Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA1666===;-o-•m Ul ~, ~ :t L-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~ 01 a. ' 01 i • ===;; i 0 !l • o=n:o 0==, ~ 1\)=0 c: -~ ~ (.t.) -:: ~=!. r-C.U-~~ (X) ii"~ ==· < ...... = SUSITNA HYDROELECTRI-C PROJECT FF.DERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION PROJECT No. 7114 J r '---. DOES NOT CIRCULATE OVf<-HD TK' ( ·-.. lska Research Associates ID ER CONTRACT TO ::~5 ~[g1 ~~=~~~~©@ F472 I S ITNA JOINT VENTURE no.1666 WILDLIFE AND BOTANICAL RESOURCES . IMPACT ASSE.SSMENT AND MITIGATION PLANNING SUMMARY REVISION NUMBER:O MAY 1984 DOCUMENT No. 1666 ~·~~~~~~-ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY~~~~~~~~ I I II II II II II II IJ ll ll ll I I I I I I ARLis L "b Alaska Resources l :ra.ry & Infonnation S Anchorage AI k erv~ees • as a Document No. 1666 OV~t-\1> TK Susitna File No. 4.3.3.2 14?-S .S~ FY:-=t--2 A.LASKA RF.~OURCES LrRHARl U.i. DEPT. OF INTERIOR SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT WILDLIFE AND BOTANICAL RESOURCES IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION PLANNING SUMMARY Report by LGL Alaska Research Associates, 1nc. Under Contract to Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture Prepared for Alaska Power Authority REVISION 0 MAY 1984 AUG 3 1984 D6 · l (o(ob I I I I- I I I- I I I I I I I I I I I I NOTICE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS CONCERNING THIS REPORT SHOULD BE D~RECTED TO THE ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SUSITBA PROJECT OFFICE -· I I 1- 1- I I 1-- I I I I I I P R E F A C E This document provides an overview of potential impacts of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project on wildlife and botanical resources of the project area, and-indicates the status of planning to mitigate those impacts. The purpose is to provide a working record of impact assessnent and mitigation planning in the form of a summary that is updated periodically. During the course of maj~r energy development projects, the tracking of environmental concerns from impact assessment through mitigation proposals and subsequent action can become a cumbersome process. The following summary is organized in matrix format to ease this process and to provide quick reference to current impact and mitigation reasoning. This record is presented to encourage input by all interested parties and to inform decision-makers of the current state of thought concerning relevant resource issues. }1uch of the information contained in the matrix was summarized from Exhibit E of the project license applica- tion to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Descriptions of ongoing and planned studies were obtained from the Alaska Power Authority's Fiscal Year 1984 and Fiscal Year 1985 plans of study for terrestrial programs. - }1ost of the potential impact mechanisms listed in the matrix were defined by project biologists on the basfs of studies sponsored since 1981 by the Alaska Power Authority. Other inpact mechanisms suggested by resource agencies are also listed. Although they have received attention, the inclusion of these additional hypotheses does not imply that they are based on results of studies by project biologists, or that the conjectured mechanisms will produce significant impacts. A potential impact mechanism is considered to be signifi- cant if, in the judgment of project biologists, that mechanism is likely to produce an observable and persistent change, beyond natural cyclic fluctuations, in the number or distribution of individuals of a particular species (or group of species) in the Susitna project area as a result of project construction and/or operation. About 22 percent of the impact mechanisms listed in the matrix are currently considered to be in this category. For most of these, sufficient information already exists to support ongoing mitigation planning, and additional studies are not necessary. The remaining potentially significant but unresolved mechanisms are receiving further study, and the list of topics requiring such study is shortening as results accrue. About 78 percent of the potential impact mechanisms listed in the matrix are marked with an asterisk. This indicates that they are not considered to be significant and will not be subject to further studies or mitigation planning beyond standard engineering practice and, in some cases, field monitoring. Future revisions of this tracking system will provide an updated record of potential impact mechanisms that are, or are not, considered to significant by the Alaska Power Authority. The matrix is organized to show for each type of potential impact the current assessment status, ongoing or planned studies, monitoring plans, and mitigation plans that are relevant to that impact. The major column headings describe the steps in the planning process as follows: I) Affected Species or Group: lists each species or group of species of concern in the project area and surround- ing region. II) III) IV) V) VI) * Impact Mechanism: briefly explains how various aspects of the project might affect each listed species or group.* Impact Assessment Status: provides an evaluation of the potential impact, including its perceived importance to the affected species or group and any quantification of the impact that has been developed. Ongoing and Planned Studies: provides a summary of investigations that are in progress or planned for the near future and that are relevant to refining the particular impact assessment or mitigation plan. Proposed Monitoring: summarizes field monitoring programs that are proposed to be conducted during project construction and operation to document impacts and to assist in mitigating them. Proposed Mitigation Measures: summarizes measures that have been proposed to assist in mitigating the effects of the pertinent impact mechanism. Indicates that the potential impact mechanism is not likely to be significant and does not warrant further study or mitigation planning beyond standard engineering practice and, in some cases, field monitoring. (continued on next page) I I I 1·-- I I· I I. I·; 11. II II·-- II Each cell of the matrix can be uniquely identified by column (vertical) and row (horizontal). To identify a particular cell, it should be cited first by the Affected Species or Group letter; second, by the Impact Mechanism number; and third, by column heading III, IV, V, or VI. For example, the cell on page 1 describing proposed measures to mitigate permanent loss of moose habitat due to the impoundments and other permanent facilities would be cited as A1/VI. This format provides a shorthand notation intended to allm.;r specific topics within the matrix to be cited quickly and precisely in communications concerning impact assessment and mitigation topics. A reference section is provided at the end of this document. It explains that, to save space, citations in the matrix differ from standard citation formats typically used in reports. Successive revisions of the matrix will include an increasing number of citations; the goal is to provide document and page references for all project-related reports and other project communica- tions in which a particular impact mechanism, impact assessment, existing or proposed study, proposed monitor- ing program, or proposed mitigation plan is discussed. The information contained in the present revision (Revision 0) of this document represents the status of impact assessment and mitigation planning in the spring of 1984. Ongoing studies sponsored by the Alaska Power Authority are continuing to provide new and updated information pertinent to the evaluation of potential impacts. Revision 1 and subsequent revisions of this document will include information provided by these studies and by impact assessment and mitigation planning refinement reports, in some cases altering the conclusions contained in Revision 0. I I I 1: I I I- I I II II II II II II I II II II A. B. c. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. Moose ...•••...••••..••............•• Caribou ••..••.•.••.•.....•..•....••• Dall Sheep .•..•.•••.••...•.•......•. Brown Bear .•••.•.••..•.•..•.•...•.•. Black Bear •••.•••••••...••••....••.• Wolf •.••.•..•..•••••..•••••..•..•... Coyote .••..•••.••••.••..••.•..•.••.• Wolverine •...•••..•••...••..•..• ~ ••• Bel ukha •....•..•••••.••.•...•.•.•.•. Beaver and Muskrat ......•.•..••..•.. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 12 16 18 21 25 28 -28 29 30 K. L. M. N. 0. P. Q. R. s. Mink and Otter .......••.•.••.•••.•• Red Fox Marten, Weasel, and Lynx ..•.••..•.. Raptors and Ravens ...••....••••.••• Waterbirds ...••.•••..•.....•.••.••• Other Birds •••.•.....•.....•..••••. Small Mammals ..•.••..•.....•••••..• Botanical Resources •.•.........•••• All Species .••.••..•••...•...•••••• References •...•..•..........•••.••• 31 33 34 36 39 40 42 42 51 52 (II) Impact Mechanism (1) Permanent habitat loss due to the impoundments and other permanent facilities (III) Impact Assessment Status Habitat-based assessment is in progress; refinement of moose carrying capacity model will quantify estima- ted impact magnitude (pp. E-3-412 to E-3-414) (IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies Refinement of population (FY84 Task 4.1.10; FY85 Task 16) and carrying capacity (FY84 Task 4.1.9; FY85 Task 11) models to better esti- mate impacts on moose and determine acreage of habi- tat compensation is being conducted and planned. 1:63,360 scale vegetation mapping emphasizing under- story moose forage is cur- rently underway (FY84 Task 4.1.5) and is scheduled for completion in Jan. 1985 (FY85 Task 8). A food habits study (FY84 Task 4.1.7) and browse inventory (FY84 Task 4.1.8; FY85 Task 13) planned for FY85-86 will support the ongoing carrying capacity model development by ADF&G. A pilot browse study identi- fying appropriate method- ology for the browse inven- tory has been completed (FY84 Task 4.1.6). Identi- fication and assessment of candidate compensation lands is underway (FY84 Task 4.1.12) and planned for 1985 (FY85 Task 12). A litera- ture review of habitat enhancement techniques is underway (FY84 Task 4.1.11) and field studies of dis- turbed areas are planned (FY85 Task 14). Field studies designed to census the area surrounding the impoundments, monitor habi- tat use, document calf mor- tality, and monitor winter severity have been conducted (FY84 Task 4.1.3). Continued documentation of calf morta- lity (FY85 Task 9) and moni- toring of habitat use and winter severity (FY85 Task 10) are planned. Impacts will be further addressed through impact assessment refinement (FY84 Task 3.1.3; FY85 Task 5). (V) Proposed Monitoring Document browse production on ·lands enhanced for moose browse (p. E-3-525 #11). {VI) Proposed Mitigation Measures Page 1 Impoundment clearing will not begin until 2 or 3 years before filling; patches of vegetation will be left until just before filling (p. E-3-525 #1). Selective clearing in transmission corri- dor, permitting seral vegetation up to 10 ft in height (p. E-3- 526 fF4). Transmission corri- dors will provide almost 78,100 acres of winter habitat of reasonable quality (p. E-3-528; Table E.3.145). Habitat enhancement measures in middle basin and on replace- ment lands to compen- sate for permanent habitat loss (p. E-3- 527 ~F6). Development of moose- habitat model to yield better impact predic- tions and refinements to mitigation and compensation measures (p. E-3-530 ~.!7). If needed, controlled moose hunt to avoid over-browsing by dis- placed moose (p. E-3- 530 ~r8). Acquisition of re- placement lands for implementation of habitat enhancement measures (p. E-3- 292 fH2). I 1: (I) Affected I! Species or Group ,. (A) Moose I! II II. II I! li 1: 1·-· I I I I I I I .. (II) Impact Mechanism (2) Permanent habitat loss and habitat alteration due to the access corridor. (III) Impact Assessment Status Small area of permanent habitat loss. Regeneration of woody plants will event- ually provide additional areas of high quality browse along the corridor (p. E-3-398). (IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies Included in (A) (1) •· (V) Proposed Monitoring Document browse production on lands enhanced for moose browse (p. E-3-525 Ul). (VI) Proposed Mitigation Measures Page 2 Habitat loss will be minimized by side borrow techniques for road construction, spoil deposition in impoundments or de- pleted borrow areas, and consolidation of project facilities (p. E-3-526 4ft2). Revegetation and fertilization of dis- turbed sites (p. E-3- 526 4fo3). Habitat enhancement measures in middle basin and on replace- ment lands to com- pensate for permanent habitat loss (p. E-3- 527 4fr6). Development of moose- habitat model to yield better impact predictions and refinements to miti- gation and compensa- tion measures (p. E-3-530 4F7). Changes in design and alignment of access road to reduce impacts on caribou and other species (p. E-3-533 Ul). Minimize loss of forest areas through alignment of access road and transmission corridor, and other measures (pp. E-3-539 4fr23, E-3-525 ifol, E-3-526 #2). Minimize loss and alteration of habi- tat, particularly less abundant habi- tats and sensitive wildlife habitats (pp. E-3-291, E-3- 292 n-n). Acquisition of re- placement lands for implementation of habitat enhancement measures (p. E-3-292 lf12). I I (I) Affected I Species or Group I (A) Hoose I I I , .... I I ' ' I I I I I I I (II) Impact Mechanism -· (2) Permanent habitat loss and and habitat alteration due to the access corridor (cont.). * ( 3) Alteration of moose ·. distribution due to corridor traffic and disturbance. (III) lnpact Assessment Status Hay cause some initial displacement of a small number of animals. Moose may become habituated to traffic and other neutral or predictable disturbances over time (Table E.3.145). Not expected to be sig- nificant. (IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies Impact severity not suffi- cient to require study. (V) Proposed Monitoring Collect mortality data on road and railroad collisions (p. E-3-523 4F1). (VI) Proposed Mitigation Measures Page 3 Avoidance of the- Prairie Creek, Stephan Lake, Fog Lakes and Indian River areas by access routing (p. E-3-292 U4). Design and alignment measures to minimize impacts on wetlands (p. E-3-292 UB, 19). Major ground activity will be prohibited near sensitive wild- life areas during sensitive periods (p. E-3-532 UO). Changes in design and alignment of access road to reduce im- pacts on caribou and other species (p. E-3-533 #11). Possible controls on volume, speed and frequency of access road traffic (p. E-3-534 U2). Public access to access road and air- field prohibited during construction (p. E-3-534 #12, 14). Planning and develop- ment of an environ- mental briefings program for all field personnel (p. E-3- 292 U3). Avoidance of the Prairie Creek, Stephan Lake, Fog Lakes and Indian River areas by access routing (p. E-3-292 4F14). Discouragement of off-road recreational vehicle activity, and phasing in of recrea- tional plan to limit impacts on vegetation and wildlife (p. E-3-292 4tl6-17). I I (1) Affected I Species or Group I (A) Moose I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I (II) Impact Mechanism (4) Clearing of the impoundment area will reduce winter carry- ing capacity prior to flooding. k(5) Temporary loss of winter habitat on borrow sites. (Ill) Impact Assessment Status Clearing may reduce win- ter carrying capacity of the impoundment zone 1-2 years prior to filling (p. E-3-398; Table E.3.145). Winter habitat for an estimated 37 moose will be affected based on pre- liminary carrying capacity data. Revegetation is likely to restore these areas as moose habitat from 2-20 years following disturbance (Table E.3. 