HomeMy WebLinkAboutREF8App_ElfinCoveHydro_ATTACHMENTSElfin Cove, Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Round 8
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project AEA RFA 15003
Design and Permitting Grant Application Supporting Documents
ATTACHMENT B
LOCAL SUPPORT
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter is in support of the Elfin Cove Community Hydro-electric grant
application.
The Cove Lodge is a destination lodge and charter operation that has
been in Elfin Cove since 1992. I have been an owner since 1994. During
my tenure as a business owner in Elfin Cove there has been continuous
support for developing renewable electrical energy using hydro
generation. Reducing the high cost of energy while reducing dependence
on fossil fuels is seen as not only an environmental responsibility but is
essential for any sustainable economic development.
Our business is dependent on a dependable, cost effective source of
energy. This hydro project will provide a basis for development not only
for our business but also for new and expanding businesses.
The proposed project is well researched. The feasibility study clearly
points to a project that will have long term returns for the community and
state.
We have unconditional support for this grant application.
Sincerely,
Gordy Wrobel, CEO
P.O. Box 17
Elfin Cove, AK
99825
800-382-3847
907-239-2221
www.covelodge.com
Elfin Cove, Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Round 8
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project AEA RFA 15003
Design and Permitting Grant Application Supporting Documents
ATTACHMENT D
(NO ATTACHMENT C)
GOVERNING BODY RESOLUTION
Elfin Cove, Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Round 8
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project AEA RFA 15003
Design and Permitting Grant Application Supporting Documents
ATTACHMENT G
(NO ATTACHMENTS E, F)
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Elfin Cove, Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Round 8
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project AEA RFA 15003
Design and Permitting Grant Application Supporting Documents
ATTACHMENT G.1
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REPORT (JAN. 20, 2014)
polarconsult alaska, inc.
1503 West 33rd Avenue, Suite 310
Anchorage, Alaska 99503-3638
Phone: (907) 258-2420
FAX: (907) 258-2419
L ETTER R EPORT
140120-ELFINHYDROCONCEPTUALDESIGNREPORT.DOC
DATE: January 20, 2014
TO: Jane Button, ECUC Project Manager
FROM: Joel Groves, PE Polarconsult Manager
SUBJECT: Elfin Cove Hydroelectric Project Conceptual Design and Development Plan
ATTACHMENTS: Interim Hydrology Report, Polarconsult, December 20, 2013
1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
As a precursor to commencing design and permitting of the Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake
Hydroelectric Project, the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) has requested that the Elfin Cove
Utility Commission (ECUC) complete an updated sizing analysis to determine the size and final
configuration of the proposed project. The AEA specifically requested that the sizing analysis
consider recommendations of previous completed engineering reports and current hydrology
information. In addition to these reference materials, Polarconsult has also analyzed current
utility load data for this analysis. AEA also requested preliminary cost estimates, economic
analysis, conceptual design, and development plan for the recommended project configuration.
This letter report presents the updated sizing analysis, conceptual design narrative, cost
estimate, economic analysis, and development plan for ECUC and AEA’s review. Applicable
supporting information and documentation is included with or attached to this report.
Conceptual design drawings for the recommended project will be provided to ECUC separately.
Based on the analysis summarized in this letter report, the recommended project configuration
is very similar to previously proposed configurations. The recommended installed capacity is
140 kW, consisting of a 35 kW run‐of‐river upper system between Crooked Creek and Jim’s
Lake, and a 105 kW storage lower system between Jim’s Lake and tidewater at Little Sandy
Beach. Current utility load and hydrology data both support a smaller project capacity than
recommended by the 2011 Feasibility Study. The recommended project configuration is
estimated to displace 89% of the diesel fuel consumed by the electric utility annually.
A siphon intake at Jim’s Lake will allow the lower system to regulate flows from Jim’s Lake,
drawing the lake down a maximum of eight feet below its natural level. No dam at the lake
outlet is proposed. This project configuration is understood to be eligible for an exemption
from FERC licensing requirements.1
2. BACKGROUND
Polarconsult completed reconnaissance and feasibility studies for the hydro project in June
2010 and June 2011, respectively. Mead & Hunt completed an independent engineer’s
evaluation of the project configuration recommended in the 2011 feasibility study in October
2012.2 The general project configurations are summarized in Table 1.
1 See FERC DI 11‐11‐000, Issued July 11, 2011.
2 Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Final Report; Elfin Cove, Alaska. Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. June 2010.
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Feasibility Study Final Report. Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. June 2011.
Elfin Cove Hydroelectric Project Conceptual Design and Development Plan
Letter Report Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
January 20, 2014 Page 2 of 11
Table 1: Previously and Currently Proposed Hydro Project Configurations
Source Installed
Capacity
Total Annual
Hydro Generation
Estimated
Installed Cost
Percent of ECUC
Load Met by Hydro
2010 Recon. Study 200 kW 716,000 kWh $2.5 – 3.6M 97%
2011 Feas. Study 160 kW 672,700 kWh $1.85M 99%
2012 Independent
Evaluation 125‐150 kW ‐ ‐ ‐
2014 Recommended
Configuration 140 kW 613,800 kWh $3.38M 89%
3. METHODOLOGY
Determining the ‘optimal’ installed capacity is one of the most subjective and challenging
engineering tasks associated with developing a hydroelectric project for a micro‐grid such as
ECUC. The hydro project will be a 50+ year asset. Undersizing the project sacrifices an
opportunity to support future growth of the community at very modest incremental capital
expense. Likewise, oversizing the project results in unnecessary capital expense with no benefit
to the community, and can also burden the community with increased operation and
maintenance (O&M) expenses over the life of the project.
For this updated analysis, Polarconsult analyzed several project alternatives using similar
methodology to that used for the 2011 Feasibility Study. Updated utility load data and
hydrology information, described in this letter report and attachments, was used for the
current analysis.
4. UPDATED PROJECT DATA
4.1 Hydrology
Stream gauging stations are maintained at the Crooked Creek diversion site and Jim’s Lake
outlet. These gauging stations are described in Appendix C of the 2011 Feasibility Study.
Polarconsult has reviewed additional hydrology data collected since 2011.3 Analysis of all
available hydrology data indicate flows in Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake are approximately 80%
of the flows that were estimated in 2011. The analysis presented in this memo is based on
current hydrology data.
4.2 ECUC System Electric Load
The 2011 Feasibility Study was based on annual utility load of 359,000 kWh.4 Subsequent utility
load has trended lower. Utility load was approximately 8% lower (~330,000 kWh) in 2009 and
2010, and approximately 16% lower (~300,000 kWh) in 2011 and 2012. 2013 load is estimated
to be approximately 25% lower, at 275,000 kWh. Table 2 and Figure 1 summarize recent
information for the electric utility.
Independent Engineer’s Evaluation Final Report. Hydropower Feasibility Development for the Community of Elfin
Cove, Alaska. Mead & Hunt. October 2012.
3 Interim Hydrology Report, Polarconsult Alaska, Inc., December 20, 2013 (attached).
4 Feasibility Study Final Report, Table 4‐1.
Elfin Cove Hydroelectric Project Conceptual Design and Development Plan
Letter Report Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
January 20, 2014 Page 3 of 11
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Jan‐03 Jan‐04 Jan‐05 Jan‐06 Jan‐07 Jan‐08 Jan‐09 Jan‐10 Jan‐11 Jan‐12 Jan‐13Average kWAverage Monthly Power Generation
ECUC load varies seasonally, with low demand in the winter months (October to April) and high
demand in the summer months (May to September). Both winter and summer loads have
decreased since the 2011 study. Average winter load was 20 – 30 kW from 2005 through 2009,
but decreased to 15 – 20 kW from 2010 to 2012. Average summer load has seen a similar
decrease, from 70 – 90 kW from 2005 through 2009, 70 – 80 kW from 2010 to 2012, and 60 –
70 kW in 2013.
These decreasing load trends are attributed to the increasing cost of electricity in Elfin Cove and
resulting ratepayer efforts to increase efficiency and control their utility expenses. Electricity
rates over this same time period have nearly doubled from $0.42 per kWh in 2005 to $0.80 per
kWh in 2012. Even though utility load and fuel use have decreased over time, total fuel costs
have remained constant at approximately $120,000 per year since 2008.
This analysis uses an annual utility load of 300,000 kWh, with 110,000 occurring during the
winter season (September 15 through May 15), and 190,000 kWh during the summer season
(May 15 through September 15).
Figure 1: Average Monthly ECUC System Load 5
5 2003 to 2011 data are from 2011 Feasibility Study. 2011 to 2013 data are provided by ECUC.
Elfin Cove Hydroelectric Project Conceptual Design and Development Plan Letter Report Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. January 20, 2014 Page 4 of 11 Table 2: Recent ECUC Electric Utility Data Data from 2003 to 2010 is compiled from monthly Power Cost Equalization (PCE) program records provided by the AEA. Data from 2011 to 2013 are provided by ECUC. (1) Data for 2003 include July through December. (2) Records from 2007 are incomplete due to power plant replacement project. (3) No station service data are available for March 2006 and April 2007 through November 2008. (4) Records from February 2011 to October 2013 only include total kWh generated, total kWh sales, total fuel consumption, and fuel price. (5) Data for 2013 include January through October. (6) Rates are for “average residential rate for 500 kWh/month consumption”, compiled from annual Statistical Report of the PCE Program, published by the AEA. Each report covers the state fiscal year (July 1 of the preceding year to June 30 of the calendar year). All other data in this table is based on calendar years. ‘–’ denotes data that are not available or not meaningful due to incomplete records. NA Not available. Parameter 2003 (1) 2004 2005 2006 2007 (2) 2008 2009 2010 2011(4) 2012(4) 2013 (4,5) kWh Generated 215,404 387,727 344,557 342,883 235,574 (2) 377,150 339,609 325,810 297,578 301,721 251,134 kWh for Station Service (% of total generation) 12,809 (5.9%) 24,785 (6.4%) 28,421 (8.2%) 24,147 (3) (7.0%) 1,734 (2,3) (‐‐%) 1,544 (3) (‐‐%) 25,045 (7.4%) 32,615 (10.0%) NA NA NA kWh Sold 200,865 318,937 301,614 302,051 295,567 334,177 291,866 259,139 240,990 245,865 206,675 Fuel Price (annual average) $1.84 $2.21 $2.94 $3.64 $3.56 $5.14 $4.62 $3.98 $4.78 $5.02 $5.12 Fuel Used (gallons) 17,583 32,938 31,778 31,161 31,727 30,678 26,413 26,539 25,096 24,685 20,927 Total Fuel Expense $32,380 $72,831 $93,414 $113,477 $112,806 $157,599 $122,068 $105,662 $120,043 $123,990 $107,244 Total Non‐Fuel Expense $24,796 $58,949 $55,867 $28,702 $41,078 $35,406 $32,739 $43,80 NA NA NA Total Utility Expense $57,177 $131,780 $149,281 $142,178 $153,884 $193,005 $154,807 $149,471 NA NA NA Power Cost per kWh $0.28 $0.41 $0.49 $0.47 $0.52 $0.58 $0.53 $0.58 NA NA NA Unsubsidized Electric Rate per kWh (6) $0.25 $0.25 $0.42 $0.51 $0.427 $0.56 $0.523 $0.523 $0.694 $0.80 NA Generation Efficiency (kWh/gal) 12.3 11.8 10.8 11.0 7.4 (2) 12.3 12.9 12.3 11.9 12.2 12.0
Elfin Cove Hydroelectric Project Conceptual Design and Development Plan
Letter Report Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
January 20, 2014 Page 5 of 11
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
9/15/089/15/099/15/109/15/119/15/129/15/13Daily Utility Demand and Supply (kW)Excess Hydro Available (kW)
Demand Supplied from Diesel (kW)
Demand Supplied from Hydro (kW)
Total System Demand (kW)
Energy Supplied by Hydro
Energy Supplied by Diesels
Current Utility Demand
Excess Energy available from Hydro
Energy Supplied by Diesels
5.0 RECOMMENDED PROJECT CONFIGURATION AND ALTERNATES CONSIDERED
Conceptual design drawings for the recommended project will be provided to ECUC separately.
These conceptual design drawings are based on LiDAR of the project site, field reconnaissance
completed in July 2013, and the conceptual project configuration described in this section.
5.1 Recommended Project Configuration
The recommended hydro project configuration has an upper system between Crooked Creek
and Jim’s Lake with a 5 cfs design flow and estimated 35 kW generating capacity, and a lower
system between Jim’s Lake and tidewater with a 6.5 cfs design flow and estimated 105 kW
generating capacity. The total capacity of this configuration is 140 kW.
ECUC demand and supply with the recommended project, based on 300,000 kWh annual utility
demand and site hydrology data collected from 2008 throgh 2013, is presented in Figure 2.
Generally, the diesel plant operates during longer dry spells in the summer months, when there
is insufficient flow in Crooked Creek to meet utility demand and Jim’s Lake is drawn down. In
years with prolonged snow melt or wetter summers (2010, 2012) the hydro is able to supply
over 98% of annual demand. In drier years, (2009, 2011, 2013) the hydro is able to supply 77 to
82% of annual demand.
Figure 2: ECUC Demand and Supply with Recommended Hydro Project
Elfin Cove Hydroelectric Project Conceptual Design and Development Plan
Letter Report Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
January 20, 2014 Page 6 of 11
The final installed capacity, which will depend on the water‐to‐wire efficiency of the turbines
and generators that are used, is expected to be in the range of 130 to 150 kW. Technical
aspects of the recommended project are summarized in Table 3, and a more detailed
description of the recommended project configuration follows.
Table 3: Technical Summary of Recommended Project
COMMON PROJECT FEATURES VALUE
Access Trails 12,200 feet
Power Lines 11,500 feet
Communications Lines 14,000 feet
INDIVIDUAL HYDRO SYSTEM FEATURES VALUES
Individual System Parameters Upper System Lower System Total
Basin Area (square miles) 0.56 sq.mi. 0.10 sq.mi. 0.66 sq.mi.
Median Flow (cfs) 2.5 cfs 0.4 NA
Minimum Flow (cfs) 0.2 cfs ~0.04 NA
Plant Design Flow (cfs) 5.0 cfs 6.5 cfs NA
Intake Elevation (ft, MSL) 479 ft 329 ‐ 337 ft NA
Powerhouse Elevation (ft, MSL) 342 ft 24 ft NA
Gross Head (ft) 137 ft 305 ‐ 313 ft NA
Pipeline Length (ft) / Diameter (in) 1,250’ of 12” pipe 2,030’ of 14” pipe NA
Net Head (ft) 124 ft 286 ft NA
Minimum Power Generation (kW) 7 kW 11 kW 7 kW
Installed Capacity (kW) 35 kW 105 kW 140 kW
Dam/Diversion Height (ft) none none NA
Available Storage Volume (ac‐ft) none 32 ac‐ft 32 ac‐ft
Estimated Annual Energy Generation
Total Annual Hydro Energy Generation (kWh) 153,400 460,400 613,800
Gross Excess Energy Available from Hydro (kWh) 347,500
Hydro Output used to Supply ECUC Load (kWh)
(percent of total ECUC load supplied by hydro)
266,300
(89%)
ECUC Load Met by Diesel Powerplant (kWh) 33,700
Total ECUC Load (kWh) 300,000
MSL: Mean sea level NA: Not Applicable.
Access Trails
With the exception of state land within the Elfin Cove town site, all of the project land is within
inventoried roadless areas of the Tongass National Forest. Accordingly, project access will
utilize trails rather than roads, with trail widths minimized to the extent practical.
Primary access for construction and heavy maintenance will be from Small Sandy Beach. A
permanent access trail will be built from the beach up to Jim’s Lake, continuing up to the
Crooked Creek intake site. A short spur trail will lead to the upper powerhouse site on the
shore of Jim’s Lake. This trail network will total approximately 4,200 linear feet. The initial
climb up from the beach will be a bench blasted in rock to an elevation of approximately 100
feet. The remainder of these trails will be at grades of up to 20%, either sidehilling through
mixed forest or traversing peat meadows. Some additional blasting may be required for these
trails depending on depth to rock along the trail route.
Elfin Cove Hydroelectric Project Conceptual Design and Development Plan
Letter Report Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
January 20, 2014 Page 7 of 11
Routine access for O&M will utilize an ATV trail from Elfin Cove. This trail will start at tidewater
on the west side of the cove and continue approximately 8,100 linear feet to intersect with the
project trail system. Approximately 1,000 linear feet of this trail is on state‐owned land within
the Elfin Cove town site, and the balance crosses National Forest land. There is no developed
trail system at the starting point for this access trail in Elfin Cove. Because Elfin Cove’s existing
trails are not suitable for ATV traffic, it is recommended that an ATV shed be installed above
tidewater at this trail head. Utility personnel would walk or skiff to the trail head, and then
take an ATV to the project site to perform O&M duties.
Based on review of site topography, alternate trail alignments near Elfin Cove that cross private
lands may be less costly to build than the proposed route. These land owners will be consulted
during the permitting process to see if they are amenable to granting easements for an access
trail.
Power, Communications, and Controls
Power generated at the two hydro powerhouses will be stepped up to 7.2 / 14.4 kV and
transmitted to Elfin Cove via a buried armored cable. The cable will be installed along the
access trail route. The power cable will connect to the existing utility distribution system near
the start of the access trail in Elfin Cove.
A dedicated communications cable will also be buried in the access trail to connect the two
hydro powerhouses to the diesel powerhouse. The final communications connection within
Elfin Cove can be made by either leasing capacity on the local communication network (if
available) or installing a submarine cable under the Cove from the trailhead to the diesel
powerhouse.
Controls for the coordination of the two hydro powerhouses and the diesel powerhouse will be
located in the diesel powerhouse. These controls will support interrogation of the two hydro
powerhouses from the diesel powerhouse to facilitate operations.
Upper System
The upper system intake will consist of an inclined plate screen located at a natural cascade on
Crooked Creek at an elevation of 479 feet. Water will flow over the screen, with up to five cfs
flowing through the screen and into a collection gallery. Water will flow from the gallery into
the penstock.
The penstock will be a 12‐inch diameter SDR 26 HDPE pipe approximately 1,250 feet long. The
pipe will be buried in the access trail from the intake to the powerhouse. Control wiring will be
buried parallel to the penstock to a head level probe at the intake.
The upper powerhouse will be an approximately 12 foot by 12 foot building located on the
shore of Jim’s Lake. It will house the crossflow turbine, generator, controls, and switchgear for
the upper system. After passing through the turbine, water will be discharged via an enclosed
Elfin Cove Hydroelectric Project Conceptual Design and Development Plan
Letter Report Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
January 20, 2014 Page 8 of 11
pipe into Jim’s Lake. The pipe tailrace will extend below the minimum drawdown elevation of
the lake (330 feet) to reduce erosion of the lakebed.
Lower System
The lower system intake will consist of a screened siphon intake positioned at approximately
322‐foot elevation in Jim’s Lake. At the proposed intake site, this will provide approximately 8
feet of cover at maximum lake drawdown and 5 feet of vertical separation to the lake bed to
minimize uptake of bottom sediments. The intake screen will be fitted with an anchor and float
assembly to facilitate manual hoisting to the surface for cleaning or maintenance when
necessary. The intake will be designed to minimize the need for manual cleaning.
The maximum suction head on the intake will be approximately 13 feet. During normal
operation, the intake will function as a passive siphon. At system startup, the penstock will
need to be primed to start the siphon. A small building (approximately eight foot by 10 foot)
located near the lake outlet and high point of the penstock will house a vacuum pump system
that will prime the penstock when needed. This vacuum system will pull air out of the
penstock, drawing water up from the lake and into the penstock until the penstock is filled.
The intake / penstock will be a 14‐inch diameter pipe approximately 2,030 feet long. Pipe
pressure ratings will vary from SDR 26 to SDR 15.5, depending on vacuum and pressure loadings
on the pipe.
Approximately 1,050 feet of the lower penstock will be buried under the access trail.
Approximately 550 feet of the lower penstock will be installed overland, either above grade or
shallow burial, in between trail switchbacks. The remaining approximately 430 feet of the
penstock is located in Jim’s Lake.
The lower powerhouse will be located at the head of Little Sandy Beach with a finished floor
elevation of 24 feet. It will house the turbine (Pelton or Turgo), generator, switchgear, and
controls for the lower system. After passing through the turbine, water will exit the
powerhouse via a concrete tailrace, transitioning to a cobble tailrace. Water will flow down the
cobble beach through the intertidal zone and into Port Althorp.
Elfin Cove Hydroelectric Project Conceptual Design and Development Plan
Letter Report Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
January 20, 2014 Page 9 of 11
5.2 Alternate Project Configurations Considered
Several alternatives to the recommended project configuration were analyzed to determine the
optimal project configuration given existing hydrology and utility load information. These
alternatives are described below.
Alternate 1: No Power Recovery Turbine on Upper System.6
This alternative is the same as the base configuration only without the power recovery turbine
on the upper system between Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake. This results in the following major
changes from the base configuration:
● Eliminate control wire up to Crooked Creek diversion site.
● Replace upper powerhouse with a simple energy dissipation structure at the pipe outlet.
● Eliminate approximately 350’ of communications and power to the upper powerhouse
site on the shore of Jim’s Lake.
The upper system power recovery turbine provides approximately 20% of the total project
output. Without this power recovery turbine, the volume of electric utility diesel fuel displaced
by the project is reduced approximately 10% to 79% total. In all scenarios analyzed, the power
recovery turbine on the upper system is cost effective.
Alternate 2: Alter Upper System Design Flow (3.25 to 6.5 cfs considered)
Several alternate upper system design flows were analyzed to determine the optimal design
flow of the project. Design flows corresponding to pipe diameters of 10” (3.25 cfs), 12” (5 cfs),
and 14” (6.5 cfs) were analyzed. A project using 12” pipe and 5 cfs design flow was found to
have the highest benefit‐cost ratio, although the difference across the range of pipes and flows
analyzed was very small. The incremental cost of the pipe is essentially the same as the
incremental value of the additional energy generated by the project over the range of piping
considered.
Alternate 3: Alter Lower System Design Flow (3.25 to 6.5 cfs considered)
Several alternate lower system configurations were analyzed to determine the optimal design
flow of the project. Design flows corresponding to pipe diameters of 10” (3.25 cfs), 12” (5 cfs),
and 14” (6.5 cfs) were analyzed. A project using 14” pipe and 6.5 cfs design flow was found to
have the highest benefit‐cost ratio, although the difference across the range of pipes and flows
analyzed was very small. The incremental cost of the pipe is essentially the same as the
incremental value of the additional energy generated by the project over the range of piping
considered.
6 Polarconsult also analyzed a ‘non‐upgradeable’ version of this alternative, with a smaller and shorter pipeline
that would not be suitable for future installation of a power recovery turbine. Both of these alternate
configurations offer significantly reduced energy output and significantly lower benefit cost ratio compared to
the recommended project configuration.
Elfin Cove Hydroelectric Project Conceptual Design and Development Plan
Letter Report Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
January 20, 2014 Page 10 of 11
6.0 COST ESTIMATE AND PROJECT ECONOMIC EVALUATION
The estimated cost for the recommended project configuration is presented in Table 4. Project
economics are summarized in Table 5.
Table 4: Project Cost Estimate
Cost Item Cost Estimate
PRE‐CONSTRUCTION COSTS (DESIGN & PERMITTING) $380,000
DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Access Trails $680,000
Transmission Line $340,000
Upper System
Diversion Structure $74,000
Penstock $55,000
Powerhouse $203,000
Upper System Subtotal $332,000
Lower System
Diversion Structure $65,000
Penstock $145,000
Powerhouse $413,000
Lower System Subtotal $623,000
Shipping $93,000
Equipment / Mobilization $252,000
TOTAL DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COSTS $2,320,000
Construction Management / Administration $120,000
Construction Inspection / Engineering $120,000
Construction Contingency (15%) $440,000
ESTIMATED TOTAL INSTALLED COSTS $3,380,000
Project economics are evaluated using AEA’s renewable energy project economic model
developed by ISER.7 Two economic scenarios are considered: (1), that excess energy generated
by the hydro project is not used, aside from heating the community building and shop to
replace waste heat from the diesel power plant, and (2) that excess energy generated by the
hydro project is used via a dispatchable energy system to heat other buildings in the
community when this energy is available. A dispatchable energy system associated with this
project would produce significant value because the utility load is relatively low during the
winter heating season, so a significant fraction of the hydro project’s output would be available
during the winter months to displace heating fuel.
7 Renewable Energy Project Economic Model, Developed for Alaska Energy Authority by UAA Institute for Social
and Economic Research (ISER). Renewable Energy Grant Program Round 7 Version, Published July 2013.
Elfin Cove Hydroelectric Project Conceptual Design and Development Plan
Letter Report Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
January 20, 2014 Page 11 of 11
Table 5: Project Economic Summary
1. present value calculated using a 50‐year life and 3% discount rate.
2. Calculated as the sum of nominal annual fuel expenses over 50 years as projected by ISER divided by 50.
3. Assumes 75,000 kWh are dispatched to the community building and shop to replace heat from the diesel
power plant. No benefit is calculated from this energy. 75% of the remaining net excess energy is assumed to
be dispatched to other interruptible loads in the community to displace the indicated quantity of heating oil.
7.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Once the project configuration described in this letter report has been approved by ECUC and
AEA, Polarconsult can proceed with project permitting under the following schedule.
February – May 2014: Agency consultations, permit applications, finalize study plans
June – September 2014: Conduct field studies, agency site visit and public meetings
August – December 2014: Prepare Draft FERC License Exemption Application (DLEA)
January 2015: Circulate DLEA for Agency and FERC Review and Comment
April 2015: Receive comments on DLEA
April – May 2015: Finalize FERC License Exemption Application, file with FERC
June – November 2015: FERC processes application
December 2015: FERC issue License Exemption
Because the permitting process is agency driven, the milestone dates should be viewed as
targets rather than firm deadlines – significant additional information requests, or protracted
negotiations over permit terms can slow down progress. Conversely, close coordination with
and consensus between agencies and the applicant can result in faster progress than outlined
in the attached schedule.
Parameter Value
HYDRO PROJECT COSTS
Project Installed Cost $3.38M
Average Annual Hydro Operations, Maintenance, Repair & Replacement Costs (50 years) $21,000
Salvage Value (at year 50) $0
PRESENT VALUE OF PROJECT COSTS (1) $3.03M
HYDRO PROJECT BENEFITS (UTILITY FUEL SAVINGS ONLY)
Displacement of Energy Generated by Diesel Power Plant (kWh) 266,300
Displaced Diesel Fuel for Power plant (gallons) 21,300
Average Annual Value of Displaced Fuel (50 years) (2) $190,800
PRESENT VALUE OF PROJECT BENEFITS (UTILITY FUEL SAVINGS ONLY) (1) $3.67M
BENEFIT‐COST RATIO (UTILITY FUEL SAVINGS ONLY) 1.21
HYDRO PROJECT BENEFITS (UTILITY FUEL SAVINGS + EXCESS ENERGY USAGE)
Net Excess Hydro Energy Dispatched to Interruptible Loads (kWh per yr) (3) 180,000
Displaced Heating Fuel (gallons per year) (3) 5,300
Average Annual Value of Displaced Heating Fuel (50 years) (2) $52,950
PRESENT VALUE OF PROJECT BENEFITS (INCLUDING EXCESS ENERGY) $4.79M
BENEFIT‐COST RATIO (COUNTING EXCESS ENERGY BENEFIT) 1.58
Elfin Cove, Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Round 8
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project AEA RFA 15003
Design and Permitting Grant Application Supporting Documents
ATTACHMENT G.2
INTERIM HYDROLOGY REPORT (DEC. 20, 2013)
polarconsult alaska, inc.
1503 West 33rd Avenue, Suite 310
Anchorage, Alaska 99503-3638
Phone: (907) 258-2420
FAX: (907) 258-2419
I NTERIM H YDROLOGY R EPORT
131220-INTERIMHYDROLOGYREPORT.DOC
DATE: December 20, 2013
TO: Jane Button, ECUC Project Manager
FROM: Joel Groves, PE Polarconsult Project Manager
SUBJECT: Interim Hydrology Report, Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydro Project
CC:
1. Background
From 1984 to 1985, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) maintained stream
gauges at the proposed Crooked Creek diversion site and Jim’s Lake outlet. Since 2008, Elfin
Cove Utility Commission (ECUC) has maintained stream gauges at these same two locations.
