The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAPA478dA SURVEY OF QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS PERTAINING TO INSTREAM FLOW ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSED SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT A Working Document for Preparation of an Instream Flow Study Plan Linda Perry Dwight E. Woody Trihey Prepared for Acres American Inc. Buffalo, New York May 1, 1981 .. ~· INTRODUCTION In November 1979 the Alaska Power Authority (APA) contracted with Acres American Inc. to undertake a feasibility study pertaining to the deve~opment of a major hydroelectric project on the Susitna River and to prepare an application for license for submission to the Federal Energy Regula·tory Commission (FERC). One element of Exhibit E of the applica- tion for license is a discussion of project effects on existing instream flow uses and on any existing or proposed u~es of project water for irrigation, domestic supplies, and industrial or other purposes. In order to provide this type of response, it is necessary to identify the nature and extent of both existing and anticipated uses of streamflows in the project area. An instream flow assessment will probably be conducted to provide the information needed to support the discussion in Exhibit E. An·instream flow assessment is a technical study undertaken to determine the effects of. incremental changes in streamflow on various instream uses. Under a somewhat broaderdefinition, the assessment includes an eval~ation of the effects of incremental changes in sediment load, thermal regime, and water quality. Instream uses are uses made of water in the stream channel as opposed to uses made of water out of the channel. . More traditional instream flow uses include hydroelectric power generation, navigation (commercial or recreational), and waste load assimilation (receiving water standards). Some contemporary uses that are advancing as potential instream flow considerations are: . . doWnstream delivery requirements to satisfy existing treaties, compacts, or water rights; freshwater recruitment to estuaries; water requirements 1 for riparian vegetation, fish ~nd wildlife habitats, and recreation; and water required to maintain desirable characteristics of the river itself (width/depth ratios, sediment and thermal ~egimes, channel gradient, reach velocity, or streamtype). lbe type and degree of analysis involved in the instream flow assessment will, to a large extent; depend upon the concerns of local citizens, ~ublic interest groups, and government agencies. As a part of APA's public part~cipation program, the feasibility study plan (Acres American Inc. 1980) was distributed to state and federal agencies, private organizatipns 1 public interest groups, individuals, and public libraries. In addition, APA conducted community meetings in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Talkeetna, and Willow (Alaska Power Authority 1980a). In November 1980 APA's Public Participation Office pu~lished a newsletter outlining the general focus of the feasibility study and summarizing the progress-to-date (Alaska Power Authority 1980b). As an extension of these public participation activities, a survey was undertaken in mid-January l981 as the initial step in the develop- ment of an instream flow study plan. Interviews were conducted with ihdividu~ls representing federal and state agencies, public interest groups, and riative corporations in order to obtain a first-hand impres- sion of their level of understanding and interest in the feasibility study, and to record those questions which they felt needed to be answer<ed by the instream flow assessment. An attempt was also made to identify the specific data and information needs of those agencies chnrgcd with issuing permits and/or reviewing APA's application for license and the FERC environmental impact statement. 2 APPROACH In January 1981, corresp9ndence and background information on file at APA's office were reviewed in order to establish the initial list of contacts. Interviews were conducted in person and by telephone with 55 organizations from January 15 to Ja:nuary 26, 1981. Each person was advised that an instream flow study plan is being developed, and that the purpose of the survey was to ensure that any appropriate questions they might have pertaining to instream uses or itnpacts were not over- looked. It was. often necessary to identify who the consultants were and briefly explain their respective roles in the feasibility study. During each personal interview, a. hand out was provided which contained a definition of an instream flow use and an instream flqw study, and then the person was asked to identify any categories or specific questions which he or she felt needed to be addressed before the proposed Susitna hydroelectric project could be approved. Most people responded verbally, but four provided additional written com- ments. At the conclusion of the interview, the individual was advised that the Alaska Power Authority would transmit a copy of the survey report to their organization, both to verify the accuracy of their recorded "point-of-vieW," and to provide a mechanism for obtaining any additional comments that might come to mind from reviewing the comments and ques- tions of others (R. Mohn, pers. comm.). The results of the January survey were submitted to Acres American Inc. on January 31; 1981. Following internal review, APA and the consultants redirected portions of the feasibility study and work plan to better address concerns and needs raised during the survey. 3 The survey results were distributed by APA to each organization in early April. Follow-up interviews were conducted with all participants and two additional organizations from April 13 to April 29, 1981. After reviewing the survey results, several agencies clarified and reempha- sized their concerns or expanded and reinforced the concerns and com- ments of other groups; and four groups sent written comments to APA. This report summarizes the most current perceptions, concerns, and questions of numerous agencies and public interest groups regarding .those aspects of.the proposed Susitna hydroelectric project that should be addressed within the context of an instream flow assessment. It is · tl~e purpose of this report to serv.e as a working document in the prepara- tion of a study plan for the instream flow assessment. The instream flow study plan will be structured to provide conclusive answers to selected questions at an interim date CMarch 1982), with the under- standing that additional studies will be pursued where warranted. The first draft of the study plan will be delivered to APA and its con- tractors in May 1981. Review comments will, at first, be solicited from FERC, the·Susitna Hydroelectric Steering Committee,. and the Cooperative Land Managers Task Force Instream: Flow Work Group, all of which include state and federal resource agency representatives familiar with the FERC licensing processand instream flow issues in Alaska. Following their review, the draft study plan will be revised and resubmitted for review and comment by all interested parties. The organizations contacted are listed in Figure 1. All of their questions and comments are presented on the interview forms in the Appendix, but only those pertinent to the development of an instream flow study plan are included in the following discussion. Several ques- 4 tions and comments are presented which reflect a genuine lack of knowl- edge about the proposed Susitna hydroelectric project, the river basirt, and the feasibility study. In many cases, their information needs could only be phr~sed as questions and very little substantive input was provided with regard to specific data requirements. In part, the obscure and indefinite response of these agencies is attributable to an apparent lack of technical information reaching them. Most groups interviewed had numerous questions and comments per- taining to the instream flow study plan, but they were requested to concentrate on expressing their major concerns. These concerns have been separated into nine instream use categories, using the examples from the hand out. Responses are summarized by category in Figure 2. This graph does not indicate that the value of any one category is more important than another; however, it.does indicate that the level of interest or perceived. need for study and information is greater for certain categories than for others. The results of the survey are discussed below. 5 '=-'' Figure I. Organizations contacted. State Anchorage Fish and Game Advisory Committee, Alaska Board of Fish and Game Div. of Energy and Power Development (DEPD), Alaska Dept. of Commerce and Economic Development Offi~e of Special Industrial Development, Alaska Dept. of Commerce and Economic Development Div. of Community Planni~g, Alaska Dept. of Community and Regional Affairs Southcentral Regional Office, Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Sport Fish Div:, Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game (ADF&G) Su Hydro Team, Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game (ADF&G) Alaska Dept. of Law Water Management Section, Div. of Forest, Land and Water Management, Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources (DNR) Div. of Parks, Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources (DNR) Div. of Research and Development, Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources (DNR) Central Region Planning and Research, Alaska Dept. of Transportation and Public Facilities Office of Coastal Management, Alaska Office of the Governor Alaska Water Resources Board Federal Environmental Section, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) District Office, U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Resources Section, U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Aids to Navigation Branch, U.S. Coast Guard Representative -Office of the Secretary, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, U.S. Dept. of Commerce Alaska Railroad, U.S. Dept. of Transportation Alaska Water Study Committee, U.S. Dept. of Interior Alaska Operations, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Assistant Area Director for Environment, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Ecological Services (ES), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Fishery Resources Program, u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Western Alaska Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Chugach National Forest, U.S. Forest Service Water Resources Div., U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Heritage, Conservation and Recreation Service (HCRS) U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Alaska Area Office, U.S. National Park Service River Forecast Office, U.S. National Weather Service U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Snow Survey Supervisor, U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) 6 Figure 1 {Continued). Organizations contacted. Local Planning Dept., K~tanuska-Susitna Borough University Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center {AEIDC), University of Alaska Cooperative Fisheries Research Unitt University of Alaska Public Interest Groups Alaska Center for the Environment Alask!i Conservation Society Alaska Miners Association Alaska Public Interest Resea~ch Group (AKPIRG) · Alaska Rural Electric Cooperative Association Alaskans for Alternate Energy Cook Inlet Aquaculture Corporation Cook Inlet Region, Inc. Denali Citizens Council Devil's Canyon ·Corporation Fairbanks Environmental Center Knik Kanoers and Kayakers Alaska Region Office, National Audubon Society Resource Development Council · National Representative, Sierra Club Knik Group, Sierra Club Susitna Power Now Trustees for Alaska Village Presidents Association 7 Figure 2 •. Spokesperson Responses by I~tream Use Categories Navigation Commercial Recreational Water Quality Water Rights Estuary Riparian Vegetation Fish & Wildlife Recreation Flow Regime Number of Responses I I !II I I f I I I I I I II II I II 8 I I SURVEY RESULTS Navigation -Commercial In a traditional sense, commercial-navigation was not a major area of concern. The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facili- ties was·not aware of any commercial navigation on the Susitna River at present, and the U.S. Bureau of Land ~~nagement's (BLM's) District Office had no concern from a navigation standpoint. The U.S. Coast Guard stated that the head of navigation is at Gold Creek, and they had no concern for structures.proposed upstream of that location. However, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game's (ADF&G's) Sport Fish Divisfon and Su Hydro Team noted that commercial navigation has not been clearly defined for the purposes of this study. They considered commercial navigation to include use of the Susitna River by commercial fishermen, trappers, and barges and floatplanes transporting materials. From this perspective, ADF&G's Su Hydro Team questioned whether the proposed Susitna hydroelectric project would adversely affect commercial navi- gation on the lower Susitna River and in upper Cook Inlet. Navigation -Recreational Questions pertaining to anticipated effects of the proposed Susitna hy?roelectric project on recreational navigation fell into two major areas: l) access to the Susitna River by water, air, and land. and 2) movement within the Susitna River itself. Boat and float plane access to .side channels and small tributaries and to the west side of the lower Susitna River was questioned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS's) Fishery Resources Program. 