HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA4137I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL
CONFIDENTIAL; PRIViLEGED WORK
PRODUCT PREPARED IN ANTICIPATION
OF LITIGATION; REST~ICTEO
DISTRIBUTION
INVESTIGATION MEMORANDUM
s . us~tna Hydroelectric Project
Terrestrial Program
Fiscal Year 1984
---FINAL DRAFT---
Harz~·~ r.o,_ a ~uasco Susitna Joint Venture
November 1983
l
[
~'
I
[
f.
i.
t i
1 '
l ' ! .
f
l i
I
! '· i I ,
t •
I
I
i
l
I
I
I I.,
l
I r ,
i
I
l
l
'
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ..... . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1 BACKGROUND. . . . .
1.2 GENERAL OBJECTIVES.
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . .
2. 0 STUDY O:SJE CTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.0 IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES . . . . . . .
11 • • • • • • • • • •
4.0 PREVIOUS STUDIES AND DATA AVAILABILITY .
4.1 PREVIOUS STUDIES. . • . . . . . . .
• ~ • • • • • • e •
. . . . . . . .
4.2 DATA AVAILABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.0 DELI~EATION OF STUDY AREA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.0 STUDY METHODOLOGY ........ . . . . . . . . . .
6.1 PREVIOUS DATA AND REPORTS .. . . . . . . . . . . .
6. 2 GENERAL INVETIGATION MEMORANDUM AND PLAN OF STUDY .
6.3 STAFF MEETINGS AND PROGRESS REPORTS ....... .
6.4 SITE RECONNAISSANCE VISITS •.
6. 5 SUBCONTRACTOR MANAGEMENT. • ~
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
• • • • • 0 •
6.6 QUALITY ASSURANCE •. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.7 COORDINATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.7.1 General • . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
. .
6.7.2 Progress Review and Planning Meetings .
6.7.3 Workshops .•...........•
6.8 REVIEW OF ADF&G PLANS OF STUDY/ANNUAL REPORTS
6.9 TRP~SMISSION LINE INVESTIGATION ...
. . . . .
. . .
6.10 RF,GULATORY AGENCY AND PERMIT SUPPORT. . . . . .
6.11 FERC REQUESTS FOR SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION .... . . .
6.12 FERC SITE TOURS .•. , •.•..• . . . . . . . . . .
6.13 ENGINEERING DESIGN CHANGES/LICENSES APPLICATION
UPDATE. • . , . . • . , . • . . . . . • . . .
6.14 AGENCY COMMENTS ON THE LICENSE APPLICATION •.
6.15 REVIEW DRAFT EIS ••..•..•.•.•.•.
•
. . . . .
• • • . . . • •
;. ; Q
PAGE
1-1
1-1
1-1
2-1
3-1
4-1
4-1
4-1
5-1
6-1
6-1
6-1
6-1
6-2
6-2
6-2
6-3
6-3
6-3
6-4
6-4
6-5
6-5
6-5
6-6
6-6
6-7
6-7
!
iJ
r
I 1
j
I
I
j
I
l I
l
J
I i
j
I l ,
I 1
f !
' l
I I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
6.16 FINALIZE FY' 85 WORKS COPES FOR SUBCONTRACTORS AND
ADF&G • . • • . • • • . . . . . . . . . . . • • Co •
6.17 L~PACT ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION PLANNING . . . . . . .
6.ll.l Settlement Process ....•......•
6.17.2 Trackin6 and Documentation System .....
6.17.3 Mitigation Plan Status Report •......
6.17.4 FY 1984 Settlement Process Work Efforts ••
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
6.17.4.1 Upstream Moose .. . . . . . . . . . . .
6.17.4.2 Downscream Moose ......•.•.
6.17.4.3 Caribou •...•....•......
6.17.4.4 Dall Sheep ....•.•..•....•
6.17.4.5 Black and Brown Bears •.. . . . . .
6.17.4.6 Wolf and Wolverine.
6.17.4.7 Belukha Whale .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
6.17.4.8 Other Species . . . . . . . . . . .
7.0 STUDY COORDINATION AND MANAGEMENT ......•.....•
7 .1 HARZA-EB.ASCO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . t
7. 2 INJ.'ERACTION WITH OTHER STUDY TEAMS. . . . . . . . . . .
7.3 SUBCONTRACTORS. • . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . ..
7.4 COORDINATION AND MANAGEMENT OF SUBCONTRACTORS . . . . .
8.0 SCHEDULE AND DELIVERABLES ..•..............
8 .1 SCHEDUlE. • • . • • • • . • . . . • . . . . . . • . . .
8. 2 DELIVERABLES. • . . • • . . . • . . . . . . . . . . .. .
9.0 BUDGET •...•...•••.........•......
10.0 ATTACHMENTS .•....•. • • • • . . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX A -AGENCY RAISED ISSUES. . . . . . . • • • •
APPENDIX B -MAJOR SUSITNA PROJECT TERRESTRIAL STUDIES • •
•, 'It"··'
6-7
6-8
6-8
6-9
6-10
6-11
6-11
6-19
6-23
6-25
6-27
6-31
6-32
6-32
7-1
7-1
7-1
7-2
7-3
8-1
8-1
8-1
9-1
lD-1
10-2
10-13
' ,' <J'• ,'
I
I
I
I
l ~}
I
t I)
I
1
l
i
j
I
I
I
'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
Harza-Ebasco Joint Venture (H-E) has been authorized by the Alaska
Power Au thori.ty to manage the Environmental Program associated with
the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. This General Investigation Memo-
randum sets forth the objectives, methodology, organization and per-
sonnel, schedule, deliverables and budget for accomplishing the
wildlife and botanical resources studies needed to aupport the Fed-
eral Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensing of the Project.
