HomeMy WebLinkAboutNushagak Area Hydroelectric Project Fisheries Studies - Dec 2013 - REF Grant 21954192012/2013 FISHERIES STUDIES
DILLINGHAM AREA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ("DAHP", FERC. No.14356)
Prepared by:
Robert E. Johnson. Civil Science
Prepared for:
Nushagak Electric and Telephone Cooperative
December, 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LISTOF FIGURES...................................................................................................................... ii
LISTOF TABLES....................................................................................................................... iv
EXECUTIVESUMMARY.......................................................................................................... I
GRANT LAKE SYSTEM........................................................................................................ 2
GrantLake............................................................................................................................ 2
LittleGrant Lake.................................................................................................................. 2
Little Grant Lake Connector Channel................................................................................ 2
GrantRiver............................................................................................................................ 2
LakeKulik............................................................................................................................. 3
LAKEELVA SYSTEM............................................................................................................3
LakeElva............................................................................................................................... 3
ElvaCreek............................................................................................................................. 3
Elva Creek/Lake Nerka Confluence Area.......................................................................... 3
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND................................................................................. I
INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... I
BACKGROUND....................................................................................................................... 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS and STUDY SITE LOCATIONS .............................................. 2
GRANTLAKE PROJECT...................................................................................................... 3
Grant Lake Alternative G-1, Little Grant Lake Rockfill Dam with Powerhouse
atSM 3.7 (Figure ES-1)........................................................................................................ 3
Grant Lake Alternative G-2, Concrete Dam at SM 6.5 with Powerhouse at SM 3.7
(See Figure ES-1).................................................................................................................. 3
LAKEELVA PROJECT......................................................................................................... 3
Lake Elva Alternative E-1, "High Dam" (or "Downstream Dam") Alternative
(Figure ES-1)......................................................................................................................... 3
Lake Elva Alternative E-2, "Low Dam" (or "Lake Outlet Dam") Alternative
(See Figure ES-1)................................................................................................................... 4
STUDYOBJECTIVES.............................................................................................................7
STUDY AREAS AND NOMENCLATURE........................................................................... 7
GRANTRIVER BASIN....................................................................................................... 7
LakeElva.............................................................................................................................
21
ElvaCreek...........................................................................................................................
22
Elva Creek/Lake Nerka Confluence Area........................................................................
24
METHODS..............................................................................................................................
24
RESULTS................................................................................................................................
30
DISCUSSION..........................................................................................................................
42
Fisheries Investigation 201212013 DAHP
NETC Civil Science December 2013
LakeElva............................................................................................................................. 43
ElvaCreek........................................................................................................................... 44
LITERATURE CITED.............................................................................................................. 45
APPENDICES............................................................................................................................. 46
APPENDIX 1— FISH COLLECTION................................................................................. 47
APPENDIX 2 —CAPTURE DATA FROM ANGLING, GRANT RIVER SYSTEM,
2012.......................................................................................................................................... 51
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Dillingham Area Hydroelectric Project Vicinity Map .................................................... 5
Figure 2. Grant Lake Project Generating and Transmission Facilities (Dam Alternative shown).
6
Figure 3. Grant River Basin Study Areas....................................................................................... 9
Figure 4. Grant Lake Study Area with Little Grant Lake, flow is from left to right ....................
11
Figure 5. Connector Channel Study Section between Grant Lake and Little Grant Lakes, flow is
fromright to left..........................................................................................................
12
Figure 6. Little Grant Lake Study Area and outlet — Grant River ...............................................
13
Figure 7. Upper Grant River Study Area, flow is from right to left ............................................
14
Figure 8. Grant River Canyon Reach Downstream from the Falls ..............................................
15
Figure 9. Canyon Reach - Grant River Downstream from the Falls, flow is from left to
right(continued)..........................................................................................................
16
Figure 10. Braided Reach Study Area of Grant River, flow is from left to right ........................
17
Figure 11. Lower Grant River Reach Study Area Terminus at Lake Kulik, the Delta Study Area
isto the right...............................................................................................................
18
Figure 12. Grant River Delta Study Area (foreground)................................................................
19
Figure 13. A Portion of Lake Kulik Littoral Study Area near Grant River Mouth .....................
20
Figure 14. Aerial Image of Lake Elva and Elva Creek relative to Lake Nerka and Little Togiak
Lake.............................................................................................................................
21
Figure 15. Image of Lake Elva, the lake outlet is located in the lower right-hand corner of the
image...........................................................................................................................
21
Figure 16. Image showing the Upper Reach of Elva Creek looking downstream with Lake Nerka
inthe distance.............................................................................................................
22
Figure 17. Image showing the Upper Reach of Elva Creek looking upstream .............................
22
Figure 18. Image showing the mouth of Elva Creek and primary spawning and rearing area
available in the Lower Reach......................................................................................
23
Figure 19. Elva Creek/Lake Nerka Confluence area....................................................................
24
Figure 20. Grant Lake showing Fry trap, Fyke Net, Gillnet, Surber, Angling, and Limnology
StationLocations, 2012..............................................................................................
26
Figure 21. Lake Elva showing Fry trap, Fyke Net, Gillnet, Surber, and Limnology Station
Locations, 2012...........................................................................................................
27
Figure 22: Maximum Upstream Observation of Adult Spawning Sockeye, Grant River, 2012..
33
Figure 23. Adult sockeye salmon observed along the shoreline of Lake Nerka near the mouth of
Elva Creek, September 9, 2011...................................................................................
36
Fisheries Investigation 201212013 DAHP
NETC, Civil Science December 2013
11
Figure 24. Grant Lake Bathymetric map, depths measured in feet .............................................
37
Figure 25. Lake Elva Bathymetric map, depths measured in feet ...............................................
38
Figure 26. Micro -photograph of a stalked Didymosphenia geminata frustrule from the
outlet of Little Grant Lake..........................................................................................
43
Figure. 27 (Appendix 2) - School of Arctic char feeding on chironomid adults near Inlet
#4 on July 1, 2012, Grant Lake...................................................................................
51
Figure 28: (Appendix 2) Image Showing sockeye salmon marked for counting in a high -
density area upstream and downstream of the stream gage which is located just
off -center in the image...............................................................................................
52
Figure 29. (Appendix 2) Image Showing Detail Marking Sockeye salmon for Counting ..........
53
Figure 30. (Appendix 2) Image Showing Grant Lake and Sample Locations .............................
55
Figure 31. (Appendix 2) Grant Lake Inlet Number 1..................................................................
56
Figure 32. (Appendix 2) Grant Lake Inlet Number 2..................................................................
56
Figure 33. (Appendix 2) Grant Lake Inlet Number 3..................................................................
57
Figure 34. (Appendix 2) Grant Lake Inlet Number 4..................................................................
58
Figure 35. (Appendix 2) Little Grant Lake Inlet Number 5........................................................
59
Figure 36. (Appendix 2) Northern Pike observed on September 10, 2012 off mouth of
GrantRiver..................................................................................................................
60
Figure 37. (Appendix 2) Mature sockeye salmon on the margin of a typical redd in 3.5 feet
of water in Kulik Lake, September 10, 2012..............................................................
61
Figure 38. (Appendix 2) Mature sockeye salmon on typical deep water redd in 8.5 feet of
water in Kulik Lake, September 10, 2012..................................................................
62
Figure 39. (Appendix 2) Rearing coho salmon in lower Grant River side channel pool,
September10, 2012....................................................................................................
63
Figure 40. (Appendix 2) Adult spawning male coho salmon caught in the run downstream
of the main waterfall, September 13, 2012.................................................................
63
Figure 41. (Appendix 2) Jack coho salmon caught in the run downstream of the main
waterfall, September 13, 2012....................................................................................
63
Figure 42. (Appendix 2) Juvenile coho salmon caught in the run downstream of the main
waterfall, September 13, 2012....................................................................................
64
Figure 43. (Appendix 2) Juvenile arctic grayling caught in the run downstream of the main
waterfall, September 13, 2012....................................................................................
64
Figure 44. (Appendix 2) Juvenile rainbow trout caught in the run downstream of the main
waterfall, September 13, 2012....................................................................................
64
Figure 45. (Appendix 2) Fifteen rainbow trout observed by video camera on September
10 in lower Grant River survey...................................................................................
65
Figure 46. Sockeye salmon fry schooling in flooded shoreline grasses, Grant River Delta/
Kulik Lake, June 13, 2013..........................................................................................
66
Figure 47. Lower Elva Creek off -channel rearing habitat and substrate .....................................
66
Figure 48. Lower Elva Creek boulder substrate...........................................................................
67
Figure 49. Lower Elva Creek cut bank rearing habitat and substrate ..........................................
67
Figure 50. Lower Elva Creek coastrange sculpin catch from fry trap ..........................................
67
Figure 51. Lower Elva Creek char from fry trap..........................................................................
68
Figure 52. Lower Elva Creek coho salmon from fry trap............................................................
68
Figure 53. Lower Elva Creek coastrange sculpin from fry trap ..................................................
68
Figure 54. Lower Elva Creek Arctic char from fry trap...............................................................
68
Fisheries Investigation 201212013 DAHP
NETC, Civil Science December 2013
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Set and Pull Times, Catch, and Location of Fry Traps Set in Lower Elva Creek,
September9, 2011...................................................................................................... 35
Table 2. Results of Selected Water Chemistry Measurements Collected from Grant Lake
in2012........................................................................................................................ 39
Table 3. Results of Selected Water Chemistry Measurements Collected from Lake Elva
in2012........................................................................................................................ 39
Table 4. Grant Lake Macroinvertebrate Sample Captures by Percent Composition .................... 40
Table 5. Grant Lake Macroinvertebrate Drift and Kick Sample Captures by Order .................... 41
Table 6. Lake Elva Macroinvertebrate Sample Captures by Percent Composition ...................... 42
Table 7. Lake Elva Macroinvertebrate Drift and Kick Sample Captures by Order ..................... 42
Table 8. (Appendix 2) Fyke net, minnow trap, and gillnet data ................................................... 54
Fisheries Investigation 201212013 DAHP
NETC, Civil Science December 2013
IV
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In support of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensing requirements for the
Dillingham Area Hydroelectric Project (DAHP, FERC No. 14345), Nushagak Electric and
Telephone Cooperative (NETC) has performed studies to document fisheries and other resources
in the Grant River and Lake Elva basins in Wood-Tikchik State Park (WTSP) in Western Alaska.
