Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA4101UNITED STATES DEPARTNENT OF THE llITERIOR Fish and~Iildlife Service Office of the Regional Director Juneau,Alaska ",/ A Preliminary Report on Fish and Wildlife Resources in Relation to the Susitna Basin Plan,Alaska" Location Sponsor Sponsor's Status of Project Source of Engineering Data Field L1vestigation Report Prepared Third Judicial Division,Alaska Bureau of Reclamation,Alaska District Office,Juneau Basin Survey Report BuI'eau of Reclamation February -D~y,1952 ume,1952 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Pl:t];Fl.ACE e o,.-••••••••••••••••••"•e •••••••••••••••••• DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT .•••••...•••••••••••••••••••••.•1 Commercial features 41>••••••••"••••'"0)•••••••••••••••••• DESCRIF~ION OF THE SUSITNA BASIN •..•••.•••••••••..••••••••••••• Climate ••••••••••••l1'l 4>••••••••••••*1 ft "••••••••It •••••••• Hyd.rology-•••"••••••$oJ •••••••••••••••••• Geology ••••• Vegetation •• ...."". •II •••" •{'l ••"•••• ••••eGo •••••••"•••••••••• •.....G ••••••"••••"•••••• 8 10 11 11 12 13 FISFfE:,RIES.•• •• •• •••"•••••••••~41 •••••••••••••$••••••••••••••••••13 Present Fishery ••••~•••••••••••••Q...................13 Comnercial fishery ••••••••••~................14 Sports fishery...............................16 Future Fishery After Project Completion ••.••••••••••• Devil Carlyon Dam . Tyone DaJl1 ••{)••••••••"••••~••••••••••••••••••• De11ali Dam.'!1l &••••""••••••••• Talkeetna River Proposals •••••••••••••••••••• Skwentna River Proposals ••••••••••••••••••••• Chulitna River Proposals ••••••••••••••••••••• Susitna Station Dam t,•••••••••••••••• Dis cussion 4~•••••••••••••••• VlfILDLIJ.?E •••••••••••••••••••••$tl •••••••••••••••• 17 17 18 20 20 20 21 21 22 24 Present Wildlife Conditions . Caribou •••••••••••••••••0 •••0 •••••••••••••••• Moose iliI ••••••••••0 •••It •••••••••••••••• Other big game species ••••••"•••••••••••••••• Upland game ,.•••••• Waterfowl flo . Fur animals ••••••••.. 24 24 24 25 25 26 26 Future Wildlife Conditions after Project Completion •• RECOIVllJiEI\t~ATIONs '." ". 27 31 PHEFACE l.The Fish and viildlife Service is authorized under Public Law 732,79th Congress (the amended Coordination Act)to investigate all Federal water-development Projects to determine their effect on fish and wildlife.The law requires that recommendations based on these investigations shall be made an integral part of any report sub- mitted by any agency of the.Federal Government responsible for engine- ering surveys and construction of such projects..The Fish and Wildlife Service directs its investigations of water developments toward three goals:(1)prevention of loss or damage;(2)mitigation of losses; and (3)enhancement of values. In Alaska specific authority is also conveyed by the Wbite Act,approved June 6,1924,which provides in part as follows: US ec •3.That it shall be unlawful to erect or maintain any dam in any of the waters of Alaska at ~1Y point where the distance from shore to shore is less than one thousand feet with the purpose or result of capturing salmon or preventing or impeding their ascent to the spa~~ing grounds .11 2.Long-standing recognition that the primary use for salmon streams is for maintenance of the fishery--Alaska1s number one basic industry--makes it L~perative to examine closely any pro- posed conflicting uses.Outside of Alaska there are streams where uses such as navigation,power production or irrigation have long been recognized as priority uses.In Alaska the reverse is true and development affecting the fishery have a direct significance in the basic economy of the territory. 3.This is a prelim.inary report based on the Bureau of Reclamation t s basin-tj'Pe report titled IlSu sitna River Basin,11 dated June 30,1952.This report considers primarily the Devil Canyon DaJr},;...,the one most likely to be constructed in the near futtU'e. Secondarily,comments are included relating to the other dams proposed-- those included in the long-range plan but not proposed for innnediate construction. 4.The Fish and Wildlife Service should be ad"\rised of any alterations in the proposed plans so that the effects on fish and wildlife resources may be considered. 5.Studies of a preliminary nature have been conducted on the present fish and wildlife resources of the Susitna River Basin.Because of the limited available information on the present fish and wildlife resources,an additional period of study should precede the initiation of any development in order that a complete analysis of the project's effects may be made and necessary measures devised to prevent loss or damage to fish and wildlife resources. 6.The investigation reported could not have been per- formed ~nthout the generous assistance of many interested persons and agencies. ii DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT L The Bureau of Reclamation has under study a plan extending full hydroelectric development to the entire Susitna.River Basin.This plan would impose a series of 19 potential damsitea of which oi~he bydro- electric project on the upper Sus~~na River is under consideration for the immediate future.These dams are listed in Table I. 2.'·The power damsite,lrnown as Devil Cany-on,is approximately 3 miles above the confluence of Portage Creelt at river mile 134.The in- fo:rmation supplied by the Bureau of Reclamation indicates that the dam will be a concrete arch-gravity structure with an approximate height 0f crest above stream bed of .500 feet.It will have side channel spillway equipped with six 36'x50 1 radial gates,with a.n approximate initial power plant capacity of 232,000 lew. 3.The approximate stream gradient at the proposed damsite is 19 feet per mile.Drainage area above the proposed damsite is .5,830 sq. miles.Engineering data on the Devil Canyon reservoir can best be illustrated in the following mtmner. Capacity (100 AC.-F.*) Acra (Acres) Depth at Dam (Ft) Length (Miles) Average width (Ft) Max. 2,510 15,200 492 26 4,800 Min.Avg. 616 2,020 6,400 13,400 291 455 14 24 3,800 4,600 *These amounts include reduction in capacity to allow for estimated sediment deposition over a 100 year period,assumi.ng no upstream reservoirs on the main stem. Note:The above data are based on initial development of only De.vil Canyon Reservoir and Power Plant. 1 Rev.5-23-52 TABlE I BASIC DATA ON SUSITNA RIVER BASIN FOR USE BY THE FISH MID VVlLDLlFE SERVICE River Approx.Drainage Approx. Approx. Miles Above Stream Area Above Res.Area Res.Length Site Stream Mouth of Gradient Site At Max.At ,}'1ax. Susitna At Site Wat.Surf.Wat.Surf. River (ft/mi)(so.mi.)