The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAPA387--------·------- ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT ·rASK 7: ENV tRONMENTAL SUMMARY j.\NNUAL REPOY~'T '·1980 MAY 1981 ' I , I i J l !· I I ! I l I l 1 I ! l l .' I I C:dU· 1""LJnR· .tTY ---J .... · .•.. · 1 ~ . 1 r· ~ ._J . • . ___ _....,.., i' I l - - - Tt< l L.j ;~.;5 E=5g ~---------------------------------------~--------~--~ .----------------------------.,Jilt~ 38/ SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT M 1.0 ~ Prepared for: 1.0 ~-M ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT TASK 7: ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY ANNUAL REPORT . -1980 MAY 1981 ARLIS Alaska Resources Library &.. tnfonnatton Servtces Anchorage. Alaska Prepared by: Teuethial E nvitonmentc.l SpeciaUttt, Inc. ~....--.;....-_____ ALASKA POWER AUTHORrTY __ __.~ ' ,_ I - - I""' I ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT TASK 7 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES SUMMARY ANNUAL REPORT -1980 MAY 1981 by TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS, Inc. ARLIS Alaska Resources Library & Informatmn Servtces Anchorage, Alas.kl.l Phoenix, New York 13135 for ACRES AMERICAN, INCORPORATED Liberty Bank Building, Main at Court Buffalo, New York 14202 - TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES 1 -INTRODUCTION----------------------------------------------1 2 -THE STUDY AREAS--------~----------------------------------2 2.1-Subtask 7.05: Socioeconomic Analysis------------------2 2.2 -Subtask 7.06: Cultural Resources Investigation--------20 2.3 Subtask 7.07: Land Use Analysis-----------------------20 2.4-Subtask 7.08: Recreation Planning---------------------21 2.5-Subtask 7.09: Susitna Transmission Corridor Assessment------------------------------21 2.6-Subtask 7.10: Fish Ecology Studies--------------------21 2.7-Subtask 7.11: Wildlife Ecology Studies----------------22 2.7.1 -Big Game---------------------------------------22 2.7.2-Furbearers-------------------------------------23 2.7.3-Birds and Non-game Mammals---------------------23 2.8-Subtask 7.12: Plant Ecology Studies-------------------24 2.9-Subtask 7.14: Access Road Environmental Analysis------25 3 -SUBTASK SUMMARIES--------------------------~--------------25 3.1-Subtask 7.01: Coordination of Environmental Studies---25 3.2-Subtask 7.02: Monitoring of Field Activities for Environmental Acceptability-------------27 3.3 -Subtask 7.03: Evaluation of Alternatives--------------28 3.4-Subtask 7.04: Water Resources (Quality) Analysis------28 3.5-Subtask 7.05: Socioeconomic Analysis------------------29 3.6-Subtask 7.06: Cultural Resources Investigation--------43 · 3.7-Subtask 7.07: Land Use Analysis-----------------------47 3.8-Subtask 7.08: Recreation Planning---------------------50 3.9-Subtask 7.09: Susitna Transmission Corridor Assessment------------------------------53 3.10-Subtask 7.10: Fish Ecology Studies-----~--------------58 3.11 -Subtask 7.11: Wildlife Ecology Studies----------------59 3.11.1 -Big Game--------------------------------------59 3.11.2 -Furbearers------------------------------------71 3.11.3 -Birds and Non-Game Mammals--------------------73 3.12-Subtask 7.12: Plant Ecology Studies-------------------76 3.13 -Subtask 7.13: Geological Analysis---------------------79 3.14-Subtask 7.14: Access Road Environmental Analysis------79 3.15-Subtask 7.15: Preparation of FERC License Application Exhibit---------------------82 3.16-Task 12: Public Participation Program-----------------83 -- - - Page 4 -REPORTS-------------------------------------------·--------84 4.1 -Reports by TES and Subcontractors~-----------------------84 4.1.1 -Reports Prepared---------------------------------84 4.1.2 -Reports in Preparation---------------------------87 4.2 -Reports by Alaska Department of Fish and Game------------87 4.2.1 -Reports Prepared---------------------------------87 4.2.2 -Reports in Preparation---------------------------88 5 -AUTHORITIES CONTACTED--------------------------------------89 5.1 -Federal Agencies-----------------------------------------89 5.2 -State Agencies-------------------------------------------92 5.3 -Local Agencies-------------------------------------------95 5.4 -Other Institutions. Organizations, and Individuals-------96 - LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Total Resident Population and Components of Change by Study Area: 1970-1980--------------------------------31 2. Community Population---------------------------------------32 3. Estimated Housing and Vacancy Rates-------~----------~-----33 4. Housing Stock Estimates by Areas of Mat-Su Borough---------34 5. Community Facilities Summary------------------:-------------35 6. Study Area 3 Annual Nonagricultural Employment by Sector------------------------------------------------38 7. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Annual Nonagricultural Employment by Sector---------------------39 8. Valdez-Chitina-Whittier Annual Nonagricultural Employment by Sector-------------------------------------40 9. Potential Fish Ecology Impact Issues by Project Stage------60 10. Hectares of Different Vegetation Types to be Affected Compared With Total Hectares of Those Types in The Entire Upper Susitna River Basin~------------------------77 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Study Areas for Socioeconomic Analysis--------------~------------3 2. Study Area for Cultural Resource Investigations------------------4 3. Study Areas for Land Use Analysis---------------:................................... 5 4. Sites Investigated for Recreation Planning-----------------------6 5. Transmission Corridors Evaluated -Northern Study Area---~-------7 6. Transmission Corridors Evaluated -Central Study Area------------8 7. Transmissi.on Corridors Evaluated Southern Study Area-----------9 8. Fish Ecology Study Area------------------------------------------10 9. Study Areas for Big Game Species -Wolverine, Wolf, Moose (Upstream)-----------------------------------------------------11 10. Study Areas for Big Game Species -Black Bear, Brown Bear--------12 11. Study Area for Moose -Downstream------~-------------------------13 12. Furbearer Study Area -Upstream----------------------------------14 13. Furbearer Study Area -Downstream----------------------------.,;___ 15 14. Bird and Small Mammal Study Area---------------------------------16 15. Plant Ecology Study Area -Upstream------------------------------17 16. Plant Ecology Study Area -Downstream----------------------------18 17. Access Corridors------------------------~------------------------19 18. Cultural Resource Site Locations---------------------------------46 19. Transmission Corridors Surviving Preliminary Screening- I""' Northern Study Area-------------------------------------------55 I 20. Transmission Corridors Surviving Preliminary Screening - Central Study Area--------------------------------------------56 -21. Transmission Corridors Surviving Preliminary Screening - Southern Study Area--------------------------------------------57 22. Vegetation Map of Upper Susitna River Basin------------------Back Pocket - 1 -INTRODUCTION Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. (TES), on behalf of the Alaska Power Authority (APA) and as a subcontractor to Acres American, Inc. (Acres), is performing environmental studies as part of a feasibility study and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license application effort for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. The environmental program consists of baseline studies, impact analysis, and mitigation planning, each of which is ~ing conducted in two phases: preceding submission of the license application (Phase I) and following the license application (Phase II). Work is being performed for TES by subcontractors (University of Alaska, Frank Orth & Associates) and consultants (M. Bell, C. Atkinson, R. Williams, R. Taber, B. Kessel). Studies to describe the existing fish and big game ecology are being performed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game ( ADF&G) under a direct agreement with APA. A water qua 1 ity program is being performed by R&M Consultants as a subcontractor to Acres. This report summarizes the accomplishments and findings of the 1980 environmental program. Details of the program objectives and design may be found in the Plan of Study (Acres American, Inc., February 1980), in which the environmental program is referred to as Task 7, and in the Procedures Manuals prepared for the major environmental subtasks by TES and its subcontractors. Complete results of the 1980 studies may be found in the Annual Reports for the various specific subtasks. These and other Task 7 reports are listed in Section 4. - - 2 -THE STUDY AREAS The study areas for the subtasks of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project vary considerably; some subtasks require larger study area-s than others. By necessity, there is even variation in study areas among portions of some subtasks. The following descriptions indicate the areas that are being studied. The accompanying maps (Figures 1-17) delineate these study areas. 2.1 -Subtask 7.05: Socioeconomic Analysis Several levels of socioeconomic analysis are being carried out; thus, there are four basic study areas (Figure 1). Study Area 1 includes the proposed dam sites, most of the transmission and access road corridors, and some project staging areas. Study Area 2 includes the Matanuska-Susitna Borough and Valdez-Cordova (formerly Valdez-Chitina-Whittier) census divisions. This study area contains the primary political units within which the project and, to a substantial degree, its impacts will occur. Study Area 3 is the Railbelt Region and data from this region form the basis for most of the quantitative analyses regarding many of the economic variables. Analysis of the Alaska socioeconomic structure leads to the inclusion (in this study area) of major census divisions: Anchorage, Kenai-Cook Inlet, Seward, Valdez-Cordova, Matanuska-Susitna, Southeast Fairbanks, and Yukon-Koyukuk. Study Area 4 encompasses the State of Alaska. It will be used primarily for purposes of comparing existing statewide conditions with those resulting from the project, and for general comparison with data for the total nation. 2 1 J l --j 1 -Study Area 1 Study Area 2 0 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Figure 1 Study Areas for Socioeconomic Analysis Paleontology Study Area Archeology Study Area-~ P leistoce~~u~ye~~~~ (!iU}:?~i:;j:;:;({J 1 l 0 0 10 20 Kilometers 1 J 20 30 l SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Figure 2 Study Areas for Cultural Resource Investigations 1 .. J l 'l ,_ .) . '1 .. ) ... -) l l ··-1 ---1 ) Zone 1 Zone2 ~-Zone 3 f{f.:~·)'/J{,';:f.J 0 20 10 20 30 0 Kilometers . ' ., l l J .. r..,,, ;~ 'l><'_ ·~~7"-J;;.~y_J,, "~J,."Y'•_, ~-;=;; ,--{?r'" ;<--;). ~ ~ . -: l ~_r::: ' ·~ ., ,;-·;~· \ r • -~ .• ,__ ,; "· v . 1L .(; J '\?./.'_/ rPz:_,--._----) 0 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Figure 3 Study Areas for land Use Analysis J Scenic Sites Potential· Recreation Sites • ... ~l ~l l } 1 0 10 20 0 10 20 30 Kilometers ) -1 l 0 SUSITNA Figure 4 Sites Investigated for Recreation Planning - - Miles 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 20 25 Study Corridor lntertie (Hypothetical) ••••• 0 Transmission Corridors Evaluated Northern Study Area Study Corridor I ntertie (Hypothetical) ••••• .· .. 1 Miles 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 20 25 Kilometers } POWER AUTHORITY Figure 6 Transmission Corridors Evaluated Central Study Area 1 Study Corridor I ntertie (Hypothetical) ) ••••• 0 5 0 5 10 15 10 15 20 25 Kilometers 1 l ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY Transmission Corridors Evaluated Southern Study Area -" l'""' -~ - - 0 0 1980 Study Area 10 Miles 10 20 20 30 ALASKA Figure 8 Fish Ecology Study Area 0 Miles 10 20 0 10 20 30 Wolverine Wolf, Moose (Upstream) SUSITNA HYOROEl£CTRIC PROJECT Figure 9 Study Areas for Big Game Species 1 Black Bear Brown Bear 0 0 10 20 Kilometers SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Figure lO 20 30 Study Areas for Big Game Species - ~\ . \ 0 0 Miles 10 20 Study Area ~ 20 30 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY Figure 11 Study Area for Moose Downstream . -, 1 Study Area 10"'#21 0 0 . Miles 10 10 20 Kilometers 20 30 0 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Figure 12 Furbearer Study Area . Upstream - 0 0 10 Miles 10 20 Study Area ~ 20 30 0 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Figure 13 Furbearer Study Area Downstream 0 >-t:: ~~ C';) ·W E ~ . ' :~ E c... C';) u ~ C';) ;;: ""'" ~ .... ,_ cz: u C';) w ~ E -' ~ w :::> V) 0 bj) = c::: w:: Cl "C -;> V') :I: = ,. C';) ..: 2:. "C ,_ .... u:; Q5 ::> "' ~"""· -~ I'C QJ l.. -<( >-"'0 ~ -.... (/) - -"'C I.("> ::::1 -E (I') n:l CLl = r;a Q) .... 1:>0 -;,=: Q VI Q c. u = Ll.l ~ -.... c c;; ..!S! ::;:) VI Cl... ~ ~ 0 0 = 0 c.o = 0 t"":J = ...,( c-o-i = C'..J c.o o.n C'..J --......... "" "" -"'0 "'0 "" CLl CLl "'0 c. c. CLl c. c.. c. !""" "" "" ~ ~ c. "" ~ ..... ..... i_; -i Mites 0~~~ ... 10~-===~20 0 10 20 30 Mapped at 1:24,000 Mapped at 1:63,360 w::21 Mapped at 1:250,000 brr'\'(<\' I Figure 16 Plant Ecology Study Areas Downstream l Corridor 1 ---- Corridor 2 •••••• 0 Corridor 3 •-•-• 0 10 20 Kilometers 20 30 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Figure 17 Access Corridors . ~. ..... -' - 2.2 -Subtask 7.06: Cultural Resources Investigation The cultural resources studies include these components: archeology, geology, and paleontology. The study areas for each of these components are indicated in Figure 2. For 1980, the study area for archeological investigations is defined as those lands within approximately 3 km (2 miles) of the Susitna River from just below Devil Canyon to the mouth of the Tyone River. In addition, ct corridor ·approximately 2 km (1.2 miles) wide from the Watana Camp north to the Denali Highway was studied. The study area for geological studies, which support the cultural resource analysis, extends approximately 16 km (10 mi1es) on each side of the Sus i tna River, from the Portage Creek area to the mouth of the Maclaren River. When necessary, contiguous areas were examined . The study area for paleontological studies is confined to the Watana Creek vicinity. This locale was selected because it was the only area identified within the entire Susitna basin that provided suitable deposits for the study of pre-Pleistocene paleontology. 2.3 -Subtask 7.07: Land Use Analysis Three basic study areas (Zones 1, 2, and 3) were defined for the Land Use Analysis (Figure 3). These zones were designated according to geographic and land use relationships with the Susitna Hydroelectric Project and extend to varying widths from the river between Gold Creek and the mouth of the Tyone River. Zone 1 was designated to include those structures and land uses which would be affected by inundation. Zone 2, extending about 10 km (6 miles) from the river, is based upon the locations of lakes which characterize aggregations of land use. Zone 3, which extends approximately 20 km (12 miles) beyond Zone 2, is characterized by fewer aggregations of land use; existing structures and land use are sparse. 20 2.4 -Subtask 7.08: Recreation Planni~g The overall objective of this subtask is to develop a recreation plan for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. A considerable number of scenic and potential recreation sites were considered during the first year's effort. These sites are indicated in Figure 4. The 1980 study concentrates on the irrmediate project zone within 60 m (200 feet) of the shoreline of the proposed impoundments. Adjacent lands and areas along alternative access routes are also considered. 2.5 -Subtask 7.09: Susitna Transmission Cor'ridor Assessment The study areas involved in the Susitna Transmission Corridor Assessment are geographically separated from each other, because the intertie between Willow and Healy is not part of the Susitna Project. The three study areas are described as the northern; the central, and the southern (Figures 5-7). The northern study area encompasses transmission corridors from Healy to the Fairbanks/Ester area. Alternative corridors lie to the east as far as the Wood River and Fort Wainwright Military Reservation and on the west along the Nenana River and the Parks Highway. The central study area encompasses the corridors originating at the Devil Canyon and the Watana dam sites. These corridors generally run westward to the Gold Creek/Canyon area or northward to the Cantwell/Summit area. The southern study area encompasses the transmission corridors from Willow to the Anchorage area via Palmer or via more westerly corridors in the Red Shirt Lake and Lynx Lake areas. 2.6-Subtask 7.10: Fish Ecology Studies The area for the Fish Ecology Studies includes the entire Susitna River from its confluence with the Tyone River downstre~m to Cook Inlet. It includes areas (i.e., subreaches of the Susitna River mainstem, sloughs and side channels, tributary confluences, lakes a~d ponds) that are likely to be affected by post-project flows. 21 r P"' ' """ I ! - For Phase I work, the Susitna River has been divided into three segments: Cook Inlet to Talkeetna, Talkeetna to Devil Canyon, and Devil Canyon to the Tyone River. In 1980, sampling was conducted by ADF&G at road accessible areas near following: Willow Creek, Caswell Creek, Rabideaux Creek~ Montana Creek, Kashwitna River, the Rustic Wilderness Subdivision and the Parks Highway Bridge. Additional sampling in the Susitna River was done at roadside locations from Willow Creek to Talkeetna (Figure 8). 2.7 -Subtask 7.11: Wildlife Ecology Studies The Wildlife Ecology Studies are divided into three major efforts: big game, furbearers, and birds and non-game mammals. The study areas vary in size for each effort. 