HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985 Settlement PlanSUSITNA SETTLEMENT PLAN
I. INTRODUCTION
This document sets out the general
approach to
be utilized
by the Alaska
Power Authority, as
an applicant
for a FERC
license, in
settling the
environmental issues
associated with
the Susitna
Hydroelectric
Project,
The goal of the Alaska Power- Authority is to settle outside of the FERC
hearing arena the environmental issues which have surfaced since the filing
of the Susitna License Application. This approach has been adopted largely
because of the desire to achieve an Alaskan solution to these issues, based
upon scientific knowledge and sound economic planning.
This approach wilt avoid having these issues resolved in a Washington, D.C.
arena. There they would be one small part of the large quantity of inform
mation which the administrative law judge must absorb. They would be
vulnerable to the skills of competing lawyers, professional expert
witnesses, and to the pressures of time; in addition, only parties to the
hearing would be included. Moreover, that process may not ensure that the
interests of the wide range of individuals who are not intervenors but are
currently working on the project on behalf of various agencies are fully
considered.
III. HISTORY OF SETTLEMENT PROCESS TO DATE
A great deal of ground work has been done and substantial progress made in
the settlement process. Of prime importance is the compilation of the
March 6, 1984 Issues List. This list sets forth 56 issues which, in the
absence of the issuance of the final environmental impact statement,
comprise all of the known environmental issues surrounding the Susitna
Project License Application. The list is based on concerns expressed by
agencies and others through:
69582 I
850131
r
Correspondence ffi 6i S..: i! i,u iiui'.::`_
Testimony before Power Authority Board on April 16, 1982
Comments on draft License Application
Comments on FERC License Application filed February 28, 1983
- Initlal`Settl"ement""`Process Meetings - --- --
(held November 1983 - February 1984 with ADNR, ADEC, ADFSG, ADCRA,
NPS, NMFS, BLM, FWS, ADOL, and EPA).
Comments on Issues List received from.agencies.
Comments filed on FERC DEIS of May 1984
All activities connected with the settlement process, including past and
current activities, are in effect a part of the negotiation process. These
activities include Alaska Power Authority workshops, informal meetings
between counsel, staff, and agency personnel, technical conferences with
agency staff, and public hearings. To date, the Power Authority has held 12
workshops (seven aquatic, three terrestrial,, and two social science) with
interested agency personnel, intervenors and members of the public. The
meetings are held to review data collected by the Alaska Power Authority and
its contractors, and to obtain public and agency input with regard to this
data and the conclusions derived from it.
IV. MECHANICS OF SETTLEMENT
While it is understood that the settlement process must include as much
flexibility as possible, it is the intent of the Alaska Power Authority to
approach settlement by issuing position papers on all of the 56 issues.
These papers will be individually disseminated to settlement participants.
Each paper will describe an issue, set out the range of impacts associated
with it, describe the data available from research efforts, and present the
measures proposed by the Power Authority to minimize or avoid impacts. A
bibliography will be included.
An initial meeting will be held on each issue after the Power Authority has
issued a position paper and the participants have had an opportunity to
69582 2
850131 '
"'T
-.. ..• , .
review it. At the initial meeting,
the position paper will be
reviewed
to
obtain concurrence with regard
to the
scope of the issue and to
determine
if
there are any obvious data gaps
which
would prevent meaningful
discussion
of
the Power Authority's position
and the issue in general. The
meeting will
also include review of methodologies
and mitigation measures.
Finally,
the
initial meeting will conclude
by setting
out a schedule for
resolution
of
the issue.
Depending on
the issue in question, additional
meetings will be held as
necessary to
review data, discuss any additional
data requirements, discuss
the language
of draft settlement memoranda,
or draft permit conditions.
It is anticipated that the relevant agencies and intervenors will agree on
proposed settlement for each individual issue on which they are directly
involved. One way to accomplish this is by initialing draft provisions
which would eventually be included in a larger document encompassing all of
the issues, such as a settlement memorandum or an agency permit. Negoti-
ations will, culminate in a master agreement to be drawn up prior to FERC
hearings.
The Power Authority recognizes that participants in the negotiations will in
no way be precluded from presenting to FERC alternative views concerning any
matters upon which agreement is not reached or for which no discussion has
been held.
c
69582 3
850131
Alaska Power Authority
Susitna Hydroelectric Project
Issues List
March 6, 1984
Fishery Issues (F)
F-1. Significance of altered flow regime on salmon and resident fish
habitats and populations downstream of the dams, including effects on
migration/access, spawning, and rearing during summer months, and
effects on incubation and rearing during winter months.
F-2. Significance of changes in water quality parameters (turbidity, pH,
heavy metals, dissolved nitrogen, temperature, nutrients) on salmon
and resident fish habitats and populations downstream of the dams.
F-3. Significance of altered ice processes on salmon and resident fish
habitats and populations downstream of the dams, including effects on
fish access and changes due to staging.
F-4.
Significance
fish habitats
of changes in stream morphology on salmon and resident
and populations downstream of the dams.
F-5.
Significance
of impoundment effects on resident fish habitat and
populations upstream
of the dams.
F-6.
Significance
habitats.
of physical effects of access corridors on fish
F-7.
Significance
fish habitats.
of physical effects of transmission line corridors on
F-8.
Significance of water quality and quantity effects of construction
camp and permanent village on fish habitats.
F-9.
Significance
of water quality and stream morphology effects of borrow
and spoil areas on fish habitats.
F-10.
Significance
fish.
of disturbance effects of human instream activities on
F-11. Feasibility and desirability of specific mitigation options, including
structural modifications, flow allocation, physical habitat
modification, hatcheries, and management options.
F-12. Formulation and implementation of post -construction plan to monitor
significant impacts and the efficacy of specific mitigation measures.
40836 1
850130
Wildlife Issues (W)
W-1.
Significance
attributable
of
to
reduction in moose
the project.
carrying capacity directly
W-2.
Significance
of
reduction in black bear
denning and foraging habitat.
W-3.
Significance
of
reduction in brown bear
spring foraging habitat.
W-4.
Significance
of
habitat reduction for
middle basin furbearers and
birds.
W-5.
Significance of
Dall sheep habitat modification at Jay Creek lick.
W-6.
Significance of
increase in accidents and inhibition of movements of
big game mammals
due to reservoir open water and ice conditions.
W-7.
Significance of
inundation or other disturbance to bald eagle, golden
eagle, and other
raptor nests.
W-d.
Significance of
changes in wildlife habitat and movements downstream
of the dams due
to changes in flow and ice cover.
W-9.
Significance of
reduction in wildlife habitat due to construction
camps/villages,
permanent town, and airstrips.
W=10.
Significance of
access road presence and use effects on caribou
movements and behavior.
W-11.
Significance of
increased accidental big game deaths from vehicle
collisions due to
increased access.
W-12.
Significance of
reductions in big game and furbearer populations from
increased hunting/trapping pressure due to increased accessibility of
project
area.
W-13. Significance of other disturbances to wildlife due to human
activities, such as aircraft overflights and construction noise.
W-14. Formulation and implementation of construction worker transportation
plan.
W-15. Formulation and implementation of post -construction access policy.
W-16. Feasibility and desirability of refinement of timing of construction
and operation activities to reduce wildlife impacts.
W-17. Feasibility and desirability of specific mitigation options, including
moose and bear habitat enhancement, Jay Creek lick expansion, raptor
nest habitat enhancement, revegetation of disturbed areas, downstream
beaver habitat enhancement.
40836 2
850130
W-18. Feasibility and desirability of types of mitigation options, including
design or structural modifications, replacement lands/habitat,
enhancement of lands/habitat, rehabilitation of disturbed lands,
management options (scheduling or restrictions) to reduce disturbance
or direct impacts, preventive measures. ,
W-19. Formulation and implementation of post -construction plan to monitor
significant impacts and the efficacy of specific mitigation measures.
Recreation Issues (R)
R-1. Significance of impacts on fishing, including availability of fish,
access, and quality of experience.
R-2. Significance of impacts on hunting and recreational trapping,
including availability of resource, access, and quality of
experience.
R-3. Significance of loss of whitewater resource.
R-4. Significance of impacts to boating downstream of Devil Canyon Dam,
including access to the water and on the water (impediments to
navigation).
R-5. Significance of impacts on non -consumptive activities (e.g., bird -
watching and hiking), including availability of the resource; access
to the resource; and quality of experience.
R-6.
Significance
of recreational activities
of project
construction
Aesthetic Issues (AE)
AE-I, Significance of impacts of borrow and spoil areas, transmission lines,
access roads and rail Lines, construction camps and villages, and dams
on scenic resources.
AE-2. Feasibility and desirability of incorporating specific aesthetic
mitigation measures into project plans.
40836 3
850130
Cultural Resource Issues (C)
C-1. Identification and significance of loss of affected cultural/
historical sites.
C-2. Formulation and implementation of cultural resources mitigation plan.
Air Quality Issues (AQ)
AQ-1.
Significance of ambient
air quality impacts
during project
construction.
AQ-2. Formulation and implementation of air quality mitigation measures.
Dam Safety Issues (D)
D-1. Determination of significance of risk and effects of catastrophic dam
failure.
D-2. Formulation of emergency warning plan.
Socioeconomic Issues (S)
S-1. Significance of changes in subsistence opportunities relating to fish
and wildlife resources in the Susitna River watershed.
S-2. Significance of project impacts on life style in area communities.
S-3. Significance of changes in commercial opportunities related to
fishing, hunting, trapping, etc.
Significance of changes in employment. in area communities.
S-5.
Significance of increased burden on
Mat -Su Borough and affected
communities for providing public services
and facilities in response
to project -related demands.
S-6.
Significance of secondary development
impacts on Native corporation
undeveloped lands.
S-7.
Feasibility and desirability of specific
mitigation options, including
worker transportation plan, worker housing
plan, local aid plan, local
hire plan.
S-8.
Formulation and implementation of a construction
and post -construction
plan to monitor significant impacts
and the efficacy of specific
mitigation measures.
Land
Acquisition Issues (L)
L-1.
Development of a feasible and desirable
land acquisition program.
40836 4
850130
rRNf�EGCD Ah'D CuN.�; ANT AL DOCUM Yf
CELEASED FOR CETTLE;.SJT PURPOSES ONLY,
NO REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY TRANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
POSITION PAPER
CULTURAL RESOURCE ISSUE C-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Issue
Identification and significance of loss of affected cultural/historical
sites.
Position
The Alaska Power Authority proposes to adopt the mitigation measuz8a
presented in this paper. It is our position that these measures and that
their implementation will result in the Susitna Project having no adverse
effect on significant cultural resources, including historic, archeological,
and architectural properties. The Power Authority will also comply with all
applicable laws and regulations dealing with the identification of cultural
resources and the evaluation of impacts to significant cultural resources
associated with the Susitna Project.
Present Knowledge
At the end of 1984, cultural resource surveys performed in connection with
the Susitna Project identified 248 historic and prehistoric archeological
sites. An additional 22 sites had been previously recorded as being in the
project area according to the files of the State of Alaska Office of History
and Archeology.
At the end of the 1984 field season, all portions of the following areas
with a high' or moderate potential for containing archeological sites had
been surveyed:
68714 i
850307
PRRIILEOED ANO CONFIO�NTIAt DOCUMENT
RELEASED FOR SETTLEt.1ENT PURPOSES ONLY;
NO REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
1. Watana impoundment and construction area TRANSMCTI'At AdlTHOR;2ED
2. Devil Canyon impoundment and construction area
3. Known potential borrow areas
4. Proposed construction camp and permanent village sites
In addition, limited portions of the corridors associated with the Project's
liaear features (transmissioa lines, access road, and railroad) had also
been surveyed. During 1985, cultural eesource surveys along proposed Linear
features will be completed in conjunction with the development and testing
of a predictive model of prehistoric site location.
Supplemental studies at a selected sample of identified sites suggest that
sane sites contain important information about the prehistory and history of
interior Alaska and Che Susitea Hasin in particular.
Formal
determinations of
National
Register
eligibility
have not
yet
been
sought
by the Federal
Energy
Regulation
Canmission
(FERC)
fran
the
Department of the .Interior. Ln the interim, all identified cultural
resources are being treated by the Paver Authority as potentially eligible.
Of the sites identified as of the end of 1984, (Dixon et al. 1985) 73 are
Located within the proposed Watana Dam impoundment and seven are located
within the proposed Devil Canyon Dam impoundment. All would be directly
impacted.. Thirty-two additional sites would be directly impacted if all
portions of all proposed borrow areas are utilized. No sites are located
within the Watana Dam or Devil Canyon construction areas (dam sites, camp
and construction village, airstrips, etc). In addition, 47 sites are
located within 0.5 miLes of the proposed Watana impoundment, six within 0.5
miles of the Devil Canyon impoundment, and 10 within 0.5 miles of the Watana
Dam construction area. These sites may be affected by construction
68714 ii
ecn�n-r
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
RELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY;
NO REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
TRANSMITTAL AUTHOR2ED
activities (including reservoir preparation) or erosional processes. These
same sites and remaining cultural resource sites identified as of 1984 may
be only be indirectly affected as a result of improved public access to the
project vicinity for recreation purposes.
Mitigation Measures Endorsed by the Alaska Power Authority
proposed measures for mitigation of impacts to cultural resources are
discused in position Paper C-2. In brief, these are avoidance, preservation
in place, data recovery, monitoring, and public information and educational
68714 iii
ce n�n�
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
RELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY;
NO REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
TRANSMITTAL AUTHORZED
ALASRA POWER AUTHORITY
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
POSITION PAPER
CULTURAL RESOQRCE ISSUE C-
Issue
Identification and significance of Losa of affected cultural/historical
sites.
Position
The Alaska Power Authority proposes to adopt the mitigation measures
presented in this paper. It is our position that these measures and that
their implementation will result in the Susitna Project having no adverse
effect on significant cultural resources, including historic, archeological
and architectural properties. The Power Authority is continuing to comply
with all regulations calling for the identification and evaluation of
impacts to significant cultural resources. In 1985 the Power Authority will
complete the process, which has been on -going since 1980, of identifying
properties in the direct impact area of the Susitna Project. Supplemental
studies have also been conducted to collect information that will be used to
assess indirect impacts outside the project area which might result from
either project construction or operation.
Present Knowledge
The following information relating to the identification of cultural and
historical sites is based primarily upon the University of Alaska Museum's
(UAM) annual reports of field investigations in the project area and in the
immediately surrounding area, (Dixon et al. 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984). From
68714 1
850307
t 1 MI t� i t 7
1 1 • v ...1 �"7. 1�
/ "11 i' 1'
/' 1
1980 to 1984, the UAM utilized a five -step program to identify cultural
resources in the project area to collect the data required to evaluate those
resources, and to evaluate the effects of the Project upon them. The five
steps are:
1. Study design and field study preparation
2. Reconnaissance survey and testing (site location)
3. Systematic testing of sites
4. Analysis and reporting
5. Curation
Each of the five steps was carried out each year of the field program with
gradual modification over time to take into account the results of the
previous year's investigations.
The first step included identification and review of pertinent aerial
photographs and archeological, ethnological, historical, geological, and
eoological data containing information relevaat to the project area. Thia
included a review of the files of the Alaska Heritage .Resources Survey to
identify previously reported sites in the project vicinity. This informa-
tion was then used to divide the surveyable portions of the project area
into survey locales defined as possessing high, median, or low potential for
containing cultural resources.
"Based on an analysis of site locational data from regions
adjacent to and within the study area, the features characteristi=
rally associated with site occurrence are overlooks (areas of
higher topographic relief than much of the surrounding terrain),
lake margins, stream and river margins, and natural constrictions
(areas where the topographic setting and surrounding terrain form
constrictions which tend to funnel game animals using the area).
In addition to identifying areas having archeological potential
(survey locales), areas Chat have no or very .Low potential for
containing cultural resources and/or are not surveyable given
present testing methods were also identified. These areas include
steep canyon walls, areas of standing water, and exposed gravel
bars" (Dixon et al 1984 2-1 and 2-2).
68714 2
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
RELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY;
NO REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
TRANSMITTAL AUTHOR ZED
The second step, &/ reconnaissance survey and testing of each surveyable
survey locale, included a combination of pedestrian survey and sub -surface
shovel testing. Once an archeological site was identified by the presence
of artifactual or ecofactual remains, additional shovel test excavations
were conducted to aid in determining the horizontal extent of the site. A
standardized written site form containing information on the site's location
and description of the surrounding environment was completed, and
photographs were taken. At the end of the 1984 field season, records checks
and reconnaissance testing had identified a total of 270 historic and
prehistoric archeological sites. At the completion of the 1984 field
season, all survey locales deemed likely to contain archeological sites
within the Watana and Devil Canyon impoundments and construction areas and
within known potential borrow areas were reconnaissance tested.
Reconnaissance testing was also conducted along limited portions of the
corridors associated with proposed transmission lines, access road, along
the railroad and in the proposed construction camp and permanent village
areas.
Additional data about sites identified in the course of reconnaissance
testing were collected during systematic testing, the third step. This
included information on the nature and density of recovered cultural
materials as well as their age and function. Systematic testing included
excavation by trowel of a number of lxlm excavation units. When possible,
soil was removed by natural stratigraphic levels and screened through 1/4-
inch screen. A map showing the location of all test excavations was
prepared, soil/sediment profiles were recorded for all test squares which
�/Reconnaissance survey and testing as used by the Power Authority is the
same as intensive survey as defined by the National Park Service
(42 FR 5374).
68714 3
850307
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
RELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY;
NO REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
TRANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
produced cultural material, and photographs were taken. At the completion
of the 1984 field season, 37 sites had been systematically tested.
Analysis of data obtained through the field program, the fourth step, has
indicated the presence of a series of distinct volcanic tephras over much of
the project area. The stratigraphic relationship of excavated cultural
material to these tephras in many cases allows those materials to be dated
relative to one another. The presence of tephra stratigraphy alone,
however, does not necessarily mean that a particular site is valuable for
archeological purposes. Data from sites in the project area can be used to
construct a cultural chronology for the Upper Susitna River Basin. Five
major cultural traditions which span the past 11,000 years have been
tentatively documented within the study area. These include: (1) Historic,
1897 to present; (2) the Athapaskan Tradition, ca. 500-1900 AD; (3) the
Choris/Norton Tradition, ca. 1500 BC-500 AD; (4) the Northern Archaic
Tradition, ca 3000-1500 BC; and (5) the American Paleoarctic Tradition, to
9000?-3000 BC.
Less than half of the sites identified by .the cultural resources field
program as of 1984 would be directly impacted by construction of the Susitna
Project. Preliminary analyses indicates that construction of the Watana Dam
and the filling of the Watana impoundment would result in the flooding of 73
sites; construction of the Devil Canyon dam would result in the flooding of
seven sites. A total of 32 sites have been identified in potential borrow
areas outside the impoundment. Identified sites not located within
construction areas, reservoirs, and borrow areas include 63 with 0.5 miles
of impoundment construction areas and borrow areas outside the
impoundments. These may be affected by reservoir preparation, other
construction activities and erosional processes. Remaining sites may be
indirectly affected as a result of improved public access to the project
vicinity and increased use of the project area for recreation. The improved
public access and increased use could increase the potential for vandalism
and/or accidental disturbance of cultural resources. However, in the case
68714 4
850307
PRIVILEGED AND CONFID&MAL DnpJAJ
RELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURpM GNLyl
NO REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
TRANSMITTAL AUTHORZED
of archeological sites, the probability of such occurrences is considered to
be low (see Position Paper C-2).
In conjunction with the completion of field work along the Project's linear
features in 1985, a predictive model of prehistoric site location will be
developed and tested. This model will be used to develop estimates of the
number and types of archeological sites located in indirect impact areas,
such as recreation areas and wildlife mitigation lands%whose exact locations
have not yet been determined.
Mitigation Measures Endorsed by the Alaska Powez Authority
Proposed measures for mitigation of impacts to cultural resources are
discussed in Position Paper C-2. In summary, these are avoidance,
perservation in place, data recovery, monitoring, and public information and
educational programs.
68714 5
850307
PRPALEGEO AND CONFID19MAL DOCUMENT
RELEASED .1,.SETTLEMENT PURPOSESONLY;
1 REPRODUCTION OR
TRANSMITTAL {' 1
Alaska Power Authority. 1983. Final Application for License for Major
Project, Susitna Hydroelectric Project, before the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, accepted. by FERC July 27, 1983. Vol. 7,
Exhibit E, Chapter 4, APA Susitna Hydroelectric Project.
Dixon, E.J., G.S. Smith, R.M. Thorson, and R.C. Betts. 1981. Annual Report-
1980, 'Subtask 7.06. Cultural Resources Investigation for the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project.
Dixon, E.J., Jr., G.S. Smith, R.C. Betts, and R.M. Thorson. 1982. Final
Report, Subtask 7.06. Cultural Resources Investigation for the Sustina
Hydroelectric Project: a preliminary cultural resource survey in the
upper Susitna River Valley.
Dixon, E.J., Jr., G.S. Smith, M.J. Ring and J.D. Romck. 1983. Final Report,
Subtask 7.06. 1982 Field Season, Cultural Resources Investigation for
the Susitna Hydroelectric Project: cultural resources survey in the
middle Susitna River Valley.
Dixon, E.J., G.S. Smith, W. Andrefskq, B.J. Saleebq, C.J. Utermohle, and
M.L. Ring. 1984. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, 1983 Field Season,
Cultural Resources Investigation> Three volumes.
Dixon, E.J., G.S. Smith, B.M. Saleeby, W. Andrefsky, and C.J. Utermohle.
1985. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Cultural Resources Investigations
1979-1985. Draft MS. Submitted to the Alaska Power Authority,
68714 6
850307
PRWI_EOED AI'O GuT\n�ENTX DOCUMENT
PELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY;
NO REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY TRANSMITTAL AUTHOROZED
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
POSITION PAPER
CULTURAL RESOURCE ISSUE C-2
ERECUTIVE SUMMARY
Zssue
Formulation and implementation of a cultural resources mitigation plan.
Position
The Alaska Power Authority proposes to adopt the .mitigation measures
presented in. this paper. It is our position that these measures and that
their implementation will result in the Susitna Project having no adverse
effect On significant cultural resources, including historic, archeological
and architectural properties.
Present Knowledge
As of the end of the 1984 field season, it is estimated that the
construction and operation of the Susitna Project will directly affect 80
cultural resource sites in the Watana and Devil Canyon construction areas
and impoundments. Additional sites may be affected by borrow activities and
construction of the Project's access road, transmission lines, and railroad.
Improved public access and increased use of the project vicinity for
recreation may also increase the potential for site vandalism and accidental
disturbance of cultural resource sites, although the likelihood of such
disturbance is low.
421383 i
850307
Mitigation Measures Endorsed by the Alaska Power Authority
Mitigation
measures endorsed by the Power Authority
include avoidance,
preservation,
and investigation through data recovery.
The last is
proposed
for sites
which will be affected by construction activities
or by
erosional
processes
associated with filling the impoundments and
changes in
reservoir
water Levels
(APA 1983 p. E-4-130)
In addition to the general categories of mitigation measures proposed in the
license application, the Power Authority will implement public interpreta-
tion and information programs for historic and prehistoric sites located in
the project vicinity.
421383
kMF'f=MZ6AnOKAiyi'TiTi
SUSIOA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
POSITION PAPER
CULTURAL RESOURCE ISSUE C-2
Issue
Formulation and implementation of a cultural resources mitigation plan.
Position
The Alaska Power Authority proposes to adopt the mitigation measures
presented in this paper. It is our position that these measures and that
their implementation will result in the Susitna Project having no adverse
effect on significant cultural resources, including historic, archeological,
and architectural properties.
Present Knowledge
A total of 270 cultural resource sites were identified by the end of the
1984 field season. Preliminary analysis indicates that 80 will be directly
impacted by the filling of the Watana and Devil Canyon impoundments. An
additional 63 sites are located within 0.5 miles of the project construction
area and impoundments. These sites may be affected by reservoir preparation
activities and/or by erosional processes initiated or accelerated by
construction and/or operation of the Project.
Impact assessments to be conducted during 1985 will attempt to determine
through review of pertinent literature whether archeological sites Located
within the permanent pools of the Watana and Devil Canyon impoundments will
be destroyed or buried by siltation processes without being destroyed.
421383
850307 i
An additional 32 sites
are
located within
potential borrow areas, some of
which may be destroyed.
The
exact number will
depend on the extent to which
identified borrow areas
are
utilized.
Other additional cultural resource sites may be directly impacted by
construction of the Project's access road, railroad, and transmission lines.
Additional data on cultural resources located within these areas will be
collected in 1985 (see following section).
Other cultural resources identified to date is the vicinity of the Susitna
Project, including those within proposed recreation areas and those located
in wildlife mitigation lands, may also be affected. The primary concern
regarding these resources is that the increased ease of public access and
increased use of the area for recreation purposes may result in an increased
potential for vandalism and/or accidental disturbance of cultural
resources.
In the case of prehistoric archeological sites, which era primarilq
subsurface in nature and not readily visible to the untrained eye, the
potential for vandalism is considered to be extremely small. According to
the State Historic Preservation Officer, cases of vandalism of archeological
sites in Alaska have been confined to sites containing objects with value on
the ethnographic and antiquities markets.
None of the prehistoric archeological sites identified to date in the
Susitna area meet this criterion. They consist almost exclusively of
scatterings of lithic debitage (debris from the manufacture and use of stone
tools), and in some instances burned and/or unburned faunal (bone) remains.
Such sites would usually not be detected by an untrained observer.
Accidental
disturbance of archeological sites will be
largely avoided by
the
siting of
recreation facilities such as campgrounds
and hiking trails
away
from known
sites. Furthermore, the large size of the
recreation area
and
421383
850307
the low recreation density of archeological sites will reduce the chances of
site discovery and vandalism.
Mitigation Measures Endorsed by the Alaska Power Authorit
The Power Authority endorses five categories of activities which will
mitigate the Susitna Project's effects on significant cultural resources:
avoidance, preservation in place, data recovery, monitoring, and a public
interpretation and education program (APA 1983 p. E-4-1291 130).
Whenever feasible, project -related facilities will be located to avoid known
cultural resource sites. The potential for preservation in place of both
historic and prehistoric sites will be evaluated and, when feasible,
applied. For historic cabins, structural stabilization and restriction of.
public access may be implemented to the extent feasible. For prehistoric
sites, controlled burial, construction of protective barriers, and
restriction of access may be appropriate.
Data recovery will be a major component of the mitigation plan. Most of the
archeological sites which will be affected by the Project derive their
value from the information they contain. For this reason, sites at which
controlled scientific excavation will be conducted are not adversely
affected (45 FR 78808). Such excavations will be designed to collect data
that can be used to address research questions. A sample of sites based
upon the types and categories of data present will be selected for data
recovery. This sampling will be designed to insure that all data relevant
to addressing predetermined archeological research questions will be
gathered while at the same time minimizing data redundancy.
It is presently anticipated that avoidance and data recovery will be the
primary mitigation procedures employed along the Project's linear features,
which include the access road, railroad and transmission lines.
Archeological surveys in these areas will be undertaken in 1985 in
421383
3
850307
conjunction with
the testing of a predictive model of
prehistoric
site now
being developed.
This procedure has been established
with
the approval of
the State Historic
Preservation Officer and the National
Park
Service.
Monitoring of cultural resources will be utilized as a mitigation measure in
several ways. Sites located along impoundment peripheries will be monitored
on a regular basis to determine if erosion is occurring sad, if so, at what
rate. Where erosional processes are found to be resulting in site
disturbance, other mitigative measures (data recovery or preservation in
place) will be implemented. Cultural resources located outside direct
impact areas and possessing usable surface remains will also be checked. If
the monitoring program detects vandalism of archeological sites, a data
recovery program may be instituted. If vandalism is identified at historic
cabin sites, the feasiblity of increasing the level of passive protection
(such as fencing) will be reviewed and implemented as appropriate. Moving
the structure to another more protected location may be considered.
A public interpretatian and education program will also be employed. The
components of Chis aspect of the mitigation plan include: 1) a training
program for project construction personnel advising them of the protected
nature of cultural resources and of the requirement to report any sites
which may be found during construction, 2) interpretive displays at historic
cabin sites and modification of recreation trails to make such sites
accessible, and 3) preparation of publications for the general public which
describe the results of the data recovery portion of mitigation activities.
421383
4
850307
References
Alaska Power Authority. 1983. Final Application for License for Major
Project, Susitna Hydroelectric Project, before the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, accepted by FERC July 27, 1983. Vol. 7,
Exhibit E. Chapter 4, APA Susitna Hydroelectric Project.
421383 5
850307
,..
..'`;
�hli�;J
ll'ill
T:._
„uTi'iV;'.._CJ
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
POSITION PAPER
SOCIOECONOMIC ISSUE S-1
Issue
Significance of changes in subsistence opportunities relating to fish and
wildlife resources in the Susitna River watershed.
Position
It is the position of the Alaska Power Authority that the Project will cause
no significant reduction in subsistence opportunities relating to fish and
wildlife resources.
Present Knowledge
Data about subsistence use in the Susitna watershed are available from the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). Their publications provide
information about subsistence regulations, use of particular fishery and
wildlife resources, and wildlife and fishery use by residents of particular
villages or geographic areas.
Existing ADF&G publications and research that are relevant to the Susitna
watershed include:
1. A definition of subsistence, the criteria for subsistence
determination, and procedures used by the Joint Boards of
Fisheries and Game;
40715 i
850122
7 . T
_.
IF
T�1 AU
2. Information
about
subsistence
activities by
residents
of Tyonek
Village, the
upper
Yentna area,
and Cantwell.
3. Information about subsistence hunting of the Nelchina caribou
herd.
Information is available from the Alaska Power Authority about the Susitna
Project's potential for changing fish and wildlife populations and changing
the access to those populations.
The ADFSG and Power Authority literature supports a conclusion that the
Susitna Project will not reduce subsistence opportunity either by reduction
of fishery and wildlife resources or impeding access to those resources.
The project access road may provide some increased opportunity for Cantwell
residents to hunt and fish for species that are not regulated by special
permits.
Mitigation Measures Endorsed by Che Alaska Power Authority
No mitigation measures
are necessary to
resolve this issue since
subsistence
opportunities are not
reduced and fish
and wildlife resources
utilized by
subsistence users are
not expected to be
reduced by the Project.
40715 ii
850122
ISSDE S-1
Issue
..mil C
Issue S-1 is stated as follows: Significance of changes in subsistence
opportunities relating to fish and wildlife resources in the Susitna River
watershed.
The sub -issues are:
1. Are fish and wildlife resources in the Susitna River watershed
currently significant for subsistence activity?
2. Will the Project change subsistence opportunity .within the
watershed?
The first sub -issue can best be addressed after a review of Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) publications that describe existing
subsistence patterns. The second sub -issue requires review of proposed
project facilities and construction and operation plans. These project
characteristics will be assessed for their effect on existing subsistence
patterns and effect on fish and wildlife resources either currently consumed
or projected for consumption for subsistence purposes.
Position
It is the position of the Alaska Power Authority that the Project will cause
no significant reduction in subsistence opportunities relating to fish and
wildlife resources.
40715 1
850122
Present Knowledge
There are three types of publications by ADF&G that pertain to subsistence
use of fish and wildlife resources. The first type is published by the
Alaska Board of Game and consists of the Alaska Game Regulations(1984a) and
Alaska Game Management Units (1984b). (See also Subsistence Finfish
Fishery, 5 Alaska Admin. Code, ch. 01; Subsistence Uses, 5 Alaska Admin.
Code, ch. 99.) The Alaska Game Regulations (Alaska Board of Game 1984a pp
66-67) define subsistence, list the eight criteria for subsistence, and
describe the Joint Boards of Fisheries and Game procedures for determining
subsistence communities. When a need for determination arises, the criteria
are applied to communities on a case -by -case basis.
The second type of publication developed by the ADF&G Subsistence Division
describes particular wildlife and fishery resources, such as the Nelchina
and Mentasta caribou herds (Stratton 1983) or the Copper River fishery
(Stratton 1982). These publications provide historical and current harvests
of the resource by the subsistence population.
The third type, also developed by the ADF&G Subsistence Division, describes
wildlife and fishery use by particular villages or in particular geographic
areas, such as the Tyonek Village and the upper Yentna area (Fall et al.
1983). Both this third type of publication and, to a lesser extent, the
second type are particularly relevant to sub -issue 1.
To date, the ADF&G Subsistence Division studies and publications have been
produced to a large degree to provide the Joint Boards the information they
need to make subsistence decisions. A review of the three types of ADF&G
literature identifies the following subsistence use of fish and wildlife in
the Susitna watershed:
1. Tyonek
residents harvest
several species
of fish
(primarily
salmon)
from the portion
of Cook Inlet from
Tuxedni
Bay to the
Susitna
River that depend
upon the Susitna
River or
its tribu-
40715 2
850122
taries
for portions
of
their life
cycle
(Foster 1982; Fall et al.
1983;
Stanek and Foster
1980).
2. Upper Yentna area residents fish tributaries of the lower Susitna
River, seldom more than 45 river miles from their residence (Fall
et al. 1983).
3. Upper Yentna area residents hunt along tributaries of the lower
Susitna River, usually within thirty miles of their residence
(Fall et al. 1983).
4. In 1982, 450 subsistence permits, known as 503W permits, were
issued to hunt the Nelchina caribou herd. Permits were issued to
residents from southcentral and interior Alaskan communities, with
most going to residents of Glennallen (29%), Copper Center (17%)
and Cantwell (12%) (Stratton 1982; Stratton 1983). The Nelchina
herd uses middle and upper portions of the Susitna Basin. The
publications fail to identify where the subsistence hunting of the
herd occurs, but it is most likely to be heaviest near portions of
the Denali, Glenn, and Richardson highways where access to the
herd and transportation of the harvested animals is particularly
convenient.
1
5. Cantwell subsistence activities, consisting primarily, but not
solely of hunting caribou and moose, extend south and east into
the middle Susitna Basin (unpublished report and maps from ADF&G
1983 and 1984).
The second sub -issue concerns the change in subsistence opportunities that
may result from construction and operation of the Project. Changes in
opportunity can result from two sources (1) alteration of the populations of
wildlife and fish species currently consumed in subsistence activities, and
(2) alteration of the accessibility to these wildlife and fish populations.
40715 3
850122
The project'a potential to alter fish and wildlife populations is discussed
in Exhibit E, Chapter 3, Section 2.3, FERC License Application (APA 1983).
The conclusion in Exhibit E about salmon populations is that the Project
could produce only small reductions in the salmon populations downstream
from the Project and that these reductions will be mitigated. Thus, there
would be no effect on subsistence fishing opportunities where they are now
documented to occur, i.e. in Cook Inlet near Tyonek and in the upper Yentna
area on Susitna River tributaries.