(acres)(miles) Denali Susitna R.242 8 1,2hO 84,000 ~,.,5£ Vee 11 II 200 14 4,180 23,000 31 Watana II II 165 10 5,210 15,400 32 Devil Canyon II Il 134 19 5,830 15,200 26 Olson 11 II 131 10 6,020 210 3 Susitna Station II II 22 2 19,300 106,000 16 Tyone Tyone R.244 2 440 30,000 24 Partin Chulitna R.134 23 960 1,040 5 Lucy II II 127 18 1,030 2,500 7 Tokichitna tI 11 97 9 2,560 45,000 13 Trapper Talkeetna R.123 34 720 3,600 8 Greenstone 11 11 117 58 800 1,000 6 Granite Gorge 11 11 112 43 830 650 5 Keetna 11 n 101 18 1,2/+0 4,700 11 Bearpaw II II 95 12 1,720 4,400 6 Sheep River Sheep R.108 14 390 4,600 15 Skwentna No.1 Skwentna R.117 25 590 2,200 8 Skwentna No.2 tJ II 106 25 1,070 L+,900 10 Tala chulitna II n 77 10 2,240 22,000 13 4.The Tyone River reservoir damsite is located a short distance downstream from the outlet of Tyone Lake,at river mile 244.Detailed engineering data are not yet available;however,preliminary information supplied by Reclamation indicates that in the Tyone damsite area the stream gradient is approximately 2 feet per mile.The drainage area above the damsite comprises 440 square miles having an approximate reservoir area at maximum water surface of 30,000 acres.The approximate length of the reservoir at maximum water surface is 24 miles. 5.The Denali reservoir will have a drainage area of 1,240 sq.miles. It will have an approximate reservoir area at maximum ~~ter surface of 84,000 acres with an approxL~ate length at maximum water surface of 32 miles.The stream gradient at damsite is 8 feet per mile. 6.Three additional siteg are proposed on the main stem of the upper Susitna River above the Devil Canyon site and will undoubtedly be considered for future development when the demand for more power arises. 7.In the long-range plan of extending full hydroelectric develop- ment to the entire Susitna River Basin,the Bureau of Reclamation proposes six dams in the Talkeetna.watershed;3 on the Skvientna River; 4 on the Chutetna River and one on the main stem of the Susitna River, 22 miles upstream from its mouth. S.Engineering characteristics of the proposed dams and reservoir are shown in Table II. 3 -(Abl £ BAst DATA ON SUSITNA RIVER BASIN -:1.... 1~FOR USE BY TID!~FISH AND 1tJIlDLIFE SERVICE (SHEET 1) Based on ultimate development of all reservoirs and power plants (TaWi~~~im:tlar:ee~-.~~~-Iil.,~\ftJ5~:~' <·«iia.~iltFli"F.Q~) -_......~_10_TABLE NO.II.----Site _."';.,_-;.~•..:-..~..."'-_-_................ tocation(river miles above ::•:::·•• mouth of Susi"tina):242 :200 :165 •134-.131 :22 ·2M...•• :•·::··•• Stream :Susitna :Susitna.:Susitna.:Susitna :Susitna:Susitna :Tyone •:::::• Purpose :storage :•;:::Stora.ge• For Power :Power :Power ;Power :Power •Power :For Power• ••·•:··••••·.. -Elevations above m4ls ..11ll ·:··i ··=••·•• ~Full pool :2560 :2275 :1835 :1Ji17 :920 :140 :2388 l-fin.pool ·2.360 :2090 :1670 :ll95 :920 ·95 :2358••Stream surface ·2360 :1860 :1470 •925 :870 :40 :2358•·..:··:·..·•••·Reservoir ·-2/:·:::·••·Full pool capacity (l0008..f.):5·700 :2820 :2240 :2930 •5 •3450 :800·•Full pool aNa (aores)t 84000 :23000 :1.5200 :15200 :210 ~If)6000 :30000 M:Ln ..pool capacity (lOOOa.f",):0 :480 :530 :640 :5 :72JJ :0 Min.pool area.(acrea): 0 :6000 :6300 .~5700 •210 •28000 :500•·::::·••·Design ·•:·•••••Dam type ·Earth :'U :ConcretetConarete :Concrete·~Earth :Earth• Spillway tJT:P8 ~f'f-abannel,l :Overflow,:Ovel"flow",:Off'pahannel;Overflow:·gat-ed :ga."ted :gated :gated :gated •_11 •11•·•:::••Power plant location ·None :At dam tAt dam :At dam :At dam :At dam :None·:•:•:·•Min •flow below da..m (c.i.a.1 ·0 .y :y :3500 tV ty ••••0 ('d--n)rd-&.];f: TABLE NO.II CONT. BP.(;DATA ON SUSrl'NA RIVEH BASIN FOR USE BY THE FISH AND WILDLIF'E SERVICE (SHEE'r2) Based on ultimate development of all reservoirs a.nd p0'\l'ier }Ud,Uv!:l ~l,m""l.tt"¥ri ·A'~-..'~,em~~~~~~l'm'gtt~ Ri'~r-..1.?ft ~,-l ".()"'A~"~\~~~~~ Site :Partin ::Tokichitna.:Trapper :Greenstone::Keetna Location (river miles above mouth of Susitna) _. : : ::::Gorge:_ it W '"'"•II ~.. . .. .. :134 :127 :97 :123 :117 :112 : \.it Stream Purpose m",s",l", FuJU pool ])!Jin..pool Stream surface :Chulitna:Chulitna:Chulitna ..I ",.·Talkeetna Talkeetna ·Talkeetna·'falkeetna"~.....·. ..· ·····Power •Power :Power ;Power ·Power ·Power •Power··:•········1205 :1105 ·625 ·1610 ·1410 ·1210 ·940·····1160 :1020 ·560 ·1520 ·1320 ·1090 ·790··· · ·1105 :915 ·485 ·1l~10 :1210 :9!·~O :605·· Reservoir Full pool capac.1:ty (1000 a.1'..) Full pool area (acres) Min ..pool capacity (1000 a ..f.) ¥un ..pool area (acres) Design Dam type Spilhro.y Power plant loa@tion ))11n.flow below dam.(c •.f ..SOl) &-4 -~;7--"'""Jit:'~ \.c~.q ( ft JIC DATA ON SUSITNA RIVErt BASIN FOR USE BY THE FISH A.TlJD WILDLIFE SERVICE (SHEET 3) Based on u1 timat~e development.of all reservoirs and power plants (Tabulation simila.r to that shown in F~'lS Report on Rogue River Basin,Oregon) TABL:fj NO.II CONT,._ Site Bearpa;\>'J :Sheep :Skwentna:Skwentna:Talachulitna IUver :No ..1 :No ..2 0-- Location (river miles above mouth of iusitna) Stream Purpose Elevations above mal l?ull pool Min..pool Streaun surface Reservoir ~-~1 ~~~~~';t~~{"\~VV.&.~~~l.Ja,-,,~-3 \4l;J,.*'} Full pool area (acres) ¥un ..pool capacity (lOOOa"f ..) Min ..pool area (acres) Design Dam type Spillway tyPe POI"ier plant location }YUn.flo,,!below dam (C.f.8 ..) 95 .10$:117 :106 ;;77.··:Talkeetna:Sheep :Skwentna:Skwentna ~Shront-ne. Power :Power :Power :Power ':Power,,:·••·········605 ·1040 ·1000 ·810 ·390··•·560 ·880 ·920 ·685 •~3LI-5·•·•500 ·690 ·825 ·535 ·290···•·:·· ··•~no ·605 1 I,c,;l~'L .860 Y·oL-r:.y'·•...~...,..........;;:.,"""~../. 41+00 ·l~600 ·2200 :1+900 ·22000···60 ·90 ·35 Y 210 ?J:-2hO Y•• 2200 ·1650 ·1000 :2600 ·11000•·•·::•······Earth :Concret~Concret~Cone retI:l!JJ ·1/·11 ·11 ·JJ•···········At dam :At dam :At dam :At dam :At d~n :·· ····_11 ·11 ·11 ·1/·11···· TABLE NO.II CONT. BASIC DATA ON SUSIT1\fA RIVER BASIN FOR USE BY Tp~FISH A}ID WILDLIFE SERVICE Notes All figures are prelinuna.ry and subject to revision .. 11 Data not available at present time. '1/Includes a reduction in capacity to a110\1{for estimated sediment deposition over a lOO-year period .. l!Combination section of concrete,ea.rth fill,and/or rock fill .. 