HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA1324SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ENV IRONMENTAL STUDIES
SUBT ASK 7.14: ENVIRONMENTAL AN~L YSIS OF
ALTERNATIVE ACCESS PLANS
OCTOBER, 1981
Teue1ttial
E nvitonmental
Speciali1tl , Inc.
L...----ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY--~
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ENVIRONMENTAL
SOCIOECONOMIC AND LAND USE
ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE
ACCESS PLANS
FOR THE
SUSITNA HYDROELofCTRIC PROJECT
by
Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc.
Phoenix, New York 13135
for
Acres American, Inc.
Buffalo, New York 14202
October 1981
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page ,
1. INTRODUCTION • . . . . 1-1
2.
2.1
2.2
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
METHODS • • . • • • • • • .
(a) Vegetation •••••
(b) Wildlife ••••••
(i) Birds and Small
(ii) Furbearers
(iii) Big Game .
(c) Fish •••••••••
(d) Cultural Resources
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION
(a) Vegetation ••••
(b) Wildlife •••••••
(i) Birds and Small
(ii) Furbearers
(iii) Big Game •
(c) Fish .••••.•••
(d) Cultural Resources ••
. . .
Mammals
. . . .
Mammals
• 2-1
• 2-1
• 2-1
• 2-1
2-1
• 2-2
• • 2-2
• 2-2
2-3
•• 2-4
. . . . . 2-4
• 2-5
. 2-5
• 2-6
• 2-6
. 2-7
• • • 2-8
2.3 DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
(a) Parks Highway to Gold Creek ••••
(b) Gold Creek to Devil Canyon Dam Site
(c) Devil Canyon to Watana (Northside) •
(d) Devil Canyon to Watana (Southside) •
(e) Watana Damsite to Denali Highway ••
2-10
• •• 2-10
2-11
• • • . . 2-12
• • 2-13
2-14
2.4 IMPACT ASSESSMENT . • • . . • • • • • •••• 2-17
(a) Access Plan 8 . • • • . • • • • ••••••••• 2-17
(i) Vegetation • • • . • • • • • 2-18
(ii) Birds and Small Mammals • • • • • • • 2-18
(iii) Furbearers • • • 2-18
(iv) Big Game . • • . • • 2-19
(v) Fish . • • • • . • 2-19
(vi) Cultural Resources . . • . . 2-20
(b) Access Plan 2 • • • • 2-20
( i) Vegetation . . • . • • • 2-20
(ii) Birds and Small Mammals • • 2-21
(iii) Furbearers . • • • • • . • 2-22
(iv) Big Game • • • . .••. 2-22
(v} Fish • • • • • • • 2-23
(vi) Cultural Resources •• 2-23
(c) Access Plan 5 • • • . . • • • . • • • 2-24
(i} Vegetation . • • • • 2-24
(ii) Birds and Small Mammals . 2-25
(iii) Furbearers • • . • • • • . • . 2-25
( iv) Big Game . • • . • • • 2-26
(v) Fish . . . . . . ............ 2-27-
(vi) Cultural Resources • • • . . 2-27
2.5
2.6
(d) Access Plan 1 . . . . . . . .
( i ) Vegetation . . . .
( i i) Birds and Small Mammals
(iii) Furbearers
(iv) Big Game . . . .
(v) Fish . . . . . . .
(iv) Cultural Resources
(e) Access Plan 4 . . . .
(i) Vegetation .
( i i) Birds and Small Mammals
(iii ) Furbearers . . . .
( iv) Big Game . . . .
(v) Fish . . . . .
(vi ) Cultural Resources . .
(f) Access Plan 6 . . . .
( i ) Vegetation . .
( i i) Birds and Sma 11 Mammals
(iii ) Furbearers
(iv) Big Game . . .
(\() Fish . . . . .
(vi) Cu ltura 1 Resources·
(g) Access Plan 3 . . . .
( i ) Vegetation . .
( i i ) Birds and Small Mammals
(iii) Furbearers . .
(iv) Big Game . . . .
(v) Fish . . . . .
(vi ) Cultural Resources . .
(h) Access Plan 7 . . . .
(i) Vegetation . .
( i i) Birds and Sma 11 Mammals
(iii) Furbearers
(iv) Big Game . . . . .
(v) Fish . . . . .
(vi ) Cu ltura 1 Resources
HABITAT VALUE COMPARISON • • ••
(a) Introduction .•.••••
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
. . . . . . .
(b) Methods . • • • • • • . . . ••••••..
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(i) Determination of Life Requisite Scores
(ii) Determination of Cover Type Scores
(iii) Comparison of Access Plans ..•••••
. . . . .
.
. . .
. . . . . .
. . .
. . . .
. . . .
.
.
. . .
Page
. .2-28 . .2-28
. 2-28
.2-29 . .2-29
.2-30 . . 2-31 . • 2-31 . .2-32 . .2-32
.2-33 . .2-34 . • 2-35 . .2-36 . . 2-37 . .2-37 . .2-37 . .2-38 . .2-39 . .2-40 . • 2-41 . .2-42 . • 2-42 . . 2-43
.2-43 . .2-44 . • 2-45 . .2-45 . .2-46 . .2-46 . . 2-47 . .2-47 . .2-48
.2-50 . .2-50
• .2-52
• 2-52
• . 2-52
.. 2-53
. 2-54
(c) Results and Discussion . • • • . • • • . ••.
• • 2-56
. . • 2-57
MITIGATION . • • • • . . . .
(a) Vegetation ••••••.•
(b) Birds and Small Mammals
(c) Furbearers . . . •
(d) Big Game .••.•
(e) Fish •..•..•
(f) Cultural Resources
•• 2-60
. • 2-60
.. 2-60
.•••. 2-61
.••.• 2-62
. • . . .2-62
.••••..•.•. 2-63
2.7 CONCLUSIONS • .2-64
3. SOCIOECONOMIC AND LAND USE ANALYSIS ••
3.1 METHODS •••••.••
Page
. 3-1
• 3-3
(a) Socioeconomics •.•
(b) Land Use .••••.
• 3-3
3-4
3. 2 CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION • • • • • • • • • 3-5
3.3
3.4
(a) Socioeconomics • • • ••• 3~5
(b) Land Use • • . . • • . • • . . . . • . . • • . • . . 3-6
(i) Land Uses Inherently Associated with Site
Specific Activities • . • • • • • • • • • 3~6
(ii) Dispersed and Isolated Non-Site-Specific
Activities ••••••••••••••••• 3-7
(iii) Resource Management Activities and Related
Concerns • • • • • • • • • • 3-7
(iv) Natural Aesthetics • . • • • • • • 3-7
DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCES • • • • •
(a) Parks Highway to Gold Creek
• • 0 • • • • • 0 3-8
(b) Gold Creek to Devil Canyon ••••
(c) Dev i 1 Canyon to Watana, North Side
(d) Devil Canyon to Watana, South Side •
(e) Denali Highway to Watana •
IMPACT ASSESSMENT • • • • • •
(a) Access Plans 8 and 2 •
(i) Socioeconomics
( i i ) Land Use • • • •
(b) Access Plans 1 and 5 ••
(i) Socioeconomics
. . . . . . 3-8
0 • 0 • • 3-9
3-9
• • 3-9
•• 3-10
• . 3-11
3-11
. 3-11
• 3-12
• • • • • 3-12
• • • • • 3-12
(ii) Land Use •••
(c) Access Plan 4 and 6 .•
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-14
. . . . . . 3-14
(i) Socioeconomics
(ii) Land Use ••••
(d) Access Plans 3 and 7 ~ •
(i) Socioeconomics
( i i ) Land Use
3-14
• 3-16
• • 3-16
• 3-16
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-17
3.5 MITIGATION
3.6 CONCLUSIONS •
• 3-18
•• 3-19
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7.
3.8
3.9
LIST OF TABLES
Estimated Acreages for Each Vegetation Mapping
Unit in One-Mile Wide Corridors for Proposed
Access P 1 ans
Avian Habitat Occupancy Levels, Upper Susitna
River Basin 1981
Mileage for Each Access Plan in Terms of High,
Moderate, and Low Potential to Contain Arch-
aeological Resources
Environmental Inventory/Constraints, Access
Corridor Segments
Ranking of Access Plans on the Basis of Total
Acres of Vegetation, Total Area of Wetlands,
and Total Area of Solifluction Potential
Relative Value of Vegetation Cover Types as
Wildlife Habitat
Comparison of Alternative Access Plans
Potential Socioeconomic Impacts of Alternative
Access Plans by Socioeconomic Impact Category
Potential Impacts and Magnitude of Impacts of
Access Route Plans on Land Use Variables
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Access Corridor Segments
Figure 2. Access Plan 8
Figure 3. Access Plan 2
Figure 4. Access Plan 5
Figure 5. Access Plan 1
Figure 6. Access Plan 4
Figure 7. Access Plan 6
Figure 8. Access Plan 3
Figure 9. Access Plan 7
1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to provide environmental input into the
selection of an access plan for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project and
to recommend an access plan that, from a total environmental
standpoint, is judged to have the leas.t impact, both short-term and
long-term. This input is provided to Acres American, Inc. and the Alaska
Power Authority to be analyzed in conjunction with access plan analysis
from engineering and economic standpoints.
Preliminary access route environmental analysis began in March 1980, and
still continues. Final access plan impact analysis and mitigation
recommendations will be included in the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission application. Initial corridor environmental analysis was
largely based on habitat identification, specifically, an attempt at
avoidance of large wetland areas. Three generalized corridors emerged
for further evaluation: two corridors connecting both dam sites to the
west (either the Parks Highway or the railroad at Gold Creek), one on the
north and one on the south side of the Susitna River; and one corridor
linking the Watana dam site to the Denali Highway on the north. Analysis
of these corridors was conducted during 1980. Following the 1980 field
season, agency comments were solicited, and public meetings were held to
present access options. It was decided in the spring of 1981 to continue
impact analysis on the corridors, which were then modified somewhat
according to the adjustments and rea 1 ignments suggested by various
sources to reduce potential impacts. Notable among these adjustments
were: (1) deletion of the corridor segment that looped around Portage
Creek, between the Indian River and Devil Canyon dam site, (2)
realignment with alternatives in the Stephen Lake/Fog Lakes area for both
the road and railroad plans, and (3) realignment of the northern portion
of the route to Denali Highway by moving it to the west away from the
Butte Lake area. During the 1981 field season, and following these
modifications, the resulting corridors were studied further.
1-1
The original corridors plus those adjustments resulting from subsequent
suggestions (certain segments have a and b alternatives themselves) can
be combined in various ways to provide access to both dam sites. These
combinations, called access plans, were further analyzed to select the
plan that would result in the least total environmental impact on the
area in question.
The eight access plans under current evaluation ·include seven proposed by
R&M Consultants, Inc. in an early 1981 engineering report. Another
access plan was added for evaluation by Acres American, in early June
1981. The number of access plans under consideration does not, however,
include all possible combinations and permutations of corridor segments.
These other possible plans were already ruled out for engineering,
environmental, or other reasons.
Because one of the primary effects on construction and operation of the
Susitna access route will be the destruction of wildlife habitat, a
special section devoted to habitat value analysis has been included in
this evaluation report. The proposed route alternatives traverse a wide
variety of habitat types, so it was necessary in comparing the access
plans, first, to evaluate the relative value, or quality, of the wildlife
habitat to be affected by each alternative. The results of this habitat
evaluation will then be used in conjunction with other wildlife data to
recommend a preferred route.
Several individuals made significant contributions to the preparation of
this habitat analysis. Principal investigators for the Alaska Department
of Fish and Game submitted life requisite scores for the big game
species; Dr. Philip Gipson of the University of Alaska was responsible
for the life requisite scores for the furbearer species; Mr. Steven
MacDonald of the University of Alaska Museum prepared the scores for the
non-game mammal species; and Dr. Brina Kessel of the University of Alaska
Museum determined the life requisite scores for the avian species.
1-2
Mr. Gregory Konkel of the United States Fish ~nd Wildlife Service
provided valuable suggestions in the development of this analysis.
Environmental considerations for the report as a whole included plant
ecology, wildlife, cultural resources, land use, and socioeconomics.
Input into the analysis was provided in part by the University of Alaska
(Dr. A. Jubenville, Dr. P. Gipson, Dr. B. Kessel, Dr. E.J. Dixon, Dr. J.
McKendrick, Dr. W. Collins); Frank Orth & Associates (Mr. P. Rogers);
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (Mr. K. Schneider); and several
private consultants to TES, including Dr. F. Banfield, Dr. R. Taber, and
A.C. Fazekas. Their contributions are sincerely appreciated.
1-3
2. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
2.1 METHODS
~ny access plan, no matter what the mode or route, will affect the region
it traverses. To ascertain the effects of each access plan, experts from
various disciplines studied the route•s potential consequences for their
particular areas of concern. Presented below are the scientific areas
considered in assessing each route•s effects. These are: vegetation;
wildlife, including birds and small mammals, fur bearers, and big game;
fish; and cultural resources.
Although methods may refer specifically to how analysis of alternative
access plans was accomplished, it should be noted that much information
in all environmental disciplines has been obtained during the larger
study pertaining to the entire area of the upper Susitna River basin and
that this information was also used, either directly or indirectly, in
the evaluation of the access plans under consideration here.
(a) Vegetation
One-mile-wide corridors were considered for each of the alternative
access plans. All mapping was at a scale of 1:63,360 (see accompanying
maps). Vegetation was mapped from color infrared aerial photography and
field reconnaissance of the routes. Wetland maps were constructed from
vegetation maps according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service•s wetland
classification. The 1 imitations of this classification were described in
the 1980 Plant Ecology Annual Report. The area covered by each vegetation
type was determined for a mile-wide corridor for each possible
alternative access plan. To make the wetland evaluation pertinent to
this access plan assessment, each vegetation mapping unit was ranked with
respect to the degree of wetness and soi 1 stabi 1 ity.
(b) Wildlife
(i) Birds and Small Mammals
2-1
Among the methods for conducting the bird and small mammals portion of
the access plan assessment was a one-day raptor survey by aerial recon-
naissance of all corridors in early July. A hike along the trail between
Devil Canyon and Go 1 d Creek inc 1 uded part of the area touched by sever a 1
of the proposed access routes. Finally, examination of the avian habitat
occupancy levels and habitat preferences of various species contributed
to the investigation of a route•s suitability in terms of its impact on
birds and small mammal populations.
(ii) Furbearers
Methods of furbearer analysis of alternative access plans consisted in
part of aerial reconnaissance of all corridors to look for furbearers and
their sign and to evaluate various habitats and 'topo9raphic features
important to furbearers along the routes. This input was then considered
in conjunction with information previously collected during the larger
study of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project, such as preferred habitats
and specific denning locations, to assess impacts on furbearers specific
to the alternative access plans under consideration.
(iii) Big Game
To assess the various access plans as to the degree of impact they would
have on the large game animals in the area, big game principal investiga-
tors and others reviewed and made reconnaissance flights over the pro-
posed routes. Included in this group of researchers was a consultant
specializing in caribou, since that species is rather sensitive to dis-
turbance and its needs are somewhat unique. This consultant spent three
days in early August, 1981 doing reconnaissance overflights of access
corridors.
(c) Fish
To assess the impact that the various access routes would have on the
area•s fish population, researchers studied aerial photographs and topo-
graphical maps, conducted a review of pertinent literature, and applied_
their general knowledge of the effects of road construction on water-
ways.
2-2
(d) Cultural Resources
Because of the vast area under consideration and limited time and
resources for sampling, it was impossible to define the probability of
archeological site occurrence in a statistically valid fashion for the
eight access plans under consideration. Instead, each of the access
plans was evaluated for its potential effects on cultural resources, and
this was accomplished through analysis of air photos; topographic map
analysis, aerial reconnaissance, and limited on-the-ground examination of
natural exposures. Use of these methods allowed that zones along each
access plan be ranked as exhibiting high, moderate, or low potential for
the occurrence of cultural resources. That judgment was made by compar-
ing these areas with others that have been subject to archeological
survey and which exhibit similar ecological and geological characteris-
tics.
Archeological sites that have been documented along or adjacent to each
corridor were plotted on 1:250,000 scale USGS quadrangle maps; and zones
of high, moderate, and low archeological potential were drawn onto topo-
graphic maps. Archeological sites reported in the published anthropolog-
ical literature for the region were also included when applicable.
After the field work was completed, these data were compiled and synthe-
sized for each proposed access plan. Finally, each plan was evaluated
for its potential adverse impact on cultural resources.
2-3
2.2 CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION
(a) Vegetation
The number of access routes and their combinations present considerable
data necessary to select a 11 best 11 route for protecting valuable vegeta-
tion. The selection was even more difficult since the various values of
vegetation are discontinuous throughout the mapping units and the regions
encompassing the various access plans. Consequently, there is no real
common denominator upon which to base decisions about a route's suitabil-
ity.
Among the criteria for ranking the proposed access routes was the
presence or potential presence of protected plant species. As an exten-
sion of the study presented in the 1980 Annual Report, effects upon rare,
threatened, and endangered species were examined along each corridor.
Work done in 1980 indicated that several such plants would occur on well-
drained calcareous sites. This information allowed each corridor to be
searched for probable habitats. No such sites were found in proximity to
any of the access plans. Based upon that finding and on field observa""
tions by Dr. John Koranda, an authority on Alaskan botany, a concern for
rare or endangered plants became irrelevant to the access route portion
of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project.
Another concern in ranking the various access plans was the increased
number of fires that result when a region becomes more accessible to
human use. Except for threats to human 1 ife and property, however, fire
can be a positive ecological force, rejuvenating vegetation, improving
certain wildlife habitats, and releasing soil nutrients. According to
field evidences of old burns and restricted tree ages, fire has long been
a natural part of the ecosystems in this area.. According to Johnson,
frequent natura 11 y-occurring fires in northern boreal forests of North-
west Canada, prevent, except in rate instances, climax community
2-4
development (Johnson, E.A. 1980. Fire recurrence and vegetation in the
lichen woodlands of the Northwest Territories, Canada. In: Stokes,
Marvin A. and John H. Dietrict, (Tech. coord.). Proceedings of the Fire
History Workshop, October 20-24, 1980, Tucson, Arizona. Gen. Tech.
Report RM81, Rocky Mtn. Forest and Range Exp. Sta. USDA-Forest Service,
Ft. Collins, Colorado, pp. 110-114). The occurrences of burning seem to
be related to weather patterns and climatic changes. The same may be
said for the upper Susitna basin; hence, any increased burning resulting
from fires of human origin would probably be insignificant to the overall
scheme,of nature.
In view of the limited damage to vegetation that increased fires will
cause and in the absenc.e of any rare or endangered plant species, other
criteria became most pertinent in evaluating the proposed access plans.
These were: 1) total acreage of each vegetation type affected within a
mile-wide corridor (Table 1), 2) wetlands, and 3) probable solifluction.
Wetlands are important considerations because of their high ecological
value.· Wetlands provide habitat for a large number of wildlife species
and are a critical link in the hydrological cycle.