Of the wildlife species found in the project area, loss of habitat due to
the Project would only affect black bear and moose. Loss of moose habitat
will be mitigated by a habitat enhancement program to prevent the Project
from decreasing the number of moose. The reduction would occur only in or
near the reservoirs, where subsistence activity is not documented. Some
portion of the current Nelchina caribou subsistence hunting probably occurs
where the proposed access road would intersect the Denali Highway because of
the general convenience of hunting near roads. The Project would not reduce
caribou populations and would, therefore, not affect subsistence hunting of
the Nelchina herd (see Position Paper W-10).
The Project would neither impede nor enhance access to known subsistence
fisheries. No roads or other features associated with the Project are
located in the lower portion of the Susitna River, on Cook Inlet, or in the
upper Yentna area where subsistence fishing is known to occur. Access to
the tributaries in the upper Yentna area is not dependent upon Susitna
River flows, making changes in flow regimes from the Project insignificant
for known subsistence fishing.
The project access road off the Denali Highway may change the pattern of
some Nelchina caribou subsistence hunting. The project access road would
not, however, change the amount of caribou hunting since both subsistence
and non -subsistence hunting is controlled by permit. Hence, the access road
may provide additional opportunity for hunting locations, but not increase
permit holders or the number of caribou killed by hunters.
40715 4
850122
D
C
iT
_.,
There are households in the Cantwell area that are engaged in subsistence
hunting, fishing, and berrypicking. Subsistence opportunities may be
increased by the Project for unregulated activities, such as berrypicking
and hunting or fishing for species not controlled by special permits,
because of the entry provided into new areas by the access road. The
distance to the newly accessible areas would make subsistence hunting and
fishing too costly to be economically feasible for households located
farther away than Cantwell,
The Subsistence Division of ADF&G recognizes a
gap in their
literature
about
subsistence activities in the lower and middle
Susitna Basin
(J. Fall
pers.
comet. 1984). The gap is for the Railbelt communities north of Wasilla and
south of Cantwell. Research on these communities has not been sufficient to
determine residents' subsistence status and the ADF&G Joint Boards have not
applied the subsistence criteria to the communities. However, the ADF&G
continues to collect information to better understand subsistence activities
in and around the Susitna Basin. A study of Cantwell is being completed by
the end of 1984 and should further detail subsistence activities near the
access road, thereby aiding the analysis of the potential for the access,
road to expand some subsistence opportunities. Studies by the Power
Authority, notably the Susitna River Basin Resource Users Survey, will add
information about fish, wildlife, and nonconsumptive utilization of project
area resources by residents from Railbelt communities,
Assuming residents of these Railbelt communities have fish and wildlife
consumption patterns similar to residents of Cantwell, Tyonek, and the upper
Yentna area, the Susitna Project would have no effect on the fish and
wildlife resources they consume. This conclusion reflects findings by ADF&G
that subsistence users generally fish and hunt close to their residences and
use established transportation routes (Fall and Stanek 1983). Consequently,
even if these railbelt communities were determined to be subsistence
populations, no significant project -related wildlife or fishery impacts
should occur where the residents are likely to fish and hunt (i.e.,
downstream from the Project and along downstream tributaries),
40715 5
850122
The project access road into the middle Susitna Basin is too far from these
Railbelt communities to offer additional economically feasible subsistence
opportunity. Some additional rail access may be provided by the railroad
spur to Devil Canyon, depending on the post -construction uses of the spur.
Again, considering known patterns of fish and wildlife use and the cost of
using trains to gain access to new areas, the additional access is unlikely
to provide significant new opportunities for subsistence activities.
Mitigation Measures Endorsed by the Alaska Power Authority
No mitigation measures
are necessary to
resolve this issue since
subsistence
opportunities are not
reduced and fish
and wildlife resources
utilized by
subsistence users are
not expected to be
reduced by the Project.
40715 6
850122
Alaska Board of
Game.
1984a. Alaska
Game Regulations
Governing Recreational,
Subsistence
and
Commercial uses
of Alaska's
Wildlife. Alaska Department
of Fish and
Game.
pp 66 -67.
Alaska Board of Game. 1984b. Alaska Game Management Units Indicating Approx-
imate Boundaries of areas listed in Alaska Hunting and Trapping Regula-
tions. Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Alaska Power Authority. 1983. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. FERC License
Application Project No. 7114-000. Vol. 6A, Exhibit E, Chapter 3, Fish,
Wildlife and Botanical Resources, Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage.
Fall, J. 1984. Resource Specialist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Division of Subsistence. Personnel Communication. 1984
Fall, J. Foster, D., and Stanek, R. 1983. The Use of Moose and Other Wild
Resources in the Tyonek and Upper Yenfna Areas: A Background Report.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Division of Subsistence.
Anchorage. 44 pp.
Foster, D. 1982. Tyonek Moose Utilization 1981. Alaska Department of Fish
and Game. Division of Subsistence. Anchorage. 39 pp.
Stanek, R., Foster, D. 1980. Tyonek King Salmon Subsistence Fishery 1980
Activites Report. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Subsistence
Section Anchorage. 24 pp.
Stratton, L. 1982. The Dipnet and Fishwheel Fisheries of the Copper River.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Division of Subsistence.
Anchorage. 72 pp.
Stratton, L. 1983. Copper Basin Caribou Use: A Research Update. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game. Division of Subsistence. Anchorage.
29 pp.
40715 7
850122
PRIVILEGED 0D CC, "7ENTIAL DOCUMENT
PELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY,
�0 REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
TRANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
POSITION PAPER
SOCIOECONOMIC ISSUE S-2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Issue
Significance of project impacts on lifestyle in area communities.
Position
It is the Alaska Power Authority's position that changes in lifestyle in
area communities may occur regardless of the Project, but the Project's
proposed worker transportation plan will isolate the Project from the
communities as much as is feasibly possible. Additionally, a public
participation and monitoring program will allow residents to express their
concerns and will address unexpected project effects that might occur in the
communities.
Present Knowledge
The following types of information indicate that the populations in middle
Susitna Basin communities will continue to increase and that, as a result of
population increases, area residents may perceive changes in their life-
styles. The information also shows that the Susitna Hydroelectric Project
will not be the only cause of population increases in the area. This
information is contained in:
1. Historical information on area growth.
2. Historical population data.
40868 i
850313
PR VILEGED AhD COP - "ENTIAL DOCUMENT
RELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY;
D0 REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
TRANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
3. Updated population projections.
e
4. Results of sociocultural studies and socioeconomic surveys.
A comprehensive review of the literature on the social effects of rapid
growth helps to put
this issue in
perspective.
Whether population
-induced
effects on lifestyle
are perceived
as favorable
or unfavorable
depends on
the individuals, and
to some degree
on their past
experience with
changes in
their communities.
Mitigation Measures Endorsed by the Alaska Power Authority
In the project planning and design phase, initial consideration has been
given to possible socioeconomic impacts on communities. The most important
mitigation measure is the proposed worker transportation plan. Such a plan
will direct worker location away from the communities closest to the project
area thereby directly mitigating potential impacts on population, facili-
ties, services, housing, and employment in area communities while indirectly
mitigating project effects on lifestyle. Conceivably, most project workers
would live in the major population centers of Anchorage, Palmer, and
Fairbanks. In addition, the Power Authority's commitment to socioeconomic
impact mitigation, including effects on lifestyles, is evidenced by plans
for public involvement programs and an impact monitoring program.
40868 ii
850313
PRIVILEGED API) CGF`^ENTIAL DOCUMENT
PELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSE$ ONLY;
h0 REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
IAANSMi1TAL AUTHORIZED
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
POSITION PAPER
SOCIOECONOMIC ISSUE S-2
Issue
Significance of project impacts on lifestyle in area communities.
Position
Zt is the Alaska Power Authority's position that changes in lifestyle in
area communities will occur regardless of the Project, but the Project's
proposed worker transportation plan will isolate the Project from the
communities as much as is feasibly possible. Additionally, a public
participation and monitoring program will allow residents to express their
concerns and will address unexpected project effects that might occur in the
communities.
Present Knowledge
Residents of Cantwell, Healyi�, Trapper Creek, and Talkeetna appear to be
the most concerned about the potential effects of the Project on their
lifestyles. This concern, which is differentiated from any feelings about
the Project itself, can be attributed to their expectations that inmigration
of project -related workers and their families would result in socioeconomic
changes. These socioeconomic changes could include modifications in social
1� •Information about Healy residents' attitudes toward development and
perceptions about possible changes in lifestyle are not available and
therefore are not discussed in this paper. What is presented is
historical population data and updated population projections for the
peak construction period of the Susitna Project.
40868 1
850313
PRIVI:EOED APO CGV'G ENTIAL DOCUMENT
RELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY;
DO REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
TRANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
organizations, personal interactions, and behavior, which may in turn affect
residents' perceptions of their lifestyles. In addition, residents of
sparsely populated, more dispersed, and remote settlements such as Gold
Creek and Curry could also perceive project effects on their lifestyles
arising from the potential of increased numbers of people coming into these
areas via the railroad spur from Gold Creek to Devil Canyon.
The Power Authority's position is based on the following sources of informa-
tion.
1. Historical information on development projects and/or other growth
in the area.
2. Historical population data (U.S. Bureau of Census) for area commu-
nities.
3. Updated population projections (Frank Orth and Associates, Inc.
1984a) for the area.
4. Results of sociocultural studies (Braund and Lonner 1982) and
socioeconomic surveys (Frank Orth and Associates, Inc. 1984b,c,d)
conducted in area communities.
In addition, insight into the significance of this issue can be gained by
looking at a comprehensive review of the literature on the social effects of
rapid growth in other regions of the country (Mountain West Research, Inc.
1980).
Historically, Trapper Creek, Talkeetna, Cantwell, and the smaller
communities along the Alaska Railroad have undergone substantial and
continual social and economic change. Initially, people settled in the
middle Susitna Basin region to develop and extract mineral resources and/or
to enjoy the natural environment. The Petersville Road, on the other side
of the Chulitna River from Talkeetna,,connected Talkeetna to mining in the
40868 2
850314
PRNILESED AID CONL'"ENTIAL DOCUMENT
RELEASED FOR SMLEMENT Pi1gP0SES ONLY;
FO REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
TRANSMITTAL AUTHOR,2ED
west. The road was built in the 1940's, opening the Trapper Creek area to
homesteading in the late 1950's and early 1960's. Talkeetna was established
as a townsite during the building of the Alaska Railroad between 1915 and
1923. Cantwell, on the other hand, was initially established as a Native
community. After settlement, other kinds of development and growth activi-
ties brought significant changes to the region. Cantwell and Trapper Creek
were directly connected to the metropolitan centers of Anchorage and
Fairbanks by construction of the Parks Highway, completed in 1971.
Cantwell's proximity to Denali National Park and its location at the
junction of the Denali and Parks highways put it at the hub of tourist and
other seasonal recreation activities. Talkeetna became a center for tourism
and climbing expeditions to Denali with the construction of the spur road
and the establishment of a local Federal Aviation Administration flight
center. Many other.activities contributed further to the changing character
of the communities and to the diversity of the residents: homesteading and
settlement of other state disposal lands and Native claims, the introduction
of communications systems, such as the satellite station at Talkeetna, and
the construction of the Intertie transmission line.
As shown in Table 1, the U.S. Bureau of Census has recorded considerable
fluctuations in the populations of three area communities, Cantwell,
Talkeetna and Healy, over the last fifty years. Such changes in population
can generally be tied directly to historical employment variations due to
fluctuating economic activities such as mining. However, as shown in
Table 1, community populations increased in the 1970's and 1980's despite
limited employment or business opportunities (Braund and Lonner 1982).
While these communities include longtime residents who have watched and
experienced the changes over the years, they are also composed of many
relative newcomers.
Household surveys conducted in Talkeetna, Trapper Creek, and Cantwell during'
the fall of 1983 (Frank Orth and Associates, Inc. 1984b,c,d) provided some
data on how long the surveyed residents had lived in those communities. The
results show that of those residents surveyed in Talkeetna and Trapper
40868 3
850314
PRIVILEGED AMD COP'Gt^ENTIAL DOCUMENT
RELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY;
P'0 REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
TRANSMITTAL AUTHOR ZED
Table 1
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
POPULATIONS OF CANTWELL, TALKEENTA AND HEALY, 1939-1980
1939a/ 1950a/ 1960/ 1970a/ 1980b/
Cantwell 17 67 85 62 89
Talkeetna 136 106 76 182 264
Healy 77 102 67 79 334
a/ Source: Rollins 1978.
b/ Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census 1980.
Creek, 68.9 percent and 58.5 percent, respectively, had lived in those
communities for five years or less. In Cantwell, 35.2 percent of those
surveyed had lived there for five years or less. The median length of
residency in Talkeetna was 2.5 years; in Trapper Creek, 5 years; and in
Cantwell, 8 years. Given the particularly short median length of residency
for Talkeetna, it is possible that the results were affected by the presence
of Intertie workers in the community at the time of the survey and/or by how
community boundaries were defined.
Updated population projections (using a gravity model) for the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project show the numbers of inmigrants at peak construction
that can be expected to settle in Talkeetna, Trapper Creek, and Cantwell
(see Table 2). As shown in Table 2, project related population increases
(assuming no worker transportation program) would be 195 persons (42.6%) in
Talkeetna, 285 persons (95.3%) in Trapper Creek, 797 persons (359.0%) in
Cantwell, and 289 persons (67.6%) in Healy. These projections are based on
40868 4
850314
PAIVI.EGED APO COPS" ENTIAL DOCUMENT
RELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURppSES ONLY;
PO REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
TRANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
the car scenario outlined in the FERC License Application, whereby workers
commute to the site in
their personal
vehicles.
Given a worker trans-
portation program, the impacts on area
communities
will change. However,
the type and magnitude of
change will be
determined
as additional refinement
on transportation methods
are completed.
Table 2
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
PEAK CONSTRUCTION PERIOD POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR 1990
1980 1990 Populations
Community Population Baseline With -Project Impact
Talkeetna
264
457
652
195
Trapper Creek
NA
299
584
285
Cantwell
89
222
1019
797
Healy
334
427
716
289
Source: Frank Orth and Associates, Inc. 1984a.
NA = Not Available
A sociocultural study conducted in Talkeetna, Trapper Creek, Cantwell, and
the railroad communities north of Talkeetna in 1981 (Braund and Lonner 1982)
describes how area residents perceive the population increases, effects on
lifestyle, and other changes that have occurred in recent years in their
communities. There is also a description of residents' perceptions of the
proposed Susitna Project. The FERC License Application summarizes the
Braund and Lonner findings as follows:
There has been
some friction between newer and older
settlers in the
Talkeetna area,
with some older residents
skeptical of
the motivations
of new settlers
and claiming that the new,
young counterculture
type of
resident relies
on food stamps and other
government assistance rather
than seeking a
true subsistance lifestyle.
Over time,
however, social
relations between the groups have improved. (Alaska
Power Authority
1983 p. E-5-7.).
40868 5
850314
PR ILEGED AFD CGP-'ENTIAL DOCUMENT
RELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLy�
b0 REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
TRANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
The study also indicated that in Talkeetna and Trapper Creek there is a
continuum of attitudes and opinions about the areas' economic development.
At one extreme there are residents who "believe that the real, long-range
value for the upper Susitna valley is not in its minerals or hydro potential
but in its untapped potential for visual and recreational enjoyment, both in
summer and winter. These residents argue that a recreational/tourist
economy caters to people who enjoy the land without defacing it, which is
preferred to a commercial, industrial economy which does scar the
landscape." (Braund and Lonner 1982 p. 42)
[Generallq] in both communities, the newer residents are more
negative about change and development, they feel that it will be
in conflict with their rural, relatively self-sufficient life-
style. In contrast, the older residents are accustomed to
change and do not feel threatened by growth. (Alaska Power
Authority 1983 p. E-5-7.).
With particular regard to the Susitna Hydroelectric Project, the License
Application also states,
Residents
.of Trapper Creek and
Talkeetna
have
indicated that
rapid and
uncontrolled change
is not desired.
Some of the
residents
of each community would
like no
changes
and others in
each community would like
to have controlled economic
development. Those
in favor
of controlled development want to
proceed with caution
and learn
more
about what could happen
to their communities
as a result of the
project before committing
to a growth plan.
Several
residents
were concerned about
potential losses of
fish and
wildlife,
potential loss of the
wilderness or remote
character
of the
middle Susitna basin, and
the preservation of
fish and
wildlife.
(Alaska Power Authority
1983 p. E-5-127.)
Those
residents at
one extreme of the continuum
who oppose
change also
oppose
the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project, while
others at
the opposite
end are "not opposed
to Susitna" (Braund and Lonner
1982 p.46).
[In Cantwell) differences among values and requirements of
residents may be more extreme than at any previous point in recent
history, leading residents to fear for the future of community
life, to be pondering the creation of community government, and to
be reassessing their own attachment to the immediate area. (Alaska
Power Authority 1983 p. E-5-8.)
40868 6
850314
PRNILEGEO APO COkFTWnAL DOCUMENT
RELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY;
C0 REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
TRANSMITTAL AUTHOR.ZED
With regard to future development, Braund and Lonner (1982) found that
residents of Cantwell generally welcome such activities for the economic
opportunity and perceived security they would provide to the community. At
the same time, residents feel helpless to influence the decisions which
affect them, but which are made in the interest of urban areas.
Consequently, these residents' attitudes toward the Susitna Hydroelectric
Project are generally positive, but guarded by concern for potential
project -induced effects on community services, land, and the natural
resources of the area.
Other information attributed to residents of the railroad communities north
of Talkeetna (including Gold Creek) focuses on the motivations those
residents had for moving to the wilderness: "...the majority of these people
were both attracted to life in the woods and repelled by life in the cities
and suburbs: a twofold motivation." (Braund and Lonner 1982 p 14.) This
statement suggests that lifestyle is perhaps the most important issue to
this heterogeneous group of residents, who come from varying backgrounds,
are of different ages and marital status, and have varying sources of
income.
Several things are apparent from the information presented above. First,
old-time residents who have experienced social and economic changes in area
communities over the years may be more accustomed to growth and resultant
modifications in lifestyle than newcomers. Younger newcomers may be seeking
the particular lifestyle presently offered by a community and, therefore,
may feel more threatened by the prospect of increased population and other
social and economic changes. When taken to an extreme, residents espousing
no -growth or "drawbridge" positions are happy to have found communities and
lifestyles suitable to themselves but resist when others seeking the same
ideals follow and eventually alter the setting.
Second, given the history and ongoing nature of population growth and socio-
economic change in the region, it is clear that many growth activities
continue to affect area communities. For example, the state land disposal
40868 7
850314
PRNILEOED AK COVt7ENTIAL DOCUMENT
RELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY;
k0 REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
TRANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
programs attract new landowners
to the region. Also, since tourism is
one
of the primary economic bases
of the region, many
communities already
experience significant seasonal
changes in population and business
and
employment opportunities. It
must be pointed out,
however, that
the
projected population increases
for Talkeetna, Trapper
Creek, Healy,
and
Cantwell with the Susitna Project would be substantially
greater than
any
previously experienced over such
a short time -span.
Third, when isolating the issue of lifestyles, it appears that some
residents may be more concerned about, or opposed to, large influxes of
people (whether project -related workers or non -project people) to their
communities than opposed to the Susitna Hydroelectric Project.
To conclude
and put the issue
of project
impacts on
lifestyles in perspec-
tive, it is
helpful to look at
the following points
made in a comprehensive
review of the
literature on the
social
effects of
rapid growth in energy
development
regions of the U.S.
(Mountain
West Research,
Inc. 1980):
1. The
interpretation
of lifestyle varies
from place to
place such
that
no particular
variable applies to
all communities.
However,
it is
agreed that
there exists in each
community a set
of varia-
bles
that are important for measuring lifestyle in that
place.
2. People's subjective evaluations of lifestyle do not often corre-
spond to an objective evaluation of how they will be affected by
growth activity.
3. Indications are that attitudes toward development -induced changes
in lifestyle are related to a persona sense of participation in
or effect on the outcome of the development.
4. People's expectations or anticipations of an event may be very
different from the actual outcome.
40868 8
850314
PRWI:EOED V'D CONP',"ENTIAL DOCUMENT
RELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSE$ ONLY;
PO REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
TRANSMITTAL AUTHORZED
5. An individual views about the impacts of growth may change over
time.
6. Overall, the literature on social effects of rapid growth is
inconsistent and inconclusive. Studies show mixed results for
human responses to energy development (such as attitudes toward
development, community satisfaction, perceptions of quality of
life, and stress reactions).
7. Without exception, all of the studies considered in the comprehen-
sive review show that, because of the economic benefits, the
majority of residents prefer more development over less,
regardless of the potential for disruption from development.
The baseline population projections show that increased numbers of people
will inmigrate to area communities and changes in lifestyle will occur with
time. It also indicates that changes in lifestyle due to population
increases will occur even without the Susitna Project. Furthermore, given
that changes will occur, it is important to note that people's perceptions
of how these .changes will affect their lifestyles vary greatly. Some
people, at one extreme of a continuum, will anticipate and adapt, while
others, at the opposite end, will adamantly resist population increases,
economic changes, and effects on lifestyle.
Mitigation Measures Endorsed bg Alaska Power Authority
Proposed project plans and designs have been formulated to reduce overall
socioeconomic and other impacts. Examples of these mitigation design
measures are the proposed establishment of construction camps/villages and
a permanent town. The most important additional mitigation measure is the
proposed worker transportation plan. When finally adopted, the effect of
this plan will be to shift the location of workers and their families to
larger communities where the impacts could be accommodated with much less
disruption. Communities likely to experience severe population impacts
40868 9
850314
PRIVILEGED AND CONX'^ENTIAL DOCUMENT
RELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY;
NO REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
TRANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
could be avoided or, at least, the numbers of inmigrants to those places
could be controlled and minimized. Although this mitigation measure more
directly addresses impacts on population, facilities and services, housing,
and employment, it would also indirectly address the issue of effects on
Lifestyles in area communities.
The Power Authority has also outlined generic gation measures that
further establish the Power Authority's commitment to the mitigation of
community impacts, including effects on lifestyle due to population
increases (Alaska Power Authority 1983 p.E-5-127). Included among the
generic mitigation measures is a public participation and involvement
program.. The importance of this measure is that residents' feelings about
whether or not they can affect the outcomes of development can be tied
directly to their attitudes toward development induced changes in lifestyle.
In addition, the socioeconomic mitigation plan will include a monitoring
program which is important to this issue because monitoring will tell how
and when mitigation is actually needed.
40868 10
850314
PRIVILEGED APD COP "ENTIAL DOCUMENT
RELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY;
0 REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
TRANSMITTAL AUTHORZED
REFERENCES
Alaska Power Authority. 1983. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, FERC License
Application, Proj. No. 7114-000. Vol. 7, Exhibit E, Chapter 5,
Socioeconomic Impacts. Anchorage, Alaska.
Braund, S.R., and T.D. Lonner, 1982. Alaska -Power Authority, Susitna
Hydroelectric Project, Sociocultural Studies. Prepared for Acres
American, Inc. Stephan R. Braund and Associates. Anchorage, Alaska,
March.
Frank Orth and Associates, Inc. 1984a. Socioeconomic Impact Projections
Summary Report, Updated Projections of the Socioeconomic Impacts of the
Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority.
Bellevue, WA. March.
Frank Orth and Associates, Inc., 1984b. Susitna Hydroelectric Project,
Cantwell Household Survey Report, Document No. 1111. Prepared for the
Alaska Power Authority. Bellevue, WA. February.
Frank Orth and Associates, Inc. 1984c. Susitna Hydroelectric Project,
Talkeetna Household Survey Report, Document No. 1109. Prepared for the
Alaska Power Authority. Bellevue, WA. February.
Frank Orth and Associates, Inc. 1984d. Susitna Hydroelectric Project,
Trapper Creek Household Survey Report, Document No. 1107. Prepared for
the Alaska Power Authority. Bellevue WA. February.
Mountain Weat Research, Inc. 1980. BLM Social Effects Project Literature
Review. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management. Billings, MT.
December.
Rollins, A.M. 1978. Census Alaska: Number of Inhabitants, 1792-1970.
University of Alaska, Anchorage.
U.S. Department
of
Commerce, Bureau of Census.
1980. Census of Population.
Washington,
D.C.
40868 11
850314
PRIVILEGED AND CWF'"ENTIAL DOCUMENT
PELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY;
�0 REPRODUCTION OR FURTNER
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY TRANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
POSITION PAPER
SOCIOECONOMIC ISSUE S-3
Issue
Significance of changes in commercial opportunities related to fishing,
hunting, trapping, etc.
Position
It is the Alaska Power Authority's position that by employing the mitigation
measures referenced in this paper, the project impacts on commercial
opportunities related to fish and wildlife will be insignificant,
Present Knowledge
Two types of commercial uses of the Susitna Basin fish and wildlife
resources are discussed in recent publications by the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game (ADF&G) and the Power Authority. The first type of use is the
direct harvest and sale of the resource. The second type is the provision
of facilities and services for consumptive and non -consumptive recreational
use of the resource. Direct commercial use includes upper Cook Inlet salmon
fishing and fur animal hunting and trapping. Facility and service provision
includes guiding and air taxi and remote lodge operations.
The Susitna Project will not significantly affect basin fish and wildlife
populations and thus, no reduction of commercial opportunities is expected.
However, populations of black bear, brown bear, moose, and several
furbearers will be reduced within the project area. The reductions may
68986 i
850328
PRIVILEGED APO COFPC19MAL DOCUMENT
RELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPLES ONLY;
t 0 REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
TRANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
reduce some commercial opportunities within the project area. In addition,
alterations in accessibility to these populations will not significantly
reduce commercial opportunities. A few individuals may have a reduction in
commercial opportunities and some will experience enhanced opportunities.
Mitigation Measures Endorsed by Alaska Power Autority
The Power
Authority proposes the following
three plans
for mitigating
impacts on
commercial opportunities related
to fishing,
hunting, and
trapping:
1. Fishery and wildlife mitigation measures as detailed in Position
Papers F-11, F-121 W-17, W-18, and W-19 are proposed to avoid fish
and wildlife impacts to the extent feasible, minimize unavoidable
impacts, and compensate for impacts that cannot be reduced.
2. A recreation program is proposed that would enhance recreation
opportunities while protecting fish and wildlife resources.
Details of these mitigation measures are found in Position Paper
R-7/8.
3. A worker trattsportation program is proposed to protect fish and
wildlife resources by minimizing vehicle traffic and controlling
activities along the access routes.
68986 ii
850328
PRIVILEGED AND COWDENTIAL DOCUMENT
PELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY;
IO REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
ALASRA POWER AUTHORITY TRANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
POSITION PAPER
SOCIOECONOMIC ISSUE 0-3
Issue
Significance of changes in commercial opportunities related to fishing,
hunting, trapping, etc.
Position
It is the Alaska Power Authority's position that by employing the mitigation
measures referenced in this paper, the project impacts on commercial
opportunities related to fish and wildlife will be insignificant.
Present Knowledge
Current Commercial Activities. ADF�G (1984a, 1984b), Jennings (1984),
and
Gipson (1984) address two
types of commercial uses of the Susitna Basin
fish
and wildlife resources.
The first type of use
is the direct harvest
and
sale of the resource by commercial
fishermen and
trappers. The second
type
is the provision of facilities and services
for consumptive and
non -
consumptive recreational
use of the resource;
e.g., guiding services,
lodges, and air taxis.
Consumptive users take
fish or wildlife from
the
resource base by fishing,
hunting, or trapping.
Non -consumptive users watch
or photograph the fish or
wildlife.
The major and best documented commercial consumption of Susitna River fish
resources occurs in
the upper Cook Inlet.
Five of the
six Pacific salmon
species are
harvested
in the upper Cook Inlet
fishery..
The majority of the
chum, coho,
and pink
salmon harvested in
the upper Cook
Inlet originate in
the Susitna
Basin.
The Susitna River
system serves
as a migrational
68986 1
850328
PRIVILEGED AM COPPCENTIAL DOCUMENT
PELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY
t0 REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
TRANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
corridor, spawning area, .and juvenile rearing area for the five salmon
species. The migrational corridor is from river mile (RM) zero, at the
point of discharge into Cook Inlet, to RM 152 at Devil Canyon. Sloughs and
tributaries below RM 152 provide most of the spawning habitat. Mainstem,
upland sloughs, side sloughs, and side channels below RM 152 provide
overwintering habitats. Some juvenile rearing also occurs in these
locations, primarily in tributaries and side channels (Jennings 1984, ADF&G
1984a, ADF&G 1984b).
The value placed on the upper Cook Inlet fishery varies each year, but has
averaged about $17.9 million per year (1983 dollars) over the past 30 years.
During 1982 and 1983, the value was nearly double the Long-term average
because of large harvests of record runs. The Susitna River contribution to
the upper Cook Inlet salmon harvest can be presented by percentages. Such
harvest approximations for the individual salmon species range from 10
percent for chinook to about 85 percent each for chum and pink salmon
(Jennings 1984).
Commercial fishing is prohibited in fresh water and the only permitted com-
mercial taking of wildlife is by trapping (Fur Animal Hunting Regulation 5
AAC 81.330 and Trapping Regulations 5 AAC 84.270). Animals covered under
Regulation 5 AAC 81.330 include coyote, arctic fox, red fox, lynx, raccoon,
squirrel, wolf, and wolverine. Animals covered under Trapping Regulations
5 AAC 84.270 include wolf, wolverine, lynx, marten, otter, beaver, coyote,
fox, mink, weasel, muskrat, raccoon,, squirrel, and marmot. Preliminary
survey data show that 25 to 50 individuals have trapped in the middle and
upper Basin during the last several years. In addition, seven to nine
individuals have traplines that overlap the impoundment areas in a given
year. Although the economic importance of fur animal hunting and trapping
is not significant to the economy of the Susitna River Basin, it is of
importance to the economic well-being of many of individuals actually
engaged in these activities.
68986 2
850328
PRIVILEGED AND COWDENTIAL DOCUMENT
RELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY;
f 0 REPRODUCTION OR FURTTiER
TRANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
The second
type
of commercial activity
associated with fish and wildlife is
the provision
of facilities and services
for hunters, anglers, and non —
consumptive
resource users involved in
recreational and tourist activities.
The facilities
include establishments
that provide lodging, food, sports
equipment,
fuel,
and motorized vehicle
parts and repair. Services include
guiding and
air
taxi operations.
Facilities and services for sport fishing are more important in the lower
Susitna River Basin (including its primary tributaries) which has accounted
for most of the Basin's 127,100 angler days per year since 1978. This
amounts to nine percent of Alaska's angler days and 13 percent of the
southcentral region's angler days. The important sport fishing species are
arctic grayling, rainbow trout, and five salmon species (Jennings 1984).
Some preliminary information about fish and wildlife —related businesses in
the middle and upper Susitna Basin is available from Power Authority surveys -
of lodge owners, air taxi operators, and .guides. This information shows
that there are four seasonal remote lodges (used exclusively by the owner or
in association with guide services) and three seasonal highway —accessed
lodge operations that depend on business from people hunting and fishing
in the area. Primitive cabins or tent camps are also provided by guides or
air taxi operators in many places including Fog Lakes, and Deadman and Butte
Lakes. In addition, there are fewer than 10 big game guides and fewer than
20 air taxis (where 10 percent or more of their business is in the middle
and upper Basin) operating in the area. Less than 10 air taxis depend on
hunting and fishing for 20 percent or more of their businesses in the area.
All ten big game guides depend on hunting to sustain their businesses and
provide them with an additional source of income.
Project Effects on Commercial Opportunities Related to Fishing, Hunting, and
Trapping. Changes in opportunities related to fishing, hunting, and
trapping resulting from construction and operation of the Project could
include: (1) alteration of the populations of wildlife and fish
68986 3
850328
PRIVILEGED AND CDFPCENTIAL DOCUMENT
PELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY;
10 REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
TRANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
species used directly in or related to commercial activities, and (2)
alteration of the accessibility to these wildlife and fish populations.
1. Effects on fish and wildlife populations. The Project'a potential to
alter fish and wildlife populations is discussed in Exhibit E, Chapter
3, Section 2.3 of the License Application (APA 1983). With regard to
salmon, the conclusion is that even without mitigation, the Project
would only slightly reduce populations downstream from the dams and
that with mitigation, these reductions can be avoided. Thus, the
Project would have no measurable effect on commercial salmon fishing
opportunities. Since the Project would have only minor effects on
rainbow trout populations, sport fishing opportunities for rainbow
trout would not decrease. Arctic grayling populations would be reduced
in the impoundment area by habitat loss, but mitigation measures would
prevent a substantial reduction of their numbers within the project
area. Thus, sport fishing opportunities for arctic grayling would not
decrease.
Of the big game species found in the project area, there would be some
reduction of habitat for black bear, brown bear, and moose. A habitat
enhancement program for moose will be implemented in the Susitna Basin
and elsewhere in the state to minimize the loss of moose carrying
capacity resulting from the Project. Black and brown bear will be
affected by the Project. The goal of the Power Authority is to
implement mitigation measures that will reduce the level of the
Project's impact on bears, and to provide compensation for residual
impacts, either through out -of -kind habitat enhancement or preservation
of important habitat. Of the furbearing species important to trapping,
only marten is likely to be substantially affected by the Project.
Since there are few effects on species important for commercial
activities, the conclusion is that these changes in populations will
have little effect on commercial opportunities related to fishing and
hunting, and only small effects on trapping. Sufficient flows will be
maintained during the open water season to permit riverboat guides to
operate unimpeded.
68986 4
850328
FRIWLEGED AND C01"W4"ENTIAL DOCUMENT
►ELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURppSM ONLY:
10 REPRODUCTION OR FURTFIE}i
TRANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
2. Effects on access to fish and wildlife. The Project would neither
impede nor enhance access to known commercial or sport salmon
fisheries. No roads or other features associated with the Project are
located in the lower Susitna River Basin or in Cook Inlet where most of
the commercial and sport salmon fishing is known to occur. The
proposed rail spur between Gold Creek and Devil Canyon is unlikely to
provide new access to anglers or their guides since trains will only
transport freight and perhaps some construction workers. However, the
Project will enhance access to sport fishing for resident species in
inland lakes and streams at a time when sport fishing for rainbow trout
and grayling is gaining prominence.
The Project will begin to affect guides, air taxi operators, remote
lodges owners, and trappers if the access road is opened to public use
after construction. During construction, the access road will be
closed to the public, thereby delaying access -related effects until
about 1998. In addition, if the Power Authority adopts a worker
transportation program, most construction workers would not be allowed
to drive private vehicles to the project site.
Following construction, public use of the access road will be subject to
appropriate mitigation. If the road is opened, then the following effects
could to occur:
1. The demand for facilities and services for hunters and attglers
could increase as people visit the project area. Development and
support of commercial recreational facilities will be more
feasible because better access will reduce transportation costs
for building, materials, supplies, and the distribution of
products. Native corporations are in the best position to meet
this demand since they own most of the private land in or near the
impoundment areas. The Project is unlikely to change client
characteristics or activities at three of the five remote lodges
because the Project would not afford new access to these lodges.