145). (IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies Refinement of population (FY84 Task 4.1.10; FY85 Task 16) and carrying capacity (FY84 Task 4.1.9; FY85 Task 11) models to better esti- mate impacts on moose and determine acreage of habi- tat compensation is being conducted and planned. Included in (A)(4). (V) Proposed Monitoring Document browse production on lands enhanced for moose browse (p. E-3-525 #11). Document browse production on lands enhanced for moose browse. (p. E-3-525 U1). (VI) Proposed Mitigation Measures Page 4 Impoundment clearing will not begin until 2 or 3 years before filling; patches of vegetation will be left until just before filling (p. E-3-525 U). Habitat enhancement measures in middle basin and on replace- ment lands to com- pensate for permanent habitat loss (p. E-3-527 ifr6). Development of moose- habitat model to yield better impact predictions and refinements to miti- gation and compensa- tion measures (p. E-3-530 4F7). If needed, controlled moose hunt to avoid over-browsing by dis- placed moose (p. E-3- 530 ifr8). Minimize loss and alteration of habitat, particularly less abundant habitats and sensitive wildlife habitats (p. E-3-291, E-3-292 itl-11). Acquisition of re- placement lands for implementation of habitat enhancement measures (p. E-3- 292 U2). Habitat loss will be minimized by side borrow techniques for road construction, spoil deposition in impoundments or de- pleted borrow areas, and consolidation of project facilities (p. E-3-526 #2). Revegetation and fertilization of disturbed sites (p. E-3-526 413). I I I I I I I I I I I·· I I I I I I I (I) Affected Species or Group (A) Moose (II) Impact Mechanism *(5) Temporary loss of winter habitat on borrm~ sites (cont.). *(6) Continued habitat loss due ···· to erosion of impoundment shores. (III) Impact Assessment Status Erosion will be most pre- valent on currently un- stable slopes. Expected to be of limited significance (Table E.3.145). (IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies Further analysis of areas potentially affected by this impact mechanism is underway through impact assessment refinement (FY84 Task 3.1.3; FY85 Task p). (V) Proposed Monitoring Collect records of impoundment crossings and impoundment- caused mortality during open- water period (p. E-3-524 #4). (VI) Proposed Mitigation Measures Page 5 Habitat enhancement measures in middle basin and on replace- ment lands to compen- sate for permanent habitat loss (p. E-3-527 4fr6). Development of moose- habitat model to yield better impact predictions and refinements to miti- gation and compensa- tion measures (p. E-3-530 4f7). Minimize loss of forest areas through alignment of access road and transmis- sion corridor, and other measures (pp. E-3-539 #23, E-3-525 U, E-3-526 4fo2). Acquisition of replacement lands for implementation of habitat enhance- ment measures (p. E-3-292 4F12). Design and alignment measures to minimize impacts on wetlands (p. E-3-292 ns, 19). Habitat enhancement measures in middle basin and on replacement lands to compensate for per- manent habitat loss (p. E-3-527 4fo6). Development of moose habitat model to yield better impact predictions and refinements to miti- gation and compensa- tion measures (p. E-3-530 4f7). Acquisition of replacement lands for implementation of habitat enhancement measures (p. E-3-292 lfl2). I I I I. I I I. I I I I I I I I I I I I (I) Affected Species or Group (A) Moose (II) Impact Mechanism (7) Habitat improvement will· -· occur along the transmission line corridor due to maintenance of vegetation at early successional stages. * (8) Drifting snow from the impoundment surface may preclude use of a narrow band of winter browse along the impoundment shore. * ( 9) Drifting snow in the transmission line corridor may preclude use of winter browse. *(10) Delayed melting of snow drifts in a narrow band along both impoundment shores and the transmission corridor may reduce availability of spring forage. (III) Impact Assessment Status · · The transmi·ssion corridors -· will provide up to 78,100 acres of winter habitat of reasonable quality (p. E-3-529; Table E.3.145). Represents a beneficial impact on moose. Snow drifts are unlikely to extend more than 100-200 yds into wooded habitats. The drawdown zone and ice shelves will catch much windblown snow. The value of the Fog Lakes area will be unaffected (Table E.3.145). Impact not quantified but not expected to be signi- ficant (Table E.3.145). Availability will be de- layed in this zone but forage will eventually become usable as the spring thaw progresses. Actual area of early spring forage that may be affected will be a narrow band (100-200 yds) confined along the impoundment shore. Impacts are not expected to be significant (Table E.3.145). (IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies A -li-terature-review of habi- tat enhancement techniques is underway (FY84 Task 4.1.11) and field studies of disturbed areas are planned (FY85 Task 14). Assessment of snow drifting impacts will be addressed during impact assessment refinement (FY84 Task 3.1.3; FY85 Task 5). Assessment of snow drifting impacts will be addressed during impact assessment refinement (FY84 Task 3.1.3; FY85 Task 5). Assessment of snow drifting impacts will be addressed during impact assessment refinement (FY84 Task 3.1.3; FY85 Task 5). (V) Proposed Monitoring Document browse production on lands enhanced for moose browse (p. E-3-525 ~tll). (VI) Proposed Mitigation Measures Page 6 Selective clearing in transmission corridor, permitting seral vege- tation up to 10 ft in height (p. E-3-526 ~t4). Habitat enhancement measures in middle basin and on replace- ment lands to com- pensate for permanent habitat loss (p. E-3-527 ~t6). Selective clearing in the transmission corri- dor, permitting seral vegetation up to 10 ft in height (p. E-3-526 4fr4). Habitat enhancement measures in middle basin and on replace- ment lands to com- pensate for permanent habitat loss (p. E-3-527 ~t6). Minimize loss of forest areas through alignment of access road and transmission corridor, and other measures (p. E-3-539 ~t23). Habitat enhancement measures in middle basin and on re- placement lands to compensate for per- manent habitat loss (p. E-3-527 ~fo6). I II I ~-- I I I I I II I II II I II I I I I (I) Affected Species or Group (A) Moose (II) Impact Mechanism * (11) Climatic changes due to :· the impoundments (e.g., increased summer rainfall, increased winds, cooler sum- mer temperatures, increased early-winter snowfall, and hoar frost deposition) may reduce habitat carrying capa- city (p. E-3-406). Delayed plant phenology may occur immediately adjacent to the reservoir due to its cooling effect, reducing spring forage for moose, and pos- sibly causing some changes in plant composition (p. E-3-400). * (12) Altered plant phenology due to open and warmer water may affect moose spring forage and cover in downstream areas. *(13) Vegetation icing (hoar frost) downstream may render some browse unavailable, and metabolic demands of moose may increase. (14) Alteration of downstream habitats will occur due to altered seasonal and annual river flow regimes. (III) Impact Assessment Status Available data from Wil- liston Reservoir, B.C., indicate that these subtle climatic effects will likely be undetectable and of little impact on moose habitats (Table E.3.145). Impact would be influenced by the reservoir width and prevailing wind direction in spring. Impact not quantified but not expected to be signifi- cant. Impact not quantified but not expected to ~e signi- ficant (Table E.3.145). Icing (hoar frost) will likely be heaviest within the steep canyon and may not preclude use of browse by moose. Impacts of increased metabolism for moose eating hoar frost would be difficult to detect (p. E-3-408). Impact not quantified. Reduced size of river islands, loss of fertili- zation effects of spring flooding, and loss of some early successional habitats (particularly early seral stages domi- nated by willow) may lower habitat values for moose (p. E-3-408). See impact category (R)(12). (IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies · · -1983· plant· phenology-study. will document physical and environmental variables affecting availability and development of early spring forage (FY84 Task 4.1.4). Impacts of local climate changes will be addressed during impact assessment refinement (FY84 Task 3.1.3; FY85 Task 5). Impact severity not suffi- cient to require study. Assessment of ice accumula- tion on downstream vege- tation is being refined during impact assessment refinement (FY84 Task 3.1.3; FY85 Task 5). Refinement of downstream vegetation impact assess- ment to better assess ef- fects on moose habitat will continue (FY84 Task 4.2.4; FY85 Tasks 5, 15, and 23). (V) Proposed Monitoring Document browse production on lands enhanced for moose browse (p. E-3-525 U1). Collect data on changes in downstream vegetative cover (p. E-3-523 4t2). Collect data on changes in downstream vegetative cover (p. E-3-523 4F2). Collect data on changes in do\vnstream vegetative cover (p. E-3-523 #2). (VI) Proposed Mitigation Measures Page 7 Habitat enhancement measures in middle basin and on re- placement lands to compensate for perma- nent habitat loss (p. E-3-527 #6). Development of moose- habitat model to yield better impact predictions and refinements to miti- gation and compensa- tion measures (p. E-3-530 4F7). Use of multilevel intake structures on the dams to maintain do~~stream river tem- peratures as close to normal as possible (p. E-3-526 #5). Use of multilevel intake structures on the dams to maintain downstream river temperatures as close to normal as possible (p. E-3-526 #5). Use of multilevel intake structures on the dams to maintain downstream river temperatures as close to normal as possible (p. E-3-526 tfr5). Habitat enhancement measures in middle basin and on re- placement lands to compensate for per- manent habitat loss (p. E-3-527 tfo6). I I I I I I 1: I I I I I I I I I I I I (I) Affected Species or Group (A) Moose (II) Impact Mechanism * (1.5) Open ·water and/or ice ., : shelving in the impoundments may block access to traditional calving and wintering areas. *(16) Ice shelving or floating debris may cause direct mortality to moose attempting to cross the impoundment. *(17) Prior to filling, clear- cut areas in the impoundment may inhibit movements due to slash piles and human dis- turbance. *(18) Snow drifts may impede movements south and southwest of the reservoir and reduce the value of the Fog Lakes area as winter range. ,~19) Increase in mortality due to train and automobile collisions caused by increase in traffic levels. (III) Impact Assessment Status . .Some moose may not cro·ss · · · the impoundment due to ice blockage and visual barrier effects. Moose will probably alter seasonal movements and crossings to maximize use of surrounding browse and forage supplies (p. E-3-410). Not expected to be significant. Impact not quantified but not expected to be signifi- cant (Table E.3.145). Noisy and unpredictable activities will probably cause avoidance of the area and extend the range of effective habitat loss during clearing beyond the mechanically disturbed area (Table E.3.145). Snow drifts are unlikely to extend more than 100-200 yds into v10oded habitats. The drawdown zone and ice shelves will catch much \vindblown snow. The value of the Fog lakes area will be unaffected. Impact not expected to be signifi- cant (Table E.3.145). Impact not quantified, likely to be most severe during construction phases (Table E.3.145). (IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies Thi~ impact mechanism will receive further attention during impact assessment refinement (FY84 Task 3.1.3; FY85 Task 5). This impact mechanism will receive further attention during impact assessment refinement (FY84 Task 3.1.3; FY85 Task 5) • Impact severity of this disturbance is not suffi- cient to require study. Impact assessment refinement will address this impact (FY84 Task 3.1.3; FY85 Task 5). mpact \vill be addressed hrough impact assessment efinement (FY84 Task p.1.3; FY85 Task 5). (V) Proposed Monitoring ·Collect records of impound- ment cr6ssings and impoundment-caused mortality during open-water period (p. E-3-524 #4). Collect records of impound- ment crossings and impound- ment-caused mortality during open-water period (p. E-3-524 ~F4). Collect mortality data on road and railroad collisions (p. E-3-523 U). (VI) Proposed Mitigation Measures Page 8 Clearing of impound- ments prior to flooding and removal of floating debris to reduce hazards to crossing (p. E-3-530 ifr9). Clearing of impound- ments· prior to flood- ing and removal of floating debris to reduce hazards to crossing (p. E-3- 530 ifr9). Impoundment clearing will not begin until 2 or 3 years before filling; patches of vegetation will be left until just before filling (p. E-3-525 n). Major ground activity will be prohibited near sensitive wild- life areas during sensitive periods (p. E-3-532 #10). Possible controls on volume, speed and frequency of access road traffic (p. E-3-534 U2). I I I ~--'-- I II II ~-- II I II II II I II II II II I (I) Affected Species or Group tAJ !-loose (II) Impact Mechanism * (20) Open water downstream may·""" restrict movements across the river and to island wintering areas (as far downstream as Gold Creek (Watana only] and Talkeetna [both dams]). Attempted crossings of open river areas in winter may lead to mortality. (III) Impact Assessment Status Moose are unlikely to cross open water in winter (most crossings were from May to November (p. E-3-409]). Impact not quantified, but effects on moose survival would be difficult to measure (p. E-3-410). Impact not expected to be significant. (IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies This impact mechanism will receive further attention during impact assessment refinement (FY84 Task 3.1.3; FY85 Task 5). (V) Proposed Monitoring (VI) Proposed Mitigation Measures Page 9 Use of multilevel intake structures.on the dams to maintain downstream river temperatures as close to normal as possible (p. E-3-526 #5). Habitat enhancement measures in middle basin and on re- placement lands to compensate for per- manent habitat loss (p. E-3-527 4fo6). ~----------------1--------------------------------r---------------------------~---------------------------+----------------------------~----------------------~ * (21) Drifted snow along rail- road and road access corridors and roadway berms may impede movements of moose and/or subject them to higher risk of collision mortality. *(22) Impeded drainage caused by road berms may alter moose habitat due to flooding of forest or shrubland areas. (23) Displacement of moose during reservoir filling years and alteration of movements between winter and summer range after project completion could increase predation rates, possibly driving moose populations to lo'~ levels which may be maintained there by continued predation. Impact not quantified (Table E.3.145). Impeded drainage in certain areas may improve moose habitat, although some habitat alteration could occur due to flooding (p. E-3-227). Impact not quantified (Appendix EllJ, Volume lOB). Impact will be addressed through impact assessment refinement (FY84 Task 3.1.3; FY85 Task 5). Impact will be addressed through impact assessment refinement (FY84 Task 3.1.3). Moose calf mortality study (FY84 Task 4.1.3; FY85 Task 9); moose population !mod.eling (FY85 Task 16). Collect mortality data on road and railroad collisions (p. E-3-523 4tl). Collect information on wolf populations throughout con- struction and into operation (p. E-3-525 4F7). Collect information on bear populations and distribution of bear harvest (p. E-3-534 #14). Changes in design and alignment of access road to re- duce impacts on caribou and other species (p. E-3- 533 4frll). Possible controls on volume, speed and frequency of access road traffic (p. E-3-534 U2). Minimize loss of forest areas through alignment of access road and transmission corridor and other measures (p. E-3-539 #23; p. E-3-525 #1; p. E-3-526 #2). Design and alignment measures to minimize impacts on wetlands (p. E-3-292 US, 19). If needed, controlled moose hunt to avoid over-browsing by dis- placed moose (p. E-3-530 4fr8). I II II II··· II II I I I I ~-- I II I (I) Affected Species or Group (A) Moose (II) Imoact Mech~nism * (24) Decrease in habitat-qual-·. ity may occur near the im- poundments due to locally high densities of moose dispersing from impounded areas. *(25) Increase in ground-based human activity (road traffic., village activities, dam con- struction) may preclude use of some areas by moose (particu- larly sensitive areas such as calving sites and ''inter habitat). (III) Impact Assessment Status ::B'e.cau Se. the. JllOOS.~ popu),ati<?n. of the middle Susitna Basin is probably below carrying capacity at present (Ballard et al. 1982, p. 52), major or widespread habitat deter- ioration surrounding the im- poundments is not likely unless large moose population increases occur in the future. Impact not quantified; some habituation can be expected (Table E.3.145). (IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies Refine ·a:nd ·test ·moose·· .. carryin"g" capacit·f model' .... (FY85 Task 11). Previous studies provided sufficient information for impact assessment. No further studies are planned. (V) Proposed Monitoring Document browse production on lands enhanced for moose browsE ,(p. E-3-525 U1). (VI) Proposed Mitigation Measures Page 10 Impoundment clearing will not begin until 2 or 3 years before filling; patches of vegetation will be left until just before filling (p. E-3-525 #1). Habitat enhancement measures in middle basin and on replace- ment lands to compen- sate for permanent habitat loss (p. E-3- 527 ~ft6). If needed, controlled moose hunt to avoid over-browsing by dis- placed moose (p. E-3- 530 ~F8). Acquisition of replace- ment lands for imple- mentation of habitat enhancement measures (p. E-3-292 #12). Hajor ground activity will be prohibited near sensitive wildlife areas during sensitive periods (p. E-3-532 UO). Public access to access road and airfield pro- hibited during construc- tion (p. E-3-534 U2, 14). Use of project facilities or equipment by employees and families for hunting and trapping will be pro- hibited (p. E-3-534 -U4). If needed, recommenda- tions for ·restrictions to hunting regulations to reduce hunting pressure (p. E-3-534 U4). Discouragement of off- road recreational vehicle activity, and phasing in of recreational plan to limit recreational im- pacts on vegetation and wildlife (p. E-3-292 #16- 17). I I (I) Affected I Species or Group I (A) Moose I I 1- I I I I 1- I I I I I I I (II) Impact Mechanism * ( 26) Increase in aircraft over-' flights may stress animals or preclude use of some areas. (27) Increase in mortality due to hunting and poaching. *(28) Increase in risk of fires due to human activities. (III) Impact Assessment Status Impact not quantified but not expected to be signi- ficant unless direct harassment occurs. Habit- uation is possible to neutral and predictable disturbance, such as near airports (Table E.3.145). Impact not quantified. Hunting can be regulated (Table E.3.145) but increased poaching due to increased access may represent an unavoidable adverse impact. -· Fires may destroy some moose habitat over the short term but regenerated burns may provide produc- tive moose habitat several years later (Table E.3.145). (IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies Previous studies provided sufficient information for impact assessment. No further studies are planned. Further data collection and analysis regarding current and future use of wildlife in the project area is planned (Social Science FY85 Recreation Tasks 4-6). A literature review of habitat enhancement techniques is underway (FY84 Task 4.1.11) and field studies of disturbed areas are planned (FY85 Task 14). (V) Proposed Monitoring (VI) Proposed Mitigation Measures Page 11 Aircraft will maintain minimum altitudes-of 1000 ft above ground level during flights (p. E-3-531 #10). Planning and develop- ment of an environmen- tal briefings program for all field personnel (p. E-3-292 U3). Public access to access road and airfield pro- hibited during con- struction (p. E-3-534 4.'12, 14). Use of project facili- ties or equipment by em- ployees and families for hunting and trapping will be prohibited (p. E-3-534 U4). If needed, recommenda- tions for restrictions to hunting regulations to reduce hunting pres- sure (p. E-3-534 4.'14). Discouragement of off- road recreational vehicle activity, and phasing in of recrea- tional plan to limit recreational impacts on vegetation and wild- life (p. E-3-292 !fol6-17). Public access to access road and airfield pro- hibited during con- struction (p. E-3-534 4.'12, 14). Planning and development of an environmental briefings program for all field personnel (p. E-3-292 #B). I I I ~-- I I I I I I I 1----- I I I I I I I (I) Affected Species or Group (A) t-loose (B) Caribou (II) Impact Mechanism * (29) Increase in disturbance ·- over the entire basin due to increases in human recreational activities. *(1) Permanent loss of 0.3% of total range (low quality grazing habitat) due to the impoundments and transmission corridors. *(2) Temporary alteration and permanent loss of 0.3% of summer range for bulls due to borrow sites. (3) Potential effects of the impoundment as a barrier to movements include: a) altered movement patterns may reduce the frequency of crossing of the Watana impoundment area with consequent decreases in use of portions of the range, reducing habitat availability; b) isolation of subherds having separate calving grounds; c) increase in accident mortality associated with ice shelving, drifting ice flows, floating debris, and extensive mud flats; d) increased energy expenditure due to lengthened migration routes, possibly resulting in reduced viability of newborn calves and other consequences of reduced physical condition. (III) Impact· Assessment Status · Impact not quantified (Appendix EllJ, Volume lOB). Impact not expected to be significant (p. E-3-416; Table E.3.147).