9 the Fairbanks Environmental Center, and ADF&G 1 s Sport Fish Division and Su Hydro Team. The Anchorage Fish and Game Advisory COmmittee and the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) were concerned about sportfishing access, primarily downstream from Talkeetna. The Sierra Club's Knik Group asked whether recreational access, irr general, would be reduced or enhanced. The main concern of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) was whether or not stream flow alteration would affect access to land disposal sites •. ADF&G's Su Hydro Team concurred with this conceJ:n, and was also concerned about the effect on access to future land developments. However, the Alaska Cente}:' for the Environment felt that access to cabin sites (land disposal) was not being considered at all. The National Audubon Society felt that comprehensive recreation policies should be adopted that are specific to the reservoirs, ma1nstem river, and its tributaries. Furthermore, these must be integrated in DNR's land use plan for the Susitna River basin, particularly in regard to assuring public access to public waters. The effects of postproject flows on kayaking, boating, and rafting between the Denali Highway and Talkeetna were questioned by ADF&G's Su Hydro Team, and the Sierra Club's National Representative was specifi- cally concerned about effects on whitewater boating (see related com- ments under recreational requirements). Trustees for Alaska questioned whether movement within the Susitna River would become more hazardous as a result of reduced summer streamflow. The need for a navigation user needs survey was stressed by DNR's Water Management Section. 10 • Waste Load Assimilation CWater Quality) The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) ques- tioned the general effects of the proposed change in flow regime on the assimilative capacity of the Susitna River. Both the sediment and thermal regimes of the Susitna River are expected to change. Thus. future discharge permit applicants might be required to incur additional treatment costs before meeting Alaska's water quality standards. In a somewhat similar fashion, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) indicated an interest in having the anticipated postproject flow regimes reviewed with respect to the granting of 404 permits to postproject applicants. The interests of both agencies are accented by renewed discussion of the capital move. Alaskans for Alternative Energy and ADF&G's Su Hydro Team also mentioned the capital move and questioned the effects of postproject flows on domestic and industrial waste disposal. DEC also commented that during the construction phase, turbidity (suspended solids) may increase to the point that the present "drinking water" classification for the Susitna River might be jeopardized. On the other hand, the proposed reservoirs might serve as large settling ponds, thereby facilitating maintenance of the present classification. The Alaska Center for the Environment and ADF&G's Su Hydro Team were inte.rested in knowing whether nitrogen supersaturation problems were being investigated, and Trustees for Alaska would like assurance that postproject flows would not aggravate pollution from placer mining durtng low flows. Downstream Delivery Requirements to Satisfy Water Rights Holders A fundamental question asked by the Alaska Miners Association and ADF&G's Su Hydro Team was "what permitted or licensed water use rights 11 presently exist in the Susitna River basin?" Two additional questions raised by ADF&G's Su Hydro Team and Susitna Power Now were: 1) whether operation of the dam would allow present day out-of-stream diversions to be maintained, and 2) whether postproject flows would result in a change of water table conditions that would adversely affect domestic wells or surface water supplies. DNR's Water Management Section indicated that Susitna River basin water rights applications have not been completely adjudicated. The Water Management ·staff doubted that any existing out-of-stream diver- sions would be affected by the proposed Susitna hydroelectric project; however, this should be investigated during the instream flow studies. Pursuant to AS 46.15.080 (criteria for issuance of permit) DNR will require this information before issuing water rights permits and reser- vations of water for the proposed Susitna hydroelectric project. The staff anticipates instream flow requests from agencies due to this project, and instream flow requirements that may be requested by ADF&G might also protect other instream flow uses. Freshwater Recruitment to the Estuary Due to the lack of knowledge about the freshwater requirements of the Cook Inlet estuary, NMFS and ADF&G's Sport Fish Division suggested that a study be undertaken to determine whether or not a problem might exist. In general, their questions focused on how much change in flow would occur at the estuary and whether this would affect the estuarine .environment. The Sierra Club's National Representative, ADF&G's Su Hydro Team, and DNR's Division of Parks were concerned about the effect of altered flows on winter icing in upper Cook Inlet. Furthermore, 12 USACE and the National Audubon Society state~ a need for information to determine the productivity and type of wetlands that exist at the estu• ary and in the Susitna River basin. Others mentioned the possible change of water quality in upper.Cook Inlet and questioned the effect that postproject flows might have on waterfowl use at Susitna Flats. Riparian Vegetation Requirements Although a number of groups, including ADF&G's Su Hydro Team, USr~NS's Fishery Resources Program, NMFS, the University of Alaska's Arctic Environm~ntal Infor~t~on and Data Center {AEIDC), and Trustees for Alaska, acknowledged that riparian vegetation is important, there were few specific questions raised. The major concerns focused on whether or not postproject flows would maintain a disturbed environment conducive to the production of moose browse. USFWS's Western Alaska Ecological Services questioned whether flows to maintain early sera! stages of vegetation would need to be designed into the reservoir opera- tion as part of the mitigation plan. The U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) felt this would not hu necessary, as riparian vegetation wo';lld readjust to postproject conditions, and they doubted whether project- induced vegetation changes below the Chulitna River would be measure- able. However, ADF&G's Sport Fish Division disagreed, feeling that a reduction in flow might have more impact because most of the riparian vegetation is in the delta islands area. Fish and Wildlife Requirements Over twenty groups commented on fish and wildlife requirements. The majority of specif~c comments focused on defining project-induced effects on the existing fishery resources. 13 Would there be enough water to support existing fish populations? How many sloughs, oxbows, and side channels would be dewatered or have limited access? How would changes in flow regime, temperature, silt, and water quality parameters affect spawning, movement, outmigration, egg development, and seasonal habitat use? Would higher stream veloci- ties associated with increased winter flows affect young-of-the-year that mlgrate into the mninstem rrom tributaries during winter months? What overwintering of juvenile and resident anadromous fish occurs in the main channel and how would it be affected? What would be the effect of reducing the sediment load, and therefore associated nutrients, on· downstream biota? Would the reduction of peak flows affect fishery utilization of side channels and backwater areas? Susitna Power Now and the Alaska Public Interest Research Group (AKPIRG) stated that the emphasis should not just be on salmon, and that grayling should be considered. Both the U.S. Department of Interior's Alaska Water Study Committee and SCS felt that conditions supporting superior king salmon runs in the Kenai River as compared to the Susitna River ought to be investigated as one means' of 'evaluating effects on this particular fishery. ADF&G's Sport Fish Division and Su Hydro Team were apprehensive about conducting such a study since characteristics of thl' two river basins are quite different. The Kenai River system contains lakes with low sediment levels and different fish stocks, and there is different recreation!il and commercial utilization. The National Audubon Society and ADF&G's Su Hydro Team were con- cerned about the effects that project-induced changes on the fish would have on bird species dependent on aquatic life, such as bald eagles. Questions from other groups pertained to the effect of postproject flows on habitat requir(;.!ments of small terrestrial marnmals.including fur- 14 bearers, the effect of flooding Watana on caribou habitat and migration routes, and the effec.ts on use of the estuary by Beluga whales and seals. Recreational Requirements Many groups indicated an interest in this topic, but their ques- tiona and comments frequently reflected preconceived personal bi~ses rather than an objective consideration of postproject effects on recrea- tional use. The potential for increased recreational opportunities was recog- nized by several groups, including DNR's Division of Parks. The Devil 1 s Canyon Corporation felt that there would be many increased recreational opportunities'in the vicinity of the proposed reservoirs, but both DNR's Water Management Section and ADF&G's Su Hydro Team questioned the public's acceptance of reservoir recreation. The proposed reservoirs are expected to be very deep glacial lakes with a precipitous shoreline and fluctuating water surface. Such characteristics are not expected to draw many reservoir recreationists. Several groups concentrated on recreational opportunities that would be lost. BLM's Resources Section and the National Audubon Society questioned to what extent the aura of the wild and scenic aspects of the Susitna River would be degraded. The U.S. Heritage, Conservation and Recreation Service (HCRS) and Knik Kanoers and Kayakers were particu- larly interested in the Devil's Canyon area, as it has world