Yg 5
�RIVILEOED AND CONPVVMAL DOCUMENT
F'ELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY:
10 REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
TRANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
One lodge, which is most frequently used by the owner, could have
a change in use since the access road would pass within five miles
of the lodge. Another lodge, High Lake Lodge, which is presently
leased exclusively for project related purposes, would likely
begin serving clients other than project personnel. Then an
increased number of guests would likely be attracted to the lodge
because of its proximity to the access road.
2. Increased access may create competition for the few who now trap
in areas near the impoundments or along the access road.
3. Between five and ten big game guides may find that some of their
guiding
areas
can be reached by day -hunters from
the access road
or, from
boats
using the
reservoir for access.
This change may
require
guides
to shift
clients to other remote
locations within
their areas, restructure
business operations to take advantage of
the new
access,
or shift
operations to attract clientele
who want
other settings.
4. Less than twenty air taxi operators may receive some competition
from other transportation modes. The operators may adjust to the
competition in much the same way as do big game guides since
hunters and anglers provide much of their clientele. Furthermore,
the Project may provide some additional opportunities for their
businesses such as flight tours over the dams, and transporting
goods and clients to new recreational facilities.
In summary, increased access to proposed impoundment areas may have some
effects on trappers and facilities and services for sport hunters and
anglers. These effects, however, would not occur until about 1998 and would
involve both increases and decreases in commercial opportunities.
68986 6
850328
FRIVI,EOED AND COPPrENTIAL DOCUMENT
FELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURpW ONLy;
IO REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
TRANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
Mitigation Measures Endorsed by Alaska Power Authority
The Power Authority proposes numerous mitigation measures to avoid fish and
wildlife impacts when feasible to minimize unavoidable impacts, and to
compensate for impacts that cannot be reduced. These measures are presented
in detail in fishery, wildlife, and recreation position papers. As they
pertain to this issue, the fishery, wildlife, and recreation mitigations are
designed to:
1. Prevent loss of fish and wildlife -related commercial opportunities
by protecting the resources the opportunities rely upon.
2. Provide additional opportunities through a recreation plan that is
compatible with protecting the resources.
Fishery monitoring and mitigation was first examined in Exhibit E, Chapter
3, Sections 2.4 and 2.6 of the License Application (Alaska Power Authority,
1983 p. E-3-141). Position Papers F-ll and F-12 state the fishery mitiga-
tion and monitoring positions endorsed by the Power Authority. Wildlife
mitigation and monitoring was first examined in Exhibit E, Chapter 3,
Sections 3.4 and 4.4 of the License Application (Alaska Power Authority,
1983, p. E-3-508). Positions endorsed by the Power Authority are discussed
in Position Papers W-17, W-18, and W-19.
A recreation program is proposed for the Pzoject that would allow the public
to use recreation resources, but avoid areas critial to wildlife. This plan
is described in Exhibit E, Chapter 7 of the License Application (Alaska
Power Authority 1983, p.E-7-68). The Power Authority's endorsed position on
the recreation plan and the recreation plan's effect on fishery and wildlife
resources is in Position Paper R-7/8.
To further
protect
the
fishery and wildlife
resource,
the Power Authority
supports a
worker
transportation
program.
The program
would prohibit most
68986 7
850328
rRIVILEDED APO COP�'CWAL DOCUMENT
'FLEASED FOR BEnLEMENT PURPOW ONLY;
(0 REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
TRANSMITTAL AUTNORIZED
construction workers from driving their own vehicles to the site. This
prohibition would protect the resource by controlling activities along the
access road. Construction camp policies concerning recreational activities,
especially hunting by workers, and possession of firearms would further
protect the resource.
68986 g
850328
PRIVILEGED AND CONF'CENTIAL DOCUMENT
PELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY;
10 REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
REFERENCES TRANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1984a. Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies,
Report No. 1: Adult Anadromous Fish Investigations, May -October 1983.
Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage. 380 pp
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1984b. Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies,
Report No. 2: Resident and Juvenile Anadromous Fish Investigations,
May -October 1983. C. Schmidt, S. Hale, L. Crawford, M. Suchanek (ed.)
Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage. 395 pp.
Alaska Power Authority. 1983. Susitna Rydroelectic Project. FERC License
Applicaiton Project No. 7114-000. Vol. 6A, Exhibit E, Chapter 3, Fish,
Wildlife and Botanical Resources Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage,
Gipson, P.S.
et al.
1984.
Sus itna
Hydroelectric Project Forbearer Studies
Phase
I
Report
Update.
Prepared
for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage.
Jennings, T.R. 1984. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Fish Resources and
Habitats of the Susitna Basin (Draft). Woodward -Clyde Consultants.
Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage.
68986 9
850328
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
POSITION PAPER
SOCIOECONOMIC ISSUE S-4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Issue
Significance of changes in employment is area communities.
Position
The Alaska Power
Authority's position is that the Project will
have
no
adverse impacts on
employment in area communities.
Where workers
from area
communities desire
Project -related employment, the
Power Authority
would
1)
facilitate, to the extent possible, the hiring
of workers from
area
communities, and
2) facilitate the transportation of workers
from
the
communities by adopting a bus transportation plan
in conjunction
with
the
air transportation
plan.
Present Knowledge
This issue is likely to be of moat concern to Native and non -Native resi-
dents of Cantwell, and residents of Talkeetna, Trapper. Creek and Healy.
Members of the Tyonek and Rnikatnu Village Corporations are also likely to
be concerned with new employment opportunities that can arise from secondary
development of CIRI lands in the project area.
The following factors affect this issue:
1. Labor demands of the Project and the skills of local residents,
2. The emphasis on union and/or nonunion employment,
420105 i
850117
3. The opportunities for indirect employment, and
4. The opportunities for Native employment.
The Alaska Power Authority is conducting an organizational and management
study that will greatly elucidate this and other issues pertaining to
project logistics, contract negotiations, hiring, costs and other related
topics.
This paper provides an overview of the present situation, given current
laws, practices and project information. The following points summarize the
situation.
1. During the peak construction period of the Watana Dam 3,498
workers would be needed. Of these, 20 percent would be laborers,
55 percent skilled/semi-skilled workers and 25 percent administra-
tive/engineering wor-ker-s. The 1980 Census taken in Cantwell and
Talkeetna shows that there were few, if any, local residents
working in labor categories applicable to the Project (construc-
tion, transporation, communications and utilities). Healy, on the
other hand, had 44 persons (34.5 percent of the active labor
force) working in these labor categories. However, by 1983,
household surveys conducted in Cantwell, Trapper Creek and
Talkeetna revealed that 20 to 50 percent of the respondents in
those communities worked in such fields. Assuming these percent-
ages are representative of the percentages for each community as a
whole, the actual number of persons working in these labor
categories in all three communities would total less than 100.
Thus, it appears that the workforce that may be available from the
project area communities is relatively small.
2. The
Alaska Power
Authority
would comply with
employment
legisla-
tion
in effect at
the time
of project hiring.
The current
employ-
420105
850117
went preference
statute gives
hiring preference
to Alaska
residents over
non residents, but makes no distinction
among
residents on the
basis of place of
residence within the
state.
3. The composition of union and/or nonunion labor would depend on
future labor and other contractual agreements. The possibility
exists for area residents to obtain jobs regardless of whether
project hiring is strictly union or nonunion or a mixture of both.
4. There would be opportunities for indirect employment is expanding
retail and commercial businesses in project area communities
unless a new worker transportation plan limits inmigration to
these communitieso other indirect job possibilities would be
working for subcontractors or as subcontractors providing services
to the Project.
5. Opportunities for Native employment during the construction phase
Would be the same as for non -Natives. FolldWingo construction,
given guaranteed access to the land south of the impoundment, new
job opportunities may be available to Natives in conjunction with
secondary development of CIRI Native Corporation, Tyonek and
Knikatnu Village Corporation lands.
Mitigation Measures Endorsed bq Alaska Power Authority
No mitigation measures are
necessary to
resolve
this issue, since there
would be no adverse impacts
on employment
in area
communities.
420105 iii
asoll�
,W
SUSLTNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
POSITION PAPER
SOCIOECONOMIC ISSUE S-4
Issue
Significance of changes in employment in area communities.
Position
The Alaska Power Authority's position is that the Project will have no
adverse impacts on employment in area communities. Where workers from area
communities desire project —related employment, the Power Authority would
1) facilitate, to the extent possible, the hiring of workers from area
communities, and 2) facilitate the transportation of workers from the
communities by adopting a bus transportation plan in conjunction with the
air transportation plan.
Present Knowledge
The focus of this issue is on the employment opportunities-U the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project may provide for residents of communities closest to
the project area and for Alaska natives. Residents most likely to be
concerned with this issue reside in Talkeetna, Cantwell, Healy, and Trapper
Creek. Alaska natives most likely to be concerned live in or around
Cantwell and belong to the Ahtna Corporation and the Cantwell Village
Corporation. Natives of the CIRI Corporation may also be concerned, since
much of the land in the project area has been or is in the process of being
L This paper concentrates on construction phase job opportunities
assuming that many of the same employment mechanisms will apply during
the operations phase.
420105 1
850117
conveyed to
this native group.
Project development
may
lead to secondary
development
and subsequent native
employment on these
CIRI
lands.
This issue is largely affected by the following factors:
1. The labor demands of the Project (number and types of jobs) and
the skills of local residents.
2. The emphasis on union and/or nonunion employment and the Alaska
Power Authority's policy. on transportation and worker rotation
scheduling.
3. The opportunities for indirect employment with a) expanded retail
and commercial businesses required by the above mentioned communi-
ties to serve the project workforce, or b) local subcontractors
providing services for the Project.
4. The opportunities for native employment caused by the development
for CIRI lands.
Project Labor Demands and Skills of Local Residents. Current Labor demand
figures for the Watana and Devil Canyon dame show a peak construction
employment need of 3,4982J workers in 1990 (APA 1983). This peak is
reached during Phase 1, Watana Dam construction, when additional labor will
be required for construction of the camp, permanent village, and access
road. During the subsequent Devil Canyon construction phase, the peak labor
demand will be significantly less, 1,699 workers in 1999. The difference is
due to 1) the existence of facilities and roads completed during Phase 1,
and 2) the less labor-intensive, concrete, thin -arch construction of Devil
Canyon compared to the gravel -filled construction of Watana.
�✓ This figure does not include workers required for aff-site activities
such as procurement, shipping, and some engineering.
420105 2
850117
Focusing on the peak labor demand year of 1990, the expected composition of
the 3,498 person workforce is 20 percent laborers, 55 percent semi-
skilled/skilled laborers, and 25 percent administrative/engineering
workers.1) Although these jobs will be primarily seasonal and short-term,
composition is important when considering the match between local residents'
skills and the availability of particular jobs on the Project.
Detailed information on the numbers of unemployed workers in local commu-
nities by skills is unavailable. However, results from a 1983 household
survey conducted by Frank Orth and Associates (1984a,b,c) provide a sketch
of the employment settings in Cantwell, Talkeetna, and Trapper Creek.A/
Among those surveyed in Cantwell, approximately 55 percent of the
respondents were employed or self-employed. Of these, 61 percent (34
percent of total respondents) were employed full-time. Eighteen percent of
the respondents were unemployed, but actively looking for work; and the
remaining 27 percent were homemakers, or retired, unemployed and inactive
persons.
In Talkeetna, 66 percent of those surveyed were employed or self-employed,
10 percent were unemployed but active, and 24 percent were retired,
unemployed and inactive, or homemakers. Of the 66 percent of employed
respondents, 84 percent (55 percent of the total) were employed full-time.
The household aurveq in Trapper Creek revealed that approximately 56 percent
of those surveyed were employed or self-employed. Another 15 percent were
looking for jobs, but were unemployed at the time. The remaining 39 percent
of the people surveyed were retired, unemployed and inactive, homemakers, or
students. Of those who were employed or self-employed approximately 79
percent (44 percent of the total) were employed full-time.
� These percentages are based on revised assessments and do not reflect
the numbers found in the License Application.
Healy was not included in household surveys in 1983.
420105 3
850117
In order to tie this community employment information to the projected needs
of the Project, it is necessary to consider the industries in which
respondents were employed (or most recently employed). This information is
presented in Table 1.
As shown in Table 1, some respondents were employed in industries closely
related to those which will be directly required by the Project, such as
construction, transportation, communication, and utilities. In Cantwell,
approximately 21 percent of respondents were in these categories; in
Talkeetna, 48 percent, and in Trapper Creek, 24 percent.
Unemployed workers may be more concerned about this issue, but it is likely
that workers already employed in the specified labor categories would also
be interested in new jobs with the Project. These workers may want to
change jobs for a variety of reasons, including better wages, benefits and
working conditions, and more job responsibility.
What these data do not provide is an industry employment breakdown by
respondent's permanent residence. Therefore, it is impossible to tell what
percentage of respondents in these labor categories were longtime residents
of the communities and what percentage moved to the communities specifically
to work on construction projects such as the Intertie transmission line.
Some indication of how recently workers have been employed in these labor
categories in Cantwell, Talkeetna, and Healy is provided by census data.
Data for 1980 show no persons 16 years of age or older employed in the
construction, communications, or utilities industries in Cantwell or
Talkeetna. In addition, Cantwell had no workers in the transportation
category, while in Talkeetna there were 15 persons (11.9 percent of the
active labor force) involved in transportation. Healy, on the other hand,
had a total of 44 workers (34.5 percent of the active labor force) employed
in construction, transportation, communication, and public utilities.
�! Census data for Trapper Creek are unavailable.
420105 4
850117
u
s.
o
v
j
u
a
y
M
s
rn
WW
C
V
OS
CWr
a
E
U E
W
O O
as
a
V
E+ a E a
0
xa�t
6 3
Nz
CA
p
y Z
N
a
E+
w
O
z
m
0
a
W
�O
M�
O�
J
.�
.-+
J
•-�
M
O
J
�D
CO
n
O
O
ti
M
M
.r
M
OD
O
O
O
In conclusion, there were few, if any, job opportunities in the specified
labor categories in Cantwell and Talkeetna in 1980. However, as of 1983,
when the Cantwell, Talkeetna, and Trapper Creek household surveys were
conducted, between 20 and 50 percent of those workers surveyed were working
(or had recently worked) in the specified labor categories. It is important
to note that even if the percentages of workers in these categories are
representative of the entire workforces in the communities (instead of
representing only those workers surveyed), the actual numbers of workers
in these fields is very small. This number is estimated at less than 100
workers for all three communities. In Healy where the household survey was
not conducted and where current workforce data is unavailable, it is likely
that the number of workers in the specified labor categories has grown from
the 1980 figure of 44.
Project Hiring --Union and/or Nonunion Employment. The direct project hire
aspect of this issue is complex. The main factors influencing project hire
are: 1) the employment legislation in effect at the time project hiring and
construction begins, 2) the outcome of possible labor agreements between
the Alaska Power Authority and the unions or contractors, and 3) Alaska
Power Authority policies on worker transportation and worker rotation
scheduling. The Alaska Power Authority is conducting an in-depth study and
make recommendations on this and other organizational and management
situations for the Project. The report will address such topics as
budgeting, cost and schedule control, project logistics, worker safety,
transportation and housing arrangements, as well as the handling of labor
negotiations, and contract administration (M. Isaacs 1984 pers. comm.).
This study will produce detailed information that will greatly elucidate
this issue. What is presented here is an overview of the present situation,
given current laws, practices, and project information.
From the start, the Alaska Power Authority will comply with existing
employment legislation. The current law moat applicable is Alaska Statute
Title 36, Section 36.10.010 on employment reference. This statute requires
that contractors on state -funded projects give hiring preference to persons
420105 6
850117
whose primarq domicile is in the state, making them, by definition, Alaska
residents. In addition, where more than ten persons are employed, the law
stipulates that, on a craft -by -craft basis, 95 percent of the work must be
performed by state residents.
There is no distinction, however, between residents of the entire state and
local area residents, except in an area that has been affected by an
"economic disaster."� Therefore, no communities in the Railbelt will
benefit from this "local hire" clause. Essentially, all Alaska residents
have employment preference over out-of-state workers, but, with the one
exception mentioned above, the state has no authority to differentiate among
workers on the .basis of place of residence within the state. Furthermore,
on projects such as this where some federal funds may be involved, hiring
practices cannot conflict with federal guidelines on equal opportunity
employment.
Whether the Susitaa Hydroelectric Project employs union or nonunion
employees, or a mixture of both, depends on labor and other contractual
agreements between the Alaska Power Authority and the unions' and contrac-
tors. It is unlikely that such a large project could rely exclusively on
union or nonunion hiring. But hypothetically, if the project used all union
labor, then nonunion project area residents could potentially join unions by
putting their names oa out -of -work lists, re-signing the Lists every month,
waiting to be sent to job interviews, and then making applications to the
unions. Although the geographic division between the Anchorage and
Fairbanks union hiring halls depends on the craft/labor category, the
division is generally considered to be the 63rd parallel (Reeves 1984 pers.
comet.). If the work was all nonunion, contractors would most Likely take
6� The definition of economic disaster (as noted in Alaska Statute Title
44, Sec. 44.33.310) is a drop in workers' annual incomes such that the
average family income of all residents falls below the Federal Social
Security Administration Poverty Guideline.
/.onlnc 7
advantage of the larger concentrations of workers in Anchorage and Fairbanks
and establish hiring centers in those cities. Nonunion project area
residents might then have to go to those centers to apply for jobs.
Generally, however, for a project of this size a prehire agreement (labor
matters as wages and policies on strikes or other delays. When negotiations
are completed, the contract is let to bid.
Residents of the project area would have opportunities to be directly
employed on the project. If union members, they could be hired out of the
hiring halls of Anchorage or Fairbanks. If specially skilled nonunion
workers, they could be hired on to augment the union members to fill
otherwise vacant project positions. This scenario of hiring nonunion
workers to augment union shops could pertain to all skilled plus semi-
skilled workers if:
1. Other construction projects were concomitantly drawing heavily on
the state's labor force, and
2. If union members were not interested
in the
particular
opportunities and conditions offered by
the
Project.
Even if local residents found an opportunity
to be directly
employed
by the
Project, there are other factors that may
influence the
decision
of the
individual resident to take the position. These
factors include:
1. Individual initiative.
2. Willingness to overcome the inconveniences inherent in
living in a
location removed
from the hiring halls
(Anchorage and
Fairbanks).
3. Lack of local representation at the negotiating halls.
420105 8
4. Perceived problems of getting to Che job site.Z
The unemployed area workers may find it too unsettling to deal with these
factors and the inherent uncertainties of competition with the metropolitan
labor pool. These uncertainties will also probably encourage the currently
employed workers in Healy, Cantwell, Talkeetna and Trapper Creek to retain
their present positions.
_Opportunities for Indirect Employment. Opportunities for indirect employ-
ment can be looked at in light of the worst -case car scenario and in light
of the proposed air/bus transportation plan. The effects of these scenarios
would be quite different with the air/bun transportation scenario substan-
tially reducing indirect employment opportunities in area communities. The
worst -case car scenario discussed is the FEflC License Application, shows
project workers and their families inmigrating to Talkeetna, Cantwell,
Healy, sad Trapper Creek, causing slight to significant effects on the
socioeconomic conditions in those communities PAPA 1983). These inmigr--ants
would require goods and services to an extent that would lead to the
expansion of retail and commercial businesses and, to varying degrees,. of
local facilities and services. These demands would create new jobs is the
communities. However, it is important to note that although some longtime
community residents would find new job opportunities., they would also be
competing with newcomers for these positions.
Other indirect employment opportunities to consider are those available to
subcontractors, or to others through subcontractors who provide services for
the Project. Although such jobs again depend on the future outcome of labor
� A bussing program to transport local asea employees to the site is
being proposed in conjunction with the air transportation plan. The
goal of this plan is to alleviate the problems associated with daily
commutes. to the site and, to mitigate unwarranted sociological and
environmental project impacts.
negotiations and contractual agreements, it is likely that some of these
positions would be available to area residents. One possibility is that an
area subcontractor, such as a Native group from Cantwell, could provide a
cost advantage for services due to its proximity to the project area. The
kinds of services local subcontractors or workers could provide are
housekeeping and catering. In addition, an advantage to hiring local groups
or individuals may be their inclination to stay on through the life of the
Project, providing continuity and stability to the labor force.
Since the Alaska Power Authority has plane to adopt an air/bus transpor-
tation plan and is currently researching and considering new options for
worker shift rotation schedules, it is likely that projected inmigration to
area communities will change. With air transportation probably originating
in Fairbanks and Anchorage, and bus transportation probably originating from
Cantwell, inmigration to area communities would be limited. The demand for
goods and services would not lead to business expansion, and new service-
related community jobs would not be available. Subcontracting jobs, on the
other hand, would not likely be affected.
Opportunities for Native Employment. During the construction phase of the
Project, direct and indirect project employment opportunities for Natives
will be the same as for non -Natives unless special contractual consider-
ations are made. Such considerations would likely accompany land use
agreements.
Following construction, given that access to the project area and lands
south of the impoundment is guaranteed, a wide variety of service jobs may
arise in conjunction with development of Cook Inlet Region Native lands.
This secondary development would capitalize on the recreational and tourist
opportunities created by access to previously undeveloped lands and by the
dam itself . Lodges, guiding activities, visitors' centers with restaurants
and shopping are the services most likely to be developed. All of these
would provide new, but seasonal, job possibilities for Natives, especially
Tyonek and Knikatnu Village Corporation members.
420105 10
850117
P gation Measures Endorsed by Alaska Power Authority
No mitigation measures are necessary to resolve this issue since there would
a no adverse impacts on employment in area communities.
?0105 11
i0117
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
RELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY;
NO REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
TRANSWIT L AUI'THORtZED
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
POSITION PAPER
SOCIOECONOMIC ISSUE S-4
Issue
Significance of changes in employment in area communities.
Position
The Alaska Power Authority's position is that the Project will have no
adverse impacts on employment in the area communities (defined as Cantwell
Talkeetna, Trapper Creek, and Healy).
Present Knowledge
Thg workforcQ seAuir�ments Sor Watana and Aeva.l Canyon slams during peak
construction periods are projected to be 2,721 and 1,572 workers, respec-
tively. An additional 255 workers are projected for peak construction of
the Cantwell railhead facility.
In order
to enhance the employment
opportunities associated
with the
Project,
the Power Authority would 1)
facilitate, to the
extent legally
feasible,
the hiring of workers from area communities, -and 2)
facilitate the
transportation
of workers from the
communities in conjunction
with a
proposed
worker transportation plan.
Overall, the Power
Authority will
fully comply with employment legislation in effect at the
time of project
hiring.
Therefore positive employment
impacts are expected
to occur in the
state and
in area communities.
The
Power Authority acknowledges this issue
and the
interest of residents of
area
communities and other parties in this
issue.
The Power Authority will
work
with interested parties during future
negotiations
to resolve the major
423574 1
850405
PRIVILEGED AND CGNRCENT1AL DOCUMENT
RELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY;
NO REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
TRANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
factors which influence this issue. At the time of hiring, the Power
Authority will work with interested
transportation measures,
parties on appropriate hiring and
423574
850405
ALASRA POWER AUTHORITY
SUSITNA HYD$OELECTRIC PROJECT
POSITION PAPER
SOCIOECONOt12C ISSUE S-5
L�►:��CNIpi 7" Ibiv ::
Issue
Significance of increased burden on Matanuska-Susitna (Mat -Su) Borough and
affected communities for providing public services and facilities in
response to project -related demands.
Position
It is the Alaska Power Authority's position that, by employing the
mitigatinn m�a��res gsesented in this paper, impacts on facilities and
services will be insignificant except in Cantwell where a railhead will be
built. The Power Authority will conduct a monitoring program to determine
the magnitude of impacts on facilities and services and the need for local
aid in Cantwell and other communities.
Present Knowledge
Cantwell, Healy, Talkeetna, and Trapper Creek are the .communities most
likely to be concerned with this issue if an air/bus worker transportation
plan is not adopted by the Power Authority. The Mat -Su Borough is
responsible for providing facilities and services to the unincorporated
borough communities of Talkeetna and Trapper Creek. The state is respon-
sible for providing services to the unincorporated communities of Cantwell
and Healy, which are not in organized boroughs. The state, through the
Alaska Power .Authority, would be responsible for mitigating the project -
related effects on facilities and services in the Mat -Su Borough and in
421497
i
850227
l'T:'.L
1%L i
f i
..7'D1
individual communities outside the Borough. The Alaska Power Authority is
exploring different funding mechanisms to address this issue.
Project effects on facilities and services in the Mat -Su Borough as a whole
(including Talkeetna and Trapper Creek) would be slight. Talkeetna and
Trapper Creek would experience a majority of the facilities and services
effects felt by the Borough. In these communities, as in Cantwell and
Healy, effects on existing facilities and services would vary. The
increased populations could stimulate the need for facilities and services
which do not presently exist in the communities. Furthermore, new problems
associated with expanding facilities and services could arise.
Mitigation Measures Endorsed by Alaska Power Authority
Proposed project plans and designs have been formulated to reduce impacts on
facilities and services and other project -related impacts. A worker trans-
portation plan is important to this issue as it would either negate or
greatly reduce facilities and services impacts by limiting the inmigration
of project -related workers and their families to small communities near the
project site. In Cantwell, project -related inmigration could not be totally
eliminated because a railhead for transferring materials and supplies to
trucks would be located there. This activity would attract some workers and
their families who may, in turn, create the need for additional community
services.
An Impact Management Program and a mitigation monitoring program would also
be implemented to inform communities of anticipated impacts and continually
reassess mitigation needs.
421497
ii
850227
ALASRA POFIER ADTHORZTY
SIISITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
POSITION PAPER
SOCIOECONOMIC ISSDE S-5
Issue
Issue S-5
is stated as
follows:
.Significance of increased
burden on
Matanuska-Susitna
(Mat -Su)
Borough
.and affected communities for
providing
public services
and facilities in response to project -related demands.
Position .
It
is the Alaska Power Authority's
position that,
by employing the
mitigation
measures presented in this
paper, impacts
on facilities and
services
will be insignificant except in
Cantwell where
a railhead will be
built.
The Power Authority will conduct
a monitoring program
to determine
the
magnitude of impacts on facilities and
services and
the need for local
aid
in Cantwell and other communities.
Present Knowledge
The burden that the Susitna Hydroelectric Project could place on the Mat -Su
Borough and the communities of Cantwell, Talkeetna, Healy, and Trapper Creek
for providing facilities and services depends on the following variables:
1. The number
of
inmigrating
workers and the number of workers
accompanied
by
their families.
2. The age and sex composition of the work force and the worker's
families.
421497
1
850227
3. Where workers
and their families reside,
which depends
on worker
transportation,
shift, and rotation plans.
4. The
amount and
type of
facilities
and services already in
place in
the
communities
where
workers
and
their families settle.
5. The capacity of those facilities and services to respond to
increased demands.
6. The availability of additional financial resources to cover
project -related operating and/or capital facility and service
expenses without significant tong -term fiscal problems.
With regard to financial resources, it is also important to know in which
political jurisdictions the above named communities are located; and what
funds are available to the communities and the Borough for providing facili-
ties and services.
Financial resource information provides the background for the facilities
and services issue and, therefore, comprises the first section of this
paper. The second section, facilities and services impacts, assumes that
workers would commute to the project site in private vehicles. A summary of
the corresponding effects on facilities and services in the specified
communities is included. The final section on mitigation measures outlines
the worker transportation plan supported by the Power Authority. This plan
is significant because it will either negate or greatly reduce facilities/
services and other impacts by limiting immigration of workers and their
families to project area communities.
Financial
Resources.
Facilities and services in
Talkeetna,
Trapper Creek,
and other
communities
in the Mat -Su Borough and
in Cantwell
and Realy are
currently
financed in
a number of ways. Cantwell
and Healy
are not located
in an organized borough and, therefore, they do not have borough -provided
community services. Funds available for community services come directly
421497
2
from the state in the form of grants and state -shared revenues.' For the
Natives living in Cantwell, additional grant monies are available through
the Native Village Council on a per -capita basis.
Talkeetna and Trapper Creek, however, are unincorporated communities within
the Mat -Su Borough, which is largely responsible for providing facilities
and services to these places. Residential property taxes, municipal assis-
tance funds, and state- and federally -shared funds are used by the borough
to provide facilities and services to communities within its jurisdiction.
Since the Susitna Project is funded by the state, the state, most likely
through the Power Authority, would be responsible for mitigating the effects
on facilities and services in the Mat -Su Borough and in individual
communities outside the borough. To address this issue, the Power Authority
is presently exploring different funding mechanisms.
Facilities and Services Impacts. The facilities and services issue and the
variables mentioned above have been given substantial consideration in the
FERC License Application, Exhibit E, and subsequent reports updating projec-
tions of the socioeconomic impacts of the Susitna Project (APA 1983,'Frank
Orth and Associates 1984a,b). As indicated in these reports, Cantwell,
Talkeetna, Healy, and Trapper Creek are the communities that are most likely
to be concerned with this issue due to population increases,,/. These
reports also present population projections based on workers traveling to
and from the project site in private vehicles for the year 1990, when peak
employment would occur with construction of the Watana Dam. Additionally,
projections of the adequacy of existing facilities and services such as
schools, health care and recreation facilities, police, fire, and solid
waste disposal have been calculated and revised according to updated
inmigration forecasts. Summaries of the findings for the borough and these
communities are included below.
1� Although updated reports by Frank Orth and Associates (1984a,b) include
population impacts for Healy, no facilities and services impacts have
been forecast.
421497 3
850227
Baseline and with -project population projections for the Mat -Su Borough in
the year 1990 are 47,246 and 48,639 persons, respectively. Baseline and
with -project projections of numbers of households (occupied units) are
15,375 and 15,791, respectively. The relatively small project effect on
numbers of households and on overall population would stimulate few discern-
able effects on borough -wide facilities and services.
For example, there would be no effects on the cumulative acreage require-
ments for solid waste disposal and only slight effects on police, hospitals,
and schools. Two additional policemen would be needed above a baseline
forecast of 52 police; and two hospital beds would be needed above a
baseline forecast of 61 beds. Total school enrollment would exceed the
baseline projections of 10,947 students by 381 students. Furthermore, there
would be few effects on the borough's ability to financially respond to
increased demands area -wide. Although these effects would be minimal for
the borough as a whole, greater impacts would be experienced by the. borough
communities of Talkeetna and Trapper Creek (plus Cantwell and Healy outside
the borough) where many project workers and their families would reside.
Table 1 presents the population and household (occupied units) projections
for Talkeetna, Trapper Creek, and Cantwell in 1990.
Table 1
Susitna Hydroelectric Project
Population and Household projections
Talkeetna, Trapper Creek, and Cantwell
1990
Population Households
Community baseline with -project baseline with -project
Talkeetnaa 457 652 149 208
Trapper Creeka 299 584 97 183
Cantwella 222 1,019 88 329
Healyb 427 716 141 227
Source: a Frank Orth and Associates, 1984a.
b Frank Orth and Associates, 1984b.
421497 4
850227
In Cantwell, Talkeetna, and Trapper Creek, a range of project -related
impacts would be experienced by existing facilities and services due to
increases in population and the number of households. ,For example, there
would be no effects on the elementary school in Talkeetna, because the with -
project projection of 86 students is within the existing and planned
capacity for 100 students. At the other end of the range, in Cantwell, the
total school enrollment with the Project would be 257 students. This would
be an impact of 217 students above the baseline of 40 students. The
existing and planned capacity of the school is 60 students. In addition, it
is likely that the volunteer fire department in Trapper Creek would have to
hire a permanent staff and that police staffing would have to be increased
by one to five individuals for each community. Furthermore, given the
population increases in all communities (assuming facilities/services
expansion does not occur prior to inmigration of workers and families) the
existing private landfills, individual water sources, and septic systems
would likely be inadequate. Where specific facilities and services do not
yet exist in the communities, such as centralized water and sewage treatment
and health care facilities, it is likely that the inmigrating population
could stimulate the need for these facilities and services to be installed
and/or provided for locally.
Assuming that funds would be available to build new facilities and hire new
staff to accommodate the increased demands due to the Project, communities
could still face other challenges associated with the new facilities and
services (Branch et al. 1984). Examples of these challenges include:
1. Recruiting skilled professionals (i.e., doctors and teachers) for
employment in small communities, especially when the housing
market is tight.
2. Maintaining a high quality of service with expanding operations.
3. Modifying organizations to accommodate the expansion.
421497 5
850227
4. Dealing with financial effects that higher user fees for
particular facilities and services can have on people with fixed
incomes.
5. Dealing with complex growth -related decisions by community
leaders.
6. Accommodating leadership and administrative overload.
Mitigation Measures Endorsed by Alaska Power Authority
Proposed project plans and designs have been formulated to reduce overall
socioeconomic and other impacts (APA 1983 p. E-5-127). A worker
transportation plan is important to this issue because it would negate or
greatly reduce the inmigration of project -related workers and their families
to communities near the project site, thereby restricting demands on
community facilities and services.
Worker Transportation Plan. Under this plan, workers would probably be
transported by air from Anchorage and Fairbanks and could be bussed from
Cantwell or other towns near the project site. Worker housing would be
provided at the site.
Although the details of this plan are still under consideration, the major
effects of the plan would be to eliminate or significantly reduce the
numbers of immigrating workers and their families to Cantwell, Talkeetna,
Healy, and Trapper Creek. In Cantwell, project -related inmigration would
not be totally eliminated because a railhead would be located there. At
this railhead, construction materials and supplies for the Watana Dam would
be transferred to trucks for transport to the site. The activity associated
with the railhead would likely attract a number of workers and their
families to Cantwell who might in turn create a need for additional
community sevices. The Power Authority will conduct a monitoring program in
Cantwell to determine the magnitude of impacts on facilities and services
421497 6
850227
and the need for local aid. However, since population increases would be
significantly reduced in Talkeetna, Healy, and Trapper Creek, there would be
no significant project -related demand for community services and facilities
in those communities.
In addition to the mitigating effects that the above mentioned project plans
can provide, an Impact Management Program has been outlined by the Alaska
Power Authority (APA 1983 p. E-5-133). The Impact Management Program would
provide information regarding expected impacts to communities to assist them
in their planning efforts. It would also implement mitigation measures
which existing private, government, or social entities could not implement
themselves.
A monitoring program would also be put into effect to evaluate the
effectiveness of and make adjustments to the mitigation measures. Project -
related changes in communities would be assessed and additional needs for
mitigation, if any, would be identified.
421497 7
850227
Alaska. Power Authority. 1983. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, FERC License
Application, Proj, No. 7114-000, vol 7, Exhibit E, Chapter 5,
Socioeconomic Impacts. Anchorage, Alaska.
Branch, Kristi et al. 1984. Guide to Social Assessment, A Framework for
Assessing Social Change. Westview Press. Boulder, Colorado.
Frank Orth and Associates, Inc. 1984a. Socioeconomic Impact Projections
Summary Report, Updated Projections of the Socioeconomic Impacts of the
Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority,
Bellevue, Washington. March.
