HomeMy WebLinkAboutREF VI Appendix F P14066_GartinaFalls_Exhibit ELICENSE APPLICATION
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project
FERC PROJECT NO. 14066-000
EXHIBIT E
Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
P.O. Box 210149
Juneau, Alaska 99821
May 2012
Contents Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 i May 2012
EXHIBIT E, ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
GARTINA FALLS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
FERC PROJECT NO. 14066-000
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acronym List ................................................................................................................................ ix
1 Introduction and Background .......................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Project Benefits to the Community ............................................................................ 1-1
2 Agency Consultation .......................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Early Consultation and Site Visit ............................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Three-Stage Consultation Process ............................................................................. 2-1
2.2.1 Notice of Intent and Pre-Application Document ........................................... 2-1
2.2.2 Approval to Use Traditional Licensing Process ............................................ 2-2
2.2.3 Joint Meeting ................................................................................................. 2-2
2.2.4 Comments on the PAD .................................................................................. 2-3
2.2.5 Waiver of Draft License Application ............................................................. 2-3
2.2.6 Final License Application .............................................................................. 2-4
2.2.7 Endangered Species Act and National Historic Preservation Act Consultation
2-4
3 Project Location, Facilities, and Operations ................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Project Location and Lands ....................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Proposed Project Facilities ......................................................................................... 3-4
3.3 Description of Project Operation ............................................................................... 3-6
3.4 Potential for Additional Project Facilities .................................................................. 3-6
4 Description of Existing Environment and Resource Impacts ........................................ 4-7
Contents Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 ii May 2012
4.1 Basin Overview .......................................................................................................... 4-7
4.1.1 Description of the River Basin and Drainage Area ....................................... 4-7
4.1.2 Major Land and Water Uses .......................................................................... 4-8
4.1.3 Dams and Diversions within the Basin .......................................................... 4-8
4.2 Geology and Soils .................................................................................................... 4-10
4.2.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................. 4-10
4.2.2 Potential Environmental Effects .................................................................. 4-18
4.2.3 Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures ................... 4-19
4.3 Water Quantity and Hydrology ................................................................................ 4-20
4.3.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................. 4-20
4.3.2 Potential Environmental Effects .................................................................. 4-26
4.3.3 Proposed Protection, Enhancement, and Mitigation Measures ................... 4-27
4.4 Water Quality ........................................................................................................... 4-27
4.4.1 Federally-Approved Water Quality Standards ............................................. 4-27
4.4.2 Affected Environment .................................................................................. 4-27
4.4.3 Potential Environmental Effects .................................................................. 4-29
4.4.4 Proposed Protection, Enhancement, and Mitigation Measures ................... 4-30
4.5 Fish and Aquatic Resources ..................................................................................... 4-30
4.5.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................. 4-30
4.5.2 Potential Environmental Effects .................................................................. 4-53
4.5.3 Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures ................... 4-56
4.6 Botanical Resources, Wetlands, Riparian, and Littoral Habitat .............................. 4-56
4.6.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................. 4-56
4.6.2 Potential Environmental Effects .................................................................. 4-68
4.6.3 Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures ................... 4-69
Contents Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 iii May 2012
4.7 Wildlife Resources ................................................................................................... 4-69
4.7.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................. 4-69
4.7.2 Potential Environmental Effects .................................................................. 4-76
4.7.3 Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures ................... 4-77
4.8 Threatened or Endangered, Rare, and Sensitive Species ......................................... 4-77
4.8.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................. 4-77
4.8.2 Potential Environmental Effects .................................................................. 4-81
4.8.3 Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures ................... 4-82
4.9 Recreation and Land Management .......................................................................... 4-83
4.9.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................. 4-83
4.9.2 Potential Environmental Effects .................................................................. 4-83
4.9.3 Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures ................... 4-83
4.10 Aesthetic Resources ................................................................................................. 4-83
4.10.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................. 4-83
4.10.2 Potential Environmental Effects .................................................................. 4-85
4.10.3 Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures ................... 4-86
4.11 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................... 4-86
4.11.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................. 4-86
4.11.2 Potential Environmental Effects .................................................................. 4-96
4.11.3 Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures ................... 4-96
4.12 Socioeconomic Resources ....................................................................................... 4-96
4.12.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................. 4-96
4.12.2 Potential Environmental Effects .................................................................. 4-97
4.12.3 Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures ................... 4-97
4.13 Tribal Resources ...................................................................................................... 4-97
Contents Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 iv May 2012
4.13.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................. 4-98
4.13.2 Potential Environmental Effects ................................................................ 4-100
4.13.3 Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures ................. 4-100
5 Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures .................................... 5-1
6 Comprehensive Plans for the Development of the Waterway Relevant to Project ..... 6-1
6.1 Potentially Relevant Comprehensive Plans on FERC Comprehensive Plan List ...... 6-1
6.1.1 Alaska Department of Fish and Game Catalog of Waters Important for
Spawning, Rearing or Migration of Anadromous Fishes .......................................... 6-1
6.1.2 Alaska’s Recreation Plan ............................................................................... 6-2
6.2 Additional Comprehensive Plans Identified as Potentially Relevant by Applicant .. 6-2
6.2.1 Alaska Department of Fish and Game Strategy for Conserving Alaska’s
Diverse Wildlife and Fish Resources ......................................................................... 6-2
7 Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................................. 7-1
8 Literature Cited ................................................................................................................. 8-1
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Consultation Documentation
Appendix B - Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Supplemental Information to the PAD
Appendix C - Geotechnical Reconnaissance, Gartina Creek Hydroelectric Project
Appendix D – Gartina Creek Hydrology Report
Contents Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 v May 2012
EXHIBIT E, ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
GARTINA FALLS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
FERC PROJECT NO. 14066-000
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1. City of Hoonah, Alaska resolution in support of the Gartina Falls Hydroelectric
Project. ........................................................................................................................ 1-3
Figure 1-2. Sealaska Corporation letter of support for the Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project. 1-4
Figure 1-3. Huna Totem Corporation letter of support for the Gartina Falls Hydroelectric
Project. ........................................................................................................................ 1-5
Figure 1-4. Hoonah Indian Association letter of support for the Gartina Falls Hydroelectric
Project. ........................................................................................................................ 1-6
Figure 3-1. Vicinity map of the proposed Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project near Hoonah,
Alaska. ......................................................................................................................... 3-2
Figure 3-2. Proposed Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project facilities. .......................................... 3-3
Figure 4-1. Land ownership in the vicinity of the Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project. ............ 4-9
Figure 4-2. Elevation map of Gartina Creek showing sediment sampling locations
(green circles) and proposed Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project site. ..................... 4-14
Figure 4-3. Cumulative frequency curves for each sampled cross-section on Gartina Creek. .. 4-16
Figure 4-4. Modeled shear stress profile upstream of Gartina Falls, and critical
shear stresses necessary to transport the D5, D50, and D95-sized gravels, respectively.
................................................................................................................................... 4-16
Figure 4-5. Shear stress profiles upstream of Gartina Falls for pre-Project conditions;
post-Project conditions with open radial gate; and post-Project conditions
with closed radial gate. The post-Project with radial gate profile merges with
the pre-Project profile at around 400 feet upstream of the diversion structure. ........ 4-18
Figure 4-6. Annual flow duration curve for Gartina Creek at Gartina Falls based on
long-term streamflow records from Kadashan River. ............................................... 4-21
Figure 4-7. Gartina Creek at Gartina Falls average monthly flow, based on long-term
streamflow records from Kadashan River................................................................. 4-22
Figure 4-8. Flood frequency analysis of Kadashan River using the 37-year gaging
record and Bulletin 17B methods. ............................................................................. 4-23
Figure 4-9. Daily average unit runoff for water years 1976-1977 for streams on Chichagof
Island. ........................................................................................................................ 4-24
Figure 4-10. Flood frequency curve for Gartina Creek based on the methods of
Curran et al. (2003). .................................................................................................. 4-25
Figure 4-11. Flood frequency analysis of Kadashan River using the 37-year gaging record
and Bulletin 17B methods. ........................................................................................ 4-26
Contents Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 vi May 2012
Figure 4-12. Gartina Creek fish and water quality sample sites; Gartina Falls
Hydroelectric Project, 2010-2011. ............................................................................ 4-34
Figure 4-13. Summary of minnow trap capture results by species for each site in
Gartina Creek, combined for August, September and November 2010.
Sites are displayed from downstream (left) to upstream (right). Traps
were soaked overnight (roughly 24 hours). .............................................................. 4-35
Figure 4-14. Length-frequency of juvenile coho salmon (n=489) captured from
Gartina Creek downstream of Gartina Falls (to bridge) in August,
September, and November 2010. Note: Most coho (n=482) were
captured with traps, but hand nets and angling gear were also used......................... 4-37
Figure 4-15. Length-frequency of Dolly Varden (n=101) captured from Gartina
Creek downstream of Gartina Falls (bridge crossing to falls) in August,
September, and November 2010. Most Dolly Varden (n=82) were
captured with traps; hand nets and angling gear were also used............................... 4-38
Figure 4-16. Length-frequency of Dolly Varden (n=189) captured from traps in
Gartina Creek upstream from Gartina Falls in August, September, and November
2010. .......................................................................................................................... 4-39
Figure 4-17. Numbers of live salmon counted during weekly foot surveys in Gartina Creek
(foot-survey reaches 1-3) from September 15 through November 24, 2010. ........... 4-41
Figure 4-18. Numbers of live salmon counted during foot surveys in Gartina Creek
(foot-survey reaches 1-3), from July 14 through November 18, 2011...................... 4-42
Figure 4-19. Average Population Density of macroinvertebrates from Surber sampling
at four sites in Gartina Creek. ................................................................................... 4-49
Figure 4-20. Average Taxa Richness of macroinvertebrates from Surber sampling
at four sites in Gartina Creek. ................................................................................... 4-49
Figure 4-21. Average percent sample composition for macroinvertebrates collected using
a Surber sampler at four sites on Gartina Creek, August 2011. ................................ 4-52
Figure 4-22. Typical view of wetland closed forest in study area. ........................................... 4-61
Figure 4-23. Previously logged area overgrown by blueberry shrubs and Sitka spruce saplings. 4-
61
Figure 4-24. Wetland types and field data collection points in study area. .............................. 4-64
Figure 4-25. Gartina Falls vegetation cover in the Project vicinity. ......................................... 4-65
Figure 4-26. Base of a mature western hemlock tree in riparian corridor. ............................... 4-67
Figure 4-27. Looking upstream at Gartina Creek, upstream of proposed Project site
with dense hemlock forested streambanks. ............................................................... 4-84
Figure 4-28. Looking upstream at Gartina Falls and dense hemlock forest along
the steep sides of Gartina Creek canyon. .................................................................. 4-85
Contents Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 vii May 2012
EXHIBIT E, ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
GARTINA FALLS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
FERC PROJECT NO. 14066-000
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1. Gartina Falls Project Facility Features. ..................................................................... 3-5
Table 4-1. Drainage basin characteristics of Gartina Creek. ....................................................... 4-7
Table 4-2. Substrate size classes and corresponding size ranges (based on a
modified Wentworth scale). ...................................................................................... 4-13
Table 4-3. Sediment size statistics for each sampling location on Gartina Creek. .................... 4-15
Table 4-4. Drainage basin characteristics of Gartina Creek. .................................................... 4-20
Table 4-5. Gartina Creek at Gartina Falls Average Monthly Flows, based on long-term
streamflow records from Kadashan River................................................................. 4-22
Table 4-6. Record length of other stream gages on Chichagof Island. ..................................... 4-23
Table 4-7. Drainage basin characteristics of Kadashan above Hook Creek and Gartina Creek. .. 4-
25
Table 4-8. Water Quality data collected from Gartina Creek, August 2011. ........................... 4-29
Table 4-9. List of fish species confirmed to occur in Gartina Creek. ....................................... 4-33
Table 4-10. Number of fish captured, by species, using minnow traps during each of
the three sampling events conducted in Gartina Creek in 2010. Traps soaked
overnight (roughly 24 hours). ................................................................................... 4-36
Table 4-11. Peak count of adult Pacific salmon, relative density (live fish per 1,000 ft.),
and date of peak observation by foot-survey reach in Gartina Creek (9/15/2010
to 11/24/2010). .......................................................................................................... 4-40
Table 4-12. Peak count of adult Pacific salmon, relative density (live fish per 1,000 ft.),
and date of peak observation by foot-survey reach in Gartina Creek (7/14/2011
to 11/18/2011). .......................................................................................................... 4-42
Table 4-13. Average Population Density and Taxa Richness of macroinvertebrates
collected with a Surber sampler at four sites in Gartina Creek in August 2011. ...... 4-48
Table 4-14. Average percent Dominant Taxa collected at four sites in Gartina Creek
using a Surber sample, August 2011. ........................................................................ 4-50
Table 4-15. Average percent sample composition at four sites on Gartina Creek,
Surber samples - August 2011. ................................................................................. 4-51
Table 4-16. Highly-invasive plant species recorded in the vicinity of Hoonah, Alaska. ......... 4-58
Table 4-17. Mapped acres and types of wetlands in the study area. ......................................... 4-63
Table 4-18. Plant Species Observed in Project Vicinity. .......................................................... 4-66
Table 4-19. Birds Species of conservation and management concern that may
occur in the Project vicinity. ..................................................................................... 4-78
Contents Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 viii May 2012
Table 4-20. Forest Service Sensitive Plant Species that are Known or Suspected
to occur in Tongass National Forest.......................................................................... 4-80
Table 4-21. Critically imperiled or imperiled in state plants that are known
to occur in Hoonah area. ........................................................................................... 4-81
Table 4-22. Temporal-Cultural periods of Southeast Alaska. .................................................. 4-88
Table 4-23. Archaeological Sites within the Project APE and Vicinity. .................................. 4-94
Table 4-24. Ethnographic studies and overviews of the Tlingit Indians. ................................. 4-99
Table 4-25. Native Alaskan tribes potentially affiliated with the Project APE. ..................... 4-100
Acronym List Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 ix May 2012
Acronym List
ADCRA Alaska Division of Community and Regional Affairs
ADNR Alaska DNR
ADF&G Alaska Department Fish and Game
AEA Alaska Energy Authority
AFFI Alaska Freshwater Fish Inventory
AHRS Alaska Heritage Resources Survey
AKEPIC Alaska Exotic Plants Information Clearinghouse
AKNHP Alaska Natural Heritage Program
APDES Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
APE Area of Potential Effects
ATG Alaska Territorial Guard
AVO Alaska Volcano Observatory
AWC Anadromous Waters Catalog
BCC birds of conservation concern
BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs
BMC birds of management concern
BMPs Best Management Practices
BP before present
CCC Civilian Conservation Corps
cfs cubic feet per second
CWA Clean Water Act
DEC Alaska DEC
DO dissolved oxygen
EFH Essential Fish Habitat
ENRI Environmental Natural Resource Institute
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FRP fish resource permits
Acronym List Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 x May 2012
FS featured species
GIS Geographical Information System
GMU Game Management Unit
GPR ground penetrating radar
GPS global positioning system
IPEC Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
JDR Jurisdictional Determination Report
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
mg/l milligrams per liter
MOU memorandum of understanding
MSFCMA Magnuson Stevens Fishery and Conservation and Management Act
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOI Notice of Intent
NWI National Wetland Inventory
OHA Office of History and Archaeology
PAD Pre- Application Document
PM&E protection, mitigation and enhancement measures
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SCORP Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan
SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer
SS sensitive species
TCP Traditional Cultural Properties
TDS total dissolved solids
TLP Traditional Licensing Process
TNF Tongass National Forest
Acronym List Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 xi May 2012
TSS total suspended solids
UAF University of Alaska Fairbanks
USDOE U.S. Department of Energy
USFS United States Forest Service
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USGS United States Geological Survey
WQS Water Quality Standards
YOY young-of-the-year
Acronym List Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 xii May 2012
This page intentionally left blank.
Section 1 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 1-1 May 2012
1 Introduction and Background
The proposed Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project (Project) is located on the northeast side of
Chichagof Island in southeast Alaska approximately five air miles southeast of Hoonah, Alaska.
Gartina Creek is a low-gradient stream that originates in the mountains to the south of Hoonah
Harbor. Gartina Falls, where the project would be located, is the anadromous migration barrier
on Gartina Creek. Operating as a run-of-river project, flows upstream and downstream would be
unaltered by the Project.
The Project would consist of a small diversion dam and intake just above Gartina Falls, a steel
penstock, a powerhouse located at the base of Gartina Falls, access roads, and an overhead
transmission line. The proposed Project would have an installed capacity of 455 kW.
The Project is being developed, and will be owned and operated by the Inside Passage Electric
Cooperative (IPEC). IPEC is a non-profit regulated utility serving over 1,300 members in the
rural Southeast Alaskan communities of Angoon, Hoonah, Kake, Klukwan, and the Chilkat
Valley. Hydropower has been a proven success and provides clean renewable energy to the
larger communities in Southeast Alaska. IPEC is developing the Project to provide some of
these same benefits to its members who currently carry the burden of high cost diesel energy
generation.
This environmental report provides the required elements of Exhibit E of a license application, as
necessary to support an Original License for Minor Project consistent with 18 CFR §4.61.
1.1 Project Benefits to the Community
IPEC recognizes that the cost of living is high in the communities it serves, and that the
opportunity for business development in the rural village communities served by IPEC is limited
by the high cost of energy. Hoonah’s primary electric supply is 100% diesel generation. The
economic impact of high energy costs on the communities served by IPEC is profound;
development of the Gartina Falls Project would ease the economic impact of continued reliance
exclusively on diesel generation.
IPEC’s 2009 Energy Plan set a goal to be diesel independent by 2015. Development of the
Gartina Falls Project is a critical step in meeting this goal – as it could supply up to 30% of
Hoonah’s existing energy needs.
The hydropower potential on Gartina Creek has been recognized since the early-1920s. While
the hydropower potential exists, the upfront cost of hydropower development is prohibitive for
small communities due to limited economies of scale to support the initial debt service of Project
development and construction. In recognition of the challenges that face rural communities in
developing these energy sources, the design and licensing of the Gartina Falls Project is
supported by grant funds from both the U. S. Department of Energy (USDOE) and the Alaska
Energy Authority’s (AEA) Renewable Energy Fund. Both entities recognize the importance of
developing long term, renewable energy sources in order to reduce dependence of rural Alaskan
communities on diesel generation.
IPEC’s efforts to develop the Gartina Falls Project are not only supported by the USDOE and the
state of Alaska, but local community representatives as well:
Section 1 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 1-2 May 2012
The City of Hoonah’s Comprehensive Plan includes a goal to increase renewable energy
sources. In September 2011, the City Council approved a resolution in favor of the
Project (Figure 1-1).
Sealaska Corporation, the Alaska Native Regional corporation that represents more than
20,000 tribal member shareholders of Tlingit, Haida, and Tsimshian descent in Southeast
Alaska, filed a letter of support for the Project with FERC (Figure 1-2).
Huna Totem Corporation, a village corporation owned by over 1,300 native shareholders
whose aboriginal ties are to the Village of Hoonah, filed a letter of support for the Project
with FERC (Figure 1-3).
Hoonah Indian Association, the federally recognized governing body of the tribal
members of Hoonah, Alaska, representing approximately 75% of the population of
Hoonah (Figure 1-4).
In addition to the potential economic and energy supply diversification benefits of the proposed
Project, there is environmental benefit in reducing the communities’ dependence on diesel fuel.
The proposed Project has the potential to displace approximately 135,000 gallons of diesel fuel
for power generation and reduce carbon emissions by 1,500 tons annually.
Section 1 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 1-3 May 2012
Figure 1-1. City of Hoonah, Alaska resolution in support of the Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project.
Section 1 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 1-4 May 2012
Figure 1-2. Sealaska Corporation letter of support for the Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project.
Section 1 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 1-5 May 2012
Figure 1-3. Huna Totem Corporation letter of support for the Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project.
Section 1 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 1-6 May 2012
Figure 1-4. Hoonah Indian Association letter of support for the Gartina Falls Hydroelectric
Project.
Section 2 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 2-1 May 2012
2 Agency Consultation
IPEC initiated informal consultation with interested parties in 2010; initiation of the formal
consultation began with submittal of the Notice of Intent (NOI) and Pre-Application Document
(PAD), as discussed below. On December 2, 2011, FERC approved IPEC’s request to use the
Traditional Licensing Process (TLP) for this Project.
Section 2.1 provides an overview of consultation activities that occurred prior to entering the
formal licensing process and Section 2.2 provides a summary of the TLP three-stage consultation
as required by 18 CFR §4.38.
2.1 Early Consultation and Site Visit
IPEC undertook a preliminary stakeholder consultation and participation process in advance of
filing the PAD and entering the formal licensing process. The purpose of these early outreach
activities was to determine the licensing process to be used, identify available information,
determine the relationship, if any, between stakeholders’ issues and potential Project operations,
and identify any additional information needs in advance of the formal licensing process.
IPEC’s preliminary consultation began with the identification of parties potentially interested in
the Gartina Falls Project licensing, primarily consisting of resource agency personnel. IPEC
developed a distribution list of interested parties and provided periodic Project updates via email.
IPEC contacted the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) regarding proposed studies
in 2010 and 2011, and submitted appropriate permit applications and field collection reports.
Phone, email, and in-person contact was also made throughout 2011 to discuss the proposed
Project components and solicit initial feedback with additional resource agency and tribal
corporation representatives. A summary of this early consultation is provided in Section 6 of the
PAD (IPEC 2011a).
An initial site visit and meeting was held on August 11, 2011 with a group of agency
representatives and other interested parties to introduce the proposed Project, review site
conditions, the proposed Project facility locations, and solicit initial feedback on the proposed
Project and licensing process. During this site visit, IPEC representatives proposed use of the
Traditional Licensing Process (TLP) for this Project. The site visit was held prior to filing the
PAD to allow for more moderate weather conditions.
2.2 Three-Stage Consultation Process
The formal consultation process was initiated on October 28, 2011, when IPEC submitted the
NOI to file an original license application and the PAD for the Gartina Falls Project (FERC No.
14066) to FERC (IPEC 2011a). The sections that follow provide an overview of TLP milestones.
Documentation of consultation following filing of the PAD are provided in Appendix A.
2.2.1 Notice of Intent and Pre-Application Document
IPEC filed a NOI to file an original license application and PAD to commence the formal
licensing process with FERC for the Gartina Falls Project (FERC No. 14066) on October 28,
Section 2 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 2-2 May 2012
2011 (IPEC 2011a). IPEC also provided a notice of the PAD’s availability to the distribution list
via electronic mail on October 28, 2011.
The PAD was developed to provide existing, relevant, and reasonably-available information and
data related to the Project area and the environment associated with the Project. In an effort to
meet requirements of a draft license application for a minor water project (18 CFR §4.61) and
expedite the licensing process, the PAD also described the proposed Project facilities and
operations (draft Exhibit A); provided general design drawings (draft Exhibit F), Project maps,
and boundaries (draft Exhibit G); and summarized resource studies (conducted in 2010-2011),
discussed potential Project effects, and included initial protection, mitigation, and enhancement
measures proposed by the Project.
IPEC submitted the Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project No. 14066 Supplemental Information to
the PAD to FERC and agencies on December 6, 2011 (IPEC 2011b). Combined with resource
study results reported in the PAD, the supplemental information memorandum, which is included
as Appendix B, completes reporting of all field studies and resource analysis conducted in
support of the Project.
2.2.2 Approval to Use Traditional Licensing Process
During the August 2011 site visit, IPEC representatives proposed use of the TLP and requested
feedback and support from agency personnel and other interested parties. IPEC representatives
also sent an email to the distribution list to request support for use of the TLP. On October 28,
2011, along with the submittal of the NOI and PAD, IPEC requested approval from FERC to use
the Traditional License Process (TLP). On October 31, 2011, IPEC filed a public notice in the
local newspaper (Juneau Empire and Capital City Weekly) of the PAD’s availability and IPEC’s
request to use the TLP. The public notice requested that any comments in regards to this request
be filed with the Commission by November 30, 2011, in accordance with section 5.3(d)(2) of the
Commission’s regulations.
On December 2, 2011, FERC approved the use of the TLP for this Project. FERC indicated that
no comments opposing the use of the TLP were received in response to the notice or the PAD.
Additionally, none of the agency representatives or other interested parties objected to using the
TLP for this project.
2.2.3 Joint Meeting
In December 2011, IPEC held two Joint Meetings with agencies and other interested parties to
discuss the proposed Project, pursuant to TLP requirements. Prior to scheduling the meeting,
IPEC contacted agencies and interested parties to determine availability. Once the meeting date
was scheduled, IPEC filed a meeting notice and agenda with FERC and published a public notice
for the meeting in the local newspaper (Juneau Empire) and posted flyers in key public locations
in Hoonah (e.g., Hoonah City Hall community bulletin board) pursuant to FERC notice
requirements.
The first Joint Meeting was held on December 14, 2011 in Hoonah and the second meeting
occurred in Juneau on December 15, 2011. The purpose of the meetings was to describe the
proposed Project to agencies and interested parties. Specifically, IPEC highlighted the methods
Section 2 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 2-3 May 2012
and results of the resources studies conducted in 2010-2011 in support of the application;
reviewed information contained within the PAD; and discussed the Project’s potential
environmental impacts.
Proof of public notice and transcripts of the Joint Meetings were filed with FERC on January 13,
2012. Responses to comments raised by agency representatives at the Joint Meeting were
emailed to the distribution list on January 13, 2012 and are addressed in this Exhibit E.
Prior to filing the PAD, IPEC invited resource agencies to attend a site visit in August 2011 as
described in Section 2.1. This site visit was held prior to the Joint Meeting to allow for more
moderate weather conditions. Representatives of ADF&G, Alaska Department of Natural
Resource (ADNR), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (SEACC), FERC, and IPEC
participated in the site visit.
2.2.4 Comments on the PAD
The TLP allows for a 60-day public comment period on the PAD following the Joint Meeting.
IPEC received comments from ADF&G, NMFS, and ADNR. These comments are addressed
within the resource analyses in Section 4 of this Exhibit E. No additional study requests or
significant concerns were raised regarding the Project in these comments. Comments in support
of the Project were also received from Hoonah community members. All comments letters
received are included in the Consultation Documentation, Appendix A to this Exhibit E.
2.2.5 Waiver of Draft License Application
IPEC included draft Exhibits A, F, and G in the PAD filing in addition to results of
environmental studies. IPEC’s intent in including additional information beyond the minimum
PAD requirements was to provide thorough information on the proposed Project components and
resources in the area to allow for consultation with agencies regarding the potential
environmental effects and proposed mitigation measures. At the time of the PAD filing, IPEC
requested that FERC waive the 18 CFR § 4.38(c)(4) requirement to file a draft license
application. In its approval for use of the TLP, FERC requested that IPEC provide evidence of
support for the waiver from the resource agencies participating in the licensing process.
Field study results were included in the PAD and reviewed with agencies. No additional studies
were requested to complete second stage consultation following the comment period on the
PAD.
IPEC received letters of support from the ADF&G, ADNR and NMFS for waiver of the draft
license application. The City of Hoonah, the SeaAlaska Corporation, the Huna Totem
Corporation, and the Hoonah Indian Association provided support letters for the draft license
application waiver. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) also supported the request
for waiver of the draft license application.
On April 2, 2012, IPEC requested a waiver of the requirement per 18 CFR § 4.38(c)(4) to file a
draft license application, and provided FERC with evidence of agency support. FERC approved
IPEC’s request for waiver of the draft license application on April 11, 2012.
Section 2 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 2-4 May 2012
2.2.6 Final License Application
The third stage of consultation is initiated with submittal of a final license application. Pursuant
to 18 CFR § 4.60, IPEC filed a license application consisting of an Initial Statement, this Exhibit
E- Environmental Report, Exhibit A, Exhibit F, and Exhibit G.
2.2.7 Endangered Species Act and National Historic Preservation Act
Consultation
IPEC consulted with the USFWS and the NMFS during development of the application. The
USFWS provided an informal consultation document which indicated no federally listed
endangered or threatened species under the USFWS jurisdiction are present in the State of
Alaska. The Kittlitz’s murrelet is a Candidate species which uses marine waters from Thomas
Bay near Petersburg. Known murrelet habitats are not within the Project area. In comments on
the PAD, the NFMS stated that with the addition of information on annual flushing flows, the
information provided is adequate for them to make conservation recommendation to fulfill their
obligations under the Federal Power Act.
In May 2012, IPEC will provide a cultural resources study report and notification of filing of the
license application to the Alaska SHPO for comment regarding IPEC’s finding of no effect on
archeological resources in the Project area. Results of this consultation will be filed with FERC
when completed.
Section 3 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 3-1 May 2012
3 Project Location, Facilities, and Operations
3.1 Project Location and Lands
The proposed Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project site is located on the northeast side of
Chichagof Island in southeast Alaska approximately five air miles southeast of Hoonah.
Specifically, the Project is located in Alaska, Copper River Meridian, T43S, R61E, Section 35
and T44S, R61E, Sections 2 and 11. Gartina Creek is a low-gradient stream that originates in the
mountains to the south of Hoonah Harbor. A vicinity map is provided as Figure 3-1.
The Gartina Falls Project would consist of a small diversion structure and intake approximately
125 feet above Gartina Falls, a steel penstock, a powerhouse located at the base of Gartina Falls,
access roads, and an overhead transmission line. The proposed Project would have an installed
capacity of 455 kW. The location of proposed Project facilities is shown in Figure 3-2,
summarized below, and described in detail in Exhibit A of the license application. In addition,
drawings of proposed facilities and the proposed Project Boundary are included in Exhibit F and
Exhibit G, respectively, of the license application.
Section 3 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 3-2 May 2012
Figure 3-1. Vicinity map of the proposed Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project near Hoonah, Alaska.
Section 3 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 3-3 May 2012
Figure 3-2. Proposed Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project facilities.
Section 3 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 3-4 May 2012
3.2 Proposed Project Facilities
Proposed Project features are summarized in Table 3-1. The proposed Project would include
construction, operation, and maintenance of a diversion structure, penstock, powerhouse,
transmission line and access road. The concrete diversion structure will be located
approximately 125 feet upstream of Gartina Falls. The center gate section will consist of a 14-
foot wide radial gate that would be raised during high flow events to add flood capacity and to
pass accumulated sediment. During operation, flows between 11 cfs and 110 cfs would be
diverted to a new single-turbine powerhouse at the base of the falls by way of a 225-foot steel
penstock. Powerhouse flows will discharge into a chamber below the powerhouse and then
through an opening in the powerhouse foundation directly to Gartina Creek approximately 80
feet downstream of the base of the falls, with a constant flow of 8-10 cfs released at the base of
the falls during Project operation via a 12-inch diameter pipeline. The Project includes no
reservoir or water storage, but a small (1.7 acre surface area), un-regulated impoundment will be
created behind the diversion which would expand the existing riparian zone and deepen stream
habitat for a distance of approximately 800 feet upstream of Gartina Falls. The maximum
estimated inundation depth is approximately 10 feet (el 228 ft.) at the diversion structure,
decreasing with distance upstream. The lowest level would be about at about 223 ft. elevation at
the diversion structure, which would occur when flows are greater than 500 cfs and the radial
gate is opened. Additionally, the Project would require the construction, operation, and
maintenance of approximately 0.5 miles of new road, a small switchyard at the powerhouse, and
a 12.5 kV transmission line extending approximately 3.8 miles along an existing road corridor.
Project features are described in more detail in Exhibit A of this license application.
Section 3 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 3-5 May 2012
Table 3-1. Gartina Falls Project Facility Features.
Location Alaska, Copper River Meridian, T43S and T44S, R61E, in Sections 35 and 2, 11
respectively, Chichagof Island, Alaska, near the community of Hoonah. Approximate
latitude 58 o 03’ and longitude 135o 23’.
Intake Concrete box type located on left side of diversion.
Diversion 56-ft. long, crest elevation = 228 msl.
Reservoir None. Limited pool behind diversion structure.
Usable Storage: 0 AF
Surface Area: 1.7 acre
Penstock Total Length: 225 ft.
Diameter: 54 inches
Material: Steel
Components: Polyurethane exterior coating, Polyurethane interior lining
Powerhouse Size: 22 ft. by 32 ft.
Number of Units: One
Type of Turbine: Cross-flow
Design Flow: 110 cfs
Range of Flow: 11-110 cfs
Gross Head: 62 ft.
Net Head: 58 ft.
Turbine Power: 600 HP
Generator: 455 kW
Auxiliary Units N/A
Future Units N/A
Operation Run of river, Automatic
Transmission Line Voltage: 12.5 kV
Length: 3.8 miles
Type: 0.1 miles buried in conduit, 3.7 miles overhead on timber poles,
tangent line construction
Access Roads Length: 0.5 mile new road
Average Annual Energy 1,810 MWh
Estimated Project Cost $6,694,000. (2012 dollars)
Section 3 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 3-6 May 2012
3.3 Description of Project Operation
The Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project will operate entirely in a run-of-river mode, generating
electrical energy from available streamflow. Water up to the desired turbine flow will be
diverted through the powerhouse and returned to Gartina Creek near the base of the falls.
Turbine flow will range from a minimum of about 11 cfs to a maximum of 110 cfs depending on
the electrical load of the system and the available water. This mode of operation is expected to
result in 1,810 MWh of average annual generation.
The plant will be operated automatically and controlled remotely from the diesel power plant
located in Hoonah. Operators will make periodic inspections to the Project at least weekly to
inspect the facilities. Additionally, the Project’s Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
(SCADA) system will include level, pressure and temperature sensing, gate and valve position
monitoring and generation monitoring. In the event of an alarm, an operator will be immediately
notified.
In the event of a shut-down for any reason, water will begin to immediately spill over the
spillway and flow the short distance to falls. As such, flow will be maintained continuously
downstream of the project.
Inflows in excess of 110 cfs will initially flow over the uncontrolled spillway and into Gartina
Creek. When inflows reach 500 cfs, the radial gate will be opened and inflows will flow over the
falls and along the natural creek bed simulating a natural flushing flow.
This combined mode of operation will result in flows upstream of the diversion and downstream
of the Project tailrace being equivalent to flows if the Project was not constructed.
3.4 Potential for Additional Project Facilities
As this is a new project, no additional facilities beyond what is already described in IPEC’s
proposal are contemplated.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-7 May 2012
4 Description of Existing Environment and Resource
Impacts
This section is organized to meet required elements of Exhibit E of a license application, as
necessary to support an Original License for Minor Project consistent with 18 CFR §4.61.
Information provided on environmental resources in the area is commensurate with the scope
and potential environmental impact of the facility’s construction and operation.
4.1 Basin Overview
4.1.1 Description of the River Basin and Drainage Area
Gartina Creek is located on northeast Chichagof Island, a large (> 2000 square-mile) island in the
Alexander Archipelago. The stream is near the city of Hoonah, roughly 40 miles west of the
Juneau. The Project vicinity is dominated by a maritime climate, with major storm activity in
late fall (October and November), snow accumulation at higher elevations in the winter, and
cool, rainy summers. Stream runoff on the island tends to be flashy, with very little basin storage
other than high elevation snowpack.
The basin is generally forested with areas of muskeg near the creek and tributary streams and
exposed bedrock outcroppings in the higher elevations. Portions of the Gartina Creek basin have
been logged. The Gartina Creek watershed receives approximately 100 inches of precipitation
per year (Jones and Fahl 1994). There are no mapped lakes, ponds, or glaciers in the Gartina
Creek drainage basin. Characteristics of the Gartina Creek drainage basin are summarized in
Table 4-1.
Gartina Creek is a low-gradient stream that originates in the mountains to the south of Hoonah
Harbor. The elevation in the basin varies from 218 feet at the diversion site to approximately
2,900 feet and is generally oriented in a southwesterly direction. The mean basin elevation is
approximately 1,240 feet.
Table 4-1. Drainage basin characteristics of Gartina Creek.
Characteristic Unit Gartina Creek at
Gartina Falls
Drainage Area mile2 10.3
Main Channel Length mile 4.8
Main Channel Slope % 2.5
Mean Basin Elevation feet above mean sea level 1240
Basin Relief feet 2900
Basin Aspect direction NE
Area of Lakes and Ponds % 0
Mean Annual Precipitation inches 100
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-8 May 2012
Characteristic Unit Gartina Creek at
Gartina Falls
Mean Min Jan Temperature °Fahrenheit 24
Area of Glaciers % 0
4.1.2 Major Land and Water Uses
Lands status within the proposed Project area is shown in Figure 4-1. The land that would be
occupied by the proposed Project is owned by the Sealaska Corporation and the Huna Totem
Village Corporation. Federal lands administered by the United States Forest Service (USFS) are
within the northwest portion of Chichagof Island (i.e., south and east of the proposed Project
area). There are no federal lands within the Project area or in the immediate vicinity.
Water Supply Creek is a small, steep drainage basin that is a tributary to Gartina Creek. Water
Supply Creek flows into Gartina Creek roughly 650 feet upstream of Gartina Falls. Water
Supply Creek is the primary source of drinking water for the city of Hoonah.
4.1.3 Dams and Diversions within the Basin
In the late 1980s, the city of Hoonah constructed an 8-foot high diversion dam on Water Supply
Creek and pipeline to the city of Hoonah for drinking water. The city has an existing water right
for 1 cubic foot per second (cfs) for a public water supply in Section 11 (LAS 897) (ADNR
2011). Based on a search of the Alaska Department of Natural Resource (ADNR) records, no
other water rights have been granted in the Gartina Creek drainage basin (ADNR 2011).
No other active dams or diversions exist in the Gartina Creek drainage basin. The remains of an
old log crib dam structure (circa 1927) are present at the head of Gartina Falls. However, the old
structure does not currently dam or divert stream flow.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-9 May 2012
Figure 4-1. Land ownership in the vicinity of the Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-10 May 2012
4.2 Geology and Soils
4.2.1 Affected Environment
The geology of northeastern Chichagof Island was initially mapped by Lathram et al. (1959) and
Loney (1963). Results of these early efforts were later incorporated into a more comprehensive
professional paper (Loney et al. 1975). Two decades later, additional efforts were undertaken
that revised the early mapping and stratigraphy on northeastern Chichagof Island, utilizing new
fossil data and updated geologic mapping (Karl 1999). The purpose of these revisions was to
provide a foundation for mineral assessment studies of the Tongass National Forest and
ecological studies of northeastern Chichagof Island (Karl 1999). In 1999, the United States
Geological Survey (USGS) published their findings in the Preliminary Geologic Map of
Northeast Chichagof Island, Alaska (Karl 1999). These existing sources of geologic and soils
data were reviewed prior to the initiation of IPEC’s studies.
IPEC contracted an engineering geologist and geophysicist to conduct a geotechnical assessment
in the vicinity of the proposed Project facilities (Golder Associates 2011). The study team
mapped the surficial geologic units in the proposed Project vicinity and conducted geophysical
surveys at the proposed intake and penstock route to assess bedrock depth (Golder Associates
2011). IPEC also contracted a hydrologist to conduct a sediment transport analysis to evaluate
current and potential post-Project sediment transport characteristics in Gartina Creek in the
Project vicinity (IPEC 2011b).
The sediment transport analysis was presented in the Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project No.
14066 Supplemental Information to the PAD (submitted to FERC on December 6, 2011), which
is included as Appendix B. The Geotechnical Reconnaissance Report (Golder Associates 2011)
is included as Appendix C. The results from IPEC’s studies and existing information review are
summarized below.
4.2.1.1 Geology of Project Area
Four geologic units were observed in the vicinity of the proposed Project: surficial organics,
talus, coarse alluvium, and volcanic bedrock (Golder Associates 2011). Interpretation of seismic
velocities recorded along transects in the Project vicinity indicate the presence of four distinct
subsurface units: unsaturated sediments and organic matter; saturated sediments (i.e., similar in
nature to fluvial gravels and cobbles observed in creek bed); somewhat weathered and/or
fractured rock; and competent rock. Results from the geophysical investigation specific to
Project features are summarized below; maps and descriptions of each unit and site photographs
are provided in Appendix C.
Intake Structure Site Information
The proposed intake structure and new diversion site would be located upstream of the falls. The
east abutment of the proposed intake structure would be situated on a narrow bedrock rib that
protrudes into the floodplain. The stream and active floodplain is characterized by coarse
alluvium with cobbles and small boulders exposed across the entire surface. The intake chamber
and west abutment are sited on 3-4 feet of organic-rich material that overlies coarse alluvium
(Golder Associates 2011). A geologic cross-section of the intake structure alignment and site
photographs are presented in Appendix C.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-11 May 2012
Penstock Route Site Information
The penstock route would extend northward from the intake for approximately 225 feet to the
proposed powerhouse site. The southernmost 100 feet traverses an abandoned floodplain
characterized by 3-4 feet of organic rich material which overlies coarse alluvium of variable
depth. From a point just west of the waterfall, the next 50 feet of the proposed penstock
alignment passes through a bedrock ridge. The bedrock is meta-basalt and does not appear to be
ripable. Throughout the next 50 feet to the powerhouse, the penstock would be elevated over a
talus deposit and bedrock.
Powerhouse Site Information
The proposed powerhouse site is situated at an elevation of approximately 175 feet near the
mouth of a U-shaped valley that was intensely glaciated during the late Pleistocene1. The area is
underlain by Paleozoic bedrock consisting primarily of basaltic meta-volcanic rock, mantled by
poorly-sorted, glacially-derived sediments deposited during and following the glaciers’ retreat.
Bedrock is typically exposed on ridges at higher elevations, along cliffs, at the coast, and along
stream channels. The proposed powerhouse footprint appears to be sited mostly on competent
basaltic bedrock with some talus. The rock is randomly fractured with a blocky fabric (Golder
Associates 2011).
4.2.1.2 Glacial Features
The drainage basin is not presently glaciated. However, the Project area was intensely glaciated
during the late Pleistocene. The powerhouse area is underlain by Paleozoic bedrock consisting
primarily of basaltic meta-volcanic rock, mantled by poorly-sorted, glacially derived sediments
deposited during and following the retreat of the glaciers. Bedrock is typically exposed on ridges
at higher elevations, along cliffs, at the coast, and along stream channels (Golder Associates
2011).
4.2.1.3 Stream Banks
Gartina Creek flows through a forested area in the Project vicinity; however, logging has
occurred in the basin. Existing riparian vegetation conditions in the Project vicinity are
described in Section 4.6 - Botanical Resources. Gartina Falls is the most substantial waterfall
identified in the Project’s vicinity.
The proposed powerhouse site is situated in a bowl-shaped area on the floodplain of the creek.
The floodplain is characterized by very coarse, cobble-sized sediments with intermittent bedrock
exposures on the canyon walls and at Gartina Falls (Golder Associates 2011).
4.2.1.4 Seismic and Volcanic Activity
Alaska is the most seismically active state in the United States, with southern Alaska considered
one of the most seismically active regions in the world. Most of Alaska's volcanoes are situated
along the 2,500- kilometer-long (1,550-mile-long) Aleutian Arc, which extends westward to
1 The end of the Pleistocene epoch (roughly 12,000 years ago) corresponds with the end of the last glacial period.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-12 May 2012
Kamchatka and forms the northern portion of the Pacific "ring of fire" (AVO 2011). Although
southeast Alaska is outside of the ring of fire, there are other volcanoes that have been active in
the last few thousand years in the southeast and in the Wrangell Mountains.
The AVO (2011) lists three volcanoes that have been active in the Holocene2 and one inactive
volcano (i.e., Behm Canal-Rudyerd Bay) in southeast Alaska. Volcanoes that have been active
in the Holocene within roughly 200 miles of the Project vicinity include:
Mt. Edgecumbe (75 miles south-southwest)
Mt. Duncan Canal (150 miles south-southeast)
Tlevak Strait and Sumez Island (200 miles south-southeast)
The AVO does not currently list any volcanoes as active in Southeast Alaska (AVO 2011). The
closest active volcano listed by the AVO is Mt. Wrangell, located roughly 400 miles northwest
of Hoonah (AVO 2011).
4.2.1.5 Sediment Transport
In 2011, data were collected to evaluate current and potential post-Project sediment transport
characteristics in Gartina Creek. The sediment transport analysis was included in the Gartina
Falls Hydroelectric Project No. 14066 Supplemental Information to the PAD submitted to FERC
on December 6, 2011 (IPEC 2011b) (Appendix B). Methods and results of the sediment
transport analysis are summarized below.
Methods
Substrate Size
Pebble counts were conducted at four transects along Gartina Creek: two upstream of the falls
and two downstream of the falls to characterize existing substrate (Figure 4-2). The standard
Wolman procedure was followed, in which the counter made five passes across the creek at even
intervals upstream and downstream of the transect, measuring 20 pebbles per pass for a total of
100 pebbles per transect. To reduce bias, the counter picked the pebble that touched a line drawn
on her boot. Each pebble was measured using a gravelometer unless it was “fines”, “bedrock”, or
too large to fit through the largest hole in the gravelometer (Table 4-2). In the latter case, the
intermediate diameter was measured with a tape. If the line on her boot touched bedrock or sand-
sized sediment, “bedrock” or “fines” were noted but not measured.
2 The Holocene is the current geologic epoch; it that began roughly 10,000 years ago after the retreat of the last
glaciation.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-13 May 2012
Table 4-2. Substrate size classes and corresponding size ranges (based on a modified Wentworth scale1).
Size Class1 Size Range (mm) Size Class Size Range (mm)
Sand <2 Medium cobble 90‐128
Very fine gravel 2‐4 Large cobble 128‐180
Fine gravel 4‐8 Very large cobble 180‐256
Medium gravel 8‐16 Small boulder 256‐512
Coarse gravel 16‐32 Medium boulder 512‐1024
Very coarse gravel 32‐64 Large boulder 1024‐2048
Small cobble 64‐90 Very large boulder 2048‐4096
Notes: 1 Size classes with finer ranges, or two classes, were lumped into one class (e.g., the Wentworth
scale includes two ranges for fine gravels: 4‐6mm and 6‐8mm).
Pebble sizes were tabulated and a size-frequency distribution was calculated for each transect.
The frequency distribution was used to estimate the median grain size (D50), smallest 5 percent
(D5) and largest 5 percent (D95) for each transect.
Shear Stress and Sediment Transport
Shear stress is exerted on sediment by flowing water, and is responsible for transporting
sediment downstream. The flow necessary to transport each grain size was estimated using a
Shield’s parameter/shear stress relationship3. Shear stress is defined as
τ heRS
where
τ = shear stress γ = specific weight of water (62.4 lbs/ft3)
Se = energy slope Rh = hydraulic radius (cross-sectional area/wetted perimeter)
3 U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2008. Stream Simulation: An Ecological Approach to Providing Passage for
Aquatic Organisms at Road-Stream Crossings. National Technology and Development Program, San Dimas. 646
pp.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-14 May 2012
Mobile grain diameter is related to critical shear stress (τ crit; the condition necessary to initiate
movement) by the following equation:
τ crit = τ* (102.6 D)
where
τ* = Shield’s parameter, a dimensionless coefficient that varies from 0.039 to
0.054 with particle size
D = intermediate grain diameter
Where shear stress exceeds the critical shear stress for a given sediment size, that sediment is
considered mobile.
Figure 4-2. Elevation map of Gartina Creek showing sediment sampling locations (green circles) and
proposed Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project site.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-15 May 2012
Longitudinal channel shear stress profiles for the annual average flow (64 cubic feet per
second [cfs]), the 2-year peak (1,050 cfs) and the 100-year peak flow (2,500 cfs) were calculated
using a one-dimensional steady-state HEC-RAS model of the reach upstream of the falls.
General bed movement is not usually initiated until shear stress is high enough to transport the
median grain size (D50). To determine the flow where this movement is initiated, additional
flows between 350 to 500 cfs were modeled to estimate the flow necessary to move the D50
sediment size. This flow represents the conditions under which about half of the bed material
would move downstream, replenishing spawning gravels and maintaining gravel bars and
islands.
Results
Substrate Size
Gartina Creek sediment ranges in size from fine gravels to bedrock, but the average is very
coarse gravel. The smallest five percent of sediment (D5) ranged from 2.4 millimeters (mm; very
fine gravel) to 17 mm (medium-coarse gravel). The median sediment size (D50) varied from 40
mm to 62 mm (very coarse gravel) while the largest five percent (D95) varied from 160mm to
250 mm (large cobbles; Table 4-3, Figure 4-3). Although the smallest and largest grain sizes
differ between cross-sections, the D25 to D75 values are very similar. This indicates that gravels
upstream and downstream of the falls likely come from the same source and are transported
during the same events.
Table 4-3. Sediment size statistics for each sampling location on Gartina Creek.
XS1 – Below Project Area
(mm)
XS2 –Below Falls
(mm)
XS3 –Top of Falls
(mm)
XS4 – Above Project Area
(mm)
D5 10 9 2 17
D25 30 26 18 40
D50 50 50 40 62
D75 83 90 90 110
D95 180 160 250 250
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-16 May 2012
Figure 4-3. Cumulative frequency curves for each sampled cross-section on Gartina Creek.
Shear Stress and Sediment Transport
The shear stress profile upstream of Gartina Falls varies with slope and channel geometry and
these vary with flow (Figure 4-4). In general, higher flows have higher shear stresses, and thus
can transport more (and larger) sediment.
Figure 4-4. Modeled shear stress profile upstream of Gartina Falls, and critical shear stresses necessary to
transport the D5, D50, and D95-sized gravels, respectively.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-17 May 2012
The results indicate that under existing conditions, significant sediment movement requires
relatively high flows. Transport of the median grain size (D50) initiates at 400 to 500 cfs, which
occurs approximately 1 to 2 days per year (Figure 4-5).
The smallest 5 percent of gravels (D5 and smaller) are mobile at the mean annual flow of 64 cfs.
The largest size fraction (D95–large cobbles) is more or less stable, and is mobile only at the
100-year peak flow in steeper areas.
This is a simplified model of sediment transport that considers only one configuration of the
channel bed. In fact, in a stream with mobile gravels, the shear stress profile will change as the
gravels move downstream and deposit new bars. Areas that show low shears stresses, such as
immediately upstream of the log crib, are depositional areas only until enough sediment are
deposited to increase the slope enough to raise shear stresses. Thus, sediment transport is not
halted upstream of the log crib (or a continually higher pile of gravel would accumulate); it is
simply a more episodic process than in steeper reaches.
To mitigate the issues associated with the accumulation of sediment, the proposed diversion
structure would be designed with an approximately 14-foot wide radial gate. The gate would be
opened when inflows exceed 500 cfs to allow for the passage of sediment downstream of the
diversion structure. The majority of sediment transport currently occurs during these larger
flows.
To analyze the effectiveness of this design and operational plan, the reach was modeled with the
diversion structure in place with the radial gate open. The results indicate that the open gate
would replicate pre-Project conditions (Figure 4-5). The replenishment of downstream gravels is
expected to be similar to pre-Project conditions with the proposed design and operation plan.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-18 May 2012
Figure 4-5. Shear stress profiles upstream of Gartina Falls for pre-Project conditions; post-Project conditions
with open radial gate; and post-Project conditions with closed radial gate. The post-Project with radial gate
profile merges with the pre-Project profile at around 400 feet upstream of the diversion structure.
4.2.2 Potential Environmental Effects
IPEC’s examination of existing information and results of resource studies identified the
following potential effects on geology and soils:
Modified sediment transport in Gartina Creek.
Erosion or sedimentation associated with Project construction (including facilities and the
0.5 miles of new road construction).
Erosion or sedimentation associated with the inundation of Gartina Creek for
approximately 800 feet upstream of the proposed diversion/intake structure.
Based on the Project features described in Exhibit A, results of IPEC’s geotechnical study
(Golder Associates 2011) and the Sediment Transport Analysis (IPEC 2011b) the potential
Project effects are analyzed below.
Sediment Transport
Diversion structures can alter sediment transport processes in streams when sediment
accumulates upstream of the structure. However, like many other small run-of-river hydropower
projects, the proposed diversion structure’s design for this Project incorporates a mechanism
(i.e., radial gate) to facilitate sediment transport during operation. The radial gate on the
diversion structure is designed to rise during high flows, so that accumulated sediment can move
downstream.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-19 May 2012
The radial gate designed for the Gartina Falls Project will be capable of operating automatically,
but will also have a manual override. A standby generator would be used to provide backup
power in the event of a loss of the primary power source. The gate would open when a sensor on
the spillway records a depth of flow approximately equal to 500 cfs; the gate would be closed
manually (when flows decrease) to avoid trapping debris below the gate.
The width of the radial gate comprises only a portion of the diversion cross section. While the
radial gate is only about 25% of bank full width of the stream, the approach to and discharge
from the gate is a more efficient hydraulic section than the adjacent natural stream sections on
either side and therefore can have equivalent sediment transport capability, therefore use of the
gate is expected to flush most sediment accumulated behind the entire width of the structure.
During flow events smaller than 500 cfs, gravel transported into the backwater upstream of the
diversion structure will be deposited 200-400 feet upstream of the dam, where shear stress
decreases below transport capacity of gravels. Fine sediment (coarse sand and smaller) will be
transported to the diversion structure face. Some of this may remain on either side of the radial
gate after the flushing events occur, while a channel would remain in the middle. This geometry
will be more efficient at moving gravel from the upper end of the backwater through the radial
gate, and will not affect Project operations.
The radial gate should pass all but the very largest particles, thus there should be little to no
change in the size of sediment (e.g., spawning gravels) downstream of the Project. Since the
gate opening is triggered by flushing flows (about 500 cfs), sediment transport similar to what
occurs naturally during flushing flows should occur.
Construction Effects
Construction of Project facilities and roads would create the potential for disturbed or newly-
unvegetated areas to erode and potentially result in a temporary increase in sediment loading or
turbidity downstream of the site.
IPEC will follow Best Management Practices (BMPs) as outlined in the Alaska Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (APDES) General Construction Permit and any Corps of
Engineers 404 Permit specifications developed to limit the potential for Project construction-
related erosion.
Inundation Effects
Backwater effects will extend approximately 800 feet upstream of the diversion structure,
periodically inundating approximately 0.3 miles of linear streambank. The maximum estimated
inundation depth is approximately 10 feet at the diversion structure, decreasing with distance
upstream. IPEC’s geotechnical investigations found that the active floodplain of Gartina Creek
consists of coarse alluviums, primarily cobbles and boulders, with finer-grained sediments above
the active floodplain. Following inundation, the streambank and floodplain characteristics are
expected to be similar to the existing condition.
4.2.3 Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures
The proposed diversion structure was designed to include a radial gate to avoid significant
alterations of the existing sediment transport processes in Gartina Creek. The use of the radial
gate will minimize potential impacts relating to sediment transport.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-20 May 2012
IPEC will also implement BMPs to control erosion and limit short-term impacts during
construction, in accordance with APDES general construction permit guidelines and Corps of
Engineers 404 Permit specifications. No other protection, mitigation, and enhancement
measures are proposed to address soil and geologic resources.