2.7.1-Big Game The land areas studied by ADF&G for the big game program vary depending upon the species that are being radio-collared. The largest study area is for caribou. This study area consists of the entire range of the Nelchina herd, although monitoring is more frequent in the vicinity of the proposed impoundments. This area extends north of the Denali Highway to the foothills of the Alaska Range and south to the Glenn Highway, and from the foothills of the Talkeetna Mountains and the Parks Highway on the west to the Copper River Basin and the foothills of the Wrangell Mountains on the east. Study areas for wolves and upstream moose populations are basically the same (Figure 9). The area is bordered on the north by the Denali Highway and extends south to the Little Nelchina River. The eastern boundary extends from the Maclaren River at the Denali Highway south to Tyone Lake and Lake Louise, then to the Glenn Highway. The western boundary is generally defined as northwest from the Little Nelchina River along the upper elevations of the Talkeetna Mountains to near the mouth of Portage Creek and then northeast to the Denali Highway. 22 r· - Study areas for wolverines (Figure 9) and brown bears (Figure 10) are generally within this same area, although the boundaries differ in various places. Black bears (Figure 10) are being studied in two considerably smaller areas within the basin. Moos1: are also being studied in a downstream area (Ffgure 11) from near Portage Creek to the Delta Islands. Moose were radio-collared along the river in this area; browse availability and utilization were measured and pellet group counts were made. An intensive study area for browse availability/utilization and pellet group transects was also investigated. This area consists of several islands near the mouth of Goose Creek and the north end of Sheep Creek Slough. 2.7.2 -Furbearers The area for the furbearer studies includes the impoundment areas, the area within 12 km (7.5 miles) of the impoundments, and the downstream floodplain to the Delta Islands. The most intensive study is being performed upstream of Gold Creek {Figure 12). Downstream surveys of furbe'arer sign and habitat prefE~rence were made from 3 km ( 1. 9 mi 1 es) above the confluence with the Indian River to 4 km (2.5 miles) below the confluence with the Kashwitna River (Figure 13). 2.7.3-Birds and Non-game Mammals The area for bird and small (non-game) mammal investigations extends from near Sherman up the Susitna River to the mouth of the t~ac 1 aren River and to approximate 1 y 15 km ( 10 mi 1 es) on either side of the river (Figure 14). Intensive study plots, mammal trapping sites, bird survey transects, and waterbodies surveyed for waterfowl are within this area. 23 r 2.8-Subtask 7.12: Plant Ecology Studies The study area for Plant Ecology during 1980 includes the upper Susitna River drainage and the floodplain of the Susitna River from Gold Creek to Talkeetna (Figures 15-16). Within this area, vegetation was mapped at several scales. The entire upper Susitna River basin was mapped at a scale of 1:250,000. Vegetation within 16 km (10 miles) of the proposed impoundment areas was mapped at a scale of 1:63,360. The vegetation within 0.8 km (0.5 mile) of the proposed impoundments, the borrow sites, and the floodplain from Portage Creek to Talkeetna was mapped at a scale of 1:24,000. Sampling locations for vegetation were concentrated in the area of the 1:24,000 maps after reconnaissance level surveys in each major vegetation type. 2.9-Subtask 7.14: Access Road Environmental Analysis After initial screening of numerous alternative corridors for the access route, three corridors were chosen for environmental analysis (Figure 17). Corridor 1 is a road access route north of the Susitna River from the Parks Highway to Devil Canyon and Watana. Corridor 2 is access to Devil Canyon and Watana on the south side of the Susitna River, either by road from the Parks Highway or by rail from the Alaska Railroad. Corridor 3 is a road access route to Watana from the Denali Highway. 24 .,_. ! 3 -SUBTASK SUMMARIES As described in the Plan of Study, the various components of the environmental program are subtasks within Task 7 of the overall feasibility study for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Summaries of the 1980 activities and findings byTES and ADF&G in each of these subtasks follow, including a summary of TES involvement in Task 12, Public Participation. Complete results of the 1980 program in the major environmental disciplines may be found in the discipline- specific Annual Reports (Section 4). 3.1-Subtask 7.01: Coordination of Environmental Studies The objectives of this subtask are diverse and include planning and implementation of contractual matters, logistics, technical aspects of the program, reports, quality assurance, and agency consultation. During 1980, the administration and coordination of the environmental program required intensive effort by TES. Contractual matters included ensuring conformance with the details of formal agreements between Acres and TES, as well as between TES and its subcontractors and consultants. Manpower and cost projections, and actual expenditures, were continuously provided to the prime contractor. All project equipment was inventoried in the prescribed manner. At the end of the year, the environmental program was on schedule and within its projected annual budget. Complex logistics are involved in implementing the field program in this large and remote study area (Section 2). The TES Resident Manager at the Anchorage Project Office and the TES Field Representative at Watana Base Camp (see Subtask 7 .02) worked closely with Acres and other team members to ensure that the logistical needs of the environmental team were met during 1980. 25 - Logistics of a different scale are involved in scheduling the overall environmental program, and require the continuous exchange of current information among the various participants of the feasibility study. During 1980, TES met these needs with reports, written correspondence, meetings, and phone conversations. To identify the input required by TES and its subcontractors (from Acres, Acres' other subcontractors, and ADF &G) , TES d eve 1 oped a Master List and Sc hedu 1 e of I nf ormation Needs, which covers the remainder of the Phase I period. Technical coordination of the environmental studies involved providing direction concerning the Procedures Manuals, Semi~Annual Reports, and Annual Reports (Section 4). The Procedures Manuals were prepared as practical subtask-specific documents designed for (1) the exchange of· program design details among TES subcontractors during the first field season, {2) TES control of adherence to the program by TES subcontractors, and (3) assurance of continuity in the event of changes in project personnel. Semi-annual Reports for the major disciplines were prepared by TES subcontractors solely as a means of exchanging information among disciplines. Annual Reports, which were not scheduled for completion during 1980, will serve as a means of information exchange during 1981, as well as a formal reporting of activities and findings of the various subtasks. Editorial review, as well as sorne technical review, was also performed under the Coordination Subtask. In addition, TES distributed such reports among the investigators in the various, related environmental disciplines. Technical coordination also involves making modifications to the environmental program. Since the Plan of Study was issued in February, 1980, a number of refinements have been made. The most notable changes are as follows: additional emphasis on fish and wildlife mitigation planning, additional emphasis on areas downstream of the proposed dam sites, and acceleration of the recreation planning effort. An acceleration of the socioeconomic studies and a boater-use survey were proposed during 1980. Other refinements have been or may soon be made in response to findings of the first year's program, concerns of state agencies, and the possible implementation of revised FERC license application guidelines. 26 -I Coordination and consultation with state and federal agencies were among the activities of the 1980 program. A list of authorities contacted during the year is presented in Section 5. Many additional ADF&G personnel were contacted, in their capacity as feasibility study team members, concerning the fisheries and big game studies. Related activities included TES representation at various meetings with agency representatives, such as a field visit by and meetings \'lith the Susitna Hydroelectric Project Steering Committee in July. Also during 1980, TES prepared and submitted to Acres written responses to agency concerns and comments, including the Steering Cormnittee's review of the TES Procedures Manuals, conments by the U. S. Fish and Wi 1 dl ife Service, and concerns raised during the July field visit. 3.2 -Subtask 7.02: Monitoring of Field Activities for Environmental Acceptability A TES Field Representative was stationed at the· Watana Base Camp full- time during the 1980 field season, and made field visits as needed during the remainder of the year .. Although the role of this Field Representative was not one of an environmental inspector, she did observe field activities and make suggestions to lessen the environmental impact of the feasibility study. The TES Field Representative kept aware of proposed ground disturbance activities, and informed Project Archeologists so that such areas could be investigated for possible cultural resources in advance. Consideration was also given to environmentally sensitive areas such as denning sites and nesting locations. Through cooperation among the various groups, especially the helicopter pilots, these areas were for the most part avoided. The majority of the Field Representative's time was Spent assisting the environmental study groups by scheduling helicopters and getting provisions to the field tent camps. Assistance in data collection was occasionally provided. Wildlife observations, including those made by field personnel not involved in the environmental studies, were recorded and reported to the appropriate environmental study group. Numerous coordination, .scheduling and information retrieval activities were also performed under this subtask throughout the year. 27 - r - 3.3 -Subtask 7.03: Evaluation of Alternatives When a notice to stop work on Task 1 of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project was received from Acres, little effort had been invested in this task by Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. TES had begun to search the literature on hydroelectric alternatives and to develop logic diagrams .for proposed approaches to each of the subtasks (1.03 and 1.05) in which TES was involved. The results of this effort were presented to Acres in a Termination Report filed in August 1980. Environmental evaluation of alternatives to Susitna is now being performed in a separate study by Battelle, and Acres has assumed responsibility for the environmental evaluation of Susitna alternatives. During 1980, TES did provide some input to Acres in the evaluation of alternative development schemes, although the work was. performed under other subtasks. Two pertinent reports were prepared by TES: (1) a preliminary environmental assessment of tunnel alternatives (December 1980), and (2} a report on environmental considerations of alternative hydroelectric development schemes for the upper Susitna basin (January 1981). TES also provided input concerning mitigation through design, primarily under the Fish Ecology Subtask (7.10). 3.4-Subtask 7.04: Water Resources (Quality) Analysis The water qua 1 ity program is being performed for Acres American by R&M Consultants under Task 3. To ensure that parameters needed for fish ecology impact analysis would be measured, TES provided input into the design of the Task 3 program. Water quality data collection was performed during the 1980 field season by R&M. These data are included in the Water Quality Data Collection Annual Report (Subtask 3.03) prepared by R&M. A list of project reports on the lower Susitna is also available. Both of these documents have been supplied toTES. All pertinent reports and available data are being analyzed in relation to fish ecology impacts byTES, and this procedure will continue as more information is made available. 28 ··~"""' - - 3.5 -Subtask 7.05: Socioeconomic Analysis The Socioeconomic Analysis is designed to identify social and economic factors that will be affected by the Susitna Hydroelectric Project and to determine the extent of change. Phase I entails four Work Packages: a literature review, development of a socioeconomic profile, preliminary socioeconomic impact studies, and a forecast of future socioeconomic conditions in the absence of a Susitna project. Specific objectives for Phase I include the following: (1) review impacts resulting from energy-development projects and assess their applicability to the proposed hydroelectric project in the upper Susitna basin, (2) develop descriptors (categories of variables) for socioeconomic conditions and determine which variables are most likely to be influenced by development, (3) geographically delineate impact areas, (4) identify and describe important socioeconomic conditions in areas likely to be affected by development, (5) review forecasting models and assess their applicability to forecasting socioeconomic conditions in the impact areas, (6) adopt, modify, and/or develop a methodology for forecasting socioeconomic conditions and for conducting preliminary and final impact analyses, (7) conduct a preliminary socioeconomic impact analysis of hydroelectric development, including consideration of a one or two dam scheme, access routes, transmission facilities, and other areas, concerns and issues that may be appropriate, and (8) forecast socioeconomic conditions in the impact areas assuming there will be no hydroelectric development in the upper Susitna basin: At the end of the first year, the first four Phase I objectives were accomplished. Work relating to the next three objectives was in process, and work relating to the last objective had not begun. Results of the baseline study include a description of current socioeconomic conditions in geographic areas that could be affected. Information concerning places and communities in or near the Susitna basin is provided subject to the availability of secondary data. 29 ,.... ' ,-., ·- - Preliminary 1980 census figures indicate that Mat-Su Borough has a population of 17,938, and Valdez-Cordova 8,546. The Railbelt contains 285,011 people, 71% of the state population of 400,331. The 1980 state population is up 32% from the 1970 total of 302,361. Tables 1 and 2 contain additional details. Housing in Mat-Su Borough is primarily single-family, year-round units. Of 5,844 such units, 5,546 are occupied, resulting in a vacancy rate of 5.1% (298 units); Valdez has a vacancy rate of 3.1% (31 units); Fairbanks has a vacancy rate of 9.1% {1,072 units); and Anchorage has a vacancy rate of 10.2% (5,769 units). In addition to year-round units, Mat-Su Borough has some 1,141 recreational units. Additional details are presented in Tables 3 and 4. Government structure, taxation, and existing infrastructure (Table 5) vary by community in the Rai1belt according to its classification, population, and other factors. Larger areas generally have more developed services and infrastructure, and therefore are able to support or accommodate significantly greater economic development activity. Communities and other developed areas in the Railbelt (Table 5) generally have basic urban utilities, electricity, and telephone service. Fire, police, and health services vary according to the size of the population. Communities in the southern portion of Mat-Su Borough are served by various fire service districts; some have local police protection, although the Alaska State Police provides service to remote areas. Electric and telephone service usually are not available in isolated areas. Mat-Su Borough operates seventeen elementary, junior, and senior high schools ancl a community college. Anchorage and Fairbanks are fully served by primary and secondary schools and the University of Alaska (Table 5). 30 -- _··/~""'· ·.~. 1980 Preliminary Census l!;;/U Census Net Change Percent Change Change in TABLE 1 TOTAL RESIDENT POPULATION AND COMPONENTS OF CHANGE BY STUDY AREA: 1970 -198n Study Area 2 Study Area 3* Study Area 4 Matanuska-Susitna Valdez- Borough Cordova 179938 89546 285,011 400,331 6,509 5,000 200,023 302,361 +11 ,429 +3,546 +84,988 +97,970 +175 +71 +42 +32 Mi 1 ita ry Pop +141 +58 -4,730 -8,102 Natural Increase +1,430 +844 +459107 +619142 (Births & Deaths) Impl1ed net Civilian 9,858 ... 2,644 40,111 44,930 Migration *Fairbanks, S.E. Fairbanks Mat-Su, Anchorage, Kenai Peninsula, and Valdez-Cordova Census Divisions Source: Alaska Department of Labor, Administrative Services Division. January 1. 1981. Alaska's 1980 Population: A Preliminary Overview. Juneau, AK. p. 26. ,_ I r --~ c.- - TABLE 2 COMMUNITY POPULATION: MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH CENSUS DATA 1939~ 1950, 1960, 1970,1976, 1980 Corm1unity 1939 ·1950 1960 1970 1976 1980* Talkeeta --rJb --rt5b ---r6 -m--m 26! Wi 11 ow 78 38 384 134 Wasilla 96 97 112 300 1566 1.548 Palmer 150 890 1181 1140 1643 2143 Montana 39 33 76 40 Big Lake 74 36 721 412 Butte 559 448 2207 Chickaloon 11 43 22 62 20 Eska Sutton 14 54 215 89 496 Curry 2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMUNITY~POPULATJON: OTHER COMt~UNITI ES NOT IN MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH Community 1950 1960 1970 1976 1980* Nenana 242 286 382 493 471 Healy 79 503 333 Cantwell 85 62 95 Denali 3 Paxson 20 30 Glennallen 142 169 363 488 Copper Center 90 151 206 213 Gakona 50 33 88 85 Gulkana 65 51 53 111 *Alaska Department of Labor, Administrative Services Division. January 1, 1981. Alaska 1980 Population: A Preliminary Overview. Juneau~ AK; pp. 14-24. Source: Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Department. April 1978. Phase I: Comprehensive Development Plan. Palmer, AK; p. 50. F" ' - - - - - - TABLE 3 ESTIMATED HOUSING AND VACANCY RATES TOTAL YEAR-ROUND OCCUPIED VACANT VACANCY AREA HOUSING UNITS UNITS UNITS RATES (~) Anchorage 1 56,823 51,054 5,769 10.2 Valdez 2 979 948 31 3.1 . 