HomeMy WebLinkAboutGrant Lake Hydroelectric Project Detailed Feasibility Analysis Volume 2 Environmental Report 1984Alaska Power Authority
LI BAARY COpy
GRANT LAKE
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
DETAILED FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
VOLUME 2
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
EBt6CO
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
January 1984
~_ ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY_---'
----------------------...,....----------.~------------.----
-----
-
-
.. -
-
-
-
-
• -
-..
..
-..
-
• ..
-..
..
GRANT LAKE
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
DETAILED FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
for the
Alaska Power Authority
by
Ebasco Services Incorporated
Bellevue, Washington
January, 1984
~ 1984 Alaska Power Authority
-..
---
• -
• -
• -..
-..
-
--
--..
-..
-..
-
l1li
-..
• -.,
-..
-
FOREWORD
The Interim Report issued in February 1982 contained the results of a
study which investigated the relative technical, economic, and
p.nvironmental feasibility of alternative arrangements for the
development of the Grant Lake Project based on prior studies and the
field investigations completed at that time. The conclusion of that
investigation was that a development comprising a lake tap, intake, low
level tunnel, and penstock leading to a powerhouse on the east shore of
Upper Trail Lake was the arrangement that should be further studied •
In addition, the diversion of Falls Creek into Grant Lake via a small
diversion dam and pipeline to augment the water available for power
generation was comparable in cost and should also be investigated.
With the concurrence of the Power Authority, the ensuing geotechnical
and environmental field investigations for 1982 were planned and
conducted to evaluate both of these alternative Project arrangements.
Detailed economic studies, which were performed after the 1982 field
investigations were completed, have shown the Falls Creek diversion to
be uneconomic and this feature was dropped from further consideration.
The environmental studies reported herein include data on the Falls
Creek area since it was included in the Project arrangement at the time
the field studies were conducted. The reader should be aware that
references to Falls Creek in this report are presented for general
infonnation and/or a better understanding of the general area in which
the Grant Lake Project lies. However, the diversion of Falls Creek
into Grant Lake is not a pa rt of the proposed Project. Fall s Creek
will not be impacted by the Grant Lake Project and no construction,
diversion, or other activity associated with the Project will affect
the Fa 11 s Creek a rea.
1721 B
i i
Thi s report describes the natural and human environment of the Grant
Lake Hydroelectric Project site and vicinity, identifies the Project's
environmental impacts, and describes the measures that will be
implemented to protect the environment and to mitigate any potentially
adverse environmental effects of the Project.
Environmental studies identified a number of positive and adverse
envi ronmental impacts of Project construction and operation. Where
adverse environmental impacts were identified, efforts were made to
fonnul ate appropri ate miti gati on measures to offset or reduce the
severity of such impacts. These measures, all of which were developed
in cooperation with local, state, and federal agencies having
juri sdiction over the resources, will adequately and effectively
mitigate the Project's potential environmental impacts.
Thi s report is organi zed accordi ng to the fonnat of Federa 1 Energy
Regulatory Commission rules for major unconstructed projects, effecti ve
December 14, 1981 for Exhibit E. The level of detail presented is
commensurate with the design of the proposed Project, giving a
comprehensive description of the Project site and vicinity's
environmental resources and characteristics and the changes that can be
expected as a result of Project construction and operation, but
focusing on the more significant potential environmental effects and
proposed mitigation measures. This report was prepared with the
technical assistance of the Arctic Environmental Infonnation and Data
Center of Anchorage, Al aska.
iii
• •
•
lilt .. ..
• -•
.. .. -..
I' .. , ..
II ..
• •
• .. ..
•
• .. ..
II
• •
..
..
• ..
-
ill -• ..
• -.. -• ..
ill -
-.. ..
• ..
• -..
-•
..
-..
-..
-..
-
-..
-•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword
Table of Contents
List of Tables
List of Figures
1.0 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALE
1 .1 LOCATION.....
1.2 PHYSICAL FEATURES .... .
1.3 ECOLOGICAL SETTING .... .
1.4 HUMAN RESOURCES ...... .
1.5 PROPOSED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
2.0 REPORT ON WATER USE AND QUALITY.
2.1 EXISTING AND PROPOSED WATER USE
2.2 EXISTING WATER QUALITY .....
2.3 HYDROGRAPHY OF LAKES AND STREAMS AFFECTED
BY THE PROJECT . . . .
2.4 GROUNDWATER ...... .
2.5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS ... .
2.6 MITIGATION OF IMPACTS ..
2.7 SUMMARY OF AGENCY CONTACTS
3.0 REPORT ON AQUATIC, BOTANICAL, AND WILDLIFE
RESOURCES . . . . . . .
3.1 AQUATIC RESOURCES
3.1.1 Existing Conditions
3.1.2 Potential Impacts.
3.1.3 Mitigation of Impacts
3.2 TERRESTRIAL BOTANICAL RESOURCES
3.2.1 Existing Conditions.
3.2.2 Potential Impacts ..
3.2.3 Mitigation of Impacts
3.3 WILDLIFE RESOURCES .
3.3.1 Existing Conditions
3.3.2 potential Impacts ..
3.3.3 Mitigation of Impacts
3.4 SUMMARY OF AGENCY CONTACTS .
iv
i i
iv
vii
x
1-1
1-1
1-5
1-6
1-7
1-8
2-1
2-1
2-3
2-27
2-31
2-32
2-39
2-40
3-,
3-1
3-1
3-36
3-41
3-50
3-50
3-60
3-63
3-63
3-63
3-96
3-102
3-103
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
4.0 REPORT ON HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.1 SURVEYS AND INVENTORIES COMPLETED AND TO BE
CONDUCTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . .
4.2 RESULTS OF SURVEYS, INVENTORIES, AND
SUBSURFACE TESTING . . . . . . . . • . . . .
4.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE ...
4.4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS .•..•...•......
4.5 MI TIGATION OF IMPACTS . . . .. . •.•
4. 6 SU~1MARY OF AGENCY CONTACTS . • . . • . .
5.0 REPORT ON SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS •.
5.1 SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
PROJECT VICINITY . . . . . . . . . .
SOCIOECONOMIC TRENDS ..•.•..•.
PROJECT IMPACT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL,
EDUCATIONAL, AND SOCIAL SERVICES ...•..
PRQJECT CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYI"'lENT AND PAYROLLS
CONSTRUCTION PERSONNEL . . . . . • . • .
HOUSING AVAILABI LITY FOR TEMPORARY AND
PERMANENT NEW EMPLOYMENT . . . . . . . .
RESIDENCES AND BUSINESSES DISPLACED BY
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
THE PROJECT . . . . • . . . . .•..
LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL FISCAL EFFECTS .
SUMMARY OF AGENCY CONTACTS ..•.•...•..
6.0 REPORT ON GEOLOGICAL AND SOIL RESOURCES ••
6.1 GEOLOGY AND SOILS .•.
6.1.1 Regional Geology
6.1.2 Site Geology
6.2 GEOLOG IC HAZARDS . .
6.2.1
6.2.2
6.2.3
6.2.4
6.2.5
6.2.6
6.2.7
Seismicity ....
Seepage ..
Subsi dence
Mining ...
~~ass Movement ..
Erosion . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Haza rds Induced by Reservoi r Fl uctuati 0 n.
Page
4-1
4-1
4-6
4-10
4-12
4-13
4-14
5-1
5-1
5-10
5-15
5-16
5-17
5-18
5-19
5-19
5-20
6-1
6-1
6-1
6-6
6-9
6-9
6-14
6-14
6-14
6-14
6-15
6-15
6.3 POTENTIAL IMPACTS . . . . . . 6-16
6.4 MITIGATION OF IMPACTS • . • • • . . . . . . . . 6-17
v
• •
•
ill
• •
•
•
• -
• •
• -
• -• ..
• •
• .. .. •
I
I
• iIiii
• •
• ...
• ..
...
• -
-• -• -
,.
• -• -• -• -• -.. -• ---• -• -• -• .. ..
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
7.0 REPORT ON RECREATIONAL RESOURCES • . . . • • . • •. 7-1
7. 1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
REGIONAL RECREATIONAL RESOURCES AND USE . .
EXISTING PROJECT VICINITY FACILITIES AND USE
SPECIAL USE DESIGNATIONS • .
SHORELINE BUFFER ZONE ••.•
RECREATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SUMMARY OF AGENCY CONTACTS
8.0 REPORT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES ..•.
8.1 VISUAL CHARACTER OF LANDS AND WATERS
AFFECTED BY THE PROJECT •
8.2 POTENTIAL IMPACTS .•..•.
8.3 MITIGATION OF IMPACTS .•
8.4 SUMMARY OF AGENCY CONTACTS.
9.0 LAND USE .......... .
9.1 LAND OWNERSHIP AND STATUS.
9.2 LAND USE AND MANAGEMENT .•.
9.3 PROPOSED LAND USES .•.•
9.4 SUMMARY OF AGENCY CONTACTS
10.0 REFERENCES ...•...••.••
vi
7-1
7-8
7-11
7-12
7-12
7-20
8-1
8-1
8-9
8-14
8-15
9-1
9-3
9-4
9-7
9-9
10-1
• •
LIST OF TABLES .. ..
No. T1t1e Page ..
2-1 ANALYTICAL METHODS USED IN WATER QUALITY
MONITORING PROGRAM 2-6 ..
2-2 WATER QUALITY CRITERIA AND APPLICABLE III
STANDARDS 2-9 ..
2-3 TRACE METALS: MONITORING PROGRAM RESULTS • AND APPLICABLE STANDARDS 2-11 -2-4 MONITORING PROGRAM RESULTS 2-12 •
2-5 GRANT LAKE WATER CLARITY 2-13 -
2-6 GRANT LAKE TEMPERATURES (OC) COLLECTED DURING ..
THE 1981-82 MONITORING PROGRAM 2-24 -
2-1 GRANT LAKE TEMPERATURES (OC) COLLECTED DURING III
THE 1982 SUPPLEMENTAL DATA COLLECTION PROGRAM 2-25 -2-8 TEMPERATURE COMPARISONS FOR PROJECT WATER-
BODIES 2-26 ..
.-
2-9 DISSOLVED OXYGEN MEASUREMENTS FOR GRANT LAKE 2-28 ..
2-10 LAKE AND STREAM CHARACTERISTICS FOR PRE-filii AND POST-PROJECT CONDITIONS 2-29
3-1 COMPOSITION AND DENSITY OF PHYTOPLANKTON ..
FROM GRANT LAKE 1982 3-4 II
3-2 COMPOSITION AND RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF I PERIPHYTON FROM GRANT CREEK 1982 3-6
3-3 COMPOSITION AND DENSITY OF ZOOPLANKTON ". FROM GRANT LAKE 1981-1982 3-9 ..
3-4 COMPOSITION AND DENSITY OF BENTHOS FROM
GRANT LAKE 1981-1982 3-12 III
.-
3-5 COMPOSITION AND DENSITY OF BENTHOS FROM
GRANT CREEK 1981-1982 3-14 •
3-6 FISH SPECIES REPORTED TO OCCUR IN THE KENAI ..
RIVER SYSTEM 3-16 III
3-1 LIFE HISTORIES OF PACIFIC SALMON KNOWN OR -SUSPECTED TO SPAWN IN GRANT CREEK 3-19
!II -vii
!II -
!II
•
-..
LIST OF TABLES -
• No. Title Page
-3-8 REGRESSION EQUATION TO ESTIMATE FISH YIELD
FROM GRANT LAKE 3-23 -3-9 PEAK SALMON SPAWNING GROUND COUNTS FOR GRANT -CREEK 1952-1982 3-25
• 3-10 JUVENILE FISH COLLECTED BY MINNOW -TRAP IN GRANT CREEK JULY 1959 THROUGH
JANUARY 1961 3-29 •
3-11 SPORT FISH CATCH FOR GRANT CREEK AS -REVEALED BY CREEL CENSUS AT THE MOUTH 1964 3-29
• 3-12 RESULTS OF MINNOW TRAPPING AND ELECTROSHOCKING ... EFFORTS IN GRANT CREEK OCTOBER 1981 AND MARCH, ., JUNE, AND AUGUST 1982 3-30
.. 3-13 ESTIMATES OF TROUT PRODUCTION FROM SOME
NORTHWEST STREAMS 3-35 -3-14 PLANT SPECIES IDENTIFIED FROM THE GRANT LAKE -STUDY AREA 3-52
• 3-15 AMOUNT AND PERCENTAGE OF MAPPING UNIT THAT -WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THE PROJECT 3-61
• 3-16 AVIFAUNA WHICH PROBABLY INHABIT OR MIGRATE
THROUGH THE STUDY AREA 3-66 --3-17 COMPARISON OF AVIFAUNA HABITAT TYPES TO
VEGETATION MAPPING UNITS 3-69 --3-18 MAMMALS OF THE STUDY AREA 3-74
-4-1 CULTURAL RESOURCES IDENTIFIED THROUGH THE
LITERATURE SEARCH 4-3 -5-1 HISTORICAL POPULATION -KENAI PENINSULA -BOROUGH, CENSUS SUBAREAS, AND CENSUS
• DESIGNATED PLACES WITHIN THE SOCIOECONOMIC
IMPACT AREA 5-4 -5-2 NON-AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT BY QUARTER --SEWARD DIVISION 1979-1980 5-7 -
• -
• vi i i
... ---
•
LIST OF TABLES
No. Title
5-3 MONTHLY CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE AND
EMPLOYMENT -SEWARD DIVISION
5-4 AVERAGE MONTHLY WAGES BY QUARTER -
SEWARD DIVISION 1979-1980
5-5 POPULATION PROJECTIONS -SOCIOECONOMIC
IMPACT AREA 1980-1995
5 -f> EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS -SOCIOECONOMIC
IMPACT AREA 1980-1995
6-1 CHARACTERISTICS OF SEISMIC SOURCES
7-1 RECREATION USE FOR SELECTED SITES, SEWARD
RANGER DISTRICT, FISCAL YEAR 1981
7-2 GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT RECREATION
PLAN -CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE
9-1 STUDY AREA BY DRAINAGE
9-2 AREAS REQUIRED FOR PROJECT FACILITIES
;x
Page
5-9
5-11
5-13
5-14
6-11
7-5
7-19
9-1
9-8
• -.. ---.. -
• -
• -.. -.. -
• • .. .. , •
• ..
" II
III
III
• • .. -.. -.. ..
.. ..
-• .. 1-1
• 1-2 -• 1-3
.. 2-1
• 2-2 .. 2-3
• 2-4 ..
2-5 •
2-6 ..
• 2-7 ...
• 2-8 ..
• 2-9 .. 3-1 .. .. 3-2
•
3-3 .. -.. 3-4
• -3-5
• 3-6 ..
• 3-7
-• -
..
LIST OF FIGURES
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
PROJECT SITE AND VICINITY
SELECTED PROJECT ARRANGEMENT SITE PLAN
WATER QUALITY SAMPLING LOCATIONS
TURBIDITY AND SUSPENDED SOLIDS
MAJOR ION CONCENTRATIONS
NITRATE LEVELS
CONDUCTIVITY AND TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS
TEMPERATURE PROFILES, GRANT LAKE LOWER
BASIN
TEMPERATURE PROFILES, GRANT LAKE UPPER
BASIN
GRANT CREEK AND PROJECTED PROJECT DISCHARGE
TEMPERATURES
GRANT LAKE UPPER BASIN TURBIDITY VS DEPTH
TOTAL SPORT AND COMMERCIAL HARVEST OF CHINOOK
SALMON BOUND FOR THE KENAI RIVER 1974-81
SPORT HARVEST OF ALL SALMONIDS FROM THE KENAI
RIVER BY SPECIES 1976-81
LOCATIONS OF SPAWNING GRAVELS AND OBSERVED
ADULT SOCKEYE AND CHINOOK SALMON IN GRANT CREEK
1-2
1-3
1-4
2-4
2-14
2-15
2-16
2-17
2-22
2-23
2-36
2-38
3-17
3-18
1981-82 3-27
MAJOR BROWN BEAR FORAGE RESOURCES AND
DENNING HABITAT IN THE STUDY AREA 1982 3-84
MOOSE RANGES IN THE STUDY AREA 1982 3-89
MOUNTAIN GOAT OBSERVATIONS IN THE STUDY AREA
1982 3-92
DALL'S SHEEP OBSERVATIONS IN THE
STUDY AREA 1982
x
3-94
• --
•
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) -
No. Title Page -
4-1 AREAS COVERED IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD SURVEY 4-5 -
5-1 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT AREA 5-2 •
• 6-1 REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP OF STUDY AREA 6-2 -6-2 GEOLOGIC FEATURES OF STUDY AREA 6-5 -6-3 DEPTH TO BEDROCK POWERHOUSE COVE 6-7 •
7-1 RECREATION RESOURCES 7-2 ..
7-2 RECREATION DEVELOPMENT 7 -15 • -8-1 POWERHOUSE COVE 8-4
• 8-2 LOWER TRAIL LAKE 8-5 -8-3 VISUAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES 8-8 •
9-1 LAND USE 9-2 -• • ..
s
JIll
lit
III' ..
• -.. -
• --xi -
• ..
•
•
-• -• -..
... -
-• -• ..
• -• -
-• ---.. -
--
-----..
1.0 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALE
The site of the proposed Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project is situated
in a relatively undeveloped part of the Kenai Peninsula in southcentra1
Alaska. Figure 1-1 shows the regional location of the Project, a
mountainous and largely forested area between Anchorage and Seward
drained by the Kenai River. A vicinity map of the Project showing the
Project site is presented in Figure 1-2. The Project site and vicinity
is an area of moderate precipitation, varied flora and fauna, generally
shallow and stable soils, relatively sparse population, rich history,
and mostly pristine landscapes. The area immediately surrounding the
Project site offers limited recreational opportunities due to lack of
access routes and developed facilities, although the surrounding region
receives considerable recreational use .
The proposed Project will require construction of no new impoundment.
Water will be taken from the existing Grant Lake through an underwater
intake and will then flow through a power tunnel to a powerhouse
located near the eastern shore of Upper Trail Lake. These features are
shown on Figure 1-3.
1.1 LOCATION
The Project site lies near the community of Moose Pass, approximately
25 miles north of Seward just east of the Anchorage-Seward Highway,
State Highway 9. Anchorage, A1aska 's largest city, is approximately
102 miles north along the Anchorage-Seward Highway, which becomes State
Highway 1 about 10 miles northwest of Moose Pass. Paralleling the
highway is the Alaska Railroad, which connects Seward with Anchorage
and central and northcentral Alaska. From outside southcentra1 Alaska
the Project site is reached by air or water to Anchorage or by water to
Seward, then by highway or rail.
1-1
ANCHORAGE
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
---
--
• .. .. -
• .. ----
• .. ..
III
II • ..
• ,.
•
• • .. ..
• -
• -..
•
J
'" " //.
.. /
1-3
NOTE
DATUM-MSL
o
/. ,
" .. , .. . ,
3000' .
TOPOGRAPHIC DATA FROM US.G.S. MAPS,
SEWARD ~ 6-87
I
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC
PROJECT
PROJECT SITE
AND VICINITY
1-2
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
N ....
-----------
-Oi , __ -
-------~,--------------------1r
" ,..
------------.---------
GRANT LAKE 7 ------___ _
SWITCHING STATION \.. EXISTING CEA 2 .... 9 KV
~ TRANSMISSION LINE
LEGEND:
- - - -PIPELINE AND TUNNEL
===== ACCESS ROAD
• • NEW liS ltV TRANSMISSION LINE
.. -----.. EXISTING 24.9iV TRANSMISSION
LINE
NOTES:
I. TOPOGRAPHY IS BASED ON MAPPING PREPARED
BY NORTH PACIFIC AERIAL SURVEYSI.INC.,
AND SURVEYS CONDUCTED BY R a~
CONSULTANTS, INC., IN 1981 AND 1982.
2. VERTICAL CONTROL IS BASED ON US.a.8.
DATUM 'MEAN SEA LEVEL). HORIZONTAL
CONTROL IS BASED ON THE ALASKA STATE
PLANE GRID SYSTEM, ZONE 4.
3. ALL ROADS ARE CLASS B EXCEPT THE
PRIMAY ACCESS ROAD FROM THE SEWARD-
ANCHORAGE HIGHWAY TO THE POWER-
HOUSE, WHICH IS CLASS A.
400'
I •
0'
I
400' 1200'
SCALE
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PRO-ECT
SELECTED
PROJECT ARRANGEMENT
SITE PLAN
FIGURE 1-'3
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
-• -• ------..
• -• ---• --..
------..
• -• -.. -..
-•
Grant Lake lies approximately one and one-half miles south and east of
Moose Pass at an elevation of about 696 ft above mean sea level (MSL).
f400se Pass lies slightly above elevation 500 ft. The lake is fed by
Inlet Creek at its headwaters and several other glacial-fed,
intermittent streams flowing mainly from the east. Grant Lake is
drained at its south end by Grant Creek, which flows west about one
mi 1 e and empti es into the narrows between Upper a nd Lower Trai 1 Lakes.
Falls Creek, located about two miles south of the south end of Grant
Lake, flows into the Trail River a short distance below Lower Trail
Lake. The Trai 1 River then enters Kenai Lake, which empties into the
Kenai River. The Kenai River, the largest river on the Kenai Peninsula
and the premier sport and subsistence fishing river in southcentral
Alaska, flows into Cook Inlet near the City of Kenai.
1.2 PHYSICAL FEATURES
Grant Lake, with a surface area of approximately 2.6 square miles,
reaches depths of nearly 300 ft. During periods of heavy runoff,
primarily the summer months, the lake's waters are quite opaque due
largely to glacial flour received from glaciers that cap the ring of
mountains comprising its watershed. Because the lake is partially
divided into two basins by a narrow and relatively shallow channel
located near the lake's mid-point, the upper bas'in is slightly more
turbid than the lower basin. The mountains bordering the lake on the
north, east, and south are steep and tall, reaching elevations of 4,500
to 5,500 ft. They are part of the Kenai Mountain Range. The total
drainage area of Grant Lake is approximately 44 square miles.
The average flow of Grant Creek, Grant Lake's only outlet, is about 200
cubic ft per second (cfs). Water quality is satisfactory for both
aquatic life and human usage. Stream waters are soft, neutral in pH,
highly oxygenated, nutrient poor, and quite cold with temperatures
ra rely above 55 degrees F.
1-5
The geology of the Project site and vicinity is associated with the
upper cretaceolls age of the mesozoic era and is 64 to 100 million years
01 d. Most of Grant Lake and other Project waters are underl ai n by
low-grade metamorphozed sedimentary rock, predominantly graywacke and
slate. The area is within the general band of earthquake activity
called the Pacific Earthquake Zone that extends well into the Aleutian
Island range (Hartman and Johnson 1978).
1.3 ECOLOGICAL SETTING
The ecological setting of the Project site and vicinity reflects the
area's low average temperatures, prolonged freezing in the winter, and
the relative geographic isolation of the Kenai Peninsula from the
principal land mass of Alaska. Low overall temperatures limit
biological productivity of both plant and animal connunities, while the
cold and lengthy winters significantly constrain carrying capacity for
resident species. The area's geographic isolation has limited the
diversity of plant and animal species.
Grant Creek, a tributary of Trail River, and the sole outlet stream of
Grant Lake possesses a mixture of resident and anadromous salmonids,
including salmon, trout, and char, as well as other fish species. Most
fish populations are relatively small. Grant Lake, though lacking
salmonids because of an impassable falls at its outlet, possesses an
apparently robust population of threespine stickleback and sculpi n.
The lower reaches of Grant Creek possess small runs of sockeye salmon,
chinook salmon, coho salmon, and populations of Dolly Varden char and
resident rainbow trout.
The Project lies within a vegetational transition zone between boreal
and coastal coniferous forests dominated by Sitka spruce and hemlock as
climax species. These and most other plant species occur at relatively
low elevations. Timberline lies between 1,000 and 1,500 ft elevation.
1-6
---.. ------
---
-
• •
" ..
" ..
• ..
• -
• -
• ..
• .. -.. ---..
---,.
-..
... ..
... ..
..
.. -
..
..
----
--.. .. .. .. ..
-..
-
Floral species possessing special adaptation to snow avalanches,
dessication, and freezing occur at higher elevations. Willow and alder
often occupy intervening areas between forest and alpine species.
The dominant herbivores of the Project site and vicinity are moose and
mountain goat. Major carnivores are brown and black bear and wolf. No
endangered or threatened species are known to occur •
1.4 HUMAN RESOURCES
The Project site and vicinity has been heavily influenced by the
historic development of the Alaska Railroad and gold mining activities,
both dating from near the beginning of the twentieth century. Near the
Project site the Alaska Railroad follows the path of the historic
Iditerod Trail, the first overland transportation route from
southcentral Alaska to Nome and interior Alaska. Numerous remains of
gold mining operations, and some more recent claims, can be found in
the Project vici nity •
Seward, a town of approximately 2,000 people, is the nearest
incorporated city to the Project. The only other communities in the
Project vicn1ty with significant populations are Moose Pass, less than
two miles distant from the Project, and Cooper Landing, located
approximately 24 miles northwest of the Project.
The principal outdoor recreational pursuits in the Project vicinity are
fishing, hunting, camping, and hiking. While the Kenai River
downstream of Kenai Lake is the dominant sport fishing river in
southcentra1 Alaska, the Project vicinity does support limited sport
fi shi ng nea r the mouth of Grant Creek and some hunti ng, campi ng, and
hiking activity near Grant Lake •
The Project site is characteristic of most undeveloped lands along the
highway between Anchorage and Seward and offers a relatively pristine
and unspoiled landscape to travellers along the highway and
1-7
recreationists using the area. There are few roads of any length
leading from the highway, and little major development away from
the highway and the railroad.
At the present time the Project site lies within the Chugach National
Forest. However, in the near future, much of the western portion of
the Project site will be deeded to the state and, subsequent to that
action, conveyed to the Kenai Peninsula Borough. While land uses in
the conveyed lands may be altered from their present forest and
multiple use functions, necessary Project easements will be retained by
the United States Government for the operation of Forest Service
facilities and by the State of Alaska for the operation and maintenance
of the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project.
1.5 PROPOSED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
The proposed Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project, depicted in Figure 1-3,
is composed of the following principal facilities:
0 Grant Lake intake
0 Power tunnel and penstock
0 Gate shaft
0 Powerhouse
0 Tailrace
0 Transmission line
0 Recreation area
0 Access roads to powerhouse, gate shaft-intake area, and
recreation area
0 Fisheries facilities
The earliest Project construction could begin is the spring of 1985,
with completion in the spring of 1981. The Project will generate an
average of approximately 25,400,000 kilowatt-hours of electric power
annually, possessing a peaking capacity of approximately 1 megawatts.
1B388 B/20/85
1-8
..
..
..
.. ..
.. .. ..
..
..
..
.. .. ..
..
• ..
..
---.. -----------..
• -• ------
• ---• -• ---•
2.0 REPORT ON WATER USE AND QUALITY
This section summarizes the available information on water use and
water quality in the Project vicinity, the expected impacts of the
Project on water use and water quality, and mitigating measures to
minimize these impacts. For purposes of discussion, the water quality
study area is defined as waters of Grant Creek, Grant Lake and Falls
Creek.
2.1 EXISTING AND PROPOSED WATER USE
Streamflow data for Grant Creek are based on an 1l.5-year record of
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gage 15246000. Streamflow data for Falls
Creek are based on a 0.5-year record of a gage near the mouth of the
creek, and on statistical relationships between the Grant and Falls
creek watersheds. Information on water use was obtained from review of
water rights and mining permits, field reconnaissance, aerial
photographs, and published maps.
2.1.1 Existing Water Use
2.1. 1.1 Grant Lake
A seasonal mlnlng operation located on the north shore of Grant Lake's
lower basin (see land-use map, Figure 9-1) uses lake water from May
through November. Most of the water; s used for placer mining,
although presumably a small amount is used for domestic purposes.
Limited use of Grant Lake water ;s also made by hunting parties that
occasionally occupy the cabin at the eastern end of the upper basin
(Figure 9-1). Recreational uses of Grant Lake are discussed in
Chapter 7.
2.1.1.2 Grant Creek
Recreational use of Grant Creek consists primarily of fishing along the
lower one-half mile. No domestic use is made of Grant Creek water.
19428
2-1
2.1.1.3 Falls Creek
Falls Creek is used extensively for placer mining during the summer
months. Land adjacent to Falls Creek is almost continuously claimed
for placer mining from elevation 1300 ft to the mouth of the creek, as
shown in Figure 9-1. Several cabins located within two miles of the
creek confluence with Trail River operate under Forest Service special
use permits that identify no domestic water use. Because most of these
cabins are used only on weekends or for vacations, it is likely that
most of the water used is carried in from outside the Project vicinity
(Qui1liam 1982).
2.1.2 Water Rights
Under Alaska state law, water rights can be obtained only by applying
to the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, and receiving either a
Permit to Appropriate Water or a Certificate of Appropriation. liThe
use of water without a permit or certificate does not give the user
defensible legal rights to the water, no matter how long the water has
been in use or conti nues to be in use ll (A1 aska Depa rtment of Natural
Resources 1981). Two Permits to Appropriate Water have been issued for
the Project vicinity. The first is for a placer mining operation on
Falls Creek at approximately elevation 1200 ft. The appropriated
amount is one cubic foot per second (cfs). The second appropriation is
for the mining operation located on the north shore of Grant Lake's
lower basin and consists of 160 gallons per minute (0.36 cfs) to be
taken from Grant Lake and an unnamed stream flowing into Grant Lake.
The appropriation does not specify how the water right is divided
between the stream and the lake.
2.1.3 Proposed Uses of Project Waters
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) has constructed a salmon
hatchery on Upper Trail Lake, well outside the Project vicinity. The
2-2
.. ---.. -.. ---
-.. --.. -• •
IIIJ ...
• .. .. -.. -.. .. .. -.. .. .. .. .. ..
-
• -,.
------...
• -------• -----------...
-----
•
hatchery uses groundwater as its water supply. ADF&G is planning to
use Grant Lake as rearing habitat for salmon originating from the
hatcher-v, as discussed in Chapter 3.
2.2 EXISTING WATER QUALITY
2.2.1 Water Quality Data Sources
2.2.1.1 Hi storical Data
A limited amount of water quality data was collected in the study area
between 1959 and 1981. A limno1ogical survey by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 1961 obtained temperature and dissolved
oxygen data at Grant Lake, Grant Creek, and Falls Creek. ADF&G (1981)
and the Forest Service (Qu i 11 i am 1982) conducted a 1 imno10gica1 survey
of Grant Lake in 1981, and also collected data on dissolved oxygen and
temperature. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS 1981) has collected a
limited amount of water quality data on the Project waters since 1950,
including pH, nutrients, dissolved solids, and temperature. The
results of these studies are discussed in Section 2.3.
2.2.1.2 Monitoring Program
To establish baseline water quality conditions in the study area, a
year-long water quality monitoring program was conducted at Grant Lake
and Grant and Falls creeks (AEIDC 1982). Sampling dates were October
12-15, 1981 and March 1-3, June 8-10, and August 2-4, 1982.
Supplemental temperature, turbidity, and sediment data were obtained
duri ng August 25-29, 1982. Samples were collected from Grant Lake,
Grant Creek, and Falls Creek at the locations shown in Figure 2-1. In
Grant and Falls creeks samples were obtained from near the stream
surface, approximately one to two ft from shore. Additional Grant Lake
temperature profiles are planned to be collected during the winter of
1982-83.
2-3
o ~
'rOO'
.... / .c·
~ .
2-4
NOTE
N
DATUM-MSL
o 3000'
TOPOGRAPHIC DATA FROM U.S.G.S. MAPS,
SEWARD B 6-B7
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
LEGEND GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC
PROJECT o GRANT LAKE SAMPLING LOCATIONS , •.• cL-------.!..~~~ ____ ___1
COMPOSITE STREAM SAMPLING WATER QUALITY
LOCATIONS SAMPLING LOCATIONS
FIGURE 2-1
EBASeO SERVICES INCORPORATED
,"
••
'. '. -------..
-... ---...
-----
---..
..
Water qual; ty parameters measured and analytical techni ques used on the
samples are listed in Table 2-1. For Grant and Falls creeks one sample
was obtained from each stream reach shown in Figure 2-1 and composited
in the field so that one analysis was made for each parameter per
stream. Grant Lake measurements of temperature and di sso 1 ved oxygen
were taken at 3.28 ft (1 m) intervals from the surface to 164 ft (50 m)
in depth. All other parameters were measured at the surface of the two
basins. The upper and lower basin samples were composited for the
October 1981 and March 1982 sampling dates, but were analyzed
separately for June and August 1982 for all parameters except trace
metals. In addition to surface samples, measurements of suspended
solids and turbidity in the upper and lower basins of Grant Lake were
obtained at a 164 ft (50 m) depth during June and August 1982.
In situ water quality measurements were obtained with a YSI Model 33
salinity/conductivity/temperature meter, a pocket thermometer (_35° to
50°C), a YSI Model 516 dissolved oxygen meter, a Horizon analog pH
meter, and a Secchi disc. A 1.2 liter Kemmerer sampling bottle was
used for collecting water samples. Composite samples were placed in a
polyethylene carboy and one liter samples were drawn in polyethylene
containers, stored in an ice cooler, and returned within 24 hours to
Anchorage for analysis. Samples for trace metals were placed in
metal-free containers and fixed with nitric acid. All in situ data was
collected by Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (AEIDC).
Trace metals were analyzed by Am Test, Inc. of Seattle, Washington with
the exception of the October, 1981 samples, which were analyzed by
Chemical and Geological Laboratories of Alaska, Inc. of Anchorage,
Alaska. All other parameters were analyzed by Chemical and Geological
Laboratories of Alaska, Inc.
2.2.2 Water Quality Standards
None of the water bodies in the study area have been classified into
water use categories by the state. The Alaska water quality standards
2-5
TABLE 2-1
ANALYTICAL METHODS USED IN WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM
Parameter
Ni trate
Phosphate (ortho, as P)
Alkalinity (as CaC0 3 )
Hardness (as CaC0 3 )
Turbi di ty (NTU)
Conducti vi ty
pH
Dissolved oxygen
Total dissolved solids
Suspended solids
Coliform bacteria
Silver
Alumi num
Calcium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Mercury
Potassi um
Magnesium
Sodium
Lead
Zi nc
Chloride
Sulfate
Method
Bruci ne
Colorimetric, Ascorbic
Acid, Single reagent
Ti trati on
Ca 1 cul ati on
Nephelometer
Wheatstone Bridge
Electrometric
Membrane Electrode
Gravimetric
Gravimetric
Membrane fi 1ter
ICAP,.!?.! Graphite Furnace A/I£./
ICAP, Flame AA
ICAP, Flame AA
ICAP, Graphite Furnace AA
leAP, Graphite Furnace AA
ICAP, Graphite Furnace AA
ICAP, Graphite Furnace AA
ICAP, Cold Vapor Technique
ICAP, Flame AA
ICAP, Flame AA
ICAP, Flame AA
ICAP, Graphite Furnace AA
ICAP, Fl ame AA
Mercuric Nitrate
Turbidimetric
Sheet 1 of 2
Detecti on
Limi t~/
O. 1
0.01
2.0
1.0
0.05 NTU
1.0 mho/cm
0.05 pH units
O. 1
1.0
1.0
0/100 ml
0.05, 0.0003
0.05, 0.1
0.05, 0.02
0.01, 0.0001
0.05, 0.0005
0.05, 0.001
0.02, 0.05
0.05, 0.0002
0.05, 0.01
0.05, 0.01
0.05, 0.002
0.05, 0.001
0.05, 0.005
0.2
1.0
a/ mg/l unless otherwise indicated.
b/ ICAP -Inductivel,Y coupled Argon Plasma Scan. This method was used
was used only for selected parameters in the October, 1981 samples.
£/ AA -Atomic Absorption
2-6
.,
" ..
• ..
• •
• ...
,. -
• -
• -• ---
• -
• -
TABLE 2-1 (continued)
Sheet 2 of 2
Parameter Method
Detect jon
Limit! ,..
'* Arsenic leAP 0.05
"' Gold leAP 0.05
II Boron leAP 0.05
'" Bari urn leAP 0.05 .. Bismuth leAP 0.05
Cobal t ICAP 0.05 '.
".
~1anganese ICAP 0.05
Molybdenum ICAP 0.05 ,_
Nickel ICAP 0.05 ,.
Phosphorous ICAP 0.05 -Pl ati num ICAP 0.05 -Antimony ICAP 0.05 -Selenium ICAP 0.05
• Silicon ICAP 1.0
Tin ICAP O. 1 -Strontium ICAP 0.02 ..
Ti tanium leAP 0.05 -Tungsten ICAP 1.0 .. Vanadium leAP 0.05 -Zi rconi um ICAP 0.05 .. -----------• 2-7
(Tables 2-2 and 2-3) state that all unclassified fresh waters shall
meet the standards for: 1) Water Supply, including drinking water,
2} Water Recreation, including swimming, and 3) Growth and Propagation
of Fish, Shellfish, and other Aquatic Life, and Wildlife (18 AAC
70.0S0). When the water quality standards vary for the three
categories, the most stringent applies (Hayden 1982). The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) criteria for freshwater aquatic
life and the National Drinking Water Regulations are also presented in
Tables 2-2 and 2-3.
2.2.3 Summary and Discussion of Study Area Water Quality
Existing water quality data indicate that study area waters are
generally of good quality and meet all applicable water quality
standards. Certain trace metal concentrations, however, occasionally
exceeded the 24-hour average EPA criteri a for freshwater aquatic 1 He
as discussed below. Study area water characteristics are similar to
other water bodies in the Kenai River Drainage. Grant Lake is
oligotrophic (low in nutrients) as are most deep wilderness lakes of
southcentra1 Alaska. Study area waters are slightly acidic to neutral
in pH, soft, and low in suspended and dissolved solids. A detailed
discussion of the chemical, physical, and bacteriological data
collected to date is given below. Data collected during the monitoring
program is presented in Tables 2-3, 2-4, and2-S, and also shown
graphically in Figures 2-2 to 2-S. All values given for Grant Lake
represent a composite sample of upper and lower basin surface water,
unless otherwise noted.
2.2.3.1 Water Clarity and Suspended Solids
Several small glaciers drain into Grant Lake resulting in blue-green
colored water typical of glacial drainages. Turbidity and suspended
solids levels, however, have been consistently low throughout the
monitoring period. Water clarity data (Secchi disc readings,
turbidity, and suspended solids levels) are listed in Table 2-S for
Grdnt Lake and shown graphically for Grant Lake, Grant Creek, and Falls
Creek in Figure 2-2.
-
.. ..
• ...
• •
• •
• •
• ..
• •
•
• -
II •
ill
,.
...
-------..
-..
-..
-..
-..
-• -..
-..
-..
Parameter
Hi trdte (mg/I)
Phosphate (Orthu 1
Totdl Hardness (as CaC03
in mg/11
Alkalinity (as C<lC03
in IlIg/1 )
Tota 1 01 sso lved
Solids (mg/1I
Suspended Sol ids (m9/1)
pH (stdnda rd uni ts 1
Water ClaM ty (m)
Turbidity (NTU)
Conductivity (umhus!cm)
TABLE 2-2
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA AND APPLICABLE STANDARDS
Alaska Standar~
No standard
No standard
Nu standard
Nu standard
Not to exceed 500 mg/I.
Neither chlurides nor
sulfates shall exceed
200 mg/I.
Nu measurable increase in
concentrations of sedi,oont
above natural conditions.
6.5 -9.0; not to vary
more than 0.5 pH units
from natural conditions
No standard
Not to exceed 5 NTU above
natural conditions
No standard
EPA Crfteri aE!
Nu recOflioondation
No recommendatiun
Nu recommendation
20 mg/I or more except where
natural conditions are less
No recommendation
Shuu I d not reduce the depth
of the compensatiun point for
photosynthetic activi ty by
more than 10 percent from the
seasonally established norm
6.5 -9.0
No recolllllendatiun
Depth of light penetration
should not be reduced by
more than 10 percent
No recommendation
Culifonll (number/IUD mil Less than 2 FC/lOU ml No recommendation
Dissulved oxygen (mg/l)
Temperature
Aluminum
CalCium
Chloride
Ira n
Potassium
SodiulIl
Sulfate
Shall be greater than 7 mg/1 Greater than 5.0 mg/I
i n su rf ace wa ters
Shall not exceed IS·C Shall meet site-specific
requ i nements fur reproduction
functions of important species
No standard!!.! rlo recommendation
No standard!!.! No recommendati on
Slla 11 not exceed 200 mg/l No recommendation
1.U mg/l!!/
tlo standard.!!.!
No standard!!!
No standard!!.!
Shall not exceed 200 mg/l
1.0 mg/l
No recommendation
No recommenaation
No recommendation
No recommendatio n
Sheet I of 2
EPA DMnk! ng Water Regulations£!
Less than 10 mg/I
Nu regul ati on
Ho regul ation
No regulation
Less than 500 mg/1
No regulation
Less than 6.5-8.5
No regulation
Less than one NTU
No regulation
Less than 1 FC/IOO ml
No regulation
No regulation
No regulation
Nu regulation
250 mg/l
0.3 my/I
Nu regul ati on
No regulation
Nu regulation
250 mg/l
Water quality parameters as given in Water Quality Standards, Alaska Department of Environmental COnservation,
1979.
I}./
c/
Freshwater aquatic life criteria as given by U.S. Environnental Protectiun Agency in QUdlft~ Criteria for Water,
1!l76 andrevised criteria presented in the Federal Register, Vol. 45, No. 231, November 28, 9S0.
EPA National Interim Primary Dri nking Water Regulations, 40 CFR 141, and EPA National Secondary Drinking Water
Regulations, 40 CFR 143 •
Based on the Alaska Water (JUdlity Standard requiring the concentratfon to not e~ceed the EPA criteria in EPA
(1976) •
2-9
TABLE 2-2 (continued)
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA AND APPLICABLE STANDARDS
Paraneter A laska Standard!! EPA Cn ten aP..!
Arsenic 440 mg/lV 440 mg/l
Gold No Standard!!.! No recommendation
Boron No Standaro~.! No recommendation
Barf un No Stand aro!!! No recommendation
Bl smuth No Standard~/ No recommendation
Cobalt No Standard~/ No recommendation
Manganese No Standard~/ No recommendation
Mo lybdenun No Stand aro!!l No recommendation
Nickel 643 mg/I!!1 643 mg/l
Phosphorous No Stand aro!!/ No recommendation
PI ati nun No Standard!!! No recoomendati on
Antimol1Y No Standard!!.! No recommendation
Se leni urn 260 mg/l!!1 260 mg!1
Si licon No Standard!!/ No recommendation
Tin No Standard!!1 No recommendation
Strontium No Standaro!!l No recommendation
Ti tani un No Standard:!1 No recommendation
Tung sten No Standard!!.! No recommendation
Vanadi urn No St and aro!!! No recommendation
Zi rconi urn No Stand aro!!! No recoomendation
2-10
Sheet 2 of 2
EPA Dri nkl ng Water Regulat! on~/
No regu lati on
No regul atl on
No regulation
No regulati on
No regulati on
No regulation
0.05 mg/l
No regulati on
No regulati on
No regulation
No regulati on
No regulati on
No regulation
No regulation
No regulati on
No regulation
No regulati on
No regulati on
No regulation
No regulation
•
•
•
.,
•
• -• •
• ..
111
III
• ..
• ..
• ..
• •
• ..
• ..
I I • I I •
N
I
I-'
I-'
• I I I I I I I I I • I • I • I • I I j i •
TABLE 2-3
TRACE METALS: MO~ITORrNG PROGRAM RESULTS AND APPLICABLE STANDARDS
APPLICABLE STANDAR~ OR CRITERIA Ivg/l) DATA (vgl1l 198#/
EPA On nki ng A laska Water Grant Lake Grant Creek Falls Creel<
EPA Cri ten }Y Water Quality
Metal Max~/ 24-hr Avg !!/ Standards~/ Standard~ March June August March J~ne A~t.lst June August
Cadmium 0.7 0.006 10 0.4 (1.3 <0_1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Chromi till 1050 no std. 50 100 0.6 0.8 1.4 0.5 <0.5 0.6 3.7 <0.5
(trivalent)
Copper 6.0 5.6 1000 0.1 x LC50fi 3 2 18 2 d 2 4
Lead 32 0.15 50 0.1 x LC50 9 2 5 4 <1 d 2 d
Mercury 4.1 0.2 2 0.05 <0.2 NMll/ NM <0.2 NM NM NM HH
5i lver
Zi nc
b/
2200B
0.37 no std. 50 0.1 x Le5Q <0.3 0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 0.3
73 47 5000 0.1 x LCSa <5 6 ]5 125 Ii <5 8 8
Addi ti onal parameters were measured in Iktober, 1981 only. These included bari 1IIl, cobalt, manganese, and phosphorous in all three water baJ; es. All
were below detectior. limits. In addition, arsenic, gold, boron, biSlluth, molybdenllll, niCk.el, platinllll, antimony, selenilTol, tin, stronti4Jll, titanium,
tungsten, vanadillil and zirconitJ1l were measured in the creek.s. All were below detection limits except strontilTol, which measured 0.06 IRQ/1 ;" Grant
Creek and 0.07mg/l in Falls Creek.
Freshwater aquatic life criteria as given by U.S. Envirot1llental Protection Agency in Quality Criteria for Water, 1976 and revised criteria presented
in the Federal Register, Vol. 45, No. 231, November 28, 1980.
EPA Nat; ana 1 Interi m Prj mary Dri nk; ng Water Regulati ons, 40 CFR 141, and EPA Nat; onal Secondary Dri nk; ng Water Regul ati ons, 40 CFR 143.
Based on the AlaSka Water Quality Standard requi nng the concentrati 00 to not exceed the EPA eriteri a in EPA (1976).
Based on the minim4Jll hardness value obtai ned dun ng the mooitorl r.g progrilll, 25 mg/l.
LCSO -a 96-hour LC50 as detenni ned through bioassi\Y usi ng a sens; ti ve resident species.
NM = Not measured.
Parameter
Ni tra te (1I1g/1)
Orthophospnate (mg/l)
Total hardness
(mg/1 as CaCO J )
AlKalinity (lIIg/1 as
Ca(03)
Total dissolved solids
(llIg/1)
Su~ended so 1 ids (my/1I
pH (standard units)
~ Water clarity (m)
Turbidi ty (liTU)
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
Colifonns (No./1UO ml)
Sulfate (lIIg/1)
Colori de lmg/!)
A hmi nUll (mg/1)
I ron (mg/l)
Ca lei un (mg!1)
Potassi urn (mg/l)
Magnesi urn (lllg!1)
Sodi urn (mg/l)
Si li con (mg/])
Temperature (oC)
TABLE 2-4
I~ONITO~IN(i PRUGRAN RESULTS
(ira nt Lake -Su rf ace Wa ter
Oc tober Ma rch
1981 1982
0.21
<0.01
20
:>1
8.6
6.2
2
3.8
61
o
Nt~
<l.0
0.34
0.41
11
0.7
0.98
0.99
1.7
0.34
0.13
31.1
87
4
7.J
Nf1
0.5
o
6.3
d.O
<0.1
0.08
12.5
0.59
0.89
0.92
NM
June 1982
LOl'/er Upper
8asin Basin
August 1982
LOller Upper
Basi n Basi n
v.31 0.38 0.11 <0.1
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
27 31 33 27
2U 10 24 24
33 28 41 47
1.3 1.3 1.3
Nj~/ Nj·l 7.ti 7.3
0.5
1.9
5
O " ....
59
o
5.9
2.5 2
0.4 0.7
48 61 48
o 0 0
6.5 4.5 4.8
<1.1.1 <1.0 <1.0
<0.&
0.05!/
13.0.!/
0.44.!/
0.79.!/
0.75.!/
NM
O.~/
0.40~/
9.9~/
0.51~/
0.95
0.8@/
NM
(See Figures 2-6 and 2-7, and Table 2-6)
October ~larch
1981 1982
0.18
31
18
34
0.6
6.2
NM
0.8
51
o
NM
d.O
0.06
0.18
11
0.5
0.81
0.8
1.5
6.0
0.36
0.04
30
26
84
1
7.2
NM
0.4
14
o
6.2
<1.0
0.2
0.06
11. 7
0.48
0.75
0.98
NM
1.0
a/ Composi te samp I e of Upper and Lower Gr<ylt Lake
• • I I I I I • II 'I I I • I
June
1982
0.25
<0.01
28
19
31
1
Nf4
NM
0.4
60
o
4.0
d.O
<0.1
0.05
10.0
0.44
0.77
0.76
NM
6.5
I ,
August
1982
<0.01
28
24
48
4.3
7.2
NM
1.1
NM
o
4.9
d.O
0.1
0.17
10.0
0.46
0.83
0.79
NM
12.5
, 'I
October
1981
0.11
<0.01
39
24
60
d.O
6.3
NM
0.4
60
o
NM
d.O
<0.05
0.07
14
0.60
10
1.1
1.7
3.5
Fa 11 s Creek
June
1982
0.12
<0.01
27
17
24
86
NM
NM
6.0
150
o
5.4
d.O
1.2
0.93
8.5
0.62
1.3
0.69
NM
4.0
August
1982
<0.1
<0.01
25
20
33
2.3
7.3
NM
0.5
45
o
4.8
d.O
0.1
<0.05
7.7
0.42
0.79
0.61
NM
5.5
..
•
.. -------..
-
III
-------------•
TABLE 2-5
GRANT LAKE WATER CLARITY
Pa rameter October 1981 March 1982 June 1982
Secchi Oi sc (ft)
Turbidity (NTU)
surface
50-m depth
Suspended Solids
(mg/l)
surface
50-m depth
a/ NM = Not measured
Lower
Basi n
6.6
3.8
NM
8.6
NM
Lower
Basin
NM~/
0.46
NM
4.0
NM
2-13
Lower
Basi n
16.4
0.24
0.28
1.3
1.1
Upper
Basi n
8.2
0.40
0.43
2.0
1.9
August 1982
Lower
Basi n
6.6
0.67
0.24
1.3
0.3
Upper
Basin
1.6
1.9
0.46
1.3
1.0
" 6
I
L
o
R
II
T
U
" 6
I
L
o
R
II
T
U
8
7
8
5
3
2
ItT 81
8
7
8
5
2
ItT 81
11M 82 .... 82 U82
SNfI..III6 DATE
FALLS CIIEEX
11M 82 .... 82 U82
SNfI..III6 DATE
Source: AEIDC 1982
" 6
I
L
o
R
" T
U
2-14
I'~----~~~~==~==------,
8
8
7
I
5
4
3
z
ItT 81 11M 82 .... 82 U82
(I) NOT MEASURED
(2) FALLS CREEK FROZEN MARCH 1982
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
TURBIDITY AND SUSPENDED SOLIDS
FIGURE 2-2
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATE.D
,.
• .' .,
• -• ...
• •
• •
• ..
• ..
• •
•
lit -.. .. -
• ..
IIIANJ LAKE IIIANJ am
ItUI me aNINTRAlDIIS
14 ~ smIlII 14 ~ SIIlBII
POTASSIIII POTASSIIII
IIMJ£S1.UI IIMJ£S1.UI C 12 CALClIII C 12 CALClIII 0 SIlFATE 0 SIlFATE N N
C C .. E E
N 18 N II
" T T
R R
" A 8 A I
T T
41 I I
0 0
N • II • fit
" " .. G 4 6 4 I I
• l L
1/1 2 2
... • • -1IR82 .DI82 AlG82 1IR82 .DI82 682 -SMflJHG DATE SNfI.lJI o.TE
• -fALLS am
• IIAJII me aNINTRATIIIIS
14 ~ smIlII .. POTASSIIII
IIMJ£S1.UI -C CALClIII
0 12 SIlFATE -" C .. E II II
T -R
A I • T
I
0 -II e
• II
6 4 .. I
L (I) FALLS CREEK FROZEN MARCH 1982 -2 -ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
• • GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT -1IR82 .DI82 682
• SNfI.lJI o.TE
MAJOR ION CONCENTRATIONS --Source: Am Test, Inc. FIGURE 2-3 -EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
• 2-15
c o
N
C
E
N
T
R
A
T
I o
N
" 6
I
L
GRANT LAKE PRO£:T : VATER 00AlIlY DATA
I.S ...--____ --=.::HAJOR=~ION~CONCENT=::.:..:.;RA=TI::;:ONS:..:;:..... ____ ____,
1.4 .
1.3
e.2 .
e.1
, , , , , , • , , .. • • rt
/ -.., . ..
~' '-'ttl . ..
I. ", ,
Ii A GRANT LAKE
8----EJ GRANT CREEK
... ---. FALLS CREEK
' ..
"'"'''' .... , , , .. ,
'\ , ,
" , , .. , , , ,
(NO DATA IN MA~~~.) ............... _ \ ... •............................... . ........................ ....:,.
-DETECTION LIMIT----------.-
e ~--_,---------r_-------~-------~--~ 111 I
OCT 81 MAR 82 ~ 82 AUG 82
SAIRING DATE
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
,.
.'
• •
-• ..
• lit
• ..
• ...
-..
•
•
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT .. ..
NITRATE LEVELS .. ..
.. Source: AEIDC 1982 -FIGURE 2-4
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
2-16 ..
-
•
----
-----------• ---• -•
" I
C
R
o
" K o
S
I
C
" o
R
115
158
125
15
" 58 Ii
I
L
" I
C
R o
" H
o
S
I
C
" o
R
25
115
158
125
188
15
" 58 6
I
L
25
IIWfJ IJKE
ClIIUTMTY MIl TOTAl. DIm.YfD nms
D mru;mm 0IltIUHJS/00
RJBJ TOTAl. DISSIUED SUDS CIIGIl)
-
OCT II
FAlLS am:
CIIIlOCTMlY MIl TOTAl. DIm.YfD nms
o aKU:lIVm 0IltIUHJS/00 IIfBI TOTAl. DISSIlYfD SIllDS CIIG/l)
-
SNf\..IN6 DATE
Source: AEIDC 1982
2-17
" I
C
R o
" K o
S
I
C
" o
R
115
158
125
15
IIWfJ am:
CIIIlItTMTY MIl TOTAl. DIm.YfD nms
" 58 r-6
I
L
25
1W!82 JJl82 AlU2
SNfllNB DATE
(I) NOT MEASURED
(2) FALLS CREEK FROZEN MARCH 1982
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
CONDUCTIVITY AND TOTAL
DISSOLVED SOLIDS
FIGURE 2-6
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
' ..
-
-.. ---..
-..
-..
-
-----• -• -.. -..
Grant Lake turbidity values ranged from 0.24 to 3.8 NTUs, with the
highest value occurring in October 1981. It should be noted that the
presence of "true color" (water color due to dissolved substances that
absorb light) can cause measured turbidities to be low (APHA 1981).
However, suspended solids levels in Grant Lake were also low, ranging
from 0.3 to 8.6 mg/l. Although the suspended solids data appear to
show a seasonal trend, the low precision of suspended solids
measurements (a standard deviation of approximately 5 mg/1 at a
concentration of 15 mg/l suspended solids [APHA 1981]) precludes
drawing conclusions on seasonal variations. Secchi disc readings
ranged from 1.6 to 16.4 ft. The lower basin is consistently slightly
clearer, less turbid, and generally lower in suspended solids than the
upper basin, suggesting some settling in the upper basin.
Grant Creek turbidity values ranged from 0.40 to 0.80 NTUs and
suspended solids ranged from 0.6 to 4.3 mg/l. Because Grant Creek is a
surface outflow from Grant Lake, Grant Creek water quality values
correspond closely to those of Grant Lake's lower basin.
Falls Creek turbidity values ranged from 0.35 to 6.0 NTUs and suspended
solids levels varied from less than 1 to 8.6 mg/l. Suspended solids
levels were presented during June, the high flow period of the year.
2.2.3.2 Dissolved Solids
The predominant ions present in the Grant Lake system are calcium,
sulfate, magnesium, aluminum, potassium, sodium, chloride, iron, and
bicarbonate. Observed concentrations for five ions are presented in
Figure 2-3.
The major ionic concentrations for Grant Lake were consistently low and
remai ned essenti ally constant throughout the monitori ng period.
Calcium ranged from 9.9 to 12.5 mg/l and sulfate from 4.5 to 6.5 mg/1 •
All other ionic concentrations were less than 2 mg/1.
2-18
Grant Creek ionic concentrations were similar to those of Grant Lake
and showed very little seasonal variation. Falls Creek data showed
similar ionic concentrations, although calcium levels were somewhat
lower, ranging from 7.7 to 8.5 mg/l.
Alkalinity levels were low in all study area waters, indicating a low
buffering capacity. Alkalinities ranged from 15 to 28 mg/l as CaC03'
with the highest values occurring in March. The pH values ranged from
6.2 to 7.5, with the lowest values occurring in August. Study area
waters are slightly acidic to neutral in pH, characteristic of water
with a low buffering capacity.