Solifluction problems relate to soil instabilities and to degree of
slope. One way to predict whether a site will suffer from soil slippage
is to note the presence, at lower elevations, of alder and bluejoint
reedgrass. At higher elevations, tall shrub sites, in general, are a
clue to potential solifluction problems.
(b) Wildlife
(i) Birds and Small Mammals
To determine the consequences that a proposed access plan would have for
birds and small mammals along the plan•s route, researchers used the
following criteria:
2-5
numbers of species affected and their ~ensity along an access
route or in an area (Table 2)
-types of habitat encountered by a proposed plan
-existence of raptor habitats along a particular route
-existence of wetlands on or near a planned access route
-degree to which a route will facilitate public access
to a sensitive area.
(ii) Furbearers
In evaluating the eight acc·ess plans for their potential impact to fur-
bearers in the region, the following criteria were used:
-the degree to which the route will increase public access to
valuable furbearer habitat. The differences in access per-
mitted by railroad and highway were also noted.
-the fragility of the animal habitat involved
-the types of furbearers that would be affected
by a proposed route. Of particular concern are beaver,
mink, river otter, fox, and marten.
-the proximity of a proposed route to waterways and
lakes
The latter criterion incorporates several related concerns. First, the
filling of a wetland simply eliminates a habitat. Second, the process of
construction disturbs a habitat--to a greater or lesser degree, depending
upon the furbearer species in residence and the types of construction
involved. Finally, vehicles using access routes near or through fur-
bearer habitat will likely collide with valuable animals.
(iii) Big Game
The big game investigators used the following criteria to determine the
potential effects of a proposed route on resident and migratory big game
species:
2-6
-the increased public access afforded by the route to big game
habitats and the resultant disturbance of animals using those
areas.
-the effects of a proposed route on caribou, in particular, a
species which may be more vulnerable to disturbance than most
other big game species
-the proximity of the route to denning sites of wolves and
bears.
(c) Fish
A major concern of the fishery investigation was the extent to which
streambeds would be distur~ed, banks eroded, sediment washed downstream,
and other negative effects incurred with the construction of necessary
crossings. These same questions apply to roads built in the vicinity of
streams, lakes, or ponds. Such disturbances could be serious, especially
during fish spawning and rearing periods.
Similarly, increased public access to lakes, ponds, and streams along the
proposed routes is a critical problem for fish populations. Easier
access, either of a temporary sort during construction periods or of a
permanent nature through established roads, will increase fishing pres-
sure. Those species that experience slow growth in the climate types
found throughout the Susitna study area suffer particularly when fishing
pressure becomes excessive. Several game fish, including salmon, gray-
ling, lake trout, rainbow trout, and Dolly Varden, are especially
threatened by improved access to their habitats.
Sheer numbers alone, however, were not the only consideration when look-
ing at the planned crossings and the access they would facilitate. Each
stream or lake to be crossed was assessed for its fishery potential.
Disturbance of fish habitat deemed highly valuable was of greater concern
than was the disruption of less valuable waters.
With these points in mind, fisheries experts evaluated the access plan
alternatives according to the following criteria:·
2-7
the number of stream or lake crossings that the route required
-the fishery potential of the water being crossed (e.g. resident,
anadromous)
-the potential for increased public access created by the partic-
u 1 ar plan
the effects, in particular, on anadromous fish habitats
(d) Cultural Resources
The following criteria were implemented to define zones of high, moder-
ate, and low archeologic potential:
-high archeological potential --Areas designated as
exhibiting high archeologic potential are those for
which, in similar areas, previous research has documented
a comparatively high frequency of site occurrence relative
to the size of the area under consideration. Such
locales include lake and stream margins and junctions,
kettle and kame topography, natural topography con-
strictions that tend to funnel and concentrate the
movements of large ma1TD11als, overlooks, esker systems, etc.
Occasionally, a number of these ecological factors occur
in a single locale, tending to make this area the focus
of repeated used throughout the prehistoric past. Such
spots discovered within the study area are ranked as
"high potential" for archeological site occurrence.
-moderate archeological potential --Zones of moderate
archeological potential are areas in which archeo-
logical sites are likely to occur, but the frequency
of site occurrence is anticipated to be low in relation
to the size of the area. A likely site would be, for
example, an area of rolling topography with occasional
knolls or terraces, possibly affording either a view
of the surrounding terrain or a dry, well-drained spot
for a campsite. Another example of areas classified as
having moderate archeological potential are. slopes
2-8
along drainage systems upon which occasional terrace
remnants occur which may contain archeological sites.
-low archeological potential --Regions of low archeo-
logical potential are those areas in which few, if any,
archeological sites may be expected to occur. Such areas
are steep slopes that afford 1 ittle or no suitable
setting for camps or hunting and areas of low relief
containing few, if any, ecological attributes attractive
to human beings. These areas are often extensive
muskeg/tussock bogs. Also included in these zones are
areas that have· been subject in the recent past to such
destructive geologic processes as river erosion,·
landslides, mudflows, and others.
Table 3 lists mileage of each of these potential areas within
the various access plans. Although there are known sites
occurring a long each access p 1 an, the numbers are not used as
evaluation criteria in this report. It is assumed that many
more sites exist and will be discovered during preconstruction
surveys.
2-9
2.3 DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
The eight alternative access plans, each of which is designed to provide
access to both the Devil Canyon dam site and the Watana dam site from an
existing transportation corridor, are made up of several segments of
possible corridors in the upper Susitna River basin. Five geographical
locations define the beginning/end points of these segments and are as
follows: Parks Highway south of Hurricane, the Gold Creek area, Devil
Canyon ·dam site, Watana dam site, and the Denali Highway (Figure 1). Two
different segments can connect the two dam sites, one on the north sid~
of the Susitna River and one on the south side. Therefore, there are a
total of five different corridor segments that can be combined to produce
the eight alternative access plans currently under consideration. Each
of these plans is briefly described in the impact assessment section as
is the mode of transportation (road or railroad) which characterizes the
actual route.
The following is a brief description by corridor segment, of the environ-
mental resources of the project area as those resources pertain to the
impact assessment of the alternative access plans (See Table 4 for
summary).
(a) Parks Highway to Gold Creek
This segment parallels the Indian River and contains primarily forested
habitat types. The slopes along the sides of this valley are covered
with spruce habitats, deciduous habitats, and a mixture of spruce and
deciduous forest. Near Gold Creek, there are several stands of balsam
poplar along the river. Also along the river, mostly west of the rail-
road, are numerous wet areas, some of which occur as a result of topo-
graphic factors and others that have been created by the activities of
beavers. Human dwellings are also found in many areas adjacent to the
river and the railroad.
The major big game species in this area are moose and probably black
bears. The area is not frequented by either Dall sheep or caribou.
Wolverines may be present in low numbers, but because of the human
2-10
activity in the area, they are unlikely to occur often along this seg-
ment. The same is probably true for brown bears and wolves, which are
precluded from using this area to any appreciable degree by the presence
of permanent dwellings and associated human activity.
There are numerous beaver dams and lodges in wet areas adjacent to the
river. Muskrats are also found in these areas. Some pine marten, river
otters, and red foxes are likely to frequent the river valley, although
the beaver is probably the most abundant furbearer in the area.
The vegetation cover types that predominate along this segment are pro-
ductive for avian species, especially the mixed spruce-birch forest on
the valley slopes. Stands of balsam poplar are also very productive for
birds and thus represent important habitat for this group.
A large proportion of this corridor segment passes through areas of high
and moderate archeological potential, primarily because the route goes
through a natural mountain pass.
(b) Gold Creek to Devil Canyon Dam Site
This segment of the proposed access route extends east from Gold Creek to
the Devil Canyon dam site along the south side of the Susitna River.
This area is characterized mostly by forested habitat types. The major-
ity of the route is covered with either closed or open mixed forests.
These vegetation types are usually a combination of birch and white
spruce. Relative to other cover types, these two categories represent
very good wildlife habitat. Interspersed among these forested areas are
wet sedge. grass habitats, which are also good wildlife habitat and which
are located on flat benches that occur along this segment. A narrow dirt
road parallels portions of the proposed access route in this area.
2-11
Black bears and moose are the predominant big game species in this area.
Although detailed survey work has not been conducted along much of this
segment, it does not appear that moose are particularly abundant, and it
is assumed that black bears are of moderate abundance based on data
collected in other forested portions of the river basin. Although it is
likely that brown bears, wolverine, and wolves utilize this segment,
there is no evidence to suggest that they are abundant.
The wet areas on the side benches support beaver, especially where suit-
able birch forests adjoin these areas. The productive forest conditions
probably support a population of pine marten, and where streams occur, it
is likely that mink and river otter are present. It is also possible
that red foxes make some seasonal use of this area, but data collected in
other portions of the basin indicate a preference for habitat types at
higher elevations.
This segment traverses deciduous forests which have been found to
represent some of the best habitat for bird species. The proposed route
does not encroach upon nesting habitat of cliff-nesting raptors.
This segment of the route contains small isolated segments of high ~d
moderate archeological potential. However, since the area is largely
forested, indirect impacts resulting from increased access may be minor
because of the low visibility from the proposed route.
(c) Devil Canyon to Watana (North Side)
The access route segment that extends west from Devil Canyon to the
Watana dam site on the north side -of the river is composed of a fairly
well interspersed mixture of spruce, tall shrub, mixed low shrub, birch
shrub, and tundra vegetation types. Much of these vegetation types are
of medium to low value as wildlife habitat. As a result, this segment is
of less value to big game species than some of the other segments. Black
2-12
bears are scarce, except at each end of the segment where the route
approaches the forested areas along the river. Black bears will move
close to this segment during late summer to forage on ripening berries as
long as tree cover is nearby. · Bro~n bears are more common here than
black bears. Wolverine are also abundant in this portion of the upper
basin. Moose are not overly abundant in this region.
This segm~nt does not traverse any significant furbearer concentrations.
Red foxes have several den sites in the general vicinity, but other
species of furbearers are not common in this area.
In general, this area does not support many birds. Several species
utilize the types of habitat found here, but the total avian productivity
is not as great as in forested habitats along the river.
This segment contains substantial amounts of high and moderate archeolog-
ical potential area, particularly at high elevations in open habitats; it
also contains a number of documented archeological sites.
(d) Devil Canyon to Watana (South Side}
The segment from Devil Canyon to the Watana dam site on the south side
traverses a highly interspersed mixture of wildlife habitat types. Those
comprising the majority of this area include the tundra types (mat and
cushion, and sedge shrub), tall shrub (alder}, mixed low shrub, birch
shrub, and both open and woodland spruce. Individually, these habitat
types are of moderate valtJe to wildlife; however, their extensive inter-
spersion serves to increase their collective value.
This segment is characterized by considerable numbers of big game
animals. One of the highest concentrations of moose found in the upper
basin occurs in this area. In addition, two wolf packs and numerous
2-13
wolverines use this area. Brow·n bears are also present, and at least
some move through this area to and from the salmon run on Prairie Creek.
The eastern portion of this segment9 near the Fog Lakes, has been c·ommon-·
ly used by members of the Nelchina caribou herd 9 especially during the
summer months. Although black bears appear to be less numerous here than
in other portions of the upper basin 9 they do move up to the open shrub
habitats during late summer to feed on ripening berries.
A great deal of furbearer activity has been noted along this segment 9
probably caused 9 in part, by the high degree of habitat interspersion
that exists here 9 in conjunction with the numerous streams and lakes dis-
tributed throughout this region. Because of a low incidence of forested
habitat, there are fewer marten in the area 9 except where open spruce
types· are found, particularly those spruce areas that are located closer
to the river valley. Beaver and muskrat have been observed along this
segment.
In general, the abundance of avian species is probably lower along this
segment than in forested areas. Many of the cover types are not particu-
larly important to birds. There are, however, several cliff-nesting
raptors using the cliffs of tributaries adjacent to this segment.
A fairly large amount of high and moderate archeological potential area
is found along this segment, especially in the Stephan Lake, Fog Lakes 9
and Fog Creek areas.
(e) Watana Dam Site to Denali Highway
Most land along this segment is covered by birch shrub and willow shrub·
habitats. Wet sedge grass, mixed low shrub, mat and cushion tundra, and
sedge shrub tundra are also commonly found here. Chiefly as a result of
the extensive presence of willow shrub and wet sedge grass types, this
area is of great value to wildlife, particularly big game species. The
presence of Deadman Creek and several lakes serves to enhance that value
for wi ldl if e.
2-14
Moose and caribou are probably the most numerous big game species in the
area. The large amount of willow shrub provides excellent forage for
moose. In addition, this access corridor traverses an area that has his-
torically been utilized by a portion of the Nelchina caribou herd. This
herd has a total distribution of about 20,000 square miles in south-
central Alaska. The herd•s distribution is bounded by four mountain
ranges: the Alaskan Range to the north, the Wrangell Mountains to the
east, the Chugach Mountains to the south and the Talkeetna Mountains to
the west. It is also increasingly restricted by human developments on
its borders along highway and railroad routes.
The estimated total population of the Nelchina herd in 1981 is approxi-
mately 19,000 animals, including several subherds. The Nelchina herd is
of importance to sport and subsistence hunters because of the size and
proximity to population centers in south~central Alaska. Its population
has fluctuated from a peak of approximately 70,000 in 1962/63 to a low of
about 9,000 animals in 1972. Alaskan game officials propose to maintain
the herd through hunting restrictions and regulated harvesting at
approximately the current population level of 20,000.
Historically, virtually the entire Nelchina caribou herd has spent por-
tions of the summer, fall, and late winter in the area around Butte Lake
and the hills to the south. The corridor skirts the western edge of this
area. A small subherd of approximately 1,000 animals appears to reside
permanently in this portion of the upper basin. Calving by this subherd
has been documented in the region, and although the calving appears to be
highly dispersed, the presence of a permanent subherd with calving
activities and frequent use by major segments of the entire herd suggest
that this area is quite important to caribou.
Beaver and muskrat are fairly common in wet areas along Deadman Creek.
They appear to be associated with lakes and wet sedge grass cover types.
Red foxes are also common, and a denning center occurs within the one-
mile corridor.
2-15
The lack of forested habitats renders this area of less value to birds
than the region along the river valley. One pair of bald eagles,
however, has been documented nesting along Deadman Creek within the
one~mile corridor of the proposed access route.
Almost the entire length of this segment is either of high-or moderate
archeological-potential. Numerous sites were documented during a brief
reconnaissance. In addition, this area is almost wholly open terrain;
therefore, the potential for secondary impacts resulting from increased
access by humans is increased.
2-16
2.4 IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The following section describes potential impacts associated with con-
struction and operation of the proposed access plans. Because of the
scale of maps available and because the final alignment of the road or
railroad has not been determined, impact assessment was conducted on the
entire one-mile wide corridor. According to R&M Consultants, Inc., the
actual construction right-of-way will be no greater than 200 feet with
the actual road no greater than 50 feet wide. Because of this, it may be
possible during final centerline studies to locate the route within the
corridor so as to minimize environmental effects. This would include,
where possible, avoiding wetlands, unstable areas, and areas known to be
important wildlife habitat.
The vegetation acreages contained in the impact assessment refer to the
entire one-mile wide corridor. Actual road or roadway construction will
require a maximum width of 200 feet. Using this figure, actual acres of
vegetation to be removed for both road construction and local borrow pits
have been calculated. These figures, supplied by R&M Consultants, appear
in parentheses following the mile-wide vegetation acreage figures.
The impact section also discusses mitigation only in general terms.
Section 2.6 contains more detailed information on mitigation techniques
that, if utilized, will reduce the impacts discussed below.
(a) Access Plan 8
This plan is a road beginning at a railroad near Gold Creek and proceed-
ing to Devil-Canyon dam site on the south side of the Susitna River. At
the dam site, it crosses the river and continues to the Watana dam site
on the north side of the river (figure 2).
2-17
( i ) Vegetation
Access Plan 8 is the best choice in terms of minimal potential destruc-
tion of vegetation. Plan 8 is shor.ter than any of the other plans; only
30,279 acres of vegetation are within the mile-wide corridor mapped (860
acres to be removed). It also presents the least difficulty with
wetlands disturbance (Table 5).
The only major drawback to Access Plan 8 is a possible problem with soil
slippages on the north-facing slopes of canyons. Those geomorphic pro-
cesses are major factors in creating alternating spruce forests and alder
thickets. The presence of these thickets along segments of Access Plan 8
is a clue. to potential solifluction problems.
( i i) Birds and Sma 1-1 Mammals
Of all the plans proposed, Access Plan 8 is the optimum route in terms of
reducing impacts to birds and small mammals. The route involves only a
single access point at Gold Creek, rather than the-additional point of
origin at the Denali Highway, as is the case with some other routes.
Plan 8 also uses the north side route between the two dam sites, thus
avoiding the sensitive area around Stephan and the Fog Lakes, and
traverses the shortest distance through productive avian habitat.
Finally, this routing avoids the more important raptor sites on the south
side of the river west of Stephan Lake and the wetlands around Stephan
and Fog Lakes important to both birds and small mammals.
(iii) Furbearers
Access Plan 8 ranks second in order of preference in terms of its antici-
pated impact on furbearers. Because it begins at Gold Creek instead of
the Parks Highway, the plan minimizes access; vehicles will have to be
shipped by rail to Gold Creek, so the result is a closed highway system.
Access Plan 8 avoids productive furbearer habitats around Stephan Lake,
Fog Lakes, and Fog Creek. The area crossed north of the Susitna River
between Devil Canyon and the Watana dam site is ~elatively unimportant to
furbearers.
2-18
( i v) Big Game
Access Plan 8 is preferable to other routes in its avoidance of important
big game habitat. The major attraction of this access plan is its north-
ern leg between the Devil Canyon dam site and the Watana dam site, there-
by avoiding important habitat on the south side of the river. The route
also goes through areas that appear to be heavily used by wolverine and
bears. The proposed route is higher, however, than most heavily used
black bear habitat, except in the vicinity of Tsusena Creek and the
Watana site. Moreover, it is lower than most known brown.bear dens.
Although this is a major concern, this area (Tsuena-Watana) Will be
disturbed anyway with the construction of the Watana Dam. Portions of
this area are important moose habitat, specifically the regions around
Devil Mountain and the mouth of Tsusena Creek.
Although the proposed route intersects several caribou north-south trails
in the Devil Creek area, caribou traffic appears to be rather light and
impacts should not be severe. In any case, Access Plan 8, with its
northern segment, is much preferable to any rout~ that traverses the
Stephan Lake-Fog Lakes area.
(v) Fish
Access Plan 8 is the second best alternative of the routes being
considered in terms of its potential impact on fisheries. First, a north-
side route between Devil Canyon and the Watana site is preferable to any
of the southern routes because there are simply fewer fish habitats here
to be affected by road construction or increased access. In addition, no
new crossings of anadromous streams are involved and the effects on
resident fish populations should be minimal.