Additionally, ECUC maintained a stream gauge at Roy’s Creek from October 2009 through June
2012.1 The installations and station histories through June 2011 are described in detail in
Appendix C of the Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Feasibility Study Final Report
(Polarconsult, June 2011). More recent station histories are provided in this interim report.
The Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake gauging stations are both still maintained and operating as of
the most recent data download. This interim report provides up‐to‐date information on the
stations and collected hydrology information, and provides an interim analysis of the collected
hydrology data. The findings presented in this interim report are used to update the project
analysis completed in the 2011 Feasibility Study in order to recommend a project configuration
for final design and permitting.
2. Summary of Findings
The on‐going hydrology study has produced 2.56 years of flow data at Crooked Creek and 4.24
years of data at Jim’s Lake. Correlations between these sites and the discontinued Roy’s Creek
gauge are used to produce an extended hydrology record for both sites of 5.32 years.
Analysis of the current data indicate lower flows at both Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake than
indicated by the analysis completed for the 2011 Feasibility Study. Current estimates for the
median flow2 at both sites are approximately 80 to 85% of the estimates in the 2011 Feasibility
Study.
Analysis of these data indicate that the resource capacity factor of Crooked Creek, the major
water supply for the proposed development, is between 52 and 55% at a design flow of 5 cubic
feet per second (cfs). The hydrology analysis in the 2011 Feasibility Study estimated the
resource capacity factor for this design flow at between 50 and 61%. Resource capacity factor
for Jim’s Lake is not meaningful because the storage capacity of the lake can capture
substantially all of the flow for power generation.
1 Roy’s Creek is not currently under consideration for hydroelectric development, but was evaluated in the 2010
Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study for Elfin Cove. Roy’s Creek data is included in this interim report because it
is used to extend the record for the Crooked Creek gauging station.
2 Median flow is the 50% exceedance flow in Figures 6 and 7.
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S L AKE H YDROELECTRIC P ROJECT
I NTERIM H YDROLOGY R EPORT P OLARCONSULT A LASKA, INC.
DECEMBER 20, 2013 PAGE 2 OF 10
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Crooked Creek Gauged Flow
Jim's Lake Gauged Flow
Roy's Creek Gauged Flow
3. Available Hydrology Data
From the start of stream gauging efforts in June 2008 to June 2009, and again from June 2011
to April 2013, ECUC led stream gauging efforts. From June 2009 through June 2011, and April
2013 to the present time, Polarconsult has been under contract to ECUC to conduct stream
gauging. ECUC has provided all available hydrology records and field data to Polarconsult.
Polarconsult has consolidated all available records and data for analysis. Currently available
hydrology data is summarized in Table 1 and Figure 1. Currently, 2.56 years of data have been
collected at Crooked Creek, 4.24 years of data at Jim’s Lake, and 2.42 years at Roy’s Creek.
Figure 1 presents the stage record collected at both stations. Gaps in Figure 1 reflect stage data
that was not recorded either due to failure of the logger hardware or insufficient memory
capacity. All flow measurements completed at these stations are summarized in Table 2.
Table 1: Summary of Hydrology Data for Elfin Cove Hydroelectric Resources
Location Basin Size
(sq.mi.) (1)
Site Elevation
(ft)(1) Latitude (1)Longitude (1)Begin Date End Date Number of
Records (days)(3)
7/6/84(2) 2/13/85(2) 202 Crooked Creek
at diversion site 0.56 478.0 5810'40" 13619'16" 8/22/08 Current(3) 933
7/6/84(2) 2/11/85(2) 202 Jim's Lake Creek
at lake outlet 0.10 333.2 5810'34" 13619'32" 8/22/08 Current(3) 1,547
Roy’s Creek
above Falls 0.42 470 5811'29" 13620'09" 10/8/09 7/8/12 885
(1) Data from June 2011 Feasibility Study, Appendix C.
(2) Count of available daily records. Gauges may have been in service for a longer period.
(3) The record count for current gauging stations reflects data through the most recent download on December
17, 2013 at Crooked Creek and October 17, 2013 at Jim’s Lake. The Roy’s Creek gauge has been discontinued.
Figure 1: Summary of Data Available from Gauging Stations
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S L AKE H YDROELECTRIC P ROJECT
I NTERIM H YDROLOGY R EPORT P OLARCONSULT A LASKA, INC.
DECEMBER 20, 2013 PAGE 3 OF 10
Table 2: Flow Measurements at Jim’s Lake, Crooked Creek, and Roy’s Creek Gauging Stations
Local Date/Time Party Flow (cfs) Stage (ft) Method / Equipment
Crooked Creek at Diversion Site
7/26/2008 15:15 Button/ Christensen 2.33 7.7 Pygmy Meter(2)
7/27/2008 16:20 Button/ Christensen 4.35 7.76 Pygmy Meter
8/22/2008 14:30 Button/ Christensen 5.38 7.92 Pygmy Meter
6/1/2009 11:39 Button/ Christensen 4.17 7.73 Pygmy Meter
6/28/2009 16:40 Button/ Christensen 1.3 7.6 Pygmy Meter
7/9/2009 10:55, 11:20 Groves/ Hertrich 0.98 / 0.94 7.54 Hanna Meter(3)
9/4/2009 11:15, 11:40 Groves/ Glendoing 0.84 / 0.93 7.54 Hanna Meter
10/9/2009 12:50 Groves/ Christensen 3.71 7.68 Hanna Meter
12/9/2009 13:45 Button/ Christensen 1.07 7.52 Hanna Meter
8/10/2010 11:40, 12:15 Groves/ Button 2.41 / 2.25 7.62 Hanna Meter
9/27/2011 17:00 Christensen 1.42 7.55 HOBO Meter(4)
6/8/2013 13:20, 13:50 Christensen 7.36 / 7.48 7.81 HOBO Meter
7/15/2013 17:30, 17:45 Groves 0.69 / 0.88 7.48 Hanna Meter
10/17/2013 10:00, 10:40 Groves 1.42 / 1.38 7.52 Hanna Meter
Crooked Creek at Mouth
10/17/2013 15:00 Groves 1.96 NA Hanna Meter
Jim’s Creek at Lake Outlet (5)
7/25/2008 12:30 Button/ Christensen 3.42 4.18 Pygmy Meter
7/26/2008 10:45 Button/ Christensen 1.3 3.82 Pygmy Meter
8/22/2008 12:45 Button/ Christensen 0.11 3.7 Pygmy Meter
6/1/2009 10:00 Button/ Christensen 0.54 3.73 Pygmy Meter
6/28/2009 18:00 Button/ Christensen 0.04 3.61 Pygmy Meter
7/9/2009 12:15, 12:30 Groves/ Hertrich 0.091 / 0.091 3.56 Hanna Meter
9/4/2009 10:00, 10:15 Groves/ Glendoing 0.219 / 0.217 3.52 Hanna Meter
10/9/2009 13:45 Groves/ Christensen 0.44 3.62 Hanna Meter
10/9/2009 14:05 Groves/ Christensen 0.44 3.69 Hanna Meter
12/9/2009 14:15 Button/ Christensen 0.219 3.68 Hanna Meter
8/10/2010 10:30, 10:45 Groves/ Button 0.421 / 0.422 3.72 Hanna Meter
9/27/2011 16:15 Christensen 0.34 3.69 HOBO Meter
6/8/2013 14:45 Christensen 0.33 3.67 HOBO Meter
7/15/2013 16:30 Groves 0.17 / 0.20 3.48 Hanna Meter
10/17/2013 13:30 Groves 0.25 / 0.26 3.69 Hanna Meter
Roy’s Creek Above Falls
9/3/2009 Groves 1.10 NA Hanna Meter
10/8/2009 16:51 Groves 3.26 1.27 Hanna Meter
12/9/2009 11:45 Button/ Christensen 0.68 1.09 Hanna Meter
8/13/2010 11:30 Groves/Button 1.29 1.17 Hanna Meter
7/18/2013 17:20 Groves 0.59 1.12 Hanna Meter
(1) Current velocity stream flow method with March McBirney current velocity meter (model unknown).
(2) Current velocity stream flow method with Pygmy current velocity meter.
(3) Sudden dose salt integration stream flow method with Hanna HI 9828 conductivity meter.
(4) Sudden dose salt integration stream flow method with Hobo U24‐001 conductivity logger.
(5) A small weir was installed on October 9, 2009, to stabilize and improve the section at the gauge.
‘‐‘ Indicates data are not available.
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S L AKE H YDROELECTRIC P ROJECT
I NTERIM H YDROLOGY R EPORT P OLARCONSULT A LASKA, INC.
DECEMBER 20, 2013 PAGE 4 OF 10
4. Recent Gauging Station Histories 3
Crooked Creek Diversion Site Gauging Station
September 27, 2011. The gauging station was downloaded and stage and flow were
measured. The on‐board temperature sensor was found to be malfunctioning.
July 10, 2012. The data logger was found submerged in the creek downstream of the
gauging station, apparently ripped off the tree by a bear. The logger was not recovered at
this time.
June 8, 2013. The destroyed data logger was recovered from Crooked Creek and stored in
Elfin Cove. Stage and flow were measured. A new data logger and pressure transducer (PT)
was installed at the same gauging station. The new data logger is a cellular‐enabled GSM‐2
manufactured by Keller America, Inc. It transmits site telemetry to Polarconsult every four
hours via cellular GSM network. The new PT is a Keller Acculevel vented transducer.
July 15, 2013. Stage and flow were measured.
October 17, 2013. Anomalies in programming of the GSM‐2 were corrected by direct cable
interface in the field. The PT installed in June was determined to be providing spurious
stage data, and was replaced with a new PT of the same make and model. Stage and flow
were measured.
October 29, 2013. Polarconsult extracted the main board from the data logger found
destroyed in July 2012 and returned it to the manufacturer to attempt to recover the data.
The manufacturer found no valid data on the memory chip and the main board was not
salvageable.
Jim’s Lake Outlet Gauging Station
Sept. 27, 2011. The gauging station was downloaded and stage and flow were measured.
July 10, 2012. The gauging station was downloaded and stage was measured.
June 8, 2013. The gauging station was downloaded and stage and flow were measured.
July 15, 2013. The gauging station was downloaded and stage and flow were measured.
Oct. 17, 2013. The gauging station was downloaded and stage and flow were measured.
Roy’s Creek Gauging Station
July 10, 2012. Station hardware was removed. Stage was measured.
July 18, 2013. Stage and flow were measured.
3 For earlier station history, see June 2011 Feasibility Study, Appendix C.
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S L AKE H YDROELECTRIC P ROJECT
I NTERIM H YDROLOGY R EPORT P OLARCONSULT A LASKA, INC.
DECEMBER 20, 2013 PAGE 5 OF 10
7.30
7.40
7.50
7.60
7.70
7.80
7.90
8.00
024681012
Flow (cfs)Stage (ft)Accepted Measurements, 2008‐11
Accepted Measurements, 2013
S‐D Curve (2011 Feas. Study)
S‐D Curve, 2013 (Current)
S‐D Curve, 2008‐2012 (Current)
5. Hydrology Analysis
Station Rating Curves
All available flow and stage measurements were reviewed and used to develop updated
stage‐discharge curves for each gauging station. Rating curves developed in the 2011
Feasibility Study are also shown for comparison.
Data, rating curves, and equations for the Crooked Creek station are presented in Figure 2.
Data for the Crooked Creek gauging station indicate the creek section was stable from 2008
to 2012. It appears that a flood event prior to June 2013 may have changed the section
slightly, based on field conditions and 2013 flow measurements. The 2013 curve was
shifted to the right to reflect these data.
Figure 2: Stage‐Discharge Curves for Crooked Creek Gauging Station
Data, rating curves, and equations for the Jim’s Lake station are presented in Figure 3. The
outlet section at Jim’s Lake is generally stable, however the stage‐discharge relationship
appears to be more variable than at Crooked Creek. This greater variability is attributed to
the very low flows being gauged at Jim’s Lake. These low flows, often just a few tenths of a
cfs, introduce two challenges for a natural‐channel gauging station: accurately measuring
such low flows taxes the capabilities of most flow measurement techniques; and the stage‐
discharge relationship at such low flows can be significantly perturbed by transient events
such as leaves sticking to rocks in the creek bed near the gauge. Errors in measuring the
small flows at Jim’s Lake are not expected to adversely affect project development
decisions.
2008 ‐ 2012: Q = 28.0 (S ‐ 7.40)1.6
2013: Q = 26.5 (S ‐ 7.36)1.6
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S L AKE H YDROELECTRIC P ROJECT
I NTERIM H YDROLOGY R EPORT P OLARCONSULT A LASKA, INC.
DECEMBER 20, 2013 PAGE 6 OF 10
Figure 3: Stage‐Discharge Curves for Jim’s Lake Outlet Gauging Station
Data, rating curve, and equations for the Roy’s Creek station are presented in Figure 4. The
creek section at Roy’s Creek appears to have been stable over the 2.8‐year period when the
gauge was installed.
Figure 4: Stage‐Discharge Curves for Roy’s Creek Gauging Station
3.40
3.50
3.60
3.70
3.80
3.90
4.00
4.10
4.20
4.30
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Flow (cfs)Stage (ft)All Measurements, 2008‐13
S‐D Curve, Current, +0.07' Stage Shift
S‐D Curve, Current
S‐D Curve, Current, ‐0.07' Stage Shift
S‐D Curve (2011 Feas. Study, 10/9/09 ‐ 5/9/11)
S‐D Curve (2011 Feas. Study, 2008 ‐ 10/9/09)
8/22/08 to 8/16/09: Q = 3.6 (S ‐3.27)3.0
8/16/09 to 8/29/09; 10/9/09 to current: Q = 3.6 (S ‐ 3.20)3.0
8/29/09 to 10/9/09: Q = 3.6 (S ‐ 3.13)3.0
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
012345678910Flow (cfs)Stage (Site Datum, ft)All Measurements, 2009‐2013
S‐D Curve (2011 Feas. Study)
S‐D Curve (Current Analysis)
Full Record: Q = 35.1 (S –0.93)2.29
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S L AKE H YDROELECTRIC P ROJECT
I NTERIM H YDROLOGY R EPORT P OLARCONSULT A LASKA, INC.
DECEMBER 20, 2013 PAGE 7 OF 10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Sep Oct Nov DecCrooked Creek Flow (cfs)2008
2009
2010
2010
2011
2013
Station Hydrographs
Recorded stage data and manual stage readings for all three stations were reviewed.
Apparent errors due to sensor anomalies and gross errors due to ice effects were corrected.
Further revisions to the stage record to reflect more subtle ice effects on the stage record
during the winter season (generally November – March) at all stations may be warranted.
The resulting hydrographs for the three gauging stations are presented in Figures 3, 4 and 5.
Figure 3: Crooked Creek Hydrograph, 2008 – 2013
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S L AKE H YDROELECTRIC P ROJECT
I NTERIM H YDROLOGY R EPORT P OLARCONSULT A LASKA, INC.
DECEMBER 20, 2013 PAGE 8 OF 10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Sep Oct Nov DecRoy's Creek Flow (cfs)2009
2010
2011
2012
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecJim's Lake Outlet Flow (cfs)2008
2009
2010
2010
2011
2011
2012
2013
Figure 4: Jim’s Lake Outlet Hydrograph, 2008 – 2013
Figure 5: Roy’s Creek Hydrograph, 2009 – 2012
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S L AKE H YDROELECTRIC P ROJECT
I NTERIM H YDROLOGY R EPORT P OLARCONSULT A LASKA, INC.
DECEMBER 20, 2013 PAGE 9 OF 10
Record Extensions
As shown in Figure 1, there are significant gaps in the record set for all three gauging
stations. The two‐year long gap at Crooked Creek from September 2011 to October 2013 is
of particular significance as Crooked Creek is the prime water supply for the proposed
hydroelectric project.
Correlations between the three gauges were analyzed and used to fill in gaps in the Crooked
Creek and Jim’s Lake records. Table 3 summarizes the coefficients of determination and
correlation equations used for the record extensions.4 The coefficient of determination
between Crooked Creek and Roy’s Creek (R2 = 0.83) is high, which is expected given the
proximity and similar basins of these two creeks. The coefficient of determination between
the Jim’s Lake outlet site and the two creeks is significantly lower (R2 = 0.31), which is also
expected because the lake moderates flows from this basin.
Missing records for Crooked Creek are supplemented first by Roy’s Creek data, second by
Jim’s Lake data, and lastly by the average daily flow for the missing data at Crooked Creek.
Missing records for Jim’s Lake are supplemented first by Roy’s Creek data, second by
Crooked Creek data, and lastly by the average daily flow for the missing data at Jim’s Lake.
Table 3: Correlation Equations for Crooked Creek and Jim’s lake Record Extensions
Site Correlation Source Days of Common
Record
Coefficient of
Determination Correlation Equation
Roy’s Creek Gauge 600 0.83 QCC = 0.822 QRC
1.40 Crooked Creek Jim’s Lake Gauge 871 0.31 QCC = 3.26 QJL + 1.63
Roy’s Creek Gauge 827 0.46 QJL = 0.0414 QRC +0.324 Jim’s Lake Crooked Creek Gauge 871 0.31 QJL = 0.0947 QCC +0.255
QCC: Flow at Crooked Creek gauging station, cfs
QRC: Flow at Roy’s Creek gauging station, cfs
QJL: Flow at Jim’s Lake gauging station, cfs
Table 4 summarizes the data sources used to compile the extended records for the Crooked
Creek and Jim’s Lake sites.
Table 4: Data Sources for Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Extended Records
Data Source Crooked Creek Site Data Source Jim’s Lake Site
Crooked Creek Gauge 2.56 years Jim’s Lake Gauge 4.24 years
Roy’s Creek Gauge 0.78 years Roy’s Creek Gauge 0.16 years
Jim’s Lake Gauge 1.23 years Crooked Creek Gauge 0.17 years
Average Daily Data for Site 0.75 years Average Daily Data for Site 0.75 years
Total Extended Record 5.32 years (August 22, 2008 to December 17, 2013)
4 The coefficient of determination is a statistical measure of how related two data sets are. The coefficient’s value ranges from
zero to one, with zero representing no relationship between the two data sets, and one representing a perfect correlation.
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S L AKE H YDROELECTRIC P ROJECT
I NTERIM H YDROLOGY R EPORT P OLARCONSULT A LASKA, INC.
DECEMBER 20, 2013 PAGE 10 OF 10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow is Equalled or ExceededCrooked Creek Flow at Diversion Site8/22/2008 ‐ 10/17/2013 Gauged Flow (Current Analysis)
8/22/2008 ‐ 10/17/2013 Extended Record (Current Analysis)
8/22/2008 ‐ 5/9/2011 Data (2011 Feas. Study Analysis)
1984 ‐ 85 Data (2011 Feas. Study Analysis)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow is Equalled or ExceededJim's Lake Flow at Outlet8/22/2008 ‐ 10/17/2013 Gauged Flow (Current Analysis)
8/22/2008 ‐ 10/17/2013 Extended Record (Current Analysis)
8/22/2008 ‐ 5/9/2011 Data (2011 Feas. Study Analysis)
1984‐1985 Data (2011 Feas. Study Analysis)
Flow Duration Curves
Figures 6 and 7 present flow duration curves for the Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake sites.
The figures also show the 2011 Feasibility Study curves for comparison.
The current flow duration curves for Crooked Creek calculated from gauged flow and the
extended record are similar. Both current curves are lower than the estimated curve from
the 2011 Feasibility Study, and higher than the estimated curve from the 1984‐85 data.
Figure 6: Crooked Creek Flow Duration Curve, 2008 – 2013
The current flow duration curves for Jim’s Lake calculated from gauged flow and the
extended record are very similar, and also fall between the previous curves.
Figure 7: Jim’s Lake Outlet Flow Duration Curve, 2008 – 2013
Elfin Cove, Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Round 8
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project AEA RFA 15003
Design and Permitting Grant Application Supporting Documents
ATTACHMENT G.3
FERC LETTER DECLARING PROJECT INELIGIBLE FOR LICENSE
EXEMPTION (AUG. 15, 2014)
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20426
August 15, 2014
OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS
Project No. 14514-000 – AK
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric
Project
Community of Elfin Cove, DBA Elfin Cove
Utility Commission
Jane Button
c/o Elfin Cove Utility Commission
P.O. Box 2
Elfin Cove, AK 99825
Joel D. Groves, PE
Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
1503 West 33rd Avenue, #310
Anchorage, AK 99503
Reference: Initial Consultation Document for 10-MW Exemption
Dear Ms. Button and Mr. Groves:
On August 7, 2014, you filed an Initial Consultation Document (ICD) for a
proposed 10-megawatt (MW) exemption for the Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake
Hydroelectric Project (Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Project). Commission staff
reviewed your filing and has determined that the proposed project does not qualify for a
10-MW exemption.
The Commission is authorized to exempt from the licensing requirements of Part I
of the Federal Power Act small hydroelectric projects with an installed capacity of 10-
MW or less that: (1) are located at the site of an existing dam (i.e., one that was in
existence on or before July 22, 2005), and that use the water power potential of such a
dam for the generation of electricity not owned or operated by the United States; or
(2) use a “natural water feature” to generate electricity without the need for a dam or
manmade impoundment.1 Your proposed project would not be located at the site of an
existing dam or a natural water feature. Your proposed upper system powerhouse would
utilize flows that travel through a 1,250-foot-long penstock to reach the proposed
1 See 16 U.S.C. §§ 2705 and 2708 (2012).
20140815-3027 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/15/2014
Project No. 14514-000 - 2 -
turbine/generating unit, and your proposed lower system powerhouse would utilize flows
that travel through a 2,050-foot-long penstock to reach the proposed turbine/generating
unit. Neither system would use significant head from the diversions to generate
electricity; therefore, your project would not qualify for an exemption.2
If you intend to pursue a license for the Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Project,
you must file a Notice of Intent (NOI) and Pre-Application Document (PAD) pursuant to
sections 5.5 and 5.6 of the Commission’s regulations,3 as outlined in paragraph 8 of your
preliminary permit for the project issued by the Commission on July 19, 2013.4
You can file your NOI and PAD electronically via the Internet. See 18 C.F.R.
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission’s website
(http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/efiling.asp). For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov; call toll-free at (866) 208-3676;
or, for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, your response may also be paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an original
and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426. Please put docket number, P-
14514 on the first page of your response.
You may call Sean O’Neill at (202) 502-6462 if you have any questions
concerning this letter.
Sincerely,
Vince Yearick
Director
Division of Hydropower Licensing
Cc: Mailing List
Public File
2 See e.g.,Jonathan and Jayne Chase, 135 FERC ¶ 61,160 (2011) (holding that, as
a general rule, projects where the powerhouse is located no further than 500 feet from the
project dam or diversion and which derive a significant portion of head from the dam or
diversion will qualify for a small hydropower exemption).
3 18 C.F.R. §§ 5.5 and 5.6 (2014). Please note that much of the information
provided in your ICD can be used for your PAD.
4 144 FERC ¶ 62,056 (2013).
20140815-3027 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/15/2014
Elfin Cove, Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Round 8
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project AEA RFA 15003
Design and Permitting Grant Application Supporting Documents
ATTACHMENT G.4
INITIAL CONSULTATION DOCUMENT (ISSUED AUG. 6, 2014)
P14514: CROOKED CREEK AND JIM'S LAKE
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
INITIAL CONSULTATION DOCUMENT
AUGUST 6, 2014
Prepared for
ELFIN COVE UTILITY COMMISSION
PO BOX 2
ELFIN COVE, ALASKA 99825
Prepared by
POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC.
1503 W. 33RD AVENUE, SUITE 310
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA, 99503
P‐14514: Initial Consultation Document
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014
This page intentionally blank.
P‐14514: Initial Consultation Document, Introductory Statement
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Page 1
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION
FOR 10‐MW HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT
The Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission (ECUC) applies to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for an exemption for the Crooked Creek and
Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project (Project), a small hydroelectric power project that is proposed
to have an installed capacity of 10 megawatts or less, from licensing under the Federal Power
Act.
The location of the project is:
State or Territory: State of Alaska
County: Unorganized Borough
Township or nearby town: 1 mile south of Elfin Cove, 70 miles west of Juneau
Stream or nearby body of water: Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake
The exact name and business address of the applicant(s) is:
Applicant’s Name: Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility
Commission
Address: PO Box 2
Elfin Cove, AK 99825
The exact name and business address of each person authorized to act as agent for the
applicant(s) in this initial consultation document is:
Name of Agent: Jane Button (ECUC Project Manager)
Address: PO Box 2
Elfin Cove, AK 99825
Name of Agent: Joel Groves, PE (Engineering Consultant)
Address: Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
1503 West 33rd Avenue, Suite 310
Anchorage, AK 99503
ECUC is a non‐profit corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Alaska.
Pursuant to section 30 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. § 823 (2006), exemption from
all of Part I of the FPA is requested. ECUC acknowledges that it will not be exempted from the
following portions of the FPA:
P‐14514: Initial Consultation Document, Introductory Statement
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Page 2
(1) section 4(g), which states that if a condition of the exemption order is violated, then
the Commission may revoke the exemption or take appropriate action for enforcement,
forfeiture, or penalties under Part III of the FPA;
(2) section 10(c), which states that the exemptee, and not the United States, is liable for
all damages to another’s property as a result of construction, maintenance, or operation
of the exempted project;
(3) section 30(c), which governs the issuance of conduit exemptions and subjects
exemptions to terms and conditions set by federal and state fish and wildlife agencies;
and
(4) section 31(a), which states that if the exemptee fails to comply with the exemption it
may be subject to civil penalties, or revocation of the exemption
EVIDENCE OF APPLICANT OWNERSHIP:
All of the land necessary to develop and operate the Project is Federal land or state land.
ECUC intends to apply for easements across state land and/or tideland necessary to develop
and operate the project.
FEDERAL LANDS
The Project will occupy approximately 10 acres of federal lands located within the Tongass
National Forest (TNF) and managed by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). A proposed project
boundary, encompassing approximately 61.5 acres of TNF land, is included in Exhibit G. An
application for a Forest Service Special Use Permit was submitted to the USFS in June 2014 (see
Attachment 2).
STATEMENT OF FEES REQUIRED TO DEVELOP SECTION 30(C) CONDITIONS:
ECUC has not yet contacted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Alaska Department of
Fish and Game (ADFG), or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding fees to
develop their section 30(c) conditions.
P ‐14514: CROOKED CREEK AND JIM'S LAKE
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
INITIAL CONSULTATION DOCUMENT
EXHIBIT A – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
AUGUST 6, 2014
ELFIN COVE UTILITY COMMISSION
PO BOX 2
ELFIN COVE, ALASKA 99825
P‐14514: Initial Consultation Document, Exhibit A
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Page 1
EXHIBIT A: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
(1) Brief Project Overview
The proposed project is a hydroelectric project located on Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake,
approximately one mile south of Elfin Cove, Alaska. There are no other existing or proposed
dams, diversion structures, or water works on the project waters.
The project consists of two hydroelectric systems in series with a total capacity of
approximately 140 kilowatts (kW). The “upper system” diverts up to five cubic feet per
second (cfs) of water from Crooked Creek to Jim’s Lake where it is run through a 35 kW
power recovery turbine. The “lower system” draws up to 6.5 cfs of water from Jim’s Lake to
a 105‐kW turbine located at tidewater.
Project features are summarized in Table 1, and described below.
Table 1: Technical Summary of Recommended Project
COMMON PROJECT FEATURES VALUE
Access Trails 12,200 feet
Power Lines 11,500 feet
Communications Lines 14,000 feet
INDIVIDUAL HYDRO SYSTEM FEATURES VALUES
Individual System Parameters Upper System Lower System Total
Basin Area (square miles) 0.56 sq.mi. 0.10 sq.mi. 0.66 sq.mi.