• Impact not expected to be significant (p. E-3-415; Table E.3.147). Impact difficult to quantify or predict; may be serious, or may result in little adverse impact (pp. E-3-416. to 417, Table E.3.147). (IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies This impact mechanism will receive further attention during impact assessment refinement (FY84 Task 3.1.3; FY85 Task 5). Continued studies of move- ments of herd and range use (FY84 Task 4.3; FY85 Task 22). Continued studies of move- ments of herd and range use (FY84 Task 4.3; FY85 Task 22). Continued studies of move- ment of herd, range use, population size, and pro- ductivity; continued stu- dies of movements of upper Susitna-Nenana subherd and its population size (FY84 Task 4.3; FY85 Task 22). (V) Proposed Monitoring Collect data on caribou movements and population size, especially as relates to impoundment crossing (p. E-3-523 4F3). Collect data on caribou move- ments and population size (p. E-3-523 #3). Collect data on caribou move- ments and population size, especially as relates to impoundment crossing (p. E-3-523 4F3). Collect records of impound- ment crossings and impound- ment-caused mortality during open-water period (p. E-3- 524 4F5). Page 12 (VI) .Proposed Mitigation Measures Public access to access road and airfield pro- hibited during con- striction (p. E-3-534 4Fl2, 14). Use of project facili- ties or equipment by em- ployees and families for hunting and trapping will be prohibited (p. E-3-534 4Fl4). Planning and develop- ment of an environmental briefings program for all field personnel (p. E-3-292 4frl3). Discouragement of off- road recreational vehicle activity, and phasing in of recreational plan to limit recreational im- pact on vegetation and wildlife (p. E-3-292 4Fl6-17). Selective clearing in transmission cor- ridor, permitting seral vegetation up to 10 ft in height (p. E-3-526 #4). Revegetation and fertilization of disturbed sites (p. E-3-526 #3). Clearing of im- poundments prior to flooding and removal of float- ing debris to reduce hazards to crossing (p. E-3- 530 4t9). I I 1- 1-- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I (I) Affected Species or Group (B) Caribou (II) Impact Mechanism *(4) Drifted snow south and southwest of the reservoir may block movements to portions of the range. (5) Blockage or alteration of herd movements by the access road. * (6) Avoidance of construc- tion sites and clearing operations, particularly by cows and calves due to human disturbance. (III) Impact Assessment Status Impact not quantified, but not expected to be signi- ficant (Table E.3.147). Impact not quantified, but alteration of movement of upper Susitna-Nenana subherd could be signifi- cant (p. E-3-479 to E-3- 482, Table E.3.147). Impact not quant~fied but not expected to result in any population effects (p. E-3-415). (IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies Continued studies of move- ments of herd (FY84 Task 4.3; FY85 Task 22). Continued studies of move- ments and population size of subherd (FY84 Task 4.3; FY85 Task 22). Continued studies of move- ·ments of herd (FY84 Task 4.3; FY85 Task 22). (V) Proposed Monitoring Collect data on caribou move- ments and population size, especially as relates to impoundment crossing (p. E- 3-523 #3). Collect records of impound- ment crossings and impound- ment-caused mortality during open-water period (p. E-3- 524 4t4). Collect data on caribou move- ments and population size (p. E-3-523 4fr3). Collect data on caribou move- ments and population size (p. E-3-523 4t3). (VI) Proposed Mitigation Measures Changes in design and alignment of access road to reduce impacts on caribou (p.E-3- 533 ffl1). Possible controls on volume, speed and frequency of access road traf- fic (p. E-3-534 4tl2). Reduction of dust Page 13 on road (p. E-3-511). Impoundment clear- ing will not begin until 2 or 3 years before filling; patches of vegeta- tion will be left until just before filling (p. E-3- 525 4Fl). Habitat loss will be minimized by side borrow tech- niques for road construction, spoil deposition in im- poundments or de- pleted borrow areas, and consolidation of project facili- ties (p. E-3-526 #2). Clearing activities will be prohibited near concentrations of mig- rating caribou during sensitive periods (p. E-3-532 i!lO). I II I I I 1- I I I I I I I I I I (I) Affected Species or Group (B) Caribou (II) Impact Mechanism * (7).Incre<i"sed energy demands· (particularly to pregnant cows or cows with calves) due to disturbance by construction traffic on the access road between the Denali Highway and Watana. * (8) Disturbance of calving cows by aircraft overflights may cause direct calf mortality. *(9) Overflights by aircraft may adversely impact caribou through increased energy costs. High levels of disturbance may affect productivity (groups with females and calves are most sensitive). (III) lnpact Assessment Status Impact· not-·quanti.fied, but could be significant to upper Susitna-Nenana subherd, as in (B)(5) (p. E-3-481, Table E.3.147). Project not expected to significantly increase harassment, particularly with regulation of project aircraft (p. E.3.415). Impact not quantified, but not expected to be signi- ficant if pilots maintain sufficient altitude (p. E-3-416, Table E.3.147). (IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies Continued ·studies of move- ments of the herd and sub- herd (FY84 Task 4.3; FY85 Task 22). Sufficient information is available for impact assessment and mitigation planning. No studies are planned. Sufficient information is available for impact assessment and mitigation planning. No further studies are planned. (V) Proposed Monitoring Collect data on caribou move- ments and population size (p. E-3-523 #3). Page 14 (VI) Proposed Mitigation Measures Changes in design and alignment of access road to reduce impacts on caribou (p.E-3- 533 #11). Possible controls on volume, speed and frequency of access road traf- fic (p. E-3-534 U2). Aircraft will main- tain minimum alti- tudes of 1000 ft above ground level during flights, and possibly 2000 ft over calving areas (p. E-3-531 no, E-3-416). Aircraft landings will be prohibited within calving areas in Talkeetna Mountains, 15 May -30 June (p. E- 3-531 no). Planning and deve- lopment of an envi- ronmental briefings program for all field personnel (p. E-3-292 #13). Aircraft will maintain minimum altitudes of 1000 ft above ground level during flights, and pos- sibly 2000 ft over calving areas (pp. E-3-416, E-3-531 no). Aircraft landings will be prohibited within calving area in Talkeetna Hountains 15 May - 30 June (p. E-3-531 iHO). Planning and deve- lopment of an envi- ronmental briefings program for all field personnel (p. E-3-292 #13). I I (I) Affected I· Species or Group -·- I (B) Caribou I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I (II) Impact Mechanism *(lOa) Increased legal harvest levels may result from increased road access by hunters to caribou range. (lOB) Increased mortality may result from increased road access by illegal hunters to caribou range. *(11) Increase in collision mortality due to construction traffic and increased recreational traffic. (III) l1:1pact Assessment Status Be·cause caribou hunting is regulated by permit, increased access will affect only the distribu- tion of legal hunters, not their total number. The maximum number of animals legally havested in the project vicinity will not increase. However, increased access by poachers may lead to increased illegal harvest levels. Impact not quantified, but not expected to•be sig- nificant (pp. E-3-479 to 482; Table E.3.147). (IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies Continued studies of movements and range use of herd and subherd (FY84 Task 4.3; FY85 Task 22). Continued studies of move- ments and range use of herd and subherd (FY84 Task 4.3; FY85 Task 22). (V) Proposed Monitoring Collect mortality data on road and railroad collisions (p. E-3-523 U). Page 15 (VI) Proposed Mitigation Measures Public access to access road and airfield pro- hibited during con- struction (p. E-3-534 U2, 14). Use of project facili- ties or equipment by em- ployees and families for hunting and trapping will be prohibited (p. E-3-534 4Fl4). If needed, recommenda- tions for restrictions to hunting regulations to reduce hunting pressure (p. E-3-534 #14). Discouragement of off-road recreational vehicle activity, and phasing in of recrea- tional plan to limit recreational impacts on vegetation and wildlife (p. E-3- 292 4Fl6-17). Changes in design and alignment of access road to reduce impacts on caribou and other species (p. E-3- 533 U1). Possible controls on volume, speed and frequency of access road traffic (p. E-3-534 #12). Public access to access road and airfield prohi- bited during con- struction (p. E- 3-534 tn2, 14). Discouragement of off-road recreational vehicle activity, and phasing in of recrea- tional plan to limit recreational impacts on vegetation and wild- life (p. E-3-292 #16-17). I I I ~---· I I I· I I I I I I I I I I I (I) Affected Species or Group (B) Caribou (II) Impact Mechanism -·-· .-*:(1:2) Changes in range use, ~ · . .-• disruption of migration patterns and abandonment of traditional calving areas due to an increase in recreational activities and an increase in non-project development activities, both facilitated through increased access. *(13) Decrease in range values due to increased risk of fire. (C) Dall Sheep ~~ (1) Partial inundation of the Jay Creek mineral lick. Inun- dation will cover over 22% of the lick surface area during the months of maximum use. At maximum impoundment level in October, 42% of lick surface will be flooded. *(2) Increase in accident mor- tality due to ice shelves on lower sections of the Jay Creek mineral lick in early spring. (III) Ir.1pact Assessment Status ··-Impact not quantified (Table E.3.147). Difficult to quantify; caribou are less likely than moose to benefit from occurrence of fire (Table E.3.147). - Unlikely that sheep will discontinue use of the lick due to partial inundation (pp. E-3-419 to 420, Table E.3.148). Impact not quantified (Table E.3.148). (IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies Continued studies of move- ments and range use (FY84 Task 4.3; FY85 Task 22). Continued studies of move- ments and range use (FY84 Task 4.3; FY85 Task 22). Study of sheep use of lick area, of mineral content of licks, and of sheep distribution in study area (FY84 Task 4.4). Study of sheep use of lick area (FY84 Task 4.4). (V) Proposed Monitoring Collect data on caribou move- ments and population size (p. E-3-523 #3). Collect data on caribou move- ments and population size (p. E-3-523 4t3). Collect information on sheep use of mineral lick and on leaching of soils after inundation (p. E-3-524 #5). Collect information on sheep use of mineral lick and on leaching of soils after inundation (p. E-3-524 #5). (VI) Proposed Mitigation Measures Page 16 Changes in design and alignment of _ access road to reduce impacts on caribou and other species (p. E-3- 533 4Fl1). Public access to access road and airfield prohi- bited during con- struction (p. E-3- 534 n2, 14). Discouragement of off-road recreational vehicle activity, and phasing in of recrea- tional plan to limit recreational impacts on vegetation and wildlife (p. E-3-292 nG-17). Public access to access road and air- field prohibited during construction (p. E-3-534 #12, 14). Discouragement of off-road recreation- al vehicle activity, and phasing in of re- creational plan to limit recreational impacts on vegeta- tion and wildlife (p. E-3-292 4Fl6-17). If needed, exposure of new soil at Jay Creek mineral lick (p. E-3-534 #13). I I I ~-- I I I 1- I I I 1- I I I I I I I (I) Affected Species or Group (C) Dall Sheep·_ (II) Impact Mechanism * (3)-Impoundment may block some< movement to lick sites on the east side of Jay Creek. * (4) Areas of the lick below maximum fill level may suffer some leaching and erosion, making this area less valuable as a lick site. *(5) Increased metabolic energy< requirements and abandonment of some areas due to aircraft overflights~· * ( 6) Disturbance of sheep uti- lizing low elevation winter and spring habitats due to impound- ment clearing activities. (III) Impact Assessment Status Impact not -quantified, but . may reduce use of lick on east side (p. E-3-512). Erosion here may also increase availability of minerals; however, some leaching will also occur (pp. E-3-419 to 420, Table E.3.148). Impact not quantified but not expected to be signif- icant if height restric- tions are maintained (pp. E-3-418 to 419, Table E.3.148). Impact not quantified. Disturbance will occur only over the short-term period of impoundment clearing and will probably not produce a serious popula- tion effect (Table E.3.148). (IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies Study of sheep use of lick area (FY84 Task 4.4). Study of sheep use of lick area, and of mineral con- tent of licks (FY84 Task 4.4). Sufficient information is available for impact assessment and mitigation planning. No studies planned. Studies of sheep winter distribution (FY84 Task 4.4). (V) Proposed Monitoring Collect records of impound- ment crossings and impound- ment-caused mortality during open-water period (at Jay Creek)(p. E-3-524 qfr4). Collect information on sheep use of mineral lick and on leaching of soils after inundation (p. E-3-524 qr5). Collect information on sheep use of mineral lick and on leaching of soils after inundation (p. E-3-524 qfr5). (VI) Proposed Mitigation Measures Page 17 Clearing of impound- ments prior to flood- ing and removal of floating debris to reduce hazards to crossing (p. E-3- 530 qfr9). If needed, exposure of new soil at Jay Creek mineral lick (p. E-3-534 #13). If needed, exposure . of new soil at Jay Creek mineral lick (p. E-3-534 #13). Aircraft will maintain minimum altitudes of 1000 ft above ground level during flights {p. E-3-531 no). Planning and develop- ment of an environmen- tal briefings program for all field person- nel (p. E-3-292 #13). Impoundment clearing schedule to be deter- mined in consultation with resource agencies (p. E-3-526 n). I I I I I I I I I I 1----- I I I I I I I (I) Affected Species or Group {C) Dall Sheep (D) Brown Bear (II) Impact Mechanism * ( 7) Disturbance from aircraft · ,, landings, clearing activities, and recreational boats near the Jay Creek mineral lick may affect its use by sheep. * (8) \·1atana impoundment may delay spring phenology and lead to increased snow acumulation in south-facing slopes of \~atana Hills. *{9) Watana impoundment may block very occasional in- migration of sheep into Watana Hills herd from Talkeetna Mountains popula- tion. {1) Permanent loss of some spring feeding habitat due to impoundments. (III) Impact Assessment Status Impact not quantified; but not expected to be signifi- cant with planned project controls, provided there is little recreational distur- bance. Frequent visits could result in abandonment of the lick with resultant changes in distribution and local population levels (p. E-3-420, Iable E.3.148). Impact not quantified, but not expected to be signi- ficant (Iable E.).l48). Impact not quantified and importance not known. Of radio-collared brown bears present in the project area, 50% in 1980 and 61% in 1981 moved into the future impoundment zones in spring. Ihis loss is expected to be most important to brown bear populations in spring when greatest use of inundated and adjacent areas occurs. Some use also occurs in summer and fall. (p. E-3-420 to 425, Table E.3.149). (IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies Sufficient information is available for impact assess- ment and mitigation. No studies planned. Impact severity not suffi- cient to require study. If in-migration occurs it is too infrequent to make its study feasible. Continued studies of habi- tat use and timing, den site characteristics, and seasonal food habits (FY84 Iask 4.5; FY85 Iask 17). {V) Proposed Monitoring Collect information on sheep use of mineral lick and on leaching of soils after inundation (p. E-3-524 4t5). Collect information on bear populations and distribution of bear harvest (p. E-3-534 U4). Page 18 (VI) Proposed Mitigation Measures Aircraft will main- tain minimum alti- tudes of 1000 ft above ground level during flights (p. E-3-531 flO). Aircraft landings and boat traffic will be prohibited within 0.5 mile of Jay Creek licks, 15 April to 15 June (p. E-3-531 no). Major ground acti- vity (including boat and floatplane use) will be prohibited within 0.5 mile of Jay Creek licks, 15 April to 15 June (p. E-3-532 UO). Habitat enhancement measures in middle basin and on replace- ment lands to compen- sate for permanent habitat loss will benefit bears (p. E-3-527 ~t6). I I I. 1 .. -· I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I (I) Affected Species or Group (D) Brown Bear· (II) Impact Mechanism * (2) Reductions in·upstream ungulate prey populations may cause corresponding reductions in available food supply for bears, especially in the spring. (Ill) Impact Assessment Status Impact not quantified (pp. E-3-425 to 426, Table E.3.149). (IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies Continued studies of sea- sonal food habits (FY84 Task 4.5; FY85 Task 17). Moose calf mortality study (FY84 Task 4.1.3; FY85 Task 9). (V) Proposed Monitoring Page 19 (VI) Proposed Mitigation Measures Impacts from decreased prey availability should be reduced by measures to mitigate impacts to ungulate populations (p. E-3- 536 4Fl6). --------------------~-----------------------------r-------------------------+--------------------------~--------------------------~-----------------------1 * (3) Disturbance· from access corridors, villages, airstrips, and clearing of transmission line may displace bears from current denning areas. * (4) Impoundment clearing will affect habitat quality for brown bears in spring. Significar.t impact not expected because brown bear dens are typically at higher elevations than proposed project facilities; identified dens are not in the vicinity of such facilities (Miller 1984, Table 23 and Fig 8). Impact not expected to be significant in the 2-3 years before filling (p. E-3-422, Table E.3.149). Continued studies of den site characteristics (FY84 Task 4.5; FY85 Task 17). Continued studies of sea- sonal food habits-(FY84 Task 4.5; FY85 Task 17). Collect information on den locations throughout con- struction (p. E-3-524 #6). Collect information on bear populations and distribution of bear harvest (p. E-3-534 4.'14). Ground activity will be prohibited within 0.25 miles of known active bear dens between 15 September and 15 May (p. E-3- 532 no). Planning and develop- ment of an environmen- tal briefings program for all field personnel (p. E-3-292 #13). Impoundment clearing will not begin until 2 or 3 years before fil- ling; patches of vege- tation will be left until just before fil- ling (p. E-3-525 4Fl). 