2-19
(vi) Cultural ·Resources
Access Plan 8 is second only to Access Plan 2 for minimizing effects upon
cultural resources, specifically archeological sites. Twelve archeologi-
cal sites have been documented along or adjacent to this route, ten of
which were discovered during the course of this evaluation. Access Plan
8 is virtually identical to Plan 2 between Gold Creek and Devil Canyon;
however, from an area immediately north of High Lake and extending to the
proposed Watana dam site, it traverses an area largely treeless and eco-
logically diverse. This region also lacks appreciable soil deposition.
These factors make cultural resources highly visible and highly vulner-
able to any surface-disturbing activities. For these reasons, secondary
adverse effects on cultural resources in this region are expected to be
severe.
In addition, some of Access Plan 8 route, particularly that section
extending east from High lake, passes through areas of high potential for
archeological site occurrence. By avoiding the southern Stephan Lake
area, Access Plan 8 becomes a desirable route, but because of the antici-
pated adverse effects for cultural resources described above, it is less
desirable than Plim 2.
(b) Access Plan 2
This plan is totally a railroad access beginning near Gold Creek and con-
necting both dam sites by rail on the south side of the river (Figure 3).
(i) Vegetation
For its impact on vegetation, Access Plan 2 stands in the middle of the
route rankings, with 2b holding a slight advantage over 2a. The corridor
of Access Plan 2a will involve 37,610 acres of vegetation; 2b contains
37,591 acres. With the lowest acreage, that for Plan 8, at 30,279 and
the highest, for Plan 7b at 66,648, the mileage affected by Access Plan 2
falls in the mid-range (approximately 640 acres to be removed). Plan 2
ranks in the high middle for wetlands (Table 5), primarily because of the
2-20
southern segment between the two dam sites~ and in the low middle for
anticipated solifluction problems. In light of the problems that
increased public access generates for vegetation~ Access Plan 2, relying
on railroad instead of vehicular road, is attractive and preferable to
highway construction.
(ii) Birds and Small Mammals
A railroad brings fewer people into an area than a vehicular road allows,
so ordinarily a plan involving a railroad would be preferable to other
routes. Access Plan·2, which uses a railroad, also, however, traverses
the southern route between the two dam sites. That route is detrimental
to birds and small mammals,-especially in the Stephan Lake and Fog Lakes
area, and generally goes through more productive forest habitats and wet-
lands than any northern route does. Included in the routing, too, is
some valuable raptor habitat along cliffs near an unnamed drainage.
An advantage to Access Plan 2, besides its being a railroad, is that it
originates at Gold Creek. This origin reduces the impact to valuable
bird and small mammal habitat created by routes that begin at the Parks
Highway.
Of the two alternatives for Access Plan 2, 2a is preferable to 2b from an
avian standpoint. This route remains approximately 2 miles farther from
Stephan Lake and from water body (WB) 105 (See Bird and Small Mammal
Annual Report for locations of water bodies), which has a bald eagle nest
at its southwest end and which also seems to attract swans. Segment 2b
contains no nests. (Ten were spotted on 10 October 1980; three adults
were seen in late July 1981. No evidence exists of breeding, however.)
Plan 2a would cross closer than 2b to the head of Fog Creek, thereby
avoiding some potential cliffnesting habitat. Alternative 2a would go
closer to WB 103 and WB 104, but neither appears to support many
waterbirds.
2-21
(iii) Furbearers
Access Plan 2 is the preferred route from a furbearer standpoint. The
major advantage to furbearers is that this plan utilizes a railroad
instead of a highway. It thereby reduces public access to the Susitna
Valley and the furbearer habitat around Stephan and Fog Lakes. Train
traffic may also lessen the disturbance to animals because the traffic
is not continuous but, rather, periodic.
Access Plan 2, is preferable to all others, too, because of the sensitive
areas it avoids--the Denali Highway region, the route from Denali to the
Watana site, and the.area between the Parks Highway and Gold Creek.
( iv) Big Game
Access Plan 2 presents some of the same problems for big game that it
does for other wildlife, that is, the southern route between the two dam
sites includes important habitat. The upper Prairie Creek, Stephan Lake,
and the Fog Lakes regions support one of the largest year-round moose
concentrations. Any access route intersecting this habitat will reduce
the ability of the area to support moose populations. At least two wolf
packs, substantial numbers of wolverine, and bears also inhabit the area.
This plan also cuts across a midsummer migratory route for bears moving
from the Susitna River to Prairie Creek to feed on salmon. Thishas the
potential for bear-human conflicts.
The advantage of Access Plan 2 is its use of railroad instead of highway.
Disturbance from traffic may be less continuous, and the secondary
effects of improved public access would be substantially reduced if a
railroad were used. It would also greatly restrict all-terrain
vehicles 1 making new trails along the south bank of the Susitna River.
Thus, in all respects, increased public access would be limited, so the
effect on wildlife caused by hunters and sportsmen pursuing big game
would be tempered.
2-22
While Access Plan 2 poses some serious problems for wildlife in general,
it is the preferred route for minimizing distu~bance of caribou. It
almost completely avoids areas important to the Nelchina herd except in
the Fog Lakes·region and effectively circumvents terrain frequented by
the small Chunilna subherd of approximately 300 animals.
(v) Fish
Access Plan 2 is rated the most acceptable when using the criteria for
impact on fish populations. A railroad permits far less access than a
road does, so lakes in the region covered by Plan 2 would probably not be
subject to increased access. As far as effects upon these lakes are con-
cerned, 2a is preferable to 2b.
A plan· involving a railroad, such as Access Plan 2, would limit access to
all sensitive fisheries habi.tats, but it would also have another advan-
tage. Railroad crossings will be permanent and less subject to erosion
than the stream and lake crossings built for highway traffic.
Plan 2 enters sensitive habitat of resident fisheries around Stephan and
Fog Lakes via its southside segment, but again, a railroad would limit
access to these locations and the effect would thus be attenuated. More-
over, Plan 2 calls for no new crossings of anadromous streams, and that
feature of the plan further reduces the negative aspects of increased
access.
(vi) Cultural Resources
Access Plan 2 is the best choice for reducing negative effects on impor-
tant archeological sites. The route covers the least number of miles of
high potential area and includes much less terrain with any archeological
potential--high, medium, or low--than all other routes except Plan 8.
2-23
Archeological sites do exist along the route, particularly in the vicin-
ity of Stephan Lake and the Fog Lakes. Much of the route, however,
skirts relatively steeply slop1ng valley margins along which few, if any,
archeological sites are expected to occur. In addition, much of the
route is forested, which reduces both site visibility and future off-road
vehicle traffic as well as the secondary adverse impact to sites from
recreators and artifact collectors. The railroad will further diminish
access by the public, and that feature adds to the appeal of this plan.
Access Plan 2b is ~lightly preferable to 2a in that it traverses slightly
less terr·ain of high archeological potential. Seven previously document-
ed sites occur along 2a, while six known sites are adjacent to 2b. No
11 new 11 arc:heological sites were discovered along this access plan during
the course of this assessment, and while 2b is a slightly better route,
both plans are roughly equivalent.
(c) Access Plan 5
Access Plan 5 is a road beginning at the Parks Highway south of Hurri-
cane, going through Chulitna Pass, then south along Indian River, cross-
ing the Susitna River near Gold Creek. From Gold Creek, the route is
south of the Susitna River to Devil Canyon dam site, there crossing the
river and proceeding east to the Watana dam site on the north side of the
river (Figure 4).
(i) Vegetation
Because of its length, Plan 5 would disturb more vegetation than would
some of the other access plans (1037 acres to be removed).
In the Susitna basin, tall shrub types occur frequently between Devil
Canyon and Watana and especially on the westernmost one-third of the
northside segment. Access Plan 5 includes this segment and, consequent-
ly, ~s rated poorly because vegetation suggests solifluction problems
that could make restoration of these areas difficult.
2-24
The route from Hurricane to the Devil Canyon site passes close to or
through valuabl-e wetlands. Access Plan 5, which includes this segment,
thus falls short of the optimum route by crossing this ~ensitive terrain.
Another drawback to Access Plan 5 is also related to its northside seg-
ment. The northern portion of the Susitna basin is a favorite moose and
car_ibou hunting area. With their use of off-road vehicles, hunters often
unnecessarily damage vegetation and soils here (Sparrow, S.D., F.J.
Wooding and E.H. Whiting. 1978. Effects of off-road vehicle traffic on
soils and vegetation in the Denali Highway region of Alaska. J. Soil and
Water Conservation 33(1):20-27.) In light of that problem, opening of
the Susitna basin to more vehicular use could increase those damages.
(ii) Birds and Small Mammals
The primary difficulty with Access Plan 5 in terms of birds and small
mammals is the route segment between Hurricane and Gold Creek. The wet-
lands in this area probably support more mammals than birds (both beaver
and cow moose with calves have been seen here), but both wildlife groups
will be disturbed. This disturbance should not increase mortality to the
point of being detrimental to the overall populations.
A second problem with this plan is that it will allow increased public
access deep into the sensitive wildlife habitats of the Susitna River
basin. Any such encroachments will have a negative, although minor,
impact on the birds and small mammals residing there.
(iii) Furbearers
Access Plan 5 ranks third in order of preference in terms of its antici-
pated impact upon furbearers. One positive feature of this route is
that, while the area between the Parks Highway and Gold Creek has a num-
ber of private residences, furbearer sign is still abundant here, even.
adjacent to these dwellings. Moreover, private landowners wishing to
retain an abundant local wildlife may regulate both the access to trap-
ping sites and the number of animals harvested. Thus, even if a road
were constructed, local pressure could continue to limit the harvest of
furbearers.
2-25
Another advantage to this route is that it employs the north segment
between the two dam sites; that region is relatively unimportant for fur-
bearers.
The disadvantages of Access Plan 5 to the furbearer population are:
(1) the route has the potential to provide almost unlimited access into
the Susitna Valley from the Parks Highway and Gold Creek upstream
to the Watana Damsite; and (2) there are productive furbearer habitats
(primarily wetland areas utilized by beaver) along the entire stretch
from the Parks Highway· and Gold Creek. Aerial reconnaissance and
·vegetation mapping indicates it may be possible to locate the road to
avoid most of these wetland areas.
( iv) Big Game
Access p·Jan 5, while not thebest choice for the protection of big game,
does present some advantages over several other routes. The segment of
the route between the Parks Highway and the Devil Canyon site follows
primarily north-facing slopes and, therefore, is less likely to affect
both moose and bears. This segment is likely to affect caribou since the
proposed route intersects several caribou north-south trails in the Devil
Creek area. However, caribou traffic appears to be rather light here.
There may be problems with bears along this segment, particularly in the
spring, 1\'hen brown bears emerge from dens, and in 1 ate summer; when b 1 ack
bears concentrate near timberline. These problems would likely be
human-bear conflicts .
Portions of the northern route between Devil Canyon and Watana, primari-
ly the area of Devil Mountain and the mouth of Tsusena Creek, are impor-
tant surmner moose habitat. Construction through this area will reduce
its attractiveness to moose. The route also goes through areas that
appear to be heavily used by wolverine and bears. The proposed route is
higher, however, than most heavily used black bear habitat, except in the
vicinity of Tsusena Creek and the Watana site, and lower than most known
brown bear dens, thereby reducing impacts to these species.
2-26
(v} Fish
Access Plan 5 includes constructing bridges over both the Indian and
the Susitna Rivers. In addition, the road would run close to the
Indian River. Construction activities in and around both rivers could
affect salmon·popOlations, which are known to utilize these areas for
spawning and/or migration during spring and summer months. Addition-
ally, with improved access, the Indian River fisheries would be sub-
ject to increased fishing pressure. Northside access from the Devil
Canyon dam site to the Watana site, as provided by Access Plan 5, is
preferable to a southern route, mainly because there are fewer fish
habitats to be affected by road construction or increased access.
This stretch would allow increased access to some lakes in the High
Lake and Tsusena Creek areas.
Thus, the assessment of Access Plan 5 from a fisheries point of view
is similar to that for birds and small mammals: the route is neither
the worst nor one of the three best; instead, it falls somewhere in
the middle of the choices available.
(vi) Cultural Resources
The 1 imi.ted examination of surface exposures a long all the access
plans resulted in the discovery of twenty-two previously undocumented
archeological sites. Some of these sites occur along the route of
Access P'Jan 5. From the region immediately north of High Lake and
extendin9 to the proposed Watana dam site, Access P.lan 5 traverses an
area that is largely treeless, ecologically diverse, and lacking in
appreciable soil deposition. These factors make cultural resources
highly visible and highly vulnerable to any surface disturbing activi-
ties. For these reasons secondary adverse effects to cultural
resources are expected to be severe. Additionally, that section of
Access Pllan 5 that extends east from the vicinity of High Lake passes
through areas of high potential for archeological site occurrence.
Access Plan 5, then, is less desirable than some of the other alterna-
tives ava'ilable.
2-27
(d) Access Plan 1
Access Plan 1 is a road beginning at Parks Highway south of Hurricane
going through Chulitna Pass, then south along Indian River, crossing
the Susitna River near Gold Creek. From Gold Creek, the route is
south of the Susitna River to both the Devil Canyon and Watana dam
sites (Figure 5).
( i) Vegetation
Access Plan 1, with its a and b options in the Stephan Lake area,
falls within the middle of the route plans• ranking. The estimated
number of acres within the corridor of Access Plan 1, while not the
highest figure, was between 39,493 and 40,290, depending upon whether
1b or la, respectively, was selected (approximately 1,085 acres to be
removed). These figures are substantially higher than the 30,279
acres within the Access Plan 8 corridor.
Access Plan 1 also presents major solifluction problems. The south
side route between Devil Canyon and Watana presents steep slopes and,
in addition, commonly supports tall shrub types that readily invade
exposed soils on solifluction sites. These areas pose difficult res-
toration problems and should normally be avoided.
(ii) Birds and Small Mammals
The route from Hurricane to Devil Canyon passes· close to or through
wetlands that support both birds and mammals. Access Plan 1, then,
is less desirable in terms of its effects on area wetlands than some
other routing options. From an avian standpoint, 1a is preferable to
1b between Devil Canyon and the Watana site. Plan 1a is situated
approximately two miles farther away than is 1b from relatively pro-
ductive Stephan Lake and f~om Water Body (WB) 105. The latter hosts
a bald eagle nest at its southwest end and seems also to attract
swans. This lake is within the one-mile corridor. Ten were spotted
on 10 October 1980; three adults were seen in late July 1981. No
evidence of breeding exists here, however.
2-28
Plan 1ct, by crossing closer to the head of Fog Creek than 1b does,
avoids some potential cliff-nesting habitat that 1b would encounter.
While la also passes closer than does lb to WB 103 and·WB 104,
neither· water body appears to support many waterbirds. The one-mile
corridor of Access Plan 1 crosses productive forest habitat, and con-
tains and comes close to raptor habitat and to major wetlands. For
these reasons, 1 is not the optimum route, but if it were
implemented, 1a would be preferable to 1b~
(iii) Furbearers
Access Plan 1 will allow virtually unlimited access to the Susitna
Valley from the Parks Highway and Gold Creek upstream to the Watana
dam site. The area between the Parks Highway and Gold Creek has a
number of private residences now, but furbearer sign is abundant,
even adjacent to these dwe 11 in gs.
Access P.lan 1 would involve a negative impact to productive furbearer
habitat by following a route south of the Susitna River between the
two dam sites. Both 1a and lb would encounter productive furbearer
habitat around Stephan Lake, the Fog Lakes, and/or Fog Creek.
Thus, while Access Plan 1 is not the worst route, it falls in the
·ranking because of the effects that the southside segment would have
on furbearer species.
( i v ) B i g Game
Access Plan 1 presents a peculiar problem in terms of big game con-
siderations. While the plan is one of the least desirable when all
big game needs are evaluated, it is second in order of preference
from the point of view of caribou disturbance.
The southern leg of Plan 1, which runs between the Devil Canyon dam
site and the Watana site along the south side of the Susitna, raises
serious concerns for big game specialists. The upper Prairie Creek,
Stephan Lake, and Fog Lakes areas support one of the largest
2-29
year-round moose concentrations in the region. Construction in this
area w·ill reduce the habitat available te the moose and increase
hunting mortality. In addition, at least two wolf packs, substantial
numbers of wolverine, and some bears, especially brown bears, inhabit
the area. This route also cuts across a midsummer migratory route
for bears moving from the Susitna River to Prairie Creek to feed on
.salmon, increasing the potential for bear-human conflict •. Taking
into account all of these characteristics, one sees that Access Plan
1a is slightly preferable to 1b because 1a avoids passing close to
Stephan Lake.
While caribou, too~ regularly use the area, particularly around the
Fog Lakes~ the rest of the route traverses a region seldom visited by
caribou and would, therefore, cause the animals minimum disturbance.
An additional important factor is that it appears that caribou have
used the area around Access Plan 1 only when the Nelchina herd has
been at. peak numbers. It seems unlikely, then, that they will use
this pa.rt of the Susitna basin again, unless their numbers rise con-
siderably at some future time. An increase of this sort is not, at
present, anticipated.
Plan 1 has another drawback of concern to big game specialists. The
route would open up access for all-terrain vehicles to the southern
side of the Susitna River. Incursion of these vehicles beyond the
Fog Lakes and Watana Mountain areas is unlikely, but should this
occur, it would represent a threat to the main calving grounds of the
Nelchina herd in the Kosina Creek and Oshetna River drainages. Thus,
while Plan 1 itself is advantageous to the protection of caribou, the
possible secondary effects of the route could have a negative impact
on these animals.
(v} Fish
Because it involves a combination of negative consequences to both
anadromous and resident fish species, Access Plan 1 is the least
acceptable route design. The plan calls for bridges over both the
Indian and the Susitna Rivers. In addition, the road at the west end
·2-30
of the route would run close to the Indian River. Construction
activities in and around both rivers could affect salmon populations,
which are known to utilize these areas for spawning and/or migration.
Sound construction practices and siltation control should reduce
impacts to fisheries and fisheries habitat. This route would also
subject the Indian River fisheries to increased fishing pressure.
Of even graver concern is the segment between Devil Canyon and
Watana. The southern route wou 1 d increase access to Stephan and the
Fog Lakes as well as to Fog Creek. Fishing pressure would increase
for grayling, lake trout, rainbow trout, and Dolly Varden. Very
little difference in impact on fisheries exists between la and lb.
Segment lb may allow for slightly more access to Stephan Lake and
perhaps for this reason, is a slightly less desirable alternative.
(vi) Cultural Resources
The criteria used to determine the potential for archeological site
occurre~nce point to Access Plan 1 as the third best choice for dam
site access. Plan 1 will likely encounter less terrain of high
archeological potential than five of the other alternatives. Certain
sites exist along the Devil Canyon to Watana segment, particularly in
the vicinity of Stephan Lake and the Fog Lakes. The seriousness of
such encounters is lessened, however, because much of the route is
forested. This characteristic reduces both site visibility and
future off-road vehicle traffic as well as the secondary adverse
impact to sites from recreators and artifact collectors.