1 Fairbanks 11,809 10,737 1,072 9.1 Matanuska-Susitna 3 5,844 5,546 298 5.1 Valdez-Chitina- Whittier N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 Fairbanks North Star Borough, Corrrnunity Research Center. Fall 1980. Corrrnunity Research Quarterly, A Socioeconomic Review. Fairbanks, AK; p. 81 2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10. December 1979. ·Alaska Petrochemical Company, Refinery and Petrochemical Facility: Environmental Impact Statement; Appendix Vol. II. Valdez, AK; p. II-93. 3 Over a 11 Economic Deve 1 opment Program, Inc. July 1980. Vo 1 ume II: Economic Conditions, Development Options and Projections, Palmer, AK; pp. 76. TABLE 4 .I~ ,.... HOUSING STOCK ESTIMATES BY AREAS OF MAT-SU BOROUGH Estimated !""" Recreati anal Total Year-Round Units Units Areas n 11• -1 Talkeetna, Montana Caswell 214 3.7 97 2 Willow 173 3.0 274 r 3 Houston 225 3.8 92 4 Big Lake 425 7.3 530 5 Goose Bay, Knik, MacKenzie 83 1.4 13 I""' 6 Wasi 11 a 2,020 34.6 133 7 Sutton, Chickaloon Independence Mine 143 2.4 8 Palmer 1,502 25.7 2 9 Butte 519 8.9 10 Road1ess Areas 540 9.2 Unknown F""' TOTAL 5,844 100.0% 1,141 -Source:. Overa1 1 Economic Development Program, Inc. July 1980. Volume II: Economic Conditions, Development Options and Projections; p. 76. -, ! ) ) ···,}ABLE ~ l l l l j COMMUNITY FACILITIES SUMMARY .0 t:: Government .--...... 0 n:l . ,_. .,... n:l 1/1 +> u .,.... .j...J 0'1 .,... 0 1/1 n:l u n:l s:: OJ u OJ 0.. 0 lL n:l ,...... .j...J .,... u OJ ,...... 1/1 n. lL ((] ~ u .,.... ;::;:: ::l Schools ...... OJ .j...J 0 .--> -. u ~ Cl ~ ~ ~ ..c: .,... 0.. .,.... ~ s:: OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ ra .j...J 0. 1/1 ;::) OJ 0 1/1 .j...J OJ OJ 0.. u .j...J u .--Vl s:: r::a OJ E Vl .,.... til til n:l E ~ .j...J 0 .,... .j...J s:: ra 0 ra u OJ .j...J til ra ~ 0 >, 1/1 0 .....,. til ,_. OJ E OJ :X: ~ .0 .,.. .j...J OJ ra QJ ra .--0 :X: ra ~ n:l !-0 >, .--u !-:::r:: -o 1-0.. 4--til s:: u ...-.--u 0.. +-' ra 3: 1-0.. !.1) n:l OJ .--n:l .,... >, ..... 4-->, 0 .,... ;:J u !-u s:: u !-:X: ..c: 1-...-ra 0 u !-~ s:: 0 Vl ..c s:: 0:: u 0 OJ OJ s:: OJ ~ ~ u OJ ...-.j...J .j...J ra !-til. ~ .,... .j...J ra ;::1 ~ 0.. ;::1 .j...J s:: u •..-E 0 ..r:: OJ OJ .,... .j...J ra ~ OJ .--0'1 .j...J OJ -o r-,_. til !-~ .j...J .::L Q) Q) E QJ Vl 0 s:: 4--QJ u 0'1 .j...J 3: ..... ra u ;::1 ~ ra s:: c: c: ((] .,... LJ !-.0 til ~ ::: .--E E ~ u .... ...... .--QJ .,... ra OJ 0 .j...J 0 0 .,... ~ 0 OJ OJ 0 ra ::l .,... . ,... 0 0 ra 0 QJ 0 0 .... QJ s:: s:: w Vl :X: 3: Vl Vl Vl -l u lL -l ~ (.!) ~ ~ n. <( _, u 0... 0... 0... 1-u :X: LL.. Vl ::;) :::J Nenana * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ·Jr * Cantwe 11 * * * * * * * * * * * ·,\-* Talkeetna * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Hill ow * * * * * * * * * * * * ~ Palmer * * * * * * * , ... * * -!: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Has ill a * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Paxson * * * * * •k * Glennallen * * * * * * * ft * * * * * * * * tr * Copper Center * * * * * * * * * * * ·k * Gakona * * * * * * * * * Healy ·Jr * * * * '* * * * * ft * * * * Gulkana -* * * * * * * * * * Valdez * * * * * * * * * * * * >'r * * * * * * * * * •k Anchorage * * * * * * * '" * * * '{( * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Fairbanks * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * "'1: * * f, * * * * * . - - -' I Alaska relies heavily on air and marine dispersed population. The southcentral comprehensive transportation networks. in terms of annual tonnage (60 million transportation, owing to its small, and interior regions have the most Valdez is the State 1 s largest port tons). Virtually all (99%) of this involves sh·ipment of crude petroleum from the pipeline. The ports of Anchorage and Whittier handle some 2.2 million tons and 0.4 million tons, respectively. Paved roads in the Rai"lbelt area include the following: the 127 mile Seward-Anchorage Highway which includes 38 miles of the 174 mile Sterling Highway between Seward and Homer, the 358 mile Parks Highway between Anchorage and Fairbanks, a 205 mile section of the Alaska Highway ~hat connects Tok Junction with Fairbanks, the 328 mile Glenn Highway connecting Anchorage with Tok Junction, and the 266 mile Richardson Highway from Valdez to its junction with the Alaska Highway at Delta Junction. The only road access through the upper Susitna basin is the 135 mile, gravel Denali Highway between Paxson_ on the Richardson Highway and Cantwell on the Parks Highway, and the 20 mile, gravel road from the Glenn Highway to Lake Louise. The Denali Highway is not open for use during the winter months. The Alaska Railroad runs from Seward on the Gulf of Alaska, past Anchorage, up the Susitna Valley, past Mount McKinley National Park, and down to Fairbanks on the Tanana River, a distance of 483 miles. The federally constructed and operated Alaska Railroad was built between 1914 and 1923. Annual traffic volume varies between 1.8 and 2.3 million tons; coal and gravel account for 75% of this. It is estimated that the system is working at only 20% of its capacity. In addition to major airlines within Alaska, there are numerous small commercial operators plus the highest per capita ratio of private aircraft in the nation. Many small, remote landing strips are scattered throughout the Susitna basin, and float planes utilize many 1 akes and streams to ferry freight and passengers to the remote backcountry areas. In many areas, airplanes provide the only access. 36 --~ - - -i' - Both Anchorage and Fairbanks are regional economic centers for the southcentral Railbelt area. Government, trade, and services comprise the major portion of the area's total employment (Tables 6-8). Construction and transportation are also important. Smaller employers are the financing, mining, and manufacturing industries, while agriculture, forestry, and fisheries employ fewer still. Federal, state, and local governments are the largest employers and were responsible for $3.3 billion in wages in 1976. After government, the two groups having the 1 argest employment are trade and services. Their importance as sources of employment for residents of the Railbelt area is a further manifestation of the region's two relatively concentrated population centers and of the high degree of economic diversity in the Railbelt, as well as levels of demand for goods and services, which are substantially higher than in most other parts of Alaska. The importance of construction is due to the high level of expansion experienced by Anchorage and Fairbanks since 1968. This growth can partially be attributed to the trans-Alaska pipeline project, which encouraged new public and private construction. High levels of employment in the region's transportation industry reflect the positions of Anchorage and Fairbanks as major transportation centers, not only for the Southcentral Railbelt area but for the rest of the state as well. The Port of Anchorage handles most of the waterborne freight moving into southcentral and northern Alaska. International airports at Anchorage and Fairbanks serve as hubs for commercial air traffic throughout Alaska and are important stopovers for major international air carriers. Anchorage also serves as the transfer point for goods brought into the area by air and water, which are then distributed by air transport, truck, or by Alaska Railroad to more remote areas. Mining, finance, insurance, and real estate play important roles in terms of the secondary employment they generate in the state. Most people employed in mining are engaged in petroleum extraction from fields in the North Slope, Cook Inlet, and the Kenai Peninsula. A substantial portion of the royalties and taxes collected by the State as a result of oil production in the area is returned in the form of jobs in state government and through revenue sharing with various local governments. The total value of oil 37 > ) '"~.) TABLE 6 STUDY AREA 3 ANNUAL NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT BY SECTOR PERCENT OF STATE 1970 1975 1979 1970 1975 1979 Total __!_ Total ~ Total ~ I _I __!__ ------- TOTAL 1-Nonagricultural Industries 62,690 100.0 113,818 100.0 113,204 100.0 67.8 70.4 68.0 Mining 1,6}0 2.6 2,243 2.0 2,822 2.5 53.7 59.2 48.9 Construction 5,264 8.4 16,359 14.4 8,257 7.3 76.3 63.6 81.8 Hanufacturi n9 I ,850 3.0 2,596 2.3 3,705 3.3 23.7 26.9 28.9 Transportation • Communication & Ut1lities 6,021 9.6 12,094 10.6 12,062 10.7 66.2 73.4 72.2 Wholesale Trade 5,366 4.7 5,083 4.5 90.8 92.2 12,111 19.3 79.2 Retail Trade 15,965 14.0 18,309 16.2 78.6 76.7 Finance-Insurance and Real Estate 2,520 4.0 4,696 4.1 6,139 5.4 81.3 77.9 76.4 Services 8,868 14.1 20,995 18.4 19,674 17.4 77.8 83.5 69.4 Federal Government 12,372 19.7 13,022 11.4 12,728 11.2 72.4 71.2 11.0 State and local Government 11,585 18.5 17.799 15.6 21,130 18.7 62.6 60.9 57.7 Miscellaneous 52 .I 217 .2 712 .6 26 19.0 98.9 1 Figures may not total correctly because of averaging and disclosure limitations on data. Source: Alaska Department of labor. Statistical Quarterly. Juneau, AK. (various issues) ) ) ·• .,,, ) ) ----~ } ) ··-, ) ") l ... ~ ] --~ l ~ -Cl ) TABLE 7 HATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH ANNUAL NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT BY SECTOR PERCENT OF STUDY MEA 3 1970 1975 1979 1970 1975 1979 Total _!_ Total % Total _!_ _ J_ _t _l _ TOTAL 1-Nonagricultural Industries 1,145 100.0 2,020 100.0 3,078 100,0 1.8 1.8 2.7 Mining * * ll .3 * • .o Construction 120 10.5 188 9.3 184 6.0 2.3 1.1 2.2 Hanufacturl ng * 30 1.5 40 1.3 * 1.2 1.1 Transportation -Communication & ' Ut 111t les 114 9.6 218 10.8 316 10.2 1.9 1.8 2.6 Wholesale Trade 44 2.2 49 1.6 .8 1.0 174 15.2 1.4 Retail Trade 211 13.4 696 22.6 1.7 3.8 Finance-Insurance and Real Estate 22 1.9 62 3.1 129 4.2 .8 1.3 2.1 Services 179 15.6 288 14.3 447 14.5 2.0 1.4 2.3 Federal Government 106 9.3 124 6.1 97 3.1 .9 1.0 .8 State and Local Government 376 32.8 756 37.5 1,101 35.8 3.2 4.3 5.2 Mhce 11 aneous · * * 21 .7 * * 1.8 * Oata unavailable due to disclosure policy. 1 Figures may not total correctly because of averaging and disclosure limitations on data. Source: Alaska Department of Labor. Statistical Quarterly. Juneau, AK. (varfous fssues) ---) -~, } -'--l " -, ~--"'1 ·-·· __ :c:::f , :>c~--1 ---~~-') '1 l TABLE B VALDEZ-CIHTINA-WHITTIER ANNUAL NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT BY SECTOR PERCENT OF STUDY AREA 3 1970 1975 1979 1970 1975 Total I Total _!_ Total _..!_ _I -~- TOTAL 1-Nonagricultural Industries 831 100.0 4. 763 100.0 2,180 100.0 1.3 4.2 Mining * " " " " Construction 21 2.5 2,518 52.9 86 3,9 .4 15.4 Manufacturing * 14 ,3 19 .9 " .5 Transportation -Communication & Utilities 61 7.3 389 8.2 472 21.7 1.0 3.2 Wholesale Trade 62 1.3 18 .8 1.2 95 11.4 .8 Retail Trade 321 6.7 181 8.3 z.o Finance-lnsuranc~ and Real Estate * 73 1.5 70 3.2 " 1.6 Services 99 11.9 709 14.9 445 20.4 1.1 3.8 Federal Government 63 7.6 58 1.2 46 2.1 .5 .4 State and Local Government 464 55.8 613 12.9 840 38.5 4.0 3.4 Miscel hneous 0 o.o • • 0.0 • • Data unavailable due to disclosure policy. 1 Figures may not total correctly because of averaging and disclosure limitations on data. Source; Alaska Department of labor. Statistical Quarterly. Juneau, AK. (various issues) l ) ""---,-.,. l 1979 X 1.9 " 1.0 .5 3.9 .4 1.0 1.1 2,3 .4 4.0 " r :- i i. production revenues for the State is estimated to be $3.3 billion in 1981, 90% of total unrestricted State revenues. The total value of crude petroleum in 1979 was $5.5 billion; other mineral values (natural gas, sand and gravel, gold, and others) totaled $259 million. Most agricultural activities in the southcentral Railbelt area take place in the Matanuska, Susitna, and Tanana Valleys. The potential for agriculture in these areas of Alaska is considered favorable, ~though development of the industry has not been extensive. Commercial fisheries activity is the oldest cash-based industry of major importance within the region. The industry has changed substantially during the past 20 years and continues to be modified as a result of both biologic and economic stimuli. The salmon industry has always been a major component in terms of volume and value. Since 1955, the king crab, shrimp, and Tanner crab fish.eries have undergone major development, and halibut landings have increased substantially in recent years. The total wholesale value of domestic corrmercial fish and shellfish for Alaska in 1979 was over $1.2 billion, including a catch of 459 million pounds of salmon with a wholesale value of $704 mi 11 ion. The Alaskan forest products industry centers on the resources of two national forests, the Chugach in southcentral Alaska and the Tongass in southeastern Alaska. These two forests are the largest in the United States and account for roughly 93% of the annual Alaskan timber harvest. The industry is concentrated in the Southeast, and the principal products of the industry are pulp, cant 1 umber, and round logs. Over 50% of Alaska's forest products are exported to foreign countries, principally Japan. Most of the remainder is shipped to the Lower Forty-Eight. The transfer of 1 ands to native corporations is expected to increase the avail ability of timber resources, especially round logs. In general, the industry is cyclical depending upon housing construction patterns in the United States and abroad. 41 ,- ·~~ The tourist industry plays an increasingly important role in the economy of the region. The numbers of Alaskan visitors have increased from about 130,000 in 1971 to approximately 505~000 in 1977. Visitors spent approximate 1 y $37 4 mi 11 ion in 1977. The results of the baseline study (the socioeconomic profile) will be utilized in the development of the forecast. ,During 1980, all relevant forecasting models used by Alaskan institutions, and other potentially relevant models and studies, were identified and information concerning them was collected. Next, evaluation criteria were developed and applied to each relevant model or study in order to compare them. It was concluded that the primary app~oach to forecasting would be causal (i.e., the leVel of one variable~ the »caus~ variable,» determines the level of another variable, the 11 forecasted variable"). It was further determined that time series or trend analysis and qualitative (judgemental) analysis would serve as supporting approaches, where appropriate. Two types of causal models remained under consideration at the close of 1980. These were economic base and econometric models. Several methodological structures for an economic base model are being developed. The advantages and disadvantages of each alternative structure will be weighed against those of the existing, or of a ,modified, Man in the Arctic Program (econometric} model. The conclusions of the preliminary impact analysis and assessment of alternative access routes are that socioeconomic impacts wi 11 vary both in magnitude and area of concentration depending upon which access route or combination of access routes is selected, and whether a road or railroad is used. With the socioeconomic assessment of access schemes, there is more concern with the origin and type of access than with the actual route, because these will affect communities throughout the southcentral part of the state. 42 - ··I""" With a road from the Parks Highway to the dam site(s)~ effects generally would be concentrated on the western side of the project area. An easily accessible road corridor would provide for transport of construction materials~ equipment and labor as well as post-construction uses of the upper Susitna basin (such as recreation). The impacts of a railroad from the same side would likewise be concentrated on the western side. However, in every socioeconomic category~ impacts would be the same or less than with the road. The single exception would be in rail industry activities, which would experience major changes. With a road constructed from the Denali Highway to the dam site(s), impacts along the Parks Highway-Alaska Railroad corridor would depend upon whether materials were to be shipped by road or rail to Cantwell before being transported along the Denali Highway to the access road. Mitigation planning should include the selection of the route and mode of access that will avoid or minimize potentially adverse socioeconomic impacts. The location and relative magnitude of impacts in almost every socioeconomic impact category will vary considerably depending upon which mode and origin are chosen for access. Mitigation planning should also consider minimizing irreversible impacts on socioeconomic resources. Existing and potential mining claims and recreational activities should enter into the dam(s) siting and design decision processes. 