The activities and budget described in this memorandum are for Fis-
cal Year (FY) 1984 (July 1983 through June 1984).
The understanding for developing the activities described in this
memrandum for the Terrestl'ial Program was gained through: review
of previous study reports on the Susitna Project; review of the FERC
License Application, particularly Exhibit E; an.d meetings with the
Power Authority, terrestrial studies subcontractors, and agencies.
1.1 GENERAL OBJECTIVES
Task 4 of the H-E Contract for the Susitna Project contains the En-
vironmental Program for the Licensing and Design of the Project.
~he program is designed to meet the following general objectives:
1. to evaluate the environmental effects of the proposed Pro-
ject in order to recommend modifications and other measures
necessary to a:ssure compatibility of !:he Projec;t with the
environment;
2. to ~nsure that the technical aspects of the environmental
study program enable compliance with statutory and regula-
tory ~equirements governing project development;
1-1
Doc. 0423B
•
I l·
I ! .
I
I
! r .
!
I
j
I
f r
! ~ \)
i . I.,
l
l
l' l . l . l 0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3. to develop coordinated, effective data collection and an-
alysis programs whic~ facilitate evaluation of project ef-
fects and mitigation (if ac!11erse effects of the proposed
Project; and
4. to assist and support engineering activities to ensure pro-
per and effici~nt implementation of design features to com-
ply with environmental constraints and objectiveso
The specific study objectives for the Terrestrial Program are pre-
sented in Section 2.0 of this memorandum.
1-2
Doc. 0423B
..
j
t
I
1
/' r
r
1 I,
I<
I ~
I
I l .
I
! I :
t '·'
I I ,
J I.
}';j I
\c. I:'·
l
l I l
I I
l
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2. 0 STUDY OBJECTIVES
Specific study objectives for the Ter.~.estrial Programs have been
defined primarily from the Task 4 scope of work presented in the
Susitna Project Contract. In addition, review of previous study
reports on this Project and the FERC License Application, plus meet-
ings with the Power Authority, agencies, and the terrestrial studies
subcontractors have identified the specific st·1dy objectives.
The specific study ~bjectives for the Terrestrial Program are iden-
tified below. A list of Terrestrial Program activities designed to
satisfy these objectives during FY 1984 are presented in Table 2-1.
1. In coordination with the H-E Licensing and Permitting Group,
idc..:~.tify Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), agen.cy,
and public concerns about wildlife and botanical resources as-
sociated with the Susitna Project in need of resolution for
ti·~ly licensing and permitting to the Project.
2. In coordination with Project engineers, review and evaluate the
impacts of design modifications on wildlife and botanical re-
sources and identify concerns in need of resolution for success-
ful licensing and permitting of the Project.
3. Consolidate, as appropriate, identified concerns into specific
issues to be addressed during the licensing process or later;
4. Develop in consultation with appropriate regulatory agencies and
subcontractors, programs to resolve these issues.
5. Working with the Power Authority staff, manage or conduct these
programs in a manner th.it will ensure that program results are
effectively utilized to resolve issues and enhance the environ-
mental compatibility of the Project in a cost-effective manner.
6. Assist and support engineering activities to ensure that project
design is compatible with necessary environmental constraints
and objectives.
2-1
Doc .. 0423B •
t
f
f I,,
l i
I
l I ,>
f.' {~!
l
1' I r
t
I
l
f
)
' ,;"'
;
1 l'
I
l
i
i
l l
i
I
I
I I •
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 2-1
TERRESTRIAL PROGRAM ACTIVITIES FOR FY 1984
1. Review data collected t:o date and previous reports.
2. Prepare General Investigation l-:emorandum.
3~ Prepare Detailed Plan of Study.
4. Participate in weekly staff meetings.
5. Prepare monthly Terrestrial Pr(".grdm progress reports.
6. Conduct site reconnaissance vidits to familiarize Terrestrial
Study Team staff with Project area.
7. Manage subcontractor field prograr.. _ and impact assessment/mi ti-
gation pLanning efforts, including budget and schedule control,
research design, and quality assurance.
8. Produce H-E Quality Assurance Ytanual and institute
subcontractor quality assurance programs~/,~/.
9. Review and comment on ADF&G'~ big game plans of study and annual
reports!/.
10. Coordinate the acti vi tie~ of the entire T~rres trial Study Team,
including the subcontractors and ADF&G.
1!. Prepare a final report for the spring 1983 Terrestrial Modeling
Workshop!./.
12. Conduct a spring 1984 Terrestrial Program Workshop and prepare a
report~/.
13. Provide input to the Task 41 Transnussion Line Report regarding
wtldlife and botanical resources impacts of alternate corridors.
2-2
Doc. 0423B
I
J
I
i !'! ~~
.j t
l1
~
/i
!'·
f
l
! t",
I . I".
1
f l 1);
l
I
f
}
l
l
i
I
l
' I
l l'
1 ..
l
1
j
I
)
!
r I
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 2-1 (Continued)
14. Prepare information for non-FERC permit applications~/.
15. Prepare responses to remaining FERC supplemental information
requests.
16. Prepare for and particpa te in FERC site tours and presenta-
tion~/.
17. Evaluate the impacts of design changes a.nd the implications of
changed assumptions and associated forecast revisions on terres-
trial ecosystems.
18. Prepare update of License Application based on design refine-
ments.
19. Prepare responses to formal agency comments on License Applica-
tion!./.
20. Review Draft Eis~/.
21. Prepare final work scopes for the Terrestrial Program in .FY
1985~/, _£/' E_/.