class status as a whitewater river. The Alaska Center for the Environment and Trustees for Alaska indicated that many forms of river based recreation are increasing in the project area due to state land disposals and 15 pressure from the Anchorage bowl, and both were concerned about the loss of kayaking opportunities. The Anchorage Fish and Game Advisory Corn- mittee and ADF&G's Sport Fish Division were interested in quantifying postproject impacts on fishing success. More specifically, the Anchor- age Fish and Game Advisory Committee questioned whether streamflow changes would alter target fish species that sportsmen seek, and ADF&G's ' \ . \, Sport Fish Division was concerned that restrictions to hunting and fishing would be imposed during project construction and operation. The effect of postproject flows on rnaintaining"moose habitat in the lower reaches of the Susitna River was mentioned as a possible impact on hunting as were the effects of postproject flows on boat access to the hunting areas. ADF&G's Su Hydro Team observed that at certain times, minimum flows rather than maximum flows will be desirable. as when maintaining a stable crossing for the Iditarod race. Many comments and questions pertaining to sportfishing were also noted. In summary, then, the major question to be answered is "To what degree will riverine based recreation be increased or decreased as a result of constructing and operating the proposed Susitna hydroelectric project?" To answer this, both DNR's Water Management Section and USFWS's Ecological Services (ES) felt that a recreational user needs survey would be necessary because of the level of opposition due to perceived recreational losses, and the lack·of information about what type of recreation is desirable. Flow Regime Maintenance Nearly twenty groups had questions and comments in this category but they were most often made in association with other issues. The 16 majority of those interviewed recognized that various relationships exist between flow regime and instream uses, but their understanding of these relationships was extremely limited. , Thqs most of the comments were expressed as questions. What would the stage.be at selected loeations'during different times of the year? What would the magnitude of change in flow be under postproject conditions, and how would this affect access to tributaries? Will reduction in seasonal variability of streamflow have negative impact on the ability of the river to cleanse itself of debris? What 1s the dampening effect on streamflows downstream? How would changes in water level affect people living near the Susitna River (flood poten- tial)? What is the worst case flood now (IOQ-year flood, 500-year flood). and how does this compare to the projected flood in the event of dam failure? What is the relationship of groundwater levels to the Susitna River? The Alaska Railroad asked what, if any, expected changes might occur in the ground thermal regime and what the effect of perma- frost melt or frost heaving on bridge piers would be. What would be the effect of increased winter flows on icing? Would there be a greater accumulation of ice in the upper reach, with larger ic~ jams during breakup? There probably would be an increase in ice cnver because of increased winter flows. Variable wintertime releases, which are common to operation of many hydro-power projects, could result in increased ice thickness, increased backwater from ice, or increased channel scour under ice. Also, there might be increased wintertime water temperatures from water passed through the turbines that would have an effect on ice formation. The effect would probably be most evident during the times when ice formation is incipient. If power 17 l~ demand or operation of the reservoir required that water be dumped in winter in years that the snow pack indicated :a high spring runoff, would there be a buildup of ice (aufeis)? Could this be managed by controlled releases of water under the ice? Several groups are concerned about the effect of flows on erosion, and the Alaska Railroad was particularly concerned about the effect of annual spring flooding on bridges. Although the ice jams at the bridge locations might decrease, there would be increased erosion of bridge piers due to decreased silt concentrations and channelization of the river. Other groups were concerned about the effect of decreased sediment loads on scouring. There might also be scour in the channel downstream from the dam; the extent of scour and length of river that might be significantly affected need to be determined. What would be the change in channel characteristics? What would be the effect of peak flow on sediment transport and stream morphology? How would postproject flows affect bedload movement associated with storm events? Is the present sediment differentiation from side to side in the vicinity of the east side tributaries below Talkeetna significant to fish passage? Geographic Concerns During the survey, individuals were asked to indicate to which study reach their particular concern or question was most applicable. The three study reaches defined on the hand out were: 1) Cook Inlet to Talkeetna, 2) Talkeetna to Devil's Canyon, and 3) Devil's Canyon to the Denali Highway. Many geographic concerns have been discussed in the preceeding section by category. Several groups identified a particular 18 study reach after expressing all their concerns, and although not as meaningful, ft was clear that most groups felt that the feasibility study should include all three study reaches. HCRS had a particular interest in the reach fromTalkeetna to and including Devil's Canyon, whereas the Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development's Division of Energy and Power Development (DEPD) felt the Devil's Canyon to Denali Highway reach was more significant. A number of groups, including ADF&G's Sport Fish Division, DNR's Division of Parks and Water Management Section, USFWS's ES 1 NMFS, and AKPIRG felt that more emphasis should be placed on the Cook Inlet to Talkeetna reach. In expanding upon this concern, ADF&'G's Sport Fish.Division stated that although the primary impact would be above Talkeetna, the studies should extend to Cook Inlet because there is more fish utilization below Talkeetna and the resource may be impacted to a greater extent. 19 ADDITIONAL CONCERNS Several of those interviewed provided comments and questions pertinent to the development of an instream flow study plan which do not belong in the preceding discuss~ons concerning instream uses. These additional concerns and questions pertain to: the perceived lack of coordination,and information exchange; the adequacy of the time and resources; the availability of qualified personnel; the methodologies being applied; and the duration of data collection required. The Fairbanks Environmental Center and the National Audubon Society were concerned about coordination between the hydrology studies and the fish and wildlife studies. ~1any spokespeople felt they could not provide specific comments or questions pertaining to an· instream flow study plan until additional information and data were available to them. The Alaska Center for the Environment questioned whether the Acres budget is sufficient to provide equipment and personnel to interpret data for achieving the objectives stated in the feasibility study. Those experienced with conducting fishery resource investigations and pre- paring and reviewing licensing documents, including USFWS, ADF&G's Su Hydro Team arid Sport Fish Division, and AEIDC, were very concerned about the Httitude of the appllcant with regard to making a license applica- tion in 1982. ·A number of groups, several represented on the.Susitna Hydro~lectric Steering Committee, felt that there was a lack of under- standing on the part of the Alaska Power Authority about the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licensing procedures. Knowing that FERC can, and no doubt will, request additional studies; they felt it was imperative to obtain information and field data to answer questions that • 20 would be raised during the review proces~ and to determine what areas r~quire further work. They recognized that a failure to accommodate such requests now would result in future project delayp. Both the USFWS and AEIDC assumed that "incremental methodology" · would.be applied. They also commented that this methodology has yet to be tested in a large glacial river and asked what scheduling and funding accommodations have been made to define new procedures and field test th'em before undertaking routine application. ADF&G' s Su Hydro Team responded that they intend to determine if instream flow methodologies can and should be applied~ and if so, how? What would be the feasi- bility and what would the benefits be? BLM's District Office noted that obtaining the necessary fisheries data wi11 be an extremely difficult undertaking in the Susitna River. Additionally, DEPD felt that existing stream gages might not be placed to accurately represent reach specific streamflows which would be required. USGS felt that in order to make a theoretical computation of the effects of scour 11 considerable sediment data would have to be collected and analyzed, and. these data should include bedload and bed material sample results as well as the more conventional suspended sediment analysis results. USGS was concerned that potential changes or impacts of stream morphology be adequately addressed in the study. USFWS's Fishery Resources Program felt that a methodology must be developed to assess riparian vegetati.on. The main concern of the Cook Inh•t Aquaculture Association was whether the methodology would answer questions about effects of groundwater seepages adjacent to the river used for salmon spawning. Several groups commented on the duration of data collection. The National Anduhon Sodety felt that there would be a neeu for ongoing 21 research and monitoring of project impacts on instream flow and asked if a strategy were being developed. SCS's Snow Survey Supervisor felt that the eollection of snow pack and snowmelt runoff data in the upstream area should be continued and beneficial sites in the headwater country of the Alaska Range should be expanded, as this data would provide a good index for runoff into the reservoir system for downstream management. 22 SUMHARY Interviews were conducted in person and by telephone with 55 organizations from January 15 to January 26, 1981. The survey results were submitted January 31, 1981. Following internal review by Acres and i.ts subcontractors, the survey results were distributed to all those .contacted during the January survey. Follow-up interviews were com- ph'ted between April 13 and April 29 to obtain any additional comments and to ensure that concerns presented in the January 3l.report were properly interpreted and presented. Questions and concerns have been idt•nti fied under nine instream use categories to facilitate preparation of the instream flow study plan. The first draft is scheduled for completion in May 1981. Due to the complex nature of the engineering and environmental questions that need to be answered, several organizations believed that the Alaska Power Authority was premature in raising public and political expectations for an early construction start-up. They ~ere concerned that approvals would be sought before environmental questions were adequately addressed. They felt that APA's intent to file a license application in 1982 indicated a lack of understanding concerning FERC licensing requirements. The Alaska Power Authority and its contractors should increase technical level discussions with those agencies and public interest groups who will participate in the FERC process prior to submitting the application for license. Other groups ha<l no comments or questions concerning the proposed Susitna hydroelectric project but appreciated being informed. Most groups were pleased that an instream flow study plan is being developed 23 and appreciated bclng contacted. Several commended the Alaska Power Authority for the undertaking. Several of those interviewed provided comments and questions pertinent to the development of an instream flow study plan which do not belong in t.he preceding discussion. These additional concerns and questions, which are included in the Appendix, pertain more to the general implementation. administration, and management of a study plan than to distinct instream use categories requiring stu'dy. Following internal review it is recommended that the draft instream flow study plan be provided to the Susitna Hydroelectric Steering Committee, the Cooperative Land Managers Task Force Instream Flow Work G~oup, and the Federal Regulatory Energy Commission. All other organi- zations contacted by this survey should be informed of its availability and provided a copy upon request. 