7 erial view of Devil Canyon damsite (lower for-@gr-ound)and R@§@rvoir aF@a abov@. Aerial view of approx•.location of Vee Damsite; showing open hillsides,muskeg and.spruce cover typical of area. DESCRIPTION OF lR~SUSI'I'NA BASr.N 9.The Susitna Basin lies in south-central Alaska,north of the far- thest inland projection of Cook Inlet,between latitudes 610 -64 0 and longitudes 1460 -153 0 • 10.The lower is bordered on the south by the waters of Cook Inlet, on the east by the Chugach and Talkeetna mountains,and on the west and north by the Alaska Mountain Range.It has an approximate length of 125 miles and an average width of 60 miles which narrows to the north.The total drainage of the basin comprises 19,300 sq.miles.From the main stem of the river toward the bordering mountains the relief of the low- lands increases,the tributary streams are more deeply entrenched,and the flat and rolling topograph3T of the lowlcu'1ds gives way to the steeper slopes of the foothills and they in turn to r~gged glaciated mountains. The floor of the lowlands is surfaced with glacial deposits and stream gravel and is dotted tllroughout with numerous lakes • .11.The topography of the headward basin of the Susitna River differs some~ihat from that of the lower basin.This area comprises 5,830 sq. miles of predominately mountainous terrain.It is floored with a thick filling of glacial moraines and gravel through which isolated mountains project.It is bordered on the south by the rugged Talkeetna Mountains, on the north by the Alaska Range,and on the east by the nat and in- conspicuous Copper River plateau. 12.The main stem of the Susitna River h.as its source in the Susitna Glacier in the Alaska Range and flows in a meandering southerly direction for approximately 75 miles over a broad alluvial fan and plateau.At the confluence of the Oshetna Hi ver its course turns sharply westward Looking downstream from Devil Canyon damsite, ghowing rapidg and riV@F gorg@. for 75 miles through a narrow continuous canyon incised in a broad high- level valley.The course for the next 125 miles is in a southerly dir- ection through the lower Susitna Basin to Cook Inlet. 13.The principal tributaries head in high mountain glaciers and can be considered as fast flow"ing streams,excessively turbulent in the headward reaches but considerably calmer in the lower regions. 14.The headwaters of the Yentna River basin have their beginning in the glaciers of the Alaska Range and flows in a general southeast- erly direction for approxirr~tely 95 miles entering the Susitna River at river mile 24.It is one of the largest tributaries and has nu.rnerous clear water feeder streams.Within the watershead are many clear water lakes. 15.The Talkeetna River,wr.ich enters the Susitna River 80 miles above its mouth,has its origin in the Talkeetna Mountains. 16.The Chulitna River heads in the Alaska Range and flows in a southerly direction,joining the Susitna at river mile 80. 17.The Oshetna River,one of the principal tributaries of the uprer Susitna basin,heads in the TaLteeetna Kountains.Its course is in a northerly direction for aFpro~~tely 40 miles,where it dis- charges into the Susitna River at river wile 205.It is a swift flovdng stream ~~th an average gradient of 45 feet per mile being steepest in the upper reaches and flatter in the lOi'fer region. 18.The Tyone River,which discharges into the Susitna at river mile 216,heads in the low and inconspicuous divide between the Copper and Susitna watershed.Its numerous feeder streams are clear slow-moving, draining a multitude of clear "Jater lakes.The lllain stem flows through Ypper Talkeetna River and Tributary -show- ing valley topography and spruce-birch forest. Three of the largest lakes in the entire Susitn.a Basin:Louise,Susitna and '!'yone. 19.The Maclaren River heads in the glaciers of the Alaska.Range. Its course is in a southeasterly direction and discharges in the upper Susitna at river mile 228. COMMERCIAL FEATURES 20.The Alaska Railroad is the only overiand means of transportation through the Susitna River Basin.The McKinley Park-Paxson Highway, presently under construction,'will pass through the headward portion of the Upper Susitna Basin.!,ccess to remote portions of the Basin is managed either by air travel or by the fast-dying dog team method. 21.The population of the Basin is chie.fly concentrated along the rail- belt with scattered settlements of trappers and miners throughout the entire Basin.The proposed project site is located approximately midway between Anchorage and Fairbanks,the two largest cities in the Territory. 22.Most of the Susitna Basin is unappropriated,unsurveyed,public lands. 23.The economic activities are chiefly in the lower 120 miles of the basin along the railbelt.The commercial fi,ehery tapping the Susitna salmon runs is located in Cook Inlet.Placer gold,lode gold,tungsten and con- struction materials are produced in this area,but only in small quantities. Coal and other minerals are present but have received little attention. Portions of the lower basiIl are suited for a,griculture but have not seen development as yet. GEOLOGY, 2.4.The Alaska Range to the west and north and the Talkeetna Range to the east make up the high perimeter of the ci'usitna River Basin.The Alaska Range is made up of Paleozoic and Mesozoic sediments some of which have been metamorphosed in va.rying degrees and intruded by granitic masses.The 10 Talkeetna Mountain Range with peaks up to 8,000 feet is made up of a gra- nitic batholith riJmned.on the Susitna Basin side by graywackes,argillites and greenstones.Much of the interior portion of the Basin is made up of fluvial-glacial overburden materials which were deposited in advance of the great "Rivers of Ice ll which carved the broad nUll shaped valleys through which its rivers now flow.These materials overlie the Tertiary sediments composed mainly of shale and sandstones with interbedded coals and lap the Paleozoic and Mesozoic sediments and lava flows making up the lower reaches of the mountain perimeter. VEGETATION 25.The vegetation of the Susitna Basin is largely determined by the climatic and geographic conditions.The floor of the lower basin is covered with forests interspersed with low muskeg vegetation.The higher benches are timbered,with occasional g.lades covered.with redtop grass.The mountain slopes are occupied by a dense gro-wth of trees up to the elevation of approximately 2,000 feet.~ove the timb~rline there are scattered thickets of alders and willows in large wide,spread meadows of luxu.riant redtop grass which often attains the height of 6 feet.Above this zone the surface is mostly"devoid of vegetation E!XCept for moss,lichens and flowers.Spruce,birch,aspen,cottonwood,willow and alder are the most common trees that are to be found in abundan.ce in this region. 