 29 and resulted in the capture of 13 adult rainbow trout (Table E.4-31). The abundance of adult rainbow trout in Grant Creek based on weir counts may be biased low. Prior to July 5, when the weir was outfitted with 3 meter pickets, it was possible for fish to circumnavigate the weir either by swimming through a breach on the right bank (undercut bank), or at times of high flow, over the top of the weir. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-133 March 2015 Table E.4-31. Weekly passage of rainbow trout and Dolly Varden across the weir in Grant Creek, 2013. Week of the Year Dates Rainbow Trout Dolly Varden 21 May 19 - May 25 3 0 22 May 26 - Jun 01 1 0 23 Jun 02 - Jun 08 1 0 24 Jun 09 - Jun 15 1 0 25 Jun 16 - Jun 22 3 0 26 Jun 23 - Jun 29 4 0 27 Jun 30 - Jul 06 0 0 28 Jul 07 - Jul 13 0 0 29 Jul 14 - Jul 20 0 0 30 Jul 21 - Jul 27 0 0 31 Jul 28- Aug 03 0 0 32 Aug 04 - Aug 10 0 0 33 Aug 11- Aug 17 0 0 34 Aug 18 - Aug 24 0 1 35 Aug 25 - Aug 31 0 4 36 Sep 01 - Sep 07 0 6 37 Sep 08 - Sep 14 0 3 38 Sep 15 - Sep 21 0 0 39 Sep 22 - Sep 28 0 0 40 Sep 29 - Oct 05 0 0 41 Oct 06 - Oct 12 0 0 42 Oct 13 - Oct 19 0 0 43 Oct 20 - Oct 26 0 0 Total 13 14 The migration period for Dolly Varden lasted 4 weeks from August 18 to September 14, 2013, with the capture of 14 Dolly Varden (Table E.4-31). Only one Dolly Varden was large enough for tagging, and which appeared to be in spawning condition. Resident and Rearing Fish Use of Reach 5 To monitor fish use of upper Grant Creek, adult rainbow trout were surgically implanted with radio tags to monitor their movements and use of Reach 5; a total of 20 adult rainbow trout were radio-tagged. Of the 20 adult rainbow trout that were surgically implanted with radio-transmitters, three males and one female were detected within Reach 5 subsequent to their release (Figure E.4-28). On average, it took 9.9 days after tagging and release for the four fish to migrate upstream through Grant Creek and be detected by the antenna array located at the Reach 4/5 break (median of 6.6 days; range of 2.0 to 24.4 days; Table E.4-32). Three of the four fish made a single foray into Reach 5, spending on average 0.27 days within Reach 5. The fourth fish, a male, made three DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-134 March 2015 different forays into Reach 5; the first lasting 4.35 days, the second 0.72 days, and the last foray lasting 0.75 days, each venture into Reach 5 being separated by about 6 hours. Table E.4-32. The travel time and length of residence of radio-tagged rainbow trout detected in Reach 5 of Grant Creek. Fish I.D. (Channel/Code) Sex Travel Time from Release to Reach 4/5 Break (days) Length of Time within Reach 5 (days) 2/12 Female 6.12 0.80 2/19 Male 24.37 0.01 17/31 Male 2.00 4.35 0.72 0.75 17/46 Male 7.05 0.01 DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-137 March 2015 Minnow trapping and snorkeling were used in upper Grant Creek (Reach 5 only) from April through October to document species diversity, relative abundance, and distribution of juvenile fish. Over the course of the study, there were 57 individual minnow traps (effort=1,318 hours) placed in different locations capturing 205 fish in upper Grant Creek (Table E.4-33; Figure E.4- 29). Snorkeling was only conducted in April and May when stream flows and water clarity allowed. Three step pools were snorkeled in April and two were snorkeled in May identifying 16 fish in upper Grant Creek. Table E.4-33. Number of minnow traps, total effort, and number of fish captured in Reach 5 of Grant Creek from April through October 2013. Upper Grant Creek Minnow Trapping Reach Number of Traps Total Effort (days) Total Effort (hrs) Number of Fish 5 57 54.9 1,318 205 Dolly Varden and rainbow trout were the most numerous fish captured in minnow traps followed by Chinook, sculpins sp. and coho (Table E.4-34). Juvenile Dolly Varden comprised half of the fish captured in minnow traps. Table E.4-34. Number, proportion and CPUE of fish caught in Reach 5 of Grant Creek with minnow traps from April through October 2013. Upper Grant Creek Minnow Trapping Species Number Proportion CPUE (fish/hr) Chinook 31 0.15 0.024 Coho 5 0.02 0.004 Dolly Varden 102 0.50 0.077 Rainbow Trout 48 0.23 0.036 Sculpin sp. 19 0.09 0.014 Grand Total 205 1.00 0.156 The relative abundance of fish observed in Reach 5 of Grant Creek varied over time (Table E.4- 35). Repeated minnow trap sampling from April through October in upper Grant Creek showed that relative abundance was lowest in May and increased to September (Figure E.4-30; Table E.4-35). In general, peak abundance (catch) occurred from June through October. CPUE for juvenile Chinook increased from April to a peak in September and declined in October (Figure E.4-30). Juvenile Chinook varied in size from 68-118 mm fork length (FL). CPUE for juvenile coho salmon peaked in September and fish ranged in size from 60-95 mm FL. For Dolly Varden, the greatest CPUE occurred in August but was fairly stable during the summer (June- August). The size range of Dolly Varden captured in upper Grant Creek varied from 71-151 mm FL. Catch of juvenile rainbow trout peaked in September and October (Table E.4-35). Rainbow trout captured in upper Grant Creek varied from 54-143 mm FL. No fish were captured in the DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-138 March 2015 plunge pool downstream from the anadromous fish barrier in September when peak catch rates were generally highest for most other species (except Dolly Varden). Table E.4-35. Number of fish captured in minnow traps by month for upper Grant Creek from April through October 2013. Month Number Chinook Coho Dolly Varden Rainbow Trout Sculpin sp. Three-spine Stickleback Total APR 2 0 1 5 0 0 8 MAY 1 0 1 4 0 0 6 JUN 0 0 18 1 0 0 19 JUL 1 0 23 3 1 0 28 AUG 1 1 20 4 3 0 29 SEP 18 4 17 16 5 0 60 OCT 8 0 22 15 10 0 55 Total 31 5 102 48 19 0 205 DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-141 March 2015 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCTCPUE (fish/hr)Month Upper Grant Creek CPUE of Fish Captured in Minnow Traps CK CO DV RB Figure E.4-30. Catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) for juvenile Chinook (CK), coho (CO), Dolly Varden (DV) and rainbow trout (RB) from minnow trapping in upper Grant Creek from April through October, 2013. Night time snorkel surveys in April and May within Reach 5 of Grant Creek documented 7 rainbow trout in April and 9 rainbow trout in May. These fish were observed in step pool habitat and varied in size from 60-280 mm FL. The upper incline plane trap was installed within a scour pool, which was located immediately downstream of the Reach 4/5 break. Trap installation was completed on April 28, and the trap was permanently removed on October 16. During the period of May 30 to September 19 the trap was inoperable due to high flows. During the operation of the upper incline plane trap, a total of 172 fish were processed. Of those, there were 8 Chinook, 1 coho, 7 Dolly Varden, 5 rainbow trout, 19 sculpin, and 132 sticklebacks. Resident and Rearing Fish Use of Open Water Habitats in Lower Grant Creek During the period of May 24 to July 11, 2013, a total of 20 adult rainbow trout were surgically implanted with radio-transmitters; one in May, six in June, and 13 in July (Table E.4-36). Of those 20 fish, 8 were female, 11 were male, and the sex of one other was undetermined. The age of adult rainbow trout (>300 mm) varied from three to seven years old, which is similar to what has been observed in the Upper Kenai River (Hayes and Hasbrouck 1996). The mean weight was 543.5 grams (range of 252.6 to 1,571.2 grams), and the mean length was 358.4 mm, with a range of 300 to 500 mm (Figure E.4-31). DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-142 March 2015 Table E.4-36. The date of tagging, transmitter coding, capture method, sex, weight and length of 20 adult rainbow trout tagging in Grant Creek, Alaska 2013. Date Channel Code Capture Method Sex Age Weight (g) Length (mm) 24-May-13 2 11 Angling Unknown --- 462.6 343 6-Jun-13 17 31 Weir Male 3 1571.2 500 15-Jun-13 2 17 Weir Male 3 767.4 402 17-Jun-13 17 44 Weir Female 6 548.2 357 17-Jun-13 2 12 Weir Female 3 969.4 431 25-Jun-13 17 32 Angling Female 7 406.2 345 28-Jun-13 2 18 Angling Female 3 334.0 309 1-Jul-13 2 21 Angling Female 3 634.0 382 1-Jul-13 17 25 Angling Male 6 252.6 304 3-Jul-13 2 22 Angling Male 7 269.2 309 3-Jul-13 17 45 Angling Male 4 457.8 348 3-Jul-13 17 26 Angling Male 4 551.6 373 4-Jul-13 2 13 Angling Female 3 535.4 357 5-Jul-13 17 33 Angling Female 3 724.8 411 5-Jul-13 2 19 Angling Male 3 398.2 329 7-Jul-13 17 46 Angling Male 3 582.6 385 9-Jul-13 17 37 Angling Female 3 314.4 318 10-Jul-13 17 38 Angling Male 5 487.2 335 11-Jul-13 2 23 Angling Male 3 284.2 300 11-Jul-13 17 27 Angling Male 3 318.0 329 Mean 543.5 358.4 Figure E.4-31. The length-weight relationship of radio-tagged adult rainbow trout in Grant Creek, 2013. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-143 March 2015 During the course of 37 mobile surveys, a total of 198 contacts were made with radio-tagged adult rainbow trout within Reaches 1-4 of Grant Creek; 124 contacts in Reach 1, 40 in Reach 2, 31 in Reach 3, and 3 in Reach 4 (Figure E.4-32). Mobile detections of rainbow trout can be assessed by their location within a reach (i.e., mainstem, backwater areas, and side-channels) and habitat type. Of the 124 detections within Reach 1, all were located within the mainstem, with 23 fish locations noted within pools, and 101 fish locations within riffle habitat (Table E.4-37). A total of 40 detections occurred within the Reach 2 mainstem, with 19 fish locations within pool habitat, 13 in riffle habitat, and 8 within backwater areas. Within the Reach 3 mainstem, 9 detections were observed in pool habitat and 11 in riffle habitat. Within the Reach 3 Predominant Side Channel, three detections were observed in pool habitat and 11 detections within riffle habitat, and three detections were recorded in the Reach 3 Secondary Channel within pool habitat. Finally, a total of three detections were observed in the Reach 4 mainstem; with 1 detection in each of the pool, riffle, and pocket water habitats. Table E.4-37. Habitat use by location based on mobile telemetry surveys for radio-tagged rainbow trout in Grant Creek, AK, 2014. Reach - Area Riffle Pool Back- Water Step Pool Glide Pocket- Water Total 1 - Mainstem 101 23 124 2 - Mainstem 13 19 8 40 3 – Mainstem 11 9 20 3 – Predominant Side Channel 5 3 8 3 – Secondary Side Channel 3 3 4 - Mainstem 1 1 1 3 Total 131 58 8 0 0 1 198 Furthermore, of the 20 radio-tagged rainbow trout, all 20 were detected at some point within Reach 1 (either by the fixed telemetry station or during mobile surveys). Fourteen of the twenty tagged rainbow were also detected in Reaches two and three, three in Reach 4, and as discussed previously, four in Reach 5 (Table E.4-38). The tagged Dolly Varden was not detected at any time after release. Table E.4-38. The number of radio-tagged rainbow trout and Dolly Varden detected by reach within Grant Creek, Alaska 2013. Reach Rainbow (n = 20) Dolly Varden (n = 1) 1 20 0 2 14 0 3 14 0 4 3 0 5 4 0 DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-144 March 2015 The detections of fish in Reach 1 and 2 occurred throughout the period radio-tagged rainbow trout were detected within Grant Creek (May 25 through October 17), whereas detections in Reach 3 occurred primarily shortly after tagging (June 20 through August 15); and the single detection in Reach 4 occurred on June 28. No rainbow trout redds were observed in Grant Creek in 2013. However, due to the poor water clarity and high flows, that was not unexpected. Detections primarily in Reach 3 shortly after tagging, coupled with suitable pockets of gravel at the locations of detection may suggest that rainbow trout spawning possibly occurred in Reach 3; including both the mainstem of Grant Creek and the secondary channel. As can be seen in Figure E.4-32, the majority of rainbow trout detections were in Reach 1 and to a lesser extent, the lower portion of Reach 2. These areas were also where the greatest concentration of sockeye and coho spawned. Detections of rainbow trout in these areas occurred throughout the tracking period and toward the end of the study. Near the end of the study period, these areas were the only locations where tagged rainbow resided. These factors indicate that while it is possible that some rainbow spawned within this area, fish likely resided within this area to take advantage of feeding opportunities. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-147 March 2015 Review of the last date of detection by either mobile surveys or the fixed-site telemetry system provides an opportunity to determine the date of exodus from Grant Creek. Mobile telemetry surveys continued until tagged fish were no longer detected in Grant Creek, which included tagged Chinook, sockeye, and coho. The last telemetry survey was conducted on October 29; however, the date of last detection for rainbow trout during a mobile survey in Grant Creek was on October 17. Some fish were detected later than October 17 by the fixed-site telemetry system near the confluence; but these detections were likely the result of tagged fish travelling downstream and exiting Grant Creek into the Trail Lake Narrows. For 18 tagged rainbow trout, the mean and median date of last detection in Grant Creek was September 1, with the earliest date of exodus being June 17, and the latest date being October 26 (Table E.4-39). Table E.4-39. The date of last detection for 18 radio-tagged adult rainbow trout in Grant Creek, Alaska, 2013. Channel Code Last Date of Detection 2 11 23-Oct-13 2 12 13-Jul-13 2 13 9-Sep-13 2 18 28-Jun-13 2 19 30-Jul-13 2 21 17-Oct-13 2 22 26-Oct-13 2 23 27-Jul-13 17 25 17-Oct-13 17 26 25-Aug-13 17 27 17-Aug-13 17 32 2-Oct-13 17 33 1-Oct-13 17 37 17-Oct-13 17 38 5-Aug-13 17 44 17-Jun-13 17 45 19-Oct-13 17 46 16-Jul-13 Mean:1-Sep-13 Median:1-Sep-13 Min:17-Jun-13 Max:26-Oct-13 A single Dolly Varden female was surgically implanted with a transmitter on September 10, and weighed 1,844 grams and was 545 mm FL. This fish was not detected during any mobile surveys, and was never detected by one of the fixed-telemetry sites. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-148 March 2015 Minnow trapping was used in lower Grant Creek (Reaches 1-4) from April through October to document species diversity, relative abundance, and distribution of juveniles. Minnow trapping was also conducted to help establish important or sensitive juvenile rearing habitat. Over the course of the study there were 273 individual minnow traps (effort=6,137 hours) placed in different locations describing fish in distinct reaches, channel locations, and habitat units. Over 3,468 fish were captured, measured and weighed to describe baseline conditions in lower Grant Creek (Table E.4-40). The following section discusses the results of this effort from a broad scale (reach) to a more focused habitat unit basis. The assumption is that CPUE at the reach, channel and habitat unit scale are a good indicator of relative abundance, distribution and fish- habitat associations. Table E.4-40. Number of minnow traps, total effort, and number of fish captured in lower Grant Creek from April through October 2013. Lower Grant Creek Minnow Trapping Reach Number of Traps Total Effort (days) Total Effort (hrs) Number of Fish 1 63 60.6 1,454.4 899 2 77 72.1 1,713.6 819 3 69 63.6 1,567.2 1,187 4 64 59.4 1,404.0 560 Total 273 255.7 6,139.2 3,465 In lower Grant Creek, relative abundance of fish caught in minnow traps expressed as both CPUE and proportion of total catch was highest in Reach 3 followed by Reach 1, Reach 2, and then Reach 4 (Table E.4-41). The CPUE in the lower gradient Reaches (1-4) of Grant Creek were more than two times the CPUE observed in the higher gradient section of Reach 5 (Table E.4-41). This information indicates that juvenile fish were most abundant in lower Grant Creek and in particular, Reach 3. Table E.4-41. Number, proportion, and CPUE for fish caught in Lower Grant Creek from April through October of 2013. Reach Number of Fish Proportion CPUE (fish/hr) 1 899 0.26 0.62 2 819 0.24 0.48 3 1,187 0.34 0.76 4 560 0.16 0.40 Total 3,465 1.00 0.56 Juvenile Chinook and Dolly Varden were the most numerous fish captured in minnow traps on Grant Creek followed by rainbow trout, coho, sculpins species and three-spine sticklebacks (Table E.4-42). Few juvenile sockeye were captured in minnow traps in either Grant Creek (no DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-149 March 2015 fish) or Trail Lakes Narrows (1 fish) and is likely related to their early life history and behavior. That is, shortly after emergence sockeye generally tend to migrate into lakes as fry where they feed and grow (Burgner 1991). The size of post-emergent sockeye fry in Grant Creek would likely have been too small (<40 mm FL) to effectively capture in Grant Creek. Also, the period of exposure to minnow trapping would have also been very brief before they emigrated from Grant Creek. Table E.4-42. Number, proportion and CPUE of fish caught in lower Grant Creek with minnow traps from April through October, 2013. Lower Grant Creek Minnow Trapping Species Number Proportion CPUE (fish/hr) Chinook 1,244 0.359 0.20 Dolly Varden 1,142 0.330 0.19 Coho 420 0.121 0.07 Rainbow Trout 397 0.115 0.06 Sculpin sp. 258 0.074 0.04 Three-spine Stickleback 4 0.001 0.00 Grand Total 3,465 1.000 0.56 The relative abundance of fish observed in Grant Creek varied over time. Repeated minnow trap sampling from April through October in lower Grant Creek showed that relative abundance increased from fairly low levels in April and May representing late winter and early spring stream conditions to much higher levels in late spring, summer and fall (June-October) (Figure E.4-33; Table E.4-43). In general, peak abundance (catch) occurred during the summer. CPUE for juvenile Chinook increased from April to a peak in September and declined in October (Figure E.4-33). Recently emerged Chinook fry (<50 mm FL) were first noted in minnow traps in June but fry of this size were also noted in July and August. Juvenile Chinook varied in size from 45-110 mm FL. CPUE for juvenile coho salmon increased steadily from May to a peak in August and declined in September and October (Figure E.4-33). Recently emerged coho fry (<50 mm FL) were first noted in minnow traps in July but fry of this size were also noted in August, September (1-fish) and October (1-fish). Juvenile coho varied in size from 42-106 mm FL. For Dolly Varden, the greatest CPUE occurred in June and remained fairly stable in summer and fall. No Dolly Varden less than 50 mm FL were captured in minnow traps. Dolly Varden varied in size from 52-165 mm FL. Catch of juvenile rainbow trout decreased from April to June and remained relatively low into July and August. In September and October there was a noticeable increase in juvenile rainbow trout. Small rainbow trout fry (<50 mm FL) were noted in April (1-fish), May (2-fish) and June (1-fish). However, the majority of small rainbow trout fry were observed in September and October. Rainbow trout varied in size from 43-146 mm FL. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-150 March 2015 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCTCPUE (fish/hr)Month Lower Grant Creek CPUE of salmonids captured in minnow traps Reaches 1‐4 Combined Chinook Coho Dolly Varden Rainbow Trout Figure E.4-33. CPUE for juvenile Chinook, coho, Dolly Varden and rainbow trout from minnow trapping in lower Grant Creek from April through October, 2013. Table E.4-43. Numbers of fish collected from minnow trapping in lower Grant Creek from April through October 2013. Fish Species Month Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Total Chinook 33 24 15 120 280 484 288 1,244 Coho 0 2 20 37 202 93 66 420 Dolly Varden 14 17 371 174 220 143 203 1,142 Rainbow Trout 46 34 10 18 32 92 165 397 Sculpin sp. 19 7 35 40 50 29 78 258 Three-spine Stickleback 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 4 Total 112 84 452 390 786 841 800 3,465 Most fish that occur in Grant Creek were present in all reaches of lower Grant Creek (Table E.4- 44). No juvenile sockeye or arctic grayling were captured in lower Grant Creek. There were a few three-spine sticklebacks captured in lower Grant Creek (Reaches 1 and 3). The number of Chinook and Dolly Varden captured in lower Grant Creek was similar as was the number of coho and rainbow trout. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-151 March 2015 Table E.4-44. Number of fish captured in minnow traps in different reaches of lower Grant Creek from April through October 2013. Fish Species Lower Grant Creek Reaches (Number) Total 1 2 3 4 Chinook 370 351 390 133 1,244 Coho 89 116 176 39 420 Dolly Varden 306 150 418 268 1,142 Rainbow Trout 75 115 126 81 397 Sculpin sp. 57 87 75 39 258 Three-spine Stickleback 2 0 2 0 4 Total 899 819 1,187 560 3,465 In lower Grant Creek, CPUE was highest (0.758 fish/hr) in Reach 3 for all fish except sculpins (Table E.4-45). CPUE for juvenile Chinook was similar in Reaches 1 and 2, but for coho the capture rate was nearly twice as high in Reach 3 as other reaches. For rainbow trout, capture rates were fairly uniform in all reaches of lower Grant Creek. Similar to Chinook, Dolly Varden had the highest capture rates in Reaches 1 and 3. Unlike Chinook, Dolly Varden had a higher capture rate in Reach 4 than in Reach 2. In lower Grant Creek the capture rates for sculpins was fairly uniform across all reaches. Table E.4-45. CPUE for fish captured in minnow traps in different reaches of lower Grant Creek from April through October 2013. Fish Species Lower Grant Creek Reaches (CPUE) Total 1 2 3 4 Chinook 0.254 0.203 0.256 0.093 0.203 Coho 0.061 0.067 0.115 0.027 0.068 Dolly Varden 0.210 0.087 0.274 0.188 0.186 Rainbow Trout 0.052 0.066 0.083 0.057 0.065 Sculpin sp. 0.039 0.050 0.049 0.027 0.042 Three-spine Stickleback 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001 Total 0.618 0.473 0.778 0.393 0.564 Capture rates were assessed for juvenile fish in lower Grant Creek by location within the active channel and habitat unit. Channel descriptors were used to describe the location of three broad categories: side channels areas, backwater areas or mainstem areas. In lower Grant Creek, CPUE was highest in side channel areas followed by backwater areas and then locations within the main stream channel (mainstem) (Figure E.4-34). Side channels occur mostly in Reaches 1 and 3 and backwater areas occur only in Reaches 2 and 3. Aquatic habitats are discussed in more detail in the Instream Flow Study, Final Report (KHL 2014d). DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-152 March 2015 0.77 0.48 0.85 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Backwater Areas Mainstem Areas Side Channel AreasCPUE (fish/hr)Channel Location Lower Grant Creek CPUE for all fish within channel areas Figure E.4-34. CPUE for fish captured in minnow traps placed in backwater, side channel and mainstem areas of lower Grant Creek from April through October 2013. Capture rates for salmonids varied within channel types on lower Grant Creek (Figure E.4-35). For juvenile Chinook and coho, capture rates were highest in backwater areas while Dolly Varden and rainbow trout CPUE was the highest in side channels. Mainstem areas dominated by riffle habitat had the lowest CPUE for juvenile Chinook and coho. Dolly Varden had the lowest capture rates in backwater areas and rainbow trout capture rates were the same in both mainstem and backwater areas. 0.361 0.175 0.228 0.166 0.046 0.1140.115 0.163 0.360 0.062 0.062 0.081 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 Backwater Areas Mainstem Areas Side Channel AreasCPUE (fish/hr)Channel Location Lower Grant Creek CPUE for salmonids within Channel Areas Chinook Coho Dolly Varden Rainbow Trout Figure E.4-35. CPUE for salmonids captured in minnow traps placed in backwater, side channel and mainstem areas of lower Grant Creek from April through October 2013. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-153 March 2015 In lower Grant Creek, CPUE for salmonids varied by species and habitat unit type (Figure E.4- 36). Catch rates for juvenile Chinook were nearly equal between pools and glides and the least in riffles and pocket water. For coho, the catch rate was highest in pools followed by riffles. No coho were captured in glides. Catch rates for Dolly Varden were highest in glides and runs and lowest in riffle habitat. Juvenile rainbow trout had the highest catch rates in glides and pocket water and was the least in pool habitat. 0.2516 0.0798 0.2436 0.1854 0.0000 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 Glides Pocket water Pools Riffles RunsCPUE (fish/hr)Habitat Types Lower Grant Creek CPUE for Juvenile Chinook by Habitat Type 0.0000 0.0114 0.0949 0.0587 0.0153 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 Glides Pocket water Pools Riffles RunsCPUE (fish/hr)Habitat Types Lower Grant Creek CPUE for Juvenile Coho by Habitat Type 0.3648 0.2357 0.2328 0.1309 0.6881 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 Glides Pocket water Pools Riffles RunsCPUE (fish/hr)Habitat Types Lower Grant Creek CPUE for Juvenile Dolly Varden by Habitat Type 0.0943 0.0722 0.0217 0.0375 0.0000 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 Glides Pocket water Pools Riffles RunsCPUE (fish/hr)Habitat Types Lower Grant Creek CPUE for Juvenile Rainbow Trout by Habitat Type Figure E.4-36. CPUE for salmonids captured in minnow traps placed in different habitat unit types of lower Grant Creek from April through October 2013. Minnow trapping in lower Grant Creek showed that salmonids were present in all reaches of lower Grant Creek with the highest catch rate (0.778 fish/hr) noted in Reach 3. Reach 3 contained all channel types (mainstem, backwater and side channels), which increases both channel and habitat diversity compared to other reaches. The capture rates of salmonids in lower Grant Creek indicate that side channel and backwater areas are important rearing areas (Figure E.4-35). In particular, catch rates for juvenile Chinook, coho and Dolly Varden were highest in these channel locations likely because large woody debris or greater depth and/or lower velocities provided good juvenile rearing habitat (Figure E.4-36). Juvenile coho and Chinook tend to prefer large, deep pools with abundant cover (McMahon 1983; Raleigh et al. 1986). Capture rates for rainbow trout were much more even by reach, channel and habitat designation. Rainbow trout, as generalist, appear to have similar requirements for abundant cover but depth (pool habitat) may be less important (Raleigh et al. 1984). Nighttime snorkeling was used in both April and May to assess species diversity, distribution and relative abundance of fish in lower Grant Creek. From June through October, the water was DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-154 March 2015 too turbid to snorkel effectively. In April, low flows (18 cfs) and cold water (0.5-1.5°C) were the prevailing stream conditions. In May, both flow (150 cfs) and water temperature (4.0°C) had increased. These conditions are a good approximation of winter and early spring stream conditions in lower Grant Creek. In mid-April, most salmonids were observed in pool habitat available in the mainstem and backwater areas of lower Grant Creek (Table E.4-46). The highest fish density (fish/100 m2) occurred in backwater areas available in Reach 3. Backwater areas in Reach 2 were frozen over and inaccessible to snorkeling. Riffle habitat had the lowest fish densities in lower Grant Creek. Side channel habitat was covered in snow and ice and was not available for sampling via night time snorkel surveys. Pool habitat (mainstem and backwater) that occurs in lower Grant Creek provides important overwinter habitat. Table E.4-46. Number and density of salmonids observed during night time snorkel surveys in lower Grant Creek in April 2013. Month Channel Habitat Species Total Total Area Sampled (m2) Fish Density (fish/100 m2) Chinook Coho Dolly Varden Rainbow Trout April Mainstem Glide 23 0 2 17 42 933.2 4.50 Pool 202 0 15 140 357 7,192.6 4.96 Riffle 5 0 2 32 39 8,462.5 0.46 Backwater Pool 46 1 1 35 83 793.6 10.46 Total 276 1 20 224 521 17,381.9 3.00 Juvenile Chinook were the most abundant fish observed in lower Grant Creek followed by rainbow trout, Dolly Varden, and coho. Almost all juvenile Chinook observed were within the size range of 60-80 mm FL (Table E.4-47). A few juvenile Chinook (4 fish) were observed in the 80-100 mm FL size class. All juvenile Chinook observed in April were likely age-1 fish that overwintered in mostly pool habitats of lower Grant Creek. No juvenile Chinook fry (< 40 mm) or age-0 fish were observed in April. Rainbow trout varied in size from about 40-180 mm FL. Most were observed within the size class of 100-120 mm FL. It is reasonable to assume that several age classes overwintered in pool habitat of lower Grant Creek. There were few Dolly Varden and a single coho observed in lower Grant Creek in April. Dolly Varden varied in size from 40-160 mm FL and the single coho that was observed was within the 40-60 mm size class. There were probably several age classes of Dolly Varden overwintering in lower Grant Creek. Night time snorkel observations appear to comport well with minnow trapping that occurred in April. Juvenile Chinook and rainbow trout were the most abundant salmonids observed in April while Dolly Varden and coho were less abundant. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-155 March 2015 Table E.4-47. Abundance of salmonids observed in 20-mm increments during night time snorkels surveys in lower Grant Creek in April and May 2013. Month Species Size Classes (20-mm FL increments) Total 40 (20-40) 60 (40-60) 80 (60-80) 100 (80-100) 120 (100- 120) 140 (120- 140) 160 (140- 160) 180 (160- 180) >180 April Chinook 0 0 272 4 0 0 0 0 0 276 Coho 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Dolly Varden 0 1 4 11 3 0 1 0 0 20 Rainbow Trout 1 17 31 56 73 32 11 3 0 224 Total 1 19 307 71 76 32 12 3 0 521 May Chinook 0 2 161 42 0 0 0 0 0 205 Coho 0 4 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 12 Dolly Varden 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 5 Rainbow Trout 0 7 1 9 55 48 20 17 21 178 Total 0 13 169 53 57 50 20 17 21 400 In mid-May, as flows and temperature increased most salmonids were still observed in pool habitat available in the mainstem, backwater, and side channel areas of lower Grant Creek (Table E.4-48). Chinook and rainbow trout were still the most abundant fish observed in lower Grant Creek in May. There were a few Dolly Varden and coho observed. Pools in backwater areas had the highest fish density while riffles in the mainstem areas had the lowest fish density. Interestingly, riffle habitat in side channels had the second highest fish density in May. Glide habitat (non-turbulent fast water) classified in April had become turbulent and less glide-like with increased flows in May. Table E.4-48. Number and density of salmonids observed during night time snorkel surveys in lower Grant Creek in May 2013. Month Channel Habitat Species Total Total Area Sampled (m2) Fish Density (fish/100 m2) Chinook Coho Dolly Varden Rainbow Trout May Mainstem Pool 98 1 2 99 200 6,138.6 3.26 Riffle 0 0 0 2 2 1,226.3 0.16 S. Channel Pool 6 0 1 34 41 1,137.1 3.61 Riffle 7 1 0 22 30 676.1 4.44 Backwater Pool 94 10 2 21 127 1,111.4 11.43 May Total 205 12 5 178 400 10,289.5 3.89 Three different size classes of juvenile Chinook were observed in lower Grant Creek (Table E.4- 47). The 40-60 mm FL (2 fish) likely represent recent emerged age-0 fish while Chinook greater than 60 mm FL (203 fish) represent age-1 juvenile Chinook. Chinook emergence likely started in May. In May, the range in coho size was similar to Chinook but with fewer fish. Coho DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-156 March 2015 emergence may have also begun in May. Rainbow trout varied in size from about 40 mm to greater than 180 mm FL. Most (161 fish) were observed within the size classes greater than 100 mm FL. From April to May, there was an increase in the number of larger rainbow trout in lower Grant Creek. Some of the shift in abundance of larger rainbow trout might be explained by growth but it is likely that feeding and spawning opportunities were bringing larger fish into Grant Creek. The number of Dolly Varden observed from April to May decreased and there were fewer small fish observed. The low abundance of Dolly Varden observed by both snorkeling and minnow trapping in winter and early spring might suggest that the higher abundance of Dolly Varden observed later in the year might be the result of both new recruitment and immigration into lower Grant Creek. The lower incline plane trap was installed on April 30, 2013 and was in operation until October 16, 2013, and operated continuously with a few minor exceptions (KHL 2014c). Trap outages due to high flows and debris, and initial poor trap efficiency for fry sized fish complicated the estimation of abundance ((KHL 2014c). As a result, estimates of abundance represent parr sized fish and larger, which excludes sockeye. In addition to trap outages and the initial poor efficiency in capturing fry sized fish, another complicating factor hindered the trapping of juvenile fish at the incline plane trap as they migrated out of Grant Creek. Upstream of the incline plane trap, located on the left bank is a distributary that at higher flows becomes watered, and which juvenile fish can migrate downstream bypassing the incline plane trap. This channel begins to overflow at approximately 426 cfs. Because of this distributary, it was necessary to assess the need to block the juvenile migration into two periods; a period of relatively lower flow (≤ 425 cfs) when the distributary was “dry”, and a period of higher flow (≥ 426 cfs), when the distributary was “wet”. As can be seen in Table E.4-49, ample numbers of marked Chinook, coho, and Dolly Varden were released to provide a season wide estimate of trap efficiency. However, collectively only 12 sockeye were released, with no recoveries. As such, it is not possible to get an abundance estimate for sockeye in Grant Creek. Likewise, only 13 rainbow trout were marked and released, with a single recovery. For rainbow, it is also not possible to estimate Grant Creek abundance. Table E.4-49. The number of fish released and recovered by species for the two flow blocks and their corresponding trap efficiencies. Species Low Flow Condition High Flow Condition Trap Efficiency Release Recapture Release Recapture Low High Chinook 380 45 68 10 0.118 0.147 Coho 169 19 110 13 0.112 0.118 Sockeye 3 0 9 0 0.000 0.000 Dolly Varden 248 2 571 41 0.008 0.072 Rainbow Trout 8 0 5 1 0.000 0.200 DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-157 March 2015 To determine whether it was necessary to block the data into the high and low flow periods, a test of homogeneity based on a chi-square test of 1 degree freedom using a 2 x 2 contingency table was performed. The tests of homogeneity during high and low flow conditions found no difference for Chinook and coho salmon; however, there was a flow effect for Dolly Varden. Therefore, a single estimate of trap efficiency was used to estimate abundance for Chinook and coho (0.123 and 0.115, respectively), whereas two seasonal estimates of trap efficiency were used for Dolly Varden (0.008 during the low flow period, and 0.072 during the high flow period). The following table presents estimates of abundance for Chinook, coho, and Dolly Varden in Grant Creek, which represents all of Grant Creek upstream of the lower incline plane trap, including Reach 5 (Table E.4-50). Table E.4-50. The number of juvenile migrants by species captured within the lower incline plane trap, and corresponding abundance estimates and standard errors based on capture efficiencies in Grant Creek. Statistic Chinook Coho Dolly Varden Low Flow High Flow Total Observed n 577 360 296 673 Est. N 4,797.6 3,164.9 36,766.0 9,665.2 46,431.2 S.E. N 603.2 546.2 25,979.5 1,470.9 26,021.1 These values should be considered as estimates for parr sized fish only. That is, until the early part of July the incline plane trap was ineffective at catching fry sized fish (≤ 50 mm). Based on fish size and time of sampling at the lower incline plane trap it is clear that juvenile salmonids of multiple age classes over-wintered in Grant Creek (Figure E.4-37). For juvenile Chinook, most fish were in the 80 mm range beginning about May 15. These fish are yearling Chinook that have overwintered in Grant Creek. This observation is supported by snorkel surveys conducted in April and May where juvenile Chinook (age-1) were commonly observed. Later, from June to the beginning of August, there appears to be two predominant size classes of juvenile Chinook captured in the trap. The larger individuals of the migration were in the 100- 110 mm size class and represent yearling fish. The smaller individuals were around 50-80 mm, which would be consistent with sub-yearling fish. Later, in mid-August, there is a broad distribution of size for juvenile Chinook, and indicates a dominant subyearling migration with fewer yearling fish migrating out of Grant Creek. For coho salmon juveniles, very few individuals were captured in the trap until the latter part of July (Figure E.4-37). The fish that were captured earlier in the migration (end of May), however, were in the 60 mm range, and were likely over-wintering yearling fish. Later (early July through early September), coho juveniles ranged in size of 50-100 mm, and likely represent both sub- yearling and yearling fish. From these data, it appears that there were a few coho that over- wintered in Grant Creek. This observation is supported by few juvenile coho being observed during snorkel surveys in April and May. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-158 March 2015 0 50 100 150 200 5/1/2013 6/20/2013 8/9/2013 9/28/2013Length (mm)Date Chinook 0 50 100 150 200 5/1/2013 6/20/2013 8/9/2013 9/28/2013Length (mm)Date Coho 0 50 100 150 200 5/1/2013 6/20/2013 8/9/2013 9/28/2013Length (mm)Date Rainbow Trout 0 50 100 150 200 5/1/2013 6/20/2013 8/9/2013 9/28/2013Length (mm)Date Dolly Varden Figure E.4-37. The distribution of size by date for Chinook, coho, rainbow trout, and Dolly Varden captured in the lower incline plane trap, Grant Creek, Alaska 2013. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-159 March 2015 Figure E.4-38. Emigration timing for Chinook, coho, and Dolly Varden juveniles at the Lower Incline Plane Trap in Grant Creek, Alaska, 2013. Estimated or extrapolated values are highlighted red. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-160 March 2015 Trail Lake Narrows Fish and Aquatic Habitats The Trail Lake Narrows was sampled in July to assess species diversity and relative abundance. Minnow trapping, beach seining and angling were employed to describe baseline conditions in an area of potential impact associated with the installation and use of an access road into the Project area (Figure E.4-39). Minnow traps were set in 13 locations with a total fishing effort of 1,133 hours capturing 381 fish (Table E.4-51). Table E.4-51. Number of minnow traps, total effort, number of fish captured and CPUE in the Trail Lake Narrows in July 2013. Lower Grant Creek Minnow Trapping Reach Number of Traps Total Effort (days) Total Effort (hrs.) Number of Fish CPUE (fish/hr) Trail Lake Narrow 52 47.2 1,133 381 0.34 Juvenile Chinook and three-spine sticklebacks were the most numerous fish captured in minnow traps followed by coho, Dolly Varden, sculpins sp., rainbow trout and sockeye (Table E.4-52). CPUE for Chinook and coho was lower in the Trail Lake Narrows than Reaches 1-4 of Grant Creek but greater than Reach 5 of Grant Creek. CPUE for Dolly Varden and rainbow trout in the Trail Lake Narrows was less than all reaches of Grant Creek. Juvenile Chinook captured in minnow traps in July varied in size from 45-121 mm FL indicating that both age-0 and age-1 fish were present. Coho varied in size from 45-97 mm FL. The size range for coho also suggests that age-0 and age-1 fish resided in the Trail Lake Narrows. Rainbow trout varied in size from 63-71 mm FL. Dolly Varden varied in size from 57-184 mm FL, which likely represents several age classes. Table E.4-52. Number, proportion and CPUE of fish caught in the Trail Lake Narrows with minnow traps in July 2013. Lower Grant Creek Minnow Trapping Species Number Proportion CPUE (fish/hr) Chinook 108 0.283 0.095 Dolly Varden 52 0.136 0.046 Coho 62 0.163 0.055 Rainbow Trout 4 0.010 0.004 Sockeye 1 0.003 0.001 Sculpin sp. 38 0.100 0.034 Three-spine Stickleback 116 0.304 0.102 Grand Total 381 1.000 0.336 DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-163 March 2015 Beach seining was employed at night in three locations where lower velocities and small substrates were conducive to this sampling method. Juvenile Chinook were the most abundant fish captured in beach seines followed by round whitefish and sculpins (Table E.4-53). Other species made up less than five percent of the catch and no coho were captured using beach seining. Table E.4-53. Number and proportion of catch for fish seined in beach areas of the Trail Lake Narrows in July 2013. Species Abundance Proportion Chinook 100 0.58 Dolly Varden 2 0.01 Rainbow Trout 2 0.01 Sculpin sp. 27 0.16 Sockeye 4 0.02 Three-spine Stickleback 5 0.03 Round Whitefish 33 0.19 Total 173 1.00 Seven angling stations were used to capture fish within the Trail Lake Narrows area (Table E.4- 54). There was a total of 13 adult trout/char that were hooked, with five of those fish being captured (effort=1 hr/station) for a CPUE of 0.7 fish/hr; for those fish, they were measured for length and weight before release. Adult salmon, rainbow trout and Dolly Varden occur in the Trail Lakes Narrows area, which is also an upstream migration corridor for fish destined to spawn in Grant Creek and all other tributaries of upper Trail Lake. Likewise, this area is also a downstream migration corridor for salmonid production upstream. Dolly Varden and rainbow trout probably reside in the area taking advantage of juvenile salmon that migrate through or reside in this area. Juvenile Chinook were the most numerous fish captured with minnow traps and beach seines. Spawning may also occur in this area; depressions (redds) were observed in suitable spawning gravels and sockeye carcasses were recovered in the area that had not been previously sampled. The redds could only be observed after water levels had resided in October. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-164 March 2015 Table E.4-54. Angling station and number and size and weight of rainbow trout and Dolly Varden observed in July 2013. Station Species Length (mm FL) Weight (g) 1 Rainbow Trout 343 424.2 Rainbow Trout 299 241.8 Dolly Varden 180 NA Dolly Varden 160 NA Salmonid NA NA 2 Dolly Varden 240 NA Rainbow Trout 301 294.0 Salmonid NA NA 3 Salmonid NA NA Salmonid NA NA 4 Dolly Varden 268 191.0 5 No Fish - - 6 Rainbow Trout 381 523.8 Rainbow Trout 220 NA 7 No Fish - - 4.6.1.2. Instream Flow Information relating to aquatic resources has been collected during previous investigations into the potential development of hydroelectric generation on Grant Lake as well as during pre- licensing studies conducted by KHL in 2009 and early 2010. Previous licensing efforts in the 1960s and 1980s for a proposed hydroelectric project at Grant Lake included studies of fish resources in Grant Lake and Grant Creek. Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (AEIDC 1983) conducted fish sampling from 1981 to 1982 as part of a comprehensive environmental baseline study effort, and the USFWS (1961) conducted limited sampling from 1959 to 1960. An Instream Flow Study was completed in 1987 as part of a preliminary FERC License Application prepared by Kenai Hydro, Inc. (KHI; not related to the current Kenai Hydro, LLC; Envirosphere 1987, KHI 1987a, and KHI 1987b). This effort included reports and written communications between KHI and state and federal agencies in 1986 and 1987 relative to a FERC LA for the proposed Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 7633-002). Included were draft and final reports of a limited but complete Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) investigation and negotiated minimum instream flows and ramping rates (Envirosphere 1987; KHI 1987a; and KHI 1987b). The collaborative process for a study of “instream flow” effects in Grant Creek was initiated in 2009 (KHL 2010a). This effort also included preliminary habitat mapping of Grant Creek. The primary goal of the 2009 Instream Flow Study program was to establish a Technical Working Group (TWG) consisting of state and federal resource agency staff, KHL staff, and interested members of the local community. Once established, the TWG met three times during the 2009 DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-165 March 2015 study season to review the results of the 2009 aquatic baseline study efforts, discuss and agree upon an acceptable instream flow evaluation method, and request additional information to support that selection (KHL 2010a). A technical memorandum was drafted and shared with the Instream Flow TWG participants in 2009 detailing the results of the previous Instream Flow Study efforts (KHL 2009a). The approach of this study involved three primary phases. During the first phase, the team spatially-synthesized existing aquatic habitat and fish use data generated during various field efforts throughout the 2009 and 2010 field seasons. This exercise was completed primarily to identify spatial data gaps. In the second phase, the team then ground-truthed habitat data in the field, collected additional habitat and fish use data in Reaches 1 through 5, and incorporated other suitable habitat and fish use data collected in 2010 (e.g., Instream Flow Study). Finally, the team analyzed the suite of habitats and fish use data to identify important factors affecting distribution of fish. The primary tasks associated with this approach were as follows: Preparation of an office-based aquatic habitat map (i.e., based on habitat observations assembled throughout the 2009 and 2010 field seasons). Field surveys to ground-truth the office-based mapping effort and fill spatial data gaps relative to aquatic habitat and fish use in Reaches 1 through 4. Actual collection of fish habitat use information was accomplished by the resident and rearing fish tasks discussed in the Fisheries Report and the instream flow task. Incorporated aquatic habitat fish use data that identified key rearing, spawning, and feeding habitats for salmon and resident fish and potential overwintering habitats. Analyzed and identified the factors that may influence fish use of the key habitats over those habitat units not occupied by fish in Grant Creek. The office-based mapping exercise incorporated existing habitat data overlain by fish use data into a spatial format, using ArcMap© GIS software. The initial dataset included habitat units mapped during a microhabitat fish use reconnaissance study completed in June 20094. The team plotted locations of salmon spawning activity recorded during 2009 foot surveys and high-use spawning areas identified by historical data (Ebasco 1984). The teams used the preliminary spatial fish habitat information to catalog and identify gaps in coverage. The team conducted surveys to ground-truth the preliminary aquatic habitat delineation (i.e., generated through the office-based exercise), redraw mapping boundaries where appropriate, and confirm the location of habitat areas that are in need of additional study. The team delineated aquatic habitats at the mesohabitat level and subcategory scale, consistent with the approach developed for the approved 2009 habitat reconnaissance study. The team identified key fish habitats in Grant Creek, based on observed fish use. This was accomplished by analyzing the microhabitat fish use data collected in support of the habitat mapping study, data collected in support of the Instream Flow Study, and data collected in 2009 4The 2009 fish microhabitat use reconnaissance study was initiated to gain insight into the types of habitats that fish occupy in Grant Creek. The team identified discrete microhabitat types and sampled for fish presence at 16 sites in Grant Creek. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-166 March 2015 during the reconnaissance study (KHL 2010a). These data were incorporated into the spatial dataset. Other fish use habitat datasets (e.g., foot surveys, telemetry surveys, electrofishing) were considered when developing key habitat designations. Surface areas of habitat types were calculated as needed using the capability of the Geographic Information System (GIS) software. Mesohabitat types were identified and mapped in 2009/2010. The following definitions are provided for these habitat types (Overton et al. 1997, unless otherwise noted): Backwater: Pool formed by an eddy along a channel margin downstream from obstructions such as bars, rootwads, or boulders, or resulting from back-flooding upstream from an obstructional blockage. Also, a body of water, the stage of which is controlled by some feature of the channel downstream from the backwater, or in coves or covering low-lying areas and having access to the main body of water. Cover: Suspended material covering the land or water; measured as a percentage of the surface area when looking from above. o Fish: Anything that provides protection from predators or improves adverse conditions of stream flow or seasonal changes in metabolic costs. This may be overhead cover or submerged cover and it may be used for escape, feeding, hiding, or resting. o Overhead: Whitewater, surface turbulence, bank vegetation, tree branches, floating logs, or other debris touching or within 0.3 meters of the water surface. o Submerged: Large woody debris, other organic debris, ledges, or aquatic vegetation below the water surface. Fast water: Habitat types consist of turbulent (cascade, step run, high gradient riffle, and low gradient riffle) and non-turbulent (runs and glides). LWD: Large pieces of relatively stable woody material located within the bankfull channel and appearing to influence bankfull flows. These are categorized as singles, aggregates, or root wads. o Aggregate: Two or more clumped pieces, each of which qualifies as a single piece. o Rootwad: Root mass or boles attached to a log less than 3 meters in length. Pocket: Small bed depressions, often less than 30 percent of wetted width, formed around channel obstructions (boulders, logs, irregular bank, jutting peninsulas, and so forth) within fast water habitat types. Pool: A habitat type formed by either scour that has carved out a depression in the channel, or a location where the channel has been dammed. Surface velocities may be slow to fast, but subsurface velocities tend to be slow. Pools are characterized by a head crest (upstream break in slope) and a tail crest (downstream break in slope). Types of pools include the following: o Dammed: Pool formed by downstream damming action. Dam pools can be located in the main channel (or side channel) or backwaters. o Scour: Pool formed by scour action when flowing water impinges against and is diverted by a streambank or channel obstruction (rootwad, woody debris, boulder, bedrock, and so forth). Scour pools may be lateral scour, mid-scour, plunge, or underscour pools. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-167 March 2015 o Lateral scour: A pool formed by the scouring action of the flow as it is directed laterally or obliquely to one side of the stream by a partial channel obstruction, such as a gravel bar or wing deflector, or by a shift in channel direction. o Mid-channel scour: A pool formed by the scouring action of the flow as it is directed toward the middle of the channel by a partial channel obstruction. o Plunge: A pool formed by scouring action from vertically falling water. o Underscour: A pool formed by scouring under an obstruction, such as a log. Sometimes called an upsurge pool. Riffle: Shallow rapids where the water flows swiftly over completely or partially submerged obstructions to produce surface agitation, but where standing waves are absent. Side channel: A lateral channel with an axis of flow roughly parallel to the mainstem and which is fed by water from the mainstem; a braid of a river with flow appreciably lower than in the main channel. Slow water: Habitat types consist of dammed (main and backwater) and scour (lateral, mid-channel, plunge, and underscour). Stream margin: edge of the wetted perimeter. Undercut bank: A bank that has its base cut away at least 5 centimeters (cm) by the water or has been artificially made and overhangs directly above the water surface. Grant Creek consists of six reaches; however, the focus of the mapping was on Reaches 1 – 5, located below the upstream migrational barrier (Figure E.4-14). GIS maps of aquatic habitats in Grant Creek are found in Figures E.4-40 and E.4-41. There are two series of maps: the first series (Figure E.4-40) shows mesohabitats found in Reaches 1 – 5 (pools, glides, etc.); the second series (Figure E.4-41) shows aquatic habitats (undercut banks, overhead cover, etc.) in the same reaches. Table E.4-55 summarizes mesohabitats found in Grant Creek. Riffle habitats were predominant, accounting for 50 percent of all habitats. This was consistent throughout all reaches, with the exception of the secondary channel in Reach 3. Riffle habitats were followed by pools (19.3 percent) and cascades (15.3 percent). All of the cascades were found in the canyon (Reach 5). Table E.4-56 shows habitat types (stream margin, overhead vegetation, undercut banks, and LWD) found in Grant Creek. LWD was sparse in the mainstem of Grant Creek. High flows in Grant Creek move LWD downstream and eventually into the Trail Lakes. In the side channels and distributaries, where flows and velocities are much less than in the main channel, LWD is relatively abundant. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-168 March 2015 Table E.4-55. Mesohabitats found in Grant Creek. Habitat Type Total Area (Sq. Ft) Reach 1 Distributary Reach 1 MainstemReach 2 Backwater Habitat Reach 2 MainstemReach 2 Secondary Channel Reach 3 Backwater Habitat Reach 3 MainstemReach 3 Primary Side ChannelReach 3 Secondary Channel Reach 4 MainstemReach 5 MainstemBackwater 8,534 0 0 4,837 0 0 3,697 0 0 0 0 0 Cascade 33,707 0 0 0 0 114 0 0 0 0 0 33,593 Glide 3,202 0 0 0 1,613 0 0 0 0 1,588 0 0 Pocket water 3,709 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,709 0 Pool 42,568 7,495 3,143 0 3,834 398 0 3,997 5,018 9,510 1,195 7,977 Rapid 511 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 511 0 0 0 Riffle 110,429 6,004 23,168 0 23,669 1,189 0 25,585 11,672 1,493 17,649 0 Run 576 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 576 0 0 Step Pool 16,858 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16,858 Table E.4-56. Aquatic habitats found in Grant Creek. Habitat Type Total Area (Sq. Ft) Reach 1 Distributary Reach 1 MainstemReach 2 Backwater Habitat Reach 2 MainstemReach 2 Secondary Channel Reach 3 Backwater Habitat Reach 3 MainstemReach 3 Primary Side Channel Reach 3 Secondary Channel Reach 4 MainstemReach 5 MainstemMargin 7,214 0 3,343 0 3,871 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Overhead Vegetation 10,096 302 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,2455 7,339 0 0 Undercut Bank 12,187 1,513 3,372 0 2,193 0 0 278 110 1,214 3,216 0 Large Woody Debris (LWD) 17,750 3,556 1,894 0 182 0 0 1,142 1,611 6,218 3,040 0 DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-187 March 2015 4.6.1.3. Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Periphyton Aquatic macroinvertebrates and periphyton are vital elements of the food web that supports area fisheries. They represent the primary levels of productivity in the aquatic ecosystem and can be used as indicators of aquatic habitat condition (Barbour et al. 1999; Merritt and Cummins 1996). Acquiring information on the baseline characteristics of macroinvertebrate and periphyton populations provides tools for tracking aquatic habitat quality. 4.6.1.3.1 Macroinvertebrates Initial macroinvertebrate studies in Grant Creek, were conducted in 1981 and 1982 using Surber samplers (Ebasco 1984). These methods were continued, with the addition of samples collected using the Alaska Stream Condition Index (ASCI) protocols, as a part of the licensing process in 2009 (KHL 2010a). After review of the 2009 macroinvertebrate study results, stakeholders decided to eliminate the ASCI methods from the 2013 study program as fewer taxa were collected using the ASCI method compared to the Surber sampler methods (KHL 2014e). In 2009 and 2013, two sites were sampled within Grant Creek, GC100 and GC300 (Figure E.4- 5). Taxonomic data was used to calculate several descriptive population metrics: Population density as numbers/m2 Taxa richness o Overall taxa richness o Ephemeroptera taxa richness o Trichoptera taxa richness o Plecoptera taxa richness Taxonomic composition as a percent of total number identified in sample o Percent Ephemeroptera o Percent Trichoptera o Percent Plecoptera o Percent Ephemeroptera/Plecoptera/Trichoptera (EPT) o Percent Chironomidae o Percent dominant taxon Population trophic characteristics o Percent filterers o Percent gatherers o Percent predators o Percent scrapers o Percent shredders o Filterer richness o Gatherer richness o Predator richness o Scraper richness o Shredder richness Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) scores ASCI habitat assessment scores DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-188 March 2015 A combined total of 35 macroinvertebrate taxa were identified in samples collected at sites GC100 and GC300 in 2009 and 2013. They are listed in Table E.4-57. The numbers of taxa and of individual organisms within each taxa were used to calculate a series of metrics that describe the macroinvertebrate populations at each site. Table E.4-58 lists metrics describing the macroinvertebrate populations with regard to the density (number of organisms per square meter) and the variety (richness) of the taxa assemblage. With the exception of samples collected in 2009 at GC300, results appear fairly consistent between sites and years. This result was validated by studies conducted in the early 1980’s that found no seasonal variation in macroinvertebrate abundance in Grant Creek (Ebasco 1984). At GC300 in 2009 density (2,204 organisms/m2 compared to 19,282-12,034 organisms/m2), taxa richness (15 taxa compared to 19-21 taxa), Ephemeroptera taxa richness (4 taxa compared to 6 taxa), and EPT taxa richness (10 taxa compared to 12 taxa) were lower than other samples. Table E.4-59 lists percent composition metrics. Again results from samples collected at GC300 in 2009 vary noticeably from the other samples. The results reflect the fact that samples collected at GC300 in 2009 contained fewer Chironomidae (41 percent of organisms compared to 83-88 percent of organisms). Therefore, the percent of the macroinvertebrate population represented by EPT taxa was greater at GC300 in 2009 than at GC100 in 2009 or at GC100 and GC300 in 2013. The data in Table E.4-60, functional feeding group metrics, also illustrates the overall similarity in the macroinvertebrate populations between sites and years, with the exception of GC300 in 2009. Chironomidae generally fall under the category of “gatherers” and the numbers are lower at GC300 in 2009 than in the other samples (56 percent gatherers compared to 88-91 percent gatherers). Conversely, the number of organisms within functional feeding groups comprised largely of EPT taxa are higher than other samples. For example, predators comprised 8 percent at GC300 in 2009 compared to 3-4 percent in other samples and scrapers comprised 17 percent compared to 1-3 percent. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-189 March 2015 Table E.4-57. List of macroinvertebrate taxa collected at Grant Creek sampling sites GC100 and GC300, 2009 and 2013. Order Family Genus Ephemeroptera Ameletidae Ameletus Baetidae Unidentified Acentrella Baetis Ephemerellidae Drunella Ephemerella Heptegeniidae Cinygmula Epeorus Plecoptera Unidentified Chloroperlidae Unidentified Haploperla Neaviperla Plumiperla Suwallia Triznaka Nemouridae Zapada Perlodidae Unidentified Isoperla Taeniopterygidae Unidentified Trichoptera Apataniidae Moselyana Brachycentridae Brachycentrus Micrasema Glossosomatidae Glossosoma Hydropsychidae Arctopsyche Limnephilidae Ecclisomyia Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila Diptera Unidentified Chironomidae Unidentified Empididae Chelifera Clinocera Simuliidae Simullium Bivalvia (Class) Sphaeriidae Unidentified Gastropoda (class) Gastopoda Unid. Unidentified Lymnaeidae Lymnaea Planorbidae Unidentified Valvatidae Unidentified Crustacea (Phylum) Ostracoda (Class) Unidentified Arachnoidea (Class) Hydracarina (Sub-Order) Unidentified Oligochaeta (Class) Unidentified Unidentified Nemotoda (Phylum) Unidentified Unidentified Platyhelminthes (Phylum) Turbellaria (Class) Unidentified DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-190 March 2015 Table E.4-58. Grant Creek macroinvertebrate population density and taxa richness metrics, 2009 and 2013. 1,2 Sample Site Date Sample Type Density (no. / m2) Taxa Richness Ephemeroptera Taxa Richness Plecoptera Taxa Richness Trichoptera Taxa Richness EPT Taxa Richness GC100 08/06/09 Surber1 12034 (4697) 19 (0.8) 6 (0.75) 3 (0.80) 3 (0.40) 12 (0.5) GC100 08/14/13 Surber 19282 (7877) 20 (1.5) 6 (0.00) 3 (0.49) 2 (1.02) 12 (0.8) GC300 08/06/09 Surber 2204 (1764) 15 (3.1) 4 (1.36) 3 (1.33) 3 (1.60) 10 (3.4) GC300 08/14/13 Surber 12835 (3275) 21 (2.3) 6 (0.49) 3 (1.02) 3 (0.89) 12 (1.7) GC100 08/06/09 ASCI2 2740 10 4 2 1 7 GC300 08/06/09 ASCI 530 12 1 2 1 4 Notes: 1. Data reported are averages (followed by + or - standard deviation in parentheses) of five replicate Surber samples. 2. Data reported are totals for composited samples. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 191 March 2015 Table E.4-59. Grant Creek macroinvertebrate population composition by percent metrics, 2009 and 2013.1 Sample Site Date Sample Type % Ephemeroptera % Plecoptera % Trichoptera % EPT % Chironomidae % Dominant Taxa GC100 08/06/09 Surber 3.9 (2.2) 2.6 (2.1) 1.3 (0.7) 7.7 (4.8) 84.7 (7.7)84.7 (7.7)GC100 08/14/13 Surber 2.6 (0.9) 1.4 (0.6) 0.4 (0.1) 4.4 (1.4) 88.5 (3.9) 88.5 (3.9)GC300 08/06/09 Surber 18.0 (4.4) 8.9 (3.3) 4.6 (3.9) 31.5 (5.7) 41.0 (18.6) 48.4 (13.2)GC300 08/14/13 Surber 6.4 (2.4) 1.8 (0.7) 0.5 (0.2) 8.7 (2.6) 83.3 (4.8)82.3 (5.5) GC100 08/06/09 ASCI 1.40.50.2 2.113.182.9GC300 08/06/09 ASCI 1.31.60.7 3.67.577.8Notes: 1. Averages, followed by + or - standard deviation in parentheses, are of five replicate Surber samples Table E.4-60. Grant Creek macroinvertebrate functional feeding group metrics based on entire sample from each site, 2009 and 2013. Sample Site Date Sample Type % Filterers % Gatherers % Predators % Scrapers % Shredders Filterer Richness Gatherer Richness Predator Richness Scraper Richness Shredder Richness GC100 08/06/09 Surber 5 89 3 2 2 4 10 7 6 1GC100 08/14/13 Surber 5 91 3 1 1 3 8 6 5 1GC300 08/06/09 Surber 15 56 8 17 3 4 7 10 5 2GC300 08/14/13 Surber 5 88 4 3 1 3 6 5 4 0 GC100 08/06/09 ASCI 83 14 2 1 0 1 3 4 3 1GC300 08/06/09 ASCI 79 10 8 2 0 3 4 3 1 0 DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-192 March 2015 Biotic indices were developed to describe the quality of aquatic habitat based on the tolerance to disturbance of the organisms present. Each taxon is given a tolerance rating between 0 and 10, with 0 being the least tolerant. The HBI scores in Table E.4-61 continue the pattern of variance between data collected at GC300 in 2009 and the other samples. The HBI value for GC300 in 2009 was 4.71 compared to 5.60-5.81 for the other samples. Table E.4-61. Grant Creek macroinvertebrate biotic indices and habitat assessments, 2009 and 2013. Sample Site Date Sample Type Hilsenhoff Biotic Index1 ASCI Habitat Assessment2 GC100 08/06/09 Surber 5.76 GC100 08/14/13 Surber 5.81 GC300 08/06/09 Surber 4.71 GC300 08/14/13 Surber 5.60 GC100 08/06/09 ASCI 7.5 200 GC300 08/06/09 ASCI 7.1 190 Notes: 1. Scale from 0-10, with 10 indicating greatest water body impairment. 2. Scale from 0-200, with 200 indicating most impaired macroinvertebrate habitat. The metrics developed to describe macroinvertebrate populations in Grant Creek can also be used for comparison with other streams in the region. Comparison of Grant Creek macroinvertebrate metrics with the means of Cook Inlet streams reported by the USGS (Brabets et al. 1999) indicates that Grant Creek provides less optimal habitat for macroinvertebrates than other Cook Inlet streams (Table E.4-62). Grant Creek exhibits lower percent EPT, shredders, scrapers, and predators, and higher percent Diptera/Chironomidae and gatherers than the mean for other Cook Inlet streams. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-193 March 2015 Table E.4-62. Mean percent composition of the aquatic insect fauna in streams of the Cook Inlet Basin, Alaska [modified from Oswood and others (1995)] (excerpted from Brabets et al. 1999) and in Grant Creek, 2009 and 2013. Fauna Percent Composition Cook Inlet Watershed Streams Percent Composition Grant Creek, 2009 and 2013 1 Taxonomic Structure Coleoptera 0.0 NA Diptera 34.0 74.4 2 Ephemeroptera 41.3 7.7 Plecoptera 17.5 3.6 Trichoptera 7.2 1.7 Functional Group Shredders 11.6 1.8 Scrapers 11.2 5.8 Collector-filterers 6.6 7.5 Collector-gatherers 60.5 81.0 Predators 10.0 4.5 Notes: 1. Includes GC300 2009 which varies significantly from the other samples. 2. Chironomidae only. Comparison of Grant Creek metrics with riffle/run, high gradient (> 2 percent) Kenai Peninsula Pacific Coastal Mountain Ecoregion stream metrics reported by ENRI (Major et al. 2000 and 2001), also indicates that Grant Creek habitat is more stressful for macroinvertebrate populations than other streams in the region. The cumulative ASCI scores from 2009 (KHL 2010a) calculated using several core metrics fall into the “poor” range: GC100 ASCI 2009 = 18 and GC300 ASCI 2009 = 18 (Tables E.4-63 and E.4-64). Table E.4-63. Scoring thresholds for core metrics used to calculate ASCI scores (excerpted from Major et al. 2000), and Grant Creek: average of GC100 and GC300, 2009. Index Score Metric Value Grant Creek Values Stream Type Metric 6 4 2 0 RRM and RRH1 No. of Taxa >16 12-16 7-11 <6 11 No. of Ephemeroptera >4 3-4 1-2 <1 3 No. of Plecoptera >4 3-4 1-2 <1 2 No. of Trichoptera >4 3-4 1-2 <1 1 % EPT >29 20-28 10-19 <10 1.4 % Chironomidae <39 39-59 60-79 >79 10.3 % Dominant Taxon <50 49-66 67-83 <83 80.4 Notes: 1. RRM and RRH – riffle run moderate gradient and riffle run high gradient. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-194 March 2015 Table E.4-64. ASCI scores based on core metrics (excerpted from Major et al. 2000), and score for Grant Creek: average of GC100 and GC300, 2009. Maximum Score Grant Creek Score Ecoregion and Stream Type Very Good Good Poor Very Poor Pacific Coastal Mountains All Stream Types 42 >29 20-29 10-19 <10 18 Grant Creek macroinvertebrate populations reflect both the pristine water quality and challenging habitat conditions. Previous and current studies indicate that the benthic macroinvertebrate diversity is typical of cold, glacial fed streams (Ebasco 1984). These conditions result in macroinvertebrate populations comprised of taxa that have a low tolerance for water quality impairment but can also thrive where the growing season is short and streamflows variable. As a result, the most abundant taxa in Grant Creek were Chironomidae, followed by Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and clams. 4.6.1.3.2 Periphyton Periphyton (single-celled algae) are primary producers in the foodweb of stream habitats. They form an algal coating on stream substrates such as boulders and large woody debris. One way to characterize the productivity of a stream is to evaluate the periphyton population. Periphyton studies were conducted in Grant Creek in the early 1980s and concentrated on the identification of diatom taxa (Ebasco 1984). In 2009 and 2013, periphyton investigations relied on the analysis of chlorophyll a concentrations to measure productivity of algal primary producers in the Grant Lake/Grant Creek system (KHL 2010a; KHL 2014e). Periphyton chlorophyll a analysis results were translated to concentration per area (μg/cm2) reported as averages with standard deviations. Average concentrations of chlorophyll a in Grant Creek samples from 2009 and 2013 varied between years and sites (Table E.4-65). Concentrations of chlorophyll a were greater at GC100 than GC300, although the spatial variability appeared to be less in 2013 than in 2009 (5.85 and 4.4 μg/cm2 in 2013 compared to 34.79 and 12.70 μg/cm2 in 2009). Both magnitude of the concentrations measured in 2009 and their variability were greater than in 2013. Table E.4-65. Average1 concentrations of chlorophyll a from periphyton collected in Grant Creek, 2009 and 2013. Sample Site Date Chlorophyll a Concentration (μg/cm2) GC100 08/06/09 34.79 (23.76) GC100 08/14/13 5.85 (4.92) GC300 08/06/09 12.70 (9.94) GC300 08/14/13 4.4 (2.84) Notes: 1. Averages, followed by standard deviation in parentheses, are of 10 replicate samples. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-195 March 2015 4.6.2. Environmental Analysis 4.6.2.1. Fisheries Conclusions contained within this section are based on analyses conducted by KHL, and utilize fishery, hydrology and instream flow data collected during the 2013 study period. Historical Grant Creek data as well as literature based data have been integrated where necessary. Analyses include the Salmonid Effective Spawning and Incubation Analysis, Draft Report and Grant Creek Habitat Time Series Analysis, Draft Report (Appendix 4 and 5, respectively, in Grant Creek Aquatic Habitat Mapping and Instream Flow Study Additional Information, Draft Report (KHL 2014h; Attachment E-2). In addition, the methods, results and discussion of a connectivity analysis of Reach 5 is presented in sections 4.2.6, 5.2.2, and 6.2.2 of the Grant Creek Aquatic Habitat Mapping and Instream Flow Study, Final Report, respectively (KHL 2014d). 4.6.2.1.1 Potential Impacts Associated with the Construction of the Grant Lake Project Fishery related impacts associated with the construction phase of a hydroelectric plant would be relatively short-term; that is, during the actual construction phase of the Project and related facilities. For the proposed Grant Creek Project, that would include site-specific as well as stream-wide impacts. There will be five major work locations that are in relatively close proximity to Grant Creek (site-specific): near the Grant Lake outlet where an intake structure would be constructed; the return structure where Reach 5 flows will be supplemented near the upper portion of Reach 5; the powerhouse and related structures near the Reach 4/5 break; the access road near the left bank of Reach 1; and the bridge spanning the Trail Lake Narrows. For each site-specific location, the primary impacts would be stream and stream-side disturbances, which could damage riparian zones and introduce sediments into Grant Creek. Occurrences on a small scale would likely result in short-lived and unnoticeable impacts to Grant Creek. However, on a greater scale, an increase in sediments could suffocate incubating fish eggs. Given the diversity of salmonids in Grant Creek, incubation occurs year-round (Table E.4- 66). DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-196 March 2015 Table E.4-66. Grant Lake salmonid species and life history stages. SpeciesLife StageSpawningIncubation/EmergenceFry (<50mm)JuvenileSpawningIncubation/EmergenceFry (<50mm)JuvenileSpawningIncubation/EmergenceFry (<50mm)SpawningIncubation/EmergenceFry (<60mm)JuvenileAdultSpawningIncubation/EmergenceFry (<50mm)JuvenileAdultDecJan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct NovChinookCohoDolly VardenRainbowSockeye DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-197 March 2015 Vegetative and riparian zone disturbances could have a more long-lived impact due to the length of time necessary for re-vegetation to occur. However, typical impacts associated with stream- side disturbances (i.e., erosion, increased water temperatures, loss of terrestrial insect production available to feeding juvenile fish, etc.) would be unlikely to affect Grant Creek to any major degree. Given the stream-side armoring of Grant Creek, erosion is unlikely, or would be relatively minor. Also, given the local climate and the short physical length of Grant Creek, increased temperatures associated with loss of riparian habitat would likely not occur. Finally, while not studied at Grant Creek, the loss of terrestrial insect production as a juvenile salmonid food source would be minimal given the relatively small footprint of project facilities. Likely a greater risk to Grant Creek natural resources would be the introduction of pollutants associated with the construction of Project facilities. Fuels, explosives, and various construction related materials could be introduced into Grant Creek. Fish and other aquatic organisms are highly sensitive to petroleum based contaminants. Should a spill of significance occur, it could result in devastating impacts to Grant Creek biota. As such, stringent precautions and guidelines must be in place. 4.6.2.1.2 Potential Impacts Associated with the Operation of the Grant Lake Project Mid- to long-term fisheries impacts that may be expected on Grant Creek will likely be associated with the operation rather than the construction of the Grant Creek Project, and will likely be the result of altered flows rather than physical alteration of the landscape. Proposed operations will result in Grant Lake serving as a natural storage reservoir, with up to 13 feet of storage being drafted annually for the purpose of power generation. Water drafted from the lake will be transported along a tunnel extending from the lake to just east of the powerhouse, and will include a diversion structure that will allow water to be diverted into Grant Creek at the upstream end of Reach 5 for the purpose of regulating flows within that section of Grant Creek. A surge chamber and penstock will be located at the west end of the tunnel, which will flow into the powerhouse. The powerhouse will consist of two symmetrically-sized Francis turbines with a capacity of 385 cfs and an output of approximately 5 MW. Powerhouse outflow will be discharged into a detention pond for the purpose of “buffering” flows returning to Grant Creek; as such it will be possible to regulate sudden and drastic flow increases or decreases. The tailrace channel, the channel between the detention pond and Grant Creek, will discharge into Grant Creek near the Reach 4/5 break. A more detailed discussion regarding the proposed Project can be found in Section 2.1 of this Exhibit E. Reach 5 Flows, Connectivity, Spawning, Incubation and Juvenile Rearing The flow regime, as proposed, would generally decrease flows within Reach 5 year-round with a baseline flow of 5 cfs. During anadromous spawning, flows will be increased somewhat; during the Chinook spawning period (August 1 to September 7), flows will increase to 10 cfs. During the period of September 8 to October 31, flows will be maintained at 7 cfs for sockeye and coho spawning. For Dolly Varden char, which are fall spawners, flows will vary during the spawning period, and will range between 5 and 10 cfs during the August 15 to November 15 period. For DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-198 March 2015 rainbow trout, which spawn typically from mid-May to the end of June, flows will be 5 cfs and will be maintained at that level or higher until emergence in the fall. Based on the 2013 Aquatic Habitat Mapping and Instream Flow Study (KHL 2014d) and subsequent analyses, flows of 10 cfs provide connectivity into Reach 5 for sockeye and coho, flows of 22 cfs provide connectivity for Chinook, and for resident species, connectivity is provided at 5 cfs (i.e., rainbow trout and Dolly Varden). Connectivity is based on the depth along key transects in an area of interest, and the method of analysis is commonly referred to as the Oregon Method (Thompson 1972). Within Reach 5, two transects (T510 and T520), represent areas of sensitivity. In order to provide connectivity to an upstream area, depths must meet two criteria: achieve a species specific depth spanning 25 percent of the overall transect width; and achieve a species specific depth spanning 10 percent continuous coverage of the overall transect width. For Chinook, the required depth is 0.80 feet; for sockeye and coho, the depth is 0.60 feet; and for resident species (rainbow and Dolly Varden), the depth is 0.40 feet. Detailed discussions regarding the methods used in this analysis and results can be found in Section 4.6.2.2 of this Exhibit E. No analyses were conducted specific to Reach 5 assessing spawning, incubation or juvenile rearing. The reasons being that for spawning, suitable spawning habitat was not associated with the two transects located within Reach 5 (T510 and T520). Therefore, it was not possible to conduct such an analysis. As for incubation and juvenile rearing, Reach 5 transects are included in the overall assessments of those life history components for Grant Creek. It should be noted however, that Reach 5 is a high gradient segment of Grant Creek (average of 6.4 percent; KHL 2014a) with minimal anadromous spawning. In 2013, no Chinook were observed spawning within Reach 5 and with only three sockeye and two coho redds documented. Collectively, the five redds observed in Reach 5 in 2013 only represented 1.3 percent of the total redds documented in all of Grant Creek (n = 388). Furthermore, it appears based on minnow trapping, snorkeling, and incline plane trap results, use of Reach 5 by juvenile salmonids is minimal (4.6.1.1.3). Finally, during spawning, flows in a typical water year will be at 10 cfs, and will later decrease to 5 cfs during incubation. Given that flows at a depth of 0.10 feet and greater are commonly used to model safe incubating conditions (KHL 2014h; Attachment E-2), adverse impacts to incubating embryo is unlikely with a 5 cfs decrease. Likewise, the overall loss of juvenile rearing habitat would be minimal. Reaches 1 through 4 Spawning, Incubation, and Juvenile Rearing At the request of the Instream Flow Subgroup (IFSG), which convened following the 2013 Grant Creek research period, KHL conducted a habitat time series analysis for all resident and anadromous salmonids within Grant Creek. Using RHABSIM, a series of Weighted Usable Area (WUA) curves were developed for all salmonid spawning and rearing life history stages. The analysis used daily WUA values, Grant Creek periodicity of salmonid life history within Grant Creek, and the synthesized 66-year flow record to calculate pre- and post-Project conditions; the results were then averaged to assess impacts to spawning. A detailed description of the analysis can be found in KHL (2014i). DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-199 March 2015 For Chinook, the post-Project WUA available for spawning was 99.5 percent of the pre-Project WUA. For Chinook fry, the available post-Project rearing WUA was 96.9 percent of pre-Project conditions, and for Chinook juveniles, the post-Project WUA was 100.2 percent. For coho, the post-Project WUA available for spawning, fry rearing, and juvenile rearing were 100.0, 99.0, and 99.2 percent of the pre-Project WUA condition. For sockeye, the post-Project WUA available for spawning was 99.0 percent of the pre-Project conditions, and ranged between 98.0 and 100.1 percent. Since sockeye fry migrate out of natal streams shortly after emergence, no estimates of WUA are available for those life stages. For Dolly Varden, the post-Project WUA available for spawning, fry rearing, juvenile rearing, and adult rearing were 100.3, 98.9, 102.9, and 96.5 percent of the pre-Project WUA condition. For rainbow trout, the post-Project WUA available for spawning, fry rearing, juvenile rearing, and adult rearing were 98.7, 101.4, 99.3, and 94.2 percent of the pre-Project WUA condition. Overall, for all species and life stages, the average post-Project WUA was 99.75 percent of the pre-Project WUA. Table E.4-67 summarizes the results of the Grant Creek habitat time series analysis. Table E.4-67. Results of the Grant Creek habitat time series analysis (KHL 2014h; Attachment E-2), which depicts the post-Project WUA relative to the pre-Project conditions for anadromous and resident salmonids by life stage. Species Percent Spawning Fry Rearing Juvenile Rearing Adult Rearing Chinook 99.5 96.9 100.2 --- Coho 100.0 99.0 99.2 --- Sockeye 99.0 --- --- --- Dolly Varden 100.3 98.9 102.9 96.5 Rainbow Trout 98.7 101.4 99.3 94.2 Trail Lake Narrows Impacts associated with the operation of the Project are not anticipated within the Trail Lake Narrows. Generally, Grant Creek flows will increase somewhat during winter and early spring, and will decrease during periods of historically high flows. These alterations in flow are relatively minor relative to the amount of water passing through the Narrows from Upper Trail Lake. Therefore, Grant Creek flow alterations should have little if any impact on the Trail Lake Narrows downstream of the proposed bridge site. A greater potential for impact comes from the construction, use and maintenance of an access bridge across the Trail Lake Narrows downstream of the Grant Creek confluence. During construction, there is the potential for shoreline disturbances which could result in sediment issues at the localized site. Furthermore, during construction, various pollutants could enter the Narrows and impact fish rearing downstream of that location. Finally, during the period of DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-200 March 2015 August through November, a number of sockeye and coho spawners were observed at the location where the proposed bridge would span the Trail Lake Narrows. As such, construction activities could impact fish spawning at that location, and fish migrating past that location to reach upstream spawning locales. Once completed, bridge maintenance (e.g., ice removal) could have an impact on fish utilizing the area downstream of the bridge location. More specifically, the application of chemical materials used to melt ice has the potential to enter the Narrows and impact incubating eggs. While a remote possibility, it is a concern that can be alleviated by using mechanical means to remove snow and ice on the access bridge. Global Issues In addition to the specific issues discussed above, the operation of the proposed Project could result in more general or global impacts to Grant Creek fisheries; more specifically, ramping rates of the powerhouse discharge, an alteration in Grant Creek water temperatures, and the loss of sediment transport within Grant Creek. For more details regarding the measures outlined below, see Section 4.6.3 of this Exhibit E. Ramping Rates The rate in which Project flows are ramped up, and especially decreased can result in stranding and mortality of juvenile salmonids. Stranding has the potential to isolate fish in areas of the river channel where predators or increased water temperatures can cause mortality. Typically, smaller juvenile fish are the most vulnerable to potential stranding due to their habitat preference and poor swimming ability. The incidence of stranding for juvenile fish is affected by river channel configuration, time of day, substrate type, and water temperature among other factors. At this time, ramping rates have not been proposed by either the stakeholders or during the development of the initial operating guidelines. As such, guidelines will be developed in consultation with the stakeholders. Temperature Variances The depth of the intake structure within Grant Lake, and therefore the depth of where water is drawn for power generation could potentially have a large impact on Grant Creek biota, and in particular Grant Creek fishery resources. During periods of ice cover, Grant Lake water becomes increasingly warmer with depth, but is relatively stable and near the surface is similar to Grant Creek water temperatures. During ice free conditions, the opposite is true with warmer temperatures near the surface. The greatest differential between surface and bottom water temperatures occurs during the period of August to mid-September. Furthermore, during ice-free conditions, water at a depth of approximately 1.5 meters approximates temperatures within Grant Creek (KHL 2014b). A change in water temperature as small as 2° C can affect the rate of egg development during the incubation period, and therefore, effect the time of hatching and emergence of fry (Scannell 1992). Accelerated development leading to early emergence can have several disadvantages DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-201 March 2015 such as decreased foraging ability or emergence before suitable prey species are available and increased susceptibility to predation (Scannell 1992). As such, a variable-depth intake structure will be incorporated into the final design so that Grant Creek water temperatures can be regulated to conform to pre-Project conditions. Sediment Transport Transport of sediment within Grant Creek comes from two primary transport characteristics; suspended sediment and bedload sediment. The primary source of suspended sediment is the glacial headwaters of Grant Lake, but occurs at a relatively low level since most of the suspended sediment settles within Grant Lake. Also, of the suspended sediment that does enter Grant Creek, little settles within the creek due to the high gradient (KHL 2014a). The primary source of bedload sediment within Grant Creek comes from Reaches 5 and 6, and is extremely limited (KHL 2014a). The bedload supply comes mainly from rock fall events within the canyon and in order for the bedload supply to mobilize, large hydrological events must occur. As such, a reduction in Reach 5 flows associated with the operation of the proposed Grant Creek Project will result in less gravel recruitment to lower reaches of Grant Creek. A reduction in gravel recruitment to Grant Creek is likely to diminish the quantity and quality of spawning habitat in Grant Creek (KHL 2014a). As discussed in KHL (2014a), these impacts are likely to occur incrementally over time, and are typically measured in years and decades as the result of flow bypassed around the canyon reach. To offset these impacts, a mitigation plan that likely includes gravel augmentation and maintenance flows through the canyon reach will be explored with stakeholders. 