(e) Access Plan 4
Access Plan 4 consists of a railroad between Gold Creek and the Devil
Canyon dam site on the south side of the Susitna River. ·A separate
link by road connects the Watana dam site to the Denali Highway (6).
2-31
(i) Vegetation
Access Plan 4 ranks as the second best choice with respect to its effect
upon vegetation, with 4a slightly preferable to 4b. In terms of acreage,
the corridor of Plan 4a contains 35,987 acres, while 4b contains 37,242
(approximately 975 acres to be removed).
Plan 4a will encounter fewer wetlands than any of the other proposed
options with the exception of Access Plan 8. Again, 4a ranks slightly
higher than 4b in this regard.
Plan 4 fares equally well when solifluction criteria are applied, again
ranking close to Plan 8 in this regard. Plan 4a supersedes 4b in this
categor·y also. One reason for the plan's high marks is that _the rating
system indicated a preponderance of tall shrubs sites--warning signs for
unstable soil properties--between Devil Canyon and Watana. Since Access
Plan 4 does not provide for any link between the two dam sites, this
critical area is avoided entirely.
The northern portion of the Susitna basin is a favorite moose and caribou
hunting area. As a result, the vegetation and soils here are often
seriously damaged by drivers of off-road vehicles pursuing game (Sparrow,
Woodin£1, and Whiting, 1978). Opening of the Susitna basin to further
vehicular use could increase that damage, and Plan 4 will increase the
opportunity for that type of destructive travel.
An advantage of Access Plan 4 is its use of the railroad, which limits
public access to the area, especially since the line originates at Gold
Creek and not the Parks Highway. Since the railroad is not planned for the
sensitive Denali segment, however, its effectiveness is somewhat atten-
tuated.
(ii) Birds and Small Mammals
One attractive feature of Access Plan 4 is its use of the railroad. A
railroad brings fewer people into an area than a vehicular road allows, so
ordinarily a plan involving a railroad is preferable to other modes.
2-32
There is also some advantage to the route in that it begins at Gold Creek
rather than at the Parks Highway. That point of departure reduces the area
of habitat, especially wetlands, encountered.
The portion of the route to the Denali Highway from Watana should have
minimal impact to birds and small mammals. This is because the habitat is
primarily tundra and/or shrublands, which generally support less productive
and less avian communities than the forests.
The negative aspects of Access Plan 4 include its use of two access points,
one at Gold Creek, the other at the Denali Highway. As a consequence, more
avian and small mammal habitats w·ill be affected than with any nsingle
access .. plan.
In terms of the Denali segment, Plan 4a is preferable to 4b between the
Watana dam site and the highway because the former route would avoid raptor
habitat, in particular a bald eagle nest in a cottonwood along Deadman
Creek, present within the one-mile corridor of 4b.
(iii) Furbearers
The use of the railroad will minimize access from the Parks Highway and
eliminate the continuous disturbance to and increased destruction of fur-
bearers that vehicle traffic brings.
Another positive feature of this plan is that the lack of a connecting road
between the two dam sites will eliminate disruption of valuable furbearer
habitat south of the Susitna River around Stephan Lake and the Fog Lakes.
The serious disadvantage to Access Plan 4 is the inclusion of the road
between Dena 1 i Highway and the Watana dam site. The fragile tundra through
which this road passes is already abused by off-road vehicles. Improved
access in this area will compound the damage, with negative results for the
good furbearer habitat here. Vulnerable beaver/muskrat populations and fox
denning sites along this route may be affected.
2-33
Furthermore, the Denali Highway, which is presently closed during the
winter, will have to be upgraded to a year-round road. This action will
not only provide increased access into the upper Nenana Valley, but it will
also mean that furbearer resources in both the Susitna and Nenana drainages
will be affected, in terms of increased trapping mortality and potential
habitat destruction.
( iv) Big Game
Access Plan 4•s use of a railroad is a positive feature because it reduces
the access to va 1 uable big game habitat compared to what a road would
afford. The presence of an access route through wildlife habitat does not,
alone, disturb the animals. What does disturb them is noise, traffic,
hunting and other activities resulting from increased access. Sine~ little
or no hunting will occur from railroad lines, the effect of this increased
access is somewhat offset by its being a railroad, not a highway.
While a railroad is preferable to a road, it will still affect the game in
the region. Moose and black bear will avoid the route, whether railroad or
highway, by approximately one-half mile in timbered· to one-mile of open
terrain on either side. The avoidance-zone estimates double for wolves and
wolverines.
The access routes will have two effects on brown bears: conditioned to
fear the sound of an engine, they will avoid any route, whatever the mode,
and they will be inhibited by a route lying across their migration path.
Whether or not this will affect the population is unknown.
The Denali Highway-Watana segment of Access Plan 4, however, is likely to
lead to disrupti9n of the animals, especially caribou, that frequent the
area. It will also tend, at its southernmost end, to open up access into
the Stephan Lake-Fog Lakes area.
This proposed Denali road passes through an area that has frequently been
used either by major portions of or by the entire Nelchina herd, and
includes the ca 1 ving and summer ranges of the northwestern subgroup of that
herd. This subherd is believed to number approximately 1000 animals. The
alpine tundra of the Deadman and Brushkana Creek valleys is the center of
its summer distribution.
2-34
Construction of the access road would likely not cause significant impacts.
Removal of the habitat and disturbance would not be major. However,
presence and operation of the road may be more detrimental to caribou.
The proposed access road also lies across the caribou•s late summer migra-
tion route toward Butte Lake and Gold Creek. Massive caribou trail
patterns as well as a few bulls have been spotted in this area. Further-
more, the proposed route parallels a traditional spring migration route
southward toward the Susitna River.
Direct effects upon this group of caribou would include: the disturbance
of cows and calves during the route•s construction period, the disturbance
to caribou migration caused by road traffic, and the possibility of
increased caribou mortality rates as a result of road kills. Of these,
impacts to migration are not expected to be severe, for caribou will cross
roads. Females do exhibit affinity to traditional calving grounds and
interference with these areas could be significant.
Of greater importance, however, are the indirect consequences for this
caribou group that will result from easier access to its range. An access
road across the tundra between the Nenana and Susitna river valleys will
encourage all-terrain vehicles to push a network of unplanned trails
throughout this subherd•s range. The effect will be additional disturbance
of the entire group and higher losses of individual animals as they encoun-
ter vehicles, campers, and hunters. Thus, there is a chance that this·
route could lead to partial abandonment of important caribou habitat. A
possible mitigation technique for this impact is heavy patrol by regulatory
agencies and enforcement of hunting regulations.
(v) Fish
Access Plan 4 falls in the middle of the ranking as far as effects upon
fish are concerned. The railroad leg of the plan, between Gold Creek and
Devil Canyon, is a particular advantage. It will not increase access to
any of the area•s lakes, nor does it call for new crossings of anadromous
streams.
2-35
The lack of a link between the two dam sites is likewise, a positive
feature, if only because it reduces the number of fish habitats that will
be disturbed. The road south from Denali Highway to Watana, though, is an
objectionable aspect to the plan. Not only will the road permit access to
fish habitat along its path, but it will also facilitate access to impor-
tant fisheries areas at its southern end, namely Stephan Lake, the Fog
Lakes, and Fog Creek. Alternative 4a is slightly better than 4b because it
passes farther from Deadman Creek and necessitates fewer stream crossings.
(vi) Cultural Resources
Access Plan 4 ranks rather well in terms of the number of miles it will
cover that include sites with any archeological potential. Moreover, the
railroad feature tempers this ranking because it will limit public access
and its concomitant damage to sites by recreators and artifact collectors.
On the other hand, and primarily because Plan 4 includes the Denali seg-
ment, the route ranks less well in terms of the number of miles of high
potential sites it could encounter. A total of fifteen archeological sites
have been documented along this leg--twelve along or adjacent to 4b and
nine along or adjacent to 4a. Of the fifteen sites now known and document-
ed, twelve were only discovered during the field survey portion of this
assessment.
Virtually the entire length of the Denali segment of this plan passes
through treeless topography, and many deflated areas also occur here.
Along much of the route, glacial drift is covered by a thin veneer of loess
in areas of high topographic relief. These factors combine to make archeo-
logical sites highly visible and easily disturbed. It is reasonable to
assume that, as a result of these characteristics, sites along this route
will experience the secondary adverse effects created by off-road vehicles
and artifact collectors, among others.
Of the two alternatives for the Denali segment, 4a would encounter fewer
archeological sites and is, therefore, preferable to 4b.
2-36
(f) Access Plan 6
This plan consists of a railroad between Gold Creek and the Devil Canyon
dam site on the south side of the Susitna River. A roadway connects the
Watana dam site to the Denali Highway, and a service road on the north side
of the Susitna River links the two dam sites (Figure 7).
( i) Vegetation
Access Plan 6 rates very poorly in terms of the anticipated impact on vege-
tation along its route. Alternative 6a•s corridors will encompass 58,586
acres; 6b includes 59,819 acres (approximately 1570 acres to be removed).
Of that acreage, a great deal will consist of valuable wetlands, enough to
commit Plan 6 to a low rating in that regard.
With respect to solifluction, Access Plan 6 also rates poorly. One fea-
ture of the plan that amplifies its low solifluction score is the north-
side service road linking the two dam sites.
The northern portion of the Susitna basin is a favorite moose and caribou
hunting area. As a result, vegetation and soils are already being damaged
by off-road vehicle travel (Sparrow, Wooding, and Whiting, 1978). An
access road from the Denali Highway will probably increase this traffic
drastically and result in greater damage to vegetation.
(ii) Birds and Small Mammals
Access Plan 6 includes the positive feature of a railroad between Gold
Creek and the Devil Canyon dam site. A railroad brings fewer people into
an area than a vehicular road allows, so ordinarily, a plan involving a
railroad would be preferable to other routes. Plan 6, however, also calls
for a road from the Denali Highway to Watana. The result of Plan 61 s
utilizing two access points is that more avian and small mammal habitat
will be affected than with any "single access" plan.
2-37
Other than increasing unwanted access to important habitat, the Denali seg-
ment will have less of a negative impact on birds than some other routes
would. The habitat here is primarily tundra and/or shrubland, which gener-
ally support less productive and less diverse avian communities than
forests do. There are also few wetlands along this route.
Another advantage to Access Plan 6 is that its use of a northside service
road instead of any route on the Susitna•s south side will result in its
encountering much less habitat important to birds and small mammals.
If Access Plan 6 is selected, 6a is preferable to 6b in order to circumvent
a bald eagle nest in a cottonwood along Deadman Creek.
(iii) Furbearers
With respect to furbearer habitat, Access Plan 6 combines the advantages of
Access Plan 2•s railroad with the disadvantages of the Denali Highway
access.
The railroad feature between Gold Creek and Devil Canyon reduces potential
impacts to furbearers. Disturbance from construction traffic would be less
continuous and secondary effects of improved access would be substantially
reduced with a railroad.
Another advantage to Access Plan 6 is that the planned northside service
road will go through an area relatively unimportant to furbearers. A
southside route, on the other hand, would seriously affect productive habi-
tats around Stephan Lake, the Fog Lakes, and Fog Creek.
These positive features of Plan 6 are counterbalanced, however, by the
Denali segment. By providing access to the fragile alpine tundra/la)<e/
stream complex here, the ro~te will bring impact to aquatic furbearers
inhabiting the areas of Deadman Mountain, Deadman and Big Lakes, and upper
Deadman Creek. This impact will likely be due to increased trapping
mortality and habitat disturbance.
2-38
In addition, the Denali Highway, which currently remains closed in winter,
will have to be upgraded. Thus, with Access Plan 6, furbearer resources in
both the Susitna and Nenana drainages will be affected by this route.
(iv) Big Game
The railroad access included in Access Plan 6 is much preferable to a
vehicular road for lessening negative effects on wildlife populations. A
railroad provides controlled access and, in this case, will restrict all-
terrain vehicles• making new trails on the south side of the Susitna
River.
Plan 6 1 s northside service road intersects several north-south caribou
trails in the Devil Creek area, but caribou traffic here appears to be
light; impacts, therefore, should not be significant. Furthermore, the
mountain ranges to the north will discourage excessive all-terrain vehicle
penetration.
Portions of this northside segment in the Tsusena Creek area are important
moose habitat, however, and go through areas that appear heavily used by
wolverine and bears. The proposed route is higher than most black bear
habitat, except in the vicinity of Tsusena Creek and the Watana dam site,
and it is lower than most of the known brown bear dens. There may be some
problems with bears here, particularly in spring, when brown bears emerge
from dens, and in late summer, when black bears concentrate near the
timberline. These problems could likely relate to minor disturbances and
possible bear-human conflicts, but should not be significant.
The presence of an access route through wildlife habitat does not, of
itself, disturb the animals here. Traffic, hunting and other activities
associated with a road and increased access adds to the disturbance.
Bears, having been conditioned to fear the sound of an engine, will avoid
the route and wi 11 be inhibited by a road lying across their migration
route. Moose will avoid the route by approximately one-half mile in
timbered areas to one mile in open terrain. The avoidance zone for wolves
and wolverines is double that of the moose zone. The road from the Denali
Highway to the Watana dam site is likely to involve alJ these problems and,
in addition, may severely disrupt the caribou population.
2-39
The proposed Denali road passes through an area that has frequently been
used either by major portions of or by the entire Nelchina herd, and.
includes the calving and summer ranges of the northwestern subgroup of the
that herd. This subherd is believed to number approximately 1000 animals.
The alpine tundra of the Deadman and Brushkana Creek valleys is the center
of this herd•s summer distribution.
The proposed road also lies across the caribou•s late summer migration
route toward Butte Lake and Gold Creek. Massive caribou trail patterns as
well as a few bulls have been spotted in this area. Furthermore, the route
parallels a traditional spring migration route to the Susitna River.
The direct effects upon this group of caribou will include: the distur-
bance of cows and calves during the route 1 s construction period, a distur-
bance and an impediment to caribou migration caused by road traffic, and
the likelihood of increased caribou mortality rates as a result of road
kills. Of these, impacts to migration are not expected to be severe, as
caribou will cross roads. Females do exhibit affinity to traditional
calving grounds and interference with these areas could be significant.
Of greater importance, however, are the indirect consequences for this
caribou group that will result from easier public access to its range. A
road across the tundra between Nenana and Susitna river valleys will
encourage all-terrain vehicles to push a network of unplanned trails
throughout this subherd•s range. The effect will be additional disturbance
of the entire group and higher losses of individual animals as they come in
contact with vehicles, campers, and hunters. Thus, there is a chance the
utilizing of this access plan could lend to partial abandonment of impor-
tant caribou habitat. A method to mitigate this would be through heavy
patrol by regulatory agency personnel.
(v) Fish
Access Plan 6 is one of the less desirable plans when considering fishery
concerns. The railroad leg of the plan, between Gold Creek and Devil Can-
yon is, however, one of the plan•s advantages. It will not increase access
to any of the area•s lakes, nor does it call for new crossings of anadro-
mous streams.
2-40
Another of the advantages of this plan is the northside service road, which
if a link is required, is preferable to a southern connection. North side
access simply involves fewer fish habitats than wi 11 be affected by road
construction or increased access on the south side of the Susitna.
The Denali Highway-to-Watana road is the major drawback to Plan 6. Not
only will the road permit access to fish habitat along its path, but it
will also facilitate access to important fisheries areas at its southern
end, namely Stephan Lake, the Fog Lakes, and Fog Creek. Alternative 6a is
slightly better than 6b because it passes farther from Deadman Creek and
necessitates fewer stream crossings.
(vi) · Cultural Resources
Access Plan 6 is a poor choice in terms of the potential archeological
sites it is expected to encounter. It includes nearly the highest number
of miles of possible sites of high potential and ranks in the middle of
mileage figures for sites with any site potential. The railroad feature of
Plan 6 tempers this low ranking somewhat because it will limit public
access and its concomitant damage to sites by recreators and artifact col-
lectors.
On the other hand, the Denali segment promises difficulties in terms of
cultural resources. A total of fifteen archeological sites have been docu-
mented along this leg--twelve along or adjacent to 6b and nine along or
adjacent to 6a. Of the sites now known and documented here, twelve were
only discovered during the field survey portion of this assessment.
Virtually the entire length of this route passes through treeless topo-
graphy, and many deflated areas also occur here. A long much of the route,
glacial drift is covered by a thin veneer of loess in areas of ~igh topo-
graphic relief. These factors combine to make archeological sites highly
visible and easily disturbed.
It is reasonable to assume that, as a result of these characteristics,
sites along this route will experience the secondary adverse effects
2-41
created by off-road vehicles and artifact collectors, among others. Of the
two alternatives for the Denali segment, 6a will encounter fewer archeolog-
ical sites and is, therefore, preferable to 6b.
The proposed northside service road between the dam sites compounds the
already negative characteristics of Plan 6. From an area immediately north
of Kigh Lake and extending to the Watana· site, the road traverses an area
largely treeless and ecologically diverse. The region.also lacks appreci-
able soil deposition. All these factors make cultural resources highly
visible and highly· vulnerable to surface-disturbing activities. For these
reasons, secondary adverse effects to cu 1 tura 1 resources may be severe. In
addition, this section of the route also passes through areas of high
potential for archeological site occurrence. All these aspects considered,
Plan 6 is likely to have severe consequences for cultural resources in the
Susitna valley.
(g) Access Plan 3
Access Plan 3 consists of a roadway from the Parks Highway, through
Chulitna Pass to Gold Creek and on to the Devil Canyon dam site along the
south side of the Susitna River. A separate link connects Watana dam site
by road to the Denali Highway (Figure 8).
(i) Vegetation
Access Plan 3 ranks rather unfavorably in terms of its impact on vegeta-
tion. The corridor of plan 3a will involve 42,825 acres of vegetation, and
Plan 3b will include 44,058 acres (approximately 1,244 acres to be
removed), both of which figures are marked~y higher than the low of 30,279
acres (Plan 8).
Both routes fall in the mid-range for wetlands encountered, with 3a being
preferable to 3b. Plan 3 did rank rather highly in minimum acres of tall
shrubs, an indication that this route would encounter fewer problems with
solifluction than would some of the other routes.
2-42
A serious drawback to Access Plan 3 is the segment extending north from the ·
Watana dam site to the Denali Highway. That leg includes much caribou
range, which is already subject to damage by off-road vehicles. The Denali
segment also contains a large amount of willow range for moose and
outranked all other segments in that respect. An access road through this
area will not only damage the vegetation in the immediate vicinity of the
road but will also allow the additional destruction of valuable plants
caused by off-road vehicle travel.
{iii) Birds and Small Mammals
Access Plan 3 utilizes two access points, one at the Parks Highway and the
other at the Denali Highway, with the result that more avian and small mam-
mal habitats will be affected than with any 11 Singl.e access'' plan.
The route from Hurricane to the Devil Canyon site passes near or through
wetlands that support both birds and mammals. Beaver, for example, have
been seen ·j n the area as we 11 as cow moose with ca 1 ves.