4.3 Water Quantity and Hydrology
4.3.1 Affected Environment
Hydrology data specific to Gartina Creek were not available prior to the field studies initiated by
IPEC in June 2010. However, hydrology data recorded from seven USGS gages are available
for other streams on Chichagof Island. A summary of these data is presented in this section.
A stream gage was installed on Gartina Creek immediately upstream of Gartina Falls on
6/15/2010, and continuous stream flow records are currently available through 8/09/2011. The
recorder remains in operation. Hydrology data are included in Appendix D of this Exhibit E.
4.3.1.1 Gartina Creek Drainage Basin Hydrology
Gartina Creek at Gartina Falls drains 10.2 miles of forested, mountainous terrain. The
characteristics of this basin are presented in Table 4-4.
Table 4-4. Drainage basin characteristics of Gartina Creek.
Characteristic Unit Gartina Creek at
Gartina Falls
Drainage Area mile2 10.3
Main Channel Length mile 4.8
Main Channel Slope % 2.5%
Mean Basin Elevation feet above
mean sea level 1240
Basin Relief feet 2900
Basin Aspect NE
Area of Lakes and Ponds % 0
Mean Annual Precipitation inches 100
Mean Minimum January
Temperature ° Fahrenheit 24
Area of Glaciers % 0
Average Annual Runoff cfs/mile2 ‐
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-21 May 2012
The climate in the Project vicinity is maritime, with major storm activity in late fall (October and
November), snow accumulation at higher elevations in the winter, and cool, rainy summers.
Stream runoff on the island tends to be flashy, with very little basin storage other than high
elevation snowpack.
Since long-term stream flow records are not available for Gartina Creek, a synthesized flow
record was created. Kadashan River above Hook Creek is nearly identical to Gartina Creek at
Gartina Falls in drainage area and similar in relief and aspect and other basin characteristics. The
former gage site on Kadashan is about 30 miles south of the gage site on Gartina Creek and has
37 years of record. The daily flows recorded on the Kadashan River above Hook Creek were
considered representative of the flows to be expected at the Gartina Creek at Gartina Falls
Project site.
An annual flow duration curve and average monthly flows for the Project site were produced
using this data and shown in Figures 4-6 and 4-7, respectively. Estimated average monthly flows
in Gartina Creek are provided in Table 4-5. A detailed derivation of the long-term hydrology,
monthly flow duration curves, and a comparison of stream flow data from Gartina Creek and
Kadashan Creek are presented in Appendix D.
Figure 4-6. Annual flow duration curve for Gartina Creek at Gartina Falls based on long-term streamflow
records from Kadashan River.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-22 May 2012
Figure 4-7. Gartina Creek at Gartina Falls average monthly flow, based on long-term streamflow records
from Kadashan River.
Table 4-5. Gartina Creek at Gartina Falls Average Monthly Flows, based on long-term streamflow records
from Kadashan River.
Month
Average Flow
(cfs)
January 49
February 48
March 44
April 66
May 98
June 63
July 30
August 32
September 78
October 114
November 80
December 66
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-23 May 2012
4.3.1.2 Flood Frequency Analysis
Flood magnitude and frequency for Gartina Creek at Gartina Falls was estimated using a Bulletin
17B analysis of flows at Kadashan River above Hook Creek. The Bulletin 17B analysis using 37
years of record returns a 100-year flood of 2500 cfs and a 2-year flood of 1100 cfs (Figure 4-8).
Additional detail on this analysis is presented in Appendix E.
Figure 4-8. Flood frequency analysis of Kadashan River using the 37-year gaging record and Bulletin 17B
methods.
4.3.1.3 Comparable Gages
There are several creeks on Chichagof Island with gage records longer than 5 years, including
Tonalite Creek, Pavlof River, Kadashan River (lower and upper), Hook Creek (lower and upper),
and Indian River (lower) (Table 4-6). The longest gaged stream is the Kadashan River above
Hook Creek, which the USGS gaged for a total of 37 years between 1968 and 2007. None of
these gages were in operation during the summer of 2010. All of the streams mentioned above
have similar unit runoff and respond to the same events. The main differences are in snowmelt
runoff, as would be expected with different drainage basin elevations (Figure 4-9).
Table 4-6. Record length of other stream gages on Chichagof Island.
Name Gage# Start End Drainage Area
Indian River Near Tenakee 15107920 10/1/1975 9/30/1982 12.9
Pavlof River Near Tenakee 15108000 6/1/1957 9/30/1981 24.3
Kadashan River Near Tenakee 15107000 9/1/1964 9/30/1979 37.7
Tonalite Creek Near Tenakee 15106980 6/1/1968 9/30/1988 14.5
Hook Creek near Tenakee 15106960 12/1/1966 9/30/1980 8
Hook Creek above TR near Tenakee 15106940 8/1/1967 9/30/1980 4.48
Kadashan River Above Hook Creek 15106920 1/1/1968 9/30/2007 10.2
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-24 May 2012
Figure 4-9. Daily average unit runoff for water years 1976-1977 for streams on Chichagof Island.
The closest currently active gage to Gartina Creek is Montana Creek near Juneau, 40 miles to the
Northeast on the mainland. Although Montana Creek appears to respond to the same events as
Gartina Creek and the Kadashan River, it has higher summer runoff than both systems. This is
probably due to greater snowpack as the Montana Creek basin has twice the topographic relief of
the other two basins. The statistical correlation between Montana Creek and Gartina Creek is too
low to make it a reliable proxy for streamflow. The Chichagof stations listed above are all more
similar to one another than they are to Montana Creek.
Kadashan River
Kadashan River above Hook Creek is nearly identical to Gartina Creek at Gartina Falls in
drainage area and similar in relief and aspect (Gartina Creek flows NE while Kadashan flows
NW) (Table 4-7). The former gage site on Kadashan is about 30 miles south of the gage site on
Gartina Creek. Precipitation is also similar: according to data from Jones and Fahl (1994), the
Gartina watershed receives approximately 100 inches of precipitation per year, while Kadashan
receives approximately 110 inches. There are no mapped lakes, ponds, or glaciers in either
drainage basin. Both basins are forested, although portions of the Gartina Creek basin have been
clearcut. Gartina Creek also drains elevations that are a few hundred feet higher than Kadashan
River. Based on these similarities, Kadashan River above Hook Creek is recommended as a
proxy to Gartina Creek at Gartina Falls.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-25 May 2012
Table 4-7. Drainage basin characteristics of Kadashan above Hook Creek and Gartina Creek.
Characteristic Unit Gartina Creek at
Gartina Falls
Kadashan
above Hook
Drainage Area mile2 10.3 10.2
Main Channel Length mile 4.8 4.0
Main Channel Slope % 2.5% 1.2%
Mean Basin Elevation ft above mean sea level 1240 1040
Basin Relief ft 2900 2360
Basin Aspect NE NW
Area of Lakes and Ponds % 0 0
Mean Annual Precipitation inches 100 110
Mean Min Jan Temp °F 24 24
Area of Glaciers % 0 0
Average Annual Runoff cfs/mile2 ‐‐ 6.4
4.3.1.4 Flood Frequency Analysis
Two methods were used to estimate flood magnitude and frequency for Gartina Creek at Gartina
Falls. The first is based on regression equations in Curran et al. (2003). This 100-year flood
estimate is 3900 cfs, and the 2-year flood estimate is 1390 (Figure 4-10). This is very similar to
the mean annual recorded peak on Kadashan River of 1325 cfs.
Figure 4-10. Flood frequency curve for Gartina Creek based on the methods of Curran et al. (2003).
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-26 May 2012
The second method is a Bulletin 17B analysis of flows at Kadashan River above Hook Creek.
The Bulletin 17B analysis using 37 years of record returns a 100-year flood of 2500 cfs and a 2-
year flood of 1100 cfs (Figure 4-11). The Bulletin 17B analysis has a smaller standard error than
the regression analysis and is therefore likely to be more accurate.
Figure 4-11. Flood frequency analysis of Kadashan River using the 37-year gaging record and Bulletin 17B
methods.
4.3.1.5 Existing and Proposed Uses of Project Waters
Existing Water Uses
Existing water uses for Gartina Creek are summarized in Section 5.1.2 – Major Land and Water
Uses.
Proposed Water Uses
IPEC submitted a water rights application for the proposed Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project to
the Alaska DNR on October 22, 2011. The application requested water rights for the proposed
Project to include:
11 to 110 cfs for hydroelectric power generation, as flow allows (January – December)
110 cubic feet per second (maximum daily use)
4.3.2 Potential Environmental Effects
No potential effects related to water quantity were identified. There are no existing water rights
in Gartina Creek downstream of the Project. Further, the Project will operate in a run-of-river
mode, and water used for purposes of hydroelectric generation is non-consumptive; between 11
and 110 cfs (based on water availability and energy load requirements) will be diverted
approximately 125 ft. above Gartina Falls, routed through the penstock to the powerhouse, and
returned to Gartina Creek approximately 80 ft. downstream of the falls.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-27 May 2012
4.3.3 Proposed Protection, Enhancement, and Mitigation Measures
No protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures are proposed to address water quantity in
Gartina Creek.
4.4 Water Quality
4.4.1 Federally-Approved Water Quality Standards
The Alaska Water Quality Standards (WQS) require that unless otherwise designated all fresh
waters be protected for the following uses:
Water supply (drinking water, agriculture, aquaculture, industrial)
Water recreation (contact and non-contact)
Growth and propagation of fish, shellfish, other aquatic life, and wildlife
In compliance with the Clean Water Act (CWA), the state of Alaska maintains a statewide water
quality assessment program that identifies whether the existing condition of each waterbody is
sufficient to maintain the multiple designated uses of that waterbody (DEC 2010). Findings are
presented to the EPA in an Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report
(Integrated Report) (DEC 2010).
The Alaska WQS identify acceptable levels for designated use for categories of pollutants,
including: color; fecal coliform bacteria; dissolved oxygen (DO); dissolved inorganic substances;
petroleum hydrocarbons, oil and grease; pH; radioactivity; residues (floating solids, foam, debris,
deposits); sediment; temperature; toxic substances; and turbidity (Title 18, Chapter 70, of the
Alaska Administrative Code (18 AAC 70)). Gartina Creek and its tributaries are not specifically
identified in the Final 2010 Integrated Report (DEC 2010).
Water Supply Creek is a tributary of Gartina Creek that is located upstream of the Project area. It
is the primary source of drinking water for the city of Hoonah. The Alaska DEC lists Water
Supply Creek a Class A water system (DEC 2011). The overall protection area received a
susceptibility rating of "very high". This water system has received a vulnerability rating of
"very high" for bacteria/viruses and "medium" for nitrates/nitrites, volatile organic chemicals,
heavy metals, other organic chemicals, and synthetic organic chemicals (DEC 2011). The
Project will not affect water quality in Water Supply Creek.
4.4.2 Affected Environment
Water quality data specific to Gartina Creek was not available prior to IPEC’s 2011 field studies.
Data from IPEC’s August 2011 field sampling efforts and applicable state of Alaska water
quality standards (WQS) are reported below.
4.4.2.1 Dissolved Solids
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) are inorganic salts such as sulfates, carbonates, or chlorides
bonding to calcium, magnesium, sodium, or potassium. TDS refer to any minerals, salts, metals,
cations or anions dissolved in water. This includes anything present in water other than the pure
water molecule and suspended solids. Dissolved solids can come from organic sources (e.g.,
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-28 May 2012
leaves, silt, or runoff) or inorganic materials (e.g., rocks that may contain calcium bicarbonate,
nitrogen, iron phosphorous, sulfur, and other minerals).
Alaska WQS indicate that TDS from any drinking water source may not exceed 500 milligrams
per liter (mg/l). Additionally, neither chlorides nor sulfates may exceed 250 mg/l. Four water
samples collected from Gartina Creek in August 2011 were analyzed by a laboratory (i.e., SGS
North America Inc.) for TDS levels. TDS levels from all four samples were well below (i.e., 65
mg/l and lower) Alaska WQS criteria.
4.4.2.2 Suspended Solids
Suspended solids are any particles/substances that are neither dissolved nor settled in the water.
Total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations and turbidity both indicate the amount of solids
suspended in the water, whether mineral (e.g., soil particles) or organic (e.g., algae). The TSS
test measures an actual weight of material per volume of water, while turbidity measures the
amount of light scattered from a sample (more suspended particles cause greater scattering).
High concentrations of particulate matter can cause increased sedimentation and siltation in a
stream, which in turn can negatively impact fish and macroinvertebrate habitat. Suspended
particles also provide attachment places for other pollutants, such as metals and bacteria. High
suspended solids or turbidity readings may be used as "indicators" of other potential pollutants.
The four waters samples collected from Gartina Creek in August 2011 were analyzed for TSS.
Two samples yielded TSS levels that were below the laboratory detection limits, while the two
samples had relatively low TSS levels (i.e., 0.83 mg/L or less).
4.4.2.3 Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, and pH
The stream flow gaging station, installed on Gartina Creek roughly 500 feet upstream of the
falls, has been recording stream temperature on an hourly basis since June 2010. Beginning June
16, 2010 through August 8, 2011, stream temperatures ranged from 32 degrees Fahrenheit
(0.0°C.) (e.g., late fall/winter) to nearly 58 degrees Fahrenheit (14.4° C.) (e.g., late July/August).
The average stream temperature recorded throughout the sampling duration is roughly 41
degrees Fahrenheit (5° C.).
Additionally, the field team collected water quality field parameters from five sites on Gartina
Creek in August 2011. Two samples sites were located upstream of Gartina Falls while the other
three sites were located downstream of the falls (Figure 4-12). Results are listed in Table 4-8.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-29 May 2012
Table 4-8. Water Quality data collected from Gartina Creek, August 2011.
Sample Sites
Parameter Unit
GC‐WQ01
GC‐WQ02
(staff gage)
GC‐WQ03
GC‐WQ04
GC‐WQ05
Temperature °F /
°C 51.6 / 10.9 51.4 / 10.8 49.6 / 9.8 49.6 / 9.8 50.3 / 10.2
Specific
Conductivity 0.112 0.09 0.096 0.098 0.097
DO mg/l 9.10 9.06 10.71 10.67 10.87
DO % 81.9 81.9 94.7 94.1 96.7
pH 7.72 7.48 7.17 6.61 7.46
ORP 100.4 250.1 145.4 188.6 84
4.4.3 Potential Environmental Effects
IPEC’s examination of existing information and current resource studies identified the following
potential effects on water resources, each discussed below:
Effects of Project operation on downstream water quality (e.g., temperature).
Short-term effects of Project construction on water quality (e.g., turbidity).
Effects of Project Operation
Water quality in Gartina Creek currently meets Alaska WQS criteria for all assessed parameters,
including suspended solids, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH. Operation of the Project is
not expected to alter these parameters. Suspended solids may be restricted along with larger
sediments by the Project diversion structure, but most sediment will be moved through the radial
gate during high flow events as occurs under current high flow conditions.
IPEC does not anticipate any water quality impacts related to the slightly increased water depths
upstream of the Project diversion structure, as the Project has no storage capacity and will
operate in run-of-river mode.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-30 May 2012
Short-Term Effects of Project Construction
Construction of Project facilities and roads will create a short-term potential for disturbed or
newly-unvegetated areas to contribute sediment to the stream, potentially resulting in increased
turbidity downstream of the site. For example, excavation of the bedrock and talus at the
powerhouse site is necessary, and construction of the northern portion of the Project penstock
will require excavation into unconsolidated material for placement of support piers. IPEC will
implement general construction BMPs and will obtain a Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit
to limit the potential for Project-related increases in turbidity.
4.4.4 Proposed Protection, Enhancement, and Mitigation Measures
Best management practices for controlling erosion and limiting short-term water quality impacts
during construction will be implemented according to the APDES General Construction Permit
guidelines and Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit specifications to be developed for the
Project. No other protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures are proposed to address
water quality.
4.5 Fish and Aquatic Resources
4.5.1 Affected Environment
The ADF&G Anadromous4 Waters Catalog (AWC) lists Gartina Creek (AWC code: 114-31-
10090) as providing habitat for pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha), chum salmon (O. keta),
coho salmon (O. kisutch), and Dolly Varden char (Salvelinus malma) from its mouth to a point
approximately 5 miles upstream, at the base of Gartina Falls (ADF&G 2010a). Neither the
AWC nor the ADF&G Alaska Freshwater Fish Inventory (AFFI)5 provides fisheries information
for Gartina Creek upstream of the falls or within Water Supply Creek (ADF&G 2010b), a
tributary immediately upstream of the falls. Resident6 fish species presence in Gartina Creek
upstream of the falls has not been documented prior to IPEC’s studies.
ADF&G conducts aerial and foot surveys of Gartina Creek to enumerate the presence of adult
chum and pink salmon as part of their regional escapement monitoring program. The survey
data are treated as an index or indicator of escapement, but do not represent actual escapement to
the creek (Kevin Monagle, ADF&G, personal communication, July 20, 2010). Since 1960,
ADF&G has documented results from 133 surveys on Gartina Creek, including three surveys
4 Anadromous fish hatch in freshwater, eventually migrate to the saltwater where they spend a portion of their adult
life, and return to the freshwater to spawn.
5 AFFI identifies Sculpin, stickleback, and coho salmon in a tributary to Gartina Creek (viewed December 2010).
6 Resident fish spend their entire lives in freshwater. Dolly Varden, cutthroat and rainbow trout have both
anadromous and resident forms. Resident Dolly Varden char are most often found upstream from barriers (i.e.,
natural falls, manmade dams) that prevent the upstream migration of anadromous fish (Ihlenfeldt 2005).
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-31 May 2012
conducted in 2010 (ADF&G data via Kevin Monagle, personal communication on December 22,
2010). The survey area typically extends from the mouth of Gartina Creek upstream to the
vicinity of the Gartina Creek Bridge (Kevin Monagle, ADF&G, personal communication,
December 22, 2010).
Based on review of the ADF&G aerial survey data, chum salmon begin to enter Gartina Creek in
mid to late July. The numbers of live chum salmon increase in late July with the highest
numbers recorded in early to mid August. Data show that pink salmon begin to enter Gartina
Creek as early as late July through early to mid August. The highest numbers of live pink
salmon in Gartina Creek were recorded during surveys from late August through early
September. In most years, surveys were conducted through August; only one survey was
conducted in September. ADF&G does not conduct stream surveys for coho salmon in Gartina
Creek primarily due to marginal weather conditions in the fall (i.e., high water and tannic
conditions limit visibility).
Markings on a United States Forest Service (USFS) tag identify the presence of Dolly Varden,
steelhead trout7 (O. mykiss), and pink, coho, and chum salmon in Gartina Creek8. The USFS tag
(dated 1984) is fastened to a tree just northeast of the Gartina Creek Bridge crossing. Markings
on the tag indicate the absence of cutthroat trout (O. clarkii clarkii) and sockeye salmon (O.
nerka) in Gartina Creek.
In the summer of 2010 biologists initiated fisheries work in Gartina Creek. The field team
conducted three field sampling efforts from August through November in 2010, and conducted
weekly foot surveys in Gartina Creek from September through November. The August 2010
field effort included sampling for fish presence in both Gartina Creek and Water Supply Creek.
The remaining field data collection efforts focused on Gartina Creek. In 2011, the field team
continued the weekly foot surveys on Gartina Creek from mid-July through late-November and
collected macroinvertebrates in August, as described below.
Specific objectives of the field efforts were to:
Describe the spatial distribution of rearing and resident fish and characterize aquatic
habitats in Gartina Creek, specifically within the vicinity of the proposed powerhouse
location and upstream of Gartina Falls (2010);
Identify relative salmon spawning distribution and timing in Gartina Creek within the
vicinity of the proposed Project (2010, 2011); and
Collect benthic macroinvertebrates to document species composition in Gartina Creek
(August 2011).
7 Rainbow trout that spend a portion of their lives in saltwater are referred to as steelhead trout.
8 HDR contacted John Hyde, a fisheries biologist at the Tongass National Forest Hoonah Ranger District, to inquire
about data for the Gartina Creek drainage; however, no data were available (personal communication on September
1, 2010 [Hyde 2010a]).
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-32 May 2012
The sections that follow present the methods and results of data collected during IPEC’s field
studies in 2010 and 2011. These data are integrated with existing information in order to
characterize fish and aquatic habitats in the Gartina Falls Project area.
4.5.1.1 Temporal and Spatial Distribution of Fish Communities
Study Methods
ADF&G reviewed study methods and issued fish resource permits (FRP) SF2010-116d-1 and
SF2011-265 prior to fieldwork. The field team relied primarily on minnow traps to document
fish species presence throughout Gartina Creek (upstream and downstream of Gartina Falls).
The team fished 17-inch long by 9-inch diameter galvanized minnow traps with 1/4-inch and
1/8-inch mesh. Traps baited with sterilized commercially processed salmon eggs were fished
overnight.
The team also recorded visual observations during all three fish capture events in 2010 and
during weekly foot surveys (Section 5.5.1.4) conducted in 2010 and 2011. Angling surveys were
conducted in August and September and during a subset of the weekly salmon spawning foot
surveys in 2010. Visual observations and angling gear were used to record species presence data
for fish too large or too small to be captured by minnow traps (to minimize gear bias) and to
target areas where habitat conditions precluded the effectiveness of other methods. For example,
visual observations were useful in areas too shallow for minnow traps and angling was used to
capture fish from deep pools where visibility was limited. The team also used small hand nets
(e.g., aquarium nets) to capture and identify young-of-the-year (YOY) fish to species.
Captured fish were identified to species and counted before being returned live near the point of
capture. The field team also recorded fork lengths (i.e., fork of the tail to the nose) for those fish
captured. The field team recorded global positioning system (GPS) locations for each sample
site, and documented general habitat and stream channel characteristics. Fish capture data were
submitted to ADF&G, per FRP requirements.
Study Results
Fish Presence and Distribution
The team conducted fish presence surveys (minnow trap, angling, and visual observation) in
Gartina Creek from near the airport to a point roughly 1,600 feet upstream of Gartina Falls.
Sample site locations are identified in Figure 4-12. Catch diversity was representative of fish
species known or assumed to be present in Gartina Creek. The field team confirmed the
presence of adult pink, chum, and coho salmon, juvenile coho salmon, cutthroat and/or
rainbow/steelhead trout9, Dolly Varden, and sculpin10 in Gartina Creek downstream of Gartina
Falls (Table 4-9). Juvenile coho salmon was the most abundant fish captured downstream from
9 Biologists were not able to identify all fish to species in the field; trout species were cutthroat and
rainbow/steelhead trout.
10 Freshwater sculpin species present in Southeast Alaska typically include the coastrange sculpin (Cottus aleuticus)
(Mecklenberg et al. 2002; ADF&G 2011b).
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-33 May 2012
Gartina Falls, followed by Dolly Varden. Resident Dolly Varden was only the fish species
captured or observed upstream of Gartina Falls.
Table 4-9. List of fish species confirmed to occur in Gartina Creek.
Common Name Scientific Name
Pink salmon Oncorhynchus gorbuscha
Chum salmon O. keta
Coho salmon O. kisutch
Rainbow/Steelhead trout O. mykiss
Cutthroat trout O. clarkii clarkii
Dolly Varden char Salvelinus malma
Sculpin species Cottus sp.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-34 May 2012
Figure 4-12. Gartina Creek fish and water quality sample sites; Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project, 2010-
2011.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-35 May 2012
Minnow traps were the primary capture gear used to identify fish species presence throughout
Gartina Creek. In 2010, a total of 49 minnow traps were fished overnight in Gartina Creek
above and below the falls throughout the August (n=14), September (n=17) and November
(n=18) surveys. The 33 traps11 set below Gartina Falls captured 673 fish, including juvenile coho
salmon (n=482), Dolly Varden char (n=83), cutthroat and/or rainbow/steelhead trout (n=35) and
sculpin (n=73). Resident Dolly Varden (n=241) was the only species captured upstream of
Gartina Falls. Figure 4-13 summarizes trap capture results for all three surveys by species for
each site and Table 4-10 presents the numbers of fish captured, by species, during each of the
three sampling events conducted in 2010.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
Num
ber of fish captured
Dolly Varden
coho salmon
rainbow/cutthroat trout
sculpin‐unspecified
Figure 4-13. Summary of minnow trap capture results by species for each site in Gartina Creek, combined
for August, September and November 2010. Sites are displayed from downstream (left) to upstream (right).
Traps were soaked overnight (roughly 24 hours).
11 Brown bears crushed minnow traps on four occasions in 2010, affecting capture results.
At road
crossing
1.2 miles upstream from bridge to 1,000 feet
downstream of Gartina Falls
Extends 1,000 feet
downstream of the base of
Upstream of Gartina Falls
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-36 May 2012
Table 4-10. Number of fish captured, by species, using minnow traps during each of the three sampling events
conducted in Gartina Creek in 2010. Traps soaked overnight (roughly 24 hours).
Sampling Event Coho
Salmon Dolly Varden Rainbow/
Cutthroat Trout Sculpin
August 2010
7 traps downstream of falls1 33 16 0 5
7 traps upstream of falls 0 107 0 0
September 2010
13 traps downstream of falls 241 39 16 13
4 traps upstream of falls 0 75 0 0
November 2010
11 traps downstream of falls 208 28 19 55
7 traps upstream of falls1 0 59 0 0
Note: 1 Two traps crushed by brown bear during this event; no fish captured in either trap.
During the August 3-4 2010 survey, the team observed juvenile salmonids throughout Gartina
Creek. The team observed spawning chum salmon (n~30), adult cutthroat and/or rainbow trout
(n~6) and larger, silvery Dolly Varden (n~15) typical of the sea-run (i.e., anadromous) form at
the Gartina Creek bridge crossing. The team used angling gear at the bridge crossing and
captured two adult Dolly Varden (260 mm and 320 mm fork lengths). Adult fish were not
observed or captured upstream of the bridge in August; however, angling surveys were not
conducted at the base of the falls.
During the September 15, 2010 foot survey, the team conducted angling surveys in lower Gartina
Creek between the airport and the bridge. The team captured one adult coho salmon, one
rainbow trout (200 mm fork length), three cutthroat trout (fork lengths 200-300 mm), and three
Dolly Varden (fork lengths 150-230 mm) in lower Gartina Creek.
In mid-September 2010, the team observed many juvenile (>100) salmonids and two adult pink
salmon carcasses at the bridge crossing; however, adult Dolly Varden and trout were not
observed. The team captured three rainbow trout and six Dolly Varden at the base of the falls
using angling gear. Rainbow trout ranged in size from 150 mm to 189 mm. Dolly Varden
ranged in size from 150 mm to 300 mm. One Dolly Varden (280 mm fork length) was silvery in
color and the largest Dolly Varden (300 mm fork length) was in spawning colors. The team did
not directly observe (visual observations) any adult fish near Gartina Falls in September.
In November 2010, the team did not observe any adult fish at the bridge crossing or at the base
of the falls. Angling surveys were not conducted in November. Results from the weekly foot
surveys are discussed in more detail in Section 5.5.1.4.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-37 May 2012
Length-frequency histograms for juvenile coho salmon captured (and measured to fork length)
downstream of Gartina Falls were generated for each survey (Figure 4-14). Results suggest that
at least two age classes of coho salmon are represented in capture results from August,
September and November. In August, fork lengths for the smaller size class, which likely
represents YOY coho salmon, ranged from 38 mm to 50 mm. The larger size class, which likely
represents fish that hatched the previous year, includes fork lengths ranging from 74 mm to 99
mm.
In August 2010, the team concentrated sampling efforts within the general vicinity (roughly
1,000 feet downstream and 1,600 feet upstream) of Gartina Falls. In September and November
2010, the team sampled farther downstream in Gartina Creek (Figure 4-12). September yielded
slightly higher capture numbers of coho salmon than November (Figure 4-14). Overall, roughly
50 percent of coho were captured in September 2010.
Figure 4-14. Length-frequency of juvenile coho salmon (n=489) captured from Gartina Creek downstream of
Gartina Falls (to bridge) in August, September, and November 2010. Note: Most coho (n=482) were captured
with traps, but hand nets and angling gear were also used.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-38 May 2012
Length-frequency histograms were generated for Dolly Varden captured (and measured to fork
length) from both downstream (Figure 4-15) and upstream (Figure 4-16) of Gartina Falls for
each survey. Fork lengths from Dolly Varden captured throughout Gartina Creek in August had
the widest range compared to the other two surveys. Dolly Varden captured downstream of the
falls had measured fork lengths ranging from 30 mm to 320 mm.
Results suggest that multiple age classes of Dolly Varden are present downstream of the falls.
Throughout the three surveys, the smallest fish, which are suspected to be YOY, ranged from 30
mm to 58 mm. However, only four Dolly Varden within this size range were captured;
therefore, the range of fork lengths representative of YOY Dolly Varden is relatively uncertain.
The presence of large, silvery Dolly Varden downstream of the falls suggests these fish are sea-
run. However, Gartina Creek downstream of the falls may support populations of both resident
and anadromous Dolly Varden.
Upstream of the falls, Gartina Creek provides habitat for a resident population of Dolly Varden.
Fork lengths of resident Dolly Varden captured upstream of the falls ranged from 57 mm to 161
mm. Resident populations of Dolly Varden typically have smaller body lengths (i.e., 135 mm)
than sea-run forms (i.e., 321 mm) and are darker in color (Ihlenfeldt 2005).
Figure 4-15. Length-frequency of Dolly Varden (n=101) captured from Gartina Creek downstream of
Gartina Falls (bridge crossing to falls) in August, September, and November 2010. Most Dolly Varden (n=82)
were captured with traps; hand nets and angling gear were also used.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-39 May 2012
Figure 4-16. Length-frequency of Dolly Varden (n=189) captured from traps in Gartina Creek upstream
from Gartina Falls in August, September, and November 2010.
4.5.1.2 Salmon Spawning Run Timing, Distribution, and Relative Abundance
Study Methods
In September 2010, three foot-survey reaches were established in Gartina Creek below the falls
to enumerate and record locations of adult salmon. The lower reach (R1) is just over one mile in
length and extends from the airport pond upstream to the road crossing (Figure 4-12). The
middle reach (R2) is roughly 0.4 miles in length and begins approximately 1.2 miles upstream
from the road crossing. The upper reach (R3) is roughly 0.4 miles in length and extends from R2
upstream to the base of Gartina Falls.
IPEC conducted weekly foot surveys from mid-September through mid-November in 2010 and
from mid-July through November in 2011. The field team relied primarily on visual
observations to identify fish species, using polarized sunglasses to maximize the effectiveness of
this approach. The field team recorded the locations (GPS coordinates) and numbers of both live
fish and carcasses within each reach on field datasheets. The team recorded weather (e.g., rain)
and water clarity conditions (e.g., rated as good, fair, or poor). The team also collected
representative photographs during each survey to qualitatively document changes in stream flow.
Incidental wildlife observations were also recorded. The team conducted angling surveys to
identify fish species throughout the foot-survey reaches in Gartina Creek, as needed.
Study Results
2010 Adult Salmon Foot Surveys
The field team performed a total of 10 foot surveys in Gartina Creek in 2010 from September
through November. The team considered stream visibility good during three surveys, fair during
3 surveys and poor during 4 surveys in 2010.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-40 May 2012
In 2010, the adult salmon foot surveys were initiated near the end of the pink salmon run (Figure
4-17 and Table 4-11). The team observed the highest numbers of both live and dead pink salmon
during the first survey (September 15, 2100). Pink salmon were only observed in R1, and no live
pink salmon were observed after the last survey in September.
The field team observed relatively low numbers of adult coho salmon throughout the duration of
the survey period (Figure 4-17). Adult coho salmon were observed in all three foot-survey
reaches. The majority (roughly 40 percent) of adult coho salmon was observed in lower Gartina
Creek near the airport pond (e.g., downstream extent of Reach 1), where the highest density of
3.7 live fish per 1,000 ft was observed (Table 4-11). Peak live counts of adult coho occurred on
September 20, 2010 in Reach 1, and October 11, 2010 in Reaches 2 and 3. Figure 4-17 presents
the numbers of salmon enumerated by species during the 2010 surveys.
Table 4-11. Peak count of adult Pacific salmon, relative density (live fish per 1,000 ft.), and date of peak
observation by foot-survey reach in Gartina Creek (9/15/2010 to 11/24/2010).
Foot Survey
Reach
Foot Survey Reach
length (feet) Species Live fish
count
Carcass
count
Live fish/1,000 ft.
(peak date)
R1 7218
Chum salmon 0 1 0.0 ( n/a )
Pink salmon 21 144 2.9 (9/15/2010)
Coho salmon 10 0 1.4 (9/20/2010)
Pacific salmon1 0 24
R22 2533
Chum salmon 0* 0 0.0 ( n/a )
Pink salmon 0 0 0.0 ( n/a )
Coho salmon 2 0 0.8 (10/11/2010)
Pacific salmon 0 2
R32 2162
Chum salmon 0 0 0.0 ( n/a )
Pink salmon 0 0 0.0 ( n/a )
Coho salmon 8 0 3.7 (10/11/2010)
Pacific salmon 1 0
Notes: 1 The field team was unable to conduct a survey in Reach 2 or Reach 3 on 10/18/2010.
2 The field team was not able to identify each Pacific salmon observed to species due to visibility limitations.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-41 May 2012
Figure 4-17. Numbers of live salmon counted during weekly foot surveys in Gartina Creek (foot-survey
reaches 1-3) from September 15 through November 24, 2010.
2011 Adult Salmon Foot Surveys
In 2011, weekly foot-surveys were conducted from mid-July through November. Foot surveys
began near the beginning of the pink and chum salmon runs and continued throughout the coho
salmon run.
Based on the ADF&G data, the peak of live pink salmon presence in Gartina Creek typically
occurs from late August through early September. The peak live adult pink salmon count was
observed on August 10, 2011 in the lower two reaches; the peak live count of pink salmon
occurred on August 18, 2011 in foot-survey Reach 3 (Table 4-12 and Figure 4-18). Peak carcass
counts occurred on this survey date as well. Adult pink salmon were observed throughout all
three survey reaches below the falls with the highest relative density (135.8 fish/1,000 ft)
observed in R1 (Table 4-12).
Peak live counts of chum salmon were also observed on August 10, 2011 (Table 4-12 and Figure
4-18). The relative density of chum salmon was highest in R1 (45.3 chum salmon/1000 ft).
Although the field team observed slightly more coho salmon in the lower reach than the upper
reaches, only small numbers of coho salmon were observed during either year. Poor survey
conditions (e.g., high water) during the fall months (i.e., September, October and November)
limited visibility, safety, and the ability to conduct weekly surveys.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-42 May 2012
Table 4-12. Peak count of adult Pacific salmon, relative density (live fish per 1,000 ft.), and date of peak
observation by foot-survey reach in Gartina Creek (7/14/2011 to 11/18/2011).
Foot Survey
Reach Species Live Fish Carcasses
Live fish per 1,000 ft.
(peak date)
R11
Chum salmon 327 157 45.3 (8/10/2011)
Pink salmon 980 521 135.8 (8/10/2011)
Coho salmon 3 1 0.4 (10/12/2011)
Pacific salmon2 0 2
R2
Chum salmon 65 20 25.7 (8/10/2011)
Pink salmon 280 80 110.5 (8/10/2011)
Coho salmon 0 0 n/a3
Pacific salmon 0 0
R3
Chum salmon 44 23 20.4 (8/10/2011)
Pink salmon 232 80 107.3 (8/18/2011)
Coho salmon 2 0 0.9 (10/20/2011)
Pacific salmon 0 0
Notes: 1 Field team unable to survey Reach 1 on 8/5/2011. 2 Team not able to identify each Pacific salmon observed to species
due to visibility limitations. 3 Coho salmon were not observed in Reach 2 in 2011; surveys were not conducted on 10/28/11 or
11/2/2011 due to high water.
Figure 4-18. Numbers of live salmon counted during foot surveys in Gartina Creek (foot-survey reaches 1-3),
from July 14 through November 18, 2011.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-43 May 2012
4.5.1.3 Life History
This section summarizes life history characteristics for each species known to occur in Gartina
Creek based on results of the applicant’s field efforts, existing information, and a literature
review.
Chum salmon
Summer-run chum salmon are typically the first salmon species to enter freshwater in this area,
followed by pink salmon (Dave Harris, ADF&G, personal communication on August 19, 2010).
In southeast Alaska, summer-run chum salmon typically return to their natal streams in July and
early August and spawn by the end of September (Bethers et al. 1995).
Chum salmon begin to enter Gartina Creek in mid to late July. Based on review of ADF&G data
and results from the 2011 surveys, the numbers of live chum salmon increase in late July with
the highest numbers recorded in early to mid August. Chum salmon were observed spawning all
three study reaches of Gartina Creek in 2011.
No juvenile chum salmon were captured during the juvenile trapping efforts undertaken in 2010.
However, chum salmon fry generally emerge in late winter and out migrate in the spring (Heard
1991), so their presence at the time of the surveys was not expected.
Pink salmon
Based on the ADF&G data, the peak of live pink salmon presence in Gartina Creek typically
occurs from late August through early September. In 2011, the adult salmon foot surveys began
near the beginning of the pink while surveys in 2010 were initiated near the end of the pink
salmon run.
In 2011, the majority of pink salmon observations were recorded from Reach 1; however, pink
salmon were observed throughout Gartina Creek to the base of the falls. Based on general pink
salmon preferences, the majority of pink salmon likely spawn lower in the Gartina Creek
drainage. Based on local knowledge12 and results of the 2011 surveys, pink salmon also spawn
in the vicinity of the falls.
No juvenile pink salmon were captured during any survey. However, both pink and chum
salmon fry generally emerge in late winter and out migrate in the spring (Heard 1991) so their
presence at the time of the surveys was not expected.
Coho salmon
The ADF&G does not currently have site-specific run-timing data available for coho salmon. In
the Juneau area, adult coho salmon typically enter their natal streams from August through
October (Bethers et al., 1995). This timing is relatively consistent with observations recorded
during 2010.
12 Roughly 20 adult pink salmon were observed near the base of the falls in August 2009 (Don Bolton, personal
communication on September 16, 2010).
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-44 May 2012
In 2010, the first adult coho salmon observed within the study reaches was on September 15.
The first adult coho salmon observation in 2011 was recorded on October 12. Although the field
team observed slightly more coho salmon in the lower reach than the upper reaches, only small
numbers of coho salmon were observed during either year. Poor survey conditions (e.g., high
water) during the fall months (i.e., September, October and November) limited visibility, safety,
and the ability to conduct weekly surveys.
The field team observed relatively low numbers of adult coho salmon in all three study reaches
throughout the remainder of the 2010 survey period. The majority (roughly 40 percent) of adult
coho salmon were observed in lower Gartina Creek near the airport pond (e.g., downstream
extent of Reach 1). Roughly 25 percent of the adult coho salmon were observed near the base of
Gartina Falls in Reach 3.
Juvenile coho salmon was the most abundant fish species captured and the only Pacific salmon
species observed in the (downstream) vicinity of the Gartina Falls in early August and mid-
September 2010. The presence of multiple size classes of coho salmon captured throughout
Gartina Creek (including YOY) suggests that coho salmon spawn and rear13 throughout the creek
downstream of Gartina Falls.
Dolly Varden char
Site-specific run-timing data are currently not available for Dolly Varden. In the Juneau area,
Dolly Varden char typically spawn during October and November (Bethers et al. 1995). In mid-
September visit, the team observed adult Dolly Varden that appeared to be in spawning colors
throughout Gartina Creek, including in pools throughout Gartina Creek and at the plunge pool at
the base of Gartina Falls.
Rainbow/Steelhead and Cutthroat trout
Field results confirmed the presence of coastal cutthroat and rainbow/steelhead trout downstream
of Gartina Falls. Like Dolly Varden, both cutthroat and rainbow trout exhibit both resident
(freshwater) and sea-run (anadromous) life history forms in Alaska (ADF&G 2010c).
Anadromous rainbow trout are referred to as steelhead trout. Resident and anadromous cutthroat
trout may occupy the same area and also may spawn together (ADF&G 2010c). The resident
form is usually confined to waterbodies upstream of natural migration barriers when both forms
coexist in the same stream (ADF&G 2010c). The only fish species captured or observed in
Gartina Creek (or Water Supply Creek) upstream of Gartina Falls was resident Dolly Varden.
Coastal cutthroat, rainbow, and steelhead trout all spawn in the spring, typically from April
through June (ADF&G 2010c). Anadromous cutthroat trout typically enter freshwater from
August through October (Bethers et al. 1995). Southeast Alaska streams support both fall- and
spring-run steelhead trout. In Juneau, spring-run steelhead trout typically enter their spawning
streams from mid-April through mid-May (Bethers et al. 1995). Fall-run trout enter freshwater
13 Juvenile coho salmon typically spend one to three years in freshwater prior to outmigrating to the sea (Bethers et
al. 1995).
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-45 May 2012
in August, September, and throughout the fall and winter months (ADF&G 2010c). Unlike
salmon, trout may spawn more than once and therefore do not necessarily die after spawning.
The team observed numerous adult cutthroat and/or rainbow trout near the road crossing in early
August (alongside spawning chum salmon). The team captured multiple size classes of trout
throughout the creek (downstream of the falls) in mid-September 2010. The presence of
multiple size classes of trout throughout Gartina Creek (including YOY14) suggests that cutthroat
and rainbow trout spawn and rear throughout the creek and within the vicinity of Gartina Falls.
Coastal cutthroat trout can spawn with rainbow trout and produce fertile hybrids that exhibit
physical characteristics of both species (ADF&G 2010c). Based on the physical characteristics
observed on individual trout captured in mid-September 2010, Gartina Creek likely supports a
hybrid cutthroat/rainbow trout population.
4.5.1.4 Aquatic Habitat and Essential Fish Habitat
General Habitat Conditions
Gartina Creek provides habitat for anadromous fish downstream of Gartina Falls, and for rearing
and resident fish both upstream and downstream of the falls. Suitable spawning habitat (i.e.,
gravel substrate) exists downstream of the falls for both anadromous and resident fish. The
portions of Gartina Creek surveyed flow through forested areas that have a high recruitment
potential for large woody debris. The creek provides abundant overhanging vegetation; woody
debris; undercut banks, and small pools, all of which provide suitable cover for fish. All four
depth and flow combinations (i.e., shallow-slow, shallow-fast; deep-slow; deep-fast) are present.
Gartina Creek provides primarily riffle, glide, and small pool habitats above and below the falls.
Essential Fish Habitat
The Magnuson Stevens Fishery and Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) defines
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) as “waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding,
feeding, or growth to maturity” (NOAA 2004).
Gartina Creek provides EFH for chum, coho, and pink salmon from its mouth to the base of
Gartina Falls (AWC No. 114-31-10090). Coho, chum, and pink salmon use Gartina Creek to
spawn; and juvenile coho salmon also rear throughout the creek downstream of the falls. The
presence of cutthroat, rainbow/steelhead trout, and Dolly Varden has been confirmed throughout
the lower five miles of Gartina Creek (downstream of Gartina Falls).
The MSFCMA directs federal agencies to consult with NMFS when any of their activities may
have an adverse effect on EFH. The information presented in Section 4.5 of this document
provides information necessary to support FERC’s consultation with NMFS regarding the
14 Cutthroat, rainbow/steelhead trout typically emerge in July and August (Bethers et al. 1995). Steelhead trout stay
in freshwater for 1 to 4 years, migrate to and live in the ocean for 1 to 4 years, and return to their natal stream to
spawn. Sea-run cutthroat typically spend 2 to 5 years in freshwater. Outmigration typically occurs in early spring
(Mecklenburg et al. 2002).
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-46 May 2012
potential for adverse impacts on EFH. Life history information for species that may have EFH
designated in the Project area is included above.
4.5.1.5 Benthic Macroinvertebrates
Benthic macroinvertebrates are essential components of the aquatic food web and their
composition and abundance can affect local fish populations. Macroinvertebrates are susceptible
to degradation of water, sediment, and habitat and, therefore, serve as good indicators of local
environmental conditions (EPA 2008). The objective of the macroinvertebrate sampling effort
was to characterize the macroinvertebrate communities in the Project area.
Study Methods
Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected at four fast-water habitat (i.e., riffle) sites in Gartina
Creek in August 2011 (Figure 4-12). GCWQ-1 is located upstream of the proposed inundation
zone. GCWQ-2 is located above the waterfall within the proposed inundation zone. GCWQ-3 is
located just downstream of the waterfall in the vicinity of the proposed powerhouse location.
GCWQ-5 is located downstream from the waterfall and proposed powerhouse.
Samples were collected using a Surber sampler (363-µm mesh). The team collected five
individual (replicate) Surber samples from each of the four riffles sampled (Figure 4-12). The
method of collecting multiple samples from a single riffle - as opposed to collecting only one
sample per riffle - is intended to provide enough replication to capture the potential variance of
species composition within riffle habitat in a given area. Individual samples were placed into 1-
L polyethylene wide-mouth sample bottles, preserved with ethanol, labeled, and transported to
HDR’s Anchorage laboratory for analysis.
Individual samples were processed separately to provide a statistically valid measure of within-
site variability. Each organism was identified to the lowest practical taxa, which in most cases
was to the genus level. Individuals in the Chironomidae family (Order Diptera) were identified at
the family level due to the additional sample processing necessary for further identifications.
Macroinvertebrate metrics analyzed include population density, taxa richness, dominant taxa,
percent Ephemeroptera (i.e., mayfly), Plecoptera (i.e., stonefly) and Trichoptera (i.e., caddisfly)
(EPT), percent Diptera (e.g., true flies), percent Chironomidae (i.e., family belonging to Diptera
order), and the percent of “other” organisms (e.g. worms, beetles, mollusks, etc.).
Population density and taxa richness were calculated for each site by averaging the results from
all five Surber samples collected at each site. The average population density was determined by
counting all organisms collected in a one square-foot area, as defined by the Surber sampler
frame. Organisms from the five Surber samples collected at each site were counted separately;
the average of the five samples was used to estimate population density.
Dominant taxa and percent sample composition (EPT, Diptera, Chironomidae, and ‘other’
organisms) were calculated for each surber sample at a given site and averaged. The result is
recorded as average percent dominant taxa and average percent sample composition for the site
as a whole.
A macroinvertebrate reference collection was assembled and submitted to the University of
Alaska Anchorage, Environment and Natural Resource Institute (ENRI) for taxonomic
verification.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-47 May 2012
Study Results
The field team collected a total of 20 Surber samples from four sites collocated with the water
quality sites within Gartina Creek. Sample sites are shown on Figure 4-12. One Surber sample,
collected from GCWQ-3, was compromised during transport and was therefore excluded from
analysis.
Population Density and Taxa Richness
Both population density and taxa richness are important metrics when analyzing
macroinvertebrate communities. The two metrics are sometimes related to one another but are
not interdependent.
Population Density
Average population density varied between sites and ranged from 84 to 296 organisms (Table 4-
13, Figure 4-19). GCWQ-1 (upstream of the proposed inundation area) and GCWQ-3 (near the
base of the waterfall and proposed powerhouse) both had relatively low average population
densities. Conversely, GCWQ-2 (upstream of the waterfall within the proposed inundation area)
and GCWQ-5 (downstream of the proposed powerhouse location) both had relatively high
average population densities.
Among other variables, differences in population densities between sites are typically due to
differences in the availability of suitable habitat and/or food sources and dissolved oxygen
content. The food source for macroinvertebrates in Gartina Creek is likely quite similar between
each of the sites since they are all within the same stream system, and share similar habitats and
surrounding riparian vegetation.
Although dissolved oxygen contents varied, the variance was primarily due to each sites’
proximity to Gartina Falls. The two sites downstream of the waterfall had higher dissolved
oxygen contents (about 10% higher) than the two sites located upstream of the falls (Table 4-13).
When compared to one another, dissolved oxygen contents measured at the two sites located
downstream of the falls were nearly identical. Similarly, the two sites located upstream of the
falls had very similar dissolved oxygen content. Therefore, the variance in average population
densities does not appear to vary in response to the dissolved oxygen content measured at each
site.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-48 May 2012
Table 4-13. Average Population Density and Taxa Richness of macroinvertebrates collected with a Surber
sampler at four sites in Gartina Creek in August 2011.
Station
ID Location Date DO1 %
(mgL)
Average
Population
Density
Average
Taxa Richness
GCWQ‐1
Upstream of falls,
upstream of inundated
area
8/9/2011 81.9%
(9.10) 84 16.4
GCWQ‐2 Upstream of falls,
within inundation area 8/9/2011 81.9%
(9.06) 254 18.2
GCWQ‐3
Downstream of falls,
Near base of falls &
powerhouse location
8/10/2011 94.7%
(10.71) 96 15.0
GCWQ‐5
Downstream of falls,
downstream of
powerhouse
8/10/2011 96.7%
(10.87) 296 13.8
Note: 1 Water quality parameters (dissolved oxygen, temperature, specific conductivity, etc.) were recorded during the
macroinvertebrate sampling effort in August 2011, using a YSI meter.
Taxa Richness
Although the population density at GCWQ-1 and GCWQ-3 was relatively low, the average taxa
richness at these two sites was similar to that found at GCWQ-2 and GCWQ-5 (Table 4-13,
Figure 4-20). All four sites had fairly high average taxa richness. Chironomids were prevalent at
all sites but not identified to genus, thus all chironomidae were counted as a single taxon.
Taxa richness and population density are not interdependent. In other words, the average
population density of a set of Surber samples should not be used to predict the average taxa
richness. In the four sites sampled, the site with the highest average population density (GCWQ-
5) also was the site with the lowest average taxa richness. The site with the lowest average
population density (GCWQ-1) had the second highest average taxa richness.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-49 May 2012
Figure 4-19. Average Population Density of macroinvertebrates from Surber sampling at four sites in
Gartina Creek.
Figure 4-20. Average Taxa Richness of macroinvertebrates from Surber sampling at four sites in
Gartina Creek.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-50 May 2012
Dominant Taxa
The dominant taxon is the individual genus or family with the largest average number of
individuals at a given site. Samples were dominated by the Chironomidae family of the Diptera
order at three of the four sites (Table 4-14). However, since Chironomidae is at the family level
and most of the other organisms are identified to genus, the second-most dominant taxon
collected is also presented.
Table 4-14. Average percent Dominant Taxa collected at four sites in Gartina Creek using a Surber sample,
August 2011.
Site ID Sample
Date
Taxa
Dominance
Rank
Order Family Genus Percent
Dominance
GCWQ‐1 8/9/2011
First Diptera Chironomidae ‐‐ 22%
Second Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Serratella 13%
GCWQ‐2 8/9/2011
First Diptera Chironomidae ‐‐ 24%
Second Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Cinygmula 15%
GCWQ‐3 8/10/2011
First Diptera Chironomidae ‐‐ 46%
Second Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Serratella 7.5%
GCWQ‐5 8/10/2011
First Diptera Simuliidae Simullium 31.5%
Second Diptera Chironomidae ‐‐ 30%
Sample dominance by Diptera taxa is a common observation in Alaska baseline bioassessment
studies. Of the 19 Surber samples collected between the four sites, 10 were dominated by
Chironomidae, four were dominated by Simullium and one was dominated by Oreogoton; all of
which are in order Diptera. Ephemeroptera dominated the remaining four Surber samples.
Percent Sample Composition
EPT (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera), Dipteran, Chironomidae and “other”
organisms are the four significant groups used to compare low-tolerance and high-tolerance
organisms. The EPT group commonly makes up the lowest percent of organisms in Alaskan
streams. However, the percentage of the sample constituted by EPT taxa – the three taxa widely
regarded as most sensitive to water quality and habitat changes (Merritt and Cummins 1996) -
was higher than Diptera, Chironomidae and “other” at three of the four sites sampled in Gartina
Creek (Figure 4-21, Table 4-15).
EPT comprised over 60% of samples collected at the two sites located upstream of the falls
(GCWQ-1 and GCWQ-2). EPT was also the dominant group at the site located near the
proposed powerhouse location (GCWQ-3). The order Diptera dominated the samples collected
at the site located furthest downstream of the falls (GCWQ-5). Similar differences between
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-51 May 2012
macroinvertebrate community structure upstream and downstream of salmon barrier falls are
noted in other Southeast Alaska streams (Lessard et.al. 2008).
The lowest percent EPT was found in GCWQ-5. Chironomidae, a family in the order Diptera,
are represented individually and are also included in the Diptera group because they typically
make up the largest percent of Dipterans and commonly outnumber EPT organisms.
Table 4-15. Average percent sample composition at four sites on Gartina Creek, Surber samples - August
2011.
Site ID Date EPT Diptera Chironomidae Other
GCWQ‐1 8/9/2011 63.4% 33.9% 22.0% 2.8%
GCWQ‐2 8/9/2011 70.8% 28.2% 22.3% 1.0%
GCWQ‐3 8/10/2011 54.1% 45.2% 32.2% 0.6%
GCWQ‐5 8/10/2011 39.4% 60.2% 28.7% 0.4%
Section 4 Exhibit E Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative FERC No. 14066 4-52 May 2012 Figure 4-21. Average percent sample composition for macroinvertebrates collected using a Surber sampler at four sites on Gartina Creek, August 2011.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-53 May 2012
4.5.2 Potential Environmental Effects
IPEC’s examination of existing information and current resource studies identified the following
potential effects of the Project on fish and aquatic resources, each discussed below:
Effects of Project construction and operation on stream habitat and fish populations
upstream and downstream of the Project diversion structure.
Effects of Project construction and operation on large woody debris recruitment and
movement.
Effects of Project construction and operation on benthic macroinvertebrates.
4.5.2.1 Upstream Fisheries
Upstream of Gartina Falls, Gartina Creek supports a population of resident Dolly Varden char,
including throughout the upstream tributary, Water Supply Creek. Post construction,
approximately 125-feet of Gartina Creek upstream of the falls and downstream of the
diversion/intake structure will be dewatered when flows are greater than 11 cfs and less than 110
cfs. This area provides limited habitat, as it is at the top of the falls. Approximately 30% of this
area is bedrock dominated substrate and/or occupied by the old wood crib dam. The remainder
is riffle habitat over large cobble substrate, similar to that found in upstream reaches.
Upstream of the diversion structure, stream habitats will be deepened by a backwater effect
extending approximately 800 feet upstream and including the confluence with Water Supply
Creek. The maximum extent of this habitat modification will be approximately 10 feet of depth
at the diversion structure, lessening with distance upstream. IPEC expects that the existing pool
riffle habitat will change after Project construction to deeper water pool habitat, and may provide
new overwintering habitat for resident fish in the upstream inundated portion of Gartina Creek
and the confluence with Water Supply Creek.
Stream habitats more than approximately 800 feet upstream of the diversion will not be affected.
However, some mortality of resident fish is expected for those fish that inadvertently pass
through the Project powerhouse and turbine.