3.6-7.06: Cultural Resources Investigation The University of Alaska Museum developed a five step program to assist the APA, Acres American, and TES in complying with federal and state law and regulations concerning protection of cultural and pa 1 eonto 1 ogi ca 1 resources. The five steps aim toward the f o 11 owing: (1) locating and documenting archeological, historical, and 43 - paleontological resources in the study area (reconnaissance level survey), (2) intensively testing and evaluating these resources to determine their significance, and (3) proposing mitigation measures to avoid or lessen the adverse impact which may result from the proposed project. The methods and defined study area {Figure 2) varied for each aspect of the study, i.e., archeology, geology, and paleontology. In preparation for field studies, all necessary permits were obtained, 1 iterature pertaining to the archeology, ethnology, history, geology, paleoecology, paleontology, flora and fauna in and near the study area was reviewed, and avai 1 able aerial photographs were examined. A tentative cultural chronology for the study area was developed and types of archeological site locales for each cultural period within geochronologic units were defined. Geological analysis performed under this subtask generated data which were used in selecting archeological survey locales. Data concerning surficial geological deposits and events of the last glaciation were compiled and provided limiting dates for the earliest possible human occupation of the upper Susitna River basin. This information was collected by literature review and field studies. All the assembled background data, coupled with paleoecological information, were used to select the sixty locales which were surveyed in 1980. A review of the paleontological literature and aerial reconnaissance of the upper Susitna River basin delineated an area suitabl~ for paleon- tological investigations. Paleontological studies were conducted (1) to develop baseline paleontological data within the study area, and (2) to assess the significance of these deposits and develop appropriate mitigation measures for these resources. The archeological reconnaissance implemented surface and subsurface testing within each of the selected survey locales in an effort to locate historic and archeological sites. Data were consistently and systematically recorded on Site Survey forms for each site and survey locale. 44 (""' ! !'!""" .. ,1 The 1980 archeological reconnaissance located and documented one historic and thirty-three prehistoric sites. An additional four sites were discovered during a brief survey of one alternative access route (Corridor 3, Figure 17) north of Watana base camp. The thirty-seven archeological sites found during the 1980 field season and four sites previously known {from studies sponsored by the Corps of Engineers) total forty-one archeological sites now known within the study area. Site locations are shown on Figure 18; each dot may represent several sites because of their proximity. It is expected that continued survey in 1981 will locate additional sites. Sites adjacent to the study area (and not shown on Figure 18) are known to occur near Stephan Lake, Fog Lakes, Lakes Susitna, Tyone and Louise, and along the Tyone River. A large proboscidean femur, probably the bone of a mammoth, was found ~ situ in a bluff exposure at the mouth of the Tyone River. This documented find, dated at 29,450 ~ 61o14c yr. B.P., extends the range for Pleistocene fauna and possibly steppe-tundra conditions southward at least 150 km {93 miles): For each archeological site which was located, regional maps, site maps, soil profiles, photographs, and other data were recorded. All specimens collected were accessioned by the University of Alaska Museum. Sites were given both University of Alaska Museum accession numbers and Alaska Heritage Resources Survey numbers. In addition, sites where surface disturbing activities were to occur {e.g., seismic trenches, bore holes, and borrow areas) were surveyed to determine if any cultural material was present. Clearance was given to conduct geotechnical activities if no cultural material was found. Impact on cultural resources will vary in relation to the type of activities that occur on or near them. Based on the Devil Canyon and Watana dam proposal, most of the sites known to date within the study area will likely receive direct or indirect impact during construction and subsequent use and operation of the facility. The impact of transmission facilities, recreational activities, and upriver and downriver changes in hydrology and land access and use cannot be assessed at this time. 45 --l HY!}ROELECTRIC PROJECT Lo~ations previously kn~wn or discovered during 1980 • Figure 18 0 20 Cultural Resource Site locations 0 10 20 30 Kilometers r Intensive testing, scheduled for 1981, is designed to collect the data necessary to evaluate the significance or the cultural resources discovered during 1980. Following intensive testing and completion of ancillary studies, the effect of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project on individual sites can be determined and the appropriate mitigation measures recommended. Mitigation measures cannot be suggested until the extent and significance of the sites are known. It is recommended that non-archeological personnel and preconstruction activities avoid documented sites until investigations are complete. 3.7 -Subtask 7.07: Land Use Analysis The Land Use Analysis involves an assessment of the direct land use effects of the proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project. The analysis is designed to evaluate changes in land use which would occur with and without the proposed project, inc 1 ud i ng the effects of the proposed dam(s) and reservoir(s), access transportation system, and transmission line corridors. The objectives of the Land Use Analysis are to describe past, present, and future land use trends, identify the potential major changes in land use that would result with the development of the project, and evaluate these changes. The methodology for the Land Use Analysis is comprised essentially of assessing historic, existing, and future land use. The first year has dealt only with recent historic and present land use. Specific steps include a literature review, aerial photography and map reconnaissance, interviews of area residents and agency personnel, field reconnaissance, and reconstruction of history. Existing land use in the Susitna Project area is characterized by broad expanses of open, wilderness area. Those areas where developments have occurred typically include small clusters of cabins. There are also many single cabins scattered throughout the basin. 47 "' ,.... ' Most of the existing structures are related to the historical development of the area which initially involved hunting, mining and trapping, and then guiding activities associated with hunting and, to a lesser extent, fishing. Today there are a few lodges mostly used by hunters and other recreationists. Many lakes in the area also include small clusters of private year-round or recreational cabins. There are approximately 109 structures within 30 km (18 miles) of the Susitna River between Gold Creek and the Tyone River. These include four lodges involving some 21 structures. Significant concentrations of residences, cabins, or other structures are found near the Otter Lakes area, Portage Creek, High Lake, Gold Creek, Chunilna Creek, Stephan Lake, Clarence Lake, and Big Lake. Perhaps the most significant use activity for the past forty years has been the study of the Susitna River for potential hydroelectric development. Hunting, boating, and other forms of recreation are also important uses. There are numerous trails throughout the basin used by dog sled, snowmobile, and all-terrain vehicles (ATVs). Air access is significant; the many lakes provide landing areas for planes on floats. There has been little land management activity for the area. However, federal and state agencies, native corporations, and the private sector have been involved heavily in the selection and transfer of land ownership under the Alaska Statehood Act and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Most of the lands in the project area and on the south side of the river have been selected by the native corporations. Lands to the north are generally federal, and are managed by the Bureau of Land Management. Impacts associated with the proposed dam(s) and reservoir(s) include the inundation of four cabins and structures in the Devil Canyon area. Travel patterns of the few trappers in the upper portion of the proposed Devil Canyon inundation area will also be affected. A major impact will be the elimination of Devil Canyon itself, a significant scenic resource. The Watana reservoir would inundate an area with seven cabins or other structures. The Watana reservoir also would affect travel patterns of trappers, but to a greater extent than the Devil Cal")yon reservoir as this area contains more of the secondary drainages utilized for trapping activity. 48 - - -I """" I Impact assessment during the first year concerning land use analysis of access alternatives is summarized below. A road from the west to the dam site(s) on the north side of the Susitna (Corridor 1, Figure 17} would create increased traffic and activity affecting the Parks Highway and communities situated on it. It is likely that commercial and residential uses would be affected with corresponding effects on land values. Some twenty-four cabins and other residential structures along this corridor would be affected, in addition to two lodges involving ten structures. A road from the west, located on the south side of the river (Corridor 2), would create impacts similar to those of Corridor 1 on the Parks Highway and the conmunities there. Residential and commercial use and land values would be affected. ·Ten buildings associated with Stephan Lake Lodge and seventeen other cabins and residences would be affected. With a rail route from the west (Corridor 2), there would be some increase in activity in communities near the Alaska Rai1road, but probably less than with a road corridor. Rail would tend to restrict public access to land more than a road would. However, as a rail-head, the general area of the communities of Sherman, Gold Creek, and Canyon might be affected in terms of residential and commercial uses. The same impacts on structures as with a road corridor would occur. A road constructed from the Denali Highway to the dam site(s) (Corridor 3) would affect the fewest number of structures (four) and one small lodge. Impacts along the Parks Highway-Alaska Railroad corridor would depend upon whether materials were shipped by road or rail to Cantwell before being transported along the Denali Highway to the access road. Because of the openness of the land traversed by this corridor, ATV use and associated impacts could be expected to increase considerably. The most significant aspect of the analysis of access route schemes relates not so much to various impacts associated with a given individual scheme, but to the concept of access itself, in any form, to the interior of the Susitna basin. The provision of a means by which the . general public can easily and frequently venture inland to an essentially pristine wilderness area potentially w~ll induce profound alterations 49 - in the character of the Susitna area, affecting both small concentrations and isolated residences, peripheral commercial and transportation systems, resource utilization and the level of recreational activity, visual and aesthetic factors, and the overall natural character of the area. In addition, these effects will have ramifications concerning the extent, adequacy, and need for management activity (e.g., fish and game, land, etc.), and concerning changes in land values and development. 3.8-Subtask 7.08: Recreation Planning "fhe Recreation Planning effort involves the preparation of a Recreation Plan for the proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Subtask 7.08 was modified during 1980 to incorporate the objective of Subtask 10.06 (to prepare Exhibit R of the FERC license application), as described in the Plan of Study. Assessmen~ of the effects of the hydroelectric project on existing recreational use of the Susitna baiin is being performed under Subtasks 7.05 and 7.07 (Socioeconomic Analysis and Land Use Analysis). The Recreation Planning effort focuses on the immediate reservoir area(s) and any additional lands recommended for acquisition for recreational purposes. The objective of this effort is to develop a plan for an optimal mix of pub1ic recreational opportunities. As such, the planning process will do the following: (1) result in a variety of activities and level of development desired by the public, (2) analyze the environmental setting and recommend developments consistent with the environmental limitations of the area, (3) balance the development of facilities with the capacity of natural resources to sustain the resultant use, (4) incorporate unique natural features into the plan, (5) result in a plan consistent with the planning guidelines and objectives of the agency ultimately responsible for managing the public use·of recreational lands and waters, and (6) maximize compatibility of the plan with the total hydroelectric operation. 50 '- r !""" - The methods for recreation planning include the following: (1) a literature review of recreation data, (2) a summary of resource data, (3) an assessment of recreation resource potential, including field data collection and site analysis, (4) the identification of potential management structure, (5) the development of initial concept plans, (6) a concept plan survey, (7) the selection of the best concept plan, (8) a public participation survey, (9) detailed site feasibility studies, (10) agency and public review, and (11) the development of the final plan. During 1980, the first six steps were completed. Field work included analysis of project lands for potential as recreation sites. Seventy-eight sites currently are under consideration. Also during the first year, several preliminary plan sketches were developed. These were narrowed to five concept plans incorporating the various possible recreation sites. The plans provide a range of facilities and recreational opportunities, from minimal, wilderness development and primitive facilities to a full spectrum of highly developed facilities. These plans are briefly summarized below. Approach 11 A11 -A Minimally Developed and Managed Wilderness This approach could be used in the event that public access by road to the Susitna reservoir areas were restricted or not permitted at all. In this case, development would probably be limited to a visitor information center on the Parks Highway. Access by float plane would likely be extended to include the reservoirs. Access by canoe, kayak, and river boat via the upper Susitna, Maclaren, and Tyone Rivers would continue. Land use surrounding the project area would probably be much the same as at present with management 1 imi ted to fish and game and the regulation of mining activities. Approach 11 B11 -Managed Wilderness with Limited Access In the event that road access to both reservoirs were possible, the area could be managed as a wilderness recreation area, with development limited to minimal interpretive services, primitive campgrounds, and simple boat ramps at both dam sites. These ramps would facilitate 51 - r- .. i 'i 'I"""' i ,.,,. - access by boat to the reservoir shorelines and adjacent areas for camping, hunting, fishing, and other backcountry activities. As in Approach "A", a visitor center would be built on the Parks Highway. Information would be provided on the Denali Highway should access be available at this location. A tour boat service would be offered at the Devil Canyon dam site for day tours of the reservoir. Approach 11 C" -Watana Reservoir Development One possible approach to more extensive recreational development is to offer highly developed facilities at the Watana dam site and only minimal interpretive services at the Devil Canyon dam site. In addition to the services.offer~d at both reservoirs in Approach "B", there would be greater development at the Watana dam site to accommodate increased visitor use. Simple backcountry camp sites would be provided at selected locations around the Watana reservoir; additional improvements would be made at the mouth of Jay Creek. More intensive resource management would be necessary around the Watana reservoir, but the remaining project area would still be managed as wilderness. As in· Approaches "A" and "B", visitor information would be available at the highway entrance(s). Approach "0" -Devil Canyon Reservoir Development In this approach highly developed facilities would be offered at the Devil Canyon reservoir and dam site and only minimal facilities at the Watana dam site. The Devil Canyon area would be developed and managed intensively to provide a diversity of recreational opportunities, while the Watana reservoir area could be developed and managed in a manner that would maintain its wilderness character. Approach "E" -Development and Management Throughout This approach involves a high level of recreational development and offers a wide variety of recreation activities around both reservoirs. Complete visitor facilities would be located at the dam sites, with additional improvements made at the Jay Creek site, and backcountry boat-in camp sites built at five locations. Intensive resource management would be necessary throughout much of the recreation area to reduce conflicts between uses and to maintain the quality of the environment. 52 -i - ..... -~ . ' i r- 1 i r r To solicit public reaction to Approaches "A" through "E" a concept plan survey was developed and distributed to 2250 randomly selected persons in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and the Railbelt area. Results of this survey, input from a public workshop in March, 1981, and identification of an access scheme by the Alaska Power Authority will be used in developing and selecting the best concept plan during 1981. 