24 REFERENCES Acres American Inc. 1980. Susitna hydroelectric project; plan of study. Report for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, AK. 1 vol. Alaska Power Authority. 1980a. A report on the first series of com- munity meetings on the feasibility studies for the Susitna hydro- electric project and other power alternatives. Anchorage, AK. 61 pp. 1980b. The Susitna hydro studies. Anchorage; AK. 8 pp. Mohii, R. 1981. Interview. January 14, 1981. Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, AK. 25 - - - - - - - - - - ..... - - - - - - .APPENDIX Interview Forms INTERVIEW FORM Organization --~S~u~s~i~t~n~a~P~o~w~e~r~~No~w~(~l~·~O~O~O~)~-------------Date 1-22 (phone) Address P.O. Box 981, Anchorage 99510 Phone 276-7744 Person Eve Dischner-R1eeves Spokesperson Y!:_ N_ Correspondence Source Questions, Concerns, and Comments Concerned about overall picture, special interest in fishery. How will change in water level affect people living there? How will changes in the water table affect wells or surface water sources? What effect will the project have on resident fish (grayling) that furbearers feed on? 4-16 (phone) Will call after board meeting if additional comments. INTERVIEW FORM Organization Trustees for Alaska (500) Date _.1 ,~,.19~------- Address 835 D Street, Suite 202. Anchoraie 99501 Phone 276-4244 Person Rob Mintz Correspondence How will ADF&G cooperate with other agencies in coordinating study? What are goals of feasibility study? What sorts of studies are·needed? How much time and money are required? What is ADF&G's view of potential impacts? ()ul'~; L LLJns, Concerns, and Comments ---¥" __ _ Weller, S. R. Skoog, and Game, 1979. Spokesperson Y_x_ N_ Source 1979. Letter to Alaska Dept. of Fish Juneau, AK, March 12, Recreational navigation -would hazards of movement increase or decrease? What is . the potential of changing the character of the river -width, depth, sediment load, reduced summer flows, increased winter flows? What is the potential of increased pollution from placer mining from sediment and compounds? Freshwater recruitment to the estuary. Riparian vegetation requirements. Effects of higher winter flows (and lower summer flows) on fish and wildlife should be studied. Recreational impact -whitewater recreation at Devil's Canyon increasing. Effect of adding excess turbid water to clear stream in winter? - Hill reduction in seasonal variability of streamflow have hegative impacts, ie, · ~ loss of ability for river to cleanse itself of debris? \.Jill the project provide flood protection such that there will be an increase of development in riparian lands? ._ 4-15 (phone) Correc~ions to interview form noted. - INTERVIEW FORM Knik Group Organization --~S~i~e~r~r~a~C~l~u~b'---------------------------Date l-20 (phone) c/o Paul Johnson Address 1664 Juneau Street. Anchoraae 99501 Phone 279-6661 ex 285_(wk) 277-3703 (hm) Person Paul Johnson Spokesperson Y.ts_ N_ Correspondence Source Questions. Concerns, and Comments }fuin concern -fisheries. wildlife, birds. Will access for recreation be deteriorated or enhanced? 4-15 (phone) Has not received report (mailed with ,sample cover letter), will call if further comment. INTERVIEW FORM National Representative Organization _ __,.S..,i.,e._.r .... r...,a..__C....,.l...,.u_..b _____________ _ Address 545 E. 4th Aye,. #5. Anchorage 99501 Phone 274-2318 Person Jack Hession Corresrondence Questions, Concerns, and Comments Main concern -fish and wildlife and recreation. -Date 1-20 (phone) Spokesperson Y__:f!_ N_ Source Impact on white water boating -Jones and Jones report to USACE recommended relocation of dams to preserve whitewater recreation. Lmpact on Cook Inlet. Use USFWS model and latest methodology. Look at whole system. 4-L4 (phone) No further comment. - - - Alaska Region Office National Audubon Society Comprehensive recreaton policies should be adopted that are specific to the reservoirs. mainstem river, and its tributaries. These must be integrated in DNR' s land use plan f·or the Susitna basin, particularly as regards assuring public access to pubic waters. Are comprehensive maps of wetland types in the Susitna basin, together with the best available information on wetland productivity, being developed? Identify and throughly evaluate habitats and life requirements of all major fish species in the Susitna mainstem and tributaries. The project area's wilderness resources should be thoroughly evaluated and projected losses documented, ie, opportunities for solitude and unconfined recreation in a setting where the imprint of man is substantially unnoticable. Existing wild and scenic river values are particularly important in this regard" Have major impacts on instream flow and wetlands within both primary and secondary impact zones, together with proposed mitigative measures to deal with project losses, been identified? There will be a need for ongoing research and monitoring of project impacts on instream flow. Is a strategy being developed to deal with this? For example, river profiles below Talkeetna to measure changes in riparian habitat F from periodic flooding and scouring? How does the Susitna project relate to the short and long term energy needs of the area? INTERVIEW FORM Organization Resource Development Cotmcjl Address Phone P.O. Box 516. Anchorage 99510 278-9615 Person _hula Easley Correspondence Quentions, Concerns, and Comments Not available for interview within study deadline. 4-16 (phone) Joyce Munson Date Spokesperson Y.:JL_ N_ Source No comment, but feels some people a3king questions have predetermined answers. - INTERVIEW FORM '-" Organization Knik Kanoers and Kayakers Date c/o Mary Kay Hession Address SRA Box 319. Anchorage 99507 Phone 276-5113 I Person Mary Kay Hession Spokesperson Y* N '~~ -- Correspondence Source Questions, Concerns, and Comments 4-29 (phone) New contact. Smue concern as HCRS on whitel.,ater loss. INTERVIEW FORM Alaska Region Office Organization National Audubon Society Address 308 G Street, Suite 219. Anchorage 99501 Phone Person Dave Cline Correspondence Date Spokesperson Y -Is. N_ Source Additional concerns for instrearn flow study. Cline, D~R. 1981. Letter to D. Wozniak, Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage. April 27, 1981. Oli('St ions, Concerns, and Comments ~-·---~--·- Concerned with water quality, fish and wildlife, recreation, and hydrology. What will effect of project on birds (bald eagles) which feed on fish and other aquatic organisms be? Entire river should be studied because impacts extend to the flats. This requires someone with the skill to look at the total ecosystem and apply ecosystem modeling. Using the USACE sediment study is not sufficient. In large dam projects protection of fish and wildlife habitat has been a low priority and should be evaluated as important. l~w are the tasks being coordinated? 4-27 Additional concerns in letter to Dave Wozniak listed below. Wants qppendix (delivered). - - INTERVIEW FORM 0 r ga nl Zi.l t ion _;;;D.=e:..:v..::i:..::l:_'..::s:....::C::.:a:.:n;::.Yz..;o::;n::-::::C:::O.:::.l'.cP::::O:.;::r..::a:Jt::i::.:O::.:n::..... _____ _ Date 1-21 (phone) c/o Troy Sullivan Address Box 10216 2 South Station; Anchorage 99511 Phone 263 1777 (wk) 344-3883 (hm) Person Troy Sullivan Spokesperson Y!!__ N_ Correspondence Source Questions, Concerns, and Comments Dam will provide enhanced recreational use of the area around the winter and summer activities. Lodge will be within one mile line. Winter access of road to dam will allow people access of the reservoir over the ice for cross count.ry skiing. etc. swimming will be available. Appreciates APA's interest in the organization. 4-15 (phone) No further comment. reservoir for of the water- to other side Fishing and INTERVIEW FORM Organization --~F~a~1~·r~b~aanUAkgs_.Ewn~v~1~r~o~n~mwe~n~t~a~l~C~e~n~t.e~r ______ ___ Date 1-21 (phone) Address 218 Driyeway. Fairbanks 99701 Phone 452-5021 Person Jeff Weltzjn Spokesperson Y.ts.... N_ Correspondence Source l)_uestlons. Concerns, and Comments Main concern -coordination between hydrology and fish and wildlife studies. Impact of decreased flows on navigation (boat access) at Talkeetna. Effect of decreased flow in summer on access to spawning sloughs between Portage Creek and Talkeetna. How much silt will be released in winter flow -what will the effect be on incubation and reartng of fry? What will be the effelt of increased winter flow? How will it affect scouring? Examination of sedimentation in reservoir is based on USAGE work and should be re-examined. Silting in of small dams elsewhere should be examined (cf. Scandinavian countries). 4-17 (phone) Has not read report thoroughly, will call back if additional comments. INTERVIEW FORM Organization Cook Inlet Region. Inc. Address Phone Person Correspondence 2525 C Street. Anchorage 99503 274-8638 Marge Sagerser Ques ti_~~1s, Concerns, and Comments No comment -refer to Village Presidents Association. 4-14 (phone) Wants appendix (delivered), no further comment. Date 1-20 (phone) Spokesperson Y~ N_ Source INTERVIEW FORM Organization Denali Citizens Council (150) c/o Chris Abshire Address _l711 Highlander_Driye. Apchgrage 99502 Phone 344-7484 Person Chris Abshir~ (Pete Martin. 274-4676) Correspondence Questions, Concerns, and Comments Date ~1~-.2.2 ________ _ Spokesperson Y:JL_ N_ Source Concerned that rational development of Denali Park area proceed with caution. Thorough evaluation of alternatives to Susitna should be conducted. 4-14 (phone) No further comment. INTERVIEW FORM Organization Alaskans for Alternate Energy (70) Address Phone Person Correspondence 536 Bonanza, Anchorage 99502 James Barkshire (Nancy,Lee, Jack Spratt, 274-3621) Is Susitna necessary? Is information available describing present water use? Date .::.1:..-..=1~9 ___ _ Spokesperson Y.!!_ N_ Source The instream flow question (along with the seismic question) is essential to determining the feasibility of the project. What are the associated habitat impacts, what is the trade-off? By utilizing decentralize<.! renewable energy systems, can the demand be sufficiently reduced to eliminate the need for Susitna, reduce the scale, or choose a smaller hydro site? If Susitna allows for large-scale industrial development, what will the effect be on water quality? 4-15 (phone) Has not received report, will look at Peg Tileston's copy. Will call back if additional comments. INTERVIEW FORM Organization Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association Date J-26 (phone) Address P,O. Box 850. Soldotna 99669 Phone 262-4441 ex 257 Person Floyd Heimbuck (Tom Mears) Spokesperson YJL N_ Correspondence Source Questions, Concerns, and Comments Spawning populations of salmon use groundwater seepages on floodplain adjacent to river. How will flow through side channels be affected, and what is the ability of the fish to get in and out? What methodology will be used? Will results answer questions about spawning areas on the floodplain of the river and how it is affected under various flow regimes? Will there be enough velocity data collected in the canyon to define available fish habitat and determine the cost of structures to provide fish access? 