Median Flow (cfs) 2.5 cfs 0.4 NA
Minimum Flow (cfs) 0.2 cfs ~0.04 NA
Plant Design Flow (cfs) 5.0 cfs 6.5 cfs NA
Intake Elevation (ft, MSL) 479 ft 329 ‐ 337 ft NA
Powerhouse Elevation (ft, MSL) 342 ft 24 ft NA
Gross Head (ft) 137 ft 305 ‐ 313 ft NA
Pipeline Length (ft) / Diameter (in) 1,250 ft of 12 in
pipe
2,050 ft of 14 in
pipe
NA
Net Head (ft) 124 ft 286 ft NA
Turbine Type Cross‐Flow Pelton or Turgo
Minimum Power Generation (kW) 7 kW 11 kW 7 kW
Installed Capacity (kW) 35 kW 105 kW 140 kW
Dam/Diversion Height (ft) none none NA
Available Storage Volume (ac‐ft) none 32 ac‐ft 32 ac‐ft
Estimated Annual Energy Generation
Total Annual Hydro Energy Generation (kWh) 153,400 460,400 613,800
Gross Excess Energy Available from Hydro (kWh) 347,500
Hydro Output used to Supply ECUC Load (kWh)
(percent of total ECUC load supplied by hydro)
266,300
(89%)
ECUC Load Met by Diesel Powerplant (kWh) 33,700
Total ECUC Load (kWh) 300,000
ac‐ft: acre‐feet in: inches NA: Not Applicable
cfs: cubic feet per second kW: kilowatt sq.mi.: square mile(s)
ECUC: Elfin Cove Utility Commission kWh: kilowatt‐hour
ft: feet MSL: Mean sea level
P‐14514: Initial Consultation Document, Exhibit A
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Page 2
Upper System Features
The upper system is a run‐of‐river hydroelectric project between Crooked Creek and Jim’s
Lake that would include the following major components:
● A natural water feature diversion on Crooked Creek at an elevation of 479 feet above
sea level (ASL) (See sheet U1.1, Exhibit F). The diversion would consist of an
approximately 20 feet long by 4 feet tall by 4 feet wide diversion structure built into a
natural cascade and fitted with an inclined plate (coanda‐type) screen to divert up to
five cubic feet per second from the creek. The diversion structure would be constructed
of concrete, treated timber, metal, and/or other suitable materials.
● An approximately 1,250 foot long 12‐inch diameter penstock to convey water from the
diversion to a powerhouse located on the shore of Jim’s Lake at an elevation of 342 feet
ASL (See sheet U2.1, Exhibit F). The penstock would be constructed of high‐density
polyethylene, steel, and/or other suitable materials.
● An approximately 14‐foot by 14‐foot powerhouse containing the turbine and generating
equipment, controls, switchgear, and appurtenant items (See sheet U3.1, Exhibit F).
The powerhouse building would be constructed of wood, steel, concrete block, and/or
other suitable materials.
● A cobble‐lined tailrace discharging water to Jim’s Lake. The tailrace will measure
approximately 3 feet deep by 8 feet wide by 50 feet long.
● Access trails, temporary construction roads, and other appurtenant features necessary
to provide a complete and functional system (See sheets C1.1 – C1.6, Exhibit F).
Lower System Features
The lower system is a storage hydroelectric project between Jim’s Lake and tidewater at
Small Sandy Beach that would include the following major components:
● A siphon intake at Jim’s Lake (See sheet L1.1, Exhibit F). No dam would be constructed.
● An approximately 2,050 foot long 14‐inch diameter penstock to convey up to 6.5 cfs of
water from Jim’s Lake to a powerhouse located at tidewater on Small Sandy Beach at an
elevation of 20 feet ASL (See sheet L2.1, Exhibit F). The penstock would be constructed
of high‐density polyethylene, steel, and/or other suitable materials.
● An approximately 24‐foot by 24‐foot powerhouse containing the turbine and generating
equipment, controls, switchgear, and appurtenant items (See sheet L3.1, Exhibit F).
The powerhouse building would be constructed of wood, steel, concrete block, and/or
other suitable materials.
● A cobble‐lined tailrace discharging water into Port Althorp. The tailrace will measure
approximately 3 feet deep by 8 feet wide by 150 feet long.
● Access trails, temporary construction roads, and other appurtenant features necessary
to provide a complete and functional system (See sheets C1.1 – C1.6, Exhibit F).
P‐14514: Initial Consultation Document, Exhibit A
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Page 3
Project Access
Access to the project would be provided by approximately 12,200 feet of new access trails.
Access would be from tidewater in the inner cove in Elfin Cove and from Little Sandy Beach
off Port Althorp (See sheets C1.1 – C1.6, Exhibit F).
Transmission Line
The project would include extending ECUC’s existing three phase 7.2 / 12.47 kV distribution
system from Elfin Cove to the two Project powerhouses. The power line would be co‐
located with the access trail from Elfin Cove (See sheets C1.1 – C1.6 and Detail 3, Sheet
C1.1, Exhibit F).
(2), (3) Generating Units and Turbines
The upper system would have one generating unit, consisting of a cross‐flow turbine and three‐
phase synchronous generator. No upgrade potential is proposed on the upper system.
The lower system would have one generating unit, consisting of an impulse turbine (2‐jet
Pelton or Turgo) and thee‐phase synchronous generator. No upgrade potential is proposed on
the lower system.
(4) Project Operational Plan
The Project would be integrated with ECUC’s existing diesel power plant and operated
automatically by a SCADA system. The upper system would be operated in run‐of‐river mode,
and the lower system would be operated to meet ECUC system demand. When insufficient
water is available in Crooked Creek and Jim's Lake to meet ECUC system demand, the existing
diesel generators in Elfin Cove would be used. When excess water is available in Crooked Creek
and Jim's Lake, idle hydro generating capacity may be used to serve interruptible loads (such as
heating loads) in Elfin Cove.
(5) Flow Duration Curves
ECUC has been monitoring hydrology on Crooked Creek and Jim's Lake since 2008. Flow
duration curves for Crooked Creek at the diversion site and Jim's Lake outlet are provided on
Figures 1 and 2, respectively.1
1 See Interim Hydrology Report, Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. December 20, 2013 for more detailed information on
the hydrology of Crooked Creek and Jim's Lake.
P‐14514: Initial Consultation Document, Exhibit A
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Page 4
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow is Equalled or ExceededCrooked Creek Flow at Diversion Site (cfs)8/22/2008 ‐ 10/17/2013 Gauged Flow
8/22/2008 ‐ 10/17/2013 Extended Record
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow is Equalled or ExceededJim's Creek Flow at Lake Outlet (cfs)8/22/2008 ‐ 10/17/2013 Gauged Flow
8/22/2008 ‐ 10/17/2013 Extended Record
Figure 1: Annual Flow Duration Curve for Crooked Creek at Proposed Diversion Site
Figure 2: Annual Flow Duration Curve for Jim’s Creek at Lake Outlet
(6) Project Estimates
(i) Average Annual Energy Generation
The project is estimated to generate 613,800 kWh annually. Of this, 266,300 kWh is estimated
to meet existing ECUC demand, and 347,500 kWh is estimated to be available for future load
growth or beneficial use on an interruptible basis.
P‐14514: Initial Consultation Document, Exhibit A
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Page 5
(ii) Average and Design Head of Project
The gross head of the upper system is 137 feet, and the net head at the design flow is 124 feet.
The gross head of the lower system (at normal operating pool) is 313 feet, and the net head (at
minimum pool and full design flow) is 286 feet.
(iii) Hydraulic Capacity
The hydraulic capacity of the upper system is 0 to 5 cubic feet per second (cfs). The plant
operates at flows of 1 to 5 cfs.
The hydraulic capacity of the lower system is 0 to 6.5 cfs. The plant operates at flows of 1 to 6.5
cfs.
(iv) Impoundment
The upper project is a run‐of‐river project utilizing a natural water feature for the diversion.
Accordingly, there is no significant impoundment or storage.
The lower project would use the natural impoundment of Jim’s Lake for storage. The maximum
surface elevation of Jim’s Lake is 337 feet above mean sea level (MSL) with an area of five acres.
The project would draw down the lake using a siphon system to a minimum pool elevation of
329 feet MSL. The net storage capacity is approximately 34 acre‐feet. Gross storage capacity,
which includes lake volume below the maximum pool elevation of 329 feet, is approximately 57
acre‐feet.
(7) Planned Construction Schedule
The planned date for beginning construction of the hydroelectric project is Spring 2016. This
date is contingent upon timely completion of the permitting and license exemption process,
USFS land use permit issuance, design, funding, and other factors.
(8) Repair, Reconstruction, or Modification of Existing Dams
There are no existing dams associated with this project.
P ‐14514: CROOKED CREEK AND JIM'S LAKE
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
INITIAL CONSULTATION DOCUMENT
EXHIBIT E – ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
AUGUST 6, 2014
ELFIN COVE UTILITY COMMISSION
PO BOX 2
ELFIN COVE, ALASKA 99825
P‐14514: Initial Consultation Document, Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Page ii
This page intentionally blank.
P‐14514: Initial Consultation Document, Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Page vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................1
1.1 DOCUMENT PURPOSE ..............................................................................................................1
1.2 INTRODUCTION TO PROJECT AREA ..............................................................................................1
2.0 VEGETATIVE COVER......................................................................................................3
2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING IN PROJECT AREA ................................................................................3
2.2 EXPECTED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .........................................................................................6
3.0 FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES...................................................................................8
3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING IN PROJECT AREA ................................................................................8
3.2 EXPECTED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .......................................................................................12
4.0 WATER QUANTITY AND HYDROLOGY......................................................................... 13
4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING IN PROJECT AREA .............................................................................13
4.2 EXPECTED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .......................................................................................13
5.0 WATER QUALITY ........................................................................................................ 16
5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING IN PROJECT AREA ..............................................................................16
5.2 EXPECTED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .......................................................................................17
6.0 LAND AND WATER USES............................................................................................. 19
6.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING IN PROJECT AREA ..............................................................................19
6.2 EXPECTED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .......................................................................................19
7.0 RECREATIONAL USES.................................................................................................. 20
7.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING IN PROJECT AREA ..............................................................................20
7.2 EXPECTED PROJECT IMPACTS ...................................................................................................20
8.0 SOCIO‐ECONOMIC CONDITIONS................................................................................. 21
8.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING IN PROJECT AREA ..............................................................................21
8.2 EXPECTED PROJECT IMPACTS ...................................................................................................21
9.0 HISTORICAL AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES......................................................... 22
9.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING IN PROJECT VICINITY...........................................................................22
9.2 EXPECTED PROJECT IMPACTS ...................................................................................................22
10.0 VISUAL RESOURCES.................................................................................................... 23
10.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING IN PROJECT AREA ..............................................................................23
10.2 EXPECTED PROJECT IMPACTS ...................................................................................................25
11.0 ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITATS............................. 26
11.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING IN PROJECT VICINITY...........................................................................26
11.2 EXPECTED PROJECT IMPACTS ...................................................................................................27
12.0 REFERENCES............................................................................................................... 28
P‐14514: Initial Consultation Document, Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Page vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2‐2: USFS‐Designated Sensitive Plant Species that May Occur in the Project Area............ 6
Table 3‐2: Sensitive / Special Management Bird Species that May Occur in the Project
Area.......................................................................................................................11
Table 4‐1: Maximum Flood and Drawdown Rates at Jim’s Lake..................................................14
Table 10‐1: USFS‐Designated Visual Priority Routes and Use Areas Proximate to Project
Area.......................................................................................................................24
Table 11‐1: Summary of Endangered and Threatened Species Occurring in Project
Vicinity...................................................................................................................26
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2‐1: Vegetation within Project Study Area......................................................................... 5
Figure 4‐2: Existing and Projected Flow Duration Curve at Jim’s Lake Outlet.............................15
Figure 5‐1: Available Water Temperature Data at Project Gauging Stations..............................16
Figure 5‐2: Annual Water Temperature Graph for Project Gauging Stations..............................17
LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS
Photograph A‐1 Typical Meadow above Small Sandy Beach (7/8/2009) ................................A‐3
Photograph A‐2 Typical Meadow / Forest Complex near Jim’s Lake (7/17/2013)..................A‐3
Photograph A‐3 Typical Conifer Forest south of Elfin Cove (7/18/2013) ................................A‐3
Photograph A‐3 Typical Conifer Forest south of Elfin Cove (7/18/2013) ................................A‐4
Photograph A‐4 Typical Conifer Forest near Jim’s Lake (8/10/2010)......................................A‐4
Photograph A‐5 Typical Barren Rock Outcrops east of Crooked Creek (8/12/2010) ..............A‐4
Photograph A‐5 Typical Barren Rock Outcrops east of Crooked Creek (8/12/2010) ..............A‐5
Photograph A‐6 Typical Beach Vegetation (Little Sandy Beach, 8/12/2010)...........................A‐5
Photograph A‐7 View of Project Area from ¼ Mile Offshore in Port Althorp (8/11/10) ........A‐6
Photograph A‐8 Oblique Aerial View of Project Site (7/6/2009).......................................A‐6
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Photographs of Project Area
ATTACHMENTS
E‐1: Fisheries Survey Report
E‐2: Bald Eagle Survey Report
E‐3: Letter from ADFG Regarding Fish Habitat Permit Requirement
E‐4: Interim Hydrology Report for Crooked Creek and Jim’s Creek
E‐5: Geomorphology Report for Crooked Creek, Jim’s Creek, and Jim’s Lake
P‐14514: Initial Consultation Document, Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Page viii
ACRONYMS AND TERMINOLOGY
F degrees Fahrenheit
ADFG Alaska Department of Fish and Game
ADNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources
AWAP Alaska Wildlife Action Plan
BCC bird of conservation concern
BCR bird conservation region
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
cfs cubic feet per second
DC Denali Commission
discharge A synonym for stream flow. Flow, stream flow, and discharge are used
interchangeably in this report.
ECUC Elfin Cove Utility Commission
ESI existing scenic integrity
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Forest Plan Tongass National Forest, Land and Resource Management Plan (USFS, 2008a)
Ft. foot, feet
GCN greatest conservation need
ICD Initial Consultation Document
LUD land use designation
mi. mile, miles
P‐14514: Initial Consultation Document, Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Page ix
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
PCA Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
PCE Power Cost Equalization Program
SIO scenic integrity objective
SS sensitive species
ssp. subspecies
sq. mi. square mile(s)
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
TNF Tongass National Forest
U.S. United States of America
USFS U.S. Forest Service
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
VAC visual absorption capacity
VPR visual priority route and use area
P‐14514: Initial Consultation Document, Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This document is Exhibit E to the Elfin Cove Utility Commission (ECUC)’s Initial Consultation
Document (ICD) for an application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for
exemption from licensing the proposed Crooked Creek and Jim's Lake Hydroelectric Project.
The ICD is in form and substance a draft of the application for exemption, and is the first step
in a consultation process with resource agencies, the public, and other stakeholders on the
proposed project.
1.1 DOCUMENT PURPOSE
Exhibit E is an environmental report that provides information on the existing environment in
the project area and expected environmental impacts resulting from construction and
operation of the project. Exhibit E has been prepared pursuant to 18 CFR §4.38, which specifies
the consultation process; and 18 CFR §4.107(e)(1) and 18 CFR §4.107(e)(2), which specify the
contents of the exemption application (and thereby the ICD).
1.2 INTRODUCTION TO PROJECT AREA
The project is located on the Inian Peninsula along the northwest coast of Chichagof Island, in
the northern part of the Alexander Archipelago in southeast Alaska (Figure 1‐1). Part of the
project (part of access trail and utility corridor) is located within the Elfin Cove townsite, and
the rest of the project is located in the Tongass National Forest (TNF).
The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) maintains a comprehensive management plan and framework for
the TNF, set forth in the 2008 Tongass National Forest, Land and Resource Management Plan
(Forest Plan).1 Where appropriate, this document draws from the Forest Plan for information
about assessment methodologies, existing conditions, management goals, and other matters.
1 USFS, 2008a.
P‐14514: Initial Consultation Document, Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Page 2
Figure 1‐1: Project Location Map
P‐14514: Initial Consultation Document, Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Page 3
2.0 VEGETATIVE COVER
2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING IN PROJECT AREA
The project is located in undeveloped coastal conifer rainforest habitat, predominately within
the TNF but also on adjacent state land within the townsite. Vegetative cover in the project
vicinity is summarized in Table 2‐1. Acreage tallies in Table 2‐1 are based on the study
boundary limits shown in Figure 2‐1. General descriptions of each major category of vegetation
follow.
Wetland Meadow. These areas are predominately devoid of trees or shrubs, and are
vegetated by sedges and grasses. Surficial soils are organic peat. These areas are 95‐100%
vegetated. Exposed soils occur infrequently in the bed of small ponds or due to animal activity
or water erosion on steep slopes (Photograph A‐1).
Open Conifer Forest / Meadow Complex. These areas are typically transitional between conifer
forest and meadow areas. They are comprised of both plant communities and occur in a
mosaic pattern that is locally determined by topography, soil, and hydrology conditions. Trees
growing in these areas tend to be stunted or shrubs due to the marginal habitat for these
species (Photograph A‐2).
Closed Conifer Forest. These areas are vegetated by mature conifer forest, dominated by Sitka
spruce, yellow cedar, and western hemlock. Understory bushes and shrubs, when present,
typically include various blueberry, cranberry, and salmonberry species. Deciduous trees and
brush such as red alder occur in canopy openings and margins, such as along beaches or rock
slides. Ground cover varies from grasses to moss. The prevalence and density of understory
shrubs and ground cover varies from very dense in areas with a more open upper canopy to
very sparse in areas with a closed upper canopy. Specific trees and plant communities vary
with location based on local topography, soils, and hydrology conditions. A representative
range of forest vegetation is shown in Photographs A‐3 (closed upper canopy) and A‐4 (open
upper canopy). Most of the forest in the project area is old growth, but little if any is
productive old growth as defined by the USFS.2
Open Water. Open water includes the near‐shore marine waters in Elfin Cove and at Little
Sandy Beach. Both marine sites are free of aquatic plants. Open water also includes Jim’s Lake,
which is 5 acres in area, and the normally‐wetted perimeter of creeks and minor drainages
throughout the project area. Yellow pond lily is present in three shallow near‐shore areas of
Jim’s Lake.
Barren Ground. Barren ground includes rock outcrops (Photograph A‐5) and intertidal areas
between mean high water and the vegetation line (Photograph A‐6). The intertidal area at
Little Sandy Beach is a high‐energy boulder and cobble beach. The vegetation line above
2 Page 7‐29, USFS, 2008a.
P‐14514: Initial Consultation Document, Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Page 4
extreme high water is initially populated by beach grasses, then transitions to a fringe of alder
and then typical conifer forest (Photograph A‐6). The intertidal area in Elfin Cove is a narrow
cobble beach with bedrock uplands. Conifer trees occupy the uplands.
Table 2‐1: Summary of Vegetative Cover in Project Area
Type of
Vegetation Description
Acreage
Within
Project Area
Percentage
of Study
Area
Wetland
Meadow
Wetland meadow with perennially saturated soil,
populated by grasses, sedges, and other non‐woody
plants.
0% conifer tree canopy.
0‐10% conifer/deciduous shrub canopy.
95‐100% ground cover.
39.7 22.0%
Open Conifer
Forest /
Meadow
Complex
Transitional area between conifer forest and meadow.
0‐15% conifer tree canopy.
0‐25% conifer/deciduous shrub canopy.
95‐100% ground cover.
56.7 31.4%
Closed
Conifer
Forest
Closed conifer tree canopy.
90‐100% conifer tree canopy
25‐75% conifer/deciduous shrub canopy.
25‐75% ground cover.
67.8 37.5%
Open Water Marine waters, Jim’s Lake, other creeks and minor
drainages in study area. 13.8 7.6%
Barren
Ground Beaches, rock cliffs, and boulder fields. 2.7 1.5%
TOTAL 180.7 100%
P‐14514: Initial Consultation Document, Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Page 5
Figure 2‐1: Vegetation within Project Study Area
P‐14514: Initial Consultation Document, Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Page 6
2.1.1 Sensitive Species
The USFS maintains a list of plant species that the agency believes warrant heightened
management awareness. USFS sensitive species are defined as “[t]hose plant and animal
species identified by a Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern, as
evidenced by:
1. Significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density.
2. Significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a
species existing distribution.”3
Species that may occur within the project area and that are on the most current USFS sensitive
species list are included in Table 2‐2.
Table 2‐2: USFS‐Designated Sensitive Plant Species that May Occur in the Project Area
Common Name Scientific Name
Eschscholtz’s little nightmare (Aphragmus escholtzianus)
Moosewort fern (Botrychium tunux)
Moonwort fern (Botrychium yaaxudakeit)
Edible thistle (Cirsium edule var. macounii)
Calder’s loveage (Ligusticum calderi)
Pale poppy (Papaver alboroseum)
Unalaska mist‐maid (Romanzoffia unakaschcensis)
Spatulate moonwort (Botrychium spathulatum)
Mountain lady’s slipper (Cypripedium montanum)
Large yellow lady’s slipper (Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens)
Lichen (Lobaria amplissima)
Alaska rein orchid (Piperia unalascensis)
Lesser round‐leaved orchid (Platanthera orbiculata)
Kruckeberg’s swordfern (Polystichum kruckebergii)
Henderson’s checkermallow (Sidalcea hendersonii)
Dune tansy (Tanacetum bipinnatum ssp. huronense)
2.2 EXPECTED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The project would permanently occupy approximately 10 acres of vegetated land. An
additional approximately 9 acres of land would be cleared for construction and then
revegetated, for a total impact during construction of approximately 19 acres. Approximately
95% of this footprint will be occupied by the project’s approximately 12,200 feet of access
trails, which would have variable cleared widths to a maximum of approximately 60 feet,
variable development footprints to a maximum of approximately 40 feet, and permanent trail
width of approximately 8 feet. The balance of the acreage is for the diversion structures,
3 Forest Service Manual 2670.5.19.
P‐14514: Initial Consultation Document, Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Page 7
powerhouses, and associated improvements. Project construction is estimated to result in fill
of approximately 6.5 acres of wetlands.
The permanently cleared areas total approximately 5% of the immediate project area, which is
contiguous with a much larger expanse of undeveloped forest land. The construction and
permanent project footprints total less than 0.1% of the Inian Peninsula where the project and
Community of Elfin Cove is located.
Approximately 2.4 acres of waters of the U.S. at Jim’s Lake would be periodically dewatered by
project operations. This acreage is located along the lake’s shoreline, so most aquatic plant
communities in the lake would be affected.
The wetted perimeter of portions of Jims’ Creek and Crooked Creek would be altered by project
operations. The total acreage of waters of the U.S. along the creek banks affected by project
operations is estimated to be 0.05 acres.
P‐14514: Initial Consultation Document, Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Page 8
3.0 FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES
3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING IN PROJECT AREA
3.1.1 Fish Resources
Aquatic resources in the project area include Crooked Creek, Jim’s Lake, Jim’s Creek, and a
number of unnamed minor drainages. Crooked Creek is one of several minor creeks on the
Inian Peninsula that drains less than one square mile of land. Jim’s Creek is smaller, draining a
basin of under 100 acres, including Jim’s Lake which has a surface area of five acres.
Using the fish stream classification criteria set forth in the Forest Plan, Crooked Creek is a Class
II stream to approximately 450 feet above tidewater, then a Class III stream upstream beyond
the project area. Jim’s Creek and Jim’s Lake are both Class IV water bodies.4
Fisheries surveys of the project waters were conducted in July 2013 to assess the presence of
fish within the project waters. Surveys were conducted under Alaska Department of Fish and
Game (ADFG) permit SF‐2013‐231. A small population of 8+ fish (Dolly Varden, (Salvelinus
malma)) was found in Crooked Creek within approximately 150 yards of tidewater. A series of
falls blocks fish passage upstream. The remainder of Crooked Creek, Jim’s Lake, and Jim’s Creek
were all found to have no fish. The fisheries report documenting the survey efforts and results
is included as Attachment E‐1.
3.1.2 Wildlife Resources
The project area is part of a large and contiguous undeveloped habitat within the TNF and
adjoining lands on northern Chichagof Island. Wildlife species likely occurring in the project
area are listed in Table 3‐1. Additional wildlife species with heightened management status are
listed in Table 3‐2 and Table 11‐1.
4 Page 4‐9, (USFS, 2008a).
P‐14514: Initial Consultation Document, Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Page 9
Table 3‐1: List of Wildlife Potentially Occurring in Project Area
Marine Mammals Birds – Waterbirds and Shorebirds (con’t.)
Steller sea lion Eumetopias jubatus Spotted sandpiper Actitis macularia
Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae Short‐billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus
Sea otter Enhydra lutris Trumpeter swan Cygnus buccinator
Large Mammals Vancouver Canada goose Branta canadensis fulva
Brown bear Ursus arctos Wilson’s snipe Gallinago delicata
Birds – Songbirds and Gamebirds Sitka black‐tailed deer Odocoileus heminonus
sitkensis American dipper Cinclus mexicanus
American robin Turdus migratorius Santos reindeer Rangifer tarandus ssp.
saintnicolas magicalus Belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon
Small Mammals Brown creeper Certhia americana
Long‐tailed vole Microtus longicaudus Chestnut‐backed chickadee Poecile rufescens
Tundra vole Microtus oeconomus Dark‐eyed junco Junco hyemalis
Cinereus shrew Sorex cinereus Fox sparrow Passerella iliaca
Northwestern deermouse Peromyscus oeconomus Golden‐crowned kinglet Regulus satrapa
Little brown bat Myotis licufugus Hermit thrush Catharus guttatus
Red squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus
River otter Lontra canadensis Lincoln’s sparrow Melospiza lincolnii
American marten Martes americana Northwestern crow Corvus caurinus
Ermine Mustela erminea Orange‐crowned warbler Vermivora celata
Mink Neovison vison Olive‐sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi
Beaver Castor canadensis Pacific‐slope flycatcher Empidonax difficilis
Birds ‐ Raptors Pine siskin Spinus pinus
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Red crossbill Loxia curvirostra
Northern goshawk Accipiter gentiles Ruby‐crowned kinglet Regulus calendula
Red‐tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis Red‐breasted nuthatch Sitta canadensis
Sharp shinned hawk Accipiter striatus Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus
Merlin Falco columbarius Red‐breasted sapsucker Sphyrapicus rubber
Western Screech owl Otus kennicottii Steller's jay Cyanocitta stelleri
Great horned owl Bubo virginianus Swainson’s thrush Catharus ustulatus
Birds – Waterbirds and Shorebirds Townsend’s warbler Dendroica townsendi
American wigeon Anas americana Tennessee warbler Vermivora peregrina
Canada goose Branta canadensis Varied thrush Ixoreus naevius
Common merganser Mergus merganser Winter wren Troglodytes troglodytes
Great blue heron Ardea herodias Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia
Green‐winged teal Anas crecca Amphibians
Greater yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca Northern red‐legged frog Rana aurora
Glaucous‐winged gull Larus glaucescens Western toad Bufo boreas
Harlequin duck Histrionicus histrionicus Northwestern salamander Ambystome gracile
Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes Roughskin newt Taricha granulose
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Wood frog Rana sylvatica
Marbled murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus
Mew gull Larus canus
Red‐breasted
merganser
Mergus serrator
Sandhill crane Grus canadensis
List condensed from USFS 2008a, ADFG 2006a, ADFG 2014, and USFWS 2008a.
P‐14514: Initial Consultation Document, Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Page 10
3.1.3 Sensitive Wildlife Species
The USFS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and ADFG each maintain a list of wildlife
species that the agency believes warrant heightened management awareness. Each agency’s
listing objectives and listed species are addressed in the following sections.
USFS Sensitive Species List
Species likely to occur within the project area that are on the most current USFS sensitive
species list are included in Table 3‐2. The only animals designated by the USFS as sensitive
species and occurring in the TNF are birds.
USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern
The 1988 amendment to the federal Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act mandated that the
USFWS “identify species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory nongame birds that,
without additional conservation actions, are likely to become candidates for listing under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973.” 5 The USFWS fulfills this mandate by maintaining a list of
Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC).
The most recent USFWS BCC list provides lists by USFWS management region and by bird
conservation region (BCR). The union of the BCC lists for Management Region 7 (Alaska Region)
and BCR 5 (Northern Pacific Forest) is used as the BCC listing for the project area. These bird
species are designated on Table 3‐2.
ADFG Alaska Wildlife Action Plan, List of Species of Greatest Conservation Need
ADFG’s Alaska Wildlife Action Plan (AWAP) presents a comprehensive wildlife conservation
strategy to conserve the diversity of Alaska’s wildlife resources. One aspect of the AWAP is to
identify those species with the greatest conservation need (GCN).6 The criteria for GCN listing is
broad, including species with known threats but also species that may have healthy populations
and secure habitats but that are poorly studied or understood.
All of the bird species included on Table 3‐2 are also designated GCN species by ADFG. Other
GCN bird species may occur in the project area, but are not listed on Table 3‐2. Several fish,
amphibian, reptile, mammal, and invertebrate species are also included on the GCN list.
Birds
Migratory birds are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and eagles are also
protected under the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Some other species of birds
have been identified for conservation or management concern by state and federal agencies.
