HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA1190Dbf~ent No.[190
018
T.I/,,"'-
f 1./:l",1.'
TBRRBSTR~'i'ROGRAIl'.
DftAIT.BI)pw'bp S~y
FISCAL tW,!1984
Report by
Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture
Prepared for
Alaska Power Authority
January 1984
ARLIS
.Alaska Resources
LIbrary &Information ServJCes
Anchorage.Alaska
(Rev.0-1/84)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section/Title
1.0 INTRODUCnON
1.1 Background
1.2 Terrestrial Program
2.0 STUDY OBJECTIVES
3.0 GENERAL APPROACH
3.1 GENERAL METHODOLOGY
1-1
1-1
1-2
2-1
3-1
3-1
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.1.3
3.1.4
Settlement Process
Tracking and Documentation System
.Impact Assessment Update and Refinement Report
Mitigation Plan Refinement Report
3-1
3-3
3-4
3-7
3.2 SPECIFIC STUDY TASKS
3.3 COORDINATION
3-9
3-10
3.3.1
3.3.2
Progress Review and Planning Meetings
Workshops
3-11
3-12
3.4 FY85 WORKSCOPE DEFINITION
3.5 LONG-TERM PLAN
4.0 SPECIFIC STUDY TASK DESCRIPTIONS
4.1 UPSTREAM MOOSE
3-13
3-14
4-1
4-1
4.1.1
4.1.2
4.1.3
4.1.4
4.1.5
4.1.6
4.1.7
4.1.8
4.1.9
4.1.10
4.1.11
4.1.12
Background
Approach
Upstream Moose Field Studies
Plant Phenology Studies
Forage Vegetation Mapping
pilot Browse Study
Moose Food Habits Study
Browse Inventory
Bioenergetics Model Testing
Moose Population Model Refinement
Habitat Enhancement Techniques Review
Candidate Mitigation Lands Study
4-1
4-2
4-6
4-7
4-11
4-12
4-17
4-20
4-21
4-22
4-23
4-28
4.2 DOWNSTREAM MOOSE 4-32
4.2.1
4.2.2
Background
Approach
1
4-32
4-32
ARLIS
L "b Alaska Resources
1 rary &Infonnation Semces
Anchorage,Alaska
(Rev.O-l!84)
Table of Contents (cont'd)
Section/Title
4.11 WETLANDS
(Rev.0-l!84)
4-52
4.11.1
4.11.2
4.11.3
Background
Approach
Wetlands Mapping
4-52
4-52
4-52
5.0 SCHEDULE AND DELIVERABLES
6.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM
6.1 PURPOSE
6.2 GENERAL APPLICATION
6.3 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM
5-1
6-1
6-1
6-1
6-2
6.3.1
6.3.2
6.3.3
6.3.4
6.3.5
Organization and Responsibilities
Operating Procedures
Document Control
Audits
Harza-Ebasco Quality Assurance
6-2
6-2
6-3
6-3
6-4
6.4 QA PROGRAM APPLICATION TO TERRESTRIAL PROGRAM
7 .0 REFERENCES
8.0 APPENDI CES
Appendix A -Agency-Raised Issues,October 4,1983
Appendix B -ADF&G FY84 Plan of Study
Appendix C -Sample of Tracking and Documentation System
Appendix D -Terrestrial Program Principal Staff and
Responsibilities
iii
6-4
7-1
8-1
A-I
B-1
C-l
D-l
Figure
(Rev.O-l/84)
LIST OF FIGURES
Description
Figure 3-1.
Figure 3-2.
Figure 4-1.
Figure 4-2.
Figure 4-3.
Figure 4-4.
Terrestrial Program:Impact Assessment/Mitigation
Plan Refinement Information Flow and Responsibilities
Preliminary Long Term Schedule:Terrestrial Impact
Assessment and Mitigation Plan ·Refinement
Linkages Among Components of Upstream Moose Impact
Assessment and Mitigation Plan Refinement Efforts
Linkages Among Components of Downstream Moose Impact
Assessment and Mitigation Plan Refinement Efforts
Linkages Among Components of Bear Impact Assessment
and Mitigation Plan Refinement Efforts
Linkages Among Components of Downstream Beaver Impact
Assessment and Mitigation Plan Refinement Efforts
3-6
3-15
4-3
4-34
4-42
4-47
Figure 5-1.Schedule for FY84 Terrestrial Program Impact Assessment 5-3
and Mitigation Plan Refinement Tasks
iv
(Rev.0-l/84)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
Task 4,the Environmental Program for the Susitna Project,1S subdivided
into three major areas of activity.These are:Social Sciences,dealing
primarily with cultural,socioeconomic,recreation,aesthetic and land use
resources issues;Terrestrial,dealing wi th wi ldli fe and botanical re-
sources issues;and Aquatic,dealing with fisheries,aquatic habitat and
water quality resource issues.
The general and specific objectives for each of these three programs have
been presented,along with the overall methodologies by which these
objectives will be accomplished in the general investigation memoranda.
This document presents a detailed plan of study for Terrestrial Program
Impact Assessment and Mitigation Plan Refinement Efforts in Fiscal Year
1984.Included are plans to accomplish all field data collection,analysis,
assessment and mitigation planning activities scheduled for this period.
Study sub tasks are defined for each such activity and include,as appro-
priate,the following elements:
o a clear statement of the objectives of the subtask and the hypo-
theses to be tested;
o a summary of previous studies;
o a delineation of study area boundaries;
o data specifications and formats;
o detailed descriptions of methods,including sampling locations,
frequencies,and techniques as appropriate;
40027 II 1-1
(Rev.0-1/84)
o data management and analysis techniques;
o specification of reports,report formats,and schedule for deli-
verables;
o requirements and methods for coordination with other studies;
o quality assurance plans and specifications;and,
o schedule for study completion.
1.2 TERRESTRIAL PROGRAM
The Terrestrial Program of Task 4 consists of four categories of activities.
These are:(1)general and administrative tasks (e.g.,subcontractor
management,project progress reports);(2)direct FERC support tasks
(e.g.,responses to agency comments on the license application,responses to
FERC supplemental information requests);(3)engineering support-related
tasks (e.g.,transmission line studies,evaluation of impacts of design
refinements);and (4)impact assessment and mitigation plan refinement
tasks.The Terrestrial Program General Investigation Memorandum generally
covers all four of these categories.This plan of study specifically covers
only the fourth category,but at a greater level of detail.
A variety of work activities 1n the impact assessment and mitigation plan
refinement category are either currently underway or planned.All of these
activities will support the production of two major reports:an Impact
Assessment Update and Refinement Report in April 1984 and a Mitigation Plan
Refinement Report in May 1984.Specific activities which will support these
reports include field studies,modeling efforts,literature review,and
other specific analyses.
Section 2 of this document presents a statement of objectives.Preparation
of the Impact Assessment and Mitigation Reports mentioned above and other
40027/1 1-2
(Rev .0-1/84)
general tasks are described in Section 3.A detailed description of the
specific study "tasks and subtasks that will support the preparation of these
major reports is provided in Section 4.Section 5 presents an overview of
the schedule and deliverables for Fiscal Year 1984 and a description of the
Terrestrial Quality Assurance Program is provided in Section 6.
40027/1 1-3
(Rev.O-l/84)
2.0 STUDY OBJECTIVES
The general objectives of the studies described 1n this detailed plan are as
follows:
1.
2.
3.
40027/2
to develop coordinated,effective data collection and analysis
programs which facilitate evaluation of project effects and
planning for mitigation of the proposed project adverse effects;
based on these programs,develop an updated and refined assessment
of project impacts;and
based on the data collection and analysis programs and the updated
and refined impact assessment,develop a refined mi tigation plan
showing how the effects of specific impact mechanisms will be
avoided,minimized,rectified,reduced,or compensated.
2-1
d<ev.0-1 /84)
3.0 GENERAL APPROACH
3.1 GENERAL METHODOLOGY
3.1.1 Settlement Process
Refinement of terrestrial impact assessments and mi tigation plans IS an
ongoing process that is necessary to support licensing of the Susitna
Project.This process has been organized into four overlapping phases.
The first phase involves identification of issues resulting from FERC,other
agency,and public comments concerning wi Idli fe and botanical resource
impacts associated with the Susitna Project and in need of resolution for
licensing of the project.These issues have been identified through
workshops,individual agency meetings,agency letters,formal agency
comments on the draft and final FERC License Application,motions to
intervene,and the FERC ErS Scoping Process,as summarized in the FERC
Scoping Documents.A table providing a preliminary list of the agency-
raised issues identified to date,along with the source of the originating
concern,is provided as Appendix A.
The second phase of this process IS the discussion of each Issue with
appropriate agency and subcontractor personnel in order to develop a final
list of the issues to be addressed during the licensing process.Such
discussions will allow the combination of overlapping or interrelated issues
into a single,more inclusive issue and the early elimination of issues
based on misunderstandings or lack of access to certain data bases or
analyses.
Phase three involves meetings with appropriate agency and subcontractor
personnel to develop appropriate programs to resolve the remaining issues.
This phase will be conducted through a series of technical meetings.The
programs can range from a simple written response,defining why the issue
does not justify further study,to extensive field programs.A Detailed
40027/3 3-1
(Rev.O-l/84)
Plan of Study will be prepared for each extensive field or office study.
The fourth and-final phase of the process is the management or conduct of
these programs in a manner that will ensure that program results are
affectively utilized to resolve the issues and enhance the environmental
compatibility of the Project.The _goal of this process is the development
of an equitable settlement of issues.
40027/3 3-2
(Rev.0-1/84)
3.1.2 Tracking and Documentation System
It is important that a "bookkeeping"system be developed and applied to the
Terrestrial Program issue settlement process so that the current status of·
impact assessment and mitigation planning for each impact mechanism can be
documented and tracked through the process.This is necessary even though
there is a broader tracking system for the entire settlement process (being
maintained by Task 6,Licensing and Permitting)because many agency-raised
and other issues are general (i.e.,impacts not adequately quantified--Issue
T-20 Appendix A)and tracking and documentation of the resolution of these
issues requires an examination of each impact mechanism.
The tracking and documentation system being implemented for the Terrestrial
Program consists of a table maintained on a word processing system that
includes columns listing:(1)each species or other appropriate biological
unit;(2)each impact mechanism potentially affecting each species/bio-
logical unit;(3)the status of impact assessment for each impact mechanism
(i.e.,a brief description of how it was assessed.how adequate/inadequate
and quantitative/qualitative the assessment was and a reference to the docu-
ment(s)and page{s)where the assessment is located);(4)a brief descrip-
tion of the additional information or analyses required to complete the
assessment;(5)a brief description of how,and to what extent.the impacts
resulting from each impact mechanism will be mitigated as described in the
License Application;and (6)a brief description of any refinements to the
mitigation plan made since submittal of the License Application,along with
a reference to the detai led description.Two draft example pages of the
Tracking and Documentation System are provided in Appendix C.A draft of
the entire Tracking and Documentation System will be available in December
1983.The table wi 11 be updated quarterly and wi 11 be used at the Terres-
trial Program progress review and planning meetings as the basis for
reporting progress and planning future activities.The table will provide a
means for grasping the total scope of unresolved issues so that prioritiza-
tion of work efforts can be clearly made.
40027/3 3-3
(Rev.O-l/84)
3.1.3 Impact Assessment Update &Refinement Report
Central to the Terrestrial Program impact assessment and mitigation plan
refinement process will be the preparation of an Impact Assessment Update
and Refinement Report.This report will supplement the FERC License Appli-
cation by providing an updated impact assessment which is based on all new
information collected since the application was prepared and by refining the
analyses conducted for the application where it is apparent that analyses
need refinement.
The specific objectives of the Impact Assessment Update and Refinement
Report (Assessment Report)are to:
(l)Provide an updated and more quanti tati ve assessment of impacts
upon which to base mitigation planning,making full utilization of
data collected since the License Application was prepared,as well
as previous data;
(2)Resolve as many items in the agency-raised issue list,the agency
comments on the License Application,motions to intervene,and the
FERC scoping issues list as possible.
(3)Provide FERC with an updated and more quantitative assessment of
impacts upon which to base the preparation of their FEIS.
After the License Application was prepared,a complete set of big game
studies annual reports was published (spring 1983).Data contained in these
reports were only partially considered in the License Application.Another
set of annual reports is currently under preparation for publication in
April 1984.Also,additional data have been collected on plant phenology in
and near the impoundment zones and on beaver colony abundance between Devil
Canyon and Talkeetna and downstream of Talkeetna.In addition,refinements
have been made to simulation models,which have been prepared to improve our
understanding of the net or cumulative effects of the proj,ect.These items
40027/3 3-4
(Rev.0-1/84)
represent the new information or refinements that will be considered in the
preparation of "the Impact Assessment Update and Refinement Report.
Updating the impact assessment with this new information will,in itself,
allow resolution of many terrestrial issues.Additional analyses and
refinements to existing analyses will be conducted as necessary,in order to
resolve additional issues raised by the agencies and intervenors,or identi-
fied by FERC.
All updates and refinements will be documented by describing and referencing
them in the Impact Assessment/Mitigation Plan Tracking &Documentation Sys-
tem.This system will also be used to indicate when an issue is addressed
or resolved by an update or refinement.
The Impact Assessment Update and Refinement Report wi 11 be prepared by a
core team from LGL who will receive direction and technical review from
Harza-Ebasco.The core team will coordinate directly and frequently with
the principal investigators responsible for conducting the specific study
tasks described below,in order to obtain the most up-to-date information
available for the impact assessment.This coordination will ensure that the
principal investigators are responsive to the outstanding terrestrial issues
in preparing their reports and designing their studies.The relationships
among the various impact assessment and mitigation plan refinement efforts,
1n terms of information transfer and responsibilities,are presented in
Figure 3-1.
The schedule for preparation and completion of the Impact Assessment Update
and Refinement Report is designed to ensure that the report will be
available as input into the FERC Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS).Important milestone dates are presented below.
Initiation of Work December 19,1983
Pre liriti na ry Draft Completed March 30,1984
Final Draft Completed April 15,1984
Final Report Completed April 30,1984
40021/3 3-5
'"""'-:tco.............
Io.
Figure 3-1.Terrestrial Program:Impact Assessment/Mitigation
Plan Refinement Information Flow and Responsibilities
~
p:\
'-'
ALASKA
POWER
AUTHORITY
I
HARZA-
- ------ - - -- -- - - --- ----I --EBASCO - - - - --- - - - - - - I
FIELD STUDIES I I
- --I
I I
ADF&G -LGL
U of AK-Veg Map I 1 I
USFWS
I I I
I - ---IMPACT ASSESSMENT - - - -- -- ---MITIGATION PLAN
UPDATE &REFINEMENT UPDATE &REFINEMENT
MODELLING - ---I
LGL LGL
ADF&G -LGL
I I-- -- - -- - -- - -- -- - - - --- - --- --- -- -
I
LITERATURE - ---
REVIEW
I
LGL -HE
I
Primary Direction
I of Information Transfer
OTHER SPECIFICS --- -
ANALYSES ........- --Feedback {Comments
J Coordination &Direction
LGL -HE
)
'"I
t"1
(
\_-(c
(Rev.0-l/84)
3.1.4 Mitigation Plan Refinement Report
A conceptual terrestrial mitigation plan is presented in the License Appli-
cation.There is a need to develop and describe the specific procedures to
be followed in implementation of this plan.In addition,there is a need
to make modifications .and refinements to the plan in response to agency and
public concerns voiced since the License Application was published.Fur-
ther,the plan will need to be refined based on the updates and refinements
made to the impact assessment and described in the Impact Assessment Update
and Assessment Report (Section 3.1.3).The Mitigation Plan Refinement
Report will provide the documentation for these modifications and
refinements.
The specific objectives of the Mitigation Plan Refinement Report are to:
(1)Develop and describe specific procedures to be followed 1n
implementation of the mitigation plan;
(2)Develop and describe modifications and refinements to the plan 1n
response to the ageney-raised issues list,the ageney comments on
the License Application,motions to intervene,and the FERG
scoping issues list:
(3)Provide FERG with a refined mitigation plan for incorporation into
their FEIS;and,
(4)Refine and describe the long-term plan for resolving outstanding
issues and finalizing the mitigation plan.
Following review and approval by the Power Authority,Mitigation plan re-
finements will be documented by describing and referencing them in the Im-
pact Assessment/Mitigation Plan Tracking and Documentation System (Section
3.1.2).
40027/3 3-7
(Rev.0-1/84)
The Mitigation Plan Refinement Report will be prepared by a core team from
LGL with direc~ion and technical review from Harza-Ebasco.The work will be
conducted simultaneously with work on the Impact Assessment Update and
Refinement Report,but will be completed about one month after the latter
report.It will be completed,however,in time to be used as input into the
FERC FEIS.Important milestone dates are presented below:
Initiation of Work
Preliminary Draft Completed
Final Draft Completed
Final Report Completed
40027/3 3-8
December 19,1983
April 30,1984
May 15,1984
May 3D,1984
(Rev.O-l/84)
3.2 SPECIFIC STUDY TASKS
In adclition to the general work tasks just described many specific study
tasks are planned (described in Section 4).These tasks are organized by
major species or other appropriate biological unit and often include a
variety of subtasks.The subtasks consist of field studies,modeling
efforts,literature reviews,or other specific analyses designed to gather
or refine data needed to support impact assessment or mitigation plan
refinement for the particular species or biological unit.All subtasks are
designed to provide direct support for either the Impact Assessment Update
and Refinement Report or the Mitigation Plan Refinement Report (see Section
3.1).
40027/3 3-9
(Rev.0-3/84)
3.3.1 Progress Review and Coordination Meetings
A systematic means of ensuring that good coordination occurs will be imple-
mented through regular progress review and coordination meetings.These
meetings will be attended by the Harza-Ebasco Terrestrial Group Leader.LGL
Project Manager,ADF&G Research Coordinator.ADF&G Habitat Division
reviewer,and a USFWS project reviewer.In addition,it is expected that
Power Authority Staff will attend as time permits and additional staff
members from Harza-Ebasco.LGL.ADF&G.USFWS,U of A Palmer Experiment
Station.U of A Museum and U of A Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit.will
attend as necessary.Members of the Aquatic.Hydrology and Social Science
Study Teams will also attend as appropriate to ensure that activities are
coordinated with these groups and to obtain their technical expertise as the
need arises.
Progress rev~ew and coordination meetings will be conducted monthly,or more
or less frequently as the need arises.These meetings will provide a forum
for each major entity of the Terrestrial Study Team to report on their acti-
vities for the previous period.including preliminary results of field stu-
dies.and to discuss their planned activities.The meetings will also
provide the opportunity for Terrestrial Study Team members to modify their
activities so that they provide more useful input to other activities in a
timely manner.These meetins provide an opportunity for regular input from
ADF&G Habitat Division and USFWS project rev~ewers.Minutes covering each
of these meetings will be prepared by and distributed to all Terrestrial
Team members.
40027/3 3-10
(Rev.O-3/84)
3.3.2 Workshops
Another form of information transfer and coordination is through workshops.
A large workshop on terrestrial modeling efforts was held in spring 1983.
A draft report was prepared presenting the status of terrestrial models,as
refined at the workshop and associated technical meetings,and identifying
information needs for further model refinement.This report will be final-
ized in January 1984,following receipt of review comments from Terrestrial
Study Team members.
A 1984 Workshop is currently planned for spring 1984.This workshop will
inform all interested parties on the status of the terrestrial model,and
issue resolution status,and will provide for critical review and input on
further model refinements and issue resolution.
40027/3 3-11
(Rev.0-l/84)
3.3.2 Workshops
Another form of information transfer and coordination IS through workshops.
A large workshop on terrestrial modeling efforts was held in spring 1983.
A draft report was prepared presenting the status of terrestrial models,as
refined at the workshop and associated technical meetings,and identifying
information needs for further model refinement.This report will be final-
ized in January 1984,following receipt of review comments from Terrestrial
Study Team members.
A 1984 Workshop is currently planned for spring 1984.This workshop will
inform all interested parties on the status of the terrestrial model,and
issue resolution status,and will provide for critical review and input on
further model refinements and issue resolution.
40027/3 3-12
(Rev.0-l/84)
3.4 FY85 WORK SCOPE DEFINITION
Work scope definition for FY85 will be conducted in a manner that will
ensure that all work efforts are designed to resolve or assist in resolving
issues pertinent to the Settlement Process.Requests for proposals (RFP)
will be prepared by Harza-Ebasco with subcontractor input.These RFPs will
reflect the data and other information needs determined through analysis of
issues and updating and refining the terrestrial impact assessment and
mitigation plan.Following preparation proposals will be reviewed,
modifications will be recommended if necessary,and revised proposals will
be prepared.These revised proposals will be used as the basis for work
scope finalization,upon which subcontracts and RSAs will be prepared.The
schedule for these activities is as follows:
.,-..,.
Prepare and send RFPs
Proposals Prepared
Proposal Modifications Recommended
Revised Proposals Prepared
Work Scopes Finalized
February 25,1984
March 25,1984
April la,1984
April 25,1984
May 10,1984
40027/3 3-13
(Rev.0-1/84)
3.5 LONG-TERM PLAN
A preliminary long-term plan for terrestrial impact assessment and mitiga-
tion plan refinement is presented in Figure 3-2.This plan assumes that all
field activities necessary to support impact assessment and mitigation
plan refinement will be completed in FY84 and FY85.Model refinement and
report writing activities will extend into early FY86 and the Final Impact
Assessment Update and Refinement Report and Mitigation Plan Refinement
Report will be prepared by the end of 1985 (mid FY86).
40027/3 3-14
'))
Figure 3-2.Preliminary Long Term Schedule:Terrestrial Impact
Assessment and Mitigation Plan Refinement
FY 1984 FY 1985 FY 1986 FY 1987
-----
1983 1984 1984 1985 1985 1986 1986 1987
JASOND JMAMJ Ji\SONO .FMAMJ JASONO .FMAMJ JASONO JMAMJ
Impact Assessment/Mitigation Plan Refinement
o Terrestrial Program Workshop
o Tracking &Documentation System
o Impact Assessment Update &Refinement Report
o Mitigation Plan'Refinement Report
I X X X
I--X
I--X X X
I--X X X
I X
x X
X X
.........
X X
:;0
X X
~.
0
I
X
I-'......
00
X
.po.......
X--x
--x
--x
I-x
I-x
'x
X
I-X 1 X 1-----
l-----x
1-------'
x
I--------'X X X
I-XX
'---'X
I-X
I--X X
----X--------
----X
----X'--------
I X--------
Upstream Moose Field Studiea
o Plant Phenology Study
o Pilot Browse Study
o Food Habits Study
o Forage Vegetation Mapping
o Browse Inventory
o Bioenergetics Model Testing
o Population Model Refinement
o Habitat Enhancement Techniques Review
o Candidate Mitigation Lands Study
Caribou Field Studies
Oall Sheep Studies
Black/Brown Bear Field Studies
Wolf/Wolverine Field Studies
Belukha Whale Studies
Beaver Field Studies
o Beaver Model Refinement
Raptor Studies
Wetlsnds Mapping
Downstream Moose Field Studies
o Downstream Habitat Model Refinement
w
I
l-o
VI
(Rev.0-1/84)
4.0 SPECIFIC STUDY TASK DESCRIPTIONS
4.1 UPSTREAM MOOSE
4.1.1 Backgound
Moose represent one of the most important species which could be signifi-
cantly impacted by hydroelectric development along the Susitna River.
Therefore,in response to various early hydroelectric proposals,some gen-
eral population assessment work was begun in 1974 (USFWS 1975).This study
was funded for 1 year and consisted of a series of reconnaissance flights to
identify moose concentration areas.In 1976,limited funds became available
to begin gathering baseline data on moose movements and habitat use for
areas which could be impacted by the Corps of Engineers two dam proposal
(Taylor and Ballard 1978;1979;Ballard and Taylor,1980).These initital
studies focused on areas lying north of the Susitna River and were conducted
from March 1977 through spring 1978,with limited follow-up work from spring
1978 through spring 1979.Results of these preliminary studies identified
some potential problem areas and data gaps which required additional study
for better assessing the impacts of the two dam system on moose.
The most significant data gaps identified in these preliminary studies were:
the lack of moose movement data for areas lying south of the Susitna River;
and,accurate moose population estimates for the entire project area
(Ballard and Taylor 1980).Funding for the original project terminated in
spring 1979 and little work was conducted until January 1,1980,when the
Alaska Power Authortity contracted the ADF&G to conduct more intensive
studies.The purpose of these studies were to gather more intensive data on
moose movements,habitat use and the size and trend of moose populations
inhabiting areas which could be impacted by the two dam system.In depth
field studies were initiated in March 1980,when radio telemetry equipment
was received.Results of the studies conducted from March 1980 through
September 1981 are presented by Ballard et al.(1982a).Results of the
continuation of these studies through early June 1982 are presented in
40027/4 4-1
(Rev.0-l/84)
Ballard et al.(1983b).Intensive field studies are continuing with a new
annual report due in April 1984.These efforts are described in Section
4.1.3.
For purposes of home range determination,analysis of habitat utilization,
elevational use,movement pat terns,and other analyses,data from moose
captured and studied in other areas of Game Management Unit 13 have been
utilized.Details of these other studies are provided by Ballard and Taylor
(1978,1980),Ballard and Gardner (1980),Ballard et al.(1980,1981 b,
1982c,In Prep.),and Taylor and Ballard (1979).
4.1.2 Approach
Two approaches to refining the impact assessment for moose upstream of Devil
Canyon are being followed.The first is based on studies of the existing
population and attempts to predict how this population will respond to the
project over time.The second is a habitat-based approach which attempts to
estimate the potential to support moose of the habitat that will be altered
or lost.The population approach has the advantage of predicting actual
changes in moose numbers.It allows estimation of impacts that are not
habitat-based,such as accidents and human-induced mortality.The habitat-
based approach is useful for estimating changes in potential carrying capa-
city when existing populations are not fully utilizing their habitat and for
direct comparison of specific acreages and the benefits of habitat enhance-
ment techniques.Each approach will provide information necessary for eval-
uating the other and the integrated results of both are expected to provide
the basis for mitigation planning.The linkages among the various work
efforts designed to support these two approaches are shown in Figure 4-1.
The overall schedule for upstream moose impact assessment/mitigation plan-
ning work indicates that carrying capacity estimates will be available in
early 1985 after completion of the browse inventory.
40027/4 4-2
Figure 4-1:Linkages Among Components of Upstream Moose
Impact Assessment and Mitigation Plan Refinen~nt Efforts
.p-
oo
tv
U'I
~
I
IN
Food Habits ,.t;:fStudy
Moose Forage
Availability r--
,-J
I
Pi lot Browse Browse
Sampling Sampling
Hoose
Vegetat ion Carrying
Succession CapacityForagejHodel~Lost-.....Vegetation ,1
Happing
Bioenergetics j Daily Forage I--HabitatSpringPlantHodel.~Requirements Enhancement Hoose.-.-~f---iPhenologyStudiesStudies Hitigation
Plan
Severe -.,.-~~.
Zone Of ...---.J Winter
Impact Studies
Cen.us Hoose Hoose
Population Numbers
Hodel Lost
Habitat Use rl Wolf -T
~Monitoring Studies
Calf Predation Bear ~Bear
Honitoring Studies Population
~Hodel1'-
..
(Rev.0-1/84)
Final estimates will be available in late 1985 after completion of the bio-
energetics model testing.Final population model predictions,which are
partially based on the final carrying capacity estimates,will also be
available in late 1985.These estimates will be incorporated into the Final
Impact Assessment Update Report and will be used to make the final refine-
ments to the Mitigation Plan,both of which will be completed in early
1986.
Work efforts to be conducted during FY 1984 along with the responsible
organization include:
1.Zone of Impact Census -ADF&G
2.Impact Area Habitat Use Monitoring -ADF&G
3.Calf Predation Monitoring -ADF&G
4.Severe Winter Studies (if severe winter occurs)-ADF&G
5.Spring Plant Phenology Study - U of A,Palmer
6.Forage Vegetation Mapping -Unknown subcontractor
7.pilot Browse Sampling - U of A,Palmer
8.Moose Food Habits Study - U of A,Palmer
9.Browse Sampling - U of A,Palmer
10.Wolf Studies -ADF&G
11.Bear Studies -ADF&G
12.Bioenergetics Model Testing -ADF&G/USFWS
13.Bear Population Model Refinement -ADF&G/LGL
14.Moose Population Model Refinement -ADF&G/LGL
15.Habitat Enhancement Studies (monitoring winter use of downstream
disturbed sites)-ADF&G
16.Habitat Enhancement Studies (literature reVl.ew of habitat
enhancement techniques)-Harza-Ebasco
17.Mitigation plan refinement (identification of candidate lands
for habitat enhancement)-LGL
40027/4 4-4
i",a'.......
(Rev.O-l/84)
Plans of study for these work efforts including deliverable due dates and
the specific issues each work effort is designed to address are provided in
the following sections.
40027/4 4-5
(Rev.O-1/84)
4.1.3 Upstream Moose Field Studies
Upstream moose field studies are described on pages 1-3 and 23-24 of ADF&G's
FY 1984 Plan of Study,provided as Attachment B.The studies consist of
four general work efforts:(I)the zone of impact census (designed to
address Issues T-17,T-20,and T-39 in Attachment A);(Z)impact area habi-
tat use monitoring (designed to address Issues T-17,T-ZO,T-33,and T-39);
(3)calf predation monitoring (designed to address Issues T-17,T-20,T-39,
and T-44);and,(4)severe winter studies (designed to address Issues T-17,
T-20,T-39 and T-41).The annual report for upstream moose field studies is
due on April 1,1984.This report will cover field studies conducted
through the fall of 1983.
40027/4 4-6
(Rev.O-l/84)
4.1.4 Plant Phenology Studies
4.1.4.1 Background.Studies on moose and bear subpopulations 1n the middle
Susitna River Basin have documented general movement patterns of these ani-
mals into relatively low elevations within the proposed impoundment zones
during late spring and early summer.It was suggested that this general
movement pattern may be a response of the moose to earlier snow melt and the
early development of vegetative growth at these lower elevations (Ballard et
a1.1982;102).Ballard et a1.(1982;102)suggested that the spring period
was critical for moose.In a nutritionally stressed population,gestating
cow moose may be the most deleteriously affected due to the demands placed
upon them by the developing fetus.This trend is abruptly reversed when
melting show exposes previously unavailable forage and new plant growth
becomes available.Ballard et ale (1982;102)suggested that the moose popu-
lation may suffer significant mortality if prevented from moving to areas·
where early spring growth of vegetation,such as in the proposed impoundment
zones,may occur.