Studies of resident trout populations have suggested there is strong genetic control for residency
that seems to be particularly well developed in populations that live in habitats where emigration
could be detrimental, such as in reaches above waterfalls, or other barriers (Northcote 1992;
Morita et al. 2000). Because individuals that migrate over the falls are effectively lost from the
above-barrier population, intense selection against downstream movement in the remaining
above-barrier fish is expected to drive the rapid evolution of a purely resident phenotype above
the falls (Pearse et al. 2009). Therefore, it is unlikely that after the Project is constructed that the
resident fish would be drawn downstream since there will only be minor changes to the river
characteristics.
However, in river reaches above barriers such as the existing waterfall, resident populations will
only persist if the fish show behavioral traits that reduce the downstream losses to a level that
permits the continued existence of the population above the barrier. The existing falls are a
natural complete barrier which has isolated the resident population of Dolly Varden above the
falls for as long as the falls have existed. This population is likely, by nature, genetically
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-54 May 2012
selected to remain a local resident population since any downstream migration over the falls
would result in a net loss to the population.
4.5.2.2 Downstream Fisheries
ADF&G survey data and fisheries assessments conducted by IPEC during 2010 and 2011
documented pink, chum, and coho salmon, cutthroat trout and steelhead, Dolly Varden char, and
sculpin in the approximately 5 miles of Gartina Creek downstream of Gartina Falls, an existing
approximately 55-foot tall fish barrier. IPEC’s field studies show the relative density (fish per
1,000 ft. of stream) of adult salmon utilizing Gartina Creek to be highest in the lower reach
between the bridge and the airport (Foot-Survey Reach 1). This lower portion of Gartina Creek
is within the area where ADF&G typically limits their aerial surveys for fish (Monagle 2010).
The proposed Project will divert water from upstream of Gartina Falls. The diverted water will
be transferred to a new single-turbine powerhouse at the base of the falls by way of a 225-foot
long steel penstock. Powerhouse flows will discharge into a chamber below the powerhouse and
then through an opening in the powerhouse foundation directly to Gartina Creek approximately
80 feet downstream of the base of the falls. The opening in the powerhouse foundation will be
protected by a movable picket fence. The picket fence can be lowered when migrating fish are
present to protect against inadvertent entry into the discharge chamber.
Habitat immediately below the falls, and upstream of the powerhouse release will have an altered
flow regime during Project operations. This area consists of a plunge pool at the base of the falls
and riffle habitat over large cobble with some exposed bedrock. Fish were observed to occupy
the plunge pool area, but the adjacent riffles provide marginal spawning habitat due to the
hydraulic energy created by the falls. A 12-inch diameter pipeline will be routed from the
discharge chamber below the powerhouse to the pool at the base of Gartina Falls. This pipeline
will convey 8-10 cfs of the powerhouse flow to the pool whenever the Project is in operation.
When the Project is not in operation, natural flows will pass by the diversion/intake structure and
flow over the falls to the pool. This combination will ensure that a constant flow of water will be
introduced at the base of the falls maintaining rearing and overwinter habitat in the pool at all
times.
Downstream of the tailrace the Project should not affect fish and aquatic habitat. The Project
will be operated in run-of-river mode, with stream flows essentially matching natural flows.
4.5.2.3 Large Woody Debris
IPEC’s environmental investigations found that existing conditions for large woody debris
recruitment and movement are good throughout Gartina Creek in the Project vicinity: adjacent
habitats are forested, with steep banks and a high stream gradient. The Project will not alter
these conditions. Some downstream movement of woody debris may be restricted by the Project
diversion structure. Accumulated debris will be manually passed downstream as part of normal
Project operations and maintenance.
4.5.2.4 Macroinvertebrates
Macroinvertebrates were collected from riffle habitats at four sites situated upstream, within, and
downstream of the proposed Project footprint. The results of the single field sampling event
indicate that Gartina Creek is a biologically healthy stream. EPT taxa constituted a relatively
high percentage of the macroinvertebrate communities collected from all four areas sampled.
EPT taxa dominated sample composition at both sites upstream of the falls and one site
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-55 May 2012
downstream of the falls, while Dipterans dominated the composition of samples collected at the
site furthest downstream of the falls.
Because the Project will operate solely in run-of-river mode, Project effects on benthic
macroinvertebrates would largely be limited to the bypass reach (i.e., 125 feet upstream of
Gartina Falls to diversion structure) and the inundated area (800 feet upstream of the Project
diversion structure).
The bypass reach extends from the head of the waterfall to roughly 125 feet upstream to the
proposed diversion structure. This reach will be dewatered when flows are greater than 11 cubic
feet per second (cfs) and less than 110 cfs, and will not have sufficient water to support
macroinvertebrate production during normal Project operations.
Upstream of the diversion structure, the stream channel will be deepened by a backwater effect
for roughly 800 feet (to a point just upstream from the Water Supply Creek confluence). The
Project would alter the depth by a maximum of 10 feet (at the diversion structure); water depth
would decrease with distance upstream.
Existing habitat upstream of the diversion structure (i.e., within the 800-foot inundation area) is
dominated primarily by fast-water riffles (54%) and glides/runs15 (36%). The largest pool
within this stream segment is located just downstream from Water Supply Creek.
Macroinvertebrate samples collected from a riffle (GCWQ-2) within the confines of the
proposed area of inundation were comprised of EPT (67%), Dipterans (31%) and other (2%)
organisms. EPT typically thrive in fast water habitats, such as riffles, that have relatively high
dissolved oxygen content; substrate large enough to provide ample niche space; and velocities
high enough to prevent sediment deposition from clogging niche space or burying food sources.
EPT are considered to be relatively intolerant to environmental (e.g., habitat) alteration, whereas
Dipterans can tolerate a much wider range of habitat conditions (Merritt and Cummins 1996).
IPEC expects that after Project construction, habitat within this 800-foot area would function
similarly to a relatively deep-water pool. Although velocities upstream and downstream of the
Project footprint would not substantially change; velocities within the 800-foot area of
inundation would be reduced. The Project is not expected to substantially change dissolved
oxygen content, temperature, and sediment within this 800-foot area. However, increased water
depth and reduced velocities may alter the habitat’s ecological function and likely result in a shift
of macroinvertebrate diversity and/or community composition within this localized area.
It is reasonable to assume that the percent of EPT taxa may decrease and the percent of Dipterans
would increase in response to habitat changes within this 800-foot area. The majority of the EPT
taxa found to occur at GCWQ-02 typically occupy lotic environments (e.g., flowing waters). A
few EPT taxa can also tolerate the littoral zones of lentic environments (e.g., standing water). For
example, of the 20 EPT genera, only one (Baetis spp.) is listed as tolerating both lotic and lentic
15 Glide / run habitats were grouped due to the reconnaissance-level nature of the habitat survey; these habitats had
laminar flow and variable depths; depths were commonly deeper than the shallow riffle habitats.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-56 May 2012
environments (Merritt and Cummins 1996). Baetis spp. comprised roughly 24% of the
Ephemoroptera taxa from samples collected at GQWQ-2. It is possible that this taxon may begin
to constitute a higher percentage of the EPT community during Project operations.
It is also possible that planktonic taxa, and/or Odonata (e.g., dragon fly, damsel fly larvae) and
Hemiptera taxa, which prefer slower moving waters, would colonize habitat within the inundated
area. These taxa can also tolerate warmer water. Mortality of some macroinvertebrates may also
occur if individuals inadvertently drift through the Project powerhouse and turbine during Project
operations.
Stream habitat farther upstream, above the Project footprint and inundated area (i.e., greater than
800 feet upstream of the diversion), will not be affected.
Habitat from the base of the waterfall downstream to the powerhouse outlet may experience
alteration; the existing high energy plunge pool would have more consistent flows during Project
operations. Although this may cause changes in dissolved oxygen levels during Project
operation, habitat within this area should remain suitable to support fish and other aquatic
species.
Downstream of the powerhouse location, no substantial changes in flow or water quality will
result from Project construction or operations; therefore IPEC does not expect effects of the
Project on benthic macroinvertebrates.
4.5.3 Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures
The Project was designed to limit effects to fish populations and aquatic habitat by creating the
shortest practicable bypass reach at the existing anadromous barrier. In addition, the Project
design includes a mechanism for maintaining 8-10 cfs immediately at the base of the falls. No
additional protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures specific to fish and aquatic
resources are proposed.
Best management practices for scheduling in-water work, controlling erosion and limiting short-
term impacts during construction will be implemented according to APDES General
Construction Permit guidelines and Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit specifications.
4.6 Botanical Resources, Wetlands, Riparian, and Littoral Habitat
4.6.1 Affected Environment
4.6.1.1 Wetlands
The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) delineated the aerial extent of wetlands and identified
the type of wetlands in an area that includes the Project vicinity (USFWS 2010). This data set is
a result of the aerial images interpretation with little ground-verification, however, it is a primary
data source used to detect wetlands. According to NWI mapping, the majority of the Project
vicinity is freshwater wetland. Wetlands in the area consist of saturated forested type and
saturated forested/shrub type. The NWI mapping indicates that non-wetland (upland) areas are
present along the riparian corridors of streams, including Gartina Creek, and also along steep
sides of hills, and on hilltops. Wetland type description used in this report is based on the
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-57 May 2012
USFWS’s classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States, developed by
Cowardin et al. (1979).
The latest available high resolution aerial photography corresponds well with NWI mapping and
provides fine scale information on boundaries and wetland types in the wetlands study area. Fine
scale aerial features that support wetland status include stunted trees or shrubs, open canopy
structure, dark areas of surface water and streams. These existing data sources were reviewed
prior to the initiation of IPEC’s studies.
4.6.1.2 Botanical Resources
Plants and plant communities of the Tongass National Forest are described in the Tongass Land
and Resource Management Plan (USFS 2008). This documentation provides only forest-wide
general description of vegetation communities. Additional efforts were made in surveying and
reporting plant communities, rare plant species, and plants communities as habitats for birds,
mammals, and amphibians for certain areas of the Tongass National Forest (TNF), however,
none of those studies cover the Project vicinity. Thus, only general information was available.
The Forest Service identified plant species for which population viability is a concern. There are
currently 17 plant species listed as Forest Service Sensitive Species on the TNF (Goldstein
2009). The Alaska Natural Heritage program (AKNHP) maintains a list of plants that are
considered rare within Alaska. This list currently contains 86 plants.
AKNHP coordinates and administers the rare plant and animal data portal (BIOTICS). This
database is a collection of records on Alaska’s plant and animal species of concern and their
habitats. Information is publicly available online, and can be searched by location.
Other existing sources of information about botanical resources used include ARCTOS web-
searchable database. The ARCTOS database contains more than 220,000 records of the only
research herbarium in Alaska (UAF 2011). This database allows rapid search for species lists in
specific geographic extent.
The Alaska Exotic Plants Information Clearinghouse (AKEPIC) is a program that was created to
track occurrences of non-native plants in Alaska. AKEPIC is a database containing state-wide
occurrences of non-native plants from number of collaborators, such as Forest Service, State and
Private Forestry, the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, University of Alaska,
and other federal, state, and local agencies. The TNF maintains an inventory of occurrences of
non-native plants in the AKEPIC database. The database is available online at:
http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/.
Search results from listed databases were used to describe existing botanical resources in the
Project vicinity.
4.6.1.3 Invasive Species
Executive Order 13112 requires all federal agencies to prevent the introduction of invasive
species, provide for their control, and minimize their impacts (economic, ecological, and human
health). The non-native plants of concern are those with the greatest ability to compete with
native vegetation and to alter the structure, composition, and functions of natural plant
communities. Such plants are identified in the ranking system developed by the Alaska Natural
Heritage Program (AKNHP 2011a). Occurrences of non-native plants in Alaska are tracked by
the Alaska Exotic Plants Information Clearinghouse (AKEPIC) program. A ranking system is
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-58 May 2012
used (0-100) to rate the potential invasiveness of a species, with 100 being an extremely invasive
species. Table 4-16 lists the species within the Hoonah area with the highest invasiveness rank
(50 and above), indicating potential species of concern if established in the area.
Although an invasive plant survey was not conducted for the study area, the field crew recorded
the location of a reed canarygrass infestation, one of the plants identified as highly invasive in
Southeast Alaska. Reed canarygrass is established on a side of the existing road between
Hoonah and Gartina Creek.
Table 4-16. Highly-invasive plant species recorded in the vicinity of Hoonah, Alaska.
Scientific Name Common Name Invasiveness Rank
Fallopia japonica (Houtt.) Ronse Decr. Japanese knotweed 87
Phalaris arundinacea L. reed canarygrass 83
Melilotus alba Medikus white sweetclover 81
Sonchus arvensis L. perennial sowthistle 73
Rosa rugosa Thunb. rugosa rose 72
Cytisus scoparius (L.) Link Scotch broom 69
Iris pseudacorus L. yellowflag iris 66
Hordeum jubatum L. foxtail barley 63
Schedonorus arundinaceus (Schreb.) Dumort. tall fescue 63
Leucanthemum vulgare Lam. oxeye daisy 61
Tanacetum vulgare L. common tansy 60
Elymus repens (L.) Gould quackgrass 59
Sorbus aucuparia L. European mountain ash 59
Trifolium repens L. white clover 59
Taraxacum officinale ssp. officinale common dandelion 58
Trifolium hybridum L. alsike clover 57
Alchemilla mollis (Buser) Rothm. lady's mantle 56
Phleum pratense L. timothy 54
Ranunculus acris L. tall buttercup 54
Ranunculus repens L. creeping buttercup 54
Dactylis glomerata L. orchardgrass 53
Trifolium pratense L. red clover 53
Alopecurus pratensis L. meadow foxtail 52
Hypericum perforatum L. common St. Johnswort 52
Lolium pratense (Huds.) S.J. Darbyshire meadow fescue 52
Poa pratensis L. ssp. irrigata (Lindm.) H. Lindb. or
Poa pratensis L. ssp. pratensis
spreading bluegrass or
Kentucky bluegrass 52
Poa trivialis L. rough bluegrass 52
Hieracium umbellatum L. narrowleaf hawkweed 51
Rumex acetosella L. common sheep sorrel 51
Brassica rapa L. birdsrape mustard 50
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-59 May 2012
Scientific Name Common Name Invasiveness Rank
Galeopsis tetrahit L. brittlestem hempnettle 50
4.6.1.4 Overview of Studies
In 2010, wetland scientists characterized existing botanical resources along the proposed access
road. The team reviewed available aerial photography, topography, and the NWI database
(USFWS 2010) and produced preliminary office-based wetland and vegetation type maps for the
Project vicinity. The team conducted a two-day field effort to ground truth preliminary mapping
and collect site-specific data on vegetation communities, soil conditions, and hydrology along
the proposed access road and transmission line and in the vicinity of the powerhouse site. The
wetlands and vegetation field investigation was conducted on October 17 and 18, 2010.
IPEC will submit a draft Jurisdictional Determination Report (JDR) to the Army Corps of
Engineers. The purpose of the JDR is to identify locations within the Project area, including
wetlands and other waters of the U.S., that are subject to the jurisdiction of the USACE under
authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1899. By federal law and associated policy, it is necessary to avoid Project impacts to wetlands
and waters wherever practicable, and to minimize impacts that cannot be avoided. IPEC will
continue consultation with the USACE to complete all Section 404 permit requirements prior to
construction.
The sections that follow present the methods and results of data collected during IPEC’s field
study. These data are integrated with existing information to characterize botanical resources in
the Gartina Creek Project area.
4.6.1.5 Study Area and Methods
Study Area
The study area for the wetland and vegetation study is intended to cover all areas that may be
affected by Project operation and maintenance. The study area was defined as the area of direct
impact from the project components, and by an additional area of 25 foot buffers from the
boundaries of direct impact. The Project components that defined the study area consisted of the
following:
Intake Structure and Spillway;
54” Steel Penstock;
Powerhouse;
Proposed Access Road; and
Normal Pool (potentially inundated area).
The total length of the proposed new access road corridor is approximately 0.5 miles. The
wetlands and vegetation study area is approximately 7.4 acres.
Study Methods
The team of scientists completed USACE wetland determination forms to document local
vegetation, soil, and hydrology conditions at six wetland determination sites. An additional 28
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-60 May 2012
sites were photo-documented, including representative wetland, representative upland, or
presence of streams.
The wetland scientists reviewed available aerial photography with two-foot resolution,
topography and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping
(USFWS 2010) to determine the extent at which wetlands may occur in the study area.
Following the initial review, the team digitized preliminary wetland boundaries into a GIS
database. Delineating wetlands from aerial photography included using vegetation clues, such as
open canopy structures, low plant height; evidence of surface water, and topography.
Project scientists performed a desk-top analysis to determine potential sampling locations based
on preliminary wetland and vegetation boundaries. Sampling locations were distributed over a
full range of environmental and physical conditions. The location of each target plot was
uploaded onto a handheld global positioning system (GPS) unit.
The field team recorded the locations of each wetland or upland site visited using a handheld
GPS unit and collected photographs to depict vegetative and hydrologic conditions. The team
recorded specific observations for each wetland it encountered, including the presence or
absence of a hydrologic inlet or outlet, or the wetland’s “connectivity” to other hydrologic
features.
The team collected additional data for a subset of the wetlands encountered using standard
USACE wetland determination data forms. The team collected additional photographs to record
representative vegetation, soil profile, and hydrology indicators at these select wetland sites.
Figure 4-22 and Figure 4-23 show typical vegetation characteristics of the study area.
Color aerial photographs were analyzed in GIS to determine vegetation characteristics such as
vegetation cover type, canopy height, and forest cover class that were the basis for delineating
vegetation boundaries. Vegetation cover types were identified by using the existing aerial
photography, a topography map, the NWI map, reviewing existing literature, and on-site
investigations conducted in October 2010. Vegetation type boundaries were identified using
aerial photography and digitized in GIS.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-61 May 2012
Figure 4-22. Typical view of wetland closed forest in study area.
Figure 4-23. Previously logged area overgrown by blueberry shrubs and Sitka spruce saplings.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-62 May 2012
4.6.1.6 Study Results
Wetlands
Based on reviews of site locations, field data forms, field notes, and site photographs team
delineated wetland/upland boundaries and classified wetland types according to the
Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et. al. 1979).
Scientists mapped two palustrine wetland classes: forested wetlands, and scrub-shrub wetlands.
Mapped wetlands are shown in Figure 4-24. The abundance (acreage) of each classified type in
the 7.4-acre study area is included in Table 4-17. The onsite determination indicates that
approximately 6.4 acres (86%) of the study area are potentially jurisdictional wetlands or
waterbodies..
Needle-leaved Evergreen Forested Wetlands are dominated by needle-leaved evergreen trees.
Needle-leaved evergreen forested wetlands are the most common type of wetland in the study
area, occupying 4.6 acres. The forest within the study area is part of a larger forested wetland
complex that extends to the west and east. Vegetation ranges from scrubby forest to open forest,
and closed forest. Tree cover is formed by a mix of Western hemlock, Mountain hemlock, and
Sitka spruce greater than 20 feet in height. Dominant understory plants include Alaska blueberry,
early blueberry, and red huckleberry. Shrubs and forbs understory is sparse; moss cover is
abundant. Soils investigated were saturated at approximately 3 inches. Build up of a thick fibric
organic surface layer indicates that the soils are Hydric.
Needle Leaved Scrub-Shrub Wetlands are less common in the study area and occupy
approximately 0.8 acres. Approximately 0.2 acre is characterized as flat muskeg with stunted
needle-leaf trees, dwarf shrubs, and tussock forming sedges. Common wetland hydrology
indicators observed included saturated soils and shallow topographical depressions that appear to
be frequently inundated. The remaining 0.6 acres of scrub-shrub wetlands are located in a
previously logged area are dominated by Sitka spruce saplings, and blueberry and huckleberry
shrubs. Hydrology indicators observed included saturation at the surface with areas of surface
water.
Upland Habitats
Uplands (non-wetland) in the study area are less common and are located on steeps slopes
adjacent to Gartina Creek and Water Supply Creek. An additional small area of upland is present
as an unvegetated gravel road at the western end of the study area. Together, these areas occupy
approximately 1.0 acre. Vegetated uplands are generally dominated by mature, closed hemlock
forest. Forested areas situated along the riparian corridor of Gartina Creek downstream of
Gartina Falls and at the mouth of Water Supply Creek are on steep side slopes not conducive to
retaining water.
Riparian Habitats
The riverine system includes all wetlands and deepwater habitats contained within a channel
(Cowardin et al. 1979). One acre of Gartina Creek open water was mapped within the 7.4-acres
wetlands study area. Gartina Creek is an upper perennial stream that has a high gradient and
high velocity stream flow.
Upland (Non-Wetland). The riparian corridor along the Gartina Creek was found to be upland
(Non-Wetland). Mature closed hemlock forest is developed on steep creek sides.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-63 May 2012
Non-navigable Tributary Waters of the U.S.
Approximately 1.0 acre of Gartina Creek occurs within the study area. Gartina Creek is a
permanent water that discharges directly into Port Frederick, traditional navigable water which is
subject to jurisdiction under both Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act. Six additional intermittent streams are present in the study area. All six
streams are tributaries to Gartina Creek and are considered permanent or relatively permanent
waters because they have continuous flow at least seasonally. The widths of these streams vary
from 3 to 7 feet, rendering them too narrow to map as individual polygons on the aerial imagery.
A total of approximately 501 linear feet (0.1 mile) of intermittent streams are present within the
study area.
Table 4-17. Mapped acres and types of wetlands in the study area.
Code Description NWI Code Acres
Upland
Upland, non‐wetland UP 1.0
Wetland
Saturated needle‐leaved
evergreen forested wetlands PFO4B 4.6
Saturated needle‐leaved
evergreen/broad‐leaved
deciduous scrub‐shrub wetlands
PSS4/1B 0.6
Saturated needle‐leaved
evergreen scrub‐shrub/needle‐
leaved evergreen forested
wetlands
PSS4/FO4B 0.2
Other Waters of the U.S
Perennial stream R3UBH 1.0
Total area mapped 7.4
Total Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S.6.4
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-64 May 2012
Figure 4-24. Wetland types and field data collection points in study area.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-65 May 2012
Figure 4-25. Gartina Falls vegetation cover in the Project vicinity.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-66 May 2012
Vegetation Cover in the Project vicinity is shown in Figure 5-25. Common forbs in the forested
areas include bunchberry, trailing raspberry, and skunk cabbage. A variety of mosses covers a
great part of the ground under the forest canopy. A full list of plant species observed in the
Project vicinity is in Table 4-18. Narrow corridors of riparian vegetation are comprised of red
alder, balsam poplar, and stink currant.
Table 4-18. Plant Species Observed in Project Vicinity.
Scientific Name Common Name Indicator Status
Alnus rubra red alder FAC
Andromeda polifolia bog rosemary OBL
Athyrium felix‐femina subarctic lady fern FAC
Blechnum spicant deer fern FAC
Calamagrostis canadensis blue‐joint reedgrass FAC
Carex sp. Sedge species N/A
Chamaecyparis nootkatensis Alaska cedar FAC
Coptis aspleniifolia fern‐leaf goldthread FAC
Cornus canadensis bunchberry FACU
Cornus stolonifera red‐osier dogwood FAC
Deschampsia beringensis tufted hairgrass FAC
Elymus trachicaulus slender wheatgrass FACU
Empetrum nigrum crowberry FAC
Epilobium angustifolium fireweed FACU
Equisetum fluviatile water horsetail OBL
Gentiana douglasiana swamp gentian FACW
Heracleum lanatum cow‐parsnip FACU
Ledum groenlandicum Labrador‐tea FACW
Lycopodium annotinum stiff clubmoss FAC
Lysichiton americanum skunk‐cabbage OBL
Mensiesia ferruginea false azalea UPL
Oplopanax horridus devil's club FACU
Phalaris arundinaceae reed canary grass OBL
Picea sitchensis Sitka spruce FACU
Pinus contorta lodge‐pole pine FAC
Populus trichocarpa balsam poplar FACU
Ribes bracteosum stink currant NI
Rubus pedatus strawberry‐leaf raspberry FAC
Rubus spectabilis salmon berry FACU
Salix scouleriana Scouler willow FAC
Stellaria crispa curled starwort FAC
Tsuga heterophylla western hemlock FAC
Tsuga mertensiana mountain hemlock FAC
Vaccinium alaskaense Alaska blueberry FAC
Vaccinium cespitosum dwarf bilberry FACW
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-67 May 2012
Scientific Name Common Name Indicator Status
Vaccinium ovalifolium early blueberry FAC
Vaccinium parvifolium red huckleberry NL
Vaccinium uliginosum bog blueberry FAC
Vaccinium vitis‐idaea lowbush cranberry FAC
The majority of previously logged areas are covered with low scrub, such as blueberry or
huckleberry (Vaccinium sp.), and saplings of Sitka spruce. Areas of muskegs dominated by
dwarf scrubs (Vaccinium sp., Andromeda polifolia), peat sedges (Carex spp.), and Sphagnum
spp., shore pine is almost always sparse. Graminoid herbaceous meadows usually occur along
the streams and on open, recently disturbed soils.
Legacy trees
Legacy trees are mature trees remaining on the landscape following disturbances, and are thus
substantially older than the surrounding forest. An example is shown in Figure 4-26. Legacy
trees can provide structural complexity and are valuable as habitat elements for many species of
wildlife (Bull et al. 1997; Hunter and Bond 2001). There are several mature western hemlock
trees within the riparian corridor of Gartina Creek, the largest of which are approximately 90 cm
(39 in) in diameter. Based on initial project design estimates, between five and 10 of these trees
are within the area that would be cleared for Project construction.
Figure 4-26. Base of a mature western hemlock tree in riparian corridor.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-68 May 2012
4.6.2 Potential Environmental Effects
IPEC’s examination of existing information and current resource studies identified the following
potential effects of the Project on botanical resources and riparian, littoral, and wetland habitats,
each discussed below:
Effects of Project construction and operations on invasive weeds.
Effects of Project construction and operations on local vegetation types, including
wetlands.
Invasive Species
Because the Project vicinity is largely undeveloped, it does not currently support substantial
occurrences of invasive species. Botanical and other environmental investigations during 2010
and 2011 found reed canarygrass along the existing access road, but no other occurrences of
invasive species listed by the AKNHP were noted. Construction, road creation, and road use
required for Project construction and operation will create some potential for new occurrences of
invasive weeds. IPEC will implement construction best management practices to prevent the
introduction or spread of invasive plant species; with implementation of these measures IPEC
expects that Project effects on the spread of invasive species will be minimal.
Vegetation Removal
The Project will affect limited vegetation habitats in areas requiring construction, new Project
features, or laydown sites. Excepting laydown sites, these areas will be permanently converted
to developed lands, representing a direct Project effect on currently-forested habitat. Laydown
sites will be revegetated with native species typical of the area after construction. Lands affected
in this way total less than six acres. In addition, approximately 0.5 mile of new road will be
constructed, representing an additional loss of forested habitat. The diversion and intake
structures will be located in open water habitat; approximately 125 feet of open water habitat
will be dewatered when flows are greater than 11 cfs and less than 110 cfs during Project
operation. Loss of wetland, riparian, or littoral habitat will be limited to the direct impact areas
where facilities will be located. In addition six intermittent streams were identified that may be
crossed by the new road construction. The majority of the Project area is wetland; best
management practices for controlling erosion and limiting short-term impacts during
construction will be implemented according to APDES General Construction Permit guidelines
and Corps of Engineers 404 Permit specifications.
Approximately 800 feet of riparian vegetation on each side of the current creek location
upstream of the Project diversion will be inundated or otherwise affected by increased water
depth. These lands are comprised of relatively intact riparian forest. Based on field photo
inventories, it is estimated that in addition to shrubs and small tree removal, there are up to ten
mature trees that will be removed prior to Project operation. IPEC will avoid removal of legacy
trees where possible (e.g., route new access road to avoid these resources). However, because
the lands in the Project vicinity are privately owned, and typically managed for timber and
subject to road-building and periodic harvest, the effects vegetation removal for Project
construction on timber and vegetation resources will be negligible considering the current land
use.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-69 May 2012
4.6.3 Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures
The Project was designed to limit effects to wetlands and riparian habitat by creating the shortest
practicable bypass reach, and designed facilities to occupy less than six acres of currently
vegetated land. Removal of legacy trees will be avoided were practicable. Best management
practices for scheduling in-water work, controlling erosion and limiting short-term impacts to
wetland areas during construction will be implemented according to APDES General
Construction Permit guidelines and Corps of Engineers 404 Permit specifications.
No additional protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures specific to riparian, littoral, and
wetland habitats are proposed.
4.7 Wildlife Resources
4.7.1 Affected Environment
IPEC relied primarily upon a literature review and interviews with resource agency biologists to
document general wildlife use of habitat in the Project area. In addition, biologists conducted an
aerial survey for bald eagle nests in October 2010. Incidental wildlife observations were
recorded during a wetland and vegetation site visit in October 2010 and during the 2010 and
2011 aquatic resource surveys.
The Project area is near the Tongass National Forest (TNF), but occurs entirely on lands that are
privately owned. The TNF provides habitat for many species of mammals, birds, and
amphibians (USFS 2008). Approximately 160 species of birds nest in Southeast Alaska
(ADF&G 2011a). Additionally, 45 bird and 3 amphibian species are considered casual or
accidental visitors to southeast Alaska (USFS 2008). Ocean environments in southeast Alaska
support 18 species of marine mammals (USFS 2008)
Wildlife habitats in the Project vicinity are typical of the coastal temperate rainforest that is
common in southeast Alaska. The diversity of available wildlife habitat in the Project vicinity
provides habitat for a variety of resident and migratory birds and mammals. Section 5.6
(Botanical Resources) presents details regarding vegetation communities. Many of the species
that have the potential to occur within the Project area may only use the habitat during the
breeding season. Large mammals may also move in and out of the Project area based on habitat
requirements such as preferred wintering areas.
Wildlife resources likely occurring in the Project vicinity are described in the following major
groups:
Large mammals
Small mammals
Raptors
Waterbirds and shorebirds
Songbirds
Gamebirds
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-70 May 2012
Amphibians
Large Mammals
The Project area lies within the ADF&G Game Management Unit (GMU) 4. Large mammal
game species in the Project area managed by ADF&G include the following (ADF&G 2011b,
Natureserve 2011, MacDonald and Cook 2007):
Brown bear (Ursus arctos), and
Sitka black-tailed deer (Odocoileus heminonus sitkensis).
Brown Bear
Chichagof Island has the highest concentrations of brown bears in the world. The population is
stable or slightly increasing and the most recent population estimate for Chichagof Island is
1,550 bears (Mooney 2007b).
During late summer, brown bears concentrate in riparian forest habitats along low-elevation
coastal salmon streams to fish along river banks, forage on succulent vegetation and berries, and
for security and thermal cover. Salmon are an important food source for accumulation of energy
reserves to sustain bears over-wintering in dens. Brown bears start to den in October and
November; dens typically occur in old-growth forest habitat, in large-diameter old-growth trees
or in the base of large snags (Schoen et al. 1987).
The entire Project area is located in suitable brown bear habitat (Hyde personal communication
2010b). Gartina Creek salmon runs provide an important source of food for brown bears
(Mooney personal communication 2010). The Project vicinity is located within the Northeast
Chichagof Controlled Use Area in which brown bear hunting is restricted to non-motorized
vehicle use (ADF&G 2011c). While no specific field studies were conducted for brown bears,
bears were frequently observed in small numbers in the Project area; additionally, observations
of bear sign (scat, bedding areas, bear trails) were noted throughout the Project area during
October 2010 field studies and during on-foot weekly fish surveys in September and November
2010, and July and August 2011.
Sitka Black-tailed Deer
Sitka black-tailed deer are indigenous to the coastal regions of Southeast Alaska and northwest
British Columbia. Sitka black-tailed deer use a variety of habitats throughout the year from
coastal beaches to alpine areas, but tend to favor old-growth forests throughout the year. The
Sitka black-tail is generally found at elevations below 800 feet during winter months due to deep
snow cover at higher elevations. During summer months, the range of the Sitka black-tailed deer
is larger as this species will move up in elevation and may be found in alpine meadows above
tree line (Schoen and Albert 2007).
The Sitka black-tailed deer is the wildlife species receiving the highest hunting and subsistence
use of all terrestrial species in Southeast Alaska. In 2004-2005, the reported harvest was 6,799
deer and in 2005-2006 the reported harvest was 6,911 deer. The extensive road system on
northeast and northwest Chichagof Island has frequent reports of spotlighting and poaching
(Mooney 2007c). While no specific studies were conducted for Sitka black-tailed deer, they
were infrequently observed in small numbers in the Project area during weekly fish surveys in
September and November 2010, and July and August 2011.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-71 May 2012
Small Mammals
Southeast Alaska is home to a large number of small mammal species that largely fall into the
following categories of taxa: shrews, rodents, pikas, mustelids, and hares. Many of the species
within these taxa are endemic and exist in isolated populations due to the naturally fragmented
landscapes common to this part of the state. Most of these are important prey species for
furbearers and raptors.
The ADF&G lists some of the small mammals in the Project area as featured species (ADF&G
2006). Small mammals in Southeast Alaska have not been studied to the extent of larger
mammals and other species of concern in the region. For this reason, knowledge of distribution
and population of small mammal communities in the area are patchy at best. However, species
that likely occur in the Project vicinity include the following (MacDonald and Cook 2007;
Mooney personal communication 2010):
Long-tailed vole* (Microtus longicaudus)
Tundra vole (Microtus oeconomus)
Cinereus shrew (Sorex cinereus)
Northwestern deermouse (Peromyscus keeni)
Little brown bat* ( Myotis lucifugus_
Red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus)
River otter ( Lontra canadensis)
American marten* (Martes americana)
Ermine* (Mustela erminea)
Mink (Neovison vison)
Beaver (Castor canadensis)
*Featured Species (ADF&G 2006)
Life history information on ADF&G featured species is included below.
American Marten
The American marten is a carnivorous, furbearing member of the weasel family. The marten on
Chichagof Island were introduced (MacDonald and Cook 2007). In Southeast Alaska, marten
depend on old growth forests because they intercept snow, provide cover and denning sites, and
provide habitat for prey species used by marten (USFS 2008). Research has documented that
marten prey primarily on long-tailed voles when they are available (Mooney 2007a).
Chichagof Island is within Game Management Unit (GMU) 4. The ADF&G currently permits
unlimited trapping of marten in GMU 4 from December 1 to February 15. Trapping efforts
fluctuate year-to-year depending on fur prices, fuel prices, winter weather conditions, the current
economy, and marten populations. Between the 2001-2002 and 2005-2006 seasons, annual
harvest from GMU 4 was 1405 marten (Mooney 2007a).
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-72 May 2012
Little Brown Bat
The little brown bat is the most common bat in Alaska and it is most widely distributed in
Southeast Alaska. The little brown bat inhabits forests and uses man-made structures, caves,
hollow trees, and similar sites for roosting and hibernating. The little brown bat forages in
woodlands near water, often hunting over streams and lakes. Hibernation occurs from
September-November to April-May, and the little brown bat is known to hibernate in Southeast
Alaska (AKNHP 2011). The little brown bat likely occurs in the Project vicinity.
Long-Tailed Vole and Ermine
Ermine and voles are both identified as game species in Alaska with no conservation threats
identified. The long-tailed vole is a small rodent species that may be found throughout southeast
Alaska. Ermine are considered widely distributed through Alaska. They are a small,
carnivorous mammal, consuming mainly voles and mice. Ermine can use a wide variety of
habitats, preferring areas with a thick understory. (ADF&G 2012).
Birds
The Project area offers habitat for a number of resident and migratory birds. Bird groups are
discussed in the following major categories below: raptors (birds of prey); waterbirds (swans,
geese, ducks, loons, grebes and gulls) and shorebirds; songbirds (passerines); and game birds.
Raptors
The Project area likely provides habitat for a number of raptor species that are considered
featured species by the ADF&G (ADF&G 2006) including bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus), northern goshawk (Accipiter gentiles), Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis),
sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), Merlin (Falco columbarius), Western screech-owl (Otus
kennicottii) and great-horned owl (Bubo virginianus). Northern goshawk surveys were conducted
along Gartina Creek in the early 1990’s; however, no nests were documented along Gartina
Creek (Mooney personal communication 2010).
Bald eagles are year round residents in Southeast Alaska. Nesting bald eagles in Southeast
Alaska typically choose large old growth Sitka spruce or hemlock within 660 feet of saltwater.
Trees selected for nesting are usually among the largest in the stand, provide an unobstructed
view of the water, have large limbs, and often have bushy, broken, or deformed tops.
The Bald Eagle Protection Act provides for the protection of the bald eagle and the golden eagle
by prohibiting, except under certain specified conditions, the taking, possession, and commerce
of such birds. The USFWS (2007) developed National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines for
compliance with Bald Eagle Protection Act. The guidelines include the definition of zones
around nest trees which define allowable disturbance. The primary zone extends 330 feet from
the nest tree, and land clearing or construction may be discouraged year round. Human
disturbance is discouraged particularly during the spring-summer nesting season. A secondary
zone ranges to a distance of 660 feet from the nest, and human disturbance is minimized during
the breeding season, but construction may be possible outside the nesting season (USFWS 2007).
Perching sites are important components of nesting habitat and are used to scan for food, protect
their nests from avian predators, eating, mating displays, and to signal territory occupation
(Wright and Schempf 2008). Tall trees with open crowns, snags, trees with exposed lateral
limbs, or trees with dead tops provide perching sites.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-73 May 2012
An aerial survey was conducted on October 18, 2010 in the Project area to determine if there
were any nests along the proposed access road/transmission line and penstock and powerhouse
facilities. No bald eagle nests were documented in the Project vicinity. Perching sites are
available throughout the Project area and at least a dozen bald eagles were observed flying
through or perched in the Project area during the aerial survey.
Waterbirds and Shorebirds
Waterbirds, including swans, geese, ducks, loons and grebes, gulls and shorebirds, use
waterbodies and wetlands to varying degrees during portions of their life history. Species-
specific surveys have not been conducted for waterbirds in the study area (Mooney personal
communication 2010). Nesting habitat in the Project area is limited; however, Common
mergansers have been documented nesting along Gartina Creek (Mooney personal
communication 2010). Trumpeter swans and sandhill cranes may use wetlands and ponds
adjacent to the Project area but no nesting habitat exists in the Project area (Mooney personal
communication 2010).
Gulls and shorebirds are more common along the intertidal zone than in the forested Project area,
although a few shorebird species potentially nest in the Project area. Spotted sandpipers likely
nest along Gartina Creek and Wilson’s snipe nest in muskegs in the Project area. Waterbirds and
shorebirds that may occur in the Project area include the following (Smith et al. 2001):
American wigeon (Anas Americana)
Canada goose (Branta canadensis)
Common merganser (ergus merganser)
Great blue heron (Ardea Herodias)
Green-winged teal (Anas crecca)
Greater yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca)
Glaucous-winged gull (Larus glaucescens)
Harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus)
Lesser yellowlegs(Tringa flavipes)
Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos)
Marbled murrelet(Brachyramphus marmoratus)
Mew gull (Larus canus)
Red-breasted merganser (Mergus serrator)
Sandhill crane (Grus canadensis)
Spotted sandpiper (Actitis macularia)
Short-billed dowitcher (Limnodromus griseus)
Trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinators)
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-74 May 2012
Vancouver Canada goose (Branta canadensis fulva)
Wilson’s snipe (Gallinago delicate)
Songbirds
Neotropical migratory songbirds (referred to as migratory birds) are far ranging species that
require a diversity of habitats for foraging, breeding, and wintering. Over 100 species of
songbirds migrate from the lower forty-eight states, Central, and South America to nesting,
breeding and rearing grounds in Alaska. Most of the birds fly to the interior or northern Alaska
and only pass through Southeast Alaska on their way to the breeding grounds. However, forest
habitat in the Project area is used for foraging and nesting by a number of resident and migratory
songbirds. While no specific breeding bird surveys have been conducted, belted kingfishers and
American dippers have been documented nesting along the Gartina Creek riparian area (Mooney
personal communication 2010). American dippers were observed along Gartina Creek during
wetlands and vegetation and fisheries field studies in 2010 and 2011 by field crews.
Common breeding songbirds that use forest and other upland habitats in the Project vicinity
(Andres et al. 2004; Mooney personal communication 2010) include:
American dipper (Cinclus mexicanus)
American robin (Turdus migratorius)
Belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon)
Brown creeper (Certhia Americana)
Chestnut-backed chickadee (Poecile rufescens)
Dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis)
Fox sparrow (Passerella iliaca)
Golden-crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa)
Hermit thrush (Catharus guttatus)
Hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus)
Lincoln’s sparrow (Melospiza lincolnii)
Northwestern crow (Corvus caurinus)
Orange-crowned warbler (Vermivora celata)
Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi)
Pacific-slope flycatcher (Empidonax difficilis)
Pine siskin (Spinus pinus)
Red crossbill ( Loxia curvirostra)
Ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula)
Red-breasted nuthatch (Sitta canadensis)
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-75 May 2012
Rufous hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus)
Red-breasted sapsucker (Sphyrapicus rubber)
Steller's jay (Cyanocitta stelleri)
Swainson’s thrush (Catharus ustulatus)
Townsend’s warbler (Dendroica townsendi)
Tennessee warbler (Vermivora peregrine)
Varied thrush (Ixoreus naevius)
Winter wren (Troglodytes troglodytes)
Yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia)
Game Birds
One game bird species managed by ADF&G inside GMU 4 may occur in the Project area is the
Sooty grouse (Dendragapus fuliginosus) (Smith et al. 2001). Sooty grouse inhabit forested areas
of Southeast Alaska and forage in muskegs and meadows (ADF&G 2011d).
Amphibians
Alaska has six native species of amphibians and four of these are known to occur on Chichagof
Island; one species, the northern red-legged frog (Rana aurora) has been introduced to the island
(ADF&G 2006). General habitat characteristics of the five amphibian species that may occur in
the Project vicinity are summarized below. Few surveys have been completed for amphibians in
Southeast Alaska (ADF&G 2006). The amphibian species that may occur in the Project vicinity
include:
Northern red-legged frog (Rana aurora)
Western toad (Bufo boreas)
Northwestern salamander (Ambystoma gracile)
Roughskin newt (Taricha granulose)
Wood frog (Rana Sylvatica)
Northern Red-legged Frog
The northern red-legged frog (Rana aurora) is an introduced species on Chichagof Island,
documented in 2000 near Freshwater Bay (Lerum and Piehl 2007). The species was introduced
when a schoolteacher released juveniles into a small pond on the island (Lerum and Piehl 2007).
The documented occupied habitat is about 9.5 miles southeast of the Project area. The northern
red-legged frog is not likely to occur in Project area.
Wood Frog
The wood frog (Rana Sylvatica) is the most widespread frog species in North America. Its range
is known to extend throughout the mainland of Southeast Alaska and northward, and may occur
in the Project area, though there is no documentation of the species in the Project vicinity.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-76 May 2012
Western Toad
The western toad (Bufo boreas) has the widest distribution of amphibians in Southeast Alaska
(ADF&G 2006). The western toad is primarily terrestrial and can be found from sea-level to
high-elevation mountains, typically in open, non-forested areas near water (ADF&G 2006).
Western toads breed in slow-water habitats (ponds, lakes, backwaters, etc.) and hibernate in
burrows below the frostline in forest habitats (ADF&G 2006). The western toad may occur in
the Project area, but Gartina Creek is not likely suitable breeding habitat.
Northwestern Salamander
The northwestern salamander (Ambystoma gracile) has been collected in only two localities in
Southeast Alaska, including one area on Chichagof Island near Pelican (approximately 30 miles
west of the Project area). The northwestern salamander inhabits open grasslands, woodland, and
forest near ponds and other slow-moving permanent aquatic habitats (muskeg ponds and
freshwater lakes are documented breeding habitats in Alaska) used for breeding (AKNHP
2011b). The northwestern salamander may occur in the Project area, but Gartina Creek is not
likely suitable breeding habitat.
Roughskin Newt
The roughskin newt (Taricha granulosa) inhabits forests, woodlands, grasslands and open
valleys; newts typically migrate to breeding sites (ponds, lakes, streams with slow-moving
waters, etc.) in large numbers (AKNHP 2011b). Chichagof Island is within the range of the
roughskin newt, but this species has not been documented on the island (AKNHP 2011b). The
roughskin newt may occur in the Project vicinity.
4.7.1.1 Overview of Applicant’s Studies
The aerial survey for bald eagle nests was conducted on October 18, 2010 in the Project area to
determine if there were any nests along the proposed access road/transmission line and penstock
and powerhouse facilities. No bald eagle nests were documented in the Project vicinity.
Perching sites are available throughout the Project area and at least a dozen bald eagles were
observed flying through or perched in the Project area during the aerial survey.
4.7.2 Potential Environmental Effects
IPEC’s examination of existing information and current resource studies identified the following
potential effect of the Project on wildlife resources, discussed below:
Potential effects of Project construction and operation on wildlife corridors
Project construction, including human access, blasting, or other activities, has the potential to
temporarily disturb wildlife in the Project vicinity during construction of the Project. Timber
removal prior to access road construction has the potential to affect large mammals, small
mammals, furbearers, and birds using the Project vicinity, depending on the time of year of the
activity. Blasting noise and excavation work in the area of diversion/intake structure and
powerhouse construction have the potential to cause short-term disturbance to wildlife in the
immediate and adjacent areas, including brown bear and Sitka black-tailed deer. Long-term
effects will include loss of a limited amount of riparian habitat in the inundation-zone upstream
of the diversion dam and in the immediate location of Project facilities and the additional 0.5
miles of access road. This habitat generally consists of hemlock forest and steep banks.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-77 May 2012
Approximately six acres of riparian and open water habitat will be converted to developed
facilities after Project construction.
Because there is already access to the area via the existing 4 miles of road, which also continues
past the Project area to access the existing water supply diversion on Water Supply Creek, no
additional hunting access or impacts on wildlife due to the Project’s presence is anticipated. Any
increased access to the Project area once construction is complete is expected to be minimal as
the Project occurs on privately-owned land and there is little evidence of current local resident or
visitor use of the Project area.
Due to the limited footprint on the Project, the minor loss of terrestrial habitat is not anticipated
to have substantial adverse effects on wildlife or its habitat.
4.7.3 Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures
IPEC will consult with ADF&G and the USFWS to determine best management practices for
reducing any potential short-term disturbance to wildlife species during Project construction.
Transmission line design will use tangent construction to provide raptor protection. Collision
avoidance devices will be installed on the line at appropriate locations to protect migratory birds.
If raptor-nesting trees are identified during construction, efforts will be made to avoid removal of
those trees. The USFWS National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (USFWS 2007) will be
followed if any active bald eagle nests are encountered in the Project vicinity.
4.8 Threatened or Endangered, Rare, and Sensitive Species
4.8.1 Affected Environment
4.8.1.1 Threatened or Endangered Species
No species of terrestrial wildlife or plant species16 currently listed under the Endangered Species
Act (endangered or threatened) or proposed for listing (Candidates), or Critical Habitat
designated for these species (USFWS 2011; Hyde 2010b) are known to occur in the Project area.
4.8.1.2 Sensitive Wildlife Species
All migratory species of birds are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA) and eagles also are protected under the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
Other species of birds have been identified as being of conservation and management concern by
state and federal agencies. Table 4-19 lists ADF&G17 featured species (FS) identified in the
ADF&G comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy, the USFWS birds of conservation
16 The only federally listed plant in Alaska is the Aleutian hollyfern (Polystichum aleuticum), which is only known
to occur on Adak Island and is not expected to occur in Project vicinity.
17 ADF&G no longer maintains a Species of Special Concern list, as of August 15, 2011.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-78 May 2012
concern (BCC), the USFWS birds of management concern (BMC), and the Tongass National
Forest Service Sensitive Species. This list of species follows the recently issued (30 March
2011) memorandum of understanding (MOU) between FERC and the USFWS and incorporated
lists of bird species maintained by the latter agency and other state and federal agencies.
Table 4-19. Birds Species of conservation and management concern that may occur in the Project vicinity.
Common Name Scientific Name ADF&G FS1 USFWS BCC2 USFWS BMC3
American wigeon Anas Americana X
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus X
Belted kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon X
Brown creeper Certhia americana X
Canada goose Branta canadensis X
Chestnut‐backed chickadee Poecile rufescens X
Dark‐eyed junco Junco hyemalis X
Golden‐crowned kinglet Regulus satrapa X
Great‐horned owl Bubo virginianus X
Green‐winged teal Anas crecca X
Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus X
Harlequin duck Histrionicus histrionicus X
Hermit thrush Catharus guttatus X
Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes X X X
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos X
Marbled murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus X
Merlin Falco columbarius X
Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis X X
Olive‐sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi X X X
Pacific‐slope flycatcher Empidonax difficilis X
Pine siskin Spinus pinus X
Red‐breasted sapsucker Sphyrapicus rubber X
Red‐breasted nuthatch Sitta canadensis X
Red crossbill Loxia curvirostra X
Red‐tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis X
Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus X X
Sharp‐shinned hawk Accipiter striatus X
Short‐billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus X X
Townsend's warbler Dendroica townsendi X
Trumpeter swan* Cygnus buccinator X
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-79 May 2012
Common Name Scientific Name ADF&G FS1 USFWS BCC2 USFWS BMC3
Varied thrush Ixoreus naevius X
Western screech‐owl Otus kennicottii X
Wilson’s snipe Gallinago delicata X
1 FS = Featured Species (ADF&G 2006); 2BCC = Birds of Conservation Concern (USFWS 2008); 3BMC= Birds of
Management Concern (USFWS 2009) *Tongass National Forest SS
The ADF&G’s FS list is based on a set of 11 criteria that included rarity, designation as at risk,
sensitivity to environmental disturbance, and international importance (ADF&G 2006). The
USFWS defines BCC as species, subspecies, and populations that are not already federally-listed
as threatened or endangered but that without additional conservation actions are likely to become
candidates for federal listing (USFWS 2008). The USFWS BMC includes species that pose
special challenges for various reasons. They are of concern because of population declines, small
or restricted populations, dependence on restricted or vulnerable habitats, or overabundance to
the point of causing ecological or economic damage (USFWS 2009).
Forest Service Sensitive Species (SS) are those plant and animal species identified by the
Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern on National Forest System lands
within the region. Either a significant current or predicted downward trend in population
numbers or density or in habitat capability that would reduce a species’ existing distribution
indicates a viability concern (USFS 2008). While Forest Service SS are included for
informational purposes, no lands within the Project area are administered by the Forest Service.
4.8.1.3 Sensitive Plant Species
Forest Service Alaska Region identified list of plant species as FS Sensitive Species (Goldstein
et al. 2009). Table 4-20 lists FS Sensitive Species that are known or suspect to occur in the
Tongass National Forest. This table includes a general habitat description for each species.
Although, specific sensitive plants survey was not conducted as a part of project planning,
wetland field crew identified and recorded all plants present at each wetland determination
sampling plot. None of the listed FS sensitive plants were found and recorded during the wetland
field investigation. However, the Project vicinity contains habitat types that are potentially
suitable for sensitive plant species, and AKNHP maintains a list of plants that are considered rare
within Alaska. Rare plants from the AKNHP list do not have special protections in place, but are
identified for information purposes. Table 4-21 provides a list of critically imperiled or
imperiled in state plants that are known to occur in Hoonah area (AKNHP BIOTICS 2011).
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-80 May 2012
Table 4-20. Forest Service Sensitive Plant Species that are Known or Suspected to occur in Tongass National
Forest.
Common Name Scientific Name Occurrence
in TNF Habitat Type Suitable Habitat
in Project Vicinity
Bog orchid Platanthera gracilis Y Wet meadows, peat bogs Yes
Calder’s lovage Ligusticum calderi Y
Alpine and subalpine
meadows, boggy slopes,
rocky areas
Yes
Circumpolar
starwort
Stellaria ruscifolia
subsp. aleutica Y Open gravely sites and along
creeks in mountains Yes
Davy mannagrass Glyceria leptostachya Y
Shallow freshwater and
along stream and lake
margins
Yes
Edible thistle Cirsium edule Y
Open meadows, scree
slopes, along glacial streams
and lakeshores
Yes
Eschscholtz's little
nightmare
Aphragmus
eschscholtzianus S
Moist mossy areas, seeps,
heaths, scree slopes in
subalpine and alpine
Yes
Goose‐grass
sedge
Carex lenticularis var.
dolia Y
Wet meadows, lakeshores
and snowbeds, generally at
high elevation
Yes
Kamchatka alkali
grass
Puccinellia
kamtschatica Y Tidal flats, salt marshes, sea
beaches No
Loose‐flowered
bluegrass Poa laxiflora Y
Upper beach meadows, open
areas, open forests, along
riparian areas
Yes
Moonwort fern,
no common name
Botrychium
yaaxudakeit Y
Well‐drained open areas on
maritime beaches or upper
beach meadows
No
Moosewort fern Botrychium tunux Y
Well‐drained open areas on
maritime beaches or upper
beach meadows
No
Norberg’s arnica Arnica lessingii subsp.
norbergii Y
Meadows, shrublands, dry
meadows, and open forest
from sea level to subalpine
Yes
Pale poppy Papaver alboroseum S
Open areas, recently
deglaciated areas, rock
outcrops, sand, gravel, on
well‐drained soils
Yes
Queen Charlotte
butterweed Senecio moresbiensis Y
Alpine and subalpine
meadows, boggy or rocky
slopes, open rocky heaths,
grassy areas
Yes
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-81 May 2012
Common Name Scientific Name Occurrence
in TNF Habitat Type Suitable Habitat
in Project Vicinity
Truncate
quillwort Isoetes xtruncata Y Shallow fresh water of pools
or ponds Yes
Unalaska mist‐
maid
Romanzoffia
unalaschcensis Y
Rock outcrops, along stream
banks, teach terraces, open
rocky areas, and grassy,
mossy rock cliffs along
shores
Yes
Wright’s filmy
fern
Hymenophyllum
wrightii Y
Shaded cliffs, bases of trees,
decaying wood and
rootwads, in the dense,
humid coastal forests near
saltwater and low elevation
areas
Yes
Note: Y indicates known occurrence and S indicates suspected occurrence.
Table 4-21. Critically imperiled or imperiled in state plants that are known to occur in Hoonah area.
Common Name Scientific Name State Rank Habitat
Thurber Bentgrass Agrostis thurberiana Imperiled
Inland Sedge Carex interior Critically imperiled Muskeg
Kamchatka Spike‐rush Eleocharis kamtschatica Imperiled/Rare or
uncommon Small swamp
Northern Wild‐licorice Galium kamtschaticum Imperiled Clearcut
Stoloniferous Mitrewort Mitella nuda Imperiled
Loose‐flowered Bluegrass Poa laxiflora Imperiled/Rare or
uncommon
Brackish beaches and
meadows, forest
edges, by streams,
gravel substrate
Bog Bluegrass Poa leptocoma Imperiled
Norberg's Bluegrass Poa norbergii Critically imperiled (?)