Surveys for both Projects were preceded by a literature search specific to the two river basins and
other nearby Park areas. In both 2011 and 2012, surveys in the Lake Elva system were done at a
lower level of effort than those in the Grant River system.
All studies during 2011, 2012, and 2013 were conducted by Civil Science Infrastructure (CSI) of
Lehi, Utah. During 2011, studies were conducted in both river systems in July, August and
September. During 2012, studies were conducted during June, July and August with generally
higher levels of effort in all locations than during the 2011 studies. Results of the 2011 field
studies were documented in CSI 2012. The following report documents results for the 2012 and
2013 field seasons, with comparisons to 2011 results as appropriate.
Of particular interest during both the 2011 and 2012 field seasons was documentation of sockeye
salmon spawning in Grant River. During both seasons, researchers recorded exact locations,
timing and preferred substrate for spawning sockeye. These observations were based on
interpretation of low -altitude aerial photography which enabled fish counts at a very high level of
accuracy. Weather and high water conditions precluded scheduled surveys during the 2013
season and only one trip was undertaken and that was in early June, 2013 just at ice break-up.
Grant River system field surveys in 2012 were conducted in the following lake and stream
locations:
• Grant Lake;
• Little Grant Lake;
• The Little Grant Lake Connector Channel;
• Grant River and its various reaches; and
• Lake Kulik and the Lake Kulik Littoral.
Lake Elva System field surveys in 2012 included fish observations, water quality sampling, and
lake bathymetry and were conducted in the following lake and stream locations:
• Lake Elva;
• Elva Creek; and
• Elva Creek/Lake Nerka Confluence Area.
Fisheries surveys in the Grant River drainage in 2012 resulted in observation and/or capture of
seven fish species. Surveys in the Lake Elva and Elva Creek and historical data documented 8
fish species. Summaries of 2012 fish studies by location are in the following sections (Figure
ES-1)
Fisheries Investigation 201212013 DAHP
NETC, Civil Science December 2013
ES-1
GRANT LAKE SYSTEM
Grant Lake
As in 2011, the only large species of fish observed or captured in Grant Lake was Arctic char
(Salvelinus alpinus). Rod and reel captures, visual observation, and underwater video indicated a
robust population of small to medium sized Arctic char (n = 32, mean = 300mm, SD 34).
Little Grant Lake
Casual fish observations were made in Little Grant Lake on each of the three visits during 2012.
Hook and line sampling was successful at catching Arctic char on each occasion with the highest
success in the inflow current from Grant Lake. Char were observed throughout the waterbody
but in low concentrations. The four hook and line captures of Arctic char in Little Grant Lake
during the 2011 season produced the largest average sized char (mean = 419mm, SD 63) in the
lake system.
Little Grant Lake Connector Channel
The Little Grant Lake Connector Channel is a 0.1-mile channel between Grant Lake and Little
Grant Lake. Arctic char were plentiful in this channel during the visit on July 4, 2011. During
2012, there were no fish observed or caught in this area. A 31mm char was captured during
macroinvertebrate sampling in the inlet (Inlet #5) to Little Grant Lake, suggesting this location as
a spawning or rearing area.
Grant River
Fish distribution in Grant River appeared to be limited by a waterfall (the "Falls") on Grant River
at Stream Mile (SM) 6.6 (SM=distance in miles upstream from Grant River's confluence with
Lake Kulik) and with the exception of several Arctic char observed by underwater video in a
plunge pool below one of the falls directly upstream of the main falls (a wash -out fish from
Grant Lake), no fish were observed upstream of the falls to Little Grant Lake. In the plunge -pool
directly below the main falls in Grant River, arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus), rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss), rearing coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), sockeye salmon
(Oncorhynchus Nerka), threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus L.), and sculpin (Cottus
sp.) were all documented, presumably having transited up Grant River from Lake Kulik.
The peak count of spawning sockeye occurred on August 12, 2012, when 11,677 sockeye were
counted using aerial photography. This count is approximately double the 6,122 sockeye adults
counted during 2011. Sockeye spawning activity was concentrated from approximate SM .5 in
the Lower Reach to the middle of the Braided Reach (approximate SM 2.5). The upper extent of
adult sockeye salmon migration was observed on August 23 when 60 sockeye were observed
approximately 300 yards downstream of the Falls at approximate SM 6.4.
Fisheries Investigation 201212013 DAHP
NETC, Civil Science December 2013
ES-2
Sockeye fry were observed emigrating in large numbers from Grant River on June 14, 2013. On
the same date mature Arctic char were schooled at the mouth of Grant River actively feeding on
the emigrant sockeye salmon fry. No rainbow trout were observed on that date.
Lake Kulik
Several schools of sockeye salmon were observed in Lake Kulik, holding just off the mouth of
Grant River during the aerial surveys on August 14, 2011 and on September 10, 2011.
Additionally, Arctic char, stickleback, and Northern pike were observed. Sockeye fry were
observed schooling and feeding in the flooded grass beds near the Lake Kulik shoreline of the
river delta on June 13, 2013.
LAKE ELVA SYSTEM
Lake Elva
Fry traps, fyke nets, and monofilament gillnets were deployed to determine the presence of fish
in Lake Elva, with no fish captures except for coastrange sculpin.
Elva Creek
Fish distribution in Elva Creek appears to be limited by a 20-foot high waterfall at SM 0.45
(SM=distance in miles upstream from Elva Creek's confluence with Lake Nerka) and only
coastrange sculpin were observed in the upper reaches of Elva Creek below Lake Elva. Fish were
only observed in the creek section below the falls, rearing coho salmon sockeye salmon,
threespine stickleback, and coastrange sculpin were all documented.
Elva Creek/Lake Nerka Confluence Area
On September 9, 2011, 211 adult sockeye salmon were observed on the nearshore beach
approximately 0.3 miles southwest of the mouth of Elva Creek.
Fisheries Investigation 201212013
NETC, Civil Science
DAHP
December 2013
ES-3
2012/2013 FISHERIES STUDIES
DILLINGHAM AREA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ("DAHP", FERC. No.14356)
Prepared by:
Civil Science
Prepared for:
Nushagak Electric and Telephone Cooperative
December, 2013
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
INTRODUCTION
Nushagak Electric and Telephone Cooperative ("NETC"), is evaluating a multiple -development
hydroelectric Project, the Dillingham Area Hydroelectric Project ("DAHP", "Project"), as
described in this document. The DAHP would consist of the Grant Lake and Lake Elva
hydroelectric projects ("Projects", "Grant Lake Project", "Lake Elva Project"). Both Projects
and portions of their transmission systems would be located in Wood-Tikchik State Park
administered by the State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR).
The proposed 1.5 megawatt (MW) installed capacity Lake Elva Project would be located 36
miles north by northwest of Dillingham, Alaska. The proposed 1.7 MW Grant Lake Project
would be located 43 miles north of Dillingham.
To obtain a license to construct and operate the Project, NETC is required by various state and
federal regulations to conduct environmental, engineering and economic studies to determine
resource baselines, impacts and mitigation measures. Among the most important resources
potentially -affected by a hydroelectric project are aquatic resources, including fish, plants and
aquatic macroinvertebrates.
Fisheries Investigation 201212013 DAHP
NETC, Civil Science December 2013
BACKGROUND
Previous Studies for DAHP
NETC began work in 2010 by developing a draft fisheries study plan, which was reviewed by
stakeholders (NETC, 2010). The plan, developed by Graystar of Anchorage, AK, noted general
proposed locations and study methods for fisheries monitoring with an emphasis on the Grant
Lake system. Comments on the draft plan were received from US Fish and Wildlife Service.
The plan was not revised in 2010, and subsequent difficulties with access and weather conditions
led to suspension of field efforts that year.
Graystar was unavailable to conduct the proposed field work in 2011, and NETC retained the
services of Civil Science Incorporated (CSI) of Klawock, Alaska, to complete the fisheries
studies, beginning in May. CSI used the Graystar plan as a basis for their studies, but
implemented some different methods in their 2011 surveys. In 2012, CSI conducted another
year of studies with an expanded scope of investigations and associated methods. This report
documents those methods and all field work accomplished between March and September, 2012.
Other Studies Found Through Literature Search
Of particular value to the aquatic resource investigations at Lake Elva is the work performed
during 1980 by John W. Marsell and crew, working under contract for R. W. Beck and
Associates, Inc. for the Alaska Power Authority. The resulting work is presented in Appendix D,
Aquatic Habitat Studies, in the report entitled, Lake Elva Project Detailed Feasibility Analysis,
1981.
The University of Washington School of Aquatic & Fishery Sciences' Alaska Salmon Program,
Fisheries Research Institute (FRI), has been studying salmon in the Wood River system since
1947 with the support of six research camps, including one near the confluence of Elva Creek
and Lake Nerka. As a result, there is a long history of fisheries research in the Wood River
System with a primary focus on sockeye salmon, but also includes research on other species
within the system (http://fish.washington.edu/research/alaska/research.html).
The State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game initiated fisheries management within the
state in 1959 and publishes annual reports of salmon escapement to streams within the Wood
River system, as well as species and drainage specific research findings.
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS and STUDY SITE LOCATIONS
The DAHP, would be located approximately 50 to 65 miles north of Dillingham Alaska (Figure
1). The 1.7 MW Grant Lake Project would be located approximately 60 miles north of
Dillingham, Alaska, on Grant Lake and Grant Creek (Figure 2).