26.The common undergrowth of the forested areas consists of moss,ferns, indian paint berry,high and low bush cranberry,devils club,wild rose, buckberry,blueberry,huckleberry-J'currants,grass and wild'flowers which grow in abundance. 27.The vegetation in the upper Susitna Basin differs somewhat from that of the lower Susitna Basin.The timber line is higher -ranging 11 Aerial view of the Chulitna River showing typical vegetation common to this section of basin. Whistling Swan -Yentsa and Skwenta Area from 2,500 to 3,000 feet in elE/vation.The lowland,of swampy or poorly drained gravel fiats,is covered with scrubby low spruce trees.In a few valleys of the tributaries the spruce trees grow larger,up to 2~ feet in diameter.Some birch,willows and alders are present in scatter- ed localities but are not considered abundant.Redtop and.bunch grass are present,but only in a scattered state along well drained benches. Much of the Basin is covered with muskeg and tundra. CLIMATE 28.The climate of the Susitna Basin is definitely diversified.The latitude of the region gives it long winters and short summers and a great variation in the length of the day between winter and summer. 29.The Lower Susitna Basin owes its relatively moderate climate to the warm.waters of the pacific on the south,the great barriers of the .Alaska Range on the north and west and the Te,lkeetna Range on the east. The summers are of moderate temperature and have a large number of cloudy days with gentle rains.The winters are cold,and the snowfall is fairly heavy.Talkeetna bas an annual mean temperature of 33.30 and an average annual precipitation of 30.74 in(~hes.The entire lower Basin may be considered to have similar climatic conditions. 30.The upper Susitna Basin is separated from the coast by high mountains and the climate may be eharacterized as having long seT,ere winters,moderate swmners and little precip:i.tation. 31.There are no records of the temperat1are and precipitation for the Basin.However,it may be considered to compare favorably with Mt. McKinley Park area,which has an average annual precipitation of 13.69 inches and an annual mean temperature of 27.20 • 12 HYDROLOGY 32.Stream flow in the Susitna Basin is characterized by high rate of discharge during the months of May,June,July,August and September and by low flows from October through April. 33.The high discharges are caused by rainfall,long hours of sun- light causing the snow to melt and,during the latter part of the summer, by the melting of the many glaciers.During this period,the streams carry a heavy load of silt. 34.The period of low discharge is caused by the severe winters when the temperature seldom rises above freezing.During this period the streams are fairly clear and carry little silt. FISHERIES PRESENT FlSHERY 35.One of the foremost purposes of this report is to describe the fishery of the Susitna River Basin and to explain how these will be affected by the Bureau of Reclamation's proposed plan.The fishes that utilize the Susitna Basin can best be divided into two groups;resident and anadromous.The resident fishes are what the word.implies while the anadromous are those which spend a portion of their life in the sea and. return to fresh water to spawn.These runs so far as our knowledge goes,are illustrated by the map,Fig.1.Grayling,rainbew trout, lake cbarr,dolly varden,whitefish,sucker and ling cod comprise the principal resident population of the Susitna Basin. 36.The anadromous group comprises five species of salmon;red, silver,king,chum and pink.Rainbow trout (steelhead)are also in- cluded in this group. 13 37.Commercial Fishery -Salmon posses a homing instinct and usually return to the lake or stream where their parents spawned.They ascend the fresh water streams from the ocean for only one purpose,to spawn, and after the completion of this act they die.The young salmon spend a portion of their early life in the f~sh water before they migrate to the ocean.When mature they return to the fresh water to complete the cycle.The time required for the completion of this cycle in Ala.skan waters varies with each species.The dom:i.narlt cycle for the red salmon is 5 years,3 to 5 years for the chums,3 to 4 years for the silvers, 3 to 7 years for the kings and 2 years for the pinks. 38.In view of the length of time involved for salmon to complete their life cycle,a period of 7 years of study are required in order that a complete analysis of the Susitna salmon may be made. 39.The Susitna River is considered one of the pre-eminent salmon spawning streams of the Cook Inlet region.In order to fully evaluate the importance of its salmon fishery,it is necessary to develop a brief discussion of the economic importance of the annual salmon pack of Cook Inlet. 40.During the 1951 season,there were 21 salmon canneries and 5 fresh and frozen salmon operators in business in Cook Inlet.Cook Inlet annually produces approximately 6 per cent of the total salmon.pack of the Territory of Alaska.In the 1951 season,the Inlet produced well over 10 per cent of the total Alaska pack.Approximately 60 per cent of the Alaska canned king salmon is produced each year in Cook Inlet. 41.From 1941 through 1950 the Inlets average annual case production 32\6 Dams.U NIT E 0 5 TAT E S o EPA R T MEN T OF THE IN T E RIO R BUREAU OF RECLAMATION ALASKA DISTRICT OFFICE SUSITNA RIVER BASIN POTENTI A L HYDRO-ELECTRIC POWER DEVELOPMENTS SALMON DISPERSION Salmon Runs in Rel~tion to F 0 o~ed Susitna Basin Showinp Known MpjorFig.1. 14~ Partin Lucy Tokic Itna To us hu ir t n a· S kwertna NO.2 Skwentna No I \~ II eyS,tp;-;O~T:-;;E~N;:;T~IA;-L;-;:D::A:M;:;S~E~X;(PPIL~A:r;N~A;;;TTTiIO~N~-----fL-_-_/L_--------~ AND RESERVOIRS 4 -------~CD Susltna Station Indicates runs of anadlramaus /#,11011(I @ Olson fJshes(Red,K ng,SilIVer, r.CD Devil Canyon Chum and Pink Salmoon) IllolN ~3 watcna ItH8HHHHH~ _~,.--4 Ve_SCALE OF MILES 5~ 6 Dena" yone I<eet'lO 9 ~Bearpaw Gra r 11 e Gorge Greenstone ~ropper Sheep River ~udd Lk ,-) / <R '" of salmon by species was 137,320 cases of reds;50,394 of pinks; 30,771 of chums;31,034 of silvers and 28,772 of kings.The average annual value by species is as follows:Reds $3,913,648;Pinks $1,159,062;ChWllS $630,806;Silvers $636,197;and Kings $661,756. 42.The total Cook Inlet salmon pack had an average annual value from 1941 through 1950 of $7,001,461.Of this total Cook Inlet average annual pack,it is estimated that the Susitna River produces something like 60 per cent of the kings;20 per cent of the reds;30 per cent of the cimms;20 per cent of the silvers and.10 per cent of the pinks; having a total average annual value of something like 12,000,000. 