Nutrients measured during the monitoring program were nitrate (Figure
2-4) and orthophosphate. Grant Lake nitrate concentrations ranged from
less than 0.1 to 0.38 mg/l. Nitrate concentrations rose during the
summer, reflecting low nitrate demand, and declined during the winter,
reflecting nitrate consumption. Orthophosphate levels were below the
detection limit of 0.01 mg/l for all samples except in March, 1982,
when a value of 0.13 mg/l was measured.
Nutrient values in Grant Creek closely followed those of Grant Lake, as
shown in Figure 2-4. Orthophosphate levels in Grant Creek were below
0.01 mg/l except during March, when the concentratiion was 0.04 mg/l.
tJutrient levels in Falls Creek were consistently near the detection
1 imits of 0.1 mg/l for nitrates and 0.01 mg/l for orthophosphates.
Total dissolved solids concentrations (Figure 2-5) should closely
approximate the sum of all the major ionic components of the sampled
water. For most of the samples, however, the sum of the ionic
components was significantly less than total dissolved solids
concentrations. The percentage of total dissolved solids represented
by the ions ranged from 44 to 123 percent, with only two samples
between 85 and 115 percent. Because the major ion concentrations were
consistent, it is assumed that the total dissolved solids data are
somewhat in error. This;s supported by the October, 1981 sampling in
•
••
--..
• ..
• •
• .. .. .. .. .. .. .. --.. -.. .. .. ..
".'"
..
-.. -..
-..
-..
..
.. -.. -..
.. -.. -..
-• -..
-.. -..
which a number of additional ions were examined. Most were below
detection limits; the rest occurred at very low concentration levels.
Hence, there is no significant contribution to the dissolved solids
from these constituents. Despite this uncertainty, however, dissolved
solids levels were generally low. A dissolved solids range of 30-50
mg/l appears to be representative, indicating a soft, slightly
mineralized water.
Conductivity values should be closely related to total dissolved
solids. As shown .in Figure 2-5, this is true for most of the samples •
Conductivity values in March, however, appeared to be unreasonably low,
and the June reading for Falls Creek appeared unreasonably high. In
general, conductivity levels were low, consistent with other data
showing low ionic concentrations.
2.2.3.3 Trace Metals
Trace metal concentrati ons obtai ned duri ng the moni tori ng program are
shown in Table 2-3 with the relevant water quality criteria and
standards. The most stringent criteria are generally the 24-hour
average concentrations for freshwater aquatic life issued by EPA .
These criteria are dependent on hardness concentrations; low toxicity
levels are associated with low hardness values. Because hardness
levels in the study area waters were as low as 25 mg/l, the resulting
criteria were often below analytical detection limits, as was the case
for cadmium and lead. Concentrations of cadmium, copper, and zinc were
above the 24-hour average criteria for freshwater aquatic life for one
sample each (Table 2-3). Concentrations of lead were consistently
above the 24-hour average criterion level of 0.15 micrograms per liter
(ug/l) for freshwater aquatic life, but did not exceed the maximum
concentrati on criteri a of 32 ug/l.
Two trace metal concentrations appear to be a result of sample
contamination because of their inconsistency with other values; the
August Grant Lake t'eading of 18 ug/l copper, and the March 1982 Grant
2-20
Creek reading of 125 ug/l zinc. Other than these two measurements, all
trace metal concentrations were below the maximum freshwater aquatic
and human health criteria, and below the Alaska water quality standards.
2.2.3.4 Temperature
Seasonal temperature measurements were taken at Grant Lake, Grant
Creek, and Falls Creek during the 1981-82 monitoring program. In
addition, weekly temperature profiles were obtained during August and
September 1982 in Grant Lake's lower basin. A limited amount of
historical temperature data for study area waters is also available.
Seasonal temperature profiles for the upper and lower basins of Grant
Lake are shown in Figures 2-6 and 2-7 and are tabulated in Tables 2-6
and 2-7. Grant Lake showed thermal stratification during August and
September, although a classic, sharply defined thermocline did not
develop. Summer temperatures ranged from 14°C at the surface to 5°C at
98 ft depth. Fall overturn began in mid-September 1982 and October
1981, as evidenced by the limited temperature variation with depth.
Winter data from early March 1982 shows an inverted thermocline,
ranging from 2°e near the ice/water interface to 4°C at 9.8 ft depth.
Spring overturn resulted in an isothermal condition in early June, as
shown by the June 1982 profile. The upper basin (Figure 2-7) displays
the same thermal regime as the lower basin, with a smaller range in
temperatures.
Historical Grant Creek temperatures (Table 2-8) ranged from 13 to O°C.
Grant Creek temperatures were closely related to Grant Lake surface
temperatures; the maximum difference was less than 1.7°C.
Falls Creek is generally colder than Grant Creek, ranging from 7°C
colder in July, 1959 to 2.5°C colder in October 1981. Table 2-7
compares the historical temperatures of Falls Creek to other study area
waters.
2-21
,...
..
.. .. ----.. .. .. -• -.. .. .. -.. -.. -.. .. .. .. .. -..
11
•
• -..
-.. -..
-..
-• ---• -• .. ..
-..
VERTICAL TEMPERATURE PROFILES OF 9RANT LAKE -LOWER BASIN
0 SOURCE. AEIDC 1982 0 ...................... ( ----~'I ...... , , .. , , • --" • I -' 25 • 10 • ,," , I ... / , , -" , I • , fIIIO"---, .. 50 , • • 1,.-• 20 • • Ii' • • /1 , 75 • " I ,
• / OCTOBER <4, 1981 t: · " • HARCH 2, '982 v :E; · v 30 · -.. _ ... _-.JUNE 9. 1982 100 • ,1 :c • .. -----. AUeUST 3. 1982 J-J: · ~ • / I ~ • , I : ( I
~ :i I 125
<40 :. I
I
I 150
50
175
69 200
0 2 <4 6 8 10 12 ,<4
TEMPERATURE (DE9. C)
VERTICAL TEMPERATURE PROFILES OF 9RANT LAKE -LOWER BASIN
9 SOURCE I £BASCO SUPPLEMENTAL DATA o
~ 19 v
o
~ 10
v
" 25 t: v
:c
AUGUST 8. 1982 50 § ------AUGUST .... 1982 _.-.. -.-AUSUST 2f. 1982 -------AUGUST 28, 1982
75
o 6 8 10 12 1<4
TEMPERATURE (DE6. C)
VERTICAL TEMPERATURE PROFILES OF 9RANT LAKE -LOWER BASIN
~ ________ ~S~O~UR~C~E~'~EB~A~SCO~7S~UP~PL~E;HENT~~A~L~D~A~T~A __ ~ ____ ~-r0
I •
,.
o
•
i' ~ i , " It J'
" I ,.' ....
TEMPERATURE (DEB. C)
2-22
25
SEPTEMBER .. 1982 50 SEPTEMBER 12, 1982
SEPTEMBER 22, 1982
SEPTEMBER 26. 1982
75
" t: v
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
TEMPERATURE PRO ALES
GRANT LAKE LOWER BASIN
FIGURE 2-6
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
VERTICAL TEMPERATURE PROFILES OF &RANT LAI<E -lPPER BASIN
9 SOURCE. AEl:DC 1982 0 / ---_ .... .... .... ,
".' 25 19 _ ,;
;' ,,;
;/
50 " 29 _ " I
I 75 ,
I OCTOBER 4, 1981 1'\
I It _____ •
AUGUST S, 1982 t:
S9
..., ..... I 100 :::r. I ::c ...,
I I-
::c I ~ l-I
Q. I 125 I.IJ 49 I
0 I
•
,
I
I 150 I
•
I
59 I
I -I 175 •
59 200 I I I I I I I -
0 2 4 (I 8 19 12 1-4 •
TEMPERATURE (DES. C) •
• -
, -.. .. .. .. -.. -ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY -
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT .. ..
TEMPERATURE PROFILES ..
GRANT LAKE UPPER BASIN -
FIGURE 2-7 -
tBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED ..
2-23 ..
TABLE 2-6
GRANT LAKE TEMPERATURES (OC)
COLLECTED DURING THE 1981-82 MONITORING PROGRAM
>/1
""1 Lower Basin U~~er Basin
<-Depth Depth Date Date
(m) (ft) Oct 81 Mar 82 June 82 Aug 82 Oct 81 Aug 82
~ . .. Surface 7.2 2.0 6.5 14.0 6.8 12.5 -1 3.3 2.8 6.2 14.0 12.0 -2 6.6 3.4 6.0 13.0 11 .0 -3 9.9 4.0 6.0 12.5 10.7
• 4 13.1 4.0 6.0 12.2 10.0
5 16.4 7.0 4.0 6.0 12.0 6.3 9.8 -6 19.7 4.0 6.0 11.2 9.8 .-
7 23.0 4.0 6.0 10.8 9.5 .. 8 26.2 4.0 6.0 10.2 9.2 • 9 29.5 4.0 6.0 10.0 9.1 ... 10 32.8 7.0 4.0 6.0 9.8 6.4 9.0
• 12 39.4 8.9 8.4 .. 14 45.9 7.5 -15 49.2 5.9 7.2 7.8
20 65.6 7.0 4.0 5.8 6. 1 6.4 7.0 -25 82.0 4.0 5.5 5.5 6.5 • 30 98.4 6.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.2 6.0 -35 114.8 4.0 4.3 5.0 6.0 -40 131.2 6.0 4.0 4.1 5.0 6.3 6.0 -45 147.6 4.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
• 50 164.1 4.0 4.0 5.0 6.3 5.9 .. 52 170.6 4.0 4.0 5.9 -54 177.2 6.0
55 180.5 4.0 ..
60 196.9 4.0 • .. Source: AEIDC (1982).
• ..
• 2-24 ..
•
'" TABLE 2-7
GRANT LAKE TEMPERATURES (OC) ,..,
COLLECTED DURING THE 1982 SUPPLEMENTAL DATA COLLECTION PROGRAM
LOWER BASIN OF GRANT LAKE NEAR THE TUNNEL INTAKE SITE
".
.u\
Deeth Date ..
(m) (ft) 8/8/82 8/14/82 8/21/82 8/28/82 9/4/82 9/12/82 9/22/82 9/26/82 ..
•
1 3.3 12.3 12.9 12.7 12.7 12.5 12.3 7.3 6.9 -2 6.6 12.3 12.7 12.5 12.5 12.3 12.3 7.1 6.7
3 9.9 12.3 12.7 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.1 7.1 6.7 -4 13.1 11.9 12.7 12.3 11.9 11.9 11.9 7.1 6.7 -5 16.4 10.9 12.5 12.1 9.5 10.9 10.3 7.1 6.5
6 19.7 10.5 11.9 12. 1 9.1 9.7 9.9 7. 1 6.5 • 7 23.0 10.1 11.7 11.1 8.9 8.9 9.1 7.1 6.5
8 26.2 9.9 10.7 10.5 8.7 8.9 8.7 7. 1 6.5 •
9 29.5 9.7 10.5 10.3 8.7 8.7 8.7 6.9 6.3
10 32.8 9.5 10. 1 9.9 8.3 8.5 8.5 6.7 6.3 •
11 36.1 9. 1 9.3 9.3 8.1 8.3 8.1 6.5 6.3 ..
12 39.4 8.5 8.7 8.7 7.5 7.9 7.7 6.5 6.3
13 42.7 8.3 8.3 8.3 7.3 7.7 7.5 6.3 6.1 ..
14 45.9 8.1 8.1 7.3 7.1 7.3 7.3 6.1 6.1 -15 49.2 7.7 7.7 6.7 6.9 6.7 6.9 5.9 6.1
16 52.5 7.3 6.7 6.1 6.5 6.5 6.5 5.7 6.1 .. 17 55.8 7.1 6.1 6.1 6.3 6.5 6.5 5.7 6.1
18 59.1 6.3 5.5 5.7 6.3 6.1 6. 1 5.3 6. 1 ..
19 62.3 6.3 5.3 5.5 6.1 5.9 5.9 4.7 5.9
20 65.6 6.1 5.3 5.3 6.1 5.5 5.5 4.5 5.9 • -..
UPPER TRAIL LAKE TEMPERATURES (OC)
UPPER TRAIL LAKE NEAR THE TAILRACE SITE .. -..
Deeth Date ..
(m) (ft) 8/8/82 8/14/82 8/21/82 8/28/82 9/4/82 9/12/82 9/22/82 9/26/82 ..
1 3.3 10.1 11.1 10.9 9.7 10.1 10.3 5.5 5.3 --
Source: Ebasco Supplemental Data. ----2-25 .. ..
TABLE 2-8
TEt4PERATURE COMPARISONS FOR PROJECT WATERBODIES
Hi
'" Temperature Temperature
,;Ill Difference Difference
Between Between .. Date Source Grant Lake Grant Fall s Grant Lake Grant Cr.
* Surface Creek Creek & Grant Cr. & Fall s Cr.
(OC) ( °C) (OC) (OC) (Oe)
,.
• 11/3/59 USFW (1961 ) 4.4 0.3 4.1 -6/8/60 II 7.8 5.0 2.8 -6/17/60 II 11.7 11.7 0 -7/20/60 " 12.8 -11.1 5.0 1.7 6. 1
8/8/60 II -11. 1 11.1 0 -8/13/60 II 10.6 6.7 3.9 -9/1/60 II 10.0 5.6 4.4
• II 9/14/60 9.4 5.0 4.4 -10/16/60 II 6.7 5.6 2.2 1.1 3.4 --10/13/81 AEIOe (l982) 7.2 6.0 3.5 1.2 2.5
3/2/82 II 2.0 1.0 1.0 -
"'" 6/9/82 II 6.6 6.5 4.0 0.1 2.5
• 8/3/82 II 14.0 12.5 5.5 1.5 7.0 -4.1 Average Ternperature 0.8 • Difference, °C -• ..
• --.. -2-26 --
2.2.3.5 Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen levels in Grant Lake are shown in Table 2-9.
Dissolved oxygen levels remained near saturation over the entire range
measured (0-164 ft) for all sampling dates.
2.2.3.6 Coliform Bacteria
Coliform bacterial counts were zero per 100 ml for all samples measured.
2.3 HYDROGRAPHY OF LAKES AND STREAMS AFFECTED BY THE PROJECT
2.3.1 Grant Lake
Grant Lake is composed of two basins joined at right angles by a
relatively narrow and shallow channel. Both basins are quite deep; the
upper basin reaches 283 ft in depth and the lower basin 262 ft. The
upper basin has a surface area of 997 acres and the lower basin 688
acres. Total volume of the lake is approximately 250,000 acre-feet and
the mean depth is 91 ft. The current surface elevation of Grant Lake
is 696 ft, although the lake level generally fluctuates several feet
during the year.
Grant Lake is primarily fed by Inlet Creek at its headwaters, but
several other smaller streams drain the steep mountain slopes adjacent
to the lake. The sole outlet from Grant Lake is Grant Creek, located
at the south end of the lower basin. Grant Creek has an average flow
of 188 cfs, which suggests Grant Lake has a flushing rate of 672 days.
After Project completion, Grant Lake surface elevation will range from
660 to 691 ft. Post-Project lake volume will range from 192,800 to
239,700 acre-feet, representing a reduction of 23 to 4 percent from
pre-Project conditions. Total outflow would continue to average 188
cfs, resulting in a minimum flushing rate of 518 days at a lake
elevation of 660 ft. Pre-and post-Project characteristics for Grant
Lake are summarized in Table 2-10.
2-27
.' .'
..
•
• .' .. -.. -• ..
.. .. ---
-.. -.. ---.. .. -
TABLE 2-9
DISSOLVED OXYGEN MEASUREMENTS FOR GRANT LAKE
,
."
~ ,-June 1981~7
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l)
October 1981 ~ June 1982~7
'k.
Deeth Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper '. (m) (ft) Basin Basin Basin Basin Basin Basin --Surface 11.3 11.6 10.75 10.5 14 14.5 -1 3.3 11 .5 11.8 13.5
2 6.6 11.7 11.9 13.5 -3 9.9 11.8 12.0 13.5
4 13.1 11.8 12.0 13.5 • 5 16.4 11 .9 12.1 13.5
6 19.7 11.9 12.0 13.5 .. 7 23.0 12.0 11.8 13.5 -8 26.2 12. 1 11.9 13.5
9 29.5 12. 1 12.0 13.5 -10 32.8 12.1 11.9 13.5
15 49.2 12.2 12.4 12.9 -20 65.6 12. 1 12.3 12.5
25 82.0 12.2 12.5 -30 98.4 12.0 12.6 12.4 -35 114.8 12.4
40 131.2 12.0 12.6 12.0 -45 147.6 11.8
50 164.0 11.9 12.6 11.0 -52 170.6 9.75 10.8 -54 177 .2 10.25
60 196.9 12.6 • -!/ Source: ADF&G 1981
• ~/ Source: AEIDC 1982 .. -..
• -• ..
• 2-28 ..
•
7 t
TABLE 2-10
LAKE AND STREAM CHARACTERISTICS FOR PRE-AND POST-PROJECT CONDITIONS
GRANT LAKE
Shoreline
Surface Elevation Surface Area Lake Volume Length
(feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (feet)
Pre-Project 696 1685 250,000 1 100,487 1
Post-Project 660-691 1484~/ 192,80o!: 92,6392.
STREAMS
Mean Average Stream
Flow Length Width Gradient
Stream (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft/mi) Substrate
Grant Creek
Pre-Project 188 1 5,810 25 207 Cobble and boulder
Post-Project O£ . . . ... with several gravel
bars
Falls Creek~/ 38 42,240 15 418 Cobble and boulder
with some gravel,
uniformly covered
with fi ne si It
2.1 Minimum value corresponding to a lake elevation of 660 feet.
~I
£1
Not directly affected by the Project.
The only flow would be from local inflow and groundwater, or from
occasional overspills.
2-29
.' ---...
• -
• ...
•
•
• •
• -• --... -...
• --... -----
'.
".
-• -• -• -• -• -• -• ---• ---• -• -• --
2.3.2 Grant and Falls Creeks
Average annual flow for Grant Creek is currently 188 cfs. Total stream
length is 5,810 ft, with an average gradient of 207 ft/mile. The
Creek's substrate consists of cobble and boulder alluvial deposits with
numerous gravel bars. Average stream width is approximately 25 ft.
Grant Creek flows into the channel between Upper and Lower Trail Lakes
{Figure 2-1}.
The Grant Creek streambed would be essentially dewatered after Project
completion. The only contribution to streamflow would be from local
inflow and groundwater. Local inflow would be very low due to the
small drainage area (less than one square mile). Groundwater
contributions are expected to also be very low due to the lack of
continuous surficial deposits and the low permeability of the bedrock
material. Project discharge will flow into Upper Trail Lake
approximately one-half mile north of the mouth of Grant Creek (Figure
1-3) •
Average annual flow for Falls Creek is approximately 38 cfs, although
the stream freezes solid in winter. The current stream length is
42,240 ft, with an average stream gradient of 418 ft/mile. Stream
width varies considerably from headwaters to mouth, but averages
approximately 15 ft. Falls Creek substrate consists of cobble and
boulder deposits with few gravel bars and a thin blanket of fine silt
near the mouth. The Falls Creek streambed has been extensively
channelized and modified by placer mining within the lower one mile.
Falls Creek flows into Trail River approximately 1.8 miles downstream
from the mouth of Grant Creek (Figure 2-1).
Pre-and post-Project streamflow characteristics for Grant Creek are
summarized in Table 2-10. Falls Creek is not affected by the Project.
2-30
2.4 GROUNDWATER
The Grant lake and Upper Trail lake region is characterized by
glacially scoured bedrock with little or no soil cover. Isolated areas
of alluvial material occur at the head of Grant lake, in part of the
Trail lake valley, and as small pockets forming wetlands in bedrock
depressions. There are no extensive, continuous aquifers in the region.
Bedrock permeability is fracture permeability only. Open fractures
exist, but they do not form extensive, interconnected pathways. The
fact that Grant lake and the Trail lakes differ in elevation by more
than 200 ft and are less than a mile apart attests to the low
permeability of the bedrock ridge that separates them.
little is known about the regional groundwater conditions since few
wells exist. No major springs were identified during this study. Only
a few minor seeps were noted along bedrock cliffs.
Many small surface streams are active during the summer, with some
originating within the small wetlands found along the ridge separating
Grant lake and Upper Trail lake. The presence of streams draining the
small bogs indicates that the bogs are areas of discharge, at least
during the summer months. These observations coupled with data
obtained during the exploratory boring program indicate that the
groundwater table is very near or at the surface over much of the area
between Grant and Trail lakes. During the summer, both Grant and Trail
lakes are also areas of groundwater discharge, with Grant Creek
draining Grant lake, and Trail lakes draining southward into the Trail
River and into Kenai lake.
Summer rains coupled with snow melt form the major source for
recharging the groundwater system. The low bedrock permeability and
2-31
I, '
., .. .. ----
• ----
• ..
• ..
• ..
•
III -.. .. -.. .. --.. --
,"'
...
• -• --------...
• ... --• -• -• -• ..
• ..
• ..
• -•
the lack of major alluvial valleys. however. suggest that much of the
available recharge water 1s discharged as surface runoff into Grant and
Trail Lakes. This suggestion is supported by the observation that
water levels in Grant and Trail lakes rise rapidly during very warm or
wet summer weather. Variations of over one foot in Grant Lake and
several feet in Upper Trail Lake were noted during the 1981-1982 field
season. many times occurring in the space of a few hours.
Little recharge occurs during the winter due to the combined effects of
geologic, geomorphic, and climatic factors, including the relatively
impermeable bedrock and sub-freezing temperatures. Little is known
about regional groundwater conditions in the winter, although the few
small water supply wells in the Trail Lakes valley continue to operate
year-round. The level of Grant Lake drops several feet during the
winter until the outlet elevation is reached.
2.5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS
This section describes the expected short-term and long-term effects of
the Project on water quantity, water use, and water quality.
2.5.1 Construction Phase
Vegetation removal for tunnel installation and powerhouse and access
road construction will increase erosion rates somewhat in the affected
areas. Where vegetation removal occurs near water bodies, such as the
tunnel intake structure, increased sedimentation will result. To
minimize this process, erosion control measures will be implemented, as
discussed in Section 2.6, Mitigation of Impacts.
No contaminants other than sediment will be discharged into study area
waters. All sanitary wastes will be transported out of the study area
for proper disposal.
2-32
Construction impacts will oe short-term, usually lasting only a few
months. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation will
review all construction plans and issue appropriate permits.
2.5.2 Operation Phase
2.5.2.1 Water Quantity
After Project completion, Grant Lake surface elevation will range from
660 to 691 ft, in contrast to its current mean elevation of 696 ft.
The primary changes in the flow regime for the Grant Lake system will
be in discharge timing, and location. The timing of the regulated
monthly di scharge wi 11 vary somewhat from pre-Project flows. Peak
flows will be reduced and delayed from an average of 451 cfs (June) to
360 cfs (August), and low flows will be increased from 36.1 cfs (March)
to 40.0 cfs (April). The location of the discharge will be moved
one-half mile north of the mouth of Grant Creek.
Project discharge will represent approximately 32 percent of the
average annual flow through the Trail lakes system at the point of
i nfl ow. Because peak flows will be reduced and low flows increased
over existing Grant Creek flows, no adverse impacts on the Trail lakes
flow regime are anticipated. The Project will have no affect on the
Trail Lakes hatchery or tributaries upstream.
After Project completion, Grant Creek will be dewatered over its entire
length. In the affected stream reaches, erosion and sediment
deposition due to streamflow will cease. The only change to channel
confi gurati on wi 11 be a reduced wi dth due to gradual revegetati on of
the channel sides. The impacts of stream dewatering on fish and
wildlife are discussed in Chapter 3.
2-33
"""
..
--.. -.. .. ---..
• •
• ... -.. ---------.. ---
---• ---• -• --
• -----• -• ---• -• ----
The Project is expected to cause little or no impact on the groundwater
regime because of the limited groundwater resources in the area.
2.5.2.2 Water Use
The Project will not affect the water supply to the two mining
operations possessing the water rights described in Section 2.1.2. The
mine on Grant Lake's lower basin will continue to use Grant Lake water,
although the lake elevation will be lower.
Recreational use of Grant Lake water will not be affected by the
Project. Because Grant Creek will be dewatered, recreational use of
Grant Creek will be affected by the Project; these impacts are
discussed in Chapter 7.
Because no groundwater use is known to occur in the Project vicinity,
no impacts on groundwater use are expected.
2.5.2.3 Water Quality
Because the Project is not expected to affect the main characteristics
of Grant Lake, water quality impacts are expected to be minor. The
most prominent Project impact on water quality will be the temperature
of the discharge water. Additional minor effects on suspended solids
levels and turbidity may also constitute a short-term impact. No
impact on groundwater quality will occur because the Project should not
affect groundwater resources.
General Water Quality Parameters
Because the essential characteristics of Grant Lake should not be
significantly affected, post-Project level s of nutrients and major ions
2-34
are not expected to change. No change in the levels of dissolved gases
discharged to the Trail Lakes system is expected, because no spillway
is involved.
Temperature
During late summer, Grant Lake is presently thermally stratified as
evidenced by the temperature profiles shown in Figures 2-6 and 2-7.
Because the dominant factors affecting thermal stratification will be
unaffected by the Project (i.e., solar radiation, wind action, and
geographic location), the lake will probably continue to stratify
during late summer after the Project is in operation.
During the winter Grant Lake is cooler at the surface than at depth, as
shown in Figure 2-6. This pattern will not be affected by the
Project.
During the fall and spring, Grant Lake is essentially isothermal as
shown by temperature profiles taken in June and October, 1982
(Figure 2-6). This thermal regime should be unaffected by the Project.
Project discharge, released from the submarine inlet at elevation 643
ft, will have a different thermal regime than Grant Creek. Historical
temperatures recorded in Grant Creek have varied from 0 to 13°C, as
shown in Figure 2-8. Assuming that Grant Lake will continue to
stratify as observed in 1982, the temperature of the discharge water
would correspond to the temperature of Grant Lake at the depth of the
intake structure. In April, the intake will be 17 ft below the lake
surface and in September 47 ft below the surface. The projected
temperature at the appropriate depth is plotted on Figure 2-8 so that
Grant Creek and Project discharge temperatures can be directly compared.
As seen in Figure 2-8 Project discharge temperatures are expected to
vary only a few degrees throughout the year, from 4°C in the winter to
approximately 8°C in the summer. Project discharge should be warmer
2-35
k,
---.. ---.. -..
•
•
•
• ---.. -----.. -----
II II.t II II II II II It II IIII I. I.i li;',i .. ..
1
I
15
-10 u
l.LI
0::
:;:)
~
0::
l.LI
0...
:!5
l.LI
I-
PROJECTED PROJECT
DISCHARGE
•
• •
GRANT CREEK
TEMPERATURES
TEMPERATURES • --------g----~---~
•
•
•
O~--_.~----~I--~--~----~------I------~----~------+_----~----~~----+_----~
JAN
LEGEND
•
o
•
FEB MAR APR MAY
GRANT CREEK TEMPERATURE
(ADFG 1961, USGS 1981, AEIDC 1982)
GRANT LAKE TEMPERATURE AT DEPTH
OF INTAKE (AEIDC 1982)
JUN JUL
TIME OF YEAR
GRANT LAKE TEMPERATURE AT DEPTH
OF INTAKE (EBASCOSUPPLEMENTAL
TEMPERATURE DATA)
AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
GRANT CREEK AND PROJECTED
PROJECT DISCHARGE
TEMPERATURES
I=IGURE 2-8
E13t\SCO 'SERV'CES INCORPORATED
~----------------------------------------------------------~~~.~~--------------------
than Grant Creek from November to May and colder than Grant Creek from
June to October. The implications of this temperature regime on
potential fisheries mitigation programs designed for the tailrace area
are described in Chapter 3.
Temperature measurements taken in August and September 1982 show Upper
Trail Lake to be colder than the surface of Grant Lake (Table 2-7).
The temperature of Grant Lake water at the depth of the intake (Project
discharge temperature) is expected to be generally less than 3°C cooler
than Trail Lake water. Project discharge is therefore expected to have
a minor impact on temperatures in Upper Trail Lake.
Turbidity and Sedimentation
Three Project features could affect turbidity or sedimentation/erosion
patterns in the Project area: channel enlargement between the two
Grant lake basins, lake level fluctuations, and tailrace discharge.
The naturally shallow area between the upper and lower basins of Grant
Lake will be deepened by 18 ft during Project construction.
Post-Project channel depth will vary from 10 to 40 ft compared to the
existing depth of 28 ft. To determine if deepening the channel would
affect turbidity in the lower basin, turbidity measurements were taken
from the upper basin near the channel at 6.6 ft (2 m) intervals from
the surface to a depth of 46 ft (14 m). The results show that
turbidity decreased with depth below 13 ft and varied by less than 2
NTU units between 28 and 40 ft (Figure 2-9). Based on this data, the
channel enlargement is not expected to increase turbidity downstream.
Suspended solids measurements taken in June and August 1982 support
this premise. Suspended solids concentrations varied by less than 1.5
mg/1 between 0 and 164 ft depth in the upper basin, and varied by less
than 1.0 mg/l between the upper and lower basin.
2-37
"""
.. .. .. .. .. -.. .. .. .. .. -
•
•
• .. ..
--.. -.. .. ..
.. .. .. .. ..
'.
-----• -
-• ---• -• -• -• -• -• -.. --
TURBIDITY (NTU)
o 2 3 4. 5 6
0~------~----~------~~~~------~-----1
2
3
4
5
6
,.....
E
::L 7
I-a. w
o 8
9
/0
II
12
13
14
10
20
EXISTING DEPTH OF CHANNEL
30
,..... --......
::L
I-a.
w o
MAXIMUM DEPTH OF CHANNEL (40 ft)
-------------40
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
SOURCE: EBASCO SUPPLEMENTAL DATA GRANT LAKE lFPER BAS~
1'l.RBDrTY Y8 DEPTH
FIGURE 2-1
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
2-38
"'" :.
'.
• .. ... ..
... ..
... ..
...
-...
...
• -• ...
• -•
• -• ..
...
Grant Lake1s surface elevation will range from 660 to 691 ft after
Project completion, resulting in a ring of shoreline that will be
inundated part of the year and above the water level the remainder of
the year. During Project operation, these lake-bottom sediments will
occasionally be above or in shallow water, making them susceptible to
erosion by wave action, surface runoff, or wind action.
Bathymetry of Grant Lake shows steep slopes resulting in a relatively
small surface area between 660 and 691 ft. Significant deposits of
lake bottom sediments are restricted to the few shallow bays along the
western shore, areas near the channel between the two basins, and the
Inlet Creek delta. Lake bottom sediments in the lower basin sampled at
10, 20, 30, and 40-ft depths showed the sediment to be fine-grained,
with 54 percent of the particles having the dimension of clay or
smaller (0.005 mm diameter). Following rain storms or strong winds
when the lake level is low, localized turbidity clouds may form in the
bays and shallow areas. This effect will gradually decrease with time
as the sediments above elevation 660 ft are slowly washed into Grant
Lake and redeposited on the lake bottom •
The tailrace, which would discharge Project water into Upper Trail
Lake, has been specially designed to produce a very low exit velocity
of less than one foot per second (fps). This one fps approximates the
scour velocity for fine to medium grained non-cohesive sand (Chow
1959). Particles smaller than 0.2 mm (0.008 in) will be susceptible to
erosion and subsequent deposition further downstream.
2.6 MITIGATION OF IMPACTS
Erosion and sedimentation will be controlled by several mitigation
measures. A minimum amount of land area will be disturbed, exposing as
little bare soil as possible to erosion effects. Access roads will
avoid steep slopes wherever possible, and will incorporate adequate
drainage systems such as water bars, culverts and ditches. Disturbed
areas will be revegetated and stabilized, so that soil erosion will be
primarily short-term. The bridge over Grant Creek will be constructed
during low flow.
2-39
Several aspects of the Project have been designed to further minimize
water quality and use impacts. Access roads have been located to
reduce overall length and to place them away from water bodies, thereby
decreasing sedimentation impacts. The tailrace has been specifically
designed to minimize scour in the receiving channel by lowering the
discharge velocity and reinforcing the channel bottom. Extensive fish
mitigation facilities, described in Chapter 3, will be implemented to
mitigate the dewatering of Grant Creek. Project recreation facilities,
described in Chapter 7, will mitigate the loss of recreational use of
Grant Creek. Mitigation measures to reduce erosion and sedimentation
will be defined in greater detail during the final design phase of the
Project.
2.7 SUMMARY OF AGENCY CONTACTS
The following is a summary of pertinent Agency contacts made in support
of this report. Correspondence between the Alaska Power Authority and
various agencies is included in Part VIII, Technical Appendix, Volume 3.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
1) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
2) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
2-40
September 1, 1982
Dan Wilkerson and Bob Martin
ADEC Anchorage office
Water quality studies performed
by Ebasco·s water resources
personnel in the Grant Lake area
during the summer of 1982,
including temperature and
turbidity measurements and
collection of lake bottom
sediments
November 12, 1982
Gary Hayden (Anchorage)
(Telephone conversation)
Water quality standards that
apply to the Project
•
•
•
•
:
" II
.. ..
•• ..
••
... .. ..
.. ..
lilt .. ..
II
• ..
• -• ..
• -•
• ---
• -• -• -•
• -• -• --
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
1) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
2) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
January 25, 1982
Ted McHenry (Seward)
(Telephone conversation)
Cyanide use in hard rock mining
in the Project vicinity and the
potential for contamination of
Fall s Creek
September 1,1982
Tom Arminski
ADF&G Anchorage office
Water quality studies performed
by Ebasco's water resources
personnel in the Grant Lake area
during the summer of 1982,
including temperature and
turbidity measurements and
collection of lake bottom
sediments
Alaska Department of Natural Resources
1 ) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
2) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
2-41
January 19, 1982
John Mohorvich (Soldotna office)
(Telephone conversation)
EXisting water rights on Falls
Creek
August 31, 1982
John Mohorvich
DNR Soldotna office
Status of water rights in the
Proj ec t a rea
3) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
October 21. 1982
Gary Prokosch (Anchorage)
(Telephone conversation)
The major issues regarding water
rights for Falls Creek. including
the Federal Land Reserve.
existing water rights and
existing water use
u.s. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service
1) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
2) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
u.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
2-42
August 30. 1982
Curt Nelson and Ralph Browning
USFS Seward office
Water quality studies performed
by Ebasco's water resources
personnel in the Grant Lake area
during the summer of 1982.
including temperature and
turbidity measurements and
collection of lake bottom
sediments
November 16. 1982
Ron Quilliam (Seward)
(Telephone conversation)
Status of cabins near Falls Creek
located on Forest Service property
September 1. 1982
Mary Lynn Nation
USF&W office in Anchorage
Water quality studies performed
by Ebasco's water resources
personnel in the Grant Lake area
during the summer of 1982.
including temperature and
turbidity measurements and
collection of lake bottom
sediments
..
.. -
• ..
• ..
III
l1li
•
•
•
• -..
• .. .. --.. --..
•
•
•
....
'.
ill -• -• -• -• ...
• -•
...
• -• -• ...
• ...
• ...
• ...
•
3.0 REPORT ON AQUATIC, BOTANICAL, AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES
3.1 AQUATIC RESOURCES
The proposed Project will directly affect Grant Lake and Grant Creek.
Nearby Falls Creek will not be affected by the Project (Figure 1-3).
These water bodies were defined as the principal aquatic resource study
area and are described in the following sections.
3.1.1 Existing Conditions
To determine the existing aquatic resources of the study area, a
program was conducted that involved the following: literature reviews,
field surveys, and consultation with federal and state planning,
resource management, and regulatory agencies, local residents, and
recreationists. The program was organized to provide information on
the occurrence and ecological character of aquatic macrophytes,
phytoplankton and periphyton, zooplankton, benthic macroinvertebrates,
and fish. The following sections describe the water bodies of the
study area and their plant and animal communities. Findings are based
upon field studies initiated in October 1981 and completed in September
1982. The sampling locations, sampling frequency, and methodology of
these studies are summarized in the Technical Appendix, Part IX.
3.1.1.1 Grant Lake
The two basins of Grant Lake are surrounded by precipitous mountains.
The shoreline in most areas is chararacterized by precipitous bedrock
slopes with occasional small gravel deposits formed by runoff from the
mountains. The steep shoreline areas have a light sediment covering
(less than 0.1 in). The shoreline vegetation consists of lowbush
cranberry, ferns, alders, spruce, hemlock, and a few cottonwoods near
inlet stream deltas. The shoreline is littered with floating and
sunken organiC debris and patches of thick macrophyte growth (e.g.,
Ranuculus spp.) in the limited littoral areas. The lake is divided
3-1
into two basins by a narrow constriction about mid1ake. An island at
the constriction creates a shallow sill about 25 ft deep which hinders
mixing between the two lake basins. The influence of sediment-laden
Inlet Creek is slightly more pronounced in the upper basin. Water
clarity, as measured by Secchi disc transparency, is significantly
higher in the lower basin, but turbidity and suspended solids differ by
less than 1.5 NTU and 1 mgn, respectively, between basins (see Table
2-5). The water surface of the lake fluctuates moderately, rising to
its highest level during summer runoff and falling to a low point in
winter. The distance from the lake surface to the high water mark was
approximately six ft in October 1981, but was above this mark in August
1982. Numerous short streams, including three glacial streams,
originate in the nearly vertical mountains surrounding much of the
lake. Based on the 1981-82 field sampling, none of the tributaries
support fish populations and only sculpin and threespine stickleback
inhabi t the 1 ake. The abundance of zoopl ankton suggests that it may
provide adequate habitat and food for juvenile salmonids.
3.1.1.2 Grant Creek
Grant Creek flows from its origin in Grant Lake approximately 1 mile in
a westerly direction and discharges at the narrows between Upper and
Lower Trail lakes. In the upper section the creek courses over three
substantial waterfalls, through a rocky gorge, and over large rubble
and boulders. The lower section is somewhat less turbulent with fewer
boulders and more frequent gravel shoals, although the gradient of the
lower O.5-mi1e segment is still fairly steep. The average width of the
stream is approximately 25 ft. Cover for juvenile fish is limited to
stream margins, backwaters, deep pools, and to a few small side
channels offering reduced velocities during low flow.
3.1.1.3 Aquatic Macrophytes
Macrophytes supply habitat for aquatic organisms (e.g., larval insects)
and a substrate for periphyton. They may also protect fish eggs and
juvenile fish (Welch 1980) as well as contribute to primary production
3-2
•
• ..
" ..
• •
•
•
• -
" ..
• -
• --• -
•
•
•
• -•
in lakes. In some cases the protection afforded juvenile fish may
cause overabundance and crowding of fish species.
White water crowfoot (Ranucu1us trichopny11us) grows along the shore of
Grant Lake but is abundant only at the lake's outlet. A small stand of
a sedge (Carex rhynchophysa) was found in a protected cove at the
narrows between the upper and lower Grant lake basins. Both species
have low abundance in Grant Lake because the two factors that most
promote macrophyte growth, low turbidity and shallow depth (B1azka et
a1. 1980), are limited in Grant Lake. Because of their low abundance
the importance of the macrophytes in the Grant Lake food chain is
limited.
... 3.1.1.4 Phytoplankton and Periphyton
• -
•
• -.. -• -• ...
• -• -• -• ..
• -•
Phytoplankton and periphyton (i .e., attached algae) constitute an
important part of the aquatic food chain by providing a food forage
base for macroinvertebrates and fistl. No background information on
periphYton or phYtoplankton in the study area streams is available
other than that collected during field programs conducted in 1982
(AEIDC 1982) .
The results of the 1982 phytoplankton collections in Grant Lake are
shown in Table 3-1. The dominant algal genera during all seasons were
diatoms, mostly Cyc10tel1a and Synedra. Similar algae have been found
in other Alaskan lakes (Poe 1980) and those in British Columbia
(Stockner and Shortreed 1978) possessing sockeye salmon runs. The
density of algae was low compared to northern oligotrophic lakes and
slightly lower than densities found in northwestern British Columbia
and Yukon area lakes with glacial silt (Stockner and Shortreed 1978).
Peak cell counts, mostly diatoms, occurred in August. Duthie (1979)
observed similar late summer blooms of phytoplankton, consisting mostly
of di atoms, in 1 arger subarctic Ca nadian 1 akes. Chlorophytes and
diatoms are considered preferred food organisms for zooplankton that
serve as prey for sockeye salmon (Stockner 1977). Rankin and Ashton
3-3
.~
TABLE 3-1
1982.!1
,..
COt1POSITION AND DENSITY OF PHYTOPLANKTON FROM GRANT LAKE,
I
'"
Cell s/U ter •
March June August .. ..
• Chloroptt}lta (Green Algae) III AnkistrodesmlJs 69
Chodatell a 811 1,069 103 • Monoraphidium 150 ..
Cryptophyta (Cryptomonads)
Cry potomona s 345 .,
II
Pyrroptt}lta (Dinoflagellates)
Peri diniull1 (C.F.)!Y 2,691 1,052 931 •
Chrysoptt}lta (Golden Algae) ..
Di nobryon 52 1,527 6,313 .,
Diatoms ...
Achnanthes 1,757 152
flffiphora 123 88 lit
Aster; one 11 a 394 .. Cocconeis 204 152
Cycl otell a 1,675 9,377 18,590 .. Cymbe11 a 776 219
Oiatoma 327 ..
Fragi 1 a ri a 204
Gomphonema 531 III
Hannea 409 -Na vi cu1a 123
Nitzschi a 41 ..
Ste~hanodiscus 4,330 2,980 III Synedra (C.F. )!/ 2,941 4,338 33,218
Unidentified diatoms 163 152 •
Unidentified Algae 1,926 603 ..
Tota 1 Cell s 19,579 21,716 59,611 • ...
a/ AEIDC 1982. .. E:/ Apparent genus identification. ...
• ...
3-4 •
III
...
-•
• ...
• -• -.. -.. .. --
• -• ..
• ..
lit .. .. .. .. -..
•
(1980) found that zooplankton biomass was highly correlated with
pelagic primary production in 13 British Columbia oligotrophic lakes,
some of which had glacial turbidity. The International Biological
Program (BrylinskY 1980) also found significant positive relationships
between primary production and secondary pelagic production in lakes
from around the world, but a less distinct relationship between primary
production and benthic production. Therefore, although phYtoplankton
density in Grant Lake is low, the characteristics of the algal
population appear sufficient to support a desirable zooplankton
community and hence a fish population.
The importance of organic input to the food chain from phytoplankton
production in Grant Lake may be significant but cannot be readily
determined. As a general rule the relative importance of allochthonous
organic matter (i.e., organic matter originating outside the water
body, e.g., leaves) increases inversely to the ratio of surface area of
the lake to length of shoreline (Saunders 1980). For Grant Lake, this
would suggest that allochthonous input may be less important than
primary production. However, thi s may be somewhat offset by the
limiting effect of glacial flour on water transparency and hence
pri mary producti on •
The periphyton community in Grant Creek, sununarized in Table 3-2, was
dominated by diatom species that are typical of a flowing water
environment (Ruttner 1974), namely, Achnanthes and Synedra. The
highest diatom abundance occurred in spring, which corresponds with the
normal peak diatom bloom period in other water bodies (Welch 1980) •
All three filamentous green algae found in Grant Lake are also
characteristic of flowing water. but Bulbochaete, the dominant genus
found in February, is more characteristic of slower flowing water than
the other two (Whitton 1975). The reason that Bulbochaete was most
abundant in February is that Grant Creek had a low discharge and most
probably lower velocities than in other months sampled. Both Ulothrix
and diatoms are highly tolerant of low light (Whitton 1975). Low light
conditions may occur in Grant Creek from glacial silt runoff, which
3-5
TABLE 3-2
COMPOSITION AND RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF PERIPHYTON
FROM GRANT CREEK, 198~
Relative Abundance
Februa ry May
ChlorophYta (Filamentous Green Algae)
T~/ Buloochaete .386
U1 otfiri x .076
Zygnema
Chrysophyta (Golden Algae)
Diatoms
Achnanthes .284 .472
Cocconeis .007 .004
eycl otel1 a .002
Cymbel' a .032 .024
Oiatoma .033 .159
GOmphonema .020 .026
Rannea .004
Navicu1 a .003 .004
Ni tzschi a .002 .002
Synedra .231 .228
Total 1.000 .999
~b// AEIDC 1982.
Trace.
3-6
(Percent)
August
.190
.445
.003
.027
.035
.042
.015
.245
1.002
..
• •
• .. .. ..
I .. .. ..
• • ..
•
..
III ..
• ..
III
• ..
..
-• -• -..
•
reduces light penetration to the creek bottom. ~gnema is known to
tolerate low pH (Whitton 1975). It may be the most abundant species
during mid-su~ner because the pH in Grant Creek often goes below 7.0
during the high runoff of this period. Although the dominant genera
changed each season, they had similar characteristics, controlled
mostly by the physical environment of flowing water. PeriphYton
constitutes a food source to some benthic insects, particularly grazers
and scrappers (Cummins 1975), but as is typical of most North American
streams, the major source of food for benthos is allochthonous input
such as falling leaves and, in this case, algae and zooplankton from
Grant Lake. Typically the smaller and more shaded the stream the
greater the importance of allochthonous matter.
_ 3.1.1.5 Zooplankton
• -• -
• -----• -• ---• ..
• -
--
Zoopl ankton are often the main source of food for fish in 1 akes. If a
lake such as Grant Lake is highly influenced by glacial runoff the
abundance of zooplankton is often low (Stockner and Shortreed 1978).
In such systems zooplankton populations are generally comprised of
copepods and rotifers with a marked absence of c1adocerans (Koenigs
1982). Cladocerans are usually more common in clear water systems and
are often the preferred zooplankton prey of fish. Several studies of
juveni·le sockeye salmon food habits documented they will usually select
c1adocerans, particularly larger individuals or species, over copepods
(Eggers 1978; Rodgers 1968; Vinyard 1981). Also none of these studies
reported feeding on rotifers even though they were available. The
small si ze of rotifers compared to copepods or cl adocerans is the mai n
reason they are not eaten. The main reason for the selection of
cladocerans appears to be better evasion by copepods (Vinyard 1981) and
the usually larger size and easier visibility of c1adocerans for the
visual feeding sockeye salmon (Eggers 1978). In the absence or low
abundance of large c1adocerans, copepods will be eaten by planktivorous
fish (i.e., fish that feed mainly on organisms that are in the water
co 1 umn as opposed to those that feed on other fi sh or on bottom or
surface organisms). However, if copepods are large they may be
3-7
actively pursued by fish. A study of juvenile feeding coho in
southeast Alaskan lakes found that large copepods were actually
preferred over cladocerans (Crone 1981). Cyclopoid copepods also can
be a significant food item; they exceeded 25 percent of stomach
contents (by number) in the Wood River Lakes of Alaska in August for
both sockeye salmon juveniles and threespine sticklebacks (Rodgers
19(8).
Table 3-3 lists zooplankton taxa and their density for each basin in
Grant Lake. Two genera of rotifers and a cyclopoid copepod genus (most
probably a small Cyclops genus) dominate the zooplankton community.
There are few c1adocerans in Grant Lake. This agrees with the 1981
preliminary findings by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (Koenigs
1982), also shown in Table 3-3. The near absence of cladocerans in
this glacially-fed lake appears typical. Stockner and Shortreed (1978)
studied ten lakes containing sockeye salmon in northwest British
Columbia and Yukon Territory. In three lakes possessing a high glacial
silt load, only cyclops and rotifers were abundant. These glacial1y-
fed lakes generally had the lowest zooplankton abundance of the ten
studied.
Highest abundance of non-rotifer zooplankton (i.e., cyc10poid copepods)
occurred during August 1982, although the June 1981 count by ADF&G in
the upper basin was higher. Peak zooplankton abundance would be
expected sometime after peak abundance of their algal prey. Peak
counts of algal cells occurred in August in Grant Lake. Duthie (1979)
found that in subarctic lakes in Canada, important zooplankton
abundance also peaked in August or September.
Predation by fish may have significant effects on zooplankton
composition and abundance. The abundance of large zooplankton in Grant
Lake was usually higher in the upper basin. It may be that threespine
sticklebacks, which were ten times more abundant in the lower basin
than in the upper one (AEIDC 1982), may affect significant predation of
the large zooplankton. Rankin and Ashton (1980) found that in a lake
3-8
.',
a" -
• --..
• -
• • ..
iIIr
• •
• -.. .. .. .. ..
• .,
• .. .. ..
•
•
• ..
II I •• ' II II I. II 11 I. II I •• , Ii II II II Ii ,"" l
w
I w
TABLE 3-3
COMPOSITION AND DENSITY OF ZOOPLANKTON FROM GRANT LAKE, 1981-1982
Numbers/m 3
June 1981 ~/ October 1981 ~/ March 1982 b/ June 1982
Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower
Taxa Basin Basin Basi n Basi n Basin Basin Basin
Eucopedoda (copepods)
Cyclopoida 1,558 13,654 1,831 1,197 1,165 761 1,214
Copepod nauplii 2384 740 143
Cladocera
(water fleas) 14
Rotatoria (rotifers)
Ken i cott; a 2,273 4,269 183 2,606 109 211 1,738
Asp1anchna 385 1,154 296 296 71
a/ Unpublished data Alaska Department of Fish and Game (Koenigs 1982).
b/ AEIDC 1982.
Upper
Basin
2,738
327
1,518
119
b/ August 1982 b/
Lower Upper
Basi n Basi n
4,225 7,859
169 86
845 3,211
338 10,563
highly populated with threespine sticklebacks the zooplankton
population was impacted. Crone (198l) found that the introduction of
juvenile coho salmon into lakes in southeast Alaska virtually
eliminated larger zooplankton species. It is possible that lower
visibility in the upper basin inhibits feeding by visual feeding
threespine stickleback, allowing zooplankton populations to increase.
The turbidity in the upper basin was higher than the lower basin (O.24
NTU vs 0.4 NTU in June and 0.07 NTU vs 1.9 NTU for August for the lower
dnd upper basin, respectively)~
It would be expected that zooplankton production per unit area in Grant
Lake would be similar to or higher than that of benthos in the littoral
region. Morgan (1980) states that the ratio of benthic production to
primary production in lakes is typically less than the ratio of
zooplankton production to primary production except for the littoral
region where they may be similar. He also states that the zooplankton
production to primary production ratio is generally higher in
oligotrophic lakes, such as Grant Lake. Because of the relatively
small littoral area of Grant Lake, due to the steep sides, total
zooplankton production in the lake is expected to be considerably
greater than that of littoral benthos.
3.1.1.6 Benthic Macroinvertebrates
Bentl1; c macroi nvertebrates (benthos) are a major group of consumers in
the aquatic ecosystem that live in or on the bottom of lakes and
streams. In Alaska the group is composed primarily of immature larval
insects. Benthos comprise an important link in the aquatic food chain
and provide food for most fish and other aquatic vertebrates such as
birds and small mammals. The food habits of the group are very
diverse; some feed on periphYton or phytoplankton, while others consume
detritus or prey upon other aquatic organisms. Changes or disruptions
in the aquatic environment of temperature regimes, turbidity, or
sedimentation of the lake or stream, can markedly influence the number
and types of benthic organisms present. Such changes ultimately can
3-10
••
1<1
.. ... .. .. .. .. -•
• ..
• •
• .. .. .. .. .. .. -.. -.. ..
-.. .. ..
' ..
-
-..
-• -•
• -..
---• -..
-..
-.. -..
.. -
--
alter the numbers and types of fish that the water body can sustain.
Because benthic macroinvertebrates are sampled easily, are sedentary
and are indicative of previous changes in water quality, they can serve
as convenient indicators of water quality change (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers 1978).
Hynes (1970) stated that the benthos of streams is remarkably similar
the world over and that alpine cold-water streams are occupied by
limited populations of a few species adapted to specific conditions
sharply defined by consistently low temperatures and glacial runoff.
Benthos have been collected throughout Alaska by various groups (Craig
and McCart 1974; Craig and Wells 1975; Elliott and Reed 1973; McCoy
1974; Nauman and Kernodle 1974), but little specific information is
available for the Kenai River drainage. The most abundant benthos
found in Alaska are the larvae of chironomidae (midges) of the insect
order Diptera. Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), and
Trichoptera (caddisflies) are generally abundant in streams while
01 i goctJaeta (aquati c worms) and Pel ecypoda (c1 ams) are often common in
lakes. In 1959-60 the Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of
the Interior (1961), surveyed Grant Lake at the mouths of its various
tributaries to determine the species composition of aquatic insects.
Trichoptera (caddisflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), Simu1iidae
(blackflies), and Gastropoda (snails) were recorded.
Benthic macroinvertebrates collected from Grant Lake in 1981 and 1982
are listed in Table 3-4. Samples collected during this survey
contained relatively low densities of insects with the exception of
chironomids (midges). Also there was a low diversity of bottom
organi sms, whi ch is common for col d-water, gl act a1-fed systems with
small 1 ittoral zones (Hynes 1970). The most conlJ1on macroinvertebrates
were midges, oligochaetes (aquatic worms), and clams. Differences in
ahundance between the three sample periods appeared minor, although
generally there were more organisms in June and August than in
October. The lower basin had more caddisflies, clams, and snails and
fewer aqlJati c worms. Reasons for these differences between basi ns are
3-11
TABLE 3-4
COMPOSITION AND DENSITY OF BENTHOS
FROM GRANT LAKE, 1981-198~
Octo6er 1981
Organi sms/m 2
June 1982
[ower Upper [ower Upper
Taxa Basin Basin Basin Basi n
Di ptera
Chironomidae (midges) 201 678 488 430
P1ecoptera (stoneflies) 14
Tri choptera (caddisfl ies) 7 100 14
01igochaeta (aquatic wonns) 21 76 86 473
Nematoda (round worms) 14 14
Hirudinea (leeches) 14
Bivalvia (clams) 36 402 43
Gastropoda (snails) 7 158 14
Gammari dae (sc uds) 14
a/ AEIDC 1982.
3-12
J!:ugus{ 1982
[ower Upper
Basin Basi n
432 775
65
215 473
43
129
65 43
..
..
.. -
• -• • ..
• ..
• .. -
• -----
• •
• ----•
'-..
--..
.. -.. -..
-.. -..
-.. -..
---• ---..
-..
...
• .. ..
... ..
--
unknown, but may be a function of higher quantities of sediment in the
upper basin, which typically had higher suspended sediment
concentrations (see Section 2.0), which would favor burrowing
01 i gochaetes.
In Alaskan lakes, midges are often heavily utilized for food by
juvenile sockeye salmon, threespine stickleback, and other fish
species. Rodgers (1968) found that small juvenile sockeye and
threespine sticklebacks in the littoral region of Lake Aleknagik,
Alaska, consumed chironomids as the largest single item in their
diets. Stoneflies, caddisflies, and gastropods each comprised less
than 1 percent of their stomach contents. The importance of
chi ronomi ds to these species was mi nima 1 in the 1 imneti c zone of the
lake. Also as the sockeye salmon increased in size they relied more on
zooplankton. Other studies have found similar use of midges in lakes
by sockeye salmon fry (Goodlad et al. 1974). Some fish, like sculpins,
are almost entirely dependent on benthic organisms (Eggers et al. 1978)
for food. The less available oligochaetes, which live buried in the
sediment, contribute negligibly to the diet of sockeye and sticklebacks
(Rodgers 1968). Adult mayflies, blackflies, caddisflies, and
craneflies were observed near the lake and caddisfly larvae and
Hemiptera (water boatmen) were captured in fish minnow traps. At
present the benthic organisms probably play an important role in
survival and production of sculpin in the lake but are of minor
importance to threespine sticklebacks.
The results of benthic Surber sampling in Grant Creek during the four
seasons 1981-1982 are shown in Table 3-5. To date no other published
historical survey data on invertebrates in Grant Creek have been
found. Diversity was low, which is typical for cold glacial streams .
The most abundant organisms were midges, followed by moderate numbers
of mayflies, stoneflies, and clams. Abundance varied between season,
but without apparent temporal trends. The 1 arge numbers of midges and
moderate numbers of mayfl ies and stonefies found in Grant Creek woul d
be important food for salmonids in streams (Rodgers 1968) .
3-13
-TABLE 3-5 ...
cor~POSITION AND DENSITY OF BENTHOS FROM GRANT CREEK, 1981-1982~/ ..
Taxa October 1981
Organi sms/m 2 ----------------•
August 1982 -March 1982 May 1982
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant Creek
Diptera
Chironomidae (midges)
Empididae (dance flies)
Simuliidae (blackfiles)
Ephemeroptera (mayflies)
P1ecoptera (stonef1ies)
Trichoptera (caddis flies)
Coleoptera (beetles)
01igochaeta (aquatic worms)
Hirudinea (leeches)
Bivalvia (clams)
Hydracarina (water mites)
Corixidae (water boatman)
Y AEIDC 1982.
