The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAPA11[}{]£~~& 0 ~~&®©@ Susitna Joint Venture Document Number l \ Please Return To DOCUMENT CONTROL l .A Susitna Joirt \fr ,, Document f\Jurr.ber @£Rl;f/ Please Ret· 1rn Tn DOCUMENT CONIRJL Acres American Incorporated 1000 Liberty Bank Building Main at Court Buffalo, Ne-..a~ York 14202 Telephone (716) 853·7525 ALASKA P0WER AUTHORITY ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIOECONOMIC AND LAND USE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE ACCESS PLANS FOR THE SUSITNA HYOROELECTRIC PROJECT by Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. Phoenix, New York 13135 for Acres American, Inc. Buffalo, New York 14202 October 1981 RECEI,VED MAY 05 1983 HARZA-EBASCO Susitna Joint Venture TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . 2. ENV1RONMENTAL ANALYSIS 2 .1 METHODS . . . 2.2 {a) Vegetation {b) Wildlife . . • {i) Birds and Small {ii) Furbearers . {iH) Big Game .. (c) Fish . . . . (d) Cultural Resources . . . . . Mammals . CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION .•... (a) Vegetation . . . . . . . . . (b) Wildlife . • . . . . . . . . . (i) Birds and Small Mammals . (ii) Furbearers . . ... ( i i i ) B i g Game . . . . . . . . (c) Fish . · (d) Cultural Resources ...... . 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 Oamsite to Denali Highway . 2.4 IMPACT ASSESSMENT . . . . . (a) Access Plan 9 . . • . . ... (i) Vegetation . . . (ii) Birds and Small Mammals •. (iii) Furbearers . (iv) Big Game ..... (v) Fish . . . . . • . ... (vi) Cultural Resources (b) Access Plan 3 • . (i) Vegetation ....•.. (ii) Birds and Small Mammals {iii) Furbearers .... . (iv) Big Game .... . Page . . 1-1 .. 2 .. 1 . . . . 2~ l· . . . 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 . 2-10 . 2-10 . . 2-11 . 2-12 . 2-13 . 2-14 . 2-17 • 2-17 . . . 2-18 . . . 2-18 . . 2-18 . . 2-19 . . 2-19 . . . . . . . . . 2-19 .. 2-19 . . 2-19 . 2-20 . . . . . . . 2-21 (v) Fish •.................• . . 2-21 . 2-22 . . • 2-22 . •.. 2-23 . 2-23 . 2-24 . . 2-24 (vi) Cultural Resources ..... (c) Access Plan 6 ... . (i) Vegetation ............ . (ii) Birds and Small Mammals (iii) Furbearers ....... . ( i v) Big Game . • • . . . . . . . • . . . . 2-25 .. 2-26 (v) Ftsh . ~ • . . . . . (vi) Cultural Resources . . . . . . .. 2-26 2.5 2.6 (d) Access Plan 2 . . ( i) Vegetation . . ( i i) Birds and Small Manmals . ( i i i ) Fur bearers . . . . . (iv) Big GcJne . ( ., ) Fish . . . . . (vi) Cultur~l Resources . . . (e) Access Plan 4 . . . . ( i) Vegetation . . ( i i) Birds and Sma 11 Manmals (iii) Fur bearers . . (iv) Big Game . . . . . . . ~ v) Fish . . . . . vi) Cultural Resources (f) Access Plan 6 . . . . ( i) Vegetation . . . . ( i i) Bi rds and Sma 11 Mammals . ( iii ) Furbearers . . . . . . . (iv) Big Game . . . ( v) Fish . . . . . . . . . (vi) Cultural Resources (g) Access Plan 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . ( i) Vegetation . . . ( ii) 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) Cultural 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 .... (c) Results and Discussion MITIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . (a) Vegetation ...... . (b) .L Birds and Small Mammals (c) Furbearers ......... . (d) Big Game ..... . (e) Fish ...... . (f) Cultural Resources . 2.7 RECOMMENDATION ..... . . . . . . . . .. . Page 2-26 2-26 2-26 . . 2-27 2-27 . . 2-28 . 2•29 . . 2-29 2-30 . . 2-30 2-31 . . 2-32 . 2-33 2-34 . 2-35 2-35 2-35 . . 2-36 . 2-37 2-38 2-39 . . 2-40 . 2-40 2-41 . . 2-41 . 2-42 . 2-43 . 2-43 2-44 . . 2-44 2-45 . . 2-45 2-46 . 2-48 . 2-48 . . 2-50 . 2-50 . 2-50 2-51 2-52 2-54 . 2-55 . 2-58 . 2-58 . 2-58 . 2-59 2-60 . . 2-60 . 2-61 . 2-62 3. SOCIOECONOMIC AND LAND USE ANALYSIS Page . 3-1 3. 1 METHODS • • • • • • • • • . . . . . . 3-3 3.2 (a) Socioeconomics . • . . 3-3 (b) Land Use • . . . . . . . . . 3-4 CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION • • •• (a) Socioeconomics • • . • ••••• (b) Land Use • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • (i) Land Uses Inherently Associated with Site Specific Act ivi ties • • • • • • • • (ii) Dispersed and Isolated Non-Site-Specific Activities • . . . • •••••••..• (iii) Re::ource Management Activities and Related Concerns • • • • • ( iv) Natura 1 Aesthetics • • • • • 3-5 . . 3-5 3•6 3-6 .3-7 3-7 . 3-7 3.3 DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCES • • • •• . . . . . 3-8 3.4 (a) Parks Highway to Go 1 d Creek • • • • (b) Glld Creek to Dev i 1 Canyon • • • • (c) Devil 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 (ii) Land Use ..•• (c) Access Plan 4 and 6 •. (i) Socioeconomics (ii) Land Use ••• (d) Access Plans 3 and 7 . (i) Socioeconomics ( i i ) Land Use •. . 3. 5 MITIGATION 3.6 REC(Jo1MENDATIONS ... 3-8 3-9 . 3-9 . 3-9 . • . . . 3-10 . 3-11 . . 3-11 3-11 .. 3-12 . 3-12 . 3-12 3-14 • 0 • • • 3-14 3-14 . 3-16 . 3-16 . .. 3-16 . 3-16 .. 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 Prooosed Access Plans 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 environment~: standpoint, is judged to have the least impact, both short-term and lang-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. Pre 1 iminary access route environmental analysis began in ~larch 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 av ·idance 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 Denal.i 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 an the corridors, which were then modified somewhat according to the adjustments and realignments 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 I • The original corridors plus those adjustments resulting from subsequent suggest ions (certain se911ents 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 opera~ion of the Susitna acc~ss 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 habit at types, so it was necessary in comparing the access plans~ first, to evaluate the relative val~e, 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 Muse.um determined the life requisite scores for the avian species. 1-2 Mr. Gregory Konkel of the United States Fish and 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 Any 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 ~elo~1 are the scientific areas considered in assessing each route's effe~ts. These are: vegetation; wildlife, including birds and small manmals, furbearers. and big game; fish; and cuitural resource . 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 bee~ obtained during the larger study pertaining to the entire area of the upper Susitna River basin and that this information ~as 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 limitations of this classification were described in the 1980 Plant E~ology 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 ranke-d .with respect to the degree of wetness and soil stability. {b) Wildlife (i) Birds and Small Mammals 2-1 Among the methods for conducting the bird ~nd :mall mammals portion of the access plan assessment was a one-day raptor survey by aeri a 1 rt?'' .. )n- naissance of all corridors in early July. A hike along the trail between Devil Canyon and Gold Creek incl~ded part of the ared touched by several of the proposed access routes. Finally, examination of the avian habitat occupancy levels and habitat preferences of various specias contributed to the investigation of a route • s sui tab i1 i ty in terms of its impact on birds and small mammal populations. ( i i) Fur bearers Methods of furbearer analysis of alternative access plans consisted in part of aeri a 1 reconnaissance of a 11 carr i dors to 1 ook for furbearers and their sign and to evaluate various habitats and topographic 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 1 imited 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 includea 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 , .• r~ . 2.2 CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION (a) Vegetation The num.ber of access routes and their combinations present considerable data necessary to select a ''best 11 route for protecting valuable vegeta- tion. The selection was even more difficult since the various values or vegetation are di sconti nuou.s throughout the mapping units and the reg.ions encompassing the vartous access plans. Consequentl'Y, 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 corrid~r. Work done in 1980 indicated that several such plants would occur on well- drained calcareous site~. 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 Or. 