Brown bear use of proposed impoundment zones was also most prevalent during
early spring,soon after they emerge from their winter dens (Miller and
McAllister 1982;55).They hypothesized that brown bear movements to the
proposed impoundment zones during May were motivated by relatively earlier
snow melt,especially
on south-facing slopes,which made these the first areas where overwintering
berries could be found and also the first areas where new vegetative growth
was available.Some of the areas of overwintered berries and early spring
growth of vegetation currently used by bears wi 11 be inundated by the
impoundments.
4.1.4.2 Objectives/Hypothesis.
plant phenology studies are to:
40027/4
The objectives of the 1983 early spring
4-7
(Rev .0-1/84)
Evalute phenological development and relative abundance of species
of Equisetum by elevational gradient,site-specific location
and/or prioximity to the proposed impoundments for bears.
Collect spring moose and bear fecal matter for diet analysis,to
be analyzed in a concurrent food habits study.
3.
1.Document the spatial and temporal distribution of snow-free areas
and of early spring growth of moose and bear forage vegetation
adjacent to and within the impoundment zones of the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project.
2.Evaluate phenological development of vegetation over elevational
gradients and/or site-specific locations to determine the extent
of planar area within each impoundment that provides early spring
plant growth for moose and bear and that would be lost by
inundation.
Describe and document relative utilization,by foraging,of early
growth vegetation based on elevational gradients and/or site-
specific locations.
Estimate relative abundance of overwintered berries for bears.
6.
4.
5.
4.1.4.3 Study Area.Phenological development of forb,graminoid,and shrub
speC1es will be monitored between approximately April 25,and June 3,1983,
along line transects that will originate at a point above the maximum
proposed pool elevation of each impoundment (Watana 2,193 ft.,Devils Canyon
1,450 ft.)and extend down to the Susitna River.Placement of transects
will be based on:1)identification of areas known to contain local
concentrations of moose and/or bear as defined by ADF&G biologists;2)
slope,aspect,and elevational gradients;and 3)prospective unique areas,
such as sites where plant phenology on paired north-and-south-facing slopes
are suspected to be substantially different.
4.1.4.4 Detailed Methodology.Approximately 32 line transects will be
established at selected locations in the 2 impoundment zones.Two I-person
teams,spaced 50-100 m apart,will conduct parallel transects down the slope
to the Susitna River.Each transect will follow a general compass bearing
40027/4 4-8
(Rev.O-l/84)
and will be flagged at regular intervals to "permanently"mark each transect
course for the duration of the field study.Two transects on opposing
slopes of the Susitna River will be conducted by each person each day,
totalling 8 transects per day.Each transect will be located on low
altitude aerial photographs and contour maps,from which elevation
information will also be taken.Each transect will be separated into 100
ft.elevational bands based on contour maps and an altimeter reading.
Beginning and ending elevations for each elevation will be recorded.
Transect lengths will vary from approximately I to 3 km,with information on
vegetation recorded at 10 m intervals along the transect.Transects will be
monitored at 7-day intervals unless rapid,early vegetation development
indicates that shorter time intervals should be used.
Moose and bear fecal matter identifiable as early spring deposits will be
collected when the opportunity presents itself,placed in plastic bags,
labelled {date,transect if,stop in,and then frozen.Selec ted samples wi 11
be analyzed as part of a separate food habits study.
A 100 m line transect will also be established on the riverbank,parallel to
the Susitna River,at the base of each downslope transect.The river
transect will be located approximately midway between the riverbank and the
edge of the area influenced by river dynamics.The same information on
vegetation will be collected for the downslope transects,but at 5 m rather
than 10 m intervals.
4.1.4.5 Data Management and Reports.Statistical analyses will evaluate
.the relationship between phenological state and the variables under study
(elevation,slope,aspec t,transec t,snow depth,vegetation type),singly
and in combination.For example,certain elevations may be associated with
early greenup on the south-facing slopes but different elevations on the
north-facing slopes.Snow depth at the time of an observation may not be
relevant for phenological development during the period of observation,but
may be relevant for the observation at a later period and will be analyzed
with this purpose in mind.Utilization will be analyzed in the same way as
40027/4 4-9
(Rev.O-l/84)
early greenup sites.Th.ese resul ts will provide ranges of topographical,
elevational and vegetation types that are associated with early greenup
sites or sites where foraging has been observed.Maps can then be elevated
for the extent of these topographical or elevational features,as well as
the extent of later developing areas that are in the potential impoundment
zones.Th.is will be used to assess potential losses of early greenup areas
due to flooding.
Once areas are stratifed by time of vegetation development,means can be
obtained for the relative abundance of overwintered berries for bears.
Statistical analyses for phenological development of Equisetum can be
developed similar to those for vegetation in general.Additionally,the
area can be stratified by presence or absence of Equisetum.
The spatial distribution of snow-free areas and of phenological stages of
forage vegetation will be graphically presented for each transect for each
observation period.
Deliverables will include the following:
1.A draft report of analyzed data and a discussion of results will
be available on March 23,1984.
2.A final report of analyzed data and a discussion of results will
be available on April 30,1984.
40027/4 4-10
(Rev.0-l/84)
4.1.5 Forage Vegetation Mapping
This effort is designed to provide more detailed vegetation mapping,to be
used for quantification of habitat-based impacts in general and,more
specifically,to provide a more accurate basis for stratification of the
browse inventory.In addition,the mapping will allow more precise habitat
use/availability analyses to be conducted for big game species,thus,
refining our ability to assess impacts.
The FY 1984 effort is designed to provide a product of sufficient quality to
allow for improved statistical efficiency in the browse inventory.A pre-
liminary draft map will be available on June 20,1984.A final draft map is
scheduled to be available on January 15,1985.Completion of the mapping
effort and the final product will be in FY 1985.
A detailed plan of study for completion of this sub task will be available by
February 28,1984.This sub task is designed to address Issues T-20,T-30,
T-31,T-32,and T-33 (Appendix A).
40027/4 4-11
(Rev.O-l/84)
4.1.6 pilot Browse Study
4.1.6.1 Background.An inventory of standing crop biomass of plants 1mpor-
tant as moose browse 1S needed for the middle Susitna River Basin.
Sampling vegetation to estimate standing crop biomass in the middle Susitna
River Basin is difficult because there are many vegetation types that are
important to moose,the area under consideration is very large,and vegeta-
tion patterning and distribution 1S mosaic with vegetation types intermixed,
yet distinct.Biomass sampling is extremely labor intensive,both in the
field and laboratory.
For these reasons,it has been decided that a pilot study be conducted to
determine the most cost-efficient procedure to sample browse biomass,con-
sidering time and data variation constraints.
40027/4 4-12
(Rev.0 -1/84 )
4.1.6.2 Objectives/Hypothesis.Specific objectives are to:
1.Determine optimal plot S1ze for browse density estimations.
Circular plot sizes examined will be 1 m2 ,2 m
2 and 4 m
2 •
2.Determine the number of plots required to adequately estimate
within 1%of"the mean with 95%confidence density and number of
plants to estimate biomass per sampling area within a vegetation
type for each browse species.
3.Determine biomass by height strata for each browse species and
vegetation type to account for snow accumulation making some for-
age unavailable.
.~.
4.Develop regression equations to predict browse biomass from shrub
basal diameter,height,and/or width,twig counts and twig dia-
meter-length-weight relatioanships.
5.Test the predictive ability of the equations.
4.1.6.3 Study Area.From past studies,we have determined that at least
13 vegetation tyes are important to moose 1n the middle Susitna River Basin.
These are:woodland spruce-birch fores t,open spruce-birch fores t,open
birch forest,woodland black spruce forest,open black spruce forest,wood-
land white spruce forest,open white spruce forest,low willow,low alder-
willow,open dwarf birch,open dwarf birch-willow,white spruce-cottonwood
forest,and aspen forest.
At least 3 sites in each vegetation type will be sampled.Emphasis will be
~placed on 10 plant species that bare important moose forage.Those plants
are Betula papyrifera,!.glandulosa,Salix pulchra,~.glauca,~.lanata,
~.alaxensis,Salix spp.,Alnus spp.,Populus tremuloides,P.balsamifera,
and Rosa acicularis.
40027/4 4-13
(R
4.1.6.2 Objectives/Hypothesis.Specific objectives are to:
1.Determine optimal
Circular plot sizes
plot S1ze for browse density
examined will be 1 m2 , 2 m
2 and 4
2.Determine the number of plots required to adequatt
wi thin 1%of the mean with 95%confidence densi ty a
plants to estimate biomass per sampling area within
type for each browse species.
3.Determine biomass by height strata for each browse
vegetation type to account for snow accumulation maki
age unavailable •
.,.",.....,..4.Develop regression equations to predict browse biomas
basal diameter,height,and/or width,twig counts a
meter-length-weight relatioanships.
5.Test the predictive ability of the equations.
land white spruce forest,open white spruce forest,low willor.
willow,open dwarf birch,open dwarf birch-willow,whi te spru(
forest,and aspen forest.
At least 3 sites in each vegetation type will be sampled.Empl
placed on 10 plant species that bare important moose forage.
are Betula papyrifera,!.glandulosa,Salix pulchra,~.glaucG
~.alaxensis,Salix spp.,Alnus spp.,Populus tremuloides,P.
and Rosa acicularis.
40027/4 4-13
4.1.6.4 Detai led Methodology.
(Rev.O-I!84)
To estimate browse density by species and
vegetation type,two 60-m line transects will be established at each sam-
pling site.Distance between transects will vary from 20 to 5 m in order to
keep both transects within a homogeneous stand of vegetation.Browse
density will be estimated at 12 locations along each transect,spaced 5 m
apart,totalling 24 sample points per site.
the selected species rooted within 1 m
2 ,
At each location all plants of
2 m
2 ,and 4 m
2 circular plots
Analysis will consist of
time to read a plot of
~.size for each plot Slze.
will be counted by diameter class.Diameter classes will be 1n 10 rom
increments.Circulatr plots will be delineated by rotating a rope,marked
at the appropriate radius (56 cm,80 cm,and 113 cm for 1 m
2 , 2 m
2 and 4
m2 plots,respectively),around a metal rod inserted into the ground at
each location along a transect.
examining data variation in relation to plot size,
a certain size,and the estimated adequate sample
These parameters will be evaluated with regar&to
browse species and vegetation type.The plot size that results in the low-
es t data variabili ty (e.g.,smallest coefficient of variation),time to
read,and smallest adequate sample size will be the optimum size selected.
To determine biomass,up to 30 plants of each of the 10 selected species
present will be randomly selected for examination at each site.This should
adequately represent the range of diameter classes within a stand.Search
area in the randomization process for these plants will be confined to the
homogeneous stand being sampled.The maximum height,maximum width,and
width at a right angle to the maximum width will be measured to determine
volume.The basal diameter of each plant will also be recorded.Each plant
will be divided into height categories:ground level -40 cm,41 -80 cm,
and 81 -250 cm.Plant materials>250 cm in height will not be measured.
All twigs and stems within a height strata that are less than or equal to a
predetermined average (or maximum)diameter-at-point-of-browsing (DPB)will
be counted.From each plant up to 30 twigs with leaves will be clipped at
the mean (or maximum)DPB.All the leaves remaining on the plant will be
harvested by height strata.The time it takes to sample each plant will be
40027/4 4-14
(Rev.0-l/84)
recorded.The clipped twigs will be individually measured in the laboratory
for length (fresh)and separated into old growth,current annual twig
growth,and leaves.Samples will be oven dried at 60°C for 48 hours then
weighed •.Twig lengths and basal diameters will then be remeasured.
twig and its associated components will be kept separate.
Each
4.1.6.5 Data Management and Reports.To estimate time efficiency,
transects will be run concurrently using the 3 plot sizes.The time it
takes to establish each transect,to establish each plot-center,and to move
from plot-center to plot-center will be constant for each plot size.Each
plot s~ze will have the same plot-center.The time needed to count the
plants by diameter class within the plot will be recorded for each plot
size.
Dry weight standing crop biomass will be determined for each twig component
and leaves by species and vegetation type.An average biomass per height
strata,per component,by plant species and vegetation type will be calcu-
lated.Basal stem diameter,height,width,and plant biomass relationships
wi 11 be exami ned us i ng regre ss ion mode 1s •Equations will be derived that
predict plant biomass based on basal diameter,and for plant volume measure-
ments.Equations will be derived to predict twig biomass based on twig
basal diameter (DPB)and length relationships.Other relationships that
will become apparent as the data is collected and analyzed will also be
examined.Each equation can be tested for accuracy by extracting a subset
of the data and checking predictions against actual values.
Using the equations derived from this pilot study and the data collected
from the actual browse inventory study,kilograms of dry forage/ha can be
estimated by incorporating plant density (#/ha)and mean biomass per plant
for each species by vegetation type.The area of the middle Susitna River
Basin occupied by a particular vegetation type will provide estimates of
total forage biomass available to moose in the Basin.The effects of
snowfall on forage availability can be evaluated through the estimates of
browse biomass by height strata.
40027/4 4-15
(Rev.O-1/84)
De1iverab1es will include the following:
1.A draft report of analyzed data,a discussion of resu1 ts,and
methodology recommendations for the 1984 browse inventory study
will be available on January 20,1984.
2.A final report will be available on February 10,1984.
40027/4 4-16
(Rev.0-l/84)
4.1.7 Moose Food Habits Study
4.1.7.1 Background.A nutritionally based carrying capacity model will be
used to assess the impacts on moose of potential dam impoundments in the
middle Susitna Basin.For the model to produce accurate simulation re-
sults.detailed information on forage quantity and quality,and on moose
food habits on a seasonal basis is required.
Knowledge of moose food habits is necessary to determine what input data
are needed for the carrying capacity model subroutines concerning vegetation
quantity and quality.The plant species actually sampled to estimate bio-
~ass of forage will be based on the results of the moose food habits study.
4.1.7.2 Objectives/Hypotheses.
habits study are to:
The specific objectives of the moose food
1.Provide data on the seasonal foods of moose to be incorporated
into the carrying capacity simulation model;
2.Determine specifically which plants will be sampled for the browse
inventory study.
4.1.7.3 Study Area.To facilitate quantification of moose winter food
habits the study area will be divided into nine sections.These sections
correspond to areas occupied by moose subpopulations as defined by Ballard,
et ale (1982a).The nine areas also correspond to the locations of the 1983
phenology transects.All winter fecal samples will be categorized based on
the area it came from and composited within each area.
4.1.7.4 Detailed Methodology.Microhistological examination of moose
fecal samples will be used to estimate moose food habits (Sparks and
Malecheck 1968.Dearden et a1.1975,Free et a1.1970).This procedure
has many advantages applicable to this study as discussed by Ho1echeck et
a1.(982).
40027/4 4-17
(Rev .0-1/84)
About 49 moose defecations were collected by AAES during the 1982 season.
Forty-six of the samples were collected during sunnner while three samples
represent winter foods.Approximately 213 moose defecations were collected
by AAES during the 1983 field season.About 194 defecations represent
winter foods of moose.LGL collected an additional 12 late-winter samples.
One spring and 18 summer samples were also collected by AAES during 1983.
Approximately 30-35 late-winter fecal samples are scheduled to be collected
by W.Ballard (ADF&G)during adult moose radio-collaring operations in March
1984.Fifteen late-fall samples were collected by W.Ballard during October
1982.Approximately 15 spring fecal samples will be collected by W.Bal-
lard during calf radio-collaring and mortality monitoring during May and
June 1984.
Every effort will be made to identify individual shrub species within genera
(i.e.,Betula glandulosa,B.papyrifera,and species of Salix)if identi-
fying characteristics can be established from the reference collections.
Species of primary interest for winter moose diets are:Salix pulchra,~.
glauca,s.lanata,S.alaxensis,.Betula glandulosa,l?.papyrifera,Alnus
sinuata,and Vaccinium vi tis-idaea.Summer diets will include the species
for winter diets plus unidentified forb and graminoid categories.Efforts
will be made to identify all plant fragments not included in the above spe-
cies that may be found to make up a substantial portion of the diet within a
given area.
Fecal samples will be composited by area and season,oven-dried at 60°C for
48 hours,then ground through a Wi ley Mi 11.The dried and ground fecal
material will be made into 10 microscope slides for each area and season.
Twenty fields will be examined on each slide.A valid field has to contain
at least two identifiable plant fragments.An identifiable plant fragment
has to possess at least two histological identifying characteristics.The
data recorded will be frequency of occurrence of plant fragments for each
10-s lide set.
40027/4 4-18
(Rev.0-1/84)
4.1.7.5 Data Management and Reports.Analysis of data on moose food
habits resulting from this study will involve statistical comparisons among
areas and seasons.Tables presenting means and standard errors wi 11 be
provided.Results will also be related to other studies concerning moose
ecology in the middle Susitna River Basin.
Deliverables will include the following:
1.A draft report documenting winter and summer diets based on micro-
histological analysis of moose fecal samples wi 11 be available on
April 15,1984.
2.A final report will be available on May 7,1984.
40027/4 4-19
(Rev.O-1/84)
4.1.8 Browse Inventory
The browse inventory ~s necessary to provide inputs to the vegetation sub-
model for the purpose of carrying capacity estimation (see section 4.1.9).
With browse inventory inputs the vegetation submodel will produce estimates
of the amount of forage available on the range to be surveyed.These esti-
mates,combined with estimates of the daily moose forage requirements from
the bioenergetics model will produce estimates of moose carrying capacity.
The FY 1984 efforts represent the planning and mobilizaiton for the browse
inventory which is currently planned to be conducted in July and August 1984
(FY 1985).A draft report of results is scheduled for review by January 3l J
1985,following field work,laboratory analysis of samples,data analysis,
and report writing.Recent technical meetings following review of
preliminary pilot browse study results suggest that modifications to this
schedule may be forthcoming.
A detailed plan of study for this subtask will be available by March 3l J
1984.This subtask is designed to address Issues T-20 and T-36 (Appendix A).
40027/4 4-20
,-
(Rev.0-l/84)
4.1.9 Bioenergetics Model Testing
The habitat-based approach to assessing impacts through changes in carrying
capacity requires the use of at least two computer submodels;one to esti-
mate the nutritional needs of the animals and the other to estimate the
nutrients available in the range.The first is a bioenergetics model called
the ruminant submodel.This model,which was developed at Colorado State
University and modified for moose at the Kenai Moose Research Center (MRC),
is undergoing field validation at the MRC during FY 1984 and 1985 (see pages
B-20-22 of ADF&G's FY 1984 Plan of Study,provided as Appendix B).The
second model,a vegetation submodel,estimates the total nutrients supplied
by the vegetation available to moose.This model,which was developed by
the Colorado Division of Wildlife,requires inputs specific for each range
being evaluated.These inputs will be collected by the browse inventory
program during summer 1984.If deemed necessary,a third model,which would
be designed to represent vegetation succession,may be developed to allow
consideration of the change in nutrient availability over time.A bioener-
getics model testing annual report will be prepared by April 1,1984.
40027/4 4-21
(Rev.0-1/84)
4.1.10 Moose Population Model Refinement
Moose population modeling efforts for the Middle Susitna Basin were 1n1-
tiated in 1982 and refined in 1983.Refinements to the existing model will
continue in FY 1984 primarily based on results of upstream moose field
studies (Section 4.1.3).ADF&G Game Division will be responsible for moose
model refinements.
A detailed plan of study for this subtask will be available by February 10,
"
1984.This subtask is designed to address Issues T-20 and T-34 (see Attach-
ment A).
40027/4 4-22
(Rev.O-1/84)
4.1.11 Habitat Enhancement Techniques Review
4.1.11.1 Background.The mitigation plan for moose.as described 1n the
FERC license application,includes compensation for permanent habitat loss
through enhancement of other lands (see description of this portion of the
mitigation plan in Section 4.1.12.1).Much information has been collected
relative to moose habitat enhancement in Alaska and many studies are cur-
rently underway.However,much of these data have not been published and
to date no systematic review of the subject has been made.Therefore,there
is a need to collect,review,and synthesize the information pertinent to
the Susitna River Basin so that techniques may be compared in terms of their
cost and effectiveness.
4.1.11.2 Objectives.The purpose of the Habitat Enhancement Techniques
Review will be to prepare a report which provides information on the cost
and effectiveness of habitat enhancement techniques for use 1n refining
the moose mitigation plan.The specific objectives of the study are to:
1.Briefly describe moose winter habitat;
2.Describe the types and effects of habitat modification on winter
moose forage;
3.Generally describe ,the types and effects of habitat modification
on other resources;and,
4.Evaluate the effectiveness and cost efficiency of types of habitat
modification for the Susitna River Basin.
4.1.11.3 Study Area.The report will be boilsed on existing information,
and will focus on information from Alaska and adjacent parts of Canada with
similar environmental conditions.The data base will cover the range of
Alces alces.
40027/4 4-23
(Rev.O-l/84)
4.1.11.4 Detailed Methodology.The methodology for this review will 1n-
elude a thorough literature search and review of unpublished data,a syn-
thesis of this information and a cost analysis.The literature review
will include computerized literature searches,reviews of references col-
lected by Alaska game researchers and managers,and review of the literature
cited in publications on hand and to be acquired.Unpublished data and
information will be acquired via interviews with Alaska resource managers
and researchers,including but not limited to:the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game (ADF&G),the U.s.Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),the U.S.
Forest Service (USFS),and the U.S.Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
Data will be gathered for a cost analysis through interviews with personnel
who have planned and performed prescri bed burns,logging,fores t regenera-
tion,site preparation,and mechanical habitat alteration.This will
include review of standard construction cost analysis references for heavy
equipment and labor,and consultation with civil design and field per-
sonnel.
4.1.11.5 Reports.The Habitat Enhancement Techniques Report wi 11 consist
of an annotated bibliography of all pertinent literature,a succinct review
of unpublished information,and a synthesis of the information from the
above that responds to the subtask objectives.
The following 1S a preliminary draft report outline:
I.Background
A.Brief Description of Susitna Project and its potential impact
on moose
40027/4
B.
c.
Report objectives
Brief description of data base
4-24
(Rev.O-l/84)
II.Moose Habitat
A.-Characteristics of winter forage.
1.Preferred species
a.Age,height,etc.
2.Availability
a.Snow depth,etc.
b.Other factors
B.Other Habitat Characteristics (cover,etc.)
C.Brief description of Susitna River Basin factors controlling
distribution and amount of forage
1.River erosion and depositon
2.Fire
3.Slope,aspect,elevation,climate,soils
III.Fire
A.Description of factors controlling fire
1.Wild fire
2.Prescribed burn
B.Factors controlling fire effects on moose browse
l.Pre-burn vegetation
2.Fire intensity
a.Fuel loading
b.Fuel moisture
c.Weather
3.Seed source
4.Location,shape and s~ze of burn
C.Effects on resources other than moose
1.Other game animals
2.Non-game animals
3.Soil and water quality
4.Visual
5.Socioeconomic
40027/4 4-25
(Rev.0-1/84)
IV.Logging
A.-Factors controlling logging effects on moose forage
1.Prelogging vegetation
2.Logging methods
3.Past-logging forest regeneration site preparation
4.Past-logging site preparation for moose forage
5.Seed raln
6.Size and shape of logged area
B.Effects on resources other than moose
l-ather game animals
2.Non-game animals
3.Soil and water quality
4.Visual
5.Socioeconomic
V.Mechanical site alteration (MSA)
A.Brief description of techniques
1.Crushing
2.Chaining
3.Other
B.Factors controlling effects of each type of mechanical site
alteration or moose forage
1.
2.
3.
Pre-MSA vegetation
Seed rain
Specific technique
40027/4
C.Effects on resources other than moose
l-ather game animals
2.Non-game animals
3.Soil and water quali ty
4.Visual
5.Soc ioeconomic
4-26
CRev.O-l/84)
VI.Cost effectiveness
A.-Comparison of effectiveness of var10US techniques in enhanc-
ing moose habitat
B.Comparison of costs of various techniques
VII.Recommendations
A draft report will be available for review by March 31,1984.
report will then be available on April 30,1984.
The final
40027/4 4-27
(Rev.0-l!84)
4.1.12 Candidate Mitigation Lands Study
4.1.12.1 Background
Dams,reservoirs,spillways,and damsite borrow areas of the proposed Watana
and Devil Canyon developments will permanently cover about 50,000 acres of
vegetated land and water within the Middle Susitna Basin (License Aplication
p.E-3-253).Habitat wi thin the affected area will no longer be avai lable
to moose,and displaced moose will compete for food and space on surrounding
lands,potentially reducing browse quality and thus the carrying capacity of
these adjacent ranges.
At the time of License Application submittal,preliminary estimates by ADF&G
(1982)indicated that some 2,400 moose might have home ranges within or
overlapping an arbitrarily-established five-mile zone surrounding the
impoundment areas.The License Application indicated that the fate of these
estimated 2,400 moose following project construction was unknown,but that
the reduced carrying capacity of the immediate project area would produce a
long-term deceasing trend in the number of moose present.
The loss of moose carrying capacity likely to result from the project can be
mitigated only through compensation:i.e.,increasing the moose carrying
capacity of other lands,or,retaining lands of high carrying capacity which
would otherwise be lost through planned future development.The License
Application indicated on a preliminary basis that compensation for permanent
moose habitat loss would be provided through the controlled burning of
roughly 6,400 acres of woodland conifer forest in the Middle Susitna Basin,
and clearing or crUShing of vegetation on about 16,000 acres in the Lower
Basin (i.e.,downstream from Gold Creek).These acreages were derived from
an assumed three-fold increase in browse biomass during the peak years of
browse production following the manipulation,based conceptually on studies
such as Wolf and Zasada (1979),and Viereck and Schandelmeier (1980).To
offset the effects of plant succession,the License Application further
indicated that enhancement measures would be repeated every 15 to 20 years
40027/4 4-28
(Rev.0-l/84)
during project life.Therefore,to implement the proposed mi tigation,the
Alaska Power Authority would require management jurisdication over at least
22,400 acres of land for at least 50 years.The goal of the study described
here is to identify appropriate tracts of land which may be considered for
this purpose.
4.1.12.2 Objectives
Specific objectives of the Candidate Mitigation Lands Study are:
o To identify and map tracts of land which,from a biological stand-
point,will be suitable for habitat retention or manipulative
enhancement for moose,emphasizing lands already under State of
Alaska ownership;
o
o
o
40027/4
To assure that sufficient acreages are identified to allow for an
increase in the estimated total required area which may result
from ongoing refinement of impact assessment and mitigation plan-
ning beyond the level of development presented in the License
Application;
To assure that the acreages identified provide adequate flexi-
bility for negotiation by the Power Authority with other·Alaska
state agencies,Federal agencies,or private entities;
To discuss the options for land selection relative to (a)biolo-
gical suitability,(b)cost-effectiveness,and (c)potential con-
flicts with other intended land uses,particularly those desig-
nated in the Susitna Area Plan.
4-29
(Rev.0-1/84)
4.1.12.3 Study Area
The study area for selection of candidate mitigation lands will be limited
to the Susitna River Basi~.
4.1.12.4 Detailed Methodology
LGL will prepare one or more annotated maps which will identify at least
100 ,000·acres of candidate lands for moose habitat enhancement or reten-
tion.This land area will be about five times greater than the approxi-
mately 22,400 acres called for in the License Application for moose habitat
enhancement;will probably be adequate for selective habitat retention,if
deemed appropriate;and will thus allow flexibility in final land selec-
tion.
Candidate lands will be identified by LGL through the systematic application
of selection criteria to be approved ~n advance by Harza-Ebasco.The
selection process will be documented in a concise report to accompany map
submittal on January 15,1983.
The specific methodology for the Candidate Mitigation Lands Study will
include:
o development and confirmation of selection criteria,including
agency concurrence;
o development and confirmation of an implementation procedure for
the selection criteria,including agency concurrence;
r-..
o
40027/4
review of appropriate 1:500 ,OOO-scale mapping prepared by ADF&G
and ADNR in support of the Susitna Area Plan,including draft maps
of estimated existing moose carrying capacity,estimated potential
moose carrying capacity,annual precipitation,land use designa-
tions,and proposed special wildlife management areas;
4-30
(Rev.O-l/84)
o meetings with representatives of ADF&G (including Area Biolo-
gists),ADNR,the Matanuska-Susitna Borough,and other appropriate
agencies to obtain advice and assistance in applying the selection
criteria;
o development of constraint maps through the application of selec-
tion criteria to specific geographic locations;
o meetings with Power Authority,Harza-Ebasco,and agency represen-
tatives to review the constraint maps and seek concurrence on
provisionally identified candidate lands;
o following concurrence on identified lands,preparation of draft
maps delineating specific tracts which optimally satisfy the se-
lection criteria and which total approximately 100,000 acres,and
o preparation of a concise report (see below)
4.1.12.5 Data Management and Reports
A report entitled 'Recommended Candidate Lands for Moose Habitat Compensa-
tion"will be submitted to Harza-Ebasco no later than January 15,1984.
This report wi 11 document the selec tion process;describe the recommended
land areas;and provide an overview of selection options,explaining poten-
tial pros and cons of each option relative to biological suitability,cost-
effectiveness,and apparent conflicts with land-use designations within the
Susitna Area Plan.
40027/4 4-31
(Rev.0-3/84)
4.2 DOWNSTREAM MOOSE
4.2.1 Background
Prior to statehood,the Susitna Valley was ranked as the most productive
moose habitat in the territory (Chatelain 1951).During this same time
period,winter concentration greater than 22 moose/km2 were observed.
(Spencer and Chatelain 1953).More recent evidence indicates that
concentrations and densities of moose in the Susitna Valley are greatest
when deep snows in surrounding areas and at higher elevations persist into
late winter and obscure browse species (Rausch 1959).Such dense
aggregations are the probable result of immigration of moose seeking refuge
and forage in.lowland habitats.These moose come from numerous sub-
populations,some from areas 30-40 km distant (LeResche 1974)and others
from more than 110 km away (Van Ballenberghe 1977).It appears that many
moose,from an extensive area and numerous sub-populations,uti Ii ze winter
range in the Susitna River Valley.
If the hydrologic regime of the Susitna River is modified by the proposed
project,riparian habitats downstream of the dam sites may be altered and
winter moose movements may be inhibited.As a result,intensive studies of
moose populations along the downstream floodplain were initiated in early
1980 and have continued through the present time (Modafferi 1982,1983).