3-14
6,677
11
162
183
11
124
6
7,457
11
156
102
22
6
16
6
2,387
297
48
7
4
11
7
271
7
7
3,296
27
11
130
86
5
49
.. .. --IIIIi
• •
• -
• -•
.. .. -
• .. .. -
-.. .. .. -
-----• -• -• -• -• -• ---• ---• -• ..
• -•
-• ..
..
•
3.1.1.7 Fish
The Kenai River is one of the most important upper Cook Inlet systems
;n terms of spawning habitat for commercial and game fish, which
include five species of Pacific salmon, Dolly Varden, eulachon, and
rainbow trout. Twenty-one species of fish have been reported in the
Kenai River drainage (Table 3-6).
The species considered most important in the study area are chinook and
sockeye salmon, Dolly Varden, and rainbow trout. Historical sport and
commercial harvest data for chinook salmon compiled by AEIDC (1982) are
summarized in Figure 3-1. For the period 1974-1981, the sport harvest
of chinook salmon comprised approximately 48 percent of the total
harvest; commercial and subsistence catches comprised approximately 52
percent. Figure 3-1 indicates considerable fluctuation in Kenai River
chinook salmon harvest over the past eight years. Early run fish,
typical of chinook returning to Grant Creek, show a general increase in
harvest over the peri od. Sport harvest data for all salmonids are
summarized in Figure 3-2. Chinook salmon comprise the greatest portion
of the catch followed by coho salmon and Dolly Varden. Sport and
commercial fishing for salmon is a dominant factor in the Kenai
Peninsula's economy, although the fishery in Grant Lake and Falls
Creeks is of relatively minor economic importance. Grant Creek is used
by three species of salmon (chinook or king salmon, sockeye or red
salmon, and coho or silver salmon), Dolly Varden, and rainbow trout
that contribute to fisheries in the Kenai River and marine waters.
The following paragraphs summarize the life histories of the more
important species in the Kenai River basin. Generalized life histories
are also provided for Dolly Varden and rainbow trout, important sport
fish in the study area. Table 3-7 presents life history information
for Pacific salmon utilizing Grant Creek.
3-15
Species
TABLE 3-6
FISH SPECIES REPORTED TO OCCUR IN THE
KENAI RIVER SYSTE~/
Arctic lamprey (Lam etra japonica)
Chinook (king) salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
Sockeye (red) salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka)
Coho (silver) salmon (Oncorh*nchus kisutch)
Chum (dog) salmon (Oncorhync us keta)
Pink (humpback) salmon (Oncorh nchus gorbuscha)
Rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri
Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma
Northern pike (Esox lucius)
Lake trout (SalveTinus namaycush)
Eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus)
Longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys)
Sculpin (Cottus sp.)
Slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus)
Coastrange sculpin (Cottus aleuticus)
Staghorn sculpin (Leptocottus armatus)
Round whitefish (Proso ium cylindracum)
Threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus)
Ninesp;ne stickleback (Pungitius un itiu 7)
Pacific herring (Clupea harengus a11asi-
Starry flounder (Platichthys stellatus _7
Longnose sucker (Catostomus catostomus)
Arctic grayling (Thymal1us arcticus)
~/ Adapted from Kenai River Review, 1978. U.S.
Department of the Army, Alaska District Corps
of Engineers.
Q/ Found only in intertidal area.
3-16
--
• -• -------• -.. ..
II ..
• ..
• -• -
• -
• -
-
• ..
• ..
I I •• I I • I • j I I • I • I • I • , I I I • • • • , I • I i l " l. ~ Ii
2M;
20
19 TOTAL
18
17
% 16 (I)
ii:15
""14 0
13 LATE RUN
(I)
012 z
~ II
610
%
I-9 cu Z ! 8
-....J 0
I.fJ 7
I-6 (I)
I.fJ EARLY RUN > 0: 5
C(
% 4
0: 3 I.fJ m 2 :E
:::;)
I z
0
1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 ~
YEAR
~ 1981 DATA ARE PRELIMINARY EBASCO SERVICES II\COR PORATE 0
COHO SALMON
21.5%
CHINOOK SALMON
31.5%
DOLLY VARDEN
17.3%
PINK SALMON
16.5%
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
NT LAKE MY OELECTRIC
P 0 C
FIGURE 3-2
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
-
--.. ..
• ..
• .. .. --..
• ..
• .. ,.
•
• .. -.. .. ., .. -.. .. --
• ..
• .. .. -
t j'I" I •• , •• ij i I j • • • • • • • • • I a j II i ic '"
w
I
-' w
TABLE 3-7
LIFE HISTORIES OF PACIFIC SALMON KNOWN OR SUSPECTED TO SPAWN IN GRANT CREEK!/
Time Spent in
Fresh Water After Average
Specieg/of Emergence from Time Spent Age at Weight of
salmo~ Gravel at Sea Spawning Adults£!
(Months) (Years) (Years) (Pounds)
Chinook (king)
salmon 3-12 1-6 3-7 30(E)-37(L)d,e/
Sockeye (red)
salmon 12-36 1-4 3-6 6(L)-7(E)d/
Coho (Si]qer)
salmo~ 12-36 1 3-4 8 (E)-10(L)e/
a/ Merrell 1970, except where noted.
b/ Exceptions to these general characteristics occur frequently.
c/ Weight of whole or round fish (pounds).
d/ Limited spawning of this species is suspected, but unconfinned.
Average
Eggs Per
Female
(NunDer)
9,OOO(E)-
12,000(L)e/
3,500(L)-
3,700(E)e/
3,700(E)-
4, 100(L )e/
e/ Specifically for the Kenai system (Cook Inlet Regional Planning Team 1981; and Heard
1982); E = Early run, L = Late run.
1916B 8/20/85
Chinook salmon enter the Kenai system in two distinct runs. The first
run enters the river in late May, peaks in mid-June. and ends 1n early
July. The second run begins in early July. peaks in late July. and
ends by mid-August. Radio tagging experiments conducted by the u.s.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) between 1919 and 1981 indicate that
early run fish spawn exclusively in tributaries of the Kenai, including
Grant Creek. while late run fish spawn exclusively in the main-stem
Kenai (Burger 1981. 1982). Fertilized eggs hatch in 2 to 3 months. and
the alevins (newly hatched fish) spend two to three weeks in the gravel
before emerging as free-swimming fry (Morrow 1980). Juvenile chinook
spend one year in fresh water before migrating to sea in late June.
Adults return after two to six years at sea. An estimated 50.000
chinook salmon spawn in the Kenai River drainage (Burger 1981. 1982)
although this estimate has not been substantiated by ADF&G .. Chinook
salmon prefer large gravel and cobble for spawning and a spawning
territory of typically 20.1 square meters per spawning pair (Burner
1951) .
Sockeye salmon also arrive in the Ke.nai in two discrete runs. The
first run begins in mid to late May and continues through late June.
The second run arrives in mid-July and continues through mid-August.
Newly emerged fry migrate to lakes to rear and remain for one or two
years before migrating seaward (U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers 1918).
Sockeye salmon prefer smaller gravel than chinook, but sim11ar in size
to coho salmon. Although site specific spawning information was not
I obtained from Grant Creek, sockeye salmon in other areas have been
shown to prefer a smaller spawning territory than that of chinook
(Burner 1951).
Coho salmon also enter the Kenai 1n two runs: the first beginning in
late July and continuing until mid-August; the second migrating from
mid-August to December. Hatching occurs in roughly 150 days when water
temperature reaches 3soF. Some fry migrate immediately to sea, but
most remain in fresh water for one or two years (U.S. Army, Corps of
Engineers 1918).
3-20
•
" ..
•
• .. ..
... ..
...
...
.. ..
-..
-.. --
• -..
-
---..
-..
---.. .. ----.. -• ---.. -..
Non-anadromous rainbow trout have been planted in numerous lakes and
ponds in Alaska (Armstrong 1969). Rainbow spawn during late winter or
early spring when water temperatures begin to increase. A redd is
prepared in fine gravels by the female before she releases from 200 to
8,000 eggs, depending on her size. Redd size is about 0.2 square
meters (Hunter 1973). Rainbow trout may spawn annually for up to five
years. Stream dwelling fish generally stay in the natal stream while
lake resident fish may migrate into and out of the lake to neighboring
streams (Armstrong 1969).
Dolly Varden spawn in October and November. The female may deposit 300
to over 6,000 eggs, depending on size (Morrow 1980). The eggs develop
slowly in cold water, hatching in March or April. In nonanadromous
(non-migratory) populations in Alaska, the young may spend several
months to three or four years in streams, then move to a lake.
Juveniles of the anadromous race rear in streams three or four years
before migrating seaward in late May. Sexual maturity is reached in
three to six years in both races, with males often maturing a year
earlier than females. Not all adults migrate into fresh water to spawn
and may only enter streams to feed. Dolly Varden may spawn more than
once, returning to their natal stream from mid-July to late September.
Spawning mortality in Alaska fish varies; a small number live to spawn
more than twice; but few appear to live longer than eight years
(Armstrong 1969) •
Grant Lake
Previous investigations (USFWS 1961) indicate that Grant Lake supports
a small population of slimy sculpin and a dense population of
threespine stickleback. A falls at the lake's outlet blocks
immigration of other fish species. Results of fish sampling in October
1981 and March, June, and August 1982 indicate that density of
threespine sticklebacks per minnow trap set were 10 times higher in the
lower basin than the upper basin (AIEDe 1982). Sculpin were also
captured during these surveys, but no other fiSh species were found in
Grant Lake or its tributaries.
3-21
The limited water transparency and cold water of Grant Lake and its
tributaries limit fish production, but its large population of
sticklebacks shows that food supplies are adequate for at least some
fish species. Although stickleback compete with species like sockeye
salmon (Rodgers 1968; Rankin and Ashton 1980), they cannot out-compete
sockeye and rainbow trout, and even constitute a significant food
resource for fish-eating species like Dolly Varden and cutthroat
(Nilsson and Northcote 1981, Rogers 1968). ADF&G has been studying
Kenai drainage lakes since 1976 to locate suitable sockeye nursery
areas for juveniles produced from the Trail Lakes Hatchery (scheduled
for completion in late 1982) (Flagg 1982). In 1981 ADF&G sampled Grant
Lake, and preliminary data suggest that it had the second highest
plankton concentration of the lakes tested. Results suggest the lake
may have potential for rearing salmonid fish. In addition, sockeye
salmon in the Kenai system are known to be infected with the virus
infectious hemotopoietic necrosis (IHN) (Dudiak 1980), and this virus
could conceivably hamper some types of sockeye salmon enhancement
efforts planned for Grant Lake.
An experimental introduction of 620,000 coho fry is scheduled for
release into Grant Lake in June 1983. ADF&G plans a program to
evaluate the development and outmigration of stocked fish in 1983
(Flagg 1982, 1983). If coho salmon survival is successful, future
plants of chinook salmon fry will be conducted (Flagg 1983). No
sockeye salmon fry will be planted in the lake in the future.
At present Grant Lake does not directly provide an economically
important fishery, but it has potential in the future. In order to
obtain a general estimate of potential production of that fishery, a
model by Schlesinger and Regier (1982) was used to estimate annual fish
production as maximum sustainable yield (MSY) (Table 3-8). The results
indicate an annual fish production of approximately 3.5 kg/hectare/year
(3.8 lbs/acre/year), or 2268 kg/year (4990 lbs/year) for the total
lake. Assuming that total production would be one year old sockeye
salmon smolts each weighing 6.6 grams (the average size of one year old
smolts in four Alaska lakes [Eggers 1978J), the total annual yield from
3-22
..
-.. .. .. -.. .. --..
• ..
• ..
• • .. ..
• .. .. .. .. -.. ...
..
• -.. ..
• -
-----
• -• -
TABLE 3-8
REGRESSION EQUATION TO ESTIMATE FISH YIELD FROM GRANT LAK~
Formula: 10910 Yield = 0.050 TEMP + 0.349 EFFORT + 0.146 10910
MEI25 -0.367
Yield = kg/Hectare/year
• Where variables: TEMP = mean annual air temperature (Oe)
---• -----------------• -
----
EFFORT = dummy variable {two for intensively-fished
lakes, one for lakes with light to moderate
or unknown fishing intensity
t.1EI25 = total dissolved solids/maximum mean depth
of 25 m
Variables use: TEMP = 2.9°e (Moose Pass mean temperature)
EFFORT = 1
MEI25 = 53 mg/l/25m
Formula as calculated:
10910 Yield = (0.050 x 2.9) + (0.349 x 1) + (O.146 10910 53/25)
Yield = 3.5 kg/Hectare/year
a/ Source of formula; Table 3, page 145 of Schlesinger and Regier
1982.
3-23
Grant Lake would be approximately 340,000 smolts. It should be noted
that the model used does not compensate for high turbidity levels,
which would reduce the estimated yield; therefore, this production
estimate is probably high.
Grant Creek
The area used as habitat for fish is most likely concentrated in the
lower half mile of the stream. The upstream half-mile is characterized
by very fast water with a gorge with few pools and is bounded at the
top by two large waterfalls.
Previous investigations of Grant Creek by ADF&G (1952-1981) focused on
its use by salmon for spawning. All investigators have noted that the
stream's glacial turbidity and turbulence severely hamper accurate
surveying and spawner enumeration. Recorded spawner counts of chinook
and sockeye salmon for the years 1952-1982 are presented in Table 3-9.
Peak counts during this period averaged 19 and 61 for chinook and
sockeye salmon, respectively. The numbers of adult salmon and trout
returning to spawn in Grant Creek are probably higher than the data of
Table 3-9 indicate due to the infrequency of spawning ground surveys,
the poor visibility due to high turbidity, and high discharge rates,
which restricted survey effectiveness. Highest stream discharge
typically occurs from June through August and is still fairly high in
September through November (US Geological Survey 1981). This high
discharge further hampers accurate spawner counts. Grant Creek may
also be used for spawning by coho salmon, Dolly Varden, rainbow trout,
and sculpin and is definitely used as a nursery habitat. Radio tag
studies in the Kenai system indicate that tributary spawners. both
chinook and sockeye salmon, are early run fish that arrive in the Kenai
River between mid-May and early July (Burger 1982). Previous
investigators have concentrated their spawner surveys on Grant Creek in
mid-August and early September, indicating that a delay of one to two
months occurs between entry into the Kenai River and the arrival of
spawners at Grant Creek.
3-24
• ..
-
• -• -
• .. ----• -• •
• ..
• •
• -• -
• ---
• ... -
• -
---
-----.. ---• ---• ---------• -• -• -•
-..
TABLE 3-9
PEAK SALMON SPAWNING GROUND COUNTS FOR GRANT CREEK, 1952-1982~/
Numbers of Spawners
Year Chinook Salmon Sockeye Salmon
1952 0 250
1953 12 13
1954 6 45
1957 8 0
1959 28 0
1961 86 Total Sa 1 mon.Q/
1962 2 234
1963 33 41
1976 29 0
1977 0 4
1978 5 0
1979 42 29
1980 5 0
1981 45 19
1982 46£/ 135£/
Average 19 61
~/ Alaska Department of Fish and Game unpublished data 1952-1981.
~/ Not included in averages.
£/ AEIOC 1982.
3-25
Initial field sampling in October 1981 by AElDC (1982) found no live
adult spawning fish although 10 chinook salmon carcasses were
observed. Chinook counts in August 1981 by ADF&G recorded the highest
numbers to that date, suggesting that most if not all spawning by
chinook and sockeye is complete by October. The 1982 spawning counts
by AEIDC (1982) found only 12 chinook in early August, but 46 spawners
were observed in the third week of August when observation conditions
were excellent. No other spawning fish were observed in early August,
but 135 sockeye were observed later 1n August. No adult coho were
observed during the present study (AEIDC 1982) or have been recorded
historically in Grant Creek. It is possible that a late spawning run
may occur in November or December; however, no counts have been made
during those months.
Locations of adult salmon observed in Grant Creek in 1982 are shown in
Figure 3-3. During March 1982 low flow, gravel composition was
visually evaluated (AEIDC 1982). Substrate material was very coarse
throughout the entire length of the creek due to the high velocity
which tends to wash away suitable gravel. Areas that offer better than
average potential for sa1monid spawning are also shown in Figure 3-3.
Although spawning counts do not reflect the actual number of spawners,
several authors have attempted to estimate escapement number from such
counts (Gangmark and Fulton 1952; Craddock 1958). Neilson and Geen
(1981) conducted intensive surveys of spawning chinook salmon in a
north-central 8ritish Columbia stream and found that the peak count of
salmon was 52 percent of the estimated escapement. Many variables are
involved in making such an estimate, including time spent by salmon on
the spawning ground, visibility of the stream, and timing of counts.
Taking into account Neilson and Geens' work (1981), the excellent
visibility in Grant Creek, and coincidence of peak counts in 1982 with
recorded or peak accounts in Grant Creek, the actual number of spawners
in Grant Creek was estimated to be 100 chinook and 500 sockeye, or
approximately double the maximum number of fish observed during the
3-26
-
...
... -... ..
... -... -... -
• ...
• • ..
• ... ..
•
.. -...
-..
... ..
..
• ...
---• -• -..
-----.. -.. -.. ----
• -..
--
LEGEND
:::::. ~ HIGH VELOCITY RAPIDS
:::::::-~
SPAWNING GRAVELS
..........
" :,::::-ISLANDS •••••••••• . . .. .....
• CHINOOK SALMON SPAWNERS (INDICATES
ONE OR MORE INDIVIDUALS-TOTAL
OBSERVED = 46)
SOCKEYE SALMON SPAWNERS (INDICATES ONE
OR MORE INDIVIDUALS -TOTAL
OBSERVED = 135)
3-27
GORGE
LOCATIONS OF SPAWNING
GRAVELS & OBSERVED ADULT
SOCKEYE & CHINOOK SALMON
IN GRANT CREEK 1981-1982
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
-
----...
• -•
• -• -
• -.. ------• --...
•
... ..
... ---
period 1952 to 1983. Present information suggests that this would
equal approximately 250 adult chinook salmon and 1,650 adult sockeye
salmon, considering catch plus escapement.
The USFWS (1961) periodically sampled Grant Creek using minnow traps
from July 1959 through January 1961. Fish captured included chinook
salmon, coho salmon, Dolly Varden, and sculpin. The results of this
trapping effort are presented in Table 3-10. The USFWS (1961) also
reported that sport fishing pressure was light due to the turbidity and
inaccessibility of the stream from the Anchorage-Seward Highway. This
report indicates that anglers usually caught one to five fish, mostly
Dolly Varden, with occasional catches of 10 to 15 fish per trip. The
only known creel census was conducted by ADF&G at the mouth of Grant
Creek during 1964 (Table 3-11). No other reliable estimate of fishing
efforts is available.
Moose Pass area residents estimated that 500 to 600 angler-days of
fishing occur on Grant Creek each year. primarily for Dolly Varden and
rainbow trout (AEIDC 1982). Residents also reported that the
population of Dolly Varden has dropped considerably over the years .
ADF&G (McHenry 1981) indicated that actual fishing pressure is probably
much lower than local residents estimate and is due to access
difficulty. Grant Creek is closed to sport fishing for salmon by ADF&G
regulations. although evidence of illegal fishing was observed during
field sampling.
The results of minnow trapping and electrofishing Grant Creek by AEIDC
(1982) are shown in Table 3-12. Catches of trout. salmon. and char
were generally higher in the fall and summer than in winter and
spring. Dolly Varden were generally the most abundant in minnow traps
followed by juveniles of chinook salmon. rainbow trout. and coho
salmon. Cooler temperatures in winter and spring may have been partly
responsible for lower catches since minnow traps are passive gear that
require fish to come to them and fish are generally less active at cold
temperatures. Electrofishing results (Table 3-12) found juvenile
3-28
TABLE 3-10
JUVENILE FISH COLLECTED BY MINNOW TRAP IN GRANT CREEK
JULY 1959 THROUGH JANUARY 1961~1
SQecies
Chinook Coho Dolly
Month Salmon Salmon Varden
January X2.1
February X
March
April X X
May N.S.£/ N.S. N.S
June X X
July X X
August X X X
September X X
October X X
November X X
December N.S. N.S N.S
~I USFWS 1961.
2.1 Denotes presence, --denotes absence.
£1 Not surveyed = N.S.
TABLE 3-11
Sculpin
X
X
N.S.
X
X
X
X
N.S
SPORT FISH CATCH FOR GRANT CREEK AS REVEALED BY CREEL CENSUS
AT THE MOUTH 1964~1
No. of No. of Catch per
Date Anglers Spec;es~1 Fish Effort
5121/64 2 Round whitefi sh 1 0.25 per hour
6/4/64 3 Ra-j nbow trout 3
Dolly Varden 3 0.67 per hour
Round whitefish 1
6/9/64 3 Rainbow trout 2 0.26 per hour
~I McHenry 1981.
3-29
-
• -
• -
• .. -.. .. -
• ..
• .. .. --.. .. --.. --.. -.. -.. .. .. ..
II II I. II I. 1'1'11 II •• I. I. I. II II I. 111M Ij
W
I
W o
b/
Location-
Mi nnow Trapp i ng
1. Near mouth
TABLE 3-12
RESULTS OF MINNOW TRAPPING AND ELECTROSHOCKING EFFORTS IN
GRANT CREEK, OCTOBER 1981 AND MARCH, JUNE, AND AUGUST 198~
c/
Species-
Dolly Varden
Rai nbow trout
Chinook salmon
Coho salmon
October
10
12
3
o
March
o
3
5
4
May
3
o
1
o
2. Mid-lower quarter mile Dolly Varden
Rai nbow trout
Chinook salmon
Coho salmon
1
2
o
o
1
o
6
7
1
o
3. Mid-half mile
4. Mouth of canyon
d/
Total Catch-
Trap Hours
Catch Per hour
Dolly Varden
Rainbow trout
Chinook salmon
Coho salmon
Dolly Varden
Rainbow trout
Chinook salmon
Dolly Va rden
Rai nbow trout
Chinook salmon
Coho salmon
Do lly Va rden
Rainbow trout
Chinook salmon
Coho salmon
17 o
9
6
37
2
2
3
14
22
23
71
2
80
0.28
0.29
0.89
0.03
o
o
o
o
1
o o
1
3
6
4
306
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
o
3
o
o
o o
o
9
10
2
o
162
0.06
0.06
0.01 o
June
15
2
o
2
5
1
o
o
1
1
o
o
3
o
4
24
3
4
2
108
0.22
0.03
0.04
0.02
Sheet 1 of 2
August
21
4
21
5
34
1
3
6
26
2
8 o
32
o
2
113
7
34
11
126
0.90
0.06
0.27
0.09
b/
Locati on-
Electroshocki ng
From first bend upstream to
U.S.G.S. gaging station
a/ AEIDC 1982.
TABLE 3-12 (Continued)
c/
Species-
Dolly Varden
Rai nbow trout
Chinook salmon
Coho salmon
October
3
15
21
8
March
1
1
6
o
May
22!!!/
7!!./
79!!J
11 ej
Sheet 2 of 2.
June August
b/ Minnow traps fished between the lake outlet and the falls caught no fish.
c/ All species but coho salmon, which were collected only in quiet pools or eddies, were collected in
all stream sections having suitable habitat. Sculpins were also occasionally captured.
d/ Twenty additional Dolly Varden (20 to 30 cm) three rainbow trout (20 to 30 cm), and two
w chinook salmon (70 and 81 mm) were taken by angling in Grant Creek.
~ e/ Taken while performing the block and removal method (Zippin 1958). Most of the chinook caught were
young-of-the-year less than 45 mm in length that appeared to have been stimulated out of the gravel
from shocking activities.
I I I I I , I I II I I I I .1 I. .. 'I I I I • I • , • I I I. I I I.
.... --.. ---..
---..
-..
-.. -.. -------.. -.. -.. -.. -.. ----
chinook salmon to be the most abundant. Comparison of relative
abundance between seasons can not be made, however, because intensity
of sampling was different during the three e1ectrofishing sample
periods.
Dolly Varden were generally more abundant near the mouth of Grant Creek
except during peak abundance in August when distribution was fairly
uniform (Table 3-12). They were distributed in a wide variety of
habitats. including shallows, slow water. deep pools, stream margins in
sections with high velocities, mid-channel in areas where large
boulders or debris protected them from high velocities. and in
temporary backwaters and side channels during high flows. A variety of
size classes were captured ranging from 55 mm to 30 cm (2.2 to 11.8
in). As stated before. no spawning Dolly Varden have been observed in
Grant Creek; therefore it is possible that the high abundance of fish,
particularly in August. may be from fish moving into the stream from
Trail Lakes to feed and avoid the high turbidity. Although the lack of
small fish less than 70 mm (2.75 in) in minnow traps in May and June
suggests that spawning does not occur in Grant Creek. small chinook or
sockeye. which do spawn there, were also not captured by minnow
trapping. It is therefore possible that Dolly Varden had not emerged
from the gravel at the time of sampling.
Chinook juveniles were observed most often in the lower half of the
sampling area of Grant Creek. but during the period of highest
abundance (October 1981) were distributed throughout the sampling
area. The large size of fish caught by minnow trap 1n March, May, and
June [greater than 65 mm (2.6 in)] suggests they would probably smo1t
in June. Captured fish ranged in size from 56 to 96 mm (2.2 to 3.8 in)
in length. The catch of chinook salmon juveniles was second to Dolly
Varden in minnow traps (Table 3-12). Although the fish are present all
year. the low number of juveniles captured in March. May. and June
suggests they are either very inactive during these months or they have
left the system to rear elsewhere prior to downstream migration.
possibly overwintering in the river or Kenai Lake. Rearing in the
Trail Lakes is believed unlikely because of the high turbidity of the
lakes (Dudiak 1980).
3-32
It was apparent during the winter 1982 investigations that chinook
salmon collected by electroshocker were primarily utilizing habitat in
the interstitial spaces of the large and medium size cobble substrate
(AEIDC 1982). Juveniles caught in October. 1981 generally exhibited a
preference for habitat possessing moderate velocity (1 to 2 ft per
second). such as the margin of the main channel. Chinook also were
present in areas of generally high velocity. but where large substrate
or organic debris provided cover and protection from high velocities.
Natural emergence of chinook salmon may be later than June because no
young of the year were captured in minnow traps until August. Young of
the year. however. were captured in May during e1ectrofishing but these
appeared to have been stimulated out of the gravel from the shocking
activities. It is possible that juvenile chinook were present but were
not being caught by minnow traps. Bloom (1916) caught almost no
juvenile coho less than about 50 mm (2 in) in length in the minnow
traps even though that size fish was highly abundant in the stream.
Exclusive of two fish captured in October. coho salmon were always
present in the lower two sampling areas of the stream but were
generally low ;n abundance (Table 3-12). Coho juveniles were less
abundant than chinook salmon juveniles and did not utilize as wide a
range of habitat as juvenile chinooks. They showed a preference for
shallow water with little or no velocity and an abundance of detrital
cover. This type of habitat was generally found only in the deep pools
and backwater areas ;n the lower sampling areas except at very low
flow. The extremely small size. (40 mm) (1.6 in) of several of the coho
juveniles trapped in August 1982 strongly suggests that cohos spawn in
Grant Creek. These small fish generally do not venture far from their
natal areas. and the stretch of rapid water near the mouth of Grant
Creek would pose a major impedance to the immigration of such small
fish. These data would indicate that coho juveniles utilize Grant
Creek for rearing but are present ;n small numbers. Older, large
juvenile cohos may be recruited to Grant Creek from the turbid waters
of Trail Lake during the late summer and fall. Coho captured ranged
from 42 to 106 mm (1.6 to 4.2 in) ;n length during the study.
3-33
--.. -.. .. .. -.. .. .. -
• ..
.. ..
•
• •
• .. ---.. --.' .. -.. -..
-----• -..
-• -..
... ..
---..
... --------.. --... .. .. ..
... ---
Rainbow trout appear to be evenly distributed in Grant Creek and are
found ;n most habitat types. Rainbow captured during the study ranged
from 43 to 10& mm in length (1.7 -4.2 in). Highest abundance.
including many small young-of-the-year of 45-50 mm length (1.8 -2 in),
occurred in October. which suggests that spring spawning of rainbow may
occur in Grant Creek. like other salmonid young-of-the-year. many of
these rainbow may move upstream from the Trail lakes area to rear and
they are generally inactive in the winter months. Both grayling. which
were caught during October angling surveys. and whitefish have been
reported in Grant Creek, but they are not believed to spawn there.
Because Project field studies were designed to index relative
population size rather than estimate the stream's annual sport fish
production. estimates of annual production in Grant Creek were derived
from studies of other trout streams. The Grant Creek field data was
used as one measure of the reasonableness of the production estimate.
Estimates for cold-water Pacific Northwest streams. all of which
possessed mixed populations of salmon, trout. and other species. were
used because no such estimates are available for Alaska. These
estimates may be expected to overestimate Grant Creek's trout and char
production because conditions in more southern streams (e.g., higher
water temperature and total dissolved solids or nutrients) are more
conducive to fish growth. Estimates used are shown in Table 3-13.
Trout production for these streams averaged 3.5 grams per m2 per
year. Assuming that Grant Creek averages 25 ft (8 m) in width and has
0.5 mile (805 m) suitable for rearing. the rearing area would be
approximately &.134 m2 . This would equate to 21.725 grams of trout,
which in terms of an 8 in (104 gram) trout. would equal 209 trout.
This represents the number produced each year rather than the number
existing at any point in time (i.e., the standing stock) and assumes
that large trout that are harvested, die. or leave the creek are
replaced by other trout that contribute to the stream's production .
3-34
Species
Cutthroat trout
Steel head trout
Rainbow trout
"Salmonids"
,.
TABLE 3-13
ESTIMATES OF TROUT PRODUCTION
FROM SOME NORTHWEST STREAMS
Annual fish
production, grams
of fish/m 2/year
4
1.5
4.3, 5.5, 2.4
(different years)
4.6
3-35
Stream
Deer Creek,
Oregon
Deer Creek,
Oregon
Big Springs
Creek. Idaho
Northern
Ca 1 ifornia
Reference
Chapman
(1965)
Chapman
(1965)
Bjornn
(1978)
Burns
( 1971)
.. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. -.. -.. .. .. ..
• .. .. ..
• .. .. .. .. .. --.. ---.. -.. .. .. ..
---------• -• -• -
-----------• ---• -• ---..
3.1.2 Potential Impacts
3.1.2.1 Construction Impacts
Some minor temporary impacts to the aquatic resources of the study area
may occur from construction activities. The magnitude and longevity of
the impacts will depend on the specific construction activity. and the
time of the year in which it occurs.
Lower Trail Lake
Increased fine sediment runoff from access road, powerhouse, and
penstock construction may temporarily impact Lower Trail Lake. Effects
would be expected to be slight because Lower Trail Lake is already
glacially turbid, so slight additions of sediment probably would not
significantly alter ambient levels. Although fine sediment can affect
survival and drift of benthic invertebrates that serve as food for
salmon, trout, and char in these systems. it is expected that minimal
sediment should enter these systems from Project construction and the
quantity entering the system would be flushed away with high water flow
in the summer.
Grant Lake
Deepening of the sill between the upper and lower basins of Grant Lake
will not affect any important aquatic resources as none are present.
This construction activity will occur in the winter using explosive
charges to blast the rock bottom. These explosives may cause
mortalities of sculpin and stickleback from shock waves. For the same
reason. some mortalities may occur if ADF&G proceeds with its plans to
stock Grant Lake with salmon beginning in the spring of 1983 (see
Section 3.1.3 for details).
Toxic materials associated with construction activities, such as
petroleum products, cement, and wastewater are not expected to enter
the Trail Lakes and Grant Lake under anticipated circumstances.
3-36
3.1.2.2 Operation Impacts
Project impacts on aquatic resources of the study area are summarized
by Project alternative and water body in the following sections.
Grant Lake
Presently there are no economically important aquatic resources in
Grant Lake, and minimal impact should occur to any potential aquatic
resources in Grant Lake from the Project. It is anticipated that the
littoral zone will experience a reduction in species diversity due to
the increased drawdown, resulting in some loss of macrophytes and
desiccation of benthic organisms. Often the loss of diversity is
augmented by an increase in abundance of organisms, typically
chironomids and oligochaetes (Hildebrand 1980), but abundance in the
littoral zone should still be below pre-Project levels (Geen 1914).
Chironomids and oligochaetes are more successful in reservoirs because
they are able to survive well in medium and fine sediment environments,
typical of reservoirs, and to avoid desiccation by burrowing
(Hildebrand 1980). Because of the relatively small littoral area in
Grant Lake, reduced littoral productivity should be minor compared to
total production of the lake (Hildebrand 1980).
Plankton production and water chemistry typically change very little
when lakes are used as reservoirs (Geen 1914). A flushing rate
increase can have an adverse effect on plankton if it occurs during
plankton blooms (Vernon 1958), but significant loss of phytoplankton
usually only occurs at high flushing rates (Welch 1980, Hildebrand
1980). Grant Lake has a fairly slow flushing rate (once every 612
days), and even with drawdown to 660 ft, flushing will still occur only
once every 518 days.
During studies of Grant Lake in 1982, the highest phytoplankton density
occurred during a high runoff period (August). The operational plan
for the Project calls for reduced discharge during this period which
3-31
.. -.. -
• -.. ---.. -.. -
• ..
..
• • -.. .. -.. -.. ---.. -.. -.. -
---..
-.. .. .. -• .. .. -• ---.. -..
-..
-.. -.. -• .. .. -• ..
• .. ..
--
could have a positive effect on primary production. Increased
turbidity could also adversely affect primary production. It would be
expected that minor turbidity increases may occur from the first
drawdown period as the fine littoral sediments are resuspended. Since
the littoral zone is so limited in Grant Lake, the impact of sediment
would be expected to be minor and would reequi1ibrate after several
drawdown periods (Hildebrand 1980).
Deepening the sill between the two basins of Grant Lake should not
significantly impact primary production in the lower basin. Suspended
solids do not appear to stratify with depth and subsequent drawdown of
the lake level will reduce the amount of turbid water inflow into the
lower basin to at or below pre-Project levels (see Section 2.0).
Food supply for any salmonids planted into Grant Lake should not be
affected because zooplankton, the main food source, will probably not
be adversely affected. Increased flushing rate has been found to
reduce zooplankton abundance, but probably only in rapidly flushed
reservoirs (flushing time of weeks or months) (Hildebrand 1980).
Although some adverse effects may result from a potential loss of
littoral benthic food organisms, these items are most often a small
portion of the diet of lake or reservoir dwelling fish like sockeye or
coho salmon juveniles (Crone 1981; Rodgers 1968; Hamilton et al.
1966). Sculpins, which depend mainly on benthic organisms, may be
reduced in number due to impacts to littoral benthos. It is also
possible that sculpin may predate juvenile salmonids planted in the
lake.
Temperature regimens in Grant Lake should not change significantly, so
no adverse temperature effects on fish should occur (see Section 2.0) .
Duthie (1979) examined two former lakes converted to reservoirs in
subarctic Canada and found no change in temperature regimens. However,
there may be a slight increase in epilimnion temperature during July,
August, and September during operation. This may occur because water
is being withdrawn from a depth of 43-48 ft, removing cooler water from
the reservoir and leaving warmer surface water .
3-38
Once juvenile salmon are planted in Grant Lake. impacts could occur
when the fish attempt to migrate to sea as smolts. If no fish passage
or bypass facilites are installed, fish passing through the turbine
could suffer significant mortality. A Francis type turbine will be
used for the Project. Mortalities from this type of turbine are most
often from mechanical effects. It is not known what those mortalities
will be from the present design, but most studies on Francis turbines
have found juvenile mortalities in excess of 20 percent. These studies
were conducted on larger turbines (Turbak et al. 1980). No information
is available on fish mortalities resulting from fish passage through
the small turbines and very little recent information has been
developed on any turbines since 1969 (Turbak et al. 1980). To
alleviate this potetial impact. a bypass facility will be used (see
Section 3.1.3) to prevent passage of smo1ts through the turbine.
It is not known if downstream migrating smolts will have difficulty
finding the lake exit during spring outmigration. During May and June
the intake depth will be a relatively shallow 6-26 ft. but by July the
depth will be about 43 ft. Studies in Washington and Oregon found that
salmonid smo1ts preferred the upper 15 ft of the water column during
spring (Korn and Smith 1971). However, sockeye salmon can make
substantial vertical migrations and go well below 67 ft during certain
times of the year (Eggers 1978. Goodlad, et al. 1974). Studies at dams
on the Elwha River in Washington have shown that chinook salmon
outmigrants will enter a tunnel outlet at a depth of 65 ft (Schoeneman
and Junge 1954). At Baker Lake Dam in Washington sockeye smolts
entered a tunnel at a depth of 85 to 107 ft; however. they preferred a
surface outmigration over a spillway if available (Andrew, et al.
1955). The range of depth distribution of fish in lakes varies. In
some lakes presmolt sockeye have been found from surface to bottom
(Cu1tus Lake, B.C.), but in another. only in the upper 39 ft (Shuswap
Lake, B.C.) (Goodlad et al. 1974). Whether smolts will emigrate
naturally from Grant Lake cannot be predicted. Because the intake is
relatively shallow (6 to 26 ft) during the expected smolt emigration
3-39
.. -.. -.. -.. -.. -.. -.. -• ..
• •
• ..
• .. .. .. .. -• .. .. -.. .r .. -.. -.. ..
.....
••
-
-..
'. ..
..
-..
-..
-..
-.. -..
-.. -..
..
-,. -.. -..
..
..
--
period of May -June and salmon smolts elsewhere use submarine outlets,
';t is believed that they will find and use Grant lake's submerged
uut 1 et.
Grant Creek
Because Grant Creek will be dewatered except for minimal periods during
overspills, essentially all aquatic resources presently in Grant Creek
will be displaced or lost. Most spawning chinook and sockeye salmon or
other fish that return to Grant Creek to spawn should instead return to
the proposed tailrace (Johannesson 1982, Krema and Farr 1974) but may
be unable to successfully spawn in that area. Under adverse natal
stream conditions some salmon have been found to wander to other
streams and spawn (Whitman et al. 1980, Sumner and Smith 1940).
However, the fate of straying salmon cannot be predicted for Grant
Creek stocks. Juvenile chinook and coho salmon, rainbow trout, and
Dolly Varden that utilize Grant Creek may be lost entirely or displaced
to other areas, possibly the powerhouse tailrace or the Trail lakes .
Some habitat may still remain from surface and groundwater infiltration
below Grant lake, but the extent is expected to be minimal. Therefore,
as a conservative assumption, the entire fish population of Grant Creek
was assumed to be lost.
All aquatic habitat suitable for fish ;s assumed to be lost by
dewatering the creek. The dewatering of Grant Creek will cause an
annual loss of an estimated 100 chinook and 500 sockeye spawners
corresponding to approximately 250 and 1,650 adult chinook and sockeye
salmon, respectively. Habitat for trout (rainbow trout and Dolly
Varden char), some of which are migratory, will be eliminated,
resulting in the loss of approximately 209 8-in fish. Dewatering Grant
Creek will result in lost sport fishing opportunities. The exact
amount of fishing pressure is not known, but is estimated to be less
than 500 angler days per year.
3-40
Although no sport fish inhabit Grant Lake the Alaska Department of Fish
and Game intends to stock coho salmon fry into the lake in 1983 to
determine its potential for rearing. Without a bypass device, these
fish could suffer substantial mechanical injury and mortality by
passing thro~gh the Francis turbine on their seaward migration as
smo1ts (Turbak et a1. 1980). There is the possibility that they also
may be entrained and lost before they are ready to migrate or be unable
to find the lake exit and residua1ize after the Project is operational.
3.1.3 Mitigation of Impacts
lhe Alaska Power Authority has a policy that their projects cause "no
net losses" to fisheries resources. Significant Project impacts will
be mitigated in the manner tha.t is best biologically and economically.
Fishery elements expected to incur significant impact without
mitigation are summarized below.
3.1.3.1 Mitigation Process
Development of the fish mitigation plan involved many telephone
conversations and visits with agency personnel. but the major planning
process occurred during discussion of three fish mitigation "Planning
Documents" during four meetings with personnel principally from the
following agencies: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Forest Service.
and Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association. Agency contacts are chronicled
in Section 3.4. These documents and minutes of each meeting are
presented in chronological order in the Technical Appendix, Part X, and
are summarized below.
Planning Document No.1
Published July 2, 1982, this document examined the effect on Project
economics of providing various streamflows in Grant Creek to sustain
its salmon runs. Also examined were the feasibility of several
3-41
.. --.. .. .. -------
• -.. ..
•
• --
• .. .. --... .. -.. -.. ----..
-----• -• ..
• ---------• -----• ..
• --..
• -• .. ---
artificial propagation options for mitigating fish impacts on Grant
Creek and approaches to providing safe egress of salmon smolts from
Grant Lake. This document was discussed at a July 9, 1982 meeting with
fisheries agencies.
Tennant I S (1976) "Montana method" was used to scope streamflows
providing various levels of fish protection. This document also
explained how raising the reservoir height would have little effect on
the amount of water available for fish migration over what would be
passed through the turbine. Estimated costs of eight levels of
instream flow were shown to increase overall costs of power from the
Project from 9.5 to 108 percent. The alternative of moving the
powerhouse to an area in Grant Creek above the most usable fisheries
habitat was projected to increase Project cost by 33-34 percent.
Several alternatives for mitigating impacts to salmon were considered,
assuming Grant Creek would be dewatered (e.g., spawning channel, egg
incubation boxes, hatchery rearing of fry, hatchery rearing of smolts,
and other stream improvements). Methods of passing salmon smolts
safely out of Grant Lake were extensively discussed (e.g., minimum
streamflow in Grant Creek, screening of intakes, and artificial
attraction flow). Estimated cost was determined for several of the
mitigation measures presented.
During discussion of Planning Document 1 (see minutes of July 9
meeting, Technical Appendix, Part X), there were several comments
raised by agency personnel that led to development of a second fish
mitigation planning document. The National Marine fisheries Service
(NMfS) did not want minimum streamflow dismissed until all mitigation
measures were evaluated and wanted consideration of a minimum
streamflow of 15 cfs. The Forest Service said the decision makers need
a full evaluation of alternatives in the feasibility report so
effectiveness and cost could be properly assessed. Agency
representatives recommended prioritization of all alternatives in the
evaluation. Also, the ADF&G representative mentioned that the Alaska
3-42
Power Authority (APA or Power Authority) should consult with ADF&G's
Fisheries Research, Enhancement, and Development Division (F.R.E.D.) as
well as with the Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association to learn their
preference concerning off-site mitigation.
Concern over fish being entrained by the intake to the turbine in Grant
Lake was expressed by NMFS and ADF&G, although APA and AEIDC staff felt
the fish would not leave the lake unless carrying capacity was
exceeded. At the end of the meeting it was agreed to address agency
concerns in a second planning document and meeting.
fl~nning Document No.2
Planning Document No. 2 for fisheries mitigation was presented
August 11, 1982 in a second meeting attended by 18 people. This
document mainly dealt with fish mitigation measures other than a
minimum streamflow in Grant Creek (see Technical Appendix, Part X).
The level of mitigation set for the Project was 200 chinook and 500
sockeye which was based on the salmon spawning ground survey results
from 1952 to 1980 and in accord with the Power Authority's policy of no
net loss to fisheries resources. The Cook Inlet Aquaculture
Association recommended that fish mitigation measures for the Project
be restricted to the Kenai River system. This document dealt mainly
with conceptual engineering and biological assessments of mitigation
feasibility and less on costs, as costs could only be approximately
estimated at this stage of planning. Maintenance of 15 cfs flow in
Grant Creek would increase Project cost by about 10 percent, which was
considered by the Power Authority to be the maximum increment
economically feasible. However. this mitigation option was not
considered feasible biologically because of a low probability that it
could sustain existing fish stocks. Several mitigation options were
dismissed because they were regarded as either too expensive,
impractical biologically. or inferior to other options. Discussion was
limited to egg incubation boxes, spawning channels, lake fertilization
and monetary replacement as alternatives for fish mitigation for Grant
Creek.
3-43
-..
• ..
• -.. -.. ..
-
• ..
• ..
• .. ..
lIP
• • -.. .. -.. .. .. .. .. .. .. -.. -.. -
-----• -• --
• -• ..
• -• -• -• ---• -• -• ..
• -• .. ---
It was mentioned that because the ability of Grant lake to rear salmon
fry has yet to be determined, final development of a method providing
safe egress of smolts would have to await the results of the fry
plantings. ADF&G indicated it plans to stock Grant lake with salmon
fry in spring 1983 and to evaluate their survival and condition upon
seaward migration as smolts in spring 1984. The document suggested
that the best method for fish passage would consist of installing
louvers or passive screens in the power tunnel and diverting fish into
a bypass pipe that would carry about 11 cfs and discharge within the
tailrace. A fish collection barge or "gulper" was also considered for
capturing smolts instead of the bypass pipe, but was judged less
desirable because of cost and lower probability of collecting a high
percentage of smolts.
During the August 17, 1982 meeting, many Questions and statements were
presented by agency personnel. There was much discussion on the value
of Grant Creek for rearing chinook. Concern over low water temperature
at the tailrace having adverse effects on fish rearing at this location
was also expressed. Subnormal water temperatures would delay hatching
and emergence and may even prove lethal. The Power Authority stated it
was monitoring lake temperatures through September to enhance the data
base for this parameter. Use of an existing Trail lakes Hatchery
module for rearing Grant lake stock was suggested. ADF&G agreed to
consider this option and determine its compatibility with Department
objectives. ADF&G suggested that a smolt rearing pond be considered.
Many other mitigation options were suggested by ADF&G, including use of
egg incubation boxes, rearing ponds, and use of Trail lakes Hatchery
and Grant lake for rearing.
It was agreed that the next fish mitigation planning document (No.3)
would cost all alternatives in comparable units. The USFWS asked the
Power Authority to consider the total potential of Grant Creek salmon
production (i.e., potential number of salmon spawners that could use
Grant Creek). USFWS suggested that a cost-benefit ratio be developed
for the Project. The City of Seward representative advocated
developing improved fish habitat as mitigation.
3-44
Discussion then focused on providing safe egress of salmon smolts from
Grant lake and post-operational monitoring of the efficacy of the fish
mitigation. It was stated that either the passive screen or "gulper"
appeared best for passing smolts around the turbine. ADF&G said it had
requested state money to study the success of salmon stocking in Grant
Creek, a study planned independent of the Grant lake Hydroelectric
Project). ADF&G suggested that it and the Power Authority meet again
after ADF&G had sufficient time to study the fish mitigation options
that had been discussed to determine which ones it preferred.
Further discussion of fish mitigation concerned minimum streamflows in
Grant Creek. The USFWS opposed the abandonment of instream flow as a
mitigation option. The agency felt more habitat information was needed
and asked if IFIM (Instream Flow Incremental Method) studies provide
data on rearing potential. The Power Authority questioned whether this
was needed, given the wide disparity between economically feasible flow
(less than 15 cfs) and that suggested as good habitat using Tennant's
(1916) method (42 cfs). It was stated that an IFIM would provide
useful habitat information (depth. velocity, substrate), but likely
would not materially reduce the estimate of how much flow would be
needed in Grant Creek to sustain its existing fish stocks.
September 15. 1982 Meeting
A meeting was held between APA and ADF&G on September 15, 1982 to
discuss the mitigation options favored by ADF&G and to obtain ADF&G
estimates on cost of rearing fish in a module at the Trail lakes
Hatchery. The principal options discussed included use of one of the
existing hatchery modules at the Trail lakes Hatchery, adding a module
to the hatchery, building a mini-hatchery at the Project tailrace, or
installing egg boxes at the tailrace. It was agreed that an adult
holding facility would be needed for any option. It was decided that
it was important to determine the thermal regime of the Grant lake
reservoir as this would likely affect the survival and growth of fish.
The cost of rearing salmon smolts was presented by loren Flagg of
3-45
..
--.. -.. -..
.. -
•
• •
•
•
• •
• ..
• ..
-..
., .. -..
• ., .. -
• ..
-----• -• -• -• -• -• ---------•
• .. .. -• -• -• --
ADF&G. More cost and engineering information for hatchery rearing
juveniles was requested of ADF&G by the Power Authority. It was
suggested by ADF&G that Grant lake may be stocked with rainbow trout to
mitigate for the lost sport fishery in Grant Creek. ADF&G indicated
its plans to plant sockeye from Quartz Creek into Grant lake. It was
stated by the APA that this would rule out any special mitigation for
the Grant Creek sockeye salmon stock because intermingling of Grant and
Quartz Creek sockeye would destroy the genetic uniqueness of the former
stock. ADF&G indicated it did not consider the stock unique.
ADF&G indicated it was prepared to commit one of the four fish
production modules at the Trail lakes Hatchery for rearing Grant Creek
chinook. This commitment would last 10 years. the time the Department
estimated it would take to build the Grant Creek chinook run to the
point where it equalled the fish production capacity of the module.
The Department also suggested that APA consider building a
mini-hatchery at the tailrace. Problems with putting a hatchery at the
powerhouse were mentioned by APA in that it would be a remote
unattended site. The Power Authority thought it would be better to
build a new facility (i.e .• module) at Trail lakes Hatchery. ADF&G
said there was room at the hatchery for adding more modules. More
information was requested by USFWS on rearing salmon juveniles in Grant
Creek after incubation of eggs at Trail lakes Hatchery. ADF&G was more
confident in hatchery rearing than in egg boxes as a mitigation
option. Courses of action were discussed should the fish mitigation
options implemented fail to achieve their desired objectives. The
Power Authority agreed that it would meet again with the agencies to
define a new strategy for correcting any deficiencies.
Planning Document No.3
Planning Document No. 3 was presented at a meeting on November 10,
1982. It considered the biological, engineering, and cost feasibility
of 22 mitigation options. Nine options considered various flow regimes
for Grant Creek, 11 addressed juvenile salmon rearing and adult
3-46
spawning, and two discussed methods providing safe egress of fish from
Grant Lake. These options were all priced in equivalent units for easy
comparison.
This document summarized all major agency discussions from the previous
three meetings and telephone and personal communications. The five
options that APA believed most feasible economically and biologically
were:
Option 13 Chinook salmon fry reared in an existing Trail Lakes
Hatchery module and planted into Grant Lake,
Option 17 Chinook salmon fry reared in new module at Trail Lakes
Hatchery and planted into Grant Lake,
Option 10 Chinook salmon fry reared to smolts at existing Trail Lakes
Hatchery module and planted from imprinting pond at Project
tailrace,
Option 18 Chinook salmon fry produced in egg incubation boxes and
planted into Grant Lake, and
Option 20 Spawning channel.
All options included the passive screen smolt bypass, which was
belived to be superior to the fish collection barge in providing safe
egress of salmon smolts from Grant Lake.
ADF&G reiterated its main concerns at the meeting (see minutes in
Technical Appendix. Part X). They favor mitigation for 1) losses of
physical habitat in Grant Creek and some in Grant Lake, 2) losses to
commercial and sport fishing opportunities, and 3) losses of potential
enhancement value. They were concerned about low water temperature
affecting Grant Lake's rearing potential. They want a rainbow trout
fishery and boat access in Grant Lake. This sport fishery can be
3-47
..
.. ---
• -----,.
• ,.
•
•
II
• ill .. .. ,. ..
• -..
-.. ------..
..
..
..
...
..
...
...
...
..
...
...
...
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
maintained either by planting fry or catchable size rainbow trout .
The latter is favored should fry plants experience poor survival.
Lost sport fishing opportunities could be mitigated by planting fish
in other lakes should competition with sockeye or other species
occur. ADF&G did not think chinook plants would do well in Grant Lake
because of insufficient food in the littoral zone. They also want to
maintain the genetic integrity of Grant Creek chinook. The Power
Authority expressed concern about trout preying on salmon in Grant
Lake, which would hamper interpretation of pre-and post-operational
assessments of the lake's smo1t production. At the end of the meeting
ADF&G supported the following actions on the assumption that Grant
Lake was unsuitable for salmon rearing:
o producing smolts in the Trail Lakes Hatchery (existing module)
o planting Grant Lake or another lake with catchable size fish
to mitigate for lost sport fishing opportunities
o planting another lake with sockeye fry
If it was suitable for salmon rearing then they would support:
o producing chinook from an existing Trail Lakes Hatchery
module and planting them in Grant Lake
o planting Grant Lake or another lake with rainbow trout fry
o planting Grant Lake with sockeye fry
o providing safe egress for salmon smolts from Grant Lake .
The USFWS indicated that it opposes off-site mitigation if enhancement
is already occurring there. The USFWS reiterated its concern that the
fish mitigation plan incorporate a plan for monitoring the efficacy of
3-48
the coastal forest are western hemlock!/ and Sitka spruce. Mountain
hemlock often takes the place of western hemlock, and white spruce
often replaces Sitka spruce as major components of this forest type on
the Kenai Peninsula. White spruce/Sitka spruce hybrids are found on
the Kenai Peninsula (Viereck and Little 1972). Common understory
plants include Sitka alder, rusty menziesia, various blueberries, and
highbush cranberry. Areas of poor drainage often support open bogs,
typically vegetated with low shrubs, mosses, and sedges (Viereck and
Little 1972). Timberline on the Kenai Peninsula is generally at 1,000
to 1,500 ft (Ruth and Harris 1979).
Grant Lake lies in a valley with steep, avalanche-prone slopes. The
mountain tops are essentially barren of plant life and have numerous
permanent snowfields. Barren areas are common above and near
timberline in the form of talus slopes, cliffs, rock outcrops, and
drainage areas. Alpine vegetation areas are restricted and often
interspersed with barren areas. The subalpine mosaic of alder
thickets and grass/forb meadows is by far the most dominant vegetation
pattern in the Grant Lake basin and in the Falls Creek drainage. The
Grant Lake inlet stream valley supports a mature balsam poplar stand
on the deltas and conifer stands further up the valley. Conifer
stands occur in some avalanche-free sites around the lake. The area
between Grant Lake and the Trail Lakes 1s forested with conifers and
mixed conifer/broadleaf stands which are broken by several ponds and
numerous bogs.
High snowfall and frequent avalanche activity are important forces
governing the distribution of plant communities in the Project
vicinity. Tall stiff-stemmed plants, such as trees, are usually
absent from avalanche chutes because they are regularly broken off by
the force of an avalanche. Shorter, relatively flexible plants, such
as alder and grasses, are not as easily damaged and are often pioneer
species in revegetation of highly disturbed sites.
A/ A species list appears in Table 3-14.
3-51
...
...
..
...
..
...
...
...
...
...
...
..
...
..
..
..
..
..
-.. -.. -.. .. .. .. .. .. ..
-
..
• -• -• ---.. -• -.. ..
• -.. ..
• .. ..
-..
TABLE 3-14
PLANT SPECIES IDENTIFIED FROM THE GRANT LAKE STUDY AREAII
Scientific Name~1
Lichens
Cladonia spp .
Stereocaulon spp .
Clubmosses
L~copodium complanatum
Horsetails
Equisetum arvense
Ferns
Cr~ograma crispa
Athyrium filix-femina
Woodsia ilvensis
GYnmocarpium dryopter;s
Coniferous Trees
picea sitchensis
f. glauca
P. mariana
Tsuga heterophylla
1:. mertensiana
Grasses and Allies
Calamagrostis canadensis
Trisetum spicatum
Festuca altaica
.L.. rubra
Eriophorum ~
Rhynchospora alba
Carex microchaeta
L rhynchophysa
Luzula walenbergii subsp. piperi
Lily Family
Veratrum viride
Allium schoenoprasum
Fritillaria camschatcensis
Streptopus amplexifolius
II AEIDC 1982 .
Common Name
creeping jenny
horsetail
parsley fern
ladyfern
Sheet 1 of 4
Sitka spruce
white spruce
black spruce
western hemlock
mountain hemlock
bluejoint
spike trisetum
tufted fescue
cottongrass
white beak rush
finely-awned sedge
wood rush
fa 1 se he 11 ebore
wild chive
chocolate 1 ily
claspleaf twistedstalk
~I Botanical nomenculature follows Hulten (1968).
3-52
TABLE 3-14 (Continued)
Sc ; en t if ; c Name
Poplars and Willows
Populus balsamifera
Salix arctica
S. stolonifera
S. barclayi
h alaxensis
h pulchra
h sitchensis
Birches and Alders
Betula nana
Alnus crispa subsp. sinuata
Nettle Family
Urt ica grac 11 is
Buckwheat Family
Oxyria digyna
Water-Lily Family
Nuphar polysepalum
Buttercup Family
A~onitum delphinifolium
Anemone richardson;;
Ranunculus trichophyllus var. tr;chophyllus
R. macounii
Thalictrum sparsiflorum
Sundews
Drosera angelica
~ rotundifol ia
Stonecrops
Sedum roseum
Saxifrage Family
Boykinia richardsonii
Parnassia pglustris
Saxifraga tricuspidata
h punctata sub~ pacifica
Tiarella trifoliata
Currants
Ribes glandulosum
~ laxiflorum
~ triste
3-53 .