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 tncreased number of fires that result when a region becomes more accessible to human use. Except for threats to human life 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 naturally occurring fires in northern borea 1 forests of North- west Canada, prevent, except in rate instances, climax community 2-4 • developnent (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. Co11ins, 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 absence of any rare or end angered p.l ant species, other criteria became most pertinent in evaluating the proposed access plans. These were: 1) total acreage of each ve:)etat ion type affected within a mile-wide corridor (Tab1e 1, 2), wetlands, and 3) probable solifluction. Wetlands are important considerations ~ecause 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 reedgra~s. At higher elevations, tall shrub ~ites, 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 density 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. ( i i ) Furbearers In evaluating the eight access 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 \'lere 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. ( i i i) B i g 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 pub 1 i c 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 denni ng sites of wolves and bears. (c) Fish A major concern of the fhhery investigation was the extent to which streambeds would be disturbed, 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 ir: the climate types found throughout the Susitna stuqy area suffer particularly when fishing pressure becomes excessive. Several game fish, including salmon, gray- ling, lake trout, rainbow trout, and Dolly Varden, are especially th~eatened by improved access to their habitats. Sheer number·s alone, itowever, were not the only consideration when look- ing at the planned crossings and the access they would facilitate. Each stream or 1 ake to be crossed was assessed for its fishery potentia 1. 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 -tht! number of stream or lake crossings that tht: route require\i -the fishery potential of the water being crossed (e.g. resident, anadromous) -the potential for increased puolic access created by the partic- ular plan -the effects, in particular, on anadromous fi~h habitats (d) Cultural Resources The following criteria were implemented to define zones of high, moder- ate, and low archeologic potential: -high archeological potential ~-.'\reas 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 mar~ins and junctions, kettle and kame topography, natural topography con- strictions that tend to funnel and concentrate the movements of large mammals, overlooks, esker systems, etc. Occasionally,·a number of these ecological factors occur I in a single locale, tending to make this area the focus of repeat.ed 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 law in relation to the size of the area. A l~kely 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 little 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 at·e known sites occurring along each access plan, 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 sitt, Watana dam site, and the Denali Highway (Figure 1). Two different segments can connect the two dam sites, one on the north side 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 no~ 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 appr·eciable 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 va·lley, although the beaver is probably the most abundant furbeare~ 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 ext.~nds 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 and 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 segm~nt 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 law 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. Brown 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 segment 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 ~~atana 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 value 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. Brown 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 segment, near the Fog Lakes, has been common- ly used by members of the Nelchina caribou herd, especially during the summer months. Although black bears appear to be. less numerous here than in other portions of the upper basin, they do move up to the open shrub habitats during la~e summer to feed on ripening berries. A great deal of furbearer activity has been noted along this segment, probably caused, in part, by the high degree of haJitat interspersion that exists here, in conjunction with the numerous streams and 1akes dis- tributed throughout this region. Because of a low incidence of forested habitat, there are fewer marten in the area, 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, and Fog Creek areas. (e) Watana Dam Site to Denali Highway Most land along this segment is covered uy birch shrub and willow shrub habitats. wet sedge grass, mixed low shrub, mat and cushion tundra, and sedge shrub tundra are also conmonly 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 wildlife. 2-14 Moose and caribou are probably the most numerous big game species in the area. The 1 arge 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 regu 1 a ted harvesting at ,, approximately the current population level of 20,000. Historically, virtually the entire Nelchina caribou herd has spent par~· 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 vaiue 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, I~c., 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 veg~tation acreage figures. The impact section also discusses mitigation only in general terms. Section 2.6 contains more detailed infonnation 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 ~ite 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 Acct.3 Plan 8 is the best choice in terms of minimal potential destruc· tion of vegetation. Plan 8 is shorter 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. (ii) Birds and Small 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 relatively unimportant to furbearers. 2-18 ( i v} Big Game Access Plan 8 is preferable to other routes in its avoidance of ;mportant 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 viciriity 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 (Tsusena-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 prefer·able to any route 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 upor cultural resources, specifically archeological sites. Twelve archeologi· cal sites have been documented along or adjacent to this route, ten of which were aiscovered 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 inmediately north of High Lake and extending to th•! 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 fur 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 les:; desirable than Plan 2. (b) Access Plan 2 This plan is totally a railroad access beginning near Gold Cree~ 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 2-19 southern segment between the two dam sites, and in the low middle 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 preferab·te to highway construction. (ii) Birds and Small Mammals A railroad brings fewer people into an area than a vehicular roari allows, ·sa ordinarily a plan involving a railroad would be prefer·able to other routes. Access Plan 2, which uses a railroad, also, however, traverses the southern route between the two dam sites. That l~oute 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 th::.t it originates at Gold Creek. This origin reduces the impact to vaiuable .~ :· .. ~ _. 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. 2-20 ,.·- (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 tha Watana site, and the area between the Parks Highway and Gold Creek. ( i v) Big Game Access Plan 2 presents some of the same problems for big game that it do2s 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, suhstantial 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. This has 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• 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. 2-21 · .. . ~·· While Access Plan 2 poses some serious problems for-v1ildlife in general, it is the preferred route for minimizing disturbance 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 habitats, 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 highwqy 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. 2-22 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 sloping 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 slightly preferable to 2a in that it traverses sligntly less terrain of high archeological potential. Seven. ~reviously do6ument- ed sites occur along 2a, while six knowr. sites are adjacent to 2b. No "new" archeological sites were discovered along this access plan during the ~ourse 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 High\'1ay south of Hurri- cane, guing through Chulitna Pass, then south along Indian River, cro~s 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, is rated poorly because vegetation suggests solifluction problems that could make restoration of these areas difficult. 