4.2.2 Approach
The impacts of the proposed project on moose downstream of Devil Canyon are
being assessed by modeling the physical processes (e.g.,flooding,~ce
scouring)affecting downstream moose habitat,modeling the changes in
downstream moose habitat resulting from the modification of the hydrologic
regime.Additionally,studies are underway to determine the magnitude,dis-
tribution,habitat selection,and timing of moose use of these floodplain
habitats.Potential habitat enhancement measures are being studied by
closely monitoring moose winter use of disturbed sites known to be heavily
40027/4 4-32
(Rev.O-3/84)
used by moose 1n winter.Close coordination with the aquatic program will
be maintained to assure consistency .of inputs and outputs,where practical.
Figure 4-2 portrays the linkages among the various work efforts involved in
this approach.
All work efforts will be conducted at some level during FY 1984.A very
weak link exists in the mode ling efforts.This weakness is the lack of
information Olll which to base the representation of the effects of physical
processes on vegetation.This lack of information and the probable long-
term nature of any studies that could be conducted to obtain the informa-
tion,significantly limits the ability of the vegetation model to make quan-
titative predictions with a reasonable degree of accuracy.For this reason,
the modeling efforts will be reevaluated to assess the value and role of the
models and alternative assessment techniques in the overall effort.
40027/4 4-33
Figure 4-2.
(Rev.0-l/84)
Linkages Among Components of Downstream Moose Impact
Assessment and Mitigation Plan Refinement Efforts
DownstreaDl
Hydrologic
Model
--->
Downstream
Vegetation
Model
Changes in
1------->Moose Habitatl-------~
(Qualitative)
Wint er
Floodp lain >Changes in 1->Moose
Cens us Moose Numbers Mitigation
(Qualitative)Plan
1'\
Aquatic
Program
Hydrologic
and Floodplain
Hydraulic Distribu tion and
Model Habit at Use I--Winter Use
Inputs/Outputs Monit oring of Disturbed
Site Monitoring
Severe
Winter
Studies
40027/4 4-34
(Rev.0-l/84)
Work efforts to be conducted during FY 1984 along with the responsible
organization include:
1.Floodplain Distribution &Habitat Use Monitoring -ADF&G
2.Winter Floodplain Censuses -ADF&G
3.Winter Use of Disturbed Site Monitoring -ADF&G
4.Severe Winter Studies (if severe winter occurs)-ADF&G
5.Downstream Hydrologic and Vegetation Model Refinement -LGL
Plans of study for these work efforts including deliverable due dates and
the specific issues each work effort is designed to address are provided in
the following sections.
40027/4 4-35
..,.....-
(Rev.O-3/84)
4.2.3 Downstream Moose Field Studies
Downstream moose field studies are described on pages 4-6 and 23-24 of
ADF&G's FY 1984 Plan of Study provided as Appendix B.The studies consist
of four general work efforts:(l)floodplain distribution and habitat use
monitoring;(2)winter floodplain censuses;(3)winter use of disturbed site
monitoring;and (4)severe winter studies.The first three of these work
efforts are designed to address Issues T-20,T-35,and T-40 (Appendix A)
while the fourth work effort addresses Issues T-20,T-40,and T-4l.The
annual report for downstream moose field studies is due on April 1,1984.
This report will cover field studies conducted through fall 1983.
4.2.4 Downstream Hydrologic and Vegetation Model Refinement
Refinements to the downstream hydrologic and vegetation models will be made
in coordination with the Aquatic and Hydrology Study Teams if a reassess-
ment of the value of the models to the downstream assessment effort
indicates it is justified.In addition,a reassessment of downstream
impacts will be conducted based on a review of published and unpublished
information and discussions with ice experts.
A detailed plan of study for this subtask will be available by February 28,
1984.This subtask is designed to address Issues T-l and T-20 •
40027/4 4-36
(Rev.0-1/84)
4.3 CARIBOU
4.3.1 Background
The Nelchina caribou herd occupies a range of about 20,000 mi 2 1n
south central Alaska.This herd has been important to hunters because of
its size and proximity to population centers.The herd has been studied
continuously since about 1948 and records previous to that time are avail-
able.The U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service initiated research 1n 1948 which
continued through 1959.ADF&G has been continually involved with the Nel-
china herd since statehood and has conducted intensive research,population,
harvest distribution,disease,and range monitoring studies (Skoog 1968;
Lentfer 1965 ;McGowan 1966;Glenn 1967;Hemming and Glenn 1968,1969;
Pegau and Hemming 1972;Nei1and 1972;Pegau and Bos 1972;Pegau et a1.1973.;
Bos 1973,1974;ADF&G Survey and Inventory Reports 1970-1982).Skoog's
(1968)doctoral dissertation,a major work on caribou biology,dealt largely
with the Nelchina herd.
Intensive studies designed to evaluate the effects of the Susitna Project on
the Ne1china herd were initiated in early 1980.These studies have conti-
nued through the present (pitcher 1982,1983).
4.3.2 Approach
The primary impacts of project development on caribou are likely to result
from the partial barriers to movements potentially created by the access
roads and the impoundments.The extent to which these features may affec t
movements is difficult to predict due to the variability exhibited by
caribou in their reaction to other barriers reported in the literature and
their unpredictable range use patterns relative to other large North
American herbivores.
The best approach to evaluate project impacts appears to be through building
up a large data base on pre-project movements and range use so that effec-
40027/4 4-37
(Rev.0-l/84)
ti ve mitigation measures can be recommended and that the effects of the
barriers after"project development can be fully evaluated.Thus,the FY
1984 program includes monitoring the size productivity,and movement pat-
terns of caribou in the main Nelchina herd and the upper Susitna Nenana
subherd.
These field studies are
study (see Appendix B).
A).
40027/4
described on pages 7-9 of ADF&G's FY 1984 plan of
This work effort addresses Issue T-20 (of Appendix
4-38
(Rev.0-l/84)
4.4 DALL SHEEP
4.4.1 Background
Dall sheep occur in three areas in the vicinity of the Susitna Project:
near Mount 'irlatana,the Watana Hills,and the Portage-Tsusena Creeks area.
Besides the potential for disturbance from construction activities and from
recreationists during operation,the major potential direct impact of the
proposed project on Dall sheep may be disturbance of the Jay Creek mineral
lick in the Watana Hills.
Aerial surveys of project area sheep were initiated in early 1981 along with
frequent observations of the Jay Creek lick made in conjunction with other
Susitna studies (Ballard et al.1982).Further observations were made in
1982 (Tankersley 1983).More intensive studies were initiated in 1983
(described below).
4.4.2 Approach
The major potential direct impact of project development on Dall Sheep will
be inundation of a portion of the Jay Creek Mineral lick and human distur-
bance at or near the lick.Therefore,additional studies are concentrating
on quantifying sheep use of Jay Creek and other nearby licks,assessing and
comparing the mineral content of these licks,and monitoring seasonal habi-
tat use of sheep range in the project area.Issues T-20 and T-42 are ad-
dressed by these studies (see Appendix A).The field studies are described
on pages 14-17 of ADF&G's FY 1984 Plan of Study (see Appendix B).
40027/4 4-39
(Rev.0-1/84)
4.5 BLACK AND BROWN BEAR
4.5.1 Background
Prior to Su:sitna Project-funded studies,no black bear research had been
conducted in the Susitna or Nelchina River Basins.Brown bear research,
however,had been undertaken since 1978.This research concentrated on the
magnitude and effects of brown bear predation on moose but considerable life
history data were also collected (Ballard et ale 1980,Spraker et ale
1981).Intlmsive Susitna Project studies were initated in early 1980 and
have continued through the present (Miller and McAllister 1982,Miller
1983)•
4.5.2 Approach
Direct project impacts on bears will result primarily from loss of denning
and foraging habitat.Bear habitat use,especially for foraging,exhibits
considerable seasonal and annual variability.Therefore,a large data base
on pre-project distribution,habitat use,numbers,and food habits is pre-
ferred for impact assessment.Also,because of the suspected importance of
brown bear predation on moose calves in limiting moose populations,addi-
tional data on this phenomenon is required as input to moose modeling
efforts.Studies designed to collect these data are currently underway.
These studies along with the linkages among them are identified in Figure
4-3.
All studies are currently planned to be conducted in FY 1984.The respon-
sible organizations for each work effort are listed below:
l.
2.
3.
4.
40027/4
Impact Area Use Monitoring -ADF&G
DE~n Site Use Monitoring-ADF&G
Food Resource Identification -ADF&G
Spring Plant Phenology Study - U of A,Palmer
4-40
(Rev.O-1/84)
5.MOlJSe Population Model Refinement -ADF&G/LGL
6.Bei!lr -Population Model Refinement -ADF&G/LGL
Plans of·study for these work efforts including deliverable due dates and
the specific issues each work effort is designed to address are provided in
the following sections with the exceptions of work efforts 4 and 5.These
are provided in Sections 4.1.4 and 4.1.10,re~pectively.
4.5.3 Bear Field Studies
Black and brown bear field studies are described on pages 12-13 of ADF&G's
FY 1984 Plan of Study provided as Appendix B.The studies consist of
three generall work efforts:(1)impact area use monitoring;(2)den site
use monitoring;and (3)food resource identification.These work efforts
are designed.to address Issues T-20 and T-44 (see Appendix A).The annual
report for bear field studies is due on April 1,1984.This report will
cover field studies conducted through fall 1983.
4.5.4 Bear Population Model Refinement
Refinements to the bear population model will be made only if indicated
following further reV1ew.Presently,further refinements do not appear
warranted be~cause the large number and questionable soundness of the model's
assumptions limit its utility.
40027/4 4-41
.f:-aa
N
1II
~)
Figure 4-3.
Impact Area
Use Monitoringl I
Linkages Among Components of Bear Impact Assessment
and Mitigation Plan Refinement Efforts
Den Site Use
,f;-I Monitoring I H Bear 1 BeartPopulationMitigat ion
--------------~I .Models Plan
Food Resource
Ident ification
, I I I 1
Moose I I Moose
Spring Plant I I IPoPulation Mitigation
1-----1 Phenology 1----1 Models Plan
Studies
'---vegetation
Mapping
.......
l:tl
(l)
<:.
o
I.....-oc
,f;-
(Rev.0-1/84)
4.6 WOLF AND WOLVERINE
4.6.1 Background
Wol ves in Game Management Unit (GMU)13,commonly referred to as the Nel-
china Basin,have been the focus of interest and study for over 30 years
(Ballard 1981).The history of GMU 13 wolves from 1957 through 1968 was
summarized by Rausch (1969).From 1948 to 1953 p01son1ng and aerial shoot-
ing by the Federal Government reduced populations of predators to low
levels.By 1953 only 12 wolves were estimated to remain in the basin.This
small population quickly expanded and by 1965 was thought to have peaked at
400-450 (Rausch 1969).Although no systematic studies were conducted from
1969 through 1974,McIlroy (976)suggested that a second population peak
occurred in 1970.
During the period of wolf population growth,moose populations on GMU 13
declined,suggesting a cause-effect relationship.In 1975 a ser1es of
predator-prey relat ionships studies involving wolves were ini tiated.
Results of these studies were provided by Stephenson (1978),Ballard and
Spraker (979),Ballard and Taylor (980),Ballard et al.(1980)and Bal-
lard et al.(198lb,1981c).Portions of the aforementioned studies involved
experimentally manipulating wolf densities in part of the area which could
be impacted by Susitna hydroelectric development (Ballard et al.1980).
Wolf control activities were conducted from 1976 through July 1978.By 1980
wolf densities in the reduction area had returned to pre-control levels
(Ballard 1980).
In contrast to the wolf,no previous studies of wolverine have been
conducted in the project vicinity and'few studies have been conducted in
North America.Both wolf and wolverine studies funded by the Susitna
project were initiated in early 1980 and continue through the present time
(Ballard et al.1982b,1983a;Garner and Ballard 1982;Whitman and Ballard
1983).
40027/4 4-43
(Rev .0-1/84)
4.6.2 Approach
Wolves are likely to be affected by a variety of project impact mechanisms,
among which,reductions in prey populations sizes and changes 1n
distribution may be the most severe.It is desireable to have a large data
base on the number and distribution of wolf packs and the S1ze of each wolf
pack using the upstream moose zone of impact in order to assess the project
impact on wolves,as well as the impact of wolves on moose.Studies to be
conducted by ADF&G are planned for each of these areas in FY 1984.In
addition,information on wolverine distribution,abundance,home range size;
habitat selection,and food habits will be collected opportunistically by
relocating wolverine during wolf tracking flights.These efforts are
designed to address Issues T-20 and T-43 (see Appendix A).The studies are
described on pages 10-11 of ADF&G's FY 1984 Plan of Study (see Appendix B).
40027/4 4-44
(Rev.O-l/84)
4.7 BELUKHA WHALE
4.7.1 Background
Be1ukha whales range throughout Cook Inlet,concentrating 1n the upper Inlet
near and in the Susitna River mouth in the spring and summer and moving to
the lower Inlet during the winter.There is some evidence which suggests
that during winters of heavy ice in Cook Inlet some of the bel ukhas may
leave the Inlet entirely and move across the north Gulf of Alaska to as far
away as Yakutat Bay (Calkins 1979).The Cook Inlet stock of belukha whales
was estimated at 300 to 400 animals by Klinkhart (1966).
More recent surveys in the Inlet have shown that the population exceeds 400
animals (Calkins unpub.data).In response to concerns about the effects of
the Susitna Project on this population,aerial surveys of upper Cook Inlet
were flown in spring and summer 1982 (Calkins 1983)and again in 1983.
4.7.2 Approach
Because of the potential for project effects on belukha whales near the
mouth of thl~Susitna River,aerial surveys were flown in spring and summer
1982 and 1983.FY 1984 work will be limited to data analysil:!and report
writing (see pages 18-19 of ADF&G's Plan of Study in Appendix B).No
additional field studies will be conducted unless new information on the
impacts of fish populations believed to be important to belukhas indicates
that additional studies are needed.
40027/4 4-45
(Rev.O-l/84)
4•8 DOWNS TRl~AM BEAVER
4.8.1 Background
Beaver and other furbearer sign has been surveyed and inventoried along the
lower Susitna River on several occasions.In August 1980 a riverboat was
used to survey the Susitna River between Portage Creek and the Kashwitna
River and a fixed-wing aircraft survey of the River between Devil Canyon and
Cook Inlet was conducted in July 1981 (Gipson et al.1982).Beaver sign and
habitat associations were surveyed during spring and summer 1982 and a heli-
copter cache survey between Portage Creek and the Deshka River was conducted
in September 1982 (Gipson and Durst 1982).Finally,a helicopter cache
survey of the Susitna River between Portage Creek and Cook Inlet was con-
ducted in October 1983.
4.8.2 Approach
FY 1984 work included the October 1983 helicopter survey mentioned above and
will include further refinement of the beaver carrying capacity model and
limi ted overwinter survival studies.The linkages among these efforts and
other relate!d work efforts are shown in Figure 4-4.
4.8.3 Beaver Field Studies
An aerial !~urvey of the number of beaver caches (representing colonies
attempting to overwinter)will be conducted in fall 1983 along the Susitna
River between Portage Creek and Cook Inlet.A complete count will be made
between Portage Creek and Talkeetna and a representative area count will be
made between Talkeetna and Cook Inlet.This information will allow assess-
ment of annual variability in colony numbers between Portage Creek and Tal-
keetna and will allow a general estimate of beaver abundance downstream of
Talkeetna.
40027/4 4-46
~oo
N
\Jl
)
Figure 4-4.Linkages Among Components of Downstream Beaver
Impact Assessment and Mitigation Plan Refinement
)
~
1-
-..J
Aquatic Program
Hydrologic
and
Hydraulic
Model
tnputs/Outputs
"7 Downstream
Hydrologic
Model
"
Downstream
Vegetation
Model
""
Beaver
Carrying
Capacity
Model
"~
Furbearers
Mitigation
Plan,
"
Ident i fica t ion
of Forage
Resources
Cache Count
Surveys
Winter Survival
Studies
Aquatic Program
Fish
Mitigation
Plan
(Rev.0-1/84)
Beaver overwinter survival studies will involve returning to beaver colony
locations (m~lrked during the cache survey)shortly before and after break-up
for colony overwinter survival determinations J to sample the quality of
cache food,to determine if lodges or bank dens were destroyed by break-up,
and to measure certain environmental parameters.This information will be
used directly in refining the beaver model.
A detailed plan of study for these efforts will be available by February 28,
1984.This subtask ~s designed to address Issues T-20 and T-46 (see
Appendix A).
4.8.4 Beaver Model Refinement
Beaver modeling efforts for the Susitna River downstream of Portage Creek
were initiated in 1982 and refined in 1983.Refinements to the existing
model planned for FY 1984 primarily consist of integration of field study
results into the model (Section 4.8.3)and the refinement of downstream
hydrologic and vegetation models and reassessment of downstream impacts
(Section 4.2.4).
A detailed plan of study for this subtask will be available by February 28,
1984.This sub task is designed to address Issues T-20 and T-45 (see
Append ix B)"
40027/4 4-48
(Rev.0-l/84)
4.9 RAPTORS
4.9.1 Background
Little was known about the raptors of the middle Susitna Basin prior to
initiation of baseline studies for the Susitna Project.Raptor baseline
surveys were designed specifically for cliff-nesters (especially golden
eagles,gyrfalcons and peregrine falcons)and large tree-nesters (especially
bald eagles).Information on other species was obtained incidental to these
surveys and during ground-based plot surveys and waterbody surveys.
Raptor surveys were conducted In the middle Susitna basin by helicopter on
July 6,1980 and May 16 and 17,1981 (Kessel et al.1982a).All cliff
nesting habitat and stands of large white spruce and cottonwood within
approximately 3 miles (5 km)of the Susitna River and its tributaries from
Portage Creek (1980)and the Indian River (1981)to the mouth of the Tyone
River were surveyed.The proposed project access routes were surveyed on
July 3 and .5,1981.In 1980 and 1981,active nests were visited from the
ground between May 20 and July 13,1981.In addition,all potential pere-
grine falcon nesting habitat (e.g.,especially partially vegetated cliffs)
was examined by helicopter and on foot in June 1981.
Raptor baseline data on the lower Susitna floodplain were collected using
two methods.A ground survey of all bird species was conducted in early
summer 1982 and aerial surveys for bald eagle nests were conducted in the
spring or summer of 1980,1981 and 1982.
The ground survey was conducted between Curry and the river mouth from June
10-21,1982.Extensive,uniform patches of each of the major terrestrial
habitats,as:sighted from the river,were surveyed each morning on foot.
Surveys for nesting bald eagles were conducted in the lower Susitna River
floodplain in April 1980 by the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service,in late June
40027/4 4-49
(Rev .0-1/84)
1981 by Tern!strial Environmental Services (TES).and on July 1,1982 by the
University of Alaska Museum (Kessel et al.1982b).
4.9.2 Approach
Additional field efforts are necessary in two areas.First.elevations of
many raptor nesting locations are estimates made from topographic maps
with 100 foot contour intervals.In addition,a few discrepancies exist
among survey results concerning the exact locations of nesting sites.
Therefore.a survey to verify nesting locations with respect to impact
locations is needed.A second field effort is needed to assess areas for
nesting habitat enhancement so that the raptor mitigation plan can be
refined.
4.9.3 Raptor Field Studies
Field studies will be conducted to obtain accurate measurements of nesting
locations and nest site elevations relative to impact locations.Addi-
tional field efforts will be made to locate areas suitable for nesting habi-
tat enhancement.for the purpose of refining the raptor ~itigation plan.
Supplemental data on raptor nesting will be obtained during these field
efforts.Field efforts will be initiated in late FY 1984 but .will not be
completed until early FY 1985.
A detailed plan of study for these efforts will be prepared by February 28.
1984.This subtask is designed to address Issues T-50.T-5l.T-52.T-53,
and T-54 (see Appendix B).
40027/4 4-50
.-
(Rev .0-1/84)
4.10 OTHER WILDLIFE
4.10.1 Background
A considerable amount of data have been collected on other species of wild-
life present in the Susitna Project area.Kessel et al.(1982a.1982b)have
collected and reported data on all birds and nongame mammals of the pro-
ject vicinity and Gipson et al.(1982)have collected and reported data on
all furbearers in the vicinity of the project.Studies on marten contri-
buted to the preparation and completion of a doctoral dissertation (Buskirk
1983).These studies were conducted primarily in 1980 and 1981.
4.10.2 Approach
Additional field studies are not presently deemed necessary for birds.
nongame mammals.or furbearers except in the case of raptors and beavers
(See Sectiot1l 4.8 and 4.9).However.further refinement and quantification
of the impact assessment and mitigation plans for all birds and mammals will
be conducted as described in Sections 3.1.3 and 3.1.4.
40027/4 4-51
(Rev.0-1/84)
4.11 WETLANDS
4.11.1 Background
Vegetation maps of the project area have been prepared by McKendrick et al.
(1982).Using the Viereck and Dyrness (980)system of classification
1:24,000 scale maps of potential wetlands covering a corridor from the
Oshetna River to Devil Canyon and 1 :63,360 potential wetland maps of the
access corridors were produced by first correlating the vegetation types
from Vierick and Dyrness (1980)with the wetland types of Coward in et al.
(1979).The corresponding wetland categories were superimposed over the
vegetation IMpS.The presence of steep slope and likely good drainage were
interpreted to rule out classification as wetland.Lakes,ponds,rivers,
and streams were not specifically classified.
4.11.2 Approach
Because the system of Cowardin et ale (979)was not used directly to map
wetlands,but was applied in a liberal sense to a general vegetation
classification system,the existing wetland maps indicate areas which poten-
tially qualify as wetlands rather than actual wetlands.Therefore,specific
wetland mapping of the project area is currently planned to permit
refinement of impact assessments and mitigation plans.
40027/4 4-52
(Rev.O-l!84)
4.11.3 Wetland Mapping
A Cooperative Agreement between the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (Region
7)and the Power Authority has been drafted but has not yet been nego-
tiated which calls for the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service to map wetlands in
the project area.The Coward in et a1.(1979)system is to be used and
maps are to be prepared,at a scale of 1:63,360 as part of their National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI).This effort will involve preparing 11 wetland
maps of the main project area.Each map would overlay one of the following
15-minute U.S.G.S.Quad sheets:Talkeetna Mountains C-l,C-2, C-4,D-2,D-
3,D-4, D-5,and D-6;Healy A-3,B~3,and B-4.In addition,wetland map
coverage of Healy D-4 and D-5 would also be prepared.With the mapping of
these two quads all areas traversed by the transmission line segments
running from Willow to Anchorage and Healy to Fairbanks will also be
included in the NWI.
Completion of field work and photointerpretation are presently scheduled for
September 30,1984,draft map production completion is scheduled for January
31,1985,i:lDd final map production completion is scheduled for June 30,
1985.
40027/4 4-53
(Rev.O-1/84)
5.0 SCHEDULE AND DELIVERABLES
A list of FY1984 deliverables together with their due dates is provided in
the following table.These dates have been extracted from the text of this
plan of study.The schedule for Terrestrial Program impact assessment and
mitigation plan refinement tasks is provided in Figure 5-1.
DELIVERABLES*
1.Progress Reports
2.Draft Tracking and Documentation System (Rev.0)
3.Recommended Candidate Lands for Moose Habitat
Compensation Draft Report
4.Draft pilot Browse Study Report
5.Spring 1983 Terrestrial Modeling Workshop
Final Report
6.Moose Population Model Refinement Detailed
Plan of Study
7.Final pilot Browse Study Report
8.Final Tracking and Documentation System (Rev.0)
9.Recommended Candidate Lands for Moose Habitat
Compensation Final Report
10.Beaver Field Studies Detailed Plan of Study
11.Beaver Model Refinement Detailed plan of Study
12.Downstream Hydrologic and Vegetation Model
Refinement Detailed Plan of Study
13.Forage Vegetation Mapping Detailed plan of Study
14.Raptor Field Studies Detailed Plan of Study
15.Draft Plant Phenology Study Report
16.Draft Impact Assessment Update and Refinement
Report
17.Browse Inventory Detailed Plan of Study
18.Draft Habitat Enhancement Techniques Review
19.Draft ADF&G Big Game Annual Reports
DUE DATE
Monthly
12/15/83
1/15/83
1/20/83
1/31/84
2/10/84
2/10/84
2/15/84
2/20/84
2128/84
2/28/84
2/28/84
2/28/84
2/28/84
3/23/84
3/31/84
3/31/84
3/31/84
4/01/84
40027/5 5-1
20.Bioenergetics Model Testing Annual Report
21.Draft Moose Food Habits Report
22 Draft Mitigation plan Refinement Report
23.Final Impact Assessment Update and Refinement
Report
24.Tracking amd Documentation System (Rev.1)
25.Plant Phenology Study Final Report
26.Final Habitat Enhancement Techniques Review
27 Final Moose Food Habits Report
28.Final FY 1985 Work Scopes
29.Final ADF&G Big Game Annual Reports
30.Final Mitigation Plan Refinement Report
31.Terrestrial Program Workshop
32.Preliminary Draft Forage Vegetation Maps
33.Tracking and Documentation System (Rev.2)
(Rev.0-1/84 )
4/01/84
4/15/84
4/30/84
4/30/84
4/30/84
4/30/84
4/30/84
5/07/84
5/10/84
5/15/84
5/30/84
6/15/84
6/20/84
6/30/84
40027/5 5-2
FISCAL YEAR 1984
1983 1984
JULIAUGISEPTIOCTINovlDEC JAN1FEBI MAR IAPRIMAY IJUN
GENERAL ACTIVITIES
o Tracking &Documentation System ..------0-------1---------1------1
o Impact Assess.Update &Refine Report ...-------------0---1
o Mitigation Plan Refine.Report ......--------------0---1
o Progress Review &Planning Meetings x x x x x x x x x
o Progress Reports II II II II II II II II II II &&1
o Terrestrial Program Workshop ••••••x
o FY'85 Work Scope Definition ......--------0---0-1
UPSTREAM HOOSE TASK
Upstream Moose Field Studies 0 &
Plant Phenology Studies --------0-----11
Forage Vegetation Mapping ............----------0---Pilot Browse Study ....-------------------0---&--Moose Food Habits Study ......------------0---1
Browse Inventory ................
Bioenergetics Model Testing 0 &
Moose Population Model Refinement ---.....------------------
Habitat Enhance~ent Tech.Rev......----------------0-----1
Candidate Mitigation Lands Study ....----------------------0---1
Downstream Moose Task
Downstream Moose Field Studies 0 I
Downstream Modeling ........-------------------
.l>-ee
N
\Jl
VI
I·w
Figure 5-1.Schedule for FY1984 Terrestrial Program Impact Assessment
and Mitigation Plan Refinement Tasks
)
..
Legend:Planning
Field Work x
Office/Lab Work
Meet ing
o Draft Report
I Fina I Report
*Draft refers to the first review draft produced.There will often be at
least one additional draft prepared between the first review draft and the
final report.Dates for these additional drafts are not indicated in
table.
(Rev.O-1/84)
6.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM
6.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of the Harza-Ebasco Quality Assurance (QA)Program is to provide
a measure of control over the quality of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project
environmental studies and some assurance that resulting data and reports
represent quality end-products which will withstand public and professional
scrutiny.The QA Program comprises all planned and systematic actions,
including quality analysis and corrective actions,necessary to provide
adequate confidence in the results of the Aquatic,Terrestrial and Social
Science Programs.
6.2 GENERAL APPLICATION
This QA Program will be applied specifically to all Harza-Ebasco management
activities and subcontractor technical activities related to the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project -environmental studies.However,where these acti-
vities interface directly with other project tasks,such as hydrologic and
hydraulic studies,elements of this QA Program may be applied.The general
contents of the QA Program address four major aspects:organizat ion and
responsibilities;operating procedures;document control;and audits.Spe-
cific QA guidelines and actions will be implemented with each subcontractor
to assure quality,reliability,redundancy and traceability of technical
data,information,and project records.
The QA Program for the environmental studies is compatible with the Harza-
Ebasco Quality Control Plan as defined in Exhibit 7 of the Harza-Ebasco
Susitna Hydroelectric Project contract with the Alaska Power Authority.In
addition,this QA Program complies with the "Ebasco Quality Manual for
Hydroelectric Power Stations"which has been identified as a guidance docu-
ment for this Project.Finally,the QA Program for environmental studies is
in conformance with the General Investigation Memoranda for the Aquatic,
Terrestrial and Social Science Programs.
40027/6 6-1
(Rev.0-1/84)
6.3 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES QA PROGRAM
All subcontractors will be required to incorporate quality assurance in
their studies.This will include quality assurance procedures for data
collection,checking,and storage,analytical procedures,analyses performed
on data,and processes for incorporating data into final reports.
Other items included in the QA Program will be organization charts,lines of
authority and identification of the person(s)responsible for QA,methods
for assuring competency and safety of files,audit programs and the identi-
fication of persons responsible for technical quality of the reports.
6.3.1 Organization and Responsibilities
The QA Program will address the organizational structure,functional respon-
sibilities,levels of authority,and lines of internal and external communi-
cation.for management,direction,and execution of the environmental stu-
dies.All key positions and their project relationships,one to another,
will be clearly defined.These positions include,but are not limited
to:
Harza-Ebasco
Project Director
Project Manager
Operations Manager
Group Leaders
Principal Staff
Subcontractors
Project Managers
Technical Leaders
Power Authority
Project Manager
Deputy Project Managers
Technical Leaders
6.3.2 Operating Procedures
The QA Program will define efforts to oversee the quality of the Harza-
Ebasco management responsibilities as well as the technical studies being
primarily conducted by subcontractors.Numerous procedures for adminis-
40027/6 6-2
(Rev.0-1/84 )
trative and technical operations are underway for the Susitna Hydroelectric
Project which will receive attention through quality assurance activities.
The QA Program requires each subcontractor to submit a QA Manual or "State-
ment of Compliance"with the Harza-Ebasco QA Program,depending upon the
degree of activity and involvement of the subcontractor.
Operating procedures which are monitored by the QA Program include,but are
not limited to:
1.Sample collection.
2.Packaging,shipping,and receipt of samples.
3.Sample preservation and analysis.
4.Maintenance of technical standards.
5.Calibration of equipment.
6.Recording,reduction,evaluation and reporting of data.