Table 3‐2 partially lists bird species identified as GCN species by ADFG, species identified as
sensitive species (SS) by the USFS, and specifies identified as birds of conservation concern
(BCC) by the USFWS.
5 (USFWS, 2008)
6 (ADFG, 2006)
P‐14514: Initial Consultation Document, Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Page 11
Bald eagles are common throughout the project area and southeast Alaska generally. A bald
eagle survey was completed in July 2013 (see Attachment E‐2), and did not identify any active
or abandoned eagle nests in the project area. Several bald eagles were observed transiting the
project area over the course of the survey.
Table 3‐2: Sensitive / Special Management Bird Species that May Occur in the Project Area
Common Name Scientific Name USFWS
BCC 1
ADFG
GCN 2
USFS
SS 3
Yellow‐billed Loon (Gavia adamsii) Y Y
Laysan Albatross (Phoebastria immutabilis) Y Y
Black‐footed Albatross (Phoebastria nigripes) Y Y
Red‐faced Cormorant (Phalacrocorax urile) Y Y
Pelagic Cormorant (Phalacrocorax pelagicus ssp. pelagicus) Y Y
Northern / Queen Charlotte Goshawk (Accipiter gentiles ssp. laingi) Y Y Y
Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) Y Y
Black Oystercatcher (Haematopus bachmani) Y Y Y
Solitary Sandpiper (Tringa solitaria) Y Y
Lesser Yellowlegs Sandpiper (Tringa flavipes) Y Y
Whimbrel sandpiper (Numenius phaeopus) Y Y
Hudsonian Godwit sandpiper (Limosa haemastica) Y Y
Marbled Godwit (Limosa fedoa) Y Y
Red Knot Calidris canutus ssp. roselaari) Y Y
Aleutian Tern (Sterna aleutica) Y Y Y
Arctic Tern (Sterna paradisaea) Y Y
Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) Y Y
Kittlitz's Murrelet (Brachyramphus brevirostris) Y Y Y 4
BCC: Bird species of conservation concern
GCN: greatest conservation need
SS: sensitive species
ssp. subspecies
ADFG: Alaska Department of Fish and Game
USFS: U.S. Forest Service
USFWS: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Y: Species is listed under this agency’s criteria.
Notes:
1. Species included in Birds of Conservation Concern (USFWS, 2008).
2. Partial list of bird species included in Appendix 7 of ADFG Alaska Wildlife Action Plan (ADFG, 2006).
3. As listed by USFS in 2009 (USFS, 2009).
4. Kittlitz’s Murrelet is listed as a USFS sensitive species because it was a candidate species for protection under
the Endangered Species Act when the USFS list was updated in 2009 (USFS, 2009). The USFWS removed the
Kittlitz’s Murrelet from candidate status on October 3, 2013 (GPO, 2013).
P‐14514: Initial Consultation Document, Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Page 12
3.2 EXPECTED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
3.2.1 Fish Resources
The Habitat Division of ADFG was contacted regarding the project and fisheries resources in
March 2014. ADFG concluded that the project would not affect fisheries resources and that a
fish habitat permit would not be required for the project (see ADFG letter, Attachment E‐3).
3.2.2 Wildlife Resources
Water intakes for both the upper and lower hydroelectric systems will utilize screened intakes
to prevent the admittance of animals to the project works. Both intakes will also be designed
with low water velocities and low pressure differentials to prevent animals from becoming
impinged on the intake screens.
Bald eagles are present in the project area, but no eagle nests were found in the project area.
The project is not expected to have a significant impact on bald eagles. It is expected that
construction activity will follow applicable best management practices issued by USFWS to
avoid or minimize any incidental impacts to bald eagles that may be present in the project area.
The project will have a positive environmental impact by reducing the amount of diesel fuel
transported to, stored in, and consumed by Elfin Cove. Reducing the community’s fuel usage
incrementally reduces the risk of oil spills that could occur on sea during barge transport to Elfin
Cove, as well as potential spills on land and/or sea from bulk fuel storage or pipeline transfer to
the diesel power plant. Such spills could have an adverse impact on marine wildlife (mammals,
birds, fish) in the vicinity of a spill. The project will also reduce stack emissions by the diesel
power plant, improving local air quality and reducing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the
diesel power plant.
The project is not expected to have a significant adverse impact on bird or wildlife resources
occurring in the project area.
P‐14514: Initial Consultation Document, Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Page 13
4.0 WATER QUANTITY AND HYDROLOGY
4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING IN PROJECT AREA
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake drain two adjacent northwest‐facing alpine basins. The Crooked
Creek basin above the diversion site is 0.56 square miles in area, and the Jim’s Lake basin is 0.09
square miles in area.
Jim’s Lake is one of many small freshwater lakes in the project vicinity. The Forest Plan Final
Environmental Impact Statement identifies 1,940 acres of freshwater lakes within the Chichagof
Roadless Area (encompassing 534,310 acres on Chichagof Island).7 Jim’s Lake constitutes 0.26%
of the freshwater lake acreage within this area.
ECUC has maintained stream gauges at the diversion site on Crooked Creek and at the outlet of
Jim’s Lake since 2008 to collect hydrology data for this project. Hydrology data for both
gauging stations is presented in an interim hydrology report dated December 2013, included as
Attachment E‐4. Geomorphology of Crooked Creek, Jim’s Lake, and Jim’s Creek are described in
Attachment E‐5.
4.2 EXPECTED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The project will divert up to five cubic feet per second (cfs) from Crooked Creek to Jim’s Lake,
and withdraw up to 6.5 cfs from Jim’s Lake. Project operations will:
1) Partially dewater Crooked Creek downstream of the diversion site;
2) Increase flow into and out of Jim’s Lake; and
3) Change the flow regime in Jim’s Creek.
4.2.1 Crooked Creek
The project will divert up to five cfs from Crooked Creek in a run‐of‐river configuration, partially
dewatering the creek below the diversion site. No in‐stream flow reservation is proposed.
Flows exceeding the upper system’s five cfs diversion capacity will remain in Crooked Creek
below the diversion site, and inflows from the basin downstream of the diversion site will also
replenish flow in the creek. These flows are expected to maintain at least 24% of the existing
flow regime at the top of surveyed fish habitat at all times.
Reduced flow in Crooked Creek is not expected to have a significant environmental impact on
the environment.
7 Page C2‐1 of Forest Plan FEIS (USFS, 2008c).
P‐14514: Initial Consultation Document, Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Page 14
4.2.2 Jim’s Lake
The project will divert up to five cfs from Crooked Creek into Jim’s Lake, and will withdraw up to
6.5 cfs from Jim’s Lake as needed to meet electrical demand in Elfin Cove. This will increase
water flow into the lake and will cause the lake level to fluctuate between the existing level
(337 feet) and proposed minimum pool (329 feet). Maximum flood and drawdown rates in
Jim’s Lake are presented in Table 4‐1.
Table 4‐1: Maximum Flood and Drawdown Rates at Jim’s Lake
Ambient Lake Level Lake Flood Rate 1
(feet per hour)
Lake Drawdown Rate 2
(feet per hour)
Near Minimum Pool (329 ft.) +0.56 ‐0.16
Near Maximum Pool (337 ft.) +0.38 ‐0.11
1. Flood rate assumes the following conditions: (1) Lower hydro project is off‐line and drawing no water from
Jim’s Lake; (2) Upper hydro project is transferring full design flow of 5 cfs to Jim’s Lake; and (3) natural inflow
from Jim’s Lake basin of 18 cfs corresponding to estimated 100‐year flood event.
2. Drawdown rate assumes the following conditions: (1) Upper hydro project is off‐line and discharging no water
to Jim’s Lake; (2) Lower hydro project is operating at full design flow withdrawing 6.5 cfs from Jim’s Lake; and
(3) natural inflow from Jim’s Lake basin of 0.05 cfs corresponding to typical inflow during extended dry spell.
The altered hydrology and fluctuating level of Jim’s Lake is expected to impact existing aquatic
plant communities (predominately yellow pond lilies) along the shoreline. These communities
occur in three areas where lake bathymetry and substrate supports such vegetation. See
Attachment E‐5 for a description of lake geomorphology and shoreline vegetation. No fish life
was found in Jim’s Lake, so the project will not impact fish or fish habitat.
4.2.3 Jim’s Creek
Regulation of Jim’s Lake as a hydropower reservoir will alter the flow regime in Jim’s Creek.
When the lake is drawn down, there will be no discharge to Jim’s Creek from the lake. When
the lake is full and inflows exceed water demand for power generation, discharge to Jim’s Creek
may exceed the natural discharge rate.
The range of discharge from Jim’s Lake to Jim’s Creek that will occur with the project is
consistent with the natural range of discharge, although the frequency and timing of discharges
will be different. There will be no discharge from the lake approximately 93% of the time.
When discharges do occur, they will typically be at lower levels than occur naturally. Figure 4‐1
shows flow duration curves for Jim’s Creek at the lake outlet under existing conditions and with
the proposed hydro project in operation.
The effects of decreased discharge from Jim’s Lake to Jim’s Creek will attenuate with distance
downstream, as natural inflows from the downstream basin replenish flow in the creek.
Surveys indicate there is no fish life present along the entire length of Jim’s Creek, so altering
the creek’s flow regime is not expected to have a significant impact on the environment.
P‐14514: Initial Consultation Document, Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Page 15
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow is Equalled or ExceededJim's Creek Flow at Lake Outlet (cfs)Estimated Flow Duration Curve with Project
Existing Flow Duration Curve (Based on Extended Record)
Figure 4‐1: Existing and Projected Flow Duration Curve at Jim’s Lake Outlet
P‐14514: Initial Consultation Document, Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Page 16
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Crooked Creek Water Temperature
Jim's Lake Water Temperature
5.0 WATER QUALITY
5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING IN PROJECT AREA
No water quality data is known to be available for Crooked Creek, Jim’s Lake, Jim’s Creek, or
other minor drainages in the project area. In past site visits, the creeks and minor drainages in
the project area have been observed to run clear with minimal suspended solids or turbidity.
Jim’s Lake has higher turbidity, with typical water clarity to approximately five feet.
5.1.1 Water Temperature Data
A partial temperature record has been collected at the Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake gauging
stations since installation in 2008. Figure 5‐1 summarizes the period of record for water
temperature data at each station. The Jim’s Lake record is more complete, with 1,577 days of
water temperature data compared with 462 days of data for the Crooked Creek station.8
Figure 5‐2 presents average daily water temperature for both stations. Multiple years of data
have been superimposed onto a single year to illustrate typical seasonal trends and year‐to‐
year variations.
Figure 5‐1: Available Water Temperature Data at Project Gauging Stations
8 Record counts reflect data through most recent download and processing of data: 10/17/2013 at Jim’s Lake; and
12/18/2013 at Crooked Creek.
P‐14514: Initial Consultation Document, Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Page 17
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
Jan 01 Jan 29 Feb 26 Mar 25 Apr 22 May 20 Jun 17 Jul 15 Aug 12 Sep 09 Oct 07 Nov 04 Dec 02 Dec 30
Day of YearWater Temperature (F)Average Daily Jim's Lake Water Temperature
Average Daily Crooked Creek Water Temperature
Crooked Creek
Jim's Lake
Figure 5‐2: Annual Water Temperature Graph for Project Gauging Stations
5.2 EXPECTED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Construction activity and project operations will result in increased stormwater discharge into
surface waters in the project area. Such discharges would be minimized and controlled with
stormwater pollution prevention best management practices in accordance with a stormwater
pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) prepared and implemented consistent with state and
federal regulations. The SWPPP would be developed prior to the construction phase of the
project.
These stormwater discharges are not expected to result in any adverse environmental impacts
to the project area or surrounding areas.
Based on the size of the predominate stream channel substrate in Crooked Creek below the
diversion site, flood flows necessary to mobilize sediment in Crooked Creek are significantly
higher than the five cfs capacity of the diversion structure. Accordingly, the project is not
expected to significantly affect downstream sediment transport in Crooked Creek.
P‐14514: Initial Consultation Document, Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Page 18
There is no significant sediment transport into Jim’s Creek from Jim’s Lake. There is very limited
sediment in the upper channel of Jim’s Creek, 9 so sediment transport in this reach will not be
significantly affected by the project. Flood flows from tributaries downstream of Jim’s Lake are
expected to be sufficient to maintain adequate sediment transport in the lower reaches of Jim’s
Creek. Accordingly, the project is not expected to significantly affect downstream sediment
transport in Jim’s Creek.
Diverting Crooked Creek flow into Jim’s Lake will alter the lake temperature. From about
October through May, available data indicate Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake are similar in
temperature and no significant thermal changes are expected. From about June through
September, Jim’s Lake is 5 to 20 F warmer than Crooked Creek, so the inflow of cooler water
from Crooked Creek will tend to decrease ambient temperatures in Jim’s Lake.
The project will have a positive environmental impact by reducing the amount of diesel fuel
transported to, stored in, and consumed by Elfin Cove. Reducing the community’s fuel usage
incrementally reduces the risk of oil spills that could occur on sea during barge transport to Elfin
Cove, as well as potential spills on land and/or sea from bulk fuel storage or pipeline transfer to
the diesel power plant. Such spills could have an adverse impact on marine wildlife (mammals,
birds, fish) in the vicinity of a spill. The project will also reduce stack emissions by the diesel
power plant, improving local air quality and reducing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the
diesel power plant.
9 See Geomorphology Report, Attachment E‐5.
P‐14514: Initial Consultation Document, Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Page 19
6.0 LAND AND WATER USES
6.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING IN PROJECT AREA
6.1.1 Land Uses
Non‐TNF land within the project area consists of an undeveloped right‐of‐way within the Elfin
Cove townsite and adjoining undeveloped U.S. Survey, both owned or managed by the State of
Alaska’s Department of Natural Resources (ADNR). Both properties are undeveloped and
receive limited use. There is a primitive foot trail in a public easement along the shore of Elfin
Cove that crosses the right‐of‐way.
The Forest Plan designates TNF land within the project area for “Semi‐Remote Recreation”, and
the project area within the TNF is located within Inventoried Roadless Area #311.10 There is
limited existing use of land in the project vicinity. Existing use includes sparse recreational use
and passive use as part of the local and regional viewshed.
6.1.2 Water Uses
There are no known existing uses of water from Crooked Creek, Jim’s Lake, or Jim’s Creek. The
project footprint is not known to be within any watersheds for existing drinking water supplies
in Elfin Cove.
6.2 EXPECTED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
6.2.1 Land Uses
Development of trails in the project area will tend to promote recreational use of the project
lands. Such uses may include subsistence hunting and gathering, recreational hiking, and
similar uses.
Project operations will require weekly to monthly motorized (all‐terrain vehicle, snow machine,
or similar) traffic over the access trails. Heavy equipment access will occasionally be required
for trail and project maintenance.
6.2.2 Water Uses
Crooked Creek, Jim’s Lake, and Jim’s Creek are all far enough from Elfin Cove that they are not
considered to be practical future drinking water supplies for the community. The project is
not expected to impact any existing or future water uses.
10 (USFS, 2008a).
P‐14514: Initial Consultation Document, Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Page 20
7.0 RECREATIONAL USES
7.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING IN PROJECT AREA
The project area is completely unimproved. There are no roads, improved trails, or other
infrastructure. Existing recreational uses consist of subsistence hunting for deer, gathering of
edible plants (berries, etc.), and recreational hiking. Access for these existing uses occurs either
overland from Elfin Cove or from Little Sandy Beach over primitive game trails and foot paths.
The Forest Plan has designated the project area for “Semi‐remote Recreation”, which has a
stated goal to “…provide predominately natural or natural‐appearing settings for semi‐primitive
types of recreation and tourism, and occasional enclaves of concentrated recreation and
tourism facilities.”11
7.2 EXPECTED PROJECT IMPACTS
Development of trails in the project area will tend to promote recreational use of the project
area. Such uses may include subsistence hunting and gathering, recreational hiking, and similar
low‐impact uses.
Due to the remoteness and small population of Elfin Cove, the potential increase in local
recreational use due to the project is believed to be limited. Accordingly, the project is not
expected to have any negative impacts on recreational uses.
11 Page 3‐63 (USFS 2008a).
P‐14514: Initial Consultation Document, Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Page 21
8.0 SOCIO‐ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
8.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING IN PROJECT AREA
Elfin Cove is an isolated small community, and is the only socio‐economic unit considered
relevant to this project. Elfin Cove’s economy is dominated by commercial and sport fishing
activity which predominately occurs during the summer months.
The cost of electricity is a major factor in the commercial viability of local commercial and sport
fishing operations. Electricity is currently generated with diesel generators. Electricity is thus
expensive ($0.80 per kWh in 2012), and the price fluctuates with the price of oil, introducing
further uncertainty into local business planning efforts.
8.1.1 Population
Elfin Cove's population varies seasonally. The population in the summer months (mid‐May
through mid‐September) is approximately 100 to 200. Commercial and sport fishing activity
contributes significantly to the summer population and local economy. The year‐round
population is currently approximately 20 and has declined significantly since 1990 when the
population was 57. Elfin Cove’s resident population has historically ranged from approximately
20 to 60 people since the community was established in the 1930s.12
8.1.2 Economy
Elfin Cove’s economy is largely dependent on commercial and recreational fishing, with
government services and tourism acting as secondary economic bases. The cost of living and
doing business in the community is very high, largely due to the high cost of fuel, energy, and
transportation, which results in high costs for food, goods, and services. These high costs
significantly dampen economic activity. The community was classified as ‘distressed’ by the
Denali Commission (DC) in 2013. The DC designates communities as distressed using a
combination of income and permanent employment levels within the community.13
8.2 EXPECTED PROJECT IMPACTS
8.2.1 Population
Elfin Cove is bounded on all sides by the TNF, so there is limited land available for substantial
population growth. The future population is expected to stay within the historical range of 20
to 60 people. Future population trends will likely be determined by local economic
opportunities. This hydroelectric project will lower the local cost of energy, which will help to
improve the local economy and encourage population growth and local prosperity.
12 See Section 2.2.7 of Project Feasibility Study Report for historic population data (PCA, 2011).
13 (DC, 2013)
P‐14514: Initial Consultation Document, Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Page 22
8.2.2 Economy
The project is expected to lower the cost of electricity for the community, as well as stabilize
the cost of electricity over the long term. Both impacts are expected to be positive to the local
community, increasing the viability of local commercial and sport fishing operations, and also
lowering the cost of living for seasonal and year‐round residents. Non‐residential and non‐
community electricity consumers will see the greatest economic impact of the project due to
the manner in which the State of Alaska’s Power Cost Equalization (PCA) Program is
structured.14
By lowering the cost of electricity, the project will help the feasibility of providing local ice
making capacity in Elfin Cove. Local availability of ice will offer greater value‐added
opportunities to local commercial fisheries, enhancing their economic viability.
Generating capacity in excess of utility demand can be used for domestic space or water
heating applications, reducing the demand for heating fuel and providing additional economic
benefits to the community.
The project will have a positive environmental impact by reducing the amount of diesel fuel
transported to, stored in, and consumed by Elfin Cove. Reducing the community’s fuel usage
incrementally reduces the risk of oil spills that could occur on sea during barge transport to Elfin
Cove, as well as potential spills on land and/or sea from bulk fuel storage or pipeline transfer to
the diesel power plant. Such spills could have an adverse impact on marine wildlife (mammals,
birds, fish) in the vicinity of a spill. The project will also reduce stack emissions by the diesel
power plant, improving local air quality and reducing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the
diesel power plant.
9.0 HISTORICAL AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
9.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING IN PROJECT VICINITY
There are no known historical or archeological resources in the project area. ECUC expects to
consult with Alaska’s State Historical Preservation Office with regard to potential historical or
archeological resources in the project area.
9.2 EXPECTED PROJECT IMPACTS
There are no expected project impacts to historical or archeological resources in the project
area.
14 The PCE program provides subsidies to eligible rural Alaska electric utilities for a portion of the energy consumption
of eligible residential and community accounts. Subsidies are passed on to eligible accounts in the form of lower
electricity rates.
P‐14514: Initial Consultation Document, Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Page 23
10.0 VISUAL RESOURCES
10.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING IN PROJECT AREA
The project area is part of a large undeveloped expanse of coastal rainforest landscape typical
of southeast Alaska, which is generally considered to have high aesthetic value. The landscape
vistas offered by the project area are not unique in southeast Alaska, but are important within
the context of providing an uninterrupted natural landscape vista. Vantage points looking onto
the project area include foreground vantages from terrestrial public ways and private property
within Elfin Cove, middleground terrestrial vantages from Three Hill Island and the George
Islands, middleground/background marine vantages from the waters of Port Althorp and Cross
Sound, and aerial vantage points (Figure 1‐1).
10.1.1 USFS Visual Resources Priorities and Conditions in Project Area
The Forest Plan identifies specific visual resources within the TNF, and provides Scenic Integrity
Objectives (SIOs) for the general project vicinity based on the land use designation (LUD). The
LUD for the project area and applicable surrounding area is Semi‐remote Recreation.15 Table
10‐1 lists visual priority routes and use areas (VPRs) that may include the project area within
their viewshed. The SIO for the Semi‐remote Recreation LUD is “Moderate” for all viewing
distance zones.16
The landscape’s existing scenic integrity (ESI) rating is considered high – there are no existing
changes from natural conditions in the project area.17
15 Forest Plan Land Use Designation Map.
16 Forest Plan, page 4‐57.
17 ESI rating based on SCENE2 I.A criteria, Forest Plan page 4‐56.
P‐14514: Initial Consultation Document, Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Page 24
Table 10‐1: USFS‐Designated Visual Priority Routes and Use Areas Proximate to Project Area
USFS Designated Visual Priority
Travel Route / Use Area (VPR) (1,2) VPR Location Relative to Project Area Applicable Distance
Zone(s) (2)
MARINE ROUTES
Juneau to Sitka via Cross Sound and
Pelican for following traffic:
‐ Alaska Marine Highway
‐ Small Boat and Mid‐Size Tour Boats
Corridor passes 3 to 6 miles west of
project area. Partially occluded by
George Islands and Three Hill Island,
and on‐shore topography.
Middleground to
Background
SALTWATER USE AREAS
Cross Sound Area off Inian Islands
Area located 3 to 6 miles west‐
northwest of project area. Significantly
occluded by George Islands, Three Hill
Island, and Chichagof Island terrain.
Middleground to
Background
DISPERSED RECREATION AREAS
Inian Islands
4 to 7 miles north of project area.
Completed occluded by Chichagof
Island terrain.
Not visible.
Three Hill Island 3 miles west‐southwest of project area. Middleground.
COMMUNITIES
Elfin Cove Project access trail starts in Elfin Cove. Foreground.
BOAT ANCHORAGES
Salt Chuck Bay
2 to 3 miles south‐southeast of project
area. Completed occluded by
Chichagof Island terrain.
Not visible.
VPR: Visual Priority Travel Route and use Area
Note 1. VPRs are taken from Forest Plan, Appendix F for the project area.
Note 2. Terminology and methodology is consistent with Forest Plan, Appendix F and Chapter 4 (USFS, 2008a).
10.1.2 Terrestrial Visual Resources
The first approximately 900 feet of the project access trail is visible in the foreground from
within Elfin Cove. The forested slopes where the access trail is proposed are generally visible
from the northeast shore of the inner cove.
The project area is visible in the middleground from Three Hill Island and the George Islands.
The amount of the project that is visible and the prominence within the vista will depend on the
viewer’s location on the islands. Higher‐elevation vantage points will tend to provide a more
prominent view of the project.
10.1.3 Marine Visual Resources
The project area is generally visible from the outer waters of Port Althorp, and is visible at a
distance from portions of Cross Sound. Three Hill Island and the George Islands will occlude the
project from parts of Cross Sound. The project area presents vantages that are characteristic of
the landscapes common in this part of southeast Alaska (Photograph A‐7).
P‐14514: Initial Consultation Document, Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Page 25
10.1.4 Aerial Visual Resources
The project area is generally visible from typical routes for local seaplane traffic to Elfin Cove
and Pelican. The vantages in the project area are characteristic of the landscapes common in
this part of southeast Alaska (Photograph A‐8).
10.2 EXPECTED PROJECT IMPACTS
10.2.1 USFS Considerations
This section provides an initial analysis of the project impacts and potential impact‐mitigation
strategies consistent with the management goals and analytical framework set forth in the
Forest Plan.18
The project area’s visual absorption capacity (VAC) rating varies with location. Initial VAC
ratings follow for specific portions of the project.
Access trail in Elfin Cove: The first approximately 900 feet of the proposed access trail in Elfin
Cove is assigned a low VAC. This area has steep slopes directly facing foreground vantage
points on the other side of the cove.
Developments at Little Sandy Beach: The lower powerhouse site and first approximately 600
feet of the proposed access trail from tidewater to Jim’s Lake is assigned an intermediate VAC.
The powerhouse site is located at the head of a beach and is not screened by existing
vegetation. If practical, a vegetated landscaping berm may be constructed on the ocean side of
the powerhouse. The trail route is through an area with steep slopes facing the water. These
settings would warrant a low VAC, but both features are located at the head of a small cove,
the upland topography of which shields the area from most of the marine VPRs in the area.
Marine traffic traveling Port Althorp at one mile offshore from the lower powerhouse site on
Little Sandy Beach would be able to see the project for about ½ mile along their course. At a
cruising speed of 10 knots, the project would be in view for about three minutes.
Remainder of Project: The remainder of the project is assigned a high VAC. The project is
located in an area of undulating terrain between approximately 150 to 480 feet in elevation
that is generally shielded from important viewsheds by coastal cliffs and forests. Most aspects
of the project will either not be visible from VPR viewsheds or only viewable at highly oblique
angles.
Relevant potential strategies to achieve the moderate SIO for the project area follow.19
‐ Minimize vegetation clearing.
‐ Select building materials and colors that blend with natural settings.
‐ Design material sources for trail construction to be minimally apparent as seen from VPRs.
18 Management criteria at Forest Plan, pages 3‐64 and 4‐56 (USFS, 2008a).
19 Condensed from SCENE2 II.B. guidelines at Forest Plan page 4‐58 (USFS, 2008a).
P‐14514: Initial Consultation Document, Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Page 26
11.0 ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITATS
11.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING IN PROJECT VICINITY
11.1.1 Endangered or Threatened Species
No plants or terrestrial wildlife listed, candidates for listing, or under review for listing under
the federal Endangered Species Act are known to occur in the project area. Several listed birds
and marine animals occur in marine waters near the project.
The USFWS and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on‐line information systems were
used to identify listed species that may occur in the project area. Listed species are given in
Table 11‐1. Some of the species on Table 11‐1 are not found in the project area, but are
included for reference. Species that are under consideration for listing as endangered or
threatened species are also included in Table 11‐1. A brief discussion of each species in relation
to the project site follows.20
Table 11‐1: Summary of Endangered and Threatened Species Occurring in Project Vicinity
Species 1 Status
Steller sea lion, western DPS (Eumetopias jubatus) Endangered
Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) Endangered
Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) Endangered
Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) Endangered
Steller sea lion, eastern DPS (Eumetopias jubatus) Threatened
Yellow‐billed loon (Gavia adamsii) Candidate for listing
Pacific herring, southeast Alaska DPS (Clupea pallasi) Candidate for listing
Sources: (USFWS 2013), (USFWS, 2014a), (NMFS 2014) .
DPS: distinct population segment
NMFS: National Marine Fisheries Service
USFWS: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Notes:
1. Several listed species of sea turtle that only occur rarely in the gulf waters off the coast of southeast Alaska are
not listed in this table.
The humpback whale and western population of the steller sea lion regularly occur in the
marine waters offshore of the project area. The eastern population of the steller sea lion also
occurs in the marine waters offshore of the project area.
The fin whale and sperm whale both regularly occur in the Gulf of Alaska off southeast Alaska,
but are not common in the inland waters of southeast that are adjacent to the project area.
20 (USFWS, 2013), (USFWS, 2014a).
P‐14514: Initial Consultation Document, Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Page 27
The yellow‐billed loon occurs in the project area. Coastal waters near the project area may be
used as wintering habitat and/or migratory habitat. Yellow‐billed loons are expected to occur
in the project area in fall, spring, and/or winter.
Pacific herring may occur in the marine waters offshore of the project area. A variety of near‐
shore habitat types provide habitat for different life stages of herring.