No incidental observations of sensitive plant species tracked by the Alaska Natural Heritage
Program were observed during the 2010 field effort to document dominant plant communities in
the Project area.
4.8.2 Potential Environmental Effects
IPEC’s examination of existing information and current resource studies identified the following
potential effect of the Project on Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species, each discussed
below:
Effects of Project construction and operations on ESA-listed species or Critical Habitat
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-82 May 2012
Effects of Project construction and operations on special-status plants and wildlife
No federally endangered or threatened species are known or expected to occur in the Project
vicinity. The proposed Project will have no effect on federally listed species, Candidates for
listing, or designated Critical Habitat.
Similarly, the potential for Project effects on special-status plants and wildlife is expected to be
discountable, because no special-status species are known to occur in or use lands directly
affected by the Project. Further, the Project footprint encompasses less than 6 acres of directly
impacted area, and many local forested habitats have been subject to recent harvest, substantially
limiting the potential for the Project vicinity to support special-status species. However, IPEC
will consult with resource agencies to confirm this initial assessment.
4.8.3 Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures
No protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures related to endangered, threatened, or
sensitive species are proposed.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-83 May 2012
4.9 Recreation and Land Management
4.9.1 Affected Environment
The Project area is located on privately-owned lands primarily used for timber harvest. As such,
there is no formal recreational use existing or planned for the area.
4.9.2 Potential Environmental Effects
No potential issues related to recreational use of the Project area were identified. IPEC’s
examination of existing information on land use in the area found that the Project will have no
effect on recreational resources or current land management practices. Construction and
operation of the Project is consistent with current land use in the Project vicinity, and land use
agreements are currently being negotiated with the Huna Totem and SeaAlaska Corporation as
part of IEPC’s licensing efforts.
4.9.3 Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures
No protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures related to recreation and land management
are proposed.
4.10 Aesthetic Resources
4.10.1 Affected Environment
The proposed Project is located in a stream valley about 2.5 miles southeast of Hoonah, Alaska
on Chichagof Island, and about 5 miles upstream of the mouth of Gartina Creek. The site is
accessible via logging roads and is located entirely on privately-owned land. The Project is not
visible from Hoonah or from roads near the site. Hemlock forests and low scrub vegetation
dominate the lands surrounding the Project area (Section 5.6).
Gartina Creek originates south of the Project area, about five miles upstream of Gartina Falls.
Much of the area around the creek upstream of the Project area has been harvested for timber, as
well as the area west of Gartina Creek downstream of the Project. At the Project site, the
riparian forest and topography obscures views of the creek from a distance (Figure 4-27).
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-84 May 2012
Figure 4-27. Looking upstream at Gartina Creek, upstream of proposed Project site with dense hemlock
forested streambanks.
Gartina Falls is a 55-ft high waterfall on Gartina Creek (Figure 4-28). It is not visible from
logging roads or points other than the immediate vicinity due to dense forest and a sinuous
stream channel. The proposed diversion structure will be located approximately 125 ft upstream
of Gartina Falls and will raise the water surface upstream of the falls approximately 10 ft,
diminishing upstream. The diversion structure will divert water to the powerhouse, located
below Gartina Falls via a 54 inch diameter penstock, approximately 90 ft of which will be
exposed. Gartina Falls will be dewatered when natural flows are greater than 11 cfs and below
110 cfs. At flows higher than 110 cfs, the flow capacity of the powerhouse will be exceeded and
water will flow over Gartina Falls; this is expected to occur during spring snowmelt (likely from
mid-April to mid-June) and fall rainstorms (likely from mid-September to mid-November). The
Project will also be shut down due to low water for an estimated 27 days per year (likely in July
and August), during which time water would also flow over Gartina Falls.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-85 May 2012
Figure 4-28. Looking upstream at Gartina Falls and dense hemlock forest along the steep sides of Gartina
Creek canyon.
A transmission line, approximately 3.8 miles long will be constructed to transmit power from the
substation/switchyard to an interconnection near the Hoonah airport. This transmission line will
be located along the existing logging road and the proposed Project access road.
An access road to the Project site, approximately 0.5 miles long, will connect the powerhouse
and the intake structure to the existing logging road 8503. This road will pass through forest and
low scrublands.
4.10.2 Potential Environmental Effects
IPEC’s examination of existing information and current resource studies finds that the Project
will not have an effect on aesthetic resources, largely because the Project vicinity is entirely on
private lands in a remote area and is managed for timber. Project construction will have a
temporary visual effect, as heavy equipment and work crews will be present during the entire
construction period. Noise from blasting operations will also be present during construction.
However, the Project’s remote location, with low levels of use by local residents and visitors,
suggests that this will have little landscape-scale effect. Although the Project will dewater
Gartina Falls when flows are greater than 11 cfs and below 110 cfs, the falls are not visible from
logging roads or points other than the immediate vicinity due to dense forest and the steep-sided
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-86 May 2012
creek canyon, and are not know to be a local attraction. Project transmission lines will be placed
along existing roads, resulting in minimized visual impacts. The lower portion of the existing
road up to the existing bridge is used as a transportation corridor by tourists (primary via van
transport) to access a popular viewing area for bears. (The viewing area is outside of the Project
vicinity.) The existing Hoonah transmission line system ends near the Hoonah airport where the
proposed transmission line ties in, along the same road. Therefore, no significant changes in
visual characteristics along this road corridor are anticipated.
4.10.3 Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures
There are no proposed protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures related to aesthetic
resources.
4.11 Cultural Resources
4.11.1 Affected Environment
4.11.1.1 Regulatory Overview
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, and its
implementing regulations found in 36 CFR 800, require federal agencies to take into account the
effects of their undertakings on historic properties (i.e., any prehistoric or historic district, site,
building, structure, object, or Traditional Cultural Property [TCP] included in or eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places [NRHP]), per 36 CFR 800.16(1). To
accomplish this, significant cultural resources within the Project’s Area of Potential Effects
(APE) must be identified, potential Project effects must be assessed, and options for treating
effects on significant sites must be considered. This section provides the results of data
gathering using existing, relevant, and reasonably available information and field investigations
to identify historic properties within the Project APE.
4.11.1.2 Area of Potential Effects
Under 36 CFR 800.16(d), a Project’s APE is defined as “...the geographic area or areas within
which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of
historical properties, if any such properties exist.” IPEC has initially identified the APE as all
lands within the Project boundary, including 50 feet from centerline to either side of the existing
Project access road (100 feet wide), 100 feet from centerline to either side of the newly proposed
access road (200 feet wide), an approximate 245-foot by 377-foot area surrounding Gartina
Creek Falls, and an inundation area upstream of the falls measuring approximately 1,230 feet
(0.2 mile) long by variable widths of 40 feet to 200 feet wide. The APE also includes the
proposed transmission line, planned for construction within the shoulders of the existing and
proposed access roads described above. The APE may be modified after consultation with
interested parties if the consultation results in the identification of additional Project-related
activities outside the Project boundary.
4.11.1.3 Cultural Context
A brief overview of the Project’s cultural history provides an understanding of past lifeways in
the Project area. The prehistory and archaeological overview discuss previous investigations that
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-87 May 2012
have defined the temporal-cultural divisions of prehistoric occupation in the Project area. The
ethnographic overview details the traditional lifestyles of the local Native Alaskan occupants of
the Project vicinity, and the history section discusses historic-era activities and events important
to the area and surrounding vicinity. Understanding the cultural history is critical to interpreting
the significance of prehistoric and historic-era sites with regard to their roles in local, state,
and/or regional trends or patterns, and ultimately their eligibility for listing on the NRHP.
Prehistory and Archaeology
Early archaeological efforts in Southeast Alaska are attributed to Harlan Smith (1909), who
conducted research on shell midden sites near Haines, and followed later by other studies in the
1920s and the 1930s (Wesson et al. 1992:4). Larger efforts to understand Southeast Alaska
Native cultures were accomplished by Frederica de Laguna through her investigations of
Northern Tlingit sites in Yakutat, Chilkat, and Angoon between 1949 and 1953 (de Laguna 1960,
1972).
Wesson et al. (1992:4) note that Robert E. Ackerman efforts in the 1960s and 1970s further
expanded the search to understand Native Alaskan culture (cf. Ackerman 1964, 1965, 1968, and
1974). Ackerman excavated three sites on the Juneau District of Tongass National Forest
between 1965 and 1973, taking the recovered artifacts back to Washington State University for
analysis. Perhaps the most significant of these sites, called the Ground Hog Bay Site (Site No.
GHB-2), lies approximately seven miles from Hoonah across Icy Strait. The site extends to a
depth of only three feet below the ground surface and, dating to 10,180 years ago, is one of the
oldest sites recorded in Alaska. The Ground Hog Bay site, therefore, offers the most important
insight into early Native Alaskan life at this time (Shaw 2006; TNF 2011). The Ground Hog Bay
site consists of a flaked stone tool deposit comprised of projectile points, microblades, and
scrapers fashioned from obsidian and other toolstone (TNF 2011).
Ackerman also excavated the site of Kaxnoowu, or Grouse Fort, in Hoonah; a very important
Hoonah village site identified in the oral traditions of the Hoonah people (TNF 2011). Data from
Tongass National Forest indicates the site was investigated by Ackerman only a few decades
following the last arrival of Native Hoonah residents (TNF 2011). Noted artifacts include
groundstone and copper tools, glass artifacts, and ceramic and metal items indicative of early
habitation prior to European contact that extended into the mid 1900s. These artifacts include
incised stones similar to those found at archaeological sites from Prince William Sound to
Kodiak on the Alaska Peninsula, and to Port Angeles in Washington (TNF 2011).
The interest in Native Alaskan sites and culture boomed, however, in the 1970s as a result of
increased interests by Tongass National Forest and the concerns of Native Alaskan corporations
involved in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. The Act was signed into law by President
Richard Nixon on December 23, 1971, transferring land titles for 40 million acres to 13 Native
regional corporations and 220 Native village corporations. Since then, additional studies have
occurred in the region, primarily in the form of inventories with a lesser amount of excavation
work.
Based on archaeological investigations conducted in Southeast Alaska, Arndt et al. (1987) and
Davis (1990) defined the temporal-cultural divisions of prehistoric occupation in the region
(TNF 2011; Wesson et al. 1992), as shown in Table 4-22.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-88 May 2012
Table 4-22. Temporal-Cultural periods of Southeast Alaska.
Tradition/Period1 Date(s)1 Associated Cultural Materials1 Characteristics/Traits1
U.S. Statehood 1959
(52 years ago)
Modern and current occupation;
industrial locations and tools
Modern developments and
current use
Developmental
Industrial Period
70 years ago American saw mills, lack of Russian
saw mills
Expansion of fishing industry
and communities
110 years ago Asian artifacts Early canneries represent
industrial development; Asian
labor represented
130 years ago U.S. Coast Survey lighthouses;
abandoned gear and campsites
Russia sells Alaska to the U.S.
in 1867; sites along the Stikine
River mark the first gold rush
in Southeast Alaska
Euro‐American
Exploration and
Trade
250 years ago Iron materials, beads, nails, hinges,
knives, axes, bottles, pottery, and
structures
Trading posts, forts following
explorations by Chirikof and
Vancouver (1793)
Development al
Northwest Coast
Traditions
500 years ago Stone lamps, native copper items Evidence of more diverse
technologies
2,000 years ago Heavy house posts and floors Permanent villages with large
houses
3,000 years ago Fish weirs, large deposits of shell
refuse
Specialized subsistence camps
5,000 years ago Shell midden; ground and polished
stone and bone tools, large
quantities of faunal remains.
Evidence of new technologies.
Transitional Period 7,000 years ago Shell middens, lithic deposits Relatively few studies or
evidence of human use;
fluctuations in sea level and
climate.
Paleomarine
Tradition
8,000 years ago Microblade technology (cores);
reliance on obsidian, argillite, chert,
and quartz
Subsistence based evidence
indicates reliance on marine
food resources and
blueberries.
10,000 years ago Same Raised sea levels due to
melting glaciers.
1 TNF 2011; Wesson et al. 1992
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-89 May 2012
Ethnographic Overview
The Tlingit inhabit the panhandle area of Southeast Alaska, from Cook’s Inlet in the North to
Ketchikan in the south. The Hoonah, or Huna, are a subgroup of the Tlingit, and have inhabited
the Icy Straights region of modern-day Alaska since prehistoric times. The word Tlingit means
human beings and was originally used to distinguish the difference between a human and an
animal. The Tlingit people did not believe that there was a significant difference between
humans and animals. Eventually the word transformed into a national name. Tlingit oral history
states that they first came to Icy Straights after a glacier advance forced them to abandon their
village at Bartlett Cove, near Glacier Bay (Emmons 1991; Shaw 2006). The Glacier Bay village
was “Klem-sha-shick-ian” or “sand-mountain-top-town.” Legends from the Tlingit people also
discuss migrations that occurred from either the north or southeast. Migration from the north
could have been a possible result of the Bering Sea Land bridge, while migration from the
southeast would have occurred across the Polynesian islands and the Pacific (Benson 2011: No
page number) The area where modern Hoonah now stands was one of the new habitations
established. The other was Grouse Fort, which was later destroyed by disease and abandoned.
The name of the town comes from the Tlingit “hoona-ah” and means “protection from the north
wind” (Emmons 1991).
Tlingit were traditionally semi-nomadic, with semi-permanent winter villages. Villages were
located close to the waterfront and spread adjacent to the coast line rather than inland.
Traditional split plank houses were used until the early twentieth century. These houses were
inhabited by multiple families and elaborately decorated. Village locations were used as winter
settlements and during the other seasons the population would disperse for subsistence
procurement activities (Shaw 2006). They would camp along creeks in the summer to gather
aquatic resources, especially salmon. Areas would be marked with clan ownership by the
presence of petroglyphs along the creek (Cordle ca. 1938). Each tribe/tribal territory had at least
one permanent settlement. Sometimes there would be a main village and smaller ancillary
villages in a single territory, due to internal conflict (Emmons 1991).
Fish dominated the diet, and were roasted or boiled, and dipped in seal oil. Berries, spruce bark,
roots, nettles, shell fish, fish roe, sea weed, deer meat, and bear meat were also important dietary
items. Wooden dishes and spoons were used for eating, but not forks. The Tlingit also used
wild tobacco before the introduction of commercial tobacco (Cordle ca. 1938).
There are two divisions or phratries of Tlingit, the Raven and Eagle. They are strictly exogamous
and membership is passed down matrilineally. These phratries are divided into clans, also
exogamous, which are divided into four castes: society, nobility, commoners, and slaves. Class,
whether commoner or nobility or slave, was a hereditary designation. Each clan has a totem or
crest, usually represented by an animal. Totemic decorations were used outside and within the
house, and represented through elaborate carvings.
Historic Overview
General History of Southeast Alaska
Spanish Exploration
Following Russian Exploration, western European countries started to gain interest in the North
Pacific. The first group of foreign merchants and explorers to arrive were the Spanish. In 1774,
a Spanish expedition arrived near Cook Inlet, the location Captain James Cook had visited 10
years prior (Grinev 2010:25-26).
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-90 May 2012
Russian Exploration
The first attempts to reach the Americas occurred during the reign of Peter the Great, who sent
out the First Kamchatka Expedition. The expedition was led by Vitus Bering who was
unsuccessful at discovering the New World. However, Bering did sail through the passage
between Asian and America that later became known as the Bering Strait. The Russian
government was dissatisfied with the First exploration and organized the Second Kamchatka
Expedition in 1741 led by Captain Vitus Bering and Captain Chirikov. The two Captains each
led their ships in search of mainland America. Chirikov’s crew was the first to see land and
sailed into the region of Alexander Archipelago, an area that was inhabited by the Tlingit.
(Grinev 2005: 1-3). The expedition led to the opening and discovery of southeast Alaska and the
Aleutian Islands. The term Russian America was given to the Russian colonies discovered
during this time. Although Russians comprised the majority of those on the expedition, explorers
also included Germans, Danes, Swedes, and French. Ships continued to arrive throughout the
next couple years with hunters and traders in pursuit of valuable furs. Explorers penetrated
further east through the Aleutian Islands and eventually reached Alaska. Russians hired
Kamchadals to assist in the hunting crews. This was advantageous for the Russians considering
the Kamchadals were paid less than their Russian counterparts and had a higher tolerance for
hunger and scurvy. However, the Kamchadals were not entirely reliable as they many times
escaped or deserted the ships. The Kamchadals were mentioned by the English Captain James
Cook on his visit to the Alaska Island in 1778. Cook noted that the Kamchadals held a place
between the Russians and local residents. The lower status of the Kamchadals could be seen in
the sleeping arrangements- the Russians slept in the best part of the home, the top, the
Kamchadals in the middle, and the slaves at the bottom (Grinev 2010:21-26).
Western Europeans specifically English and Germans began visiting Russian America in the mid
eighteenth century as part of Russian government expeditions (Grinev 2010:23).
Gold Rush Era
Gold was first discovered in Southeast Alaska in 1886 in the Fortymile River region.
World War II
Alaska organized the Alaska Territorial Guard (ATG) in 1942 to protect against a possible
Japanese invasion of mainland Alaska. The organization was comprised of six thousand
members who were mostly Alaska natives. In December of 1944, Charlie Fitka, a trapper from a
small village in western Alaska, spotted a large balloon in the sky. What was not known to the
Alaskan natives at the time was that these large balloons had been turning up all across the
western United States. By the time the balloon was spotted in Alaska, it was clear that the
United States was under some form of attack. The balloons were in fact Japanese weapons
called fusen bakudan (“fire balloons”). The balloons were released in Japan and carried to the
United States by wind power. The Japanese intended to use the balloons as terror weapons to
penetrate American airspace and create panic in the American population. The balloons were
loaded with five bombs and designed to release those bombs once hovering over the United
States. Over the course of the War, approximately fifty of these balloon bombs were found in
Alaska. Alaska played a major role in the balloon response and safety of not only their state but
the country. The ATG, Fort Richardson in Anchorage, and the Eleventh Air Force in the
Aleutians simultaneously worked together to quickly guard and report downed balloons. The
ATG left a significant impact on the state of Alaska as it represented the first time members of
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-91 May 2012
every ethnic group were brought together. The organization covered a large territory and
required the daily participation of its members. Although the organization lasted less than five
years, its legacy will endure forever. (Coen 2010:1-6; 17)
Tlingit History
Early Settlement
The first record of European interaction with the Tlingit comes from 1741, when a Russian
expedition led by Alexei Illich Chirikov and Vitus Bering came across them, probably near
Lisianski Strait (Emmons 1991). Chirikov was second in command on the Arctic expeditions of
Vitus Bering, a navigator who had explored the area of Alaska and the Bering Strait. The original
goal of the mission was to map Siberia’s Arctic coast and explore different routes to America.
The expedition prepared the way for Russian settlement on the North American continent, and
colonization of Alaska beginning in 1741. (Grinev 2005:1-3) Studies estimate that the population
of the Tlingit at the time of European contact was around 15,000. Following the arrival of the
Russian explorers, contact with the Tlingit became limited until the 1800s. After Russian
invaders subdued the Aleut people, they began to move south and begin their occupation of
Tlingit country. Initial interaction between the Russians and the Tlingits was friendly as they
engaged in profitable trading. However, this peaceful period did not last long as the Russians
aggressively attempted to colonize and control the trade routes in Tlingit country. In 1802, the
Russians settled in Sitka without the permission of the Tlingit people. Sitka’s Chief Katlian of
the Kiksadi Tlingit led a group of warriors against the Russians to regain their land at Sitka. The
battle resulted in the success of the Tlingit people in regaining the fort site of Sitka from the
Russian America Fur Company. The Russians later captured Sitka and created a base they called
New Archangel. During this time, they maintained little contact with the surrounding Sitka
tribes. For many years, the Tlingit people were able to resist occupation and maintain the use of
their trade routes. However, in the period between 1836 and 1840 it is estimated that half of the
Tlingit people around Sitka were killed by smallpox, influenza, or tuberculosis. Disease and
hardship weakened the Tlingit people and left them vulnerable to outside invasion. In 1867,
Russia sold Alaska to the United States without any involvement from the native people. Euro-
Americans infiltrated Sitka looking for gold and attempting to occupy and control the territory.
This Euro-American occupation occurred quickly as a result of the weakened state of the Tlingit
people suffering from disease. Tlingit attempts to fight the American people were futile as Euro-
Americans had such great military strength and the drive for expansion. American control was
further solidified by the destruction of the Tlingit villages of Kake in the 1860s and Angoon in
1882. Under U.S. control, the area became primarily dominated by Presbyterian missionaries
(Benson 2011: No page number).
“The Treaty of Cession” in 1867 referred to indigenous people of Alaska as “uncivilized tribes.”
This legislation caused the Alaskan Natives to be subject to the same regulations as the
American Indians in the United States. The Tlingit people became subject to policies such as the
1884 First Organic Act, which limited their claims to land and settlement, and the 1885 Major
Crimes Act, which aimed to strip tribes of their right to manage criminal matters according to
traditional customs. These legislative acts left the Tlingit people threatened and endangered
them territorially. The Tlingit people responded to the legislation by founding the Alaska Native
Brotherhood in 1912. The organization was founded in Sitka by nine Tlingit and one Tsimpsian
tribes. The goal of the organization was to gain equality for the Native People in Alaska and
work towards U.S. citizenship. Through their efforts, the United States allowed Natives to
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-92 May 2012
become citizens contingent upon their rejection of tribal customs and relationships. Because of
this contingency, very few Natives decided to become citizens at the time. It was not until 1924,
with the passing of the Citizenship Act that Native people became U.S. citizens (Miller 2011: No
page number).
Tlingit people were unique from other tribes in Southeast Alaska during this time as they wanted
to increase their political power and pursue their right to vote. Many other Native Alaskan tribes
wanted to continue to live as they had before in previous generations. (Miller 2011:No page
number).
Economy
Before the introduction of commercial fishing, most Native Alaskan fishing was accomplished
by hand. Canoes were used to travel between fishing grounds and fish were mostly used for
food. Fish were plentiful and the Native Alaskans caught every kind of fish, overflowing their
canoes. Commercial fishing began in the area in 1900. The first cannery was located at Haines;
not until 1906 did canneries introduce the use of seines and nets instead of gaft hooks. The
cannery played a very important in role in the community. The cannery provided the Alaskan
Natives with employment and recreational facilities. Women started working at the canneries to
supplement the income from the summer fishing season. The workers at the cannery were able to
stay in tents behind the building or small houses built for them (Ashton et al. ca. 1970s:32).
Before European contact, the primary agriculture interest among the Tlingit people was focused
around berries and roots. Farming began with the introduction of seeds and the growing season
extended from June to August. Almost ever household had its own garden for growing
vegetables and the land was cultivated using shovels and rakes (Ashton et al. ca. 1970s:27-29).
At the time of European contact, the Tlingit economy relied on subsistence trading. The trade
routes spanned for many miles connecting the Northwest Coast with the Interior Anthapaskan
Subarctic tribes. The routes went across rivers and mountains. Men and women would carry up
to 100 pounds of goods such as moose hides, fine moccasins, and porcupine gut. The Tlingit
would trade with other native tribes as well as with each other. The native people took their
items to the Northwest Trading Company log store to get whatever they needed. It was not until
1893 that money was introduced for trading purposes. With the occupation of Americans the
lifestyle of the Tlingit people dramatically changed. The Americans brought over the idea of
ownership and a cash economy. Many Tlingit people were able to successfully adapt and work
in industries such as logging and forestry (Miller 2011: No page number).
Religion
Before American influence, the Tlingit people believed in a single God who was the controller of
all things from the animals in nature to the unseen spirits. The people would turn to a local
Indian doctor for advice and predictions into their lives. The Indian doctor was believed to be
the master of the spirits and had been given the gift of tribute. A person would train to be an
Indian doctor by living in seclusion for six to eight months. During this time, they were to
follow the spirits and were not permitted to eat any kind of sea food. The first structured church
was introduced in 1879, the Russian Orthodox Church. The church and its members would meet
in the community before the church was constructed and it was there they learned the concept of
the Holy Trinity. They were taught to believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. This
time represented the growth and progressive change to a more westernized culture. (Ashton et al.
ca. 1970s:21)
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-93 May 2012
Social Life
Missionaries of various faiths starting visiting the area in the late 1870s. The first established
church was Russian Orthodox, built in 1879. The first schoolhouse was established shortly after
in 1881 by Sheldon Jackson.
One of the key aspects of Tlingit society was the household. A typical house was a large
rectangle with cedar planks along the sides, supported by four corner posts and a beam. The
inside of the home had a dung floor and was divided into a sleeping section and a
sitting/recreational area. The front of the house was used for storing canoes, drying racks, and
for cooking fish. A household was made up of three different classes: slaves, nobles, and
commoners. The eldest man was typically the leader of the household and shared the home with
his children, parents, and siblings. The commoners who served as the labor force lived alongside
the house. The slaves, who were typically war captives, slept outside in front of the home. Each
household in the area owned stories that made up the sacred history of the native people. Many
of these stories were over two thousand years old and were known as crests. The crests
represented more than a story, as they included dances, costumes, and songs. Crests were passed
down in families from father to son. To honor the life and actions of the predecessors of the
crest, the leader of a clan would carve crest designs into what became known as totem pole
(Miller 2011: No page number).
An important aspect of Tlingit life was “potlatchs”. A potlatch was a lavish ceremony that
celebrated events such as the birth of a child, building of a new house, or the death of a family
member. (Hoonah History: 44) During this feast, the clan would share their crests, dances, and
songs. The host would give away gifts such as fur and food at the potlatch. Potlatchs were also
used during the winter time in a religious form to bring together the sprits and ancestors. The
Tlingit people gathered around to ask the spirits to heal the sick, and bring food and prosperity to
their people (Miller 2011: No page number)
Law
Tlingit law was based on the beliefs of each household, clan. If an injury occurred between
different members of clans it was settled though the payment of goods, services, or property.
“To settle major disagreements, particularly after a war, a crest might change hands. If a low-
ranking person killed a chief and the criminal could not arrange compensation for his or her clan,
then their own chief might be killed to even the score.” During these disagreement periods, a
hostage, referred to as a “deer”, might be offered to another clan. The “deer” represented the
clan’s intent to settle the disagreement peacefully (Miller 2011: No page number).
A large part of Hoonah burned down in a fire in June 1944, destroying 78 houses and two stores
(Shaw 2006).
4.11.1.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN THE APE
Archival Research Methods
IPEC conducted background research to identify known historic properties within the APE. This
research focused on previously recorded cultural resources and previous cultural studies
documented within, and up to 3.0 miles beyond, the APE.
The research was initiated in October 2010 at the Office of History and Archaeology (OHA), and
included a review of the Alaska Heritage Resources Survey (AHRS) databases and files.
Additional research was conducted in August 2011 at the OHA and also at the Juneau State
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-94 May 2012
Library main collections and Alaska Historical Collections, and at the city library. Historic and
current references, documents, and photographs were reviewed.
Archival Research Results
No previous archaeological surveys or other cultural resources investigations have been
documented within the APE. Previous studies in the nearby vicinity include an archaeological
survey for an expansion of the runway at the Hoonah airport, located near the northwest end of
the APE (Yarborough and Rider 2006), and investigations related to road improvements in
Hoonah (Shaw 2006). Other investigations have been conducted in the islands along the coastal
area southwest of Hoonah by Sealaska, Tongass National Forest, and Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA).
A historic power development is reported in the Project APE in a 1947 report on water powers in
Southeast Alaska (USFPC 1947:108). The report states that the town of Hoonah constructed a
timber dam with the intent of building a powerhouse with a 100 horsepower Leffel turbine
engine to drive a Fairbanks Morse generator. According to the report, the power plant was never
completed. The report further states that the town of Hoonah is believed to have applied to the
U.S. Forest Service on February 4, 1927 for permission to construct the plant, but that no
application had been found to that regard. No sites or features associated with the reported
power development have been previously recorded.
Documents on file at the OHA indicate that the historic Spasski Trail lies just outside of the
APE. The trail was constructed about 1920 to provide a route extending 3.5 miles east from
Hoonah to early European homesteads in the Spasski Bay area (AHRS No. JUN-01009). The
trail was improved in the 1930s by the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) and again by the U.S.
Forest Service from the 1940s to the 1980s. The trail was evaluated as eligible for listing on the
NRHP and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred with this finding
(Yarborough and Rider 2006).
No other cultural resources have been reported in the APE. However, the records search
indicated that Project vicinity is sensitive for past cultural remains as indicated by the several
other archaeological sites and historic architectural resources that have been previously
documented in the vicinity, as listed below in Table 4-23.
Table 4-23. Archaeological Sites within the Project APE and Vicinity.
AHRS No. Prehistoric/
Historic
Description In APE
(Yes/No)
JUN‐00028 Historic Possible structural and residential occupation materials No
JUN‐00031
Prehistoric,
Protohistoric,
Historic
Hoonah, dating ca. 1700s‐present. No
JUN‐00044 Prehistoric Pictograph No
JUN‐00054 Historic Russian Orthodox church, built ca. 1953.No
JUN‐00094 Prehistoric Seasonal camp containing midden, lithic and bone tools,
charcoal; dates to circa (ca) 490‐1430 years before present
No
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-95 May 2012
AHRS No. Prehistoric/
Historic
Description In APE
(Yes/No)
(BP). Determined eligible to the NRHP.
JUN‐00095 Historic Cemetery dating to ca. 1939‐1949.No
JUN‐00096 Prehistoric Cache pits.No
JUN‐00097 Historic Collapsed structural remains No
JUN‐00110 Historic Cemetery No
JUN‐00111 Historic Potential grave site.No
JUN‐00112 Historic Cemetery No
JUN‐00377 Historic Cold War era communication system dating to 1960‐1976.
Determined eligible to the NRHP. No
JUN‐00384 Historic Original salmon cannery dating to 1910‐1954. Determined
eligible to the NRHP. No
JUN‐00972 Historic Residential building dating to ca. 1920s.No
JUN‐01009 Historic 1920s route from Hoonah to Spasski Bay. Determined eligible
to the NRHP. Yes
JUN‐01021 Historic Residential structure.No
Archaeological Field Survey Methods
IPEC conducted a pedestrian survey of the Project APE employing two primary strategies to
achieve survey coverage:
1. Intensive Survey was used in locations of no to low levels of brush and entails crew
members walking 15-20 meter-wide parallel transects. Intensive survey strategy allows
for the identification of the smallest of cultural resources likely to be encountered within
the APE.
2. Cursory Survey was used in locations of dense brush and low accessibility with crew
members walking 20-40 meter-wide or more parallel transects where possible, or using
meandering transects to work around clusters of brush or opportunistic inspections in
areas with little to no access due to dense brush.
Additionally, three-quarter-inch-diameter Oakfield soil probes were employed in accessible
locations considered to contain higher levels of sensitivity for cultural resources to search for
subsurface cultural soils or other materials.
Cultural resources discovered within the APE were documented according to current
professional standards of the OHA, plotted onto the appropriate USGS 1:63,350 series
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-96 May 2012
topographic quadrangles using a Trimble Global Positioning System (GPS) unit with sub-meter
accuracy, and photographed using digital photography. Planimetric site sketch maps were
developed using GPS data points and lines for conversion into a Geographical Information
System (GIS) database, or drawn by hand for resources located in areas of low to no GPS
capabilities. The sketch maps depict site boundaries, concentrations, features, and diagnostic
artifacts.
Archaeological Field Survey Results
One archaeological site was discovered and documented within the APE during the study. The
timber dam and Leffel turbine engine reported in the 1947 power water report were found and
recorded as two discontiguous loci. The dam stands alone in the creek and the turbine, conduit,
and various associated artifacts were located away from the creek. The turbine appears to be a
20-inch standard Francis hydraulic turbine as depicted on the current James Leffel & Co. website
(http://www.leffelcompany.com/start.htm).
The majority of lands included in the APE were covered by dense stands of blueberry bushes and
other vegetation that reduced ground visibility and limited access during the survey. It is
possible that additional cultural resources are present that could become exposed as a result of
vegetation removal, construction, and subsequent operations and maintenance of the Project.
4.11.2 Potential Environmental Effects
IPEC’s examination of existing information and current resource studies in the Project vicinity
identified the need to examine potential effects of the proposed Project on cultural resources.
IPEC finds that construction of, and subsequent operations and maintenance for, the Project will
not impact cultural resources listed in or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.
IPEC has developed a detailed cultural resources study report, and will submit the report the
SHPO and the Hoonah Indian Association for their review and comment on IPEC’s findings.
4.11.3 Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures
As described above, IPEC has initiated consultation with SHPO and potentially affected Native
Alaskan tribes regarding the findings of the cultural resources study in completed in support of
this application. No protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures are proposed at this time.
4.12 Socioeconomic Resources
4.12.1 Affected Environment
The nearest town to the Project is Hoonah, Alaska, which is about 3 miles northeast of the
Project. The current estimated population of Hoonah is 760 people; this represents a population
decline from 860 in 2000 (Alaska Division of Community and Regional Affairs [ADCRA]
2010). Hoonah is the largest Tlingit village in Southeast Alaska; more than half of the residents
are American Indian and Alaska Native (ADCRA 2010). About 33% of the population is white
and 14% have multi-racial backgrounds; races representing less than 5% of the population
include Hispanic, Asian and black (ADCRA 2010).
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-97 May 2012
The local economy is primarily comprised of fishing and local government (ADCRA 2010, City
of Hoonah and Sheinberg Associates 2005). Additionally, tourism has developed as a substantial
part of the economy (Cerveny 2007; City of Hoonah and Sheinberg Associates 2005). Logging
was a significant industry in the area from the 1980s to 2002; timber activity has declined in
recent years (Cerveny 2007).
There are two census-designated places south of Hoonah that are near the Project area: Game
Creek and Whitestone Logging Camp. Game Creek is about 3.5 miles west of the Project area.
It was established in the 1990s and is a religious community of about 18 people, 100% white
(ADCRA 2010). Whitestone Logging Camp is about 2.5 mi northwest of the Project area; this
camp supported large-scale timber harvest in the 1980s and 1990s and closed in 2003 (Cerveny
2007). According to the US Census, a small community of about 17 people still exists at
Whitestone Logging Camp; over half the population is Native American or Native Alaskan, 30%
are white and the remainder are Hispanic or have multi-racial backgrounds (ADCRA 2010).
Subsistence activities, including hunting (deer, otter, seal, waterfowl, marten, mink, ptarmigan),
fishing (salmon, saltwater fish, shellfish), and berry and plant gathering, are important
components of daily lifestyle in Hoonah and surrounding areas (ADCRA 2010). Alaska
Department of Fish and Game regulates various aspects of subsistence hunting, fishing, and
gathering.
Land use in the Project area is rural, with some small-scale timber harvest and subsistence
activity; all of the lands in the Project are privately owned. There are no residences in the
Project area.
4.12.2 Potential Environmental Effects
The Project would bring economic benefits to the region, including short-term construction and
long-term maintenance and operations employment. A potential long-term reduction in the cost
of energy from hydropower compared to diesel-generated energy will benefit local residents in
the five village communities serviced by IPEC; electric rates are kept uniform amongst the five
communities, so a more affordable energy generation facility in Hoonah will benefit all of
IPEC’s customers. The Project will also displace and reduce pollution associated with diesel
generation. It is not expected that Project construction or operation would result in any
significant long-term increase in the population of Hoonah or other nearby settlements.
4.12.3 Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures
No protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures related to socioeconomic resources are
proposed. Construction and operation of the proposed Project will provide considerable
economic benefit to the local community by providing a lower cost, renewable energy alternative
to diesel energy generation.
4.13 Tribal Resources
Tribal occupation of the Project vicinity is well documented and extends back to the 1700s. An
overview of Native Alaskan lifeways and occupation of the Project vicinity is presented in
Section 5.10 and is, therefore, not repeated here.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-98 May 2012
4.13.1 Affected Environment
4.13.1.1 Regulatory Overview
As presented in Section 5.10, the Project must comply with Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966, as
amended, and its implementing regulations found in 36 CFR 800. In accordance with Section
106, federal agencies are required to take into account the effects of their undertakings on
historic properties, including Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP) listed in or eligible for
inclusion in the NRHP (36 CFR 800.16[1]). A TCP evaluated as a historic property is
“…eligible for inclusion in the National Register because of its association with cultural
practices or beliefs of a living community that (a) are rooted in that community’s history, and (b)
are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community” [NR Bulletin 38
(Parker and King 1998:1)].
TCPs can be further defined as:
Locations associated with the traditional beliefs of a Native American group about its
origins, its cultural history, or the nature of the world.
A rural community whose organization, buildings and structures, or patterns of land use
reflect the cultural traditions valued by its long-term residents.
An urban neighborhood that is the traditional home of a particular cultural group, and that
reflects its beliefs and practices.
Locations where Native American religious practitioners have historically gone and are
known or thought to go to today, to perform ceremonial cultural rules of practice.
Locations where a community has traditionally carried out economic, artistic or other
cultural practices important in maintaining its historic identity (National Register Bulletin
38, 1998:1).
Thus, significant cultural resources, including TCPs or other areas of tribal importance, within
the Project’s APE must be identified, potential Project effects must be assessed, and options for
treating effects on significant sites must be considered. This section provides the results of data
gathering using existing, relevant, and reasonably available information to identify historic
properties of tribal interest within the Project APE.
4.13.1.2 Area of Potential Effects
Under 36 CFR 800.16(d), a Project’s Area of Potential Effects (APE) is defined as “...the
geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in
the character or use of historical properties, if any such properties exist.” IPEC has initially
identified the APE as all lands within the proposed Project boundary, including 50 feet from
centerline to either side of the existing Project access road (100 feet wide), 100 feet from
centerline to either side of the newly proposed access road (200 feet wide), an approximate 245-
foot by 377-foot area surrounding Gartina Falls, and an inundation area upstream of the falls
measuring approximately 1,230 feet (0.2 mile) long by variable widths of 40 feet to 200 feet
wide. The APE also includes the proposed transmission line, planned for construction within the
shoulders of the existing and proposed access roads described above. The APE may be modified
after consultation with interested parties if the consultation results in the identification of
additional Project-related activities outside the identified study area.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-99 May 2012
4.13.1.3 Identification of TCPs or Other Historic Properties of Tribal Interest in the
APE
Archival Research Methods
IPEC conducted background research to identify known historic properties within the APE. This
research focused on previously recorded cultural resources and previous cultural studies
documented within, and up to 3.0 miles beyond, the APE.
The research was initiated in October 2010 at the Office of History and Archaeology (OHA) and
included a review of the Alaska Heritage Resources Survey (AHRS) databases and files.
Additional research was conducted in August 2011 at the OHA and also at the Juneau State
Library main collection and Alaska Historical Collections, and at the city library. Historic and
current references, documents, and photographs were reviewed.
Archival Research Results
The background research identified six overviews of Tlingit Indian history and current lifestyles
in the Project vicinity and in Hoonah in particular, as listed in Table 4-24.
Table 4-24. Ethnographic studies and overviews of the Tlingit Indians.
Author Name Date of Report Title
Ashton et al. ca. 1973 Hoonah History.
Cordle, Hallie Jones ca. 1938 The Thlingets of Southern Alaska, and Especially of Hoonah.
de Laguna, Frederica 1990 Tlingit. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7.
Emmons, George
Thorton 1946 The Tlingit Indians.
Klein, Laura P. 1975
Tlingit Women and Town Politics: A Dissertation Submitted to
the Department of Anthropology in Candidacy for the Degree
of Doctor of Philosophy.
Thornton, Thomas F. 2004 Klondike Gold Rush National Historic Park, Ethnographic
Overview and Assessment.
At this time, no ethnographic locations have been identified within the APE or the Project
vicinity.
Identification of Potentially Affected Tribes
To identify potentially affected and interested tribes, IPEC contacted the tribal organizations
listed in Table 4-25.
Section 4 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4-100 May 2012
Table 4-25. Native Alaskan tribes potentially affiliated with the Project APE.
Tribe Project Association
Hoonah Indian Association
254 Roosevelt Street
Hoonah, Alaska 99829
The Hoonah Indian Association is the federally recognized governing body
for the tribal members of Hoonah, Alaska. The Association has the
authority to establish relationships and to enter into contracts for the well‐
being of the tribe.
Huna Totem Corporation
9301 Glacier Highway, Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801‐9306
Huna Totem Corporation is a Native village corporation owned by
approximately 1,300 Native Alaskan shareholders with aboriginal ties to
Hoonah.
Sealaska Corporation
One Alaska Plaza, Suite 400
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Sealaska is a Native‐owned corporation and the largest private landowner
in southeast Alaska. Sealaska Corporation owns the entirety of land within
the APE.
IPEC initiated contact with the tribes and provided information regarding the Project in
correspondence for a Preliminary Permit Application filed with FERC on January 17, 2011 for
the proposed Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project. On August 5, 2011, IPEC sent invitations to
the tribes to participate in a tour of the Project area that was held on August 11, 2011.
Notification of IPEC’s request to use the traditional licensing process was sent to the Hoonah
Indian Association, the Huna Totem Corporation, and Sealaska Corporation. Letters of support
for the Project were received from the Huna Totem Corporation, Sealaska Corporation, and the
Hoonah Indian Association. These letters are included in the consultation documentation in
Appendix A of this Exhibit E.
Identification of Known Indian Lands, TCPs, or Other Tribal Interests
The entirety of the APE is on lands owned by the Native Sealaska Corporation, which retains all
rights to buy, sell, lease or otherwise control these lands. The archival research discussed in
Section 5.12.1.3.2 identified locations within the Project vicinity for which the potentially
affected tribes are associated and, therefore, likely have interests. To date, no locations of tribal
concern or interest have been identified within the APE.
4.13.2 Potential Environmental Effects
Archival research provided background information important to understanding the history and
lifeways of the local tribes. IPEC also solicited additional information from tribal members and
organizations that participated in the Joint Meetings, and inquired whether cultural resources or
areas of traditional use important to the tribes exist within the APE by inviting review of the
PAD and cultural resources report. No resources of concern were identified to date.
4.13.3 Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures
No protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures are proposed for Tribal resources.
Section 5 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 5-1 May 2012
5 Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement
Measures
The Project was designed to limit effects to fish populations and habitat by creating the shortest
practicable bypass reach at the existing anadromous barrier. In addition, the Project design
includes a mechanism for maintaining 8-10 cfs immediately at the base of the falls. Operation of
the radial gate at high flows will provide flushing flows for sediment transport in the system
similar to the current condition. The Project facilities footprint is designed to minimize
vegetation removal and road construction by utilizing existing access to the area for all by 0.5
miles of proposed road. In addition to Project design development in a manner to limit
environmental impacts, protection, mitigation and enhancement measures (PM&E) proposed
include:
Best management practices for controlling erosion and limiting short-term impacts during
construction will be implemented according to APDES General Construction Permit
guidelines and Corps of Engineers 404 Permit specifications.
Removal of legacy trees will be avoided were practicable.
IPEC will consult with ADF&G and the USFWS to determine best management
practices for reducing any potential short-term disturbance to wildlife species during
Project construction.
Transmission line design will use tangent construction to provide raptor protection.
Collision avoidance devices will be installed on the transmission line at appropriate
locations to protect migratory birds.
If raptor-nesting trees are identified during construction, efforts will be made to avoid
removal of those trees. The USFWS National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines
(USFWS 2007) will be followed if any active bald eagle nests are encountered in the
Project vicinity.
IPEC will consult with SHPO and potentially affected tribes to confirm findings in the
cultural resources study report.
Section 5 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 5-2 May 2012
This page intentionally left blank.
Section 6 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 6-1 May 2012
6 Comprehensive Plans for the Development of the
Waterway Relevant to Project
IPEC has reviewed the June 2011 federal and Alaska list of comprehensive plans adopted by
FERC under Section 10(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 803 (a)(2)(A). Of the 26
comprehensive plans, (relevant to Alaska) two were reviewed and were deemed to be applicable
to the Project:
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1998. Catalog of Waters Important for Spawning,
Rearing or Migration of Anadromous Fishes. November 1998. Juneau, Alaska. Six
volumes.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Alaska's Outdoor Legacy: Statewide
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP): 2009-2014. Anchorage, Alaska.
In addition, planning documents compiled by the ADF&G but not included on the FERC
adopted list have also been reviewed. A review of those planning documents revealed that the
following plan was applicable:
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 2006. Our Wealth Maintained: A
Strategy for Conserving Alaska’s Diverse Wildlife and Fish Resources. Alaska Department
of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. 824p.
Based on a review of the comprehensive plans that are available, IPEC believes the Gartina Falls
Hydroelectric Project is in compliance with, or will be operated in a manner consistent with,
these plans.
6.1 Potentially Relevant Comprehensive Plans on FERC Comprehensive
Plan List
6.1.1 Alaska Department of Fish and Game Catalog of Waters Important
for Spawning, Rearing or Migration of Anadromous Fishes
The ADF&G is responsible for maintaining anadromous waters data as well the publication of
the Catalog of Waters Important for the Spawning, Rearing or Migration of Anadromous Fishes
and its associated Atlas, which is maintained in electronic format.
The Catalog of Waters Important for the Spawning, Rearing or Migration of Anadromous Fishes
and its associated Atlas (the Catalog and Atlas, respectively) contains over 17,000 streams, rivers
or lakes around the state which have been specified by the ADF&G as being important for the
spawning, rearing or migration of anadromous fish. Based upon thorough surveys of a few
drainages by the ADF&G, they estimate that this number represents less than 50% of the
streams, rivers and lakes actually used by anadromous species. ADF&G also estimates that at
least an additional 20,000 or more anadromous water bodies have not been identified or specified
under AS 16.05.871(a).
Section 6 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 6-2 May 2012
The Catalog and Atlas specify which streams, rivers and lakes are important to anadromous fish
species and, therefore, afforded protection under AS 16.05.871. Water bodies that are not
identified by the Catalog and Atlas are not afforded that protection. To be provided protection
under AS 16.05.871, water bodies must be documented as supporting some life function of an
anadromous fish species. Additionally, anadromous fish must have been seen or collected and
identified by a qualified observer. ADF&G indicates that most nominations come from ADF&G
fisheries biologists.
Gartina Creek is identified on Quad 011, Plate A-5 of the Atlas. Fishery surveys performed for
the Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project in 2010 and 2011 have identified the presence of
anadromous fish species in Gartina Creek. The proposed Project limits impacts below Gartina
Falls, and, therefore, the Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project will be consistent with the goals of
the Plan.
6.1.2 Alaska’s Recreation Plan
Alaska’s Recreation Plan for 2009-2014 was published in July of 2009 in order to provide a
vision for the future of recreation. Recreation provides important benefits to the quality of life
for Alaskans including enriching lives, improving health, promoting active lifestyles, and
providing outlets for socializing and family activities. The Alaska Recreation Plan identifies the
following goals:
Provide recreation agencies and communities with a reference for outdoor recreation
preferences, use trends, and issues relevant to Alaska through 2014.
Identify statewide and regional capital investment priorities, for acquiring, developing,
and protecting outdoor recreation resources.
Identify the State’s priorities, strategies, and actions for the obligation of its LWCF
apportionment.
Provide information that agencies and communities need to develop project proposals
eligible for LWCF assistance.
This Plan contains no provisions specific to the Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project. The Project
is located entirely on private lands primarily used for timber production; therefore, no specific
recreation goals apply to the Project area.
6.2 Additional Comprehensive Plans Identified as Potentially Relevant by
Applicant
6.2.1 Alaska Department of Fish and Game Strategy for Conserving
Alaska’s Diverse Wildlife and Fish Resources
Alaska’s Strategy for Conserving Alaska’s Diverse Wildlife and Fish Resources was developed
with the goal of conserving the diversity of Alaska's wildlife resources, focusing on those species
with the greatest conservation need. The Strategy is intended to coordinate and integrate newly
developed and implemented conservation actions and strategies with Alaska's existing wildlife
management and research programs, building upon the successes of these earlier efforts.
Section 6 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 6-3 May 2012
The Strategy is intended to be a blueprint for an overall conservation approach, one that sustains
Alaska's overall diversity of both game and nongame wildlife. Alaska's Strategy will serve as a
blueprint for strategic investments and activities that reflect the public interest regarding
conservation. To achieve this goal, ADF&G has worked closely with multiple partners and
interests to look comprehensively at needs for our wildlife and create a multiyear strategy which:
Conserves Alaska's unique and diverse fish and wildlife resources;
Promotes partnering and coordination among agencies and the public; and
Enables funding to be utilized to implement conservation strategies for multiple species
and species assemblages.
This Plan contains no provisions specific to the Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project. IPEC has
reviewed the proposed Project for consistency with the general goals, and has identified ADF&G
featured species that may occur in the Project vicinity in Section 4 of this Exhibit E.
Section 6 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 6-4 May 2012
This page intentionally left blank.
Section 7 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 7-1 May 2012
7 Cumulative Effects
According to the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations for implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 C.F.R. Section 1508.7), a cumulative effect is the impact
on the environment which results from the incremental impact of a Proposed Action when added
to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency
(federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects can result
from individually minor, but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time,
including hydropower project operations and other land and water development activities.
Because of the small Project footprint and proposed run-of-river operation, limited adverse
affects associated with Project construction and operation were identified. These include
removal of several mature trees and other vegetation in the riparian area, construction related
short-term increases in turbidity, and temporary blasting and construction traffic impacts on
wildlife. The impacts are limited to the immediate Project area and are primarily short-term in
duration; therefore, the proposed Project will not contribute to any cumulative effects in the
Gartina Creek watershed.
Section 7 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 7-2 May 2012
This page intentionally left blank.
Section 8 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 8-1 May 2012
8 Literature Cited
Ackerman, R.E. 1964. Archaeological Survey Glacier Bay National Monument, Southeastern
Alaska (Part I). Laboratory of Anthropology Report of Investigations 28. Washington
State University, Pullman.
Ackerman, R.E. 1965. Archaeological Survey Glacier Bay national Monument, Southeastern
Alaska (Part II). Laboratory of Anthropology Report of Investigations 28. Washington
State University, Pullman.
Ackerman, R.E. 1968. Archaeology of Glacier Bay Region, Southeastern Alaska. Laboratory
of Anthropology Report of Investigations 44. Washington State University, Pullman.
Ackerman, R.E. 1974. Post Pleistocene Cultural Adaptations on the Northern Northwest Coast.
In International Conference on the Prehistory and Paleoecology of the Western North
American Arctic and Subarctic, edited by Scott Raymond and Peter Schledermann, pp. 1-
20. The University of Calgary Archaeological Association, University of Calgary,
Calgary.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). 2010. Alaska’s Final 2010
Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report, July 15, 2010. Prepared by
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). 2011. Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation, Division of Environmental Health, Drinking Water, Public
Source Water Assessment Results; viewed August 30, 2011; available online at:
http://dec.alaska.gov/eh/dw/DWP/execsummary.aspx?PWSID=130067.001.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 2006. Our Wealth Maintained: A Strategy for
Conserving Alaska’s Diverse Wildlife and Fish Resources. Alaska Department of Fish
and Game, Juneau, Alaska. xviii+824 p.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 2010a. Catalog of Waters Important to the
Spawning, Rearing or Migration of Anadromous Fishes – Available at the Fish
Distribution Database Mapping website:
http://gis.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/AWC_IMS/viewer.htm. Viewed August 2010.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 2010b. Alaska Freshwater Fish Inventory
Database Mapping as viewed August 2010 at
http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/SARR/Surveys/index.cfm
Section 8 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 8-2 May 2012
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 2010c. Dolly Varden, Rainbow Trout,
Steelhead Trout, and Coastal Cutthroat Trout – ADF&G Wildlife Notebook Series. (last
updated September 22, 2010). Viewed 23 September 2010 at:
http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/fish/dolly_v.php;
http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/fish/rainbow.php;
http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/fish/steelhd.php; and
http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/fish/c%5Etrout.php.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 2011a. Breeding Birds of Southeast Alaska.
Available online <https://secure.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=birds.breeding>.
Accessed August 18, 2011.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 2011b. Alaska Hunting Maps by Game
Management Unit (GMU), Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Juneau, Alaska.
Available online:
<http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=huntingmaps.bygmu&gmu=04>.
Accessed: August 25, 2011.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 2011c. Game Management Unit Maps,
Boundaries, Restrictions & More, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Juneau, Alaska.
Available online:
<http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=huntingmaps.gmuinfo&gmu=04>.
Accessed: August 25, 2011.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 2011d. Sooty Grouse Hunting Information,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game: Small Game Hunting in Alaska. Juneau, Alaska.
Available online: <
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=smallgamehunting.sootygrouse>. Accessed:
August 25, 2011.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 2012. Ermine as viewed on May 20, 2012 at:
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR). 2011. Land Records Information database
(Alaska Mapper) as viewed on August 8, 2011 at :
http://mapper.landrecords.info/Mapper/mainframe.jsp and the Alaska DNR Case Abstract
information site at:
http://dnr.alaska.gov/projects/las/Case_Abstract.cfm?FileType=LAS&FileNumber=897&
LandFlag=y
Alaska Division of Community and Regional Affairs (ADCRA). 2010. Alaska Community
Database Community Information Summaries: Hoonah. Available online:
Section 8 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 8-3 May 2012
<http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CIS.cfm?Comm_Boro_name=Hoonah>.
Accessed August 23, 2011.
Alaska Natural Heritage Program (AKNHP). 2008. Rare Plants Species List. Available online
at: http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/botany/rare-plants-species-lists/
Alaska Natural Heritage Program (AKNHP). 2011a. AKEPIC: Species Biographies and
Invasiveness. Available online: http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/botany/akepic/non-native-
plant-species-biographies/, accessed August 15, 2011.
Alaska Natural Heritage Program (AKNHP). 2011b. Plant and Animal Species Information.
BIOTICS Database. Available online at: http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/, accessed August
15, 2011.
Alaska Volcanic Observatory (AVO). 2011. The Alaska Volcanic Observatory website, as
viewed on August 8, 2011, at: http://www.avo.alaska.edu/volcanoes/about.php
Andres, B.A., M.J. Stotts, and J.M. Stotts. 2004. Breeding Birds of Research Natural Areas in
Southeastern Alaska. Northwestern Naturalist 85: 95-103.
Arndt, K. L., Russell H. Sackett, and James Ketz. 1987. A Cultural Resource Overview of the
Tongass National Forest, Alaska. GDM, Inc., Fairbanks.
Ashton, S., S. Hanlon, J. Hinchman, G. Mayeda, S. Mills, A. St. Claire, F. St. Clair, J.
Skaflestad, T. Wicks, and J. Hembree ca. 1970s Hoonah History. Hoonah High School’s
Alaska History Class. Hoonah, Alaska.
Benson, D.E. 2011. Tlingit. Access September 2012, http://www.everyculture.com/multi/Sr-
Z/Tlingit.html.