Fisheries Investigation 201212013 DAHP
NETC, Civil Science December 2013
GRANT LAKE PROJECT
Results of a preliminary feasibility study prepared by CSI in 2013 (CSI 2013, in press) included
two primary configuration alternatives for the Grant Lake Project, as described in the following:
Grant Lake Alternative G-1, Little Grant Lake Rockfill Dam with Powerhouse at SM 3.7
(Figure ES-1)
This alternative would consist of the following primary components:
A 24-foot high by 640-foot wide rockfill dam with auxiliary spillway on the left bank
located at SM 7.5 of Grant River, just below the outlet of Little Grant Lake;
A 66-in diameter buried pipe penstock approximately 16,100 feet in total length; and
A 40-ft x 60-ft steel -frame powerhouse at SM 3.7 at El 192 housing a 1.9 megawatt
(MW) Francis turbine with associated controls and electro/mechanical equipment. Total
net head for this configuration would be 296 feet.
Grant Lake Alternative G-2, Concrete Dam at SM 6.5 with Powerhouse at SM 3.7 (See
Figure ES-1)
The primary difference between this alternative and Alternative G-1 would be the position and
structure of the dam, as described below:
A 60-foot high by 120-foot wide concrete dam constructed at the top of the canyon at SM
6.7 of Grant River.
Under both alternatives, the project would operate as a storage facility and may suspend
operations during periods when reservoir storage is depleted. Such periods would usually occur
in March and/or April of certain low-water years.
LAKE ELVA PROJECT
Similar to the Grant Lake Project, CSI 2013 also included two primary configuration alternatives
for the Lake Elva Project, as described in the following:
Lake Elva Alternative E-1, "High Dam" (or "Downstream Dam") Alternative (Figure ES-
1)
This alternative would consist of the following primary components:
An approximately 110 ft-high, 620 ft-wide rockfill dam at Stream SM 1.6 on Elva Creek,
1.9 miles downstream from the outlet of Lake Elva (Figure ES-1).
A48-inch diameter buried penstock, approximately 7,800-ft in length located on the left
bank of Elva Creek. The penstock would be located within and along the access road
Fisheries Investigation 201212013 DAHP
NETC, Civil Science December 2013
used to construct the dam. The alignment of the penstock would generally parallel the
course of the stream.
A 40-ft x 60-ft steel -frame powerhouse at El 66, just upstream of Lake Nerka on the left
bank of lower Elva Creek at SM 0.2. The powerhouse would be situated to be just
upstream of the comparatively limited anadromous habitat in Elva Creek that is located
from the immediate vicinity of the lower stream gage and downstream in the stream.
Lake Elva Alternative E-2, "Low Dam" (or "Lake Outlet Dam") Alternative (See Figure
ES-1)
In detail, this alternative would consist of the following primary components:
A 38-ft high 362-ft wide rock fill dam located at the outlet of Lake Elva.
A 48-inch diameter buried penstock and access road approximately 15,200 feet in length.
The penstock would be located within the road corridor.
The powerhouse would be the same construction and at the same location as for Alternative E-1.
Both Project Alternatives would operate throughout the year with occasional shutdowns in late
winter of certain low -flow years.
Fisheries Investigation 201212013 DAHP
NETC, Civil Science December 2013
Grant Lake i__
Project Site
Lake Elva f. .
Wood-Tikchik
10��+► State Park
Project Site Project
Boundary
Transmission
- - Route
Togiak National
Wildlife Refuge
-4 -
ti Aleknagik
1
Existing Distribution -� )
--- # -LL '�f• �_— Line
/).
I pNlfnyham - ... _-
e � s
-r Manokotak V
0 5 10
� Miles Chukchi ,
Seo
Exlsang DistrlDutan Line O Incorporated Munupallry
Transmssion Route Togiak NWR
OWood-T.kclnk Stale Park Fairbanks
Bering Sea
4ushagak Cooperative Anchorage
Elva Areas own above _ * Jun.—
-- �Dillingbsm 1
F1Bratol 7� '
Grant Lake - Boy
Gulf of Alasko
Hydroelectric Project
Location Map 80
Date: 1 /4/2012 P.1des
Name: Overview_Hydro.mxd
Figure 1. Dillingham Area Hydroelectric Project Vicinity Map.
Fisheries Investigation 201212013
NETC, Civil Science
DAHP
December 2013
5
r
Project Boundary
(in yellow)
Canal
t - hnpoun&-re
Intake Structure W.15wft
Powerhouse Construction Road
Access Road —'�'
Construction Staging Ard
Grant Penstock ���
River s —►
SglMay "
♦ Powerhousa . ;
-_ Tran•missi_—e
. _ t
71
C� O Lak.j,
5,000 10,000
Feet i )
Figure 2. Grant Lake Project Generating and Transmission Facilities (Dam Alternative
shown).
Fisheries Investigation 201212013
NETC, Civil Science
DAHP
December 2013
G
Grant Lake has a surface area of 3.05 square miles. With a 20-foot high dam, the surface area
would be increased to about 4.0 square miles.
STUDY OBJECTIVES
Fisheries and aquatic resources studies were designed to meet the following Objectives:
1. Determine the distribution and count the spawning population of sockeye salmon
(Oncorhynchus Nerka) in Grant River;
2. Determine the distribution and count the spawning redds of sockeye salmon on the
margins of Grant River where its "delta" enters Lake Kulik;
3. Observe and document presence of resident and anadromous fish within the Grant Lake
and Lake Elva basins using minnow traps, hook and line, and underwater video;
4. Take measurements to create bathymetric maps of Grant Lake and Lake Elva;
5. Measure Dissolved Oxygen, Ph, total dissolved solids, hardness, alkalinity and methyl
mercury in both Grant Lake and Lake Elva;
6. Deploy temperature recorders in Grant Lake and Lake Elva; and
7. Determine relative abundance and species composition of macroinvertebrates in inlets to
Grant Lake and Lake Elva.
STUDY AREAS AND NOMENCLATURE
GRANT RIVER BASIN
Because of the diversity of aquatic habitats on Grant River, researchers established the following
study area nomenclature. In the following section, all sites and areas are shown in bold on first
reference. Areas not named on existing topographic maps are in quotes; those shown on
existing maps are not in quotes. Distances along Grant River are noted as Stream Miles (SM)
and are the distances in miles upstream from the Grant River confluence with Lake Kulik.
Grant River Basin studies were done in the following areas and reaches (Figure 3):
Grant Lake
Grant Lake is a 3.05 square mile natural impoundment at normal water levels. Grant Lake is the
primary source of streamflow in Grant River.
At the southwest corner of Grant Lake is the approximately 0.1 mi long "Little Grant Lake
Connector Channel", which connected Grant Lake with "Little Grant Lake", a 0.7 acre water
body, the outflow of which is the origin of Grant River.
Grant River
Grant River flows from its origin at Little Grant Lake 7.6 SM to its confluence with Lake Kulik.
From SM 7.6 (Grant Lake) to SM 7.0, Grant River flows at a fairly uniform gradient and drops
Fisheries Investigation 201212013 DAHP
NETC, Civil Science December 2013
7
17 feet in elevation. From SM 7.0 to SM 4.1, the river drops approximately 200 feet in a series
of falls and rapids through a steep narrow canyon. The greatest single fall (referred to as "the
Falls") is located at SM 6.6 and was approximately 100 feet high. The Falls represents an
indisputable barrier to upstream fish passage, but, based on the physical nature of the plunge -
pool, it is quite likely that fish from upstream could survive passing downstream over the falls.
Grant River and the reaches upstream of the base of The Falls was generally referred to as
"Upper Grant River" because of the impediment to fish migration afforded by The Falls.
Similarly, Grant River below the base of The Falls was generally referred to as "Lower Grant
River".
From the base of The Falls and continuing downstream 6.6 river miles to the confluence of Grant
River and Lake Kulik, Lower Grant River was subdivided into four study reaches, plus one
study area in the littoral zone at the confluence of Grant River and Lake Kulik. Lake Kulik is
approximately 17 miles long and averages 1.5 miles wide. Like most of the large lakes in the
Wood River system, it is oriented on a northwest -southeast axis. It is also the shallowest of the
large lakes with a maximum depth of 525 and a mean depth of 253 feet.'
Fisheries Investigation 201212013 DAHP
NETC, Civil Science December 2013
8
u u.o o
91,
�v� /i
rti�. �� . •�� �����•�.. �' sue• � �+ .00 �
—03 o>
C,
Immediately downstream of The Falls is the "Canyon Reach", which extends downstream
approximately 2.5 miles. In this reach, steep cliffs or topography generally rise from both
riverbanks and the stream is constrained into a single rather narrow channel of moderate gradient
without floodplains on either bank. This reach and the remaining study reaches are shown in
photographs in Figures 4 through 13.
From the Canyon Reach's lower boundary the stream opens into flatter terrain and occupies a
wider valley with a floodplain and an active channel occupying a relatively large channel
migration zone. The "Braided Reach" is approximately 3.03 miles long and is characterized by
multiple channels and by active lateral braids. The Braided Reach is lower in gradient than the
Canyon Reach and the channel in some cases is as much as five times the width of the channel in
the Canyon Reach.
Downstream of the Braided Reach is the "Lower Reach", a 1.08 mile -long reach with single
channel characteristics intermediate in gradient between the Canyon and Braided reaches.
Lakeward of the Lower Reach is the "Grant River Delta", an area of extensive outflow
distributaries within which Grant River divides into a primarily single channel segment along the
delta's northern boundary and multiple channels and ponds occupying most of the surface area in
the southern and eastern 3/ of the delta.