4-15 (phone) - - Has not received report (mailed with sample cover letter), will call if further -~ comment. INTERVIEW FORM Organization Alaska Public Interest Research Group (AKPIRG)Date ~1~-~1~6~------- Address 513 W. 7th Ave •• Anchorage 99501 Phone .....:::2.:...7,::::8_-:::..36:::;6:::;1::::._ __ .........., __________ _ Person Eric Myers Spokesperson Y.!_ N_ Correspondence Source 0\!estlons, Concerns, and Comments Has seen Acres Plan of Study, familiar with Terror Lake study. Prime concern is with effect on biota, mainly vegetation, then fish and wild- life. Concerned about salinity, flow regime maintenance. How will instream flow study assist in assessment of fisheries impact, including commercial fisheries? h'i II in!;Lrcnm flow study deal with ice-related problems -gouging of banks, ripping out of frozen vegetation, streambed erosion, dewatering under ice near banks? Concerned with downstream impacts, mainly below Devil's Canyon, for fisheries. Emphasis should not be just on salmon. Commended APA for this effort. 4-24 (phone) Has not read report, no further comment -confident that report summarizes concerns. INTERVIEW FORM Organization Alaska Rural Electric Cooperative AssociationDate ~1~-~2~2~------ Address 6000 C Street, Suite C, Anchorage 99502 Phone 276-3235 Person Dave Hutchins Spokesperson YJ!_ N_ Correspondence Source ()I!L!stions, Concerns. and Comments Need to know flow at dam sites to determine amount of water available for hydroelectric purposes. Appreciated being informed about the instream flow effort. 4-20 (phone) Has not read report. will call if further comment. INTERVIEW FORM Orgnntzation Alaska Conservation Society (1.200) c/o Dan Bishop. Environaid Address RR4, Box .4993 Juneau 99803 Phone Person Dan Bishop (Bob Weeden, 479.7095) Cor Qul.:!stions. Concerns. and Comments Date 1-21 (phone) Spokesperson Y.i:_ N_ Source No comment -will circulate report to members and return comments. 4-14 (phone) Concerns of members raised by others -please keep informed. INTERVIEW FORM Organization Alaska Miners Association (1.600) Date J-19 Address 509 W. 3rd Aye •• Suite 17. Anchprage 99501 Phone 276-0347 H9ward Grey (274-2314) Spokesperson Y..IL N_ Correspondence Source Questions, Concerns, and Comments Will have further comment when more information is available. Basically in support of project, no perceived impact on miners at this time. Advantage of flood control to mining operations. Discussed possible impacts to miners, including dilution factor of decreased flows and decreased water supply if tributaries are required to augment Susitna at certain seasons. Have water rights and other uses of water on which livlihood depends (ie, guiding) been checked? I.Jhat would the effect of other projects constructed in the Susitna basin be? 4-20 Has not received report (delivered with sample cover letter and comments from miners received by APA), will call if further comment. INTERVIEW FORM Organization AJ ask a Center for the Etl.niroum.ent (600) Date .....,~,;t.~l:;;t.9 ___ _ 1 069 w 6 t b Ave, , Anchon ge 99501 Phone 274-3621 Person Peg Tilesto:o. Spokesperson Yz_ Cor Source QueBtions, Concerns, and Comments Has seen Acres plan of study. State land disposal program i::~ not considering access -could affect fish and wildlife. EffL'('t on watc~r quality of higher concentration of nitrogen in water passing through (l!l'hillt'!{. 1-:llv...:t:: nn downstream ;~qu:ltie life and wetlands of impounding water and changing water temperature. How many sloughs, channels. and oxbows would be waterless? What would the effect be on the estuary, wetlands populations, and riparian vegetation? How will change in flow and water quality affect fish, moose habitat, and caribou crossings? There is increased recreational use of all sections of the river for fishing. Rafting and kayaking in Devil's Canyon are increasing as more people gain experience. Use by Anchorage bowl residents is increasing due to recrea- ti.onnl site disposals and crowding elsewhere. This will continue, especi- ally if a small boat harbor is built in Anchorage. Alaska Center for the Environment Must get sense of dynamics of river over time. Would like to see study of projection of flow regime if both dams are built. Not comfortable with design engineer doing feasibility study. Acres budget should be examined to see if adequate equipment and personnel to interpret data are being provided to achieve the objectives stated in the plan of study. Sediment load may affe•ct turbines so that blades have to be changed often -heavy maintenance and down time. What are the options for instream, below-water-level generation of electricity (this is being done in Switzerland)? 4-16 (phone) No further comment. wants appendix (delivered). Commended effort. Send draft instream flow study plan to: Alaska Center for the Environment Alaskans for Alternate Energy Alaska Public Interest Research Group Fairbanks Environmental Center Susitna Power Now Trustees for Alaska INTERVIE\V FORM Arctic Environmentai Information and Data Center (AEIDC) Oq;anization University of Alaska Date 1-22 Addrt;;!ss 707 A Street, Anchorage 99501 Phone 279-4523 Person Bill Wilson Correspondence Inadequate time to complete studies. Effect of increased sport fishing. Additional comments on instrearn flow study. ~)-~~~c;I ion_::;, Concerns, and Comments Spokesperson YJL. N_ Source Wilson, W.J. 1980. Review of technical . procedures rnanuels. Letter to A. Carson, Div. of Research and Devel- opment, Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources, Anchorage, AK, September 26, 1980. Wilson, W.J. 1981. Letter to D. Wozniak, Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, AK, April 16, 1981. Wetlands. sloughs, riparian systems, use of estuary by Beluga whales and seals. i\v;l i 1 ;ill i 1 ity of adequn te number of technically qu<:J LLfied people -instream flow stuJy rcquLn•s a t~am effort and technical support. Cuthering habitat suitibility information in glacial rivers hasn't been done. How will procedures and approaches be established and field tested? 4-14 Concurs with report, wrLtlng letter to Dave Woznink. wants appendix (delivered). INTERVIEW FORM Cooperative Fisheries Research Unit Organization --~U~n~iv~5e~r~s~i~t~y~o~•f_.A~J~a~s~k~ga ____ ~-------------- Address Fairbanks 99701 Phone 479-7661 Person Jacqueline LaPerrjere Correspondence _ _s_~ons, Concerns, and Comments No comment -will comment on report. 4-l4 (phone) Date 1-21 (phoce) Spokesperson Y.fL. N_ Source Nnl ('IIOII)'.h l<>chnieal information to provide technical comments. Di.seusscu recreation survey. INTERVIEW FORM Snow Survey Supervisor 0 r g: m i ;: ; l t j O rt _...!Iu.J.._. i:lS_....__;;Su.oL.;iL..l~......,;Ct....ou.ull.;:;SL~;e:.Jr...lv!..i.a;LJtl...iJ..Ou· .I.Jn_..;:Su:e:..~n...lL.nJ.-'· c~...ec........l.(,.:Su.C ..... S;4,)1--Date ...ll~-~2~0~------- Address 2221 E. Northern I.i gbts Bbrd • Anchorage 99504 Phone 276-4246 Person George Clagr~-~--------------------------Spokesperson Y.?L. N_ Co Source ~{m:sti_:JI~~'• Concerns, and Comments Contribution of tributaries below dam could offset or accentuate flow problem - n~ed additional snow surveys outside drainage to determine this. Area between Chulitna and dam is transition area -heavy snowpack. Need snow survey data from the Chulitna drainage. lt-27 (phone) Commended effort. R&M doing good job of collecting data in upstream area, including snowpack and snowmelt runoff data. This should be continued and-beneficial sites in the head- water country of the Alaska Range should be expanded (nothing is being collected in the McClnrren River drainage). This data will provide a good index for runoff into t!W rt'Hervoir~ systPrn for downstream IU<lrt<lg,ement. INTERVIEW FORM Planning Dept. Organization Ma.tan!!ska Susi tna Borough Date -------------- Address Box B, Palmer 99645 Phone 745 4801 Person Rodney Scbulljng Spokesperson Y..:iL N_ Source 4-27 (phone) NL~W cnnLu.:t, maiiL•d report with sample cover letter, will call or write APA if comments .• INTERVIEW FORM River Forecast Office Organi~3tion --~U~·~S~·~N~a~t~i~o~n~a~l,~W~e~a~t~h~e~r~_s_e~rv~·~i~c~e~------ Address 701 C Street, Box 23, Anchorage 99513 Phone 271-3480 Person Jerry Nibler Correspondence ions_!__Concerns, and Comments Date .=l'--.=2c:.:O ____ _ Spokesperson Y::._ N_ Source Don 1 t have enough data to forecast floods for the upper Susitna above Talkeetna. Need real time automated stream and rain gages. Existing stations are benchmark only. Real involvement with project would be in contruction and operation phase in providing real time forecasting -need time to gear up, develop and calibrate models. No lurtiler cummenl, wanls appendi.x (delivered). Wants to be involved in forecasting in construction and operation phase. INTERVIEW FORM Org~nization --~U~·~s~-~s~o~i~l~C~o~n~s~e~r~v~a~t=i~o~n~s~e~r~v~i~c~e~~<s~c~S~)--Date 1-20 Address • 2221 E. Northern Lights Blvd., Anchorage 99504 Phone 276-4246 Person Sterling Powell Spokesperson Y_!:_ N_ Correspondence Source Questions, Concerns, and Comments Rlparian vegetation will readjust to the system -will probably creep down in summer and be pushed back by winter ice. In the steep-walled area it may not change. Changes are probably not measureable below the Chulitna. What will the differences in normal water levels be at the mouths of major st n•ams in winter'? \vhnt will the difference iu sediment concentration in the Susitna be? What mixing will occur? How does this compare to the Ru:;s ian and Moose RivPrs on the Kenai? Why is the king salmon fishery sn much better on the Kenai? Whnt will the effect of the project be on bedload movement associated with storm events? Has observed Montana Creek when it was too shallow for kings to enter because of the amount of gravel buildup after a storm. The problem of buildup of water on winter ice could be managed by controlled releases once the pool is full. What is the travel time of water in the reservoir? How many years will water stay in the pool? Where will the water be released(sediment concentrations could be controlled somewhat)? Settlement can be computed from determin- a~ion of grain size. 4-14 (pllllne) No furthPr comment. - INTERVIEW FORM Organization U.S. National !'Iarine Fisheries Servj ce (NMFS) Date .......Ll..::-:.Jl...r;6l------ Address 701 C Street, Box 43, Anchorage 99513 271-5006 Person Brad Smith ndcnce Reviewed subtask 7.10 -no comment Subtask 7.10 lacks detail, qut TES c~n't begin until data is received from ADF&G. There needs to be input from all agencies for mitigation planning. ~_uwstLuns, Concerns, and Comments Spokesperson Y2:.._ N_ Source Morris, R. 1980. Letter to E. Yould, Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage. AK, Mar~h 11, 1980. Smith, B. 1980. Review of technical procedures manuels. Letter to A. Carson, Div. of Research and Devel- opment, Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources, Anchorage, AK, September 29. 1980. Verification of dampening effect of reduced flow downstream. Fresrnvater recruitment to estuary -verify if this is a significant problem. Recreational navigation -sportsfishing, access. Riparian requirements. Fish and wildlife requirements. R~creational requirements. C,•ogr~Iph i c concern -~lrt'rt nbove confluence of Yentna important, but defer to ADF&C. 4-14 (phone) No additional comments. Will this be a classical instream flow study? INTERVIEW FORM Alaska Area Office Organization U.S. National Park Service Address 540 W. 5th Ave., Anchorage 99501 PlllJUC 271-4216 l'erson Al I.nvass (Howard Wagner) Date 1-20 (phone) Spokesperson * N Source No comment -other resource agencies will address these concerns. 