11.1.2 Critical Habitats
The project area is not listed as critical habitat for any endangered or threatened species.21
11.2 EXPECTED PROJECT IMPACTS
11.2.1 Endangered or Threatened Species
Project operations will not have a significant impact on marine waters in the project area. The
project will change the discharge rates of Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake into marine waters at
Little Sandy Beach, but the overall seasonal discharge volume from these two minor streams
will remain the same. Project construction and operations will increase marine traffic and
beach landings on Little Sandy Beach. The landing area is a cobble /boulder field devoid of
vegetation and subject to periodic high energy surf and storm events.
Water intakes for both the upper and lower hydroelectric systems will utilize screened intakes
to prevent the admittance of animals to the project works. Both intakes will also be designed
with low water velocities and low pressure differentials to prevent animals from becoming
impinged on the intake screens.
The project will have a positive environmental impact by reducing the amount of diesel fuel
transported to, stored in, and consumed by Elfin Cove. Reducing the community’s fuel usage
incrementally reduces the risk of oil spills that could occur on sea during barge transport to Elfin
Cove, as well as potential spills on land and/or sea from bulk fuel storage or pipeline transfer to
the diesel power plant. Such spills could have an adverse impact on marine wildlife (mammals,
birds, fish) in the vicinity of a spill. The project will also reduce stack emissions by the diesel
power plant, improving local air quality and reducing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the
diesel power plant.
The project is not expected to have any adverse impacts to listed species that occur in the
project vicinity.
11.2.2 Critical Habitats
There are no known critical habitats in the project area. The project is not expected to impact
any designated critical habitat areas.
21 (NMFS 2014), (USFWS, 2014c)
P‐14514: Initial Consultation Document, Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 28
12.0 REFERENCES
ADFG, 2006. Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG). April 2006. Our Wealth Maintained:
A Strategy for Conserving Alaska’s Diverse Wildlife and Fish Resources: A Comprehensive
Wildlife Conservation Strategy Emphasizing Alaska’s Nongame Species.
ADFG, 2014. ADFG, Species profile website accessed August 4, 2014. Website:
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=santasreindeer.main
DC, 2013. Denali Commission (DC). June 2013. Distressed Community Criteria 2013 Update.
GPO, 2013. Government Printing Office (GPO), October 3, 2013. Federal Register, Vol. 78, No.
192, pp 61764.
NMFS, 2014. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). ESA Critical Habitat website accessed
July 29, 2014. Website: http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/mapping/esa/
PCA, 2011. Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. June 2011. Crooked Creek and Jim’s lake Hydroelectric
Project Feasibility Study Final Report.
USFS, 2003. U.S. Forest Service (USFS). February 2003. Tongass Land Management Plan
Revision, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Roadless Area Evaluation
for Wilderness Recommendations. Volume III. (R10‐MB‐481c).
USFS, 2005. USFS. September 23, 2005. Forest Service Manual 2600, Chapter 2670.
Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants and Animals. Amendment #2600‐2305‐1.
USFS, 2008a. USFS. January 2008. Tongass National Forest, Land and Resource Management
Plan (R10‐MB‐603b).
USFS, 2008b. USFS. January 2008. Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan, Final
Environmental Impact Statement, Plan Amendment. Volume I. (R10‐MB‐603c).
USFS, 2008c. USFS. January 2008. Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan, Final
Environmental Impact Statement, Appendices. Volume II. (R10‐MB‐603d).
USFS, 2009. Forest Service Alaska Region Sensitive Species List, Assessment and Proposed
Revisions to the 2002 List.
USFWS, 2008. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Division of Migratory Bird Management.
December 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern.
USFWS, 2013. USFWS, May 24, 2013. Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, Candidate, and
Delisted Species in Alaska. Website accessed August 1, 2014:
http://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/endangered/pdf/es_alaska_species_list_2013.pdf
P‐14514: Initial Consultation Document, Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Page 29
USFWS, 2014a. USFWS endangered species website accessed August 1, 2014. Website:
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac (8/1/2014).
USFWS, 2014b. USFWS website accessed August 1, 2014. Website:
http://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/endangered/species/aa_wolf.htm
USFWS, 2014c. USFWS critical habitat maps accessed July 29, 2014. Website:
http://ecos.fws.gov/crithab/flex/crithabMapper.jsp?
P‐14514: Initial Consultation Document, Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Page 30
This page intentionally blank.
P‐14514: Initial Consultation Document, Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Page A‐1
APPENDIX A –PHOTOGRAPHS
Photograph Title Page Nos.
Photograph A‐1 Typical Wetland Meadow above Small Sandy Beach (7/8/2009)............A‐3
Photograph A‐2 Typical Meadow / Forest Complex near Jim’s Lake (7/17/2013)............A‐3
Photograph A‐3 Typical Conifer Forest south of Elfin Cove (7/18/2013) ..........................A‐3
Photograph A‐3 Typical Conifer Forest south of Elfin Cove (7/18/2013) ..........................A‐4
Photograph A‐4 Typical Conifer Forest near Jim’s Lake (8/10/2010)................................A‐4
Photograph A‐5 Typical Barren Rock Outcrops east of Crooked Creek (8/12/2010) ........A‐4
Photograph A‐5 Typical Barren Rock Outcrops east of Crooked Creek (8/12/2010) ........A‐5
Photograph A‐6 Typical Beach Vegetation (Little Sandy Beach, 8/12/2010).....................A‐5
Photograph A‐7 View of Project Area from ¼ Mile Offshore in Port Althorp
(8/11/2010)..........................................................................................................A ‐6
Photograph A‐8 Oblique Aerial View of Project Site and Jim’s Lake (7/6/2009)...............A‐6
P‐14514: Initial Consultation Document, Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Page A‐2
This page intentionally blank.
P‐14514: Initial Consultation Document, Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Page A‐3
Photograph A‐1 Typical Wetland Meadow above Small Sandy Beach (7/8/2009)
Photograph A‐2 Typical Meadow / Forest Complex near Jim’s Lake (7/17/2013)
P‐14514: Initial Consultation Document, Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Page A‐4
Photograph A‐3 Typical Conifer Forest south of Elfin Cove (7/18/2013)
Photograph A‐4 Typical Conifer Forest near Jim’s Lake (8/10/2010)
P‐14514: Initial Consultation Document, Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Page A‐5
Photograph A‐5 Typical Barren Rock Outcrops east of Crooked Creek (8/12/2010)
Photograph A‐6 Typical Beach Vegetation (Little Sandy Beach, 8/12/2010)
P‐14514: Initial Consultation Document, Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Page A‐6
Photograph A‐7 View of Project Area from ¼ Mile Offshore in Port Althorp (8/11/2010)
Photograph A‐8 Oblique Aerial View of Project Site and Jim’s Lake (7/6/2009)
P‐14514 – Initial Consultation Document – Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Attachments
ATTACHMENT E‐1
FISHERIES SURVEY REPORT
P‐14514 – Initial Consultation Document – Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Attachments
This page intentionally blank.
Technical Report No. 13-08
_________________________________________________________________________________________
A Fisheries Survey of Crooked and Jim’s Creeks and Jim’s Lake on Chichagof Island
near Elfin Cove, Alaska
by
Bruce M Barrett
July 2013
______________________________________________________________________
Alaska Biological Consulting
PO Box 322
Lakeside, MT 59922-0322
Tel: 406-844-3453
E-mail: alaskabiol@yahoo.com
1
INTRODUCTION
In June 2009, Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. was authorized by the Non-Profit Community of Elfin Cove to
complete a reconnaissance and feasibility analysis of potential hydropower resources for Elfin Cove. The
study, completed in 2011, identified Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake and Roy’s Creek as potentially suitable
project sites (Polarconsult 2011). The community has since chosen Crooked and Jim’s creeks and in
accordance has employed Polarconsult to conduct further analyses and design work in addition to permitting
the project which necessitates cataloging the environmental resources that may be impacted.
The hydropower development being considered would entail diverting up to 5 cfs of flow from Crooked
Creek at approximately mile 0.55 (Figure 1) into Jim's Lake, and developing a hydropower project between
Jim's Lake and Little Sandy Beach, utilizing Jim's Lake as a storage reservoir and an access and power line
corridor to Elfin Cove.
The purpose of this report is to define the fisheries resources that occur within the project area which
includes Jim’s Lake and Jim’s and Crooked creeks located on the west side of Chichagof Island about two
miles south of Elfin Cove (Figure 1). Also addressed is the fisheries impact that can be expected with stream
flow and diversion and lake level and volume changes from the proposed hydroelectric project.
OBJECTIVES
1. Determine fish distribution and relative abundance by species in Jim’s Lake and Crooked and Jim’s
creeks by species.
2. Determine average fish size by species in the study area.
3. Describe the general habitat characteristics of Jim’s Lake, and Crooked and Jim’s creeks.
4. Define the expected impact to area fisheries resources should the proposed hydro project be built,
and recommend mitigation options to the extent necessary to ensure no net loss of area fisheries
production/resources.
METHODS
The study area was Jim’s Lake and Jim’s and Crooked creeks (Figure 1). Jim’s Creek in its entirety was
sampled along with Jim’s Lake, while Crooked Creek was sampled from intertidal to a gauging station located
0.55 miles upstream.
Four standard minnow traps were fished in Jim’s Lake, five in Jim’s Creek, and seven in Crooked Creek (Figure
2). Soak time ranged from 15 to 25 hrs. For Jim’s Lake, the average was 19 hrs., Jim’s Creek 21 hrs., and
Crooked Creek 20 hrs. The traps were baited with disinfected sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) roe
treated by a 10-m soak time in 1/100 Betadyne. One cut section of roe (20-25 g) wrapped in cheesecloth
was used in each trap. In streams the traps were fished in pools with the axis parallel to the current, and
each trap was anchored by one or two cobbles placed inside the trap. At Jim’s Lake each minnow trap was
weighted by a single cobble and fished off shore at an average 5 ft. depth. All traps were securely tied to
substrate by line and the line marked with survey tape to prevent loss.
Additionally at Jim’s Lake, two seine hauls were made using a hand seine measuring 20 ft. x 4 ft. with ¼ mesh
web. The sets were made off the western end of the lake with each haul covering about 800 square feet of
surface area. At Jim’s Lake a gill net was also deployed and fished for 5 ¼ hrs. nearly midway off the lake’s
west side. The net was set perpendicular from the shore to beyond the lake’s midpoint and anchored in 20+
ft. of water (Figure 3). The gill net measured 100 ft. by 8 ft., and mesh size was 1 inch.
2
Originally, hand seining was also intended for Jim’s and Crooked creeks, however the relatively narrow width
and shallowness of the streams coupled with small pool sizes and in-stream materials (logs) precluded
effective seining.
All fish sampling efforts in the two streams and the lake using minnow traps, seine gear, and a gill net were
authorized by Fish Resource Permit # SF 2013-231 as issued by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
(ADFG).
Hook and line sampling was also conducted at Jim’s Lake. Slightly more than one hour was fished using
spinning gear and small lures (Mepps # 1’s and 2’s) and effected under ADF&G SF license 3770183 2013
AAO1.
All stream and lake minnow trap sites and the lake gillnetting location were identified by GPS, and
photographs were taken of representative fishing gear locations and catch.
Pursuant to the terms of the ADFG fish sampling permit, 8 hrs. of minnow trapping coupled with one hour of
hook and line sampling were required prior to the use of the gill net in Jim’s Lake. Further encumbering was
the provision that the gill net could not be used if the other gear produced any game fish other than Dolly
Varden (Salvelinus malma) or cutthroat trout (Salmo clarki clarki). These terms were met along with the
restriction that the net be constantly monitored to minimize incidental fish, bird, and mammal mortalities
and not soaked for more than 12 hrs.
All fish captured were identified by species in accordance with Pacific Fishes of Canada (1973), measured (tip-
of-snout to fork-of-tail, mm), and released alive. The exception was that the largest fish captured was
necropsied for sexual maturity.
Opportunistically throughout the course of the field work, visual inspections were conducted in the study
waters for fish presence with special attention given to stream slack water areas and pools and to lake
shallow areas.
RESULTS
The fish sampling findings are presented in Tables 1-4. Photographs not referenced in text of Jim’s Lake and
several of the minnow trapping locations in Crooked and Jim’s creeks and of the fish migration barrier 50 yds.
above MHHW on Jim’s Creek are provided in Appendices A-1 through A-7.
At Jim’s Lake, gillnetting, hook and line, seining, and minnow trapping efforts produced no fish (Table 1,
Figure 2). The same was the finding in visual monitoring of the lake’s shallows and of fish potentially rising
and/or jumping at the lake’s surface.
In Jim’s Creek which was minnow trapped from the intertidal to within about 100 yd. of the lake outlet with
five traps, no fish were caught nor were any visually observed during the four days of study (Table 2, Figure
2). In the lower stream reach immediately above the intertidal, there were but two pools both relatively
small averaging each about 8 inches deep. The first pool was about 30 yds. above the intertidal zone, while
the second was another 20 yds. upstream. At the head of the second pool which was about 50 yds.
upstream of MHHW a series of 3-4 ft. high waterfalls and a stream slope of about 30-35% began posing a
formable barrier to upstream fish passage.
At Crooked Creek, Dolly Varden (DV) were caught at two locations in the stream’s lower reach within 150
yds. of the intertidal zone. In the lower reach three relatively small pools were considered suitable for
3
minnow trap deployment. The first and the third were fished, and a total of 8 DV were captured, three in the
pool closest to tidewater and five upstream in a pool at the base of an 8 ft. high waterfall and the beginning
of a fish impassible gorge with about a 40% slope and a series of nearly continuous waterfalls. The DV
caught in the upper trap averaged significantly larger than those taken in the lower trap. (t stat. 4.54, P
0.0019, df=6). In the former DV averaged 12.9 cm FL and in the latter 11.0 cm (Table 4). The largest DV
(13.7cm FL) in the second trap catch was a sexually mature male (Figure 6).
In the upper reach of Crooked Creek, above the gorge which started about 150 yds. above the intertidal
zone, five minnow traps were set (Figure 2). The first was deployed in the first fishable pool above the gorge
and the last at the gauging station approximately 0.3 miles upstream (Figure 2). None of the five traps
produced any catch (Table 3). Above the gorge no fish were seen in the pools and relatively slack water
areas examined.
From the gorge in Crooked Creek to about 60 yds. upstream of trap site C-6, the streambed gradient ranges
from 0.5 to 1% and the streambed is mostly cobble followed by gravel. In this reach the stream channel is
well shaded by canopy cover and blow down, and relatively heavily seeded with large woody in-stream
material (logs) (Table 3). Between trap sites C-6 and C-7, encompassing about a 500 ft. stream reach,
average gradient is approximately 30%. From below trap site C-6 to above C-7 Crooked Creek flows through
a rubble field formed from past mass-wasting events spawned from the cliffs to the immediate east, and the
stream bed varies from sands and gravels to house-sized boulders.
In the intertidal for both Jim’s Creek and Crooked Creek there were no areas found suitable for hand seining
or minnow trapping (Figures 7-8). In the intertidal areas of both, the beach had about 15 degree slope, and
the dominant substrates at Jim’s were cobble at 75% and boulders 25%, while at Crooked Creek boulders
were about 80% and cobble 20%. Gravel represented less than 1% at both. Average water depth was about
one inch on Jim’s Creek and 3-4 inches for Crooked Creek in the intertidal. Neither stream had a defined
channel as their flows tended to spread laterally across the intertidal through relatively loose materials
(cobbles and boulders). Both streams were moderately exposed to open ocean sea/weather conditions.
Although some locals from Elfin Cove refer to the area as “Little Sandy Beach,” no sand was visible during the
survey period (7/15-18/2013). There was no recognizable fin fish habitat found within the intertidal of Jim’s
Creek or Crooked Creek.
DISCUSSION
Jim’s Lake and Jim’s Creek were found to be void of all fish life based on the assessment methods employed
from July 15-18, 2013. Likewise Crooked Creek was determined to support no fish with exception of the
stream’s lower reach immediately above MHHW, in the first 150 yds.
The relatively small number of DV found to occupy lower Crooked Creek were likely non-anadromous,
resident fish based on the lengths of the eight caught and the finding that one was sexually mature at 13.7
cm (5.4 inches). This aligns with the finding of Hart (1973) that anadromous DV maturation occurs in the
ocean and return migrations take place in the fall after spending 2 or more years at sea.
Given the limited habitat in the lower reach of Crooked Creek and general trap effectiveness, it is probable
that not many more DV occupied the 150 yd. reach from intertidal to the gorge than the eight taken in the
combined 38.2 trap hrs. fished. Further, given the fish length differences measured between the two trap
catches, it would appear that segregation may be occurring with the smallest DV occupying the lower pool
and the largest the upper pool at the start of a fish-impassable gorge (Figure 9). This could be indicative of
poor recruitment success and limited rearing and/or spawning habitat.
4
While not occupied by fish, Jim’s Creek would likely support small resident DV if access were not limited just
above intertidal by a 100 ft. steep reach of stream channel containing a series of waterfalls and about a 40%
grade. In Jim’s Creek’s upper reach, the several minnow trap sites fished had relatively low gradient (<1%),
good cover, stability, and insect life for feed. Jim’s Lake which has 20+ ft. depths, macro aquatic vegetation
(lily pads), and supports terrestrial and aquatic insect life offers fisheries habitat, but it too is not colonized by
fish as determined from the July 15-16, 2013 sampling efforts there. Although also found not to be occupied
by any fish life, the upper reach of Crooked Creek above the gorge which begins just above intertidal appears
to be better fisheries habitat than upper Jim’s Creek due to lower gradient and greater stream length and
width as well as ample cover, spawning gravel, and macro invertebrate production.
From the observation of the intertidal areas of Crooked and Jim’s creeks coupled with their lower reaches it
is apparent that neither offer habitat for salmon or other anadromous fish. This aligns with ADFG’s omission
of both streams from their Catalog of Waters important for Spawning, Rearing, and Migration of
Anadromous Fishes (2012).
Relative to the proposed hydro project, calling for diversion of Crooked Creek through a pipeline into Jim’s
Lake and a penstock from Jim’s Lake to a powerhouse sited within a 100 yds. of Little Sandy Beach, little to no
adverse impact to area fisheries can be expected. The few DV that occupy Crooked Creek just above the
intertidal zone should not be displaced. This is because stream flow, albeit reduced, will be maintained by a
lateral right-side tributary entering Crooked Creek approximately ¼ mile below the proposed diversion
structure to Jim’s Lake and by main stem watershed contribution below the proposed hydro diversion site
(Figure 10). The tributary should maintain about 11% of the current main stem flow in Crooked Creek (Joel
Groves P.E., pers.com., 7/7/13). This coupled with flow off the 65 acres of watershed downstream of the
diversion point, adding an estimated 13%, should ensure that about 24% of the current flow regime is
maintained. Some benefit may be derived from reduced flows if it lessens flood damages to fish spawning
habitat and permits more accumulation of stream bed gravels for spawning area where currently bedrock,
boulders, and large cobble only show. Expectedly, the power house discharge will offer some fisheries
habitat at least sufficient to compensate for any losses that may occur in lower Crooked Creek due to flow
reduction.
LITERATURE CITED
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2008, updated 2012. Catalog of waters important for spawning,
rearing, and migration of anadromous fishes, ADF&G, Sport Fish Div., Juneau, AK.
Hart, J.L. 1973. Pacific Fishes of Canada. Bull. 180; Fish. Res. Bd. Canada.
Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. 2011. Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Feasibility Study Final Report.
Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. Anchorage, AK.
5
Table 1. Fish catch by gear type and location at Jim's Lake near Elfin Cove, AK, July 15-16, 2013.
Method LOCATION DATE TIME CATCH (fish #'s)
MISC. NOTES
Dolly Varden other
Minnow N 58° 10.585 7/15/2013 1604 hrs.Trap set 20 ft. offshore at 3 ft. depth.
Trap W 136° 19.561 Air: 68 F; water 62 F; lilly pads in western end of lake.
L-1 7/16/2013 1124 hrs. 0 0 1- one inch water beetle in trap
Minnow N 58° 10.582 7/15/2013 1635 hrs.Trap set 15 yds. offshore at 6 ft. depth.
Trap W 136° 19.522 West wind: <5mph; light overcast
L-2 7/16/2013 1158 hrs. 0 0 South shore set; I dragon fly larvae in trap
Minnow N 58° 10.558 7/15/2013 1725 hrs.Trap set 3yds. offshore at 8 ft. depth.
Trap W 136° 19.517 Air 64 F, water 62 F; steep drop-off from shore.
L-3 7/16/2013 1235 hrs. 0 0 Southside shore set; insect hatch moderate
Minnow N 58° 10.499 7/15/2013 1747 hrs.Trap set 3yds. offshore at 3 ft. depth.
Trap W 136° 19.486 Site approx. 150yds from east end of lake off south shore.
L-4 7/16/2013 1310 hrs. 0 0 Dense shoreline growth: alder, cedar & spruce trees, and blue berry bushes
Hook & Line L-1 thru L-3 7/15/2013 1615 hrs.South shore spin casting using #1 and #2 Mepps spinners, silver & gold
Trap sites 1720 hrs.Casts were 45+ yds.; 2/3 south shoreline fished.
Hand Seine Trap L-2 to 7/16/2013 1130 hrs.-Seine 25 ft. X 4 ft., 1/4" mesh
lake's west end 1147hrs. 0 0 2 hauls made; no catch other than 1 water beetle
beyond L-1
Gill Net N 58° 10.558 7/16/2013
1235 hrs.-Net set off minnow trap site L-3; extending perpendicular to shoreline
W 136° 19.517 1750 hrs. 0 0 Net extended beyond 1/2 lake width; offshore end at 20+ ft. lake depth
No waterfowl or water-use mammals observed
Gill net: 100ft X 8 ft. 1 inch mesh; total time fished: 5 h 10 min.
Lakeshore veg.: cedar, alder, willow, blue berry & spruce
Table 2. Fish catch by species with a standard minnow trap by location in Jim's Creek near Elfin Cove, AK, July 16-18, 2013.
TRAP LOCATION DATE TIME CATCH ( fish #'s)
NOTES
#Dolly Varden OTHER
J-1 N 58° 10.637 7/17/2013 1540 hrs.Air: 61F; water 55F; elev. 20 ft. above MHHW;1st fishable pool above MHHW;
W 136° 20.025 35-40% gravel; fractured bed rock & boulders (60%); 3-4 ft. high series of
7/18/2013 0950 hrs. 0 0 waterfalls; pool 30 yds. above MHHW.
J-2 N 58° 10.577 7/17/2013 1505 hrs.Avg. pool depth 16"; stream width 4.5 ft.; stream under cut bank; pool
W 136 19.880 7/18/2013
0955 hrs. 0 0 immediately below 5 ft. waterfall; pool 3.5 x 5 ft.
J-3 N 58 10.586 7/17/2013 1445 hrs.1/2% grade; gravel bed.
W 136° 19.771 7/18/2013
1005 hrs. 0 0
J-4 N 58° 10.574 7/16/2013 1435 hrs.Stream width 4 ft. avg.; slope approx. 15%; macro-invertebrates <1/2
W 135° 19.685 7/17/2013
1415 hrs. 0 0 per cobble(n=10); 60% angular gravel (1") & 40% cobble (angular)
J-5 N 58° 10.562 7/16/2013 1308 hrs.Stream width 4 ft. avg.; pool depth max. 16"; 10% grade downstream
W 136° 19.610 Bed sharp angular cobble and gravel at approx. 50% each;
7/17/2013 1402 hrs. 0 0 20% grade above trap site& 10% below trap; air 58 F & water 61F.
6
Table 3. Fish catch by species with a standard minnow trap by location in Crooked Creek near Elfin Cove, AK, July 15-18, 2013.
TRAP LOCATION DATE TIME CATCH ( fish #'s)
MISC. NOTES
#Dolly Varden OTHER
C-1 N 58° 10.719 7/15/2013 1906 hrs.1st pool immediately above intertidal; at base of several waterfalls
W 136° 20.143 approx. 8ft. above MHHW; trap depth 18"; 20% slope upstream;
7/16/2013 0955 hrs. 3 0 air 62F & water 44.5F (7/16/2013).
C-2 N 58° 10.733 7/16/2013 1024 hrs.Approx. 2.25 macro. Invertebrates on 5-6" cobbles (n=20); boulders
W 136° 19.989 and bed rock dominate bed composition; no gravel; 20% slope
downstream; approx. 150 yds. above MHHW; 3ft avg. pool depth; pool
at base of 8ft. high waterfall w/ waterfalls continuing upstream thru gorge;
7/17/2013 0950 hrs. 5 0 slope upstream approx. 40%; largest DV (5.4" FL) sexually mature male.
C-3 N 58° 10.780 7/17/2013 1040 hrs.2nd pool immediately above gorge; approx. 25yds from top of gorge;
W 136° 19.820 slight 2-3% slope; stream width avg. 6ft. ; 85% cobble, 10% boulder, 5%
7/18/2013 1110 hrs. 0 0 gravel; air 52F & water 44.5F (7/17/2013)
C-4 N 58° 10.784 7/17/2013 1111 hrs.bed: 35% cobble, 65% gravel; 16" avg. pool depth; pool 20 ft. X 12 ft. Stream
W 136° 19.788 7/18/2013 1104 hrs. 0 0 slope 1/2%; pool shaded by fallen timber; approx. 50 yds. above site C-3.
C-5 N 58° 10.792 7/16/2013 1711 hrs.1% stream grade; riffle below pool 85% cobble & 15% gravel; pool 18'x 5'.
W 136° 19.652 7/17/2013 1135 hrs. 0 0 80% canopy cover; pool depth avg. 18"; under-cut stream bank
C-6 N 58° 10.759 7/16/2013 1647 hrs.1% stream grade; pool 6 x4 ft.;13" avg. pool depth; 85% cobble & 15% gravel.
W 136° 19.519 7/17/2013 1252 hrs. 0 0 stream width 5 ft.
C-7 N 58° 10.741 7/16/2013 1602 hrs.Trap at gauging station; streambed: 50% cobble, 50% gravel; 1/2% slope.
W 136° 19.323 7/17/2013 1235 hrs. 0 0 Air: 58 F, water 47 F (7/16/13).
Table 4. Fork lenghts (mm) of Dolly Varden sampled
by minnow trap # and catch date in Crooked
Creek near Elfin Cove.
Trap # C-1 Trap # C-2
Specimen 7/16/2013 7/17/2013
#
1 109 122
2 107 130
3 114 119
4 135
5 137
Mean 110 124
Median 109 130
7
Figure 1. Aerial map showing the location of Jim’s Lake, and Crooked and Jim’s creeks, and other features
relative to the community of Elfin Cove, Alaska. (Map courtesy of Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.)
8
Figure 2. Aerial map identifying the approximate minnow trapping locations at Jim’s Lake, Jim’s Creek, and
Crooked Creek. (Map courtesy of Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.)
9
Figure 3. Gill net deployed in Jim’s Lake on the west side at the trap site L-3, July 16, 2013.
Figure 4. One of three Dolly Varden caught by minnow trap at Crooked Creek site C-1 just above MHHW.
10
Figure 5. Dolly Varden catch at Crooked Creek trap site # C-2 showing the five fish captured. The white
material in the minnow trap is the salmon roe wrapped in cheese cloth.
Figure 6. Sexually mature male Dolly Varden (13.7 cm FL) from Crooked Creek trap site # C-2
11
Figure 7. Jim’s Creek in the upper and mid intertidal area with the stream shallowness, and the
preponderance of cobble and boulders, July 15, 2013.
12
Figure 8. Crooked Creek from mid to lower intertidal showing the preponderance of boulders and
cobble in the streambed, July 15, 2013.
13
Figure 9. The falls in the background is the beginning of a fish-impassable gorge on Crooked Creek
which starts about 150 yards above MHHW. The pool in the foreground is trap site C-2
that produced a five Dolly Varden catch, July 16-17, 2013.
14
.
Figure 10. Tributary of Crooked Creek located between trap sites C-4 and C-5 on the north side, July 18,
2013.
15
APPENDIX A
16
Appendix A-1. Northern end of Jim’s Lake from the lake’s west side where two seine hauls were conducted
on July 16, and minnow trapping occurred at site L-1, July 15-16, 2013.
Appendix A-2. Jim’s Lake looking southeast toward trap site L-2, July 15, 2013.
17
Appendix A-3. Jim’s Creek looking dowstream from trap site J-5, 7/16/2013.
Appendix A-4. Jim’s Creek looking down stream at trap site J-4, July 16, 2013.
18
Appendix A-5. Crooked Creek at gauging station and trap site site C-5. Trap is dark cylinder object mid-
frame, July 16, 2013.