In short,all operating procedures dealing with field or other data collec-
tion,laboratory or office analysis,and the reporting of results are of
concern to the QA Program.
6.3.3 Document Control
Criteria for document and data identification;logging of incoming and out-
going documents;document review,approval and release;and document 'checks,
distribution,use,and revisions are addressed by the QA Program.This QA
Program describes the system of control for all project documents which have
an effect on quality-related environmental activities,and provides guide-
lines for the filing,collection,storage,disposition,and maintenance of
records affecting the quality of the project including project data.
6.3.4 Audits
The QA Program provides for a variety of audit activities which may be
applied to the Susitna Hydroelectric Project environmental studies.These
40027/6 6-3
(Rev.0-1/84)
activities may include internal inspections of Harza-Ebasco project files,
external audits of subcontractor files against their QA Manual and proce-
dures,and surveillance of subcontractors field and laboratory data
gathering and analysis activities to assure compliance with their QA Manual
and procedures.
Internal inspections of Harza-Ebasco project files may be conducted by the
Project Director,Licensing Manager,or Operations Managers at any time
during the project.External audits and surveillance activities of
subcontractors will be performed by Operations Managers or Group Leaders at
least once per year and possibly more often at the discretion of the Project
Director.
6.3.5 Harza-Ebasco QA
Harza-Ebasco will develop a generic ~Manual to encompass studies in which
it directly participates and to include an overview of QA procedures by
all environmental subconsultants.This QA Manual will be compatible with
other project requirements and will serve as the umbrella over the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project environmental studies.The contents of the Harza-
Ebasco QA Manual will include at a minimum:
1.Copies of the subcontractor's procedures and QA Manuals.
2.QA responsibilities including levels of authority.
3.Safety,location,duplication of data files.
4.Applicable audit programs.
5.Procedures for maintenance of QA records.
6.Technical review procedures.
6.4 QA PROGRAM APPLICATION TO TERRESTRIAL PROGRAM
The Harza-Ebasco Environmental Studies QA Manual will serve as the
controlling document for Terrestrial Program QA.However,in addition to
the generic procedures described in this manual,QA for the Terrestrial
40027/6 6-4
(Rev.0-1/84)
Program Impact Assessment and Mitigation Plan Refinement Efforts will be
enhanced by the preparation and maintenance of the tracking and
documentation system described in Section 3.1.2.This system will permit
the tracking and documentation of impact assessment and mitigation plan
status as these items are refined and,in doing so,will demonstrate the
resolution of issues and the status of unresolved 1ssues.
40027/6 6-5
Rev .0-1/84)
7.0 REFERENCES
Alaska Department of Fish and Game.1970-1980.Annual Survey and Inventory
Reports,Caribou.Juneau,Alaska.
Ballard,W.B.1980.Wolf repopulation study.Alaska Department of Fish and
Game.P-R Proj.Rep.,W-2l-2.6 pp.
Ballard,W.B.1981.Grey wolf-brown bear relationships in the Nelchina
Basin of Southcentral Alaska.F.H.Harrington and P.C.Paquet,Co.
Eds.Proc.Portland Wolf Symp.Portland,Oregon:In Press.
Ballard W.B.,and K.P.Taylor.1978.Upper Susitna River moose population
study.Alaska Department of Fish and Game.Fed.Aid ~n Wildl.Rest.
Proj.Final Rep W-17-9 and W-17-l0,Job 1.2 or.61 pp.
Ballard,W.B.and T.Spraker.1979.Unit 13 wolf studies.Alaska
Department of Fish and Game.P-R Proj.Rep.,W-17-8,Jobs 14.8 R,
14.9 Rand 14.10 R.90 pp.
Ballard,W.B.and C.L.Gardner.1980.Nelchina yearling moose mortality
study.Alaska Department of Fish and Game.P-R Proj.Rep.,W-17-ll,
W-2l-1.22 pp.
Ballard W.B.,and K.P.Taylor.1980.Upper Susitna Valley moose populatio
study.Alaska Department of Fish and Game P-R Proj.Final Rep.,W-17-
9,W-17-l0,and W-17-ll.102 pp.
Ballard,W.B.,S.D.Miller,and T.H.Spraker.1980.Moose calf mortality
study.Ala~ka Department of Fish and Game.P-R Proj.Final Rep.,W-n
17-9,W-17-l0, W-17-l1,and W-21-l.123 pp.
Ballard,W.B.,D.A.Cornelius and C.L.Gardner.1981a.Moose-Upstream
Studies,Susitna Hydroelectric Project Subtask 7.11.91 pp.
40027/7 7-1
(Rev.0-1/84)
Ballard W.B.,T.H.Spraker,and K.P.Taylor.1981b.Causes of neonatal
moose calf mortality in Southcentral Alaska.J.wildl.Manage,45(2);
335-342.
Ballard.W.B.,R.O.Stephenson and T.H.Spraker.1981c.Nelchina Basin
Wolf Studies.Alaska Department of Fish and Game.P-R Proj.Final
Rept.W-17-8,W-17~9,W-17-10.and W-17-11.201 pp.
Ballard,W.B.,C.L.Gardner,J.H.Westlund,and J.R.Dau.1982a.Big Game
Studies,Volume III,Moose-Upstream.Susitna Hydroelectric Project,
Phase I Final Report.Submitted to Alaska Power Authority.Alaska
Department of Fish and Game.
Ballard,W.B.,C.L.Gardner,J.H.Westlund,and J.R.Dau.1982b.Big Game
Studies,Volume V,Wolf.Susitna Hydroelectric Project,Phase I Final
Report.Submitted to Alaska Power Authority.Alaska Department of
Fish and Game.
Ballard,W.B.,C.L.Gardner,and S.D.Miller.1982c.Nelchina yearling
moose mortality study.Alaska Department of Fish and Game.P-R Proj.
Final Rep.,W-21-1 and W-21-2.37 pp.
Ballard,W.B.,J.S.Whitman,L.D.Aumiller,and P.Hessing.1983a.Big
Game Studies,Volume V,Wolf.Susitna Hydroelectric Project,Phase II
Progress Report.Submitted to Alaska Power Authority,Alaska
Department of Fish and Game.
Ballard,W.B.,J.S.Whitman,N.G.Tankersley,L.D.Aumiller,and P.Hessing.
"';..
1983b.Big Game Studies,Volume III,Moose-Upstream.Susitna
Hydroelectric Project,Phase II Progress Report~Submitted to Alaska
Power Authority.Alaska Department of.Fish and Game.
40027/7 7-2
(Rev.0-l/84)
Ballard,W.B.,R.O.Stephenson,S.D.Miller,K.B.Schneider and S.H.Eide.
In Prep.Ecological studies of timber wolves and predator/prey
relationships in Southcentral Alaska.Wildl.Monogr.
Bos,G.N.1973.Nelchina Caribou Report,Alaska Dept.Fish and Game,Fed.
Aid in Wildl.Rest.,Proj.W-17-4 and W-17-5.Juneau,Alaska.25 pp.
Bos,G.N.1974.Nelchina and Mentasta caribou reports -Alaska Dept.Fish
and Game,Fed.Aid.in wildl.Rest.,Proj.W-17-5 and W-17-6.Juneau,
Alaska.50 pp.
Buskirk,S.W.1983.The ecology of marten in Southcentral Alaska.Ph.D.
Thesis,University of Alaska,Fairbanks.
Calkins,D.G.1979.Marine Mammals of Lower Cook Inlet and the Potential
for Impact from Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Exploration,
Development and Transportation Special Report.Prepared for Alaskan
Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program.Juneau,
Alaska.
Calkins,D.G.1983.Big Game Studies,Volume IX,Belukha Whale.Susitna
Hydroelectric Project,Phase II Progress Report.Submitted to Alaska
Power Authority.Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Chatelain,E.F.1951.Winter range problems of moose in the Susitna
Valley.Proc.Alaska Sci.conf.2:343-347.
Cowardin,L.M.,V.Carter,F.C.Golet and E.T.LaRoe.1979.Classification
of Wetlands and Deep Water Habitats of the United States.Publication
FWS/BS-79-3l.U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service.
Dearden,B.L.,R.E.Pegau,and R.M.Hansen.1975.Precision of microhisto-
logical estimates of ruminant food habits.J.Wldl.Mange.39:402-
407.
40027/7 7-3
(Rev.0-l/84)
Free,J.C.,R.M.Hansen,and P.L.Sims.1970.Estimating dry weights of
food plants in feces of herbivores.J.Range Mange.23:300-302.
Gardner,C.L.,and W.B.Ballard.1982.Big Game Studies,Volume VII,
Wolverine.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Phase I Final Report.
Submitted to Alaska Power Authority.Alaska Department of Fish and
Game.
Gipson,P.S.,and J.D.Durst.1982.Susitna beaver population survey.
Progress Report.Submitted to LGL.Prepared for Alaska Power
Authority.Alaska Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit,University of
Alaska,Fairbanks.
Gipson,P.S.,S.W.Buskirk,and T.W.Hobgood.1982.Furbearer studies,
Phase I Report.Susitna Hydroelectric Project,Environmental Studies,
Subtask 7.11.Submitted to Terrestrial Environmental Specialists,Inc.
Prepared for Alaska Power Authority.Alaska Cooperative Wildlife
Research Unit,University of Alaska,Fairbanks.
Glenn,L.P.1967.Caribou report.
Wildl.Rest.Proj.W-15-T-l,2.
Alaska Dept.Fish and Game,Fed.Aid in
Juneau,Alaska.36 pp.
Hemming,J.E.,and L.P.Glenn.1968.Caribou report:Alaska Dept.Fish
and Game,Fed.Aid.in Wildl.Rest.,Proj.W-15-2.Juneau,Alaska.
41 pp.
Hemming,J.E.,and L.P.Glenn.1969.Caribou report.Alaska Dept.Fish
and Game,Fed.Aid in Wildl.Rest.,Proj.W-15-R-2.Juneau,Alaska
41 pp.
Holecheck,J.L.,M.Vavra,and R.D.Pieper.1982.Botanical composition
determination of range herbivore diets:a review.J.Range Manage.
35:309-315.
40027/7 7-4
(Rev.0-l/84)
Kessel,B.,S.D.MacDonald,D.O.Gibson,B.A.Cooper,and B.A.Anderson.
1982a.Birds and non-game mammals,Phase I Report.Susitna
Hydroelectric Project,Environmental Studies,Subtask 7.11.Submitted
to Terrestrial Environmental Specialists,Inc.Prepared for Alaska
Power Authority.University of Alaska Museum,Fairbanks.
Kessel,B.,S.D.MacDonald,D.A.Gibson,B.A.Cooper and B.A.Anderson.
1982a.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Phase I Final Report.Birds and
Non-game Mammals.University of Alaska Museum.Fairbanks,Alaska.
Kessel,B.,D.O.Gibson,S.D.MacDonald,B.A.Cooper and K.C.Cooper.
1982b.Avifauna of the Lower Susitna River Floodplain,Alaska
University of Alaska Museum.
Klinkhart,E.G.1966.The Beluga Whale in Alaska.Alaska Dept.Fish and
Game.Fed.Aid.in Wildl.Rest.Proj.Rept.,Proj.W-6-R and W-14-
R.
Lentfer,J.1965.Caribou report.Alaska Dept.Fish and Game,Fed.Aid.
in Wildl.Rest.,Proj.W-6-5-5 and W-6-R-6.Juneau,Alaska 19 pp.
LeResche,R.E.1974.Moose migrations 1n North America.Naturaliste can.
101:393-415.
McGowan,T.A.1966.Caribou report.Alaska Dept.Fish and Game,Fed.Aid.
in Wildl.Rest.,Proj.W-6-R-6 and W-15-R-l.Juneau,Alaska.19 pp.
McIlroy,C.1976.Moose Survey -Inventory Progress Report 1974,Game
Management Units 11 and 13.In:McKnight,D.E.(editor).Annual
Report of Survey -Inventory Activities,Part II:Moose,Caribou,
Marine Mammals and Goats.Fed.Aid in wildl.Rest.Rept.,Proj.
W-17-7.Alaska Dept.Fish and Game.
40027/7 7-5
(Rev.0-l/84)
McKendrick,J.,W.Collins,D.Helm,J.McMuller,and J.Koranda.1982.
Plant ecology studies,Phase I Report.Susitna Hydroelectric Project,
Environmental Studies,Subtask 7.12.Submitted to Terrestrial
Environmental Specialists,Inc.Prepared for Alaska Power Authority.
University of Alaska Agricultural Experiment Station,Palmer.
Miller,Sterling D.and Dennis C.McAllister.1982.Susitna Hydroelectric
Project,Phase I Final Report,Big Game Studies,Vol.VI,Black and
Brown Bear,Alaska Dept.of Fish and Game.233 pgs.
Miller,S.D.1983.Big Game Studies,Volume VI,Black bears and brown
bears.Susitna Hydroelectric Project,Phase II Progress Report.
Submitted to Alaska Power Authority.Alaska Dept.of Fish and Game.
Miller,S.D.,J.S.Whitman,L.D.Aumiller,and P.Nessing.1983.Big Game
Studies,Volume V,Wolf.Susitna Hydroelectric Project,Phase II
Progress Report.Submitted to Alaska Power Authority.Alaska
Department of Fish and Game.
Modafferi,R.D.1982.Big Game Studies,Volume II,Moose-Downstream.
Susitna Hydroelectric Project,Phase I Final Report.Submitted to
Alaska Power Authority.Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Modafferi,R.D.1983.Big Game Studies,Volume II,Moose-Downstream.
Susitna Hydroelectric Project,Phase I Final Report.Submitted to
Alaska Power Authority.Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Neiland,K.A.1972.Caribou disease studies.
and Game,Fed.Aid.in Wildl.Rest.Proj.
Alaska.42 pp.
Alaska Department of Fish
w-17-2 and W-17-3.Juneau,
Pegau,R.E.,and G.N.Bos.1972.Caribou report.
Fish and Game,Fed.Aid in Wildl.Rest.,Proj.
Juneau,Alaska.32 pp.
Alaska Department of
W-17-3 and W-17-4.
40027/7 7-6
(Rev.O-l/84)
Pegau,R.E.,and J.E.Hemming.1972.Caribou report.Alaska Department of
Fish and Game,Fed.Aid.in Wildl.Rest.,Proj.W-17-2 and W-17-3.
Juneau,Alaska.221 pp.
Pegau,R.E.,G.N.Bos,and K.A.Neiland.1973.Caribou report.Alaska
Department of Fish and Game,Fed.Aid.in Wildl.Rest.,Proj.4-17-4
and W-17-5.Juneau,Alaska.70 pp.
Pitcher,K.W.1982.Big Game Studies,Volume IV,Caribou.Susitna
Hydroelectric Project,Phase I Final Report.Submitted to Alaska Power
Authority.Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Pitcher,K.W.1983.Big Game Studies,Volume IV,Caribou.Susitna
Hydroelectric Project,Phase II Progress Report.Submitted to Alaska
Power Authority.Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Rausch,R.A.1959.Some aspects of population dynamics of the railbelt
moose populations,Alaska.M.S.Thesis.University of Alaska,
Fairbanks.81 pp.
Rausch,R.A.1969.A summary of wolf studies ~n southcentral Alaska,
1957-1968.Trans.N.Am.Wild1.and Nat.Resour.Conf.,34:117-131.
Skoog,R.O.
A1a$ka.
699 pp.
1968.Ecology of the caribou CRangifer tarandus granti)in
Ph.D.Dissertation,University of California,Berkeley,CA.
Sparks,D.R.,and J.C.Malecheck.1968.Estimating percentage dry weights
in diets using a microscope techniques.J.Range Manage.21:264-265.
Spencer,D.L.,and E.F.Chatelain.
moose of southcentral Alaska.
40027/7
1953.Progress in the management of the
Trans.N.Am.Wildl.Conf.8:539-552.
7-7
(Rev.0-l/84)
Spraker,T.H.,W.B.Ballard and S.M.Miller.1981.Brown bear studies,
Game Management Unit 13.Alaska Department of Fish and Game P-R Proj.
Final Rep.,W-17-l0 and W-17-ll,Job 4.l3R.
Steigers,W.D.,D.Helm,J.G.MacCracken,J.D.McKendrick and P.V.Mayer.
1983.Environmental Studies-Subtask 7.12,1982 Plant Ecology Studies,
Final Report.Alaska Power Authority,Susitna Hydroelectric Project.
Prepared for LGL Alaska Research Associates,Inc.University of Alaska
Agriculture Experiment Station,Palmer.
Stephenson,R.O.1978.Unit 13 Wolf studies.Alaska Department of Fish
and Game.P-R Proj.Rept.,W-17-8,Jobs l4.8R,l4.7R and l4.l0R.
Tankersley,N.G.1983.Big Game Studies,Volume VIII,Dall Sheep.Susitna
Hydroelectric Project,Phase II Progress Report.Submitted to Alaska
Power Authority.Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Taylor,K.P.,and W.B.Ballard.1978.Moose movements and habitat use
along the Upper Susitna River - a preliminary study of potential
impacts of the Devils Canyon Hydroelectric Project.Prepared for U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.Alaska Department of Fish and Game.91 p.
Taylor,K.P.,and W.B.Ballard.1979.Moose movements and habitat use
along the Susitna River near Devil Canyon,Alaska.Proc.N.Am.Moose
Conf.Workshop,Kenai,Alaska.pp.169-186.
Terrestrial Environmental Specialists,Inc.1981.Environmental Studies
Summary Annual Report -1980.Submitted to Acres American,Inc.
Prepared for Alaska Power Authority.Terrestrial Environmental
Specialists,Inc.,Pheonix.N.Y.
Toby,R.W.1981.Big Game Studies,Part VIII,Sheep.Susitna
Hydroelectric Project,Annual Progress Report.Submitted to Alaska
Power Authority.Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
40027/7 7-8
(Rev.0-1/84)
u.s.Fish and Wildlife Service.1975.Southcentral railbelt area upper
Susitna River Basin Hydroelectric Project two dam plan.u.S.
Department of Interior,Anchorage,Alaska.25 pp.
Van Ballenberghe,V.1977.Migratory behavior of moose in Southcentral
Alaska.Proc.Inter.Congr.Game.BioI.13:103-109.
Viereck,L.A.,and C.T.Dyrness.1980.
system for vegetation of Alaska.
Gen.Tech.Rept.DNW-l06.33 pp.
A preliminary classification
u.S.Dept.Agric.Forest Service.
Viereck,L.A.and L.A.Schondelmeier.1980.Effects of Fire in Alaska and
adjacent Canada - A literature review.Bureau of Land Management
Technical Report 6,BLM/AK/TR-80/06.
Whitman,J.S.,and W.B.Ballard.1983.Big Game Studies,Volume VII,
Wolverine.SUsitna Hydroelectric Project,Phase II Progress Report.
Submitted to Alaska Power Authority.Alaska Department of Fish and
Game.
Wolff,J.D.,and J.C.Zasada.1979.Moose habitat and forest succession on the
Tanana River Floodplain and Yukon-Tanana Upland.In:Proceedings of
the North American Conference and Workshop No.15.Kenai,Alaska.
40027/7 7-9
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
Appendix D:
40027/8
8.0 APPENDICES
Agency-Raised Issues,October 4,1983
ADF&G GY 1984 plan of Study
Sample of Tracking and Documentation System
Terrestrial Program Principal Staff and
Responsibilities
8-1
(Rev.O-l/84)
PAGES
Al-All
Bl-B24
Cl -C2
Dl -D2
)
Subt ••k:Terreatrl.l aesource.
PRELIMINAilY
SUSITNA HYDROBLECTRIC PROJECT:AGENCY-RAISED ISSUES
Appendix A
')
4 OCt ..,,"r It11
SOURCEISSUB
T-I Downstre••Effects
The ••s.s...nt of the extent .nd .everity of
downatl."b.blt.t .It.r.tlon n.ed.to be
r.fin.d.Need to continu.hydrologic .nd
v.g.t.tion .uccesslon .od.lling and .ddltlonal
field .tudl••where nec••••ry,In order to
r.fin.I.pact a ••••s ..nt .nd .itig.tion planning
for downatr •••effect..Should u.e
gea.orphologlc.l crosa-a.ctiona Infor.atlon and
po ..lbly ~nltor th•••cross-section••
AGENCY
nlS
ADPG
..T••tlaony before APA
80ard 4/16/82 p.l (PNSI
Dr.ft Is.I COMMenta
p.14,35, 31,58
68,it,98 (,ItS I
,.b/H.r '11 Work.hop
RecOMMend.tlon p.155,
162 (niSi
Draft Es.J
Coamenta p.8-6.8-1 (ADPGI
,.b/Mar '83 Work.hop
RecoBBendation p.155,
162 (AD,el
STATUS III COM.LITIc.DATIl
Need to .ap floodplain vegetation In downatrea.
areaa InclUding the Talkeetna to at leaat Delta
Isl.nda s.g.ent 110 y.ar floodplalnl in ord.r to
ref in.qu.ntlflc.tlon of flow change i~act••
T-2 Downstre..Vegetation Mapping rws 2.Dr.n Ea.B
Coaaents p.32.1.
T-3 M.trix Approoch to Su..arize
I.pactS/Mltlg.tion Me.sures
N.ed to ev.luate i~ct.and eapecially
.Itig.tion ••••ur••for each .pecie.relative to
all other a u.iog a ••trla for.at.Con.ider
.quatlc r.BOure.a in thia ..tris .nalyais.
T-.ftap of P.r..froat Areas
Need to ••p and .v.luat.perMafrost areas to
.s••••IMPAct.due to .roalon and vegetation
r ..oval.
rws 3.Draft 8x.It
Comments p.18-19 (nISI
AD,G ,eb/Mar '83 Norkshop
Reco...ndatlon p.161
(ADPGI
rwa 4.Draft Ea.B
COMM.nta p.11.98
Meed to atudy and quantify the effecta of frost
build-Up on v.getation .djacent to the r.a.rvoir.
T-~'ro.t I.pact.on Vegetation PWS 5.Draft Ea.I
coaa.nta p.31
A-I
Subtaak:Terreetrlal Resourcea
Appendix A
PRBLININARY 4 OCtober 19.)
SUSITIlA Bll'DROELI'.:CftIC PRo.JBC"f:AGBNCI-MISKD ISSUES
IAUI AGINCY 80IQlCI STATUS
J;ifI.J
Q)ltPLftIOM DAft
T-6 aeaervoir Ice and DravdoWQ lone "'s 6.Letter IO/~/8Z-p.S
Should evaluate infor.ation on the tl.ing of
forMation,eltent,thlckneas,and tl..of
breakup of reaervoir ice and the coapoaition and
physical characteriatlca of tbe reservoir
ahorellne and drBvdovn lone.to asses.wildlife
i.pacta.
T-7 Revegetation StudY
Need to Initiate revegetation test plots aa part
of continuing pro'ect atUdie.to provide
lnfo~ation on which succe••ful .lte restoration
can be based.Wildlife food/cover plant••hould
be cORsiderad in developing restor.tion plans.
"'s 7.Draft £x.I
Cae.ents p.78,
Letter IO/S/8Z-p.4
T-8 Habitat Loss due to Various Da.Height."'s 8.Letter 10/S/82-p.6
Should quantify the terrestrial habitat to be
inundated due to the proposed da.height and an
array of lover da.heights.
Avoidance of adver.e l.pacta Was not given high
enough priority in the siting and selection of
trpe of construction ca.p and village.
7-9 Type and Siting of Construction
C"p/Vlliage
"'5 9.Draft II.£
Co_nt.-p.4
of letter
7-10 Scheduling of Construction and Reservoir
,illing
Avoidance of adverse i.pects wes Rot given high
enough priority in the echeduling of
constructIon and re.ervolr filling.
7-11 ..t~tee of Project Area Recreational Uee
Need better ••tlMate.of current and future
recreational u.e of the project area.
"'s
ADPG
10.Draft Ill.£
Co_nt.-p.4
of letter
Letter 10/S/82-p.6
11.'eb/Nar '8)Workahop
Recaaeendation p.IS4
A-2
)
Subt ••k:Terre.tri.l ae.ource.
')
PRELIMINARI
SUSITNA HIDROELECTRIC PROJECT:AGENCY-RAISED ISSUES
Appendix A )
•October 19.1
ISSUE
T-12 Project Recre.tion Develop!!nt
Avoid.nce of .dver.e i~ct.wa.Rot given high
enough priority in the "al..01 project
recre.tion develop.ent..
T-ll Mode,Ti_ing ••nd Routing of Con.truction
Ace.,.
Avoid.nc.of .dv.r ••i~ct.v••not given bigh
enough priority in .e1ection of.tbe .a4e.ti~ng
.nd rooting of con.truction .ce••••
T-l.Id.ntification of Con.truction Tr.ffic
Node .nd I ••trictiona
The.pecific .ode of con.truction tr.ffic .nd
re.trictiona on worker u.e of acce..ro.d.need.
to be identified.
T-15 Id.ntification of Restriction.on PUblic
U.e of Acee..Road
The extent of re.triction.on public u.e of
acee"r~d.need,to be identified.
T-16 Tr.ffic-related I_pact.
.xtent of .nd effect.of increa.ed tr.ffic on
variou.road and railro.d ._g..nt.h.ve not
adequ.tely been evaluated and rel.ted to big
,a..di.turb.nce and col1i.ion ~rt.lity.
T-ll ~u.ntific.tion of "oo.e I.pact.Alons
Acee ••lOlIta•
•eed to quantify currjnt and potenti.l
bunter ....nd .nd harv••t...re.~o.e
popul.tiona••nd h.bitat qU.1ity for .CCe••
route .ra••in ordar to fully ••••••i~.ct••
AGENCY
l'WS
l'WS
"'8
l'WS
ADPG
l'WS
SOURCE
12.Draft Ex ••
c~anta -p.•
of latter
11.Draft Ba.E
Co_nt.-p.•
of letter •.p ••1
1..Draft Ba.B
Co_nt.-p..1
15.Draft Ea.B
Co_nt.-p..1
1~.Draft Ea.E
C~ent.-p..-52
11.Draft Ba.B
Co_nt.p.66
A-3
STATUS J:,i}COIIPLftlOli DUO.
')
SYbta.k:?e~~e.t~ial Re.ou~C"
PR£LUUHARI
liOSlTHA BYDROELEC11llC PROJECT:AGENCY-RAISED ISSUES
Appendix A ')
•Oc:tob.~19n
ISSUIt
T-I'Secondtry effecta Of laproved Ace.a.
Effecta of .econda~y d.vel~Dt aDd inc~ea.ed
c.er..Uonal Yee realA1U ...fc..ilipcovecI ace•••
bave not b.,n fully evaluate4.
T-I'cua~lative Iapacta
8ffecta of cu-ulative i~cte heve generelly not
been edequately addre••ed.
T-30 guantification Of lapact.
In general,iapect.have not been adequetely
quantified and 4ete~aination.of .ignificance
bav.not been well-4ocu-ented.
T-21 l!p!ct.8a.ed on Cu~~ent populations
lapact .valuation••hould be based on the ~ange
of populetion levela that could ~,a.onably be
e~,cted to occur du~ing the lif'of the project
rather than on current population lev,l.a.i.
generally done.
T-22 R••oy~ce Category Detet~~~ion fo~
Ivaluation SpeCies
Th'habitat of ca~ibou,b~own bear.and volf in
the p~oject area .hould be given a ,eaource
catetor ,..terainetion of 2 foc the pu~poee of
defiaiot aitigation goale.
T-U .abitat ...eeI App~oaeh
I.habitat ba.ed approach .hould be u.,d aa tbe
pri..cy a.an.of a ••e ••i09 wildlife iapacte.
AGENCY
AD.G
PNS
PNS
AD.G
AD.G
PNS
ADPG
PWS
"'Ii
SOURCE
1..D~aft Ex.E
Co...nt.-p.8-'
IAD'G)
t,.tiaony before API.
Board ./16/82 p.I
IPNS)
19.Dreft .x.It
Co...nt.-p.19
(PNS)
Dr.tt ex.E
Co..ent.-p.8-5,
8-55 IU'G)
20.D~aft Ex.E
Co-.ent.-p.8-1
(AIl.G)
Draft .x.E
Co...nt.-p.11 lpws)
?e.tiaony before API.
80ard ./16/.3 p.1
I.NS)
21.Draft Bx.E
Co..ent.-p.B-1.
8-4,8-5
23.Letter 1/24/.1
21.Te.tiaony before API.
Board 4/16/82
p.2 and 1
A-4
STATUS JjI"J COIIPLETIOll DATIl
)Appendix A )
SUbtaak:Telleatrial ae.ource.
PRELIMINARY t October 1911
SUSITHA UYDROeLECTRIC PROJeCT:AGIlNCr -RAiseD ISSUIlS
ISSUI
'r-:at Acee"Road'T-Line BoUOII Ar ...
Should conduct a co-plete wildl.'.l.,.ct
........t of bOlr""ar...lor the 'CCe"road
.nd tra~i••iOft line an4 acce••to the.e 'itea.
T-:a~or-Line Buffel Around Swan ...t.
aeca-aend ainilua 150 I bulfer'bet n
•••n ne.ta and an,portio-.of tbe tr -
ai ..ion corridor.
T-:a6 T-Line Mooae Calving and Bear Denning
De.cribe tbe pre.ence/abeence of loo.e
:alving ,rounde aDd bear denning aite.
alo89 tbe T-Line .eg..nt between Cook
Inlet and Ml11ow.
T-:al Specific T-Line ErOllon Control Plan
An eroeion control plan .pacific to 'r-Llne
pro)ect f ..ture.and .chadule..hould be
developed.
~:al Snov Accu.ulation Data
..eed dIIta on anow accululaUon b,elevahon In
the upper Buaitna ...in.
T-:a'Metland."pping
"e"to delineate plant co.aunltlea
characteriltic of wetland.Ca.defined by
Cowardin et .1,l'lt.to a lev.l of det.il
thlt .111 ..efull,aupport facl1lt,.1ting
and "'i,n,quantification of wetland iapacta,
and preparatiol of perlit application.
r,qulred br section to.of the Cl.an ..ter Act.
AGENCY
niB
NS
IPWS
IPWS
AIlrG
rws
souaa
:U.Letter
lO/~/12-p.6
2~.Draft II•••
Co_ent.p..2
26.Duft E••I
Co.-enU p.til
27.Duft •••E
Co_ent.p.1
21.reb/Mar 'Sl Workahop
Recoaaendation.p.l~•
29.Draft e••B
C_nta p.11
A-5
STATUS t)COULaIOli DA'rB
)
")Appendix A
5ubta.k:f.rr••trial R••ource.