Sheet 2 of 4
Common Name
balsam poplar
arctic willow
ovalleaf willow
barclay wi 11 ow
feltleaf wi 11 ow
d;amondleaf willow
Sitka willow
dwarf bi rch
Sitka alder
slim nettle
mountain sorrel
yellow pond lily
monkshood
white water crowfoot
fewflower meadowrue
sundew
roundleaf sundew
roseroot
Alaska boykinia
northern grass of Parnassus
threebristle saxifrage
laceflower
skunk currant
trailing black currant
American red currant
• -
• -
• ..
• .. -.. --• ..
• •
• •
• •
• ..
• --.. -..
• •
• ..
-.. ---• -
-• -• -• -..
---• ---• -• -• -• -• -• -• -
TABLE 3-14 (Continued)
Scientific Name
Rose Family
Amelanchier alnifolia
Aruncus sylvester
Luetkea pectinata
Potentilla fruticosa
Rosa acicularis
Rubus pedatus
R..._ chamaemorus
R. ideaeus
R. spectabilis
Sangu;sorba stipulata
Sorbus sitchensis
Spiraea beauverdiana
Legume Family
Lupinus nootkatensis
Gerani urn Family
Geranium erianthum
Violet Family
Viola epipsila subsp. repens
Evening Primrose Family
Epilobium angustifolium
h 1 a t if 0 1 i urn
Ginseng Family
Echinopanax horridum
Parsley Fami ly
Heracleum lanatum
Dogwood Family
Cornus canadensis
Heath Family
Andromeda polifolia
Arctostaphylos alpina
& uva-ursi
Cassiope stelleriana
Empetrum nigrum
Ledum palustre subsp. decumbens
Menziesia ferruginea
Moneses uniflora
Oxycoccus microcarpus
Phyllodoce aleutica
Vaccinium caespitosum
3-54
Common Name
serviceberry
goatsbeard
lutkea
Sheet 3 of 4
shrubby cinquefoil
prickly rose
strawberry-leaf blackberry
cloudberry
red raspberry
salmonberry
burnet
Sitka mountain ash
Alaska spirea
nootka lupine
cranesbi 11
marsh violet
fireweed
river beauty
devil IS club
cowparsnip
bunchberry
dwarf bogrosemary
alpine bearberry
bearberry
Alaska moss heath
crowberry
Labrador tea
rusty menziesia
single delight
Somall cranberry
Aleutian mountain heather
dwarf blueberry
TABLE 3-14 (Continued)
Scientific Name
V. ova 1 if 0 1 i um
V. uliginosum
'L. vitis-idaea
Primrose Famil y
Primula cuneifolia subsp. saxifragifolia
Trientalis europaea
Gentian Family
Gentiana glauca
Lomatogonium rotatum
Buckbean Family
Menyanthes trifoliata
Phlox Family
Polemonium pucherrimum
Borage Family
Myosotis alpestris subsp. asiatica
Figwort Family
Pedicularis verticulata
Veronica wormskjoldii
Madder Family
Galium boreale
Honeysuckle Family
Linnaea borealis
Sambucus racemosa
Viburnum edule
Harebell Family
Campanula rotundifolia
Composite Family
Achillea millefolium
Arn;ca frigida
Artemisia tiles;; subs~ elator
A._ arct ica
Hieracium triste
Petasites hyperboreus
Taraxacum alaskanum
3-55
Sheet 4 of 4
Common Name
early blueberry
bog blueberry
lingonberry
primrose
European starflower
glaucous gentian
star gentian
buckbean
Jacob's ladder
forget-me-not
lousewot
a 1 pi ne speedwell
northern bedstraw
northern twinflower
Pacific red elder
highbush cranberry
harebe 11
yarrow
arnica
mountain woodworm
arctic sagewort
hawkweed
sweet coltsfoot
Alaskan dandelion
..
.. -.. -.. -.. -.. ..
• ..
..
• .. ..
• .. .. ..
• .. ..
• .. ..
• -..
• ..
iii
...
..
...
..
.. -..
... ..
---..
---
..
' . ..
--
Currently, no indigenous Alaska plant species are listed by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service as threatened or endangered. However, there are 30
species under review (Federal Register. Vol. 45. No. 242. Monday.
December 15. 1980). and only one. Puccine1lia trif10ra, has been reported
on the Kenai Peninsula. This alkali grass is found in the coastal
wetlands of the Cook Inlet-Kenai Peninsula area (Murray 1980). 8ecause
no habitat is available within the Project vicinity. this species is not
expected to occur and was not found during field investigations.
The terrestrial botanical study area for the Project was defined as the
watersheds of Grant Lake and Creek and Falls Creek. Nine vegetation
mapping units were identified in this area using 1918 NASA high-altitude,
color-enhanced, infrared photography. Mapping units generally represent
combinations of plant community types that could be delineated from the
aerial photographs. A vegetation map was prepared after correcting the
photographs to a scale of 1:24.000 (AEIDC 1982).
Floristic composition. structure, distribution, and the corresponding
vegetation associations (Viereck et a1. 1982) of each mapping unit are
described below. These descriptions are based on field surveys of the
study area conducted during July 1982 by AEIDC (1982), during which the
preliminary vegetation map was also field-checked. Representative areas
of each mapping unit, as well as questionable areas. previously disturbed
areas. and sites to be directly. impacted by Project development were
visited. A qualitative assessment of the relative abundance of dominant
plants was made.
3.2.1.1 Coniferous Forest
This mapping unit is represented in the study area primarily by pure or
mixed stands of white spruce and western hemlock. Mountain hemlock
occurs at higher elevations. Coniferous forest occurs primarily between
Grant Lake and Upper Trail Lake. in patches along Grant Lake's shoreline.
in the valley of the Grant Lake inlet stream. and between the mouth of
the Falls Creek valley and the Trail River. Understory shrubs are
19148 8120/85
3-56
primarily rusty menziesia, early blueberry, and Alaska spirea. Oevi1's
club occurs in moist areas and along drainages. Forest openings may
support Sitka alder, serviceberry, Pacific red elder, and Sitka mountain
ash. Other common shrubs in this type are trailing black currant and
American red currant. The ground cover is primarily a carpet of Sphagnum
spp. and other mosses, with five-leaf bramble and lingonberry trailing
over the moss carpet. This mapping unit corresponds to the Viereck et
al. (1982) Level III -closed needleleaf forest, except for the black
spruce bogs which correspond to Level II -open needleleaf forest.
Areas of poor drainage may support open stands of black spruce with an
understory of Labrador tea, lingonberry, and dwarf blueberry growing over
a layer of sphagnum moss and lichens (primarily Cladonia spp.). These
black spruce stands occur along the Trail Lakes and are scattered
throughout the lower elevations around ponds and adjacent to the more
open wet meadows.
3.2.1.2 Broadleaf Forest
This mapping unit is dominated by balsam poplar with an understory of
rather tall feltleaf willow, Sitka willow, Sitka alder, and occasional
white spruce. The ground cover is extremely sparse and consists of
scattered patches of horsetail and river beauty. Frequent flooding is a
very important force in this type. This mapping unit corresponds with
the Level IV -closed balsam poplar forest -of Viereck et al. (1982).
This type occurs in the study area only along the main Grant Lake inlet
creek and on the small delta of another inlet creek to the west of the
main creek. The main inlet creek has a poorly defined channel and
appears to shift its course across the delta frequently. During July
1982 the main body of the stream flowed directly through a mature poplar
stand.
3-51
.. .. ..
..
..
.. .. .. ...
.. .. .. -.. -..
..
.. -..
..
---.. -.. ..
• .. .. ..
-• -• -• .. .. ..
•
• -
-• -• -..
• -.. .. ..
3.2.1.3 Mixed Broadleaf/Coniferous Forest
This mapping unit is dominated by paper birch, white spruce, and western
hemlock on relatively warm, dry sites, whereas cool wet sites are often
dominated by black spruce. The common understory plants of this type are
rusty menziesia, highbush cranberry, early blueberry, American red
currant, and prickly rose. Oevil's club is found in wet places and along
streams. Open sites often support Sitka alder thickets. The ground
cover in the mixed forest is primarily mosses, bunchberry, five-leaf
bramble, and lingonberry. The mixed forest type occurs in the study area
in a band along the Trail Lakes and in the Vagt Lake area. This mapping
unit corresponds with Viereck et al. (1982) Level III -closed mixed
forest.
3.2.1.4 Riparian Scrub
This mapping unit consists almost entirely of willows, river beauty.
fireweed, horsetail, and on drier sites. bluejoint. The unit corresponds
with Viereck et al. (1982) Level III -open tall shrub scrub. This
unit's distribution is very restricted in the study area, occurring only
along the Grant Lake inlet creek, on the Grant Lake delta, and
interspersed with the broadleaf forest.
3.2.1.5 Upland Scrub
This mapping unit comprises most of the subalpine vegetation in the study
area, and is composed primarily of Sitka alder thickets in a complex
mosaic with the grass/forb meadow type. Because of this complexity, most
of the grass/forb meadows are included in this unit on the map. This
closed scrub community has an understory composed primarily of lady
fern. In some avalanche chutes the alder is mixed with willows. Rusty
menziesia occurs in substantial portions of this type along the
conifer/scrub interface. This mapping unit corresponds with Viereck et
al. (1982) Level IV -closed tall alder scrub -and generally occurs from
100 to 2,500 ft along the mountain slopes throughout the study area .
3-58
3.2.1.6 Grass/Forb Meadow
This mapping unit forms a mosaic with the upland scrub type described
above; and as stated, is mostly included in the upland scrub unit on the
map because of the small size of these meadows. However, larger meadows
are mapped separately. The primary constituent of this type is bluejoint
grass. Salmonberry. red raspberry. fireweed. cow parsnip, false
hellebore and goatsbeard are found throughout these meadows but generally
are sparse. Dry. rocky slopes often support prickly rose, yarrow. arctic
sagewort, cranesbill, and harebells. Monkeyflower is conspic;ous along
drainages. This mapping unit corresponds to Viereck et al. (1982) Level
III -mesic graminoid herbaceous -and Level III -mesic forb
herbaceous. These meadows are located primarily along the slopes of both
Grant Lake and Falls Creek valleys. but small meadows also can be found
in the mixed forest and coniferous forest types.
3.2.1.7 Bog (Wet Meadow)
Sphagnum mosses form the basis of this mapping unit. The bogs vary from
extremely wet, floating mats to firm, treed bogs with a high proportion
of shrubs. Often there is a small pond or wet spot near the center of
the bog. The wettest of these communities support sphagnum. sundews,
buckbean and scattered beakrush and sedges. The ponds themselves often
support buckbean and yellow pond lily. The drier bogs may support
scattered black spruce, dwarf birch, labrador tea, lingonberry, dwarf
blueberry, crowberry, and cloudberry. This mapping unit corresponds to
Level III -wet graminoid herbaceous -and Level IV -open low shrub
scrub. ericaceous shrub sphagnum bog -of Viereck et al. (1982). These
bogs are most common in the study area in areas of low relief in the
mixed and conifer forest types, often surrounding ponds or lakes. Most
of them occur between Grant Lake and the Trail Lakes. Some of the
smaller or more forested bogs are included in the forest classes.
3-59
.. -.. ..
• -..
.. -..
• •
III ..
• •
III •
• II
.. .. .. .. .. ..
• .. .. .. .. ..
'III
... .. .. ..
.' .. .. .. ..
.. ..
.. ..
-..
--
--1 ..
I -' . ..
! •
-' , ..
. ... -
-
3.2.1.8 Alpine Tundra
Tundra vegetation can vary considerably depending on the microclimate of
a site. In many areas, upland scrub and grass/forb meadows intergrade
with tundra types, making the map delineations somewhat arbitrary.
Therefore, this description is a generalization of many types which occur
in patches throughout the alpine zone. Lichens are conspicuous in many
alpine areas, the most prevalent being Cladonia spp. and Stereocaulon
spp. Prostrate willows, such as ova11eaf willow and arctic willow form a
mat over the lichens in many alpine areas, as does bearberry .
Graminoids. such as woodrush, finely-awned sedge, and fescue, are
interspersed throughout tundra areas, especially on moist sites. Alaska
moss heath, Aleutian mountain heather, and crowberry can cover large
areas on the alpine slopes. Leutkea and sweet coltsfoot grow in moist
places such as snowbeds and along drainages. Bog blueberry grows in
patches on sunny slopes. Shrubby willows such as barclay willow,
feltleaf willow, and diamond1eaf willow grow along some of the alpine
drainages. The alpine tundra mapping unit correlates to level III -open
dwarf shrub scrub -of Viereck et a1. (19B2). Alpine tundra in the study
area is limited to the steep barren mountain tops, talus slopes, and
permanent snowfields. It is most extensive on south-facing slopes above
2,000 ft and is very restricted on north-facing slopes.
3 . 2 . 1 .9 Ba rren
These areas are mountain tops, talus slopes, cliffs, and snowfields
having less than 10 percent cover by plants .
3.2.2 Potential Impacts
The amount of each mapping unit to be affected by the Project is shown
and compared with the amount of each type available in the study area in
Table 3-15. A descript'on of the vegetation potentially affected by each
category of disturbance is provided below .
3-60
TABlE 3-15
AMOUHT AIIO PUtENTAGE Of MAPPING UNIT THAT WOULO BE AfFECTEO BY THE PROOECT
Broad-Grlssl
Coni fer Mixed leaf Rlparlln Upland Forb
Forest Forest forest Scrub Scrub Meadow Bog Alpine Barren WI tel' Totll
Totll Acres 1n
StuC\y Ifte!! 3,910 1,160 90 100 6,300 900 160 5,910 11,470 1,780 37,840
Access l'OIds. trlns. l1nes
Short-teN hall1t1t loss (ecresl!!! 9 15 25
Long-teN hallttlt loss (ICreslfl 5 8 14
Long-teN 'let. _ ..... t (ICresl.!!l 2 2
p_rtIouse. I!!!!toc::ltl1ntlke structures! tll1ract
w SItort-teN haIIttit loss (acresl!!! 2 2 5
I
0'\ Long-teN hallttlt loss (acreslfl 2 --'
Grant Lilt. drllWdlMl
Pel'lllnent dNWCIMift (acres)!! 35 35
SeUOftal drawcbln (ecresl!' 165 165
Totll Ifta altered b,l P!:!!Jec:t
Short-teN alteraUOII (ecres)il 10 17 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 200 230
Percent of totll ICres 1n Project lrel 0.31 1.51 OS OS OS 01 1.91 01 OS 11.21 0.61
Long-teN IlteratiOll 'lcrest!Y 6 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 218
Percent of total ICres 1n Project Irea 0.21 0.91 01 01 01 01 0.61 01 OS 11.21 0.61
1/ StuC\y area IS defined 011 '1egetltlon "p. il Totll lrel cleared dur1ng construction. cl Arel peNlnently covered by access rolds, powerflouse, or other project flcfllUes IS indicated. iI Area along trans.tssion line In which vegetltion he1ght would be controlled. e/ Area exposed by tile peraanent drawdotm of Grlnt Like surface elevltfon fro. 700 to 690 ft above 1151. 1/ Area exposed by tile selsonll drawdotm of Grant Lake surface elevation fro. 690 to 660 ft Ibove .s1. -/ ~/ Totll arel altered by the Project during construction and the Initial years of operation.
Total lrel peNanently al tered by the Project.
1916B 8/20/85
I , , I • J I , I , I r I I' .. r't I I •• I I , I I • I I I I I I • I-I I
----..
• -
-
-• ------
--
• -• ---• -• -•
II
--
3.2.2.1 Grant Lake/Powerhouse Access Road
Tnis road would provide access from Highway 9 to the powerhouse, the
Grant Lake intake and the penstock gate shaft. It would be routed
through conifer and mixed broadleaf/conifer forest for most of its
length. There are no unique areas affected.
3.2.2.2 Powerhouse
The proposed powerhouse site is in a paper birch stand at the interface
between a mixed forest and a bog community. The understory is almost
entirely rusty menziesia. The ground cover is moss with lingonberry,
five-leaf bramble, and bunchberry. The bog community ;s very shrubby
with scattered black spruce. The shrubs include shrubby cinquefoil,
dwarf birch, Labrador tea and dwarf blueberry. Ground cover is mosses
(primarily Sphaghum spp.) and lichens (primarily Cladonia spp.) with
crowberry, lingonberry and cloudberry. As with the other Project
structures, the vegetation types likely to be removed are not unique in
the study area.
3.2.2.3 Grant Lake Drawdown Area
The area that would be exposed by the drawdown of Grant Lake is
essentally barren of macrophytes with the exception of two areas. A
protected cove at the neck between the upper and lower basins of Grant
Lake supports a small stand of the sedge-Carex rhynchophysa. The outlet
of Grant Lake has a robust stand of white water crowfoot. which provides
habitat for a great many freshwater clams and snails. Grant Lake was the
only location where the white water crowfoot was found in the study
area. ~ rhyncophysa was also found along a Grant Creek tributary
system. Approximately 35 acres would be permanently exposed by the
drawdown associated with power plant operation. Most of the shoreline to
be exposed by drawdown is steep and rocky; however, the area to be
permanently exposed includes alluvial and avalanche deposits where
riparian or upland scrub habitat or coniferous forest are likely to
3-62
develop. especially in flatter areas such as near the inlet and outlet.
Sitka alder is expected to be the first colonizing shrub in most areas.
Fluctuation of the lake level during operation would seasonally
(especially March. April, and May) expose up to an additional 165 acres.
Most of this latter area is not likely to revegetate.
3.2.3 Mitigation of Impacts
Standard construction techniques would be utilized to physically
stabilize all surfaces disturbed by construction and to create a surface
which will promote rapid regeneration of native vegetation. Where soils
are substantially disturbed, topsoils would be segregated and stockpiled
for use in subsequent rehabilitation. Disturbed areas would be
fertilized and seeded with fast-growing native grasses wherever rapid
revegetation is required for erosion control. Riparian and wetland areas
would be avoided for facility siting to the extent practical. lhe 35
acres to be exposed by permanent lake drawdown would be allowed to be
colonized by native plants. Natural revegetation of disturbed surfaces
in the Grant Lake area is relatively rapid (within a few years). Sitka
alder is frequently an early and dominant colonizer. but some moist areas
will be colonized by willow.
3.3. WILDLIfE RESOURCES
3.3.1 Existing Conditions
In addition to reviewing pertinent literature and interviewing
knowledgeable biologists and local residents, field surveys were
performed to gather information on wildlife resources in the Project
vicinity (AEIDC 1982). Beginning in the fall of 1981 and extending
through the summer of 1982, a series of reconnaissance-level foot and
aerial field surveys were conducted to ascertain the presence,
distribution, relative abundance, and use patterns of various species and
species groups and to identify the distribution and relative value of
important seasonally-limited habitats and their relationship to Project
3-63
• -
•
• -
•
III!
• .. ..
• .. ..
•
• •
II ..
II ..
• •
• .. .. ..
• -
• -• -• ..
-..
-..
-.. .. ..
-..
..
-
-..
-
---..
-.. -..
... ..
... ..
.... ..
..
features. Foot surveys were conducted once-per-season on all sites
likely to be disturbed or modified as a result of Project construction
(e.g., access road corridors. the powerhouse site, penstock, etc.). Foot
surveys were also conducted through adjacent areas to compare habitats at
Project construction sites to other habitats in the study area. The
total study area for wildife resources included the watersheds of Grant
Lake and Creek and Falls Creek and is the same as that mapped on the
vegetation map .
Data recorded during foot surveys included sightings of individual
animals and sign indicative of their presence (tracks, scat. browse
lines, etc.), the vegetation type in which the sighting occurred, and an
appraisal of the habitat quality for each species at each observation
site. Habitat quality was subjectively evaluated at each field site by
interpreting the amount and Quality of forage items available along with
indications of past use of available food resources. Systematic aerial
surveys were also conducted seasonally to assess the distribution and
relative abundance of large mammals, raptors, and waterfowl in the study
area. Data recorded included species, numbers, sex and age composition,
location. time of day, an estimate of viewing conditions, and sign
(tracks in snow, excavations by bears, etc.) indicative of an animal's
presence.
3.3.1.1 Amphibians
The wood frog (Rana sylvatica) is the only amphibian known to occur in
the study area. Habitat for this species is present in the area between
Grant and Trail Lakes. It is doubtful that other species occur in the
study area. No reptiles are found in the region.
3.3.1.2 Birds
Alaska's avifauna is vast and diverse, comprising approximately 382
species (Kessel and Gibson 1978). Of these, about 130 species are found
on the Kenai Pensinsula or in its coastal waters (USDA, Forest Service,
1914B 8/20/85
3-64
il
no date). It appears likely that approximately 108 species could either
inhabit or migrate through the study area. Comprehensive avian studies
have not previously been conducted within study area boundaries.
Table 3-16 lists birds that may occur in the study area, their scientific
names, breeding status, relative abundance, and breeding habitats.
Abundance ratings given in the table refer only to numbers within study
area boundaries. This information was compiled from the literature and
on-site investigations. Table 3-17 compares avifauna habitat types to
vegetation mapping units.
During field studies, 63 species of birds were observed. This represents
48 percent of the total number of species present on the Kenai Peninsula
and 58 percent of those species that may seasonally use the study area.
The probability of observing all the species listed in Table 3-16 in any
one year is remote. The 63 species observed probably represents the
majority of the bird species that utilized the Grant Lake study area in
1981-82. They also represent the species and number of birds typically
found in other mountain valleys of the Kenai Mountains. Of the 63
species observed, 43 species were known or probable breeders within the
study area. Accounts of the status of the major species groups in the
study area are presented below.
Waterfowl. Loons. and Grebes
A variety of swans, geese, and ducks utilize the Kenai Peninsula. Most
nesting habitat occurs west of the study area where the Kenai Peninsula
forms a broad low level plain, dotted with numerous lakes and ponds.
The study area offers varied, though limited, types of waterfowl
habitat. There are areas, principally around Vagt Lake and the ponds
along the bench between Grant and Upper Trail Lakes, that are suitable
for such ground-nesting ducks as mallards and American wigeons. There is
a possibility that these areas may be lightly utilized by nesting geese
or swans; however, none were observed during field studies and there are
3-65
..
.. ..
., -., -..
.,
• .. .. .. ..
..
•
" •
IlL'
..
.. .. ..
..
..
•
I I I I • I I I I I I I I I • I I I I I I , , I I • I I I I I , i
TABLE 3-16 ./\ VIFAUNA WHICH PROBABLY INHABIT OR MIGRATE THROUGH THE STUDY AREA (FROM AEIDC 1982)
SHEET 1 OF 3
A-~bundant
C-Common Breeding HabUats In the Grant Lake Study Area' Fe -Fairly common
u-Uncommon
R -Rare
XX-Primary breeding habitat
X -Secondary breeding habitat ~ :! " (I) -Habitat types follow Kessel 1979. ~ <'I .!:I '" '" 0: 0: . c
(2) Ahundanc.e categories follow the U.S. Forest Service unpublished. \: -;; .&II i '"'---",,-\: ~'" .. .:.c I-< .:.c ! ell ~! Applies to study area only. .!!! Jl ~ .:.c", ~ ~ ... ... ... -:: ~= j~ ~ J:> :a If <'I <'I ! 5", = If .. 0
Endangered species. Breeding ~.!!! ~:5 ~ J:> J:> .. I-< !:"-: <'I""
Qli 1: = = ~'1:: .. -d~ <'I .. .. J:> ~ i '" WI 5 ... ",,,,, .! ~ .. t '" = 6 ... c II .&II .&II .. = u: 'i-.. ....... c E ",e .. =0 0 00 00 ~ e .. 0 .. .. ~ 0
t:!: .. .. '" -.: -.,c: is,, ~ ... ... = ~ = .. 'Ii ~Q ;; ~'" .. ~ c ;00 .!!(IJ '" l!:: :; t ; :a 'i ..
.Boo g ~ .! ... '" .a'g !:1::J 0: ~ ~ =a t 5 .~ tl ;;'" .~
o~ l!1i III .: -.: ~ 0 ~ ~Q c)l; ~ Spel'it'S ;.c:= « ...l_ ""-
U _
Q Q ...l I-< Q U
Common Loon Ga.>ia immer x x FC xx x
Yellow-billed Loon Gavia adamsii II x
Arctic Loon Gavia arctica X x u xx x
Red-throated Loon Gal'ia stellata II xx X
w Red-necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena II xx X
I Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus u xx x
0) Whistling Swan Olor columbianus II x 0'> Trumpeter Swan Olor buccinator u x xx x
Canada Goose Branta canadensis u x x xx
Mallard A nas platyrhynchos x x C xx x x x
Pintail Anas acuta Fe xx x x
Green-winged Teal Anas crecca x x u xx
Blue-wing Teal A nos discors R x xx x
American Widgeon A nas americana x x u x xx x
Lesser Scaup AYlhya affinis x u x xx
Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula x x FC X X xx
Barrows Goldeneye Bucephala islandica x FC x X xx
Buffelhead Bucephala albeola u x x xx
Harlequin Duck H istrionicus histrionicus x x R xx xx xx
Common Merganser Mergus merganser x C x x xx
Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serralor x FC x X X x
Goshawk Accipiter genlilis u x x xx
Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striOlus X C X xx x
Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis u x x x x x
Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus u xx
Marsh Hawk Cirms cyaneus II xx x
Golden Eagle Aquila chrysoetos x x C xx x
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus x FC xx X x
Merlin Fulco columbarius R x x X xx
Arne! ican Kest rei Falco span'erius x R X X xx
Spruce Grouse Canachites canadensis x x FC X xx
Willow Ptarmigan Lagopus /agopus x x C x xx x
Rock Ptarmigan Lagopus mutus x x c xx x
White-tailed Ptarmigan Lagopus leucufUs u xx x
Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis R x
Semipalmatcd Plover Clraradrius semipa/malUs u xx xx
Black-bellied Plover P/uviailis squatarola u X xx
Common Snipe Capella gallinago x J( Fe x xx
TABLE 3-16 (CONTINUED)
SHEET 2 OF 3
A -Abundanr
C· Common Breeding Habltals in the Grant Lake Study Area' FC -Fairly common
U -Uncommon
R -Rare
XX· Primary breeding habitat
X -Secondary breeding habitat ~ " ... (I) . "abitat types follow Kessel 1979. C ~ ... ." ::. ." " i= " . C
(2)-Abundance categories follow the U,S, Forest Scn'ice unpUblished, ." '" " ii ... i ii g= 01-",,01 ... f ~'" .. ... :aE . 5 J! .. ... ." ~ ~ ... ... ... ... Applies 10 study area only. iill ~ ~ COl i= .c :a .. ~ ... ~ ~ ~ 'i! /:i." ~ :0 ~ '" .. ~ ~'" Breeding ~c ;:§ ",.-.c .c ... !-< !:w.. 0 Endangered src"ics. Q] ~ .. == .c'" ~ :0 :0 .c <1i .. .. .,. ~ ... ... ~ ~ .. ~ iii ... 1 .. .. :0 .c .,. :0 ~ :0 ... ... .,,'" C ... ~ :0 :I ~ 1 01 ..
"N C I: OZf " ~;;: Q :: ~ i.l;S 00 .. e ... ~ .. i.l ~ ~
"CI -... ...... ~ ~ ~ :I .. ~:§ ... it: ii t"'i' it: .. .. .. ~ 'Ll .! '" .:= ... ... :I "CI ... ~Q l; ~1 .. "CI C III III :a '2 'iii .. ~! il jj"CI 21 ="= " it: ii ~~ ~ ii." .~ C ~ it: it: ~ .. ~ o~ == 0« .... ; -C ~ Q Q ~ !-< Q i.l ~Q ... C ~ Species :011= "'" i.l0l .... 00"
___ " ______ ~M __ ~
Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus R xx x x
Spoiled Sandpiper Actitis macularia x x FC xx xx X x
Least Sandpiper Calidris minut ilia u x
w Wandering Tauler Heteroscelus incana x u x xx I Greater Yellowlegs Tringra melanoleuca x x C x xx 0\
-....J Lesser Yellow legs Tringra flavipes x x C xx
Long·billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus u x
Northern Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus u xx x
Glaucous-winged Gull Larus glaucescens u xx
Herring Gull Larus argent at us R x
Mew GUll Larus canus x u x xx
Arctic Tern Sterna puradisaea x Fe xx x
Great Horned Owl Bubo \'irginianus U x x x x
Great Grey Owl Stru nebulosa u x xx x
Hawk Owl Surnia ulula u x x XX
Boreal Owl A egolius funereus u xx x
Saw-whet Owl A egolius acadicus u x xx x
Belted Kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon x x e xx
Yellow-shafted Flicker Colapter aural/IS auratus x u xx x x
Hairy Woodpecker Picoides vil/osus x x u xx x x
Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens R xx x x
Northern Three-toed Woodpecker Picoides tridactylus x x Fe xx x
Traill's (Willow) Flycatcher Empidonax traillii x x FC X xx X x
Olive-sided Flycatcher Nuttallornis borealis u xx x x
Violet·green Swallow Tachycineta thalassina x x A X X X X x
Tree Swallow Iridoprocne bieolor x x A X X X x
Bank Swallow Ripuria ripuria x x e xx
Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonata u XX
Grey Jay Perisoreus canadensis x x e x xx x x
Blad-billed Magpie Pica pica x e xx xx x x
Northern Raven Corvus COfYax x C x x x x
mack-capped Chickadee Parus atricapillus x x A X xx X x
Boreal Chickadee Parus hudsonicus Fe x x XX x
Dipper Cinclus mexicanus x x A xx
Red-breasted Nuthalch Sitla canadellsis R x' xx x
Brown Creeper Certhia familiar;s u x xx x
Winter Wren Troglodytes troglodytes U X X x
I • I • I • I • II: • a. ,. • • •• •• I • • • I • I • I • I • , • I , f ,
I I I • I I I t I I I I I I I i I j I I I I I I I J • I I I t I • I , j
TABLE 3-16 (CONTINUED)
SHEET 3 OF 3
A· AbullJant
c· Common Breedlllll Habitats III the Grant Lake SCudy Area'
FC· Fairly common
U· Uncummon
R· Rare
XX -Primary breeding habitat
0: X-SeconJary breeding habitat II: .lII
Uabitat types follow Kessel 1979. .' 0: <:) -~ "1:1 II) . ~ 1 0: 0: . 0:
Abundance categories follow the U.S. Forest Service unpubhshed. l: -.; .= i !! .. -12) -01)" C .;'" .. .lII
"'" .lII ! -E _5 rJl ~ .>11"1:1 ~ ~ ... .~ .. l'> Applies to study area only. .. fl .! rI 0:-i! i ~ : 'iC) 'i! 1;"<:) JI~ II: : " <:) c) ... Breeding i:t .!i! .. 0: .0 i .. := ... 0 Endangered species. Cl] .... ~= <:) ::I .0 ~ ... 15 III ~ ... u . ! ~ :!t =.lII 1 .. .. ::I .0 OJ i 1; .C.' "1:1'" ;jiJ ;jiJ i! ::I ui 11:1 l: It 0: • 0 u~ .. E C) C) ...... .. rJ5 .. til: t:t II: " "l:I -.= .!! ~ i'm. :E ... ... ::I ;jiJ ::I .! "<:)::1 .f, !i i] 11:1 ;en II iii i l '8 ,,"1:1 _Cl
,2 ... .8 M"<:) 2-= -"<:) 0: II: II: ~ =; i~ ell =0: ~ Speties o~ ~ ... : ..... u .. ~ Cl Cl ... ~ "'"
Q U en.
"---~----~----_._--------_._-~-.. ----~---
American Robin Turdus migratorius x x e x xx x x
Varied Thrusb Ixoreus naevius x x e x XX x x
Hermit Thrush CathartlS guttatus X X e x x XX X X
Swainson's Thrush Catharus ustulatus x x Fe XX XX X X
Grey-cheeked Thrush Catharus minim us X X R XX X X
Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulas satropus u XX x w Ruby-crowned Kinglel Regulas calendula x X 1\ xx X I m Water Pipit Anthus spinotetta x x e x XX 00 Bohemian Wuwing Bombycilla garrulus x x u xx x x
Northern Shrike Lanius excubitor x u x x XX x X X X
Orange-crowned Warbler Vermivora celata x x C x xx x
Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia x x e x x XX
Myrtle Warbler Dendroica coronota x x A xx x
Townsend's Warbler Dendroica townsendi x x A X XX X
Blackpoll Waroler Dendroica striata u XX x
Northern Waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis FC x x xx x
Wilson's Warbler Wilsonia pus ilIa x x A X XX X
Pine Grosbeak Pinicola enuncleator x x C xx x
Grey-crowned Rosy Finch Leucosticte tephrocotis X FC XX
Hoary Redpoll Carduelis hornemanni u XX X x
Common Redpoll Carduelis flam mea C xx x x x x x
Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus u XX x
While-winged Crossbill Loxia leucoptera u XX x
Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis x x C xx x x x
Slate-colored Junco Junco hyemalis x x FC XX x
Tree Sparrow Spiulla arborea x FC x
White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys x x C xx x x x
Golden-crowned SparrQw Zonotrichia at ricapilla X X A X XX X X
FmI. Sparrow Passerella iliaca x u XX x x
Um:oln's Sparrow Melospil.a lincolnii x u x XX x
Song Sparrow Melospil.o melodio x u XX x
Lapland Longspur Calcorius lopponicus u x xx
Snow Bunting Pll'ctrophenax nivalis u x
Sources: Kessel 1979
Gabrielson and Lincoln 1959
U.S. Foresl Service unpublished.
Tarres 1980
Bellrose 1978
Kortrighl 1967
I I . , • I I I I I . ; I • I j i i i i I ..
I I I I I I I • I I I • I I I I
no published reports documenting their nesting in the Grant Lake area.
In addition, there are standing dead trees suitable for tree-nesting
species such as mergansers and goldeneyes. These nest sites are
scattered throughout the study area adjacent to water sources.
Nine duck species were observed during field studies. An American
wigeon nest was found along the shores of Upper Trail Lake and a common
goldeneye with a single down young was observed in Grant Lake.
Harlequin ducks and green-winged teal were observed and suspected to be
nesting in the Grant Lake Inlet Creek area.
During the period when Grant Lake is iced-over, an area at the outlet
of the lake remains ice-free. This area proved to be a winter feeding
area for a flock of mallards. As many as 30 birds were observed in the
opening during winter 1981-82 field studies. The lake bottom in this
area was found to be rich with white-water crowfoot, to which was
attached an abundance of freshwater snails, clams, and insect larvae.
With the exception of two pools in Grant Creek. this was the only area
within the study area boundaries remaining ice-free and possessing an
abundant. available food supply during the 1981-82 winter.
Four loon and two grebe species inhabit the Kenai Peninsula. Nesting
habitat in the study area is limited; but Vagt Lake. Grant Lake. and.
to a lesser extent. the ponds along the bench between Grant and Upper
Trail Lakes provide some nesting habitat. Several common loons were
observed during field studies and a pair was assumed to be nesting at
Vagt Lake. A pair of arctic loons nested near the east end of Grant
Lake during 1982. This is an unusual occurrence as most arctic loon
nesting takes place further north. Although limited nesting has been
reported to occur on the Kenai Peninsula, there are no published
records.
3-70
l1li,
• -
• -----
•
•
• ..
• II
• .. .. ..
• .. ..
• ..
filii
• -•
•
•
-• ..
-
'111 --
-..
-.. -• ---
-
••
.... ----
-.. .-..
-..
-..
-..
--
§u~Jerns. and Shorebirds
Gulls, terns, and shorebirds are more common along the outer Kenai
Peninsula than in inland areas, such as the study area. The mew gull
was the only gull species observed during field studies in the study
area. It did not appear to be nesting. Arctic terns were also
observed in the study area. This species commonly nests on the Kenai
Peninsula, but did not appear to be nesting in the study area. The mew
gull and arctic tern both nest at Kenai Lake and a breeding colony of
arctic terns occurs at Tern Lake (Sowls et al. 1978). Both lakes are
only short distances from the study area .
Numerous shorebird species potentially occur in the study area. Five
species were observed during field studies and four were assumed to be
breeding. The four probable breeders are both species of ye110wlegs
(in the bogs on the bench between Grant and Upper Trail Lakes), the
spotted sandpiper (along the Grant Lake inlet creek), and the common
snipe (along Upper Trail Lake).
Raptors
There are five hawk species, two eagle species, two falcon species, and
five owl species that breed or migrate through the Kenai Peninsula. Of
the hawk species, only one ---the sharp-shinned hawk --was observed
within the study area. This bird was observed in a small forested
drainage along the south shore of Grant Lake's upper basin. Nesting
habitat for this species, as well as the goshawk and red-tailed hawk,
occurs within the forested portions of the study area. Several cliffs
in the study area appear to have suitable nesting habitat for
rough-legged hawks and nesting habitat for marsh hawks is present in
bog areas .
A single American kestrel was observed on the north slopes of Grant
Lake's upper basin. It gave no indications of breeding. Peregrine
falcons, which were not observed in the study area, are discussed under
threatened and endangered species (Section 3.3.1.4) .
3-71
A single bald eagle was observed during field studies. This sighting
was along Grant Lake during October 1981. No nesting platforms were
observed. Bald eagles regularly congregate along streams with salmonid
runs, generally in proportion to the quality of feeding areas and
suitability of nesting habitat. The small Grant Creek fish run is not
believed to be of sufficient magnitude to sustain fish-eating birds in
concentrated numbers.
Juvenile and adult golden eagles were regularly observed in the alpine
zone of the study area. Nesting is assumed to occur in this habitat,
although nest sites remain undocumented.
Five species of owls are known to inhabit the Kenai Peninsula
(Gabrielson and Lincoln 1959). Studies by Lewandoski and Rice (1980)
indicated that great-horned owls are the most abundant species and
exhibit a preference for coniferous forest habitat. No owls were
observed during field studies; however. suitable habitat exists
throughout the Grant Lake area.
Grouse and Ptarmigan
Four grouse species inhabit Alaska, but only the spruce grouse occurs
on the Kenai Peninsula. Mixed forests of black and white spruce along
with birch and poplar, at varying successional stages, provide ideal
habitat for this species (Ellison 1974). The mixed forest communities
along the Trail Lakes and the Vagt Lake Trail provide the best habitat
in the study area. The remainder of the area provides marginal
habitat. Only eight adults and one chick were observed in the study
area during field studies. These observations, contrasted with the
high production figures indicated in the literature (Ellison 1974),
suggest that the study area supports a low population. The fact that
most of the better spruce grouse habitat in the study area is located
in areas easily accessible to hunters suggests that hunting may be a
limiting factor to spruce grouse numbers.
3-72
-.. -..
• .. -..
• ..
• •
• •
• .. ..
iii
• ..
•
iii
• ..
• ..
•
1M
•
1M .. .. ..
iii
--------------..
---------------• ------
Three species of ptarmigan inhabit the Kenai Peninsula. Habitat for
these species is found throughout alpine or subalpine zones near or
above timerline. Populations of rock and willow ptarmigan in the Grant
lake area are probably average for the Kenai Peninsula as a whole.
Neither species appears overly abundant, but both were commonly
observed in appropriate habitats during field studies. Although no
white-tailed ptarmigan were seen, they may be present along steep
slopes and ridges above timberline. Hunting does not appear to be a
major controlling factor for ptarmigan numbers in the study area
because of the relative inaccessibility of alpine and subalpine zones.
Other Birds
A variety of other bird species, including kingfishers, woodpeckers,
and passerines, occupy the study area (Table 3-l6). Pertinent field
observations include the following. Belted kingfishers were commonly
observed during field studies around the Trail lakes and Grant Creek.
Several dippers were observed along flowing creeks within the study
area and young were seen along Grant Creek and the Grant lake inlet
creek, indicating breeding in these areas. A large flock of Bohemian
waxwings containing many young birds was observed feeding on insects at
the mouth of Grant Creek. Five warbler species were commonly seen
throughout the upland scrub and riparian scrub communities of the area,
as well as the small patches of scrub vegetation that occurred on the
bench between Grant and Trail Lakes; all were suspected to be breeding.
3.3.1.3 Mammal~
The mammalian fauna of the study area is comprised of a nearly equal
mix of herbivore and carnivore species (Table 3-1B). This circumstance
is not unique in Alaska and is representative of the mammalian fauna of
the Kenai Peninsula as a whole. In general, the habitat is marginal
for mammals and supports few individuals of most species. Notable
exceptions are some south-facing alpine and subalpine communities,
which are important to resident bovids.
3-73
...
lilt
TABLE 3-18 -..
MAMMALS OF THE STUDY AREA
Sheet 1 of 2 III
Occur-Subjective -rence Population ... in Study Relative Estimates,
Common Name Scientific Name Area Abundance Summer, 1982 Source~/ ..
• Shrews Soricidae ..
Masked shrew Sorex cinereus P ? NE~/ 1 2~/
Dusky shrew Sorex obscurus ? ? NE 2~/ ...
Water shrew Sorex palustris ? ? NE 1 2~/
Vagrant shrew Sorex vagrans ? ? NE 1~/ ..
Pygmy shrew Microsorex hoyi P ? NE 1 ,2 ...
Bats Vespertilionidae ..
Little brown Myotis lucifugus P ? NE 1 .2
myotis •
Hares Leporidiae ..
Snowshoe hare Lepus americanus Y9..1 CQI NE 1 .2.3 •
~lJirrel~ Sciuridae lilt
Hoary marmot Marmota cal;gata Y C NE 1 ,2,3
Red squirrel Tamiascirus Y C NE 1,2,3 III
hudsonicus -Northern flying
squirrel Glaucomys sabri nus P ? NE 1 .2 •
Beavers Castoridae •
Beaver Castor canadensis Y C 8-40 1 ,2,3 • New World _Mice Cricetidae ..
Northern red-Clethrionomys Y ? NE 1 .2,3
backed mouse rut; l.!!i • Meadow vole Microtus P ? NE. "' ,2~./ • pennsylvanicus
Tundra mole Microtus P ? NE 1.2~/ • oeconomous
Singing vole Microtus gregali~ P ? NE 1 ,2~/ -Brown lemming Lemmus sibiricus ? ? NE 2
Northern bog Synapotomys P ? NE 1 .2 ...
lemming boreal;~ ..
Jumping Mice Zapodidae • Meadow jumping Zapu~ hudson;cu~" ? ? NE I ,2
mouse ..
Porcupine Erethizontidae •
Porcup i ne Erethizon Y C NE. 1 .2.3 ..
dorsatum -
3-74 ..
• •
'"
'.
-• -• -• -• ---• -------
• -• ---• -• ----
Common Name
Wild Canines
Coyote
Gray wolf
Red fox
Bears
Black bear
Brown bear
Weasels and
A 11 ies
Marten
Ermine
Weasel
Mink
Wolverine
Ri ver otter
kJild Cats
Lynx
Cervids
Moose
Bovids
Mountain goat
Da 111 s sheep
9.1
NE = No Estimate
TABLE 3-18 (Continued)
Occur-
rence
in Study Relative
Scientific Name Area Abundance
Canidae
Canis 1atrans
Canis lupus
Vu1pes vu1pes
Ursidae
Y
Y
Y
Ursus americanus Y
Ursus arctos Y
Muste1idae
Martes americana Y
Muste1a erminea Y
Mustela nivalis Y
Muste1a vison Y
Gu10 gu10 Y
Lutra canadensis Y
Felidae
Lynx l.Y!J!. Y
Cervidae
8lces a1ces Y
Bovidae
Oreamnos americanus Y
Ovis dalli Y
Q/
ill
C
C
R!?/
C
C
R
C
C
R
C
R
R
C
C
C
Sheet 2 ,Q.LL.
Subjective
Population
Estimates,
Summer, 1982
NE
6
Nt
20-40
10
10-100
NE
NE
<5
<5
<5
NE
20-30
50
30
sourcef./
1 ,2,3
1 .2,3
1 ,2,3
1 ,2,3
1 .2,3
1 .2.3
1 .2,3
1 .2,3
1 ,2,3
1 ,2,3
1 ,2
1 ,2.3
1 ,2,3
1 ,2,3
1 ,2,3
C = Common -species appears to be
Y ~ Yes (sight records extant)
P = Probable
utilizing all available habitats
R = Rare -species present in low
density; it does not appear to ? '" Unknown
be realizing the maximum potential of
the habitats
f./ Sources: 1 -Manville and Young 1965, 2 -Hall and Nelson 1959,
3 -AEl DC. 1982.
Q./ Sorex tracks were observed, but it was not possible to differentiate
between species.
Microtus tracks were observed, but it was not possible to differentiate
between species.
3-75
The mammalian fauna present is highly mobile; most species are
migratory, moving seasonally between disparate ranges in response to
changing environmental and physiological conditions. Movements between
ranges are influenced to some degree by the rugged physiography of the
region and by the phenology of snow melt. Several distinct traditional
movement corridors of large mammals were noted.
Table 3-18 lists observed and likely components of the mammalian fauna,
their scientific names. and their relative abundance in the study
area. The list represents a synthesis of published and unpublished
reports, interviews with long-time area residents, and results of field
surveys. Subjective study area population estimates have been provided
for select species and species groups.
Small Mammals
Twelve species of shrews and mice are possible residents of the study
area. Shrews appeared to be ubiquitous in all forest and scrub
associations based on field observations of sign. Shrew sign was most
abundant in older forest communities, becoming conspicuously less
noticeable, but still present, above timberline.
Vole tracks were observed on snow in March throughout the study area to
the 2,000 ft level, the altitudinal limit of foot surveys. The tundra
and singing voles are probably the most common microtines ;n the area.
Three northern red-backed mice were found in July 1982 along the Vagt
Lake Trail. This;s a common mammal throughout the Kenai Peninsula.
The little brown myotis is a common summer resident of southcentral
Alaska. None were sighted during field surveys of the study area but
they are undoubtedly present.
3-7f>
...
.. --
• -,. -• ..
" till
•
• •
.. --.. ..
• .. ..
..
• •
-
-.. -------..
---..
-----..
---.. -----• -..
--
Snowshoe HaTe
Low numbers of snowshoe hares inhabit all forest and low-lying scrub
associations within the study area based on the abundance of tracks
observed during midwinter foot surveys. Areas bordering Trail Lakes
appear to constitute the center of hare distribution and abundance in
the study area. Despite their relatively low numbers, hares form the
dietary mainstay of coyotes and lynx based on cursory field examination
of scats.
Marmots and Squirrels
Hoary marmots are conspicuous, common residents of alpine tundra
communities throughout the study area. In general they were observed
at elevations between 1,500 and 3,000 ft. Highest marmot
concentrations were observed in the Upper Falls Creek drainage and in
local areas north and northeast of Grant Lake.
Red squirrels are conspicuous throughout the coniferous forests of the
study area, being most abundant in areas of larger spruce timber.
Although northern flying squirrels were not observed during field
studies they probably occur in forests within the study area.
Beaver
Although beavers are one of the most abundant furbearing mammals in
Alaska, litte prime beaver habitat exists in the study area. Evidence
of beaver was scarce and, with few exceptions, was confined to Grant
Lake proper and its terminal tributaries. The only area within the
study area meeting all criteria for prime beaver habitat is the
northern portion of the Grant lake inlet stream delta. Four lodges
were observed in this area although only one appeared to be active.
3-17
Small numbers of beaver also reside in Grant lake proper, but these
habitats are of low quality and appear incapable of sustaining beaver
populations. Four lodges, including one apparently active lodge, and a
lodge apparently under construction were observed along the Grant lake
shoreline. These shoreline lodges are exposed to the influence of
predators, floating ice in spring, waves, avalanches, and lake level
fluctuations resulting from periodic heavy rains and spring breakup,
and are not near appreciable food resources. These beavers are
probably offspring of the colony located on the delta of the inlet
stream. A single beaver was also observed in lower Trail lake near its
outlet.
Assuming all observed lodges are active and all represent colonies of
average size (libby 1954, Boyce 1974), then 32 to 40 beavers inhabit
the area. A minimum population estimate, assuming only two active
colonies, would be 8 to 10 beavers.
limited trapping of beavers does occur in the area. Interviews with
local residents indicate that trapping intensity varies considerably
between and within years, depending on market conditions. At least one
beaver trapper was active in the area during the winter of 1981-1982.
Beaver trapping appears to be more of a recreational pursuit than a
commercial one in the study area.
Porcupine
Porcupines are common throughout the coniferous areas of the Kenai
Peninsula, particularly in mountainous regions near timberline.
Populations are highly variable and fluctuate radically over relatively
long intervals. Occasional scattered porcupine sign was noted in the
study area, generally at altitudes of 500 to 1,000 ft. The species
does not appear to be abundant at this time in the study area.
3-78
--.. -----
• -.. -
• -• ..
• •
• • .. --.. -.. .. .. .. ..
..
• ..
-----------• -..
---..
---------.. -..
-.. ----
Wolf. Coyote and Red Fox
Three types of wild canines range in the Grant Lake-Falls Creek-Trail
Lakes region: wolf. coyote, and red fox. The wolf is a frequent
transient; the coyote is probably a resident or common transient; and
the red fox is a rare or occasional visitor or recent resident.
Peterson and Woolington (1979) reported an early winter population of
185 t'llolves on 5,300 square miles of the Kenai Peninsula. The wolves in
the Grant Lake area are probably the group known as the Mystery Creek
pack (Peterson 1982), ranging in the mountain area from Mystery Creek
as far east as Grant Lake or perhaps, on occasion, as far as Nellie
Juan Lake. Wolves have occasionally been reported and taken in the
Grant Lake-Trail Lakes area in recent years. In January 1982, six
wolves were observed during an aerial survey along Grant Lake's north
shore. In late February 1982 a mountaineering party, en route up Lark
Mountain via the west ridge, observed two wolves harassing a moose
along the shore of Grant Lake (Babcock 1982). Tracks were also noted
in February and March around the northwest corner of Grant Lake and
east of Vagt Lake. A single wolf was observed in the upper valley of
the inlet creek during an April 1982 aerial bear denning survey. The
wolf preys upon a large number of animals, including moose, Oall's
sheep, mountain goat, snowshoe hare, beaver, and other canids such as
coyote and fox. No wolf kills were noted in the Grant Lake-Falls Creek
area during field studies; however, moose remains were found in several
wolf scats.
The coyote has increased rapidly in numbers since colonizing the Kenai
Peninsula around 1930 and has been a prominent and widely distributed
member of the local fauna since then. Coyote sign was noted over much
of the area on all field trips. Like the wolf, the coyote is
wide-ranging and will travel and hunt throughout all habitat types of
the study area. It is probably a much more frequent transient or
resident of the Grant Lake-Falls Creek area than the wolf. The delta
3-79
of the Grant Lake inlet creek was a center of coyote activity during
the winter of 1982. Coyotes were observed hunting for hares and
ptarmigan in the area. A frequently used coyote travel route was noted
on the bench between Falls Creek and Grant Lake in the timberline
region at the base of the mountain slope.
The red fox is an indigenous member of the Kenai Peninsual fauna.
Apparently, fox populations on the Kenai have remained low through much
of this century. The species has been neither taken nor observed by
any of the trappers in the Grant Lake-Falls Creek region. A single
series of fox tracks was noted in March 1982 in the Vagt Lake area.
Black Bear
Black bears are one of the most widely distributed and abundant large
mammals on the Kenai Peninsula. Timbered and brushy areas of the
region afford good protective cover, which probably accounts for their
ability to withstand the intense hunting pressure typifying this part
of southeastern Alaska. Black bear within the study area are generally
associated with valley floors, small alluvial plains, lakeshores, and
intervening streams and these are limited in the study area.
Ground-level reconnaissance surveys during the fall, spring, and summer
assessed the relative abundance and general distrlbutlon of black bears
within the study area. Track, scat, and actual bear sightings were
recorded to estimate the intensity of habitat use relative to proposed
Project facilities.
Nine black bears, two track sets, and about 10 scats, presumably of
black bear origin, were noted during the three field surveys. In June,
1982, the majority of bears and sign was observed near Grant Lake; one
bear was sighted in the timbered area downstream of the Grant Lake
outlet. Two track sets were also noted along the edge of Lower Trail
Lake during the October 1981 reconnaissance. Scat was evenly
3-80
• ---.. -.. .. .. -.. -.. .. .. .. .. ..
• •
• ..
• .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. -.. -. .. ..
• •
-..
.. -..
----
-• ---• -..
---.. ---.. -.. .. .. .. ..
..
--
distributed between 500 and 1.000 ft in the area between and around the
lake systems. Surprisingly, no evidence of black bear activity in the
upper Grant Lake valley was discovered.
As with brown bears the activity patterns of black bears appear to be
regulated by the temporal and spatial distribution of food resources.
Food resources within the Grant Lake study area appear to be moderate
at best. Important black bear habitat in the study area includes the
lower alpine zone near the shrubline. which 1s 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. Recreational
facilities and the Moose Pass population center are often visited by
foraging black bears during spring .
Likely denning habitat in the Grant Lake area includes spruce-covered
slopes and hillsides. Wet places and open terrain would likely be
avoided as places to den. Primary denning habitat for black bears
probably occurs in the Trail Lakes and Moose Creek valleys; the
forested habitat along the Trail Lakes appears less suitable because of
human disturbance. The bench between Grant and Trail Lakes south to
and including the Ptarmigan Creek drainage appears to be usable denning
habitat for those black bears residing locally year-round.
Information obtained through field reconnaissance can be used to
speculate on black bear numbers present in the study area. Based on
actual sightings. tracks and scat. from 10 to 40 black bears appear to
range within the study area. Considering the area's size and the
relatively small home range of black bear compared to brown bear, it
seems reasonable that 10 to 15 animals range within the study area
year-round, with approximately 20 more being transients .
3-81
The lack of stable, concentrated food resources and continuous
interaction with the human inhabitants of Moose Pass constitute the
most prominent limiting factors to black bears in the Grant Lake area.
Increased human activity would likely trigger a decline in the number
of resident bears, but transient animals probably would be little
affected over the long term. The adaptability of black bears to the
human element implies that the current number of black bear represent a
stationary population. A less serious limiting factor appears to be
the number of bears killed in defense of life and property and those
harvested incidental to the taking of other game species by sport
hunters. Although the study area is not considered good bear hunting
area, moderate hunting pressure is exerted on Dall's sheep, mountain
goat, and moose, so black bears are subject to some exploitation.
Brown Bears
Brown bears are sparsely distributed throughout much of the region
surrounding the study area. The study area is adjacent to areas
containing much higher brown bear densities such as the mountainous
areas of Prince William Sound and other areas of the Kenai Peninsula.
Grant Lake field studies emphasized the delineation of habitats and
general movement patterns of bears inferred from observed seasonal
distribution and abundance. Data obtained during fall and summer
ground-level surveys and three aerial surveys conducted in early spring
provided information on the relative number and seasonal distribution
of brown bears.
Considering the study area's physiography, its proximity to human
developments, and the limited amount of usable habitat and forage
resources within the Project vicinity, brown bear numbers were expected
to be low, representing but a fraction of the region's total
population. The 1981-82 field studies confirmed this expectation.
During the study period only 16 widely scattered sets of brown bear
tracks and three individuals were observed: a family group (female with
3-82
---..
.. .. --.. .. .. -.. ..
• • ..
•
• • .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
• .. .. ..
• •
---..
-..
..
-.. -.. -.. -..
-.. -------..
-.. -.. -..
-.. -..
-
one yearling) and a mature individual. Alaska Department of Fish and
Game (ADF&G) authorities reported insufficient forage as probably the
primary factor for the low density of brown bears in this region (ADF&G
1973). The highest reported brown bear harvest since 1961 for the
years 1976, 1980, and 1981 for all of Game Management Unit 7 (Seward)
was three bears. For the past 21 years, the annual harvest averaged
approximately one bear per year (ADF&G 1982). Considering the
intensive hunting pressure in southcentral Alaska, these extremely low
harvest figures reflect the low density of brown bears in this region .
Forage resources primarily include the following: herbaceous plants
(grass-forb meadow variety) found in scattered sites above the north
side of Grant Lake, at intermediate elevations of the upper valley's
north side, and in the upper Falls Creek drainage; marmot colonies
located in most alpine and subalpine areas, particularly along the
south side of Solars and Lark Mountains; and at least two salmon
species known to spawn in Grant Creek (Figure 3-4). The scattered,
low-quality forage resources suggest that the study area is used mainly
by transient brown bears.
Denning habitat was delineated on the basis of 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 3-4}.