1---------------i-------------------ir------------------·----------------------!------------------+---------------1 * (5) Loss or alteration of habitat due to borrow sites. *(6) Potential impact on denning areas due to impoundment shore erosion. (7) Broken ice and ice shelving, open water in the impoundments, roads, and other facilities may block or hinder access to habitually used areas. Impact not quadtified. Continued studies of habitat Habitat values may increase use and timing (FY84 Task on reclaimed areas during 4.5; FY85 Task 17). early stages of plant succession (p. E-3-421 to 422). Impact may occur on poten- tial or unknown den sites, but has not been quanti- fied; not expected to be significant (Table E.3.149). Impact not quantified (pp. E-3-426, 483, 484, Table £.3.149). Continued studies of den site characteristics (FY84 Task 4.5; FY85 Task 17). Continued studies of sea- sonal habitat use and movements (FY84 Task 4.5; FY85 Task 17). Collect records of jmpound- ment crossings and impound- ment-caused mortality during open-water period (p. E-3- 524i~4). Habitat loss will be minimized by side borrow techniques for road construction, spoil deposition in impoundments or deplet- ed borrow areas, and consolidation of pro- ject facilities (p. E-3-526 iF2). Revegetation and fertilization of disturbed sites (p. E-3-526 13). Clearing of impound- ments prior to flood- ing and removal of floating debris to reduce hazards to crossing (p. E-3-530 ;;g) .. (II) Impact Mechanism * (8) Avoidance of traditional use areas caused by increase in human activity at construction sites and operations facilities. * (9) Increase in mortality of bears due to attraction to human refuse and revegetated areas near construction sites, and the resultant increase in the incidence of human/bear encounters, resulting in destruction of the "offending bear". * (10) Greater susceptibility of bears (particularly habituated bears) to hunting and poaching mortality due to improved access in the area. *(11) Lower population sizes and decreased recruitment of bears in the study area may result in fewer subadults from the study area available to disperse out to and populate adjacent areas. (III) Inpact Assessment Status Impact includes loss of feeding·habitat-near access corridors, villages, air- strips, and borrow sites. Some bears may be displaced or alter their movements; other may habituate and lead to human/bear inter- action problems. (p. E-3- 424, Table E.3.149). Impact not quantified and difficult to predict (p. E-3-423 to 424, Table E.3.149). Hunting policy for the project area currentlv allows liberal bro~~ bear harvest levels w~ich can be regulated in the future. Losses to poachers will be an unavoidable ad~erse impact (pp.E-3-423, 426, 484; Table E.3.149). Impact difficult to quanti- fy, but may affect nearby populations. (IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies Continued studies of habi- tat use and timing (FY84 Task 4.5; FY85 Task 17). Sufficient information is available for impact assessment and mit-igation. No studies planned. Sufficient information is available for impact assess- ment and mitigation plan- ning. No studies are planned. Opportunistic information on dispersal in the course of marked bear studies (FY84 Task 4.5; FY85 Task 17). (V) Proposed Monitoring Collect information on bear populations and distribution of bear harvest (p. E-3-534 n4). Collect information on bear populations and distribution of bear harvest (p. E-3-534 n4). Collect information on bear populations and distribution of bear harvest (p. E-3-534 ~n4). Page 20 (VI) Proposed Mitigation Measures Possible controls on volume, speed and fre- quency of access road traffic (p. E-3-534 #12). Avoidance of the Prai- rie Creek and Stephan Lake areas by access routing (p. E-3-292 #14). Education program, and strict garbage-control measures and enforce- ment to prevent crea- tion of nuisance ani- mals (p. E-3-535 115). Planning and develop- ment of an environmen- tal briefings program for all field personnel (p. E-3-292 113). Public access to access road and airfield pro- hibited during con- struction (p. E-3-534 #12, 14). Use of project facili- ties or equipment by employees and families for hunting and trapping will be prohibited (p. E-3-534 #14). If needed, recommenda- tions for restrictions to hunting regulations to reduce hunting pres- sure (p. E-3-534 #14). Discouragement of off- road recreational vehicle activity, and phasing in of recrea- tional plan to ·limit recreational impacts on vegetation and wildlife (p. E-3-292 #15-17). I I I ~--·· ' II I --- I ' I I II (I) Affected Species or Group tUJ-Brown Bear. (E) Black Bear (II) Iinpact Mechanism .( 12) Disp_lacement of bea!s from presently used habitats (especially in spring) may result in locally more dense populations and greater intraspecific competition and strife in adjacent areas. * (13) Possible reduction in availability of animal prey (e.g., salmon, moose) and vegetable foods in downstream reaches. *(14) Overflights or harassment by aircraft may disrupt feed- ing, resting and denning activities. (15) Recreational disturbance facilitated by increased access may cause avoidance of tradi- tional use areas and may lead to increase in human/bear interactions. (1) Permanent loss of high quality forest habitats due to impoundments. (III) Impact Assessment Status May affect cub survival, increase predation pres-· sure on ungulates, increase intraspecific mortality, and decrease reproduction. Mitigation for salmon and moose may negate this aspect of the impact. Altered plant succession may reduce or increase plant foods available to bears. *(14) Aircraft overfl:!.ghts may disrupt feeaing, resting, and denning. Impact not quantified, but could be significant. Host significant impact would likely be from r~creational activity in the Prairie Creek-Stephan Lake area -- a traditional area for summer feeding on salmon (p. E-3-421, Table E.3.149). Will exclude black bears upstream from Watana Creek and significantly lower populations in the project area (p. E-3-427, Table E.3.150). (IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies Continued studies of sea- sonal habitat use and food habits (FY84 Task 4.5; FY85 Task 17). Downstream moose studies (FY84 Task 4.2.3; FY85 Task 23). Downstream hydrologic and vegetative studies (FY84 Task 4.2.4; FY85 Task 15). Salmon studies (Aquatic FY85 Tasks 12-16). Sufficient information is available for impact assess- ment and mitigation plan- ning. No studies are planned. Continued studies of sea- sonal habitat use and food habits (FY84 Task 4.5; FY85 Task 17). Continued monitoring of black bear populations and movements in the area is planned (FY84 Task 4.5; FYBS Task 17). Refinement of bear popula- tion models will also continue (FY84 Task 17). (V) Proposed Monitoring Collect information ·on bear populations and distribution of bear harvest (p. E-3-534 U4). Collect data on changes in downstream vegetative cover (p. E-3-523 ~12). Collect information on bear populations and distribution of bear harvest (p. E-3-534 ~!14). (VI) Proposed Mitigation Measures Page 21 Impacts from decreased prey availability should be-reduced by measures to mitigate impacts to salmon and ungulate populations (p. E-3-536 #16). Aircraft will maintain minimum altitudes of 1000 ft above ground level during flights (p. E-3-531 #10). Planning and develop- ment of an environmen- tal briefings program for all field personnel (p. E-3-292 ~.!13). Public access to access road and airfield pro- hibited during con- struction (p. E-3-534 4Fl2, 14). Avoidance of the Prairie Creek and Stephan Lake areas by access routing (p. E-3-292 U4). Discouragement of off- road recreational vehicle activity, and phasing in of recrea- tional plan to limit recreational impacts on vegetation and wildlife (p. E-3-292 ~116-17). Habitat enhancement measures in the middle basin and on replace- ment lands to compen- sate for permanent habitat loss will provide some benefits for black bears (p. E-3-527 #6). I I I 1·-· I I I I I I I 1-· I I I I I I I (I) Affected Species or Group tE) Black Bear (II) Impact Mechanism ( 2) Permanent loss of son\e ·aen' sites due to impoundments, and due to disturbance and dis- placement from construction and operation facilities and activities. (3) Loss of cover and foraging areas in forest habitats due to impoundment clearing. * (4) Temporary loss of forest habitats in borrow sites. * (5) Possible impact on den sites due to impoundment shore erosion. *(6) Habitat alteration along the transmission corridor. (III) Impact Assessment Status · Of·known black bear dens ., · in the project area, 54% were in the Watana and 6% were in the Devil Canyon impoundment zones (Miller 1983). This will be realized prior to impoundment filling due to clearing activities (p. E-3-428, Table E.3.150). Impact represents a tem- porary loss of habitat for black bears. Revegetation will provide spring forage during early successional stages, and regrowth of forest will provide con- tinued habitat for bears (p. E-3-427, Table E.3.150). Impact not quantified; potential or unknown den sites may be affected but impacts are not expected to be significant (Table E.3.150). Positive and negative im- pacts on black bears. Loss of forest habitats along the corridor will consti- tute some habitat loss, although spring forage within the corridors will provide added food (p. E-3-494, Table E.3.150). (IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies ··'Identification ·of.:: active · den sites of black bears will continue (FY84 Task 4.5; FY85 Task 17). Continued monitoring of black bear populations and movements in the area is planned (FY84 Task 4.5; FY85 Task 1.7). Continued studies of black bear populations and movements (FY84 Task 4.5; FYSS Task 17). Continued studies of den site characteristics (FY84 Task 4.5; FYSS Task 1.7). Continued studies of black bear habitat use and movements (FY84 Task 4.5; FYSS Task 17). (V) Proposed Monitoring Collect information on black bear den locations throughout construction (p. E-3-524 #6). Collect information on den locations throughout con- struction (p. E-3-524 #6). Collect information on bear populations and distribution of bear harvest (p. E-3-534 U4). (VI) Proposed Mitigation Measures Page 22 Major ground activity will be prohibited within 0.25 miles of all kno~~ active bear dens between September 1.5 and May 15 (p. E-3-532 no). Impoundment clearing will not begin until 2 or 3 years before filling; patches of vegetation will be left until just before filling (p. E-3-525 #1). Habitat loss will be minimized by side bor- row techniaues for road construction, spoil deposition in impound- ments or depleted bor- row areas, and consoli- dation of project facil- ities (p. E-3-526 #2). Revegetation and ferti- lization of disturbed sites (p. E-3-526 #3). Minimize loss and alter- ation of habitat, par- ticularly less abundant habitats and sensitive wildlife habitats (p. E-3-291 n-n). Selective clearing in transmission corridor, permitting seral vege- tation up to 10 ft in height (p. E-3-526 4F4). Minimize loss of forest areas through alignment of access road and transmission corridor, and other measures (p. E-3-539 #23). I I I II I 1--- I I I I I I I I I I I I (I) Affected Species or Group (E) Black Bear (II) Impact Mechanism * ( 7) Reduction in availability .. of low shrub habitats in spring due to delayed melting of snow drifts south and southwest of the impoundment. * (8) Reductions in prey popula- tions, if they occur (e.g., salmon, moose), would nega- tively impact black bears in do~~stream areas. *(9) Increased availability of - early spring forage downstream from impoundments due to alteration of vegetation phenology. * (10) Decreased availability of early successional vegetation types due to river hydrologic changes downstream of the impoundments. * (11) Broken ice and/or shelv- ing, open water in the im- poundments, roads, and other facilities may block or hinder access to habitually used areas (e.g., seasonally used feeding areas). *(12) Increase in interspecific competition with and predation by brmm bears and intraspeci- fie competition among black bears during dispersal from impoundment zones. (III) Impact Assessment Status Impact not quantified, out ... not expected _to be signi- ficant (Table E.3.150). Project impacts on some food resources of black bears are as yet uncertain, and bears may not be adversely affected (p. E-3-429, Table E.3.150). No noticeable impact ex- pected on black bears (p. E-3-429). Impact not quantified but not expected to be signi- ficant (p. E-3-429, Table E.3.150). Impact not quantified but not expected to be signi- ficant (Table E.3.150). Impact not quantified (Table E.3.150). (IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies Impact severity not suffi- c~ent to require study. Continued investigations of bear food habits will better document important food sources of black bears (FY84 Task 4.5; FY85 Task 17). Impact severity not suffi- cient to require study. Continued refinement of downstream hydrology modeling may better enable prediction of effects on black bears (FY84 Task 4.2.4). Continued study of habitat use and movements (FY84 Task 4.3; FY85 Task 17). Investigations of bear movements and mortality sources are continuing (FY84 Task 4.5; FY85 Task 17). (V) Proposed Honitoring Collect information on bear populations and distribution of bear harvest (p. E-3-534 U4). Collect information on bear populations and distribution of bear harvest (p. E-3-534 U4). Collect data on changes in downstream vegetative cover (p. E-3-523 4fr2). Collect data on changes in downstream vegetative cover (p. E-3-523 4fr2). Collect records of impoundment crossings and impoundment- caused mortality during open- water periods (p. E-3-524 4fr4). Collect information on bear populations and distribution of bear harvest (p. E-3-534 U4). (VI) Proposed Mitigation Measures Page 23 Impacts from decreased prey availability should be reduced by measures to mitigate impacts to salmon and ungulate populations (p. E-3-536 U6). Use of multilevel in- take structures on the dams to maintain down- stream river tempera- tures as close to normal as possible (p. E-3-526 4fr5). Clearing of impound- ments prior to flood- ing and removal of floating debris to re- duce hazards to cross- ing (p. E-3-530 #9). I I (I) Affected I Species or Group 1-{EJ Black I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Bear (II) Impact Mechanism * (13) Some indirect habitat loss (especially berry foraging shrubland) and possible block- age of movements to important habitat areas due to avoidance of construction sites, access roads, impoundment clearing activities, and recreational use of the area. *(14) Increase in mortality of bears due_to attraction to human refuse, revegetated areas near construction sites, and increase in human/bear encoun- ters, resulting in destruction of the "offending bear". (III) Impact Assessment Status Impact not quantified, although some habituation to human activities will occur (p. E-3-427, Table E.3.150). Destruction of some black bears likely during con- struction phases (p. E-3-427, Table E.3.150). (IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies Continued studies of habitat use and black bear movements (FY 84 Task 4.3; FY85 Task 17). Sufficient information is available for impact assess- ment and r.