The URL can be used to link to this page

2011-02-24 Work Session Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Work Session Thursday, February 24, 2011, 7:30 p.m., Borough Conference Room Work Sessions are informal meetings of the Assembly where Assembly members review the upcoming regular meeting agenda packet and seek or receive information from staff. Although additional items not listed on the work session agenda are discussed when introduced by the Mayor, Assembly, or staff, no formal action is taken at work sessions and items that require formal Assembly action are placed on regular Assembly meeting agenda. Citizen's comments at work sessions are NOT considered part of the official record. Citizen's comments intended for the "official record" should be made at a regular Assembly meeting. CITIZENS' COMMENTS (Limited to Three Minutes per Speaker) ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION 1. Potential Lake Enrichment Projects Presentation by the Kodiak Regional Aquaculture Association 2. Proposal for Expansion of Solid Waste Cart Service 3. Proposed Borough Properties That Could Be Available for a Land Sale 4. Traffic Review Of Rezanof Drive - Draft Letter 5. Assembly Packet Readers /iPads PACKET REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING — None. UNFINISHED BUSINESS — None. NEW BUSINESS CONTRACTS — None. RESOLUTIONS *Resolution No. FY2011 - 19 Supporting the Alaska Municipal League's Resolution to Amend the Alaska Coastal Management Program and Extend the Program Sunset Date. Resolution No. FY2011 - 20 Adopting a 2011 Kodiak Island Borough Communities State Legislative Capital Improvement Projects Priority List. Resolution No. FY2011 - 21 Requesting the Alaska State Legislature to Fully Fund the Energy Rebate Program ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION Ordinance No. FY2011 - 12 Amending Title 3 Revenue and Finance Chapter 3.35 Real Property Tax Section 3.35.050 Board of Equalization. OTHER ITEMS *Declaring a Seat on the Architectural /Engineering Review Board Vacant. MANAGER'S COMMENTS LEAVE DATES: Austerman: Mar 8 -10 (Legislative Reception); CLERK'S COMMENTS Mar 18 -20 (Personal) Fulp: Mar 8 -10 (Legislative Reception) MAYOR'S COMMENTS Kaplan: Mar 8 -10 (Legislative Reception) Selby: Mar 8 -10 (Legislative Reception) ASSEMBLY MEMBERS COMMENTS Stutes: Mar 8 -10 (Legislative Reception) Gifford: Feb 25 -Mar 2 (Bond Closing); Mar 8- 10 (Legislative Reception) Javier: Feb 25 -Mar 2 (Bond Closing) Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Work Session Thursday, February 24, 2011, 7:30 p.m., Borough Conference Room Work Sessions are informal meetings of the Assembly where Assembly members review the upcoming regular meeting agenda packet and seek or receive information from staff. Although additional items not listed on the work session agenda are discussed when introduced by the Mayor, Assembly, or staff, no formal action is taken at work sessions and items that require formal Assembly action are placed on regular Assembly meeting agenda. Citizen's comments at work sessions are NOT considered part of the official record. Citizen's comments intended for the "official record" should be made at a regular Assembly meeting. CITIZENS' COMMENTS (Limited to Three Minutes per Speaker) ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION 1. Potential Lake Enrichment Projects Presentation by the Kodiak Regional Aquaculture Association 2. Proposal for Expansion of Solid Waste Cart Service 3. Proposed Borough Properties That Could Be Available for a Land Sale 4. Traffic Review Of Rezanof Drive - Draft Letter 5. Assembly Packet Readers /iPads PACKET REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING — None. UNFINISHED BUSINESS — None. NEW BUSINESS CONTRACTS — None. RESOLUTIONS *Resolution No. FY2011 -19 Supporting the Alaska Municipal League's Resolution to Amend the Alaska Coastal Management Program and Extend the Program Sunset Date. Resolution No. FY2011 -20 Adopting a 2011 Kodiak Island Borough Communities State Legislative Capital Improvement Projects Priority List. Resolution No. FY2011 -21 Requesting the Alaska State Legislature to Fully Fund the Energy Rebate Program ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION Ordinance No. FY2011 -12 Amending Title 3 Revenue and Finance Chapter 3.35 Real Property Tax Section 3.35.050 Board of Equalization. OTHER ITEMS *Declaring a Seat on the Architectural /Engineering Review Board Vacant. MANAGER'S COMMENTS CLERK'S COMMENTS MAYOR'S COMMENTS ASSEMBLY MEMBERS COMMENTS KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ASSEMBLY WORK SESSION Work Session of: Na IOU Please PRINT your name Please PRINT your name 1r„ -� \v \nC.nV-� F ;e1 Ni41 KL 6. S PIA P � - 6 de ulles bleviorA fr/6/4, -‘7::7 0 ,___ ..,7 Wija::-S,1212 0C CCIIAof L6 'IC � . ;3y i so c_tv r,i. '1CX- \IA 1 L- c . -UrnrE 19;(72 A ., Viii bwgz Zr.),Tic ,ici %5 ,,,(._ 4 __T t/ Sri /774- S <<,6 ,l le cV�' 2 Kr?Vi e k /9//7x/ w,./e/ -S Q v , dim uY2s+ IS //v v,, S S - _ /M a/ALM i tr't i v\ Ell5t,,is: SAZ.,,-/ -14,4 ,0 ? 4 ki.t Ate/ KAfDM A Oree Oil ✓ C- From: Gary Byrne [mailto:kraa.byrne @gci.net] Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 12:36 PM To: Rick Gifford Cc: Kevin Brennan; Tina Fairbanks Subject: Kodiak Regional Aquaculture Association Hello, Rick. As we briefly discussed earlier, KRAA would like to have the opportunity to address potential lake enrichment projects with the Borough Assembly at the February 24 scheduled work session. I understand that there has been some discussion among Assembly members regarding the currently depressed sockeye salmon returns on Kodiak's west side. KRAA has decided to pursue lake enrichment of Karluk, Frazer and Spiridon lakes as a measure to improve those runs. We would like to describe some of the environmental circumstances contributing to the recent disappointing salmon returns, detail the projected benefits of lake enrichment, and seek the Borough's support as KRAA moves forward with this project. Please contact me if you need any further information, and to let me know when we can be scheduled to meet with the Assembly. Thanks. Gary Byrne Kodiak Regional Aquaculture Association Production /Operations Manager (907)486 -6555 Office (907)539 -5976 Mobile KODIAK REGIONAL AQUACULTURE ASSOCIATION 104 Center Avenue, Kodiak, AK 99615 907.486.6555 FAX 907.486.4105 01 2. o y4t 4 QUACUti » February 16, 2011 Rick Gifford Borough Manager Kodiak Island Borough 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, AK 99615 Dear Rick: The Kodiak Regional Aquaculture Association would like to address the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly regarding the depressed state of sockeye salmon production from some of the largest historical contributors to the Kodiak Management Area fishery. Recent low sockeye salmon returns have had a devastating effect on Kodiak commercial salmon fishing and, and upon the Kodiak economy. Three systems which have historically contributed significantly to the annual sockeye harvest are of particular concern: 1. Spiridon Lake. Spiridon is a system which has no natural sockeye run, but sockeye returns are sustained through an enhancement project in which Pillar Creek Hatchery stocks juvenile sockeye salmon into the lake. Through the first ten years of full production, the project generated average returns of 302,000 adult sockeye. Over the last five years, the average return has been 167,000 fish, and the projected 2011 return is 83,000, which would be the lowest on record. 2. Frazer Lake. Frazer production is also down relative to the returns experienced during the 1990s. The average annual return for the ten year period ending in 2010 (361,000 sockeye) is about half that of the average return over the 1990s. 3. Karluk Lake. Of the three systems we are examining, Karluk is the most troubling. Karluk has a bimodal sockeye return, meaning the lake's return has two distinct components, an early run (the majority of which are counted through an in- stream weir by mid -July) and a late run (the majority of which return later than mid - July). The three year period from 2008 -2010 registered the three lowest returns since at least 1985 for BOTH the early run and late run fish. Historically, the Karluk sockeye return has been the largest on the archipelago, and the Kodiak west side salmon fishery is managed to meet Karluk sockeye escapement goals. Limits on fishing time are based upon performance of the Karluk River sockeye return. Thus, when Karluk returns are weak, the lost salmon harvest Is not limited to the Karluk's underproduction; it is compounded because the opportunity to harvest salmon bound for other natal streams is also lost. Although each freshwater system is unique, and different factors have contributed to their depressed sockeye returns, each lake could benefit from the controlled application of the essential nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus, a program commonly known as lake enrichment or lake fertilization. In fact, this method of improving freshwater forage for juvenile sockeye salmon was used by the ADF &G in both Karluk and Frazer lakes in the 1980s in order to improve the freshwater habitat for juvenile sockeye salmon and restore subsequent adult returns from depressed to historic levels. In each case, the project was deemed a success, and likely contributed to the stable salmon fishing opportunity experienced on Kodiak's west side through the 1990s. KRAA contracted Dr. Dana Schmidt, the former ADF &G Principal Limnologist and an expert on both Karluk Lake and lake fertilization, to analyze data collected over two decades in order to assess the potential benefit of lake fertilization under current conditions. Dr. Schmidt's analysis is rigorous, and arrives at the conclusion that a lake enrichment program would significantly increase and stabilize sockeye production in each of these systems. Based on this report, KRAA has resolved to institute such a program for each system, with a target date for first application of May 2011, and is currently in the process of drafting a detailed project plan for each lake, assessing the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge permitting requirements, and seeking project funding. The project plan calls for a fertilization project to be sustained for not less than a five year period, a typical one generation life -cycle for sockeye salmon. Although specific project plans and budgets are still in draft, it is estimated that, should we obtain permits to enrich all three lakes, first year program costs would fall in the range of $620,000 to $720,000. Dr. Schmidt's estimates indicate a potential summary cost- benefit ratio of 10:1 or better for these projects. The majority, if not all, of this projected benefit, however, would be realized in common property ex- vessel value. This, of course, is the point of the program, but does little to defray the cost to KRAA. As mentioned above, in the past, the ADF &G took responsibility for restoration projects of this nature, but simply said, times have changed. Truth be told, Kodiak's west side salmon fishery is already in a state of crisis, and the measures we propose are already late. Even if implemented this year, the resulting benefit of increased sockeye salmon returns is still five or more years out. Unfortunately, although KRAA began investigating the potential for lake fertilization two years ago, we've been unable to rush what has been to this point a long and arduous process. We finally feel now that we are on the verge of implementing this critical restoration program. The hurdles that remain before us are securing permits, and funding the project. KRAA also hopes to secure Borough support for this effort. The community's understanding and endorsement of the project will be a critical factor taken into account by the State legislature as that body considers the merits of our proposed project and potential funding. To that end, KRAA requests that the Borough pass a resolution in support of the proposed project and its funding, recognizing the critical importance of salmon fisheries to our community and actively participating in our efforts to sustain them. Sincerely, Gary Byrne KRAA Production /Operations Manager Karluk Sockeye Salmon Returns, 1985 -2010 2500000 ri Late Run Harvest 2000000 4 a Early Run Harvest O Late Run Escapement a 1500000 # r^ - CI Early Run Escapement E tc; ea tor 1000000 t, .. r "3 r'i•• 500000 - ' mu Karluk Sockeye and Chinook Salmon Returns, 1976 -2010 0 co o 1 0 ' $ , 10 N. 1 °i '��' ti� N 1� N N , ' ' ' ' ' 2500 �... a t ti., 18000 ,h cb sk *' '", �= , g 1 �; 16000 ® Lake Fertilization 2000000' ..m. a £, ,,,, 14 000 — Sockeye : _, „- , _. :,*-.'4' a , ' . :' ' . L : v — Chinook Ratti , ,' , -- °u a ' W °' . ° 7 1:- ,� - .° tee- ' 120 00 1500000 - `� { ;,} ° , r r 'r � re 10000 ra [ fi x . � s Pik.. ;4 . p,`b 054.4 n a w l , ; r x s Li 1000000 a z a s r ' 1 ' C till- ' ' 'i t.' .' `a' iM ,.:9 51 . . s 8000 ( , .c ' ,.ft' .' *�x 600 *Ili'? ? ; .xil. ' aF i � � 500000 Y n ` � - 4'.. • ' _'. . 4000 . a' k- ' 6 '- ,x "• ',.e ,� , is. :3/4., A .. "' - y , d` s c�ggs, 2000 61 ---E-7,5;-1-Ite-ses' i 0 Frazer Sockeye Salmon Returns, 1985 -2010 2500000 2000000 Harvest 0 Escapement 1500000 1000000 -- = M A �ax2 Y 500000 ; Uv �3 . . "Orr . . . . 19. N< �.. 1 "_. ��.. P rV r gyp .. . 10. Spiridon Sockeye Salmon Returns, 1994 -2010 2500000 2000000 t3 Harvest 1500000 1000000 - - - -- 500000 t Combined Karluk, Fra 198 -2010 zer & Spiridon Sockeye Salmon 2500000 Harv est, 2000000 A e Karluk Early Run Karluk Late Run 1500000 • - - - - -. _— - -- - - -- -- ? Frazer eV a yk°' _ - Spiridon 1000000 * �' s 'r "' � r r S " " � a ®20 Year Average, 1989 -2008 t „+,. ' Cam" . ' ' 500000 � 4 � 0)' ~ 0 O A )C O , ' O 0 0 O ,tioi 1i' ,y°� ti" 1 1 1�' ...°)C)°) O ,tO 19 .tO . .yO .,., KOIJIAI(ISLANDBOROUGH OFFICE of the MANAGER MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable Mayor and Assembly of the Kodiak Island Borough FROM: Rick Gifford, Borough Manager DATE: February 22, 2011 SUBJECT: Proposal for Solid Waste Expansion of Cart Services The current Solid Waste Collection Contract with Alaska Waste provides for residential roll cart services within the City of Kodiak. The Contract, Section 4 -4.01 b. (1) Residential states: "Beginning on the Collection Commencement Date, Contractor will Collect all Refuse discarded in Carts at residential Premises located within the City of Kodiak (or other area designated by KIB in Notice to Contractor) weekly, on the same Regularly Scheduled Collection Day." Other areas can be designated by KIB in a Notice to Contractor. The discussions during the contract approval process discussed other possible areas that are densely populated and could be easily accessible by roll carts. Those other areas were not included at the start of the Alaska Waste Contract as we were running out of time (up against the summer months) for Alaska Waste to implement the new system in a timely and efficient manner. The Solid Waste Management Plan calls for a Solid Waste System that is a "Pay -As- You - Throw" system. Direction given to the KIB administration upon approval of the Alaska Waste Contract and during discussion concerning possible transfer sites was to continue working towards the "Pay- As -You- Throw" system. The roll carts help the Borough move closer towards its goal of a "Pay - As- You - Throw" system and helps move towards a more comprehensive recycling system. In addition, the roll cart system has proven to be more efficient and cost effective for both the Contractor and the customer. The Contractor is better able to predict the amount of solid waste to be disposed and therefore, schedule routes and workers in a more productive manner and control costs. This efficiency relates to lower costs to the roll cart customer and the roll cart customer knows when his garbage will be picked up and the customer can adjust their disposal of garbage accordingly. Alaska Waste and the Borough Administration would like to propose additional areas just north of the City that are densely populated to be added to the Alaska Waste roll cart services. Included with this memo is a map indicating the proposed areas to receive roll cart services. The additional areas would create one additional route for Alaska Waste and make their collection services more efficient. The proposed areas would provide roll cart services to an additional 656 customers. It would eliminate 13 dumpster sites and 19 dumpsters along with the spillage that goes along with the dumpsters. Roll cart services within the City of Kodiak have proved to be successful. Customers know how to get rid of their trash and at least 90% of the customers place their roll carts out on the day of service. Alaska Waste is able to resolve problems with service immediately. Overflowing containers can be upgraded to a larger size roll cart, container issues are done with tags on the container by the driver and a call from dispatch. If the customer misses their service, Alaska Waste provides a 1 time courtesy pick up and on windy days, the driver attempts to place the container as far from road as possible. Alaska Waste has also been able to resolve issues with placement of roll carts with customers who have limited and /or difficult places with which to place the roll cart. Alaska Waste continues to get customer requests for roll cart services outside of the existing service area. Most people who move to Kodiak are already familiar with the roll cart service and know what to expect. In addition, the customer can choose the size of roll cart needed, thus only paying for the amount of garbage they dispose of instead of what others dispose of. Customers with additional garbage on an occasional basis or with bulky items can continue to contact Alaska Waste for pick up and /or deliver to the landfill themselves. Knowing what areas will eventually receive roll cart services will also make it easier to determine the number of sites and the size of transfer sites needed. Alaska Waste and KIB staff will be available at the Assembly's work session to discuss the above proposal and answer questions. ra-a .. r ra>ra a wa..,�m. e 4 '.l r a=' �,p• udnnY snap ! A� II ; + ,. ` t � ( i Ice ; : :„ r f. a .r il. 1 4 x r r'1 a °+tea ,e v r R . i pF ! � f G ♦ phi 'r .� t i w n I , "�$', 'L1� '� s tl^ +i+ ,✓'^�1�r i" r� d✓ ^, 4.'6i d : i ` ~ '' r a'" � : , 9, / 1 ' ' ,�_ ,,,, ,t+ rr y y'� Y D r 4 4 / r • i 4a. S 4 r re . r 'r. x W ,y?T ,,, r tt • Y )'•s/ "�4• a g. / „/ "r ��fa1.,• t. ' Y'.” �P t r a r l 2 ; ` . T . ;- . ' — ' - y1 %/Pa ,- . ;. - C�y ,, , S 1 -., et y i J � :: � c: -7- !-. r �F M . r } " , 4 1N � . sl ; ? p i ti a ` dF �Q .0 w rf +�•' "' ji` _� i G 4 r ::r. - -• �' ti %:°4 `fa 47,17,-",, - . n v ,y • , '.{(y.• ' t ' ,e _ • • 1s r 4. h , n bs - ® . dC sue- -- 4' rr. 0 ' • p . _ • � i c L i Ir. 4 F a : : l £ Y' , t iR r, , t $ .. , ' • _ 1 , r p 1� 1t aA L �' a M zia -✓+` � 1 l{' ar +•'l fs y u ,-.- )* ?.I r / r '�' 4. i yr tF l B y Road S a r 'sr w> ,r �Ml�t g yp r y t ,q i,. „ q ty 4 . ,. g � , �� KK 3� 3r R � r ;:1 9 7fs`- . 1 - � . ry + � v9ifi"`? rtV IC @/' � ` ma y t '+. v"'' � :N++� r ", .. y 4 `' • '. •• K y W i ^. .-' r, 4 t r �' h . ! . s 'i.� , , i • �" a '✓ �" ° : w' r "r v, ' �.:.• t ">`, c� '>' ��g - r ' ' - it t " r r ' ' i � - r a a" 'Y t ' i ' a * ' ' !ma y . + C , a" a � (" 1 ' ,.- 1t' f � 'G el • k .. A "r . < .' � f rL Y, .t m .... ` T,+p.. � ^ 'E .t!i.. '✓ 6f" • S i • Rezanof , WC d y k c-.jy. ..,v- f ' ��."' . , 1 e.. / `GY6 t i ♦ '.q+t ✓� ) it "4 1 • r]�4 e , ' r g � \ H s" b s a r ', (! 51' Y ( (i.' ?' ..45 :c ' ems ' `' ' ar /� � { ' = 1`'r 4:11P4,4, {rm * ^ •7 S t � it- ' l G lice_ ap • i y C ,., /e!1' :27'-‘ :, �+ ; wa�1 i : . e , / U-43C, +' fir' , . -- 1 " .'y�Y SPptFr : * . - • . , •. .; � AV +rF i Oc•--- E �Y j a� '� e f c ^` y Y� ls � • r � r � t . s� a .. ea •( , ,,.. r� o f r ^Y 5\ '°� i '�° ,.. Y ?cY/.i`li r „� c2p +` t' 3 s>a Tj 2 �'� • � Y r ? . - * 7 : � . •.. � • ;! � 1 � a � r • + a !' � �, f �'e ` � { � � : • l 1 , ` , \ �r '�Y., ' .t 7 „mice,- r �^,'9t" r :' f t R, SFr ,G r J .1. r Legend . '+:�- . 9 . 5�•?s �s a .+ nw*^ = '.a r P 4 . T , r 4. I s o, : tr.--,--, ,;: c„..---y. , Proposed Area 1A ! _` Alaska Waste Proposed Roll Cart Sery Expann Areas Proposed Area lB u aaisk maea roupn cis map is prov ice tl f planning W only I r� I I Proposed Area 3 p:� �mn.,� . I m, i uee.. II --M3 / t Kodiak Island Borough • ft>� °a rr, \ OFFICE of the MANAGER z / am 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 9961 5 � .., T Phone (907) 486 -9304 Fax (907) 486 -9374 .. 7. E-mail: rscholze(kodiakak.us To: The Honorable Mayor and Assembly of the Kodiak Island Borough gq Through: Rick Gifford, Manager p From: Bob Scholze, Resource Management Ofticj Date: Feb 22, 7011 Re: Land Sale Candidates Borough properties in two general locations which have been previously considered for land disposal are presented here for further discussion regarding availability for a land sale tentatively scheduled this year for late spring /early summer. The first is Raven Hills Subdivision, comprising Lots 1 and 2 and Tract A, in the Monashka Bay area. The second is Tract H and a portion of Tract G, Bells Flats Subdivision. Both of these properties have been previously declared surplus to the public's need by Resolution No. 2001 -02. Subsequent to the surplus declaration, Raven Hills Subdivision was rezoned from Public Land to RRI -Rural Residential One consistent with the surrounding neighborhood in Monashka Bay and subdivided into three lots. Rezone and subdivision of the Bells Flats property remain to be done. In addition, one tax foreclosure property in Russian Creek Subdivision (Lot 3A, 12181 Gara Road), which previously had contamination issues, has been at least partially cleaned up. With further environmental testing, this lot might be certified cleaned and brought to the sale also. At this point, it would be a good idea to make sure the Assembly understands the steps of the process remaining to go to land sale, and have direction from the Assembly how best to proceed. Air photos showing the properties in question are attached. 1 e .-- , 1. / c, C tv RAO C--ej Hi “1-4; -D ' r i), ir,•- ' . ...: ir.:0 7 ,ir-744.a V4144 tS” s't,1/27i4.‘"‘ I 1 s * •= ) E. I) fr" . ' : A Ali , 4 ' it“ 1 ls I' t . At - *a. iir-,,L,414 - Just. , ..,,, '4, ..51 ,k,',...„41-1. F:- - 41 „ 4 7/ ebt TE ts„ St. .4,1 ne'll ■ jr ” ' I. '14 444' - •, ' sr ■14.3 sk n- ' -..N. „ t % " ./. ,./ . t .* t-, . sw. . kr 4 go" ' It ri V!.:=4 „..- I ''. ' -*" ^A. N /4`-"•-„, . ' - / / - ""‘0 , * ' b/ i.„' al,„,,,Ykl"•'"''''' -., i s' ..f: . •,, ;--, sr ,....)&1 „ ..•7... it. ., -.- „ , ,,k :...... /2-, ,,-. :- t , - ,„„p, ' 4, :iiprwa...t ve - I i',. i ., ir •0. mt.j'All, . cp.i * .... i a -, k tts`,1 •„. , 4• • 44/44=11;1,..•' ‘ 43 4441, 4) it b ../14 -41:4a• /:1-t- //vs n'o• .:LN-1/,'-* P l , I.r., t P kt if, 4 -- sr, ' , 0 , ....e.. -I ...g, ‘ ",t, 3, ' ' 4 /•44 ie ; 1 4 • - titt' .., ' : '-4 ... / li lt e.**.-.-- 413 T14 ••4' ' ' 44.4 a., • , t i P#'4 4 ,;.> ••`4 • 4: it 41‘ 7' WI •4 • ' 11 0 \ V a b FA 1.4 41 4, / 4‘,■ ii, 0 V. -1 -*, at 7.-`v;w0tt,A, 4 N' \ , ir . s'-t•.4...' irrQ4ceili a • K / •toti:S4 • „'te -4-44,3t14, AI 4 •••• " *-•,"- , 4 " " • ••41., t ire' rigeotika 64 4:1•4Thil•f•IA 7 7,0' 4: \%,•:4 '•• 4: *. jp: 4:11%..st,4 4044,\ 4 voir ,!:. •I• c ;4 • :;•#(41•14,4 , ?-, ‘,.4,1 C414, 4 44 4 44• ••••• t .. . •0441•4•13144•;•Vg4 1 ;4:44.0 At :••1 *4 47:W.4 fir ILIOS,1444 •; ' W 42 . i • ••• 440 iir * p trifign el. if,' • • 14144,4 -4.7", ie. ek% ,14:,,,:vis•-+ : .4.ze.1 ...!...... 2: 2... dottist4r ,- ...„:„....: „, /at?, -'.'-,:oi ' to .- '.,a4!• :: 1 t lira 0 y "4.. • .. t -0 ;11 . . 1 0 . TIt.14,),g, e:. . kr AA, E7 4 1 4: 1 ,1V• 4,14:Y 16 :09 7 ,, ,, , - I, , 4 irk" 4 • t ',7• ' 1 t 7,, 4 ifYf , • , 4 1 i .1 4 . Et) 0. 1/4 ..., • 4- - -1,1 %•••••- ' -et ' - ' il • .4:4 A '",, 'lei- ' • c. .:. ..4 ii4V,....-14 .,-44(L' . ' d lb. A 1 N4• 4 : Agit' .4` 41 " * if ',./ •,‘.,s c• • 2 nr ‘..•.,P ?i, - ;:it.:V.,..2:1 •127%, _-,,..* -I 1'4 • .21X .4. ' alla „if , ; OtL :,. .4 ,.., „ , ...., , , p 4I',1•11,.`rti ital 4 ,' o 1- :.= 0.• ■••;•-‘. - 4" r" 1. 7 ' tf : '40.191 A 0 , 4 Arib4 ;44 %Slit, 7 , ,,,, ?: 0 • -4.4* El' • ii1;,Ift.'4, p■ ' -1441, ;l icie - 7" 4 ' ' ‘ %,,s NA X 1 ,tr"....2,:'; "4,41:44. ;A - )14 • . 4..t, i r i..., , ,A. a .4 4,., :.,, ... ,!....;;;" .,;(0-f .4'•; •• " . - •+' tr,ter kg 4 " 4 , d. Itct -,....e -i I- ...,„ ,..„,i, .,„:4:th , .„., 1 ‘,% (itert-Afrottit.t. 7, ,r, „.. die oi;ifeale. V • '2 ;, .-,../ , , ,;`, ai- Ar . "4 411 1.,•,44,, 4,V 4 ,, 4 4,••44ti.*4•• W i•„, 4; ,v41 fi'lk.' „ft it, - : • • 4 ,4 4 , I 'V' -- **•,,i tr ) •1, , s 'e' • 4 0,414•11-",4)4N ' 4 ..,,, 4a). -Yu- a ...,,,, JO . - t"- , ‘.t.. , ..i.' ..,, Art,..,„terri);- , .-,-.ft ',..„, ,, ,,,40-;;;?„.. i ii -; , . L j .' i t ,.., ?Art:It:CO iratsrfa tfr ■ ,Tig IA' s i ., -,) -0 9 7 s4. 1:06 7 41 1 . 4 7 ; ••• adli 3 ' 114 li t ts., A it .); kf., . a ,„ " • „, li k . 4 ,,,;44.00- e.). - f . v ;C: i i'l l'‘. S * kV 'It r . Link t. . P + , a k s r ;A . * 4 ; 4. 0.. 4 • r ztri 1. 4; a .....ascrz ,f ..i i t p Ai i , 4 4 ,,,..„. ,, a 1,, .......• it itets.9.4 l; 1 g 14 .\ 44, • 4 N-t1.', t i4„+" t , 0 .ii 1 4 .• * k im. - Aft — • ' c 'sit% C1144 11{1111, ::,..?44,,, 1111•64. : e tja t ,A1/4‘0,` L ei ;/ 4 •:;•• way, k . 4-, rol.,p4( - , 4 t4,, . 2.1.. t.,t414 ' '-' • ' *lir 1'4 'S.. N ' 'i t'..1177,4 4 ,e ••44.4 *ft ct - ...r.c.a , . - • ( 0412 .. 1 . .*- 1 280 S Kodiak Island Borough G IS System • Feet 't E 124 MO 320 640 IIII% 0 , of s 1 t of, properly ,(907) 48 apartment a p pOS how ng the gwr isi°:d Lrough IT D ough s GIS System It s p ovid f o r i r .:ed by the Soo s map was pre; ared Iron the Ko ak or o e d nfo Ei rmabon about the mapping data a T map does not represent a sury y w tun the Kal ak selaen3d33Borough , c. s . c.t.F36 - • ,,c,... g , • -.- t_ o_, , lc; fr n p - -cm- , -.)- , , , v , ,I. e „..A 1Sti't 1- ---,!;;P".-!-i N i'' . L'' fr4r ‘'It j 4A ' ' ' '.4 %tr ..'- ' . '' i t ; . - -X'''''''''',.'4-;:ilf,:4:',_--- . •.. , ,..4,4. s' Mgr 9f,A4W41.44-4(., tiwit .--Tir - . . ''' , 4-.. - J. VA1 0. ' \ rs. f,,-. ”" • ..' ..11:....u.-”t 7WIriftW—. ' . fr Ar ..nt4:°f').,:ra;4:■ - .a. it' ..:SagAle1/4"”- ? . r . 440, Idtct; c;•._ 4 . jr..,..7..e.0, , _ 4 7,,,,,,J.i42” -...i. 'f ,4 „_4 1 •4 .17,„-,..„„- r ..- c .,, 1 ,,,,,.-..,- - I i iii,-:t; : -], 0,r•- . . -L: ,,-,,,,,„„.' --4.-t-r-,-;,-.4,,,,re. .. .5 44.1; -mit.-•;- -.. 'et kr rk-f-t - re 7 :" : T.-t , .; . t-t-4 t,,,,•• tt'to.--A ' -..t, -...1..A.7.---2-til:ti,stf: k V i g c rte.i•Vi-t d :' . ?1/4,"1M- qi° : - .." ', . -',071i, „t:tile,- ii 4 ,- :.cirro4 , .,,, , ,, -; ; ,,,.,-. 4 fistn) .- fl',1_ -.11`4Za.:".41bC' Cy .. it-40tilap . , 1 , - - Ltaw, ; 7 li-t LP: :fiWa:“.Leri etri - • ' ."Y „, -- ...•,-.. i -4.ti 4 -7 - c a ' ' 14 .;;tri 6) • 0 ' ;\44. 7 i 0 ;:c .4' r r -itrsprizi.rii,„....z.. ., , : ‘ i - '',.,,,:. - -1-ti.--/V-a-,!. 4:.'flit-C).•.”,*•,,;.,t-Z47,42/zt.,4,7 ,A...4-19f I , .... . . , ..--.-0 • ' 1.0 i t v at . ) 4 3, rai4 t '''''':: - i'H',; ' ' Vii:::::1.4iNtr,,,,. -.741,-4SS,..).1t4C-•-, - . <!...... ie , 404. --- -,A , ,-; 5 4:;,i,,..-c, ?: .!, -: t PA,' Ws' ,,,.# ;:arT.”" A p ic::,..,-';'V ' e-431tA:i.,;(7-.. ..1,. • - - : ' ' : ":. - -L ir-; . Am' 44 1et" & i.. • 17,4 .tr.:A.ik.7.‘,7,;;,c,--s---5:-.-.„,...-fic,-4,:r.,<<1.*-sks,3:. ,-...- 124 , a t . ' . ;$ . , ;`4- 21! ).:','!. ' '.; d44''''.,4,:gc.e .41.514 r ::"C E 1 k ,1'.. ellt/ 2 . a . . -"eV4, ica;t4e: .7:.? • :LA 4 7 1 . ... 4.■? L ...1.' i....T.e-bi 1 . - a7ifiti; ---- -‘• v .-, - - :%,,,,,, • ..,,,., -: t ag.. 'It. 3...krt ,..-m4-". ,,,, •• ts.....-- ,_,.: ,... • ...c -,-, -, e 'fir , 44 -4,1- ,....„ ,.-_...-,,,.., w , .. ..----t, tiii‘ce.ce., • ,,,g,'L 7i-,i..- t ,...; , wt..- ecitz.;„ z : . -'` .' ,4*- -cr-riir*: .2. ...t-- ,I P., , :htt) , grigoiry: ' ?ft t i o ilico..f . i.ze: -i A i t • . %,,,..., -../ At.;.-i,w '' e;,, i ,44.4elfrx It: \ilia ..-li 1+;tacV,frVtaiPCLC..77.1:#;'?!$e 't S'e ' . • it-,4-":-Ve; ,A44- 4,4t ,,,,,,,..94-A, 0, k I k I • taros,' 9.?> vii , .-4#1, ',,Z . ' OK Fel, 'kale?. izsZ,t. 1 r,g, •-ii,t7,-k,,,r,-.4 e K ott-A - fiki - .,,,:rw- -**tt 4,,,,...„-..., :...4.0te-FfaiT,..,.--- ?-‘ti'"4/5.4 ,„ _. - t t e , c , cri --,- i. , '-,.-. • - • .-:-2,11.,.., ..., r:*, ^1..1,“ ..--aiilic:p.e.:•:-istit,".'- .144-:4 . -1 1 - f- - -e , "f • r e„..:...,...,„.79.„ 4 i i,„ ,..:....._„,, irt„,-....„ • .: • .,,,,,„m,,i,„,...„.„,,_„•„:„,„, it „*.,....„,,„„...... . .4 tria:::‘.-ace... ,• --. -'' -,:4 "h4 4j, 9 , eVir 4,444 t'l#S.' :''' • '-' 1":."'. 'ar. .. '-' 4; AA '7;r7 . ... .14. 7 ••• • . , .n •,,,,,i- - it It: ; 4.4.4..• n-41 4 = -i , I:y . atIviA„ : , '''' •,:tet. e A . AL4 , 1. : . ' ' ' ' ta& '4 1 lr •c:ati.i."-- Sir-Si& Acw- ' /Is.? 4;*,...4.1,s744$0. #2-4-74Va,-;t: - pil4". 41;(e14-4,4 a‘zjAr:Tififf-t. .;.:&.'2.1?"$ Or df ., ..:...-9A\,,i4t4e e• --„ ,..rir ,- - ' P : p •- r . thso-t14*-Ar!..44-,,nita,,:,4.,:i4-:k-i,Yir., i f t - 4 • - ,,ase.....c:StrytiLlai .10,04. 4iii itra:44° ‘."'4 ( i t $ ' e ';'' '' 101sAtif.,Wki "latt;c:kF -7..i•4 -.!7.44: tk.A.' 7iiihr 4.7 . "44Y‘41.47. -ii ' .--157 TIVIO -',AWIti*ani■71% I- Oaf? ,'“? " 2d...$41-‘!' (9.9'111P, ;,,,,,;&,.... . i e '' *11. .e. , .. • te-• - - i , 4;;;;Iftsa4.7.e„c4,/,`? •;'",-;;114,4.,a, --,,, .53.`:--t.- r-,,,Apot-Wc„-iiir-iLtki,rre4r.lyipLarg:;,261,1art.(4Q,,t- / .fd- ;,7„.„4.1.7:-.17 14c-,;•-/Lie,1/41:---CL;otS - :et_.oc'. Art-i te4i-pN•ty-f- ak - -- - - ' rpit ilmitici _..k.P.,:L.c.,t, „, z -,-- t l aawi ro a, - , - t. • - . GIS System N A ii IN „TANI /al!: - ma .4., r - ( ir Erd-14,4'::4iiitthri-Nxtersa ---, Kod Island Borough w -•••;v .V 1107 °•ti.--;%r Kodi 1,410 1,880 Feet s .I 940 0 ra 10 titiblit 235 470 stand rIV wi thin the Kodiak Island Borough Thi map was prepared from the Kodiak e d y ial. I This map does not represent a sury . Mote rci Borough's GIS System It is nformat on about the mapping g can for the er K g o e d n iak a l l s l l o a c n a d t L n r o o f u a gh pr I 9 I P &Pa w l i ment at ( 486-9333 ESRI E! Kodiak Island Borough Results p r 1 t t ` t ' , a• �� i X "�,� s /� + /4' 'Sn . , . 7 . .. Map Contents p Y'� V :P ?,4 1 I r r Water Features n * . 4..`.% j r p - '1 4 t� .t 4. a F1 KIP 7 1 Labels ` . 4 L, ,.,. ' , 'A.: * Yy v } ' ' - .4,..s r •�` s A7 R streets I . &sk., t ii��.r � F *-� .1' .,S r r . � S, 4 - .in k ° � r, " :•) r Parcels k• . tr x ',..*L' :O a r PLss e � N "+ •[` w t t> ' 7 � r Background Iagery i � � � • � � - ' , S . . A � Ak is ' ry r Wj 43 Pee 1f t Imagery X f * � l. ma t J r a � .. y r u � r ?ft Imagery a '" f [ *sW v f lmtmagery iFrt �.' � x v {. } 1 i` �?u r r t ■.. Shapes r .. f1- 1r� l� ti • r !t 1 4 �+ "! ! E Backgrou rid y ; • y , A (r �' ? u.L o v yli.: ti /. t om �. ` BS c -e r k ` " � E V 4 y os 2 .1 ter 5I 1/✓r� t d. 17*. , : a:4 v t pG A k t Y'A ` mo ; d Ci , G fi � F r...4 .� 4 -1,4 1li� j .y t t r 6 k r l y 7„ S � ' yy3 i � t 5 Z 5 . ti ,� ?x . 4 Z •t om 6 R _ p' . S u \\ P !r Q � f�, .... i _`a�. .r^ `,y ' , 4 , �"'i P 'yb t r y :....,-.47:, I s t" a - — soNt + i Y y x 4 ,n %r 74 , li � c e � k ; ‘.• a 5`I' F �� ':v. i t 5 ' „' i -'w� „ t ct \ • p.. 4{'✓ te r.. • a "' r e r t za Y` �'i v �+' ' F , ' 'B.T"t „�, � c, �;, Kodiak Island Borough * + t OFFICE of the MANAGER 710 Mill Bay Road z' Kodiak, Alaska 116‘. r Phone 907 486 -9301 Fas 99615 907 486 -9374 10 B S _ . s E -mail: rgiffordakodiakak.us [Insert Date] Scott Thomas Tech Eng I /Architect I State of Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities PO Box 196900 MS -2525 Anchorage, AK 99519 -6900 RE: Request for traffic review of Rezanof Drive from Cut -off road to Abercrombie Drive Mr. Thomas, The Kodiak Island Borough is requesting a DOT &PF site visit to review traffic along Rezanof Drive from Cut -off Road to Abercrombie Drive in Kodiak. Traffic along this stretch of road has increased over the last several years as residential neighborhoods have expanded, a new private school has opened, new businesses have moved into the area, and more pedestrians and bicyclists are accessing the bike path and Fort Abercrombie for physical fitness. Additionally, property at the intersection of Rezanof Drive.and Woodland Drive has recently been rezoned to "Business" which will potentially increase traffic further as development occurs. Increases in traffic are prompting local concern regarding pedestrian and vehicular safety. We are requesting a traffic review that includes the following: 1) Observation of traffic during the times of heaviest use, approximately 7:30 to 8:30 am for the morning commute, approximately 3:15 to 4:00 pm when schools let out, and approximately 4:30 to 5:30 pm during the evening commute; and 2) A review of whether the speed limit is appropriate; and 3) Consideration of whether traffic control /management is sufficient, particularly in the area of the intersection of Mill Bay Road, Rezanof Drive and Woodland Drive. Please feel free to contact me if there are any questions regarding this request. Sincerely, Rick Gifford Borough Manager e5 9;144 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH February 15, 2011 CLERK'S OFFICE COPIED TO: TO: Borough Manager Rick Gifford, Mayor Jerome Selby & ASSEMBLY MAYOR Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Members MANAGER FILE /OTHER Re: Extending curbside collection in Kodiak Dear Mr. Gifford, Mr. Selby and Assembly Members, I fully support the proposed extension of curbside pickup in Kodiak for the following reasons: 1. Dumpsters are expensive and wasteful (as stated in the Solid Waste Management Plan). Thanks to the new curbside pickup routine involving standard -sized roll carts, Kodiak, for the first time, has good, solid data about many aspects of the community's waste stream. Some data is quite startling, especially when it comes to dumpsters versus roll carts. Alaska Waste has found that households using the roll carts throw out about 35 pounds of trash per week. Compare that to households using dumpsters: They throw out over 60 pounds per week, almost twice the amount of garbage. 2. Curbside pickup embraces the Pay-As- You -Throw (PAYT) rate structure, which sets collection rates based on the amount of waste you set out for collection. Pay -As- You - Throw. as highlighted in the Solid Waste Management Plan, provides a fair and equitable approach to establishing collection and disposal rates. 3. Our neighborhoods look cleaner. This is probably one of the most pleasant surprises following this summer's changeover to the green, standardized roll carts. Mission Road has never looked cleaner and neater. As for our neighborhood, located by Father Herman Street off Mission Road, it's free from flying debris and loose garbage. For that we are grateful. Last but not least, lam thrilled to have the dumpster gone from our neighborhood. We live within the City, so the move was long overdue. Best of all, we no longer have to give directions to our house which included, "Take the first right. then take a left at the dumpster." I am confident that members of the Borough Assembly will actin support -of the Mandate voted on a couple years ago: A diversion rate [of solid waste going to the landfill] of 25 percent by 2012 and 50 percent by 2020. Respectfully yours, t 6 i 4. if Marion Owen Kodiak resident since 1984 52 City of Larsen Bay 53 1. Design, Engineering and Cost Analysis for Deepwater 54 Dock/Moorage for Fuel Barge & Header Piping $550,000 55 2. Replacement Aggregate for Road System Resurfacing $500,000 56 3. Upgrade and Deepen Water Reservoir and Dam $1,250,000 57 4. Upgrade City /Senior/Teen Center Municipal Building $750,000 58 5. Replace Machine Shop Building /Garage $650,000 59 6. Electric Heat vs. Boilers in Municipal Building $25,000 60 Total $3,725,000 61 62 City of Old Harbor 63 1. Hydroelectric Power Project $6,000,000 64 2. Airport Improvements $14,000,000 65 3. Dumpster Truck /Swap Loader /Bear Proof Dumpsters $85,000 66 4. Water Distribution Improvement $18,000 67 5. City Shop $120,000 68 6. Emergency Response Skiff With Outboard Motor and Trailer $75,000 69 7. Fish Cleaning Float/Gut Barge $30,000 70 8. Equipment Upgrade $25,000 71 9. Equipment: Mini Excavator $50,000 72 Total $20,403,000 73 74 City of Ouzinkie 75 1. Dock/Industrial Area Construction & Development $4,000,000 76 2. Water Transmission Lines $4,132,000 77 3. Electrical Infrastructure Upgrade $730,000 78 4. Community Roads Replacement $3,735,000 79 5. Alternative Energy Projects $250,000 80 6. Community Vehicle $30,000 81 7. Fork Lift Replacement $125,000 82 8. Fuel Truck Replacement $400,000 83 9. Ouzinkie Municipal Building $1,400,000 84 10. Heavy Equipment Storage Building /Shop $250,000 85 11. Fire Hall Roof Replacement $10,000 86 12. Fire Hall Furnace Replacement $7,500 87 13. Electrical Upgrade to Boat Harbor $20,000 88 14. Tourism Development $392,500 89 15. Rock Crusher $150,000 90 16. Landfill Maintenance Equipment $100,000 91 17. Community Commercial Kitchen Facility $150,000 92 18. Upgrade Freezer Building /Fish Processing Facility $350,000 93 Total $16,232,000 94 95 City of Port Lions 96 1. City Dock and Ferry Terminal Replacement $4,300,0008,000,000 97 2. Small Boat Harbor Replacement, Phase II $4,000,000 98 3. Port Lions Causeway $25,000 99 4. Rock Screen and Conveyor $100,000 100 5. Excavator $85,000 101 6. Native Village of Port Lions Building $7,000,000 102 7. Harbor Water Main $1,000,000 Kodiak Island Borough Resolution No. FY2011 -20 Page 2 of 3 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH AGENDA STATEMENT MARCH 3, 2011 REGULAR MEETING ITEM NO: 13.D.2 TITLE: Confirmation of the Assembly Appointment to the Monashka Bay Road Service Area Board. SUMMARY: Currently three of the five seats on the Monashka Bay Road Service Area Board (MBSA) are vacant. On February 24, 2011, an application was received from Mr. Thomas Lance for the vacant seat for a term to expire 2013. Mr. Lance attended the MBSA work session of February 10, 2011, and indicated his desire to serve on the board and his intention was included in the work session notes. MBSA Chairperson Darlene Turner was contacted and provided Mr. Lance's application and it was her recommendation to forward the application to the Assembly for appointment to the board, thus fulfilling the requirements of KIBC 4.15.040. 4.14.040 Vacancies. E. The service area board may submit its nomination of a person from the submitted applications to fill the vacancy to the assembly. The assembly shall appoint a new member selected from the submitted applications for the remaining unexpired term. FISCAL NOTES: Account No.: Amount Budgeted: Expenditure Required: APPROVAL FOR AGENDA: RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to confirm the Assembly appointment of Mr. Thomas Lance to a vacant seat on the Monashka Bay Road Service Area Board for a term to expire October 2013. Form Ver. 06/30/2009 Jessica Kilborn From: Darlene Turner [darlene @asmilingbear.com] Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 11:31 AM To: Jessica Kilborn Subject: RE: Lance Application - MBSA Board yes please we would love to have him on the board. Dar Darlene J Turner A Smiling Bear Bed and Breakfast darlene a@asmilingbear.corn www.asmilingbear.com 2046 Three Sisters Way Kodiak, Alaska 99615 -7220 907 - 481 -6390 From: Jessica Kilborn jmailto:jkilborn©kodiakak.usj Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 9:23 AM To: DARLENE TURNER Subject: Lance Application - MBSA Board Importance: High Hi Darlene, I received an application from Thomas Lance this morning for the Monashka Bay Road Service Area Board. I briefly read in the work session notes (earlier this month) that he had indicated to the board that his intention was to apply. Per the code we are required to provide any applications to the board for a recommendation to the Assembly for appointment. Considering that he had provided his intentions and that it was noted in the work session notes, would you like us to forward Mr. Lance's application to the Assembly for appointment? If so, we could add it at the work session tonight to the regular meeting agenda for appointment at the meeting on March 3. Please let us know how you would like us to proceed. Thank you, Jessica g e ad, Ica a C Assistant Clerk Kodiak Island Borough 710 Mill Bay Road, Room 101 Kodiak, AK 99615 p: 907.486.9310 f: 907.486.9391 ikilborn@kodiakak.us kodiakak.us PUBLIC RECORDS LAW DISCLOSURE: This e -mail and responses to this email are subject to provisions of the Alaska Statutes and may be made available to the public upon request. Jessica Kilborn !_r . 1 �; . ! __L_. .. i ft i 11 From: support @civicplus.com I, FEB 2 4 2�)� .` f Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 8:46 PM To: Nova Javier; Marylynn McFarland; Jessica Kilborn _ Subject: Online Form Submittal: Board Application Form B CAIN'S . OFFICE j The following form was submitted via your website: Board Application Form Select the Board, Commission, or Committee applying for:: Monashka Bay Road Service Area Board Full Name:: Thomas Lance VOTER ID NO. VERIFIED BY: ' {A APPLICANTS RESIDENCE: CH (4 CITY Residence Address:: 1338 Mountain View Dr DATE APPOINTED: TERM EXPIRES ON: • APPOINTMENT LETTER: Mailing Address (if different from above):: same ROSTER: OATH OF OFFICE: FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: Home Phone Number:: 9074865044 Work Number:: 9074865044 Cell or Fax Number: : 9074865044 Occupation:: Self Employed /Nursery Business Start -up Email Address (This address will be used for correspondence):: sprucegardens@alaska.net Length of residency in Kodiak:: July 2003 to Present Are you a registered voter ?:: Yes High School:: College:: Univ of Idaho Trade or Business School:: Hobbies:: Are you currently serving on other Boards, Commissions, or Committees ?: No If yes, which:: Have you served on a Board, Commission, or Committee before ?: No If yes, which:: Please list organization memberships and positions held:: - Soil and Water Conservation Society t - Society for Range Management (president for N. Idaho Chapter, 1989) - Gary Lane Home Owners Assoc., Boise, ID (president 2000 -July 2003) Please list areas of special interest:: - Natural resources management - Soil, water, and food quality Please enter basic resume information below:: Have worked since 1984 to present in soil and water management, and planning, with time divided equally between private and gov't sectors. Currently phasing out work as natural resources consultant, while building a new nursery and greenhouse business in Kodiak. Additional Information: Form submitted on: 2/23/2011 8:46:05 PM Submitted from IP Address: 216.67.44.158 Referrer Page: No referrer - Direct link Form Address: http: / /www.kodiakak.us /forms.aspx ?FI0=72 2 7 , � w � �� '� KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH a * '�x�,f' t T 'V a � �k"1 k% l r '�` t i *�- :p' ; ; �� ;; M ®(N'A4SHKAd -A'Y = :'RO, A lD tSER BOARD ;. � �$�ki; '�J? � ° - r 7 � 6 � .kia! i su_x,._.i,4 , F; NAME TERM HOME WORK EMAIL PHONE PHONE Chaz Glagolich (Vice Chair) 2011 486 -6930 486 -6930 chazman PO Box 2826 Kodiak, AK 99615 Darlene Turner (Chair) 2013 486 -6390 481 -6390 darlene 2046 Three Sisters Way Kodiak, AK 99615 Vacant 2012 Vacant 2012 Vacant 2013 This board is governed by Kodiak Island Borough Code 4.60 Revision Date: 12/6/2010 Revised by JK Nova Javidr From: Judy & Ian Fulp Unifulp @gci.net] Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 8:03 AM To: Nova Javier Cc: Rick Gifford; Karl Short Subject: Hi Nova! (Beautification Awards and Taxpayer Protection Amendment) I have two thing s: 1. We picked the< nn s of the beautification a Os on Tue at our e fi�ng: Busines h Terra e" and Z esidentia 's "Robin & Jessica Gardn is -h me" at 314 Birch Street.. 2. 1 would like to have my code amendment, Tax Payer Protection Amendment, put on the agenda for the upcoming March 3rd meeting under new business. Here is the code revision I would like to see for Borough Code 3.25.025 (amending A & B): 3.25.025 Maximum allowable tax revenues. A. The assembly is empowered to enact such ordinances as necessary to establish maximum allowable tax revenues levied upon real and personal property within the boundaries of the borough as were levied the preceding year. The property taxes levied the preceding year will be called the "base property tax" for the current year's property tax levy. The assembly may add to this "base property tax" levy due to exceptions listed in B, and any of these additions to the "base property tax" will constitute the "property tax cap" for the current year. B. Exception (which will add to the "property tax base" and constitute the "property tax cap ") are listed below. The amount of tax revenues levied or imposed can be increased to constitute the "property tax cap" for the following: 1. To adjust for inflation 2. To take into account new building and land coming onto the tax roll; 3. To make new payments on bonds; 4. To pay for new legal judgements entered against the borough; or 5. To pay for expenses in emergencies. 