Many of these delta channels are thought to be effluent streams that drain seasonally -high
groundwater and ponded snowmelt from poor -draining low-lying areas of the upper delta. These
areas of the delta, likely former main channels of Grant River now filled with fluvial sediment
and stabilized by heavy vegetative growth, are characterized by poor drainage, intermittent ponds
and seasonal influence or complete inundation by backwaters from Lake Kulik. Sources of
water in the various Grant River Delta distributaries are speculative at this time, as are reports
documenting fish utilization in the area. The downstream ends of the various Delta distributaries
join Lake Kulik across an approximately one mile -wide delta mouth.
Lake Kulik Littoral
The Lake Kulik Littoral area extends for approximately 0.75 mile to the west and one mile to the
Southeast of the Grant River confluence.
Fisheries Investigation 201212013 DAHP
NETC, Civil Science December 2013
10
OR
N
A
W
` " y
.J
�
AN
* r w
4• \
-
t
�J.,
I
,R4*
� 1
1
�� f�
✓�S'i. .
_ /}may/
44
Y 4 •
IM
LAKE ELVA BASIN STUDY AREAS
Figure 14. Aerial Image of Lake Elva and Elva Creek relative to Lake Nerka and Little
Togiak Lake.
Because of the limited length of Elva Creek, Lake Elva Basin study areas were somewhat
simpler than those in the Grant Lake Basin, as described in the following:
Lake Elva
The Lake Elva study area included all areas of Lake Elva proper from its inlet channels to the
point at which the Lake transitions into Elva Creek.
Figure 15. Image of Lake Elva, the lake outlet is located in the lower right-hand corner of
the image.
Fisheries Investigation 201212013
NETC, Civil Science
21
Elva Creek
Elva Creek study area extended from the Creek's origin at Lake Elva to its confluence with Lake
Nerka. Elva Creek was divided into two primary reaches, the "Upper" and "Lower" Reaches,
distinguished by their positions relative to a twenty -foot high falls in Elva Creek at SM 0.45.
This falls acts as a barrier to upstream fish migration. The first 0.25 miles of the Lower Reach is
considered to be available habitat for salmon and other anadromous species spawning.
Figure 16. Image showing the Upper Reach of Elva Creek looking downstream with Lake
Nerka in the distance.
Figure 17. Image showing the Upper Reach of Elva Creek looking upstream.
Fisheries Investigation 201212013
NETC, Civil Science
22
Figure 18. Image showing the mouth of Elva Creek and primary spawning and rearing
area available in the Lower Reach.
Fisheries Investigation 201212013
NETC, Civil Science
23
Elva Creek/Lake Nerka Confluence Area
This study area extended from the mouth of Lake Elva approximately 0.25 mile west and 0.25
mile east of the midline of the Creek and the confluence (Figure 13).
Figure 19. Elva Creek/Lake Nerka Confluence area.
METHODS
As described earlier, the 2012 study design was focused on meeting the following seven
objectives:
1. Determine the distribution and count the spawning population of sockeye salmon
(Oncorhynchus Nerka) in Grant River.
2. Determine the distribution and count the spawning redds of sockeye salmon on the
margins of Grant River inlet in Lake Kulik.
3. Observe and document presence of resident and anadromous fish within Grant Lake and
Grant River using minnow traps, hook and line, and underwater video.
4. Take measurements to create a bathymetric map of Grant and Lake Elva.
5. Measure Dissolved Oxygen, Ph, total dissolved solids, hardness, alkalinity
6. Deploy temperature recorders in Grant and Lake Elva
7. Determine relative abundance and species composition of macroinvertebrates in inlets to
Grant and Lake Elva.
Detailed descriptions of methods for these study Objectives are provided in the following:
OBJECTIVE 1. DETERMINE the DISTRIBUTION and COUNT the SPAWNING
POPULATION of SOCKEYE SALMON in GRANT RIVER
Fisheries Investigation 201212013
NETC, Civil Science
24
Under this Objective, work in 2012 was conducted by flying a helicopter up or down Grant River
and taking still and/or video images using digital cameras. Additionally, to document the timing
of adult sockeye progress up Grant River, three time-lapse cameras were installed at ascending
locations on the river. All cameras were set to capture one image each hour throughout the
period of record. All survey image files were downloaded to two separate storage devices for
backup and redundancy as soon as possible following the survey.
Camera 1 was installed on July 6, 2012, approximately 225 yards upstream from the mouth of
Grant River on the southern stream -bank. Camera 2 was deployed on July 2, 2012 at a location
locally known as the "lunch hole" at the downstream end of the Braided Reach. Camera 3 was
installed on July 6, 2012, near the downstream end of the Canyon Reach.
For counting adult spawning sockeye, we used a Robinson R-44 model helicopter with an
unobstructed view down inside or outside the skids with the observer door removed. The camera
used was capable of capturing images at a frame -rate of at least two frames per second with a
resolution of at least 18 megapixels with storage capability of at least 400 continuous images.
The storage card was changed between subsequent transects for redundancy. Camera shutter
speeds settings were sufficiently fast to provide sharp, motion -blur free images, typically faster
than 1/1000 second.
We sought to fly the photographic fish surveys on bright, high -overcast or sunny days between
1100 and 1500 hours to maximize shutter speed and contrast of fish targets. A prime 50mm lens
with maximum aperture of at least f/1.4 was used to provide the field of view and speed
sufficient to resolve salmon -sized objects from several hundred feet. The exposure histogram
was biased towards the right third of the graphic display to prevent underexposure of fish targets.
The survey proceeded upstream from the river mouth at an altitude sufficient to cover the
streambed from bank to bank in the camera viewfinder (approximately 300 feet above ground
level). Images were taken at a rate sufficient to produce continuous and overlapping images.
The upper limit of sockeye salmon spawning was noted by photographing the cockpit GPS
display coordinates at the observation initiation point then continuing upstream for
approximately 1 mile above final salmon observation to assure that no salmon escaped
observation. The helicopter then flew back to the river mouth and made another similar flight
line correcting for any wind -drift or altitude issues encountered during the initial flight.
Adult sockeye counts took place by compositing sequential images in an image editing program,
increasing the red spectrum color saturation to increase the visibility of the red sockeye targets,
creating a new work layer and superimposing a dot of contrasting color over each individual fish
and then counting the "dots" by area for each composite image.
OBJECTIVE 2. DETERMINE THE DISTRIBUTION and COUNT the SPAWNING
REDDS of SOCKEYE SALMON on the MARGINS OF GRANT RIVER INLET in LAKE
KULIK
Fisheries Investigation 201212013
NETC, Civil Science
25
FRI noted that the highest abundance of sockeye salmon shore -spawning in Lake Kulik occurred
between September 10 and 15 (Rogers, 1998). The plan was to make at least one survey flight
close to the end point of this period to document areas important for shore -spawning sockeye
salmon. The flight was to place under the same weather and time of day constraints described
under Objective 1. The shore spawning survey utilized a de Havilland DHC-2 Beaver on which
the starboard window had been pulled open.
As with stream spawning sockeye, redd counts were to be tallied by compositing sequential
images in an image editing program, increasing the relative contrast as needed to increase the
visibility of the sockeye redds, creating a new work layer, superimposing a dot of contrasting
color over each individual fish and then counting the "dots" by area for each composite image.
During 2012 we also surveyed the extent of active lake bottom redds in the near vicinity of Grant
River in Lake Kulik. Redds on the margins were identified visually, and then depths were
recorded as well as location using GPS. Underwater videos were taken using a GROPRO brand
camera on a long boom to verify redds. Data from these surveys were then transcribed into a
spreadsheet and then plotted on a map.
OBJECTIVE 3. OBSERVE and DOCUMENT PRESENCE of RESIDENT and
ANADROMOUS FISH WITHIN GRANT LAKE, GRANT RIVER, and LAKE ELVA
USING MINNOW TRAPS, HOOK and LINE, and UNDERWATER VIDEO.
Figure 20. Grant Lake showing Fry trap, Fyke Net, Gillnet, Surber, Angling, and
Limnology Station Locations, 2012.
Fisheries Investigation 201212013
NETC, Civil Science
26
Figure 21. Lake Elva showing Fry trap, Fyke Net, Gillnet, Surber, and Limnology Station
Locations, 2012.
Fish Observation Data Recording and Mapping
For all observation techniques, data were entered into an Excel spreadsheet in the office, and
checked against the original aerial photos, maps and field forms.
During each field survey, the observer noted the following:
• Number of fish by species
• Time of day (Stop and Start times)
• General weather conditions
• Activity (actively moving upstream, milling, exhibiting spawning behavior, etc.)
• Location of fish in the stream (i.e., were they concentrated in a pool or run, or were they
spread evenly throughout the stream or lake)
Fish Captures
All fish captures were conducted under Collecting Permit number SF2013-086 issued in March,
2012 by ADF&G. The permit authorized captures by either fish traps of various types, gillnets
(in Lake Elva only), or hook and line sampling, as described in the following:
Fish Trapping
Bait eggs for minnow traps used during the 2012 field season were disinfected in
Betadine® solution. All traps were retrieved at the end of the sampling period.
Fisheries Investigation 201212013
NETC, Civil Science
27
Minnow traps consisted of 1/4 inch wire mesh and were 9 inches in diameter and 17 1/2 in.
long with two 1 in. entrances. Minnow Traps were anchored to shore or other immobile
objects, depending on location and other environmental conditions.
Rod and Reel Sampling
Rod and reel sampling was conducted in 2012 in Grant Lake, Little Grant Lake, and
Grant River. Barbless single hooks were used to facilitate ease of release and landing
times were kept to an absolute minimum to reduce handling stress.
Fish Capture Data Recording and Mapping
All fish captured were measured for fork length to the nearest mm and were released
immediately after recovery in the area of capture. No anesthetics were used during this
study.
Location, catch, habitat descriptions, and the number of gear units (rod and reel and trap
hours) for each gear type were recorded on trap catch forms. Location was also recorded
on maps or aerial photographs as well as trap catch forms. Pictures were taken at trap
sites for later referrals and were linked by photograph number to location and waypoint.