3.9-Subtask 7.09: Susitna Transmission Corridor Assessment The objectives of the Transmission Corridor Assessment performed to date are as follows: (1) to begin a literature search, (2) to review existing Susitna transmission studies, (3) to compare proposed transmission line corridors from an environmental standpoint, and (4) to make a preliminary identification of those corridors that warrant further consideration as viable routes. The literature search was initiated. Information was gathered from several libraries, institutions, and authorities. This is an on-going effort. Existing Susitna transmission studies were reviewed. These include the 1979 IECO/Retherford draft report for the Alaska Power Authority, the 1975 Corps of Engineers' Interim Feasibility Report, and other associated reports. A critical review of the Corps' report {11 Critique of the Corps of Engineers' Assessment for Transmission Systems") was prepared byTES in February, 1981. It concluded that for a preliminary feasibility study the Corps' method of environmental inventory was quite complete but that their impact assessment could be found inadequate because the analysis was unquantified. The critique concurred with the transmission corridors preferred by the Corps. Locations of transmission corridors under consideration for the present Susitna study were obtained from Acres in November, 1980. Because another consultant to APA would be doing the feasibility analysis for an intertie between Willow and Healy, the effort of the Susitna Transmission Corridor Assessment was limited to investigations of 53 - '. r ...... .... I alternatives in three study areas: Healy to Fairbanks, dam sites to the Intertie, and Willow to Anchorage/Pt. MacKenzie. Habitat information was gathered and an aerial reconnaissance was made of corridors in these three areas. In February, 1981, additional corridor alternatives in the three areas were received from Acres; these were to be included in the environmental evaluation. The locations of the alternative corridors are shown in Figures 5-7. The evaluation efforts culminated in the preparation of the TES report "Preliminary Environmental Screening of Alternative Transmission Corridors" in March, 1981. Evaluation of the alternative corridors began with the development of an environmental inventory for segments of each corridor. The following parameters were included in the inventory: approximate length, approximate number of road and river/creek crossings, topography, soils~ land ownership status, existing or proposed developments, existing rights-of-way, scenic quality and recreation, cultural resources, vegetation, fish resources, birds, furbearers, and big game. Environmental constraints were then identified for each corridor. These constraints included the following: length, topography and soils, land use, aesthetics, cultural resources, vegetation, fish resources, and wildlife resources. Each corridor was given an environmental rating to indicate whether it warranted, probably did not warrant, or did not warrant further consideration as a viable route. This was a subjective rating and indicated the relative worth of each corridor from an environmental standpoint . One corridor each in the northern and southern study areas (ABC and ADC, respectively) and one corridor (encompassing corridor segments ABCO, ABCF, ACD, and ACF) in the central study area warrant further consideration (Figures 19-21). (Also shown on Figures 19-21 are those corridors rated as probably not warranting further consideration.) 54 ...... I Miles 0 5 10 15 ----0 5 10 15 20 25 Study Corridor lntertie (Hypothetical) ••••• 0 Figure 19 Transmission Corridors Surviving Preliminary Screening Northern Study Area "--1 Study Corridor lntertie {Hypothetical) ••••• 0 0 Miles 5 10 5 10 15 Kilometers .. --1 15 20 25 l POWER AUTHORITY susrfNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Figure 20 Transmission Corridors Surviving Preliminary Screening Central Study Area ) -1 ') ] Study Corridor lntertie (Hypothetical) ••••• 0 5 0 5 10 10 15 20 Kilometers 15 25 ,, 1 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY Figure 21 Transmission Corridors Surviving Preliminary. Screening Southern Study Area -i - . ,.... -i ...... Recommendations were made for use of construction techniques which would mitigate potential impacts. These included winter construction in wetlands, helicopter-based construction in areas that are remote or too wet for surmner access, use of techniques that allow for minimum clearing of vegetation, and use of aesthetically designed towers. 3.10-Subtask 7.10-Fish Ecology Studies The following are the specific objectives of TES with respect to fish ecology in the first year of the program: (1) identify areas of potential impact and the information necessary to assess these impacts, (2) locate available information appli~able to the Susitna River and the Susitna Hydroelectric Project, (3) identify information deficiencies, and (4) aid in the selection of a project development scheme. In addition, assistance has been given (under Subtask 7 .04) in the development of hydrology and water quality samp1 ing programs that wi 11 be beneficial .in ascertaining possible impacts upon the fishery resource and ·aid in mitigating these impacts. ADF&G baseline fisheries studies commenced in late 1980. TES has assisted in the preparation of the ADF&G Procedures Manual. Data from the field studies will not be available until the completion of ADF&G•s first 1981 Quarterly Report. TES is collecting pertinent literature on impact assessment and mitigation measures applicable to the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. The compilation of fundamental life history and ecology information on selected anadromous and resident fishes has also been assumed by TES to supplement the fishery field program results. This information is being obtained by contacting individuals with expertise in specific facets of fish ecology, searching personal libraries and files, gathering information from university and federal agency libraries, reviewing indexes of appropriate foreign publications, examining "in-house 11 programs for research and progress reports of appropriate federal and state agencies, as well as universities, and reviewing reports from the management agents of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game for the Susitna-Cook Inlet area and adjacent waters . 58 - As a guide to compliance with FERC's criteria for license application, potential impact issues (Table 9) and the kinds of engineering, hydrological and biological information required have been compiled. This information is to be supplied toTES from Acres, R&M Consultants and ADF&G. Acres has been provided with, by request and for use in their design considerations, information and reconrnendations concerning downstream flow, total dissolved gas pressure, and temperature of the discharge water. Reregulation of downstream flow from daily peaking operations has been recommended as an essential part of ~ny deyelopment plan. Potential program modifications and the concerns of federal, state, and local agencies in regard to the fish eco1?9Y studies have been addressed by TES. Recorrnnendations have been submitted to Acres American. 3.11 -Subtask 7.11: Wildlife Ecology Studies The baseline ecology of big game is being studied by ADF&G. Much of the following summary concerning big game is taken from draft sections of the ADF&G 1980 Annual Report. Impact assessment and mitigation planning for big game is the responsibility of TES and its consultants, as are the studies of furbearers, birds, and non-game mammals. 3 . 11. 1 - B i g G arne Biometrics and Data Processing Field investigations of big game are being facilitated by the use of radio-collars. The study involves (1) repeated habitat descriptions of habitats and repeated physical locations of big game, and (2) a body of data requiring initial standardization and periodic computer-aided analysis. Technical and conceptual problems associated with these requirements have been outlined and proposed solutions presented. Computer resource requirements have been identified; also, progress has been made in acquiring those resources and developing a production system. 59 -! ·-- ;·r- TABLE 9 POTENTIAL FISH ECOLOGY IMPACT ISSUES BY PROJECT STAGE (a) Project Stages CC, CD, RD, 0 co, 0 CD CD, 0 RD, 0 CD, RD, 0 CO, RD, 0 RD 0 0 0 0 CD, 0 a. Project stages: Potential Impact Issues Changes in the water quality Alteration of the temperature structure of the stream Possibility of excessive dissolved gas (nitrogen and oxygen) concentrations caused by plunging flows Changes in the chemical and physical conditions in spawning areas of anadromous fish Impact of temperature structure of reservoir on reservoir management and downstream conditions Reduction of turbidity downstream during the summer, resulting in increased predation Winter turbidity changes in the reservoir and downstream (including potential problem of silt trapped in layers because of density differences) Increase in nutrients in the reservoir and downstream from leaching Changing water quality conditions under the ice as a result of operation Development of new ice-free areas with increased predation and density of small fishes Development of frazil ice downstream Changed ice thickness downstream (because of increased winter flows) affecting temperature and downstream movement of fish Summer and winter flow changes and the ~mpact on fish reproduction, growth, and predation as well as critical flows for transportation (including access to tributaries and sloughs) CC -Construction of the cofferdam and river diversion CD Construction of the dam and reservoir filling time RD Development of limnological conditions and fishery management in the reservoir after filling 0 Operational stage including start-up - . F"" ! ..... (a) Project StaQeS 0 CD 0 CD, 0 0 CD, RD, 0 CD, RD, 0 CD, RD, 0 RD, 0 CD, 0 CD, RD, 0 CD, 0 CD, RD CD, 0 TABLE 9 {Cont•d) Potential Impact Issues Effect on present type of fish collection devices Extension of upstream anadromous fishery (if WatBna is constructed first) Bank scour caused by piping effect of increased flows under the ice Bed scour as affected by changing flows and ice Potential for increased production by the addition of new spawning areas and new rearing areas Potential loss of many present productive areas Formation (and management) of new lakes (impoundments) Changes in tributary stream access for fish Changes in personal use fishery Potential stranding and exposure of redds due to diel variation Changes in the habitats of resident fish popu 1 at ions Changes in the stream channel in terms of creation, alteration, or elimination of habitat Loss of existing fishery in impoundment area In general, effects on rearing, fish passage and egg incubation in the Susitna River from its mouth upstream to Devil Canyon F' ' -I !'*' I r I Brown and Black Bear Both black bear {Ursus americanus) and brown bear (.!:!_. arctos) populations in the vicinity of the proposed dam{s) appear to be healthy and productive. Brown bears occur throughout the study area (Figure 10) while black bears appear largely confined to the finger of forested habitat along the Susitna River. This finger becomes progressively narrower upstream. In 1980, twenty-seven brown bears and twenty-sev_en black bears were captured, utilizing helicopter darting techniques. Adults were marked and radio-call ared and were periodically relocated. Winter denning sites (1980-81) of nine radio-collared brown. bears are well above the proposed impoundment level. Brown bear uses of areas that would be directly affected by the proposed impoundments appeared greatest in the early spring following the bears' emergence from dens. Brown bears may be attracted to these areas in the spring by the early availability of both vegetable and animal foods. The proposed impoundments wi 11 presumably reduce this spring habitat. The most interior run of salmon known in the study area occurs at Prairie Creek, a feeder stream running from Stephan Lake to the Talkeetna River. Four of eleven radio-collared brown bears moved to Prairie Creek during the surrmer salmon run. Brown bear movements to or from Prairie Creek may be inhibited by impoundments or access routes, thereby reducing the availability of this salmon resource to an appreciable proportion of the bears in the study area. Studies in the headwaters of the Susitna River conducted by ADF&G in 1979 estimated a brown bear density of 1 bear/41-62 km2. It is conjectured that brown bear density in the impoundment area is roughly comparable. If so, the impoundment study area of 3,500 km2 contains approximately seventy brown bears. 62 -' I - Records of capture and subsequent locations for black bears suggest that black bear distribution in 1980 was largely confined to or near the spruce forests found in the vicinity of the Susitna River and its major tributaries. These are the habitats which will be most severely affected by the proposed impoundments; the restricted nature of black bear distribution in the study area suggests that these populations may be highly vulnerable to habitat losses by inundation as well as to disturbances associated with construction and improved access. Black bears were observed to cross the Susitna River more frequently than brown bears. This activity probably reflects the re 1 at i ve proximity of b 1 ack bear home ranges to the river. The motivation for or importance of these river crossings for black bears is not known, nor is it yet known whether the proposed impoundments waul d represent ·a significant barrier to such crossings. A 11 five of the radio-colla red black bears with 1980 dens in the vicinity of the Watana impoundment denned below 670 m (2,200 feet) elevation, which is the approximate, proposed high water mark of the Watana impoundment. Two of nine black bears denning in the vicinity of the Devil Canyon impoundment denned below 442 m (1,450 feet), which is the approximate, proposed high water mark for this impoundment. Thus, it seems clear that many den sites utilized by black bears in 1980 would be inundated by the proposed impoundments. The impact of this den inundation on black bear populations is as yet unknown. Black bear density appeared variable throughout the study area. A very rough estimate of 1 bear/4.1 km2 was offered for one area of relatively high density. Further study will ultimately permit a more accurate estimate of bear populations in the impact area. 63 - -i - - Caribou The Nelchina caribou herd, which occupies a range of about 50,000 km2 (20,000 mi2) in southcentral Alaska, has been important to hunters because of its size and proximity to population centers. The proposed Susitna impoundments would inundate a very small portion of apparently low quality caribou habitat. However, concern has been expressed that the impoundments and associated development might serve as barriers to caribou movement, increase mortality, decrease use of nearby areas and tend to isolate subherds. The overall objectives of the current study are to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed hydroelectric project on Nelchina caribou and to suggest possible mitigating measures. Because of the changeab 1 e nature of car~ bou movement patterns, short-term studies of distribution and movements must be tempered with historical perspective. It is fortunate that the Nelchina herd has been studied continuously since about 1948; records previous to that time have been reviewed also. The primary methodology for this study is the repetitive location of radio-collared caribou. Population estimates are made with a modified version of the aerial photo.,-direct count- extrapolation census procedure. Late winter distribution of caribou in 1980 was in the Chistochina-Gakona River drainages, the western foothills of the Alphabet Hills and the Lake Louise Flat. The two main routes to the traditional calving grounds in the northern foothills of the Talkeetna Mountains were (1) across the Lake Louise Flat into the calving area via the lower Oshetna River and (2) across the Susitna River in the area from Deadman Creek to the big bend ~f the Susitna. Calving occurred between the Oshetna River and Kosina Creek from 900 to 1,400 m (3,000 to 4,500 feet) elevation. The main summering 64 - - concentration of Nelchina caribou occurred on the northern and eastern slopes of the Talkeetna Mountains between Tsisi Creek and Crooked Creek, primarily between 1,200 and 1,800 m (4,000 and 6,000 feet). Most caribou were located on the Lake Louise Flat during the rut. During early winter, the herd was split in two groups; one was in the Slide Mountain-Little Nelchina River area, and the other was spread from the Chistochina River west to the Gakona River through the Alphabet Hills to the Maclaren River. It appeared {based on only eight months data) that at least two small subherds with separate calving areas existed, one in the upper Talkeetna River and one in the upper Nenana-Susitna River drainages. Insufficient data were available to evaluate the status of the Chunilna Hills group. The Nelchina caribou herd was estimated to contain 18,558 animals in October, 1980. Herd composition was estimated at 49.0% cows, 30.3% bulls and 20.7% calves. It was apparent from historical records (and to a lesser degree from movements of radio-collared animals) that the proposed Watana impoundment would intersect a major migratory route. It seems possible that the impoundment could be a barrier t·o movement and a potential source of mortality, particularly during spring migration when females are in relatively poor condition and various combinations of ice shelving, ice sheets, overflow, ice floes. and wind-blown glare ice could occur. The impoundment could tend to isolate the northwestern corner of the Nelchina range, an area which has been heavily used by caribou in the past. Access routes {roads, railroads, and air fields) could affect caribou movements depending on their locations and amount of use. The proximity of the calving grounds to the Watana impoundment is of concern because of the traditional fidelity to this calving ground and the possibility that increased human access and activity could result in reduced use. 65 •""' - - ·- The Devil Canyon dam site and impoundment appears to have virtually no potential to impact Nelchina caribou. The Watana site, however, would almost certainly have negative impacts, although the extent cannot yet be predicted. Dall Sheep No sheep were radio-collared, but an aerial survey of known or suspected Dall sheep habitat in the vicinity of the proposed project was conducted in July, 1980, to delineate sheep distribution. Three discrete areas of habitat were identified. Sheep in all three areas may be subject to disturbance from construction activities, helicopter traffic or access routes, although disturbance may be reduced or eliminated through routing or scheduling of human activities. Sheep occupying the Watana Creek Hi 11 s were observed in lowland habitats that might be inundated by the proposed Watana impoundment. Little is known about the importance of this habitat to the population, but it is possible that some attractant such as a mineral lick occurs there. If so, assessment of the impact of the Susitna Project on this sheep population will be more complex than anticipated. Wolverine During April and May, 1980, five adult wolverines were captured and four (three males, one female) were radio-collared. Eighty-six radio locations were obtained during 1980. Only three occurrences of river crossings were documented during the study period. Within their home ranges, all radio-collared wolverines showed a fidelity to upland shrub (willow-birch) habitats and to southerly and westerly slopes. 