1 Nova Javier mous From: Judy & Ian Fulp [jnifulp @gci.net] Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 1:16 AM To: Nova Javier Cc: Rick Gifford; Karl Short Subject: Taxpayer Protection Amendment of Kodiak Island Borough Code 3.25.025 -- Sponsored by Assembly member Judy Fulp KOD1 AE ISLAND 8fR0UGH CLERKS OFFICE Nova, co/irm To: ASS "/ iii kyr*: vi Here is my code revision of Borough Code 3.25.025 MIANAG =.:P._ - 7 0TH;.;Z Anchorage Assembly members did not pass a revision of their tax cap code, al h ough they were only trying to change how the "base" was calculated for their tax cap formula (having the "actual taxes collected" to constitute their base, not what "could have been collected"- - since they subtract all other taxes and PILT and MUSA & MESA payments from the total amount of taxes to be collected to make up their base -- different from Kodiak). Also, I think you gave me a copy of an outdated KIB code for 3.25.025 since the tax rate was not updated (it was 9.25 under 3.25.025). I would like to amend A. & B. of 3.25.025 Maximum allowable tax revenues. I would like to add property tax "base" and "cap" provisions for A. & B. under 3.25.025: A. The assembly is empowered to enact such ordinances as necessary to establish maximum allowable tax revenues levied upon real and personal property within the boundaries of the borough as were levied the preceding year. The property taxes levied the preceding year will be called the "base property tax" for the current year's property tax levy. The assembly may add to this "base property tax" levy due to exceptions listed in B. and any of these additions will constitute the "property tax cap" for the current year. B. Exceptions (which will add to the "property tax base" and constitute the "property tax cap ") are listed below. The amount of tax revenues levied or imposed can be increased to the "property tax cap" for the following: 1. To adjust for inflation 2. To take into account new buildings and land coming onto the tax roll; 3. To make new payments on bonds; 4. To pay for new legal judgements entered against the borough; or 5. To pay for expenses in emergencies. I --Re Tio4ecm_cyLiotJ 41 •;rE,(91a Eyyn bur' 3A al y laoil P A - rt f r pro, -fr- � 9 nS cr4 be _ , et cy �. c 4C ur Ccn1 Cif r (L atO juj q 6v�o n rre , ,v$'O J CL - I/kJ (0 %lob 07)4 ka eit-I-ryw • qtatt i Itin�- 1Lex L I ( y t i- Ltc 2 h pose frittutt.0 i n c7w.ezazo w, (71 -9u /L 0 In WO O pro pet] Cc_ oc jaa 1 Q • r�x pc� � pr -(44 ( P Lx; t &lcD S v „ � m ; . eck t � 'ice Pori/lire ImeeL 4QQi6 1 X4)4 4 -e ob-,o ka *Lc so-,,Lo G14, •` ropt-lhi -7 c..0 Sncfieri L \-- 2) j2(2/2, j prE UQG,4 s& 1,� r�Q� l Ip vu p 1 D x ac ti-e-crc Z Ed a 09-tot. «p c o bit (-n t ,, 3 irvi wa .) CC.Lra',± lri/kvtarrcc -8o prlCLe r ri(‘' 46 b a r O bay pbip Can 51cQ4- /-akin) c `i4s2 a cocTLE nh1) -, r9 dOr 16- eccf 14,E br2 svk ci29 nn LCD ` n-, 1 'LL r )")1 i LL, r4t4 . _ - rex &, 2 -f w = y ri-eirajoV Nova Javier From: Christofferson, Cheryl [cchristofferson @koniag.com] Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 8:55 AM To: Nova Javier Subject: FW: March 11 Spring Roundtable Good Morning, I wasn't sure you received the email below so I'm sending it again. Dee/ Dee Cheryl Christofferson Koniag, Inc. 194 Alimaq Drive Kodiak, AK 99615 907.486.2530 800.658.3818 From: Christofferson, Cheryl Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 9:37 AM To: niavier@kodiakak.us Subject: March 11 Spring Roundtable I don't know if you already know this but we (Koniag & KANA) host a Spring and Fall Roundtable meeting each year to discuss issues that affect our region. The group consists of representatives from each ANCSA Village Corporation and Tribal organization in the Koniag region. We have set the date for our Spring Roundtable for March 11 and we are working on setting the agenda. The group would like to extend an invitation to the Borough Assembly to attend this roundtable discussion. Suggested topics are: • Open Communication • Partnerships o Tribes funding Streams — could benefit City & Borough • Fair Representation o Villages o Rural o In Town You may already be aware that the Borough's consultants will be hosting a workshop at this Roundtable, on the morning of March 11, on the borough's code revisions project. Please forward this message to the Borough Assembly members and let us know if they will participate. Thank you very much, Dee/Dee/ Cheryl Christofferson Koniag, Inc. 194 Alimaq Drive Kodiak, AK 99615 907.486.2530 800.658.3818 1 From: Judy & Ian Fulp <jnifulp @gci.neb Subject: Hi Nova! (Beautification Awards and Taxpayer Protection Amendment) Date: February 24, 2011 8:03:02 AM AKST To: njavier @kodiakak.us Cc: rgifford @kodiakak.us, kshort@kodiakak.us I have two things: 1. We picked the winners of the beautification awards on Tuesday at our meeting: Business is "Fir Terrace" and Residential is "Robin & Jessica Gardner's home" at 314 Birch Street. 2. I would like to have my code amendment, Tax Payer Protection Amendment, put on the agenda for the upcoming March 3rd meeting under new business. Here is the code revision I would like to see for Borough Code 3.25.025 (amending A & B): 3.25.025 Maximum allowable tax revenues. A. The assembly is empowered to enact such ordinances as necessary to establish maximum allowable tax revenues levied upon real and personal property within the boundaries of the borough as were levied the preceding year. The property taxes levied the preceding year will be called the "base property tax" for the current year's property tax levy. The assembly may add to this "base property tax" levy due to exceptions listed in B, and any of these additions to the "base property tax" will constitute the "property tax cap" for the current year. B. Exception (which will add to the "property tax base" and constitute the "property tax cap ") are listed below. The amount of tax revenues levied or imposed can be increased to constitute the "property tax cap" for the following: 1. To adjust for inflation 2. To take into account new building and land coming onto the tax roll; I 3. To make new payments on bonds; 4. To pay for new legal judgements entered against the borough; or 5. To pay for expenses in emergencies. . 0 i --\' k.....c2(1c) /". x ' , - •,,. ■--, \-- VG 1 La C_C 1 7,_)i S- it, ;i- i J. ()II (-- ■ ci i is (—cc. (.,;-.2.5.-..4) 11 . . nil L -.. ..*„. 1 , \ - ) 1 L )) •Sir ----- ,...SLA cb..c.„2-4'17_c ----\ L rc jai_ C / v. _ -fr-&----E. ( rigi (1_ c \ 1 5 n) I. (—)*- L. :: ; l)! c of...:2 E...:)2.e.a.c-C \iaLc.(2 (e Fcr-trAID ( ' 1 , (X.-r (,ta4-- 'I ni C4( --- Ta t t:C - -2 -1- it 2 (r) (1 .- tO - ti ) C' & 2Q . a , • (4, -- - - L a L PL" E.- c( --), Ai2) ct vitjac r•Ir q I S ta7C - ') S ()) . '.) I . --- i ) - 'CI LUZ- 1 -5) ' • = CLI. %.- t•-; - 61) I 'a.:(:\ 617', , ----i, ' (a- 7 Nt q Li ic 55 17 (i, tv - S-3S- ----- 4 3 -- ST /JD) ' 19-1 ` Le cidC) T'T 5 7 1 ) t cjz, ) 1 cli Lir / Chapter 3.25 APPROPRIATION AND LEVY Page 1 of 2 Chapter 3.25 APPROPRIATION AND LEVY Sections: 3.25.010 Ordinance enactment. 3.25.020 Tax levy form. 3.25.025 Maximum allowable tax revenues. 3.25.030 Acceptance and appropriation of grant funds. For statutory provisions authorizing the assembly to establish the manner for preparation and submission of budgets and capital programs, see AS 29.35.100; for provisions governing the expenditure of borough revenues, see AS 29.35.110. 3.25.010 Ordinance enactment. The assembly shall enact an appropriation and tax levy ordinance appropriating funds for the expenses and liabilities of the borough each year and levying a tax to defray all expenses and liabilities of the borough for the purposes as specified against all taxable property in the borough each year. [Ord. 04 -02 §3, 2004; Ord. 98 -03 §2, 1998; Ord. 68 -17 -0, 1968; prior code Ch. 3 subch. 3 §1. Formerly §3.12.010]. 3.25.020 Tax levy form. A tax for the above sums of money, or as much thereof as may be authorized by law, to defray all expenses and liabilities of the borough be and the same is hereby levied for the purposes as specified against all taxable property in the borough for the fiscal year commencing on the first day of July, (year), and ending on the thirtieth day of June, (year). [Ord. 98 -03 §2, 1998; Ord. 68 -17 -0, 1968; prior code Ch. 3 subch. 3 §2. Formerly §3.12.020]. 3.25.025 Maximum allowable tax revenues. The maximum allowable tax revenues levied upon real and personal property within the boundaries of the borough is 9.25 mils. (Ordinance No. 97 -10, Fiscal Year 1998 'O.l.iv Budget), E� r� \ -, A. The assembly is empowered to enact such ordinances as necessary to establish maximum allowable tax revenues levied upon real and personal property within the boundaries of the borough as were levied for the preceding year. B. Exceptions: The amount of tax revenues levied or imposed can be increased for the following: 1. To adjust for inflation; 2. To take into account new buildings and land coming onto the tax roll; 3. To make new payments on bonds; 4. To pay for new legal judgments entered against the borough; or htt p:// www. codepublishing. com/ AK/ KodiakIslandBorough/ html /KodiakIslandBorough03 /K... 2/1/2011 Chapter 3.25 APPROPRIATION AND LEVY Page 2 of 2 5. To pay for expenses in emergencies. C. The effect of this initiative ordinance may not be modified or negated within two years after its effective date. [Added by initiative petition Ord. 97 -1 -I § §2, 3, 4, 1998, passed by voters 10/07/97. Formerly §3.12.025]. 3.25.030 Acceptance and appropriation of grant funds. A. The assembly is authorized to accept grants from the federal government, state government, or other source. All such grants shall become part of a specific fund or group of accounts if readily identifiable to such specific fund or group of accounts. All other such funds shall be deemed initially part of the general fund or unappropriated fund balance of the borough. B. Authorization for expenditure of grant funds which are limited by the grantor to a specific use or category of use may be authorized by resolution of the assembly. Prior to action on the resolution, interested persons may be afforded an opportunity to testify. C. Grant funds which are unlimited as to use, or subject only to general limitations, shall be appropriated by ordinance, which shall include an appropriate budget amendment. [Ord. 81 -61 -0, 1981. Formerly §3.12.030]. This page of the Kodiak Island Borough Code is current Borough Website: ntit://wvo”.kodiakak.us/ through Ordinance FY2011 -07, passed December 2, (hap:J /vww.kndiaketk.irs /) 2010. Borough Telephone: (907) 486 -9310 Disclaimer: The Borough Clerk's Office has the official version Code Publishing Company of the Kodiak Island Borough Code. Users should contact the (http: / /www.codepublishing.com; ) Borough Clerk's Office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above. http:// www. codcpublishing. com/ AK/ KediaklslandBorough/ html /KodiaklslandBorough03 /K.., 2/1/2011 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH INITIATIVE ORDINANCE NO. 1 AN ORDINANCE INITIATING A BALLOT MEASURE FOR THE OCTOBER 7, 1997 REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTION WHICH, IF PASSED BY THE VOTERS, AMENDS TITLE 3 OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH CODE OF ORDINANCES TO ESTABLISH MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE TAX REVENUES LEVIED UPON REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH WHEREAS, Alaska Statutes 29.35.170 provides that a borough shall assess and collect property, sales and use taxes that are levied in its boundaries, subject to AS 29.45; and WHEREAS, the voters recognize the Kodiak Island Borough assembly's authority to set the levy collected on real and personal property taxes; and WHEREAS, the voters feel previous new taxes and tax increases passed by the assembly have only a small, select portion of vocal or written support; and WHEREAS, the voters of the Kodiak Island Borough have increasingly felt their elected assembly members are not listening to their opposition to taxes and other matters that come before the assembly; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE QUALIFIED REGISTERED VOTERS OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH THAT: Section 1: This ordinance is of a special nature. Section 2: The following ballot measure shall be submitted to the qualified voters of the Kodiak Island Borough at the October 7, 1997 Regular Municipal Election: "Shall Title 3 of the Kodiak Island Borough Code of Ordinances be amended to establish maximum allowable tax revenues levied upon real and personal property within the boundaries of the Kodiak Island Borough ?" A "yes" vote means: The new sections of the code "Maximum Allowable Tax Revenues" will be adopted, become law and unable to be modified or negated for a period of two years. Yes A "no" vote means: The maximum allowable tax revenues will be defeated. No Kodiak Island Borough, Alaska Ordinance No. 97 -1 Page 1 of 2 Section 3: If the question submitted to the voters passes, the assembly of the Kodiak Island Borough is empowered to enact such ordinances as necessary to establish maximum allowable tax revenues levied upon real and personal property within the boundaries of the Kodiak Island Borough for one fiscal year as was levied for the preceding year. Exceptions: The amount of taxes levied or imposed can increase (a) to adjust for inflation; (b) to take into account new buildings and land coming onto the tax roll; (c) make new payments on bonds; (d) pay for new legal judgments entered against the borough; (e) pay for expenses in emergencies. Section 4: If the question submitted to the voters passes, the effect or this initiative ordinance may not be modified or negated within two years after its effective date. Section 5: This ordinance shall become effective upon certification of the election. THIS INITIATIVE WILL TAKE EFFECT UPON CERTIFICATION OF THE ELECTION RESULTS ON THIS INITIATIVE ADOPTED BY THE REGISTERED VOTERS OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH THIS SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER, '1997 • ATTEST: G 7�r a C73'71 ct/5 Donna F. Smith, CMC /AAE, Borough Clerk Kodiak Island Borough, Alaska Ordinance No. 97 -1.1 Page 2 of 2 t. Ir It 1 A 9 ,. it � t t oI$ I) '4 Z € s " 7 . tva7_ . ,r :,r> > �=J ."` r� ,!13 . , 4 . . r$ +itr fq, V C y;,.. . , , - .� y C 2.r. ^Ni.F" " ' - >.,., .,, . w# ,'4i uz+ k ^ . a ' < Sa= F act%. February 2% 2011 B :12708 a p.;~ i, , ,N N , a . f n -I I , ^'`,..�. + n . , r a n _.. f mjt 1�. i .. I. � � Fl 4 4 IN 1 t4' t 'F +it fi U ''Jz Tita I k; i er .. t �' Home 7 tdV t`1 .4 rr �, � I i SPONSORED LINKS I , : ii ..1' *I iu x�! xn 'xrx+e N'"'r. —.ix : •: ID $ I : M6 ""'" ' Art�11Ve .. I I `, . .° .....x x..x .i!: `Classifieds Contract Waste Man as em ant I ' Subscriptions T Q P m1 Long- TermWaste P Residents don't went curbside pickup [p rintable version] Solutions FromWMS �Advartise GetA Custom Quote Article published on Frida y, February 18th, 2011 text size: [ - [ +] Free Today' Churches By SLIME ONO :v : Gorr r sidaOump>l ° Contact Us Letter to the editor . Anchorites Caimans ,. Community 1 ridiculously huge Links After listening to a CD of the borough's last work session discussion dated coupon a day. Like Jan. 27, I could not believe what I was hearing. Plans were being doing Anchorage at developed for an expansion of curbside pickup starting as early as April 25 g0% olfl in the Woodland Acres, Beaver Lake and Island Lake areas. Were the .. W- r. urwpon convMm people in these proposed expansion areas notified of this intent? According to the daily Mirror Feb. 4, the borough manager, at the borough regular meeting, states that there is a demand for curbside service cut there. Really? Where is the data to back up this assumption? Please provide us with some numbers. If a survey was sent out, I did not receive one. i I have a question identical to one asked by assemblywoman Judy Fuip at the work session. Were the people in these areas not tdd that dumpsters would be kept in place until the transfer stations were built? Someone then ■'I , r - v said, "That's a different problem," and I believe no further mention was `iii { T _ � � made of transfer stations. How can this be, when building transfer stations -- was at the very heat of the previous derision? As Ms. Fuip mentioned, people in this area were very vocal in expressing their disapproval of the - i ii11 4 , use of curbside pickup. Many citizens made it quite dear through public testimony and letter writing that curbside pickup was not an acceptable � option for them. I wrote two letters to the editor. These letters, as well as Nt,.a,h a all the correspondence and verbal testimony given by the numerous 4<dt.d:clya:ur., mu-, concerned individuals, should perhaps be reread by assembly members. x ,. r , r {1 , The abrogation d a contract or agreement by a government body, at the � ;x r "pvl expense of the expressed desires of their constituents, is unconsdonable. �4' "I °i. Assemblywoman Louise Stutes asked pointed questions of the borough x Iii manager regarding the status of the transfer stations. The answers I I ` provided were not spedfic and definitely should be clarified. Where is the . :'.4. ' accountability for promises made to the public? .,.;o, notable version ] I L) _s 1 - - -._ vii - ---� ;Y. :1,0,Au is ,Ai l Oi4ODUH t. / Ii I' FEB 2 4 2011 NI AA f.t Lti l l t _ __i i L P ' CI LF K OFFICE j I C2011, Kodiak Daily Minor - Questions or comments? Contact the webm aster . 2/24111 8:12 AM 1 of2 ;. 1 ' \J I r. ' \.1) - F � j r . CONFIDENTIAL FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY • - . . MAP OF _ NAVAL O ER TI NG. I C E ALA,,, a L BELL I S FLAT • NAVAL AIR STATION EXTENSION SHOWING CONDITIONS ON JUNE 30, 13943- 200 -100 - 0 -200. .. qnr, - . A SCALE ." 200 DI PUBLIC WORKS OFFICER D. P. W. DRAWING N O. 4 3 8 4 5 SHEET" N0.5 OF 7 i . it • . r j 0 .0) d . 1 1 ' /.. • '� 1 5 6 } 5 1/ �'/ $ $o° ^p �0�' A Mau E N -s o� x�{�° /� -- // t ,CeJ i :B� ° O 0 5 E 6�. q 15 7 d i / . ', E s — , • P a • 0 0 1 • • / ry i • / S a R e A� 1 S ON r'' 1 • •iii , � :. p _ f `® 1 0 f 2/ /./ • �� I • f R ' ..• / . . I % y w .p / . \ o • r 0 � msv>rn E p e • .. / .. \ / /; � /4 4 ) '' • Z MOVED VIE Si • P . 1 :Hie � /,/ - - • • • • ... gee ----- --'------ January 2011 _ 50 YE#R5 d ifi2OTO 0 . , . . . . Kodiak Lake Fertilization Data Review Outline ' Submitted to: Kodiak Regional Aquaculture Association 104 Center Avenue Suite 200 Kodiak, AK 99615 . , 0 ... . i .-4-. .1: ....-.....s.44$4.i.,:s4-44., gt .' ,1 "- , ,1 .".- .- . -21f ti■ 'VV.- .t......il-r;,*.-•-;,;-r,l- V.,:...--c.h.`,;".4,,k`ies'i; -Ct. Z a rL,a■i ft :st; ,-e c .<"irct. 4';":c7;n1”.:$12tt 7..N./t1.1 c , ... 5tr- ,.7). ci“-1, .;:— p.,CS; ... , .. . ( • , c.„; .. '. 4,,..b;,.,..V.,,irrm-, ;N ,.. c ' .1, - . t"-- !,:"414- t- . ,. 1 ." 4 ::‘ , .: 4 "rz."- , -,.._ ,. ;:■•;:;.ri tl '.. ( • .;: -6 , rr%r ' - ' 'r - -• ' r1/4 - - - if--, • - -4,4 - - W ..„.„„...-...,,... .4„,.,.....4..,.... r. , •:- •, -\.\•„: -.::::::.-.:::::::;....,•:/.--- `...,:,..i.Nish CI -L. • - . - -41:-..,,,,tiir.r-nr-v' r-2.- .....-4,14.... .t.--,. •' et LU Ce Report Number: 09-1480-0032F Distribution: 2 Copies - Kodiak Regional Aquaculture Association 1 Copy - Golder Associates Ltd te6) Cover Photo from 0 A world of ,ll„.stateofalaskaguide COmixv-alaskan-fisheries-the-salmon htm fel I A G S S capabilities e S delivered locally KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE • Executive Summary The report provides a review of existing lake fertilization guidelines and comments regarding their applicability to future lake fertilization projects. The report summarizes data collected since 1980 for all of the major sockeye salmon lakes in Kodiak Archipelago but focuses on Frazer, Karluk, Spiridon, Little Waterfall and Hidden lakes. The screening process indicated all of the lakes examined, except Akalura and Red Lake, were potential candidates for lake fertilization with regard to current annual phosphorus (P) loading. The largest uncertainty that is not measured in most of the studies is the competitive role of sticklebacks and their response to nutrient additions. This species has been indicated as a major competitor for forage with sockeye studies in other investigations and may have a large influence on the outcome of lake fertilization experiments. Actual application rates should be based on 2011 spring loading rates of P. Supplemental nutrients expressed as Nitrogen (N) loading rates used in the calculation were based on a molar ratio of N:P of 15:1 although given the high level of N in the lakes, this could be dropped to 10:1 without significant risks, assuming in- season monitoring will allow adjustment of weekly application rates of N if needed. The application rates are for an annual delivery of nutrients equivalent to bringing the nutrient levels the following spring to 90% of the permissible level equivalent to an average water column concentration of the euphotic volume of the lake at 9 pg /L. This is less than half of the critical level values where eutrophication becomes a concern. Although not quantified, the report discusses risks associated with the recommended programs, the most significant being the marine survival affecting projected adult return rates. Biological factors include the previously discussed effect of competitors (stickleback), inappropriate fry loading levels because of high or low escapements, and failure of the fish to recruit from other unknown factors, i.e. disease, predation, etc. • These latter factors are also applicable to all managed sockeye salmon stocks. This report does not make any recommendations as to which, if any, of the lakes should be approved for nutrient addition. Factors such as benefit allocation, regulatory approval, and affordability of any of the potential actions need to be considered by KRAA in their decision process. • January 2011 ' ' Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F i Associates ___ KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Scope of Analysis 1 1.1.1 Lakes Included and Screening Levels 2 1.1.2 Background 3 2.0 METHODS 5 2.1 Lake Fertilization Guidelines 5 Physical Parameters 6 Chemical Parameters 7 Biological Parameters 7 a. Primary production 7 b. Secondary production 9 c. Tertiary production 10 2.2 Bottom Up/Top Down Trophic Cascades 11 2.3 Physical Methods 13 2.4 Nutrient Loading and Analysis Approach 13 3.0 RESULTS 14 3.1 Physical Environments 15 3.1.1 Lake Physical Parameters and Turnover Rates 15 3.2 Nutrient Overview 16 3.3 Primary Productivity 20 3.3.1 Phytoplankton 20 3.3.2 Chlorophyll a 20 3.4 Secondary Productivity 21 3.5 Zooplankton 21 3.6 Fry and Smolt Production 21 3.7 Adult Return Analysis 25 4.0 INITIAL SCREENING 27 4.1 Lake Surface AreaM/ater Residence Times and Interannual Trends in Nutrients 27 5.0 CANDIDATE LAKE ANALYSIS 32 ® 5.1 Spiridon Lake 32 January 2011 + Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F ii '' Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE • 5.1.1 Physical Limnology 32 5.1.2 Nutrient Trends and Primary Productivity 33 5.1.3 Zooplankton 35 5.1.4 Smolt and Fry 36 5.2 Karluk Lake 37 5.2.1 Nutrient Trends 38 5.2.2 Primary Productivity 40 5.2.3 Zooplankton 41 5.2.4 Smolt and Adult Returns 42 5.3 Frazer Lake 45 5.3.1 Physical Limnology 45 5.3.2 Nutrient Trends 45 5.3.3 Primary Productivity 46 5.3.4 Zooplankton 47 5.3.5 Smolt and Adult Returns 49 5.4 Hidden Lake 50 • 5.4.1 Physical Limnology 51 5.4.2 Nutrient Trends 51 5.4.3 Primary Productivity 52 5.4.4 Zooplankton 53 5.4.5 Smolt and Adult Returns 54 5.5 Little Waterfall Lake 54 5.5.1 Physical Limnology 54 5.5.2 Nutrient Trends 55 5.5.3 Primary Productivity 57 5.5.4 Zooplankton 57 5.5.5 Smolt and Adult Returns 58 6.0 DISCUSSION 58 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 60 8.0 LITERATURE CITED 64 • i -' January 2011 ar Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F iii Associates :Cr — KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE TABLES Table 1. Summary of lakes and relative level of importance for defining lake nutrient enrichment potential with Tier 1 being the highest. NA indicates lakes that were not intensively reviewed for lake nutrient addition potential. 2 Table 2 Vollenweider (1976) phosphorus concentration prediction and critical loading model equations 13 Table 3. Years that limnotogy, zooplankton, smolt and adult salmon data are available for lakes in Kodiak Management Area in Alaska. Some years may be missing within these ranges for some lakes. 14 Table 4. Lake surface area, mean depth, volume, euphotic zone depth (EZD; mean of all years), euphotic volume, and water residence for 17 lakes in the Kodiak region of Alaska 15 Table 5. Summary of recent average water temperatures from Kodiak Island Lakes collected during the growing season 18 Table 6. Summary of spring phosphorus concentrations for all major Kodiak lakes in pg /L. Outliers are flagged. Summaries are averages from samples taken in April and May when the lakes are assumed to not be stratified. The yellow highlighted values include data values that are based on June samples after stratification has begun. The red highlighted values indicate abnormally high readings. 19 Table 7. Mean chlorophyll a concentrations during summer -fall (July to September) in Kodiak lakes (pg /L) 22 Table 8. Mean annual total zooplankton biomass (mg /m during summer (June to August). 23 Table 9. Mean size of zooplankton (mm) during growing season in Kodiak lakes (all species combined) 24 Table 10. Return of adult sockeye (# / 1000) per km for Kodiak lakes for which data were available. For Karluk and Upper Station early and late run sockeye are combined. Data reflect total catch + escapement for the year indicated 26 • Table 11. Summary of physical parameters for Kodiak sockeye salmon lakes used for estimating annual nutrient loads. The Mean Depth values were provided from literature reports or were obtained from ADF &G while the calculated mean depths were calculated from volume and surface area data. 29 Table 12. Summary of annual P loading (kg /km accounting for water residence times. Permissible P loading levels are calculated for each lake at 50% of critical levels. The percentage that each lake P levels are relative to their permissible level is listed 30 Table 13. Ranking and summary of phosphorus annual loadings accounting for lake water residence time expressed as kg /km Permissible levels of P are also provided along with the proportion of the permissible levels currently being met. The P loading for 20092010, and the average of all years are compared. These values indicate whether the current status is below the long -term average. 31 Table 14. Preliminary cost - benefit analysis of nutrient supplementation for selected Kodiak candidate lakes 59 FIGURES Figure 1: Illustration of sockeye biomass increases resulting in decreases in zooplankton biomass at any given level of productivity as indicated by the intersections of the lines. The upward trending line reflects the increase in productivity as a result of increased nutrient loading (illustration provided by M. Johannes, Golder Assoc., Burnaby, BC. Pers. Comm, 2010) 12 Figure 2: Illustrates the observed empirical relationship between zooplankton biomass and sockeye density at three levels of P. Data are from 28 years of sampling from Great Central Lake on Vancouver Island during a nutrient enrichment program (data provide by M. Johannes, Golder Assoc., Burnaby, Bc. Pers. Comm., 2010) 12 Figure 3: Spiridon Lake annual euphotic zone depth trends. 33 Figure 4: Annual average P (top) and Chlorophyll a (bottom) concentrations in Spiridon Lake (error bars indicate 1 SE) 34 • Figure 5: Zooplankton annual average biomass trends over two decades. 35 January 2011 & Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F iv AssOCiateS KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 1111 a • Figure 6: Relationship of Spiridon Lake Chlorophyll a to zooplankton biomass (annual data) 35 Figure 7: Spiridon Lake interannual trends in length (top) and weight (bottom) of age 1 and 2 smolts. 36 Figure 8: Standing crop biomass of zooplankton at year x -1 of smolt outmigrating at year x from Spiridon Lake 37 Figure 9: Mean total phosphorus during summer (June to August) in Karluk Lake 38 Figure 10: Relationship between chlorophyll a and total phosporus in Karluk Lake for all samples and stations, 1980- 2006 (y = 1.125 + 0.0846x; P<0.001, R2= 0.060). Note: Six outliers (individual samples) were removed from the dataset. Four of these had very high phosphorus (40 -70) and very low chlorophyll 38 Figure 11: Relationship between total escapement (early and late runs) and mean phosphorus the following year in Karluk Lake, 1980 -2010 (y = 5.326+ 0.000003 x; R2 =0.31) 39 Figure 12: Relationship between total escapement (early and late runs) and mean phosphorus the following year in Karluk Lake, 2004 -2010 (y = 3.8864+ 0.000005 x, R = 0.57). 40 Figure 13: Relationship between total escapement (early and late runs) and mean chlorophyll a the following year in Karluk Lake, 1980 -2006. (y = -8.01 + 0.625 *In(x); P= 0.003; R2= 0.40). 40 Figure 14: Mean zooplankton biomass during summer (June to August) in Karluk Lake, 1981 to 2010. Units of observation were daily total biomass (sum of all species' biomasses, mean of sample stations). 41 Figure 15: Relationship between zooplankton biomass and chlorophyll a in Karluk Lake. Data are annual means of total biomass and chlorophyll a during summer (June to August), 1981 -2006 (P= 0.001; R2 =0.50; y = 1516 — 404x) 41 Figure 16: Returns per spawner for a given brood year and mean summer zooplankton biomass the following year (1983 -2000) 42 Figure 17: Relationship between the mean zooplankton biomass in Karluk Lake during summer (June to August) and • number of smolts (all ages) emigrating from the lake in the following year 42 Figure 18: Number of smolts (all ages) emigrating from the Karluk Lake 43 Figure 19: Number of smolts emigrating from the Karluk Lake by age and time period 43 Figure 20: Number of smolts emigrating from Karluk Lake compared to the mean zooplankton biomass during the smolt's first summer in the lake 43 Figure 21: Mean length and weight of sockeye salmon smolt emigrating from Karluk Lake, 1979 -2001 44 Figure 22: Returns per spawner in Karluk Lake 44 Figure 23: Total escapement of sockeye salmon to Karluk Lake system 45 Figure 24: Mean total phosphorus during summer (June to August) in Frazer Lake 46 Figure 25: Relationship between the natural logarithms of chlorophyll a and total phosphorus in Frazer Lake for all days sampled, 1985 -1996 (P <0.0001; R2= 0.074; y= -1.193 + 0.645x) 46 Figure 26: Mean chlorophyll a concentration during summer -fall (July to September) in Frazer Lake, 1985 -1996 47 Figure 27: Mean zooplankton biomass during summer (June to August) for Frazer Lake, 1985 to 2009. Units of observation were daily total biomass (sum of all species' biomasses, mean of sample stations). 47 Figure 28: Relationship (NS) between zooplankton biomass and chlorophyll a in Frazer Lake, 1985 -1996 (P =0.8). Data are annual means of total biomass and chlorophyll a during summer (June to August) 48 Figure 29: Relationship between the mean zooplankton biomass in Frazer Lake during summer (June to August) and number of smolts (all ages) emigrating from the lake in the following year (P =0.2). 48 Figure 30: Number of smolts emigrating from Frazer Lake compared to the mean zooplankton biomass during the smolt's first summer in the lake. 49 • January 2011 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F v Of ASSOCtB[CS a - KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Figure 31: Mean weight of sockeye salmon smolts emigrating from Frazer Lake, 1989 -2001 and total number of outmigrating smolts and size by age 49 Figure 32: Total escapement of sockeye salmon to Frazer Lake system 50 Figure 33: Relationship between sockeye salmon escapement to the Frazer Lake system and mean daily total phosphorus during summer (June to August) the following year 50 Figure 34: Interannual trends in euphotic zone depth. Values are July to August means, 1990 -2008. Mean euphotic zone depth across all years is 9.9 m 51 Figure 35: Mean total phosphorus during summer (June to August) in Hidden Lake 51 Figure 36: Relationship between natural logarithm of chlorophyll a and total phosphorus in Hidden Lake for samples and stations, 1987 -2008 (P= 0.038; R2= 0.026; y= - 0.062x +1.7) 52 Figure 37: Mean chlorophyll a concentration during summer -fall (July to September) in Hidden Lake, 1987 -2008 52 Figure 38: Mean zooplankton biomass during summer (June to August) in Hidden Lake, 1989 to 2008. Units of observation were daily total biomass (sum of all species' biomasses, mean of sample stations). 53 Figure 39: Relationship between zooplankton biomass and chlorophyll a in Hidden Lake. Data are annual means of total biomass and chlorophyll a during summer, 1990 -2008 53 Figure 40: Interannual trends in euphotic zone depth. Values are July to August means, 1990 -2008. Mean euphotic zone depth across all years is 7.5 m 55 Figure 41: Mean total phosphorus during summer (June to August) in Little Waterfall Lake. 55 Figure 42: Relationship between natural logarithms of chlorophyll a and total phosphorus in Little Waterfall Lake for all ® samples and stations, 1990 -2003 (P<0.001; R2 =0.23; y = -2.7 + 1.2x). 56 Figure 43: Seasonal trends in total phosphorus in Little Waterfall Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days) • 56 Figure 44: Seasonal trends in nitrogen to phosphorus ratio in Little Waterfall Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). 56 Figure 45: Mean chlorophyll a concentration during summer -fall (July to September) in Little Waterfall Lake 57 Figure 46: Mean zooplankton biomass during summer (June to August) in Little Waterfall Lake, 1990 to 2009. Units of observation were daily total biomass (sum of all species' biomasses, mean of sample stations). 57 Figure 47: Relationship between zooplankton biomass and chlorophyll a in Little Waterfall Lake. Data are annual means of total biomass and chlorophyll a during summer (June to August), 1990 -2003. 58 APPENDICES APPENDIX A Kodiak Area Lakes Nutrient, Chlorophyll a, Zooplankton, and Fisheries Data Analysis Summaries APPENDIX B Kodiak Lakes Physical Habitat Summaries 0 January 2011 et Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F vi Associates ' _ -_ _ KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report investigates the historic database of the nutrient status of selected Kodiak Archipelago sockeye salmon lakes for the purpose of determining if nutrient enrichment would provide significant benefits by increasing production of sockeye salmon. Although the scope of this report focuses on sockeye salmon commercial harvests, increased production may result in more stable escapements in the future that support other ecological values within the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge for those systems that have depressed runs compared to historical data. The report required development of a database to facilitate analysis of the limnological data for all of the lakes that are being evaluated for lake fertilization potential. This process required assimilation of over 150 data files and providing quality control on data received from the Kodiak Regional office of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF &G) in addition to development of the data base structure and data queries used for this analysis. Analysis of fish data was conducted from separate spreadsheets provided by the Department. Extensive use was made of previous reports prepared by ADF &G in addition to published literature. The 1978 "Lake Fertilization Guidelines" document was reviewed, and recommended editing was provided to ADF &G in October, 2009. However, as of the time of preparation of the report, no revision of this document was provided by ADF &G. Consequently, the original document is the basis of the analysis. Because some sections are dated and do not apply to lakes that have had extensive analysis and lake fertilization over the thirty years since the document is listed, the recommendations that depart from this document are identified in this report and generally follow the suggested editing provided to ADF &G of the manual. 1.1 Scope of Analysis The activities entailed development of a historical database and review of data to ensure common protocols and • entry errors were screened. All Kodiak Island lakes were included in the database, so screening of likely lake fertilization potential sites could be evaluated using similar protocols. Following data entry and data QA /QC, summary graphics of annual trends in nutrients and trophic level status (including fisheries data) were completed for all of the lakes in the data base where sufficient data were available to determine temporal trends. Candidate lakes were selected based on the graphical examination of the data where sufficient data were available. These lakes were screened to determine if further detailed analysis was warranted. Where data were inadequate for a lake of interest, recommendations were made for additional data collection to complete the screening process. Screening criteria will be based on the 1978 ADF &G lake enrichment policy document with any supplemental information obtained from current literature in the field. Because of the dated nature of this document, departures from the document that are necessitated, because of inappropriate assumptions in the document (e.g. no prior sampling history), will be identified in this report. Following the selection of candidate lakes, the data was further analyzed for adequacy of existing data for pre - fertilization analysis. Recommendations for additional sampling prior to completing pre - fertilization analysis were based on Lake Enrichment ADF &G Guidelines (1978). If current data were adequate for evaluation of lake fertilization potential benefits, the following procedures were initiated: • Data analysis for bottom -up /top -down effects during time series of pre - fertilization database. If fertilization had occurred prior, the loading rates and responses were examined to determine potential benefits that may be realized from nutrient enrichment. • January 2011 GY Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 1 Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE • Annual nutrient loading and potential nutrient enrichment rates were evaluated to determine the levels likely to optimize or restore production of sockeye salmon in the particular lake of interest. If the analysis indicated that benefits may occur, an analysis of a nutrient enrichment program and a qualitative risk assessment of the proposed actions were initiated. • If current data were not adequate for the evaluation of potential candidate lakes, a recommended sampling program for 2010 -11 and likely costs (meeting ADF &G Guidelines or rationale for deviation) was prepared. Following completion of the previous steps, the following recommendations are provided in this report: • Sampling regimes for 2010 -11. to Lake enrichment recommendations and associated monitoring programs. Information necessary for cost estimates and cost benefits are provided in a separate document. This includes details of the proposed lake fertilization programs, such as number of trips, quantity of fertilizer and recommended sampling regimes. Actual costs will need to be explored with a particular vendor, AOF&G or other lab, for final cost estimates. 1.1.1 Lakes Included and Screening Levels We have included a basic examination of all lakes in the Kodiak Archipelago for which some limnology data has been collected in the past. However, following the advice of the Kodiak Regional Aquaculture Association, we have provided three tiers of priority for examination of the potential benefits of nutrient enrichment (Table 1). Table 1. Summary of lakes and relative level of importance for defining lake nutrient enrichment potential with Tier 1 being the highest. NA indicates lakes that were not intensively reviewed for lake nutrient addition potential. Lake Tier L. Waterfall 1 Hidden 1 Frazer 1 Karluk 1 Spiridon 1 Afognak 2 Akalura 2 Crescent 2 Little Kitoi 2 Upper Jennifer 2 Lower Jennifer 2 BR" Waterfall 3 Laura 3 Upper Malina 3 Red 3 Saltery 3 Upper Olqa 3 Uqanik na Little River na Horse Marine na Ruth na 0 January 2011 " Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 2 ASSOciates • — KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE The basic screening of these lakes followed the provisions of ADF &G (1978) for screening and pre - fertilization investigations. The parameters to be measured for both screening and pre - fertilization studies are very similar. Because all of the lakes have had previous limnological investigations, this report focuses on pre - fertilization guidelines. This report investigates the historic database of the nutrient status of selected Kodiak Archipelago sockeye salmon lakes for the purpose of determining if nutrient enrichment would provide significant benefits by increasing production of sockeye salmon. Although the scope of this report focuses on sockeye salmon commercial harvests, increased production may result in more stable escapements in the future that support other ecological values within the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge for those systems that have depressed runs compared to historical data. The report required development of a database to facilitate analysis of the limnological data for all of the lakes that are being evaluated for lake fertilization potential. This process required assimilation of over 150 data files and providing quality control on data received from the Kodiak Regional office of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF &G) in addition to development of the data base structure and data queries used for this analysis. Analysis of fish data was conducted from separate spreadsheets provided by the Department. Extensive use was made of previous reports prepared by ADF &G in addition to published literature. The 1978 "Lake Fertilization Guidelines" document was reviewed, and recommended editing was provided to ADF &G in October, 2009. However, as of the time of preparation of the report, no revision of this document was provided by ADF &G. Consequently, the original document is the basis of the analysis. Because some sections are dated and do not apply to lakes that have had extensive analysis and lake fertilization over the thirty years since the document is listed, the recommendations that depart from this document are identified in this report and generally follow the suggested editing provided to ADF &G of the manual. • 1.1.2 Background The development of lake nutrient enrichment as a restorative technique for mitigation of nutrient losses from declines in salmon carcasses or to be used as an enhancement tool to increase productivity in highly oligotrophic natural lakes has a rich history in the Kodiak Archipelago. Perhaps the first intensive study of nutrient enrichment on sockeye salmon occurred in the early 1950's at Bare Lake (Nelson, 1955). These studies demonstrated that addition of phosphorus and nitrogen fertilizer increased primary productivity and resulted in increased growth rates of fish but no increases in zooplankton. A review of lake fertilization was originally conducted in 1976 as part of an ADF &G report (Hardy 1976) and concluded that all of the investigations demonstrated increases in productivity and fish growth rates. Nutrient limitations to sockeye production were recognized over 80 years ago as a potential factor limiting Karluk Lake sockeye salmon productivity (Juday et al. 1932). Most recently, two symposiums have been prepared on nutrient limitations and supplementation for fish productivity (Stockner and Milbrink, 1999; Stockner 2002). Included in the 1999 symposium is a summary of Alaska nutrient enrichment projects over the past two decades (Edmundson et al. 1999). This summary demonstrated consistent increases in primary productivity in the Alaska Lake fertilization projects. The most recent review of nutrient enrichment programs (Hyatt et al., 2004) demonstrated consistent benefits from over 30 lake fertilization projects in Alaska and British Columbia (BC). Hume et al. (1996) has provided a method of using photosynthetic rates (PR) to relate primary productivity to both smolt biomass and subsequent adult returns. The model developed by these authors is based on similar principles used to develop the euphotic zone model of Koenings and Burkett (1987). This model provides a basis for predicting smolt production and adult returns from nutrient additions to the lakes and was used on Chilkoot • January 2011 ( tGolder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 3 Associates • _ _ KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE - , — 2 7*- - - Lake in BC to evaluate fertilization benefits. Subsequently, over 60 lakes from BC have been evaluated using this model with regard to potential benefits of nutrient supplements and rearing potential of the lakes (Shortreed et al. 2001), including a qualitative assessment of nutrient supplementation of 20 lakes in BC. None of the studies or investigations has identified harm resulting from any of the nutrient enrichment projects. One of the major criticisms of evaluation of individual lake fertilization projects is to relate the results to adult fish returns. Adkinson (2010) has conducted simulation studies and has indicated even high dependency of adult returns on carcass nutrients has a low probability of being identified by examination of adult stock recruit data. Because of this limitation, incomplete fry and smolt programs limit interpretation of nutrient supplementation programs to fish. Relying solely on adult return data, which is subject to decadal marine climatic cycles that likely accounts for the largest component of variation in adult returns, is not likely to provide evidence of benefits from nutrient supplementations. Following the policy guidelines, there are often one or two years of pre - fertilization studies and five or ten years of post - fertilization studies, with often abrupt cessation of both fertilization and monitoring, frequently because of financial reasons. Consistently executed smolt or fall fry programs with sufficient precision to detect abundance changes are also lacking in most of the historic investigations, most often attributed to costs. However, most of these criticisms apply equally to the quandary of establishing escapement goals with spawner- recruit data, where cyclic marine survival or other non - density dependent factors are the largest contributor to variations in adult return numbers. Kodiak Archipelago has had several nutrient enrichment programs over the past two decades, and evaluation of their success is generally limited to evaluation of productivity increases assessed through temporal changes in ® chlorophyll a and zooplankton abundance and size (Schrof and Honnold 2003). As zooplankton abundance is driven by simultaneous bottom up (nutrient +photosynthesis) and top down (sockeye and stickleback predation) processes, these numbers often fluctuate in relationship to these external forces in a non - linear fashion, making assessments difficult. The failure of zooplankton to respond to nutrients in the Bare Lake experiments in the 1950's was one of the factors that limited the expansion of the program to Kariuk Lake. Since that time, trophic cascades are much better understood (Carpenter et al. 1985) so explanations of fluctuations caused by top down effects on zooplankton and on chlorophyll a are better understood. There have been numerous technical reports that were reviewed as part of this investigation from the ADF &G Soldotna and Kodiak Limnology programs. The easiest systems to evaluate are barren systems where fry or smolt are stocked at a known rate each year so nutrient flux is the only major variable in determining fish production. In this case, zooplankton responses may be informative. A synopsis of studies to date demonstrates the following: 1) Nutrient additions properly administered to oligotrophic temperate lakes result in increased primary productivity that usually translates into increased growth and survival of juvenile sockeye salmon. 