4.6.2.2. Aquatic Habitat and Instream Flow As part of the Instream Flow Study, and at the request of the TWG, a sampling event was conducted June 23–25, 2009 on Grant Creek to characterize the types of aquatic habitats used by resident fish and rearing fish (KHL 2010a). Aquatic habitat was described at each sample site by recording macro-, meso-, and micro-habitat characteristics. During the June sampling event, snorkeling was the primary method used to document fish presence. Electrofishing was used primarily to confirm species identification and calibrate fish length estimates (KHL 2010a). Collaboratively, the TWG and KHL decided to select an Instream Flow Study methodology based on the knowledge obtained from the summer 2009 aquatic resources and hydrology studies (KHL 2010a). Data and analyses from these studies were shared with the TWG in July and September. Based on the knowledge gained of Grant Creek’s fish and hydrologic resources, KHL presented a proposed instream flow approach to the TWG on September 23, 2009 (KHL 2010a). Physical stream data required for instream flow modeling, per the proposed approach, were collected at 18 transects during low- and mid-flow conditions in 2010 (Figure E.4-42). Where applicable, these data were used in the 2013 Instream Flow Study (KHL 2014d). DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-202 March 2015 Together with existing information, the goals of the study efforts were to provide baseline information, and where applicable, information on alternative flow regimes, which would allow an assessment in the study report of potential Project impacts on aquatic resources. These impact assessments are used to identify potential PM&E measures. The purposes of this study were to fully delineate and map the aquatic habitats available in Grant Creek, identify important spawning and rearing fish habitats for both resident and anadromous salmonids, and describe the distinguishing factors that may influence fish use of the key habitats over those habitat units not occupied by fish in Grant Creek. The goals of this suite of studies were to provide supporting information on the potential resource impacts of the proposed Project that were identified during development of the PAD, public comment, and FERC scoping for the license application, as follows: Impact of Project operation on sediment transport (relative to the availability of spawning gravels) due to changes in flow in Grant Creek. Impact of Project operation (fluctuating lake levels in Grant Lake, changes in seasonal flow in Grant Creek, reduced flows between the dam and powerhouse on Grant Creek). This work was completed in 2013 and presented in KHL (2014d). The results of these investigations are presented below. %2 %2 %2 %2 %2 %2 %2 %2 %2 %2 %2 %2 %2 %2 %2 %2 %2 %2 %2 %2 2 5 4 3 1 Developed For: Drawing Scale: GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - FERC PROJECT NO. 13212 LICENSE APPLICATIONFigure E.4-42Grant Creek Instream Flow Transect Locations ±THE SONNA BUILDING910 MAIN ST. SUITE 258BOISE, ID 83702 OFFICE: 208.342.4214FAX: 208.342.4216 REV DESCRIPTIONBYDATE SCALE: DRAWING ISSUED DATE CHECKED DRAWN DESIGNED 0 190 38095 Feet 11/13/2014 J. Woodbury J. Woodbury J. Blum 1:2,000 G r a n t C r e e k MAP NOTES: 1. THIS MAP WAS DEVELOPED FOR KENAI HYDRO, LLC AS PART OF THE GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (FERC NO. 13212), LICENSE APPLICATION. THE LOCATIONS OF PROJECT FEATURES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND ARE SHOWN FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. 2. THIS MAP WAS DEVELOPED FROM THE FOLLOWING RESOURCES: A. AERIAL IMAGERY DEVELOPED BY USFS. B. GRANT CREEK BOUNDARY WAS DEVELOPED BY ERM, INC 2009. D. TRANSECT LOCATIONS DEVELOPED BY HDR, 2010. 3. THIS MAP PRESENTS DATA IN THE FOLLOWING GEOGRAHIC SYSTEMS: - HORIZONTAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983 (NAD 83) - VERTICAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 1988 (NAVD 88) - PROJECTION: ALASKA 4 FIPS 5004 FEET STATE PLANE Legend %2 Transect Locations Reach BreaksGrant Creek Sections Grant Creek Mainstem Reach 1 Distributary Reach 2/3 Side Channels Grant Creek T 100 T 110 T 120 T 130 T 140 T 150 T 160 T 230 T 200 T 210 T 220 T 240 T 320 T 310 T 300 T 400 T 330 T 340 T 410 T 430 T 510 T 520 DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-205 March 2015 4.6.2.2.1 Habitat Mapping and Results The specific goals of the aquatic habitat mapping were as follows: Prepare a geospatially referenced image of Grant Creek upon which aquatic habitat and fish use information can be superimposed. Develop a map of aquatic habitats that will provide a basis for describing the distribution of key habitat types. Identify important factors that influence fish use of key habitats for input to the instream flow analysis. Identify and map habitat with sufficient resolution so that GIS can be used to accurately calculate surface areas. As shown in Figure E.4-41, Grant Creek below the powerhouse consists of a main channel, several side channels, two low-velocity lobes (T200 and T300), a backwater channel (T210 and T230), a high flow overflow channel (when flows are approximately 450 cfs), and a distributary in Reach 1. The Reach 1 distributary has a barrier at its confluence with Grant Creek, consisting of rubble and large woody debris. This distributary does not get wetted until approximately 180 cfs (T100 and T110); when water is provided to this distributary, rearing and spawning habitat increase significantly. The side channels in Reaches 2 and 3 are wetted at all flows; however, the smaller side channels may be frozen over in winter at low flows and temperatures. These side channels provide a large proportion of the rearing habitat in Grant Creek. The two low-velocity lobes provide excellent rearing habitat; the side lobe in Reach 3 also provides good spawning habitat. The high flow overflow channel is wetted at flows of approximately 450 cfs and higher. These flows provide connectivity down to the Trail Lakes; when flows drop below 450 cfs, fish are stranded, connectivity vanishes and production is lost from the system. 4.6.2.2.2 Instream Flow The Grant Creek Instream Flow Study approach to be applied to lower Grant Creek Reaches 1–4 was collaboratively developed based on input from the Instream Flow TWG. Public meetings of the TWG were held in April and September 2009, and a conference call was held in May 2009; input and suggestions were solicited during these meetings and also through e-mail and phone communications with the TWG and TWG members. Subsequently, KHL met with the stakeholders in December 2012 to update study plans and to prepare for the 2013 field season. As agreed to during the previous 2010 investigations, the selected Instream Flow Study approach emphasized a detailed study of utilized habitat types and addressed the desire of the TWG to examine how important individual habitat units may be affected by changes in flow due to the operation of the Project. Rather than applying a typical habitat study that generalized mesohabitat units in a study reach, the agreed-upon approach used several techniques to tie physical microhabitat to flow and timing, and applied in situ knowledge of fish habitat use in Grant Creek as tools to determine potential effects of the Project. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-206 March 2015 The selected approach included the following: A series of single transect analyses, with each transect going through a known fish use area such as high-use spawning or rearing areas. Fish studies that helped identify microhabitat factors that affected fish use within each key habitat type. Monitoring temperature and flows at multiple locations in Grant Creek in conjunction with the Water Resources study program to establish baseline stream flow and temperature changes. The 2013 Instream Flow Study built upon the investigations that began in 2009. Further detail of the methods used in the Instream Flow study can be found in KHL (2013b). The instream flow methodology is based on the premise that stream-dwelling fish are more often found in a certain range of depths, velocities, substrates, and cover types, depending upon the species and life stage, and that the availability of these preferred habitat conditions varies with stream flow. Physical Habitat Simulation (PHABSIM) is designed to quantify potential physical habitat available for each target fish species and life stage of interest, at various levels of stream discharge, using a series of modeling programs initially developed by the USFWS. Major components of the methodology include 1) study site and transect selection; 2) transect weighting; 3) field collection of hydraulic data; 4) hydraulic simulation to determine the spatial distribution of combinations of depths and velocities with respect to substrate and cover under a variety of discharges; and (5) habitat simulation, using habitat suitability criteria (HSC) to generate an index of change in habitat relative to change in discharge. The product of the habitat simulation is expressed as WUA for a range of simulated stream discharges. It is important to recognize that the product of an instream flow analysis is not a set value, but rather is a range of values to be used as a tool for discussing and determining a range of stream flows that will meet the needs of the affected resources. The Grant Creek Aquatic Habitat Mapping and Instream Flow Study Addendum Information, Draft Report (Attachment E-2), was the primary document utilized to summarize the analysis below. At the time of development, that document was consistent with the latest operational and infrastructural regime developments. Since, additional refinements have been made to infrastructure and operations, the most pertinent being a modification of generating units from a 1 MW and a 4 MW generating unit to two synonymous 2.5 MW units. No significant impacts (positive or negative) result from an habitat perspective with the exception of the months of March and April during which, additional flow down the Grant Creek channel will actually increase habitat values in the mainstem and side channels. Given that these refinements took place after development of the Grant Creek Aquatic Habitat Mapping and Instream Flow Study Addendum Information, Draft Report, the most current description and analysis in this regard is described in this section. Specific Goals The specific goals of the Instream Flow study were as follows: DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-207 March 2015 Assist impact analysis by modeling changes in key types of fish habitat relative to potential changes in stream flow. Provide a basis for planning Project instream flow mitigation measures. Provide a starting point for stream flow discussion. Provide supportable predictions of fish habitat availability in lower Grant Creek under various stream flow scenarios for key species and life history stages. Assess connectivity of the habitats present in Reach 5 (i.e., the canyon reach) to determine if reductions in stream flow in this reach potentially affect habitat connectivity. Habitat Availability and Transect Selection The habitat mapping, along with known fish utilization in Grant Creek, was used to select transects for Instream Flow modeling. The purpose of the habitat availability component of the Instream Flow Study was to measure available habitat at proposed mesohabitat sites as a function of discharge (Table E.4-68). Available habitat was correlated to results of the habitat utilization. This information was cross-referenced with historic hydrographs, recent hydrologic data, and potential flow scenarios in Grant Creek to determine discrete time periods when the habitat unit may be available for its designated use. Cross section geometry, substrate, cover, and hydraulic data were measured at each transect using techniques developed for PHABSIM. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-208 March 2015 Table E.4-68. Mesohabitat assessment sites (revised from KHL 2010c). Transect Channel Type Fish Habitat Site Notes 100 Rearing Distributary R1FH11 Linear transect, slow water 110 Rearing Distributary R1FH12 Linear transect, slow water, LWD 120 Spawning Riffle Spawning riffle 130 Rearing Main R1FH05 Main channel fast water, Side channel, small mid channel bar, vegetated, LWD upstream 140 Rearing Main R1FH05 Main channel fast water, Side channel, small mid channel bar, vegetated, LWD upstream 150 Rearing Main R1FH13 Woody debris, left bank (LB), fast water main channel 160 Rearing Main R1FH13 Woody debris, LB, fast water main channel 200 Rearing Main R1FH06 Backwater lobe 210 Rearing Secondary R2FH10 Small tertiary channel 220 Rearing Main R2FH10 Main channel, fast water, right bank (RB) undercut bank 230 Rearing Main/ Secondary R2FH10 Main channel, fast water, undercut bank on RB, surveyed across island to backwater pool 300 Rearing Main Backwater lobe 310 Spawning Main R2FH10 Backwater, low velocities, main channel, fast and deep 320 Rearing Secondary R3FH09 LWD, Secondary channel and spawning 330 Rearing Secondary/Tertiary R3FH09 LWD, Secondary channel, spawning and Tertiary channel 400 Rearing Main R3FH16 Small side channel, cobble/gravel bar - no vegetation, very deep undercut bank 410 Rearing Main R3FH16 Small side channel, cobble/gravel bar - no vegetation 430 Spawning Main R5FH15 Pool, deep fast, LWD upstream, shallow slow margin shelf Channel Type Count Percent Rearing Distributary 2.0 11.1 Rearing Secondary/Tertiary 3.5 19.4 Spawning Main 3.0 16.7 Rearing Main 9.5 52.8 Total 18.0 Calibration Flows When possible, up to five sets of stage/discharge data were collected at each transect. These measurements were in addition to two sets of stage/discharge measurements taken in 2010. In some instances, distributary or side channel transects were either dry or still frozen, precluding some measurements. Additional WSE measurements were taken in these two areas at a Grant Creek flow of approximately 440 cfs. Due to channel changes at Transect 330, a new calibration measurement was also taken at this flow. WSEs at each transect were collected at a very high flow (approximately 700 cfs, as measured by an Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler [ADCP]). These flows and a WSE at each transect were used to generate the stage-discharge relationships. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-209 March 2015 The calibration flows are shown in Table E.4-69 for Grant Creek mainstem, side channels and distributary. Figures E.4-41 and E.4-42 show the locations of these transects, as well as the main channel, side channels, and Reach 1 distributary. Table E.4-69. Calibration flows, Grant Creek (as measured in the mainstem). Area Measured Flows (cfs) 17 64 132 182 440 700 Main Channel Distributary Dry/Frozen Dry Dry Reach 3 Side Channels Frozen Flow Partitioning As shown in Figure E.4-42, Grant Creek below the powerhouse consists of a main channel, several side channels, two low-velocity lobes (T200 and T300), a backwater channel (T210 and T230), a high flow overflow channel (when flows are approximately 450 cfs), and a distributary in Reach 1 that does not get wetted until approximately 190 cfs (T100 and T110). The Figure E.4-41 map series also shows these features. The side channels in Reaches 2 and 3 are wetted at all flows; however, the smaller side channels may be frozen over in winter at low flows and temperatures. All of these channels affect flow at some of the Grant Creek measured transects. KHL ran regression analyses in order to partition the flow appropriately for the PHABSIM model. Table E.4-70 summarizes the calculated partitioning of flow for each area of Grant Creek; Table E.4-71 presents the table of flows used for the PHABSIM analysis. Table E.4-70. Calculations of flow in side channels, lobes, and tributaries, as related to the Grant Creek flow. 1 Transect % Flow r2 Comments T100/110 0.99% 0.951 Dry at flows < 190 cfs Overflow Channel ~ 1.70% N/A Activates at ~ 450 cfs; affects Reach 1 main channel transects T200 8.94% N/A % of main channel at calibration measurement T210/230 Side Channel (SC) 0.00% N/A Backwater with no velocity; WSE is dependent upon T200 T300 1.71% N/A % of main channel at calibration measurement T310 GC-T330 N/A All Reach 2/3 side channels flow represented by T330 T320 15.81% 0.990 T330-M 15.06% 0.986 Main Channel of T330 T330-2nd 0.0844 T330-M 0.934 Secondary channel; percent of T330-M flow T330-3rd 0.0219 T330-M 0.839 Tertiary channel; percent of T330-M flow Notes: 1 Flow from Grant Creek stream gage unless otherwise noted. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-210 March 2015 Table E.4-71. Flow portioning in Grant Creek for PHABSIM study. Reach 2/41 T100/110 T200 T300 T310 T320 T330- MC T330-2 T330-3 Reach 12 10 0.89 0.17 8.33 1.58 1.51 0.13 0.03 10 20 1.79 0.34 16.67 3.16 3.01 0.25 0.07 20 30 2.68 0.51 25.00 4.74 4.52 0.38 0.10 30 40 3.57 0.68 33.33 6.33 6.03 0.51 0.13 40 50 4.47 0.85 41.67 7.91 7.53 0.64 0.16 50 60 5.36 1.02 50.00 9.49 9.04 0.76 0.20 60 70 6.26 1.19 58.33 11.07 10.54 0.89 0.23 70 80 7.15 1.36 66.67 12.65 12.05 1.02 0.26 80 90 8.04 1.53 75.00 14.23 13.56 1.15 0.30 90 100 8.94 1.71 83.33 15.81 15.06 1.27 0.33 100 110 9.83 1.88 91.67 17.40 16.57 1.40 0.36 110 120 10.72 2.05 100.00 18.98 18.08 1.53 0.40 120 130 11.62 2.22 108.33 20.56 19.58 1.65 0.43 130 140 12.51 2.39 116.67 22.14 21.09 1.78 0.46 140 150 13.40 2.56 125.00 23.72 22.60 1.91 0.49 150 160 14.30 2.73 133.33 25.30 24.10 2.04 0.53 160 170 15.19 2.90 141.67 26.88 25.61 2.16 0.56 170 180 16.08 3.07 150.00 28.46 27.12 2.29 0.59 180 190 1.89 16.98 3.24 158.33 30.05 28.62 2.42 0.63 190 200 1.99 17.87 3.41 166.67 31.63 30.13 2.54 0.66 200 225 2.24 20.11 3.84 187.50 35.58 33.89 2.86 0.74 225 250 2.49 22.34 4.26 208.33 39.53 37.66 3.18 0.82 250 275 2.74 24.57 4.69 229.17 43.49 41.43 3.50 0.91 275 300 2.99 26.81 5.12 250.00 47.44 45.19 3.82 0.99 300 325 3.23 29.04 5.54 270.83 51.39 48.96 4.14 1.07 325 350 3.48 31.28 5.97 291.67 55.35 52.72 4.45 1.15 350 375 3.73 33.51 6.40 312.50 59.30 56.49 4.77 1.24 375 400 3.98 35.74 6.82 333.34 63.25 60.26 5.09 1.32 400 450 4.48 40.21 7.67 375.00 71.16 67.79 5.73 1.48 449 500 4.98 44.68 8.53 416.67 79.07 75.32 6.36 1.65 497 550 5.47 49.15 9.38 458.34 86.98 82.85 7.00 1.81 545 600 5.97 53.61 10.23 500.00 94.88 90.38 7.63 1.98 592 650 6.47 58.08 11.09 541.67 102.79 97.92 8.27 2.14 640 700 6.97 62.55 11.94 583.34 110.70 105.45 8.91 2.31 688 750 7.46 67.02 12.79 625.00 118.60 112.98 9.54 2.47 736 800 7.96 71.49 13.64 666.67 126.51 120.51 10.18 2.64 784 850 8.46 75.95 14.50 708.34 134.42 128.05 10.82 2.80 831 900 8.96 80.42 15.35 750.00 142.32 135.58 11.45 2.97 879 950 9.46 84.89 16.20 791.67 150.23 143.11 12.09 3.13 927 1000 9.95 89.36 17.06 833.34 158.14 150.64 12.72 3.30 975 Notes: 1 Transects 220, 230 (Main Channel), 400, 410, and 430. 2 Transects 120, 130, 140, 150, and 160. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-211 March 2015 Output from the hydraulic models was then used to determine changes in the Grant Creek water depths, velocities, surface area, and fish habitat throughout a range of flows from 10 cfs to 1,000 cfs, depending on individual study site. The results of the model runs were then combined to produce WUA over the entire range of flows of interest. Grant Lake Target Species and Periodicity Table E.4-72 summarizes the salmonid species and life history stages that were modeled in the Grant Lake Instream Flow Study. Table E.4-73 shows the life history stages that were modeled at each transect. Rearing life history stages were modeled at each transect. Some transects, however, lacked either velocity or suitable substrate for spawning; these transects were excluded from the analysis. Table E.4-74 presents Grant Lake salmonid periodicity. The periodicity for each of the species and life history stages were reviewed and approved by the IFSG during conference calls held between April and July 2014. Table E.4-72. Salmonid species and life history stages to be modeled in the Grant Creek Instream Flow Study. Species Spawning Fry Rearing Juvenile Rearing Adult Rearing Sockeye Salmon Coho Salmon Chinook Salmon Rainbow Trout Dolly Varden Char DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-212 March 2015 Table E.4-73. Life history stages modeled at each Grant Creek transect. Life History Stage Transect Spawning Rearing 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 200 2101/ 220 230-MC 230-SC1/ 300 310 320 330-MC 330-SC 330-TC 400 410 430 Notes: 1 Backwater DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-213 March 2015 Table E.4-74. Grant Lake salmonid species and life history stages. SpeciesLife StageSpawningIncubation/EmergenceFry (<50mm)JuvenileSpawningIncubation/EmergenceFry (<50mm)JuvenileSpawningIncubation/EmergenceFry (<50mm)SpawningIncubation/EmergenceFry (<60mm)JuvenileAdultSpawningIncubation/EmergenceFry (<50mm)JuvenileAdultChinookCohoDolly VardenRainbowSockeyeDecJan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-214 March 2015 Habitat Suitability Curves The purpose of the habitat utilization component of the Instream Flow Study was to determine which meso- and microhabitat factors the fish in Grant Creek occupied to assess the impacts, if any, the Project would have on instream habitat. To maximize the knowledge of habitat selection factors for fish in Grant Creek, observations were made at the locations of transects and fish habitat sites. In 2013, measurements of 99 spawning pairs of sockeye salmon were taken at flows ranging from 338 cfs – 469 cfs in the mainstem and 28 cfs – 74 cfs in the side channels. Measurements of 47 coho salmon spawning pairs were taken at flows ranging from 169 cfs – 285 cfs; however, all but four of the observed coho spawning occurred at flows ranging from 169 cfs – 179 cfs. For this reason, KHL extended the probability of use curves to reflect the upper end of optimum utilization (i.e., value of 1.0) in the Cooper Creek curves. Only three Chinook salmon pairs were observed spawning; these were discarded and literature-based curves were used. Information relating to site-specific HSC was developed from these data and used in combination with HSC curves available in the existing literature and professional judgment to determine final HSC curves to be used in modeling. Development of final HSC curves was pursued as a collaborative effort with the Aquatics Resource Work Group (ARWG), which has been established to review aquatic data in 2014. HSC curves were combined with the transect measurements and mesohabitat characterizations to model changes in habitat as a function of discharge. Methods for normalizing values for HSC curves, using habitat utilization and habitat availability, are described in WDFW/WDOE (2013). HSC curves are found in KHL (2014d), Appendix 2. Habitat utilization data are covered extensively in KHL (2014d). Transect Weighting After collaboration, the IFSG recommended that instead of prioritizing species and transects based upon utilization, transects be weighted by the proportion of the habitat that each transect represented. In addition, the IFSG recommended that the HSC curves be processed through the Instream Flow model to produce WUAs for all species and life history stages. KHL (2014i), Appendix 2, includes the Final Transect Weighting report. Table E.4-73 shows the species and life history stages that were modeled for Grant Creek. Table E.4-75 summarizes final transect and reach weighting. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-215 March 2015 Table E.4-75. Summary of transect and reach weighting. Reach Transect Length (ft) 1 - Distributary 100 169 110 227 Total 396 1 - Main Channel 120 256 130 167 140 102 150 118 160 49 Total 692 2 - Main Channel 200 51 210 22 220 405 230-M1/ 283 230-BW2/ 58 Total 820 3 - Main Channel 300 90 310 718 Total 808 2/3 Side Channels 320 669 330 810 Total 1,479 4 - Main Channel 400 146 410 297 430 25 Total 468 Total Distributary 396 Main Channel 2,788 Side Channel 1,479 Total 4,663 Hydrology Proposed Engineering/Operations Proposed operations of the Project are summarized in Table E.4-76. KHL proposes a bypass pipe to release required environmental flows when the lake is drawn down below the natural outlet level. The bypass would discharge into Grant Creek near the Reach 5-6 break. In summary, minimum instream flows would be released into Reach 5 are as follows: DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-216 March 2015 5 cfs release from January 1 – July 31, and November 1 – December 31 10 cfs release from August 1 through the first week in September 7 cfs from the second week of September through October 31 Table E.4-76 summarizes instream flow releases, pre- and with-Project power production flows, pre- and with-Project flows through the mainstem Grant Creek as well as the Reach 2/3 side channels, and salmonid species and life history stage periodicity. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-217 March 2015 Table E.4-76. Proposed Grant Creek engineering flows and salmonid species and life history periodicity. StageSpeciesChinookCohoSockeyeD.VardenRainbowChinookCohoSockeyeD.VardenRainbowChinookCohoSockeyeD.VardenRainbowChinookCohoSockeyeD.VardenRainbowD.VardenRainbowMaximum Flow (cfs)20% ExceedanceAverage FlowMedian Flow80% ExceedanceMinimum Flow2.5 MW Unit (192.5 cfs)2.5 MW Unit (192.5 cfs)5555555555555555555555555555101010101077777775555555555 51 51 52 47 45 41 39 36 34 32 31 30 31 35 45 69 101 152 227 318 382 431 483 494 517 507 496 484 469 440 402 379 347 379 364 280 272 216 184 159 133 109 99 92 74 67 63102 98 98 99 94 91 88 85 83 80 79 77 77 78 81 92 115 147 151 226 197 260 309 360 370 389 389 376 364 364 347 395 399 395 375 373 367 282 271 215 185 205 279 156 151 141 121 1149.2 8.5 8.6 8.6 7.8 7.4 6.8 6.4 6 5.6 5.3 5.1 5 5.2 5.8 7.6 12 17 25 38 53 64 72 81 82 86 84 83 81 78 73 67 63 58 63 61 47 45 36 31 26 22 18 16 15 12 11 1022 21 21 21 21 20 19 18 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 16 26 37 33 43 52 60 62 65 65 63 61 58 66 67 66 62 62 61 47 46 35 31 39 35 31 30 29 25 24 24698 680 698 697 696 696 696 695 695 694 694 693 693 692 692 691 691 690 690 690 691 692 693 694 696 697 698 699 701 702 703 703 703 703 703 703 703 703 703 703 702 702 701 701 700 700 700 699Biological ParametersInstream Flow Release (Reach 5)Pre‐ProjectWith‐ProjectApprox. Reach 2/3 Natural Side Approx. Reach 2/3 Side Channel Reservoir Rule CurveFillDraftingSteadyDraftingWater Surface Elev.Drafting/FillingRunningRunningOffOffOffOffOffRunningRunningRunningRunningRunningRunningRunningRunningRunningRunningOffOffOffSteadyOperationsTypical Unit OperationRunning Running Running Running210 173 65HydrologyComposite Streamflow Record (CY 1948‐2013)116160503444367452818215115674212116131710294593225212262290419346127398488422313182453630312331237348031715187524333361464098515706451414721551257352456621401210138317311295326227BiologyJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayDecemberSpawningIncubatingJuvenilesFryAdultJuneJulyAugust September October November DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-218 March 2015 In general, flows during the November 1 – March 1 period will be higher with-Project than pre- Project. Flows will remain the same pre-Project and with-Project from March 1 – May 1 and late August through October 31, while flows will be reduced with-Project from May 1 until late August. For further detail, refer to Section 2.1.4 of this Exhibit E. Long-term Grant Creek Flows Measured flows at Grant Creek exist for three time periods: 1) The USGS (USGS gage 15246000 Grant Creek data – 1/1/1948 – 9/30/1958); 2) Ebasco data (1981 – 1983, intermittent); and KHL (4/3/2013 – 12/31/2013). The IFSG requested a long-term data record for the Project. Per that request, a composite, 66-year time series for Grant Creek for calendar year (CY) 1948 through CY 2013 was developed. The record was developed for pre-Project flows and with- Project flows and is a composite record of actual and synthesized data. The record extension was based upon a correlation with overlapping Kenai River at Cooper Landing data (USGS 15258000) for the 1/1/1948 – 9/30/1958 period with the USGS data on Grant Creek. The hydrologic record was then extended from 10/1/1958 – 4/2/2013, excluding the Ebasco periods. That 66-year composite (measured and synthesized flows) record (pre- Project) was then revised to reflect the with-Project condition, producing two 66-year composite records for analysis. Further details can be found in Section 4.5 of this Exhibit E. Figure E.4-43 compares average pre-Project, natural flows, to the with-Project flows. Figure E.4-43. Average Grant Creek pre-Project and with-Project flows. Weighted Usable Area Using the final transect weighting in Table E.4-75, and HSC curves (KHL 2014d, Appendix 2) for the species and life history stages shown in Table E.4-73, KHL produced WUA curves for DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-219 March 2015 Grant Creek. Tables E.4-77 through E.4-79 and Figures E.4-44 through E.4-46 present WUA for Grant Creek salmonid spawning, fry, and juvenile/adult rearing, respectively. Table E.4-77. Grant Creek spawning WUA. Flow (cfs) Chinook Coho Dolly Varden Rainbow Sockeye 10 1,068 5,568 18,631 14,839 5,238 20 6,599 9,209 27,940 23,150 8,323 30 12,856 12,213 32,314 27,879 10,782 40 17,810 14,677 36,115 31,648 12,930 50 21,367 16,867 39,113 34,761 14,825 60 24,260 18,649 41,288 37,342 16,632 70 26,813 20,247 43,146 39,482 18,001 80 29,371 21,867 44,807 41,434 19,090 90 31,474 23,114 46,150 43,147 20,074 100 33,798 24,291 46,641 44,529 20,917 110 36,017 25,399 46,605 45,565 21,690 120 37,711 26,241 46,197 46,302 22,432 130 39,104 27,015 45,651 46,884 23,046 140 40,431 27,649 45,110 47,342 23,556 150 41,662 28,071 44,505 47,692 24,041 160 42,863 28,316 43,850 47,765 24,489 170 43,998 28,505 43,217 47,726 24,876 180 45,084 28,647 42,739 47,703 25,244 190 46,151 28,794 42,561 47,668 25,482 200 46,974 28,861 42,306 47,466 25,584 225 48,741 29,158 42,011 47,180 26,137 250 49,687 29,635 42,450 46,882 26,601 275 50,337 30,151 42,759 46,908 26,985 300 51,161 30,591 42,739 46,909 27,420 325 51,863 31,095 43,001 47,169 27,805 350 52,248 31,584 43,342 47,577 28,147 375 52,471 31,905 43,417 47,716 28,560 400 52,715 32,329 43,300 47,709 29,021 450 52,861 33,469 42,684 47,613 29,815 500 53,165 34,506 41,583 47,525 30,523 550 54,165 35,033 40,231 47,346 31,094 600 55,510 35,105 38,968 46,818 31,504 650 56,596 34,953 37,471 45,930 31,663 700 57,242 34,576 35,683 44,740 31,720 750 57,401 34,030 34,027 43,370 31,537 800 57,174 33,323 32,467 41,998 31,152 850 56,583 32,508 30,975 40,471 30,640 900 56,024 31,561 29,541 38,767 30,056 950 55,423 30,558 28,140 37,026 29,419 1,000 54,640 29,598 26,718 35,417 28,802 DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-220 March 2015 Table E.4-78. Grant Creek fry rearing WUA. Flow (cfs) Chinook Coho Dolly Varden Rainbow 10 93,680 77,590 102,219 62,468 20 96,290 73,052 109,681 63,732 30 102,978 76,830 116,702 69,555 40 110,212 82,216 119,827 75,214 50 114,072 84,107 118,341 78,294 60 114,860 83,429 115,523 78,864 70 113,859 81,717 112,962 77,912 80 112,035 79,704 111,138 76,708 90 110,487 78,216 109,706 75,548 100 108,806 77,131 108,300 74,715 110 107,783 77,094 107,869 74,103 120 107,160 77,356 108,238 73,267 130 107,259 78,093 108,932 72,726 140 108,223 79,427 110,204 73,077 150 109,775 80,844 111,670 73,786 160 111,216 82,011 113,087 74,767 170 113,469 83,793 114,815 76,272 180 115,219 85,228 116,995 77,321 190 123,962 93,392 126,896 83,981 200 125,591 94,651 128,222 85,224 225 131,369 98,462 132,156 89,319 250 135,690 101,765 137,008 92,170 275 140,535 105,427 140,688 95,269 300 145,442 108,532 142,503 98,864 325 148,318 109,888 143,360 101,208 350 149,991 110,652 143,398 102,628 375 150,896 110,881 142,625 103,429 400 151,012 110,259 141,628 103,383 450 150,234 108,527 140,925 102,382 500 149,890 107,125 140,120 100,892 550 148,960 105,678 138,794 99,267 600 148,041 104,950 138,512 97,744 650 148,545 104,949 138,419 97,269 700 148,820 104,784 138,264 96,500 750 149,488 105,003 137,825 95,852 800 150,103 104,820 136,502 94,953 850 150,158 104,680 134,977 93,836 900 149,692 103,251 132,513 92,547 950 148,320 101,160 130,552 90,330 1,000 146,560 98,592 128,412 87,935 DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-221 March 2015 Table E.4-79. Grant Creek juvenile and adult rearing WUA. Juvenile Rearing Adult Rearing Flow (cfs) Chinook Coho Dolly Varden Rainbow Dolly Varden Rainbow 10 30,659 106,935 85,928 62,002 23,354 14,271 20 41,244 120,277 96,423 70,894 33,289 21,970 30 44,200 131,910 108,170 74,644 40,838 28,117 40 45,284 140,165 116,556 77,220 46,965 33,005 50 45,830 142,002 123,480 78,324 51,896 37,083 60 46,295 139,726 127,709 78,944 55,868 40,454 70 46,782 136,764 128,143 79,282 58,964 43,215 80 47,451 133,844 127,071 79,029 61,750 45,879 90 48,309 131,815 125,720 78,915 64,008 48,100 100 49,186 128,726 124,240 78,269 65,561 49,729 110 50,079 127,587 123,525 77,714 66,696 50,953 120 51,099 126,212 121,931 77,074 67,419 51,715 130 52,102 126,250 120,459 76,443 67,911 52,301 140 53,181 126,662 119,365 75,909 68,109 52,649 150 54,120 127,456 118,938 75,802 68,223 52,926 160 54,877 128,244 119,197 76,142 68,140 52,962 170 55,645 130,047 120,582 76,363 68,042 52,979 180 56,439 131,196 120,612 76,569 68,174 53,123 190 57,815 140,450 125,785 80,124 68,857 53,244 200 58,669 141,803 126,118 80,832 69,036 53,328 225 61,107 147,070 130,659 83,907 70,679 54,608 250 63,072 151,819 132,540 86,577 71,991 55,785 275 64,949 157,202 135,896 89,103 73,571 57,085 300 66,851 161,558 141,888 91,891 75,471 58,646 325 68,816 163,486 145,403 94,563 77,609 60,328 350 70,978 164,310 148,094 97,232 79,938 62,227 375 73,369 164,754 150,560 99,927 82,223 64,180 400 75,656 164,154 152,121 102,463 84,485 66,270 450 80,205 163,035 152,966 106,594 88,467 70,235 500 84,113 163,728 153,234 109,264 91,811 73,776 550 87,445 162,889 154,032 111,234 95,120 77,304 600 90,403 162,601 152,690 112,440 97,799 80,287 650 92,647 162,254 153,266 113,161 100,035 82,719 700 94,123 161,709 153,464 113,478 102,261 85,061 750 95,097 161,700 153,927 113,773 104,512 87,234 800 95,737 161,376 154,946 114,556 106,757 89,465 850 95,904 161,097 154,269 114,887 108,666 91,400 900 95,946 159,346 154,318 114,981 110,240 93,176 950 95,819 156,702 152,807 114,576 111,443 94,737 1,000 95,413 153,922 151,436 114,062 112,497 96,265 DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-222 March 2015 Figure E.4-44. Grant Creek spawning WUA. Figure E.4-45. Grant Creek fry rearing WUA. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-223 March 2015 Figure E.4-46. Grant Creek juvenile and adult rearing WUA. Effective Spawning Analysis The IFSG expressed issues and concerns related to Grant Creek spawning flows and potential effects on incubating salmonid eggs at the proposed Project flows. KHL conducted an analysis to examine the percentage of incubating eggs that were protected (i.e., had 0.1 foot of water over the bed above the spawnable substrate) as flows were reduced. The goals and objectives of the evaluation were as follows: Determine the amount and location of salmonid spawning habitat (as represented by transects selected during the Instream Flow Study) over a range of flows using current conditions (e.g., substrate and habitat as reflected in the Instream Flow Study). Flows for spawning reflect those examined for the Project, based on pre- and post-Project operation. Determine the effects of reductions in stream flow on incubating salmonid eggs, as determined by the models. Information on methods and data sources are provided in KHL (2014i), Appendix 4. For this analysis, two different scenarios were modeled: 1. Results of spawning for all species at a flow of 450 cfs (per request of the ADF&G), with an analysis of substrates still covered by at least 0.1 foot of water as flows are decreased; and 2. Median monthly and weekly flows (pre-Project and post-Project) for those time periods that reflect each species’ spawning and incubation periodicity. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-224 March 2015 Table E.4-80 shows transects used to model spawning habitat in Grant Creek. Table E.4-81 summarizes salmonid spawning periodicity and median monthly flows for Grant Creek. This table also provides the effective spawning analysis, as well as the approximate flows that will protect spawning habitat. The flows at which 98 percent, 90 percent, 80 percent, and 70 percent of the spawning WUA were recorded using linear interpolation, if required. Table E.4-80. Transects used to model spawning habitat on Grant Creek. Spawning Substrate Available on Transect Reach Transect Channel Type Chinook Coho Sockeye D Varden Rainbow 1 - Distributary 100 Rearing Distributary 110 Rearing Distributary 1 - Main Channel 120 Spawning Riffle 130 Rearing Main 140 Rearing Main 150 Rearing Main 160 Rearing Main 2 - Main Channel 200 Rearing Main 220 Rearing Main 230 Rearing Main 3 - Main Channel 300 Rearing Main 310 Spawning Main 3 - Side Channel 320 Rearing Secondary 330 Rearing Secondary 4 - Main Channel 400 Rearing Main 410 Rearing Main 430 Spawning Main DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-225 March 2015 Table E.4-81. Approximate flows at which certain percentages of spawning and incubation habitat are protected, given an initial spawning flow of 450 cfs or median pre-Project and post-Project spawning flows (all values in cfs). Reach Species Month Spawning Flow > 98% > 90% > 80% > 70% Median flow during incubation months (Pre‐and Post‐Project)AugSepOctNov DecJanFebMarAprMayJun JulMainstem Chinook 450 155 125 73 55Reaches 1 ‐ 4 Aug ‐ pre* 410 146 89 50 45 410 313 182 94 59 45 36 30 31 127 398 493 Aug ‐ post* 395 144 90 57 42 395 329 182 140 104 91 82 77 78 151 280 390Sep‐pre* 320 116 40 28 22313 182 94 59 45 36 30 31 127 398 493Sep‐post* 348 137 70 43 32329 182 140 104 91 82 77 78 151 280 390Coho 450 228 170 139 110Sep‐pre* 310 149 91 65 53310 182 94 59 45 36 30 31 127 398 493Sep‐post* 325 164 97 67 54325 182 140 104 91 82 77 78 151 280 390Oct‐pre 182 73 55 277182 94 59 45 36 30 31 127 398 493Oct‐post 182 73 55 277182 140 104 91 82 77 78 151 280 390Sockeye 450 223 154 132 88Aug ‐ pre 422 202 143 112 73 422 313 182 94 59 45 36 30 31 127 398 493Aug ‐ post 395 193 137 104 70 395 329 182 140 104 91 82 77 78 151 280 390Sep ‐ pre 313 154 113 72 60313 182 94 59 45 36 30 31 127 398 493Sep ‐ post 329 163 89 64 51329 182 140 104 91 82 77 78 151 280 390Dolly V 450 224 204 159 135Aug ‐ pre* 388 216 174 139 113 388 313 182 94 59 45 36 30 31 127 398Aug ‐ post* 395 217 177 141 114 395 329 182 140 104 91 82 77 78 151 280Mainstem Dolly V Sep ‐ pre 313 198 146 119 85313 182 94 59 45 36 30 31 127 398Reaches 1 ‐ 4 Sep ‐ post 329 88 85 85 62 329 182 140 104 91 82 77 78 151 280 Oct‐pre 182 115 73 59 43182 94 59 45 36 30 31 127 398Oct‐post 182 115 73 59 43182 140 104 91 82 77 78 151 280Nov‐pre* 110 67 30 105110 59 45 36 30 31 127 398Nov‐post* 157 151 121 83 45157 104 91 82 77 78 151 280MayJun JulAug Rain‐bow 450 216 162 131 103 May ‐ pre* 182 140 75 56 33 182 398 488 422 May ‐ post* 181 139 71 45 13 181 280 390 395 Jun ‐ pre 398 398 488 422 Jun ‐ post 280 193 131 78 60280 390 395 DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Table E.4-81, continued… Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-226 March 2015 Reach Species Month Spawning Flow > 98% > 90% > 80% > 70% Median flow during incubation months (Pre‐and Post‐Project)AugSepOctNov DecJanFebMarAprMayJun JulReach 1 AugSepOctNov DecJanFebMarAprMayJun Jul*Distributary Chinook 4.48 1.79‐‐‐Aug ‐ pre* 4.08 1.79‐‐‐4.08 3.12 1.81 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.96 4.91Aug ‐ post* 3.93 1.79‐‐‐3.93 3.27 1.81 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.79 3.88Sep‐pre* 3.18 1.79‐‐‐3.12 1.81 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.96 4.91Sep‐post* 3.46 1.79‐‐‐3.27 1.81 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.79 3.88Reach 1 Coho 4.48 2.26 2.20 2.16 2.11Distributary Sep‐pre* 3.08 1.79‐‐‐3.08 1.81 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.96 4.91Sep‐post* 3.23 1.79‐‐‐3.23 1.81 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.79 3.88Oct‐pre 1.81 1.79‐‐‐1.81 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.96 4.91Oct‐post 1.80 1.79‐‐‐1.81 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.79 3.88Sockeye 4.48 2.23 2.18 2.13 2.07Aug ‐ pre 4.20 1.87 1.79‐‐4.20 3.12 1.81 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.96 4.91Aug ‐ post 3.93 1.79‐‐‐3.93 3.27 1.81 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.79 3.88Sep ‐ pre 3.12 1.79‐‐‐3.12 1.81 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.96 4.91Sep ‐ post 3.27 1.79‐‐‐3.27 1.81 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.79 3.88Dolly V 4.48 2.26 2.19 2.13 2.07Aug ‐ pre* 3.86 1.97 1.79‐‐3.86 3.12 1.81 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.96Aug ‐ post* 3.93 1.97 1.79‐‐3.93 3.27 1.81 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.79Sep ‐ pre 3.12 1.90 1.79‐‐3.12 1.81 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.96Sep ‐ post 3.27 1.92 1.79‐‐3.27 1.81 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.79Oct‐pre 1.81 1.79‐‐‐1.81 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.96Oct‐post 1.81 1.79‐‐‐1.81 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.79Nov‐pre* 0.00 ‐‐‐‐0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.96Nov‐post* 0.00 ‐‐‐‐0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.79Reach 1 MayJun JulAug Distributary Rain‐bow 4.48 2.33 2.20 2.14 2.09 May ‐ pre* 1.80 1.79‐‐‐1.81 3.96 4.86 4.20 May ‐ post* 1.79 1.79‐‐‐1.80 2.79 3.88 3.93 Jun ‐ pre 3.94 1.98 1.79‐‐3.96 4.86 4.20 Jun ‐ post 2.77 1.90 1.79‐‐2.79 3.88 3.93 AugSepOctNov DecJanFebMarAprMayJun Jul*Reach 3 Chinook 71.2 2.3 2.0 1.7 1.3Side Channels Aug ‐ pre* 64.8 2.3 2.0 1.5 1.0 68.3 52.2 30.3 15.6 9.9 7.5 6.0 5.0 5.1 21.1 66.4 82.2 DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Table E.4-81, continued… Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-227 March 2015 Reach Species Month Spawning Flow > 98% > 90% > 80% > 70% Median flow during incubation months (Pre‐and Post‐Project)AugSepOctNov DecJanFebMarAprMayJun JulAug ‐ post* 62.5 2.3 2.0 1.5 1.0 65.8 54.8 30.3 23.3 17.3 15.2 13.7 12.8 12.9 25.2 46.7 65.0Sep‐pre* 50.6 2.3 1.9 1.5 1.052.2 30.3 15.6 9.9 7.5 6.0 5.0 5.1 21.1 66.4 82.2Sep‐post* 55.0 2.3 1.9 1.5 1.054.8 30.3 23.3 17.3 15.2 13.7 12.8 12.9 25.2 46.7 65.0Coho 71.2 5.3 2.3 2.1 1.8Sep‐pre* 49.0 5.2 2.3 2.0 1.751.7 30.3 15.6 9.9 7.5 6.0 5.0 5.1 21.1 66.4 82.2Sep‐post* 51.3 5.2 2.3 2.0 1.754.1 30.3 23.3 17.3 15.2 13.7 12.8 12.9 25.2 46.7 65.0Oct‐pre 28.8 5.2 2.3 1.9 1.630.3 15.6 9.9 7.5 6.0 5.0 5.1 21.1 66.4 82.2Oct‐post 28.8 5.2 2.3 1.9 1.630.3 23.3 17.3 15.2 13.7 12.8 12.9 25.2 46.7 65.0Sockeye 71.2 5.3 2.3 2.1 0.7Aug ‐ pre 66.7 5.3 2.3 2.1 1.9 70.3 52.2 30.3 15.6 9.9 7.5 6.0 5.0 5.1 21.1 66.4 82.2Aug ‐ post 62.5 5.3 2.3 2.1 1.9 65.8 54.8 30.3 23.3 17.3 15.2 13.7 12.8 12.9 25.2 46.7 65.0Reach 3 Sockeye Sep ‐ pre 49.5 5.2 2.3 2.0 1.852.2 30.3 15.6 9.9 7.5 6.0 5.0 5.1 21.1 66.4 82.2Side Channels Sep ‐ post 51.9 5.2 2.3 2.0 1.8 54.8 30.3 23.3 17.3 15.2 13.7 12.8 12.9 25.2 46.7 65.0 Dolly V 71.2 5.3 2.3 2.1 2.0Aug ‐ pre* 61.4 5.2 2.3 2.0 1.8 64.7 52.2 30.3 15.6 9.9 7.5 6.0 5.0 5.1 21.1 66.4Aug ‐ post* 62.5 5.2 2.3 2.1 1.8 65.8 54.8 30.3 23.3 17.3 15.2 13.7 12.8 12.9 25.2 46.7Sep ‐ pre 49.5 1.4 0.8‐‐52.2 30.3 15.6 9.9 7.5 6.0 5.0 5.1 21.1 66.4Sep ‐ post 51.9 5.2 2.2 2.0 1.754.8 30.3 23.3 17.3 15.2 13.7 12.8 12.9 25.2 46.7Oct‐pre 28.8 4.9 2.1 1.8 1.430.3 15.6 9.9 7.5 6.0 5.0 5.1 21.1 66.4Oct‐post 28.8 4.9 2.1 1.8 1.430.3 23.3 17.3 15.2 13.7 12.8 12.9 25.2 46.7Nov‐pre* 17.5 2.4 2.1 1.7 1.418.4 9.9 7.5 6.0 5.0 5.1 21.1 66.4Nov‐post* 24.8 4.8 2.1 1.8 1.326.2 17.3 15.2 13.7 12.8 12.9 25.2 46.7MayJun JulAug Rainbow 71.2 5.1 2.3 2.0 1.8May ‐ pre* 28.8 3.9 2.1 1.8 1.4 30.3 66.4 81.3 70.3 May ‐ post* 28.6 3.9 2.1 1.8 1.4 30.2 46.7 65.0 65.8 Jun ‐ pre 63.0 5.1 2.2 1.9 1.766.4 81.3 70.3 Jun ‐ post 44.3 5.0 2.2 1.9 1.646.7 65.0 65.8 Grant Creek Chinook 450 151 122 71 52All Reaches Aug ‐ pre* 410 146 94 50 43 410 313 182 94 59 45 36 30 31 127 398 493Aug ‐ post* 395 145 94 56 40 395 329 182 140 104 91 82 77 78 151 280 390Sep‐pre* 320 108 36 27 19313 182 94 59 45 36 30 31 127 398 493Sep‐post* 348 137 69 41 30329 182 140 104 91 82 77 78 151 280 390Coho 450 226 167 136 92Sep‐pre* 310 149 93 64 48310 182 94 59 45 36 30 31 127 398 493 DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Table E.4-81, continued… Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-228 March 2015 Reach Species Month Spawning Flow > 98% > 90% > 80% > 70% Median flow during incubation months (Pre‐and Post‐Project)AugSepOctNov DecJanFebMarAprMayJun JulSep‐post* 325 160 102 65 51325 182 140 104 91 82 77 78 151 280 390Oct‐pre 182 73 53 237182 94 59 45 36 30 31 127 398 493Oct‐post 182 73 53 237182 140 104 91 82 77 78 151 280 390Sockeye 450 221 151 129 75Aug ‐ pre 422 201 142 110 70 422 313 182 94 59 45 36 30 31 127 398 493Aug ‐ post 395 192 136 102 67 395 329 182 140 104 91 82 77 78 151 280 390Sep ‐ pre 313 151 53 70 56313 182 94 59 45 36 30 31 127 398 493Sep ‐ post 329 163 92 63 46329 182 140 104 91 82 77 78 151 280 390Dolly V 450 243 203 160 134Aug ‐ pre* 388 216 173 139 111 388 313 182 94 59 45 36 30 31 127 398Aug ‐ post* 395 217 174 140 112 395 329 182 140 104 91 82 77 78 151 280Sep ‐ pre 313 166 146 121 79313 182 94 59 45 36 30 31 127 398Sep ‐ post 329 185 148 122 49329 182 140 104 91 82 77 78 151 280Grant Creek Oct‐pre 182 118 72 57 36182 94 59 45 36 30 31 127 398All Reaches Oct‐post 182 118 72 57 36182 140 104 91 82 77 78 151 280Nov‐pre* 110 66 29 105110 59 45 36 30 31 127 398Nov‐post* 157 150 120 80 44157 104 91 82 77 78 151 280MayJun JulAug Rainbow 450 216 163 129 155May ‐ pre* 182 140 73 53 29 182 398 488 422 May ‐ post* 181 139 69 41 12 181 280 390 395 Jun ‐ pre 398 209 149 122 74398 488 422 Jun ‐ post 280 190 129 73 56280 390 395 DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-229 March 2015 This analysis is based upon transects that were selected for habitat modeling as part of the Instream Flow Study conducted for the Project in 2013. Spawning habitat was, and continues to be, sparse in these reaches due to peak flows, relatively high gradient, and low gravel recruitment, resulting in predominantly cobble-boulder substrates. In general, Grant Creek flows from January through mid-May and in the November through December period will be higher post-Project than they currently are pre-Project (Figure E.4-43). It is also important to note that under pre-Project flows, the Reach 1 Distributary dries up when flows in Grant Creek drop below approximately 180-190 cfs. If Project mitigation measures include altering the entrance to the Reach 1 Distributary, fish habitat, especially spawning and incubation habitat, will increase in this reach. With these higher November through mid-May flows, incubating salmonid eggs will be afforded higher rates of protection with the Project in place than under the pre-Project regime. As a result, incubation will not be significantly affected, and may be enhanced over natural conditions. Habitat Time Series The IFSG requested KHL to conduct a habitat time series analysis for the salmonid life history stages present in Project. This effort required the use of a long-term hydrologic record to compare Grant Creek flows pre-Project to flows for the same time period, with-Project. The goals and objectives of this analysis were as follows: Calculate habitat for the Grant Creek salmonid species and life history stages, as measured by WUA. Compare the amount of habitat for the Grant Creek salmonids pre-Project and with- Project for the period of record. Methods are fully described in KHL (2014i). Data required to conduct the habitat time series analysis are listed below: Hydrologic Record. A long-term hydrologic record that extended from Calendar Year (CY) 1948 through CY 2013 was developed. The record was developed for pre- Project flows and with-Project flows and is a composite record of actual and synthesized data. Grant Creek final transect weighting for all transects. Final Grant Creek WUA, incorporating all species and life history stages for all transects. Target species and life history stages were summarized in Table E.4-72; Grant Creek periodicity was provided in Table E.4-74. WUA was provided in Tables E.4-77 through E.4-79 and Figures E.4-44 through E.4-46. Hydrology, both pre-Project and with- Project, is summarized above. Daily flows from the expanded 66-year record were used tabulated for the species and life stages for the appropriate time periods, based on the Grant Creek periodicity. Further information can be found in KHL (2014i), Appendix 5. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-230 March 2015 Chinook Salmon WUA for Chinook salmon spawning and rearing are shown in Figures E.4-47 to E.4-49. With- Project WUA ranged from 96.9 percent of pre-Project for Chinook fry rearing, to 100.2 percent for Chinook juvenile rearing. Chinook spawning with-Project WUA was 99.5 percent of the pre- Project WUA. Figure E.4-47. Chinook spawning WUA. Figure E.4-48. Chinook fry rearing WUA. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-231 March 2015 Figure E.4-49. Chinook juvenile rearing WUA. Coho Salmon WUA for coho salmon spawning and rearing are shown in Figures E.4-50 to E.4-52. With- Project WUA ranged from 99 percent of pre-Project for coho fry rearing, to slightly more than 100 percent for coho spawning. With-Project coho juvenile rearing WUA averaged 99.2 percent of pre-Project WUA; however, monthly with-Project WUA ranged from 93.9 percent to 103.8 percent of pre-Project WUA. With-Project WUA was generally higher than pre-Project WUA during the late fall – early spring months, when the Project would increase Grant Creek flows. Figure E.4-50. Coho spawning WUA. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-232 March 2015 Figure E.4-51. Coho fry rearing WUA. Figure E.4-52. Coho juvenile rearing WUA. Sockeye Salmon WUA for sockeye salmon spawning is shown in Figure 4.6-53. With-Project spawning WUA averaged 99 percent of pre-Project WUA, but ranged from 98.0 percent in August to 100.1 percent in September. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-233 March 2015 Figure E.4-53. Sockeye spawning WUA. Dolly Varden WUA for Dolly Varden spawning and rearing are shown in Figures E.4-54 to E.4-57. With- Project WUA ranged from 96.5 percent of pre-Project WUA for Dolly Varden adult rearing to 102.9 percent for Dolly Varden juvenile rearing. Dolly Varden fry rearing post-Project WUA averaged 98.9 percent of the pre-project WUA, ranging from 94.9 percent to 100.6 percent. With-Project spawning WUA was slightly greater than pre-Project WUA (100.3 percent). Figure E.4-54. Dolly Varden spawning WUA. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-234 March 2015 Figure E.4-55. Dolly Varden fry rearing WUA. Figure E.4-56. Dolly Varden juvenile rearing WUA. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-235 March 2015 Figure E.4-57. Dolly Varden adult rearing WUA. Rainbow Trout WUA for rainbow trout spawning and rearing are shown in Figures E.4-58 to E.4-61. With- Project WUA ranged from 94.2 percent of pre-Project WUA for rainbow trout adult rearing to 101.4 percent for rainbow trout fry rearing. Rainbow trout juvenile rearing with-Project WUA averaged 99.3 percent, ranging from 88.9 percent – 106.8 percent of pre-Project WUA. Rainbow trout spawning with-Project WUA averaged 98.8 percent of pre-Project WUA, ranging from 98 percent to 100.1 percent. Figure E.4-58. Rainbow trout spawning WUA. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-236 March 2015 Figure E.4-59. Rainbow trout fry rearing WUA. Figure E.4-60. Rainbow trout juvenile rearing WUA. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-237 March 2015 Figure E.4-61. Rainbow trout adult rearing WUA. Summary Pre-Project and with-Project WUA for all species and life history stages are shown in Figures E.4-62 to E.4-65 and are listed in Table E.4-82. Overall, with-Project WUA is nearly identical to pre-Project WUA (99.8 percent). With the exception of resident adult (i.e., Dolly Varden and rainbow trout) with-Project rearing WUA (96.7 percent of pre-Project WUA), with-Project WUA is within 0.1 percent or is greater than pre-Project WUA. Figure E.4-62. Salmonid spawning WUA. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-238 March 2015 Figure E.4-63. Salmonid fry rearing WUA. Figure E.4-64. Salmonid juvenile rearing WUA. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-239 March 2015 Figure E.4-65. Salmonid adult rearing WUA. Table E.4-82. Grant Creek pre-Project and with-Project WUA for life history stages. Weighted Usable Area Life Stage Pre-Project With Project Percentage Spawning 41,635 41,607 99.93% Fry Rearing 93,043 94,060 101.09% Juvenile Rearing 103,890 104,437 100.53% Adult Rearing 69,868 67,553 96.69% Mean 77,109 76,914 99.75% This analysis is based upon final transect weighting, final WUA for each species and life history stage, and the 66-year hydrologic record for pre-Project and with-Project flows. Overall, with-Project WUA is nearly identical to pre-Project WUA, at 99.8 percent. The lowest with-Project WUA is for Dolly Varden and rainbow trout adult rearing. Adult rearing periodicity for these species extends from mid-May to the end of November. Project flows are reduced during the summer (June – August), which are the reason for lower adult rearing with- Project WUA during this period. If resident fish adult rearing WUA were removed from the analysis, overall with-Project WUA would be 100.6 percent of the pre-Project WUA. This analysis does not take into consideration potential mitigation and enhancement measures for the Project. For example, currently the Reach 1 distributary does not become wetted until flows in Grant Creek reach approximately 180-190 cfs; even when wetted, this distributary receives less than 1 percent of the Grant Creek flow. If this distributary were to be reconfigured to allow more water into the distributary and at lower Grant Creek flows, WUA for spawning and rearing DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-240 March 2015 in this distributary would increase significantly. This proposed enhancement measure, along with documented additional and more consistent flows in the Reach 2/3 side channel complex, will likely increase habitat availability during operations to a level above the current natural condition. Reach 5 Connectivity One of the components of the Instream Flow study was to assess connectivity of the habitats present in Reach 5 (i.e., the canyon reach) to determine if reductions in stream flow in this reach potentially affect habitat connectivity. During the 2013 field season, two transects (T510 and T520) that represented the areas sensitive to changes in flow and stage were selected and measured in Reach 5. Cross sections were surveyed at both transects. Head and tail pins on each bank as well as a benchmark were surveyed to establish relative elevations. A tape was stretched horizontally across the channel and attached to the head and tail pins. With an auto level and stadia rod, elevations of the streambed and banks were surveyed at regular intervals along the tape and WSEs were surveyed at locations where accurate measurements could be obtained. Water surface elevations were surveyed at flows ranging from 17 cfs – 706 cfs. Further details are provided in KHL (2014d). Connectivity of the various pools and channels was measured and assessed using the Oregon Method (Thompson 1972). After 10 years of research on depth and velocity in streams in Oregon, Thompson concluded that the depth over “the shallow bars most critical of adult passage” was the feature that determined the likelihood of successful migration. Thompson recommends a minimum depth of 0.6 feet for large trout and 0.8 feet for Chinook salmon to achieve successful passage. The “Oregon Method”, as it is now commonly called, concludes that the passage flow is adequate when the depth criterion is met on at least 25 percent of the transect width and on at least a 10 percent continuous portion. Transect data were collected to determine where connectivity meets these criteria and where it does not. Connectivity was assessed concurrently with the Instream Flow Study conducted downstream in Reaches 1–4, at the same range of flows. Table E.4-83 specifies the species and minimum depth criteria for passage. Table E.4-83. Species evaluated for connectivity in Grant Creek. Species Evaluated Minimum Depth Criteria Chinook Salmon 0.80 feet Coho and Sockeye Salmon 0.60 feet Dolly Varden Char and Rainbow Trout 0.40 feet Table E.4-84 shows that for 25 percent of total width, the passage depth criterion for Chinook salmon, is met on individual transects from 6-29 cfs, with an average of 22 cfs. Discharges for continuous passage meet criterion at flows ranging from 5-21 cfs, with an average of 21 cfs. The discharges at which both passage criteria are met range from 6-29 cfs, with an average of 22 cfs. The 25 percent of total width, the passage depth criterion for coho and sockeye salmon, is met on individual transects at flows ranging from 5-11 cfs, with an average of 10 cfs. Discharges for DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-241 March 2015 continuous passage meet criterion at flows ranging from 5 cfs – 10 cfs, with an average of 10 cfs. The discharges at which both passage criteria are met range from 5-11 cfs, with an average of 10 cfs. For Dolly Varden and rainbow trout, the passage depth criterion for 25 percent of total width is met on individual transects at 5 cfs. Discharges for continuous passage meet criterion also at a flow of 5 cfs. The discharge at which both passage criteria are met is at a flow of 5 cfs. In 2013, less than 2 percent of the adult salmonids were observed in Reach 5, none of which was a Chinook salmon. For all other adult salmonids, flows in Reach 5 are sufficient for all or a portion of their spawning period. Table E.4-84. Discharge (cfs) for meeting salmonid passage criteria in Reach 5, Grant Creek. Species Passage Criteria T510 T520 Average Trout Total (25%) 5 5 5 Continuous (10%) 5 5 5 Both Criteria 5 5 5 Coho Total (25%) 11 5 5/101/ Continuous (10%) 10 5 5/101/ Both Criteria 11 5 5/101/ Chinook Total (25%) 29 6 22 Continuous (10%) 21 5 21 Both Criteria 29 6 22 Notes: 1. Criterion is met at 5 cfs, and then is below criterion until 10 cfs. 4.6.2.3. Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Periphyton During Project construction, the potential of elevated turbidity levels may negatively affect macroinvertebrate species sensitive to sedimentation. In addition, the potential for elevated turbidity could decrease chlorophyll a concentrations due to decreased water clarity and photosynthetic activity. Since the scraper functional feeding group that relies on chlorophyll a as a food resource represent a low percentage of the total population, the effect is anticipated to be minimal and of short duration. Due to the similarity in water quality between Grant Lake and Grant Creek, there would be very little impact on the water chemistry of Grant Creek due to Project operations. As summarized in Table E.4-13 (Section 4.5.1.3.2 of this Exhibit E), drawing water for Project use from relatively shallow depths (< 1.5m) in Grant Lake would best duplicate the existing water temperature regime in Grant Creek and prevent changes to this critical habitat parameter. Finally, the change in flow regime due to Project operations is expected to have little effect on macroinvertebrate populations. With an elevated base flow, wetted perimeter and available habitat will be increased from pre-Project conditions on an annual basis. The reduction in peak flows is also expected to have a minimal effect on aquatic insects. The annual, summer high flow period DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-242 March 2015 represents a condition where nearly all stream habitats within Grant Creek experience high velocities. With reduced flows and velocities, habitat conditions may become more favorable and comparable to other high gradient stream systems in the Kenai Peninsula. 4.6.3. Proposed Environmental Measures 4.6.3.1. Fisheries Global adherence to BMPs will be utilized in conjunction with all Project construction and operation related activities. With respect to fisheries resources, ensuring that short-term erosion and/or sediment load increases do not occur with construction activities. An ESCP, as described in Section 4.4.3 of this Exhibit E, will be implemented to minimize aquatic impacts as a result of sediment load increases. Specific to fisheries resources, a Draft Biotic Monitoring Plan is under development by KHL and will be distributed for comment with the rest of the BE and management/monitoring plans between late April and mid-May. This plan will document monitoring efforts to be implemented during Project construction and the initial phases of operations. This plan is primarily fisheries- based and describes the measures to be employed to assess/confirm fish health and general condition during and immediately after Project construction and operation. During construction of the Project, focus will be placed on confirming that pre-existing priority sites for spawning, incubation and rearing are being maintained. Once operation has commenced, additional emphasis will be placed on documenting that Project operations are not having a net negative impact on Grant Creek and to some extent, confirming that the enhancement measures proposed in the plan are providing the additional habitat projected via modeling exercises. While refinement of the plan will occur per comments received after review and additional collaboration with stakeholders, the primary intent is to confirm no negative impact to documented fisheries populations in Grant Creek as a result of Project implementation. During construction, all activities associated with BMPs and the monitoring and management plans will be managed by KHL’s on-site ECM. Annually, all measures implemented, associated results, and collaboration with stakeholders will be documented in the Annual Compliance Report. The report will be provided to stakeholders for review and comment prior to KHL finalizing and filing with FERC. A full summary of all measures, as well as the associated implementation timeframes, being proposed by KHL for the original license will be provided with the FLA. 4.6.3.2. Instream Flow As part of Project development, KHL has conducted studies and collaborated with stakeholders on acceptable instream flow amounts through the bypass reach (Reach 5). As a result of Project operations, water will be utilized for power generation effectively limiting flows in Reach 5 to some extent for the entirety of the year. During project construction, a pipe coming directly from the tunnel will distribute the agreed upon instream flow amount to the top end of Reach 5 immediately below the falls in Grant Creek. This water is being provided to maintain anadromous and resident passage in Reach 5. A 12-inch diameter pipeline will be installed using DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-243 March 2015 directional bore techniques from the new intake structure in the lake to the base of the falls. An overflow weir and control gate will be installed in the intake to allow controlled release of water from the lake to the base of the falls. The water will be pulled from the surface of the lake to maintain consistent temperature conditions at the base of the falls and within Reach 5 below. The amount of flow released will be controlled through the overflow weir in the intake where an accurate flow measurement can be accomplished. KHL proposes instream flows of 5 cfs from January 1 – July 31, and November 1 – December 31. This period includes rainbow trout periodicity, and connectivity for trout is achieved at a flow of 5 cfs. From August 1 – September 7, KHL proposed a flow of 10 cfs in Reach 5. Chinook and sockeye salmon and Dolly Varden char spawn during this period. Connectivity is achieved for Dolly Varden at a flow of 5 cfs and then 10 cfs for sockeye salmon and 22 cfs for Chinook salmon. No Chinook, however, have been observed in Reach 5. From September 8 – October 31, KHL proposes a flow of 7 cfs. Sockeye and coho salmon and Dolly Varden char spawn during this period. Connectivity is achieved at a flow of 5 cfs for Dolly Varden, and 5 cfs, then 10 cfs for sockeye and coho salmon. It is important to note that during the study period, only 1.3 percent of adult salmon were observed in Reach 5. As proposed, the Project will provide additional flows to Reaches 1-4, including the side channels and distributary during the fall, winter, and early spring period, increasing the amount of fry, juvenile, and adult rearing habitat in Grant Creek below Reach 5 to a point that is anticipated to significantly increase the overall production potential for all fish species in Grant Creek. Confirmation of adherence to the instream flow requirements will be incorporated into the Annual Compliance Report. The report will be provided to stakeholders for review and comment prior to KHL finalizing and filing with FERC. A full summary of all measures, as well as the associated implementation timeframes, being proposed by KHL for the original license will be provided with the FLA. 4.6.3.3. Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Periphyton Global adherence to BMPs will be utilized in conjunction with all Project construction and operation related activities. With respect to macroinvertebrates and periphyton, ensuring that short-term erosion and/or sediment load increases do not occur with construction activities. An ESCP, as described in Section 4.4.3 of this Exhibit E, will be implemented to minimize aquatic impacts as a result of sediment load increases. During construction, all activities associated with BMPs and the monitoring and management plans will be managed by KHL’s on-site ECM. Annually, all measures implemented, associated results and collaboration with stakeholders will be documented in the Annual Compliance Report. The report will be provided to stakeholders for review and comment prior to KHL finalizing and filing with FERC. A full summary of all measures, as well as the associated implementation timeframes, being proposed by KHL for the original license will be provided with the FLA. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-244 March 2015 4.6.4. Cumulative Effects Analysis FERC’s SD2 (FERC 2010b) identified potential cumulative effects related to construction and operation of the Project for fisheries resources. Given the lack of fisheries resources in Grant Lake, the focus of KHL’s fisheries studies was on Grant Creek and the Trail Lakes Narrows area. Based on those comprehensive assessments, development of the proposed operational regime and a high level of collaboration with stakeholders, KHL believes that any cumulative effect associated with Project development will at a minimum, have no net impact on aquatic resources and more likely, produce positive effects. KHL is not intending to obscure the fact that flows will be significantly reduced in Reach 5. However, as previously documented, Reach 5 contains a minimal amount of the overall suitable aquatic habitat in Grant Creek. This combined with the measures that KHL will detail in the Draft Biotic Monitoring Plan and the associated data from which those measures are derived, provides substantive evidence that Grant Creek will contain a significantly higher amount of stable, quality aquatic habitat under the operational regime currently proposed by KHL. The result of this increased habitat would be higher production potential for aquatic species utilizing Grant Creek and as a result, have a direct benefit to the overall aquatic resource composition of the Kenai River drainage. 4.6.5. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Based on the comprehensive set of natural resources studies implemented by KHL, the aforementioned monitoring and management plans and the associated coordination with stakeholders, KHL has identified no aquatic-related unavoidable adverse impacts associated with construction and operation of the Project. 4.7. Terrestrial Resources This section describes the terrestrial resources evaluated for the Project: 1) terrestrial vegetation, invasive plants, and sensitive plants; 2) wetlands and waters; and 3) wildlife. 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 (Figure E.4-66). 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. Terrestrial resources were evaluated with respect to each resource’s potential nexus to the Project features, and includes the area determined to capture the spatial limits of potential direct and indirect impacts to the terrestrial resource disciplines evaluated. For the wildlife study, resources were evaluated within the entire Terrestrial Resources Study area. In contrast, all of the other terrestrial resource disciplines created a more focused assessment area within this collective Terrestrial Resources Study area (KHL 2014f). q r ²³(û Developed For: Drawing Scale: GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - FERC PROJECT #P-13212 LICENSE APPLICATION Figure E.4-662013-14 Natural Resources Study Area ±THE SONNA BUILDING910 MAIN ST. SUITE 258BOISE, ID 83702 OFFICE: 208.342.4214FAX: 208.342.4216 REV DESCRIPTIONBYDATE SCALE: DRAWING ISSUED DATE CHECKED DRAWN DESIGNED 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Grant Lake LowerTrailLake 11/20/2014 UpperTrailLake G r a n t C reekVagtLake Intake Tunnel Penstock Intake Access Road Diversion Power House Detention Pond PondOutlet Legend Alaska Railroad Seward Highway Study Area Property Ownership Borough Federal Private State Access Road Jake Woodbury Moose Pass 1:27,000 MAP NOTES: 1. THIS MAP WAS DEVELOPED FOR KENAI HYDRO, LLC AS PART OF THE GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (FERC NO. 13212), LICENSE APPLICATION. THE LOCATIONS OF PROJECT FEATURES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND ARE 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. C. LAND OWNERSHIP BOUNDARIES PROVIDED BY THE KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH'S GIS DEPARTMENT. 3. THIS MAP PRESENTS DATA IN THE FOLLOWING GEOGRAHIC SYSTEMS: - HORIZONTAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983 (NAD 83) - VERTICAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM (NAVD 88). - PROJECTION: ALASKA 4 FIPS 5004 FEET STATE PLANE Jake Woodbury C. Warnock DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-247 March 2015 4.7.1. Affected Environment 4.7.1.1. Terrestrial Vegetation, Invasive Plants and Sensitive Plants 4.7.1.1.1 Upland Terrestrial Vegetation An upland vegetation type map of the general vegetation Project area was updated using aerial photograph imagery and ground truthing during the 2013 Terrestrial Resources Study (KHL 2014f; Figure E.4-67). Figures 3.3-2 through 3.3-6 in the Terrestrial Resources Study, Final Report (KHL 2014f) show more detailed information regarding the upland vegetation in the vegetation study area. Wetland vegetation types are discussed in detail in Section 4.7.1.2 of this Exhibit E. The vegetation 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 upland vegetation types, total acres, and percentages of the vegetation study area are presented in Table E.4-85. All of these upland vegetation types are widespread in the region. A short description of each upland vegetation type is provided below. Table E.4-85. Upland vegetation types, acres, and percentages within the vegetation study area. Vegetation Type Acres1 Percent Dominant Species Coniferous Forest 173.7 30.5% Lutz spruce, mountain hemlock, rusty menziesia, early blueberry, twinflower Coniferous- Deciduous Forest 177.1 31.0% Lutz Spruce, paper birch, poplar, quaking aspen, rusty menziesia Alder Scrub 34.5 6.0% Sitka alder, goatsbeard, willow species, devil’s club Grass-Forb Meadow 2.2 0.4% Bluejoint wheatgrass, goatsbeard, red raspberry, highbush cranberry Floodplain Forest and Scrub 106.0 18.6% Lutz spruce, poplar, paper birch, Sitka alder, willow, sedge species, river beauty, bluejoint reedgrass Wetlands 77.1 13.5% Refer to Section 4.7.1.2 Total 570.5 100.0% Notes: 1. Wetland acreages presented in Table E.4-85 differ from that in and Table E.4-86 because the value in Table E.4-85 is for the entire Terrestrial Resources Study area, whereas, that for Table E.4-86 is for the wetlands assessment area only. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-248 March 2015 [This page intentionally left blank.] DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-251 March 2015 Coniferous Forest is a common vegetation type in the vegetation study area, occurring on 173.7 acres, and comprising 30.5 percent of the vegetated 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 vegetation study area is old growth. Evidence of past logging of some larger trees within the vegetation study area was observed during the Terrestrial Resources Study (KHL 2014f) in the vicinity of the Alaska Railroad and the Seward Highway. The understory layer is dense with tall shrub species, including rusty menziesia (Menziesia ferruginea), early blueberry (Vaccinium ovalifolium), and Alaska huckleberry (Vaccinium alaskaense). Common low-shrubs include: five-leaf bramble (Rubus pedatus), twinflower (Linnaea borealis), lingonberry (Vaccinium vitis-idaea), bunchberry (Cornus canadensis), crowberry (Empetrum nigrum), and Labrador tea (Ledum groenlandicum). The Coniferous-Deciduous Forest is the most common vegetation type in the vegetation 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 (Ribes laxiflorum), prickly rose (Rosa acicularis), Beauvard spiraea (Spiraea stevenii) and highbush cranberry (Viburnum edule). The Alder Scrub vegetation type is represented by stands of often closed canopy Sitka alder (Alnus viridis ssp. sinuata) 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 (Aruncus dioicus), willow (Salix sp.) species, and devil’s club (Oplopanax horridum). Coniferous tree seedlings and saplings were commonly observed in this vegetation type. In the vegetation study area, the Grass-Forb Meadow vegetation type forms a mosaic with the Alder Scrub vegetation type and is mostly included as small, unmapped patches on the steep slopes above Grant Lake. Two larger Grass-Forb Meadows are mapped in the vegetation study area. The Grass-Forb Meadow vegetation type is the least common type in the vegetation 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 (Calamagrostis canadensis), which often forms extensive swards. Forb associates are often diverse. Associated shrub species include goatsbeard, red raspberry (Rubus idaeus), and highbush cranberry. The Floodplain Forest and Scrub vegetation type covers 106.0 acres of the vegetation 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. This type is often comprised of a mosaic of upland and wetland areas (described in Section 4.7.1.2 of this Exhibit E). The substrate of this vegetation type is typically well-drained sand, silt, gravel, and cobble. Upland portions within this type include: forests comprised of Lutz spruce, poplar, and DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-252 March 2015 sometimes paper birch; stands of large poplar, and stands of Sitka alder and willow species. 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). Upland vegetation around Grant Lake is comprised of large stands of Coniferous Forest and Coniferous-Deciduous Forest on moderate slopes at the south east end, the elbow area, and the southwest shore. Steep, avalanche-prone slopes around the lake support extensive stands of the Alder Scrub vegetation type. Larger patches of the Grass-Forb Meadow vegetation type are located at the east and west ends of Grant Lake. Sizable stands of the Floodplain Forest and Scrub vegetation type are located on the wide floodplain associated with Inlet Creek and along outwash fans and floodplains associated with small drainages areas along the Grant Lake shore. Upland vegetation along Grant Creek and the Project feature corridor includes extensive stands of Coniferous Forest and Coniferous-Deciduous Forest. A large stand of the Floodplain Forest and Scrub vegetation type is present along lower Grant Creek, to where it enters the Trail Lake Narrows. In general, upland vegetation in the vegetation study area is influenced by natural successional patterns and periodic disturbance associated with natural processes like fires, spruce beetle outbreaks, flood events, and avalanches. Upland vegetation in most of the Grant Lake vegetation study area is currently largely unaffected by human activities. 4.7.1.1.2 Invasive Plants Overall, very few populations of invasive plants were observed in the invasive plant study area during the Terrestrial Resources Study (KHL 2014f). Populations of the following four invasive plants were documented: annual bluegrass (Poa annua), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), and white clover (Trifolium repens). Populations of each of these invasive species have previously been mapped in the vicinity of the invasive plant study area on State of Alaska lands (USFS 2013). During the 2013 study, common dandelion and white clover were located along the Seward Highway ROW in the invasive plant study area. In addition, a small population of timothy (Phleum pratense) was observed in the invasive plant species study area along the Seward Highway in 2014. 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 invasive plant study area on the west end of the northshore 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. In the invasive plant 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. In addition to the five species of invasive weeds located in the invasive plant invasive plant study area, populations of common plantain (Plantago major) and alsike clover (Trifolium hybridum) have been documented previously within 0.25 mile of the invasive plant study area (USFS 2013). DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-253 March 2015 4.7.1.1.3 Sensitive Plants The USFS protects plant species designated as “sensitive” and species that are formally listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. Aleutian shield fern (Polystichum aleuticum) is the only federally listed or proposed plant species within the range of the sensitive plant study 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 (KHL 2014f). A small population of the sensitive plant pale poppy (Papaver alboroseum) was located on USFS lands in the sensitive plant study area during the 2013 field surveys. 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 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. While some human disturbance may help maintain suitable open habitat, repeated disturbance may have affect the plant’s ability to reproduce (Charnon 2007). In the sensitive plant study area, twenty pale poppy plants were observed 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 nearest plants were 8 feet away from and between 1 and 3 feet (704-707 feet in elevation) higher than the natural maximum lake elevation of 703 feet. The Grant Lake pale poppy 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 population and habitat appear to be increasingly shaded due to natural vegetative succession. Dense Sitka alder and willow shrubs and seedlings dominate the site. Approximately half of the pale poppy plants in the population were growing under low Sitka alder branches. The more densely shaded pale poppy plants were smaller and had fewer capsules than plants that were in less shade. If natural vegetation succession in the vicinity of the Grant Lake pale poppy site continues without natural disturbance from an avalanche or flood event, it is likely that the already small population will decline in numbers and eventually disappear due to the species’ requirement for open, well-drained habitat. There is an historic cabin, a campsite and two campfire rings with evidence of recent use on the small gravel bar where the pale poppy population was located. During the 2013 Terrestrial Resources Study (KHL 2014f), there was no visible evidence of trampling of plants, although plants were as close as 5 feet away from one of the campfire rings. The only invasive plant species present in the vicinity of the pale poppy population was common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale). 4.7.1.2. Wetlands This section describes the waters of the U.S. (WOUS) within the Project area, which includes both wetlands and waters. 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 (also referred to as “non-vegetated water”) are defined as any non-vegetated area DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-254 March 2015 with a bed and bank, including intermittent, ephemeral, or perennial streams, rivers, or standing water (lakes and ponds). For the purpose of the DLA, all WOUS are referred to collectively as “wetlands” or “wetlands and waters.” The “waters” portion of this section overlaps with the two previous sections of this Exhibit E, Section 4.5, Water Quality and Quantity, and Section 4.6, Aquatic Resources (Instream Flow). Section 4.5 presents a detailed discussion of the hydrology, water chemistry, and temperature of Grant Creek and Grant Lake; and Section 4.6 presents a detailed discussion on the instream flow of Grant Creek, as related to fish habitat. This section is intended to provide a more general assessment of the waters with a focus on the regulatory needs for the CWA Section 404 permit application (KHL 2015b), which will be submitted to the USACE in early 2015. Figure E.4-68 presents the wetlands and waters assessment area (referred to as the wetlands assessment area or WAA), within the broader Terrestrial Resources Study Area. The WAA is described in detail in the Terrestrial Resources Study, Final Report (KHL 2014f), and includes: 1) Grant Lake to approximately the 705-foot elevation contour along the lake shore5; 2) the area within a 100-foot buffer around Grant Creek; and 3) the area within 100 feet of all Project infrastructure features. The 2013 WAA reported in the Terrestrial Resources Report (KHL 2014f) was updated in December 2014 to reflect the addition of the surge chamber and access road, and switchbacks along the intake access road. Figure E.4-68 reflects the 2014 WAA. Note that areas outside of the WAA, but within the broader Terrestrial Resources Study area, were assessed using exclusively desktop methods for the purpose of informing the vegetation and wildlife components of the Terrestrial Resources Study; these areas were not ground-truthed in the field. Detailed discussion of wetlands and waters is limited to the findings within the WAA only. Wetlands and waters were mapped using a combination of desktop and field techniques. Wetland determinations were performed according to the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (USACE 1987) and the Alaska Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Alaska Region (USACE 2007). Waters were mapped using global positioning system (GPS) points in the field, with subsequent editing in GIS using aerial photography and data collected for the Aquatic Habitat Mapping and Instream Flow Study (KHL 2014d) for Grant Creek side channel areas. 