~itigation plan- ning. No studies are planned (V) Proposed Monitoring Collect information on bear populations and distribution of bear harvest (p. E-3-534 4n4). (VI) Proposed Mitigation Measures Page 24 Impoundment clearing will not begin until 2 or 3 years before filling; patches of vegetation will be left until just be- fore filling (p. E-3-525 4F1). Possible controls on volume, speed and fre- quency of access road traffic {p. E-3-534 #12). Public access to access road and airfield prohi- bited during construc- tion (p. E-3-534 ~Fl.2). Avoidance of the Fog Lakes and Indian River areas by access routing (p. E-3-292 #14). Discouragement of off- road recreational vehicle activity, and phasing in of recrea- tional plan to limit recreational impacts on vegetation and wild- life (p. E-3-292 16-17). Education programs and strict garbage-control measures and enforce- ment to prevent crea- tion of nuisance ani- mals (p. E-3-535 #15). Planning and development of an environmental briefings program for all field personnel (p. E-3-292 U3). I I II I··· II II II II I ' II II I I I (I) Affected Species or Group (E) Black Bear (F) Wolf (II) Impact Mechanism * (15) Greater susceptibility of habituated bears to hunting and poaching mortality. * (16) Disturbance from aircraft overflights may disrupt normal feeding, resting and denning activities. *(17) Lower population sizes and decreased recruitment of bears in the study area may result in fewer subadults from the study area available to dis- perse out to and populate adjacent areas. (1) Permanent loss of portions of territories of at least six packs. *(2) Inundation of parts of ranges of six packs will cause upheaval of the historical dis- tribution of packs due to associated social strife. (III) Impact Assessment Status Hunting mortality can be .regulated, although increased poaching losses may represent an unavoid- able adverse impact (Table E.3.150). Impact not quantified, but not expected to be signifi- cant (Table E.3.150). Impact difficult to quantify, but may affect nearby populations. Impact represents an abso- lute habitat loss for wolves, but is tnlikely to affect local wolf popula- tions. Wolf numbers are currently highly regulated by trapping and removal for game management purposes (p. E-3-431, Table E.3.151). Impact will occur over the short-term, when ungulate prey populations are also undergoing shifts; effects are not expected to be significant (p. E-3-431, Table E.3.151). (IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies Sufficient information is available for impact assess- ment and mitigation plan- ning. No studies are planned. Sufficient information is available for impact assess- ment and mitigation plan- ning. No studies are planned. Opportunistic information on dispersal in the course of marked bear studies (FY84 Task 4.5; FY85 Task 17). Continued studies of wolf pack sizes and distribu- tions (FY84 Task 4.6; FY85 ·Task 28). Continued studies of wolf pack sizes and distribu- tions (FY84 Task 4.6; FY85 Task 28). (V) Proposed Monitoring Collect information on bear populations and distribution of bear harvest (p. E-3-534 4Fl4). Collect information on wolf populations throughout con- struction and into operation (p. E-3-525 ~F7). Collect information on wolf populations throughout con- struction and into operation (p. E-3-525 ~F7). (VI) Proposed Mitigation Measures Page 25 Use of project facili- ties or equipment by em- ployees and families for hunting and trapping will be prohibited (p. E-3-534 4Fl4). If needed, recommenda- tions for restrictions to hunting regulations to reduce hunting pres- sure (p. E-3-534 4Fl4). Aircraft will maintain minimum altitudes of 1000 ft above ground level during flights (p. E-3-531 no). I I I 1 .. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I (I) Affected Species or Group (F) Wolf (II) Impact Mechanism (3) Reduction of carrying capacity of wolves due to reduction of moose (and other prey) carrying capacities. *(4) Increase in wolf numbers near the impoundment zones due to displacement of moose caused by impoundment clearing activities. *(5) Presence of the impoundment and dam facilities may hinder movement of some packs to caribou and moose calving areas. *(6) Wolves may use the access road to their benefit when hunting ungulate prey. ~ (7) Open water dovmstream from the dams may hinder movements of wolves. *(8) Wolves are likely to avoid areas of intense human activity (e.g., construction areas) or heavy road traffic, at least initially. (III) Impact Assessment Status Impact not quantified (pp. E-3-430 and 431, Table E.3.151). Short-term beneficial impact (p. E-3-431, Table E.3.151). Impact not quant,!fied (Table E.3.151). Beneficial impact not quan- tified; not expected to be significant (Table E.3.151). Impact not quantified; not expected to be significant (Table E.3.151). Some habituation will likely occur; impact not expected to be significant (p. E-3-430, Table E.3.151). (IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies Continued studies of wolf pack sizes and distribu- tions (FY84 Task 4.6; FY85 Task 28). Studies of moose calf mortality and of wolf predation during a severe winter (FY84 Task 4.1.3; FY85 Tasks 9 and 10). Continued studies of wolf pack sizes and distribu- tions (FY84 Task 4.6; FY85 Task 28). Continued studies of wolf pack distributions (FY84 Task 4.6; FY85 Task 28). Impact severity not suffi- cient to require study. Continued studies of wolf pack distributions (FY84 Task 4.6; FY85 Task 28). ~ontinued studies of wolf pack distributions (FY84 ask 4.6; FY85 Task 28). (V) Proposed Monitoring Collect information on wolf populations throughout con- struction and into opera- tion (p. E-3-525 #7). Collect information on wolf populations throughout con- struction and into operation (p. E-3-525 ~F7). Collect records of impound- ment crossings and impound- ment-caused mortality during open-water period (p. E-3-524 ~fo4). Collect information on den locations throughout con- struction (p. E-3-524 #6). (VI) Proposed Mitigation Measures Page 26 Impacts from decreased prey availability to wolves should be reduced bv measures to mitigate impacts to ungulate populations (p. E-3-536 #16). Habitat enhancement measures for moose in the middle basin and on replacement lands to compensate for per- manent habitat loss (p. E-3-527 #6). Impoundment clearing will not begin until 2 or 3 years before filling; patches of vegetation will be left until just before filling (p. E-3-525 #1). Clearing of impound- ments prior to flood- ing and removal of floating debris to reduce hazards to crossing (p. E-3-530 4fo9). Ground activity will be prohibited within 0.25 miles of known active wolf dens or rendezvous sites between 1 Hay and 31 July (p. E-3-532 no). Possible controls on volume, speed and fre- quency of access road traffic (p. E-3-534 ttl2). I I I , .. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I (I) Affected Species or Group (F) Wolf (II) Impact Mechanism * (9) Disturbance ·of·wolves by human·activities or aircraft at den sites could lead to pup mortality if the dens are aban- doned during the early weeks of a pup's life. * (10) Wolves may habituate to human use areas and have the potential to become nuisance animals, increasing the like- lihood of destruction of the "offending \vOlf". *(11) Disturbance at den sites from increased access for recreational activities could lead to pup mortality if dens are abandoned during early weeks of a pup's life. (III) Impact Assessment Status Impact not quantified (p. E-3-430, Table E.3.151). Destruction of some nui- sance wolves mar occur if mitigation measures are not enforced (p. E-3-430, Table E.3.151), however, this impact is unlikely to be significant in these heavily exploited wolf populations. Impact not quantified (p. E-3-430, Table E.3.151). (IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies · Continued studies· of wolf pack distributions (FY84 Task 4.6; FY85 Task 28). Impact severity not suffi- cient to require study. Continued studies of wolf pack distributions (FY84 Task 4.6; FY85 Task 28). (V) Proposed Monitoring Collect··information on den locations throughout con- struction (p. E-3-524 #6). Collect information on den locations throughout con- struction (p. E-3-524 #6). (VI) Proposed Mitigation Measures Page 27 Aircraft will maintain minimum altitudes of 1000 ft above ground level during flights (p. E-3-531 #10). Aircraft landings will be prohibited within 0.25 miles of known active wolf dens or rendezvous sites during 1 May to 31 July (p. E-3-531 #10). Ground activity will be prohibited within 0.25 miles of known active wolf dens or rendezvous sites between 1 May and 31 July (p. E-3-531 #10). Planning and develop- ment of an environmen- tal briefings program for all field person- nel (p. E-3-292 U3). Education program, and strict garbage-control measures and enforce- ment to prevent crea- tion of nuisance ani- mals (p. E-3-535 #15). Public access to access road and airfield pro- hibited during con- struction (p. E-3-534 4!-12, 14). Discouragement of off- road recreational vehicle activity, and phasing in of recrea- tional plan to limit recreational impacts on vegetation and \vild- life (p. E-3-292 i'Fl6-17). I I I ~-- I I 1- I I I I ·--- I I I I I I - (I) Affected Species or Group (F) Wolf (G) Coyote (H) Wolverine (II) Impact Mechanism (12) ·Increased mortality of -- wolves due to hunting, poaching, and trapping. * (1) Increase in coyote population may occur near developed areas. (1) Permanent less of winter foraging habitat due to impoundments. *(2) Secondary loss of small mammal and grouse prey bases. Changes in prey density will affect movements, population densities, and productivity. *(3) Increase in availability of prey in areas adjacent to impoundment clearing zones. (4) Disturbance and habitat loss due to impoundment clear- ing will displace wolverines, particularly in winter. '1-.{ 5) Increase in carrying capacity of the transmission corridor for moose and ptarmigan may beneficially impact wolverines. (III) Impact Assessment Status -·· · Hunting of wolves can be regulated, but increased poaching losses may represent an unavoidable adverse impact (p. E-3-485 and 518, Table E.3.151). Impact represents a beneficial effect on coyotes (p. E-3-439). Winter habitat for several wolverines will be lost; changes in movements, densities and productivity will affect surrounding populations (p. E-3-432 to 433, Table E.3.152) • • Difficult to predict whether increases in ungulate carrion availability will offset losses of smaller prey (p. E-3-433, Table E.3.152). Impact represents a short-term beneficial effect (Table E.3.152). Impact will be similar to (H)(1) and will occur 1-2 years prior to impound- ment filling (Table E.3.152). Impact represents a small but beneficial effect on wolverines (Table E.3.152). (IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies Sufficient information is available for impact assessment and mitigation planning. No studies are planned. Continued surveys of furbearer distribution, including downstream areas, will document changes in coyote populations (FY85 Task 26, subtask 1). Opportunistic collection of data during wolf surveys (FY84 Task 4.6). - Impact severity not suffi- cient to require study. Impact severity not suffi- cient to require study. Opportunistic collection of data.during wolf surveys (FY84 Task 4.6). mpact severity not suffi- ient to require study. (V) Proposed Monitoring (VI) Proposed Mitigation Measures Page 28 Use of project facili- ties or equipment by em- ployees and families for hunting and trapping will be prohibited (p. E-3-534 U4). If needed, recommenda- tions for restrictions to hunting regulations to reduce hunting pres- sure (p. E-3-534 4'14). Impoundment clearing will not begin until 2 or 3 years before filling; patches of vegetation will be left until just be- fore filling (p. E-3-525 U). Selective clearing in the transmission corri- dors, permitting seral vegetation up to 10 ft in height (p. E-3-526 #4). I I I 1· .. · - I I 1--- I I I I I I I I I I I I (I) Affected Species or Group tH) Wolverine (I) Belukha (II) Impact Mechanism * (6) Alteration of use pat~ terns due to presence of the- impoundments and changes in home range boundaries. * (7) Avoidance of all areas of human activity (including access road during heavy traffic periods and areas with high levels of recreational activity), at least ini~ tially, causing some changes in use patterns or preclusion of use in some areas. (8) Increase in mortality due to hunting, trapping, and poaching. -;><(1) Hater temperature changes at the mouth of the Susitna River due to the project may affect calving. (III) Impact Assessment Status Conflicting data on home range boundaries of wol- verines and terrain fea- tures make this impact difficult to predict; not expected to be sig- nificant (p. E-3-432). Impact not quantified; not expected to be significant unless high levels of re- creational disturbance occur (p. E-3-486, Table E.3.152). Impact not quantified but likely the most important impact on \\IOlverines. Hunting and trapping can be regulated, but poaching may represent an unavoidable adverse impact (p. E-3-486, Table E.3.152). Water temperatures will not change significantly at the river mouth; impact not expected to occur (p. E-3-433). (IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies Opportunistic collection of data during wolf surveys (FY84 Task 4.6). Opportunistic collection of data during wolf surveys (FY84 Task 4.6). Sufficient information is available for impact assess- ment and mitigation plan- ning. No studies are planned. Impact severity not suffi- ~ient to require study. (V) Proposed Monitoring (VI) Proposed Mitigation Measures Page 29 Possible controls on volume, speed and fre- quency of access road traffic (p. E-3-534 U2). Public access to access road and air- field prohibited during construction (p. E-3-534 #12). Discouragement of off-road recreational vehicle activity, and phasing in of recrea- tional plan to limit recreational impacts on vegetation and wildlife (p. E-3-292 #16-17). If needed, recommenda- tions for restrictions to. hunting and trapping regulations to reduce harvest pressure (p. E-3-534 U4). Use of project facili- ties or equipment by em- ployees and families for hunting and trapping will be prohibited (p. E-3-534 U4). Public access to access road and air- field prohibited during construction (p. E-3-534 #12, 14). Use of multilevel intake structures on the dams to maintain downstream river tem- peratures as close to normal as possible (p. E-3-526 itS). I I -] II II II II II ll II IJ- ll 11 (I) Affected Species or Group (IJ Belukha (J) Beaver and Muskrat (II) Impact Mechanism *. ·"( 2) Food supplies of belukhas may be decreased due to alterations or blockage in the availability of spawning streams for salmon. * (1) Permanent loss of habi- tat for 5-10 muskrats and possibly a few beaver due to impoundments and other permanent facilities. *(2) Loss of some habitat for both species due to siltation of ponds, alteration of drain- age patterns, and disturbance near access roads and borrow pits (primarily in the Deadman Creek area). (III) Impact Assessment Status Salmon decreases would at most be 5-8% of Susitna · river stocks; impact not expected to be significant (p. E-3-434). Impact is of minor signi- ficance to area populations due to the small numbers affected (Table E.3.153). Impact is of minor sig- nificance to area popula- tions due to the small numbers affected (65 beaver) (pp. E-3-434 to 436, Table E.3.153). (IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies Impact severity not suffi- cient to warrant further study. Beaver cache surveys may be extended to include the im- poundment zones to confirm numbers of beaver affected (FY85 Task 18, subtask 1). Previous surveys have pro- vided sufficient information for impact assessment. No further work is planned. (V) Proposed Monitoring Collect information on beaver distribution in Deadman Creek and in downstream floodplain (p. E-3-525 4!8). (VI) Proposed Mitigation Measures Page 30 Impacts from decreased prey availability should be reduced by measures to mitigate impacts to salmon populations (p. E-3-536 U6). Development of down- stream beaver carrying capacity model to yield better impact predictions and re- finements to mitiga- tion measures (p. E-3- 537 US). Enhancement of sloughs downstream from Devil Canyon (p. E-3-537 U9). Habitat loss will be mi- nimized by side borrow techniques for road con- struction, spoil deposi- tion in impoundments or depleted borrow areas, and consolidation of project facilities (p. E-3-526 4fr2). Modifications of borrow requirements and tech- niques to minimize loss of habitat for aquatic furbearers (p. E-3-536 U7). Development of down- stream beaver carrying capacity model to yield better impact predic- tions and refinements to mitigation measures (p. E-3-537 #18). Enhancement of sloughs downstream from Devil Canyon (p. E-3-537 #i9). Minimize loss of forest areas through alignment of access road and transmission corridor, and other measures (p. E-3-539 #23). I I I I I I I I I I I· I I I I IJ IJ • (I) Affected Species or Group (J) Beaver and Muskrat (II) Impact Mechanism * ( 2) Loss of some habitat for both species due to siltation of ponds, alteration of drain- age patterns, and disturbance near access roads and borrow pits (primarily in the Deadman Creek area)(cont.). (III) Impact Assessment Status (IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies (V) Proposed Monitoring (VI) Proposed Mitigation Measures Page 31 Minimize loss and alter- ation of habitat, par- ticularly less abundant habitats and sensitive wildlife habitats (p. E-3-291 to 292 #1-11). Design and alignment measures to minimize impacts on wetlands (p. E-3-292 #18, 19). 