2) Factors such as the presence of predatory fish and competition from stickleback may limit the short-term response of adult returns and /or smolt or fry production. 3) Adult returns usually have excessive and temporally correlated variation caused by marine factors that compound evaluations based on return and escapement data unless experiments are carried out over decades. 4) Contribution of nutrients by adult carcasses when escapements are large may confound interpretation of ® nutrient responses because of the added competition of large number of fry, additional nutrient loading from the carcasses, and correlations of the nutrient additions with high or low marine survival. ry January 2011 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 4 A ssociates _ KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE • 5) Nutrient contributions to the Kodiak lakes have consistently demonstrated increased productivity, whether from nutrient additions or increased nutrients from salmon carcasses. 6) There have been no demonstrated cases of decreases in salmon runs or adverse trophic level responses where the cause can be attributed to controlled nutrient enrichment programs. To further the process of evaluation of lakes in the Kodiak region as potential candidates for lake fertilization, the existing ADF &G lake fertilization policy document (ADF &G, 1978) was reviewed and edited to bring it up to the current understanding of sampling requirements for a lake fertilization program as generally practiced in Alaska and BC. Not surprisingly, there have been few changes over time as much of the theoretical basis for nutrient enrichment was established prior to this policy being developed. The recommendations developed in this document for sampling programs and evaluation procedures are based on the original document, but where discrepancies occur I have flagged the departures from the protocol and the reasons. This report does not draw any conclusions, as the selection of candidate lakes for fertilization and the initiation of such a program require details on budgets that require both ADF &G's involvement as the likely subcontractor for completion of the monitoring programs as well as getting current estimates on fertilizer costs and delivery costs for likely airborne applications. The KRAA board may use factors beyond cost /benefit models in ranking candidate lakes. 2.0 METHODS The methods used are an evaluation of the existing data with respect to the pre - fertilization guidelines established in ADF &G (1978). The following section provides those guidelines and also comments regarding the • past 30 years of sampling conducted with respect to previous nutrient enrichment projects. Routine departures from the guidelines and the likely reason for these departures are also identified. 2.1 Lake Fertilization Guidelines The following is a list of the criteria for the Pre - fertilization Phase. Comments have been added that compare these guidelines with actual practice over the past 30 years since they were written. "This phase is designed to document the premise that low nutrient levels may limit the amount of fish food the lake produces and, therefore, cause low levels of fish production. In addition, the pre - fertilization phase (lasting a minimum of one year but may last for additional time - resulting in better information for evaluation) involves the detailed monitoring of the chemical, biological and physical factors of a candidate lake. Remembering the complexity of aquatic systems, great care should be exercised in the evaluation of treated versus control or reference responses. The "before" condition serves as a control to be compared with the condition of the lake "after" nutrients have been added. Sufficient knowledge of how the system operates before treatment permits the conclusion that results obtained after treatment were due to the nutrient additions. Thus, background information from candidate lakes is needed not only to determine those lakes which could potentially benefit from fertilization but, perhaps more importantly, to provide the researcher with the data base from which to evaluate the success (or failure) of a fertilization program." Comment: Procedure accurately describes common practice and will be followed during the proposed investigations. • y_. January 2011 fGotder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 5 A ssociates i - — KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Physical Parameters a) "The determination of water flow should be made every three weeks during the ice -free period, either directly according to U.S.G.S. methods on major rivers and streams, by indirect means such as watershed area comparisons with gauged systems in the same geographic area or by other approved methods. (e.g., Thornwaite projections for Southeast Alaska)." Comment: Procedures and estimates of volume and lake turnover time have been calculated for candidate lakes by previous investigators. Where new data are developed from ongoing research, the revised estimates were used in this analysis. b) "Lake mapping for depth contours and volume estimates should be done either directly, using a fathometer, or indirectly, using pre- existing U.S.G.S., ADF &G and Federal agency maps that were constructed from direct measurements." Comment: Bathymetry is available for all candidate lakes. Where new data are developed from ongoing research, the revised estimates were used in this analysis. c) "Light penetration is to be measured every three weeks using a submarine photometer {measuring only the photosynthetically available radiation (PAR) }, and with a secchi disk (22 -cm dia)." Comment: These data are routinely collected along with water chemistry samples. Sampling regimes in Kodiak have varied but generally monthly samples for all parameters are taken with few exceptions. This practice is continuing throughout the state with regard to ADF &G's limnological studies and is recommended as the continued sampling regime to be used in future monitoring studies. d) "Parameters to be determined (in metric units) include: 1) Morphometric features (maps, streamflow- lake mean depth, lake volume, lake surface area, and watershed area). 2) Watershed development (edaphic factors). 3) Temperature regions, turbidity, light penetration (PAR), and secchi disk depth. 4) Ambient light levels- air temperature, length of ice cover and other pertinent climatic indicators such as degree days. Extrapolation can be made to set sites that exhibit the same weather conditions within the same geographical location." Comment: These data are routinely collected along with water chemistry samples although morphometric data have been estimated usually once historically for all of the candidate lakes. Length of ice cover is not generally recorded but may be discernable from satellite photos. The ice cover data are not a factor in determining suitability for nutrient addition. Generally, temperature data are spot vertical profile measurements conducted at monthly intervals during the sampling program and are adequate to conduct heat budgets for a particular lake. January 2011 f Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 6 Associates K ODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE • Chemical Parameters a) "Water sampling should be done every three weeks during the ice -free period. Size of the lake and /or morphometric characteristics such as major lake basins and /or bays will dictate the number of sampling sites." Comment: These data are routinely collected monthly along with physical parameters measurements. Usually two sample sites or more are collected from an individual lake although in some cases a single site is used. Recommended sampling regime will be to follow the patterns established during the historical monitoring activity to facilitate comparisons over time. b) "Sampling is to be done using an at -depth sampler (e. g., Kemmerer, vanDorn bottles) at the 1.0 -m depth, the top of the thermocline and in the middle of the hypolimnion or at 75 percent of the lake depth." c) "All samples should be placed in rigorously cleaned polybottles (phosphate -free detergent followed by a rinse with 10 percent HCL and three distilled water rinses), filtered on site (if appropriate) and preserved - See Figure 2 for a suggested sampling scheme." d) Parameters to be sampled include: Alkalinity *(mg /I as CaCO Nitrate (pg /I as N) pH* Specific conductance (pmhos/cm) Reactive phosphorus * *+ (pg /l as P) Dissolved solids *(mg /I) Reactive silica * *+ • (mg /I as Si0 Dissolved oxygen (mg /I) Total phosphorus ** (pg /I as P) Metals * ** (pg /I) Keljdahl nitrogen ** (pg /I as N) Ammonium * *+ (Ilg /I as N) Particulate phosphorus ++ (p /I as P) Nitrite (pg /I as N) Particulate nitrogen ++ (pg /I as N) *Stored at 4 °C in a full container in the dark * *Stored frozen in the dark ** *Preserved with acid (3 ml of 1:1 HNO per liter of sample) to a pH <2 +Filtered (GFF glass fiber filter) + +Stored frozen in GFF glass fiber filters" Comment: The described procedures are consistent with current practice as described by ADF &G (2008). Biological Parameters a. Primary production 1) "Sampling for phytoplankton production and productivity should be done every three weeks, emphasizing the ice -free period. During the ice -cover period, sampling should be on a monthly to six -week basis. Lake size and morphometric characteristics such as major basins and /or bays will dictate the number of sampling sites." • January 2011 f Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 7 Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Comment: These data are routinely collected monthly along with water chemistry samples using the same stations. Winter sampling during either open or ice covered periods has generally not been completed during the historical sampling that occurred following the implementation of this policy. Limited data are available for Karluk Lake. This information is not used in determining suitability for fertilization and is not recommended for inclusion in the sampling regimes for candidate lakes, either pre or post fertilization unless late fall /early spring samples indicate unexpected issues of concern. 2) "Sampling for algal pigments and carbon uptake rates within the pelagic area should include several strata within the euphotic zone. Strata should include the surface (1.0 m), middle of the euphotic zone, and /or the top of the thermocline. In addition, samples should be taken within and outside the fertilized zone when a lake is only partially fertilized." Comment: These data are routinely collected monthly along with water chemistry samples using the same stations. Only the 1 and 50 m depths have been sampled (ADF &G 2008). Alternative methods may be considered such as a vertically integrated sample of the epilimnion using an open tube. These samples should be compared with the traditional method for at least one among many lakes and stations to determine how well the two methods correlate. This is essential for comparison of temporally separated samples to evaluate the current trophic status of a lake. There is little evidence from previous fertilization experiments to support the concept of fertilizer affecting only a single basin in a lake and not the others. Consistently, samples from different basins of the size of lakes found on Kodiak Island provide similar results, regardless of the geographical pattern of fertilizer application. Karluk Lake is the only Kodiak region lake where only one basin was intentionally treated. ® Based on other investigations, the assumption should be that nutrients will impact all of the epilimnion of a lake unless there are data to indicate otherwise. We recommend that the traditional sampling patterns be maintained but an alternative sampling regime should be considered if parallel sampling programs can be conducted to facilitate analysis of multiple year data. 3) "Periphyton growth rates and biomass estimation within the littoral zone are made using artificial Plexiglas substrates. Three sites should be located in the lake system with two sites located both within and outside the fertilized zone when a lake is only partially fertilized." Comment: These data have not been routinely collected and are nearly absent in the statewide limnological program from the onset of this policy. We suggest such a program be initiated only if visual periphyton growth suggests a concern during an active lake fertilization project. 4) "Parameters to be measured include those that differentiate between the rate of production and standing crop estimates which are: a. Pelagic zone (phytoplankton) 1. Chlorophyll a and phaeophyton (production in pg /I) 0 2. 14 carbon uptake (productivity) in mg C /I /hr. 3. Wet and dry weights (mg /I). b. Littoral zone (periphyton) 1. Chlorophyll a and phaeophyton (production) in pg /1. 2. Growth rate measurements (productivity) in mg /m /d. 3. Wet and dry weights (mg /I)." January 2011 s 'Gold Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 8 �® Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Comment: Only pelagic zone chlorophyll a and phaeophyton have been routinely sampled. Carbon 14 uptake investigations were abandoned as a routine sampling method as correlations between the results of the isotope studies paralleled standing crop chlorophyll a. Periphyton samples were rarely investigated and were not a factor used in evaluation of fertilization success or failure. Wet and dry weights were also not routinely measured as they paralleled the less expensive evaluation of chlorophyll a. We recommend the current practice (ADF &G 2008) be continued. The ADF &G (1978) guidelines do not call for taxonomic identification of phytoplankton during the pre - fertilization sampling program and only call for a species list to be collected during the initial screening phase of the sampling program. Such analysis is not part of the current protocol used by ADF &G (2008). We would recommend that phytoplankton relative species composition and abundance be routinely sampled from an epilimnion sample that is split for chlorophyll a assessment. Phytoplankton species composition is important in determining deleterious algal blooms and formation of inedible algae. At a minimum, samples should be collected, preserved and archived for evaluation of the effectiveness of lake fertilization programs. Other investigators have found such information valuable in assessing responses as well as in adjusting fertilization formulations and application rates. b. Secondary production 1) "Zooplankton sampling should be done every three weeks, emphasizing the ice -free period. The size of the lake and morphometric features such as major basins and /or bays will dictate the number of sampling sites. Sampling will be done within and outside fertilized zones if a lake is only partially fertilized." • Comment: These data are routinely collected monthly along with water chemistry samples using the same stations. See earlier comments on partial lake fertilization. 2) "A 50 -meter vertical haul should be taken at each sampling date within the pelagic zone at depths greater than 50 meters, and bottom -to- surface hauls at stations less than 50 meters deep. 3) "Sampling should be done with a 14 meter diameter 130 -p -mesh zooplankton net. Zooplankton are to be identified, counted, and wet and dry weights determined. If sub - sampling is employed, at least 60 individuals of each taxa are to be counted, and reported as number /liter of water strained as mg /I, respectively." Comment: These data are routinely collected monthly and approximate the methods currently in use (ADF &G 2008). 4) "Littoral zone benthic invertebrates are to be sampled every three weeks using artificial substrates (e.g., Hester - Dendy). Three substrates are to be sampled per lake with samplers located within and outside fertilized zones if a lake is only partially fertilized." 5) "Invertebrates should be counted, identified, and wet and dry weights determined. Results are to be reported as numbers /m and as mg /m respectively." • January 2011 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 9 Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Comment: The littoral zone invertebrate data have not been routinely collected and there is little information available on littoral zone benthic invertebrates from any of the lake studies in Alaska. Littoral zones are not the target of lake fertilization and these data have not been used (or determined to be useful) in determining the success of lake fertilization programs. We do not recommend that such a program be initiated on candidate lakes unless there are specific conditions that warrant the inclusion of such studies. c. Tertiary production 1) "Salmonid smolt and adult enumeration should be made by appropriate acoustic means, a weir arrangement located at the lake outlet and /or by tower counts." Comment: These data are routinely collected in the case of adults, either by weirs or aerial counts. Smolt counts are conducted sporadically. See comments below for specific recommendations. 2) "Enumeration of smolt and juvenile salmonids, either by tow - netting or acoustic means, should be developed and implemented in each lake system studied." Comment: These data are sporadically routinely collected. We recommend a minimum of either a smolt enumeration program or a fall fry hydroacoustic monitoring program with a robust apportionment program. The fall fry program provides an assessment of not only sockeye abundance, but also of the abundance of other competitors such as stickleback and usually is more affordable. Apportionment methodology is usually the difficulty, but programs have been developed that use multiple mesh vertical set gill nets that should be tried if apportionment has been a problem. However, at least one of the methods should be implemented because adult ® return rates alone have a long time lag and are heavily influenced by density independent marine conditions that affect survival. 3) "Salmonid viral and bacterial diseases should be monitored." Comment: These data are not routinely collected unless fry stocking is part of the program. Regular hatchery best practices should be followed unless there are reasons that disease is a major factor in affecting sockeye salmon production at the candidate lakes. 4) "Determination of the following factors should be made: a) Smolt and adult salmonid enumeration including age, weight and length determinations. Adult Smolt Length: nearest cm:mid -eye nearest mm:snout to fork to fork Weight: nearest 0.5 kg nearest 0.1 gms b) Lake spawning (beach spawning) and rearing areas should be estimated. • c) Stomach samples of juvenile salmonids need to be collected to determine food preferences and location of feeding at critical life stages. January 2011 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 10 et Associates K ODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE • d) Information necessary to determine fecundity and potential egg -to -fry (spring), egg-to-juvenile (fall), and egg -to -smolt (following spring) survival is to be collected e) The enumeration of potential predator and /or competitor species and their population response to fertilization should be documented." 5) "Specific methods of data collection will be standardized to meet procedures." 6) "Planning of specific fertilization projects should include appropriate statistical design to ensure adequate data analysis. The lake sampling scheme should be reviewed by Alaska Department of Fish and Game biometricians." 7) "The estimation of appropriate cost - benefit ratios must be made in any lake fertilization project." 8) "It is very important that adequate consideration be given to public awareness of lake fertilization projects in view of increased public concern over water quality." 9) "Data collected will be compiled and analyzed by the lake fertilization team for lake selection approval, and then disseminated to appropriate personnel." 2.2 Bottom -Up /Top -Down Trophic Cascades The limnological programs associated with nutrient enrichment projects are based on the principle that nutrients facilitate the transfer of energy through trophic levels. Sockeye salmon fry (or other species) are the ultimate benefactor of this increased availability of energy, resulting in more rapid growth that facilitates increased • survival in both freshwater and the marine environment. As measuring the transfer of energy in the form of carbon through a food web is difficult, standing crop biomass of the trophic levels, including phytoplankton, zooplankton, and fish, are assessed periodically through the growing season, along with characteristics of the physical environment such as light, temperature, nutrients, and other water chemistry parameters, which are known to moderate energy transfers. Many investigations have demonstrated that nutrient availability in waters in the coastal areas of the Pacific Ocean is the primary limit of productivity, and phosphorus is usually the limiting nutrient. Therefore, this study focuses on phosphorus but also evaluates the potential limits of nitrogen in limiting sockeye salmon production in the Kodiak area lakes when assessing the value of a bottom up approach. In the case of sockeye salmon rearing in lakes, trophic cascades often develop where large numbers of sockeye can crop the zooplankton community sufficiently to reduce the grazing pressure on phytoplankton resulting in decreased zooplankton and increased phytoplankton as reflected in chlorophyll a concentrations. Consequently, when escapements are large compared to productivity potential of a lake, phytoplankton can increase in abundance from nutrient increases or from sockeye predation of zooplankton that feed on the phytoplankton. Figure 1 reflects the relationship of standing crop zooplankton where increased nutrients result in increases of zooplankton while increased fish numbers result in decreased zooplankton biomass. Figure 2 illustrates this relationship with data collected over 28 years from Great Central Lake on Vancouver Island in Canada. Where escapement numbers are high in a nutrient deficient system, it is possible that primary productivity as reflected by standing crop biomass of phytoplankton may be relatively high, even though production has dropped as a result of nutrient limitations. Because of these factors, it is important that investigations examine all trophic levels during the course of fertilization experiments and maintain a clear understanding that zooplankton standing crop biomass values do not necessarily reflect production unless they are taken in context of fish densities and nutrient status. • January 2011 e - Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 11 47 Associates - ° KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 1 O O a O O IV SOCKEYE BIOMASS (kg•ha -1 ) Figure 1: Illustration of sockeye biomass increases resulting in decreases in zooplankton biomass at any given level of productivity as indicated by the intersections of the lines. The upward trending line reflects the increase in productivity as a result of increased nutrient loading (illustration provided by M. Johannes, Golder Assoc., Burnaby, BC. Pers. Comm, 2010). 300 - • 250 - - 0 -- <1.1 pg/L ... 1.2 - 2.0 pg/L fa 200 - — >2.1 pg/L m • E 0 w l50 • c c : 100 �.■ N • 50 - • • • • 0 • • 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Sockeye Densty (No. /ha) Figure 2: Illustrates the observed empirical relationship between zooplankton biomass and sockeye density at three levels of P. Data are from 28 years of sampling from Great Central Lake on Vancouver Island during a nutrient enrichment program (data provide by M. Johannes, Golder Assoc., Burnaby, Bc. Pers. Comm., 2010). gr January 2011 er Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 12 Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 2.3 Physical Methods Lake surface area and water residence times were obtained from published literature (technical reports, proceedings or journal articles). Euphotic zone depth (EZD), the depth at which there is 1% of incident light, was calculated following Koenings et al. (1987). Depth (y -axis) was plotted versus the natural logarithm of the percent incident light (x -axis) and the y- intercept of the regression line is equal to the EZD. Mean temperatures at depth from July to August were used to calculate annual summertime EZD for each year. To evaluate water temperatures and stratification, monthly mean temperatures were plotted against depth for all years. Mean summertime (July to August) temperatures at depth were plotted against depth to assess stratification during the warmest months for each year. Mean monthly turbidity was plotted for each year to assess seasonal and interannual trends in turbidity. Values are means of measurements taken at different depths (typically one near surface measurement and one deeper measurement, — 15 -50 m). Mean annual turbidity, pH and alkalinity are also presented. References used for this information include ADF &G (1958), Dugdale and Dugdale (1961), Edmundson et al. (1994), Edmundson et al. (1999), Honnold (1993), Honnold and Sagalkin (2001),Koenings et al. 1987, and Kyle et al. 1990. Physical data analyses are provided in Appendix B. 2.4 Nutrient Loading and Analysis Approach The criteria used assumes that the maximum safe P load, as measured in spring P concentrations, is —10 pg /L • (Table 2), following the recommendation as a permissible level by Vollenweider (1976) for oligotrophic lakes. Table 2 Vollenweider (1976) phosphorus concentration prediction and critical loading model equations. Parameter Equation Units V 1. Hydraulic residence time (T) T = Q yr 2. Surface overflow rate (q z a = - (mlY) P load (kg /m /yr) 3. Areal phosphorus load () L = L lake surface area /m / r x 10 (9 Z Y ') 4. Mean depth (z) (m) lake surface area 5. Phosphorus concentration L P — n 1 (pg /L) prediction (P) qs j 1 + 6. Phosphorus Load (P Load) P Load = Pq 1 + z lake surface area kg0 qs) (9 11 ) kg /m /yr 7. Permissible Loading (0.5 x L 0.5 x L,P = 0.01g + (g/m x 10 • January 2011 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 13 A ssociates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE The approach traditionally used by the statewide limnology program is to target loads from nutrient addition programs at 90% of this level (natural plus fertilizer additions), with adjustments made by monitoring. Based on the information listed, natural loading in systems like Red Lake, Akalura, and historically, Karluk Lake (Gregory - Eaves et al. 2003) exceed the permissible level by 50 %, most likely because of long water retention times and large nutrient contributions from salmon carcasses. The loadings are still below the critical level (permissible level x 2) at all lakes that have been investigated. Consequently, the nutrient restoration program as proposed is conservative and may be revised to target 90% of the maximum load based on historical measurements or inferences. However, for this report, we have focused on maintaining the past standard for nutrient supplements as a compromise between maintaining P levels below permissible levels for oligotrophic systems and achieving historical productivity. 3.0 RESULTS The initial screening process was conducted by examining general trends among the lakes sampled. Appendix A provides a generic set of graphics that were relied upon for screening the lakes. These data were not screened intensively for quality control and reflect the cleaned raw data files provided by ADF &G. The results section provides an overview of the lakes during the screening phase of this study. Table 3 provides a summary of the time series of the data that were available for this review. We received some recent data during the later preparation stages of this report covering 2009 -2010 data but these were only reviewed for Karluk Lake where the recent trends were important in inferring the value of nutrient additions. Table 3. Years that limnology, zooplankton, smolt and adult salmon data are available for lakes in Kodiak ® Lake Management Area in Alaska. Some years may be missing within these ranges for some lakes. Limology Zooplankton Smolt Adult fish Afognak 1987 -2005 1987 -2009 1978 -2006 Akalura 1990 -1996 1986- 1996,2009 1990 -1997 Big Waterfall 1990, 2000 -2001 Crescent 1990 -1994 1990- 2005,2009 Frazer 1985 -1996 1985 -2009 1991 -2001 1976 -2008 Hidden 1987 -2008 1989 -2009 Karluk 1980 -2010 1981 -2010 1961- 68,1980 -84, 1976 -2008 1991 - 92,1999 -2001 Laura 1990 -2003 Little Kitoi 1990 -2002 1990 -2009 Little Waterfall 1990 -2003 1990 -2009 Lower Jennifer 1990,1993 -1994 1993- 1997,2001 -2005, 2009 Red 1990 -1996 1990 -1996 1976 -2008 Saltery 1994,1997,2000 1994- 2005,2009 1985 -2009 Spiridon 1988 -2008 1988 -2009 1992 -2008 1994 -2008 Upper Jennifer 1993 -1994 1990- 2005,2009 Upper Malina 1989 -2003 1989- 2005,2009 Upper Station 1990 -1993 1990 -1993 1976 -2008 January 2011 er, Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 14 Associates 2 - KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE • 3.1 Physical Environments The capacity of a lake to produce runs of returning sockeye salmon is primarily based on the size of the lake and the depth of its euphotic zone (depth where photosynthesis can occur). Consequently, to compare productivity among lakes, production per unit area or per unit volume of the lake with photosynthetic potential is necessary. Other factors with potential to impact production include temperature, often measured as annual heat budgets, and sunlight incidence. However, in clear water lakes of the types of interest in the Kodiak Archipelago, the dominant factor affecting production per unit area is nutrient loading, which will be the focus of this report. 3.1.1 Lake Physical Parameters and Turnover Rates Lake surface area, mean depth, volume, euphotic zone depth (EZD; mean of all years), euphotic volume, and water residence are summarized in Table 4. This information provides the basis for determining annual nutrient loading budgets for the lakes of interest. Table 4. Lake surface area, mean depth, volume, euphotic zone depth (EZD; mean of all years), euphotic volume, and water residence for 17 lakes in the Kodiak region of Alaska. Surface area Mean depth Volume EZD Euphotic Water Lake (km (m) (x 10 m3) (m) (10 Volume ( years) d ( Afognak 5.3 8.6 46.0 9.6 46.0 0.4 Akalura 4.9 9.9 48.0 10.5 48.0 1.3 Big Waterfall 0.3 5.8 1.6 9 1.6 0.062 • Crescent 0.6 10.3 6.2 11.9 6.2 Frazer 16.6 33.2 551.0 16.8 278.9 2.1 Hidden 1.9 10.8 20.6 9.9 18.8 2.8 Karluk 39.4 48.6 1920.0 21.5 847.1 4.4 Laura 4.2 12.0 50.5 7.6 31.9 1.2 Little Kitoi 0.4 11.1 4.8 9 3.6 0.35 Little Waterfall 1.0 6.8 6.7 7.5 6.7 0.2 -0.7 Lower Jennifer 0.2 9.8 1.7 8.2 1.6 Red 8.4 24.7 208.0 18.9 158.8 4 Saltery 1.1 21.0 22.0 9.5 10.5 0.38 Spiridon 9.2 34.7 318.0 27.2 250.2 7.1 Upper Jennifer 0.4 10.6 4.1 10.8 4.1 2.2 Upper Molina 1.2 15.3 18.4 11.4 13.7 0.6 Upper Station 7.9 26.2 208.0 17.5 138.3 4.2 • January 2011 v Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 15 Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE The euphotic zone is also provided in the table. This parameter is defined as the volume of water above the depth at which photosynthesis functionally ceases, and its lower boundary is conventionally defined as the depth where the photosynthetically active component of the light spectrum is attenuated to less than 1% of the incident light measured immediately below the surface of the water. If the light absorption and reflection properties of the water are constant, the attenuation of light should follow a decay curve that can be described with a constant called the light extinction coefficient. This value may vary among years based on run off and suspended sediment contribution as well as the phytoplankton blooms that may absorb or reflect light. In the absence of development, such as logging or agriculture, the watershed sediment contributions are likely variable and not predictable. Likewise, productivity as reflected by standing crop biomass of phytoplankton, will be highly dependent upon nutrient loading and zooplankton cropping, in addition to seasonal and weather phenomena that may affect timing of blooms. Consequently the euphotic depth parameter used to estimate euphotic volume is primarily useful in comparison of lake productivity potential. Temperature may impact sockeye salmon growth rates and energy transfer among trophic levels. Thermal and chemical (saline layers in meromictic lakes) stratification also limits transfer of nutrients within the water column. The stratified epilimnion during the growth season provides a zone of circulation where nutrients are often confined and recirculate, effectively reducing the volume where surface nutrient additions will impact the phytoplankton communities. In lakes with relatively short turnover rates, the volume of the epilimnion is important as most of the nutrient load from natural sources and fertilizer will be diluted during the growth season and the surface layer drains through the lake outlet while the meta and hypolimnion of the lakes remain relatively intact until fall turnover results in complete lake mixing. In lakes with long water retention times ( —> one year), the ® nutrients added will be recycled within the epilimnion. Table 5 summarizes the temperature data among all of the lakes during the growing season. 3.2 Nutrient Overview The primary focus of this review is the nutrient status as expressed in annual nutrient loads per unit area or volume of the lakes. In general, lakes with longer water retention times will recycle nutrients proportional to the length of time water is retained within the lake. During the mixing period of the lake from the late fall through spring, the lake is isothermal and nutrients are relatively uniform as circulation is throughout the water column. Spring loads are estimated based on initial water samples at the onset of stratification, reflecting the nutrient base beginning the period of elevated productivity during the spring and summer as temperatures and stratification increase. The results from decades of experimental and correlative work indicate that in Alaska deep clear water lakes, phosphorus is the limiting nutrient and spring loads per unit of surface area of the lake correlate with primary productivity. In certain circumstances, at the onset of the phytoplankton bloom, nitrogen may become limiting creating an environment where cyanobacteria (blue green algae) can thrive, fixing their own nitrogen and creating undesirable blooms of algae that are inedible to zooplankton and thus reducing energy transfer to sockeye salmon and other planktivorous fish species. Typically, if the molecular nitrogen levels compared to phosphorus level are above the Redfield ratio (molar N:P ratio 16:1), increases in phosphorus create increases in productivity of phytoplankton without changing community structure. Consequently the analysis of nitrogen focuses on this ratio and typically nutrient supplementation programs provide nitrogen fertilizer after the onset of the phytoplankton bloom to ensure nitrogen does not become limiting. In practice, because of uncertainty in nitrogen limits in northern freshwater systems, the N:P ratio is usually kept above 20:1. This ratio is often expressed by weight rather than in molar units where P is 2.21 times the weight of nitrogen so an equivalent ratio of 20:1 based on weight is — 9.04:1. January 2011 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 16 Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE V_ n. - -- • Table 6 summarizes spring total P concentration measurements for the lakes of interest. The table summarizes phosphorus spring concentration levels used for the initial screening to determine relative nutrient status. Lakes with spring concentrations of greater than 10 pg /L were not considered for further analysis. Data that were considered outliers in the time series are flagged, but were included in subsequent analysis where average values for all years were used for inference. • • January 2011 a # Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 17 "' Associates • • KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Table 5. Summary of recent average water temperatures from Kodiak Island Lakes collected during the growing season. Lake 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total Afognak 13.6 12.1 11.7 12.4 12.8 11.8 11.2 11.1 11.9 10.2 12.6 11.8 13.9 12.1 11.7 10.7 12.1 Akulura 11.3 11.9 11.5 11.6 Big 94 7.7 9.8 8.0 9.8 9.2 8.6 7.3 7.3 6.1 8.3 Waterfall Cresent 9.3 10.7 9.8 10.1 11.0 9.3 8.7 9.3 7.9 9.6 8.7 10.2 9.7 9.2 9.0 9.6 Frazer 7.9 9.5 8.9 9.0 10.1 5.4 9.6 7.8 8.6 7.8 8.4 Hidden 8.8 8.3 8.4 8.5 9.3 8.3 8.0 8.3 6.7 8.3 8.4 8.8 7.8 7.9 8.0 8.3 Karluk 8.4 8.6 8.8 9.0 6.6 8.2 8.0 7.6 8.2 8.5 9.3 8.0 8.4 6.8 8.4 Laura 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.5 9.5 8.0 8.2 8.4 7.8 8.4 9.1 8.3 8.0 8.3 Little Kitoi 7.5 7,6 7.5 7.6 7.9 6.7 7.3 7.2 7.7 7.5 7.3 7.4 7.7 7.5 7.5 7.5 Little 10.1 9.5 10.2 10.2 9.6 9.8 9.4 10.8 9.9 11.4 10.3 10.8 9.7 9.5 9.3 100 Waterfall Lower 8.8 8.0 8.6 8.4 7.1 7.6 7.6 8.0 7,9 8.3 7.9 ' 8.7 8.1 Jennifer Lower 12.0 11.9 11.7 12.7 10.6 10.0 9.7 12.0 10.0 11.2 11.4 Malina Portage 10.8 10.3 10.2 10.6 13.4 9.8 9,7 10.6 Red 8.9 9.3 9.1 9.3 Ruth 9.8 9.8 9.0 8.7 7.7 10.0 9.0 8.9 9.0 9.1 10.0 9.6 9.4 9.3 9.2 Saltery 8.2 7.5 8.1 7.9 7.3 7.9 8.5 8.4 8.9 8.8 8.8 7.7 7.5 7.5 8.1 Spiridon 8.1 8.8 8.6 8.5 8.4 7.3 8.0 7.8 8.1 3.9 8.7 9.2 7,8 7.4 7.3 8.2 Upper 8.5 74 9.3 9.8 9.4 8.3 8.5 9.0 9.2 7.7 7.9 7.7 8.3 8.0 7.7 8.3 Jennifer Upper 10.6 9.5 10.3 9.9 9.6 9.3 10.1 9,1 8.3 10.0 10.7 10.5 9.0 9.8 Malina Upper 8.3 9.8 7.5 8.7 8.5 Station Total 9.3 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.4 8.3 8.6 8.8 8.1 8.7 8.8 9.4 8.4 7.9 8.1 8.9 January 2011 eGolder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 18 Associates ci- KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Table 6. Summary of spring phosphorus concentrations for all major Kodiak lakes in pg /L. Outliers are flagged. Summaries are averages from samples taken in April and May when the lakes are assumed to not be stratified. The yellow highlighted values include data values that are based on June samples after stratification has begun. The red highlighted values indicate abnormally high readings. Year Afognak I Akalura Big Crescent Frazer Hidden Karluk Laura Little Little Lower Red Saltery Spiridon Upper I Upper Upper Waterfall Kitoi Waterfall Jennifer Jennifer Malina Station 1980 9.0 1981 4.6 1982 5.1 1983 8.0 1984 7.0 1985 6.4 7.7 1986 4.5 6.5 1987 ;11i10/1 5.9 8.7 1988 6.6 5.7 7.8 1989 5.8 8.4 8.4 3.8 6.6 1990 6.6 12.7 1.9 6.6 6.3 2.4 10.4 2.5 3.6 2.5 iiin 25.2 3.3 5.2 8.1 1991 6.0 12.6 8M 6.8 4.3 6.3 4.4 8.0 21.2 4.6 9.4 9.3 1992 5.3 2.9 2.6 3.8 7.8 4.0 3.5 4.0 15.3 3.5 4.0 6.8 1993 4.1 15.6 3.9 5.5 1.9 9.0 3.3 4.3 4.3 5.0 13.4 2.8 3.4 4.9 6.8 1994 6.0 13.7 5.4 6.2 2.8 4.9 4.1 4.0 3.0 4.2 12.9 8.5 3.0 4.4 6.1 1995 6.1 13.9 4.7 2.4 5.0 4.9 2.5 11.8 4.3 5.4 1996 5.9 10.9 4.1 3.9 9.9 4.7 5.0 17.7 3.7 6.3 1997 6.0 2.8 5.2 5.6 5.0 4.7 6.4 3.3 5.2 1998 Mina 111111415111111 1999 6.5 3.0 6.8 7.1 5.7 5.6 2000 =IOW ■ 1.1 1.1 1.8 tl'21I 2.5 4.2 2.7 aft 2001 2.4 Wa 1n fl8131r 1.1131411 11e101 =MUM 1.4 2.2 2002 7.6 <121011 9.8 2.0 7.4 4.3 4.2 2003 7.8 4.4 9.1 4.1 4.8 5.5 2004 4.1 ai1912a 10.2 7.6 2005 9.1 fl1011 a 8.4 3.8 2006 2.8 8.5 4.9 2007 3.4 2008 2.4 2009 5.9 4.5 2.5 5.6 13.6 4.8 2010 3.4 9.5 3.7 2.3 5.3 4.0 14.7 2.7 7 Average 6.5 12.7 4.7 5.4 5.4 5.0 7.4 6.5 6.0 6.0 9.2 16.2 6.4 3.8 3.9 6.3 7.6 June 07766fla e Values Q('-. Used January 2011 et Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 19 Associates 411 - v �_ — ALL KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 3.3 Primary Productivity Primary productivity in the lakes of interest is primarily represented by phytoplankton abundance with periphyton in the littoral zone also a minor contributor. Allochthonous carbon (derived externally) is also contributed from the Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) and Particulate Organic Carbon (POC) within stream runoff, including salmon carcass contributions, and may contribute significantly to available carbon for the bacteria based pelagic food web. The significance of this source of carbon is not known but in the absence of salmon carcasses, most other investigations suggest autochthonous carbon (derived from in -lake photosynthesis) is the dominant contributor to oligotrophic food webs of lakes such as those on Kodiak Island. Typically, limnologists have measured rates of carbon fixation using labelled isotopes through in situ experiments to provide a direct measure of the rate of carbon uptake given the nutrients available, often referred to as Photosynthetic Rate (PR). Early work by the statewide limnology laboratory suggested this rate correlates very well with standing crop biomass of phytoplankton as indexed with chlorophyll a concentrations, so direct measurements of carbon uptake have not been conducted in recent years. Consequently, primary productivity is usually indicated with chlorophyll a measurements. When trophic cascades develop through overcropping of zooplankton by sockeye salmon juveniles, chlorophyll a concentrations may increase because of lack of zooplankton cropping, so in these cases, productivity estimates based on chlorophyll a concentrations may be distorted when compared to lakes or years when bottom up (nutrient based) processes are determining productivity. 