Frank Orth and Associates, Inc. 1984b. Car Transportation Scenario,
Socioeconomic Impact Projections. Prepared for the Alaska Power
Authority, Bellevue, Washington, March,
Frank Orth and Associates, Inc. 1984c. Socioeconomic Impact Mitigation Plan
Update: Review of Potential Mitigation Measures. Prepared for the
Alaska Power Authority. Bellevue, WA, August,
421497 8
850227
Issue
Significance of
undeveloped lands.
Position
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY 717h;;5;,:
T:!
'' " '
`-`0
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
POSITION PAPER
SOCIOECONOMIC ISSUE S-6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
secondary development impacts on Native corporation
The Alaska Power Authority's position is that the Project would not restrict
Native corporations from developing Native lands. Furthermore, project
plans would be consistent with Native corporations' development plans.
Present Knowledge
Studies conducted by the Power Authority have produced:
1. A description of existing land ownership and Land use around the
impoundment areas and along access roads,
2. Projections of secondary impacts of the Project,
3. Clarification of the intentions of CI RI villages regarding
economic development around impoundment areas.
If
development occurs on Native lands,
it is likely to
be accomplished by
Natives,
either individuals or village
corporations, or
by non -Natives who
are
sponsored by Natives. The most
feasible development would likely
include
facilities ,and services for recreation, lodging,
food, shopping or
guiding.
40318 i
850130
r ...,,.; r.!
During the construction phase, the Susitna Project will have little effect
on secondary development of Native lands. The construction of the project
will not increase public access to these lands. Once construction is
completed, however, public access will be increased, subject to appropriate
mitigation. The construction work force will provide only a marginal market
for privately developed facilities and services (e.g. lodges, guides).
Since there currently is no conventional vehicular access to Native lands,
the Project obviously cannot hinder access.
During its operations phase, the Project could enhance development by
providing public access to Native lands. Use of the access by most
potential users of facilities and services would be seasonal. The Project
should not delay or decrease development.
Mitigation Measures Endorsed by the Alaska Power Authority
No mitigation measures are necessary to resolve this issue.
40318 ii
850130
ALASRA POWER AUT$ORITY
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
POSITION PAPER
SOCIOECONOMIC ISSUE S-6
Statement of Issue
P�n
i
,i
Issue S-6 is stated as follows: Significance of secondary development
impacts on Native corporation undeveloped lands.
Position
The Alaska Power Authority's position is that the Project would not restrict
Native corporations from developing Native lands. Furthermore, Project
plans would be consistent with Native corporations' development plans.
Present Knowledge
The sub -issues are:
1. How much of the secondary economic development that is created by
the proposed Susitna Project will occur on Native corporation
Lands located in the Project area?
2. What types of development are likely to occur on these Native
corporation lands?
The area where this issue
is of
concern
consists of Land in
or adjacent to
the impoundments, the south end
of the
access road where it
enters Native
lands, the construction
camps,
the
permanent village,
and the road
connecting the Watana and
Devil
Canyon
dams. The issue is
raised in this
geographic area because:
40318 1
850130
1. Inmigration of project -related workers and their families into
construction camps and the permanent village may create secondary
economic development opportunities (Frank Orth 1984). These
developments may include facilities and services for recreation,
lodging, food, shopping, maintenance, and housekeeping. Much of
the land near the construction camp and permanent village areas is
owned by Cook Zn1et Region, Inc. (CIRI) and Cook Inlet Region
village corporations (see Figure 1).
2. Increased public access to impoundment areas after construction
will expand the market for facilities and services the Native
corporations could provide. The market expansion will occur
because of increased access to consumers of goods and services,
and because better access will decrease transportation costs for
building materials, supplies, and distribution of products.
3. CIRI village corporations have expressed an intention to develop
their land'snaetal, timber, and recreation resources near
proposed impoundment areas, with or without the Project. They
believe that the Susitna Project will aid in this development
(Brown 1984a).
4. Access to the Watana and Devil Canyon impoundment areas may allow
Native development to occur earlier than without the Project and
may enhance the economic viability of such development.
Studies conducted by the Power Authority have produced:
1. A description of existing land ownership and land use around the
impoundment areas and along access roads,
2. Projections of secondary impacts from the Project,
3. Clarification of CIRI village intentions for economic development
around impoundment areas.
40318 2
850130
r:
Information about land
ownership and land
use in the project area
was
presented in Appendix
E, Chapter
9, of
the FERC License Application
(APA 1983a). Ownership
information
must be
viewed in the context of
the
land -conveyance process.
Until the
conveyance process is completed,
at
least through interim
conveyance,
land
ownership potential is
best
identified by using the categories of the land selection process. The
categories that apply to most of the land in or near the impoundment areas
are:
1. Native selection (unconveyed),
2. Native selections interim conveyed to CIRI,
3. State selections,
4. State selections that are .tentatively approved or patented,
5. State selections that are suspended.
Land surrounding the reservoirs and along the access road includes all of
these categories. . Lands which have been selected, but are not yet
tentatively approved or interim conveyed, are administered by the Bureau of
Land Management. There are also small amounts of private land near the
impoundments and along the road that will connect the Watana and Devil
Canyon dams (see Figure 1).
Land use is also described in Appendix E, Chapter 9, of the FERC License
Application (APA 1983a). Traditionally, the project area has been used
primarily for hunting, fishing, trapping, mining, and recreation.
Development typically consists of single cabins or a few small clusters of
cabins. The greatest concentration of structures is at Stephan lake (13
cabins, a lodge, outbuildings, and an airstrip) and the Portage Creek mining
area (19 cabins and outbuildings).
During
its
construction phase,
the Susitna
Project
would
have only
insignificant
impacts on secondary
development on
Native
corporation
Land in
40318 4
850130
TFirti;SiSii7r r;�iiiG ID
the project area. The lack of significant impacts will be due to the
unavailability of the access road for public use. The opportunity for
project personnel to purchase products or services that Natives might
provide will be limited to the village area, because the road system will
not be fully developed and use of private vehicles will be restricted.
During project operations, personnel will use goods and services, but since
there will only be about 130 workers plus their families (APA 1983b p. A-1-
25), there will not be enough demand to make development economically
viable. Subject to mitigation measures that may be adopted, public use of
the access road will be allowed during operations and may provide necessary
consumers for recreational services and facilities. If visits to the area
follow current recreational patterns, recreational development is likely to
be seasonal.
The Project will have no negative impact on Native plans to develop
recreation potential of their lands since it would not provide competition
for development. Nor will the Project remove existing access or in any way
obstruct development. The Project will not significantly affect wildlife
and fish resources important to recreation. The Project can, however,
enhance the Native corporations' ability to develop their lands by providing
new access, both to the Natives and to the public in general.
Types of development that bear on this issue include facilities and services
which could be provided by the private sector to both residents of, and
visitors to, the project area. The facilities and services that could be
developed on Native lands include: recreation, lodging', food, shopping, and
guide services. Native corporation representatives have indicated an
interest in providing these types of facilities and services in the vicinity
of the construction camp, permanent village, and impoundment areas. (Brown
1984a). Many of their development plans depend upon road access to the
southern side of the impoundments (Brown 1984b). This access could be
provided if access across the dams is permitted.
The position of Cook Inlet Region Native corporations about development of
their land is that they have considered the effects of development, decided
40318 5
850130
:.
that the effects will not be significant, and noted that Congress intended
that the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) allow development.
Furthermore, the land will be privately owned after conveyance of all rights
and privileges to the land.
Mitigation Measures Endorsed by the Alaska Power Authority
No mitigation measures are necessary to resolve this issue.
40318 6
850130
T.
Tk ti!
"TiP
REFERENCES
QhIiTT;")
Alaska Power Authority. 1983a. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. FERC License
Application Proj. No. 7114-000. Vol. 8, Exhibit E, Chapter 9, Land Use.
Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage. February.
Alaska Power Authority. 1983b. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. FERC License
Application Proj. No. 7114-000. Vol. 1, Exhibit A. Alaska Power
Authority, Anchorage. February.
Brown, B.A. 1984a. President and Chairman, Tyonek Native Corporation.
Letter. to Senator Ted Stevens. June 21, 1984 (copy to Alaska Power
Authority).
Brown,
B.A.
1984b. President and
Chairman,
Tyonek
Native
Corporation.
Letter
to
Jon
S. Ferguson. November
8, 1984
(copies
to
FERC, EPA, DOI,
DNR).
Frank Orth & Associates, Inc. 1984. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Final
Report, Car Transportation Scenario: Socioeconomic Impact Projections,
Document No. 1452 (March). Frank Orth & Associates, Inc., Bellevue,
WA.
40318 7
850130
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY RELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY,
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJE,.�NOO REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
NO
AUTHORIZED
POSITION PAPER
SOCIOECONOMIC ISSUE S-7/S-8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Issue
S-7. Feasibility and desirability of specific mitigation options, including
worker transportation plan, worker housing plan, local aid plan, local hire
plan.
S-8.
Formulation
and
implementation
of
a construction and post -construction
plan
to monitor significant
impacts
and
the efficacy of specific mitigation
measures.
Position
It is the Alaska Power Authority's position that the impacts of the Susitna
Project on area communities can be mitigated through the implementation of
the measures proposed in this paper. The effectiveness of such measures
will be monitored through the collection and analysis of socioeconomic data
in local communities and through discussions with local administrators.
Present Knowledge
Mitigation
and monitoring are
interrelated
topics. Monitoring addresses the
need for
and refinement
of mitigation
measures throughout the
life of the
Project.
422907 i
850422
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
RELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONL
NO REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
TRANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
Studies on the feasibility and desirability of the four mitigation options
(worker transportation plan, worker housing plan, local aid, local hire) are
being refined and the Power Authority may adopt policies with regard to
them. The Alaska Power Authority supports an economical worker trans-
portation plan that would limit inmigration of workers and their families to
small communities near the project site. If such a plan is implemented,
overall requirements for the local aid plan aimed at mitigating impacts on
facilities and services in area communities would be reduced. This
reduction would occur because there would be fewer demands for additional
facilities and services by project workers and their families living in area
communities.
The worker housing plan as described in the FERC License Application
would provide convenient on -site worker housing in a remote location.
A temporary construction camp and village is planned for both Watana and
Devil Canyon sites.
After construction,
a permanent
town
at Watana will
provide housing for
maintenance and operations
personnel
for
both dams.
With regard to
a local hiring plan,
the Alaska Power Authority must
comply
with applicable
employment statutes
and regulations while supporting,
to the
extent legally
feasible, the hiring
of residents from area communities.
422907 ii
850422
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
POSITION PAPER
SOCIOECONOMIC ISSUES S-7/S-8
Zssue
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
RELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY
NO REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
TRANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
S-7.
Feasibility and
desirability
of specific mitigation options, including
worker
transportation
plan, worker
housing plan, local aid plan, local hire
plan.
S-8.
Formulation
and implementation of
a
construction
and post -construction
plan
to monitor
significant impacts
and
efficacy•of
specific mitigation
measures.
Position
It is the Alaska
Power Authority's position
that the
impacts ,of
the Susitna
Project on local
communities can be largely
mitigated
through
the implemen-
tation of the measures proposed in this
paper. The
effectiveness of such
measures will
be monitored through
the
collection
and
analysis of
socioeconomic data
in local communities
and
through
discussions with local
administrators.
Present Knowledge
Socioeconomic issues S-7 and S-8 are presented together in this paper
because of the interrelationship between mitigation and monitoring topics.
First, a brief introduction explaining the relationships between the
specific mitigation options stated in Issue S-7 is presented. Following the
introduction, the status of each option is described. Finally, a general
monitoring program is outlined as it pertains to these and other mitigation
options.
422907 I
850422
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
RELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONL)
NO REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
TRANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
Introduction. Worker transportation, worker housing, local aid, and local
hire plans are mitigation options or measures that are interrelated. The
degree to which any one measure is appropriate may be dependent on the
extent to which another is implemented. For example, a worker
transportation plan would allow workers and their families to live farther
from the project site. This would limit the numbers of workers and their
families that might inmigrate to small communities close to the site and
would reduce the requirement for local aid to mitigate impacts on facilities
and services. Without a worker transportation plan, a local aid plan might
be appropriate to mitigate impacts created by an increase in demand for
facilities and services in the small communities near the project site.
As outlined in the FERC License
Application
(APA
1983a p.
E-5-127), these
and other mitigation measures
pertaining to
the
Susitna
Project can be
divided into two categories:
1) Project design measures (e.g., an on -site worker housing plan)
that are meant to avoid impacts such as population influxes;
traffic increases, and potential losses of wilderness, fish and
wildlife resources.
2) Measures to help communities cope with project -induced disruptions
by avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, reducing or eliminating, or
compensating for those adverse impacts that could occur.
Worker Transportation PLan. The Alaska Power Authority supports an
economical plan to transport workers to and from the project site, because
it would limit population influxes into small communities near the project
site and thereby isolate area communities from project -related effects. The
License Application (APA 1983a p. E-5-129) establishes the importance and
desirability of a worker transportation plan and outlines various transpor-
tation options. These options have been expanded and are presently being
refined.
422907 2
850422
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
RELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY
NO REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
TRANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
Worker Housing Plan. The worker housing plan as described in the License
Application (APA 1983b p. E-2-75, and 146; APA 1983c p. A-1-25) would
provide convenient on -site housing in a remote Location. The availability
of housing in conjunction with a worker transportation plan would affect
workers' residence preferences. That is, workers would be more likely to
maintain their existing family residences since the majority of them would
be required to reside in worker housing during their shifts. This would
minimize the numbers of workers who would relocate in communities near the
Project and consequently minimize demands on community facilities and
services.
A construction camp and village capable of housing as many as 4,720 persons
and a permanent town for approximately 130 staff and their families are
proposed for the Watana site. The camp would provide dormitory -style living
quarters, mess halls, recreation facilities, a bank, post office, fire
station, warehouses and other support facilities for 3,600 single -status
workers. The village, located 1.5 miles from the camp, would provide
housing, a store, and recreation and school facilities for approximately
1,120 people. Both the camp and village would be constructed in stages
according to the workforce demands of the Project.
The permanent town would house operations and maintenance staff and their
families during the operations phase of the Watana Dam. It would consist of
single- and multi -family homes, a school, and fire station, in addition to
recreation and shopping centers.
During Devil Canyon construction, a temporary camp and village like those
described for Watana construction would be established. The primary
difference would be in the numbers of people that would be accommodated.
The camp and the village would house as many as 1,900 people. Once
constructed, Devil Canyon would be maintained and operated by staff living
at the permanent town at Watana.
Local Aid Plan. A Local
aid plan refers
tc the establishment of a
mechanism
to mitigate impacts on
facilities and
services (e.g., housing,
schools,
422907 3
850422
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
RELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY;
NO REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
TRANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
health care, sewer and water) in communities near the project site. The
plan would include a public information program to apprise community
leaders of anticipated impacts so that migitation can occur in a timely
manner. The intent is to reduce the time between the onset of an impact and
the implementation of measures to mitigate that impact.
Socioeconomic Position Paper S-5 deals specifically with the significance of
increased burden on the Mat -Su Borough and affected communities of providing
public facilities and services engendered by project demands. In that
paper, Cantwell, Healy, Talkeetna, and Trapper Creek are identified as the
communities most likely to be concerned with facility and service impacts.
The State of Alaska is identified as the main source of funds (direct and
indirect) for providing community facilities and services. Generally,
legislative grant monies to unincorporated and smaller incorporated
communities are distributed through the Department of Community and Regional
Affairs (DCRA) directly to the communities. Where an entity such as the
Mat -Su Borough has specific administrative powers (i.e., pertaining to
health and safety), DCRA would channel funds through the borough. However,
the legislature could also specify exactly how grant money is to be
distributed and through which administrative bodies.
A local aid plan would only be necessary if anticipated impacts could not
be mitigated by other more economical means. With a worker transportation
plan, effects on facilities and services in the above named communities are
expected to be slight or insignificant except in Cantwell. In Cantwell,
inmigrating railhead construction workers could create demands on facilities
and services. The magnitude of these effects would depend on whether or not
housing is provided in Cantwell for these project workers.
Local Hire Plan. Long-time residents of Cantwell, Healy, Talkeetna, and
Trapper Creek may be interested in project -related employment regardless of
whether there is a worker transportation plan in effect. The Alaska Power
Authority's position on this issue is stated in Socioeconomic Position Paper
422907 4
850422
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
RELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY;
NO REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
TRANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
S-4. Basically, the Power Authority will comply with applicable statutory
requirements for local hiring. At the same time, the Power Authority
supports,
to the
extent Legally feasible,
the hiring of residents from
communities
near
the project site.
MonitorinQ Program. Detailed construction and post -construction plans to
monitor impacts are currently being examined. Also, the events that would
initiate the need for specific mitigation measures are being identified.
This section outlines the general monitoring program as it would apply to
the communities near the project site. The monitoring program will monitor
impacts and assess the effectiveness of specific mitigation measures.
It is anticipated that representatives from the Mat -Su Borough, affected
communities, and state agencies such as the DCRA and the Alaska Department
of Labor will provide input into and coordinate monitoring activities. The
Power Authority will have responsibility for the following monitoring
activities:
1) Data cotlection that will consist primarily of:
a) Construction worker surveys to identify where workers and
their families live;
b) Public official. sutveys and/or surveys of community
spokespersons to assess the communities' awareness of direct,
indirect, or perceived project -related effects.
2) Data
evaluation
that establishes
levels
of project -related effects
and
appropriate
mitigation
measures.
3) Evaluation
of the effectiveness of
mitigation measures
based on
input from
borough. and community
leaders
as well as
repre-
presentatives
of state agencies.
Where
necessary,
ongoing
mitigation
measures may be adjusted to
reflect
changing
conditions.
422907 5
550422
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
RELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY;
NO REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
TRANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
Monitoring activities are administered to respond to new input and changes
in existing conditions. Monitoring addresses the need for new mitigation
and the effectiveness of and need for modifications to existing mitigation
measures throughout the life of the Project.
422907 6
850422
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
RELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY;
NO REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
TRANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
REFERENCES
Alaska Power Authority. 1983a. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, FERC License
Application, Proj. No. 7114-000. Vol. 7, Exhibit E, Chapter 52
Socioeconomic Impacts. Anchorage, Alaska.
Alaska Power Authority. 1983b. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, FERC License
Application, Proj. No. 7114-000. Vol. 2, Exhibit E, Water Use and
Quality. Anchorage, Alaska.
Alaska Power Authority. 1983c. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, FERC License
Application, Proj. No. 7114-000. Vol. 1, Exhibit A, Project
Description, Anchorage, Alaska.
422907 7
850422
ALASKA
POWER
AUTHORITY
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
POSITION PAPER
RECREATION ISSUE R-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Issue
Significance of impacts on fishing, including availability of fish, access,
and quality of experience.
Position
The Alaska Power Authority proposes the mitigation measures presented in
this paper. It is the Power Authority's position that the proposed measures
adequately address the issue, and that the overall effect of the Project on
fishing activity will be positive.
Present Knowledge
The proposed Project will significantly enhance fishing opportunities in the
project area. Except for Clarence and Stephan Lakes, very little fishing
now occurs in the project area due to lack of access, distance from popula-
tion centers, and absence of high -demand sport fish species. Angler usage
of lakes and streams near the proposed access road is expected to signifi-
cantly increase over present minimal levels. Fishing pressure on Deadman
Creek could increase because the proposed access road parallels much of the
stream providing convenient access, and because of the creek's trophy -sized
grayling. Without more stringent fishing regulations, this trophy -sized
population may be reduced.
Project -related impacts to
fishing downstream of
Devil
Canyon are expected
to be insignificant. Jack
Long Creek, adjacent
to the
proposed
rail spur,
68695 i
850215
and the mouth of Portage Creek, located about 1.5 miles from the proposed
Devil Canyon access road, may both receive some increase in fishing due to
the proximity to new access, and the construction camps. Native landowner
plans will determine the extent of this use in the future. No sport fishing
impacts are anticipated downstream from Talkeetna.
The Project could increase fishing within the Devil Canyon reservoir and
adjacent tributaries if rainbow trout, a popular sport fish, is successfully
introduced into the reservoir as a mitigation measure.
Overall, while the Project may enhance the fishing experience for the users
that access fishing sites via road and vehicle, the fishing experience may
be adversely affected for the users that desire a remote fly -in experience.
The magnitude of this potential adverse effect on the remote fly -in fishing
experience is expected to be low given the low number of existing anglers in
the area, and given that other remote areas of Alaska exist where equal or
better fishing opportunities are available,
Mitigation Measures Endorsed by the Alaska Power Authority
Proposed mitigation measures that directly relate to fishing opportunities
include the following:
1. The proposed
project
recreation
plans have identified
campsites and
developed trails
that
will enhance
fishing opportunities
(APA 1983b).
2. The initiation of a propagation program will compensate for the loss of
grayling resulting from impoundment inundation (APA 1983a, Woodward -
Clyde 1984). This program could cover:
- Hatchery propagation of grayling or other resident species and
stocking in the project area,
68695 ii
850215
r
Propagation of desired sport species (such as rainbow trout) and
stocking in lakes outside the project area nearer population
centers,
Introduction of rainbow trout into Devil Canyon reservoir.
3. Project area lakes near proposed recreation campsites and trails will
be stocked.
4. Boat access for fishermen to Devil Canyon reservoir will be provided if
rainbow trout are successfully introduced into the reservoir.
5. In order to accommodate unmet fishing demands, additional access will
be developed through trail and trailhead construction to streams
identified in the project area as having recreational fishery
potential.
b. Regulating Deadman
Gr-eek for eaech
and release fishing will
be proposed
to the Alaska Board
of Fisheries.
b8695 iii
850215
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
POSITION PAPER
RECREATION ISSUER-1
Issue
Significance
of impacts on
fishing,
including availability of fish, access,
and quality
of experience.
Position
The Alaska Power Authority proposes the mitigation measures presented in
this paper. It is the Power Authority's position that the proposed measures
adequately address the issue, and that the overall effect of the Project on
sport fishing activity will be positive.
Present Knowledge
The principal concern of this issue is related to land, water, and air
access created by the Project, and the significance of the effect a change
in fishing patterns may have on existing and future fishing opportunities.
Important information for resolving this issue includes knowledge of area
sport fish populations and related fishing use. For the purpose of discus-
sion, resources and potential impacts are described with respect to the
following areas:
l.' Devil Canyon to Cook Inlet,
2. Project reservoirs and tributary mouths in impoundment zones,
68695 1
850215
3. Middle Basin, including the area north of the project reservoirs
to the Denali Highway, and the area immediately south of the
reservoirs.
Devil
Canyon
to Cook Inlet.
Resident sport fish
downstream
from Devil
Canyon
Dam
include rainbow
trout, Dolly Varden,
grayling,
and several
species of salmon. Primarily, rainbow trout and grayling use the Susitna
River to overwinter. They then move into tributaries for spawning, rearing,
and summer feeding (APA 1983a). Most of salmon spawning habitat in the
Susitna drainage is located in tributaries below the town of Talkeetna (APA
1983a). Sport fishing above Talkeetna is very light, while fishing activity
in tributaries downstream from Talkeetna is quite high. There were over
128,000 angler days in Susitna drainage tributaries below Talkeetna in 1982
(Mills 1982). Easy access, proximity to the Anchorage area population, and
large numbers of salmon were the reasons for such high fishing activity.
Activity is expected to increase here following the state's planned Susitna
River access improvements at Montana, Sheep, and Willow Creeks, three
heavily utilised east side tributaries accessible from the Parks Highway.
Project -related impacts to overall fish populations downstream from
Talkeetna are expected to be low (APA 1983a). However, there may be impacts
to sport fishing should habitat near tributary mouths change significantly.
Flow reductions, under project operation and during reservoir filling, may
change habitat location, thereby affecting anglers accessing present
locations by land.
The greatest changes to downstream fish habitats are expected in the reach
between Devi1 Canyon and Talkeetna. Due to post -project mitigation efforts
plus lower turbidity and velocities in this reach, salmon use of this reach
may increase above historical levels (APA 1983a). This could improve the
success rates of sport fishing here. Though habitat alteration at tributary
mouths located between Devil Canyon and Talkeetna could occur, the changes
are not expected to significantly affect fishing activity. Boat access to
fishing sites in this reach will enable anglers to relocate their fishing
68695 2
850215
effort, compensating for any habitat changes upstream or downstream of
existing sites.
The Project is not expected to significantly increase access to fishing
locations downstream from Devil Canyon Dam. Primary access will continue by
boat to tributary mouths, and is not expected to be affected significantly
by the Project. Jack Long Creek, adjacent to the proposed rail spur, and
the mouth of Portage Creek, about 1.5 miles from the Devil Canyon access
road, may both receive some increase in fishing due to the proximity to new
access and construction camps. Increased usage of these streams will depend
on future landowner plans.
Reservoirs.
The most
.significant project -related fishery
impact in the
reservoir
areas will
be the inundation of grayling spawning and rearing
habitat in
tributaries.
Grayling could use the reservoirs
to overwinter,
but not to
spawn or rear.
They would use only the remaining
tributaries for
spawning or rearing.
Loss of this tributary habitat could
affect approx-
imately 16,000
grayling
(APA 1983a).
Salmon and rainbow trout will not be affected. Their natural range ends at
Devil Canyon rapids, which for all practical purposes, block upstream
movements. Impacts to existing fishing activity in the impoundment zones
would be insignificant. There is very little activity here due to remote
location, and also to excellent grayling fishing in more accessible areas.
Fishing that does occur is generally incidental to float or hunting trips.
The Project could increase fishing within the Devil Canyon reservoir and
adjacent tributaries if rainbow trout, a popular sport fish, is successfully
introduced into the reservoir as a mitigation measure.
Middle Basin. Lakes and streams in the Middle Basin contain mostly grayling
and Dolly Varden. Some of the lakes associated with lodges, such as High
Lake and Stephan Lake, contain rainbow and lake trout. Deadman Creek
contains trophy size grayling over 30 inches long and supports large
68695 3
850215
grayling populations from 300 to over 800 per mile (Schmidt 1984). Fishing
activity in the project area is very light due to the remote location, and
is usually centered around lodge activity and/or incidental to hunting.
Project facilities will have minimal direct effect on middle basin fish
populations. The project access road will indirectly affect fish popula-
tions by increasing the number of anglers in the area. This would be
considered a project -related benefit. New areas would be opened to anglers
accessing interior fishing locations by car.
More active management may have to be applied in order to protect area
streams from overfishing and resultant lowered fishing success rates. Over -
fishing of trophy grayling in Deadman Creek could occur in the absence of
active management, because the proposed access road will parallel much of
the creek, providing convenient fishing access.
The proposed access road to Devil Canyon will provide easy access to lakes
near the road and may also increase fishing activity in Portage Creek, which
supports salmon, as well as trout and grayling. Fishing activity in Portage
Creek is not expected to be high due to distance from population centers and
more accessible, desirable, and available fishing locations elsewhere.
Access to these area lakes and streams will depend on plans of the native
landowners.
The proposed transmission lines will not significantly increase access to
fishing areas. The lines either parallel the access road, railroad spur, or
existing Intertie route. Therefore, further increased use is expected to be
negligible. Backcountry trails, proposed as part of the recreation plan,
are not expected to create significant fishing pressure on area streams and
lakes. Access across the Watana Dam could increase fishing use in the Fog
Lakes area, depending on the plans of the native landowners.
Streams near
the
construction
camps and permanent
village will
receive
increased fishing
.pressure from
construction workers
and their
families.
68695 4
850215
Certain streams, such as Deadman Creek, could be overfished unless
additional management restrictions are instituted. This potential impact
will also be reduced if the current proposed air/bus worker transportation
policy is finalized. This policy would reduce the number of workers and
families residing on -site.
Yn summary, angler use of Lakes and streams near the proposed access road is
expected to increase over present minimal use levels. Fishing pressure on
Deadman Creek could increase because the road parallels much of the stream,
providing convenient access, and because the creek's attraction is its
trophy -sized grayling. Without more stringent fishing regulations, this
trophy -sized population may be reduced.
Lakes and streams located away from the access roads may receive some
increase in fishing pressure. Concentrated usage tends to decrease rapidly
away from the roads, so pressure is not expected to be sufficiently high
to cause adverse impacts. Fishing opportunities in lakes and streams on
lands adjacent to the project .may also increase depending on the access
policy and development plans of the native landowners.
The proposed Project will increase fishing activity in the project area.
Entry patterns near project facilities will change from remote fly -in trips
to trips dominated by road and vehicular access. While the Project may
enhance the fishing experience for the user group that accesses fishing
sites via roads, the fishing experience may be adversely affected for the
user group that desires a remote fly -in experience. However, the
enchancement of the fishing opportunities to users as a result of opening a
new area to vehicular access will be greater in magnitude than the adverse
impact of the Project to the few existing remote fly -in users.
Mitigation Measures Endorsed by the Alaska Power Authority
Proposed
mitigation measures
that directly
relate to fishing opportunities
include
the following:
68695 5
850215
................. _ _
1. The proposed project recreation plans have identified campsites and
developed trails that enhance fishing opportunities (APA 1983b).
2. The initiation of a propagation program will compensate for the loss of
grayling resulting from impoundment inundation (APA 1983a, Woodward -
Clyde 1984). This program could cover:
Hatchery propagation of grayling or other resident species and
stocking in the project area,
- Propagation
of desired sport
species (such as
rainbow
trout) and
stocking in
lakes outside
the project area
nearer
population
centers,
- Introduction of rainbow trout into Devil Canyon reservoir.
3. Project area lakes near proposed recreation campsites and trails will
be stocked.
4. Boat access for fishermen
to
Devil Canyon
reservoir
will be provided if
rainbow trout are successfully
introduced
into the
reservoir.
5. In order to accommodate unmet fishing demands, additional access will
be developed through trail and trailhead construction to streams
identified in the project area as having recreational fishery
potential.
6. Regulating Deadman Creek for catch and release fishing will be proposed
to the Alaska Board of Fisheries.
68695 6
850215
_._.
_
References
Alaska Power Authority. 1983a. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, FERC License
Application Proj. No. 7114-000, Vol. 6A, Exhibit E, Chapter 3, Fish,
Wildlife, and Botanical Resources. Alaska Power Authority,
Anchorage.
Alaska Power Authority. 1983b. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. FERC License
Application Proj. No. 7114-000. Vol. 8, Exhibit E. Chapter 7, Recrea-
tional Resources. Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage.
Mills, M.. 1982. Statewide Harvest Survey, 1982 Data Volume 24. Federal Aid
in Fish Restoration and Anadromous Fish Studies, Alaska Department of
Fish and Game.
Schmidt, Dana C., et. al. 1984.
Access
and Transmission Corridor
Aquatic
Investigations (July -October
1983),
Report No. 4 Draft. Alaska
Depart-
ment of Fish and Game Susitna
Hydro
Aquatic Studies.
Woodward -Clyde Consultants. November 1984. Fish Mitigation Plan: Susitna
Hydroelectric Project.
68695 7
850215
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
POSITION PAPER
RECREATION ISSUE R-2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Issue
Significance
of
impacts
on hunting
and
recreational trapping,
including
availability
of
resource,
access,
and
quality
of experience.
Position.
It is the Alaska Power Authority's position that the Project will reduce
the availability of moose, black bear and brown bear in the area. These
reductions will affect the hunting experience to varying degrees depending
on hunting demand, hunting location, and the hunter's expectations and prior
knowledge of the area. The Project will provide improved access for hunters
entering the area and moving within it by vehicle or boat, and this may lead
the Alaska Board of Game to tighten hunting regulations in order to prevent
overharvesting. A higher density of hunters in the project area may
negatively affect the experience of hunters who now use the area because of
its remote character.
The Power Authority also takes the position that the Project will not
significantly affect recreational trapping. The intent of the Alaska Power
Authority is to accommodate project -induced hunting and trapping
opportunities as long as such opportunities are compatible with the
management goals of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the Board of
Games objectives.
403611
i
850228
-
'L.i..
Present Knowledge li',`.:! i?.'.! .._ .,._, ..
Existing information relevant to this issue includes the following:
Use of the Game Resource:
o Species
hunted in
the vicinity of the
Project include moose,'
caribou,
Dall sheep,
black bear, and brown
bear.
o Habitat that supports approximately 30-50 black bears will be
inundated. This may result in reduced numbers of black bears and
therefore, a reduction in hunter success.
o Many
black and brown bears harvested
are taken by
people hunting
moose
or caribou.
o Current
demand
for hunting
moose
and caribou is high
in the region
but low
in the
impoundment
area.
o Hunting of Dalt sheep is not expected to increase significantly.
Access to the Area:
o The project access road will increase hunting opportunities by
opening the area to hunters using vehicles, boats, and ATV's,
concomitantly replacing fly -in and pack -in hunting.
o New access patterns may redistribute hunting pressure and result
in increased hunting of some species subpopulations. This may
result in higher harvest levels and eventual reductions in hunter
success rates.
o The
proposed access
road
may
redistribute
the heavy hunting use
that
now occurs along
the
Denali
Highway.
403611
ii
850228
o Users that presently fly into the area disturbed by project
features for a remote hunting experience will be adversely
affected by the Project.
Recreational Trapping:
o The
number of trappers presently in
the project
impoundment areas
does
not appear to be large (betwen
7 and 9).
o The project road and reservoirs may increase access to traplines
for existing trappers and could increase the number of trappers by
providing access to areas not presently being trapped. This
possible increase will be dependent on the market value for furs.
Mitigation Measures Endorsed by Alaska Power Authority
1. Proposed Project Recreation Plan (APA 1983b Chapter 7) with campsites
trails, and boat access to reservoirs to accommodate hunters, and focus
activities to specific locations.
2. Proposed wildlife mitigation measures (APA 1983a Chapter 3, Section 4.4
and additional refinements) relevant to maintaining wildlife popula-
tions and, therefore, hunter success rates.
403611
850228
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
POSITION PAPER
RECREATION ISSUE R-2
Issue
Significance
of
impacts
on hunting
and
recreational trapping,
including
availability
of
resource,
access,
and
quality
of experience.
Position
It is the Alaska Power Authority's position that the Project wilt not
significantly affect the availability of game in the area, The Project will
provide improved access for hunters entering the area and moving within it
by vehicle or boat, and this may lead the Alaska Board of Game to tighten
hunting regulations in order to prevent overharvesting. A higher density of
hunters in the project area may negatively affect the experience of hunters
who now use the area because of its remote character.
The Power Authority also takes the position that the Project will not
significantly affect recreational trapping. The intent of the Alaska Power
Authority is to accommodate project -induced hunting and trapping
opportunities as long as such opportunities are compatible with the
management goals of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the Board of
Game's objectives.
DISCUSSION
The principal
concerns of this
issue focus on the
land,
water, and
air
access created
by the Project
and
on the significance
that
increased use
of
403611
1
850228
a remote area could have for existing and future hunting and trapping
opportunities.
Information important for resolving this issue includes a description of the
wildlife species in the project area-l/ that receive hunting pressure, and
a discussion of the potential project -related impacts on the wildlife
species and on existing hunters and trappers.