PRELIMINARY 4 Oc~ob.r 1911
SUlOlTMA IIYDIIOELECTIlIC PROJ£~:AGENCY-RAISID ISSUES
15501
T-10 IIooft Br~.e IIappll!!J
Heed to provide a quantifiable data b ...
for preci.e type .nd .r••l ••t.nt of .oo.e
brow.e within the dir.ct i.pact .r..to
.~rt c.rrying c.pacity .ad.lint.
T-ll General veget.tion M.pping
Heed ~o provide gen.r.l ••pping of ve,et.tion
~ype.ba.ed on iaproved .eri.l i.agery •••d.ta
b...for refined iapact •••••••ent .nd .itig.-
~iOD pl.nning.Include the thr.e T-Lin••tub.
In this n.w ..pping.
r-12 A••••••ent of Habitat Valu••
Heed to .v.luat.h.bit.t Value.for species
o~b.r ~an .oo.e,furb.arers,.nd bird.rath.r
~an r.lyiQ9 on .n.l,.i.of popul.tion.oniy.
Th.habit.~nt n ••ds to b.us.d in
d.v.loping tia.ly,coapr.h.n.iv••itig.tion
••••ur•••
T-1J In~.!Jration ot ftUQs••V.g.~ation D.~a
leed to corr.lat••00••reloca~ion data with ~he
r.vi.ed v.getation ..pping in order to under-
.tand habit.t u••and pr.t.renc.s.Also con-
sider incorpor.ting .lev.tion,.lope ••nd other
h.bit.t p8r ...t.r.ln~o the analy.i8.
AGBNCY
NS
ADFG
tws
l'WS
PWS
SOURCS
10.Dutt BII.&
C~n~s p.45 ('MS)
F.b/H.r '.1 Work.hop
Reco_nd.~iona
p.160 (ADFG)
31.Dr.f~Ell B.
CDaMent.p.11
12.Draf~BII.E
Co..ents p.11-lB
Letter 10/5/U
Letter 1/S/.1
Letter 6/Zl/.0
Lett.r 11/15/19
T••tlaony 4/16/82
31.Dratt sa.Il
C_ent.p.tS
A-6
STA'l'OS
7
/;'$CXMIPLITIOII DAn
Subta.k:T.rr••trial R••ourc••
~)
I'RELI"INAIlX
SUSITNA BXDROELECTRIC I'Ro.JECT:AGI!IICX-RAISED ISSUES
Appendix A
4 Ocl_.,l19U
Issua
T-14 Roo ••caerying cap!city Mod.l
••ed to conduct a h~ita~-~..ed nt of
aoo••habitat lo••/.04lliaatie.l.,.ata a.the
ba.i.fOr iapact pr.dictio.....ltl,ation
planning.
T-15 Roo ••Habitat 8nhanc...nt
••ed to .valuat.t.chniqu••foe ince.a.lng
aoo••carrying ca~city throu9h habitat
.nhanc...nt and identify candidat.ae.a.for
habitat .nhanc...nt in ord.r to ait19at.for
proj.ct-induced carrying ca~city reduction••
T-16 Roo ••Brow••Inventory
••ed to conduct a 800••brows.inventory in the
iapoundaent ar.a.to support the .00••carrying
capacitJ aOd.ling .ffort••
AGUCI
NS
AIl,G
NS
ADIG
rws
AD'G
souaC&
14.Duft 8&••
ca.a.nts p.17.II
51.12 Irwsl
'.b/Rar 'll Norkshop
R.ca.Mendation p.161
I AIl'GI
15.Draft aa.~.
COla.nt.p.40.12
Irwsl
Lett.r 10/5/81 p.4
IrNSI
'eb/Rar 'll Norkshop
Reco_ndation.
p.161.162.111
IAD'GI
16.Duft .a.E
c~.nt.p.14 Irwsl
'.b/Rar 'll Norkshop
Rec_ndation
p.160 I AD'G I
A-7
STA'I'US l'COIII'LITIOIl DAn
')
Subt••k:Terre.trial Re.ourc.s
PRELIMINARY
SUSITIIA HYDROELECTRIC PROJEC'r:AGENCY-RAISED ISSUES
Appendix A )
•OCt_.r 1111
ISSUI
T-17 Moo ••rood a.bit.
.eed to conduct.li.itad .ooee food b.blt.
.tudy to .upport tb••008.carrYl~capacity
.ad.ling .fforts.
T-18 Svring Pl.nt Ph.nologx
Nead to det.r.in.the t.-por.l .nd .patial
pett.rn of .pringpl.nt gr..n-up in aDd .dj.c.nt
to the i~oundaent .on..in ord.r to ••••••th.
.ignific.nc.of this ••••onel for.9.r ••ourc.to
aoo•••nd b••r r.production .nd c.rrying
c.paCity .nd to ••••••th.portion of tbe
r.aourc.to be lo.t due to i.poun~nts.Aleo.
need thi.infoc.ation to r.fi ••the .v.luatloR
of alcrocll..t.ch.ng•••due to the r •••rvolr ••
on .pring green-up.
T-ll Up.tr.a.Moo ••ri.ld Studies
Heed .ore d.t.on .oo.e nwabers.h.rd co.po.i-
tion.c.lf .ort.lity .nd .ov..ent.C••peci.lly
during the critlc.l winter .nd spring p.riod.1
r.l.tiv.to the i.poun~.nt .r•••to r.fln.
lapact ••••••••nt.nd .itig.tion pl.nning.
T-.O Oown_tre..Moo.e r'.ld Studies
Heed ~r.d.t.on .00••u••of down.tre••ri-
peri.n .r•••during wint.r .nd .pring to ref in.
i.pact nt .nd .ltlg.tion pl.nning•
•speci.lly b.C.U••of the .nnual v.ri.bility in
this u..."1.0 n.ed .ur.d.t.on .00••popul.-
tion••••••nd .g.ca.po.ition on th.down.tr •••
di.turbed .It•••
AGINCY
"'S
AOrG
"'8
ADrG.
ADrG
"'S
ADrG
SOURCIl
17.Dr.ft Ill.Il
C~nt.p ••~C"'SI
r.b/Mar '81 Workshop
Reco_nd.tlon
p.160 CAOrG)
18.Dr.ft .1.Il
Ce-.ent.p.16.~l
Crwsl .
reb/Mac '81 Work.hop
Reco_nd.tion
p.1~9.160 CADPGI
19.'eb/M.r '81 Work.hop
Recu.aend.Uon
p.17~.176 CADPeI
Or.ft II ••
Co_nt.p..,
C"'5 I
.0.reb/Mar '81 Work.hop
R.caa.endatlon p.117
A-B
STATUS '!fi'j cx..LITIOli DAft
Appendix A)
SUbta.k:Terrestrlal a••our~.s
~)
fR£~I"INARY 4 OCtobar 1911
SUSITNA IIYDROIl~IlCTRIC PROJECT:ACENCY-IlAISEb ISSUES
Issn
7-41 s.yere Wiater ,iel.stu'i"
•..,to vath.r int.n.iya data OD ~.a .iatribu-
tion,.abitat .elaction and NotC predation
'.ring a ••y.r.winter.
7-42 Jay Cre.k ~ick Enhanc ...nt
A d.-on.tratlon project ahould ba conduct.d to
••rlfy that the lick can be .nlarged by bl••ting
or backup .itigatlon ••••ur•••hould be outlined.
7-4)Moll ,i.ld Studi.,
M'"to gather ~r.inloraation on .0Ye-enta,
territory loc.tiona,pre••tion r.te.,.t~.,01
volYe.in upatre..&one of l.pact to relin•
........Dt end .itlg.tion planning.
T-44 Black and Brown Bear Fi.l.Studiea
....to gather .or.inlor.ation on habitat u••
'••pa~lalll r.latiy.to the i.poun4aent.l,
denning habltata and availability oC 1004 habits
to c.fine iapact a ••eaeaeataRd .itig.tion
plallDlD9.lleed to bett.r .yaluat.i.portanc.
of aal~to ar.a b.ara.Overall,ne.d to
'bett.r quantify iapacts and di.cu,.~~ulatiY.
iapacte on brown beara.
~4~"av.r Carrying capacity Nodel
.eed to continu.b.aYer carrying capacity .odel
d,Y.l~.nt a.the ba.i.for r.fining i.pact
prediction.and deter.ining .itigation n.ede,if
~.
AGENCY
lIDFG
rNS
lIDFC
lIDPG
""5
""8
SODaCl
41.Peb/Mar '8]Morkshop
aecoa.en'ation p.111
4l.Dralt Ea.£
C....ent.p.19
4].Peb/Har '81 Norkshop
Recoae.ndation p.116
44.Peb/".r '81 Nork.hop
Recoaaendation
p.Ill,112.119 •
180,181 'UFO)
Dran la ••
C~nt.p.57,61
'nlS)
.~.Dralt la.I
Coaaent.p.14
A-9
STATUS /rj ODII.~nlCMl DAft
SUbt.ek:Terreetriel aeaourcea
PRELIMINARY
SUSITIIA 8YDROELECTRIC l'Ro.JECT:AGENCY-RAISED ISSUU
Appendix A
t OCto .)1911
ISSUE
T-t6 Beever field Studie.
Need edditional beever field .tudle.to fill
dete ,epe to aupport .04.1 ••••IQP88nt and to
8OOltor beever nuabere ,or .a4el t ••tlnt.
T-t7 .erten Habitat .odel
Need to continue .erten habitat .odel
develop••nt ea the baaia for refining i.pact
predictlo~end deter.inin,.itigation needa.
Meed the e ..ietence of e .erten expert.Need
better infor.ation on trepping intenaity.
T-t..erten field studiee
Ne"additionel ..rten field atudies to fill
dete ,epa to aupport .odel develop.ent end to
eonltor ..rten nuebera for eodel testing.
T-t'Quantification of Lynx,Weaa.l,.ink,•
other Denalties
Need a08a quantification of the qualitative
ter..In .a.S.
T-~O 'eregrine 'alcon Surveya
Should conduct peregrine falcon
aurveya annually,in early July,through-
out project studiea and construction,or
until there ia ~fficient evidence that
pere,rinea do not inhabit the project area
(i.e.,no aightinga over aeveral yeara of
helicopter aurveya by a reputable obaerver
durinv the proper tiee of yearl.
AGENCY
NS
l'WS
PWS
PWS
PWS
SOURca
U.Draft aa.a
Co..enta p.t.,7t
feb/.ar '.1 workahop
Reco_ndation
p.15t,165, 166,
167,168
t7.Dreft ax.E
C_enta p.1t
reb/.ar '8)Workahop
Reco_ndetion
p.16.,169
U.Draft Ex.E
Coeaente p.7
t9.Dreft ax.E
Co...nte p.t9,6t
~O.Draft EX.E
CDeeente p.~O
A-IO
STATUS f~1 mIt.a-STIOil DAD
PRELIIUNARY
')Appendix A
..OCt.19U
Subts8k:Tecc ••teisl a ••ouec••
SUSITNA BYDROELECTRIC PROJECT:ACENCY-RAISED ISSUES
ISSUI
'1'-51 ..ld &asl.....t Sue".X.-Dovn.te.s.
••ed to obt.in sccue.t.locatioae fo~bald
...1.n••t .It••dovn.te~or GOI.Cr••k
...to ••l.ting diacr•..-ci..'8 or"r to
.dequat.l,......proj.ct '.,.ct••
'1'-52 Artiticial a.etoe •••t sit••
A d.-on.te.tion peoj.ct .ho~ld be conducted
to v.eit,th.t .etitici.l raptoe n••t .it••
c.n be ceeated ..ti.t.ctoeil,oe b.ckup
aitig.tion ....ue •••hould be outlined.A
~urvel i.nec••••ey to loc.t.te....clitt.,
.tc.for ne.t .ite eabance..nt.
'1'-51 a.etoe N••t surv.x.-Middle Ba.in
....to obt.in .ccue.te ele".tlone
or 1.rge ~'Ptor neet.in the i~oun~ent
.r•••due to e.i.ting di.ceepancie••
'I'-5t peoject lapact.on Bald ••gle Nests
peoject d.vel~nt a.y be in contllct with the
88ld Eagl.Protection Act dote to inpact.on bald
••gle ..at ••
'1'-55 Coreel.tion of Bled species •Bsbitst
Cb.O!Ie.
Should coeeelate bied specie.snd their eelstive
.bundanc.with po.tul.tad negatl"e and po.itive
.rrect.ot habitat alteration.
ACENCY
rws
rws
rws
".5
nlS
SOURCE
51.'eb/Mse '8)Mork.hop
Rec~nd.tion p.170
S2.Draft Ill.E
C_ent.p.l'
S3.reb/Mac 'II)Woell8hop
Reeo_adation
p.169.170
St.Lettee 6/9/8)
SSe Duft .1.E
C_nt.p.61
A-ll
sums .,"1 CUlPLftlOil DAn
Appendix B
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT -BIG GAME STUDIES
IT 84 PLAN OF STUDY
UPSTREAM MOOSE
Title:Effects of the proposed Devil Canyon and Watana
impoundments and associated facilities on moose popu-
lations upstream from Devil Canyon.
Investigators:Warren Ballard and Jackson Whi tman
Objectives:
1.To determine the number of moose inhabiting the primary
impact zone.
2.To determine habitat selectivity of moO-se inhabiting the
upstream primary impact zone of the Susi tna Hydroelectric
project.
3.To determine the causes and rate of moose calf mortali ty.
Justification and Approach
Phase I moose studies were directed at determining how moose use
the area in and around the proposed impoundments,determining the
approximate number of moose using the area and identifying poten-
tial impact mechanisms.Emphasis was placed on those mechanisms
which could measurably alter moose numbers,productivity or life
expectancy.Impact mechanisms likely to be significant to up-
stream moose populations are numerous,varied,sometimes indirect
and often cumulative.Some may be significant only at certain
populations levels or under specific environmental condi tions,
such as severe winters.Consequently it is unrealistic to
attempt to express impacts of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project
on upstream moose as a simple number of moose lost.
A dual approach to estimating impacts of the project on moose
upstream from Devil Canyon is being taken.QThe first is based on
the existing population and attempts to predict how the popula-
tion will respond to the project over time.Gl The second is a
habitat based approach which attempts to estimate the potential
of habitat that will be altered or destroyed to support moose.
V.I t'r.~~:-~t :J'~....~\t '
The population approach has the advantage of predicting actual
changes in terms easily understood by users of moose populations.
It also allows estimation of impacts that are not habitat based,
such as accidents and human induced mortality.A habitat based
approach is more useful for estimating changes in potential
carrying capacity when existing populations are not fully util-
izing their habitat and for direct comparison of specific acre-
ages.Each approach will provide information necessary for
evaluating the other and the integrated results of both are
expected to provide a basis for mitigation planning.
B-I
Appendix B
The upstream moose study is designed to support two modeling
-efforts.It will provide direct input to a simulation modelinq
effort 1nit1ated by'LGL,Alaska Research'Associates in 1982 and
will provide a basis for interpreting the results of a nutrition-
ally based .carrying capacity model which will be adapted to the
Susitna Project .in 1983 and 1984 (see page 21)•
There~re several deficiencies in the moose submodel.The popu-
lation "'estimate being used for simulation modelinq is based on a
1980 census that did not conform to the recently re-defined zone
of impact.The "Zone.of Impactll for moose is defined as all
areas wi thin one home range length of any area which wi 11 be
al tered by construction and operation of the proj ect.While it
is clear that some impacts may occur outside of this area and
many moose within the area may not be impacted,we assume that
most measurable changes in population size and productivity will
be confined to the "zone of impact."Home ranges of radio-
collared moose that use or come in close proximity to the two
impoundments,the project construction zones,and areas where
vegetation is likely to be altered through clearing and climatic
changes were used to delineate the outer boundaries of the zone
of impact.Areas rarely used by moose such as high elevations
were excluded.A new census will provide a more reliable esti-
mate and will test the accuracy of the current model.The model
indicates that predation,particularly on newborn calves,is
currently limi ting the size of the population.
However,the predation rates in the model were derived from an
adj acent area which has few black bears.Loss of habitat is
likely to alter predator/prey ratios and could trigger a decline
in moose numbers,negating any mitigation measures.Black bears
are expected to be directly impacted more heavily than are brown
bears.The significance of post construction predation will
depend largely on the relative roles of black and brown bears in
limi ting the pre-construction moose population ..
Information on habitat selection is necessary for both impact
assessment and mitigation planning.Data from the first three
years of study indicate that winter,spring and early summer are
periods when the impoundment areas are most critical to moose.
The number of moose using the impoundment area appears to vary
annually,probably in response to snow conditions.For example,
March censuses of the Watana impoundment area have shown 42,260
and 500 moose in 1981,1982 and 1983,respectively.While
1982-83 was more severe than the preceding two winters,it was
not as severe as several other winters recorded in the last 20
years.Monitoring schedules for radio-collared moose will be
altered to more carefully document habitat use in the immediate
vicinity of the impoundments,project facilities and potential
mi tigation lands during those ini tial periods.
B-'1
Appendix B
Procedures
Except where noted,procedures will follow these described in the
Susitna Hydroelectric Project Phase I Final Report-Biq Game
Studies.
Objective 1
The i6ne of impact will be censused during November 1983 using
techniques described by Gasaway et ale 1981 to provide estimates
of the number and sex and age composition of moose that will be
exposed to direct project impacts.The census area also will
include all of composition count areas 7 and 14 to provide a
.comparison with the 1980 census and to check the accuracy of
predictions of the moose submodel.
Obj ective 2
Thirty radio-collared moose known to inhabit the zone of impact
will be relocated 2 to 4 times a month between September and
February depending on moose movements and 6 to 8 times a month
between March and June.Moni toring at other times of year and
monitoring of other radio-collared moose will be limited to the
level necessary to maintain contact and identify significant
changes in movement patterns.If new vegetation maps are
digitized,relocation data will be re-analyzed to determine
habi tat selecti vi ty.
Objective 3
Forty newborn·moose calves will be captured and fitted with
mortality made radio collars in late May 1984.Signals will be
moni tored twice a day through June.(Monitoring will continue
into FY85 at a rate of once a day through July .and twice a month
August through November.)When the radio signal indicates a calf
is dead,the site will be visited on·the ground as soon as
possible and the causes of mortality will be assessed (Ballard
et ale 1979).Mortality rates by cause will be calculated and
used to correct the moose submodel.A sample of black bears will
be intensively monitored to determine rates of predation (see
Objective 3 of bear study).
Ballard,W.B.,A.W.Franzmann,K.P.Taylor,T.Spraker,C.C.
Schwartz,and R.O.Peterson.1979.Comparison of tech-
niques utilized to determine moose calf mortality in Alaska.
Proc.N.Am.Moose Conf.Workshop,Kenai,Alaska.15:362-
287.
Gasaway,W.C.,S.D.DuBois,and S.J.Harbo.1981.Moose
survey procedures develo.pment.Alaska Dep.Fish and Game,
Fed.Aid Wildl.Restoration Proj.Final Rep.W-17-9 through
W-17-11,W-21-1,and W-21-2,Juneau.66pp.
B-1
Title:
Appendix B
DOWNSTREAM MOOSE
Effects of Susi tna River hydroelectric development on
populations of moose downstream from the prospective
Devi 1 Canyon dam si te.
Investiqator:Ronald Modafferi
.J)c
Object!ves:
1.Determine annual variation in the seasonal timinq,relative
distribution,habitats selected and maqni tude of use of
riparian habitats in winter by moose alonq the Susitna River
between Devil Canyon and Cook Inlet.
2.To determine seasonal and annual variations in distribution,
numbers,sex and aqe of moose which use floodplain habitats
and disturbance subclimax veqetative sites as winter ranges.
3.To determine the numbers,sex and age composition,or1g1n
and movement patterns of moose which use disturbed sites.
Justification and Approach
Knowledge about moose use of riparian habitats along the Susitna
River between Devil Canyon and Cook Inlet is necessary to predict
and evaluate potential impacts which may result from altered flow
regimes associated with hydroelectric development and to assess
sui tabi li ty of the area for mitigation measures.
Phase r studies were designed:1)to delineate popUlations of
moose that are ecologically affiliated with the Susi tna River
downstream f,rom Devil Canyonj 2)to determine how moose use
riparian habitats located along that portion of the Susi tna
Riverj 3)to determine the relative distribution and approximate
numbers of moose in Susitna River riparian habitats in winter,
when conditions permit censusing moose and magnitude of use is
greatest and 4)to identify potential hydroelectric project
impacts that would ultimately affect size and viability of moose
populations through decreased productivity,survival and/or life
expectancy.It was realized that results obtained in these
studies were subject to variation attributable in part to the
relative population levels of moose and severity of winter con-
ditions.
Studies to date indicate that a number of subpopulations of moose
use riparian habitats within the floodplain of the river.Moose
use is heaviest in winter and during calvinq.The number of
moose on the river varies annually,apparently in response to
snow depths.It appears that some subpopulations use the river
annually whi le others use it only in more severe winters.
B-4
Appendix B
During severe winters,loss of riparian vegetation in the flood-
plain could impact large numbers of moose over a bro~d area of
Game Management Units 14 and 16,two of the most heav1ly hunted
areas in the state.The degree of impact would depend on the
extent,timinq and location of vegetation chang~.~ese changes
have not been accurately predicted,in part because of the
complexity of the mechanisms that set back plant succession and
the lllCk of accurate predictions of changes in the mechanisms
that woul.d result from the project.
Use of artificially manipulated habitats near the river by moose
suggests that many changes in riparian habitats can be mitigated
through habitat enhancement procedures.However,the placement,
size,age and method of manipulation will affect the ~value of
such areas to moose.The presence of heavily used disturbed
si tes provides an opportuni ty to determine the area from which
moose are attracted and the duration and timing of use by dif-
ferent individuals and different sUbpopulations.This infor--
mation can be used along with knowledge of current subpopulation
derived from movement studies and river censuses to formulate
recommendations on the placement and size of artificially mani-
pulated areas for mi tigation purposes.
Procedures
Except where noted procedures will follow those described in the
,'--Susitna Hydroelectric Project Phase I Final Report-Big Game
Studies.
Obj ective 1
Existing radio-collared moose will be relocated approximately
twice a month from November to May and weekly between mid-May and
mid-June.Monitoring during summer and monitoring of moose away
from areas that are likely to be impacted by the project or serve
as mitigation lands wi 11 be at a minimum level to maintain
contact.
Obj ective 2
Aerial censuses for moose in Susi tna River floodplain habi tats
and disturbance subclimax vegetative sites from Cook Inlet to
Devil Canyon will be conducted six times,through winter as long
as snow cover condi tions permi t.
Objective 3
Samples of 12 moose will be radio-collared from each of 3
(Montana west,Montana middle and Kashwi tna Lake north)and 6
.moose on one (Talkeetna west)of the preViously studied "dis-
turbed"sites (Modafferi,in prep.).To di stributed sampling
intensity over the winter period,4 moose will be captured and
radio-collared at each of the former 3 sites during each of 3
B-S
Appendix B
sampling periods (mid-November,mid-January and mid-March).
Three moose will be captured and radio-collared during each of
the later sampling periods at the Talkeetna west site.
There is evidence that some moose use such areas only during
periods of greater snow accumulation.Consequently,tagging will
be regulated by the changes in numbers of moose using the sites.
If ~rial censuses and observations made on radio tracking
fligh1!s.indicate that additional moose are no longer moving to
the area,tagging will be suspended.
A sample of blood and an incisor tooth will be collected from
each individual moose for determination of physiological con-
.di tion and age.
Radio-collared moose will be relocated every two weeks,weather
permitting,except during the mid-May to mid-June calving period
when they will be relocated each week.
Appendix B
CARIBOU
Title:Population status and movement of caribou in the
vicini ty of the proposed Susi tna Hydroelectric Proj ect.
Investigator:Kenneth Pi tcher
ObjectS¥es:
1.To determine movement patterns of the main Nelchina
caribou herd in relation to proposed impoundments.
2.To determine the range and movement patterns of the
upper Susi tna-Nenana subherd.
3.To estimate the size of the upper Susitna-Nenana
subherd.
4.To monitor size and productivi ty of the main Nelchina
herd.
Justification and Approach
The most likely direct impact of the Susitna Hydroelectric
Project on the Nelchina caribou herd appears to be the creation
of barriers which may impede free movement of animals between
"-,,-various segments of their range.If caribou attempt to cross
these barriers (impoundments and highways)increased mortality
may result.D1 sturbance by construction and operational per-
sonnel and increased access to important habitats (particularly
the calving grounds)are other potential important mechanisms.
The best approach to evaluate these potential impacts is to
monitor movement routes and range use.It is particularly
.important to collect as much information as possible before con-
struction in order to see where project construction and opera-
tion may impede movements.Recommendations can then be made for
minimizing effects of construction and proj ect faci li ties.
Results of the study to date indicate .considerable movement
across the upper Watana impoundment area by the female segment of
the herd both during the spring migration to the calving grounds
and during autumn clispersal.Crossings of the Susitna River in
the midclle portion of the proposed Watana impoundment have been
at a relatively low level during the study.Historically (at
least 21 of the past 32 years)major portions of the herd spend
summers and winters north of the impoundment areas.This has not
occurred to a major degree since about 1972.However it is
likely that this area will again become important summer and
winter range resulting in one or two major crossings per year of
the impoundment area.These movements are probably more likely
/-,to occur at higher population levels.
B-7
Appendix B
Construction of the proposed Denali access road through the range
of the recently identified upper Susitna-Nenana subherd may
interfere with movements between calving areas,summer range and
winter range for a portion of this herd.This road could also
hinder movements of the main herd during years when they spent
time north of the Susi tna.It is unknown if this subherd is
self-perpetuating or depends upon periodic influxes of animals
from the main herd to sustain its numbers.
""It a~hears that the Susitna Hydroelectric Project might tend to
isolate the northwestern section of the Nelchina range (also the
range of the upper Susitna-Nenana subherd).This could be
detrimental to the main Nelchina herd by making important summer
.and winter range less accessible and harmful to the resident
subherd by making it less likely that animals would be recruited
from the main herd.
One identified scenario would have the spring migration of a
portion of the main Nelchina herd deflected so that they would
mix with the upper Susitna-Nenana subherd during calving.If
this subherd is growing naturally,there would be an increase in
calving in that area even without the project.The status of the
subherd should be monitored so that project-induced changes can
be separated from natural shifts.
Procedures
Except where noted procedures will follow those described in the
Susitna Hydroelectric Project Phase I Final Report-Big Game
Studies.
Objective 1
A pool of about 25 radio-collared caribou will be maintained in
the main Nelchina herd.These caribou will be·relocated through-
out the year often enough to document movement routes (particu-
larly in the vicinity of the proposed impoundments)and seasonal
range use;4 surveys in winter,4 surveys during spring migra-
tion,2 surveys during calving,2 surveys during summer,2 during
autumn dispersal and 1 during the rut.
Obj ective-2
A sample of about 8 radio-collared caribou will be maintained in
the upper Susi tna-Nenana subherd.They will be relocated about
10 times per year to determine seasonal range use and movement
patterns.
Objective 3
~
The dispersed nature of the upper Susi tna-Nenana subherd make
traditional census techniques impractical.A minimum population
estimate will be made based on direct counts,during the rut.
(-'Observations of radio-collared caribou,tracks in snow and an
analysis of seasonal habi tat use will be used to ensure that
major portions of the herd are not missed.
B-8
Appendix B
Objective 4
~Estimates of population growth and herd productivity of the main
Nelchina herd will be made through annual censuses and composi-
tion samplinq.
B-9
Title:
Appendix B
WOLF AND WOLVERINE
Effects of the proposed Devil Canyon and Watana
impoundments and associated facilities on wolf and
wolver~ne populations.
1nvesttiators:Warren Ballard and Jackson Whi tman
Objectives:
1.
2.
3.
To map territories of wolf packs using the upstream moose
zone of impact.
To monitor changes in size of each wolf pack.
To determine characteristics of wolverine ustr~the zone of
impact.
Justification and Approach
Wolves are likely to be affected by a variety of impact mechan-
isms including habitat loss and disturbance.However,the most
significant and farthest reaching is likely to be loss of prey.
Food habits information indicates that moose and caribou are the
most important prey in the study area ..Availability of caribou
in each pack's terri tory varies greatly depending on season and
year.Changes in caribou numbers,distribution or movement
patterns could influence the size and reproductive success of
wolf packs throughout the Nelchina Basin.However,these impacts
are impossible to quantify and few packs are likely to disappear
unless a major reduction in caribou numbers occurs.Moose are a
more reliable food source and are more likely to regulate wolf
distribution and abundance over long periods of time.Therefore,
impacts of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project on wolves are likely
to be closely tied to the moose population occupyinq the moose
zone of impact.
Key information needs are the number of packs using the moose
zone of impact,the number of wolves at various seasons in each
pack and the degree of dependence of each pack on that population
of moose.During Phase I,it was estimated that 6 or 7 packs had
terri tories that substantially overlapped the home ranges of
moose that used proposed impoundment areas.Several other packs
were known or suspected to have less overlap.Many of these
packs wer¬ radio-collared because of poor tagging conditions.
These packs should be radio-collared,then territories mapped and
their degree of dependence on moose in the moose zone of impact
assessed.
Limited studies of wolverine were conducted during Phase I.1n-
/"'-.,formation on wolverine distribution,abundance,home range size
habitat selection and food habits can be collected incidental to
wolf studies at little extra cost.
Appendix B
Procedures
Except where noted procedures will follow these described in the
Susitna Hydroelectric Project Phase I Final Report-Biq Game
Studies.
Objective 1
To ~e extent possible with a severely limited budget,a sample
of wOives will be radio-collared in each pack that is believed to
make sUbstantial use of the upstream moose zone of impact.Ter-
ri tory boundaries and areas of seasonal importance such as den
sites and rendezvous sites will be mapped by plottinq of reloca-
tion.Food habits,wi th emphasis on prey species likely to be
influenced by the hydroelectric project will be documented
through observations of kills made on relocation flights and
analysis of scats.
Relocation and food habits data will be used to assess the
dependence of each pack on moose in the moose zone of impact.
Objective 2
Number of wolves in each pack will be monitored throughout the
year through observation of radio-collared wolves and wolves
a-<=companying them.
Objective 3
Wolverine radio-collared during FY 83 will be relocated opportun-
istically during wolf tracking flights.No specific expenditures
of money will be directed at wolverine unless new information
suggesting significant impacts arise.