Unit 1 appears to have the most potential, based on observed bear
activity, slope conditions, substrate. and vegetation. Denning would
likely occur at elevations of about 1200 to 2500 ft in hilly terrain
bordering the alder lone. Extensive areas of surface bedrock,
precipitous slopes, and sparse vegetation cover along the westward
section reduces habitat potential. Available denning habitat in Unit 2
is limited to areas having less rugged relief, mainly ridges
paralleling the lower part of the two lateral tributaries entering the
southeast section of Grant Lake. Rocky outcroppings and large boulders
provide some caves or natural cavities for denning. but these sites are
3-83
26
L A.
3-84
PRIMARY DENNING HABITAT
ttJlll1J MAJOR MARMOT COLONY
GRASS-FORB MEADOW
ALPINE FEEDING HABITAT
SALMON STREAM
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
GRANT LAKE HYDROEI-ECTRIC-PROJECT
12
MAJOR BROWN BEAR FORAGE
RESOURCES AND DENNING
HABITAT IN STUDY AREA 1982
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
-..
-..
-..
-..
-..
-..
-..
-.. -.. -..
-..
-.. ---..
-..
-..
-..
-..
part of the Falls Creek valley. has some potential for denning. Bear
activity occurred in this area during the den emergence period. The
vegetation. snowpack. and soils of the unit appear adequate for
denning; however. available space is limited, and the unit probably is
not heavily used.
The most important denning habitat is present ;n the 2.1 square mile
Unit 1, which represents about 47 percent of the total habitat
available for denning. Presumably no more than one or two families and
possibly two or three solitary animals would den within the study area
in any given year .
The slopes west of Solars and Lark Mountains and the bench partitioning
Grant and Trail lakes constitute the principal travel routes to and
from the Grant Lake valley. Of secondary importance to interdrainage
travel is the pass intersecting the headwater areas of Moose Creek and
the Snow River. The extent these areas are used remains unknown. The
period of greatest activity noted during field studies occurred in the
last half of May, coinciding with den emergence and breeding. The May
21 aerial survey, when three brown bears and eight individual sets of
brown bear tracks were noted, suggested that up to 10 different brown
bears visited the study area around mid-May. Few, if any, brown bears
apparently reside year-round within the study area due to low quality
food sources, limited denning habitat and residential development along
limited. Unit 3, extending along the south-facing slope of the upper
lrail lakes. Interchange between regional subpopulations is relatively
intensive, and the use of the area by transient bears ;s common and
primarily related to the seasonal availability of limited food
resources .
Martens are indigenous to the Kenai Peninsula and once were prominent
in the fur trade. The animal is present over much of the mountain and
foothill area of the Kenai Peninsula. A professional trapper and
3-85
resident of Moose Pass related that he had not taken marten in the
Grant Lake basin. but reported a sizeable marten population in the Snow
River country southeast of the study area (Candit 1981). Judkins. also
a trapper and resident of Moose Pass. reported that the marten was
relatively common in the lower Falls Creek drainage (Judkins 1982).
Tracks of a single marten were observed at two locations during the
March 1982 survey: one on the Inlet Creek delta at the east end of
Grant Lake and another on the timbered ridge north of Falls Creek.
Weasels are widely distributed throughout the Kenai Peninsula. The
Grant Lake area is no exception, and tracks of this mammal were noted
throughout all habitat types of the study area. There is considerable
variation in density. Sign was most abundant in grassy areas near
timberline and around lake margins, probably a reflection of the
abundance of voles. their principal prey species.
No mink were sighted during the surveys and very little sign was
noted. Tracks and scats were seen along the shoreline of Upper Trail
Lakes near the mouth of Grant Creek and in Grant Creek. During March
1982. a single set of mink tracks was noted along the west shore of
Trail River. Habitat suitable for mink appears limited to the lower
reaches of Falls and Grant creeks and to the shoreline of Trail lakes.
Habitats along Trail lakes are probably important only following salmon
runs when spawned-out salmon are washed into the shallows. Trail lakes
are so glacially turbid that mink may be unable to effectively locate
prey in them at other times.
Wolverine are relatively abundant predators on the Kenai Peninsula.
Wide-ranging by nature, they can be found in all habitat types, most
commonly in mountain areas. In March 1982 wolverine tracks were noted
in a number of locations: Grant Lake inlet creek delta and eastward;
the bench below timberline between Falls Creek and Grant Lake; and the
timberline area on the west ridge of Lark Mountain. Candit (1981)
reported trapping "seven or eight" over 20 years in the Grant Lake
drainage basin. At present, the Grant Lake-Falls Creek area is
3-8&
.. .. .. -..
.. -.. -.. ..
• .. .. ---• •
• • -... .. .. -..
•
• -.. .. .. .. ..
• •
-----• -,.
-,. -• -• -• -• -• -,.
-,.
---
• -• -• -• -• -
evidently within the travel and hunting range of one or more
wolverines. In particular, the Grant lake Inlet Creek delta was the
site of considerable wolverine foraging activity in March of 1982.
Several prey species were in the area at the time.
River otter are relatively abundant and widespread on the Kenai
Peninsula, but no sign of their presence was found in the study area.
Suitable habitat for otter is limited to the lower reaches of Grant
Creek. lack of habitat probably precludes the establishment of a
resident population. Otters are probably present as transients
throughout the area, however.
lynx are widespread over the Kenai Peninsula. Oependent as they are on
the snowshoe hare as a primary food source, lynx distribution and
population levels closely shadow that of the hare. Forest and
shrubland country, where there is an abundance of hardwood browse
plants available for hares, is prime lynx habitat. Currently, the hare
population on the Kenai Peninsula and thus that of the lynx are high.
The Grant lake-Falls Creek area has a relatively low hare population,
however, and few areas of concentration, so lynx are correspondingly
few. Tracks of a single lynx were noted in the timberline area east of
Vagt lake.
Moose inhabit the Grant lake study area, but are not particularly
abundant at this time. Several factors discussed below are probably
responsible for limiting study area moose numbers.
Summer range does not appear to be a limiting factor (Figure 3-5).
Ponds and lakes between Grant lake and the Trail lakes produce abundant
aquatic plants and much evidence of their use by moose was observed
3-87
during field studies. Lower slopes adjacent to Grant Lake support
vigorous stands of bluejoint, and suitable browse, while not abundant,
occurs throughout the study area.
The chief natural factor limiting moose numbers in the study area
appears to be the amount and quality of winter range (Figure 3-5).
With few exceptions plant succession has advanced beyond the stages
favoring palatable browse. As a consequence, few places within the
study area meet all of the criteria collectively describing good winter
range. Remaining winter range is largely confined to the active
floodplains of lower Falls Creek and the Grant Lake inlet creek. In
these locations the plant succession is periodically retarded by the
action of flood waters. Both areas support palatable riparian willows,
but neither is being utilized to its potential. Examination of browse
lines indicates a much greater use in the recent past than at present.
Most moose within the study area appear migratory. Sightings of
individuals and sign were more common during the warmer seasons than
during winter, despite the severe limitations on visibility imposed in
summer by the leaves of deciduous trees and shrubs. Several clearly
defined traditional travel routes were found, providing a clue as to
the normal means of ingress and egress used by moose. One such travel
route follows across the bench between Grant and Trail lakes, near
Grant Creek (Figure 3-5). Some disruption of movement patterns of
moose using this route may result from the development of project
facilities in this area.
Several factors may be responsible for lack of greater recent use of
the study area in winter by moose. Snow depths could occasionally
exceed the height of willow stands, even though many plants exceed
12 ft in height. Although moose can easily reach browse 10 ft above
ground level (Wolff 1976), they have difficulty traveling in snow
deeper than 3 ft (Coady 1974). Alternately, access to these isolated
stands of winter range could be restricted by snow depth, avalanches,
3-88
• ---
• .. -.. -.. -..
• .. -.. -..
• ---
• .. -.. -.. .. .. -.. .. .. -..
• •
3-89
DEFINED ROUTES
:::e>NORMAL DIRECTION OF INGRESS
BASED ON TRACKING EVIDENCE.
EGRESS IS ALONG THE SAME
CORRIDORS
SUMMER RANGE
SUMMER AND SECONDARY
WINTER RANGES
SUMMER AND PRIMARY
WINTER RANGE~
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
M90SE RANGES IN
STUDY AREA 1982
..
..
II
...
.. ..
..
II
...
II ..
II
II
.. ..
II
..
.. ..
..
II
or glare ice on the lakes. The winter of 1981-82 was not particularly
severe. however. and it seems likely that other explanations must be
sought to explain why most moose left the study area during the
winter. Lack of use in recent years might reflect predator losses or
hunter-induced mortality (Hinman 1979. 1980a, 1980b; Chatelain, 1950;
Franzman et al. 1980), but lack of abundant food resources due to
advancing plant succession in all probability is the chief reason few
moose overwinter in the study area.
Based on the results of field and literature surveys, moose numbers
within the study area during summer probably fluctuate between 20 and
30 individuals. Assuming these estimates are correct. stocking
densities range from 2.3 to 3.5 per square mile on summer range. As
noted above. few moose overwinter in the study area. Stocking
densities in this range are relatively low compared to other areas on
the Kenai Peninsula .
From a statewide perspective the moose resources of the study area are
relatively insignificant. Viewed from a local perspective, however,
the resource takes on added importance. Moose are nowhere abundant in
the mountains of the eastern half of the Kenai Peninsula and,
consequently. the study area1s population is biologically significant
to the area as a whole. The population also is important to humans.
Hunting pressure is relatively high due to its location adjacent to the
road system. Most hunters are local residents; however. in past years
Grant Lake attracted as many as four fly-in hunting parties per year
(Judkins 1981). Moose harvest figures are unavailable for the area,
but based on the results of field surveys, the legal annual take
probably does not exceed five. Considering the proxiollty of the area
to human habitations, there is a decided potential for illegal hunting .
Mou~tain Goats
Mountain goats inhabit the entire mountain area of th~ Kenai Peninsula,
but densities are greatest east of the railroad. the Kenai Peninsula
3-90
goat population is subject to considerable short-term annual
fluctuations and shifts in ranges occur due primarily to winter weather
conditions and recently to hunting pressures. Although the population
has been relatively stable over the long-run, a general overall decline
has been noted over the past 10 years. A current total Kenai mountain
goat population estimate is not available, however.
In 1979, 1980, and 1981, a total of 41 goats were captured and equipped
with radio collars and subsequently monitored to obtain life history
information by the ADF&G in the Grant Lake drainage and surrounding
areas (Nichols 1982). The entire area under study by ADF&G had an
estimated population of 246 goats in the summers of 1979 and 1981; a
winter of heavy snow and severe avalanche conditions in 1980 induced
considerable mortality and reduced productivity. Of this group, about
one-quarter (an average of 50) commonly use the Grant Lake basin
through much of the year.
Although the entire drainage is used by goats, the most important
sections are located on the south-facing slopes of the north half of
the drainage---general1y small vegetated benches and ridges in the 1,000
to 3,200 ft altitudinal range (Figure 3-6). 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.
The southern half of the Grant Lake drainage and Falls Creek drainage
are used to a much lower degree than the north part of the Grant Lake
drainage. These slopes are evidently subject to intense avalanche
activity and this factor, by itself or in combination with other
factors, may limit their utility to mountain goats.
3-91
.. .. .. .. ..
..
..
.. .. .. .. ..
.. .. ..
.. .. ..
..
.. ..
..
II .. ..
•
II .. .. .. ..
.. .. ..
•
r... A
3-92
APRIL
MAY
JUNE
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
MOUNTAIN GOAT
OBSERVATIONS IN
STUDY AREA 1982
12
-----• -• -• ---• ---• -• -------
---
-• ---•
Goat hunting on the Kenai Peninsula is presently rigidly controlled by
a permit system that allocates a limited harvest to each unit of
range. In 1982, 16 goat hunting permits were issued for the Ptarmigan
Lake-Trail Creek-Moose Creek area, including the Grant Lake drainage
(Area 839).
Oa 11' s Sheep
The Oall's sheep is a wilderness animal residing for the most part in
rugged alpine and subalpine mountain habitat. Dall's sheep o~ the
Kenai Peninsula are relatively more abundant in the interior sections
of the Kenai Mountain range than elsewhere. The Grant Lake area
constitutes the outer boundary of sheep range in this area. Dall's
sheep reportedly range over the entire Grant Lake and Falls Creek
drainages in several small bands. During field studies, however, they
were only noted on the northern half of the Grant Lake drainage. This
is evidently their most favored range (Figure 3-1).
In May of 1980 and 1981, 14 and 41 sheep, respectively, were recorded
on the Grant Lake ranges (Nichols 1982). In early June 1982 field
surveys, 30 sheep were recorded on the slopes north of Grant Lake.
Based on extant trend counts and the results of this survey, Oall's
sheep numbers appear to vary annually from about 10 to 50 animals.
Frequent interchange apparently occurs with the Moose Creek herd,
particularly during the summer. As with goats, mid-elevations of the
slopes constitute favored range, especially vegetated benches, and the
upper edges of timbered areas and exposed ridges where some forage
plants are available. Sheep were observed at various seasons from the
Lark Mountain ridge line above Moose Pass to slopes in the upper basin
of the drainage.
3-93
3-94
MAY
JUNE
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
DALL'S SHEEP
OBSERVATIONS IN
STUDY AREA 1982
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
---..
-
• ------
--------
-
--• ----------
Winter range generally comprises a small sector of the overall range,
and thus represents the principal limiting factor. Good winter range
in the Grant Lake basin consists of snow-free sites near escape terrain
at the mid-altitudinal level of the basin. In early spring, sheep
sometimes must move to lower altitudes into subalpine tree cover, where
emergent vegetation appears soon after the snow recedes. Within the
study area, sheep scats were found in open bluejoint meadows as low as
1000 ft. in altitude. Movement to mineral licks is an important phase
of seasonal movements but no licks were found in the study area.
While coyotes, wolverines, bears, and eagles may prey on sheep, the
wolf appears to be the principal predator. Wolves, however, do not
appear to exert much influence on sheep numbers in the study area
except when sheep may be forced by competition to feed distant from
escape terrain at the time wolves move through the area.
3.3.1.4 Threatened or Endangered Species
A subspecies of Canada goose, the Aleutian Canada Goose, Branta
canadensis leucopareia, is noteworthy as it is one of three Alaska
birds listed as an endangered species. Its breeding range is limited
to the Aleutian Islands hundreds of miles southwest of the study area.
The fall migration apparently proceeds nonstop directly across the Gulf
of Alaska to northern California. It appears highly unlikely that any
members of this race would occur in the Peninsula area.
Three races of peregrine falcon, two of which are endangered, are
present in Alaska. Falco peregrinus anatum and [. R. tundrius, the
endangered races, breed in moderate numbers throughout interior and
arctic Alaska, respectively (Roseneau 1982). Records presented by
Gabrielson and Lincoln (1959) indicate that these birds were once
fairly common migrants through the Kenai Peninsula. Few have been seen
in recent years. Most sightings are reported from recognized migration
corridors which parallel the outer coasts. It appears unlikely that
3-95
these birds occur within the study area. The nonendangered race, [. 2.
2.e~J, is primarily a coastal species and also has not been sighted in
the interior of the Kenai Peninsula.
The Eskimo curlew (Numeni.!,!i p..Qrei!lisl is listed on the endangered
species list and has occasionally been observed on the Kenai
Peninsula. Accounts of these birds are mainly historical, and many
people believe it may be extinct. Principal breeding grounds appear
limited to the arctic coastal plains. Few have been slghted in recent
years.
3.3.2 Potentlal Impacts
Although the proposed Project arrangement involves a lesser amount of
wildlife impacts than most other alternatives considered. the wildlife
resources of the study area may be affected in a variety of ways. F-ach
of the general types of impacts are discussed under separate
subheadings in the following paragraphs.
Project construction would have a short-term impact on many species,
particularly big game mammals and large predatory birds and mammals
because of disturbance from human activities and construction
equipment. Individual animals near construction areas would
temporarily leave the areas or otherwise modify their behavior until
construction activities ceased. Construction during the breeding
season may negatively affect the breeding success of some species near
construction activities. If construction activities occur during late
winter or early spring, disturbance impacts may be relatively high
because of the stressed physiological condition of many animals during
this period; however. construction activities are not expected to be
scheduled during this period. Because of the small percentage of the
total study area potentially disturbed by construction activities,
impacts are not expected to be significant.
3 -96
• ..
• -..
.. -• .. .. ..
• ..
• ..
III ..
• •
• ..
• flit
• .. .. -..
•
• .. .. ..
II .. ..
•
---.. ---------..
---.. -----..
----.. -• -• ---..
Access Roads, Transmission Line, and Other Project Facilities
The Grant Lake Project design involves about 1.2 miles of access road
and 1.2 miles of transmission line. In addition the Project includes a
powerhouse, penstock, tailrace, recreation facilities, and fish
mitigation facilities. Construction of these features would produce
short-term wildlife habitat losses, especially along access roads where
extra right-of-way width would be required. These areas would be
allovled to revegetate or would be reseeded following construction.
Long-term wildlife habitat losses would also occur in areas covered by
access roads, the powerhouse, and other permanent Project facilities.
Although wildlife habitat would not be totally lost along areas
occupied by the transmission line, habitat would be permanently
modified in these areas because only a low-growing plant community
would be allowed. A total of about 30 acres of short-term habitat loss
and 18 acres of long-term habitat alteration are expected as a result
of construction of these facilities, as shown on Table 3-15.
The short-term and long-term habitat losses described above would
affect many wildlife species by temporarily or permanently lowering
area carrying capacities. This impact would mainly affect small birds
and mammals and would have little affect on larger vertebrates because
habitat losses would be distributed along narrow corridors for the most
part, indicating that the extent of habitat loss within individual home
ranges would be small relative to home range size. Overall, this
impact ;s not expected to be significant because of the small area of
each vegetation type potentially affected relative to the amount of
each type available in the study area (Table 3-17).
Long-term habitat modification caused by maintenance of a low-growing
plant community along the transmission line would also have minimal
impacts because of the small area involved. The impacts that do occur
would likely be positive for species preferring early successional
habitats such as moose, and negative for forest-inhabiting species,
such as certain species of woodpeckers and owls.
3-97
Effects on Grant Lake Habitats
Project operation would involve lowering the average Grant Lake level
by approximately 5 ft from 696 ft to 691 ft above msl and then allowing
it to fluctuate between 691 and 660 ft above msl (in unusually high
runoff situations, the level may briefly exceed 691 ft). Maximum lake
elevations would occur in August, September, and October and minimum
elevations in March. April, and May (see Vol. 1. Figure IV-16).
lhis mode of operation would have long-term positive and both short-
and long-term negative impacts on wildlife. Long-term positive impacts
would accrue from the creation of additional terrestrial habitat due to
the initial 5 ft of vertical drawdown. About half of the area to be
exposed has substrate conducive to colonization by plants which would
produce additional riparian scrub and potentially upland scrub or
conifer forest habitat. Because of the steep nature of the shoreline,
most of the new terrestrial habitat would be added at the inlet and
outlet of the lake and a few other locations where the shoreline is
somewhat flatter. The total area of additional potential habitat is
approximately 35 acres.
Short-term negative impacts would also result from exposing 5 vertical
ft of shoreline. Some erosion would occur before revegetation.
Several years would be required for this strip to revegetate to the
extent needed to provide sUbstantial cover for birds and mammals which
now use the shoreline cover. During movement between water and cover,
some species would become more vulnerable to predation.
Long-term negative impacts would result from the 31 ft vertical
fluctuation of water surface elevation each year. This fluctuation
would virtually eliminate the value of shoreline habitat along Grant
Lake for beaver because of their need for underwater entrances to their
bank dens or lodges. However, as previously indicated, the small
number of beavers that currently utilize the marginal shoreline habitat
of Grant Lake are believed to be recruits from the Grant Lake inlet
3-98
• ---
• -
• ..
• ..
..
• ..
• ..
• ..
II • .. ..
II
iii
• ..
• .,
• ..
• -----• •
---• -..
---• ---.. ---..
-----.. -..
-• -
-..
---..
--
creek rather than a self-sustaining population. In addition, reservoir
fluctuation would severely restrict the use of Grant Lake's shoreline
as nesting habitat by waterfowl and loons. Although this use is light
at present it is doubtful that the pair of arctic loons that nested in
1982 (at the southern edge of their breeding range) would successfully
renest during Project operation. Similarly, the extent of the drawdown
that would occur in spring and early summer would increase the
vulnerability to predation of animals inhabiting shoreline habitats
during this period. The spring-early summer drawdown may have a slight
positive effect on breeding spotted sandpipers and migrating shorebirds
by increasing the amount of foraging habitat.
Another long-term impact on Grant Lake habitats occurs in the area at
Grant Lake's outlet that currently remains unfrozen during winter.
This area provided a good quality feeding area for a flock of 30 or
more mallards during the 1981-1982 winter. Many additional ice-free
areas were present during the relatively mild 1982-83 winter. With the
exception of pools in Grant Creek, this was the only area within the
study area boundaries remaining ice-free and possessing abundant,
available food during the 1981-82 winter. Although the area at the
mouth of the tailrace in Upper Trail Lake should remain ice-free during
Project operation and partially mitigate this loss, a reduction in the
winter mallard carrying capacity is likely during moderate or severe
wi nters .
The lower floodplain of the Grant Lake inlet creek, which provides
important habitat to moose, beaver, other mammals, and a variety of
birds, should continue to provide important habitat under the current
Project design. Habitats in this area are currently affected by the
scouring, depositing, and flooding of the inlet creek, and by beaver
dams. The floodplain area will be substantially larger when the level
of the lake is lowered. It will be affected by the same forces, and,
although some degradation of channels will probably occur in the newly
exposed area, new habitat similar to that currently existing on the
floodplain is expected to develop.
3-99
Dewatering of Grant Creek
The dewatering of Grant Creek would have negative impacts on many
wildlife species. Immediate effects would be felt by those species
depending on food sources provided by the creek. Habitat for dippers
and mink (which are uncommon) would be reduced in the study area since
Grant Creek appears to provide the best habitat for both species. The
existing limited use of this stream by waterfowl would be eliminated.
Small insectivorous birds (e.g., flycatchers and warblers) would also
be impacted as a result of the reduction in aquatic insect production
along the stream. Some aquatic habitat should be present, however, as
a result of surface runoff and groundwater infiltration below Grant
Lake and occasional Grant Lake overspills.
A less immediate impact would be a decrease in the quality and quantity
of the narrow fringe of riparian habitat present along the lower
portions of the stream. This change would reduce wildlife diversity
along the stream and would slightly reduce study area carrying capacity
for many small birds and mammals, snowshoe hare, moose, and other
wildlife.
Transmission Line Collisions and Electrocution
Approximately 1.2 miles of three-conductor transmission lines would be
constructed along the powerhouse access road. Bird collisions with
conductors are not expected to be a problem for most of this length
because the area is generally forested and conductor height would be
below tree height. However, waterfowl collisions may occur at the
location where the line would cross the narrows between Upper and Lower
Trail Lakes. The extent of this collision potential would depend on
the precise design of the line and its proximity to the bridge at this
location.
Studies of avian collision mortality with larger transmission lines at
ten sites in Oregon and Washington, many of which were selected to
3-100
.. .. ..
..
.. ..
.. ..
..
• •
• ..
• ..
• •
•
M
• ..
.. ..
..
..
..
.. ..
• •
-----•
--• ---• -----
• -----
-----• -• ----
represent "worst case" situations, have not found the levels of
collision-induced mortality to be biologically significant (Beaulaurier
et al. 1982). In addition, most collisions were believed to occur with
the small overhead groundwires, which would not be used on this
transmission line, rather than with the larger more visible conductors
(Meyer and Lee 1981). For these reasons and because of the low
populations of waterfowl and other water birds that use the study area,
collision impacts are expected to be insignificant.
Eagle or other large raptor electrocutions would not be a problem with
this transmission line because the conductors would be spaced
sufficiently far apart or insulated and the poles would be designed to
prevent electrocution.
3.3.2.2 Wildlife Disturbance During Operation
Project operation will increase human activity along access roads, at
the Grant Lake intake and at the powerhouse. The level of activity due
to Project operation is expected to be insignificant except at the
powerhouse and along its access road. As a result, moose and other
large mammals would not use habitats adjacent to these two areas to the
same degree as at present. Because of the small area involved,
however, this impact would be insignificant.
The greatest source of wildlife disturbance resulting from Project
operation would likely be due to recreational use of access roads and
the Project recreation area as well as increased recreational use of
Grant Lake and its watershed. It should be noted, however, that this
impact is controllable to a large extent by restricting public access.
B1g game mammals and large predatory birds and mammals are the species
most likely to be affected. Improved access into the Grant Lake area
would increase trapping and hunting pressure and harassment of
wildlife. Increased legal and illegal trapping pressure may have a
significant effect on beaver, several of the mustelids, and possibly
the canids. Increased hunting pressure may significantly impact moose
3 -101
populations in the study area. especially since they already appear low
and may be limited by present hunting pressure. Although a higher
harvest of mountain goats or Dall's sheep may occur as a result of
improved access. the fact that concentration areas for these species
would still be sufficiently remote and that hunting of these species is
controlled by permit would minimize this impact. Similarly. increased
black and brown bear hunting pressure may occur. but it is unlikely to
be significant because the study area is not considered as a good bear
hunting area. Increased human harassment of wildlife may also cause
some impacts. especially if snow machine use substantially increases.
This could be most severe during winter and early spring when animals
are under physiological stress due to bad weather and poor food
conditions. However. because of the low human population in the
Project area the level of this impact is not expected to be significant.
3.3.3 Mitigation of Impacts
Project impacts on wildlife would generally fall into three categories:
habitat losses. increased hunting. trapping. and human disturbance
pressures on the wildlife resources; and transmission line collision
nlortality. Habitat loss impacts would be generally due to construction
of access roads, the powerhouse and associated facilities. and other
Project features. and the loss of some open-water waterfowl habitat
during winter. Much of this habitat loss would be temporary and would
be mitigated by preparing areas disturbed by construction but not
usurped by Project features for natural revegetation and by seeding
areas in which erosion may be a problem. Only about 18 acres would be
permanently occupied by Project features and much of this area would
eventually become at least partially vegetated. Project habitat losses
would also be mitigated by the permanent drawdown of Grant Lake.
Approximately 35 acres of riparian scrub and potentially upland scrub
and conifer forest would be created by this drawdown.
3-102
.. -.. ---.. -.. -..
•
• •
• • ..
•
" ill ..
III
• III
III!
III .. -.. .. .. ---.. ..
• ..
...
..
... ..
...
..
..
... ..
.. ..
..
..
...
..
..
...
..
... ..
..
..
.. .. .. ..
..
..
...
..
Increased hunting, trapping, and human disturbance pressures on
wildlife of the study area would result partially from operation of the
Project. However, the major source of this impact would be the
increase in non-Project related activities resulting from improved
human access into the study area. This impact could be essentially
eliminated by closing all Project access roads to public use by
motorized vehicles. These closures, however, would eliminate the
potential of the Project to enhance human recreational opportunities in
the study area .
3.4 SUMMARY OF AGENCY CONTACTS
Definition of potential impact and development of plans for mitigating
significant unavoidable impacts to aquatic, botanical, and terrestrial
biological resources of the Project vicinity was made largely after
consultation with representatives of a number of state, federal, and
local agencies, namely:
o Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
o U.S. Department of the Agriculture, Forest Service,
o U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Widlife Service,
o National Marine Fisheries Service,
o Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association, and
o Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.
The agency consultation process commenced with the Power Authority
asking all agencies shown above except Cook Inlet Aquaculture
Assocaation to review the Power Authority's interim feasibility report
in February 1982. Agency comments were used to scope further analysis
of Project impacts and development of mitigation plans for fish. No
3-103
major mitigation actions for botanical and terrestiral biological
resources beyond those identified in the interim feasibility report
were recommended. Based on the initial aency comments and follow-up
conversations with agency representatives, additional limited studies
of water temperature regimens and sedimentation potential in Grant Lake
were instituted. Agency representatives visited the site with the
Power Authority in June 1982. In the summer and extending into autumn,
an extensive series of meetings with agency personel was held primarily
to discuss fish mitigation. Some of the elements discussed affected
development of the Project recreation plan.
The following is a summary of pertinent agency contacts made in support
of this report. Correspondence between the Alaska Power Authority and
various agencies is included in the Technical Appendix, Part VIII.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
1 ) Date:
Agency Representative:
location:
Subject:
2) Date:
Agency Representative:
location:
Subject:
3) Date:
Agency Representative:
location:
Subject :.
December 22, 1981
Robert Martin (Anchorage)
(Memorandum)
Agency request to review and
comment on Environmental Study Plan
December 28. 1981
Robert Martin (Anchorage)
( letter)
Transmittal of Environmental Study
Plan
January 6, 1982
Robert Martin (Anchorage)
( Memorandum)
Request to study changes in flow
regimes to Grant and Falls Creeks
3-104
'" • .. ..
•
III
III ..
III ... .. ..
• .. .. •
" ..
I'
iii
.. ..
• .. .. -
• ..
• • .,
II
-----• -• -• -• -• -• -• -• ---
• ---• -• -• -.. ----
4) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subj ect:
5) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subj ect:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
Apri 1 29, 1982
Hon. Ernest Mueller {Juneau}
( Letter)
Transmittal of Environmental Study
Plan for comment
June 3, 1982
Dan Wilkerson (Anchorage)
(Telephone conversation)
Review of Environmental Study Plan,
definition of potential problems
June 9, 1982
Robert Martin (Anchorage)
(Memorandum)
Agency comments on Environmental
Study Plan
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
3) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
November 17, 1981
Carl M. Yanagawa (Anchorage)
(Letter)
Request for recommendations for
mitigation of fish, wildlife, and
botanical resources impacted by the
Project
February 1, 1982
Tom Arminski {Anchorage}
(Telephone conversation)
Effects of road development on goat
and sheep hunting
3-105
4) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
5) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
6) .Qate:
A9.ency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
7) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
8) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
Apri 1 29, 1982
Hon. Ronald O. Skoog (Juneau)
(Letter)
Transmittal of Environmental Study
Plan for comment
May 14, 1982
Tom Arminsky (Anchorage)
(Telephone conversation)
Receipt of Environmental Study
Plan, plans for mitigative measures
May 20, 1982
Hon. Ronald O. Skoog (Juneau)
( Letter)
Agency comments on Interim
Environmental Assessment. Interim
Report and Environmental Study Plan
(DNR comments attached)
June 30. 1982
Carl M. Yanagawa (Anchorage)
( Letter)
Transmittal of cost of power data
associated with Project
alternatives, notice of meeting 9
July 1982 to discuss the Project
June 30. 1982
Loren Flagg (Soldotna)
(Telephone conversation)
Discussion of plans for Trail Lakes
Hatchery
3-106
• •
II .. .. ..
-.. -..
II ..
..
•
III
til
• .. .. .. ..
• ..
•
• .. .. ..
.. ..
•
II
II
-
•
9) Date: July 29, 1982 -• Agency Representative: Loren Flagg (Soldotna)
-Location: (Telephone conversation)
• Subject: Discussion of fish mitigation -alternatives for Grant Creek
• 10) Date: July 30, 1982 -Agency Representative: Tom Arminsky (Anchorage)
• Location: (Telephone conversation) -Subject: Discussion of fish mitigation • alternatives for Grant Creek -11) Date: August 6, 1982
• Agency Representative: Dave Daisy (Anchorage) -Location: ( Letter) • -Subject: Transmittal of Interim Engineering
and Environmental Reports • 12) Date: August 6, 1982 -• Agency Representative: Hon. Ronald o. Skoog (Juneau)
-Location: ( Letter) -Subject: Agency comments on Instream Flow
Evaluation Letter Report -13) Date: August 24, 1982
-Agency Representative: Loren Flagg (Soldotna) -Location: ( Letter) -Subject: Agency cost estimate for conducting • an evaluation project for Grant
Lake Salmon Studies -14 ) Date: August 1982 (day unknown) -Agency Representative: Dave Daisy (Anchorage) -Location: (Telephone conversation) •
Subject: Discussion of fish mitigation -alternatives for Grant Creek
• -3-107 ---
15) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
11) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subj ect:
18) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
19) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
September 1,1982
Tom Arminski (Anchorage)
( Letter)
Invitation to attend fish
mitigation planning meeting
September 15, 1982
September 21, 1982
Dave Daisy (Anchorage)
( Letter)
Estimating costs of fish mitigation
fac i1 it ies
September 21, 1982
Loren Flagg, Jeff Hartman
Anchorage
Summary of meeting held
September 15, 1982, cost estimates
for fish mitigation facilities
September 28, 1982
Loren Flagg (Soldotna)
( Letter)
Clarification of position -cost
estimation for salmon monitoring
program
October 11, 1982
Jeff Hartman (Anchorage)
( Letter)
Acknowledgement of contribution to
cost estimates for fish mitigation
facilities
3 -108
" IIIIii .. ..
" iii
• ..
• ..
• •
• III ..
•
" II1II
" .. ., ..
.. ..
• ..
.. .. .. .. ..
• •
• II
-..
-..
-.. ---• ---..
-..
---
• ---..
-------• -.. -..
-...
20) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
21) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
22) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
23) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
October 21,1982
Jeff Hartman
Anchorage
Summary of meeting held October 6,
1982, cost estimates for fish
mitigation facilities
November 3, 1982
Phil Brna (Anchorage)
(Telephone conversation)
Review of fish mitigation plan
November 15, 1982
Phil Brna (Anchorage)
(Telephone conversation)
Confirmation of ADF&G position on
fish mitigation plan
December 3, 1982
Hon. Ronald O. Skoog (Juneau)
( Letter)
Transmittal of summary of minutes
of meeting on fish mitigation held
November 10, 1982
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
December 3, 1982
Ms. Judy Marquez (Anchorage)
( Letter)
Transmittal of summary of minutes
of meeting on fish mitigation held
November 10, 1982
3-109
City of Seward
1) Date:
Agency Representative:
location:
Subject:
Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association
1) Date:
Agency Representative:
location:
Subject:
2) Date:
Agency Representative:
location:
Subject:
3) Date:
Agency Representative:
location:
Subject:
4) Date:
Agency Representative:
location:
Subject:
December 3, 1982
Mr. Ronald A. Garzini
( letter)
Transmittal of summary of minutes
of meeting on fish mitigation held
November 10, 1982
August 4, 1982
Tom Walker (Soldotna)
(Telephone conversation)
Discussion, cost estimation of fish
mitigation facilities
August 5, 1982
Tom Walker (Soldotna)
(Telephone conversation)
Discussion of fish mitigation
facilities
August 6, 1982
Tom Walker (Soldotna)
(Telephone conversation)
Discussion of fish mitigation
facilities, alternate projects
July 14, 1982
Sidney logan (Soldotna)
( letter)
Invitation to attend mitigation
planning meeting
3-110
•
III
•
III .. ..
•
III
• .. -..
• ..
• .. .. ..
•
III ..
III
• II1II
• ..
• ..
• ..
• ..
• .. ..
•
• ..
-..
--..
-..
-• ..
• -• ..
• -• -• -----..
-• ---.. -• .. ..
--
5)
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
6) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
Kenai Peninsula Borough
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subj ect:
National Marine Fisheries Service
1) pate:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
2) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
August 27. 1982
Tom Walker (Soldotna)
(Letter)
Transmittal of summary of meeting
minutes August 11. 1982. Grant Lake
Hydroelectric Project
December 3. 1982
Tom Walker (Soldotna)
(Letter)
Transmittal of summary of minutes
of meeting on fish mitigation held
November la, 1982
December 3. 1982
Hon. Stan Thompson
( Letter)
Transmittal of summary of minutes
of meeting on fish mitigation held
November la, 1982
November 11, 1981
Ronald Morris (Anchorage)
( Letter)
Request for recommendations for
mitigation of fish, wildlife and
botanical resources impacted by the
Project
January 25, 1982
Ronald Morris (Anchorage)
(Telephone conversation)
Status of Environmental Study Plan
3-111
3) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
4) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subj ect :.
5) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
6) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subj ect:
7) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
8) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subj ect:
April 29, 1982
Robert McVey (Juneau)
( Letter)
Transmittal of Environmental Study
Plan for comment
June 2,1982
Robert McVey (Juneau)
( Letter)
Agency comments on Environmental
Study Plan
June 30, 1982
Ronald Morris (Anchorage)
( Letter)
Transmittal of cost of power data
associated with Project
alternatives, notice of meeting
July 9, 1982 to discuss the Project
J u 1 y 1 5, 1982
Robert McVey (Juneau)
( Letter)
Summary of Letter Report and
meeting on Instream Flows
August 10, 1982
Brad Smith (Anchorage)
(Telephone conversation)
Comments on Fish Mitigation
Planning Document No. 2
August 11, 1982
Robert McVey (Juneau)
( letter)
Agency comments on instream flow
studies, Letter Report and meeting
3-112
• .. ..
III
• -
• -
• ---
• -
• ..
• -..
II
• ..
• ..
" ..
• .. --
" ..
• •
-------• -• -..
-• -• -• -• -
-----------• ----
9} Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
10} Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subj ect:
11} Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
National Park Service
1} Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subj ect:
September 1, 1982
8rad Smith (Anchorage)
( Letter)
Invitation to attend fish
mitigation planning meeting
September 15, 1982
October 28, 1982
8rad Smith (Anchorage)
(Telephone conversation)
Agency position on fish mitigation
facil ities
December 3, 1982
Robert McVey (Juneau)
( Letter)
Transmittal of summary of minutes
of meeting on fish mitigation held
November 10, 1982
December 3. 1982
Mr. John Cook (Anchorage)
( Letter)
Transmittal of summary of minutes
of meeting on fish mitigation held
November 10, 1982
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
December 3, 1982
Richard Summer (Anchorage)
( Letter)
Transmittal of summary of minutes
of meeting on fish mitigation held
November 10, 1982
3-113
u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
2) 2ate:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
3) Date:
Agency Representative:
location:
Subject:
4) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
5) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
November 17, 1981
Ms. Mary Lynn Nation (Anchorage)
( Letter)
Request for recommendations for
mitigation of fish, wildlife, and
botanical resources impacted by the
Project
December la, 1981
Ms. Mary Lynn Nation (Anchorage)
( Letter)
Review of Environmental Study Plan
April 9, 1982
Robert Boken
( letter)
Agency comments regarding
Feasibility Studies
April 29, 1982
Keith Scheiner (Anchorage)
( letter)
Transmittal of Environmental Study
Plan for comment
June 1, 1982
Ms. Mary Lynn Nation (Anchorage)
( Memorandum)
Summary of meeting with Ms. Nation
May 25, 1982 on Environmental Study
Plan
3-114
II
II
• ..
-.. .. .. -.. -.. -
• .. ..
• ..
• .. ..
• • .. .. ..
.. -.. --..
• III
• ..
--6) Date:
Agency Representative: ...
Location: --Subject:
--7) Date: -Agency Representative: -Location: -• Subj ect:
--8) Date: --Agency Representative: -Location:
• Subj ect: -9) Date: •
Agency Representative: --Location:
-Subject: --10) Date: -Agency Representative: -• Location:
-Subj ect: ----
-• --
June 8, 1982
M. Monsen (Anchorage)
( Letter)
Agency comments on Environmental
Study Plan and Interim
Environmental Assessment
June 30, 1982
Ms. Mary Lynn Nation
( Letter)
Transmittal of cost of power data
associated with Project
alternatives, notice of meeting
July 9, 1982 to discuss the Project
August 17, 1982
Gerald Reed
( Letter)
Agency comments on instream flows
September 1,1982
Ms. Mary Lynn Nation
( Letter)
Invitation to attend fish
mitigation planning meeting
September 15, 1982
December 3, 1982
Keith Scheiner (Anchorage)
( Letter)
Transmittal of summary of minutes
of meeting on fish mitigation held
November 10, 1982
3-115
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
2) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subj ect:
3) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
4) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subj ect:
5) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
November 17, 1981
Geof Wilson (Seward)
( Letter)
Request for recommendations for
mitigation of fish, wildlife, and
botanical resources impacted by the
Project
February 2, 1982
Geof Wilson (Seward)
(Telephone conversation)
Permission to access study area
March 31, 1982
Clay Beal (Anchorage)
( Letter)
Special Use Permit application
Apri 1 1. 1982
John Mattson (Anchorage)
( Letter)
Request to review Environmental
Study Plan
Apr; 1 29, 1982
Clay G. Beal (Anchorage)
( Letter)
Transmittal of Environmental Study
Plan for comment
3-116
• l1li
• ..
-.. -.. ---
• ...
• -
•
• •
• •
• •
• •
• •
• .. --.. -
• ..
--6) Date: --Agency Representative:
-Location: -Subject: -7) Date: -Agency Representative:
• Location: -Subject: .. -8) Date: .. Agency Representative: -Location: •
Subject: -
• 9) Date: --Agency Representative:
-Location: -Subject:
--10) Date: --Agency Representative:
Location: -• Subject: -11) Date:
Agency Representative: -Location: ..
Subject: ..
• .. ---
May 14, 1982
Ken Thompson (Anchorage)
(Telephone conversation)
Agency comments on Environmental
Study Plan
May 14, 1982
Seof Wilson (Seward)
(Memorandum)
Agency comments on Environmental
Study Plan
June 28, 1982
Seof Wilson (Seward)
( letter)
Acknowledgement of permission to
conduct field studies
June 29, 1982
Seof Wilson (Seward)
( letter)
Summary of notes from meeting on
Environmental Study Plan of June 8,
1982, request for review and comment
July 13, 1982
Seof Wilson (Seward)
( letter)
Summary of meeting on Environmental
Study Plan
July 14, 1982
Clay Bea1 (Anchorage)
( Letter)
Transmittal of archaeology report
3-117
12) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subj ect:
13) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
14) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
August 9, 1982
Ken Thompson (Anchorage)
(Telephone conversation)
Discussion of fisheries mitigation
October 5, 1982
John Mattson (Anchorage)
( Letter)
Request for comments on Cultural
Resources section of Environmental
Report
December 3, 1982
Clay Beal (Anchorage)
( Letter)
Transmittal of summary of minutes
of meeting on fish mitigation held
on November 10, 1982
3-118
.. ..
• •
III ..
• .. .. --.. -
III ..
• -.. ..
., ..
•
III
..
III .. .. ..
III .. .. -
II .. ..
III
-
-
---
-
-
-
..
-
--
-..
... -
-
4.0 REPORT ON HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This section describes archaeological studies conducted to identify
sites of potential archaeological or historical significance that might
be directly or indirectly affected by Project construction or
operation, and measures that will be taken to protect cultural
resources. Part XI of the Technical Appendix provides supplemental
material, including a survey for an abandoned sawmill site in the
Project vicinity and a report that was submitted to the Forest Service
following the area-wide archaeological field survey. The area-wide
survey report includes surveys of individual cultural sites surveyed
within and near the Project. The report also provides detailed
information on methods employed in conducting the survey.
4.1 SURVEYS AND INVENTORIES COMPLETED AND TO BE CONDUCTED
Cultural resources surveys and inventories are being conducted in four
phases, three of which are complete. The first three phases consisted
of a preliminary field survey at the outlet of Grant Lake, a literature
search, and a field survey of parts of the Project vicinity identified
as tentative Project facility sites. The fourth phase will be a field
survey of Project lands conducted after Project facilities have been
located on the ground .
A preliminary archaeological survey of one potential historic site was
conducted in the fall of 1981 as a precautionary measure prior to
carrying out subsurface geotechnical testing at a proposed damsite
(Yarborough 19B1). The site, consisting of the remains of a sawmill
known as Solars Sawmill, lies on the north bank of the outlet of Grant
Lake. The survey was conducted to ensure that the subsurface drilling
and associated activities would not disturb any resources of potential
historical or archaeological significance.
2640A B/19/B5
4-1
The literature search completed in January 1982 identified several
sites of potential lIistorical significance within the Project
vicinity. A field survey completed in June 1982 examined these sites
and searched for previously undocumented sites within the area to be
affected by Project construction (Project site). A subsequent
examination of aerial photos of the Project site provided no additional
i Ilfonnati on.
Tile literature search focused upon archaeological, ethnographic, and
historical information sources of the Kenai Peninsula of Alaska. Its
purpose was to identify known cultural resources that might De affected
by construction or operation of the Project, to assess the area's
potential for containing cultural resources that remain unidentified,
and to provide background data for assessing the significance of those
resources. In addition, the A1 asi(a Heri tage Resources Survey (AHRS),
as of July 22, 1961, and the National Register of Historic Places, up
to October 4, 1982, were checked for listings of cultural resources
located wi thi n the Project vici nity. The Alaska Heritage Resources
Survey (1981) is a continuillg program conducted by the Alaska Division
of Parks. The archaeologist in the Supervisor's Office on the Chugach
IJationa1 Forest provided supplementary information from his fill's
(Mattson 1982). Cultural sites within and adJacent to the Project
identified through the literature search are listed in TallIe 4-1.
Prior to conducting the field survey, aerial photos available for the
Project viCinity were examined for the prasence of clearings,
structures, roofs, and other departures from a natural environrilent in
an effort to identify additional possiule cultural sites. However, due
to the mountainous terra; n, the photos were taken from relatively high
altitude (1:12,000) and therefore failed to provioe any new information
concerning the existence or location of cultural resources.
The field survey had two goal s. Tile first goal was to locate and
examine all sites identified in the literature search that would be
directly affected by Project construction or operdtion. Tne second
go~l was to identify previously unknown or unrecorded sites in the
4-2
.,
II1II
• ..
• .. -.. -..
• --
• ..
•
II' ..
• ..
•
• ..
.. -..
..
--------... ----• ----------..
• -
c_ --•
.... -
•
TABLE 4-1
CULTURAL RESOURCES IDENTIFIED THROUGH THE LITERATURE SEARCH
Alaska He ri tage
Resources Survey Number
SEW02l
SEW029
SEW148
none
none
none
none
none
SEW140
SEW1y2
Location
On-site
Crown Point/Trail Creek Station
Al aska Northern Rai 1 way
Iditarod Trail
Sol drs Sav.mi 11
Stevenson Cabi n
Trail between Solars Sav.mill and Upper Trail
Lake
Adjacent Sites on Falls Creek
Baggs Cabi n
Crown Poi nt Mi ne structures, local iti es A,
B, and C
Crown Point Mountain Trail
Crown Point Mine
4-3
Project vicinity. Prior to the field work. a survey plan describing
the methods to be emp"loyed was submi tted for comment to the Forest
Supervisor of the Chugach National Forest, the State Historic
Preservation Officer~ and the Director of the Alaska Regional Office of
the National Park Service. The Forest Supervisor accepted the plan
Witllout C\lange. The State Historic Preservatioll Officer accepted the
plan, but asked for a follow-up survey after actual construction sites
and material sources Ilad beell identified on the ground. The tJational
Park Service offered no formal comment.
The field survey was undertaken in eay'-Iy June 1982. Due to a late
spri ng the under'story was just beg; nni ng to leaf out and ground
visibility was extremely good for a forest environment. The only
si gni fi cant impediments to gt'ound vi si bi 1 ity were tree trunks and
leafless branches. The survey began with a brief aerial reconnaissance
of the Project site in a small airplane. Because none of the
consty'uction sites or routes had been marked on the ground, foot survey
was confined to locations which were easily identifiable due to their
proximity to natural or man-made landlllat'ks. These locations, shmm on
Figure 4-1, were:
l} an area south of Vagt Lake Trail;
2} the Falls Creek area in Section 17, T. 4 N., R. 1 L, Seward
Meri di an;
3) the south end of Grant Lake and the Solars Sawmin site near
the outlet of the lake;
4) the site of the powerhouse, substation, and tailrace in the
NW1/4 SW1/4 Section 6, T. 4 N., R. 1 E .• Seward Meridian, and
part of wllat is believed to be the old trail between Solars
Sawmill and the cove near which the powerhouse will be
situated;
4-4
.. ---.. -
•
•
• -
• .. --
• -• •
• •
• •
• ..
• ..
• •
• • --..
• •
• •
r-"~
Upper
---
Ocol
(
§J ,
~.J
f
\
\ I
" I '< ..
f'
.... ...
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PRO.ECT
AREAS COVEtED ~
ARCHAEOLOGICAL FELD SlJWEY
FlCJ.JE4-1
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
-
-------------
-
--
----------
• ---• -•
5) the east end of the bridge site at the narrows between Upper
and Lower Trail lakes and the east shore of Upper Trail Lake
from the bridge site to the powerhouse site in the NW1/4 SW1/4
Section 6, T. 4 N., R. 1 E., Seward Meridian; and
6) the island and adjacent shore between the upper and lower
portions of Grant Lake.
The east shore of Louer Tran Lake was not examined as proposed in the
survey plan because construction of an access road in this area was
el imi nated from prel imi nary Project design.
In genera 1, the survey consi sted of an exami nati on on foot of the
ground l s surface and existing exposures such as uprooted trees, road
cuts, and erosion cuts. A limited number of small test pits were dug
in areas without natural exposures that appeat'ed, on the basis of the
literature search, to be relatively high in archaeological potential.
Such areas were generally near identified sites, water bodies, debri s,
or evidence of human use. All pits were backfilled and no artifacts
coll f'cted.
A final field survey wiil be conducted at the west end of the bridge
site at the narrows, the access road to the intake facility at Grant
Lake, and fill and borrow areas.
4.2 RESULTS OF SURVEYS, INVENTORIES, AND SUBSURFACE TESTING
The pr'ehistoric and early historic periods are poorly documented for
the Project vicinity. No sites relating to these periods were
i dentifi ed in the 1 i terature search, thuugh it is quite possi bl e that
sites of this age do exist. Written references to the area deal
primarily with the development of gold mining and the Alaska Railroad
in the period after 1900. All of the historical sites identified in
the Project vicinity post-date 1900 and many relate to the railroad or
mining industry.
4-6
The following results of the field survey are presented by survey
segment.
4.2.1 Area between Vagt Lake Trail and an Existing Access Road
This area ;s adjacent to the Alaska Northern Railway (SEW029) and the
Iditarod Trail (SEW148). both of which roughly coincide with the
present route of the Alaska Rail road track. The 1 iterature search
identified two other sites in this area, Crown Point/Trail Creek
Station (SEW021) and the Stevenson Cabin. These may be different names
for a single site. Tne Crown Point Ivline, which lies north of Falls
Creek and east of the Project site, was known at the turn of the
century as the Stephenson or Stevenson Bros. property. In 1910 thi s
mining property was deeded to the Kenai-Alaska Gold Co., which in 1915
had a large log house with an office and warehouse at Crown Point or
Trail Creek Station, a stop on the Alaska Northern Railway (Martin et
al. 1915; Barry 1973). The Stevenson Cabin, shown at approximately
this location on the map compiled by D.H. Sleem in 1910 (Mattson 1982),
may have been associated with the earlier owners of the mining claim
and simply ceded to the Kenai-Alaska Gold Co. when it took over the
mine. The archaeological survey did not resolve this Question. The
single overgrown cabin foundation that was located in this vicinity
associated with historic-age debris and several pits is not the IIl arge
log house ll described in the literature. Other historic-age debris was
scattered through the forest along the first north-south transect
through this area, but no other structures were located. Diffuse
charcoal was noted in the existing road cut, but this may be due to
past forest fires in the area. A small test pit dug atop the rocky
knoll where the Vagt Lake Trail makes a right-angle turn yielded 8.3 in
(21 cm) of culturally sterile soil over bedrock.
4.2.2 Falls Creek
The literature search identified one site, the Baggs Cabin, on lower
Falls Creek; however, it could not be be located. The survey did find
4-7
.. -..
.. -.. -.. -
• ..
• •
• .. .. .. ..
•
• .. .. ..
lit
.. -
• ..
•
• --.. ..
• ..
--
---
--------
..
----------
a sluice, historic-age campsite, and the remains of the C.M. Brosius
cabin further upstream as well as the NW and NE corner stakes for the
Marathon 1, 2, and 3 placer claims, posted by Perry N., Perry S., and
Thomas Buchanan of Seward in 1981, and the NW corner of the adjacent
Four Jokers 1 p1 acer c1 aim. Sl i ght1y north of the 1 atter, on the road
lending up to the Crown Point Mine, are the remains of a log structure
and some historic period debris. Other sites identified in the
literature search, the Crollln Point t4ine (SEW192), Crown Point Mountain
Trail (SEW140), and Crown Point Mine structures were not visited.
4.2.3 South End of Grant Lake
This appears to be an old slide area. A 24-cm shovel test pit dug
through the sod approximately 10 m inland from the beach in line with
the standi ng survey marker reveal ed very wet, fi ne-grai ned, red-brown
soil above gravel or stones. No cultural material was found .
4.2.4 Solars Sawmill Overland to Powerhouse Site
The literature search identified two sites in this area, Solars Sawmill
and a trail between the mill and Upper Trail Lake. The sawmill site
was found to be as described by Yarborough, who visited it in October
1981 (Yarborough 1981). At least part of the trail between the mill
and Upper It'ail Lake, which is shown on the 1953 USGS map, was believed
located. Although it had been recently brushed in places. it was
flanked by old cut stumps, and some older wooden treads still bridged
short wet sections. As noted above. a branch of the trail indicated on
the USGS map that led to the powerhouse site on Upper Trail Lake was
not found. A crew of biologists reported a well-constructed troil.
with historic debris, leading east out of the next large cove to the
_ nort/!, but the trail was lost at the edge of a muskeg. No cultural
-------•
material, other than a recent campfi reo was found on the shores of the
powerhouse cove. Two sman ;).;, in (lO-cm) deep test pits, one on the
south promontory defining the cove and one on a small peninsula on the
4-8
t «
south side of the cove, revealed vegetation and culturally sterile soil
above bedrock. The soil under severa 'I uprooted trees in the area
yielded diffuse traces of cnclrcoal, but there is aho evidence of art
old burn in the area.
4.2.5 Shore 1i ne of Upper' Trail Ldke from the Po~~erllouse Si te to the
Mouth of GY'ant Creek
No cultural material was found other than occasional modern deb is
washed up on the Deach. One roughly rectangular hole, approximately
3 ft by 6 ft (1 m by 2 m), was noted at the west enu of the i sl dnd
\-Jhich splits the mouth of Grant Creek. Its bottom was obscured by
shallow \vater, but a shovel pt'obe immediately struck gravel. It could
be the natural result of fluctuating creek and lake level s. There was
no associated cultural material.
4.2.6 Island Between the Upper and Lower Basins of Grant Lake and
Adj acent Poi nts of Land
Aside from old signs of small-scale logging on the north adjacellt point
and a recent survey marker on the south adjacent point, no evidence of
human activi ty was noted.
As noted duove, a fourth phase of archaeoiogica-I survey and testing
will be conducted after all construction facilities and other affected
areas have been located on tne ground. Tile fo110\Iing areas, shown on
Figure 1-3, appear to warrant further survey:
o Ttle access road between the powerhouse site and the hi ghway,
especially the portion between the highway and the bridge across
the Trail Lakes narrows, since the latter area was not examined in
the su rvey; and
o The access I'oad to the gate shaft area that will rouyhly parallel
Grant Creek, the proposed foad passes through an area of
arcnaeologic~l potential.
4-Y
----
• ---.. -
• ..
• ..
• •
• .. .. ... .. ..
• • ..
•
• •
• ..
• -
• ..
• •
-----
-------
----
------------• -..
--
4.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE
Of the sites identified through the fi rst three phases of study, the
Alaska Northern Railway (SEW029) and Iditarod Trail (SEW148) routes,
the Solars Sawmill site, and the trail between the Sawmill and Upper
Trail Lake are those which are likely to be directly affected by
Project construction. The Crown Point Mountain Trail (SEW140), Crown
Point Mine (SEW192) and associated structures, structural remains along
the lower mine access road, the Brosius cabin, sluice, and camp
identified along Falls Creek, and the Baggs Cabin site will not be
affected by the Project. Crown Point/Trail Creek Station and the
Stevenson cabin lie to the north of the access road to Grant Lake and
will be unaffected. Each of these sites is discussed in the following
paragraphs. Additional information is presented in Appendix C.
The Iditarod Trail and Alaska Northern Railway roughly coincide with
the present route of the Alaska Railroad through the Project site. The
Iditarod Trail was blazed in 1908 by the Alaska Road Commission as a
winter route between the port of Seward and the gold fields of Nome and
the interior. The old right-of-way is still used by the present-day
railroad (Barry 1973). It is listed in the Division of Parks' Alaska
Heritage Resources Survey (1981) and has been designated as a national
historic trail.
The Solars Sawmill site consists of a collapsed wooden structure; a
roofless standing cabin of milled lumber with attached woodshed, both
in very poor condition; an outhouse, tipped over; two small piles of
rusted cans; two pairs of mining-car wheels; and assorted historic
debri s. Thr-ee large pulleys mounted on heavy timbers, wire cable, and
two frameworks of timbers 1 eadi ng down into Grant Creek constitute the
remains of the mill itself. The available literature provides little
information on the establishment or operation of this site. A report
compiled by the Forest Service in 1924 mentions that an area at the
head of Grant Lake had been cut over for a sawmill at the foot of the
4-10
lake, but maps accompanying the report do not show the mill site
(Holbrook 1924; Quilliam 1982). When 1"'1. Yarborough visited this site
in 1981, he found a date of 13 January 1958 on a magazine used as
insulation in the standing cabin, but it is quite likely that the cabin
was periodically occupied and modified after the mill itself was
abandoned.