5 705 feet is the elevation of the gravity diversion structure that would have raised the pool level by a maximum height of approximately 2 feet (from 703 to 705 feet NAVD 88). The diversion structure is no longer a component of the Project proposal. XYXYXYXY XY XYXYXYXYXY XY XY XY XY XYXYXYXYXY XYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYGrant Lake Lower Trail Lake Upper Trail Lake Grant Cree k Inle t C r e e k Legend Seward Highway Alaska Railroad 2013 Terrestrial Resources Study Area Updated Wetland Assessment Area Access Roads XYXYXYXYXYXYTransmission Line LICENSE APPLICATION Figure E.4-682014 Updated Wetland Assessment Area Developed For: Drawing Scale: GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - FERC PROJECT NO.13212±OFFICE: 208.342.4214 FAX: 208.342.4216 REV DESCRIPT IO NBYDATE DRAWING ISSUED DATE CHECKED DRAWN DESIGNED 0 0.5 10.25 Miles 12/23/2014 J. Woodbury M. Hjortsberg J. Blank1401 SHORELINE DRIVE BOISE, 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 DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-257 March 2015 In addition, a functional assessment was also completed for the wetlands and waters using field data and the GIS-based wetlands and waters mapping. See the Terrestrial Resources Study, Final Report (KHL 2014f) for a detailed description of the functions assessed, assessment methods, and results of the functional assessment and categorization. Wetlands were assessed for eleven hydrologic, geomorphic, ecologic, and sociologic functions, as presented in the RGL 0901 guidance (USACE 2009). Waters were assessed separately from wetlands for 15 functions using an integration of USACE’s Functional Objectives for Stream Restoration (Fischenich 2006), and U.S. EPA’s A Function-Based Framework for Stream Assessment and Restoration Projects (Harman et al. 2012). Water assessment functions were related to system dynamics, hydrologic balance, sediment processes, biological support, and chemical processes and pathways. 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. A summary of acreages by wetland or waters type is presented in Table E.4-86 and the wetlands and waters mapping is presented in Figures E.4-69 through E.4-74. A total of 38.5 acres of vegetated wetlands and 1,660 acres of waters were mapped within the WAA. Small streams that were too narrow to map as polygons (e.g., less than 15 feet wide) were mapped as lines and reported in linear feet. A total of 13,583 linear feet of small streams were mapped within the WAA (Table E.4-86). 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. A detailed description of wetland and waters types is presented in Table E.4-87. Vegetated wetlands included herbaceous, scrub-shrub, forested wetlands associated with depressional, lacustrine, slope, and riparian areas. Depressional wetlands within the the WAA 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. Lacustrine wetlands include persistent and non-persistent emergent wetlands, aquatic beds, and vegetated shoreline communities that are directly attached to or border Grant Lake (Figures E.4-71 through E.4-74). There were no vegetated lacustrine fringe wetlands associated with Upper Trail and Lower Trail lakes. 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. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-258 March 2015 Table E.4-86. Wetlands and waters – summary within wetlands assessment area. Revised 2014 Wetland Assessment Area Wetland Communities Acres % Coverage Herbaceous Wetlands 5.68 15% Herbaceous Wetland / Floodplain Forest & Scrub 3.11 8% Scrub-Shrub Wetlands 20.92 54% Scrub-Shrub Wetland / Floodplain Forest & Scrub 7.94 21% Forested Wetlands 0.89 2% Vegetated Wetland Subtotals 38.5 Waters Acres % Coverage Open Water - Grant Lake 1649.10 99% Open Water - Trail Lake Narrows 1.02 0.06% Open Water - Ponds 0.02 0.00% Riverine- Grant Creek main and side channels 6.74 0.41% Riverine- Outwash fans and areas of Inlet Creek channel 3.07 0.19% Unvegetated Water Subtotals 1660.0 WETLAND & WATER TOTALS 1698.5 Non-Vegetated Waters1 Feet Small Streams (perennial) 8,303 61% Small Streams (intermittent) 5,279 39% FEET TOTAL 13,583 Notes: 1. Streams that were mapped as lines rather than polygons due to width. 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 LICENSE APPLICATION Figure E.4-692013 Wetland and Waters TypesGlobal Indicator Map ±OFFICE: 208.342.4214 FAX: 208.342.4216 REV DESCRIPT IO NBYDATE DRAWING ISSUED DATE CHECKED DRAWN DESIGNED 0 2,000 4,0001,000 Feet 12/23/2014 Legend Seward Highway Alaska Railroad Access Roads Detention Pond Access Bridge Tunnel Access Roads XYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYTransmission Line 2013 Terrestrial Resources Study Area Updated Wetland Assessment Area Wetlands/Waters Herbaceous Wetland Herbaceous Wetland / Floodplain Forest & Scrub Scrub-Shrub Wetland Scrub-Shrub Wetland / Floodplain Forest & Scrub Forested Wetland Pond Open Water Other Nonvegetated Waterbody Intermittent Stream Perennial Stream M. Hjortsberg M. Hjortsberg J. Blank1401 SHORELINE DRIVE BOISE, 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#0 104 105 106107 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116117 118 119 120 121 122123 124125 126 127 OP78 OP70 DP35 DP36 OP71 OP72 OP73 OP74 OP75 DP37 DP38 OP76 DP39 DP40 OP77 DP41 DP24 OP47 DP25 DP26 OP48 OP48OP49 OP50OP51OP52OP53 OP54OP55 OP44 OP45 DP23 OP46 DP17 DP18 OP36 DP19 DP20 OP37 DP21 OP38 DP22 OP39 OP40 OP41 OP42 OP43 OP26 DP14 DP15 OP27 OP28OP29 OP30 OP31 DP16 OP32 OP33 OP34 OP35 OP19 OP20 OP21 OP22 DP12DP13 OP22 OP23 OP24 OP25 Developed For: Drawing Scale: GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - FERC PROJECT NO.13212 LICENSE APPLICATION Figure E.4-702013 Wetland and Waters Types Grant Creek ±OFFICE: 208.342.4214 FAX: 208.342.4216 REV DESCRIPT IO NBYDATE DRAWING ISSUED DATE CHECKED DRAWN DESIGNED 0 550 1,100275 Feet LowerTrailLake 12/23/2014 Legend #0 2013 Wetland Data Points #0 2013 Wetland Observation Points !5 2010 Wetland Data Points Seward Highway Alaska Railroad Detention Pond Tunnel Access Road XYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYTransmission Line Updated Wetland Assessment Area 2013 Terrestrial Resources Study Area Wetland/Waters Type Herbaceous Wetland Herbaceous Wetland / Floodplain Forest & Scrub Scrub-Shrub Wetland Scrub-Shrub Wetland / Floodplain Forest & Scrub Forested Wetland Pond Open Water Other Nonvegetated Waterbody Intermittent Stream Perennial Stream G ra n tC r e ek J. Woodbury M. Hjortsberg J. Blank1401 SHORELINE DRIVE BOISE, 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#0104 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 LICENSE APPLICATION Figure E.4-712013 Wetland and Waters Types Grant Lake - Intake±OFFICE: 208.342.4214 FAX: 208.342.4216 REV DESCRIPT IO NBYDATE DRAWING ISSUED DATE CHECKED DRAWN DESIGNED 0 550 1,100275 Feet 12/23/2014 J. Woodbury M. Hjortsberg J. Blank1401 SHORELINE DRIVE BOISE, 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 Observation Points Access Bridge Tunnel Access Road XYXYXYXYXYXYXYTransmission Line !5 2010 Wetland Data Points 2013 Wetland Assessment Area 2013 Terrestrial Resources Study Area Wetland/Waters Type Herbaceous Wetland Herbaceous Wetland / Floodplain Forest & Scrub Scrub-Shrub Wetland Scrub-Shrub Wetland / Floodplain Forest & Scrub Forested Wetland Pond Open Water Other Nonvegetated Waterbody Intermittent Stream Perennial Stream Grant Lake G r a n tC r e ek #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 LICENSE APPLICATION Figure E.4-722013 Wetland and Waters Types Grant Lake - NW Elbow ± OFFICE: 208.342.4214 FAX: 208.342.4216 REV DESCRIPTIONBYDATE DRAWING ISSUED DATE CHECKED DRAWN DESIGNED 0 550 1,100275 Feet 11/11/2014 J. Woodbury M. Hjortsberg J. Blank1401 SHORELINE DRIVE BOISE, 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 Observation Points Intermittent Stream Perennial Stream !5 2010 Wetland Data Points 2013 Wetland Assessment Area 2013 Terrestrial Resources Study 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 Nonvegetated Waterbody 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 LICENSE APPLICATION Figure E.4-732013 Wetland and Waters Types Grant Lake - Island East ±OFFICE: 208.342.4214 FAX: 208.342.4216 REV DESCRIPTIONBYDATE DRAWING ISSUED DATE CHECKED DRAWN DESIGNED 0 550 1,100275 Feet 11/11/2014 J. Woodbury M. Hjortsberg J. Blank1401 SHORELINE DRIVE BOISE, 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 Observation Points Intermittent Stream Perennial Stream !5 2010 Wetland Data Points 2013 Wetland Assessment Area 2013 Terrestrial Resources Study 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 Nonvegetated Waterbody 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 DP28 OP59OP60OP61 OP62 OP04 OP05 OP06 OP07 OP08OP09 OP10DP06 DP07 OP11 OP12 OP13 OP14 DP08 DP09 DP10 OP15 OP16 OP17DP11 OP18 DP01 DP02 OP01 OP02 DP03 OP03 DP04 DP05 Developed For: Drawing Scale: GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - FERC PROJECT NO.13212 LICENSE APPLICATION Figure E.4-742013 Wetland and Waters Types Grant Lake - East End±OFFICE: 208.342.4214 FAX: 208.342.4216 REV DESCRIPTIONBYDATE DRAWING ISSUED DATE CHECKED DRAWN DESIGNED 0 550 1,100275 Feet 11/11/2014 J. Woodbury M. Hjortsberg J. Blank1401 SHORELINE DRIVE BOISE, 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 Observation Points Intermittent Stream Perennial Stream !5 2010 Wetland Data Points 2013 Wetland Assessment Area 2013 Terrestrial Resources Study 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 Nonvegetated Waterbody Grant Lake DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-271 March 2015 Table E.4-87. Wetlands and waters within the 2014 wetlands assessment area (detailed). Wetland Cover Type Hydrogeomorphic Position NWI Class/ Subclassa NWI Hydro Modifierb Revised 2014 Wetland Assessment Area (Acres) Vegetation Descriptionc Herbaceous Wetland Depressional PEM1 B, E, F, H 0.13 Palustrine emergent wetlands with saturated hydrologic conditions occurring throughout or within portions of the WAA 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 0.08 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 4.26 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 1.20 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:5.68 Herbaceous Wetland / Floodplain Forest & Scrub Riverine PEM1 B, C, E 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 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:3.11 DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Table E.4-87, continued… Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-272 March 2015 Wetland Cover Type Hydrogeomorphic Position NWI Class/ Subclassa NWI Hydro Modifierb Revised 2014 Wetland Assessment Area (Acres) Vegetation Descriptionc Scrub-Shrub Wetland Depressional PSS1 B, E 0.21 Palustrine deciduous scrub-shrub wetlands with saturated to seasonally flooded hydrologic conditions occurring throughout or within portions of the WAA depressional features Dominated by Ledum decumbens, Betula glandulosa, Vaccinium uliginosum. Wetland Points: (HDR 129); similar to DP22 PSS1/3 B, E 0.31 Palustrine deciduous and broadleaved evergreen scrub- shrub wetlands with saturated conditions occurring throughout or within portions of the WAA depressional features. Typically dominated by Rubus chamaemorus, Cornus canadensis, Empetrum nigrum, Betula glandulosa, Andromeda polifolia, Ledum decumbens. Wetland Points: None, similar vegetation to DP17 PSS1/EM1 B, E 2.95 Palustrine deciduous scrub-shrub and emergent mixed wetlands with saturated to seasonally flooded hydrologic conditions occurring throughout or within portions of the WAA 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 0.60 Palustrine broadleaved evergreen scrub-shrub and emergent mixed wetlands with saturated hydrologic conditions typically occurring within portions of the WAA depressional features. Dominated by Andromeda polifolia, Betula glandulosa, Empetrum nigrum, Carex pauciflora, Rubus chamaemorus, Equisetum arvense. Wetland Points: DP17, DP20; (HDR 127) PSS4 B 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 WAA, plant species not documented. Wetland Points: None, located outside of 2013 WAA PSS4/3/EM1 B 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 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 7.24 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 Riverine PSS1 C 0.03 Palustrine deciduous scrub-shrub wetlands with seasonally flooded hydrologic conditions associated with small drainages within the the WAA. Dominated by Salix sitchensis, Salix alaxensis, Alnus viridis, Sanguisorba canadensis, Rubus chamaemorus, Calamagrostis canadensis, Cronus canadensis. Wetland Points: OP58 PSS1/EM1 C, E 0.97 Palustrine deciduous scrub-shrub and emergent mixed wetlands with saturated to seasonally flooded hydrologic conditions associated with small drainages within the the WAA. 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:20.92 DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Table E.4-87, continued… Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-273 March 2015 Wetland Cover Type Hydrogeomorphic Position NWI Class/ Subclassa NWI Hydro Modifierb Revised 2014 Wetland Assessment Area (Acres) Vegetation Descriptionc Scrub-Shrub Wetland / Floodplain Forest and Scrub Riverine PSS1 A, B, C, E 5.67 Palustrine deciduous scrub-shrub wetlands with hydrologic conditions ranging from temporarily flooded, saturated, to seasonally flooded associated with the WAA 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 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 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:7.94 Forested Wetland Slope PFO4 B 0.81 Palustrine needle leaved evergreen forested wetland with saturated hydrologic conditions; within the the WAA 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 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, Cornus canadensis. Wetland Points: DP37, (HDR 110) Forested Wetland Subtotal:0.89 Open Water Lacustrine L1UB (Grant Lk.) H 1648.20 Unvegetated deep water (greater than 6.6 ft deep) of Trail Lake and Grant Lake. Wetland Points: None L2UB (Grant Lk.) H 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 Unvegetated shallow water (less than 6.6 ft deep) associated with the outlet of Grant Lake. Wetland Points: None Total Grant Lk. 1649.10 L1UB (Trail Lk. Narrows) H 1.02 Unvegetated deep water (greater than 6.6 ft deep) of Trail Lake Narrows. Wetland Points: None Open Water Subtotal:1650.12 DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Table E.4-87, continued… Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-274 March 2015 Wetland Cover Type Hydrogeomorphic Position NWI Class/ Subclassa NWI Hydro Modifierb Revised 2014 Wetland Assessment Area (Acres) Vegetation Descriptionc Pond Depressional PUB H 0.02 Shallow ponds (less than 20 acres in size) associated with depressional features within the the WAA. All were outside the original 2013 WAA. Wetland Points: None, located outside original 2013 WAA Pond Subtotal:0.02 Non-Vegetated Water Riverine R2UB (Grant Cr.) H 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 3.07 Unvegetated channel beds and outwash fan located at the inlet of Grant Lake 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 8,303 ft Unvegetated permanently flooded (flowing) active stream channels mapped as stream lines throughout the WAA. 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 5,279 ft Unvegetated intermittent seasonally flooded (not flowing during survey) stream channels mapped as stream lines throughout the WAA. No acreages associated with these stream lines. Wetland Points: DP17, OP11, OP25, (HDR117) OP32, OP33, OP43, OP64, OP80; (HDR111) Non-Vegetated Riverine Subtotal:9.82 TOTALS 1,698.51 Notes: a/b. NWI and hydro modifier codes are from the Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats Classification table (Cowardin et al 1979) c 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 KHL 2010a field study conducted by HDR, or through a desktop analysis. Community associations were determined based on field knowledge of the wetland communities. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-275 March 2015 Waters within the the WAA 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. 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). 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 break-up and flood events. Lacustrine waters, also referred to as ‘open water,’ include the non-vegetated portions of Grant Lake and Upper Trail and Lower Trail lakes (deep and shallow lake margins). Ponds (depressional waters) were also identified within the broader Terrestrial Resources Study Area, but not within the wetlands assessment area. Additional details on Grant Creek and Grant Lake can be found in this Exhibit E, Section 4.5, Water Quality and Quantity, and Section 4.6, Aquatic Resources (Instream Flow). Most of the wetlands and waters within the WAA were functioning at their highest potential for each of the functions assessed for a given functional class. All wetlands and waters were categorized as Category II wetlands based on the USACE revised definitions published in May 2014 (USACE 2014). 4.7.1.3. Wildlife This section describes the existing wildlife resources associated within the Project based on the 2013/2014 study effort (KHL 2014f; KHL 2015c [Attachment E-3]) and relevant data from previous Project studies. Wildlife resources were assessed within the entire Terrestrial Resources Study Area presented in Figure E.4-66. 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 (KHL 2011); and 3) the 2013/2014 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 Project area wildlife resources. Data sources used in the wildlife resources results section are referenced accordingly. The Ebasco (1984) report served as the initial comprehensive assessment of wildlife resources within the Project area. The wildlife studies conducted in 2010, 2013, and 2014 build upon this study and serve to provide additional information for wildlife resources that required more research. 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]). DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-276 March 2015 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 herein. The 2013 and 2014 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 and Shorebird studies and Northern Goshawk survey were conducted in the spring and summer of 2013 and 2014. The 2013/2014 Winter Moose and Winter Waterbird surveys were performed in December 2013 and March 2014. The subsections that follow provide a summary of the primary components of the 2013/2014 wildlife studies: Raptor Nesting survey, Breeding Landbirds and Shorebirds, Waterbirds, and Terrestrial Mammals. The methods, results, and conclusions, as well as a summary of study variances from the 2013 Study Plan are provided for each study component. Detailed data analysis and results are described in the Terrestrial Resources Study, Final Report (KHL 2014f) and Terrestrial Resources Study, Report Addendum Terrestrial Resources Study, Report Addendum (KHL 2015c; Attachment E-3). Relevant data from the previous Project wildlife studies are also incorporated within the relevant section. 4.7.1.3.1 Raptors There are 11 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 six owl 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 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.). The bald eagle is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (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). Based on vegetation classification, nesting habitat is available for all the listed diurnal raptors in the area. Seven raptors have been detected in the terrestrial study area (Table E.4-88). No owls were detected during any field studies. Table E.4-88 provides a summary of the various raptors that have been detected during site- specific studies in the Grant Lake Project area. 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. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-277 March 2015 Table E.4-88. Raptors detected during site specific studies and year of study. Raptor Species Detected in Project Area Study Year Bald Eagle 1984, 2010 and 2013 Northern Goshawk 2013 Sharp-shinned Hawk 1984 Osprey 2013 American Kestrel 1984 Golden Eagle 1984 Merlin 2013 USFS Sensitive Species and Species of Special Interest Osprey: The osprey is a Region 10 sensitive species. Ospreys were not documented in the Grant Lake area during the Trail River Watershed landscape assessment (USFS 2008), but potential nesting and foraging habitat was observed in the Project 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). Breeding Landbirds and Shorebirds 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 information for an assessment of presence / no detection 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) (USFS 2007). DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-278 March 2015 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. 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) (Table E.4-89). DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-279 March 2015 Table E.4-89. Bird species and breeding habitats in the 2013 wildlife study area. 1 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 XXX 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 XXX Red-necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena R XXX 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 X X X FC X XX DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Table E.4-89, continued… Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-280 March 2015 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 canadensis Willow Ptarmigan Lagopus lagopus X X C X XX X Rock Ptarmigan Lagopus muta X X C XXX White-tailed Ptarmigan Lagopus leucura U XXX Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis X R XX X Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola U X XX Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus U XXXX 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 Chroicocephalus 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 XXX 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 XXX 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 DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Table E.4-89, continued… Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-281 March 2015 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 XX 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 XX 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 XXX 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 XX 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 XXX Yellow Warbler Setophaga petechia X X X X C X X XX 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 iliaca X X X U XX X X DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Table E.4-89, continued… Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-282 March 2015 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 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 XXX 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 USFS 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; USFS unpublished; Tarres 1980; Bellrose 1980 and Kortright 1967. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-283 March 2015 The Project area previously described by the USFS cover class was updated in 2013. All reclassified vegetation is defined and discussed in the Terrestrial Vegetation, Invasive Plants and Sensitive Plants Section (4.7.1.1) and Wetlands and Waters Section (4.7.1.2) of this Exhibit E. Table E.4-90 provides the 2013 vegetation types, the number of points that fell into each class, and the bird species detected in each class. Although not located within the 2013 study area, the birch category was retained from the USFS (2007) cover classification. Species distribution was extrapolated to the non-sampled identical vegetation classes in the Project area based on the vegetation information collected from the 33 sample points in 2010 and 2013. Table E.4-90. Qualitative assessment of avian species presence in sampled 2013 wildlife study area vegetation classification. 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 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 DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Table E.4-90, continued… Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-284 March 2015 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 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 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 DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Table E.4-90, continued… Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-285 March 2015 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 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 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 DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Table E.4-90, continued… Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-286 March 2015 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 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 E.4-91 qualitatively evaluates the species most likely found in these habitats based on Kessel (1979) and the descriptions for these habitats provided in the Terrestrial Vegetation, Invasive Plants and Sensitive Plants Section (4.7.1.1) and Wetlands and Waters Section (4.7.1.2) of this Exhibit E. . DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-287 March 2015 Table E.4-91. Qualitative assessment of avian species presence in non-sampled Project area vegetation classification. 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 DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Table E.4-91, continued… Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-288 March 2015 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 USFS Sensitive Species and Species of Special Interest Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus): This medium sized seabird inhabits inland freshwater lakes and nests 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: 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 1984, 2010, and DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-289 March 2015 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 in the 1984, 2010, and 2013 Grant Lake surveys and their habitat occurs throughout forested sections of this area. Lesser Yellowlegs: This species 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 in the 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, and braided rivers, but is sometimes also 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 in the 1984 surveys; however, their habitat does not likely occur in the Project area. 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 Project area. Kittlitz’s Murrelet: This is 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 Project area. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-290 March 2015 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 Project 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 Project area. 4.7.1.3.2 Waterbirds The 2010 data identified the presence of eight species of waterfowl on Grant Lake (Table E.4-92). Table E.4-92. Waterfowl species detected during 2010 studies. Species Scientific name Barrow’s Goldeneye Bucephala islandica Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula Common Loon Gavia immer Pacific Loon Gavia pacifica Common Merganser Mergus merganser Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus. Mallard Anas platyrhynchos The 1984 study 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 during the 2010 study. All three species are considered diving ducks and feed primarily on aquatic invertebrates (goldeneyes) and crustaceans and fish (merganser). The 1984 study 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. There is suitable habitat DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-291 March 2015 available for ground-nesting ducks including the for-mentioned puddle ducks in certain areas of Grant Lake. Winter Use of Grant Lake Area Trumpeter swans were detected on March 3, 2013, on the east side of Lower Trail Lake (K. Graham (USKH) personal communication April 23, 2013). 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. The 2013 – 2014 survey data support the suggestion that Grant Lake and narrows area between the Trail Lakes provide overwintering habitat to waterbirds. Prey concentrations and availability may provide wintering opportunities on Grant Lake and the Trail Lakes; however, the extent of the prey availability is unknown. Trumpeter swans feed primarily on submerged vegetation. Grant Lake and the narrows may or may not provide foraging habitat for this species, but their presence in these area indicate that the swans are benefiting from the open water habitat in some way. USFS Sensitive Species and Species of Special Interest Trumpeter Swan: This is a USFS sensitive species that 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 Project 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. 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, but their nesting habitat does occur in the Project 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 the Project area. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-292 March 2015 4.7.1.3.3 Terrestrial Mammals 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 Project 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 (Figure E.4-75). The USFS (2008) also delineated high value brown bear denning habitat in the more general Trail River Landscape Assessment (2008) (Figure E.4-76). 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). LICENSE APPLICATION Figure E.4-75Major Brown Bear Forage and Denning Habitat (Ebasco 1984) Developed For: GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - FERC PROJECT NO.13212±OFFICE: 208.342.4214 FAX: 208.342.4216 REV DESCRIPTIONBYDATE DRAWING ISSUED DATE CHECKED DRAWN DESIGNED 11/11/2014 J. Woodbury M. Hjortsberg A. Ajmi1401 SHORELINE DRIVE BOISE, ID 83702 10/20/2013 JW Internal Review LICENSE APPLICATION Figure E.4-76 Major Brown Bear Forage and Denning Habitat (USFS 2008). Developed For: GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - FERC PROJECT NO.13212±OFFICE: 208.342.4214 FAX: 208.342.4216 REV DESCRIPTIONBYDATE DRAWING ISSUED DATE CHECKED DRAWN DESIGNED 11/11/2014 J. Woodbury M. Hjortsberg A. Ajmi1401 SHORELINE DRIVE BOISE, ID 83702 10/20/2013 JW Internal Review DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-297 March 2015 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 E.4-77). 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 delineated mountain goat winter habitat well outside the 2013 wildlife study area (see Figure E.4-78). 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 E.4-79). Dall sheep habitat does not likely occur in the Project 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 buildings, 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 E.4-80). 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 DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-298 March 2015 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 E.4-78 (USFS 2008). 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, and is distributed throughout the Trail River watershed on all but the highest elevations (USFS 2008). ADF&G designate the moose density in Game Mangement Unit 7 as “chronically low” and that the severe winters coupled with deep snow conditions most likely contribute to high mortality rates in this area (McDonough 2010). USFS (2008) predictive modeling of moose winter range is displayed in Figure 5.3-6 of the Terrestrial Resources Study, Final Report (KHL 2014f). Results from the 2013 - 2014 Winter Moose surveys appear to support ADF&G’s assessment of low moose numbers in the Project area during the winter. There were no moose or tracks observed within the USFS (2008) predicted wintering habitat during the 2013–-2014 aerial surveys. LICENSE APPLICATION Figure E.4-77Mountain Goat Observations in Study Area (Ebasco 1984) Developed For: GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - FERC PROJECT NO.13212±OFFICE: 208.342.4214 FAX: 208.342.4216 REV DESCRIPTIONBYDATE DRAWING ISSUED DATE CHECKED DRAWN DESIGNED 11/11/2014 J. Woodbury M. Hjortsberg A. Ajmi1401 SHORELINE DRIVE BOISE, ID 83702 10/20/2013 JW Internal Review LICENSE APPLICATION Figure E.4-78 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: 208.342.4214 FAX: 208.342.4216 REV DESCRIPTIONBYDATE DRAWING ISSUED DATE CHECKED DRAWN DESIGNED 11/11/2014 J. Woodbury M. Hjortsberg A. Ajmi1401 SHORELINE DRIVE BOISE, ID 83702 10/20/2013 JW Internal Review LICENSE APPLICATION Figure E.4-79Dall Sheep Observations on Study Area (Ebasco 1984) Developed For: GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - FERC PROJECT NO.13212±OFFICE: 208.342.4214 FAX: 208.342.4216 REV DESCRIPTIONBYDATE DRAWING ISSUED DATE CHECKED DRAWN DESIGNED 11/11/2014 J. Woodbury M. Hjortsberg A. Ajmi1401 SHORELINE DRIVE BOISE, ID 83702 10/20/2013 JW Internal Review LICENSE APPLICATION Figure E.4-80Moose Range on Study Area (Ebasco 1984) Developed For: GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - FERC PROJECT NO.13212±OFFICE: 208.342.4214 FAX: 208.342.4216 REV DESCRIPTIONBYDATE DRAWING ISSUED DATE CHECKED DRAWN DESIGNED 11/11/2014 J. Woodbury M. Hjortsberg A. Ajmi1401 SHORELINE DRIVE BOISE, ID 83702 10/20/2013 JW Internal Review DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-307 March 2015 4.7.2. Environmental Analysis 4.7.2.1. Terrestrial Vegetation, Invasive Plants and Sensitive Plants 4.7.2.1.1 Upland Terrestrial Vegetation The Terrestrial Resources Study, Final Report (KHL 2014f) lists potential direct and indirect Project-related impacts to upland vegetation. Direct impacts to upland vegetation are impacts caused by the direct footprint of Project facilities; and include vegetation clearing, soil disturbance, altered natural grade, fill material placement, damage by machinery, and Grant Lake seasonal water level drawdown and fluctuations. Indirect impacts are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Potential indirect impacts to upland vegetation include: invasive plant infestation, soil erosion, poor native vegetation reestablishment, change of light or moisture levels, shift to earlier successional vegetation stage, and the effects of the Grant Lake drawdown and fluctuations. Direct impacts to upland vegetation by the construction of Project infrastructure would include the permanent removal of vegetation in some areas, and periodic alteration and clearing of vegetation in other areas. Direct impacts would also include soil disturbance, altered natural grade, fill material placement, and damage by machinery. Indirect effects of Project construction and maintenance to upland vegetation may include: invasive plant infestation, soil erosion, and poor native vegetation reestablishment. This environmental analysis only considers the impacts to upland vegetation. Impacts to wetland vegetation are discussed in detail in Section 4.7.2.2 of this Exhibit E. For this analysis, Project components are grouped by type and locality within the proposed Project boundary 6 (Figure E.4-81). Amounts of Project-related upland permanent vegetation loss and vegetation alteration and clearing are evaluated. The proposed Project would permanently remove approximately 0.92 acres of upland vegetation in the footprints of Project components including, the powerhouse, work area, penstock, detention pond, tailrace and their buffers (Table E.4-93). Alteration and clearing of upland vegetation would occur to areas surrounding these Project components during construction and then periodically re-cleared for regular maintenance. This would total 2.2 acres. Clearing and maintenance would impact vegetation by causing a shift to an earlier successional vegetation stage and creating local changes in light and moisture levels. Total direct impacts of Project components (including the powerhouse, parking area, penstock, detention pond, tailrace, and their buffers) to upland vegetation would total 3.12 acres. Upland vegetation types being directly impacted would be the Coniferous-Deciduous Forest (2.91 acres) and the Coniferous Forest (0.21 acres) vegetation types. The powerhouse access road and transmission line corridor would parallel each other and would be approximately 1- mile long. The road would have a 24-foot wide top, a 3-foot wide shoulder 6 The affected environment (Section 4.7.1.1.1) describes upland vegetation within the vegetation study area, which is an area slightly larger than the proposed Project boundary. The environmental analysis, however, focuses on upland vegetation within the Project boundary to give an accurate representation of the potential Project impacts. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-308 March 2015 on each side, a 35-foot wide cleared ROW on the north side and an 85-foot wide cleared ROW on the south side. The transmission line would be located in the ROW on the south side of the road. The entire corridor would be 150 feet wide. Construction of the powerhouse access road and transmission line corridor would permanently remove 3.32 acres of upland vegetation. Upland vegetation in the powerhouse access road ROW would be cleared during construction, and periodically re-cleared for regular maintenance on a total of approximately 8.69 acres. Clearing and maintenance would impact vegetation by causing a shift to an earlier successional vegetation stage, creating changes in light and moisture levels, and causing potential invasive plant introduction and spread. Direct impacts to upland vegetation by the powerhouse access road and transmission line corridor would total 12.01 acres. Upland vegetation types being directly impacted would be the Coniferous-Deciduous Forest (10.37 acres) and the Floodplain Forest and Scrub (1.64 acres) vegetation types. The intake access road would be approximately 1 mile long with a 16-foot wide top, a 3-foot wide shoulder on each side, and a 39-foot wide cleared ROW on each side of the road. The entire corridor would be 100 feet wide. The impacts of components adjacent to the intake access road, including the surge chamber, surge chamber access road, and bypass clearing are included with the intake access road. Construction of the intake access road and adjacent Project components would permanently remove 3.44 acres of upland vegetation. Upland vegetation in the intake access road ROW and around adjacent Project components would be cleared during construction, and periodically re-cleared for regular maintenance on a total of approximately 10.22 acres. Clearing and maintenance would impact vegetation by causing a shift to an earlier successional vegetation stage, creating changes in light and moisture levels, and causing potential invasive plant introduction and spread. Direct impacts to upland vegetation by the intake access road and adjacent Project components would total 13.66 acres. Upland vegetation types being directly impacted would be the Coniferous Forest (11.26 acres) and the Coniferous- Deciduous Forest (2.4 acres) vegetation types. Permanent upland vegetation loss as a result of construction and operation of the Project would occur on 7.68 acres (26.7 percent), while vegetation alteration and clearing would occur to 21.11 acres (73.3 percent) of upland vegetation. Total direct impacts of Project components to upland vegetation would be 28.79 acres, or 22.9 percent of a total of 125.69 acres of upland vegetation within the Project boundary (Table E.4-94). DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-311 March 2015 Table E.4-93. Acres of upland vegetation types affected by the Project. Project Feature Powerhouse / Tailrace / Work Area / Penstock / Detention Pond / Buffers Powerhouse Access Road / Transmission Line Corridor / ROW Intake Access Road / Surge Chamber and Access Road / Bypass Clearing / ROWs Totals Upland Vegetation Types - Permanent Vegetation Loss (acres) Coniferous Forest 2.82 2.82 Coniferous-Deciduous Forest 0.92 2.79 0.62 4.33 Floodplain Forest and Scrub 0.53 0.53 Total (acres) 0.92 3.32 3.44 7.68 (26.7%) Upland Vegetation Types - Vegetation Alteration (acres) Coniferous Forest 0.21 8.44 8.65 Coniferous-Deciduous Forest 1.99 7.58 1.78 11.35 Floodplain Forest and Scrub 1.11 1.11 Total (acres) 2.2 8.69 10.22 21.11 (73.3%) Grand Total (acres) 3.12 12.01 13.66 28.79 (100%) Table E.4-94. Total area and percentages of upland vegetation types affected by the Project. Upland Vegetation Type Total Acres Affected by the Project Number Acres in Project Area 1 Total Area of Each Vegetation Type Affected by the Project (%) Coniferous Forest 11.47 59.89 19.2 Coniferous-Deciduous Forest 15.68 52.71 29.7 Alder Scrub 0 4.36 0 Grass-Forb Meadow 0 0.13 0 Floodplain Forest and Scrub 1.64 8.6 19.1 Total Acres 28.79 125.69 22.9 Notes: 1. Total upland vegetation acreage presented in Table E.4-94 (125.69) differs from that in Table E.4-85 (493.4) because the value in Table E.4-94 is for the area within the Project boundary, whereas, that for Table E.4-85 is for the larger vegetation study area. Percentages of direct Project impacts to upland vegetation types in the Project area are: Coniferous Forest (19.2 percent), Coniferous-Deciduous Forest (29.7 percent), and Floodplain Forest and Scrub (19.1 percent). There are no direct impacts to the Alder Scrub and Grass-Forb Meadow vegetation types in the Project area. The Project footprint occurs in upland vegetation types which are common throughout the region. The Draft VMP, to be distributed for comment between late April and mid-May, will include guidelines for a vegetation maintenance schedule and invasive plant prevention and control measures for the access roads, transmission line corridor, and Project components. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-312 March 2015 The seasonal water level drawdown and fluctuations of the Grant Lake could have potential direct effects on upland vegetation around Grant Lake. The proposed operational scenario will have a 13-foot seasonal drawdown which will occur entirely below the natural maximum water elevation and the zone of upland vegetation. The upper 692 feet of this drawdown occurs under natural conditions. Grant Lake will have a normal maximum lake elevation of 703 feet NAVD 88 and a minimum lake elevation of 690 feet NAVD 88. The Project will be drafted in fall and winter and refilled in spring and summer. Because the lake will not fill above the natural maximum elevation of 703 feet NAVD 88, the Project is not expected to have direct impacts on upland vegetation around the Grant Lake. BMP for construction, revegetation and invasive weed control will be included in the Draft VMP for the Projectto be distributed for comment between late April and mid-May. Implementation of measures in the plan will help minimize direct and indirect impacts to upland vegetation and also help minimize invasive plant introduction and spread. 4.7.2.1.2 Invasive Plants Invasive plants are those that are not considered native to Alaska, as listed by the Alaska Exotic Plant Information Clearinghouse (AKEPIC 2014). The Chugach National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan cites as a goal to “prevent introduction and spread of exotic plants and reduce areas of current infestation” (USFS 2005). Invasive plant species displace and degrade native vegetation and wildlife habitat. Invasive species have many characteristics that allow them to outcompete native vegetation. They grow rapidly, mature early, produce copious amounts of seed and are often able to reproduce both sexually and asexually. Most invasive plants are sun-loving, though some tolerate some degree of shade. Even light disturbance can create conditions conducive for invasive plant establishment. An indirect impact of the Grant Lake drawdown during the growing season is the creation of relatively large expanses of bare, unshaded ground that may support invasive plant species. Under the proposed operation scenario, lake levels could be up to 13 feet below natural lake levels at the start of the growing season, and returning to natural levels by mid-August. The potential for invasive plant colonization in these exposed areas depends on duration and timing of substrate exposure. Some invasive species may be able to tolerate some amount of inundation, while other species may be able to produce seed during a relatively short time period when they are not inundated. Invasive species may have the potential to spread rapidly around the Grant Lake drawdown zone and subsequently into adjacent upland areas. Where Project- disturbed areas intersect areas with natural disturbance such as streams, lakeshores, and newly exposed avalanche chutes, invasive plant establishment may spread beyond Project components. An indirect impact of ground disturbance from construction and regular maintenance activities along access roads, the transmission line corridor and around Project facilities is the creation of suitable substrate for invasive plant establishment. In addition to natural dispersion methods (air, flowing water and animal dispersion), vehicles and tools used for construction and maintenance activities may serve as a means by which invasive plant propagules can reach disturbed areas in the Project area. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-313 March 2015 An indirect impact of potential increased recreational use of the Project area may be the transport of invasive plants into and around the Project area. Hiking, hunting, boat use and camping along access roads, the transmission line corridor and on the Grant Lake may readily bring invasive plants from outside the Project area to substrates where they can become established. In addition, ground substrate disturbance resulting from recreational activities like hiking, may create suitable substrate for invasive plant establishment. The Draft VMP, to be distributed for comment between late April and mid-May, will include provisions to guide noxious weed prevention and control, the revegetation of disturbed areas, and vegetation monitoring and contingency measures. Implementation of the plan will help protect native vegetation communities and habitat. 4.7.2.1.3 Sensitive Plants During the 2013 Terrestrial Resources Study, a small population of pale poppy (Papaver alboroseum), a USFS-designated sensitive plant, was located on the shore of the USFS owned portion of Grant Lake. No proposed Project features are located on USFS land on Grant Lake; thus the poppy population will not be directly affected by the construction or maintenance of Project facilities. Because the plants are located between elevation 704 and 707 feet NAVD 88, the Grant Lake seasonal water level drawdown (between elevation 690 and 703 feet NAVD 88) and fluctuations will not inundate and are not expected to have indirect impacts on pale poppy plants. While the Grant Lake water elevation drop to 690 feet NAVD 88 during the early part of the growing season may have an overall drying effect of the pale poppy substrate, pale poppy should not be negatively affected as it is an upland species which is able to grow on very dry habitats. An indirect impact of Grant Lake seasonal water elevation drawdown is that invasive plant species may spread into the drawdown zone between 690 and 703 feet NAVD 88, and subsequently onto adjacent upland areas, including the pale poppy habitat. Currently the only invasive plant species present in the vicinity of the pale poppy population is common dandelion. There may be some horned dandelion (Taraxacum ceratophorum), a similar looking native species, growing with the common dandelion, so an effort should be made to distinguish the two species if control efforts were implemented. Horned dandelion was observed elsewhere on the Grant Lake shore. A historic cabin, a campsite and two campfire rings with evidence of recent use are located in close proximity to the pale poppy population. There was no visible evidence of trampling of plants when the population was surveyed in 2013, although plants were located as close as 5 feet away from one of the campfire rings. An indirect impact of potential increased recreational use of Grant Lake may be an increased potential for trampling and possibly scorching of pale poppy plants. In addition, increased recreational access and use of Grant Lake may spread invasive species into pale poppy habitat. The Draft VMP, to be distributed for comment between late April and mid-May, will describe measures to assess whether the Project is having negative impacts on the pale poppy population on USFS land and establishes a framework for adaptive management to modify Project infrastructure and/or operations for sensitive plant management. It will also detail measures to DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-314 March 2015 help minimize the establishment and spread of invasive plants in the Project area generally, as well as in the vicinity of the pale poppy population. A Draft BE for USFS listed sensitive plants in the Grant Lake Project area is under development and will be distributed for comment between late April and mid-May. 4.7.2.2. Wetlands For the purpose of assessing impacts to wetlands and waters, direct and indirect impacts (used here synonymously with “effects”) are defined per the definitions of “effects” described on page 49 of FERC’s guidelines, Preparing Environmental Documents, Guidelines for Applicants, Contractors, and Staff (FERC 2008). Direct impacts to wetlands and waters include impacts caused by the direct footprint of Project facilities, including fill placed in wetlands or waters, or clearing of wetland vegetation adjacent to facilities. Indirect impacts to wetlands and waters are less straightforward, resulting from complex interactions between the natural environment, the direct impacts, and the resulting indirect impacts themselves. Recognizing this complexity, for the purpose of this assessment indirect impacts include any impacts to wetlands or waters resulting from changes in the natural hydrology, geomorphology, ecology, or water quality of wetlands and/or waters, as a result of direct impacts. These include impacts resulting from changes in the level of Grant Lake, changes to flow timing and magnitude in Grant Creek, and changes in hydrology within wetlands and/or waters due to the placement of Project facilities. Indirect impacts also include impacts resulting from changes to water quality (e.g., water chemistry, suspended sediment levels, temperature), or geomorphology (e.g., bank erosion or changes in channel bedload) caused by any direct impacts to wetlands or waters. Lastly, indirect impacts also include impacts resulting from ecological changes, such as changes in vegetation or the biotic community of a wetland or water, or weed infestation. For the purpose of this report, indirect impact is synonymous with “secondary” impact as defined by the USACE, and direct impact has the same meaning for both FERC and USACE. Note that a loss or reduction in wetland or waters function could result from either direct or indirect impacts. As an example, a loss or reduction of the wildlife habitat function for a wetland could be caused by either fill in the wetland (direct impact), or by changes in hydrology that cause the wetland to transition from a scrub-shrub wetland to an herbaceous wetland (indirect impact). This section describes the Project-related direct and indirect impacts to wetlands and waters by hydrogeomorphic type (depressional, lacustrine, or riverine), with separate sections for direct versus indirect impacts. Acres of impacts to wetlands and waters are presented in Table E.4-95. This table includes only quantified impacts; qualitative impacts (weed infestation, sedimentation, temporary turbidity, and potential changes in function) were not quantified. Table E.4-96 presents a general qualitative discussion of direct and indirect impacts, of short term or permanent duration. Figures E.4-82 through E.4-84 present the direct and indirect impacts to wetlands and waters within the Project corridor. Indirect impacts along Grant Lake are presented in text only, not in figures. The Terrestrial Resources Study, Final Report (KHL 2014f) also describes the various direct and indirect interdisciplinary linkages between wetlands and waters with other study disciplines DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-315 March 2015 evaluated for this Project. A full discussion of fill-related impacts to WOUS will also be included in the 404 permit application. The “waters” portion of this section overlaps with the Section 4.5, Water Quality and Quantity, and Section 4.6, Aquatic Resources (Instream Flow) of this Exhibit E. Section 4.5 presents a detailed discussion of the impacts to hydrology, water chemistry, and temperature of Grant Creek and Grant Lake; and Section 4.6 presents a detailed discussion on the instream flow of Grant Creek. This section, 4.7.2.2, Wetlands and Waters, is intended to provide a more general assessment of impacts to waters with a focus on the regulatory needs for the CWA Section 404 permit application, which will be submitted in early 2015. See Sections 4.5 and 4.6 for detailed discussion of direct and indirect impacts to Grant Creek and Grant Lake. Table E.4-95. Estimated direct and indirect impacts to wetlands and waters. Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts Total Impact Type Wetlands/ Waters Affected Wetlands (Acres) Waters (Acres) Wetlands (Acres) Waters (Acres) Direct Impacts Fill Various wetlands/waters 0.42 0.07 / / 0.49 Vegetation clearing Various wetlands 1.49 / / / 1.49 Inundation Detention pond wetland / / 2.75 / 2.75 Subtotal Direct Impacts 1.91 0.07 2.75 0.00 Total Direct Impacts 1.98 2.75 4.73 Indirect Impacts (Hydrology)1 Reduced peak flows Grant Cr and fringe wetlands below powerhouse 4.19 3.58 / / 7.77 Reduced mean and peak flows Grant Cr wetlands/ waters in bypass reach 0.36 3.17 / / Water lowering Grant Lk and fringe wetlands 13.64 1649.11 / / 1662.75 Subtotal Indirect Impacts 18.18 1655.86 0.00 0.00 Total Indirect Impacts 1674.04 0.00 1674.04 Notes: Only hydrology-driven indirect impacts are calculated here due to their potential to change a wetland from wetland to non-wetland, or a wetland to water. Other indirect impacts (weeds, sediment, and erosion) are not presented. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-316 March 2015 [This page intentionally left blank.] XYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXY XY XY XY XY XY XY XYXY XYXY XYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXY XY XY XY XY XYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYDeveloped For: Drawing Scale: GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - FERC PROJECT NO.13212 LICENSE APPLICATION Figure E.4-82Impacts to Wetlands/Waters- Overview±OFFICE: 208.342.4214 FAX: 208.342.4216 REV DESCRIPT IO NBYDATE ISSUED DATE CHECKED DRAWN DESIGNED 0 500 1,000250 Feet 12/23/2014 Legend Seward Highway Alaska Railroad Access Roads XYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYTransmission Line Tunnel 2014 Wetland Assessment Area (WAA) Project Fill Area Wetlands and Waters Hydrogeomorphic Type Depressional Lacustrine Riverine Slope Riverine Intermittent Stream Riverine Perennial Stream Direct Impacts Fill in wetlands Inundation Vegetation clearing in wetlands Indirect Impacts Reduced mean and peak flows Reduced peak flows Water lowering G r a n tC r ee k L. Shoutis L. Shoutis L. Shoutis1401 SHORELINE DRIVE BOISE, 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 XYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXY XY XY XY XY XY XYXYXY XY XY XYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXY XY XY XY XY XYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYDeveloped For: Drawing Scale: GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - FERC PROJECT NO.13212 LICENSE APPLICATION Figure E.4-83Impacts to Wetlands/Waters- West±OFFICE: 208.342.4214 FAX: 208.342.4216 REV DESCRIPT IO NBYDATE ISSUED DATE CHECKED DRAWN DESIGNED 0 500 1,000250 Feet 12/23/2014 Legend Seward Highway Alaska Railroad Access Roads XYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYTransmission Line Tunnel 2014 Wetland Assessment Area (WAA) Project Fill Area Wetlands and Waters Hydrogeomorphic Type Depressional Lacustrine Riverine Slope Riverine Intermittent Stream Riverine Perennial Stream Direct Impacts Fill in wetlands Inundation Vegetation clearing in wetlands Indirect Impacts Reduced mean and peak flows Reduced peak flows Water lowering G r a n tC r ee k L. Shoutis L. Shoutis L. Shoutis1401 SHORELINE DRIVE BOISE, 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 XYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXY XY XY XY XY XY XY XYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXY XY XY XY XYXY XYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYDeveloped For: Drawing Scale: GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - FERC PROJECT NO.13212 LICENSE APPLICATION Figure E.4-84Impacts to Wetlands/Waters- Overview±OFFICE: 208.342.4214 FAX: 208.342.4216 REV DESCRIPT IO NBYDATE ISSUED DATE CHECKED DRAWN DESIGNED 0 500 1,000250 Feet 12/23/2014 Legend Seward Highway Alaska Railroad Access Roads XYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYTransmission Line Tunnel 2014 Wetland Assessment Area (WAA) Project Fill Area Wetlands and Waters Hydrogeomorphic Type Depressional Lacustrine Riverine Slope Riverine Intermittent Stream Riverine Perennial Stream Direct Impacts Fill in wetlands Inundation Vegetation clearing in wetlands Indirect Impacts Reduced mean and peak flows Reduced peak flows Water lowering G r a n tC r e ek L. Shoutis L. Shoutis L. Shoutis1401 SHORELINE DRIVE BOISE, 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 DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-323 March 2015 Table E.4-96. Potential impacts to wetlands and waters 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 Shoreline/bank 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 redacted capacity to perform certain wetland functions (i.e., water quality, wildlife habitat); temporary surface water turbidity Fills due to structure; reduced capacity to perform certain wetland functions (i.e., water quality, wildlife habitat) Weed infestation; effects of new min lake level elevation on wetland vegetation; change in lakeshore erosion/deposition; effect of new Grant Creek in-stream flow regime on Grant Creek and hydrologically connected riparian wetlands; change in capacity to perform certain wetland functions (i.e., shoreline stabilization, wildlife habitat) WATER CONVEYANCE Intake Structure Shoreline/bank 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); temporary surface water turbidity 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) Weed infestation; 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) 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); temporary surface water turbidity 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) 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); temporary surface water turbidity 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) 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); temporary surface water turbidity 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) 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) DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Table E.4-96, continued… Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-324 March 2015 Project Component Potential Qualitative Short Term Impacts1,2 Potential Qualitative Long Term/Permanent Impacts1 Direct Indirect Direct Indirect TRANSMISSION LINE/SWITCHYARD Above Ground Vegetation clearing/grubbing; soil disturbance; bank 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); temporary surface water turbidity 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. 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) 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); temporary surface water turbidity 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. 2. Short term impacts would occur primarily during construction; Project would be constructed over a 30-36 month time period. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-325 March 2015 4.7.2.2.1 Direct Impacts Direct impacts to wetlands and waters will occur only within the Project corridor between Grant Lake and the Trail Lake Narrows, as summarized in in Table E.4-95. Figures E.4-82 through E.4-84 present the direct impacts to wetlands and waters. Direct Impacts to Wetlands As presented in Table E.4-95, the following types of permanent direct impacts to wetlands were identified: 1) permanent fill placed in wetlands; 2) permanent clearing of forested and shrub vegetation that will occur for the life of the Project; and 3) short term, low frequency inundation of the detention pond wetland. Short term or temporary direct impacts were limited to vegetation disturbance during construction that will be rehabilitated after construction is complete. There are no direct impacts to slope wetlands. Depressional Wetlands. Direct impacts to depressional wetlands will result from 1) permanent fill placed for construction of the powerhouse access road, 2) permanent vegetation clearing buffers along the powerhouse access road, and 3) temporary inundation of the detention pond wetland. Inundation of the detention pond wetland will occur with very low frequency and is not expected to alter the wetland vegetation type. While the water conveyance tunnel would pass under several depressional wetlands, it will not disturb the surface and would therefore not result in any direct impacts to depressional wetlands. Lacustrine Wetlands. Grant Lake lacustrine wetlands located at the Grant Lake outlet will be directly impacted by construction of the low level intake structure, and surficial entrance to the tunnel. No vegetation clearing will occur within lacustrine wetlands. There were no lacustrine fringe wetlands associated with Trail Lake within the assessment area. Riverine Wetlands. Direct impacts to riverine wetlands will result from 1) fill placed in the riparian stringer wetlands associated with small intermittent streams, and 2) permanent vegetation clearing buffers associated with the powerhouse access road, and the powerhouse. The tailrace channel, extending from the powerhouse to Grant Creek will have a concrete fish barrier structure located on the creek bank, but above the maximum water surface elevation. As such, the fish barrier and tailrace will not be placed within a wetland or water. There are no direct impacts associated with Project construction, operation, or maintenance for riverine wetlands associated with Inlet Creek, or the tributaries/drainages that terminate at Grant Lake. 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. Direct Impacts to Waters Direct impacts to waters are summarized in Table E.4-95. Permanent direct impacts to waters were limited to fill placed in waters. There were no short term direct impacts to waters. Lacustrine Waters. Direct impacts to Grant Lake and the Upper Trail and Lower Trail lakes will result from the construction of the low level intake structure at the outlet of Grant Lake. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-326 March 2015 Construction of the access roads or transmission line will not require fill to be placed in Grant Lake or the Trail Lake Narrows. The clear span bridge across the Trail Lake Narrows will be constructed such that it will not place any fill into the Narrows. Riverine Waters. Direct impacts to riverine waters will result from fill placed during construction into small perennial and intermittent streams along the intake access road, the powerhouse access road, and at the powerhouse parking area. 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. Indirect Impacts to Wetlands Permanent and temporary indirect impacts to wetlands and waters are quantified in Table E.4-95 and discussed by Project feature Table E.4-96. Figures E.4-82 through E.4-84 present the indirect impacts to wetlands and waters within the Project corridor. Indirect impacts to Grant Lake fringe wetlands are presented in text only, not in the figures. Depressional Wetlands. Depressional wetlands within the assessment area experience little to no hydrologic influence from Grant Lake or Grant Creek. Therefore, there are no anticipated indirect 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. 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 indirect impacts to depressional wetlands. Lacustrine Wetlands. In addition to Grant Lake itself, lacustrine fringe wetlands adjacent to Grant Lake could be indirectly impacted by proposed changes to timing and duration of the surface water elevation in the lake. A low level intake structure 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. This will result in a new minimum lake elevation of approximately 690 feet NAVD 88. The maximum lake elevation will be 703 feet NAVD 88, which is estimated to be at or just slightly below the natural maximum lake elevation based on modeling of the lake surface elevation using Grant Creek flows (exact natural lake surface elevation is unknown). The lacustrine fringe wetlands along Grant Lake are adapted to the current natural pool elevation during the growing season, within the normal natural lake level variation. These wetlands were categorized as lacustrine wetlands because in addition to being located adjacent to a lake, the lake provides a primary hydrologic source at least for a portion of the growing season. For many of the lacustrine fringe wetlands along the lake, the primary hydrologic source likely shifts between lacustrine, riverine (for wetlands located at the base of small tributaries or at alluvial fans), or even precipitation, depending on the conditions in a given year, and the location of the wetland. As such, the working assumption for the potential indirect impact to these lacustrine wetlands is that the lake provides a primary hydrologic source for at least a portion of the growing season. The proposal to lower the lake elevation during the growing season for DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-327 March 2015 prolonged periods of time (e.g., weeks to months), will likely cause lacustrine wetlands, particularly herbaceous wetlands, to dry out and convert to non-wetlands. Lacustrine wetlands that also have a perennial or seasonal water source from a small tributary to Grant Lake will be less affected by the drop in lake elevation. In addition to hydrologic changes, the increase in exposed area around the lake shore during the growing season could also cause shoreline erosion, and allow for infestation of invasive weed species, which could spread weeds into the wetlands along the lake shore. The Project botanical surveys identified dandelions as the only invasive species currently along Grant Lake, but other invasive species could potentially recruit into the exposed areas. The magnitude of indirect impacts to lacustrine fringe wetlands along Grant Lake will depend on the proposed deviation from the natural magnitude, duration, and timing of the minimum lake elevation. Figure E.4-85 illustrates the seasonal proposed reservoir water levels in Grant Lake, and the estimated natural lake levels during the growing season (modeled by the Project engineering team using Grant Creek flow volumes). The lake will be drawn down during fall and winter, and allowed to refill to natural levels in spring and summer. Under natural conditions, Grant Lake levels are estimated to be at their maximum (estimated 703 feet NAVD 88) during June through September, corresponding to the growing season. Under the proposed operational scenario depicted in Figure E.4-85, lake levels could be up to 13 feet below natural high levels in the start of the growing season, returning to natural levels by mid-August. It is important to note that the natural lake level fluctuation is variable and currently, lake elevations may fluctuate up to 11 feet and typically sees 6-8 foot variation over the course of a year within the same band that operations would be utilizing. Given that the natural outlet will not be modified, maximum lake elevations will not be altered from the natural regime, and hence there will be no potential for increased inundation of lacustrine fringe wetlands under the current proposed operational scenario. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-328 March 2015 Figure E.4-85. Proposed Grant Lake seasonal lake levels (solid line). Estimated natural lake levels during the growing season shown as dashed line (approximately at or slightly above 703 feet NAVD 88). Riverine Wetlands. Any increase in turbidity in small tributary drainages to Grant Creek during construction of the access roads would be short term or temporary. Riverine wetlands located along Grant Creek (main and side channels) may be potentially impacted as a result of changes in instream flow in Grant Creek. These potential impacts are described for the upper and lower portions of Grant Creek separately below, where instream flow will decrease and increase, respectively. In the upper portion of Grant Creek, also referred to as the canyon reach or bypass reach, between the Grant Lake outlet and the powerhouse tailrace (Reach 4/5 break), instream flows will be reduced. 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 most likely cause the four small wetland fringe communities mapped within the canyon reach to be drained and convert to uplands. From the powerhouse tailrace downstream to the Grant Creek outlet, peak flows will be reduced; however, the new instream flow pattern is expected to maintain side channels (Reach 3) wetted spring through fall. 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 DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-329 March 2015 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 what proportion of the wetland hydrology is supported by groundwater baseflows vs. surface water contributions). Riverine wetlands associated with Grant Lake drainages are all located at the Grant Lake inlet, and of these, only a single riverine wetland is directly abutting Grant Lake. For this single riverine wetland, the timing and duration of the new minimum lake levels could cause erosion or depositional changes to stream channels within the wetland. Changes to channel bed and form could, in turn, affect the hydrology of the adjacent wetland. Due to their lack of adjacency to Grant Lake, none of the other riverine wetlands at the Grant Lake inlet are expected to be indirectly impacted by the Project. Indirect Impacts to Waters Permanent and temporary indirect impacts to waters are presented in Tables E.4-95 and E.4-96. Permanent indirect impacts to waters are associated with hydrologic changes resulting from altered hydrology in Grant Creek and Grant Lake as a result of Project operations, and potential soil erosion and sedimentation in areas of hydrologic alteration. Short term or temporary indirect impacts include short term increases in turbidity during construction. Lacustrine Waters. Project operations will indirectly impact Grant Lake by changing its area, with the change dependent on the lake level fluctuation during different times of year. Lake 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. Riverine Waters. All intermittent and perennial small drainage crossings along the access road will be culverted, therefore no indirect impacts due to hydrologic changes are expected for these intermittent and perennial small streams. Any increase in turbidity in small drainages along the access roads during construction would be short term or temporary. The Project will indirectly impact the hydrology of Grant Creek (main and side channels) as a result of changes in instream flow, and will potentially impact other small tributary drainages to Grant Lake as a result of changes in lake level fluctuation. In the upper portion of Grant Creek, (canyon reach) between the Grant Lake outlet and the powerhouse tailrace (Reach 4/5 break), instream flows will be reduced. 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, and reduce sediment transport. From the powerhouse tailrace downstream to the Grant Creek outlet, peak flows will be reduced, however the new instream flow pattern is expected to maintain side channels (Reach 3) wetted spring through fall. The changes in instream flow resulting from the Project are not expected to impact the water chemistry or temperature of Grant Creek, in part due to the proposed depth of the intake structure, which will be sited to best match the water temperature of Grant Creek. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-330 March 2015 Grant Lake drainages. Inlet Creek and other small streams that enter Grant Lake have the potential to be affected by the new lake level elevations. The proposed operational scenario will drop the lake elevation down 13 feet below natural maximum elevations. The new minimum lake levels could cause erosion or depositional changes to stream channels and their associated floodplains and outwash fans at the Grant Lake interface. Depending on the timing, duration and frequency, reduced lake level elevation could cause the Inlet Creek and lake drainage channels to downcut or become incised. 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. 4.7.2.3. Wildlife The potential impacts associated with Project construction and operational activities are qualitatively evaluated for direct and indirect impacts in the subsections to follow. Wildlife presence in the Project area is contingent on many variables including habitat. Habitat is comprised of resources (water, food, and shelter) and environmental requirements (temperature, predators, and competitors) that determine the presence, survival, and reproduction of a species. Wildlife exhibits a propensity to occupy those habitats that provide the resources to fulfill the requirements necessary for the continuance of that species. This section utilizes the factor of vegetation (food and cover) to qualitatively assess species presence and use of the 2013 wildlife study area. Vegetation characteristics utilized for this qualitative assessment of impacts to wildlife have been obtained from various sources, including the site-specific Ebasco (1984) report, the USFS (2007) cover-type ArcGIS layer, and the 2013/2014 field efforts. The level of vegetation classification varies for each source; therefore, an amalgamation of all these resources was necessary to discern habitat specific to the components of the wildlife study. General vegetation characteristics (cover type), as defined or mapped by each source, were compared. More specific habitat characteristics (understory species) were then delineated by correlating all available sources. A qualitative assessment of species presence and use of the 2013 wildlife study area is presented in the following section components. Each section includes a qualitative evaluation of Project impacts. Direct impacts may be short-term or long-term, depending on how the biological resources are altered or lost during the course of the Project implementation and operation. Examples of direct impacts from project-related construction include removal of vegetation and the loss or interruption of wildlife foraging or nesting areas. The evaluation of direct impacts assumes that biological resources required for wildlife survival would be lost. Indirect impacts occur when project-related activities affect biological resources in a manner other than a direct loss of the resource. For example, indirect impacts from a construction project might last only during construction or for the long-term operation of the facility. Noise, lighting, siltation, substantial reduction in water quality, and increased human activity within or directly adjacent to sensitive habitat areas are examples of potential indirect impacts to wildlife. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-331 March 2015 4.7.2.3.1 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 have direct or indirect impacts. Unintentional (resulting from other deliberate construction activities) 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. Removal of vegetation will also directly 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 (indirect impact); 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. Mortality (direct impact) 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 through electrocution. Collision and nesting deterrent methods will be considered during the Project design phase to avoid or minimize impacts. Disturbance associated with construction and operational phases of the Project may impact raptor presence and distributions in the area (indirect impact); however, the movement of these species is not predicted to impact the overall population of the Kenai Peninsula. 4.7.2.3.2 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 have direct or an indirect impacts. Unintentional removal (indirect impact) includes understory changes to plant species influenced by intentional tree removal (direct impact); 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. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-332 March 2015 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 (direct impact). Activities related to forest removal and anthropogenic access may also cause shy or sensitive species to move to other less acoustically disturbed areas (indirect impact); 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 vegetation clearing. These recommendations are provided to help avoid vegetation removal and disturbance during the breeding season. Mortality (direct impact) 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 through electrocution. Collision deterrent methods will be considered during the Project design phase to avoid or minimize impacts. 4.7.2.3.3 Potential Impacts to Waterbirds Removal or loss of vegetation may have direct or indirect impacts to waterfowl like goldeneyes by loss of old growth trees for nesting habitat. Unintentional (resulting from other deliberate construction activities) removal includes tree species influenced by changes in creek levels, causing tree mortality and eventual structure loss. 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 elevation 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 elevation change. Construction and operational activities indirectly impact shy or sensitive species, causing individuals to move to other less acoustically disturbed areas; however, these movements are not predicted to impact the overall waterfowl population of the Kenai Peninsula. Mortality (direct impact) 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 through electrocution. Collision deterrent methods will be considered during the Project design phase to avoid or minimize impacts. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-333 March 2015 Changes in lake and creek outflow levels during the winter may indirectly impact waterfowl and waterbirds like trumpeter swans and diving ducks by decreasing or altering open water habitat at the mouth of Grant Creek and the outflow at the narrows. Decreased open water availability may lead to decreased resting and foraging habitat during the winter season. Waterfowl that overwinter in the region and spend time on waterbodies in this area of the Kenai Peninsula are currently subject to the natural freeze up / thaw processes during the winter. The possible project-related alterations to open water habitat are not predicted to impact the overall waterfowl population of the Kenai Peninsula. 4.7.2.3.4 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. Project-related tree and vegetation removal may have direct or an indirect impacts. Unintentional removal (indirect impact) includes understory changes to plant species influenced by intentional tree removal (direct impact); causing mortality and eventual structure loss or alteration. Loss of cover may increase predation on both breeding adults as well as young (direct impact). Activities related to forest removal and anthropogenic access may also cause more shy or sensitive species to move to other less acoustically disturbed areas (indirect impact); however, these movements are not predicted to impact the overall mammal population of the Kenai Peninsula. Black bear are very adaptable to human disturbance. This is not necessarily the case with brown bear, as impacts of roads and trails resulting from new development in the watershed may reduce the quality of available habitat and increase the number of negative bear-human encounters. On the Kenai Peninsula, habitat modification and human activities have resulted in an increase in the number of brown bears killed in defense of life or property (Suring and Del Frate 2002). During the summer, bears concentrate along salmon streams in areas that are heavily used by people; several encounters have occurred at salmon streams resulting in injury to humans and injury or death to brown bears (USFS 2008). Changes in lake levels during the winter may indirectly impact moose by altering travel routes across Grant Lake. Altered lake levels may impact ice thickness necessary for transit. Moose density in this region of the Kenai Peninsula has been documented as low (McDonough 2010). The possible Project-related habitat alterations are not predicted to impact the overall moose population of the Kenai Peninsula. 4.7.3. Proposed Environmental Measures 4.7.3.1. Terrestrial Vegetation, Invasive Plants and Sensitive Plants Global adherence to BMPs will be utilized in conjunction with all Project construction and operation related activities. With respect to vegetation, no sensitive plant species were documented near any of the planned infrastructural areas. As such, no impact to sensitive species is expected. Additionally, the ECM will coordinate with construction leads to ensure all BMPs related to avoiding invasive plant species introduction are being followed. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-334 March 2015 All of the aforementioned and general BMPs along with more site-specific measures will be documented in the Draft VMP, which is currently under development by KHL and will be distributed for comment with the the BE and th rest of the management/monitoring plans between late April and mid-May. The Draft VMP will synthesize efforts to manage any sensitive species identified in the Project area with prevention measures for either any expansion of current invasive species or introduction of new invasive plants as a result of Project construction or operation. This plan describes measures to assess whether the Project is having negative impacts on the pale poppy sensitive plant population on USFS land on Grant Lake. It will also create a framework for adaptive management to modify Project infrastructure and/or operations to avoid or minimize additional impacts to sensitive plants. Additionally, the Draft VMP will describe measures to avoid and/or minimize impacts resulting from invasive plant species during Project construction and operations. The plan is being developed using guidelines from the Chugach National Forest Invasive Plant Management Plan (USFS 2005) and the Guide to Noxious Weed Prevention Practices (USFS 2001). Specific to sensitive plant species, an isolated pale poppy population was discovered on the shoreline of Grant Lake during natural resource studies in 2013 (see Sections 4.7.1.1 and 4.7.2.1). Per the proposed operational scenario defined in Exhibit B of this DLA, it is not anticipated that Project operations will have a negative impact on the identified pale poppy population. Never the less, the Draft VMP will have a section that specifically addresses the methods to be utilized for monitoring the population during the construction and the initial phases of Project operation. All measures associated with vegetation monitoring during both construction and operations will be documented yearly in the Annual Compliance Report. The report will be supplied to stakeholders for review and comment prior to KHL finalizing and filing with FERC. In addition to Draft VMP inclusion, a Draft BE is being prepared for the aforementioned pale poppy population on Grant Lake and will be distributed for comment between late April and mid-May. As previously mentioned, it is not anticipated that Project operations will have a negative impact on the population. However, commensurate with requirements, a comprehensive BE is being prepared for the USFS that describes the proposed action along with KHL’s botanical experts professional opinion (based on site-specific evaluation), of the impacts to the pale poppy (if any) associated with Project construction and operation. A full summary of all measures, as well as the associated implementation timeframes, being proposed by KHL for the original license will be provided with the FLA. 4.7.3.2. Wetlands All global BMPs associated with wetland maintenance and retention will be employed during Project operations and construction. KHL’s ECM will be on-site and coordinating with construction crews daily to ensure that the BMPs are being adhered to. Per requirements, KHL has collaborated with the USACE and currently has a 404 permit application pending with the agency. As part of that 404 permitting process, KHL has determined that approximately 0.49 acres of wetlands/waters will be lost due to Project construction and subsequent operations. As such, and given the lack of a “mitigation bank” in DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-335 March 2015 the Kenai Peninsula area, KHL is proposing to utilize the USACE approved mitigation approach of in-lieu fee of mitigation (ILF). ILF programs typically provide two options for wetland/waters mitigation: 1) rehabilitation or enhancement of degraded wetlands/waters; or 2) preservation of wetlands/waters. In Alaska, the option of using the ILF rehabilitation or enhancement is limited to select areas (e.g. Municipality of Anchorage and the Mat-Su Borough), and is not available in the Project watershed service area. Therefore, KHL has proposed to use of ILF through preservation of off-site wetlands/waters as the mechanism of compensatory mitigation. The Conservation Fund (TCF) is the only USACE-approved ILF provider for the service area. Table E.4-97 presents the total impacted acres, proposed exchange ratio, and required credits for the impacts to wetlands and waters. Per the most up to date USACE ratios for compensatory mitigation (USACE 2014), the ratio for mitigation using preservation for category II wetlands is 2:1. Therefore to mitigate for the loss of 0.49 acres of wetlands/waters, the Project would require 0.98, or approximately 1 mitigation credit. This is further divided into impacted acres and credits required by hydrogeomorphic (HGM) type, which TCF uses to determine the specific type of wetland or water that will be preserved for the ILF mitigation. This assessment and proposal is further documented in the 404 application. Table E.4-97. Proposed Project mitigation ratios and ILF preservation credit requirements in acres. HGM Total Impacted Acres Proposed Exchange Ratio Credits Required Depressional 0.28 2:1 0.55 Riverine or lacustrine 0.21 2:1 0.43 Total 0.49 0.98 Notes: 1. HGM groupings are used by the ILF provider to determihe costs per credit. 