2-23 The route from Hurricane to the Devil Canyon site passes close to or through valuable wetlands. Access Plan 5, which includes this segment~ thus falls short of the optimum route by crossing this sensitive 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 caribou 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 veh)cle 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 Pl :an 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. 2-24 -----~--,_-.. . ---I I i ! 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 rec0nnaissance and vegetation mapping indicates it may be possible to locate the road to avoid most of these wetland areas. ( i v) Big Game Access Plan 5, while not the best 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 Cr-eek area. However, caribou traffic appears to be rather light here. There may be problems with bears along this segment, particularly in the spring, when brown bears emerge from dens, and in late summer, when black bears concentrate near timberline. These problems would likely be human-bear conflicts . Portions of the northern route between Devil Canyon ana Watana, primari- ly the area of Devil Mountain and the mouth of Tsusena Creek, are impor- tant summer 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. 2-25 --~-~------·-----··---- -----------~------- ( 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 coula affect salmon populations, which are known to utilize these areas far spawning and/or migration during spring and summer months. Addition- ally, with improved access, the Indian River fisheries would be ~ub 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 same 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 limited examination of surface exposures along all the access plans resulted in the discovery of twenty-two previously undocumented archeological sites. Same of these sites occur along the route of Access Plan 5. From the region immediately north of High Lake and extending to the proposed ~Jatana dam site, Access Plan 5 traverses an area that is largely treeless~ ecologically diverse, and lacking in appreciable sail deposition. These factors make cultural resources highly visible and highly vulnerable to a~ surface disturbing activi- ties. For these reasons secondary adverse effects to cultural resources are expected to b~ severe. Additionally, that section of Access Plan 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 1ess desirable than some of the other alterna- tives available. 2-26 .,__ • (d) Access Plan 1 Access Plan 1 is a ro~d 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 tue route plans• ranking. The estimated number of acres within the 'corridor of Access P1an 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 . • ~ccess 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 type~ that readily invade exposed soils on solifluction sites. These are~s pose difficult res- toration problems and should normally be avoided. ( i i) 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, la is preferable to lb 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 from 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. 2-26 Plan la, by crossing closer to the head of Fog Creek than lb does, av.oids some potenti.al cliff-nesting habitat that lb would encounter. While la also passes ~loser 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, la would be preferable to lb. (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 dwellings. Access Plan 1 would involve a negative impact to productive furbearer habitat by following a route south of the Susitna River betw.een the two dam sites. Both la and lb would encounter productive ftrbearer habitat around Stephan Lake, the Fog Lakes, and/or Fog Cree~. Thus, while Access Plan 1 is not the worst route, it falls 1~n the ranking because of the effects that the southside segment w uld have on furbearer species. (iv} Big 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 2-27 -------------------------------------------------- year-round moose concentrations in t~e region. Construction in this area will reduce the habitat available to 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 la is slightly preferable t~ 1b because la 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 part 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 2-28 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 would 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 Hesources The criteria used to determine the potential for archeological site occurrence 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 su~h 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 (Figure 6). 2-29 ----:--------·---l. . . ,. ( 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 category 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, Wooding, and Whiting, 1978}. O~ening of the Susitna basin to further vehicular use could increase that damage, ana 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 cf the railroad. A railroad brings fewer people into an area than a vehicular road allows, so ordinarily a plan involving a railro?J is preferable to other modes. 2-30 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, esp~cially 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, ~hich generally support less producti~e 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 mamnal habitats will be affected than with any "single 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 Sus itua River around· Stephan Lake and the Fog Lakes. The serious disadvantage to Access Plan 4 is the inclusion of the road between Denali 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. 2-31 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 valuable big game habitat compared to what a road would afford. The presence of an access route through wildlife habitat do.es not, alone, disturD the animals. What does disturb them is noise, traffic, hunting and other activities resulting from increased access. Since 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 avoidarce-zone estimates double for wolves and I'«Jlv~rines. The access routes will have two effects on brown be~rs: conditioned to fear the sound of an engine, they wi 11 avoid any r-oute, whatever t.he 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 disruption of the animals, especially caribou, that frequent the area. It will also tend, at its southt!rnmost end, to open up access into the Stepnan LJke-Fog Lakes area. This proposed Denali road pas~es 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 that herd. This subherd is believed to nllllber approximately 1000 animals. The alpine tundra of the Deadman and Brushkana Creek valleys is the center of its summer distribution. 2-32 . ' .:·_.::.. __ • · -~·~-;_.!.~ ... !..-:.·L;;:!.~~·: ~~ ::-c12.· -.-.:::.-.::. 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 m~re detrimental to caribou. The proposed access road also lies across the caribou's late sunmer 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 era· .s 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 disturba1ce of the entire group and higher losses of individual animals as they encoJn- ter vehicles, campers, and hunters. Thus, there is a chance that tnis route could lead to partial abandonment of important caribou habitat. A possible mitigation technique for this impact is heavy patrol by regulatcry 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 particu-1 ar advantage. It wi 11 not increase access to any of the area's lakes, nor does it call for new crossings of anadromous streams. 2-33 '"----·----•--____ :_ ... _ 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 ~ites with any archeological potential. Moreover, the railroaa feature tempers this ranking because it will limit public access and its concomitant damage ~a sites by recreators and artifact collectors. On the other hand, and primarily because Plan 4 inc 1 udes the Dena 1 i 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--twel·;e 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 th~ 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 archeologic~l sites and is, therefore, preferable to 4b. 2-34 (f) Access Plan 6 This plan consists of a railroad between Gold Creek and the Devil Canyon darn site on the south side of the Susitna River. A roadway connects the Watana darn 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 6's utilizing two access points is that more avian and small manmal habitat will be affected than with any "single access" plan. 2-35 ~---~~~· ·-----·-· ..... . Other than increasing unwanted access to important habitat, the Denali seg- ment wi 11 have 1 ess 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 a'lso 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 cant i nuous and secondary effects of improved access waul d be substantia 11 y 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 D~nali segment. By providing access to the fragile alpine tundra/lake/ stream complex here, the route will bring impact to aquatic furbearers inhabiting the areas of Deadman r-buntain, Deadman and Big Lakes, and upper Deadman Cre~k. This impact will likely be due to increased trapping mortality and habitat disturbance. 