The Crown Point Mountain Trail, Crown Point Mine, and associated
structures all 1 i e beyond the area of di rect Project impact. The Bl ack
Butte gold vein discovered here in 1906 by J.14. and C.E. Stephenson
(Stevenson?), was one of the earliest major discoveries in the Falls
Creek drainage. In 1910 the property was deeded to the Kenai-Alaska
Gold Co., which in 1911 constructed a road from the railroad to the
mine and a stamp mill, assay office, and other buildings. In 1912 an
8200-foot aerial tram was completed between the mine and mill. The
mine was closed in 1!:f17 (Martin et al. 1915; Johnson 1912,1919)' Its
present name relates to the period 1935-1940 when it was operated by
the Crown Point Mining Co .• C. Brosius and Associates of Seward
(Stewart 1937, 1939, 1941). It was opened again in the late 1950s.
The mine is presently connected to the highway by a rough. fairly steep
access road.
The remains of a structure of unpeeled logs located along the Crown
Point Mine access road also appear to lie outside the area of direct
Project impact. Thi s structure may also have been associ ated wi th the
mine. It is in very poor condition; only the southwest corner still
stands a few tiers high.
The Brosius cabin and the sluice and camp identified along Falls Creek
appear to be associated with mining in the area. A recent branch of
the mine's access road cuts through a trash deposit between the cabin
and camp. Only two walls of unpeeled logs of the roofless cabin still
stand.
4-11
• --•
• -
• -.. -
• •
• •
• ..
• •
" .. .. •
• •
•
Iii
• •
•
Iii
•
• --
• ..
• ..
--,----------
-
The Baggs Cabin site was not located. It is shown on a map compiled by
D.H. Sleem in 1910 (Mattson 1982) and may be associated with mining
activity in the area.
Crown Point/Trail Creek Station and the Stevenson Cabin site may be
distinct sites or different names for a single site. The Stevenson
cabin is shown on a map dated 1910 (Mattson 1982) and may have been
associated with the Stevenson brothers who discovered gold at what
became the Crown Point Mine. Trail Creek Station, in approximately the
same location, was a stop at Mile 26 on the Alaska Northern Railway at
a slightly later date.
4.4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS
_ 4.4.1 Direct Impacts
----
-
------..
-------...
The Project access road would cross the routes of the Iditarod Trail
(SEW148) and the Alaska Northern Railway (SEW029). These routes are
now occupied by the Alaska Railroad and are already crossed by a number
of access roads. Construction and operation of the Project will not,
therefore, adversely affect these resources. Project construction and
operation are also compatible with the Bureau of land Management's
Comprehensive Management Plan for the Iditarod Trail (BlM 1981).
The Solars Sawmill site may be directly affected by Project
construction and operation. Access roads to the gate shaft and
recreation areas will pass close to the site. While these roads have
been located to avoid the site, their proximity increases the potential
for vandalism. The structures at the site are in poor condition and
winter snows could cause the last one to collapse within a few years.
The remaining pulleys from the mill will probably withstand many more
years of weathering, but could easily be pushed into the creek by
vandals and lost. There are also a few artifacts at the site, such as
a galvanized sink, mining-car wheels, and metal parts of the pulleys,
which might be attractive to collectors.
4-12
The trail between tne sa\I/JTIi11 and Upper Tr'ail Lake will also be crossed
by an access road. As noted above, the west half of this trail is
poorly defined. No historic ay,tifacts were found along the pOt'tion
followed.
4.4.2 Indirect Impacts
The Crown Point t40untain Trail (SEW'I40), Crmvn Point Mine (SEW192) and
associated structures at localities A, S, and C, and the structural
remains along the lower mine access road all lie nm'th and east of the
Project vic; nity and will not be affected by Project constructi on or
opei'ation. The BrosilJ'> cabin, sluice, cal;;p. aDd Baggs Cabin site lie
west and south of the Project vicinity.
CI'own Point/Trail C,eek Station (SEW021) and the Stevenson Cauin site
lie near a Forest Service recreation trail and an existing access
road. Tney are not expected to be affected by tne Project.
4.5 MITIGATION OF IMPACTS
The only known she of potential historic significance wan'dnting
mitigation measures is the Solars Sawmill site near the outlet of Grant
Lake. While this site and its associated trail appear unlikely to be
eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places and
appear to have played an inSignificant role in local economic
development, artifacts remaining at the site might be vandalized or
stolen when access to the area is impt'oved. Ther'efore. these artifacts
would be salvaged from the site under the supervision of a qualified
archaeologi st and pro"i ded to either the Forest Service or a local
hi storical society for preservation.
Construct; on tl reas not a 1 Y'e,;dy surveyed for tne presence of cu1 tura 1
resources will be surveyed after Project facilities have been located
on the ground and before initiation of construction. Any cultural
4-13
• ..
• .. .. ..
-.. ..
• ..
•
iii
II •
• • .. •
• Ii
• ..
• •
• ..
• ..
• .. .. -
• •
•
It
-----------..
---..
..
-
------..
---..
----
..
resources found during this final survey will be evaluated with respect
to their archaeological or historical significance. The Alaska Power
Authority will take steps to protect or salvage any significant
cultural resources in cooperation with the State Historic Preservation
Officer and the Forest Service.
4.6 SUMMARY OF AGENCY CONTACTS
Analysis of the Project's potential effects on historic and
archaeological resources was conducted in close coordination and
consultation with staff of the Forest Service and Office of the State
Historic Preservation Officer. The National Park Service was also
advised of survey plans and results and conclusions from the analysis.
Staff from the Forest Service and State Historic Preservation Officer
reviewed archaeological survey plans, the Special Use Permit for
conducting the survey, and survey findings. They also provided
information on cultural sites and assisted in assessing the
significance of the Project's potential effects on identified cultural
resources.
The following is a summary of pertinent Agency contacts made in support
of this report. Correspondence between the Alaska Power Authority and
various agencies is included in the Technical Appendix, Part VIII.
Office of State Historic Preservation Officer,
Division of Parks, Alaska Department of Natural Resources
1) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
December 17, 1981
Robert D. Shaw (Anchorage)
(Letter)
Requirement to investigate Solar's
Sawmill
4-14
2) Date:
Agency Representative:
Locati on:
Subj ect:
3) Date:
Agency Representative:
Locati on:
Suhject:
4) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
5) Date:
Agency Representati ve:
Locati on:
Subject:
6) Date:
Agency Representative:
Locati on:
Subject:
January 15, 1982
Doug Reger (Anchorage)
(Telephone conversation)
Procedures for conducti ng the
archaeological survey for the
Project and formulating mitigation
measures
Janua ry 18, 1982
Robert Sha\"
(Telephone conversation)
Procedures and guidelines for
mitigation planning for
archaeological resources at Grant
Lake
Februa ry 11, 1982
Ty Di"lliplane
(Telephone conversation)
Procedures for showing cultural
site locations in report and
preparing archaeological survey plan
Ma rc h 25, 1 982
Ty Di 11 i P 1 a ne
(Letter)
Transmittal of map of
archaeological and historic sites
in Grant Lake a rea
April 20, 1982
Ty Dilliplane
(Telephone conversation)
Procedures for securi ng pennit for
archaeological survey for the
Project
4-15
• -• -• ---
• ..
• •
• ..
• •
• ..
• ..
• ..
• ..
• -• •
• ---
• ..
• •
--
---
------------.,
-
--------
• -• ----
7) Date:
Agency Representative:
Locati on:
Subj ect:
8) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
9) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
10) Date:
Agency Repre sentat i ve:
Location:
Su bj ect:
11 ) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subj ect:
12) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
April 29, 1982
John Katz (Juneau)
(Letter)
Transmittal of Environmental Study
Plan for comment
May 5, 1982
Ty L. Of 11 i pl ane (Anchorage)
(Letter)
Request for comments on Cultural
Resources Study Pl an
May 24, 1982
Ty L. Dilliplane (Anchorage)
(Letter)
Agency comments on Cultural
Resources Study Plan
June 22, 1982
Tim Smith
Anchorage
Possible need for additional
archaeological survey after Project
facility locations are identified
on the ground
September 14, 1982
Ty L. Dillip1ane (Anchorage)
( Letter)
Transmittal of archaeology report
October 4, 1982
Tim Smith
(Telephone conversation)
Verification of no National
Register registration of historic
sites in vicinity of Project
4-16
13) Date:
Agency Repre sentat i ve:
Location:
Subject:
U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Servi ce
1 ) Da te:
Agency Represen!?tiv~~
Locdti on:
Subject:
2) Date:
Agency Representative:
Locati on:
Subject:
3) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
4) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Su bj ect:
October 13, 1982
Ty L. Dilliplane (Anchorage)
( Letter)
Agency comments on Archaeology
Reconnai ssance Report
Ja nuary 7, 1982
John Mattson (Anchorage)
(Telephone conversation)
Verification of Ebasco
archaeologist's consultation with
Forest Service on Cultural
Resources Study Plan
March 31, 1982
Clay G. Seal (Anchorage)
(Letter)
Request for Special Use Application
to conduct cultural resource field
investigation in 1982
Ap ri 1 1, 1 982
John t1attson
(Letter)
Transmittal of map of
archaeological sites identified
through literature survey
April 20, 1982
John Mattson
(Telephone conversation)
Procedures for securing of Special
Use Permit for archaeological survey
4-17
• -
• -• ---.. ..
• •
• •
• •
• •
• ..
II
tit
• ..
II
• .. -• ..
• -
-.. ..
• ..
---5) Date: -Agency Representative: --Location:
-Subject: -6) Date: --Agency Representative:
-Locati on: -Subject:
-7) Date:
-Agency Representative: -Location: -Subject: --8) Date: -Agency Representative:
Location: -Subject: --9) Date: --Agency Representative:
-Location:
• Subject: --10) Date: -Agency Representative: •
Locati on: -• Su bj ect:
---
May 5, 1982
Clay G. Beal (Anchorage)
( Letter)
Application for Permit to conduct
survey
June 1,1982
Geof Wilson (Seward)
(Letter)
Letter authorizing 1982 cultural
resource field work
June 2, 1982
Fred Ha rni sch (Anchorage)
(Letter)
Amendment to cultural resource
Permit
June 21, 1982
John Mattson and Arn Albrecht
Anchorage
Archaeology and mi ni ng uses in
Project vic; nity
June 28, 1982
Geof Wilson (Seward)
(Letter)
Acknowledgement of receipt of
authorization to proceed with 1982
cul tura 1 resource survey
July 13, 1982
John Mattson (Anchorage)
(Letter)
Due dates for Cultural Resources
Report
4-18
u.s. Department of the Interior, National Park Service
1 ) Da te:
Agency Representa ti ve:
Locati on:
Subject:
2) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Su Dj ect:
3) Date:
Agency Representative:
Locat; on:
Subject:
January 15, 191)2
Cra; g Davi sand Floyd Sharrok
(Anchorage)
(Telephone conversation)
Availability of information on
archaeological resources in Project
vi ci nHy
Apr; 1 28, 1982
John E. Cook (Anchorage)
(Letter)
Transmittal of Environmental Study
Pl a n fo r comment
May 5, 1982
John E. Cook (Anchorage)
(Letter)
Request for comments on Cultural
Resources Study Plan
4-19
• -
• •
• .. .. .. .. ..
• ..
• ..
• ..
• ..
lilt ..
• ...
• ..
.. ..
III ..
•
•
-
II ..
• ..
-..
-..
------..
------.,
-----.,
-.. ---..
.. -.. -..
5.0 REPORT ON SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS
This section describes the socioeconomic impacts of the Grant Lake
Hydroelectric Project and the area in which the impacts will occur.
The section is divided into eight parts: 1) Socioeconomic
characteristics; 2) Socioeconomic trends; 3) Impacts on local
governmental, educational, and social services; 4) Project employment
and payrolls; 5) Construction personnel; 6) Housing availability for
temporary and new employment; 7) Residences and businesses displaced by
the Project; and 8) Local government fiscal effects.
5.1 SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROJECT VICINITY
5.1.1 The Socioeconomic Impact Area
Construction of the Project will cause socioeconomic impacts primarily
in the southeastern portion of the Kenai Peninsula Borough. The
specific area likely to be impacted includes the corridor along the
Seward-Anchorage Highway (State Highway 9) from Seward north through
the community of Moose Pass to the intersection with State Highway 1,
and extending west along Highway 1 to the community of Cooper Landing.
This area is shown in Figure 5-1.
The Project site lies approximately 25 miles north of Seward, 2 miles
south of Moose Pass, and 24 miles east southeast of Cooper Landing,
which are the only three Census deSignated places within the impact
area (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau. of the Census 1981). Census
deSignated places are the smallest geographical divisions for which
1980 Census data are published. The next closest Census designated
places to the Project site are Hope, approximately 45 miles to the
north and west of Highway 1, and Sterling, approximately 70 miles to
the west on Highway 1. Anchorage is about 102 miles north of the
Project site by way of State Highways 9 and 1 •
5-1
5 o 5 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
I
miles
SOCIOECONOMIC
IMPACT AREA
FIGURE 5-1
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
.. --.. .. -.. -.. -
• -• ..
• l1li
• ..
• ..
• ..
• •
.. ..
• .. .. -.. -..
• ..
-------------------..
-..
--..
---..
-
Virtually all construction materials should reach the Project site by
way of Highways 1 and 9, from Anchorage to the north, Soldotna through
Cooper Landing to the west, or Seward to the south. The construction
labor force will be drawn primarily from the Seward, Moose Pass, and
Cooper Landing areas, with some additional workers possibly relocating
temporarily to the Project impact area from either the Soldotna or
Anchorage vicinities.
5.1.2 Population Characteristics
The socioeconomic impact area includes parts of two 1980 Census
subareas, the Kenai-Cook Inlet and the Seward subareas, which comprise
the Kenai Peninsula Borough Census Area. Within each subarea
population figures are estimated for one or more Census designated
places, communities for which population and selected Census data are
reported. Only one Census designated place in the Seward subarea, the
City of Seward, is located in the impact area. Seward is one of two
home rule cities in the Kenai Peninsula Borough. The remainder of the
Kenai Peninsula Borough lies in the Kenai-Cook Inlet subarea, of which
only two Census designated places, Cooper Landing and Moose Pass, lie
within the socioeconomic impact area. Table 5-1 shows available 1960,
1970, and 1980 population figures for the Borough, subareas, and three
Census designated places.
Because the socioeconomic impact area includes portions of two Census
subareas lying outside designated places, the 1980 population of the
impact area can be estimated by summing Census figures for the three
designated places within the impact area and estimating the population
outside these places. Most of the population within the Seward subarea
outside of designated places, which totaled 650 in 1980 (U.S. Dept. of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census 1981), lies within the Railbelt area
around and to the north of the City of Seward, and therefore within the
• impact area. A very small percentage of the non-designated place -• --5-3 -
•
TABLE 5-1
HISTORICAL POPULATION
KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH, CENSUS SUBAREAS,
AND CENSUS DE~IGNATED PLACES WITHIN
THE SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT AREA!!
Population
% Change
Geographical Area 1960 1970 1980 1960-1970
Kenai Peni nsu1 a Borough bl 16,5(.16 25,282
Kenai-Cook In'let Subarea bl bl 22,473
Cooper Landi ng 88 31 116 -65
Moose Pa ss 136 53 76 -61
Se\i1ard Subarea bl bi 2,~O9
Ci ty of Sewa rd 1,891 1,587 1,843 -16
Non-Oesigndted Place Area£1 614 533 650 -21
. Socioeconomic Impact Area
Total Rows 3, 4, 6, and 7 2,789 2,204 2,6b5 -21
State of Al aska 226,167 302,583 401,851 34
al F,'om U. S. Dept. Commerce, Bureau of the CPIISUS 1981.
bl Data not availdule from Census.
% Change
1970-80
52
274
43
16
2"
22
33
c/ Estimated by apply; ng I'ates of change for desi ynated places ill
socioeconomic impact areas to 1980 figures.
5-4
% Change
1960-80
32
-44
-3
-4
-4
78
• -• .. ----
• -
• •
• •
II -• ..
•
iii
• ..
• .. .. -• ..
• -• ..
• ..
-
• •
-,.
-,.
-,.
-
-
-,.
-------------,.
-,.
---,. .. ,.
-,.
-,.
population of the Kenai-Cook Inlet subarea lies within the impact
area. Total 1980 population of the impact area can be estimated by
summing the populations of each Census designated place in the impact
area and the non-designated place component of the Seward subarea. The
results are shown in Table 5-1.
The impact area estimated population of 2,685 (69 percent of which is
accounted for by the City of Seward) constitutes only about 0.7 percent
of the 1980 population of the State of Alaska. The vast majority of
the population in the impact area is white, as indicated by 1980 Census
of Population figures for the City of Seward (U.S. Dept of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census 1981):
White
Black
American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut
Asian and Pacific Islander
Other
Total Seward Population
1,564
7
238
16
18
1,843
Estimated population change in the socioeconomic impact area between
1960 and 1980 is shown in Table 5-1. While there has been considerable
population change within the communities of Moose Pass and Cooper
Landing during the past 20 years, the area's overall population during
this period experienced little net change. However, from 1970 to 1980
definite population growth is apparent. This growth is reflected in
State of Alaska's 1981 population estimate for the City of Seward of
1,943 (Alaska Department of Labor 1981), an increase of 5 percent over
the 1980 Ce nsus.
The City of Seward supports a fairly large transient population, rising
during the summer months and falling off in the winter. Housing
vacancies, therefore, are low in summer and moderately high level
during winter. There are several motels and hotels in Seward and two
motels in the Moose Pass area that supplement available rental
5-5
housing. Howp.ver, in the past the lack of housing for year around
occupancy by Project workers has caused some large contractors to
transport temporary housing facilities to the area (Shaeffermyer
1982). This practice is often the case with Alaska construction
projects.
5.1.3 Economic Characteri stics
The A1 aska Departrnent of Labor, iii cooperati on with the U. S. Dept. of
Labor, compiles employment information according to the Census
DiVisions, geographica-I units, used prior to the 1980 Census. The
Seward Division comprises an area approximating the socioeconomic
impact area shown in Figure 5-1, but extends north along the
Seward-Anchorage Highway to Turnagain Arm, Cook Inlet. The majority of
its popUlation and labor force reside in or near the City of Seward.
Employment figures and statistics for the area, therefore, characterize
emploympnt in tne impact area.
Table 5-2 shows quarterly employment for broad non-agricultural
industrial classifications in the Seward Division for seven quarters in
1979 and 1980. The table indicates that the sectors employing the
largest numbers of persons, for which employment data are available,
are state and local government. services, retail trade, and the federd1
government. Governmental offices located in Seward include the city
government, Forest Service, National Park Service, and a vocational
training center. Important services provided in Seward include two
hospitals serving regional needs. Services and retail trade in Seward
also support a locally important tourism industry.
Large employment groups are not snown on Table 5-2 due to disclosure
rules. In fact the non-reported employment during 1979-80 average 39
percent of total employment, which demonstrates the significance of a
small number of large employers. Moreover, these large employers
operate on a largely seasonal basis, as evidenced by the significant
increase in employment in the not-reported category from 267 in the
first quarter of 1979 to 854 in the third quarter of that year.
5-6
• -
• ..
• ---.. -.. ..
• •
.. ..
•
• III
• ..
• ..
• ..
• ..
• ..
• -.. -.. -• •
.. --TABLE 5-2 -tWN-AGRI CUL TURAL EMPLOYMENT BY QUARTER -SEWARD DIVISION 1979-1980~ --1979 1980 -Industrial Quarter Quarter Seven Quarter
Cl assificati on 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1 st 2nd 3rd AverageE..I --Mi ni ng bl ...
3 ail Construction 70 7 13 • Manufacturi ng -Trans, Commun., -& Ut il. 33 46 63 47 53 51 41 48 ,-Wholesale Trade -Retai 1 Trade 142 193 215 158 131 154 194 170 -Fi nance, Insurance, -Real Est. 13 16 15 14 16 16 18 15
Services 156 176 198 187 200 174 168 180
Fed Gov't 59 74 86 55 47 59 84 66 -State & Local -Gov't 298 300 301 328 309 317 295 307 -Miscellaneous 16 12 13 14~/ ,--tJot Reported 267 600 854 455 472 ' 575 642 527 - ---TOTAL 968 1491 1732 1244 1228 1365 1468 1,357
---~I Alaska Dept. of Labor 1979-1980. -~I --Not available due to disclosure rules. -£1 Figure expected to be high estimate due to lack of fourth quarter
• data.
-~I Average based on incomplete data series.
• --5-7 --
Unreported employment subsequently dropped to 455 in the fourth
quarter. Much of this unreported employment is with two business
establishments operating in the City of Seward: Seward Fisheries' fish
processing plant and Louisiana-Pacific's Kenai Lumber Company (Dunham
1982) .
The economy of the Seward Division and especially the City of Seward
depends a great deal on three important transportation facilities:
Seward's deep water port, the Alaska Railroad, and the Anchorage-Seward
Highway. The deep water port supports d fishing industry and bulk
cargo facility linked by the railroad and highway to Anchorage and
pOints north. Se\oJard's port is generally ice free during winter
periods when the Port of Anchorage is forced to curtail operations.
Table 5-3 presents average monthly labor force and employment figures
for the Seward Division for the period 1975 through 1981 and for 1981.
These figures illustrate the highly cyclical nature of employment in
the area. Average employment from 1975 to 1981 ranged from 1574 in
August to 1130 in January. Unemployment rates fluctuated in a reverse
manner, ranging from 7.4 percent in August to 16.1 percent in January.
Historically the labor force level has fluctuated along with
employment. Labor force fluctuation is a function of two factors: a
transient population in the Seward Division and particularly the City
of Seward (Shaeffermyer 1982); and a lessened effort by the unemployed
to find work during the winter months, thus removing themselves from
bei ng considered members of the 1 abor forc e. Du ri ng 1981. however,
labor force seasonal variation \'1as less than the 1975-1981 average.
The difference between peak and low labor force levels in 1981 was 297,
while the 1975-1981 average difference was 355. While several causes
may be responsible for the declining difference beboJeen peak and low
labor force levels, the decline suggests the Seward labor force may be
moving toward a lower level of transience and greater seasonal
stability and acceptance of seasonal fluctuation in local employment
opportuniti es.
5-8
.. -
• -.. -.. .. .. -•
III
• ..
•
III
• •
• ..
• ..
•
III
• .. .. .. .. ..
• -.. -.. ..
• ..
.. .. -TABLE 5-3 ..
-HISTORICAL MONTHLY CIVILIAN LABOR FPRCE AND EMPLOYMENT
SEWARD DIVISIO~ .. -1975-1981 .. Average 1981
Labor Unemp. Labor Unemp. -Month Force, Employment, Rate, Force, Employment, Rate, .. No. No. % No. No. %
"" Jan 1347 1130 16.1 1515 1201 20.7 ..
Feb 1408 1195 15.1 1463 1196 18.3 --Mar 1425 1224 14.1 1470 1226 16.6
-Apr 1557 1344 13.7 1465 1281 12.6 -May 1625 1425 12.3 1599 1384 13.4 -Jun 1653 1483 10.3 1645 1463 11.1 ..
Jul 1702 1562 8.2 1760 1610 8.5 -.. Aug 1700 1574 7.4 1671 1531 8.4 -Sep 1563 1432 8.4 1601 1410 11.9 -OCt 1556 1373 11.8 1626 1374 15.5 -Nov 1524 1296 15.0 1567 1298 17.2 ..
Dec 1477 1249 15.4 1514 1261 16.7 -.. -Average 1545 1357 11.2 1575 1353 14.2 ..
-a/ U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics 1975-1981. ..
-.. -..
-.. 5-9 -..
Monthly wage rates for the Seward Division are shown in Table 5-4.
These wage data show a pronounced upward trend over time and reveal
several sectors in which relatively high wages are paid. The
construction sector pays by far the highest wages in the Seward
Division, averaging $3,065 per month. At significantly lower levels
are state and local government wages at $2,044 per month,
transportation, communication, and utilities monthly wages at $1,709,
and federal government monthly wages at $1,688. The average wage was
$1,405 per month. Wage rates are thought to have increased
substantially over these figures in 1981 (Dunham 1982).
5.1.4 Public Policies
Policies of the City of Seward favor economic growth in the vicinity
(Shaeffermyer 1982). The city has prepared and is following a land use
plan (CH2M Hill 1979) that encourdges industrial expansion, emphasizing
growth in marine facilities and possible development associated with
outer continental shelf exploration and development. The City also
strongly endorses assessing the feasibility of constructing the
Project. This support is expressed in several Seward City Council
resolutions (City of Seward 1980).
5.2 SOCIOECONOMIC TRENDS
Recent population forecasts applicable to the socioeconomic impact area
suggest population growth rates varying from less than 1.5 percent to
5.0 percent per year (CH2M Hill 1979; Simpson Usher Jones, Inc. 1979;
Kenai Peninsula Borough 1982, R.W. Beck and Associates 1982, Batelle
Pacific Northwest Laboratories, 1982). Projected population growth
ratios used herein are those of the Battelle Northwest Electric Power
Alternatives Study (Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories)
corresponding to a low economic scenario in the Railbelt as a whole. A
population annual average growth rate of 3.49 percent is assumed for
the period 1980-1985, 1.59 percent for the years 1985-1990, and
0.75 percent for the years 1900-1995.
5-10
.. .. -.. ---.. -----..
• -• •
• •
• •
• ..
• •
•
•
• ----.. --•
.... --TABLE 5-4 -AVERAGE MONTHLY WAGES BY QUARTER -SEWARD DIVISION
• 1979-1980a /
--Wages in Dollars
1979 1980 -Industri a1 Quarter Quarter
• C1 assification 1 st 2nd 3rd 4th 1 st 2nd 3rd Average -• Mi ni ng b/
-Constructi on 3547 2775 2893 3065~/ .. Manufacturi ng
Trans, Commun., -& Uti 1. 2175 1377 1300 1720 1721 1819 1854 1709 ..
Wholesale Trade -Retai 1 Trade 838 685 866 824 921 893 870 842 .. Fi nance, Insurance, -Real Est. 1092 963 1057 1037 985 1085 968 1027 .. Services 917 870 881 933 870 940 1031 920 -Fed Gov't 1589 1651 1453 1922 1797 1538 1868 1688 -State & Local
Gov1t 1724 1838 2025 1689 2256 2367 2410 2044 -1734~/ Mi sc 1472 1504 2226 ..
-ALL CLASS--IFICATIONS 1277 1251 1458 1288 1403 1557 1599 1405 ---~/ Alaska Dept. of Labor 1979-1980. .. ~/ Not available due to disclosure rules. -£/ Average based on incomplete data series • .. -.. -..
5-11 --
The population projection of Table 5-5 suggests a total population
growth between 1980 and 1995 for the impact area of 1.996. over
two-thirds of which is projected for the City of Seward.
Employment projections prepared for the Kenai Peninsula Borough (Kenai
Peninsula Borough 1977) assumed an employment labor participation rate
for 1980 of approximately 0.39. growing to between 0.40 and 0.46 by
1992. The intermediate participation rate for 1992 was approximately
0.45. The employment labor participation rate is the proportion of the
total population actually employed.
Projected employment for the impact area based on intermediate level.
full employment labor participation rates and the population
projections of Table 5-5 are given in Table 5-6. As Table 5-6
indicates. projected employment rises from an estimated 1980 level of
1.062 to 1,598 in the year 1995, a net increase of 536. Because this
employment projection is based on intermediate growth assumptions
involving no growth surge in anyone industrial sector, the
distribution of employment should, with one exception, continue to
approximate that shown in Table 5-2. The exception is the area of
mari ne services, in which employment may ri se abruptly as a result of
construction of the Fourth of July Industrial Marine Park near Seward.
Growth of the Marine Park may bring additional jobs to the Seward area
during the early and mid-1980s. possibly resulting in employment and
population growth rates exceeding those in Tables 5-5 and 5-6. Tne
City of Seward's municipal and utility services. including water
supply. sewage, telephone, schools, police, fire protection. and
medical facilities are able to support the higher growth rate (CH2M
Hi 11 15:179; Ci ty of Seward 1980).
Per capita personal income in the Seward Census Division has risen
substantially during the last decade. Nominal, or current dollar, per
capita personal income rose from a 1970 figure of $4,299 to $11.408 by
1979 (U.S. Dept. of COlilJlerce, Bureau of Economic Ana1ysi s 1982), an
5-12
• .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
• .. -..
• -• .. ..
lit
• ..
• ..
• •
• ..
• ..
• ..
• .. -.. .. ..
• ..
-.. -..
---------• ---• -----..
---.. ---•
--.. ----
Area
City of Sewa rd
~~oose Pa ss
Cooper Landi ng
Other
TOTAL
TABLE 5-0
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT AREA
1980-1995~/
Numbers of People
1980 1985 1990
1,843 2,188 2,368
76 90 97
116 138 149
650 772 835
2,685 3,188 3,449
1995
2,458
101
155
967
3,681
~ Projections assume average annual population growth rate of 3.49
percent for period 1980-1985, 1.59 percent for period 1985-1990, and
0.75 perc ent for peri od 1990-1995.
5-13
TABLE 5-6
EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS
SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT AREA
1980-199~/
Year Employment
1980 1,062
1985 1,301
1990 1,497
1995 1,598
a/ Based on Kenai Peninsula Borough 1982.
5-14
-
• ..
• ---.. ---.. .. --.. ..
• .. .. ..
• .. .. .. --.. .. .. .. -.. -..
• ..
.. -.. -.. -..
-
average annual increase of 11 per'cent. While this rate of increase is
unlikely to be sustained, the area can be expected to enjoy a continued
rise in per capita personal income during the next few years. As
indicated above, the socioeconomic impact area's population and
employment are projected to grow at a moderate rate of economic growth
that will support a commensurate rise in personal income •
.. S.3 PROJECT IMPACT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL, EDUCATIONAL, AND SOCIAL
-.. -.. -.. -.. -.. ---.. -.. -.. -.. -..
-..
..
-..
SERVICES
The Project will generate virtually no new permanent employment in the
socioeconomic impact area. Employment resulting from the Project will
involve construction and be temporary. Impacts on governmental,
educational, or social services associated with Project installation
will be limited to the construction period •
While some temporary relocation of construction personnel to the
Project site or Moose Pass area might occur, most of these personnel
should commute from the Seward area. Some of the construction labor
force estimated to average about 30 (see Section 5.4) may come from
outside the socioeconomic impact area, because many of the major
development projects in Alaska are carried out by companies and
personnel based outside the development area (Dunham 1982). If any new
facilities are needed in the vicinity of the Project site to support
temporary construction workers, they will be provided by either the
construction contractor or by the workers. Workers temporarily
relocating to the Seward area can be accommodated by existing
services. Local governmental services and utilities in the Seward
vicinity are well equipped and accustomed to supporting temporary
construction activities and personnel •
The school district in the socioeconomic impact area includes the
entire Kenai Peninsula Borough. Elementary children living near Moose
Pass attend school at Moose Pass Elementary School through the eighth
grade, then commute to Seward for high school. Ifl 1981 enrollment at
5-15
Moose Pass Elementary School was 34, while Seward elementary and high
school enrollment totalled 448. Total school district enrollment was
6,037 (Kenai Peninsula Borough School District [No Date]). Any
increase in school enrollment attributable to Project construction will
therefore have a relatively minor effect on the school system.
Construction vehicle traffic, including heavy equipment and worker
vehicles, on State Highway 9 between Seward and Moose Pass will
increase highway wear, disrupt traffic, and inconvenience local
residents. A cooperative agreement between the Alaska Power Authority
and the Al aska Depa rtment of Transportati on and Publ i c Faci 1 iti es
should accommodate any maintenance proolems on state roads.
5.4 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYMENT AND PAYROLLS
The construction period for the Project is estimated to be
approximately 24 months. Construction will begin with clearing and
building access roads, followed by tunneling activities for the power
conduit. In April and May of the first year of construction, work on
the transmission line, powerhouse, and tailrace will begin. Work on
these facilities will continue at an intensive level into September, at
which time the lake tap, tunnel, transmission line, and access roads
will be completed. By December of the first year work will begin on
the installation of electrical and mechanical components. Startup will
take pl ace in May of the second yea r.
The average 1 abor force on the job duri ng the 24 month constructi on
period will number approximately 30 or approximately 2 percent of the
area's labor force, but only about half that number will work during
the winter months (November through March). Skills required of the
construction labor force include heavy equipment operation, drilling,
welding, iron working, concrete finishing, and electrical and
mechanical work. Employment will peak at perhaps 50 workers during the
summer of the second year of construction.
5-16
-.. -..
-.. ---• ..
• -.. ...
• • ..
lit
• ... .. ... .. -.. -..
..
.. -
• ..
-----.. -..
-.. -.. -..
-.. -• -..
-.. -..
-.. -..
-.. -.. -.. -..
-
•
A conservative estimate of the total construction payroll in 1980
dollars using the average construction wage rates in the Seward Census
Division is $1.84 million, or approximately $77,000 per month. This
estimate assumes an average monthly wage of $3,Ob5 (see Table 5-4), an
average work force of 30, except during the winter months, and a
construction period of 24 months. This wou1a represent an increase in
income to the socioeconomic impact area of approximately 3 percent over
the 24 month construction period ($1.84 million/$ll,OOO est. per capita
income in 1979 x 2685 est. 1980 population). Inflationary pressures,
higher salaries for supervisory personnel, and competition for trained
construction labor with other major construction projects in Alaska may
push the total Project payro11 higher than this estimate, but
chronically high unemployment rates in the socioeconomic impact area
would tend to reduce these pressures to some extent.
5.5 CONSTRUCTION PERSONNEL
The construction labor force is expected to come principally from the
socioeconomic impact area, mainly Seward, with some additional
construction workers from Anchorage and the western Kenai Peninsula.
Although the average total construction employment in the Seward Census
Division in 1979 and 1980 was only 30, the Seward area labor force
possesses a relatively large proportion of workers with construction
skills (Dunham 1982). Construction personnel will probably commute to
the Project construction site, possibly by contractor bus from a
central pOint in Seward. Since the construction skills needed to build
the Project will be available primarily in the metropolitan Seward area
or from outside the socioeconomic impact area, a relatively small
percentage of the Project construction labor force is expected to come
from nearby communities such as Moose Pass and Cooper Landing.
The capability of the Seward area to provide most of the construction
labor force is supported by the decline in construction employment in
the Seward area during the last few years and a rising unemployment
rate in the Seward area. Unemployment rose to 14.2 percent of the
5-17
labor force in 1981 (see Table 5-5). However, the number of local
workers who will be employed in constructing the Project will also
depend largely on the policies of the construction firm.
5.6 HOUSING AVAILABILITY FOR TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT NEW EMPLOYMENT
In 1980 the number of housing units in the Seward Census subarea
totaled 1,186 (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Census 1981), of which
777 were located within the City of Seward. Housing in the vicinity of
Seward, along with two motels in and near Moose Pass, can be expected
to provide most of the housing accommodations for Project construction
workers.
Temporary construction workers will be able to draw upon approximately
250 apartment units in Seward (Kenai Peninsula Borough 1982) as well as
a limited number of motels and hotels located in Seward and near Moose
Pass. Alttiough some new housing is planned in Seward, recent trends
suggest that the number of housi ng uni ts there wi 11 ri se
insignificantly in the near future. Only two new single family housing
unHs were authori zed each in year' 1980 and 1981. In 1979, 50 new
housing units (46 of which were multiple family) were authorized for
construction (Kenai Peninsula Borough 1982). However, construction of
the Fourth of July Creek Industrial Marine Park is expected to
stimUlate some new housing demand (Gillespie 1982).
Rental vacancies in the Seward vicinity are cyclical, ranging from
about seven percent in the winter to near' zero in the summer (Gillespie
1982). This cyclical demand reflects the seasonal variation in several
important employment sectors described above in Section 5.1, and the
demand for rental housing associated with recreational pursuits in the
socioeconomic impact area.
While tnere may be some competition for rental housing between new
temporary employment associated with Project construction and other
transient workers and recreationists, the combination of a relatively
5-18
• -• .. .. ---.. ---.. ---
• -
•
• --
• ..
• ..
• -
• -
•
--..
• ..
-----
-• -• -• -• -• -• -• --
1 arge stock of rental hOlJsi ng units and small antici pated new temporary
Project construction work force shoul d mi nimi ze the severity of such
competition. Further reducing competition for rental housing will be
the common occurrence of recreational demand for housing units on
weekends and the occurrence of worker demand for rental units during
weekdays.
Virtually no new permanent employment is expected to result from
operation of the Project. The Project will be automated to operate
without a large full-time staff, and maintenance of the Project will be
a part time activity. Maintenance of recreational facilities is
expected to be carr; ed out by the Forest Service on a cooperative
basis. The Project is therefore not expected to produce any permanent
effect on the region's housing.
5.7 RESIDENCES AND BUSINESSES DISPLACED BY THE PROJECT
The Project will be constructed entirely on undeveloped federally-owned
1 ands havi ng few improvements. Moreove r, si nce the Project will not
result in a raised water level in Grant Lake, no business or temporary
or permanent residence will be displaced.
-5.8 LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL FISCAL EFFECTS ---------• -• -•
Construction and operation of the Project will produce a relatively
small impact on schools and local governmental, educational, and social
services. The school system and local services are adequate to address
any such impacts without expansion or adverse effect.
The Project will produce virtually no direct positive local fiscal
impacts because the Project's construction and operation will be exempt
from local sales and property taxes (Lahnum 1982). Some positive
indirect impacts will develop as a result of increased local spending
of wages and the consequent positive impact on local sales taxes. The
Kenai Peninsula Borough levies a two percent sales tax while the city
5-19
of Seward collects an additional one percent tax on retail sales.
Total local sales tax benefits will not, however, amount to more than a
few thousand dollars.
5.9 SUMMARY OF AGENCY CONTACTS
The following is a summary of pertinent Agency contacts made in support
of this report. Correspondence between the Alaska Power Authority and
various agencies is included in the Technical Appendix, Part VIII.
Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs
1) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subj ect:
2) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
Alaska Department of Labor
1) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
January 19, 1982
Gene Kane (Anchorage)
(Telephone conversation)
Availability of data on community
socioeconomic characteristics for
Grant Lake vicinity
June 22, 1982
Gene Kane
Anchorage, Alaska
Acquisition of data on forecasts of
socioeconomic characteristics in
Project vicinity
January 19, 1982
Willard Dunham (Seward)
(Telephone conversation)
Characteristics of labor force and
source of labor data for Seward and
vicinity
5-20
• -
• ---------
• -
• ..
• -• •
• -• •
• ..
..
• ..
• ------..
-.. -.. ---..
-
-..
-.. -..
-.. -.. --------..
-..
-.. -.. -..
Kenai Peninsula Borough
1 ) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Su bject:
City of Seward
1 ) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
2) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Su bject:
June 18, 1982
Carolyn Thompson and Jeff LaBahn
Soldotna, Alaska
Land ownership and state and
Borough withdrawal plans for
Project vici nity
January 18, 1982
Darryl Shaeffermyer, Assistant City
Manager
(Telephone conversation)
Potential sources of Grant Lake
Project construction 1 abor and
probable area affected by Project
constructi on
June 17, 1982
Darryl Shaeffermyer and Kerry Martin
Sewa rd, Al aska
Acquisition of data on local
socioeconomic conditions and
cha racteri sti cs
5-21
..
• -.. -• ..
• ..
• ..
• ..
• .. .. ..
• -• ..
• -• .. --
• .. ..
-• -• ..
iii ..
•
6.0 REPORT ON GEOLOGICAL AND SOIL RESOURCES
This chapter presents the results of exten~ive geological and soils
surveys conducted in the Project vicinity an~ site-specific
investigations conducted for Project planning and design. In addition
to describing regional and Project site geology and soils, this chapter
identifies potential geologic hazards, the potential Project impacts on
geologic conditions, and the need for mitigating such potential impacts .
6.1 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The geologic study area for the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project is
defined as the area within about 10 miles of the Project site, and for
the specific sites on which Project facilities will be located •
6.1.1 Regional Geology
The morphology of the study area is typical of sub-arctic, glaciated
terrains. Broad U-shaped valleys dissect the mountain ranges and form
lowlands with lakes, ponds, and streams (Figure 6-1). Elevations in
the study area range from 470 ft above mean sea level (MSL) at Upper
Trail Lake to over 5000 ft in the adjacent mountains. Much of the
region was stripped clean by the movement of glaciers, leaving bedrock
exposed over large areas •
Within the mountainous areas, topography is rugged and slopes typically
steep. Hanging valleys are common. Small glaciers occur at the head
of most major valleys.
Lowland areas are typically elongated with varying amounts of alluvial
infilling. Some of the east-west trending valleys, notably the Grant
Lake and Kenai Lake valleys, have nearly right-angle bends where they
intersect the major north-south trending lowlands. This morphology
reflects diversion of side glaciers at their intersection with the
major southward moving glaciers.
6-1
N
1"-i"+-
; i I
i '!
I
I
j, ; ,
30
~ ,
/ (
\ '
,)
18 \
\
(
, .. ' , 1
6-2
.... "' .... , '--, ,
3QOo
"""
N ••• 'y ••••• >" ,::.~ ..... , -,,-.... ,.,
" " ~.'\.,
""-',.~.,
\
..... y ••• "-",
'.l2·'··
.i~,.
".
C::."
'NOTES:
.... -' ~it}
i
·t
i
! . .\« ,
;
·1" ~>-....... -""
" ~
.... ~ .. -•... ,.....,...-~ -............ ~."'" -, .. \ ...
" ~'"
i
\'
ALLUVIUM
AVALANCHE DEBRIS
TALUS ROCK GLACIER
GRANT CREEK FAULT
LINEAR FEATURES VISIBLE
ON AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
AND SATTELITE IMAGERY.
TOPOGRAPHIC DATA FROM U.S.G.S. MAPS,
SEWARD B6-B7.
3000'
I
o
I
SCALE
3000
I
FIGURE 6-1
6(X)01
I
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
-• -.. -.. .. .. -.. .. ..
.. -II .. .. .. .. .. ..
-.. -
Str!ams are common within the lowland areas, as are lakes and ponds •
In several areas elongated ridges of relatively low relief form
foothills to the major mountain peaks. One such ridge forms the area
between Grant Lake and Upper Trail Lake. These bedrock ridges parallel
tile trend of the adjacent valley. Small bogs, formed in bedrock
depreSSions resulting from glacial scour, i'lre common on the ridge
tops. Many bogs are elongated in the direction of glacial flow .
The bedrock in the study area is a compl ex assortment of metamorphosed
sandstones, siltstones. and mudstone with some fine-grained volcanic
units (Tysdal and Case 1979). Extensive glacial deposits are absent.
~linor 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.
Unconsolidated surficial deposits are relatively rare in the study area
(Figure 6-1). 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 gravel. Minor sand and gravel
deposits are also found at the mouth of Grant Creek and Falls Creek.
Poorly sorted mixtures of cobbles, gravel, sand, and silt occur at the
base of the major avalanche chutes and are the result of transport by
III snow avalanches during the winter and spring. These deposits are local -.. .. .. ..
• ..
• ..
-
and not extensive.
Talus deposits are rdre in the study area, despite the steep ~lopes •
The one exception is in the area between Falls Creek and Solars
~10untain. In this area, large talus slopes of angular sandstone
boulders and cobbles extend from the small cirque at the top of the
mountain down the steep slopes into Falls Creek. The lobate morphology
of the deposits suggests that they constitute a rock glacier .
6-3
TIle complex deformational history of the bedrock in the study area has
resul ted ina 1 arge number of structural features. The primary
foliation in the bedrock is parallel to bedding. r40st units strike
approximately north 5 degrees east (N05E) and dip ~S to 55 degrees to
the east. Joints are common throughout the area. Joint orientations
vary widely, although there are minor maxima oriented north-south (NS)
to NE-Sl~ dipping between 50 and 90 degrees to the south or southeast.
Minor faults and fracture zones were discovered in several areas. Two
fracture directions are dominant. One set trends NE and the other
N-NW. Both sets are evident on aerial photographs and satellite images
due to differential erosion (Figure 6-2). Grant Creek follows the most
ohvious of these NE trending features, which has been named the Grant
Creek Fault. Other NE trending fractures are evident as discontinuous
linear features.
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 IIKenai lineament ll since it is obvious on satellite imagery
as a long, linear feature. The trend of the valley is nearly parallel
to the N-~M 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.
t~ore likely it is a glacial valley whose orientation and location
followed the N-NW trend of the minor fault set observed in other areas.
Several areas within the study area have been mined for gold. There
are three small-scale mines in the study area. The Case Mine is just
north of the mai n bend in Grant Lake. It consi sts of several hundred
feet of adits following quartz veins. Although not currently active,
the present owners are planning additional test adits along the trace
of the shear zone. The Crown Point ~1ine also consists of adits, and is
located near the top of the peak between Grant Lake and Falls Creek.
Although not currently active, the Crm'm Point "1"ine was once a
successful gold mining operation. The third mining operation is a
6-4
• ..
I!I
•
II
iii
..
... ... .. ...
... ...
II ...
II
iii .. ..
• ..
.. .. ..
ill
• ..
II ..
-... ..
,.
•
r-'
Upper
-
LEGEND
.--" ..... -...... -.~ ...... ~ .... --_m:O IIIIIIIALLUVIUM ~~~:----......_L u.. nlllllllllAVALANCHE DEBRIS
ctb!~ F:-::::\/:/':JTALUS/ROCK GLACIER
.......
/
' PROMINENT LINEAR FEATURE
DASHED WHERE EXTENSION
I IS NOT CLEAR ,
/
MAPPED FAULT AND SHEAR
ZONES-EXTENSION DASHED
WHERE BURIED •
\ ~/==_::~: r:: ~ ---:' ~I--_A_L_AS_KA_P_OW_ER_. _AU_TH_OR_IT_Y ----I
.... -.-..... --.-... -..... ~~=-... = ... =--""...,.---=. ..... ~_m_ ..... _ .. -------._---_. -'------+ _. ____ . ___ ~~ r-.-:..-=::.:.:..-' ---_ ~ GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
~-------------------------4
6-5
GEOLOGIC FEATURES
OF STUDY AREA
FIGURE 6-2
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
• -• -• -• -• -• -• -• -• -• ---..
placer mine at the outlet of Falls Creek. The operation currently
consists of several small dozers and sluices. Farther up Falls Creek,
several mining claims exist, as well as the Old Falls Creek Mine. The
extent of workings in this area is unknown.
The Case Mine, Crown Point Mine, Old Falls Creek Mine and claims on the
upper part of Falls Creek probably all lie on a series N-NW trending
shear zones that have been the locus of mineralization. The
intersections of these shear zones and Falls Creek are the probable
source of the gold that is being recovered in the placer operation at
the base of Falls Creek.
No other zones of mineralization have been identified in the study
area. The field investigations and exploratory borings identified no
area or zone with mineralization of potential economic value.
In addition to mineralized zones, other mineral resources include sand
and gravel deposits and sites for rock quarries. The major sand and
gravel operation is in a stream bed just north of Se\'Iard. No major
rock quarries were found, although numerous small quarries were used as
local sources of road and rai1bed material s.
6.1.2 Site Geology
-6.1.2.1 Powerhouse Cove ----• -•
• -•
The powerhouse site is within a small, elongated valley roughly 1000 ft
long and 500 ft wide at the proposed powerhouse site (Figure 6-3). The
valley 1 ies within a bedrock depression formed by glacial erosion, and
is adjacent to and drains into Upper Trail Lake. Elevations within the
valley range from the water line of Upper Trail Lake (about 470 ft
above MSL) to 500 ft above MSL along its eastern margin.
6-6
N362,100
N362,600" .
N3I2,500
UPPER TRAIL
:,LAKE
N362,400
, '.oj
N3I2,300
l
CD -m
8-7
)'
!
30
~ -.. m
I ,.. .. -CD au
//
1/ /,1 i
1/·" t
,
\
1
EXPLANA TION
-.-.-SEISMIC LINE SHOWING GEOPHONE LOCATION
* SHOT POINT
~ BOREHOLE LOCATION
SO·
I I ,
CONTOUR INTERVAL 5 FEET
o
I
60'
I
SCALE IN FEET
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
DEPTH TO BEDROCK
POWERHOUSE COVE
FIGURE 6-3
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
120'
I
---• -
• -• .. ..
-.. -.. -..
-..
-..
-.. -.. ---• -.. -.. -.. -.. -..
The bedrock within the powerhouse valley is similar to that outcropping
throughout the area. Two exploratory borings indicate the presence of
massively bedded greywacke with some interbedded slate and thinner
greywacke beds.
Seismic refraction profiles within the valley indicate a layer of
sedimentary infilling averaging 5 to 25 ft in thickness, with locally
higher thicknesses over bedrock lows (Figure 6-3). The two exploratory
borings penetrated 28 ft {DH-1} and 18 ft (DH-2) of soils ranging from
sand and silt near the surface to poorly sorted mixtures of cobbles,
gravel, sand, and silt at depth. The lower materials may represent
glacial till or outwash, while the upper material is probably younger
stream or lake bed sediment. None of the material is consolidated.
No direct observations of geologic structure could be made due to the
overlying thickness of overburden. Data from the borings and outcrops
surrounding the valley suggest that the bedding within the bedrock
strikes to the north and dips at 45-55 degrees to the east, paralleling
the regional trend. Joints observed in the two exploratory borings
dipped between 45 and 80 degrees.
Analysis of aerial photos, satellite imagery and topographic maps
indicate a long linear feature trending N-NW from the eastern side of
Vagt Lake along the eastern side of the powerhouse valley, and possibly
extending several thousand feet to the north. The linear feature
represents a steep cliff face that forms the eastern shore of Vagt Lake
and the eastern boundary of the powerhouse valley. Ground and aerial
investigations of this feature along its length revealed no positive
evidence of fault control, although it is likely that it is an old
fault. Its present topographic expression is the result of
differential erosion during glacial advances, rather than movement.
6-8
6.1.2.2 Power Tunnel and Intake
The power tunnel and intake would be completely within the bedrock that
fonns the ridge between Grant and Upper Trail lakes. The rocks are
typical of the bedrock throughout the area, and are composed of
metamorphosed sedimentary rocks of the Valdez Group. The predominant
rock types are greywacke, slate, and mixtures of the two. Field
investigations and exploratory borings indicate that the greywacke is
an extremely hard and dense metamorphosed sandstone of varying
compositi on.
Bedding along the tunnel alignment parallels the regional trend. Most
units strike to the north, and dip 45 to 55 degrees east. Joints are
common throughout the area, although their orientations vary widely.
Minor shear zones were encountered in the exploratory borings along the
tunnel alignment. Most shear zones have been completely healed \vith
calcite or quartz infilling. In addition to the minor shear zones
encountered in the exploratory bori ngs, analysi s of topography and
aerial photographs indicates several N-NW trending linear features
crossing the tunnel alignment. It is likely that these linear features
mark the trend of minor faults.
The single exploratory boring in the intake area revealed two open and
weathered shear zones that parallel the bedding orientation. These two
zones are interpreted as bedding-plane failure surfaces, resulting from
movement of slabs of massive greywacke. The occurrence of these zones
would be expected where the dipping beds face the shore of Grant Lake.
6.2 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
6.2.1 Seismicity
Seismic hazards include vibratory ground motion, ground rupture,
seismically-induced slope failure, seiche, and liquefaction. The
potential occurrence of each of these hazards is discussed below.
6-9
• •
• • ..
• .. .. .. .. ..
•
• .. ..
• .. ..
II ..
• lilt
• .. ..
• .. ..
III .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
II
II
...
I
• -• -• -• -• -• -• -• -• -• ---• ---.. -..
-.. -• -• -•
6.2.1.1 Vibrato Ground Motion
Deterministic analysis of the sources of earthquakes, their distance
from the Project site, and the potential accelerations at the site
indicate that the mega-thrust zone beneath southern Alaska and the
random crustal event are the primary sources of seismic hazard for the
Project. Random crustal events are then considered IIf10ating" and
potentially could occur anywhere. For calculation purposes, the random
crustal event is considered directly beneath the Project site.
Table 6-1 is a compilation of all the known sources of earthquakes that
are close enough to the Project site to have significant impact. The
maximum credible earthquake (MCE) has been calculated for each
structure. The MCE for the random crustal event was chosen as
magnitude 6.0, a conservative upgrade from the maximum recorded
magnitude of 5.5. The peak acceleration value for each potential
earthquake source was calculated using the most recent, accepted
techniques. As indicated on Table 6-1, the maximum calculated
acceleration at the Project site is 0.40 gravity (g) from the random
ctustal event and 0.37 g from the 1964-type Aleutian Arc megathrust.
Return periods for these maximum events were estimated 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 for the life of the Project. The likelihood of
another 1964-type event on the megathrust is low for the life of the
Project because the return period exceeds 160 years. The likelihood of
a large random crustal event is moderate to high, with a recurrence
interval of 50 to 100 years. However, the location of this event could
be anywhere, so that the probability of such an event occurring at the
Project site is actually quite low.
6-10
C.i)
I ..... .....
••
Sautee Typ •• f Dittalt!;e from hult tentlll Fault Pr.ject Site
R.ndom Cru.tal
Event -3km -
Aleuti •• T",nch·Art
Meg.thru.t IM.in M.gal'h",.1 30 to 35km 2,000 km
Thru.t!
Benioff Zone Megal'hMt 1Hm -
Cntf. Mountal ••
Caribou F.ult Oblique SirikHlip 127 km 200km
! Bruin Bay hul, Reven. 125km 300km
Knik-8order
Rang .. Fault Reverse 48km 1.700km
'-----------...
John.tone Bay Fault No""al (?) BHm 20 to 70 km
Hanning Ray Fault ReY.rse l08km Um
"'non Say fault Reverse 118 km 500km
. _---_ ..
Volcanic -18ekm -
-....
O.n.1i Faull Slnk ... slip .nd 1.000 to y.klllga & Shumigan Megal'hru.1 255 to 300 km 2,OOOkm Seismic G"",
CIIIctJI6tlon methods uStld It indicated by ~~ num~r
rl MCf C.lcUMtion. "'",d priman1y on Sfemmon. (1977) u.ingmim.llld
fUP/IJI./ength inrttad.f 'o'a/length wfI'ffappropriatt.
11 MCf calcularion _d on KY .. (1980),
3J B,,~d on the illttrument fBCOfdt!d se;smidty.
I I I I 11 • • I •
E.tim'l1!d
Rupture
ltnglll
-
SOOkm
-
120km
140km
120 km
IOkm
Bkm
SZkm
400 to
SOObn
II
TABLE 6.1
CHARACTERISTICS OF SEISMIC SOURCES
Oisplaument Minimum frlStoritil at Recent MCE' Dista~e to Stismicity Sedimenb tpir;enter
Se:tsmic activity
up to magnitude None 316.0 Um
5.5
Very high Trace not visible 11 8.5 mognitude 8.4 bu' .... ci.ted Okm
In 1964 offset in 1964 21 8.1
Associated
.ehmicity up None 31 7.5 60km
t.7.5
Associatod Of/sot il 7.4 lOismiclty up '0 Hoiocene 21 7.4 127 km
m.gnitude 7.0 sediments
Associated
seismicity up to None II 1.4 125tm
mll!lnihld. 1.3
Of/so,
No .. late glacial 11 7.5 I 48km
mOTlines
None Se.rp in 111.4
Holocene talus 2) 6.0
Activ. Offset 11 4,8 duringlfollowing during the 2) 5,4 the 1964 .orthquak. 1964 e.rthquake
Actiw Ollu! 11 &.1 during/loll owing during !he 21 6.9 III. 1964 earthquake 1964 earthquake
St~mic
Activity up None 11 5.75
to magnitude 5,5
High t.low
raetnt activity; 01118'
Vtry high histori, Holocen. 11 8.6
leismicity ndiments
7. to 8.+
Gfoond Marion Pa"metrn from the following IOlJfreS:
r. Pall"", aI., 1972
I. Krinitrrky, 1978; 8(!1(, of obserwd dalJ1limi'
3. BoI~ 1973
.,. 50 pen:entilt value, Joyner & Boor., 1981
5. 50 p.rc .. ,,1 ... Iu., C.mpbell, 1981
67km
108 km
118 km
188 km
280km
..",. Cempbell ,,,field IIIl11m.li .. d .. Iue "'" used fOl' r!iSlJ1nct. ow, 50 km.