B-ll
Appendix B
BLACK BEAR AND BROWN BEAR
Title:Effects of the proposed Devils Canyon and Watana
impoundments and associated facilities on populations
of brown and black bears.
Investigator:~terling Miller
Obje~fves
1.To document habitat use and determine the timing and magni-
tude of use of seasonal bear concentration areas.
2.To determine the location and characteristics of den si tes.
3.To determine the food habits of bears using seasonal concen-
tration areas.
Justification And Approach
Phase I bear studies were designed to reveal the kinds of impacts
project construction might have on black and brown bear popula-
tions in the study area.Phase II bear studies will concentrate
on verifying and quantifying the levels of impact of each spe-
cies.
'The biological impact of project construction on black bear popu-
lations will probably be relatively greater than on brown bear
populations:However,humans tend to place a greater value on
brown bears than on black bears.Also,relative to black bears,
brown bear populations are more sensi tive to di sturbance,are
less dense,have lower reproductive rates,and are a threatened
species outside of Alaska and Canada.In terms of social impact,
therefore,project-related reductions in brown bear populations
may exceed in value the reductions in black bear populations.
Both species of bear spend about half the year in dens.Food
requirements the rest of the year are likely to be substantial.
Phase I studies suggest that both species of bear rely on season-
ally available,often geoqraphically concentrated food sources.
Availability of many of these foods varies greatly from year to
year.A food source little used one year might become critical
the next year if the preferred food is not available.Some
habitats,such as denninq areas and escape cover for black bears,
may be important for reasons other than food availability.
Habitat use and presumably degree of dependence on specific
seasonally available foods has varied each of the three years of
study.General hypotheses of how the availability of various
foods impacts the population and how the Susi tna proj ect will
affect the availability J have been developed and incorporated into
a bear model.It is unlikely that the full range of variability
has been observed and these hypotheses may need modification and
confirmation.In some cases particularly the identity of spring
B-12
Appendix a
foods and the role of salmon as alternatives to berries in late
summer are highly speculative.Therefore there is a need to
continue to monitor seasonal habitat selection on a broad scale
and to key in on the importance of certain specific foods.
Procedures
Except where noted procedures will follow these described in the
Susitaa Hydroelectric Project Phase I Final Report-Big Game
studies.
Objective 1
.Samples of approximately 20 brown bears and 20-25 black bears
will be maintained.These bears will be relocated 6 times a
month between late April and mid-June and 3-4 times a month the
remainder of the active season.
Objective 2
Dens of radio-collared individuals will be marked and examined.
Emphasis will be on black bear dens.This procedure will estab-
lishthe proportion of available denning habitat that will be
lost to the project.Examination of the dens will establish the
characteristics of den sites in the impact zone,these data will
permi t evaluation of the degree of impact on bear populations
when individuals are excluded from using current denning habi-
tats.
Objective 3
In Phase II special emphasis will be placed on identification of
the food resources utilized by bears during the periods of
seasonal concentrations believed to be motivated by food avail-
ability.The most important area of these investigations will be
on foods utilized by bears during spring and early summer in the
impoundment inundation area and vicinity.Emphasis will also be
placed on food habits of bears that congregate around salmon
spawning areas in order to evaluate the significance of salmon
the in diets of these bears.
Bear scats will be collected by extensive on-the-ground search-
ing.Contents of scats will be determined through laboratory
analysis.These data will be supplemented by direct observation
of bear feeding activi ty when possible.
Observations of bears feeding on ungulates will be made during
radio-tracking flights.A selected sample of bears will be
relocated twice a day in conjunction with calf mortality studies
to estimate the rates of predation on ungulates by both species
of bear.
B-13
Appendix B
DALL SHEEP
Title:Habi tat use by Dall sheep in the vicini ty of the
S~s1 tna Hydroelectric Proj ect
Investigator:NancyTankersley
Objectives:
.\):
~
1..Quantify sheep (and possibly moose)use of various
elevations of the Jay Creek lick and monitor lick use
by individual sheep.
2.Compare Dall sheep use of the Jay Creek mineral lick
wi th that of other licks in the Watana Creek Hills .
.3.Compare mineral content of the Jay Creek lick with that
of other licks and non-lick areas wi thin the range of
the Watana Creek Hills sheep population.
4.Moni tor seasonal habi tat use of potenti al sheep range
in the Watana Hills,Mt.Watana and Portage-Tsusena
Creek areas that may be disturbed by project-related
construction acti vi ties,and aircraft or vehicle
traffic.
Background and Justification:
Dall sheep (Ovis dal/i)occur in 3 areas in the vicinity of the
Susitna Hydroelectric Project--near Mount Watana,the Watana
Hills,and the Portage-Tsusena Creeks area.Besides disturbance
from construction activities,aircraft traffic,and possibly
access route ground traffic,probably the major direct impact of
the project will be disturbance of the Jay Creek mineral lick in
the Watana Hills.This lick is adjacent to the proposed Watana
impoundment and is used by sheep and possibly moose (Alces alces)
(Ballard et aJ.1982)in early summer.This lick,discovered
during Phase 1 studies,needs further study so that the impacts
of the project on sheep can be assessed.Seasonal habitat use of
the Watana Hills,Mt.Watana area,and Portage-Tsusena Creeks
area by sheep also needs further documentation for impact assess-
ment and mitigation planninq.
Many North American ungulates seek out mineral elements from
places known as mineral licks'(Stockstad e~m.1953,Hebert and
Cowan 1971,Weeks and Kirkpatrick 1976,Fraser and Reardon 1980).
Mineral licks are heaVily used by Dall sheep in Alaska and Canada
(Dixon 1939,Palmer 1941,Gross 1963,Pitzman 1970,Nichols and
Heimer 1972,Gill 1978).Some sheep have been documented to
travel 12 miles out of their way to visit a lick before moving to
summer range (Heimer 1973).Heimer (1973)has found that fidel-
ity to the Dry Creek lick year after year is high,approximating
....."I I.
Appendix B
100%for ewes,and 80%for rams.Because of the apparent impor-
tance of mineral licks to Dall sheep in Alaska,Heimer (1974)
recommended that lick$be designated critical habitat areas.
Various elements have been suggested as the one sought by ungu-
lates at mineral licks.Hanson and Jones (1976)hypothesized
that sulfur may_be a major lick attractant.However,as Weeks
(1978)pointed out,sulfur is abundant in plant tissues and is
not uJt;versally found in high levels in natural licks.Hebert
and Cowan (1971),Weeks and Kirkpatrick (1976),Fraser and
Reardon (1980)and others have presented convincing evidence that
sodium is the desired element for mountain goats (Oreamnos
amer;canus),deer (Odocoileus virginianus),and moose.At the
Dall sheep lick at Dry Creek,Heimer (1973)found 7.3~times as
much sodium,3.0 times as much potassium,3.6 times as much
calcium and 14.9 times as much magnesium in -the lick soil com-
pared to soil from nearby areas not eaten by sheep.Because of
the high phosphorus content of sheep forage in spring,Heimer
(1973)suggested that calcium and magnesium may be the desired
elements.However,Geist (1971)and Heimer (pers.commun.)have
shown that bighorn and Oall sheep exhibit an appetite for sodium
by using table salt (NaC1)to bait sheep.Denton and Sabine
.(1961)have shown that a sodium deficiency in domestic sheep
leads to an increased appeti te for that element.
Mineral lick use is highly seasonal,occurring mostly in spring
-and early summer (mid-May through mid-July in Alaska).The Dry
Creek lick in the Alaska Range has received heaviest use during
June with peak use occurring from 0400 to 1200 hours,and moder-
ate use continuing until 2000 hours (Heimer 1973).The timing
and intensity of use varies somewhat from year to year depending
on weather patterns,which influence sheep movemet:lt to licks
(Heimer 1973).
The Jay Creek lick will be subjected to flooding and erosion,and
sheep attracted to the lick will be seasonally vulnerable to
human disturbance.The lick area is a steep bluff on west bank
of Jay Creek exposing some dry mineralized substrate interspersed
wi th rock outcrops,steep slide areas,and trails to the creek
and upper plateau.Sheep ingest the mineralized substrate,
travel,and rest in various areas of the bluff from the creek
bottom (2000 feet in elevation)up to the top (2450 feet)
(Ballard et al.1982).Portions of the lick area may be flooded,
and the annual cycle of filling and draining in the impoundment
will probably cause additional erosion of the bluff.The lick's
close proximity to the impoundment makes the sheep seasonally
vulnerable to disturbance from construction,transportation and
recreational activities in this area.These impacts could reduce
lick use or force abandonment of the area,with possible detri-
mental effects on this small sheep population.
B-1S
Appendix B
Addi tional sheep licks occur in the Watana Hills.Along Jay
Creek,secondary lick areas occur intermittently upstream from
the main lick area for roughly 2 miles,and occur on a low ridge
across the creek from the main lick.Another lick on the East
Fork of Watana Creek (approximately 7 miles northwest of the Jay
Creek lick)is used by Dall sheep.Tobey (1981)reports a lick
in northeastern Watana Hills (Fig.2);however,this has not been
confi rI1Led .The extent and overlap of use among these licks by
the s~e sheep,as well as the similarity of lick elements,are
unknown at this time.If only certain sheep traditionally use
specific licks,different segments of the sheep population may
not be aware of the existence of alternative areas (Geist 1971).
The goal of this study is to docum~nt the use and importance of
the Jay Creek lick to the Watana Hills sheep popUlation.This
includes observing and quantifying use of the lick area,classi-
fying the sexes and ages of lick users,determining the seasonal
and daily timing of use,and various other pertinent parameters.
other areas of sheep habitat that may be disturbed by project-
related construction activities,and aircraft and vehicle traffic
will be monitored for sheep use.
Procedures:
The following procedures are for the summer of 1983 most work
will be accomplished during FY83,however observations and
mineral analyses will extend into early FY84.
Twenty-one sheep in the Watana Hills were color-marked by speci-
ally adapted firearms shot from a helicopter in early April 1983.
Ten sheep marked in the northern Watana Hills were marked red;11
sheep in the southern Watana Hills were marked blue.
An observation blind will be erected in early or mid-May to
quantify use of various areas of the Jay Creek lick bluff and
identify individual sheep (color-marked and others)using the
main Jay Creek lick and the secondary lick area on the opposite
ridge.Observations will be made by 1 or 2 observers with the
aid of binoculars and spotting scopes.Most observations will be
made during the most likely lick activity period (0400-2000
hout;'s).The sex,age,dye-markings,individual identity (if
known),length of lick use,zone of lick use,date,time,weather
conditions and other pertinent information will be recorded.
Observations will continue until late July or when a seasonal
drop in use is evident.Similar observations will be made at the
East Fork lick from late May to mid-June and at other Watana
Hills'licks if possible.
Samples will be taken from various areas in the Jay Creek lick,
nearby secondary licks (upstream and·on opposite ridge),East
Fork lick and any other licks found in the Watana Hills and
nearby areas outside the licks for comparison.The samples will
be taken with plastic utensils and placed in plastic containers
to avoid contamination from metal.Sampling wi 11 occur after
B-16
Appendix B
lick observations have ascertained preferred licking zones.The
samples will be analyzed for water soluble and total elemental
levels ofNa,K,Ca,.Mq,and 29 other elements by the inductively
coupled arqon plasma (rCAP)method.Analyses of the Jay Creek
lick will be completed by fall 1983.
One hundred f09t elevation contours of various areas of the Jay
Creek lick will be documented using a Wallace and Tiernan model
FA181~ltimeter,and visibly marked for use during sheep observa-
tions.Project engineers and soils geologists will be consulted
to predict the physical effects of the impoundment on the Jay
Creek lick.
B-17
Appendix B
BELUKHA WHALE
Title:Timing and maqni tude of use of the Susi tna River by
belukha whales.
Investigator:Donald Calkins
Justification
An estimated population of 300 to 500 belukha whales inhabits
Cook Inlet.This population appears to be isolated from the far
larger population which occupies the Bering,Chukchi and Beaufort
Seas.Belukhas are receiving increased international attention,
particularly because of concerns about the effects of industrial
development.The small size and isolated nature of the Cook
Inlet population make it especially vulnerable to such effects.
The Cook Inlet population moves from one part of Cook Inlet to
another through out the year often concentrating in the mouths of
rivers.These concentrations are likely a response to the avail-
ability of anadromous fish moving in and out of the rivers.
Eulachon and salmon,both outmigrating smolt and returning adults
are the most likely attractants in Cook Inlet rivers.
Most of the Cook Inlet populations moves into upper Cook Inlet in
spring and remains there through much of the summer.A high
proportion of these concentrate at the mouth of the Susi tna
River,sometimes ascending the river for several miles.It is
possible that all or most of the population calves in this area.
Reductions in eulachon or salmon populations by the Susi tna
Hydroelectric Project could adversely impact the Cook Inlet
belukha population.In particular,reduced food availability or
altered timing of availa.l:;>ility could lead to poorer calving
success or reduced calf survival.
Fisheries studies will be providing information on which anadro-
mous stocks are likely to be reduced.By correlating the timing
of migration of these stocks with the occurrences of belukha
concentrations at the mouth of the river,we can gain insight
into the degree of use·of th~se stocks by belukhas.By comparing
the proportion of the population using the Susitna River with the
proportion using other rivers we can further assess the impor-
tance of these stocks to the population as a whole.
B-iS
Appendix b
Scheduled field work will be completed in late FY 83.Unless new
information on impacts on fish populations believed to important
to belukhas becomes available,work will be limited to data
analysi s and -report wri tinq •
B-19
Appendix B
MOOSE CARRYING CAPACITY MODEL
Title:Application of a nutritionally based carrying capacity
model to the Sus!tna Hydroelectric Project.
Investigator:Wayne Regelin
Objecqves
"""
To adapt'a nutritionally based moose carryinq capacity model to
the Susi tna Hydroelectric Proj ect.
Justification and Approach
Carrying capacity,the number of individuals a unit of land can
support for a unit of time,is a term commonly used by the wild-
life biologist.However,quantification of carrying capacity
has been elusive,and meaningful application of the concept
generally nebulous.Early attempts to measure ungulate carryinq
capacity were based on range or browse transects,indicator
plants,or browse utilization methods.Using these techniques,
the biologist obtained a better understanding of the relation-
ships between the animal population and its forage base.But
because he could not relate these measurements to the nutritional
requirements of the animal,he has seldom been able to quantify
numbers of animals that the range could support.
A more recent approach to the problem of quantifying carrying
capaci ty has been to integrate the nutritional.needs of the
animal with those supplied by the range.This concept of bio-
logical carryinq capacity requires an understanding of ungulate
nutrition,the nutrients the animal must obtain from the range,
and the ability of the range to meet those nutritional needs.
This approach to quantifying carrying
ing two computer submodels.£D One to
needs of the animals and the~ther the
range.
capacity required develop-
estimate the nutritional
nutrients available in the
The first,a ruminant submodel,was developed by D.Swift at
Colorado State University and modified for moose at the Kenai
Moose Research Center (MRC).This "paper moose"requires little
change when applied to different moose populations.
The second,a vegetation submodel,estimates the total nutrients
supplied by the vegetation available to moose.This submodel was
developed by T.Hobbs,Colorado Division of Wildlife.Inputs for
the vegetation submodel must be collected from each range being
evaluated.
When the two submodels are integrated,the output is a quantifi-
cation of the potential carrying capacity of the range being
evaluated.The term potential carrying capacity is used rather
than the actual or realized population level because the two may
B-20
Appendix B
be quite difflerent.Any moose population has a number of deci-
mating factors (predation,huntinq,starvation,etc.)operatinq
upon it at any time.These controllinq factors generally deter-
mine the upper limits of population growth.Food is only one
limitinq factor and may not be the controlling factor at the time
of measuremen't.Even when food is limiting,a surplus may occur
within thep1opulation f s range,but its spatia-l and temporal
distrilJution .may prevent full uti lization.Consequently,the
model should not be considered a panacea for all management
problems.Its primary initial value is likely to be for com-
paring the ability of one area of habitat to meet the nutritional
needs of moose with that of another or to measure changes in food
production of the same area over time.This makes it an ideal
tool for habitat management decisions.For precise application
of the model for traditional population management decisions,
additional information on moose movement patterns and the role of
other potential limiting factors may be necessary to determine
the relationship between the potential carrying capacity esti--
mated by the model and the actual population size achievable.
Model Application
Probably the most useful application of the carrying capacity
model is in the evaluation of a treatment response for habitat
enhancement.Estimates of carrying capacity can be made in a
particular vegetation type before and after treatment (i.e.,
'burning or tree crushing)and the response evaluated on the basis
of improved stocking rates (i.e.,moose numbers before and after
crushing).&'1 enhancement proj ect can then be evaluated on a
cost to benefit ratio based on the quantification of improvement
of potential carrying capacity.
A second equally valuable use of the carrying capacity model is
estimating potential losses of habitat due to land use changes
(i.e.,hydroelectric projects,agriculture,strip mining).The
Susitna Hydroelectric project is a prime example.A known area
of moose winter range will be flooded by the proposed impound-
ment.Evaluation of these areas using the model can provide a
quantified loss of the potential carrying capacity of the range
based on moose nutrition and the vegetation.Estimates from the
model coupled with population ecology studies can provide the
basis for mitigation procedures.By including the model in this
decision-making process,the possible biases of underestimating
range losses are improved.This is true because by studying the
moose population only,one cannot be sure the range is being
uti lized to its maximum potenti ale For example,the current
population may be below the range carrying capacity due to
excessive brown bear and wolf predation.By mitigating for
current moose numbers only,we may be short changing the wildlife
resource.
B-2!---------------------=
Appendix 3
Current Status
Development of the moose carrying capacity model was undertaken
in 1978 through a cooperative project by the U.S.Fish and
Wildlife Service (F&WS)and the Alaska.Department of Fish and
Game (ADF&G).This effort resulted in adaptation of the general
ruminant submodel to a model specific to moose.Data collected
at th~MRC on moose enerqy and nitrogen balance were incorporated
into t"he model.Simulation runs in 1981 and 1982 indicate the
submodel'can accurately predict the energy and nitrogen require-
ments and generate daily forage intake values.
Procedures
Two phases of application of the model to the Susi tna .Proj ect
will be conducted simultaneously.The first phase will be a
field validation of the model at the Kenai Moose Research Center
in FY84 and ItY 85.This phase will be conducted by ADF&G with
partial support from USF&WS.ADF&G personnel partially funded by
APA will participate in the design,direction and data analysis
direction of this phase.However,all operating and most person-
nel costs will be borne by ADF&G and USF&WS.
The second phase is application of the model to the Susitna area.
This phase will be carried out in cooperation with subcontractors
of APA.FY84 field activities will be directed at experimenting
wi th samplinq design.Actual application of the vegetation
submodel will occur in FY85.
B-22
Appendix B
SEVERE WINTER CONTINGENCY PLAN
Title:Effec:ts of the Susi tna Hydroelectric Project on moose
durir:Lg periods of severe snow accumulation.
Investigator:Warren Ballard and Ronald Modaferri
Object~es
1.To determine habitat selection of moose during periods of
high snow accumulation.
2.To determine the number of moose using habitat that may be
lost or altered by the Susitna Hydroelectric Project during
periods of high snow accumulation.
3.To determine the numbers,sex and age composition,and cause
of death of moose dying during a severe winter.
4.To determine that rate of wolf predation on moose during
periods of high snow accumulation.
Background and Justification
Periodic deep snow accumulation has been shown to dramatically
affect several moose populations in Alaska.During such periods
moose frequently concentrate in riparian habitats at lower
elevations.High mortality due to nutritional stress ana in-
creased predation by wolves may result in substantial population
reductions.The extent of these reductions and the rate of
recovery may be influenced by the amount ana quali ty of winter
range and predator abundance.Observations made during the early
1970's indicate that the number and sex and age composition of
moose dying ana the role of wolf predation varies in different
areas.
The Susitna Hydroelectric Project is likely to destroy or alter
winter range that might be critical during a severe winter in
both the upstream and downstream study areas.
The impact of the project on moose will depend in part on the
proportion of critical winter range that is lost or degraded.
Cri tical winter range can not be accurately delineated except
during severe winters.Similarly the response of the population
to a severe winter can not necessarily be extrapolated from
observations made in other areas.
Observations of moose distribution and habitat selection during a
severe winter can greatly improve the assessment of the siqnifi-
cance of habitat loss or alteration and provide useful informa-
tion on the most effective size and placement of mitigation
actions such as habitat enhancement.Knowledge of the patterns
and causes of mortality during a severe winter is crucial to
simulation modelling efforts.
Appendix B
Procedures
Spatial and ~empora.l variation in snow accumulation patterns
makes it difficul1:to define a "severe winter."Moose may
respond differen1:1y to early accumulation of snow than they do to
the same accwmllation late in the winter.Therefore,a "severe
winter".will be defined largely by the movements of moose.The
winter\.f 1982-83"will be used as a standard.Severe winter
procedure~will be initiated when 1)radio-collared moose,whose
movements were documented during 1982-83,move into areas subject
to habitat loss or alteration in larger numbers than in 1982-83
or 2)when river censuses indicate larger numbers of moose in the
downstream floodplain than were observed in 1982-83.
Upstream Study Area
Radio-collared moose relocation flights will be intensified.The
sample of 30 z.·eqular inhabi tantsof the primary"zone of impact
will be located twice a week.Other radio-collared moose will be
relocated weekly to determine if their use of the zone of impact
increases and to aid in identification of critical winter range
that will not be impacted.
Two aerial su~,eys will be conducted to map moose distribution in
January and February.
In March,a census will be conducted to estimate the number of
moose in and wi thin 5 miles of the impoundments.
Location and numbers of dead moose will be recorded.A sample of
dead moose will be visited on the ground and the sex,age and
cause of death wi 11 be assessed."
Two wolf packs will be relocated daily for a period of 30 days.
Wolves will be backtracked and kills recorded to determine rates
of predation.As many kills as possible will be visited and sex,
age and condition of "each animal will be assessed.
Downstream Study Area
Four additional river censuses will be conducted.In conjunction
wi th one river census,distribution of moose to either side of
the river will be mapped to determine the availability,location
and habitat type of critical winter range outside of the flood-
plain.
J324
APP)lldiX c.Tracking and Documentation System )
PIlEUHIMAJlY r
110 Decl!llber )
(I)(II)(lll)(IV)(v)(vI)
AHected lapact lapact Additional Propoaed Hltlgatlon HIUaationSpecie.or IIedlanlali A.se55aent Inforaatlon Optiona (F.f .R.C.Plao
Croup Status Required Licenae ApplicatIon)IeflMllent
A)Hoose 1)Ha~Itat laprove~nt wIll the tranalll.sion corridors "W
OCcur along tbe tranaai••ion lIQUid rovlde alllOst 18,100 If·
lIne corridor due to acrea 10,000 ha)of winter
..Intananca of vegetation at habitat of reaaonable
earl,lUCCa.alona'atage ••quality (p.£-1-528;Table
1!.1.145);representing a
beneficIal lapact on ~.e •
.-
8)Dl"lltlng anow frOll the Snow drifting Is unlIkely
IlIpO\IRdIlent 'UI"face ..y to extend far Into wooded
preclu4e uae of a ..rrow band "Inter babltats.The
of vlnter brouse along the dravdown zone and Ice
t.pDund..,nt ahore.lbelves will catcb auch
wIndblown anow and fUl"tber
drIft Ina will occur at tbe
edae or open and wooded
habitats (table £.1.145l.
9)DrIfting anaw In tbe l~act not quantirled but
tl"an••lasion line corrIdor ..y not expec ted to be
preclude use of vlnter browae.allPIficant (Table
1.3.145l.
10)Delayed ~it·orf of anow AvaIlabilIty viII be
4rIft.in-a narrow band along delayed In tbia zone but
tbe lapoondaent abore and forase wIll eventually
tl"ans.lssion corrIdor ..y bec.-..aah 1e as tbe apr I ng
reduce availabilIty of sprIng thaw prollresses.Actual
forage.area or early spring forage
loss viii be a narraw band
along tbe IMpoundment shore
and ".pacts are not
expected to be atlPIftcant
(Table E.1.145).
11)C11aatic cbanges due to the AvaIlable data frOll
i.poondlll!nt.(Ill£rea5ed su_er "llilaton IeservoIr,B.C.,
raInfall,Increased wInds,and Indicate tbat theae .ubtle
cooler su...er teaperaturea)~y ctiNUc effects vIlI
reduce babitat carrying lIkely be undetectable and
capacity;(p.E-]-406).of little i.pact on DOose
babitata (table £.1.145).
f----
12)Delayed plant phenololY .ay l.pact not quantIfied and
occur ~diately adjacent to li.Ited In extent to area.
the reaervoir due to Ita I_diately adjacent to tbe
coo11nl effect,I"eductna apr Ina lapoundllent.Effects on
foule for lIOose;(p.[-1-400)...a.e llould be difficult
to detect (Table £.1.14S).
C-l
)
Appendix C lracking and Documentation System
')
PR£I.ININAi.Y r ).
JAo,Deo:....~
(I)(Il)(Ul)(IV)Afteued (v)(vI)
Species or I~act ..pau Additional Proposed tllUllul""
Croup tlechAIIlaa bsea_ot lnfo...t Ion OpHona (I'.E •••C.
IIIU,aHoo
StatllS "'Iubed 'laoLlcennAppUcatlon)IeU_nt
II}Wolverine 5}Inc~e.ae 10 ca~ryln,I.p.ct ~epresents a 1'*Capi£lty of the traoaalaalon beneficial effect on
contdor for _ae .......""lvedoea (Table E.).152).
ptaralpo .y ......Ud.Uy
tapact IIIIIve ..IMs.
-
6)'Iteration of uae p.ttern.Confllctlnll data on b~
4~to presenca of the rAII&e bOIlQdarlea of
~nta and chao,ea In _lverlnea and terrain
bQIe r80,e bolIpda,laa.featllrea aske thla tapact
difficult to predict;
.ot eapeued to be ai,-
.iflcaat (p.E-)-~)2).
1}Avoidance of all area.of "pact not 'lllantlfled;1I0t
b~activity,at la..t ..pee ted to be allAlflcant
lottlally,caualo.aua-chanle8 unleaa blBh levela of
lo uae .patterna or pr..,II1.....recreational dlaturbancea
of II"In e_ar....occllr (T..le 1.].152).
B}Increase In ~rtality 4ue to l8PI£t Mt quantifleCl but
hunt In.,trapplo"8IId likely the ~.t ~rtant
poachln••lapact on wolverines.
Hunrloll end trepplol can be
resulate,.lthouBh poach In.
aay represent an unavoid-
able adverae "pact (T.ble
••].152).
I)klukba 1)Water teaperature chaoaes at Water teaperatures ",U I not
the ~th of the Susltna Rlve~chanae alanlflcantly at the
due to the project a.y affect rlver'a aouth;"pact not
calvin,..eapected to occur (p.
1-]-1022).
2)Fond supplies of belukbas Salaon decreasea would at
asy be decreased due to &Oat be 5-~of Sudtna
alteratlona or blockage In the ~Ive~atocka;lapact not
availability of apawnlng eapected to be dpillcaot
atra...for .aleon.(p.£-:H14).
J}Ileavu aod 1)Pe~nent 10..of habitat lapact not conaldered So..c~penaatlon will occu~
llIJalLrat for 5·10 ..ak~aU due to .llOlflcant to area tbrouan l.p~o~ed habitat
t.pDuodaent.and otber population.due to the downsne_froa the d_
pc~ot facUltlea._11 Jwabeu affected (p.'-]-51").
(Tple 8.1.15).
2)Loss of aOlle habitat (or I
lapact not con&lde~ed Partlal avoidance is poulble
toth apeclea dOle to aUtation algnlflcant to area through reallanaent of tbe
of ponda,alreratlon of populatlona due to tbe acceaa roule and de.tgn
4ratna.a patterna,aQd ...11 .ueber.affected (pp.changes to reduce dlstur-
.dbtur"an"a Aea~at:ce.a road.1-]-4)/0 to 436)•banee to beaver bablun
sad bo~row pita (prlasrlly In (p.E-l-n,,).
~be;Pa,~n C~eek area}.
.r.:--~
(Rev.O-l/84)
APPENDIX 0
Terrestrial Program Principal Staff and Responsibilities
ORGANIZATION
Alaska Powr Authority
Harza-Ebasco
LGL Alaska
U of A Palmer
U of A Fairbanks
R.A.Kreig &Associates
ADF&G -Game
NAME
Dr.Richard Fleming
Mr.Randy Fairbanks
Dr.Roseann Densmore
Ms.April Rivkin
Dr.Robin Sener
Mr.Dave Roseneau
Mr.Dale Heter
Dr.Bill Steigers
Dr.Dot Helm
Dr.Phil Gipson
Dr.Brina Kessel
Mr.Ray Kreig
Mr.Ken Winterberger
Ms.Deborah Heebner
Mr.Ray Koleser
Mr.Karl Schneider
Dr.Sterling Miller
Mr.Warren Ballard
TITLE/RESPONSIBILITY
Deputy Manager-Environmental
Lead Terrestrial Biologist
Terre~trial Biologist
Terrestrial Biologist
p.M.l/-Imp.Assess.&
Mit.Plan Refine.
P.I.Z/-Raptors
Wildlife Biologist
P.I.-Plant Ecology
plnat Ecologist
P.I.-Furbearers
P.L -Birds &Small Mammals
P.M.-Vegetation Mapping
Vegetation Mapping Consultant
Vegetation Mapper
Vegetation Mapper
Research Coordinator -Big
Game
P.r.-Bears
P.I.-Upstream Moose,Wolf,
and Wolverine
1/P.M.=Project Manager
~/P.I.=Project Investigator
40027/8-0 0-1
ORGANIZATION
ADF&G Game (cont'd)
NAME
Dr.Ron'Modafferi'
Mr.K;en P{tcner
CRev.0-l/84)
TITLE/RESPONSIBILITY
~'.I.-Dowristreim Moose
P.I.-Caribou
.".....