Hunting Resource and Use.
The proposed Project is located within the Matanuska-Susitna Borough's
million -acre Talkeetna Mountains Management Unit (ADNR 1982). This
management unit is considered one of the state's premier big game hunting
areas because of the abundance and variety of big game within its
boundaries. Big game species hunted in the area include black and brown
bear, Dell sheep, caribou, and moose.
Black Bear. Black bear are considered to be numerous in the forested
portions of the project area. Hunting regulations for black bear are
liberal. They allow a hunter to take three black bears per year with no
closed season and no permit required. The average harvest of 66 black bears
per year in Game Management Unit (GMU) 13?/ is considered well below the
sustainable harvest level (Miller and McAllister 1982). The total number of
people hunting black bear in the project area is presently not known. Most
black bears tend to be taken in the fall and their harvest tends to be
The project area is defined as the area bounded by the Susitna River to
the east, the Alaska Railroad and Parks Highway to the west, the Denali
Highway to the north, and approximately 20 miles to the south of the
Susitna River.
Game Management Units (GMU's) are areas established by the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) for game management purposes. GMU 13
is large and the proposed Project encompasses only a small portion of the
area. See Figure 1 for reference.
403611
850228 2
...
.,
..
...
l.._
,
incidental to moose and caribou hunting. This fact, along with the low
harvest, indicates that in GMU 13 black bear is not a highly -prized game
animal and that hunting pressure for black bear is not high (Miller and
McAllister 1982). Black bear harvest in the project area has occurred
mainly in the area between Indian River and Talkeetna, where access is by
river boat, railroad, or all -terrain vehicle (ATV) off the Parks Highway
(Miller and McAllister 1982).
Brown Bear. The
brown bear
population
is presently considered
to
be
high
and productive in
the project
area (APA
1983a). Brown bear hunting
in
GMU
13 does not require either registration or a permit. The bag limit is one
bear per year (ADFSG 1984a). This limit is liberal compared to all but one
of the other 25 management units in the state, which stipulate one bear
every four years and often by permit only (ADF&G 1984a). Harvests within
the project vicinity averaged 38 brown bear per year between 1980 and
1982 (Miller and McAllister 1982). A large proportion of those were taken
from subregions that include the Denali Highway (Miller and McAllister
1984). Access for hunting brown bear away from roads is gained primarily by
aircraft. As with black bear, many brown bear are taken incidental to moose
and caribou hunts. Brown bears taken in GMU 13 are young, which suggests
that hunters are not focusing on trophy -size bears (Miller and McAllister
1982). This would be consistent with the pattern associated with incidental
takes. As with black bears, the total number of hunters in the project area
is presently not known.
Dall Sheep.
Harvests
of
Dall sheep and caribou are
strictly cdntrolLed
in
the subregion
of GMU
13
encompassing the Project.
Dall sheep harvest
is
J Project vicinity refers to an .area Larger than the defined project area
(reference Miller and McAllister 1982).
403611
3
850228
controlled by the curl size of the horn (7/8 of a full curl is required).
Most rams which achieve this horn length are harvested each year. The
annual bag limit is one ram (ADF&G 1984a). In 1981, 29 hunters of Dall
sheep were reported in the project area, compared to 370 hunters for the
entire Susitna Basin (ADF&G 1984b).
Caribou. The number of caribou hunters and therefore harvest is controlled
by a permit drawing, which is open to residents only. In 1983 there were
over 9,700 applications for 1,750 caribou permits in GMU 13, indicating that
demand is high (Pitcher 1984). Hunting information compiled in 1981
indicated that about 614 caribou were taken in GMU 13 and 14 with an average
hunter success rate of 65 percent (ADF&G 1984b). In contrast, in 1981 the
number of caribou hunters identified in the project area was about 117.
Assuming the average hunter success rate of 65 percent, about 76 caribou
would have been taken within the project area in 1981.
Moose. Moose harvest is not as strictly regulated as caribou harvest. No
permits are required for hunting moose. Regulations in GMU 13 presently
restrict the take to one bull moose with a 36-inch or greater antler spread
per season (ADF&G 1984a). However, due to the high hunting pressure from
the Denali Highway, current regulations restrict the annual bag limit to one
young bull moose in areas of GMU 13 near the Parks Highway. The intent of
this regulation is to replenish the stock of larger antlered moose.
The number of moose hunters in 1983 in GMU 13 was approximately 3,100.
These hunters took 862 moose, a success rate of approximately 28 percent.
Approximately 243 of the 3,100 hunters were located within the project
area..) These hunters took 105 moose, for a project area success rate of
43 percent (ADF&G 1984c).
This assumed that 50 percent of all hunting in ADF&G reporting code units
partially within the project area occurred in the project area.
403611
4
850228
_ ... i
A 1983 estimate .of moose inhabiting the area within and adjacent to the
Devil Canyon and Watana impoundment zones was approximately 2,800, compared
to a 1980 estimate of approximately 23,000 moose inhabiting all of GMU 13
(Ballard et al. 1984).
Project impacts on hunting.
Inundation by the Watana reservoir will eliminate habitat Eor 30-50 black
bears (APA 1983a). The Devil Canyon reservoir may eliminate additional
black bear habitat. Because black bear are not heavily sought after game
species, the inundation of that area is not expected to significantly affect
black bear hunting opportunities. Population levels of Dall sheep and
caribou are not expected to change noticeably as a result of construction of
project facilities. Project facilities (notably the reservoirs) will
eliminate important winter browse for moose, however, and may eliminate
important brown bear spring forage. Preliminary estimates of the potential
loss of moose carrying capacity range between 300-600 moose (APA 1983a, FERC
1984). This reduction in the moose population may in turn reduce hunting
success rates. However, if mitigation to compensate for moose habitat loss
is assumed, pre -project success rates are likely to be restored, or
increased in other areas if mitigation is done in locations outside of the
project area.
Indirect impacts 'From project related access will have substantial
effects on hunting. Road access will increase hunting in an area that
previously was accessible, for the most part, only by air. This will
substantially increase hunting pressure on unpermitted big game species such
as moose and bear. Increased hunting in the newly accessible areas may
increase hunter success rates for moose and bear in the short term. In the
long term, however, bear and moose populations are likely to be reduced by
overharvesting, if not actively regulated. This is particularly true for
brown bear, since the proposed access road passes through prime brown bear
habitat. Unregulated ATV use off the access road could result in
considerable impact on game populations near the road, which in turn would
403611
$50228 5
..._
- —:-
-: �
`
1
T
further reduce hunting success rates. This would be similar to existing
situations where hunting activity adjacent to roads is high but success
rates are low. On the other hand, access into the project area may disperse
existing heavy use that occurs along the Denali Highway, thereby reducing
crowding and related use impacts that now occur in areas such as Butte
Lake.
The project reservoirs are also expected to increase access and therefore
hunting use, particularly in drainages above Watana Dam such as Watana and
Kosina Creeks. At present, hunters accessing the project area by boat use
the Denali Highway bridge or float down the Tyone River from Lake Louise.
Most boaters stop at or before Goose Creek, located below the mouth of the
Oshetna River (Cole 1979). The Vee Canyon rapids, faster water, and the
limited take—out locations downstream typically limit further boat travel.
The Watana reservoir will eliminate these obstacles, thereby allowing easy
access from the Denali Highway to Watana Dam. If public access to the
reservoir is provided at the dam, hunting via boat is expected to increase
in the project area. Float planes may use the reservoirs to gain access to
adjacent areas for hunting. Impacts on Dall sheep at the Jay Creek mineral
lick from hunters using the reservoir are not expected to be significant,
since peak sheep use of the mineral lick is in May and June while the
hunting season for sheep is in August and September (Tankersley 1984).
Impacts on the quality of the hunting experience reflects the extent tc
which a setting and activity meets one's expectations and needs. Certain
generalizations, however, can be made. If wildlife populations are
overharvested the quality of the hunt will be diminished because fewer
hunters will be successful. Also, as the number of hunters increases,
competition becomes greater which in turn reduces the chances of success,
and thus the quality of the hunt. This is happening now with moose
403611
850228 6
hunting
from the Denali
Highway.
The quality
of the hunting experience will
be most
significantly
affected
for existing
hunters who presently fly or
pack -in
to the interior
regions
of the project
area for a remote experience.
Little
can be done to
mitigate
this impact,
short of closing the road to
public
use.
A final consideration that will affect Future hunting opportunities in the
project area is the conveyance of lands in the project area to Native
corporations. It is expected that once conveyed, these lands will be either
closed to public use, or subject to acquisition of entry permits from the
Native corporations, with or without the Susitna Project.
Recreational Trapping. As noted in the FERC License Application (APA
1983a), it is difficult to distinguish between commercial and noncommercial
trapping activity. While this paper focuses on recreational trapping,
information presented is for trapping in general as data presently do not
differentiate betwen recreational or commercial trapping.
Use of the Resource. To date, survey data show that approximately 25-50
individuals trap annually or every few years in the Middle and Upper Susitna
Basins (Gibson 1985). The number of individuals trapping within the
impoundment zones ranges between seven and nine (Gibson 1985). This
relatively low number is thought to be due to the inaccessibility of the
project area and the fact that trapping activity, recreational or otherwise,
is closely tied to fur market values. For example, the fur value for beaver
pelts is presently very low and trapping of, this furbearer is minimal,
especially in remote areas where the effort and cost of trapping is not
compensated for by the low market value.
Project Impacts on Recreational Trapping. Access provided by the Project
may increase trapping of the beaver population in the Deadman Creek and
Deadman Lakes area and the fox population that inhabits the area near the
proposed access road. However, due to low beaver prices, increases in
harvest of beaver may not be extensive. Trapping which does occur would
403611
7
850228
likely result from efforts of recreational trappers.
The remoteness
of
the
region and general winter conditions
that prevail in
the area, however,
will
probably discourage much use by the
"weekend trapper."
Trapping of
fox
may
not be significantly increased since
populations are
very low and
few
fox
are trapped presently (APA 1983a).
Access related
to the Project
may
be
beneficial to existing trappers as
the road will
allow easier access
to
existing traplines.
The project
reservoirs will
have both positive and negative
impacts on
trappers. The reservoirs will
inundate significant amounts of
pine marten
habitat, possibly
affecting about
11 percent of the pine marten
population
in the Middle Susitna Basin (APA 1983a). As a result, the reservoirs will
eliminate or displace some trapping of pine marten and other furbearers.
The frozen surfaces of the reservoirs will however, provide trappers with
convenient access to surrounding areas. The reservoirs and access road will
also facilitate access to trapping areas south of the Susitna River. Again,
this could benefit existing trappers or increase trapping activity and
competition if the areas are currently not heavily trapped. Land management
plans of Native landowners will largely determine the future of trapping
south of the river.
MITIGATION
Mitigation Measures Endorsed by the Alaska Power Authority
Mitigation measures proposed by the Power Authority relevant to hunting and
trapping impacts are as follows:
1. Proposed Project Recreation Plan (APA 1983b Chapter 7) with
campsites, trails, and boat access to reservoirs to accommodate
hunters, and focus hunting activities to specific locations.
2. Proposed wildlife mitigation measures (APA 1983a Chapter 3,
Section 4.4 and additional refinements) relevant to maintaining
wildlife populations and, therefore, hunter success rates.
403611
0
850228
O �•
_...:...
Figure t
..
:.:
SUSITNA MYOROELECTRIC PROJECT
Source: Susitna Hydroelectric Projec
FERC Lieensa Application
February 1983
Volume I, Chapter 5
GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS
IN THE V!C!NlTY OF THE PROJECT
F �GURE E. S. B
REFERENCES;:.: ---
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1984a. Alaska Game Regulations No. 25,
Governing recreational, subsistence, and commercial uses of Alaska's
wildlife. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage. 77 pp.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) 1984b. Fish and Wildlife Resource
Element for the Susitna Area Planning Study. ADF&G Habitat Division,
Anchorage.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) 1984c. Moose Harvest Report 1983.
Computer Generated Data, printed May 3, 1984.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 1982. Matanuska-Susitna Beluga
Cooperative Planning Program, Land Use Issues and Preliminary Resource
Inventory, Volume 1 of 2, Planning Background Report. May.
Alaska Power Authority 1983a. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. FERC License
Application Proj. No. 7114400. Vol. 6A, Exhibit E. Chapter 3, Fish,
Wildlife, and Botanical Resources. Alaska Power Authority,
Anchorage.
Alaska Power Authority. 1983b. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. FERC License
Application Proj. No. 7114-000. Vol. 83 Exhibit E, Chapter 73
Recreational Resources. Alaska Power.Authority, Anchorage,
Ballard, Warren B., et al. April 1984. Susitna Hydroelectric Project 1983
Annual Report, Big Game Studies, Volume III Moose -Upstream. For Alaska
Department of Fish and Game.
Clark, Roger H., and G. Stankey. 1979. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum:
A Framework for Planning, Management and Research. US➢A. Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. General
Technical Report PNW-98.
403611
850228 9
Cole, Terrence. 1979, The History of the Use of the Upper Susitna River
Indian River to the Headwaters. State of Alaska, Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Research and Development.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. May 1984. Susitna Hydroelectric
Project. Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
Gibson, Philip
S.
1984. Susitna
Hydroelectric Project
Furbearer Studies,
Phase I
Report
Update. Alaska
Cooperative Wildlife
Research Unit,
Gibson, Philip S. 1985. Personal Communication to Harza-Ebasco.
Miller, S.D. 1984. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. 1983 Annual Report, Big
Game Studies, Vol. VI, Black bear and brown bear. Alaska Dept. Fish and
Game, Anchorage, 174 pp.
Miller, S.D., D.C. McAllister. 1982. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Phase I
Final Report, Big Game Studies, Vol. VI, Black bear and brown bear.
Alaska Dept. Fish and Game, Anchorage. 233 pp. March.
Pitcher, Kenneth W. 1984. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. 1983 Annual Report.
Big Game Studies, Volume IV Caribou. April.
Tankersley, N.G. 1984. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Draft Final Report,
Big Game Studies, Vol. VIII, Dall Sheep, Alaska Dept. Fish and Game,
Anchorage. 90pp,
403611
10
850228
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
POSITION PAPER
RECREATION ISSUE R-3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Issue
Significance of loss of whitewater resource.
Position
The Alaska Pv+er Authority proposes the mitigation measures presented in
this paper. It is the position of the Alaska Power Authority that project
impacts on the area's whitewater resource will be significant. However,
with respect to use of the resource, the number of users significantly
affected by this impact is expected to remain low. Current use levels of
the resource are estimated to be less than 25 people per year boating the
Denali Highway to Devil Canyon stretch, and less than that running Devil
Canyon rapids. Because of the area's remoteness, and difficulty of the
rapids, these use levels are not expected to increase significantly. The
mitigation measures presented in this paper provide some compensation for
this impact through improvement of whitewater boating access to stretches of
the river upstream and downstream of the project reservoirs.
Present Knowledge
Four stretches of the Susitna River between the Denali Highway and the Parks
Highway (207 river miles total) are described below as they relate to
whitewater boating (canoeing, kayaking, and rafting).
a
1. Denali Highway
to
Devil Canyon (130
miles):
Provides
a remote,
relatively Long
trip
(approximately seven
days),
with an
estimated
421146 i
850228
two to three expeditions with two to four persons each trip per
year. The low use is assumed to be a result of the trip length
and difficult access out of the river (two mile portage to Stephan
Lake or 10 mile portage around Devil Canyon). This portion of the
Susitna River, however, is considered the preferable portion by
kayakers because of its remote character.
2. Devil Canyon to Gold Creek (26 miles): Although a relatively
remote stretch of whitewater, this portion is not frequently used
because the only access is by air or by running or portaging Devil
Canyon rapids.
3. Gold Creek to Talkeetna (38 miles): This has been the portion
most frequently used by whitewater boaters because of its
remote character, short duration (two day trip), and relatively
convenient access via the Alaska Railroad. Since the railroad has
recently changed its policy, however, and restricts bringing boats
onto the train, use of this river segment will probably decrease
in the future.
4. Talkeetna
to the Parks Highway (13
miles):
This segment is listed
along with
the
segment described
above as
a whitewater route in
two local
whitewater guides. This
portion
is not as attractive
for whitewater.
boating as other
portions
of the Susitna River
because of
the
open, braided river
channel
and the greater amount
of use for
jet
boating.
Lhe major sets of rapids within the above listed segments of the Susitna
River are:
1. Vee Canyon Rapids: Located approximately 40 river miles upstream
of the Watana Dam site, these Class III to IV rapids are not
necessarily an attraction in themselves as much as an integral
part of the whitewater trip described above (Denali Highway to
Devil Canyon).
421146 ii
850228
2. Devil Canyon Rapids: Located both upstream and downstream from
the
Devil Canyon Dam site,
these Class VI rapids are considered a
world
-class whitewater run
by kayakers. The length, high
flows,
and
the fact that the rapids represent the upper limit
of navi-
gability
constitute their
supreme challenge to expert
kayakers.
Because
of the extreme difficulty, very few people have
attempted
the
rapids. Between 1976
and 1982, only approximately
27 people
have
attempted running the
rapids. Native groups have
indicated
that
they may restrict
access to the rapids for
liability
reasons.
Impacts of the Project to the whitewater- resources tisted above are
summarized as follows: '
1. Eighty-five miles of the river trip between the upper limit of the
Watana Reservoir and Devil Canyon will be changed to a flatwater
experience by the reservoir. Watana Dam will create an additional
portage to exit locations.
2. Minor impacts wilt result in the 53 mile stretch from below Devil
Canyon to Talkeetna because summer flows will be reduced to 9,000
cfs (median flow). These should not adversely affect whitewater
boating, however, because of the shallow drafts on whitewater
boats.
3. During construction of the Watana Dam,
the Devil
Canyon
rapids
will not be
affected and will still be accessible
by air,
except
during the
three year filling period.
During filling
of the
reservoirs
the 9000 cfs flows occurring
most of
the time will
likely be too Low for kayaking.
4. The Vee Canyon rapids and most of the Devil Canyon rapids will be
inundated by the Project. One and a half miles of the Devil
Canyon rapids downstream of the dam will be largely dewatered
after project completion.
421146 iii
850228
Mitigation Measures Endorsed by the Alaska Power Authority
1. Provide a boat Launch and parking area for improved access to the
Susitna River at the Denali Highway (APA 1983 p. E-7-74).
2. Provide access to the Susitna River downstream of the Devit Canyon
Dam tailrace outlet for whitewater boating t.o Gold Creek,
Talkeetna, or the Parks Highway. This measure recognizes that
agreements with Native landowners may be needed, and that user
fees may be changed.
3. During construction, post signs at upstream launch sites to alert
boaters of construction activities.
421146 iv
850228
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
POSITION PAPER
RECREATION ISSUE R-3
Issue
Significance of the Loss of whitewater resource.
Position
The Alaska Power Authority proposes the mitigation measures presented in
this paper. It is the position of the Alaska Power Authority that project
impacts on the area's whitewater resource will be significant. However,
with respect to use of the resource, the number of users significantly
affected by this impact is expected to remain low. Current use levels of
the resource are estimated to be less than 25 people per year boating the
Denali Highway to Devil Canyon stretch, and less than that running Devil
Canyon rapids. Because of the area's remoteness, and difficulty of the
rapids, these use levels are not expected to increase significantly. The
mitigation measures presented in this paper provide some compensation for
this impact through improvement of whitewater boating access to stretches of
the river upstream and downstream of the project reservoirs.
Present Knowledge
Resource. The portion of the Susitna River between the Denali Highway and
the Parks Highway provides approximately 20, miles of river used for
whitewater boatingl (Fig 1). This stretch of the Susitna River ranges from
a remote setting with many miles of river canyon to the open,
1 For purposes of this paper whitewater boating is defined as canoeing,
kayaking, and rafting on relatively fast moving water, with or without
obstacles such as rapids.
421146 1
850228
Figure
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
SUSITNA RIVER AND PROPOSED HYDROELECTRIC DAM SITES
ci
�N r
/ QE5 / GOLD
F �) QP OO CREEK
• P
P
Q
j TALKEETNA
Z
ti
to ANCHORAGE
to FAIRBANKS
I �l �ylY
h
U
0
r /¢I'
1�'DAMDEVI"ANYON7%WATANA DAM
CANYON
1 STEPHAN
LAKE
N
�i
OENAI_I
HIGHWAY
BRIDGE
VEE
SCALE 1:850,000
braided river channel downstream of Talkeetna. Several sets of rapids
varying in difficulty from Class I to Class VI (International Whitewater
Scale) are Located in this portion of the river.
The 130 miles between the Dena Li Highway and Devil Canyon is listed as a
whitewater route in Wild Rivers of Alaska (Weber 1976). The 51-mile portion
between Gold Creek and the Parks Highway is listed as a river route in both
Weber's guide and the Alaska Paddling Guide (Mosby and Dapkus 1983). River
guide books such as these typically determine for much of the public which
river routes to try, since they provide necessary information on
access, navigability, and difficulty of rapids within a route.
The upper portion of the Susitna above Devil Canyon is described by Weber as
"...for experienced wilderness travelers only" (Weber 1976). Weber classi-
fies this stretch as easy to medium difficulty. This portion is considered
Class I to II, primarily because of its fast current (Lesser 1984). Local
kayakers consider the Susitna River above Devil Canyon to be the preferable
portion of the trip because of its remote nature and river canyon scenery
(Rhodehamel 1982). The lower portion of the Susitna downstream of Gold
Creek is described by Weber as multichanneled and silty flatwater with no
great technical difficulties. Some skill is required, however, to negotiate
the fast current in bends and back eddies (Weber 1976).
The major -rapids
to be affected
by the Project consist of those located
within Vee Canyon, upstream of
the Watana
Dan site, and those within
Devil Canyon, Located
both upstream
and downstream
of the Devil Canyon Dam
site. Vee Canyon
is a two-mile
long portion
of the Susitna River cutting
through a narrow,
double -curved
canyon. The
rapids are approximately 40
miles upstream of
the proposed Watana Dan site.
An experienced kayaker who
has run both Devil
Canyon and Vee
Canyon rated
the difficulty of Vee Canyon
as Class III to IV
(Lesser, 1984).
Of the
entire
207
miles
of river
downstream
of
the
Denali
Highway,
the Devil
Canyon
rapids
constitute
the more
significant
portion
of
the trip
because of
421146 2
850228
its relative uniqueness. The rapids are
considered a world class segment
of
whitewater (Leaper 1984). Devil Canyon
is an eleven -mile stretch of
.narrow
river canyon, which contains, according
to kayaking experts, some
of
the
most challenging whitewater in the world. The canyon was described
as
the
It. Everest of kayaking by Dr. Walt Blackadar, considered a national
expert,
on kayaking and one of the first to run the rapids (Allen 1979).
In
the
eight years since the rapids were first
run, the Canyon has become known
to
kayakers throughout the United States as
well as in other countries.
Devil Canyon includes four sets of rapids classified as Class VI on the
International Whitewater Scale. The canyon provides approximately five
miles of Class VI rapids. Class VI represents the top of the difficulty
scale and is defined as "the limit of navigability, difficulties of Class V
carried to the extreme of navigability; nearly impossible and very
dangerous; for teams of experts only, after close study and with all
precautions taken" (Mosby and Dapkus 1983). Between the Class VI rapids is
fast moving water classified as Class II and III. Devil Canyon begins just
downstream of the mouth of Devil Creek and ends approximately 1.5 miles
upstream of Portage Creek (Fig 1).
Devil Canyon rapids are considered a supreme challenge to kayakers because
they represent the upper limit of navigability and provide this challenge
over a relatively long stretch of river. The powerful flows constricted
within the particular configuration of the canyon also contribute to .this
challenge. According to an experienced kayaker., Devil Canyon is one of
approximately six known stretches of river in the world that maintain the
outer limits of navigability for at least four miles (Leaper 1984).
In Alaska there are at least two other rivers classified as Class VI that
have been run: the Kotsina and the Nellie Juan Rivers (Mosby 1984). As
more rivers are explored in Alaska and other parts of the world, additional
accessible Class VI rapids comparable to Devil Canyon may be discovered.
Although Devil Canyon is considered a significant whitewater resource, the
Susitna River was not included as part of the wild and scenic river system
or given other protected status under the studies done for the Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA).
421146 3
850228
Use. Exact figures on the number of boaters running different portions of
the Susitna River are not currently available, but it is estimated that the
most widely used portion of the river has been the stretch between Gold
Creek and Talkeetna. This 37-mile, two-day trip has been popular among
canoeists, kayakers, and rafters primarily because of the convenient access
to Gold Creek by train and the remote setting. It is not unusual on
weekends for a boater to see several other boats on this stretch on the same
day (Goodwin 1984). However, the Alaska Railroad changed its policy in the
summer. of 1984 to only allow collapsible kayaks or rafts on the train
(Prudence 1984 pers. comm.). Consequently, it is anticipated that the level
of whitewater boating use for this stretch will decline.
The river segment between the Denali Highway and Devil Canyon is favored
among whitewater enthusiasts because it is a relatively long (approximately
seven day) trip through a remote setting with abundant wildlife (Rhodehamel
1982). In addition, access to the put in point, the Denali Highway bridge,
relatively easy. Boaters can exit the river by either portaging Devil
Canyon and travelling down to Talkeetna or by portaging to Stephan Lake and
boating down Prairie Creek and the Talkeetna River to Talkeetna. Both
portages are long and difficult because of the elevation changes and rugged
terrain. The trip from the Denali Highway to the Stephan Lake portage is
approximately 125 miles. The trip downstream to Talkeetna is 194 miles via
Devil Canyon portage.
The Denali Highway to Devil Canyon segment is not heavily used, however,
because of its remoteness, few accessible locations, and the time required
to run it. Lodge operators in the vicinity of the upper Susitna River
interviewed during field studies for the Project in 1984 indicated that they
have observed some canoeists and kayakers occasionally travelling down this
portion of the river. Exact numbers are not available, but it is estimated
that two to three expeditions with two to four persons each are made per
year (Hession 1982). In addition, some boaters float only as far as the
Tyone River and motor up the Tyone River to Lake Louise (APA 1983).
421146 4
850228
The Vee Canyon rapids within the Denali Highway to
Devil's
Canyon
segment,
are either run or portaged by the boaters travelling
downstream
from the
Denali Highway. The Vee Canyon rapids do not appear
to
be an attraction in
themselves (i.eo people do not travel to the canyon
just
to run the
rapids).
They do provide one of the main highlights of the
trip
between the Denali
Highway and Talkeetna. The rapids were first run in
1970
when two
kayakers
put in at the Denali Highway, 66 miles upstream.
One
person is
known to
have died attempting those rapids in 1980,
Because of their extreme difficulty, the Devil Canyon rapids are not widely
used. They were not discovered for whitewater boating until 1970. Boaters
have access to the Devil Canyon rapids either by air or water. Some boaters
fly in to High Lake and portage to the mouth of Devil Creek. Others paddle
the 130 miles down the Susitna River from the Denali Highway. The first
attempt at running the rapids occurred on August 3, 1976. It was filmed by
ABC-TV for the "American Sportsman" series and aired February 27, 1977. Two
of the five kayakers successfully negotiated the rapids on this attempt.
At least 27 kayakers have tried running the rapids between 1976 and 1982
(Embicks 1982). Of these, only ten ran the entire rapids successfully, five
ran part of the rapids and portaged the remaining portion, eight "swam"
portions of the rapids, and three walked out. In addition, six persons ran
the canyon in a paddle raft, portaging the four main rapids in 1981 and, an
unsuccessful attempt was made to run the rapids upstream in a jet boat. In
1982, one person was killed attempting the rapids (Embicks 1982).
Approximately half of the kayakers that have attempted the rapids were
Alaskans. Other attempts included kayakers from the contiguous United
States and two from West Germany.
The attempted runs
on Devil Canyon have all
been made during
Suly and August
(Embicks 1982).
Lt is assumed that this
is due to the warmer weather and
the more moderate
flows occurring during
this period. The
river's median
421146 5
850228
flow-1/ is approximately 23,000 cfs in July and 20,000 cfs in August, as
compared to the 27,000 cfs median flow in June and the 13,000 cfs median
flow in September (Gold Creek Station). Flows at the canyon during
attempted runs ranged from 13,600 cfs in August 1982 (in which one person
was killed) to 28,000 cfs in 1976 (Embicks 1982). During most of the other
known attempts, flows were in the 20,000 to 26,000 cfs range. According to
a kayaker who has run the Devil Canyon rapids several times, the lower flows
of 13,000 cfs or less are much more dangerous than the higher flows up to
about 31,000 cfs. Flows above 31,000 cfs appear considerably more dangerous
(Lesser 1984).
Future Use. It is expected that occasional use of Devil Canyon would
continue in the future without the Project, or would gradually increase.
This assumption is based on the fact that the rapids are considered world -
class whitewater by kayakers and have been the subject of a nationally
televised documentary (ABC-TV February 27, 1977) as well as a locally
produced documentary (Hession 1982). With continuing publicity and
increasing population, it is assumed that attempts on the 'rapids would
continue and gradually increase but not significantly because of their
difficulty and remoteness. Continued use of the rapids, however, could
be restricted since the adjacent land has been selected by the Native
corporations. Some Native groups have indicated they may restrict access to
the rapids because of the high risk to life and potential liability concerns
(Bedard 1984).
Project Impacts.
The proposed
Project wilt affect
the existing whitewater
resource by inundating the Susitna
River within the
reservoir boundaries and
by altering the
natural flows
of the river downstream
of the reservoirs.
Approximately 85
miles of the total 207 river miles between the Denali
Highway and the
Parks Highway
are located within
the reservoir boundaries
and will change
in character
from a wilderness
river environment with
occasional rapids to a flatwater condition. The
reservoirs will be less
1�Median flows derived from flow duration data based on monthly average
flows.
421146 6
850228
desirable to negotiate in small boats such as canoes, kayaks, and rafts
because of the large size of the reservoir, high winds, and choppy waters.
The Devil Canyon and Watana Dams would represent both obstacles requiring
portaging to those continuing downstream.
Downstream of the Devil Canyon dam, approximately 53 miles of river (Devi1
Canyon to Talkeetna) will be affected by the discharge from the completed
Project. During the boating season, the discharges between. Devil Canyon and
Talkeetna will be lower with the Project than under natural flows. The
median flows with the Project will be approximately 9,000 cfs during July
and August, approximately 10,500 cfs in June and 8,000 cfs in September
(Gold Creek). Minimum flows will be 8,000 cfs (APA 1984). The existing
median flows are approximately 27,000 in June, 23,000 cfs in July, 21,000 in
August, and 13,000 in September. These with -Project flows will not limit
small craft such as canoes and kayaks in this stretch of the river, since
jet boats have been using the river at this flow range during the studies
for the Project.
Downstream of Talkeetna, effects of the Project on whitewater or
nonmotorized boating will not be significant. The impact on flows will be
less extensive than in the upstream portion because of the moderating effect
of the Chulitna and Talkeetna Rivers. In addition, as noted above there is
less whitewater boating in this portion of the river.
The 54-mile portion of
the river between the
Denali
Highway and the upper
limits of the Watana
reservoir maxim un pool
will not be affected by the
Project. floaters will
continue to be able to
put in
at Denali Highway and
each the Tyone River.
The trip to Stephan Lake will
not be possible after
the Project is completed, unless the boaters
traverse
the Watana Reservoir
and are able to portage
the Watana dam.
Both the Vee
Canyon rapids and the Devil Canyon
rapids will
be lost as a
result of the
Project. The Watana Reservoir will
inundate
the Vee Canyon
rapids with
155 feet of water during the minimum
pool
Levels. After
421146 7
850228
completion of the Devil Canyon Dam, three of the four Class VI rapids in
Devil Canyon will be inundated by the reservoir. The remaining one -mite
portion of the Devil Canyon rapids between the dam and the tailrace channel
outlet will be dewatered except for minor flows from seepage and occasional
discharges from the fixed cone valves.
During the eight -year construction period for the Watana Dam, there should
be no impact on the Vee Canyon or Devil Canyon rapids, except during the
three-year filling period, during which flows will be reduced in Devil
Canyon and water levels will gradually increase in Vee Canyon. During this
filling period, July and August median flows at Gold Creek will be
approximately 9,000 cfs (except during the first year in which the median
August flow will be approximately 15,000 cfs). During low flaw years-V
the discharge would be 8,000 cfs and during high flow) years discharge
would be 13,000 to 17,000 cfs or greater. Thus, depending on the amount of
rainfall during filling, it may be possible to run Devil Canyon in high flow
years. As discussed above, flows of 13,000 cfs or lower are considered much
more dangerous, if not impossible, to run.
During construction of the Devil Canyon Dam, the rapids will. be affected by
discharges of the Watana Dam. The discharges are expected to be similar to
the discharges from the completed Project. Median flows will, be
approximately 10,000 cfs in July and August and 11,000 cfs in September.
High flows will be approximately 13,000 cfs in July, 17,000 cfs in August,
and between 14,000 and 24,000 cfs in September (APA 1984). Running the
rapids, if these modified flows can be run, will probably not be practical
during Devil Canyon Dan construction because of the difficulty of exitting
the canyon before reaching the dam site.
��Law Flows are those. flows equalled or exceeded 90 percent of the years
within the 34-year per;:od of record.
,I/High
flaws are those flows equalled or exceeded LO percent of the years
within the 34-year period of record.
421146 8
850228
Access to
the Devil Canyon
rapids will be affected
both
during construction
and after
completion of the
Project. During Watana
Dam construction,
access
to Devil
Canyon will be
reduced since it will
be
difficult, if
not
impossible,
to paddle downstream
from the Denali Highway
and portage around
the Watana project site.
Access to project lands
will
be restricted
and
exitting
the steep river
bluffs prior to the Watana
dam site may
be
difficult
for boaters. Access to Devil Canyon via
High
Lake will still
be
possible.
During Devil Canyon construction, access to the rapids would be more
limited. Assuming boaters were interested in attempting the rapids at the
lower flows discharged from Watana Dam, access from High Lake would still be
possible. However, if the first three sets of rapids above the dam site
were run, it would be difficult to exit the canyon before reaching the dam
site because of the fast water and steep canyon walls.
After project completion, the access road will be open to the public and
access provided to the reservoirs. The access road will benefit users
desiring to boat the Gold Creek to Talkeetna river stretch if access is
provided to the river below the Devil Canyon outlet. However, some of the
project lands may be conveyed to the Native corporations in which case
access may be more restricted.
Mitigation Measures.Endorsed by the Alaska Power Authority
1. Provide
a boat
Launch and parking area for improved access to the
Susitna
River
at the Denali Highway
(APA 1983 p. E-7-74).
2. Provide access to the Susitna River downstream of the Devil Canyon
Dam tailrace outlet for whitewater boating to Gold Creek,
Talkeetna, or the Parks Highway. This measure recognizes that
agreements with Native landowners may be needed, and that user
fees may be charged.
3. During
construction,
post signs at
upstream launch sites to alert
boaters
of
construction
activities.
421146 9
850228
References
Alaska Power Authority. 1983. Final Application for License for Major
Project, Susitna Hydroelectric Project, before the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, accepted by FERC July 27, 1983. Vol. 8 Exhibit
E, Chapters 7, 8 and 9, APA Susitna Hydroelectric Project.