One positive aspect of Access Plan 3, at least from an avian standpoint, is
the Denali segment. The habitat here is primarily tundra and/or shrub-
lands, which generally support less productive and less diverse avian com-
munities than the forests. For this segment, Plan 3a is preferable to 3b
since the former avoids raptor habitat, in particular a bald eagle nest in
a cottonwood along Deadman Creek, which is within the one-mile-wide corri-
dor of Access Plan 3b.
Another advantage to Access Plan 3 in general is that it does not provide
for a link between the two dam sites. The result of this feature is that
sensitive habitats, especially those south of the Susitna between the
sites, are avoided entirely.
(iii) Furbearers
Access Plan 3 is a poor choice of access route from the standpoint of fur-
bearers. The plan involves productive wetland areas between the Parks
Highway and Gold Creek. In addition, the valuable and sensitive tundra
2-43
areas adjacent to the Dena 1 i Highway will be affected by increased access.
Along the route from the Denali Highway to the Watana Dam, particularly the
area south of Deadman Mount~in, are beaver and muskrat populations and fox
denning sites. These animals would be vulnerable to increased trapping
pressure if a road were constructed.
( i v) Big G arne
Access Plan 3 is a poor choice when big game criteria are applied. The
chief reason is the Denali segment, which will disturb caribou use of the
area. The proposed road would pass through an area that has been frequent-
ly used either by major portions of or by the entire Nelchina herd, and
includes the calving and summer ranges of the northwestern subgroup of that
herd. This subherd is believed to number approximately 1000 animals.
The alpine tundra of the Deadman and Brushkana Creek valleys is the center
of the herd•s summer distribution. Three small groups of cows and calves
were seen during a reconnaissance flight on August 8, 1981. The Denali
segment of Access Plan 3 also lies across the late summer migration route
of caribou toward Butte Lake and Gold Creek. Massive caribou trail
patterns as well as a few bulls were spotted in this region. The proposed
road also parallels a traditional spring migration route southward toward
the Susitna River.
The direct effects upon this group of caribou should Access Plan 3 be
implemented would include: a disturbance to cows and calves during the
road construction period, a disturbance and possible impediment to caribou
migration as a result .of increased traffic in the area·, and the possibility
of direct mortality from road kills. Of these, impacts to migration are
not expected to be severe, as caribou will cross roads. Females do exhibit
affinity to calving grounds and interference with these areas could be
severe.
Of greater importance than these factors, however, are the indirect conse-
quences to this group of caribou of freer access to its range. An access
road across this alpine tundra would provide the opportunity for all-
terrain vehicles to push a networ.k of unplanned trails throughout this
2-44
subherd•s range. This new access would cause disturbance and increased
mortality to these caribou from their contact with vehicles~ campers~ and
hunters. Thus~ there is a chance that utilization of this route could lead
to partial abandonment of important caribou habitat. A method by which
this could be mitigated would be through heavy patrol by regulatory agency
personnel.
(v) Fish
Access Plan 3 requires constructing bridges over both the Indian and the
Susitna Rivers. In addition~ the access road itself would run close to the
Indian River. Construction activities in both rivers could affect salmon
populations~ which are known to use these areas for spawning and/or migra-
tion. Furthermore~ with improved access~ the Indian River fisheries would
be subjected to increased fishing pressure.
The Denali segment is a negative feature~ also~ when considering fish habi-
tats~ partly by virtue simply of the added length and partly because it
opens up additional fisheries areas to more use.
(vi) Cultural Resources
Plan 3 ranks in the low middle range in terms both of the number of miles
of high potential it is likely to encounter and the number of miles of
possible sites of any potential.
The segment of Plan 3 extending south from the Denali Highway to the pro-
posed Watana dam site is a major drawback to this route. A total of fif-
teen archeological sites have been documented along this leg. Twelve sites
are located along or adjacent to 3b~ and nine sites appear along 3a. Of
the fifteen sites now known and documented~ twelve were discovered during
the field survey portion of this assessment.
Virtually the entire length of this route passes through treeless topo-
graphy~ and many deflated areas also occur here. ·Along much of this
northern extension~ glacial drift is covered by a thin veneer of loess in
areas of high topographic relief. These factors combine to make archeolog-
ical sites highly visible and easily disturbed because they are not deeply
2-45
buried. Based on these observations, it is reasonable to assume that if
Access Plan 3 were select Access Plan 3, then, is one of the least desir-
able from an archeological perspective. If chosen, however, route 3a would
probably encounter fewer archeological sites than would 3b and, consequent-
ly, would be preferable.
{h) Access Plan 7
Access Plan 7 consists of a roadway from the Parks Highway, through
Chulitna Pass to Gold Creek, and then east to the Devil Canyon dam site
along the south side of the Susitna River. The Watana dam site is linked
by road to the Denali Highway, and the two dam sites are connected by a
service road on the north side of the Susitna River (Figure 9).
(i} Vegetation
From the perspective of vegetation concerns, Access Plan 7 is the worst
choice. It will affect the greatest number. of acres of all the routes:
65,424 acres are contained in the 7a corridor and 66,648 in 7b {approxi-
mately 1,840 acres to be removed).
Plan 7 also has the lowest rating of all the routes for wetlands encoun-
tered, indicating all of the hazards associated with construction plus all
the negative effects upon wetlands vegetation that a road creates.
The incorporation of a northside service road into Access Plan 7 renders it
susceptible to increased solifluction problems. Tall shrub types that
indicate probable soil slippage occur most frequently on the westernmost
one-third of the northside segment. So Access Plan 7 is rated poorly in
terms of potential solifluction.
Plan 7 also does poorly when the vegetation needs of moose and caribou are
considered. The northern portion of the Susitna region is already a favor-
ite moose and caribou hunting area, and the Denali segment of the route
will open that area to further such use. Vegetation in this area is
already abused by off-road vehicles, and the damage will increase if access
is improved.
2-46
(ii) Birds and Small Mammals
Access Plan 7 is the worst option in terms of birds and small mammals.
Like Plan 3, it utilizes two access points, one from the Parks Highway and
one from Denali Highway. The long length of the plan will result in dis-
ruption of more avian and small mammal habitats.
This drawback is exacerbated by the northside service road connecting the
two dam sites. While the northern route is preferable to the southern
route, the service road feature renders Plan 7 the longest of any of the
proposed plans. In general, the more acreage a route covers, the more each
individual species and all the varieties of species .will be adversely
affected.
Access Plan 7 includes, too, the segment from Hurricane to the Devil Canyon
site, which passes near or through important wetlands areas.
been seen here as well as cow moose with calves. If the road
upland areas within the one-mile wide corridor, these impacts
reduced.
Beaver have
is placed on
will be
Route 7a is preferable to 7b between Denali and the Watana site, since 7a
would avoid raptor habitat; in particular, a bald eagle nest in a cotton-
wood along Deadman Creek, which is within the one-mile corridor of Plan 7b.
The tundra/shrubland habitat crossed from Watana to the Denali. Highway is
not considered highly productive avian habitat.
(iii) Furbearers
As far as furbearer habitat is concerned, Access Plan 7 incorporates most
of the negative features of all the other plans. As a result, it is ranked
as the poorest choice.
First, productive furbearer wetland habitat exists between the Parks High-
way and Gold Creek along the Indian River, Salmon Creek, Summit Lake, and
Pass Cree~. Plan 7 includes all of these areas. If the road is placed in
upland areas present within the one-mile-wide.corridor, impacts to furbear-
ers will be reduced.
2-47
Second, the route could provide almost unlimited public access from the
Parks Highway to the Denali Highway. Next, the route from the Denali High-
way to the _Watana dam site will be particularly harmful by pro'{iding access
to the fragile alpine tundra/lake/stream complex inhabited by aquatic fur-
bearers around Deadman Mountain, Deadman and Big Lakes, and Upper Deadman
Creek. A red fox denning complex south of Deadman Mountain within the one-
mile corridor and numerous red fox foraging areas are likely to be nega-
tively affected.
Finally, the Denali Highway will have to be upgraded to a year-round road,
thereby providing increased access into the Upper Nenana Valley as well as
the Susitna drainage. The Denali Highway is presently closed during
winter. Thus, furbearer resources on both the Susitna and Nenana drainages
wi 11 be affected by this route, in terms of increased access.
( iv) Big Game
Access Plan 7 poses potential negative impacts to big game.
The route segment between the Parks Highway and Devil Canyon follows mainly
north-facing slopes and, therefore, is less likely to affect moose and
bears than another alignment might be.
Plan 7 calls for a service road on the north side of the Susitna River
between the two dams. Portions of this area, specifically Devil Mountain
and the mouth of Tsusena Creek, are important moose habitat. This section
of the route also goes through areas that appear heavily used by wolverine
and bears. The proposed route is higher than most heavily used black bear
habitat, though, and is lower than most of the known brown bear dens,
thereby reducing the potential for impacts to these species.
This part of the route arouses relatively little concern, then, except in
the vicinity of Tsusena Creek and the Watana site, which both black bears
and moose frequent. Part of this area will obviously be disturbed anyway . with the construction of the Watana Dam itself. In any case, a northern
route between the dam sites is preferable to a southern route, which would
invade valuable habitat around Stephan and the Fog Lakes.
The Denali Highway segment of Access Plan 7 is of particular concern to big
game specialists. The proposed road will pass through an area that has
frequently been used either by major portions of or by the entire Nelchina
herd, and includes the calving and summer ranges of the northwestern sub-
group of the Nelchina caribou herd. This subherd is believed to number
approximately 1000 animals. The alpine tundra of the Deadman and Brushkana
Creek valleys is the center of the herd•s summer distribution.
The Denali segment of Plan 7 also lies across the late summer migration
route of caribou toward Butte Lake and Gold Creek. Massive caribou trail
patterns--as well as a few bulls--were observed in this region. The pro-
posed road also parallels a traditional spring migration route southward to
the Susitna River.
The direct effects upon· this group of caribou should Access Plan 7 be
implemented include: a disturbance to cows and calves during the road con-
struction period, a disturbance and possible impediment to caribou migra-
tion as a result of increased traffic in the area, and the possibility of
direct mortality from road kills. Of these, impacts to migration are not
expected to be severe as caribou will cross roads. Females do show
affinity to traditional calving grounds and interference with the areas
could cause major impacts.
Of greater importance than these factors, however, are the indirect conse-
quences to this group of caribou of freer access to its range. An access
road across this alpine tundra would provide the opportunity for all-
terrain vehicles to push a network of unplanned trails throughout this sub-
herd•s range. This new access would cause disturbance and increased
mortality to these caribou from their contact with vehicles, campers, and
hunters. Thus, there is a chance that this route could lead to partial
abandonment of important caribou habitat.
The road will affect other species as well. Moose and black bear will
avoid the route by approximately one-half mile in timbered areas to one
mile in open terrain on either side. The avoidance-zone estimates double
for wolves and wolverines. Brown bears will be affected in two ways: con-
ditioned to fear the sound of an engine, they will avoid any route, and
they will be inhibited by a road lying across their migration paths.
2-49
(v} Fish
Access Plan 7 is one of the two least desireable route options in terms of
fish habitat. First, it calls for bridges over both the Indian and Susitna
Rivers, with the road itself running close to the Indian River. Construc-
tion activities in both rivers could affect salmon populations, which are
known to utilize these areas for spawning and/or migration. Also, with
improved access here, the Indian River fisheries will experience increased
fishing pressure.
Plan 7•s inclusion of a Denali segment adds to the route•s disadvantages.
In combination with the Parks Highway segment, this northern leg p,romises
that Plan 7 will open up the entire Susitna Basin to increased fishing
pressure and to stream and lake disturbance. Alternative 7a is slightly
preferable to 7b because it is located farther from the Deadman Creek
region and has fewer stream crossings than 7b.
The only positive feature of Access Plan 7 is its northside service road
between the Devil Canyon and Watana dam sites. There are fewer fish habi-
tats to be disturbed by road construction and increased access here than
along the southern Stephan Lake-Fog Lakes leg.
(vi) Cultural Resources
From the vantage point of cultural resources, Access Plan 7 is the worst
option. Alternative 7b ranks first among all routes and alternative 7a
second for number of miles of high potential; they rank second and third,
respectively, for total number of miles with any anticipated archeological
potential.
One of the difficulties with the plan is its service road on the north side
of the Susitna River between the two dam sites. From an area immediately
north of High Lake and.extending to the proposed Watana site, the route
traverses terrain largely treeless and ecologically diverse. This region
also lacks appreciable soil deposition. These factors make cultural
resources highly visible and highly vulnerable to any surface-disturbing
activities. For these reasons, secondary adverse effects to cultural
resources may be severe. In addition, much of the route traversed by the
proposed service road passes through areas of high potential for
archeological site occurrence.
2-50
The segment of Plan 7 extending south from the Denali Highway to the
proposed Watana dam site is a major drawback to this route. A total of
fifteen archeological sites have been documented along this leg. Twelve
sites are located along or adjacent to 7b, and nine sites appear along 7a.
Of the fifteen sites now known and documented, twelve were only discovered
during the field survey portion of this assessment.
Virtually the entire length of this route passes through treeless topo-
graphy, and many deflated areas also occur here. Along much of this
northern extension, glacial drift is covered by a thin veneer of loess in
areas of high topographic relief. These factors combine to make archeolog-
ical sites highly visible and easily disturbed because they are not deeply
buried.·
Based on these observations, it is reasonable to assume that if Access Plan
7 were selected, the secondary adverse impact to cultural resources, parti-
cularly from off-road vehicle traffic and artifact collectors, would be
extensive.
Access Plan 7, then, is the least desirable from an archeological perspec-
tive. If chosen, however, Route 7a would probably encounter fewer archeo-
logical sites than would 7b and, consequently, would be preferable.
2-51
2.5 HABITAT VALUE COMPARISON
{a) Introduction
Because one of the primary effects of construction and operation of the
Susitna access route will be the destruction of wildlife habitat, a
special section has been included with this evaluation to assess these
impacts. The proposed route alternatives traverse a wide variety of
habitat types, so it was necessary in comparing the routes, first, to
evaluate the value, or quality, of the wildlife habitat that would be
affected by each alternative. The results of this habitat evaluation
will then be used in conjunction with other wildlife data to recommend
a preferred route.
(b) Methods
In a situation such as addressed in this effort, there is no single,
well established, accepted method of detennining habitat value. There
are techniques available that could be applied to specific species or
groups of species, but to deal with the total realm of wildlife species
over such a large area in a detailed quantitative fashion is
impracticable from a cost and time standpoint. The decision was thus
made to utilize an approach that is primarily subjective but does
include, to the greatest extent possible, the data already collected on
the Susitna studies as well as the professional opinions of the
principal investigators familiar with the species and the area.
Two different analysis procedures were utilized, with the results of
both procedures applied to the comparison of access plan alternatives.
The foundation of both approaches was the same and was based on work
conducted by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service for use on the
proposed Alaska natural gas pipeline corridor (Konkel, G., J. Clarke,
L. Halpin, P. Marten, J. Murk, B. Palmer, L. Shea, and R. West.
1981. An evaluation of wildlife habitats within the Alaska Natural Gas
Pipeline Corridor. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Habitat Evaluation
Project, Anchorage, Alaska). The basis of the approach described
2-52
herein, as well as the USFWS approach, is the use of vegetation cover
types in defining habitat types; in other words, the terms 11 habitat 11
and 11 Cover type .. are used interchangeably. Following is a step-by-step
description of the procedures used in this ana~ysis. Since there is a
danger, when dealing with a procedure that is based upon both
quantitative data and subjective opinion, to forget the assumptions
upon which the resulting numbers are based, the explanations include
frequent warnings and emphases concerning the manner in which the
results were obtained. These should be kept in mind when reviewing the
results of this analysis.
(i) Determination of Life Requisite Scores
The first step in the analysis entailed determining the value of each
cover type to each wildlife species. This process was accomplished by
listing, for each cover type, the wildlife species that inhabit or
utilize on a regular basis that particular cover type. The value of
that cover type to each species was then estimated for seven 1 ife
requisite categories. The seven categories were as follows: 1) value
as food in spring/early summer, 2) value as cover in spring/early
summer, 3) value as food in late summer/fall, 4) value as cover in late . .
summer/fall, 5) value as food in winter, 6) value as cover in winter,
and 7) value for reproduction activities. In each of these seven
categories, a score ranging from 0 to 3 was assigned for each species
in each cover type. A score of 3 indicated that the particular cover
type was of high value for that particular species in the indicated
category, a score of 2 indicated medium value, a score of 1 indicated
low value, and a score of 0 indicated that the cover type was of no
value.
2-53
The determination of the life requisite scores ·was conducted by the
appropriate principal investigators responsible fo~ each species or
group of species. At this point, it should be noted that the life
requisite scores were determined by several different means, including
the review of data collected in the course of the Susitna studies,
pertinent literature, and the experience and professional opinions of
the investigators. Thus, the scores vary in their degree of
subjectivity, depending on the amount of reliable inf~rmation
available. Obviously, the scores for those species that have been
intensively studied, and for which a good data base is thus available,
will be more reliable than the scores for species about which very
little is known of their habitat needs. Therefore, the reliability of
the life requisite scores in reflecting habitat value is highly
variable, a consideration that should not be ignored when applying the
results of this analysis.
(ii) Determination of Cover Type Scores
In determining the habitat value of the cover types, two options were
identified, and both were utilized and applied to the comparison of
access plan alternatives. The first approach is fairly simple and is
basically the same as that used by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Konkel, et al. 1981). This approach involves summing the total life
requisite scores for all species within a cover type to produce a
total cover type score (Table 6). The resulting cover type scores were
influenced entirely by the numbers of species using the cover type and
the value of the cover type to those species. All species and the life
requisite values for those species were considered of equal value; no
allowance was given to any real or perceived differences in the value
of one species over another species. The figures resulting from the
computation of these cover type scores were converted to a relative
basis, with the highest scoring cover type designated as 1.00 and all
other cover type scores altered proportionately less than 1.00.
2-54
The second technique for computing the cover type scores requires the
weighting of the species life requisite totals to give some species
more influence in the total cover type score than other species. The
premise in this case is that some species are worthy of more
consideration than others when analyzing an access plan. The objective
of this weighting process is to develop some index which would, first,
reflect the differences in importance of various species. The index
could then be used to ~lter the life requisite totals so that those
cover types important to key species would earn higher scores than the
cover types of little value to these species.
The determination of the weighting factor was based largely on the
approach used by the U. S. Fish and ~ildlife Service in their Habitat
Evaluation Procedure [U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Habitat
Evaluation Procedures (HEP), ESM 102. Division of Ecological Services,
Washington, D. C.]. The weighting factor was referred to as a Relative
Value Index (RVI). The first step in generating a RVI is to select
criteria. Five evaluation criteria were chosen and their relative
weights determined by means of a pair-wise comparison. The five
criteria are described below with their relative weights identified in
parentheses.
-Ecological Importance (0.30) -based on the contribution of a species
to nutrient cycling and energy flow.
Consumptive Value (0.30) -the value of the species to subsistence
and sport hunting and trapping.
Non-consumptive Value (0.13) -the value of a species for
non-consumptive uses such as bird watching, photography, aesthetic
value, or as an attraction to tourists.