3.3.1 Phytoplankton Phytoplankton communities have been sampled and analyzed in the past for oligotrophic lakes on Kodiak Island ® and elsewhere in Alaska when lake fertilization programs were on -going but the data sets are highly limited. Paleolimnological studies of fossilized diatoms provide a good indicator of community changes over time and are direct evidence of the trophic status of the lakes. Research on Karluk Lake covering several thousand years suggests the system varies from relatively oligotrophic status to mesotrophic, most likely as a result of nutrient loading from carcasses, which varies based on marine conditions that determine returns to freshwater (Gregory - Eaves et al. 2003). These authors inferred the historical total phosphorus (TP) levels in Karluk Lake ranged from 5 pg /L to 18 pg /L, with the higher concentrations prevalent just prior to the onset of commercial fishing whereas similar trends in Frazer Lake were not observed until the fishway was installed. The change in the phytoplankton community composition is highly associated with carcass nutrients and indicative of the trophic state of Karluk Lake at the onset of commercial fishing; the decline to the current level has occurred relatively rapidly as nutrients were depleted by decreased escapements. The limited amount of available water column sampling data for phytoplankton species collected from limnological sampling occurred early in the studies but does not allow comparisons among lakes or within a given lake over time. This information is primarily useful in understanding nutrient status and the viability of a lake fertilization program by determining the response of edible algae to nutrients. This information should be routinely included in future sampling programs. However, because of the limited information, this information is not addressed in this report. 3.3.2 Chlorophyll a Chlorophyll a is used as a surrogate to estimate primary productivity. Although compounded by cropping by zooplankton, this is an excellent measure of standing crop biomass of phytoplankton. Table 7 summarizes the chlorophyll a levels of the various lakes. January 2011 et, Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 20 Associates - KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE • 3.4 Secondary Productivity Secondary productivity includes the grazers that consume phytoplankton and bacteria. This usually includes all of the zooplankton, with copepods and cladocerans as the dominant components, but smaller forms, such as the rotifers, may also be major grazers. Many of the zooplankton may also be predators, consuming eggs and smaller zooplankton. This is particularly true of the copepods, which are often omnivorous. Our analysis has focused on cladocerans and copepods as they are the primary diet of sockeye salmon juveniles. 3.5 Zooplankton Seasonal changes in biomass of zooplankton reflect both bottom up processes (phytoplankton availability, related to nutrient loading) and top -down cropping from sockeye salmon juveniles and other planktivorous fish (primarily three - spined stickleback). Changes in zooplankton body size over years can also be indicative of both processes although cropping of the larger individuals is the usual explanation for declining sizes. Some of the copepods, such as the genus Diaptomus, may have two and three -year life cycles; consequently, size changes may reflect year class strength and survival from the previous year. Summary of relative abundance and sizes are provided in Table 8 and Table 9 respectively for key lakes under consideration. 3.6 Fry and Smolt Production Fry and smolt production have been measured irregularly during the course of the limnology program on Kodiak Lakes. These studies will vary in quality, depending upon the difficulties encountered in sampling. Often sonar studies of lakes have difficulty in determining species and age class composition of the targets because of size selectivity and small samples from trawling conducted simultaneous to the hydroacoustic studies. Smolt • sampling can also be difficult if weir counts aren't used because of avoidance of traps and schooling tendencies limiting the ability to randomly sample migrations out of the system. Because of the limitations of the data, we have focused fry and smolt studies in the detailed discussions of specific candidate lakes, rather than in the overview of all of the systems. • r _. January 2011 ' Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 21 'A ssociates ® • • `! = KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Table 7. Mean chlorophyll a concentrations during summer -fall (July to September) in Kodiak lakes (pg /L). Year Afognak Akalura Big Crescent Frazer Hidden Karluk Laura Little Little Lower Red Saltery Spiridon Upper Upper Upper Waterfall Kitoi Waterfall Jennifer Jennifer Malina Station 1980 2.94 1981 0.80 1982 0.42 1983 0.55 1984 0.44 1985 0.89 1.69 1986 0.45 1.87 1987 0.49 1.07 3.09 2.40 1988 0.95 0.71 3.13 3.32 1989 0.86 1.61 1.14 3.46 1990 1.29 3.44 0.27 3.36 1.93 3.14 3.98 3.60 3.72 3.42 3.20 1.31 3.18 1.14 1.05 1991 1.08 2.63 3.17 1.55 3.11 1.29 0.28 3.68 2.18 3.21 2.06 1.48 1992 1.90 0.42 1.43 3.15 1.96 3.43 3.58 3.30 1.14 3.16 2.34 1.43 1993 1.27 3.63 0.63 1.47 3.42 1.92 1.29 1.00 1.10 3.18 2.03 3.48 3.30 1.78 2.50 1994 2.25 5.28 0.46 3.55 1.01 1.01 2.37 3.80 1.60 3.42 2.27 1.82 3.20 3.34 2.15 1995 4.59 3.20 1.86 3.46 1.24 3.89 3.34 2.16 3.66 4.27 1996 2.00 1.54 3.51 3.39 5.40 3.45 1.53 3.71 3.47 3.08 1997 2.22 3.28 3.78 1.51 3.78 1.80 1.31 3.40 1.85 1998 0.10 3.17 1.80 1.22 1.80 3.14 3.21 1.49 1999 3.11 3.09 3.17 1.60 1.70 3.27 3.32 2000 3.20 2.56 1.49 3.04 13.78 1.30 3.64 2.88 2001 2.24 0.96 3.64 3.54 3.52 1.28 3.48 5.23 2002 1.28 3.53 1.07 1.28 1.28 3.37 2.24 2003 0.64 0.96 0.64 3.48 2004 0.96 3.32 2.61 3.47 2005 1.28 0.50 1.73 3.46 2006 0.48 1.81 0.61 2007 0.80 3.56 2008 0.64 3.51 January 2011 90 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 22 'Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Table 8. Mean annual total zooplankton biomass (mg/m during summer (June to August). Little Lower Upper Upper Year Afognak -kalura rescent Frazer idden Karluk ittle Kitoi Waterfall Jennifer Saltery Spiridon Jennifer Malina 1981 1374 1982 1848 - 1983 1127 1984 1224 1985 84 1126 1986 32 76 1987 220 116 82 '37 1988 152 '0 106 70 831 1989 66 '7 54 4 20 1361 991 28 1990 197 .3 95 282 •79 1403 4 6 961 1108 1286 32 1991 220 B '30 258 •83 1021 00 1124 146 1992 137 14 .46 457 .62 CO 148 928 127 1993 274 44 60 740 182 .59 19 37 '36 374 429 131 1994 536 9 :'1 443 4 19 :25 43 140 :68 247 1108 367 134 1995 392 •10 '75 192 426 1457 17 37 .91 1209 1355 1364 134 1996 721 ':6 .87 377 '30 1093 '8 198 21 100 1452 1006 272 1997 202 4 97 371 165 a98 '1 145 .89 452 933 543 32 1998 301 08 1778 .42 $9 127 201 1125 1076 157 1999 226 • 71 548 '05 $48 •7 121 1013 371 152 2000 376 68 149 •91 1215 127 153 225 1001 1041 287 2001 75 57 248 161 .53 150 438 .46 59 315 1080 101 2002 68 90 368 .22 1306 6 45 .77 200 1571 955 57 2003 166 91 173 1076 1671 192 114 :03 302 1213 965 34 2004 87 :42 66 .18 •27 .8 96 1138 228 462 775 42 2005 92 •49 434 •06 •69 •69 171 .86 31 1036 1211 137 2006 920 04 91 179 390 2007 508 917 39 95 368 2008 90 336 31 54 336 2009 28 .1 • 86 287 109 1394 '2 50 130 116 1068 148 123 y-. January 2011 er Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 23 Associates ® 4111 CP 0 • la r , - KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Table 9. Mean size of zooplankton (mm) during growing season in Kodiak lakes (all species combined . Year Afognak Akalura Crescent Frazer Hidden Karluk Little Kitoi Little lower Saltery Spiridon Upper 9 Waterfall Jennifer ry Upper Jennifer PPer Malina 1981 0.69 1982 0.68 1983 0.68 1984 0.83 1985 3.57 3.72 1986 0.74 3.51 1987 0.64 3.74 3.59 3.65 1988 0.65 3.71 3.71 3.70 3.87 1989 0.58 3.59 3.60 3.95 3.67 3.78 3.53 1990 0.62 3.58 0.86 3.59 3.90 3.71 3.58 3.77 J.83 3.97 3.56 1991 0.64 3.64 3.89 3.62 3.92 3.68 3.49 3.81 3.64 1992 0.64 3.61 0.63 3.82 3.81 3.48 3.61 3.87 3.64 1993 0.65 3.65 0.71 3.59 J.79 ).65 3.53 J.62 3.86 3.78 3.85 3.64 1994 0.68 3.68 0.72 3.68 3.83 3.66 3.48 3.60 3.92 1.74 3.92 1.02 3.60 1995 0.71 3.67 3.81 3.70 3.85 3.83 3.51 3.66 3.92 1.82 3.88 3.96 3.64 1996 3.73 3.64 3.75 3.63 3.80 3.68 3.60 3.66 3.86 1.68 3.90 3.92 3.71 1997 3.64 3.70 3.68 J.80 3.70 3.46 3.64 3.81 1.74 3.96 3.92 3.56 1998 3.59 3.62 3.71 3.76 3.45 3.56 1.70 3.86 3.87 3.62 1999 3.63 3.73 3.64 3.81 3.76 3.46 3.67 1.78 3.89 3.59 2000 3.66 3.77 3.50 3.72 3.72 3.54 3.65 1.69 3.72 3.79 3.62 2001 3.57 3.73 3.57 3.81 3.67 3.54 3.61 3.79 1.65 3.87 3.88 3.60 2002 0.54 3.76 3.54 3.78 3.73 3.48 3.67 3.80 1.71 3.85 3.87 3.53 2003 3.54 3.78 3.58 774 0.68 3.47 J.71 3.82 1.57 3.75 3.85 3.55 2004 0.58 3.69 3.60 3.87 3.63 3.52 3.69 3.76 1.66 3.74 3.79 3.54 2005 0.54 3.78 J.64 3.67 3.58 3.45 3.61 3.80 1.67 3.76 3.81 3.48 2006 0.65 0.71 0.57 3.72 J.78 2007 0.67 0.66 0.73 3.55 3.74 2008 0.59 0.80 3.63 3.64 3.80 2009 0.55 0.56 0.70 3.65 3.73 3.73 3.57 3.56 3.81 1.67 3.83 3.75 3.60 Mean 0.62 0.65 3.74 3.62 3.80 3.70 3.51 J.64 3.83 1.70 3.83 3.88 3.59 • , C-t• January2011 74 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 24 ® Associates --- KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE I D` • 3.7 Adult Return Analysis Adult returns provide the ultimate basis for determining the status of stocks for a particular system but provide limited value in determining the success of a lake nutrient supplemental program. Most of the variation is related to processes in the ocean that are likely primarily independent of density. In addition, the time scale of the auto correlated marine survival rates is at the decadal level with changes in rates occurring very rapidly over one or two years. This is likely the result of the Pacific Decadal Occililation (PDO) climatic cycle that affects food availability and temperatures for juvenile fish as they enter the marine environment, as well as other long -term climatic changes. These changes affect phytoplankton community structure and are apparent in the fossil record from Karluk and other sockeye salmon lakes in Alaska. Consequently, lake fertilization experiments, which often last for five years, may be confounded by large changes in marine survival if adult return rates are used to evaluate success. As fertilization projects are often initiated during periods of low return, increases following fertilization may be inaccurately attributed to nutrients when they may be a reflection of shift in marine climate that is more favourable to sockeye production. However, often adult return rates are the only information available to determine whether historic production levels are substantially higher than those currently experienced. Comparisons can be made to the returns from other systems to determine if current low return rates are anomalous, suggesting freshwater productivity may be a major contributing factor to the run failures. However, the last two years of British Columbia Fraser River sockeye salmon returns have been one of the lowest and highest on record, with similar smolt production levels, suggesting that dependence upon adult return data to discern freshwater smolt production is risk prone. Multiple lake comparisons using measurements of long -term productivity can be conducted on some of the Kodiak lakes of interest, based on long -term average adult returns per unit area (Table 10). The average adult • returns and this relationship to productivity provide the basis for evaluation of likely benefits of a particular lake from nutrient enrichment and the cost - effectiveness of such a program. These relationships will be addressed under the individual candidate lake discussions. • January 2011 a t Golder Report No. 09-1480-0032F 25 Associates -Y KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Table 10. Return of adult sockeye (# / 1000) per km for Kodiak lakes for which data were available. For Karluk and Upper Station early and late run sockeye are combined. Data reflect total catch + escapement for the year indicated. Year Frazer Karluk Red Spiridon Upper Station 1970 7 1971 13 30 1972 19 16 1973 3 19 13 1974 5 27 44 1975 4 11 12 1976 8 42 20 1977 8 56 18 1978 10 37 35 1979 9 30 58 1980 28 117 31 1981 29 54 50 1982 31 32 108 1983 12 23 87 1984 4 80 87 1985 38 30 108 122 1986 11 33 87 203 ® 1987 3 26 45 87 1988 28 19 72 143 1989 65 28 91 105 1990 59 45 219 111 1991 76 56 156 117 1992 25 39 89 58 1993 45 30 74 67 1994 39 29 50 29 70 1995 57 35 105 11 101 1996 42 32 148 42 141 1997 25 21 53 16 74 1998 37 27 172 23 59 1999 22 40 118 51 83 2000 24 31 53 22 58 2001 24 38 70 16 37 2002 7 38 28 53 25 2003 19 61 24 69 65 2004 43 37 53 20 99 2005 38 37 36 15 55 2006 7 27 14 10 31 2007 10 31 46 19 29 2008 31 11 29 27 66 Mean 26 33 64 28 69 • January 2011 f t Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 26 Associates tom- - KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE A • 4.0 INITIAL SCREENING Following the ADF &G (1978) guidelines, the initial review of Kodiak Lakes examined limnological data including nutrient loads and physical parameters, to determine potential candidate lakes for further review. This section examines the historical trends of nutrients and the relative loading of nutrients among the lakes included in the study. 4.1 Lake Surface Area/Water Residence Times and Interannual Trends in Nutrients Lake physical parameters are summarized in Table 11 for all of the lakes investigated. These values are used to estimate annual nutrient loading rates. Two depth values are listed for each lake, which include the value provided by other investigators, and a calculated value based on volume and surface area. The values provided by ADF &G from other investigators were used for loading calculations. To compare lakes relative to each other, Table 12 depicts the permissible P loading rates for each lake coupled with their annual loading of P per unit area (kg /km To screen for candidate lakes, we have used the assumption that relative loading rates of P need to be below the permissible level as estimated by Vollenweider (1976), which is estimated at 50% of the critical level where substantial changes in community structure may begin. Table 13 provides comparisons of the long -term averages with data recently collected in 2009 and 2010. The rankings include initial tier levels provided by KRAA for priority in the analysis, along with rankings of nutrient loading based on the long -term average of all data compared with nutrient levels. Three levels of • rankings are provided, including 1) the relative loading from the long -term data compared to the permissible levels, 2) the most recent (2009 -2010) loadings compared with the permissible levels, and 3) comparisons of the recent two years with the long -term averages. In the latter case, higher rankings indicate relatively low P loads compared to historic or permissible levels, suggesting a greater potential for benefits of nutrient supplementation relative to measured recent historical P levels. At this stage in the analysis, candidate lakes are being selected based on the assumption that productivity is limited by P loadings and the candidate lakes would likely benefit significantly if P levels were increased to near the permissible level as defined by Vollenweider (1976). Based on these rankings, all of the tier one lakes would be potential candidates and all of the tier 2 lakes, except Akatura, would likely have significant benefits. Of the tier 3 lakes, only Red Lake has current loading rates that exceed the permissible level (but still substantially below the critical level that is 2 times the permissible level). The permissible levels represent for a lake with a particular water residence time, the amount of P per unit area that can be delivered annually from all sources to achieve a spring concentration of 10 pg /L P. The loading values reflect the presumed P loading from the previous year that resulted in the spring P levels observed in the spring of the year listed. The lower the ratio between the observed spring loading rates and the permissible rates, the more the lake ecosystem is limited by P in terms of productivity per unit area, assuming nitrogen levels are adequate. Based on the initial screen relative to P loading, all five of the tier one lakes are potential candidates for nutrient additions. Hidden Lake is ranked number one based on the past two years of nutrient loads, relative to permissible levels. Hidden Lake has had some anomalous P levels in 2001 -02 and 2004 -05, which contribute to a higher long -term average. • January 2011 Golder Report No. 09- 1460 -0032F 27 i Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE • Not surprisingly Spiridon Lake is a significantly stronger candidate than most other lakes because it has no marine nutrient contributions, but annually loses nutrients as smolt migrate from the system. However the 2009- 10 data indicate that phosphorus levels are near the long -term average and the system at current stocking levels is at equilibrium. However, Spiridon Lake had the lowest productivity level of all lakes analysed based on long- term data and was ranked 2 based on supplementation potential when comparing recent data (2009 -10) to permissible levels. Because of the long water residence time, this system should respond very favourably to nutrient additions. Karluk, a lake of significant concern because of the reduction of large historic runs, has relatively high nutrient load levels compared to most other lakes, based on the long -term data (rank 11). As previously indicated, historical paleolimnological phytoplankton fossil species composition suggests that at times of high nutrient carcass loading, P levels may be nearly double of the levels recorded since 1980 (Gregory -Eaves et al. 2003). Top -down effects of cropping of zooplankton and associated high concentrations of phytoplankton (chlorophyll a), indicate current production losses are related to over - cropping of the zooplankton community. With recent escapement declines and likely increased productivity associated with more efficient energy transfer from phytoplankton to zooplankton, nutrients may again become limiting to salmon production. The 2009 -2010 data indicate much lower P levels compared to historical data, ranking 6th of all lakes included but ranking 3rd based on the relative decline of the 2009 -2010 data when compared to the long -term average (since 1980). The reduction likely reflects lesser contribution of carcass -based nutrients from decreased escapements in 2008 -2009. ® Frazer Lake is a recently developed sockeye salmon lake. The installation of a fish pass and stocking of sockeye salmon from other lakes has resulted in large sustainable runs. The nutrient loading is substantially lower than other systems with native sockeye stocks and is comparable to nutrient loading in Spiridon and Upper Jennifer Lake. January 2011 el Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 28 Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE • Table 11. Summary of physical parameters for Kodiak sockeye salmon lakes used for estimating annual nutrient loads. The Mean Depth values were provided from literature reports or were obtained from ADF &G while the calculated mean depths were calculated from volume and surface area data. Surface Water Surface Mean Volume EZD Euphotic Mean Depth Lake a area s Residence Overflow Depth (m) (m) (km2) Volume (m3) (yr) Rate (m /y) (m) (calculated) Afognak 4.60E +07 9.6 5.3 4.60E +07 0.4 21.5 8.6 8.7 Akalura 4.80E +07 10.5 4.9 4.80E +07 1.3 7.6 9.9 9.8 Big 1.60E +06 9 0.3 1.60E +06 0.1 93.5 5.8 5.3 Waterfall Crescent 6.20E +06 11.9 0.6 6.20E +06 10.3 10.3 Frazer 5.51E +08 16.8 16.6 2.79E +08 2.1 15.8 33.2 33.2 Hidden 2.06E +07 9.9 1.9 1.88E +07 2.8 3.9 10.8 10.8 Karluk 1.92E +09 21.5 39.4 8.47E +08 4.4 11.0 48.6 48.7 Laura 5.05E +07 7.6 4.2 3.19E +07 1.2 10.0 12.0 12.0 Little Kitoi 4.80E +06 9 0.4 3.60E +06 0.4 25.7 11.1 12.0 Little 6.70E +06 7.5 1 6.70E +06 0.7 9.7 6.8 6.7 Waterfall Lower 170E +06 8.2 0.2 1.64E +06 9.8 8.5 Jennifer Red 2.08E +08 18.9 8.4 1.59E +08 4.0 6.2 24.7 24.8 • Saltery 2.20E +07 9.5 1.1 1.05E +07 0.4 25.0 21.0 20.0 Spiridon 3.18E +08 27.2 9.2 2.50E +08 7.1 4.9 34.7 34.6 Upper 4.10E +06 10.8 0.4 4.10E +06 2.2 4.8 10.6 10.3 Jennifer Upper 1.84E +07 11.4 1.2 1.37E +07 0.6 19.0 15.3 15.3 Malina Upper 2.08E+08 17.5 7.9 1.38E +08 4.2 6.2 26.2 26.3 Station • January 2011 ' Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 29 Associates 0 • 0 KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Table 12. Summary of annual P loading (kg /km accounting for water residence times. Permissible P loading levels are calculated for each lake at 50% of critical levels. The percentage that each lake P levels are relative to their permissible level is listed. Year Afognak Akalura Big Waterfall Frazer Hidden Rarluk Laura ittle tittle Waterfall Red Saltery Spiridon Upper Jennifer Upper Upper itoi Melina Station 1980 309 1981 158 1982 176 1983 275 1984 240 1985 247 262 1986 175 223 1987 386 227 299 1988 232 219 269 1989 203 326 286 69 223 1990 231 208 222 242 25 354 53 147 45 466 59 175 154 1991 209 206 262 44 215 91 427 393 83 317 176 1992 186 101 39 269 94 143 70 283 64 135 129 1993 145 254 213 20 306 38 176 76 249 50 0 167 129 1994 210 223 240 29 168 96 164 54 239 343 54 .3 206 1995 215 227 180 25 106 0 03 45 219 78 183 1996 207 177 159 40 208 190 39 327 67 211 1997 209 28 176 117 •05 34 259 59 174 1998 291 211 1999 228 30 142 •91 102 189 2000 467 129 11 38 .03 45 170 47 093 2001 54 1297 96 224 .32 403 26 74 2002 267 124 205 42 132 77 142 2003 274 45 191 73 85 185 2004 144 198 348 136 2005 319 104 289 69 2006 29 292 88 2007 61 2008 42 2009 207 173 26 193 252 86 2010 119 155 143 24 181 71 272 48 133 Mean 227 220 713 178 58 264 147 049 115 263 257 67 6 205 129 Permissible 351 163 1168 387 103 342 210 09 178 185 404 179 120 337 190 Percent of 65% 135% 31% 46% 56% 77% 70% .1% 55% 142% S4% 37% 49% 61% 68% Permissible January 2011 at Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 30 WAssociates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE P j V . : Table 13. Ranking and summary of phosphorus annual loadings accounting for lake water residence time expressed as kg /km Permissible levels of P are also provided along with the proportion of the permissible levels currently being met. The P loading for 2009,2010, and the average of all years are compared. These values indicate whether the current status is below the long -term average. Initial Ranking Relative to Ranking Ranking Mean Mean Proportion of Proportion of Year Tier All Years 2009-10 2009 2010 2009- All Permissible Permissible Permissible Level Ranking long -term Ave (1) (2) (3) 2010 Years Level All Years 2009 -2010 - Afognak 2 4 8 5 207 119 163 227 351 0.65 0.47 Akalura 2 7 12 8 155 155 220 163 1.35 0.95 131g 3 5 713 1168 0.61 Waterfall Crescent 2 NA 84 Frazer 1 5 3 4 173 143 158 178 387 0.46 0.41 Hidden 1 1 4 1 26 24 25 58 103 0.56 0.24 Karluk 1 3 11 6 193 181 187 264 342 0.77 0.55 Laura 3 10 147 210 0.70 Little Kitoi 2 5 249 409 0.61 Little 1 2 8 3 71 71 115 178 0.65 0.40 Waterfall Lower 2 NA 90 Jennifer Red 3 8 13 9 252 272 262 263 185 1.42 1.42 Saltery 3 8 257 404 0.64 Spiridon 1 6 1 2 86 48 67 67 179 0.37 0.38 Upper 2 2 46 120 0.39 Jennifer Upper 3 5 205 337 0.61 Malina Upper 3 9 9 7 133 133 129 190 0.68 0.70 Station (1) Ranking based on 2009 -2010 percent of permissible loading levels compared to long -term data average. (2) Ranking based on all years of data collected compared to permissible levels. Missing values indicate no estimate provided for water residence limes. (3) Ranking based on 2009 -2010 P levels relative to permissible loading rate. . January2011 (a Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 31 �f/A ssociates lb II II = sitilitli KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE - _ mss ® � — = - ^-_- 5.0 CANDIDATE LAKE ANALYSIS Based on the initial screening, we have examined the top candidate lakes in further detail and have focused on the Tier 1 lakes as they are also the lakes that are most likely to respond to nutrient additions. Of primary interest is the temporal trend in nutrient status over time, as this is one of the best indicators for rehabilitative benefits of nutrient additions. Unless some fundamental process has changed, such as landslides, volcanoes, glaciation, etc., historical productivity should be an obtainable goal. Nutrient additions need to be coordinated with escapement management as nutrients provide limited benefit if over - cropping occurs. In addition, large escapements provide nutrient loading as well and usually predict following year spring nutrient levels. Ideally, escapements could be adjusted to provide sufficient fry loading that is in balance with productivity of the lake. Of the Tier 1 lakes, all except Karluk have been developed through either fry /smolt stocking or fish pass installation and often a combination of both. Because those lakes have no history of salmon carcass nutrient loading, they would be expected to have lower nutrient loadings and most likely a zooplankton population that is adapted to low primary production and low levels of predation. The introduction of sockeye juveniles would be expected to result in immediate rapid decline of the zooplankton population and changes in the relative abundance of species, with the faster reproducing cladocerans replacing some of the copepods. Because of shorter life history cycles and more efficient grazing by sockeye, this change is initially beneficial as more efficient energy transfer occurs. However, as cropping increases with increased stocking rates or escapements, either zooplankton productivity will likely decline from overcropping or phytoplankton will limit the productivity because of relatively low nutrient levels. The history of all of the barren lakes that have been stocked with sockeye juveniles have rapidly reached a new equilibrium which may be at smolt production rates below that of CO other systems because of nutrient limitations. The following descriptions examine each of the primary candidate lakes, which are limited to Tier 1 lakes although others could be considered. Many of these lakes have had a history of nutrient supplementation; the general results and descriptions of the responses have been described by Schrof and Honnold (2003). 5.1 Spiridon Lake 5.1.1 Physical Limnology Spiridon Lake has a surface area = 9.2 km with a water residence time = 7.1 years (Kyle et al. 1990). An assessment of the euphotic zone depth indicates variability amoung years between 22 to 32 m (Figure 3) over a period from 1990 -2008. 0 January 2011 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 32 Associates -: - -- KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 34 32- C 30 - CL 73 28 N • 26 - V r 24 - 111 • 22 - • 20 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Figure 3: Spiridon Lake annual euphotic zone depth trends. The lake demonstrates consistent summer stratification trends and was isothermal during April and most May sampling periods. The mean annual turbidity for all months measured ranged from 0.4 to 0.9 NTU, with a mean of 0.6 NTU (1988 - 1999). The mean pH was 7.2 and the mean alkalinity was 21.5 mg /L (all months measured from 1988 - 2008). These values are consistent with an oligotrophic lake. 5.1.2 Nutrient Trends and Primary Productivity Annual average P and chlorophyll a values with standard errors are illustrated in Figure 4 and indicate relatively • poor correspondence in seasonal variations. The concentrations of P are very low for a sockeye salmon lake with long water residence times. The ultra oligotrophic status is also reflected in the depth of the euphotic zone (Figure 3). This lake is the most nutrient limited of any examined and would be expected to respond rapidly to nutrient supplementation. • January 2011 v F Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 33 Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 14 12 - 10- 1 - — Co 8 - - 7 O a cn 6- tT c t 4- I II , 2 0 . 1990 1995 2000 2005 ® 0.8 - 2 0.6 - I 01 — T TT > 0.4 - - T T o I I o O o U • 0.2 - ' + 0.0 1990 1995 2000 2005 Figure 4: Annual average P (top) and Chlorophyll a (bottom) concentrations in Spiridon Lake (error bars indicate 1 SE). • January 2011 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 34 Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 5.1.3 Zooplankton The zooplankton relative annual average abundance trends are illustrated in Figure 5, indicating no strong trend over time although 2006 -2009 indicated relative lower levels (Figure 5). Chlorophyll a does not indicate any trend relative to zooplankton biomass (Figure 6) based on monthly average data. There does not appear to be a downturn in recent years in terms of decreased zooplankton or Chlorophyll a. The primary driver is apparently nutrient limitations with very low P levels in 2006 -2008 (Figure 4). 1800 N 1600 - E E 1400 w 1200 - — m w - E 1000 - — — - o — — m 800 - - C 600 — ° 400 — o- — 0 200 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Figure 5: Zooplankton annual average biomass trends over two decades. 0.7 • • 0.6 - • O1 0.5 • • m >. 0.4 - .c • • 2 • 0 0.3 - L • U 0.2 - P • • 0.1 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 Zooplankton Biomass (mg /m Figure 6: Relationship of Spiridon Lake Chlorophyll a to zooplankton biomass (annual data). • January 2011 et Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 35 Associates - KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 5.1.4 Smolt and Fry Spiridon is relatively unique in that it has an excellent time series of smolt outmigrants, owing to the required transport of smolt over the existing falls to safely migrate out to sea. The smolt size and weight trends show highly autocorrelated relationships among years with 1999 and 2008 having produced the smallest smolt (Figure 7). There also does not appear to be any relationship of smolt production to the biomass of zooplankton (Figure 8) suggesting both bottom up and top down process may have occurred during the stocking history of Spiridon Lake. 200 a Age 1 I 1 Age 2 150 - E E t 100 m C o J 50 - 0 , _ _ _..__— , 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 70 60- ® Age1 J Age 2 50 - m 40 . 0 30 20 10 o II, Jill! II 111, 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 Figure 7: Spiridon Lake interannual trends in length (top) and weight (bottom) of age 1 and 2 smolts. 0 y -. January 2011 ' 9 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 36 Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE • E 1800 m 1600 - 1400 - • • a) a 1200 - • • N • 1000 - N • • E eoo - • c 600 - 0 1 S - • c 400- •. • co TD_ 0 200 N 2.Oe +5 4.0e +5 6.0e +5 8.Oe +5 1.0e +6 1.2e +6 1.4e +6 1.6e +6 Outmigrating smolts at year x - 1 Figure 8. Standing crop biomass of zooplankton at year x -1 of smolt outmigrating at year x from Spiridon Lake. 5.2 Karluk Lake Karluk Lake has been the focus of ninety years of limnological investigation and is the most studied sockeye salmon lake in the world. Ever since Juday did his original investigations (Juday et al. 1932), the role of nutrients in maintaining the historical levels of productivity has been the subject of extensive analysis and investigations. • Even during the preparation of this report another publication has been released on the role of marine derived nutrient fluxes in maintaining ecological diversity in this and other sockeye systems in Alaska. This lake is probably the poster child for using sediment based marine originated nutrients for understanding the role of salmon carcasses in maintaining nutrient levels in sockeye salmon ecosystems. However, the answers are not always clear and some of the literature is contradictory. The reasons are many, but several stand out. Climatic effects on the marine environment and these effects on adult returns may mask responses to nutrients when adult return rates are used to evaluate in -lake processes; hence most analyses that use spawner- recruit analysis may not have sufficient precision to measure in -lake processes. Second, the number of eggs and fry produced essentially closely co -vary with carcass nutrient loads as the emerging fry following the spawning event will be the beneficiaries of the increased nutrient loads. With sockeye systems, there are typically very strong density dependent relationships that cause rapid declines in rates of return and smolt production on systems that have over - abundance of emergent fry, as too many fish compete for too little food, resulting in very poor return rates. The extreme example is Frazer Lake when escapements were allowed to exceed 400,000 fish and less than 50,000 returned from that brood year. Clearly, nutrients from carcasses cannot make up for the excess number of fry produced. In the case of Karluk, stable isotope analysis of the sediments has created thousands of years of history of escapements with approximately decadal levels of resolution. These data, when coupled with paleolimnological data as to phytoplankton composition in the same sediment, provide a verified history of the nutrient status of Karluk Lake as related to escapement levels. These data also point out the role of marine climate impacts on return rates and escapements but the effects of decreased ocean temperature may also impact the Kodiak sockeye salmon rearing environment. However, both of these processes are likely density independent and should not have major implications in harvest management or managing desirable nutrient loads to Karluk Lake. They are strongly indicative that prior to the onset of fishing and during the development of the commercial fishery on Karluk Lake stocks, nutrient levels were much higher than current levels. Karluk's • _ January 2011 et Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 37 Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE current status, in terms of sockeye salmon production per unit area, is below that of Red and Upper Station Lakes, where it most likely had the highest productivity of any sockeye salmon lake in North America during the first part of the past century. The data presented are the most recent limnological data, but these need to be put in context with the above discussion. Productivity levels of Karluk Lake are far below historical productivity, except during ancient periods of very cold climatic regimes. 5.2.1 Nutrient Trends The Karluk Lake nutrient trends have indicated relatively low phosphorus levels in recent years (2009 -2010) with elevated levels during years of high escapement (Figure 9). Chlorophyll a also shows a positive relationship to P when the entire data set is included (Figure 10). 12 o- �T i }f I tZ T111 T I i 0 4- a. ® 2 0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Figure 9: Mean total phosphorus during summer (June to August) in Karluk Lake. 12 • 10 - 8 _ • m g - • • • • • L •• D • 2 4 eye O U 2 - • o f {• • •• i • X•I• 0- 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Phosporus (ug /L) Figure 10: Relationship between chlorophyll a and total phosporus in Karluk Lake for all samples and stations, 1980 -2006 (y = 1.125 + 0.0846x; Pc0.001, R2= 0.060). Note: Six outliers (individual samples) were removed from the dataset. Four of these had very high phosphorus (40 -70) and very low chlorophyll. January 2011 art Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 38 Associates x�'7 KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE ?;- • Figure 11 is a plot from all years where previous year total escapement is compared with mean P from the following year, including all of the recent data since 2010. These data suggest a clear link between fish carcasses and subsequent P levels similar to the relationship described in Schmidt et al. (1998) and the slope is similar to what would be expected if the loading relationship of 60% of the nutrient budget was from carcasses as discussed by Koenings and Burkett (1987). If all data except that collected since 2004 are excluded the strength of the relationship is maintained with the slope slightly higher (Figure 12). The effect of carcass nutrient loading on zooplankton abundance is two pronged in that nutrients provide increased forage while the increased fry loading causes cropping. As illustrated in the introduction, escapements need to be balanced with nutrient loads in the short -term. In the long term, reduction in escapements will create increased oligotrophic conditions as has been illustrated in the following graphs. Nutrient supplementation has the advantage of increasing forage without increasing fry loading so that higher levels of production can be obtained that can at least partially restore the system to the trophic state that occurred prior to commercial harvests. 10 2hP 9 - *0 w e 1983 e 1989 0 1987 2 e 986 i 8 - o 199 at e 1980 To c 7 - e 1992 et e 984 e 1946 • i 6 e 1993 a ee AP2 a 199006 5 - 0 198) 2010 4 . , 0 500000 1000000 1500000 Prior Year Escapement (Early + Late runs) Figure 11: Relationship between total escapement (early and late runs) and mean phosphorus the following year in Karluk Lake, 1980 -2010 (y = 5.326+ 0.000003 x; R2= 0.31). • January 2011 et. Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 39 Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE • 10 • 2004 9 - • 2005 8 - a 7 _ C 6 - e 2P • 2006 3 5 • 2010 a 4 - 3 , 0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 1200000 Prior Year Escapement (Early + Late runs) Figure 12: Relationship between total escapement (early and late runs) and mean phosphorus the following year in Karluk Lake, 2004 -2010 (y = 3.8864+ 0.000005 x, R = 0.57). ® 5.2.2 Primary Productivity Chlorophyll a levels appear to correlate with the previous year's escapement levels (Figure 13) that reflect bottom -up processes likely related to P from carcasses. Although chlorophyll a increases would be expected to correlate with increased zooplankton biomass, in years with high escapements, declines in zooplankton abundance may correlate with increased chlorophyll a levels because of reduced cropping of phytoplankton. 1.5 • 1.0- • • c L O. d • O O L • • • • 0.0 2.0e +5 4.0e +5 6.0e +5 8.0e +5 1.0e +6 1.2e +6 Escapement at year x Figure 13: Relationship between total escapement (early and late runs) and mean chlorophyll a the following year in Karluk Lake, 1980 -2006. (y = -8.01 + 0.625'67(x); P= 0.003; R2= 0.40). CIO January 2011 t a Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 40 A ssociates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 5.2.3 Zooplankton As previously discussed, zooplankton biomass levels are often a poor indicator of secondary production as they can respond quickly to cropping by juvenile sockeye salmon and other pelagic predators. With low predation their standing crop abundance levels would be expected to respond to nutrient levels while at high fry abundance levels they would decrease due to cropping. The time trend (Figure 14) illustrates large levels of interannual variation but a strong negative relationship to chlorophyll a levels, indicating cropping (Figure 15) but a poor relationship to subsequent return per spawner (Figure 16). This is probably the result of cropping during periods of high escapement. Smolt production was measured in a limited number of years and also represents a limited relationship to zooplankton biomass (Figure 17). 3500 E 3000 om 2500 N E 2000 o _ m 1500 - 0 c 1000 - r - _ 3 500 - N ri 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Figure 14: Mean zooplankton biomass during summer (June to August) in Karluk Lake, 1981 to 2010. Units of observation were daily total biomass (sum of all species' biomasses, mean of sample stations). 2000 • Ci 1800 - E m 1600 - E — 1400 - • • • N tn m 1200 - E • • 0 1000 - • c 800 - • • 600 - co E . • 400 o • N 200 - 0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Chlorophyll a (pg /L) Figure 15: Relationship between zooplankton biomass and chlorophyll a in Karluk Lake. Data are annual means of total biomass and chlorophyll a during summer (June to August), 1981 -2006 (P= 0.001; R2 =0.50; y = 1516– 404x). • January 2011 (f 3 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 41 \{/ A ssociates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE • 3.5 • • 3.0 - T O 2.5 - N • @ 2.0 - a • • • • a 1.5 - • 1.0 • 0 • 05 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 Zooplankton Biomass at year x + 1 (mg /m Figure 16: Returns per spawner for a given brood year and mean summer zooplankton biomass the following year (1983- 2000). 4.5e +6 ® + 4.Oe +6 - • x • `m 3.5e +6 - • 0 >, 3.0e +6 - w 2.5e +6 - E . 2.0e +6 - 0 1.5e +6 - E D 1.Oe +6 - • • • 5.0e +5 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 Zooplankton Biomass at year x (mg /m Figure 17: Relationship between the mean zooplankton biomass in Karluk Lake during summer (June to August) and number of smolts (all ages) emigrating from the lake in the following year. 5.2.4 Smolt and Adult Returns The relationship between zooplankton and cropping levels are compounded in Karluk by the presence of three year classes where a successful year class may exert significant cropping over three years, and the number of smolt emigrating may reflect recruitment from multiple brood years. Because of this interaction, and the influence of carcasses on primary production levels, developing a predictive equation is difficult, given the small number of years when reliable smolt information was collected. Figures 18 -21 illustrate the complexity of interpreting the • relationships between smolt production and zooplankton over the 30 years of modern data collection. V =' January 2011 et. Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 42 A ssociates _ KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE S 50 +6 4e +6 - 0 O E 3e +6 `o 8 E 2e +6 = o e.6 III11► �� v 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Figure 18: Number of smolts (all ages) emigrating from the Karluk Lake. 2.5e +6 ■ Age 1 2.0e +6 - o Age 2 w mom Age3 TD o Age4 N 1.5e +6 `0 8 E z • 5.0e +5 0.0 AI _I I ■i 196 1-1968 1900-196'1 199 1-1ggi 199 -2001 Figure 19: Number of smolts emigrating from the Karluk Lake by age and time period. (. ' 3500 3.5e +6 O t O Zooplankton - Age tat year x+1 + E Age at year x +2 - 3.Oe 6 3000 - % - -- Age at year x+3 2 500 - 2.5e +6 Y • t 2 000 - - 2.Oe +fi w m �. • - - 1.5e +6 0 E 1500 - i 1 _ 5 - o - - 1.0e +6 E m c 1000 o _ - �. - 5.0e +5 m 500 - r• ` Ti 0.0 o o 0 N 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Figure 20: Number of smolts emigrating from Karluk Lake compared to the mean zooplankton biomass during the smolt 's first summer in the lake. • January 2011 Or Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 43 Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 160 masa Age 1 I Age 2 140 ® Age 3 E 120 s a9 100 a I' —1 1 c 80 r 60 i 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Figure 21: Mean length and weight of sockeye salmon smolt emigrating from Karluk Lake, 1979 -2001 Adult return per spawner data (Figure 22) also show considerable variation but not as much as other systems, ® likely because of the large smolt produced at an older age, which will have less variation due to marine conditions than most other systems. The recent downward trend in escapement levels (Figure 23) also reflects poor total returns, similar to levels first observed in the early 1980's. Because of the large influence of marine conditions on the return rates and escapement levels obtained, it is very difficult to relate freshwater production to these parameters. However, the long -term trends previously described (Schmidt et al. 1998) do reflect an overall parallel with productivity declines of the system and marine nutrient loads. 10 8 . — Late run Zil Early run 3 - -- Total m N 6 m a c 4 0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Brood Year Figure 22: Returns per spawner in Karluk Lake. January 2011 ' Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 44 A ssociates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE • 1200 Early Run 1000 - Late Run - o Total c co 800 - 0 0 600 - v \J a00 4 m 200 - 0- 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Figure 23: Total escapement of sockeye salmon to Karluk Lake system. 5.3 Frazer Lake Frazer Lake was a barren lake and has been stocked and subjected to lake fertilization in the past, with runs maintained by a fishway for adult passage. As with Karluk, extensive analysis of this system has been conducted with regard to limnological parameters and carcass contributions to the nutrient budget and impacts of grazing on zooplankton community composition. The lake fertilization program has been previously analyzed • (Koenings and Kyle, 1997). The data presented here summarize the basic limnological trends observed and their relationship to nutrient limits to production. 5.3.1 Physical Limnology Frazer Lake has a surface area of 16.6 km and a water residence time of 2.1 years (Edmundson et al. 1999). The mean euphotic zone depth across all years is 16.8 m. Mean surface temperature during July to August over all years was 12.6 °C (range: 11.1- 14.6 °C). The mean annual turbidity for all months measured ranged from 0.5 to 1.1 NTU, with a mean of 1.1 NTU. The mean pH was 6.9 and the mean alkalinity was 13.4 mg /L (all months measured from 1985- 1996). Because of its situation near Red and Karluk lake on the south end of Kodiak Island, it has served as a control as to the effects of introduction of a salmon run into a barren system. 