Alaska Powec Authority. 1984. Evaluation of Alternative Flaw Requirements.
Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Prepared by Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint
Venture, Anchorage, Alaska. 55 pp.
Allen, Jack. 1979. Alaska's Susitna - Kayaking's Mount Everest. American
Whitewater. American Whitewater Affiliation,
Bedard, B.ft. 1984. Land Inspector, CI RI Native Villages. Tyonek Native
Corporation, Susitna Hydroelectric Project Issue List. November 8,
1984. Susitna File No. 6.2,10,
Embicks, Andrew. 1982. Personal Communication. Telephone conversation
September 27, 1982.
Goodwin, Mike. 1984. Personal Communication. Telephone conversation
December 4, 1984.
Hession,
Mary
Kaye.
1982. Member, Knik
Kanoers and Kayakers, Inc. In letter
to
EDAW,
Inc.
November 14, 1982.
Lea per, Eric. 1984. Executive Director, National Organization for River
S-ports. Personal Communication. November 29, 1984.
Lesser,
Rob.
1984. Personal
Canmunication.
Telephone conversation
December
11,
1984.
421146 10
850228
Mosby, Jack, and David Dapkus, 1983
Enterprises. Anchorage, Alaska,
Alaska Paddling Guide. J and R
Mosby , Jack.
1984. U.S.
National
Park Service, Personal Communication
Telephone
conversation
December
3, 1984.
Prudence, Bonnie. 1984. Employee of the Alaska Rai=lroad. Personal
Communication. December 14, 1984.
Rhodehamel, Ron. 1982. President, Knik Kanoers and Kayakers, Inc. Ln letter
from Rhodehamel to Alaska Power Authority, Eric Yould, Director. April
21, 1982.
Weber, S. 1976. W-ild Rivers of Alaska. Alaska Northwest Publishing Company.
421146 11
850228
PRMLEGED APO COPPIDIRVIAL ► ( M
i '1' tiPURPOSES•1
KYF
1 REPRODUCTION 1' RIFIM
USITNA 1.• PROJECT"
POSITION PAPER
RECREATION ISSUE R-4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Issue
Significance
of impacts
to
boating
downstream of
Devil Canyon Dam, including
access
to the
water and
on
the
water (impediments
to navigation).
Position
It is
will
the
position
of the
Alaska
Power
Authority
that
project -related
impacts
on
downstream
boating
will
be insignificant
and
that the Project
in general benefit downstream boating.
Present Knowledge
A survey of Susitna River navigation downstream of the Project was conducted
by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFSG) during the 1984 boating
season. Information from the ADF&G survey on use of the river indicates the
following:
1. Boating is most prevalent on the reach of the Susitna River
downstream of Talkeetna. The Susitna (Kashwitna) Landing at River
Mile 61 is presently the most widely used boat launch on the
Susitna.
2. Sport
fishing is
the primary purpose for most of
the boating that
occurs
on the river. Secondary purposes include
transportation,
access
to remote
parcels, and access to hunting areas.
421356 i
850327
FRMLEGED AND CIWPD9MAL DOCUMENT
PELEASED FOR WMEMEW PURPOSES ONLY;
t 0 REPROOUPON OR f ffW
TRANSMITTAL AUTHONZED
3. The Deshka and Yentna Rivers were Listed as the principal
destination by the largest proportion of the boats surveyed.
Impacts of the Project will be as follows:
1. In general, the Project
will improve
conditions for boating
downstream of Devil Canyon
Dam because it
will
stabilize the flows
by decreasing the natural
high flows and
by
augmenting low flows
in certain periods, such
as early May.
The
moderated flows will
decrease channel fluctuations,
which will
facilitate
navigation.
2. In the river reach between Devil Canyon and Talkeetna, the river
is considered navigable at flows above approximately 5,000 - 6,000
cfs (Gold Creek flows). Since the anticipated minimum discharge
from the Project during the boating season will be 6,000 to 8,000
cfs, this stretch will remain suitable for boating.
3. In the river reach downstream of Talkeetna, navigation problems
occur during periods of low flow, primarily at flows below 23,000
to 25,000 cfs (Sunshine Station). The Project will most likely
result in flows higher than this during most of the boating
season.
4. Navigation problems also occur during periods of high flow. The
Project will improve navigation conditions by decreasing flood
flows, and thereby reducing high water velocities, the shifting
channels, and the obstructions such as floating debris often
caused by flooding.
5. Even
though reduced
flows may
still permit navigation by boat,
there
can still be
effects on
the quality of the experience and
other
aesthetic considerations.
421356 ii
850327
PRR►I um ARO C01!F'ram OOCUMHIT
PELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONIy;
10 REPROOUOTION OR FURTHER
TRANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
S. The Project will have no adverse effects on boating access to the
river downstream of Devil Canyon.
Mitigation Measures Endorsed by Alaska Power Authority
No mitigation measures are necessary.
421356 iii
850327
FAIVILEGED AFD MI DOCUMENT
N
1 REPRODUCTION 1' FURTM
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY TRANSMITTAL AUTHMI;M
SITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
POSITION PAPER
RECREATION ISSUE R-4
Issue
Significance
of impacts
to
boating
downstream of
Devil
Canyon Dam,
including
access
to the
water and
on
the
water (impediments
to
navigation).
Position
It is
the position
of the
Alaska Power Authority
that project -related
impacts
on downstream
boating will be insignificant
and that the
Project
will on
some occasions
benefit
downstream boating.
Present Knowledge
Boating on the Susitna River consists of jet boats; air boats, flat bottom
skiffs, canoes, rafts, kayaks, and propeller -driven boats. Boaters use the
Susitna River principally for fishing, hunting, access to remote parcels,
whitewater boating, and riverboat tours, with access to sport fish locations
being the primary boating purpose.
Access to the Susitna River for boaters is presently provided by two boat
launches at Talkeetna, at the Parks Highway Bridge in Sunshine, by the
Susitna Landing boat launch, and by a boat launch on Willow Creek. During
an ADF&G study of boating on the Susitna River, the operators of 2,407 boats
departing the river at four of these sites, Willow Creek, Susitna Landing,
and the Talkeetna boat launches, were surveyed (ADF&G, 1985). Based on
projections from the survey of boat operators, approximately 2700 boats and
8,600 boaters departed the river at Susitna Landing, 600 boats and 1800
boaters departed at Willow Creek, and 400 boats and 1000 boaters departed at
421356 1
850327
TRWEEED AND COIrCENTIAL DOCUMENT
PELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY;
10 REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
TRANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
the Talkeetna launches during the months of May through September, 1984.
Results of the ADF&G study indicate that over one-half of the boaters
departing the river were boating primarily for sport fishing. Boating for
access to fishing locations was most prevalent at the downstream launch
sites. An estimated 60 percent of the boats at Susitna Landing and Willow
Creek had sport fishing as their primary activity (Table 1). At Talkeetna
only 39 percent (estimated) had sport fishing as the primary purpose of
their trip.
During the fishing season, the primary boating destinations on the Lower
Susitna River are those tributaries which are not easily accessible by road.
These tributaries include the Deshka and Yentna Rivers. An estimated 80
percent of the boats departing the river at Susitna Landing and 38 percent
at Willow went to these two destinations. Other sites frequented include
the mouths of clearwater tributaries which have salmon runs. Many of these
tributaries have access from the Parks Highway, however, so boating pressure
is not as high as it is on the Yentna and Deshka Rivers.
The Susitna River is also used for transportation and for access to remote
parcels and hunting areas. Many of the remote parcels are located along
tributary creeks in the vicinity of Talkeetna or within the upper Deshka and
Yentna river valleys. Boaters travel down the tributaries to the Susitna
and boat upstream or downstream to Talkeetna or other smaller communities
along the river for supplies. An estimated 10 percent of the boats
departing the river at Susitna Landing and Willow Creek and 15 percent
departing at Talkeetna had transportation as the primary purpose of their
trip. Private supply was the primary purpose by an estimated 12 percent of
the boats departing at Susitna Landing, 6 percent at Willow, and 4 percent
at Talkeetna. Approximately 8 percent were projected as having hunting as
their main activity (ADF&G 1985).
Commercial
riverboats constitute a relatively
small
portion
of the river
traffic.
Riverboat operators provide
various services
such as
scenic tours
of
the river, transportation for
hunting
and
fishing,
and freight
42135b 2
850327
Main
Activity
Sport Fishing
Trapping
Hunting
Commercial
Fishing
Commercial
Supply
Private Supply
Transportation
Camping
Sight Seeing
Susitna Study
Other Activity
1 APO hl 11 M
1 FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY;
1 REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
AUTHORIZED
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
PRIMARY ACTIVITIES FOR BOATS
EXITING THE SUSITNA RIVER AT THREE LOCATIONSl/
Susitna
Landing,
Willow
Creek
Talkeetna
Percent
Boats
Percent2/
Boats Percent-4,1
Boats
1585
60
342
60
159 39
2
0
1
0
0 0
39
2
32
6
1 0
3
0
1
0
0 0
27
1
2
0
0
0
293
12
32
6
14
4
228
10
56
10
59
15
17
1
3
1
1
0
44
2
16
3
27
7
24
1
2
0
54
14
72
3
26
5
0
0
2334
92
513
91
315
79
1/The numbers
presented are estimates of total boating
use projected from
an ADF&G survey of boat operators
departing the Susitna
River during the
months of May
through September,
1984.
?✓ Percentages
adding up
to
less than
100
reflect no
response
from some
operators and
the result
of
rounding
off
percentages
to
the
nearest digit.
Source: ADF&G 1985.
421356/TBL
850321
f RM'.EGED AND COb.rrEN IAL OOMMW
TELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSE$ ONLY;
t0 REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
TRANSMITTAL AUTHMM
deliveries. An estimated thirty boats departing the river ha3'commercial
supply as their primary purpose (ADF&G 1985). Scenic tours of the river are
aISO provided by commercial riverboats. Mahay's Riverboat Service in
Talkeetna, for example, takes scenic tours up the Talkeetna River and up the
Susitna River to Devil Canyon in 27-foot jet boats.
Whitewater boating also
occurs downstream of
the Devil
Canyon Dam site
(see
Position Paper R-3). Portions
of the Susitna
River downstream of the
Devil
Canyon Dam are listed
in two whitewater river guides,
The Alaska Paddling
Guide (Mosby and Dapkus
1983) and Wild Rivers
of Alaska
(Weber 1976).
Weber
classifies this stretch
of the Susitna as "Flatwater 3",
which means it
does
not present whitewater
difficulties but does
require
some skill for
bends
and back eddies.
Upper
River -
Devil
Canyon to
Talkeetna. The
reach
of the
Susitna between
Devil
Canyon
and
Talkeetna
is characterized
by a
single
channel with
occasional islands confined by valley
walls (Fig 1).
Access
is available
for
motorized boats from two boat
launch sites at Talkeetna.
Talkeetna is
the
farthest upstream point along
the Susitna River
which is
accessible by
road,
except for the Denali Highway
crossing. Until
recently,
access to the
portion
of the Susitna River upstream of Talkeetna
to Gold Creek had been
available via the Alaska Railroad. The railroad, however, recently changed
its policy and does not allow boats, except for collapsible kayaks and
rafts, to be brought on the train (Prudence 1984 pers comm).
The 37-mile portion between Gold Creek and Talkeetna is used by motorized
boats for fishing, transportation, sightseeing and access to remote parcels.
While accessible, it is less influenced by human activity than stretches
downstream of Talkeetna. The trip takes approximately two days.
Nonmotorized boating of this stretch is expected to decrease, however, since
the Alaska Railroad changed its policy regarding the carrying of boats.
421356 3
850327
1 AM M IIM
1 '1' 'ifi:.•l
1 REPRODU00M 1' RffrM
1' /71
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
SUSITNA RIVER AND PROPOSED HYDROELECTRIC DAM SITES
GOLD
F1 QP O CREEK
• P
2 / QO
J �P
e
i
C
TALKEETNA
to ANCHORAGE
/ /� to FAIRBANKS
oe� _`yw9y
co
¢oco /
U
e�
O
1 &�'YD M P•, 4N / YON WATANA DAM
DEVIL s
CANYON
, STEPHAN
1" LAKE
DENALI
HIGHWAY
BRIDGE
VEE
SCALE 1:850,000
FRWI_ESED APO COITT9 TIAL DOCUMENT
f ELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY;
10 REPRODUCTION OR FORM
TRANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
Boating activity between the Devil Canyon Dam site and Gold Creek is
relatively light, because it is the most remote stretch of the river
downstream of the Project (Fig 1). Access to this reach must be provided
either by air or by boat via the upper or lower Susitna. The Devil Canyon
rapids pose a formidable obstacle to most boaters coming downstream from the
upper portion of the Susitna.
Lower River - Talkeetna to Cook Inlet. Boating is most prevalent within the
reach of the Susitna below Talkeetna, according to results of the 1984 ADF&G
survey. Points along the Susitna upstream of Talkeetna were the first
destination of only 2 percent (estimated) of the boats departing the river.
The remaining boat operators went to the Talkeetna River or locations
downstream of Talkeetna as their first destination. The heavier use in
downstream portions of the river is due to their proximity to Anchorage and
to preferred fishing destinations such as the Deshka River and tributaries
to the Yentna River. Sport fishing is the primary purpose for boating in
this stretch. Susitna Landing received the heaviest use of the four sites
surveyed by ADF&G principally because it is the most developed site:
Downstream of Talkeetna, access is possible at the Parks Highway bridge at
Sunshine, at Susitna Landing, and at Willow Creek. Susitna Landing is
located on the Kashwitna River 200 yards upstream of its confluence with
the Susitna. It is the most developed of these access points, with two boat
ramps and a parking area. Susitna Landing is affected both by flows in the
Kashwitna and by backwater effects of the Susitna. During low flows on the
Susitna, access from the upstream ramps is made difficult by a gravel bar
downstream of the ramp. Willow Landing is on Willow Creek, located adjacent
to the Parks Highway and approximately seven miles upstream from the Susitna
River, The State of Alaska is planning to construct a road to the mouth of
Willow Creek and to build a boat ramp at the mouth (ADNR 1984).
Project
Impacts. Impacts
to downstream
boating will
occur primarily from
the altered
flow regimes resulting
£rom
the Project.
Downstream boating is
expected
to benefit from
"with project"
flows.
Since the natural flows
421356 5
850327
F RM'_EGED AM WrF BrTiAI DOCUMENT
F ELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PUR M may,
10 REPRODUCTION OR aWMB
TRANSMITTAL AUTHORIM
generally will be moderated by the Project, boaters will not have to
negotiate the current, naturally -occurring extreme low flows in early May or
extreme high flows between May and early September that currently pose
difficulties. Downstream of Talkeetna, the variation in with -project flows
will be greater than in the middle reach because of the addition of
unregulated flows from the Chulitna and Talkeetna Rivers. Overall, however,
there will be less flow variation in the lower river as a result of the
Project than occurs naturally.
Middle River Impacts. In the middle river between Devil Canyon and
Talkeetna, the flows during project operation will improve conditions for
boating. The Project will .result in higher October flows than under natural
conditions, which may extend the boating season. Table 2 provides the
natural flows at Gold Creek in medium, low, and high flow years compared
with the flows anticipated from project operation (Case E-VI).
Discussions with guide operators and observations by R&M and ADF&G study
teas members indicate that the river between Devil Canyon and Talkeetna is
navigable by motorized boats at flows as low as 5,000 - 6,000 cfs. Under
natural conditions, flows are usually within this range or higher from
breakup until late September or October. Flows occasionally drop below this
range during May, September, or October of dry years. Although the Project
will significantly reduce high flows during the summer, the minimum flows
anticipated to be released for fisheries purposes will continue to allow
navigation on this reach of river. The minimum flow during June through
August will be 9,000 cfs except for the one -in -ten low flow year when 8,000
cfs will be the minimum (Gold Creek Station). Minimum flow in September
will be 6,000 cfs.
The owner
of Mahay's Riverboat Service has indicated that the
Project
is
likely to
improve conditions up to Devil Canyon for riverboats
because
it
will moderate
the flows and will stabilize the channel (Mahay
1984 pers
Comm). Considering
the relatively small drafts of canoes, kayaks,
and
rafts, it
is not expected that anticipated project flows will
affect
the
whitewater
boating that occurs in this reach.
421356 6
850327
U
y m
o s w
J
w
L
� a
a = u
o
a >�
rg
u H S =
m i m
3 m O
is 0
J S J �+ •O O
G y O 9 9 U W
x a a
O m m x a a
r J~ a m m m 4!
z Z m ` m
K O m GU m m 4
$n may' 39
a m�G m
°a. O ery y 0 P O P P O P m i y a O 4 i
s o
C n OJ a cOv m tOv o+ m Y: m e .0 w
i w v m M P o P t e c m
p m
m w .Y N N N ti N C m 4 9 v O V
Y m
a. `oh m a �
m m Ed
O y^ O m m G n
m a m O
o, o.
� W v mic i am
Lower River Impacts. The stretch of river downstream of Talkeetna is more
heavily used for boating than the reach between Devil Canyon and Talkeetna.
Under natural conditions, more navigation problems are likely to occur in
this stretch than the upstream stretch because of its braided character.
The effect of the Project will be to moderate the pre -project extremes in
flows and thus reduce navigation problems.
Under natural conditions, low flows often result in side channels blocked by
gravel bars. Under such circumstances it is difficult for boaters,
especially inexperienced boaters or boaters unfamiliar with the river, to
determine which channels can be negotiated. Preliminary information from
the R&M study indicates that low-water navigation restrictions on the main
channel of the lower Susitna River do not tend to occur until flows of
25,000 cfs or less occur at Sunshine. At these flows, the major destination
points of the Deshka River, Yentna River, and the mouth of Willow Creek are
generally accessible from the main channels, but access to some of the
secondary sites may not be possible with propeller -driven craft.
Under natural conditions, the lower Susitna River flow remains below these
low flows until the second week in May or
later.
Flows increase through
May, and
by Memorial Day flows
are above this
range
continually
through mid -
August.
In very dry years,
(one to two
years
out
of 30),
navigation
problems
may be encountered by
mid -August.
Navigation
becomes
increasingly
difficult
through September.
Flows exceed
23,000
cfs
about 94 percent of
the time
during the first week
of September,
dropping
to
about
70 percent of
the time
by late September (Harza-Ebasco 1984).
Operation of the Susitna Project will alter the flow patterns of the Susitna
River below Talkeetna. Winter flows will be increased and summer flows will
be decreased, with flows similar to natural conditions during the transition
months of May and September. Although summer flows will be lower than under
natural conditions as a result of the Project, they will most Likely exceed
the levels which would limit navigation. During median flow years, flows
will be above 25,000 cfs between the third week in May and the last week in
421356 7
850327
fRIVi'_EGED APD CO?'VtENTIAL DOCUMENT
fELEASEO FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSE$ ONLY;
10 REPRODUCTION OR RM MER
TRANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
September. Flows will reach a peak of approximately 503000 cfs in July
(median flow years) as compared to 64,000 cfs under natural conditions
(Harza-Ebasco 1985). During dry years the project flows will be above the
22,000-25,000 cfs range from the fourth week in May until the second week in
September, the same period as under natural conditions.
During floods, navigation will benefit from the Project because Watana
Reservoir will store water from the Susitna River and reduce flood peaks
downstream of the Project. The Project will reduce the high flows which
often carry floating debris. Trees and other floating debris often create
jams that restrict flow into a narrow channel and obstruct navigation. In
addition, high flows tend to cover familiar landmarks and open new channels.
High flows also result in turbid water that makes it difficult for boaters
to determine the depth of water in new channels and along the edges of
gravel bars. With the Project the channel in the lower river will continue
to fluctuate, but fluctuations will be less extreme than under natural
conditions.
Effects of the Project on access to the river will be insignificant. The
Project may improve access to the river at Devil Canyon Dam for canoes,
kayaks, rafts, and other boats that can be carried to the river from the
proposed Devil Canyon access road (assuming landowner approval). This will
depend on the final location of the access road and other construction
access roads. No boat launch facilities are currently planned at this
location. Although the Project will construct a railroad from Gold Creek to
Devil Canyon, this will probably have a limited effect on boater access
given current railroad policies. The project flows should not adversely
affect use of existing boat launches. Under natural conditions, Susitna
Landing is the only boat ramp affected by low flows. The Project may
decrease the low flow periods, thereby improving access to the boat ramp.
Effects of the Project on ice conditions are not expected to adversely
affect boating. In the middle river frazil ice should not appear until Late
October to early November with the Project, as compared to late September to
421356 8
850327
TRM'.F.6ED AND COIT"7 NTIAL DOCUMENT
IELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY
10 REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
TRANSMITTAL AUTHORM
early October under natural conditions.1/ Thus, the boating season, could
be extended under project operation. The augmented flows under project
operation that will occur during late September and October may also allow
an extended boating season (Table 2). Instead of a spring breakup, the
middle river will experience a melt -out because of warmer water being
discharged from the reservoirs. The melt -out should occur in mid -March to
mid -May. Under natural conditions, breakup occurs in late April to mid -May
in the middle river. Thus the Project should not adversely affect the
beginning of the boating season.
Once the middle river is melted out, warmer river temperatures from the
Project may extend into the lower river. This could result in a melt out of
the lower river occurring earlier than under natural conditions. The first
appearance of frazil ice in the lower river may be delayed somewhat by the
Project. The ice cover, however, is expected to begin about the same time
as under natural conditions (early November). The ice cover will progress
upstream more slowly than under natural conditions and will reach Talkeetna
about two to six weeks later than natural. Therefore, in some areas of the
lower river the boating season may be extended slightly and may begin
earlier in the spring.
Mitigation Measures Endorsed by Alaska Power Authority
No mitigation measures are necessary.
-�7Frazil
suspended
ice is defined
in water. In
as fine spicules,
rivers and lakes
plates or
it is formed
discoids of ice
in supercooled,
turbulent
waters.
421356 9
850327
1 '1 M 11
1 "1.' ill
REFERENCES
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish. 1985. A survey
of Boaters Exiting at the Susitna Landing, Talkeetna Boat Launch and
Airstrip, and Willow Creek During 1984. March 1985,
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Outdoor
Recreation. 1984. Master Plan for the Proposed Willow Creek State
Recreation Area.
Alaska Power Authority. 1983. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. FERC License
Application Project No. 7114-000. Vol. 6A, Exhibit E, Chapter 2, Water
Use and Quality. Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage.
Alaska Power Authority. 1984. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Evaluation of
Alternative Flow Requirements. Prepared by Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint
Venture, for the Alaska Power Authority. October 1984.
Harza-Ebasco. 1985. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Streamflows and Flow
Duration curves at Watana, Devil Canyon, Gold Creek, Sunshine, and
Susitna Station for Watana and Devil Canyon operation in 2002 and 2020,
Draft Report, Alaska Power Authority. February 1985,
Harza-Ebasco. 1984. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Weekly Flow Duration
Curves and Observed and Filled Weekly Flows for the Susitna River
Basin, Final Report. Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority. October,
1984. Document No. 2318,
Mosby, Jack, and Dapkus, David. 1983. The Alaskan Paddling Guide. J&R
Enterprises, Anchorage, Alaska.
421356 10
850327
f RMaTGM APO CO T7 8MAL gMt
F ELEASED FOR SEFFMew Kim kr;
10 REPROD��Cfi0F1 OR
R&M Consultants. 1985. Impacts on Navigation, Susitna y r6pp
U€1MMoject.
Preliminary Draft.
Weber, Sepp. 1976. Wild Rivers of Alaska. Alaska Northwest Publishing
Company.
421356 11
850327
nonconsumptive use issue. The five phases of the plan (p. E-7-105) and the
monitoring program proposed (p. E-7-9) allow for a flexible recreation plan
that will pace recreation development with future demand.
The proposed recreation plan will be developed to focus the oriented user user group adjacent to the dams and road. Developed facilities
will diminish rapidly away from the road and damsites to preserve the remote
character of the outlying areas, thus retaining those areas' attractiveness
for backcountry use. Developed facilities may also be constructed by Native <
Landowners near Fog Lakes located immediately south of Watana Dam, and near <
the north end of Stephan Lake. <
68873 9
8 50319
ALASI�#L POWER AUTHORITY
POSITION PAPER
RECREATION ISSUE R**5
(RE VSSION 1)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Issue
Significance of impacts on non -consumptive activities (e.g., camping and
hiking), including availability of the resource, access to the resource, and
quality of experience.
Position
The Alaska Power Authority proposes the project recreation plan referenced
in this paper. It is the Power Authority's position that the plan is
responsive to reducing adverse impact to existing nonconsumptive activities
while at the same time providing for the increase in nonconsumptive
recreation opportunities resulting from the Project.
Present Knowledge
Very little non -consumptive recreation activity use presently oecurs in the
project area. Most of the existing use that does occur takes place along
the Parks and Denali Highway corridors. Estimated existing nonconsumptive
recreation use in the project area is between 1,000 and 2,000 user -days
(exclusive of Denali Highway use); estimated non -consumptive use with the
Project is 36,000 to 42,000 user -days. The project area with the proposed
recreation plan can accommodate this increase in non -consumptive activity.
Assuming responsive recreation plan design and management, the overall
effect on non -consumptive recreation should be beneficial. Future plans of
68873 i
850319
tourist companies and Native corporations, if realized, could increase the
level of non -consumptive use in the project area over that now estimated.
Mitigation Measures Endorsed by Alaska Power Authority
The recreation plan proposed in the FERC License Application (APA t983b,
Chapter 7) is considered to be appropriate mitigation with respect to the
nonconsumptive use issue. The five phases of the plan (p. E-7-t05) and the
monitoring program proposed (p. E-7-9) allow for a flexible recreation plan
that will pace recreation development with future demand.
68873 ii
850319
SIISITNA RYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
POSITION PAPER
RECREATION ISSUE R-5
(REVISION 1)
Issue
Significance of impacts on non -consumptive recreation activities (e.g.,
camping and hiking), including availability of the resource, access to the
resources, and quality of experience.
Position
It is the Alaska Power Authority's position Chat the proposed project
recreation plan referenced in this paper be adopted. The Power Authority
believes that the plan is responsive to reducing adverse impact to existing
nonconsumptive recreation activities while at the same time providing for
the increase in nonconsumptive opportunities resulting from the Project.
With responsive recreation design and management, the impact of the proposed
Project on nonconsumptive recreational activities is expected to be largely
positive.
Present Knowledge
Concern hat been expressed that the resource available for nonconsumptive
recreational activities and the quality of the experience associated with
such activities would be adversely affected in the project areal and that
construction workers and their families would compete with existing users
for current recreation sites.
1�Project area is defined as the area bounded by the Susitna River to the
east, the Alaska Railroad and Parks Highway to the west, the Denali Highway
to the north, and approximately 20 miles to the south of the Susitna River.
68873 1
850319
The following discussion is based on information presented in the Susitna
License Application, results of subsequent studies, and discussions with
agency personnel and other entities.
Nonconsumptive recreation includes activities such as camping, hiking,
sightseeing/driving, off road -vehicle (ORV) use, berry picking, and winter
sports such as cross-country skiing and snowmobiling. In Alaska,
nonconsumptive activities are often secondary to hunting and fishing
activities. This paper focuses on nonconsumptive activities as the primary
use. Effects of project -induced recreation on fish and wildlife resources
as well as boating activities, are discussed in other issue papers.
Existing Use and Facilities. Current levels of nonconsumptive recreation
use and numbers of existing support facilities within the project area and
away from the Denali and Parks Highways are very low. The distance and long
travel time from major population centers such as Anchorage and Fairbanks (5
to 6 hours one-way) and the lack of road access into the area are the major
reasons for these low levels of use. Furthermore, on an Alaska=wide basis
the recreation resources within the project area (with the exception of
Devil Canyon) are not unusual or outstanding. Numerous similar recreational
opportunities exist nearer to major population centers.
At present, little nonconsumptive activity that is not associated with
hunting or fishing activities occurs away from the Denali and Parks
Highways. Low levels of backcountry hiking and camping in the project area
occur along existing trails. Much of this use occurs in the Indian River
drainage north/northwest of Devil Canyon and is related to homesteading
activity (B. Prudence pers. comm. 1984). Similarly, low Levels of primary
nonconsumptive use presently occur along trails into the project area
accessed from the Parks and Denali Highways and at Locations of local or <
regional recreational interest such as Stephan Lake, Fog Lakes and Clarence <
Lake. A liberal estimate of the amount of nonconsumptive use such as <
backpacking, hiking, and sightseeing occurring in the project area (not
including nonconsumptive activities associated with the Denali Highway)
68873 2
850319
during the peak summer recreation season (June through September) is less
than 1,000 user-days.1/ This would amount to eight people per day, or 28
people per day on the weekends or combinations thereof, participating in
consumptive activities in the project area as their primary recreational
pursuit.
Participation in winter activities is also very low in the project area.
Winter activities known to exist in the project area south of Cantwell
include dog sledding, cross-country skiing, and snowmobiling. Due to the
area's remoteness, small local population, and the short winter daylight
hours, levels of winter sports activity in the project area are estimated to
be less than 1,000 user -days. Most of this activity is thought to occur
along the northwest periphery of the project area near Cantwell.
Nonconsumptive activity associated with the Denali and Parka Highways is
generally concentrated in a five- to ten -mile corridor along those highways
and generally attracts a different user group than those seeking backcountry
experiences. Recreation use along the Denali Highway consists mostly of
users accessing fishing and hunting locations. Hiking, berry picking, and
ORV use are popular nonconsumptive activities during the summer and fall in
this corridor. Estimates of use from a 1975 survey of participation in
nonconsumptive activities along the entire Denali Highway were 1,800 hikers,
1,600 berry pickers, and 700 ORV users (Johnson, 1976). Though these use
estimates were made during the Alaska pipeline construction years and have
not been updated since the 1975 survey, it can be assumed that participation
in the above activities adjacent to the highway is popular and will continue
to be.
Developed
or vehicle camping also occurs along
the
Denali
Highway.
Brushkana
Campground, the only developed
campground in
the
project
area, had
��User-day is defined as participation by one person in one activity for
one day or anq part of a day. The higher use estimate assumes that
activities such as hiking and picnicking have the same level of use as
camping.
68873 3
850319
an estimated 1980 use of 4,000 user -days (APA 1983b). Lt appears, however,
that camping also occurs all along the Denali Highway in undesignated areas.
Such activity appears to be particulaely heavy during hunting season in
September. A survey is underway for FY85 to update estimates of camping use
along the Denali Highway,
Future Use and Facilities Without the Project. The significance of the
impact of the proposed Project on nonconaumptive recreational activities
must be evaluated with respect to the level of use that is likely to exist
at the same calendar time were the Project sot constructed.
Nonconaumptive recreation use in the interior of the project area will
increase by the year 2000 as a result of general population increases and
increases in the number of Land disposals in the vicinity. Even if use
doubles over existing use (4,000 vs 2,000 user -days), the increase is sot
expected to have a significant adverse effect on the 4,000-plus square -mile
project area. Plans of Native landowners could significantly change this
estimate however, particularly for areas south of the Suaitna River.
Potential Native landowner plans include sales of land for homesites,
development of access from the Parks Highway or from the Alaska Railroad, to
the Stephan Lakes area, and lodge and cabin development on area lakes and
streams. Reali2ation of these plans could significantly increase the Level
of nonconsumptive use occurring in the interior region, particularly the
Stephan and Fog Lakes areas located within the project area south of the
Susitna River.
While the increase in nonconsumptive activity use in the interior of the
project area is not expected to have a significant effect on the area by the
year 2000 Cassuming no Native development), the increase in use associated
with the Denali Highway could be significant given the continued increase in
the state's population and participation in nonconaumptive activity
associated with the highway. For exampte, the projected increase in
participation of developed camping between 1980 and 2000 is 57 percent (APA
1983b). Furthermore, assuming improvements to the Denali Highway presently
68873 4
proposed by the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTPF)
are completed, demand for nonconsumptive activity within the 5- to 10-mile
corridor along the highway could substantially increase .over present levels.
Traffic count projections by DOTPF to the year 2000 Eor the Denali Highway
indicate an almost three -fold increase in average daily traffic (Figure L).
Assuming that the 20,500 visits estimated in the 1975 use survey is
re Elective of recent use levels, recreational use along the Denali Highway
in the year 2000 could exceed 60,000 visits. Increases of this magnitude
could be significant because the use is concentrated within a narrow
corridor.
The BLM has proposed additional campsites and waysides along the Denali
Highway to accommodate increasing recreation demand. However, because of
Federal budget cuts, these facilities may not be developed. The BLM also
has recently expressed concern over the impact associated with increasing
ORV activity. To date, no measures have been taken to control or restrict
this activity on federal lands within the project area. Recreational
facilities proposed by the BLM such ae campsites, waysides, and trails, may
help focus this increased demand and reduce adverse impacts on resources
located within this 5- to 10-mile use corridor. If the facilities proposed
by the BLM are not developed, some of the unmet demand may focus on the
proposed Project recreation facilities.
Effects of the Project. Project related impacts on nonconsumptive
recreation include positive effects related to the increase in opportunities
for such activities as a result of increased access afforded by the Project
and negative effects on sainting recreational users (hikers, backpackers)
due to the physical presence of project facilities in the area.
Impacts on existing nonconsumptive users and facilities due to competition
From workers during construction are not expected to be significant. The
phase One recreation developments in the License Application recreation plan
(notably the addition of camping unite at Brushkana Campground and the
recreational facilities planned for the project's construction camps and
68873 5
permanent village) were proposed in large part to reduce or avoid
competition with existing users. This potential impact could be further
reduced if the Power Authority supports an air/bus worker transportation
policy which would reduce the number of project -related workers and families
in -migrating to small communities near the project site.
The proposed Project will adversely affect the small number of existing non -
consumptive users that access the area for its remote quality which will be
changed with the Project. Some members of this user group may move to other
remote locations throughout the region. The overall magnitude of this
impact is considered to be low because there are few existing users within
the project area and numerous alternate locations for backcountry experience
exist elsewhere in the state. In addition, the Project will not be visible
from much of the defined project area and users in those areas will be
unaffected.
While little nonconsumptive activity presently oceurs within the 4,000-plus
square -mile project area, the proposed dams, project access road and
proposed recreation plan will open new opportunities to users that
participate in nonconsumptive activities such as camping and sightseeing in
more developed settings. The proposed access road will also increase
opportunities for backcountry users to access surrounding remote areas.
Operation of the Project will require that the access road, including the
section of the Denali Highway from Cantwell to the Watana access road, be
kept open year-round. This will increase winter use activities in the
project area, but not significantly due to the reasons stated above
regarding winter activities.
Project -induced nonconsumptive use within the project area is estimated to
range between 14,000 and 42,000 user -days annually (APA 1983b, Table 7.13).
Most of the use will occur during the peak summer recreation months, June
through August. While these use estimates are significantly higher than the
existing use or year 2000 use without the Project, the size of the project
68873 6
850319
area is considered more than adequate to accommodate this increase in
nonconsumptive activity without significant resource degradation.