2-36 In addition, th·e 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. ( i v) 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'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 thiough 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 witn bears here, particularly in spring, when brown bears emerge from dens, and in 1 ate 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 will 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 far 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 all these problems and, in addition, may severely disrupt the caribou population. 2-37 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 nlJ1lber 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 beer; 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'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 arens 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 r.ailroad 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. 2-38 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 will be affected by road construction or increased access on the south side of the Susitna. The Denali Highway-to-\~atana road is the major dra\'lback 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 some\'lhat because it will limit public access and its concomitant damage to sites by recreators and artifact co~- 1 ectors. 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 tapa· graphy, 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 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 2-39 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 High 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 cultural 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. -··-··-·-l·•·J(.·~ . ., ...•.•• ., ... "''"'.' (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 3h will include 44,058 acres (approximately 1,244 acres to be removed), both of which figures are markedly 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. 2-40 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 Oenal i segment also contains a large cJIIOunt of willow range for moose and outranked all other segments in that respect. An access road through this area wi il 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 v~hicle travel. (ii) 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 Single access 11 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 in the area as well as cow moose with calves. One positive aspect of Access Plan 3, at least from an avian standpoint, is the Denali segment. ~e 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 Ja 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 oneoomile-wide corri- dor of Access Plan Jb. 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 2-41 areas adjacent to .the Denali Highway will be affected by increased access. Along the route from the Denali Highway to the Watana Dam, particularly the area south of Deadman Mountain, are beaver and muskrat populations and fox denning sites. These animals would be vulnerable to increased trapping pressure if a road were constructed. ( iv) Big Game Access Plan 3 is a poor choice when big game criteria are app 1 i ed. 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 ~all 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 m:gration 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 calv·~S 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 tundrJ would provide the opportunity for all- terrain vehicles to push a netwrrk of unplanned trails throughout this 2-42 suoherd's range. This new access would cause disturbance and increased morta·l ity 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 ltkely to encounter and the number of miles of possible sites of any potential. The segment of Plan 3 extending south from the Denali Highway tc 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 asses~ent. Virtually the entire length of this route passes through treeless topo- graphy, and many deflated ilreas also occur here. A long 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 2-43 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 pr~ferable. (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 sit? 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 Sus~tna 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 remuved). 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. i'all 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 consi.Jered. 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. 2-44 (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 wi 11 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, Sunmit Lake, and Pass Creek. 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. 2-45 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 providir.g 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 will 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, the1·eby 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 \~atana 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 ~nd the Fog Lakes. 2-46 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 SIJII111er ranges of the northwestern sub- group of the Nelchina caribou herd. This subherd is believed to niJTiber 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 upor. 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 car1bou 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 abandom1ent 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 win be inhibited by a road lying across their migration paths. 2-47 (v) Fish Access Plan 7 is one of the two least desirable 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 aads to the route's disadvantages. In combination with the Parks Highway segment, this northern leg promises 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 ard 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 i·ncreased 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 facto-s make cultural re- sources highly visible and highly vuln'::!r·a~le to !!iiY surface-disturbing ac- tivities. For these reasons, seconodry adverse effects to cultural 2-48 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. 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 thi.s 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 a 1 so occur here. A long much of this northern extension, glacial drift is covered by a thin veneer of loess in areas of high topographic relief. These factors com~ine 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 he extensive. Access Plan 7, then, is the least desirable from an archeological perspec- tive. If chose.n,· however, Route 7a wot,~ld probably encounter fewer archeo- logical sites than would 7b and, consequently, would be preferable. 2-49 2.5 HABITAT VALUE COMPARISON ( a ) In trod uc t ion 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 alternative~ 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 ~e 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 I I In a situation such as addressed in this effort, there is no single, well established, accepted method of determining habitat value. There are techniques available that could ce applied to srncific 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 impi·acticable 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 analyc:is 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 2-50 Project, Anchorage, Alaska). The basis of the approach described herein, as well as the JSFWS approach~ is the use of vegetation cover types in defining habitat types, in other words, the terms "habitat" and "cover type" are used interchangeably. Following is a step-by-step description of the procedures used in this analysis. 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 explanatio~s 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 P.ach cover type to each wildlife species. This process was accomplished by listing, for each cover type, the wildlife species that inhabit or Lltilize on a regular basis that particular cover type. The value of that cover type to each species was then estimated for seven life 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 sumner/fail, 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 particula1·· 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. 