Sample number, lengths, gear type, and trap number for captured fish were recorded by
date and location. Other comments including but not limited to mortality status, scars,
physical condition, evidence of sexual maturity (see below), etc. were also recorded.
Waypoints were noted from GPS. Data were entered into an Excel spreadsheet in the
office, and checked against the original maps and field forms.
Video Fish Observations
A GoPro brand underwater video camera mounted on an 8-foot long boom was used to observe
fish and fish habitat in lieu of snorkel surveys. The camera was maneuvered through likely
looking fish habitat from the shore, wading the river, or deployed from an inflatable boat. Video
clip file numbers were recorded in the field notes relative to the stream or lake location.
For all observation techniques, data were entered into an Excel spreadsheet in the office, and
checked against the original aerial photos, maps and field forms.
OBJECTIVE 4. TAKE MEASUREMENTS to CREATE a BATHYMETRIC MAP of
GRANT LAKE and LAKE ELVA.
A portable depth recorder (sonar) was used to make multiple, surface -wide measurements of
depth from a motorized inflatable boat. Each depth was recorded with the corresponding GPS
location of the sounding. This data was entered into a software program enabling a bathymetric
map to be constructed from the data points. This data was used to create a digital terrain model
Fisheries Investigation 201212013
NETC, Civil Science
28
of the lake bottoms and create bathymetric maps using Autodesk Civil 31) Computer assisted
design.
OBJECTIVE 5. MEASURE DISSOLVED OXYGEN, PH, TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS,
HARDNESS in BOTH GRANT LAKE and LAKE ELVA.
Water chemistry analysis for the objective tests were performed using a standard "HACH" brand
portable limnology kit. A limnology station was established at the deepest depth location in both
Grant Lake and Lake Elva based on findings of the bathymetric surveys. Samples were taken at
the surface, 50 foot, and 100 foot depths. Results were recorded in a field notebook and the later
transcribed to an electronic spreadsheet.
OBJECTIVE 6. DEPLOY TEMPERATURE RECORDERS in GRANT LAKE and LAKE
ELVA
Hobo brand thermographs were arrayed at a fixed location at the deepest point of both Grant and
Lake Elva as indicated during the bathymetric surveys on a line supported by a buoy. Hobo data
loggers were deployed at the limnology station on Grant Lake on July 2, 2012. Loggers were
placed at the following depths: surface, 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, and 70 feet, and just above the
bottom of the lake at 120 feet. The data loggers were programed to collect temperature data on
an hourly schedule. The surface data logger was retrieved on September 12, and the 10-foot data
logger was redeployed to 16 feet to prevent destruction by lake -surface winter ice.
Hobo data loggers were deployed at the limnology station on Lake Elva on July 7, 2012.
Loggers were placed at the following depths: surface, 5, 10, and 30 feet, and just above the lake
bottom at 120 feet. The surface and 5 foot loggers were retrieved shortly after noon on
September 06, 2012 in order to prevent displacement of the logger array due to icing during the
winter months. The data loggers were programed to collect temperature data on an hourly
schedule.
OBJECTIVE 7. DETERMINE RELATIVE ABUNDANCE AND SPECIES
COMPOSITION of MACROINVERTEBRATES in INLETS to GRANT and LAKE
ELVA.
Macroinvertebrate (MI) species composition and abundance in Grant River and Elva Creek were
determined using a Surber sampler deployed in riffle locations. Two separate sample methods
were used, one to determine MI drift over a fixed time period, and the other to determine overall
species composition using a "kick sample" technique.
For the drift sample, the Surber sampler was placed in a location offering good flow through at
least the upper two/thirds of the sampler. Sampling time was at least 5 hours. Location and
time were recorded for each deployment. The sampler was retrieved after the specified time
period and the contents transferred to a pyrex bottle including stream water. A wash bottle was
used to assure that all captured invertebrates were transferred from the sample bucket to the
holding bottle.
Fisheries Investigation 201212013
NETC, Civil Science
29
After the drift sample was cleaned from the surber sample bucket the sampler was redeployed for
a "kick" sample wherein the gravel immediately upstream of the Surber sampler was "kicked up"
and disturbed to a depth of approximately 0.25 meters by the samplers boots to dislodge benthic
organisms. This sample was labeled separately as the previous drift sample and processed
similarly. The holding bottles were kept cool and out of the sun until sorting occurred.
Later in the day and while the sampled MI's were still alive, the contents of the bottles were
transferred to a white sorting tray where all MI's were picked out using fine pointed forceps into
a labeled vial of 95% ethanol. Labels indicated the time, date and general location of each "set".
The location of the sample, the time set, and time pulled were recorded in a field notebook and
later transcribed to an electronic file. Following the field season the samples were examined
under a dissecting microscope and identified to the taxonomic order level. The results were then
entered into an electronic spreadsheet for analysis.
RESULTS
OBJECTIVE 1. DETERMINE the DISTRIBUTION and COUNT the SPAWNING
POPULATION of SOCKEYE SALMON in GRANT RIVER
The peak aerial count of spawning sockeye in Grant River occurred on August 12, 2012 when
11,677 sockeye were observed and counted from aerial photography of the river. Of these, a total
of 6,364 (55%) sockeye were counted in the Lower Reach, 4,242 (36%) were counted in the
Braided Reach, and 1,071 (9%) sockeye were counted (all in the lower third) of the Canyon
Reach. The upper extent of adult sockeye salmon migration in Grant River was observed on
August 23 when approximately 60 sockeye were observed at approximately SM 6.6, about 500
yards downstream of the falls.
On August 12 we arrived at the mouth of Grant River at approximately 1545 hours in a Robinson
R-44 Raven helicopter. Weather was sunny and calm with high -scattered clouds in the area.
Upon reaching the survey site we maneuvered for camera lens and exposure data calibration for
several minutes and then proceeded upstream from the river mouth at approximately 175 feet
above ground level. Sockeye were observed actively on redds and dispersed, with
concentrations of fish in deeper pools.
The upper limit of sockeye on August 12 was noted at coordinates: 59 degrees 47.114' N, 158
degrees 38.004' W (approximately SM 6.0) in the canyon reach not far downstream from the
Falls. We continued upstream to The Falls and noted no sockeye salmon past the noted
coordinates. We transited back to the river mouth and made another similar transect at
approximately 300 feet altitude above ground level. One small school of sockeye was noted in
the lake shallows off the river mouth, but no other fish were sighted nearby in the lake. We left
the study area at approximately 1630 hours. Approximately 450 still images were produced. The
total count for this survey was 11,677 adult sockeye salmon (Appendices 2 through 4). Shadows
were beginning to be problematic and for future reference it would be best to launch from
Dillingham at approximately 1300 hours.
Fisheries Investigation 201212013
NETC, Civil Science
30
A second survey was flown on August 23, 2012 when we arrived on site at 1125 hours. Weather
was overcast on the upper river and sunny at the river mouth. Similar to the earlier survey and in
accordance with survey protocol we hovered for exposure and area coverage calibration and
made two transects at survey altitude, one in an upstream and one in a downstream direction as
the wind was beginning to be problematic for keeping the proper orientation to the stream
channel. Spawning sockeye salmon were observed in much lower numbers than during the
August 12 survey. The furthest upstream that sockeye were noted was approximately 300 yards
downstream of the waterfall at SM 6.6 (158 35.158 N, 158 35.158 W). Very few carcasses were
observed. The survey was completed by 1200 hours.
Camera 1 was retrieved on the evening of September 1, 2012. Adult sockeye salmon were first
observed passing Camera 1 at 17:02 on July 30, 2012, then August 1 and 2 in the frames shot at
16:02 hours each day. There was a gap in sockeye observed until the afternoons of August 5 and
6 when adult sockeye were again commonly visible in the images. The first wash -out carcass
was observed on August 19, 2012.
Camera 2 was deployed on July 2, 2012 at 1800 hours and retrieved in June of 2013. Camera 2
was mounted next to a large spruce tree on the Southern stream bank (158 41.329, 59 47.160),
which according to the images on the memory card fell into the stream at noon on July 11 taking
the camera with it and rendering the camera inoperable on July 15 at 2100 hours. There were no
fish images captured by Camera 2.
Camera 3 was deployed on July 6, 2012 overlooking upper Grant River on a bend facing to the
east (158 38.302 W, 59 47.161 N) at the beginning of the Canyon Section. The first visual
record of an adult sockeye at that location occurred at noon on August 6, and the last observation
occurred on August 18, 2012.
OBJECTIVE 2. DETERMINE the DISTRIBUTION and COUNT the SPAWNING
REDDS of SOCKEYE SALMON on THE MARGINS of GRANT RIVER INLET in LAKE
KULIK.
An attempted survey of the Lake Kulik sockeye spawning area was undertaken on the August 23
helicopter survey, however few sockeye were observed. Another attempt was made to count the
number of near -shore sockeye salmon redds from a Beaver aircraft (as previously described in
the Methods section) on a flight from the Grant River confluence with Lake Kulik on September
10. Lighting was marginal with surface wind, and it was not possible to get a good
representation of redds present.
OBJECTIVE 3. OBSERVE and DOCUMENT PRESENCE of RESIDENT and
ANADROMOUS FISH WITHIN GRANT LAKE, GRANT RIVER and LAKE ELVA
USING STREAMSIDE SURVEYS, MINNOW TRAPS, HOOK and LINE, and
UNDERWATER VIDEO.
Fisheries Investigation 201212013
NETC, Civil Science
31
Grant Lake Basin
Grant River
All fish captures by location, gear type, species, life stage, and length are presented in Appendix
1.
Grant Lake
A noticeable amount of surface feeding by fish was observed off the mouth of Inlet #4 on July 1,
2012 and angling with tiny black flies proved successful in capturing 27 Arctic char ranging in
length from 229 to 508 mm in 1.5 hours time. Detailed catch results are presented in Appendix 1.
Little Grant Lake Connector Channel
No char were observed or caught in the connector channel during our visits during 2012.