Furthermore, the proposed recreation plan was developed in consideration of
the above use levels and resulting concern for the protection of fish and
wildlife resources from overuse.
The following use figures and an sizes for noted recreation destinations
in the state help place the proposed Susitna Project's use estimate into
perspective:
Developed Annual Use
Place Size Campgrounds Estimate
Denali National Park 9,400 sq. miles 5 250,000+ visitors
Denali State Park 500 sq. miles 1 55,000 visitors
Nancy Lake State 36 sq. miles 100 units 51,000 visitors
Recreation Area
Susitna Project Area 4,000 sq. miles 1 (8 units) 42,000 user-daysl/
An additional factor to be considered in estimating nonconsumptive use is
tourism. Nonconsumptive recreation use with the Project could increase if
tourist demand is high. Economically, tourism is the third most important
industry in the state. Promotion of tourism is also consistent with one of
three state-wide recreation goals described in the Susitna Area Plan (DNR,
1984).
The Project's potential for attracting tourist companies and related
activity would appear favorable for the following reasons:
3�The Susiena
estimate
is
in user -days defined as
participation by one
person in one
activity
for
a day or any part of a
day. Annual Susitna
visitors would
be less
than
42,000, since one person
may expect more than
one user -day per day.
68873 �
850319
o The Project by virtue of the size and complexity of its structure
will lend itself well to tourist attraction advertising,
o The project landscape setting is attractive,
o The opportunity to view wildlife exists,
o Promotion of tourism is important to the state,
o The potential exists to combine two different transportation
modes, bus and rail (which is also popular at Denali National
Park),
o Native landowners are interested in tourist -related opportunities.
(e.g., possible development, management, finance arrangements with <
tour companies and the State. <
Assuming that the access road and railroad would be open to the public after
construction and if tourism is actively promoted by tour companies,
additional increases in overall nonconsumptive use will occur and demand for
support facilities such as lodging in the project vicinity will likely
increase.
With respect to this issue, the accommodation of tourist -related activity
would be an enhancement of nonconsumptive opportunities and would be
compatible with the requirement of the Project to provide for public
recreation on project landso it is anticipated that if support facilities
for tourist activity becomes necessary, private landowners adjacent to the
project boundaries would provide the necessary support.
Mitigation Measures Endorsed by Alaska Power Authority
The recreation
plan proposed
is
the FERC License Application
(APA
1983b,
Chapter 7) is
coasidered to
be
appropriate mitigation
with respect
to the
68873 8
850319
Alaska Power Authority. 1983a. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. FERC License
Application Proj. No. 7114-0000. Vol. 7, Exhibit E, Chapter 5,
Socioeconomic Impacts. Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage.
Alaska Power Authority. 1983b. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. FERC License
Application Proj. No. 71L4-000. Vol. 8, Exhibit E, Chapter 7,
Recreational Resources. Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage.
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Alaska Department of Fish and Game
and Matanuska-Susitna Borough. 1984. Susitna Area Plan Public Review
Draft - Summary. June 1984. Alaska Department of Natural Resources.
Department of
transportation and Public
Facilities.
1982. Denali Highway
Cantwell
to Paxson, Environmental
Assessment.
Johnson, Leonard K. 1976. Off -Road Vehicle use and its Impact on Soils and
Vegetation on Bureau of Land Management Lands Along the Denali Highway,
Alaska. A Report on the 1975 outdoor Recreation Survey. May, 1976.
Prudence,
B. September 1984. Alaska Railroad
Department.
Phone conversation
with
EDAW regarding recreational use associated with
the railroad.
68873 10
850319
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROjECT
POSITION PAPER
RECREATION ISSUE R-6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Issue
Significance of recreational activities of project construction workers on
fish and wildlife resources in the Susitna River Watershed.
Position
i
It is the position of the Alaska Power Authority that recreational
activities of project construction workers may result in reduced fish
populations in streams and lakes near the camps, and that local populations
of moose and bear may be reduced if substantial numbers of workers elect to
hunt the area. Furthermore it is our position that the mitigation measures
proposed herein will reduce associated impacts which can be mitigated by the
Power Authority as much as practicable. The extent of remaining impacts
will depened, largely on future hunting and fishing regulatory policies in
the project area and on adjacent landowner consent.
Present Knowledge
The primary recreational activities within the project areal are fishing
and hunting. Use of off -road vehicles and camping, most of which is
incidental to fishing and hunting, also occurs in
1�In this paper the project area is defined as the area bounded by the
Susitna River to the east, the Alaska Railroad and Parka Highway to the
west, the Denali Highway to the north, and approximately 20 miles to the
south of the Susitna River.
424413 i
850515
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
RELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY;
NO REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
TRANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
the project area. Boating occurs on the Susitna River primarily downstream
of Devil's Canyon. Resources in the project area that are likely to be
affected by construction workers' recreational activities are identified
below. Additional information regarding recreation and fish and wildlife
resources in the project area is available in Position Papers R-1, R-22 R-3,
and R-4.
o Existing fishing pressure is light throughout much of the project
area. Within the project area, fishing occurs primarily on the
Susitna River downsteam of Devil's Canyon; at creeks along the
Denali Highway, such as Brushkana Creek; and at fly -in locations
such as Clarence and Stephan Lakes. Arctic grayling, trout and
Dolly Varden are the major sport fish found in the project area.
All five Pacific species of salmon are found in the Susitna River
and tributaries downstream of Devil's Canyon.
o Hunting
for moose, caribou, Dall
sheep, brown bear,
and black bear
occurs
in the project area. In
1981, there were
an estimated 29
people
hunting Dall sheep and 117
hunting caribou
in the project
area.
There were an estimated
243 moose hunters
in the project
area in 1983. Bear hunting is
primarily done
incidentally to
moose
and caribou hunting although spring bear
harvests are
increasing.
o Located on the Denali Highway, Brushkana Campground is the only
developed campground in the project area. In 1980, there were an
estimated 4,000 user days at Brushkana Campground for all activi-
ties including camping, fishing, hunting, hiking, and sightseeing
(APA 1983c). Anglers use the Brushkana Campground for access to
Brushkana Creek.
Anticipated Impacts. Impacts of worker recreational activities will depend
on Power Authority policies regarding use of vehicles, worker schedules,
access restrictions by adjacent landowners and future regulatory policies
regarding hunting and fishing. For this analysis, a worst -case scenario of
424413 ii
850515
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
RELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY;
a0 REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
RANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
no worker transportation provided to and from the project site was assumed.
Moreover, it was assumed that work schedules would be four weeks on and one
week off, two ten-hour shifts, and six -day work weeks (actual schedules will
be determined during contract negotiations).
Zt was also assumed that facilities will be
provided in the construction
camps and villages for indoor and
outdoor
recreational
activities, that
workers will be prohibited from
bringing
snowmobiles
and all -terrain
vehicles on -site, and that firearms
will be prohibited
on
the project site.
The
impacts
anticipated
from
worker
recreational activities
(assuming no
mitigation
or
restraints
on the
use of
private vehicles)
are as
follows:
o During the hunting season, some workers, especially those living
in Cantwell, may obtain firearms off -site and return to tie
project area from the Denali Highway to hunt during their off -duty
hours. This could result in a substantial increase in the number
of hunters in the project area during the peak construction
period. With a transportation plan, this number is likely to be
less. Adverse impacts on caribou, and Call sheep are not expected
to occur.
o During their off -duty hours, workers may drive to streams along
the access road and fish for grayling from Deadman, Brushkana, or
Seattle Creeks. They may also reach Deadman and Big Lakes by
hiking from the access road. Workers may also hike to streams
within or near the project site. These include Deadman, Tsusena,
Portage, and Jack Long Creeks. In addition, workers may fish for
salmon in the Susitna River and tributaries downstream of Devil's
Canyon.
o Brushkana Campground may experience increased use by workers who
camp and fish for grayling in Brushkana Creek. Project workers
424413 iii
850515
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
RELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY;
40 REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
TRANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
using the campground would decrease opportunities for other poten-
tial users. However, recent survey data indicate that Brushkana
Campground does not appear to be used to capacity during the
recreation season.
o Two golden eagle nests (presently inactive) and one bald eagle
nest (presently active) may be disturbed by workers fishing or
hiking near Tsusena Butte or Tsusena and Deadman Creeks.
o Localized impacts
on
some
forbearer populations may result if
workers trap near
the
camps
or the access road.
Measures that could be used to mitigate these impacts include:
o Provide a transportation plan for project workers to minimize tlRe
number of private vehicles travelling into and out of the project
site during project construction (see Position Paper S-7/8).
o Restrict the number of privately owned vehicles on -site and the
locations where they can be used (for personnel not transported
under the above measure).
o Prohibit privately owned snowmobiles or all -terrain vehicles site.
o Restrict workers
from driving
project vehicles off the
project
site, subject to
contract negotiations.
o Monitor Brushkana Campground and expand campsites if use
substantially increases.
424413 iv
850515
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
RELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY;
NO REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
fRANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
o Prohibit firearms within the project site.
o Prohibit employees and their families from using project EaC111-
ties or equipment for hunting and trapping.
o Stock sport fish
species
in Lakes
within walking
distance
of con-
struction camps
to reduce
fishing
pressure on the
existing
fishery
resource.
Mitigation Measures Endorsed by the Alaska Power Authority
L. Provide indoor and outdoor recreational facilities for use by project
personel and dependents (APA 1983c p. E-7-96).
2. Provide data from fish and wildlife monitoring investigations too
regulatory agencies APA 1983a. E-3-534).
3. Provide Environmental Briefings for project personnel to discourage
disturbance of wildlife habitat, including information on sensitivity
of eagles to disturbance. The requirement for the briefing program
will be part of the contract documents and enforced on site.
4. Znform workers of Native landowner trespass concerns through briefings
and posting of property boundary maps. This information will also be
transmitted during the Environmental Briefing Program and the
requirement for including the Native concerns will be part of the
contract documents.
424413 v
850515
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
RELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY;
NO REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY TRANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
POSITION PAPER
RECREATION ISSUE R-6
Issue
Significance of recreational activities of project construction workers on
fish and wildlife resources in the Susitna River Watershed.
Position
It is the position of the Alaska Powes Authority that recreational
activities of project construction workers may result in reduced fidh
populations in streams and lakes near the camps, and that local populations
of moose and bear may be reduced if substantial numbers of workers elect to
hunt the area. Furthermore it is our position that the mitigation measures
proposed herein will reduce associated impacts which can be mitigated by the
Power Authority as much as practicable. The extent of remaining impacts
will depened, largely on future hunting and fishing regulatory policies in
the project area and on adjacent landowner consent.
Present Knowledge
Existing recreational use of the project area -l�consists primarily of
fishing, hunting, off -road vehicle use, and camping (APA 1983c). Boating
also occurs in portions of the project area, primarily on the Susitna River
downstream of Devil's Canyon (Position Papers R-3 and R-4).
Project area is defined as the area bounded by the Susitna River to the
east, the Alaska Railroad and Parks Highway to the west, the Denali High-
way to the north, and approximately 20 miles to the south of the Susitna
River.
424413 1
850515
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
RELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY;
NO REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
TRANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
Fishing pressure is relatively light in the project area due to the remote
location of most lakes and streams (see Position Paper R-1). Fishing is
most prevalent at fly -in locations, such as Clarence and Stephan Lakes.
Fishing also occurs at creeks along the Denali Highway and on the Susitna
River and tributaries downstream of Devil's Canyon. Sport fish species in
the area include five species of Pacific salmon, grayling, rainbow trout,
and Dolly Varden. Rainbow trout and lake trout are found in lakes such as
Clarence, Big, High and Stephan Lakes. The salmon species are found in the
Susitna River and tributaries downstream of Devil's Canyon.
The creeks most likely to be fished by construction workers would be Dead -
man, Brushkana, and Seattle Creeks since they are crossed one or more times
by the proposed Watana access road (Figure 1). Deadman and Seattle Creeks
are not currently fished extensively, because they are relatively inaccessi-
ble. Brushkana Creek is fished by anglers camping at Brushkana Campgrouttd
(located on the Denali Highway). Deadman Creek contains trophy size gray-
ling with grayling populations ranging from 300 to over 800 fish per mile.
Grayling are found where the access road crosses Brushkana Creek while
grayling and Dolly Varden are found in Seattle Creek (ADF&G 1984d). Workers
may also have access to Tsusena Creek, Portage Creek, Jack Long Creek and
the Susitna River via the Devil Canyon access road and rail spur during
Devil Canyon construction. Salmon, rainbow trout, and/or grayling are found
in these locations.
Hunting in the project area is primarily for moose and caribou, with some
hunting of brown bear, black bear, and Dall sheep. Hunters access the proj-
ect area primarily by air, but also enter the area by boat off the Susitna
River or by all -terrain vehicles (ATV's), foot, or horse from the Parks
Highway or Denali Highway (see Position Paper R-2).
In 1981, there were an estimated 29 people hunting Dall sheep and 117 hunt-
ing caribou in the project area (ADF&G 1984b). Zn 1983 there were an esti-
mated 243 moose hunters in the project area (ADF&G 1984c). Hunting of black
and brown bears generally occurs incidentally to moose and caribou hunting.
Dall sheep harvest is controlled by the curl size of the horn, and most
424413 2
850515
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
RELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY;
'CIO REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
rRANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
allowable rams are usually harvested each year. The annual bag limit is one
ram (ADFSG 1984a). Caribou harvest is controlled by a permit drawing open
to residents only. Demand for permits is considerably higher than the num-
ber of permits allowed (Pitcher 1984). No permits are required for moose in
the project area. Hunters are restricted to one bull moose per season with
antlers having a 36-inch or greater spread, except in the northeastern
portion of the project area where special regulations limited them to one
young bull moose during 1984 (ADFSG 1984a).
There are several raptor nest locations�� near the construction camps and
access corriders and thus vulnerable to disturbance from worker recreational
activities. These include eight golden eagle nest locations in the fol-
lowing areas: one at the mouth of Tsusena Creek, approximately two miles
south of the Devil Canyon access road; one on Tsusena Butte; two near the
Susitna River, south of the Devil Canyon access road; three on Devil Creek
south of the Devil Canyon access road; and one on the Susitna River,
immediately downstream of the Devil Canyon Dam site. The only bald eagle
nest location near the contruction camps or access roads is near Deadman
Creek, within one mile of the. Watana access road. Of the above nest
locations, the bald eagle nest was the only active location found during the
survey conducted in 1984. However, it is possible that eagles may return to
the other nests during the construction period (APA 1984b).
The only developed campground in the vicinity of the Project is the
Brushkana Campground operated by the Bureau of Land Management. Camping
outside of developed campgrounds also occurs, most of which is incidental to
hunting and fishing. The Brushkana Campground is located on the Denali
Highway approximately 30 miles east of Cantwell and 45 miles north of the
Watana Reservoir site. The campground has 16 campsites and is used by
hunters and by anglers fishing for grayling in Brushkana Creek. People also
use the campground for hiking, sightseeing and all -terrain vehicle use
(Harza-Ebasco 1985). Estimated use of the Brushkana Campground in 1980 was
��Nest locations may contain one or more nest sites and may be active or
inactive. Nest locations listed were identified during surveys
conducted in 1974, 1980, 1981, and 1984 (APA 1984b).
424413 3
850515
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
RELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY;
NO REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
TRANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
4.000 user days3/ (APA 1983c). Recent survey information suggests that
Brushkana Campground is not used near capacity during the summer.
Observations of numbers of vehicles parked at Brushkana campsite were made
on weekend and randomly selected weekday afternoons between June 30 and
September 30, 1984s The results show that the campground was over half full
on only three of the 59 days observations were made (Harza-Ebasco
1985).4/
Anticipated Recreational Activities of Construction Workers. During con-
struction of the Project, personnel will be housed in temporary camps and
villages to be constructed at both the Watana and Devil Canyon Dam sites.
The Watana camp is expected to house approximately 2,450 single -status
workers during the peak construction years. The Watana village is expected
to house approximately 270 workers and their families, with a total
population of about 865 individuals. The Devil Canyon construction camp and
village will accommodate approximately 1,900 workers and dependents duri$
the peak construction years.
The amount of leisure time construction workers will have for recreation
will depend on worker shift and rotation schedules which will be determined
in contract negotiations and which could vary for different contractors.
Depending on contract negotiations, work periods may be from three to six
weeks in duration with one to two weeks off in between periods. During the
work period, most workers are likely to be on two ten-hour shifts and work
six to seven days each week (APA 1983b; Harza-Ebasco 1984). As stated
above, this paper assumes that workers will be on a schedule with four weeks
on -site and one week off, working six days a week and two ten-hour shifts.
It is also assumed that worker shifts will be rotated so that equal numbers
are off at any one time.
3�One
user day is
defined
as 24 hours of use by one person, one hour of
use
by 24 people,
or any
combination in between.
4/Although additional vehicles may have arrived at Brushkana campground
after observations were made on a particular day, overcrowding was listed
as a reason for dissatisfaction within the campground by only 2 of the 97
survey respondents.
424413 4
8 50515
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
RELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY;
NO REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
TRANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
Recreational
activities of the workers and
their families
will consist
of
indoor
activities, outdoor activities within the project site,
and outdoor
activities
off the project site. Workers will
have a variety of indoor
and
outdoor
recreational opportunities provided
to them within
the construction
camps and villages to minimize pressure on
adjacent land
resources.
The
recreational
facilities proposed for the construction camps
and villages
are
listed
in Table 1 (APA 1983c).
Outdoor
activities
within
the project
site will consist of structured activ-
ities
such as softball,
basketball
and volleyball and non -structured
activities
such as
hiking
and jogging.
Workers will likely fish in lakes or
streams
within the
project
area such
as Deadman and Tsusena Creeks and the
Susitna
River.
In the absence of a worker transportation plan (worst -case scenario) worke{s
would drive their private vehicles or carpool to and from the site.
Consequently, they would have access to streams and wildlife habitat on
their way to and from the site and would have access to their vehicles dur-
ing their stay at the construction camp. Assuming no restrictions on use of
private vehicles, workers will also be able to leave the site during their
free time. Some workers may hunt off -site if they are able to obtain or
store firearms in Cantwell or other locations and return to the area to
hunt. In addditiou, some workers may trap in the project area using skis or
snowshoes to run their traplines. If workers have access to private
vehicles, recreational use of lands outside the project boundaries will not
be easily controlled, since the Power. Authority cannot prohibit use of
adjacent state, federal, or private land (APA 1983a).
Assuming no restrictions on the use of private vehicles and based on the
assumptions stated on Table 2, there could be as many as 225 workers driving
off -site each day, resulting in 450 one-way trips per day along the access
road during the peak construction period (Table 2). Those leaving the site
on their day off (estimated at 150 per day) could stop along the access road
424413 5
850515
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
RELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY;
NO REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
TRANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
and hike or fish in nearby creeks and lakes. Those leaving the site on
their week off (estimated 75 per day) are expected to travel either to their
homes or to recreation sites outside the project area such as Denali
National and State Parks or Tangle Lakes. However, they could also stop and
fish in creeks along the access road on their way to other locations.
_Anticipated Impacts on Fish and Wildlife Resources. Fishing, hunting, and
trapping activities of project workers, if not restricted or controlled,
could affect the area fish and wildlife resources.
Zttcreased fishing pressure by project workers using vehicles to access
streams and lakes off the access road could reduce the fish populations
found in those lakes and streams. If, for example, 50 percent of the
workers driving off -site during their day off stop to fish, as many as 75
workers could fish streams and lakes near the access road daily. Streams
most likely to receive this pressure include Deadman, Brushkana, and Seattle
Creeks. Deadman and Big Lakes, which are approximately one mile from the
access road, would also be likely to receive increased in fishing use.
Currently these lakes generally are accessible only by air.
Fishing could also substantially increase over existing low use levels in
the creeks within walking distance of the construction camps and villages.
These include Deadman and Tsusena Creeks near the Watana Camp, Portage and
Jack Long Creeks, and the Susitna River downstream of Devil's Canyon near
the Devil Canyon camp. If, for example, 50 percent of Watana camp single
status workers and 75 percent of the married workers stay on -site during
their day off (165 workers), and 40 percent of these workers hike out of the
camp to fish, 65 workers per day could fish streams such as Deadman and
Tsusena Creeks. Similar assumptions for Devil Canyon's work force indicate
that as many as 35 workers per day may fish Portage and Jack Long Creeks and
the Susitna River downstream of Devil's Canyon during the peak construction
period. However, since much of the land surrounding Portage and Jack Long
Creeks will be in Native ownership, the actual amount of fishing in these
areas will depend on landowner consent.
424413 6
850515
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
RELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY;
NO REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
TRANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
Hunting could occur by workers in the project area if they obtain firearms
off -site and return to the area by air or from the Denali Highway to
hunt.1/ Caribou and sheep are not expected to be significantly affected
since caribou hunting is permitted and sheep harvest is currently at the
maximum allowable level. Moose hunting is likely to experience the largest
increase if workers pursue hunting in the area. For example, assuming 40
percent of the peak work force (i.e. 1,090 workers) plan to hunt during the
moose hunting season (September 1 to September 20), and 10 percent of that
number decide to come back into the project area, there would be an increase
of approximately 110 hunters in the project area.
Hunting of bears by project workers may also occur. Harvests of bears in
Game Management Unit (GMU) 13 have been increasing since 1980 when
regulations were relaxed. The average GMU 13 bear harvests for the last
14
five years are approximately 98 brown and 83 black bears (Miller pers. comnt
1984). Before regulations were relaxed the average harvest of 66 black and
38 brown bears in the Game Management Unit 13 was considered well below the
sustainable harvest level (Miller and McAllister 1982). Increased hunting
could reduce local populations of bear near the access road.
Impacts resulting £rom construction workers trapping in the area are not
expected to be significant, since the work force will be reduced during the
winter months (maximum 1190 workers). With short daylight hours and very
cold winter temperatures in general, it is not expected that large numbers
of workers will pursue recreational trapping. Some reduction in furbearer
populations in drainages near the camps and villages could result if workers
pursue this activity on a regular basis.
.��The policy of prohibiting use of project equipment or facilities (access
road) for hunting or trapping is expected to be in force remain whether or
not a transportation plan exists.
424413 7
850515
PRNILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
RELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY;
NO REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
TRANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
In addition, construction workers hiking and/or fishing certain areas may
disturb bears and raptors. As a result, bears may avoid these areas and
eagles if they are sufficiently disturbed may abandon nest sites. Eagle
nests in the area that may be disturbed include golden eagle nests near
Tsusena Creek and Tsusena Butte (inactive) and the bald eagle nest near
Deadman Creek (active). The golden eagle nest locations near Devil Creek
and near the Susitna River south of the Devil Canyon access road are less
likely to be disturbed by workers' recreational activities since they will
be less accessible and the area is less attractive to anglers than the
Tsusena and Deadman Creeks locations. The golden eagle nest downstream of
the Devil Canyon Dam site will be abandoned due to construction activities
(APA 1984b).
Some workers driving off -site for recreation may collide with moose aril
caribou, but overall, this is not expected to be a significant impact on
those wildlife populations. This issue is discussed in Position Papers W-11
and W-10.
Brushkana Campground may be used by workers who leave the site and camp on
their way home or camp enroute to other destinations such as Tangle Lakes.
This could limit opportunities for existing users because of the relatively
small number of campsites available, expecially during holidays when the
campground is more heavily used. However, as indicated above by recent
survey information, Brushkana Campground does not appear to be used to
capacity very frequently. Therefore, competition between workers and
existing users may not be a problem. In addition, Brushkana is within 50
miles of the work camps and villages, which is easily within the day -use
zone for workers. It is more likely that workers will travel farther from
the camp/village than Brushkana campground before they overnight.
Measures that could be used to mitigate the impacts described in this paper
include:
424413 8
850515
PRIVILEGED AND CO POENTIAL DOCUMENT
RELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY;
NO REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
TRANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
o Provide a transportation plan for project workers to minimize the
number of private vehicles travelling into and out of the project
site during project construction (see Position Paper S-7/8).
o Restrict
the number of privately
owned vehicles
on -site and the
locations
where they can be used
(for personnel
not transported
under the
above measure).
o Prohibit privately owned snowmobiles or a11-terrain vehicles on -
site.
o Restrict workers from driving project vehicles off the project
site, subject to contract negotiations.
o Monitor Brushkana Campground and expand campsites if usie
substantially increases.
o Prohibit firearms within the project site,
o Prohibit
employees
and their
families
from using
project facili-
ties or
equipment
for hunting
and
trapping.
o Stock sport fish
species
in lakes
within walking
distance
of con-
struction camps to
reduce
fishing
pressure on the
existing
fishery
resource.
Anticipated Impacts with Mitigation Measures. If the above measures are
implemented, impacts on most existing at, and wildlife resources from
worker recreational activities are not expected to be significant. Since
most of the workers would be transported out of the project area for their
week off rotation, leisure time for recreational activities would primarily
be limited to their day off and during the hours after their daily shift.
Construction camp facilities will fulfill much of the demand for recreation
during these times. If use of project and personal vehicles is restricted,
424413 9
850515
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
RELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY;
NO REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
TRANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
workers choosing to leave the camps for fishing or other activities would be
limited to locations within walking distance.
Fishing activity is still expected to increase substantially for Deadman and
Tsusena Creeks which will be within walking distance of the Watana camps and
villages. The application of more stringent fishing regulations for these
streams may be advisable to alleviate reduction in grayling populations.
Workers at the Devil Canyon camp and village would be likely to fish Portage
or Jack Long Creeks or the Susitna River, which would cause a significant
increase in fishing pressure. These impacts may be lessened if sport fish
are stocked in nearby lakes.
Impacts on area wildlife resources, given the above mitigation, are expected
to be limited to an increase in hunting pressure on moose and bear popula-
tions due to workers procuring firearms off -site and accessing the area vih
transportation means presently used by hunters. Workers may also disturb
eagle nest sites in the vicinity if they ignore the environmental briefing
or are not aware of the nests". locations. Presently only the bald eagle
nest near Deadman Creek is active and could be disturbed by the recreational
activities of the construction workers.
Mitigation Measures Endorsed b the Alaska Power Authority
1. Provide indoor and outdoor recreational facilities for use by project
personel and dependents (APA 1983c p. E-7-96).
2. Provide data from ,fish and wildlife monitoring investigations to
regulatory agencies APA 1983a. E-3-534).
3. Provide Enviro�ental Briefings for project personnel to discourage
disturbance of wildlife habitat, including information on sensitivity
of eagles to disturbance. The requirement for the briefing program
will be part of the contract documents and enforced on site.
424413 10
850515
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
RELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY;
NO REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
TRANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
4. Inform workers of Native landowner trespass concerns through briefings
and posting of property boundary maps. This information will also be
transmitted during the Environmental Briefing Program and the
requirement for including the Native concerns will be part of the
contract documents.
t
424413 11
850515
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
RELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY;
NO REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
Table 1 TRANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
PROPOSED RECREATION ACTIVITIES FOR CONSTRUCTION
CAMPS, VILLAGES, AND PERMANENT TOWNSITE
PROPOSED FACZLITIES/ACTIVZTIES
Indoor Facilities and Activities
o Gymnasium
(basketball, weight room, track, etc)
o Recreation Hall
(game room, multi -purpose room)
o Clubhouse
(library, snack bar, post office)
Outdoor Activities
o Volleyball
o Softball
o Picnic Area
o Play area
Non -structured Activities
o Hiking and Jogging
o Fishing
o Cross -Country Skiing
o Skating/Hockey (area lakes)
Note: Final numbers, sizing and locations of recreation facilities will be
determined during detailed design.
424413/TBL
850514
C N
N O N
} x.
J N w 00
. CD o x w
O w s
y T t+ O O O O
N ro N M v1 N 3 ro w U
1 d N w .° 4°
5n. o v o w ti u o w
J H 3H�w m� 0 •m 0
Sam
Z CC en E 'o u 0
a ."Z. Uaa N u Z
�y ..+ a ti u
r O O 60 N 0 tp O .N-� �+ 4% u w
S ro 3 C• •C CO (� L "o w L
cz == w a la tia w o w
C S= Q w actO E Ow r w •3 am 0
am
p 0 �. ° N a .N 0 0
w C
w tin ro w no 6 0 w w
�7 4/ •N L 'C O O O NLIU
L N O a
"¢z u w cam w I C a u
d am
3 a w u N m •�+ w
0 3 w
7 u w °
•.+ U
F O
Q N S N
3 w O w -o 00 rqi M w v u Q 3
H OW, 3 V`d w N a P. am G 00
a r.ow moo w o a
am
wo 3 w °.N 3 + e M
q E w + '0
M
tr7 am •o xi O am N
H F = .z 3 6 •m w
y
z co u N T 3 W •.+ O
PC 00 Mw T G U 'roC 34 T
60 co w am am
w
N a x ro 3 w .i O O $4 % w w 'o
u W Q, $4 CL O .+ I u� a w •.+ ,C w t+
w C O •o 3 'C 00 T ,G .w
k H z O M ro0 •G+ '% L u
Cqd W N F
u y a 1 G
0)0 w a fa am am °
O D+ .0 T N df \OI u N N u 4�i w M
3 C a+ ro 04 o O to u . 1+ ,n .a N
q •m 3 x 00 00 �0 co Cm G u N G am w
w 3 10 w rn o w o m o m w
O CG w 00 0) w CS •r w w w
rG o.
$+ H
w Rf 0. am am
w .w w >
O ro 0 0 14 w ? w P •
O O O w ro '•$4
2 a 3 M� t+ u o v v
w v wv vd >a. � .-�
O x w 3: rn rn d' w u u 3 am 5A •.+ 3
E o° w o a o w 3 OU 3 w
3 Woj
~.•4 w O. O 4roi ,~—� 4m. m
ro L 0 oam 040A
w1 0 o (o •m 0 0 ro 3 w 3 w
u u W x w w
$4 N N > G a w ++ O
0 w O u O m u 3 w w
u o m G w w O o
L 1+ y w O • x m w ++ ++
x C x w M w ro 00 w. w w
0 $+ x T7 w 00 3 'm G w u u
0 ro o a w ro D\ L McoiJ L l
3u 3aww o 30� too m m a o•
m C m ro G d O w
y •.a L ti V 3.."'i 6 0 O O r^ N
u U m L . 'rq w L w •• O V w w w m m
m a aw m u w u 'o w ro
}. ❑ w G w w V •C w 8 am 8 i3
w u w T u w N � ti 4 w u a 7 .0 a a
0a'o .+am'o ao.r a 0 G 0 w m w
0 G am '.a 0 am ro w M •••r O ro O N w 4 00 0
G O m 9 G m u _04 G. 3 _m va u C _6 O C _6
rn .u. w w ° 31 W �i ^1
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
RELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY;
NO REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
REFERENCES TRANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFfiG)a 1984a. Alaska Game Regulations
No. 25. Governing recreational, subsistence, and commercial uses of
Alaska's Wildlife. Alaska department of Fish and Game, Anchorage.
77 pp.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFfiG) 1984b. Fish and Wildlife Resource
Element for the Susitna Area Planning Study, ADF&G Habitat Division,
Anchorage.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF>kG) 1984c. Moose Harvest Report 1983.
computer generated data, printed May 3, 1984.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. (ADFSG) 1984d. Susitna Hydro Aquatiic
Studies. Report No. 4. Access and Transmission Corridor Aquatic
Investigaitons. Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority. 89 pp.
Alaska Power Authority 1983a. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. FERC License
Application Proj. No. 7114-000. Vol. 6A, Exhibit E. Chapter 3, Fish,
Wildlife, and Botanical Resources. Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage.
Alaska Power Authority. 1983b. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. FERC License
Application Proj. No. 7114-000. Vol. 6A, Exhibit E, Chapter 5,
Socioeconomic Impacts. Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage.
Alaska Power Authority. 1983c. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. FERC License
Application Proj. No. 7114-000. Vol. 8, Exhibit E, Chapter 7,
Recreational Resources. Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage.
Alaska Power Authority. 1984b. Summary Statement 'on Nest Losses and
Conflicts for Bald and Golden Eagles in the Susitna Hydroelectric
Project Area. Final Report. Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage. June
1984.
424413 14
850515
PRIVILEGED AND CONFiDENTiAL DOCUMENT
RELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY;
NO REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
WNSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
Harza-Ebasco. 1984. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Feasibility Level
Estimate, Volume 5, Watana Dam Camp Estimate. March 1984, Document No.
2545.
Harza-Ebasco. 1985. Preliminary results from the 1984 Recreation Survey
conducted for the Alaska Power Authority, Susitna Hydroelectric
Project.
Miller, S.D. 1984. Big Game Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Personal communication to Harza-Ebasco.
Miller, S.D, and D.C. McAllister. 1982. Susitna Hydroelectric Project.
Phase. I Final Report, Big Game Studies, Vol. VI, Black bear and brown
bear. Alaska Dept. Fish and Game, Anchorage. 233 pp. March 1982.
Pitcher, Kenneth W. 1984. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. 1983 Annual Report,
Big Game Studies, Volume IV Caribou. April 1984.
424413 15
850515
rRIVILEGED AND GWrOENTIALDOCUMENT
t REPF40UMM OR
I' q 1
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
POSITION PAPER
AESTHETIC ISSUES AE-1/AE-2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Issues
AE-1. Significance of impacts of borrow and spoil areas, transmission
lines, access roads and rail lines, construction camps and
villages, and dams on scenic resources.
AE-2. Feasibility and desirability of incorporating specific aesthetic
mitigation measures into project plans.
D ncifinn
The Alaska Power Authority pcoposes the mitigation measures identified in
this paper. It is our position that by employing these measures, adverse
visual impacts will be minimized as much as practicable. Furthermore, it is
our position that the project area is scenic, but not uncommon, compared to
other landscape settings throughout Alaska; and the number of existing
viewers within the project area, which relates to the magnitude of the
visual impact, is quite low. .Finally, positive visual impacts will also be
created through increased viewing opportunities of the project area setting,
noteable natural features and the proposed project itself.
Refinement of
the aesthetic
mitigation
plan will continue
throughout the
licensing phase
of the Project and into
the design phase
in order to reflect
new or updated
site -specific
engineering
information.
4220210 i
850405
Present Knowledge
r r r. r r
r•q r
The landscape
settings and notable
natural features within
the project area
were evaluated
and rated for their
aesthetic value. These
ratings provided
a basis for
determining the visual compatibility of
proposed project
facilities in
various landscape.settings,
and the need for
mitigation.
The project area has locally distinct combinations of landformsI waterforms
and vegetation patterns which, when evaluated, give high relative scenic
values to locations. However, the project area is not considered out-
standing from a visual resource perspective. The scenic resources within
the project area are not uncommon within the State of Alaska and the
remoteness of the project area means that there are few existing viewers who
will be affected by changes in those scenic resources.