22. Identify concerns related to the Projects's Impact Assessment
and Mitigation Plan in need of resolution for successful licen-
sing and permitting of the Project; consolidate identified con-
cerns into specific issues; develop appropriate programs to re-
solve these isr-w~s; and manage or conduct these programs in a
manner that will ensure that program results are effectively
utilized to resolve issues, comply with the FERC licensing pro-
cess, and enhance environmental compatibility of the project~/'
_£/, c/
23. Establish and maintain a tracking and documentation system for
Impact Assessment and Mitigation Plannin~/.
2-3
Doc. 0423B
I I
I II
!
l
I
I Jo r
F
J
1 '
i
j ' ?: ~~
f
I
l
i
r'
l" I
l
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 2-1 (Continued)
24. Refine the Terrestrial Mitigation Plan and prepare a status re-
port including long range plan of studies and other mile-
stones!/.
25. Identify candidate lands for moose habitat enhancemen 1~/.
26. Review literature, unpublished data, and studies in progress to
evaluate habitat enhancement t.:echniqv,es.
27 .. Conduct a browse inventory pilot study to determine the most
efficient methods to conduct the extr;nsive browsF inventory in
summer 198~/.
28. Conduct a limited moose food habits study to help design the
extensive browse inventory (if funding is available)~/.
29. Complete a spring plant phenology study to determine the distri-
bution, relative abundance, and time of occurrence of early
spring moose and bear forage in the impoundment are~/.
30 .. Conduct a survey of beaver colonies between Devils Canyon and
Talkeetna and downstream oi Talkeetna and collect information on
beaver overwinter survival to support beaver impact assessment
modeling effort~/.
31. Initiate the extensive browse inventory to be conducted during
summer 1984 (if funding is available)~/. ~
32. Prepare a p,~eliminary draft for age veg'ata tion map to provide a
bas is for stratification for the extensive browse inventory (if
funding is available).~./.
------a/
b/ -;;
d/
-~
LGL will prc~ide inp~t or lead this effort.
U of A Palmer will p ·:ovide input or lead this effort.
U of A Fairbanks will provide input or lead this effort.
Veg~cation mapping subcontractor will lead this effort.
2-4
Doc. 0423B ..
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•••• ' '
3. 0 IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES
A k.ey step in preparing the General Investir;ation Hemorandum for the
Terrestrial Program is the identification of specific issues which
must be addressed during the licensing pro~ess. These issues pre-
sent FERC, other agencies, and public concerns relative to wildlife
and botanical resource impact information needs resulting from the
Susitna Project. They have been identified through workshops, in-
dividual agency meetings, and formal agency correspondence. A pre-
l::!.lliinary list of these terrestrial issues is provided in Saction
10.0, Appendix A. The issues list also provides at least one source
of the origin-ating concern and a preliminary summary of the status
of resolution or planned work efforts for each issue.
The complete process of issue identification and resolution is de-
scribed in Section 6.17 .1. The tracking and documentation system
for this process is defined in Section 6.17.2. A mitigation plan
status report, which includes a long-range plan for restlution of
remaining issues, is described in Section 6.17. 3 and the major FY
1984 issue resolution work efforts are described in Section 6.17.4.
The specific issues each work effort is designed to address are also
identified in Section 6.17.4.
3-1
Doc. 0423B
..
I
I
I
I
.I .• ;
'
I
I
I
I
·I
I
I
I
I
4.0 PREV:~OUS STUDIES AND DATA AVAILABILITY
4.1 PREVIOUS STUDIES
Terrestrial studies relating to hydroelectric development on the
Susitna River have been conducted since the mid-1970s.
A listing of major reports documenting previous studie~ on vegeta-
tion and wildlife in the project area that were supported by Susitna
Project funds is presented in Section 10.0, Appendix B .
4.2 DATA AVAILABILITY
Although the references lis ted in Section 10.0, Appendix B t:epresent
the majority of existing information on vegetation and wildlife in
the Susitna River Basin, additional data sources do exist. ~~ny of
these re-sulted from preliminary studies on wildlife impacts of
Susitna River hydroelectic development. Another source of
additional data are the many ADF&G re.search reports on big game
mammals and their predators in Game Management Unit 13 that have
been produced in recent years. Finally, additional data on big game
are available through harvest reporting and standard field surv~ys
and inventories. These latter data are published by ADF&G as Annual
Reports of Survey-Inventory Activities.
4-1
Doc. 0423B
•
f'
j .
I.
. !
I
J
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
5. 0 DELINEATION OF STUDY AREA
The main terrestrial study area for. the Susltna Project consists of
that portion of the Susitna R.i ver watershed between its confluences
with the Tyone River and Indian River. The terrestrial study area
also includes that portion of the Nenana River drainage between
Deadman Mountain and the Denali Highway which will be traversed by
the project access road.
Downstream of the project area the primary study area is the river
floodplain and immediately adjacent areas. For some studies, how-
ever, such as downstream moose and black bears, t.he study area ex-
tends far enough away from the river to include the home ranges of
those animals that utilize floodplain habitats. For purposes of
dcwnstream terrestrial studies, the downstream area is generally
divided into the area between Devil Canyon and Tal-keetna and the
area between Talkeetna and Cook Inlet •
The transmission line intertie route betwen Healy and Willow is also
part of the terrestrial study area. Broad areas between Willow and
Anchorage and Healy and Fairbanks are also included for the purpose
of alternative transmission line routa selection.
Study area boundary maps for each major field study are provided in
the Plan of Study.
5-1
Doc. 0423B
?·
I
'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6. 0 STUDY METHODOLOGY
6.1 PREVIOUS DATA i\ND REPORTS
~ .
The initial task of the Terrestrial Study Team is to review pre-
viously collected data and reports, J.ncluding the FERC License Ap-
plication and ADF&G and subcontractor reports dealing with wild-
life/botanical resources.