1---------+----------------r---------------+----------------l--------------+-------------l (K) Mink and Otter (3) Increased winter flows, stabilized flows, and lack of ice cover will benefit beaver and muskrat downstream. (4) Increase in mortality due to hunting, trapping, and poaching. *(5) Downstream daily flow fluc- tuations may freeze out or flood beaver lodges and/or food caches in winter. (1) Permanent habitat loss due to the impoundments. Impact represents a bene- ficial effect on beavers and muskrat and will pro- bably compensate for losses due to the impoundments and other facilities (p.E-3-434 to 436, Table E.3.153). Hunting and trapping can be regulated, but poaching losses may represent an unavoidable ad~erse impact (p. E-3-436, Table E.3.153). Short-term flow fluctua- tions in winter are not anticipated to be of a magnitude detrimental to beaver survival (p. E-3-469). Elimination of a substan- tial portion of good qua- lity habitat for both species (53 miles of mainstem plus 9.7 miles of stream habitat) will occur (p. E-3-436, Table E.3.155). Additional information will be obtained from downstream hydrologic and vegetation modelling (FY84 Task 4.2.4). Efforts to refine the beaver population model and field studies to pro- vide information for modeling will continue (FY84 Task 4.8; FY85 Tasks 18, 19 and 20). Surveys of trappers are con- tinuing to document current harvest levels (FY85 Task 20). Information from ice- modeling efforts is being incorporated in the beaver model (FY85 Task 19). Distribution of furbearers in the downstream area and in the impoundment zones pill be studied (FY85 Task 26, subtask 1). Fall concentrations of mink and otter along the Susitna River will also be surveyed o improve impact assessment FY85 Task 26, subtask 2). Collect data on changes in downstream vegetative cover (p. E~-523 ~fr2). Collect information on beaver distribution in Deadman Creek and in the downstream flood- plain (p. E-3-525 #8). Development of down- stream beaver carrying capacity model to yield better impact predictions and refinements to mitiga- tion measures (p. E-3-537 US). Enhancement of sloughs downstream from Devil Canyon (p. E-3-537 U9). Use of project facili- ties or equipment pro- hibited to employees and families for hunt- ing and trapping (p. E-3-534 U4). If needed, recommenda- tions for restrictions to hunting and trapping regulations to reduce harvest pressure (p. E-3-534 U4). Development of down- stream beaver carrying capacity model to yield better impact predic- tions and refinements to mitigation measures (p. E-3-537 #18). I I I 1- I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I (I) Affected Species or Group (K) Mink and Otter (11) Impact Mechanism * ( 2) Habitat loss due to im-· poundment clearing activities and resultant decrease in cover and prey availability. * (3) Habitat loss due to the access corridor. *(4) Increase in small mammal prey in reclaimed areas. (III) Impact Assessment Status (IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies -· Short-term impact affecting See (K) (1). the same populations affected by impoundment filling. Impact will occur 2-3 years prior to filling (Table E.3.155). Proposed road route will remove 12.3 miles of stream shore habitats along Deadman Creek (p. E-3-438). This impact represents a beneficial impact to mink, although benefits will probably be of little significance (Table E.3.155). Previous studies provided sufficient information for impact assessment. No fur- ther studies are planned. Impact severity not suffi- cient to require study. (V) Proposed Monitoring (VI) Proposed Mitigation Heasures Page 32 Impoundment clearing will not begin uritil 2 or 3 years before filling; patches of vegetation will be left until just be- fore filling (p. E-3-525 n). Habitat loss will be minimized by side bor- row techniques for road construction, spoil deposition in impound- ments or depleted bor- row areas, and consoli- dation of project facilities (p. E-3-526 4fr2). Modifications of borrow requirements and tech- niques to minimize loss of habitat for aquatic .furbearers (p. E-3-536 :fF17). Minimize loss of forest areas through alignment of access road and transmission corridor and other measures (p. E-3-539 #23). Minimize loss and alter- ation of habitat, par- ticularly less abundant habitats and sensitive wildlife habitats (p. E-3-291, 292 #1-11). Revegetation and ferti- lization of disturbed sites (p. E-3-526 #3). r----------------+------------------------------~-------------------------r------------------------,_---------------------------r----------------------~ *(5) Increase in beaver popu- lation, stabilization of vmter levels, and open water down- stream will benefit mink and otter. Impact represents a bene- ficial effect on mink and otter (Table E.3.155). Surveys of furbearer popula- tions and distribution in the downstream area are planned (FY85 Task 26, subtask 1). Enhancement of sloughs downstream from Devil Canyon (p. E-3-537 U9). I I I I I I I I I I I I I IJ IJ IJ I (I) Affected Species or Group (K) Mink and Otter (L) Red Fox (II) Impact Mechanism * ( 6) Abandonment o·f habitat near construction zones and recreation areas due to human disturbance. (7) Increase in mortality due to hunting, trapping, and poaching. * (1) Habitat alterations due to impoundment clearing and re- claimed lands will increase prey availability. *(2) Open water downstream may hinder movements in winter. *(3) Habituation of foxes to human presence may lead to increase in mortality due to destruction of problem animals. *(4) Abandonment of some den sites may occur due to human disturbance. (III) Impact Assessment Status Effects would be most· -- noticeable on the remain- ing habitat areas along the upper reaches of tri- butary creeks near the impoundments (p. E-3-438, Table E.3.155). Hunting and trapping can be regulated, but poaching losses may represent an unavoidable adverse impact (Table E.3.155). Impact represents a bene- ficial effect on foxes (Table E.3.156). Impact not quantified but not expected to be signi- ficant (Table E.3.156). May represent an important impact on local fox popu- lations (p. E-3-440, Table E.3.156). Some negative effects may occur but habituation to human activities is very likely; impact not expected to be significant (p. E-3-439; Table E.3.156). (IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies This impact mechanism will receive further attention during impact assessment refinement (FY84 Task 3.1.3; FY85 Task 5). Surveys of trappers are continuing to document current harvest levels (FY85 Task 20). Impact severity not suffi- cient to require further study. Impact severity not suffi- cient to require study. This impact mechanism will receive further attention during impact assessment refinement (FY84 Task 3.1.3; FY85 Task 5). Surveys of fox den use in areas of potential impact (FY85 Task 26, subtask 3). (V) Proposed Honitoring Collect information on fox den locations throughout construc- tion (p. E-3-524 #6). Page 33 (VI) Proposed Mitigation Measures Major ground activity will be prohibited near sensitive wildlife areas during sensitive periods (p. E-3-532 UO). Prohibition of access during construction, discouragement of off- road recreational vehicle activity, and phasing in of recrea- tional plan to limit recreational impacts on vegetation and wildlife (p. E-3-292 4!-15-17). Use of project facili- ties or equipment by em- ployees and families for hunting and trapping will be prohibited (p. E-3-534 4frl4). If needed, recommenda- tions for restrictions to hunting regulations to reduce harvest pressure (p. E-3-534 U4). Revegetation and ferti- lization of disturbed sites (p. E-3-526 #3). Use of multilevel intake structures on the dams to maintain downstream river temperatures as close to normal as possible (p. E-3-526 4fr5). Education programs and strict garbage control measures and enforce- ment to prevent crea- tion of nuisance ani- mals (p. E-3-535 US). Major ground activity will be prohibited near sensitive wildlife areas during sensitive periods (p. E-3-532 #10). I I I ~--· I I I I· I I I I I I I IJ IJ I (I) Affected Species or Group tL> Red Fox · (M) Marten, "Weasel, and Lynx (II) Impact Mechanism ( 5) ·Increase· in mortality due to hunting, trapping, and poaching. (1) Permanent habitat loss for all-species due to impoundments. (2) Permanent loss of some habitat for marten and weasel due to the access corridor. -J~ 3) Loss of habitat in impoundment areas due to clearing operations. (HI) Impact Assessment Status ... ·Hunting and trapping can be regulated, but poaching losses may represent an unavoidable adverse impact (p. E-3-439, Table E.3.156). Impact v7ill result in loss of habitat for probably all lynx (a few animals), approximately 100 marten, and approximately 5% of the population of weasels within the middle basin (p. E-3-440 to 442). Impact will likely result in redistribution of home ranges of affected fur- bearers (p. E-3-487, Table E.3.157). - Short-term impact that will precede habitat loss due to impoundment filling (Table E.3.157). (IV) Ongoing and • Planned Studies .Surveys .. of trappers are con- tinuing to document current harvest levels (FY85 Task 20). Continued surveys of furbearer distribution will improve impact assessment and mitigation planning (FY85 Task 26, subtask 1). Impact severity not suffi- cient to require further study. Continued surveys of furbearer distribution will improve impact assessment arid mitigation planning (FY85 Task 26, subtask 1). (V) Proposed Monitoring Page 34 (VI) Proposed Mitigation Measures Use of project facili- ties or equipment by em- ployees and families for hunting and trapping will be prohibited (p. E-3-534 n4). If needed, recommenda- tions for restrictions to hunting and trapping regulations to reduce harvest pressure (p. E-3-534 #14). Habitat loss will be minimized by side borrow techniques for road construction, spoil deposition in impoundments or de- pleted borrow areas, and consolidation of project facilities (p. E-3-526 4fo2). Minimize loss of forest areas through alignment of the access road and trans- mission corridor, and other measures (p. E-3-539 ~fr23). Hinimize loss and alteration of habitat, particularly less abundant habitats and sensitive wildlife habitats (pp. E-3-291 to 292 n-n). Impoundment clearing will not begin until 2 or 3 years before filling; patches of vegetation will be left until just before filling (p. E-3-525 #1). I I I ~--:- I I I I I I I I I I I I I IJ I (I) Affected Species or Group (M) Marten, Weasel, and Lynx (II) Impact Mechanism * (4) Loss of forest habitats due to the transmission corridors. * (5) Loss of habitat due to borrow sites and other areas that will be reclaimed. * ( 6) Impoundments will block movements of marten and impede dispersal of weasels and lynx. * (7) Increase in the incidence of road kills due to presence of the access corridor. *(8) Open water downstream will block movements of marten. (III) lr.1pact Assessment Status ··Impact will result in loss of 3831 acres of forest habitats useful to marten, lynx and weasels (Table £.3.86). Removal of 3341 acres of spruce forest habitats. ~Revegetation will pro- bably not return habitat to spruce communities during the license period (Table £.3.157). Redistribution of home ranges to conform to impoundment shores will occur (Table £.3.157). Impact not quantified but not expected to be signi- ficant (Table £.3.157). Harten usually align home ranges along rivers and other water bodies. Impact not expected to be signifi- cant (Appendix EllJ, Volume lOB). (IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies Previous studies have provided sufficient information for impact assessment. No further studies are planned. Previous studies have provided sufficient information for impact assessment. No further studies are planned. This impact mechanism will receive further attention during impact assessment refinement (FY84 Task 3.1.3; FY85 Task 5). Impact severity not suffi- cient to require further study. Previous studies have pro- vided sufficient information for impact assessment. No further work is planned. (V) Proposed Monitoring Collect mortality data on road and railroad collisions (p. E-3-525 n). (VI) Proposed Mitigation Measures Page 35 Selective clearing in the transmission corri- dor, permitting seral vegetation up to 10 ft in height (p. E-3-526 #4) •. Minimize loss and alteration of habitat, particularly less abun- dant habitats and sensi- tive wildlife habitats (p. E-3-291 to 292 U-11). Revegetation and ferti- lization of disturbed sites (p. E-3-526 #3) will provide some foraging habitat prior to forest succession. Clearing of impound- ments prior to flooding and removal of floating debris to reduce hazards to crossing (p. E-3-530 4t9) will aid dispersal but will not completely mitigate barrier effects. Use of multilevel in- take structures on the dams to maintain down- stream river tempera- tures as close to normal as possible (p. E-3-526 4fr5). --------+----------------------------r------------------------4-------------------------4-------------------------~----------------------4 *(9) Avoidance of some areas near intense human activities (e.g., construction zones) due to disturbance, especially for lynx. Harten and weasel are unlikely to be affected, lynx are uncommon and will be able to avoid developed areas. Not expected to be a significant impact (Table £.3.157). This impact mechanism will receive further attention during impact assessment refinement (FY84 Task 3.1.3; FY85 Task 5). Major ground activity will be prohibited near sensitive wildlife areas during sensitive periods (p. E-3-532 #10). Prohibition of access during construction, discouragement of off- road recreational vehicle activity, and phasing in of recrea- tional plan to limit recreational impacts on vegetation and wild- life (p. E-3-292 #15-17). I I I 1·-- .. I I I I I I ~-- I I I I I I I (I) Affected Species or Group tM) ~larten, Weasel, and Lynx (N) Raptors and Ravens (II) Impact Mechanism ·-· (10) Increase in mortality due to hunting, trapping, and poaching. (1) Permanent loss of some nest sites and feeding habitat for bald and golden eagles, gos- hawks, ravens, and smaller raptors due to impoundments. (2) Loss of one nesting loca- tion of bald eagle on Deadman Creek and some nesting loca- tions for ground-nesting raptors due to the access corridor. (3) Loss of nest sites due to impoundment clearing prior to flooding. (III) Impact Assessment Status · ·Hunting and trapping can be regulated, but poaching losses may represent an un- avoidable adverse impact (Table E.3.157). Some nesting locations of raptors on cliffs and large trees will be lost. Quanti- fication includes 7 of 16 known golden eagle, 4 of 8 bald eagle, 2 of 3 goshawk, and a considerable number of raven nesting locations that will be lost. Some hunting habitat \vill also be lost, although this is not expected to have a significant impact on any of the raptor SP-ecies (pp. E-3-443 to 451, Table E.3.159). The forest stand containing this nest is the best (and possibly only) bald eagle nesting habitat on Deadman Creek (p. E-3-489, Table E.3.159). Three of the bald eagle and all of the goshawk nests are tree nests within the impoundment zone; they would be lost early due to impoundment clearing (Table E.3.159). (IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies Surveys of trappers are continuing to document current harvest levels (FY85 Task 20). Surveys to determine raptor cliff nest elevations and nest site use v7ill be made in 1984 (FY84 Task 4.9.3). Food habits and foraging range of bald eagles will be studied. Information will be used for mitigation planning efforts to help determine the optimal locations of artificial eagle nests (FY85 Task 21). Previous studies have pro- vided sufficient information for impact assessment. No further work is planned. purveys to determine bird ~ctivity at raptor nesting ocations are planned (FY84 :rask 4.9.3). (V) Proposed Monitoring Collect information on active raptor nest locations through- out construction (p. E-3-525 :ffo9). (VI) Proposed Mitigation Measures Page 36 Use of project facili- ties or equipment by em- ployees and families for hunting and trapping will be prohibited (p. E-3-534 :ffo14). If needed, recommenda- tions for restrictions to hunting and trapping regulations to reduce harvest pressure (p. E-3-534 #14). Site enhancement and creation of artificial nesting locations for raptors (p. E-3-538 :ffr21, Appendix 3.1). Raptor protection cri- teria (Table E.3.168). Changes in road align- ment to remain 0.5 miles from bald eagle nesting location (p. E-3-537, Figure E.3.81). Site enhancement and creation of artificial nesting locations for raptors (p. E-3-538 #21, Appendix 3.1). Impoundment clearing will not begin until 2 or 3 years before fill- ing; patches of vegeta- tion, including known nest trees, will be left until just before filling (p. E-3-515, E-3-525 U). Site enhancement and creation of artificial nesting locations for raptors (p. E-3-538 #21, Appendix 3.1). II II (I) Affected 1-Species or Group (N) Raptors ·--Ravens .. I I I I I I I 1·---- I I I I I IJ I and (II) Imoact Mechanism (4) Loss of a golden eagle -nesting location and a possible gyrfalcon nesting location due to borrow pits and reclaimed lands. *(5) Increase in electrocution of large raptors on trans- mission poles. *(6) Potential abandonment of several raptor and raven nests or nesting locations (including a peregrine falcon nest) due to human activities along the transmission corridor. *(7) Detrimental impacts on salmon and other fish prey in do~T.stream areas could affect bald eagle habitat quality. (III) Impact Assessment Status The golden eagle nesting location is within Borrow Site E (p. E-3-445, Table E.3.159). Impact difficult to quantify. Selected tower and line configuration for permanent transmission line is unlikely to cause electrocution. Electrocu- tion may occur on 34 kv construction transmission line. (p. E-3-497, Table E.3.159). Impact not completely quantified but will affect at least 1 peregrine falcon and 2 gyrfalcon nesting locations if construction activities occur during nest site attendance periods (pp. E-3-452 to 454, Table E.3.159). Proposed mitigation of impacts to salmon should also lessen impacts on bald eagles, Not expected to be significant (Appendix EllJ, Volume lOB). (IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies Surveys to determine bird activity