5.3.2 Nutrient Trends Total P trends reached their peak in 1989 (Figure 24) and subsequently stabilized between 5 and 6 pg /L during the period of sampling record through 1996. This value is relatively oligotrophic for lakes with as long of waterretention time (2.1 years). The nutrient supplementation program was conducted from 1988 -1992. • January 2011 - 'PGalder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 45 Associates A KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 10 8 J – — T 6 -p 2 - - _ r O — - L • to 4- O L a 2- • , y u. a 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 Figure 24: Mean total phosphorus during summer (June to August) in Frazer Lake. The TP concentrations demonstrate a positive correlation with chlorophyll a (Figure 25). 2 • 1 - • 1 •: • • N T a ' rte • t • • • •� a L • • 3 • • U -2 • • -3 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1,8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2,8 In Phosphorus Figure 25: Relationship between the natural logarithms of chlorophyll a and total phosphorus in Frazer Lake for all days sampled, 1985 -1996 (P<0.0001; R2= 0.074; y= -1.193 + 0.645x). The spring TP values of 2009 and 2010 were 4.47 and 3.7 pg /L respectively indicating the lake is currently near its lowest post- fishery development TP values. The 2010 value was used for evaluation of the magnitude of a nutrient supplementation program that would likely be most beneficial. 5.3.3 Primary Productivity The temporal trend of chlorophyll a concentrations (Figure 26) reflects basically the nutrient concentrations although there are some anomalies. These anomalies are most likely related to changes in zooplankton community composition and abundance, which influence the cropping rate on phytoplankton. The concentrations reflect a highly oligotrophic lake. 0 January 2011 • Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 46 Associates =- KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 2.5 2.0 - _ J — 1 _ m 1.5 - - T - _c o 1.0 - - O U 0.5 - �- 0.0 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 Figure 26: Mean chlorophyll a concentration during summer -fall (July to September) in Frazer Lake, 1985 -1996. 5.3.4 Zooplankton Zooplankton biomass has demonstrated a very large range of values (Figure 27), most likely reflecting the evolution of the system from a barren lake to a sockeye lake. Top -down pressures from grazing sockeye salmon are likely the primary cause of the variation although nutrient availability will also impact the values observed. • 2000 or 1800 - E o, 1600 1400 1200 E 0 1000 g 800 O ^ 1 600 I - N 0 400 _ O (7 �{ 20 _- clIIn_�_4J �Il� .0 L I Li 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Figure 27: Mean zooplankton biomass during summer (June to August) for Frazer Lake, 1985 to 2009. Units of observation were daily total biomass (sum of all species' biomasses, mean of sample stations). • o -. January 2011 a ` Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 47 �® Associates `• -- KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 800 • N 700 m E 600 m w 500 E • 0 400 w • 0 300 • • m 200 • 0 100 • • • • • 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 Chlorophyll a (pg /L) Figure 28: Relationship (NS) between zooplankton biomass and chlorophyll a in Frazer Lake, 1985 -1996 (P =0.8). Data are annual means of total biomass and chlorophyll a during summer (June to August). This effect of grazing is also likely reflected in the lack of any observed relationship between chlorophyll a and zooplankton biomass (Figure 28) and the "apparent" humpback relationship between zooplankton and number of smolts emigrating from the lake the following year (Figure 29). 1e +7 + • K 8e +6 m • 6e +6 - o • /. 4e +6 - \ • 2e +6 • 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Zooplankton biomass at year x Figure 29: Relationship between the mean zooplankton biomass in Frazer Lake during summer (June to August) and number of smolts (all ages) emigrating from the lake in the following year (P =0.2). • V y January 2011 f ` Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 48 Associates Q KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE s 5.3.5 Smolt and Adult Returns The relationship of smolt to zooplankton and the current status of zooplankton biomass is illustrated in Figure 30. The first year class strength is likely dependent upon available zooplankton densities whereas the hold -overs that smolt as age 2 or age 3, may provide inter -year competition for zooplankton. From 1996 onward until 2001 the number of smolts declined (Figure 31) and generally paralleled a decrease in weight with variable zooplankton levels of abundance. Total escapements have been highly variable during the history of the development of the fishery with very low return rates per spawner occurring after very high escapements (Figure 32). 2000 = zeoplane on 1e +7 01— 1800 _ — Age al year x+1 E Age at year . +2 8e +6 lie 1600 - - -- Age al year E :: o 1400 - 6e +6 E • m 1200 - y E m 1000 - _ - 4e +6 0 0 800- . • – a 600 - 1 – - 2e +6 CO �� Z o . 400 - 1 o . _ - N 200 - f7 0 4nn[1n)1 1) 0 Ilnr nil 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 • Figure 30: Number of smolts emigrating from Frazer Lake compared to the mean zooplankton biomass during the smolt's first summer in the lake. 20 ie +7 I MO Age 1 18 -O Age2 m 16 Strolls 8e +6 t 14 0 3 • 12 1 6e +6 ai n 10 5 0 E 8 4 +6 E N m 6 Z > 4 ■ ' 2e +6 l 0 0 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Figure 31: Mean weight of sockeye salmon smolts emigrating from Frazer Lake, 1989 -2001 and total number of outmigrating smolts and size by age. 0 January 2011 '- '. Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 49 ® Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 600000 500000 - 400000 - A n 300000 - m V i ^\ / J 200000 - I V 100000 0 , 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Figure 32: Total escapement of sockeye salmon to Frazer Lake system. The relationship between escapement levels and TP (Figure 33) is very weak although historically, TP levels were quite low prior to introduction of sockeye salmon into the system. This may be related to spawning location or other factors affecting annual nutrient loading. 0 7.5 J • m 7.0 - Y • + 6.5- • `m 6.0 - • • 18 5.5 • • U • 2 o 5.0 - L d • • N 0- 4.5 - • a 4.0 • 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Escapement at year x (thousands) Figure 33: Relationship between sockeye salmon escapement to the Frazer Lake system and mean daily total phosphorus during summer (June to August) the following year. 5.4 Hidden Lake Hidden Lake is another system that was initially barren but sockeye were established through stocking. The system is maintained by annual fry, fingerling or presmolt stocking and has continued to have a terminal fishery based on the returns produced by the stocking program. The system has been very volatile with collapse of the zooplankton population, most likely from over - cropping. • January 2011 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 50 Associates = KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE • 5.4.1 Physical Limnology Hidden Lake has a surface area of 1.9 km and a water residence time of 2.8 years. The euphotic zone depth has trended downward in recent years (Figure 34) with an average EZ of 9.9 meters, just slightly above the average depth of 10.8 m. The shallowness of the lake, relative to light penetration, may be a limiting factor in maintaining zooplankton populations because sockeye sight feed and the zooplankton species cannot migrate sufficiently to depth during the day to escape predation. 16 E 14- 0 D 12 \ Ma-7 .\\\,, s W 8 - 6 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Figure 34: Interannual trends in euphotic zone depth. Values are July to August means, 1990 -2008. Mean euphotic zone • depth across all years is 9.9 m. 5.4.2 Nutrient Trends The TP trend has been relatively stable during the history of sockeye salmon stocking of this system, although conditions remain highly oligotrophic (Figure 35). The relationship between nutrient levels and chlorophyll a (Figure 36) is positive but weak. 12 10 "Si m 8 z 0 6 0 T^ T 2 • 0 - r , 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Figure 35: Mean total phosphorus during summer (June to August) in Hidden Lake. • ti - January 2011 ( /�� Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 51 Y./ Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 2 •• J ••• 0- •• ••• • • m c 2 O r -3- i• • • U • •• r• • • • • -4 - • -5 •• 0 5 10 15 20 25 Phosphorus (µg /L) Figure 36: Relationship between natural logarithm of chlorophyll a and total phosphorus in Hidden Lake for samples and stations, 1987 -2008 (P= 0.038; R2= 0.026; y= - 0.062x +1.7). 5.4.3 Primary Productivity The time series of chlorophyll a productivity during the summer indicates a high level of variation early in the stocking history of this system with relatively stable levels since 2001 (Figure 37). The values reflect a highly ® oligotrophic lake. 25 2.0 - O) N • LS- — — L 0 _ O 1.0 O — • 0. R 0.0 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Figure 37: Mean chlorophyll a concentration during summer -fall (July to September) in Hidden Lake, 1987 -2008. January 2011 & Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 52 Associates $ - KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE e 5.4.4 Zooplankton The zooplankton biomass has been highly variable during the stocking history (Figure 38). This reflects an evolution of the zooplankton community to more predator- resistant forms (Schrof and Honnold 2003). The variability likely reflects the cropping by sockeye plants and changes in community composition. This also affects the relationship between zooplankton densities and chlorophyll a (Figure 39), 1200 N - E 1000 - m E - rn 800 - co m E O 600 - m _ c x 400 - _ ao o 200 - - N 0 El 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Figure 38: Mean zooplankton biomass during summer (June to August) in Hidden Lake, 1989 to 2008. Units of observation • were daily total biomass (sum of all species' biomasses, mean of sample stations). 1200 N • E 1000 - o) E N 800 - 0 co E • O 600 - • • m • . • c -. • 400 - • c • • • • co • • 0 200 - • • • • N 0 , 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 12 1.4 1.6 Chlorophyll a (pg /L) Figure 39: Relationship between zooplankton biomass and chlorophyll a in Hidden Lake. Data are annual means of total biomass and chlorophyll a during summer, 1990 -2008. • V -• January 2011 GOId¢[ Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 53 at Associates - KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 5.4.5 Smolt and Adult Returns Because Hidden Lake is often stocked in recent years primarily with pre -smolt (by biomass), with no natural production, the relationship to limnological parameters in the lake is difficult to establish (Appendix E2,Schrof and Honnold 2003). The lake's stocking program is most likely best established through adaptive management by evaluating catches in the terminal harvest area and apportioned catches from the other fisheries. Stocking rates should be adjusted in concert with any nutrient addition program. The lake's production of sockeye salmon smolt is clearly limited by both nutrient status (low available P) and by the high levels of cropping of the zooplankton community by the stocked sockeye. Because much of the biomass of the smolt and subsequent impacts on survival are determined by the hatchery feeding program, the trade -off of smolt hatchery rearing versus nutrient enrichment programs to provide natural food and potentially earlier life history stage stocking are primarily an economic issue. The shallow nature of the lake may limit development of a predator resistant population of zooplankton, regardless of nutrient status. 5.5 Little Waterfall Lake Little Waterfall Lake has a history of nutrient enrichment and stocking after installation of fish passes to facilitate salmon spawning migrations. Schrof and Honnold (2003) provide a descriptive history and data tables that describe nutrient levels, fertilizer additions, stocking rates and time series of water quality and limnological parameters covering the period to 2001. Several factors have likely influenced the success of the sockeye salmon juvenile stocking program. Given the lack of pelagic predators historically, the system was rapidly invaded by stickleback, which probably continue to compete with sockeye salmon for available forage. ® The stocking of pre -smolt may give the sockeye a competitive advantage but their migration out of the system may provide windows of opportunity for stickleback to thrive in the lake. In addition, the lack of predators allowed a copepod community, with Diaptomus spp. as the dominant species, to thrive in the system. This population rapidly collapsed following the introduction of sockeye and stickleback into the system. Nutrient supplementation continued at least from 1993 through 2001. As with Hidden Lake, the shallow character of this lake may limit the development of a predator- resistant population of zooplankton as they cannot escape into the darkness during the daytime. 5.5.1 Physical Limnology Little Waterfall Lake has a surface area of 1.0 km and a water residence time of 0.2 -0.7 years (Edmundson et al. 1994). The mean depth is 6.8 m and the euphotic zone depth has ranged between 5 and 10 meters over the past two decades (Figure 40). • . January 2011 ° t Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 54 Associates h - =- KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Y c • 11 1 a1 0 8 U O 7 r Q w 6_ 5 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Figure 40: Interannual trends in euphotic zone depth. Values are July to August means, 1990 -2008. Mean euphotic zone depth across all years is 7.5 m. The mean surface temperature during July to August was 15.4 °C (range: 13.0- 17.7 °C). The mean annual turbidity for all months measured ranged from 0.8 to 2.0 NTU, with a mean of 1.2 NTU (1990- 2000). The mean • pH was 6.9 and the mean alkalinity was 13.4 mg /L (all months measured from 1990 - 2003). 5.5.2 Nutrient Trends The measure of primary productivity as chlorophyll a shows a general increase over time (Figure 41) and a positive relationship with TP (Figure 42). This suggests a benefit was likely achieved through nutrient additions to the system. The seasonal trend has generally been an increase in TP and a general increase over the last two decades (Figure 43), paralleling nutrient additions. This is also indicated in TN:TP ratios (by weight) that have declined over time (Figure 44). However, P is still the limiting nutrient in the system. 14 12- 10 'L T T — T 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 • Figure 41: Mean total phosphorus during summer (June to August) in Little Waterfall Lake. • iY January 2011 F Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 55 Associates F = KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 2 1- •••••• • • • •• • no o , IA • • t • . o / ! i o _ L • '— % •• • • = • • •• = 2 -3 - -4 , .• , , 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 In Phosphorus Figure 42: Relationship between natural logarithms of chlorophyll a and total phosphorus in Little Waterfall Lake for all samples and stations, 1990 -2003 (P<0.001: R2 =0.23; y = -2.7 + 1.2x). 1990 -1995 1996 -1999 2000 -2003 , . . . __ , , , , __ , i , , , _15 ® - -- -- ° o s 0 - 7 -•—•—.. — fr\--. — N.—. 0 5 2 m 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month Month Month Figure 43: Seasonal trends in total phosphorus in Little Waterfall Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). 1990 -1995 1996 -1999 2000 -2003 _ , , , , , , _ _ , , , , _ _ , , , , , ,- 200 - - - - - -150 z v - \--•---•—•—• --•--- -- \ -100 XI 0 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month Month Month Figure 44: Seasonal trends in nitrogen to phosphorus ratio in Little Waterfall Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). 0 January 2011 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 56 A ssociates c - KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE • The nutrient trends generally are following the time series related to nutrient additions to the system, both within and among years. 5.5.3 Primary Productivity Primary productivity, as reflected by chlorophyll a concentrations, indicates the highly oligotrophic nature of this system in 1990 without nutrient enrichment (Figure 45) and reflects the P loading in the system through nutrient additions from 1991 -2001. 3.5 3.0 0) 2.5 s 0 2.0 - - _ >, L - - a 1.5- 2 O _ _ = 1.0- U 0.5 0.0 - 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 Figure 45: Mean chlorophyll a concentration during summer -fall (July to September) in Little Waterfall Lake. 5.5.4 Zooplankton • The zooplankton biomass indicated a rapid downward response to sockeye salmon stocking (Figure 46) and the invasion of stickleback, with the copepod population rapidly declining. As with the other lakes, this parameter is a poor indicator of productivity because of the cropping effect of fish on standing crop biomass. The lack of any relationship between chlorophyll a concentrations and zooplankton biomass also reflect this top -down effect (Figure 47). 1200 E 1000 - O) - E w 800 - N N E 600 m 400 - D 0 200 • ❑ — HRH _ _ N HnHp HRH - rinn Rnn 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Figure 46: Mean zooplankton biomass during summer (June to August) in Little Waterfall Lake, 1990 to 2009. Units of observation were daily total biomass (sum of all species' biomasses, mean of sample stations). • January 2011 t ' Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 57 A ssociates if = KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE • 1200 (E 1000 - rn • 800 - En m E 600 - 0 m c 400 - ' Y N 200 - • • • N • 0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Chlorophyll a (µg /L) Figure 47: Relationship between zooplankton biomass and chlorophyll a in Little Waterfall Lake. Data are annual means of total biomass and chlorophyll a during summer (June to August), 1990 -2003. 5.5.5 Smolt and Adult Returns Because Little Waterfall Lake is stocked with primarily pre -smolt and the lake apparently has heavy populations of stickleback, with no natural sockeye runs, the relationship of sockeye production to limnological parameters in the lake is difficult to establish (Appendix F2, Schrof and Honnold 2003). Without understanding the changes in stickleback numbers in recent years, the lake's stocking program is most likely best established through adaptive management by evaluating catches in the terminal harvest area and apportioned catches from the other fisheries. Stocking rates should be adjusted in concert with any nutrient addition program. The lake's primary productivity clearly is limited by nutrients (low P) and production of sockeye salmon is likely limited by high levels of cropping on the zooplankton population by the stocked sockeye and native stickleback. Because much of the biomass of the smolt and subsequent impacts on survival are determined by the hatchery feeding program, the trade -off of smolt hatchery rearing versus nutrient enrichment programs to provide natural food and potentially earlier life history stage stocking are primarily an economic issue. 6.0 DISCUSSION The lakes that should be considered for nutrient enrichment are presented with no particular priority, although Spiridon stands out as the most deficient in nutrients and in the absence of salmon carcasses, will likely benefit substantially through nutrient additions that would simulate a natural system. As fry loading is carefully regulated, balancing increased productivity with increased loading would make this system unique in its ability to accommodate both forms of enhancement. As most of the lakes are capable of being fertilized, cost effectiveness needs to be considered along with other factors. The rate of fertilizer that can be applied was originally (ADF &G 1978) as follows: "A. Fertilizer application 1) Nutrients in the form of inorganic fertilizer will be added to the epilimnion of the lake at a N:P atomic ratio of 15:1, and at an inorganic phosphate concentration that matches that of the spring turnover period. 2) Fertilization should commence as soon as possible after stratification and should be applied every two weeks during the spring- summer growing period in a liquid form at a temperature equivalent to the surface • water. January 2011 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 58 A ssociates - KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE • 3) Depending on lake size and basin configuration, the entire lake or portions thereof will be fertilized. Nutrient addition will be of sufficient quantity to maintain the phosphorus concentration of the spring overturn period." The guidelines are somewhat ambiguous as "at an inorganic phosphate concentration that matches that of the spring turnover period" doesn't incorporate the concept of loading directly and in practice (Edmundson et al. 1998), loading rates have attempted to match 90% of the permissible level as defined by Vollenweider (1976), which equates to a spring turnover concentration value of 9 pg /L. Further, Ashley and Stockner (2003) have prepared a protocol for applying limiting nutrients to inland waters that encompasses lessons learned from many years of experience in British Columbia and Alaska. They refer to Vollenweider (1976) for guidance for determining loading rates but state that N:P ratios of 10:1 (Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen: Total Dissolved Phosphorus), which is significantly below levels recommended (15:1) in ADF &G (1978) and is currently in practice in British Columbia large lake fertilization programs. Table 14 provides a preliminary summary of the annual fertilizer requirements to meet the 15:1 N:P guidelines but decreasing nitrogen levels to 10:1 would not present significant risks because of the high natural loading of N in all of the lakes under consideration. The fertilizer formulation used follows the recommendations from Ashley and Stockner (2003), which is currently commonly used in British Columbia lake fertilization programs. Limiting N concentrations to 28 -0 -0 and blending the two types to provide a stepwise increment of increased nitrogen is recommended to provide optimal phytoplankton community development of edible algae. Table 14. Preliminary cost - benefit analysis of nutrient supplementation for selected Kodiak candidate lakes. • Little Upper Year 4 Afognak Frazer Hidden Karluk Waterfall Spiridon Station 2010 P Annual Areal Loads (kg /km 119 72 22 80 71 38 89 Permissible P Annual Areal Loads (kg/km2) f 351 196 95 151 178 140 127 2010 Prercent of Permissible (LT) ` 34% 37% 23% 53% 40% 27% 70% • Surface Area (km 5.3 16.6 1.9 39.4 1.0 9.2 7.9 2010 Spring Loads 10 -34 -0 (MT) 1 7.0 11.6 0.8 14.9 0.6 5.5 1.4 2010 Spring Loads 28 -0-0 (MT) ` 22.7 37.6 2.6 48.1 1.9 17.8 4.4 2010 Phosphorus (kg) 4 1042 1724 120 2207 89 814 201 2010 Nitrogen (kg) 7066 11693 816 14967 605 5519 1362 2010 Phosphorus (mg /m2) 4 197 104 63 56 89 88 25 2010 Nitrogen (mg /m2) 1333 704 430 380 605 600 172 Fertilizer N:P ' 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 Current Adult Retum Per km ' 11,905 28,897 17,895 34,987 23,500 28,135 84,330 Current Escapement Goal 34,000 105,000 0 445,000 0 129,421 216,000 Current Average harvest 29,097 374,690 34,001 933,488 23,500 129,421 450,207 Expected enhanced return per km 31.513 1 70,290 I 70,024 1 59,412 1 52,875 1 93,783 1 108,424 Total Increased Harvest 103.924 1 687,124 I 99,045 1 962,341 1 29,375 1 603,964 1 190,345 Cost Benefit Ratio a 2.3 1 7.5 ( 3.9 1 8.7 1 1.2 I 11.0 1 6.2 Application rates should be adjusted in- season with monitoring of P and N levels and chlorophyll a concentrations in real time to make adjustments in loading rates. Factors such as large escapements, and lower or higher run -off than average, can affect actual loading rates. Because the guidelines are inherently conservative and historical loading rates on Kodiak's natural systems at Akalura and Red Lake are substantially higher than recommended levels, the risks of over - fertilizing a particular system are minimal if the guidelines and monitoring are followed. • -i: January 2011 ( / � F' Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 59 arm _ KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE A spreadsheet template has been prepared in a separate document to assist KRAA in a preliminary estimation of costs and benefits. The cost - benefits are highly approximate and are based on many assumptions. The expected return rate per unit area of the candidate lakes after fertilization is within values observed in other lakes in the region. The cost benefit estimates provide a relative ranking of the candidate lakes and should not be used for other purposes until refined costs and other parameter estimates are obtained. Other factors, such as predation, competition, and weather, all are future uncertainties that may affect the predictions. Of forty sockeye salmon lakes that have been fertilized in Canada and Alaska, the vast majority have demonstrated benefits to sockeye production and none have demonstrated negative impacts. Weekly applications are desirable but biweekly can be considered to reduce application costs. If multiple lakes are to be considered, increased efficiencies may result by applications occurring over multiple lakes on a single run. Larger lakes will generally be more cost effective than smaller lakes, but may not be affordable. The ultimate decision as to what lakes to fertilize will be dependent upon regulatory acceptability along with fertilizer, analytical, and application costs. Benefits are much more difficult to estimate than costs as marine survival may vary high or low during the course of the nutrient supplementation program. Biological factors that have influenced results in other systems include the influence of stickleback in competition with sockeye fry, predation by resident fish, production of inedible phytoplankton, and failure to maintain escapements adequate to utilize the increased production (both high and low). Although there are additional factors, such as rare weather and geological events, the previous factors are most likely to influence results. Although in the long run, global climate change may influence outcomes, the ® uncertainty is much more likely to come from weather and short-term climate effects such as the well -known North Pacific Decade! Oscillation, which impacts all North Pacific salmon stocks. Despite the uncertainty of outcomes (Hyatt et al. 2004), the benefits of nutrient supplementation programs have been determined to be cost effective by other authors, but with high degrees of uncertainty. As the nutrient addition programs are well within historic levels, and based on 30 years of history with over 30 lake nutrient supplementation programs, including several on Kodiak Island, the downside risks of harming existing ecosystems are negligible. The primary risk is related to the uncertainty of economic benefit because of the factors outlined above. However, this uncertainty (what will the weather be this year ?) is inherent with all forms of agriculture and the wild stock salmon harvest business as the risk factors outlined are not uncommon, but can be reduced to acceptable levels with diligence and robust monitoring programs. 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Ultimately, the decision to proceed with lake fertilization lies with the KRAA Board who will be outlaying the financial resources to undertake the program and will largely depend upon the current costs for such a program versus the assumed future values of returning fish, typically 5 or more years in the future. Of the top tier lakes, similar biological benefits are likely, per unit area of the lake, if proper protocols are followed. Larger, deeper lakes with long water retention time are the most probable to have the highest cost benefits, with Spiridon, Frazer, and Karluk Lake the most obvious candidates. A reasonable assessment of benefits would suggest adult return rates would parallel increases in productivity as long as nutrients are below the critical level of Vollenweider (1976) and this has been reinforced by the Canadian sockeye salmon enrichment program (Hume et al. 1996). Because we target nutrient levels below 50% of the critical level (termed permissible level), the expected response of the food web that is enhanced with nutrient supplementation is likely to be linear to the 0 increased nutrient loading. Edmundson et al. (1999) illustrated that primary productivity as measured by chlorophyll a, doubled when all pre- and post - fertilization data were averaged for Alaska's 23 lakes where January 2011 at Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 60 ssociates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Y A= -- nutrient additions have occurred. This was over twice the relative increase in measured phosphorus so assuming linear increases in fish production with phosphorus loading is a conservative assumption and is used as the basis for evaluating cost benefits. Increased survival may occur in the marine environment because of increased growth rates as well as increased recruitment rates in freshwater resulting in higher numbers of smolts migrating from the system. Karluk has been the most impacted lake in terms of long, steady reduction in productivity compared to the turn of the century massive salmon runs as indicated by sediment marine nutrient analysis. Although changes in productivity occurred prior to the onset of fishing, these changes can be closely related to major climate shifts, while the current downward trend is likely dominated by harvest removals. Recent attempts at increasing escapements have failed to produce large runs, most likely because of top -down over - cropping of zooplankton provides for inefficient transfer of energy through the trophic levels of the Karluk pelagic ecosystem. With the recent low escapements, nutrient levels are again dropping while apparently bottom -up processes are likely to result in short-term increased returns to the low escapement levels, but this is unlikely to result in long -term production increases comparable those observed historically. Although there are always alternative explanations, the consistent pattern of depressed returns over the decades suggests that Karluk Lake's trophic status is fundamentally different from that present over 100 years ago, and if its long -term production is to be restored to anywhere near these levels, nutrient supplementation is a tool that should be considered. For this program to be successful, it is important that escapement goals are adjusted to accommodate the current capacity of the system so nutrient supplements are effectively used by the zooplankton community. Both Spiridon and Frazer are barren systems that have no history of salmon production prior to fish passage installations or the annual stocking program. The presented analysis suggests they have potential to increase • production by increasing nutrients to levels observed in other natural lakes in the Kodiak Archipelago. Because of relatively long water retention times, nutrient supplements will benefit multiple years and may be valuable in establishing larger runs. In the case of Frazer, with increased supportable escapements, further nutrient additions may result from salmon carcasses, which may decrease the dependence upon nutrient supplementation. Carcass loads are usually the result of management decisions and are highly dependent upon marine survival and current harvest policies that are based on historical timing and expected return rates, in addition to maintaining allocations in accordance with Board of Fisheries policies. Factors such as run strength, fishing effort, and in- season fisheries management decisions may impact managers' ability to achieve escapements within targeted ranges. Consequently, to respond to the effects of over- or under - escapement in a fertilized system, nutrient supplementation levels should be established in real time using the spring P levels to adjust delivery levels to the targeted annual loading levels. Spiridon is probably the most cost - effective candidate lake and has the least risk because fry plants can be adjusted to accommodate increased rearing capacity provided by nutrient supplements. This program will also create a more natural ecosystem resembling other salmon lakes where carcasses provide significant components to support productivity. Of the smaller systems, Hidden Lake and Little Waterfall may have potential, but their shallow depth may increase the risk of limited beneficial responses because of high zooplankton predation and evidence of stickleback competition. The fixed costs of monitoring and aircraft delivery of nutrients may make them higher risks, despite their high ranking regarding current versus permissible phosphorus loading. However prior fertilization studies (Schrof and Honnold, 2003) suggest that Little Waterfall responded well, but the plankton community decreased rapidly from sockeye predation, necessitating pre -smolt stocking. The current practice of • stocking levels determined by empirical responses to smolt production, adult returns, and zooplankton levels January 2011 G9-, Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 61 ssociates •` = KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 0 should be continued, regardless of decisions on nutrient supplementation. Investigation into stickleback impacts on production may prove to be useful. Stocking of natural native predators into the lake has been suggested as a possible control on these stickleback populations if they are believed to limit sockeye production (Hyatt et al. 2004), while potentially supporting sportfishing opportunities. Whether such a program is a viable control of stickleback in the Kodiak Lakes is beyond the scope of this investigation. Afognak Lake also has potential although serious declines in returns occurred during the previous nutrient enrichment program. These declines also correlate with colder lake temperatures. High concentrations of stickleback may be a factor in limiting the benefits that sockeye fry may gain from nutrient enrichment. Before resuming nutrient supplementation, additional research and analysis would be warranted on factors that limit the response beyond those imposed by low nutrient levels. Fish monitoring programs should be implemented on all lakes that are going to be treated with nutrients with either smolt or hydroacoustic fall fry programs initiated. Hydroacoustic sampling of fall fry is usually more cost effective but target identification is often difficult. However trawling, combined with gill net sampling have proven effective in British Columbia in apportioning catch and should be considered (Perrin and Stables, 2000). This sampling method also has the benefits of monitoring stickleback populations, which may interfere with obtaining sufficient benefits from nutrient supplementation. Smolt programs are highly useful if the data collected are accurate. In large systems, mark - recapture programs have often resulted in major biases, sometimes approaching an order of magnitude, so these should be addressed with caution. They have been highly effective in small systems and some large programs. Sonar enumeration of smolt is also used in many areas but capital ® and labour costs are often prohibitive and may require some type of target identification through a parallel net sampling program. Regardless of the method used, juveniles produced per adult is likely the best indicator of the success of the program and provides quick feedback as to whether continuing the studies are warranted, whereas adult return rates may be highly misleading as they are heavily influenced by density independent marine survival that can mask any benefits (or lack thereof) of a nutrient supplementation program. I would advise, if resources to maintain both fertilization and monitoring programs are not likely to be sustainable for a minimum of five years, the nutrient supplementation program should not be implemented, as its success is based on continual feedback and adjustments to the program. Such monitoring protocols have been operational in Alaska and elsewhere for 35 years and have provided regulatory agencies with the assurances that fail -safe protocols are in place to ensure ecosystem processes, including perceptions of the risk of eutrophication, are adequately managed and that all resource values on the Kodiak Archipelago will be maintained or enhanced. The recent protocol document for lake fertilization by Ashley and Stockner (2003) should be incorporated into standard procedures for conducting these studies where applicable. Proposed revisions to the ADF &G lake fertilization policy should also be considered to bring it up to date with the vast number of investigations conducted over the past 32 years since it was originally authored. 0 January 2011 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 62 Associates �� -1;11-117:7- KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE • Report Signature Page GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD. Original Signed By Dana Schmidt, Ph.D., R.P. Bio. Associate - Senior Fisheries Biologist/Limnologist DS /aw Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation. \\cast- s- filesrv1 \ data \ active \8000 \2009 projects \09 - 1480 -0032 kraa limnology database and data analysisbeport and review\dellverables to client \0914800032 kodrak lake fertilization data renew overview r pt_4ja n 2011. d oca • • January 2011 a tGolder Report No. 09-1480-0032F 63 Associates �'• • KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 0 am = __.�P__ 8.0 LITERATURE CITED Adkison, M.D. 2010. Management implications of the effects of marine - derived nutrients on salmon population dynamics. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 67: 1808 -1815. Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG). 1958. Annual Report for 1958. Report No. 10, 123pp. http: / /www. arli s.org /docs /vol l /A/31110164etc/31110164etc -1958. pdf Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG). 1978. Alaska Department of Fish And Game Lake Fertilization Team Policy and Guidelines for Lake Fertilization: Lake Fertilization Guidelines. Alaska Department Of Fish And Game Document. Ashley, K. I., and J. G. Stockner. 2003. Protocol for applying limiting nutrients to inland waters. Pages 245 -258 in Nutrients in salmonid ecosystems: Sustaining production and biodiversity. Carpenter S.R., J.F Kitchell, and J. R. Hodgon. 1985. Cascading trophic interactions and lake productivity. BioScience 35: 634 -639. Dugdale, R.C. and V.A. Dugdale. 1961. Sources of phosphorus and nitrogen for lakes on Afognak Island. Limnology and Oceanography 6: 13:23 Edmundson, J.A., D. Schmidt, S.R. Carlson, and G. Kyle. 1999. Alaska lake fertilization program: restoration and enhancement of sockeye salmon. In: Restoration of Fisheries by Enrichment of Aquatic Ecosystems, 0 Proceedings of International workshop at Uppsala University March 30 - April, 1998 (eds. J.G. Stockner and G. Milbrink), pp. 49 -82. Edmundson, J.A., S.G. Honnold, and G.B. Kyle. 1994. Trophic responses to juvenile sockeye salmon stocking and nutrient enrichment in barren Little Waterfall Lake. Regional Information Report No. 5J94 -13, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 33pp. Gregory- Eaves, I., Smol, J.P., Douglas, M.S.V., and Finney, B.P. 2003. Diatoms and sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) population dynamics: Reconstructions of salmon- derived nutrients in two lakes from Kodiak Island, Alaska. Journal of Paleolimnology 30: 35 -53. Hardy, Joan F. 1976 Bibliography on Effects of Artificial Fertilization. Part A of Final Report, For the Period May 1, 1976 to March 1, 1977. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Honnold S.G. and N.H. Sagalkin. 2001. A review of limnology and fishery data and a sockeye salmon escapement goal evaluation for Saltery Lake on Kodiak Island. Regional Information Report No. 4K01- 37, 23pp. Honnold, S.G. 1993. Summary of hydroacoustic and townetting surveys conducted at Red, Akalura, and Upper Station Lakes in Response to the 1989 Exxon Valez Oil Spill 1990 -1992. FRED Report No. 131, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 61 pp. Honnold, Steven G., Mark J. Witteveen, Matt Birch Foster, Ivan Vining, and James J. Hasbrouck. 2007. Review of Escapement Goals for Salmon Stocks in the Kodiak Management Area, Alaska Fishery manuscript No. 07 -10. Hume, J.M.B., K.S. Shortreed, and K.F. Morton. 1996. Juvenile sockeye rearing capacity of three lakes in the Fraser River system. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53: 719 733. January 2011 a 'Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 64 �® Associates r _= KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Hyatt, K. D., D. J. McQueen, K. S. Shortreed and D. P. Rankin. 2004. Sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) nursery lake fertilization: Review and summary of results. Environ. Rev. 12:133 -162. Juday, C, Rich, W.H., Kemmerer, G.I., and Mann, A. 1932. Limnological studies of Karluk Lake, Alaska, 1926- 1930. Bull. Bureau Fish. 47:407 -436. Koenings J.P. and Burkett, R.D. 1987a. An aquatic Rubic's cube: restoration of the Karluk Lake sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). In Sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) population biology and future management. Edited by H.D. Smith, L. Margolis, and C.C. Wood. Can. Spec. Pub. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 96: 419 -434. Koenings, J.P. and Burkett, R.D. 1987b. Population characteristics of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) smolts relative to temperature regimes, euphotic volume, fry density and forage base within Alaskan lakes. In Sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) population biology and future management. Edited by H.D. Smith, L. Margolis, and C.C. Wood. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. No. 96. pp. 216 -234. Koenings, J.P. and Kyle G.B. 1997. Consequences to juvenile sockeye salmon and the zooplankton community resulting from intense predation. Alaska Fish. Res. Bull. 4: 120 -135. Koenings, J.P., G.G. Kyle, J.A. Edmundson, and J.M. Edmundson. 1987. Limnology field and laboratory manual: methods for assessing aquatic production. FRED Report No. 71, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 212pp. Kyle, G.B., L.E. White, and J.P. Koenings. 1990. Limnological and fisheries assessment of the potential production of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) in Spiridon Lake. FRED Report No. 108, Alaska • Department of Fish and Game, 35pp. Nelson, Phillip R. and W.T. Edmondson. 1955. Limnological effects of fertilizing Bare Lake, Alaska. Fishery Bulletin 102, United States Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. Perrin, C. and T.B. Stables. 2000. Fish Population restoration in Wahleach reservoir, 1997 -1999. Report prepared by Limnotek Research and Development Inc. for BC Hydro, Burnaby, B.C. 71 pgs + 20 app. Schmidt D.T., Carlson S.R., Kyle G.B. and Finney B.P. 1998. Influence of carcass - derived nutrients on sockeye salmon productivity of Karluk Lake, Alaska: Importance in the assessment of an escapement goal. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 18: 743 -761. Schrof S.T. and Honnold S.G. 2003. Salmon enhancement, rehabilitation, evaluation, and monitoring efforts conducted in the Kodiak Management Area through 2001. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Regional Information Report No.4K03 -41, Kodiak. Schrof S.T., S.G. Honnold, C.J. Hicks, and J.A. Wadle. 2000. A summary of salmon enhancement, rehabilitation, evaluation, and monitoring efforts conducted in the Kodiak management area through 1998. Regional Information Report No. 4K00 -57, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Shortreed, K.S., K.F. Morton, K. Malange, and J.M.B. Hume. 2001. Factors limiting sockeye production and enhancement potential for selected B.C. nursery lakes. Can. Sci. Adv. Secretariat Res. Doc. 2001/098: 69 p. Stockner, J.G. 2000. Nutrients in Salmonid Ecosystems: Sustaining Production and Biodiversity. American Fisheries Society Symposium 34: 285 pp. • January 2011 et Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 65 Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Stock ner, J.G. and G. Milbrink 1999.Restoration of Fisheries by Enrichment of Aquatic Ecosystems. Proceedings of an International Workshop at Uppsala University, Moarch 30 -April 1, 1998. Uppsala universitiet, Repro Ekonomikum, Uppsala, 1999. 219 pp. Thomsen, S. E. 2008. Kodiak Island Lake Assessment/Limnology Project and Laboratory Analysis Operational Plan, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Regional Information Report 4K08 -4, Kodiak. Vollenweider, R.A. 1976. Advances in defining critical loading levels for phosphorus in lake eutrophication. Mem. 1st. Ital. Idrobiol. 33:53 -83. 