2-51 The determination of the life requisite scores was conducted by the appropriate principal investigators responsible for 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 ~nount of reliable information 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 wer·e 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 ~sed by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Ser1ice (Konkel, et al. 1981). This approach involves summing the total life requisite scores for all species within a cover type to pr0duce 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 rP.lat1ve basis, with the highest scoring cover type designated as 1.00 and all other cover type scores altered proportionately less than 1.00. 2-52 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 alter 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 Wildlife Service in their Habitat Evaluation Procedure [U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Habitat Eval~ltion Procedures (HEP), ESM 102. Division of Ecological Services, Washington, 0. C.]. Value Index ({VI). Tht:: weighting factor was referred to as a Re 1 ~t ive The first step in generating a RVI is to select criteria. Five evaluation criteria were chosen and their relative weights d~termined 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 V~lue (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 aff2cted by habitat destruction from the proposed action. 2-53 -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 sccres 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 tot a 1 ed 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 iess than 1.00. (iii) Comp~rison of Access Plans FQHQWing the calculation of the relative cover type values, the acreage of each cover type within e~ch access plan was determined. These acreages were adjusted by applying the relative cover tvoe ~~~lues for the appropriate cover types. The adjusted acreages wert ·, provide a total adjusted score for each access plan. For e . 2-54 if a particular p·lan included 10,000 acres of a C:over type with a relative value of 1.00, the adjusted score rem~ined 10,000. If that plan included 10,000 acres of a cover type with a relative v.11ue of 0. 75, the adjusted score would be 7, 500. In other words, the more acreage of high value cover types contained w.ithin a plan, the less the adjusted score deviated from the initial acreage. Conversely, plc:ns with a high proportion of low value cover type acreage were reduced more. For comparative pu·rposes, this process was conducted for both sets of cover type scores, the weighted set and the unweigrated set. (c) Results ancl Discussion The results of this analysis were useful in determining the relative habitat value of the vegetation cover types (Table 6). With minor ~:<ceptions, however, the comparison did not influence the ranking of ne 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 val.ue 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 center 1 ine crossed a cover type boundary. Of the fourteen p 1 ans, 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 2-55 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 ran~ 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 v ·_:~ble habitat. In fact, when all the variables were considered, Access Plan 8 surfaced as the best choice from the standpoint of least impact an wildlifa habitat. Plan 7b is the worst choice on this basis. Review of the acreages, the unweighted scores, and the weighted scores reveals vei~y few differences among Access Plans 4a, 4b, 2b, 2a, 5, lb, la, and 3a. The only notable difference arises with Access Plan 3b. !f Plan 8 h not selected, it then makes 1 ittle difference, from the standpoint of impact on wildlife habitat, which of the above mentioned plans is chosen. Continuing down the ranking, Plans 6a and 6b are considerably different from the plans ranked above them and are certainly inferior selections. Th~re 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 other 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 ~over type rankings will suggest route changes that will avoid high value habitat and, where a 2-56 choice exists, result in the disturbance of only cover types of lower habitat value. Likewise, subsequent decisions concerning the acquisition of borrow material for construction of the access road can util.ize the resul.ts of this analysis, along with the vegetation maps, to select borrow areas with 1ow habitat value rather than areas of great import~nce to wildlife. 2-57 2.6 MITIGATION In the environmental analysis of a major· P'·oject 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 olans chosen, areas of potentially 3evere 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 mitig~ted 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 stab;lizc ~r~as prior to regrowth of vegetation. After construction, 1nan~ged r~veg;tation will be nece:)sary in areas of rough terrain, tnat is, those with more steep slopes exposed. While caribou range should be avoided as much as possible, caribou do, in some instances, seek 011t 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 veyetat ion. (b) Birds and Small Mammals Permanent habitat removal or destruction as a consequence of any access 2-58 route is a direct impact on that area's birds and small mammals and cannot be mitigated. Temporarily disturbfd areas, such as will be created during the construction stage of the access route or, in some cases, oorrow areas, can be recontoured and revegetated to make them avai 1 ab 1 e for use by some avian and small mammal species, if not the same ones that previously inhabit- ed those areas. This will partially miti9ate the disturbance to those areas. (c) Furbearers ( i) Genera 1 -Construction should avoid closely paralleling and/or obstructing water- ways 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 'llet areas, bridges rather than culverts should be used, where practical, to avoid problems with beavers dam- ming culverts. -During the period April through June, furbearers den and produce young. Construction should be avoided in wetland areas and in stands of white s~~uce at this time of year. (ii) Segment Specific In the route segment between the Parks Highway and Go 1 d Creek, in order to minimize the destruction of additional furbearer habitat, the road should be kept above the waterways whenever possible and should closely follow the existing rai1road. In the route segment between Gold Creek and Devil Canyon, any road or rail- road 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 harrnful to furbearers because it crosses and close~y parallels waterways that are used by aquatic furbearers. In the route segment between Oev il 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 dis- turba~ce to foxes denning near these lakes. 2-59 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 "a" 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 fibuntain, the .. a .. alternative should be used. 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 eat·ly instructional sessions for construction workers. Alaskan a~thorities 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 responsibi 1 ity 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 tnose 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. lt is also imperative that the proper type of stream crossing facility be constructed at the respective site. These 2-60 should include bridges and properly installed culverts. Low water crossings have been found· to be a fa-ilure in association with the A 1 ask a oil pipeline construction. Properly built low water crossings can be vr..ed for occasional, light, vehicular traffic. They are not, however intended , for the movement of heavy equipment for constr.uction purposes. Control o.f siltation could mitigate impacts to spawning areas. Use of siltatio.n control devices, prompt restorati'on and revegetation of disturbed areas on creek and river banks will reduce impacts to fish populations. (f) Cultural Resources Those ~esponsible fc~ route selection should take into consideration the cost of mHigating 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 (mi·nor realignment of the route); 2) preservation; and 3) investigati.on (conservation of information through adequate study of the resources, which may include systematic excavation). Combinations of the three mitigation options may be recommended. 