43.The salmon be~entering the Susitna Hi.ver in June and the nm continues well into the month of August.There is a fall rtm of considerably less magnitude tham the early run which is at present of little economic importance. 44.During the past four years aerial and ground survey's have been conducted in the Susitna Basin under the supervision of the district resident Fishery Management Biologist of the Fish and Wildlife Service .. The primary purpose of these surveys is to determine the waters in the basin that are used as spawning grounds and the species and numbers of salmon utilizing them.A complete coverage of all the lakes and streams in the basin has not as yet been realized.However,a majority of the main tributaries have been surveyed by both the aerial and the gr(j)und method..Considerable stream clearance work bas "been accomplished in the 'basin during the past few years by the ground survey parties.The basin maps covering this report,Fig.2,illustrates the dispersion of the araa.dromous fishes by species and show the spawning areas listed alphabetically as to their relative importance. 15 3216 SCALE OF MILES for Salmon Priority Spawning Areas by Species 16 0 HAHHAHAHI UNITED STATESoEPAR T MEN T OF THE I N T E RIO R BUREAU OF RECLAMATION ALASKA DISTRICT OFFICE SUS/rNA RIVER BASIN POTENTI A L HYDRO-ELECTRIC POWER DEVELOPMENTS SALMON SPECIES @ Red @ King lID Silver ©Chum ~Pink •.•.•.'Indicates Salmon runs ___-H-----i 630 1 \~5 t-P-O-T-E-N-T-I-A-L-D-A-M-S-E=-:-:X:-:P~L-A:--:-:N:-:A:-:T::-:I:-:O:-:N:-:-------iL-.LL-_ AND RESERVOIRS SPAWNING AREAS LISTED)AS CD SU~ltna Station TO RE LAT IVE 1M PORTAN4CE ~Olson Icnelatna Lake areaCDD'!vll Canyon 8 Willow Creek area \Natana C Fish Lake area ee 0 Red S irt Lake area ~®Shell Lake area Denali ®Talkeetna River area Fi-g.2. yone Kee''"10~aw 10 Granite Gorge Greenstone Trapper Sheep Rive r 14~ Partin Lucy Toklchltna Talushulltna Skwentna No 2 Skwentna No 149°150° 1 N'LET \ / { I I I CRW 62°,----+--(2Q--+-_ 451 Salmon are known to run up the main stem of the Susitna River as far as the confluence of Portage Creek which is approximately 3 miles below the proposed Devil Canyon damsite.Portage Creek supports a run of kings ,silver and chum salmon. 46.Sports Fishery--Besides being regarded as one of the pre-eminent salmon spawning streams of the Cook Inlet region,the Susitna drainage supports a sport.s fishery-of considerable ecoDomic importance. 47.Rainbow trout,grayliBg,dolly varden trout,and lake charI"are the principal fresh water game species native to the watershed.Silmon are highly prized as a sport fish by anglers fishing these waters.Precise knowledge of the relative abedance and distribution of the game species in remote sections of the basin is lacking,however,reports from anglers returning from fishing expeditions to these remote areas indicate that there is a wide distribution of these game species and that t:ney are abundant. 48.Because of the iDaccessibility of the major portion of the wate:r- shed,only partial utilization of this resource has been realized. Streams &rld lakes along and adjacent to the raUbelt have thuB far carried the greatest burden of the ever iBcreasing fishing pressure.During the swmner months the Alaska Railroad runs a "Fisherman I s Special"train to the Susitna basin in order to aeeoDll'OOdate the mass weekend exodus from Anchorage and vicinity.Recent developments in air transportation has made it psssible to naeh remote areas in a few hours where it formerly took days and weeks.Daily flights are made into the basin by commercial. air services from Anchorage,Fairbanks,Palmer and Ta.lkeetna to accommo- date the increasing number of anglers.The completion of the McKinley Park-Paxson Highway will allow access by automobile to the headward 16 poll'tion of the basin.This new highway will open a portion of the upper Susitl"la.drainage to mQtorists and recreational fishermen. 49.As previously stated and as illu.strated on the dispersion map, Fig.1,the runs of the anadromous fishes te:rm.ina.te at the confluence of Portage Creek.The impetuous waters which pass through the narrow 75 mile canyon above Portage Creek evidently is harrier enough to prevent the anadromou$fishes from utilizing the headward.basin as spawning grounds. 50.The Lake Louise area has excellent potentialities as a recreation- al area.The Ala.ska Command at present is contem.plating enlarging their present rest camp at Lake Louise to a sufficient size to accommodate large n'WJlbers of military personnel and their families.Their plans also call for the constI"l1ction of a highway from the Tazlina Glacier Lodge on the Glen Highway to their camp on Lake LOllise.It is evident that,with this development,the fishery of Lake Louise and adjacent waters will be subject to greater concentrated fishing pressure from both the military and civUian anglers. 51.It is apparent tha.t there will be an annual increase in fishing pressure in the Susitna Basin and only with a proper management program, will the present fisher,y resources be self-sustaining. FUTURE FISHERY AFTER PROJECT COMPLETION Devil Canyon Dam 52.The Devil Canyon Dam would be built to produce hydroelectric power,a.nd in a.ll probability would be the first development.in the basin.The construction of this unit would have little harmful effect 17 on the existing fish population within its zpne of influence.Table III shows unregulated.and regulated runoff bellOW Devil Canyon Dam in average cubic feet per second. 53.Since the anadromous fishes cannot utilize the upper Susitna. waters above the coni'luence of Portage Creek,the proposed develo,.ent in the above waters would not result in loss to this fishery resource. The Devil Ganyon reservoir can be expected to support a fishery only of minor importance because of the tremendous fluctuations in water levels. Regulated flows and expected reduction in sediment content of the dis- charge waters below the Devil Canyon Dam should develop new spawning grounds for the anadromous fishes and improve the habitat of the resident fishes. !yone Dam 54.The proposed reservoir development on the '!'yone River would result in a loss to the present sport fishery of the involved area. Areas that are now utilized·by the present fish population for spawning would be partially destroyed.The dam would be a block to the migratory .fishes.Considerable damage would result .fNm contemplated draw-d.oWB during the winter months and ma.terially alter the present sport fishery in '!'yone,Susitna and Louise Lakes.Unless equal minimum.flows are maintai:ned a:nd are equivalent to the present natural .flows,serious damage may be done to the fishes inhabiting the waters below the dam-. site. 55.The relatio:nship o.f Tyone Dam to Devil Canyon Reservoir has a bearing on the over-all effect upon fish and wildlife habitat.If both are required for full power development,project effects will n.eed to 18 Rev.5-23-52 TABLE III ADDITIONAL BASIC DATA ON DeVIL CA~~ON RESERVOIR FOR USE BY THE FISH AND \iILDLIFE SERVICE Runoff Below Devil C~nyon Dam in Average QUbic Feet 2~r Second Unre5£l~~~Runoff Regulated Runoff Month Max.Min.Avg.