0 0 January 2011 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 66 Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE III APPENDIX A Kodiak Area Lakes Nutrient, Chlorophyll a, Zooplankton, and Fisheries Data Analysis Summaries Important Notice: • The data and graphs contained within this appendix have not been subject to detailed screening or Q/A procedures and are summarized based on the data provided by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. They are used only for initial screening of trends and trophic level relationships from the various lakes examined and should not be used or cited for any other purpose. Golder Associates Ltd. makes no claims or inferences as to the reliability of these data. • January 2011 • Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Af ognak Lake Nutrient Summary 10 8 - • • 9) 6 _ • N • e' • L Q s• • •• • 0 2 • • a•• • a . • s • •• • o a • •• et ••• • 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Phosphorus (pg /L) Relationship between chlorophyll a and total phosphorus in Afognak Lake for all days sampled, 1987 -2005 (P<0.001, R 0.056, y= 0.794 + 0.123x). 0 SEASONAL TRENDS IN NUTRIENTS YEAR 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 0z .- 15 0 .. r • A-• to N s o 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 , ,_ . .. 20 a 15 a up 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 , r z0 a \ - n is , , a .__. .__. r 0 r 2002 2003 2004 2005 °b 61 ""'Y . .. -20 9 MOmn 1 0 0 n a Mont o b Month ` S Month h Mont " 0 January 2011 et Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates - KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 1987 -1991 1992 -1996 1997 -2001 2002 -2005 0 L 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month Month Month Month Seasonal trends in total phosphorus in Afognak Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). YEAR 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 .. . -. .o -400 z • .- .. `-.� «� -aoo , 3 .. \-,._. •' ', /'�-• - .zoo • lig . . ... .. .. �-! -100 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 � f ' l -300 .$ V \'YY- Y N. y.. .. J� -200 i t r.. 1 .. .loo • 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 .. z -. .. -300 1 "'. 0o p 2002 2003 2004 2005 4 5 6 7 8 9 ion Month 00 y \ 00 10 f 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 4 5 6 7 6 9 1 0 1 1 4 5 5 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 0 1 Month Month month Montn 1987 -1991 1992 -1996 1997 -2001 2002 -2005 -- . -. -- -aoo z -- -- -- -300 i „" - - 0w-"X\ - - - 200 3 '100 4 6 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month Month Month Month Seasonal trends in total nitrogen in Afognak Lake during four time periods. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). • January 2011 91) Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE ? cr YEAR 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 . -: . . . -. .. .. C250 . .. .. .. -200 Z . • . \ - -. -150 v 0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 .. -o . . . . -250 .. __ -_ .. -200 z . .- .. .. -150 v J •� -100 e .. -0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 _ _ - - -250 . .- .• .. -200 z -150 '-o -' . - / .104 -'- . - -10 2002 2003 2004 2005 4 5 6 7 9 9 1011 Month . . . . . . .. •- - 250 200 i .. 150 u • . • .- - • -50 .0 6 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Montt. Month Month Month 0 1987 -1991 1992 -1996 1997 -2001 2002 -2005 .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. -250 - -- -- -- -200 Z 150 -100 m - . . . . .- 0 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month Month Month Month Seasonal trends in nitrogen to phosphorus ratio in Afognak Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). 0 January 2011 et Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE III YEAR 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 ... .1 .0 0 -0s o r .08 ? -05 0 0 ° 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 . ... 1.00 09 ° '..mot / 0 0 �/ Oi o 06 d .03 1 .02 ,7 1997 1998 1999 2000 { 2001 ` Y 1 0 0 % • O9 ° 0 7 05 .. 04 0 .. 03 0x - 2002 2003 2004 2005 a s 6 1 e 9101 c ' ManN lo O2, \ 09 ° 06 07 0s g 05 E. 0 31 03 02 = r a 5 6 1 0 9 1 0 1 1 a 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 v Month Month Month Month 1987 -1991 1992 -1996 1997 -2001 2002 -2005 1111 too / 0.9 Y . j 0.8 ? 0.6 o 0.4 0 0.3 v 0.2 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 m Month Month Month Month Seasonal trends in the ratio of chlorophyll a to total measured primary productivity (chlorophyll a plus phaeophytin). Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). • January 2011 A Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F ® A ssociates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE INTER ANN UAL TRENDS 18 16- 14 - — J — m 12- m w 10- — _c 8 o 6 _ 0_ 4 2 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 Mean total phosphorus during summer (June to August) in Afognak Lake. 6 5- J a14 r 3 a 2 — — r 2 + - U - — 1 ' 0 ^ 1990 1995 2000 2005 Mean chlorophyll a concentration during summer -fall (July to September) in Afognak Lake, 1987 -2005. 0 January 2011 ° Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates _ - KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Afognak Lake Zooplankton INTERANNUAL TRENDS IN ZOOPLANKTON 800 N 0 E 600 - ° _ ° m E ° 400 - m C O — ( 200- - - o n I�I� _ 0 l l I I l I 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Mean zooplankton biomass during summer (June to August) in Afognak Lake, 1987 to 2009. Units of • observation were daily total biomass (sum of all species' biomasses, mean of sample stations). 7.0 N • 0 6.5- • • m 6.0 - • /• • • 07 5.5 - • • • • • O 5.0 • • m 0 4.5 - • • • • • 4.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Chlorophyll a (mg /L) Relationship between natural logarithm of zooplankton biomass and chlorophyll a in Afognak Lake. Data are annual means of total biomass and chlorophyll a during summer (June to August), 1987 -2005 (P =0.1). • January 2011 GP, Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates =%-- — — — KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Afognak Lake Salmon x 800 O Zooplankton 5 m — Returns per spawner - T -4 ii 600 - o M = E - 3 o) n E m 400 - - 2 m - n m fc _ E E 200 - d 0 = K �n Q� M, N 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Returns per spawner for a given brood year and mean summer zooplankton biomass the following year. 1.4e +5 1.2e +5 - I 1.00 +5 J:::::: • `',` 4.0e +4 - 0.0 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Total escapement of sockeye salmon to Afognak Lake system. 16 + x 14 , • 2 a) ' 12 is J • m 10 - N • • • • 2 8 - • • • 2 • •• n • • ' 6 _ o = 0- 4 0.0 2.0e +4 4.0e +4 6.0e +4 8.0e +4 1.0e +5 1.2e +5 1.4e +5 Escapement No significant relationship between sockeye salmon escapement to the Afognak Lake system and mean daily 0 total phosphorus during summer (June to August) the following year (P =0.4). , January 2011 Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE • Akalura Lake nutrient summary 16- 14 - • 1 12- • • • • • ct T 8 0. • r 4- .... fl. •• Q - 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Phosphorus (t1g /L) No significant relationship between chlorophyll a and total phosphorus in Akalura Lake for all samples and stations, 1990 -1996 (P =0.1). SEASONAL TRENDS IN NUTRIENTS YEAR • 1990 1991 1993 1994 1995 '40 __ .. .. - 30 ° .1p . 9 1996 . 1 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 4 5 6 7 9 9 1 0 1 1 4 5 6 7 8 H 1 0 1 1 4 5 6 1011 Monts Mont Month Month . 3 30 -20 o 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month 1990 -1993 1994 -1996 s - -30 °m a s • -20 0 ._._ I_•� J 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month Month Seasonal trends in total phosphorus in Akalura Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). • January 2011 Or Golder Report No. 09-1480-0032F -Associates _ KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE YEAR 1990 1991 1993 1994 1995 .. .� .. .... sau 400 - -- A 300 S V yI f .zoo e -100 1996 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Mon11, Month Monlli Month 500 2 400 300 ti -200 100 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month 1990 -1993 1994 -1996 _p X 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 500 z -400 0 60 -300 D ~•` ✓�• __ • � -200 100 ® 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month Month Seasonal trends in total nitrogen in Akalura Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). YEAR 1990 1991 1993 1994 1995 80 - 70 EO 50 p 30 ° 1996 4 5 6] 8 9 1011 4 5 6] 0 9 1011 4 5 6] 0 9 1011 4 5 6] 8 91011 Month Month Month Month . 70 60 2 -50 y 40 so 1 za 4 5 6 8 9 1011 Month 0 � January 2011 O Golder Report No. 09-1480-0032F Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 1990 -1993 1994 -1996 -80 -70 2 -50 A 4 0 ° . -30 - -20 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month Month Seasonal trends in nitrogen to phosphorus ratio in Akalura Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). YEAR 1990 1991 1993 1994 1995 Y \/ \l ° O 8 0 06 0 8 0 4 'o 4 0 1 3 1996• 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 0 9 1011 Month Month Month Month 10 a 09 o 08 0 • a7 05 0' 04 ° z 03 _ 4 5 6 7 8 91011 Month 1990 -1993 1994 -1996 TT1 1 1 1_ _1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1_ 1 .0 —, 0 0.9 0 A .... �' —��• ~� -118 0 0.7 - - -0.6 r 0 - - -0.5 0 - - -0.4 s 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 — I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.3 4 5 6 7 8 91011 4 5 6 7 8 91011 m Month Month Seasonal trends in the ratio of chlorophyll a to total measured primary productivity (chlorophyll a plus phaeophytin). Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). • January 2011 ( ( Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Y/ Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE INTERANNUAL TRENDS 20 18 - - 16 - -- o ) 14 - — 12 _ _ _ — — w _ 0 • 10 L s • 6 - 0_ 4_ 2- 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Mean total phosphorus during summer (June to August) in Akalura Lake. 8 ® 6 co 4' o_ o — - o U 2- 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Mean chlorophyll a concentration during summer -fall (July to September) in Akalura Lake. 0 January 2011 - Golder • Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F �L/ Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE { p • Akalura Lake Zooplankton INTERANNUAL TRENDS IN ZOOPLANKTON 250 rn 200 - E ns 150 - E 0 m — O 100 - o c a 50 - 0 O - - N o 11 n' 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Mean zooplankton biomass during summer (June to August) in Akalura Lake, 1989 to 2009. Units of observation were daily total biomass (sum of all species' biomasses, mean of sample stations). 250 - • E • , 200 - E N N 5 150 E o co 0 100 - • C • o 0 50 - o o N 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Chlorophyll a (pg /L) No relationship between zooplankton biomass and chlorophyll a in Akalura Lake. Data are annual means of total biomass and chlorophyll a during summer (June to August), 1990 -1996. • January 2011 Go1dCr Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates _ — KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE O Akal Lake Salmon 5e +5 4o +5 - m Age 1 o Age2 Age 3 3e +5 - `o E 2e4-5 - E le+5 - , _a_ILA ., .. 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Number of smolts emigrating from Akalura Lake. 5e +5 250 ' o) + i - Zooplankton _ x 4e +5 -- Smolts - 200 K d ® T T to 3e +5 - - 150 to ca w 2e +5 - - 100 o — a E _ Y o n n 0 0 0 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 N Mean zooplankton biomass in Akalura Lake during summer (June to August) and number of smolts (all ages) emigrating from the lake in the following year. 0 ss January 2011 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F A ssociates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE • 5e +5 • x 4e +5 - `m T m 3e +5 - _ N E • w • 2e +5 - • • o • • n 1e +5 • E Z 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 Zooplankton biomass at year x (mg /m • Relationship between the mean zooplankton biomass in Akalura Lake during summer (June to August) and number of smolts (all ages) emigrating from the lake the following year. 5e +5 N + 4e +5 - • x d • 3e +5 - m • • • m E 2e +5 - • • N N Q 1e +5 • 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 Zooplankton Biomass (mg /m Relationship between the mean zooplankton biomass in Akalura Lake during summer (June to August) and number of age 2 smolts emigrating from the lake two years later. Age 2 fish make up the majority of smolts in most years. • January 2011 Or Gold¢[ Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F ssociates ' � KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE • , a _ T- 250 - - 5e +5 t2 zooplankton Aget smog s al year x +1 m E .... Age 2 smolts at year e+2 — - 4e+5 En 200 -- Age 3smolts at year x+3 E m • 3e +5 E E 150 - w m _ - 2e +5 0 d 0 100 a • x — -1e +5 s C Z CO o- 50 - o _ 0 o r r 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 Number of smolts emigrating from Akalura Lake compared to the mean zooplankton biomass during the smolt's first summer in the lake. 250 I 0.5 N— o Zooplankton x E , 200 - — %age 1 smolts 0.4 o. E E 0.3 ® co 150 N E O 02 m E `^ 0 • 100 - E Y 0.1 to C m o E. 50 r 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 Age 1 fish made up a small percentage ( <15 %) of total number of smolts in all years except 1994 and 1995. 1.4e +5 1.2e +5 -1.0e+5 m 8.ee +4 - E o. 6.0e +4 - m o j 4.0e +4 - 2.0e +4 - 0.0 - 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 Total escapement of sockeye salmon to Akalura Lake system. CO January 2011 Golder Report No. 09-1480-0032F Associates I KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE • E 250 16 E Zooplankton - 14 + 200 - — Smolts per spawner - 12 E i 150 - \ - 10 � N 8 N I n 0 n 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 Smolts per spawner for a given brood year and mean summer zooplankton biomass the following year. 17 J 16 - • • 15 - + X 14 • % 13 • to 12 - • • 2 0 L 11 - o 0 • 10 a 9 0.0 2.0e +4 4.0e +4 6.0e +4 8.0e +4 1.Oe +5 1.2e +5 1.4e +5 Escapement No relationship between sockeye salmon escapement to the Akalura Lake system and mean daily total phosphorus during summer (June to August) the following year (P =0.6). • 'V-. January 2011 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F ® Associates ;• KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Big Waterfall Lake nutrient summary 2 • J 1 • O) 0- • • L 1 • • • 6 O • • -2 L • U • • c 3- -4 • 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Phosphorus (pg /L) No significant relationship between chlorophyll a and total phosphorus in Big Waterfall Lake for all days sampled (P =0.7). SEASONAL TRENDS IN NUTRIENTS YEAR 1990 2000 2001 2 - • -10 = • -8 a f - 6 ° • • 1 / -4 - • - -- - • 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month Month Month Seasonal trends in total phosphorus in Big Waterfall Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). YEAR 1990 2000 2001 2 - - - - 200 • ° o • __ • __ _150 1 - • -- -- • -100 'r 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month Month Month ® Seasonal trends in total nitrogen in Big Waterfall Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). January 2011 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates `" __ KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE YEAR 1990 2000 2001 -_ , , __ , , , , 1_150 • - - - - -100 Z • • - - • __ -50 • 0 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month Month Month Seasonal trends in nitrogen to phosphorus ratio in Big Waterfall Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). YEAR 1990 2000 2001 __ __ -0.9 __ __ -0.8 - -0.5 ? • • -- • -- -0.4 3 - _ __ _0.3-0 • -0.2 r .0.1 m 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month Month Month Seasonal trends in the ratio of chlorophyll a to total measured primary productivity (chlorophyll a plus phaeophytin). Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). • January 2011 et Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates „tit = KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE INTERANNUAL TRENDS 12 10 - Si 8 t c o4 _ 2 0 1990 2000 2001 Mean total phosphorus during summer (June to August) in Big Waterfall Lake. 5 4 m m 3 ® O 2 1 o i t 1 1990 2000 2001 Mean chlorophyll a concentration during summer -fall (July to September) in Big Waterfall Lake. Crescent Lake nutrient summary 1.6 1.4- • 1.2 - • J • • 0.8 - a • r• •i • a 0.6 - 0 04 •• • • • U 4. 0.2- • • •• • • • w•• •• • 2 • 0.0 ' 0 2 4 6 8 10 Phosphorus (pg /L) ® No significant relationship between chlorophyll a and total phosphorus in Crescent Lake for all samples and stations, 1990 -1994 (P =0.5). January 2011 - Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates ` _ _ KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE • SEASONAL TRENDS IN NUTRIENTS YEAR 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 • l ■ \ • • .—• . • �� "5 ., j J j 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 9 9 1011 4 5 5 7 0 9 1011 4 5 6 7 0 9 1011 4 5 6 7 0 9 1011 Month Month Month Month Month 1990 -1991 1992 -1994 -10 9 8 2 \ - - 7 a Y • - - ems. - 6 0 • 5 N • - 3 -2 r . r , , , , - 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month Month Seasonal trends in total phosphorus in Crescent Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). YEAR • 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 . . . .. . 300 • 1 — l 250 ` • • '200 � 3 o 100 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 0 7 0 9 1011 4 5 6 7 0 9 1011 4 5 6 7 0 9 1011 Month Month Month Month Month 1990 -1991 1992 -1994 z -- -250 g � •— '•- . -•_•\• - 200 co co • 3 -150 up , . , , ,- -, ,- 100 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month Month Seasonal trends in total nitrogen in Crescent Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). • January 2011 1 t Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates • '., _ _ KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE ® a - — YEAR 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 .. ,. .. .. .. .- ,. -. - 1 0 3 • 9 v - • Y ,...-43- .. 6.-...._..... -109 a • J 6 5 6 7 6 9 5011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 6 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month Month Month Month Month 1990 -1991 1992 -1994 z - -- -200 • • - 0 /*\. • - - • N— • - 100 A m 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month Month Seasonal trends in nitrogen to phosphorus ratio in Crescent Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). ® 1991 YEAR 19 90 1992 1993 1994 -6.8' 05 ,', 06 • 02 v 0 2 v 4 0 1 _ 4 5 6 7 0 9 1 0 1 1 n 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 6 5 6 ] 6 Y 1011 4 5 fi 1 Month Month Mono. Month Month hlmloath N 1990 -1991 1992 -1994 - -- -08 a 0.4 0 -0.3 0 • -- -0.2 4567891011456 a ' Month Month Seasonal trends in the ratio of chlorophyll a to total measured primary productivity (chlorophyll a plus phaeophytin). Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). 0 i January 2011 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates _ _- KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE INTERANNUAL TRENDS 7 6- - 5 1. T N 4 0 1 r t o 3 o - o • .0 2- 1- 0 - 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Mean total phosphorus during summer (June to August) in Crescent Lake. 1.0 0.8 0.6 0 04 • 0.2 0.0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Mean chlorophyll a concentration during summer -fall (July to September) in Crescent Lake. • January 2011 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F A ssociates ` E KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Crescent Lake Zooplankton 1000 E 9, 800 - - - - E m 600 _ E - O _ 01 T C 400 - o , C - 0 200 • 0 N 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Mean zooplankton biomass during summer (June to August) in Crescent Lake, 1990 to 2009. Units of observation were daily total biomass (sum of all species' biomasses, mean of sample stations). 900 • E 800 • m E • 700 - N O 600 ' m C • • 500 - C N • O 400 - N • 300 0.1 0.2 0.3 04 0.5 0.6 0.7 Chlorophyll a (ug /L) Relationship between zooplankton biomass and chlorophyll a in Crescent Lake. Data are annual means of total biomass and chlorophyll a during summer (June to August), 1990 -1994. 0 Y =s January 2011 ` Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F - Associates i = KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE • Frazer Lake nutrient summary 2 • • • 1 - • e • • 11 ,p ~ • • ••• • •S 0 • >, •• _ • P ` I. 'PIP -_• -1 - • • e t.. • _ • • • -2 - • • • 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 In Phosphorus Relationship between the natural logarithms of chlorophyll a and total phosphorus in Frazer Lake for all days sampled, 1985 -1996 (P <0.0001; R 0.074; y= -1.193 + 0.645x). SEASONAL TRENDS IN NUTRIENTS • 1985 -1988 1989 -1992 1993 -1996 0 10 S O 1 -5 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 91011 Month Month Month Seasonal trends in total phosphorus in Frazer Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). • January 2011 • Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 1985 -1988 1989 -1992 1993 -1996 _ _ , , _ _ , , ,- 300 - -200 j r -41Ne_• ._f da -- -- -100 3 m r 0 4 5 6 7 8 91011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month Month Month Seasonal trends in total nitrogen in Frazer Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). 1985 -1988 1989 -1992 1993 -1996 , , , , , __ , , , , , , , -150 - -- -- -100 z 0 _* Nw _ s ® - - -50 4 5 6 7 8 91011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month Month Month Seasonal trends in nitrogen to phosphorus ratio in Frazer Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). 1985 -1988 1989 -1992 1993 -1996 1.o 7 3 -- -- -0.9 - - • � - ter'\/ -0.8 g.. ° 0.5 0 - -- -- -0.4 0 ,- 0.2 m 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month Month Month Seasonal trends in the ratio of chlorophyll a to total measured primary productivity (chlorophyll a plus phaeophytin). Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). 0 January 2011 s - Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 47 Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 7 - a - • INTERANNUAL TRENDS 10 8 _J S � _ yT _ 1 -- co 6 ± 0 T O 1 11 L n 4 O L a • 2- o , 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 Mean total phosphorus during summer (June to August) in Frazer Lake. 2.5 • 2.0 J O) > 11 L - 2 • 1.0 - 4 0 U 0.0 - 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 Mean chlorophyll a concentration during summer -fall (July to September) in Frazer Lake, 1985 -1996. • January 2011 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates = — `_ — KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE lErft Frazer Lake Zooplankton INTERANNUAL TRENDS IN ZOOPLANKTON 2000 c0 1800 E , 1600- E 1400 - o 1200 - E O 1000 - in _ c 800 - o 600 - - m a 400 - _ - o - nn N • 200- nn 0 gnnfin l'I Q Qll nn, nll, 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Mean zooplankton biomass during summer (June to August) for Frazer Lake, 1985 to 2009. Units of observation were daily total biomass (sum of all species' biomasses, mean of sample stations). 0 800 • 700 - rn E 600 - N m 500 - E • .9 400 - • 300 - • = • m 200 - • O N 100 - • • • 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 Chlorophyll a (pg /L) No relationship between zooplankton biomass and chlorophyll a in Frazer Lake, 1985 -1996 (P =0.8). Data are annual means of total biomass and chlorophyll a during summer (June to August). Q ry January 2011 - Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F A ssociates Q - —_ _ KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Frazer Lake Salmon 1e +7 ism Age 1 8e +6 1 Age 2 woo Age3 0 N 6e +6 `o • n 4e +6 E o Z 2e +6 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Number of smolts emigrating from the Frazer Lake. 2000 1e +7 o Zooplankton <v 1800 Smolts m 1600 - - 8e +6 x E 1400 - m • N T m 1200 - - 6e +6 m E w O 1000 - o m _ - c 800 - _ - 4e +6 to O \ 600 - _ O N N O 400 - _ _ - - 2e +6 E O • 200 - 0 0 011n 1 Qu lin _ fill , 0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Mean zooplankton biomass in Akalura Lake during summer (June to August) and number of smolts (all ages) emigrating from the lake in the following year. • January 2011 el Report No. 09-1480-0032F -Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE • 2000 1e+7 1800 _ — Age 1 at yen, v.1 rvE Ase2 al year +2 80+6 o. 1600 "' Age3 al year a.3 E y • 1400 • 6e +6 0 E 1200 E mo o– 1000 :7 4e +6 0 800 - n • 600 /1 1 ■ 2e +6 O 400 i 1 I� 0 N 200 „RI . '' 1 I 1 1 1 r 1 11 0 1 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Number of smolts emigrating from Frazer Lake compared to the mean zooplankton biomass during the smolt's first summer in the lake. is +7 Be +6 - m 6e +6 • O •/ • m 4e +6 • • 2e +6 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Zooplankton biomass at year x Relationship between the mean zooplankton biomass in Frazer Lake during summer (June to August) and number of smolts (all ages) emigrating from the lake in the following year (P =0.2). N 1e +7 • 8e +6 m N O 6e +6 - E o 4e +6 -. m • • • 2e +6 a • E 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Zooplankton biomass (mg /m • Relationship between the mean zooplankton biomass in Frazer Lake during summer (June to August) and number of age 2 smolts emigrating from the lake two years later. January 2011 ` t Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates . KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE a • 140 ® Age 1 CI Age2 ® Age3 E 120 - E c 0) 100 - d E 80 - N A 60- 40 r 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 20 8 - ® Age 1 D Age2 • 6- ® Age3 c 14 • m o 12- 3 0 0- v 8- m 6- • o I II1 11 .I 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Mean length and weight of sockeye salmon smolts emigrating from Frazer Lake, 1989 -2001. N E 2000 20 or 1 - Zooplankton E 1800 - - — Returns /spawne 18 '< x 1600 - - 16 a m 1400 - - 14 6 >` 1200 - - 12 c u) 0 m 1000 ) E 800- 8 - 6 n Q1 • 600 4 N O 400 2 c rti 200 - I n ar - 0 0 f1r1Mnll� - n fl 0 ° 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Returns per spawner for a given brood year and mean summer zooplankton biomass the following year. January 2011 ®411-, Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F A ssociates — KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 600000 500000 A 400000 - ,J c) E a 300000 - W • 200000 - A A 100000 0 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Total escapement of sockeye salmon to Frazer Lake system. 7.5 J • cn 7.0 - • + 6.5 - • 5 6.0 - • 0 ® 2 5.5 - • • • • • O 5.0 - L • a ✓ • 4.5 • 0- 4.0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Escapement at year x (thousands) Relationship between sockeye salmon escapement to the Frazer Lake system and mean daily total phosphorus during summer (June to August) the following year. January 2011 90 Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates -n KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Age 1 00 • 10 E 90 _ 6 . • B 8o 6 E77 16 60 — a • tE So 3 50 • 3 2 40 — . 0 200 400 600 800 10001200140016001800200] 0 ' 0 200 400 600 800 1000 12001400 1600 1800 2000 2oopl8nkton Bomass (mg/m2) Zooplanklon Biomass (mg/m Age 2 130 16 E 120 • • E 0 m 12 IN s - • 100 • • , Es 8 • • 90 • • rn 6 • • • 2 60 3 • 4 • 70 I 0 200 400 600 800 100012001400180010002000 2 0 200 400 600 800 100012001400160018002000 Zooplanklon Biomass (mg/m2) Zooplanklon Biomass (mglm Age 3 130 20 • E 120- 110 • 14 00 • T B 12 . . . , O 1 0- 2 s0 • 3 6I • 80 6 0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 000 800 1900 Zooplankton Biomass (rng /m2) Zooplanklon Biomass )r glm Zooplankton biomass during smolt's first summer in Frazer Lake versus size and length of smolts emigrating from the lake. 20 - le47 140 la Age 1 18 o Age ■ A9e2 Age 3 o A 3 ■ 06 m 6 1 - - o g A9e3 amain 8+6 — E 120 -_ smdu 8e46 - E 14- ' a 12 6e+6 w m 100 10 I 1 - 6e+6 E 0 - 41 11 p `o 8- I I I 4e.6 N 80 � 4e.6 m m 6 1 1 E E a �I � 1-I It I IL I�� Li z a r ! I 2e+6 6 _ _ _ _ G r 0 1988 1990 1992 1994 1990 1998 2000 2002 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Total number of outmigrating smolts and size by age. 0 January 2011 - ' Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates . ® 2__v1' . __ KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Hidden Lake nutrient summary 2 • • J ••• co 1 • T o_ O 2 .$� 0 U • •• u• • C • • • -4 - • •• -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 Phosphorus(pg /L) Relationship between natural logarithm of chlorophyll a and total phosphorus in Hidden Lake for samples and stations, 1987 -2008 (P= 0.038; R 0.026; y= - 0.062x +1.7). SEASONAL TRENDS IN NUTRIENTS ® YEAR 1987 1990 1991 1992 1993 .. -- .: .20 v -• -- -- -. -15 u . 10 a 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 . .. -- • • • • • .. 1 -20 v . .. -- is r \ -/ ",ice 5t 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 ,. , . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . 20 . •_•-•'•-• YYY•••5 . L 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 �... _. 6e oo • - -10 2 n .5� . r L ! 0 ` 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month Month Month Month Month CD January 2011 • --ICI Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 6 • 1987 -1993 1994 -1998 1999 -2003 2004 -2008 -- -- -- -20 v - -- -- -15 8 1 - -10 � 5 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month Month Month Month Seasonal trends in total phosphorus in Hidden Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). YEAR 1987 1990 1991 1992 1993 . . .. . . 800 700 z 600 = 500 .2 460 "_ 300 10o 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 800 700 _z 600 500 400 = - 300 _ •- •- �•�• -w _ •- •- v- +.• •- .. +''�. -• •-. • • •� -• 200 e 0 100 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 B00 700 z 600 500 .2 400 = 300 • - •v-n� . •v •-• .. - 200 B.R. 100 C. 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 0 800 700 z 600 500 400 = 1 • .+ 300 3 200 p 00 . 5 8. 011 4 8 . . 011 4 5 fi 7 0 9 1 0 1 1 4 5 6 7 6 9 1 0 1 1 4 5 6 ] 8 9 1 0 1 1 4 5 6 ] B 9 1011 < 5 6 7 t 9 1011 Monlfl Month month Month Month 1987 -1993 1994 -1998 1999 -2003 2004 -2008 - 700 Z 600 0 500 = 400 300 3 • +v'•�•, ^'•- •- •- ' -•-. -• • • 200 '° 1000 0 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month Month Month Month Seasonal trends in total nitrogen in Hidden Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). • -. January 2011 or Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE YEAR 1987 1990 1991 1992 1993 ..... ........ . 000 700 600 z 500 400 300 • • \ • H 0 300 0 •— •—• '�•- a -�• -. 1_r 100 o 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 000 700 600 z 500 400 0 , 3011 •,� -._. •�,..� --. 300 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 • • • • • • - 1 860 74 600 a 500 . 400 0 , 300 v_ 200 ••••• 00 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 .... 000 700 300 z 4 5 2z00 0o A co F f � oo 0 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month Month Month Month Month 1987 -1993 1994 -1998 1999 -2003 2004 -2008 800 700 600 Z 500 400 73 300 20000 0 .- .. -. -r-.-' •- . --. -. .�. + -•-• 100 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month Month Month Month Seasonal trends in nitrogen to phosphorus ratio in Hidden Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). January 2011 Go_. Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F A ssociates _ -I:— '' KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE YEAR 1987 1990 1991 1992 1993 - `io a - '09 08 °a ] 0 o 06 g 0=9 01 . . . . . . ._. 00 = 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 • 10 9 09 ^ J • 0 V\ «/ O6 t 0] g 05 5 g 04 o ' — 03 a 01 3 06 = 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 a 7\ J f 0 90 '08 c 0] ^ 06 05 0 3 06 a • 0s 3 . .. E 00 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 / Q$ I _ \V/ o 6 0 05 Ot i n 0 Ox 00 i 00 J 567 891011456 96 910116567891011 567 8910114 567 891011 Month Month month Month Month 1987 -1993 1994 -1998 1999 -2003 2004 -2008 • 1. 0s 14 \ Y"�a 0.6 \'- 0.5 J 0.4 0 0.3 'o 02 a 0.1 S , 0.0 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month Month Month Month Seasonal trends in the ratio of chlorophyll a to total measured primary productivity (chlorophyll a plus phaeophytin). Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). O January 2011 Golder Report No. 09-1480-0032F Associates -` -1 KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE • V INTERANNUAL TRENDS 12 10 - J 01 8 - Vl - 2 6- - o - L _ d _ - O 4 + _ �' L 2 - I 0 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Mean total phosphorus during summer (June to August) in Hidden Lake. 25 ® J 20 O) 1 N 1.5 - — >. L a O 1 - - O r . T } - T 1 -1 t _ T 0.o III AI;1MA f1A 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Mean chlorophyll a concentration during summer -fall (July to September) in Hidden Lake, 1987 -2008. O ti January 2011riOjd Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 0Associates • 4 . KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Hidden Lake Zooplankton INTERANNUAL TRENDS IN ZOOPLANKTON 1200 N - E 1000 - m E N 800 - N co E O 600 - ' e0 7 _ C - - 400 - _ C CO _ I IT1 oo 200 - - o - N 0 . —, . 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Mean zooplankton biomass during summer (June to August) in Hidden Lake, 1989 to 2008. Units of observation were daily total biomass (sum of all species' biomasses, mean of sample stations). 1200 • N • E 1000 - E in 800 in CO E • 2 600 - • • fD • • • c y 400 • • c • • • • m • • a 200 - • • • N 0 . 0.0 0.2 OA 06 08 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 Chlorophyll a (pg /L) No relationship between zooplankton biomass and chlorophyll a in Hidden Lake. Data are annual means of total biomass and chlorophyll a during summer, 1990 -2008. • January 2011 Golder Report No. 09- 1460 -0032F Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Karluk Lake nutrient summary 12 • 10 - ; 8 • m 6 • • • • • • 6 0 4 ! • . U L 2 - 1 t 0 •A • 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Phosporus (µg /L) Relationship between chlorophyll a and total phosphorus in Karluk Lake for all samples and stations, 1980 -2006 (P <0.001; R 0.060; y = 1.1 + 0.085x). -v . January 2011 /.�•/ Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F �f /A ssociates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE d 0 SEASONAL TRENDS IN NUTRIENTS YEAR 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 - -- • • • .. .. .40 a -' -- - 30 i - .20 tiI ate+' -10 ; • ." • . • • •-« • • • ti 3. 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 . .. .. __ - 301 .. .. '. 20 c 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 .. . _ . . .- 40t . .. - .. .. -30 ti .- _. .. .. -20 ° 1997 1998 2004 2005 2006 . .. .. .- , .60 v . .. .. .. -20 a - .1 .. l V •- -• -. re •-•... ` -10 v Y .,o 2 d fi t 10 12 2 0 6 t 6 10 1 2 2 6 6 1 0 1 2 2 d 6 B 1 0 122 d 6 10 12 • Monty Monty Month Morel Month 1980 -1984 1985 -1989 1990 -1998 2004 -2006 .- -. _ ._ 7 - -. .. - _ - 0 ii - .. .- .. - ti«.l -HV•• - n...•,t. - - N..- •v-... .. by .-.- - 10 — 2 4 6 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 1012 Month Month Month Month Seasonal trends in total phosphorus in Karluk Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). • January 2011 co Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates = KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE YEAR 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 • 1600 , 6 0 z 800 = 6 00 600 4 400 = � � ) 460 •�f�,j •-•-•-•-• • ... 900 e �... -.. 2 60 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 ' 500 1 60 000 900 Z 700 6. 700 600 q 400 60 3 ...«. .�..... • +..r. -.• ' -•- ...,r' '"•-•-. •-• 200 o- mn G 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1000 000 Z 800 6. 700 600 500 = 400 `». .-. • ••••• ••.• •.. • •. 1•• • 200 ? ho — 1997 1998 2004 2005 2006 1000 420 800 700 600 R\ 500 0 • •• • .� \•+ - '-' % 100 100 0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 2 4 6 6 10 12 2 4 6 8 10122 4 6 8 1012 4 6 8 1012 Month Month Month Month Month 0 1980 -1984 1985 -1989 1990 -1998 2004 -2006 , -loon -900 z -800 -700 0 -600 ( 9 -500 "_ -400 -100 o 2 4 6 8 10122 4 6 8 10122 4 6 8 10122 4 6 8 1012 Month Month Month Month Seasonal trends in total nitrogen in Karluk Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). 0 January 2011 GO Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE • YEAR 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 .. -. -400 -. - . . -. -300 z . .. .. .. -. -200 A .. -...•1 •�. • .• -too a f . . -0 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 . .- .. 3- .. ..400 .. — - - • 300 z . .. -. - - .. -200 p •. -•-•. .. .......•-• •.n at. . • .-. •..-. .too s 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 .. -. _ - - -400 - -300 z - .. .- .200 n . »f' ' • .... .. / — • ti r " ^\• • -100 a 1997 1998 2004 2005 2006 .- -- - ,- -400 .. - — .. -300 z . .. .. ,( -200 A .. •'r / . f .too s 111 ti 2 4 6 6 1 0 1 2 2 4 6 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 2 6 6 8 1 0 1 2 2 4 6 8 1012 Month Month Month Month Month 1980 -1984 1985 -1989 1990 -1998 2004 -2006 • -400 - - -- -300 z . .. -. -200 A 4- . '- .- f.,..4, - - . - - r• f•. - 100 0 rc. n I -0 2 4 6 8 10 122 4 6 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 10 122 4 6 8 1012 Month Month Month Month Seasonal trends in nitrogen to phosphorus ratio in Karluk Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). • January 2011 (iolde[ Report No. 09-1480-0032F ' A ssociates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 0 Tit I =_ YEAR 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 0a • l 0 • 5^ 04 0 03 0 02,o 01 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 .- ,.•`.\ 69 0 1 o] 65 ^ -04 0 0.2 a 01.. -01 = 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 0 v .0.- ou2 05 g 04 a 03 a 0 2 0 01 1997 1998 2004 2005 2006 0 j ] o • f • .4 - • u 01 s 04 0 03 0 M 0.13 2 0 6 810122 4 6 6 10122 4 6 8 10122 4 6 6 1042 4 6 8 10 12 Month Month Month Month Month 1980 -1984 1985 -1989 1990 -1998 2004 -2006 1.0 6 /11�. r., 0:a 0.5 S 0.4 0 0.3 0 0.2 - o 0.1,Z 2 4 6 8 10122 4 6 8 10122 4 6 8 10122 4 6 8 1012 m Month Month Month Month Seasonal trends in the ratio of chlorophyll a to total measured primary productivity (chlorophyll a plus phaeophytin). Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). January 2011 ( Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F �i /Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 4 • INTERANNUAL TRENDS 12 10 Ti 7 7 T -eh 8 T f 0 4- a 2- 0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Mean total phosphorus during summer (June to August) in Karluk Lake. 4 3 } _ - • c w 2 11 - 1 1 CL 1 TIT I o J r 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Mean chlorophyll a concentration during summer -fall (July to September) in Karluk Lake. e January 2011 A GOIde[ Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F �® Associates == KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE • te= = Karluk Lake Zooplankton INTERANNUAL TRENDS IN ZOOPLANKTON 3500 E 3000 - m E 2500 - • N co E 2000 - 0 m 1500 - - _ _ o - c 1000 - - -- m a - • o 500 - _ ' 0n, 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Mean zooplankton biomass during summer (June to August) in Karluk Lake, 1981 to 2009. Units of observation were daily total biomass (sum of all species' biomasses, mean of sample stations). III 2000 cu 1800 E m 1600 - E 1400 - • • • N \ E 1200 - E 4 1000 - n • c BOO - • o \ 1 600 - m a 400 \ - 0 0 N 200 - 0 . 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Chlorophyll a (pg /L) Relationship between zooplankton biomass and chlorophyll a in Karluk Lake. Data are annual means of total biomass and chlorophyll a during summer (June to August), 1981 -2006 (P= 0.001; R =0.50; y = 1516 — 404x). Jan uary 2011 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F ASSOCiates -- = KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Karluk Lake Salmon 5e +6 - 4e +6 N O y 3e +6 - a 2e +6 E _ Z - 1e +6 0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Number of smolts (all ages) emigrating from Karluk Lake. 2.5e +6 - Age1 2.0e +6 - Age 2 ■ Age3 I Age • w • E 1.5e+6 6 - 0 E 1.Oe +6 - - - J Z 5.0e +5 - 0.0 I 1 ■ l� 19 61. 1968 1 960-A 9B4 1991.1992 1999 -2001 Number of smolts emigrating from the Karluk Lake by age and time period. • January 2011 (2 r Gofder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates • v KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Ire N E 3500 4.5e +6 m o Zooplankton E 3000 — Smalls ` - 4.0e +6 + x x 2500 - 3.5e +6 m d T T 10 2000 - 3.0e +6 m V) in m _ - 2.5e +6 3- 1500 - g 4 r -' - - 2.Oe +6 m 1000 I - - ° '' E o m 500 - 1.0e +6 z a f n O 0 , r �7� n r 5.0e +5 N 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Mean zooplankton biomass in Karluk Lake during summer (June to August) and total number of smolts (all ages) emigrating from the lake in the following year. N 3500 3.5e +6 m O Zooplankton — E 3000 - Age t at year x *t - 3.0e +6 0 ,_ Agea Year x.2 x — Age 3 at year 2*3 2.5e+6 • M 2500 - T ° • 1° 2000 - - 2.Oe +6 m • m ; • - \� _ - 1.5e +6 ° E 1500 - _ _ °- - - 1.0e +6 E • m 1000 - - Z o -_ . _ - S.Oe +S • 500. A.,... - - 0.0 O 0 n11 N 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Number of smolts emigrating from Karluk Lake compared to the mean zooplankton biomass during the smolt's first summer in the lake. 0 January 2011 9 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE • 4.5e +6 • + 4.0e +6 - x • m 3.5e +6 - • N >, -6 3.Oe +6 N p 2.5e +6 - E 2.Oe +6 - 0 • a 1.5e +6 - E z 1.Oe +6 - • 5.0e +5 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 Zooplankton Biomass at year x (mg /m Relationship between the mean zooplankton biomass in Karluk Lake during summer (June to August) and number of smolts (all ages) emigrating from the lake in the following year. 160 mm Age 1 140 - r r Age 2 ® Age 3 E 120 - • = 100 - � r 1 I 1 1 J 80 60 1980 1985 1990 1995 sso z000 35 30 Age 1 n. , Age2 25 ® Age 3 S' 20 L (T 3 15 10 5 0 llU I 1 1 Ili 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Mean length and weight of sockeye salmon smolts emigrating from Karluk Lake, 1979 -2001. • January 2011 ef Golder Report No. 09-1480-0032F Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Relationship between smolt size (length and weight) and the mean zooplankton biomass during the smolt's first summer in the lake. Age 1 115 14 E 1 1 0 1 0 5 • • • + • • X 10 - • s 100 • N • • • • m N • T • • r 95 To 8- N • t 90 0 o) m 6- 85- • • 80 4 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Zooplankton Biomass (mg /m Zooplankton Biomass (mg /m Age 2 120 15 118 - • 14 - • ing year (1983- - 116 - • m E + 13- • • 114- • • . + • • w CV K 112 - '�` 12 - m m 110_ m >. a 108 - m 11 - • To • r 106- • ' 10- 1 • m m 104 - 9- 102 - • • 100 8 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Zooplankton Biomass (mg /m Zooplankton Biomass (mg /m Age 3 132 22 • 130 - E 128 - on 20 E co m 126 8- x 124 - . N • `m 122 - • m 16- y • • T • 20. • N • L 118- • • 0 14- • • • rn m 116 - 12. J 114- • • 112 - . 10 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 Zooplankton Biomass (mg /m Zooplankton Biomass (mg/m January 2011 [ /�a' ��j tGolder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F V Associates -- KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Pr • 1200 Early Run 1000 - Late Run u) Total at 800 - $ 600 - E 400 - v / m ' m 200 - W , 0- 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Total escapement of sockeye salmon to Karluk Lake system. 10 •• m 9 • • 8 • • a Ji / � • / 4 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Escapement at year x (thousands) Relationship between total escapement (early and late runs) and mean phosphorus the following year in Karluk Lake, 1980 -2006 (P =0.03; R =0.23; y = 5.685 + 0.00000241x). • January 2011 9 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F � ® Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 1.5 • • 1.0 - • m • • • • L 0.5 - d O • O • • U 0.0 - • c • • • 0.0 2.Oe +5 4.0e +5 6.Oe +5 8.0e +5 1.Oe +6 1.2e +E Escapement at year x Relationship between total escapement (early and late runs) and mean chlorophyll a the following year in Karluk Lake, 1980 -2006 (P= 0.003; R =0.40; y = -8.0 + 0.63 *In(x)). • • January 2011 9 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates = KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Laura Lake Nutrient Summary 3 • • 2 •• J • �• • m 1 - • •' • T ••� • L • • •�' p • 2 0 - • ,I. • re • � o • , • 4 U • J• • • • • • 2 . -3 .• 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 In Phosphorus Relationship between the natural logarithms of chlorophyll a and total phosphorus in Laura Lake for all samples and stations, 1990 -2003 (P <0.001; R =0.30; y = -2.404 + 1.180x). SEASONAL TRENDS IN NUTRIENTS Y9 • 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 .. 0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 .1. c. .: , , , '20 H .5 n 2000 2001 2002 2003 d 5 6 7 a 9101112 Mont • \ 15 P M • , . ter•' ` - , . . , 10 2 .. 5 e_ j0 — 456790101112456709101112456799101112456 7n 1101112 Month Month Mmih Monlll • Y January 2011 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F �ASS OCIates — — KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 1990 -1994 1995 -1999 2000 -2003 __ __ -15 2 to a 5 -&- 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112 Month Month Month Seasonal trends in total phosphorus in Laura Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). YEAR 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 .. .. .... . '490 . .. -. -. -009 a S . . . • • l - 99 44, x•199 "= o ® r .. .. .. .. ..... 