2-61 2.7 ~CNCLUSIONS 0~ the basis of the environmental impact assessment as documented in this report ana the mitigation options available, the best access plan from an environmental star.dpoint alone is Access Plan 8. By originating at a railhead, Gold Creek, to which there is ~urrently no road access. this plan will limit, to a large extent, the potential impacts associated with easy public access. Although a road from Goid Creek may allow more access than a ;--ai lroad (Access Plan 2), t;,is disaavantage is overshadowed by the advantage of the northside connection between the two dam sites. This northside connection avoids the potential consequences possible to waterfo• .. ll, raptors, furbearers, and some big game sper;es as~ociated with the southside connection, which skirts deep gorges and the highly productive areas near Stephan Lake, the Fog Lakes, and other lakes and wet 1 ands. A road connection from Gold Creek to the Parks Highway could have potential effects on anadromous fish using Indian River and th~ Susitna River and on furbearers, and it passes through large areas of wetlands and other sensitive vegetation communities. This segment also seems 5uperfluous to minimum access needs for construction and maintenance. The road segment connecting the Watana aam site to the Denali Highway has t~1e potential to impact big game, particularly portions of the Nelchina caribou hera, furbearers, vegetation commu:1itie:s; and cultural resources. This segment poses the least potential impacts to birds and small manmals. All plans that incorporate this segment also 1nclude a connection to the west, either by road or railroad. In one plan (~ccess Plan 7) there is a complete road connection between the Parks Highwa_, and tht=: Dene.li Highway. Any of these plans could increase access to such an extent that certain anim~l subpopulations may be seriously jeopardized. Habitat TyQ_e 6 2a Sedge shrub tundra 157' 62l. Mat and cushion tundra 256E 209U Sedge grass tundra 16C 106 \~et sedge grass 113( 12bq Open black SJJruce 43 303~ Woodland b 1 ack spruce 29 22~5 Open white spruce 183~ 364U ~Joodl and white spruce 112!: 3317 Closed birch forest 611 94~ Open birch forest 52j 49i Closed balsam w2ll w2A poplar i Table 2.1 Estimated Acreages for Each Vegetation l·lappi ng Unit in One-Mile Wide Corridors for Proposed Access Plans Access Plan 2b 9 3a 3b 4a 4b Ua tlb 622 157,J 68 &U~ 24 24 1573 1573 2090 256t 163t 1636 402~ 3835 6563 637t 106 160 61 61 223~ 1903 239[ 206j 120:. 22~ 491 441 292~ 1734 292t 1734 3U71 43 333t 3561 4'' 4:. 4 4: 2736 29 241' 281Q 12{; 12( 15~ 15: 3980 7Ut: 31ll 334~i llU~ 11Ut 183!! 1~3e - 137, 79t 431!i 3285 321.J 32' 112~ 112~ 79't. 184· 64~ b7t 58~ 58~ 63t 636 - 820 118 8t 194 497 49_1 52~ 528 I ---l 4611 4611 102~ 102~ 102n 102~ 102~ 5a 5b 7a 7b 2~ 22 1571 1571 401§ 3851 655i 6370 223t 190 239~ 2063 2021; 831 ···f121; .. .. .;.. 831 41~ 4H 41l! 418 12_~ 121J 15~ 155 89 uj 815 819 --------796 7-J6 13~ 13~ 189 lti9 ., BE 8[ ll<J llY 46Y 4blj 'H>!j --· "tU.J. - Table 2.1 (Cont.) Habitat Type 6 2a 2b 9 3a 3b 4a 4b 8a 8b 5a 5b 7a 7b Open balsam poplar 731 l3t 13~ 731 29 29 13f 13~ 731 731 2~ 2" 62t 622 Closed mixed forest 762~ 739~ 7857 6071 675f 7lll 670/ 670J 7623 762 594t 594f: 6864 6864 Open mixed forest 3463 4039 423ll gog 2526 240f 360( 360( 360(] 360(] 152fJ 1526 152ti . 1526 Closed tall shrub 2154 734 734 1984 1229 122" 51" 51J 2154 215~ 426 426 2063 2063 Open tall -- shrub 1bl0 187&; 1875 1610 1921 1921 ------161C 161(] ------16HJ 1610 Birch shrub 7110 2592 193~ 704/ 2951 2481; 677" 6271 13,819 13,323 670<l 621~ 13.755 13.259 Willow shrub 723 491; 57~ 723 485 50f 922~ 12.19" 9949 12,9H 9226 12.193 994CJ 12.916 Low shrub 3880 2991 2841 3880 3121 3055 1743 207ll 562 ~95~ 1743 207S 562.3 5958 Grass land 25 25 2~ ---116 115 21; 25 2~ 2~ 115 115 ll'i 115 Disturbed 194 194 194 71 179 17Q 194 194 194 194 17~ 179 17CJ 179 Ro~l' 82 82 82 82 105 105 424 23(] 424 23(] 44.1 25"l 44~ 253 ltiver 593 51C 51( 451 624 624 51(] 51( 593 593 ------83 83 Lake 244 351 62~ 244 313 56t 44 381 265 60.~ 21 35f 242 579 TOTAL 39.18~ 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 Av 1 an Census Plot Cottonwood Forest Mixed Forest II Mixed Forest I Paper Birch Forest White Spruce Scattered Woodland Black Spruce Dwarf Forest Low-med i Lm Willow Shrub White Spruce Forest Medium Birch Shrub Tall Alder Shrub Dwarf-Low Birch Shrub A 1 pine Tundra TJble 2.~ Avian Habitat Occupancy Levels, Upper Susitna River Basin, 1981 No. Species Density (No. Breeding (No. terri- Species) tories/lOha) 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 Biomas S Species (Grams/lOha} Oiversity(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 A~~roximate Number of Miles Ran&l~ased On: High MQderate Lo~ Total Miles of Plan Pu ~ent i al Potenthl Potential Total Miles High Potential la 24-1/2 9 26-1/2 ~ 60 ll 10 1b 24 8-1/2 29-1/2 62 13 11 2a 17 9 32 58 9 13 2b 15 8-1/2 29 52-1/2 8 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 9 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 ~igh numbers represent top choices. Table 2.4 Environrenta 1 lnventcry/Constraint~ -Jlccess C<rridor Segrents Parks Higy..,ay Ci> ld Creek to Oevi 1 ~vi 1 Carrton to ~vi 1 Cafyon to Watana to to Gold frea< Carr/oo Oc:ns i te Watana {Ncrthside} Watana (~ide} Uemli Hi~ Vegetatioo Passes close to <r Lar~ly fcrested <rea, Severe JX)tential Inp<rtant watlaoos in ~latiwly mira ttrou9'l v~ 1 u<t> 1 e fer~ Jar~ creas a soluflucti<Jl p-cbl816 in St~ and Fog Laces ex~nses of area in \'letlarxis. \\etlarxts. \'i!Sta-nmst jXrtion of crea. \.et J a005 , rr creas with this segrent. as (XXenti al so lufluction iooicated ~ tall strtb JrOOlan;. habitat lyJ:6. Birds and 9ra 11 Valuable bird aoo snall Fa-ested areas along Relatively unJToruct i ve Segrentg>esttr~~ Segrent travels ttrw~ M:lme ls rlflnral habitat a 1 ong Susitna River are habitat for birds and relatively productive relatively lfVOOJct ive Indian River, aoo hi~ly Jroducthe sma 11 nama 1 s. frrest habitats, aoo avian habitat. Bald ttrOJ!jl \..et 1 ands of the habitat for birds am near (J'<XU:tive \'latEr eagle rest; tree aloog Chulitna Pass area. suall nama ls. bodies, such as St€Jilan Dearnan free<, little Lace, for watErfCl'/1. other raptor habitat Also tra\er'SeS ner nearby. ocrupied am potential cliff-nesting rapta- habitat alcrf:} tributaries. FtrbearS"S Productive ftrbearer Fairly (J'od.ctive Relatively Lfliupa-tant Productive fLI"bearEr CGod ftrbearer habitat. habitat, particulcrly forested habitat for to flrbearers exc~t habitats ar01J!ld St~an Beaver, nuskrdt ~ la- beava-. aloog this aquatic ftrbeara-s. red fox dnling crea Lace, Fog Likes, am Fog tioo ttrw~ crea ard segrent. arOllld Hi~ Lite. Cree<. 11.11rerrus fox cEnni ng sites in crea of ~dd1an tt>ultain. Big Gale !rea used trinari ly ttl Prtrtlninant big glle Mbderately important Inpxtant big 9:111e Likely to lead to seva-e noose ard jrohably SJEies in this area fa-big gc»Je s~ies, (es~ially cariboo ard disruption of big ~re. black bears. ere rroose arxl black 5ef.Jient is la-.er than noose) habitat in particularly eiribaJ of bear. IIDit lrCWI bear cEn St~an/Fog Lites areas. the Nel dli na herd ard sites: segrent inta--~ Susitna am Nenana sects na-th-sruth sutherd. caribou trai Is. but cariboo use appears to be l19lt. Table 2.4 (Cont.) Perks Hi~ Gold rrea to Devil Devil Carl(on to Devil Carron to watana to to Gold rrea Carrion Dimii te watana {rtrthside} watana {Southside}. OenilU Hi~ Fish Potentially severe dis-little potential Few fish habitats, Potentially severe ProvideS access to res1,.. ttrbaoce to salnnn in inpact to anid'OJDJS either streill6 cr lctes, inpacts to resid!nt d!nt fista-1es habitat Sus;tna River ard Indian species. necr this fl"oposed seg-fishEries in Stf~Nn cHI along rwte, rlllB'<lJS Ri\8" fisheries. nent. Fog Lc«es creas. ~trean ae&sings. Culttral Qms i<Erab le prt ioo of Relatively little A lar~ ll"OfD1: ion of Daculentm sites in lar~ fl"opl"t im .rX Resotrces segtent gJeS tlr~ pltential fa-this seg1ent traverses Stephan enS Fog Lc«es lew:Jth ~ses UrW!IJ creas of hi!tl am iiiXEr-inJlclct i ~ areas of areas of higt potential areas, higt arii IIJKB"ate creas of hi!~\ crcheo- ate pltential fir wl-hig. pltential fer fer wlttral resarces. pltential ftr cDiitional logical (XItential, ttral resOtrces. culttral resatrces. This treeless crea, cultll'al resotrces in secondr,y iapacts dte to ecologically diverse, these creas. tbev""· irD"easm aiXeSS (Xllld also lad<s apfl"eciable totXl9"~ic COtEtraints be Se\B"e becCI JSe rX soil depositioo -this tO access in ..estern largely treeless tqlog- llilkes rulttral re-fXI'tim could limit ra(Jtrf ard gxxt visi- SOlJ'Ce5 visible aOO in.,acts in this crea. bility. vulnerable to strface disttr~i~ activities. PtvoxinBte II River - l a-2 (Indian trOO<s -6 (hB.S-12 tretks-10 «Teas-20 Ri\er /CreEk Ri\8") acssings - 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 la lo a 2a 2b 3a 3b 7a 7b 4a 4b 6a 6b Acreage Affected 9 7 a 14** 10 11 6 5 2 1 13* 12 4 3 Tf) High numbers represent top choices ** Firs1. choice * Second choice Rating on the Basis of~l) Wetlands Solifluction 9 10 8 5 7 6 14** 12** 11 5 12 5 6 8 &:: 7 "' 2 2 1 1 13* 11* 10 9 4 3 3 4 Table 2.6 Relativ~ va·lue .of Vegetation Cover Types as Wildl ffe Habit·at 0 Unweighted Values· open mixed forest c lased mixed forest wet sedge grass woodland white spruce open white spruce bals·am poplar lake open black spruce wood 1 and b 1 ack spruce closed birch forest wH low shrub open birch forest mixed low shrub sedge shrub tundra sedge grass tu~dra birch shrub tall s~rub grassland mat & cushion tundra river rock Relative Value 1.00 0.98 0. 