Ms.Nancy Tankenley 'P.I.·-Dall Sheep
~M~~i.Jack Whi tman ,Wi!dli'fe'Biologis t
as:.Suzanne Miller Biometrician
Dr.Wayne Regelin P.I.-Carrying Capacity Model
1/P.M.=Project Manager
Z/P.I.=Project Investigator
40027/8-D D-2
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE·ANCHORAGE,ALASKA 99501
June 28,1984
Susitna File No.1.8.1/1.17.4.2/4.3.3.1/4.3.2.1
Carl Yanagawa
Alaska Department of Fish &Game
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage,Alaska 99502
Attention:Mr.Carl Yanagawa
Subject:Susitna Hydroelectric Project
Terrestrial Program
FY84 Detailed Plan of Study Revision
Reference:Document 1190 -Copy No.018
Harza-Ebasco Letter dated April 25,1984
Dear Mr.Yanagawa:
Phone:(907)2n·7641
(907)276-0001
K
l 2')
,Sg
F¥l'L
nO...Irf
b"l)dt r '-"1'0
Enclosed are revisions to the Detailed Plan of Study for FY84 (Document
1190).This update reflects changes in the Terrestrial Program and
provides additional clarification and detail for study task descrip-
tions and organizations.Please revise your copy of the Plan of Study
as indicated on Enclosure t.
Sincerely,
Jo S.Ferguson
Project Manager
Susitna Hydroelectric Project
ddp
Ene:as noted
cc w/o Ene:
L.Polivka,HE
J.Thrall,HE
R.Fairbanks,HE
D.Ca llesen,HE
L
42903
Please replace the original pages cited below with the revised pages.
Original Pages --replace with--Revised Pages
42903
~-~v ~-~v
3-3 through 3-6 3-3 through 3-6
3-8 3-8
3-10 through 3-13 3-10 through 3-13
4-4 4-4
4-6,4-7 4-6,4-7
4-10,4-11 4-10,4-11,4-11a through 4-11e
4-16 4-16
4-18 through 4-22 4-18 through 4-22
4-27 4-27
4-30,4-31 4-30,4-31
4-34 4-34
4-36 4-36
4-41,4-42 4-41,4-42
4-46 through 4-48 4-46 through 4-48
4-50 through 4-53 4-50 through 4-56
5-1 through 5-3 5-1 through 5-4
8-1 8-1
D-l,D-2 D-l,D-2
(ReV.1-5/84)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section/Title
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
1.2 Terrestrial Program
2.0 STUDY OBJECTIVES
3.0 GENERAL APPROACH
3.1 GENERAL METHODOLOGY
1-1
1-1
1-2
2-1
3-1
3-1
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.1.3
3.1.4
Settlement Process
Tracking and Documentation System
Impact Assessment Update and Refinement Report
Mitigation Plan Refinement Report
3-1
3-3
3-4
3-7
3.2 SPECIFIC STUDY TASKS
3.3 COORDINATION
3-9
3-10
3.3.1
3.3.2
Progress Review and Planning Meetings
Workshops
3-10
3-11
3.4 FY8S PLAN OF STUDY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
3.5 LONG-TERM PLAN
4.0 SPECIFIC STUDY TASK DESCRIPTIONS
4.1 UPSTREAM MOOSE
3-12
3-14
4-1
4-1
4.1.1
4.1.2
4.1.3
4.1.4
4.1.5
4.1.6
4.1.7
4.1.8
4.1.9
4.1.10
4.1.11
4.1.12
Background
Approach
Upstream Moose Field Studies
Plant Phenology Studies
Forage Vegetation Mapping
pilot Browse Study
Moose Food Habits Study
Browse Inventory
Bioenergetics Model Testing
Moose Population Model Refinement
Habitat Enhancement Techniques Review
Candidate Mitigation Lands Study
4-1
4-2
4-6
4-7
4-11
4-12
4-17
4-20
4-21
4-22
4-23
4-28
4.2 DOWNSTREAM MOOSE 4-32
4.2.1
4.2.2
Background
Approach
i
4-32
4-32
Table of Contents (cont'd)
Section/Title
,~4.2.3 Downstream Moose Field Studies
4.2.4 wildlife Habitat/Instream Flow
Relationships Report
4.3 CARIBOU
4.3.1 Background
4.3.2 Approach
4.4 DALL SHEEP
4.4.1 Background
4.4.2 Approach
4.5 BLACK AND BROWN BEAR
(Rev .1-5/84)
4-36
4-36
4-37
4-37
4-37
/4-39
4..,.39
4-39
4-40
4.5.1
4.5.2
4.5.3
4.5.4
Background
Approach
Bear Field Studies
Bear Population Model Refinement
4-40
4-40
4-41
4-41
4.6 WOLF AND WOLVERINE 4-43
4.6.1
4.6.2
Background
Approach
4-43
4-44
4.7 BELUKHA WHALE 4-45
4.7.1
4.7.2
Background
Approach
4-45
4-45
4.8 DOWNSTREAM BEAVER 4-46
4.8.1
4.8.2
4.8.3
4.8.4
4.9 RAP TORS
4.9.1
4.9.2
4.9.3
Background
Approach
Beaver Field Studies
Beaver Model Refinement
Background
Approach
Raptor Field Studies
4-46
4-46
4-46
4-48
4-49
4-49
4-50
·4-50
4.10 OTHER WILDLIFE 4-53
4.10.1
4.10.2
Background
Approach
ii
4-53
4-53
Table of Contents (cont'd)
Sec tion/Title
4.11 WETLANDS
(Rev.!-5/84)
4-54
4.11.1
4.11.2
4.11.3
Background
Approach
Wetlands Mapping
4-54
4-55
4-56
5.0 SCHEDULE AND DELIVERABLES
6.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM
6.1 PURPOSE
6.2 GENERAL APPLICATION
6.3 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM
5-1
6-1
6-1
6-1
6-2
6.3.1
6.3.2
6.3.3
6.3.4
6.3.5
Organization and Responsibilities
Operating Procedures
Document Control
Audits
Harza-Ebasco Quality Assurance
6-2
6-2
6-3
6-3
6-4
6.4 QA PROGRAM APPLICATION TO TERRESTRIAL PROGRAM
7.0 REFERENCES
8.0 APPENDICES
Appendix A -Agency-Raised Issues.October 4.1983
Appendix B -ADF&G FY84 plan of Study
Appendix C -Sample of Tracking and Documentation System
Appendix D -Terrestrial Program Principal Staff and
Responsibilities
iii
6-4
7-1
8-1
A-I
B-1
C-l
D-l
Figure
(Rev.1-5/84)
LIST OF FIGURES &MAPS
Description
Figure 3-1.
Figure 3-2.
Figure 4-1.
Figure 4-2.
Figure 4-3.
Figure 4-4.
Figure 4-5.
Figure 4-6.
Terrestrial Program:Impact Assessment/Mitigation
Plan Refinement Information Flow and Responsibilities
Preliminary Long Term Schedule:Terrestrial Impact
Assessment and Mitigation Plan Refinement
Linkages Among Components of Upstream Moose Impact
Assessment and Mitigation Plan Refinement Efforts
Vegetation Mapping Areas
Linkages Among Components of Downstream Moose Impact
Assessment and Mitigation Plan Refinement Efforts
Linkages Among Components of Bear Impact Assessment
and Mitigation Plan Refinement Efforts
Linkages Among Components of Downstream Beaver Impact
Assessment and Mitigation Plan Refinement Efforts
Wetlands Mapping Areas
3-6
3-15
4-3
4-lla
4-34
4-42
4-47
4-56
Figure 5-1.Schedule for FY84 Terrestrial Program Impact Assessment 5-3
and Mitigation Plan Refinement Tasks
1V
.•'-
(Rev.1-5/84)
3.1.2 Tracking and Documentation System
It is important that a "bookkeeping"system be developed and applied to the
Terrestrial Program issue settlement process so that the current status of
impact assessment and mitigation planning for each impact mechanism can be
documented and tracked through the process.This is necessary even though
there is a broader tracking system for the entire settlement process (being
maintained by Task 6,Licensing and Permitting)because many agency-raised
and other issues are general fi.e.,impacts not adequately quantified--Issue
T-20 Appendix A)and tracking and documentation of the resolution of these
issues requires an examination of each impact mechanism.
The tracking and documentation system being implemented for the Terrestrial
Program consists of a matrix organized to show for each type of impact the
current studies,monitoring plans and mitigation plans that are relevant to
that impact.The major column headings describe the steps in the planning
process as follows:
I)Affected Species or Group:lists each species or groups of species
of concern in the project area and surrounding region.
II)Impact Mechanism:briefly explains how various aspects of the pro-
ject will affect each listed species or group.
III)Impact Assessment Status:provides an evaluation of the impact,
including its perceived importance to the affected species or group,
and any quantification of the impact that has been developed.
IV)Ongoing and Planned Studies:provides a summary of the investiga-
tions that are underway or planned for the near future and that are
relevant to refining the particular impact assessment or mitigation
planning •
400210/3 3-3
(Rev.1-5/84)
v)Proposed Monitoring:summarizes research efforts that are proposed to
be conducted during project construction and operation to document
the impacts that are occurring and/or to assist in mitigating these
impacts.
VI)Proposed Mitigation Measures:summarizes various mitigation measures
that have been proposed to assist in mitigating the effects of the
pertinent impact mechanism.
Two draft example pages of the Tracking and Documentation System are
provided in Appendix C.A draft of the entire Tracking and Documentation
System will be available in December 1983.The table will be updated
periodically and will be used at the Terrestrial Program progress review and
coordination meetings as a basis for reviewing progress and discussing
planned activities.The table will provide a means for grasping the total
scope of unresolved ~ssues so that prioritization of work efforts can be
clearly made.
400210/3 3-3a
(Rev.1-5 /84)
3.1.3 Impact Assessment Update &Refinement Report
Central to the Terrestrial Program impact assessment and mitigation plan
refinement process will be the preparation of an Impact Assessment Update
and Refinement Report.This report will supplement the FERC License Appli-
cation by providing an updated impact assessment which is based on all new
information collected since the application was prepared and by refining the
analyses conducted for the application where it is apparent that analyses
need refinement.
The specific objectives of the Impact Assessment Update and Refinement
Report (Assessment Report)are to:
(1)Provide an updated and more quantitative assessment of impacts
upon which to base mitigation planning,making full utilization of
data collected since the License Application was prepared,as well
as previous data;
(2)Resolve as many items in the agency-raised issue list,the agency
comments on the License Application~motions to intervene,and the
FERC scoping issues list as possible.
(3)Provide FERC with an updated and more quantitative assessment of
impacts upon which to base the preparation of their FEIS.
After the License Application was prepared,a complete set of big game
.studies annual reports was published (spring 1983).Data contained in these
reports were only partially considered in the License Application.Another
set of annual reports is currently under preparation for publication in
the Spring of 1984.Also~additional data have been collected on plant
phenology in and near the impoundment zones and on beaver colony abundance
between Devil Canyon and Talkeetna and downstream of Talkeetna.In
addition~refinements have been made to simulation models~which have been
prepared to improve our understanding of the net or cumulative effects of
400210/3 3-4
(Rev.1-5/84)
the project.These items represent the new information or refinements that
will be considered in the preparation of the Impact Assessment Update and
Refinement Report.
Updating the impact assessment with this new information will,10 itself,
allow resolution of many terrestrial issues.Additional analyses and
refinements to 'existing analyses will be conducted as necessary,in order to
resolve additional issues raised by the agencies and intervenors,or identi-
fied by FERC.
All updates and refinements will be documented by describing and referencing
them in the Impact Assessment/Mitigation Plan Tracking &Documentation Sys-
tem.This system will also be used to indicate when an issue is addressed
or resolved by an update or refinement.
The Impact Assessment Update and Refinement Report will be prepared by a
core team from LGL who will receive direction and technical review from
Harza-Ebasco.The core team will coordinate directly and frequently with
the principal investigators responsible for conducting the specific study
tasks described below,in order to obtain the most up-to-date information
available for the impact assessment.This coordination will ensure that the
principal investigators are responsive to the outstanding terrestrial issues
in preparing their reports and designing their studies.The relationships
among the various impact assessment and mitigation plan refinement efforts,
in terms of information transfer and res pons ibili ties,are presented 1.n
Figure 3-1.
The schedule for preparation and completion of the Impact Assessment Update
and Refinement Report 1.S designed to ensure that the report will be
available as input into the FERC Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS).Important milestone dates are presented below.
400210/3
Initiation of Work
Preliminary Draft Completed
Final Draft Completed
Final Report Completed
3-5
December 19,1983
April 30,1984
May 15,1984
May 30,1984
.I:-oo
N-o-\.I.)
)
Fig 3-1
)
Terrestrial ,Program:Impact Assessment/Mitigation
Plan Refinement Information Flow and Responsibilities
ALASKA
POWER
AUTHORITY
I
)
LGL
IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1----------
UPDATE &REFINEMENT
\.I.)
I
0\
FIELD STUDIES
ADF&G -LGL
U of AK-Veg Map
USFWS
MODELLING
ADF&G -LGL
- - - I
I
I
I 1-- - -
I
- - --I
--I,--
I
I
I
I
HARZA-
EBASCO --- - - - - - --- - - I
I
I
I
I
MITIGATION PLAN
UPDATE &REFINEMENT
LGL
Primary Direction
of Information Transfer
- - - -Feedback (Comments
Coordination &Direction)
r
~
<
l-
I
\..,
C
4-
'-
(Rev.1-5/84)
The Mitigation Plan Refinement Report will be prepared by a core team from
LGL with direction and technical review from Harza-Ebasco.The work will be
conducted simultaneously with work on the Impact Assessment Update and
Refinement Report,but will be completed about one month after the latter
report.It will be completed,however,in time to be used as input into the
FERC FEIS.Important milestone dates are presented below:
Initiation of Work December 19,1983
Preliminary Draft Completed May 31,1984
Final Draft Completed June 15,1984
Final Report Completed June 29,1984
400210/3 3-8
(Rev.l-S/84)
3.3.COORDINATION
3.3.1 Progress Review and Coordination Meetings
A systematic means of ensuring that good coordination occurs will be imple-
mented through regular progress rev~ew and coordination meetings.These
meetings will be attended by the Harza-Ebasco Terrestrial Group Leader,LGL
Project Manager,ADF&G Research Coordinator,ADF&G Habitat Division
reviewer,and a USFWS project reviewer.In addition,it is expected that
Power Authority Staff will attend as time permits and additional staff
members from Harza-Ebasco,LGL,ADF&G,USFWS,U of A Palmer £xperiment
Station,U of A Museum and U of A Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit,will
attend as necessary.Members of the Aquatic,Hydrology and Social Science
Study Teams will also attend as appropriate to ensure that activities are
coordinated with these groups and to obtain their technical expertise as the
need arises.
Progress review and coordination meetings will be conducted monthly,or more
or less frequently as the need arises.These meetings will provide a forum
for each major entity of the Terrestrial Study Team to report on their acti-
vities for the previous period,including preliminary results of field stu-
dies,and to discuss their planned activities.The meetings will also
provide the opportunity for Terrestrial Study Team members to modify their
activities so that they provide more useful input to other activities ~n a
timely manner.These meetings provide an opportunity for regular input from
ADF&G Habitat Division and USFWS project reviewers.Meeting summaries will
be prepared and distributed to all Terrestrial Team members.
400210/3 3-10
(Rev.1-5/84)
3.3.2.Workshops
Another form of information transfer and coordination is through workshops.
A large workshop on terrestrial modeling efforts was held in spring 1983.A
draft report was prepared presenting the status of terrestrial models t as
refined at the workshop and associated technical meetings t and identifying
information needs for further model refinement.This report will be
finalized in the Spring of 1984 t following receipt of review comments from
Terrestrial Study Team members.
Terrestrial workshops are currently planned for April 10 and June 26 t 1984.
The first workshop represents a scoping workshop for FY85 terrestrial work
efforts (see Section 3.4).The second workshop will cover impact assessment
and mitigation plan refinements conducted in FY84.
400210/3 3-11
(Rev.1-5/84)
3.4 FYas PLAN OF STUDY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
The plan of study development process for FY8S will be conducted in a manner
that will ensure that all work efforts are designed to resolve or assist ~n
resolving issues pertinent to the Settlement Process.The draft plan of
study has been divided into tasks that address specific objectives for FY85,
with some tasks more important than others because they are either critical
to the licensing and settlement processes or are necessary to maintain
baseline data collection.Based on the results of several intensive
planning sessions attended by key terrestrial personnel,study plans have
been prioritized by task description with decreasing priority asigned to
increasing task number.The tasks have been divided into four general
levels of importance.A scoping workshop was held to discuss these plans in
detail with the agencies,and give the agencies an opportunity to provide
their input and comment.
Prior to finalization of detailed task descriptions,agency comments will be
incorporated and detailed methodologies will be developed.Developing
budget estimates is an on-going process contingent upon the final budget
allocation to the Susitna Project.Emphasis is on developing scopes further
for the highest priority tasks.In anticipation of the study development
process being delayed,detailed task descriptions are being developed for
those tasks assigned to Levels 1-3.Detailed task descriptions will be
developed for Level 4 tasks pending budget allocation decisions.
A detailed plan of study for FY85 will be developed after the Governor and
legislature finalize the FY85 Susitna budget.This plan of study will be
based on actual budget allocation,and will represent the actual scope of
FYa5 work.
400210/3 3-12
The schedule for these activities is as follows:
Draft Plan of Study
Fy85 Terrestrial Program Scoping Workshop
Agency Comments
Detailed Plan of Study
(Rev.1-5/84)
March 31,1984
April 10,1984
April 30,1984
June 30,1984
400210/3 3-13
(Rev.1-5/84 )
Final estimates will be available in late 1985 after completion of the bio-
energetics model testing.Final population model predictions,which are
partially based on the final carrying capacity estimates,will also be
available in late 1985.These estimates will be incorporated into the Final
Impact Assessment Update Report and will be used to make the final refine-
ments .to the Mitigation Plan,both of which will be completed in early
1986.
Work efforts to be conducted during FY 1984 along with the responsible
organization include:
1.Zone of Impact Census -ADF&G
2.Impact Area Habitat Use Monitoring -ADF&G
3.Calf Predation Monitoring -ADF&G
4.Severe Winter Studies (if severe winter occurs)-ADF&G
5.Spring Plant Phenology Study - U of A,Palmer
6.Forage Vegetation Mapping -R.A.Kreig
7.pilot Browse Sampling - U of A,Palmer
8.Moose Food Habits Study - U of A,Palmer
9.Browse Sampling -LGL,ADF&G
10.Wolf Studies -ADF&G
11.Bear Studies -ADF&G
12.Bioenergetics Model Testing -ADF&G/USFWS
13.Bear Population Model Refinement -ADF&G/LGL
14.Moose Population Model Refinement -ADF&G/LGL
15.Habitat Enhancement Studies (monitoring winter use of downstream
disturbed sites)-ADF&G
16.Habitat Enhancement Studies (literature reV1ew of habitat
enhancement techniques)-Harza-Ebasco
17.Mitigation plan refinement (identification of candidate lands
for habitat enhancement)-LGL
400210/4 4-4
(Rev.I-5/84)
4.1.3 Upstream Moose Field Studies
Upstream moose field studies are described on pages 1-3 and 23-24 of ADF&G's
FY 1984 Plan of Study,provided as Attachment B.The studies consist of
four general work efforts:(1)the zone of impact census (designed to
address IssuesT-17,T-20,and T-39 in Attachment A);(2)impact area habi-
tat use monitoring (designed to address Issues T-17, T-20, T-33,and T-39);
(3)calf predation monitoring (designed to address Issues T-17, T-20,T-39,
and T-44);and,(4)severe winter studies (designed to address Issues T-17,
T-20,T-39 and T-41).The annual report for upstream moose field studies is
due in the Spring of 1984.This report will cover field studies conducted
through the fall of 1983.
400210/4 4-6
(Rev.1-5/84)
4.1.4 Plant Phenology Studies
4.1.4.1 Background.Studies on moose and bear subpopulations 1n the middle
Susitna River Basin have documented general movement patterns of these ani-
mals into relatively low elevations within the proposed impoundment zones
during late spring and early summer.It was suggested that this general
movement pattern may be a response of the moose to earlier snowmelt and the
early development of vegetative growth at these lower elevations (Ballard et
al.1982;102).Ballard et al.(1982;102)suggested that the spring period
was critical for moose.In a nutritionally stressed population,gestating
cow moose may be the most deleteriously affected due to the demands placed
upon them by the developing fetus.This trend is abruptly reversed when
melting snow exposes previously unavailable forage and new plant growth
becomes available.Ballard et al.(1982;102)suggested that the moose popu-
lation may suffer significant mortality if prevented from moving to areas
where early spring growth of vegetation,such as in the proposed impoundment
zones,may occur.
Brown bear use of proposed impoundment zones was also most prevalent during
early spring,soon after they emerge from their winter dens (Miller and
McAllister 1982;55).They hypothesized that brown bear movements to the
proposed impoundment zones during May were motivated by relatively earlier
snow melt,especially on south-facing slopes,which made these the first
areas where overwintering berries could be found and also the first areas
where new vegetative growth was available.Some of the areas of
overwintered berries and early spring growth of vegetation currently used by
bears will be inundated by the impoundments.
4.1.4.2 Objectives/Hypothesis.
plant phenology studies are to:
400210/4
The objectives of the 1983 early spring
4-7
(Rev.1-5/84)
early greenup sites.These results wi 11 provide ranges of topographical,
elevational and vegetation types that are associated with early greenup
sites or sites where foraging has been observed.Maps can then be elevated
for the extent of these topographical or elevational features,as well as
the extent of later developing areas that are in the potential impoundment
zones.This will be used to assess potential losses of early greenup areas
due to flooding.
Once areas are stratifed by time of vegetation development,means can be
obtained for the relative abundance of overwintered berries for bears.
Statistical analyses for phenological development of Equisetum can be
developed similar to those for vegetation in general.Additionally,the
area can be stratified by presence or absence of Equisetum.
The spatial distribution of snow-free areas and of phenological stages of
'forage vegetation will be graphically presented for each transect for each
observation period.
Deliverables will include the following:
1.A draft report of analyzed data and a discussion of results will
be available on April 30,1984.
2.A final report of analyzed data and a discussion of results 1.S
expected to be available by June 15,1984.
400210/4 4-10
(Rev.1-5/84)
4.1.5 Forage Vegetation Mapping
4.1.5.1 Background.Detailed mapping of existing vegetation (emphasizing
moose forage vegetation)which wi 11 be affected as a result of project
construction and operation is an important requirement to support habitat-
based impact assessment and mitigation planning currently in progress.
This effort is designed to provide more detailed vegetation mapp1ng,to be
used for quantification of habitat-based impacts in general and,more
specifically,to provide a more accurate basis for stratification of the
browse inventory.In addition,the mapping will allow more precise habitat,
use/availability analyses to be conducted for big game spec1es,thus,
refining~our ability to assess impacts.This product will be of sufficient
quality to allow for improved statistical efficiency in the browse
inventory.
4.1.5.2 Objectives/Hypothesis.
mapping are to:
The specific objectives of the vegetation
1.Prepare a detailed and accurate 1:63,360 -scale map of vegetation
for the Susitna Project area.
2.Prepare a conC1se and explicit user guide to accompany the map
product.
4.1.5.3 Study Area.The study area to be mapped includes the entire
project area,as illustrated in Figure 4-2 (Vegetation Mapping Areas).
4.1.5.4 Detailed Methodology.Maximum vegetation (especially forage)
information will be acquired using stereoscopic photo interpretation and
mapping techniques.A thorough review and collection of all available
reference and ground plot data will provide a basis from which the 1984
field season and mapping can begin.Available color infrared and color
400210/4 4-11
Figure 4-2:Vegetat.ion Mapping Areas
(Rev.1-5/84)
-4-11a---
(Rev.1-5/84 )
photography will be reviewed to identify those areas requiring the most
attention during field studies.This will include review of the following:
1)1:60,000 eIR of the project area and other relevant research an ground
data sites,2)1:24 ,000 color coverage of the Susitna River and Facility
area,and 3)1:3,000 eIR coverage of relevant Forestry Science Lab sampling
plots.Additional detail not obtainable through photo interpretation but
required for the forage maps will be added through supplemental field
investigations.Field time will also be used to confirm and check mapping
and interpretations made from photo interpretation.The vegetation legend
will be designed,and sample test area mapping will be performed in areas
where ground data already exists as a means of testing the forage legend.
Forage mapping will occur in two phases following the early April decisions
made after the test area mapping.Phase 1 will be performed from early
April to mid June,1984 incorporating vegetation to Level III and IV,
reference plot data,and vegetative photo interpretation.Field time has
been scheduled into two main separate blocks of time to provide maximum time
usage under the product delivery schedule.Therefore,the first main field
season will occur in late June,1984 to better utilize the growing season.
It will concentrate on collecting representative forage cover percentages
and checking the level 3 and 4 mapping performed during Phase 1.Percentage
cover of Alder-Willow-Birch will be estimated on the ground for at least 80
sites.An accurate and efficient field sampling program that does not
duplicate existing information will be conducted.
Phase 2 mapping will incorporate forage percentage birch-aIder-willow
modifiers developed after the first field season.A final two week field
season during the best shrub fall colors in August and September will serve
as a systematic aerial and ground check for both mapping products.Any
additional forage detail needed to finalize the forage mapping product will
also be obtained at this time.
400210/4 4-llb
(Rev.1-5 /84 )
The map user guide will be developed in several drafts as the mapping
products incorporate successively more detail.Its vegetation descript{ons
will be improved as the field investigations and photo interpretation
progress.
4.1.5.5 Data Management and R~ports.The forage map will be provided on a
1:63,360 scale with clearly legible freehand ink labeling.All vegetation
types will be mapped at least to 1/4"square (40 acre)minimums on 1:63,360
scale.Many types will be mapped to 20 acre minimums and certain types will
be carried to 10 acre minimum.A minimum interpretation of Level III in the
"1982 Revision of Preliminary Classification for Vegetation of Alaska"by
Viereck et al.will be conducted.All forest,tall shrub,and low shrub
types will be mapped to Level IV of the same classification scheme.
If complexing of vegetative types appears necessary,new legend units may be
created to represent typical vegetation cOIlDl1unity associations.In this
way,single labeling and cartographic clarity can be preserved.Forest,
scrubland and herbaceous vegetative types will be determined us'ing the
Alaska Vegetation Classification by Viereck et al.1982 rules of
designation.If complex calls are required in areas where cartographic
separation of two or more vegetative types is not possible,these calls will
be determined and designated consistently.All minor vegetative type
components wi 11 require >25 percent cover to be clas s ified as such and
legend units representing these complexes will be described in the map user
guide and interim report.
400210/4 4-llc
(Rev.1-5/84)
Special feature mapping to be included in the vegetation map are percentage
cover of alder,wi llow and shrub birch spec ies occurring in all open and
woodland forest types and all tall and low shrub types.It is anticipated
that these cover percentages for alder,shrub birch and willow will be made
in intervals adequate to incorporate the forage species detail obtainable
from the aerial photography,existing data,and new field investigations.
Initial field studies and map user consultation will reveal the most
appropriate percentage grouping for the forage shrub understory species.
All water bodies,barren areas and disturbed areas will also be included in
this mapping product.In summary,a forage map label will include a
mnemonic lettering symbology to include a Level IV (Viereck et a1.,1982)
classification plus a percentage cover for the understroy content of shrub
species,alder (Alnus),Willow (Salix)and shrub birch (Betual)present in
that type.
As an initial product,a draft map of several test areas,totalling about 20
square miles in size or larger,will allow for an early review of potential
mapping accuracy and scale problems.The base map will be prepared using
individual,unmosaiced 2x enlargemets of 1:120,000 erR photography.Each
would be prepared from a tip-tilt recertification to 1:63,360 U.S.G.S.
mylars.Each of the approximately 21 sheets will have match lines and a
title block.
In order that these mapping products be useful and their limitaton and
accuracy limits understood by future users,a map user guide for the mapping
product will be prepared.This document will appear as a concisely written
typewritten report (81/2 x 11"paper).Its content will be prepared in
such a way that a variety of users irrespective of their technical back-
ground will easily understand and be able to use the information available
in these mapping products.
400210/4 4-11d
(Rev.1-5/84)
Specifically,the content of the map user guide will include basic and
concise legend unit descriptions for both the forage and wetland mapping
units to provide the user with specific floristic and natural feature data
from which accurate and consistent distinction of mapping units can be made.
The map user guide will also contain a summary of mapping techniques and
procedures used in the production of the mapping products.In addi tion,a
portion of the user guide will be dedicated to summarizing the map
limitations and accuracy limits inherent in the mapping products.A summary
of mapping limitations is an essential part of any map product so the user
can better understand and implement the mapping information for his or her
own use.
Deliverables will include the following:
1.A draft map of several test areas,totalling about 20 square miles
will be available on March 31,1984;
2.Draft maps for one-half of the study area will be available on
May 15,1984 and for the remaining one-half of the area on
June 15,1984;
3.An interim report summarizing vegetation type descriptions will be
available on June IS,1984;
4.A draft map incorporating ground truthing and fie19 investigation
refinements will be available on December 1,1984;
5.A final map will be available on January 31,1985;
6.A draft user guide will be available on Novermber 15,1984;
7.A final user guide will be available on January 31,1985.
400210/4 4-lle
.~.
(Rev.1-5/84)
Deliverables will include the following:
L A draft report of analyzed data,a discuss ion of results,and
methodology recommendations for the 1984 browse inventory study
will be available on January 31,1984.
2.A final report is expected to be available by May 31,1984 •
400210/4 4-16
(Rev.l-S/84)
About 3 moose defecations were collected by AAES during the 1982 season.
Forty-six of the samples were collected during summer while three samples
represent winter foods.Approximately 196 moose defecations were collected
by AAES during the 1983 field season which represent winter foods of moose.
Approximately 20 late-winter fecal samples are scheduled to be collected by
W.Ballard (ADF&G)during adult moose radio-collaring operations in March
1984.Approximately 15 spring fecal samples will be collected by W.Bal-
lard during calf radio-collaring and mortality monitoring during May and
June 1984.
Every effort will be made to identify individual shrub species within genera
(i.e.,Betula glandulosa,!.papyrifera,and species of Salix)if identi-
fying characteristics can be established from the reference collections.
Species of primary interest for winter moose diets are:Salix pulchra,~.
glauca,S.lanata,~.alaxensis,Betula glandulosa,!.papyrifera,Alnus
sinuata,Vaccinium vitis-idaea,and Populus tremuloides.Summer diets will
include the species for winter diets plus unidentified forb and graminoid
categories.Efforts will be made to identify all plant fragments not
included in the above species that may be found to make up a substantial
portion of the diet within a given area.