TIM Joyner & Boor, equ,,;ons Mnt used for 8.0+ mtntJ w""'out modificllti'Dft,
•• .-
E.timal1!d
O.plll to
FOCU1
3 km
30 t. 35 km
40km
15km
15km
15km
15km
I 10km
10 km
15km
15'040 km
I •
'eak"
Acceleration in (ttimated
0'" 5D Perce.tiIe Return Period
Value
410.36 50 to 100
510,4D yeon
4, 0.36 160 to 300
,510.31 yeon
41 0,06
510.01 100 ye ...
410.03 ' Not
5) 0.01 determined
2) 0,03 Not
51 0,01 determin.d
4) 0,11 No'
5) 0.01 determined
41 0,04 No'
51 0,01 determined
4) 0.01 Not
510,01 determined
410.02 Not
510,01 determined
41 0,01 Not
51 0,01 determined
4) 0.01 80 '0 200
5) 0.01 yean
Source: Crsn' lon Hyd,oel .. ,,;. Proie<;'
Inlllrim Ceologklll Report
(stim,ted likelihood'
at E"nt Willli. N .. t
1110 Yu ..
Moderare '0 High
Modtnte to low
Moderate to High
Moderate to t ...
Moderate to tow
low
tow
Mode .. t. to tow
Moderate to low
Mode .. ,. to tow
High
PrFp.red by R & M Conm/lJ1ntr, Inc., J."u.ry 1982
I I I I I I I I I I ••
-..
-
.. 6.2.1.2 Ground Rupture -• -• -.. -
Ground rupture is associated with the movement of active fault zones •
There a re no known acti ve faults crossi ng the Project features. 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, therefore, is not considered a hazard
for the Project.
.. 6.2.1. 3 Sei smi cally Induced Slope Fail ure -.. -.. -..
--
---
----.. --------
One of the most caunon features associated with moderate to large
magni tude earthquakes is slope fail ure. Tri ggered by ground moti on,
naturally unstabl e slopes can fai 1. Slope failures can be broadly
classified into landslides, rockfalls, avalanches, and slab or tumbling
failures of rock faces.
There is little material in the study area that would be susceptible to
landsliding during seismic events. No evidence was found in the major
landslides or their deposits, although some minor landslide debris was
noted uphill from the intake area.
Rockfalls from the steep cliffs could occur during seismic shaking.
Some evidence of minor rockfalls has been found in the study area,
although the triggering mechanism is unknown. The cliff on the eastern
side of the powerhouse valley is a potential source of rockfalls. The
design of the Project and slope treatments will address this
possibility.
Seismically induced avalanches could occur in the mountains above the
Project. The topography around the Project facilities themselves
suggests no hazard from avalanche. The effects of large landslides,
rockfall s, or avalanches around the shore of Grant and Trai 1 lakes are
discussed below.
6-12
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 the exploratory boring in the
Project intake area suggest that bedding-plane slides have already
occurred. The design of the Project and cut slopes will address the
problem of potentially unstable slopes in the intake and gate shaft
area.
6.2.1.4 Seiche
Seiches are waves in lakes that are fonmed by the sloshing of water
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 surroundi ng Grant Lake that coul d be
sources of earth or avalanche material for mass movements into Grant
Lake, which could generate seiche waves. However, field work 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.
Investigations around Lower and Upper Trail Lakes indicate that the
surrounding topography coupled with the shallowness of the lakes
themsel ves present Significantly less hazard from seiche. There are
also no areas of material that could generate large waves by mass
movement into the lakes. The present design of the Project indicates
that it will not be susceptible to damage by seiches that might be
expected to occur in Grant or Trail Lakes.
6.2.1.5 Liquefaction
Liquefaction is the failure of loose, water-saturated sediments under
seismic ground shaking. However, major Project features would be
placed on or in bedrock, so no liquefaction problem will exist.
6-13
II .. ..
II
.. .. .. .. .. .. ..
•
• ..
• • • Ii
:
..
1l1li
II
•
" iii ., ..
• II
--.. ---• -• -• ----
------
6.2.2 Seepage
The groundwater table along most of the tunnel al ignment is at or near
the ground surface. Bedrock penneabilities are very low so that
seepage problems will only occur at the intersection of the tunnel with
open joi nts or fractures.
anticipated to be severe.
lining) will be such that
Project operation.
6.2.3 Subsidence
Seepage problems during construction are not
Tunnel design (small diameter with shotcrete
seepage wi 11 be mi nor and unimportant duri ng
There a re no Project faci 1 iti es located ina reas suscepti bl e to
subsidence. Although large areas of southwestern Alaska either
uplifted or subsided during the 1964 earthquake, such large scale
changes woul d have had no impact on the Project.
6.2.4 t~ining
Although there are several active and inactive mines around Grant and
Trail lakes, none of these mining activities are near the Project
site. No exploratory shafts or old mines exist near the Project.
• 6.2.5 Mass Movement -----• --------
~'lass movements or slope failures, including landslides, rockfalls,
avalanches, and slab failure, were discussed above as possible results
of seismic activity. The rock cliffs overlooking the powerhouse valley
could be the 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. No potential
landslide material exists around the powerhouse valley or the tunnel
alignment.
6-14
Avalanche chutes are cOlllTlon along the steep slopes in the mountains
around Grant Lake and Trail Lakes. Little evidence of avalanche was
found on the ridge between Grant and Trail Lakes, indicating little
direct hazard to Project facilities in these areas.
The intake area on the western shore of Grant Lake faces the greatest
nazard from unstable slopes, prirnari ly due to the steeply dipping
slopes of bedrock. Evidence of bedding plane failures was discovered
in the exploratory boring in the intake area, and field mapping data
suggest episodes of land and rock sliding uphill from the shore. This
situation is common along the entire western shore of Grant Lake due to
the steep topographY and the attitude of the bedding. Appropriate
measures, such as rock bolting and installation of lateral drains, will
be taken to ensure safety of the gate shaft and intake area.
6.2.6 Erosion
The lack of significant soil cover or alluvial deposits indicates that
erosion would be a minimal problem during construction and operation of
the Proj ect.
6.2.7 Hazards Induced by Reservoir Fluctuation
6.2.7.1 Slope Fail ure
The operational water level fluctuation of Grant Lake could trigger
slope failures, especially along the north shore of the lake where
large lobes of avalanche deposits exist. Failures are not expected to
be large or hazardous to safe Project operation.
6.2.7.2 Reservoir-Induced Seismicity
In many areas of the world, filling of reservoirs or large fluctuations
in lake or reservoir levels trigger small to medium magnitude
earthquakes. It is critical to understand, however, that the water
6-15
.. -
•
--
• --• .. .. ..
• .. -• ..
• ..
... ..
• • ..
• .. ...
II •
• ..
III
l1li
" I
---• -• ..
• ..
• ------
pressure changes merely act as triggers for these events, and do not
actually cause stress build-up in the rocks. The bedrock materials
must a 1 ready be stressed and prone to earthquake activi ty if
reservoir-induced seismicity is to occur. Grant Lake is an existing
reservoir that has already experienced a variety of changing stresses
to reach its present state. Little, if any, reservoir-induced
seismicity is expected during Project operation. Any shocks that might
occur would likely be of small magnitude, especially compared to the
general earthquake potential for the area. Therefore, this type of
earthquake generation will present no hazard to the Project or
surroundi ng areas.
6.3 POTENTIAL IMPACTS
The Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project would be a small scale power
-generating facility. The impacts of the Project would be small, and
• -------------• -• -• -•
mitigation measures can De designed to minimize impacts both during
construction and operation. Geologic impacts center primarily around
erosion, slope failure, and disposal and use of excavated materials.
Primary impacts during construction would revolve around the movement
and operation of personnel and equipment required to construct the
Project, and handling of waste rock from the powerhouse site and the
tunnel. Because the tunnel's diameter is small and the tunnel less
than 3000 ft long, the volume of excavated rock, approximately 10,000
cubic yards, would not be a major problem. Furthermore, much of the
rock excavated from the tunnel and the powerhouse foundation could
provide an excellent source of material for construction of tailraces,
the powerhouse, and associated structures. Residual material could be
removed from the site and used elsewhere as rockfil1 or disposed of
with no adverse impacts.
Excavations in tne powerhouse cove will require removal of some of the
sedimentary valley fill. Standard techniques would be used to prevent
silt movement into Trail Lake; these include drainage ditches,
retaining structur~s and settling ponds. As a result, the impacts of
construction of the Project would be minimal.
6-16
None of the planned construction activities would likely cause slope
failure around the Project site. Project design would include
stabilization of the natural slopes, especially in the intake area.
Operation of the powerhouse would unlikely have any detrimental impacts
in terms of erosion or slope failure.
6.4 MITIGATION OF IMPACTS
No extraordinary mitigation measures would be anticipated duri ng
construction or operation of the Project. Nonnal erosion control
measures would be sufficient to control the minimal erosion expected
du ri ng constructi on. Rapi d recovery of the vegetati on after
construction is completed will finish the erosion control program.
The Project would leave no slopes more unstable than at present, and in
both the intake and powerhouse areas slope stabilization measures would
be undertaken to ensure safe construction and operation of the Project.
6-17
• -
• -
• -
• -
lilt
•
• •
• •
• .. .. ..
• •
III ..
• •
'" ..
• • .. .. ..
•
• -
• -
• •
---• ----.. --
7.0 REPORT ON RECREATIONAL RESOURCES
This report addresses existing recreation resources and use in the
general and immediate vicinity of the proposed Project, planned
recreational development associated with the Project. estimates of
current and future recreational use of the Project vicinity,
recreational land management considerations, and agency consultation
and recommendations concerning the recreation aspects of the Project.
_ 7.1' REGIONAL RECREATIONAL RESOURCES AND USE .. .. ..
• -• ..
• -• .. ..
Lands within the Project vicinity and the surrounding region are
predominantly undeveloped public lands with high scenic and
recreational values. The Kenai Peninsula attracts considerable
recreation and tourism from residents of the region. the Anchorage
area, other parts of the state, and outside of Alaska. While
recreational activities that take place in the Kenai Peninsula are
highly varied, freshwater and saltwater fishing appear to be the most
popular activities, and largely drive many of the other types of use on
the Kenai Peninsula. These activities and the recreation resources
supporting them are described according to agency jurisdiction in more
detail below. Recreation facilities and areas which are near the Moose
Pass section of the highway corridor are shown in Figure 7-1 •
-7.1.1 Forest Service ----..
-• -• .. .. ..
!III
The Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA),
administers the Chugach National Forest, which encompasses essentially
the northeastern quadrant of the Kenai Peninsula as well as other lands
abutting Prince William Sound and the Gulf of Alaska. The peninsula
portion of the forest is divided between two ranger districts,
headquartered at Anchorage (also the location of the Forest
Supervisor's Office) and Seward. Major attractions of the Anchorage
District include the visitor facility at the Portage Glacier, which is
2657A
7-1
KENAI LAKE
LEGEND IAI CAMPGROUND
--_ .... FOREST SERVICE TRAILS
·········UNMAINTAINED TRAILS
--EXISTING ROADS
--PROPOSED ROADS
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PRO..ECT
RECREATION RESOURCES
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
12
---• -• ---------------
-
------• ---• -..
the singlf! most frequently visited recreation facility in Alaska
(Hennig 1982), and two winter sports areas. The Anchorage District
also maintains eight campgrounds, with a total of 142 units. The
Seward District includes a number of large lakes, and during certain
periods of the year receives heavy recreational use centered on the
Kenai and Russian Rivers and Kenai Lake. Peak use periods on the
distr'ict generally coincide with the timing of salmon runs.
Developed recreation faci 1 i ties provi ded by the Seward Ranger Di strict
include eight campgrounds with a total of 240 units, two boat ramps, a
picnic ground, and several recreation cabins, organization sites, and
recreation residences. Five of the campgrounds (Russian River, Cooper
Creek, Quartz Creek, Crescent Creek and Tern Lake) are located on or
very near the Sterling Highway (Alaska Highway 1) in the western part
of the district. The Russian River campground is the most popular
facility, ranking third in the state in visitation after Portage
Glacier and Denali National Park (Hennig 1982); the Cooper Creek and
Quartz Creek campgrounds often function as overflow areas for Russian
River during peak fishing activity. Use of the Trail River, Ptarmigan
Creek, and Primrose campgrounds, which are located along the Seward-
Anchorage Highway (Alaska Highway 9, locally known as the Seward
Highway) south of Moose Pass, tends more toward transient use as
opposed to destination use.
Total recreational use on the Seward District during fiscal year 1981
was estimated at 442,400 recreation visitor days (RVDs), representing
approximately 40 percent of the nearly 1.1 million total RVDs for the
Chugach National Forest (USDA, Forest Service 1982a). Developed use in
the Seward District amounted to about 106,000 RVDs during FY 1981, or
24 percent of the total for the district. The eight campgrounds
accounted for roughly 70,OUO RVDs, with 33,200 RVDs for Russian River
alone. Oi spersed recreati on typically accounts for the 1 a rgest sha re
of all use, primarily due to the time spent sightseeing, driving for
pleasure, or otherwise using roads within the National Forest.
Nonroaded, dispersed recreation during 1981 included 56,700 RVDs of
trail use and nearly 41,000 days of recreation on lakes, rivers, and
7-3
streams. Annual recreation data sufficient to identify trends do not
exist, but use of the Chugach National Forest has increased at a
moderate rate ill recent years (Devore 1982).
The eastern side of the Seward District, primarily the area bordering
the Seward Highway from Upper Trail Lake southward, does not receive
the heavy use of the Kenai-Russian River area, but does contain several
locations that are popular for backpacking, hunting, and other uses.
Most of the developed recreation in this area is focused on Kenai Lake,
as there are three campgrounds, a boat launch, and a picnic area on or
near the lake. The two recreation cabins at Paradise Lakes are
extremely popular, and must be reserved well in advance for summer use.
Visitor use data for a number of specific recreation facilities in this
portion of the Seward District are presented in Table 7-1. t40st of
these facilities are Inapped in Figure 7-1. The developed facilities in
the area generally receive light to moderate use, although utilization
rates at the campgrounds can be high on summer weekends. Trail River
Campground is the largest of three campgrounds, with 43 units currently
open for use (half of the original campground has been closed), and
also receives the most use. Over the 104-day managed season, the 7,800
RVDs at Trail River represent an average occupancy level (people at one
time, or PAOT) of 37 people, or about 17 percent of theoretical
capacity. In comparison, average occupancy at the much larger Russian
Ri ver Campground is about 160 peopl e, whi cll represents 18 percent of
theoretical capacity (USDA, Forest Service 1982a).
In genera 1, a uti 1 i zati on rate of between 20 and 40 percent of
theoretical capacity is considered appropriate, because campground use
levels cycle weekly and are unevenly distributed over time. In this
case, however, the similar uti1ization rates for the two facilities
reflect the very large capacity needed to handle Russian River activity
peaks during salmon runs, and the closure of half of the Trail River
7-4
.. -.. .. .. -
• -.. --..
•
• ..
'" ..
• .. .. ..
• .. ..
ill .. ..
• .. ..
.. .. ..
III ..
---.. -.. .. .. .. .. -... -..
-..
-----
lilt
..
--.. -.. -.. -.. -..
-..
TABLE 7-1
RECREATION USE FOR SELECTED SITES IN THE
SEWARD RANGER DISTRICT, FISCAL YEAR 1981~
Facility
Ptarmigan Creek campground
Primrose campground
Trail River Campground
Trail River Picnic Loop
Primrose Landing Boat Launch
Subtotal, developed
Carter Lake Trail
Iditarod National Historic Trail
Johnson Pass Trail
Lost Lake Trai 1
Primrose Creek Trail
Ptarmigan Creek Trail
Grayling Lake Trail
Vi ctor Creek Trai 1
Vagt Lake Trai 1
Subtota 1, trail use
TOTAL DEVELOPED AND TRAIL USE
!/ USDA, Forest Service 1982a.
7-5
Estimated Visitor-
Days (RVDs)
4,100
3,000
7,800
300
400
15,600
800
1,800
6,600
2,800
500
3,900
500
200
500
17,600
33,200
Campground. The estimated 1981 utilization rates for the Ptarmigan
Creek and Primrose facilities were 15 percent and 29 percent,
respectively (USDA, Forest Service 1982a).
Use of the nine trails listed in Table 7-1 was estimated at 17,600 RVDs
in 1981, somewhat more than aggregate use at the developed facilities
in the area. (The Forest Service data system is designed to seyregate
time actually spent on the trail from time spent at the destination,
although use cannot be monitored closely enough to do this with
precision.) The Johnson Pass Trail is a popular backpacking trail,
especially for extended trips, and in 1981 was the third most
frequently used trail among 17 on the Seward District. The Iditarod
Trail is also somewhat unusual due to its historic significance and
considerable interpretive use. The remaining seven trails listed in
the table are generally similar in that they are comparatively short
trails of mostly moderate grade leading to lakes or other specific
desti nations.
7.1.2 Other Public Agencies
Recreation areas managed by the National Park Service and Fish and
Wildlife Service of the federal government, and the Division of Parks
of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources are also important
recreation attractions withi n the overall region, although none are
located very close to the Project vicinity. The most significant of
these areas is the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (formerly the Kenai
National Moose Range), which occupies nearly 2 million acres within the
interior of the Kenai Peninsula and abuts the western edge of the
Chugach National Forest. Much of the refuge is foothill or lowland
area, providi ng easier access than the more rugged National Forest
land. The rivers and streams of the refuge attract heavy fishing use
for both salmon and resident freshwater fish, particularly in the Kenai
River and Skilak Lake areas. The area is also popular for canoeing,
boating, hunting, backpacking, and passive uses such as wildlife
photography. The Fish and Wildlife Service operates 15 campgrounds
7-6
• -
• ..
• -
• ..
• ..
• ..
• •
• .. .. ..
I
• II
II ..
• III
• • ..
• -
• ..
... ..
• ..
---.. with a total of 297 units, plus 15 hiking trails and 2 established -.. -.. -
-------
ca~oe trails (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1982). Annual
recreational use of the refuge, exclusive of sightseeing and other
incidental activities along the Sterling Highway, is estimated at about
250,000 visitors (Johnson 1982) .
The National Park Service operates Kenai Fjords National Park, which
extends west and southwest from Seward along the Gulf of Alaska. The
Park is mostly undeveloped and attracts only light use, largely
"flightseeing" trips to the Harding Icefield, Aialik Bay, and other
attractions. Recent access improvements have provided for backcountry
use in the Exit Glacier area, a few miles northwest of Seward.
The Alaska State Park System includes 36 existing and proposed units
within its Kenai Subregion administrative area (Alaska Department of
Natural Resources, Division of Parks 1982). To some extent these
-facilities may compete for recreationists with the Chugach National
Forest, but the State-m't'ned units provide different types of recreation -
-
----
-..
-.. -
opportunities because they are located in or near coastal areas. Most
of these 36 units are small recreation areas or sites; the most
significant units are Kachemak Bay State Park, east of Homer, and
Captain Cook State Recreation Area, on the shore of Cook Inlet
northeast of Kenai. While not located on the Kenai Peninsula, Chugach
State Park is also a very significant recreational resource. This
495,000-acre state park, located just east of Anchorage, provides manY
of the same types of recreational opportunities as the Chugach National
Forest and is located much closer to the major regional source of
recreati oni sts.
7.1.3 Private Entities
Privately owned recreation facilities and services in the Project
vicinity are somewhat limited due to the predominance of public land
ownership. Lodges are located one each at Cro\'t'll Point and r~oose Pass,
.. while three lodge and resort facilities, some with campsites, are -.. -7-7 ..
located in the Cooper Landing area near the west end of Kenai Lake
(Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Division of
Tourism 1982). The other significant local private entities are two
flying services, operating out of Crown Point and r~oose Pass which
provide fly-in access to remote areas in this portion of the Kenai
Peninsula. More distant from the Project vicinity. three private
campgrounds, several lodging facilities, a flying service, and other
outlets serving recreation and tourism are located in Seward.
7.2 EXISTING PROJECT VICINITY FACILITIES AND USE
The Project vicinity currently possesses no structural recreation
facilities other than a series of established but unmaintained trails
from both Upper and Lower Trail Lakes to Grant Lake, a primitive road
to mining claims near upper Falls Creek, and a maintained trail to Vagt
Lake. The Vagt Lake Trail is part of the Forest Service trail system,
but the trails to Grant Lake and road along Falls Creek are not. The
only other enhancement of recreation carried out in the Project
vi ci nity has been the creat; 011 of a sport fi shery ; n Vagt Lake. In
1973 the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) treated the lake
witn rotenone to kill the resident, nongame species. In 1974 and again
in 1980 the lake was stocked by the ADF&G witn rainbow trout. Project
vi ci nity fi shery resources are descri bed in greater detai 1 in Chapter 3.
The Project vicinity receives limited recreational use for fishing,
hunting, hiking, backpacking, and camping, mainly during the spring and
summer. There is also some canoeing on Grant Lake, mostly by hunters.
Snowmobilers have been observed heading up the trail from Moose Pass
toward Grant Lake (Quilliam 1982) although most of the slopes around
the lake are steep and subject to avalanche hazard. These basic
activities can be expected to continue to be pursued after the proposed
Project is constructed.
7-8
• ..
• .. .. .. .. -..
III
• ..
•
II
" ..
, •
• II
• ..
• III .. ..
• ..
•
•
.. .. -• ..
-----• -• -• ----------
--------• -• -.. -.. -•
The principal recreation attractions within the Project vicinity are
hunting, fishing, and general opportunities for backcountry
experiences. Game animals residing in the area include mountain goat,
black bear, brown bear, Dall sheep, and moose (see Chapter 3). Access
to remote hunting territory, such as above the east end of Grant Lake,
is currently limited to float plane and foot travel. Lower Grant
Creek, Vagt Lake, and possibly lower Falls Creek provide fishing
opportunities in the Project vicinity. Activity in Grant Creek is
limited to fishing for rainbow trout and Dolly Varden in the lower 0.5
to 0.75 mile of the stream, as the creek is closed to salmon fishing
and the upper reaches do not support fish. Grant Creek fishing is also
limited by difficult access, because it can only be reached by boat via
Trail Lakes or by hiking several miles from the highway. Vagt Lake has
been stocked with rainbow trout, as indicated above, and there is some
evidence of fishing activity at the mouth of Falls Creek.
Estimates of recreational use of the Project vicinity or specific sites
within the area are limited to Forest Service data on use of the Vagt
Lake Trail. As stated in Section 7.1, this trail received an estimated
500 RVDs of use during FY 1981 (see Table 7-1). The 500 RVDs amount to
6,000 hours of use. Allowing two hours for the round trip hike, this
would correspond to 3,000 annual visits to Vagt Lake (unless the
500-RVD estimate includes some time spent at the lake, a statistical
division which is difficult to identify). Time spent in fishing or
other recreational activities at Vagt Lake would probably be at least
equal to the 500 RVDs of trail use. Ptarmigan Lake and other locations
outside of the immediate study area receive heavier use; still 3,000
visits is a substantial figure.
Backpackers have been observed camping at Grant Lake, primarily at the
northern end of the lower part of the lake, but the observations have
not been frequent enough for Forest Service recreation personnel to
offer estimates of use. Assuming two parties hiked in to Grant Lake
every month during a four month backpacking season, with an average
party size of three people and length of stay of 36 hours, backcountry
use of the lake would amount to 24 visits and 72 RVDs per year.
7-9
Most of the hunters using the area around Grant Lake undoubtedly use
float plane access, given the difficulty of hiking around the lake or
carrying a canoe to the lake from the highway. The proprietor of a
local flying service estimates that an average of about five parties of
three to four hunters each fly to Grant Lake every year (Pfl eger
1982). In comparison Paradise Lakes and Upper Russian Lake receive
approximately 200 and 100 annual visitors, respectively, for hunting,
fishing, and camping (both areas have Forest Service cabins). Assuming
20 fly-in hunters spend an average of four days each near Grant Lake,
annual hunting activity in the lake basin would amount to about 160
RVDs. Some additional hunting may occur in the lower portions of the
study area closer to the highway, but it appears neither significant
nor quantifiable.
Estimates or educated guesses as to the number of visits or time spent
fishing Grant Creek and Falls Creek, and snowmobiling near Grant Lake,
or other recreational activities in the area cannot be provided. Given
the rough figures provided above, total recreational activity in the
entire Project area may range from 800 to 1,300 RVDs per year, of which
Vagt Lake would account for more than three quarters.
No new recreation facilities or activities are currently planned for
the Project vicinity other than the recreation development proposed in
this report. The periodic stocking of Vagt Lake with trout by the
ADF&G and the maintenance of the Vagt Lake Trail by the Forest Service
are the only active recreation programs in the area. The Draft Forest
Plan for the Chugach National Forest (USDA, Forest Service 1982b)
proposes that the remaining National Forest lands in the analysis areas
encompassing Grant Lake be managed principally for dispersed
recreation. The Draft Plan also proposes possible cooperative
development, with the State of Alaska, of hiking and cross-country
skiing trails along the right-of-way of the Alaska Railroad, if the
railroad is transferred to State ownership. Such development could
conceivably occur near Grant Lake, but more likely it would be much
closer to Anchorage.
7-10
• -.. .. .. .. -.. .. .. ..
•
• ..
• ..
" ..
• • ..
• ..
•
• •
• • .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
•
---• -• -• -• -• -• ----
----------• -
1M -• -• -•
7.3 SPECIAL USE DESIGNATIONS
The Project vicinity is not directly affected by any special
legislative or administrative land use designations, other than the
route of the Iditarod Trail as a National Historic Trail. The Iditarod
Trail, which generally follows the route of the Alaska Railroad, is
discussed in Chapter 4. Much of the Project lies within a roadless
area studied under the second Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE
II) process; this 216,OOO-acre roadless area (area number A005, A-E
Kenai Mountains) was designated for further planning under RARE II,
with eventual disposition to be determined through the Chugach Forest
Plan (USDA, Forest Service 1982b, 1982c). The Grant Lake portion of
this area was not proposed for wilderness designation in five out of
six alternatives presented in the Draft Forest Plan, with the
hydroelectric potential of Grant Lake specifically cited as the reason
for not proposing the area around the lake for wilderness designation.
Extensive wilderness areas and lands with other special use
designations are located elsewhere on the Kenai Peninsula relatively
close to the Project. The Kenai National Wildlife Refuge contains
about 1.3 million acres of wilderness land, some of \vhich abuts the
Chugach National Forest on its western border. The largely undeveloped
Kenai Fjords National Park extends along the southwestern edge of the
forest. Additionally, it appears likely that a wilderness designation
will be given to the Nellie Juan area, which includes the Paradise
Lakes country about 12 miles southeast of Grant Lake (USDA, Forest
Service 1982b, 1982c).
None of the streams of the Kenai Peninsula have been designated as part
of the National Wild and Scenic River System or are under study for
inclusion in the system (U.S. National Park Service 1982). No national
trail other than the Iditarod Trails are located near the Project.
7-11
7.4 SHORELINE BUFFER ZONE
The shoreline of Grant Lake will be included in the Project and will
remain open to public access. The lands will continue to receive
Forest Service overview for their scenic, recreational, cultural, and
other environmental values. Lands along the western edge of the
Project vicinity, including approximately one-half mile of Grant Lake
shoreline near the lake outlet, are scheduled to be transferred from
the federal government to the State of Alaska and then to the Kenai
Peninsula Borough. This transfer is described in more detail in
Chapter 9. While ownership and jurisdiction of these lands will
ultimately be municipal, or possibly private, public access rights to
this shoreline area and the proposed recreation area will be ensured
through easements retained by the Forest Service and provisions of the
FERC License issued for the Project.
7.5 RECREATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN
A small, day use recreation area near the outlet of Grant Lake is
proposed as a component of the Project. A description of the
development concept and proposed facilities are provided below, along
with informat"ion on expected recreational use and development cost and
schedul e.
7.5.1 Recreation Plan Concept
Several recreation development concepts "involving varying levels of use
and development intensity were considered for the Project. The levels
of development considered ranged from relatively intense development at
Grant Lake, based on a campground and boat ramp, to primitive
recreati on, with only tra il access to the 1 ake. Tne recommended
development concept consists of road access to the lake with a small
picnic area and launch access for easily portdble boats.
7-12
.. -.. -..
.. -.. .. .. ..
• ..
• •
• ..
" ..
• ..
• •
• ..
• ..
• .. .. .. .. -.. ..
• ..
-
-• -• -• -• -• ----------
Intense recreational development at Grant Lake does not appear to be
appropriate due to existing developed facilities in the general
viCinity and the apparent difficulty and expense of constructing a boat
ramp for trailered boats. The Forest Service currently operates four
lake-oriented campgrounds (Trail River, Ptarmigan Creek, Primrose, and
Tern Lake) within approximately 10 or 12 miles of Grant Lake. Low
utilization rates at two of these campgrounds and the closure of half
of Trail River Campground indicate that a car campground at Grant Lake
would duplicate existing facilities and probably receive insufficient
use.
At the lower end of the range of possible recreation development,
primitive recreation based on a trail to a camping and day-use area at
the south end of Grant Lake woul d be consi stent with current
recreational use of the area and would serve an identified demand for
relatively quick, easy trail access to backcountry areas. However, the
existing trail system provides a number of trail access opportunities
in the area. Moreover, agency contacts and an assessment of existing
recreational opportunities in the Project vicinity indicate that there
is a greater demand for recreational access by road to places such as
Grant Lake. Moreover, Project facility operation and maintenance will
require permanent road access to the gate shaft intake area on Grant
Lake. Closure of this road to public use would be inadvisable and
_ contrary to Forest Service policy. These considerations support a
---------
-• -•
middle level of development involving road access to a day-use area on
the lake. The proposed facilities to be developed under this plan are
described in more detail in the following section.
7.5.2 Proposed Recreation Facilities
Recreation development proposed for the Project will be concentrated at
the south end of Grant Lake, approximately 500 ft east of the outlet.
This is a relatively level area, lending itself to use by the
handicapped, with scattered growths of evergreens and adjoining one of
7-13
•
only a few parts of the Grant lake shoreline possessing a gentle slope
at and below the lake's present water line. The general layout of
these facilities is indicated on Figure 7-2. Some signing would also
be required at other locations. All facilities will be designed
consistent with Forest Service standards.
The major facil ities proposed for the recreation area are a parki ng
lot, small picnic area, vault toilet, and launch ramp for boats. A
graded and gravelled parki ng area of approximately 6,000 square ft,
sufficient for 12 vehicles, would be located adjacent to the access
road. A short, two-lane road extension approximately 100 ft in length
would connect the parking lot with the lakeshore and boat launching
area. The launch ramp would extend from the lake's normal maximum
operating level (elevation 691 ft) to an elevation which will allow
usage when the lake is not completely full.
A total of three picnic sites will be developed, one west of the lauch
and the other two just east of the parking area. The site nearest the
parking lot will be a double site for larger parties. All sites would
be located just inside the edge of the existing trees in order to
minimize clearing yet provide shade, and the two sites east of the
parking area would be separated by 100 ft. Each site would consist of
a picnic table (four total), and steel channel fireplace with flip
grate. Short lengths of trail connecting the sites with the parking
area would be constructed. The sealed vault toilet would be situated
at the south end of the parking lot, as far inland as possible but
still within the required 300 ft of all picnic sites.
Signing for the Project would primarily consist of directional and
informational signs. Signs directing travellers to the recreation area
would be posted on both sides of the access road intersection with the
Seward Highway and at various points along the main access road.
Several signs at the recreation area would direct users to the various
7-14
-----.. ----
•
•
• -• • ..
•
..
•
• • ..
•
l1li
•
• --
-.. -
• •
---..
-z
• -• -• -.. GRANT LAKE -• ---PICNIC .. SITES ---tt-_C1
-LAUNCH AREA~ ---~.
-----.. -..
-..
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT -..
I
RECREATION DEVELOPMENT
.l. ..
FIGURE 7-2 -EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED .. 7-16
---.. -..
•
facilities and post the area against overnight camping. The main
Project sign, providing basic Project data and an area map, would be
located near the powerhouse. An interpretive sign describing the
Project1s fish mitigation program would be installed at the Trail Lake
Hatche r:Y.
.. 7.5.3 Facility Capacity and Use
• ..
• ..
• -• -• -.. -..
-.. ---.. -.. -.. -
The instantaneous capacity (people at one time or PAOT) of the proposed
recreation area would be 48 people, based upon the parking capacity of
12 vehicles and an assumed occupancy rate of four persons per vehicle •
The picnic area \'1ould have a rated capacity of 16 PAOT, given four
persons per table, although parties of five or six persons can
comfortably use a standard-size picnic table. The proposed picnic
capacity is less than the total site capacity because some
recreationists would use the area only for boating and some overnight
parking would be provided for campers travelling to up-lake areas by
boat. The theoretical season capacity of the picnic area over a
104-day managed season (the same as for Seward District campgrounds)
would be 1,664 recreation visitor days (RVDs). Assuming an average
length of stay of three hours, this would correspond to 6,654 maximum
visits annually.
The actual use that the proposed recreation facility will receive is
difficult to estimate due to insufficient data on existing use and a
lack of comparable facilities. Given the size of the facility and
visitation of minor Forest Service recreation attractions elsewhere on
the Seward District, however, it is expected that typical annual use of
the picnic area will initially be approximately 200 RVDs. This assumed
use level corresponds to a visitation pattern of five parties per day
on weekends and hol idays (33 days of the 104-day season) and an average
of 1.5 parties per day on weekdays, with three people per party and an
average visit of three hours. A use level of 200 RVDs (800 visits) per
year would represent a utilization rate of about 12 percent of
• theoretical season capacity. Given the assumed party size, 800 annual
.. -7-16 ..
visits would require nearly 270 vehicle-trips to the site. This level
of traffic flow represents roughly one out of every 500 cars travelling
the Seward Highway during the area's recreation season, based on 1981
traffic counts at Moose Pass (Alaska Department of Transportation 1982).
Recreational use of the three existing boat ramps on the Seward and
Anchorage Di stricts (Primrose Landi ng, Qua rtz Creek, and Tenderfoot)
ra nged from 100 to 400 RVDs duri ng FY 1981 (USDA, Fo rest Servi ce,
Chugach National Forest 1982a). Because all three of these ramps are
located adjacent to major highways and serve trailered boats as well as
smaller craft, use of the launch area at Grant Lake can reasonably be
expected to be lower than any of the existing ramps if the lake is not
planted with a sport fish like rainbow trout. If it is, (see Appendix
B, specifically Fish Mitigation Planning Document No.3, for details)
then usage will likely be higher. Because the level of sport fishery
mitigation remains to be established, no mitigation is assumed and
initial use of the launch at Grant Lake will be arbitrarily estimated
at 50 RVDs per year. Some of this activity will likely consist of
campers and hunters launching boats for access to other parts of the
lake basin. Assuming 30 recreationists per year spent an average of 36
hours each elsewhere in the lake basin, this would result in an
additional 90 RVDs per year.
Aggregate use associated with the proposed recreational development at
the south end of Grant Lake, i ncl udi ng overni ght use of other pa rts of
the lake basin and time spent at Project-related interpretive signs
during visits to the powerhouse and Trail Lake Hatchery, will probably
range from 250 to 400 RVDs per year. Recreational use of the area
could be expected to increase somewhat with continued population growth
in Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula and with increased tourism.
Greater public knowledge of recreational opportunities at Grant Lake
also might lead to increased use over time, particularly because
current use of Grant Lake appears to be primarily by local residents.
7-17
•
• -.. ... .. ... .. .. .. -.. -.. ..
• •
• .. ..
•
•
III
• III
•
III ..
III .. -.. .. .. ..
•
11M
--.. -..
.. -.. -•
-• -• -
-.. -.. -..
-.. -.. -• -.. -.. -..
Use of the recreation area and surrounding lands during the initial
hunting seasons will be monitored by ADF&G and Forest Service wildlife
biologists to determine if road access to Grant Lake has an adverse
impact upon the local wildlife. If it is determined that this access
has resulted in unacceptable hunting pressure, hunting may be
restricted through the mandatory use of permits or Project roads may be
closed to public access during subsequent hunting seasons.
The proposed development could easily be expanded if activity levels
warrant. Adequate space exists at the south end of Grant Lake for
development of additional picnic sites adjacent to the proposed sites,
particularly those east of the parking area. If necessary, additional
parking could be provided south of the proposed facilities adjacent to
the access road. If there appears to be sufficient demand for
overnight camping facilities, the logical approach would be to develop
several hardened campsites along the lakeshore for boat access.
Responsibilities for financing and implementing potential future
expansion of the recreational facilities will be addressed in the
cooperative agreement concerning the Project between the Power
Authority and the Forest Service.
7.5.4 Development Schedule and Costs
Preliminary, planning-level cost estimates for the proposed recreation
facilities are presented in Table 7-2. They are primarily based on
recreation facility cost figures from recent Forest Service experience
(Hennig 1982), supported by escalated 1981 standard facility cost
figures prepared by the Alaska Division of Parks (Alaska Department of
Natural Resources 1981). The estimated total cost of the proposed
facilties, is $45,000. These capital costs will be borne by the Power
Authority as part of the overall cost of the Project. Operation and
maintenance requirements of the proposed recreational facilities will
be low, although establishment of the actual maintenance program will
be the responsibility of the administering agency. Estimated costs of
operation of these facilities are included in the Project cost
estimates.
7-18
TABLE 7-2
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PR~lECT RECREATION PLAN
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTHifATE
Item Unit Quantity Uni t Cost Total Cost
Clearing LS $ $ 5,000
Park area -gravel surfacing SF 6,000 2.00 12,000
Launch access road -
gravel surfacing LF 100 20.00 2,000
Boat launch area -
gra ve 1 surf ac i ng SF 600 2.00 1,200
Picnic tables EA 4 400.00 1,600
Fi rep1 ace EA 4 1,500.00 6,000
Picnic area trai 1 s LF 250 10.00 2,500
Contained vault toilet EA 1 3.000.00 3.000
Project sign (at powerhouse) EA 1,000.00 1,000
Fishery interpretive sign
(at hatchery) EA 1 1,000.00 1,000
Miscellaneous signing for
recreation area LS ::J,OOO.OO 3,000
r~i sce 11 aneous LS 6,700
Total 45,000
7-19
• ..
• ..
-• -
II -., -
•
iii
I
:
I
II .. ..
III
• .. ..
• .. •
-----.. ..
• ..
• ..
• ..
•
• ..
• ..
• -..
-
---..
--..
..
• ..
--
7.6 SUM!t1ARY OF AGENCY CONTACTS
Definitive, formal recommendations or policies concerning recreation
development at the Project have not been offered by any of the resource
agencies involved. However, there have been clear indications of
various agency concerns and interests, particularly from Forest Service
personnel of the Seward Ranger District and the Alaska Deparf:,ment of
Fi sh and Game. Sri efly, the Seward Di strict recogni zes a need for more
off-highway recreation opportunities in the area, and recommends
keeping the Project access road open to the public and providing
parking and boat launching facilities at Grant Lake (Wilson 1982). It
is uniform Forest Service policy to leave roads on National Forest
lands open to multiple use if possible. As mitigation for the lost
sport fishing opportunity that would result with dewatering of Grant
Creek, the ADF&G advocates planting Grant Lake with rainbow trout or
similar species. For access to this fishery, they advocate a boat
1 aunchi ng ramp on Grant Lake.
Other Forest Service employees and personnel from the Alaska Division
of Parks, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and the City of
Seward have also offered views on Project recreation, although these
views were offered informally and do not necessarily represent official
agency positions. Other Forest Service contacts (Albrecht 1982; DeVore
1982; Hennig 1982; Qui11iam 1982; Tallerico 1982) also noted the
shortage of accessible recreation spots away from the Seward Highway,
and the advisability of leaving roads open and providing a vault toilet
and possibly a launch and other facilities. There was some indication
that the Forest Service would consider maintaining recreation
facilities, other than roads, built for the Project. Information was
also provided on Forest Service guidelines concerning the types of
facilities provided for the various levels of development on the
recreation opportunity spectrum, as was the observation that about 10
camp units would be required if overnight camping were to be encouraged
7-20
at Grant Lake. There was some feeling that the Forest Service would
favor a day-use facility, that camping at such a facility should be
discouraged, and that some reviewers would express concern that road
access to Grant Lake would change the character of recreation in the
area.
Opinions of other agency personnel are generally divided over the
advisability of providing road access to the lake. A representative of
the Alaska Division of Parks thought that primitive recreation would be
appropriate for Grant Lake and suggested minimal development consisting
of trail access to the lake and a pit toilet (Wiles 1982). ADF&G staff
initially expressed concern that road access would lead to increased
pressure on wildlife, particularly moose, although they later indicated
that temporary road closures or area restrictions could minimize
wildlife impacts if problems arose (Schwartz 1982; Spraker 1982). A
City of Seward official reflected the prevailing Forest Service opinion
that Project access roads should be left open because of the
significant demand for getting off the highway (Schaefermyer 1982).
The recreation development plan proposed above is intended to meet
agency recreation planning objectives and be responsive to views of
agency staff.
The following summarizes pertinent Agency contacts made in support of
this report. Correspondence between the Alaska Power Authority and
various agencies is included in the Technical Appendix, Part VIII.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
1) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
January 5, 1982
Ted McHenry, Seward
(Telephone conversation)
Availability of information on
recreation in Grant Lake vicinity
7-21
I
I
•
III
III!
III
•
•
III! ..
..
• •
I
I
I
" II
• ..
III! .. ..
II
----2) Date: -Agency Representative:
• .. Location: .. Subject: ..
• -3) Date: .. Agency Representative: .. Location: • Subject: .. 4) Date: -Agency Representative:
Location: ..
Subject: ---5) Date: -Agency Representative:
-Location: -Subject: -
June 2, 1982
Dave Daisy and Bill Gaylor
(Anchorage)
(Telephone conversation)
Construction work force management
for Upper Trail Lake fish hatchery;
source of work force; policies on
housing work force.
June 7, 1982
Ted Spraker (Soldotna)
(Telephone conversation)
Agency policies toward recreational
access to Grant Lake area
June 18, 1982
Chuck Schwartz (Soldotna)
Soldotna, Alaska
Agency policies toward recreational
access to Grant Lake area and game
management alternatives to protect
1 oc a 1 moose herd
July 13, 1982
Ted Spraker (Soldotna)
(Telephone conversation)
Plans for managing recreational
access to Grant Lake area
-A1 aska Depa rtment of Natura 1 Resources, Divi si on of Parks -1 ) Da te: -Agency Representative: -Location: .. .. Subject: .. .. ...
--
June 22, 1982
Jack Wiles (Anchorage)
Anchorage
Recreation planning concepts for
the Project; need for vehicular
access to Project vicinity
7-22
2) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
u.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Servi ce
1 ) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Su bj ect:
2) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
3) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
4) Date:
Agency Representative:
Locati on:
Subject:
August 18, 1982
Jack Wiles
(Telephone conversation)
Iditarod Trail, state park
visitation, recreation facility
costs
Ja nuary 19, 1982
Ron Quil1iam (Seward)
(Telephone conversation)
Availability of recreation and
other uses of Grant Lake area
June 17, 1982
Ro n Qu i 11 i am (Sewa rd )
Seward, Alaska
Acquisition of data on recreation
and other land uses in Project
vicinity
June 21, 1982
Jim Tallerico
Anchorage, Alaska
Acquisition of data on recreational
uses of Project vicinity
August 18, 1982
Steve Hennig (Anchorage)
(Telephone conversation)
Recreation use on Seward District,
probable recreational uses in
vicinity of Grant Lake
7-23
• ill .. ..
III
III
-.. -.. -
III
•
• •
• ..
III
II
I
I
I
" ..
I II
..
•
III
•
---.. ..
• ..
• ..
• ..
• ..
•
• ---..
---..
-..
• ..
• ..
• ..
-•
5) Date;
Agency Representative:
Locati on:
Subject;
6) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1 ) Da te:
Agency Representative;
Location:
Su bj ect:
August 20, 1982
Ron Qui1liam, Bob Walker, Chad
Devore (Sewa rd)
(Telephone conversation)
Recreation use on Seward District,
recreational development of
alternatives; agency policies on
recreational access
September 3, 1982
Steve Hennig (Anchorage)
(Telephone conversation)
Recreation facility costs,
appropriate level and type of
development at Grant Lake
August 16, 1982
Rick Johnson (Soldotna)
(Telephone conversation)
Recreation use on Kenai National
Wi 1 d1 He Refuge
7-24
-
----• -• -•
• -• -.. -• -..
8.0 REPORT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
The principal aesthetic attraction of the Grant Lake Hydroelectric
Project vicinity and adjacent lands is the visual resource.
Accordingly, the following sections identify the visual characteristics
of the Project vicinity, anticipated potential Project impacts on
visual resources, and protective measures necessary to avoid or reduce
such impacts. Much of the information presented in this chapter is
based directly on materials provided by the Forest Service and on
consultation with Forest Service personnel.
8.1 VISUAL CHARACTER OF LANDS AND WATERS AFFECTED BY THE PROJECT
A visual resource assessment of the Project vicinity was conducted to
identify the visual character of the area's landscapes. The visual
analysis process included identifying the visually dominant physical
components of the landscapes (i.e., land forms, rock formations,
vegetation patterns, water forms) as well as conducting a subjective
evaluation of viewer sensitivity to the visual resources. This
methodology permits classification of landscapes according to their
scenic resource values, facilitating sound resource management •
-8.1.1 PhYsical Visual Characteristics
• ---..
-.. -.. -
--
The Project is situated in an environmental setting of distinctive and
varied landscapes. typical of Alaska's southcentral region. Rounded
foothi 11 s with moderate slopes contrast with steep mountain peaks
characterized by sharply defined ridges, angular steep-sided crests,
and conspicuous boulder outcrops. The Project vicinity is visually
dominated by snow-capped mountain peaks. Three prominent peaks rising
to 4,810 ft, 5,180 ft and 5,269 ft elevations' surround the Project
site. Snow-icefields cover approximately 25 percent of the
southcentral region (USDA, Forest Service 1979), dominating higher
2576A
8-1
elevations year-round. The presence of glacial activity contributes
significantly to the contrast and variety of the visual experience of
southcentral Alaska.
Steep slopes, elevation, and climatic conditions influence the variety
of vegetation characterizing the Project vicinity. Slopes above 4,000
ft elevations typically display barren rock and talus surfaces.
Timberline varies between 1,000-1,500 ft elevations. Alpine vegetation
and subalpine herbaceous meadO\'1s dominate slopes above treeline while
mixed conifer and deciduous species comprise most of the densely
forested areas be1m'l. The area's vegetation is described in detail in
Chapter 3.
Landscapes viewed throughout the Project vicinity are frequently
confined to foreground and middleground distance zones. Extreme peak
elevations, steep mountain slopes, and dense forest vegetation at lower
elevations spatially enclose and restrict the viewshed, the areal
extent of terrain visible from a given point of the viewer.
t4an-made elements that have been introduced into the visual
environment, shown on Figure 1-2, include the Anchorage-Seward Highway,
the Alaska Railroad, the Moose Pass community and its associated
buildings, a 24 kV transmission line paralleling the Anchorage-Seward
Highway, and a number of Forest Service campgrounds and trails.
8.1.2 Scenic Resource Values
The scenic resource values of an area reflect the viewer's sensitivity
to the landscape's aesthetic qualities. This sensitivity level is
based on the number and frequency of vi ewers, the durati 011 of the
viewing period, and the location of viewing points. The viewer's
perception of aesthetic quality is based primarily upon the diversity
of the landscape elements and their visibility.
8-2
..
It
• lit
... ..
• -
•
..
..
• ..
..
II ..
• -
II ..
• ..
• •
• ..
II ..
• ..
• ..
---
• -.. -• -.. -..
-..
-• -------------.. -• -.. -..
The Anchorage-Seward Highway, a north-south route, parallels the west
shore of Upper and Lower Trail Lakes, from the westward extension of
Upper Trail Lake to the south end of Lower Trail Lake. At this
location the highway crosses over the Lower Trail Lakes' outlet, the
Trail River, and continues south to Seward. Approximately one-quarter
of a mile south of the Trail River crossing the highway crosses Falls
Creek .
Views from viewpoints along the highway are frequently enclosed.
Madson Mountain rising to 5,269 ft elevation along the west shore of
the Upper and Lower Trail Lakes system, as well as the lakes' densely
forested shorel ine effectively restrict the potential viewshed to
immediate foreground distance zones. Consequently, views from the
Anchorage-Sewa rd Hi ghway in the Project vici nity typically consi st of
the higher elevations of mountain peaks, dense forest vegetation, the
highway and portions of the Alaska Railroad tracks, and occasional
Moose Pass community structures along the highway.
From a few locations along the highway, views of the Trail Lakes
system, its east shoreline, and a backdrop of snow-capped mountains can
be seen. Views are less restricted during the fall and winter as the
majority of the shoreline vegetation is deciduolJs. Photographs from
locations where there is an opportunity to view these landscapes are
shown as Figures 8-1 and 8-2.
Neither Grant Lake nor Vagt Lake at their respective 696 ft and 554 ft
elevations are visible to viewers traveling the Anchorage-Seward
Highway. The highway, for most of its route along the west shore of
the Trail Lakes system, is generally at about 500 ft elevation. Ridges
reach elevations ranging from 639 ft along the west shore of Vagt Lake
to 892 ft along the west shore of Grant Lake (see Figures 8-1 and 8-2).
8-3
OJ
I
~
GRANT LAKE (Behind Hill)
POWERHOUSE COVE
View of Powerhouse Cove Location at East Shoreline of
Upper Trail Lake. View Taken From Viewooint on the
Anchorage -Sewa rd IIi glll·/ay . .
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
POWERHOUSE COVE
fiGURE 8 -\
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
:0
I
)'1
GRANT .LAKE (Behind HilO
LOWER TRAIL LAKE
View of East Shoreline of Lower Trail Lake with
Solars Mountain as a Backdrop . View Taken From
Vi ewpoi ,nt .on the Anchorage-Se.wa-rd Hi ghway,
,
ALASKA POWER . AUTHORITY
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
LOWER TRAIL LAKE
FIGURE 8-2
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
-..
-----..
-----,. -.. ---..
----
~ -...
• -• -.. --....
• .. ..
"j I
The Anchorage-Seward Highway is one of the two major traffic routes on
the Kenai Peninsula and the principal traffic route in the vicinity of
the Project. It branches from the Old Sterling Highway, the only
Anchorage-Kenai road access, and continues south as the only road
providing access to the City of Seward and intermediate points •
Traffic data (Alaska Department of Transportation 1982) summarizing
monthly average daily traffic (MADT) totals and annual average daily
traffic (AADT) totals recorded at the Moose Pass Maintenance Station
(Route Mile 29.24) indicate peak MADT totals occurred during July and
August for both 1980 and 1981. The MADT totals for traffic during late
fall through early spring (October -April) averaged less than one-half
of the peak MADT totals for July and August. The significant increase
in traffic levels during summer corresponds with peak recreation (see
Chapter 7).
A number of Forest Service trail heads and campground sites are
accessible from the highway. However, most of the established
recreational facilities are concentrated south of the Project vicinity
and nearer Kenai Lake. The nearest campground site, Trail Ri ver
Campground, is approximately one mile south of the Grant Creek-Trail
Lakes junction. Recreation visitor use information provided by the
Forest Service, characterizing activity at recreation facilities in the
Project vicinity is detailed in Section 7.0.
The Alaska Railroad parallels the northeast shore of Upper Trail Lake
before crossing to the west shore of the lake at Moose Pass. From this
location the railroad continues south paralleling the west shore of the
remainder of the Upper and Lower Trail Lakes system. The railroad
crosses Falls Creek at the same location as the highway crossing.
Currently, this segment of the Alaska Railroad transports only freight
and does not provide passenger service. The railroad corridor is
therefore not a si gnificant sceni c resource factor at present •
8-6
8.1.3 Forest Service Visual Management System
Visual management system objectives applicable to Forest Service lands
affected by the Project include the following (USDA, Forest Service
1978):
1) Retention: This visual quality objective provides for management
activities which are not visually evident. Retention
classifications dictate that activities may only repeat fonn, line,
color, and texture which are frequently found in the characteri stic
1 andscape.
2) Partial Retention: r4anagement activities should remain visually
subordinate to the characteristic landscape. Activities may repeat
form, line, color, or texture common to the characteristic
landscape. Activities may also introduce form, line, color, or
texture which are found infrequently or not at all in the
characteristic landscape, but they should remain subordinate to the
visual strength of the characteristic landscape.
3) r40dification: Visual quality objective management activities may
visually dominate the original characteristic landscape. However,
activities of vegetative and land form alteration must borrow from
naturally established form, line, color, or texture so its visual
characteristics are those of natural occurrences within the
surround; ng area or character type.
The visual resource management objectives assigned by the Forest
Service to landscapes in the Project vicinity are shown in Figure 8-3.
Landscapes whose variety and sensitivity level classifications result
in the same visual resource management objective are combined to
provide concise representation of the VMS data. As the figure shows,
the Forest Service has assigned partial retention visual resource
management objectives to most of the landscapes in the Project vicinity
(USDA, Forest Service 1978). These landscapes are designated as such
due to two factors:
8-7
I •
••
• .. ..
III ..
Ii .. -..
• ..
II
.M
• • .. ..
" •
.. ..
• ..
..,
• .. .. .. .. -.,
• ..
-• -• --..
-
-• ---..
-
-.. -..
-
--• -
---• -..
-..
;
i
2 , 1.5
LEGEND
~ RETENTION
D PARTIAL RETENTION m MODIFICATION
o
t
8-
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
VISUAL QUALITY
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES
FIGURE 8-3
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
---..
---• -.. ---..
-..
------
----.. -
-
-
---..
• •
1) their viewability at middleground distance zones from primary
access routes (e.g., the Anchorage-Seward Highway, or the Vagt
Lake Trail), or
2) numbers of recreational visitors viewing these landscapes are
likely to be few; their locations are generally removed from
primary access routes (e.g., the Grant Lake shoreline).
The Forest Service has rated highly the viewing significance of the
entire shoreline of the Upper and Lower Trail Lakes system, along all
primary access routes and recreation trail s. Sensitivity level
classifications are higher at these locations due to the higher viewing
activities by recreationists traveling the Anchorage-Seward highway,
boaters, fishermen, and hikers. These areas have been assigned the
retention visual resource management objective •
8.2 POTENTIAL IMPACTS
8.2.1 Construction Activities
Project construction activities will overlap with peak recreational
activity during summer months. Recreational opportunities, as
discussed previously in this chapter and in Chapter 7, attract visitor
and local resident recreationists from mid-June through September.
Peak recreation activity typically occurs from mid-June through
mid-August, months usually having mild weather. Peak construction
activity is anticipated to occur between April and November of the
first year of construction. Construction activity will taper off after
this period, but construction of the powerhouse and tailrace structures
will continue until completion around May of the second year of
constructi on.
Duri ng the constructi on peri od structures and constructi on equi pment
will be introduced into the natural landscape. Construction activity
will simultaneously be underway at several locations: the gateshaft,
intake, penstock, and the powerhouse and tailrace.
8-9
The natural character of the Project vicinity will be disturbed
tempora ri l'y duri ng the constructi on peri ode Adverse aestheti c impacts
associated with construction activity will result from increases in
vehicular traffic. equipment noise. and emissions of smoke and dust.
Aesthetic impacts will affect recreationists viewing the area.
particularly those interested in viewing wildlife. some of which may
temporarily avoid the area. A more permanent disturbance of the
natural landscape will result from the removal of forest vegetation to
accommodate the construction of permanent access roads required to
maintain the Project. Local residents of the Moose Pass community will
be most affected by the temporary increase in vehicular traffic and
noi see
Disposal of tunnel debris may introduce a visual impact. Approximately
7.000 cubic yards of tunnel debris will be displaced during tunnel
constructi on. Thi s acti vity will occur duri ng the wi nter months. Ttli s
volume of material. when piled 20 ft high, would cover approximately
one-half acre of surface tert'ain. The nature of the material will
determine its suitability for potential use as riprap for the tailrace
channel or other construction purposes. Tunnel debris not suitable for
this or other uses during Project development will require disposal.
The economic feasibility of transporting the material as well as the
potential visual impacts associated with its disposal will be factors
determining the selection of a suitable disposal site.
8.2.2 Project Structures
Principal structural facilities of the Project are the access roads,
intake structure, gate shaft, recreation facilities, powerhouse and
tailrace, power tunnel and penstock, fish mitigation facilities, and
transmission line. The visual impacts of these structural features are
discussed in the following paragraphs.
8-10
• ..
• ..
• -
II .. -.. -..
• ..
• •
• ..
:
I
• •
• •
• .. ..
III
• ..
• ..
II .. ..
II
---• ---
-.. -----..
-..
----------------.. -..