6. 2 GENERAL INVESTIGATION MEMORANDUM AND PLAN OF STUDY
·------------<:~--------------------
After preparation of a General Investigation Memorandum, which de-
scribes the objectives, methodology, organization and personnel,
schedule, deli verables, and budget for conducting the FY 1984 Ter-
restrial Program, a Plan of Study will be prepared. which presents
the detailed methodology and schedule for' the FY 1984 ·rerrestrial
Program.
6. 3 STAFF MEETINGS AND PROGRESS REPORTS
Continuing activities of the H-E Terrestrial Staff are participation
in weekly staff meetings and preparation of monthly rrogress re-
ports. These are primarily the responsibility of the Group Leader.
Staff meetings provide a standardized means for information transfer
between and among the Environmental and Licensing Operations Manager
and the Environmental Group Leaders and Licensing Task Leader. Mon-
thly progress reports contain input from su~contractor progress re ·
ports:. and represent input to the Monthly Project Progress Report.
As such~ they follow the format prescribed for the Project Progress
Report.
6-1
Doc. 0423B
•
r
l
l
l I,
f
l
L l'
! ! r:
I
1'
l
l '
f· I
!
)
l
l ' 1' l
i
I
l
l
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6. 4 SITE RECONNAISSANCE VISITS
Another initial and continuing a,(:tj.vitY of the fi-E !er:re~trial Staff
is to conduct site reconnaissance visits to familiarize staff both
with the environmental attributes of the project area and the pro-
ject layout. Reconnaissance visits will include both aerial and
ground surveys.
6.5 SUBCONTRACTOR MANAGEMENT
Four subcontracts to H-E will be consummated during FY 1984 for Ter-
restrial study efforts. Subcontractors include LGL Alaska Research
Associates (LGL), the University of Alaska Palmer Agricultural Ex-
periment Station (U of A Palmer), the University of Alaska Coopera-
tive Wildlife Research Unit (U of A Coop.), and the University of
Alaska Museum (U of A Museum). These subcontractors and their areas
of responsibility are shown in Section 7.3.
The task of subcontractor management includes: assisting the sub-
contractor in scope preparation; (1) review, negotiation, and ap-
proval of subcontractor scope, b'.ldget, and schedule; ( 2) assisting
i:: preparing and finalizing a contract; ( 3) monitoring of subcon-
tractor progress while ensuri.ng that budgets and sclledules are being
met; (4) coordinating subcontractor logistic requirements with H-E
logistics personnel; ( 5) coordinating subcontractor activities with
other Terrestrial Program activities; and (6) performing quality
assurance audits or reviews of subcontractor activities and deliver-
ables ..
6 • 6 _q_u ALI~X ASSURANCE
All subcontractors will be required to apply a Quality Assurance
(QA) Program to their studies. This will include quality assurance
procedures for data collection, checking) and storage, analytical
procedures, report preparation and review. H-E will develop a QA
Manual to encompass any studies in which it directly participates
6-2
Doc. 0423B
I
I
I
l
l
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
and to include an overview of QA procedures for all Task 4
subcontractors.
6.7 COORDINATION
6.7.1 General
Terrestrial Program coordir.1tion is generally described in Section
7.0; specific coordination activities are described in this section.
Coordination is primarily the responsibility of the H-E Terrestrial
Group Leader but is also shared by the LGL Project M~aager. LGL
coordination responsibility covers activities assoct.ated with ter-
restrial model refinements as well as other activities related to
impact/ assessment mitigation plan refinement as directed by H-E.
The primary mechanism for communication and coordina.tion will be
through frequent and open communication among H-E, subcontractors,
and ADF&G staff.
6.7.2 Progress Review and Planning Me~~ings
A systematic means of ensuring that good coordination occurs will be
implemented through regular progress review anci planning meetings.
These meet5.ngs will be attended by the H-E Group Leader, LGL Project
Manager, ADF&G Research Coordinator, ADF&G Habitat Division re-
viewer, and a USFWS project reviewer. In addition, it is expE!cted
that Power Authority Staff will attend as time permits and addi-
tional staff members from H-E, LGL, ADF&G, USFWS, U of A Palmer Ex-
periment Station, U of A Museum and U of A Cooperative Wildlife Re-
search Unit, will attend as necessary. Hembers of the Aqua tic, Hy-
drology and Social Science Study Teams will also be reqt\ested to
attend when appropriate to ensure that activities are coordinated
with these groups and to obtain their technical expertise when the
need arises.
6-3
Doc. 0423B ..
0' -,:·~.,~"" }'• ~,.,,
t'!f-11<*2:..:.~ ,'
I
i
1:
I
I i .
I
i
j
I
I
}
I
\
;
I .
J
I
' l
I t ..
;:~'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Progress review and planning meetings will be conducted monthly or
more or less frequently as the need .arises. These meetings will
provide a forum for each major entity of the Terrestrial Study Team
to report on their activities for the previous month, including
preliminary results of field studies, and to discuss their plann.ed
activities and problem areas. The meetings will provide the oppor-
tunity for Terrestrial Study Team members to modify their activities
so that they pro·vide more useful input to other activities in a
timely manner. General planning activities will also take place at
these meetings relative to deciding priorities and defining work
efforts necessary to support impact assessment and mitigation plan
refinement. Minutes covering each of these meetings will be pre-
pared and distributed to all Terrestrial Team members.
6.7.3 Workshops
Another form of information transfer and coordination is through
workshops. A large workshop centered on terrestrial modeling ef-
forts was held in spring 1983. A draft report presented the status
of terrestrial models, as refined at the workshop and associated
technical meetings, and identifed information needs for further
model refinement:. This report will he finalized in December 1983
following receipt of comm~nts from Terrestrial Study Team members.