2. Ration for category II wetlands/waters using ILG preservation, per USACE 2014 rations. All Project wetlands/waters are considered Category II. A full summary of all measures, as well as the associated implementation timeframes, being proposed by KHL for the original license will be provided with the FLA. 4.7.3.3. Wildlife The primary impact identified associated with wildlife known to utilize the Project area is associated with the potential for impacts to migratory avian species and bald eagles to be disturbed and “harassed” as a result of construction and/or operation activities. As such, a Draft Avian Protection Plan (APP) is being developed and will be distributed for comment between late April and mid-May. The Draft APP will describe the methods and infrastructure that will be implemented to minimize impacts to avian species both during the short-term construction period and subsequent operations. The USFWS (2007) has published recommendations to avoid disturbance to occupied bald eagle nests during development activities. The USFWS (2007) recommend the following: DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-336 March 2015 Keep a distance between the activity and the nest (distance buffers), Maintain preferably forested (or natural) areas between the activity and around nest trees (landscape buffers), and 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. The primary protection measures proposed by KHL that will be described in the APP include: Migratory birds Plan of construction and operation timeline Risk assessment of activity and timeline Measures taken based on Project actions o Monitoring associated with vegetation removal o Monitoring associated with power line and infrastructure placement Documenting and reporting Bald eagles Plan of construction and operation timeline Risk assessment of activity and timeline o Aerial nest surveys Measures taken based on Project actions o Nest mitigation and monitoring Buffer boundaries Nest monitoring Documenting and reporting The on-site ECM will be responsible for ensuring that all methods outlined in the APP are being implemented during construction. All efforts associated with the APP will be documented in the Annual Compliance Report. The report will be supplied to stakeholders for review and comment prior to KHL finalizing and filing with FERC. A full summary of all measures, as well as the associated implementation timeframes, being proposed by KHL for the original license will be provided with the FLA. 4.7.4. Cumulative Effects Analysis Consistent with FERC’s SD2 (FERC 2010b), no cumulative negative effects were identified associated with terrestrial resources. Impacts documented in the Project area are anticipated to be minimal for vegetation, wetlands and wildlife. The aforementioned monitoring and DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-337 March 2015 management plans along with implemented BMPs during construction are anticipated to address potential impacts and minimize them to the extent possible. Only one sensitive plant species was documented in the Project area and due to its location, it is not anticipated that it will be impacted by Project construction or subsequent operations. This combined with the rigid set of methods that will be explicit in both the BMPs and VMP, indicates that there will be limited impact to the vegetation in the Project area. Generally speaking wetlands in the Project are relatively limited and not associated with planned Project infrastructure sites. It is anticipated that the proposed operational regime and associated flow regime for Grant Creek will facilitate continued persistence and potential promotion of wetlands in the Project. It should be noted that KHL intends to solicit public input with respect to the allowance of public access to the Project area via the newly constructed access road. If the public consensus is to allow public access, the potential does exist for additional hunting pressure in the area which could, over time, reduce populations of certain game species. Further discussion related to public access can be found in Section 4.8 of this Exhibit E. 4.7.5. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Based on the comprehensive set of natural resources studies implemented by KHL, the aforementioned monitoring and management plans and the associated coordination with stakeholders, KHL has identified no terrestrially-related unavoidable adverse impacts associated with construction and operation of the Project. 4.8. Recreation and Land Use Resources 4.8.1. Affected Environment 4.8.1.1. Recreation This section describes the Recreation, Visual and Land Use attributes that were identified and evaluated during the licensing process. The Project is located near Moose Pass, Alaska, a small community located on the Kenai Peninsula of Alaska. The Project area is heavily dominated by mountains, low density populations, and diverse ecosystems. The overall landscape character is natural, with diverse topography, large lakes, fast moving rivers, alpine tundra, and taiga forest. It is home to long-standing trail systems to the west and ancient ice-fields to the east. Figure E.4-86 displays the Project’s general geographic location. In late 2012 and early 2013 a comprehensive Recreation and Visual Resources, Final Study Plan was prepared for the Project (KHL 2013d) which focused on seasonal use characteristics (Recreation Use) and visual and audio components of the existing environment (Visual Resources) in and around the Project area. The recreation use component resulted in a synthesis of recreational data collected in 2010 and additional work conducted during the 2013 field season. The primary objective of the recreation DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-338 March 2015 use component was to assess recreation use within the study area to evaluate potential Project impacts on recreational resources. Tasks included the identification of data sources, a literature review, a preliminary assessment of levels and type of recreational use, and identification of potential agency personnel and others with whom to consult by phone or in person. Foot and boat surveys (summer and winter) provided direct information on the condition of trails and boat access points, and provided information about current use. Trail and boat access points in the Project vicinity that may be affected by water level fluctuation were photographed to illustrate potential change. Track lines and waypoints along study area trails were recorded by GPS (subsequently entered into the Project GIS database) and illustrative views were photographed. The primary objective of the visual resource component of the study was to analyze Project effects on visual resources. Key viewpoints for evaluation were determined by the updated Project design; by recreation site visits; by examining available GIS scenic, elevation, contour, and other pertinent layers; and through input from land management agencies and stakeholders. This work was coordinated with interviews conducted as part of the recreation analysis and was accomplished in part during the meetings held at the time of FERC scoping for the Project in June 2010. Photos taken from these key viewpoints served as the basis for the existing and simulated scenery conditions for the assessment of changes that may be posed by the Project. Evaluation of change to the existing character included an examination of proposed Project components and operations with respect to the ability of the landscape to accept change. This evaluation was based on the “seen areas” and “distance zones” as determined by computer analysis, the “scenic integrity,” and the magnitude of change to existing “scenic attractiveness.” Within this was an analysis of vegetation, soils, colors, texture, and other landscape attributes; an analysis of these components to accept change; a description of the potential effect of the change; and a description of the effect on stakeholders. This information was weighed against the objectives that were delineated within the USFS, ADNR, and Kenai Peinsula Borough (KPB) land management plans (USFS 2002; ADNR 2001; and KPB 2005) to the extent such objectives exist. Analysis included an evaluation of potential protection and mitigation options. General boundaries for the 2013 Recreation and Visual Resources Study (KHL 2014g) were approximately five radial miles around the Project area. These boundaries extend from Moose Pass, to the top of the ridgelines around Grant Lake itself, south around Lower Trail Lake, north along the highway corridor, and back to Moose Pass (Figure E.4-86). The Project area was defined by mountain ridges which provide a distinct separation of the Project area from other adjacent uses. The Project location is subject to a large volume of people passing through the area, many of whom are tourists and most of whom are traveling for scenic enjoyment. The Seward Highway, connecting Anchorage to Seward, is used by travelers either driving to Anchorage for supplies or to Seward for recreation. This highway is one of the most used highways in the state, and holds the honor of being a Scenic Byway. Its value as being a scenic resource is well established. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-339 March 2015 Figure E.4-86. Project location. 4.8.1.1.1 Recreation Facilities Trails There are three trails of some consequence located in the Project vicinity (Figure E.4-87). The Vagt Lake Trail begins at a pulloff from the Seward Highway at approximate Milepost 25 of the highway and connects to the southern end of Vagt Lake, located east of Lower Trail Lake. At that location, it joins the INHT, which continues approximately 1/2-mile along the western shore of Vagt Lake before it ends, awaiting continuation of construction. The “Saddle Trail” begins at the eastern shore of Upper Kenai Lake and connects to Grant Lake. The trail has access at the shoreline by boat/canoe in the summer and snowmachine or skiing in the winter. It daylights at Grant Lake approximately 1-mile north of the Grant Creek outlet from Grant Lake. The trail is approximately one-mile long with a grade that varies between five and fifteen percent. It is not maintained and has a tread of varying quality approximately 2 to 5 feet wide. The “Case Mine Trail” is located another mile north of the Saddle Trail and also has access from Upper Trail Lake. In the winter, access is available by ski or snowmachine. In the summer, DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-340 March 2015 most access is via an Alaska Railroad bridge across Upper Trail Lake, at a relatively narrow point immediately west of Moose Pass, the access point being near a Moose Pass town park/ball field. This trail is less used and the tread is not as wide as the Saddle Trail. It connects to the northern shore of Grant Lake, at the north-south/east-west bend in the lake. The termination is at a location of some mine relics documented in Section 4.10 of this Exhibit E, which includes an evaluation of historic resources. Other Recreation Facilities There are limited “constructed” recreation facilities within the Project area beyond the trails discussed above and a community ballfield in Moose Pass (Figure E.4-87). Almost all recreation use is either trail or water based. While uses are described in the following section, beyond the trails described above, water features that are used for recreation purposes include Upper Trail Lake, Lower Trail Lake, Vagt Lake, and Grant Lake. There are commercial docks within the community of Moose Pass that are used for vendor-related flightseeing. There is also a boat launch area that consists of shallow-sloped gravel beach. A gently sloping shoreline allows boat access to Lower Trail at the Vagt Lake Trailhead (milepost 25 of the Seward Highway) with parking limited to approximately one dozen vehicles. Trailer parking is possible though space and turning radius is limited. Rest room facilities are limited in the area for recreation users. A camera that has been posted at the Vagt Lake Trailhead has shown that the pulloff at that location is often used as an “unofficial” place for relief and approximately 300 motorists along the Seward Highway paused at the Vagt Lake Trailhead for “break” purposes of one type or another during the period March 31 to September 30, 2014. Recreation Uses There are a number of recreation uses of existing facilities. These uses are all related to the trails and water features discussed in the previous section, or to the abundance of scenery within the region. These uses/activities include: Hiking/Walking Camping Fishing Boating Hunting Snowmachining Snowshoeing Cross Country Skiing Ice fishing Aerial Sight-Seeing Driving for Pleasure Existing Observed Winter Use During a winter review of use in the Project area, snowmachine users were observed unloading and parking at the Vagt Lake Trailhead and traveling northeast across Lower Trail Lake (Figure DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-341 March 2015 E.4-88) to a partially flagged route through the trees up to Vagt Lake. An alternative start point was in Moose Pass, near an existing boat ramp. Other snowmachine users were observed traveling north-south along the western shores of both Trail Lakes and beyond across Upper Trail Lake toward Johnson Pass. Users did not ride through the Narrows as the water was open and flowing quite strongly through the area. This appears to be a normal phenomenon, keeping a portion of Lower Trail Lake open during the winter months. Open water was also observed at the Alaska Railroad trestle, located between Moose Pass and the rail line. Users traveled on the railroad tracks for passage around these open water areas. The Alaska Railroad Corporation signs the tracks and considers this use as trespassing. While no use of Grant Lake was witnessed, project personnel did view tracks showing some limited use of Grant Lake by skiers and snowmachines. However, there was no evidence of trails leading to Grant Lake from trails along the Trail Lakes shoreline. Terrain challenges and the lack of a well-defined trail link easily used by snowmobilers may limit the interest in snowmachining at the lake. However, it is expected that the Saddle Trail and the mine access road both of which are north of Grant Creek may provide access to Grant Lake for snowmachining. Baseline noise in the area measured consistently at 40 decibels (dB). Conditions during measurement included a gentle wind and background road noise from the highway. At the time snowmachine users passed by along the lake creating decibel readings that spiked to 75-80 dB. Along the Vagt Lake Trail, local residents were observed hiking and snowshoeing as recreation. Cross country ski tracks were also found leading from the Vagt Lake Trailhead to Vagt Lake (Figures E.4-89 and E.4-90). Though it is difficult to identify the number of users, it appeared that snow had fallen within 48 hours and numerous tracks were observed. No further winter use was observed at the time of the survey. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-342 March 2015 Figure E.4-87. Project vicinity recreation resources. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-343 March 2015 Figure E.4-88. Trail Lake. Figure E.4-89. Vagt Lake trailhead. Figure E.4-90. INHT along western side of Vagt Lake. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-344 March 2015 Existing Observed Summer Use Summer uses included hiking on Vagt Lake Trail, camping at Vagt Lake, fishing in Upper Trail Lake, Lower Trail Lake, and Vagt Lake, some motorized all-terrain vehicle (ATV) activity on Grant Lake Trail, and small aircraft takeoffs and landings at Trail Lake. Additionally, the team providing fishery research for the Project noted approximately 12 anglers on Grant Creek, over the entire summer and fall data gathering period. Recreational Uses 2014 At the December 12, 2012 natural resources study plan meeting and March 20, 2014 natural resources study report meeting, stakeholders requested that more quantitative information be collected to determine recreation use patterns in the vicinity of Moose Pass, Alaska. KHL investigated various methods for gathering the requested information and determined that cameras unobtrusively located at key locations would be the best means to achieve the requested information. Based on that and review of reference material as to how to collect the information, from March 31 to September 23, 2014, trail users were quantified and categorized according to primary activity from data collected by four motion sensor cameras near Moose Pass, Alaska (see locations Figure E.4-87). There were over 1,600 users, the majority of them were hikers and the majority of users used the Vagt Lake Trail (1,151). Over 300 people used the trails for only short periods of time and were put in the “Break” category. Many of those users appeared to be on bathroom breaks. Fishing was another high user activity with over 200 people visiting the area to fish during the time frame. Motorized activity was fairly low with only 11 users frequenting the trails with ATVs or dirt bikes. Figures E.4-91 and E.4-92 and Table E.4-98 show the number of trail users by location and recreation activity. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-345 March 2015 Figure E.4-91. Total trail users, 2014. Figure E.4-92. Trail users by type, 2014. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-346 March 2015 Table E.4-98. Numbers of trail users by type and location. Trail Break Hike Jogging Overnight Cycling Fishing Motorized Campfire Hike / Boat Total Vagt Lake 278 458 44 33 89 212 11 23 3 1151 Railroad Trestle 23 265 2 34 2 4 0 0 7 337 Saddle Trail 2 29 0 12 0 0 0 0 53 96 Grant Lake 0 16 0 10 0 0 0 0 6 32 Totals 303 768 46 89 91 216 11 23 69 1616 Boaters from Vagt Lake trailhead were also observed floating down Trail River to Kenai Lake. Trail River provides neither the river experience nor the length of river to be a viable commercial float experience though some floating of the river does take place as a recreation activity. Evidence of ATV use from Trail Lake to Grant Lake is shown in Figures E.4-93 and E.4-94. As evidenced from camera recordings, use is light but is sufficient enough to leave clear indications of use. Figure E.4-93. Grant Lake trail. Figure E.4-94. Grant Lake Trail through meadow. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-347 March 2015 At the time of the on-ground site investigation in 2013, noise levels ranged from 40-50 dB. No nearby motorized use was occurring during the inspection. Noise was generated from highway traffic, and though the Seward Highway had increased usage in comparison to the winter survey, noise levels did not exceed 50 dB. Driving for pleasure, as with tourism-related bus traffic, is a key recreation activity along the Seward Highway corridor. Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) reports a range of average annualized daily traffic count ranging between 1,568 vehicles per day in 2012 to 1,614 vehicles per day in 2010 (ADOT&PF 2011). In 2012, this traffic had a highest “maximum average daily traffic count” of 3,802 vehicles in July and a low maximum average daily traffic count of 611 in January. Most of these drivers and passengers are expected to be traveling partly to enjoy scenery, regardless of the primary reason for the trip. Sight-Seeing Flights (Aircraft) Small aircraft provide sight-seeing flights several times a day in the summer months. The typical routes are from Moose Pass, over Grant Lake to Prince William Sound for viewing mountainous terrain and glaciers with a return to Moose Pass by flying over Falls Creek. Aircraft are typically float planes that leave from Trail Lake (Figure E.4-95). These same aircraft are utilized for hunting and fishing purposes in the area. Discussions with float plane operators suggest that Grant Lake is not used as a fishing destination but is a drop-off location for hunting of mountain goats, caribou, bear, and moose. Figure E.4-95. Floatplane tie up, Trail Lake. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-348 March 2015 Hunting Under the ADF&G, Grant Lake is within Game Management Unit 7 (Figure E.4-96), which covers the eastern portion of the Kenai Peninsula. The area is open for black bear, brown bear, caribou, Dall sheep, moose, mountain goat, wolf, and wolverine. These hunts are permitted through the ADF&G, with regulations pertaining to residents and non-residents alike, and vary according to season. Figure E.4-96. Game management Unit 7. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-349 March 2015 Table E.4-99 reflects the harvested quantities of the game species as recorded by ADF&G in 2012. Also, Table E.4-99 encompasses a much broader area than the Project area. The amount of backcountry area and the terrain that is represented by the Project area relative to full game management unit would suggest that the area is hunted for all or most of the game species indicated. Table E.4-99. Harvest within Game Management Unit 7 (ADF&G 2013). Species Hunt Number Hunters Harvest Black Bear General Season 6,129 1,469 Brown/Grizzly Bear RB300 389 25 Caribou DC001 89 24 Dall Sheep General Season 2,001 599 Moose General Season 19,202 3,758 Mountain Goat DG339 2 0 Fishing Vagt Lake is an ADF&G stocked lake, making it an enticing destination for recreationists and the summer camera recordings indicated a total visitation of 212 fishermen at the Vagt Lake Trailhead. The lake is a 2-mile walk from the Vagt Lake trailhead, allowing it to be a convenient and enjoyable walk through the woods around Lower Trail Lake. Preliminary sampling has noted that Grant Lake is not actively used for fishing as the only species known and/or documented to be in the lake are sculpin and stickleback. Grant Creek is fished for rainbow trout and Dolly Varden but is closed to the taking of salmon. During the seven month period of fish sampling conducted by fisheries biologists for the Project in 2013, approximately 12 fishermen were observed on Grant Creek. It is not known how many visits occurred by fishermen in 2014 of the numbers recorded as “fishing” or “hike/boat” in the summer survey, recognizing that most fishermen would probably have boated to Grant Creek to fish since hiking to the creek is not currently easily accomplished. Boating to the creek is easiest from the northern side of the creek since swift water complicates access from the south side. It is possible to raft or pack raft across the creek however to gain access to either side. Power motors would also provide access. 4.8.1.2. Land Use Most of the Project area is located on Kenai Peninsula Borough and State of Alaska lands with a minimal amount of private land being present. There is no municipal government with management responsibilities though the Kenai Peninsula Borough does have land use management responsibility and planning powers. Most land use issues affecting the Project area are addressed through the Kenai River Comprehensive Management Plan, which is administered as part of the Kenai River Special Management Area (KRSMA), with headquarters at the Donald E. Gilman River Center. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-350 March 2015 The Donald E. Gilman River Center is a multi-agency permitting, information, and education center dedicated to the protection of the Kenai River and natural resources of the Kenai Peninsula. Agencies include Alaska State Parks, the Kenai Peninsula Borough, and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Lands east of the western shore of Grant Lake lies within Chugach National Forest. The USFS manages the forest via the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for Chugach National Forest (USFS 2002). That plan is currently being updated. Following is a description of the relevant management plans. 4.8.1.2.1 Kenai River Comprehensive Management Plan The Kenai River Comprehensive Management Plan (ADNR 1997) proposes that a number of state parcels adjoining Trail Lakes and Trail River be incorporated into the KRSMA and proposes that these actions be accommodated within the Kenai Area Plan. It also proposes a 200-foot vegetated buffer be provided along the shore of the lakes and river. These proposals are provided to protect fish populations and resources of the Kenai River. 4.8.1.2.2 Kenai Area Plan From the Kenai Area Plan (ADNR 2001), public recreation and tourism presents goals of keeping public areas open and available for use. This management plan supports recreation and tourism activities such as backcountry skiing, hiking, snowmaching, and sightseeing. Specifically from this plan, the INHT trail and trail corridor is to have a conveyance of a 1,000- foot-wide easement to include a visual and sound buffer between the recreation corridor and adjacent uses. No permanent structures or equipment are to be placed within the trail corridor. In keeping with this management plan, the Project has provided an alternate route for the INHT easement, keeping the 1,000-foot-wide corridor away from any permanent structures and adjacent uses. The Kenai Area plan has designated Grant Lake within region 2B, with the Grant Lake Project area affected by Units 380G, 380F, and 381. Figure E.4-97 illustrates where these units are located with respect to Grant Lake. Green cross-hatched areas shown on the graphic are proposed as “Proposed Addition to Kenai River SMA”. Red cross-hatched areas are shown as “Borough/City Selected”. These particular areas have been identified for their Public Recreation and Tourism uses and protection of existing habitat. They are recognized as being strongly oriented toward recreation, particularly with respect to the trails and surrounding lakes. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-351 March 2015 Figure E.4-97. Kenai Area Plan, enlargement of Grant Lake designation. 4.8.1.2.3 Chugach National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan The USFS manages lands east of the western shore of Grant Lake. Also, the agency has construction and management responsibilities for the INHT within the Project area. The USFS lands are managed in accordance with the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for Chugach National Forest (USFS 2002). The plan is currently being updated. Until revisions are final, the 2002 plan remains “current”. This management plan provides guidance for all resource management activities on national forest land within the Chugach National Forest. The area in and around Grant Lake is managed as part of the Kenai Mountains Roadless Area, encompassing 319,600 acres. It is managed to meet goals for improved and developed recreation opportunities while maintaining landscape character and providing for timber management. Grant Lake is designated within the 2002 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan with a prescription for “Fish, Wildlife, and Recreation Management”. Areas north and east of the lake are managed as “Backcountry”. “Fish, Wildlife, and Recreation Management” provides a “desired future condition” of “ecological processes, moderately affected by human activity, dominate…Evidence of resource management may be present.” “Backcountry” areas present a desired future condition of “ecological processes, largely unaffected by human activity, provide DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-352 March 2015 excellent opportunities for solitude, tranquility, isolation, quiet, challenge, and a degree of risk when traveling backcountry” (USFS 2002). The Grant Lake/Ptarmigan unit of the USFS Land and Resource Management Plan is designated for motorized use. However, the isolation of Grant Lake and the Project area from the road system and the difficulty in gaining access to much of the Project area has limited motorized use. 4.8.1.3. Iditarod National Historic Trail (INHT) The INHT is proposed within a dedicated easement inside of the Project area. In the effort to reconnect the Seward-Girdwood portion, an easement of 1,000 foot width was issued by the ADNR in August of 2004. This is more specifically described in November of 2004 in the Final Finding and Decision, ADL 228890, Grant of Public Easement, INHT, Seward to Girdwood (ADNR 2004). According to this document, the INHT will connect at milepost 25, or the outlet for Lower Trail Lake and this trailhead will be upgraded with a parking lot to hold up to 50 vehicles. The trail continues north using the Vagt Lake Trail to the northeast tip of Upper Trail Lake where the trail crosses back onto federal land. There is some light use of the trail to Vagt Lake and there have been trail improvements from the south, to Vagt Lake, to accommodate this use. However, north of Vagt Lake the trail is merely flagged and use appears to vary from occasional to non-existent. To date, no firm plans have been conveyed to KHL with respect to plans to actually construct the trail through the Project area. At present, blue flagging marking the proposed route is all that delineates the trails route through not only the Project area but lands on both sides of the currently proposed Project boundary. As an additional note, when constructed, the proposed INHT route will truly be commerative in nature and does not reflect the actual route of the historic trail through the Project area. The actual historical route has been documented to be much closer to the current railroad and Seward Highway area. 4.8.2. Environmental Analysis 4.8.2.1. Recreation 4.8.2.1.1 Winter Use Other than the proposed access roadway associated with the Project, Project components in general would have very little effect upon existing winter use. None of the components other than the road would interject development where there is concentrated or even sparse winter use. Currently, other than seasonal closures, management plans allow winter motorized use of the Grant Creek and Grant Lake drainages. However, physical features and the lack of road access provide only limited use of Grant Lake for recreation. The road access to the powerhouse and to the intake structure would change the winter use patterns. With provision of road access to Grant Creek, it is expected that winter use will increase as a result of the safe passage around/over Trail Lakes and the development of a roadway to Grant Lake. If public access is deemed preferable and allowed (see Section 4.8.3.1 of this Exhibit E for further details), it will be much easier for snowmachine users, skiers, and hikers to navigate over or around Upper and Lower Trail lakes without the current risk posed by open water on the DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-353 March 2015 Trail Lake complex, particularly at narrow locations on the lakes and the connection between the two lakes. Dependent upon access provisions that are provided by the Project for public use, including parking, it is possible that Grant Lake would provide snowmaching and ready access for those wanting to snowmobile on the lake and off into the headlands above the lake. Also, the roadway would provide ready access for those wishing to backcountry ski in the area. While this presents opportunities for motorized and non-motorized winter recreation, it also expands the presence of humans and compromises the setting for those seeking quiet and solitude. It may also lead to some conflict between skiers and snowmachiners should snowmachine use expand greatly. Ice fishing is not expected to expand beyond the existing use level since there are not game fish of consequence in Grant Lake for ice fishing. While recreational opportunities will increase, the provision of access to the public is an issue that will have to be negotiated between KHL and the USFS. 4.8.2.1.2 Summer Use As with winter use, the summer use levels are expected to increase. If the establishment of a fifty car parking lot at the Vagt Lake Trailhead as proposed by the Grant of Public Easement for the INHT does occur, that alone will trigger an expanded use by user groups. Additionally, the bridge across the narrows, if provided, will provide quick and easy access for summer recreation around the Grant Lake area; something that is limited at present. Also, it may assist in lessening trespass that occurs on the Alaska Railroad crossing of Lower Trail Lake. Access is an issue that will require coordination with management agencies as this ability to expand recreation use has the same effect as with winter use; greater recreation opportunity but greater presence of humans in an area that currently receives little use. 4.8.2.1.3 Sight-Seeing Flights (Aircraft) It is not expected that sight-seeing flights will be affected by the Project. Although there will be temporary construction activity and changes to the landscape as a result of the Project infrastructure, sight-seeing users will still enjoy the lakes, rivers, mountains, and ice-fields that surround Moose Pass. 4.8.2.1.4 Hunting and Fishing Impacts to hunting as a result of the Project include a possible increase in hunting pressure as a result of the proposed access road that would more easily facilitate access to Grant Lake. Currently, most individuals are understood to gain access to hunted areas via float plane. A roadway that would allow hunters to either unload a boat at Grant Lake, or to easily hike up the road with a pack raft, would increase the numbers of hunters that would hunt around Grant Lake and the surrounding backcountry. There would also likely be an increase in fishing activity on Grant Creek. Currently, Grant Creek receives limited fishing activity due both to limited access and the lack of an open salmon DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-354 March 2015 fishery. The availability of a roadway that facilitates creek access would open the opportunity for trout and Dolly Varden fishing along the creek. While the fishery is assumed to be limited in the future to non-anadromous species, the availability of a creek on the road system would enable those fishermen who simply fish for the recreational experience and thus fishing pressure on the creek would likely increase. 4.8.2.1.5 Noise Noise sources would include vehicles that are traveling the access roadway to the powerhouse and to the intake structure. However, the facility is proposed to operate remotely with access on a monthly basis during normal operational periods. For those limited visits, sound levels at 50 feet from the source of pickup trucks and automobiles would range in the neighborhood of 70-80 dB (Reed 2010). Thus recreation users of the roadway or the INHT would be subjected to short periods of noise above that of the ambient noise of 40 dB in the winter and 40-50 dB in the summer for those limited portions of trail that cross or are adjacent to the roadway. The provision of a roadway may induce snowmachine traffic to the roadway and may also induce an increase in use of Grant Lake and the surrounding areas. Snowmachines generate sound levels as high as 83 dBA at 50 feet from the source (Reed 2010) and the sound can be detrimental to the experience of non-motorized users in an area. While this is a moderate to major impact to that use, the use of Grant Lake by non-motorized users tends to be small to absent in the winter in particular, thus the overall impact to existing conditions would be relatively small. 4.8.2.1.6 Construction Construction impacts would be temporary and would affect trail use and fishing along Grant Creek. The presence of construction equipment and construction noise would provide a short- term but major impact to the environment desired by those recreating along the creek. Construction is planned to take place only in the summer months, thus noise and lighting impacts during the winter months, would be limited. Noise impacts would be expected to some degree in the summer though the construction site is generally removed from residences and visitor destinations, depending on the individual part of the infrastructure that is being constructed. 4.8.2.1.7 Recreational Opportunities The proposed Project provides an opportunity for increased recreation access to the area. The access road could provide Grant Lake access that is currently difficult and unavailable to many recreationists. Having the access could increase boating opportunities and access to backcountry that provides spectacular views and wildlife viewing. The Project could also allow increased access to hunters, allowing quicker access to background peak areas. The Project could provide parking to facilitate use of both hiking to Grant Lake on the Project access roadway, and to the INHT. While the opportunity for increased recreation activity is provided, this has a negative aspect of possibly increasing the evidence of humans within this area of forest and on Grant Lake. Wilderness areas are managed for their pristine conditions and their lack of the evidence of DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-355 March 2015 human disturbance. If an increase in recreational opportunities is undesirable, a gate could be installed on the access road at any point to limit access to authorized personnel only. Close coordination with agencies will be needed to determine how access will be managed to meet agency goals. 4.8.2.2. Land Use All changes in land use that would be attributed to the Project are either directly related to Project facilities with the exception of changes that would be induced by the access roadway. There is one private parcel that will adjoin or be in close proximity to the access road at such time that the road is proposed for construction. The owner of that parcel could possibly benefit from the presence of the roadway and it could possibly encourage the use of the property for commercial tourism opportunities. Contrary to that, the owner could possibly find that the roadway encourages unwanted intrusion and compromises his intended use of the site as a “remote parcel”. Project facilities are located beyond the 200-foot buffer proposed by KRSMA. Because the lands are retained in State ownership for purposes of habitat protection, there is no prescribed 200-foot buffer in the Kenai Area Plan. Still, the roadway and Project facilities would be located on State of Alaska land that is proposed for habitat protection and recreation uses. Proposed facilities could enhance the ability to meet recreation goals with the provision of increased access to trail and backcountry resources, though there would be some limited compromise of habitat protection goals in order to provide for the road and transmission line. This may not fully meet management intent of Chugach National Forest for lands that are designated and managed as “backcountry”. These areas are available for non-motorized recreation; however, the provision of road access to Grant Lake may induce increased use of the backcountry for snowmachining. While the numbers of non-motorized users is small, this may not be in conformance with the management intention of the USFS. 4.8.2.3. INHT Currently, there is a conflict between the Project and the INHT with the powerhouse and ancillary facilities being located within the easement. While the current access road alignment limits crossings of the trail to one 90-degree crossing, under the current Project proposal, the INHT would essentially be located within or with direct views to the clearing limits expected for the powerhouse and its ancillary facilities including the detention pond, the outfall of the pond, the termination of the underground penstock, and clearing associated with parking and the access road. For the safety of the public, it is expected that the Project may require security measures to prevent vandalism or damage and the structures and fencing may not be in keeping with the setting appropriate for the INHT. One alternative under consideration is for the INHT to be re-routed to the west, but still retain a 500-foot setback from the privately owned parcels located near the Trail Lake shoreline. This re- routed section would provide the desired buffer for the trail while giving users a more enjoyable view of the lakes. It also bypasses some marshy areas and exposes users to more distinctive landforms, water characteristics, and areas of outstanding scenic quality. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-356 March 2015 Figure E.4-98 illustrates where such a route might be located, with threads that illustrate where potential alternate locations for segments might be located. In the interest of determining whether the proposed alternative could pose harm to historic or archaeological resources, KHL performed a field survey of the proposed route. The field survey of the proposed, re-routed corridor for the INHT through the Project area occurred September 17-19, 2014. This work also included a section of the intake access road that was not surveyed in 2013. The only cultural materials found during the survey were a small cluster of culturally modified trees (CMT). The CMTs were not given an Alaska Heritage Resources Survey (AHRS) number and are not considered eligible for the NRHP. This information is included in the Cultural Resources Study, Final Report (KHL 2015a) for the Project and has been made available to those stakeholders permitted to review the documentation per Section 106 requirements. KHL has been in ongoing consultation with the requisite stakeholders related to this issue. Initial discussions began in 2009 with direct talks beginning with KHL and the USFS and the ADNR, including those in the SHPO. In these early discussions KHL discussed the process for evaluation of project impacts and licensing requirements. In 2010, HDR Alaska, representing KHL, exchanged multiple emails with the USFS and ADNR discussing the easement for the INHT with discussion of proposed road alignments. Emails were exchanged that provided emails of the agencies’ proposed location for the INHT. Most contacts with agencies occurred in April and May in 2010 with numerous discussions regarding potential impacts to cultural resources, including discussion of the INHT. In May of 2010, KHL sent SHPO a letter to initiate the Section 106 consultation. As a result of early discussions, KHL laid out a possible alternative to the INHT that would avoid proposed Project components. At an interagency meeting in December 2012, representatives of ADNR and USFS provided input including discussing the INHT status and requirements. At this meeting, KHL also illustrated a revised alignment for road access to the proposed hydro site which would avoid aligning the road in terrain that was also proposed for the INHT, limiting exposure of Project components to trail users and limiting crossing of the access road by the INHT to one crossing. In 2013, KHL again turned focus to a proposed alternate to the proposed USFS alignment to the INHT. To that end, KHL evaluated and proposed an alternate that would provide an enhanced user experience, with views to area peaks and Upper and Lower Trail lakes. KHL contacted individual agencies in early July and throughout August 2013 to address the INHT relocation, including ADNR (both the KRSMA representatives and the SHPO) and the USFS. Also, KHL continued to request and receive guidance as to the approval process and roles of the agencies. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-357 March 2015 Figure E.4-98. INHT corridor re-route flagging. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-358 March 2015 KHL set up a meeting in November 2013 with the multiple stakeholder agencies and met at USFS Glacier District offices to outline the process that would be required for resolution of a possible INHT relocation. The meeting defined the agencies that would be involved and a general outline as to how a process would need to proceed. KHL followed up in November and December with meeting minutes and emails to further clarify the meeting results. The November meeting was approximately one month prior to an interagency meeting of Project status in which again the INHT was reviewed and discussed. An on-site walk of the proposed re-routed trail was set up for July 15, 2014. That meeting was attended by four members of the USFS, two members of the SHPO, and a member of the Kenai Peninsula Borough. At that meeting the members agreed that it would be appropriate for KHL to provide a “Letter of Intent” to begin a process of review of the proposed re-route alternative and that a Memorandum of Understanding or Agreement would be in order to agree to the terms under which an evaluation of the alternative would take place. Meeting minutes and agency response indicated agreement with that approach. Following the meeting, KHL coordinated with the USFS in order to understand what the “Trail Management Objectives” were for the trail. Upon collecting those objectives, KHL returned to the proposed alignment alternative site and established more specific flagging of the route. Subsequent to that, KHL coordinated with the USFS to let them know that more specific flagging had been established. As a culmination of the consultation efforts to date, KHL developed a Letter of Intent and a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in August 2014 to begin the evaluation process. The documents were sent to the USFS, SHPO, ADNR, and the Kenai Peninsula Borough. Though no agency took exception to the Letter of Intent, SHPO indicated that it was not appropriate for them to enter a MOA because there had been no demonstration that there were any Project effects related to the INHT alternate routing that would suggest that their agency would have any purview. Also, the USFS indicated that, “At this time an MOA is not the appropriate tool in facilitating the decision to move forward with the Project proposal and potential trail realignment. The appropriate tool is the NEPA process as it will address, and hopefully answer questions associated with the proposed re-route.” Coordination continues on the proposed re-route. 4.8.3. Proposed Environmental Measures 4.8.3.1. Recreation The Project has the potential to provide the opportunity of enhanced recreation opportunities through the provision of an access road with pull-outs, restrooms, and off-loading facilities to serve both summer and winter recreation opportunities. The Grant Lake area provides excellent backcountry access possibilities for hikers, skiers, and snowmachiners. However, access has been limited by the amount of time that is necessary to negotiate terrain-challenging hiking/skiing trails and twisting trails that limit snowmachining. The access road could provide the opportunity for pull-offs at any number of locations. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-359 March 2015 A pull-off at the lower reaches would provide fishing access without requiring a boat to negotiate Upper or Lower Trail Lake. This would be a positive recreation opportunity though it would increase fishing pressure on the creek. Signs would need to be posted to clearly denote that salmon fishing is restricted due to the possibility of increased salmon retention by unknowing fishermen. A pull-off at a midpoint of the road, below the powerhouse (depending on a selected INHT location) could provide access and a trailhead to the INHT, discussed below. This trailhead could provide parking for use by the public. A pull-off at the upper reaches of the roadway, or at the road terminus at Grant Lake could provide access by snowmobile, ski, or snowshoe. Such a roadway pull-off would also provide opportunities for hunters and backcountry hikers/skiers to gain access quickly to upper elevations of Chugach National Forest. This pull-off could provide an off-loading ramp for snowmachines. It is extremely important to note that all of this potential benefit associated with additional access is dependent on public input and preference. KHL has every intention of polling the local community and soliciting their comments with respect to the allowance of access via the Project corridor. This polling and commenting period began with the Public Meeting held in Moose Pass on November 6, 2014 and will continue with the formal commenting period associated with DLA review. If the majority of the commenting public would prefer access to the Grant Creek drainage be prohibited, the aforementioned enhancements (pull-outs, off-loading facilities, etc.) will not be constructed and the access route will be used by KHL staff only to maintain and operate the Project. If however, the local public would prefer access be allowed via the Project related corridor, further discussion with respect to specifics of the access infrastructure would be discussed with stakeholders and the public prior to implementation. It should be noted that all possibilities of access require coordination with ADNR, ADF&G, and the USFS to address how such access opportunities would affect land management and resource plans and opportunities. Once public preference is fully understood, the Annual Compliance Report will document associated recreational efforts and plans for subsequent implementation on an annual basis. At this point, it is KHL’s assumption that collaboration with stakeholders and the public related to public access will occur during and subsequent to the DLA review process. As such, a Draft PSAP will be developed to document the currently planned methods for providing and monitoring public use and safety on Project lands once preference is determined. The Draft PSAP will then be included with the FLA for FERC review. This plan is intended to monitor the use of the access road to the powerhouse and intake structure for motorized and non-motorized use. Once a decision is made with respect to public access, a camera may be installed at the new trailhead (if so agreed by stakeholders) and monitored to determine the extent of public use and the type of use that has been generated by the improvements. Stakeholder interests are intended to have access to data gathered by the monitoring provisions in order to provide appropriate management for the area. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-360 March 2015 Depending on preference related to access, the PSAP will be developed accordingly to comprehensively document management and maintenance measures to be implemented. As previously mentioned, it is KHL’s current intent to make decisions related to the allowance of public access prior to FLA filing with FERC. A full summary of all measures, as well as the associated implementation timeframes, being proposed by KHL for the original license will be provided with the FLA. 4.8.3.2. Land Use All lands that are directly affected by the proposed Project are retained in public ownership. As a result, land management plans that are in place provide specific land use related to protection of land and water resources and for public recreation purposes. Additionally, there is not a need for buffers or other retained easements at Grant Lake or Grant Creek as all land is in public ownership and fully provides for public access. Use of ADNR land will remain in its current state and there should not be a need for specific changes to the management policies and plans currently in place. However, depending on public preference with respect to access, there may be an increase in human presence in the area and specific management of pull-offs, trails, and other amenities such as kiosks and parking, will require coordination between KHL and responsible agencies. This management and coordination will be outlined in the PSAP. USFS lands may be affected by the roadway to the Project intake on Grant Lake. The USFS is currently updating the existing Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for Chugach National Forest (USFS 2002) and consideration may be appropriate to address how the Grant Lake area is managed with respect to intended Wilderness properties and specifically “road management policies” with respect to the management of the access road. KHL will work with the USFS, other agencies and the pulic to accommodate these management and maintenance requirements and will incorporate them into their collaboratively developed PSAP. A full summary of all measures, as well as the associated implementation timeframes, being proposed by KHL for the original license will be provided with the FLA. 4.8.3.3. INHT The proposed re-route of the currently unconstructed INHT provides an opportunity to provide an enhanced user experience with views of Upper and Lower Trail lakes, and surrounding peaks including Crown Peak. It also provides a diversity of terrain that is not available with the current alignment of the INHT. KHL has indicated to stakeholders that it is willing to bear the costs of any expenses related to trail construction that would exceed that necessary for the existing alignment as proposed by the agencies. KHL has also indicated a willingness to address re- platting of the easement as necessary to provide the trail alignment and necessary 1.000-foot wide easement. After extensive coordination and an on-site meeting during which stakeholders walked portions of the trail, KHL developed a Letter of Intent and a MOA in August of 2014 to begin the DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-361 March 2015 evaluation process. The documents were sent to the USFS, SHPO, ADNR, and the Kenai Peninsula Borough. Though no agency took exception to the Letter of Intent, SHPO indicated that it was not appropriate for them to enter a MOA because there had been no demonstration that there were any Project effects related to the INHT alternate routing that would suggest that their agency would have any purview. Additionally, the USFS indicated that, “At this time an MOA is not the appropriate tool in facilitating the decision to move forward with the project proposal and potential trail realignment. The appropriate tool is the NEPA process as it will address, and hopefully answer questions associated with the proposed re-route.” Sections 4.8.1.3 and 4.8.2.3 of this Exhibit E and the associated consultation record (Attachment E-1), document the extensive level of coordination KHL has gone through with stakeholders related to the INHT re-route. Per USFS preference, any stakeholder decision related to approval of a re-route will be made once the public review process associated with the FLA filing occurs and a FERC license is issued. At that time, KHL and the stakeholders will reconvene and finalize a collaborative agreement with respect to the appropriate re-route. All phases of the re- route process will be documented consistent with the respective Annual Compliance Report. Documentation will include but not be limited to stakeholder consultation record, agreements reached and associated signed documents, maps and figures documenting the approved re-route and a schedule for implementation of the agreed upon process. Per Section 2.1.5 of this Exhibit E, once an agreement is collaboratively reached with stakeholders, an INHT Re-routing Plan (INHTRP) will be drafted by KHL that will outline: Process for modifying easements Acquisition of permits (if needed) Costs associated with re-route and responsible party A full summary of all measures, as well as the associated implementation timeframes, being proposed by KHL for the original license will be provided with the FLA. 4.8.4. Cumulative Effects Analysis FERC’s SD2 (FERC 2010b) identified potential cumulative effects related to construction and operation of the Project for recreation based activities. Based on the comprehensive set of natural resources and engineering analyses conducted and reviewed as part of this licensing process, KHL does see the potential for additional recreational access and opportunity associated with the proposed Project access road. Additional access via the Project access road has the potential to increase the number of people utilizing the back country for activities such as hunting, hiking, snowmachining, sightseeing, etc. With additional use comes the potential for additional impact to the natural environment. That said, additional recreational use opportunity, especially in pristine locations, is viewed by many as a positive attribute. While this additional access and opportunity for recreating in the backcountry may be viewed as negative by some and positive by others, KHL fully intends to allow public and stakeholder input and preference to define whether additional access is allowed via Project related -orridors. As more comprehensively described in Section 4.8.3.1 of this Exhibit E, if the majority of the commenting public (along with requisite stakeholders) would prefer access to the Grant Creek DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-362 March 2015 drainage be prohibited, the access route will only be used by KHL staff to maintain and operate the Project. If however, the local public would prefer access be allowed via the Project-related corridor, further discussion with respect to specifics of the access infrastructure would be discussed with stakeholders and the public prior to implementation and all plans for implementation and maintenance will be documented in the PSAP to be filed with the FLA. Refinement of the plan and subsequent implementation of the selected access option will be documented on a yearly basis in the Annual Compliance Report. The report will be provided to stakeholders for review and comment prior to KHL finalizing and filing with FERC. 4.8.5. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Regardless of the selected option associated with access via the Project developed access road, KHL recognizes the potential for the public to legally or illegally (as the case may be), use the access road for various reasons. KHL intends to strictly implement the measures outlined in the PSAP to ensure the access road is only utilized for approved purposes. As such and based on the comprehensive set of natural resources and engineering analyses conducted and reviewed as part of this licensing process, KHL has identified no recreation or land use related unavoidable adverse impacts associated with construction and operation of the Project. 4.9. Aesthetic Resources 4.9.1. Affected Environment 4.9.1.1. Viewers There are three major types of viewer groups or constituents in the Project area. The groups were identified based on the existing land uses and travel routes. Table E.4-100 identifies the viewer groups and their expectations and values for the viewshed of the Project. These viewers are described in terms of their “concern levels”. “Concern levels are a measure of public importance placed on landscapes viewed from travelways and use areas”(USFS 1995). There are three concern levels, with high (1) denoting those viewers who would have high interest in the surrounding landscape. Table E.4-100. Viewer group and expected values for the viewshed. Viewer Group Expected Values Residents Generally have a desire for protection of visual quality, including views from roadways, waterways, and individual residences. Generally cautious concerning changes to visual environment. Recreationists/ Tourists Includes both road and rail traffic. Generally have high appreciation for visual quality of an area and desire for undisturbed areas. Also share a desire for views from roadways and waterways. Aircraft High variability in visual values and the acceptance of changes to existing visual conditions. Many are sight-seers with high degree of sensitivity to visual quality. There are variations in the number of residents, recreationists, tourists, and viewers from aircraft throughout the year. Summer months are typically characterized by a significant increase in DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-363 March 2015 viewers, particularly as a result of tour travel, as well as fishing and hunting activities. This visitor population drops drastically after these seasons have passed into the winter months. Both numbers of on the ground viewers and the air traveler populations are much lower during winter and early spring. Float planes, which are docked on Upper Trail Lake during the summer months, are removed from the lake in the winter. There is little small aircraft traffic in the winter compared to numbers of float plane takeoffs and landings that occur from May through September. These visitors typically have a high level of appreciation for scenic values and scenic integrity. In fact, it is these values that bring them to visit this area. The population of Moose Pass is generally stable through the entirety of the year. The State of Alaska Department of Labor and Work Force Development (2013) reports 219 residents in Moose Pass in April 2010, 240 residents in July 2011, and 231 in July 2012. This would seem to indicate relative stability given that April is more indicative of winter conditions than summer conditions in Moose Pass. The residents of Moose Pass can be characterized as treasuring their “small town” culture and the environment in which they are located. They have a high value for the setting in which the town is located and have a high level of value for scenic integrity. Seward, located approximately 25 miles south of Moose Pass, experienced approximately 355,000 visitors in the summer of 2011 (McDowell 2011). Virtually all of these visitors pass through Moose Pass by either road or rail. Rail passenger service is only available in the summer. A majority of the road traffic passes through the community in the summer months as well. In 2012, this traffic had a highest “maximum average daily traffic count” of 3,802 vehicles in July and a low maximum average daily traffic count of 611 in January (ADOT&PF 2013). There are a number of recreationists who travel on the eastern side of the valley via trails or on Trail Lakes in the winter. Most trail use is limited in the Vagt Lake area, to the south of the Project components. Winter use within the Project area is generally confined to the Vagt Lake area or is located on the Trail Lake frozen surface and includes snowmachiners, snowshoers and skiers. There are a small number of fishermen who travel along the Grant Creek bank but the number is quite limited as salmon fishing is restricted on the creek. There is evidence that some residents/recreationists hike along Grant Creek though the size of the trails indicate that this use is very limited. These recreationists typically have a high level of appreciation for the conduct of their recreation activities and value the undisturbed setting. Hikers typically gain access to Grant Lake via the Grant Lake trail which is located north of the Project and provides access to a mine site located at the northern corner of the lake. There are also known to be some recreationists who fly small boats or pack in rafts for traveling along the shoreline of Grant Lake. Some of these include hunters trying to gain access to remote areas to the north and west of Grant Lake. Both hikers and hunters value the setting of their recreation pursuit and prefer an undisturbed landscape. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-364 March 2015 4.9.1.2. Visual Character 4.9.1.2.1 Landscape Visibility Landscape visibility addresses the relative importance and sensitivity of what is seen and perceived in the landscape. It consists of three elements: Travel ways and use areas Concern levels Distance zones Landscape visibility is also a function of several other considerations, including: Context of viewers Duration of view Degree of discernible detail Seasonal variations Number of viewers. The first area of analysis involves determining whether the Project area can be seen from travel ways and use areas. Travel ways represent linear concentrations of public viewing. Use areas are specific locations that receive concentrated public viewing. For this Project, primary travel ways and use areas include the road system running north-south along the western shores of Trail Lakes. Secondary travel ways include the small aircraft sight-seeing routes from Upper Trail Lake west to Prince William Sound and back. As discussed in Section 4.8 of this Exhibit E, viewer concern for their surroundings is an important part of the analysis of the importance of visual quality impacts. As described, almost all viewers have a high sensitivity to either the presence of undisturbed landscapes, or sensitivity to changes of the landscape as viewed from their homes. Thus the concern level of almost all viewers of the landscape is considered to be high, being a concern level of “1”. 4.9.1.2.2 Distance Zones, Viewer Exposure, and Seasonal Variations Distance zones define the viewing distances of the viewer. The zones are noted as foreground, middleground, and background. The viewing distances are based on the amount of details that the observer can perceive. Distance zones help determine what portions of the landscape are more critical to the visual character and what areas are more sensitive to change. For example, travelers on the highway are more aware of changes to the foreground of the landscape than the background, given the same level of change of the landscape. Table E.4-101 further describes distance zones. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-365 March 2015 Table E.4-101. Distance zones (USFS 1995). Distance Zones Distance Description Distance Zones Distance Foreground (fg) 0 – 0.5 miles Distinguish vegetative detail and full use of senses Foreground (fg) 0 – 0.5 miles Middleground (mg) 0.5 – 4 miles Distinguish large boulders, small openings in the forest Middleground (mg) 0.5 – 4 miles Background (bg) 4 miles to horizon Distinguish groves of trees, large openings in the forest. Background (bg) 4 miles to horizon This Project area is dominated by Foreground and Middleground distance zones. Almost all views are from the valley floor and the natural topography obscures views of most background areas east or west of primary view areas. Views are available to background peaks to the north and south, but only to the tops of peaks to the east, east of Grant Lake. Viewer exposure is a function of the type of view seen; the distance, perspective, and duration of the view. The term exposure may also refer to the number of people exposed to a particular view. It is expressed by the numbers, distance, duration, and speed of view for each of the Viewer Groups. Table E.4-102 outlines viewer groups and the associated exposure periods based on observations of their use patterns and use periods. Table E.4-102. Viewer groups and exposure period. Viewer Group Exposure Period Residents Continual Recreationists/ Tourists Varies-generally minutes, hours for fishermen on Grant Lake and hunters in Grant Lake basin Aircraft Varies-generally seconds or minutes Seasonal variations are characterized by leaf loss within the Project area between summer and winter conditions. Summer foliage tends to obscure views with restriction of views beyond a distance of as much as several hundred feet for undisturbed areas. Also, the presence of foliage tends to provide screening of some views from the Seward Highway across Trail Lake. These views are extended to greater distances, across the lake, during winter months. Winter months provide greater contrast of manmade disturbances since disturbed lands provide planes or lines that are visible since a lack of vegetation provides a strong contrasting line or plane within the landscape. This depends on whether vegetation between the viewer and disturbance obscures or modifies the view. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-366 March 2015 4.9.1.2.3 Scenic Attractiveness There are three values used to describe the scenic attractiveness of an area. These classes are developed to determine the relative scenic value of landscapes. They measure the scenic importance of a landscape based on human perceptions of intrinsic beauty of landform, water characteristics, vegetation pattern, and cultural land use. Table E.4-103 characterizes scenic attractiveness classifications. Table E.4-103. Attractiveness classes and description (USFS 1995). Class Title Description A Distinctive Areas where landform, vegetative patterns, water characteristic and cultural features combine to provide unusual, unique, or outstanding scenic quality. These landscapes have strong positive attributes of variety, unity, vividness, mystery, intactness, order, harmony, uniqueness, pattern, and balance. B Typical Areas where landform, vegetative patterns, water characteristics, and cultural features combine to provide ordinary or common scenic quality. These landscapes have generally positive, yet common, attributes of variety, unity, vividness, mystery, intactness, order harmony, uniqueness, pattern, and balance. Normally they would form the basic matrix within the landscape unit. C Indistinctive Areas where landform, vegetative patterns, water characteristics, and cultural land use have low scenic quality. Often water and rockform of any consequence are missing in class C landscapes. These landscapes have weak or missing attributes of variety, unity, vividness, mystery, intactness, order, harmony, uniqueness, pattern, and balance. 4.9.1.2.4 Scenic Classes Scenic classes indicate the relative importance, or value, of discrete landscape areas having similar characteristics of scenic attractiveness and landscape visibility. Scenic classes are determined using the matrix in Table E.4-104. Table E.4-104. Scenic class matrix (USFS 1995). Scenic Attractiveness Distance Zone and Concern Levels Fg1 Mg1 Bg1 A 1 1 1 B 1 2 2 C 1 2 3 4.9.1.3. Landscape Units To provide a framework for more specific analysis of the visual environment, three landscape units have been identified based on the interaction of existing land use patterns, topography, and distance from the Project. Each unit is defined with respect to its scenic attractiveness and scenic integrity and identification of these units is an important key to analyzing the visual effects of the DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-367 March 2015 Project. The respective units and associated matrix are documented in Figure E.4-99 and Table E.4-105, respectively. Figure E.4-99. Unit keys. Table E.4-105. Unit key matrix. Unit Title Description Elevation 1 Trail Lakes Valley Corridor of Trail Lakes valley from Moose Pass to Lower Trail Lake bridge Lake elevation to ~300 feet above 2 Grant Lake West Western half of Grant Lake Lake elevation to ~300 feet above 3 Grant Lake East Eastern half of Grant Lake Lake elevation to ~300 feet above 4.9.1.3.1 Unit 1: Trail Lakes Valley The Trail Lakes Unit includes almost all travel ways and viewers, except some of those traveling by aircraft. It also includes recreationists using trails or fishing the shoreline of Grant Creek. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-368 March 2015 Further it would include those traveling on the frozen surface of Trail Lake in the winter. Residents, recreationists, and aircraft have varying degrees of visibility for this unit, as their exposure is fluctuating from a few seconds to continual. Their concern level and exposure periods provide a high level of sensitivity to changes in the viewshed. The area is characterized in Figure E.4-100, with a long view to the south down Upper to Lower Trail Lakes, with Kenai Lake far in the background. Travel patterns of viewers are shown in Figure E.4-101. Viewers are primarily residents of Moose Pass and travelers on the Alaska Railroad or Seward Highway. Viewers are afforded foreground views, and the area has a highly distinctive scenic attractiveness, or Class A as defined in Table E.4-104. Most views are foreground due to the enclosed nature of the Trail Lake basin. Background views are occasionally available with breaks in vegetation for those traveling on the Seward Highway or the Alaska Railroad, or living in Moose Pass. Shoreline vegetation tends to be deciduous, mixing with conifers with increasing elevation, turning to a primarily coniferous forest up to the u-shaped valley crest. Views are provided to alpine settings in the background. The landscape is typified by forest, dominant water features of high complexity and high level of order, and low density development in Moose Pass that tends to be of small scale and complementary to the landscape. The landforms, vegetative patterns, and water characteristics are intrinsically unique, with the majority of the existing landscape well preserved. Figure E.4-100. Looking south across Trail Lakes toward Kenai Lake-view from aircraft. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-369 March 2015 Figure E.4-101. Unit 1: Trail Lakes Valley. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-370 March 2015 4.9.1.3.2 Unit 2: Grant Lake West The Grant Lake West landscape unit is highly distinctive (Class A as defined in Table E.4-104), and virtually fully intact with little to no evidence of human presence, as shown in Figure E.4- 102. This view is from the north, looking south towards the project features, specifically the outfall of the lake. Figure E.4-103 illustrates travel patterns for those who visit this unit. The area has few viewers, no residents within the unit, and recreationists/tourists restricted to either those using the limited amount of trail access or those viewing the area by aircraft. The viewer exposure period ranges from hours for those traveling by trail or seconds/minutes for those traveling by aircraft. This unit is characterized by Grant Lake and the surrounding mountains. The limited number of viewers located within the area would have foreground views. However, for most viewers, who are located in Moose Pass or on the road/rail corridor, the area is unseen. Vegetation remains an evergreen and deciduous forest around the lake and dissipates into alpine tundra with elevation. Large openings provide a mix of perennial herbaceous plants, with numerous Alaskan wildflowers. Figure E.4-102. Looking south across Grant Lake from Grant Lake Trail. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-371 March 2015 Figure E.4-103. Unit 2: Grant Lake West. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-372 March 2015 4.9.1.3.3 Unit 3: Grant Lake East Naturally obscured by the sharp easterly turn of Grant Lake, this eastern portion of Grant Lake is a u-shaped valley that feeds to the previously discussed unit, separated by a thin neck of water. The valley is entirely undisturbed as in evidence in Figure E.4-104. The distance from this unit to the Project is approximately 3-6 miles with no direct line of sight to Project components. Viewer exposure is restricted to aircraft and the occasional recreationist and/or hunter who may access the area by trail and possibly travel by packraft (Figure E.4-105). Aircraft views are typically from relatively high elevations and duration of the view changes dramatically dependent upon altitude and weather. These groups may include hunters as well. Figure E.4-104. Looking west across Grant Lake, view from aircraft. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-373 March 2015 Figure E.4-105. Unit 3: Grant Lake East. The scenic attractiveness of the viewshed is distinctive, or Class A as shown in Table E.4-104. Peaks provide a serrated skyline with a complex mix of snow, valleys, and well-patterned DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-374 March 2015 vegetation. The area is a pristine wilderness with unique landforms and water features. Vegetation is sparse, with forest surrounding the lake and covering the valley floor, with alpine tundra at upper elevations. 4.9.1.4. Summary of Existing Conditions The Grant Lake Project area is a highly distinctive, well-seen, and valued area of the Kenai Peninsula. Of particular note is that much of the landscape is undisturbed and much is little used and is unseen by most people. Following is a summary of key observations. Landscape Character. The landscape of the Project area is characterized by complex mountains with serrated ridgelines and a highly ordered landscape. Water features are striking with turquoise waters and clear streams that provide marked contrast with the colors and patterns of the forest. Vegetation is typical of the area, primarily of a mixed deciduous/coniferous forest that leads to high altitude alpine vegetation that is highly patterned and colorful, contrasting with geological features and scree slopes. The community of Moose Pass is also distinctive, and is small scale, in keeping with the landscape. The area is highly memorable. Scenic Attractiveness. The landscape remains a Class A, or distinctive landscape (as previously defined in Table E.4-104) throughout the Project area. The foreground, middleground, and background each are unique and attractive to viewers. Scenic Integrity. The majority of the Project area is intact and undisturbed, allowing for a high level of scenic integrity. Currently, the only evidence of human presence is associated with the road and rail corridor, including the community of Moose Pass. While these elements provide evidence of human presence, the roadway, the railway, and the community of Moose Pass are within scale and context of the setting. Viewer Groups. Residents, recreationists/tourists, and aircraft are the primary viewers of the Project area. Most views are constrained to the Seward Highway, the Alaska Railroad, and residents of Moose Pass, and those who travel by snowmachine, skis, snowshoes, or on foot. Landscape Visibility. The Project area is viewed by the viewer groups from all distance zones; however, the natural topography of the area limits distance zones to the foreground for most viewers. Concern Levels. Concern levels are high, as the area is used and viewed by a wide range of viewers, all of whom value the area for its high visual quality and intactness. Scenic Class. The scenic class and the scenic attractiveness of the area remain at the highest level of 1, due to the unique landforms, vegetative patterns, and outstanding topography, and thee concern level of the viewers. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-375 March 2015 4.9.2. Environmental Analysis 4.9.2.1. Landscape Unit Analysis 4.9.2.1.1 Unit 1—Trail Lakes Valley Project components within this unit include the access roadway, the powerhouse, possibly transmission lines, ancillary support structures including parking, fencing, rock-lined channel, and the auxiliary detention pond. The roadway entrance and a short portion of its length would be visible from the Seward Highway and the Alaska Railroad. Other Project components would be visible to those who fish Grant Creek and to the limited number of hikers who may on occasion follow the creek. The natural topography of the unit does offer enough variation to allow some features to blend more, or to be masked by the undulating landforms and density of the vegetation. This provides screening of proposed Project components, which will be hidden or concealed within the landscape for almost all viewers. 4.9.2.1.2 Unit 2—Grant Lake West Project components that would be located within the area would include the Project’s intake structure and the access roadway, located at the southerly most portion of the lake, near the Grant Lake outfall. These components would generally be unseen by those along the lake shore. The intake structure would be seen by boaters who currently gain access via packraft or plane. It would be seen in the middleground for those who hike around the lake and can view the opening of the lake to Grant Creek. Aircraft would be able to see the structures as well though the exposure time would be limited. 4.9.2.1.3 Unit 3—Grant Lake East Unit 3 does not contain any Project components. However, proposed lake level changes may create a visual variation that may be noticeable by those gaining access to the area. Seasonal flows currently provide for some variations in lake levels thus an exposed shoreline does occur during the year. The lower level attributed to KHL would persist for more periods of time though the character would be similar to that of historic patterns, perhaps slightly pronounced. 4.9.2.2. Key View Analysis The unit by unit analysis provides an understanding of the landscape character of units of landscape with generally common features. However, it is appropriate to consider “key views” that existing viewers commonly have of areas that may be affected by the project. For the purposes of showing potential Project impacts, key views were selected and developed to create visual simulations of the conditions that might result from project development. The following key views were selected as having the most valuable potential in showing Project components and visual impacts. The location of these key views is indicated in Figure E.4-106. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-376 March 2015 Key View 1: view of the Trail Lakes narrows access road crossing area from the Seward Highway Key View 2: view of the intake structure and lake shoreline Key View 3: view of proposed facilities from the Seward Highway or Alaska Railroad (winter) Key View 4: view of the access road or powerhouse from the ROW for the proposed INHT. Figure E.4-106. Location of key views. 4.9.2.2.1 Key View 1: Access Road from Seward Highway Key view #1 is the view of the Project access road from the Seward Highway. The new access road leaves the Seward Highway at approximately MP 26.9, crosses the Alaska Railroad tracks, then continues east to the proposed bridge. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-377 March 2015 The highway corridor between Lower Trail Lake and Upper Trail Lake tends to be viewed as a “closed forest” as the existing vegetation blocks the majority of viewing points along the road. Moreover, the narrowness of the road leads the viewer’s eye forward until the vegetation recedes at both Lower Trail Lake and Moose Pass itself. This access road may become more visible with the winter months and loss of foliation; however, the scale of the roadway would be similar to that of a driveway which is a common feature along the highway. There is an existing driveway to private land approximately 100 yards south of the proposed new roadway. It is expected the existing roadway would be closed and the old entrance maintained as a turnoff. One issue that could increase the visual presence of the road would be an agency decision that would open the KHL Project access to wide public use. If public access is desirable by agencies and agreed-to by KHL, the roadway could have an increased presence and be marked by road signs and possibly the width of the roadway increased to offer vehicle turn lanes. Figures E.4-107 and E.4-108 display the current view and the likely view with the Project component (access road) in place, respectively, with the assumption that the roadway will be non-public. Figure E.4-107. Key View 1: Before. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-378 March 2015 Figure E.4-108. Key View 1: After. 