~fa.x.Min.Avg. Yr.Yr.Yr.Yr.&.-Yr •. Oct.7,560 2,620 4,890 7,560 4,110 4,890 Nov.3,130 1,090 2,020 4,230 4,340 4,250\ Dec.2,280 780 1,460 4,160 4,340 4,210 Jan.2,280 780 1,460 4,230 4,520 4,320 l"eb.1,680 580 1,080 4,810 5,260 4,970 Har.2,2(-0 780 1,460 4,460 5,070 4,6130 April 2,350 810 1,510 4,740 5,700 5,280 May 18,150 6,300 11,740 8,290 5,840 4,780 June 28,910 10,030 18;700 26,440 5,660 8,250 July 34,020 11,800 ;;2,000 ~4,020 L~,9~0 n,2?O Aug.30,24.0 10,490 19,560 30,240 4,550 19,560 Sept.20,320 7,040 13,149 20 '220 4 ,1;90 1?,11->o9'a;._ TOTAL 12,850 4,450 8,310 12,850 4,900 8,310 Note:The above data are based on initial development of only Devil Canyon Reservoir and Power Plant 19 be re-evaluated on this basis. Denali Dam 56.The proposed Denali reservoir development on the main stem of the Susitna River would have little serious effect on the.present fishery resources of that area.It is doubtful that a fishery of any great importance would develop in the reservoir because of the glacial nature of the streams.The relationship of this reservoir to Devil Canyon and Tyone may require evaluation of all three as to over-all effects on fish and wildlife_ Talkeetna River Proposals 57.Five dam sites are proposed on the main stem of the Talkeetna River,a major tributary to the Susitna River.Talkeetna drainage represents approximately 22 per cent of the red spawning area in the Susitna drainage and 30 per cent of the king and silver spawning area. It also supports a rtm of chum and pink salmon besides a sports fishery of great importance.The development of one or more reservoirs on the main stem of this river would result in blocking salmon runs of con- siderable import.a.nee,as well as being harmful to the existing sports fishery_ Skwentna Rivar PNpc?sals 58.Three dams are preposed along the main stem of the Skwentna River.The Talushulitna Dam would block salmon nulS of considerable economic value.Red,silver,chum,and pink salmon utilize the waters above the proposed dam site.The two proposed develppments upstream from the proposed Talsuha.1itna Dam would involve the fishery resources 20 Aerial view of Denali Reservoir and Damsite.Damsite in foreground,Alaska Range in background,Reservoir area shown above. to an undetermined extent. Chulitna River Proposals 59.Four damsites are proposed mn the Chulitna River,a major tributary of the Susitna River.Development anywhere along the Chulitna River would involve the fishery resources of that area to an undetlerm1.ned. extent. Susitna Station Dam 60.The proposed Susitna Station dam would be located 22 miles up- stream from the mouth of the Susitna River.This dam presents the grea.t- est fishery problem of all the developments proposed by the Bureau of Reclamation.Virtually all of the anadromous fishes would be blocked from their natural spawning areas in the upper reaches of the river. It is conceivable that they might pass over the Susitna Station Dam by means of a costly fish ladder,but a high percentage of young fish structure migrating seaward would be destroyed as they pass through the outlet;!of the dam.The construction of hatcheries would involve tremendous expenditures,with no assurance that such a program would.be successful. 61.The construction of the Susitna.Station Dam would most seriously damage the most va.lu.able resource of the entire Susitna.Basin. DISCUSSION 62.The salmon fishery of Cook Inlet is largely dependent on the Susitna watershed as a spav.'Iling ground.The imposition of another use on this River should be planned for the least interference with the existing resource.The construction of low dams across rivers are barriers to the migrating salmon,and high dams,over which salmon cannot successfully be transported,block access to the streams and lakes that were formerly utilized by their ancesters.The Susitna salmon in their spawning migrations spread to most of the lower Susitna tributaries..Any developments on the main stem of the Talkeetna, Skwentna,and the Chulitna rivers would seriously damage the present fishery.The development of the Susitna Station dam would completely block the entire spawning migration into the basin. 63.There are tv.'O compelling reasons for eliminating the lower Susitna and tributary dams fr~~the proposed plan:The existence of alternate power sites and the need to perpetuate the fishery. 64.Considering salmon primarily,the upper Susitna dams 1f!ould not affect this fishery since the runs,so far as present information goes,do not extend this far upstream.Considering the sport fishery and 'Wildlife tm effect of the upper darns is not fully known.Con- struction of the Devil Canyon Dam of itself will affect fish and wildlife habitat to a minor degree;a minor loss of habitat within the reservoir and a sligbt stream L~provement downstream. 65.No further study is considered necessary on the Devil Canyon proposal;however,the other upper river darns will require additional biological investigation.If the three major upper river dams,Devil Canyon,Tyone,and Denali/,to be interrelated units of one hydro-power system then the fish and wildlife evaluation should encompass all three. 66.It is doubtful that significant sport fisheries wouiI.d develop in most of the proposed reservoirs because of the great fluctuation of water levels.However,it is possible tha.t a few of t he impound- ments might support a trout or grayling fishery of some value.vlater level fluctuation limits considerably the production of bottom dwelling organisms,upon which trout and grayling feed.Aquatic vegetation along the margins of the reservoirs seldom become well established when great water level fluctuations occur.Greater productivity and fertility of the reservoirs can be realized by keeping the water level fluctuations at a minimum,a method of operation unsuited to hydro-power reservoirs. 