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 -499 300 • .. • • • . _ • • • • -250 3 - __..1\ .,• '..-. 299 .. _. -199 3 2000 2001 2002 2J 2003 4 5 0 7 Mon 9101112 0 350 z 200 .. 7 .. - - ao . : ....,.,.:0 4567 85101112456 78910111245 6789101112456789101112 Month month Month Month 1990 -1994 1995 -1999 2000 -2003 , , 1 , 1 1 1 _ _ , , 1 1 1 1 1 _ _ , , , , , , 1 - 400 z -300 - ,_ p e _P a - - .--.--Sr—N - - i -200 i -100 . . , , ,„ , - - , , , , . , , , , - - - , . , , , , , , . - 0 4 5 6 7 8 910111 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9101112 Month Month Month ® Seasonal trends in total nitrogen in Laura Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). January 2011 & Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE YEAR 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 • 90 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 i. .- . . .. ,i .. 150 .. .. - . .. -loo 2000 2001 2002 2003 4 s 6 2 8 9101152 Month - ! • -100 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112 °555759101112456789101112 45618910'.512 Month Moth Month Month 1990 -1994 1995 -1999 2000 -2003 ! ! ! ! , . , 4 ! l 1 4 4 , ! 1 ! ! 4 4 150 - -- -- -100 Z • 50 0 ,11, ,1� ,111 ,1 0 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112 Month Month Month Seasonal trends in nitrogen to phosphorus ratio in Laura Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). • January 2011 GP Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE YEAR 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 . . I 0v 09 0 8 06 �' ti o5 ? . 0 0 o 0 3 1 o1 2 s 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 lc. ii / 0 {. 8 -' 0 H 5 v a 0.4 . 0 3 s 03 v° 02S • 4 5 6 7 0 9 101112 2000 2001 2002 2003 Month a7 0 os 3 • 030 0 1 of 4567691011124567891011124567891011124567881011 12 Month Month Month Month 1990 -1994 1995 -1999 2000 -2003 1 I I _ 1 t 1, t 1 t __ 1 1 1 1 1 -1.0 70 -- -09 ® __ _ Y oa -a7 0.6 -os a - - -- -0.4 0 __ - - _0.30 __ __ -0.2< , , , , , , , , , , , „- w 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112 Month Month Month Seasonal trends in the ratio of chlorophyll a to total measured primary productivity (chlorophyll a plus phaeophytin). Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). CD January 2011 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F -.A ssociates V _ KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE V 0 INTERANNUAL TRENDS 16 14 - _ — J 12 - — + 'en _ ? to O L _ co 6 O L 2 — 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 Mean total phosphorus during summer (June to August) in Laura Lake. 12 10 - 1 i 8- co T 6- i III O O 4 L U 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 Mean chlorophyll a concentration during summer -fall (July to September) in Laura Lake. • January 2011 v 'GOIde[ Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates ® _ KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Little Kitoi Lake nutrient summary Note: Only epilimnetic samples (depth =l.0m) were used for nutrients because the lake is meromictic with a saline layer with very high phosphorus near the bottom. Little Kitoi Lake was fertilized in 2000 -2001. 2.0 1.5 • • • a / a 0.5 ° • r ° 0.0 • • i � ti/ U w - %• • - Q 5 - • • '"• fi -1.0 -1.5 0 5 10 15 20 25 Phosphorus ()AWL) Relationship between natural logarithm of chlorophyll a and total phosphorus in Little Kitoi Lake for all samples and stations, 1990 -2002 (P= <0.001; R =0.20; y = -0.459 + 0.0671x). SEASONAL TRENDS IN NUTRIENTS YEAR 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 .. . . . . . . .. .. - - ,30 .. .. -20 10 m 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 .. . . .- .. -30 - 20 _ -- J - 2000 2001 2002 45678910114567891011 Month Month .1 .. • - 30 a .. � z6 9 .10 .0 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month Month Month 0 January 2011 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 1990 -1999 2000 -2001 30 m / I N 10 C -10 r0 Ji 4 5 6 7 8 91011 4 5 6 7 8 91011 Month Month Seasonal trends in total phosphorus in Little Kitoi Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). YEAR 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 .,. .n .400 j z '300 $ • J .. .r• .zo6 0 100 • 0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 .. ..... -. :..... • V 1 00 0 !/ 00 100 to 2000 2001 2002 45678910114567891011 Month Month '400 z 300 • f' ' 200 -100 e 4 5 6 1 9 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 1 8 9 1011 Month Month Month 1990 -1999 2000 -2001 __ ,_400 z -300 a -200 2 -100 m r 0 4 5 6 7 8 91011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month Month Seasonal trends in total nitrogen in Little Kitoi Lake during. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). s January 2011 *. "Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F \'Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE YEAR 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 -. .- .. .i -300 • • z A • f r - • .. -mo V 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 ,. .. .. -i .300 z - .. . ._ - 200 .. -100 a 2000 2001 2002 4567 8 910114 5 6 7 8 91017 Month Month n... ... z . - -200 - ' • -' •-�• 100 °-' t. 10 4567 391011456 ] 8 91011 4 5 8 891011 Month Monty Month 1990 -1999 2000 -2001 _ _ 300 z ® - -- -200 -- A•� -100 v 1 0 4 5 6 7 8 91011 4 5 6 7 8 91011 Month Month Seasonal trends in nitrogen to phosphorus ratio in Little Kitoi Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). 0 January 2011 * b Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F A ssociates s = KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE YEAR 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1 0 • «•� • • • • 0 8 '0 •--. N. 0.7 • - - 0.6 0 0.5 ° 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 - -- .. -10 a -n.91 •-•�'� -. J �. I .. `J 'OB o • V - 01 a -05 2000 2001 2002 4 5 6 7 8 91011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Monlh Month 1.o • • 0.9 0.8 a 07 c 0.6 a 05 04 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 c Month Monti Monti 1990 -1999 2000 -2001 - 0 -" I . . -_ T -1.0o -0.9 a \ �\ - 0.8 0 -0.6 0 0.5 - 0.4 K 45678910114567891011 °1 Month Month Seasonal trends in the ratio of chlorophyll a to total measured primary productivity (chlorophyll a plus phaeophytin). Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). INTERANNUAL TRENDS 20 16' 16 -1 :1 ) 14 3 12 - co 10 e 0 6 a 1 4 _ r 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Mean total phosphorus during summer (June to August) in Little Kitoi Lake. • January 2011 a , Golder Report No. 09-1480-0032F M# Associates ® _ii -- KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 5 4- a _ - m >, s r _ o 2 - - o - o of[ 0 r s 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Mean chlorophyll a concentration during summer -fall (July to September) in Little Kitoi Lake. • January 2011 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F A ssociates r2 _ - KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE • Little Kitoi Lake Zooplankton INTERANNUAL TRENDS IN ZOOPLANKTON 300 E 250 'Eh E 2 200 - _ m — E 9 150 0 C o Y 100 - — m _ 0 50- N On - IL fl,_ , 1 , 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Mean zooplankton biomass during summer (June to August) in Little Kitoi Lake, 1990 to 2009. Units of observation were daily total biomass (sum of all species' biomasses, mean of sample stations). 200 • r6 180 E m 140 / • E 1ao m 120 E O 100 • m = 80 0 .' 40 N O 40 .• N 20- • • 0. - 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Chlorophyll a (uglL) Relationship between zooplankton biomass and chlorophyll a in Little Kitoi Lake. Data are annual means of total biomass and chlorophyll a during summer (June to August), 1990 -2002 (P= 0.001; R =0.62; y = 5.534 + 43.578x). • v -. January 2011 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates -0 KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Little Waterfall Lake nutrient summary 2 • 1- • ••. • • • • 2 0 _ • ••• ell.• a • • •� • o -1 - i • • o •.r- •. • • L j / •� . • • ••. I • • U • • •. • • . c -2 " • ••• -3 - • -4 , r . . • 1 . 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 In Phosphorus Relationship between natural logarithms of chlorophyll a and total phosphorus in Little Waterfall Lake for all samples and stations, 1990 -2003 (P <0.001; R =0.23; y = -2.7 + 1.2x). ® SEASONAL TRENDS IN NUTRIENTS YEAR 1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 .. / ... ,. . ., ,. ,..,. ..15 4 6 6 7 6 9 1011 4 5 6 7 0 91011 2001 2002 2003 Month Month V• 0 d 5 .. 555-5 4 5 6 7 6 9 1011 4 5 6 7 0 9 1011 4 5 6 7 6 9 1011 Month Month Month January 2011 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F A ssociates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE a • 1990 -1995 1996 -1999 2000 -2003 _ I I I,,, __ I I, I I I __ , I I,, I -15 - o - - - r a , , , , i i 4 / \ \ w _ • _ • - 0 0 2 0 5 N co r V I , I 1 I I i - 9 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month Month Month Seasonal trends in total phosphorus in Little Waterfall Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). YEAR 1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 . <. . o .. .. • -300 . .. .. .. .. -250 ao .. ti .. .I'f .. .150 • . � : 100 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 .. . • - 250 • .. • . .. '250 • • • - l50 -150 -- • 100 2001 2002 2003 4 557 0 9 10 11 4 557591011 Month Monty _ -250 5 g 00 i 150 u 4 5 6] 8 9 101 1 4 5 5] 9 0 1011 4 5 5 7 9 9 1011 Month month month 1990 -1995 1996 -1999 2000 -2003 , I I,, __ , I I I I __ I I,, I I 300 Z - -- - - -250 0 0 -- -200 r 3 ,_ '` 150 I - I I - - I I I 100 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month Month Month Seasonal trends in total nitrogen in Little Waterfall Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). ill January 2011 !Golder Report No. 09-1480-0032F Associates • - - KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE YEAR 1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 - 1. - -200 -1s6 e • .. -59 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 .. o. .. ' -ann - .- .. ._ - -150 z • - -. -. -- -. -Ion n •k.�-•'• .. • • . • • • • .. l .. . -56 ° 5678 9 2001 2002 2003 mu 45 678 9 mu Month Month - . -150 z . .. I00 P fti - ..56 6 ..,.... -. 4 5 6 7 6 9 1011 4 5 6 7 6 9 1011 1 ° 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month M1bntn Month 1990 -1995 1996 -1999 2000 -2003 1 - - 1 . , . __ -zoo - -- -150 z - \,..„... — •^ ' - \ -100 A ru • • -5p o 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month Month Month Seasonal trends in nitrogen to phosphorus ratio in Little Waterfall Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). 0 i January 2011 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE YEAR 1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 09 0 J °, V V\ os� 04 '— 02 ° a 02 01 It 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 • _•_. r , - • v o ... 1 96 J I I I 040 0 o 02 73 0 ass M 8 9 10 2001 2002 2003 Month s F H s tun 1 f+ 088 // 04 a 0.3 3 02 i 01 ... .. 4 5 6 7 6 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 0 1011 Month Month Month 1990 -1995 1996 -1999 2000 -2003 0.9 0.8 0 f Y 0.7 • 0.5 s 0.4 S 0.33 - 02 3. 0.1 t , , ■ , , , , , , 0.0 m 4 5 6 7 13 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month Month Month Seasonal trends in the ratio of chlorophyll a to total measured primary productivity (chlorophyll a plus phaeophytin). Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). • r _. January 2011 ( /' �j " Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F �L/ Associates `6 KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE INTERANN UAL TRENDS 14 12 - 10 m _ - e - - T s • 6 T- n_ 4 2 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 Mean total phosphorus during summer (June to August) in Little Waterfall Lake. 3.5 3.0 - m 2.5 - 0 2.0 - - 2 L _ 2 1.5 O - - U 1.0 - _ 0.5 - 0.0 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 Mean chlorophyll a concentration during summer -fall (July to September) in Little Waterfall Lake. 0 January 2011 940 Golder Report No. 09-1480-0032F Associates .__ KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE d • Little Waterfall Lake Zooplankton INTERANNUAL TRENDS IN ZOOPLANKTON 1200 r E 1000 - m E n 800 - in N O 600 - m 400 - C o • 200- — _ o Neu nnn nnn 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Mean zooplankton biomass during summer (June to August) in Little Waterfall Lake, 1990 to 2009. Units of observation were daily total biomass (sum of all species' biomasses, mean of sample stations). 1200 • a • 1000 - • 0 6 E 600 - N N E 600 - 0 c 0 400 0 2 200 - n • ••• • 0 o 0 N 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Chlorophyll a (pg /L) Relationship between zooplankton biomass and chlorophyll a in Little Waterfall Lake. Data are annual means of total biomass and chlorophyll a during summer (June to August), 1990 -2003. • January 2011 "t Golder Report No. 09-1480-0032F Associates • KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Lower Jennifer Lake Nutrient Summary 0.7 • 0.6- 0.5 - s • 0 0.4 - • 2 0.3 • 0 o L 0.2 4 • • • U 0.1 - • w• 0.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Phosphorus (pg /L) No significant relationship between chlorophyll a and total phosphorus in Lower Jennifer Lake for all samples and stations, 1990, 1993 -1994 (P =0.9). If two outliers with high phosphorus are removed, there is no still no significant relationship (P =0.1). o SEASONAL TRENDS IN NUTRIENTS YEAR 1990 1993 1994 6 • • -5 gp o • __ __ _3 m r 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Month Month Month Seasonal trends in total phosphorus in Lower Jennifer Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). 4 V January 2011 ' Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F - A A ssociates - KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE • YEAR 1990 1993 1994 , . , . . , , 500 • 400 0 -- -- -300 S 3 - /• -- • -- -200 `E 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Month Month Month Seasonal trends in total nitrogen in Lower Jennifer Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). YEAR 1990 1993 1994 -200 v • • __ � • __ _100 0. - 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Month Month Month Seasonal trends in nitrogen to phosphorus ratio in Lower Jennifer Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). YEAR 1990 1993 1994 0 • -- -- �• '0.6 0 - • - • - ~ -✓ -0.5 - - • -0.4 0 - -- -- -0.3 a a 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Month Month Month Seasonal trends in the ratio of chlorophyll a to total measured primary productivity (chlorophyll a plus phaeophytin). Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). • January 2011 • # Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates - Er KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 0 == __ INTERANNUAL TRENDS 6 5- 1 I Si E Q 2 3 - ` o t a 02- I L 0. 1- 0 —x- 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Mean total phosphorus during summer (June to August) in Lower Jennifer Lake. 0.6 0.5 - Si ® 0 D .Q N a 0.3- a O 0 0.2- = U - 0,1 . 4 0 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Mean chlorophyll a concentration during summer -fall (July to September) in Lower Jennifer Lake. 0 January 2011 et Report No. 09-1480-0032F Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE a - . • Lower Jennifer Lake Zooplankton INTERANNUAL TRENDS IN ZOOPLANKTON 1200 E 1000 E to 800 - — N _ — 9 600 - w — - - c 0 x 400 m 0 200 - - 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 Mean zooplankton biomass during summer (June to August) in Lower Jennifer Lake, 1993 to 2009. Units of observation were daily total biomass (sum of all species' biomasses, mean of sample stations). • 1800 CA E 1600 c E 1400 - y 2 1200 - E • .2 1000 - on 0 800 - s m 600 - n • i o 400 - • • • 200 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 Chlorophyll a (pg /L) Relationship between zooplankton biomass and chlorophyll a in Lower Jennifer Lake. Data are annual means of total biomass and chlorophyll a during summer (June to August), 1993 -1994. • January 2011 9,Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates _ — KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Red Lake Nutrient Summary 10 • 8 •• J m 6 •• • - } • 4- L 0- O 2- L 0- • / 0 100 200 300 400 Phosphorus (ug /L) Relationship between chlorophyll a and total phosphorus in Red Lake for all samples and stations, 1990 -1996. Outlying points with very high phosphorus and low chlorophyll occurred in 1992 -1996 (especially in 1994 -1995; see graphs below) and at both sampling stations. 0 10 1 T 9- - 8 - 7- m >. 6 0 5" YEAR o o 1990 4- o 1991 37,r 1992 2 3 1993 1994 1 x ` 1995 0 1 n 1996 0 100 200 300 400 Phosphorus (ug /L) 0 Jan uary 2011 f Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F . Associates 1ri _ KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE • SEASONAL TRENDS IN NUTRIENTS YEAR 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 .. .. .. '400 .. .. .- .. .300 5 . .. .. .. .. 200 - 100 e 4 5 6 1 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 1995 1996 hmah month month . - 300 - - 200 100 E _ .?. 1D 4561 5 67 89 mn month month 1990 -1991 1992 -1996 I t I 1 1 1 I 1_ _1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 400 s - - -300 �°, a m 200 c • cn 100 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Month Month Seasonal trends in total phosphorus in Red Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). YEAR 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 . .. _. .. soo - -. .. .. .. 400 .. 300 .. .. / - • ` -100 n -. . . . . , . .. ._ .. .6 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 1 8 9 1011 4 5 6] 8 9 1011 1995 1996 month month month • 400 5 300 • - 200 200 3 -. .100 8 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6] 8 9 1011 month month • Y_• January 2011 s 'Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates -` - -- KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE — - - °_ - - -R:._ it 1990 -1991 1992 -1996 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 I - - - - 500 - - - - 400 ? O - 300 ccd 200 3 co - -- -100 1 - 1 1 1 1 ■ ■ ■ ( 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 0 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Month Month Seasonal trends in total nitrogen in Red Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). 0 YEAR 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 250 - -- -• - . - - -200 . - . -. -. -150 9 - .. .. -. 1n0 v 4 5 6 2 6 9 1011 4 5 6 7 6 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 1995 1996 Mont, Month Monty - 250 - - .200 -- -150 v - - -100 m J -50 . 0 4 5 6 1 6 9 1011 4 5 6 1 8 9 1011 Monll, A1q,t 0 January 2011 et Golder Report No. 09-1480-0032F Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE • 1990 -1991 1992 -1996 250 - - -200 z - - -150 - 100 m 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 — 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Month Month Seasonal trends in nitrogen to phosphorus ratio in Red Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). YEAR • 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 7. V oy ox o - r' un • 05 o a o1 o 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 4 5 0 8 910+1 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 1995 1996 Month Month Mont, •... lo9 09 • 85 •-• 81 b o x o a ' oa a oz t 0.0 0 a s s r t e lon 4 s s 40186 Month Month 4 January 2011 GO Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates ` E _ KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE __ -T'— o- -__T= =� _ = 1990 -1991 1992 -1996 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1_ _1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1- 1.0 0 D - 0.8 bb - -- --0°156(P4 ; - - -0.4 - - -0.3 0 - - -0.2 3 - - -0.1 's 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Month Month Seasonal trends in the ratio of chlorophyll a to total measured primary productivity (chlorophyll a plus phaeophytin). Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). 0 INTERANNUAL TRENDS 70 60 - _ l 50 - m w 40 2 `o - 0 30 - o o • - a 20 4 a_ 10 - - Y » 0 , 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Mean total phosphorus during summer (June to August) in Red Lake. 0 v -• January 2011 9 Golder Report No. 09-1480-0032F Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 3.0 2.5- - - J — ce — 3. 2.0- — to - ... 1.5 - - L T a 1 O O 1.0 - L U l i 0.5 - 0.0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Mean chlorophyll a concentration during summer -fall (July to September) in Red Lake. • • January 2011 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F W Associates Q A KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Red Lake Salmon 1.6e +6 1.4e +6 - N 1.2e +6 - E E 1.0e +6 N 8.0e +5 d 6.0e +5 Z 4.0e +5 2.0e+5 - 0.0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Number of smolts (all ages) emigrating from the Red Lake. 1.6e +6 1.4e +6 ® Age1 •?: y 1.2e +6 o Age 2 ® Age 3 E • 1.0e +6 N • 8.Oe +5 0 E 6.0e +5 J Z 4.Oe +5 2.Oe +5 I� ( I I 0.0 — 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Number of smolts emigrating from the Red Lake by age. 0 January 2011 ' /Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates '2-7. -4-- ---i- --- KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE • • 2.5 1.6e +6 1 1 Chlorophyll a — Smelts - 1.4e+6 + m2.0- _ x x - 1.2e +6 m m T >. 1.5 - 1.0e +6 w to c5 T O - 6.Oe +5 ` 0 0.5 a 4.Oe +5 s U Z • 0.0 2.0e +5 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Mean chlorophyll a in Red Lake during summer -fall and total number of smolts (all ages) emigrating from the lake in the following year (zooplankton data not available). 3.0 1.6e +6 CI Chlorophyll a — Age 1 smolts at year x +1 - 1.4e +6 p 2.5 Age 2 smolts at year x+2 • 1.2e+6 2.0- — - 1.Oe +6 0 m - E >, N B.Oe +S m 1.5 - o m — • • - 6.0e +5 `m a 1:; - - — 2.0e +5 U 0.0 0.0 , 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 Number of smolts emigrating from Red Lake compared to the mean chlorophyll a during the smolt's first summer in the lake. There were very few age 3 smolts so they are not included here. • January 2011 ar Golder Report No. 09-1480-0032F Associates • 'i — ' KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 1.6e+6 + 1.4e +6 - • x • 1.2e +6 - T ` 1.0e +6 • O E 8.0e +5 - 0 6.Oe +5 • 4.0e +5 - Z • 2.0e +5 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 Chlorophyll a at year x (pg /L) Relationship between mean chlorophyll a in Red Lake during summer -fall (July to September) and number of smolts (all ages) emigrating from the lake in the following year. 140 Age 1 Age 2 20 I Age 3 E 100 - - - = � 80 - J 60 - 1 40 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 0 January 2011 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE • 18 16 Age 1 O Age2 Age3 14 12 10 m 0 8 6 4 i o 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Mean length and weight of sockeye salmon smolt emigrating from Red Lake, 1979 -2001. 6 5 • m E 4 - n N B 3" n c J 2 N 1- 0 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Brood Year Returns per spawner in Red Lake. • January 2011 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F \'Associates ® �= '= KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 2.5 6 O Chlorophyll a _ Relums/spawner - 3 2.0 - 5 3 4 m m 1.5 • 4 a T 3 n m • 1.0 - >, 2 J C O 0.5 - 1 L U 1 975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 4.0 • 3.5 - m • 3.0 - m • w 2.5 - cif) • w 2.0 - E C m 1.5 - 1.0- • 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 Chlorophyll a at year x + 1 (µg /L) Returns per spawner for a given brood year and mean summer -fall chlorophyll a the following year. 2D Graph 15 1e +6 8e +5 - E 6e +5 a) u w • 4e +5 2e +5 - 0 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0 Total escapement of sockeye salmon to Red Lake system. January 2011 ° Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F - Associates _- KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Ill 50 0 m 340- + • • x • m 30 - 0) 1 20 6 10 . • 0 a 0 2e +5 3e +5 4e4 5e +5 6e +5 7e +5 8e +5 Escapement Relationship between total escapement and mean phosphorus the following year in Red Lake, 1989 -1996. 2.4 J • o,zz - •• 2.0- • + • x 1.8- d 1.6- T m 14- N • , 1.2 - • = o 1.0 - o 0.8- 0 • 0.6 . , 2e +5 3e +5 4e +5 5e +5 6e +5 7e +5 8e +5 Escapement Relationship between total escapement and mean chlorophyll a the following year in Red Lake, 1980 -2006. • January 2011 •Golder Report No.09- 1480 -0032F Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 0 Saltery Lake Nutrient Summary Note: There is only nutrient data for two years (1994, 1997) plus one data point in May in 2000. 1.5 • 1.0 - • • J _ N 2 o -0.5 - o • • C. c • • -2.0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Phosphorus (tig /L) No significant relationship between chlorophyll a and total phosphorus in Saltery Lake for all samples and stations, 1990 -2002 (P =0.2). 0 SEASONAL TRENDS IN NUTRIENTS YEAR 1994 1997 2000 J 0 y (/ 10 ti 0 0 5 • 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month Month Month Seasonal trends in total phosphorus in Saltery Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (Data are daily averages, pooling stations and samples). 0 January 2011 a! Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F ssociates _ - - - • KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE • YEAR 1994 1997 2000 , , , , . . . . . . 400 z - - - - - -300 q p -200 - -- -- -100 f . 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month Month Month Seasonal trends in total nitrogen in Saltery Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (Data are daily averages, pooling stations and samples). YEAR 1994 1997 2000 , , , , , , 1-2 , , , , , , , ,120 -100 • z j ) -- -60 .. • V9. - 60 -0 40 -- -- -20 t 0 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month Month Month Seasonal trends in nitrogen to phosphorus ratio in Saltery Lake. Data are daily averages (pooling stations and samples). Graphs show monthly averages (Data are daily averages, pooling stations and samples). YEAR 1994 1997 2000 a -0.9 - 8 -- -0.8 5 - -0.6 -05 0 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month Month Month Seasonal trends in the ratio of chlorophyll a to total measured primary productivity (chlorophyll a plus phaeophytin). • January 2011 9r-. Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F A ssociates -" - KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE INTERANNUAL TRENDS 12 10 6- 6 4 0- 2 - • 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Mean total phosphorus during summer (June to August) in Saltery Lake. 35 0 q 15 05 ® 06 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Mean chlorophyll a concentration during summer -fall (July to September) in Saltery Lake. 0 January 2011 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F - A ssociates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE A • Saltery Lake Zooplankton INTERANNUAL TRENDS IN ZOOPLANKTON 1400 E 1200 - — 1000 - — N N 800 - co m 600 - — c O c 400 - (0 a °° 200 - ! — _ S 0 . ri _, rte, � Fl , ,ill, 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Mean zooplankton biomass during summer (June to August) in Saltery Lake, 1994 to 2009. Units of observation were daily total biomass (sum of all species' biomasses, mean of sample stations). • 1000 r • E 900 m • e 800 700 - _ °1 600 • c 0 m 500 - n °p 400 - • N 300 06 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 13 Chlorophyll a (pg /L) Relationship between zooplankton biomass and chlorophyll a in Saltery Lake. Data are daily total biomass versus mean daily chlorophyll a during summer (June to August) in 1994 and 1997. • January2011 or Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates _ _ KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Saltery Lake Salmon 6 5- ; 11 3 - a 2- 1 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Returns per spawner in Saltery Lake. 1400 6 co + o Zooplankton K 1200 - — Returns /spawner 5 `m m c 1000 4 To 800 3 n m 0 m c ° 600 - - 2 m ° 400 1 / 1 d m 0 200- p 0 N 0'. 4 11 I p lnll [ n II 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Returns per spawner for a given brood year and mean summer zooplankton biomass the following year. 80000 70000 1 60000 .. A ri \ i \__\ /---,,,,,,,, 50000 a N 40000 - I W 30000 - \ 20000 - 10000 - 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Escapement of sockeye salmon to Saltery Lake system. 0 January 2011 GP Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE a • Spiridon Lake Nutrient Summary 3.0 • c n 2.0- • • • m 1.5- n• •• •�•♦ U 0.5 - , sa `; `- e. I. % 0.0 - x,. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Phosphorus (pg /L) Relationship between chlorophyll a and total phosphorus in Spiridon Lake for all samples and stations, 1988- 2008 (P <0.001; R y = 0.45 + 0.015x). • • January 2011 • t GOIde[ Report No. 09-1480-0032F Associates __-= KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE SEASONAL TRENDS IN NUTRIENTS YEAR 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 0 - - ao a 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 . -t -. -. ♦t -30 3 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 - .. .. / /n\\ - - 20 1 J • • r a 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 - -t . .. .. . -. .. .. .- - 2n-," ® •• • • -. .. .. J o 2008 > S month month • • month n 3 a S month .o a - 3a - -20 u 3 . ,a % • • • month 0•• • o • 1988 -1992 1993 -1999 2000 -2004 2005 -2008 -o - -- -- -- - 5 2 3•% 6 0 % • NO A \ N '0 • 3 6 1 0 P o .3 3 3 3 • h 6 1 0 0 AO .1 0- 3• h 6 1 0 O 03.3 .3 Month Month Month Month Seasonal trends in total phosphorus in Spiridon Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). 0 January 2011 ` Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE YEAR 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 .. -. .. - 1000 : - -- - -- -- 000 800 g' - .. - .. . _ - . •• ...-. ....,,. -. .._. _. 1 ^ ^re 400 e 00 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 . - 1 -8- -- -1200 - - - — - 1000 z - - - -- .. - eon a ua - - - - -- -eoo 3 - - ..... - rte. .- -aoo 4 oo 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 - . - - - - 1200 - - - -- 1000 z i -- - .- - eoo a to - - -000 . -w_.. - -aoo 0 . - .. w . 200 ? 1 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 . - ...... ,. _. - -1200 - -- - -1000 m - - 000 .I 000 • • • . ". • - "1,-. -. -aoo 4 -200 C 0 . 0 b 2008 month • • •v 3 , S b e o , „a e . s « nmm n e• •h 0 . 0 b 4 Momn e. a - 0200 - 000 z .e '8W g • sro -•-.." am 2ro Le 1 . ,4,4• o month 1988 -1992 1993 -1999 2000 -2004 2005 -2008 -- -- .- -1000 2 -- -- -- - 800 n - -- .. -- -600 .�•�.� -�., - - ,�. -..-. ' - ,..,_�ti_�. - - ,- .�.^� -. - 200 3 — -- -- -zoo E. A 4 6 61 0 6 o 2 2 2 1 3 6 1 6 1 0 9 2 0 2 1 6 2 1 . 3 0 h 1 062622 22 3 04 04 04 1 0 9 .0 Month Monti Month Month Seasonal trends in total nitrogen in Spiridon Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). • January 2011 � ' t Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 0 Associates _ _ _- s KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE o YEAR 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 -- -- -- -- - soon . -. -- -- .. -4000 -. .. .. .- -30001 .e - - - -- -2000 _$ .. .. .. .. -1000 ° ........ a . - - •-•-• • - - .•v.• • r .-• -..-•+ ..."- -... -0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 -. - - .. .... .... -_ ..scan - -- .. -. .- -4000 . -- -- - -- -3000 v - -- .- -- -. -2000 y . .- _. .. .. -1000 ° 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 • - 5000 . .- -. - .. -4003 - -. -- .. -- -3000 a . - .. -. .- -2000 a A -- -- .. -- .1000 - •'• e '-'-' • -- tt 1 ... r.,... `t . :o 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 -. -. .. ... . , -- -5000 - -- -- -- -4000 . -- -. -. .3000 a - -- - - -- -2000 m - -. -- .. -. -1000 ° 2008 Month 3 b 1 ; 5 5 3 - 3 0 3 5 ° 05 Month moon, , ,. , a S b t 3 a S b 3 ® - 5000 -4000 -0000 a -2000 v - 1000 ° , aS e o,,M1 10n15 1988 -1992 1993 -1999 2002 -2005 2006 2007 -2008 . _ • .5000 . -. .. -. .400 - -- -- -3000 a -- •- A -- .2000 if . -. -. 1-• . -0000 0 - - • •-.-•-•v-• - r - - v - - - - -- • 0 S a S, 1 month Mons t% Month 't , 5 n S d 3 e is 0o Month ,M1.5a d .3 S a S dn,, Z. + S S' 3 ,, Seasonal trends in nitrogen to phosphorus ratio in Spiridon Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). Note: very large values ( >1000) in 2006. efr January2ell —. Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F A ssociates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Q _ • YEAR 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 ... ,,..,., ....... . 1 a 0 u 09 S fi a • 1 • • \�V // 0fi 2 r D O a 04 3 03 'I. . 102 ,7 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 .. . , 10 09 Y• Ofi f 05 i Q 0 3 ° 3 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 - .. . • . � � . . . . . t 0 9 0.9 1 0076 i 05 0 04 g 0 , l O2 b 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 . , . ..... .. • • •.,n a o] ; r. 0 * -05 5 y -0a a o , P z .o. y , ■ s • month n,P, o 5 • S • month • 3 • 5 b mom, 9.0,‘,/ .1 0 200 month .o a.9 8 a V Deg • 0] i Ofi -05 e p• 9 00 w e • s A . 3,, ` t ' mon YEARCLASS 1988 -1992 1993 -1999 2000 -2004 2005 -2008 0.9 0 0 .8 a ti-.,f 1 0 i 0.5 0 0.3 0 0 2 0.2 m ')Pyfi109 , A5 16,1 090 ,s 4 3PSyt 09s0 \\� APy6'109,0 5 5,1. Month Month Month Month Seasonal trends in the ratio of chlorophyll a to total measured primary productivity (chlorophyll a plus phaeophytin). Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). • January 2011 • l Gower Report No. 09-1480-0032F Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE — A v _ INTERANNUAL TRENDS 14 12 - J 10 - m _ w 6 - 1 }I - a 6_ yT d 4 ± j 1990 1995 2000 2005 Mean total phosphorus during summer (June to August) in Spiridon Lake. 0.8 J 0.6' - } _ T 0.4 - _ - f L f _ U 0.2 i i I • I 1 0.0 -, -, 1990 1995 2000 2005 Mean chlorophyll a concentration during summer -fall (July to September) in Spiridon Lake. 0 January 2011 et Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates = KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Spiridon Lake Zooplankton INTERANNUAL TRENDS IN ZOOPLANKTON 1800 E 1600 1400 - w 1200 - — N E • 1000 - - r - - O 800 - _ - c • 600 - a 400 - • _ _ • N • 200 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Mean zooplankton biomass during summer (June to August) in Spiridon Lake, 1988 to 2009. Units of observation were daily total biomass (sum of all species' biomasses, mean of sample stations). • 1800 " 1600 - • en • E 1400 - • O • 1200 - • E • r o loon - • • • m c o 800 - s soo - n N • 400 - • • • • 200 , 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Chlorophyll a (pg /L) No relationship between zooplankton biomass and chlorophyll a in Spiridon Lake (P =0.7). Data are annual means of total biomass and chlorophyll a during summer (June to August), 1980 -2006. • y -. January 2011 �e` Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F ® Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE LEE Spiridon Lake Salmon 1 8e +6 l 6e +6 1.4e+6 - E 1 2e +6 - E N 1.0e +6 - 0 a `m 8.Oe+5 - — • 600+5 i _ — Z 4.Oe«5 20e +5 oa 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 Number of smolts (all ages) emigrating from the Spiridon Lake. 1.6e +6 1.4e+6 ® Age 1 r 1 Age2 1.2e +6 ® Age 3 0 E 1.Oe +6 O 8.0e +5 ® m Oe +5 4.Oe +5 0.0 +5 r LILL LLL 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 Number of smolts emigrating from the Spiridon Lake by age. 1800 1.6e +6 Zooplanklon of 1600 - — Smelts - 1.4e+6 + °i 1400 - 1.2e +6 0 • 1200 - T E co 1000 - – r – – - 1.Oe +6 0 m 1 800- �� 0 0 c 600 - I 6.0e +5 0 a 400 - N • 200 - - 4.Oe +5 Z 0 I - 2.0e +5 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Mean zooplankton biomass in Spiridon Lake during summer (June to August) and total number of smolts (all 0 ages) emigrating from the lake in the following year. January 2011 e r Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F - Associates Q KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE • ccE 2000 1.6e +6 m O Zooplankton E — Age 1 smolts at year x + 1 - 1,4e +6 Age 2 smolts at yea x 2 - - 1.2e +6 • 1500 - _ m i. - 1.0e +6 0 E to' cn • 1000 , - - ! o m E _ � � _ - 6.0e +5 0 Fo - 4.0e +5 p 500 - ` Z r 2.0e +5 IIrrIIII ((��II 5 m 0.0 a N 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Number of smolts emigrating from Spiridon Lake compared to the mean zooplankton biomass during the smolt's first summer in the lake. 1.6e +6 • • + 1.4e +6 - • • x 0 1.2e +6 - ` 1.0e +6 - • TD E S.Oe +S - y • `o i 6.0e+5 - • • • • • • 4.0e +5 - Z • • 2.0e +5 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 Zooplankton Biomass at year x (mg /m Relationship between the mean zooplankton biomass in Spiridon Lake during summer (June to August) and number of smolts (all ages) emigrating from the lake in the following year. • January 2011 • ' GOId¢[ Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates VIP 71 = - KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 200 ® Age 1 o Age2 150 E m 100 c 50 I o 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 70 60 - a Age 1 o Age 2 50 - " 40- L 0 0 30 20 10 6 I1 I I i_ I_ I UAL 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 Mean length and weight of sockeye salmon smolt emigrating from Spiridon Lake, 1979 -2001. 0 - *. January 2011 ' t Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F - Assodates c KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 111 V o — • Upper Jennifer Lake Nutrient Summary , 0 0.8 - • J m m 0.6 - • 2 • 2 04 0 • L U 0.0 . 2 3 4 5 6 7 Phosphorus (pg /L) No significant relationship between chlorophyll a and total phosphorus in Upper Jennifer Lake for all days sampled, 1993 -1994 (P =0.4). SEASONAL TRENDS IN NUTRIENTS YEAR • 1993 1994 -6 0 5 -4 m - 3 5 6 7 8 910115 6 7 8 91011 Month Month Seasonal trends in total phosphorus in Upper Jennifer Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). • January 2011 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F et Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE YEAR 1993 1994 300 z - -- - 250 a - - • — ' -200 - -- -150 2 100 5 6 7 8 91011 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month Month Seasonal trends in total nitrogen in Upper Jennifer Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). YEAR 1993 1994 z - -- -150 " - o - .--- N. / 100 v 50 5 6 7 8 910115 6 7 8 91011 . Month Month Seasonal trends in nitrogen to phosphorus ratio in Upper Jennifer Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). YEAR 1993 1994 a - - -0.8 2. - - % � 0 -0.7 0 • -0.6 0.5 -- -0.4 ° - -0.3 - 0.2 5 6 7 8 9 10115 6 7 8 91011 m Month Month Seasonal trends in the ratio of chlorophyll a to total measured primary productivity (chlorophyll a plus phaeophytin). Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). 0 January 2011 et. Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE o • INTERANNUAL TRENDS 6 5 6, J a 2 0- 1 0 993 1 994 Mean total phosphorus during summer (June to August) in Upper Jennifer Lake. 05 04 0.3 _ {„ o 02 o I . 0 1 1 00 99 • 1993 1994 Mean chlorophyll a concentration during summer -fall (July to September) in Upper Jennifer Lake, 1985 -1996. • r -. January 2011 Cb'Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Upper Jennifer Lake Zooplankton INTERANNUAL TRENDS IN ZOOPLANKTON 1600 a 1400 E E — E 1200 m 1000 2 E 800 m g 600 - I 400 • a 1 N 200 0 I 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Mean zooplankton biomass during summer (June to August) for Upper Jennifer Lake, 1990 to 2009. Units of observation were daily total biomass (sum of ail species' biomasses, mean of sample stations). 0 0 January 2011 & Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Upper Malina Lake Nutrient Summary 3 e 2- • •• • • • N CO •: N a 1 ? ° 8 • N • 2 • ••••• t •,----- • o R • E 0 - • s• r l iege . • U ____--.----•,..(0: 1 •• • •• • • • • • • -2 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 In Phosphorus Relationship between the natural logarithms of chlorophyll a and total phosphorus in Upper Malina Lake for all samples and stations, 1989 -2003 (P<0.001; R =0.27; y = -1.788 + 1.104x). • • January2011 ••- Galdec Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F \f/ Associates tea' — KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 0 SEASONAL TRENDS IN NUTRIENTS YEAR 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1 .. -. -. .. 30 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 .l9 - 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 9 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month Month Month Month Month 1989 -1993 1994 -1998 1999 -2003 __ - - _20 a o r- 2 0 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month Month Month Seasonal trends in total phosphorus in Upper Malina Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). 0 January 2011 & t Golder Report No. 09-1480-0032F Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE a • YEAR 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 .. .. .. .. 0400 • \ - • - _ J -- ` . -. -3001 �• .. .. -�•' \1- .. \l .300 e .. .. -. .100 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 _. ,. .. .. 400 - .N.. - - .300 •'�� .. �/ • 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 .. ,. .. .. 400 '`✓+ .. .. .. _. -aoa 2 • . / r .. \ • 12003 - aoa 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 6 9 1011 4 5 6 7 6 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month Month Month Month Month 1989 -1993 1994 -1998 1999 -2003 _ , , , , , _ _ , , , , , _ _ , , , , ' -400 z - 300 e • _ _ - _ m 2001 -, , ,- -, , , , , , ,- 100 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month Month Month Seasonal trends in total nitrogen in Upper Malina Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). • January 2011 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates _ ' -- ---- KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE YEAR 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 .: .. . - -299 .. - ., .. -159 z • -1oa 95 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 -200 -. -- -. -150 z .. — v -50 r .. 0 CO 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 - - - .. .. -200 . ' .. .. .. 150 z `\ -59 4 56 7 89101145 678910114 56 7 89101145678 91011 4 567891011 Month month Month Aloelh Month 1989 -1993 1994 -1998 1999 -2003 . 1 , 1 _ -" , , , , - - . . . . , , 1.200 _- -- -150 z -so 5. --. , , , , , , , - -, , , , , -0 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month Month Month Seasonal trends in nitrogen to phosphorus ratio in Upper Malina Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). 0 January 2011 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates ' = KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE �a • YEAR 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 NNt. —. • V 1 0 6 a 0a o] ; 06 g os a • l 0 0.3,T 0] e 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 NY : os eTh v ic,. 0 g 0 0 a -8 03 7 0] e 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 \� J 098 \\ f oe a] 0s 9.5 's 04 0 22 2, oz v d 5 6] B 9 1011 d 5 6 6 9 1011 d 5 6 9 9 101f d 5 6 B 9 :011 d 5 6 1 9 10 11 Month Month Month Month Mon15 1989 -1993 1994 -1998 1999 -2003 __ / -o.9 a 0.7 0.5 g - -- -- -0.4 a _ - _ - _0.3 < -0.2 c 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month Month Month Seasonal trends in the ratio of chlorophyll a to total measured primary productivity (chlorophyll a plus phaeophytin). Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). r January 2011 "' Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE INTERANNUAL TRENDS 18 16 14 - – J - m 12 - j 10 - s 8 – = T = 0 T 0 6 - + – — Q a- 2 o, 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 Mean total phosphorus during summer (June to August) in Upper Malina Lake 7 s- I 5 - 2 a T 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Mean chlorophyll a concentration during summer - fall (July to September) in Upper Malina Lake. January 2011 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F il Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Upper Malina Lake Zooplankton INTERANNUAL TRENDS IN ZOOPLANKTON 350 E 300 - m _ — E 250 - N E 200 - 0 150 - . — c — 0 c 100 - — m 0 50 — — N 0 n fl H , 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Mean zooplankton biomass during summer (June to August) in Upper Malina Lake, 1989 to 2009. Units of observation were daily total biomass (sum of all species' biomasses, mean of sample stations). s 350 E 300 - • 1) • E 250 - w m 200 - 4 150 - • ✓/ • J • 100 - s co 50 - o 0 N - 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Chlorophyll a (pg /L) Relationship between zooplankton biomass and chlorophyll a in Upper Malina Lake. Data are annual means of total biomass and chlorophyll a during summer (June to August), 1989 -2003 (P= 0.049; R =0.43; y = -59 + 142x — 21x January 2011 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Upper Station Lake Nutrient Summary 12 10 - • J 8 m 6 - • • • • 0 4 • ‘• • t • • t 2 - • ••Lw.