4.9.2.2.2 Key View 2: View of Intake Structure and Lake Shoreline This key view simulation shows the small intake structure located at the southern shores of Grant Lake, the diversion dam to the west, the remaining stream and stream bed once diverted, and the small access road to the intake structure. Also with in this view is the powerhouse itself, the detention pond, and the outlet diversion. Each Project component is linked by a small gravel road, with the upper access road not maintained in the winter. The current Project design has the level of the lake rising up to two feet above natural conditions, but as the edges of the lake are quite steep, the effect will be less noticeable as the change does not widen but simply raises the level of the lake in this area. Over time there may be a recognizable ring of vegetation as flooded vegetation at the shoreline edge dies out and becomes evident. However, there are currently natural seasonal fluctuations of the lake level that provide an exposed shoreline at low water levels thus the new condition will be an small expansion of an existing condition that occurs on the lake. While this will be discernible on the ground and may be noticeable, it will be less so, if evident at all from the air. Figures E.4-109 and E.4-110 display the current view and the likely view with the Project components (lake infrastructure) in place, respectively. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-379 March 2015 Figure E.4-109. Key View 2: Before. Figure E.4-110. Key View 2: After. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-380 March 2015 4.9.2.2.3 Key View 3: View of Facilities from Seward Highway As the highway corridor is quite narrow, and the vegetation impedes most views, the only open areas whereby a viewer from the Seward Highway would have a vantage point of the Project would be near Lower Trail Lake. The bridge crossing, powerhouse, and primary access road will not be visible to most viewers from the Seward Highway. The upper access road connecting the powerhouse to the intake structure may be more visible, as it climbs in elevation, however most vegetation is evergreen thus it is not expected that the roadway will be visible to most Seward Highway viewers in the summer or winter. Figures E.4-111 and E.4-112 display the current view and the likely view with the access road being slightly visible climbing the hillside in the right-center of the photo, in the distance. The change would be negligible, particularly considering that viewers at this location are traveling at a speed of approximately 50 miles per hour. Drivers are focused on views down the road while passengers are focused on more visible landscape of the lake and Crown Point Peak, more to the east, 45-90 degrees to the location that the access road would be. Figure E.4-111. Key View 3: Before. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-381 March 2015 Figure E.4-112. Key View 3: After. 4.9.2.2.4 Key View 4: Access Road or Powerhouse from the Right-of-Way for the Proposed INHT The INHT trail will intersect with the powerhouse access road, intersecting south of Grant Creek and east of Lower Trail Lake. This intersection would be a marked intersection that would provide views to an opening in the forest allowing more visibility and exposure to the Project. This intersection could serve as a trailhead in the future dependent on the desire of managing agencies. Figure E.4-113 displays the current view and the likely view with the Project component (access road) in place respectively. In the simulation, the access road is illustrated at a crossing of the INHT and assumes a gravel surface for both the trail and the road at this crossing location. A sign would provide direction for hikers and other users. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-382 March 2015 Figure E.4-113. Key View 4: Before and after. 4.9.2.3. Project Effects 4.9.2.3.1 Project Components Intake Structure. The intake structure would include a gravity diversion structure and intake tower that would be approximately 15 feet above the lake surface. The structure would be hidden for most viewers excepting the small number of those traveling along the shoreline by boat, or by those traveling above the lake by aircraft. The structures would be minor elements in the landscape. The concrete tower would contrast with the lake surface providing a striking light color against the turquoise waters of the lake. However, the size of the structure relative to the lake, as seen from the air provides a minor change to the landscape. Shoreline Alteration. The change in lake level could provide evidence of vegetation die back as the vegetation adapts to changing lake levels. This vegetation as it dies, or the remaining shoreline as the lake level changes, would provide an expanded shoreline around the lake. While this could occur, there are currently natural seasonal fluctuations at the shoreline edge and during drought conditions the shoreline currently is visible as an exposed edge, thus the possible shoreline expansion would be an increase to the visibility of the shoreline rock edge, not a new condition. This will be visible to those traveling by foot but less conspicuous to those traveling over the area by plane. This would be a minor change to the shoreline landscape. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-383 March 2015 Access Roadway. The access roadway would be visible from the Seward Highway, from the Alaska Railroad tracks, and for those traveling by boat, raft, snowmachine, snowshoe, or skis on Trail Lake. It would also be visible from the air. It would generally be unseen by residents of Moose Pass. From the Seward Highway it would read as a side road or driveway intersecting the highway, a common element along the roadway. The road would also be seen by those who would use the INHT at the time that construction takes place. At this point in time, the INHT is a dedicated easement but not constructed. For those affected, the bridge crossing of the Trail Lake narrows would be similar in scale and scope to that of the Alaska Railroad crossing that currently exists. The roadway would continue into the forest and only several hundred feet would be visible for users along Trail Lake. Thus the roadway would be a moderate change to the landscape though generally unseen by most viewers. Auxiliary Detention Basin. The detention basin would generally be unseen except from the air. It would be seen from the INHT as mapped, though not constructed at this time. The basin would generally be confined within an existing depression in the landscape. Thus, the form of the feature would approximate that of the existing landscape. However, the fluctuating water levels will change the nature of the vegetation as the vegetation adapts to growing conditions. There would also be minor site structures that would be associated with the detention basin, pipes, and infrastructure. These structures and the changes to the landscape would be moderate changes to the landscape but would be largely unseen, depending on whether the INHT easement is relocated or not. Powerhouse/Ancillary Features. The powerhouse would be a visible, man-made structure in a natural setting as would other components such as parking and associated channels and site structures. They would not replicate the area’s landscape in form though the Project components could be colored or painted to be complementary to the landscape. The components would be unseen by most viewers excepting those hiking, skiing, snowshoeing, or fishing along Grant Creek. It would also be evident to those hiking along the INHT, should it be constructed as currently planned. Powerlines. The construction of powerlines above ground could possibly present an impact to visual resources, dependent on their location. While other Project facilities would be screened by existing vegetation or replicate existing visual features in the Project area, the powerlines would contrast with the setting and visual resources. Construction. Construction activities would have little impact to visual resources excepting during the temporary construction activities associated with the roadway and bridging of Trail Lake. The presence of construction equipment could be a minor to moderate impact to visual resources during the construction period depending on how construction equipment was staged. However, the location of almost all Project components is unseen from key viewpoints and most viewers. The construction would generate noise that would be heard by recreationists as pilings were driven, should pile or sheet driving be required. Further, lights may be needed for construction that would be evident in mornings and evenings during winter construction, should winter construction take place. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-384 March 2015 Operations and Maintenance. Routine operations and maintenance will typically take place monthly during normal operations. There will be dust generated on the gravel road and noise generated by vehicles traveling on the roadway, but this activity is expected to be limited in period and of little detriment to visual quality. During the winter months there would be lights from the vehicles monthly but again, this would be of little consequence to visual quality. The powerhouse itself would have security lighting that would be on through darkness on winter nights. This lighting is expected to be very localized, only at the powerhouse. The lighting is assumed to have cutoffs to ensure that there is little fugitive light. Given the density of the forest at the powerhouse site, there should be little indication of lighting, if any, that would compromise the dark skies visible from key viewpoints or from any locations near Moose Pass. 4.9.3. Proposed Environmental Measures Project components will be developed to provide some separation of Project facilities from Grant Creek and will be designed to provide colors and textures that are complementary to the landscape. Construction will be staged such that equipment is kept on site, outside of views. In addition, KHL proposes to do most work during the summer months, thus the possibility of light intrusion should be minimal to non-existent. With respect to the INHT, the proposed alternative route (see Section 4.8 of this Exhibit E) could be situated as to provide a net benefit to the trail user experience. The currently proposed trail route is located such that views are limited and the trail provides a generally homogenous vegetation and terrain experience from the northward shore of Vagt Lake. An alternative alignment could reduce the presence of Project components relative to the trail location as planned and could provide enhanced views to Trail Lake and background peaks. KHL plans on continuing its collaboration with stakeholders with respect to this issue. A series of meetings and site visits were held in 2013 and 2014 (see Table E.3-2 for major stakeholder engagements and the consultation record for a complete history [Attachment E-1]). KHL has developed a proposed re-route that has been reviewed by the stakeholders. Per USFS preference, any stakeholder decision related to approval of a re-route will be made once the public review process associated with License Application submittal occurs and a FERC license is issued. At that time, KHL and the stakeholders will reconvene and finalize a collaborative agreement with respect to the appropriate re-route. All phases of the re-route process will be documented consistent with the respective Annual Compliance Report. Documentation will include but not be limited to stakeholder consultation record, agreements reached and associated signed documents, maps and figures documenting the approved re-route and a schedule for implementation of the agreed upon process. A full summary of all measures, as well as the associated implementation timeframes, being proposed by KHL for the original license will be provided with the FLA. 4.9.4. Cumulative Effects Analysis Consistent with FERC’s SD2 (FERC 2010b), no negative cumulative effects were identified associated with aesthetic resources. Given that the local area is heavily forested, visual anomalies associated with Project construction and operation would be minimal to non-existent from the local community of Moose Pass (see Figure E.4-112). Any Project impacts would be DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-385 March 2015 localized and unseen by most viewers. Those local visual impacts will be further mitigated by standard BMPs associated with appropriate staging of equipment and supplies. A potentially positive impact exists from an aesthetics perspective related to the proposed INHT. If an agreement can be reached with respect to a re-route of the unconstructed trail through the Project area, the proposed alternative route (see Section 4.8 of this Exhibit E) could be situated as to provide a net benefit to the trail user experience. The currently proposed trail route is located such that views are limited and the trail provides a generally homogenous vegetation and terrain experience from the northward shore of Vagt Lake. An alternative alignment could reduce the presence of Project components relative to the trail location as planned and could provide enhanced views to Trail Lake and background peaks. KHL plans on continuing its collaboration with stakeholders with respect to this issue. 4.9.5. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Based on the comprehensive set of natural resources and engineering analyses conducted and reviewed as part of this licensing process, KHL has identified no aesthetically-related unavoidable adverse impacts associated with construction and operation of the Project. 4.10. Cultural Resources 4.10.1. Affected Environment In accordance with 36 CFR 800, cultural resources inventory and evaluation has taken place within an Area of Potential Effects (APE) established for the Project. The APE for archaeological and historical resources includes lands that could be affected (directly or indirectly) by operation of the Project, or by ground-disturbing activities required by or permitted under the FERC license. The APE consists of lands within the FERC-licensed Project boundary, as well as areas where potential Project-related activities might affect cultural resources. The APE is composed of an area 100 feet beyond the perimeter of all Project features, such as the location that would be impacted by powerhouse construction, areas along Grant Creek that may experience increased use, and corridors for road access and transmission line alignments. The proposed APE also includes an area around Grant Lake extending from the current waterline to 30 feet above the proposed maximum lake elevation, or up to 733 feet NAVD 88. Possible archaeological resources that could currently be under water, but may be exposed in the future due to drawdown or decreased lake level will be addressed in a HPMP. The APE was expanded in 2014 to include a proposed re-alignment corridor for the planned INHT. The APE considered for traditional cultural properties (TCP) was larger than the APE for archaeological and historical sites. As such, it included the general Project area surrounding Grant Lake and Grant Creek, Upper and Lower Trail lakes, and the Seward Highway corridor around Moose Pass. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-386 March 2015 4.10.1.1. Historical and Archaeological Resources in the Proposed Project Area At least ten cultural resources studies have been completed within one mile of the Project area. Most of the recent studies were conducted in association with the Iditarod Trail Project’s planned construction of a commemorative trail. The area between the Trail Lakes and Grant Lake, and a portion of the northern shore of Grant Lake were surveyed in the early 2000s as part of this effort. Areas along the northern shore of Grant Lake were surveyed for a habitat improvement project and prescribed burns in 1996 and 2004 (Alden 1996a; 1996b; 1996c; Vinson 1997; Schick 2005). Katherine Arndt (1982) surveyed portions of the Project Area in the early 1980s for an early design of the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project. Her efforts, however, focused on the then proposed Project footprint between the mouth of Grant Lake and the two Trail Lakes. Prior to the work described herein, the entire lakeshore had not yet been previously surveyed. Nine AHRS sites are located within the Project area (Table E.4-106). Of these, only two—SEW- 00768 and SEW-00823—had not previously been evaluated for eligibility to the NRHP. The INHT is a gold rush era network of trails that connected Seward with Nome. The primary route of the trail on the Kenai Peninsula, which includes the Seward Moose Pass Trail (SEW- 00148), follows the Alaska Railroad alignment (Schick 2009). A comprehensive management plan for the INHT system was completed and signed by the Secretary of the Interior in 1986 (BLM 1986). Table E.4-106. AHRS sites located within the Project area. AHRS No. Site Name Description Eligibility SEW-00029 Alaska Railroad One of three railroads built by the U.S. Government Nomination Closed SEW-00148 Seward-Moose Pass Trail Part of the Iditarod National Historic Trail National Historic Trail SEW-00285 Solars Sawmill Collection of wooden structures, operated between 1920-1941 Determined Not Eligible SEW-00659 Case Mine (Grant Lake Placer Mine) Cabin, bunkhouse, and 4 associated structures, 1900- 1940s Determined Eligible SEW-00768 Grant Lake Cabin Frame cabin, dating to historic prospecting, mining, hunting, or trapping No Determination of Eligibility SEW-00823 North Grant Lake Cabin (Case Mine Dynamite Shack) Log cabin/dynamite storage for area mines No Determination of Eligibility SEW-01144 Dock Site at Grant Lake Scatter of cut timbers, logs, cans, and other debris Determined Not Eligible SEW-01454 Grant Lake Road to Case Mine Access trail to the Case Mine Determined Eligible SEW-01455 Grant Lake Trail Trail that connects Upper Trail Dock Site with the Grant Lake Dock Site Determined Eligible DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-387 March 2015 4.10.1.2. Cultural Resource Study Methods The inventory and assessment of archaeological and historical resources, as described below, were guided by the Cultural Resources, Final Study Plan (KHL 2013e). This plan was developed as a result of consultation with the SHPO and other consulting parties. Consultation began in 2009 and has included three Cultural Resources Work Group (CRWG) meetings. All aspects of the cultural resources study have been conducted according to Section 106 of the NHPA (36 CFR Part 800), the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation (48 FR 44716), the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (48 FR 22716), and the ACHP’s general guidelines for identification and testing procedures as set forth in Treatment of Archaeological Properties, A Handbook. Probability areas for historic and archaeological resources were established before field survey. KHL developed a model utilizing criteria identified by the USFS to delimit sensitivity areas. These criteria—outlined in Appendix E of the Second Amended Programmatic Agreement Among the USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer Regarding Heritage Resource Management on National Forest in the State of Alaska – include proximity to trails, mines, and water bodies; degree of slope; and vegetation type. The USFS’s sensitivity model includes other parameters as well, but these did not apply to the Project APE. The goal of the probability model for the Project was streamline the field survey by identifying areas that have a higher potential to contain archaeological and historical materials. Much of the APE was deemed by the model to have high potential due to proximity to water bodies, trails, and mines. The cultural resources study fieldwork was completed in three sessions over a total of twenty days. The first session, between June 3 and 6, 2013, covered the APE from the Seward Highway to the mouth of Grant Lake and both banks of Grant Creek. The second part of the survey, including the Grant Lake portion of the APE, occurred between June 10 and 22, 2013. Portions of the lakeshore APE were not surveyed due to unsafe conditions or relatively recent landslides that would have erased any historic or archaeological materials. The third session occurred between September 17 and 19, 2014. This portion of the survey covered a proposed re- alignment corridor for the INHT and a section of the intake access road that was not surveyed in 2013. The identification of TCPs has relied on consultation with any of the aforementioned tribal organizations that have expressed interest in the protection and preservation of locations with traditional cultural significance. A TCP is a property that is eligible for the NRHP “because of its association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community” (Parker and King 1990). TCPs are historic properties (as defined by the NHPA) and as such are subject to the same Section 106 process as other archeological and historical sites. A TCP is a tangible property that meets one or more of the four basic criteria set forth in the NRHP regulations (36 CFR Part 60). To date, no potential TCPs have been identified in the general Project area. However, KHL will continue to consult with tribal groups with close traditional ties to Project area and will evaluate any TCPs identified in the future. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-388 March 2015 4.10.1.3. Cultural Resources Study Results The field investigators recorded everything found during the survey, including modern debris, recent campsites, and numerous canoes cached around Grant Lake. Much of this material is described in the Cultural Resources Study, Final Report (KHL 2015a), as it is all part of the pattern of human use of the Project area. Fourteen newly identified locations were assigned AHRS numbers and evaluated for NRHP eligibility. Six properties in the APE are eligible for the NRHP. These include one historic district and five individually eligible properties (Table E.4-107). The Case Mine District (SEW-00659), the Seward-Moose Pass Trail (SEW-00148), Grant Lake Trail (SEW-01455), Grant Lake Road to Case Mine (SEW-01454) had already been determined eligible for the NRHP prior to the 2013 survey. Also, although the original nomination for the Alaska Railroad (SEW-00029) has never been finalized, the railroad is considered eligible for the NRHP for the purposes of this analysis. Solars Sawmill (SEW-00285) was determined not eligible for the NRHP in 1985, probably because all the buildings had collapsed and the site no longer had any architectural integrity. However, Solars Sawmill retains considerable information potential and is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-389 March 2015 Table E.4-107. Summary of cultural resources and their eligibility status. Property Name AHRS Number Status/Eligibility to NRHP Alaska Railroad SEW-00029 Eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A Seward-Moose Pass Trail SEW-00148 Eligible for the NRHP Commemorative Iditarod Trail N/A Not eligible for the NRHP Trail SEW-01515 Not eligible for the NRHP Trail SEW-01516 Not eligible for the NRHP Four Depressions SEW-01517 Not eligible for the NRHP Wire Cables SEW-01518 Not eligible for the NRHP Prospect Pit SEW-01519 Not eligible for the NRHP Cable Crossing on Grant Creek SEW-01520 Not eligible for the NRHP Sawmill-Upper Trail Lake Trail SEW-01521 Significant, unknown integrity Solars Sawmill SEW-00285 Eligible to the NRHP under Criterion D Grant Lake Trail SEW-01455 Determined eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A Dock Site at Grant Lake SEW-01144 Determined not eligible Case Mine SEW-00659 Determined eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and D Grant Lake Road to Case Mine SEW-01454 Determined eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A Case Mine Prospect Pits SEW-01522 Contributing property to Case Mine District North Grant Lake Cabin SEW-00823 Contributing property to Case Mine District SEW-01523 SEW-01523 Not eligible for the NRHP SEW-01524 SEW-01524 Not eligible for the NRHP SEW-01525 SEW-01525 Not eligible for the NRHP SEW-01526 SEW-01526 Not eligible for the NRHP Grant Lake Prospect SEW-00822 Not eligible for the NRHP Grant Lake Cabin SEW-00768 Not eligible for the NRHP Scatter of Historic Artifacts SEW-01527 Not eligible for the NRHP Pulley and Cable SEW-01528 Not eligible for the NRHP The Case Mine, as defined in 2002, included four spatially discrete areas and a trail that connected them. CRC’s analysis suggests that the Case Mine District should be expanded to include the already eligible Grant Lake Road to Case Mine and the newly evaluated North Grant Lake Cabin (SEW-00823). Additional recommended revisions include expanding the boundaries of the mine camp and the tractor shed area (Table E.4-108). DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-390 March 2015 Table E.4-108. Case Mine District contributing and non-contributing elements. Element Name AHRS Number Non-/Contributing /Individually Eligible Millsite N/A Contributing Element Mine Workings N/A Contributing Element Camp Area N/A Contributing Element Sawmill area N/A Contributing Element Workshop N/A Contributing Element Bunkhouse N/A Contributing Element Burro Shed N/A Contributing Element Meathouse N/A Contributing Element Tarp Outhouse N/A Contributing Element Case Mine Cabin N/A Contributing Element Outhouse N/A Contributing Element Workshop Dump N/A Contributing Element Cabin Dump N/A Non-contributing Element General Material Scatter N/A Non-contributing Element Can Dump N/A Contributing Element East Dump N/A Contributing Element Lakeside Trail (Tractor Shed) Area N/A Contributing Element Lakeside Trail N/A Contributing Element Fire Ring N/A Non-contributing Element Metal Cable N/A Contributing Element Canoe and Modified Bicycle N/A Non-contributing Element Sullivan Air Compressor N/A Contributing Element Portable Toilet N/A Non-contributing Element Tractor Shed and Cletrac Tractor N/A Contributing Element Modern Mining Materials and Mining Claim Post N/A Non-contributing Element Grant Lake Road to Case Mine SEW-01454 Contributing Element/ Individually Eligible Case Mine Prospect Pits SEW-01522 Contributing Element North Grant Lake Cabin SEW-00823 Contributing Element 4.10.2. Environmental Analysis 4.10.2.1. Estimated Project Effect Potential Project effects on historic properties within the APE could result from construction of Project infrastructure and increased visitor use of the area (Table E.4-109). The proposed access road crosses both the Alaska Railroad (SEW-00029) and Seward-Moose Pass Trail (SEW- 00148). The proposed Alaska Railroad crossing could add another at-grade crossing along a relatively short section of the track, although another option would be to utilize an already existing crossing to the south. However, neither possibility would significantly alter the characteristics that make the railroad eligible to the NRHP. Therefore, the Project will not DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-391 March 2015 adversely affect the Alaska Railroad. As the Seward-Moose Pass Trail reportedly underlies the Alaska Railroad and/or the Seward Highway in this vicinity, it also will not adversely affected by the access road. Neither the Alaska Railroad nor the Seward-Moose Pass Trail will be affected if the area sees increased use in this area. Both historic properties already see high volume traffic, which has not diminished their eligibility to the NRHP. A bridge over the Trail Lake narrows and the access road, whether officially open to the public or not, will likely be utilized by hikers, campers, and hunters. Increased use of the area could result in the creation of more user-developed trails, removal of artifacts for souvenirs, vandalism, and utilization of historic structures for shelters or as sources of firewood. The Project access road would intersect the current easement of the commemorative INHT to the west of the detention pond. In total, the Project would impinge on approximately 1,000 feet of the proposed commemorative trail. Neither Section 106 of the NHPA nor the Alaska Historic Preservation Act (AS 45.31) would preclude realigning the trail easement. Any new route for the commemorative trail would likely have the same effects on historic properties in the Project area as the current easement. The USFS has already determined that the trail will affect the Grant Lake Road to Case Mine (SEW-01454) and the Grant Lake Trail (SEW-01455), but determined in 2009 that the effect to the road and the trail will not be adverse (Schick 2009). National Historic and Scenic Trails are designated by act of Congress, although these designations, unto themselves, have no direct relationship to or implication on NRHP eligibility. A designated National Historic Trail may be eligible for listing in the NRHP, although this is not always the case. Application of the NRHP criteria of significance is extremely problematic when there is no physical “trail” to preserve, manage, or evaluate. Only if a designated National Historic Trail includes some physical manifestation of its existence, can it be evaluated for eligibility using standard evaluation tools, methodology, and standards. One potential re- alignment corridor for the commemorative trail through the APE was surveyed by CRC in 2014 and no new historic properties were identified. Drawdown of the lake could affect Solars Sawmill (SEW-00285) by increasing the rate of erosion along the water’s edge at the site. Lower lake levels will expose two rock jetties and possibly other historic features that are currently underwater. Also, the sawmill, which is eligible for the NRHP for its data potential, contains artifacts and building remains that could be adversely affected by increased visitation and/or use as a modern campsite. The Grant Lake Trail (SEW-01455) and Grant Lake Road to Case Mine (SEW-01454) are not near any of the Project’s infrastructure and should not be adversely affected by the proposed development. The Case Mine District (SEW-00659) is not near any Project infrastructure. However, three areas of the district—the Case Mine camp area, the Lakeside Trail area, and the North Grant Lake Cabin (SEW-00823)—are easily accessed by trail or boat. Modern materials present within the Case Mine area indicate that the area is already heavily utilized by visitors. Increased use could adversely affect the historic materials in district, as it contains numerous historic objects DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-392 March 2015 that could easily be removed by recreationists and deteriorating structures that could easily be scavenged for firewood. Table E.4-109. Summary of the estimated effect of the project for historic properties. Property Name AHRS Number Evaluation of Effect Alaska Railroad SEW-00029 No Adverse Effect Seward-Moose Pass Trail SEW-00148 No Effect Sawmill-Upper Trail Lake Trail SEW-01521 No Adverse Effect Solars Sawmill SEW-00285 Adverse Effect Grant Lake Trail SEW-01455 No Adverse Effect Case Mine SEW-00659 Adverse Effect Case Mine Camp N/A Adverse Effect Lakeside Trail N/A No Effect Lakeside Trail Area N/A Adverse Effect Millsite N/A No Effect Mine Workings N/A No Effect Grant Lake Road to Case Mine SEW-01454 No Adverse Effect Case Mine Prospect Pits SEW-01522 No Effect North Grant Lake Cabin SEW-00823 Adverse Effect 4.10.2.2. Proposed Environmental Measures A Draft HPMP is under development by KHL based on the recommendations of SHPO and USFS for the avoidance or mitigation of any impacts on historic or archaeological sites and resources. The plan will be distributed for comment with the BE and the rest of the management/monitoring plans between late April and mid-May. The HPMP will describe the known historic resources in the Project area that may be affected by the construction, operation, and maintenance of this Project. The Draft HPMP will outline steps to minimize impacts to known cultural resources and describe management measures of cultural resources that will be affected by this Project. The Draft HPMP will also outline steps to take if new resources are discovered within the Area of Potential Effects (APE). The Draft HPMP is being developed in accordance with the Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects prepared by FERC in May 2002 (FERC 2002) as jointly issued by FERC and the ACHP. The HPMP will become a part of the license and is intended as an integrated component of KHL’s overall management of the Project. This Draft HPMP will be reviewed and revised in consultation with the following entities: USFS SHPO Kenai Peninsula Borough Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (CIRI) Kenaitze Indian Tribe DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-393 March 2015 Salamatof Native Association Ninilchik Traditional Council Kenai Natives Association Native Village of Eklutna Quekcak Native Tribe A CRWG established during this licensing process that has included—at different times—various representatives of the organizations listed above The formal inventory and evaluation of cultural resources within the APE was done to determine the nature and significance of historic properties that might be affected by Project construction, operation, and maintenance. Types of Project-related impacts considered included shoreline erosion, public use of Project-area recreational facilities, recreation use of undeveloped areas, and operation and maintenance activities. Cultural resource considerations will be taken into account in conjunction with planning of any potential ground-disturbing activities, and factored into the schedule and budget for all such activities. The highest priority will be on avoidance of impacts. KHL has initiated a collaborative process with all requisite stakeholders in relation to a re-route of the INHT. This effort will continue concurrent with other licensing efforts. Details related to decisions will be made available as they develop. For further information on the INHT, process steps to date, and plans for resolutions, see Section 4.8.3.3 of this Exhibit E. A full summary of all measures, as well as the associated implementation timeframes, being proposed by KHL for the original license will be provided with the FLA. 4.10.3. Cumulative Effects Analysis Consistent with FERC’s SD2 (FERC 2010b), no cumulative effects were identified associated with Cultural Resources. Per Section 4.9.3, a Draft HPMP is being developed for the avoidance or mitigation of any impacts on historic or archaeological sites and resources. The operational regime outlined in Exhibit B of this DLA will ensure that no historically or archaeologically relevant sites are inundated as a result of Project operations. KHL has the intention of utilizing public and stakeholder input to determine whether the primary access road associated with the Project can be utilized by the general public. If the local public and stakeholder preference is to allow access, KHL will collaborate with the CRWG to determine logical locations for signs to document important structures, artifacts, etc. and highlight their historical importance to avoid any impact to specific sites. 4.10.4. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Based on the comprehensive set of natural resources and engineering analyses conducted and reviewed as part of this licensing process, KHL has identified no culturally-related unavoidable adverse impacts associated with construction and operation of the Project. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-394 March 2015 4.11. Socioeconomics 4.11.1. Affected Environment The Project is located within the boundaries of the KPB. The nearest community is the unincorporated town of Moose Pass – population approximately 206 – about 1.5 miles to the southeast of Grant Lake. The nearest major town is Seward, population approximately 2,830, located approximately 25 miles south of Moose Pass (2010 U.S. Census Data). 4.11.1.1. Land Use and Real Estate The Project area lies entirely within the KPB. Land use patterns in the Project area are rural. Most of the lands in the Project area are public, either state or federal. However there are several areas of private ownership along the Seward Highway. Borough land management policies are described in the Kenai Peninsula Borough Comprehensive Plan and the Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Zone Management Plan (KPB 2005 and 2008). Table E.4-110 and Figure E.4- 114 show land ownership in the KPB. Land use is predominantly characterized as vacant and is shown in Figure E.4-115. Table E.4-110. Kenai Peninsula Borough land ownership information (KPB 2005). Kenai Peninsula Borough Land Ownership Square Miles Percent of Total University of Alaska 25.9 0.1% Cities 26.9 0.1% Mental Health Trust 27.7 0.1% KPB 107.3 0.4% Private 401.7 1.6% Native 1,593.6 6.4% State 3,426.6 13.9% Federal 10,610.9 42.9% Total Upland 16,220.6 65.5% DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-395 March 2015 Figure E.4-114. General Kenai Peninsula land ownership delineation (KPB 2005). Figure E.4-115. Land use in the Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB 2005). DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-396 March 2015 4.11.1.2. Demographics Population density in the Project vicinity is relatively low. The Project area is approximately 100 miles from Anchorage, Alaska’s largest city. The population of the area is centered near the Seward highway. The population characteristics of the Project area are similar to those of the Kenai Peninsula Borough, as a whole. Population growth was greatest during the 1970s and early 1980s. The most recent U.S. Census data for incorporated cities in the Borough are shown in Table E.4-111, and current growth rates are estimated at less than 1percent (KPB 2008), with negative population growth in several towns near the Project area. Table E.4-111. Population growth in the Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB 2010). Number and Annual Rate of Change in Population, Kenai Peninsula Borough and Incorporated Cities in the Borough: 2006-2010 2006 2010 Total Change Annual Rate of Change Kenai Peninsula Borough 51,350 55,400 4050 810 Homer 5,454 5,003 -451 -90.2 Kachemak City 458 472 14 2.8 Kenai 6,864 7,100 236 47.2 Seldovia (city) 375 255 -120 -24.0 Seward 2,627 2,963 336 67.2 Soldotna 3,807 4,163 356 71.2 The racial composition of the borough is predominantly white, except for the small native villages (2013 U.S. Census Data). In general, adjusted incomes in the KPB decreased during the last few of decades (KPB 2005). Table E.4-112 summarizes occupations and income in the KPB. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-397 March 2015 Table E.4-112. Income and occupations in Kenai Peninsula Borough (2013 U.S. Census Data). Income and Poverty Levels: Note: Current socio-economic measures could differ significantly. Kenai Peninsula Borough located in the Kenai Peninsula Census Area. Per Capita Income: $30,789 Median Household Income: $59,421 Persons in Poverty: 5,200 Percent Below Poverty: 9.1 percent Total Potential Work Force (Age 16+): 44,129 Total Employment: 27,984 Employment by Occupation: Management, Professional & Related: 7,528 Service: 4,951 Sales & Office: 5,666 Construction, Natural Resources & Maintenance: 4,355 Production, Transportation & Material Moving: 2,855 Notes: 1 Current socio-economic measures could differ significantly. The Kenai Peninsula Borough is located in the Kenai Peninsula Census Area. The KPB Comprehensive Plan (KPB 2005) points out the following issues regarding borough demographics: Aging population – the average age and percent of population in higher age groups has increased and is predicted to continue to do so. Declines in school age children – there are budget and service issues surrounding declining enrollment. Declining incomes – decreases in real income may signal increased demand on social and other services at the same time that there is less money to support taxes and fees. 4.11.1.2.1 Industry and Employment Employment in the KPB is concentrated in several industries and summarized in Table E.4-113. Moose Pass and Seward employment is consistent with Borough employment information. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-398 March 2015 Table E.4-113. Employment in the Kenai Peninsula Borough (2013 U.S. Census Data). 1 Total Potential Work Force (Age 16+): 44,129 Total Employment: 25,355 Percent Unemployed (civilian): 8.9% Adults Not in Labor Force (Not Seeking Work): 16,145 Percent of All 16+ Not Working (Unemployed + Not Seeking): 45.5% Private Wage & Salary Workers: 17,741 Self-Employed Workers (in own not incorporated business): 2,738 Government Workers (City, Borough, State, Federal): 4,785 Notes: 1 Current socio-economic measures could differ significantly. The Kenai Peninsula Borough is located in the Kenai Peninsula Census Area. 4.11.1.2.2 Public Sector Kenai Peninsula Borough is incorporated as a second class borough and as such levees taxes and fees, which fund borough government and services. The KPB operates the schools and the landfill, but most other services such as sewer, water, fire, and law enforcement are managed locally by each city. There are 43 schools in the Kenai Peninsula School District with a total of 9,077 students and employing 751 teachers (ADCRA 2014). 4.11.1.2.3 Electricity A majority of the electricity supplied to the Kenai Peninsula is provided by HEA. However, Chugach Electric supplies electricity to the Project area. The proposed Project will supply HEA customers. 4.11.2. Environmental Analysis The overall socioeconomic impact to the area both during construction and the long-term operation of the Project will be minimal. KHL will place priority on employing local construction personnel if available. Given the small population local to the Project area, it is anticipated that additional assistance will be required and KHL will utilize additional qualified construction staff as required to ensure that a high quality Project is constructed with emphasis placed on efficiency and long term operation. Regardless of origination, it is anticipated that the local communities (Moose Pass, Seward, etc.) could absorb the lodging requirements of the construction staff, even at its most substantial. Additionally, it is not anticipated that there will be any impact to the areas governmental facilities and services. As with most multi-season construction efforts, on-site manpower needs and associated payroll will fluctuate and coincide with the periods most conducive to development of discrete infrastructural components. Table E.4-114 provides KHL’s monthly estimates for “manpower” and associated payroll costs. These estimates are based upon certain assumptions with respect to receipt of a FERC license and may fluctuate based upon timing, specific requirements set forth in the license, etc. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-399 March 2015 Table E.4-114. KHL monthly manpower estimates and associated payroll expenditures for construction of the Grant Lake Project. 2017 2018 Monthly Manpower Totals Percent of Manpower by Month Monthly Manpower Costs Monthly Manpower Totals Percent of Manpower by Month Monthly Manpower Costs Jan 15 2.45 $311,714 Feb 15 2.45 $311,714 Mar 15 2.45 $311,714 Apr 20 3.27 $415,619 May 15 2.45 $311,714 22 3.59 $457,181 Jun 30 4.90 $623,428 50 8.17 $1,039,047 Jul 45 7.35 $935,142 52 8.50 $1,080,609 Aug 60 9.80 $1,246,856 52 8.50 $1,080,609 Sep 54 8.82 $1,122,170 33 5.39 $685,771 Oct 40 6.54 $831,237 15 2.45 $311,714 Nov 42 6.86 $872,799 15 2.45 $311,714 Dec 20 3.27 $415,619 2 0.33 $41,562 Once operational, KHL will operate the Project remotely. While potential exists for a consistent local resident near the Project to conduct regular checks related to maintenance, safety and adequate operation, the more likely scenario is that the Project will be operated from the HEA dispatch center in Nikiski and personnel devoted to the Project would travel to the local Project area on an as needed basis. Very few private parcels containing residences or businesses exist near the proposed Project area. At this time, KHL has no intention of purchasing and/or displacing any residences or businesses as a result of Project construction or operation. With respect to the more global fiscal impact to the local area, KHL expects minimal to no adverse impact. Important variables such as public safety and school operating costs would be unaffected by construction activities and subsequent operation. There is some limited potential for additional Seward Highway road maintenance as a result of increased construction traffic transiting locally to and from the Project area although during the construction season, most equipment will be stored on site which will limit the amount of additional highway use. This combined with the recent local highway maintenance activities would suggest that any impact to the highway local to the Project would be minimal at worst. KHL currently has no control over local public power (electricity) costs as Chugach Electric Association (CEA) currently provides power to the local area. However, electric reliability would most likely increase in the communities of Moose Pass and Seward as a result of the proximal / distributed generation of the project. Additionally, the potential exists for hydro power swap agreements between HEA and CEA or the City of Seward (Grant Lake Power DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-400 March 2015 for Bradley Lake Power) to avoid transmission wheeling tariffs that would reduce power costs for both entities. 4.11.3. Proposed Environmental Measures There are no environmental measures associated with Socioeconomics proposed by KHL. 4.11.4. Cumulative Effects Analysis Consistent with FERC’s SD2 (FERC 2010b), no cumulative effects were identified associated with the Socioeconomic componenet of the Project or surrounding area. 4.11.5. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts KHL has identified no socioeconomic-related unavoidable adverse impacts associated with construction and operation of the Project. 4.12. Developmental Analysis The following subsections provide estimated costs associated with proposed PM&E measures and the economic costs and developmental benefits of KHL’s Proposed Action. The Project’s net economic benefit under a given alternative is the difference between the cost of producing power and the value of that power. Consistent with FERC’s approach to economic analysis, the power benefit of the Project is estimated based on the cost of obtaining an equivalent amount of energy and capacity using the most likely alternative generating resource in the region. The analysis is based on current (i.e., 2015) electric power cost conditions and does not consider future escalation of fuel prices in estimating the value of the Project’s benefits. For a more sophisticated estimate of Project benefits that accounts for escalating fuel prices in the Cook Inlet area of Alaska, see the predicted net present value benefit of the Project as discussed in Section 6.2 of Exhibit D. 4.12.1. Power and Economic Benefits of the Project Total average energy output from the Project is projected to be 18,600 MWh (see Exhibit B, Section 3.3 of this DLA). Purchasing an equivalent quantity of energy from natural gas generation and the equivalent quantity of spinning reserve (see Exhibit D, Section 6.1 of this DLA), will cost KHL approximately $2,309,359 (see Exhibit D, Section 6 of this DLA), based upon the 2015 blended cost of thermally generated power, resulting in an average power benefit of $124.16/MWh. The annualized costs for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project totals $2,168,421 in 2015 dollars (see Exhibit D, Section 5 of this DLA), resulting in an average cost of $116.58/MWh. A summary of parameters and assumptions used for the economic analysis of the Project are provided in Table E.4-115. Greater detail regarding the values included in the table can be found in Exhibits B and D of this DLA. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-401 March 2015 Table E.4-115. Summary of parameters and assumptions used for the economic analysis of the Grant Lake Project. Parameter Value Costs Period of analysis (years) 50 years Estimated cost of capital 3 percent 1 Property taxes (2015) 0 percent 2 Federal tax rate (2015) 0 percent 3 State tax rate (2015) 0 percent 3 Local tax rate (2015) 0 percent 3 Total annual costs for construction (2015) $53,223,728 4 Operations and maintenance ($/year) (2015) $112,000 5 Power value Average annual generation 18,600 MWh 6 Approximate alternative power value $2,269,200 7 Annual value of contingency spinning reserve (low estimate) (2015) $40,159 8 Notes: 1 From Exhibit D, Section 5.1. 2 From Exhibit D, Section 4. 3 From Exhibit D, Section 5.2. 4 From Exhibit D, Sections 4. 5 From Exhibit D, Section 5.4. 6 From Exhibit B, Section 3.3. 7 Based on a power price of $122/MWh (from Exhibit D, Section 6.2). 8 From Exhibit D, Section 6.1. 4.12.2. Costs of Environmental Measures KHL’s Proposed Action will include a variety of PM&E measures that would increase operating costs. Annualized costs of KHL’s proposed PM&E measures, by resource area are being developed concurrent with efforts to develop the Draft BE and management/monitoiring plans which will explicitly detail all proposed PM&Es to be implemented in association with construction and operation of the Project. KHL intends to refine those plans and the associated proposed measures per comments received from stakeholders. Once the comment period is complete, KHL will revise the DLA, BE and management/monitoring plans and synthesize all documents into a comprehensive package prior to filing in which, the BE and management/monitoring plans are appended to the FLA. Concurrent with this exercise and with the intent of developing a comprehensive and complete FLA for FERC review, a breakdown of costs for each resource area will be developed and incorporated into Exhibit D. 4.12.3. Comparison of Alternatives Annualized costs, benefits, and net benefits of the Proposed Action and No Action alternatives are presented in Table E.4-116. Because under the No Action alternative, the Project would not DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-402 March 2015 be constructed, no power would be generated, and therefore, the net annual benefit is $0 ($0/MWh). Under the Proposed Action, annual net benefit would be $140,938 ($7.58/MWh). Table E.4-116. Summary of cost, power benefits, and net benefits of the Grant Lake Project. (All costs in 2015 dollars). Parameter No Action Proposed Action Approximate power plant capability 0 MW 5 MW 1 Annual generation 0 MWh 18,600 MWh 2 Annual power values $0 $2,309,359 3 Annual cost $0 $2,168,421 4 Net annual benefit $0 $140,938 Notes: 1 From Exhibit B, Section 2.2.2. 2 From Exhibit B, Section 3.3. 3 Based on a power price of $122/MWh and the annual value (low estimate) of contingency spinning reserve (from Exhibit D, Section 6). 4 The annual cost of the Proposed Action includes annualized cost to construct ($2,056,421), and the annual operations and maintain costs ($112,000)(from Exhibit B, Section 5). The proposed PM&E costs will be included with the FLA. 4.13. Consistency with Comprehensive Plans Section 10(a)(2) of the FPA requires FERC to consider the extent to which a project is consistent with federal and state comprehensive plans for improving, developing, and conserving waterways affected by the project. The comprehensive plans discussed in the section below were reviewed to Project consistency. 4.13.1. Bureau of Land Management. South central Alaska water resources study: Anticipating water and related land resource needs. October 1981. Consistency exsits to the extent that this document is regionally descriptive and inclusive of the proposed Project area. 4.13.2. Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Fish Creek management plan. August 1984. No relevant consistencies exist between this plan and the Grant Lake Project. 4.13.3. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Palmer Hay Flats State Game Refuge. December 2002. No relevant consistencies exist between this plan and the Grant Lake Project. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-403 March 2015 4.13.4. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Susitna Flats State Game Refuge. March 1988. No relevant consistencies exist between this plan and the Grant Lake Project. 4.13.5. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Catalog of waters important for spawning, rearing, or migration of anadromous fishes. June 2014. Consistency exsits to the extent that this document is regionally descriptive, inclusive of the proposed Project area and specific to Grant Creek. 4.13.6. Department of Fish and Game. Anchor River/Fritz Creek Habitat Area. June 1989. No relevant consistencies exist between this plan and the Grant Lake Project. 4.13.7. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Mendenhall Wetlands State Game Refuge. March 1990. No relevant consistencies exist between this plan and the Grant Lake Project. 4.13.8. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge. February 1991. No relevant consistencies exist between this plan and the Grant Lake Project. 4.13.9. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Minto Flats State Game Refuge. March 1992. No relevant consistencies exist between this plan and the Grant Lake Project. 4.13.10. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Kachemak Bay/Fox River Flats Critical Habitat Areas. December 1993. No relevant consistencies exist between this plan and the Grant Lake Project. 4.13.11. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Trading Bay State Game Refuge and Redoubt Bay Critical Habitat Area. July 1994. No relevant consistencies exist between this plan and the Grant Lake Project. 4.13.12. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Tugidak Island Critical Habitat Area. June 1995. No relevant consistencies exist between this plan and the Grant Lake Project. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-404 March 2015 4.13.13. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. McNeil River State Game Refuge and State Game Sanctuary, draft. November 1995. No relevant consistencies exist between this plan and the Grant Lake Project. 4.13.14. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Kenai River comprehensive management plan. December 1997. Consistency exsits to the extent that this document is regionally descriptive, inclusive of the proposed Project area and specific to Grant Creek. 4.13.15. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Atlas to the catalog of waters important for spawning, rearing, or migration of anadromous fishes. 2014. Consistency exsits to the extent that this mapping program is regionally descriptive, inclusive of the proposed Project area and specific to Grant Creek. 4.13.16. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Yakataga State Game Refuge June 1999. No relevant consistencies exist between this plan and the Grant Lake Project. 4.13.17. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Kenai Peninsula brown bear conservation strategy. June 2000. Consistency exsits to the extent that this document is regionally descriptive and inclusive of the proposed Project area. 4.13.18. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Chugach National Forest revised land and resource management plan. May 2002. Consistency exsits to the extent that this document is regionally descriptive, inclusive of the proposed Project area and specific to Grant Lake. 4.13.19. Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Alaska’s Outdoor Legacy: Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) 2009-2014. July 2009. While globally descriptive of recreational uses, opportunities, and potential for the entire state of Alaska, some documentation of the Kenai Penninsula as a whole and specific recreational categories prevelant to the Project area are discussed resulting in some level of consistency. 4.13.20. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Fisheries USA: the recreational fisheries policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. December 1989. While globall descriptive of the nation as a whole, the primary goal of the document is to define mechanisms for allowing recreational fishing opptortunities to persist and potentially expand. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 E-405 March 2015 Given this and the fact that recreational fishing (for certain species) is permitted in the Project area, some level of consistency exists. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 406 March 2015 5 References ADCRA (Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs). 2014. Kenai Peninsula Borough Public School Data. Available at: http://commerce.alaska.gov/cra/DCRAExternal/community/Details/f28c3405-eea3-49c2- 9d5b-0eee657f86a2 ADF&G (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 2013. Alaska Game Species. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=hunting.species ADF&G. 2014. Catalog of Waters Important for Spawning, Rearing or Migration of Anadromous Fishes – Southcentral Region. June 1, 2014. ADNR (Alaska Department of Natural Resources). 1997. Kenai River Comprehensive Management Plan. ADNR. 2001. Kenai Area Plan. ADNR. 2004. Final Finding and Decision, ADL 228890, Grant of Public Easement, Iditarod National Historic Trail, Seward to Girdwood. ADOT&PF (Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities). 2013. “Annual Traffic Volume Report, 2010, 2011, 2012. http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwdplng/mapping/trafficmaps/trafficdata_reports_cen/2012_ ATVR.pdf AEIDC (Arctic Environmental Information Data Center). 1983. Summary of environmental knowledge of the proposed Grant Lake hydroelectric project area. Final Report submitted to Ebasco Services, Inc., Redmond, Washington, University of Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska. AKEPIC. 2014. Alaska Exotic Plant Information Clearinghouse database (http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/maps/akepic/). Alaska Natural Heritage Program, University of Alaska, Anchorage. Accessed (October 2014). Alaska Department of Community and Economic Development. 2011. Alaska Visitor Statistics Program. Prepared by the McDowell Group. Alden, Dan. 1996a. Cultural Resources Project Clearance, Abstract/Summary, Proposed Burn Unit 4A (Grant Lake), October 21, 1996. Manuscript on file with OHA, Anchorage. Alden Dan. 1996b. Cultural Resources Project Clearance, Abstract/Summary, Proposed Burn Unit 5A (Grant Lake), October 21, 1996. Manuscript on file with OHA, Anchorage. Alden Dan. 1996c. Cultural Resources Project Clearance, Abstract/Summary, Proposed Burn Unit 10A (Grant Lake), October 21, 1996. Manuscript on file with OHA, Anchorage. Arndt, Katherine. 1982. Report on the Archaeological and Historical Resources, Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project, Moose Pass, Alaska. Appendix A in Summary of Environmental Knowledge of the Proposed Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Area. Report prepared by the University of Alaska’s Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center for Ebasco Services, Inc. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 407 March 2015 Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water; Washington, D.C. 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. Bellrose, F.C. 1980. Ducks, Geese and Swans of North America. Third ed., Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA. 540 p. Bergman, R. D. and D. V. Derksen. 1977. Observations on Arctic and Red-throated loons at Storkersen Point, Alaska, Arctic 30:41-51. BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 1986. The Iditarod National Historic Trail, Seward to Nome Route, A Comprehensive Management Plan. Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage District Office, Anchorage. Bovee, K.D. 1982. A guide to stream habitat analysis using the instream flow incremental methodology. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Instream Flow Group Information Paper 12, Fort Collings, Colorado. Brabets, T.P., G.L. Nelson, J.M. Dorava, and A.M. Milner. 1999. Water-Quality Assessment of the Cook Inlet Basin, Alaska – Environmental Setting. Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4025. National Water-Quality Assessment Program. U.S. Geological Survey. Anchorage, Alaska. Bue, B.G., S.M. Fried, S. Sharr, D.G. Sharp, J.A. Wilcock, and H.J. Geiger. 1998. Estimating salmon escapement using area-under-the-curve, aerial observer efficiency, and stream- life estimates: the Prince William Sound example. North Pacific Anadromous Fisheries Commission. Bulletin. No. 1:240-250. 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. Burgner, R. L., 1991. Life history of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Pages 4-117 in C. Groot, and L. Margolis, editors. Pacific salmon life histories. University of British Columbia Press. Vancouver, B.C., Canada. Carter, H.R., and S.G. Sealy. 1986. Year-round use of coastal lakes by Marbled Murrelets. Condor 88: 473-477. CH2M Hill. 1980. Feasibility assessment – hydropower development at Grant Lake. City of Seward, Alaska. Charnon, B. 2007. Unpublished Report: Conservation assessment for the pale poppy (Papaver alboroseum). Unpublished administrative paper. USDA Forest Service, 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. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 408 March 2015 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. 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 Services Incorporated. 1984. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Detailed Feasibility Analysis. Volume 2. Environmental Report. Rep. prepared for Alaska Power Authority. 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. Envirosphere. 1987. Instream flow and habitat analysis Grant Lake hydroelectric project. Prepared for Kenai Hydro, Inc. FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). 2002. Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans. May 2002. FERC. 2008. Preparing Environmental Documents, Guidelines for Applicants, Contractors, and Staff. September 2008. FERC. 2010a. Scoping Document 1 for the Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project. May 11, 2010. FERC. 2010b. Scoping Document 2 for the Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project. August 23, 2010. 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 DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 409 March 2015 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. Garcia, C., J. B. Laronne, and M. Sala. 1999. Variable source areas of bedload in a gravel-bed stream, J. Sedimentary Res., 6, pp 27–31. 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. Accessed online. Hayes, S. R. and J. J. Hasbrouck. 1996. Stock assessment of rainbow trout in the Upper Kenai River, Alaska, in 1995. Fishery Data Series No. 96-43, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, Research and Technical Services, Anchorage, AK. 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. Hassan, M.A., M. Church, T.E. Lisle, F. Brardinoni, L. Benda, and G.E. Grant. 2005. Sediment transport and channel morphology of small, forested streams. J. Amer. Water Resources Assoc.41(4):pp 853-876. Jacobs Associates. 2014. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Preliminary Tunnel Design and Geotechnical Report: Report prepared for McMillen, LLC., June 2014. 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. Johnson, J. and K. Klein. 2009. Catalog of waters important for spawning, rearing, or migration of anadromous fishes – Southcentral Region, Effective June 1, 2009. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Special Publication No. 09-03, Anchorage, AK. Jones, D.E. 1975. Steelhead and Sea-run Cutthroat Trout Life History Study in Southeast Alaska. ADF&G, anadromous fish studies. Annual Performance Report. Vol. 17. Study AFS-42-4, 28 p. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 410 March 2015 Kessel, B. 1979. Avian Habitat Classification for Alaska. The Murrelet. Vol. 60, No. 3, pp. 86- 94. Kessel. 1989. Birds of the Seward Peninsula, Alaska: their biogeography, seasonality, and natural history. Univ. of Alaska Press, Fairbanks, AK. 330 pp. Kessel. 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. KHI (Kenai Hydro, Inc.). 1987a. Grant Lake hydroelectric project additional information. KHI. 1987b. Grant Lake hydroelectric project FERC No. 7633-002 additional information final report with agency license terms and conditions for selected alternative I and power contract information. KHL (Kenai Hydro, LLC). 2008. Grant Lake Information Packet, Final. Prepared by HDR Alaska, Inc. Anchorage, Alaska for Kenai Hydro, LLC. KHL. 2009a. Technical Memorandum – Review of 1986-1987 Grant Lake FERC application documents for instream flow considerations. Prepared by HDR Alaska, Inc. for Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Technical Working Group. KHL. 2009b. Pre-Application Document. Grant Lake/Grant Creek and Falls Creek Project (FERC No. 13211 and 13212). August 2009. KHL. 2010a. Environmental Baseline Studies, 2009, Grant Lake/Grant Creek and Falls Creek Project (FERC No. 13211 and 13212). January 2010. KHL. 2010b. Water Resources, Draft Study Plan. Grant Lake/Grant Creek and Falls Creek Project (FERC No. 13211 and 13212). Prepared by HDR Alaska, Inc. for for Kenai Hydro, LLC. April 2010. KHL. 2010c. Aquatic Resources, Draft Study Plan. Grant Lake/Grant Creek and Falls Creek Project (FERC No. 13211 and 13212). Prepared by HDR Alaska, Inc. for for Kenai Hydro, LLC. April 2010. KHL. 2010d. Terrestrial Resources, Draft Study Plan. Grant Lake/Grant Creek and Falls Creek Project (FERC No. 13211 and 13212). Prepared by HDR Alaska, Inc. for for Kenai Hydro, LLC. April 2010. KHL. 2010e. Recreational and Visual Resources, Draft Study Plan. Grant Lake/Grant Creek and Falls Creek Project (FERC No. 13211 and 13212). Prepared by HDR Alaska, Inc. for for Kenai Hydro, LLC. April 2010. KHL. 2010f. Cultural Resources, Draft Study Plan. Grant Lake/Grant Creek and Falls Creek Project (FERC No. 13211 and 13212). Prepared by HDR Alaska, Inc. for for Kenai Hydro, LLC. April 2010. KHL. 2011. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13212) Summary of 2010 Field Investigation. Prepared by HDR Alaska, Inc. for for Kenai Hydro, LLC. April 11, 2011. 12pp. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 411 March 2015 KHL. 2013a. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13212), Water Resources, Final Study Plan. March 2013. KHL. 2013b. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13212), Aquatic Resources, Final Study Plan. March 2013. KHL. 2013c. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13212), Terrestrial Resources, Final Study Plan. March 2013. KHL. 2013d. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13212), Recreational and Visual Resources, Final Study Plan. March 2013. KHL. 2013e. Grant Lake Project (FERC No. 13212), Cultural Resources, Final Study Plan. March 2013. KHL. 2014a. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13212), Water Resources – Geomorphology, Final Report. Prepared by Element Solutions for Kenai Hydro, LLC. June 2014. KHL. 2014b. Grant Lake Project (FERC No. 13212), Water Resources Study – Water Quality, Temperature and Hydrology Final Report. Prepared by McMillen, LLC for Kenai Hydro, LLC. June 2014. KHL. 2014c. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13212). Aquatic Resources Study – Fisheries Assessment, Final Report. Prepared by BioAnalysts, Inc. for Kenai Hydro, LLC. June 2014. KHL. 2014d. 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. KHL. 2014e. 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. KHL. 2014f. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13212). Terrestrial Resources Study, Final Report. Prepared by ERM, Inc. and Beck Botanical Resources, LLC for Kenai Hydro, LLC. June 2014. KHL. 2014g. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13212). Recreational and Visual Resources Study, Final Report. Prepared by USKH, Inc. for Kenai Hydro, LLC. June 2014. KHL. 2014h. Aquatic Resources – Grant Creek Aquatic Habitat Mapping and Instream Flow Study Additional Information, Draft Report. Prepared by McMillen, LLC for Kenai Hydro, LLC. October 2014. KHL. 2015a. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13212). Cultural Resources Study, Final Report. Prepared by Cultural Resource Consultants, LLC for Kenai Hydro, LLC. February 2015. KHL. 2015b. Clean Water Act Section 404 Application for a Department of Army Permit. March 2015. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 412 March 2015 KHL. 2015c. 2014 Wildlife Resources Study Addendum, Terrestrial Resources Study Report. Prepared by ERM, Inc for Kenai Hydro, LLC. March 2015. Kondolf, G. M., and M. G. Wolman. 1993. The sizes of salmonid spawning gravels. Water Resources Research 29: pp. 2275–2285. 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. KPB (Kenai Peninsula Borough). 2005. Kenai Peninsula Borough Comprehensive Plan. KPB Planning Department. Soldatna, Alaska. KPB. 2008. Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Zone Management Plan. Kenai Peninsula Borough. Soldatna, Alaska. 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. Major, E.B., A. Prussian, and D. Rinella. 2000. 1999 Alaska Biological Monitoring and Water Quality Assessment Program Report: Final Report. Environment and Natural Resources Institute. University of Alaska, Anchorage. For: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Air and Water Quality. Anchorage, AK. Major, E.B., B.K. Jessup, A. Prussian, and D. Rinella. 2001. Alaska Stream Condition Index: Biological Index Development for Cook Inlet 1997-2000: Summary. Environment and Natural Resources Institute. University of Alaska, Anchorage and Tetra Tech, Inc. Owings Mills, MD. For: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Air and Water Quality. Anchorage, AK. 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. 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. McDonough T. 2010. Unit 7 moose management report. Pages 110-115 in P. Harper, editor. Moose management report of survey and inventory activities. 1 July 2007 -30 June 2009. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Juneau, Alaska. McDowell Group. 2011. Alaska Visitors Statistics Program. Prepared for Alaska Department of Community and Economic Development. McMahon, T. E. 1983. Habitat suitability index models: coho salmon. U.S. Dept. Int., Fish Wildl. Servo FWS/OBS-82/10.49. 29 pp. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 413 March 2015 Merrie, T.D.H. 1978. Relationship between spatial distribution of breeding divers and the availability of fishing waters. Bird Study 25: 119-122. Merritt, R. W., and K.W. Cummins 1996. An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America (3rd ed). Kendall Hunt Publishing Co., Debuque, IA. Merritt, R.W., K.W. Cummins, and M.B. Berg, Eds. 2008. An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America, Fourth Edition. Kendall Hunt Pub. Co. Dubuque, IA. Milhous. R., 1998. Modeling of instream flow needs; the link between sediment and aquatic habitat, Regulated Rivers, 14, pp. 79-94. 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. Overton, C.K., S.P. Wollrab, B.C. Roberts and M.A. Radko. 1997. R1/R4 (Northern/Intermountain Regions) Fish and Fish Habitat Standard Inventory Procedures Handbook. USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. General Technical Report INT-GTR-346. 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. Parker, Patricia L. and Thomas F. King. 1990. Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. National Register Bulletin 38. Washington, D. C.: Interagency Resources Division, National Park Service, USDI. 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. Plafker. G. 1955. Geologic Investigations of Proposed Power Sites at Cooper, Grant, Ptarmigan, and Crescent Lakes Alaska. Geological Survey Bulletin 1031-A. Plafker, G., Gilpin, L.M., and Lahr, J.C.. 1993. Neotectonic Map of Alaska. The Geological Society of America, Inc.. Publication of the Decade of North America Geology Project. Poole, A. 1981. The Effects of Human Disturbance on Osprey Reproductive Success. Colonial Waterbirds, Vol. 4. pp. 20-27. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 414 March 2015 Prosser, S.M., 2002. The Effects of Boreal Forest Succession on Bird Abundance and Species Diversity on the Kenai Peninsula, Southcentral Alaska. Unpublished manuscript. Raleigh, R. F., T. Hickman, R. C. Solomon, and P. C. Nelson. 1984. Habitat suitability information: Rainbow trout. U.S. Fish Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.60. 64 pp. Raleigh, R. F., W. J. Miller, and P. C. Nelson. 1986. Habitat suitability index models and instream flow suitability curves: Chinook salmon. U.S. Reed et al. 2010. SPreAD-GIS: an ArcGIS toolbox for modeling the propagation of engine noise in a wildland setting. 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 Russell, R. 1977. Rainbow trout studies, Lower Talarik Creek-Kvichak. ADF&G, Fed. Aid in Fish Rest. Completion rept. Vol. 18. Proj. F-9-9, Job G-II-E. Scannell, P. K. 1992. Influence of temperature on freshwater fishes: A literature review with emphasis on species in Alaska. Technical Report No. 91-1, Habitat Division of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. Schick, Lesli. 2005. Cultural Resources Survey Results, Grant Lake Wildlife Habitat Improvement Project, Chugach National Forest, Seward Ranger District. Manuscript on file with OHA, Anchorage. Schick, Lesli. 2009. Determination of Eligibility, SEW-00678 Upper Trail Lake Garage, SEW- 01141 Trail Lake Dock (West Side), SEW-01142 Trail Lake Dock (East Side), SEW- 01143 Upper Trail lake Wagon, SEW-01144 Dock Site at Grant Lake, SEW-01454 Grant Lake Road to Case Mine, SEW-01455 Grant Lake Trail. On file at Heritage Department, Supervisor’s Office, Chugach National Forest, Anchorage, AK. 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. vian 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. State of Alaska, Department of Labor and Workforce Development. 2013. Cities and Census Designated Places, 2010-2012. http://labor.state.ak.us/research/pop/popest.htm Suchanek, P.M., R.L. Sundet, and M.N. Wenger. 1984. Resident fish habitat studies. Part 6 in D.C. Schmidt, S.S. Hale, D.L. Crawford, and P.M. Scchanek, eds. ADF&G, Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies, Rept. 2: resident and juvenile anadromous fish investigations (May-October 1983). 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. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 415 March 2015 Swan, G.A. 1989. Chinook salmon spawning surveys in deep waters of a large, regulated river. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 4: pp. 355-370. Tarres, J.K. 1980. The Audubon Society Encyclopedia of North American Birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, NY. 1109 p. Thompson, K. 1972. Determining Stream Flows for Fish. Presented at Instream Flow Requirement Workshop, Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission. March 1972. 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. Tysdal, R.G. and Case, J.E. 1979. Geologic map of the Seward and Blying Sound quadrangles, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map 1150, 12 p., 1 sheet, scale 1:250,000. 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. USACE. 2007. Regional Supplement to the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual: Alaska Region (Version 2.0). Engineer Research and Development Center. September 2007. USACE. 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 USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 1984. Birds of the Chugach National Forest. Alaska Region Leaflet Number 69. Chugach National Forest, Anchorage, Alaska. 19 pp. USACE. 2014. Ratios for Compensatory Mitigation. Pdf document titled “HOWWetlandsCategoriesRatios.pdf”. May 1, 2014. U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. U.S. Census Data. Seward, AK Population Data. Available at: http://censusviewer.com/city/AK/Seward U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. U.S. Census Data. Kenai Peninsula Borough Income, Poverty and Occupation Data. Available at: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/02/02122.html USFS (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service). 1984. Birds of the Chugach National Forest. Alaska Region Leaflet Number 69. Chugach National Forest, Anchorage, Alaska. 19 pp. USFS. 1995. Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management. December 1995. USFS. 2001. Guide to Noxious Weed Prevention Practices. July 5, 2001. USFS. 2002. Revised Land and Resource Management Plan. May 2002. USFS. 2005. Chugach National Forest Invasive Plant Management Plan. January 27, 2005. USFS. 2007. Establishment Record for the Kenai Lake-Black Mountain Research Natural Area within the Chugach National Forest, Alaska. 56pp. USFS. 2008. Trail River Landscape Assessment. Prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Chugach National Forest Seward Ranger District. 156 p. USFS. 2013. National Resource Information System. Data extracted June 27, 2013. DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 416 March 2015 USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1961. Ptarmigan and Grant Lakes and Falls Creek, Kenai Peninsula. Juneau, AK. 25 pp. USFWS. 2005. Recommended Time Periods for Avoiding Vegetation Clearing in Alaska in order to Protect Migratory Birds. 2p. USFWS. 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. May 2007. USFWS. 2013. Aleutian shield fern. Accessed on line: http://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/endangered/species/aleutian_shield_fern.htm Vinson, Dale M. 1997. Heritage Investigations for the Moose Pass Prescribed Burns Project. Chugach National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, Anchorage. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife) and WDOE (Washington Department of Ecology). 2013. Instream flow study guidelines: technical and habitat suitability issues including fish preference curves. Updated April 1, 2013. 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. Wilcock, P.R. and B.W. McArdell. 1993. Surface-based fractional transport rates: Mobilization thresholds and partial transport of a sand-gravel sediment, Water Resour. Res., 29, pp. 1297-1312. Wohl, E. 2000. Mountain Rivers. American Geophysical Union. Washington, D.C. 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. Yager, E. M., W. E. Dietrich, J. W. Kirchner, and B. W. McArdell. 2012), Prediction of sediment transport in step-pool channels, Water Resour. Res., 48, W01541, doi:10.1029/2011WR010829 DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 March 2015 Attachment E-1. Licensing Consultation Record This attachment contains a summary table of the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project licensing consultation record and the full corresponding documentation. Because of the potentially sensitive nature of information regarding archeological and historic sites, records related to the topic of cultural resources containing such information (as identified in the summary table) are not being distributed to the general public. This information is being filed separately as Volume 2 with a Privileged designation. It may be obtained by request to Kenai Hydro, Inc. or FERC, subject to confidentiality provisions. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Consultation Record Summary Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC Project No. 13212 1 March 2015 Date Summary of Contact Agency/Organization Consulted Documentation filename (pdf) 7/1/2009 Paul McLarnon (HDR) and Karen O'Leary (USFS) exchanged emails regarding Kenai Hydro's special use permit for studies. USFWS 2009-07-01USFSSpecialUsePermit.pdf 7/8/2009 Jenna Borovansky (LVA) and Mark Luttrell (RBCA) exchanged emails regarding public availability of the PAD. Resurrection Bay Conservation Alliance 2009-08-07LuttrellPADavailability.pdf 8/6/2009 Kenai Hydro, LLC filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD) with FERC. All Licensing Contacts 2009-08-06PAD.pdf 8/27/2009 Jenna Borovansky (LVA) provided Mark Luttrell (RBCA) with requested PAD background information via email. Resurrection Bay Conservation Alliance 2009-08-27LuttrellRBCA.pdf 9/1/2009 Jenna Borovansky (LVA) emailed agencies a reminder that comments on Kenai Hydro's request to use the Traditional Licensing Process were due. ADFG; ADNR; USFWS; USFS; USACE; NOAA; NPS 2009-09-01TLPcommentReminder.pdf 9/14/2009 Steve Gilbert (KHL) filed with FERC a request for use of the Traditional Licensing Process (TLP). FERC 2009-09-14TLPrequest.pdf 9/15/2009 Jennifer Hill (FERC) sent Steve Gilbert (KHL) a letter authorizing KHL to initiate Section 106 consultation. FERC 2009-09-15Section106Designation.pdf 9/15/2009 Ann Miles (FERC) issued Steve Gilbert (KHL) a letter approving the use of the TLP. FERC 2009-09-15TLPapproval.pdf 9/22/2009 Kenai Hydro, LLC held an aquatic resources technical work group meeting with agencies and interested stakeholders, and conducted a site visit to Grant Creek to receive input on the fisheries and instream flow studies. ADFG; ADNR; USFWS; USFS; NOAA; Citizen 2009-09-22_TWG_Final_Mtg_Summary.pdf 9/23/2009 Jason Werner emailed Brad Zubeck (KHL) information regarding his private property located on Grant Creek. Property owners 2009-09-23Werner.pdf 9/30/2009 Steve Gilbert (KHL) filed with FERC the second preliminary permit progress report. FERC 2009-09-30ProgressReport2nd.pdf 10/7/2009 Jim Ferguson (ADFG) emailed Jenna Borovansky (LVA) regarding his availability for upcoming public meetings. ADFG 2009-10-07FergusonADFG.pdf 10/7/2009 Burce Jaffa emailed Jenna Borovansky (LVA) regarding his availability for upcoming public meetings. Citizen 2009-10-07Jaffa.pdf 10/7/2009 Lynnda Kahn (UWFWS) emailed Jenna Borovansky (LVA) regarding her availability for upcoming public meetings. USFWS 2009-10-07KahnUSFWS.pdf 10/7/2009 Karen O'Leary emailed Jenna Borovansky (LVA) regarding her availability for upcoming public meetings. USFS 2009-10-07OlearyUSFS.pdf 10/7/2009 Sue Walker (NOAA-NMFS) emailed Jenna Borovansky (LVA) regarding her availability for upcoming public meetings. NOAA 2009-10-07WalkerNMFS.pdf 10/7/2009 Jason Werner emailed Jenna Borovansky (LVA) regarding his availability for upcoming public meetings. Property owners 2009-10-07WernerLandowner.pdf Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Consultation Record Summary Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC Project No. 13212 2 March 2015 Date Summary of Contact Agency/Organization Consulted Documentation filename (pdf) 10/7/2009 Jenna Borovansky (LVA) emailed all licensing contacts proposed dates for a Joint Meeting and FERC Scoping meeting. All Licensing Contacts 2009-10-07JointMtgDatesProposal.pdf 10/7/2009 Jenna Borovansky (LVA) emailed the Hydropower Reform Coalition regarding updated contact information. Hydropower Reform Coalition 2009-10-07HRCcontact.pdf 10/11/2009 Gary Fandrei (CIAA) emailed Jenna Borovansky (LVA) regarding his availability for upcoming public meetings. Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association 2009-10-11Fandrei.pdf 10/12/2009 Bob Baldwin (FOCL) emailed comments to Jenna Borovansky (LVA) regarding scheduling of scoping meetings. FOCL 2009-10-12BaldwinFOCL.pdf 10/12/2009 Valerie Connor (Alaska Center for the Environment) emailed Jenna Borovansky (LVA) recommendations for upcoming public meeting locations and participation. Alaska Center for the Enivornment 2009-10-12ConnorACE.pdf 10/12/2009 Mark Luttrell (RBCA) emailed Jenna Borovansky (LVA) recommendations for upcoming public meeting locations and participation. Resurrection Bay Conservation Alliance 2009-10-12LuttrellRBCA.pdf 10/12/2009 Joshua O. Milligan (USFS) emailed Jenna Borovansky (LVA) regarding his availability for upcoming public meetings. USFS 2009-10-12MilliganUSFS.pdf 10/13/2009 Katherine McCafferty (USACE) emailed Jenna Borovansky (LVA) regarding her availability for upcoming public meetings. USACE 2009-10-13McCaffertyACOE.pdf 10/21/2009 Karen Kromrey (USFS) emailed Jenna Borovansky (LVA) regarding her availability for upcoming public meetings. USFS 2009-10-21KromreyUSFS.pdf 10/22/2009 Bruce Jaffaa emailed Jenna Borovansky (LVA) regarding a recommendation from the Moose Pass Advisory Planing Commission to hold a public meeting regarding the Grant Lake Project in Moose Pass. Moose Pass Advisory Planning Commission 2009-10-22JaffaMPAPC.pdf 10/23/2009 Jenna Borovansky (LVA) emailed all licensing contacts notification of a November 12, 2009 Joint Meeting. All Licensing Contacts 2009-10-23JointMtgAnnouncement.pdf 10/23/2009 Brad Zubeck (KHL) emailed Moose Pass parties in response to requests regarding the location of public meetings regarding the Grant Lake Project. All Licensing Contacts; Moose Pass representatives 2009-10-23PublicMtgLocation.pdf 10/27/2009 Steve Gilbert (KHL) filed with FERC notice of the November 12, 2009 Public Meeting. FERC 2009-10-27PublicMtgNotice.pdf 10/31/2009 Jan Odhner emailed Jenna Borovansky (LVA) regarding the location of the Grant Lake Project. Citizen 2009-10-31Odhner.pdf 11/6/2009 Lynnda Kahn (USFWS) emailed Siera Brownlee (HDR) regarding wildlife studies and eagle nest locations in the Grant Lake Project area. USFWS Priv_2009-11-06KahnUSFWS.pdf 11/10/2009 Jenna Borovansky (LVA) notified Aquatic Resources Technical Work Group members that a meeting summary for the September 22-23, 2009 meeting was available on the Kenai Hydro website and provided an agenda for the November 12, 2009 Joint Meeting. ADFG; ADNR; FERC; USFWS; USFS; USACE; NOAA; NPS; Citizen 2009-11-10FinalTWGmtgSummary.pdf Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Consultation Record Summary Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC Project No. 13212 3 March 2015 Date Summary of Contact Agency/Organization Consulted Documentation filename (pdf) 11/12/2009 KHL held a public meeting regarding the Grant Lake Project licensing process on November 12, 2009. All Licensing Contacts 2009-11-12PublicMtg.pdf 11/13/2009 Brad Zubeck (KHL) and Karen O'Leary (USFS) exchanged emails regarding Forest Service representation at the November 12, 2009 Joint Meeting. USFS 2009-11-13OlearyUSFS.pdf 11/19/2009 Brad Zubeck (KHL) emailed Mike Cooney the participant list for the November 12, 2009 Joint Meeting Citizen 2009-11-19Cooney.pdf 11/24/2009 Jeff Estes (City of Seward) emailed Brad Zubeck (KHL) information regarding the transmission line proposal for the Grant Lake Project. City of Seward 2009-11-24EstesCityofSeward.pdf 12/4/2009 Kenai Hydro, LLC filed a transcript of the November 12, 2009 Joint Meeting and proof of public notice. FERC 2009-12-04JointMtgTranscript.pdf 12/7/2009 Jenna Borovansky (LVA) and Mark Luttrell (RBCA) exchanged emails regarding access to the November 12, 2009 Joint Meeting transcript and attendance sheet. Resurrection Bay Conservation Alliance 2009-12-07LuttrellRBCA.pdf 12/17/2009 Brad Zubeck (KHL) filed a letter with FERC regarding incorrect contact information contained in the Friends of Cooper Lake's December 9, 2009 comment letter. FERC 2009-12-17FERCkBose.pdf 12/21/2009 Mike Cooney wrote to Kenai Hydro regarding CIRI's participation in Kenai Hydro, LLC and the timing of FERC scoping meetings. Citizen 2009-12-21Cooney.pdf 12/31/2009 Kenai Hydro, LLC filed affadavits of publication for the Joint Meeting and notice of a public meeting to be held in January 2010 in Moose Pass, Alaska. FERC 2009-12-31Project13211-13212mtgnotice.pdf 12/31/2009 Jenna Borovansky (LVA) notified all relicensing contacts that a public meeting regarding the Grant Lake Project will be held in Moose Pass, Alaska on January 13, 2010. All Licensing Contacts 2009-12-31MoosePassMtgNotice.pdf 1/1/2010 William Coulson emailed Brad Zubeck (KHL) comments on the Grant Lake Project. Citizen 2010-01-01Coulson.pdf 1/8/2010 Brita Mjos emailed Brad Zubeck (KHL) comments on the Grant Lake Project. Citizen 2010-01-08Mjos.pdf 1/11/2010 Brad Zubeck (KHL) gave a powerpoint presentation to the ADF&G Advisory Committee and answered questions regarding the Grant Lake Project. ADFG 2010-01-11ADFGAdvisoryCommitteeMtg.pdf 1/11/2010 Valerie Connor provided Kenai Hydro, LLC with comments on the PAD. Alaska Center for the Environment 2010-01-11ConnorACE.pdf 1/11/2010 Robert Baldwin (Friends of Cooper Landing) provided Kenai Hydro, LLC comments on the Grant Lake PAD. FOCL 2010-01-11FOCL.pdf Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Consultation Record Summary Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC Project No. 13212 4 March 2015 Date Summary of Contact Agency/Organization Consulted Documentation filename (pdf) 1/11/2010 Mark Luttrell (RBCA) submitted comments on the Grant Lake PAD to Kenai Hydro, LLC. Resurrection Bay Conservation Alliance 2010-01-11RBCA.pdf 1/12/2010 Mike Cooney and Brad Zubeck (KHL) exchanged emails regarding information for the January 13, 2010 public meeting in Moose Pass. Citizen 2010-01-12Cooney.pdf 1/13/2010 Bruce Jaffa emailed Brad Zubeck (KHL) follow-up to the January 13, 2010 public meeting. Citizen 2010-01-13Jaffa.pdf 1/14/2010 Irene Lindquist emailed Brad Zubeck (KHL) information regarding trails in the Grant Lake Project area. Citizen 2010-01-14Lindquist.pdf 1/14/2010 Bruce Jaffa emailed Brad Zubeck (KHL) information regarding a cabin located on Grant Lake and local use of the area. Citizen 2010-01-14Jaffa.pdf 2/8/2010 Kenai Hydro, LLC filed a summary of the January 13, 2010 public meeting in Moose Pass. FERC 2010-02-08GrantLake_FallsCreek_comments.pdf 3/1/2010 Kenai Hydro, LLC filed updated contact information with FERC. FERC 2010-03-01_updated_applicant_contact_info_KHL.pdf 3/2/2010 Kenai Hydro, LLC filed its 2009 environmental study report with FERC. FERC 2010_03_02_P13211_13212KHLstudyreportfiling.pdf 3/4/2010 Jenna Borovansky (LVA) notified all licensing contacts that the 2009 environmental baseline study report was available on the Kenai Hydro website. All Licensing Contacts 2010-03-04Notice2009StudyReport.pdf 3/4/2010 Jenna Borovansky (LVA) emailed the Aquatics Technical Work Group that the 2009 environmental baseline study report was posted on the Kenai Hydro website. ADFG; ADNR; FOCL; FERC; USFWS; USFS; USACE; NOAA; NPS; Kenaitze Indian Tribe 2010-03-04TWGstudyReportNotice.pdf 3/5/2010 Bruce Jaffa and Jenna Borovansky (LVA) exchanged emails regarding availability of information from the Moose Pass public meeting. Citizen 2010-03-05Jaffa.pdf 3/15/2010 Brad Zubeck (KHL) exchanged emails with Thomas Harkreader regarding the mine near Grant Lake. Citizen 2010-03-15Harkreader.pdf 3/31/2010 Steve Gilbert (KHL) filed with FERC the third preliminary permit progress report. FERC 2010-03-31ProgressReport3rd.pdf 4/16/2010 Sirena Brownlee (HDR) discussed by phone the timing of bear den surveys in the Grant Lake area with Jeff Selinger (ADFG). ADFG 2010-04-16SelingerADFG.pdf 4/16/2010 Sirena Brownlee (HDR) emailed Jeff Selinger (ADFG) to confirm the timing of bear den surveys in the Grant Lake area. ADFG 2010-04-16SelingerADFG2.pdf Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Consultation Record Summary Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC Project No. 13212 5 March 2015 Date Summary of Contact Agency/Organization Consulted Documentation filename (pdf) 4/20/2010 Brad Zubeck (KHL), Mike Salzetti (KHL), Jenna Borovansky (LVA), Joe Adamson (FERC), Jennifer Hill (FERC), and Kim Nyguen (FERC) met by conference call to discuss the initiation of the 2010 study season and early scoping. FERC 2010-04-20FERC.pdf 4/20/2010 Lesli Schick (ADNR) emailed John Wolfe (HDR) maps with the Iditarod Trail location in the Trail Lake/Grant Lake area. ADNR 2010-04-30SchickANDR.pdf 4/23/2010 Jenna Borovansky (LVA) emailed agency and tribal representatives regarding their availability for early June meetings. ADFG; FERC; USFWS; USFS; USACE; NOAA; NPS; Kenai Peninsula Borough; EPA; Qutekcak Native Tribe; Kenaitze Tribe 2010-04-23AgencyStudyNotice.pdf 4/23/2010 Jenna Borovansky (LVA) emailed licensing contacts that the 2010 study season will proceed and that draft study plans will be provided for review. All Licensing Contacts 2010-04-23StudyProgramNotice.pdf 5/3/2010 Jenna Borovansky (LVA) emailed Kim Nguyen and Mark Ivy (FERC) a list of agency representatives’ availability for the first week in June for a scoping meeting. FERC 2010-05-03NguyenIvyFERC.pdf 5/3/2010 Kenai Hydro, LLC filed a revised project description and PAD study issues with FERC. FERC 2010-05-03RevisedProjectDescription.pdf 5/4/2010 Jenna Borovansky (LVA) emailed all licensing contacts notification that draft study plans for the Aquatic and Water Resources were posted on the Kenai Hydro website and that a review Project description was filed with FERC on May 3, 2010. All Licensing Contacts 2010-05-04AquaticsWaterStudyPlanNotice.pdf 5/4/2010 Brad Zubeck (KHL) had a phone conversation with Mark Ivy (FERC) regarding scoping meeting logistics, and future Project permitting needs. FERC 2010-05-04IvyFERC.pdf 5/4/2010 John Wolfe (HDR) exchanged emails with Jamie Schmidt (USFS) regarding the USFS easements on ANDR land for the Iditarod trail and information on proposed road alignments to follow-up on a phone conversation regarding the Iditarod Trail location relative to proposed road access to the Grant Lake Project. USFS 2010-05-04SchmidtUSFS.pdf 5/5/2010 Mary Ann Benoit (USFS-Seward Ranger District) called Sirena Brownlee (HDR) to provide information on bear den surveys and raptor surveys to be conducted in the Project area. USFS 2010-05-05BenoitUSFS.pdf 5/11/2010 Thomas Harkreader emailed Jenna Borovansky (LVA) information regarding ongoing mining activities in the Grant Lake area. Citizen 2010-05-11Harkreader.pdf 5/11/2010 Jenna Borovansky (LVA) emailed all licensing contacts notification of the FERC scoping meetings and that draft study plans for the Recreation and Visual, Terrestrial, and Cultural Resources were posted on the Kenai Hydro website. All Licensing Contacts 2010-05-11RecreationTerrestrialCulturalStudyPlanNotice.pdf Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Consultation Record Summary Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC Project No. 13212 6 March 2015 Date Summary of Contact Agency/Organization Consulted Documentation filename (pdf) 5/17/2010 David Pearson emailed Kenai Hydro comments on the Recreation and Visual Resources draft study plan. Citizen 2010-05-17PearsonRecreationComments.pdf 5/18/2010 Brad Zubeck (KHL) exchanged emails with Valerie Connor (ACE) regarding questions on the schedule for the Grant Lake Project. USACE 2010-05-18ConnorACE.pdf 5/18/2010 Jack Dean emailed Jenna Borovansky (LVA) regarding assistance with access to the study plans. Citizen 2010-05-18Dean.pdf 5/20/2010 Jenna Borovansky (LVA) emailed Instream Flow TWG members notice of a June 22, 2010 meeting to discuss the instream flow study. ADFG; ADNR; FERC; USFWS; USFS; Kenai River Sportsfishing; CIAA 2010-05-20TWGmtgNotice.pdf 5/21/2010 Brad Zubeck (KHL) exchanged emails with Doug Palmer (USFWS), Jason Mouw (ADFG), Karen O’Leary (USFS) and other agency representatives regarding a request for an extended comment deadline on the draft study plans. ADFG; NMFS; FOCL; FERC; USFWS; USFS; USACE; ADNR 2010-05-21AgencyStudyPlanCommentDeadline.pdf 5/21/2010 Jenna Borovansky (LVA) emailed all licensing contacts notice of a study plan discussion session and reminder of upcoming FERC scoping meetings.All Licensing Contacts 2010-05-21StudyPlanMeetingNotice.pdf 5/23/2010 Kate Glaser and Jenna Borovansky (LVA) exchanged emails regarding the FERC environmental site visit. Citizen 2010-05-23Glaser.pdf 5/24/2010 Jeff Estes (City of Seward) emailed Kenai Hydro, LLC comments on the proposed road alignment. City of Seward 2010-05-24EstesSeward.pdf 5/25/2010 Mary Ann Benoit (USFS) emailed Sirena Brownlee (HDR) regarding the Terrestrial Resources draft study plan and frequency of bird surveys in the Project area. USFS 2010-05-25BenoitUSFS.pdf 5/25/2010 Jenna Borovansky (LVA) emailed details regarding the FERC environmental site review on June 2, 2010. ADFG; FERC; USFS; USACE; NOAA; Citizen; ADNR 2010-05-25SiteVisitDetails.pdf 5/26/2010 Jenna Borovansky (LVA) emailed agency representatives regarding an extension of the draft study plan comment deadline. ADFG; FERC; USFWS; USFS; USACE; EPA; ADNR 2010-05-26AgencyStudyPlanCommentExtension.pdf 5/26/2010 James Hasbrouck (ADFG) emailed James Brady (HDR) information on fish stocking in Vagt Lake. ADFG 2010-05-26HasbrouckADFG.pdf 5/26/2010 Brad Zubeck (KHL) exchanged emails with Eric Rothwell (NOAA) regarding arranging a time for Eric to accompany field crews in the Project area. NOAA 2010-05-26RothwellNOAA.pdf 5/26/2010 Brad Zubeck (KHL) sent a letter to Judith Bittner (SHPO) and consulting parties to initiate Section 106 consultation and propose a meeting to review the proposed Cultural Resources APE. See Summary of Contact 2010-05-26Section106ConsultInitiation.pdf Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Consultation Record Summary Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC Project No. 13212 7 March 2015 Date Summary of Contact Agency/Organization Consulted Documentation filename (pdf) 5/26/2010 Jenna Borovansky (LVA) exchanged emails with Mark Ivy (FERC) to clarify the study plan comment schedule. FERC 2010-05-26IvyFERC.pdf 5/29/2010 Jenna Borovansky (LVA) and Thomas Harkreader exchanged emails regarding the mine near Grant Lake. Citizen 2010-05-29Harkreader.pdf 6/8/2010 Jenna Borovansky (LVA) emailed Mark Luttrell (RBCA) information regarding the cultural resources study. Resurrection Bay Conservation Alliance 2010-06-08LuttrellRBCA.pdf 7/30/2010 Jennifer Hill (FERC) issued a letter to Brad Zubeck (KHL) requesting that KHL meet with USFS within 120 days to discuss the Grant Lake Project proposed location and configuration. FERC 2010-07-30FERCjHill.pdf 8/10/2010 Jenna Borovansky and Steve Padula (LVA) held a conference call with the USFS regarding land management objectives. USFS 2010-08-10GrantLakeUSFSConfCallSummary.pdf 8/31/2010 Kenai Hydro, LLC filed a revised project description with FERC. FERC 2010-08-13RevisedProjectDescription.pdf 9/30/2010 Mike Salzetti (KHL) filed with FERC the fourth preliminary permit progress report. FERC 2010-09-30ProgressReport4th.pdf 10/12/2010 Mike Salzetti (KHL) filed with FERC notes from the August 10, 2010 meeting with the USFS. USFS 2010-10-12USFSmtgNotes.pdf 3/21/2011 Tim Welch (FERC) issued a letter to Brad Zubeck (KHL) requesting a status of the preliminary permit for Falls Creek. FERC 2011-03-21FallsCrPPstatusRequest.pdf 3/31/2011 Mike Salzetti (KHL) filed with FERC the fifth preliminary permit progress report. FERC 2011-03-31ProgressReport5th.pdf 9/30/2011 Mike Salzetti (KHL) filed with FERC the sixth preliminary permit progress report. FERC 2011-09-30ProgressReport6th.pdf 9/30/2011 Mike Salzetti (KHL) filed with FERC an application for a second preliminary permit for the Grant Lake Project. FERC 2011-09-30PP2ndAppl.pdf 12/29/2011 Ken Hogan (FERC) issued a letter to Mike Salzetti (KHL) notifying KHL of acceptance of the application for a second preliminary permit. FERC 2011-12-29PP2ndApplAccept.pdf 8/28/2012 Mike Salzetti (KHL) filed with FERC the first preliminary permit progress report. FERC 2012-08-28ProgressReport1st.pdf 10/31/2012 Cory Warnock (LVA) emailed licensing participants with a meeting proposal to gauge appropriate dates for re-initiation of stakeholders into the licensing process. All Licensing Contacts 2012-10-31ProcessReinitiation.pdf 10/31/2012 Cory Warnock (LVA) exchanged emails with Monte Miller (ADFG) regarding the potential location and timing of the Natural Resources Studies Meeting. ADFG 2012-10-31ADFGmMiller.pdf Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Consultation Record Summary Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC Project No. 13212 8 March 2015 Date Summary of Contact Agency/Organization Consulted Documentation filename (pdf) 10/31/2012 Cory Warnock (LVA) exchanged emails with Cassie Thomas (NPS) regarding potential locations for the Natural Resources Studies Meeting. NPS 2012-10-31NPScThomas.pdf 11/1/2012 Cory Warnock (LVA) exchanged emails with Michael Walton (ADNR) regarding potential locations for the Natural Resources Studies Meeting. ADNR 2012-11-01ADNRmWalton.pdf 11/1/2012 Cory Warnock (LVA) exhanged emails with Robin Swinford (ADNR) regarding potential dates for the Natural Resources Studies Meeting. ADNR 2012-11-01ADNRrSwinford.pdf 11/1/2012 Cory Warnock (LVA) exchanged emails with Sue Walker (NOAA Fisheries) regarding potential locations for the Natural Resources Studies Meeting. NOAA 2012-11-01NOAAsWalker.pdf 11/5/2012 Lynnda Kahn (USFWS) emailed Cory Warnock (LVA) regarding her unavailability to participate in a Natural Resources Studies Meeting between December 6 through January 7. USFWS 2012-11-05USFWSlKahn.pdf 11/9/2012 Cory Warnock (LVA) notified licensing participants by email that a meeting to discuss the 2013 study program would be held on December 12, 2012 in Anchorage, Alaska. All Licensing Contacts 2012-11-09StudiesMtgNotice.pdf 11/9/2012 Cory Warnock (LVA) exchanged emails with Monte Miller (ADFG) regarding logistics and attendees associated with the December 12, 2012 Natural Resources Studies Meeting. ADFG 2012-11-09ADFGmMiller.pdf 11/9/2012 Amal Ajmi (Oasis ERM) emailed Mary Ann Benoit (USFS) regarding a proposed schedule for the wildlife studies. USFS 2012-11-09USFSmBenoit.pdf 11/9/2012 Cory Warnock (LVA) emailed Ginny Litchfield (ADFG) regarding addition of name to contact list for the Grant Lake Project licensing process. ADFG 2012-11-09ADFGgLitchfield.pdf 11/9/2012 Cory Warnock (LVA) exchanged emails with Brent Goodrum (ADNR) regarding adding relevant ADNR staff to contact list for the Grant Lake Project licensing process. ADNR 2012-11-09ADNRbGoodrum.pdf 11/13/2012 Amal Ajmi (Oasis ERM) exchanged emails with Mary Ann Benoit (USFS) regarding the potential existence of ALMS survey plots. USFS 2012-11-13USFSmBenoit.pdf 11/14/2012 Cory Warnock (LVA) emailed Valerie Conner (Alaska Center for Environment), Mike Cooney (Friends of Cooper Landing), Ricky Gease (KRSFA), and Jan Konigsberg (HRC) regarding the December 12, 2012 Natural Resources Studies Meeting. Kenai River Sportsfishing; Friends of Cooper Landing; Alaska Center for Environment; Hydro Reform Coalition 2012-11-14StudiesMtgNotice2.pdf 11/14/2012 Cory Warnock (LVA) emailed Ken Hogan (FERC) requesting a call to discuss the re-initiation of the licensing process for the Grant Lake Project. FERC 2012-11-14FERCkHogan.pdf 11/14/2012 Cory Warnock (LVA) and Ken Hogan (FERC) discussed by phone the re-initiation of the licensing process for the Grant Lake Project. FERC 2012-11-14FERCkHogan2.pdf Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Consultation Record Summary Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC Project No. 13212 9 March 2015 Date Summary of Contact Agency/Organization Consulted Documentation filename (pdf) 11/16/2012 Cory Warnock (LVA) emailed Doug Ott (AEA) regarding adding him to the contact list for the Grant Lake Project licensing process. AEA 2012-11-16AEAdOtt.pdf 11/19/2012 Cory Warnock (LVA) exchanged emails with Lynnda Kahn (USFWS) regarding general approach for scheduling of future stakeholder meetings. USFWS 2012-11-19USFWSlKahn.pdf 11/26/2012 Cory Warnock (LVA) emailed licensing participants the agenda for the December 12, 2012 Natural Resources Studies Meeting. All Licensing Contacts 2012-11-26StudiesMtgAgenda.pdf 11/27/2012 Cory Warnock (LVA) exchanged emails with Kevin Laves (USFS) regarding who the main USFS contact is for the Grant Lake Project. USFS 2012-11-27USFSkLaves4.pdf 11/27/2012 Dwayne Adams (USKH) and Cliff Larson (ADNR) discussed by phone potential permit requirements for the visual and recreational survey work planned for 2013. ADNR 2012-11-27ADNRcLarson.pdf 11/27/2012 Amal Ajmi (Oasis ERM) and Kevin Laves (USFS) discussed by phone special use permit needs and USFS staff involved on the Grant Lake Project. USFS 2012-11-27USFSkLaves2.pdf 11/27/2012 Amal Ajmi (Oasis ERM) exchanged emails with Kevin Laves (USFS) regarding permit needs for the Grant Lake Project wildlife studies. USFS 2012-11-27USFSkLaves3.pdf 11/27/2012 Amal Ajmi (Oasis ERM) exchanged emails with Kevin Laves (USFS) regarding the USFS representatives for the Grant Lake Project. USFS 2012-11-27USFSkLaves.pdf 11/28/2012 Amal Ajmi (Oasis ERM) exchanged emails with Thomas McDonough (ADFG) regarding permit needs for the Grant Lake Project wildlife studies. ADFG 2012-11-28ADFGtMcDonough.pdf 11/29/2012 Cory Warnock (LVA) exchanged emails with Kevin Laves (USFS) regarding the identification of the main USFS representative for the Grant Lake Project. USFS 2012-11-29USFSkLaves.pdf 11/29/2012 Cory Warnock (LVA) and Robert Stovall (USFS) discussed by phone the agenda for the December 12, 2012 Natural Resources Studies Meeting and the general plan for the 2013 study season. USFS 2012-11-29USFSrStovall.pdf 11/30/2012 Cory Warnock (LVA) exchanged emails with Katherine McCafferty (ACOE) regarding who the main ACOE representative is for the Grant Lake Project. USACE 2012-11-30ACOEkMccafferty.pdf 12/3/2012 Cory Warnock (LVA) emailed licensing participants requesting a response regarding participation in the December 12, 2012 Natural Resources Studies Meeting. All Licensing Contacts 2012-12-03StudiesMtgAttendeeRequest.pdf 12/3/2012 Cory Warnock (LVA) exchanged emails with Pamela Russell (ADNR) regarding the identification of the main ADNR representative for the Grant Lake Project. ADNR 2012-12-03ADNRpRussell.pdf Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Consultation Record Summary Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC Project No. 13212 10 March 2015 Date Summary of Contact Agency/Organization Consulted Documentation filename (pdf) 12/3/2012 Kevin Laves (USFS) emailed Cory Warnock (LVA) that he will not be attending the December 12, 2012 Natural Resources Studies Meeting. USFS 2012-12-03USFSkLaves.pdf 12/3/2012 Cory Warnock (LVA) exchanged emails with Sue Walker (NOAA Fisheries) regarding general approach for scheduling of future stakeholder meetings. NOAA 2012-12-03NOAAsWalker.pdf 12/3/2012 Amal Ajmi (Oasis ERM) exchanged emails with Clifford Larson (ADNR) regarding permit needs for the Grant Lake Project wildlife studies. ADNR 2012-12-03ADNRcLarson.pdf 12/4/2012 Krissy Plett (ADNR) emailed Cory Warnock (LVA) regarding the addition of ADNR staff to the contact list for the Grant Lake Project. ADNR 2012-12-04ADNRkPlett.pdf 12/7/2012 Cory Warnock (LVA) exchanged emails with Barbara Stanley (USFS) regarding her participation at the December 12, 2012 Natural Resources Studies Meeting and the availability of meeting materials on the Kenai Hydro website. USFS 2012-12-07USFSbStanley.pdf 12/12/2012 HEA held a meeting on December 12, 2012 to discuss the Grant Lake Project Natural Resources Study Plans. All Licensing Contacts 2012-12-12StudiesMtg.pdf 12/13/2012 Cory Warnock (LVA) emailed Ken Hogan (FERC) thanking him for participating in the December 12, 2012 Natural Resources Studies Meeting. FERC 2012-12-13FERCkHogan.pdf 12/13/2012 Cory Warnock (LVA) emailed Eric Rothwell (NOAA Fisheries) contact information for Paul Pittman (Element Solutions), the lead on the geomorphology tasks associated with the Water Resources Study Plan. NOAA 2012-12-13NOAAeRothwell.pdf 12/17/2012 Cory Warnock (LVA) exchanged emails with Eric Rothwell (NOAA Fisheries) regarding comments on the the geomorphology tasks associated with the Water Resources Study Plan and the anticipated deadline for comments on the meeting summary and study plans. NOAA 2012-12-17NOAAeRothwell.pdf 12/28/2012 Paul Pittman (Element Solutions) emailed Eric Rothwell (NOAA Fisheries) regarding questions related to the the geomorphology tasks associated with the Water Resources Study Plan. NOAA 2012-12-28NOAAeRothwell.pdf 1/3/2013 John Blum (McMillen) emailed Eric Rothwell (NOAA Fisheries) a copy of the K. Thompson paper regarding determining instream flows for fish (1972). NOAA 2013-01-03NOAAeRothwell.pdf 1/3/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Katherine VanMassenhove (USFS) regarding scheduling a call to discuss the existing USFS' Special Use Permit for the Grant Lake Project. USFS 2013-01-03USFSkVanMassenhove.pdf 1/7/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) and Eric Rothwell (NOAA Fisheries) discussed by phone the geomorphology tasks associated with the Water Resources Study Plan. NOAA 2013-01-07NOAAeRothwell.pdf Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Consultation Record Summary Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC Project No. 13212 11 March 2015 Date Summary of Contact Agency/Organization Consulted Documentation filename (pdf) 1/7/2013 Cory Warnock (LVA) emailed licensing participants the draft summary from the December 12, 2012 Natural Resources Studies Meeting and indicated a deadline of February 1, 2013 to provide comments on the draft summary, study plans, and permit table. All Licensing Contacts 2013-01-07StudiesMtgDraftSummary.pdf 1/7/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Deidre StLouis (USFS) confirming a call for January 9, 2013 to discuss the existing USFS' Special Use Permit for the Grant Lake Project. USFS 2013-01-07USFSdStLouis.pdf 1/9/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen), Deidre StLouis (USFS) and Katherine VanMassenhove (USFS) discussed by phone the use of an existing Special Use Permit for Grant Lake Project 2013 study season. USFS 2013-01-09USFSdStLouisKVanMassenhove.pdf 1/11/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed Scott Ayers (ADFG) requesting a time to discuss the multi-agency permitting process as it relates to the Grant Lake Project. ADFG 2013-01-11ADFGsAyers.pdf 1/11/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Monte Miller (ADFG) regarding the current ADFG contact for permitting. ADFG 2013-01-11ADFGmMiller.pdf 1/14/2013 Amal Ajmi (ERM) emailed Jeff Selinger (ADFG) with an introduction to the planned 2013 Grant Lake terrestrial studies work. ADFG 2013-01-14ADFGjSelinger.pdf 1/16/2013 Dwayne Adams (USKH) and Robert Stovall (USFS) discussed by phone the permit needs for the Grant Lake Project recreation studies. USFS 2013-01-16USFSrStovall.pdf 1/18/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Katherine VanMassenhove (USFS) following up to the January 9, 2013 phone call re: the use of the existing Special Use Permit for the Grant Lake Project 2013 study season. USFS 2013-01-18USFSkVanMassenhove.pdf 1/22/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Katherine VanMassenhove (USFS) with the permit needs table and a study methodologies summary related to the discussion about the use of the existing USFS' Special Use Permit for the Grant Lake Project. ADFG 2013-01-22USFSkVanMassenhove.pdf 1/23/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Katherine VanMassenhove (USFS) regarding the use of the existing USFS' Special Use Permit for the Grant Lake Project 2013 study program. USFS 2013-01-23USFSkVanMassenhove.pdf 1/25/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Katherine VanMassenhove (USFS) regarding the use of the existing USFS' Special Use Permit for the Grant Lake Project 2013 study program. USFS 2013-01-25USFSkVanMassenhove.pdf 1/25/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Katherine VanMassenhove (USFS) with modifications to list of primary activities planned on USFS lands (related to the ongoing discussion about the use of existing USFS' SUP for the 2013 study program). USFS 2013-01-25USFSkVanMassenhove2.pdf Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Consultation Record Summary Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC Project No. 13212 12 March 2015 Date Summary of Contact Agency/Organization Consulted Documentation filename (pdf) 1/28/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Lynnda Kahn (USFWS) regarding McMillen's offer for follow up call to discuss December 12 meeting, and USFWS' target date to submit its study plan comments. USFWS 2013-01-28USFSlKahn.pdf 1/29/2013 Amal Ajmi (ERM) emailed Jeff Selinger (ADFG) regarding logistics of conducting aerial surveys of moose. ADFG 2013-01-29ADFGjSelinger.pdf 2/1/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Katherine VanMassenhove (USFS) regarding the Special Use Permit amendment to allow access by helicopter and snow machine. USFS 2013-02-01USFSkVanMassenhove.pdf 2/4/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Cassie Thomas (NPS) regarding the NPS comments on the December 12, 2012 meeting note and the Recreation/Visual Resources Study Plan. NPS 2013-02-04NPScThomas.pdf 2/6/2013 Mike Salzetti (HEA) emailed Katherine VanMassenhove (USFS) the Special Use Permit amendment to allow access by helicopter and snow machine signed by HEA. USFS 2013-02-06USFSkVanMassenhove.pdf 2/10/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed Katherine VanMassenhove (USFS) regarding the fully executed Special Use Permit amendment to allow access by helicopter and snow machine (signed amendment attached). USFS 2013-02-10USFSkVanMassenhove.pdf 2/11/2013 Cory Warnock (LVA) emailed Pamela Russell (ADNR) a map of the data collection locations with respect to the Multi-Agency Permit Application for the Grant Lake 2013 studies program. ADNR 2013-02-11ADNRpRussell.pdf 2/11/2013 Eric Rothwell (NOAA Fisheries) emailed Cory Warnock (McMillen) comments on the Aquatics Resources and Water Resources final study plans. NOAA 2013-02-11NOAAeRothwell.pdf 2/12/2013 Mike Salzetti (HEA) emailed Patti Berkhahn (ADFG) responses to follow up questions related to the Multi-Agency Permit Application. ADFG 2013-02-12ADFGpBerkhahn.pdf 2/12/2013 Patti Berkhahn (ADFG) emailed Mike Salzetti (HEA) the Fish Habitat Permit. ADFG 2013-02-12ADFGpBerkhahn2.pdf 2/13/2013 Scott Ayers (ADFG) emailed Cory Warnock (McMillen) regarding the need for HEA to apply for a Fish Resources Permit for the Grant Lake 2013 study program (permit application attached). ADFG 2013-02-13ADFGsAyers.pdf 2/13/2013 Mike Yarborough (CRC Consultants) emailed Cultural Resources Work Group (CRWG) members regarding scheduling a meeting to discuss the Area of Potential Effect (APE). CRWG 2013-02-13CRWGmtgDateRequest.pdf 2/13/2013 Frank Winchell (FERC) emailed Mike Yarborough (CRC Consultants) regarding his availability for a call to discuss the APE. FERC 2013-02-13FERCfWinchell.pdf Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Consultation Record Summary Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC Project No. 13212 13 March 2015 Date Summary of Contact Agency/Organization Consulted Documentation filename (pdf) 2/13/2013 Shina Duvall (SHPO) emailed Mike Yarborough (CRC Consultants) regarding her availability for a call to discuss the APE. SHPO 2013-02-13SHPOsDuvall.pdf 2/20/2013 Mike Salzetti (HEA) emailed Scott Ayers (ADFG) the completed Fish Resources Permit application. ADFG 2013-02-20ADFGsAyers.pdf 2/21/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed Scott Ayers (ADFG) the link to the Multi-Agency Permit Application. ADFG 2013-02-21ADFGsAyers.pdf 2/21/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchaged emails with Scott Ayers (ADFG) regarding the receipt of and approximate timeframe for processing the Fish Resources Permit application. ADFG 2013-02-21ADFGsAyers2.pdf 2/22/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Monte Miller and Shawn Johnson (ADFG) regarding the potential for ADFG to assist with fish DNA sampling. ADFG 2013-02-22ADFGmMiller.pdf 2/26/2013 Mike Salzetti (HEA) emailed Claire Leclair (ADNR) requesting a status on the processing of the Multi-Agency Permit Application. ADNR 2013-02-26ADNRcLeclair.pdf 2/26/2013 Mike Yarborough (CRC Consultants) emailed CRWG members a second time regarding scheduling a meeting to discuss the APE. CRWG 2013-02-26CRWGmtgDateRequest.pdf 2/26/2013 Frank Winchell (FERC) emailed Mike Yarborough (CRC Consultants) regarding his availability for a call to discuss the APE. FERC 2013-02-26FERCfWinchell.pdf 2/27/2013 Levia Shoutis (ERM) exchanged emails with Rob Develice (USFS) regarding vegetation cover type maps. USFS 2013-02-27USFSrDevelice.pdf 2/27/2013 Katy Beck (Beck Botanical) and Betty Charnon (USFS) discussed via phone sensitive plants and invasive weeds in the vicinity of the proposed Grant Creek Project. USFS 2013-02-27USFSbCharnon.pdf 2/27/2013 Ed DeCleva (USFS) emailed Mike Yarborough (CRC Consultants) regarding his availability for a call to discuss the APE. USFS 2013-02-27USFSeDeCleva.pdf 2/27/2013 Mike Salzetti (HEA) filed with FERC the second preliminary permit progress report. FERC 2013-02-27ProgressReport2nd.pdf 3/4/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Claire Leclair (ADNR) regarding the status on the processing of the Multi-Agency Permit Application. ADNR 2013-03-04ADNRcLeclair.pdf 3/5/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) and Claire Leclair (ADNR) discussed via phone clarifying questions ADNR had regarding the Multi-Agency Permit Application. ADNR 2013-03-05ADNRcLeclair.pdf 3/7/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Monte Miller (ADFG) regarding the contact information for the ADFG representative to discuss the potential for ADFG assisting with fish DNA sampling. ADFG 2013-03-07ADFGmMiller.pdf Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Consultation Record Summary Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC Project No. 13212 14 March 2015 Date Summary of Contact Agency/Organization Consulted Documentation filename (pdf) 3/7/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) and Bill Templin (ADFG) discussed via phone HEA using ADFG genetic sampling supplies and the potential for ADFG’s lab to conduct genetic analysis of anadromous fish samples. ADFG 2013-03-07ADFGbTemplin.pdf 3/7/2013 Ed DeCleva (USFS) emailed Mike Yarborough (CRC Consultants) checking in on the status of scheduling a call to discuss the APE. USFS 2013-03-07USFSeDeCleva.pdf 3/8/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed Bill Templin (ADFG) the Aquatic Resources Study Plan with regard to an ongoing discussion about ADFG assisting HEA with fish DNA sampling. ADFG 2013-03-08ADFGbTemplin.pdf 3/8/2013 Mike Yarborough (CRC Consultants) emailed Ed DecLeva (USFS) with a status on the scheduling of a call to discuss the APE. USFS 2013-03-08USFSeDeCleva.pdf 3/11/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Kathy VanMassenhove (USFS) regarding clarifying questions about coverage of digging as part of the 2013 Grant Lake study efforts under the Special Use Permit amendment. USFS 2013-03-11USFSkVanMassenhove.pdf 3/12/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) and Scott Ayers (ADFG) exchanged emails regarding ADFG follow up questions regarding the Fish Resources Permit application. ADFG 2013-03-12ADFGsAyers.pdf 3/13/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) and Andy Barclay (ADFG) exchanged emails regarding scheduling a call to discuss fish DNA sampling. ADFG 2013-03-13ADFGaBarclay.pdf 3/13/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Scott Ayers (ADFG) regarding responses to ADFG follow up questions related to the Fish Resources Permit application. ADFG 2013-03-13ADFGsAyers.pdf 3/13/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Claire Leclair (ADNR) regarding the status on the processing of the Multi-Agency Permit Application, specifically as it relates to ground-disturbing activity. ADNR 2013-03-18ADNRcLeclair.pdf 3/14/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) and Andy Barclay (ADFG) discussed via phone fish DNA sampling. ADFG 2013-03-14ADFGaBarclay.pdf 3/18/2013 Scott Ayers (ADFG) emailed Mike Salzetti (HEA) about issuance of the Fish Resource Permit for the Grant Lake studies program. ADFG 2013-03-18ADFGsAyers.pdf 3/19/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Scott Ayers (ADFG) regarding HEA questions related to the Fish Resource Permit. ADFG 2013-03-19ADFGsAyers.pdf 3/19/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) and Ken Hogan (FERC) discussed via phone the status of the licensing process and filing of the final study plans. FERC 2013-03-19FERCkHogan.pdf 3/20/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Scott Ayers (ADFG) regarding a request to amend the Fish Resource Permit. ADFG 2013-03-20ADFGsAyers.pdf Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Consultation Record Summary Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC Project No. 13212 15 March 2015 Date Summary of Contact Agency/Organization Consulted Documentation filename (pdf) 3/20/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Claire Leclair (ADNR) regarding confirmation that the pending ADNR permit is not needed to conduct the fish survey work by foot along Grant Creek. ADNR 2013-03-20ADNRcLeclair.pdf 3/20/2013 Cory Warnock (LVA) emailed licensing participants the December 12, 2012 Natural Resources Studies Meeting summary, the Final Study Plans comment/response table, and notification of the availability of revised Final Study Plans on the Project website. All Licensing Contacts 2013-03-20FinalStudyPlans.pdf 3/20/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Eric Volk (ADFG) regarding scheduling a call to discuss scale sampling. ADFG 2013-03-20ADFGeVolk.pdf 3/21/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Katherine VanMassenhove (USFS) regarding the potential need to amend the existing Special Use Permit for ground disturbing activities related to the 2013 Grant Lake study program. USFS 2013-03-21USFSkVanMassenhove.pdf 3/25/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed Andy Barclay (ADFG) regarding scheduling a call to discuss fish DNA sampling. ADFG 2013-03-25ADFGaBarclay.pdf 3/25/2013 Mike Salzetti (HEA) filed with FERC the Final Study Plans, comment/response tables related to comments on the Final Study Plans as discussed at the December 12, 2012 Natural Resources Studies Meeting, and the December 12 meeting summary. FERC 2013-03-25FinalStudyPlans.pdf 3/25/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Katherine VanMassenhove (USFS) regarding scheduling a call to discuss the need to amend the existing Special Use Permit for ground disturbing activities related to the 2013 Grant Lake study program. USFS 2013-03-25USFSkVanMassenhove.pdf 3/26/2013 Scott Ayers (ADFG) emailed Cory Warnock (McMillen) an amendment to the Fish Resource Permit. ADFG 2013-03-26ADFGsAyers.pdf 3/27/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Eric Volk (ADFG) regarding scheduling a call to discuss scale sampling. ADFG 2013-03-27ADFGeVolk.pdf 3/27/2013 Mike Salzetti (HEA), Cory Warnock (McMillen), Andy Barclay (ADFG), and Bill Templin (ADFG) discussed via phone ADFG assisting HEA with fish DNA sampling. ADFG 2013-03-27ADFGaBarclay.pdf 3/28/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) and Mark Willette (ADFG) discussed via phone the potential for Mr. Willette's group to provide scale cards and subsequent analysis of Chinook scales. ADFG 2013-03-28ADFGmWillette.pdf 3/28/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) and Tim McKinley (ADFG) discussed via phone the potential for scale reabsorption to be an issue with Chinook in the upper Kenai Watershed. ADFG 2013-03-28ADFGtMcKinley.pdf Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Consultation Record Summary Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC Project No. 13212 16 March 2015 Date Summary of Contact Agency/Organization Consulted Documentation filename (pdf) 3/28/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) called various ADFG staff to inform them of the start of the Grant Lake Study Program, per requirements of HEA's Fish Habitat Permit and Fish Resource Permit. ADFG 2013-03-28ADFGstudyNotifications.pdf 3/29/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Claire Leclair (ADNR) regarding the status of the pending ADNR Special Park Use permit. ADNR 2013-03-29ADNRcLeclair.pdf 3/29/2013 Mike Salzetti (HEA), Cory Warnock (McMillen), and Katherine VanMassenhove (USFS) discussed via phone the pending amendment to the existing Special Use Permit to allow for wetlands core sampling. USFS 2013-03-29USFSkVanMassenhove.pdf 4/1/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed Pam Russell (ADNR) regarding whether there are any permits needed by the State to allow for wetlands core sampling. ADNR 2013-04-01ADNRpRussell.pdf 4/1/2013 Mike Salzetti (HEA) and Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Katherine VanMassenhove (USFS) regarding fees associated with the amendment to the existing Special Use Permit for ground disturbing activities. USFS 2013-04-01USFSkVanMassenhove.pdf 4/1/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed Clair Leclair (ADNR) requested information regarding the planned wetlands core sampling. ADNR 2013-04-01ADNRcLeclair.pdf 4/2/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Claire Leclair (ADNR) regarding the status of the pending ADNR Special Park Use permit. ADNR 2013-04-02ADNRcLeclair.pdf 4/2/2013 Sarah Meitl (CRC Consultants) emailed Dara Glass (CIRI), Sherry Nelson (USFS), Shina DuVall (SHPO), and Frank Winchell (FERC) an agenda for the April 3, 2013 call to discuss the APE. FERC; USFS; SHPO; Cook Inlet Region 2013-04-02APEdiscussionAgenda.pdf 4/2/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Claire Leclair (ADNR) regarding the stipulation in the issued ADNR Special Park Use permit regarding vegetation clearing. ADNR 2013-04-02ADNRcLeclair2.pdf 4/3/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Claire Leclair (ADNR) regarding the stipulation in the issued ADNR Special Park Use permit associated with hauling out human waste. ADNR 2013-04-02ADNRcLeclair3.pdf 4/3/2013 HEA held a CRWG conference call to discuss the Area of Potential Effect (APE). CRWG 2013-04-03CRWGmtg.pdf 4/4/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Jack Blackwell and Claire Leclair (ADNR) regarding scheduling of a site visit at the Grant Creek man camp. ADNR 2013-04-04ADNRjBlackwell.pdf 4/4/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed Claire Leclair (ADNR) the signed stream gauge Special Park Use Permit. ADNR 2013-04-04ADNRcLeclair.pdf Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Consultation Record Summary Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC Project No. 13212 17 March 2015 Date Summary of Contact Agency/Organization Consulted Documentation filename (pdf) 4/5/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Claire Leclair (ADNR) regarding an error with the permit number identified in the ground disturbing Special Park Use permit. ADNR 2013-04-05ADNRcLeclair.pdf 4/5/2013 Claire Leclair (ADNR) emailed Cory Warnock (McMillen) links to information related to regarding management of human waste in remote camps. ADNR 2013-04-05ADNRcLeclair2.pdf 4/5/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Katherine McCafferty (USACE) regarding scheduling a call to discuss the planned wetlands core sampling. USACE 2013-04-05USACEkMcCafferty.pdf 4/15/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Candice Snow (ADNR) regarding schedule a call to discuss the potential need for a ANDR permit related to the installation of thermistors in Grant Lake. ADNR 2013-04-15ADNRcSnow.pdf 4/16/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Katherine VanMassenhove (USFS) regarding the amendment to the existing Special Use Permit for ground disturbing activities. USFS 2013-04-16USFSkVanMassenhove.pdf 4/16/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Scott Ayers (ADFG) requesting clarification regarding the proposed technique for marking fish relative to the provisions of the Fish Resource Permit. ADFG 2013-04-16ADFGsAyers.pdf 4/16/2013 Candice Snow (ADNR) emailed Charles Sauvageau (McMillen) the application for ANDR permit related to the installation of thermistors in Grant Lake. ADNR 2013-04-16ADNRcSnow.pdf 4/16/2013 Cory Warnock, Charles Sauvageau (McMillen), and Candice Snow (ADNR) discussed by phone the need for an ANDR permit related to the installation of thermistors in Grant Lake. ADNR 2013-04-16ADNRcSnow2.pdf 4/16/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen), Levia Shoutis and Jeanette Blank (ERM), and Katherine McCafferty (USACE) discussed by phone the planned wetlands core sampling. USACE 2013-04-16USACEkMcCafferty.pdf 4/17/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Candice Snow (ADNR) regarding completion of application for ANDR permit related to the installation of thermistors in Grant Lake. ADNR 2013-04-17ADNRcSnow.pdf 4/17/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Scott Ayers (ADFG) regarding scheduling a call to discuss potential techniques for marking fish relative to the provisions of the Fish Resource Permit. ADFG 2013-04-17ADFGsAyers.pdf 4/17/2013 Sarah Meitl (CRC Consultants) exchanged emails with Sherry Nelson and Katherine VanMassenhove (USFS) regarding requested information related to the cultural resources survey provided by CRC Consultants to the USFS. USFS 2013-04-17USFSsNelson.pdf Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Consultation Record Summary Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC Project No. 13212 18 March 2015 Date Summary of Contact Agency/Organization Consulted Documentation filename (pdf) 4/17/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Scott Ayers (ADFG) confirming a call for April 18 to discuss potential techniques for marking fish relative to the provisions of the Fish Resource Permit. ADFG 2013-04-17ADFGsAyers2.pdf 4/18/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed Candice Snow (ADNR) the completed and signed application for an ADNR permit related to the installation of thermistors in Grant Lake. ADNR 2013-04-18ADNRcSnow.pdf 4/18/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen), John Stevenson and Mark Miller (BioAnalysts), and Scott Ayers (ADFG) discussed by phone potential techniques for marking fish relative to the provisions of the Fish Resource Permit. ADFG 2013-04-18ADFGsAyers.pdf 4/19/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Scott Ayers (ADFG) with follow up questions to the April 18 call to discuss potential techniques for marking fish relative to the provisions of the Fish Resource Permit. ADFG 2013-04-19ADFGsAyers.pdf 4/19/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Jack Blackwell (ADNR) following up to ADNR's April 15 site visit to the Grant Creek man camp and agreement to amend the ground disturbing permit. ADNR 2013-04-19ADNRjBlackwell.pdf 4/19/2013 Mike Salzetti (HEA) mailed a letter to Judith Bittner (SHPO) regarding the proposed APE. SHPO 2013-04-19SHPOjBittner.pdf 4/22/2013 Mike Salzetti (HEA) filed with FERC the April 3 CRWG conference call meeting summary. FERC 2013-04-22CRWGmtgNotes.pdf 4/23/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) discussed with Scott Ayers (ADFG) by phone the potential use of staining baths versus VIE tags. ADFG 2013-04-23ADFGsAyers.pdf 4/24/2013 Claire Leclair emailed Cory Warnock (McMillen) a revised ground disturbing Special Park Use permit with the correct permit number. ADNR 2013-04-24ADNRcLeclair.pdf 4/24/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed with Sherry Nelson (USFS) requesting a status update on the proposed approach for the amendment to the existing Special Use Permit for ground disturbing activities. USFS 2013-04-24USFSsNelson.pdf 4/25/2013 Scott Ayers (ADFG) emailed Mike Salzetti (HEA) an amendment to the Fish Resource Permit. ADFG 2013-04-25ADFGsAyers.pdf 4/25/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) and Sherry Nelson (USFS) discussed by phone the USFS' preferred approach for the amendment to the existing Special Use Permit for ground disturbing activities. USFS 2013-04-25USFSsNelson.pdf 4/29/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Claire Leclair (ADNR) requesting a status on issuance of the amendment to the ground disturbing Special Park Use permit. ADNR 2013-04-29ADNRcLeclair.pdf 4/29/2013 Scott Ayers (ADFG) emailed Mike Salzetti (HEA) a revised amendment to the Fish Resource Permit. ADFG 2013-04-29ADFGsAyers.pdf Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Consultation Record Summary Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC Project No. 13212 19 March 2015 Date Summary of Contact Agency/Organization Consulted Documentation filename (pdf) 4/29/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Shina Duvall (SHPO) confirming receipt of HEA's April 19 regarding the proposed APE. SHPO 2013-04-29SHPOsDuvall.pdf 4/30/2013 Claire Leclair (ADNR) emailed Cory Warnock (McMillen) the amendment to the ground disturbing Special Park Use permit. ADNR 2013-04-30ADNRcLeclair.pdf 5/3/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Katherine VanMassenhove (USFS) clarifying the proposed approach for the amendment to the existing Special Use Permit for ground disturbing activities. USFS 2013-05-03USFSkVanMassenhove.pdf 5/7/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Candice Snow (ADNR) regarding the status of the application for an ADNR permit related to the installation of thermistors in Grant Lake. ADNR 2013-05-07ADNRcSnow.pdf 5/7/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed Shina Duvall (SHPO) a letter from HEA confirming the proposed approach for the amendment to the existing Special Use Permit for ground disturbing activities. SHPO 2013-05-07SHPOsDuvall.pdf 5/8/2013 Judith Bittner (SHPO) mailed a letter to Mike Salzetti (HEA) confirming the proposed APE and the proposed approach for the amendment to the existing Special Use Permit for ground disturbing activities. SHPO 2013-05-08SHPOjBittner.pdf 5/10/2013 Jeanette Blank (ERM) emailed Katherine McCafferty (USACE) a memo summarizing the proposed wetlands functional assessment methodology. USACE 2013-05-10USACEkMcCafferty.pdf 5/13/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Claire Leclair (ADNR) confirming that provisions of the ground disturbing Special Park Use permit allow for the cutting/removal of dead/downed logs for purposes of accessing the stream. ADNR 2013-05-13ADNRcLeclair.pdf 5/14/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Candice Snow (ADNR) regarding the status of the application for an ADNR permit related to the installation of thermistors in Grant Lake. ADNR 2013-05-14ADNRcSnow.pdf 5/21/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Ed DeCleva, Sherry Nelson, and Katherine VanMassenhove (USFS) confirming that the SHPO has all relevant information to issue the amendment to the existing Special Use Permit for ground disturbing activities. USFS 2013-05-21USFSeDecleva.pdf 5/23/2013 Jeanette Blank (ERM) emailed Katherine McCafferty (USACE) a second time a memo summarizing the proposed wetlands functional assessment methodology. USACE 2013-05-23USACEkMcCafferty.pdf 5/23/2013 Emily Hutchison (HEA) emailed Candice Snow (ADNR) certificate of insurance for the ADNR permit related to the installation of thermistors in Grant Lake. USFS 2013-05-23ADNRcSnow.pdf Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Consultation Record Summary Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC Project No. 13212 20 March 2015 Date Summary of Contact Agency/Organization Consulted Documentation filename (pdf) 5/24/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Katherine VanMassenhove (USFS) regarding the status for processing the amendment to the existing Special Use Permit for ground disturbing activities. USFS 2013-05-24USFSkVanMassenhove.pdf 5/28/2013 Sherry Nelson (USFS) emailed HEA, McMillen, and other USFS staff confirming that the SHPO has all relevant information to issue the amendment to the existing Special Use Permit for ground disturbing activities. USFS 2013-05-28USFSsNelson.pdf 5/30/2013 Katherine VanMassenhove (USFS) emailed Cory Warnock (McMillen) the fully executed amendment to the existing Special Use Permit, specific to the cultural resources study. USFS 2013-05-30USFSkVanMassenhove.pdf 6/5/2013 Mike Salzetti (HEA) emailed Candice Snow (ADNR) the bond for the ADNR permit related to the installation of thermistors in Grant Lake. ADNR 2013-06-05ADNRcSnow.pdf 6/11/2013 Monet Miller (ADFG) emailed Cory Warnock (McMillen) comments to the final study plans for the water, aquatics, and terrestrial resources. ADFG 2013-06-11ADFGmMiller.pdf 6/12/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Candice Snow (ADNR) regarding the status of the issuance of an ADNR permit related to the installation of thermistors in Grant Lake. ADNR 2013-06-12ADNRcSnow.pdf 6/12/2013 Candice Snow (ADNR) emailed Mike Salzetti (HEA) the fully executed ADNR permit related to the installation of thermistors in Grant Lake. ADNR 2013-06-12ADNRcSnow2.pdf 6/13/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) and Ken Hogan (FERC) discussed by phone a number of items pertaining to the Project. FERC 2013-06-13FERCkHogan.pdf 6/14/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Tom Harkreader (White Rock Mining) regarding the current status of the Falls Creek Project at FERC. White Rock Mining 2013-06-14FallsCrInquiry.pdf 6/14/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) forwarded to Tom Harkreader (White Rock Mining) an email from FERC staff related to Section 24 reserved authority for the Falls Creek Project. White Rock Mining 2013-06-14FallsCrInquiry2.pdf 6/17/2013 Mike Salzetti (HEA) exchanged emails with Paul Torgerson (Grant Lake Mining) regarding the current status of the Grant Lake Project licensing process. Grant Lake Mining 2013-06-17GrLkMiningPtorgerson.pdf 6/21/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Scott Ayers (ADFG) requesting an amendment to the Fish Resource Permit to allow for continued tagging of rainbow through the month of July. ADFG 2013-06-21ADFGsAyers.pdf 6/21/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Katherine VanMassenhove (USFS) regarding the status for processing the amendment to the existing Special Use Permit for ground disturbing activities, specifically for the cultural resources work. USFS 2013-06-21USFSkVanMassenhove.pdf Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Consultation Record Summary Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC Project No. 13212 21 March 2015 Date Summary of Contact Agency/Organization Consulted Documentation filename (pdf) 6/24/2013 Scott Ayers (ADFG) emailed Mike Salzetti (HEA) a signed amendment to the Fish Resource Permit ( 4). ADFG 2013-06-24ADFGsAyers.pdf 6/26/2013 Katy Beck (Beck Botanicals) emailed Betty Charnon (USFS) requesting completion of the pre-field sensitive plant review form. USFS 2013-06-26USFSbCharnon.pdf 6/27/2013 Andrew Scott (McMillen) exchanged emails with Brock Tabor (ADEC) regarding relevant water quality standards. ADEC 2013-06-27ADECbTabor.pdf 6/27/2013 Andrew Scott (McMillen) and Brock Tabor (ADEC) discussed via phone relevant water quality standards. ADEC 2013-06-27ADECbTabor2.pdf 6/27/2013 Nancy Norvell (Alaska Natural Heritage Program) emailed Katy Beck (Beck Botanicals) GIS data regarding sensitive plant locations in the Grant Lake Project area. Alaska Natural Heritage Program 2013-06-27AKNHPnNorvell.pdf 6/27/2013 Katy Beck (Beck Botanicals) exchanged emails with Betty Charnon (USFS) regarding sensitive and invasive plant species in the Grant Lake Project area. USFS 2013-06-27USFSbCharnon.pdf 6/27/2013 Linda Kelly (USFS) emailed Katy Beck (Beck Botanicals) a draft map of invasive plant species occurrences in the Grant Lake Project area. USFS 2013-06-27USFSlKelly.pdf 6/27/2013 Katy Beck (Beck Botanicals) exchanged emails with Matt Carlson (Alaska Natural Heritage Program) regarding the GIS data for sensitive plant locations in the Grant Lake Project area. Alaska Natural Heritage Program 2013-06-27AKNHPmCarlson.pdf 7/8/2013 Katherine VanMassenhove (USFS) emailed Mike Salzetti (HEA) a fully executed amendment to the existing Special Use Permit for ground disturbing activities, specifically for the cultural resources work. USFS 2013-07-08USFSkVanMassenhove.pdf 7/11/2013 Nancy Norvell (Alaska Natural Heritage Program) emailed Katy Beck (Beck Botanicals) a map of sensitive plant locations in the Grant Lake Project area. NOTE: Map is designated privileged. Alaska Natural Heritage Program 2013-07-11AKNHPnNorvell.pdf 7/22/2013 Dwayne Adams (USKH) met with Lesli Schick (ADNR) to discuss the approach for the INHT relocation from its currently planned location and easement. ADNR 2013-07-22ADNRlSchick.pdf 7/26/2013 Dwayne Adams (USKH) and Katherine Van Massenhove (USFS) discussed via phone who the USFS staff person(s) is responsible for the INHT. USFS 2013-07-26USFSkVanMassenhove.pdf 7/30/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Ken Gates (USFWS) regarding update on current fish capture numbers related to the Grant Lake Project aquatics studies. USFWS 2013-07-30USFWSkGates.pdf Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Consultation Record Summary Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC Project No. 13212 22 March 2015 Date Summary of Contact Agency/Organization Consulted Documentation filename (pdf) 8/5/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Ken Gates (USFWS) regarding update on current fish capture numbers related to the Grant Lake Project aquatics studies. USFWS 2013-08-05USFWSkGates.pdf 8/7/2013 Dwayne Adams (USKH) met with Alice Rein (USFS) to discuss who the USFS staff person(s) is responsible for the INHT. USFS 2013-08-07USFSaRein.pdf 8/8/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with William Ashton (ADEC) regarding the requirements for a QAPP related to water quality studies. ADEC 2013-08-08ADECwAshton.pdf 8/8/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed licensing participants notice regarding a September 5 agency site visit. All Licensing Contacts 2013-08-08SiteVisitNotice.pdf 8/8/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed Ken Gates (USFWS) preliminary data collected from the weir. USFWS 2013-08-08USFWSkGates.pdf 8/8/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Lynnda Kahn (USFWS) regarding who is the primary fisheries USFWS representative. USFWS 2013-08-08USFWSlKahn.pdf 8/8/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Jeff Anderson (USFWS) regarding is unavailability to attend the September 5, 2013 project site visit.USFWS 2013-08-08USFWSjAnderson.pdf 8/13/2013 Ken Gates (USFWS) emailed Cory Warnock (McMillen) regarding the preliminary data collected from the weir. USFWS 2013-08-13USFWSkGates.pdf 8/15/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed licensing participants additional information regarding the September 5 agency site visit. All Licensing Contacts 2013-08-15SiteVisitNotice2.pdf 8/20/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed Lesli Schick and Pam Russell (ADNR) regarding INHT discussions relative to the September 5 project site visit. ADNR 2013-08-20ADNRlSchickPrussell.pdf 8/23/2013 Mike Salzetti (HEA) filed with FERC a response letter to ADFG's informal study plan comments. FERC 2013-08-23StPlCommentResponses.pdf 8/23/2013 Amal Ajmi (ERM) emailed Jeff Selinger (ADFG) regarding planning for upcoming moose surveys. ADFG 2013-08-23ADFGjSelinger.pdf 8/26/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed Monte Miller (ADFG) a letter (dated August 20) with HEA responses to ADFG study plan comments. ADFG 2013-08-26ADFGmMiller.pdf 8/27/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed site visit participants with logistical details regarding the September 5 visit. All Licensing Contacts 2013-08-27SiteVisitDetails.pdf 8/27/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed licensing participants a letter with HEA responses to ADFG study plan comments. All Licensing Contacts 2013-08-27StPlCommentResponses2.pdf 8/27/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed licensing participants the third Project progress report as filed with FERC. All Licensing Contacts 2013-08-27ProgressReport.pdf 8/28/2013 Amal Ajmi (ERM) and Jeff Selinger (ADFG) discussed by phone planning for upcoming moose surveys. ADFG 2013-08-28ADFGjSelinger.pdf Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Consultation Record Summary Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC Project No. 13212 23 March 2015 Date Summary of Contact Agency/Organization Consulted Documentation filename (pdf) 8/30/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed site visit participants final logistical details regarding the September 5 visit. All Licensing Contacts 2013-08-30SiteVisitDetails2.pdf 9/5/2013 HEA conducted a site visit of the Grant Lake Project. All Licensing Contacts 2013-09-05SiteVisit.pdf 9/5/2013 Dwayne Adams (USKH) and John Eavis (USFS) discussed via phone a November INHT meeting. (Dwayne left voicemails for Eavis to discuss same further on 9/23, 9/26, and 10/21.) USFS 2013-09-05USFSjEavis.pdf 9/9/2013 Patti Berkhahn (ADFG) emailed Mike Salzetti (HEA) and John Stevenson (BioAnalysts) regarding the fuel containment structure currently located near the weir. ADFG 2013-09-09ADFGpBerkhahn.pdf 9/9/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed licensing participants regarding the tentative plan for upcoming natural resources study report distribution and organization of work groups that will meet to discuss the study results. All Licensing Contacts 2013-09-09WGmtgOrg.pdf 9/9/2013 Cassie Thomas (NPS) emailed Cory Warnock (McMillen) regarding work group designation. NPS 2013-09-09NPScThomas.pdf 9/9/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Monte Miller (ADFG) regarding work group designations and issues related to the fuel containment structure currently located near the weir as discussed at the September 5 project site visit. ADFG 2013-09-09ADFGmMiller.pdf 9/9/2013 Brenda Trefon (Kenaitze Indian Tribe) emailed Cory Warnock (McMillen) regarding work group designations. Kenaitze Indian Tribe 2013-09-09KenaitzeBtrefon.pdf 9/10/2013 Eric Rothwell (NOAA Fisheries) emailed Cory Warnock (McMillen) regarding work group designations. NOAA 2013-09-10NOAAeRothwell.pdf 9/10/2013 David Griffin (ADNR) emailed Cory Warnock (McMillen) regarding work group designations. ADNR 2013-09-10ADNRdGriffin.pdf 9/10/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Pam Russell (ADNR) regarding work group designations and issues related to the fuel containment structure currently located near the weir as discussed at the September 5 project site visit. ADNR 2013-09-10ADNRpRussell.pdf 9/10/2013 Patti Berkhahn (ADFG) emailed Cory Warnock (McMillen) regarding work group designations. ADFG 2013-09-10ADFGpBerkhahn.pdf 9/11/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Paul Torgerson (Grant Lake Mining) about timing of distribution of study reports. Grant Lake Mining 2013-09-11GrLkMiningPtorgerson.pdf 9/13/2013 Jan Konigsberg (HRC) emailed Cory Warnock (McMillen) regarding work group designations. HRC 2013-09-13HRCjKonigsberg.pdf 9/13/2013 Katy Beck (Beck Botanicals) exchanged emails with Betty Charnon (USFS) regarding guidance related to preparing a botany resource report. USFS 2013-09-13USFSbCharnon.pdf Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Consultation Record Summary Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC Project No. 13212 24 March 2015 Date Summary of Contact Agency/Organization Consulted Documentation filename (pdf) 9/14/2013 Mike Cooney emailed Cory Warnock (McMillen) regarding work group designations. Citizen 2013-09-14mCooney.pdf 9/14/2013 Robert Baldwin (Kenai River Watershed Foundation) emailed Cory Warnock (McMillen) regarding work group designations. Kenai River Watershed Foundation 2013-09-14KenaiWatershedRbaldwin.pdf 9/16/2013 Katy Beck (Beck Botanicals) exchanged emails with Rob Develice and Betty Charnon (USFS) regarding information and guidelines related to invasive plant species in Alaska. USFS 2013-09-16USFSrDevelice.pdf 9/17/2013 Mike Salzetti (HEA) emailed Doug Ott (AEA) regarding communications with Grant Lake Mining. AEA 2013-09-17AEAdOtt.pdf 9/17/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed licensing participants that the fuel containment issue raised at the September 5 project site visit has been resolved. All Licensing Contacts 2013-09-17FuelContainment.pdf 9/17/2013 Paul Torgerson (Grant Lake Mining) emailed Cory Warnock (McMillen) regarding work group designations. Grant Lake Mining 2013-09-17GrLkMiningPtorgerson.pdf 9/18/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Monte Miller (ADFG) regarding communications with Paul Torgerson (Grant Lake Mining). ADFG 2013-09-18ADFGmMiller.pdf 9/19/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed Paul Torgerson (Grant Lake Mining) regarding his request to participate in work group meetings and a general status update of the Grant Lake Project licensing process. Grant Lake Mining 2013-09-19GrLkMiningPtorgerson.pdf 9/23/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed licensing participants who did not respond with the first inquiry regarding the work group he/she would like to participate in. All Licensing Contacts 2013-09-23WGrequests.pdf 9/23/2013 Kathleen Mushovic (BLM) emailed Cory Warnock (McMillen) regarding work group designations. BLM 2013-09-23BLMkMushovic.pdf 9/23/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Doug Ott (AEA) regarding work group designations. AEA 2013-09-23AEAdOtt.pdf 9/23/2013 Dwayne Adams (USKH) exchanged emails with John Eavis (USFS) regarding scheduling of a INHT meeting. USFS 2013-09-23USFSjEavis.pdf 9/25/2013 Katie McCafferty (USACE) emailed Cory Warnock (McMillen) regarding work group designations. USACE 2013-09-25USACEkMcCafferty.pdf 9/25/2013 Joe Klein (ADFG) emailed Cory Warnock (McMillen) regarding work group designations. ADFG 2013-09-25ADFGjKlein.pdf 9/27/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed Pam Russell (ADNR) and Patti Berkhahn (ADFG) with a photo of the fuel containment structure. ADFG; ADNR 2013-09-27ADNRpRussellADFGpBerkhahn.pdf Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Consultation Record Summary Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC Project No. 13212 25 March 2015 Date Summary of Contact Agency/Organization Consulted Documentation filename (pdf) 9/30/2013 Scott Ayers (ADFG) emailed Cory Warnock Amendment 5 to the Fish Resource Permit. ADFG 2013-09-30ADFGsAyers.pdf 10/7/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed Patti Berkhahn and Ginny Litchfield (ADFG) regarding possible need for permit amendment in order to utilize box trap. ADFG 2013-10-07ADFGpBerkhahn.pdf 10/7/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) and Patti Berkhahn (ADFG) exchanged emails regarding written authorization to permit use of box trap. ADFG 2013-10-07ADFGpBerkhahn2.pdf 10/21/2013 Dwayne Adams (USKH) emailed John Eavis (USFS) regarding scheduling of a INHT meeting. USFS 2013-10-21USFSjEavis.pdf 10/23/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Eric Rothwell (NOAA Fisheries) regarding general Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project information and potential agency meeting dates for discussing study reports. NOAA 2013-10-23NOAAeRothwell.pdf 10/23/2013 Dwayne Adams (USKH) exchanged emails with John Eavis (USFS) regarding scheduling of a INHT meeting. USFS 2013-10-23USFSjEavis.pdf 10/24/2013 Dwayne Adams (USKH) and Pam Russell (ADNR) discussed via phone a November INHT meeting. (Dwayne left voicemails for Russell to discuss same on 8/12 and 8/27.) ADNR 2013-10-24ADNRpRussell.pdf 10/28/2013 Dwayne Adams (USKH) emailed interested licensing participants notice of a November 13, 2013 INHT meeting. ADFG; ADNR; USFS; Kenai Peninsula Borough 2013-10-28INHTmtgNotice.pdf 11/1/2013 Amal Ajmi (ERM) exchanged emails with Katherine VanMassenhove (USFS) regarding winter moose surveys and relevant permits. USFS 2013-11-01USFSkVanMassenhove.pdf 11/6/2013 Dwayne Adams (USKH) emailed interested licensing participants materials for the November 13, 2013 INHT meeting. NOTE: Map is designated privileged. ADFG; ADNR; USFS; Kenai Peninsula Borough 2013-11-06INHTmtgMaterials.pdf 11/7/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Katherine VanMassenhove (USFS) regarding winter moose surveys and reissuance of the existing special use permit. USFS 2013-11-07USFSkVanMassenhove.pdf 11/11/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed Andy Barclay (ADFG) inquiring about assisting with genetic sampling of anadromous species. ADFG 2013-11-11ADFGaBarclay.pdf 11/12/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed Ken Gates (USFWS) preliminary weir data collected during the 2013 field season. USFWS 2013-11-12USFWSkGates.pdf 11/13/2013 Dwayne Adams (USKH) exchanged emails with Lesli Schick (ADNR) regarding next steps for laying out the INHT route. ADNR 2013-11-13ADNRlSchick.pdf Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Consultation Record Summary Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC Project No. 13212 26 March 2015 Date Summary of Contact Agency/Organization Consulted Documentation filename (pdf) 11/13/2013 HEA held a meeting to discuss the re-route of the INHT. NOTE: Presentation is designated privileged. All Licensing Contacts 2013-11-13INHTmtg.pdf 11/15/2013 John Blum (McMillen) emailed Eric Rothwell (NOAA Fisheries), Jeff Anderson (USFWS) and Monte Miller (ADFG) regarding the status of the Grant Creek instream flow (IFIM) study and the Washington Department of Fish and Widlife's IFIM study guidelines. ADFG; USFWS; NOAA 2013-11-15HSI curves.pdf 11/18/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed Shina Duvall and Lesli Schick (ADNR) follow up to the November 13, 2013 meeting regarding the proposed INHT route. ADNR 2013-11-18ADNRlSchickSduvall.pdf 11/19/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Eric Rothwell (NOAA Fisheries) and Monte Miller (ADFG) regarding habitat suitability (HSI) curves. ADFG; NOAA 2013-11-19HSIcurves.pdf 11/19/2013 Monte Miller (ADFG) emailed Eric Rothwell (NOAA Fisheries), Jeff Anderson (USFWS), Joe Klein (ADFG), and Cory Warnock and John Blum (McMillen) the Cooper Lake Project instream flow study report (attachment not included). ADFG; USFWS; NOAA 2013-11-19ADFGmMiller.pdf 11/20/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Eric Rothwell (NOAA Fisheries) regarding scheduling a call to discuss HSI curves. NOAA 2013-11-20NOAAeRothwell.pdf 11/20/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Shina Duvall and Lesli Schick (ADNR) regarding scheduling a call to discuss cultural resources and the proposed INHT route. ADNR 2013-11-20ADNRsDuvallLschick.pdf 11/22/2013 HEA held a conference call to discuss the INHT reroute and the associated cultural/historical impacts. ADNR 2013-11-22INHTsection106Call.pdf 11/25/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Jeff Anderson (USFWS) regarding a proposed date for a call to discuss HSI curves. USFWS 2013-11-25HSIcurves.pdf 11/25/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Monte Miller (ADFG) regarding a proposed date for a call to discuss HSI curves. ADFG 2013-11-25HSCIcurves2.pdf 11/27/2013 HEA held a conference call to discuss HSI curves. ADFG; USFWS; NOAA 2013-11-27HSIcurveCall.pdf 12/2/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) and Mark Luttrell (Artifact Illustration) exchanged emails regarding the overall status of the Grant Lake licensing process and the activities related to cultural resources. Artifact Illustration 2013-12-02ArtifactIllustrationMluttrell.pdf 12/2/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Harold Shepherd (Center for Water Advocacy) regarding work group designations. Center for Water Advocacy 2013-12-02CWAhShepherd.pdf 12/2/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Mark Willette (ADFG) regarding the Chinook scale sample aging effort. ADFG 2013-12-02ADFGmWillette.pdf Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Consultation Record Summary Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC Project No. 13212 27 March 2015 Date Summary of Contact Agency/Organization Consulted Documentation filename (pdf) 12/5/2013 John Blum (McMillen) emailed Eric Rothwell (NOAA Fisheries), Jeff Anderson (USFWS) and Monte Miller (ADFG) follow up to the November 27 conference call regarding HSI curves. ADFG; USFWS; NOAA 2013-12-05HSIcurves.pdf 12/9/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Monte Miller (ADFG) regarding proposed HSI curves. ADFG 2013-12-09ADFGmMiller.pdf 12/9/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Adam Reimer (ADFG) regarding preliminary counts of Chinook salmon that passed the weir in Grant Creek in 2013. ADFG 2013-12-09ADFGaReimer.pdf 12/9/2013 Scott Ayers (ADFG) emailed John Stevenson (BioAnalysts) the data submission form related to ADFG's Fish Resources permit. ADFG 2013-12-09ADFGsAyers.pdf 12/10/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed interested stakeholders draft notes for the November 13, 2013 INHT meeting. ADFG; ADNR; USFS; Kenai Peninsula Borough 2013-12-10INHTmtgDraftNotes.pdf 12/11/2013 Shina Duvall (ADNR) emailed Cory Warnock (McMillen) that she had no comments on the November 13, 2013 INHT meeting draft notes. ADNR 2013-12-11ADNRsDuvall.pdf 12/12/2013 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Katherine VanMassenhove (USFS) regarding the status of renewal of the special use permit. USFS 2013-12-12USFSkVanMassenhove.pdf 12/12/2013 Monte Miller (ADFG) emailed John Blum (McMillen) a report regarding HSI curves for Fall Creek Project. ADFG 2013-12-12ADFGmMiller.pdf 12/13/2013 Robert Stovall (USFS) emailed Cory Warnock (McMillen) that he had no comments on the November 13, 2013 INHT meeting draft notes. USFS 2013-12-13USFSrStovall.pdf 12/16/2013 Monte Miller (ADFG) emailed John Blum (McMillen) a study plan regarding an instream flow study for Falls Creek Project. ADFG 2013-12-16ADFGmMiller.pdf 12/18/2013 Lesli Schick (ADNR) emailed Cory Warnock (McMillen) comments on the draft notes for the November 13, 2013 INHT meeting. ADNR 2013-12-18ADNRlSchick.pdf 12/18/2013 John Blum (McMillen) emailed Eric Rothwell (NOAA Fisheries), Jeff Anderson (USFWS) and Monte Miller, Joe Klein and Jason Mouw (ADFG) proposed HSI curves. ADFG; USFWS; NOAA 2013-12-18HSIcurvesRev.pdf 12/19/2013 Monte Miller (ADFG) emailed Cory Warnock (McMillen) regarding the status of ADFG's review of proposed HSI curves. ADFG 2013-12-19ADFGmMiller.pdf 12/31/2013 John Stevenson (BioAnalysts) emailed Scott Ayers (ADFG) the 2013 fish collection data form as required by the Grant Lake fish resource permit. ADFG 2013-12-31ADFGsAyers.pdf 1/2/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Harold Shepherd (Center for Water Advocacy) regarding the Grant Lake licensing process timeline. Center for Water Advocacy 2014-01-02CWAhShepherd.pdf Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Consultation Record Summary Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC Project No. 13212 28 March 2015 Date Summary of Contact Agency/Organization Consulted Documentation filename (pdf) 1/3/2014 John Stevenson (BioAnalysts) exchanged emails with Scott Ayers (ADFG) regarding the 2013 fish collection data form provided by HEA as required by the Grant Lake fish resource permit. ADFG 2014-01-03ADFGsAyers.pdf 1/6/2014 John Stevenson (BioAnalysts) exchanged emails with Adam Reimer (ADFG) regarding 2013 Grant Creek Chinook passage estimates. ADFG 2014-01-06ADFGaReimer.pdf 1/8/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Paul Torgerson (Grant Lake Mining) regarding water tests on Grant Lake. Grant Lake Mining 2014-01-08WGrLkMiningPtorgerson.pdf 1/9/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed Ken Hogan (FERC) the email from Grant Lake Mining regarding water testing. FERC 2014-01-09FERCkHogan2.pdf 1/9/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) and Ken Hogan (FERC) discussed via phone 1) Grant Lake licensing process status; 2) collaborative approach to the INHT re-route; and 3) inquiries of Grant Lake Mining. FERC 2014-01-09FERCkHogan.pdf 1/10/2014 Mike Salzetti (HEA) filed with FERC the November 13, 2013 INHT meeting summary. NOTE: Presentation is designated privileged. FERC 2014-01-10INHTmtgNotes.pdf 1/13/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Robert Stovall (USFS) regarding the status of submittal of draft study reports and upcoming work group meetings. USFS 2014-01-13USFSrStovall.pdf 1/21/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed licensing participants with proposed dates for study report meetings. All Licensing Contacts 2014-01-21StudyReportMtgDates.pdf 1/27/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Eric Rothwell (NOAA Fisheries) regarding potential March study report meeting dates. NOAA 2014-01-27NOAAeRothwell.pdf 1/27/2014 Mark Luttrell (Artifact Illustration) emailed Cory Warnock (McMillen) requesting the privileged INHT meeting presentation from the November 13, 2013 INHT meeting notes. Artifact Illustration 2014-01-27ArtifactIllustrationMluttrell.pdf 1/27/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed licensing participants with final dates for study report meetings (March 18-21). All Licensing Contacts 2014-01-27StudyReportMtgFinalDates.pdf 1/31/2014 Monte Miller (ADFG) emailed Cory Warnock (McMillen) contact information for Barbara Stanley's (USFS) replacements. ADFG 2014-01-31ADFGmMiller.pdf 2/3/2014 Katherine VanMassenhove (USFS) emailed Cory Warnock (McMillen) about being Barbara Stanley's (USFS) replacement. USFS 2014-02-03USFSkVanMassenhove.pdf Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Consultation Record Summary Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC Project No. 13212 29 March 2015 Date Summary of Contact Agency/Organization Consulted Documentation filename (pdf) 2/11/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed the NRWG regarding availability of the water quality/hydrology and recreation/visual resources draft study reports on the McMillen ftp site. NRWG (NOAA Fisheries, NPS, USACE, ADFG, ADNR, AEA, Center for Water Advocacy, Friends of Cooper Landing, Kenaitze Indian Tribe) 2014-02-11StudyReports.pdf 2/18/2014 Mike Yarborough (CRC) emailed the CRWG that the study report meeting would be held on March 21, 2014 and regarding the availability of the cultural resources study draft report. CRWG (USFS, ADNR, SHPO, Cook Inlet Region, Artifact Illustration, AK Fed of Natives, Native Village of Eklutna, Kenai Native Association, Ninilchik Village Tribe, Chenega Corp, Quetekack Native Tribe, Kenaitze Indian Tribe) 2014-02-18CRWGmtgDate.pdf 2/20/2014 Frank Winchell (FERC) emailed Mike Yarborough (CRC) regarding participation in the March 21 CRWG meeting. FERC 2014-02-20CRWGmtgDate.log 2/20/2014 Dara Glass (CIRI) and Mark Luttrell (Artifact Illustration) emailed Mike Yarborough (CRC) regarding attendance at the March 21 CRWG meeting and request for a CD of the cultural resources study draft report. Cook Inlet Region; Artifact Illustration 2014-02-20CIRIandArtifactIllustration.pdf 2/26/2014 Mike Salzetti (HEA) filed with FERC the fourth preliminary permit progress report. FERC 2014-02-26ProgressReport4th.pdf 2/26/2014 Helen Sagner (USFS) emailed Mike Salzetti (HEA) the 2014 Special Use Permit for review and signature. USFS 2014-02-26USFShSagner.pdf 2/26/2014 Mike Salzetti (HEA) exchanged voicemails with Monte Miller (ADFG) regarding the recently filed 4th progress report. ADFG 2014-02-26ADFGmMiller.pdf 2/27/2014 Eric Rothwell (NOAA Fisheries) exchanged emails with Cassie Thomas (NPS) regarding the potential conflict between meetings scheduled for HEA's Grant Lake Project and AEA's Susitna-Watana Project. NOAA; NPS 2014-02-27StReportMtgDates.pdf 2/27/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed the NRWG regarding availability of the geomorphology and terrestrial resources draft study reports on the McMillen ftp site. NRWG (NOAA Fisheries, NPS, USACE, ADFG, ADNR, AEA, Center for Water Advocacy, Friends of Cooper Landing, Kenaitze Indian Tribe) 2014-02-27StudyReports.pdf 2/27/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed the ARWG regarding availability of the macroinvertebrate/periphyton study report on the McMillen ftp site. ARWG (NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, USACE, ADFG, ADNR, AEA, Friends of Cooper Landing) 2014-02-27StudyReports2.pdf Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Consultation Record Summary Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC Project No. 13212 30 March 2015 Date Summary of Contact Agency/Organization Consulted Documentation filename (pdf) 2/28/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) and Robert Stovall (USFS) exchanged emails regarding USFS' participation in the March 18-21 study report meetings and their review of draft study reports. USFS 2014-02-28USFSrStovall.pdf 2/28/2014 Mike Yarborough (CRC) and Dara Glass (CIRI) exchanged emails regarding CIRI availability to attend the March 21 CRWG meeting. Cook Inlet Region 2014-02-28CIRIdGlass.pdf 3/4/2014 Emily Andersen (McMillen) exchanged emails with Robert Stovall (USFS) regarding the specifics of the March 18-21 study report meetings. USFS 2014-03-04USFSrStovall.pdf 3/4/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Jason Mouw (ADFG) regarding difficulties with ADFG being able to access McMillen's ftp site. ADFG 2014-03-04ADFGjMouw.pdf 3/4/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Jason Mouw (ADFG) regarding trying to post study reports to the ADFG ftp site. ADFG 2014-03-04ADFGjMouw2.pdf 3/4/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed the NRWG with the March 18, 2014 meeting agenda. NRWG (NOAA Fisheries, NPS, USACE, ADFG, ADNR, AEA, Center for Water Advocacy, Friends of Cooper Landing, Kenaitze Indian Tribe) 2014-03-04StudyReportMtgAgenda.pdf 3/4/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed the ARWG with the March 19 and 20, 2014 meeting agendas. ARWG (NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, USACE, ADFG, ADNR, AEA, Friends of Cooper Landing) 2014-03-04StudyReportMtgAgenda2.pdf 3/4/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed Jason Mouw the geomorphology, macroinvertebrate, recreation/visual resources, and water quality/hydrology draft study reports. ADFG 2014-03-04ADFGjMouw3.pdf 3/5/2014 Robert Stovall (USFS) emailed his staff and copied Cory Warnock (McMillen) with the March 18 meeting agenda. USFS 2014-03-05USFSrStovall.pdf 3/5/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed the ARWG regarding availability of the fisheries assessment study report on the McMillen ftp site. ARWG (NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, USACE, ADFG, ADNR, AEA, Friends of Cooper Landing) 2014-03-05StudyReport.pdf 3/5/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed the ARWG regarding availability of the instream flow study report on the McMillen ftp site. ARWG (NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, USACE, ADFG, ADNR, AEA, Friends of Cooper Landing) 2014-03-05StudyReport2.pdf 3/5/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed Ken Hogan (FERC) the agendas for the March 18-20 study report meetings and suggested a follow up call to de-brief on the meetings. FERC 2014-03-05FERCkHogan.pdf 3/7/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Ken Hogan (FERC) regarding scheduling a follow up call to de-brief on the March 18-21 study report meetings. FERC 2014-03-07FERCkHogan.pdf Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Consultation Record Summary Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC Project No. 13212 31 March 2015 Date Summary of Contact Agency/Organization Consulted Documentation filename (pdf) 3/7/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Jason Mouw (ADFG) regarding getting ADFG the fisheries assessment and instream flow draft study reports. ADFG 2014-03-07ADFGjMouw.pdf 3/10/2014 Amal Ajmi (ERM) exchanged emails with Mary Ann Benoit USFS) regarding plans for the spring moose survey. USFS 2014-03-10USFSmBenoit.pdf 3/10/2014 Mike Salzetti (HEA) exchanged emails with Helen Sagner (USFS) regarding the execution of the special use permit renewal. USFS 2014-03-10USFShSagner.pdf 3/12/2014 Mike Yarborough (CRC) exchanged emails with Mark Luttrell (Artifact Illustration) regarding the March 21 CRWG meeting. Artifact Illustration 2014-03-12ArtifactIllustrationMluttrell.pdf 3/13/2014 Mike Yarborough (CRC) emailed the CRWG the agenda for the March 21 CRWG meeting. ADNR; FERC; USFS; Cook Inlet Region; SHPO; Artifact Illustration 2014-03-13CRWGmtgAgenda.pdf 3/18/2014 HEA held a meetings on March 18, 19 and 20, 2014 to discuss the Grant Lake Project Natural Resources, Draft Study Reports. [See 8/15/14 FERC filing entry for meeting materials.] All Licensing Contacts 2014-03-18thru20-14SHmtgFinalNotes.pdf 3/19/2014 Audrey Alstrom (AEA) emailed Cory Warnock (McMillen) regarding not being able to attend the March 18-20 study report meetings. AEA 2014-03-19AEAaAlstrom.pdf 3/24/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed the IFSG a Go-To meeting invite for the March 27, 2014 IFSG conference call. IFSG (NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, ADFG, Cook Inlet Region) 2014-03-24IFSGcallInvite.pdf 3/24/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Monte Miller (ADFG) regarding the start time of the March 27, 2014 IFSG conference call. ADFG 2014-03-24ADFGmMiller.pdf 3/24/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed the ARWG and NRWG regarding the availability of the March 18-20 meeting presentations on the Project website, comment deadline for draft study reports, and planning for the next work group meetings. ARWG and NRWG 2014-03-24StudyReportMtgFollowup.pdf 3/24/2014 Mike Salzetti (HEA) emailed Helen Sagner (USFS) regarding the status of the signing of the renewed special use permit. USFS 2014-03-24USFShSagner.pdf 3/25/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Hal Shepherd (Center for Water Advocacy) regarding access to draft study reports. Center for Water Advocacy 2014-03-25CWAhShepherd.pdf 3/25/2014 Helen Sagner (USFS) emailed Mike Salzetti (HEA) the fully executed special use permit renewal. USFS 2014-03-25USFShSagner.pdf 3/25/2014 Mark Miller (BioAnalysts) emailed Mark Willette (ADFG) requesting confirmation regarding the 0.x data of the scale