Appendix A-6. Jim’s Creek at trap site J-2 looking downstream, July 17, 2013.
19
Appendix A-7. Jim’s Creek in lower reach about 50 yds. above MHHW; showing start of a series of 3-4 ft.
waterfalls, stream slope of 30-35% grade, and fish impasse.
P‐14514 – Initial Consultation Document – Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Attachments
ATTACHMENT E‐2
BALD EAGLE SURVEY REPORT
P‐14514 – Initial Consultation Document – Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Attachments
This page intentionally blank.
Technical Report No. 13-09
_________________________________________________________________________________________
A July 2013 Bald Eagle Survey of Crooked and Jim’s Creeks, Jim’s Lake, Little Sandy
Beach, and a proposed Utility and Access Corridor between Crooked Creek and Elfin
Cove, Alaska
by
Bruce M Barrett
July 2013
______________________________________________________________________
Alaska Biological Consulting
PO Box 322
Lakeside, MT 59922-0322
Tel: 406-844-3453
E-mail: alaskabiol@yahoo.com
1
INTRODUCTION
In June 2009, Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. was authorized by the Non-Profit Community of Elfin Cove to
complete a reconnaissance and feasibility analysis of potential hydropower resources for Elfin Cove. The
study, completed in 2011, identified Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake and Roy’s Creek as potentially suitable
project sites (Polarconsult 2011). The community has since chosen Crooked and Jim’s creeks and in
accordance has employed Polarconsult to conduct further analyses and design work in addition to permitting
the project which necessitates cataloging the environmental resources that may be impacted.
The report herein defines the number and location of bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nests occurring
in the vicinity of the proposed hydro-project area of Crooked Creek, Jim’s Lake, and Jim’s Creek and also in
the area of the proposed transmission and access trail corridor from Crooked Creek to Elfin Cove, as surveyed
from July 15 through July 18, 2013. The impetus is anchored in the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
(BGEPA) of 1940 as amended in 1962 and the Migratory Bird Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 668(a); 50 CFR 22)(USFWS
2007). The BGEPA prohibits the taking of bald eagles, their eggs, nests, or any part of the birds. And it
defines “taking” as “to pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, trap, collect, molest, or disturb (16 U.S.C.
668c; 50 CFR 22.3).”
To avoid disturbing bald eagles, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has prepared National Bald Eagle
Management Guidelines (USFWS 2007) that recommend:
1. Avoid clear cutting or removal of overstory trees within 330 ft. of bald eagle nests.
2. Avoid timber harvesting, road and trail building, and other construction activities within 660 ft. of a
bald eagle nest tree if the work or activity would be visible from the nest or 330 ft. should it not be
visible.
3. Non-operation of off-road vehicles within 330 ft. of a nest during the breeding season (March-
August, generally).
4. No clearing, external construction and landscaping between 330 ft. and 660 ft. of a nest during the
breeding season.
Additionally, this report cites the eagle sightings made in the process of surveying for bald eagle nests from
July 15 through July 18, 2013.
OBJECTIVES
1. Define the number and location of any bald eagle nests in proximity of the project area to include the
access corridor, stream diversion areas, penstock route, powerhouse site, power line route, and
equipment staging areas.
2. Determine the relative degree of bald eagle presence and their activities to include soaring, perching,
foraging, and over flights of the proposed project area in combination with other field studies
conducted in the July 15-18, 2013 period.
3. Identify any attractive features or food resources that may encourage use of the area by bald eagles.
2
METHODS
The study area as shown in Figure 1 encompasses the Little Sandy Beach and its capes and Jim’s and Crooked
creeks and Jim’s Lake along with the proposed utility corridor and access route between Elfin Cove and
Crooked Creek.
Eagle monitoring was performed by three methods: aerial, marine, and terrestrial surveys. On all surveys,
the forest canopy and rock outcroppings were visually scanned for perched eagles and nests. Likewise the
observers listened for eagles vocalizations and visually scanned the horizon for birds in flight. All eagle
observations were recorded.
Aerial Survey
On 15 July, two observers in a chartered DeHavilland DH C-2 Beaver (#N777DH) piloted by Ben Shipps made
three relatively low level passes over Little Sandy Beach including its capes and two over flights of the valley
floor encompassing Jim’s Lake and Crooked and Jim’s creeks. One observer occupied the co-pilot seat on the
right side of the aircraft, while the second was seated behind the pilot on the left side of the plane. Both
observers wore polaroid sun glasses. Visibility was good with only a high overcast, and winds were calm. The
three coastal flights were made at the 300-400 ft. elevation, while the inland monitoring was performed at
400-600 feet. Airspeed ranged from 70-90 mph for both. Total survey time was about 15 minutes (1135-
1150hrs.).
Marine Survey
A total of 7 trips between Elfin Cove and Little Sandy Beach were made on a 22 ft. outboard powered skiff
provided by Eagle Charters. These were conducted in the July 15-18 period. The first on July 15 was at 1400
hrs. and the second at about 1900 hrs. On July 16, 17, and 18th travel occurred in the mornings at about
0930 hrs. and in the evenings between 1900 and 1930 hrs. The exception was no evening trip made on the
18th. During the boat trips from and to Elfin Cove, the two observers were vigilant for the presence of eagle
activity including eagle nests, perched eagles, and eagle over flights in the area of Little Sandy Beach and its
adjacent capes.
Survey conditions were good on all four days for ascertaining whether there were any eagle nests in the
forest canopy along Little Sandy Beach and its adjoining capes.
Terrestrial Survey
Beginning on the afternoon of July 15, 2013 and continuing through July 18, two observers conducted foot
surveys daily between Little Sandy Beach and Jim’s Lake and likewise daily, but starting one day later on July
16th, between Little Sandy Beach and the Crooked Creek gauging station located about 0.4 miles upstream.
The observers operated independently about 50% of the time and visually scanned for bald eagle nests and
over flights and listened for vocalizations while performing routine mapping details, water flow
measurements, and fish sampling. The daily surveys began at about 1000 hrs. and ended at approximately
1900 hrs. except on July 18th when the observers departed the Crooked Creek drainage en route for Elfin
Cove at about 1100 hrs. On July 16, Jim’s Lake was surveyed for bald eagle nests using a single person
inflatable raft while conducting bathymetric and fish survey details.
On July 18th, two observers trekked from Crooked Creek to Elfin Cove following the general route of the
proposed transmission corridor and ATV trail staying vigilant for eagle sightings, nests, and calls. The survey
extended from 1100 to 1500 hrs. approximately.
3
Survey conditions on the uplands ranged from good to excellent on all four survey days with exception of the
morning of July 18th wherein low clouds and fog were prevalent prior until about 1100hrs. This limited mid-
morning observation to the forest canopy and above to the 400-500 ft. elevation.
Figure 1. Map detailing the approximate boundary limits of the eagle survey conducted on July 15-
18, 2013 relative to the location of Little Sandy Beach, Jim’s Lake, Jim’s Creek, Crooked
Creek, and the proposed transmission line and access corridor to Elfin Cove. (Map
courtesy of Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.).
4
RESULTS
The results are defined in Table 1.
Table 1. Bald eagle sightings/observations in the associated uplands of Jim’s and Crooked creeks and
Jim’s Lake, and the proposed transmission corridor and ATV route from Crooked Creek
north to Elfin Cove, AK July 15-18, 2013. Included in the listing are results of an aerial
survey of Little Sandy Beach and its capes and watershed of Crooked and Jim’s creeks from
the intertidal inland approximately 1/3 mile on July 15, 2013 for eagle nests and presence.
Location Date Method Time Sighting Observation
Little Sandy
Beach and
capes
7/15/2013 Air 1135-
1150
hrs.
No Three 300-400 ft. elev. over flights; no
eagles or nests spotted.
Little Sandy
Beach and
capes
7/15-
18/2013
Boat 0900 &
1900 hr.
approx.
No Two surveys daily except morning only
on 7/18. No nests or eagles observed.
Crooked and
Jim's creeks
7/15/2013 Air 1145-
1150
hrs.
No Two 300-600 ft. elev. over flights; no
eagles or nests seen.
Jim's Lake &
vicinity
7/15/2013 Foot 1140
hrs.
Yes One adult soaring 700- 800 ft. 1/3 mile
north of Jim's Lake.
Jim's Lake 7/16/2013 Foot/raft 1100-
1800
hrs.
No Lake perimeter and surrounding area
survey via raft and foot. No nest(s),
sightings or vocalizations heard.
Jim's Lake 7/16/2013 Foot 1400
hrs.
Yes One adult pair at southern end of lake
soaring at approx. 750 ft.
Jim's Lake 7/16/2013 Foot 1730
hrs.
Yes One adult soaring 400 ft. high
immediately south of lake by approx.
1,000 ft.
Jim's Lake 7/17/2013 Foot 1300
hrs.
Yes One adult 50-75 ft. flying north to south
crossing mid-lake.
Jim's Creek 7/15-
18/2013
Foot Daily No No nest (s) or eagles observed or
vocalizations heard in transit from
MHHW to lake.
Crooked
Creek
7/
16-18/2013
Foot Daily No No nest (s) or eagles observed or
vocalizations heard between MHHW and
gauging station.
Crooked
Creek-Elfin
Cove
7/18/2013 Foot 1100-
1500
hrs.
No No nests, vocalizations, perching or over
flights of eagles observed.
5
DISCUSSION
Survey findings denote that there are no eagle nests within the project area including the terrain adjoining
Little Sandy Beach, Jim’s Lake, and Jim’s and Crooked creeks, and the proposed utility and access corridor
extending to Elfin Cove. Further, the July 15-18, 2013 survey results establish that bald eagles transit the
area but not to an appreciable extent, and it would appear that there is an absence of pattern in their
movements. Also, the lack of any bald eagle vocalizations heard further suggests that the project area is
relatively infrequently occupied and void of any active nest sites. This aligns with information from the
USFWS that there are no mapped or reported active or inactive bald eagle nests south of Elfin Cove in the
area surveyed in this study (Steve Brockman, USFWS Juneau, pers.com., 7/30/2013). Evidence from the
USFWS is that the nearest known bald eagle nest is about two miles northeast of the study area on the
opposite side of Chichagof Island near Fox Creek, a salmon stream.
The attractiveness of the study area as a forage area for bald eagles seems to be limited. The nearest salmon
stream (Fox Cr.) is two miles northeast on the east side of Chichagof Island, while the second closest is about
three miles south southwest on the island’s west side (Margret Cr., ADFG 2012). Further, Jim’s Creek and
Jim’s Lake are non-fish waters, and Crooked Creek has only a trace number of fish limited to a few resident
Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) within the first 140 yards above the intertidal zone (Barrett 2013). During
the July 15-18 survey period, the only appreciable bald eagle food source appeared to be limited to milling
pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) off Little Sandy Beach evident by occasional jumpers seen daily 50-
150 ft. offshore. As for upland food sources for bald eagles, none was seen other than a total of two red
squirrels (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus). Deer sign (tracks; Odocoileus hemionus sitkensis) was evident that
included doe and fawn tracks; due to the relatively dense forest cover, it would be rather unlikely for deer
fawns to be targeted even in early spring.
Based on a combination of aerial, marine, and terrestrial surveys conducted from July 15 through the 18th, no
areas or features including nests exist within or surrounding the project area which would necessitate special
protection for bald eagles under the U.S. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
LITERATURE CITED
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2008, updated 2012. Catalog of waters important for spawning,
rearing, and migration of anadromous fishes, ADF&G, Sport Fish Div., Juneau, AK.
Barrett, B.M. 2013. A Fisheries Survey of Crooked and Jim’s Creeks and Jim’s Lake on Chichagof Island near
Elfin Cove, Alaska. AKBIOL tech. report no. 13-08. Lakeside, MT.
Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. 2011. Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Feasibility Study Final Report.
Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. Anchorage, AK.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. Arlington, VA.
P‐14514 – Initial Consultation Document – Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Attachments
ATTACHMENT E‐3
LETTER FROM ADFG REGARDING FISH HABITAT PERMIT
P‐14514 – Initial Consultation Document – Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Attachments
This page intentionally blank.
P‐14514 – Initial Consultation Document – Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Attachments
ATTACHMENT E‐4
INTERIM HYDROLOGY REPORT FOR CROOKED CREEK AND JIM’S CREEK
P‐14514 – Initial Consultation Document – Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Attachments
This page intentionally blank.
polarconsult alaska, inc.
1503 West 33rd Avenue, Suite 310
Anchorage, Alaska 99503-3638
Phone: (907) 258-2420
FAX: (907) 258-2419
I NTERIM H YDROLOGY R EPORT
131220-INTERIMHYDROLOGYREPORT.DOC
DATE: December 20, 2013
TO: Jane Button, ECUC Project Manager
FROM: Joel Groves, PE Polarconsult Project Manager
SUBJECT: Interim Hydrology Report, Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydro Project
CC:
1. Background
From 1984 to 1985, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) maintained stream
gauges at the proposed Crooked Creek diversion site and Jim’s Lake outlet. Since 2008, Elfin
Cove Utility Commission (ECUC) has maintained stream gauges at these same two locations.
Additionally, ECUC maintained a stream gauge at Roy’s Creek from October 2009 through June
2012.1 The installations and station histories through June 2011 are described in detail in
Appendix C of the Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Feasibility Study Final Report
(Polarconsult, June 2011). More recent station histories are provided in this interim report.
The Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake gauging stations are both still maintained and operating as of
the most recent data download. This interim report provides up‐to‐date information on the
stations and collected hydrology information, and provides an interim analysis of the collected
hydrology data. The findings presented in this interim report are used to update the project
analysis completed in the 2011 Feasibility Study in order to recommend a project configuration
for final design and permitting.
2. Summary of Findings
The on‐going hydrology study has produced 2.56 years of flow data at Crooked Creek and 4.24
years of data at Jim’s Lake. Correlations between these sites and the discontinued Roy’s Creek
gauge are used to produce an extended hydrology record for both sites of 5.32 years.
Analysis of the current data indicate lower flows at both Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake than
indicated by the analysis completed for the 2011 Feasibility Study. Current estimates for the
median flow2 at both sites are approximately 80 to 85% of the estimates in the 2011 Feasibility
Study.
Analysis of these data indicate that the resource capacity factor of Crooked Creek, the major
water supply for the proposed development, is between 52 and 55% at a design flow of 5 cubic
feet per second (cfs). The hydrology analysis in the 2011 Feasibility Study estimated the
resource capacity factor for this design flow at between 50 and 61%. Resource capacity factor
for Jim’s Lake is not meaningful because the storage capacity of the lake can capture
substantially all of the flow for power generation.
1 Roy’s Creek is not currently under consideration for hydroelectric development, but was evaluated in the 2010
Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study for Elfin Cove. Roy’s Creek data is included in this interim report because it
is used to extend the record for the Crooked Creek gauging station.
2 Median flow is the 50% exceedance flow in Figures 6 and 7.
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S L AKE H YDROELECTRIC P ROJECT
I NTERIM H YDROLOGY R EPORT P OLARCONSULT A LASKA, INC.
DECEMBER 20, 2013 PAGE 2 OF 10
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Crooked Creek Gauged Flow
Jim's Lake Gauged Flow
Roy's Creek Gauged Flow
3. Available Hydrology Data
From the start of stream gauging efforts in June 2008 to June 2009, and again from June 2011
to April 2013, ECUC led stream gauging efforts. From June 2009 through June 2011, and April
2013 to the present time, Polarconsult has been under contract to ECUC to conduct stream
gauging. ECUC has provided all available hydrology records and field data to Polarconsult.
Polarconsult has consolidated all available records and data for analysis. Currently available
hydrology data is summarized in Table 1 and Figure 1. Currently, 2.56 years of data have been
collected at Crooked Creek, 4.24 years of data at Jim’s Lake, and 2.42 years at Roy’s Creek.
Figure 1 presents the stage record collected at both stations. Gaps in Figure 1 reflect stage data
that was not recorded either due to failure of the logger hardware or insufficient memory
capacity. All flow measurements completed at these stations are summarized in Table 2.
Table 1: Summary of Hydrology Data for Elfin Cove Hydroelectric Resources
Location Basin Size
(sq.mi.) (1)
Site Elevation
(ft)(1) Latitude (1)Longitude (1)Begin Date End Date Number of
Records (days)(3)
7/6/84(2) 2/13/85(2) 202 Crooked Creek
at diversion site 0.56 478.0 5810'40" 13619'16" 8/22/08 Current(3) 933
7/6/84(2) 2/11/85(2) 202 Jim's Lake Creek
at lake outlet 0.10 333.2 5810'34" 13619'32" 8/22/08 Current(3) 1,547
Roy’s Creek
above Falls 0.42 470 5811'29" 13620'09" 10/8/09 7/8/12 885
(1) Data from June 2011 Feasibility Study, Appendix C.
(2) Count of available daily records. Gauges may have been in service for a longer period.
(3) The record count for current gauging stations reflects data through the most recent download on December
17, 2013 at Crooked Creek and October 17, 2013 at Jim’s Lake. The Roy’s Creek gauge has been discontinued.
Figure 1: Summary of Data Available from Gauging Stations
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S L AKE H YDROELECTRIC P ROJECT
I NTERIM H YDROLOGY R EPORT P OLARCONSULT A LASKA, INC.
DECEMBER 20, 2013 PAGE 3 OF 10
Table 2: Flow Measurements at Jim’s Lake, Crooked Creek, and Roy’s Creek Gauging Stations
Local Date/Time Party Flow (cfs) Stage (ft) Method / Equipment
Crooked Creek at Diversion Site
7/26/2008 15:15 Button/ Christensen 2.33 7.7 Pygmy Meter(2)
7/27/2008 16:20 Button/ Christensen 4.35 7.76 Pygmy Meter
8/22/2008 14:30 Button/ Christensen 5.38 7.92 Pygmy Meter
6/1/2009 11:39 Button/ Christensen 4.17 7.73 Pygmy Meter
6/28/2009 16:40 Button/ Christensen 1.3 7.6 Pygmy Meter
7/9/2009 10:55, 11:20 Groves/ Hertrich 0.98 / 0.94 7.54 Hanna Meter(3)
9/4/2009 11:15, 11:40 Groves/ Glendoing 0.84 / 0.93 7.54 Hanna Meter
10/9/2009 12:50 Groves/ Christensen 3.71 7.68 Hanna Meter
12/9/2009 13:45 Button/ Christensen 1.07 7.52 Hanna Meter
8/10/2010 11:40, 12:15 Groves/ Button 2.41 / 2.25 7.62 Hanna Meter
9/27/2011 17:00 Christensen 1.42 7.55 HOBO Meter(4)
6/8/2013 13:20, 13:50 Christensen 7.36 / 7.48 7.81 HOBO Meter
7/15/2013 17:30, 17:45 Groves 0.69 / 0.88 7.48 Hanna Meter
10/17/2013 10:00, 10:40 Groves 1.42 / 1.38 7.52 Hanna Meter
Crooked Creek at Mouth
10/17/2013 15:00 Groves 1.96 NA Hanna Meter
Jim’s Creek at Lake Outlet (5)
7/25/2008 12:30 Button/ Christensen 3.42 4.18 Pygmy Meter
7/26/2008 10:45 Button/ Christensen 1.3 3.82 Pygmy Meter
8/22/2008 12:45 Button/ Christensen 0.11 3.7 Pygmy Meter
6/1/2009 10:00 Button/ Christensen 0.54 3.73 Pygmy Meter
6/28/2009 18:00 Button/ Christensen 0.04 3.61 Pygmy Meter
7/9/2009 12:15, 12:30 Groves/ Hertrich 0.091 / 0.091 3.56 Hanna Meter
9/4/2009 10:00, 10:15 Groves/ Glendoing 0.219 / 0.217 3.52 Hanna Meter
10/9/2009 13:45 Groves/ Christensen 0.44 3.62 Hanna Meter
10/9/2009 14:05 Groves/ Christensen 0.44 3.69 Hanna Meter
12/9/2009 14:15 Button/ Christensen 0.219 3.68 Hanna Meter
8/10/2010 10:30, 10:45 Groves/ Button 0.421 / 0.422 3.72 Hanna Meter
9/27/2011 16:15 Christensen 0.34 3.69 HOBO Meter
6/8/2013 14:45 Christensen 0.33 3.67 HOBO Meter
7/15/2013 16:30 Groves 0.17 / 0.20 3.48 Hanna Meter
10/17/2013 13:30 Groves 0.25 / 0.26 3.69 Hanna Meter
Roy’s Creek Above Falls
9/3/2009 Groves 1.10 NA Hanna Meter
10/8/2009 16:51 Groves 3.26 1.27 Hanna Meter
12/9/2009 11:45 Button/ Christensen 0.68 1.09 Hanna Meter
8/13/2010 11:30 Groves/Button 1.29 1.17 Hanna Meter
7/18/2013 17:20 Groves 0.59 1.12 Hanna Meter
(1) Current velocity stream flow method with March McBirney current velocity meter (model unknown).
(2) Current velocity stream flow method with Pygmy current velocity meter.
(3) Sudden dose salt integration stream flow method with Hanna HI 9828 conductivity meter.
(4) Sudden dose salt integration stream flow method with Hobo U24‐001 conductivity logger.
(5) A small weir was installed on October 9, 2009, to stabilize and improve the section at the gauge.
‘‐‘ Indicates data are not available.
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S L AKE H YDROELECTRIC P ROJECT
I NTERIM H YDROLOGY R EPORT P OLARCONSULT A LASKA, INC.
DECEMBER 20, 2013 PAGE 4 OF 10
4. Recent Gauging Station Histories 3
Crooked Creek Diversion Site Gauging Station
September 27, 2011. The gauging station was downloaded and stage and flow were
measured. The on‐board temperature sensor was found to be malfunctioning.
July 10, 2012. The data logger was found submerged in the creek downstream of the
gauging station, apparently ripped off the tree by a bear. The logger was not recovered at
this time.
June 8, 2013. The destroyed data logger was recovered from Crooked Creek and stored in
Elfin Cove. Stage and flow were measured. A new data logger and pressure transducer (PT)
was installed at the same gauging station. The new data logger is a cellular‐enabled GSM‐2
manufactured by Keller America, Inc. It transmits site telemetry to Polarconsult every four
hours via cellular GSM network. The new PT is a Keller Acculevel vented transducer.
July 15, 2013. Stage and flow were measured.
October 17, 2013. Anomalies in programming of the GSM‐2 were corrected by direct cable
interface in the field. The PT installed in June was determined to be providing spurious
stage data, and was replaced with a new PT of the same make and model. Stage and flow
were measured.
October 29, 2013. Polarconsult extracted the main board from the data logger found
destroyed in July 2012 and returned it to the manufacturer to attempt to recover the data.
The manufacturer found no valid data on the memory chip and the main board was not
salvageable.
Jim’s Lake Outlet Gauging Station
Sept. 27, 2011. The gauging station was downloaded and stage and flow were measured.
July 10, 2012. The gauging station was downloaded and stage was measured.
June 8, 2013. The gauging station was downloaded and stage and flow were measured.
July 15, 2013. The gauging station was downloaded and stage and flow were measured.
Oct. 17, 2013. The gauging station was downloaded and stage and flow were measured.
Roy’s Creek Gauging Station
July 10, 2012. Station hardware was removed. Stage was measured.
July 18, 2013. Stage and flow were measured.
3 For earlier station history, see June 2011 Feasibility Study, Appendix C.
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S L AKE H YDROELECTRIC P ROJECT
I NTERIM H YDROLOGY R EPORT P OLARCONSULT A LASKA, INC.
DECEMBER 20, 2013 PAGE 5 OF 10
7.30
7.40
7.50
7.60
7.70
7.80
7.90
8.00
024681012
Flow (cfs)Stage (ft)Accepted Measurements, 2008‐11
Accepted Measurements, 2013
S‐D Curve (2011 Feas. Study)
S‐D Curve, 2013 (Current)
S‐D Curve, 2008‐2012 (Current)
5. Hydrology Analysis
Station Rating Curves
All available flow and stage measurements were reviewed and used to develop updated
stage‐discharge curves for each gauging station. Rating curves developed in the 2011
Feasibility Study are also shown for comparison.
Data, rating curves, and equations for the Crooked Creek station are presented in Figure 2.
Data for the Crooked Creek gauging station indicate the creek section was stable from 2008
to 2012. It appears that a flood event prior to June 2013 may have changed the section
slightly, based on field conditions and 2013 flow measurements. The 2013 curve was
shifted to the right to reflect these data.
Figure 2: Stage‐Discharge Curves for Crooked Creek Gauging Station
Data, rating curves, and equations for the Jim’s Lake station are presented in Figure 3. The
outlet section at Jim’s Lake is generally stable, however the stage‐discharge relationship
appears to be more variable than at Crooked Creek. This greater variability is attributed to
the very low flows being gauged at Jim’s Lake. These low flows, often just a few tenths of a
cfs, introduce two challenges for a natural‐channel gauging station: accurately measuring
such low flows taxes the capabilities of most flow measurement techniques; and the stage‐
discharge relationship at such low flows can be significantly perturbed by transient events
such as leaves sticking to rocks in the creek bed near the gauge. Errors in measuring the
small flows at Jim’s Lake are not expected to adversely affect project development
decisions.
2008 ‐ 2012: Q = 28.0 (S ‐ 7.40)1.6
2013: Q = 26.5 (S ‐ 7.36)1.6
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S L AKE H YDROELECTRIC P ROJECT
I NTERIM H YDROLOGY R EPORT P OLARCONSULT A LASKA, INC.
DECEMBER 20, 2013 PAGE 6 OF 10
Figure 3: Stage‐Discharge Curves for Jim’s Lake Outlet Gauging Station
Data, rating curve, and equations for the Roy’s Creek station are presented in Figure 4. The
creek section at Roy’s Creek appears to have been stable over the 2.8‐year period when the
gauge was installed.
Figure 4: Stage‐Discharge Curves for Roy’s Creek Gauging Station
3.40
3.50
3.60
3.70
3.80
3.90
4.00
4.10
4.20
4.30
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Flow (cfs)Stage (ft)All Measurements, 2008‐13
S‐D Curve, Current, +0.07' Stage Shift
S‐D Curve, Current
S‐D Curve, Current, ‐0.07' Stage Shift
S‐D Curve (2011 Feas. Study, 10/9/09 ‐ 5/9/11)
S‐D Curve (2011 Feas. Study, 2008 ‐ 10/9/09)
8/22/08 to 8/16/09: Q = 3.6 (S ‐3.27)3.0
8/16/09 to 8/29/09; 10/9/09 to current: Q = 3.6 (S ‐ 3.20)3.0
8/29/09 to 10/9/09: Q = 3.6 (S ‐ 3.13)3.0
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
012345678910Flow (cfs)Stage (Site Datum, ft)All Measurements, 2009‐2013
S‐D Curve (2011 Feas. Study)
S‐D Curve (Current Analysis)
Full Record: Q = 35.1 (S –0.93)2.29
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S L AKE H YDROELECTRIC P ROJECT
I NTERIM H YDROLOGY R EPORT P OLARCONSULT A LASKA, INC.
DECEMBER 20, 2013 PAGE 7 OF 10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Sep Oct Nov DecCrooked Creek Flow (cfs)2008
2009
2010
2010
2011
2013
Station Hydrographs
Recorded stage data and manual stage readings for all three stations were reviewed.
Apparent errors due to sensor anomalies and gross errors due to ice effects were corrected.
Further revisions to the stage record to reflect more subtle ice effects on the stage record
during the winter season (generally November – March) at all stations may be warranted.
The resulting hydrographs for the three gauging stations are presented in Figures 3, 4 and 5.
Figure 3: Crooked Creek Hydrograph, 2008 – 2013
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S L AKE H YDROELECTRIC P ROJECT
I NTERIM H YDROLOGY R EPORT P OLARCONSULT A LASKA, INC.
DECEMBER 20, 2013 PAGE 8 OF 10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Sep Oct Nov DecRoy's Creek Flow (cfs)2009
2010
2011
2012
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecJim's Lake Outlet Flow (cfs)2008
2009
2010
2010
2011
2011
2012
2013
Figure 4: Jim’s Lake Outlet Hydrograph, 2008 – 2013
Figure 5: Roy’s Creek Hydrograph, 2009 – 2012
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S L AKE H YDROELECTRIC P ROJECT
I NTERIM H YDROLOGY R EPORT P OLARCONSULT A LASKA, INC.