-Vulnerability to Habitat Destruction (0.07) -the potential for a
population existing within the project vicinity to be negatively
affected by habitat destruction from the proposed action.
2-55
-Vulnerability to Disturbance Resulting From Human Activity (0.20)-
the potential for a population existing within the project
vicinity to be negatively affected by human activity associa-
ted with the proposed action.
Each criterion was then applied to each species, and a value ranging
from 1 to 100 was assigned to indicate the extent to which that
criterion applied to the species. This number (1-100) was then
multiplied by the weight of the criterion, and all five products were
totaled to produce a relative value score for each species. Next,
these scores were converted to an index by assigning a value of 1.00 to
the highest score and converting all other sco.res to a comparable value
less than 1.00. The result of this process was a Relative Value Index
for each species.
The RVIs were then applied to the life requisite scores as computed for
each cover type. As a result, the scores of high value species,
i.e., those species with a high RVI, were reduced very little, while
the scores of low value species (low RVI's) were lowered considerably.
These adjusted scores were totaled to produce a score for each cover
type.
At this point, two sets of cover type scores were available for use,
one set based on unweighted habitat value (no RVI) and one set based on
weighted habitat value (with RVI). In both cases, the scores were
converted to a relative value by assigning a 1.00 score to the highest
figure and converting the others to a comparable value less than 1.00.
(iii) Comparison of Access Plans
Fpllowing the calculation of the relative cover type values, the
acreage of each cover type within each access plan was determined.
These acreages were adjusted by applying the relative cover type values
for the appropriate cover types. The adjusted acreages were totaled to
provide a total adjusted score for each access plan. For example,
2-56
if a. particular plan included 10,000 acres of a cover type with a
relative value of 1.00, the adjusted score remained 10,000. If that
plan included 10,000 acres of a cover type with a relative value of
0.75, the adjusted score would be 7,500. In other words, the more
acreage of high value cover types contained within a plan, the less the
adjusted score deviated from the initial acreage. Conversely, plans
with a high proportion of low value cover type acreage were reduced
more. For comparative purposes, this process was conducted for both
sets of cover type scores, the weighted set and the unweighted set.
(c) Results and Discussion
The results of this analysis were useful in determining the relative
habitat value of the vegetation cover types (Table 6). With minor
exceptions, however, the comparison did not influence the ranking of
the access plans with respect to their impact on wildlife habitat. The
differences in the lengths of the plans and the corresponding
differences in acreage were so great as to overwhelm the differences in
habitat value of the cover types contained within each plan. There
were two basic reasons for this result. First, many of the cover
types were very similar in their relative value as habitat. Very few
cover types were notably different from the cover type ranked above or
below. In other words, a fairly smooth continuum evoked from the
highest value to the lowest.
The second factor responsible for reducing the ranking effectiveness of
this comparison was the length of the proposed access plans and the
high degree of cover type heterogeneity within each access corridor.
To quantify this heterogeneity, an interspersion index was calculated
for each plan. This index consisted of counting the number of times
the centerline crossed a cover type boundary. Of the fourteen plans,
the highest index figure was 2.1 cover type crossings per mile (plans
2a and 2b) and the lowest was 1.7 (plans 3b and 4b). The other plans
2-57
fell between these two figures and in total indicated that all plans
traversed a highly heterogeneous cover type pattern.
Table 7 illustrates the ranks of the plans based on simple acreage,
unweighted adjusted scores, and weighted adjusted scores. In only one
case did the rank of a plan shift as a result of using a different
approach. Otherwise, the habitat comparison resulted in a ranking
identical to that based on acreage. Thus, there is no justification
for choosing a long access route in the hopes of avoiding valuable
habitat. In fact, when all the variables were considered, Access Plan
8 surfaced as the best choice from the standpoint of least impact on
wildlife habitat. Plan 7b is the worst choice on this basis.
Review of the acreages, the unweighted scores, and the weighted scores
reveals very few differences among Access Plans 4a, 4b, 2b, 2a, 5, lb,
la, and 3a. The only notable difference arises with Access Plan 3b.
If Plan 8 is not selected, it then makes little difference, from the
standpoint of impact on wildlife habitat, which of the above mentioned
plans is chosen.
Continuing down the ranking, Plans 6a a~d 6b are considerably different
from the plans ranked above them and are certainly inferior selections.
There is also a large gap between Plans 6a and 6b and Plans 7a and 7b.
Selection of either of these plans would result in far more habitat
destruction and impact on associated wildlife than with any ~ther plan.
This is especially true if 7a and 7b are compared to some of the high
ranking plans, such as 8 and 4a.
Although the results of this exercise do little to aid in the selection
of an access plan, they will be most useful when considering mitigation
for other access route decisions. For example, it is anticipated that
some fine-tuning of the actual right-of-way will take place following.
the selection of a plan. Referring to the cover type rankings will
suggest route changes that will avoid high value habitat and, where a
2-58
choice exists, result in the disturbance of only cover types of lower
habitat value. Likewise, sub~equent decisions concerning the
acquisition of borrow material for construction of the access road can
utilize the results of this analysis, along with the vegetation maps,
to select borrow areas with low habitat value rather than areas of
great importance to wildlife.
2-59
2.6 MITIGATION
In the environmental analysis of a major project such as the Susitna
Hydroelectric Development Project, of which the access route is only a
portion, negative effects on various vegetation types, wildlife species,
and cultural resources are inevitable. Mitigation opportunities must
therefore be used whenever possible to decrease potential negative impacts.
Avoidance, as a type of mitigation, is perhaps the best or most appropriate
method to be considered in the selection of an access plan. The Impact
Assessment (Section 2.4) allows such avoidance·by analyzing and thereby
isolating that plan which presents the potential for the fewest negative
consequences of access. In addition, final centerline surveys will be
conducted to avoid waterways, important wildlife habitats and other
sensitive areas wherever possible. With that in mind, the following are
some general guidelines for impact mitigation for any access plan chosen.
(a) Vegetation
On any of the access plans chosen, areas of potentially severe solifluction
problems, such as those indicated by the presence of tall shrub communities
or alder thickets, should be avoided by skirting around _these vegetation
types and their associated landforms. Solifluction could be mitigated by
fertilizing and seeding slopes to grasses to stabilize them. In addition,
use of rip rap, mulch, netting, terracing and other techniques can be
utilized to stabilize areas prior to regrowth of vegetation. After
construction, managed revegetation will be necessary in areas of rough
terrain, that is, those with more steep slopes exposed. While caribou
range should be avoided as much as possible, caribou do, in some instances,
seek out roads in order to feed on vigorous roadside plants. Reclamation·
of all temporarily disturbed areas by replacing topsoil and stabilizing
slopes with planted vegetation will partially mitigate negative impacts on
vegetation.
(b) Birds and Small Mammals
Permanent habitat remova 1 or destruction as a consequence of any access
2-60
route is a direct impact on that area•s birds and small mammals and cannot
be mitigated. Temporarily disturbed areas, such as will be created during
the construction stage of the access route or, in some cases, borrow
areas, can be recontoured and revegetated to make them avail ab 1 e for use by
some a vi an and sma 11 mamma 1 species, if not the same ones that previous 1 y
inhabited those areas. This will partially mitigate the disturbance to
those areas.
(c) Fu rbearers
(i) General
-Construction should avoid closely paralleling and/or obstructing
waterways and lakes. These sites often provide important cover, den
sites, and foraging areas for furbearers, especially beavers,
muskrats, mink, and river otters.
-For crossing small streams and wet areas, bridges rather than
culverts should be used, where practical, to avoid problems with
beavers damming culverts.
-During the period April through June, furbearers den and produce young.
Construction should be avoided in wetland areas and in stands of white
spruce at this time of year.
(ii) Segment Specific
In the route segment between the Parks Highway and Gold Creek, in order to
minimize the destruction of additional furbearer habitat, the road should
be kept above the waterways wltenever possible and should closely follow the
existing railroad.
In the route segment between Gold Creek and Devil Canyon, any road or
railroad should be built on the ridge to the south, above the creeks, streams
and small marsh areas that parallel the proposed route. The existing
primitive road may be harmful to furbearers because it crosses and closely
parallels waterways that are used by aquatic furbearers.
In the route segment between Devil Canyon and Watana on the north side of
the Susitna River, construction should be avoided in the area around High
Lake and other lakes during the period April through June to minimize
disturbance to foxes denning near these lakes.
2-61
In the route segment between Devi 1 Canyon and Watana· on the south side of
the river, alternative nan near the rim of the Susitna Canyon and
alternative nan south of Fog Creek should be followed to avoid
concentrations of marten, beavers, and muskrats.
In the route segment between the Watana dam site and the Denali Highway, in
the vicinity of Deadman Mountain, the nan alternative should be us~d. Near
the southern end of the mountain, the road should be kept on the ridge to
the west of Deadman Creek at an elevation of 3200 feet or higher. This
alignment will avoid fragile aquatic furbearer habitat as well as a red fox
denning center.
(d) Big Game
Some steps can be taken to reduce the effects on big game of any of the
access plans chosen. Direct animal mortality resulting from road kills may
be decreased by early instructional sessions for construction workers.
Alaskan authorities will have to design and enforce controls to keep
behavior disruptive to big game at a minimum.
Of perhaps more concern, however, is the increased access to the upper
Susitna basin to the general populace. Ultimately it will be the
responsibility of Alaskan government agencies to control wildlife
disturbance, particularly the incursion of all-terrain vehicles. Without
controls, caribou in particular, may be severely impacted, especially by
those plans that provide access via large expanses of open country, such as
the area between the Susitna River and Denali Highway.
(e) Fish
Proper construction during non-critical times of the year can eliminate or
reduce construction impacts. It is also imperative that the proper type of
stream crossing facility be constructed at the respective site. These
2-62
should include bridges and properly installed culverts. Low water
crossings have been found to be a failure in association with the Alaska
oil pipeline construction. Prope~ly built low water crossings can be used
for occasional, light, vehicular traffic. They are not, however, intended
for,the movement of heavy equipment for construction purposes.
Control of siltation could mitigate impacts to spawning areas. Use of
siltation control devices and prompt restoration and revegetation of
disturbed areas on creek and river banks will reduce impacts to fish
populations.
(f) Cultural Resources
Those responsible for route selection should take into consideration the
cost of mitigating adverse effects on cultural resources as a very real
factor in attempting cost analysis for construction purposes. They must
also consider the potential for encountering cultural resources in borrow
sources and the access roads to them. Finally, it should be noted that
whatever route is selected, adverse effects upon cultural resources can be
mitigated. Three options can be considered: 1) avoidance (minor
realignment of the route); 2) preservation; and 3) investigation
(conservation of information through adequate study of the resources, which
may include systematic excavation). Combinations of the three mitigation
options may be recommended.
2-63
2.7 · CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of the environmental impact assessment as documented in this
report and the mitigation options available, the best access plan from an
environmental standpoint alone is Access Plan 8. By originating at a
railhead, Gold Creek, to which there is currently no road access, this plan
will limit, to a large extent, the potential impacts associated with easy
public access. Although a road from Gold Creek may allow more access than
a railroad (Access Plan 2), this disadvantage is overshadowed by the
advantage of the northside connection between the two dam sites. This
northside connection avoids the potential consequences possible to
waterfowl, raptors, furbearers, and some big game species associated with
the ·southside connection, which skirts deep gorges and the highly
productive areas near Stephan Lake, the Fog Lakes, and other lakes and
wetlands.
A road connection from Gold Creek to the Parks Highway could have
potential effects on anadromous fish using Indian River and the Susitna
River and on furbearers, and it passes through large areas of wetlands and
other sensitive vegetation communities. This segment also seems
superfluous to minimum access needs for construction and maintenance.
The road segment connecting the Watana dam site to the Denali Highway has
the potential to impact big game, particularly portions of the Nelchina
caribou herd; furbearers; vegetation communities; and cultural resources.
This segment poses the least potential impacts to birds and small mammals.
All plans that incorporate this segment also include a connection to the
west, either by road or railroad. In one plan (Access Plan 7) there is a
complete road connection between the Parks Highway and the Denali Highway.
Any of these plans could increase access to such an extent that certain
animal subpopulations may be seriously jeopardized.
2-64
Habitat
Type 6 2a
Sedge shrub
tundra 15n 622
Mat and
cushion
tundra 2566 209(]
Sedge grass
tundra 16( 106
Wet sedge
grass 113C 126S
Open black
spruce 4~ 303~
Woodland
black spruce 29 2285
Open white
spruce 183E 364!1
Woodland
white spruce 1125 3317
Closed birch
forest 611 943
Open birch
forest 52B 497
Closed balsam
poplar 1027 1027
Table 2.1
Estimated Acreages for Each Vegetation Mapping Unit in
One-Mile Wide Corridors for Proposed Access Plans
Access Plan
2b 9 3a 3b 4a 4b Ba
622 1573 683 683 24 24 1573
209(] 2566 1636 1636 4022 3835 6563
106 16(] 61 61 2238 1903 2398
1203 225 491 441 i928 1734 2928
3071 43 3338 3561 43 43 ~
2736 2g 2413 281(] 12Ji 12Ji 155
398(] 782 3119 334] 110Jl 110~ 1838
1372 796 4315 3285 329 329 1125
792 184 649 677 582 582 636
82(] 118 88 194 491 497 52e
1027 ---4611 4611 1027 1027 1021
Bb 5a 5b 7a 7b
1573 22 2~ 1571 1571
6376 4016 3851 6557 6370
2063 . 2238 1903 2398 2063
1734 2025 831 2025 831
4 4H 41E 418 418
155 126 126 155 155
1838 8~ 8~ 819 819
1125 ------796 796
636 135 135 18~ 189
52e Be Be 1B 119
1021 461 461 461 461
Table 2.1 (Cont.)
Habitat
Type 6 2a 2b 9 3a 3b 4a 4b 8a 8b Sa 5b 7a 7b
Open balsam
poplar 731 138 13J 731 29 2g 138 138 731 731 2~ 2~ 622 622
Closed mixed
forest 7623 739~ 785/ 6071 6758 7210 6707 6707 7623 7623 5948 594E 6864 6864
Open mixed
forest 3463 403~ 423~ 90CJ 252Ji 2405 3600 3600 3600 3600 152f 1526 1526 1526
Closed ta 11
shrub 2154 734 734 1984 1229 1229 517 517 2154 2154 426 426 206 2063
Open tall
shrub 1610 1875 187~ 1619 1921 1921 ------1610 1610 ------1610 1610
Birch shrub 7110 2592 1939 7047 2951 2485 6773 6277 13~819 13 ~32~ 67m 6213 13.755 13~259
Willow shrub 723 495 576 723 485 50E 9226 12~193 994~ 12,9H 9226 12.19..J 994g 12,916
Low shrub 3880 2991 2841 3880 3121 3055 1743 2078 562-: 5958 174..J 2078 5623 5958
Grassland 25 25 25 ---115 11'i 25 25 25 25 llj 115 115 115
Disturbed 194 194 194 71 17~ 17~ 194 194 194 194 179 179 179 179
Rock 82 82 82 82 105 105 424 230 424 239 447 253 441 253
River 593 510 51C 451 624 624 51C 510 593 593 ------8 83
Lake 244 351 625 244 3L 568 44 381 265 60g 21 358 242 579
TOTAL 39.182 40,290 39,493 30,279 37,610 37,591 '42,825 44,058 65,424 66,648 35,987 37.242 58,586 59,819
A vi an Census
Plot
Cottonwood Forest
Mixed Forest II
Mixed Forest I
Paper Birch Forest
White Spruce
Scattered Woodland
Black Spruce
Dwarf Forest
Low-medium
Willow Shrub
White Spruce Forest
Medium Birch Shrub
Tall Alder Shrub
Dwarf-Low
Birch Shrub
Alpine Tundra
Table 2.2
Avian Habitat Occupancy Levels,
Upper Susitna River Basin,
1981 .
No. Species Density
(No. Breeding (No. terri-
Species) tories/10ha)
21 (16) 60.9
22 (13) 34.6
18 (14) 41.8
18 (10) 38.1
23 (16) 43.8
23 (13) 24.8
14 ( 6) 45.4
18 (8) 15.7
10 (5) 32.5
15 (10) 12.5
11 (6) 10.6
8(7) 3.9
Biomass Species
(Grams/10ha) Diversity( H' )
3653 2.55
1836 2.07
1709 2.47
1814 2.05
1775 2.29
1166 2.43
1413 1.56
1059 1.83
952 1.48
888 2.05
355 1. 29
211 1. 73
Table 2.3
Mileage for Each Access Plan in Terms of High,
Moderate and Low Potential to Contain Archaeological Resources
Ae~roximate Number of Miles RanP~ased On:
High Moderate Low Total Miles of
Plan Potential Potential Potential Total Miles High Potential
1a 24-1/2 9 26-1/2 60 9 10
1b 24 8-1/2 29-1/2 62 8 11
2a 17 9 32 58 11 13
2b 15 8-1/2 29 52-1/2 13 14
3a 39 14-1/2 15 68-1/2 7 5
3b 36 20 13 69 6 6
4a 28 12-1/2 14-1/2 55 12 g
4b 29 18 12 59 10 8
5 32 6 22 60 9 7
6a 44 15-1/2 27-1/2 87 5 4
6b 45 21 25 91 4 3
7a 55 17-1/2 28-1/2 102 3 2
7b 56 23 26 105 2 1
8 23 4 18 45 14 12
1. High numbers represent top choices.
Table 2.4
Environmental Inventory/Constraints -Access Corridor Segments
Parks Higtway told Creek to Devil ll!vi 1 Can){)n to l:evi 1 Can){)n to Watana to
to told Creek Can){)n Dans i te Watana (l'brthside) Watana (Southside) ISla 1 i Higtwax
Vegetation Passes close to or Largely forested area, Severe potential Inportant \\etlands in Relatively minor
through valuable feN large areas of solufluction problems in Stephan a1d Fog Lakes expa1ses of area in
'let lands. 'let 1 ands • westernmost portion of area. wetlands, or areas with
this segment, as potentia 1 so 1 ufl uct i oo
indicated by tall shrub problems.
habitat t_wes.
Birds and Small Valuable bird and small Forested areas along Relatively unproductive Segment goes through Segment travels thrrugh
Mimnals ITic1TII'Ia 1 habitat a 1 ong Sus i tna River are habitat for birds and relatively productive relatively unproductive
lndi an River, illd highly productive srna 11 manna ls. forest habitats, illd avian habitat. Bald
through 'let 1 ands of the habitat for birds and near productive water eagle nest tree along
Chulitna Pass area. srna 11 manna ls. bodies, such as Stephill leadnan CreEk, little
Lake, for waterfowl. other raptor habitat
Also traverses near nearby.
occupied and potential
cliff-nesting raptor
hii>itat along
tributaries.