A 1984 Workshop is currently planned for spring 1984. This w0rkshop
will inform all interested parties of Terrestrial Program, ter-
restrial model, and issue resolution status, and will provide for
critical review and input on further model refinements and issue
resolution.
6.8 REVIEW OF ADF&G PLANS OF STUDY/ANNUAL REPOR~
Plans of Study and annual reports prepared by ADF&G will be re.viewed
and comments submitted to the Power Authority.
6-4
Doc. 0423B
•
I
I
I
I i ~ :!"
l
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6. 9 TRANSMISSION LINE INVESTIGATION
The goal of the Transmission Line Investigation is to have preferred
routes for each project transmission line segment and substation
locations agreed upon by the public, agencies, and serviced utili-
ties during 1983~ Wildlife and botanical resources are a prime con-
cern in transmission line routing and so the Terrestrial Study Team
will provide support • 0 as requ~r>.!(L. This includes paL'ticipaton in
field reconnaissance, agency interviews, public ~eetings, data col-
lection, and report preparation.
6.10 REGULATORY AGENCY AND PERMIT SUPPORT
St.'sitna Project licensing ~~ill require that ~.any regulatory require-
ments be satisfied in addition to FERC requirements. Federal,
state, and/or regulatory requirements in at least three areas will
need major support from the Terrestrial Study Team. These areas
include wetlands, eagles, and endangered species. Sections 401 and
404 of the Clean Water Act, Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act, the Executive Order on Protection of Wetlands, the Bald Eagle
Pro.tection Act, and the Endangered Species Act are the major federal
regulations pertaining to activities affecting these resources. The
Terrestrial Study Team will work closely with the H-E Licensing and
Permitting Group to provide the necessary support required to ensure
project compliance with pertinent non-FERC regulations.
6.11 FERC EQUESTS FOR SUPPL~ENTAL INFORMATION
On April 12, 1983 FERC provided the Power Authority a list of sup-
plemental information requests relative to the license application.
This list included 32 questions pertaining to botanical and wildlife
resources (Chapter 3). Additional questions on Socioeconomics
(Chapter 5), Recreation (Chapter 7), Land Use (Chapter 9), and Al-
ternatives (Chapter lO)J related heavily to wildlife, or botanical
6-5
Doc. 0423:8
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
resources. On November 3, 1983 FERC ll'.ade additional requests for
supplemental information relative to terrestrial resou~ces. Members
of the Terrestrial Study Team are working both directly and through
subcontractors to prepare this information.
6 .. 12 FERC SITE TOURS
The Terrestrial Study Team helped prepare itineraries for and parti-
cipated in the extensive August 1983 FER.C site tours. An evening
presentation wa.s also prepared.
6.13 ENGINEERING DESIGN CHANGES/LICENSE APPLICATION UPDATE
A review of the engineering and project operation concepts will be
performed so as to optimize the overall project concept. A major
aspect of this process is to con.s ider the environmental implications
of any proposed engineering design modifications. Ul tim.a tely thi.>
process will lead to the preparation of various en\"ironmental re-
ports on project design modifications which may be used as the basis
for updating the FERC License Application. The process described
below will be used for the development of the required environmental
reports.
After initial discussion concerning the nature of potential design
modifications between engineering and environmental personnel, a
"Disc.ussion Memrandum" will be prepared by the appropriate environ-
mental scientist. The objectives of this memorandum will be to pro-
mote communication and understanding of the problem between engi-
neering and environmental personnel.
When the engineering evaluation process is complete, a report will
be prepared to accompany the engineering study report. The depth
and detail of the environmental ceport will depend en the nature of
the design modification and the affected project impacts.
6-6
Doc .. 0423B
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
When a decision is made to officially modify Project design, the
FERC License Application will need to be updated. Preparation of
the terrestrial portions of this update will be performed by the
Terrestrial Study Team in a format prescribed by the Project Licens-
ing Group. The License Application update will build upon previous
environmental reports prepared on engineering design modifications.
6.14 AGENCY COMMENTS ON THE LICENSE APPLICATION
Formal agency comments on the License Application will be received
dur.ing FY 1984. The Terrestrial Study Team, in conjunction with
subcontractors, will prepare formal responses to the appropriate
comments.
6.15 REVIEW DRAFT EIS
The FERC Draft EIS on the Susitna Project will be available in Feb-
ruary 1984. The Te~restrial Study Team will review this document on
behalf of the Power Authority and prepare written comments for
transmittal to FERC"
6.16 FINALIZE FY 1985 WORK SCOPES FOR SUBCONTRACTORS AND ADF&G -
This task represents the finalization of FY 1985 work scopes and
contracts or contract amendments with the terrestrial
subcontractors. It also includes finalization of ADF&G's FY 1985
RSA. These ac~ivities will be conducted through an iterative pro-
cess consisting of Terrestrial StLdy Team meetings to decide on pri-
orities, proposal preparation, proposal review, and proposal
revision.
6-7
Doc. 0423B "
l
j
!
!
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6.17 IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION PLAN REFL~EMENT --------------·-------
6.17.1 Settlement Process
Refinement of the Terrestrial Impact Assessment and Mitigation Plan
is an ongoing process that is necessary to support licensing of the
Sus itna Project. This process has been organized into four over-
lapping phases.
The first phase involves identification of FERC, other agency, and
public issues about wildlife and botanical resources assc~iated with
the Susitna Project in need of resolution for licensing of the pro-
ject. These issues have been identified through workshops, indivi-
dual agency meetings, formal agency co~nts on the draft FERC
License :-\pplica tion, and public meetings, such as the FERC seeping
meeting. One of the major vehicles for identifying agency and sub-
contractor concerns was the February 28 -March 2, 1983 Mitigation
Planning Workshop. A table listing the issues identified to date
along with the source of the originating concern is provided as
Appendix A.