66 - ~ ' i -- Potential impacts on wolverines include the following: a loss of habitat due to inundation and construction (including roads and transmission lines), a probable reduction in prey densities, increased competition with other scavengers and predators, and a readjustment of home range size and seasonal movements. There is evidence that wolverines are intolerant of human disturbance. Impacts from disturbance might be influenced by the timing and placement of construction activities. For example, activities on southerly and westerly slopes are more likely to affect wolverines than are those on northerly or easterly slopes. Downstream Moose The present study focuses on the seasonal distribution of moose populations using the lower Susitna, the relative magnitude of seasonal moose use of the Susitna floodplain, and the relative use of associated habitats. In April, 1980, ten moose were equipped with radio/visual collars. Periodic relocation flights were conducted to determine each moose•s location, activity, and association with other moose and with habitat type. The small sample of marked moose, and the difficulty of spotting unmarked moose in the timber, made determination of major seasonal patterns of population distribution impracticable, although a variety of individual patterns was noted. More work on seasonal movement and distribution is needed. A preliminary survey of browse distribution and use along the river showed a mean of 1.4 browse p1antsfm2. Willow, most prevalent in early successional stages, was consistently well browsed. Birch, near the river, was also a preferred forage. Cottonwood, rose, and highbush cranberry were less used, and alder was largely unused. 67 - - - r-· Since moose forage is associated with the riparian area freqently disturbed by fluviatile processes, it would be expected that a major change in downstream flow patterns would influence downstream plant communities and, through them, downstream moose populations. The potential for such impact has not yet been assessed. The potential for managing downstream plant communities for increased production of moose forage, if this proves a desirable avenue of mitigation, appears excellent. Upstream Moose During April, 1980, forty adult moose were captured and each was radio-collared. Biological specimens were collected to evaluate the physical condition of each moose. Results were compared with those from a 1977 ADF&G study in the Susitna area and with data on other Alaskan moose populations. The physic a 1 condition of Sus it na moose appears to have deteriorated since 1977. This, in conjunction with the possibility of a lower pregnancy rate and an older age structure, suggests that this population is declining or is about to decline. Forty-three radio-collared moose (three were fromearlier studies} were radio-located on 563 occasions. Of that total, 9.2% occurred at elevations that would be inundated by the proposed impoundments. Most moose exhibited relatively short movement patterns, spending late winter and early spring at lower elevations and occupying upland areas in summer and fall. Only one moose was observed calving in the areas proposed to be inundated. Migratory moose were 1 ocated in areas east of Jay Creek except for one moose located at Watana Creek. Moose river crossings on the Susitna by radio-collared animals were concentrated at the mouth of Fog Creek, between Watana and Jay Creek, and above Goose Creek. The proposed impoundment zones cti d pot appear to harbor any significant rutting groups of moose. 68 -I ·- Rates of calf production were c9mparable with those observed in 1977 and 1978. Mortality of newborn moose calves was high and comparable to that observed in 1977 and 1978 when brown bears were identified as th~ largest cause of mortality. Of ·the moose observed during a winter distribution survey conducted in March, 1980, 6% were located in areas to be inundated. Tracks suggested that considerably more moose had been in these areas earlier in the winter. Sex and age composition surveys and a random stratified census were conducted in the study area during November, 1980. It was estimated that 2,046 ~ 382 moose occupied the areas north and south of the proposed Wat ana impoundment. A crude population estimate of 1,151 moose was made for the project area lying west of Kosina and Watana Creeks. The potential impacts of the proposed project include the following: loss of habitat and mortality of moose occupying the impoundment areas, decreased range carrying capacity of adjacent areas due to overstocking by the d i sp 1 aced moose, disruption and perhaps prevention of both sedentary and migratory moose crossings of the Susitna River, alteration of weather patterns causing increased mortality and decreased productivity, and an increase in accidental deaths. It was suggested that the Watana impoundment would have a larger impact on moose than the Devil Canyon impoundment. Wolves During 1980, Twenty-three wolves from five separate wolf packs were radio-collared in an effort to identify some packs which could be impacted by hydroelectric development. An additional four or five wolf packs were suspected of occupying parts of the project area, but no wo 1 ves from these packs were captured because of the late arrival of telemetry equipment and 69 poor snow conditions. During 1980, 556 radio locations were obtained on the twenty-three radio-collared wolves. A minimum of forty wolves were known to inhabit the study area in spring 1980. By fa 11, the packs had increased by 93% to an estimated seventy-seven wolves. Territory sizes for the five studied wolf packs averaged 1,171 km2 (452 mi2) and ranged from 549 to 2,126 km2 (212 to 821 mi2). Known and suspected wolf territories were mapped. Based upon track counts, public sightings, and radio telemetry st~dies,. it was determined that at least four and perhaps five wolf packs would be directly affected by the proposed impoundments. An additional five wolf packs could be indirectly affecte~ by the proposed project if it results in lower moose densities or disrupts the movement patterns of migratory moose. Radio-collared wolves were observed on forty-eight kills during kills. of a 11 1980. Moose of all age classes comprised 52% of the Calves were the most common moose age class. Caribou age classes comprised 38% of the observed kills. During 1980 two packs were intensively monitored to determine rates of predation on moose. Predation rates varied from 1 k ill/4. 0 days for a pack of four wo 1 ves to 1 k i 11/4.9 days for a pack of eight wolves. Moose counts were conducted in each pack terri tory and the observed numbers were compared with predation rates. It was concluded that these two wolf packs were a significant cause of calf (short yearling) mortality. The locations of seventeen wolf den and rendezvous sites have been observed in the study area si nee 1975. Thus far, two wolf packs have been discovered which have either den or rendezvous sites in areas that would be directly impacted by the project. 70 lf"' I The most important potental impact of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project on wolves would occur indirectly due to reductions in prey density~ particularly of moose. The disruption of movements or reductions in migratory moose densities may reduce wolf densities for considerable distances away from the areas actually inundated. Temporary increases in wolf density may occur in the project area due to the displacement of moose and caribou from the impoundment areas. Direct inundation of wolf habitat, particularly den and rendezvous sites~ may also lower wolf densities. Additional wolf mortality will probably occur due to increased hunting and trapping activities resulting from publicity concerning the area•s wildlife and as access becomes developed. 3.11.2 -Furbearers Progress was made on all aspects of furbearer and habitat inventories and impact assessment during the first year of investigation. Emphasis was placed on population surveys and seasonal furbearer /habitat re 1 at i onshi ps. Furbearers that may inhabit the impact areas include red fox~ coyote, lynx, mink, pine marten, river otter, short-tailed weasel, least weasel, muskrat and beaver. General estimates of furbearer abundance and habitat use during periods of snow cover were based upon aerial transects and aerial checks of lakes and ponds. Surveys of aquat.ic furbearers were conducted from a river boat during August in the downstream area. Movements of individual foxes, marten and mink, and their preference for particular habitats were monitored by radio telemetry. Diets of carnivorous furbearers were investigated by identifying food remains in their droppings and food remains in the digestive tracts of furbearers taken by trappers in the area. 71 Populations of all furbearers identified for investigation exist within the impoundment areas and along the Susitna River from Devil Canyon to Cook Inlet; however, numbers of coyotes and lynx are presently low. Beavers and muskrats are present along much of the river and its main tributaries. Beaver numbers increase progressively from Devil Canyon downstream to the confluence of the Kashwitna River. Five red fo.xes were outfitted with radio-cellars. Red foxes in the study area used dens 1 ater in the autumn than has previously been reported for foxes. Some red foxes appear to uti 1 i ze the shores of the Susitna River and deltas of tributaries during surrmer and autumn, then shift to alpine zones in winter as snow depth increases along the river. Other foxes appear to remain above timberline throughout the year. Four pine marten and two mink were radi6-collared during 1980. It appears that adult male marten have mutually exclusive home ranges during summer with creeks in some cases forming the boundaries. The activity data gathered during autumn suggest that marten at that time are generally nocturnal with a minor activity peak around noon. Loss of habitat and reductions in furbearer numbers may be expected in areas inundated, where roads are constructed, and at borrow pits. It is expected that pine marten will be most severely affected, followed in decreasing order by mink, fox, otter and weasel. High levels of human activity and noise pollution during furbearer breeding and denning seasons could severely alter the reproductive success of all species. Projected changes in flow rates of the Sus itna River downstream from the Dev i1 Canyon impoundment could result in marked changes in the habitats available to aquatic furbearers. Beaver and muskrat could benefit from delayed freeze-up in autumn and possibly benefit from more stable rates of flow. The anticipated seasonal drawdown of the Watana impoundment is likely to p~event the impoundment from becoming suitable habitat for beaver, muskrat, mink and river otter. 72 !""', { i Changes in impoundment design to lower and/or stabilize the pool levels would mitigate the negative impact on furbearers by reducing the Toss of foraging and denni ng habitats. Loss of habitat from construction of dams, borrow pits, access roads and diversion tunnels could be minimized by utilizing borrow and fill sites as close as possible to actual construction. Regarding the access route to impoundment sites, the best access route would probably be Corridor 2, from Gold Creek (south of the river) to Devil Canyon, then across the river and following Corridor 1 from Devil Canyon to the Watana site (Figure 17). If only the Watana dam is to be constructed, Corridor 3 from the Denali Highway to the Watana site would be preferred from the standpoint of the impact on furbearers. Creek drainages and adjacent areas are extremely important to furbearers. It is recommended that access roads and construction activities be outside creek valleys wheri practical. 3.11.3 -Birds and Non-Game Mammals The first year 1 s field studies of the birds and small (non.-game) mammals of the upper Susitna River basin were conducted from 6 July to 4 October 1980. The overall study area extended from near Sherman on the west to the mouth of the Mac 1 aren River on the east and for approximately 15 km (10 miles) on either side of the Susitna River channel (Figure 14). Within this region during 1980, {1) ten 10.-ha (25-acre) intensive sites were established for subsequent animal-habitat studies, ( 2) thirteen small mammal traplines were established and, between 26 August and 2 September, sma 11 mamma 1 s in the respective habitats of these traplines were sampled, (3) a raptor survey was flown on 6 July, {4) fall waterbird surveys were flown between 7 September and 4 October, and {5) general bird and small mammal surveys were conducted throughout the period at a number of more-or-1 ess random locations. Data for the region are still very limited, so interpretations made are preliminary in nature and conclusions are tentative. 73 - - r r-1 ~I ~ I Intensive study plots were established in vegetation types that represented each of the major woody avian habitats present in the region in sufficient size and uniformity to accommodate a square 10-ha plot: low birch shrub thicket, medium birch shrub thicket, low-medium willow shrub thicket, tall alder thicket, cottonwood forest, paper birch forest, white spruce-~aper birch forest, white spruce forest, white spruce scattered woodland, and black spruce dwarf forest. Small mammal traplines were established in all but the low birch shrub thicket and, in addition, in sedge-low shrub meadow, tall forb meadow, and black spruce-white spruce forest. Thirteen small mammal species were found during 1980, and the presence of three others was suspected. During the fall survey, red-backed voles and masked shrews were the most abundant species trapped; these, plus the dusky shrew, appeared to be habitat generalists, occupying a wide range of vegetation types. Meadow voles and pygmy shrews were least abundant and the most restricted in their habitat use, the former occurring only in meadows and the latter in forests. Tall forb meadow, sedge-low shrub meadow, and cottonwood forest had the most small mammals and most diverse communities, while paper birch forest and white spruce forest had the fewest individuals and lowest diversities. A total of 115 species of birds was recorded during the 1980 field season; the most abundant were scaup sp. and Common Redpoll. Blue-winged Teal, American Kestrel, White-tailed Ptarmigan, Short-eared Owl, Northern Phalarope, Greater Yellowlegs, Lesser Yellnwlegs, Surfbird, Sanderling, and Pectoral Sandpiper were classified as "rare" on the basis of 1980 sightings. All, however, are represented by healthy breeding populations elsewhere, and futurefield work is expected to prove some of them more abundant in the study area than currently classified. 