Construction of project facilities will change the visual character of the
area from an undeveloped, remote setting to an area characterized by
development and increased human activity. This visual change is not
necessarily negative and viewer response will vary depending on individual
preferences and values. The most significant visual impacts resulting from
the Project are the loss of Devil's Canyon, Vee Canyon rapids and Deadman
Creek Falls, which are scenic features of local or regional importance.
The Project
wilt create
positive as
well as negative visual
impacts,. The
access road
and, to a lesser
extent,
the railroad spur and reservoirs will
provide new recreational
and viewing
opportunities to
the public.
Additionally,
the dams
and related
facilities are expected
to be visually
interesting
to many.
Mitigation Measures Endorsed by the Alaska Power Authority
The aesthetic mitigation measures identified below are intended to avoid or
reduce adverse visual impacts and/or preserve or enhance viewing
opportunities of areas of noted aesthetic resource value.
4220210
ii
rRMLEGO AND =F OURMAL DOCUMENT'
fELEM FOR WMEMW P(RV8 ONLY;
t 0 REPRODUCTION OR p3 MS
1RANNITTAL AUiFIORM
The aesthetic mitigation plan will continue to be refined during both the
engineering design and construction phases as more detailed and site
specific information becomes available.
o Rehabilitate surrounding construction sites after construction is
completed.
o Retain as much
vegetation between the
Devil Canyon saddle
dam and
Susitna River
corridor as possible
to provide visual
screening
from the access
road.
o Reduce design speed criteria in certain locations, if feasible,
where excessive cut and fill would otherwise be required.
o Minimize the amount of clearing through forested areas.
o Use side
borrow
construction as much as
possible to reduce [he
number of
borrow
pits required.
o During detailed design, make siting refinements to take advantage
of view opportunites.
Transmission Line
o Use corten towers and nonspecular conductors to reduce visual
contrast.
o Taper rights -of -way through forested areas to avoid a channeled
appearance (see Figure 3).l�
1� All tables and figures are at the end of the text.
4220210
RsnanS
T al i ►1
11
Its 1' I 1
o Where
possible, site the
transmission line along slope or forest
edges
to reduce visibility
(Figure 2),
and route lines around
ridge
tops and other high
points to avoid
skylining towers.
o Minimize the need .for construction access roads within the
transmission line rights -of -way through the use of rolligon or
nodwell-type vehicles, winter construction and existing roads.
o Use short access trails off the project access road to tower
construction areas for the Watana to Devil Canyon transmission
line.
o Make 90-degree angles
at
road,
river
and stream crossings to
reduce long views down
rights
-of -way.
o Use longer spans at stream and river crossings to preserve or
reduce clearing of canyon or valley edge vegetation (Figure 2).
o Follow environmental criteria
established
by the Rural
Electrification Administration
(USDA 1970)
for
transmission line
construction.
Railspur
o Refine the railspur
alignment
during detailed
design co minimize
extensive cuts
to the
extent feasible.
o Keep vegetation clearing to a minimum.
o Consolidate railhead facilities as much as possible to reduce the
amount of disturbance and rehabilitation needed.
4220210 iv
Rsnans
Camps/Village
o Focus siting refinement of the village and camps on avoiding Low,
wet areas as much as possible.
o Ensure that construction of the village reflects that it will be a
permanent Living environment.
o Rehabilitate camps and surrounding disturbed areas as soon as
areas are closed out.
Borrow Areas
o Locate access road borrow sites out of significant view corridors
if possible. Prioritize borrow sites so that sites with the least
visual impact will be used first, if feasible.
o Design and
reclaim borrow sites
according
to anticipated
construction
land land use (campsites,
trailhead,
ponds).
o Reclaim borrow sites with
no designated end
land
use to
conform to
surrounding topography
as
much as possible (see
Figure
4).
o Reclaim the north edge of borrow site D (Watana) to conform to the
natural contour.
Project Features in General
o Consolidate structures to minimize the amount of disturbance and
need for rehabilitation.
o Site facilities to minimize vegetation clearing.
o Develop
an environmental briefing
program that
includes aesthetic
resource
concerns for construction
personnel.
4220210 v
850405
fRMLEGM AND CONPL)ENTIAL OOCUMENT
f ELEASED FOR SEfi.EMENT PURPOSES ONLY
10 REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
1RANSMIITAL AUTHO MD
o Implement a monitoring program during project construction to
ensure recommended measures are carried out and are as effective
as possible.
o Adhere
to procedures
ouklined
in Best Management Practices
(BMP)
Manuals
(APA 1985a, b,
c,
d).
4220210 vi
850405
ALASRA POWER AUTHORITY
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
POSITION PAPER
AESTHETIC ISSUES AE-1/AE-2
Issues
AE-1. Significance of impacts of borrow and spoil areas, transmission
lines, access roads and rail lines, construction camps and
villages, and dams on scenic resources.
AE-2. Feasibility and desirability of incorporating specific aesthetic
mitigation measures into project plans.
Position
The Alaska Power Authority proposes the mitigation measures identified in
this paper. It is our position that by employing these measures, adverse
visual impacts will be minimized as much as practicable. Furthermore, it is
our position that the project area is scenic, but not uncommon, compared to
other landscape settings throughout Alaska; and the number of existing
viewers within the project area, which relates to the magnitude of the
visual impact, is quite low. Finally, positive visual impacts will also be
created through increased viewing opportunities of the project area setting,
noteable natural features and the proposed project itself.
Refinement of the aesthetic mitigation plan will continue into the design
phase in order to reflect new or updated site -specific engineering
information.
4220210 1
aanana
I aiV14 EOED AND CWTUENTIAL DOCUMENT
FELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY,
I O REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
i RANSMTTTAL AUTHORIZED
As part of the License Application, the aesthetic resources of the project
areal/ were evaluated to provide a basis for impact assessment. The
aesthetic resource evaluation process identified in Figure 1 was based
on the U.S. Forest Service's Visual Resource Management System (USDA 1974)
and refined through field reconnaissance and professional judgment (APA
1983). The landscape character types3V and notable natural features
within the project area were identified and evaluated on a high, medium and
low basis for their aesthetic value (a relative measure of scenic quality
and visual sensitivity) and their absorption capability (a measure of a
landscape's natural sensitivity to alteration). These aesthetic value and
absorption capability ratings for each landscape character type were
combined to create composite ratings which were then grouped into three
aesthetic impact potential categories and used to determine the degree of
visual impact and potential for mitigation. The chart shown in Table 1
summarizes these categories.3/
The aesthetic resource evaluation process indicated that the project area
has locally distinct combinations of landforms, waterforms and vegetation
patterns which, collectively, result in high to moderate relative aesthetic
values. Most of the proposed project features (dams, reservoirs, and
construction camps) are located in areas evaluated as high in aesthetic
impact potential (composite rating 8 and 9 shown in Table 1). The 36-mile
l� Project area is defined as the area bounded by the Susitna River to the
east, the Alaska Railroad and Parks Highway to the west, the Denati
Highway to the north, and approximately 20 miles to the south of the
Susitna River.
?/
For detail on
Germs used
in
this paper, refer
to Exhibit
E, Chapter 8
of the Susitna
Hydroelectric
Project
License Application.
3/ All tables and figures are located at the end of the text.
4220210 2
Q cninc
TRM'..EGED AND WDENTIAL DOCUMENT
F ELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY;
10 REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
1 RANSMITTAL AUTHORIZED
Watana access road lies mostly within an area of moderate aesthetic impact
potential, and the proposed transmission line, because it traverses many
different landscape character types, ranges between all three of the
aesthetic impact composite ratings (high, moderate, tow).
Aesthetic Resource Significance.
It
is important to note Ghat
the above
aesthetic resource value ratings
are results
of relative comparisons of the
defined landscape character types
only
within the project area or
along the
transmission line corridor. The
project
area is not considered
unusually
scenic when compared to the many other
visually outstanding areas
throughout
the state.
Federal and state land use management plans for the region, which includes
the Project, also recognize the area as having generally high scenic
quality. Nonetheless, the plans emphasize multiple -use management that
includes uses such as timber harvest and mining which may conflict with
visual resource management objectives (BLM 1980, ADNR 1984). In addition,
under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, project area
lands and the Susitna River were considered, but not included, in the
National Park, National Wildlife Refuge, National Forest, National Wild and
Scenic Rivers or National Wilderness Preservation Systems (ANILCA 1980).
To summarize, the project area does contain a number of natural resource
features considered regionally or locally important with respect to
aesthetic resource. value.4/ Overall, however, the aesthetic resource
value of the project area, though rated high in certain locations, is not
considered unusual or significant relative to other areas within the state.
Furthermore, the number of viewers that presently visit the project area is
relatively low, estimated at less than 2,000 people annually within the
4,000-square mile project area. This low number is due primarily to the
area's remoteness and distance from population centers.
4� Refer to Exhibit E, Chapter 8, pages E-8-30 to E-8-32 for descriptions
of notable natural features.
4220210 3
Q sni. nc
fRMLEGED AND CONPOENTIAL DOCUMENT
TELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLy
10 REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
1 RANSMTTTAL AUTHORIZED
Project Impacts. Aesthetic impacts resulting from the Project were
determined by qualitatively comparing the project features to the aesthetic
resource composite ratings described in Table 1.
The following are brief descriptions, without mitigation, of aesthetic
impacts associated with the major project features. Detailed descriptions
of aesthetic impacts of proposed project features are listed in Appendix
8.F, Chapter 8, Exhibit E of the License Application (APA 1983).
1. Dams.
Both
Watana and Devil Canyon Dams would
present significant
visual
change
to the area.
Their size would be
similar
in scale to the
surrounding landscape
and
would present a visually
positive manmade
contrast to
the equally
scenic natural setting,
particularly Devil
Canyon
Dam.
Construction
areas surrounding
the
dam, however, would
create
large
areas of disturbed land which will
require reclamation to
reduce
visual
impacts.
2. Reservoirs. Both project reservoirs would cover much. of the valley
landform, replacing the existing riverine landscape with one
characterized by flat water and extensive mud -flats during most of the
peak recreation season. Because of their remoteness, viewing of the
reservoirs will mostly be limited to the area near the damsites where
exposure to mudflats will be least because of the steeper slopes near
the dams. The reservoirs would also eliminate the notable natural
features of Devil's Canyon, Vee Canyon rapids and Deadman Creek falls.
3.' Roads, transmission line and railsaur. The access road, as currently
proposed, is considered aesthetically incompatible in areas where the
current design speed (55 mph) and associated alignment criteria would
result in large cut -and -fill sections. This aesthetic impact would
occur primarily for the access road from Watana to Devil Canyon. The
access road between Watana Dam and the Denali Highway is expected to
have localized areas of higher aesthetic impact, but for the most part,
it would appear similar to the Denali Highway, which is generally
4220210 4
8 504 05
rRWEGED AND COWOENTIAL DOCUMENT
iELEASED POR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY:
10 REPROOwnow OR RIMS
T RANSMMAL MM ORM
considered as scenic. At the same time, the road would increase
viewing opportunities of an area presently seldom seen by most of the
public.
The proposed transmission line would present varying degrees of visual
impact depending on its location. For much of its length, the
transmission line would seldom be in view of major roadways due to
intervening vegetation, topography and distance. Sections of line that
would be in view of existing major travel corridors will parallel
existing lines resulting in visual impacts, which will be incremental
in nature. The most notable visual impacts related to the transmission
line would occur in the section of line between Watana and Devil Canyon
Dams, and the section of line routed through the proposed Willow Creek
State Park. The Watana to Devil Canyon section is routed through
landscape settings of high scenic rating, and adjacent to the proposed
access road corridor, which would make it highly visible to future road
travelers. The transmission line route through the proposed Willow
Creek State Park would present visual impacts to future park users.
During detailed design, the specific route and tower placement through
the park would be coordinated with ➢epartment of Natural Resources
(DNR) and Matanuska-Susitna Borough officials to reduce visual impacts
as much as possible. Mitigation measures discussed in the next section
would help to further reduce the visual impact of the proposed
transmission line.
The 14-mile .proposed project raitspur is expected to be similar in
visual character to the existing railroad corridor. Construction cuts
and fills, and vegetation clearing typically would contrast with
surrounding natural landforms. Because of the area's remoteness, these
visual changes are not expected to affect many existing viewers. If
open to post -construction public use, the raitspur would also provide
a positive visual impact by opening a little used area to increased
viewing opportunities.
+220210 S
QCA/. AS
rRMI.EGM AND MYPoENTIAL DOCUMENT
FELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURpom ONLY:
10 REPRODUCTION OR RMTHG
TRANSAITTTAL AUTHORIZED
4. Camps/village. Aesthetic impacts related to the construction camps and
village would be high due to their location in low wet areas, which
allows little potential to visually screen features or avoid
degradation to the physical environment and resultant impact to the
existing aesthetic character. Although many of the facilities would be
removed after construction, extensive activity in the wetland setting
would tend to visually degrade the area, even after facility removal
and rehabilitation efforts. These sites and construction staging areas
will be important to rehabilitate, however, because their visibility to
post~ construction users and permanent village residents would be high.
5. Borrow Areas.
Project borrow areas of
high visual
concern would be
those in the
primary view corridors adjacent
to the
access road. The
precise location
of those borrow areas
has not yet
been identified.
After final
selection of preferred access road
borrow locations,
specific siting
and design of the sites
would be completed during the
engineering
design phase. Aesthetic
mitigation regarding site
selection, design, and reclamation would reduce
or eliminate the
adverse visual
impacts of these areas.
Examples of
such measures are
identified in
the next section.
Kuch of the borrow for dam construction would be located within the
reservoir impoundment zones and, therefore, extraction sites would not
be apparent after construction. Two potential sites above the
reservoir zones, and of visual concern due to proximity to post -
construction public recreation activity, are the Tsusena Creek drainage
site and the quarry site south of Watana Dam. Tsusena Creek borrow
sites are presently not priority sites and they may not be used. If
they are selected, particular emphasis would be placed on reclamation
of the sites to be visually compatible with the surrounding landforms.
The quarry site, located near Watana Dam and the proposed visitor
center, would be highly visible and particularly difficult to visually
mitigate.
4220210 6
850405
fRNIIEGED AND CON;'CENTIAL DOCUMENT
FELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY;
10 REPRODUCTION OR FURTHEi
1RANSMTfTAL AUTHORIZED
To summarize the impact of the Project on aesthetic resources and post -
construction viewers, the visual character of the area would change from an
undeveloped, remote setting to an area characterized by development and
increased human activity. The visual impact related to this change would
vary depending on the viewer's activity, prior experience with the area, and
expectations about the setting.
The Project
will create positive as well as
negative visual
impacts. The
access road
and, to lesser extents, the railroad
spur and reservoirs
will
open new recreational
and visual experiences
to the public.
Additionally,
the dams and
related facilities are expected
to be visually
interesting to
many.
Mitigation Measures Endorsed by the Alaska Power Authority
The aesthetic mitigation
measures
identified below are intended to avoid or
reduce adverse
visual impacts
and/or
preserve or enhance viewing
opportunities of
areas of noted aesthetic
resource value. These measures
will continue to be refined based
on
future detailed project design
information.
1. Dams
o Rehabilitate surrounding construction sites after construction is
completed.
o Retain
as much
vegetation between the
Devil Canyon
saddle
dam and
Susitna
River
corridor
as possible to
provide visual
screening
from the access road.
2. Road
o Reduce design speed criteria i:n certain locations, if feasible,
where excessive cut and fill would otherwise be required.
4220210 7
rRIVI EGED AND CGNPCENTIAL DOCUMENT
FELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLy;
10 REPRODUCTION OR FURFNER
1RANSMI1TAL AUTHORIZED
o Minimize the amount of clearing through forestea areas.
o Use side
borrow
construction
as much as
possible to reduce the
number of
borrow
pits
required.
o During detailed design, make siting refinements to take advantage
of view opportunites.
3. Transmission Line.
o Use
corten
towers and
nonspecular
conductors
to reduce
visual
contrast.
o Where possible, site the transmission line along slope or forest
edges to reduce visibility (Figure 2), and route lines around
ridge tops and other high points to avoid skylining of the
towers.
o Taper rights -of -way through forested areas to avoid a channeled
appearance (see Figure 3).
o Minimize the need for construction access roads within the
transmission line rights -of -way through the use of rolligon or
nodwell-type vehicles, and existing roads.
o Use short access trails off the project access road to tower
construction areas for the Watana to Devil Canyon transmission
line.
o Make 90-degree angles at road, river and stream crossings to
reduce long views down rights -of -way.
o Use longer spans
at stream
.and river
crossings
to preserve or
reduce clearing of
canyon or
valley edge
vegetation
(Figure 2).
4220210 g
R5040S
o Follow environmental criteria established by the Rural
Electrification Administration (USDA 1970) for transmission line
construction.
4. Railspur6
o Refine the railspur
alignment
during
detailed design to minimize
extensive cuts
as much
as practical.
o Keep vegetation clearing to a minimum.
o Consolidate railhead facilities as much as possible to reduce the
amount of disturbance and rehabilitation needed.
5. Camps/Village. ,
o Focus siting refinement of the village and camps to avoid low, wet
areas as much as possible.
o Ensure that construction of the village reflects that it wilt be a
permanent living environment. Aesthetic amenities associated with
site planning and structures will be considered during detailed
design.
o Rehabilitate camps and surrounding disturbed areas as soon as
areas are closed out. This effort will be coordinated with other
disciplines in site rehabilitation plans.
6. Borrow Areas.
o Locate access
road borrow sites
out of significant
view corridors
if possible.
Prioritize borrow
sites so that sites
with the least
visual impact
will be used first,
if practical.
4220210 9
850405
fRIVUGED AND CON;rCENTiAL OOCUMENT
FELf.ASED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY
10 REPRODUCTION OR RWrHB
TRANSWITAL AUTHORIZED
o Design and reclaim borrow sites according to anticipated post -
construction land use (campsites, trailhead, ponds).
o Reclaim borrow sites with
no designated end
land
use to
conform to
surrounding topography as
much as possible (see
Figure
4).
o Reclaim the north edge of borrow site D (Watana) to conform to the
natural contour.
7, Project Features in General.
o Consolidate structures to minimize the amount of disturbance and
need for rehabilitation.
o Site facilities to minimize vegetation cleating.
o Develop an environmental briefing program that includes aesthetic
resource concerns for construction personnel.
o Implement a monitoring program
during
project
construction
to
ensure recommended measures are
carried
out
and
are as effective
as possible.
o Adhere to procedures outlined in Best Management Practices (BMP)
Manuals (APA 1985a, b, c, d) currently developed for the Project.
4220210 10
850405
e.i 1 r 11
• 0 1 '1' • t47.y i
REFERENCES
Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR). June 1984. Susitna Area an.
Public Review Draft -Summary. 383 pp.
Alaska Power Authority. 1983. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. FERC License
Application Proj. No. 7114-000. Vol. 8, Exhibit E, Chapter 8, Aesthetic
Resources. Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage.
Alaska Power Authority. 1985a. Best Management Practices Manual, Erosion and
Sedimentation Control.
Alaska Power Authority. 1985b. Best Management Practices Manual, Fuel and
Hazardous Materials.
Alaska Power Authority. 1985c. Best Management Practices Manual, Liquid and
Solid Waste Management.
Alaska Power Authority. 1985d. Best Management Practices Manual, Oil Spill
Contingency Planning.
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) 19$0. Public Law
96-487, 94 Statutes 2371, 16 United States Code.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service (USFS). 1974.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1970. Environmental Criteria for Electric
Transmission Systems.
U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Sept. 1980.
BLM Land Use Plan for Southcentral Alaska, A Summary. 39 pp.
4220210 11
Qan�ns
TABLE 1
AESTHETIC IMPACT POTENTIAL
COMPOSITE RATINGS
AESTHETIC vA�uE
HIGH I MEDIUM
LOW
Aesthetic Value
q Capability are
E8-35 to E8-40,
Exhibit E.
E�
HIGH.— AESTHETIC _� ��yy
I M PACT
Compasite
Rating
4.3.2'I
Description
.I... Lill t
r rAWN
1s�
and Absorption
described on pages
Chapter 8,
Ratings are grouped into three
categories indicated in the shaded area
described below.
Landscape has high aesthetic
value with moderate to little
ability to absorb man-made
Features.
Design
Criteria
Facility designs should
be similar in character
and equal in boldness
with the landscape, or
remain visually sub-
ordinate to the natural
surroundings
Landscape has moderate to Facility designs may
high. ability to absorb visually dominate the
man-made features. landscape but should
relate to the surround-
ing form, line, color
and texture to be
compatible with the
surroundings.
Landscape has low to moderate
aesthetic value with high
ability to absorb man-made
Features.
New elements may .add to
the aesthetic quality
beyond existing condi-
tions by introducing
visual interest and/or
complementing the
landscape.
Source: APA 1983, page E8-41.
Figure I
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
AESTHETIC IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
ESTABLISH
STUOY OBJECTIVES
5TEP
pgOppgEp HYDRO
FACILITIES
. DAMS B RESERVOIRS
CONSTRUCTION CAMPS
ROADS
BORROW SITES
TRANSMISSION LINE
STEPS
. ql 1 i 1 PI
1 1'IRA "ly'+'!
11:1T5
'EP 3
IDENTIFY LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPES
- LANDFORM
- WATERFORM
- VEGETATION
STEP 6
ASSIGN �$ 1ST VALUE RAIlN@
TO EACH CMA P
BASED ON:
1. • OISTINCTIVENESS
Z.• UNIQUENESS
34• HARMONY B BALANCE
-tF�.iri
4
DESCRIBE VIEWER
SENSITIVITY
- VIEWS
TYPES OF VIEW
DURATION OF VIEWS
OBSERVER POSITION
�BA8���
AFSTHE7i VNiLU�5
HUMAN EXPERIENCE
DETERMINE
COMPOSITE RATINGS
STEP 8
ANALYZE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPOSED HYDRO FACILITIES
AND THE INHERENT QUALITY OF THE LANDSCAPE (USING
COMPOSITE RATINGS)
- GVIIIrM�i
�$ LOTIONS EQUAL IN STRENGTH AND COMPATIBLE
IN CHARACTER TO EXIBTING LANDSCAPE
QOMPATIB_L E MIrmwmvmyTH I�N,ALANCE WITH PROPER MITIGATION
NCOIJJMTmmf§L&& N NO 9
u.NEGATIVE CONTRAST
DISCORD
I NTIV WITH I T18ATIQ
EGAt{
- HEIIATIVE IMPACTS LESSENED
DEVELOP APPROPRIATE MITIGATION STEP 10
MEASURES TO REDUCE ADVERSE PREPARE REPORT ON
AESTHETIC IMPACTS AESTHETIC RESOURCES
• SITING AND ALIGNMENT ADJUSTMENTS (CHAPTER 8 )
• DESIGN ADJUSTMENTS
- SCREENING
o VEGETATION RECOVERY TECHNIQUES
Figure 2
FHiVILt6W AMU GUNF'uENTIAL DOCUMW
RELEASED FOR SEMBW KwfM oKy;
NO REPRODVTMN OR FURTM
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 1RANSMxRN. AUTTioR®
EXAMPLES OF GENERAL AESTHETIC MITIGATION MEASURES
APPLICABLE TO THE PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINE CORRIDOR
ZONE OF ViSUAI
INFLUENCE
POOR LOCATION
r-- APPARENT DIMENSION
z
VISUAL—>NCE
PREFERRED
OBl10UE CROSSINGS PREFERRED
AVOID RIGHT ANGLE CROSSINGS
fRiVILEGED AND CON;rDENTIAL DOCUMENT
PELEASED FOR SETTLEMENT PUAPOW ONLY,
t 0 REPRODUCTION OR FURTHER
iRANSMIITAL AUTHORIZED
FIGURE 4
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
EXAMPLE OF AESTHETIC MITIGATION
BORROW SITE RECLAMATION
SHAPING OF BORROW AREAS
Similar methods of blending landforms of
cut and fill slopes can be applied to borrow
area excavations. Slopes can be improved by
a combination of slope warping and rounding
to simulate natural landform configurations.
Source: USFS 1977. National Forest Landscape Management,
Volume 2, Chapter 4, Roads.
SUSITHA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Settlement Process
Distribution List
Mr. Michael Penfold
State Director
Bureau of Land Management
701 C Street, Box 13
Anchorage, Alaska 99513
cc: Don Hinrichsen
Area Manager
Bureau of Land Management
4699 E. 72nd Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
Ms. Beth Walton
Statewide Archeologist
Bureau of Land Management
701 C Street, Box 13
Anchorage, Alaska 99513
Mr. Craig Altop
District Biologist
BLM, Anchorage District Office (013)
4700 E. 72nd Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
Mr. Boyd Evison
Regional Director
National Park Service
2525 Gambell Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
cc: Dr. Floyd Sharrock
National Park Service
2525 Gambell Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Larry Wright
National Park Service
2525 Gambell Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Mr. Robert Gilmore
Regional Director
U.S. Fish 5 Wildlife Service
1011 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
cc: Hank Hosking
U.S. Fish &Wildlife Service
WAES
411 West 4th Avenue, Suite 2B
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone Number
271-5076
267-1308
271-5076
267-1200
261-2688
261-2688
261-2688
786-3542
271-4575
PAPER/LIST
851211
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Settlement Process
Distribution List
Address Telephone Number
Gary Stackhouse 786-3476
U.S. Fish 6 Wildlife Service
1011 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Robert Bowker 271-4575
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
WAES
411 West 4th Avenue, Suite 2B
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Mr. Dan Robison (2 Enclosures) 271-5083
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
701 C Street, Box 19
Anchorage, Alaska 99513
cc w/o Enc: Al Ewing 271-5083
Assistant Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
701 C Street, Box 19
Anchorage, Alaska 99513
Colonel Wilbur T. Gregory, Jr. 552-5233
District Engineer
Alaska District
Army Corps of Engineers
BLDG. #21-700
Elmendorf AFB at Bluff 6 Plum
Pouch 898
Anchorage, Alaska 99506-0898
cc: Carol Gorbica 753-2712
Army Corps of Engineers
BLDG. #21-700
Elmendorf AFB at Bluff § Plum
Pouch 898
Anchorage, Alaska 99506-0898
Mr. Robert McVey 586-7235
Director, Alaska Region
National Marine Fisheries Service
P.O. Box 1668
Federal Bldg., Room 453
709 W. 9th Street
Juneau, Alaska 99802
cc: Brad Smith 271-5006
National Marine Fisheries Service
701 C Street, Box 43
Anchorage, Alaska 99513
PAPER/LIST 2
851211
SIISITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Settlement Process
Distribution List
I;L
Ben Rosenthal
Staff Attorney
NOAA
P.O. Box 1668
Federal Bldg., Room 413
709 W. 9th Street
Juneau, Alaska 99802
The Honorable William Ross
Commissioner
Department of. Environmental Conservation
3200 Hospital Drive
Pouch 0
Juneau, Alaska 99811
cc: Bob Martin
Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation
437 E Street, Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
The Honorable Don Collinsworth
Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Capitol Office Park
P.O. Box 3-2000
Juneau, Alaska 99802
cc: Carl Yanagawa
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99518
Norman Cohen
Director, Division of Habitat
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
1255 W. 8th
P.O. Box 3-2000
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Mark Ruwada
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99518
The Honorable Esther Wunnicke
Commissioner
Alaska Department of Natural Resources
State Office Bldg., 5th Floor
Willoughby Center
Pouch M
Juneau, Alaska 99811
PAPER/LIST 3
851211
Telephone Number
586-7414
465-2600
274-2533
465-4100
267-2283
465-4100
267-2277
465-2400
SIISITNA HYD$OELECTRIC PROJECT
Settlement Process
Distribution List
Addresa
cc: Robert Cutler (9 Enclosures)
Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Southcentral Regional Office
3601 C Street, Frontier Building
Room 1080
Pouch 7-005
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
Judy Bittner
State Historic Preservation Officer
Alaska Office of History & Archeology
Pouch 7001
555 Cordova Street, Room 16B
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Mary A. Maurer
Alaska Department of Natural Resources
"1st left off Fish Hatchery Road
north of Eagle."
P.O. Box 772116
Eagle River, Alaska 99577
The Honorable Emil Notti
Commissioner
Alaska Department of Community
5 Regional Affairs
Community Bldg. Rm 215
Pouch B
Juneau, Alaska 99811
cc: Ms. Marty Rutherford
Alaska Department of Community
& Regional Affairs
Municipal and Regional Assistance Division
949 East 36th Avenue, Suite 400
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Mr. Gary Thurlow
Manager
Matanuska-Susitna Borough
350 E. Dahlia
P.0 Box B
Palmer, Alaska 99645
cc: Bill Gissel
c/o Planning Department
Matanuska-Susitna Borough
350 E. Dahlia
P.O. Box B
Palmer, Alaska 99645
PAPER/LIST
851211
Telephone Number
762-2274
762-4141
688-3555
465-4700
561-8586
745-4801
745-9669
SUSITNA RYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Settlement Process
Distribution List
Address Telephone Number
Ms. Patty Bielawski 274-3528
Project Coordinator
Division of Governmental Coordination
Office of Management h Budget
2600 Denali Street, Suite 700
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
cc: Mr. Robert Grogan 6/or Wendy Wolff 465-3562
Associate Director
Office of Management Budget
431 N. Franklin
Pouch AW
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Mr. Phillip A. Emery 271-4138
District Chief
U.S. Geological Survey
4230 University Drive
Suite 201
Anchorage, Alaska 99508-4664
cc: Robert Lamke 271-4138
U.S. Geological Survey
4230 University Drive
Suite 201
Anchorage, Alaska 99508-4664
The Honorable Loren H. Lounabury 465-2500
Commissioner
Alaska Department of Commerce
and Economic Development
State Office Building, 9th Floor
Pouch D
Juneau, Alaska 99811
cc: Laurie Cunningham 562-2728
Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Alaska Department of Commerce
and Economic Development
3601 C. Street
Suite 722
Frontier Bldg.
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Dr. Robert Garvey (202) 786-0503
Executive Director
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Old Post Office Bldg,
1100 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Suite 809
Washington, D.C. 20004
PAPER/LIST 5
851211
SIISITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Settlement Process
Distribution List
Telephone Number
cc: Dr. Dean Shinn
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (303) 236-2682
730 Simms Street, Room 450
Golden, Colorado 80401
Ms. Gretchen Keiser Legislative Analyst 465-3991
House Research Agency
130 Seward Street
Goldstein Bldg. Room 216
Pouch Y
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Mr. A.W. Bill Hall 465-3114
Renewable and Natural Resources Advisor
Senate Advisory Council
130 Seward Street
Goldstein Bldg. Room 208
Pouch Y `
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Mr. Kurt Dzinich 465-3114
Senior Advisor
Senate Advisory Council
130 Seward Street
Goldstein Bldg. Room 208
Pouch Y
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Ms. Paula Easley 276-0700
Executive Director
Resource Development Council
Box 100516
807 G Street
Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99510-0516
Mr. Gary Harrison, President No Contact
Chickaloon Moose Creek Native Association No Phone
501 E. 13th Street #17
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Mr. Paul Theodore 376-2845
Knikatnu Inc.
Box 872130
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
PAPER/LIST
851211
SIISITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Settlement Process
Distribution List
Mr. David Allison
Attorney -at -Law
240 Main Street
Suite 601
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Mr. Gordon Harrison
Associate Director,
Division of Strategic Planning
Office of Management and Budget
Alaska Court Bldg., Room 445
Pouch AD
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Mr. David R. Cline
National Audubon Society
308 G. Street
Suite 219
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Mr. Tom Mears
Executive Director
Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association
R. Rt. Box 849
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
The Honorable Warzen Sparks
Deputy Commissioner
Alaska Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities
DOT/PF Headquarters Building,
Third Floor
3132 Channel Drive
Juneau, Alaska 99811
cc: Mr. Sill Slater
Chief, Geotechnical Services
DOT/PF Materials Headquarters
P.O. Box 6900
5700 Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
Jonathan Widdis
Alaska Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities
600 University Avenue, Suite D
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
PAPER/LIST 7
851211
Telephone Number
586-6079
465-3568
276-7034
383-5761
465-3900
266-1440
479-4281
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Settlement Process
Distribution List
Address Telephone Number
Agnes Brown, President 563-0707
Tyonek Native Corporation
4433 Lake Otis Pkwy,
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
Mr. Roy Huhndorf, President 274-8638
Cook Inlet Region, Inc.
2525 C Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
cc: Steve Planchon 274-8638
Cook Inlet Region, Inc.
2525 C Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Mr. Roy S. Ewan, President 822-3476
AHTNA, Inc.
Drawer "G"
Copper Center, Alaska 99573
cc: Larry Lau 822-3476
AHTNA, Inc.
Drawer "G"
Copper Center, Alaska 99573
Ms. Roberta Sheldon 733-2414
Main Street
Talkeetna, Alaska 99676
Ms. Lauri Adams 586-2751
Sierra Club Legal Defense
Fund, Inc.
419 6th Street, Suite 321
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Mr. Douglas Pope 586-4151
Wagstaff, Pope and Rogeza
526 Main Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Mr. Ken Castner 235-8252
United Fishermen of Alaska
P.O. Box 558
Homer, Alaska 99603
PAPER/LIST $
851211
SIISITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Settlement Process
Distribution List
Address Telephone Number
Mr. Paul H. Bratton, Jr. No Contact
Alaska Survival No Phone
Box 343
Talkeetna, Alaska 99676
Mr. Thomas E. Waite 733-2384
Box 330
Talkeetna, Alaska 99676
Mr. H. Clifton Eames, Jr. 274-3621
Northern Alaska Environmental
Center
1069 W. 6th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Mr. Mike Grijalva, President Club: 272-9351
Knik Kanoers and Kayakers, Inc. Home: 279-3185
P.O. Box 101935
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
Mr: Ghuek D. Carpenter No Contact
P.O. Box 80764 No Phone
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Mr. Arthur J. & Karen I. Mannix No Contact
P.O. Box 284 No Phone
Talkeetna, Alaska 99676
Mr. Robert Gerlach 733-2490
Box 23
Talkeetna, Alaska 99676
Mr. Joe C. Page No Contact
Box 1477 No Phone
Talkeetna, Alaska 99676
Mr. Larry R. Rivera 733-2471
Secretary, Alaska Professional
Hunters Association
P.O. Box 107
Talkeetna, Alaska 99676
Mr. Roger R. Kemppel, General Counsel 276-3235
Alaska Rural Electric Cooperative Association
237 E. Fireweed Lane, Suite 301
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
PAPER/LIST 9
851211
SDSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Settlement Process
Distribution List
Trustees for Alaska
Friends of the Earth
American Rivers Conservation Council
725 Christiansen Drive, Suite 4
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Attn. Robert Adler, Esq.
Ms. Louise Mayo
President
Cantwell Native Association
P.O. Box 65
Cantwell, Alaska 99729
Mr. Jerry Moberg
Community of Cantwell, Inc.
P.O. Box 53
Cantwell, Alaska 99729
The Honorable Juanita Helms
Mayor
North Star Borough
809 Pioneer Road
P.O. Box 1267
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
PAPER/LIST 10
851211
Telephone Humber
272-7335
No Contact
No Phone
No Phone
452-4761