8.2.2.1 Access Roads
A permanent access road will be constructed to the powerhouse and gate
shaft locations. With a width of approximately 20 ft but allowing a
100 ft-wide corridor for necessary cuts and fills, it will branch from
the Anchorage-Seward Highway approximately three miles south of r~oose
Pass. The construction of a bridge across the Trail Lakes narrows will
provide access to the east shoreline. The access road will be routed
east and then north a round a ri dge which ri ses to approximately 671 ft
elevation, and continue to the powerhouse site. To reach the gate
shaft-intake area, the access road will follow the north bank of Grant
Cn:!ek. to within about 200 yards of Grant Lake where it will be routed
northeasterly toward the gate shaft. An access road will also be
constructed across Grant Creek to the south shore of Grant Lake to
allow access to Project recreational facilities •
The elevation of the ridge and topographic configuration of the
shoreline at the narrows will effectively restrict visibility of the
powerhouse and gate shaft access roads and bridge from the principal
view points along the Anchorage-Seward Highway.
Roads that provide recreational access to pOints of interest throughout
the Project vicinity will increase the recreational viewing potential
of landscapes previously viewed from only midd1eground and background
distance zones. These new access roads will be classified by the
FOn:!st Service as seconda ry access routes, routes 1eadi n9 to seconda r.Y
areas of interest and recreation sites where between one-fourth and
three-fourths of the forest visitors have a major concern for scenic
qualities (USDA, Forest Service 1974). Landscapes viewed adjacent to
and at midd1eground distance zones from these routes will receive
different VMS cl assificati on categori es from those currently assigned
by the Forest Service. Under the Visual Management System, these
landscapes will require higher visual significance ratings due to the
higher incidences of viewing made possible by the access roads.
8-11
1t
8.2.2.2 Intake Structure, Gate Shaft, and Recreation Facilities
The Grant Lake intake and gate shaft structures and recreation
facilities will not be visually evident to travelers along the
Anchorage-Seward Highway or from locations within the Project
vicinity. These Project structures will be visually evident only to
visitors in the immediate vicinity of each structure.
8.2.2.3 Powerhouse and Tail race Structures
The powerhouse \\Ii 11 be located approximately 400 ft from the east shore
of Upper Trail Lake. Its location will be sufficiently distant from
the shoreline to minimize its visibility to travelers along the
Anchorage-Seward Highway. An exterior design will be selected so that
trle powerhouse wi 11 hannoni ze with the surroundi ng natural 1 andscape.
Tne tai 1 race wi 11 be constructed of ri prap. Al though the constructi on
of the tailrace will introduce a linear feature into the natural
landscape, the features of a tailrace designed of rock will harmonize
with the visual image of the surrounding landscapes.
8.2.2.4 Transmission Line
A 69 kV transmission line will be required to transmit electricity
generated by the powerplant to consumers at Seward, Alaska. The
transmission line will parallel the powerhouse access road to the
Anchorage-Seward Highway where it will tie into an existing
transmission line.
Visual impacts associated with the transmission line junction will
result from clearing the construction access road and adjacent
transmission line structures. The clearing will require an opening in
an area where dense vegetation currently exists. Portions of this
opening will be visible from the highway. The bridge access and
transmission line poles will be visible to boaters navigating the
narrows joining Upper and Lower Trail Lakes.
8-12
• -•
--..
• -• -• •
JIll
•
• •
• II
• ..
• • .. ..
• .. ..
• , •
• ..
-..
-..
..
-..
-..
-----..
------
-----..
-.. -..
-
-..
8.2.3 Project Operati on
Visual impacts associated with the operation of the Project will relate
primari ly to reduced flow releases downstream of the Grant Creek outlet
at the Trail Lakes narrows, and increased flows into Upper Trail Lake
from the powerhouse tail race. Grant Creek flow wil J . .be reduced from an
average annual flow of 196 cfs to an average annual spill of 10 cfs.
In comparison to its existing natural flows, Grant Creek will
essentially be dewatered.
The topographic configuration of the landscapes bordering Grant Creek
and its outlet at the narrows between Upper and Lower Trail Lakes
effectively screens views of Grant Creek from viewers traveling the
Anchorage-Seward Highway. Visual impacts associated with the
dewatering of Grant Creek will be evident to travelers along the new
access bridge, boaters in the Trail Lakes narrows, and to anglers who
fished Grant Creek before the Project.
Operati on of the Project wi 11 reduce Grant Lake I s current average
annual lake elevation of 696 ft and result in fluctuating lake levels.
The annual maximum regulated lake level of 691 ft will occur during
late fall and early winter, August through October. The annual minimum
regulated lake elevation of 660 ft will occur during the early spring,
March through May. Maximum shoreline exposures will occur during March
through May. Terrestri a1 surveys conducted in the Project vici nity
indicate that an ice-coveri n9 persists over most area 1 akes and ponds
as late as the end of April (AEIDC 1982). Recreationists are unlikely
to be attracted to the Grant Lake recreati on facil ity until it is free
of ice, when the elevation of the lake will be approaching a level of
696 feet. Fluctuating lake levels will not have a great visual impact
on rec reati on users of the Proj ect vi ci nity.
8-13
8.3 MITIGATION OF IMPACTS
Several mitigative measures will be implemented by the Alaska Power
Author; ty to reduce adverse vi sual impacts associ ated wi th Project
construction and operation. Vegetation clearing required for the
construction of access roads and transmission line corridors,
powerhouse, and tai 1 race structures wi 11 be mi nimi zed. The
transmission line will tie into an existing transmission line along the
Anchorage-Seward Hi ghway, avoi di ng the vi sual impact of the
construction of a second transmission line along this same route.
Access roads will be routed, to the extent feasible, to prevent the
i ntroducti on of conspi cuous su r'face patterns into the natura 1
environment, thereby minimizing their visual impacts. The permanent
access road to the powerhouse facility and the transmission line will
be routed behind a ridge away from the shoreline of Upper Trail Lake to
minimize their visibility from travelers along the Anchorage-Seward
Hi ghway. The permanent access road to the gate shaft-i ntake a rea and
the recreation area will be routed through natural depressions,
avoi di ng IJnnecessary swi tchbacks. Tne topography and density of forest
vegetati on wi 11 mi nimi ze vi si bi 1 i ty of the permanent access road from
the Anchorage··Seward Hi ghway.
The power tunnel and penstock leading from the Grant Lake intake to the
powerhouse at Upper Trail Lake will be an underground tunnel and will
not be a visible Project feature.
The powerhouse will be constructed approximately 400 ft east of the
Upper Trail Lake shoreline. It is set back from the shoreline and the
presence of scattered snoreline vegetation \"i11 partially screen vie~Js
of the powerhouse from view points along the highway. Additionally,
tnt:! pO\\lerhouse exterior will be designed to be compatible with natural
surroundings. The rock used to construct the tailrace will be visually
compati bl e with the natural surroundi ngs.
8-14
• ..
•
• ..
• .. --
• ..
• -• ..
• •
• ..
• ..
• •
• •
• • ... ..
• •
• --..
• •
---• ---------.. ---------------
-• -• ----
8.4 SUMMARY OF AGENCY CONTACTS
The following is a summary of pertinent Agency contacts made in support
of this report. Correspondence between the Alaska Power Authority and
various agencies is included in the Technical Appendix, Part VIII.
Alaska Department of Transportation
1) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service
1) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
July 8, 1982
Bill Humphrey
Anchorage
Traffic count data for the Moose
Pass Maintenance Station
July 7, 1982
Steve Hennig, Landscape Architect
Anchorage
Visual Management System (VMS)
classifications for the Project
vicinity, receipt of maps
delineating VMS classifications
8-15
... .. -.. -..
... .. -...
... ..
---
-..
-..
-..
-
...
-----..
9.0 LAND USE
This section describes current land ownership, use, and management
characteristics in the Project vicinity, and proposed new land uses
that would result from Project construction •
The study area for 1 and use is defined as the 1 and and water area
di rectly or i ndi rectly affected by construction and operation of the
proposed Project, and is shm'ln wah surrounding lands in Figure 9-l.
The study area extends from Trail River and Trail Lakes eastward to the
headwaters of Grant Lake. This area includes the entire drainages of
Grant Lake and Grant Creek, Falls Creek, Vagt Lake, and a small amount
of direct drainage to Upper and Lower Trail Lakes. The area totals
approximately 60 square miles. As Table 9-1 indicates, nearly
three-fourths of the area lies within the Grant Lake and Grant Creek
drai nages.
TABLE 9-1
STUDY AREA BY DRAINAGE
Drainage
Grant Creek and Lake
Fall s Creek
Vagt Lake and Creek
Upper and Lower Trail Lakes!!
TOTAL
!! At gaging station just above Falls Creek.
Approximate Area
(Square Miles)
44
12
2
2
60
-1609B .. -..
9-1 ... ...
KENAI l.AKE
9-2
-LAND SELECTION BOUNDARY
-PLACER MINING CLAIMS
-PRIVATE LAND
alZz:Z:Z)FLOODPLAIN AREAS
161 CAMPGROUNDS
-----FOREST SERVICE TRAILS
·········UNMAINTAINED TRAILS
--EXISTING ROADS
------PROPOSED ROADS
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PRO.ECT
LAND USE
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
..
..
... ..
..
...
..
..
..
...
As indicated in Chapter 3, lower lying lands in the Project vicinity
are generally mixed forest, changing progressively at higher elevations
to coniferous forest, shrub, and alpine vegetation. Glaciers occur at
the highest elevations. Fragile areas within the area include those
with shallow soils and areas of alpine vegetation. Of the
approximately 60 square miles of the study area, about 3 square miles
are in surface water, 2.5 square miles of which is Grant Lake .
9.1 LAND OWNERSHIP AND STATUS
The entire study area, with the exception of one private five-acre
parcel, currently is federally owned land within the Chugach National
~orest. The privately owned land is situated on the south side of the
mouth of Grant Creek. Under terms of the Alaska Statehood Act and
Alaska State legislation, ownership of a portion of the study area is
to be conveyed to the State of Alaska and subsequently to the Kenai
.. Peninsula Borough. Under the terms of the legislation, the land is to
... ..
... ..
..
...
..
...
..
..
...
.. ..
..
..
... ..
be used for expansion of existing communities, establishment of new
communities, or recreation. The land to which the Borough is seeking
title, amounting to slightly less than 11,000 acres, is shown in Figure
9-1. This land is scheduled to be conveyed to the Borough following
negotiation and establishment of Forest Service easements for
campgrounds, trails, and other facilities within the selection boundary •
Additional land status factors relevant to the Project involve land
withdrawals and private claims on National Forest lands. The Federal
Power Commission, predecessor agency to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, filed a power site withdrawal on behalf of the Chugach
Electric Association for the Grant Lake-Falls Creek area with the
Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service in 1960. According to the
Federal Power Act (16 USC 818), this withdrawal does not preclude all
other uses of the area, but does reserve the right to development of
the hYdroelectric site and limits other uses that would phYsically
interfere with this right •
9-3
Numerous mining clair.ls filed under the Mining Law of 1872 (30 USC 21 et
seq.) also exist within the study area. Rights associated with valid
mining claims allow the claimant sole authority to discover and remove
minerals, and permit occupancy and the removal of timber to the extent
necessary to support mining activities. Nine placer mining claims
extend eastward from Trail River along lower Falls Creek, as shown in
Figure 9-1 (USDA, Forest Service 1982a). The earliest placer mine
claim was filed in 1969, nine years after the power site withdrawal was
executed. Other mining claims, most of which are lode claims, are
located on the northern, western, and southern slopes of Solars
Mountain; at the northern end of Grant lake, near the bend in the lake;
and at various places south of Falls Creek.
9.2 LAND USE AND MANAGEMENT
9.2.1 Study Area
The study area (defined above) is predominantly undeveloped.
Development has been limited to exploration and mining on the claims
described above. Much of this mining activity has been situated in the
upper Falls Creek drainage and to the north of the lower basin of Grant
Lake, above the Project's high water level. The other significant use
of lands in the area is for recreation, principally hiking, hunting,
and fishing. These activities are described in Chapter 7. A miner's
cabin is located at the north end of the lower basin of Grant Lake. A
cabin formerly under special use permit to a local trapper is also
located at the east end of Grant Lake; use of this cabin apparently is
no longer authori zed (Qu i 11 i am 1982). Forest Servi ce management
activities within the study area are not intensive, and consist
primarily of maintenance, such as on the Vagt Lake Trail, and wildlife
management.
9-4
• -
• ..
• -• ..
•
lit
• ..
• ..
• ..
• .. .. ..
• .. .. ..
• ..
• •
•
iii
•
... ..
...
•
" ..
-
----------------,.
-------------.. --
-
9.2.2 Adjacent Lands
Lands abutting the study area on three sides are also primarily
undeveloped National Forest lands. To the north of the Project, the
Chugach National Forest extends for more than 25 miles and covers
virtually all of this part of the Kenai Peninsula. Similarly, the
tiationa1 Forest extends eastward from the Project all the way to Prince
William Sound. The southern border of the forest in this region is
approximately 20 miles south of Falls Creek. While undeveloped, this
area includes the popular recreation attractions of Paradise Lakes and
Ptanni gan Lake.
To the west of the study area lie portions of Upper and Lower Trail
Lakes and the major transportation corridor between Anchorage and
Seward, which contains the Seward-Anchorage Highway and the Alaska
Railroad. State Highway 9 becomes Highway 1 approximately 11 miles
northwest of the Project. The unincorporated town of Moose Pass is
located to the west of the study area on the west side of Upper Trail
Lake. Private land on which Moose Pass is situated currently amounts
to roughly 450 to 500 acres, although this figure may change after the
land selection process is implemented. An unmaintained trail that is
not part of the Forest Service system leads from Moose Pass to the
northern end of the lower basin of Grant Lake.
Other developed land uses within the highway corridor include an Alaska
Department of Fi sh and Game hatchery at the western end of Upper Trail
Lake; a lodge, landing strip, and solid waste transfer station near
Crown Point, which is just below the confluence of Falls Creek and
Trail River; Forest Service campgrounds on Kenai Lake (Trail River) and
Ptarmigan Creek; and a Forest Service guard station and a few scattered
residences at Lawing on Kenai Lake. This pattern of highly-dispersed
development along the highway generally continues from this area
southward to Seward.
9-5
Undeveloped national forest lands again predominate to the west of the
study area beyond the highway corridor. This sector of the Chugach
National Forest contains several recreational facilities and is a
popUlar recreati on desti nati on, par't lcu1 arly along Kenai Lake and the
Kenai and Russian Rivers.
9.2.3 Special Land Use Considerations
Small wetlands occur in numerous locations within the study area.
These wetlands primarily consist of areas of riparian vegetation along
local streams and lakes and wet-meadow bogs in low-lying areas between
Trail Lakes and Solars Mountain. The distribution and composition of
these wetlands, and the effects of the Project on wetlands, are
descri bed; n Chapter 3 of thi s report.
Floodplains are present within the study area, but are not extensive.
FOlood hazard studies have identified lOO-year floodplains along Grant
Creek, Falls Creek, Trail Lakes, and Trail River (Federal Emergency
Hanagement Agency 1981). Tne maximum width of these floodplains along
Grant and Falls Creeks is about 650 ft, while the floodplain along the
southern shore of Lower Trail Lake and the adjoining reach of Trail
River extends inland for up to 750 ft. The remaining floodplain limits
along Trail Lakes generally correspond to the normal lake shoreline,
with the exception of a few low-lying promontories. The powerhouse
will be located outside the 100-year floodplain of Upper Trail Lake.
The main access road will cross a floodplain area at the confluence of
Grant Creek and the channel bebJeen Upper and Lower Trai 1 Lakes, and
will be built to withstand flooding.
There are no prime farmlands within the study area (Moore 1982). The
study area is not within the interim coastal zone boundaries
established for the Alaska Coastal Management Program (Wolf 1982).
9-6
•
lit
• ..
• -
• ..
• .. -..
•
ill
• .. .. ..
• III .. ..
• ..
• .. .. ..
• ..
• ..
• ..
• ..
• ..
---..
-.. -..
-..
-..
---..
-..
--
----
-..
--
9.~ PROPOSED LAND USES
The proposed Project will produce three principal types of land use
changes: addition of Project facilities and construction and operation
activities on currently undeveloped lands and water, changes in surface
water regulation, and changes in recreational use of the area. Some of
these induced changes will be temporary or seasonal, but the Project
will have a minor permanent impact on land use patterns in the study
area.
9.3.1 New Land Uses
Proposed Project facilities, shown in Figure 1-3, include a lake tap,
gate shaft, power tunnel, penstock, powerhouse, transmission line,
access roads, and recreational facilities. The power tunnel will be an
underground facility, and will not occupy or disturb any surface area.
With the exception of access roads, Project facilities will occupy a
relatively small amount of the total study area. Access roads, which
will support both Project construction and operation and also
recreational access, will occupy land that is currently mostly
forested. The transmission line will be located within the corridor of
the access road to the powerhouse and will not require additional
c1 eari ng.
The land areas that will be required for permanent Project facilities
are presented in Table 9-2. Of the 10.9 acres required for all Project
facilities, road access to the powerhouse, gate shaft/intake, and
recreation area accounts for 9.4 acres or 86 percent. In addition to
the area that will be permanently occupied, construction and staging
areas will require temporary disturbance and occupancy on 4 to 5
acres. These areas will be located near the powerhouse, the gate
-shaft, and the access road crossi ng of the narrows betwee n Upper and
-Lower Trail Lakes. -..
-..
9-7 -..
TABLE 9-2
AREAS REQUIRED FOR PROJECT FACILITIES
Facil ity
Gate shaft
Penstock
Powerhouse
Access roads and transmission line
Rec reati 0 n a rea
All Facilities
Area (acres)
o. 1
0.3
9.4
1.1
10.9
Project construction and operation will produce fluctuations in the
water level of Grant Lake of up to 40 ft during an average year,
compared to approximately 8 ft per year under natural conditions.
Project design involves lowering the lake's maximum average level from
elevation 696 to 691 ft, producing fluctuations between elevations 660
and 691 feet. Project construction and operation would also
effectively dewater Grant Creek.
9.3.2 New Recreational Uses
Construction of the Project will introduce roaded recreation to
formerly roadless areas between the south end of Grant Lake and the
Seward Highway. In addition to some new recreation uses that do not
currently exist within the study area, increased access is also likely
to result in higher use levels for dispersed recreational activities,
which currently take place at and near Grant Lake. These changes in
recreational use are described more fully in Chapter 7.
9-8
• -• ---.. ---
• -• •
• ..
• ..
• •
• ..
• ..
• -
" ..
-• •
• •
-----.. ---..
-.. -.. -..
---------------.. -----
9.3.3 Compatibility with Existing and Planned Uses
The Project is compatible with existing and expected land uses and
planning guidelines for the area. The Chugach National Forest land
within the study area is currently managed for multiple uses forest,
although lack of road access effectively limits the type of management
activities that can be undertaken. Adoption and implementation of a
new Chugach Forest Plan is not expected to change the character of
Forest Service management, given the content of the Draft Forest Plan
(USDA, Forest Service 1982b). Following completion of the land
selection and conveyance process, the remaining National Forest lands
immediately around Grant Lake and some lands in the Falls Creek
drainage would be within Analysis Area 4 (Timbered Sideslopes, East
Side, Kenai Peninsula); management prescriptions within the Draft
Forest Plan for this area emphasize increased dispersed recreation
opportunities and improved fish and wildlife habitat. Prescriptions
for Analysis Area 1 (Alpine, Kenai Peninsula), which include Solars
Mountain, also emphasize dispersed recreation, fish and wildlife
habitat, and maintenance of landscape character.
Much of the study area, including lands around the outlet of Grant lake
and westward to Trail lakes, will be under the jurisdiction of the
Kenai Peninsula Borough and probably the community of Moose Pass in the
relatively near future. The Moose Pass Advisory Planning Commission is
currently developing a land use plan for the entire community land
grant, but no plans or guidelines have been adopted.
9.4 SUMMARY OF AGENCY CONTACTS
The following is a summary of pertinent Agency contacts made in support
of this report. Correspondence between the Alaska Power Authority and
various agencies is included in the Technical Appendix, Part VIII.
9-9
Alaska Office of the Governor t State Clearinghouse
1) Date:
Agency ~resentative:_
Locati on:
Subject:
Kenai Peninsula Borough
1 ) Da te:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subj ect:
2) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subject:
3) Date:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subj ect:
u.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Servi ce
1 ) Da te:
Agency Representative:
Location:
Subj ect:
October 14 t 15182
Wendy Wolf (Juneau)
(Telephone conversation)
Coastal zone boundary and planning
applicability to the Project
January l8 t 1982
Carolyn Thompson and Frank
McIlhargey (Soldotna)
(Telephone conversation)
Land use and development policies
and objectives in Project vicinity
and socioeconomic characteristics
June l8 t 1982
Frank McIl hargey
Soldotna, Alaska
Economic outlook and data for
Borough and Project vicinity
August 17, 1982
Dawn Lahnum
(Telephone conversation)
Local taxes applicable to the
Project
January 14, 1982
Bob Dunblazier and Ann Albrecht t
Anchorage
(Telephone conversation)
Forest Service Land use planning
activity and management objectives
in Grant Lake vicinity
9-10
• -
III -
• -
• -• -
• -.. ..
• •
• •
II ..
• •
• •
• •
• • .. ..
-• -• •
• II
----2} Date:
-Agency Representative: -Location: -Su bj ect: --3} Date: -Agency Representative: -Location: -Su ect: ---u.s. Soil Conservation Service -1 } Date: -Agency Representative: -Location: -Su bj ect: -----------------,--
June 21, 1982
Beulah Bowers
Anchorage, Alaska
Locations and conditions of mining
claims in Chugach National Forest
August 25, 1982
Beulah Bowers (Anchorage)
(Telephone conversation)
Power site withdrawal regulations,
particularly in regard to mining
cl aims
October 14, 1982
Joe Moore (Anchorage)
(Telephone conversation)
Location of prime farmlands in
vicinity of Grant Lake
9-11
-----
10.0 REFERENCES
CHAPTER 1 -GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALE
-Hartman, C.W., and P.R. Johnson. 1978. Environmental atlas of Alaska. -------------------
University of Alaska, Fairbanks.
CHAPTER 2 -REPORT ON WATER USE AND QUALITY
A1 ask a Depa rtment of Fi sh and Game. 1981. Grant Lake survey.
Unpublished. (011 file at Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Soldotna,
AK) • 1 vol.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 1981. State of Alaska
water user1s handbook. Water Management Section, Division of Land
and Water Management, Alaska DNR. Anchorage, AK.
American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association,
and Water Pollution Control Federation. 1981. Standard methods
for examination of water and wastewater. 15th edition, 1980.
American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C.
Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (AEIDC). 1982.
Summary of environmental knowledge of the proposed Grant Lake
hydroelectric project area. Final Report. Submitted to Ebasco
Services, Inc., Redmond, WA.
Chow, Ven Te. 1959. Open-channel hydraulics. McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
NY.
Hayden, Gary. 1982. Personal communication. Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation, Water Quality Management Division,
Anchorage, AK.
Quilliam, Ron. 1982. Personal communication. U.S. Dept. of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Seward District, Seward, AK.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Quality criteria for
-water. Washi ngton, D.C.
---.,
-.,
---.,
-..
U.S, Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1961.
Ptarmigan and Grant Lakes and Falls Creek, Kenai Peninsula, Alaska,
a progress report on the fish and wildlife resources. Juneau, AK.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. 1981.
water qual i ty records, southcentral Al aska, 1949-1974.
computer-stored data.
2651A
10-1
Surface
Unpublished
CHAPTER 3 -REPORT ON AQUATIC, BOTANICAL, AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1952/1980. Escapement count
surveys, Grant Creek. Unpublished. (On file at Alaska Dept. of
Fish and Game, Soldotna, AK).
1961. Creel census for Grant Creek. Unpublished. (On
file at Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Seward, AK).
1973. Alaska1s wildlife and habitat. Juneau, AK. 1 vol.
1982. 1961-81 brown/grizzly bear harvest reports. Unpublished.
Juneau, AK. 1 vol.
Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (AEIDC). 1982.
Summary of environmental knowledge of the proposed Grant Lake
hydroelectric project area. Final Report submitted to Ebasco
Services, Inc. Redmond, WA.
Andrew, F.J., L.R. Kersey, and P.C. Johnson. 1955. An investigation of
the problem of guiding downstream-migrant salmon at dams.
International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission. Bull. VIII.
65 pp.
Armstrong, R.H. 1969. The sea-run Dolly Varden in Alaska. Alaska
Dept. of Fish and Game, Anchorage, AK. Wildlife Notebook Series.
2 pp.
Babcock, B. 1982. Personal communication, March 3, 1982. Instructor,
Anchorage Community College, Anchorage, AK.
Beaulaur;er, D.L., B.W. James, P.A. Jackson, J.R. Meyers, and J.M. Lee,
Jr. 1982. Mitigating the incidence of bird collisions with
transmission lines. Paper presented at the Third Symposium on
Environmental Concerns in Rights-of-Way Management, San Diego, CA,
Feb. 15-18, 1982. 21 pp.
Bellrose, F.C. 1980. Ducks, geese, and swans of North America. Third
ed., Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA. 540 pp.
Bjornn, T.C. 1978. Survival, production, and yield of trout and
chinook salmon in the Lemhi River, Idaho. Bulletin No. 27, College
of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sciences, University of Idaho,
Moscow, Idaho. 57 pages.
Blazka, P., T. Backiel, and F.B. Taub. 1980. Trophic relationships and
efficiencies. Pages 393-410 in Le Cren, E.D. and R.H.
Lowe-McConnell, eds. The functloning of freshwater ecosystems. IBP
Handbook No. 22. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
10-2
• .,
• -
• -----
• ..
• ..
• ..
• -• ..
• ..
III ..
•
ilia
..
• .,
• -
•
•
• •
---------------------..
-----------• ----
Bloom, A.M. 1976. Evaluation of minnow traps for estimating
populations of juvenile coho salmon and Dolly Varden. Progressive
Fish Culturist, Vol. 38, No.2, p. 99-101.
Boyce, M.S. 1974. Beaver populations ecology in interior Alaska
M.S. Thesis. University of Alaska, College, AK. 80 pp.
Brylinsky, M. 1980. Estimating the productivity of lakes and
reservoirs. Pages 4-11-454 in Le Cren, E. D. and R. H.
Lowe-McConnell, eds. The functioning of freshwater ecosystems.
IBP Handbook No. 22. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
Burger, C. Personal communication; various dates, 1981 and 1982.
u.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, AK.
Burner, J. W. 1951. Characteristics of spawning nests of Columbia
River salmon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Fisheries Bulletin
No. 61, p. 97-110.
Burns, J.W. 1971. The carrying capacity for juvenile salmonids in
some northern California streams. California Fish and Game
57:44-57.
Candit, K. Personal communication, October 13, 1981. Trapper,
resident, Moose Pass, Ak.
Chapman, D.W. 1965. Net production of juvenile coho salmon in three
Oregon streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
94(1):40-52.
Chatelain, E.F. 1950. Bear-moose relationships on the Kenai
Peninsula. Transactions of the North American Wildlife Conference,
Vol. 15, p. 224-234.
Coady, J.W. 1974. Influence of snow on behavior of moose.
Natura1iste Canadien. Vol. 101, p. 417-436.
Cook Inlet Regional Planning Team. 1981. Cook Inlet regional salmon
enhancement plan 1981-2000. Soldotna, AK. 72 pages plus
appendices.
Craddock, D.R. 1958. Spawning escapement of Okanogan River blueback
salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka), 1957. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Special Scientific Reports in Fisheries, No. 275.
Craig, P.C., and P.J. McCart. 1974. Classification of stream types in
Beaufort Sea drainages between Prudhoe Bay, Alaska and the
Mackenzie Delta. Pages 1-47 ~ P. J. McCart, ed. Classification
of streams in Beaufort Sea drainages and distribution of fish in
arctic and sub-arctic drainages. Canadian Arctic Gas Study
Ltd./Alaskan Arctic Gas Study Co. Biological Report Series.
Vol. 17, No.1 •
10-3
Craig, P.C., and J. Wells. 1975. Fisheries investigations in the
Chandalar River region, northwest Alaska. Pages 1-14 in P.C.
Craig, ed. Fisheries investigations in the coastal region of the
Beaufort Sea. Canadian Arctic Gas Study Ltd/Alaskan Arctic Gas
Study Co. Biological Report Series. Vol. 34, No.1.
Crone, R.A. 1981. Potential for production of coho salmon
(Oncorhynchus kisutch) in lakes with outlet barrier falls,
Southeastern Alaska. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of Michigan. 388 pp.
Cummins, K.W. 1975. Macroinvertebrates. Pages 170-198 in Whitton,
B. T., ed. River Ecology. Univ of Calif. Press, Berkeley and Los
Angeles.
Dudiak, N. 1980. Environmental Assessment, Trail Lakes Hatchery, Kenai
Peninsula, Alaska. Submitted to U.S. Forest Service, Chugach
National Forest by Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Fisheries
Rehabilitation, Enhancement, and Development Division, Anchorage,
AK.
Duthie, N.C. 1979. Limnology of subarctic Canadian lakes and some
effects of impoundment. Arctic and Alpine Research. Vol. 11,
No.2, p. 145-158.
Eggers, D.M. 1978. Limnetic feeding behavior of juvenile sockeye
salmon in Lake Washington and predator avoidance. Limnology and
Oceanography. Vol. 23, No.6, p. 1114-1125.
Eggers, D.M., N.W. Bartoo, N.A. Rickard, R.E. Nelson, R.C. Wissmar,
R.,L. Burgner, and A.H. Devol. 1978. The Lake Washington
ecosystem: the perspective from the fish community production and
forage base. Journal Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Vol. 35,
p. 1157-1571.
Elliott. S.T., and R.D. Reed. 1973. Ecology of rearing fish. Pages
12-92 in Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game. Federal Aid in Fish
Restoration. Vol. 14. Sport Fish Div., Alaska Dept. of Fish and
Game. Project F-9-S. Annual Report.
Ellison, L.N. 1974. Population characteristics of Alaska spruce
grouse. Journal of Wildlife Management. Vol. 39, No.3,
p. 383-395.
Federal Register. 1980. List of threatened and endangered species,
Vol. 45, No. 242.
Flagg, L. Personal communication, January 5, 1982. Fisheries
Rehabilitation Enhancement and Development Div., Alaska Dept. of
Fish and Game, Soldotna, AK.
Franzman, A.W., C.C. Schwartz, and R.O. Peterson. 1980. Moose calf
mortality in summer on the Kenai Peninsula. Journal of Wildlife
Management. Vol. 44, No.3, p. 764-768.
10-4
• •
• -• -.. .. .. .. .. -• .. .. .. .. ..
• •
• ..
• ..
• ..
• ..
• .. .. .. .. .. .. -•
iiIi
-------------• -..
---------------..
---
-•
Gabrielson, I.N. and F.C. Lincoln. 1959. Birds of Alaska. The
Wildlife Management Institute, Harrisburg, PA. 922 pp.
Gangmark, H.A. and L.A. Fulton. 1952. Status of Columbia River
blueback salmon runs, 1951. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Special
Scientific Report Fisheries. No. 74.
Geen, G.H. 1974. Effects of hydroelectric development in Western
Canada on aquatic ecosystems. Journal Fisheries Research Board of
Canada. Vol. 31, p. 913-927.
Goodlad, J.C., T.W. Gjenes, and E.l. Brannon. 1974. Factors affecting
sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus Nerka) growth in four lakes of the
Fraser River system: Journal Fisheries Research Board of Canada.
Vol. 31, No.5, p. 871-892.
Hall, E.R., and K.R. Nelson. 1959. The mammals of North America.
The Ronald Press, New York, NY. 2 vols •
Hamilton, J.A., l. O. Rothfus, M.W. Erho, and J.D.Remington. 1966.
Use of a hydroelectric reservoir for the rearing of coho salmon
(Oncorhynchus kisutch). Washington State Department of Fisheries •
66 pp ••
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.
Heard, W. Personal communication, December 12, 1982. Auke Bay
laboratory, National Marine Fisheries Service, Auke Bay, AK.
Hildebrand, S.G., ed. 1980. Analysis of environmental issues related
to small-scale hydroelectric development III: Water level
fluctuation. Environmental Science Division, Pub. No. 1591. Oak
Ridge National laboratory, Oak Ridge. 78 pp.
Hinman, R.A., ed. 1979. Annual report of survey-inventory activities.
Part I. Moose, elk, deer. Div. of Game, Alaska Dept. of Fish and
Game, Juneau, AK. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration. Vol. 10.
Project W-17-11. 198 pp.
1980a. Annual report of survey-inventory activities. Part II.
Bison, caribou, moose, and muskoxen. Div. of Game, Alaska Dept. of
Fish and Game, Juneau, AK. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration.
Vol. 10. Project W-17-11. 198 pp.
1980b. Annual report of survey-inventory activities.
Part II. Deer, elk, and moose. Div. of Game, Alaska Dept. of Fish
and Game, Juneau, AK. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration, Vol •
10. Project W--17--l2. 120 pp.
10-5
Hu1ten, E. 1968. Flora of Alaska and neighboring territories.
Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA. 1008 pp.
Hunter, J.W. 1973. A discussion of game fish in the State of
Washington as related to water requirements. Rep. by Fish Manage.
Div. Washington State Department of Game to Washington State
Department of Ecology, Olympia. 66 pp.
Hynes, H.B.N. 1970. The ecology of running waters. Liverpool
University Press. 555 pp.
Johannesson, Bjorn. 1982. Observations of a 4°C groundwater source as
a release site for Atlantic salmon. Progressive Fish Culturist.
Vol. 44, No.3, p. 136-137.
Judkins, C. Personal commications 1981, 1982. Owner, Crown Point
Lodge, Moose Pass, AK.
Kessel, B. and D.D. Gibson. 1978. Status and distribution of
Alaska birds. Cooper Ornithological Society, Los Angeles, CA.
Studies in Avian Biology 1. 100 p.
Koenigs, J. Personal communications, 1981 and 1982. Fisheries
Rehabilitation Enhancement and Development Div., Alaska Dept. of
Fish and Game, Soldotna, AK.
Korn, L. and E.M. Smith. 1971. Rearing juvenile salmon in Columbia
River Basin storage reservoirs. Pages 287-298 in Hall, G.E. ed.
Reservoir fisheries and limnology. Special Publlcation No.8.
American Fisheries Society, Washington, D.C.
Kortwright, F.H. 1967. The ducks, geese, and swans of North America.
Stackpole, Co., Harrisburg, PA. and Wildlife Management Institute,
Washington, D.C. 476 pp.
Krema, R.F. and W.E. Farr. 1974. Floating fish traps for capturing
of homing salmon. Prog. Fish. Cult. Vol. 36(2):106-107.
Lewandoski, K.M., and K.W. Rice. 1980. Owl surveys on the Kenai
Peninsula and Afognak Island, Chugach National Forest. Spring
1980. Chugach National Forest, U.S. Forest Service. 15 pp.
Libby, W.L. 1954. A basis for beaver management in Alaska. M.S.
Thesis. University of Alaska, College, AK. 80 pp.
Manville, R.H., and S.P. Young. 1965. Distribution of Alaskan
mammals. U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. Circular
211. U.S. Govlt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 74 pp.
Merrell, T. 1970. Alaska's fishery resource: the chum salmon. Bureau
of Commercial Fisheries, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fishery
Leaflet 632. 7 pp.
10-6
• ..
• •
• ., ..
• .. ., .. -
• .,
• •
• .. ..
•
lilt
III ..
• ..
IIIf
• -
• ., .. -.. .. .. ..
---..
-----.. -..
---..
---..
-
-.. ---..
---..
-.. -..
-..
Meyer, J.R., and J.M. Lee, Jr. 1981. Effects of transmission lines
on flight behavior of waterfowl and other birds. In Proc. of the
Second Symposium on Environmental Concerns. in Rights-of-way
Management, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Oct. 16-18, 1979. EPRI, Palo
Alto, CA.
McCoy, G.A. 1974. Preconstruction assessment of biological quality of
the Chena and Little Chena Rivers in the vicinity of the Chena Lake
flood control project near Fairbanks, Alaska. U.S. Geological
Survey. Water Resources Investigations 29-74. 84 pp.
McHenry, T. Personal communication, October 12, 1981. Sport Fish
Div., Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Seward, AK.
Morgan, N.L. (Coordinator). 1980. Secondary Production. Pages
247-340 in Le Cren, E.D. and R.H. Lowe-McConnell, eds. The
functioning of freshwater ecosystems. IBP Handbook No. 22.
Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
Morrow, J.E. 1980. The freshwater fishes of Alaska. Alaska Northwest
Publishing, Anchorage, AK. 272 pp •
Murray, D.F. 1980. Threatened and endangered plants of Alaska. U.S.
Forest Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 59 pp.
Nauman, J.W., and D.R. Kernodle. 1974. Aquatic organisms from
selected sites along the proposed Trans-Alaska Pipeline corridor,
September 1970 to September 1972. U.S. Geological Survey,
Anchorage, AK. 23 pp.
Neilson, J.D. and G.H. Geen. 1981. Enumeration of spawning salmon
from spawning residence time and aerial counts. Transactions of
the American Fisheries Society. Vol. 110, p. 554-556.
Nichols, L. Personal communication, March 5, 1982. Alaska Dept. of
Fish and Game, Cooper Landing, AK.
Nichols, L. 1980. Mountain goat management technique studies.
of Game, Alaska Dept. of fish and Game, Juneau, AK. federal
Wildife Restoration. Projects W-17-9, W-17-10, and W-17-l1.
Report. 51 pp.
Div.
Aid in
Final
Nilsson, N.A., and T. G. Northcote. 1981. Rainbow trout (Salmon
gairdneri) and cutthroat trout (So clarki) interactions in coastal
British Columbia lakes. Canadian Journal Fisheries Aquatic
Sciences Volume 38, No. 10, p. 1228-1246.
Peterson, R.O. 1982. Wolf-moose investigations on the Kenai National
Wildlife Refuge. Final report. Report for U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. 1 vol.
10-7
Peterson, R.O. and J.D. Woolington. 1979. The extirpation and
reappearance of wolves on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Paper
presented at the Portland Wolf Symposium, Portland, OR, August,
1970. 21 pp.
Poe, P.H. 1980. Effects of the 1976 volcanic ash fallon primary
production in Iliama Lake, Alaska, 1976-78. Masters Thesis.
University of Washington. 210 pp.
Rankin, D.P. and H.J. Ashton. 1980. Crustacean Zooplankton Abundance
and species composition in 13 sockeye salmon (Oncorphynchus nerka)
nursery lakes in British Columbia. Canadian Technical Report
Fisheries Aquatic Sciences. No. 924, 91 pp.
Reiser, D.W. and T.C. Bjornn. 1979. Influence of forest and rangeland
management on anadromous fish habitat in western United States and
Canada. Habitat requirements of anadromous sa1monids. USDA Forest
Service, General Technical Report PNW-96. Portland, Oregon. 54 pp.
Ricker, W.E. 1974. Hereditary and environmental factors affecting
certain salmonid populations. Pages 27-160 In: R.C. Simon and
P.A. Larkin (eds.) The Stock Concept in Pacific Salmon. U.S.
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. Seattle, Washington. 231 pp.
Rodgers, D.E. 1968. A comparison of the food of sockeye salmon fry
and threespine sticklebacks in the Wood Rines Lakes. In Further
Studies of Alaska Sockeye Salmon, Univ. Wash. Pub1icatlOns in
Fisheries -New Series. Vol. III, p. 1-44.
Roseneau, D. 1982. Personal communication, March 26, 1982. LGL
Limited, Fairbanks, AK.
Ruth, R.H. and A.S. Harris. 1979. Management of western hemlock-
Sitka spruce forest for timber production. Pacific N.W. Forest and
Range Experiment Station. U.S. Forest Service, Portland, OR.
General Technical Report PNW-88-197 pp.
Ruttner, F.
Press.
1974. Fundamentals of limnology. 3rd ed. Univ. of Toronto
307 pp.
Saunders, G.W. (Coordinator). 1980 Organic matter and decomposers.
Pages 341-392 ~ Le Cren, E.D. and R.H. Low~-McConnell, eds. The
functioning of freshwater ecosystems. IBP Handbook No. 22.
Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
SchleSinger, D.A. and H.A. Regier. 1982. Climatic and morphoedaphic
indices of fish yields from natural lakes. Transactions American
Fisheries Society. Vol. 111, p. 124-150.
Schoeneman, D.E. and C.O. Junge, Jr. 1954. Investigations of
mortalities to downstream migrant salmon of two dams on the Elwha
River. Washington Dept. Fisheries Research Bulletin No.3. 51 pp.
10-8
•
III
• •
..
.. -.. .. -..
• -• -..
•
• .. .. ..
• • ..
.. -.. -..
• •
---------• -.. -..
-..
---..
---..
-..
-.. ---..
-..
-.. -..
Sowls, A.L, S.A. Hatch, and C.J. Lensink. 1918. Catalogue of
Alaska Seabird colonies. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Anchorage. AK.
Stockner. J.G. 1911. Lake fertilization as a means of enhancing
sockeye salmon populations: The state of the art in the Pacific
Northwest. Fisheries Marine Services Technical Report No. 140.
14 pp.
Stockner. J.G. and K.R.S. Shortreed. 1918. Limnological survey of 35
sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) nursery lakes in British
Columbia and the Yukon Territory. Fisheries Marine Services
Technical Report. Vol. 821. 41 pp .
Sumner. F.H. and O.R. Smith. 1940. Hydraulic mining and debris dams
in relation to fish life in the American and Yuba rivers of
California. California Fish and Game 26:2-22.
Tarres, J.K. 1980.
American birds.
The Aububon Society encyclopedia of North
Alfred A. Knopf, New York, NY. 1109 p.
Tennant. D.L. 1916. Instream flow regimens for fish. wildlife,
recreation and related environmental resources. Pages 359 to 313 .
1-~ Instream Flow Needs, American Fisheries Society.
Turbak, S.C .• D.R. Reichle, and C.R. Shriner. 1980. Analysis of
environmental issues related to small-scale hydroelectric
development IV: Fish mortalities resulting from turbine passage.
Environmental Science Division. Pub. No. 1591, Oak Ridge National
Laboratories, Oak Ridge .
U.S. Army. Corps of Engineers. 1918. Kenai River review. Anchorage.
AK. 334 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. No Date. Birds of the
Chugach National Forest. Seward Ranger District. Unpublished .
4 pp.
U.S. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1961.
Ptarmigan and Grant Lakes and Falls Creek, Kenai Peninsula .
Juneau. AK. 25 pp.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1981. Surface water quality records,
southcentral Alaska, 1949-1914. Unpublished computer printout.
Vernon. E.H. 1958. Power development on lakes in british Columbia.
Pages 11-14 in Larkin, P.A. ed. The investigation of fish-power
problems. Symposium at Univ. of British Columbia, April 29-30,
1951. Inst. of Fisheries, Univ. of British Columbia.
10 .. 9
Viereck, l.A., and E.l. little. 1972. Alaska trees and shrubs. U.S.
Forest Service, Washington, D.C. Agriculture Handbook 410.
Viereck, l.A., C.T. Dyrness, and A.R. Batten. 1982. Revision of
preliminary classification system for vegetation of Alaska.
Unpublished. 72 pp.
Vinyar, G.l. 1981. Feeding success of hatchery-reared kokanee salmon
when presented with zooplankton prey. Progressive Fish Cu1turist,
Vo 1. 44, No.1. p. 37 -39.
Welch, F.B. 1980. Ecological effects of waste water. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge. 337 pp.
Whitman, R.P., T.P. Quinn, and E.l. Brannon. 1982. Influence of
suspended volcanic ash on homing behavior of adult chinook salmon.
Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 111 :63-69.
Whitton, B.A., ed. 1975. River ecology. Univ. of Calif. Press,
Berkeley and los Angeles. 725 pp.
Wolff, J.O. 1976. Utilization of hardwood browse by moose on the
Tanana River floodplain of interior Alaska. U.S. Forest Service,
Portland, OR. Research Note PNW-267. 7pp.
Zippin, C. 1958. The removal method of population estimation. Journ.
of Wildlilfe Management. Vol. 22, No.1, p. 82-90.
CHAPlER 4 -REPORT ON HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks. 1981.
Alaska Heritage Resources Survey Index, updated July 22,1981. On
file at Office of History and Archeology, Division of Parks,
Anchorage.
Barry, M.J. 1973. A history of mining on the Kenai Peninsula.
Alaska Northwest Publishing, Anchorage.
Dilliplane, T. Personal communication, April 20, 1982. Division of
Parks, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage.
Estes, Ed. Personal communication, 1982. Moose Pass, AK.
Holbrook, W. 1925. land classification report on the Kenai Peninsula
Division of the Chugach National Forest, Alaska. On file at Seward
District Office, Chugach National Forest, Seward, AK.
Iditarod National Historic Trail Project Office, BlM. 1981. The
Iditarod National Historic Trail. Seward to Nome Route. Vol. 1: A
Comprehensive Management Plan. Bureau of land Management,
Anchorage District Office, Anchorage, AK.
10-10
.. ..
• ..
• .,
• ..
• -..
• .,
• ..
• ..
• ..
• ..
• ..
• ..
• ..
• .. ..
.,
• ., .. ..
• ..
----.. -..
-..
-..
-.. ----
---..
---.. ---.. -• -.. -..
Johnson, B.L. 1912. Gold deposits of the Seward-Sunrise region,
Kenai Peninsula. In: Mineral resources of Alaska: Report on
progress of investigations in 1911, by A. H. Brooks et al., pp.
131-173. USGS Bull. 520. Government Printing Office, Washington
D. C •
Johnson, B.L. 1919. Mining in central and northern Kenai Peninsula.
In: Mineral Resources of Alaska: Report on progress of
Investigations in 1917, by G. C. Martin et al., pp. 175-176. USGS
Bull. 692. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.
Martin, G.C., B.L. Johnson and U.S. Grant. 1915. Geology and
mineral resources of Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. USGS Bull. 587.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.
Mattson, J. Personal communication, 1982. Archeologist, supervisor's
office, Chugach National Forest, Anchorage, AK.
Plafker, G. 1955. Geologic investigations of proposed power
sites at Cooper, Grant, Ptarmigan and Crescent Lakes, Alaska. USGS
Bull. 1031-A. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.
Quilliam, R. Personal communication, 1982. U.S. Dept. Agriculture,
Forest Service, Seward District, Seward, AK.
Smith, T. Personal communication, June 22, 1982. Division of Parks,
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage, AK.
Stewart, B.D. 1937. Report of the Commissioner of Mines to the
Governor for the biennium ended December 31, 1936. Territory of
Alaska.
Stewart, B.D. 1939. Report of the Commissioner of Mines to the
Governor for the biennium ended December 31, 1938. Territory of
Alaska •
Stewart, B.D. 1941. Report of the Commissioner of Mines to the
Governor for the biennium ended December 31, 1940. Territory of
Alaska.
Yarborough, M.R. 1981. Archeological survey of proposed
drilling sites, Grant Lake, Alaska. Cultural Resource Consultants,
Anchorage, AK.
CHAPTER 5 -REPORT ON SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS
Alaska Department of Labor. 1979-80. Statistical quarterly.
Alaska Department of Labor. 1981. Alaska population review •
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories. Railbelt electric power
alternatives study: evaluation of railbelt electric energy plans •
1982.
10-11
Bowers, B. Personal communication, June 21, 1982. Chugach National
Forest, Anchorage.
CH2M Hill. 1979. Land use plan -City of Seward. Kenai Peninsula
Borough and City of Seward, AK.
CH2M Hill. 1980. Feasibility assessment -hydropower development at
Grant Lake. City of Seward, AK.
City of Seward. 1980. Fourth of July Creek industrial park, City of
Seward, AK, project description.
City of Seward. 1980. Resolution No. 80-39, a resolution requesting
the State of Alaska to approve a grant to the Alaska Power
Authority (SLS CSHB 1002 amS, page 11) to fund the FERC license of
Grant Lake/Seward.
Dames and Moore. 1979. Northern Gulf of Alaska petroleum development
scenarios, Technical Report No. 29. Bureau of Land Management,
Outer Continental Shelf Office.
Dunham, W. Personal communication, January 19, 1982. Alaska
Department of Labor, Seward, AK.
Gillespie, J. Personal communication, June 17, 1982. Seward Real
Estate Company, Seward, AK.
Institute of Social and Economic Research. 1979. Northern Gulf of
Alaska petroleum development scenarios: economic and demography
impacts, Technical Report No. 34. Bureau of Land Management,
Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Office.
Kane, G. Personal communication, January 19, 1982. Alaska
Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Anchorage, AK.
Kenai Peninsula Borough School District. No date. Enrollment
projections and school construction needs -1982-1983 through
1986-1987. Soldotna, AK.
Kenai Peninsula Borough. 1977. Profile of five Kenai Peninsula towns.
Soldotna, AK.
Kenai Peninsula Borough. 1982. Situation and Prospects --Kenai
Peninsula Borough. Soldotna, AK.
Lahnum, D. Personal communication, August 17, 1982. Kenai Peninsula
Borough, Soldotna, AK.
Martin, K. Personal communication, June 17, 1982. City of Seward,
AK.
10-12
..
•
• ..
• -
II
• .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
• ..
•
• •
• .. ..
till
• •
• .. ..
• .. -.. .. .. ..
-----..
-..
-.. ---..
-..
------
------..
-.. -..
-..
-..
McIlhargey, F. Personal communication, January 18, 1982 and June 18,
1982. Kenai Peninsula Borough.
Peter Eakland and Associates. 1980. Northern Gulf of Alaska petroleum
development scenarios transportation systems analysis, Technical
Report No. 31. Bureau of land Management, Alaska Outer Continental
Shelf Office.
R. W. Beck and Associates. Kenai Peninsula power supply and
transmission study supplement. 1982.
Shaeffermyer, D. Personal communication, January 18, 1982 and June 17,
1982. Asst. City Manager, City of Seward, AK.
Simpson Usher Jones, Inc. 1979. Growth management strategy.
Anchorage, AK.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1981. 1980 census
of population and housing.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1982.
Survey of current business •
U.S. Department of labor, Bureau of labor Statistics. 1975-1981.
Historical report on labor force and employment (unpublished).
CHAPTER 6 -REPORT ON GEOLOGICAL AND SOIL RESOURCES
Bolt, B.A. 1973. Duration of strong ground motion: Fifth World
Conf. Earthquake Engineering, Rome.
Campbell, Kenneth W. 1981. Near-source attenuation of peak horizontal
acceleration. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,
Vol 71, p. 2039-2070.
Foster, H.F. and Karlstrom, T.N. 1967. Ground breakage and
associated effects in the Cook Inlet Area, Alaska, resulting from
the March 27, 1964 earthquake. U.S. Geological Survey Professional
Paper 543-F.
Joyner, W.B. and D.M. Boore. 1981. Peak horizontal acceleration and
velocity from strong-motion records including records from the 1979
Imperial Valley, California, Earthquake. Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America, Vol. 71, p. 2011-2038 •
Krinitzsky, E.l., and F.K. Chang. 1977. Specifying peak motions
for design earthquakes: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Miscellaneous Paper MP 5-73-1, Report 7, Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MI., 34 p.
10-13
Plafker, G. 1955. Geologic investigations of proposed power sites at
Cooper, Grant, Ptarmigan, and Crescent Lakes, AK. U.S. Geological
Survey Bulletin 1031-A.
_--:-:--=---:-' 1969. Tectonics of the March 27, 1964 Alaska earthquake.
U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 543-1.
R & M Consultants. 1982. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project, Interim
geological report.
Slemmons, D.B. 1977. Faults and earthquake magnitude: U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi, Miscellaneous Paper S-73-1, Report 6, 129 p.
Tysdal, R.G. and J.E. Case. 1969. Geologic map of the Seward
and B1ying South Quadrangles, AK. U.S. Geological Survey Map
1-1150.
Wyss, M. 1980. Estimating maximum expecta~le magnitude of earthquake
from fault dimensions: Geology, v. 7, p. 336-340.
CHAPTER 7 -REPORT ON RECREATIONAL RESOURCES
...
Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Division of
Tourism. 1982. Alaska travel directory. Juneau, AK.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks. 1981.
Estimated facility costs. Unpublished.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks. 1982.
Alaska state park system: southcentra1 region plan. Anchorage, AK.
Alaska Department of Transportation. 1982. Traffic counts on Alaska
Highway at Moose Pass, 1981. Unpublished.
Albrecht, A. Personal communication, January 14, 1982. Forest Staff
Officer, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Chugach
National Forest, Anchorage, AK.
DeVore, C. Personal communication, August 20, 1982. Recreation
Specialist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Chugach
National Forest, Seward, AK.
Hennig, S. Personal communications, August and September, 1982.
Landscape Architect, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Chugach National Forest, Anchorage, AK.
Johnson, R. Personal communication, August 16, 1982. Recreation
Specialist, U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, Soldotna, AK.
10-14
.. ..
• ..
•
.. -.. -.. .. ..
.. .. ..
• ..
• .. ..
• ..
.. ..
•
•
-• .. .. .. .. -
--
---------------
-
------------.. ---..
Pfleger, L. Personal communication, August 20, 1982. Flying service
operator, Moose Pass, AK.
Quilliam, R. Personal communications, 1982. Resource Assistant, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Chugach National Forest,
Seward, AK.
Schaefermeyer, D. Personal communication, June 17, 1982. Assistant
City Manager, Seward, AK.
Schwartz, C. Personal communication, June 18, 1982. Research Wildlife
Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Soldotna, AK.
Spraker, T •• Personal communications, June and July, 1982. Game
Management Officer, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Soldotna,
AK.
Tallerico, J. Personal communication, June 21, 1982. Recreation
Specialist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Chugach
National Forest, Anchorage, AK.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Chugach National Forest.
1982a. Recreation information management (RIM) data, fiscal years
1979-1981. Unpublished.
1982b. Draft forest plan and Nellie Juan-College
Fiord wilderness study report. Anchorage, AK.
__ ~=-___ ~~~ ____ . 1982c. Draft environmental impact statement,
Chugach National forest plan and Nellie Juan-College Fiord
wilderness study report. Anchorage, AK.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982.
Kenai national wildlife refuge. Pamphlet. Anchorage, AK.
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 1982.
National wild and scenic rivers system map. Washington, D.C.
Wiles, J. Personal communication, June 22, 1982. Recreation Planner,
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks,
Anchorage, AK.
Wilson, G. Personal communications, 1982. Forest Service. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Chugach National Forest,
Seward, AK.
CHAPTER 8 -REPORT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (AEIOC). 1982.
Summary of environmental knowledge of the proposed Grant Lake
Hydroelectric Project area. Final Report submitted to Ebasco
Services, Inc., Bellevue, WA.
10-15
Alaska Department of Transportaiton. 1982. Traffic count data, Moose
Pass maintenance station, Alaska, years 1980 and 1981. Unpublished.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 1981. Federal Register, Vol.
46, No. 21.: Regulations governing application for license for
major unconstructed projects and major modified projects;
application for license for transmission lines only; and
application for amendment to license, Washington, D.C., U.S.
Government Printing Office, p. 10174.
Hennig, S. Personal communication, September 2, 1982. Landscape
Architect, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
Anchorage, AK.
Litton, R.B., Jr. 1968. Forest landscape description and inventories
- a basis for land planning and design. Berkeley, CA, Pacific SW
Forest and Range Exp. Stat., 64 pp. (USDA Forest Service Res.
Paper PSW-49).
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1974. National
forest landscape management: the visual system Vol. 2, Chapter 1,
Washington, D.C., U.S. Govt. Printing Office, 47 pp. (Agricultural
Handbook No. 462).
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Chugach National Forest.
1978. Visual resource, management data, Grant Lake area.
Unpublished maps.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alaska Region. 1979.
Visual character types. Division of Recreation, Soils, and
Watersheds, Juneau. Series No. R10-63.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Chugach National Forest.
1982. Recreation information management (RIM) data, fiscal years
1979-1981. Unpublished.
CHAPTER 9 -LAND USE
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance Administration.
1981. Flood insurance rate map, Kenai Peninsula Borough, AK.
Panels 2175 and 2525. Bethesda, MD.
Moore, J. Personal communication, October 14, 1982. Soil Scientist,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
Anchorage, AK.
Quilliam, R. Personal communication, August 20, 1982. Resource
Assistant, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Chugach
National Forest, Seward, AK.
10-16
.. .. ..
• ..
• ..
.. -.. -.. -• •
• ..
• ..
• •
• ..
II
.. -.. -
II -.. -..
• .. -
-..
-------..
-------..
---..
-..
---..
-----..
-
III -..
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Chugach National Forest.
1982a. Mining claim records. Unpublished.
1982b. Draft forest plan and Nellie Juan-College
Fiord wilderness study report. Anchorage, AK.
Wolf, W. Personal communication, October 14, 1982. Office of the
Governor, Division of Policy Development and Planning, State
Clearinghouse, Juneau, AK.
10-17