DECEMBER 20, 2013 PAGE 9 OF 10
Record Extensions
As shown in Figure 1, there are significant gaps in the record set for all three gauging
stations. The two‐year long gap at Crooked Creek from September 2011 to October 2013 is
of particular significance as Crooked Creek is the prime water supply for the proposed
hydroelectric project.
Correlations between the three gauges were analyzed and used to fill in gaps in the Crooked
Creek and Jim’s Lake records. Table 3 summarizes the coefficients of determination and
correlation equations used for the record extensions.4 The coefficient of determination
between Crooked Creek and Roy’s Creek (R2 = 0.83) is high, which is expected given the
proximity and similar basins of these two creeks. The coefficient of determination between
the Jim’s Lake outlet site and the two creeks is significantly lower (R2 = 0.31), which is also
expected because the lake moderates flows from this basin.
Missing records for Crooked Creek are supplemented first by Roy’s Creek data, second by
Jim’s Lake data, and lastly by the average daily flow for the missing data at Crooked Creek.
Missing records for Jim’s Lake are supplemented first by Roy’s Creek data, second by
Crooked Creek data, and lastly by the average daily flow for the missing data at Jim’s Lake.
Table 3: Correlation Equations for Crooked Creek and Jim’s lake Record Extensions
Site Correlation Source Days of Common
Record
Coefficient of
Determination Correlation Equation
Roy’s Creek Gauge 600 0.83 QCC = 0.822 QRC
1.40 Crooked Creek Jim’s Lake Gauge 871 0.31 QCC = 3.26 QJL + 1.63
Roy’s Creek Gauge 827 0.46 QJL = 0.0414 QRC +0.324 Jim’s Lake Crooked Creek Gauge 871 0.31 QJL = 0.0947 QCC +0.255
QCC: Flow at Crooked Creek gauging station, cfs
QRC: Flow at Roy’s Creek gauging station, cfs
QJL: Flow at Jim’s Lake gauging station, cfs
Table 4 summarizes the data sources used to compile the extended records for the Crooked
Creek and Jim’s Lake sites.
Table 4: Data Sources for Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Extended Records
Data Source Crooked Creek Site Data Source Jim’s Lake Site
Crooked Creek Gauge 2.56 years Jim’s Lake Gauge 4.24 years
Roy’s Creek Gauge 0.78 years Roy’s Creek Gauge 0.16 years
Jim’s Lake Gauge 1.23 years Crooked Creek Gauge 0.17 years
Average Daily Data for Site 0.75 years Average Daily Data for Site 0.75 years
Total Extended Record 5.32 years (August 22, 2008 to December 17, 2013)
4 The coefficient of determination is a statistical measure of how related two data sets are. The coefficient’s value ranges from
zero to one, with zero representing no relationship between the two data sets, and one representing a perfect correlation.
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S L AKE H YDROELECTRIC P ROJECT
I NTERIM H YDROLOGY R EPORT P OLARCONSULT A LASKA, INC.
DECEMBER 20, 2013 PAGE 10 OF 10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow is Equalled or ExceededCrooked Creek Flow at Diversion Site8/22/2008 ‐ 10/17/2013 Gauged Flow (Current Analysis)
8/22/2008 ‐ 10/17/2013 Extended Record (Current Analysis)
8/22/2008 ‐ 5/9/2011 Data (2011 Feas. Study Analysis)
1984 ‐ 85 Data (2011 Feas. Study Analysis)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow is Equalled or ExceededJim's Lake Flow at Outlet8/22/2008 ‐ 10/17/2013 Gauged Flow (Current Analysis)
8/22/2008 ‐ 10/17/2013 Extended Record (Current Analysis)
8/22/2008 ‐ 5/9/2011 Data (2011 Feas. Study Analysis)
1984‐1985 Data (2011 Feas. Study Analysis)
Flow Duration Curves
Figures 6 and 7 present flow duration curves for the Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake sites.
The figures also show the 2011 Feasibility Study curves for comparison.
The current flow duration curves for Crooked Creek calculated from gauged flow and the
extended record are similar. Both current curves are lower than the estimated curve from
the 2011 Feasibility Study, and higher than the estimated curve from the 1984‐85 data.
Figure 6: Crooked Creek Flow Duration Curve, 2008 – 2013
The current flow duration curves for Jim’s Lake calculated from gauged flow and the
extended record are very similar, and also fall between the previous curves.
Figure 7: Jim’s Lake Outlet Flow Duration Curve, 2008 – 2013
P‐14514 – Initial Consultation Document – Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Attachments
ATTACHMENT E‐5
GEOMORPHOLOGY REPORT FOR CROOKED CREEK, JIM’S CREEK, AND JIM’S LAKE
P‐14514 – Initial Consultation Document – Exhibit E
Non‐Profit Community of Elfin Cove dba Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
August 6, 2014 Attachments
This page intentionally blank.
polarconsult alaska, inc.
1503 West 33rd Avenue, Suite 310
Anchorage, Alaska 99503-3638
Phone: (907) 258-2420
FAX: (907) 258-2419
L ETTER R EPORT
140728-GEOMORPHREPORT.DOC
DATE: July 28, 2014
TO: Project File
FROM: Joel Groves, PE
SUBJECT: Geomorphology of Crooked Creek, Jim’s Creek, and Jim’s Lake near Elfin Cove, Alaska
CC:
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This letter report describes the geomorphology of Crooked Creek, Jim’s Creek, and Jim’s Lake
near Elfin Cove, Alaska. This report has been prepared in support of a proposed micro
hydroelectric development on Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake to provide renewable electricity to
the community of Elfin Cove.
Crooked Creek, Jim’s Creek, and Jim’s Lake are located approximately one mile south of Elfin
Cove on the Inian Peninsula, part of the northwest coast of Chichagof Island in southeast
Alaska. Elfin Cove is located 70 air‐miles west of Juneau and 90 air‐miles north‐northwest of
Sitka at approximately 58.19° north latitude and 136.35° west longitude (Figure 1 and
Photograph 1). The project is located within the Tongass National Forest (TNF), which is
managed by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Hoonah Ranger District.
Using the fish stream classification criteria set forth in the TNF Land and Resource Management
Plan, Crooked Creek is a Class II stream to approximately 450 feet above tidewater, then a Class
III stream through the remainder of the project area. Jim’s Creek is a Class IV stream for its
entire length.1
2.0 DATA SOURCES AND METHODS
Geomorphology for the project area is derived from the following data sources:
1. Stream plan, profiles and area topography are based on LiDAR survey of the project area
performed by Aerometric, Inc. in May 2010.
2. Stream bed sections, composition, and site photographs were measured, assessed, and
collected during multiple site visits conducted by Polarconsult and subconsultants
between 2009 and 2013 for this project.
3. Hydrology of Crooked Creek and Jim’s Creek is based on stream gauges maintained by
the Elfin Cove Utility Commission at the diversion site on Crooked Creek and at the
outlet of Jim’s Lake since 2008 to collect hydrology data for this project.
4. Bathymetry of Jim’s Lake is based on bathymetric surveys completed by Polarconsult in
July 2013. Bottom characterizations and vegetation extents are based on field
observations made in July 2009 and July 2013.
1 Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. U.S. Forest Service, January 2008. Page 4‐9.
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S C REEK G EOMORPHOLOGY L ETTER R EPORT
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S L AKE H YDROELECTRIC P ROJECT
E LFIN C OVE U TILITY C OMMISSION P OLARCONSULT A LASKA, I NC.
JULY 28, 2014 PAGE 2 OF 18
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Creek drain two adjacent northwest‐facing drainages. Jim’s Lake is
located within the Jim’s Creek basin (Figure 1). The Crooked Creek basin is 0.74 square miles in
area, and the Jim’s Creek basin is 0.12 square miles in area. Table 1 summarizes the area of
each basin and significant subbasins.
Table 1: Crooked Creek and Jim’s Creek Basin and Subbasin Areas
CROOKED CREEK
Subbasin Description Corresponding
Creek Reach
Subbasin Area
(Square Miles)
Subbasin
Area
(Acres)
Percentage of
Basin Above
Fish Habitat
Subbasin Above Hydro Diversion Site 29+50 to headwater 0.56 360 76.4%
Mouth of Right Lateral Tributary to Hydro
Diversion Site 12+85 to 29+50 0.08 53 11.2%
Right Lateral Tributary Subbasin 12+85 0.08 49 10.5%
Limit of Fish Habitat to Right Lateral
Tributary Mouth 2+50 to 12+85 0.01 9.2 1.9%
Tidewater to Limit of Fish Habitat 0+00 to 2+50 0.00 1.7 ‐
TOTAL BASIN AREA 0.74 474 ‐
JIM’S CREEK
Subbasin Description Corresponding
Creek Reach
Subbasin Area
(Square Miles)
Subbasin
Area
(Acres)
Percentage of
Total Basin
Subbasin Tributary to Lake NA 0.09 57 74.4%
Lake NA 0.008 5.0 6.5%
Mouth of Right Lateral Tributary to Lake
Outlet 11+65 to 19+16 0.009 5.5 7.2%
Right Lateral Tributary Subbasin 11+65 0.005 3.3 4.4%
Tidewater to Right Lateral Tributary
Mouth 0+00 to 11+65 0.009 5.7 7.5%
TOTAL BASIN AREA 0.12 76 ‐
Drainage basins for both creeks are completely undeveloped and in natural condition. Only
primitive foot trails (game trails) occur within the project area. Both basins are predominately
vegetated by a mosaic of coastal temperate rainforest and wetland meadows. Exceptions are
the alpine headwaters of the Crooked Creek basin upstream of the proposed hydro diversion
site, which include approximately 131 acres of alpine tundra and barren rock, totaling
approximately 28% of the total Crooked Creek basin by area, and Jim’s Lake, which covers 6.5%
of the total Jim’s Creek basin by area.
3.1 Crooked Creek Geomorphology
Crooked Creek through the study reach is a perennial stream that in most areas flows in a well‐
defined channel. The minimum, median, and maximum discharge measured at the diversion
site gauging station are 0.1 cubic feet per second (cfs), 2.1 cfs, and 60 cfs respectively over a
2.6‐year period of record. Channel structure in many areas is strongly constrained by
topography and substrate. Large woody debris is abundant in the creek channel throughout
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S C REEK G EOMORPHOLOGY L ETTER R EPORT
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S L AKE H YDROELECTRIC P ROJECT
E LFIN C OVE U TILITY C OMMISSION P OLARCONSULT A LASKA, I NC.
JULY 28, 2014 PAGE 3 OF 18
the study reach. Crooked Creek geomorphology is described in sequence progressing from
upstream of the proposed diversion site downstream to the mouth at tidewater. The creek has
been divided into reaches of similar geomorphology. Creek stationing is approximate to the
nearest 50 feet. See Figure 2 for a plan and profile of the creek showing general creek
gradients and stationing.
Above Station 29+00
The proposed hydro diversion site on Crooked Creek will be at station 29+50, and the upstream
limit of foot surveys on Crooked Creek is approximately station 33+00. The creek in this reach
flows through a gorge several hundred feet deep with a floor roughly 80 feet wide. The floor is
roughly flat in section, with rugged topography characterized by very large boulders (to 20+
feet in size) partially buried in fluvial sediment (predominately boulders, cobbles and gravels).
Above 29+50, the creek flows down the gorge floor at an average 5.6% grade over a mixed
substrate of gravels and cobbles interspersed with boulders. A waterfall 3 to 5 feet high with a
plunge pool 3 feet deep occurs at approximately 32+00, where the creek flows over, through,
and under a jumble of boulders. Where the creek channel is not confined by large boulders,
the creek forms a riffle‐pool‐riffle sequence over a gravel/cobble substrate with the main
channel typically 5 to 15 feet wide and creek banks 6 to 12 inches deep (see Figure 3). Flood
events likely overflow these banks and spread across the valley floor. The creek channel
location in this reach appears to be stable, apparently confined to its current location by
boulders. Large woody debris (fallen tree trunks) creates occasional weirs that support
formation of downstream plunge pools 1 to 3 feet deep. See Photographs 2, 3 and 4.
Station 29+00 to 23+50
Starting at station 29+00, the creek exits this gorge and begins a cascade down a boulder field
at an average grade of 36%. This reach extends downstream to station 23+50. Boulders occur
to 10+ feet in size. Plunge pools and interstitial areas likely contain cobble and gravel
aggregates. The creek is not very incised, and the creek channel is poorly defined. Creek banks
are almost entirely defined by the flanks of slightly to partially buried boulders. The creek
channel may locally shift around boulders, but its general course is constrained by site
topography. See Photograph 5.
Station 23+50 to 20+00
At station 23+50, Crooked Creek enters a valley 20 to 40 feet deep with side slopes of 2:1 to 4:1
(horizontal to vertical ratio), and the creek grade decreases to 6%. Surficial geology in this
valley is characterized by an abundance of very large boulders (to 20+ feet in size), resulting in a
very porous forest floor with the organic mat often bridging over large voids and boulder
interstices. The creek flows through and under this boulder field, and the creek channel in this
reach is almost completely defined by flanks of boulders and interstitial voids between
boulders. Pools and interstitial areas between boulders contain cobbles and gravels. Stream
bed sections are highly variable due to the constraining geometry of the boulder field. The
creek bed is typically 5 to 10 feet wide, with pools to 4 feet deep.
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S C REEK G EOMORPHOLOGY L ETTER R EPORT
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S L AKE H YDROELECTRIC P ROJECT
E LFIN C OVE U TILITY C OMMISSION P OLARCONSULT A LASKA, I NC.
JULY 28, 2014 PAGE 4 OF 18
Station 20+00 to 10+00
At station 20+00, Crooked Creek’s grade decreases from 6% to 3.5% as the creek exits from the
boulder field and starts to flow across relatively level terrain with fewer large boulders. The
creek channel through this reach exhibits increasing sinuosity as it flows downstream, with a
maximum sinuosity of 1.4 from station 10+00 to 16+00. The typical channel section through
this reach is approximately 10 to 15 feet wide, and incised into the forest floor 2 to 5 feet (see
Figure 4). Banks are steeper than 1:1 at most locations, and at bends are typically undercut
with pools 2 to 3 feet deep. Bed substrate is predominately gravel, with occurrences of sand,
silt, or organic muck in backwater areas. See Photograph 6.
Station 10+00 to 3+00
The creek enters a bedrock gorge at 10+00 and begins a descent with an average grade of 30 to
50+%. The gorge is approximately 70 feet deep, with walls steeper than 100% (1:1). Some
vertical cliff faces occur along the gorge, predominately on the right (south) bank. The creek
channel along the floor of the gorge is constrained by bedrock outcrops and boulders, and
varies from 3 to 20 feet wide. The upper limit of fish habitat occurs at a waterfall along the
lower end of this reach at approximately 4+50. See Photograph 7.
Station 3+00 to 1+00
At 3+00, Crooked Creek is still within the gorge, but the floor of the gorge transitions from
predominately bedrock to predominately boulders and cobbles. The grade decreases to
approximately 18%, and the floor of the gorge widens to 20 to 40 feet. The height of typical
cascades and waterfalls decreases to 2 to 3 feet, and pools become more abundant. The creek
channel is typically braided in cascade sequences, exiting from a pool at multiple locations
before reconverging at the next large pool downstream.
Station 1+00 to mouth at tidewater
Crooked Creek emerges from the gorge just above the start of the intertidal zone. Beach
substrate is boulders with some cobbles. The creek flows through the boulders and cobbles of
the intertidal zone at an 8% grade. There is no defined channel in this reach. See Photographs
8, 9 and 10.
3.2 Jim’s Creek Geomorphology
Jim’s Creek is a perennial stream that flows in a well‐defined channel. The minimum, median,
and maximum discharge measured at the lake outlet gauging station are 0.0 cfs, 0.4 cfs, and
17.4 cfs respectively over a 4.2‐year period of record. Channel structure in many areas is
strongly constrained by topography and substrate. Large woody debris is abundant throughout
the study reach. Jim’s Creek geomorphology is described in sequence, progressing from the
outlet of Jim’s Lake downstream to the mouth at tidewater. The creek has been divided into
reaches of similar geomorphology. Creek stationing is approximate to the nearest 50 feet. See
Figure 2 for a plan and profile of the creek showing general creek gradients and stationing.
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S C REEK G EOMORPHOLOGY L ETTER R EPORT
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S L AKE H YDROELECTRIC P ROJECT
E LFIN C OVE U TILITY C OMMISSION P OLARCONSULT A LASKA, I NC.
JULY 28, 2014 PAGE 5 OF 18
Station 19+16 to 19+00
The creek exits from Jim’s Lake at station 19+16. The creek bed in this reach is at a grade of 8%,
consisting of a riffle‐pool‐riffle sequence. The creek bed is isolated cobbles and gravels resting
on weathered bedrock, and is incised approximately 3 or 4 feet into the surrounding forest
floor. The creek channel is approximately 5 feet wide with vegetated sideslopes of 2:1 to 1:1.
The high water mark is located on the lower portion of these sideslopes. See Photograph 11.
Station 19+00 to 14+00
At 19+00, Jim’s Creek enters a gorge with a grade of 16 to 26%. The gorge is approximately 30
feet deep with typical sideslopes of 0.6:1. Few bedrock outcrops occur on the sidewalls, which
are mostly vegetated with brush and non‐woody plants. The floor of the gorge is 5 to 15 feet
wide. The creek flows down a series of waterfalls, cascades, and pools over weathered bedrock
with some woody debris, cobble, and boulders. See Photographs 12 and 13.
Station 14+00 to 11+00
At 14+00, Jim’s Creek exits this gorge onto relatively level terrain, flowing at a grade of 7.5%.
The creek channel through this reach exhibits increasing sinuosity as it flows downstream, with
a maximum sinuosity of 1.2 from station 11+00 to 12+00. The typical channel section through
this reach is approximately 5 to 10 feet wide, and is incised 1 to 3 feet into the forest floor (see
Figure 5). Some creek banks are steepened by vegetation growth overhanging pools 1 to 2 feet
deep. Bed substrate is predominately gravel, with occurrences of sand, silt, or organic muck in
backwater areas.
Station 11+00 to 8+50
At 11+00, Jim’s Creek leaves level terrain and drops down a bedrock chute at a grade of 53% for
approximately 50 feet. The creek continues at a grade of 20+% until 9+00. The creek bed
through this reach is a combination of bedrock chutes, waterfalls, cascades, and plunge pools.
See Photograph 14.
Station 8+50 to 3+50
At 8+50, Jim’s Creek emerges onto another area of relatively level terrain with channel grades
of 4.5 to 11%. The channel through this reach is typically 5 to 10 feet wide, and is incised
approximately 4 to 6 feet into the surrounding terrain. The creek substrate is a combination of
bedrock, boulders, cobbles and gravels. There are a few bedrock locations that result in short
rock chutes or cascades 4 to 8 feet tall. Channel structure is cascade‐pool‐cascade through
most of this reach, with a few pool‐riffle‐pool structures present in low‐gradient reaches.
Station 3+50 to 1+50
At 3+50, Jim’s Creek enters another steep reach. The creek descends at grades of 22 to 38%
with a channel structure of cascades, pools, and rock chutes. The channel is incised
approximately 15 feet into the surrounding terrain, and is 1 to 5 feet wide through this reach.
Substrate is mostly bedrock, with cobbles, gravels and woody debris present in pools and other
areas.
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S C REEK G EOMORPHOLOGY L ETTER R EPORT
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S L AKE H YDROELECTRIC P ROJECT
E LFIN C OVE U TILITY C OMMISSION P OLARCONSULT A LASKA, I NC.
JULY 28, 2014 PAGE 6 OF 18
Station 1+50 to mouth at tidewater
At 1+50, Jim’s Creek emerges onto the head of the beach. The beach in this area is mostly
cobbles with some boulders/bedrock and some gravels. Grade is 2 to 8%, increasing as the
creek travels down the beach into the intertidal zone. The creek does not have a defined
channel in this area, and flows over/through the beach substrate. See Photographs 15 and 16.
3.3 Jim’s Lake Geomorphology
Jim’s Lake has a surface area of 5 acres, normal surface elevation of 337 feet above mean sea
level (MSL), and maximum depth of approximately 26 feet at the northern end of the main
body of the lake (see Figure 6). The lake is approximately 750 feet long in the north‐south
direction, and 250 feet wide in the east‐west direction, with an arm extending approximately
250 feet to the northwest that ends at the outlet to Jim’s Creek. Three apparently perennial
minor drainages discharge into the lake: one at the north end, one at the south end, and one
about midway along the east shore.
3.3.1 Lake Bed
The lake bed was assessed visually and with a 12‐foot metal tape measure used as a probe
during bathymetric surveys.
The lake occupies a single basin. The north half of the basin is 15 to 20 feet deep generally and
26 feet deep at its deepest point. The south half of the basin is shallower, generally 12 feet
deep, with a fairly sharp and steep transition between the two halves. The northwest arm is 4
to 8 feet deep, dropping off to the main basin floor where it joins the main body of the lake.
The small northeast bay is nearly filled with fine alluvial sediment from the northern tributary.
The south end of the main basin is partially filled with fine sediment from the southern
tributary. Where probed, the bottom of the main basin was found to have a very soft sediment
layer typically about one foot thick.
‐ Lake bed in the northwest arm was visually determined to be angular cobbles, likely
overlying bedrock at shallow depth.
‐ Near‐shore lake bed along the north shore was visually determined to be rock (at the
cliffs) and angular cobbles elsewhere.
‐ Lake bed in the northeast bay was visually determined to be fine alluvial deposits.
‐ Near‐shore lake bed along the east shore was visually determined to be angular cobbles.
‐ Lake bed along the south shore was visually determined to be fine alluvial deposits.
‐ Lake bottom in the south half of the lake was generally soft, with the probe advancing
approximately 1 foot to refusal.
‐ Near‐shore lake bed along the west shore was visually determined to be angular
cobbles.
‐ Lake bottom in the north half of the lake away from shore was not assessed.
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S C REEK G EOMORPHOLOGY L ETTER R EPORT
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S L AKE H YDROELECTRIC P ROJECT
E LFIN C OVE U TILITY C OMMISSION P OLARCONSULT A LASKA, I NC.
JULY 28, 2014 PAGE 7 OF 18
3.3.2 Shoreline
The existing shoreline is described starting at the outlet to Jim’s Creek and proceeding in a
clock‐wise direction around the lake. Total shoreline length is approximately 2,575 feet
(Photograph 17).
North Shore of Northwest Arm of Lake (Jim’s Creek to Cliffs)
Substrate along this approximately 250‐foot long reach of shore is very angular cobbles and
large woody debris. Weathered bedrock is visible in the bed of Jim’s Creek approximately ten
feet downstream of the lake outlet, and may be present at shallow depths along the lake shore
as well. Upland slope is approximately 2:1. Upland slopes are vegetated by deciduous shrubs
and non‐woody plants immediately proximate to the lake shore, transitioning to conifers
farther inland. The lake is less than 8 feet deep in this area and is colonized by yellow pond
lilies.
North Lake Shore (Cliffs)
Cliffs are present for approximately 100 feet along the north end of the lake. The cliffs are 10
to 20 feet tall above the lake surface, at an overall 0.5:1 slope with local vertical and
overhanging faces that are mostly unvegetated. Bathymetric surveys indicate the cliffs
continue below the lake surface for approximately 8 feet, and then the lake bottom levels out
at a depth of 7 to 8 feet. There is little aquatic or upland vegetation along the shoreline in this
area. The colony of yellow pond lilies present in the northwest arm ends near the western end
of these cliffs.
North Lake Shore (Cliffs to Start of North Tributary Alluvial Fan)
Substrate along this approximately 150‐foot long reach of shore is very angular cobbles or rock
and large woody debris. Upland slope is approximately 2.5:1. Upland slopes are vegetated by
deciduous shrubs immediately proximate to the lake shore, transitioning to conifers farther
inland.
North Lake Shore (North Tributary Alluvial Fan)
This approximately 250‐foot long reach of shore traces a small bay inset approximately 80 feet
into the northeast shore of the lake. Substrate along this approximately 250‐foot long reach of
shore is fine sediment likely deposited by the lake’s north tributary. Upland slope ranges from
1 to 15% depending on location on the alluvial fan and proximity to lateral terrain. Vegetation
along the shoreline at the head of this bay is grasses and sedges, transitioning to brush and
shrubs farther from shore. Lake depth within the bay is approximately 2 feet, and the bay is
occupied by yellow pond lilies.
East Lake Shore
This approximately 350‐foot long reach of shore is very angular cobbles and large woody debris.
Typical upland slope is approximately 2:1, steepening to 1.2:1 about 20 feet from the shoreline
and beyond. This slope continues to a 600+‐foot elevation ridge that divides the Jim’s Creek
and Crooked Creek basins. Upland slopes are vegetated by deciduous shrubs immediately
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S C REEK G EOMORPHOLOGY L ETTER R EPORT
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S L AKE H YDROELECTRIC P ROJECT
E LFIN C OVE U TILITY C OMMISSION P OLARCONSULT A LASKA, I NC.
JULY 28, 2014 PAGE 8 OF 18
proximate to the lake shore, transitioning to conifers farther inland. Near‐shore bathymetry
indicates the upland slope continues into the lake and down to the main basin of the lake. The
grade decreases with depth, transitioning from 2:1 near‐shore to 10:1 along the basin floor.
The east tributary enters the lake midway along the east shore. This tributary has not
developed a significant alluvial fan at the lake shore. A significant portion of the tributary’s
sediment load is probably deposited onto the main basin of the lake bed below the water
surface.
South Lake Shore (South Tributary Alluvial Fan)
This approximately 450‐foot long reach of shore traces the south approximately 100 feet of the
lake. Substrate along this shore transitions from angular cobbles along the adjacent east and
west shores to fine sediment in the alluvial fan of the lake’s south tributary. Upland slope on
the alluvial fan ranges from 1 to 15% depending on location on the fan and proximity to lateral
terrain. Upland vegetation is grasses and sedges transitioning to brush and shrubs farther from
shore. Lake depth within this area transitions from 8 feet at the north end to 2 feet near the
south shore. Much of this area is 3‐4 feet deep. The south end of the lake is occupied by
yellow pond lilies.
West Lake Shore
Substrate along this approximately 750‐foot long reach of shore is very angular cobbles with
some large woody debris. Typical upland slope is approximately 1:1, continuing 15 to 40 feet
above the lake to a local ridge within the Jim’s Creek basin. No established drainages occur
along this shore. Upland slopes are vegetated by a mix of deciduous brush and conifer
trees/shrubs immediately proximate to the lake shore, transitioning to predominantly conifers
farther inland. There is a narrow shelf that runs along the shoreline at a depth of 1 to 2 feet
and that is typically 2 to 10 feet wide. Beyond this shelf, the lake bed drops off at 1:1 down to
the main basin of the lake at 12+ feet deep.
South Shore of Northwest Arm of Lake
Substrate along this approximately 275‐foot long reach of shore is very angular cobbles with
some large woody debris. Weathered bedrock is visible in the bed of Jim’s Creek within
approximately 10 feet of the lake shore, and may be present at shallow depths along the lake
shore in this area as well. Upland slope is approximately 2:1. Upland slopes are vegetated by
deciduous shrubs immediately proximate to the lake shore, transitioning to conifers farther
inland. Wetland bogs also occur within 20 feet of the shore in some areas. These bogs appear
to drain away from the lake. The lake is less than 8 feet deep in this area and is colonized by
yellow pond lilies.
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S C REEK G EOMORPHOLOGY L ETTER R EPORT
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S L AKE H YDROELECTRIC P ROJECT
E LFIN C OVE U TILITY C OMMISSION P OLARCONSULT A LASKA, I NC.
JULY 28, 2014 PAGE 9 OF 18
Figure 1: Project Location Map and Drainage Basins / Sub‐basins
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S C REEK G EOMORPHOLOGY L ETTER R EPORT
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S L AKE H YDROELECTRIC P ROJECT
E LFIN C OVE U TILITY C OMMISSION P OLARCONSULT A LASKA, I NC.
JULY 28, 2014 PAGE 10 OF 18
Figure 2: Plan and Profile of Crooked Creek and Jim’s Creek
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S C REEK G EOMORPHOLOGY L ETTER R EPORT
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S L AKE H YDROELECTRIC P ROJECT
E LFIN C OVE U TILITY C OMMISSION P OLARCONSULT A LASKA, I NC.
JULY 28, 2014 PAGE 11 OF 18
Figures 3, 4, 5: Typical Creek Sections
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S C REEK G EOMORPHOLOGY L ETTER R EPORT
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S L AKE H YDROELECTRIC P ROJECT
E LFIN C OVE U TILITY C OMMISSION P OLARCONSULT A LASKA, I NC.