Furbearers Productive furbearer Fairly productive Relatively unimportant Productive furbearer Good furbearer habitat.
habitat, particularly forested habitat for to furbearers except habitats arrund Stephan Beaver, muskrat pollJla-
beaver, along this aquatic furbearers. red fox denning area Lake, FOJ Lakes, and FOJ tion throughout area and
segrrent. arrund High Lake. CreEk. numerous fox da·ming
sites in area of Deadmn
Mamtain.
Big Gare Area used primarily by Precbninant big gC~TE MxJerate ly important Important big garre Likely to lead to severe
rroose and probably species in this area for big game species, (especially caribou and disruption of big game,
b 1 ack bears. are noose and black · segrent is 1 o\Er than rroose) habitat in p~ticularly caribou of
bear. nnst braWl bear del Stephan/Fog Lakes areas. the Nelchina herd and
sites: segment inter-upper Sus i tna and Nenana
sects north-south subherd.
caribou trails, but
caribou use appears to
be light.
Table 2.4 (Cont.)
Parks HighNay Go 1 d Creek to Oevi 1 i:eti 1 CCilyoo to ll:!vi 1 Canyon to Watana to
to Gold Creek Canp Dans i te Watana (Northside) Watana (Southside) ISla 1 i Hi glltlay
Fish Potentially severe dis-Little potential Few fish habitats, Potentially severe Provides access to resi-
turbance to sa lrron in irq:Jact to anadramus either streams or 1 akes, irq:Jocts to residmt dent fisheries habitat
Susitna River and Indian species. near this proposed seg'" fisheries in Stephan and a long route, nurrerous
River fisheries. rrent. Fog Lakes areas. stream crossings.
Cultural Consider~ le portion af Relatively little A large proportion af Dorurrented sites in Large proportion of
Resources segrent goes through potentia 1 for this segrent traverses Stephan and Fog Lakes length passes through
areas of high and rroder-irq:Jacting areas of areas of high potential areas, high and nr.xErate areas of high archoo-
ate potentia 1 for cu 1-high potential for for cu ltura 1 resources. potential for additional logical potential,
tura 1 resources. cultural resources. This treeless area, cultural resources in secondary irq:Jocts due to
ecologically diverse, these areas • 1-b.o.ever, increased access could
also lacks appreciable topographic constraints be severe because of
soil deposition -this to access in \\estern largely treeless topog-
makes ru ltura 1 re-portion could limit raphy a1d g:>od visi-
sources visible and irq:Jacts in this area. bility.
vulnerable to surface
disturbing activities.
AJ:proximate # River - 1 or 2 (Indian Creeks - 6 Creeks -12 Creeks -10 Creeks -20
Rive--/Creek River)
crossings - 1 (Susitna)
Creeks - 5
Table 2.5
Ranking of Access Plans on the Basis of Total Area of Vegetation, Total Area
of Wetlands and Total Area of Solifluction Potential Within the Mile-Wide Corridor
Access Plan
Numbers
5
1a
1b
8
2a
2b
3a
3b
7a
7b
4a
4b
6a
6b
Acreage
Affected
9
7
8
14**
10
11
6
5
2
1
13*
12
4
3
(1) High numbers represent top choices
** First choice
* Second choice
Rating on the Basis of~1 )
Wetlands
9
8
7
14**
11
12
6
5
2
1
13*
10
4
3
Solifluction
10
5
6
12**
5
5
8
7
2
1
11*
9
3
4
Table 2.6
Relative Value of Vegetation Cover Types as Wildlife Habitat
Unweighted Values
Cover Type
open mixed forest
closed mixed forest
wet sedge grass
woodland white spruce
open white spruce
balsam poplar
lake
open black spruce
woodland black spruce
closed birch forest
willow shrub
open birch forest
mixed low shrub
sedge shrub tundra
sedge grass tundra
birch shrub
tall shrub
grassland
mat & cushion tundra
river
rock
Relative Value
1.00
0.98
0.92
0.91
0.84
0.80
0.77
0.74
0. 72
0.72
0. 71
0.70
0.70
0.65
0.64
0.60
0.55
0.53
0.53
0.44
0.28
Weighted Values
Cover Type Relative Value
wet sedge grass
open mixed forest
open white spruce
willow shrub
lake
closed mixed forest
mixed low shrub
woodland white spruce
open black spruce
birch shrub
ta 11 shrub
woodland black spruce
sedge grass tundra
sedge shrub tundra
closed birch forest
river
mat & cushion tundra
balsam poplar
open birch forest ·
rock
grassland
1.00
0.95
0.94
0.92
0.90
0.88
0.88
0.87
0.82
0.80
0.77
0.76
0.76
0.75
0.66
0.66
0.64
0.62
0.60
0.44
0.42
Table 2.7
Comparison of Alternative Access Plans
Based on Based on Based on
Plan Rank(a) Actual Acreage Unweighted Scores Weighted Scores
1 8 (30,198)(b)(c) 8 (21,627)(C) 8 (24,536)(C)
2 4a ( 35,816) 4a (26,055) 4a ( 29' 954)
3 4b ( 37,063) 4b ( 26, 901) 2b (31,191)
4 2b (37,412) 2b (29,228) 4b (31,236)
5 2a (37,531) 2a (29,330) 2a ( 31 '327)
6 5 (38,873) 5 (29,551) 5 (31,974)
7 1b (39,339) 1b (31,273) 1b ( 33,091)
8 1a ( 40,054) 1a (31,926) 1a (33,544)
9 3a ( 42,631) 3a (32,008) 3a ( 35,819)
10 3b (43,864) 3b (32,843) 3b ( 40' 125)
11 6a (58 ,402) 6a (40,745) 6a (47,952)
12 6b (59,640) 6b (41,584) 6b (49,232)
13 7a (65,224) 7a ( 46,700) 7a (53,823)
14 7b (66,463) 7b (47,540) 7b (55,105)
(a) The plans are ranked in decreasing order of preference with number 1
having the least habitat value and thus being the most preferred
plan, and conversely number 14 has the highest habitat value and is
thus the least preferred choice.
(b) Total acreages deviate from totals in table of vegetation mapping
units because cover types such as "disturbed" were not included in
the habitat value rankings.
(c) Numbers in parentheses are acreage values. Acreages based on
unweighted and weighted scores are adjusted to reflect habitat
va.l ue.
~ -c.,) " c:: ..... 0 a ::: a: 1-Q,. :::l S:i! < a: ~ ..... -' ..... 0 a: c >-.. X
< :z: -;;:;
:::::1 .,
-Q) .... ::I QG u::
<II -c
Ql
E c
~ :a:
~ = cu e t=.O cu en ... a -= ·--... c3
~ cu u u c::
?= -(,.'1 0::: ..... 0 a :I: a: ...... c.. :=l <C :! a: tj ..... _, ..... 0 a:
0 >-=
< z ,_
c:;;
::::::1 ..,
N Q) ... = t:>O i..:::
"0
n:l
Q a:
c
Q ;:
u = I.. -Cit c
Q u
co c CQ A: = ~
~
~ c
0
"" 0 ..,
0
,_ (.) ... a a:: c.. (.) = ,_ (.) .... _. .... 0 a:: 0 >-:::
< z: ,_
;;;
;:::)
V!l
N = C'l") ca ~ a: = , t:IG , ~ CD y
u cc:
"' II> :o
~-
I
0 Ill
N 1.. 11>
Gi
E
..5!
::;;;;:
0 >-t::: ~ ..... a a: ~ u a: -u ..., _. ..., Q a: Q
>-:c
< z -c;;
:::::1 .,
\
~ Q.1 :s t:IG
i:i:
~
ta
Q
.0::
c
.2 -u
~
I.. -&II c
Q u
lot) = ca a: = aa u u <
0 N 0
M
0 .. ... ...
Gl
Qj
E
..2
2;:
0 0
~ .... u c:: ..... 0 a :::I: a: 1-c. :::::> ~ <C a: .... u ..... ~ ..... 0 a: 0 > :: :::
< z .... c:;;
;::) .,.,
1.&') Ql .... ~ t=lll ~
"0
Ill
Q a:
c
.2 u = ... -Ill c
8
... = "' a: ~ Q:l ~ u <
~ -(.,) ..... I ..... 0 = a.. ~ == = c .... ca (.,) <D ..... a: ~ Q.l ..... .... 0 ::::::1 ~ a: Cloll
,. . Q ~ ~ >-u ::c: u
< c
z .... c:;;
:::::1
"'
0 ... 0 ...
0 ... ... ... ... Ql
~
E
~
5!~
0
0
"0
Ill
0 a:::
c
0 -1.1 "0 = I. Ill -0 ., -= c
0 Ill u a:::
I
CCI c ,..... ..!! <U 0.. = .!:!I "' ..... en
Q) u u c
~ 0
M
\,., 0 ...
... c. ~
2
<l>
E
\ .£
~~
0 0
"CC
Ill
Cl a::
c "CC
Cl Ill ::: Cl
u "CC a:: = 1.. Ill Ql -0 ~ ., :E c >
c3 Ill 1..
a:: Ql en
I I
I
I
~ t3 0:: ..... 0 0 :::I: = 1--Q.. => < ~ = 1-u ..... ~ ....... 0 a: Q
>-,. :c
< z
!:::: .,
::l
(;)
00 !? = t:IQ i..:::
"CS
I'll
0 a:
c
.2 -u = ~ -.,
c
0 u
C") c 1'1:11 ii: en en G)
,U u cc:
=
= M
=
Construction Road
Service Road
0 20 10
Kllomelers
20
30
figure 9
Access. Plan 7
3. SOCIOECONOMIC AND LAND USE ANALYSIS
Each of the eight access plans under cons·ideration contains access routes
to both dam sites which tie into the existing transportation network at
one or two of the following points: the Parks Highway at Hurricane (road
intersection), the Alaska Railroad at Gold Creek (railroad or road
junction), and the Denali Highway near Denali (road intersection).
The eight routes can be paired according to ~hared points of origin,
although they vary in alignment or mode from the point of origin to the
work sites. For purposes of ·socioeconomic and land use analysis, the
point of origination is the dominant variable, with mode being an
important variable and alignment being a minor variable. In general, the
effects of each pair will be very sim·ilar.
Access Plans 1 and 5 -These plans are both road access options
originating at Hurricane, passing through the Devil Canyon site, and
terminating at the Watana site. In Plan 1 the road is on the south side
of the Susitna River between Devil Canyon and Watana; in Plan 5 the road
is on the north side between the two dam sites.
Access Plans 8 and 2 -Both originate at a railhead near Gold Creek, pass
by the Devil Canyon site, and terminate at Watana. In Plan 2, the
connection is accomplished via a rail line on the south side of the
river; in Plan 8, a road runs on the south side of the river from the
railhead to Devil Canyon and on the north side of the river from Devil
Canyon to Watana.
Access Plans 4 and 6 -Both plans include the initial construction of a
road from the Denali Highway to the Watana site followed by the
construction of a railroad from the railhead at Gold Creek to the Devil
Canyon site. Plan 6 includes the construction of a service road on the
north side of the river between Devil Canyon and Watana; Plan 4 does not.
3-1
Access Plans 3 and 7 -Both plans include the initial construction of a
road from the Denali Highway to the Watana site followed by the
construction of a road from near Hurricane on the Parks Highway to the
Devil Canyon site. Plan 7 includes the construction of a service road on
the north side of the river between Devil Canyon and Watana; Plan 3 does
not.
3-2
3. 1 METHODS
(a) Socioeconomics
The development of access routes to the Watana and Devil Canyon dam sites
will affect the economic and social characteristics of the surrounding
region, particularly near the junctions between the access routes and
existing transportation corridors. The type, magnitude, and location of
these effects will vary depending upon which access route is selected,
whether a road or railroad is built, and how frequently construction
workers commute to the work sites. The severity of the socioeconomic
effects of the alternative access routes depends more upon the origin and
type of access than on the actual alignment; these details determine
which communities in the railbelt region will be affected as well as the
extent to which they will feel the impact.
The evaluation of the access plans from a socioeconomic standpoint
consisted of assessing the dynamics of socioeconomic change for each
plan. This assessment was based on several assumptions. First, housing
for workers would be provided on-site, and the families of workers would
locate as conveniently as possible to the site. Second, all roads con-
structed into the Susitna drainage from public roads would also be public
and allow access to the sites. Finally, whether a road or railroad is
used, it is assumed that the port of entry for project materials would ·be
Anchorage and, possibly, Whittier. Thus, effects from transport of
materials would be concentrated in communities located along the Parks
Highway.
The preliminary socioeconomic assessment sought to determine qualitative-
ly the level of impact on each socioeconomic category for each access
plan and each geographic area. The results of this assessment are shown
in Table 8. The level of impact under each plan is designated by label-
ing the effects as: 5-major, 4-significant, 3-moderate, 2-slight, and
1-negligible.
3-3
The following is a summary of the information presented in Table 8. It
should be noted that effects on Fairbanks should not vary as a result of
differences in the proposed access routes. They will be essentially the
same under all plans. Therefore, Fairbanks is not included in the dis-
cussion of the variation of ~ffects under different plans.
(b) Land Use
Each access route will be built for construction and operation of the dam
facilities. Many of the effects, however, will be related to long-term
consequences after construction is complete. The impact on current land
use and related activities resulting from emplacement and use of an
access route will vary depending upon the location of the route and the
mode selected.
Each route was analyzed for its potential land use impact, and Table 9
was constructed to present the anticipated magnitude of these effects on
the various land use concerns for the route under consideration. A
numerical scale of 1 to 5 has been used, with 5 representing a great
impact and 1 a small or negligible impact. The scoring's purpose is to
identify only possible impact and to estimate relative magnitude, thus
enabling a rudimentary comparison of the access schemes. This informa-
tion, in combination with analyses provided by other environmental
specialists, can be used by those responsible for making the decision as
to which access scheme is most desirable.
3-4
3.2 CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION
(a) Socioeconomics
Socioeconomic analysis identifies changes in specific characteristics that
cover a wide range of social, community, and economic categories. The social
and community categories selected for inclusion in the analysis of the proposed
access plans constitute some of the criteria upon which an evaluation was
based. These are:
-population levels
-racial mix
-culture/way-of-life
-community, social, and political organization
-housing type
-housing availability
-public services
-government expenditures and revenues
-tot a 1 1 abor demand
-unemployed labor
The economic categories that served as evaluative criteria are:
-construction
-mining
-agriculture
-forestry
-manufacturing
-commercial fisheries
-oi 1 and gas
-transportation (motor, rail. & port)
-public utilities
-communications
-wholesale trade
3-5
-retail trade
-services
-tourism/recreation
Each of the access route plans has been examined in terms of its effects
on catei]ories listed above. The effects have been considered for the
Parks Highway-Railroad corridor 9 the Richardson Highway corridor 9 and
Anchorage 9 Whittier 9 and Fairbanks. More specifically, the corridors are
defined as follows:
Parks ·Highway-Railroad corridor "'" This corridor includes development
between Fairbanks and Anchorage. It includes communities in the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough and the southeast part of the Yukon-Koyokuk .
Census Division. Those conmunities along the Parks Highway, include
Healy, Cantwell, Chulitna 9 Talkeetna, WillOW 9 and Wasilla. This corridor
and the surrounding area is termed 11 Westside.11
-Richardson Highway corridor -This corridor includes the
Valdez-Cordova Census Area, specifically communities such as
Glennallen 9 Gulkana, Paxson, and others located along the Richardson
Highway. This corridor and the surrounding area is termed
11 Eastsi de •11
(b) Land Use
The land use analysis of each access plan involved assessment of the
potential impact of the route on four general land use classes defined as
follows:
(i) Land uses inherently associated with site specific activities
This class includes land uses that involve some form of long-term
commitment of human resources (e.g., structures) and their concomitant
activities. These include the following subclasses: residential,
3-6
commercial {primarily recreational), mining, agriculture, and
transportation.
(ii) Dispersed and isolated non-site-specific activities
This class incorporates activities that are generally non-continuous
and do not involve a commitment of resources at any particular site;
these include consumptive recreational or subsistence activities, such
as hunting and fishing; riverine activities, such as boating or
rafting; and dispersed activities, such as camping, hiking, and
photography.
(iii) Resource management activities and related concerns
This category involves consideration of present or potential future
activities related to conservation or planned use of the land and
resources, incl ud·ing fish and wildlife management, dispersed recreation
management, off-road vehicle management, native claims, and land
values.
(iv) Natural aesthetics
This category involves consideration of and for the natural land cover
type itself as opposed to the uses of or activities on the land; these
concerns encompass visual character for both land and water resources;
ground cover, specifically flora; land surface integrity; and general
natural character.
3-7
3.3 DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCES
In the upper Susitna basin, the site of all the proposed access plans,
there is little extensive land use. Most of what exists occurs along
present rail 1 ines and around the major 1 akes in the area--High, Stephan,
and the Fog Lakes. In these locations, most of the land use resources
involve re_creational concerns, both of a private, individual nature and
of a commercial sort.
Obviously, with the introduction of a highway, a railroad, or a
combination of these, land use concerns focusing on transportation will
also be involved. Furthermore, the communities that exist at the origins
of these routes will feel the impact of any new transportation form
introduced.
Access will facilitate the influx of people and activity within the
basin, affecting both small population concentrations and isolated
residences, peripheral commercial and transportation systems, resource
utilization and level of recreational activity, visual and aesthetic
factors, and the overall character of the area. In addition, these
effects wi 11 have ramifications for management activities in terms of
their extent, adequacy, and need (e.g., fish and game, land, etc.) and
wi 11 influence changes in 1 and va 1 ues and development.
(a) Parks Highway to Gold Creek
Access Plans 1, 5, 3, and 7 all include this route segment. The land use
resources in this area, to be affected by these access plans, include
Pass Creek and the Indian and Susitna Rivers, all of which will require
crossings. These access plans will also have a significant impact on
Chulitna, Canyon, and Gold Creek, all of which will acquire road access
where none previously existed. Two cabins and an unnamed lake are also
included in the land use resources here.
3-8
(b) Gold Creek to Devil Canyon
All of the access plans include this segment, although some pass through
here via railroad while others use a vehicular road. The towns of Gold
Creek and Canyon would both experience an impact from access plans here,
with the effects on Gold Creek .substantially greater than those on
Canyon. Both would feel the impact on their land values and on
commercial and residential land uses. Some minor stream crossings are
also planned for this area.
(c) Devil Canyon to Watana, North Side
In terms of land use concerns, the primary resources to be affected here
are waterways and water bodies. Access Plans 5, 8, 7, and 6 will pass
within a quarter-mile of both the Susitna River and an unnamed lake.
These plans wi 11 come within a half-mile of High Lake and partly parallel
a several-mile length of Devil Creek.
Other types of resources along this route include High Lake Lodge, which
consists of nine buildings; a private cabin; and Tsusena Creek, which
will require a significant crossing via a bridge.
(d) Devil Canyon to Watana, South Side
Access Plans 1 and 2 incorporate this segment. The waterways to be
affected here include two unnamed tributaries of the Susitna itself and,
with· Plan 1, a significant crossing and bridge over Fog Creek. These
access plans will pass within one-quarter mile of Stephan Lake and will
come quite close to the Fog Lakes. All of this area may experience
increased off-road vehicle use, especially around the lakes and in the
plateau region of the upper Prairie Creek drainage. This use will be
limited, however, if Plan 2, using a railroad, is chosen over Plan 1,
which calls for a highway.