4-14 Bailey Breedlove Wants appendix (delivered). No I urt Itt> I" commt'llt -outs i.dt> area of jurisdict.lon. Will wri le D<wid Wozniak, APA (received report with no cover letter -delivered sampl.e letter). INTERVIEW FORN Water Resources Div. Organiz;.ttion U.S. Geoloiical Suryey (USGS) Date ....J.,;;;..I...I.L-.---- Address 733 W. 4th Aye., Anchorage 99501 Phone 271-4138 Person Bob Lamke Spokesperson Y..:!!..... N_ Correspondence Source No problem with subtask 7.10. but. the water quality subtask is essential to this subtask, and USGS can't determine the extPnt of data required, the addi- tiona I (Ltta needed, or the details Lamke. B. 1980. Review of technical procedures manuels. Letter to A. Carson, Div. of Research and Development, Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources, Anchorage,AK, October 9, 1980. and timing of data collection. i.-l_l_l_<:'_s Li _ons, Concerns, and Comments i\s ;1!1 .q',l'ncy, U:-iGS's needs arc for data and infornwtion that will help them to better understnnd the hydrology of the arei1 and state. USGS issues n;J twrmits. l!owcv0r, they do occasionally review license applications to FERC (at headquarters in Washington, DC) and nationally USGS reviews l'nvironmental impact statements. USGS is interested and involved in instream flow methodologies and quantification of flows needed for specific purposes such as reservation of water rights for federal lands and indian tribes. These needs are not specific to the Susitna River instream flow assessment but are generic to USGS's missions in collecting and providing water data and information and analyzing, summarizing, and reporting these water data and information for use by other agencies. In order to make a theoretical computation of the effects of scour, considerable 4-22 Bl~d iment data have to he collected and analyzed. and these data should include bedload and bed material sample results as well as the more conven- tional suspended sediment analysis results. Concerned that potential changes or impacts of stream morphology be adequately addressed in the study. Original comment expanded (above)} provided additional information for incorporation into text, wants appendi·x (delivered). INTERVIEW FORM Organization U.S. Heritage. Conservation and Recreation Service (HCRS) Date Address 1011 E. Tudor Rd., Anchorage 99503 Phone 277-1666 Person Larry \.Jright, Bill Welch Spokesperson Y..:E_ N_ Reviewed cultural resources and recreation. Source Wright, L. 1980. Review of technical procedures manuels. Letter to A. .,.., Carson, Div. of Research and Devel~ opment, Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources, Anchorage, AK, October 9, 1980. Main concern -b.:Jlanced evaluation of negative and positive impacts of project on recreational opportunities be considered. Loss of recreation opportunities and r"ecreation resource values should be considered at each of the reaches. Would Llwre he decr('m;e of current water-based access? What potential oppor- llmilit·H exi.st that LIH· public is not eurn•ntly utill;dng tlwt mlgl1t h<.• lost as a result of the projt~ct? What new recreational opportunities would be created as a result of the project at the reservoir and elsewhere through improved land and water access? Interested in all reaches, but whitewater values are of particular interest. Reach including Devil's Canyon to Talkeetna important for wild and scenic river values, has world class status as whitewater river, no legislation to study it for this purpose at present. Not familiar enough with recreational opportunities in the study area to say how the instream flow study will help. ~.Ji 11 lw :1ssisting in advisory role in the devleopment of Exhibit R and in the c1l fici;!l reviPw of the application for license. PERC require~ the applicant Lu t'otumlt with IH.!RS on development of a recre.1tion plan. HCRS provides a cqor·dinating role among federal, state, and local interests. 4-16,4-17 (phone) Corrections noted, will call if wants appendix. Organization INTERVIEW FORM Western Alaska Ecological Services U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service {IISFWS) Date ~1-~2~'--------- Address 733 W. 4th Ave .• Anchorage 99501 Phone -271-4575 Person Bruce ARple (Don McKay) Correspondence No specific comment on subtask 7.10, but overall impact and mitigation analyHis is lacking. Spokesperson Y...:!L. N_ Source Bowker, R. 1980. Review of technical procedures manuels. Letter to A. Carson, Div. of Research and Devel~ opment, Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources, Anchorage, AK, September 26, 1980. Riparian vegetation requirements -what will be the magnitude of flow change under project conditions? Will the capacity to release annual or semi-annual flood flows to maintain early seral stages of shrubby vegetation be designed into the project? Has the vegetation study been modified to include sufficient monitoring of vegetation to provide the data to detect changes from preproject to project conditions? Fish and wildlife requirements -Will altered flow regimes cause side channels that are used for spawnin~ and rearing by salmon to either dewater or become inaccess- able to fish? How will project flows influence the furbearers, aquatic fur-bearers and nongame fauna through either changes in vegetation succession, lnnundation, or flooding? How will potential changes in water temperatures 4-23 as a result of the project influence seasonal use of mainstem and side channel habitats by resident and anadromous fish? Will aquatic and terrestrial habitat analyses quantify the habitat that is altered due to project conditions? Received comments from Keith Bayha. INTERVIEW FORM Regional Office Organization --~~~r_.~s--JF~a~r~e~s~t~s~eun~r,~·c~ee--------------------- Address Phone Person P 0 Box 909, JURQaU 998Q2.--~------~ RoherLPhilli.ps (Ken Thompson, 279-5541) Send duplicate copy to Ken Thompson Date Spokesperson Y..:JL N_ 2221 Eo Northern Lights Blvd., Anchorage 99504 Co rres P<lndence Source ~I!?s~ions, Concerns, and Comments Not involved in study. Be sure to contact resource people most concerned -commercial fishermen, ADF&G, etc. 4-1 J (phone) Report adequate, will call if wants appendix. - Organization Address L'i HH1 t~ Person INTERVIEW FORM Ecological Services (ES) U.S. Fish and Ir/ildJ:i fe Seryice (IISFWS) 1011 E. Tudor J~oa.d • Anchorage 99503 276 3800 Gary Stackhouse. Don McKay. Bruce Apple Lions, Concerns, and Commen._ts ANILCA requires quantification of water rights. Need recreational user evaluation. Date _.1-~2~1 ______ __ Spokesperson Y"tL_. N_ Source !las more information on flow been generated below Talkeetna? This is needed to answer the question of commercial navigation. Effect on icing at mouth of Chulitna because of increased flows in winter. !-lore habitat will be lost below Talkeetna than above -more impact on recreation lw 1 ow than above. Incremental methodology has m~ver been applied to a large silty river. It is not suitable for quantifying water rights. ADF&G is developing techniques not proven by field testing. Can't comment further without seeing ADF&G's work plan and R&I"f's work to date. 4-23 Rt.•n! i vnl eomments from Kt'ith Bayha. Organization Address Phone Person Correspondence INTERVIEW FORM Fishery Resources Program II S Fish and Wj]dlife Senr::ice (USFWS) 1011 E n1dor Road, Anchorage 99503 276-3800 Questions, Concerns, and Comments Date 1_15 Spokesperson N Source Recreational navigation -small boats -into and out of clearwater tributaries, ie, Willow, L. Willow, Deshka, etc. Waste load assimulation. What we11 LJ it take to maintian riparian vagetat.ion or what would occur in riparian v(•getation? lkquin•mL'Ilts for all m<1jor species of fish, inclw.lln~ salmon (5 species), rainbow trout, grayling. All stagQs -spawning. migration, overwintering, rearing, fL'L'(]lng, lnstream flow maintenance as related to above cQncerns. Methodologies will need further devlopment for evaluation of riparian vegetation effects. Also application of incremental methodology to large glacial systems in the far north. 4-23 Receiv~d comments from Keith Bayha. . - Organization INTERVIEW FORM Assistant Area Director for Environment U.S. Fish and Wildlife Senrice (IISFWS) Date l-16 Address 1011 E. Tlldor Road 0 Anchorage 99503 Phone 276-3800 Person Kejtb Bayba Correspondence The most significant biological i~pact~ may occur downstream from Talkeetna. Need quantification of habitat. Effect of altered flow regimes for fish and wildlife. Need measurement of potential riparian habitat change over time. Need river profiles below Talkeetna as background to measure potential change in river configuration and habitats downstream. l)ucstions, Concerns, and Comments ,Spokesperson Y...:1;._ N_ Source Hickman, G. 1979. Letter to E. Yould, Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage. AK~ November 15, 1979. Schreiner, K. 1980. Letter to E. Yould, Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage,AK, June 23, 1980. To what extent will oth~;;r tributaries be available for power development? If nothinp; is planned, it should be stipulated in the license. ClP:tr walPr ;!t he<td o( Susitna is what carries sediment. r;ravl' 1 in Susitna -near capital site. Fl.sheries, gravel, freshwater resources for consumption -should be considered as arcn develops. Recommend multiagency approach. 4-23 Wants appendix (delivered). Reviewed appendix after reading report. Feels that concerns about commercial navigation, recreational navigation, water rights, and fisheries are adequate; wildlife concerns are too general; concerns about w<~ 1 •·r quality, ('Stll<lrine requirements. rirarion vegetation requirements, W•'! l.tnd:., wild and :~n·nlc n.•Ivt~rs, tl.oodfng, <liHI o[f:.;tt·l'dlll Ill'Pds are undPrstatc·d; .111d cu1wt>rn:-; aboul i',t·uve.l n•sourt:l'.H an~ gro::-;:;1 y uudl'rHt<lll'd. Hl!port accurately Assistant Area Director for Environment U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service presents information provided by those surveyed, but does not want APA or Acres to feel that these are the only instream flow concerns -more issues will be identified as more information becomes available. Plans to. discuss this with Eric Yould. - ) INTERVIEW FORM Alaska Railroad, Federal Railroad Administration Org;mi;:ntion U.S. Dt>pt. of Transpm::t.ati Date l-21 (phone) AJd rL'SS Pouch 7-211 J • Anchorage 99510 Phone' 265-2457 Person _Er:and s Weeks (Ted Trueb 1 nod) Correspondence Operation of the project to decrease annual spring flooding can de~crease the chances of serious ice jam damage to railroad bridges but may cause erosional problems at bridg'e piers due to decreased silt input and more restricted channeli- zation of the river. The latter should he iiiVL'StJ gated. Additional concerns for inclusion in instream flow studies. Questions, Concerns, and Comments l'rnblt·m statt•d in lettt•r Htlll exists. 4-13 (phone) Spokesperson Y iL N_ Source Fuglestad, T.C. 1974. Letter to K. Cheung, Engineering Div., Alaska District, U.S. Army Corps of En- gineers, Anchorage, AK, November 27, 1974. Weeks, F. 1981. Letter to D. Wozniak, Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, AK, April 10, 1981. Expanded on comments that were sent to Dave Wozniak. What, if any, expected changes may occur in the ground thermal regime? What would the effect of permafrost melt or frost heaving on bridge piers be? Hns information about permafrost presence in railroad bed. l'rovi.th·d information to R&M on breakup. CuriotJs about operating schedull! of dam. Wants interview forms with related concerns (delivered). Org:J.nlz;.t Lion Address Phone Person INTERVIEW FORH Environmental Evaluations Branch U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1200 6th Avenue, Seattle WA 98101 --- __j3Q6) 442-1285 ~dy_ Schwartz (Bill Britt, 2.71-5083) Send duplicate copy to Bill Britt Date 1-19 (phoce) Spokesperson Y~ Correspondence 701 C Street. Box 19, Anchorage 99513 Source Otll'~'tiuns Concerns ------· EPA is interested in bottom line policy but not in day-to-day concerns at this time. 4-21 (phone) No further comment, refer to Seattle office. 