Fecal samples will be composited by area and season,oven-dried at 60°C for
48 hours,then ground through a Wiley Mill.The dried and ground fecal
material will be made into 10 microscope slides for each area.Twenty
fields will be examined on each slide.A valid field has to contain at
least two identifiable plant fragments.An identifiable plant fragment has
to possess at least two histological identifying characteristics.The data
recorded will be frequency of occurrence of plant fragments for each 10-
slide set.
400210/4 4-18
(Rev.1-5/84 )
4.1.7.5 Data Management and Reports.Analysis of data on moose food
habits resulting from this study will involve statistical comparisons among
areas and seasons.Tables presenting means and standard errors wi 11 be
provided.Results will also be related to other studies concerning moose
ecology in the middle Susitna River Basin.
Deliverables will include the following:
1.A final report documenting winter diets based on microhistological
analysis of moose fecal samples will be available by June 30,
1984.
400210/4 4-19
(Rev.1-5/84)
4.1.8 Browse Inventory
The browse inventory is necessary to provide inputs to the vegetation sub-
model for the purpose of carrying capacity estimation (see section 4.1.9).
With browse inventory inputs the vegetation submodel will produce estimates
of the amount of forage available on the range to be surveyed.These esti-
mates,combined with estimates of the daily moose forage requirements from
the bioenergetics model will produce estimates of moose carrying capacity.
The FY 1984 efforts represent the planning and mobilizaiton for the browse
inventory which is currently planned to be conducted in July and August 1984
(FY 1985).A draft report of results is scheduled for review by January 31,
1985,following field work,laboratory analysis of samples,data analysis,
and report writing.Recent technical meetings following review of
preliminary pilot browse study results suggest that modifications to this
schedule may be forthcoming.
A detailed plan of study for this subtask will be available by June 15,
1984.This subtask is designed to address Issues T-20 and T-36 (Appendix A).
400210/4 4-20
(Rev.1-5/84)
4.1.9 Bioenergetics Model Testing
The habitat-based approach to assessing impacts through changes in carrying
capacity requires the use of at least two computer submodels;one to esti-
mate the nutritional needs of the animals and the other to estimate the
nutrients a"railable in the range.The first 1.S a bioenergetics model called
the ruminant submodel.This model.which was developed at Colorado State
University and modified for moose at the Kenai Moose Research Center (MRC).
is undergoing field validation at the MRC during FY 1984 and 1985 (see pages
B-20-22 of ADF&G 's FY 1984 Plan of Study.provided as Appendix B).The
second model.a vegetation submodel.estimates the total nutrients supplied
by the vegetation avai lable to moose.This model.which was developed by
the Colorado Division of Wildlife.requires inputs specific for each range
being evaluated.These inputs will be collected by the browse inventory
program during summer 1984.If deemed necessary.a third model.which would
be designed to represent vegetation succession.may be developed to allow
consideration of the change in nutrient availability over time.A bioener-
getics model testing annual report will be prepared in Spring 1984.
400210/4 4-21
(Rev.1-5/84 )
4.1.10 Moose Population Model Refinement
Moose population modeling efforts for the Middle Susitna Basin were ini-
tiated in 1982 and refined in 1983.Refinements to the existing model will
continue in FY 1984 primarily based on results of upstream moose field
studies (Section 4.1.3).ADF&G Game Division will be responsible for moose
model refinements.
A detailed plan of study for this subtask will be available by June 15,1984.
This subtask is designed to address Issues T-20 and T-34 (see Attachment A).
400210/4 4-22
(Rev.I-5/84)
VI.Cost effectiveness
A.Comparison of effectiveness of various techniques in enhanc-
ing moose habitat
B.Comparison of costs of various techniques
VII.Recommendations
A draft report will be available for review by June 15,1984.
report will then be available on July 15,1984.
The final
400210/4 4-27
(Rev.1-5/84)
4.1.12.3 Study Area
The study area for selection of candidate mitigation lands wi 11 be limited
to the Susitna River Basin.
4.1.12.4 Detailed Methodology
LGL will prepare one or more annotated maps which will identify at least
100,000 acres of candidate lands for moose habitat enhancement or reten-
tion.This land area will be about five times greater than the approxi-
mately 22,400 acres called for in the License Application for moose habitat
enhancement;will probably be adequate for selective habitat retention,if
deemed appropriate;and will thus allow flexibility in final land selec-
tion.
Candidate lands will be identified by LGL through the systematic application
of selection criteria to be approved in advance by Harza-Ebasco.The
selection process will be documented in a concise report to accompany map
submittal.
The specific methodology for the Candidate Mitigation Lands Study will
include:
o development and confirmation of selection criteria,including
agency concurrence;
o development and confirmation of an implementation procedure for
the selection criteria,including agency concurrence;
o rev~ew of appropriate 1:500,DOD-scale mapping prepared by ADF&G
and ADNR in support of the Susitna Area Plan,including draft maps
of estimated existing moose carrying capacity,estimated potential
moose carrying capacity,annual precipitation,land use designa-
tions,and proposed special wildlife management areas;
400210/4 4-30
.Rev.l-S/84)
o meetings with representatives of ADF&G (including Area Biolo-
gists),ADNR,the Matanuska-Susitna Borough,and other appropriate
agencies to obtain advice and assistance in applying the selection
criteria;
o development of constraint maps through the application of selec-
tion criteria to specific geographic locations;
o meetings with Power Authority,Harza-Ebasco,and agency represen-
tatives to review the constraint maps and seek concurrence on
provisionally identified candidate lands;
o following concurrence on identified lands,preparation of draft
maps delineating specific tracts which optimally satisfy the se-
lection criteria and which total approximately 100,000 acres,and
o preparation of a conC1se report (see below)
4.1.12.5 Data Management and Reports
A draft report entitled 'Recommended Candidate Lands for Moose Habitat
Compensation"will be submitted to Harza-Ebasco no later than May 21,1984,
with a final report available on June 30,1984.This report will document
the selection process;describe the recommended land areas;and provide an
overview of selection options,explaining potential pros and cons of each
option relative to biological suitability,cost-effectiveness,and apparent
conflicts with land-use designations within the Susitna Area Plan.
400210/4 4-31
(Rev.1-5/84)
Figure 4-3.Linkages Among -Components of Downstream Moose Impact
Assessment and Mitigation Plan Refinement Efforts
Downstream
Hydrologic
Model
---,)
Downstream
Vegetation
Model
Changes in
1-------)Moose Habitat
(Quali tati ve)
Wint er
"Floodp lain >Changes in f->Moose
Cens us Moose Numbers Mitigation
(Quali tati ve)Plan
/f'
Aquatic
Program
Hydrologic
and Flood plain
Hydraulic Distribu tion and
Model Habit at Use I--Winter Use
Inputs/Outputs Monit oring of Disturbed
Site Monitoring
Severe
Winter
Studi'es
400210/4 4-34
(Rev.1-5 /84 )
4.2.3 Downstream Moose Field Studies
Downstream moose field studies are described on pages 4-6 and 23-24 of
ADF&G's FY 1984 Plan of Study provided as Appendix B.The studies consist
of four general work efforts:(l)floodplain distribution and habitat use
monitoring;(2)winter floodplain censuses;(3)winter use of disturbed site
monitoring;and (4)severe winter studies.The first three of these work
efforts are designed to address Issues T-20,T-35 ,and T-40 (Appendix A)
while the fourth work effort addresses Issues T-20,T-40,and T-41.The
annual report for downstream moose field studies is due in the Spring 1984.
This report will cover field studies conducted through fall 1983.
4.2.4 Wildlife Habitat/Instream Flow Relationships Report
The Wildlife Habitat/Instream Flow Relationships Report will contain an
updated and expanded analysis of the potential effects of alternative with-
project instream flow regimes,temperatures,ice conditions,and related
physical processes on wildlife and wildlife habitats downstream from Devil
Canyon.This report will document the coordination among project
hydrologists,fishery biologists,and wildlife biologists necessary to
develop this approach,and provide information on how alternative project
flow regimes would affect wildlife utilizing the downstream floodplain
Mitigation Opportunities Report to help ensure consistency between
mitigation planning refinement for fisheries and wildlife.A draft
Instream/Flow Wildlife Relationhips Report will be available on June 22,
1984.A final report will be available on July 27,1984.
400210/4 4-36
(Rev.1-5/84 )
5.Moose Population Model Refinement -ADF&G/LGL
6.Bear Population Model Refinement -ADF&G/LGL
Plans of study for these work efforts including deliverable due dates and
the specific issues each work effort is designed to address are provided in
the following sec tions wi th the exceptions of work efforts 4 and 5.These
are provided in Sections 4.1.4 and 4.1.10.respectively.
4.5.3 Bear Field Studies
Black and brown bear field studies are described on pages 12-13 of ADF&G's
FY ·1984 Plan of Study provided as Appendix B.The studies consist of
three general work efforts:(1)impact area use monitoring;(2)den site
use monitoring;and (3)food resource identification.These work efforts
are designed to address Issues T-20 and T-44 (see Appendix A).The annual
report for bear field studies is due in Spring of 1984.This report will
cover field studies conducted through fall 1983.
4.5.4 Bear Population Model Refinement
Refinements to the bear population model will be made only if indicated
following further reVlew.Presently.further refinements do not appear
warranted because the large number and questionable soundness of the model's
assumptions limit its utility.
400210/4 4-41
')
Figure 4-4.
'\}
Linkages Among Components of Bear Impact Assessment
and Mitigation Plan Refinement Efforts
)
«
.p-
I.p-
N
Impact Area
Use Monitoring
Den Site Use
Monitoring
Bear Bear
"-Population .....Mitigation/,
Models Plan
Food Resource 7 ....r ...
Ident ificat ion
,/\.~
Moose Moose
Spring Plant Population Mitigation
fo---Phenology Models Plan
Studies
-Vegetation
Mapping
,.....
~
~
.....
I
VI........
00.po
'--"
(Rev.1-5/84)
4.8 DOWNSTREAM BEAVER
4.8.1 Background
Beaver and other furbearer sign has been surveyed and inventoried along the
lower Susitna River on several occasions.In August 1980 a riverboat was
used to survey the Susitna River between Portage Creek and the Kashwitna
River and a fixed-wing aircraft survey of the River between Devil Canyon and
Cook Inlet was conducted in July 1981 (Gipson et ale 1982).Beaver sign and
habitat associations were surveyed during spring and summer 1982 and a heli-
copter cache survey between Portage Creek and the Deshka River was conducted
in September 1982 (Gipson and Durst 1982).Finally,a helicopter cache
survey of the Susitna River between Portage Creek and Cook 'Inlet was con-
ducted in October 1983.
4.8.2 Approach
FY 1984 work included the October 1983 helicopter survey mentioned above and
will include further refinement of the beaver carrying capacity model and
limited overwinter survival studies.The linkages among these efforts and
other related work efforts are shown in Figure 4-4.
4.8.3 Beaver Field Studies
An aerial survey of the number of beaver caches (representing colonies
attempting to overwinter)will be conducted in fall 1983 along the Susitna
River between Portage Creek and Cook Inlet.A complete count will be made
between Portage Creek and Talkeetna and a representative area count will be
made between Talkeetna and Cook Inlet.Two representative caches shall be
marked for overwinter survival studies.This information will allow assess-
ment of annual variability in colony numbers between Portage Creek and Tal-
keetna and will allow a general estimate of beaver abundance downstream of
Talkeetna.
400210/4 4-46
)
Figure 4-5.Linkages Among Components of Downstream Beaver
Impact Assessment and Mitigation Plan Refinement
'.V
Downstream
Vegetation
Model
.....
/
Aquatic Program
Hydrologic
and
Hydraulic
Model
Inputs/Outputs
I I >i Downs t re~m
Hydrolog1c
Model
.f:-
I
.f:-....
.........
/"
Beaver
Carrying
Capacity
Model
FurbearersI>I Mitigation
Plan
/I'
Identification
of Forage
Resources
Cache Count
Surveys
Winter Survival
Studies
Aquatic Program
Fish
Mitigat ion
Plan
.-...
:;0
~
......
I
Vl........
00
.f:---...
(Rev.1-5 /84 )
Beaver overwinter survival studies will il1crease our understanding of the
relationships between ice thickness,depth of water below ice,open water
areas,and other parameters with beaver overwinter and breakup survival.
Beaver colony overwintering sites located between Talkeetna and Devil Canyon
were previously marked with steel rods and colored flagging during autumn
cache surveys in 1983.These and other known wintering sites will be
visited shortly before and after breakup to check for evidence of recent
beaver and trapper activity,for colony overwinter survival determinations,
to sample the quality of cache food,and to determine if lodges or bank dens
were destroyed by break-up.Measurements of ice thickness and depth of
water below ice will be made at several locations around both successful and
failed sites.Succes·sfu1 sites will be related to availability of open
water areas during winter identified by hydrologists and fishery study
teams.This information will be used directly in refining the beaver
model.A draft report will be available on June 15,1984,and a final
report will be available on July 15,1984.
4.8.4 Beaver Model Refinement
Beaver modeling efforts for the Susi tna River downstream of Pdrtage Creek
were initiated in 1982 and refined in 1983.Refinements to the existing
model planned for FY 1984 primarily consis t of integra tion of field study
results into the model (Section 4.8.3)and the refinement of downstream
hydrologic and vegetation models and reassessment of downstream impacts
(Section 4.2.4).
A detailed plan of study for this subtask will be available by June 15,
1984.This subtask is designed to address Issues T-20 and T-45 (see
Appendix B).
400210/4 4-48
(Rev.1-S/84)
1981 by Terrestrial Environmental Services (TES),and on July 1,1982 by the
University of Alaska Museum (Kessel et al.1982b).
4.9.2 Approach
Additional field efforts are necessary in two areas.First,elevations of
many raptor nesting locations are estimates made from topographic maps
with 100 foot contour intervals.In addition,a few discrepancies exist
among survey results concerning the exact locations of nesting sites.
Therefore,a survey to verify nesting locations with respect to impact
locations is needed.A second field effort is needed to assess areas for
nesting habitat enhancement so that the raptor mitigation plan can be
refined.
4.9.3 Raptor Field Studies
Field studies will be conducted to obtain accurate measurements of nesting
locations (cliff·and tree nests)and nesting site (cliff nests)elevations
relative to impact locations.Additional field efforts will be made to
locate areas suitable for nesting habitat enhancement,for the purpose of
refining the raptor mitigation plan.Supplemental data on raptor nesting
will be obtained during these field efforts.Field efforts will be
initiated in late FY 1984 but will not be completed until early FY 1985.
400210/4 4-50
(Rev.!-5/84)
A careful determination of nest elevations and horizontal positions is
required,with a precise altimeter used to measure nest elevations,and with
photography of each nest keyed to a detai led map of the project area.The
survey will be conducted by an experienced raptor biologist familar with the
nesting requirements of the key raptor species found in the project area.
The raptor biologist will be assisted by a second,equally experienced
raptor expert who is familiar with a veriety of raptor nesting situaitons
and habitats.The assistant will help to evaluate the suitability of
certain locations for potential enhancement.He will also facilitate
instrumented measurements of nest elevations.
Nest sites within and adjacent to the impoundments zones will be visited by
helicopter.Accurate elevations for existing nests and potential mitigation
sites will be obtained using an American Paulin Precision Surveying
Altimeter or equivalent.
Surveys of areas adjacent to the impoundment (including Portage and Prairie
Creeks)will be conducted by helicopter to assess their potential as future
mitigation sites.These assessments will take into consideration a variety
of factors important to raptors,including slope,aapect,'overlook'.
presence of suitable hunting habitat.and distances to other potential and
existing raptor nesting locations.Trees and cliffs which may be suitably
modified to improve their potential for use by nestig raptors will be
described and photographed.
In addition.a one-day survey of known historical peregine falcon nest sites
will be conducted on the Tanana River near Nanana because the proposed
Healy-to-Fairbanks transmission corridor will pass within 1 mile of two of
the nest sites,and within 2 miles of a third site.The exact locations and
current active or inactive status of the nests will be determined to support
impact assessment and transmission route design refinements.
400210/4 4-51
(Rev.1-5/84)
Deliverables will include the following:
1.Two sets of 1:63,360 USGS topographic maps with all locations and
elevations of raptor nesting locations and nesting sites in the
impoundment zones shown on them will be available in draft on June
29,1984,and in final version on September 28,1984.
2.Two sets of 1:63,360 USGS topographic maps outlining areas sutable
for enhancement of raptor nesting habitat will be available in
draft on June 29,1984,and in final version on September 28,
1984.
3.Labeled photographs of potential mitigation sites will be
available on June 29,1984.
4.A draft report will be available on June 29,1984.
5.A final report will be available on September 28,1984.
400210/4 4-52
(Rev.l-S/84)
4.10 OTHER WILDLIFE
4.10.1 Background
A considerable amount of data have been collected on other species of wild-
life present in the Susitna Project area.Kessel et al.(1982a,1982b)have
collected and reported data on all birds and nongame mammals of the pro-
ject vicinity and Gipson et al.(1982)have collected and reported data on
all furbearers in the vicinity of the project.Studies on marten contri-
buted to the preparation and completion of a doctoral dissertation (Buskirk
1983).These studies were conducted primarily in 1980 and 1981.
4.10.2 Approach
Additional field studies are not presently deemed necessary for birds,
nongame mammals,or furbearers except in the case of raptors and beavers
(See Section 4.8 and 4.9).Additional project-related studies not included
in the above mentioned Furbearer Report (Gupson et al.1982)will be updated
to include the following:
o Studies of beavers,including population es timates,habitat use
studies and preliminary impact modeling assessments.
o pine marten,focusing on field studies conducted in the Watana and
Devil Canyon impoundment zones.
o Red fox investigations conducted primarily in the impoundment
zones and adjacent alpine areas.
o Miscellanceous observations of furbearers including sightings of
coyotes and reports form trappers operating in the Susitna
drainage.
Further refinement and quantification of the impact assessment and
mitigation plans for all birds and mammals will be conducted as described in
Sections 3.1.3 and 3.1.4.A draft Furbearer Report update will be available
on June 15,1984.
400210/4
The final report will be available on July 15,1984.
4-53
(Rev.l-S/84)
4.11 WETLANDS
4.11.1 Background
Vegetation maps of the project area have been prepared by McKendrick et al.
(1982).Using the Viereck and Dyrness (1980)system of classification
1:24,000 scale maps of potential wetlands covering a corridor from the
Oshetna River to Devil Canyon and 1:63,360 potential wetland maps of the
access corridors were produced by first correlating the vegetation types
from Vierick and Dyrness (1980)with the wetland types of Cowardin et al.
(1979).The corresponding wetland categories were superimposed over the
vegetation maps.The presence of·steep slope and likely good drainage were
interpreted to rule out classification as wetland.Lakes,ponds,rivers.
and streams were not specifically classified.
4.11.2 Approach
Because the system of Cowardin et al.(1979)was not used directly to map
wetlands,but was applied in a liberal sense to a general vegetation
classification system,the existing wetland maps indicate areas Which poten-
tially qualify as wetlands rather than actual wetlands.Therefore,specific
wetland mapping of the project area is currently planned to permit
refinement of impact assessments and mitigation plans.
400210/4 4-54
(Rev.l-S/84)
4.11.3 Wetland Mapping
A Cooperative Agreement between the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (Region
7)and the Power Authority has been drafted but has not yet been nego-
tiated which calls for the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service to map wetlands in
the project area.Mapping is to be performed through steroscopic
interpretation of high altitude color infraced aerial photographs with
detailed ground sampling.The Cowardin et al.(1979)system is to be used
and maps are to be prepared,at a scale of 1:63,360 as part of their
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI).A minimum mapping polygon S1ze of 2 to 4
acres for wetlands will be utilized.This effort will involve preparing 13
wetland maps of the main project area.Each map would overlay one of the
following IS-minute U.S.G.S.Quad sheets:Talkeetna Mountains C-l,C-2,C-
4,0-2,0-3,D-4,D-S,and 0...,.6;Healy A-3,B-3,and B-4.In addition,
wetland map coverage of Healy 0-4 and 0-5 would also be prepared.With the
mapping of these two quads all areas traversed by the transmission line
segments running from Willow to Anchorage and Healy to Fairbanks will also
be included in the NWI.
Completion of field work and photointerpretation are presently scheduled for
September 30,1984,draft map production completion is scheduled for January
31,1985,and final map production completion is scheduled for June 30,
1985.
400210/4 4-5S
Figure 4-6:Wetlands Mapping Areas
(Rev.1-5/84)
4-56
(Rev.I-5/84)
5.0 SCHEDULE AND DELIVERABLES
A list of FY1984 deliverables together with their due dates is provided in
the following table.These dates have been extracted from the text of this
plan of study.The schedule for Terrestrial Program impact assessment and
mitigation plan refinement tasks is provided in Figure 5-1.
DELIVERABLES*
I.Progress Reports
2.Draft Tracking and Documentation System (Rev.O)
3.Draft pilot Browse Study Report
4.Final Tracking and Documentation System (Rev.O)
5.Draft Terrestrial Plan of Study FY85
6.Draft Test Forage Vegetation Map
7.Terrestrial Program Scoping Workshop
8.Tracking and Documentation System (Rev.l)
9.Draft Plan Phenology Study Report
10.Draft Impact Assessment Update and
Refinement Report
II.Recommended Candidate Lands for Moose Habitat
Compensation Draft Report
12.Final Impact Assessment Update and
Refinement Report
13.Final pilot Browse Study Report
14.Draft ADF&G Big Game Annual Reports
15.Bioenergetic Model Testing Annual Report
16.Spring 1983 Terrestrial Modeling Workshop
Final Report
17.Terrestrial Program Impact Assessment and
Mitigation Plan Refinement Workshop
18.Plant Phenology Study Final Report
DUE DATE
Monthly
12/15/83
1/31/84
2/15/84
3/31/84
3/31/84
4/10/84
4/30/84
4/30/84
5/15/84
5/21/84
5/30/84
5/31/84
Spring '84
Spring '84
Spring '84
6/05/84
6/15/84
400210/5 5-1
19.Beaver Model Refinement Detailed Plan of Study
20.Moose Population Model Refinement Detailed
Plan of Study
21.Browse Inventory Detailed Plan of Study
22.Draft Habitat Enhancement Techniques Report
23.Draft Mitigation Plan Refinement Report
24 Preliminary Draft Forage Vegetation Map
25.Interim Forage Vegetation Report
26.Draft Furbearer Update Report
27.Draft Beaver Overwinter and Breakup Survival
Studies Report
28.Draft Wildlife Habitat/Instream Flow
Relationships Report
29.Final Mitigation Plan Refinement Report
30.Draft Raptor Nesting Locations and Elevations Map
31.Draft Map Outlining Raptor Nesting Habitat
Enhancement Locations
32.Photographs of Potential Raptor Mitigation Sites
33.Draft Raptor Studies Report
34.Final Moose Food Habits Report
35.Recommended Candidate Lands for Moose Habitat
Compensation Final Report
36.Tracking and Documentation System (Rev.2)
37.Final ADF&G Big Game Annual Reports
38.Detailed Plan of Study FY85
(Rev.1-5/84)
6/15/84
6/15/84
6/15/84
6/15/84
6/15/84
6/15/84
6/15/84
6/15/84
6/15/84
6/22/84
6/29/84
6/29/84
6/29/84
6/29/84
6/29/84
6/30/84
6/30/84
6/30/84
6/30/84
6/30/84
400210/5 5-2
)
Figure 5-1.Schedule for FY1984 Terrestrial Program Impact Assessment
and Mitigation Plan Refinement Tasks
")
J
~
~
V1
I
W
FISCAL YEAR 1984
1983 1984
JULIAUGI SEPTIOCTINovl DEC JAN I FEBIMARIAPRI MAY IJUN
GENERAL ACTIVITIES
o Tracking &Documentation System ••-~----o---------------------B--&
o Impact Assess.Update &Refine Report ...-----------------0-----1
o Mitigation Plan Refine.Report ......------------------0--1
o Progress Review &Planning Meetings x x x :x :x x :x x x
o Progress Reports «B «««&««&«B H &
o Terrestrial Program Workshop ••x •••••••x
o FY'85 Plan of Study Development Process ....•.--------o---o------H
UPSTREAM MOOSE TASK
Upstream Moose Field Studies o H
Plant Phenology Studies --------------0-----«
Forage Vegetation Mapping ••••••••••••----------0
pilot Browse Study ....-------------------------------------«---Moose Food Habits Study ......---------------------1
Browse Inventory ............................
Bioenergetics Model Testing 0 &
Moose Population Model Refinement .....------------------
Habitat Enhancement Tech.Rev......-------------------------0--
Candidate Mitigation Lands Study ....-------------------------------------o-----H
Downstream Moose Task
Downstream Moose Field Studies a
Downstream Modeling ........-------------------,....,
::0ro<
Legend:Planning
Field Work :x
Office/Lab Work
Meeting
o Draft Report
B Final Report
......
I
VI----.
00
.t--......,
*Draft refers to the first review draft produced.There will often be at
least one additional draft prepared between the first review draft and the
final report.Dates for these additional drafts are not indicated in
tab Ie.
Figure 5-1.
'\J
Schedule for FY1984 Terrestrial Program Impact Assessment and
Mitigation Plan Refinement Tasks
.'
VI
I
~
FISCAL YEAR 1984
1983 1984
JULIAUGISEPTIOCTINovlDEC JAN IFEB IMAR IAPR IMAY IJUN
Caribou Task
Field Studies o------B
Dall-Sheep Task
Field Studies ------------------------------------------o----H
Black and Brown Bear Task
Field Studies ------------------------0 II
Wolf and Wolverine Task
Field Studies 0----«
Belukha Whale Task
Field Studies ------------------------------------------0----8
Downstream Beaver Task
Beaver Field Studies ......-------0----------.......-------0--
Beaver Modeling ........-------------------
Raptor Task
Field Studies ...'"'"'" '"..--0
Other Wildlife --------------------------------------------0---
Wetlands
Wetlands Mapping '" '" '" '" '" '".'"'"'"'"'"------------------
,.....
l:'O
(l)
<.......
I
\.Jl
.........
00
~
'-'
Legend:Planning
Field Work x
Office/Lab Work
Meeting
o Draft Report
H Final Report
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
Appendix D:
400210/8
8.0 APPENDICES
Agency-Raised Issues,October 4,1983
ADF&G FY 1984 Plan of Study
Sample of Tracking and Documentation System
Terrestrial Program Principal Staff and
Responsibilities
8-1
(Rev.1-5!84)
PAGES
Al-All
B1-B24
G1 -C2
Dl -D2
(Rev.1-5/84 )
APPENDIX D
Terrestrial Program Principal Staff and Responsibilities
ORGANIZATION
Alaska Power Authority
Harza-'-Ebasco
LGL Alaska
U of A Palmer
U of A Fairbanks
R.A.Kreig &Associates
ADF&G -Game
NAME
Dr.Richard Fleming
Mr.Randy Fairbanks
Dr.Roseann Densmore
Ms.April Rivkin
Dr.Charles Elliott
Dr.Robin Sener
Mr.Dave Roseneau
Mr.Dale Herter
Mr.Bill Steigers
Dr.Dot Helm
Dr.Phil Gipson
Dr.Brina Kessel
Mr.Ray Kreig
Mr.Ken Winterberger
Ms.Deborah Heebner
Mr.Ray Koleser
Mr.Karl Schneider
Dr.Sterling Miller
TITLE/RESPONSIBILITY
Deputy Ma~ager-Environmental
Lead Terrestrial Biologist
Terrestrial Biologist
Terrestrial Biologist
Terrestrial Biologist
p.M.l/-Imp.Assess.&
Mit.Plan Refine.
P.1.2../-Raptors
Wildlife Biologist
wildlife Biologist
P.I.-Plant Ecology
P.I.-Furbearers
P.I.-Birds &Small Mammals
P.M.-Vegetation Mapping
Vegetation Mapping Consultant
Vegetation Mapper
Vegetation Mapper
Research Coordinator -Big
Game
P.1.-Bears
1/P.M.=Project Manager
Z/P.I.=Project Investigator
400210/8-D D-I
ORGANIZATION
ADF&G Game (cont'd)
NAME
Mr.Warren Ballard
Dr.Ron Modafferi
Mr.Ken Pitcher
Ms.Nancy Tankersley
Mr.Jack Whitman
Ms.Suzanne Miller
Dr.Wayne Regelin
(Rev.O-l/84)
TITLE/RESPONSIBILITY
P.I.-Upstream Moose,Wolf,
and Wolverine
P.I.-Downstream Moose
P.1.-Caribou
P.I.-Dall Sheep
Wildlife Biologist
Biometrician
P.I.-Carrying Capacity Model
1/P.M.~Project Manager
2/P.I.~Project Investigator
400210/8-D D-2
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE·ANCHORAGE,ALASKA 99501
April 25,1984
Susitna File No.1.8.1/1.17.4.2/4.3.2.1
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage,Alaska 99502
Attention:Mr.Carl Yanagawa
Regional Supervisor,Habitat Division
Subject:Susitna Hydroelectric Project
Terrestrial Program
FY84 Detailed Plan of Study
Dear Mr.Yanagawa:
Phone:(907)277-7641
(907)276-0001
Enclosed for your use is an individually numbered copy of the subject docu-
ment (Document No.1190).This copy has been assigned a number to insure
that updates are distributed appropriately.
The Detailed Plan of Study is a working document intended to serve as a com-
mon reference for Terrestrial Study Team members in that it contains individ-
ual study task descriptions and an indication of how individual study tasks
fit into the overall Program.In this respect,it also serves as a means of
updating Aquatic Program,Social Sciences Program,and other personnel on
Terrestrial Program status in order to maintain and improve coordination.
The Plan of Study will be updated as necessary to reflect changes in the
Terrestrial Program and to provide additional clarification and detail for
study task descriptions and organization.A set of instructions will be
transmitted along with any updates.
Note that al though minor revisions were made in March 1984,the document
basically reflects the status of the Terrestrial Program as of January 1984.
The dynamic nature of the Terrestrial Program,especially during the past six
months,has made,and will make it difficult to keep the document completely
up-to-date at all times.Some task descriptions are currently being updated
and revised pages will be distributed as soon as they become available.
Sincerely,
~...6.
on S.F
Project
Susitna
peb
guson
nager
ydroelectric Project
Enc:as noted
cc:w/o Enc:
R.Fleming,Power Authority
W.Larson,HE
Honorable Don Collinsworth,Commissioner,ADF&G
D.McKay,ADF&G