92 0. 91 0. 84 0.80 o. 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 1. 00 open mixed forest u. 95 open white spruce 0. 94 wfllow shrub 0. 92 lake 0. 90 closed mixed forest 0. 88 mixed low shrub 0.88 woodland white spriJte open black spruce birch shrub tall shrub wood 1 and b 1 ack spruce sedge grass tundra sedge shrub tundra closed birch forest river mat & cushion tundra balsam poplar open birch forest rock grassland· 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 Plan R.:nk(a) Based on Based on Based on Actual Acreage Unweighted Scores Weighted Scores 1 8 (30,198)(b)(c) 8 ( 21. 62 7) ( c ) 8 (24,536)(C) 2 4a (35,816) 4a (26, 055) 4a (29, 954) 3 4b (3 7' 063) 4b (26, 901) 2b (31, 191) 4 2b (37,412) 2b (29,228) 4b (31,236) 5 2a ( 3 7, 531) 2a (29,330) 2a (31,327) 6 5 (3b,873) 5 (29, 551) 5 (31, 974) 7 1b (39, 339) lb (31,273) lb (33,091) 8 1a (40,054) la (31,926) la (33.A4) 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 ( 4 7' 952) 12 6b (59,640) 6b (41,584) 6b (49, 232) 13 7a (65, 224) 7a (46,700) 7a (53, 823) 14 lb (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 value. -u .... a a:: Q.. Ill -c Q) E c .El ~ Q Q Construction Road 0 10 20 Kilometers lO SUSITNA HYDROELECIRIC PROJECJ figure 2 Access Plan 8 111111111111 Railroad 0 10 20 Kilometers 30 SUSITriA IIYOROH£CTRIC PROJECI Figure 3 Access Plan 2 l {;' ::I C/1 -~ c n -;· ::I :11:1 C) Ql c. -=< c = 0 ,.., ,... ,., 5 c; ..., = 0 ;:;; C':l - ... , .. ·. ,. Construction Road 0 0 10 Miles 10 20 Kll"melers 20 30 SII~HNA lfiOROH£CIRJC PROJECT Figure 5 Access Plan 1 'tJ ta & c 0 :;: u :I ... -Ill c 0 u <.D cu :; .2!1 ..... I ""' c ~ a: ~ Q) u u c Q N 0 M Q ·' Construction Road llllllllllll Railroad Service Road 0 lO 20 JO Kilometers '' ''( ·~ ~,-·' SUSJTNA IIYOROELECTRIC ..-:-.... -., llf.UI"' I Access Plan 6 f: -y a: ..... 0 a ~ a: 1-~ ~ < y A: -y ..... ..... ..... 0 a: Q >-::c c z -u; = ., co Q) -= 1:10 i:: , ., Q ~ c: .S! -u :1 .. -Ill c a ~ c "' a: I u ~ Construction Road - - -Service Road 0 0 Miles 10 10 ~0 Kilometers 20 30 SUSITNA lll'OROfl£CTr.IC PROJECT figure 9 Access· Plan 7 3. SOCIOECONOMIC AND LAND USE ANALYSIS Each of the eight access _plans ·under consideration contains access routes to both dam sites which tie into the existing transport~~ion network at one or two of the following points: the Parks Highway at Hurricane (road intersection}, the Alaska R~ilroad at Gold Creek (railroad or road junction), and the Denali Highway near Denali (road intersection). The eight routes can be paired according to shared points of origin, although they vary in alignment or mode from the point of origin to the work sites. For purpos~s 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 similar. 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 ~onnection 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 b -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 -I 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 inc1udes 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) Socioeconomi:s The development of access routes to the Watana and Devil Canyon dam sites will affect the economic and social chara.cteristics 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 wi 11 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 1-1as 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 imoact under each plan is designated by label- ing the effects as:· 5-major, 4-significant, 3-moderate, 2-sl ight, 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 v~ry 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 effects under different pla~s. (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 -total labor demand -unemployed labor The economic categories that served as evaluative criteria are: -construction -mining -agriculture -forestry -manufacturing -commercial fisheries -oil and gas -transportation (motor, rail, & port) -public utilities -communications -wholesale trade 3-5 ----------~------- -reta i 1 trade -services -tourism/recreation Each of the access route plans has been examined in terms of its effects on categories listed above. The effects have been considered for the Parks Highway-Railroad corridor~ the Richardson Highway corridor, and Anchorage, Whittier, 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 communities along the Parks Highway. include Healy, Cantwell, Chulitna, Talkeetna, Willow, 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, llulkana, Paxson, and others located along the Richardson Highway. This corridor and the surrounding area is termed .. Eastside ... (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 activitias, 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 ~1d resources, including 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 tr.e natural land cover type itself as oppused 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 .DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCES . In the upper Sus"itna bas1n, the site of all the proposed access plans, there is ·little extensive land use. Most of what exists occurs along ·present rail lines a_nd around the major·1akes in the. area--High, Stephan, and the. Fog Lakes. In these locations. most of the land use r_esources involve recreational concerns, both of a private, individual nature and .. of a conmerc i a 1 sort . Obviously, with the introduction of a highway, a railro.ad, or a compination of these, land use concerns focusing ort transportation Will also be· involved. Furthermore, the communities that exist at the origins of these routes wi 11 feel the impact of. any new transportation form · introduced.· Access will facilitate the influx of people and activity within the ·basin, affettin~ both ~mall popu)ation concentrations and isolated residences, peripheral ·cominercia.l and transportation systems, resource utilization and level of recreational activitY.: visual and aesthetic . facte>rs, and the overall character of the area. In addition, these e."'fects wii 1 have ramifications for management activities. in terms· of their extent, adequacy,· and need (e.·g~, fish and game, l·and, etc.) and will influence changes in land values and dev~lopment . . _· (~) ~~~ghway to Gold Cree~ . . . Access· Pla~~"'~' 3, and i all include this route· segme~t. The land use. resources in 'this area, to be affected· by these acce~s plans, include I Pas.s Creek and the Indian and Susitna Rivers, alrof·whichwill require crossfngs. These access plans will also have a significant impact on Chulitna, Canyon, and Go 1d Creek, a."l 1 of which wi 11 ac_quire road access where none previous·ly 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 will 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 land 2 incorporate this segment. The waterways to be affected here include two unnamed tributaries of the Susitna itself and, with Plan l, 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 twelve 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 drain age and pass close to Deadman Lake. They will also pass within a mile or so of a lake adjacent 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 (;) Soc i'oeconomics With access to the sites originating at Gold Creek, all materials, equipnerit,-and labor must move by rai'l 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 Wests ide. and these would be approximately the same as those for Access Plans land 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 l and 5 (see below). The fact that vehicles can only be brought into the access road by rail will largely 1 imit the vehicles on the road to a set of dedicated project veh ic.les. Plans 2 and 8 1 imit public access and recreational use significantly, whne Plan 2 has the additional advantage of cantrall ing 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 conmunities. These effects would be magnified in Talkeetna and near Hurricane because of their locations at rail-highway intersections. There Would 1 ikely be significant effects on public .services. government expendftures and revenues, unemployed labor, public utn ities, retail trade, and services. A moderate effect would probably occur in mining, 3-11 manufacturing, motor transportation, communications, way-of-life, and community 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 roac access. Const~uction. 