74 -j \ I I I Ten active raptor/raven nests were counted during the raptor survey; of these, two Bald Eagle nests and at least four Golden Eagle nests would be flooded by Devil Canyon-Watana impoundments, as would about three currently inactive raptor/raven nest sites. Little time was spent in wetland areas during the summer season, but cursory observations indicated a low population of waterbirds .on tne lakes of the region. Trumpeter Swans, however, nested on a number of the 1 akes between the Oshetna and Tyone Rivers. At least twenty-one species of loons, grebes, and waterfowl were identified during the fall aerial surveys. Species composition was similar to that in interior Alaska, with scaup sp. being the most abundant species (38% of observations) and American Wigeon the second most abundant (lS%)~ The relative importance in the region of the waterbodies of the upper Sus i tna River basin for migrants appeared 1 ow; a 1 ake near the mouth of the Maclaren River and the Stephan Lake area are relatively most important. Assessment of impacts of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project can only be general at this stage of study and this stage of planning for construction and operation. The major impacts would be from habitat destruction due to f1ooding and from a range of habitat alterations due to various factors of construction and operation. Flooding would destroy a large percentage of the riparian cliff habitat and forest habitats upriver of the Devil Canyon dam. Raptors and ravens using the cliffs could be expected to find alternative nesting sites in the surrounding mountains, and the forest inhabitants are relatively common breeders in forests in adjacent regions. Lesser amounts of lowland meadow and of fluviatile shoreline and alluvia (each important to a few species) would also be lost. None of the waterbodies that appear to be important to waterfowl would be flooded, nor would the important prey species of the 75 r I - upland tundra areas be thus affected. Impacts of other types of habitat alteration would depend on the type of alteration, e.g., which habitats are destroyed or altered or which replacement habitats develop. Generally, animals that are habitat generalists will be less affected than habitat specialists. Mitigation of potential impacts on waterfowl, raptors, and their habitats through avoidance is recommended, i.e., by keeping construction and related activities at a distance from potential raptor cliffs and from the Stephan-Murder Lake area. 3.12-Subtask 7.12: Plant Ecology Studies The objectives of the Plant Ecology Studies during 1980 were (1) to produce preliminary vegetation/habitat and wetlands maps, (2) to provide vegetation descriptions of each type mapped, and (3} to survey for proposed endangered and threatened species. The vegetation/habitat types found in the upper Susitna River basin and the floodplain down to Talkeetna were described, classified, and mapped. Reconnaissance of many locations throughout the study area was made in summer 1980 to obtain information on species composition and community structure. Ocular estimates of the cover of each species in each layer of vegetation were made, and these data were used to classify the vegetation according to the system developed by Viereck and Dyrness (A Preliminary Classification System for Vegetation of Alaska, U.S. Forest Service, 1980). High altitude (U2) color infrared photographs and LANDSAT imagery were used to map the vegetation cover types. Maps were produced at the scales of 1:250,000 for the entire basin and 1:24,000 ·for the direct impact areas. Additionally, the area extending 16 km (10 miles) in any direction from the proposed impoundment areas is being mapped at a scale of 1:63,360. A 1:24,000 scale map of apparent wetlands was also produced, based on the 1:24,000 scale vegetation map and the wetlands classification system used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service {Cowardin et ..!!._., Classification of Wetlands and Deep- water Habitats of the United States, 1979}. Surveys on foot and by helicopter were also made of several lakes and ponds within and adjacent to the direct impact areas to determine the composition and structure of plant communities occurring in or near the water. 76 . _ _:__] ~ __] ~-] ~-_]; _-] TABLE 10 HECTARES OF DIFFERENT VEGETATION TYPES TO BE AFFECTED COMPARED WITH TOTAL HECTARES OF THOSE TYPES IN THE ENTIRE UPPER SUSITNA RIVER BASIN. (Number in parentheses is the percent of the vegetation type as found in the entire upper basin.) Impoundments Borrow Areas Upper Sus i tna . Devi 1 Can ,Yon Watana A c D F H River Basin Woodland spruce 162 (0.09) 4766 (2,53) 228 (0.12) 77 ~ 0. 04 ~ 15 (0. 01 ) 227 ~0.12~ 188,391 Open spruce 862 ( 0. 73) 3854 (3.24) 48 (0.04) 7 0.01 125 0.11 118,873 Open birch 73 p .54) 318Af2.85) ly 968 Closed birch 470~ . 491-323 Open conifer-deciduous 300 (1.28) 1329 (5.68) 19 (0.08) 9 ( o. 04) 94 (0.40) 23,387 Closed conifer-deciduous 758bf4.75) 869 (5.44) 2 (0.01) 15,968 Open balsam poplar 7- 2PJ Closed balsam poplar 10PJ Wet sedge-grass 12 (0.25) 100 ( 2. 07) 6 (0.12) {0.02) 4,839 Mat and cushion tundra 78 (0.12) 65 ,o01Y Tall shrub 19(0.01) 580 ( 0. 45) 18 ( 0. 01 ) Z3 (0.02) 8 ~0. 01) 129,035 Birch shrub 58 (0.17) 474 ~1 .41) 18 (0.05) 92 (0. 27) 73 0.22) 33,549 ~Ji 11 ow 16 (0. 15) 55 0.52) 7 ( 0. 07) 10,645 Low mixed shrub 6 {+) .785 (0.15) 101 (0.02) 113 {0.02) 109 (0.02) 55 ( 0. 01 ) 46 (0.01) 471,461 Lakes 1 (+) 47 (0.22) 3 ( 0. 01) 1 (+) 21,162 Rivers 835 (5.69) 21 06 ( 14 . 35 ) 10 (0. 07) 6 (0.04) 14,673 Rock "14 (0,01} 63 (0.06) (.+ l 113,712 Total ar~as 3603 (0.22) 15839 ( 0. 97) 500 (0.03) 322 {0.03)· 228 (0. Ol) 71 (+) 499 (0.03) 1 ,211 , 992 ~ Hectares of closed birch are apparently greater in the impact areas than for the entire basin, because the basin was mapped at a much smaller scale, and many of the closed birch stands did not appear at that scale. Pi Balsam poplar stands were too small to be mapped at the scale of which the upper Susitna River basin was mapped. Y Total hectares of mat and cushion tundra are much greater than this, but many hectares were mapped as a complex with sedge-grass tundra. -I ' ' '· ! - Results of reconnaissance surveys of the vegetation/habitat types show that at least 243 species in 130 genera and 55 families are present in the upper Susitna River basin. Of these, the presence of 21 represented extensions of the previously known ranges of the species. Special effort was made to locate any species which are currently under review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for possible status as ~endangered or threatened. Although some potential habitats of these species were located, none of the species was found. The preliminary 1:250,000 seale vegetation/habitat type map of the entire upper Susitna basin (Figure 22) is provided in the back pocket of this report. The major vegetation/habitat types found in the upper basin study area are low mixed shrub, woodland and open black spruce, sedge-grass tundra, mat and cushion tundra, and birch shrub. These vegetation/habitat types are typical of those covering vast areas of Alaska and northern Canada. Characteristically these types are found on cold, wet soils and exhibit slow or stuntedgrowth. less than 3% of the upper basin area is vegetated by deciduous or mixed conifer-deciduous forests which, by contrast, have more robust growth characteristics. The approximate area of each vegetation/habitat type to be inundated by the proposed impoundments and eliminated by proposed borrow areas, relative to the area of each type in the entire upper Susitna basin, are presented in Table 10 .. Deciduous and mixed conifer-deciduous forests occur primarily along the Susitna River where soils are better drained and the growing season is longer than elsewhere in the upper basin. Consequently, a large portion of deciduous and mixed forests found in the study area would be destroyed by the proposed impoundments. Other vegetation/habitat types (mixed shrub, birch shrub, tall shrub, and spruce) would also be lost by inundation, but in small degree relative to their availability across the entire upper Susitna River basin. 78 - ,.... ! - l If that vegetation/habitat which is destroyed is found to have considerable importance as browse for moose, there may be some opportunity to create replacement browse supplies in adjacent areas either by burning or clearing to stimulate the regrowth of palatable shrubs. Generally speaking, however, losses of vegetation can not be mitigated. However, in those situations where the vegetation is only temporarily destroyed (e.g., around construction sites, along roads, and at borrow areas) revegetation by mulching and seeding with native species may quickly restore ground cover .. Natural revegetation following fertilization also appears promising in mitigating temporary losses of vegetation. 3.13-Subtask 7.13: Geological Analysis This subtask is being performed as part of the studies conducted under Task 5 -Geotechnical Exploration. As such, TES has no formal involvement. However, the University of Alaska performed some geological analyses as background for the Cultural Resources Investigation (Subtask 7.06) and discussions have been held with other Project Geologists. Geological information of interest to Acres and its other subcontractors is contained in the 1980 Semi-annual Report and Annual Report for Subtask 7.06. 3.14 -Subtask 7.14: Access Road Environmental Analysis The general objective of this subtask is to provide environmental input into the screening of alternatives and the selection of an access route to the dam site(s). The specific objectives are {1) to coordinate the exchange of information between those studying the engineering and those studying the environmental aspects of the route selection, and (2) to compile environmental input regarding specific potenti~ impacts of routing for each alternative proposed. 79 r ~ I, : ~ I .n , ..... The methods used consisted of initial screening of numerous alternative routes by aerial reconnaissance early in 1980. This initial screening resulted in narrowing the number of alternatives to three basic corridors (Figure 17). Information (maps) about these corridors was disseminated to environmental subcontractors and ADF&G so that preliminary screening could be accomplished during the summer of 1980. Input on potentially significant impact areas was solicited from these groups in the fall and early winter of 1980. Information was also solicited about the impacts on land use and the socioeconomic consequences of the various alternative corridors. Inputs from all disciplines were compiled by TES into a summary report submitted to Acres and APA in March, 1981. At the same time, locations of specific potential impacts were drawn on maps and supplied to R&M Consultants for inclusion in their engineering and cost report on access. A summary of the potential cultural resource and biological impacts along the three. corridors follows. Access routing as it affects socioeoC'nomic issues and regional and local land use is discussed in this report under Subtasks 7.05 and 7.07, respectively. Archeological sites have been discovered near all access corridors. In addition, certain areas along the corridors (i.e., the margins of 1 akes, stream banks, confluences of drainages, and areas of high topographic relief with commanding views of the surrounding terrain) have higher probabilities for containing sites than do others. The access corridor from the Denali Highway (Corridor 3) has the potential for greater secondary impacts (deliberate or accidental disturbance of archeological sites by visitors), because the surrounding terrain is more open and accessible than other areas through which corridors pass. Impacts on vegetation due to the construction of an access road are fairly straightforward: habitat removal and/or disturbance. Major wetland areas have been and could be further avoided by slight realignments and do not necessarily constitute major environmental problem areas. No known locations of endangered or threatened plant species would be intersected by any of the alternative access corridors; searches for such species will continue during 1981. 80 .... Little is currently known about fish and fish habitat in the areas to be affected by any of the access corridors. The two routes from the west (Corridors 1 and 2) cross the Indian River and/or the Susitna River, and the corridor on the north side of the Susitna from the Parks Highway (Corridor 1) is also routed close to Portage Creek. In these cases, there is potential for disturbance to the salmon fishery. In addition, other stream crossings in the upper basin and construction of routes in proximity to streams and lakes may adversely affect resident fish and their habitats. The primary :impact.on birds and small marrmals by any access corridor would be through the actual removal or disturbance of habitats. Some species of birds, particularly raptors, may be secondarily impacted by disturbance due to human activity near their nesting habitat even if the nest site itself is undisturbed. Cliff-nesting birds of prey in areas such as near the confluence of Portage Creek and the Susitna Ri~er~ in the Devil Canyon area (Corridor 1), and in cliffs along unnamed drainages on the south side of the river (Corridor 2) may be disturbed. Waterfowl may also be disturbed, particularly by the corridor that passes close to the Stephan Lake-Fog Lakes area (Corridor 2). As for furbearers, ·habitat removal may have less ·impact on them than the indirect effects of increased access. There is some evidence that certain species of furbearers are more sensitive to the presence of man than others and therefore avoid areas near human activity. With furbearers, there also may be indirect, but possibly significant, impacts due to increased access by trappers after construction. Certain locations, through or near which alternative corridors pass, have been found to support high populations of furbearers. Examples of these areas are the Portage Creek drainage (Corridor 1), the High Lake area (Corridor 1), and the Stephan Lake-Fog Lakes area (Corridor 2). 81 ' ' I Big game impacts are perhaps the most difficult to ascertain because of the mobility of these species and other biological factors. Site- specific impacts may be of lesser magnitude than indirect impacts due to increased human activity. including not only hunting but traffic and other kinds of activity. The corridor south of the Susitna River (Corridor 2) will intersect a brown bear summer migration route from the Susitna to the Prairie Creek drainage. This same corridor intersects good habitat for moose in the Stephan Lake area. Moose habitat is also intersected north of the Susitna River in the Tsusena Creek drainage {Corridor 1) and along Deadman Creek (Corridor 3). Finally. important caribou habitat is intersected by all three corridors: at higher elevations between Devil Creek and Deadman Creek (Corridor 1). a wintering area south of Devil Canyon {Corridor 2). and. subherd ca 1 vi ng areas in a 1 arge area south of the Dena 1 i Highway near Butte lake (Corridor 3). Partial avoidance of this last area could possibly be accomplished by rerouting the northern portion of this corridor toward the west. In summary. the potentially greatest impacts with respect to many different environmental disciplines would appear to be in three areas through which various portions of the alternative corridors pass: (1) the Portage Creek drainage, (2) the Stephan Lake-Fog lakes area, and {3) the northern end of the route from the Denali Highway. Each alternative corridor would adversely affect one of these areas. 3.15-Subtask 7.15: Preparation of FERC License Application Exhibit This subtask will consist of the compilation and condensation of project reports from the various environmental disciplines into an environmental report, which will be incorporated by Acres into the feasibility report and FERC 1 icense application. No work on this subtask was scheduled for 1980. 82 ,,..., •. I , I 3.16-Task 12: Public Participation Program TES personnel were involved in two specific public participation activities that occurred during 1980. In addition, environmental personnel cooperated with the APA public participation staff and Acres' Task 12 Coordinator throughout the year. In July, 1980, several TES staff members and several consultants participated in an informational presentation of the Plan of Study to the Susitna Hydroelectric Project Steering Committee. Representatives of the FERC were also present at the meeting. The presentation included outlining plans for the environmental and other studies to be done to obtain the necessary information for the FERC license application submission. In November, 1980, a TES consultant and APA participated in a presentation in Soldotna to the Board of Directors of the Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association. The Susitna Project fisheries program was outlined and discussed, and questions concerning i:t were · answered. 83 ,...., 4 -REPORTS The following reports have been prepared by TES and its subcontractors concerning the environmental studies for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. For completeness and currency of reference, reports prepared through May, 1981, and reports under preparation are included, as well as reports by ADF&G. 4.1 -Reportsby TES and Subcontractors 4.1.1 -Reports Prepared Subtask 7.01: Coordination of Environmental Studies February, 1980. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Plan of Study: Task 7 Environmental Studies. March, 1981. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies: Plan for Agency Contact Coordination. April, 1981. Susitna Hydroelectric Project: Task 7 Environmental Studies Status Report. May, 1981. Susitna Hydroelectric Project: Task 7 Environmental Studies Summary Annual Report. Subtask 7.03: Evaluation of Alternatives August, 1980. Susitna Hydroelectric Project: Task 1 Termination Report -Subtasks 1.03 and 1.05. December, 1980. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies: Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Tunnel Alternatives. January, 1981. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies: Environmental Considerations of Alternative Hydroelectric Development Schemes for the Upper Susitna Basin. (Draft) Subtask 7.05: Socioeconomic Analysis June, 1980. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Procedures Manual Subtask 7.05: Socioeconomic Analysis. 84 r- 1 I - . I -. I rr"" August, 1980. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Semi-annual Report Subtask 7.05: Socioeconomic Analysis. {Draft) May, 1981. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Annual Report Subtask 7.05: Socioeconomic Analysis. Subtask 7.06: Cultural Re~ources Investigation July, 1980. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Procedures Manual Subtask 7.06: Cultural Resources Investigation. August, 1980. Sus itna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Semi-annual Report Subtask 7.06: Cultural Resources Investigation. ·(Draft) May, 1981. Susitna Hydroelectric Annual Report Subtask 7.06: Subtask 7.07: Land Use Analysis Project Environmental Studies Cultural Resources Investigation. July, 1980. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Procedures Manual Subtask 7.07: Land Use Analysis. August, 1980. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Semi-annual Report Subtask 7.07: Land Use Analysis. {Draft) Subtask 7.08: Recreation Planning July, 1980. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Procedures Manual Subtask 7.08: Recreation Planning. October, 1980. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Recreation Questionnaire. Subtask 7.09: Susitna Transmission Corridor Assessment February, 1981. Critique of the Corps of Engineers• Environmental Assessment for Transmission Systems. March, 1981. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies: Preliminary Environmental Screening of Alternative Transmission Corridors. Subtask 7.10: Fish Ecology Studies August, 1980. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Procedures Manual Subtask 7.10: Fish Ecology Impact Assessment and Mitigation Planning. 85 - -- Subtask 7.11: Wildlife Ecology Studies July, 1980. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Procedures Manual Subtask 7.11: Wildlife Ecology· Big Game Impact Assessment and Mitigation Planning. July, 1980. Sus itna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Procedures Manual Subtask 7.11: Wildlife Ecology- Furbearers. July, 1980. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Procedures Manual Subtask 7.11: ·Wildlife Ecology· Birds and Non-game Mammals. August~ 1980. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Semi-annual Report Subtask 7.11: Furbearers Studies. (Draft) April, 1981. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Annual Report Subtask 7.11: Birds and Non-game Marnnals. May~ 1981. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Annual Report Sutbask 7.11 • Furbearers Studies. Subtask 7.12~ Plant Ecology Studies August, 1980. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Procedures Manual Subtask 7~12: Plant Ecology Studies. August, 1980. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Semi-annual Report Subtask 7.12: Plant Ecology Studies. (Draft) May, 1981. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Annual Report Subtask 7.12: Plant Ecology Studies. Subtask 7.14: Access Road Environmental Analysis July, 1980. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Procedures Manual Subtask 7.14: Access Road Analysis. February, 1981. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies: Environmental Analysis of Access Road Alternatives. 86 - ··~ ··-: :_: 'I ·.~ 4.1.2 -Reports In Preparation Subtask 7.07: Land Use Analysis Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Annual Report Subtask 7.07: Land Use Analysis. Subtask 7.10: Fish Ecology Studies Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Annual Report Subtask 7.10: Fish Ecology Impact Assessment and Mitigation Planning. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental "Studies Series of Mini-reports Subtask 7.10: Fish Ecology Studies- Chinook Salmon Do 11 y Varden Coho Sa1mon Bur bot Pink Salmon Eulachon Chum Salmon Rainbow Trout Sockeye Salmon Lake Trout Arctic Grayling Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Subtask 7.10: Fish Ecology Studies Bibliography of Impact Assessment and Mitigation Literature Applicable to the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Subtask 7.11: Wildife Ecology Studies Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Annual Report Subtask 7.11: Big Game. 4.2 -Reports by Alaska Department of Fish and Game 4.2.1 -Reports Prepared Wildlife Ecology Studies: Big Game June, 1980. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Quarterly Reports: Caribou, Bears, Wolf, Downstream Moose, Upstream Moose, Wolverine. 87 ( 1 ··~ .:.l""l' September, 1980. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Quarterly Reports: Caribou, Bears, Wolf, Downstream Moose, Upstream Moose, Wolverine, Dall Sheep. October, 1980. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Procedures Manual Subtask 7.11: Wildlife/Big Game. March, 1981. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Annual Progress Report Subtask 7.11: Big Game. 4.2.2 -Reports in Preparation Fish Ecology Studies Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Phase I Procedures Manual Subtask 7.10: Fish Ecology Studies. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Quarterly Report: Fish Ecology Studies. Wildlife Ecology Studies: Big Game Susitna Hydroelectric Project Quarterly Reports: Big Game Studies. 88 ..... I 5 -AUTHORITIES CONTACTED The following authorities were contacted byTES and its subcontractors between October 1, 1979 and December 31, 1980. Included are contacts with federal, state, and local agencies and other institutions, organizations and individuals. These contacts range from inquiries concerning pertinent available data to presentations concerning the approach of the environmental studies. This list is not intended to include those contacts made with other members of the Environmental Studies Team, although some project personnel are listed because of the capacity in which they were contacted. 5.1 Federal Agencies United Stat~s Department of Agriculture Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service • Lola Britton: File Manager Economics and Statistics Service -Paul Fuglestad: Agricultural Economist Farmers Home Administration -Delon Brown Forest Service, Institute of Northern Forestry -Joan Foote: Biologist -Fred Larson: Research Forester ·Vic VanBallenberghe: Wildlife Biologist -Leslie Viereck: Principal Plant Ecologist Soil Conservation Service -Weymeth Long: Director of State Office -Sterling Powell: Physical Engineer, Water Resource Specialists United States Department of Commerce National Marine Fisheries Service -Bradley Smith, Fishery Biologist 89 - - ·- ··-[ United States Department of Defense Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District -Loran Baxter: Civil Engineer -Phillip Brna: Biologist -James Caruth: Chief of Regulatory Functions Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District -Ruth Love: Sociologist United states Department of Education -Lee Hays United States Department of Energy Alaska Power Administration -Robert Cross: Administrator -Donald Shira Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Division of Licensed Projects -Paul Carrier: Engineer -Donald Clarke: Staff Counsel -Ronald Corso: Director -Quentin Edson: Chief, Environmental Analysis Branch -Peter Foote -Mark Robinson: Environmental Biologist Dean Shumway: Chief, Conservation Section -Gerald Wilson: Chief, Project Analysis United States Department of Housing and Urban Development -Debra Pevl ear -E. Robinson United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management -Lee Barkow: Planner, Easement Identification Branch -Stanley Bronczyk: Chief, Easement Identification Branch -Gary Hennigh: Socioeconomic Specialist -Paula Krebs: Remote Sensing Specialist -Ray Leicht: Archeologist -John Rego: Geologist -Debbie Robertson: Land Management Officer, Division of Forest, Land and Water Management 90 - - ' .I"- - -Charles Smythe: Socioeconomics Specialist -Page Spencer: Remote Sensing Specialist -Steve Talbot: Ecologist Bureau of Mines -Michael Brown: Chemist -Joanne Gidlund: Public Affairs Fish and Wildlife Service -Robert Bowker: Field Supervisor, Western Alaska Ecological Services Unit -Gregory Konkel: Habitat Evaluation Coordinator -John Morrison: Supervisor, Biological Services Program -Wayne Regelin: Research Biologist -Me 1 Schamerger: Habitat Evaluation Procedures Group Leader, Biological Services Program -John Trapp: Marine Bird Management Project Leader -Richard Wilmot: Fisheries Research Project Leader Geological Survey -Robert Lamke: Chief, Hydrology Section Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service -Charles McKinney: Consulting Archeologist -Gail Russell: Interagency Services Divison -Bradley Smith -William Weler -Larry Wright: Review Section Chief, Federal Projects United States Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration, The Alaska Railroad -Fred Hoefler, Traffic Officer United States Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Evaluation Branch -Judi Schwartz: Environmental Protection Specialist Environmental Impact Statement Review Section -Dan Sternborn: Team Leader 91 5.2 -State Agencies Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development Division of Energy and Power Development -Heinz Noonan: Economist -David Reume Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs -Sylvia Spearon: Assistant Planner -Richard Spitler: Planner -Mark Stephens: Planner Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation -Robert Martin: Regional Supervisor -David Sturdevant: Management and Technical Assistant Ecologist Alaska Department of Fish and Game -Ronald Skoog: Commissioner Division of Boards -Robert Larson: Biologist, Division Director Division of Commercial Fisheries -Dennis Haanpaa: Assistant Regional Supervisor -Alan Kingsbury: Regional Research Supervisor Division of Forest, Land and Water Management -Raymond Mann: Southcentral District Planning Officer Divison of Enforcement -Lt. Mi 11 s Division of Game -Paul Arneson: Biologist -Gregory Bas: Game Biologist IV -Sterling Efde: Regional Supervisor -David Johnson: Game Biologist -Herbert Melchior: Game Biologist III -Lee Miller: Fish and Game Technician V -Sterling Miller: Game Biologist III -Suzanne Miller: Statistician, Biometrician III -Kenneth Pitcher: Game Biologist -Charles Schwartz: Biologist II -Karl Schneider: Research Coordinator -Jerome Sexton: Game Biologist II 92 -~ - i_A"" -~ I -! r I i ' I Division of Habitat Protection -Dimitri Bader: Lands Coordinator, Habitat Biologist -Richard Cannon: Habitat Biologist III -John Clark: Assistant Chief -Richard Logan: Chief -Frances VanBallenberghe: Habitat Biologist III Division of Sport Fisheries -Christopher Estes: Fishery Biologist III, Susitna Aquatic Studies -Larry Heckart: Fishery Biologist IV -Michael Mills: Senior Fisheries Biometrician III -Thomas Trent: Regional Supervisor, Susitna Aquatic Studies Coordinator, Vice Chairman of Susitna Steering Committee -Kyle Watson: Clerk -IV Subsistence Division -Ronald Stanek: Resource Specialist II Alaska Department of Labor -Rod Brown: Supervisor of Research, Administration Services, Research and Analysis Section -Chuck Caldwell: Chief of Research and Analysis Section -Cal Daue1: Labor Economist -Neil Fried: labor Economist -Steve Harrison: labor Economist -Chris Miller: Labor Economist -Sally Sadler: labor Economist Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Forest Land and Water -Mary lou Harle: Water Management Officer Division of Lands -Dean Brown: Southcentral District Lands Officer -Michael Franger: Special Projects Officer Division of Parks -Chip Dennerlein: Director -liza Holzapple: Park Planner, Division of Parks -Jack Wiles: Chief 93 ·~ I : I .·~ - - Divison of Pipeline Surveillance -Elstun Lauesen: Socioeconomic Officer Divison of Research and Development -William Beatty: Planning Supervisor, Land Resources -Randy Cowart: Planner -Carol Larsen: Public Information Officer -Robert Loeffler: Associate Planner -Steve Reeve: Chi~f, Land and Resources Planning Section -Ronald Swanson: Land Management Officer, Policy Research Land Entitlement Unit Division of Water Resources -Richard Stern: Historian~ Research and Planntng Alaska Department of Revenue -Linda Lockridge: Records and Licensing Supervisor, Fish and Game Licensing Division Hazel Nowlin: Administrative Assistant, Administration Services -William Yankee: Economist II Alaska Department of Transportation -Jay Bergstrand: Transportation Planner IV -Reed Gibby: Transportation Planner -William Humphrey: Transportation Planner I -Richard Quiroz: District Environmental Coordinator Alaska State Housing Authority -William Foster: Administrative Officer Glennallen State Trooper Post -Robert Cockrell: 1st Sergeant House Power Alternatives Study Committee -Hugh Malone: Corrnnittee Co-Chairman, District 13 Office of the Governor Division of Policy Development and Planning -David Allison: Policy and Planning Sp~cialist University of Alaska -Lydia Selkreg: Professor of Resource Economics and Planning Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center -Chuck Evans: Research Associate, Wildlife Biologist -Barbar.a Sokolov: Senior Research Analyst, Library Science 94 - ll'""l' ' i ! ! t: i :1 I Geophysical Institute -Ken Dean: Remote Sensing Geologist Institute of Social and Economic Research -Scott Goldsmith: Assistant Professor of Economics -Lee Gorsuch: Director -Lee Huskey: Associate Professor of Economics Museum -David Murray: Herbarium Curator Urban Observatory -Richard Ender 5.3 -Local Agencies Copper River School District -Dr. Krinke: Superintendent Fairbanks North Star Borough -Philip Berrian: Planning Director Community Information Center -Karen Fox: Research Analyst Matanuska-Susitna Borough Borough Office -Rodney Schulling: Planning Director -Alan Tesche: In-house Authority -Lee Wyatt: Acting Borough Manager, Planning Director School District -Mr. Hotchkiss: Business Manager Municipality of Anchorage -Charles Becker: Economic Development Director -Shawn Hemme: Assistant Planner -Michael Meehan: Director of Planning -Barbara Withers: Regional Economist Valdez Police Department Magistrates -Sheldon Spector: Magistrate, Glennallen 95 - ·.-:~ 5.4 -Other Institutions, Organizations and Individuals Institutions and Organizations Ahtna, Inc. -Lee Adler -Douglas MacArthur: Specia] Projects Director Alaska Hospital Alaska Miners 1 Association Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories -Lester E. Ebechardt: Terrestrial Ecology Section Community Council Center Federation of Community Schoo 1 s -Mary Amouak -Margaret Wolfe Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association -Floyd Hetmback: Director -Thomas Mears: Biologist -Thomas Walker: Economist Cook Inlet Region, Incorporated -Marge Sargerser: Land Manager Copper River Housing Authority -Thea Smelcher Copper River Native Association -Billy Peters Copper Valley Electric Association -Daniel Teggler Copper Valley Views Darbyshire and Associates -Charles Darbyshire Doyon Corporation -Doug Williams: Land Planner Fairbanks Borough Community Information Center -Karen Fox: Research Analyst Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce -Robert Dempsey 96 - - .. ·~ - - ...., - Fairbanks Town and Village Association for Development, Inc. -Art Patterson Fairbanks Visitor and Convention Bureau -Karla Zervos: Executive Director Guide License Review Board High Lake Lodge -John Wilson: Resident Manager Knikatnu Incorporated Land Field Services, Incorporated -P. Sullivan L.G.L. Alaska, Incorporated Matanuska Electric Association, Incorporated -Bud Goodyear: Public Informatinn Office~ -Ken Ritchey: Manager, Engineering Services Matanuska Telephone Association -Graham Rolstad: Chief Engineer -Donald Taylor Ninilchik Native Association, Incorporated Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center -Al Sargeant Northwest Alaskan Pipeline Company -Susan Fisson: Director, Socioeconomic Analysis -Virginia Manna Over a 11 Economic Deve 1 opment Program, Incorporated -Donald Lyon: Executive Director Palmer Chamber of Commerce Palmer Fire Hall -Daniel Canteen Palmer Valley Hospital -Ann Demmings Public Power Supply System, Richland, Washington -Alice Lee: Coordinator Puget Sound Power and Light Company -Terry Galbraith: Public Relations Officer Sagehen Creek Field Station, California -Wayne Spencer; Biologist -William Zielinski; Biologist 97 ',..... . I :I -I Salamatoff Native Association, Incorporated Seldovia Native Associ at ion, Incorporated Susitna Power Now -E. Di schner Tyonek Native Corporation -nurse Valdez Community Hospital Valdez Vanguard Yukon Wildlife Branch -Ralph Archiba1d: Biologist Individuals Glenn Bacon: Consulting Archeologist Warren Ballard: Game Biologist, Hunter Dennis Brown: President Akland Air Service Verna and Carrol Close: Owners of Talkeetna Roadhouse Mike Fisher: Pilot, Talkeetna Resident Jim and Vannie Grimes:· Pi lots, Owners of Adventures Unlimited Lodge Pete Haggland: President of Alaska Central Air, Pilot Paul Holland: Owner-Manager of Evergreen Lodge, Boater Cliff Hudson: Owner/Pilot of Hudson's Air Taxi, Talkeetna Resident John Ireland: Alaskan Sourdough, Murder Lake Resident Dave Johnson: Manager, Denali State Park Dorothy Jones: President of Talkeetna Historical Society, Representative-elect of Mat-Su Borough Assembly Frenchy Lamoureux: Hunter, Trapper, Wife and Mother of Big Game Guides Harold Larson: Agent for Alaska Railroad at Gold Creek, Trapper Don Lee: Manager Stephan Lake Lodge, Pilot Ron Long: Trapper Mary Kay McDonald: Trapper Chuck McMahon: Pilot, Hunter, Trapper, Fisherman in Upper Susitna Basin Cleo McMahon: Pilot, Hunter in Upper Susitna Basin Tom Mercer: President of Denali Wilderness Treks, Bush Pilot, Dog Mus her James Moran: Pilot, Partner in Tsusena Lake Lodge 98 r Don Newman: Trapper Mrs. Ken Oldham: Co-owner of High Lake Lodge, Guide, Bush Pilot, Author Butch Potterville: Sportfish Biologist in Upper Susitna Basin Carol Resnick: Tsusena Creek Resident Andy Runyon: Pilot, Hunter, Trapper Roberta Sheldon: Partner in Sheldon Air Service, Talkeetna Resident Leroy Shank: Trapper Judy Simco: Hunter, Trapper Roger Smith: Trapper Kathy Sullivan: Owner of Genet Expeditions Minnie Swanda: W1dow of Master Guide, Talkeetna Resident Jake Tansy: Native Hunter and Trapper Bob Toby: Game Biologist, Hunter Lee and Helen Tolefson: Subsistence Trappers/Hunters, Talkeetna Residents Mrs. Oscar Vogel: Hunter, Trapper, Stephan Lake Resident, Widow of Master Guide Jeff Weltzin: Devil Canyon Backpacker Ed Wick: Talkeetna Resident Glen Wingkte: Trapper 99