4-27 (phone) Judy Schwnrtz lla:; not read report, will caJ 1 if further comment. . ~ INTERVIEW FORM North Pacific Fishery Management Council Org::mizat ion U.S. Dept. of Commerce Suite 32 Address 333 W. 4th Ave., Anchorage 99501 Phone 274-4563 Person Jim Branson (Jim Richardson) Correspondence l)uestions, Concerns, and Comments Date 1-19 (phone) Spokesperson Y * N Source Has not addressed any of the questions about ~usitna and doesn't have a position. Not an issue that the Council would normally become involved in as jurisdiction extends from 3-200 miles offshore. Concerned with adverse effect on salmon resource and habitat for raising salmon. 4-14 Corrections to original comment noted above. INTERVIEW FORM i\lal::ika Water Study Committee Orgunizatiou U.S. Dept. of Interior · AJdress P.O. Box 3276 DT, Anchorage 99510 Phone 271-4313 Person Dick Dworsky Correspondence Om::stions, Concerns, and Comments Date 1-19 (phone) Spokesperson Y!!_ N_ Source Imp:Jct. of flow regime modification should be compared to the situation on the K<'nai Peninsula to evaluate the effect on fisheries. ~-14 (pllone) No additional comment, would like to see matrix if appropriate. INTERVIEW FORM Aids to Navigation Branch Organization U.S. Coast Guard. Attn. Martin MiJJea Commander 17th Coast Guard District Address Box 3-5000 Tnneau 99802 · Phone 586-7757 Person Martin Millen e Questions, Concerns, and Comments Date 1/26 (phone) Spokesperson Y4 N_ Gold Creek is head of navigation-no concern with structures above that.point. !~-27 (phone) Wi I I call if further comment after rereading report. INTERVIEW FORM Representative -Office of the Secretary Org;mization U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA) Suite 126 Add re~;s 2221 E. Northern I.jghts Blvd 1 Anchorage 99504 !'hone _ _2J4-7738 Pc' r.son James Fisher Correspondence _9_m·st ions, Concerns, and Comments No comment -contact USDA agencies. 4-13 (phone) Date 1 20 (phone) Spokesperson Y.iL. N_ Source Has not received report (delivered), but won't have additional comments. INTERVIEW FORM District Office Organization --~u~·~Sw.~B~u~r~e~a~u~~o~f-~L~a~n~d~M~a~n~a~g=em~·~e~n~t~(~B~L~M~)~-Date ~------ Address 4 ZOO E. ?2nd Aye. • Anchorage 99507 Phone 344-9661 Person .. John Rego. Mike Scott. C.M. Wheeler Spokesperson N Correspundence Source .9.:!_::_s_t:J.on_::;, Concerns, and Comments No interest from navigability standpoint. Portage Creek is limit of navigability. Will there be enough water to support present species of fish? Ef feet uf wi.riter flow on fry that migrate into the Susitna from tributaries. Should look at tributaries that are good producers of non-salmon species. h'hat wi 1 J the stage be at different times of the year? What is the effect of telll{h.'rature change on spawning, movement, outmlgration, <:md egg development? Is money available to study the whole system? If not, it would be better to study a portion in detail. Obtaining fish data will be difficult. 4-15 (phone) No further comment. INTERVIEW FORM Resources Section Organization U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Date 1-19 (phone) Address 701 C Street, Box 13, Anchorage 99513 Phone 271-5069 Person Lyle Linnell Spokesperson Y..!:._ N_ Source - gtt~0:_l_oll_:;, Concerns, and Comments Adequate instream flow for fish and wildlife. Aesthetic value of wild and scenic aspects of the river. 4-13 (phone) lias ski nuned through report once -no additional comments. INTERVIEW FORM Organization Alaska Water Rescnrces Beard Address Phone Person 323 E. 4th Ave •• Anchorage 99501 279-5577 Dick Sims (.J;~ IUeston. 274-3621) Correspondence No comment the board has not taken a position on Susitna. 4-16 (phone) Date Spokesperson Y_L N_ Source No further comment, send to Dick Sims (mailed with sample cover letter). INTERVIEW FORM Environmental Section Org::mization U.S. Army Corps of Enaineers (IISACE) Address P.O. Box 7002 •. Au:borage 99510 Phone 752-4310 Person John Burns Correspondence Questions, Concerns, and Comments Date J -22 Spokesperson Y~ N_ Source Impact on fish and wildlife and water quality degredation of dredge disposal and placement of structures in river. This information is generally available because other agencies have requested it. Information on productivity and type of wetlands is not available. llnnh II' to make contm.:l durin!~ fo.llow-up survey. Left message to call. INTERVIEW FORM Central Region Planning and Research Organization Alaska Dept. of transportation and pyblic Facilities (DOTPF) Address Pouch 6900. Anchorage 99502 Phone 266-1455 Person Jay Bergstrand Correspondence Questions, Concerns, and Comments Not aware of commercial nav~gation. Date _..~.:1-::.2""2"---- Spokesperson Y...:!!... N_ Source Principal concern-construct highway facilities that won't wash out. What are the peak floods (50 year, 100 year)? Recognize ADF&G's concern for fish passage. Information on fish presence and timing will help DOTPF on route selection and construction timing. 4-13 (phone) No further comment. DOTPF is beginning a transportation study for interior Alaska including the Denali Highway, and APA and Acres should work closely with DOTPF's Fairbanks planning unit. INTERVIEW FORM Office of Coastal Management Organization -AA~l~a~&~k~~~O~f~f~*~·s~aa-ee~f~t~h~e~C~o~~~·e~ru~oo.•----------- Address Pouch A.P Juneau 99811 Phone 465-3540 Person Murray Walsh Correspondence Otwstions. Concerns, and Comments Date 1/26 (phone) Spo~esperson Y....x.. N_ Source No specific comment -has broad interest. Defer to other agencies 4-27 (phone) Has not received report (mailed with sample cover letter). Will call if further comments. . - Div. of Parks Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources Will there be mitigating struetures (gabians. etc.) built near access points? These could increase recreational potentials. A damned lake has low recreational potential -too cloudy for fishing and boating -cf. Eklutna. There is no river management system -this could be an outcome of the study. A plan should be develop,ed before land passes into private ownership and the plan could include mitigation measures. There is less recreation on the west side of the Susitna as access is limited to skiffs, jet boats, and planes. The Susitna is used as an access corridor to tributaries, which are used for river rafting. Jlo\v :o;oon will the i.mpoundmen t silt in? What is the surst case flood now (100-year flood, 500-year flood), and how does this compare to the proj<ected flood in the event of dam failure? 4-14 (phone) Pete Martin 4-17 (phone) Jack Wiles Corrections noted on interview form and in text. Original comments focused on lower segment rather than upper segment. "Personal bias" should read "professional judgement." Wants appendix (delivered). INTERVIE\-1 FORM Organization Div. of Research and Development ~lgskQ Dapt of Natural iasoyrces(DNR) Date 1-20 Address 323 E. 4th Ave., Anchorage 99501 Phone 279-5577 Person Al Carson Correspondence Needs to be navigational user needs survey. Need to identify the effect of the project on rearing, fish passage and egg incubation in the Susitna from the mouth to the dam site. Spokesperson YL N_ Source Carson, A. 1980. Letter to E. Yould, Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage. AK. August 29, 1980. Carson, A. 1980. Review of technical procedures manuels. Letter to E. Yould~ Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage. AK, November 21, 1980. The main concern of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources is access to lands. 4-15 (phone) No further comment, commended initial effort. Water Management Section Div. of Forest, Land and Wate.r Management Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources Navigation for access for river craft should be navigation user needs survey to identify these areas, Methdologies and procedures are needed for accomplishing subtask 7.10. Need navigation user needs survey for impact assessment and mitigation planning. Corrections and additional comments on survey report. Smith, T. 1980. Letter to J. Hayden. Acres American Inc., Buffalo, NY, February 25, 1980. · Harle, M.L. 1980. Review of technical procedures manuels. Letter to A. Carson, Div. of Research and Devel~ opment, Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources, Anchorage. AK, September 23. 1980. Brown, D. 1981. Letter to D. Wozniak. Alaska Power Authority. April 23. 1981. Geographic concern -entire rivL~r system. Talkeetna to Cook Inlet not being studied in adequate detaiL 4-24 Received copy of letter to David Wozniak, noted corrections on interview form and in text. Wants appendix (delivered). INTERVIEW FORM Div. of Parks Organization Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources (DNR) Date 1-22 .=...::.;;;; ____ _ Address 619 Warehouse, Anchorage 99501 Phone 274-4676 Person Jack Wiles, Pete Martin Spokesperson * N Correspondence Source How would operation of the project influence winter icing in upper Cook Tnlet? More freshwater discharge :i.n winter could cause greater icing. Watana would endanger the caribou herd -flooding of habitat and impedement or blockage of migration. Don't want to see recreational potential of Montana Creek or Little Susitna lost as they are the most hE\avily used salmon streams in Cook Inlet (50? . .i m:reasc in last three Yt!ars). Dynamics of flooding vs. decreased flooding should be examined to determine how the character of the area will change -there could be enhanced recreation .if the flow i.s not too l.ow for motor boats. Initially, more gravel bars would be cxposc'u, but lilck of fluctuations could cause willows to grow in, which might inerem~e hunting. Within 20 to 30 years, the willow species will change and aldlTS will intrude as the forest matures, and as moose browse decreases, hunting would decrease. There would be more hydrologic impact on shallow, broader areas. Configuration of channels could be permanently changed. How lo9g will the study lust? INTERVIE\v FORM Organization Alaska Dept. of Date 1-20 (phone) Address 420 L Street, Suite 100, Anchorage 99501 Phone 216-3550 Person Tom Meachum Spokesperson Y.:JL N_ Correspondence Source Questions, Concerns, and Comments Will be working with Water Management Section, Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources, on instream flow regulations and will have more comments later. 4-14 (phone) Has not revi.c\..red report, wants appendix (delivered). Will call back if additional comments. Organiz<"~tion Water Management INTERVIEW FORM Section Div. of Forest, Land and Water Management Alaska Dept of Natural Be sources ,(DNR) Date 1=20 Address 32 3 E 4th Ane , Anchorage 99501 Phone 279-5577, ex 211 Person Dean Brown (G_reg Do~.t, ~ve J1ac.k., ~ Mary Lu Harle) Spokesperson YA-N __ Correspondence Since water use is based on doctrine of prior appropriation, it is imperative that instream flow requirements be quantified and withdrawn for these purposes to avoid litigation. Prelimi.nary plan of study terminated the downstream study at Talkeetna -in- adequate to address concerns over navigation and fisheries downstream as 43% of the average flow at Talkeetna will be subject to manipulation. State agencies will have to do suf- ficient work to execute management responsibilities. Navigation uHer needs survey should be conducted. Source Petrie, B. 1979. Letter to J. Madden. Div. of Policy Development and Plan- ning, Alaska Office of the Governor, Juneau, AK, January 29, 1979. Smith, T. 1979. Letter to E. Yould, Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, AK, October 26, 1979. It is doubt[ul that ixisting water rights will be affected by the propose.d project, however, this should be investigated during the instream flow studies. Instream flow requirements that may be requested by ADF&G for fish and wildlife might also protect other instream uses. · Recre.ttionnl user needs should be determined because of level of opposition to the project because of-perceived recreational losses. What kinds of recreation are desirable? Many reservoirs from hydroelectric projects are perceived positively. However, downstream fishing and kayaking may be preferred to reservoir recreation. Expecting instream flow requests from agencies. By st;llute, interested in all aspects of water usc. Need assurance that correct (l:tta wi.ll he colluclt.