Little Grant Lake
Few Arctic char were observed in Little Grant Lake and only two were captured by rod and reel
during 2012. Detailed catch results are presented in Appendix 1.
Fisheries Investigation 201212013
NETC, Civil Science
32
Grant Lake
AYA
,�. Fallst '(f
Obseivpi upper ,.�
rang` `ac Y�soc j `
' ' ' salmon, 201�) y
.a t �w1:
-a
v y�;�- ,�i .tit;• >
• >_ Lake Kulik
Upper Grant River
On September 12, an exploratory visit was made to a pool approximately 400 yards upstream of
the main waterfall on Grant River. Underwater video revealed several Arctic char within the
pool although an hour of angling provided no strikes or indication that any fish were present.
Canyon Reach
On September 13, the plunge pool and the adjacent pool below the main Grant River waterfall
yielded 7 rainbow trout, 3 grayling, 1 juvenile coho salmon, and 3 adult coho salmon for 5 rod -
hours of angling (Figures 39, 40, 41, 42, and 43). Seven adult coho salmon were observed on
redds immediately downstream of the plunge pool of the falls. Additionally, an Arctic char was
observed flailing belly -up and in obvious distress floating down Grant River. This fish was
estimated to be approximately 16 inches in length.
Braided Reach
On September 10, 2012 a subsurface video survey was performed on Grant River from 350 yards
upstream from the beginning of the braided section at approximate river mile 1.1 to the mouth of
Grant River. Fifteen rainbow trout were observed, and of those, 3 were feeding on the few
decomposing sockeye carcasses that had not yet washed down the river (figure 44). On June 13,
2013 schools of emergent sockeye fry were observed schooling in the backwater eddies in the
braided section at approximate SM 3.
Lower Grant River
Mature Arctic grayling were observed at the Split Rock water gage site at SM 0.7 as early as
June 13 during the bank -full runoff event in 2013, however no rainbow trout or Arctic grayling
were observed during an underwater video survey of the lower 2 miles of Grant River that day.
A school of rearing coho salmon was observed on video in a side channel pool approximately
400 yards upstream from the river mouth on (Figure 38).
Grant River Mouth
Only casual observations were made in this area during foot transport to and from lower Grant
River. Northern pike, Arctic char, stickleback (sp.) and sculpin (sp.) were all noted near the shore
of Lake Kulik. Sockeye fry were observed massing in the flooded grass beds near the Lake Kulik
shoreline of the river delta on June 13, 2013 (Figure 45).
Lake Kulik Littoral
Observations in this area were limited to several schools of sockeye salmon observed holding
just off the mouth of Grant River during the aerial survey on August 12, 2012. On September
10, a survey was undertaken on Kulik Lake using an underwater video camera to document the
area used by sockeye salmon for spawning. The shallowest redds were located in 3 feet of water
Fisheries Investigation 201212013 DAHP
NETC, Civil Science December 2013
34
and the deepest were located near the 9 foot depth contour. Shallower redds were excavated in
bare gravel/cobble substrate while deeper redds on the margins were excavated through the
surrounding vegetation mat. (Figures 36 and 37). Several Arctic char and a northern pike (Esox
lucius) (Figure 34) were observed near weeds and woody debris, while schools of stickleback
were observed near shoreline vegetation. The relatively few sockeye salmon observed (<100)
were either fungus free, or bearing greater than 50% fungus.
Lake Elva Basin
Lake Elva
Two trips were made to Lake Elva in 2012, once in early July and then again in early September.
Fry traps, fyke nets, gillnets, and angling were all unsuccessful at catching fish. Several sculpin
were observed (Figure LES).
Upper Elva Creek
The only fish observed in upper Elva creek were several coastrange sculpin, and none were
captured in fry traps.
Lower Elva Creek
Six fry traps were set on the afternoon of September 9, 2011 in lower Elva Creek. The resulting
catches in those traps included rearing coho salmon, Arctic char, and coastrange sculpin.
Detailed trapping information is presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Set and Pull Times, Catch, and Location of Fry Traps Set in Lower Elva Creek,
September 9, 2011.
Trap #
Time
Set
Time
Pulled
Catch
Description
GPS Coordinates
1
16:35
17:50
2 sculpin
Stream mouth
N59.34.821 W 159.03.111
2
16:40
18:00
1 coho, 2 char, 37 sculpin
Off main chan.
N59.34.877 W159.03.194
3
16:44
18:10
1 coho, 51 sculpin
Pool
N59.34.884 W159.03.214
4
17:05
18:25
1 char, 1 sculpin
Along bank
N59.34.897 W 159.03.479
5
17:15
18:30
2 char, 3 sculpin
Root wad
N59.34.871 W 159.03.429
6
17:30
18:35
2 coho, 2 char, 8 sculpin
Alder bank
N59.34.872 W159.03.344
Elva Creek/Lake Nerka Confluence Area
Fisheries Investigation 201212013
NETC, Civil Science
DAHP
December 2013
35
Time limitations prevented directed angling at the mouth of Elva Creek in Lake Nerka, however
anglers encountered on one occasion at that location were observed landing several Arctic char
and a rainbow trout. An aerial survey documented 233 adult sockeye salmon approximately 0.36
miles (575 meters) southwest of the mouth of Elva Creek.
Figure 23. Adult sockeye salmon observed along the shoreline of Lake Nerka near the
mouth of Elva Creek, September 9, 2011.
Objective 4. Take measurements to create a bathymetric map of Grant and Lake Elva.
Bathymetric maps were constructed from soundings taken during the 2012 field season and are
presented in Figures 23 and 24.
Grant Lake
Bathymetric mapping of Grant Lake shows that much of the lake area is relatively shallow,
consisting of several plateaus and basins, and that the maximum depth is 120 feet.
Lake Elva
Lake Elva bathymetric mapping shows that the lake is equally as deep as Grant Lake but that it
has a greater volume relative to surface area due to lack of extensive shallow areas. The sides
are generally steep, being the extensions of the side -slopes of the mountain ridges defining its
shores to a depth of approximately 100 feet where the bottom generally levels out.
Fisheries Investigation 201212013 DAHP
NETC, Civil Science December 2013
36
:�
I� M
�
�" N
�
Q �
�
C�
�
�
�
U
"�
GC
U
.,�
i.w l�
r.+ M
MGC
h+ti
GC
�..i
C
CC
r3-i
V
N
3-i
.�
M
ti
O
N
N
O
N
O �
� U
. � p�j
r., • �,
? �
ti ?
�U
��
w
�� ,cam a .�`�;�• �:
0
I
Objective 5. Measure Dissolved Oxygen, pH, total dissolved solids, hardness, alkalinity in both
Grant Lake and Lake Elva.
Table 2. Results of Selected Water Chemistry Measurements Collected from Grant Lake in
2012.
Water
Dissolved
Total Total Total
Dat Location
Depth
temp.
Oxygen
Hardness Alkalinity Dissolved pH
e
(feet)
C
(mg/1)
(mg/1) (mg/1) Solids
(ppm)
Surfaced
f
6/22 Limno Station
Surface
10.7
18 17 20 7.2
_M59 48.7281Jw -- -_
158 31.600W
100
4.4
10.5
16 17 20 7.0
9/12 Limno Station
Surface
10.2
1�
100
5.9
9.9
11 20 7.0
Table 3. Results of Selected Water Chemistry Measurements Collected from Lake Elva in
2012.
Water
Dissolved
Total
Total
Total
Dat
Location
Depth
temp.
Oxygen
Hardness
Alkalinity
Dissolved
pH
e
(feet)
C
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
Solids
(ppm)
7/4
Limno Station
Surface
6.6
11.6
50
29
40
7.0
7/5
59 36.383N
50
5.0
11.2
36
26
40
7.0
=1
159 07.773WI
100
M
41 V
9/9
Limno Station
Surface
8.6
10.5
44
22
40
7.0
50
8.0
10.8
39
22
40
7.0
Objective 6. TEMPERATURE MONITORING
Grant Lake
The array of Hobo brand temperature recorders are deployed subsurface at 59 48.728N, 158
31.600W and as of late 2013 are still gathering data.
Lake Elva
The array of Hobo brand temperature recorders are deployed subsurface at 59 36.383N, 159
07.773W and as of late 2013 are still gathering data.
Fisheries Investigation 201212013 DAHP
NETC, Civil Science December 2013
0
OBJECTIVE 7. DETERMINE RELATIVE ABUNDANCE and SPECIES COMPOSITION OF
MACROINVERTEBRATES in INLETS to GRANT and LAKE ELVA.
Grant Lake
Macroinvertebrates were trapped in the 5 main inlets to Grant Lake. The main inlet of Lake Elva
was also sampled. (Tables 4 and 5). True flies (mosquitoes, midges, and gnats, etc.) comprised
the major component of the drift samples in Grant Lake (63.7%), followed by stoneflies (16.3%),
and Mayflies (11.5%). Similarly, true flies (39.72%), Mayflies (31.91%), and stoneflies (18.73)
made up the majority of macroinvertebrates in Grant Lake kick samples; however, there was
more homogeneity between the compositions of the kick samples. Not counting shed cases, and
assuming there was no variability in species between larvae and pupae and adult species
represented, there were approximately 20 separate taxa found in the Grant Lake
macroinvertebrate samples identified.