67.Recreational pursuits such as hunting,fishing,camping and photography have increased several fold in the past decade in Alaska. Assuming the trend will continue,necessary recreational spots must be kept prominently in mind in basin planning. Red salmon in spawning migration.This is the most valuable species in the Cook Inlet pack. ---------- ribou is the outstanding oig-garr.e animal c~ lsi tna drainage. J Upper PRESENT WlLDLIFE CONDITIONS Caribou 68.The range of the Nelchina caribou herd lies in the Susitna Basin in the Talkeetna Mountains and east.This group is one of the most important big game herds in the Territory because:first,it is restricted to a definite range and does not indulge.in long migrations as do the more northern herds;second,the Nelchina area is reasonably close ta.the center of population such as Anchorage,Palmer,and Fairbanks;and third,the Glenn highway and the McKinley Park road make the regiGn accessible to hlmters who only have automobiles for transportation. 69.The NelchiRa caribou herd formerly numbered about 10,000 animals,but by 1948 the population had been reduced to 4,500.Since that time hunting restrictions and an intensive preda.tor control program have allowed caribou numbers to increase to about 7,000 animals. 70.The animal kill has increased from .350 animals in 1948 to 600 in 1952.Each year the hunting pressure has increased at a much higher rate than the increased kill.Apparently the hunting restrictions and predator control bas more than offset the increased hoting pressure, and the Nelchina caribou herd is increasing. Moose 71.The lower Su.sitna Valley west of the Talkeetna Mountains is the home of the largest moose herd in Alaska.The Susitna moose were not numerous prior to constru.ction of the Alaska Railroad and settle- ment of the Matanuska Valley when fires from these operations burned off a great deal of the original spruce-birch forest and created a'large second-growth winter range that is se important to moose. 72~The larger moose populations and increased hunting pressure in recent years have resulted in a greater kill each year.The known legal ldll during the 1951 hunting season was 514 bulls. 73.The Susitna winter ranges are rapidly growing out of reach and without some new disrupting influence such as fire,there will be within the next decade only enough winter forage for greatly reduced moose numbers. Other Big Game Species 74.Mountain goats,Dall sheep and Black,Grizzly and Alaskan Brown bears are also located in tne Susitna basin.Goats and sheep are found in the higher elevations and are not numerous enough to be 0f great importance to hunters.Only a few are taken each year.Important big game ranges are shown on the map Fig.3. 75.Bear are scattered throughout the entire basin with grizzlies in the mountains and black and Alaska brown bear in the low elevations. There are no great concentrations and only a few are killed by hunters each year. Upland Game 76.Both ptarmigan and spruce grouse are found in the Susitna basin. ptarmigan spend.the summers in the mountains and migrate to the lower elevations in the winter,while grouse live in the lowlands year-round. During years of peak abundance grouse and ptarmigan are plentiful through- out the Susitna basin while during the cyclic lows they are quite scarce. 25 The Susitna Valley supports the largest moose herd in Alaska with the main concentrations in the Lower Susitna Yentna areas. 32\6, SCALE OF MILES \6 0 HHHHHHAHI UNITED STATESoEPAR T MEN T OF THE IN T E RIO R BUREAU OF RECLAMATION ALASKA DISTRICT OFFICE SUSlrNA RIVER BASIN POTENTI A L HYDRO-ELECTRIC POWER DEVELOPMENTS WILDLIFE HABITATS Ba ffi in Fi P.~. ~Bearpaw Gra n Ite Gorge Greenstone Trapper Sheep River ~ Partin Lucy Toklchltna To lushu litno Skwentna No.2 Skwentna No.I L_L~~~~-jJ---1630 150 0 1500 INLET Judd Lk ,-) \/ ~~~<v /MOOSE~'li0r ~~-r'\"'i:~;7i-~~----.j4-.-J1.----I~t---f-+'1r-+-~d:.::'~---=--------1---~e.,,__~------l---------;.-------+------I---~-ff" \~1480 1147 0 a p..5 POTENTIAL DAMS EXPLANATION AND RESERVOIRS ~(0 Susitna Station r.I ~~~sv~~Canyon .Watana -----',.,......"Vee 77.Snowshoe hares are located.throughout the basin,and as with game birds their numbers fluctuate with their cycles. Waterfowl 78.Because the Susitlla basin is relatively inaccessible and other areas closer to cities provide adequate hunting,practically all the kill is made near the roads and is not heavy. 79.Except for the mountainou.s areas the entire Susitna basin is dotted with a great number of lakes and ponds that pNlvide many pest- iBg places for migrating waterfowl.The nesting population is not gr1zat compared with other locations in the Territory,but moderate production over a large area contributes a great many waterfowl.Aerial transects showed an average density of 8 breeding waterfowl per square mile in the Lake Louise area,consisting primar~of Seoters,Scaup and Malla.ros.Many persons from .AD.ehorage and the Matunska Valley hunt ducks and geese each season. Fur Animals SO.The most important fur animal in the Susitna Basin is the beaver,particularly west of the Talkeetna.Mountains and.that area drained.by Tyone River.Extensive growths of aspen,willow,cottonwood, and birch have created an excellent habitat and beaver are very plenti- ful. 81.Beaver are more commonly trapped than any other fur aniDal. While only a few trappers remain out for the entire fur trapping season, a great ma.ny people go out during February and March to obtain a limit of ten beaver.During the 1952 trapping season about 1,500 beaver were taken,or a bag limit of ten for 150 trappers.The value of the fur was about $30,000. 26 82.However,the decline in fur values in recent yea.rs and the abundance of high-salaried defense construction jobs in the vicinity of Anchorage reduced the number of trappers greatly.In 1946 "about 5,000 beaver were taken in the Susitna Basin and the fur value was approximately $250,000.Whem defense construction tapers off or the value of beaver pelts increa$es,the Susitna.basin will be ot much greater importance than it is at present. 83.Needless to say,with such little trapping,beaver populations are increasing. 84.Otber fur animals in the SUsitna Basin are mink,muskrat,tox, weasel,lynx,otter,wolverine,wolf,and coyote.These are even less important than beaver with the present slump in fur values,but,of course,increased prices will enhance the worth of this fur resource. Wolves and coyotes are classed as predators and are subject to a territorial bounty of $50 for wolves and $30 for coyotes.There is no closed season on the wolverine. FUTUR15 WILDLIFE CONDITIONS AFTER PROJECT COMPLETION 85.The effect of river basin projects upon the wildlife of the Susitna Basin is to a great extent a matter of conjecture.The entire basin is still a wilderness area,and even if all the proposed dams were constructed,no species would be in danger of extermination.How- ever,the ~estion remains as to the effect the proposed dams will have on total populations and the resulting shootable su.rpluses. 