The second phase of this process is the discussion of each issue
with the appropriate agency in order to arrive at a final list of
the issues to be addressed during the licensing process. Phase
three involves the development, with appropriate agency and subcon-
tractor personnel, of appropriate programs to resolve these issues.
This phase will be conducted through a series of technical meet-
ings. The programs can range from a simple written response 1 defin-
ing why the issue does not justify further study, to extensive field
programs. A Detailed Plan of Study will be preparet! for each extl~n
sive field or office study. The programs tentatively identified to
date for resolving the issues are provided along with the issues in
the Appendix A tables. The. final phase of the process is the man·-
agement or conduct of these programs in a manner that will ensure
6-8
Doc. 0423B
I)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
that program results are effectively utilized to resolve the issues
and enhance the environmental compatibility of the Project"' The
u1 timate goal of this process is the development of an equitable
settlement of issues.
6.17.2 Tracking and Documentation System
It is important that a "bookkeeping" system be developed and applied
to the Terrestrial Program issue settlement process so that the cur-
rent status of impact assessment and mitigation planning for each
impact mechanism can be documented and tracked through the process.
This is necessary even though there is a broader tracking system for
the entire settlement process (being maintained by the Licensing and
Permitting group) because many agency-~aised issues are general
(i.e., impacts not adequately qua.ntit:ifed--Issue T-20) and tracking
and documentation of the resolution of these issues requires an ex-
amination of each impact me-! chan ism.
The tracking and documentation system to be implemented for the Ter-
restrial Program consists of a table maintained on a word processing
system that includes columns listing: (1) e lch species or other
appropriate biological unit; ( 2) each impact mechanism potentially
affecting each species/biological unit; ( 3) the status of impact
assessment for each impact mechanism (i.e. , a brief description of
how it was assessed, how adequate/inadequate and quantitative/qU&li-
tative the assessment was, and a reference to the document(s) and
page(s) where the assessment is located): and ( 4) a brief descrip-
tion of how, and to what extent, the impac te resulting from each
impact mechanism will be mitigated together with a reference to the
detailed mitigation plan description.
A first draft of the species/biological unit and impac.t mechanism
portions of the table will be completed by the end of October 1983.
This will be distributed among Terrestrial Study Team Members for
6-9
Doc. 0423B
•
j,
!·.
J
l'
l
I
l
l
~
I
! ' ~'
!
r
f
I
r
review; however, work will continue on the remaining portions of the
table and a first draft of the en.tire tracking and documentation
system will be available by the end of NoveUlber 1983. The table
will be updated monthly and will be used at t . Terrestrial Program
progress review and planning meetings as the basis for reporting
progress and planning future activities. The table will provide a
means for grasping the total scope of unresolved issues so that pri-
oritiza.tion of work efforts can be clearly made.
6.17.3
The ultimate goal of the impact assessment/mitigation plan refine·-
ment process is to develop a Terrestrial Mitigation Plan that is
consistent with the Power Authority's Fish and Wildlife Mitigation
Policy for the Susitna Project and that satisfies FERC, other agen-
cies, and th~ public. Therefore, it is important to at least define
the frameH~ork for the plan at an early stage so that resolution of
the remaining issues can be focused at defining the specifics of the
plan. The initial framework will be the plan provided in the
license application. This framework will be reviewed informally
with agencies, subcontractors, and the Power Authority in order to
refine the plan and therefore, to refine field programs as much as
possible. After receipt of agency comments, a more formal strategy
will be pursued to define the mitigation plan framework. Because of
certain data requirement~ that require long lead times, the mitiga-
tion plan may not be fii1alized for several years. However, a report
documenting the current status of the plan will be prepared by the
Terrestrial Study Team at the end of FY 1984.
This document will briefly describe the status of the plan as of
that date, the refinements made during the previous year, the re-
ports and other products dealing with impact assessment/mitigation
plan. refinement produced during the year, the remaining terrestrial
issues, and the long range plan for resolving these issues and fin-
alizing the mitigation plan.
6-10
Doc. 0423B
r
l
I
I
I
8 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6.17.4 FY 1984 Settlement Process Work Efforts
A number of field studies and other tasks designed to resolve some
of the remaining terrestrial issues are currently underway or
planned for FY 1984. Budget limitations have necessitated delaying
or reducing the scope of some work efforts. Therefore, the FY 1984
program represents only those work efforts considered to be of high-
est t)riority. In the subsections provided below, the FY 1984 work
efforts are described within the framework of the overall impact
assessment and mitigation planning program for each species or spe-
cies group. In addition, the specific issues (Appendix A) that are
addressed by each work effort are identified.
6.17. 4.1 Upstream Mo~ Two approaches to refining the impact as-
sessment for moose upstream of Devil Canyon are being followed. The
first is based on the existing population and attempts to pre-diet
how the population will respond to the project over time. The
second is a habitat-based approach which attempts to estimate the
potential of habitat that will be altered or lost to support moose.
The population approach has the advantage of predicting actual
changes in moose numbers. It allows estimation of impacts that are
not habitat-based, such as accidents and human-induced mortality.
The habitat-based approach is useful for estimating changes in po-
tet;, tial carrying capacity when existing populations are not fully
utilizing their habitat and for direct comparison of specific acre-
ages and the benefits of habitat enhancement techniques. Each ap-
proach will provide information necessary for evaluating the other
and the integrated results of both are expected to provide the basis
for mitigation planning. The linkages among the various work ef-
forts designed to support these two approaches are shown in
Figure 6-1.