Bethers, M., K. Monk, and C. Seifert. 1995. Juneau fish habitat assessment. Alaska Department
of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, Douglas, Alaska.
Bull, E.L., C.G. Parks, and T.R. Torgersen. 1997. Trees and logs important to wildlife in the
interior Columbia River basin. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-391. USDA Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon. 55 pp.
Cerveny, L.K. 2007. Sociocultural effects of tourism in Hoonah, Alaska. Gen. Tech. Rep.
PNW-GTR-734. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station. 115 p.
City of Hoonah and Sheinberg Associates. 2005. Hoonah Coastal Management Program
Revision: Final Draft Plan Amendment. Available online:
<http://dnr.alaska.gov/coastal/acmp//District/FinalPlans/Hoonah/PDFs/Plan.pdf>. 187 p.
Section 8 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 8-4 May 2012
Coen, R. 2010. “If One Should Come Your Way, Shoot it Down:” The Alaska Territorial Guard
and the Japanese Balloon Bomb Attack of World War II. Alaska History, Fall 2010, Vol.
25, Issue 2.
Cordle, H.J. 1938. The Thlingets of Southern Alaska and Especially of Hoonah. On file,
Alaska State Library, Juneau, Alaska.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Office of Biological Services, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Washington, DC.
Curran, J.H., D.F. Meyer, and G.D. Tasker. 2003. Estimating the magnitude and frequency of
peak streamflows for ungaged sites on streams in Alaska and conterminous basins in
Canada: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4188, 101 p.
Emmons, G.T. 1991. The Tlingit Indians. University of Washington Press, Seattle.
Davis, S.D. (editor). 1990. Prehistory of Southeastern Alaska. In: Northwest Coast, edited by
W.P. Suttles, pp. 203-228. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7. Smithsonian
Institute, Washington, D.C.
De Laguna, F. 1960. The Story of a Tlingit Community: A Problem in the Relationship
between Archaeological, Ethnological, and Historical Methods. Bureau of American
Ethnology Bulletin No. 172. US Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
De Laguna, F. 1972. Under Mount Saint Elias: The History and Culture of the Yakutat Tlingit.
Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology Vol. 7 (in three parts). US Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols, Benthic
Macroinvertebrates. Viewed on July 18, 2011: http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/
wacademy/acad2000/rbp/6right.html/ Last updated on Friday, September 12th, 2008
Golder Associates. 2011. Geotechnical Reconnaissance, Gartina Creek and Water Supply Creek
Hydroelectric Project. Submitted to HDR Alaska, Inc. by Golder Associates Inc on May
6, 2011. Report 113-95607
Goldstein, M.I., D. Martin, and M.C. Stensvold. 2009. Forest Service Alaska Region Sensitive
Species List: Assessment and Proposed Revisions to the 2002 List.
Grinev, A.V. 2005. Reflections on the Fate of Alexei Chirikov’s Missing Men. Arctic
Anthropology vol. 42 2:1-8. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System.
Section 8 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 8-5 May 2012
Grinev, A.V. 2010. The Ethnicity of Newcomers to Russian America. Alaska History vol. 25
2:20-46.
Harris, D. 2010. Personal communication between Dave Harris (ADF&G) and Erin
Cunningham (HDR) on August 19, 2010 regarding salmon run timing in Southeast
Alaska.
Heard, W.R. 1991. Life History of Pink Salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha). Auke Bay
Laboratory, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Auke Bay, Alaska 99821, pg 121 in Pacific
Salmon Life Histories, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., edited by C.
Groot and L. Margolis, 1991.
Hunter, J.E. and M.L. Bond. 2001. Residual trees: Wildlife associations and recommendations.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:995-999.
Hyde, J. 2010a. Personal communication between John Hyde, a USFS Tongass National Forest
Hoonah Ranger District fisheries biologist and Erin Cunningham (HDR) regarding the
1984 USFS fisheries data for Gartina Creek, on September 1, 2010.
Hyde, J. 2010b. Correspondence between John Hyde (Hoonah Ranger District Biologist) and
Sirena Brownlee (HDR) regarding wildlife presence in the Gartina Creek project vicinity.
December 2010.
Ihlenfeldt, N.J. 2005. An Annotated Bibliography: Above Barrier Resident Dolly Varden char
(Salvelinus malma) and Related Studies. Alaska Department of Natural Resources Office
of Habitat Management and Permitting; Technical Report No. 05-05.
Inside Passage Electric Cooperative (IPEC). 2011. Gartina Falls & Water Supply Creek
Hydroelectric Projects: Conceptual Design Report. Prepared by HDR Alaska, Anchorage
Alaska. February 2011. 65 p.
Inside Passage Electric Cooperative (IPEC). 2011a. Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project No.
14066 Pre-Application Document (PAD). Prepared by HDR Alaska, Anchorage Alaska.
October 2011.
Inside Passage Electric Cooperative (IPEC). 2011b. Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project No.
14066 Supplemental Information to the PAD. Prepared by HDR Alaska, Anchorage
Alaska. December 2011.
Jones, S.H. and C.B. Fahl. 1994. Magnitude and frequency of floods in Alaska and
conterminous basins of Canada: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations
Report 93-4179, 122 p.
Section 8 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 8-6 May 2012
Karl, S.M. 1999. Preliminary Geologic Map of Northeast Chichagof Island, Alaska (Karl
1999). Prepared by the U. S. Geological Survey; Open file report 96-53. Anchorage,
Alaska 99508.
Lathram, E.H., R.A. Loney, W.H. Condon, and H.C. Berg. 1959. Progress map of the geology
of the Juneau Quadrangle, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Geological
Investigations Map I-303, scale 1:250,000.
Lerum, L. and R. Piehl. 2007. Southeast Alaska, Chichagof Island Red-legged Frog population
status. USDA Forest Service, Juneau, Alaska. 7.
Lessard, J.L., R.W. Merritt, and M.B. Berg. 2008. Investigating the effect of marine-derived
nutrients from spawning salmon on macroinvertebrate secondary production in southeast
Alaskan streams. Department of Entomology, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
Michigan 48824 USA, and Department of Biology, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago,
Illinois 60626 USA.
Loney, R.A. 1963. Reconnaissance Geologic Map of Chichagof Island and Northwestern
Baranof Island, Alaska, U.S Geological Survey Map I-388.
Loney, R.A., D.A. Brew, L.J.P. Muffler, and J.S. Pomeroy. 1975. Reconnaissance geology of
Chichagof, Baranof, and Kruzof islands, southeastern Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper 792, 105 p.
MacDonald, S.O. and J.A. Cook. 2007. Mammals and amphibians of Southeast Alaska. The
museum of Southwestern Biology, Special Publication 8: 1-191.
Mecklenburg, C.W., T.A. Mecklenburg, and L.K. Thorsteinson. 2002. Fish of Alaska. Point
Stephens Research, Auke Bay, Alaska. And U.S. Geological Survey, Western Fisheries
Research Center, Seattle, Washington. Published by the American Fisheries Society,
Bethesda, Maryland.
Merritt R.W. and K.W. Cummins. 1996. Aquatic Insects of North America. Kendall/Hunt
Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa. pp. 74 – 97.
Miller, J. 2011. Alaskan Tlingit and Tsimshian. Accessed September 2011,
http://content.lib.washington.edu/aipnw/miller1.html.
Monagle, K. ADF&G. 2010. Personal communication between Kevin Monagle (ADF&G) and
Erin Cunningham (HDR), July 20, 2010.
Monagle, K. ADF&G. 2010. Personal communication between Kevin Monagle (ADF&G) and
Erin Cunningham (HDR), December 22, 2010.
Section 8 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 8-7 May 2012
Mooney, P. 2007a. Unit 4 Furbearer Management Report. Pages 64–74 in P. Harper, editor.
Furbearer management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2003–30 June
2006. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Project 7.0. Juneau, Alaska.
Mooney, P. 2007b. Unit 4 Brown Bear Management Report. Pages 20-39 in P. Harper, editor.
Brown bear management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2004–30 June
2006. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Project 7.0. Juneau, Alaska.
Mooney, P. 2007c. Unit 4 Deer Management Report. Pages 53-69 in P. Harper, editor. Deer
management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2004–30 June 2006. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game. Project 7.0. Juneau, Alaska.
Mooney, P. 2010. Gartina Hydroelectric Project: correspondence between Phil Mooney
(ADF&G Sitka) and Sirena Brownlee (HDR) regarding wildlife species occurrence in the
project vicinity. December 2010.
Morita, K., S. Yamamoto and N. Hoshino. 2000. Extreme life history change of white-spotted
char (Salvelinus leucomaenis) after damming. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences. Volume 57, Issue 6. pp 1300–1306.
Natureserve. 2011. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application].
Version 7.0. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. U.S.A. Available online:
<http://www.natureserve.org/explorer>. Accessed: August 25, 2011.
NOAA. 2004. Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Guidance. National Marine Fisheries
Service. Silver Spring, MD.
Northcote, T.G. 1992. Migration and residency in stream salmonids – some ecological
considerations and evolutionary consequences. Nordic J. Freshw. Res. 67: 5–17.
Parker, Patricia L., and Thomas F. King. 1998. Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting
Traditional Cultural Properties. Revised. National Register Bulletin 38. U.S. Department
of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register, History, and Education
Division, Washington, D.C.
Pearse, D.E., S.A. Hayes, M.H. Bond, C.V. Hanson, E.C. Anderson, R.B. Macfarlane and J.C.
Garza. 2009. Over the Falls? Rapid Evolution of Ecotypic Differentiation in
Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Journal of Heredity. Volume 100,
Issue 5. pp 515-525.
Schoen, J.W., L.I. Beier, J.W. Lentfer, and L.J. Johnson. 1987. Denning ecology of brown bears
on Admiralty and Chichagof Islands. International Conference on Bear Research and
Management 7: 293-304.
Section 8 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 8-8 May 2012
Schoen, J.W. and M. Kirchoff. 2007. Sitka Black-tailed Deer. A Conservation Assessment and
Resource Synthesis for The Coastal Forests and Mountains Ecoregion in the Tongass
National Forest and Southeast Alaska. Southeast Alaska Conservation Assessment,
Chapter 6.1.
Shaw, R.D. 2006. Historical Review and Recommendations for National Historic Preservation
Act Compliance for 2006 Improvements to Streets in Hoonah, Alaska. Robert Shaw
Enterprises, Anchorage, Alaska. Prepared for the City of Hoonah, Hoonah, Alaska.
Smith, H.I. 1909. Archaeological Remains on the Coast of Northern British Columbia and
Southern Alaska. American Anthropologist 11:590-600.
Smith, W.P., M.J. Stotts, B.A. Andres, J.M. Melton, A. Garibaldi, and K. Boggs. 2001. Bird,
mammal, and vegetation community surveys of research natural areas in the Tongass
National Forest. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-535. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 44 p.
Tongass National Forest (TNF). 2011. Website of prehistory and history timelines,
http://www.fs. fed.us/ r10/tongass/forest_facts/resources/heritage/timeline.html.
Accessed August 23, 2011.
United States Forest Service (USFS). 2008. Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan:
Final Environmental Impact Statement Plan Amendment, Volume I. United States
Department of Agriculture Forest Service. R10-MB-603c. January 2008. 882 p.
United States Forest Service (USFS). 2008. Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan,
Final Environmental Impact Statement. Forest Service R10-MB-603F. Available at:
http://tongass-fpadjust.net/FPA_ROD.htm
University of Alaska, Museum of the North (UAF). 2011. Herbarium, ARCTOS database.
Available at: http://www.uaf.edu/museum/collections/herb/ or
http://arctos.database.museum/SpecimenSearch.cfm
U.S. Federal Power Commission. (USFPC). 1947. Water Powers of Southeast Alaska.
University of Washington Library.
USFWS. 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. Washington, DC. 25 pp.
USFWS. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern, 2008. Division of Migratory Bird Management,
Arlington, VA. 85 pp. Available online (accessed 13 September 2011):
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds
Section 8 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 8-9 May 2012
USFWS. 2009. Birds of Management Concern. Division of Migratory Bird Management,
Arlington, VA. Available online (accessed 13 September 2011):
USFWS. 2010. National Wetlands Inventory, Digital Data. Available at:
http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
USFWS. 2011. Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, Candidate, and Delisted Species in Alaska
(Updated April 21, 2011). Available online at:
<http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/endangered/pdf/consultation_guide/4_Species_List.pdf>.
Accessed: August 25, 2011.
Wesson, G., S. Flint, and M. Kelly. 1992. Resource Inventory Report, Ushk Bay Project,
Cultural. Dames & Moore, Chico, California. Prepared for Chatham Area, Tongass
National Forest, Alaska. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service.
Wright, B. and P. Schempf. 2008. Bald Eagles in Alaska. Hancock House Publishers, Blaine,
WA.
Yarborough, M. R., and S. Rider. 2006. Archaeological Survey for the Hoonah Airport Runway
Expansion Project. Prepared for the Alaska Department of Transportation, Juneau.
Section 8 Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 8-10 May 2012
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix A Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 May 2012
APPENDIX A
Consultation Documentation
Appendix A Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 May 2012
This page intentionally left blank.
1
Cunningham, Erin E.
From:Jennings, Richard [rdjennings@fs.fed.us]
Sent:Friday, October 28, 2011 4:03 PM
To:Borovansky, Jenna
Cc:Larson, Robert; Suminski, Terry; Lorrigan, Jack; Jennings, Richard
Subject:RE: Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project: FERC Acceptance for Filing in P-14066-000
Since Gartina Cr. has a federally qualified subsistence fishery, I, as the designated federal officer with the authority to
manage that subsistence fishery, have a concern about the impact on subsistence fishing.
I will be in attendance at the meeting in Hoonah on December 14th.
From: Borovansky, Jenna [mailto:Jenna.Borovansky@hdrinc.com]
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 2:56 PM
To: Sean.parnell@alaska.gov; Judith.bittner@alaska.gov; Honor.carpenter@alaska.gov;
Dawn.collinsowrth@ogc.usda.gov; daniel.bussard@alaska.gov; ted.deats@alaska.gov; angel@seacc.org;
mduvall@cityofhoonah.org; Richard_Enriquez@fws.gov; shareholders@hunatotem.com; Richard.harris@sealaska.com;
Jennings, Richard; shawn.johnson@alaska.gov; Monte.miller@alaska.gov; North.phil@epa.gov; dott@aieda.org;
Gary.prokosch@alaska.gov; Stanley, Barbara; Jackie.timothy@alaska.gov; Linda.Speerstra@usace.army.mil;
susan.walker@noaa.gov
Cc: Berkshire, Paul; Peter Bibb; Brady, James; ryan.hansen@ferc.gov; Ian.smith@ferc.gov
Subject: Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project: FERC Acceptance for Filing in P-14066-000
Hello Gartina Falls Distribution List,
This email serves as notice that the Inside Passage Electric Cooperative’s Notice of Intent (NOI) to file a license
application, request to use the Traditional Licensing Process, and the Pre-Application Document (PAD) for the
Gartina Falls Project have all been filed with FERC. Documents may be accessed at the link below.
http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20111028-5210
If you have problems accessing the NOI and PAD documents on FERC’s website, if your email system supports
large files, I will email the files, or can provide you a password to an ftp site to access the documents. (The
PAD is about 20 MB and the Notice of Intent/Request to Use the TLP is 3 MB.)
In addition, the draft Project facility drawings have been attached to this email. This document was also filed
with FERC, but is not available to the public via the e-library. Since parties on the distribution list are agencies
and other entities that need this information for their evaluation of the Project, IPEC is providing this
information to you directly. Please do not distribute the attached document publicly.
Finally, in the filing, IPEC has proposed Joint Meeting Dates to discuss the project proposal with agencies and
the public for the following dates:
Wednesday, December 14 Thursday, December 15
Hoonah, Alaska Juneau, Alaska
5:30 pm – 7:30 pm 1:00 – 3:00 pm
Please indicate your availability for either/both of these meetings. We will follow-up with details on the
meeting locations at a later date.
2
Thank you for your continued interest in the Gartina Falls Project. Please call or email if you have any
questions.
JENNA BOROVANSKY HDR Engineering, Inc.
Senior Regulatory Specialist, Hydropower Services
601 Union Street, Suite 700 | Seattle, WA 98101
206.826.4675 | c: 425.281.9557
jenna.borovansky@hdrinc.com | hdrinc.com
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: eFiling@ferc.gov [mailto:eFiling@ferc.gov]
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 2:10 PM
Acceptance for Filing
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
The FERC Office of the Secretary has accepted the following electronic submission for filing
(Acceptance for filing does not constitute approval of any application or self‐certifying
notice):
‐Accession No.: 201110285210, 201110285211
‐Docket(s) No.: P‐14066‐000
‐Filed By: Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
‐Signed By: Jenna Borovansky
‐Filing Type: Procedural Motion
‐Filing Desc: PAD and Request to Use TLP Inside Passage Electric Cooperative under P‐14066.
‐Submission Date/Time: 10/28/2011 4:52:54 PM
‐Filed Date: 10/28/2011 4:52:54 PM
Your submission is now part of the record for the above Docket(s) and available in FERC's
eLibrary system at:
http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20111028‐5210
If you would like to receive e‐mail notification when additional documents are added to the
above docket(s), you can eSubscribe by docket at:
https://ferconline.ferc.gov/eSubscription.aspx
There may be a 10 minute delay before the document appears in eLibrary.
Thank you again for using the FERC Electronic Filing System. If you need to contact us for
any reason:
E‐Mail: efiling@ferc.gov mailto:efiling@ferc.gov (do not send filings to this address)
Voice Mail: 202‐502‐8258.
From:Borovansky, Jenna
To:Sean.parnell@alaska.gov ; Judith.bittner@alaska.gov; Honor.carpenter@alaska.gov ;
Dawn.collinsowrth@ogc.usda.gov; daniel.bussard@alaska.gov ; ted.deats@alaska.gov ; angel@seacc.org;
mduvall@cityofhoonah.org; Richard_Enriquez@fws.gov; shareholders@hunatotem.com;
Richard.harris@sealaska.com ; rdjennings@fs.fed.us ; shawn.johnson@alaska.gov; Monte.miller@alaska.gov;
North.phil@epa.gov; dott@aieda.org; Gary.prokosch@alaska.gov; bstanley@fs.fed.us ;
Jackie.timothy@alaska.gov; Linda.Speerstra@usace.army.mil ; Susan.walker@noaa.gov
Cc:Berkshire, Paul; Peter Bibb ; Brady, James ; ryan.hansen@ferc.gov; Ian.smith@ferc.gov
Subject:Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project: FERC Acceptance for Filing in P-14066-000
Date:Friday, October 28, 2011 2:55:24 PM
Attachments:P14066_VolII_CEII.pdf
Hello Gartina Falls Distribution List,
This email serves as notice that the Inside Passage Electric Cooperative’s Notice of Intent
(NOI) to file a license application, request to use the Traditional Licensing Process, and the
Pre-Application Document (PAD) for the Gartina Falls Project have all been filed with
FERC. Documents may be accessed at the link below.
http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20111028-5210
If you have problems accessing the NOI and PAD documents on FERC’s website, if your
email system supports large files, I will email the files, or can provide you a password to an
ftp site to access the documents. (The PAD is about 20 MB and the Notice of Intent/Request
to Use the TLP is 3 MB.)
In addition, the draft Project facility drawings have been attached to this email. This
document was also filed with FERC, but is not available to the public via the e-library. Since
parties on the distribution list are agencies and other entities that need this information for
their evaluation of the Project, IPEC is providing this information to you directly. Please do
not distribute the attached document publicly.
Finally, in the filing, IPEC has proposed Joint Meeting Dates to discuss the project proposal
with agencies and the public for the following dates:
Wednesday, December 14 Thursday, December 15
Hoonah, Alaska Juneau, Alaska
5:30 pm – 7:30 pm 1:00 – 3:00 pm
Please indicate your availability for either/both of these meetings. We will follow-up with
details on the meeting locations at a later date.
Thank you for your continued interest in the Gartina Falls Project. Please call or email if you
have any questions.
JENNA BOROVANSKY HDR Engineering, Inc.
Senior Regulatory Specialist, Hydropower Services
601 Union Street, Suite 700 | Seattle, WA 98101
206.826.4675 | c: 425.281.9557
jenna.borovansky@hdrinc.com | hdrinc.com
-----Original Message-----
From: eFiling@ferc.gov [mailto:eFiling@ferc.gov]
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 2:10 PM
Acceptance for Filing
---------------------
The FERC Office of the Secretary has accepted the following electronic
submission for filing (Acceptance for filing does not constitute approval of
any application or self-certifying notice):
-Accession No.: 201110285210, 201110285211
-Docket(s) No.: P-14066-000
-Filed By: Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
-Signed By: Jenna Borovansky
-Filing Type: Procedural Motion
-Filing Desc: PAD and Request to Use TLP Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
under P-14066.
-Submission Date/Time: 10/28/2011 4:52:54 PM
-Filed Date: 10/28/2011 4:52:54 PM
Your submission is now part of the record for the above Docket(s) and
available in FERC's eLibrary system at:
http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20111028 -5210
If you would like to receive e-mail notification when additional documents
are added to the above docket(s), you can eSubscribe by docket at:
https://ferconline.ferc.gov/eSubscription.aspx
There may be a 10 minute delay before the document appears in eLibrary.
Thank you again for using the FERC Electronic Filing System. If you need to
contact us for any reason:
E-Mail: efiling@ferc.gov mailto:efiling@ferc.gov (do not send filings to this
address)
Voice Mail: 202-502 -8258.
DISTRIBUTION LIST (P-14066)
Name Agency/Organization Email1
Office of the Governor State of Alaska
P.O. Box 110001
Juneau AK 99811-0001
Sean.parnell@alaska.gov
Judith Bittner Alaska Department of Natural Resources
SHPO
Office of History & Archaeology
550 West 7th Ave Suite 1310
Anchorage AK 99501-3565
Judith.bittner@alaska.gov
Peter Bibb* Inside Passage Electric Cooperation
PO Box 210149
Auke, Bay, AK 99821
pbibb@ak.net
Bureau of Land Management
State Director
Alaska State Office
222 West 7th Avenue
Anchorage AK 99513-7599
Honor Carpenter Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation
Environmental Specialist
Division of Water - Compliance Program
410 Willoughby Avenue Suite 105
Juneau AK 99801-1795
Honor.carpenter@alaska.gov
Dawn Collinsworth* US. Dept. of Agriculture
PO Box 21628
Juneau, AK 99802
Dawn.collinsowrth@ogc.usda.gov
Daniel Bussard ADNR
Division of Mining – Land and Water
410 Willoughby Avenue Suite 105
Juneau AK 99801-1795
daniel.bussard@alaska.gov
Theodore Deats ADNR
Division of Mining – Land and Water
410 Willoughby Avenue Suite 105
Juneau AK 99801-1795
ted.deats@alaska.gov
Angel Drobnica* SEACC
419 Sixth Street, Suite 200
Juneau, AK 99801
angel@seacc.org
Marlene Duvall City Administrator
City of Hoonah
P.O. Box 360
Hoonah, AK 99829
mduvall@cityofhoonah.org
Richard Enriquez USFWS
3000 Vintage Blvd., Suite 201
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Richard_Enriquez@fws.gov
1 If no email is provided, a CD with application materials was mailed via USPS.
Name Agency/Organization Email1
Lawrence Gaffaney Huna Totem Corporation
9301 Glacier Highway, Suite 200
Juneau, AK 99801
shareholders@hunatotem.com
Richard Harris Sealaska Corporation
One Sealaska Plaza, Suite 400
Juneau, AK 99801
Richard.harris@sealaska.com
Hoonah Indian Association
254 Roosevelt Street
Hoonah, AK 99829
Mayor – City of Hoonah
P.O. Box 360
Hoonah, AK 99829
Richard Jennings* USDS Forest Service – Region 10 rdjennings@fs.fed.us
Shawn Johnson Alaska Department of Fish and Game
PO Box 110024
Douglas, AK 99824-0020
shawn.johnson@alaska.gov
Monte Miller Alaska Department of Fish and Game
State Hydropower Coordinator
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage AK 99518-1565
Monte.miller@alaska.gov
Phil North U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
514 Funny River Road
Soldotna, AK 99669
North.phil@epa.gov
Doug Ott Alaska Energy Authority
813 West Northern Lights Boulevard
Anchorage, AK 99503
dott@aieda.org
Gary Prokosch ANDR
Division of Mining – Land and Water
550 W 7th Ave Suite 1020 Anchorage AK
99501-3577
Gary.prokosch@alaska.gov
Barbara Stanley* USDA Forest Service – Region 10
648 Mission Street
Ketchikan, AK 99901
bstanley@fs.fed.us
Diana Stephens Sitka Recording District
210-C Lake St.
Sitka, AK 99835
Jackie Timothy SE Regional Supervisor
Alaska Department of Fish and Game – Habitat
PO Box 110024
Juneau, AK 99811
Jackie.timothy@alaska.gov
Linda Speerstra
Corps of Engineers - Regulatory Division
Sitka Field Office
P.O. Box 16
Sitka, AK 99835
Linda.Speerstra@usace.army.mil
Susan Walker NOAA
P.O. Box 21668
Juneau AK 99802-1668
Susan.walker@noaa.gov
Name Agency/Organization Email1
Johnny Zutz Alaska Department of Fish and Game – Habitat
PO Box 110024
Juneau, AK 99811
Johnny.zutz@alaska.gov
* Indicates parties that are FERC’s Service List for the P-14066.
1
Borovansky, Jenna
From:Borovansky, Jenna
Sent:Friday, September 30, 2011 2:17 PM
To:Borovansky, Jenna; 'Richard_Enriquez@fws.gov'; 'shawn.johnson@alaska.gov';
'susan.walker@noaa.gov'; 'monte.miller@alaska.gov'; 'gillian.odoherty@alaska.gov';
'Ian.smith@ferc.gov'; 'ryan.hansen@ferc.gov'; 'bstanley@fs.fed.us';
'kristina.plett@alaska.gov'; 'gary.prokosch@alaska.gov'; 'north.phil@epa.gov';
'shareholders@hunatotem.com'; 'michele.metz@sealaska.com'; 'kimberly.sager@alaska.gov';
'ted.deats@alaska.gov'; 'rick.harris@sealaska.gov'; 'mduvall@cityofhoonah.org';
'lgaffaney@hunatotem.com'; 'daniel.bussard@alaska.gov'; 'Windy@cityofhoonah.org'; 'Zutz,
Johnny D (DFG)'; 'angel@seacc.org'
Cc:Brady, James; Berkshire, Paul; 'pbibb@ak.net'
Subject:RE: Gartina Falls - Request for Support of Licensing Process & Proposed Schedule
Attachments:GartinaFallsSchedule_SiteVisitNotes.pdf
Dear Gartina Falls Interested Parties,
Thank you for considering IPEC’s request to use the Traditional Licensing Process (TLP) for the Gartina Falls Project. I
understand our initial request for feedback on use of the TLP had a very tight timeline. If you have the time to consider
this request over the next week and provide a quick email response, we appreciate it and will include any responses on
the use of TLP received by October 7 in the filing package. Once the request is filed with FERC, there will be 30-days to
comment on the use of the TLP with the Commission.
We are making this request because we feel the TLP is better suited for the licensing of new projects. The TLP was
FERC’s default licensing method up until 2005 when FERC adopted the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) to address a
large number of project re-licensings they were seeing. Most of the new small projects currently being licensed are
using the TLP. With either method, identification and resolution of resource issues to be analyzed in the licensing
process will be made through scoping as scheduled by FERC.
As discussed with many of you at the site visit, IPEC hopes that by providing comprehensive information up front in the
process, it will expedite agencies being able to participate in the development of a sound license application that
addresses all resource concerns. In the consultation package sent via email on August 5, and at the site visit on August
11, IPEC indicated that we had performed resource studies in the areas of geology, fisheries, wildlife, vegetation,
cultural, and water resources in 2010 and 2011 in support of our upcoming application. We plan to submit a
comprehensive Pre-Application Document (PAD) that includes all study results, and a full description of proposed project
facilities and operations (drafts of license Exhibits A and F). The information IPEC is presenting in the PAD will be at the
level of detail required for a draft license application – including full analysis of project effects.
After everyone has had the opportunity to review the information in the PAD, IPEC would like to begin discussions based
on the available information following the steps of the TLP. The Gartina Falls Project will be located entirely on private
lands, is located above and at the anadromous fish barrier, has a small footprint, and will operate in run-of-river mode.
As such, our hope is that we can efficiently come to agreement regarding any additional information requests and
appropriate protection, mitigation, and enhancement proposals for the Project.
IPEC and the consultant team look forward to discussing this with you further. Please do not hesitate to contact me, or
Paul Berkshire, Project Engineer (paul.berkshire@hdrinc.com) with any questions.
Thank you for your continued interest in the Gartina Falls Project.
JENNA BOROVANSKY HDR Engineering, Inc.
Senior Regulatory Specialist, Hydropower Services
601 Union Street, Suite 700 | Seattle, WA 98101
2
206.826.4675 | c: 425.281.9557
jenna.borovansky@hdrinc.com | hdrinc.com
From: Borovansky, Jenna
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 2:11 PM
To: Borovansky, Jenna; 'richard.enriquez@fws.gov'; 'shawn.johnson@alaska.gov'; 'susan.walker@noaa.gov';
'monte.miller@alaska.gov'; 'gillian.odoherty@alaska.gov'; 'Ian.smith@ferc.gov'; 'ryan.hansen@ferc.gov';
'bstanley@fs.fed.us'; 'kristina.plett@alaska.gov'; 'gary.prokosch@alaska.gov'; 'north.phil@epa.gov';
'shareholders@hunatotem.com'; 'michele.metz@sealaska.com'; 'kimberly.sager@alaska.gov'; 'ted.deats@alaska.gov';
'rick.harris@sealaska.gov'; 'mduvall@cityofhoonah.org'; 'lgaffaney@hunatotem.com'; 'daniel.bussard@alaska.gov';
'Windy@cityofhoonah.org'
Cc: Brady, James; Berkshire, Paul; 'pbibb@ak.net'
Subject: Gartina Falls - Request for Support of Licensing Process & Proposed Schedule
Dear Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Interested Parties:
The Inside Passage Electric Cooperative (IPEC) is requesting resource agencies’ and other interested parties’ support for
use of the Traditional Licensing Process (TLP) for licensing of the proposed Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project (Project),
FERC Project No. 14066. In August 2011, IPEC provided a consultation information packet with background information
on the proposed Project. IPEC met in Hoonah, Alaska with available agency representatives and stakeholders to
introduce the proposed Project. During this site visit, IPEC representatives proposed use of the Traditional Licensing
Process (TLP). This email contains a summary of the site visit and a proposed schedule for developing the Project in
consultation with interested parties.
IPEC intends to file a Pre-Application Document (PAD) in early October. In conjunction with the PAD filing, IPEC will be
requesting that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approve use of the TLP. Absent approval of the TLP,
IPEC will proceed with consultation through FERC’s default process, the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP). IPEC
believes that the TLP will provide the most efficient process for public and agency review of licensing documents, while
allowing for a filing of a license application for Project early in 2012. The TLP allows for flexibility in review timelines not
afforded by the ILP that IPEC believes will benefit all parties involved in the review and development of the Project. The
proposed Project has a limited footprint and will be located at the existing anadromous fish barrier at Gartina Falls; IPEC
intends to fully describe all resource studies conducted to date and will outline potential effects and proposed protection,
mitigation, and enhancement measures for the proposed Project in the PAD.
During the initial site visit with agencies, several representatives expressed interest in including a request to FERC for
early scoping, if IPEC is to use the TLP. The TLP has a mechanism, described in 18CFR§4.38(e)(4), to enhance the TLP
with ILP elements that could allow FERC to address this request. This provision allows for a license applicant to request
that FERC incorporate into pre-filing consultation elements of the ILP provided for under 18 CFR §5. If requested by the
agencies, IPEC will request that FERC conduct early scoping and will support and participate in the scoping activities that
FERC initiates.
IPEC would appreciate your review and feedback on the attached proposed schedule and meeting notes from the site
visit. In addition, IPEC requests via email your comments in support of use of the TLP and the proposed schedule
in the attached. Comments received by October 3 will be incorporated into the PAD filing with FERC in early October.
Email responses to jenna.borovansky@hdrinc.com would be greatly appreciated. You will also have an additional
opportunity to comment on use of the TLP with FERC following filing of the PAD and Notice of Intent to file a license
application for the Project.
Thank you for interest in this project and response to this request. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact me (jenna.borovansky@hdrinc.com, 206.826.4675).
JENNA BOROVANSKY HDR Engineering, Inc.
Senior Regulatory Specialist, Hydropower Services
601 Union Street, Suite 700 | Seattle, WA 98101
1
Borovansky, Jenna
From:Deats, Theodore A (DNR) [ted.deats@alaska.gov]
Sent:Monday, October 03, 2011 12:55 PM
To:Borovansky, Jenna; Richard_Enriquez@fws.gov; Johnson, Shawn L (DFG);
susan.walker@noaa.gov; Miller, Monte D (DFG); O'Doherty, Gillian M (DFG);
Ian.smith@ferc.gov; ryan.hansen@ferc.gov; bstanley@fs.fed.us; Plett, Kristina A (DNR);
Prokosch, Gary J (DNR); north.phil@epa.gov; shareholders@hunatotem.com;
michele.metz@sealaska.com; Sager, Kimberly R (DNR); rick.harris@sealaska.gov; Marleen
Duvall; lgaffaney@hunatotem.com; Bussard, Daniel P (DNR); Windy@cityofhoonah.org; Zutz,
Johnny D (DFG); angel@seacc.org
Cc:Brady, James; Berkshire, Paul; pbibb@ak.net; Deats, Theodore A (DNR)
Subject:RE: Gartina Falls - Request for Support of Licensing Process & Proposed Schedule
Categories:Gartina Falls Consultation
Jenna,
DMLW has no objection to use of the Traditional Licensing Process (TLP) for the Gartina Falls Project.
Ted Deats
From: Borovansky, Jenna [mailto:Jenna.Borovansky@hdrinc.com]
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 1:17 PM
To: Borovansky, Jenna; Richard_Enriquez@fws.gov; Johnson, Shawn L (DFG); susan.walker@noaa.gov; Miller, Monte D
(DFG); O'Doherty, Gillian M (DFG); Ian.smith@ferc.gov; ryan.hansen@ferc.gov; bstanley@fs.fed.us; Plett, Kristina A
(DNR); Prokosch, Gary J (DNR); north.phil@epa.gov; shareholders@hunatotem.com; michele.metz@sealaska.com; Sager,
Kimberly R (DNR); Deats, Theodore A (DNR); rick.harris@sealaska.gov; Marleen Duvall; lgaffaney@hunatotem.com;
Bussard, Daniel P (DNR); Windy@cityofhoonah.org; Zutz, Johnny D (DFG); 'angel@seacc.org'
Cc: Brady, James; Berkshire, Paul; pbibb@ak.net
Subject: RE: Gartina Falls - Request for Support of Licensing Process & Proposed Schedule
Dear Gartina Falls Interested Parties,
Thank you for considering IPEC’s request to use the Traditional Licensing Process (TLP) for the Gartina Falls Project. I
understand our initial request for feedback on use of the TLP had a very tight timeline. If you have the time to consider
this request over the next week and provide a quick email response, we appreciate it and will include any responses on
the use of TLP received by October 7 in the filing package. Once the request is filed with FERC, there will be 30-days to
comment on the use of the TLP with the Commission.
We are making this request because we feel the TLP is better suited for the licensing of new projects. The TLP was
FERC’s default licensing method up until 2005 when FERC adopted the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) to address a
large number of project re-licensings they were seeing. Most of the new small projects currently being licensed are
using the TLP. With either method, identification and resolution of resource issues to be analyzed in the licensing
process will be made through scoping as scheduled by FERC.
As discussed with many of you at the site visit, IPEC hopes that by providing comprehensive information up front in the
process, it will expedite agencies being able to participate in the development of a sound license application that
addresses all resource concerns. In the consultation package sent via email on August 5, and at the site visit on August
11, IPEC indicated that we had performed resource studies in the areas of geology, fisheries, wildlife, vegetation,
cultural, and water resources in 2010 and 2011 in support of our upcoming application. We plan to submit a
comprehensive Pre-Application Document (PAD) that includes all study results, and a full description of proposed project
facilities and operations (drafts of license Exhibits A and F). The information IPEC is presenting in the PAD will be at the
level of detail required for a draft license application – including full analysis of project effects.
\11-ea
'1\sEAiASkA
October 3, 2011
Ms. Kimberly D. Bose
Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888First Street,NE
Washington,D.C. 20426
Re:Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. P-14066-000)
Dear SecretaryBose:
SealaskaCorporation is an Alaska Native Regional corporation formed under the AlaskaNative
Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971and represents more than 20,000 tribal member
shareholdersof Tlingit, Haida and Tsimshian descent in SoutheastAlaska.
Under ANCSA Sealaska will receive over 365,000 acres ofland in Southeast Alaska. Sealaska
has a longhistory of working and supporting local utilities in their efforts to develop affordable,
renewable energy projects that exist on Sealaska's lands. The vast majority of the proposed
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project will occupy lands owned by Sealaska.
The Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project will provide renewable to energy to Hoonah, AK.
Hoonah is aprimarily native community that has been economically suffering due to the high
cost of diesel energyproduction.
I am writingto you to express Sealaska's support forthe project. We have reviewed the project
and find it consistent with our objectives of using our resources in the best interests of our tribal
member shareholders as well as all of the community residents. It is our intention to cooperate
with the Inside Passage Electric Cooperativeto establish long-term land use agreementthat will
allow the project to be developed on Sealaska lands.
We are in supportof the proposed project timeline anduse of the Traditional Licensing Process.
This run-of-riverproject will have negligible environmental impacts and we would like to
request your assistance in moving this project through the regulatory process in as efficient of
manner as possible.
Sincerely,
se
.
~al~orpora
.
ltion /
.
tion
~~;+--.
ichafd Harris
Executive Vice President
'"
SealaskaCorporation OneSealaskaPlaza,Suite400, Juneau,Alaska99801-1276 Tel: 907.586.1512 Fax: 907.586.2304
cc.Peter Bibb, IPEC
Jodi Mitchell, Sealaska Director
Chris McNeil, Sealaska President and CEO
Ron Wolfe, Sealaska NR Manager
MicheleMetz , Sealaska Lands Manager
Rosita Wor!, Chair Sealaska Land Committee
One Sealaska Plaza, Suite 400 . Juneau, AK 99801-1276 . Phone (907) 586-1512 . Fax (907) 586-2304
1
Borovansky, Jenna
From:Miller, Monte D (DFG) [monte.miller@alaska.gov]
Sent:Tuesday, September 27, 2011 5:25 PM
To:Borovansky, Jenna; richard.enriquez@fws.gov; Johnson, Shawn L (DFG);
susan.walker@noaa.gov; O'Doherty, Gillian M (DFG); Ian.smith@ferc.gov;
ryan.hansen@ferc.gov; bstanley@fs.fed.us; Plett, Kristina A (DNR); Prokosch, Gary J (DNR);
north.phil@epa.gov; shareholders@hunatotem.com; michele.metz@sealaska.com; Sager,
Kimberly R (DNR); Deats, Theodore A (DNR); rick.harris@sealaska.gov; Marleen Duvall;
lgaffaney@hunatotem.com; Bussard, Daniel P (DNR); Windy@cityofhoonah.org
Cc:Brady, James; Berkshire, Paul; pbibb@ak.net; Klein, Joseph P (DFG)
Subject:RE: Gartina Falls - Request for Support of Licensing Process & Proposed Schedule
Categories:Gartina Falls Consultation
Jenna Borovansky,
While we appreciate the intent of your request, allowing 3+ days to discuss the choice of the Traditional
Licensing Process with apparent undefined modifications, would seem insufficient. With staff on leave and
travel status this week, we are unable to properly evaluate this project or your request for support of the TLP.
Consequently, according to your schedule as identified, any comments we may have will not be included in the
IPEC request to use the TLP. Under the TLP process, we will consider filing comments on the process when
notified by FERC.
Generally, a minimum of two weeks notification of a request is requested by our agency with four weeks lead
time being appreciated. With more than 90 hydropower and hydrokinetic projects currently active of proposed
in Alaska, scheduling is at best difficult for us.
We are also concerned by the notation in Attachment A which states “IPEC will request that FERC shorten the
30 day comment period for public and agency comments on use of the TLP to allow for a mid-November Joint
Meeting.” We agree that early scoping is important, but we do not support any shortening of identified time
periods of the TLP.
The schedule developed and presented as Attachment A appears to be extremely optimistic. IPEC proposes to
file a Final License Application in mid February 2012, which is well before the TLP schedule would seem to
identify. This is also well before comments on proposed studies would be due. If FERC follows the TLP
process you may not see a joint meeting scheduled until early 2012 with the study request process beginning
after the joint meeting. Under the TLP the study identification process could be from 60 to 150 days.
Allowing 90 days for the agencies to develop PME measures (Dec. 2011 through Feb. 2012) with limited study
information available is also unrealistic. The proposed schedule would seem to stack several steps in the TLP
during the same time period, Pad Comments, Process Comments, Study Requests, Scoping, Study Results and
development of PM&E measures within about 90 days.
This is a new Preliminary Permit issued September 9, 2011. This agency is concerned about the apparent rush
to license this project. The timeline presented is questionable for many reasons and problematic for this
agency. The schedule presented indicates a filing of a Final License Application by February 15, 2012. This is
before the consultation meeting have concluded and before any additional identified study needs are complete
with studies reported. This will put additional and perhaps unrealistic burdens on everyone involved in the
process.
I will confer with staff next week regarding this project.
Monte D. Miller
Statewide Hydropower Coordinator
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Division of Sport Fish / RTS
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99518-1565
(907) 267-2312
1
Cunningham, Erin E.
From:Borovansky, Jenna
Sent:Tuesday, November 01, 2011 3:44 PM
To:Monte.miller@alaska.gov
Cc:shawn.johnson@alaska.gov
Subject:Gartina Falls Documents
Monte and Shawn,
You should receive a password in a few minutes from a separate email from:
HDRITGHelpDesk@hdrinc.com
Unfortunately, the documents are still large, and you may still have download issues. I am putting a CD in the mail to you
– and we are working on a more permanent Sharepoint site that will be an archive for project documents on the web,
and should provide download options in smaller “bites” that will hopefully work for everyone.
Thanks for your patience. Look forward to speaking with you more soon.
Best regards, Jenna
JENNA BOROVANSKY HDR Engineering, Inc.
Senior Regulatory Specialist, Hydropower Services
601 Union Street, Suite 700 | Seattle, WA 98101
206.826.4675 | c: 425.281.9557
jenna.borovansky@hdrinc.com | hdrinc.com
1
Cunningham, Erin E.
From:Borovansky, Jenna
Sent:Tuesday, November 01, 2011 3:40 PM
To:Susan Walker
Cc:eric.rothwell@noaa.gov; tom.gcak.meyer@noaa.gov
Subject:RE: Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project: FERC Acceptance for Filing in P-14066-000
Sue, Tom, and Eric,
You should have just received an email with a password to access the Gartina Falls PAD via an ftp site. We are also in the
process of attempting to set‐up a permanent Sharepoint site that will not require individual passwords and will archive
all project documents, and I will be in touch with folks later this week with that website information.
The email with password will come from:
HDRITGHelpDesk@hdrinc.com
Thanks,
Jenna
JENNA BOROVANSKY HDR Engineering, Inc.
Senior Regulatory Specialist, Hydropower Services
601 Union Street, Suite 700 | Seattle, WA 98101
206.826.4675 | c: 425.281.9557
jenna.borovansky@hdrinc.com | hdrinc.com
From: Susan Walker [mailto:susan.walker@noaa.gov]
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 6:23 PM
To: Borovansky, Jenna
Subject: Re: Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project: FERC Acceptance for Filing in P-14066-000
Hi Jenna ‐
Thank you for sending the link to these documents. An .ftp site would be preferable. The FERC website downloads too
slowly and our system times out on large FERC documents.
Also, please add Eric Rothwell, NMFS Hydrologist, and Tom Meyer, NOAA GC, to your distribution list.
I will not be available on the 14th or 15th of December, and the meeting dates you proposed overlap with proposed
Sustina Hydro planning meetings, so a number of your target audience may also be unavailable.
Thank you,
Sue Walker
On 10/28/2011 2:55 PM, Borovansky, Jenna wrote:
Hello Gartina Falls Distribution List,
2
This email serves as notice that the Inside Passage Electric Cooperative’s Notice of Intent (NOI) to file a license
application, request to use the Traditional Licensing Process, and the Pre-Application Document (PAD) for the
Gartina Falls Project have all been filed with FERC. Documents may be accessed at the link below.
http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20111028-5210
If you have problems accessing the NOI and PAD documents on FERC’s website, if your email system supports
large files, I will email the files, or can provide you a password to an ftp site to access the documents. (The
PAD is about 20 MB and the Notice of Intent/Request to Use the TLP is 3 MB.)
In addition, the draft Project facility drawings have been attached to this email. This document was also filed
with FERC, but is not available to the public via the e-library. Since parties on the distribution list are agencies
and other entities that need this information for their evaluation of the Project, IPEC is providing this
information to you directly. Please do not distribute the attached document publicly.
Finally, in the filing, IPEC has proposed Joint Meeting Dates to discuss the project proposal with agencies and
the public for the following dates:
Wednesday, December 14 Thursday, December 15
Hoonah, Alaska Juneau, Alaska
5:30 pm – 7:30 pm 1:00 – 3:00 pm
Please indicate your availability for either/both of these meetings. We will follow-up with details on the
meeting locations at a later date.
Thank you for your continued interest in the Gartina Falls Project. Please call or email if you have any
questions.
JENNA BOROVANSKY
HDR Engineering, Inc.
Senior Regulatory Specialist, Hydropower Services
601 Union Street, Suite 700 | Seattle, WA 98101
206.826.4675 | c: 425.281.9557
jenna.borovansky@hdrinc.com | hdrinc.com
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: eFiling@ferc.gov [mailto:eFiling@ferc.gov]
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 2:10 PM
Acceptance for Filing
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
The FERC Office of the Secretary has accepted the following electronic submission for filing
(Acceptance for filing does not constitute approval of any application or self‐certifying
notice):
‐Accession No.: 201110285210, 201110285211
‐Docket(s) No.: P‐14066‐000
‐Filed By: Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
‐Signed By: Jenna Borovansky
‐Filing Type: Procedural Motion
3
‐Filing Desc: PAD and Request to Use TLP Inside Passage Electric Cooperative under P‐14066.
‐Submission Date/Time: 10/28/2011 4:52:54 PM
‐Filed Date: 10/28/2011 4:52:54 PM
Your submission is now part of the record for the above Docket(s) and available in FERC's
eLibrary system at:
http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20111028‐5210
If you would like to receive e‐mail notification when additional documents are added to the
above docket(s), you can eSubscribe by docket at:
https://ferconline.ferc.gov/eSubscription.aspx
There may be a 10 minute delay before the document appears in eLibrary.
Thank you again for using the FERC Electronic Filing System. If you need to contact us for
any reason:
E‐Mail: efiling@ferc.gov mailto:efiling@ferc.gov (do not send filings to this address)
Voice Mail: 202‐502‐8258.
--
PK
HDR Engineering, Inc.
601 Union Street
Suite 700
Seattle, WA
Phone (206) 826-4700
Fax (206) 826-4701
www.hdrinc.com
Page 1 of 1
Memo
To: Gartina Falls Consultation File
From: Jenna Borovansky Project:
CC:
Date: 11/7/2011 Job No:
RE: Telephone Conversation with Diana Stephens, Sitka Recording District
Ms. Stephens called in response to the cover letter and PAD document provided via USMail. She indicated
that while the Sitka Recording District records for the City of Hoonah, she does not need to receive
documents regarding the Gartina Falls Project, as long as the City of Hoonah is on the mailing list. I
explained that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission requires that all pontentially interested entities
be contacted. She indicated that the City of Hoonah is sufficient for notification purposes. I confirmed that
the City of Hoonah is on the distribution list, and noted that I would remove the Sitka Recording District
from the document distribution list.
1
Borovansky, Jenna
From:Borovansky, Jenna
Sent:Tuesday, November 22, 2011 9:00 AM
To:'Zutz, Johnny D (DFG)'
Subject:FW: Dec. 14-15 Joint Meeting Notice - Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project
Attachments:P14066_JointMtgNotice.pdf
To Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Distribution and Service List:
The attached document was e‐filed with FERC in order to confirm the date and location of the Joint Meeting for the
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project. The meetings will be held:
Wednesday, December 14, 2011 Thursday, December 15, 2011
City Hall City & Bureau of Juneau Chambers
300 Front Street 155 South Seward St
Hoonah, Alaska 99829 Juneau, AK 99801
6:00 pm – 8:00 pm (ADT) 1:00 – 3:00 pm (ADT)
Conference call‐in will be available for the Juneau meeting only (1‐866‐994‐6437; passcode 2300743). A reminder will be
sent.
The PowerPoint for the meeting will be provided prior to the meeting; the Pre‐Application Document is currently
available for review at www.ferc.gov (e‐library search for P‐14066) and will be the primary agenda item. The agenda for
both meetings will be the same, and will include discussion of: Project Purpose; Overview of Proposed Facilities and
Operations; Overview of Environmental Studies Conducted in Support of the Project; and a Discussion of Proposed
Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
JENNA BOROVANSKY HDR Engineering, Inc.
Senior Regulatory Specialist, Hydropower Services
601 Union Street, Suite 700 | Seattle, WA 98101
206.826.4675 | c: 425.281.9557
jenna.borovansky@hdrinc.com | hdrinc.com
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: eFiling@ferc.gov [mailto:eFiling@ferc.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 8:35 AM
To: Borovansky, Jenna; eFiling@ferc.gov
Subject: FERC Acceptance for Filing in P‐14066‐001
Acceptance for Filing
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
The FERC Office of the Secretary has accepted the following electronic submission for filing
(Acceptance for filing does not constitute approval of any application or self‐certifying
notice):
‐Accession No.: 201111225060
‐Docket(s) No.: P‐14066‐001
1
Borovansky, Jenna
From:Borovansky, Jenna
Sent:Tuesday, November 22, 2011 8:58 AM
To:Borovansky, Jenna; 'Sean.parnell@alaska.gov'; 'Judith.bittner@alaska.gov';
'Honor.carpenter@alaska.gov'; 'Dawn.collinsworth@ogc.usda.gov';
'daniel.bussard@alaska.gov'; 'ted.deats@alaska.gov'; 'angel@seacc.org';
'mduvall@cityofhoonah.org'; 'Richard_Enriquez@fws.gov'; 'shareholders@hunatotem.com';
'Richard.harris@sealaska.com'; 'rdjennings@fs.fed.us'; 'shawn.johnson@alaska.gov';
'Monte.miller@alaska.gov'; 'North.phil@epa.gov'; 'dott@aidea.org';
'Gary.prokosch@alaska.gov'; 'bstanley@fs.fed.us'; 'Jackie.timothy@alaska.gov';
'Linda.Speerstra@usace.army.mil'; 'Susan.walker@noaa.gov'; 'Eric Rothwell';
tom.gcak.meyer@noaa.gov
Cc:Berkshire, Paul; Brady, James; 'Peter Bibb'; 'ryan.hansen@ferc.gov'
Subject:Dec. 14-15 Joint Meeting Notice - Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project
Attachments:P14066_JointMtgNotice.pdf
To Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Distribution and Service List:
The attached document was e‐filed with FERC in order to confirm the date and location of the Joint Meeting for the
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project. The meetings will be held:
Wednesday, December 14, 2011 Thursday, December 15, 2011
City Hall City & Bureau of Juneau Chambers
300 Front Street 155 South Seward St
Hoonah, Alaska 99829 Juneau, AK 99801
6:00 pm – 8:00 pm (ADT) 1:00 – 3:00 pm (ADT)
Conference call‐in will be available for the Juneau meeting only (1‐866‐994‐6437; passcode 2300743). A reminder will be
sent.
The PowerPoint for the meeting will be provided prior to the meeting; the Pre‐Application Document is currently
available for review at www.ferc.gov (e‐library search for P‐14066) and will be the primary agenda item. The agenda for
both meetings will be the same, and will include discussion of: Project Purpose; Overview of Proposed Facilities and
Operations; Overview of Environmental Studies Conducted in Support of the Project; and a Discussion of Proposed
Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
JENNA BOROVANSKY HDR Engineering, Inc.
Senior Regulatory Specialist, Hydropower Services
601 Union Street, Suite 700 | Seattle, WA 98101
206.826.4675 | c: 425.281.9557
jenna.borovansky@hdrinc.com | hdrinc.com
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: eFiling@ferc.gov [mailto:eFiling@ferc.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 8:35 AM
To: Borovansky, Jenna; eFiling@ferc.gov
Subject: FERC Acceptance for Filing in P‐14066‐001
Acceptance for Filing
1
Borovansky, Jenna
From:Borovansky, Jenna
Sent:Tuesday, November 22, 2011 9:00 AM
To:'Zutz, Johnny D (DFG)'
Subject:FW: Dec. 14-15 Joint Meeting Notice - Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project
Attachments:P14066_JointMtgNotice.pdf
To Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Distribution and Service List:
The attached document was e‐filed with FERC in order to confirm the date and location of the Joint Meeting for the
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project. The meetings will be held:
Wednesday, December 14, 2011 Thursday, December 15, 2011
City Hall City & Bureau of Juneau Chambers
300 Front Street 155 South Seward St
Hoonah, Alaska 99829 Juneau, AK 99801
6:00 pm – 8:00 pm (ADT) 1:00 – 3:00 pm (ADT)
Conference call‐in will be available for the Juneau meeting only (1‐866‐994‐6437; passcode 2300743). A reminder will be
sent.
The PowerPoint for the meeting will be provided prior to the meeting; the Pre‐Application Document is currently
available for review at www.ferc.gov (e‐library search for P‐14066) and will be the primary agenda item. The agenda for
both meetings will be the same, and will include discussion of: Project Purpose; Overview of Proposed Facilities and
Operations; Overview of Environmental Studies Conducted in Support of the Project; and a Discussion of Proposed
Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
JENNA BOROVANSKY HDR Engineering, Inc.
Senior Regulatory Specialist, Hydropower Services
601 Union Street, Suite 700 | Seattle, WA 98101
206.826.4675 | c: 425.281.9557
jenna.borovansky@hdrinc.com | hdrinc.com
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: eFiling@ferc.gov [mailto:eFiling@ferc.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 8:35 AM
To: Borovansky, Jenna; eFiling@ferc.gov
Subject: FERC Acceptance for Filing in P‐14066‐001
Acceptance for Filing
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
The FERC Office of the Secretary has accepted the following electronic submission for filing
(Acceptance for filing does not constitute approval of any application or self‐certifying
notice):
‐Accession No.: 201111225060
‐Docket(s) No.: P‐14066‐001
2
‐Filed By: Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
‐Signed By: Peter Bibb
‐Filing Type: Supplemental/Additional Information
‐Filing Desc: Supplemental Information of Inside Passage Electric Cooperative under P‐14066
et, al. Joint Meeting Notice, Hoonah Indian Assoc. Support Letter, PAD Proof of Public
Notice.