age analysis. ADFG 2014-03-25ADFGmWillette.pdf 3/25/2014 Mark Miller (BioAnalysts) and Jeff Anderson (USFWS) had a follow up discussion via phone to the March 19, 2014 ARWG meeting. USFWS 2014-03-25USFWSjAnderson.pdf Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Consultation Record Summary Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC Project No. 13212 32 March 2015 Date Summary of Contact Agency/Organization Consulted Documentation filename (pdf) 3/25/2014 Mark Miller (BioAnalysts) exchanged emails with Jeff Anderson (USFWS) regarding additional relevant information pertaining to rainbow trout and Dolly Varden. USFWS 2014-03-25USFWSjAnderson2.pdf 3/25/2014 Mike Yarborough (CRC) emailed Frank Winchell (FERC) the March 21, 2014 CRWG meeting presentation. NOTE: Presentation is designated privileged. FERC 2014-03-25FERCfWinchell.pdf 3/26/2014 John Blum (McMillen) exchanged emails with Jason Mouw (ADFG) with the range of flows upon which measurements were taken for the HSI work in Grant Creek. ADFG 2014-03-26ADFGjMouw.pdf 3/26/2014 John Blum (McMillen) emailed the IFSG an agenda for the March 27, 2014 IFSG conference call. IFSG (NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, ADFG, Cook Inlet Region) 2014-03-26IFSGcallAgenda.pdf 3/27/2014 Levia Shoutis (ERM) emailed Katie McCafferty (USACE) with a proposed approach to the Grant Lake waters functional assessment, including a guidelines document. USACE 2014-03-27USACEkMcCafferty.pdf 3/27/2014 Katie McCafferty (USACE) emailed Cory Warnock (McMillen) comments on the terrestrial resources study draft report. USACE 2014-03-27USACEkMcCafferty2.pdf 3/27/2014 HEA held an IFSG conference call. IFSG (NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, ADFG, Cook Inlet Region) 2014-03-27IFSGcall.pdf 3/28/2014 John Blum (McMillen) emailed the IFSG draft notes from the March 27, 2014 IFSG conference call for review. IFSG (NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, ADFG, Cook Inlet Region) 2014-03-28IFSGcallDraftNotes.pdf 3/28/2014 John Blum (McMillen) emailed the IFSG an updated periodicity chart for review and comment. IFSG (NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, ADFG, Cook Inlet Region) 2014-03-28Periodicity.pdf 3/31/2014 Levia Shoutis (ERM) and Katie McCafferty (USACE) discussed via phone ERM's proposed approach to the waters functional assessment. USACE 2014-03-31USACEkMcCafferty.pdf 4/2/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) exchanged emails with Ken Hogan (FERC) regarding follow up to their call about the March 18-21 study report meetings and the licensing process moving forward. FERC 2014-04-02FERCkHogan.pdf 4/3/2014 Jason Mouw (ADFG) emailed John Blum (McMillen) regarding the updated periodicity chart. ADFG 2014-04-03ADFGjMouw.pdf 4/3/2014 Jason Mouw (ADFG) emailed the IFSG a paper regarding fish incubation and groundwater. ADFG 2014-04-03ADFGjMouw2.pdf 4/3/2014 John Blum (McMillen) emailed the IFSG the final notes from the March 27, 2014 conference call and proposed dates for the next IFSG call. IFSG (NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, ADFG, Cook Inlet Region) 2014-04-03IFSGcallFinalNotes.pdf 4/4/2014 Jeff Anderson (USFWS) emailed John Blum (McMillen) regarding being unavailable for any of the proposed dates for the next IFSG conference call.USFWS 2014-04-04USFWSjAnderson.pdf Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Consultation Record Summary Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC Project No. 13212 33 March 2015 Date Summary of Contact Agency/Organization Consulted Documentation filename (pdf) 4/9/2014 John Blum (McMillen) emailed the IFSG notice of the April 18, 2014 IFSG conference call. IFSG (NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, ADFG, Cook Inlet Region) 2014-04-09IFSGcallNotice.pdf 4/9/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed the IFSG a Go-To meeting invite for the April 18, 2014 IFSG conference call. IFSG (NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, ADFG, Cook Inlet Region) 2014-04-09IFSGcallInvite.pdf 4/9/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed Sue Walker (NOAA Fisheries) regarding her replacing Eric Rothwell (NOAA Fisheries) on the Grant Lake Project. NOAA 2014-04-09NOAAsWalker.pdf 4/10/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed Robert Stovall and John Eavis (USFS), Cassie Thomas (NPS), Lesli Schick (ADNR), and Dara Glass (CIRI) regarding the additional recreational study work planned for spring/summer 2014. ADNR; USFS; NPS; Cook Inlet Region 2014-04-10TrailCams.pdf 4/15/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) and Dwayne Adams (USKH) exchanged emails with Cassie Thomas (NPS), John Eavis (USFS), and Pam Russell (ADNR) regarding feedback on the proposed trail camera work. ADNR; USFS; NPS 2014-04-15TrailCamInput.pdf 4/15/2014 Dwayne Adams (USKH) and Pam Russell (ADNR) discussed via phone the permitting needs related to the proposed 2014 trail camera work. ADNR 2014-04-15ADNRpRussell.pdf 4/16/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed Robert Stovall and John Eavis (USFS), Cassie Thomas (NPS), Pam Russell and Lesli Schick (ADNR), and Dara Glass (CIRI) with a response to agency feedback on the proposed trail camera work. ADNR; USFS; NPS; Cook Inlet Region 2014-04-16TrailCamResponse.pdf 4/16/2014 Mike Salzetti (HEA) emailed Paul Torgerson (Grant Lake Mining) a response letter to inquiries made by Mr. Torgerson about the Grant Lake Project. Grant Lake Mining 2014-04-16GrantLkMiningPtorgerson.pdf 4/16/2014 Mike Salzetti (HEA) filed with FERC a response letter to Paul Torgerson (Grant Lake Mining). FERC 2014-04-16GrantLkMiningPtorgerson2.pdf 4/16/2014 Frank Winchell (FERC) emailed Mike Yarborough (CRC) to let him know comments on the Cultural Resources, draft report are in the mail on a CD. FERC 2014-04-16FERCfWinchell.pdf 4/17/2014 John Blum (McMillen) emailed the IFSG the agenda and materials for the April 18, 2014 IFSG conference call. IFSG (NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, ADFG, Cook Inlet Region) 2014-04-17IFSGcallAgendaMaterials.pdf 4/17/2014 Dwayne Adams (USKH) emailed Pam Russell (ADNR) a completed permit application for the proposed trail camera work. ADNR 2014-04-17ADNRpRussell.pdf 4/18/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed Dara Glass (CIRI) the link to the Grant Lake Project website. Cook Inlet Region 2014-04-18CIRIdGlass.pdf 4/18/2014 HEA held an IFSG conference call. IFSG (NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, ADFG, Cook Inlet Region) 2014-04-18IFSGcall.pdf Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Consultation Record Summary Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC Project No. 13212 34 March 2015 Date Summary of Contact Agency/Organization Consulted Documentation filename (pdf) 4/24/2014 Dwayne Adams (USKH) emailed interested licensing participants regarding a proposed INHT site visit proposed for May 21, 2014. ADNR; USFS; SHPO 2014-04-24INHTsiteVisitDate.pdf 4/24/2014 Dwayne Adams (USKH) emailed Marcus Mueller (Kenai Peninsula Borough) regarding participation in the May 21, 2014 INHT site visit. Kenai Peninsula Borough 2014-04-24KenaiBoroughMmueller.pdf 4/25/2014 John Blum (McMillen) emailed the IFSG draft notes from the April 18, 2014 IFSG conference call for review, spawning and rearing utilization, and proposed dates for the next IFSG call. IFSG (NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, ADFG, Cook Inlet Region) 2014-04-25IFSGcallDraftNotes.pdf 4/25/2014 Jeff Anderson (USFWS) emailed John Blum (McMillen) that he is unavailable for a IFSG meeting the week of May 19, 2014. USFWS 2014-04-25USFWSjAnderson.pdf 4/29/2014 Dwayne Adams (USKH) emailed interested licensing participants regarding alternate dates for a INHT site visit. ADNR; USFS; Kenai Peninsula Borough; SHPO 2014-04-29INHTsiteVisitDate.pdf 4/29/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed the ARWG and NRWG draft notes for the March 18-20 study report meetings. ARWG and NRWG 2014-04-29StudyReportMtgDraftNotes.pdf 4/29/2014 Mike Yarborough (CRC) emailed the CRWG draft notes for the March 21, 2014 CRWG meeting and proposed dates for the next CRWG meeting. NOTE: The meeting notes are designated privileged. ADNR; FERC; USFS; Cook Inlet Region; SHPO; Artifact Illustration 2014-04-29CRWGmtgDraftNotes.pdf 4/30/2014 Jeff Anderson (USFWS) emailed Cory Warnock (McMillen) comments on the March 19, 2014 ARWG meeting draft notes. USFWS 2014-04-30USFWSjAnderson.pdf 4/30/2014 Monte Miller (ADFG) emailed Cory Warnock (McMillen) comments of the draft natural resources study reports. ADFG 2014-04-30ADFGmMiller.pdf 4/30/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) and Kathie McCafferty (USACE) exchanged emails regarding dates for a future Project Operations Workshop. USACE 2014-04-30USACEkMcCafferty.pdf 5/1/2014 Frank Winchell (FERC) emailed Mike Yarborough (CRC) regarding his availability to attend the proposed July 2014 CRWG meeting. FERC 2014-05-01FERCfWinchell.pdf 5/1/2014 John Blum (McMillen) emailed the IFSG following up regarding proposed May 22, 2014 date for next IFSG conference call. IFSG (NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, ADFG, Cook Inlet Region) 2014-05-01IFSGcallDate.pdf 5/1/2014 Shina Duvall (SHPO) emailed Cory Warnock (McMillen) comments on the cultural resources study draft report. SHPO 2014-05-01SHPOsDuvall.pdf 5/1/2014 Robert Stovall (USFS) emailed Cory Warnock (McMillen) a status update on USFS' draft study report comments. USFS 2014-05-01USFSrStovall.pdf 5/2/2014 Jason Mouw (ADFG) emailed John Blum (McMillen) confirmation of his and Monte Miller's availability for a May 22, 2014 IFSG call. ADFG 2014-05-02ADFGjMouw.pdf 5/3/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed the IFSG an Go-To Meeting invite for the May 22, 2014 IFSG conference call. IFSG (NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, ADFG, Cook Inlet Region) 2014-05-03IFSGcallInvite.pdf Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Consultation Record Summary Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC Project No. 13212 35 March 2015 Date Summary of Contact Agency/Organization Consulted Documentation filename (pdf) 5/5/2014 Jeff Anderson (USFWS) emailed John Blum (McMillen) that he is unavailable for the May 22, 2014 IFSG meeting. USFWS 2014-05-05USFWSjAnderson.pdf 5/7/2014 Dwayne Adams (USKH) emailed interested licensing participants regarding alternate dates for a INHT site visit. ADNR; USFS; Kenai Peninsula Borough; SHPO 2014-05-07INHTsiteVisitDates.pdf 5/12/2014 John Blum (McMillen) emailed the IFSG the final meeting notes to the April 18, 2014 IFSG conference call. IFSG (NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, ADFG, Cook Inlet Region) 2014-05-12IFSGcallFinalNotes.pdf 5/13/2014 John Stevenson (BioAnalysts) and Scott Ayers (ADFG) discussed via phone the deadline for the fish resources permit reporting requirement. ADFG 2014-05-13ADFGsAyers.pdf 5/14/2014 Paul Torgerson (Grant Lake Mining) emailed Mike Salzetti (HEA) inquiring as to when water test results from the 2013 study season would be available. Grant Lake Mining 2014-05-14GrantLkMiningPtorgerson.pdf 5/14/2014 Dwayne Adams (USKH) emailed interested licensing participants regarding alternate dates for a INHT site visit. ADNR; USFS; Kenai Peninsula Borough; SHPO 2014-05-14INHTsiteVisitDates.pdf 5/14/2014 Dwayne Adams (Earthscape) emailed interested licensing participants notification of the July 15, 2014 INHT site visit. ADNR; USFS; Kenai Peninsula Borough; SHPO 2014-05-14INHTsiteVisitNotice.pdf 5/15/2014 Dwayne Adams (Earthscape) and Katherine VanMassenhove (USFS) exchanged emails regarding Katherine's participation in the July 15, 2014 INHT site visit. USFS 2014-05-15USFSkVanMassenhove.pdf 5/19/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed the ARWG and NRWG notification of the July 7-8, 2014 Operations Workshop and Public Meeting. ARWG and NRWG 2014-05-19JulyWorkshopDates.pdf 5/19/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed Nicole Lantz (SHPO) a completed AHRS corporate user agreement application. SHPO 2014-05-19SHPOnLantz.pdf 5/19/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) left a voicemail for Robert Stovall (USFS) regarding the status of finalization of the study reports. USFS 2014-05-19USFSrStovall.pdf 5/20/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed Nicole Lantz (SHPO) a completed AHRS corporate user agreement application and waiver for himself and Emily Andersen (McMillen). SHPO 2014-05-20SHPOnLantz.pdf 5/21/2014 John Blum (McMillen) emailed the IFSG an agenda for the May 22, 2014 call. IFSG (NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, ADFG, Cook Inlet Region) 2014-05-21IFSGmtgAgenda.pdf 5/21/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) and Nicole Lantz (SHPO) exchanged emails regarding the approval of McMillen's AHRS data access. SHPO 2014-05-21SHPOnLantz.pdf 5/22/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) and Dara Glass (CIRI) exchanged emails about Dara's unavailability to attend the May 22, 2014 IFSG call. Cook Inlet Region 2014-05-22CIRIdGlass.pdf 5/22/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed the IFSG a Go To Meeting invite for the June 12, 2014 IFSG call. IFSG (NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, ADFG, Cook Inlet Region) 2014-05-22IFSGmtgInvite.pdf Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Consultation Record Summary Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC Project No. 13212 36 March 2015 Date Summary of Contact Agency/Organization Consulted Documentation filename (pdf) 5/22/2014 HEA held a IFSG conference call. IFSG (NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, ADFG, Cook Inlet Region) 2014-05-22IFSGcall.pdf 5/23/2014 John Blum (McMillen) emailed the IFSG updated information regarding spawning and rearing locations. IFSG (NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, ADFG, Cook Inlet Region) 2014-05-23SpawnRearLocations.pdf 5/27/2014 Dwayne Adams (Earthscape) emailed interested licensing participants notification of the July 15, 2014 INHT site visit. ADNR; USFS; Kenai Peninsula Borough; SHPO 2014-05-27INHTmtgDate.pdf 5/28/2014 John Blum (McMillen) emailed the IFSG draft notes for the May 22, 2014 call. IFSG (NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, ADFG, Cook Inlet Region) 2014-05-28IFSGDraftCallNotes.pdf 5/28/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed the ARWG and NRWG the location of the July 7-8 Operations Workshop and Public Meeting. ARWG and NRWG 2014-05-28OperationsWorkshopLocation.pdf 5/29/2014 Levia Shoutis (ERM) and Katie McCafferty (USACE) exchanged emails regarding direct and indirect impacts to wetlands. USACE 2014-05-29USACEkMcCafferty.pdf 6/2/2014 Jason Mouw (ADFG) emailed John Blum (McMillen) comments on the draft notes from the May 22, 2014 call. ADFG 2014-06-02ADFGjMouw.pdf 6/10/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed the ARWG and NRWG an engineering/operations technical memo ( 1) in preparation for the July 7 Operations Workshop. ARWG and NRWG 2014-06-10EngTechMemo.pdf 6/10/2014 John Blum (McMillen) and Monte Miller (ADFG) exchanged email regarding the requested input on the spawning transects and transect weighting information. ADFG 2014-06-10ADFGmMiller.pdf 6/10/2014 John Blum (McMillen) emailed the IFSG final notes for the May 22, 2014 call. IFSG (NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, ADFG, Cook Inlet Region) 2014-06-10IFSGFinalCallNotes.pdf 6/11/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) and Hal Shepherd (CWA) exchanged emailed regarding details related to the July 8, 2014 Public Meeting. Clean Water Advocacy 2014-06-11CWAhShepherd.pdf 6/13/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed the ARWG and NRWG an engineering/operations technical memo ( 2) in preparation for the July 7 Operations Workshop. ARWG and NRWG 2014-06-13EngTechMemo2.pdf 6/13/2014 John Blum (McMillen) and Monte Miller (ADFG) exchanged emails regarding the requested input on the spawning transects and transect weighting information. ADFG 2014-06-13ADFGmMiller.pdf 6/13/2014 John Blum (McMillen) emailed the IFSG revised final notes for the May 22, 2014 call. IFSG (NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, ADFG, Cook Inlet Region) 2014-06-13IFSGrevFinalCallNotes.pdf 6/16/2014 John Blum (McMillen) and IFSG members exchanged emailed regarding dates for a June call. IFSG (NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, ADFG, Cook Inlet Region) 2014-06-16IFSGcallAvailability.pdf 6/16/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed the IFSG a Go To Meeting invite for the June 23, 2014 IFSG call. IFSG (NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, ADFG, Cook Inlet Region) 2014-06-16IFSGcallInvite.pdf Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Consultation Record Summary Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC Project No. 13212 37 March 2015 Date Summary of Contact Agency/Organization Consulted Documentation filename (pdf) 6/16/2014 Robert Stovall (USFS) emailed Cory Warnock (McMillen) comments on the draft study reports. USFS 2014-06-16USFSrStovall.pdf 6/16/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed Robert Stovall (USFS) regarding the USFS draft study report comments. USFS 2014-06-16USFSrStovall2.pdf 6/17/2014 John Blum (McMillen) and Jason Mouw (ADFG) exchanged emails regarding the requested input on the spawning transects and transect weighting information. ADFG 2014-06-17ADFGjMouw.pdf 6/20/2014 John Blum (McMillen) emailed the IFSG about rescheduling the June 23, 2014 call. IFSG (NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, ADFG, Cook Inlet Region) 2014-06-20IFSGrescheduleCall.pdf 6/20/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) and Dara Glass (CIRI) exchanged emails about scheduling a meeting between HEA and CIRI. Cook Inlet Region 2014-06-20CIRIdGlass.pdf 6/23/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed the ARWG and NRWG regarding postponement of the July 8, 2014 Public Meeting to later in the year. ARWG and NRWG 2014-06-23PublicMtgDelay.pdf 6/23/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) and Brendan Culverwell (SNL Financial) exchanged emails regarding the status of the licensing process. SNL Financial 2014-06-23SNLfinancialBculverwell.pdf 6/27/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed the ARWG and NRWG an engineering/operations technical memo ( 3) in preparation for the July 7 Operations Workshop. ARWG and NRWG 2014-06-27EngTechMemo3.pdf 7/2/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed the ARWG and NRWG an agenda for the July 7, 2014 Operations Workshop. ARWG and NRWG 2014-07-02OpsWorkshopAgenda.pdf 7/3/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) and Jeff Anderson (USFWS) exchanged emails regarding meeting materials for the July 7, 2014 Operations Workshop. USFWS 2014-07-03USFWSjAnderson.pdf 7/7/2014 HEA held a workshop on July 7, 2014 to discuss proposed engineering and operations of the Grant Lake Project. [See 8/15/14 FERC filing entry for meeting materials.] All Licensing Contacts 2014-07-07OpsWorkshop.pdf 7/8/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) and Dara Glass (CIRI) exchanged emails about scheduling a meeting between HEA and CIRI for the end of August. Cook Inlet Region 2014-07-08CIRIdGlass.pdf 7/9/2014 Dwayne Adams (Earthscape) emailed interested licensing participants a reminder about the July 15, 2014 INHT site visit. ADNR; USFS; Kenai Peninsula Borough; SHPO 2014-07-09INHTsiteVisitReminder.pdf 7/9/2014 David Griffin (ADNR) emailed Dwayne Adams (Earthscape) that he will not be able to attend the July 15, 2014 INHT site visit. ADNR 2014-07-09ADNRdGriffin.pdf 7/11/2014 Dwayne Adams (Earthscape) emailed interested licensing participants requesting confirmation of planned attendance to the July 15, 2014 INHT site visit. ADNR; USFS; Kenai Peninsula Borough; SHPO 2014-07-11INHTsiteVisitAttendance.pdf Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Consultation Record Summary Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC Project No. 13212 38 March 2015 Date Summary of Contact Agency/Organization Consulted Documentation filename (pdf) 7/11/2014 Lesli Schick (ADNR) emailed Dwayne Adams (Earthscape) that she will be unable to attend the July 15, 2014 INHT site visit. ADNR 2014-07-11ADNRlSchick.pdf 7/15/2014 Claire Leclair (ADNR) emailed Dwayne Adams (Earthscape) that no one at ADNR will be able to attend the July 15, 2014 INHT site visit. ADNR 2014-07-15ADNRcLeclair.pdf 7/15/2014 HEA conducted a site visit on July 15, 2014 to discuss possible alternatives to a current alignment of the INHT. ADNR; USFS; Kenai Peninsula Borough; SHPO 2014-07-15INHTsiteVisit.pdf 7/17/2014 John Blum (McMillen) emailed Joe Klein, Monte Miller, and Jason Mouw (ADFG) a draft Habitat Quantification and Transect Weighting Methodology report. ADFG 2014-07-17ADFGhabQuantTransectWeight.pdf 7/17/2014 John Stevenson (BioAnalysts) emailed Joe Klein and Monte Miller (ADFG) maps discussed on the July 17, 2014 call regarding the draft Habitat Quantification and Transect Weighting Methodology report. ADFG 2014-07-17ADFGtransectMaps.pdf 7/17/2014 Monte Miller (ADFG) emailed John Blum (McMillen) comments on the draft Habitat Quantification and Transect Weighting Methodology report. ADFG 2014-07-17ADFGmMiller.pdf 7/17/2014 John Blum (McMillen), John Stevenson (BioAnalysts), and Joe Klein and Monte Miller (ADFG) discussed via phone the draft Habitat Quantification and Transect Weighting Methodology report. ADFG 2014-07-17ADFGjKleinMmiller.pdf 7/18/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) and Betsy McCracken (USFWS) exchanged emails regarding logistics for transmitting study reports to USFWS. USFWS 2014-07-18USFWSbMcCracken.pdf 7/25/2014 John Blum (McMillen) emailed Joe Klein, Monte Miller, and Jason Mouw (ADFG) a revised draft Habitat Quantification and Transect Weighting Methodology report. ADFG 2014-07-25ADFGhabQuantTransectWeight.pdf 7/29/2014 Dwayne Adams (Earthscape) emailed interested licensing participants draft notes from the July 15, 2014 INHT Site Visit. ADNR; USFS; Kenai Peninsula Borough; SHPO 2014-07-29INHTsiteVisitDraftNotes.pdf 7/29/2014 Dwayne Adams (Earthscape) left voicemails for John Eavis, Robert Stovall, and Alison Rein (USFS) requesting relevant Trail Management Objectives for the INHT. USFS 2014-07-29USFStmoRequest.pdf 7/30/2014 John Eavis (USFS) emailed Dwayne Adams (Earthscape) the draft Trail Management Objectives (TMO) for the relevant section of the INHT. USFS 2014-07-30USFSjEavis.pdf 8/1/2014 John Blum (McMillen) emailed Joe Klein, Monte Miller, and Jason Mouw (ADFG) a second revised draft Habitat Quantification and Transect Weighting Methodology report. ADFG 2014-08-01ADFGhabQuantTransectWeight.pdf 8/1/2014 Dwayne Adams (Earthscape) and Robert Stovall (USFS) discussed via phone the TMOs for the relevant portion of the INHT and USFS comments on the draft notes for the July 15, 2014 INHT site visit. USFS 2014-08-01USFSrStovall.pdf Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Consultation Record Summary Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC Project No. 13212 39 March 2015 Date Summary of Contact Agency/Organization Consulted Documentation filename (pdf) 8/1/2014 Dwayne Adams (Earthscape) and Shina Duvall (SHPO) exchanged emails regarding the draft notes for the July 15, 2014 INHT site visit. SHPO 2014-08-01SHPOsDuvall.pdf 8/1/2014 John Blum (McMillen) and Joe Klein (ADFG) exchanged emails regarding comments on the second revised draft Habitat Quantification and Transect Weighting Methodology report. ADFG 2014-08-01ADFGjKlein.pdf 8/4/2014 John Blum (McMillen) emailed Joe Klein, Monte Miller, and Jason Mouw (ADFG) a third revised draft Habitat Quantification and Transect Weighting Methodology report. ADFG 2014-08-04ADFGhabQuantTransectWeight.pdf 8/4/2014 John Blum (McMillen) and Joe Klein (ADFG) exchanged emails regarding ADFG approval of the third revised draft Habitat Quantification and Transect Weighting Methodology report. ADFG 2014-08-04ADFGjKlein.pdf 8/5/2014 John Blum (McMillen) emailed the IFSG the final Habitat Quantification and Transect Weighting Methodology report. IFSG (NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, ADFG, Cook Inlet Region) 2014-08-05IFSGhabQuantTransectWeight.pdf 8/15/2014 Mike Salzetti (HEA) filed with FERC the final notes and materials from the March 18-20, 2014 Stakeholder Meetings and July 7, 2014 Operations Workshop, responses to stakeholder draft study report comments, and final study reports. FERC 2014-08-13MarchJulyMtgNotesFinalReports.pdf 8/18/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) and Scott Ayers (ADFG) exchanged emails regarding the Fisheries Assessment, Final Report. [See 8/15/14 FERC filing entry for the attached report.] ADFG 2014-08-18ADFGsAyers.pdf 8/19/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed the ARWG and NRWG that the final notes from the March 18-20 and July 7 meetings, responses to stakeholder draft study report comments, and final study reports, are posted on the Kenai Hydro website. ARWG and NRWG 2014-08-19MarchJulyMtgNotesFinalReports.pdf 8/20/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) and Scott Ayers (ADFG) exchanged emails regarding the Fisheries Assessment, Final Report. ADFG 2014-08-20ADFGsAyers.pdf 8/20/2014 Mike Salzetti (HEA) emailed Jan Konigsberg (HRC) a status update on the progress made during the Grant Lake Project licensing process to date. Hydro Reform Coalition 2014-08-20HRCjKonigsberg.pdf 8/22/2014 Dwayne Adams (Earthscape) emailed Gary Williams (KPB) an Initial Letter of Intent regarding the possible easement relocation for the INHT corridor and revised notes from the July 15, 2014 INHT site visit. Kenai Peninsula Borough 2014-08-22KPBgWilliams.pdf 8/22/2014 Dwayne Adams (Earthscape) emailed Judy Bittner (SHPO) an Initial Letter of Intent regarding the possible easement relocation for the INHT corridor and revised notes from the July 15, 2014 INHT site visit. SHPO 2014-08-22SHPOjBittner.pdf Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Consultation Record Summary Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC Project No. 13212 40 March 2015 Date Summary of Contact Agency/Organization Consulted Documentation filename (pdf) 8/22/2014 Dwayne Adams (Earthscape) emailed Jack Blackwell (ADNR) an Initial Letter of Intent regarding the possible easement relocation for the INHT corridor and revised notes from the July 15, 2014 INHT site visit. ADNR 2014-08-22ADNRjBlackwell.pdf 8/22/2014 Dwayne Adams (Earthscape) emailed Clark Cox (ADNR) an Initial Letter of Intent regarding the possible easement relocation for the INHT corridor and revised notes from the July 15, 2014 INHT site visit. ADNR 2014-08-22ADNRcCox.pdf 8/22/2014 Dwayne Adams (Earthscape) emailed Terri Maceron (USFS) an Initial Letter of Intent regarding the possible easement relocation for the INHT corridor and revised notes from the July 15, 2014 INHT site visit. USFS 2014-08-22USFStMaceron.pdf 8/25/2014 Dwayne Adams (Earthscape) and Marcus Mueller (KPB) exchanged emails regarding the management authority related to the Kenai Area Plan. Kenai Peninsula Borough 2014-08-25KPBmMueller.pdf 8/25/2014 Dwayne Adams (Earthscape) and Shina Duvall (SHPO) discussed via phone the purposes of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) versus an Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). SHPO 2014-08-25SHPOsDuvall.pdf 8/27/2014 Dwayne Adams (Earthscape) and John Eavis (USFS) exchanged emails regarding the status of flagging the alternate INHT route. USFS 2014-08-27USFSjEavis.pdf 8/27/2014 Mike Salzetti (HEA) filed with FERC the fifth preliminary permit progress report. FERC 2014-08-27ProgressReport5th.pdf 8/27/2014 Dwayne Adams (Earthscape) and Shina Duvall (SHPO) exchanged emails regarding the difference between a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). SHPO 2014-08-27SHPOsDuvall.pdf 8/29/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) and Scott Ayers (ADFG) exchanged emails regarding ADFG's input on the Fisheries Assessment, Final Report with respect to the Fish Resources permit. ADFG 2014-08-29ADFGsAyers.pdf 8/29/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed the ARWG and NRWG the 5th preliminary permit progress report. ARWG and NRWG 2014-08-29ProgressReport5th.pdf 8/29/2014 David Griffin (ADNR) emailed Cory Warnock (McMillen) requesting that Ryan Thomas, a new ADNR staff person assigned to permitting, be added to the project distribution list. ADNR 2014-08-29ADNRdGriffin.pdf 8/29/2014 Robert Stovall (USFS) emailed Dwayne Adams (Earthscape), Mike Salzetti (HEA), and Cory Warnock (McMillen) regarding providing comments on the proposed MOA related to the INHT re-alignment. USFS 2014-08-29USFSrStovall.pdf 9/4/2014 John Stevenson (BioAnalysts) emailed Jay Johnson (ADFG) requesting details regarding an AWC submittal. ADFG 2014-09-04ADFGjJohnson.pdf 9/4/2014 John Stevenson (BioAnalysts) and Scott Ayers (ADFG) exchanged emails regarding AWC submittal. ADFG 2014-09-04ADFGsAyers.pdf Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Consultation Record Summary Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC Project No. 13212 41 March 2015 Date Summary of Contact Agency/Organization Consulted Documentation filename (pdf) 9/5/2014 John Stevenson (BioAnalysts) and Scott Ayers (ADFG) exchanged emails regarding AWC submittal and completion of the fish resource permit requirements. ADFG 2014-09-05ADFGsAyers.pdf 9/5/2014 John Stevenson (BioAnalysts) emailed Jay Johnson (ADFG) requisite materials for an AWC nomination. ADFG 2014-09-05ADFGjJohnson.pdf 9/5/2014 John Stevenson (BioAnalysts) and Jay Johnson (ADFG) exchange emails regarding the transmittal of materials for an AWC nomination. ADFG 2014-09-05ADFGjJohnson2.pdf 9/5/2014 John Stevenson (BioAnalysts) emailed Scott Ayers (ADFG) that AWC nomination materials had been submitted. ADFG 2014-09-05ADFGsAyers2.pdf 9/19/2014 Robert Stovall (USFS) emailed Dwayne Adams (Earthscape), Mike Salzetti (HEA), and Cory Warnock (McMillen) a response letter on the Letter of Intent and MOA related to the INHT re-alignment. USFS 2014-09-19USFSrStovall.pdf 9/22/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) and Robert Stovall (USFS) discussed via phone the USFS' response letter to the Letter of Intent and MOA related to the INHT re-alignment. USFS 2014-09-22USFSrStovall.pdf 10/13/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed Lesli Schick (ADNR) to request a phone conference to discuss the INHT re-alignment process moving forward. ADNR 2014-10-13ADNRlSchick.pdf 10/13/2014 Dwayne Adams (Earthscape) and Karen Morrissey (ARRC) exchanged emails regarding ARRC policy on public use of ARRC trestle in Moose Pass. Alaska Railroad Corporation 2014-10-13ARRCkMorrissey.pdf 10/16/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed an appointment notification to Lesli Schick (ADNR) for a phone conference on October 20 to discuss the INHT re-alignment process going forward. ADNR 2014-10-16ADNRlSchick.pdf 10/17/2014 Dara Glass (CIRI) emailed Ethan Shutt (CIRI), Mike Salzetti (KHL), and Cory Warnock (McMillen) an appointment notification for a meeting on November 5, 2014 to discuss the status of the Grant Lake Project licensing process. Cook Inlet Region 2014-10-17CIRIdGlass.pdf 10/17/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) and Dara Glass (CIRI) exchanged emails confirming a meeting on November 5, 2014 to discuss the status of the Grant Lake Project licensing process. Cook Inlet Region 2014-10-17CIRIdGlass2.pdf 10/20/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed the ARWG and NRWG a notice for the November 6, 2014 Public Meeting. ARWG and NRWG 2014-10-20PublicMtgNotice.pdf 10/20/2014 Mike Salzetti (HEA) and Sean Skaling (AEA) exchanged emails regarding AEA's potential participation in the November 6 AEA meeting. AEA 2014-10-20AEAsSkaling.pdf Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Consultation Record Summary Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC Project No. 13212 42 March 2015 Date Summary of Contact Agency/Organization Consulted Documentation filename (pdf) 10/20/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed interested parties in the INHT with an update to the re-alignment process. ADNR; USFS; SHPO 2014-10-20INHTprocess.pdf 10/20/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen), Dwayne Adams (Earthscape), Mike Yarborough (CRC), and Lesli Schick (ADNR) discussed via phone a modified process for the INHT re-alignment. ADNR 2014-10-20ADNRlSchick.pdf 10/21/2014 Robert Stovall (USFS) emailed Mike Salzetti (HEA) and Cory Warnock (McMillen) regarding USFS' participation in the November 6 Public Meeting. USFS 2014-10-21USFSrStovall.pdf 10/27/2014 John Blum (McMillen) emailed the IFSG the draft Aquatics Habitat Mapping and Instream Flow Study, report addendum. IFSG (NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, ADFG, Cook Inlet Region) 2014-10-27IFIMaddendumReport.pdf 10/29/2014 Mike Salzetti (KHL) and Bruce Jaffa (Jaffa Construction) exchanged emails regarding adding Jaffa to the stakeholder distribution list. Jaffa Construction 2014-10-29JaffaConstrBJaffa.pdf 10/31/2014 Levia Shoutis (ERM) and Katy McCafferty (USACE) exchanged emails regarding the 404 application review process and the differences between a preliminary JD and an approved JD. USACE 2014-10-31USACEkMcCafferty.pdf 10/31/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed Jeff Hetrick the public service announcement for the November 6 Public Meeting. Citizen 2014-10-31jHetrick.pdf 11/1/2014 Mike Yarborough (CRC) was copied on an email from Mark Luttrell (Artifact Illustration) regarding the November 6 Public meeting. Artifact Illustration 2014-11-01ArtifactIllustrationMluttrell.pdf 11/3/2014 Matt McMillan (Stantec) and Pam Russell (ADNR) exchanged emails regarding a permit for use of three trail cameras around Grant Lake. ADNR 2014-11-03ADNRpRussell.pdf 11/5/2014 Mike Salzetti (HEA) and Cory Warnock (McMillen Jacobs) met with Ethan Shutt and Dara Glass (CIRI) to provide an update on the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project progress. Cook Inlet Region 2014-11-05CIRImtg.pdf 11/6/2014 HEA held a Public Meeting in Moose Pass, AK. [See 12/15/14 FERC filing entry for meeting materials.] All Licensing Contacts 2014-11-06PublicMtg.pdf 11/8/2014 Dan Hertrich (AEA) emailed Mike Salzetti (HEA) and Cory Warnock and Mort McMillen (McMillen) thanking them for the Grant Lake Project description and sharing general approval for the project. AEA 2014-11-08AEAdHertrich.pdf 11/10/2014 Levia Shoutis (ERM) and Katie McCafferty (USACE) exchanged emails regarding the organization and content of the Section 404 permit application. USACE 2014-11-10USACEkMcCafferty.pdf 11/11/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) and David Griffin (ADNR) exchanged emails regarding the ADNR proposal for an MOU between KHL and ADNR regarding post-licensing activities. ADNR 2014-11-11ADNRdGriffin.pdf Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Consultation Record Summary Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC Project No. 13212 43 March 2015 Date Summary of Contact Agency/Organization Consulted Documentation filename (pdf) 11/11/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) and Mark Luttrell (Artifact Illustration) exchanged emails regarding Mark's request for a current Grant Lake Project description. Artifact Illustration 2014-11-11ArtifactIllustrationMluttrell.pdf 11/15/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) and Jeff Hetrick exchanged emails regarding questions by Jeff following the November 6 Public Meeting. Citizen 2014-11-15jHetrick.pdf 11/24/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed the November 6, 2014 Public Meeting participants the draft notes from the meeting. Public mtg participants 2014-11-24PublicMtgDraftNotes.pdf 11/24/2014 Joe Gallagher (HEA) emailed JJ Kaiser the November 6 Public Meeting draft notes. Citizen 2014-11-24jjKaiser.pdf 11/24/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) and Mark Luttrell (Artifact Illustration) exchanged emails regarding Mark's request for a current Grant Lake Project description. Artifact Illustration 2014-11-24ArtifactIllustrationMluttrell.pdf 12/5/2014 Levia Shoutis (ERM) and Katie McCafferty (USACE) discussed via phone the content and organization of the Section 404 permit application. USACE 2014-12-05USACEkMcCafferty.pdf 12/11/2014 Mike Salzetti (HEA) gave a presentation to the Kenai River Special Management Area (KRSMA) Board. ADNR 2014-12-11KRSMAboardMtg.pdf 12/12/2014 Levia Shoutis (ERM) and Katie McCafferty (USACE) discussed via phone various aspects of the wetlands-related discussion in the forthcoming Draft License Application and content of the Section 404 permit application. USACE 2014-12-12USACEkMcCafferty.pdf 12/15/2014 Mike Salzetti (HEA) filed with FERC the final notes and materials from the November 6, 2014 Public Meeting. All Licensing Contacts 2014-12-15PublicMtgFinalNotes.pdf 12/15/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed ARWG and NRWG members the final notes from the November 6, 2014 Public Meeting. [See 12/15/14 FERC filing entry for minutes and materials.] ARWG and NRWG 2014-12-15PublicMtgFinalNotes2.pdf 12/15/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) emailed public meeting participants the final notes from the November 6, 2014 Public Meeting. [See 12/15/14 FERC filing entry for minutes and materials.] Public mtg participants 2014-12-15PublicMtgFinalNotes3.pdf 12/17/2014 Cory Warnock (McMillen) and Katharine Glaser exchanged emails regarding timing of DLA commenting. Citizen 2014-12-17kGlaser.pdf 12/29/2014 Dwayne Adams (Earthscape) and John Eavis (USFS) exchanged emails regarding potential costs for the new segment of the INHT. USFS 2014-12-29USFSjEavis.pdf 1/5/2015 Levia Shoutis (ERM) and Katie McCafferty (USACE) exchanged emails regarding the need for an approved jurisdictional determination form with the application request for a preliminary determination. USACE 2015-01-05USACEkMcKafferty.pdf Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Consultation Record Summary Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC Project No. 13212 44 March 2015 Date Summary of Contact Agency/Organization Consulted Documentation filename (pdf) 1/8/2015 Levia Shoutis (ERM) and Katie McCafferty (USACE) exchanged emails regarding the schedule for submittal of a Section 404 application. USACE 2015-01-08USACEkMcCafferty.pdf 1/8/2015 Mike Salzetti (HEA) gave a presentation to the Kenai Peninsula Economic Outlook Forum. Kenai Peninsula Economic Outlook Forum 2015-01-08KenaiPenOutlookForumPres.pdf 1/9/2015 Jason Mouw (ADF&G) emailed John Blum (McMillen Jacobs) requesting additional information regarding the Aquatic Habitat Mapping and Instream Flow Study, Addendum Report. ADFG 2015-01-09ADFGjMouw.pdf 1/9/2015 John Mohorcich (KPB) emailed Joe Gallagher (HEA) regarding issuance of a preliminary decision by ADNR for the conveyance of lands to the Kenai Peninsula Borough. Kenai Peninsula Borough 2015-01-09KPBjMohorcich.pdf 1/13/2015 John Blum (McMillen) and Jason Mouw (ADF&G) discussed via phone ADF&G's request for additional information related to the Aquatic Habitat and Instream Flow Study, Addendum Report. ADFG 2015-01-13ADFGjMouw.pdf 1/20/2015 Emily Andersen and Cory Warnock (McMillen Jacobs) and Ken Hogan (FERC) exchanged emails regarding scheduling a call for January 27 to discuss the status of the Grant Lake Project licensing process. FERC 2015-01-20FERCkHogan.pdf 1/22/2015 Emily Andersen and Cory Warnock (McMillen Jacobs) and Ken Hogan (FERC) exchanged emails regarding preliminary permit extensions. FERC 2015-01-22FERCkHogan.pdf 1/27/2015 Mike Salzetti (HEA) filed with FERC an preliminary permit extension request. FERC 2015-01-27FERCextensionRequestLtr.pdf 1/27/2015 John Blum (McMillen Jacobs) and Jason Mouw (ADF&G) exchanged emails regarding McMillen's expanded WUA information. ADFG 2015-01-27ADFGjMouw.pdf 1/28/2015 Jason Mouw (ADF&G) emailed John Blum (McMillen Jacobs) with a question about the Grant Creek hydrologic dataset. ADFG 2015-01-28ADFGjMouw.pdf 2/1/2015 Mike Salzetti (HEA) emailed Karen Kromrey (USFS) about the current mining plan in the area of the proposed Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project. USFS 2015-02-01USFSkKromrey.pdf 2/2/2015 Cory Warnock (McMillen Jacobs) emailed Irene Lindquist (USFS) with a status update on Draft License Application development and the target submittal date. USFS 2015-02-02USFSiLindquist.pdf 2/2/2015 Mike Salzetti (HEA) and Mary Hermon (ADNR) exchanged emails regarding HEA's comment regarding the Preliminary Decision of Land Conveyance. ADNR 2015-02-02ADNRmHermon.pdf 2/6/2015 Mike Yarborough (CRC) emailed current CRWG members that a findings letter and Cultural Resources Study Final Report was mailed on CD. CRWG: USFS, ADNR, SHPO, CIRI, Artifact Illustrations 2015-02-06CRfinalReport.pdf Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Consultation Record Summary Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC Project No. 13212 45 March 2015 Date Summary of Contact Agency/Organization Consulted Documentation filename (pdf) 2/6/2015 Mike Yarborough (CRC) mailed current CRWG members a findings letter and Cultural Resources Study Final Report on CD. Note: The letter and report are designated Privileged. CRWG: USFS, ADNR, SHPO, CIRI, Artifact Illustrations 2015-02-06CRfinalReport2.pdf 2/9/2015 John Blum (McMillen Jacobs) emailed Jason Mouw (ADF&G) clarifying information regarding the Grant Creek hydrologic record. ADFG 2015-02-09ADFGjMouw2.pdf 2/9/2015 John Blum (McMillen Jacobs) and Jason Mouw (ADF&G) discussed via phone ADF&G's questions regarding the Grant Creek hydrologic record. ADFG 2015-02-09ADFGjMouw.pdf 2/18/2015 Barb Whiton (McMillen Jacobs) emailed select licensing contacts requesting mailing information for the forthcoming Draft License Application. All Licensing Contacts 2015-02-18DLAmailingInfo.pdf 2/24/2015 Mike Salzetti (HEA) filed with FERC the findings letter and Cultural Resources Study, Final Report. Note: The letter and report are designated Privileged. FERC 2015-02-24CRfinalReport.pdf 2/26/2015 Mike Salzetti (HEA) contributed to a letter from Sara Fisher-Goad (AEA) to Representative Gara responding to a letter from his office dated February 13 regarding concerns with the Grant Lake Project. Representative Gara 2015-02-26RepGara.pdf 2/27/2015 FERC issued an order denying extension of term for preliminary permit. FERC 2015-02-27ExtensionDenial.pdf 3/2/2015 Mike Salzetti (HEA) and David Griffin (ADNR) exchanged emails regarding ADNR's inquiry about the potential for development of an MOU between ADNR and HEA related to the Grant Lake Project. ADNR 2015-03-02ADNRdGriffin.pdf Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Consultation Record Summary Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC Project No. 13212 46 March 2015 [This page intentionally left blank.] DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 March 2015 Attachment E-2. Aquatic Habitat Mapping and Instream Flow Study, Addendum Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13212) Aquatic Resources – Grant Creek Aquatic Habitat Mapping and Instream Flow Study Additional Information Draft Report Prepared for Kenai Hydro LLC Prepared by October 2014 DRAFT REPORT AQUATIC RESOURCES – HABITAT MAPPING / INSTREAM FLOW STUDY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................1 2 Additional Analysis Conducted for the Grant Creek Instream Flow Study ......................1 2.1. Sockeye Salmon Fry Emergence Timing In Grant Creek .............................................1 2.2. Locations of Salmonid Spawning and Rearing in Grant Creek .....................................2 2.3. Priority Species and Transect Weighting .......................................................................2 2.4. Final Weighted Usable Area for Grant Creek ................................................................4 2.5. Effective Spawning and Incubation Analysis for Grant Creek ......................................4 2.6. Grant Creek Habitat Time Series ...................................................................................4 Appendices Appendix 1: Grant Creek Salmonid Spawning and Rearing Locations Appendix 2: Habitat Quantification/Transect Weighting Methodology Appendix 3: Final Grant Creek WUA Appendix 4: Salmonid Effective Spawning and Incubation Analysis Appendix 5: Grant Creek Habitat Time Series Analysis List of Tables Table 2.1-1. Review of daily temperature units (oC) for sockeye salmon fry hatching and emergence. .............................................................................................................................. 2 Table 2.3-1. Target species and life history stages modeled in the Grant Creek Instream Flow Study. ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Table 2.3-2. Summary of reach and transect weighting (ft). ......................................................... 3 Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 i October 2014 DRAFT REPORT AQUATIC RESOURCES – HABITAT MAPPING / INSTREAM FLOW STUDY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION [This page intentionally left blank.] Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 ii October 2014 DRAFT REPORT AQUATIC RESOURCES – HABITAT MAPPING / INSTREAM FLOW STUDY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Aquatic Resources – Grant Creek Aquatic Habitat Mapping and Instream Flow Study Additional Information Draft Report Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13212) 1 INTRODUCTION As part of the ongoing licensing of the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (Project; FERC No. 13212), Kenai Hydro LLC (KHL) met with the natural resource agencies and other stakeholders on March 19 – 20, 2014, in Anchorage, Alaska. During this meeting, the natural resource agencies and KHL identified areas where further data analysis would be required prior to making or evaluating a proposed instream flow and operating regime for the Project. An Instream Flow Work Group (Work Group) was formed, consisting of staff from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (CIRI), BioAnalysts, and McMillen, LLC (McMillen). A series of conference calls were held with the Work Group from March 17 – July 17, 2014, to discuss data analysis needs for providing the information requested. Outstanding issues included the following: • Sockeye salmon fry emergence timing in Grant Creek • Locations of salmonid spawning and rearing in Grant Creek • Priority species and transect weighting • Final Weighted Usable Area (WUA) for Grant Creek • Effective spawning and incubation analysis • Grant Creek habitat time series This document is intended to provide supplemental information to the June 2014 Instream Flow Study report. The following sections describe the analysis conducted to address those issues raised by the Work Group. Where separate reports were generated, they are included as appendices. 2 ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS CONDUCTED FOR THE GRANT CREEK INSTREAM FLOW STUDY 2.1. Sockeye Salmon Fry Emergence Timing In Grant Creek The Work Group requested that sockeye salmon fry emergence be added to the periodicity chart. There was uncertainty regarding the emergence timing, and it was suggested that Daily Temperature Units (DTUs) be researched in order to determine sockeye salmon fry emergence Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 1 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT AQUATIC RESOURCES – HABITAT MAPPING / INSTREAM FLOW STUDY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION timing. Table 2.1-1 summarizes DTUs from the literature or communication with those involved in sockeye salmon aquaculture on the Kenai Peninsula. Table 2.1-1. Review of daily temperature units (oC) for sockeye salmon fry hatching and emergence. Source: Location Hatch Emergence Emergence Timing T. Prochazka (CIAA) AK 600-650 950-1,000 early March - early May Taylor & Heard, ADFG AK 650 11001/ Pieper et al. (1982) Unknown 666 1,000 Hendry et al. (1998) WA 615 950 1/ Fry fully developed. The Work Group decided that the use of 950 – 1,000 DTUs was appropriate for sockeye salmon fry emergence. Using actual 2013 Grant Creek sockeye salmon run timing and water temperature data, emergence would have occurred from early through late May. Given yearly variances in run timing and water temperatures, the Work Group thought the majority of sockeye fry emergence would occur during May; however, emergence timing for all sockeye salmon fry could occur as early as March and as late as July. 2.2. Locations of Salmonid Spawning and Rearing in Grant Creek The Work Group requested that KHL superimpose salmonid spawning and rearing locations onto a map of Grant Creek that included the Instream Flow transects. These data would be used, in part, to inform the decision on priority species and transects to be used to develop final WUA curves for those species and life history stages found and prioritized in Grant Creek. Appendix 1 includes the maps for salmonid spawning and rearing in Grant Creek, including their vicinity to Instream Flow transects. Catch per unit effort (CPUE) is provided for rearing salmonids; transects were ranked from highest CPUE to lowest in order to evaluate whether certain transects were more heavily used and should be weighted accordingly. 2.3. Priority Species and Transect Weighting After collaboration, the Work Group recommended that instead of prioritizing species and transects based upon utilization, transects be weighted by the proportion of the habitat that each transect represented. In addition, the Work Group recommended that the Habitat Suitability Criteria (HSC) curves be processed through the Instream Flow model to produce WUAs for all species and life history stages. Appendix 2 includes the Final Transect Weighting report. Table 2.3-1 shows the species and life history stages that were modeled for Grant Creek. Table 2.3-2 summarizes final transect and reach weighting. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 2 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT AQUATIC RESOURCES – HABITAT MAPPING / INSTREAM FLOW STUDY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Table 2.3-1. Target species and life history stages modeled in the Grant Creek Instream Flow Study. Species Spawning Fry Rearing Juvenile Rearing Adult Rearing Sockeye Salmon Coho Salmon Chinook Salmon Rainbow Trout Dolly Varden Char Table 2.3-2. Summary of reach and transect weighting (ft). Reach Transect Length (ft) 1 - Distributary 100 169 110 227 Total 396 1 - Main Channel 120 256 130 167 140 102 150 118 160 49 Total 692 2 - Main Channel 200 51 210 22 220 405 230-M1/ 283 230-BW2/ 58 Total 820 3 - Main Channel 300 90 310 718 Total 808 2/3 Side Channels 320 669 330 810 Total 1,479 4 - Main Channel 400 146 410 297 430 25 Total 468 Total Distributary 396 Main Channel 2,788 Side Channel 1,479 Total 4,663 1/ Main Channel; 2/ Backwater Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 3 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT AQUATIC RESOURCES – HABITAT MAPPING / INSTREAM FLOW STUDY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 2.4. Final Weighted Usable Area for Grant Creek Using the final transect weighting, and HSC curves for the species and life history stages shown in Table 2.3-1, KHL produced WUA curves for Grant Creek. Appendix 3 presents WUA for Grant Creek salmonid spawning, fry, and juvenile/adult rearing, respectively. 2.5. Effective Spawning and Incubation Analysis for Grant Creek This report was produced to address issues and concerns regarding spawning flows and potential effects of Project flows on incubating salmonid eggs. KHL analyzed spawning flows of 450 cubic feet per second (cfs), as well as the median flows for the time periods when Grant Creek salmonids were spawning. The effective spawning analysis report is included as Appendix 4. 2.6. Grant Creek Habitat Time Series This report was produced to address a request from the Work Group to conduct a habitat time series analysis for the salmonid life history stages present in Grant Creek for the Project. This report used 66 years of daily flows, both pre-Project and with-Project. The Grant Creek habitat time series report is included as Appendix 5. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 4 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT AQUATIC RESOURCES – HABITAT MAPPING / INSTREAM FLOW STUDY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Appendix 1: Grant Creek Salmonid Spawning and Rearing Locations This appendix contains the following figures: Chinook Salmon Rearing Habitat By Transect Coho Salmon Rearing Habitat By Transect Juvenile Dolly Varden Rearing Habitat By Transect Rainbow Trout Rearing Habitat By Transect Transect Locations and Chinook Spawning Locations Transect Locations and Coho Spawning Locations Transect Locations and Pink Salmon Spawning Locations Transect Locations and Sockeye Spawning Locations Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 October 2014 2 5 4 3 1 Developed For: Drawing Scale: GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - FERC PROJECT NO. 13212 GRANT LAKE NATURAL RESOURCES STUDY Chinook SalmonRearing Habitat By Transect ±THE SONNA BUILDING910 MAIN ST. SUITE 258BOISE, ID 83702 OFFICE: 208.342.4214FAX: 208.342.4216 REV DESCRIPTIONBYDATE SCALE: DRAWING ISSUED DATE CHECKED DRAWN DESIGNED 0 190 38095 Feet 7/18/2014 J. Woodbury J. Woodbury J. Blum 1:2,000 G r a n t C r e e k 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. GRANT CREEK BOUNDARY WAS DEVELOPED BY ERM, INC 2009. C. REARING STUDY CONDUCTED BY BIOANALYSTS 2013. D. TRANSECT LOCATIONS DEVELOPED BY HDR, 2010. 3. THIS MAP PRESENTS DATA IN THE FOLLOWING GEOGRAHIC SYSTEMS: - HORIZONTAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983 (NAD 83) - VERTICAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 1988 (NAVD 88) - PROJECTION: ALASKA 4 FIPS 5004 FEET STATE PLANE T 110 T 140 T 150 T 120 T 160 T 200 T 220 T 230 T 210 T 310 T 320 T 400 T 410 T 430 T 510 T 520T 100 T 330 T 300 T 130 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 CPUE (fish/hr)Transects Juvenile Chinook CPUEnear Grant Creek Transects, 2013 Transect T 520 T 510 T 400 T 150 T 430 T 210 T 410 T 160 T 310 T 110 T 230 T 120 T 220 T 200 T 100 T 330 T 300 T 130Transect Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18Chinook Catch 5 11 11 5 57 10 83 63 30 28 12 47 61 78 33 84 125 132Chinook CPUE 0.020 0.037 0.048 0.073 0.097 0.110 0.126 0.163 0.216 0.222 0.277 0.307 0.318 0.363 0.370 0.433 0.473 0.620 Legend Transects Reach Breaks Grant Creek 2 5 4 3 1 Developed For: Drawing Scale: GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - FERC PROJECT NO. 13212 GRANT LAKE NATURAL RESOURCES STUDY Coho SalmonRearing Habitat By Transect ±THE SONNA BUILDING910 MAIN ST. SUITE 258BOISE, ID 83702 OFFICE: 208.342.4214FAX: 208.342.4216 REV DESCRIPTIONBYDATE SCALE: DRAWING ISSUED DATE CHECKED DRAWN DESIGNED 0 190 38095 Feet 7/18/2014 J. Woodbury J. Woodbury J. Blum 1:2,000 G r a n t C r e e k 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. GRANT CREEK BOUNDARY WAS DEVELOPED BY ERM, INC 2009. C. REARING STUDY CONDUCTED BY BIOANALYSTS 2013. D. TRANSECT LOCATIONS DEVELOPED BY HDR, 2010.3. THIS MAP PRESENTS DATA IN THE FOLLOWING GEOGRAHIC SYSTEMS: - HORIZONTAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983 (NAD 83) - VERTICAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 1988 (NAVD 88) - PROJECTION: ALASKA 4 FIPS 5004 FEET STATE PLANE T 110 T 140 T 150 T 120 T 160 T 200 T 230 T 210 T 310 T 320 T 400 T 410 T 430 T 510 T 520 T 130 T 220 0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300 CPUE (fish/hr)Transects Juvenile Coho CPUEnear Grant Creek Transects, 2013 Transect T 210 T 230 T 520 T 510 T 430 T 310 T 150 T 120 T 410 T 400 T 110 T 100 T 160 T 330 T 300 T 130 T 220 T 200Transect Rank 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16Coho Catch 0 0 0 1 4 1 1 3 14 6 5 4 30 29 44 39 36 61Coho CPUE 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.007 0.007 0.015 0.020 0.021 0.026 0.040 0.045 0.078 0.149 0.167 0.183 0.188 0.284 T 330 T 300 T 100 Legend TransectsReach BreaksGrant Creek 2 5 4 3 1 Developed For: Drawing Scale: GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - FERC PROJECT NO. 13212 GRANT LAKE NATURAL RESOURCES STUDY Juvenile Dolly VardenRearing Habitat By Transect ±THE SONNA BUILDING910 MAIN ST. SUITE 258BOISE, ID 83702 OFFICE: 208.342.4214FAX: 208.342.4216 REV DESCRIPTIONBYDATE SCALE: DRAWING ISSUED DATE CHECKED DRAWN DESIGNED 0 190 38095 Feet 7/18/2014 J. Woodbury J. Woodbury J. Blum 1:2,000 G r a n t C r e e k 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. GRANT CREEK BOUNDARY WAS DEVELOPED BY ERM, INC 2009. C. REARING STUDY CONDUCTED BY BIOANALYSTS 2013. D. TRANSECT LOCATIONS DEVELOPED BY HDR, 2010.3. THIS MAP PRESENTS DATA IN THE FOLLOWING GEOGRAHIC SYSTEMS: - HORIZONTAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983 (NAD 83) - VERTICAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 1988 (NAVD 88) - PROJECTION: ALASKA 4 FIPS 5004 FEET STATE PLANE T 110 T 140 T 150 T 120 T 210 T 310 T 320 T 430 T 520 Legend TransectsReach BreaksGrant Creek T 220 T 200 Transect T 310 T 210 T 110 T 520 T 510 T 300 T 220 T 200 T 150 T 400 T 120 T 430 T 130 T 410 T 330 T 160 T 100 T 230Transect Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18Dolly Varden Catch 3 3 10 23 30 31 23 27 10 34 25 102 48 150 51 127 34 18Dolly Varden CPUE 0.022 0.033 0.079 0.090 0.100 0.117 0.120 0.126 0.147 0.148 0.163 0.174 0.225 0.228 0.263 0.329 0.381 0.415 0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.2000.250 0.300 0.350 0.400 0.450 CPUE (fish/hr)Transects Juvenile Dolly Varden CPUEnear Grant Creek Transects, 2013 T 330 T 230 T 100 T 410 T 160 T 130 T 300 T 400 T 510 2 5 4 3 1 Developed For: Drawing Scale: GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - FERC PROJECT NO. 13212 GRANT LAKE NATURAL RESOURCES STUDY Rainbow TroutRearing Habitat By Transect ±THE SONNA BUILDING910 MAIN ST. SUITE 258BOISE, ID 83702 OFFICE: 208.342.4214FAX: 208.342.4216 REV DESCRIPTIONBYDATE SCALE: DRAWING ISSUED DATE CHECKED DRAWN DESIGNED 0 190 38095 Feet 7/18/2014 J. Woodbury J. Woodbury J. Blum 1:2,000 G r a n t C r e e k 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. GRANT CREEK BOUNDARY WAS DEVELOPED BY ERM, INC 2009. C. REARING STUDY CONDUCTED BY BIOANALYSTS 2013. D. TRANSECT LOCATIONS DEVELOPED BY HDR, 2010.3. THIS MAP PRESENTS DATA IN THE FOLLOWING GEOGRAHIC SYSTEMS: - HORIZONTAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983 (NAD 83) - VERTICAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 1988 (NAVD 88) - PROJECTION: ALASKA 4 FIPS 5004 FEET STATE PLANE T 110 T 140 T 150 T 120 T 160 T 230 T 210 T 310 T 320 T 410 T 430 T 520 T 130 Legend TransectsReach BreaksGrant Creek T 100 0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120 0.140 CPUE (fish/hr)Transects Juvenile Rainbow Trout CPUEnear Grant Creek Transects, 2013 Transect T 100 T 110 T 520 T 160 T 150 T 310 T 210 T 200 T 220 T 430 T 410 T 230 T 120 T 510 T 400 T 130 T 300 T 330Transect Rank 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17Rainbow Trout Catch 0 0 6 10 2 5 4 12 11 35 41 3 12 26 20 19 32 24Rainbow Trout CPUE 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.026 0.029 0.036 0.044 0.056 0.057 0.060 0.062 0.069 0.078 0.087 0.087 0.089 0.121 0.124 T 510 T 400T 300 T 330 T 220 T 200 2 5 4 3 1 Developed For: Drawing Scale: GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - FERC PROJECT NO. 13212 GRANT LAKE NATURAL RESOURCES STUDY Transect Locations & Chinook Spawning Locations ±THE SONNA BUILDING910 MAIN ST. SUITE 258BOISE, ID 83702 OFFICE: 208.342.4214FAX: 208.342.4216 REV DESCRIPTIONBYDATE SCALE: DRAWING ISSUED DATE CHECKED DRAWN DESIGNED 0 190 38095 Feet 7/18/2014 J. Woodbury J. Woodbury J. Blum 1:2,000 G r a n t C r e e k 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. GRANT CREEK BOUNDARY WAS DEVELOPED BY ERM, INC 2009. C. SPAWNING LOCATIONS DEVELOPED BY BIOANALYSTS 2013. D. TRANSECT LOCATIONS DEVELOPED BY HDR, 2010. 3. THIS MAP PRESENTS DATA IN THE FOLLOWING GEOGRAHIC SYSTEMS: - HORIZONTAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983 (NAD 83) - VERTICAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 1988 (NAVD 88) - PROJECTION: ALASKA 4 FIPS 5004 FEET STATE PLANE Legend Spawning Locations 2013 Chinook Transect Locations Reach Breaks Grant Creek T 110 T 140 T 150 T 120 T 160 T 200 T 230 T 210 T 130 T 220 T 100 T 310 T 320 T 400 T 410 T 430 T 510 T 520 T 330 T 300 2 5 4 3 1 Developed For: Drawing Scale: GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - FERC PROJECT NO. 13212 GRANT LAKE NATURAL RESOURCES STUDY Transect Locations & Coho Spawning Locations ±THE SONNA BUILDING910 MAIN ST. SUITE 258BOISE, ID 83702 OFFICE: 208.342.4214FAX: 208.342.4216 REV DESCRIPTIONBYDATE SCALE: DRAWING ISSUED DATE CHECKED DRAWN DESIGNED 0 190 38095 Feet 7/18/2014 J. Woodbury J. Woodbury J. Blum 1:2,000 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. GRANT CREEK BOUNDARY WAS DEVELOPED BY ERM, INC 2009. C. SPAWNING LOCATIONS DEVELOPED BY BIOANALYSTS 2013. D. TRANSECT LOCATIONS DEVELOPED BY HDR, 2010. 3. THIS MAP PRESENTS DATA IN THE FOLLOWING GEOGRAHIC SYSTEMS: - HORIZONTAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983 (NAD 83) - VERTICAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 1988 (NAVD 88) - PROJECTION: ALASKA 4 FIPS 5004 FEET STATE PLANE Legend Spawning Locations 2013 Coho Transect Locations Reach Breaks Grant Creek G r a n t C r e e k T 110 T 140 T 150 T 120 T 160 T 200 T 230 T 210 T 130 T 220 T 100 T 310 T 320 T 400 T 410 T 430 T 510 T 520 T 330 T 300 2 5 4 3 1 Developed For: Drawing Scale: GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - FERC PROJECT NO. 13212 GRANT LAKE NATURAL RESOURCES STUDY Transect Locations & Pink Salmon Spawning Locations ±THE SONNA BUILDING910 MAIN ST. SUITE 258BOISE, ID 83702 OFFICE: 208.342.4214FAX: 208.342.4216 REV DESCRIPTIONBYDATE SCALE: DRAWING ISSUED DATE CHECKED DRAWN DESIGNED 0 190 38095 Feet 7/18/2014 J. Woodbury J. Woodbury J. Blum 1:2,000 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. GRANT CREEK BOUNDARY WAS DEVELOPED BY ERM, INC 2009. C. SPAWNING LOCATIONS DEVELOPED BY BIOANALYSTS 2013. D. TRANSECT LOCATIONS DEVELOPED BY HDR, 2010. 3. THIS MAP PRESENTS DATA IN THE FOLLOWING GEOGRAHIC SYSTEMS: - HORIZONTAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983 (NAD 83) - VERTICAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 1988 (NAVD 88) - PROJECTION: ALASKA 4 FIPS 5004 FEET STATE PLANE Legend Spawning Locations 2013 Pink Transect Locations Reach Breaks Grant Creek G r a n t C r e e k T 110 T 140 T 150 T 120 T 160 T 200 T 230 T 210 T 130 T 220 T 100 T 310 T 320 T 400 T 410 T 430 T 510 T 520 T 330 T 300 2 5 4 3 1 Developed For: Drawing Scale: GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - FERC PROJECT NO. 13212 GRANT LAKE NATURAL RESOURCES STUDY Transect Locations & Sockeye Spawning Locations ±THE SONNA BUILDING910 MAIN ST. SUITE 258BOISE, ID 83702 OFFICE: 208.342.4214FAX: 208.342.4216 REV DESCRIPTIONBYDATE SCALE: DRAWING ISSUED DATE CHECKED DRAWN DESIGNED 0 190 38095 Feet 7/18/2014 J. Woodbury J. Woodbury J. Blum 1:2,000 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. GRANT CREEK BOUNDARY WAS DEVELOPED BY ERM, INC 2009. C. SPAWNING LOCATIONS DEVELOPED BY BIOANALYSTS 2013. D. TRANSECT LOCATIONS DEVELOPED BY HDR, 2010. 3. THIS MAP PRESENTS DATA IN THE FOLLOWING GEOGRAHIC SYSTEMS: - HORIZONTAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983 (NAD 83) - VERTICAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 1988 (NAVD 88) - PROJECTION: ALASKA 4 FIPS 5004 FEET STATE PLANE Legend Spawning Locations 2013 Sockeye Transect Locations Reach Breaks Grant Creek G r a n t C r e e k T 110 T 140 T 150 T 120 T 160 T 200 T 230 T 210 T 130 T 220 T 100 T 310 T 320 T 400 T 410 T 430 T 510 T 520 T 330 T 300 DRAFT REPORT AQUATIC RESOURCES – HABITAT MAPPING / INSTREAM FLOW STUDY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Appendix 2: Habitat Quantification/Transect Weighting Methodology Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 October 2014 Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13212) Habitat Quantification / Transect Weighting Methodology Final Report Prepared for Kenai Hydro LLC Prepared by August 2014 FINAL REPORT HABITAT QUANTIFICATION / TRANSECT WEIGHTING METHODOLOGY TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 2 Map Layout ........................................................................................................................ 1 3 Measurement of Habitat.................................................................................................... 1 4 Literature Cited ............................................................................................................... 11 Appendices Appendix 1: Calculation of Reach Habitat Types and Transect Weighting, Grant Creek Instream Flow Study List of Tables Table 3-1. A summary of the proportion and area (ft2) of habitat by type for transect and non-transect areas of Grant Creek, AK. .................................................................................................................... 4 Table 3-2. Lower Grant Creek reach lengths. .............................................................................................. 8 Table 3-3. Reach 1 Distributary area and transect weighting. ..................................................................... 8 Table 3-4. Reach 1 main channel area and transect weighting. ................................................................... 8 Table 3-5. Reach 2 area and transect weighting. ......................................................................................... 9 Table 3-6. Reach 3 main channel area and transect weighting. ................................................................... 9 Table 3-7. Reach 2/3 side channels area and transect weighting. ................................................................ 9 Table 3-8. Reach 4 area and transect weighting. ....................................................................................... 10 Table 3-9. Summary of reach and transect weighting (ft). ........................................................................ 10 List of Figures Figure 3-1. A map of Reach 3 that identifies transects, transect breaks, and habitat types that were used to assess habitat weighting. ................................................................................................. 2 Figure 3-2. A map of Reach 1 that identifies transects, transect breaks, and habitat types that were used to assess habitat weighting. ................................................................................................. 3 Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 i August 2014 FINAL REPORT HABITAT QUANTIFICATION / TRANSECT WEIGHTING METHODOLOGY Habitat Quantification / Transect Weighting Methodology Final Report Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13212) 1 INTRODUCTION As part of the Instream Flow assessment of habitat within Grant Creek, it is necessary to identify habitat types within reaches of Grant Creek, to quantify those habitats, and to weight them in proportion to their availability within lower Grant Creek. These analyses are then used to weight those transects that were selected and modeled within Reaches 1 through 4. As such, we have undertaken a process to identify and quantify habitat within the various reaches of Grant Creek. Our assessment has been tailored to provide metrics consistent with the work conducted by Flory (1999) on Falls Creek, AK; a summary of these results was provided by Alaska Department of Fish and Game. This document is a brief summary of the methodology used in our analysis. 2 MAP LAYOUT A scaled map of Grant Creek, which depicted meso-habitats, was overlaid with reach breaks and transect locations. An 8.5 x 11 inch map of each reach was prepared, and the area (ft2) associated within a given transect was added to each map; the upstream and downstream boundaries associated with each transect were based on one of two criteria: 1. In the event another transect was relatively close to the transect of interest, the boundary was located an equidistance from each transect, or 2. If the nearest transect was more than one meso-habitat away, then the boundary was located at the edge of the meso-habitat associated with that transect or some obvious geophysical feature within Grant Creek (Figure 3-1). All non-transect sections of Grant Creek were also categorized, and numbered sequentially starting within the Reach 1 Distributary and working upstream (e.g., S1, S2, etc.). 3 MEASUREMENT OF HABITAT With the prepared maps, it was then possible to measure the length (in millimeters) of each habitat type within a given reach. Each habitat type was associated with either a specific transect (e.g., T300, T310, etc.) or a non-transect area (e.g., S8, S9, etc.). In the event a single habitat type fell within a specific area, such as S8 (Figure 3-1), measurement of that habitat was relatively straightforward and was simply confined by the boundaries located at the Reach 2/3 break (downstream) and the boundary with S9 (upstream). In the event more than one habitat type existed within a specific area, it was then necessary to subjectively proportion the length of each habitat type for that site. A good example of this scenario is most of the Primary Secondary Channel of Reach 3 (Figure 3-1), where multiple meso-habitats occurred in all segments with the exception of S13, which consisted only of riffle habitat. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 1 August 2014 FINAL REPORT HABITAT QUANTIFICATION / TRANSECT WEIGHTING METHODOLOGY With each habitat type measured by reach, each transect and non-transect segment of Grant Creek quantified, and with additional information from the GIS database (i.e., reach length and overall area of each habitat type, in ft2), it was then possible to calculate area of habitat associated with each segment within Grant Creek, and linear feet of habitat by segment. It was also possible to compile those data and generate results consistent with work by Flory (1999) on Falls Creek, AK. Figure 3-2 and Table 3-1 show an example of the first level of analysis, where transect and non-transect segments of Reach 1 are summarized to provide the proportion of habitat within the reach, and the overall area of habitat associated within those segments. Appendix 1 shows Grant Creek reaches and calculations of habitat areas within each reach. Figure 3-1. A map of Reach 3 that identifies transects, transect breaks, and habitat types that were used to assess habitat weighting. Once habitat frequencies were established for each transect, available habitats (by type) were then scaled in proportion to their availability within that reach. The results were then summed and each transect was weighted in accordance with its area and assigned a length (in ft). For example, in the Reach 1 Distributary, there are 7,495 ft2 of pool habitat, and 6,004 ft2 of riffle habitat, for a total of 13,499 ft2 (Table 3-3). Of the habitat associated with Transects 100 and 110, T100 had 20.6% of the pool habitat and 70% of the riffle habitat; T110 had 79.4% of the pool habitat and 30% of the riffle habitat. For reach weighting, therefore, T100 had 20.6% of the 7,495 ft2 of pool habitat (1,543 ft2) and 70% of the 6,004 ft2 of riffle habitat for a total of 5,746 ft2 in the Reach 1 Distributary. That constituted 42.6% of the habitat within this reach. Given a length of 396 ft, T100 was weighted 169 ft (42.6% X 396). Each transect in each reach Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 2 August 2014 FINAL REPORT HABITAT QUANTIFICATION / TRANSECT WEIGHTING METHODOLOGY was weighted using this same method. The only deviation was in the Reach 2/3 side channels, where habitat was aggregated in both channels and weighted accordingly. Table 3-2 shows the lengths of each reach. There are 396 linear ft of habitat in the Distributary in Reach 1, 2,788 linear ft of habitat in mainstem Reaches 1 – 4, and 1,479 linear ft in the Reach 2/3 side channels. Tables 3-3 – 3-8 show calculation details for each reach in lower Grant Creek. Table 3-9 summarizes weighting for all transects. Figure 3-2. A map of Reach 1 that identifies transects, transect breaks, and habitat types that were used to assess habitat weighting. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 3 August 2014 FINAL REPORT HABITAT QUANTIFICATION / TRANSECT WEIGHTING METHODOLOGY Table 3-1. A summary of the proportion and area (ft2) of habitat by type for transect and non-transect areas of Grant Creek, AK. Transect/ Reach % of Habitat Habitat Trans/Seg Reach Segment Habitat Length (ft) Within Reach Area (ft2) Area (ft2) Reach 1 Distributary S1 Pool 396 33.3% 7,495 2,498 S2 Riffle 396 21.3% 6,004 1,276 S3 Pool 396 16.7% 7,495 1,249 S3 Riffle 396 16.3% 6,004 976 S4 Pool 396 6.4% 7,495 480 S4 Riffle 396 25.0% 6,004 1,501 T100 Riffle 396 26.3% 6,004 1,576 T100 Pool 396 9.0% 7,495 673 T110 Riffle 396 11.3% 6,004 675 T110 Pool 396 34.6% 7,495 2,594 Total Pool 7,495 Riffle 6,004 Reach 1 Mainstem S5 Riffle 692 53.5% 23,168 12,394 T120 Riffle 692 13.6% 23,168 3,146 T120 Pool 692 94.4% 3,143 2,968 T130 Riffle 692 12.8% 23,168 2,956 T140 Riffle 692 7.8% 23,168 1,811 T150 Riffle 692 8.6% 23,168 2,002 T150 Pool 692 5.6% 3,143 175 T160 Riffle 692 3.7% 23,168 858 Total Pool 3,143 Riffle 23,168 Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 4 August 2014 FINAL REPORT HABITAT QUANTIFICATION / TRANSECT WEIGHTING METHODOLOGY Transect/ Reach % of Habitat Habitat Trans/Seg Reach Segment Habitat Length (ft) Within Reach Area (ft2) Area (ft2) Reach 2 Mainstem S6 Pool 820 86.4% 3,834 3,311 T200 Backwater 820 38.9% 4,837 1,881 T220 Riffle 820 16.8% 23,669 3,968 T220 Glide 820 30.0% 1,613 484 T230 Glide 820 70.0% 1,613 1,129 T230 Backwater 820 44.4% 4,837 2,150 T230 Riffle 820 10.8% 23,669 2,551 T210 Backwater 820 16.7% 4,837 806 S7 Riffle 820 72.5% 23,669 17,149 S7 Pool 820 13.6% 3,834 523 Total Backwater 4,837 Riffle 23,669 Glide 1,613 Pool 3,834 Reach 3 Mainstem S8 Riffle 808 22.9% 25,585 5,866 S9 Pool 808 66.7% 3,997 2,665 S10 Riffle 808 22.4% 25,585 5,741 T300 Backwater 808 100.0% 3,697 3,697 T310 Riffle 808 5.9% 25,585 1,498 T310 Pool 808 27.3% 3,997 1,090 S11 Riffle 808 48.8% 25,585 12,480 S11 Pool 808 6.1% 3,997 242 Total Riffle 25,585 Pool 3,997 Backwater 3,697 Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 5 August 2014 FINAL REPORT HABITAT QUANTIFICATION / TRANSECT WEIGHTING METHODOLOGY Transect/ Reach % of Habitat Habitat Trans/Seg Reach Segment Habitat Length (ft) Within Reach Area (ft2) Area (ft2) Reach 3 Primary S12 Riffle 606 48.8% 11,672 5,698 Side Channel S12 Pool 606 41.5% 5,018 2,083 T320 Riffle 606 18.9% 11,672 2,206 T320 Pool 606 24.5% 5,018 1,231 S13 Riffle 606 18.9% 11,672 2,206 T330 Pool 606 34.0% 5,018 1,704 T330 Riffle 606 13.4% 11,672 1,562 T330 Rapid 606 100.0% 511 511 Reach 3 Secondary S14 Cascade 873 100.0% 114 114 Side Channel S15 Run 873 100.0% 576 576 S16 Pool 873 11.0% 9,908 1,094 S17 Riffle 873 9.5% 2,683 256 S18 Pool 873 13.0% 9,908 1,287 S19 Riffle 873 7.1% 2,683 192 S20 Pool 873 3.2% 9,908 322 S21 Riffle 873 14.3% 2,683 383 S22 Pool 873 16.2% 9,908 1,608 S23 Riffle 873 21.4% 2,683 575 S24 Pool 873 1.9% 9,908 193 S25 Riffle 873 4.8% 2,683 128 S26 Pool 873 24.0% 9,908 2,380 S27 Riffle 873 14.3% 2,683 383 S28 Pool 873 16.2% 9,908 1,608 S29 Glide 873 10.7% 1,588 170 S30 Pool 873 14.3% 9,908 1,415 T330 Riffle 873 28.6% 2,683 767 S31 Glide 873 89.3% 1,588 1,418 Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 6 August 2014 FINAL REPORT HABITAT QUANTIFICATION / TRANSECT WEIGHTING METHODOLOGY Transect/ Reach % of Habitat Habitat Trans/Seg Reach Segment Habitat Length (ft) Within Reach Area (ft2) Area (ft2) Total Riffle 14,355 Side Pool 14,926 Channel Glide 1,588 Rapid 511 Cascade 114 Reach 4 Mainstem T400 Riffle 468 11.7% 17,649 2,061 T410 Riffle 468 17.5% 17,649 3,092 T410 Pocket Water 468 8.6% 3,709 318 S32 Riffle 468 70.8% 17,649 12,496 S32 Pocket Water 468 91.4% 3,709 3,391 T430 Pool 468 100.0% 1,195 1,195 Total Riffle 17,649 Pocket Water 3,709 Pool 1,195 Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 7 August 2014 FINAL REPORT HABITAT QUANTIFICATION / TRANSECT WEIGHTING METHODOLOGY Table 3-2. Lower Grant Creek reach lengths. Reach Length (ft) R 1 Distributary 396 R 1 Mainstem 692 R 2 820 R 3 Mainstem 808 R 3 Side Channel 606 R 2/3 Side Channel 873 R 4 468 Total Distributary 396 Main Channel 2,788 Side Channel 1,479 Total 4,663 Table 3-3. Reach 1 Distributary area and transect weighting. Total Length (ft) 396 Pool Riffle Total Reach Weights Trans Area % age Area % age Pool Riffle Total % age Length T100 673 20.6% 1,576 70.0% 1,543 4,203 5,746 42.6% 169 T110 2,594 79.4% 675 30.0% 5,952 1,801 7,753 57.4% 227 Total 3,267 2,252 7,495 6,004 13,499 396 Table 3-4. Reach 1 main channel area and transect weighting. Total Length (ft) 692 Pool Riffle Total Reach Weights Trans Area % age Area % age Pool Riffle Total % age Length T120 2,968 94.4% 3,146 29.2% 2,968 6,766 9,734 37.0% 256 T130 0 0.0% 2,956 27.4% 0 6,356 6,356 24.2% 167 T140 0 0.0% 1,811 16.8% 0 3,896 3,896 14.8% 102 T150 175 5.6% 2,002 18.6% 175 4,306 4,480 17.0% 118 T160 0 0.0% 858 8.0% 0 1,845 1,845 7.0% 49 Total 3,143 10,774 3,143 23,168 26,311 692 Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 8 August 2014 FINAL REPORT HABITAT QUANTIFICATION / TRANSECT WEIGHTING METHODOLOGY Table 3-5. Reach 2 area and transect weighting. Total Length (ft) = 820 Pool Backwater Glide Riffle Total Reach Weights Trans Area % age Area % age Area % age Area % age Pool BackW Glide Riffle Total % age Length T200 0 0.0% 1,881 38.9%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 1,881 0 0 1,881 6.2% 51 T210 0 0.0% 806 16.7%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 806 0 0 806 2.7% 22 T220 0 0.0%0 0.0% 484 30.0% 3,968 60.9%0 0 484 14,407 14,891 49.4% 405 T230-M 0 0.0%0 0.0% 1,129 70.0% 2,551 39.1%0 0 1,129 9,262 10,391 34.5% 283 T230-BW 0 0.0% 2,149.8 44.4%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 2,150 0 0 2,150 7.1% 58 Total 0 4,837 1,613 6,520 0 4,837 1,613 23,669 30,119 819 Table 3-6. Reach 3 main channel area and transect weighting. Total Length (ft) = 808 Pool Backwater Riffle Total Reach Weights Trans Area % age Area % age Area % age Pool Backwater Riffle Total % age Length T300 0 0.0% 3,697 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 3,697 0 3,697 11.1% 90 T310 1,090 100.0% 0 0.0% 1,498 100.0% 3,997 0 25,585 29,582 88.9% 718 Total 1,090 3,697 1,498 3,997 3,697 25,585 33,279 808 Table 3-7. Reach 2/3 side channels area and transect weighting. Total Length (ft) = 1,479 Pool Riffle Rapids Total Reach Weights Trans Area % age Area % age Area % age Pool Riffle Rapids Total % age Length T320 1,231 41.9% 2,206 48.6% 0 0.0% 2,104 5,677 0 7,782 45.2% 669 T330 1,704 58.1% 2,329 51.4% 511 100.0% 2,914 5,995 511 9,419 54.8% 810 Total 2,935 4,535 511 5,018 11,672 511 17,201 1,479 Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 9 August 2014 FINAL REPORT HABITAT QUANTIFICATION / TRANSECT WEIGHTING METHODOLOGY Table 3-8. Reach 4 area and transect weighting. Total Length (ft) = 468 Pool Pocket Water Riffle Total Reach Weights Trans Area % age Area % age Area % age Pool PocketW Riffle Total % age Length T400 0 0.0%0 0.0% 2,061 40.0%0 0 7,060 7,060 31.3% 146 T410 0 0.0% 318 100.0% 3,092 60.0%0 3,709 10,589 14,298 63.4% 297 T430 1,195 100.0%0 0.0%0 0.0% 1,195 0 0 1,195 5.3% 25 Total 1,195 318 5,153 1,195 3,709 17,649 22,553 468 Table 3-9. Summary of reach and transect weighting (ft). Reach Transect Length (ft) 1 - Distributary 100 169 110 227 Total 396 1 - Main Channel 120 256 130 167 140 102 150 118 160 49 Total 692 2 - Main Channel 200 51 210 22 220 405 230-M1/ 283 230-BW2/ 58 Total 820 3 - Main Channel 300 90 310 718 Total 808 2/3 Side Channels 320 669 330 810 Total 1,479 4 - Main Channel 400 146 410 297 430 25 Total 468 Total Distributary 396 Main Channel 2,788 Side Channel 1,479 Total 4,663 Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 10 August 2014 FINAL REPORT HABITAT QUANTIFICATION / TRANSECT WEIGHTING METHODOLOGY 4 LITERATURE CITED Flory, E. A. 1999. Fish and fish habitats of the Falls Creek area. Prepared by Icy Strait Environmental Services, Gustavus, AK. Prepared for Gustavus Electric Company, Gustavus, AK. 46 pp. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 11 August 2014 FINAL REPORT HABITAT QUANTIFICATION / TRANSECT WEIGHTING METHODOLOGY Appendix 1: Calculation of Reach Habitat Types and Transect Weighting, Grant Creek Instream Flow Study Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 August 2014 FINAL REPORT HABITAT QUANTIFICATION / TRANSECT WEIGHTING METHODOLOGY Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 Appendix 1 Page 1 August 2014 FINAL REPORT HABITAT QUANTIFICATION / TRANSECT WEIGHTING METHODOLOGY Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 Appendix 1 Page 2 August 2014 FINAL REPORT HABITAT QUANTIFICATION / TRANSECT WEIGHTING METHODOLOGY Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 Appendix 1 Page 3 August 2014 FINAL REPORT HABITAT QUANTIFICATION / TRANSECT WEIGHTING METHODOLOGY Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 Appendix 1 Page 4 August 2014 FINAL REPORT HABITAT QUANTIFICATION / TRANSECT WEIGHTING METHODOLOGY Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 Appendix 1 Page 5 August 2014 FINAL REPORT HABITAT QUANTIFICATION / TRANSECT WEIGHTING METHODOLOGY Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 Appendix 1 Page 6 August 2014 DRAFT REPORT AQUATIC RESOURCES – HABITAT MAPPING / INSTREAM FLOW STUDY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Appendix 3: Final Grant Creek WUA This appendix contains the following tables and figures: Table A.3-1. Grant Creek spawning WUA. Table A.3-2. Grant Creek fry rearing WUA. Table A.3-3. Grant Creek juvenile and adult rearing WUA. Figure A.3-1. Grant Creek spawning WUA. Figure A.3-2. Grant Creek fry rearing WUA. Figure A.3-3. Grant Creek juvenile and adult rearing WUA. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT AQUATIC RESOURCES – HABITAT MAPPING / INSTREAM FLOW STUDY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Table A.3-1. Grant Creek spawning WUA. Flow (cfs) Chinook Coho Dolly Varden Rainbow Sockeye 10 1,068 5,568 18,631 14,839 5,238 20 6,599 9,209 27,940 23,150 8,323 30 12,856 12,213 32,314 27,879 10,782 40 17,810 14,677 36,115 31,648 12,930 50 21,367 16,867 39,113 34,761 14,825 60 24,260 18,649 41,288 37,342 16,632 70 26,813 20,247 43,146 39,482 18,001 80 29,371 21,867 44,807 41,434 19,090 90 31,474 23,114 46,150 43,147 20,074 100 33,798 24,291 46,641 44,529 20,917 110 36,017 25,399 46,605 45,565 21,690 120 37,711 26,241 46,197 46,302 22,432 130 39,104 27,015 45,651 46,884 23,046 140 40,431 27,649 45,110 47,342 23,556 150 41,662 28,071 44,505 47,692 24,041 160 42,863 28,316 43,850 47,765 24,489 170 43,998 28,505 43,217 47,726 24,876 180 45,084 28,647 42,739 47,703 25,244 190 46,151 28,794 42,561 47,668 25,482 200 46,974 28,861 42,306 47,466 25,584 225 48,741 29,158 42,011 47,180 26,137 250 49,687 29,635 42,450 46,882 26,601 275 50,337 30,151 42,759 46,908 26,985 300 51,161 30,591 42,739 46,909 27,420 325 51,863 31,095 43,001 47,169 27,805 350 52,248 31,584 43,342 47,577 28,147 375 52,471 31,905 43,417 47,716 28,560 400 52,715 32,329 43,300 47,709 29,021 450 52,861 33,469 42,684 47,613 29,815 500 53,165 34,506 41,583 47,525 30,523 550 54,165 35,033 40,231 47,346 31,094 600 55,510 35,105 38,968 46,818 31,504 650 56,596 34,953 37,471 45,930 31,663 700 57,242 34,576 35,683 44,740 31,720 750 57,401 34,030 34,027 43,370 31,537 800 57,174 33,323 32,467 41,998 31,152 850 56,583 32,508 30,975 40,471 30,640 900 56,024 31,561 29,541 38,767 30,056 950 55,423 30,558 28,140 37,026 29,419 1,000 54,640 29,598 26,718 35,417 28,802 Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 Appendix 3 Page 1 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT AQUATIC RESOURCES – HABITAT MAPPING / INSTREAM FLOW STUDY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Table A.3-2. Grant Creek fry rearing WUA. Flow (cfs) Chinook Coho Dolly Varden Rainbow 10 93,680 77,590 102,219 62,468 20 96,290 73,052 109,681 63,732 30 102,978 76,830 116,702 69,555 40 110,212 82,216 119,827 75,214 50 114,072 84,107 118,341 78,294 60 114,860 83,429 115,523 78,864 70 113,859 81,717 112,962 77,912 80 112,035 79,704 111,138 76,708 90 110,487 78,216 109,706 75,548 100 108,806 77,131 108,300 74,715 110 107,783 77,094 107,869 74,103 120 107,160 77,356 108,238 73,267 130 107,259 78,093 108,932 72,726 140 108,223 79,427 110,204 73,077 150 109,775 80,844 111,670 73,786 160 111,216 82,011 113,087 74,767 170 113,469 83,793 114,815 76,272 180 115,219 85,228 116,995 77,321 190 123,962 93,392 126,896 83,981 200 125,591 94,651 128,222 85,224 225 131,369 98,462 132,156 89,319 250 135,690 101,765 137,008 92,170 275 140,535 105,427 140,688 95,269 300 145,442 108,532 142,503 98,864 325 148,318 109,888 143,360 101,208 350 149,991 110,652 143,398 102,628 375 150,896 110,881 142,625 103,429 400 151,012 110,259 141,628 103,383 450 150,234 108,527 140,925 102,382 500 149,890 107,125 140,120 100,892 550 148,960 105,678 138,794 99,267 600 148,041 104,950 138,512 97,744 650 148,545 104,949 138,419 97,269 700 148,820 104,784 138,264 96,500 750 149,488 105,003 137,825 95,852 800 150,103 104,820 136,502 94,953 850 150,158 104,680 134,977 93,836 900 149,692 103,251 132,513 92,547 950 148,320 101,160 130,552 90,330 1,000 146,560 98,592 128,412 87,935 Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 Appendix 3 Page 2 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT AQUATIC RESOURCES – HABITAT MAPPING / INSTREAM FLOW STUDY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Table A.3-3. Grant Creek juvenile and adult rearing WUA. Juvenile Rearing Adult Rearing Flow (cfs) Chinook Coho Dolly Varden Rainbow Dolly Varden Rainbow 10 30,659 106,935 85,928 62,002 23,354 14,271 20 41,244 120,277 96,423 70,894 33,289 21,970 30 44,200 131,910 108,170 74,644 40,838 28,117 40 45,284 140,165 116,556 77,220 46,965 33,005 50 45,830 142,002 123,480 78,324 51,896 37,083 60 46,295 139,726 127,709 78,944 55,868 40,454 70 46,782 136,764 128,143 79,282 58,964 43,215 80 47,451 133,844 127,071 79,029 61,750 45,879 90 48,309 131,815 125,720 78,915 64,008 48,100 100 49,186 128,726 124,240 78,269 65,561 49,729 110 50,079 127,587 123,525 77,714 66,696 50,953 120 51,099 126,212 121,931 77,074 67,419 51,715 130 52,102 126,250 120,459 76,443 67,911 52,301 140 53,181 126,662 119,365 75,909 68,109 52,649 150 54,120 127,456 118,938 75,802 68,223 52,926 160 54,877 128,244 119,197 76,142 68,140 52,962 170 55,645 130,047 120,582 76,363 68,042 52,979 180 56,439 131,196 120,612 76,569 68,174 53,123 190 57,815 140,450 125,785 80,124 68,857 53,244 200 58,669 141,803 126,118 80,832 69,036 53,328 225 61,107 147,070 130,659 83,907 70,679 54,608 250 63,072 151,819 132,540 86,577 71,991 55,785 275 64,949 157,202 135,896 89,103 73,571 57,085 300 66,851 161,558 141,888 91,891 75,471 58,646 325 68,816 163,486 145,403 94,563 77,609 60,328 350 70,978 164,310 148,094 97,232 79,938 62,227 375 73,369 164,754 150,560 99,927 82,223 64,180 400 75,656 164,154 152,121 102,463 84,485 66,270 450 80,205 163,035 152,966 106,594 88,467 70,235 500 84,113 163,728 153,234 109,264 91,811 73,776 550 87,445 162,889 154,032 111,234 95,120 77,304 600 90,403 162,601 152,690 112,440 97,799 80,287 650 92,647 162,254 153,266 113,161 100,035 82,719 700 94,123 161,709 153,464 113,478 102,261 85,061 750 95,097 161,700 153,927 113,773 104,512 87,234 800 95,737 161,376 154,946 114,556 106,757 89,465 850 95,904 161,097 154,269 114,887 108,666 91,400 900 95,946 159,346 154,318 114,981 110,240 93,176 950 95,819 156,702 152,807 114,576 111,443 94,737 1,000 95,413 153,922 151,436 114,062 112,497 96,265 Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 Appendix 3 Page 3 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT AQUATIC RESOURCES – HABITAT MAPPING / INSTREAM FLOW STUDY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Figure A.3-1. Grant Creek spawning WUA. Figure A.3-2. Grant Creek fry rearing WUA. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 Appendix 3 Page 4 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT AQUATIC RESOURCES – HABITAT MAPPING / INSTREAM FLOW STUDY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Figure A.3-3. Grant Creek juvenile and adult rearing WUA. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 Appendix 3 Page 5 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT AQUATIC RESOURCES – HABITAT MAPPING / INSTREAM FLOW STUDY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Appendix 4: Salmonid Effective Spawning and Incubation Analysis Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 October 2014 Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13212) Salmonid Effective Spawning and Incubation Analysis Draft Report Prepared for Kenai Hydro LLC Prepared by October 2014 DRAFT REPORT SALMONID EFFECTIVE SPAWNING AND INCUBATION ANALYSIS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 2 Methods ............................................................................................................................... 1 2.1 Value of Spawning Habitat .............................................................................................. 2 2.2 Criteria for Protection of Incubating Eggs ....................................................................... 2 2.3 Spawning Flows Modeled ............................................................................................... 3 2.4 Incubation Flows.............................................................................................................. 3 2.5 Transect Location of Spawning Salmonids ..................................................................... 3 3 Results ................................................................................................................................. 3 3.1 Target Species .................................................................................................................. 3 3.2 Transects and Study Sites ................................................................................................ 4 3.3 HSC Curves ..................................................................................................................... 4 3.4 Spawning Periodicity Flows for Project Reaches ............................................................ 4 4 Discussion.......................................................................................................................... 16 5 Literature Cited ............................................................................................................... 16 Appendices Appendix 1: Spawning Analysis Figures List of Tables Table 3.1-1. Life history and periodicity for Grant Creek salmonids. ......................................................... 5 Table 3.2-1. Transects used to model spawning habitat on Grant Creek. .................................................... 6 Table 3.4-1. Salmonid species periodicity and median monthly flows, both pre- and post-Project (flows in cfs). ................................................................................................................................................... 6 Table 3.4-2. Approximate flows at which certain percentages of spawning and incubation habitat are protected, given an initial spawning flow of 450 cfs or median pre-Project and post-Project spawning flows (all values in cfs). ....................................................................................................... 9 Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 i October 2014 DRAFT REPORT SALMONID EFFECTIVE SPAWNING AND INCUBATION ANALYSIS Salmonid Spawning and Incubation Analysis Draft Report Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13212) 1 INTRODUCTION This report is intended to address issues and concerns regarding spawning flows and potential effects on incubating salmonid eggs at the proposed Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (Project) flows. The goals and objectives of the evaluation were as follows: • Determine the amount and location of salmonid spawning habitat (as represented by transects selected during the Instream Flow Study) over a range of flows using current conditions (e.g., substrate and habitat as reflected in the Instream Flow Study). Flows for spawning reflect those examined for the Project, based on pre- and post-Project operation. • Determine the effects of reductions in stream flow on incubating salmonid eggs, as determined by the models. 2 METHODS McMillen, LLC (McMillen) ran the previously calibrated Instream Flow models used for the Instream Flow Study. The following data, including data sources, were used to run the models on the Project streams: • McMillen selected all calibrated transects that had spawning habitat in the affected stream reaches. These included (Instream Flow Report, KHL 2014): o Reach 1 Distributary (2 transects) o Reach 1 Main Channel (5 transects) o Reach 2 Mainstem (3 transects) [Note: 2 side channel transects in Reach 2 had no flow; as a result, they were not modeled for spawning] o Reach 3 Mainstem (2 transects) o Reach 3 Side Channel (2 transects) o Reach 4 Mainstem (3 transects) • Chinook, coho, and sockeye salmon, rainbow trout and Dolly Varden char spawning Habitat Suitability Criteria (HSC) Curves (Appendix 2 of the Instream Flow Report, KHL 2014) • Bed elevation at each transect (Appendix 6 of the Instream Flow Report) • Stage at given flows (from the HYDSIM sub module of RHABSIM; Appendix 6 of the Instream Flow Report, KHL 2014) Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 1 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT SALMONID EFFECTIVE SPAWNING AND INCUBATION ANALYSIS • Existing Chinook, coho, and sockeye salmon spawning substrate as reflected in the hydraulic models along the transects at flows ranging from 50 to 450 cubic feet per second (cfs) (Appendix 1 to this report) McMillen used RHABSIM (Riverine Habitat Simulation System) by Thomas R. Payne and Associates (now with Normandeau Associates, Arcata, CA) to produce weighted usable area (WUA) curves for the spawning species listed above. One of the options available in the program is the ability to evaluate WUA on a cell-by-cell basis along each transect at a variety of flows. WUA for an individual cell is calculated as: S (depth) * S (velocity) * S (substrate) * the area the cell represents, where S = the suitability index for depth, velocity, and substrate, respectively. A value of 1.0 for each suitability index is optimum, while a value of 0.0 indicates no value for that particular variable. For this analysis, two different scenarios were modeled: 1. Results of spawning for all species at a flow of 450 cfs (per request of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game [ADFG]), with an analysis of substrates still covered by at least 0.1 foot of water as flows are decreased; and 2. Median monthly and weekly flows (pre-Project and post-Project) for those time periods that reflect each species’ spawning and incubation periodicity. 2.1 Value of Spawning Habitat Any spawning habitat, regardless of the combined suitability value (e.g., S (depth) * S (velocity) * S (substrate)), was analyzed, provided the combined value > 0. Substrate HSC values (ranging from 0.0 – 1.0) were graphed and are found in Appendix 1. 2.2 Criteria for Protection of Incubating Eggs The criterion used in this analysis was that the depth of water over a particular cell that was included as spawning/incubation habitat had to be at least 0.1 foot or greater (1.2 inches). This type of analysis has been used extensively by McMillen staff on Washington State hydroelectric projects as well as in the Box Canyon and Lower Wahleach Hydroelectric projects in British Columbia. The process to determine the WUA value included the following: • The water surface elevation for the transect was calculated (from sub-module HYDSIM of RHABSIM) for each modeled flow; • For each modeled flow, the depth of the water over that cell was calculated by subtracting the bed elevation of the cell from the calculated water surface elevation; • If the depth of water over the cell was > 0.1 foot, the WUA for that cell was used and added to the total WUA; • If the depth of water over the cell was < 0.1 foot, a value of 0.0 was used, and Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 2 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT SALMONID EFFECTIVE SPAWNING AND INCUBATION ANALYSIS • Flows were modeled down from the spawning flows in 25-cfs and 5-cfs increments to 5 cfs as related to the Grant Creek stream gage [Note: flows were scaled in the Reach 1 Distributary and Reach 3 side channels to correspond to the appropriate flow at the gage]. The level of protection afforded incubating eggs was then calculated as the percentage of spawning habitat still covered with at least 0.1 foot of water at a given incubation flow. The following ranges were used to evaluate level of protection. Protection (%) of incubating eggs Range >98% 98% – 100% >90% 90% – 97.9% >80% 80% – 89.9% >70% 70% – 79.9% 2.3 Spawning Flows Modeled McMillen used 450 cfs as the modeled flow for spawning activity for all species. Grant Creek salmonid periodicity, for all species and life history stages, including spawning, is provided in Table 3.1-1. In addition, McMillen analyzed monthly median flows, both pre-Project and post- Project for the months that the salmonid species spawned. During those periods when spawning did not occur during the entire month, median flows were calculated for the appropriate time periods only. 2.4 Incubation Flows Grant Creek salmonid incubation timing was taken from Table 3.1-1. Median monthly and weekly flow aggregates were calculated from the 66-year synthesized pre-Project and post- Project hydrology. Percent protection of incubating eggs was then calculated for each species and flow increment for each transect. 2.5 Transect Location of Spawning Salmonids Appendix 1 indicates the location of spawning Chinook, coho and sockeye salmon on the Instream Flow transects. 3 RESULTS 3.1 Target Species Target species and periodicity are provided in Table 3.1-1. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 3 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT SALMONID EFFECTIVE SPAWNING AND INCUBATION ANALYSIS 3.2 Transects and Study Sites Spawning gravels are relatively scarce on those transects within the Project area. Table 3.2-1 includes transects and study reaches that had spawnable gravel in the Project reaches. Seventeen transects were selected for modeling, based upon their likelihood to provide spawning habitat. 3.3 HSC Curves The HSC curves used for the development of these analyses are provided as Appendix 2 of the Instream Flow Report (KHL 2014). 3.4 Spawning Periodicity Flows for Project Reaches Table 3.4-1 summarizes salmonid spawning periodicity and median monthly flows for Grant Creek. In addition to analyzing a spawning flow of 450 cfs, median flows (both pre-Project and post-Project) were used to evaluate spawning and egg incubation protection. Table 3.4-1 summarizes median flows in the main channel of Grant Creek, as well as in the Reach 1 Distributary, Reaches 2/3 Side Channels, and the mainstem of Reach 3. Appendix 1 depicts the bed elevation, salmon spawning substrate suitability values, and water surface elevations for flows ranging from 50 to 450 cfs. This appendix also includes the locations of known Chinook, coho, and sockeye salmon spawning on these transects. No rainbow trout or Dolly Varden char were observed spawning in Grant Creek. Table 3.4-2 presents the effective spawning analysis, as well as the approximate flows that will protect spawning habitat. The flows at which 98%, 90%, 80%, and 70% of the spawning WUA were recorded using linear interpolation, if required. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 4 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT SALMONID EFFECTIVE SPAWNING AND INCUBATION ANALYSIS Table 3.1-1. Life history and periodicity for Grant Creek salmonids. Species Life Stage Spawning Incubation/Emergence Fry (<50mm) Juvenile Spawning Incubation/Emergence Fry (<50mm) Juvenile Spawning Incubation/Emergence Spawning Incubation/Emergence Fry (<60mm) Juvenile Adult Spawning Incubation/Emergence Fry (<50mm) Juvenile Adult Chinook Coho Sockeye Dolly Varden Rainbow DecJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNov Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 5 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT SALMONID EFFECTIVE SPAWNING AND INCUBATION ANALYSIS Table 3.2-1. Transects used to model spawning habitat on Grant Creek. Spawning Substrate Available on Transect Reach Transect Channel Type Chinook Coho Sockeye D Varden Rainbow 1 - Distributary 100 Rearing Distributary 110 Rearing Distributary 1 - Main Channel 120 Spawning Riffle 130 Rearing Main 140 Rearing Main 150 Rearing Main 160 Rearing Main 2 - Main Channel 200 Rearing Main 220 Rearing Main 230 Rearing Main 3 - Main Channel 300 Rearing Main 310 Spawning Main 3 - Side Channel 320 Rearing Secondary 330 Rearing Secondary 4 - Main Channel 400 Rearing Main 410 Rearing Main 430 Spawning Main Table 3.4-1. Salmonid species periodicity and median monthly flows, both pre- and post-Project (flows in cfs). [Note: * = partial month]. Reach Species Months Mainstem Chinook Aug* Sept* Reaches 1/2/3/4 Pre-Project 410 320 With Project 395 348 Coho Sept* Oct Pre-Project 310 182 With Project 325 182 Sockeye Aug Sept Pre-Project 422 313 With Project 395 329 Dolly Varden Aug* Sept Oct Nov* Pre-Project 388 313 182 110 With Project 395 329 182 157 Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 6 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT SALMONID EFFECTIVE SPAWNING AND INCUBATION ANALYSIS Reach Species Months Rainbow May* Jun Pre-Project 182 398 With Project 181 280 Distributary Chinook Aug* Sept* Reach 1 Pre-Project 4.08 3.18 With Project 3.93 3.46 Coho Sept* Oct Pre-Project 3.08 1.81 With Project 3.23 1.80 Sockeye Aug Sept Pre-Project 4.20 3.12 With Project 3.93 3.27 Dolly Varden Aug* Sept Oct Nov* Pre-Project 3.86 3.12 1.81 0 With Project 3.93 3.27 1.81 0 Rainbow May* Jun Pre-Project 1.80 3.94 With Project 1.79 2.77 Reach 3 Chinook Aug* Sept* Side Channels Pre-Project 64.8 50.6 With Project 62.5 55.0 Coho Sept* Oct Pre-Project 49.0 28.8 With Project 51.3 28.8 Sockeye Aug Sept Pre-Project 66.7 49.5 With Project 62.5 51.9 Dolly Varden Aug* Sept Oct Nov* Pre-Project 61.4 49.5 28.8 17.5 With Project 62.5 51.9 28.8 24.8 Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 7 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT SALMONID EFFECTIVE SPAWNING AND INCUBATION ANALYSIS Reach Species Months Rainbow May* Jun Pre-Project 28.8 63.0 With Project 28.6 44.3 Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 8 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT SALMONID EFFECTIVE SPAWNING AND INCUBATION ANALYSIS Table 3.4-2. Approximate flows at which certain percentages of spawning and incubation habitat are protected, given an initial spawning flow of 450 cfs or median pre-Project and post-Project spawning flows (all values in cfs). Reach Species Month Spawning Flow > 98% > 90% > 80% > 70% Median flow during incubation months (Pre- and Post-Project) Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Mainstem Chinook 450 155 125 73 55 Reaches 1 - 4 Aug - pre* 410 146 89 50 45 410 313 182 94 59 45 36 30 31 127 398 493 Aug - post* 395 144 90 57 42 395 329 182 140 104 91 82 77 78 151 280 390 Sep-pre* 320 116 40 28 22 313 182 94 59 45 36 30 31 127 398 493 Sep-post* 348 137 70 43 32 329 182 140 104 91 82 77 78 151 280 390 Coho 450 228 170 139 110 Sep-pre* 310 149 91 65 53 310 182 94 59 45 36 30 31 127 398 493 Sep-post* 325 164 97 67 54 325 182 140 104 91 82 77 78 151 280 390 Oct-pre 182 73 55 27 7 182 94 59 45 36 30 31 127 398 493 Oct-post 182 73 55 27 7 182 140 104 91 82 77 78 151 280 390 Sockeye 450 223 154 132 88 Aug - pre 422 202 143 112 73 422 313 182 94 59 45 36 30 31 127 398 493 Aug - post 395 193 137 104 70 395 329 182 140 104 91 82 77 78 151 280 390 Sep - pre 313 154 113 72 60 313 182 94 59 45 36 30 31 127 398 493 Sep - post 329 163 89 64 51 329 182 140 104 91 82 77 78 151 280 390 Dolly V 450 224 204 159 135 Aug - pre* 388 216 174 139 113 388 313 182 94 59 45 36 30 31 127 398 Aug - post* 395 217 177 141 114 395 329 182 140 104 91 82 77 78 151 280 Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 9 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT SALMONID EFFECTIVE SPAWNING AND INCUBATION ANALYSIS Reach Species Month Spawning Flow > 98% > 90% > 80% > 70% Median flow during incubation months (Pre- and Post-Project) Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Mainstem Dolly V Sep - pre 313 198 146 119 85 313 182 94 59 45 36 30 31 127 398 Reaches 1 - 4 Sep - post 329 88 85 85 62 329 182 140 104 91 82 77 78 151 280 Oct-pre 182 115 73 59 43 182 94 59 45 36 30 31 127 398 Oct-post 182 115 73 59 43 182 140 104 91 82 77 78 151 280 Nov-pre* 110 67 30 10 5 110 59 45 36 30 31 127 398 Nov-post* 157 151 121 83 45 157 104 91 82 77 78 151 280 May Jun Jul Aug Rain- bow 450 216 162 131 103 May - pre* 182 140 75 56 33 182 398 488 422 May - post* 181 139 71 45 13 181 280 390 395 Jun - pre 398 398 488 422 Jun - post 280 193 131 78 60 280 390 395 Reach 1 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul* Distributary Chinook 4.48 1.79 - - - Aug - pre* 4.08 1.79 - - - 4.08 3.12 1.81 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.96 4.91 Aug - post* 3.93 1.79 - - - 3.93 3.27 1.81 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.79 3.88 Sep-pre* 3.18 1.79 - - - 3.12 1.81 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.96 4.91 Sep-post* 3.46 1.79 - - - 3.27 1.81 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.79 3.88 Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 10 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT SALMONID EFFECTIVE SPAWNING AND INCUBATION ANALYSIS Reach Species Month Spawning Flow > 98% > 90% > 80% > 70% Median flow during incubation months (Pre- and Post-Project) Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Reach 1 Coho 4.48 2.26 2.20 2.16 2.11 Distributary Sep-pre* 3.08 1.79 - - - 3.08 1.81 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.96 4.91 Sep-post* 3.23 1.79 - - - 3.23 1.81 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.79 3.88 Oct-pre 1.81 1.79 - - - 1.81 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.96 4.91 Oct-post 1.80 1.79 - - - 1.81 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.79 3.88 Sockeye 4.48 2.23 2.18 2.13 2.07 Aug - pre 4.20 1.87 1.79 - - 4.20 3.12 1.81 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.96 4.91 Aug - post 3.93 1.79 - - - 3.93 3.27 1.81 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.79 3.88 Sep - pre 3.12 1.79 - - - 3.12 1.81 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.96 4.91 Sep - post 3.27 1.79 - - - 3.27 1.81 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.79 3.88 Dolly V 4.48 2.26 2.19 2.13 2.07 Aug - pre* 3.86 1.97 1.79 - - 3.86 3.12 1.81 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.96 Aug - post* 3.93 1.97 1.79 - - 3.93 3.27 1.81 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.79 Sep - pre 3.12 1.90 1.79 - - 3.12 1.81 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.96 Sep - post 3.27 1.92 1.79 - - 3.27 1.81 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.79 Oct-pre 1.81 1.79 - - - 1.81 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.96 Oct-post 1.81 1.79 - - - 1.81 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.79 Nov-pre* 0.00 - - - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.96 Nov-post* 0.00 - - - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.79 Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 11 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT SALMONID EFFECTIVE SPAWNING AND INCUBATION ANALYSIS Reach Species Month Spawning Flow > 98% > 90% > 80% > 70% Median flow during incubation months (Pre- and Post-Project) Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Reach 1 May Jun Jul Aug Distributary Rain- bow 4.48 2.33 2.20 2.14 2.09 May - pre* 1.80 1.79 - - - 1.81 3.96 4.86 4.20 May - post* 1.79 1.79 - - - 1.80 2.79 3.88 3.93 Jun - pre 3.94 1.98 1.79 - - 3.96 4.86 4.20 Jun - post 2.77 1.90 1.79 - - 2.79 3.88 3.93 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul* Reach 3 Chinook 71.2 2.3 2.0 1.7 1.3 Side Channels Aug - pre* 64.8 2.3 2.0 1.5 1.0 68.3 52.2 30.3 15.6 9.9 7.5 6.0 5.0 5.1 21.1 66.4 82.2 Aug - post* 62.5 2.3 2.0 1.5 1.0 65.8 54.8 30.3 23.3 17.3 15.2 13.7 12.8 12.9 25.2 46.7 65.0 Sep-pre* 50.6 2.3 1.9 1.5 1.0 52.2 30.3 15.6 9.9 7.5 6.0 5.0 5.1 21.1 66.4 82.2 Sep-post* 55.0 2.3 1.9 1.5 1.0 54.8 30.3 23.3 17.3 15.2 13.7 12.8 12.9 25.2 46.7 65.0 Coho 71.2 5.3 2.3 2.1 1.8 Sep-pre* 49.0 5.2 2.3 2.0 1.7 51.7 30.3 15.6 9.9 7.5 6.0 5.0 5.1 21.1 66.4 82.2 Sep-post* 51.3 5.2 2.3 2.0 1.7 54.1 30.3 23.3 17.3 15.2 13.7 12.8 12.9 25.2 46.7 65.0 Oct-pre 28.8 5.2 2.3 1.9 1.6 30.3 15.6 9.9 7.5 6.0 5.0 5.1 21.1 66.4 82.2 Oct-post 28.8 5.2 2.3 1.9 1.6 30.3 23.3 17.3 15.2 13.7 12.8 12.9 25.2 46.7 65.0 Sockeye 71.2 5.3 2.3 2.1 0.7 Aug - pre 66.7 5.3 2.3 2.1 1.9 70.3 52.2 30.3 15.6 9.9 7.5 6.0 5.0 5.1 21.1 66.4 82.2 Aug - post 62.5 5.3 2.3 2.1 1.9 65.8 54.8 30.3 23.3 17.3 15.2 13.7 12.8 12.9 25.2 46.7 65.0 Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 12 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT SALMONID EFFECTIVE SPAWNING AND INCUBATION ANALYSIS Reach Species Month Spawning Flow > 98% > 90% > 80% > 70% Median flow during incubation months (Pre- and Post-Project) Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Reach 3 Sockeye Sep - pre 49.5 5.2 2.3 2.0 1.8 52.2 30.3 15.6 9.9 7.5 6.0 5.0 5.1 21.1 66.4 82.2 Side Channels Sep - post 51.9 5.2 2.3 2.0 1.8 54.8 30.3 23.3 17.3 15.2 13.7 12.8 12.9 25.2 46.7 65.0 Dolly V 71.2 5.3 2.3 2.1 2.0 Aug - pre* 61.4 5.2 2.3 2.0 1.8 64.7 52.2 30.3 15.6 9.9 7.5 6.0 5.0 5.1 21.1 66.4 Aug - post* 62.5 5.2 2.3 2.1 1.8 65.8 54.8 30.3 23.3 17.3 15.2 13.7 12.8 12.9 25.2 46.7 Sep - pre 49.5 1.4 0.8 - - 52.2 30.3 15.6 9.9 7.5 6.0 5.0 5.1 21.1 66.4 Sep - post 51.9 5.2 2.2 2.0 1.7 54.8 30.3 23.3 17.3 15.2 13.7 12.8 12.9 25.2 46.7 Oct-pre 28.8 4.9 2.1 1.8 1.4 30.3 15.6 9.9 7.5 6.0 5.0 5.1 21.1 66.4 Oct-post 28.8 4.9 2.1 1.8 1.4 30.3 23.3 17.3 15.2 13.7 12.8 12.9 25.2 46.7 Nov-pre* 17.5 2.4 2.1 1.7 1.4 18.4 9.9 7.5 6.0 5.0 5.1 21.1 66.4 Nov-post* 24.8 4.8 2.1 1.8 1.3 26.2 17.3 15.2 13.7 12.8 12.9 25.2 46.7 May Jun Jul Aug Rainbow 71.2 5.1 2.3 2.0 1.8 May - pre* 28.8 3.9 2.1 1.8 1.4 30.3 66.4 81.3 70.3 May - post* 28.6 3.9 2.1 1.8 1.4 30.2 46.7 65.0 65.8 Jun - pre 63.0 5.1 2.2 1.9 1.7 66.4 81.3 70.3 Jun - post 44.3 5.0 2.2 1.9 1.6 46.7 65.0 65.8 Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 13 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT SALMONID EFFECTIVE SPAWNING AND INCUBATION ANALYSIS Reach Species Month Spawning Flow > 98% > 90% > 80% > 70% Median flow during incubation months (Pre- and Post-Project) Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Grant Creek Chinook 450 151 122 71 52 All Reaches Aug - pre* 410 146 94 50 43 410 313 182 94 59 45 36 30 31 127 398 493 Aug - post* 395 145 94 56 40 395 329 182 140 104 91 82 77 78 151 280 390 Sep-pre* 320 108 36 27 19 313 182 94 59 45 36 30 31 127 398 493 Sep-post* 348 137 69 41 30 329 182 140 104 91 82 77 78 151 280 390 Coho 450 226 167 136 92 Sep-pre* 310 149 93 64 48 310 182 94 59 45 36 30 31 127 398 493 Sep-post* 325 160 102 65 51 325 182 140 104 91 82 77 78 151 280 390 Oct-pre 182 73 53 23 7 182 94 59 45 36 30 31 127 398 493 Oct-post 182 73 53 23 7 182 140 104 91 82 77 78 151 280 390 Sockeye 450 221 151 129 75 Aug - pre 422 201 142 110 70 422 313 182 94 59 45 36 30 31 127 398 493 Aug - post 395 192 136 102 67 395 329 182 140 104 91 82 77 78 151 280 390 Sep - pre 313 151 53 70 56 313 182 94 59 45 36 30 31 127 398 493 Sep - post 329 163 92 63 46 329 182 140 104 91 82 77 78 151 280 390 Dolly V 450 243 203 160 134 Aug - pre* 388 216 173 139 111 388 313 182 94 59 45 36 30 31 127 398 Aug - post* 395 217 174 140 112 395 329 182 140 104 91 82 77 78 151 280 Sep - pre 313 166 146 121 79 313 182 94 59 45 36 30 31 127 398 Sep - post 329 185 148 122 49 329 182 140 104 91 82 77 78 151 280 Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 14 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT SALMONID EFFECTIVE SPAWNING AND INCUBATION ANALYSIS Reach Species Month Spawning Flow > 98% > 90% > 80% > 70% Median flow during incubation months (Pre- and Post-Project) Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Grant Creek Oct-pre 182 118 72 57 36 182 94 59 45 36 30 31 127 398 All Reaches Oct-post 182 118 72 57 36 182 140 104 91 82 77 78 151 280 Nov-pre* 110 66 29 10 5 110 59 45 36 30 31 127 398 Nov-post* 157 150 120 80 44 157 104 91 82 77 78 151 280 May Jun Jul Aug Rainbow 450 216 163 129 155 May - pre* 182 140 73 53 29 182 398 488 422 May - post* 181 139 69 41 12 181 280 390 395 Jun - pre 398 209 149 122 74 398 488 422 Jun - post 280 190 129 73 56 280 390 395 Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 15 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT SALMONID EFFECTIVE SPAWNING AND INCUBATION ANALYSIS 4 DISCUSSION The analysis provided in this report is based upon transects that were selected for habitat modeling as part of the Instream Flow Study conducted for the Project in 2013. Spawning habitat was, and continues to be, sparse in these reaches due to peak flows, relatively high gradient, and low gravel recruitment, resulting in predominantly cobble-boulder substrates. In general, Grant Creek flows from January through mid-May and in the November through December period will be higher post-Project than they currently are pre-Project (see Table 3.4- 1). It is also important to note that under pre-Project flows, the Reach 1 Distributary dries up when flows in Grant Creek drop below approximately 180 cfs. If Project mitigation measures include altering the entrance to the Reach 1 Distributary, fish habitat, especially spawning and incubation habitat, will increase in this reach. With these higher November through mid-May flows, incubating salmonid eggs will be afforded higher rates of protection with the Project in place than under the pre-Project regime. As a result, incubation will not be significantly affected. 5 LITERATURE CITED KHL (Kenai Hydro LLC). 2014. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13212). Aquatic Resources – Grant Creek Aquatic Habitat Mapping and Instream Flow Study Final Report. Prepared by McMillen, LLC. June 2014. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 16 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT SALMONID EFFECTIVE SPAWNING AND INCUBATION ANALYSIS Appendix 1: Spawning Analysis Figures This appendix contains the following figures: Figure A1-1. Transect 100 bed profile, Chinook spawning substrate values, and Water Surface Elevations (WSEs), 50 - 450 cfs (as measured at the Grant Creek gage). Figure A1-2. Transect 100 bed profile, sockeye and coho spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs (as measured at the Grant Creek gage). Figure A1-3. Transect 110 bed profile, Chinook spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs (as measured at the Grant Creek gage). Figure A1-4. Transect 110 bed profile, sockeye and coho spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs (as measured at the Grant Creek gage). Figure A1-5. Transect 120 bed profile, Chinook spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Figure A1-6. Transect 120 bed profile, sockeye and coho spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Figure A1-7. Transect 130 bed profile, Chinook spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Figure A1-8. Transect 130 bed profile, sockeye and coho spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Figure A1-9. Transect 130 bed profile, sockeye spawning values, redd locations, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Figure A1-10. Transect 140 bed profile, Chinook spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Figure A1-11. Transect 140 bed profile, sockeye and coho spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Figure A1-12. Transect 140 bed profile, sockeye spawning values, redd locations, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Figure A1-13. Transect 150 bed profile, Chinook spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Figure A1-14. Transect 150 bed profile, sockeye and coho spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Figure A1-15. Transect 150 bed profile, coho spawning values, redd locations, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Figure A1-16. Transect 160 bed profile, Chinook spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Figure A1-17. Transect 160 bed profile, sockeye spawning values, redd locations, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Figure A1-18. Transect 160 bed profile, coho spawning values, redd locations, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Figure A1-19. Transect 200 bed profile, Chinook spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs (as measured at the Grant Creek gage). Figure A1-20. Transect 200 bed profile, sockeye and coho spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs (as measured at the Grant Creek gage). Figure A1-21. Transect 220 bed profile, Chinook spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Figure A1-22. Transect 220 bed profile, sockeye spawning values, redd locations, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Figure A1-23. Transect 220 bed profile, coho spawning values, redd locations, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Figure A1-24. Transect 230 bed profile, Chinook spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Figure A1-25. Transect 230 bed profile, sockeye and coho spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Figure A1-26. Transect 230 bed profile, sockeye spawning values, redd locations, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Figure A1-27. Transect 300 bed profile, Chinook spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs (as measured at the Grant Creek gage). Figure A1-28. Transect 300 bed profile, sockeye spawning values, redd locations, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs (as measured at the Grant Creek gage). Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT SALMONID EFFECTIVE SPAWNING AND INCUBATION ANALYSIS Figure A1-29. Transect 300 bed profile, coho spawning values, redd locations, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs (as measured at the Grant Creek gage). Figure A1-30. Transect 310 bed profile, Chinook spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs (as measured at the Grant Creek gage). Figure A1-31. Transect 310 bed profile, sockeye and coho spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs (as measured at the Grant Creek gage). Figure A1-32. Transect 310 bed profile, coho spawning values, redd locations, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs (as measured at the Grant Creek gage). Figure A1-33. Transect 320 bed profile, Chinook spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs (as measured at the Grant Creek gage). Figure A1-34. Transect 320 bed profile, sockeye and coho spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs (as measured at the Grant Creek gage). Figure A1-35. Transect 330 primary channel bed profile, Chinook spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs (as measured at the Grant Creek gage). Figure A1-36. Transect 330 primary channel bed profile, sockeye and coho spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs (as measured at the Grant Creek gage). Figure A1-37. Transect 330 primary channel bed profile, sockeye spawning values, redd locations, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Figure A1-38. Transect 400 bed profile, Chinook spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Figure A1-39. Transect 400 bed profile, sockeye and coho spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Figure A1-40. Transect 400 bed profile, sockeye spawning values, redd locations, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Figure A1-41. Transect 410 bed profile, Chinook spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Figure A1-42. Transect 410 bed profile, sockeye and coho spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Figure A1-43. Transect 410 bed profile, coho spawning values, redd locations, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Figure A1-44. Transect 430 bed profile, Chinook spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Figure A1-45. Transect 430 bed profile, sockeye and coho spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Figure A1-46. Transect 430 bed profile, coho spawning values, redd locations, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT SALMONID EFFECTIVE SPAWNING AND INCUBATION ANALYSIS Figure A1-1. Transect 100 bed profile, Chinook spawning substrate values, and Water Surface Elevations (WSEs), 50 - 450 cfs (as measured at the Grant Creek gage). Figure A1-2. Transect 100 bed profile, sockeye and coho spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs (as measured at the Grant Creek gage). Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 Appendix 1 Page 1 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT SALMONID EFFECTIVE SPAWNING AND INCUBATION ANALYSIS Figure A1-3. Transect 110 bed profile, Chinook spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs (as measured at the Grant Creek gage). Figure A1-4. Transect 110 bed profile, sockeye and coho spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs (as measured at the Grant Creek gage). Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 Appendix 1 Page 2 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT SALMONID EFFECTIVE SPAWNING AND INCUBATION ANALYSIS Figure A1-5. Transect 120 bed profile, Chinook spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Figure A1-6. Transect 120 bed profile, sockeye and coho spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 Appendix 1 Page 3 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT SALMONID EFFECTIVE SPAWNING AND INCUBATION ANALYSIS Figure A1-7. Transect 130 bed profile, Chinook spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Figure A1-8. Transect 130 bed profile, sockeye and coho spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 Appendix 1 Page 4 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT SALMONID EFFECTIVE SPAWNING AND INCUBATION ANALYSIS Figure A1-9. Transect 130 bed profile, sockeye spawning values, redd locations, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Figure A1-10. Transect 140 bed profile, Chinook spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 Appendix 1 Page 5 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT SALMONID EFFECTIVE SPAWNING AND INCUBATION ANALYSIS Figure A1-11. Transect 140 bed profile, sockeye and coho spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Figure A1-12. Transect 140 bed profile, sockeye spawning values, redd locations, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 Appendix 1 Page 6 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT SALMONID EFFECTIVE SPAWNING AND INCUBATION ANALYSIS Figure A1-13. Transect 150 bed profile, Chinook spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Figure A1-14. Transect 150 bed profile, sockeye and coho spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 Appendix 1 Page 7 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT SALMONID EFFECTIVE SPAWNING AND INCUBATION ANALYSIS Figure A1-15. Transect 150 bed profile, coho spawning values, redd locations, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Figure A1-16. Transect 160 bed profile, Chinook spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 Appendix 1 Page 8 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT SALMONID EFFECTIVE SPAWNING AND INCUBATION ANALYSIS Figure A1-17. Transect 160 bed profile, sockeye spawning values, redd locations, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Figure A1-18. Transect 160 bed profile, coho spawning values, redd locations, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 Appendix 1 Page 9 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT SALMONID EFFECTIVE SPAWNING AND INCUBATION ANALYSIS Figure A1-19. Transect 200 bed profile, Chinook spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs (as measured at the Grant Creek gage). Figure A1-20. Transect 200 bed profile, sockeye and coho spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs (as measured at the Grant Creek gage). Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 Appendix 1 Page 10 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT SALMONID EFFECTIVE SPAWNING AND INCUBATION ANALYSIS Figure A1-21. Transect 220 bed profile, Chinook spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Figure A1-22. Transect 220 bed profile, sockeye spawning values, redd locations, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 Appendix 1 Page 11 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT SALMONID EFFECTIVE SPAWNING AND INCUBATION ANALYSIS Figure A1-23. Transect 220 bed profile, coho spawning values, redd locations, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Figure A1-24. Transect 230 bed profile, Chinook spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 Appendix 1 Page 12 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT SALMONID EFFECTIVE SPAWNING AND INCUBATION ANALYSIS Figure A1-25. Transect 230 bed profile, sockeye and coho spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Figure A1-26. Transect 230 bed profile, sockeye spawning values, redd locations, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 Appendix 1 Page 13 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT SALMONID EFFECTIVE SPAWNING AND INCUBATION ANALYSIS Figure A1-27. Transect 300 bed profile, Chinook spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs (as measured at the Grant Creek gage). Figure A1-28. Transect 300 bed profile, sockeye spawning values, redd locations, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs (as measured at the Grant Creek gage). Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 Appendix 1 Page 14 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT SALMONID EFFECTIVE SPAWNING AND INCUBATION ANALYSIS Figure A1-29. Transect 300 bed profile, coho spawning values, redd locations, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs (as measured at the Grant Creek gage). Figure A1-30. Transect 310 bed profile, Chinook spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs (as measured at the Grant Creek gage). Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 Appendix 1 Page 15 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT SALMONID EFFECTIVE SPAWNING AND INCUBATION ANALYSIS Figure A1-31. Transect 310 bed profile, sockeye and coho spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs (as measured at the Grant Creek gage). Figure A1-32. Transect 310 bed profile, coho spawning values, redd locations, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs (as measured at the Grant Creek gage). Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 Appendix 1 Page 16 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT SALMONID EFFECTIVE SPAWNING AND INCUBATION ANALYSIS Figure A1-33. Transect 320 bed profile, Chinook spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs (as measured at the Grant Creek gage). Figure A1-34. Transect 320 bed profile, sockeye and coho spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs (as measured at the Grant Creek gage). Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 Appendix 1 Page 17 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT SALMONID EFFECTIVE SPAWNING AND INCUBATION ANALYSIS Figure A1-35. Transect 330 primary channel bed profile, Chinook spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs (as measured at the Grant Creek gage). Figure A1-36. Transect 330 primary channel bed profile, sockeye and coho spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs (as measured at the Grant Creek gage). Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 Appendix 1 Page 18 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT SALMONID EFFECTIVE SPAWNING AND INCUBATION ANALYSIS Figure A1-37. Transect 330 primary channel bed profile, sockeye spawning values, redd locations, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Figure A1-38. Transect 400 bed profile, Chinook spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 Appendix 1 Page 19 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT SALMONID EFFECTIVE SPAWNING AND INCUBATION ANALYSIS Figure A1-39. Transect 400 bed profile, sockeye and coho spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Figure A1-40. Transect 400 bed profile, sockeye spawning values, redd locations, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 Appendix 1 Page 20 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT SALMONID EFFECTIVE SPAWNING AND INCUBATION ANALYSIS Figure A1-41. Transect 410 bed profile, Chinook spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Figure A1-42. Transect 410 bed profile, sockeye and coho spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 Appendix 1 Page 21 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT SALMONID EFFECTIVE SPAWNING AND INCUBATION ANALYSIS Figure A1-43. Transect 410 bed profile, coho spawning values, redd locations, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Figure A1-44. Transect 430 bed profile, Chinook spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Redds Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 Appendix 1 Page 22 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT SALMONID EFFECTIVE SPAWNING AND INCUBATION ANALYSIS Figure A1-45. Transect 430 bed profile, sockeye and coho spawning substrate values, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Figure A1-46. Transect 430 bed profile, coho spawning values, redd locations, and WSEs, 50 - 450 cfs. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 Appendix 1 Page 23 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT AQUATIC RESOURCES – HABITAT MAPPING / INSTREAM FLOW STUDY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Appendix 5: Grant Creek Habitat Time Series Analysis Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 October 2014 Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13212) Grant Creek Habitat Time Series Analysis Draft Report Prepared for Kenai Hydro LLC Prepared by October 2014 DRAFT REPORT GRANT CREEK HABITAT TIME SERIES ANALYSIS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 2 Methods ............................................................................................................................... 1 3 Results ................................................................................................................................. 2 3.1 Target Species .................................................................................................................. 2 3.2 Grant Creek Hydrology ................................................................................................... 4 3.3 Grant Creek Reach and Transect Weighting ................................................................... 4 3.4 Grant Creek WUA ........................................................................................................... 4 3.4.1 Chinook Salmon ................................................................................................ 4 3.4.2 Coho Salmon ..................................................................................................... 6 3.4.3 Sockeye Salmon ................................................................................................ 7 3.4.4 Dolly Varden ..................................................................................................... 8 3.4.5 Rainbow Trout ................................................................................................. 10 3.4.6 Summary .......................................................................................................... 12 4 Literature Cited ............................................................................................................... 15 List of Tables Table 3.1-1. Potential target species and life history stages to be modeled in the Grant Creek Instream Flow Study. .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Table 3.1-2. Life history and periodicity for Grant Creek salmonids. ......................................................... 3 Table 3.4-1. Grant Creek pre-Project and with-Project WUA for life history stages. ............................... 14 List of Figures Figure 3.4-1. Chinook Spawning WUA ....................................................................................................... 5 Figure 3.4-2. Chinook Fry Rearing WUA ................................................................................................... 5 Figure 3.4-3. Chinook Juvenile Rearing WUA ............................................................................................ 6 Figure 3.4-4. Coho Spawning WUA ............................................................................................................ 6 Figure 3.4-5. Coho Fry Rearing WUA ........................................................................................................ 7 Figure 3.4-6. Coho Juvenile Rearing WUA ................................................................................................. 7 Figure 3.4-7. Sockeye Spawning WUA ....................................................................................................... 8 Figure 3.4-8. Dolly Varden Spawning WUA............................................................................................... 8 Figure 3.4-9. Dolly Varden Fry Rearing WUA ........................................................................................... 9 Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 i October 2014 DRAFT REPORT GRANT CREEK HABITAT TIME SERIES ANALYSIS Figure 3.4-10. Dolly Varden Juvenile Rearing WUA .................................................................................. 9 Figure 3.4-11. Dolly Varden Adult Rearing WUA .................................................................................... 10 Figure 3.4-12. Rainbow Trout Spawning WUA ........................................................................................ 10 Figure 3.4-13. Rainbow Trout Fry Rearing WUA ..................................................................................... 11 Figure 3.4-14. Rainbow Trout Juvenile Rearing WUA ............................................................................. 11 Figure 3.4-15. Rainbow Trout Adult Rearing WUA ................................................................................. 12 Figure 3.4-16. Salmonid Spawning WUA ................................................................................................. 12 Figure 3.4-17. Salmonid Fry Rearing WUA .............................................................................................. 13 Figure 3.4-18. Salmonid Juvenile Rearing WUA ...................................................................................... 13 Figure 3.4-19. Salmonid Adult Rearing WUA .......................................................................................... 14 Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 ii October 2014 DRAFT REPORT GRANT CREEK HABITAT TIME SERIES ANALYSIS Grant Creek Habitat Time Series Analysis Draft Report Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13212) 1 INTRODUCTION This report is intended to address a request from the Instream Flow Work Group (Work Group) to conduct a habitat time series analysis for the salmonid life history stages present in Grant Creek for the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (Project). This effort requires a long-term hydrologic record to compare Grant Creek flows without the Project (i.e., pre-Project) to flows for the same time period, assuming the Project is on-line and operating as proposed (i.e., with- Project). The goals and objectives of this analysis were as follows: • Calculate habitat for the Grant Creek salmonid species and life history stages, as measured by Weighted Usable Area (WUA). • Compare the amount of habitat for the Grant Creek salmonids pre-Project and with- Project for the period of record. • Calculate gains or losses in habitat with the Project on-line. 2 METHODS McMillen, LLC (McMillen) ran the previously calibrated Grant Creek Instream Flow models used for the Instream Flow Study. Much of the data or work products required for the habitat time series analysis were developed subsequent to the Aquatic Resources – Grant Creek Aquatic Habitat and Instream Flow Study Final Report (KHL 2014). Data required to conduct the habitat time series analysis are listed below: • Hydrologic Record. McMillen developed a long-term hydrologic record that extended from Calendar Year (CY) 1948 through CY 2013. The record was developed for pre-Project flows and with-Project flows and is a composite record of actual and synthesized data. • Grant Creek final transect weighting for all transects. • Final Grant Creek WUA, incorporating all species and life history stages for all transects. McMillen used RHABSIM (Riverine Habitat Simulation System) by Thomas R. Payne and Associates (now with Normandeau Associates, Arcata, CA) to produce WUA curves for all salmonid spawning and rearing life history stages. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 1 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT GRANT CREEK HABITAT TIME SERIES ANALYSIS McMillen used Microsoft Excel© to calculate daily WUA values, using Grant Creek periodicity, and synthesized or measured flows for the years 1948 through 2013, both pre-Project and with- Project. Daily WUA for each species and life history stage were then averaged for the appropriate dates, based upon the periodicity of the species and life history stages. 3 RESULTS 3.1 Target Species Target species and life history stages are summarized in Table 3.1-1. Grant Creek periodicity is provided in Table 3.1-2. Table 3.1-1. Potential target species and life history stages to be modeled in the Grant Creek Instream Flow Study. Species Spawning Fry Rearing Juvenile Rearing Adult Rearing Sockeye Salmon Coho Salmon Chinook Salmon Rainbow Trout Dolly Varden Char Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 2 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT GRANT CREEK HABITAT TIME SERIES ANALYSIS Table 3.1-2. Life history and periodicity for Grant Creek salmonids. Species Life Stage Spawning Incubation/Emergence Fry (<50mm) Juvenile Spawning Incubation/Emergence Fry (<50mm) Juvenile Spawning Incubation/Emergence Spawning Incubation/Emergence Fry (<60mm) Juvenile Adult Spawning Incubation/Emergence Fry (<50mm) Juvenile Adult Chinook Coho Sockeye Dolly Varden Rainbow DecJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNov Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 3 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT GRANT CREEK HABITAT TIME SERIES ANALYSIS 3.2 Grant Creek Hydrology As mentioned above, McMillen developed a composite, 66-year time series for Grant Creek for CY 1948 through CY 2013. Measured flows in Grant Creek were collected by the following: • The U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) (USGS gage 15246000 Grant Creek data – 1/1/1948 – 9/30/1958); • Kenai Hydro LLC (KHL) (4/3/2013 – 12/31/2013); and • Ebasco data (1981 – 1983, intermittent). The record extension was based upon a correlation with overlapping Kenai River at Cooper Landing data (USGS 15258000) for the 1/1/1948 – 9/30/1958 period with the USGS data on Grant Creek. The hydrologic record was then extended from 10/1/1958 – 4/2/2013, excluding the Ebasco periods. That 66-year composite (measured and synthesized flows) record (pre- Project) was then revised to reflect the with-Project condition, producing two 66-year composite records for analysis. 3.3 Grant Creek Reach and Transect Weighting Final Grant Creek transect and reach weighting were developed in consultation with the Work Group. A final transect weighting report was issued on August 4, 2014. 3.4 Grant Creek WUA Once Grant Creek reach and transect weighting were established, KHL developed final WUA curves for the Grant Creek salmonid species and life history stages. These curves were then used to analyze daily flows for the 66-year period of record, pre-Project and with-Project. Results are provided below. 3.4.1 Chinook Salmon WUA for Chinook salmon spawning and rearing are shown in Figures 3.4-1 to 3.4-3. With- Project WUA ranged from 96.9% of pre-Project for Chinook fry rearing, to 100.2% for Chinook juvenile rearing. Chinook spawning with-Project WUA was 99.5% of the pre-Project WUA. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 4 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT GRANT CREEK HABITAT TIME SERIES ANALYSIS Figure 3.4-1. Chinook Spawning WUA Figure 3.4-2. Chinook Fry Rearing WUA Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 5 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT GRANT CREEK HABITAT TIME SERIES ANALYSIS Figure 3.4-3. Chinook Juvenile Rearing WUA 3.4.2 Coho Salmon WUA for coho salmon spawning and rearing are shown in Figures 3.4-4 to 3.4-6. With-Project WUA ranged from 99% of pre-Project for coho fry rearing, to slightly more than 100% for coho spawning. With-Project coho juvenile rearing WUA averaged 99.2% of pre-Project WUA; however, monthly with-Project WUA ranged from 93.9% to 103.8% of pre-Project WUA. With- Project WUA was generally higher than pre-Project WUA during the late fall – early spring months, when the Project would increase Grant Creek flows. Figure 3.4-4. Coho Spawning WUA Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 6 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT GRANT CREEK HABITAT TIME SERIES ANALYSIS Figure 3.4-5. Coho Fry Rearing WUA Figure 3.4-6. Coho Juvenile Rearing WUA 3.4.3 Sockeye Salmon WUA for sockeye salmon spawning is shown in Figure 3.4-7. With-Project spawning WUA averaged 99% of pre-Project WUA, but ranged from 98.0% in August to 100.1% in September. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 7 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT GRANT CREEK HABITAT TIME SERIES ANALYSIS Figure 3.4-7. Sockeye Spawning WUA 3.4.4 Dolly Varden WUA for Dolly Varden spawning and rearing are shown in Figures 3.4-8 to 3.4-11. With- Project WUA ranged from 96.5% of pre-Project WUA for Dolly Varden adult rearing to 102.9% for Dolly Varden juvenile rearing. Dolly Varden fry rearing post-Project WUA averaged 98.9% of the pre-project WUA, ranging from 94.9% to 100.6%. With-Project spawning WUA was slightly greater than pre-Project WUA (100.3%). Figure 3.4-8. Dolly Varden Spawning WUA Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 8 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT GRANT CREEK HABITAT TIME SERIES ANALYSIS Figure 3.4-9. Dolly Varden Fry Rearing WUA Figure 3.4-10. Dolly Varden Juvenile Rearing WUA Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 9 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT GRANT CREEK HABITAT TIME SERIES ANALYSIS Figure 3.4-11. Dolly Varden Adult Rearing WUA 3.4.5 Rainbow Trout WUA for rainbow trout spawning and rearing are shown in Figures 3.4-12 to 3.4-15. With- Project WUA ranged from 94.2% of pre-Project WUA for rainbow trout adult rearing to 101.4% for rainbow trout fry rearing. Rainbow trout juvenile rearing with-Project WUA averaged 99.3%, ranging from 88.9% – 106.8% of pre-Project WUA. Rainbow trout spawning with- Project WUA averaged 98.8% of pre-Project WUA, ranging from 98% to 100.1%. Figure 3.4-12. Rainbow Trout Spawning WUA Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 10 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT GRANT CREEK HABITAT TIME SERIES ANALYSIS Figure 3.4-13. Rainbow Trout Fry Rearing WUA Figure 3.4-14. Rainbow Trout Juvenile Rearing WUA Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 11 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT GRANT CREEK HABITAT TIME SERIES ANALYSIS Figure 3.4-15. Rainbow Trout Adult Rearing WUA 3.4.6 Summary Pre-Project and with-Project WUA for all species and life history stages are shown in Figures 3.4-16 to 3.4-19 and are listed in Table 3.4-1. Overall, with-Project WUA is nearly identical to pre-Project WUA (99.8%). With the exception of resident adult (i.e., Dolly Varden and rainbow trout) with-Project rearing WUA (96.7% of pre-Project WUA), with-Project WUA is within 0.1% or is greater than pre-Project WUA. Figure 3.4-16. Salmonid Spawning WUA Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 12 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT GRANT CREEK HABITAT TIME SERIES ANALYSIS Figure 3.4-17. Salmonid Fry Rearing WUA Figure 3.4-18. Salmonid Juvenile Rearing WUA Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 13 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT GRANT CREEK HABITAT TIME SERIES ANALYSIS Figure 3.4-19. Salmonid Adult Rearing WUA Table 3.4-1. Grant Creek pre-Project and with-Project WUA for life history stages. Life Stage Weighted Usable Area Pre-Project With Project Percentage Spawning 41,635 41,607 99.93% Fry Rearing 93,043 94,060 101.09% Juvenile Rearing 103,890 104,437 100.53% Adult Rearing 69,868 67,553 96.69% Mean 77,109 76,914 99.75% The analysis provided in this report is based on final transect weighting, final WUA for each species and life history stage, and the 66-year hydrologic record for pre-Project and with-Project flows. Overall, with-Project WUA is nearly identical to pre-Project WUA, at 99.8%. The lowest with- Project WUA is for Dolly Varden and rainbow trout adult rearing. Adult rearing periodicity for these species extends from mid-May to the end of November. Project flows are reduced during the summer (June – August), which are the reason for lower adult rearing with-Project WUA during this period. If resident fish adult rearing WUA were removed from the analysis, overall with-Project WUA would be 100.6% of the pre-Project WUA. This analysis does not take into consideration potential mitigation and enhancement measures for the Project. For example, currently the Reach 1 distributary does not become wetted until flows in Grant Creek reach approximately 180 cfs; even when wetted, this distributary receives less than 1% of the Grant Creek flow. If this distributary were to be reconfigured to allow more water into the distributary and at lower Grant Creek flows, WUA for spawning and rearing in this distributary would increase significantly. This proposed enhancement measure, along with Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 14 October 2014 DRAFT REPORT GRANT CREEK HABITAT TIME SERIES ANALYSIS documented additional and more consistent flows in the Reach 2/3 side channel complex, will likely increase habitat availability during operations to a level above the current natural condition. 4 LITERATURE CITED KHL (Kenai Hydro LLC). 2014. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13212). Aquatic Resources – Grant Creek Aquatic Habitat Mapping and Instream Flow Study Final Report. Prepared by McMillen, LLC. June 2014. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC FERC No. 13212 15 October 2014 DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 March 2015 Attachment E-3. Terrestrial Resources Study, Final Report Addendum 2014 WILDLIFE STUDY ADDENDUM TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 1 March 2015 2014 Wildlife Resources Study Addendum Terrestrial Resources Study Report March 2015 1 INTRODUCTION The 2014 Wildlife Resources Study documents the field work and associated data analysis completed by Kenai Hydro, LLC (KHL) in winter 2013-2014 and spring/summer 2014, respectively. The 2014 field work includes the following: 1) winter use of Grant Lake by moose; 2) winter waterbird use of the open water section of Grant Lake outlet to Grant Creek; and 3) presence of Northern goshawks along the proposed access route. The 2014 Wildlife Studies were conducted in accordance with the approved Study Plan (KHL 2013). This 2014 Wildlife Resources Study is an addendum to the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Terrestrial Resources Study Report, June 2014 (referred to as the 2014 Final Report for the Terrestrial Resources Study; KHL 2014). The Ebasco (1984) report and the 2013 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 in the 2014 Final Report for the Terrestrial Resources Study. The subsections that follow provide a summary of the 2014 wildlife studies. The methods, results, and conclusions, as well as a summary of any variances from the 2013 Study Plan are provided for each study component. Relevant data from the previous Project wildlife studies are also incorporated within the relevant section. Study Area The 2014 wildlife study area is identical to that 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 of the 2014 Final Report for the Terrestrial Resources Study. The Grant Lake area is characteristic of the diverse vegetation mosaic found in the mountainous interior of the Kenai Peninsula. The plant communities in the study area are described in Section 3 and Section 4 of the 2014 Final Report for the Terrestrial Resources Study and include coniferous forests, mixed conifer/deciduous forest, forested shrub communities, grass communities, riparian areas, stream banks, lake margins, and small meadows. 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 spruce beetle infestation may be more susceptible to windthrow events. This was evident during the 2013 and 2014 field seasons along the proposed Project access route. Many areas were difficult to traverse due to high concentrations of downed trees. Additional details on the study area can be found in Section 5 of the 2014 Final Report for the Terrestrial Resources Study. Study areas for each of the three 2014 wildlife study components are described below. 2014 WILDLIFE STUDY ADDENDUM TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 2 March 2015 1.1.1. Raptor Nesting Survey The Survey area is defined in 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 2014 field efforts occurred within the 2013 wildlife assessment area (see Figure 5.1-1of the 2014 Final Report for the Terrestrial Resources Study, KHL 2014) and focused exclusively on Northern Goshawk Broadcast Surveys along the newly defined Project route, as all other Raptor surveys were deemed complete. Two surveys were conducted in 2014 to complete the two year sampling period. 1.1.2. Waterbirds The study area for wintering waterbirds is defined in the 2013 Study Plan as follows: The survey area for wintering waterbirds is located within the 2013 wildlife assessment area (see Figure 5.1-11of the 2014 Final Report for the Terrestrial Resources Study, KHL 2014) at the southern-most portion of Grant Lake at the source of Grant Creek. Two surveys were flown during the winter of 2013 - 2014. 1.1.3. Terrestrial Mammals A study area was not defined specifically for mammals in the 2013 Study Plan (KHL 2013). Two winter surveys of the study area were conducted to determine the presence and travel paths of moose during the winter 2013 - 2014. The 2013 - 2014 Moose Survey area was located within the 2013 wildlife assessment area (see Figure 5.1-1 of the 2014 Final Report for the Terrestrial Resources Study; KHL 2014) and included the area east of the Seward Highway and Alaska Railroad adjacent to the community of Moose Pass, extending past the eastern shoreline of Grant Lake. The Moose Survey area extended south between the highway and Grant Lake to Grant Creek, and included all Project facilities along Grant Lake, Grant Creek, and access road and transmission line routes. Methods The study method specific to each component of the 2014 Wildlife Studies Addendum, respectively, are described in the 2014 Final Report for the Terrestrial Resources Study (KHL 2014). A summary of methods used for the 2014 surveys is provided below. 1.2.1. Raptor Nesting Survey 2014 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 2014 effort sampled the same fifteen points surveyed in 2013. The 2014 survey methods utilize the same methods used for the 2013 study effort; the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Survey Methodology for Northern Goshawks in the Pacific Southwest Region (2000) and Woodbridge and Hargis (2006). Appendix 3b of the 2014 WILDLIFE STUDY ADDENDUM TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 3 March 2015 2014 Final Report for the Terrestrial Resources Study contains further information about the Northern Goshawk Survey (KHL 2014). 1.2.2. Waterbirds 2013- 2014 Winter Waterbird Surveys–In order to determine if this area is being utilized by waterbirds during the winter period, wildlife biologists conducted an aerial survey of the Grant Lake outlet area in December 2013 and March 2014 to document waterbird use and the amount of open water habitat available. Biologists documented species, and number of individuals during the daylight survey. 1.2.3. Terrestrial Mammals 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 the low pass into Moose Creek (Selinger personal communication, August 2013). Two winter aerial surveys of the study area were conducted to determine the presence and travel paths of moose during the winter 2013- 2014. The first of the two Winter Moose surveys was conducted in December 2013, the second in March 2014. Surveys used methods for full coverage of the study area as described in detail in Gasaway et al. (1986). Results The following subsections present the results of the 2014 Wildlife Study effort as well as relevant data from the Ebasco (1984) and the 2013 Wildlife studies. 1.3.1. Northern Goshawk Survey 2014 Northern Goshawk Broadcast Surveys - Two separate survey events were conducted in 2014: the first on June 25 and the second on July 9 and 10, 2014. No Northern goshawks were detected during the surveys. The 2014 effort sampled the same fifteen points surveyed in 2013. 2014 Incidental Raptor Sightings – An adult bald eagle was observed flying over Lower Trail Lake on June 25, 2014; a pair of adult bald eagles was observed perched along Lower Trail Lake on July 10, 2014. A merlin was detected on June 25, 2014, during the first field visit in the vicinity of the small island just south of the Trail Lake narrows, and again during the second field visit July 9 and 10, 2014. Compilation of 2014 and 2013 Results – One adult female Northern goshawk was detected during the 2 year sampling period in 2013. The habitat in which it was detected has been described previously in the 2014 Final Report for the Terrestrial Resources Study (KHL 2014). Lack of detection of this species does not indicate absence. Nesting goshawks are highly mobile and secretive. Positive detections that include vocal / visual responses are easily interpreted, whereas “no-detection” or negative data are difficult to prove (Woodbridge and Hargis 2006). 2014 WILDLIFE STUDY ADDENDUM TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 4 March 2015 USDA (2000) discusses the disadvantages of broadcast acoustic surveys, including low detection rates. Low detection may be attributed to the ineffectiveness of eliciting responses at nonbreeding and or failed sites, and distance between call point and active nests. USDA (2000) suggests that response rates are lower and more highly variable at territories with failed reproductive attempts, and particularly at territories with non-breeding adults, relative to territories with active and successful nests. In conclusion, the 2014 and 2013 surveys cannot conclusively determine the absence of Northern goshawks / nests or breeding territories along the access route. Suitable nesting and foraging habitat exist in the survey area and may be utilized by this species. 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). Additional 2014 Incidentals – Species that were observed incidentally during the 2014 field season include: Varied thrush, Lincoln’s sparrow, orange-crowned warbler, hermit thrush, Swainson’s thrush, Townsend’s warbler, slate-colored junco, common raven, white-winged crossbill, yellow-rumped warbler, ruby-crowned kinglet, boreal chickadee, alder flycatcher, Wilson’s warbler, fox sparrow, brown creeper, common loon, mew gull, pine siskin, pine grosbeak, yellow warbler, redpoll species, gray jay, goldeneye female with two chicks, red- breasted merganser, savannah sparrow, American robin, Arctic tern, and an American beaver. 1.3.2. Winter Waterbird Survey Christmas bird count data from Moose Pass (1983, 1984 and 1985) list the following species in the region of the project area during the winter: Barrow’s goldeneye, bufflehead, common goldeneye, common merganser, mallard and Northern pintail. Cumulative Christmas bird count data from Seward (30+ years) list: Trumpeter swan, gadwall, American green-winged teal, American wigeon, mallard, grater scaup, lesser scaup, harlequin duck, surf scoter, white-winged scoter, black scoter, long-tailed duck, bufflehead, common goldeneye, Barrow's goldeneye, hooded merganser, common merganser, red-breasted merganser, common loon, Pacific loon, red-throated loon, yellow-billed loon, horned grebe and red-necked grebe. Ducks can be categorized as "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 and American widgeons are puddle ducks. Diving ducks or waterbirds including goldeneyes, mergansers and loons are primarily observed on the larger and deeper ponds, lakes, and rivers; feeding by diving for a variety of aquatic animals and plants. Scoter and grebe species, hooded mergansers, gadwalls, buffleheads and long-tailed ducks have not been documented on Grant Lake during any month by any study. Open water winter waterbird surveys were flown in conjunction with the moose surveys on December 4. 2013 and March 27, 2014. The survey area has been defined previously, and 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). 2014 WILDLIFE STUDY ADDENDUM TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 5 March 2015 December 4, 2013 Survey – During the December 2013 survey open water was limited to the south end of Grant Lake (Figure 1), and the Trail Lake narrows between Upper and Lower Trail Lakes (Figure 2). The remainders of Grant Lake, and Upper and Lower Trail lakes were ice- covered. A pair of trumpeter swans and one unidentified merganser species were the only waterfowl (total = 3) observed in the open water section at the south end of Grant Lake (Figure 3). No waterfowl were observed in the open water of the Trail Lake narrows. Figure 1. December 4, 2013, open water at the south end of Grant Lake Figure 2. December 4, 2013, open water in the Trail Lake narrows 2014 WILDLIFE STUDY ADDENDUM TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 6 March 2015 Figure 3. December 4, 2013, location of the swans and merganser species at the south end of Grant Lake March 27, 2014 Survey – During the March 2014 survey open water was again limited to the south end of Grant Lake (Figure 4). No waterfowl were observed on Grant Lake. However, five trumpeter swans and several unidentified diving ducks were detected in the open water area on the north portion of Lower Trail Lake just below the narrows (Figure 5). Several unidentified divers were also detected in the open water of the Upper Trail Lake south of Moose Pass. Open water conditions on Upper Trail Lake are shown in Figure 6. 2014 WILDLIFE STUDY ADDENDUM TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 7 March 2015 Figure 4. March 27, 2014, open water on Grant Lake Figure 5. March 27, 2014, trumpeter swans and unidentified waterfowl on Lower Trail Lake 2014 WILDLIFE STUDIES ADDENDUM TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 8 March 2015 Figure 6. March 27, 2014, open water on Upper Trail Lake Compilation of Results - Trumpeter swans were detected on March 3, 2013, on the east side of Lower Trail Lake (K. Graham personal communication April 23, 2013). 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. The 2013 – 2014 survey data support the suggestion that Grant Lake and narrows area between the Trail Lakes provide overwintering habitat to waterbirds. Merganser and goldeneye species 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 in Grant Lake: Diptera, Plecoptera, Tricoptera, Bivalvia, Gastropoda and Gammaridae. Prey concentrations and availability may provide wintering opportunities on Grant Lake and the Trail Lakes; however, the extent of the prey availability is unknown. Trumpeter swans feed primarily on submerged vegetation. Grant Lake and the narrows may or may not provide foraging habitat for this species, but their presence in these area indicate that the swans are benefiting from the open water habitat in some way. 1.3.3. Winter Moose Surveys Wintering moose in the Project area have specific habitat requirements including: 1) cover (shelter) from weather and predators; 2) food for nourishment; and 3) space to obtain food. 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 winter. Wildlife diet selection is driven by the quantity and quality of available food in concert with the nutritional needs of the animal. Herbivores may become nutritionally stressed by a lack or shortage of food (quantity) or by a lack of highly nutritious food (quality) especially in winter. 2014 WILDLIFE STUDIES ADDENDUM TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 9 March 2015 Each wildlife species requires a certain amount of space to avoid or escape potential predators, obtain sufficient food for survival, and rest. Space requirements protect behavioral and social responses that ensure an animal’s well-being. Wildlife space requirements vary by species, but, generally, the amount of space required is determined by the quantity and quality of food, and cover (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. Moose surveys were flown in conjunction with the open water winter waterbird surveys on December 4, 2013 and March 27, 2014. The survey area has been defined previously. December 4, 2013 Survey – No moose were observed during the survey. One large “digging” site was observed and photographed on the slope at the North end of Grant Lake (Figure 7). Tracks at this site were large, but both pilot and observer could not 100 percent verify that the site was disturbed by moose, as mountain goats tend to shuffle as they walk through snow creating large tracks. The digging site was estimated to have been created within the last seven days of the survey. Other than this site, there were no moose tracks observed anywhere in the 2013 Grant Lake wildlife study area. Grant Lake was completely snow free during the December survey (Figure 8). Any sign of movement across the lake as evidenced by tracks were non- existent. Figure 7. December 4th 2013, digging site north end of Grant Lake 2014 WILDLIFE STUDIES ADDENDUM TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 10 March 2015 Figure 8. December 4th 2013, Grant Lake was snow free during the survey March 27, 2014 Survey – No moose were observed in the 2013 Grant Lake wildlife study area during the survey. A cow and yearling pair were detected up the watershed from the Grant Lake Inlet (Figures 9 and 10), outside the study area. Moose tracks were detected on the East-West upper lake portion of Grant Lakes. The tracks crossed North-South/ South-North (Figure 9). Direction of travel could not be determined as the tracks were old and refrozen after being set in “slushy” conditions. Cover conditions indicated the current snow layer was very old; showing signs of repeated thawing and freezing. This type of snow often forms a very hard crust even a moose can walk over without leaving tracks. Snow conditions on Grant Lake varied between the upper (east-west oriented section) and the lower (north – south oriented section) lake (Figure 11). The upper section exhibited repeated freeze / thaw characteristics. The only moose tracks found during the surveys appeared to have been made during a thaw / warm period on the lake as the tracks were estimated to be sunk 6- 12” into the ice. During the survey, the ice appeared to be re-frozen. The lower section retained a deeper snow load, and did not appear to have experienced a freeze / thaw process at the time of the survey. This section of the lake was not subject to the prolonged sun exposure that the upper lake was experiencing during the spring. 2014 WILDLIFE STUDIES ADDENDUM TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 11 March 2015 Figure 9. March 27, 2014, locations of moose tracks on Grant Lake, and cow- yearling pair east of Grant Lake inlet. Study area drawn in red. Figure 10. March 27, 2014, moose cow-yearling pair observed at location in Figure 9 Figure 11. March 27, 2014, snow conditions on Grant Lake during survey. Left photo: upper section, ice covered but snow free. Right photo: lower section, deeper snow load. 2014 WILDLIFE STUDIES ADDENDUM TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 12 March 2015 Compilation of Results –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, and is distributed throughout the Trail River watershed on all but the highest elevations (USFS 2008). The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (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 (USFS 2008). ADF&G designate the moose density in GMU 7 as “chronically low” and that the severe winters coupled with deep snow conditions most likely contribute to high mortality rates in this area (McDonough 2010). USFS (2008) predictive modeling of moose winter range is displayed in Figure 5.3-6 of the 2014 Final Report for the Terrestrial Resources Study (KHL 2014). Results from the 2013 - 2014 Winter Moose surveys appear to support ADF&G’s opinion of low moose numbers in the study area during the winter. There were no moose or tracks observed within the USFS (2008) predicted wintering habitat during the 2013 – 2014 aerial surveys; however lack of detection of moose during the two surveys does not indicate absence of moose in the study area during the winter. Conclusions and Potential Impacts This report provides an addendum to the 2014 Final Report for the Terrestrial Resources Study (KHL 2014). The objectives of the addendum are to: Ascertain the winter use of Grant Lake by moose; Delineate the winter waterbird use of the open water section of Grant Lake outlet to Grant Creek; and Detect the presence of Northern Goshawks along the proposed access route. Wildlife presence in the Project area is contingent on many variables including habitat. Habitat is comprised of resources (water, food, and shelter) and environmental requirements (temperature, predators, and competitors) that determine the presence, survival, and reproduction of a species. Wildlife exhibits a propensity to occupy those habitats that provide the resources to fulfill the requirements necessary for the continuance of that species. Potential impacts of the proposed project on Northern goshawks, winter waterbirds, and winter moose, are described below. Impact assessments will be refined based upon engineering feasibility work that will document infrastructural locations in relation to habitat for the species mentioned in this addendum, and will be included in the Draft License Application(DLA). 1.4.1. Northern Goshawks Potential Impacts to Northern Goshawks have been stated in the 2014 Final Report for the Terrestrial Resources Study (KHL 2014). 2014 WILDLIFE STUDIES ADDENDUM TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 13 March 2015 1.4.2. Winter Waterbirds Potential Impacts to Waterfowl - Changes in lake and creek outflow levels during the winter may indirectly impact waterfowl and waterbirds like trumpeter swans and diving ducks by decreasing or altering open water habitat at the mouth of Grant Creek and the outflow at the narrows. Decreased open water availability may lead to decreased resting and foraging habitat during the winter season. Waterfowl that overwinter in the region and spend time on waterbodies in this area of the Kenai Peninsula are currently subject to the natural freeze up / thaw processes during the winter. The possible project related alterations to open water habitat are not predicted to impact the overall waterfowl population of the Kenai Peninsula. 1.4.3. Winter Moose Potential Impacts to Moose – Changes in lake levels during the winter may indirectly impact moose by altering travel routes across Grant Lake. Altered lake levels may impact ice thickness necessary for transit. Moose density in this region of the Kenai Peninsula has been documented as low (McDonough 2010). The possible Project related alterations habitat are not predicted to impact the overall moose population of the Kenai Peninsula. Variances from FERC-Approved Study Plan and Proposed Modifications The 2013 - 2014 wildlife resources effort followed the March 2013 Study Plan objectives and methodologies. There are no variances to report. 2 LITERATURE CITED All other references can be found in the Literature Cited section of the 2014 Final Report for the Terrestrial Resources Study. KHL (Kenai Hydro, LLC). 2014. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13212), Terrestrial Resources Study, Final Report. Prepared by ERM for Kenai Hydro, LLC. June 2014. McDonough, T. 2010. Unit 7 moose management report. Pages 110 – 115 in P. Harper, editor. Moose management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2007 – 30 June 2009. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Project 1.0. Juneau, Alaska. USFS (United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service). 2000. Survey methodology for northern goshawks in the Pacific Southwest Region. August 9, 2000. 2014 WILDLIFE STUDIES ADDENDUM TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 14 March 2015 [This page intentionally left blank.]