Table 4. Grant Lake Macroinvertebrate Sample Captures by Percent Composition
Drift Sample
#
% Kick Sample
#
%
Combined
samples
%
Plecoptera
44
16.30%
Plecoptera
129
22.99%
Plecoptera
18.73%
Hymenoptera
0
0.00%
Hymenoptera
1
0.18%
Hymenoptera
0.11%
Diptera
172
63.70%
Diptera
190
��W
Diptera
39.72%
Ephemeroptera
31
11.48%
Ephemeroptera
179
31.91%
Ephemeroptera
32.29%
Trichoptera
7
2.59%
Trichoptera
3
0.53%
Trichoptera
1.08%
Coleoptera
7
2.59%
Coleoptera
3
0.53%
Coleoptera
1.08%
Hyrudenia
2
�1
Hyrudenia
0
0.00%
Hirudinea
0.22%
Mollusca
2
0.74%
Mollusca
2
0.36%
Mollusca
0.43%
Nematoda
2J-M
NematocA"-NL
Nematoda
Aracnidia
1
0.37%
Aracnida
0.00%
Aracnida
0.11%
�nelida
1-�Anneli jl_-�nnelida
Turbellaria
1
0.37%
Turbellaria
38
6.77%
Turbellaria
4.20%
Fisheries Investigation 201212013
NETC, Civil Science
DAHP
December 2013
40
Table 5. Grant Lake Macroinverteb rate Drift and Kick Sample Captures by Order
System
Location
Date
Type
Unique
Orders
Captured
Grant Lake
#1
6/20/2012
Drift
611
Grant Lake
#2
6/22/2012
Drift
7
Grant Lake
#3
7/3/2012
Drift
6
Grant Lake
#4
7/1/2012
Drift
4
Little Grant
#5
6/21/2012
Drift
10
Grant Lake
#1
6/20/2012
Kick
9
Grant Lake
#2
6/22/2012
Kick
7
Grant Lake
#3
7/3/2012
Kick
7
Grant Lake
#4
7/1/2012
Kick
7
Little Grant
#5
6/21/2012
Kick
4
Grant Lake
.
#1 6/20/201`_ Combined
13
-
Grant Lake
#2 6/22/2012 Combined
12
. Grant Lake
WCombined
12
Grant Lake
_
#4 7/1/2012 Combined
8
Little Grant
#5 6/21/20f2-'4mbined
16
Lake Elva
Macroinvertebrates were trapped in the main inlet to Lake Elva on July fourth. Similar to Grant
Lake, not counting shed cases, and assuming there was no variability in species between larvae
and pupae and adult species represented, there were approximately 9 separate taxa found in the
Lake Elva macroinvertebrate samples identified. True flies (mosquitoes, midges, and gnats, etc.)
comprised the major component of the drift samples in Lake Elva inlet (64.1%) and stoneflies
were second most abundant (29.7%). The kick sample composition was the inverse, with
stoneflies comprising the majority of the sample (56.9%) and flies second with 37.3% of the
sample (Tables 6 and 7).
Fisheries Investigation 201212013
NETC, Civil Science
DAHP
December 2013
41
Table 6. Lake Elva Macroinvertebrate Sample Captures by Percent Composition
Elva
Drift Sample
#
%
Kick Sample
#
%
Plecoptera
19
29.7%
Plecoptera
29
56.9%
Diptera
41
64.1%
Diptera
19
37.3%
Ephemeroptera
3
4.7%
Ephemeroptera
0
0.0%
Coleoptera
1
1.6%
Coleoptera
0
0.0%
Turbellaria
0
0.0%
Turbellaria
3
5.9%
Table 7. Lake Elva Macroinvertebrate Drift and Kick Sample Captures by Order
System Location Date Type Unique
Orders
Captured
Elva Inlet #1 7/4/2012 Drift 4
Elva Inlet #1 7/4/2012 Kick 3
DISCUSSION
Historical data from aerial surveys performed during the years 1953 to 1996 indicates a range of
500 — 40,000 sockeye have been estimated to spawn in Grant River, with a mean of 15,000
sockeye (Rogers, 1998). Given the density documented by actually counting each sockeye
present in Grant River during 2012, it is doubtful to this observer that any more than
approximately 15 or 20 thousand sockeye at the most could fully utilize available spawning
habitat in Grant River so some of the 20,000+ estimates may well have been over -estimated.
Periodicity of fish in Grant River from studies conducted so far indicate Arctic char school in
and near the river mouth shortly after ice -out to feed on emergent sockeye as they emigrate from
Grant River redds. By early June, grayling begin to populate the lower reaches of the river to the
pool called "split -rock". No rainbow trout were observed in Grant River earlier than late June
and then they seemed to remain in the river until the sockeye carcasses are either washed out of
the system or decayed. Sockeye salmon first enter Grant River around August 1 and during 2012
were noted to run daily pretty close to 1600 hours and began to wash out of the river beginning
on August 19. These observations by automatic camera confirm findings by University of
Washington Fisheries Research Institute (FRI) researchers who noted the highest abundance of
sockeye salmon in Grant River occurs between about Aug 20 and 23 (Rogers, 1998).
Based on our observation and capture of adult coho salmon near Grant River falls in mid -
September suggests that those adults probably enter Grant River in early September. The plunge
pool and secondary pool immediately downstream serve as a rearing area for juvenile rainbow
trout, Arctic grayling, Arctic char, and coho salmon, and also as a spawning area for mature coho
salmon.
Fisheries Investigation 201212013 DAHP
NETC, Civil Science December 2013
EA
The observation of Arctic char in the pools directly upstream of the falls below upstream barriers
to passage indicate that there is some amount of wash -out of lacustrine Arctic char down Grant
River over the main falls. To date, no large Arctic char had been observed or captured
immediately below the falls so the large Arctic Char observed floundering belly -up several
hundred meters below the falls suggests that not all char survive the drop over the falls.
Didymosphenia geminata, commonly known as didymo or rock snot, is a species of diatom that
produces mat -like algal growths in freshwater rivers and streams, and occurs prolifically in the
Grant Lake/River system. The predominate areas affected are from the Narrows flowing into
Little Grant Lake down Grant River to below the Falls.
Figure 26. Micro -photograph of a stalked Didymosphenia geminata frustrule from the
outlet of Little Grant Lake.
Grant Lake appears to support a sustainable population of breeding small to medium sized Arctic
Char, and several age classes were captured. A mystery about why the larger char that were
fairly common during the 2011 field season were not present during 2012 may be explained by
the possibility that they emigrate down the outlet stream after reaching some particular size. If
this behavior is an actuality it would be highly unusual as Alaskan Arctic char are not known to
migrate downstream as they do in other areas of the Northern hemisphere.
LAKE ELVA BASIN
Lake Elva
Water chemistry results from both Grant and Lake Elva are typical of similar lakes in Southwest
Alaska, although in 1980 high levels of cadmium were found in Lake Elva (Beck) which is toxic
to salmonids, char, and grayling. The Cadmium is toxic to aquatic organisms at low
concentrations. The highest concentration to which an aquatic community can be exposed briefly
without resulting in an unacceptable effect is 0.25 µg/L, and an estimate of the highest
concentration to which an aquatic community can be exposed indefinitely without resulting in an
unacceptable effect is 2.0 µg/L (Levit). Cadmium levels in Lake Elva were measured at 8 µg/L,
but surprisingly the levels in lower Elva Creek were at acceptable levels (Gropp, D.L., et.al,
1980). These findings may explain why no species except the hardy sculpin have established
populations in Lake Elva.
Fisheries Investigation 201212013 DAHP
NETC, Civil Science December 2013
43
Elva Creek
Rainbow trout, (Small numbers of pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha), chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) have all been documented in
Elva Creek Q. Lin, 2012) (R. Beck). From 1975 — 1978 from mid -September to mid -October, a
mark -recapture experiment estimated a population size of 2,255 Arctic char at the mouth of Elva
Creek (D. McBride).
The peak count of spawning sockeye in the Elva Creek area generally occurs in mid to late
August and averages 200 (SD 73) fish (J. Lin, 2012). Sockeye spawning activity is concentrated
in the reach from the stream mouth to approximately SM .25. The near -shore beaches of Lake
Nerka in the vicinity of Elva Creek generally have from 400 — 3,200 beach spawning sockeye on
any given year Q. Lin, 2012).
Lake Nerka Confluence Area
Arctic char were noted to congregate near the mouth of Elva Creek in Lake Nerka during late fall
(McBride, 1980).
Fisheries Investigation 201212013 DAHP
NETC, Civil Science December 2013
44
LITERATURE CITED
Brown, C.M., August 8, 2005. Memorandum to Chief, Branch of Lands and Realty (932) from
Navigable Waters Specialist Subject: Navigability of Wood River and Lake System in the Bristol
Bay Region, Alaska. dnr.aaska.gov/mlw/nav/rdi/woodgroup/woodgroup_blmnay.pdf Page 28
Gropp, D.L., et.al., 1980. Reconnaissance Study of Lake Elva and Alternate Hydroelectric Power
Potentials in the Dillingham Area. akenergyinventory.org/hyd/SSH-1980-0188.pdf Page III-25
Rogers, D.E. and B.J. Rogers, March 1998. Spawning Ground Surveys in the Wood River Lakes,
University of Washington Fisheries Research Institute FRI-UW-9803,
www.fish.washington.edu/research/publications/pdfs/9803.pdf Page 20
Lin, J., 2012 Microevolution, local adaptation, and demography in wild populations of Pacific
salmon, University of Washington
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fish and Wildlife Notebook Series
http: //www .adfg .alaska.gov/index .cfm?adfg=arcticchar.printerfriendly
McBride, D.,Homing of Arctic Char, Salvelinus alpinus (Linnaeus) to Feeding and Spawning
Sites in the Wood River Lake System, Alaska, March 1980.