‐Submission Date/Time: 11/22/2011 11:14:43 AM
‐Filed Date: 11/22/2011 11:14:43 AM
Your submission is now part of the record for the above Docket(s) and available in FERC's
eLibrary system at:
http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20111122‐5060
If you would like to receive e‐mail notification when additional documents are added to the
above docket(s), you can eSubscribe by docket at:
https://ferconline.ferc.gov/eSubscription.aspx
1
Cunningham, Erin E.
From:Borovansky, Jenna
Sent:Wednesday, November 30, 2011 2:05 PM
To:David Lockard
Subject:FW: Dec. 14-15 Joint Meeting Notice - Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project
Attachments:P14066_JointMtgNotice.pdf
I will add you to the Gartina Falls list. This is the most recent email sent.
JENNA BOROVANSKY HDR Engineering, Inc.
Senior Regulatory Specialist, Hydropower Services
601 Union Street, Suite 700 | Seattle, WA 98101
206.826.4675 | c: 425.281.9557
jenna.borovansky@hdrinc.com | hdrinc.com
From: Borovansky, Jenna
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 8:58 AM
To: Borovansky, Jenna; 'Sean.parnell@alaska.gov'; 'Judith.bittner@alaska.gov'; 'Honor.carpenter@alaska.gov';
'Dawn.collinsworth@ogc.usda.gov'; 'daniel.bussard@alaska.gov'; 'ted.deats@alaska.gov'; 'angel@seacc.org';
'mduvall@cityofhoonah.org'; 'Richard_Enriquez@fws.gov'; 'shareholders@hunatotem.com';
'Richard.harris@sealaska.com'; 'rdjennings@fs.fed.us'; 'shawn.johnson@alaska.gov'; 'Monte.miller@alaska.gov';
'North.phil@epa.gov'; 'dott@aidea.org'; 'Gary.prokosch@alaska.gov'; 'bstanley@fs.fed.us'; 'Jackie.timothy@alaska.gov';
'Linda.Speerstra@usace.army.mil'; 'Susan.walker@noaa.gov'; 'Eric Rothwell'; tom.gcak.meyer@noaa.gov
Cc: Berkshire, Paul; Brady, James; 'Peter Bibb'; 'ryan.hansen@ferc.gov'
Subject: Dec. 14-15 Joint Meeting Notice - Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project
To Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Distribution and Service List:
The attached document was e‐filed with FERC in order to confirm the date and location of the Joint Meeting for the
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project. The meetings will be held:
Wednesday, December 14, 2011 Thursday, December 15, 2011
City Hall City & Bureau of Juneau Chambers
300 Front Street 155 South Seward St
Hoonah, Alaska 99829 Juneau, AK 99801
6:00 pm – 8:00 pm (ADT) 1:00 – 3:00 pm (ADT)
Conference call‐in will be available for the Juneau meeting only (1‐866‐994‐6437; passcode 2300743). A reminder will be
sent.
The PowerPoint for the meeting will be provided prior to the meeting; the Pre‐Application Document is currently
available for review at www.ferc.gov (e‐library search for P‐14066) and will be the primary agenda item. The agenda for
both meetings will be the same, and will include discussion of: Project Purpose; Overview of Proposed Facilities and
Operations; Overview of Environmental Studies Conducted in Support of the Project; and a Discussion of Proposed
Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
2
JENNA BOROVANSKY HDR Engineering, Inc.
Senior Regulatory Specialist, Hydropower Services
601 Union Street, Suite 700 | Seattle, WA 98101
206.826.4675 | c: 425.281.9557
jenna.borovansky@hdrinc.com | hdrinc.com
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: eFiling@ferc.gov [mailto:eFiling@ferc.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 8:35 AM
To: Borovansky, Jenna; eFiling@ferc.gov
Subject: FERC Acceptance for Filing in P‐14066‐001
Acceptance for Filing
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
The FERC Office of the Secretary has accepted the following electronic submission for filing
(Acceptance for filing does not constitute approval of any application or self‐certifying
notice):
‐Accession No.: 201111225060
‐Docket(s) No.: P‐14066‐001
‐Filed By: Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
‐Signed By: Peter Bibb
‐Filing Type: Supplemental/Additional Information
‐Filing Desc: Supplemental Information of Inside Passage Electric Cooperative under P‐14066
et, al. Joint Meeting Notice, Hoonah Indian Assoc. Support Letter, PAD Proof of Public
Notice.
‐Submission Date/Time: 11/22/2011 11:14:43 AM
‐Filed Date: 11/22/2011 11:14:43 AM
Your submission is now part of the record for the above Docket(s) and available in FERC's
eLibrary system at:
http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20111122‐5060
If you would like to receive e‐mail notification when additional documents are added to the
above docket(s), you can eSubscribe by docket at:
https://ferconline.ferc.gov/eSubscription.aspx
1
Cunningham, Erin E.
From:David Lockard [DLockard@aidea.org]
Sent:Wednesday, November 30, 2011 1:49 PM
To:Borovansky, Jenna
Subject:Hoonah Gartina Falls project
Jenna‐
Please add me to the distribution list.
Thanks,
David Lockard
AEA Project Manager
77‐3062
1
Borovansky, Jenna
From:Stanley, Barbara [bstanley@fs.fed.us]
Sent:Tuesday, December 06, 2011 12:32 PM
To:Borovansky, Jenna
Subject:RE: Gartina Falls - Technical Memos
Hi Jenna--
I called the Hoonah RD and talked with Tim Hazlewood who promised that someone from the district will be at the
meeting. Rich Jennings will not be attending but either Tim or the Acting Ranger will attend.
I will be in Juneau next week and might be able to attend the meeting on Dec 15. Perhaps I'll see you then.
--Barb
**********************************
Barbara A. Stanley, Energy Coordinator
Alaska Region, USDA Forest Service
phone in Ketchikan, AK: (907) 228-6262
fax in Ketchikan, AK: (907) 228-6215
bstanley@fs.fed.us
**********************************
From: Borovansky, Jenna [mailto:Jenna.Borovansky@hdrinc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 7:25 AM
To: Stanley, Barbara
Subject: FW: Gartina Falls - Technical Memos
Good Morning Barbara,
Will you or someone from the local district be able to attend either of the Joint Meetings for Gartina Falls? I had
previously received an RSVP from Richard Jennings that he would be able to attend, but I just received an automatic
reply that he is out through January 3.
Thanks, Jenna
JENNA BOROVANSKY HDR Engineering, Inc.
Senior Regulatory Specialist, Hydropower Services
601 Union Street, Suite 700 | Seattle, WA 98101
206.826.4675 | c: 425.281.9557
jenna.borovansky@hdrinc.com | hdrinc.com
From: Borovansky, Jenna
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 7:57 AM
To: Borovansky, Jenna; Sean.parnell@alaska.gov; Judith.bittner@alaska.gov; Honor.carpenter@alaska.gov;
Dawn.collinsworth@ogc.usda.gov; daniel.bussard@alaska.gov; ted.deats@alaska.gov; angel@seacc.org;
mduvall@cityofhoonah.org; Richard_Enriquez@fws.gov; shareholders@hunatotem.com; Richard.harris@sealaska.com;
rdjennings@fs.fed.us; shawn.johnson@alaska.gov; Monte.miller@alaska.gov; North.phil@epa.gov; dott@aidea.org;
Gary.prokosch@alaska.gov; bstanley@fs.fed.us; Jackie.timothy@alaska.gov; Linda.Speerstra@usace.army.mil;
Susan.walker@noaa.gov; Eric Rothwell; tom.gcak.meyer@noaa.gov; DLockard@aidea.org
2
Cc: Berkshire, Paul; Brady, James; Peter Bibb; ryan.hansen@ferc.gov
Subject: Gartina Falls - Technical Memos
To Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Distribution List:
Attached are supplemental technical memos to augment analysis in the October 2011 Pre-Application Document (PAD).
The memos were also submitted to FERC. The information in these memos and in the PAD will serve as the basis for
discussion at the upcoming Joint Meetings. The PAD may be downloaded at: http://gartinahydro.hdrinc.com .
The attached information includes:
- Results of Fall 2011 foot surveys for salmon
- Sediment transport analysis
- Results of macroinvertebrate study
As a reminder, the meeting information for next week is below. The meeting PowerPoint will be provided early next
week.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011 Thursday, December 15, 2011
City Hall City & Bureau of Juneau Chambers
300 Front Street 155 South Seward St
Hoonah, Alaska 99829 Juneau, AK 99801
6:00 pm – 8:00 pm (ADT) 1:00 – 3:00 pm (ADT)
Conference call-in will be available for the Juneau meeting only (1-866-994-6437; passcode 2300743).
Please contact me (jenna.borovansky@hdrinc.com or 206.826.4675) if you have any questions.
Thank you for your continued interest and participation in development of the Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project.
JENNA BOROVANSKY HDR Engineering, Inc.
Senior Regulatory Specialist, Hydropower Services
601 Union Street, Suite 700 | Seattle, WA 98101
206.826.4675 | c: 425.281.9557
jenna.borovansky@hdrinc.com | hdrinc.com
1
Cunningham, Erin E.
From:Borovansky, Jenna
Sent:Tuesday, December 06, 2011 6:56 AM
To:Borovansky, Jenna; Sean.parnell@alaska.gov; Judith.bittner@alaska.gov;
Honor.carpenter@alaska.gov; Dawn.collinsworth@ogc.usda.gov;
daniel.bussard@alaska.gov; ted.deats@alaska.gov; angel@seacc.org;
mduvall@cityofhoonah.org; Richard_Enriquez@fws.gov; shareholders@hunatotem.com;
Richard.harris@sealaska.com; rdjennings@fs.fed.us; shawn.johnson@alaska.gov;
Monte.miller@alaska.gov; North.phil@epa.gov; dott@aidea.org; Gary.prokosch@alaska.gov;
bstanley@fs.fed.us; Jackie.timothy@alaska.gov; Linda.Speerstra@usace.army.mil;
Susan.walker@noaa.gov; Eric Rothwell; tom.gcak.meyer@noaa.gov; DLockard@aidea.org
Cc:Berkshire, Paul; Brady, James; Peter Bibb; ryan.hansen@ferc.gov
Subject:Gartina Falls - Technical Memos
Attachments:P14066_PADaddtional_info.pdf
To Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Distribution List:
Attached are supplemental technical memos to augment analysis in the October 2011 Pre‐Application Document (PAD).
The memos were also submitted to FERC. The information in these memos and in the PAD will serve as the basis for
discussion at the upcoming Joint Meetings. The PAD may be downloaded at: http://gartinahydro.hdrinc.com .
The attached information includes:
- Results of Fall 2011 foot surveys for salmon
- Sediment transport analysis
- Results of macroinvertebrate study
As a reminder, the meeting information for next week is below. The meeting PowerPoint will be provided early next
week.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011 Thursday, December 15, 2011
City Hall City & Bureau of Juneau Chambers
300 Front Street 155 South Seward St
Hoonah, Alaska 99829 Juneau, AK 99801
6:00 pm – 8:00 pm (ADT) 1:00 – 3:00 pm (ADT)
Conference call‐in will be available for the Juneau meeting only (1‐866‐994‐6437; passcode 2300743).
Please contact me (jenna.borovansky@hdrinc.com or 206.826.4675) if you have any questions.
Thank you for your continued interest and participation in development of the Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project.
JENNA BOROVANSKY HDR Engineering, Inc.
Senior Regulatory Specialist, Hydropower Services
601 Union Street, Suite 700 | Seattle, WA 98101
206.826.4675 | c: 425.281.9557
jenna.borovansky@hdrinc.com | hdrinc.com
HDR Engineering, Inc.
601 Union Street
Suite 700
Seattle, WA
Phone (206) 826-4700
Fax (206) 826-4701
www.hdrinc.com
Page 1 of 1
Memo
To: Linda Speerstra
Regulatory Specialist
Sitka Field Office
P.O. Box 16
Sitka, AK 99835
From: Jenna Borovansky jenna.borovansky@hdrinc.com
CC:
Date: 12/8/2011
RE: Hard Copy of PAD/NOI for the Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project
Hello Linda,
Enclosed is a hard copy of Volume I and Volume II of the PAD. IPEC has provided (previously via email)
Volume II as a courtesy to agencies involved, but please note that since there are specifics about the
proposed construction, please do not distribute. IPEC must track who has received copies of the CEII
documents.
I look forward to speaking with you further about this Project.
Thanks,
My Name is Ed Phillips and I own the Icy Strait Lodge. I have given nearly
everything I have worked all my life for, and borrowed significantly from Family
and friends to enable the Icy Strait Lodge to survive. This is no small matter
as the Lodge is 13,250 sq feet with R-9 insulation in the ceilings and an
insatiable appetite for energy that continues to jeopardize my families
future... The Gartina Falls dam is the only ray of hope currently available to
our Community and deserves all possible expediency and attention to find and
implement solutions.
This whole town continues to be devastated by the high cost of energy. We have
been deceived about an electrical intertie and are way overdue for a solution
that will reduce our reliance on diesel electric. Our youth have to leave town
to get employment as jobs are far and few between. The remaining residents find
the number of residents decreasing into what is nothing less than the slow death
of a community death. Our biggest employer is relatively low paying tourism
jobs and only for 5 months and which leaves economic devastation and
unemployment in the off-season. It is no wonder as the only employers are
Governmental or long-term capital intense employers who desperately hang on to
their investments in a community that can best be described as having a toxic
energy cost. We desperately need to diversify and stabilize the cost of
electricity.
Please, ensure that all obstacles that relate to your oversight are resolved and
the dam is allowed to proceed as rapidly as possible as a very good town with
really good people depends on it. Thanks.
20111213-5003 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/13/2011 1:37:42 AM
1
Borovansky, Jenna
From:Carpenter, Honor A (DEC) [honor.carpenter@alaska.gov]
Sent:Friday, January 13, 2012 12:21 PM
To:Borovansky, Jenna
Cc:Weitz, Jill M (DEC)
Subject:RE: Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project - Joint Meeting Transcripts
Categories:Gartina Falls Consultation
Good Morning Ms. Borovansky:
The Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project appears at first glance to fall under activities requiring Alaska Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (APDES) Construction General Permit Coverage. More information about the permit, and how to file
Notice of Intent (NOI) is available at the link below.
http://www.dec.alaska.gov/water/wnpspc/stormwater/sw_construction.htm
Please feel free to contact me with questions or comments, or to discuss permit related issues.
Thank you,
Honor Carpenter
“I Choose Respect”
Honor Carpenter
Environmental Program Specialist IV/ Enforcement Officer
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Water, Compliance & Enforcement Program
410 Willoughby Ave, Suite 303
PO Box 111800
Juneau, AK 99811
Telephone: (907) 465-5276
Facsimile: (907) 465-5274
http://www.dec.state.ak.us/water/compliance/index.htm
From: Borovansky, Jenna [mailto:Jenna.Borovansky@hdrinc.com]
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 10:56 AM
To: Borovansky, Jenna; Parnell, Sean R (GOV); Bittner, Judith E (DNR); Carpenter, Honor A (DEC);
Dawn.collinsworth@ogc.usda.gov; Bussard, Daniel P (DNR); Deats, Theodore A (DNR); angel@seacc.org; Marleen Duvall;
Richard_Enriquez@fws.gov; shareholders@hunatotem.com; Richard.harris@sealaska.com; rdjennings@fs.fed.us;
Johnson, Shawn L (DFG); Miller, Monte D (DFG); North.phil@epa.gov; Ott, Douglas C (AIDEA); Prokosch, Gary J (DNR);
bstanley@fs.fed.us; Timothy, Jackie L (DFG); Linda.Speerstra@usace.army.mil; Susan.walker@noaa.gov; Eric Rothwell;
tom.gcak.meyer@noaa.gov; Lockard, David A (AIDEA)
Cc: Berkshire, Paul; Brady, James; Peter Bibb; ryan.hansen@ferc.gov
Subject: Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project - Joint Meeting Transcripts
To Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Distribution and Service List:
The attached memo provides additional information as follow-up to discussions at the December 15, 2011 Joint Meeting
in Juneau. In addition, the transcripts from the December 14-15, 2011 meeting were filed with FERC today. The notice
of filing and a link to the document on FERC’s website are included below. The filing is also available at:
gartinahydro.hdrinc.com .
1
Borovansky, Jenna
From:Borovansky, Jenna
Sent:Friday, January 13, 2012 11:56 AM
To:Borovansky, Jenna; Sean.parnell@alaska.gov; Judith.bittner@alaska.gov;
Honor.carpenter@alaska.gov; Dawn.collinsworth@ogc.usda.gov; daniel.bussard@alaska.gov;
ted.deats@alaska.gov; angel@seacc.org; mduvall@cityofhoonah.org;
Richard_Enriquez@fws.gov; shareholders@hunatotem.com; Richard.harris@sealaska.com;
rdjennings@fs.fed.us; shawn.johnson@alaska.gov; Monte.miller@alaska.gov;
North.phil@epa.gov; dott@aidea.org; Gary.prokosch@alaska.gov; bstanley@fs.fed.us;
Jackie.timothy@alaska.gov; Linda.Speerstra@usace.army.mil; Susan.walker@noaa.gov; Eric
Rothwell; tom.gcak.meyer@noaa.gov; 'DLockard@aidea.org'
Cc:Berkshire, Paul; Brady, James; Peter Bibb; ryan.hansen@ferc.gov
Subject:Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project - Joint Meeting Transcripts
Attachments:GF_JointMtg_AgencyMemo_01-13-12.pdf
To Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Distribution and Service List:
The attached memo provides additional information as follow-up to discussions at the December 15, 2011 Joint Meeting
in Juneau. In addition, the transcripts from the December 14-15, 2011 meeting were filed with FERC today. The notice
of filing and a link to the document on FERC’s website are included below. The filing is also available at:
gartinahydro.hdrinc.com .
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or additional information needs.
Thank you for your continued interest and participation in the Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project licensing.
Best regards,
Jenna
JENNA BOROVANSKY HDR Engineering, Inc.
Senior Regulatory Specialist, Hydropower Services
601 Union Street, Suite 700 | Seattle, WA 98101
206.826.4675 | c: 425.281.9557
jenna.borovansky@hdrinc.com | hdrinc.com
Acceptance for Filing
---------------------
The FERC Office of the Secretary has accepted the following electronic submission for filing
(Acceptance for filing does not constitute approval of any application or self-certifying
notice):
-Accession No.: 201201135189
-Docket(s) No.: P-14066-001
-Filed By: Inside Passage Electric Cooperative -Signed By: Peter Bibb -Filing Type:
Supplemental/Additional Information -Filing Desc: Inside Passage Electric Cooperative Gartina
Falls Project Joint Meeting Transcripts and proof of meeting notice under P-14066 -Submission
Date/Time: 1/13/2012 2:03:22 PM -Filed Date: 1/13/2012 2:03:22 PM
2
Your submission is now part of the record for the above Docket(s) and available in FERC's
eLibrary system at:
http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20120113-5189
If you would like to receive e-mail notification when additional documents are added to the
above docket(s), you can eSubscribe by docket at:
https://ferconline.ferc.gov/eSubscription.aspx
There may be a 10 minute delay before the document appears in eLibrary.
Thank you again for using the FERC Electronic Filing System. If you need to contact us for
any reason:
E-Mail: efiling@ferc.gov mailto:efiling@ferc.gov (do not send filings to this address) Voice
Mail: 202-502-8258.
2
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or additional information needs.
Thank you for your continued interest and participation in the Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project licensing.
Best regards,
Jenna
JENNA BOROVANSKY HDR Engineering, Inc.
Senior Regulatory Specialist, Hydropower Services
601 Union Street, Suite 700 | Seattle, WA 98101
206.826.4675 | c: 425.281.9557
jenna.borovansky@hdrinc.com | hdrinc.com
Acceptance for Filing
---------------------
The FERC Office of the Secretary has accepted the following electronic submission for filing
(Acceptance for filing does not constitute approval of any application or self-certifying
notice):
-Accession No.: 201201135189
-Docket(s) No.: P-14066-001
-Filed By: Inside Passage Electric Cooperative -Signed By: Peter Bibb -Filing Type:
Supplemental/Additional Information -Filing Desc: Inside Passage Electric Cooperative Gartina
Falls Project Joint Meeting Transcripts and proof of meeting notice under P-14066 -Submission
Date/Time: 1/13/2012 2:03:22 PM -Filed Date: 1/13/2012 2:03:22 PM
Your submission is now part of the record for the above Docket(s) and available in FERC's
eLibrary system at:
http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20120113-5189
If you would like to receive e-mail notification when additional documents are added to the
above docket(s), you can eSubscribe by docket at:
https://ferconline.ferc.gov/eSubscription.aspx
There may be a 10 minute delay before the document appears in eLibrary.
Thank you again for using the FERC Electronic Filing System. If you need to contact us for
any reason:
E-Mail: efiling@ferc.gov mailto:efiling@ferc.gov (do not send filings to this address) Voice
Mail: 202-502-8258.
Borovansky, Jenna
From:Deats, Theodore A (DNR) [ted.deats@alaska.gov]
Sent:Wednesday, February 15, 2012 5:57 PM
To:Borovansky, Jenna
Cc:Prokosch, Gary J (DNR); Schwarz, Terence C (DNR); Deats, Theodore A (DNR)
Subject:Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project - Waiver of Draft License Application
Jenna,
The Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Water Resources Section, has reviewed the Preliminary
Application Document for the Gartina Falls hydroelectric project and has no objection to IPEC’s request for a
waiver of the Draft License Application requirement.
Operating flows for the run of river project range from 11 cfs to 110 cfs. DNR has determined that the amount
of hydrologic data in the Pre-Application Document is sufficient for it to adjudicate the State water right
permit.
The Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) administers water rights in Alaska. Under the criteria
listed in AS 46.15.080, below, the DNR commissioner shall issue a permit to appropriate water if he finds that
the conditions are met. The information in the Preliminary Application Document appears to provide sufficient
information for DNR to begin the steps to make that decision.
AS 46.15.080. Criteria For Issuance of Permit.
(a) The commissioner shall issue a permit if the commissioner finds that
(1) rights of a prior appropriator will not be unduly affected;
(2) the proposed means of diversion or construction are adequate;
(3) the proposed use of water is beneficial; and
(4) the proposed appropriation is in the public interest.
(b) In determining the public interest, the commissioner shall consider
(1) the benefit to the applicant resulting from the proposed appropriation;
(2) the effect of the economic activity resulting from the proposed appropriation;
(3) the effect on fish and game resources and on public recreational opportunities;
(4) the effect on public health;
(5) the effect of loss of alternate uses of water that might be made within a reasonable time if not
precluded or hindered by the proposed appropriation;
(6) harm to other persons resulting from the proposed appropriation;
(7) the intent and ability of the applicant to complete the appropriation; and
(8) the effect upon access to navigable or public water.
Sincerely,
Ted Deats
Ted Deats, NRMI
ADNR / DMLW
Water Resource Section, Southeast
PO Box 111020
400 Willoughby Ave, 4th Floor
Juneau, AK 99811
Phone: 907-465-2533
Fax: 907-586-2954
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
DIVISION OF SPORT FISH
SEAN PARNELL, GOVERNOR
Research and Technical Services
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99518-1565
PHONE: (907) 267-2312
FAX: (907) 267-2422
February 13, 2012
Ms. Kimberly Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street
Washington D.C. 20426
Subject: Gartina Falls FERC No. 14066
Comments on Preliminary Application Document
Dear Ms. Bose:
We have reviewed the Preliminary Application Document (PAD) for the Gartina Falls
Hydroelectric Project and the applicants request for support in moving directly to a Final License
Application (FLA). Our comments are included in the attached letter sent to the applicant.
Thank you for consideration of our comments and concerns.
Sincerely,
/s/ Monte D. Miller
Monte Miller
Statewide Hydropower Coordinator
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Division of Sport Fish/RTS
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99518-1565
907 267-2312
20120214-5016 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 2/13/2012 9:03:15 PM
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
DIVISION OF SPORT FISH
SEAN PARNELL, GOVERNOR
Research & Technical Services
PO Box 110024
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0024
Phone: (907)465-4302
Fax: (907) 465-2034
February 13, 2012
Peter A. Bibb, Operations Manager
Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
P.O. Box 210149
12480 Mendenhall Loop Road
Auke Bay, Alaska 99821
Re: Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 14066
Comments on Pre-Application Document
Dear Mr. Bibb:
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) has reviewed the Pre-Application
Document (PAD) prepared by the Inside Passage Electric Cooperative (IPEC) for the proposed
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 14066) and offers the following comments. The
proposed project would be located on Gartina Creek approximately five miles southeast of
Hoonah on Chichagof Island in Southeast Alaska. The project would be located entirely on
private land owned by Sealaska Corporation.
ADF&G is mandated to manage, protect, maintain, improve, and extend the fish, game, and
aquatic plant resources of the state in the interest of the economy and general well-being of the
state (AS 16.05.020). Gartina Creek has been specified as being important for the spawning,
rearing or migration of anadromous fishes as Anadromous Waters Catalog number 114-31-
10090. Pursuant to AS 16.05.841 (Fishway Act) and AS 16.05.871 (Anadromous Fish Act),
ADF&G requires permits for any work that may affect fish passage and for instream work in
catalogued anadromous fish streams. ADF&G will provide recommended terms and conditions
under the provisions of §10(j) of the Federal Power Act.
As proposed, the project consists of 1) a concrete diversion structure and intake approximately
125 feet upstream of Gartina Falls, 2) a 54-inch diameter, 225-foot long steel penstock, 3) a
powerhouse located approximately 80 feet downstream of the base of Gartina Falls, 4)
approximately 0.5 miles of new roads, 5) a 12.5 kV transmission line extending approximately
3.8 miles along an existing road corridor, and 6) an installed capacity of 455 kW.
As proposed, the project would operate entirely in a run-of-the-river mode. During operations,
flows between 11 cfs and 110 cfs would be diverted to the powerhouse. Flows greater than 110
20120214-5016 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 2/13/2012 9:03:15 PM
ADF&G Comments on Gartina Falls PAD February13, 2012
Page 2 of 2
cfs would initially flow over the uncontrolled spillway into Gartina Creek. When flows reach
500 cfs, the center section of the diversion structure, consisting of a 14-foot wide radial gate,
would be opened and inflows would flow past the project along the natural creek bed simulating
a natural flushing flow, passing accumulated sediment. A 12-inch diameter pipe would direct a
constant flow of 8-10 cfs from the powerhouse to the base of the falls to minimize the loss of
anadromous habitat.
IPEC has requested a waiver of the requirement for a draft license application (DLA) on the
basis that their PAD included all the information required in a DLA. We agree that the
information in the PAD is sufficient for ADF&G to evaluate potential project effects and develop
recommended terms and conditions to protect, mitigate, or enhance fish and wildlife habitat
affected by the project pursuant to §10(j) of the Federal Power Act (FPA). As such, we concur
with IPEC that a DLA is not needed for this project.
IPEC is not proposing to install a fish screen at the project intake structure due to clogging,
freezing, maintenance, operational, and economic concerns. At this time, we are still evaluating
the need for a fish screen pursuant to our authority under AS 16.05.841 and recommendations
pursuant to §10(j) of the FPA.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. Please contact me if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
/S/ Shawn Johnson
Shawn Johnson
Region I Instream Flow Coordinator
ADF&G/SF/RTS-Douglas
ecc: J. Klein, ADF&G/SF/RTS-Anchorage
M. Miller, ADF&G/SF/RTS-Anchorage
B. Glynn, ADF&G/SF/-Douglas
K. Monagle, ADF&G/CF/-Douglas
J. Timothy, ADF&G/Habitat-Douglas
J. Zutz, ADF&G/Habitat-Douglas
S. Walker, NMFS-Juneau
E. Rothwell, NMFS-Anchorage
R. Enriquez, USFWS-Juneau
B. Stanley, USFS-Juneau
J. Borovansky, HDR
T. Deats, DNR-Juneau
R. Hansen, FERC
D. Ott, AIDEA
20120214-5016 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 2/13/2012 9:03:15 PM
1
Borovansky, Jenna
From:Stanley, Barbara -FS [bstanley@fs.fed.us]
Sent:Thursday, February 02, 2012 3:01 PM
To:Borovansky, Jenna
Subject:Gartina Falls project
HelloJennaͲͲ
IhavetalkedwithRichJenningsatHoonahandotherForestServicestaff.Atthistime,theForestServicehasno
concernsregardingtheGartinaFallsprojectandwillnotbesubmittingcommentsontheNOI/PAD.
ͲͲwantedyoutoknow.
ͲͲBarb
**********************************
BarbaraA.Stanley,EnergyCoordinator
AlaskaRegion,USDAForestService
phoneinKetchikan,AK:(907)228Ͳ6262
faxinKetchikan,AK:(907)228Ͳ6215
bstanley@fs.fed.us
**********************************
1
Cunningham, Erin E.
From:Borovansky, Jenna
Sent:Saturday, January 28, 2012 2:06 PM
To:Cunningham, Erin E.
Subject:FW: Gartina Trashrack
For the Consultation record.
JENNA BOROVANSKY HDR Engineering, Inc.
Senior Regulatory Specialist, Hydropower Services
601 Union Street, Suite 700 | Seattle, WA 98101
206.826.4675 | c: 425.281.9557
jenna.borovansky@hdrinc.com | hdrinc.com
From: Berkshire, Paul
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 1:08 PM
To: Zutz, Johnny D (DFG)
Cc: Borovansky, Jenna
Subject: Gartina Trashrack
Hi Johnny,
Following up on our conversation from yesterday, as currently configured the intake chamber would have two 5’x10’
openings protected by a metal bar rack. At a full flow of 110 cfs, the max. velocity across the rack would be 1.1 fps. In
the pool behind the diversion the velocity of the water will be almost zero.
Let me know if you have any other questions or need more clarification.
Paul
PAUL BERKSHIRE, P.E. HDR Alaska, Inc.
Project Lead/Sr. Engineer
2525 C Street | Anchorage, AK 99503-2632
907.644.2000 | c: 907.360.1015
paul.berkshire@hdrinc.com | hdrinc.com
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
DIVISION OF SPORT FISH
SEAN PARNELL, GOVERNOR
Research and Technical Services
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99518-1565
PHONE: (907) 267-2312
FAX: (907) 267-2422
February 13, 2012
Ms. Kimberly Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street
Washington D.C. 20426
Subject: Gartina Falls FERC No. 14066
Comments on Preliminary Application Document
Dear Ms. Bose:
We have reviewed the Preliminary Application Document (PAD) for the Gartina Falls
Hydroelectric Project and the applicants request for support in moving directly to a Final License
Application (FLA). Our comments are included in the attached letter sent to the applicant.
Thank you for consideration of our comments and concerns.
Sincerely,
/s/ Monte D. Miller
Monte Miller
Statewide Hydropower Coordinator
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Division of Sport Fish/RTS
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99518-1565
907 267-2312
20120214-5016 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 2/13/2012 9:03:15 PM
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
DIVISION OF SPORT FISH
SEAN PARNELL, GOVERNOR
Research & Technical Services
PO Box 110024
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0024
Phone: (907)465-4302
Fax: (907) 465-2034
February 13, 2012
Peter A. Bibb, Operations Manager
Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
P.O. Box 210149
12480 Mendenhall Loop Road
Auke Bay, Alaska 99821
Re: Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 14066
Comments on Pre-Application Document
Dear Mr. Bibb:
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) has reviewed the Pre-Application
Document (PAD) prepared by the Inside Passage Electric Cooperative (IPEC) for the proposed
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 14066) and offers the following comments. The
proposed project would be located on Gartina Creek approximately five miles southeast of
Hoonah on Chichagof Island in Southeast Alaska. The project would be located entirely on
private land owned by Sealaska Corporation.
ADF&G is mandated to manage, protect, maintain, improve, and extend the fish, game, and
aquatic plant resources of the state in the interest of the economy and general well-being of the
state (AS 16.05.020). Gartina Creek has been specified as being important for the spawning,
rearing or migration of anadromous fishes as Anadromous Waters Catalog number 114-31-
10090. Pursuant to AS 16.05.841 (Fishway Act) and AS 16.05.871 (Anadromous Fish Act),
ADF&G requires permits for any work that may affect fish passage and for instream work in
catalogued anadromous fish streams. ADF&G will provide recommended terms and conditions
under the provisions of §10(j) of the Federal Power Act.
As proposed, the project consists of 1) a concrete diversion structure and intake approximately
125 feet upstream of Gartina Falls, 2) a 54-inch diameter, 225-foot long steel penstock, 3) a
powerhouse located approximately 80 feet downstream of the base of Gartina Falls, 4)
approximately 0.5 miles of new roads, 5) a 12.5 kV transmission line extending approximately
3.8 miles along an existing road corridor, and 6) an installed capacity of 455 kW.
As proposed, the project would operate entirely in a run-of-the-river mode. During operations,
flows between 11 cfs and 110 cfs would be diverted to the powerhouse. Flows greater than 110
20120214-5016 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 2/13/2012 9:03:15 PM
ADF&G Comments on Gartina Falls PAD February13, 2012
Page 2 of 2
cfs would initially flow over the uncontrolled spillway into Gartina Creek. When flows reach
500 cfs, the center section of the diversion structure, consisting of a 14-foot wide radial gate,
would be opened and inflows would flow past the project along the natural creek bed simulating
a natural flushing flow, passing accumulated sediment. A 12-inch diameter pipe would direct a
constant flow of 8-10 cfs from the powerhouse to the base of the falls to minimize the loss of
anadromous habitat.
IPEC has requested a waiver of the requirement for a draft license application (DLA) on the
basis that their PAD included all the information required in a DLA. We agree that the
information in the PAD is sufficient for ADF&G to evaluate potential project effects and develop
recommended terms and conditions to protect, mitigate, or enhance fish and wildlife habitat
affected by the project pursuant to §10(j) of the Federal Power Act (FPA). As such, we concur
with IPEC that a DLA is not needed for this project.
IPEC is not proposing to install a fish screen at the project intake structure due to clogging,
freezing, maintenance, operational, and economic concerns. At this time, we are still evaluating
the need for a fish screen pursuant to our authority under AS 16.05.841 and recommendations
pursuant to §10(j) of the FPA.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. Please contact me if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
/S/ Shawn Johnson
Shawn Johnson
Region I Instream Flow Coordinator
ADF&G/SF/RTS-Douglas
ecc: J. Klein, ADF&G/SF/RTS-Anchorage
M. Miller, ADF&G/SF/RTS-Anchorage
B. Glynn, ADF&G/SF/-Douglas
K. Monagle, ADF&G/CF/-Douglas
J. Timothy, ADF&G/Habitat-Douglas
J. Zutz, ADF&G/Habitat-Douglas
S. Walker, NMFS-Juneau
E. Rothwell, NMFS-Anchorage
R. Enriquez, USFWS-Juneau
B. Stanley, USFS-Juneau
J. Borovansky, HDR
T. Deats, DNR-Juneau
R. Hansen, FERC
D. Ott, AIDEA
20120214-5016 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 2/13/2012 9:03:15 PM
1
Borovansky, Jenna
From:Deats, Theodore A (DNR) [ted.deats@alaska.gov]
Sent:Wednesday, February 15, 2012 5:57 PM
To:Borovansky, Jenna
Cc:Prokosch, Gary J (DNR); Schwarz, Terence C (DNR); Deats, Theodore A (DNR)
Subject:Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project - Waiver of Draft License Application
Jenna,
The Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Water Resources Section, has reviewed the Preliminary
Application Document for the Gartina Falls hydroelectric project and has no objection to IPEC’s request for a
waiver of the Draft License Application requirement.
Operating flows for the run of river project range from 11 cfs to 110 cfs. DNR has determined that the amount
of hydrologic data in the Pre-Application Document is sufficient for it to adjudicate the State water right
permit.
The Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) administers water rights in Alaska. Under the criteria
listed in AS 46.15.080, below, the DNR commissioner shall issue a permit to appropriate water if he finds that
the conditions are met. The information in the Preliminary Application Document appears to provide sufficient
information for DNR to begin the steps to make that decision.
AS 46.15.080. Criteria For Issuance of Permit.
(a) The commissioner shall issue a permit if the commissioner finds that
(1) rights of a prior appropriator will not be unduly affected;
(2) the proposed means of diversion or construction are adequate;
(3) the proposed use of water is beneficial; and
(4) the proposed appropriation is in the public interest.
(b) In determining the public interest, the commissioner shall consider
(1) the benefit to the applicant resulting from the proposed appropriation;
(2) the effect of the economic activity resulting from the proposed appropriation;
(3) the effect on fish and game resources and on public recreational opportunities;
(4) the effect on public health;
(5) the effect of loss of alternate uses of water that might be made within a reasonable time if not
precluded or hindered by the proposed appropriation;
(6) harm to other persons resulting from the proposed appropriation;
(7) the intent and ability of the applicant to complete the appropriation; and
(8) the effect upon access to navigable or public water.
Sincerely,
Ted Deats
Ted Deats, NRMI
ADNR / DMLW
Water Resource Section, Southeast
2
PO Box 111020
400 Willoughby Ave, 4th Floor
Juneau, AK 99811
Phone: 907-465-2533
Fax: 907-586-2954
1
Borovansky, Jenna
From:Cunningham, Erin E.
Sent:Wednesday, February 29, 2012 12:21 PM
To:Brady, James; johnny.zutz@alaska.gov
Cc:Borovansky, Jenna
Subject:RE: Gartina Creek Dollies above the falls
Attachments:SF2010-116_FRPdata_toADF&G_23Dec2010_toJohnnyZutz_29Feb2012.xlsx
Categories:Gartina Falls Consultation
Hi Johnny,
Attached is an Excel file that includes fish capture data (2010) for Gartina and Water Supply creeks.
The worksheet contains two tabs. One tab includes all fish capture data (SF2010-116d_FRP_captureData_All), while the
other (SF2010-116d_AboveGartinaFalls) only has data collected from locations upstream of Gartina Falls. Please note I
also left the Water Supply Creek data in the latter since it is also located upstream of the falls and was found to contain
Dolly Varden.
Please let me know if you need anything else or have any questions/concerns.
Thanks,
Erin C.
ERIN CUNNINGHAM HDR Alaska, Inc.
Fisheries Biologist
2525 C Street, Suite 305 | Anchorage, AK 99503
907.644.2115
erin.cunningham@hdrinc.com| hdrinc.com
From: Brady, James
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 3:58 PM
To: johnny.zutz@alaska.gov
Cc: Cunningham, Erin E.; Borovansky, Jenna
Subject: Gartina Creek Dollies above the falls
Hi Johnny,
Thanks for your call today. As requested, I will have Erin Cunningham pull out the Dolly Varden capture data above
Gartiona Falls from the capture report HDR sent to Bob Piorkowski for the Fish Resource Permit. This will be an Excel
table with all of the fish capture data from above the falls and include; date, coordinates, capture method, species and
length. It is my understanding that you are most interested in the length data. These fish capture data are from 2010
and were previously was summarized in the Gartina Creek Hydro Project PAD. We will be emailing this to you during
the week of February 27th.
James
JAMES BRADY HDR Alaska, Inc.
Senior Fisheries Scientist | Fisheries Business Class Lead
Page 1 of 8
Location ID
(optional)Latitude Longitude Datum
Coordinate
determination
method Name of water body Date
Observer name (first
name, middle initial,
last name)Fish collection method Species Life stage
Length (mm)
No estimates/ranges Length method Weight (g)Sex Age Age method ADF&G GCL Additional count (1)Disposition (1)Additional count (2)Disposition (2)Comments
G07 58.06960917 -135.38279037 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 66 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G07 58.06960917 -135.38279037 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 86 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G07 58.06960917 -135.38279037 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 88 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G07 58.06960917 -135.38279037 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 95 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G07 58.06960917 -135.38279037 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 95 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G07 58.06960917 -135.38279037 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 105 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G07 58.06960917 -135.38279037 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 109 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G07 58.06960917 -135.38279037 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 114 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G07 58.06960917 -135.38279037 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 72 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G07 58.06960917 -135.38279037 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 74 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G07 58.06960917 -135.38279037 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 78 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G07 58.06960917 -135.38279037 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 79 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G07 58.06960917 -135.38279037 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 79 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G07 58.06960917 -135.38279037 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 99 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G07 58.06960917 -135.38279037 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 101 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G07 58.06960917 -135.38279037 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 109 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G07 58.06960917 -135.38279037 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 121 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G07 58.06960917 -135.38279037 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 133 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G07 58.06960917 -135.38279037 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/8/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 72 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G07 58.06960917 -135.38279037 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/8/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 79 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G07 58.06960917 -135.38279037 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/8/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 84 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G07 58.06960917 -135.38279037 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/8/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 85 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G07 58.06960917 -135.38279037 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/8/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 86 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G07 58.06960917 -135.38279037 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/8/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 88 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G07 58.06960917 -135.38279037 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/8/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 89 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G07 58.06960917 -135.38279037 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/8/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 96 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G07 58.06960917 -135.38279037 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/8/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 106 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G07 58.06960917 -135.38279037 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/8/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 130 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G08 58.06943960 -135.38351390 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 67 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G08 58.06943960 -135.38351390 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 81 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G08 58.06943960 -135.38351390 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 85 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G08 58.06943960 -135.38351390 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 86 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G08 58.06943960 -135.38351390 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 89 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G08 58.06943960 -135.38351390 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 90 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G08 58.06943960 -135.38351390 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 94 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G08 58.06943960 -135.38351390 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 95 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G08 58.06943960 -135.38351390 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 103 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G08 58.06943960 -135.38351390 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 103 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G08 58.06943960 -135.38351390 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 104 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G08 58.06943960 -135.38351390 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 69 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G08 58.06943960 -135.38351390 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 73 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G08 58.06943960 -135.38351390 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 89 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G08 58.06943960 -135.38351390 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 90 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G08 58.06943960 -135.38351390 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 91 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G08 58.06943960 -135.38351390 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 92 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G08 58.06943960 -135.38351390 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 101 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G08 58.06943960 -135.38351390 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 101 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G08 58.06943960 -135.38351390 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 108 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G08 58.06943960 -135.38351390 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 111 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G08 58.06943960 -135.38351390 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 113 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G08 58.06943960 -135.38351390 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 114 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G08 58.06943960 -135.38351390 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 115 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G08 58.06943960 -135.38351390 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 116 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G08 58.06943960 -135.38351390 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 120 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G08 58.06943960 -135.38351390 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/8/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 91 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G08 58.06943960 -135.38351390 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/8/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 99 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G09 58.06868691 -135.38366603 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 57 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G09 58.06868691 -135.38366603 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 58 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G09 58.06868691 -135.38366603 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 58 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G09 58.06868691 -135.38366603 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 61 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G09 58.06868691 -135.38366603 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 69 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G09 58.06868691 -135.38366603 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 72 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G09 58.06868691 -135.38366603 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 76 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G09 58.06868691 -135.38366603 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 78 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G09 58.06868691 -135.38366603 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 78 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G09 58.06868691 -135.38366603 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 78 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G09 58.06868691 -135.38366603 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 80 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G09 58.06868691 -135.38366603 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 81 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G09 58.06868691 -135.38366603 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 81 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G09 58.06868691 -135.38366603 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 82 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G09 58.06868691 -135.38366603 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 82 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G09 58.06868691 -135.38366603 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 84 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G09 58.06868691 -135.38366603 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 85 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G09 58.06868691 -135.38366603 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 85 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G09 58.06868691 -135.38366603 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 86 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G09 58.06868691 -135.38366603 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 86 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G09 58.06868691 -135.38366603 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 87 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G09 58.06868691 -135.38366603 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 89 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G09 58.06868691 -135.38366603 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 97 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G09 58.06868691 -135.38366603 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 99 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G09 58.06868691 -135.38366603 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 99 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G09 58.06868691 -135.38366603 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 101 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G09 58.06868691 -135.38366603 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 106 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G09 58.06868691 -135.38366603 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 109 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G09 58.06868691 -135.38366603 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 110 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G09 58.06868691 -135.38366603 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 113 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G09 58.06868691 -135.38366603 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 133 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G09 58.06868691 -135.38366603 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 63 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G09 58.06868691 -135.38366603 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 64 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G09 58.06868691 -135.38366603 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 74 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G09 58.06868691 -135.38366603 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/8/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 65 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G09 58.06868691 -135.38366603 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/8/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 85 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G09 58.06868691 -135.38366603 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/8/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 89 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G09 58.06868691 -135.38366603 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/8/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 90 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G09 58.06868691 -135.38366603 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/8/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 90 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G09 58.06868691 -135.38366603 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/8/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 94 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G09 58.06868691 -135.38366603 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/8/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 110 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G09 58.06868691 -135.38366603 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/8/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 110 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G09 58.06868691 -135.38366603 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/8/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 111 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G09 58.06868691 -135.38366603 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/8/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 113 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G09 58.06868691 -135.38366603 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/8/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 114 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 70 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 70 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 72 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 84 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 85 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 86 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 87 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 90 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 90 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 90 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 90 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 90 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 90 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 91 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 92 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 92 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 92 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 93 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
Page 2 of 8
Location ID
(optional)Latitude Longitude Datum
Coordinate
determination
method Name of water body Date
Observer name (first
name, middle initial,
last name)Fish collection method Species Life stage
Length (mm)
No estimates/ranges Length method Weight (g)Sex Age Age method ADF&G GCL Additional count (1)Disposition (1)Additional count (2)Disposition (2)Comments
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 94 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 98 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 100 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 103 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 104 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 105 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 106 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 110 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 112 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 115 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 118 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 118 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 122 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 133 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 150 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 63 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 70 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 74 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 79 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 82 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 82 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 83 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 84 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 84 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 85 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 86 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 86 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 87 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 88 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 88 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 89 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 89 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 89 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 90 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 95 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 95 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 95 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 95 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 96 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 96 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 97 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 98 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 99 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 101 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 101 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 104 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 104 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 105 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 106 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 108 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 108 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 109 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 109 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 109 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 110 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 112 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 113 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 114 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 116 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 118 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 127 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/15/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 135 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/8/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 64 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/8/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 68 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/8/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 71 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/8/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 72 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/8/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 76 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/8/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 90 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/8/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 91 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/8/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 91 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/8/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 93 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/8/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 96 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/8/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 97 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/8/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 98 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/8/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 100 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/8/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 102 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/8/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 104 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/8/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 104 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/8/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 106 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/8/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 110 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/8/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 112 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/8/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 112 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/8/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 115 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/8/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 117 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/8/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 118 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/8/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 120 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/8/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 129 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/8/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 130 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G10a 58.06822884 -135.38374348 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 9/16/2010 erin e cunningham Visual Observation, Grou Dolly Varden juvenile Unknown 2 u/s of gartina falls, fish not
G11 58.06787428 -135.38303336 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 84 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G11 58.06787428 -135.38303336 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 86 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G11 58.06787428 -135.38303336 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 87 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G11 58.06787428 -135.38303336 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 93 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G11 58.06787428 -135.38303336 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 93 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G11 58.06787428 -135.38303336 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 95 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G11 58.06787428 -135.38303336 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 95 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G11 58.06787428 -135.38303336 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 98 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G11 58.06787428 -135.38303336 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 99 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G11 58.06787428 -135.38303336 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 101 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G11 58.06787428 -135.38303336 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 108 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G11 58.06787428 -135.38303336 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 114 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G11 58.06787428 -135.38303336 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 119 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G11 58.06787428 -135.38303336 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 122 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G11 58.06787428 -135.38303336 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 161 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G11 58.06787428 -135.38303336 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/9/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 98 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G11 58.06787428 -135.38303336 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/9/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 99 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G11 58.06787428 -135.38303336 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/9/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 104 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G11 58.06787428 -135.38303336 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/9/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 106 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G11 58.06787428 -135.38303336 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/9/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 108 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G11 58.06787428 -135.38303336 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/9/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 109 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G11 58.06787428 -135.38303336 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/9/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 109 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G11 58.06787428 -135.38303336 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/9/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 109 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G11 58.06787428 -135.38303336 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/9/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 110 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G11 58.06787428 -135.38303336 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 11/9/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 120 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G12 58.06812331 -135.38194891 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 97 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G13 58.06836328 -135.38082004 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 64 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G13 58.06836328 -135.38082004 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 69 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G13 58.06836328 -135.38082004 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 79 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G13 58.06836328 -135.38082004 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 83 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G13 58.06836328 -135.38082004 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 85 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
Page 3 of 8
Location ID
(optional)Latitude Longitude Datum
Coordinate
determination
method Name of water body Date
Observer name (first
name, middle initial,
last name)Fish collection method Species Life stage
Length (mm)
No estimates/ranges Length method Weight (g)Sex Age Age method ADF&G GCL Additional count (1)Disposition (1)Additional count (2)Disposition (2)Comments
G13 58.06836328 -135.38082004 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 95 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G13 58.06836328 -135.38082004 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 100 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
G13 58.06836328 -135.38082004 WGS84 GPS Gartina Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 102 fork Unknown measured and released u/s of gartina falls
W01 58.06809221 -135.38461226 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 68 fork Unknown measured and released
W01 58.06809221 -135.38461226 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 75 fork Unknown measured and released
W01 58.06809221 -135.38461226 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 79 fork Unknown measured and released
W01 58.06809221 -135.38461226 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 79 fork Unknown measured and released
W01 58.06809221 -135.38461226 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 83 fork Unknown measured and released
W01 58.06809221 -135.38461226 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 85 fork Unknown measured and released
W01 58.06809221 -135.38461226 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 86 fork Unknown measured and released
W01 58.06809221 -135.38461226 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 88 fork Unknown measured and released
W01 58.06809221 -135.38461226 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 90 fork Unknown measured and released
W01 58.06809221 -135.38461226 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 91 fork Unknown measured and released
W01 58.06809221 -135.38461226 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 92 fork Unknown measured and released
W01 58.06809221 -135.38461226 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 92 fork Unknown measured and released
W01 58.06809221 -135.38461226 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 94 fork Unknown measured and released
W01 58.06809221 -135.38461226 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 95 fork Unknown measured and released
W01 58.06809221 -135.38461226 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 96 fork Unknown measured and released
W01 58.06809221 -135.38461226 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 96 fork Unknown measured and released
W01 58.06809221 -135.38461226 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 96 fork Unknown measured and released
W01 58.06809221 -135.38461226 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 97 fork Unknown measured and released
W01 58.06809221 -135.38461226 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 98 fork Unknown measured and released
W01 58.06809221 -135.38461226 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 100 fork Unknown measured and released
W01 58.06809221 -135.38461226 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 100 fork Unknown measured and released
W01 58.06809221 -135.38461226 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 104 fork Unknown measured and released
W01 58.06809221 -135.38461226 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 105 fork Unknown measured and released
W01 58.06809221 -135.38461226 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 105 fork Unknown measured and released
W01 58.06809221 -135.38461226 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 106 fork Unknown measured and released
W01 58.06809221 -135.38461226 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 106 fork Unknown measured and released
W01 58.06809221 -135.38461226 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 106 fork Unknown measured and released
W01 58.06809221 -135.38461226 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 108 fork Unknown measured and released
W01 58.06809221 -135.38461226 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 110 fork Unknown measured and released
W01 58.06809221 -135.38461226 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 111 fork Unknown measured and released
W01 58.06809221 -135.38461226 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 116 fork Unknown measured and released
W01 58.06809221 -135.38461226 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 124 fork Unknown measured and released
W01 58.06809221 -135.38461226 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 135 fork Unknown measured and released
W01 58.06809221 -135.38461226 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 179 fork Unknown measured and released
W02 58.06721522 -135.38483329 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 82 fork Unknown measured and released
W02 58.06721522 -135.38483329 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 94 fork Unknown measured and released
W02 58.06721522 -135.38483329 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 95 fork Unknown measured and released
W02 58.06721522 -135.38483329 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 98 fork Unknown measured and released
W02 58.06721522 -135.38483329 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 100 fork Unknown measured and released
W02 58.06721522 -135.38483329 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 111 fork Unknown measured and released
W02 58.06721522 -135.38483329 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 112 fork Unknown measured and released
W02 58.06721522 -135.38483329 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 115 fork Unknown measured and released
W02 58.06721522 -135.38483329 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 121 fork Unknown measured and released
W02 58.06721522 -135.38483329 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 122 fork Unknown measured and released
W02 58.06721522 -135.38483329 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 144 fork Unknown measured and released
W03 58.06748142 -135.38565430 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 76 fork Unknown measured and released
W03 58.06748142 -135.38565430 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 80 fork Unknown measured and released
W03 58.06748142 -135.38565430 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 83 fork Unknown measured and released
W03 58.06748142 -135.38565430 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 89 fork Unknown measured and released
W03 58.06748142 -135.38565430 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 92 fork Unknown measured and released
W03 58.06748142 -135.38565430 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 100 fork Unknown measured and released
W03 58.06748142 -135.38565430 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 101 fork Unknown measured and released
W03 58.06748142 -135.38565430 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 101 fork Unknown measured and released
W03 58.06748142 -135.38565430 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 104 fork Unknown measured and released
W03 58.06748142 -135.38565430 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 108 fork Unknown measured and released
W04 58.06742669 -135.38613785 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 81 fork Unknown measured and released
W04 58.06742669 -135.38613785 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 85 fork Unknown measured and released
W04 58.06742669 -135.38613785 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 87 fork Unknown measured and released
W04 58.06742669 -135.38613785 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 94 fork Unknown measured and released
W04 58.06742669 -135.38613785 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 95 fork Unknown measured and released
W04 58.06742669 -135.38613785 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 100 fork Unknown measured and released
W04 58.06742669 -135.38613785 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 101 fork Unknown measured and released
W04 58.06742669 -135.38613785 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 104 fork Unknown measured and released
W04 58.06742669 -135.38613785 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 108 fork Unknown measured and released
W04 58.06742669 -135.38613785 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 110 fork Unknown measured and released
W04 58.06742669 -135.38613785 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 111 fork Unknown measured and released
W04 58.06742669 -135.38613785 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 119 fork Unknown measured and released
W04 58.06742669 -135.38613785 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 121 fork Unknown measured and released
W04 58.06742669 -135.38613785 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 130 fork Unknown measured and released
W04 58.06742669 -135.38613785 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 138 fork Unknown measured and released
W04 58.06742669 -135.38613785 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 150 fork Unknown measured and released
W05 58.06701212 -135.38808354 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/4/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 190 fork Unknown measured and released
W06 58.06679637 -135.38773946 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 110 fork Unknown measured and released
W06 58.06679637 -135.38773946 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 125 fork Unknown measured and released
W06 58.06679637 -135.38773946 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 131 fork Unknown measured and released
W06 58.06679637 -135.38773946 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 132 fork Unknown measured and released
W06 58.06679637 -135.38773946 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/3/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 136 fork Unknown measured and released
W07 58.06576674 -135.39007600 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/4/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 100 fork Unknown measured and released
W07 58.06576674 -135.39007600 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/4/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 101 fork Unknown measured and released
W07 58.06576674 -135.39007600 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/4/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 132 fork Unknown measured and released
W07 58.06576674 -135.39007600 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/4/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 140 fork Unknown measured and released
W07 58.06576674 -135.39007600 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/4/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 144 fork Unknown measured and released
W07 58.06576674 -135.39007600 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/4/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 159 fork Unknown measured and released
W08 58.06539006 -135.39247943 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/4/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 104 fork Unknown measured and released
W08 58.06539006 -135.39247943 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/4/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 105 fork Unknown measured and released
W08 58.06539006 -135.39247943 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/4/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 118 fork Unknown measured and released
W08 58.06539006 -135.39247943 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/4/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 118 fork Unknown measured and released
W08 58.06539006 -135.39247943 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/4/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 120 fork Unknown measured and released
W08 58.06539006 -135.39247943 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/4/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 136 fork Unknown measured and released
W09 58.06504590 -135.39358333 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/4/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 134 fork Unknown measured and released
W09 58.06504590 -135.39358333 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/4/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 152 fork Unknown measured and released
W09 58.06504590 -135.39358333 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/4/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 160 fork Unknown measured and released
W10 58.06418440 -135.39492477 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/4/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 101 fork Unknown measured and released
W11 58.06371066 -135.39515058 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/4/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap o fish collected or observed
W12 58.06351863 -135.39613537 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/4/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap o fish collected or observed
W13 58.06266242 -135.39677859 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/4/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 137 fork Unknown measured and released
W14 58.06227894 -135.39772809 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/4/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap o fish collected or observed
W15 58.06122936 -135.39872043 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/4/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 79 fork Unknown measured and released
W15 58.06122936 -135.39872043 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/4/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 84 fork Unknown measured and released
W16 58.06010912 -135.39965694 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/4/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 109 fork Unknown measured and released
W17 58.05913229 -135.40025029 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/4/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap o fish collected or observed
W18 58.05805069 -135.40140104 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/4/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 85 fork Unknown measured and released
W18 58.05805069 -135.40140104 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/4/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 124 fork Unknown measured and released
W18 58.05805069 -135.40140104 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/4/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 136 fork Unknown measured and released
W18 58.05805069 -135.40140104 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/4/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 140 fork Unknown measured and released
W18 58.05805069 -135.40140104 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/4/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 153 fork Unknown measured and released
W19 58.05675837 -135.40355134 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/4/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap o fish collected or observed
W20 58.05650272 -135.40335093 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/4/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap o fish collected or observed
W21 58.05591499 -135.40456949 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/4/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 66 fork Unknown measured and released
W21 58.05591499 -135.40456949 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/5/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap o fish collected or observed
W22 58.05558046 -135.40513040 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/5/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap o fish collected or observed
W23 58.05521468 -135.40511892 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/5/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap o fish collected or observed
W24 58.05515517 -135.40491633 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/5/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap o fish collected or observed
W25 58.05457891 -135.40558814 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/5/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap o fish collected or observed
W26 58.05418169 -135.40632038 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/5/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap o fish collected or observed
W27 58.05414707 -135.40632675 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/5/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 56 fork Unknown measured and released
W28 58.05409477 -135.40654703 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/5/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap o fish collected or observed
Page 4 of 8
Location ID
(optional)Latitude Longitude Datum
Coordinate
determination
method Name of water body Date
Observer name (first
name, middle initial,
last name)Fish collection method Species Life stage
Length (mm)
No estimates/ranges Length method Weight (g)Sex Age Age method ADF&G GCL Additional count (1)Disposition (1)Additional count (2)Disposition (2)Comments
W29 58.05344903 -135.40696478 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/5/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap o fish collected or observed
W30 58.05232560 -135.40656405 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/5/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap o fish collected or observed
W31 58.05181372 -135.40700560 WGS84 GPS Water Supply Creek 8/5/2010 erin e cunningham minnow trap Dolly Varden not recorded 120 fork Unknown measured and released
1
Cunningham, Erin E.