>d, t~xpeel m1swcrs at level of state-of-the-art j n Vl!St i !~i.l t 1om;. Needs to. be information bulletin from the Alaska Power Authority to let agencies know what publications are available. Su Hydro Aquatic Studies Team Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game 4. a. Has any of the Sus~tna River discharge been appropriated? 1. To whom and how much? 2. Where are they located? b. If the darns are constructed~ will the seasonal flows be sufficient to meet out of stream requirements for the new capital, other population growth, and industr:j.al, mineral and agrarian development? What effects will the construction and operation of the dams have on aquatic, riparian. and terrestria,l plant and animal organisms in the Susitna River Basin and Cook Inlet? 5. How will the construction and operation of the darns affect instream flow related economic, recreational, social, scientific$ and aesthetic values of the existing river system and the fish and wildlife it supports? 6. How will construction activities influence the fishery resources and associated values of the streams in. the road and transmission line corridors? 7. How will ice conditions doWnstream of the dams be influenced by construction and operation of the dam.s? 8. How will ice conditions upstream of the dams be influenced by construction and operation of the darns? 4-22 What is the definition of "commercial navigation?" The importance of the river in its frozen state ·to commercial nagivation should be considered. ie, usv. by lr:nppers, with ~now machines. The river provides access to land lca:-;es and pr:i.vate lands used by commercial fishermen and trappers. ADF&G uses barges provided by local operators to haul in gear. There is a historical record of commercial use by steamboats. The potential of co1nmercial navigation should be examined as related to land use develop- ment in the area, ie,DNR disposals, agriculture and forestry -logging potential. How could the river support these types of development, ie, transport of materials by riverboat or air charter, capability to land, number of people involved? Would float plane and barge traffic and commercial fishing be included under recreational navigation? Agree with DNR concern about effect of stream- flow alteration on access, add "and future land developments." What is the life of the reservoir, and what effect will release of sediment and ~lttcial flour. to prolong the life of the reservoir (if this is done) have dowrwtream. Gas supersaturut.ion (dissolved nitrogen) may cause pro- blems downstream and should be considered in the dam design. Also concerned with effect of altered flows on winter icing in Cook Inlet. Disagrees with SCS and Alaska Water Study Committee on value of comparing Susitna and Kenai fisheries. The value would be qualitative rather than quantifiable. Agrees with National Audubon Society concerns, as there are large hooligan runs which are major concentration points for black bear and bald eagles (such as at the Yentna). May want minimum flows for some activities rather than maximum flows. The river currently provides a stable crossing for the Iditarod, and as the race is gaining international stature, this should be considered. Su Hydro Aquatic Studies Team Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game The nintent" to apply incremental methodology should be clarified. ADF&G intends to determine if instream flow methodologies can and should be applied, and if so, how? What.is the feasibility and what would be the benefits? Wants appendix (delivered). ; ,_ Sport Fish Division Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game What is the sediment differential from side to side in this stretch? Is it significant to fish passage? Adequate mitigation studies should be provided. Major impacts will occur downstream of the dam. Concerned that funding and personnel won't be available. 4-20 (phone) "Commercial navigationn is not defined. Disagrees with SCS opinion that riparian vegetation would readjust to postproject conditions and feels that project-induced vegetation changes below the Chulitna River would be measurable. A 40 percent reduction in flow might have more impact because most of the riparian vegetation is in the delta islands area. Disagrees with SCS and Alaska Water Study Committee on value of comparing Susitna and Kenai fisheries as all circumstances are different. The Kenai system contains lakes with low sediment levels, there are different fish stocks and different recreational and commercial utilization. Input on recreational requirements was not .. personal bias" but professional opinion. Geographic concern -the primary impact will be above Talkeetna, but studies should extend to Cook Inlet. There is more fish utilization below Tal- keetna and the resource may be impacted more. Wants appendix (delivered). INTERVIEW FORM Su Hydro Aquatic Studies Team Organization Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game (ADF&G) Address 2207 Spenard Rd, Anchorage 99503 Date 1/JS I ! -Phone 274-7583 Person Tom Trent, Christopher Estew Spokesperson Y:x._ N_ Correspondence Impact of project of rearing, fish passage, and egg incubation in river from mouth should be examined. Questions, Concerns, and Comments Source Trent, T. 1980. Review of tech- nical procedures manual. Letter to A. Carson, Div. of Research and Development, Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources, Anchorage, AK, October 13, 1980. 1. How will the construction and operation of the dams affect commercial navigation? a. Will navigation in upper Cook Inlet (especially access to the Port of Anchorage.) be in flucnced by the dams? How? o. !low wiU construction tmd operation of the dams affect recreational navigation'? Will private citizens have reduced access by boats and floatplanes to westside homes? c. Will transportation to and from adjacent tributaries be affected? How? d. How will kayaking, rafting and boating be affected on the river in the Denali Highway to Talkeetna reach? 2. How will construction and operation of the dams affect the water quality in all rPaches of the river, including the Cook Inlet Estuary at the mouth of the Susitna River'? - a. How will water quality be affected by the dams if waste materials are discharged into the river by communities and industrial operations downstream of the dam? b. How will temperature conditions in all reaches of the river be affected by construction and operation of .the dams? c. How will sediment levels and turbidity be influenced by construction and operation of the dams? 3. Which laws influence the appropriation of and regulation of water quality in the Susitna River? INTERVIEW FORM Sonthcentral Regional Office Organizatinn --· Alusk£l_Q~~Jlt. of &nyironmental Co·nservation Date _j_-:::..1._5....._ ___ _ (DEC) Address 437 E Street. Second Floor. Anchorage 99501 Phone --~2~7~4~-2~5~3~3~------------------------- Correspondence Source Fish and wildlife studies dbn't contain methodologies for assessing impacts. Qdestions, Concerns, and Comments Main instream flow issue -waste assimilation. Sturdevant, D. 1980. Review of tech- nical procedures manuels. Letter to A. Carson, Div. of Research and Development, Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources, Anchorage, AK. October 27, 1980. Construction -eff~cts of routing arul rerouting flows. pumping, concrete place- ment, and removal of overburden on turbidity and suspended solids concen- trations. May cause problem for maintaining classification of Susitna for drinking water purposes. Operation -if there are lower flows in winter, the Susitna might not be able to assimilate chlorinated wastewater discharges, and fish could be killed. The capability of the Susitna to assimilate treated discharges from increased population growth in the area should be maintained. The reservoir would serve as a large settling pond, .and depending on outfall design, some S(llids might be removed. Water downstream would be easier to treat for drinking, as chlorine would not oxidize on so many suspended solids. 4-14 (phone) No further comment, wants appendix (delivered). Organization Address Phone Person Corres INTERVIEW FORM Sport Fish Division Alaska De~t. of Fish and Game (AQF&Gl 344-0541 Larry Heckart Hain concern -long term effects. Date 1-23 Spokesperson Y:!:...... N_ Source Don't yet have understanding of how the estuary might be impacted. What overwintering of juvenile and resident anadromous fish occurs in the main stem? ~1at will the philosophy of use be during and after construction? Will there be restrictions on hunting and fishing? If access to the im- poundment .is restricted, there will he a loss of recreational opportunity. Wf! I ten:c!;tt ionnl and r1•aring accesH tu c<~st side tributaries below Talkeetna bt• ma lntai.ncd? Impact on water quality and quantity will be easier to see down to Talkeetna than it will from the Parks Highway to the Deshka River, where it is broader and shallower. However, a small change in water level here will cause other changes to occur. - Organization Address Phone Person INTERVIEW FORM Office of Sped . .a.l Industrial Development Alaska Dept of Commerce and Ecg~omic Development .Pauc.h-EE, Juneau 998]1 465-20JS Dick Eakins Correspondence Questions, Concerns. and Comments No comment. '4.-27 (phone) Circulated report to staff, no specific comments at present. Date 1/26 (pROAGI) Spokesperson Y~ Source INTERVIEW FORM Div. of Community Planning Organization Alaska Dept. of Community and Regional Affairs Address 225 Cordova, Bldg. B, Anchorage 99501 Phone 264-2206 Person Larry Kimball (Ed Busch) Correspondence Date 1-20 (phoae) Spokesperson Y.!:_ N_ Source Minimum instream flows for sport fishing, subsistence. etc., should be maintuineJ. No further comment -defer to resource management agencies. 4-13 (phone) Has not read report -will call if wants appendix or has additional comments. Organization Address Phone Person Correspondence INTERVIEW FORM Anchorage Fish and Game Advisory Committee Alaska Board of Fish and Game c/o Thomas G. :Stevans 1805 Juneau Drive. Anchorage 99501 279-4664 (bm) Thomas G. Stevans (Bill Wilson, 279-4523) Questions, Concerns, and Comments Date 1-22 Spokesperson Y:f:_ N_ Source Main concern -access to hunting and fishing. Will streamflow changes alter target species that spor1tmen seek? 4-14 No further comment. INTERVIEW FORM Div. of Energy and Power Development (DEPD) Organization Alaska Dept. of Commerce and Economic Development Address 338 Denali Street. Anchorage 29501 !'hone __ ?,_76-::9_5-!..:0:!.!8:....-_____________ _ Person Dale Rusnell. Heinz Noonan Send duplicate copy to Heinz Noonan Correspondence , Concerns, and Comments Date ~1~-~1~5 ______ __ Spokesperson Y..!;._ N_· _ Source Main concern -sufficient data should be collected to be of value in determining appraisal of power resource and in answering all concerns. Geographic concern-Watana and Devil's Canyon. Gages are placed to represent total streamflow -concerned that gages may not represent this. 4-15 (phone) Has not seen report, ju~t interview form -no additional cornmments. Requested report (delivered). ' . INTERVIEW FORM Organization Village Presidents Association c/o Tyonek Natfve Corporation Address · 445 E. 5th Aye .• Suite 9. Anchorage 99501 Phone __27~48 ______________________ __. Person Agnes Brown (John Youngblood) Correspondence Questions, Concerns, and Comments Date 1-23 (phone) Spokesperson Y _:!!.. N_ Source No comment -wlll review report and refer comments to Bruce Bedard, APA. 4-15 (phone) Wii"l call if additional comments.