at raptor nesting locations are planned (FY84 Task 4.9.3). Previous studies provided sufficient information for impact assessment. No further studies are planned. Surveys to look for and determine use of bald eagle and peregrine fal- con nest sites along the transmission corridor (FY85 Tasks 24 and 29). Surveys of bald eagle nest sites in downstream reaches are planned and will provide baseline population data for future monitoring studies (FY85 Task 27). (V) Proposed Monitoring Collect information on active raptor nest locations through- out construction (p. E-3-525 ~fo9). (VI) Proposed Mitigation Measures Page 37 Raptor protection cri- teria (Table E.3.168). Area where golden eagle nest is located will not be mined (p. E-3-537 #20). Changes in facility siting or alignment or in construction schedules to avoid disturbance to raptor nest sites (pp. E-3- 537 #20, E-3-533 #10). Site enhancement and creation of artificial nesting locations for raptors (p. E-3-538 4fo21, Appendix 3. I). Use of pole/line con- figurations and other safeguards to prevent electrocution of rap- tors by temporary transmission lines (p. E-3-539 #22). Raptor protection cri- teria (Table E.3.168)'. Changes in facility siting or alignment or in construction schedules to avoid disturbance to raptor nest sites (pp. E-3- 537 #20, E-3-533 #10). Impacts from decreased prey availability should be reduced by measures to mitigate impacts to salmon populations (p. E-3- 536 4.'16). I I I ~--. I I I··· I I I I I ' (I) Affected Species or Group (N) Raptors and Ravens (II) Impact Mechanism *(8) Increase in disturbance due·to aircraft traffic, construction activity and recreational activity that is facilitated by increased access. *(9) Loss of nest sites and habitat alteration due to secondary impacts of erosion, blowdowns, etc., on forest vegetation. (III) Impact Assessment Status Impact not quantified but may cause abandonment of nests or nest failure (p. E-3-451 to 454, Table E.3.159). Impacts not quantified, but not expected to be signi- ficant (Appendix EllJ, Volume lOB). (IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies Surveys to determine bird activity at raptor nesting locations are planned (FY84 Task 4.9.3). Impact severity not suffi- cient to require study. (V) Proposed Monitoring Collect information on active raptor nest locations through- out construction (p. E-3-525 tr9). (VI) Proposed Mitigation Measures Page 38 Aircraft will maintain minimum altitudes of 1000 ft above ground level during flights (p. E-3-531 #10). Aircraft landings will be prohibited within 0.5 miles of active golden eagle nests between 15 March and 31 August, and within 0.25 miles of active bald eagle nests between 15 March and 31 August and active gyrfalcon nests between 15 February and 15 August (p. E-3-531 1'.!10). Raptor protection cri- teria (Table E.3.168). Changes in facility siting or alignment or in construction sched- ules to avoid disturb- ance to raptor nest sites (pp. E-3.533 #10, including specific measures for specific sites). Public access to access road and airfield prohi- bited during construction (p. E-3-534 #12, 14). Discouragement of off- road recreational vehicle activity, and phasing in of recreational plan to limit recreational impacts on vegetation and wildlife (p. E-3-292 #16-17). I I I 1- I I 1- I I I II I I I I I I I (I) Affected Species or Group (0) Waterbirds (II) Impact Mechanism * (1) Permanent loss· of river and stream habitats for waterfowl, shorebirds, dippers, and kingfishers due to impound- ments. * ( 2) Alteration of shoreline nesting habitats due to impoundment clearing and facility site clearing. *(3) Avoidance by waterbirds of areas of intense human activity (e.g., construction zones, impoundment clearing activities). (III) Impact Assessment Status Numbers of birds ·affected have not been estimated but impact is unlikely to have a major effect on regional populations. Effects will be greatest on riverine species, particularly har- lequin duck, common and red-breasted mergansers, spotted sandpiper, semi- palmated plover, and dipper (pp. E-3-454 to 455). Temporary impact; in most areas preceding impoundment filling by 2 to 3 years (p. E-3-455). Impact not quantified, but not expected to be signi- ficant (pp. E-3-455, E-3- 491). (IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies ·Previous studies provided sufficient information for impact assessment. No further work is planned. Impact severity not suffi- cient to require study. Impact severity not suffi- cient to require study. (V) Prooosed Monitoring Collect information on swan nest locations throughout construction (p. E-3-525 UO). (VI) Proposed Mitigation Measures Page 39 Habitat loss will be minimized by side borrow techniques for road con- struction, spoil deposi- tion in impoundments or depleted borrow areas, and consolidation of project facilities (p. E-3-526 #2). Design and alignment measures to minimize impacts on wetlands (p. E-3-292 #18, 19). Aircraft will maintain minimum altitudes of 1000 ft above ground level during flights (p. E-3-531 no). Aircraft will maintain a 0.25 mile buffer around lakes used by trumpeter swans during the nesting period (p. E-3-531 #10). Hajor ground activity will be prohibited within 0.5 miles of waterbodies used by swans when swans are present (p. E-3-532 if!lO). Prohibition of access during construction, discouragement of off- road recreational ve- hicle activity, and phasing in of recrea- tional plan to limit recreational impacts on vegetation and wildlife (p. E-3-292 #-15-17). I I 1-·· , .... I I I .. 1-- I I I 1-··· I I I I I IJ I (I) Affected Species or Group (0) \-.'aterbirds (P) Other Birds (II) Impact Hechanism * (4) Transmission corridor may cross waterfowl nesting areas or movement corridors, resulting in displacement of breeding birds (particularly trumpeter swans), or mortality due to transmission line collisions. * (5) Increased mortality of gamebirds due to hunting and poaching . (1) Permanent habitat loss due to the impoundments and other permanent project facilities. *(2) Alteration of habitats for birds due to the transmission corridor. (III) Impact Assessment Status Impact not quantified (p. E-3-496 to 497). Hunting can be regulated but poaching losses may represent an unavoidable adverse impact. Loss of 25,047 acres of habitats used by over 100,000 birds, resulting in loss and dispracement of breeding, migrating, and resident bi~ds (pp. E-3-456 to 459; Tables £.3.165 and 166). A preliminary estimate indicates that habitat for 2000 breeding birds will be affected (p. E-3-490). (IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies Surveys of all affected areas for· ·trumpeter swans and nests, including the transmission corridor (FY85 Task 24). Impact severity not suffi- cient to require study. Planned surveys of winter bird use of the impoundment zones will improve impact assessment (FY85 Task 25). Previous studies provided sufficient information for impact assessment. No further \·Wrk is planned. (V) Proposed Monitoring • Collect information on swan nest locations throughout construction (p. E-3-525 4tl0). (VI) Proposed Mitigation Measures Page 40 Hajor ground activity will be prohibited within 0.5 miles of waterbodies used by swans ~nen they are present (p. E-3-532 #10). Design and alignment measures to minimize impacts on wetlands (p. E-3-292 4t18, 19). Use of project facili- ties or equipment pro- hibited to employees and families for hunting and trapping (p. E-3-534 #14). If needed, reco2roenda- tions for restrictions to hunting regulations to reduce hunting pres- sure (p. E-3-534 #14). Impoundment clearing will not begin under 2 or 3 years before filling; patches of vegetation will be left until just before filling (p. E-3-525 U). Selective clearing in transmission corridor, permitting seral vegeta- tion up to 10 ft in height (p. E-3-526 #4). Minimize loss of forest areas through alignment of transmission corridor (pp. E-3-539 #23). Hinimize loss and alteration of habitat, particularly less abundant habitats and sensitive wildlife habitats (pp. E-3-291, E-3-292 ffl-11). -II II 1.·.·-·. -·- I I I I I I I I I IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ (I) Affected Species or Group (P) Other Birds (II) Impact Mechanism * ( 3) Loss of fore.sted habitats for birds due to borrow sites and access corridors. *(4) Avoidance of areas of intense human activity (e.g., construction zones, impound- ment clearing activities, recreational activities) due to disturbance. *(5) Increase in breeding habi- tat for some species due to vegetation encroachment on dow~stream river floodplains. *(6) Increase in mortality.due to collisions with transmis- sion lines and towers. (III) Impact Assessment Status Loss included in figure for (P)(l) (p. E-3-496, Table E.3.165). Impact not quantified (p. E-3-460), but not expected to be signifidant for most species. Impact represents a bene- ficial effect on most birds (p. E-3-459). Impact difficult to prevent and population loss is usually insignificant (p. E-3-497). (IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies Previous studies provided sufficient information for impact assessment. No further studies planned. Impact severity not suffi- cient to require study. Impact not sufficient to require study. Impact severity not suffi- cient to require study. (V) Proposed Monitoring Collect data on changes in downstream vegetative cover (p. E-3-523 4fo2). (VI) Proposed Mitigation Measures Page 41 Revegetation and fertili- zation of disturbed sites (p. E-3-526 #3). Habitat loss will be minimized by side borrow techniques for road con- struction, spoil deposi- tion in impoundments or depleted borrow areas, and consolidation of project facilities (p. E-3-526 ~fr2). Minimize loss of forest areas through alignment of access road and transmission corridor and other measures (pp. E-3-539 4fo23). Minimize loss and alter- ation of habitat, parti- cularly less abundant habitats and sensitive wildlife habitats (pp. E-3-291 to 292, #1-11). Prohibition of access during construction, discouragement of off-road recreational vehicle activity, and phasing in of recrea- tional plan to limit recreational impacts on vegetation and wildlife (p. E-3-292 U5-17). I I I ~--· I I I I I I I I I I I I I (I) Affected Species or Group (P) Other Birds (Q) Small Mammals (R) Botanical Resources (II) Impact Mechanism * (7) Loss of nest sites and habitat alteration due to secondary effects of erosion, blowdowns, etc., on forest vegetation. (1) Permanent habitat loss due to impoundments and other permanent project facilities. *(2) Increase in numbers of certain species in revegetated areas of reclaimed borrow sites. * ( 3) Displacement during impoundment filling of small mammals that have recolo- nized disturbed areas in the impoundment clearing zone. (1) Permanent loss of vege- tation from impoundments, access roads, transmission line facilities, and other permanent facilities. (III) Impact Assessment Status Impact not quantified but not expected to be signi- ficant (Appendix EllJ, Volume lOB). Habitats lost are identi- cal to those of birds [see Section (P)(l)]. Normally rapid population turnover rates and reshuffling of territories by small mam- mals will minimize imme- diate impacts; however, long-term loss of habi- tat will reduce overall regional populations (p. E-3-461). Impact represents a bene- ficial effect on most small mammal species (p. E-3-462). Temporary adverse impact, which resulted'from a previously beneficial effect on small mammal populations (Appendix EllJ, Volume lOB). Permanent loss of approxi- mately 45,672 acres of primarily forest and shrub vegetation types (pp. E-3-225, 240, 243, 244 and 253, Table E.3.144). (IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies Impact severity not suffi- cient to require study. Previous studies provided sufficient information for impact assessment. No further studies planned. Impact severity not suffi- cient to require study. Impact severity not suffi- cient to require study. 1:63,360 scale vegetation mapping emphasizing under- story shrub species is cur- rently underway (FY84 Task 4.1.5) and is scheduled for completion in Jan. 1985 (FY85 Task 8). Happing of wetlands is being conducted (FY84 Task 4.11.3) and planned for FY85 (FY85 Task 7). A literature review of habitat enhancement tech- niques is underway (FY84 Task 4.1.11) and field studies of disturbed areas are planned (FY85 Task 14). Identification of candi- date lands is underway (FY84 Task 4.1.12). (V) Proposed Monitoring (VI) Proposed Mitigation Measures Page 42 Selective clearing in transmission corridor, permitting seral vegetation up to 10 ft in height (p. E-3- 526 4fr4). Hinimize loss and alter- ation of habitat, parti- cularly less abundant habitats and sensitive wildlife habitats (pp. E-3-291 to 292. n-n). Revegetation and fertilization of disturbed sites (p. E-3-526 #3). Impoundment clearing will not begin until 2 or 3 years before filling; patches of vegetation will be left until just before filling (p. E-3-525 n). Hitigation plan pro- vides for minimization, rectification, reduc- tion, and compensation of impacts in a variety of ways (see pp. E-3-252 to 285). Hinimize facility dimensions (p. E-3-291 n). Consolidate structures (p. E-3-291 4i2). Site facilities in areas of low biomass (p. E-3-291 #3). Site facilities to mi- nimize clearing of less abundant vegetation types (p. E-3-291 #4). -I I I I I I I I •••••• I I I I I I I (I) Affected Species or Group (R) Botanical Resources (II) (III) (IV) Impact Impact Ongoing and Mechanism Assessment Planned Studies Status (1) Permanent loss of vege- tation from impoundments, access roads, transmission line facilities, and other permanent facilities (cont.). - • Page 43 (V) (VI) Proposed Proposed Monitoring Mitigation Measures Site facilities to minimize clearing of vegetation types pro- ductive as wildlife habitat components (p. E-3-291 ~5). Minimize volume re- quirements for borrow extraction (p. E-3- 291 4t6). Disposal of spoil within the impound- ments or previously excavated areas (p. E-3-292 #7). Acquisiti9n of replace- ment lands for imple- mentation of habitat enhancement measures (p. E-3-292 U2). Avoidance of the Prairie Creek, Stephan Lake, Fog Lakes, and Indian River areas by access routing (p. E-3-292 4t14). Siting and alignment of all facilities to avoid wetlands to the maximum extent feasi- ble (p. E-3-292 #18). Agency coordination and -participation in detailed engineering design and construe- tion planning of civil engineering measures to minimize potential wetlands impacts (p. E-3-292 #19). Hinimize loss of forest areas through alignment of access road and transmission corridor and other measures (pp. E-3-539 #23, E-3-525 #1, E-3-526 #2). • I I 1 ... I I I. I I I I I I I I I I I~-:. (I) Affected Species or Group (R) Botanical Resources (II) Impact Mechanism * (2) Temporary loss of vegeta- tion from non-permanent faci- lities and disturbed areas. (III) Impact Assessment Status Temporary loss of 44,741 acres of vegetation (Table E.3.144). (IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies ·Field studies of disturbed areas are planned (FY85 Task 14). / (V) Proposed Monitoring Monitor progress of rehabili- tation to identify locations requiring further attention (p. E-3-292 #11). (VI) Proposed Mitigation Measures Page 44 Minimize facility dimen- sions (p. E-3-291 U). Consolidate structures (p. E-3-291 #2). Site facilities in areasof low biomass (p. E-3-291 #3). Site facilities to m1n1- mize clearing of less abundant vegetation types (p. E-3-291 #4). Site facilities to mini- mize clearing of vegeta- tion types productive as wildlife habitat compo- nents (p. E-3-291 4t5). Minimize volume require- ments for borrow extrac- tion (p. E-3-291 4t6). Disposal of spoil within the impoundments or pre- viously excavated areas (p. E-3-292 #7). Dismantle nonessential structures as soon as they are vacated (p. E-3-292 4t9). Development of a com- prehensive site reha- bilitation plan (p. E-3-292 #10). Planning and develop- ment of an environmen- tal briefings program for all field personnel (p. E-3-292 #13). Restriction of public access during construc- tion by gating the access road (p. E-3-292 #15). Use of signs and pos- sibly regulatory desig- nations and measures to discourage use of ORVs and ATVs (p. E-3- 292 U6). Siting and alignment of all facilities to avoid wetlands to the maximum extent feasi- ble (p. E-3-292 #c18). ~ I I. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I (I) Affected Species or Group (R) Botanical Resources (II) Impact Mechanism * (2) Temporary loss of vegeta- tion from non-permanent faci- lities and disturbed areas (cont.). *(3) Temporary loss and altera- tion of vegetation communities due to forest clearing opera- tions in the impoundment zone. (III) Impact Assessment Status Impacts similar to (R)(1) will occur 1 to 2 years earlier; effects will be most prevalent on forest vegetation types (p. E-3-225). (IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies 1:63,360 scale vegetation mapping emphasizing under- story shrub species is cur- rently underway (FY84 Task 4.1.5) and is scheduled for completion in Jan. 1985 (FY85 Task 8). Identifica- tion of candidate lands is underway (FY84 Task 4.1.12). (V) Proposed Monitoring (VI) Proposed Mitigation Measures Page 45 Agency coordination and participation in detailed engineering design and construc- tion planning of civil engineering measures to minimize potential wetlands impacts (p. E-3-292 4!19). Habitat loss will be minimized by side bor- row techniques for road construction, spoil deposition in impound- ments or deplected borrow areas, and con- solidation of project facilities (p. E-3-526 ifr2). Revegetation and fer- tilization of disturbed sites (p. E-3-526 #3). Minimize loss of forest areas through alignment of access road and transmission corridor and other measures (pp. E-3-539 #23, E-3-525 n, E-3-526 ifr2). Acquisition of replace- ment lands for imple- mentation of habitat enhancement measures (p. E-3-292 #12). Habitat enhancement measures in middle basin and on replace- ment lands to compen- sate for permanent habitat loss ( p. E-3-527 ifr6). Development of moose- habitat model to yield better impact predic- tions and refinements to mitigation and com- pensation measures (p. E-3-530 #7). If needed, controlled moose hunt to avoid over-browsing by dis- placed moose (p. E-3- 530 ifr8). I I I 1.