From:Borovansky, Jenna
Sent:Monday, April 02, 2012 8:57 AM
To:Borovansky, Jenna; Sean.parnell@alaska.gov; Judith.bittner@alaska.gov;
Honor.carpenter@alaska.gov; Dawn.collinsworth@ogc.usda.gov; daniel.bussard@alaska.gov;
ted.deats@alaska.gov; angel@seacc.org; mduvall@cityofhoonah.org;
Richard_Enriquez@fws.gov; shareholders@hunatotem.com; Richard.harris@sealaska.com;
rdjennings@fs.fed.us; shawn.johnson@alaska.gov; Monte.miller@alaska.gov;
North.phil@epa.gov; dott@aidea.org; Gary.prokosch@alaska.gov; bstanley@fs.fed.us;
Jackie.timothy@alaska.gov; Linda.Speerstra@usace.army.mil; Susan.walker@noaa.gov; Eric
Rothwell; tom.gcak.meyer@noaa.gov; DLockard@aidea.org
Cc:Berkshire, Paul; Brady, James; Peter Bibb; ryan.hansen@ferc.gov
Subject:Gartina Falls - Request for DLA Waiver
Attachments:P14066_DLA_Waiver_Request_04-2-2012.pdf
To Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Distribution List:
The Inside Passage Electric Cooperative (IPEC) appreciates comments received on the Pre-Application Document for the
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project, and the agency support for waiver of the Draft License Application. IPEC has filed
your comments with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC); please see attached.
Currently, we are working to incorporate responses to comments into a final license application. Please let me know if
you have any questions; we will be in touch with you if we have any additional questions as we are preparing the final
license application. We are also working on draft state and Corps permit applications (Title 16, Section 404, revised
water rights application), and will coordinate with the responsible agencies on the timing for submittal.
Thanks, Jenna
NOTE: Copy of the filing notice below serves as electronic notice to the FERC Service List for the Gartina Falls Project (P-
14066).
JENNA BOROVANSKY HDR Engineering, Inc.
Senior Regulatory Specialist, Hydropower Services
601 Union Street, Suite 700 | Seattle, WA 98101
206.826.4675 | c: 425.281.9557
jenna.borovansky@hdrinc.com | hdrinc.com
Acceptance for Filing
---------------------
The FERC Office of the Secretary has accepted the following electronic submission for filing
(Acceptance for filing does not constitute approval of any application or self-certifying
notice):
-Accession No.: 201204025129
-Docket(s) No.: P-14066-001
-Filed By: Inside Passage Electric Cooperative -Signed By: Peter Bibb -Filing Type:
License/Relicense Application -Filing Desc: Request of Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
under P-14066-001. Request for Waiver of Draft License Application requirement for the
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project.
-Submission Date/Time: 4/2/2012 12:39:22 PM -Filed Date: 4/2/2012 12:39:22 PM
2
Your submission is now part of the record for the above Docket(s) and available in FERC's
eLibrary system at:
http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20120402-5129
If you would like to receive e-mail notification when additional documents are added to the
above docket(s), you can eSubscribe by docket at:
https://ferconline.ferc.gov/eSubscription.aspx
There may be a 10 minute delay before the document appears in eLibrary.
Thank you again for using the FERC Electronic Filing System. If you need to contact us for
any reason:
E-Mail: efiling@ferc.gov mailto:efiling@ferc.gov (do not send filings to this address) Voice
Mail: 202-502-8258.
1
Borovansky, Jenna
From:Berkshire, Paul
Sent:Wednesday, May 02, 2012 3:23 PM
To:Zutz, Johnny D (DFG)
Cc:Borovansky, Jenna
Attachments:Biological Factors and Risk of Entrainment.pdf
Categories:Gartina Falls Consultation
Hi Johnny,
Nice seeing you again last week. As we discussed, attached is a brief on what we have come up with so far related to
deterrents. I will be out of the office starting Friday for the next two weeks. If you have any questions, please feel free
to contact Jenna.
Paul
PAUL BERKSHIRE, P.E. HDR Alaska, Inc.
Project Lead/Sr. Engineer
2525 C Street | Anchorage, AK 99503-2632
907.644.2000 | c: 907.360.1015
paul.berkshire@hdrinc.com | hdrinc.com
DRAFTBiological Factors and Risk of Entrainment
Dolly Varden can have both anadromous and resident forms, with resident fish spending their
entire lives in freshwater. The resident form is most often found upstream from barriers (i.e.,
natural falls, manmade dams) that prevent the upstream migration of anadromous fish (Ihlenfeldt
2005). Resident forms of Dolly Varden typically have smaller body lengths (i.e., average 135
mm) than anadromous forms (i.e., average 321 mm) and are darker in color (Ihlenfeldt 2005).
Both resident and the larger anadromous Dolly Varden are present in Gartina Creek downstream
of the falls, while only resident Dolly Varden occur upstream of the falls.
Overall, Gartina Creek provides good habitat for Dolly Varden both above and below the falls.
Gartina Creek provides primarily riffle, glide, and small pool habitats. The portion of Gartina
Creek surveyed flows through a forested area and therefore has a high recruitment potential for
large woody debris. The woody debris, overhanging vegetation, undercut banks, and small pools
provide suitable cover for fish. Water Supply Creek flows through a much more confined, higher
gradient channel than Gartina Creek. The lower portion of Water Supply Creek (downstream of
the road) contains riffles, glides, many small step pools, and some cascades and also provides
abundant instream cover.
The resident Dolly Varden population above the falls inhabits Gartina Creek throughout the area
that will be inundated as a result of the construction of the proposed diversion structure. Under
existing conditions, habitat in the proposed inundation area is dominated primarily by relatively
shallow riffle and glide habitat. The only prominent pool habitat in the inundation zone is located
just downstream of Water Supply Creek adjacent to a rock outcrop. However, the pool, which
was measured to be roughly 25 meters long and 8 to 12 meters wide, provides little to no cover
(e.g., overhanging vegetation) for fish. Dolly Varden were also caught just upstream of the lip of
Gartina Falls in small pools near the logs from an old crib dam structure.
The preferred habitats for resident Dolly Varden are pools, glides, riffles, and cascade/falls, in
that order (Ihlenfeldt 2005). During studies over multiple years in Sherman and Sweeny Creeks
in Alaska, the highest densities of resident Dolly Varden were caught in pool and glide habitats
(Ihlenfeldt 2005). The construction of the dam would deepen the creek and create larger pool
habitat. This change in stream habitat may alter the distribution of Dolly Varden from existing
conditions by increasing the numbers of fish that inhabit the areas upstream of the diversion
structure in order to exploit the increase in pool habitat, especially since the pool is projected to
inundate the mouth of Water Supply Creek.
However, in river reaches above barriers such as the existing waterfall, resident populations will
only persist if the fish show behavioral traits that reduce the downstream losses to a level that
permits the continued existence of the population above the barrier. The existing falls are a
natural complete barrier which has isolated the resident population of Dolly Varden above the
falls for as long as the falls have existed. This population is therefore, by nature, genetically
selected to remain a local resident population since any downstream migration over the falls
would result in a net loss to the population.
DRAFTStudies of resident trout populations have suggested there is strong genetic control for residency
that seems to be particularly well developed in populations that live in habitats where emigration
could be detrimental, such as in reaches above waterfalls, or other barriers (Northcote 1992;
Morita et al. 2000). Because individuals that migrate over the falls are effectively lost from the
above-barrier population, intense selection against downstream movement in the remaining
above-barrier fish is expected to drive the rapid evolution of a purely resident phenotype above
the falls (Pearse et al. 2009). Therefore, it seems unlikely that after the project is constructed that
the resident fish would suddenly start being drawn downstream since there will only be minor
changes to the river characteristics.
During September and October flows greatly increase and remain relatively high through
December, then decline through March until snow melt increases the flows again in April, May,
and June. High flows in the fall that will be used to flush debris and sediment when the spillway
is opened could potentially sweep some Dolly Varden downstream and over the falls. However,
since the resident fish have persisted in Gartina Creek upstream of the falls throughout yearly
cycles of very high fall flows, they have adapted to remain within their resident habitat without
getting swept downstream; otherwise the population would have diminished over time.
The configuration of the intake at a right angle to the river channel would not provide an easy
route for the fish to be entrained. Studies of swimming performance in bull trout (a close
surrogate for Dolly Varden) indicated that fish 11 to 19 cm in length had critical swimming
speeds (prolonged swimming performance for up to 30 minutes) of 48.2 cm/second (Mesa et al.
2004). In burst swimming studies, bull trout 10 to 31 cm in length could sprint for short bursts
over a few meters at speeds of 130 to 230 cm/second (Mesa et al. 2008). Fork lengths of the
resident Dolly Varden captured upstream of Gartina Falls ranged from 5.7 cm to 16.1 cm. The
upper portion of the size range of the Dolly Varden sampled upstream of Gartina Falls were
within the range of fish used in these studies and therefore swimming performance would be
similar. The smaller fish in the population can be considered to have lower critical and burst
swimming speeds.
The maximum water velocity across the trashracks at the intake structure is projected to be 65
cm/second (~2 feet/second). This maximum velocity will dissipate rapidly within a short
distance from the trashrack. The average velocity across the trashrack will be less than 30
cm/second. The flows close to the trashracks exceed the critical swimming speeds of bull trout,
but do not exceed their sprint or burst swimming ability. Therefore, extrapolating to Dolly
Varden, the larger fish in the population that move in close to the trashracks should be able to
avoid being entrained by the flows if they are induced to utilize their burst swimming abilities.
The smaller juvenile Dolly Varden are generally secretive and extensively use instream cover
(e.g. rubble, boulders, and woody debris). Age 1 and older Dolly Varden tend to be more
abundant in pools with cover (Wydoski and Whitney 2003). The smaller juvenile Dolly Varden
upstream of Gartina Falls would likely tend to remain in areas with cover and would be unlikely
to move out into proximity to the intake.
In summary, it is reasonable to assume that the resident population would tend to remain in
habitats with cover and natural substrate away from the intake structure, but some of the larger
fish may move into the deep pool habitat created by the dam. The swimming ability of these
larger fish should allow them to avoid entrainment at the trashracks. However, there remains
DRAFTsome potential to lose a few individuals downstream through the project, just as the existing
population may lose a few individuals over the falls. Generally, the fact that the resident
population has persisted, indicates that they have a predisposition to continue to remain in their
existing ranges and are not inclined to move downstream.
Potential Deterrents
The best deterrent options are likely to be behavioral barriers such as sound or strobe lights. For
this project, strobe lights likely represent the best means of adding a behavioral deterrent to the
intake structure. Effects of strobes vary by species and time of day. Several published studies
have shown that the use of strobe lights as a fish deterrent elicited mixed responses during the
day and night.
McLean (2008) evaluated underwater strobe lights as a deterrent for rainbow trout,
cutthroat trout and Dolly Varden at the John Hart Reservoir penstock intakes on
Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Operation of strobes was effective in deterring fish
(80% average reduction) at night, in both short term and longer term tests. Mixed results
were observed during daylight hours. The daylight tests did not provide evidence of an
effect of strobe operation on averting fish from the critical zone, probably as a result of
the high background ambient light.
Strobe lights were shown to reduce entrainment by up to 75% during a day time
evaluation on juvenile salmonids at a navigation lock in Seattle, Washington (Johnson et
al. 2001).
Strobe lights operated at one of the Grand Coulee Dam intakes elicited little avoidance
response during the day, but did demonstrate a discernible avoidance response at night
(Johnson et al. 2005).
Strobe lights have appeared promising in decreasing entrainment of kokanee at Dworshak
Dam on the Clearwater River in Idaho (Stark 2008).
The small size of the intake structure at the proposed Gartina Falls facility and the dark
conditions within the canyon aid the potential effectiveness of strobe light deterrents by
providing a focused area for the fish to avoid.
Despite the resident nature of the upstream population and lack of cover and natural substrate at
the intake, some individuals within the pool may potentially move into proximity to the intake.
Movements of some fish within resident populations do vary with some individuals moving over
wider ranges than others and likely represent colonizers of new areas and habitats (Northcote
1992). These individuals may approach the trashracks and intake structure. The use of strobe
lights could potentially induce the fish into a burst swimming response away from the trashracks
that would allow them to escape the entrainment flows at the intake. This would provide an
additional inducement for avoidance of the proposed structure by the resident Dolly Varden from
a population that is already predisposed to remain upstream of the existing falls.
DRAFTReferences
HDR. 2010. Field Reconnaissance Report Gartina and Water Supply Creeks. Prepared for:
Inside Passage Electric Cooperative Juneau, Alaska.
Ihlenfeldt, N. J. 2005. An Annotated Bibliography: Above Barrier Resident Dolly Varden char
(Salvelinus malma) and Related Studies. Alaska Department of Natural Resources Office of
Habitat Management and Permitting; Technical Report No. 05-05.
Johnson, P., F. Goetz, and G. Ploskey, 2001. Evaluation of strobe lights for vertically displacing
juvenile salmon near a filling culvert intake at the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks, Seattle,
Washington. American Fisheries Society Symposium, 26, 13-25.
Johnson, R. L., and 10 co-authors. 2005. Strobe light deterrent efficacy test and fish behavior
determination at Grand Coulee Dam third Powerplant forebay. Final report by Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory to Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR.
http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-15007.pdf
Kentaro , M., S. Yamamoto, and N. Hoshino. 2000. Extreme life history change of white-
spotted char (Salvelinus leucomaenis) after damming. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences Volume: 57, Issue: 6, Publisher: NRC Research Press, Pg: 1300-1306.
McLean, A. R. 2008. Strobe lights as a fish deterrent. Report for B.C. Hydro.
http://www.bchydro.com/bcrp/projects/docs/vancouver_island/07.CBR.06.pdf
Northcote, T.G. 1992. Migration and residency in stream salmonids – some ecological
considerations and evolutionary consequences. Nordic J. Freshw. Res. 67: 5–17.
Stark, E. J. 2008. Dworshak kokanee population and entrainment assessment. Annual report by
Idaho Department of Fish and Game to Bonneville Power Administration.
Wydoski, R.S. and R.R. Whitney. 2003. Inland Fishes of Washington. 2nd Edition. American
Fisheries Society and University of Washington Press.
Appendix B Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 May 2012
APPENDIX B
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project No. 14066
Supplemental Information to the PAD
Appendix B Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 May 2012
This page intentionally left blank.
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 1 December 2011
Technical Memorandum
To: Inside Passage Electric Cooperative (IPEC)
From: HDR
Date: December 2, 2011
Subject: Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 14066-000
Additional adult salmon foot survey data (September 8 – November 18,
2011) and revisions to PAD Tables 5-9 and 5-10 and Figures 5-14 and 5-15
1 Background and Objective(s)
On October 28, 2011, I PEC filed a Pre-Applicati on Document (PAD) with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) for the Gartina Falls Hydroe lectric Project (P roject). The
proposed Project would be located on the northeast side of Chichagof Island in southeast Alaska
approximately five air miles southeast of Hoonah. Gartina Creek is a low-gradient stream that
originates in the m ountains to the south of Hoonah Harbor. Gartina Falls, where the Project
would be located, is the anadromous fish migration barrier on Gartina Creek. Operating as a run-
of-the-river project, flows ups tream and downstream of the Proj ect area would be unaltered by
the Project.
The purpose of this m emorandum is to present re sults from the remainder of the adult salm on
foot surveys to supplement th e resource analysis pr esented in the October 2011 PAD. The PAD
presents the results of the first eight weekly fo ot surveys, which were conducted f rom July 14
through September 2, 2011. Weekly surveys were continued through mid-November in order to
meet the studies’ intended objective, as stated in the PAD (see Task 2 in Section 5.5.1.2).
This memorandum presents the results of the weekly adult salm on foot surveys that IPEC
conducted from September 8 through November 18, 2011 and includes a revised data summ ary
for the PAD reflecting this data and two minor corrections
2 Methods
Methods were consistent with those described in the PAD (see Section 5.5.1.4).
3 Study Results
The PAD presents the results of the first eigh t weekly foot surveys conducted from mid-July
through September 2, 2011. IPEC c ontinued conducting the weekly foot surveys through m id-
November 2011. However, high water levels lim ited the visibility and precluded safe acces s
within the stream during two consecutive weeks in late October and early November. IPEC
conducted the last survey on November 18, 2011, during which time visibility was rated as good.
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 2 December 2011
4 Updates to PAD
This memo also provides revisions to the initia l dataset that was presented in the PAD (October
2011) as shown below.
Table 5-9 and Figure 5-14 were corrected to show th e additional data collected during
September, October and November 2011. These tables were also corrected to show that the peak
count of live adult pink salmon in reach 3 wa s observed on August 18, 2011 rather than August
10, 2011.
Table 5-8 and Figure 5-13 were co rrected to show that 21 pink salmon (as opposed to 24) were
observed on Septem ber 15, 2010. The updated ta bles and figures ar e presented below.
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 3 December 2011
Table 4-1 (Revised 12/2011). Peak count of adult Pacific salmon, relative density (live fish per 1,000 ft.), and
date of peak observation by survey reach in Gartina Creek from foot surveys from 7/14/2011 to 11/18/2011.
Reach Species Live Fish Carcasses
Live fish per 1,000 ft.
(peak date)
R11
Chum salmon 327 157 45.3 (8/10/2011)
Pink salmon 980 521 135.8 (8/10/2011)
Coho salmon 3 1 0.4 (10/12/2011)
Pacific salmon2 0 2
R2
Chum salmon 65 20 25.7 (8/10/2011)
Pink salmon 280 80 110.5 (8/10/2011)
Coho salmon 0 0 n/a3
Pacific salmon 0 0
R3
Chum salmon 44 23 20.4 (8/10/2011)
Pink salmon 232 80 107.3 (8/18/2011)
Coho salmon 2 0 0.9 (10/20/2011)
Pacific salmon 0 0
Notes: 1 The field team was unable to conduct a survey in Reach 1 on 8/5/2011.
2 The field team was not able to identify each Pacific salmon observed to species due to visibility limitations.
3 Coho salmon were not observed in Reach 2 in 2011; surveys were not conducted on 10/28/11 or 11/2/2011 due to high water.
Figure 4-1 (Revised 12/2011). Numbers of live salmon counted during foot surveys in Gartina Creek (survey
reaches 1-3), from July 14 through November 18, 2011.
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4 December 2011
Table 4-2 (Revised 12/2011). Peak count of adult Pacific salmon, relative density (live fish per 1,000 ft.), and
date of peak observation by survey reach in Gartina Creek from 10 foot surveys from 9/15/2010 to
11/24/2010.
Reach Reach
length (feet) Species Live fish
count
Carcass
count
Live fish/1,000 ft.
(peak date)
R1 7218
Chum salmon 0 1 0.0 ( n/a )
Pink salmon 21 144 2.9 (9/15/2010)
Coho salmon 10 0 1.4 (9/20/2010)
Pacific salmon1 0 24
R22 2533
Chum salmon 0* 0 0.0 ( n/a )
Pink salmon 0 0 0.0 ( n/a )
Coho salmon 2 0 0.8 (10/11/2010)
Pacific salmon 0 2
R32 2162
Chum salmon 0 0 0.0 ( n/a )
Pink salmon 0 0 0.0 ( n/a )
Coho salmon 8 0 3.7 (10/11/2010)
Pacific salmon 1 0
Notes: 1 The field team was unable to conduct a survey in Reach 2 or Reach 3 on 10/18/2010.
2 The field team was not able to identify each Pacific salmon observed to species due to visibility limitations.
Figure 4-13 (Revised 12/2011). Numbers of live salmon counted during foot surveys in Gartina Creek (survey
reaches 1-3), from September 15 through November 24, 2010.
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 1 December 2011
Technical Memorandum
To: Inside Passage Electric Cooperative (IPEC)
From: HDR Alaska, Inc.
Date: 5 December 2011
Subject: Sediment Transport Analysis
1 Background and Objective
On October 28, 201 1, IPEC filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD) with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) for the Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project (Project). The
proposed Project would be located on the northeast side of Chichagof Island in southeast Alaska
approximately 5 air miles southeast of Hoonah. Gartina Creek is a low-gradient stream that
originates in the mountains to the south of Hoonah Harbor. Gartina Falls, where the Project
would be located, is the anadromous fish migration barrier on Gartina Creek. Operating as a run-
of-the-river project, flows upstream and downstream of the Project area would be unaltered by
the Project.
The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize sediment data to supplement the resource
analysis presented in the October 2011 PAD.
Data were collected August 9 through 11, 2011, to characterize sediment sizes upstream and
downstream of the proposed Project, and to evaluate current and potential post-Project sediment
transport characteristics.
2 Methods
Pebble counts were conducted at four transects along Gartina Creek: two upstream of the falls
and two downstream of the falls (Figure 1). The standard Wolman procedure was followed, in
which the counter made five passes across the creek at even intervals upstream and downstream
of the transect, measuring 20 pebbles per pass for a total of 100 pebbles per transect. To reduce
bias, the counter picked the pebble that touched a line drawn on her boot. If the line on her boot
touched bedrock or sand-sized sediment, “bedrock” or “fines” were noted instead of a
measurement. Each pebble was measured using a gravelometer unless it was fines, bedrock, or
too large to fit through the largest hole in the gravelometer. In this case, the intermediate
diameter was measured with a tape.
Pebble sizes were tabulated for each transect and a size-frequency distribution calculated. The
frequency distribution was used to estimate the median grain size (D 50 ), smallest 5 percent (D 5 )
and largest 5 percent (D 95 ) for each transect.
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 2 December 2011
Figure 1. Elevation map of Gartina Creek showing sediment sampling locations (green circles) and proposed
hydroelectric project site.
Shear stress is exerted on sediment by flowing water, and is responsible for transporting
sediment downstream. The flow necessary to transport each grain size was estimated using a
Shield’s parameter/shear stress relationship 1. Shear stress is defined as
τ heRSγ=
where
τ = shear stress γ = specific weight of water (62.4 lbs/ft3)
S e = energy slope R h = hydraulic radius (cross-sectional area/wetted perimeter)
1 U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2008. Stream Simulation: An Ecological Approach to Providing Passage for
Aquatic Organisms at Road-Stream Crossings. National Technology and Development Program, San Dimas. 646
pp.
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 3 December 2011
Mobile grain diameter is related to critical shear stress (τ crit ; the condition necessary to initiate
movement) by the following equation:
τ crit = τ* (102.6 D)
where
τ* = Shield’s parameter, a dimensionless coefficient that varies from 0.039 to 0.054 with
particle size
D = intermediate grain diameter
Where shear stress exceeds the critical shear stress for a given sediment size, that sediment is
considered mobile.
Longitudinal channel shear stress profiles for the annual average flow (64 cubic feet per
second [cfs]), the 2-year peak (1,050 cfs) and the 100-year peak flow (2,500 cfs) were calculated
using a one-dimensional steady-state HEC-RAS model of the reach upstream of the falls.
General bed movement is not usually initiated until shear stress is high enough to transport the
median grain size (D 50 ). To determine the flow where this movement is initiated, additional
flows between 350 to 500 cfs were modeled to estimate the flow necessary to move the D 50 sediment size. This flow represents the conditions under which about half of the bed material
would move downstream, replenishing spawning gravels and maintaining gravel bars and
islands.
3 Study Results
Gartina Creek sediment ranges in size from fine gravels to bedrock, but the average is very
coarse gravel. D 5 ranges from 2.4 millimeters (mm; very fine gravel) to 17 mm (medium-coarse
gravel), D 50 varies from 40 mm to 62 mm (very coarse gravel) and D 95 varies from 160mm to
250 mm (large cobbles; Table 1, Figure 2). Although the smallest and largest grain sizes differ
between cross-sections, the D 25 to D 75 values are very similar. This indicates that gravels
upstream and downstream of the falls likely come from the same source and are transported
during the same events.
Table 1. Sediment size statistics for each sampling location on Gartina Creek.
XS1 – Below
Project Area
(mm)
XS2 – Below
Falls
(mm)
XS3 – Top of
Falls
(mm)
XS4 – Above
Project Area
(mm)
D 5 10 9 2 17
D 25 30 26 18 40
D 50 50 50 40 62
D 75 83 90 90 110
D 95 180 160 250 250
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4 December 2011
Figure 2. Cumulative frequency curves for each sampled cross-section on Gartina Creek.
The shear stress profile upstream of Gartina Falls varies with slope and channel geometry and
these vary with flow. In general, higher flows have higher shear stresses, and thus can transport
more (and larger) sediment.
Figure 3. Modeled shear stress profile upstream of Gartina Falls, and critical shear stresses necessary to
transport the D 5 , D 50 , and D 95 -sized gravels, respectively.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 10 100 1,000 Cumulative Frequency (%) Median Grain Diamter (mm)
Grain Size Distribution in Gartina Creek
XS1
XS2
XS3
XS4
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 Shear Stress (lbs/square foot) distance upstream from Gartina Falls (ft)
Existing shear stress profiles and critical shear stress
for sediment transport on Gartina Creek
64 cfs D5 Critical Shear Stress
500 cfs D50 Critical Shear Stress
2500 cfs D95 Critical Shear Stress
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 5 December 2011
The results indicate that under existing conditions, significant sediment movement requires
relatively high flows. Transport of the D 50 initiates at 400 to 500 cfs, which occurs
approximately 1 to 2 days per year.
The smallest 5 percent of gravels (D 5 and smaller) are mobile at the mean annual flow of 64 cfs.
The largest size fraction (D 95 –large cobbles) are more or less stable, and are mobile only at the
100-year peak flow in steeper areas.
This is a simplified model of sediment transport that considers only one configuration of the
channel bed. In fact, in a stream with mobile gravels, the shear stress profile will change as the
gravels move downstream and deposit new bars. Areas that show low shears stresses, such as
immediately upstream of the log crib, are depositional areas only until enough sediment collects
to increase the slope enough to raise shear stresses. Thus, sediment transport is not halted
upstream of the log crib (or a continually higher pile of gravel would accumulate); it is simply a
more episodic process than in steeper reaches.
4 Potential Environmental Effects and Issue Identification
The proposed diversion structure could decrease shear stress in the inundation area upstream of
the diversion and thereby reduce sediment transport downstream. If not mitigated, this reduced
sediment transport would decrease the frequency of transport of sediment from upstream of the
diversion structure downstream as compared to pre-project conditions.
However, the proposed diversion pool cannot be allowed to completely fill with sediment or the
project risks becoming inoperable. Thus a mechanism to allow accumulated sediment to pass
downstream is necessary for project operations.
5 Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures
To mitigate the issues associated with the accumulation of sediment, the diversion structure is
proposed to be designed with an approximately 14-foot wide radial gate. The gate would be
opened when inflows exceed 500 cfs to allow for the passage of sediment downstream of the
diversion structure. The majority of sediment transport currently occurs during these larger
flows.
To analyze the effectiveness of this design and operational plan, the reach was modeled with the
diversion structure in place with the radial gate open. The results indicate that the open gate
replicates pre-project conditions (Figure 4).
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 6 December 2011
Figure 4. Shear stress profiles upstream of Gartina Falls for pre-project conditions, post project conditions
with open radial gate and post project conditions with closed radial gate. The post-project with radial gate
profile merges with the pre-project profile at around 400 feet upstream of the diversion structure.
Thus the replenishment of downstream gravels is expected to be similar to pre-Project conditions
with the proposed design and operation plan.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 shear stress (lbs/square ft_ distance upstream of Gartina Falls (ft)
Shear stress profile at 500 cfs
Pre-Project
Project with Open Gate
Project with Closed Gate
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 May 2012
Technical Memorandum
To: Inside Passage Electric Cooperative (IPEC)
From: HDR
Date: May 21, 2012
Subject: Benthic Macroinvertebrates, QC Revisions
1 Background and Objective
On October 28, 2011, IPEC filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD) with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) for the Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project (Project). The
proposed Project would be located on the northeast side of Chichagof Island in southeast Alaska
approximately five air miles southeast of Hoonah. Gartina Creek is a low-gradient stream that
originates in the mountains to the south of Hoonah Harbor. Gartina Falls, where the Project
would be located, is the anadromous fish migration barrier on Gartina Creek. Operating as a run-
of-the-river project, flows upstream and downstream of the Project area would be unaltered by
the Project.
Macroinvertebrate data were collected on August 9th and 10th 2011, to characterize
macroinvertebrate communities. A macroinvertebrate reference collection was assembled and
submitted to the University of Alaska Anchorage, Environment and Natural Resource Institute
(ENRI) for taxonomic verification. Such QC processes are common in macroinvertebrate taxa
identification. On December 6, 2011, IPEC filed the Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project No.
14066 Supplemental Information memorandum to FERC to provide additional information to
supplement the PAD resource analysis. Although results of the macroinvertebrate data collection
were summarized in this filing QC results from ENRI had not been received.
QC results from ENRI resulted in only minor changes to the identification database and have
been incorporated in the results, tables and graphs in Exhibit E. The purpose of this
memorandum is to identify the minor revisions to the initial dataset that was provided in the
Supplemental Information memorandum based on results of the reference collection QC
performed by ENRI.
2 Updates to Exhibit E
QC results from ENRI resulted in minor changes to average taxa richness. Average taxa richness
changed from 17 to 16.4 for station GCWQ-1; from 19 to 18.2 at station GCWQ-2; and from 14
to 13.8 at station GCWQ-5. Table 4-13 (Average Population Density and Taxa Richness of
macroinvertebrates collected with a Surber sampler at four sites in Gartina Creek in August
2011) and Figure 4-20 (Average Taxa Richness of macroinvertebrates from Surber sampling at
four sites in Gartina Creek) were revised accordingly.
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 1 December 2011
Technical Memorandum
To: Inside Passage Electric Cooperative (IPEC)
From: HDR
Date: December 5, 2011
Subject: Benthic Macroinvertebrates
1 Background and Objective
On October 28, 201 1, IPEC filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD) with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) for the Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project (Project). The
proposed Project would be located on the northeast side of Chichagof Island in southeast Alaska
approximately five air miles southeast of Hoonah. Gartina Creek is a low-gradient stream that
originates in the mountains to the south of Hoonah Harbor. Gartina Falls, where the Project
would be located, is the anadromous fish migration barrier on Gartina Creek. Operating as a run-
of-the-river project, flows upstream and downstream of the Project area would be unaltered by
the Project.
Data were collected on August 9th and 10th 2011, to characterize macroinvertebrate communities.
The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize benthic macroinvertebrate data to supplement
the resource analysis presented in the October 2011 PAD.
1.1 Objective
The objective of the macroinvertebrate sampling effort was to characterize the macroinvertebrate
communities in the project area by sampling benthic macroinvertebrates at four sites in August
2011. Macroinvertebrate baseline information is valued because macroinvertebrates are essential
components of the aquatic food web and the health of the fish population depends on these
building block parameters.
1.1.1 Macroinvertebrate Sampling Sites
Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected at four sites (Figure 5-8 in the PAD). GCWQ-1 is
located upstream of the proposed inundation zone. GCWQ-2 is located above the waterfall
within the proposed inundation zone. GCWQ-3 is located just downstream of the waterfall in the
vicinity of the proposed powerhouse location. GCWQ-5 is located downstream from the
waterfall and proposed powerhouse.
2 Methods
2.1.1 Field Data Collection
Benthic samples were collected using a Surber sampler. Surber samplers consist of a frame that
delineates a o ne square-foot area of substrate and an attached net that collects benthic
invertebrates as they are released from the substrate. Cobble and larger substrate were disturbed
one stone at a time and brushed to release organisms which are washed into the net by the
current. The fine sediment of the sampling are was then disturbed by kicking for approximately
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 2 December 2011
30 seconds. At each site, the field team collected five individual Surber samples from a single
riffle. The method of collecting multiple samples from a single riffle - as opposed to collecting
only one sample per riffle - is intended to provide enough replication to capture the potential
variance of species composition within riffle habitat in a given area. Samples were preserved
individually with ethanol and transported to HDR’s Anchorage laboratory for analysis. One
Surber sample, collected from GCWQ-3, was compromised during transport and was therefore
excluded from analysis. HDR scientists sorted and identified the samples to genus, when
possible.
At each site the field team also collected in-situ water quality measurements including
temperature, pH, specific conductivity and dissolved oxygen (mg/L and %) using a YSI meter.
Water quality results were reported in the PAD (see Section 5.4).
2.1.2 Data Quality Assurance and Quality Control
Quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) procedures for the macroinvertebrate program
began with sample collection in the field. All samples were stored in individual plastic bottles
that were labeled according to site name and Surber sample number. All samples were preserved
with ethyl alcohol. One field team member collected the samples and labeled each bottle with
the date, site name, and Surber number while the other member confirmed that each sample
bottle was properly preserved and labeled.
Each sample bottle’s unique identification number (site name/Surber sample number) was
entered into a tracking log at HDR’s laboratory prior to processing and identification.
Organisms from each sample bottle were sorted from the organic material and placed into
individually-labeled and preserved vials. The remaining organic material from which organisms
were removed was placed into the original collection container and labeled as “sorted”. The
laboratory technician tracked the status of each sample in the tracking log; as each sample was
sorted, the date and initials of the laboratory technician were recorded. Ten percent of the sorted
samples (i.e., remaining material) was re-examined by a second HDR scientist to ensure that
organisms had been removed during the initial sorting process.
An experienced HDR scientist identified each organism to the lowest practical taxa, which in
most cases was to the genus level. Individuals in the Chironomidae family (Order Diptera) were
identified at the family level due to the additional sample processing necessary for further
identifications. Once identifications were completed, a second HDR scientist checked each
identification form for completeness prior to entering the data into an Access database.
A third level of QC was performed for each line item in the database to ensure that data for each
sample were accurately entered. Upon completion of the database QC, an HDR scientist
analyzed various metrics of the macroinvertebrate data and produced graphs and tables, included
below. Results of the analyses were checked against the raw data files for accuracy prior to
finalization of this report.
A macroinvertebrate reference collection was assembled and submitted to the University of
Alaska Anchorage, Environment and Natural Resource Institute (ENRI) for taxonomic
verification. Such QC processes are common in macroinvertebrate taxa identification. QC results
from ENRI have not been received to date; therefore, results are considered preliminary pending
receipt of the third party QC results.
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 3 December 2011
2.1.3 Data Analysis
Macroinvertebrate metrics analyzed in this report include population density, taxa richness,
dominant taxa, percent Ephemeroptera (i.e., mayfly), Plecoptera (i.e., stonefly) and Trichoptera
(i.e., caddisfly) (EPT), percent Diptera (e.g., flies, midges, worms, etc), percent Chironomidae
(i.e., family belonging to Diptera order), and the percent of “other” organisms.
Population densities and taxa richness were calculated for each site by averaging the results from
all five Surber samples collected at each site. The average population density was determined by
counting all organisms collected in a one square-foot area, as defined by the Surber sampler
frame. Organisms from the five Surber samples collected at each site were counted separately;
the average of the five samples was used to estimate population density. Similarly, the average
taxa diversity was determined by combining the results of the five Surber samples.
Dominant taxa and percent sample composition (EPT, Diptera, Chironomidae, and ‘other’
organisms) are calculated by finding these percentages for each surber sample at a given site and
then taking the average of those results. The result is recorded as average percent dominant taxa
and average percent sample composition for the site as a whole.
3 Study Results
Appendix A attached to this memo includes a list of all taxa identified from the sampling effort
in Gartina Creek as well as a more detailed table that lists macroinvertebrates identified from
each Surber sample. Results of the macroinvertebrate data collection and analyses are
summarized below.
3.1 Population Density and Taxa Richness
Both population density and taxa richness are important metrics when analyzing
macroinvertebrate communities. The two metrics are sometimes related to one another but are
not interdependent.
3.1.1 Population Density
Average population density varied between sites and ranged from 84 to 296 (Table 3-1). GCWQ-
1 (upstream of the proposed inundation area) and GCWQ-3 (near the base of the waterfall and
proposed powerhouse) both had relatively low average population densities. Conversely,
GCWQ-2 (upstream of the waterfall within the proposed inundation area) and GCWQ-5
(downstream of the proposed powerhouse location) both had relatively high average population
densities (Table 3-1, Figure 3-1).
Among other variables, differences in population densities between sites are typically due to
differences in the availability of suitable habitat and/or food sources and dissolved oxygen
content. The food source for macroinvertebrates in Gartina Creek is likely quite similar between
each of the sites since they are all within the same stream system, and share generally similar
habitats and surrounding riparian vegetation.
Although dissolved oxygen contents varied, the variance was primarily due to each sites’
proximity to Gartina Falls. The two sites downstream of the waterfall had higher dissolved
oxygen contents (about 10% higher) than the two sites located upstream of the falls (Table 3-1).
When compared to one another, dissolved oxygen contents measured at the two sites located
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 4 December 2011
downstream of the falls were nearly identical. Similarly, the two sites located upstream of the
falls had very similar dissolved oxygen content. Therefore, the variance in average population
densities does not appear to vary in response to the dissolved oxygen content measured at each
site.
Table 3-1. Average Population Density and Taxa Richness of macroinvertebrates collected with a Surber
sampler at four sites in Gartina Creek in August 2011.
STATION
ID LOCATION DATE DO1 %
(mgL)
AVERAGE
POPULATION
DENSITY
AVERAGE
TAXA
RICHNESS
GCWQ-1 Upstream of falls,
upstream of inundated area 8/9/2011 81.9%
(9.10) 84 17
GCWQ-2 Upstream of falls,
within inundation area 8/9/2011 81.9%
(9.06) 254 19
GCWQ-3
Downstream of falls,
Near base of falls &
powerhouse location
8/10/2011 94.7%
(10.71) 96 15
GCWQ-5
Downstream of falls,
downstream of
powerhouse
8/10/2011 96.7%
(10.87) 296 14
Note: 1 Water quality parameters (dissolved oxygen, temperature, specific conductivity, etc.) were recorded
during the macroinvertebrate sampling effort in August 2011, using a YSI meter.
3.1.2 Taxa Richness
Although the population density at GCWQ-1 and GCWQ-3 was relatively low, the average taxa
richness at these two sites was similar to that found at GCWQ-2 and GCWQ-5 (Table 3-1,
Figure 3-2). All four sites had fairly high average taxa richness. Chironomids were prevalent at
all sites but not identified to genus.
Taxa richness and population density are not interdependent. In other words, the average
population density of a set of Surber samples should not be used to predict the average taxa
richness. In the four sites sampled, the site with the highest average population density (GCWQ-
5) also was the site with the lowest average taxa richness. The site with the lowest average
population density (GCWQ-1) had the second highest average taxa richness.
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 5 December 2011
Figure 3-1. Average Population Density of macroinvertebrates from Surber
sampling at four sites in Gartina Creek.
Figure 3-2. Average Taxa Richness of macroinvertebrates from Surber
sampling at four sites in Gartina Creek.
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 6 December 2011
3.1.3 Dominant Taxa
The dominant taxon is the individual genus or family with the largest average number of
individuals at a given site. Samples were dominated by the Chironomidae family of the Diptera
order at three of the four sites (Table 3-2). However, since Chironomidae is at the family level
and most of the other organisms are identified to genus, the second-most dominant taxon
collected is also presented (Table 3-2).
Table 3-2. Average percent Dominant Taxa collected at four sites in Gartina Creek using a Surber sample,
August 2011
SITE ID SAMPLE
DATE
TAXA
DOMINANCE
RANK
ORDER FAMILY GENUS PERCENT
DOMINANCE
GCWQ-1 8/9/2011
First Diptera Chironomidae -- 22%
Second Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Serratella 13%
GCWQ-2 8/9/2011
First Diptera Chironomidae -- 24%
Second Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Cinygmula 15%
GCWQ-3 8/10/2011
First Diptera Chironomidae -- 46%
Second Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Serratella 7.5%
GCWQ-5 8/10/2011
First Diptera Simuliidae Simullium 31.5%
Second Diptera Chironomidae -- 30%
Sample dominance by Diptera taxa is a common observation in Alaska baseline bioassessment
studies. Of the 19 Surber samples collected between the four sites, 10 were dominated by
Chironomidae, four were dominated by Simullium and one was dominated by Oreogoton; all of
which are in order Diptera. Ephemeroptera dominated the remaining four Surber samples.
3.2 Percent Sample Composition
EPT (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera), Dipteran, Chironomidae and “other”
organisms are the four significant groups used to compare low-tolerance and high-tolerance
organisms. The EPT group commonly makes up the lowest percent of organisms in Alaskan
streams. However, the percentage of the sample constituted by EPT taxa – the three taxa widely
regarded as most sensitive to water quality and habitat changes (Merritt and Cummins 1996) -
was higher than Diptera, Chironomidae and “other” at two of the four sites sampled in Gartina
Creek (Figure 3-3, Table 3-2).
EPT comprised over 60% of samples collected at the two sites located upstream of the falls
(GCWQ-1 and GCWQ-2). The order Diptera dominated the samples collected at the two sites
located downstream of the falls (GCWQ-3 and GCWQ-5). Similar differences between
macroinvertebrate community structure upstream and downstream of salmon barrier falls are
noted in other Southeast Alaska streams (Lessard et.al. 2008).
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 7 December 2011
The lowest percent EPT was found in GCWQ-5. Chironomidae, a family in the order Diptera,
are represented individually and are also included in the Diptera group because they typically
make up the largest percent of Dipterans and commonly outnumber EPT organisms.
Table 3-3. Average percent sample composition at four sites on Gartina Creek, August 2011
SITE ID DATE SAMPLE
METHOD EPT DIPTERA CHIRONOMIDAE OTHER
GCWQ-1 8/9/2011 Surber 63.4% 33.9% 22.0% 2.8%
GCWQ-2 8/9/2011 Surber 70.8% 28.2% 22.3% 1.0%
GCWQ-3 8/10/2011 Surber 54.1% 45.2% 32.2% 0.6%
GCWQ-5 8/10/2011 Surber 39.4% 60.2% 28.7% 0.4%
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 8 December 2011
Figure 3-3. Average percent sample composition for macroinvertebrates collected using a Surber sampler at four sites on Gartina Creek.
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 9 December 2011
4 Potential Environmental Effects and Issue Identification
Macroinvertebrates were collected from riffle habitats at four sites situated upstream, within, and
downstream of the proposed Project footprint. The results of the single field sampling event
indicate that Gartina Creek is a biologically healthy stream. EPT taxa constituted a relatively
high percentage of the macroinvertebrate communities collected from all four areas sampled.
EPT taxa dominated sample composition at both sites upstream of the falls, while Dipterans
dominated the composition of samples collected downstream of the falls.
Because the Project will operate solely in run-of-river mode, Project effects on be nthic
macroinvertebrates would largely be limited to the bypass reach (i.e., 125 feet upstream of
Gartina Falls to diversion structure) and the inundated area (800 feet upstream of the Project
diversion structure).
The bypass reach extends from the head of the waterfall to roughly 125 feet upstream to the
proposed diversion structure. This reach will be dewatered when flows are greater than 11 cubic
feet per second (cfs) and less than 110 c fs, and will not have sufficient water to support
macroinvertebrate production during normal Project operations.
Upstream of the diversion structure, the stream channel will be deepened by a backwater effect
for roughly 800 feet (to a point just upstream from the Water Supply Creek confluence). The
Project would alter the depth by a maximum of 10 feet (at the diversion structure); water depth
would decrease with distance upstream.
Existing habitat upstream of the diversion structure (i.e., within the 800-foot inundation area) is
dominated primarily by fast-water riffles (54%) and glides/runs 1 (36%). The largest pool within
this stream segment is located just downstream from Water Supply Creek.
Macroinvertebrate samples collected from a riffle (GCWQ-2) within the confines of the
proposed area of inundation were comprised of EPT (67%), Dipterans (31%) and other (2%)
organisms. EPT typically thrive in fast water habitats, such as riffles, that have relatively high
dissolved oxygen content; substrate large enough to provide ample niche space; and velocities
high enough to prevent sediment deposition from clogging niche space or burying food sources.
EPT are considered to be relatively intolerant to environmental (e.g., habitat) alteration, whereas
Dipterans can tolerate a much wider range of habitat conditions (Merritt and Cummins 1996).
IPEC expects that after Project construction, habitat within this 800-foot area would function
similarly to a relatively deep-water pool. Although velocities upstream and downstream of the
Project footprint would not substantially change; velocities within the 800-foot area of
inundation would be reduced. The Project is not expected to substantially change dissolved
oxygen content, temperature, and sediment within this 800-foot area. However, increased water
depth and reduced velocities may alter the habitat’s ecological function and likely result in a shift
of macroinvertebrate diversity and/or community composition within this localized area.
It is reasonable to assume that the percent of EPT taxa may decrease and the percent of Dipterans
would increase in response to habitat changes within this 800-foot area. The majority of the EPT
taxa found to occur at GCWQ-02 typically occupy lotic environments (e.g., flowing waters). A
1 Glide / run habitats were grouped due to the reconnaissance-level nature of the habitat survey; these habitats had
laminar flow and variable depths; depths were commonly deeper than the shallow riffle habitats.
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 10 December 2011
few EPT taxa can also tolerate the littoral zones of lentic environments (e.g., standing water). For
example, of the 22 EPT genera, only two (Baetis spp. and Polycentropus spp.) are listed as
tolerating both lotic and lentic environments (Merritt and Cummins 1996). Baetis spp. comprised
roughly 24% of the Ephemoroptera taxa and Polycentropus spp. comprised over 50% of the
Tricoptera taxa identified from samples collected at GQWQ-2. It is possible that these two taxa
may begin to constitute a higher percentage of the EPT community during Project operations.
It is also possible that planktonic taxa, and/or Odonata (e.g. dragon fly, damsel fly larvae) and
Hemiptera taxa, which prefer slower moving waters, would colonize habitat within the inundated
area. These taxa can also tolerate warmer water. Mortality of some macroinvertebrates may also
occur if individuals inadvertently drift through the Project powerhouse and turbine during Project
operations.
Stream habitat farther upstream, above the Project footprint and inundated area (i.e., greater than
800 feet upstream of the diversion), will not be affected.
Habitat from the base of the waterfall downstream to the powerhouse outlet may experience
alteration; the existing high energy plunge pool would have more consistent flows during Project
operations. Although this may cause changes in dissolved oxygen levels during Project
operation, habitat within this area levels should remain suitable to support fish and aquatic
species present.
Downstream of the falls, no substantial changes in flow or water quality will result from Project
construction or operations; therefore IPEC does not expect effects of the Project on benthic
macroinvertebrates.
5 Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures
The Project was designed to minimize effects to aquatic habitats, as described in the PAD. No
additional protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures specific to macroinvertebrate
resources are proposed.
6 References
Lessard, Jo Anna L., Richard W. Merritt, and Martin B. Berg. 2008. Investigating the effect of
marine-derived nutrients from spawning salmon on macroinvertebrate secondary
production in southeast Alaskan streams. Department of Entomology, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824 USA, and Department of Biology, Loyola
University Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60626 USA.
Merritt R.W. and K. W. Cummins. 1996. Aquatic Insects of North America. Kendall/Hunt
Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa. pp. 74 – 97.
Appendix A
Gartina Creek Macroinvertebrate Results, August 2011
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 2 December 2011
Appendix A, Table 1. Macroinvertebrate Taxa List, Surber Sampling on Gartina Creek, August 2011.