3-9
Finally, access into this area, by whatever means, will affect
approximately t~elve cabins and the Stephan Lake Lodge, which consists of
ten structures. The lodge, in particular, will experience a significant
impact.
(e) Denali Highway to Watana
Access Plans 3, 7, 4, and 6--all of which incorporate this segment--will
parallel the Deadman Creek drainage and pass close to Deadman Lake. They
will also pass within a mile or so of a lake a~jacent to Tsusena Butte,
so both the butte and the lake will experience some impact. This segment
could have a possible effect upon approximately four local cabins and
will open up a considerable area to new off-road vehicle use.
3-10
3.4 IMPACT ASSESSMENT
(a) Access Plans 8 and 2
(i) Socioeconomics
With access to the sites originating at Gold Creek, all materials,
equi.pment, and labor must move by rail to Gold Creek. Once there, it
would continue either by rail or road to both dam sites. There would be
a significant impact on Gold Creek itself as well as at Hurricane and
Talkeetna, which are the last railroad junctures with highway access to
the north and south of Gold Creek, respectively.
In a more general sense, Plans 8 and 2 would also concentrate effects on
the Westside, and these would be approximately the same as those for
Access Plans 1 and 5 (see below). The differences would occur in those
categories affected by the limited access that a rail link affords and in
rail-related activities, which would receive additional stimulation.
Even though direct access to the work sites would require vehicle access
from the railhead at Gold Creek, Access Plan 8 would not have the same
results as Plans 1 and 5 (see below). The fact that vehicles can only be
brought into the access road by rail will largely limit the vehicles on
the road to a set of dedicated project vehicles. Plans 2 and 8 limit
public access and recreational use significantly, while Plan 2 has the
additional advantage of controlling stops along the access route.
Westside: With Access Plans 2 and 8, there would still be major or
significant effects on population levels and total labor demand as well
as on housing availability and the construction industry in Westside
communities. These effects would be magnified in Talkeetna and near
Hurricane because of their locations at rail-highway intersections.
There would likely be significant effects on public services, government
expenditures and revenues, unemployed labor, public utilities, retail
trade, and services. A moderate effect would probably occur in mining,
3-11
manufacturing, motor transportati9n, communications, way-of-life, and
cormnunity organization. Housing type and other categories would probably
be affected slightly or negligibly.
Anchorage/Whittier: The effects of Access Plans 2 and 8 on the Anchorage
area would be much the same as with all road access. Construction, port
and rail transportation, wholesale and retail trade, and service
industries would still feel significant or moderate effects. Changes in
unemployed labor, community categories, and most other industries can be
expected to be slight or negligible. Whittier, however, would feel
moderate effects on employment, retail trade, and services.
Eastside: Most effects resulting from road access would be concentrated
on the Westside, not the Eastside. Negligible or, at most, slight
effects would result for the Eastside.
(ii) Land Use
The effects associated with Access Plans 2 and 8 are probably the most
limited, in that the only access to the interior basin is via rail at
Gold Creek. To take either the road or railroad to the dam sites
requires using the Alaska Railroad to get to Gold Creek. This approach
tends to limit access, while a road, on the other hand, permits the
public to drive to the site. Furthermore, use of the railroad to ship
materials to a point where materials would be transported to the dam
sites would cause less of an impact on communities along the Parks
Highway corridor.
(b) Access Plans 1 and 5
(i) Socioeconomics
Generally, the access route impact will be concentrated on the Westside
and in Anchorage. They will be more evident on the Westside than in
Anchorage, however, since the Westside lies closer to all access route
3-12
origins and currently has far less development and activity. The Rail-
belt corridor will provide access for construction materials, power plant
equipment and furnishings, and construction workers as we 11 as for post-
construction users of the Susitna Bas in (recreators, hunters, fishermen,
etc.). The size, composition, and source of the construction work force
are major determinants of socioeconomic impact. The majority of avail-
able Alaskan construction workers will be based in the greater Anchorage
area and, to a lesser extent, in Fairbanks. They will need to commute to
the site on some periodic basis. Out-of-state workers who bring their
families will wish to locate as close to the site as possible, yet will
desire to be near services and shopping such as are found in Anchorage
and Fairbanks. Depending on work force scheduling at the site, they will
locate anywhere between the junction with the access road and the Anchor-
age and Fairbanks areas. The majority will probably seek accommodations
in the southern portion of Mat-Su Borough.
Westside: Communities in the borough will be called upon to provide
increased services. There will be major or significant effects on popu-
lation levels, housing availability, public services, government expendi-
tures and revenues, total labor demand, and unemployed labor in both the
Mat-Su and southeast Yukon-Koyokuk areas. There will also be major or
significant effects on construction, motor transportation, public utili-
ties, retail trade, services, and the tourism industry.
There would be moderate effects on culture, the way-of-life, community,
political and social organization, mining, communications, and manufac-
turing industries. Other categories such as housing type, agriculture,
forestry, fisheries, oil and gas, wholesale trade, racial mix/ethnicity/
religion, and rail and port transportation would feel only slight or
negligible effects.
Anchorage/Whittier: With a road from the west, the Anchorage area could
anticipate slight or negligible effects on the community and related
3-13
categories and in several of the economic base categories. There would
be moderate consequences for construction, motor and port transportation,
retail trade, and service industries. A significant effect on wholesale
trade is possible. Whittier could serve as a shipment point for
materials going to the sites by rail •. In this case, slight or moderate
effects are expected in unemployed labor, retail trade, and services.
Eastside: Most effects resulting from road access of the Parks Highway
would be concentrated on the Westside. Only slight or negligible effects
would occur ·in Valdez and communities along the Richardson Highway.
(ii) Land Use
The effects associated with Access Plans 1 and 5 would be substantial on
communities along the Parks Highway. There would be significant
consequences for existing community land uses, particularly residential
and commercial uses. Of all access plans under consideration, this
pairing would have the greatest impact on community land uses. In
addition, either the north connecting road, for Plan 5, or the south, for
Plan 1, would affect lodges in the interior of the basin. One could
expect these uses and associated activities to be substantially
influenced by the additional access afforded the public.
{c) Access Plans 4 and 6
(i) Socioeconomics
Initial1y, since the Watana site is to be developed first, these access
plans move the origin of access from the Railbelt corridor west of the
Susitna drainage to the Denali Highway in the north. This move would
attenuate the effects described for Plans 8 and 2 and Plans 1 and 5
up the Railbelt corridor to Cantwell. Access from the Denali Highway
lengthens significantly the road distance between most available housing
{Mat-Su Borough) and the work site. Thus, most workers would probably
3-14
commute to the site in a more organized and routine manner than if they
all provided their own transportation to the site or the railhead. More
workers might then be concentrated in one area, particularly Anchorage
and, to a lesser extent, Fairbanks. The addition of a service road
between the Devil Canyon and Watana sites, as included in Plan 6, will
create a negligible difference between the two access plans. If it is
maintained and opened to the public after completion of the two dams,
however, it would increase the usage of the Susitna drainage. This usage
would not have any significant consequences outside of the drainage
though.
Development of the Devil Canyon site during the second half of the
proposed Susitna project will be achieved by access similar to that
provided in Access Plan 2. The socioeconomic effects would be delayed
and would be, in general, of lesser magnitude than those for Access Plan
2. This is because, in later years, the Westside would be more developed
and better able to absorb the impact.
Westside: In the construction of Watana Dam, all goods and materials
would come farther up the corridor than under previous plans. Workers•
families would also tend to locate in more communities and possibly
concentrate in Anchorage. This residency extends the area of impact
while increasing the demand for transportation and services. Significant
or major effects would be felt on population, culture/way-of-life,
community, political and social organization, housing availability,
government expenditures and revenues, labor demand, unemployed labor,
public services, construction, rail transportation, public utilities,
communications, retail trade and services. All other categories would
experience moderate to negligible effects.
Anchorage: Wholesale trade would likely experience a significant effect,
and moderate effects could be expected in construction, rail and port
transportation, retail trade, and services industries. Other categories
would be affected the same as under prior plans. As under Plans 8 and 2
Whittier would feel moderate effects on employment, retail trade, and
services.
3-15
Eastside: Access to Watana from the Denali Highway will tend to spill
over on the Eastside and also to generate Eastside tourism. Because they
are now so sma 11 , communities on the Eastside cou 1 d then expect moderate
effects on various community factors, such as population, way-of-life,
housing ·availability, construction, total labor demand, unemployed labor,
and tourism.
(ii) Land Use
Access Plans 4 and 6 promise to create effects similar to those of Access
Plans 2 and 8. Goods or people would travel by rail to the Devil Canyon
site. This requirement reduces the extent of impact on commuf!itY land
uses along the Parks Highway. Access by road from the Denali Highway to
Watana, however, would introduce potential for significant off-road
vehicle use in areas where it is now minimal. This effect could result
in significant alterations to an area with virtually no existing
development or surface-disturbing activities.
(d) Access Plans 3 and 7
(i) Socioeconomics
Initially, this plan is similar to Access Plans 4 and 6 in that it would
expand the area of effects on the Westside and induce some moderate
effects on the Eastside. During later Susitna development, it is similar
to Plans 1 and 5 but with a delay of several years. Again, the service
road would have little impact.
Westside: The effects would be largely the same as with Plans 4 and 6.
Goods and materials would move farther up the corridor as would workers•
families. Significant or major effects would be felt on population,
culture/way-of-life, community, political and social organization,
housing availability, labor demand, public services, government
expenditures and revenues, unemployed labor, construction, motor
transportation, communications, retail trade, services, tourism, and
public utilities.
3-16
Anchqrage/Whittier: The effects would initially be the same as those of
" Plans 4 and 6 and, later, similar to those of Plans 1 and 5.
Eastside: The effects would be essentially the same as with Plans 4 and
6.
(ii) Land Use
Access Plans 3 and 7 provide road access from two directions--the Parks
Highway and Denali Highway. The impact on community land uses along the
Parks Highway would be somewhat less compared to, as with Plans 1 and 5,
a road off the Parks Highway alone. With Plans 3 and 7, there is likely
to be greater alteration to interior basin land uses, as access is
facilitated for both Anchorage and Fairbanks populations.
3-17
3. 5 MITIGATION
Mitigation of the effects of an access plan on land use and socioeconomic
factors entails choosing a plan which affects the fewest number of
variables and/or which affects such variables the least; i.e., that plan
likely to produce the least change in existing conditions. Adverse
effects can be controlled by limiting public use of the access facility
itself and by preventing those restricted users from leaving the access
facility_ to engage in off-road activities. This approach will reduce the
geographic extent of the effects of an access road.
Similarly, minimizing the use of the existing transportation network, to
which the chosen access road would be connected, will result in fewer
changes in areas near the existing network. This process can be
accomplished by use of a more restrictive existing mode--i.e.,
rail--which would receive lesS, general use by the public than a road.
Limiting worker commuter patterns and activity would also tend to reduce
the impact along existing networks. This control can be accomplished by
providing a fully developed construction community in the project area,
thereby reducing the amount of housing, services, and travel required
along existing networks.
3-18
3.6 CONCLUSIONS
The most significant aspect of the analysis of access route schemes
relates not so much to various impacts associated with a given individual
scheme but, rather, to the concept of access itself, in any form, to the
interior of the Susitna basin. The provision of a means by which the
general public can easily and frequently venture inland to an essentially
pristine wilderness will likely cause profound alterations on the charac-
ter of the Susitna area. Such alterations relating to access may be
assessed quite distinctly from the emplacement of Susitna hydroelectric
facilities themselves.
In terms of socioeconomic effects, Access Plans 3 and 7 and Plans 4 and 6
will cause somewhat greater magnitudes of impact on some socioeconomic
variables. With respect to land use concerns, Plans 1 ·and 5 and Plans 3
and 7 are expected to have a significant impact both on community 1 and
uses outsi.de the project area and on land use and activities in the
interior basin.
Access Plan 1•s south river road from the Devil Canyon site, looping
around Stephan Lake to the Watana site is probably the one proposed study
route that would have both strong positive and negative impacts on land
use, particularly at Stephan Lake and Fog Lakes. From the Devi 1 Canyon
site to Stephan Lake, a new land use may emerge: off-road vehicles above
timberline. At Stephan Lake and Fog Lakes, whether alternative "a" or
11 b11 is used, the road will also pass close enough, even without formal
access, to attract the recreational boater. This proximity will affect
the existing lifestyles of the present residents and could have economic
impacts on the lodges and guiding businesses. Regardless of the formal/
informal access, recreational use of the lakes will occur and will likely
conflict with the present residents of and fly-in visitors to Stephan
Lake and Fog Lakes. Present users will likely be displaced by new types
of users, willing to tolerate higher densities, noise levels, etc.
3-19
This road could also open up CIRI lands for possible resource develop-
ment. This could be seen as a positive step by those interested in tour-
ism, mining, timber, and land ownership changes. It could be viewed with
dismay, however, by those native corporations that have different objec~ ·
tives for the use of their lands.
Plans 4 and 6 would likely cause somewhat less of an effect than those.
above, since direct access from the Parks Highway is precluded. These
access alternatives would reduce the impact on community land use
patterns in those areas and could concentrate it, instead, on railroad
use. The road from the Denali Highway would permit car travel by the
public into the interior, but Fairbanks' population is considerably
smaller than Anchorage's, so the human use would undoubtedly be less with
these plans, especially since access would be more difficult for the
latter, larger population. In addition, virtually no development exists
along the Denali route, so disruptions to existing land uses would be
minimal. There would likely be, however, the introduction of additional
off-road vehicle use along this route.
Land use and socioeconomic disciplines establish a somewhat different
problem from that offered either by the strict biological sciences or by
cultural resources considerations. In all these areas, the route being
sought is that which will have the least impact on the area. Conse-
quences of whatever type are viewed as negative and, therefore, to be
avoided. With land use and socioeconomics, additional factors must be
addressed in the impact of access road alternatives: 1) the potential
impact area is larger, may not be geographically explicit (for socio-
economics), and varies depending upon origin and mode being considered;
2) there are a greater number of variables, which may be mutually exclu-
sive, comprising the land use and socioeconomic disciplines; and 3)
interpretations of results of analysis of these factors requires consid-
eration of ~ disparate public's opinion as to whether outcomes are posi-
tive or negative; i.e., what may be considered negative by one individual
may be viewed quite positively by another. The various access plans will
have consequences for both the resident population and for those new-
comers arriving with the construction activities, as well as those with
land or other economic interests who do not live in the project area.
3-20
Access Plans 2 and 8 would create the least amount of impact, a 11 things
considered, on land uses both in the interior basin and in adjacent com-
munities. For minimizing alterations to land uses, either would be an
acceptable plan. For enhancing access, providing the public with more
exposure to the resource base, one of the other plans would be a better
selection.
Of the eight alternatives, Plans 1, 5, 2, and 8 would likely cause the
fewest overall changes in various socioeconomic factors. Plans 2 and 8
would tend to restrict such changes to economic variables related to rail
transportation activities, and in communities through which the railroad
passes or in which facilities were placed to facilitate project construc-
tion and shipments (e.g., construction of railhead at Gold Creek).
Plans 1 and 5 restrict impacts to a larger defined Westside area, with
greater effects on communities situated on the Parks Highway.
All four of the Plans incorporating the Denali segment - 3 and 7 and 4
and 6 -will cause much greater effects on the Cantwell area and Eastside
communities, which have smaller populations and less developed infra-
structures than westside communities.
3-21
Population levels
Culture/way-of-life
Community, Political,&
Social Organization
,Housing -Type
-Availability
Public Services
Government Expenditures
& Revenues
Total Labor Demand
Unemployed Labor
Economic Base
Construction
Mining
Agriculture
Forestry
Manufacturing
Fisheries
Oi 1 and Gas
Transportation-Motor
-Rail
-Port
Table 3.8
Potential Socioeconomic Impacts of Alternative Access Plans
by Socioeconomic Impact Category
Westside
Anchorage & Whittier (excl. AnchoraQe & Whittier)
Access Plan Number Access Plan Number
Eastside
Access Plan Number
_1 __ 2 __ 3 _ _i_ _5 __ 6 __ 7_ ~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 _1 __ 2 __ 3 _ _i_ _5 __ 6 __ 7 _ __!___ --------
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 5 5 4 5 5 4 1 1 3 3 1 3 3 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 1 1 3 3 1 3 3 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 1 1 3 3 1 3 3 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 . 1 2 2 1 2 2 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 5 5 4 5 5 4 1 1 3 3 1 3 3 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 5 5 4 5 5 4 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 2
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 2 3 3 2 ·3 3 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2. 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 .1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1
2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 5 2 4 2 4 2 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Economic Base -(Cont.
Pub 1 ic Utilities
Communications
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Services
Tourism/Recreation
Racial Mix/Ethnicity/
Religion
KEY: 5 -Major
4 -Significant
3 -Moderate
2 -Slight
1 -Negligible
)
Table 3.8 (Cont.)
Westside
Ancnorage & wn1tt1er . & w· .... \exc 1. Ancnorage nn1:1erJ
Access Plan Number Access Plan Number
_1 __ 2 __ 3 _ __!_ _5 __ 6 __ 7_ ~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 --------
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 5 5 4 5 5 4
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 3
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 2
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 4 5 5 4
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 4 5 5 4
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 2 4 3 5 3 4 3
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 2
taS"tslae
Access Plan Number
_1 __ 2 __ 3 _ __!_ _5 _ _!__ _7 _ __.!_
1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1
1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1
1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1
2 2 3 3 2 3 3 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Table 3.9
Potential Impacts and Magnitude of Impacts
of Access Route Plans on
Land Use Variables
LAND USE ANALYSIS CATEGORIES
1. Land uses and associated
site-specific activities
-Residential: remote, isolated
-Residential: community*
-Residential lodges (concentrated
tourism & recreation)
-Commercial: community*
-Agr'iculture ·
-Transportation: Highway
Rail
-Mining
2. Dispersed and isolated
activities
-Extractive: hunting & fishing
-Riverine: boating
-Camping, hiking, photography, etc.
3. Land management activities &
related concerns
-Game management; hunting, fishing,
trapping
-General land management
-Off-road vehicle management
-Native claims
-Land values
4. Natural aesthetics
-Visual charactersitics: land
-Visual characteristics: water
-Ground cover: flora
-Land surface integrity
-General natural character,
extensive
Plans
1 & 5
4
3
5
3
1
4
1
3
5
3
3
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
5
4
4
ACCESS PLANS
P 1 ans Plans
2 & 8 4 & 6
3
3
5
2
1
1
5
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
4
2
"3
2
2
2
2
4
4
2
3
1
2
4
3
4
3
2
4
4
4
2
2
3
2
2
3
3
* The Socioeconomic Analysis deals with more discrete factors relating to
communities located near the project area.
Plans
3' & 7
4
4
2
4
1
3
4
3
4
3
3
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
4
4
4