Levit, Stuart M., A Literature Review of Effects of Cadmium on Fish, Center for Science in
Public Participation, Bozeman, Montana,
Fisheries Investigation 201212013
NETC, Civil Science
DAHP
December 2013
45
Fisheries Investigation 201212013
NETC, Civil Science
APPENDICES
DAHP
December 2013
46
O
O
ow
..r
rda
a�
a
I� M
� O
'C 'C 'd 'b 'd "a 'C "a 'C "a 'd "a 'd 'C 'd 'O ^a "a 'C "a 'C "a 'd "a 'd 'C 'd "a
cd 6d up cd OC.1 OLo� O Ln cd O un O Ln OC") Of) cd OLo� O un ct O un O Ln O L Ln o�
cd cd cd 03 03 cd cd cd cd 03 cd cd cd 03
[� i-•I Q i-I [1 7-� � i-� Q i-� I�-I i-� I�-I i-� Q i-I ['� i-� ��-1 7-� Q i-� I�-I i-� I�-I i-� Q i-�
J
N N � 00 O N oo N 00
N M M M M N N M N N
N N U U N U 4d N U U N N 2012
m cd m cd cd
� � �4
iU•i U iU., U iU•i U iU., U iU•i U iU•i U iU•i U U U iU•i U iU., U iU•i U iU•i U iU•i U U U
I
bb b�o 1"
N N
� O O
a
04
N
N
N
O
O
O
O
M
M
M
M
M qM
M
M
M
M
M qM
l�
l�
00
00
00 00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
,I:
100
00
I:t
00
V-)
tn
00
00
lI )
00 00
V)
00
00
00
00
00
00
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M M
M
M
M
M
M
M
l�
O
N
O O
N N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
0'
00
00
00
00 00
00
00
00
00
00
00
M
V7
V7 V-)
V.)V.)
V-)
V-)
CN
V)
�
V)
N
+- �.
a�
a� M
w
w
w
w
w w
w w
w
w
w
w
1117
w
w
w
w
w
w
N
11
o
o
o
o
N
U
U N
U
U
N
U
U
U
o
7E
L'�
C7
L7 L7
L7
L7
L7
C7
L7
L7
° �'
L7
L7
�U
w�
ii
O
O
ow
..r
rda
w n°'io
cn
C�
A
.O
ii
O
a
a
a
I� M
� O
O u OC/� Cd OC/� Ct OC40 Ct OC/� OC/� OC40 OC/� Cd OC/� Ct OC40 CZ O Ln Cd O Ln Cd O Ln Cd O Ln Cd O Ln
cd 0 cd cd cd cd cd C�3 cd cd cd cd cd 0 cd ovi
OM
�
M
N
N M
�M
M � ooM N
M N
0 0 0 0 0
C� c
ia
I
�
�
N N N N N N N N N N N N
O O O O O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N N N N N N
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
V-) Vi to to to V) V) kn to to V7 V7 V) W) V7
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
00 loq 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 M
01 a1 d\ 01 01 d1 a1 d\ 01 01 01 Q\ a1 d\
V7 lIi V) V7 V) V7 V1 V7 V) V7 V) V7 V7 V) V) N
' N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N
cd cd cd cd cd cd cd cd cd cd cd cd cd cd cd .�
L7 C7 L7 C7 L7 L7 L7 L7 L7 C7 L7 L7 L'� C7 L7 ; ^'
�U
w
00
:i
O
O
..r
rda
cn
C�
A
4)
^O
O
a
4)
O
a
:i
a
O U
c� � cd cd � cd C cz cl ct CAcd up cd cd Ln ccl d un ct C ct C/� cd m ccCd cl
cd cd cd cd cd cC cd cd cd cd cd CC cd cd cC
00 00 l— M It 00 Q\
O kr) M N 00 00 M
M M V, N ^�
O O O O O O O O O O •', .',
c� CIO 'a,c� cd cd cd
15. C cz
V— •V— •� •V— •V— •V— •V— •V— •Q •Q c1C Cl= O r" O
zi �. .� �. ,sue O �"'.. O �"'•. O
iV., U 7U.i U U U 7U.i U iV., U 7U.i U 7U.i U 7U.i U U U 7U.i U O�•' p �
�U �u cn¢�
O O O O O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N N N N N N
M M \D
00 00
lzt 7 N
00 00
� � t� )
M M'�
OO 00
0o Oo
C� � kr)
O ~ ~ 04
L7 L7
N N �
00 00 00
V') to kr)
00 00 �o
00
01 01 �
00 00 00
I04 04 0.4
O
O
O
O4000
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
to
kr)
V')
i/ )
tr)
4-)
(ON
cl�
(ON
00
t�
W
4-�
4-�
4
O
O
O
O
O
Cd 03 C3 03 C�3 C3 Cd C�3 C3 Cl
++
A
5 O �� N M
3° 0 3 0 3=� 3 3 3 .� .� a,
a 0 0 ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �' . z: r.
�' bn w
an an an an an an an an aA an
o'o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
v �.. bA aA bA bA bA a aA aA aA aA
A M M M M M M M M M
O O O O O O O O O O
*4 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
•a to V? V- to V? V? to V? V- lf-
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
p V') t/ to V') t/ ) t/ ) to t/ ) to tr)
CC 01 O\ ON 01 01 ON 0\ ON 01
O
eC
0
7
N
I� M
O
�
cl
. n.l
U
O
�F.I
� y
U
U
O w
� U
�
U
O U
U
U U
N y
N
U
Cpy
� U
N :r
N
M
I� M
Q 00
U m
O
N
W � C
g C�
b o �o
o o m o v) kn �D 00 0 0 0 o
a
•'nh•i O O 7 7n 7D O O O � M O N
•��••� ii
O O O O O O O O in
y F O O N N N
w ",�' ".� cC c3 cC cC
i•"i � ° cCa � � c°o c°a c°d c°o a� � � � � a� � y
y
04
(U
� M
• ^C -n W) W� -n Ic O O M M M M M M M M M O -n -n 00
00 V•� N ,-� v1 V" W1 M "D ID O
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 11; 1-4; \D 1-4; 11; 1-4; \D 10 �D N
Tr p 01 O\ O\ O\ C1 01 O, T O\ 01 01 01 C1 01 C1 01 O\ O\ 01 O\ 7
1 O\ C1
�•a a v1 � � � v1 v1 � � � � v1 � v1 � v1 � � � � � � � v1 N
� O
.w
V% o0 O O
00 00 M kn �--i 00 00 00 l- l� In O\ 01 �n \D l� l� m
,a0
N rn ON ON ,r o 0 0 0 o o
a1 01 -n Wn Wn Wn W) V1 N U
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 06 00 00 00 00 00 O\ C1 O\ C1 O\ C1
— y V
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
•—• w O O N N \ N N N � � � � o\O ono �L
I� M
� O
Q �
N
U
N
..w
C�
6%
a
a
b
c
x
a
c
�.
�,�,
,�
�
'r'
0
s
a�
bo
c�
N
DC
...
.b
a
c.
0
M
bA
...
M
ti
O
N
N
O
N
O
�
� U
. � p�j
• �,
r.,
? �
ti
?
�U
��
w
�`�1'017, v
00
# j L t I
Figure 31. (Appendix 2) Grant Lake Inlet Number 1.
Figure 32. (Appendix 2) Grant Lake Inlet Number 2.
Fisheries Investigation 201212013
NETC, Civil Science
DAHP
December 2013
56
Figure 33. (Appendix 2) Grant Lake Inlet Number 3.
Fisheries Investigation 201212013
NETC, Civil Science
DAHP
December 2013
57
Grant Lake
Tl").
• •w � • �Csi-: ^
t ,`
Figure 35. (Appendix 2) Little Grant Lake Inlet Number 5.
Fisheries Investigation 201212013 DAHP
NETC, Civil Science December 2013
59
44
op
10,
'airr,
,c It _ F _ r..! � � < _o � •r `i
AD
ire •_sa'�.. ' - �'� �•r•+� •%�� �,ri t <
. � � � � �` J � I�VVV• �; •• I � fir( f ..
Figure 38. (Appendix 2) Mature sockeye salmon on typical deep water redd in 8.5 feet of
water in Kulik Lake, September 10, 2012.
Fisheries Investigation 201212013 DAHP
NETC, Civil Science December 2013
62
Figure 39. (Appendix 2) Rearing coho salmon in lower Grant River side channel pool,
Figure 40. (Appendix 2) Adult spawning male coho salmon caught in the run downstream
Figure 41. (Appendix 2) Jack coho salmon caught in the run downstream of the main
Fisheries Investigation 201212013
NETC Civil Science
waterfall, September 13, 2012.
DAHP
December 2013
63
Figure 42. (Appendix 2) Juvenile coho salmon caught in the run downstream of the main
waterfall, September 13, 2012.
Figure 43. (Appendix 2) Juvenile arctic grayling caught in the run downstream of the main
waterfall, September 13, 2012.
V-do
Figure 44. (Appendix 2) Juvenile rainbow trout caught in the run downstream of the main
waterfall, September 13, 2012.
Fisheries Investigation 201212013
NETC, Civil Science
DAHP
December 2013
64
Figure 45. (Appendix 2) Fifteen rainbow trout observed by video camera on September 10
Fisheries Investigation 201212013
NETC, Civil Science
in lower Grant River survey.
DAHP
December 2013
65
Figure 46. Sockeye salmon fry schooling in flooded shoreline grasses, Grant River
Delta/Kulik Lake, June 13, 2013.
Figure 47. Lower Elva Creek off -channel rearing habitat and substrate.
Fisheries Investigation 201212013
NETC, Civil Science
DAHP
December 2013
66
Figure 48. Lower Elva Creek boulder substrate.
Figure 49. Lower Elva Creek cut bank rearing habitat and substrate.
Figure 50. Lower Elva Creek coastrange sculpin catch from fry trap.
Fisheries Investigation 201212013
NETC, Civil Science
DAHP
December 2013
67
Figure 51. Lower Elva Creek char from fry trap.
Figure 52. Lower Elva Creek coho salmon from fry trap.
5MADE IN
MADE
13 14 15 16 17 is 19 a tf
fiffilar-lor— 7—
A.
Figure 53. Lower Elva Creek coastrange sculpin from fry trap.
Ili�l�lll i�l�l�ill�l�lll I�I�i�ill�l�lll
1 60i.n 21 3
11111111111111161111 7
Figure 54. Lower Elva Creek Arctic char from fry trap.
Fisheries Investigation 201212013
NETC Civil Science
DAHP
December 2013
68
Fisheries Investigation 201212013
NETC, Civil Science
DAHP
December 2013
69