Phylum Subphylum Class Subclass Order Suborder Family Genus Total
Identified
Annelida NA Oligochaeta - - - - - 2
Arthropoda Chelicerata Arachnida NA Acari Hydracarina - - 7
Arthropoda Crustacea Ostracoda - - - - - 1
Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Coleoptera Polyphaga Elmidae - 15
Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Brachycera Empididae Chelifera 16
Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Brachycera Empididae Clinocera 1
Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Brachycera Empididae Oreogeton 100
Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Nematocera Ceratopogoniidae Probezzia 4
Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Nematocera Chironomidae - 1022
Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Nematocera Simuliidae Simullium 503
Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Nematocera Tipulidae Dicranota 5
Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Nematocera Tipulidae Pedicia 1
Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera - - - 1
Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Euholognatha Capniidae Paracapnia 7
Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Euholognatha Leuctridae Zealeuctra 36
Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Euholognatha Nemouridae Zapada 126
Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Chloroperlidae - 1
Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Chloroperlidae Haploperla 112
Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Chloroperlidae Kathroperla 8
Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Chloroperlidae Neaviperla 44
Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Chloroperlidae Plumiperla 4
Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Chloroperlidae Sweltsa 9
Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Perlodidae - 1
Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Trichoptera NA Glossosmatidae Glossosoma 1
Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Trichoptera NA Limnephilidae Ecclisocosmoec 3
Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Trichoptera NA Limnephilidae Ecclisomyia 3
Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Trichoptera NA Polycentropodida - 3
Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Trichoptera NA Polycentropodida Polycentropus 31
Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Trichoptera NA Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila 12
Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Diptera Nematocera Tipulidae Antocha 7
Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Ephemerellidae Drunella 54
Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Ephemerellidae Ephemerella 2
Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Ephemerellidae Serratella 302
Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Leptophlebiidae Paraleptophlebi 72
Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Pisciforma Ameletidae Ameletus 28
Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Pisciforma Baetidae - 1
Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Pisciforma Baetidae Acentrella 42
Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Pisciforma Baetidae Baetis 306
Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae - 1
Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Cinygmula 285
Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Epeorus 296
Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Rithrogena 56
Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Plecoptera Systellognatha Perlodidae Kogotus 1
Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Trichoptera NA Hydrosychidae Parapsyche 4
Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Trichoptera Rhyacophiloidea Rhyacophilidae Himalopsyche 11
Mollusca NA Bivalvia Heterodonta Veneroida Sphaeriacea Sphaeriidae - 1
Mollusca NA Gastropoda Pulmonata Basommatophora NA Planorbidae - 1
Nematoda - - - - - - - 2
Platyhelminthes NA Turbellaria - - - - - 1
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative FERC No. 14066 3 December 2011 Appendix A, Table 2. Macroinvertebrate Results for each Surber Sample on Gartina Creek, August 2011. Site ID Sample Date Surber ID Phylum Subphylum Class Subclass Order Suborder Family Genus Total Identified GC1 8/9/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Coleoptera Polyphaga Elmidae 1 GC1 8/9/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Brachycera Empididae Chelifera 2 GC1 8/9/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Brachycera Empididae Oreogeton 7 GC1 8/9/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Euholognatha Nemouridae Zapada 12 GC1 8/9/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Chloroperlidae Haploperla 8 GC1 8/9/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Chloroperlidae Kathroperla 5 GC1 8/9/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Chloroperlidae Neaviperla 2 GC1 8/9/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Trichoptera NA Limnephilidae Ecclisocosmoecus 2 GC1 8/9/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Trichoptera NA Polycentropodidae Polycentropus 1 GC1 8/9/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Trichoptera NA Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila 3 GC1 8/9/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Ephemerellidae Drunella 6 GC1 8/9/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Ephemerellidae Serratella 26 GC1 8/9/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Leptophlebiidae Paraleptophlebia 6 GC1 8/9/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Pisciforma Baetidae Baetis 7 GC1 8/9/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Cinygmula 5 GC1 8/9/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Epeorus 13 GC1 8/9/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Rithrogena 7 GC1 8/9/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Coleoptera Polyphaga Elmidae 3 GC1 8/9/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Brachycera Empididae Chelifera 1 GC1 8/9/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Brachycera Empididae Oreogeton 12 GC1 8/9/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Nematocera Ceratopogoniidae Probezzia 2 GC1 8/9/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Euholognatha Leuctridae Zealeuctra 1 GC1 8/9/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Euholognatha Nemouridae Zapada 1 GC1 8/9/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Chloroperlidae Haploperla 4 GC1 8/9/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Chloroperlidae Kathroperla 1 GC1 8/9/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Chloroperlidae Sweltsa 1 GC1 8/9/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Trichoptera NA Polycentropodidae Polycentropus 2 GC1 8/9/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Ephemerellidae Drunella 1 GC1 8/9/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Leptophlebiidae Paraleptophlebia 1 GC1 8/9/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Pisciforma Ameletidae Ameletus 1 GC1 8/9/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Pisciforma Baetidae Baetis 2 GC1 8/9/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Cinygmula 1 GC1 8/9/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Epeorus 1 GC1 8/9/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Plecoptera Systellognatha Perlodidae Kogotus 1 GC1 8/9/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Trichoptera Rhyacophiloidea Rhyacophilidae Himalopsyche 1 GC1 8/9/2011 2 Platyhelminthes NA Turbellaria 1 GC1 8/9/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Coleoptera Polyphaga Elmidae 1 GC1 8/9/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Brachycera Empididae Oreogeton 7
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative FERC No. 14066 4 December 2011 GC1 8/9/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Chloroperlidae Haploperla 8 GC1 8/9/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Chloroperlidae Neaviperla 1 GC1 8/9/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Trichoptera NA Limnephilidae Ecclisocosmoecus 1 GC1 8/9/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Ephemerellidae Drunella 7 GC1 8/9/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Ephemerellidae Serratella 4 GC1 8/9/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Pisciforma Baetidae Baetis 3 GC1 8/9/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Cinygmula 5 GC1 8/9/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Epeorus 9 GC1 8/9/2011 3 Mollusca NA Gastropoda Pulmonata Basommatophora NA Planorbidae 1 GC1 8/9/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Brachycera Empididae Chelifera 1 GC1 8/9/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Brachycera Empididae Oreogeton 3 GC1 8/9/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Euholognatha Leuctridae Zealeuctra 1 GC1 8/9/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Chloroperlidae Haploperla 3 GC1 8/9/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Chloroperlidae Neaviperla 1 GC1 8/9/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Chloroperlidae Plumiperla 1 GC1 8/9/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Chloroperlidae Sweltsa 1 GC1 8/9/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Trichoptera NA Polycentropodidae Polycentropus 1 GC1 8/9/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Ephemerellidae Serratella 4 GC1 8/9/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Leptophlebiidae Paraleptophlebia 3 GC1 8/9/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Pisciforma Baetidae Baetis 3 GC1 8/9/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Cinygmula 5 GC1 8/9/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Epeorus 12 GC1 8/9/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Trichoptera NA Hydrosychidae Parapsyche 1 GC1 8/9/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Coleoptera Polyphaga Elmidae 2 GC1 8/9/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Brachycera Empididae Oreogeton 1 GC1 8/9/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Nematocera Ceratopogoniidae Probezzia 1 GC1 8/9/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Nematocera Simuliidae Simullium 2 GC1 8/9/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Euholognatha Leuctridae Zealeuctra 2 GC1 8/9/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Euholognatha Nemouridae Zapada 6 GC1 8/9/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Chloroperlidae Haploperla 13 GC1 8/9/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Chloroperlidae Neaviperla 2 GC1 8/9/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Chloroperlidae Sweltsa 1 GC1 8/9/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Trichoptera NA Polycentropodidae Polycentropus 2 GC1 8/9/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Ephemerellidae Drunella 1 GC1 8/9/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Ephemerellidae Serratella 21 GC1 8/9/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Leptophlebiidae Paraleptophlebia 1 GC1 8/9/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Pisciforma Baetidae Baetis 7 GC1 8/9/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Cinygmula 9 GC1 8/9/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Epeorus 14 GC1 8/9/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Rithrogena 1
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative FERC No. 14066 5 December 2011 GC1 8/9/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Trichoptera NA Hydrosychidae Parapsyche 1 GC1 8/9/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Trichoptera Rhyacophiloidea Rhyacophilidae Himalopsyche 2 GC2 8/9/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Brachycera Empididae Oreogeton 1 GC2 8/9/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Euholognatha Nemouridae Zapada 1 GC2 8/9/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Chloroperlidae 1 GC2 8/9/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Trichoptera NA Polycentropodidae Polycentropus 4 GC2 8/9/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Ephemerellidae Ephemerella 1 GC2 8/9/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Leptophlebiidae Paraleptophlebia 3 GC2 8/9/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Pisciforma Baetidae Baetis 2 GC2 8/9/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Cinygmula 15 GC2 8/9/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Epeorus 7 GC2 8/9/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Coleoptera Polyphaga Elmidae 3 GC2 8/9/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Brachycera Empididae Chelifera 1 GC2 8/9/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Brachycera Empididae Oreogeton 18 GC2 8/9/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Nematocera Ceratopogoniidae Probezzia 1 GC2 8/9/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Nematocera Simuliidae Simullium 2 GC2 8/9/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Nematocera Tipulidae Dicranota 2 GC2 8/9/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Euholognatha Leuctridae Zealeuctra 9 GC2 8/9/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Euholognatha Nemouridae Zapada 9 GC2 8/9/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Chloroperlidae Haploperla 21 GC2 8/9/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Chloroperlidae Neaviperla 5 GC2 8/9/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Perlodidae 1 GC2 8/9/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Trichoptera NA Polycentropodidae Polycentropus 6 GC2 8/9/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Ephemerellidae Drunella 2 GC2 8/9/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Ephemerellidae Ephemerella 1 GC2 8/9/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Ephemerellidae Serratella 18 GC2 8/9/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Leptophlebiidae Paraleptophlebia 10 GC2 8/9/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Pisciforma Ameletidae Ameletus 2 GC2 8/9/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Pisciforma Baetidae Baetis 28 GC2 8/9/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Cinygmula 76 GC2 8/9/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Epeorus 56 GC2 8/9/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Rithrogena 1 GC2 8/9/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Trichoptera Rhyacophiloidea Rhyacophilidae Himalopsyche 2 GC2 8/9/2011 3 Arthropoda Chelicerata Arachnida NA Acari Hydracarina 4 GC2 8/9/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Coleoptera Polyphaga Elmidae 1 GC2 8/9/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Brachycera Empididae Chelifera 1 GC2 8/9/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Brachycera Empididae Oreogeton 10 GC2 8/9/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Nematocera Simuliidae Simullium 3 GC2 8/9/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Nematocera Tipulidae Dicranota 2 GC2 8/9/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Euholognatha Leuctridae Zealeuctra 6
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative FERC No. 14066 6 December 2011 GC2 8/9/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Euholognatha Nemouridae Zapada 40 GC2 8/9/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Chloroperlidae Haploperla 2 GC2 8/9/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Trichoptera NA Glossosmatidae Glossosoma 1 GC2 8/9/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Trichoptera NA Polycentropodidae Polycentropus 4 GC2 8/9/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Trichoptera NA Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila 1 GC2 8/9/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Ephemerellidae Drunella 6 GC2 8/9/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Ephemerellidae Serratella 28 GC2 8/9/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Leptophlebiidae Paraleptophlebia 8 GC2 8/9/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Pisciforma Ameletidae Ameletus 3 GC2 8/9/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Pisciforma Baetidae Baetis 94 GC2 8/9/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae 1 GC2 8/9/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Cinygmula 33 GC2 8/9/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Epeorus 58 GC2 8/9/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Rithrogena 4 GC2 8/9/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Trichoptera Rhyacophiloidea Rhyacophilidae Himalopsyche 1 GC2 8/9/2011 4 Annelida NA Oligochaeta 1 GC2 8/9/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Brachycera Empididae Chelifera 2 GC2 8/9/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Brachycera Empididae Oreogeton 12 GC2 8/9/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Nematocera Tipulidae Pedicia 1 GC2 8/9/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Euholognatha Leuctridae Zealeuctra 13 GC2 8/9/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Euholognatha Nemouridae Zapada 7 GC2 8/9/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Chloroperlidae Haploperla 10 GC2 8/9/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Chloroperlidae Kathroperla 2 GC2 8/9/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Chloroperlidae Neaviperla 3 GC2 8/9/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Trichoptera NA Limnephilidae Ecclisomyia 3 GC2 8/9/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Trichoptera NA Polycentropodidae Polycentropus 3 GC2 8/9/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Ephemerellidae Drunella 4 GC2 8/9/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Ephemerellidae Serratella 6 GC2 8/9/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Leptophlebiidae Paraleptophlebia 17 GC2 8/9/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Pisciforma Baetidae Baetis 19 GC2 8/9/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Cinygmula 41 GC2 8/9/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Epeorus 22 GC2 8/9/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Rithrogena 3 GC2 8/9/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Trichoptera Rhyacophiloidea Rhyacophilidae Himalopsyche 2 GC2 8/9/2011 4 Mollusca NA Bivalvia Heterodonta Veneroida Sphaeriacea Sphaeriidae 1 GC2 8/9/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Coleoptera Polyphaga Elmidae 3 GC2 8/9/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Brachycera Empididae Chelifera 2 GC2 8/9/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Brachycera Empididae Oreogeton 19 GC2 8/9/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Nematocera Simuliidae Simullium 1 GC2 8/9/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Euholognatha Capniidae Paracapnia 7
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative FERC No. 14066 7 December 2011 GC2 8/9/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Euholognatha Nemouridae Zapada 14 GC2 8/9/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Chloroperlidae Plumiperla 3 GC2 8/9/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Chloroperlidae Sweltsa 2 GC2 8/9/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Trichoptera NA Polycentropodidae 3 GC2 8/9/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Trichoptera NA Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila 4 GC2 8/9/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Ephemerellidae Drunella 5 GC2 8/9/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Ephemerellidae Serratella 8 GC2 8/9/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Leptophlebiidae Paraleptophlebia 11 GC2 8/9/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Pisciforma Baetidae Baetis 21 GC2 8/9/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Cinygmula 25 GC2 8/9/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Epeorus 36 GC2 8/9/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Rithrogena 4 GC2 8/9/2011 5 Nematoda 2 GC3 8/13/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Brachycera Empididae Chelifera 1 GC3 8/13/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Brachycera Empididae Clinocera 1 GC3 8/13/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Brachycera Empididae Oreogeton 3 GC3 8/13/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Euholognatha Nemouridae Zapada 1 GC3 8/13/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Chloroperlidae Haploperla 2 GC3 8/13/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Chloroperlidae Neaviperla 1 GC3 8/13/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Trichoptera NA Polycentropodidae Polycentropus 2 GC3 8/13/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Diptera Nematocera Tipulidae Antocha 3 GC3 8/13/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Ephemerellidae Serratella 3 GC3 8/13/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Leptophlebiidae Paraleptophlebia 5 GC3 8/13/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Pisciforma Ameletidae Ameletus 13 GC3 8/13/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Pisciforma Baetidae Baetis 4 GC3 8/13/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Cinygmula 3 GC3 8/13/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Epeorus 1 GC3 8/13/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Nematocera Simuliidae Simullium 5 GC3 8/13/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Euholognatha Nemouridae Zapada 1 GC3 8/13/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Chloroperlidae Haploperla 4 GC3 8/13/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Chloroperlidae Neaviperla 3 GC3 8/13/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Trichoptera NA Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila 1 GC3 8/13/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Ephemerellidae Drunella 1 GC3 8/13/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Ephemerellidae Serratella 3 GC3 8/13/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Leptophlebiidae Paraleptophlebia 2 GC3 8/13/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Pisciforma Baetidae 1 GC3 8/13/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Pisciforma Baetidae Baetis 3 GC3 8/13/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Cinygmula 1 GC3 8/13/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Epeorus 3 GC3 8/13/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Rithrogena 2
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative FERC No. 14066 8 December 2011 GC3 8/13/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Coleoptera Polyphaga Elmidae 1 GC3 8/13/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Brachycera Empididae Chelifera 1 GC3 8/13/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Nematocera Simuliidae Simullium 13 GC3 8/13/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Euholognatha Leuctridae Zealeuctra 2 GC3 8/13/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Euholognatha Nemouridae Zapada 3 GC3 8/13/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Chloroperlidae Haploperla 6 GC3 8/13/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Chloroperlidae Neaviperla 3 GC3 8/13/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Chloroperlidae Sweltsa 1 GC3 8/13/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Trichoptera NA Polycentropodidae Polycentropus 4 GC3 8/13/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Ephemerellidae Serratella 7 GC3 8/13/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Leptophlebiidae Paraleptophlebia 1 GC3 8/13/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Pisciforma Baetidae Baetis 6 GC3 8/13/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Cinygmula 4 GC3 8/13/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Epeorus 3 GC3 8/13/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Rithrogena 2 GC3 8/13/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Trichoptera NA Hydrosychidae Parapsyche 1 GC3 8/13/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Trichoptera Rhyacophiloidea Rhyacophilidae Himalopsyche 1 GC3 8/13/2011 4 Arthropoda Chelicerata Arachnida NA Acari Hydracarina 1 GC3 8/13/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Brachycera Empididae Chelifera 1 GC3 8/13/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Nematocera Simuliidae Simullium 11 GC3 8/13/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Nematocera Tipulidae Dicranota 1 GC3 8/13/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Euholognatha Nemouridae Zapada 2 GC3 8/13/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Chloroperlidae Haploperla 16 GC3 8/13/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Chloroperlidae Neaviperla 6 GC3 8/13/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Ephemerellidae Serratella 16 GC3 8/13/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Leptophlebiidae Paraleptophlebia 1 GC3 8/13/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Pisciforma Ameletidae Ameletus 1 GC3 8/13/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Pisciforma Baetidae Baetis 6 GC3 8/13/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Cinygmula 5 GC3 8/13/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Epeorus 6 GC3 8/13/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Rithrogena 2 GC5 8/10/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Brachycera Empididae Chelifera 2 GC5 8/10/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Nematocera Simuliidae Simullium 29 GC5 8/10/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera 1 GC5 8/10/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Euholognatha Nemouridae Zapada 1 GC5 8/10/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Chloroperlidae Haploperla 4 GC5 8/10/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Chloroperlidae Neaviperla 9 GC5 8/10/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Trichoptera NA Polycentropodidae Polycentropus 1 GC5 8/10/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Ephemerellidae Drunella 15 GC5 8/10/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Ephemerellidae Serratella 38
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative FERC No. 14066 9 December 2011 GC5 8/10/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Pisciforma Ameletidae Ameletus 1 GC5 8/10/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Pisciforma Baetidae Acentrella 42 GC5 8/10/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Cinygmula 22 GC5 8/10/2011 1 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Rithrogena 29 GC5 8/10/2011 2 Arthropoda Crustacea Ostracoda 1 GC5 8/10/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Brachycera Empididae Oreogeton 1 GC5 8/10/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Nematocera Simuliidae Simullium 158 GC5 8/10/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Euholognatha Nemouridae Zapada 10 GC5 8/10/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Chloroperlidae Neaviperla 2 GC5 8/10/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Trichoptera NA Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila 3 GC5 8/10/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Ephemerellidae Drunella 2 GC5 8/10/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Ephemerellidae Serratella 31 GC5 8/10/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Leptophlebiidae Paraleptophlebia 1 GC5 8/10/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Pisciforma Ameletidae Ameletus 6 GC5 8/10/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Pisciforma Baetidae Baetis 15 GC5 8/10/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Cinygmula 2 GC5 8/10/2011 2 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Epeorus 9 GC5 8/10/2011 3 Annelida NA Oligochaeta 1 GC5 8/10/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Nematocera Simuliidae Simullium 34 GC5 8/10/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Chloroperlidae Haploperla 8 GC5 8/10/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Chloroperlidae Neaviperla 1 GC5 8/10/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Ephemerellidae Serratella 3 GC5 8/10/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Pisciforma Baetidae Baetis 5 GC5 8/10/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Cinygmula 4 GC5 8/10/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Epeorus 4 GC5 8/10/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Rithrogena 1 GC5 8/10/2011 3 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Trichoptera NA Hydrosychidae Parapsyche 1 GC5 8/10/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Brachycera Empididae Chelifera 1 GC5 8/10/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Brachycera Empididae Oreogeton 6 GC5 8/10/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Nematocera Simuliidae Simullium 28 GC5 8/10/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Euholognatha Leuctridae Zealeuctra 2 GC5 8/10/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Euholognatha Nemouridae Zapada 5 GC5 8/10/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Chloroperlidae Haploperla 2 GC5 8/10/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Chloroperlidae Neaviperla 1 GC5 8/10/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Chloroperlidae Sweltsa 3 GC5 8/10/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Diptera Nematocera Tipulidae Antocha 2 GC5 8/10/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Ephemerellidae Drunella 3 GC5 8/10/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Ephemerellidae Serratella 15 GC5 8/10/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Leptophlebiidae Paraleptophlebia 1 GC5 8/10/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Pisciforma Baetidae Baetis 25
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative FERC No. 14066 10 December 2011 GC5 8/10/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Cinygmula 8 GC5 8/10/2011 4 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Epeorus 19 GC5 8/10/2011 5 Arthropoda Chelicerata Arachnida NA Acari Hydracarina 2 GC5 8/10/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Diptera Nematocera Simuliidae Simullium 217 GC5 8/10/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Euholognatha Nemouridae Zapada 13 GC5 8/10/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Chloroperlidae Haploperla 1 GC5 8/10/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Plecoptera Systellognatha Chloroperlidae Neaviperla 4 GC5 8/10/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta NA Trichoptera NA Polycentropodidae Polycentropus 1 GC5 8/10/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Diptera Nematocera Tipulidae Antocha 2 GC5 8/10/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Ephemerellidae Drunella 1 GC5 8/10/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Ephemerellidae Serratella 71 GC5 8/10/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Furcatergalia Leptophlebiidae Paraleptophlebia 1 GC5 8/10/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Pisciforma Ameletidae Ameletus 1 GC5 8/10/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Pisciforma Baetidae Baetis 56 GC5 8/10/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Cinygmula 21 GC5 8/10/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Epeorus 23 GC5 8/10/2011 5 Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Pterygota Trichoptera Rhyacophiloidea Rhyacophilidae Himalopsyche 2
Appendix B Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 May 2012
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix C Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 May 2012
APPENDIX C
Geotechnical Reconnaissance, Gartina Creek
Hydroelectric Project
Appendix C Exhibit E
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 May 2012
This page intentionally left blank.
Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation
A wor ld ofcapabilities
delivered locally
GEOTECHNICAL
RECONNAISSANCE, GARTINA
CREEK HYDROELECTRIC
PROJECT
Hoonah, Alaska
Submitted To: HDR Alaska, Inc.
2525 C Street, Suite 305
Anchorage, AK 99503-2632
Submitted By: Golder Associates Inc.
2121 Abbott Road, Suite 100
Anchorage, AK 99507 USA
Distribution:
3 Copies – HDR Alaska, Inc.
2 Copies – Golder Associates Inc.
May 6, 2011 113-95607REPORT
May 2011 i 113-95607
Hoonah Hydroelectric Recon
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Seismic Refraction .................................................................................................................. 2
2.2 Ground Penetrating Radar....................................................................................................... 2
3.0 FIELD AND DATA PROCRESSING PROCEDURES .................................................................... 4
3.1 Seismic Refraction .................................................................................................................. 4
3.2 Ground Penetrating Radar....................................................................................................... 4
4.0 SITE CONDITIONS AT GARTINA CREEK ................................................................................... 5
4.1 Geologic Units ......................................................................................................................... 5
4.2 Powerhouse Site ..................................................................................................................... 5
4.3 Intake Structure ....................................................................................................................... 6
4.4 Penstock ................................................................................................................................. 6
5.0 RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION OF GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS ........................................... 7
5.1 Seismic Refraction .................................................................................................................. 7
5.2 Ground Penetrating Radar....................................................................................................... 7
5.3 Intake Structure ....................................................................................................................... 8
6.0 COST IMPLICATIONS ................................................................................................................. 9
7.0 LIMITATION OF GEOPHYSICAL METHODS ............................................................................. 10
8.0 CLOSING .................................................................................................................................. 11
9.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 12
List of Figures
Figure 1 Preliminary Geologic Map
Figure 2 Geophysical Line Locations
Figure 3 Seismic Refraction Profile and Interpretation
Figure 4 GPR Profile C and Interpretation
Figure 5 GPR Profile J and Interpretation
Figure 6 Geologic Cross Section A-A’
List of Appendices
Appendix A Field Photographs
A-1 Gartina Creek Powerhouse Site Photographs
A-2 Gartina Creek Intake/Dam Site Photographs
A-3 Gartina Creek Penstock Site Photographs
May 2011 1 113-95607
Hoonah Hydroelectric Recon
1.0 INTRODUCTION
HDR Alaska Inc. (HDR) is working with the Inside Passage Electrical Cooperative (IPEC) on the
development of a small run-of -river hydroelectric project on Gartina Creek three miles south of Hoonah,
Alaska. As part of this effort, Golder Associates Inc. (Golder) was contracted to conduct a geologic
reconnaissance at elements of the proposed facilities. The purpose of the Gartina Creek reconnaissance
was to classify the bedrock and soil types, depth to bedrock, and slope stability for the area that included
the proposed intake, penstock, and powerhouse.
The project was carried out during April 2011 under a subcontract agreement with HDR executed on
March 24, 2011.
May 2011 2 113-95607
Hoonah Hydroelectric Recon
2.0 METHODOLOGY
The reconnaissance was conducted by a two-man team consisting of an engineering geologist and a
geophysicist. Existing information was reviewed prior to field work including geologic maps and ex isting
reports and images provided by HDR. The team was accompanied in the field by Bob Butera of HDR and
an employee of IPEC as a bear guard. The geologist mapped the visible surficial geologic units in the
vicinity of the project elements using the HDR plan and sections as base-maps. The field team also
conducted geophysical surveys at the proposed intake and penstock at Gartina Creek to assess the
depth to bedrock. The geophysical survey methods included ground penetrating radar (GPR) and
seismic ref raction. Each method is described below.
2.1 Seismic Refraction
Seismic refraction is the traditional method for mapping the thickness of alluvium and depth to bedrock. A
controlled energy source is used to generate seismic signals that are received by a series of geophones
that are connected to a seismic cable laid on the ground in a linear manner. The geophones are placed
several inches into the ground at a fixed spacing along the cable. The seismic energy source is
discharged in the center of the array, at the ends of the array, and at approximately one half the array
length, off the ends for shallow bedrock, or one full length of the array when bedrock is deeper.
The seismic wavelets travel through the earth to the geophones, which convert the acoustic energy to an
electric signal. The seismograph displays the arriving electric signals in time and stores the arrival time
data for data processing. The seismic data is processed to determine the compressional seismic velocity
of the earth material through which the energy has traveled and to model the seismic stratigraphy, which
is representative of the subsurface lithology or geology. This geophysical model depicts the earth in
cross-section showing the velocity and thickness of the subsurface layers along the seismic line or
transect.
2.2 Ground Penetrating Radar
The GPR method uses electromagnetic (radar) pulses that are directed into the ground from an antenna.
Reflections of these pulses from subsurface features are produced where there is a contrast between the
electrical properties of subsurface objects, such as the contrast between organic material and underlying
soil.
The reflected electromagnetic pulses are received by the antenna, converted into an electric signal, and
recorded by the GPR unit. The GPR unit compiles these pulses to produce a cross-section or profile
image of the subsurface beneath the path of the antenna.
May 2011 3 113-95607
Hoonah Hydroelectric Recon
The penetration depth of the GPR signal is a function of the antenna frequency and the dielectric
properties of the subsurface m aterial. As the frequency of the GPR antenna increases, the resolution
(ability to detect small objects) increases, but the depth of subsurface penetration decreases. A lower
frequency antenna is capable of greater subsurface penetration, but with reduced resolution. Materials
that are electrically conductive, such as silt and clay, tend to attenuate the GPR signal, resulting in a
decrease in subsurface penetration. We estimate that the depth of investigation at this site was limited to
the upper 20 feet of the subsurface due to scattering of the GPR signal on cobbles and boulders in the
subsurface.
May 2011 4 113-95607
Hoonah Hydroelectric Recon
3.0 FIELD AND DATA PROCRESSING PROCEDURES
3.1 Seismic Refraction
A Geometrics Geode seismograph, coupled with 24 Mark products 30-Hz geophones spaced 10 feet
apart, was used for the refraction survey. The seismic source (shot) was applied at five locations along
the line, 5 feet and 40 feet off the ends of the arrays. A 12-lb. sledgehammer striking a steel plate was
used as the seismic source. Multiple hits to the plate were “stacked” to improve the signal-to-noise ratio.
Refraction data were acquired along the small flood terrace on the west bank of Gartina Creek. This line
was 230 feet long and included 24 geophone locations. The seismic line began upstream of the dam
alignment, crosses the proposed dam alignment at approximately 105 feet (between geophones 9 and
10), and continues to a bedrock knob near Gartina Falls.
Seismic data processing was completed using PickWin and PlotRefA programs, both part of the
SeisImager 2D software package commercially available from Geometrics. For each seismic shot, the
time of the first seismic arrival at each geophone was carefully measured in PickWin. Geophone and shot
geometry were then entered into PlotRefA, along with the measured first arrival times. This information
was used to generate a model of compressional seismic velocity.
3.2 Ground Penetrating Radar
A GSSI Model SIR 3000 GPR system configured with a 270 MHz antenna was used to obtain shallow
subsurface data. An electromagnetic pulse was emitted, collected and processed from the GPR system \
along the survey transects at a rate of approximately 2 times per second. The record length was set to
150 nanoseconds, which corresponds to a depth of approximately 20 feet. The data was observed in
real-time on an LCD monitor and recorded on the digital acquisition system for post-survey processing
and analysis.
GPR data processing was completed using RadExplorer software, version 1.4.1 commercially available
from Mala Geosciences. Each GPR profile was converted from GPR travel time to depth below ground
surface using a radar velocity of 0.134 feet per nanosecond. Select GPR profiles are presented in
Section 5.
May 2011 5 113-95607
Hoonah Hydroelectric Recon
4.0 SITE CONDITIONS AT GARTINA CREEK
Gartina Creek intake and powerhouse is situated near the mouth of a U-shaped valley that was intensely
glaciated during the late Pleistocene. The area is underlain by Paleozoic bedrock consisting chiefly of
basaltic meta-volcanic rock, mantled by poorly-sorted, glacially-derived sediments, deposited during, and
following, the retreat of the glaciers. Bedrock is typically exposed on ridges at higher elevations, along
cliffs, at the coast, and along stream channels. The Gartina Creek water-shed has been extensively
logged upstream of the proposed site.
The proposed intake is located above Gartina Falls. The powerhouse site is located in a bowl-shaped
area on the floodplain of the creek. The floodplain of Gartina Creek in this area is characterized by very
coarse, cobble-sized sediments with intermittent bedrock exposures on the canyon walls and at the falls.
An old timber crib dam indicates a previous effort at impounding the creek near the top of the falls.
4.1 Geologic Units
Four geologic units were observed in the vicinity of the proposed Gartina Creek
development. The m apping of these units is shown in Figure 1. Each unit is described
below.
Surficial Organics (mapped symbol - Qo) – The surficial organics consist of mostly
decayed roots, wood, grass, moss and other organic materials along with some silt and
sand along the floodplains. These materials are of relatively low density and strength.
Talus (mapped symbol - Qct) – Talus is very coarse volcanic rock that has fallen from
steep bedrock faces and accumulated on lower slopes. The individual talus pieces
typically range in volume from a cubic foot to a cubic yard. There are large voids
between the rocks.
Coarse Alluvium (mapped symbol – Qac) – Coarse alluvium is exposed on the active
floodplain of Gartina Creek and consists primarily of recently deposited sub-angular
cobbles and boulders with some interstitial coarse gravel. This material is typically loose
to compact and becomes somewhat finer-grained above level of the active floodplain.
Volcanic Bedrock (mapped symbol – Bxv) – The bedrock generally consists of a slightly
weathered, dark gray meta-basalt. The rock can be classified as “strong” (uniaxial
compressive strength of 7,250 psi to 14,500 psi according to International Society for
Rock Mechanics) based on field assessment with a rock hammer.
4.2 Powerhouse Site
The proposed powerhouse footprint was not flagged at the time of our reconnaissance but it appears to
be sited mostly on competent basaltic bedrock with some talus. The rock is randomly fractured with a
blocky fabric. Excavation of the bedrock and talus at the power house site will create a steep slope
approximately 80 f eet high west of the facility. Photographs of the Powerhouse site are presented in
Figure A-1 of Appendix A.
May 2011 6 113-95607
Hoonah Hydroelectric Recon
4.3 Intake Structure
The intake structure and new dam site would be located upstream of the falls. The east abutment is
situated on a narrow bedrock rib that protrudes into the floodplain. The stream and active floodplain is
characterized by coarse alluvium with cobbles and sm all boulders exposed across the entire surface.
The intake chamber and west abutment are sited on 3-4 feet of organic-rich material (Qo) that overlies
coarse alluvium. Additional details on the depth of the geologic units are provided in the interpretation of
the geophysical surveys in Section 5. Photographs of the site of the proposed intake and dam are
presented in Figure A-2 of Appendix A.
4.4 Penstock
The penstock would extend northward from the intake for approximately 225 f eet. The southernmost 100
f eet traverses an abandoned floodplain characterized by 3-4 feet of organic rich material (Pt) which
overlies coarse alluvium (Qac) of variable depth. From approximately Station 1+00 to Station 1+50 the
penstock passes through a bedrock ridge that extends west of the waterfall. The bedrock is meta-basalt
as described in Section 4.1 and does not appear to be ripable.
From Station 1+50 to the Powerhouse the penstock appears to be elevated over a talus deposit and
bedrock. A proposed support pier at Station 1+75 appears to be sited on talus (Qct) that overlies
bedrock. The talus appears to be 10-20 feet thick at the pier. Additional details on the depth of the
geologic units are provided in the interpretation of the geophysical surveys in Section 5. Photographs of
the site of the proposed penstock are presented in Figure A-3 of Appendix A.
May 2011 7 113-95607
Hoonah Hydroelectric Recon
5.0 RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION OF GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS
Figure 2 is an inv estigation location map with the approximate locations of our seismic refraction and
GPR transects placed on the AutoCAD topographic map provided by HDR.
5.1 Seismic Refraction
The seismic refraction transect consisted of 8 “shot” locations and 24 geophones, spaced 10-feet apart,
totaling 230-feet in length as shown in Figure 2. A stationing of 100 line-feet is the southern end of the line
and 330 line-feet is the northern end. The seismic refraction interpretation i s presented as a cross-
section of compressional (a.k.a. p-wave) seismic velocity in Figure 3. A modified 3-layer model was
generated using a tomographic solution in the SeisImager 2D software. Areas of the subsurface with
modeled seismic velocities between 0 and 5,000 feet per second are interpreted to be unsaturated
sediments and organic matter (brown in Figure 3). Subsurface materials with modeled velocities between
5,000 and 8,000 feet per second are interpreted to be saturated sediments; likely similar in nature to the
fluvial gravels and cobbles observed in the Gartina Creek bed. Materials with modeled seismic velocity
greater than 8,000 feet per second are interpreted to be rock; with 8,000 to 10,000 feet per second
interpreted to be somewhat weathered or fractured rock and materials above 10,000 feet per second
interpreted to be competent rock.
Figure 3 suggests the presence of an irregular bedrock surface beneath saturated sediments. Meta-
volcanic rocks typically have compressional seismic veloci ties above 10,000 feet per second unless
weathered or highly fractured. Geologic reconnaissance of the Gartina Falls area indicates some variable
weathering and fracturing of the meta-volcanic bedrock which would lower the velocity of the rock. Some
evidence of this may be seen in the modeled seismic velocities, particularly between 170 and 195 line-
feet (upstream of the rock outcrop visible on the east side of Gartina Creek) where a significant thickness
of 8,000 to 10,000 feet per second material is interpreted to exist.
5.2 Ground Penetrating Radar
The GPR survey consisted of 14 separate GPR transects covering portions of the proposed dam site
(Figure 2). Some of these transects were collected solely to test the equipment, provide background
information, and aid in interpretation of data collected where most needed. In most of the GPR records, a
bedrock surface could not be identified, however, there are portions of the GPR records where a
continuous reflector is present at depth and appears to reflect locations were rock is shallow and
detectable with GPR Two representative GPR radargrams (cross-sections of GPR data) are presented in
Figures 4 and 5.
Figure 4 includes the radargram of GPR line C, collected along a gravel bar of the east bank of Gartina
Creek. The southern end of the line is approximately 90 feet upstream of the prominent rock outcrop on
May 2011 8 113-95607
Hoonah Hydroelectric Recon
the east bank of Gartina Creek; the northern end of the line is the northern tip of the gravel bar
approximately 10 feet south of the wood cribbing at the top of Gartina Falls. The GPR signal appears to
have penetrated 15 to 20 feet bgs. A change in the pattern of reflections at a depth of 5 to 10 feet bgs
appears to mark a transition from course gravel and cobbles at the surface to somewhat finer-grained
material. Below this material, a rock surface appears to exist in the GPR record where the contact is
shallow enough to be detected.
Figure 5 includes the radargram of GPR line J, collected from east to west across Gartina Creek
immediately upstream of the wood cribbing at the top of Gartina Falls (Figure 2). During data collection
along this transect, the GPR antenna was floating on the water surface of the creek. The bed of the creek
in along this transect was observed to be primarily course gravel and cobbles. A fairly continuous reflector
surface in the GPR record from 7 to 12 feet is interpreted to be an irregular bedrock surface.
5.3 Intake Structure
As noted in Section 4.4, the proposed intake structure and new diversion site are located upstream of the
falls with the east abutment is situated on a narrow bedrock rib that protrudes into the floodplain. The
seismic refraction line and several GPR lines cross this alignment as shown in Figure 2. A geologic
cross-section of the intake structure alignment is presented in Figure 6. Depth to rock (where detected
and/or inferred) is projected at points along the alignment.
A hand probe was used to detect rock at the western edge of the geologic cross section (A) while seismic
refraction and GPR were used to detect rock further east. The rock surface appears to dip rapidly to the
east from nearly 4-feet bgs at A to approximately 14 feet bgs at the seismic line and nearly 20 feet bgs at
GPR line B. Along the alignment, bedrock was not detected in the upper 15-20 feet in GPR lines F, C, or
D.
May 2011 9 113-95607
Hoonah Hydroelectric Recon
6.0 COST IMPLICATIONS
From a geotechnical standpoint, the conditions at Gartina Creek appear to be favorable for construction of
the hydroelectric elements. The northern portion of the penstock can be excavated into unconsolidated
materials. The rock ridge that bisects the penstock alignment will need to be carefully blasted to maintain
the aesthetic appearance of the slope west of the falls. The support pier for the northern portion of the
penstock can be founded on bedrock following removal of a limited talus accumulation. Scaling of slopes
above the pier are warranted to mitigate rockfall that could impact the pier.
The powerhouse appears to be founded on, or very close to, competent bedrock. The rock slope above
the powerhouse may require some sort of stabilization, such as scaling or rock bolts, during or after
excavation of the foundation. This can be assessed during construction as the rock is revealed.
The geophysical surveys were unable to determine the depth of bedrock under the intake dam. The
coarse colluviums that overlies bedrock at this structure is likely to be highly permeable and may be
deeper than 20 f eet. Based on the convoluted nature of the river channel at the falls, it is likely that the
bedrock surface underlying the intake dam is similarly convoluted. Additional investigations are
necessary to confirm bedrock depth. It appears that the abutments of this structure can be founded in
competent rock.
May 2011 10 113-95607
Hoonah Hydroelectric Recon
7.0 LIMITATION OF GEOPHYSICAL METHODS
Golder services are conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised
by other members of the geological and geophysical communities currently practicing under similar
conditions, subject to the time limits and financial and physical constraints applicable to the services.
Seismic refraction and GPR are remote sensing geophysical methods that may not detect all subsurface
f eatures of interest, such as stratigraphic contacts, bedrock fractures and faults, and voids. Site-specific
sources of cultural interference, such as water flow noise, may have an adverse effect on the accuracy of
the compressional velocity
May 2011 12 113-95607
Hoonah Hydroelectric Recon
9.0 REFERENCES
HDR Alaska, Inc., September 2010, “Field Reconnaissance Report – Gartina and Water Supply Creeks,
Hoonah Hydroelectric Project”, prepared for the Inside Passage Electric Cooperative.
HDR Alaska, Inc. undated, preliminary design drawings for Gartina and Water Supply Creeks.
Loney, R.A., 1963, Reconnaissance Geologic Map of Chichagof Island and Northwestern Baranof Island,
Alaska, U.S Geological Survey Map I-388.
FIGURES
1) THE Qo DEPOSITS ARE UNDERAIN AT SHALLOW DEPTHBY Qac AND Bxv.1.) BASEMAP DRAWING OF CONTOURS AND AND STRUCTURESPROVIDED BY HDR AND MODIFIED BY GOLDER ASSOCIATES.NOTESREFERENCESQo SURFICIAL ORGANICSINFERRED GEOLOGIC CONTACTLEGENDQct TALUSQac COARSE ALLUVIUMBxv BEDROCK (METAVOLANIC)1G:\Golder ACAD\TEMPLATES\Sheet Templates\B-LAND-HZ.dwg | ---- | DCutter | Anchorage, AK
--------APG5/6/2011RGDRGD0----CHECKREVIEWDESIGNCADDSCALEFILE No.PROJECT No.TITLEAS SHOWNREV.FIG.113-95607GGFH-C02__GAI__GEO_MAP.dwgHDR / HOONAH HYDRO / AKPRELIMINARY GEOLOGIC MAPHOONAH HYDRO HOONAH, ALASKASCALE0FEET2020Qo/BxvQo/Qac/BxvBxvQctQacQacBxvBxv5/6/20115/6/2011
Seismic LineGARTINAFALLS
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320Line Distance (feet)180190200210220230240250Approximate Elevation (ft. AMSL)>8000 FT/SEC0-5000 FT/SEC>10,000 FT/SECCompressionalSesimic Velocity(feet per second)
GRAVELS / COBBLESGRAVELS / COBBLESGRAVELS / COBBLESSANDS / GRAVELSSANDS / GRAVELSROCKROCK
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Line Distance (feet)20151050Approximate Depth (ft bgs)WATERWATERGRAVELS / COBBLESGRAVELS / COBBLESROCKROCK
ELEVATION (FT)A'HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT)A2002052102152202252302352400102030405060708090100105SEISMIC
GPR B
GPR F
GPR C
GPR D??BxvQacRockOrganicsQoRibRockBxvLEGEND\\ANC1-S-FS1-VM\Jobs_in_Progress\2011 Jobs\113-95607 HDR Hoonah Hydro\CAD\HOONAH_TOPO_BASE.dwg | 5/6/2011 9:50 AM | AGarrigus | Anchorage, AKSCALE0FEET2020
6--------APG5/6/11RGD5/6/2011RGD5/6/20110----FIG.113-95607HOONAH_TOPO_BASE.dwgHDR / HOONAH HYDRO / AKGEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION A-A'HOONAH HYDRO HOONAH, ALASKACHECKREVIEWDESIGNCADDSCALEFILE No.PROJECT No.TITLEAS SHOWNREV.SCALE0FEET1010VERTICAL SCALEHORIZONTAL SCALE2X EXAGGERATIONWATER LEVEL (APPROXIMATE)1) GROUND SURFACE PROFILE DEVELOPED FROM BASEMAPDRAWINGS PROVIDED BY HDR.REFERENCES
APPENDIX A
FIELD PHOTOGRAPHS
CHECK
REVIEW
DESIGN
CADD
SCALE
FILE No.
PROJECT No.
TITLEAS SHOWN
REV.J:\2011 Jobs\113-95607 HDR Hoonah Hydro\CAD\Hoonah Photos.dwg | 5/5/2011 3:53 PM | JToth | Anchorage, AKA-1
--------
JAWT 5/5/11
--------
--------
0 ----
FIG.
113-95607
Hoonah Photos.dwg
HDR / HOONAH HYDRO / AK
GARTINA CREEK POWERHOUSE SITE
PHOTOGRAPHS
HOONAH HYDRO
HOONAH , ALASKA
BEDROCK EXPOSED AT POWERHOUSE - CENTER OF PHOTO.
TALUS ON SLOPE AT PENSTOCK PIER SITE.
CHECK
REVIEW
DESIGN
CADD
SCALE
FILE No.
PROJECT No.
TITLEAS SHOWN
REV.J:\2011 Jobs\113-95607 HDR Hoonah Hydro\CAD\Hoonah Photos.dwg | 5/5/2011 3:54 PM | JToth | Anchorage, AKA-2
--------
JAWT 5/5/11
--------
--------
0 ----
FIG.
113-95607
Hoonah Photos.dwg
HDR / HOONAH HYDRO / AK
GARTINA CREEK INTAKE - DAM SITE
PHOTOGRAPHS
HOONAH HYDRO
HOONAH , ALASKA
VIEW UPSTREAM OF DAM INTAKE.
VIEW ALONG INTAKE STRUCTURE ALIGNMENT.
CHECK
REVIEW
DESIGN
CADD
SCALE
FILE No.
PROJECT No.
TITLEAS SHOWN
REV.J:\2011 Jobs\113-95607 HDR Hoonah Hydro\CAD\Hoonah Photos.dwg | 5/5/2011 1:37 PM | JToth | Anchorage, AKA-3
--------
JAWT 5/5/11
--------
--------
0 ----
FIG.
113-95607
Hoonah Photos.dwg
HDR / HOONAH HYDRO / AK
GARTINA CREEK PENSTOCK
PHOTOGRAPHS
HOONAH HYDRO
HOONAH , ALASKA
VIEW OF FLOODPLAIN BENCH (RIGHT OF STREAM), SITE OF PENSTOCK.
VIEW NORTHWARD ALONG PENSTOCK ALIGNMENT SOUTH OF THE FALLS.
Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation
Golder Associates Inc.
2121 Abbott Road, Suite 100
Anchorage, AK 99507 USA
Tel: (907) 344-6001
Fax: (907) 344-6011
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 May 2012
APPENDIX D
Gartina Creek Hydrology Report
(October 2011)
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 May 2012
This page intentionally left blank.
Gartina Creek Hydrology Summary Report
(October 2011)
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 Appendix D-1 October 2011
1 Hydrology
1.1 Regional Hydrology
Gartina Creek is located on NE Chichagof Island, a large (> 2000 square-mile) island in the
Alexander Archipelago. The stream is near the town of Hoonah, and 40 miles west of the Juneau.
Climate is maritime, with major storm activity in late fall (October and November), snow
accumulation at higher elevations in the winter, and cool, rainy summers. Stream runoff on the
island tends to be flashy, with very little basin storage other than high elevation snowpack.
The longest gaged stream on Chichagof Island is USGS gage # 15106920 located on the
Kadashan River above Hook Creek. The daily average flows at this gage from 1968-2007 are
shown in Figure 2. This runoff pattern is typical of moderate-sized streams on Chichagof Island.
Figure 1. Long-term average daily flows on Kadashan River above Hook Creek (USGS gage# 15106920)
1.2 Basin Characteristics
Gartina Creek at Gartina Falls drains 10.2 miles of forested, mountainous terrain. HDR installed
a streamgage on Gartina Creek immediately upstream of Gartina Falls on 6/15/2010, and
streamflow records are currently available through 8/09/2011. During this short period of time,
average daily flows ranged from 1 cfs to 414 cfs. The highest flows occurred in February and the
lowest flows occurred in March of 2011 (Table 1).
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 Appendix D-2 October 2011
Table 1. Daily Average Flows for 2010 - 2011 as measured at Gartina Falls.
Day/Month June July August September October November December
1 54.54 9.69 26.98 52.15 123.50 27.84
2 43.00 9.08 119.57 102.96 163.10 33.10
3 47.63 8.59 69.91 83.38 147.18 58.78
4 48.58 8.97 46.16 70.82 148.25 81.74
5 42.03 8.86 62.92 154.35 109.92 110.28
6 44.94 20.33 65.10 105.40 92.94 45.21
7 43.82 18.29 42.56 72.17 80.90 33.02
8 41.56 22.85 34.56 68.91 74.06 30.72
9 38.65 18.66 30.77 98.30 40.62
10 45.14 14.36 28.91 105.66 49.80 35.49
11 40.93 11.30 25.68 73.68 99.71 14.02
12 29.06 9.74 22.15 155.24 175.47 11.82
13 29.20 8.47 19.35 153.13 138.72 17.50
14 29.29 7.27 16.95 117.38 84.28 34.18
15 50.88 26.73 5.46 14.79 94.82 64.30 58.17
16 51.83 24.40 4.88 13.33 126.91 52.70 69.16
17 49.93 22.35 4.89 12.01 124.68 41.86 70.91
18 46.58 20.83 9.25 10.72 136.64 36.41 75.55
19 46.30 19.52 8.67 9.24 98.90 32.00 78.73
20 48.63 18.64 16.48 8.17 72.64 27.72 82.56
21 51.32 20.30 20.51 6.94 60.44 25.01 85.19
22 61.12 18.51 11.86 6.58 51.85 22.50 82.41
23 131.16 32.61 47.02 6.78 60.78 21.08 70.52
24 94.70 26.71 52.99 38.69 54.48 20.75 60.13
25 73.28 21.98 51.64 113.35 43.55 20.51 48.94
26 61.36 21.36 40.84 107.78 38.25 18.29 33.68
27 53.38 17.25 27.51 117.10 33.41 15.49 17.50
28 47.52 13.61 28.65 112.15 30.83 16.18 4.70
29 43.19 12.29 31.05 99.36 108.44 75.38 2.09
30 49.92 12.89 25.58 66.58 65.77 53.28 3.80
31 12.87 33.41 63.29 5.60
Day/Month January February March April May June July August
1 12.83 103.72 69.83 105.22 42.88 83.73 39.44 11.96
2 16.35 152.37 70.01 44.18 66.42 72.70 42.56 10.68
3 71.24 135.77 68.86 39.69 62.28 69.64 36.98 9.42
4 130.11 67.83 65.17 52.63 102.25 66.66 38.36 31.78
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 Appendix D-3 October 2011
5 92.25 50.81 59.87 32.66 79.64 62.15 40.75 31.05
6 63.08 16.24 49.24 25.91 81.44 61.31 49.22 19.58
7 28.07 38.23 37.59 21.99 76.77 62.17 39.32 15.08
8 11.31 65.50 11.64 36.42 70.06 60.41 31.89 11.86
9 37.95 9.58 1.12 40.30 59.71 53.83 27.63 9.96
10 77.64 72.96 1.23 25.45 71.12 50.49 24.54
11 98.33 97.60 1.33 22.97 64.14 46.90 22.41
12 105.18 69.14 1.44 42.40 60.41 43.78 21.85
13 115.08 39.48 1.54 59.14 61.52 44.56 21.80
14 112.45 98.89 1.65 42.64 60.38 59.21 20.88
15 109.66 175.57 1.75 35.54 61.05 60.55 21.78
16 108.16 249.26 1.85 30.90 60.86 52.01 19.49
17 104.58 310.16 1.96 26.07 64.58 47.82 17.34
18 88.89 331.85 2.06 23.80 67.77 47.16 18.62
19 62.97 217.79 2.17 21.15 67.29 50.73 20.26
20 54.17 208.18 2.27 19.43 91.45 53.33 16.03
21 99.64 245.94 2.38 19.20 85.30 46.65 13.58
22 237.72 313.20 2.48 24.00 85.25 43.46 12.29
23 153.76 412.60 2.59 34.05 82.06 41.74 10.16
24 127.92 414.49 2.69 33.92 77.60 41.53 11.12
25 173.84 310.49 2.80 48.07 87.69 38.13 15.10
26 147.37 193.25 4.67 54.22 87.67 36.73 13.69
27 60.13 85.89 15.69 47.90 86.64 36.20 23.02
28 37.81 72.66 44.72 47.93 85.22 45.97 41.80
29 53.50 116.37 46.57 77.54 54.31 29.44
30 97.25 151.89 38.72 74.56 43.38 19.93
31 89.78 139.22 84.55 14.77
1.3 Comparable Gages
There are several creeks on Chichagof Island with gage records longer than 5 years, including
Tonalite Creek, Pavlof River, Kadashan River (lower and upper), Hook Creek (lower and upper),
and Indian River (lower) (Table 1). The longest gaged stream is Kadashan River above Hook
Creek, which the USGS gaged for a total of 37 years between 1968 and 2007. None of these
gages are currently in operation. All of these streams have similar unit runoff and respond to the
same events. The main differences are in snowmelt runoff, as would be expected with different
drainage basin elevations (Figure 3).
Table 2. Record length of other stream gages on Chichagof Island.
Name Gage# Start End Drainage Area
Indian R Near Tenakee 15107920 10/1/1975 9/30/1982 12.90
Pavlof R Near Tenakee 15108000 6/1/1957 9/30/1981 24.30
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 Appendix D-4 October 2011
Name Gage# Start End Drainage Area
Kadashan R Near Tenakeee 15107000 9/1/1964 9/30/1979 37.70
Tonalite Creek Near Tenakee 15106980 6/1/1968 9/30/1988 14.50
Hook Creek near Tenakee 15106960 12/1/1966 9/30/1980 8.00
Hook Creek above TR near Tenakee 15106940 8/1/1967 9/30/1980 4.48
Kadashan R Above Hook Creek 15106920 1/1/1968 9/30/2007 10.20
Figure 2. Daily average unit runoff for water years 1976-1977 for streams on Chichagof Island.
The closest currently active gage to Gartina Creek is Montana Creek near Juneau, 40 miles to the
Northeast on the mainland. Although Montana Creek appears to respond to the same events as
Gartina Creek and the Kadashan River, it has higher summer runoff than both systems. This is
probably due to greater snowpack as the Montana Creek basin has twice the topographic relief of
the other two basins. The statistical correlation between Montana Creek and Gartina Creek is too
low to make it a reliable proxy for streamflow. The Chichagof stations listed above are all much
more similar to one another than they are to Montana Creek.
1.4 Kadashan River
Kadashan River above Hook Creek is nearly identical to Gartina Creek at Gartina Falls in
drainage area and similar in relief and aspect (Gartina Creek flows NE while Kadashan flows
NW). The former gage site on Kadashan is about 30 miles south of the gage site on Gartina
Creek. Precipitation is also similar: according to data from Jones and Fahl, 1994, the Gartina
watershed receives approximately 100 inches of precipitation per year, while Kadashan receives
approximately 110 inches. There are no mapped lakes, ponds, or glaciers in either drainage
basin. Both basins are forested, although portions of the Gartina Creek basin have been clearcut.
Gartina Creek also drains elevations that are a few hundred feet higher than Kadashan River.
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 Appendix D-5 October 2011
Based on these similarities, Kadashan River above Hook Creek is recommended as a proxy to
Gartina Creek at Gartina Falls.
A comparison of daily average flows gaged on Gartina Creek near Hoonah in 2010 and 2011
compared to longer term daily average and daily minimum flows from Kadashan, 1968-2007
(Figure 3) shows that on a seasonal basis the two streams track each other well. The Gartina
annual average for 2010 and 2011 is slightly lower than the Kadashan long term average, but this
is expected as the winter 2010 and summer 2011period was generally dry throughout southeast
Alaska.
Table 3. Drainage basin characteristics of Kadashan above Hook Creek and Gartina Creek.
Characteristic Unit Gartina Creek
at Gartina Falls
Kadashan River
above Hook
Creek
Drainage Area mile2 10.3 10.2
Main Channel Length mile 4.8 4.0
Main Channel Slope % 2.5% 1.2%
Mean Basin Elevation ft above mean sea level 1240 1040
Basin Relief ft 2900 2360
Basin Aspect NE NW
Area of Lakes and Ponds % 0 0
Mean Annual Precip inches 100 110
Mean Min Jan Temp °F 24 24
Area of Glaciers % 0 0
Average Annual Runoff cfs/mile2 -- 6.4
Figure 3. Daily average flows gaged on Gartina Creek near Hoonah in 2010 and 2011 compared to longer
term daily average and daily minimum flows from Kadashan, 1968-2007.
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 Appendix D-6 October 2011
1.5 Flood Frequency Analysis
Two methods are used to estimate flood magnitude and frequency for Gartina Creek at Gartina
Falls. The first is based on regression equations in Curran et al., 2003. This 100-year flood
estimate is 3900 cfs, and the 2-year flood estimate is 1390 (Figure 4). This is very similar to the
mean annual recorded peak on Kadashan River of 1325 cfs.
Figure 2. Flood frequency curve for Gartina Creek based on the methods of Curran et al, 2003.
The second method is a Bulletin 17B analysis of flows at Kadashan River above Hook Creek.
The Bulletin 17B analysis using 37 years of record returns a 100-year flood of 2500 cfs and a 2-
year flood of 1100 cfs (Figure 5). The Bulletin 17B analysis has a smaller standard error than the
regression analysis and is therefore likely to be more accurate.
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 Appendix D-7 October 2011
Figure 3. Flood frequency analysis of Kadashan River using the 37-year gaging record and Bulletin 17B
methods.
1.6 Hydrology Summary
1.6.1 Gartina Creek at Gartina Falls
Ideally, a historical record of stream flow of 30 years or more is desirable to analyze a stream of
interest. However, long-term stream flow records are not usually available for small or remote
streams and synthesized data is often created. For this study, the daily flows recorded on the
Kadashan River above Hook Creek were considered representative of the flows to be expected at
the Gartina Creek at Gartina Falls project site.
An annual flow duration curve, graph of average monthly flows, and monthly flow duration
curves for the project site were produced using this data and shown in Figures 6, 7 and 8.
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 Appendix D-8 October 2011
Figure 4. Annual flow duration curves for Gartina Creek at Gartina Falls, based on long-term streamflow
records from Kadashan River.
Figure 5. Monthly flow duration curves for Gartina Creek at Gartina Falls, based on long-term streamflow
records from Kadashan River.
Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
FERC No. 14066 Appendix D-9 October 2011
Figure 6. Gartina Creek at Gartina Falls Average Monthly Flow, based on long-term streamflow records
from Kadashan River.
Table 4. Gartina Creek at Gartina Falls Average Monthly Flow, based on long-term streamflow records from
Kadashan River.
Month Average Flow
(cfs)
January 49
February 48
March 44
April 66
May 98
June 63
July 30
August 32
September 78
October 114
November 80
December 66