6-11
Doc. 0423B
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Work efforts to be conducted during FY 1984 along with the re-
sponsible organizations include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Zone of Impact Census -ADF&G
Impact Area Habitat Use Monitoring -ADF&G
Calf Predation Monitoring -ADF&G
Severe Winter Studies (if severe winter occurs) -ADF&G
Spring Plant Phenology Study-U of A Palmer
Forage Vegetation Mapping -Unknown subcontractor
Pilot Browse Sampling -U of A Palmer
Moose Food Habits Study -U of A Palmer
Browse Sampling -U of A Palmer
Wolf Studies -ADF&G
Bear Studies -ADF&G
Bioenergetics Model Testing -ADI!'&G/USFWS
Bear Population Model Refinement -ADF&G/LGL
Moose Population Model Refinement -ADF&G/LGL
Habitat Enhancement Studies (monitoring winter use of
downstream disturbed sites) -ADF&G
Habitat Enhancement Studies (literature review of
habitat enhancement techniques)-H-E
Mitigation plan refinement (identification of candi-
date lands for habitat enhancement) -H-E/LGL/Agencies
Brief scope descriptions of each of these work efforts along with
the organizations with primary responsibility, deliverable due
dates, and the specific issues each work effort is designed to ad-
dress are provided below.
6-12
Doc. 0423B
•
1:
r ,,
I' F
' I
I I
j
i
i' l
I
l t
'
I i
I
I
j
r
j,
!
l
f
f
I
j r
J
j '
I
l""' I ' I -D j
I
1 I
l
f .
\. .
'. ~~'
_____________ .,., _______ , .. _
Figure 6-l.. LIIIKAG&S .-,IIG OOIIPOIIIM'r·S OF UPSDKAM/HOOSH IMPAC'f ASS&SSKKIIT 6. KITIGATIO• Pl.AII I&PI&~U &WIODS
(J\
I
~ w
•
\
I
f.uad Habita
Studlf
Pilot Browse
Saplina
__ _j '"')
Forl!g.e
Vegetation
Kappina
·-
Spring Plant
Pbenoloay StYdiee
Zone Of
l•pact
Cenaua
lt1a.bitat Use
Mon i t u r in&
Calf Predation
Monitor ina ~ ..
r'l' -
Browse
s .. pling
~~-
I
\
lioeneqcet ics
Hodel
Severe
• Winter
Studies
~ Wolf
Studies
i
Beal" ..
Studies
I
Moose Forage .. Availability ,---.
---
Hoose
Vegetation Carrying
Success ion Capacity
J Hodel ~'I Lost
\
Daily Forag:-l ..
' Habitat
1 . t--· Requ1re•ents L..;j Enhancement .. Hoose
Studies . Hit i gat ioc:•
Plan
T "'"' •
Hoose " Hoose
Po;Jula&rion -. Numbers ....
Hodel Lost
T "
Bear
Population
Hodel
~I
LL I
1
' ' .
... ~-·~--··~~-·•--.,~-..,..--~·--"""'lw~"'__.,._I<.,.. __ ~~---..Ai_..•-~-...,___,_.,._,._~0~........_.. ......_ ....... ._
I
I "
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.
2.
Work Effort: Zone of ~pact ~ensus
Primary Responsibility: ADF&G
Issues Addressed: T-17, T-20, T-39
Deliverable Due Dates: Draft Annual Report due 4./1/84
Scope: The zone of impact (defined as all areas within one home
range length of any area whi~h will be altered by construction
and operation of the project) will be censused in November 1983
using techniques described by Gasaway et al G 1981 to provide
estimates of the number and sex. and age composition of moose
that will be exposed to direct project impacts. The census area
also will include all of composition Count Areas 7 and 14 to
provide a comparison with the 1980 census and to check the ac-
curacy of predictions of the moose submodel.
Work Effort: ~p~ct ~rea Habitat Use __ Monitoring
Primary Responsibility: ADF&G
Issues Addressed: T-17, T-20, T-33, T-39
Deliverable Due Dates: Draft Annual Report due 4/1/84
Scope: The radio-collared moose known to inhabit the zone of
impact will be relocated 2 to 4 times a month between September
and February depending on moose movements and 6 to 8 times a
month between March and June. Monitoring at other times of the
year and monitoring of other radio-collared moose will be limit-
ed to the level necsssary to maintain contact and identify sig-
nificant changes in movement patterns. If new vegeta tioc maps
are digitized, relocation data will be re-analyzed to determine
habitat selectivity.
3. Work Effort: Calf Predation Monitoring
Primary ResponsibilitY: ADF&G
Issues Addressed: T-17, T-20, T-39, T-44
Deliverable Due Dates: Draft Annual Report due 4/1/84
Scope: Forty newborn moose calves will be captured and fitted
with mort all ty made radio collars in late May 1984. Signals
will be monitored twice a day throl,gh June. (Monitoring will
continue into FY'85 at a rate of once a day through July and
6-14
Doc. 0423B
)
I
I
I
J
l
'
I
l
!
l
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
twice a month August through November.) When the radio signal
indicates a calf is dead, the site will be visited on the grouna
as soon as possible and the causes of mortality will be assessed
(Ballard et al. 1979). Mortality rates by cause will be calcu-
lated and used to correct the moose submodel. A sample of black
bears will be intensely monitored to determine rates of preda-
tion (see Food Resource Identification under Bear S~udies).