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 moderace 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, ~t most, slight effects would result for the Eastside. ( i i) Land Use The effects associated wit1 Access Plans 2 and 8 are probably the most limited, in that the only a~cess to the interior basin is via rail at Gold Creek. To take either the ro~d or· railroad to the dam sites requires using the Alaska Railroad to ~~t 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 corrmunit ies 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 / rirtgins and .currently has far less development and activity. The Rail- belt corridor wHl provide access for construction materia·h, po·wer plant equipinent and· furnishings, and construction workers as well as for post- constr.uct fan users of the Sus i tna Bas 1 n ( recreators, hunters, f i Shermer., 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 Fah"banks. They wHl need to commute to the site on some periodic basis. Out-of-state worke!"s 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 wi 11 locat·e anywhere between the junction with the access road and the Anchor- age and Fa.irbanks areas. The majority wi.ll probably seek acc011111odations in the southern portion of Mat-Su Borough. Westside: Conmunities 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, CORI11Unity, 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/W11ittfer: 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 1s 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 resu 1 t i ng from road access of the Parks Hi·ghway would be concentrated on the Westside. Only slight or negligible effects would occur in Valdez and coRH11unities along the Richardson Hi.ghway.. (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 Initially, 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 Ra i 1 be 1t corridor to Cant we 11. Access from the Den a 1 i Highway lengthens significantly the road distance between most available housing (Mat-Su Borough) and the wrrk site. Thus, most workers would probably 3-14 .corrmute to the site in a more organized. and routine manner than tf 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 addit.ion of a service road between the Devil C.anyon .and Watana sites, as included in Plan 6, w.H 1 create a negl igib.le difference between[ the two access plans. If it is I ma in.ta ined and opened to the pub 1 ic after ·COR!P 1 et ion of the two dams, i however, it would increase the ~,;sage of the Susitna drainage. This usage would not have any significant consequences outside of the drainage I though. Development of the Devil Canyon site during the secon9 half of the proposed Sus i tna project wi 11 be achieved by access similar· to that provideJ 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 corr.idor 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 whne increasing the demand for transportation and services. Significant or major effects would be felt on population, culture/way-of-life, convnun ity, po 1 it ica 1 and soc ia 1 organization, housing avai 1 ab n ity, government expen9 i tures and revenues, 1 abor demand, unemp 1 oyed 1 abor, 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 1 ikely experience a significant effect, and moderate effects could be expected in construction, rail and port transportation, retail trade, and servic,es industries. Other categodes would be affected the same as under prio'r plans. As under Plans 8 and 2 Whittier would feel moderate effects on employment, retail trade. and services. 3-15 ' ., Easts.ide: Access to Watana from the Denali Highway w.i 11 tend to spi 11 over on the Eastside and also to generate Eastside tourism. Because they are now so small, coiiiiiUn it ies on the Eastside could then expect moderate effects on various community factors, such as population. way-of-life, housing availability, construction, total labor demand, unemployed labor, and tourism. (if) Land Use Access Plans 4 and 6 promise to create effects simn ar 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 conmunity land uses along the Parks Highway. Access by road from the Denali Highway t·o 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. WPstside: 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 Anchorage/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 ~1ITIGATION 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 ~ccomplished 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 reduc 1ng the amount of housing, services, and travel required aL ~ "''< i sting 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 pubiic 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 co'ncerns, Plans 1 and 5 and Plans 3 and 7 are expected to have a significant impact both on community land uses outside the project area and on land use and activitfes in the interior ·basin. Access Plan l'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 Devil Canyon site to Stephan Lake, a new land use may emerge: off-road vehicles above timberlinP. At Stephan Lake and Fog Lakes, whether alternative "a" or "b" is used, the road will also pass close enough, even without formal access, to attract the recreational boater. This p14 oximity will affect the existing lifestyles of the p1esent residents and could have economic impacts on the lodges and guiding businesses. Regardless of the formal/ inf0rmal 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 ne'o't 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 lends. 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. Tne 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, hm-1ever, 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- economi:s), 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 a 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 beth 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, .all things considered, on land uses both in the interior l:tasin and in adjacent com- munities. For minimizing alterations to land uses, either would be an acceptable pla; •• 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 r9strict 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 ~:r·oject 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 -Avail ab i1 ity Pub 1 k Services Government Expenditure & Revenues Total Labor Demand Unemployed Labor Economic Base Construct ion Mining Agriculture Forestry Manuf ac turing Fisheries Oi 1 and Gas Transportation-Motor -Ra i 1 -Port Table 3.8 Potential Socioeconomic Impacts of Alternative Access Plans by Socioeconomic Impact Category ----~-·-Westside Anchorage & Whittier (excl. Anchorage & Whittier) Eastside Access Plan Number Access Plan Number Access Plan Number 1 ~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ------------------------ 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 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 l 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 s . 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 c 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 l l 1 1 l 1 1 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 l 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 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Economic Base -(Cont. Pub 1 ic Uti 1 it ies Conrnun ic at ions Wholesale Trade Retail Trade Services Tourism/Recreation Racial Mix/Ethnicity/ Re 1 igion KEY: 5 -Major 4 -Significant 3 -Moderate 2 -Slight 1 -Negligible ) Table 3.8 (Cont.) -· Westside Anchorage & Whittier (exc 1. Anchorage & Whittier) Access Plan Number Access Plan Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 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 Eastsi.de Access Plan Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ------.---- 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l 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 ACCESS PLANS Plans Plans Plans 1 & 5 2 & 8 ' 4 & 6 l. Land uses and associated site~s~ecific activities -Residential: remote, isolated 4 3 4 -Residential: community* 3 3 4 -Residential lodges (concentrated tourism & recreation) 5 5 2 -Commercial: community* 3 2 3 -Agriculture l l l -Transportation: Highway 4 1 2 Rail 1 5 4 -Mining 3 3 3 2. Dispersed and isolated activities -Extractive: hunting & fishing 5 3 4 -Riverine: boating 3 3 3 -Camping, hiking., photography, etc. 3 2 2 3. Land management activities & related concerns -Game management; hunting, fishing, trapping 5 3 4 -General land management 5 3 4 -Off-road vehicle management 5 2 4 -Native claims 4 4 2 -Land values 4 2 2 4. Natural aesthetics -Visual charactersitics: 1 and 4 3 3 -Visual characteristics: water 3 2 2 -Ground cover: flora 5 2 2 -Land surface integrity 4 2 3 -Gereral natural character, extensive 4 2 3 * The Socioeconomic Analysis deals .with more discrete factors relating to communities located near the proJect area. Plans 3 & 7 4 4 2 4 l 3 4 3 4 3 .a. 5 5 5 4 4 4 3 4 4 4