JULY 28, 2014 PAGE 12 OF 18
Figure 6: Jim’s Lake Geomorphology
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S C REEK G EOMORPHOLOGY L ETTER R EPORT
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S L AKE H YDROELECTRIC P ROJECT
E LFIN C OVE U TILITY C OMMISSION P OLARCONSULT A LASKA, I NC.
JULY 28, 2014 PAGE 13 OF 18
Photograph 1: Oblique Aerial View of Crooked Creek and Jim’s Creek Basins
Photographs 2 & 3: Crooked Creek station 29+00 to 34+00
Jim’s Lake
(North)
3: Crooked Creek flowing through
jumble of large boulders (~32+00)
2: Crooked Creek flowing over
cobble/gravel substrate (~30+00)
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S C REEK G EOMORPHOLOGY L ETTER R EPORT
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S L AKE H YDROELECTRIC P ROJECT
E LFIN C OVE U TILITY C OMMISSION P OLARCONSULT A LASKA, I NC.
JULY 28, 2014 PAGE 14 OF 18
Photographs 4, 5, 6, 7: Crooked Creek Station 4+50 to 29+00
Photograph 4: Crooked Creek at gauging
station looking downstream (~29+50)
Photograph 6: Crooked Creek tributary
above confluence at 12+85. Channel and
morphology are similar to Crooked Creek
in this reach (~10+00 to ~20+00).
Photograph 5: Crooked Creek flowing
down boulder field (~27+00)
Photograph 7: Fish barrier waterfall on
Crooked Creek at ~4+50.
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S C REEK G EOMORPHOLOGY L ETTER R EPORT
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S L AKE H YDROELECTRIC P ROJECT
E LFIN C OVE U TILITY C OMMISSION P OLARCONSULT A LASKA, I NC.
JULY 28, 2014 PAGE 15 OF 18
Photographs 8, 9, 10: Crooked Creek from Station 4+50 to Tidewater
Photograph 9: Crooked
Creek flowing through
upper end of intertidal at
~0+50, looking upstream.
Photograph 10: Crooked Creek flowing
down beach substrate into Port Althorp.
Photograph 8: Crooked Creek emerging
from gorge at ~1+00, looking upstream.
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S C REEK G EOMORPHOLOGY L ETTER R EPORT
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S L AKE H YDROELECTRIC P ROJECT
E LFIN C OVE U TILITY C OMMISSION P OLARCONSULT A LASKA, I NC.
JULY 28, 2014 PAGE 16 OF 18
Photographs 11, 12, 13, 14: Jim’s Creek from Station 19+16 to 10+00
Photograph 11: Jim’s Lake looking east from outlet.
Jim’s Creek starts in immediate foreground.
Photograph 12: Jim’s Creek at upper end of gorge
below Jim’s Lake at ~18+50.
Photograph 14: Rock chute
on Jim’s Creek at ~10+00.
Photograph 13: Jim’s Creek at lower end of gorge
below Jim’s Lake at ~15+00.
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S C REEK G EOMORPHOLOGY L ETTER R EPORT
C ROOKED C REEK AND J IM’S L AKE H YDROELECTRIC P ROJECT
E LFIN C OVE U TILITY C OMMISSION P OLARCONSULT A LASKA, I NC.
JULY 28, 2014 PAGE 17 OF 18
Photographs 15 and 16: Jim’s Creek at Intertidal Zone
Photograph 16: Jim’s Creek flowing
down beach substrate to Port Althorp.
Photograph 15: Jim’s Creek
emerging onto beach at ~1+50.
CROOKED CREEK AND JIM’S CREEK GEOMORPHOLOGY LETTER REPORT CROOKED CREEK AND JIM’S LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ELFIN COVE UTILITY COMMISSION POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. JULY 28, 2014 PAGE 18 OF 18 Photograph 17: Jim’s Lake looking East‐Northeast from West Shore Cliffs North tributary alluvial fan withyellowpondliliesYellow pond lilies at westendofarm
P ‐14514: CROOKED CREEK AND JIM'S LAKE
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
INITIAL CONSULTATION DOCUMENT
EXHIBIT F – PROJECT DRAWINGS
AUGUST 6, 2014
ELFIN COVE UTILITY COMMISSION
PO BOX 2
ELFIN COVE, ALASKA 99825
DIVERSION SPILLWAY ELEVATION
OPERATING MODE
OPERATING MODE
MAXIMUM RESERVOIR ELEVATION
TURBINE
TURBINE
PERMITTING DRAWINGSNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
PERMITTING DRAWINGSNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
PERMITTING DRAWINGSNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
PERMITTING DRAWINGSNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
PERMITTING DRAWINGSNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
PERMITTING DRAWINGSNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
PERMITTING DRAWINGSNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
PERMITTING DRAWINGSNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
PERMITTING DRAWINGSNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
PERMITTING DRAWINGSNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
PERMITTING DRAWINGSNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
PERMITTING DRAWINGSNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
PERMITTING DRAWINGSNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
P ‐14514: CROOKED CREEK AND JIM'S LAKE
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
INITIAL CONSULTATION DOCUMENT
EXHIBIT G – MAP OF PROJECT AND BOUNDARY
AUGUST 6, 2014
ELFIN COVE UTILITY COMMISSION
PO BOX 2
ELFIN COVE, ALASKA 99825
DIVERSION SPILLWAY ELEVATION
OPERATING MODE
OPERATING MODE
MAXIMUM RESERVOIR ELEVATION
TURBINE
TURBINE
Elfin Cove, Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Round 8
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project AEA RFA 15003
Design and Permitting Grant Application Supporting Documents
ATTACHMENT G.5
U.S. FOREST SERVICE SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLN. (JUNE 26, 2014)
Elfin Cove, Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Round 8
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project AEA RFA 15003
Design and Permitting Grant Application Supporting Documents
ATTACHMENT G.6
ADNR WATER RIGHTS APPLICATION (JUNE 26, 2014)
Elfin Cove, Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Round 8
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project AEA RFA 15003
Design and Permitting Grant Application Supporting Documents
ATTACHMENT G.7
FISHERIES SURVEY REPORT (JULY 30, 2013)
Technical Report No. 13-08
_________________________________________________________________________________________
A Fisheries Survey of Crooked and Jim’s Creeks and Jim’s Lake on Chichagof Island
near Elfin Cove, Alaska
by
Bruce M Barrett
July 2013
______________________________________________________________________
Alaska Biological Consulting
PO Box 322
Lakeside, MT 59922-0322
Tel: 406-844-3453
E-mail: alaskabiol@yahoo.com
1
INTRODUCTION
In June 2009, Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. was authorized by the Non-Profit Community of Elfin Cove to
complete a reconnaissance and feasibility analysis of potential hydropower resources for Elfin Cove. The
study, completed in 2011, identified Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake and Roy’s Creek as potentially suitable
project sites (Polarconsult 2011). The community has since chosen Crooked and Jim’s creeks and in
accordance has employed Polarconsult to conduct further analyses and design work in addition to permitting
the project which necessitates cataloging the environmental resources that may be impacted.
The hydropower development being considered would entail diverting up to 5 cfs of flow from Crooked
Creek at approximately mile 0.55 (Figure 1) into Jim's Lake, and developing a hydropower project between
Jim's Lake and Little Sandy Beach, utilizing Jim's Lake as a storage reservoir and an access and power line
corridor to Elfin Cove.
The purpose of this report is to define the fisheries resources that occur within the project area which
includes Jim’s Lake and Jim’s and Crooked creeks located on the west side of Chichagof Island about two
miles south of Elfin Cove (Figure 1). Also addressed is the fisheries impact that can be expected with stream
flow and diversion and lake level and volume changes from the proposed hydroelectric project.
OBJECTIVES
1. Determine fish distribution and relative abundance by species in Jim’s Lake and Crooked and Jim’s
creeks by species.
2. Determine average fish size by species in the study area.
3. Describe the general habitat characteristics of Jim’s Lake, and Crooked and Jim’s creeks.
4. Define the expected impact to area fisheries resources should the proposed hydro project be built,
and recommend mitigation options to the extent necessary to ensure no net loss of area fisheries
production/resources.
METHODS
The study area was Jim’s Lake and Jim’s and Crooked creeks (Figure 1). Jim’s Creek in its entirety was
sampled along with Jim’s Lake, while Crooked Creek was sampled from intertidal to a gauging station located
0.55 miles upstream.
Four standard minnow traps were fished in Jim’s Lake, five in Jim’s Creek, and seven in Crooked Creek (Figure
2). Soak time ranged from 15 to 25 hrs. For Jim’s Lake, the average was 19 hrs., Jim’s Creek 21 hrs., and
Crooked Creek 20 hrs. The traps were baited with disinfected sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) roe
treated by a 10-m soak time in 1/100 Betadyne. One cut section of roe (20-25 g) wrapped in cheesecloth
was used in each trap. In streams the traps were fished in pools with the axis parallel to the current, and
each trap was anchored by one or two cobbles placed inside the trap. At Jim’s Lake each minnow trap was
weighted by a single cobble and fished off shore at an average 5 ft. depth. All traps were securely tied to
substrate by line and the line marked with survey tape to prevent loss.
Additionally at Jim’s Lake, two seine hauls were made using a hand seine measuring 20 ft. x 4 ft. with ¼ mesh
web. The sets were made off the western end of the lake with each haul covering about 800 square feet of
surface area. At Jim’s Lake a gill net was also deployed and fished for 5 ¼ hrs. nearly midway off the lake’s
west side. The net was set perpendicular from the shore to beyond the lake’s midpoint and anchored in 20+
ft. of water (Figure 3). The gill net measured 100 ft. by 8 ft., and mesh size was 1 inch.
2
Originally, hand seining was also intended for Jim’s and Crooked creeks, however the relatively narrow width
and shallowness of the streams coupled with small pool sizes and in-stream materials (logs) precluded
effective seining.
All fish sampling efforts in the two streams and the lake using minnow traps, seine gear, and a gill net were
authorized by Fish Resource Permit # SF 2013-231 as issued by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
(ADFG).
Hook and line sampling was also conducted at Jim’s Lake. Slightly more than one hour was fished using
spinning gear and small lures (Mepps # 1’s and 2’s) and effected under ADF&G SF license 3770183 2013
AAO1.
All stream and lake minnow trap sites and the lake gillnetting location were identified by GPS, and
photographs were taken of representative fishing gear locations and catch.
Pursuant to the terms of the ADFG fish sampling permit, 8 hrs. of minnow trapping coupled with one hour of
hook and line sampling were required prior to the use of the gill net in Jim’s Lake. Further encumbering was
the provision that the gill net could not be used if the other gear produced any game fish other than Dolly
Varden (Salvelinus malma) or cutthroat trout (Salmo clarki clarki). These terms were met along with the
restriction that the net be constantly monitored to minimize incidental fish, bird, and mammal mortalities
and not soaked for more than 12 hrs.
All fish captured were identified by species in accordance with Pacific Fishes of Canada (1973), measured (tip-
of-snout to fork-of-tail, mm), and released alive. The exception was that the largest fish captured was
necropsied for sexual maturity.
Opportunistically throughout the course of the field work, visual inspections were conducted in the study
waters for fish presence with special attention given to stream slack water areas and pools and to lake
shallow areas.
RESULTS
The fish sampling findings are presented in Tables 1-4. Photographs not referenced in text of Jim’s Lake and
several of the minnow trapping locations in Crooked and Jim’s creeks and of the fish migration barrier 50 yds.
above MHHW on Jim’s Creek are provided in Appendices A-1 through A-7.
At Jim’s Lake, gillnetting, hook and line, seining, and minnow trapping efforts produced no fish (Table 1,
Figure 2). The same was the finding in visual monitoring of the lake’s shallows and of fish potentially rising
and/or jumping at the lake’s surface.
In Jim’s Creek which was minnow trapped from the intertidal to within about 100 yd. of the lake outlet with
five traps, no fish were caught nor were any visually observed during the four days of study (Table 2, Figure
2). In the lower stream reach immediately above the intertidal, there were but two pools both relatively
small averaging each about 8 inches deep. The first pool was about 30 yds. above the intertidal zone, while
the second was another 20 yds. upstream. At the head of the second pool which was about 50 yds.
upstream of MHHW a series of 3-4 ft. high waterfalls and a stream slope of about 30-35% began posing a
formable barrier to upstream fish passage.
At Crooked Creek, Dolly Varden (DV) were caught at two locations in the stream’s lower reach within 150
yds. of the intertidal zone. In the lower reach three relatively small pools were considered suitable for
3
minnow trap deployment. The first and the third were fished, and a total of 8 DV were captured, three in the
pool closest to tidewater and five upstream in a pool at the base of an 8 ft. high waterfall and the beginning
of a fish impassible gorge with about a 40% slope and a series of nearly continuous waterfalls. The DV
caught in the upper trap averaged significantly larger than those taken in the lower trap. (t stat. 4.54, P
0.0019, df=6). In the former DV averaged 12.9 cm FL and in the latter 11.0 cm (Table 4). The largest DV
(13.7cm FL) in the second trap catch was a sexually mature male (Figure 6).
In the upper reach of Crooked Creek, above the gorge which started about 150 yds. above the intertidal
zone, five minnow traps were set (Figure 2). The first was deployed in the first fishable pool above the gorge
and the last at the gauging station approximately 0.3 miles upstream (Figure 2). None of the five traps
produced any catch (Table 3). Above the gorge no fish were seen in the pools and relatively slack water
areas examined.
From the gorge in Crooked Creek to about 60 yds. upstream of trap site C-6, the streambed gradient ranges
from 0.5 to 1% and the streambed is mostly cobble followed by gravel. In this reach the stream channel is
well shaded by canopy cover and blow down, and relatively heavily seeded with large woody in-stream
material (logs) (Table 3). Between trap sites C-6 and C-7, encompassing about a 500 ft. stream reach,
average gradient is approximately 30%. From below trap site C-6 to above C-7 Crooked Creek flows through
a rubble field formed from past mass-wasting events spawned from the cliffs to the immediate east, and the
stream bed varies from sands and gravels to house-sized boulders.
In the intertidal for both Jim’s Creek and Crooked Creek there were no areas found suitable for hand seining
or minnow trapping (Figures 7-8). In the intertidal areas of both, the beach had about 15 degree slope, and
the dominant substrates at Jim’s were cobble at 75% and boulders 25%, while at Crooked Creek boulders
were about 80% and cobble 20%. Gravel represented less than 1% at both. Average water depth was about
one inch on Jim’s Creek and 3-4 inches for Crooked Creek in the intertidal. Neither stream had a defined
channel as their flows tended to spread laterally across the intertidal through relatively loose materials
(cobbles and boulders). Both streams were moderately exposed to open ocean sea/weather conditions.
Although some locals from Elfin Cove refer to the area as “Little Sandy Beach,” no sand was visible during the
survey period (7/15-18/2013). There was no recognizable fin fish habitat found within the intertidal of Jim’s
Creek or Crooked Creek.
DISCUSSION
Jim’s Lake and Jim’s Creek were found to be void of all fish life based on the assessment methods employed
from July 15-18, 2013. Likewise Crooked Creek was determined to support no fish with exception of the
stream’s lower reach immediately above MHHW, in the first 150 yds.
The relatively small number of DV found to occupy lower Crooked Creek were likely non-anadromous,
resident fish based on the lengths of the eight caught and the finding that one was sexually mature at 13.7
cm (5.4 inches). This aligns with the finding of Hart (1973) that anadromous DV maturation occurs in the
ocean and return migrations take place in the fall after spending 2 or more years at sea.
Given the limited habitat in the lower reach of Crooked Creek and general trap effectiveness, it is probable
that not many more DV occupied the 150 yd. reach from intertidal to the gorge than the eight taken in the
combined 38.2 trap hrs. fished. Further, given the fish length differences measured between the two trap
catches, it would appear that segregation may be occurring with the smallest DV occupying the lower pool
and the largest the upper pool at the start of a fish-impassable gorge (Figure 9). This could be indicative of
poor recruitment success and limited rearing and/or spawning habitat.
4
While not occupied by fish, Jim’s Creek would likely support small resident DV if access were not limited just
above intertidal by a 100 ft. steep reach of stream channel containing a series of waterfalls and about a 40%
grade. In Jim’s Creek’s upper reach, the several minnow trap sites fished had relatively low gradient (<1%),
good cover, stability, and insect life for feed. Jim’s Lake which has 20+ ft. depths, macro aquatic vegetation
(lily pads), and supports terrestrial and aquatic insect life offers fisheries habitat, but it too is not colonized by
fish as determined from the July 15-16, 2013 sampling efforts there. Although also found not to be occupied
by any fish life, the upper reach of Crooked Creek above the gorge which begins just above intertidal appears
to be better fisheries habitat than upper Jim’s Creek due to lower gradient and greater stream length and
width as well as ample cover, spawning gravel, and macro invertebrate production.
From the observation of the intertidal areas of Crooked and Jim’s creeks coupled with their lower reaches it
is apparent that neither offer habitat for salmon or other anadromous fish. This aligns with ADFG’s omission
of both streams from their Catalog of Waters important for Spawning, Rearing, and Migration of
Anadromous Fishes (2012).
Relative to the proposed hydro project, calling for diversion of Crooked Creek through a pipeline into Jim’s
Lake and a penstock from Jim’s Lake to a powerhouse sited within a 100 yds. of Little Sandy Beach, little to no
adverse impact to area fisheries can be expected. The few DV that occupy Crooked Creek just above the
intertidal zone should not be displaced. This is because stream flow, albeit reduced, will be maintained by a
lateral right-side tributary entering Crooked Creek approximately ¼ mile below the proposed diversion
structure to Jim’s Lake and by main stem watershed contribution below the proposed hydro diversion site
(Figure 10). The tributary should maintain about 11% of the current main stem flow in Crooked Creek (Joel
Groves P.E., pers.com., 7/7/13). This coupled with flow off the 65 acres of watershed downstream of the
diversion point, adding an estimated 13%, should ensure that about 24% of the current flow regime is
maintained. Some benefit may be derived from reduced flows if it lessens flood damages to fish spawning
habitat and permits more accumulation of stream bed gravels for spawning area where currently bedrock,
boulders, and large cobble only show. Expectedly, the power house discharge will offer some fisheries
habitat at least sufficient to compensate for any losses that may occur in lower Crooked Creek due to flow
reduction.
LITERATURE CITED
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2008, updated 2012. Catalog of waters important for spawning,
rearing, and migration of anadromous fishes, ADF&G, Sport Fish Div., Juneau, AK.
Hart, J.L. 1973. Pacific Fishes of Canada. Bull. 180; Fish. Res. Bd. Canada.
Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. 2011. Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Feasibility Study Final Report.
Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. Anchorage, AK.
5
Table 1. Fish catch by gear type and location at Jim's Lake near Elfin Cove, AK, July 15-16, 2013.
Method LOCATION DATE TIME CATCH (fish #'s)
MISC. NOTES
Dolly Varden other
Minnow N 58° 10.585 7/15/2013 1604 hrs.Trap set 20 ft. offshore at 3 ft. depth.
Trap W 136° 19.561 Air: 68 F; water 62 F; lilly pads in western end of lake.
L-1 7/16/2013 1124 hrs. 0 0 1- one inch water beetle in trap
Minnow N 58° 10.582 7/15/2013 1635 hrs.Trap set 15 yds. offshore at 6 ft. depth.
Trap W 136° 19.522 West wind: <5mph; light overcast
L-2 7/16/2013 1158 hrs. 0 0 South shore set; I dragon fly larvae in trap
Minnow N 58° 10.558 7/15/2013 1725 hrs.Trap set 3yds. offshore at 8 ft. depth.
Trap W 136° 19.517 Air 64 F, water 62 F; steep drop-off from shore.
L-3 7/16/2013 1235 hrs. 0 0 Southside shore set; insect hatch moderate
Minnow N 58° 10.499 7/15/2013 1747 hrs.Trap set 3yds. offshore at 3 ft. depth.
Trap W 136° 19.486 Site approx. 150yds from east end of lake off south shore.
L-4 7/16/2013 1310 hrs. 0 0 Dense shoreline growth: alder, cedar & spruce trees, and blue berry bushes
Hook & Line L-1 thru L-3 7/15/2013 1615 hrs.South shore spin casting using #1 and #2 Mepps spinners, silver & gold
Trap sites 1720 hrs.Casts were 45+ yds.; 2/3 south shoreline fished.
Hand Seine Trap L-2 to 7/16/2013 1130 hrs.-Seine 25 ft. X 4 ft., 1/4" mesh
lake's west end 1147hrs. 0 0 2 hauls made; no catch other than 1 water beetle
beyond L-1
Gill Net N 58° 10.558 7/16/2013
1235 hrs.-Net set off minnow trap site L-3; extending perpendicular to shoreline
W 136° 19.517 1750 hrs. 0 0 Net extended beyond 1/2 lake width; offshore end at 20+ ft. lake depth
No waterfowl or water-use mammals observed
Gill net: 100ft X 8 ft. 1 inch mesh; total time fished: 5 h 10 min.
Lakeshore veg.: cedar, alder, willow, blue berry & spruce
Table 2. Fish catch by species with a standard minnow trap by location in Jim's Creek near Elfin Cove, AK, July 16-18, 2013.
TRAP LOCATION DATE TIME CATCH ( fish #'s)
NOTES
#Dolly Varden OTHER
J-1 N 58° 10.637 7/17/2013 1540 hrs.Air: 61F; water 55F; elev. 20 ft. above MHHW;1st fishable pool above MHHW;
W 136° 20.025 35-40% gravel; fractured bed rock & boulders (60%); 3-4 ft. high series of
7/18/2013 0950 hrs. 0 0 waterfalls; pool 30 yds. above MHHW.
J-2 N 58° 10.577 7/17/2013 1505 hrs.Avg. pool depth 16"; stream width 4.5 ft.; stream under cut bank; pool
W 136 19.880 7/18/2013
0955 hrs. 0 0 immediately below 5 ft. waterfall; pool 3.5 x 5 ft.
J-3 N 58 10.586 7/17/2013 1445 hrs.1/2% grade; gravel bed.
W 136° 19.771 7/18/2013
1005 hrs. 0 0
J-4 N 58° 10.574 7/16/2013 1435 hrs.Stream width 4 ft. avg.; slope approx. 15%; macro-invertebrates <1/2
W 135° 19.685 7/17/2013
1415 hrs. 0 0 per cobble(n=10); 60% angular gravel (1") & 40% cobble (angular)
J-5 N 58° 10.562 7/16/2013 1308 hrs.Stream width 4 ft. avg.; pool depth max. 16"; 10% grade downstream
W 136° 19.610 Bed sharp angular cobble and gravel at approx. 50% each;
7/17/2013 1402 hrs. 0 0 20% grade above trap site& 10% below trap; air 58 F & water 61F.
6
Table 3. Fish catch by species with a standard minnow trap by location in Crooked Creek near Elfin Cove, AK, July 15-18, 2013.
TRAP LOCATION DATE TIME CATCH ( fish #'s)
MISC. NOTES
#Dolly Varden OTHER
C-1 N 58° 10.719 7/15/2013 1906 hrs.1st pool immediately above intertidal; at base of several waterfalls
W 136° 20.143 approx. 8ft. above MHHW; trap depth 18"; 20% slope upstream;
7/16/2013 0955 hrs. 3 0 air 62F & water 44.5F (7/16/2013).
C-2 N 58° 10.733 7/16/2013 1024 hrs.Approx. 2.25 macro. Invertebrates on 5-6" cobbles (n=20); boulders
W 136° 19.989 and bed rock dominate bed composition; no gravel; 20% slope
downstream; approx. 150 yds. above MHHW; 3ft avg. pool depth; pool
at base of 8ft. high waterfall w/ waterfalls continuing upstream thru gorge;
7/17/2013 0950 hrs. 5 0 slope upstream approx. 40%; largest DV (5.4" FL) sexually mature male.
C-3 N 58° 10.780 7/17/2013 1040 hrs.2nd pool immediately above gorge; approx. 25yds from top of gorge;
W 136° 19.820 slight 2-3% slope; stream width avg. 6ft. ; 85% cobble, 10% boulder, 5%
7/18/2013 1110 hrs. 0 0 gravel; air 52F & water 44.5F (7/17/2013)
C-4 N 58° 10.784 7/17/2013 1111 hrs.bed: 35% cobble, 65% gravel; 16" avg. pool depth; pool 20 ft. X 12 ft. Stream
W 136° 19.788 7/18/2013 1104 hrs. 0 0 slope 1/2%; pool shaded by fallen timber; approx. 50 yds. above site C-3.
C-5 N 58° 10.792 7/16/2013 1711 hrs.1% stream grade; riffle below pool 85% cobble & 15% gravel; pool 18'x 5'.
W 136° 19.652 7/17/2013 1135 hrs. 0 0 80% canopy cover; pool depth avg. 18"; under-cut stream bank
C-6 N 58° 10.759 7/16/2013 1647 hrs.1% stream grade; pool 6 x4 ft.;13" avg. pool depth; 85% cobble & 15% gravel.
W 136° 19.519 7/17/2013 1252 hrs. 0 0 stream width 5 ft.
C-7 N 58° 10.741 7/16/2013 1602 hrs.Trap at gauging station; streambed: 50% cobble, 50% gravel; 1/2% slope.
W 136° 19.323 7/17/2013 1235 hrs. 0 0 Air: 58 F, water 47 F (7/16/13).
Table 4. Fork lenghts (mm) of Dolly Varden sampled
by minnow trap # and catch date in Crooked
Creek near Elfin Cove.
Trap # C-1 Trap # C-2
Specimen 7/16/2013 7/17/2013
#
1 109 122
2 107 130
3 114 119
4 135
5 137
Mean 110 124
Median 109 130
7
Figure 1. Aerial map showing the location of Jim’s Lake, and Crooked and Jim’s creeks, and other features
relative to the community of Elfin Cove, Alaska. (Map courtesy of Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.)
8
Figure 2. Aerial map identifying the approximate minnow trapping locations at Jim’s Lake, Jim’s Creek, and
Crooked Creek. (Map courtesy of Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.)
9
Figure 3. Gill net deployed in Jim’s Lake on the west side at the trap site L-3, July 16, 2013.
Figure 4. One of three Dolly Varden caught by minnow trap at Crooked Creek site C-1 just above MHHW.
10
Figure 5. Dolly Varden catch at Crooked Creek trap site # C-2 showing the five fish captured. The white
material in the minnow trap is the salmon roe wrapped in cheese cloth.
Figure 6. Sexually mature male Dolly Varden (13.7 cm FL) from Crooked Creek trap site # C-2
11
Figure 7. Jim’s Creek in the upper and mid intertidal area with the stream shallowness, and the
preponderance of cobble and boulders, July 15, 2013.
12
Figure 8. Crooked Creek from mid to lower intertidal showing the preponderance of boulders and
cobble in the streambed, July 15, 2013.
13
Figure 9. The falls in the background is the beginning of a fish-impassable gorge on Crooked Creek
which starts about 150 yards above MHHW. The pool in the foreground is trap site C-2
that produced a five Dolly Varden catch, July 16-17, 2013.
14
.
Figure 10. Tributary of Crooked Creek located between trap sites C-4 and C-5 on the north side, July 18,
2013.
15
APPENDIX A
16
Appendix A-1. Northern end of Jim’s Lake from the lake’s west side where two seine hauls were conducted
on July 16, and minnow trapping occurred at site L-1, July 15-16, 2013.
Appendix A-2. Jim’s Lake looking southeast toward trap site L-2, July 15, 2013.
17
Appendix A-3. Jim’s Creek looking dowstream from trap site J-5, 7/16/2013.
Appendix A-4. Jim’s Creek looking down stream at trap site J-4, July 16, 2013.
18
Appendix A-5. Crooked Creek at gauging station and trap site site C-5. Trap is dark cylinder object mid-
frame, July 16, 2013.
Appendix A-6. Jim’s Creek at trap site J-2 looking downstream, July 17, 2013.
19
Appendix A-7. Jim’s Creek in lower reach about 50 yds. above MHHW; showing start of a series of 3-4 ft.
waterfalls, stream slope of 30-35% grade, and fish impasse.
Elfin Cove, Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Round 8
Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project AEA RFA 15003
Design and Permitting Grant Application Supporting Documents
ATTACHMENT G.8
ADFG LETTER, FISH HABITAT PERMIT NOT REQUIRED (MAY 21, 2014)