Before the FERC Application for New License for the Annex Creek ...

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
P.O. Box 1287
Juneau, Alaska 99802
(907)586-7240
Mr. William A. Cbrbus, Manager
Alaska Electric Light and Power Company
134 N. Franklin street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
August 06, 1985
Dear Mr. O>rbus:
The u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has reviewed the draft • Al;plication
for New License for the Annex Creek and Salmon Creek Hydroelectric Project,.
FERC Project No. 2307,· as prepared by the Alaska Electric Light and Power
Conpany (AELP). We offer the following comnents:
General Comments:
Generally, the draft appears to be an adequate review of the proposed action.
Some of the issues could be expanded to better address future demands which
may be placed upon Salmon Creek. In recent years, the drainage has been
involved in sustaining the Twin Lakes recreation area, a salmon hatchery, an
increasingly popular sport fishe~, and most recently a Borough water supply
system. The projection of relative impacts of power generation in relation to
total inpacts, both present and future, would be of interest.
The documentation of the preliminary project review and interagency
coordination suggests only limited interaction with federal agencies. Should
any dispute arise on discharge regimes, inadequate federal coordination could
necessitate further evaluation.
§pecific Cbmments:
Page B-8: Paragraph 3:
The text indicates that releases from the upper power house will be made
during periods of low flow in order to maintain the level at the staff gage at
1.4 feet. FWS believes that the 1.4 staff gage reading should be used to
reflect a required discharge of 9 cfs. The staff gage reading should be
adjusted as a result of channel fluctuations or contour changes in the
streambed or if discharge is insufficient to inundate spawning beds. If
discharge should fall below below 9 cfs, a new staff gage value should be
established to reflect 9 cfs. Cooperative monitoring by AELP, ADFG, NMFS, and
FWS would assure adequate habitat protection.
Page E-4, E-6:
The text indicates that no wetlands exist within the project boundaries. This
is incorrect since the creek beds are considered wetlands that would fall
under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act.