-... ... I I 1- I I I I I I I I I • • (I) Affected Species or Group (KJ Botanical Resources (II). Impact Mechanism * (4) Loss and alteration of vegetation communities due to erosion at permanent facili- ties and along hillsides of impoundment shores resulting from slides, flows, and slumpages partly caused by reservoir waters melting permafrost. * (5) Damage to vegetation near cleared areas and along impoundment shores from wind and dust. (III) Impact Assessment Status Approximately 1,379 acres of vegetation upstream of the Watana Dam site and a small acreage in Devil Canyon will be subject to loss and alteration through: a) destabiliza- tion of till, b) blowdowns; c) thawing of permafrost; d) desiccation of exposed soils; and e) changes in drainage patterns (pp. E-3-226 and 240). Impacts may occur along 70 miles of impoundment shores (pp. E-3-285 to 286). Blowdowns of trees may occur near cleared areas and along impoundment shores, mainly affecting black spruce stands. Wind- blown dust may affect vegetation through alter- ation of snowmelt regimes and changes in the chemical composition of soils (p. E-3-226). (IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies Acreages impacted and extent of expected impact will be addressed through impact assessment refine- ment (FY84 Task 3.1.3; FY85 Task 5). · · Further analysis of this impact mechanism is under- way through impact assess- ment refinement (FY84 Task 3.1.3: FY85 Task 5). (V) Proposed Monitoring Monitor progress of rehabi- litation to identify locations requiring further attention (p. E-3-292 #11). Monitor progress of rehabili- tation to identify locations requiring further attention (p. E-3-292 4Fl1). (VI) Proposed Mitigation Measures Page 46 Development of a com- prehensive site ·reha- bilitation plan (p. E-3-292 #10). Acquisition of replace- ment lands for imple- mentation of habitat enhancement measures (p. E-3-292 #12). Revegetation and fer- tilization of disturbed sites (p. E-3-526 #3). Habitat enhancement measures in middle basin and on replace- ment lands to compen- sate for permanent habitat loss (p. E-3-527 4fo6). Development of moose- habitat model to yield better impact predic- tions and refinements to mitigation and com- pensation measures (p. E-3-530 #7). Jl-!inimize facility dimensions (p. E-3-291 n). Consolidate structures (p. E-3-291 #2). Minimize volume requirements for borrow extraction (p. E-3-291 #6). Disposal of spoil within the impound- ments or previously excavated areas (p. E-3-292 #7). Development of a comprehensive site rehabilitation plan (p. E-3-292 #10). Revegetation and fer- tilization of disturbed sites (p. E-3-526 #3). Reduction measures for road dust (p. E-3-511) • -I (I) Affected I Species or Group ~--··· (R) Botanical Resources ·-· I I I I I I I I - I I ~ IJ IJ IJ (II) Impact Mechanism * (6) Damage and alteration of vegetation along the access roads due to dust deposition, erosion, leaching of nutrients in drained areas, water- logging in areas of blocked drainage, and thawing of adjacent permafrost. (III) Impact Assessment Status Impacts will occur within a few hundred yards of a road and within zones of blocked or altered drain- age, which may extend to a mile from a road (p. E-3-227). (IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies Further analysis of this -impact mechanism is under-_ way through impact assess- ment refinement (FY84 Task 3.1.3; FY85 Task 5). (V) Proposed Monitoring Monitor progress of rehabili- tation. to identify locations requiring further attention (p. E-3-292 #11), (VI) Proposed Mitigation Measures Page 47 Site facilities in areas of low biomass (p. E-3-291 ~fo3). Site facilities to minimize clearing of vegetation types pro- ductive as wildlife habitat components (p. E-3-291 #5). Development of a com- prehensive site reha- bilitation plan (p. E-3-292 #10). Acquisition of replace- ment lands for imple- mentation of habitat enhancement measures (p. E-3-292 U2). · Siting and alignment of all facilities to avoid wetlands to the maximum extent feasible (p. E-3-292 US). Agency_ coordination and participation in detailed engineering design and construction planning of civil engineering measures to minimize potential wetlands impacts (p. E-3-292 n9). Habitat loss will be minimized by side borrow techniques for road construction, spoil deposition in impoundments or depleted borrow areas, and consolidation of project facilities (p. E-3-526 #2). Revegetation and fer- tilization of disturbed sites (p. E-3-526 #3). Habitat enhancement measures in middle basin and on replace- ment lands to compen- sate for permanent habitat loss (p. E-3- 527 #6). I I I ~-- I I 1-- I I I I I IJ ' IJ -- (I) Affected Species or Group (R) Botanical Resources (II) Impact Mechanism * (7) Alteration of soil surface albedo in cleared areas may affect vegetation. * (8) Increased incidence of disease or insect infestations due to clearing activities. (9) Increased risk of fire from increased human populations and easier access. (III) Impact Assessment Status Impact not quantified. Changes in albedo will result in changes in sur- face hydrology, affecting the type of vegetation that will become established, but they should not prevent revegetation (p. E-3-227). Impact not quantified (p. E-3-227). Impact not quantified (p. E-3-227). (IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies Impact severity not suffi- cient to require study. Impact severity not suffi- cient to require study. This impact mechanism will receive further attention during impact assessment refinement (FY84 Task 3.1.3; FYSS Task 5). {V) Proposed Monitoring Monitor progress of rehabili- tation to identify locations requiring further attention (p. E-3-292 #11). (VI) Proposed Mitigation Measures Page 48 Minimize facility dimensions {p. E~3-291 4Fl). Consolidate structures (p. E-3-291 4fr2). Site facilities to minimize clearing of vegetation types pro- ductive as wildlife habitat components (p. E-3-291 4r5). Development of a com- prehensive site reha- bilitation plan Cp. E-3-292 no). Impoundment clearing will not begin until 2 or 3 years before filling; patches of vegetation will be left until just before filling (p. E-3-525 U). Clearing of impoundments prior to flooding and removal of floating deb- ris to reduce hazards to crossing (p. E-3-530 #9). Burning of slash piles will minimize effects of insects and disease (p. E-3-271 and 509). Planning and development of an environmental briefings program for all field personnel (p. E-3-292 #13). Restriction of public access during construc- tion by gating the access road (p. E-3-292 US). Use of signs and possi- bly regulatory desig- nations and measures to discourage use of ORVs and ATVs (p. E-3- 292 iF16). Phased implementation of the project Recreation Plan with interagency review and concurrence (p. E-3-292 #17). • I I. 1··- I II I I II • (I) Affected Species or Group (R) Botanical Resources (II) Impact Mechanism (9) Increased risk of fire from increased human popula- tions and easier access (cont.). * (10) Alteration of vegetation due to flooding along impoundment shores and delta formation where creeks enter the impoundments. (11) Alteration of vegetation successional patterns in downstream floodplains due to flow regulation and resultant changes in stream morphology and ice scouring effects. * (12) Alteration of vegetation communities due to climatic changes near the reservoirs. *(13) Damage to understory vegetation from rime ice and hoar frost deposition caused by persistent fog banks near the reservoirs and open-water reaches downstream. * (14) Increase in damage and alteration of vegetation communities due to increase in use of off-road vehicles near project facilities. (III) Impact Assessment Status Impact not quantified but not expected to be a sig- nificant loss; some altera- tion of vegetation types 1 will occur (p. E-3-230). Impact not quantified and difficult to predict. Effects would extend 2 miles from the reservoirs and would be most notice- able along the south shore of the reservoirs. Extent of effects on vegetation itself has not _been quanti- fied (pp. E-3-236 to 237). Impact not quantified, but rime icing will be limited to the immediate area around the spillways. Hoar frost is expected near open water but is not expected to be a significant nega- tive impact (pp. E-3-236 to 237). Impact not quantified (pp. E-3-237 to E-3-238). (IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies Impact severity not suffi- cient to require study. Continued refinement of downstream floodplain impact assessment will increase our understand- ing of effects on vege- tation (FY84 Task 4.2.4). Spring 1983 plant phenology study will document physical and environmental variables affecting plant phenological development in and near the impoundment zones (FY84 Task 4.1.4). Impact mechanism will be addressed further through impact assessment refinement (FY84 Task 3.1.3; FY85 Task 5). Impact mechanism will be addressed and clarified through impact assessment refinement (FY84 Task 3.1.3; FY85 Task 5). This impact mechanism will receive further attention during impact assessment refinement (FY84 Task 3.1.3; FY85 Task 5). (V) Proposed Monitoring Collect data on changes in downstream vegetative cover (p. E-3-523 4F2). Collect data on changes in downstream vegetative cover (p. E-3-523 4F2). Monitor progress of rehabili- tation to identify locations requiring further attention (p. E-3-292 U1). (VI) Proposed Mitigation Measures Page 49 Public access to air- field prohibited during construction (p. E-3-534 4F14). Development of moose- habitat model to yield better impact predic- tions and refinements to mitigation and com- pensation measuares (p. E-3-530 4n). Use of multilevel intake structures on the dams to maintain do~~stream river tem- peratures as close to normal as possible (p. E-3-526 #5). Development of a com- prehensive site reha- bilitation plan (p. E-3-292 #10). Planning and develop- ment of an environ- mental briefings program for all field personnel (p. E-3-292 U3). Restriction of public access during construc- tion by gating the access road (p. E-3-292 4.'15). I I I 1--- I I 1-- -- 1- I I I I I I I I I I (I) Affected Species or Group (R) Botanical Resources (II) Impact Mechanism * (14) Increase in damage and alteration of vegetation communities due to increase in use of off-road vehicles near project facilities (cont.). * (15) Removal of overstory vegetation in forested por- tions of the transmission line corridor. (16) Blockage of sediment tra- -vel by the impoundments may increase erosion dovmstream, affecting vegetation on islands in the floodplain. (III) Impact Assessment Status Will result in removal of approximately 6041 acres (2557 from Healy to Fairbanks, 1702 from Healy to Willow, 1274 from Willow to Cook Inlet, 46 from Watana to Devil Canyon, and 462 from Devil Canyon to Gold Creek) of .Pabitats containing trees, changing these areas to shrub or tundra vegeta~ion types (p. E-3-244, Tables E.3.79, 80, and 86; Supplemental Infor- mation Response to FERC Request 3B-7). Impact not quantified. (IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies This impact mechanism will receive further attention during impact assessment refinement (FY84 Task 3.1.3; FY85 Task 5). Refinement of downstream impacts (FY84 Task 4.2.4) will better enable pre- diction of erosion effects. (V) Proposed Monitoring Restriction of tree removal to areas beneath the trans- mission lines for access to the corridor, and removal of trees which could fall on lines or guy wires. Collect data on changes in downstream vegetative cover (p. E-3-523 4r2). (VI) Proposed Mitigation Measures Page 50 Use of signs and possi- bly regulatory desig- nations and measures to discourage use of ORVs and ATVs (p. E-3-292 U6). Phased implementation of the project Recrea- tion Plan with inter- agency review and con- currence (p. E-3-292 :f.:17). Public access to air- field prohibited during construction (p. E-3-534 U4). Site facilities to minimize clearing of vegetation types pro- ductive as wildlife habitat components (p. E-3-291 4fr5). Design transmission corridors to allow selective cutting of trees and to accommo- date uncleared low shrub and tundra vege- tation within rights- of-\~ay (p. E-3-292 4r8). Selective clearing in transmission corridor, permitting seral vege- tation up to 10 ft in height (p. E-3-526 4fr4). Development of moose- habitat model to yield better impact predic- tions and refinements to mitigation and com-_ pensation measures (p. E-3-530 #7). I I I I ···· ., ' I I I I I I I I I I II r .. IJ (I) Affected Species or Group ( R) Bot an ica 1 Resources (S) All Species (II) Impact Mechanism * (17) Potential removal or alteration of habitats for endangered plant species. * (18) Leaching of potentially toxic heavy metals, such as mercury, from flooded soils and vegetation into the reservoir impoundment. * (1) Changes in local climate (air temperatures, precipi- tation, etc.) may have subtle direct effects on distribution or habitat use by wildlife and more profound effects on vege- tation, which in turn may affect wildlife use of the area. (2) Hinor or insignificant impacts may prove to be major impacts when considering the cumulative effects of all project facilities and the impact of nearby developments on wildlife and their habitats. (III) Impact Assessment Status Impact not quantified. No such species have been found in surveys to date (p. E-3-197). Impact not quantified. Primarily affects preda- tory fish, and tertiary consumers. Impact not quantified but unlikely to extend more than 2 miles from the reservoirs (pp. E-3-236 to 237). Cumulative impacts are not quantified but may constitute some significant impacts (pp. E-3-499 to 507). (IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies Previous studies provided·· sufficient information for impact assessment. No further studies planned. A literature search and analysis of the potential for leaching from· soils and vegetation into impoundments (Aquatic FY85 Task 51). Impact mechanism will be addressed during impact assessment refinement (FY84 Task 3.1.3; FY85 Task 5). Further analysis of cumula- tive impacts is being addressed during impact assessment refinement (FY84 Task 3.1.3; FY85 Task 5). (V) Proposed Monitoring Collect data on changes in downstream vegetative cover (p. E-3-523 4fr2). (VI) Proposed Mitigation Measures Page 51 Site facilities to minimize clearing of less abundant vegeta- tion types (p. E-3- 291 #4). Design transmission corridors to allow selective cutting of trees and to accommo- date uncleared low shrub and tundra vege- tation within rights- of-way (p. E-3-292 ~;8). Use of signs and possi- bly regulatory designa- tions and measures to discourage use of ORVs and ATVs (p. E-3-292 U6). ~ ~ I I- ll I II- II I I I 1---- 1 I "" I I I I II REFERENCES The citations in the matrix differ from the standard citations used in reports. This has been done to save space, because there is repeated reference to a few reports by the same authors. The license application has been cited repeatedly. It is the following document: Alaska Power Authority. 1983. Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Application for License for Major Project. Susitna Hydroelec- tric Project. Anchorage. 13 volumes. It is not referred to specifically, but page references of the form p. E-3-532 (as well as references to Tables such E.3.168, Figures such E.3.81, and Appendices EIIJ or 3.I) all refer to the license application. Ongoing and planned studies are taken from two reports that outline plans of study for the fiscal years 1984 and 1985. These reports are cited as "FY84 11 and "FY85" in the matrix. The reports are the following: Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture. 1984. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Terrestrial programs. Fiscal year 1984 detailed plan of study. Doc. No. 1190. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority. Anchorage. Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture. 1984. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Draft terrestrial plan of study. Fiscal year 1985. Doc. No. 1119. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority. Anchorage. 92 pp. Two other plans of study and one report have been referenced infrequently. "Aquatic FY85" refers to: Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture. 1984. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Draft aquatic plan of study. Fiscal year 1985. Doc. no. 591. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority. Anchorage. "Social Science FY85" refers to: Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture. 1984. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Draft social science program study tasks. Fiscal year 1985. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority. Anchorage. "Supplemental Information Response to FERC Request 3B-7" refers to: Alaska Power Authority. 1983. Responses to FERC supplemental information request of April 12, 1983. Filed with FERC July 11. The following references are cited in the normal fashion: Ballard, W.B., C.L. Gardner, J.H. Westlund, and J.R. Dau. 1982. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Phase I final report. game studies. Vol. III. Moose -upstream. Department of Fish and Game. Anchorage. 175 pp. Miller, S.D. 1983. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Phase II progress report. Big game studies. Vol. VI. Black bear and brown Bear. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Anchorage. 99 pp. Miller, S.D. 1984. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Big Alaska Draft Phase II progress report. Big game studies. Vol. VI. Black bear and brown bear. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Anchorage.