86.The proposed dam.locations along the upper Slisitna.Rivelt (Denali,Tyone and Vee)lie squarely in the route of migration of the 27 Nelchina caribou herd.between its summer range in the Talkeetna. Mountains and the wintering areas near Lake Louise.While the caribou at present readily cross the Susitna River,both by swimming and across the ice and show no hesitation about crossing lakes in the vicinity, it is not known Whether the dams will act as a barrier to the anima]s. Surely fluctuating water levels beneath a thin layer of ice would present a great hazard. S7.Probably the most serious effects of the dams in this area will be to threaten the migration pattern because of greatly increased hu.ma.n activity and to open the country to greatly increased hunting pressure. 88.Caribou are notoriously intolerant of human activities and their wandering habits could easily cause them to desert their present range for a more inaccessible area.The economic value of caribou herds that are not available to hunters is greatly reduced. 39.The other possibility is that construction of dams in the caribou range would subject the herd to prohibitive hunting pressure. The dams will require construction of roads into hitherto inaccessible areas that afforcled.the animals a measure of sanctuary.The present kill is the maximum allowable under a general open season and greater hunting pressure will necessitate drastic restrictions.The dBJllS might also have other unforeseen effects on the Nelchina herd. 90.'With one exception,it is doubtful if the proposed basin projects will have a great effect on the moose of the lower Susitna. The dams will undoubtedly destroy a certain am.ount of moose forage,but the shallows created in the upper reaches of the lakes will provide additional moose feed.There are sufficient landing areas for float 28 equipped a.ircraft at present,and additional ones created by the dam. construction would not materially affect the hunting pressure. 91.The proposed dam at Susitna.Station,located in a lowland area III c-. and creating a trem.endous reservoir will flood a great deal of m.oose habitat,both summer and the highly important winter range.The winter ranges extend along the Ientna,Deska,and Susitna Rivers in those areas where second growth.willow,birch,and aspen occur.Without adequate wintering ranges,the moose are unable to utilize the vast summer ranges, and their po pulations will be greatly reduced.The winter range is very limited at present and any further reduction in the lower Susitna. will seriously affect the moose herds. 92.Other big game animals in the Susitna basin will not be affect- ed greatly by the dam.construction program.Sheep and goa.ts range above the reservoir areas and the construction of Nads and aircraft landing areas will increase hunting pressure in a few isolated locations.Bear are scattered throughout the basin and will be little affected. 93.There is an extensive habitat in the Susitna.basin for ptarmigan, grouse,and rabbits which would be reduced somewhat by reservoir f'lood- ing. 94.There are sufficient water areas in the Susitna.Basin at present to meet waterfowl needs and constmction of reservoirs would have little effect upon the ducks and geese.A drastic rise in Lake Louise water levels duringtbe period June 10 to July 10 would flood nests of Diving Ducks. 95.The most important furbearer,the beaver,would be little affected by the hydroelectric projects,except by the dam at Susitna 29 station (No.1)where a great deal of beaver habita.t would be flooded. This area is relatively close to Anchorage and Palmer a.nd even with the present low fur values many trappers utilize these locations.The cost of transportation to the lower Susitna River is :much less than to other areas and.because of increased transportation rates and reduced fur prices,trappers must operate on a very small margin.The loss of this area.would be a severe blow to the local trappers.Other fur animals would not be greatly affected by the proposed power developments. 96.It appears that three wildlife species in the Susitna Basin would be affected by the proposed hydroelectric projects.Moose and beaver would suffer upon the completion of the Susitna Station dam. The effect of the upper river projects upon the Nelchina caribou herd remains to be seen.Probably other species will BGt be affected. 30 RECOlvliViENDATION S It is recommended that: 1.Land withdrawals from the public domain for the Susitna projects should contain a provision for public access for hunting, fishing,trapping and recreational pursuits. 2.Management of fish and wildlife resources should continue to be vested in the Fish and Wildlife Service. 3.The Devil Canyon dam be reported favorably so far as fish and .-dldlife is concerned.Based on preliminary surveys,it appears that saL'1lon do not ascend beyond the Devil Canyon damsite and while this reservoir will affect wildlife species to a minor degree it will not damage any known salmon runs. 4.The minimum operating flow be continued uninterrupted belo"1 the Devil Canyon Dam in order to preserve the resident fish population in downstream reaches.This flow to be of a magnitude of about 4,000 second-feet. 5.Additional biological surveys be made on the proposed Denali and Tyone reservoirs and if either or ooth are essential to operation of the Devil Canyon project,recommendation number three be recon- sidered. 6.The proposed Susitna Station Dam be eliminated from the basin development plan since it would exterminate the Susitna sa1mon runs and since alternate power sites exist. 7.Several of the proposed dams on the Talkeetna,Skwenta,and Chulitna Rivers be eliminated from the plan,however,this recom- mendation w~ll be elaborated following complete biological surveys. 8.An additional period of study precede the initiation of any 3:1 river development,with the exception of the Devil T Canyon Dam.This period to be governed by the life cycle of the species of saL~on involved,for streams supporting king and red salmon runs the minimum period to be seven years. 9.No consideration be given to fish ladders or elevators as a means of passing fish over high dams in view of the demonstrated fail- ure of these devices on Columbia River high dams--both for passing adult salmon upstream and young salmon back down to the sea. ,32