• • • • • •• V » OC• ! &II • • • • • 0 - 0 5 10 15 20 25 Phosphorus (µg /L) No significant relationship between chlorophyll a and total phosphorus in Upper Station Lake for all samples and stations, 1990 -1993 (P =0.4). 0 SEASONAL TRENDS IN NUTRIENTS YEAR 1990 1991 1992 1993 . . . , . . 30 0 — -- - 20 - •-.-r• - - • oral - - - - .� -10 .� -9 4 5 6 8 9 1 0 1 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 7 Month Month Month Month Seasonal trends in total phosphorus in Upper Station Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). 0 January 2011 Go Golder Report No. 09-1480-0032F Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE F • YEAR 1990 1991 1992 1993 ._ -- z -- -- l __ -200 cA - •—•—•—• • -- �'~ - - f V - - r ~ ~ -100 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 1 0 1 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 4 5 8 7 8 9 l 0 1 1 • it Month Month Month Month Seasonal trends in total nitrogen in Upper Station Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). YEAR 1990 1991 1992 1993 -- -- - 90 - - - .. ,- -80 - - -- -- -70 Z - -- .. -- -60 nn 40 o - 20 4 5 6 7 6 9 1 0 1 1 4 5 6 7 6 9 1 0 1 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 4 5 6 7 5 9 1 0 1 1 Month Month Month Month Seasonal trends in nitrogen to phosphorus ratio in Upper Station Lake. Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). YEAR 1990 1991 1992 1993 A--. -- - ','I- - ' 04 8 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 Month Month Month Monih Seasonal trends in the ratio of chlorophyll a to total measured primary productivity (chlorophyll a plus phaeophytin). Graphs show monthly averages (pooling all samples, stations and sample days). • • January 2011 ' ' Gold¢[ Report No. 09-1480-0032F Associates • KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE INTERANNUAL TRENDS 14 12 10 1 :' I n_ 4 - 2- 0. 1990 1991 1992 1993 Mean total phosphorus during summer (June to August) in Upper Station Lake. 3.5 3.0 — 2.5 cn m 2.0 ® 2 1.5 O O ., L 1.0 0.5 0.0 1990 1991 1992 1993 Mean chlorophyll a concentration during summer -fall (July to September) in Upper Station Lake. 0 January 2011 el Golder Report No. 09-1480-0032F 'Associates y _ = KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Upper Station Salmon 7e +6 fie +6 - 5e +6 - 0 E W 4e +6 - `o 2 3e +6 E Z 2 e + - 1e +6 - 0 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Number of smolts (all ages) emigrating from the Upper Station Lake. 6e +6 • ■ 5e +6 Age o Age 1 1 w Imo Age2 E 4e +6 , i Age 3 0 3e +6 d n E 2 + 6 J Z 1e+6 0 • - • 'i 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Number of smolts emigrating from the Upper Station Lake by age. 0 ry =. January 2011 e ` Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F ® Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 0 140 ® Age 0 20 OAge1 O Age2 O Age 100 - E E 80 - L 60- J 40 - 26 - 0 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 16 — Age 0 14 - 0 Age1 O Age2 - 12 - I - l Age 3 p 10 00 8 v 6 - ® 4 2 0 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Mean length and weight of sockeye salmon smolts emigrating from Upper Station Lake. 0 January 2011 er Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 18 16 - 1 — Early run 14 - Late run - -- Total 12 - m N 10- s 8 - k a \: 0 1: ` 6 - 1: N 4 1 ' ^�. . \/ 0 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Returns per spawner for Upper Station Lake sockeye salmon. 3.0 10 o Chlorophyll a 2.5 ■ Returns /spawner a • m c m 20 6 y s 1.5 t `m o ^ 4 E t v \ III U I� 0.5 2 00 0 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Returns per spawner for a given brood year and mean summer -fall chlorophyll a the following year. • January 2011 Gold¢r Report No. 09- 1480 -00328 Associates r . -; KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 500000 — Early run 400000 - — Late run Total c 300000 - a1 E c 200000 - w 100000 - \ / ^\ 0- 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Escapement of sockeye salmon to Upper Station Lake system. 12 1 I 5e +5 O1 1 0 _ o Phosphorus Escapement - 4e+5 0 + 8 (0 3e +5 w >. 6- t n m 0 2e *5 E 4. W L J° - lea5 0 2 0- d 0 0 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 10.5 • 10.0 - ro 9.5 E • • m a m co 9.0 - W 8.5 - • 8.0 2e +5 2e +5 2e +5 3e +5 3e +5 3e +5 Phosphorus at year x + 1 (pg /L) Relationship between sockeye salmon escapement to the Upper Station Lake system and mean daily total ® phosphorus during summer (June to August) the following year. y January 2011 t f Goldet Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE APPENDIX B Kodiak Lakes Physical Habitat Summaries Important Notice: The data and graphs contained within this appendix have not been subject to detailed screening or Q/A procedures and are summarized based on the data provided by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. They are used only for initial screening of trends and physical relationships from the various lakes examined and should not be used or cited for any other purpose. Golder Associates Ltd. makes no claims or inferences as to the reliability of these data. -e. s January 2011 A. Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F iF Associates •� KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Afognak Physical Limnology Lake Surface Area and Turnover Rates Lake Surface Area = 5.3 km Water residence time = 0.4 years (source: Edmundson et al. 1998) Euphotic zone assessments 18 E 16- • L a 14 - d v d 0 12 N U 0 10 - / f L f v •-• W g - O 6 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Interannual trends in euphotic zone depth. Values are July to August means, 1989 -2008. Mean euphotic zone depth across all years is 9.6 m. 0 January 2011 r Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates - KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Temperature and Stratification YEAR 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 .•. •.g Month {3}1 au . _ 20 30 . - - e -30 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Month 10 go b 2 3 O . .30 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 • .g Month . •20 la . 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 • M -20 a - - - t 3 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 Temperature (deg C) Temperature (deg C) Temperature (deg C) Temperature (deg G) Temperature (deg G) Mean monthly temperature at depth in Afognak Lake, 1989 -2008. The lake was stratified for 1 -3 months in the summer in most years or not at all in other year (e.g. 1998). • January 2011 ® Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F ® Associates = T _ __ KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE =r -�- —fi 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1 5 " ) .. -. t .. .. 3 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 l 5 % ) -15 - 20 — 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 e ,- -. ., i '5 0 -, • "" / "" -lot . .. r .. f ' ." "" " 3 . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . :25 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 5 O / 1 -10 .. t ._ .. .. I -15 i 1 r• , . � 20 = 5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20 5 10 15 205 10 15 20 Temperature PC) Temperature CC) Temperature ( Temperature CC) Temperature CC) ® Thermal profile showing mean temperatures in July to August. Mean surface temperature during July to August was 15.9 °C (range: 14.3- 18.7 °C). Turbidity YEAR 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 30 5 d 21] 1.5 .2. 0 4 ,. . . V � �r 0.5 c 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 . . 3.5 u E / J�� /I 2.5 & 1.5 P 1.0 0.5 = 00 °66 °6 1997 1998 1999 9 " ",e Monl Month o - 3.5 0 a l 25 ?. f /j J z.o °_ 0.0 y 0.0 0.0 f h6A090 pa <a Eh6309 .3, Eh6309 "ens Month Month Month ® The mean annual turbidity for all months measured ranged from 0.7 to 2.1 NTU, with a mean of 1.3 NTU. The mean pH was 6.9 and the mean alkalinity was 10.7 mg /L (all months measured from 1987 - 2005). January 2011 ( / .J�. t G o ld er Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F W Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Q 9 o Akalura Physical Limnology Lake Surface Area and Turnover Rates Lake Surface Area = 4.9 km Water residence time = 1.3 years (source: Honnold, 1993) Euphotic zone assessments 16 E 14 - L d a 12 - C O } N 10 _ I / // / U O O. W 8 6 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Interannual trends in euphotic zone depth. Values are July to August means, 1990 -1996. Mean euphotic zone depth across all years is 10.5 m. Temperature and Stratification YEAR 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 { p Month . a . 11 0 "o5 O0 - - . 20 B . . . - -25 1994 1995 1996 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 Temperature (c) Temperature ( ° C) . 1 Month 10 3 o . . -20 . 25 0 5 to 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 ID 15 20 Temperature ( Temperature ( Temperature ( 3 Mean monthly temperature at depth in Akalura Lake, 1989 -1996. • January 2011 Golder Report No, 09-1480-0032F Associates ''�� KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 _ .. 6 .. t .. .. -5 c 1 f 10 S -- -. -. . 3 - i t . 1995 1996 5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20 Temperature ( Temperature rc) Temperature Cc) i •5 0 10 4 .. 15 • 20 5 10 15 20 5 10 15 29 Temperature (c) Temperature CC) Thermal profile showing mean temperatures in July to August. Mean surface temperature during July to August was 14.9 °C (range: 13.8-15.5°C). Turbidity 1990 1991 1993 1994 1995 al s J ° .-- ® .rte+ e •-�..v •��ti ^ Z l 2 y 0 1996 5 6 7 8 91011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 91011 4 5 6 7 8 91011 Month Month Month Month . Z 4 5 6 7 8 91011 Month The mean annual turbidity for all months measured ranged from 1.2 to 3.1 NTU, with a mean of 1.7 NTU. The mean pH was 6.9 and the mean alkalinity was 15.2 mg /L (all months measured from 1990 - 1996). . January 2011 97-Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates __ = KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE • Big Waterfall Physical Limnology Lake Surface Area and Turnover Rates Lake Surface Area = not available Water residence time = not available Euphotic zone assessments 18 16 E 14 - > • 12 - • e 10 - U 8 w • 6- 4 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Interannual trends in euphotic zone depth. Values are July to August means, 1990 -2008. Mean euphotic zone depth across all years is 9.0 m. • Temperature and Stratification YEAR 1990 1999 2000 2001 2002 a i. 0 Month g .5 o �17b 10 sB 15 3 e . -20 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 0 Mont 5 ( 6 0 . e 10 Yy� ■ -20 2008 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 Temperature ( Temperature PC) Temperature (c) Temperature ( 0 Month -1 0 o 15 1 1 3 0 ,20 0 5 10 15 20 Temperature ('0) Mean monthly temperature at depth in Big Waterfall Lake, 1990 -2008. Mean water surface temperature during July to August was 14.5°C (range: 10.3- 16.8 °C). The lake was stratified for 1 -3 months in the summer for most • years. January 2011 #Golds[ Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates ® ^_ = KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Turbidity Turbidity was only measured in one year, 1990, when it ranged from 0.5 to 1.2 NTU with a mean of 0.7 NTU. The mean pH was 7.4 and the mean alkalinity was 15.1 mg /L (all months measured 1990, 200 - 2001). 0 0 January 2011 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 'Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Crescent Physical Limnology Lake Surface Area and Turnover Rates Lake Surface Area = 0.6 km Water residence time = not available Volume = 6.2 x 10 m (Source: Schrof et al. 2000 ) Euphotic zone assessments 18 E 16 - -0 0 14 - 0 0 O 0 12 - O w 10 - \ 8 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Interannual trends in euphotic zone depth. Values are July to August means, 1990 -2008. Mean euphotic zone depth across all years is 11.9 m. 0 January 2011 * Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F W Associates - 1 = KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 0 Temperature and Stratification YEAR 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1 - 0 Month y . 6 N .l t' ? -30 3 . - - - - - -40 —I - . -50 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 •Y k .f - ° - e 0 Month c .a - - ,t` - - - - - ' -20 10 ,• 8 s 30 3 . -40 --I . - -50 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 • - d - z ' t e - i y - 0 Month -30 3 • - -40 —1 . - - -50 2005 2006 2007 2008 0 5 10 15 20 Temperature ( :, ... 11 - -0 : P 10 Month 20 -30 3 . - - 40 —I - 50 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 Temperature ( ° C) Temperature ( Temperature ( Temperature ( Mean monthly temperature at depth in Crescent Lake, 1990 -2008. The lake was usually thermally stratified from June to August, or longer in some years 0 ms January 2011 ell Report No. 09-1480-0032F F Associates _ _ - KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE • 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 0 j- 30 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 ./ ., . d . / . : ) ' o .. .. -. -39 v 3 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 ` ..� 1 ( • : , r .(•. •� .290 .- .. -. ., -30 3 - .. ., .49 . 2005 2006 2007 2008 5 10 15 20 Temperature rc) r - -20 v . . - 3 . . 40 50 5 10 15 20 10 15 205 ,0 ,5 295 10 15 20 Temperature CC) Temperature ( Temperature CC) Temperature CC) Thermal profile showing mean temperatures in July to August. Mean surface temperature during July to August O was 15.9 °C (range: 14.0- 19.4 °C). Turbidity 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 -1.5 c al l - \ • - • I • - C 9.o , 4 5 6 7 8 91011 4 5 6 7 6 91011 4 5 6 7 8 91011 4 5 6 7 5 91011 4 5 6 7 8 91011 Month Month Month Month Month The mean annual turbidity for all months measured ranged from 0.5 to 0.9 NTU, with a mean of 0.8 NTU. The mean pH was 6.9 and the mean alkalinity was 15.2 mg /L (all months measured from 1990 - 1996). January 2011 e Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F ® Associates _ - KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Frazer Physical Limnology Lake Surface Area and Turnover Rates Lake Surface Area = 16.6 km Water residence time = 2.1 years (source: Edmundson et al. 1999) Euphotic zone assessments 30 • E 25 • -0 0 20 - a) ! 4 15 • W 10 • 5 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Interannual trends in euphotic zone depth. Values are July to August means, 1990 -2008. Mean euphotic zone depth across all years is 16.8 m. January 2011 " Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates =mot KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Temperature and Stratification YEAR 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 k . 3 . •1' k r. tI B ° e ' . 0 MonIM1 J 10 ■ 11 ,t: 5 ; . ' - , ` ., f 20 9 0 0 - 4b! 30 ® . . 40 3 p . .. 56 C 60 1994 1995 1996 1997 2001 a n - 26 o�b '30 gg -40 3N 50 6o Q . . . 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 T o .20 5 ❑ d0 3a - 40 3 - - 50 _ 160 2007 2008 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 Temperature ) Temperature PC) Temperature ( -10 Month 0 7R(g 0 4. -4 g 88 - 50 v � S 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 ' Temperature CC) Temperature CC) Mean monthly temperature at depth in Frazer Lake, 1989 -2008. The lake was usually stratified for 1 -3 months in the summer. 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 j � . 1 .. -10 26a .. -30 3 50 1995 1996 1997 2005 2006 ^ o iry / .. t. ( ' , ... � .. •P: . 20 ,r. P - 50 2007 2008 4 6 810 1214164 6 6101214164 6 610121416 .0 Temperature ( Temperature ( ° C) Temperature CC) ) / r to 0 e 0 - ' 30 40 3 50 4 6 6101214164 6 610121416 Temperature ("C) Temperature °C) Mean water temperature at depth during July to August in Frazer Lake. Mean surface temperature during July to August over all years was 12.6 °C (range: 11.1- 14.6 °C). r- January 2011 ' Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F A ssociates _ ...,....-"= -. KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 0 Turbidity 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 .. . . . . . . .. . .. . ... -t -2 0 - E 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 -' -- .... - . . / / //�� I a Y •� J, Al -05 C 1995 1996 4 5 6 7 8 910114 5 6 7 8 910114 5 8 7 8 91011 Month Month Month 2.0 / 1III11111 ` .1 c Q 1 < 0.5 c 0.0 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month Month The mean annual turbidity for all months measured ranged from 0.5 to 1.1 NTU, with a mean of 1.1 NTU. The mean pH was 6.9 and the mean alkalinity was 13.4 mg /L (all months measured from 1985 - 1996). 0 0 January 2011 Or Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates ~ F . =7 KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Hidden Lake Physical Limnology Lake Surface Area and Turnover Rates Lake Surface Area = 1.9 km Water residence time = 2.8 years Volume = 20.6 x 10 m (Source: Schrof et al. 2000) Euphotic zone assessments 16 E 14 - n -o 0 12- 0 0 N U 10' O L Q w 8 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 A Interannual trends in euphotic zone depth. Values are July to August means, 1990 -2008. Mean euphotic zone depth across all years is 9.9m. • January 2011 ♦G.,,,older Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F 'ssociates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Temperature and Stratification YEAR 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 .I i i c d 6 ' r _ O n f�� kS . 20 on 3I: 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 V z 0 0 n` a 1, 0 Month 0 0 � 7 j al v ry9 - - 30 38 40 — 1 1 150 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 '1 % 1 - 3� - 1 .� 1 ® ° 0 Month - # 1 ot) 20 �A - 30 3 a0 —C 1 - - -50 2005 2006 2007 2008 0 5 10 15 20 Temperature ( (I C) 2 ® - - Y . 20 0 gg 0 3 11 0 0 a 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 Temperature CC) Temperature (C) Temperature CC) Temperature CC) Mean monthly temperature at depth in Hidden Lake, 1990 -2008. The lake was usually thermally stratified from June to August, or longer in some years. 0 January 2011 et, G o I d e r Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates - KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE • Karluk Lake Physical Limnology Lake Surface Area and Turnover Rates Lake Surface Area = 39.4 km Water residence time = 4.4 years (source: Edmundson et al. 1999) Euphotic zone assessments 30 28 - E 1 -c 26 - 0 m a) 24 - 0 N 22 - U s 20 - W 18 16 • 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Interannual trends in euphotic zone depth. Values are July to August means, 1988 -2008. Mean euphotic zone depth across all years is 21.5 m. • January 2011 *' Golder Report Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F W Associates _ •= — - KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 0 � Temperature and Stratification YEAR 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1 . . i J ter ' Q ., rP - :,,, ! Month 20 mon 30 J S 40 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 � u � r . 0 Mont, ID , . ,4 a. zo m i. 30 5 40 50 9 . . . r 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 ,, Month x " 30 30 - - _ 40 3 f1 5600 —n 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 i 1 i "/ 4 . a } f a i 0 ia ® 30 3 40 �Il 50 0 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 Temperature ( Temperature ( Temperature CC) Temperature ( Temperature CC) Mean monthly temperature at depth in Karluk Lake, 1990 -2008 0 January 2011 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates Y KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 20 30 5 • — - • 40 3 50 .. - 60 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 .. I 9 ./ 1 p ° p v -. 40 3 -- 50 . .. . . 60 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 S -- ' -20 ° -30 5 • . . - . - -40 3 -50 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 /e. �• :. : : 20 0 ° -30 o • -. - -40 3 • ,. - 5p - - 60 0 5 10 15 200 5 10 15 200 5 10 15 200 5 10 15 200 5 10 15 20 Temperature ( Temperature ( ° C) Temperature ( Temperature ( ° C) Temperature ( Thermal profile showing mean temperatures in July to August. Mean surface temperature during July to August r was 13.0 °C (range: 7.1- 16.1 ° C). Turbidity 1980 1984 1985 1986 1987 .... . ..4 .. .. .. .. -3 g . .- • c .. .. -2 S 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 .. ,. .. -- 1 4 . - -3 d 22 z 1993 1994 1997 1998 4567691011 Month y :p 4 5 6 7 8 91011 4 5 6 7 8 91011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 91011 Month Month Month Month The mean annual turbidity for all months measured ranged from 0.4 to 1.3 NTU, with a mean of 0.8 NTU (1984- 1998). The mean pH was 7.2 and the mean alkalinity was 23.4 mg /L (all months measured from 1980- 2006). • January 2011 et Report No. 09-1480-0032F Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 4 Laura Lake Physical Limnology Lake Surface Area and Turnover Rates Lake Surface Area = 4.2 km Water residence time = 1.2 years (source: Edmundson et al. 1999) Euphotic zone assessments 10 E 9- \ / a 8- • a) o / N U o L a w 6- ® 5 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 Interannual trends in euphotic zone depth. Values are July to August means, 1990 -2007. Mean euphotic zone depth across all years is 7.6 m. 0 �. January 2011 ® Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Temperature and Stratification YEAR 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 i p . k - p, '' ' r . 0 Month - , - "f .. , 0. , 0 3 . 50 A 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 by . 2 IE • 0v $ p n � 30 3 �i . - ., 50 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 t •.0 Mo .L iy 10 O. 0 4 - - -20 3 {p5 � j - _ - 30 - 44 b ao _e . . 50 2006 2007 0 5 1 0 1 5 20 0 5 10.15 20 0 5 10 15 20 Temperature ( ° 0) Temperature CC) Temperature ( ° C) 0 0 o Month - a o - 30 3 S 3 0 -50 e 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 Temperature PC) Temperature ( Mean monthly temperature at depth in Laura Lake, 1990 -2007. O January 2011 9,, G o I d e r Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates v-'f __ KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 0 1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 J 1 :: 1 5 O _ r .1 3 QO 3 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 -- f - r - e -�• . _. .. -. -. -15 3 _. .. .. .. -20 2001 2002 2003 2005 2006 . : .5 1 • 0 : 6s 5 -15 3 . -. .. .. .20 25 2007 5 10 15 205 10 15 205 10 15 205 10 15 20 Temperature ( ° C) Temperature ( Temperature ( Temperature PC) -5 0 '10 n '15 -J- 5 pe 15 20 Temperature ( ° CI Thermal profile showing mean temperatures in July to August. Mean surface temperature during July to August was 12.3 °C (range: 9.4- 14.3 °C). Turbidity 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 -. L-- , 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1 .. -0 / Y c ti • C 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 0 7 8 91011 4 5 6 7 8 91011 Month Month Month Month Month The mean annual turbidity for all months measured ranged from 0.6 to 1.4 NTU, with a mean of 0.9 NTU (1990- )999). The mean pH was 6.8 and the mean alkalinity was 10.5 mg /L (all months measured from 1990 - 2003). 0 January 2011 ( /.� tG Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F �( / Associates Veir _ _ = KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE a • Little Kitoi Lake Physical Limnology Lake Surface Area and Turnover Rates Lake Surface Area = 0.42km Water residence time = 0.35 years (source: Dugdale and Dugdale, 1961) Euphotic zone assessments 14 a 12 Y J 10 - / m O 8 / O O a L j 6 - 4 • 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Interannual trends in euphotic zone depth. Values are July to August means, 1990 -2008. Mean euphotic zone depth across all years is 9.0 m. r Or January 2011 • r Golder Report No. 09-1480-0032F Associates s 4_ -,--___= _ === KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Temperature and Stratification YEAR 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 _ b q ., - Month •? . fl! 4 20 3 . 0 - . . . c .40 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 -,F 0 ont i - 9 10 • _ - 8 4 -20 -30 y -40 2000 2001 2002 2003 r 2004 - j _ ¢ �Y ;, y . . .i 'd ' .•'0 Month 3 u (F 45p p . - -3o 3 ■ ,4p 3 2005 2006 2007 2008 3 5 10 15 20 Temperature ( Mon1M1 - - t - - 30 1 - 0 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 4p B Temperature ( Temperature ( ° C) Temperature rC) Temperature ( ° C) Mean monthly temperature at depth in Little Kitoi Lake, 1990 -2008. 0 January 2011 * GOidei Report No. 09-1480-0032F -Associates - KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 1990 1991 1993 1994 1995 1 .7 / -. • •• , ) . � • _: S �•••• _ -- r• -20 30 3 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 �� '•• - 10 0 - i .. .. .. .. ( . • zo ° s .30 3 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 -10 0 • ( •• . • ( •• ( ••• :: (• -20 .. -30 3 1r - 40 2006 2007 2008 0 5 10 15 200 5 10 15 20 ,.o • Temperature ( Temperature cc -10 0 -30 3 - 40 0 5 10 15 200 5 10 15 200 5 10 15 20 Temperature ( Temperature (°C) Temperature ( • Thermal profile showing mean temperatures in July to August. Mean surface temperature during July to August was 16.6 °C (range: 14.0 - 18.9 °C). Turbidity 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 .... .,, ,. ... .- 70 60 500 4 y /I1 1 0 - ° 3 _ I / 0 J 0 c 1995 1996 1997 • 1998 1999 70 60 El ' 50 & 40 a . 30 3 20 31 • -' , - t t-Y• 10 . t - t n. t n rt - • t, t't - r o 4 5 6 8 0 1 0 1 1 4 5 6) 8 91011 4 5 6 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 91011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month Month Month Month Month The mean annual turbidity for all months measured ranged from 0.8 to 34.8 NTU, with a mean of 9.0 NTU (1990- 1999). The mean pH was 7.3 and the mean alkalinity was 73.3 mg /L (all months measured from 1980- 2006). • emu January 2011 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F (arm Associates •�� KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Little Waterfall Lake Physical Limnology Lake Surface Area and Turnover Rates Lake Surface Area = 1.0 km Water residence time = 0.2 -0.7 years (source: Edmundson et al. 1994) Euphotic zone assessments 11 E 10 -c o_ 9 - a) - o a) c 8 - o N U p 7 -c d 7 0 uJ 6 5 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Interannual trends in euphotic zone depth. Values are July to August means, 1990 -2008. Mean euphotic zone depth across all years is 7.5 m. 0 January 2011 et Golder Report No. 09-1480-0032F Associates u — KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Temperature and Stratification YEAR 1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 m Month 0 0]a JpyS - 20 3 — o 30 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 - - o la 20 30 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 MoniM1 k m0 m1 20 3 — e 2006 2007 2008 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 Temperature CC) Temperature (t) - - 0 Month - - o 3 i 0 3 • 30 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 Temperature ('C) Temperswre ('C) Temperature (0) Mean monthly temperature at depth in Little Waterfall Lake, 1990 -2008. • January 2011 ` r lde Gor Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F A ssociates =- �" - — 11 KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 0 ► rn =u 1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 .. � . ` -, ` .. 1 ' -0 Jr l f l . - .. .. -. -20 3 • • 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 J ) 1 l ' / r f 1 - -- - .. — -20 3 ,. .,. .. -30 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 . + • • �� `I • .. f ' .. , . 1 .to m° .. .. .. -20 3 2006 2007 2008 5 10 15 205 10 15 20 Temperature ( ° C) Temperature ( 1 . I ' - 0 ,, ? - , � -. � i .10 - - - 20 3 0 5 10 15 205 10 15 205 10 15 20 Temperature ( Temperature PC) Temperature ( ° 0) Thermal profile showing mean temperatures in July to August. Mean surface temperature during July to August was 15.4 ° C (range: 13.0- 17.7 ° C). Turbidity 1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 - .l . .. .c- BE �,• :. Na ,,r... I gi 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 • .. .. r 5 6 -. - a 4 5 8 ] 8 8 1 0 1 1 4 5 8 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 4 6 8 ] 8 9 1 0 1 1 4 5 8 ] 8 9 1 0 1 1 4 5 8] 8 8 1011 Month Month Month Month Month The mean annual turbidity for all months measured ranged from 0.8 to 2.0 NTU, with a mean of 1.2 NTU (1990- 2000). The mean pH was 6.9 and the mean alkalinity was 13.4 mg /L (all months measured from 1990 - 2003). 0 January 2011 ' 'b (Oer Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates - KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Lower Jennifer Lake Physical Limnology Lake Surface Area and Turnover Rates Lake Surface Area = 0.18 km Water residence time = not available (source: ADFG, 1958). Euphotic zone assessments 10 - L $ 9 0 C • 8 O • 7 - L a W • 6 5 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Interannual trends in euphotic zone depth. Values are July to August means, 1993 -2008. Mean euphotic zone • depth across all years is 8.2 m. Temperature and Stratification YEAR 1993 ?_ 1994 1995 1996 1997 - . O, +1- &- y.- x °0 Month 3 - .20 ip4 30 2 1 . - - 40 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 ;`. • -0 Month 20 5 ■qp - 30 3 F 2006 2007 2008 0 s 10 s 20 0 s 10 15 20 .. y � e Temperature Pc) Temperature ( .n _ .- Month 3 # -20 -30 3 e 0 s 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 Temperature ) Temperature ( Temperature PC) Mean monthly temperature at depth in Lower Jennifer Lake, 1990 -2008. January 2011 Or Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 .,00 r :: j - r - - -zo ° .. -. .. - 3 0 3 - - .. -40 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 .. -. ..e ,11 - a ./ cri ( : :( 20 3 .. -. .. .. .30 2006 2007 2008 0 5 10 15 200 5 10 15 20 Temperature ( ° C) Temperature ( - r l• -109 20 o -30 3 -- 40 0 5 10 15 200 5 10 15 200 5 10 15 20 Temperature ( Temperature ( Temperature (°C) Thermal profile showing mean temperatures in July to August. Mean surface temperature during July to August was 13.9 °C (range: 12.4 - 15.5 °C). Turbidity 0 1990 1993 1994 r , __ , i r , r __ , , , , r - 1.5 H c -1.0 a • -- 1 " • -0.5 z H 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Month Month Month The mean annual turbidity for all months measured ranged from 0.6 to 0.8 NTU, with a mean of 0.7 NTU (1990- 1994). The mean pH was 6.8 and the mean alkalinity was 17.8 mg /L (all months measured from 1980 - 2006). 0 —v January 2011 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F ` ' Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE • Red Lake Physical Limnology Lake Surface Area and Turnover Rates Lake Surface Area = 8.6 km Water residence time = 4.0 years (source: Honnold, 1993) Euphotic zone assessments 26 E 24 - E 22- O 20 0 • 18 - t a W • 16 •'NNNN-• 14 O 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Interannual trends in euphotic zone depth. Values are July to August means, 1990 -1996. Mean euphotic zone depth across all years is 18.9 m. Temperature and Stratification YEAR 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 E t p k p a 6 ��i f d ' Month 130 3 11 . 3 - ,40 1995 1996 2 4 6 810121016 2 4 6 810121416 2 4 6 810121416 Temperature Pc) Temperature CC) Temperature Cc) Month 10 0 6 '� o 2 3 2 4 5 8 10121416 2 4 6 8 10121416 Temperature Pc) Temperature Pc) Mean monthly temperature at depth in Little Kitoi Lake, 1990 -1996. January 2011 •Golde[ Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates 777- 3f r _ — — KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 ) r 6 3 40 1995 1996 0 5 10 150 5 10 150 5 10 15 Temperature ( Temperature ( ° 0) Temperature CC) 10 0 - ( 20 4 - 0 3 ,40 0 5 10 150 5 10 15 Temperature ( ° 0) Temperature ( Thermal profile showing mean temperatures in July to August. Mean surface temperature during July to August was 13.1 °C (range: 12.1- 13.8 °C). Turbidity 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 . es 0 -, \ .. \ 10= 00 1995 1996 4 5 6 7 8 91011 4 5 6 7 8 91011 4 5 6 7 8 91011 Month Month Month - -- 2.5 -H H 0.6 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month Month The mean annual turbidity for all months measured ranged from 0.8 to 1.6 NTU, with a mean of 1.1 NTU (1990- 1996). The mean pH was 6.9 and the mean alkalinity was 15.7 mg /L (all months measured from 1990 - 1996). 0 . January 2011 or Golder Report No. 09-1480-0032F Associates - KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Saltery Lake Physical Limnology Lake Surface Area and Turnover Rates Lake Surface Area = 1.1 km Water residence time = 0.38 years (source: Honnold and Sagalkin, 2001) Euphotic zone assessments 18 16- E 14 a 12- /47 m a c p 10 - C N 8 U p 6 L 4- • 2- 0 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 • Interannual trends in euphotic zone depth. Values are July to August means, 1994 -2008. Mean euphotic zone depth across all years is 9.5m. r January 2011 et Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates 1 `' KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 0 n 51 =c'— Temperature and Stratification YEAR 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 ,, - °. ' - iS 1' •- d - a 0 sorb ,r o m j s . - -20 n - - .33 3 9Y a . . . • 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 i 9 t ;;}- - r f '0 Mont . _ m o a -20 g . 0 3 - r r - - 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 - - • - _ - _ . - - 0 M -10 o O] (} ' -2o s �IIYtgy, . , .0 3 0 40 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 Temperature ( Temperature PC) Temperature ( ° C) Temperature ( ° C) Temperature ( Mean monthly temperature at depth in Saltery Lake, 1994 -2008. 0 1994 1995 / 1 ( 9996 1997 1998 0 -10 0 os .. -30 3 . - r • .. .- -40 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 : .. , ! .10 0 20 s .. .. - . . -30 7 - 0 : - 40 2004 2005 2006 2007 200 1.::. ` - 1 7 30 • -20 6, -. 3p 3 -. 40 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 Temperature CC) Temperature ( Temperature Cc) Temperature ( Temperature CC) Thermal profile showing mean temperatures in July to August. Mean surface temperature during July to August was 12.2 °C (range: 8.6- 15.7 ° C). 0 January 2011 -. Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F A ssociates Er KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE • Turbidity 1994 1997 , , , , , __ , , , , , , -8 __ -7 E 5 _ -4 z 3 c • 4 5 6 7 8 91011 4 5 6 7 8 91011 Month Month The mean annual turbidity for all months measured ranged from 3.7 to 4.5 NTU, with a mean of 4.1 NTU (1994,1997). The mean pH was 6.8 and the mean alkalinity was 18.0 mg /L (all months measured from 1994, 1997, 2000). 1 1 • • January 2011 a -Gol Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F � ® Associates zusjor KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Spiridon Lake Physical Limnology Lake Surface Area and Turnover Rates Lake Surface Area = 9.2 km Water residence time = 7.1 years (source: Kyle et al. 1990) Euphotic zone assessments 34 32 - E -1 \ = 30 - 0 28 - N • 26 - L • 24 - j 22 20 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0 Interannual trends in euphotic zone depth. Values are July to August means, 1990 -2008. Mean euphotic zone depth across all years is 27.2 m. O January 2011 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates _ KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE • Temperature and Stratification YEAR 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 g 993 x,x4 _ E 4 i's . �yt o Noii. jw i a ° ; o Month d 20 ( Y3 d n 30 0 0 40 43 503 s0 . . . . . .. 70 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 o . , � . b 1 EQ M "Y ^. ' 1 a 'Ci te Month - } - 4' z0 7 - c o' 47 O - 40_ - 60 03 � 70 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 H '4 >i -• 4 i t' 1' I - I �* f 0 Month I�. V ' s P'r 20 0 9 m! a 40 - 503 A 60 2005 2006 2007 2008 0 5 10 15 20 Temperature (t) y . ./ "' a . 4.1 - t' n 4.": I'l' .,70 Month ' ;A' .� if . `` 20 ° ld 30a0,- - 50 3 60 70 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 0 5 0 5 15 20 Temperature 1 ( ° c) Temperature 10 5 ) 10 1 15 Temperature 5 20 ) 10 15 Temperature CC) Mean monthly temperature at depth in Spiridon Lake, 1990 -2008. , I January 2011 ( Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F �{/ Associates = KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 20 E ' ! • 3 0 1 60 3 60 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 / '' j r . J . � i . i . . 20 0 30 0 00 - 60 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 20 a T, 30 0 • 0 50 3 60 . . nr ,70 2005 2006 2007 2008 0 5 10 15 20 Temperature ( ° C) J 10 JJ /..../.. 0 30 0 • 40' . 50 3 60 70 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 200 5 10 15 200 5 10 15 20 Temperature ( Temperature ( Temperature ( Temperature( D C) 0 Thermal profile showing mean temperatures in July to August. Mean surface temperature during July to August was 13.6 ° C (range: 10.0- 16.8 °C). Turbidity 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 °. J :: —..7\./ 1 3 V YY 05 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 . r o. .o .- 'zo - .. - 15 5 _ c 199 4 6 7 8 4 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 5 9 1011 5 6 91on month month month 20 - I //) -1.5 a f . -10 0 . 5 0.0 4 5 6 7 6 6 1 0 1 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 Month month The mean annual turbidity for all months measured ranged from 0.4 to 0.9 NTU, with a mean of 0.6 NTU (1988- 1999). The mean pH was 7.2and the mean alkalinity was 21.5 mg /L (all months measured from 1988 - 2008). 0 January 2011 ' , Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates - KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Upper Jennifer Lake Physical Limnology Lake Surface Area and Turnover Rates Lake Surface Area = 42.0 ha km Water residence time = 0.35 years (source: Dugdale and Dugdale, 1961) Euphotic zone assessments 14 E 13 n 12 0 11 O O 10 L CL in g 8 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Interannual trends in euphotic zone depth. Values are July to August means, 1993 -2008. Mean euphotic zone depth across all years is 10.8 m. January 2011 Golder Report No. 09-1480-0032F Associates -'- —~ KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 0 Temperature and Stratification YEAR 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 3 ; 0 � 3 - . 20 3 :@ 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 - a 0 Moms - o o G , pI d u e - 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 ✓ a a Mont 5 .- 5 oa a 20 3 p . :30 2008 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 Temperature ( Temperature ( Temperature ( Temperature ( 1 f i : .0 Month -10 r Y t} 3 -20 A '30 ® 0 5 10 15 20 Temperature Pc) Mean monthly temperature at depth in Upper Jennifer Lake, 1990 -2008 0 January 2011 ' -*it' Report No, 09-1480-0032F Associates - KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE O 1993 1994 1 9 95 1997 • 10 1 1 1996 ../ . . . - - 20 a i -- -30 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 I -0 1 ( -20 3 -30 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 / -10 ° r. _ �. -203 -30 2008 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 Temperature PC) Temperature CC) Temperature ( Temperature PC) -10 v - ( 20 3 30 0 5 10 15 20 Temperature ( Thermal profile showing mean temperatures in July to August. Mean surface temperature during July to August • was 13.9 °C (range: 12.4- 15.5 °C). Turbidity 1993 1994 k H .0 n .5 z 5 6 7 8 9 1011 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month Month The mean annual turbidity for all months measured ranged from 0.5 to 0.6 NTU, with a mean of 0.5 NTU (1993- 1994). The mean pH was 6.8 and the mean alkalinity was 17.4 mg /L (all months measured from 1993 - 1994). r January 2011 A. `Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F � ® Associates _ ". „ - -- KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE _ Upper Malina Lake Physical Limnology Lake Surface Area and Turnover Rates Lake Surface Area = 1.2 km Water residence time = 0.6 years (source: Edmundson et al. 1999) Euphotic zone assessments 18 16 - E C1 14 - c 12 - 0 0 10 - W 8 6 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Interannual trends in euphotic zone depth. Values are July to August means, 1990 -2008. Mean euphotic zone depth across all years is 11.4 m. o January 2011 ' Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Temperature and Stratification YEAR 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 9 I 1 1 0 MonP 0 o ry a ryy b .20 9 p 303 GGi 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 t ,. I ). _ - c R P t Moms 7 74 - < - f - - 1 - t0 m ° 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 . too ■ a ] { b ' 30 r 1 r ,40 2004 2005 2008 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 Temperature (0) Temperature ( o 10 O n th - _ - 20 z O � 30 3 P - - e 0 5 at is ) 0 Temperature s 1 2 at i • 5 10 ° C ID2 5 1 15 0 5 Temperature 10 15 20 Temperature 1 ( ° G) Mean monthly temperature at depth in Upper Malina Lake, 1989 -2008. r _. January 2011 ® Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates _ = = e __ KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1 -3a 3 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 � . - / _ t ' - 20 5 rg 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 • r /r �� . J .. .. ,.• .to 0 a . . .. ... .. -30 3 2004 2005 2008 5 10 15 205 10 15 20 Temperature ( ° C) Temperature PC) _ . ! ,.. 1 0 -10 a . / 3 20 s 0 5 10 15 20 10 15 20 5 10 15 20 Temperature (0) Temperature ( ° C) Temperature ( 0 Thermal profile showing mean temperatures in July to August. Mean surface temperature during July to August was 14.6 °C (range: 12.7- 17.0 °C). 0 a January 2011 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F A ssociates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE Turbidity 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 . . . . . .. -. -25 J� B 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 - . . . " , . . . . . . .. — c. -25 2 = 1.6 1999 4 5 6 7 6 91011 4 5 6 7 8 91011 4 5 6 7 8 91011 4 5 6 7 8 91011 Monts Month Month Month 0 Q 0 z -05 c 4 5 6 7 8 91011 Month The mean annual turbidity for all months measured ranged from 0.7 to 1.5 NTU, with a mean of 1.0 NTU (1989- 1999). The mean pH was 7.2 and the mean alkalinity was 19.6 mg /L (all months measured from 1989- 2003). s • January 2011 GP-. Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F ssociates -Y KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE ® , Upper Station Lake Physical Limnology Lake Surface Area and Turnover Rates Lake Surface Area = 7.9 km Water residence time = 4.2 years (source: Honnold, 1993) Euphotic zone assessments 21 20 - • E — 1s L a m 18 - 0 0 17 N 416- 0 L a 15 - w w 14 - 13 • 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Interannual trends in euphotic zone depth. Values are July to August means, 1990 -2000. Mean euphotic zone depth across all years is 17.5 m. Temperature and Stratification YEAR 1990 1991 1992 1993 1995 e ` - yt pM �0 Month 3T - y} 96• 09 4:r - 8- -20 °s 30 9 40 3 11 50 y I 1999 2000 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 Temperature (C) Temperature (C) Temperature ( � ' , 1e 0 Month 30 -40 . .n 50 so 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 Temperature (°c) Temperature ( Mean monthly temperature at depth in Lower Jennifer Lake, 1990 -2000. • January 2011 Golder Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F Associates KODIAK LAKE FERTILIZATION DATA REVIEW OUTLINE • 1990 1991 1992 1993 1995 / 6 • 0 S • - 40 3 -. .. • - 50 .' -. - - - 60 1999 2000 0 5 10 15 200 5 10 15 200 5 10 15 20 Temperature ( Temperature CC) Temperature CC) to ( -20 0 30 S - 40 3 • I 50 160 0 5 10 15 200 5 10 15 20 Temperature (2) Temperature PC) Thermal profile showing mean temperatures in July to August. Mean surface temperature during July to August was 12.8 °C (range: 11.0- 15.7 ° C). Turbidity 1990 1991 1992 1993 - - - .. - - A - 1.0 1 • .. . -. - -0.5 z c O.O v 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Month Month Month Month The mean annual turbidity for all months measured ranged from 0.5 to 1.1 NTU, with a mean of 0.8 NTU (1990- 1993). The mean pH was 6.8 and the mean alkalinity was 8.7 mg /L (all months measured from 1990 - 1993). • January 2011 # ' Goer Report No. 09- 1480 -0032F A ssociates At Golder Associates we strive to be the most respected global group of ' r Africa c ' 27 14=254 companies specializing in ground engineering and environmental services dzAsia rp ` s r +852+2 3658 Employee owned since our formation in 1960, we have created a unique ., Aust r ' + 61 38862 Europe ; " culture with pride in ownership, resulting in long -term organizational stability f : + 356 21 42 30/20 North America 11800 Golder professionals take the time to build an understanding of client needs � . + � ,, South >Am 5 enca c "� + 55 21.3095 9500 and'of the specific environments in which they operate. We continue to expand • w our technical capabilities and have experienced steady growth with employees . ` solutions @goldercom now operating from offices located throughout Africa, Asia,. Australasia, P 9 9 : wwwgoldercom Europe, North America and South America. - r r " z • .Ac, 0 efl #e F S' .fir Golder Associates Ltd. 201 Columbia Avenue Castlegar, British Columbia, VIN 1A8 Canada T: +1 (250) 365 0344 e s A Golder Associates