-------
Primary Re.spons ibili ty: ADF&G
Issues Addressed:
Deliverable Due Dates:
T-17, T-20, T-39, T-41
Draft Annual Report due 6/1/84 if
severe winter occurs and funding is
available
Scope: Spatial and temporal varia~ion in snow accumulation pat-
terns makes it difficult to define a "severe winter". Moose may
respond differently to early accumulatit.>n of snow than they do
to the same accumul3tion late in the winter. Therefore, a
"~evere winter" will be defined largely by the movements of
moose. The winter of 1982-83 will be used as a standard. Se-
vere winter procedures will be initiated when radio-collared
moose, whose movements were documented during 1982-83, move into
areas subject to habitat loss or alteration in larger numbers
than in 1982-83. If this condition occurs, the following acti-
vities will be conducted.
Radio-collared moose relocation flights will be intensified.
The sample of 30 regular inhabitants of the primary zone of im-
pact will be located twice a \Jeek. Other radio-collared moose
will be relocated weekly to determine if their use of the zone
of impact increases and to aid in identification of critical
winter range that will not be impacted.
Two aerial surveys ··1'111 be conducted to map moose distribution
in January and February.
6-15
Doc. 0423B
I
! I:
(
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
In March~ a census will be conducted to estimate the number of
moose in and within 5 miles of the impoundments.
Location and numbers of dead moose will be recorded. A sample
of dead moose will be visit~u on the ground and the sex, age and
cause of death will be assessed.
Two wolf packs will be relocated daily for a period of 30 days.
Wolvas will be backtracked and kills recorded to determine rates
of predation. As many kills as possible will be visited and
sex, age, and condition of each animal will be assessed.
5. Work Effort: Spring Plant Phenology Study
Primary Responsibility: U of A -Palmer
Issues Addtessed: T-20, T-38
Deliverabl~ Due Dates: i)f'aft Annual Report due 3/31/84
Scope: Data on moose and bear movements indicate that the im-
poundment area is relatively heavily used in early springo The
plant plenology study conducted in the 1983 field seas;on ad-
dressed the questions of what, when, and where plant foods be-
came available for use as early spring forage. Observations of
ani~l browsing were also made.
6. Work Effort: Forage Vegetation Mapping --·-·--.----
Primary Responsibility: Unknown Subcontractor
Issues Addressed: T-20 T-30 T-31 T-32 T-33 ' -' ' , .
Deliverable ~ue Dates: Preliminary Draft Map due 6/15/84 if
funding is available
Scope: This effort is designed to provide more detailed vegeta-
tion mapping to be used for quantification of habitat-based im-
pacts in general, and specifically to provide a basis for stra-
tification for moose carrying capacity estimation. The FY 1984
effort is designed to provide a product just sufficient to allow
its use to improve the statistical efficiency of the browse
inventory.
6-16
Doc. 0423B
..
c
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7. Work Effort: Pilot Browse Sam~ling
Primary Respo~~ibility: U of A -Palmer
8.
Issues Addressed: T-20, T-36
Deliverable Due Dates: Draft Report due 1/31/84
Scope: This study is designed to refine methods for the exten-
sive browse sampling program scheduled for summer 1984. It in-
volves evaluation of. sample size, plot size, and sampling
techniques.
Work Effort: Moose Food Habits Studl,
Primary Responsibility: U of A -Palmer
Issues Addressed: T-20, T-37
Deliverable Due Dates: Draft Report due 4/30/84
Scope: This study is designed to ass~~t in finalizing plans for
the extensive browse sampling program by confirming or modifying
the list of important forage species in the project area during
each season.
9. Wcrk Effort: !£9._~~ Sampling_
Primary Responsibility: U of A -Palmer
Issues Addressed: T-20, T-36
Deliverable Due Dates: Draft Report due 6/30/84
Scope: This effort represent3 the planning and mobilization for
the extensive browse inventory to be conducted during
July-August 1984 in the middle Susitna Basin.
10. Work Effort: Wolf Studies (See Wolf studies)
11. Work Effort: Bear Studies (See Bear studies)
12. Work Effort: Bioenergetics Model Testing -·-Primary Responsibility: ADF&G/USFWS
Issues Addressed: T-20, T-34
Deliverable Due Dates: Draft Annual Report due 4/1/84
Scope: Field validation of the bioenergetics model at the Kenai
Moose Research Center will be conducted in FY 1984 and FY 1985.
6-17
Doc. 0423B
"
'.
'.~
~ { ' . ,. .
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
This phase will be conducted by ADF&G with partial support from
USF&WS. ADF&G personnel partially funded by APA will partici-
pate in the design, direction, and data analysis direction of
this phase. All operating and most personnel costs will be
borne by ADF&G and USF&WS. This effort will involve refining
the model's capability of predicting energy and nitrogen re-
quirements and generating forage intake values.
13. Work Effort: Bear Populatiotl Model Refinement (see Bear Studies) ..::;.;;;;;..;;......-::-•---~
14. Work Effort: Moose Population Model Refinement
Primary Responsibility: ADF&G/LGL
Issues Addressed:
Deliverable Due Dates:
T-20, T-34
Final 1983 Terrestrial Model Report due
12/15/83, Draft 1984 Workshop Report
(including terrestrial model status)
due 6/30/84.
Scope: Refinements to the moose population model will be made
l:o the extent that budget and new data allow the moose carrying
•:apaci ty model to be refined as described in Work Effort 12
above.
15. Work Effort:
16. Work Effort:
~.;_ta_L. Enhancement Studies (monitoring
winter use of downstream disturbed
sites) (See Downstream Moose studies)
Habitat Enhancement Studies (literature
review of habitat enhancement
techniques)
Primary Responsibility: H-E
Issues Addressed: T-35
Deliverable Due Dates: Draft Report due 3/15/84
Scope: All relevant information on habitat enhancement techni-
ques for moose and bear will be reviewed and summarized.
Sources will include published literature, unpublished data on
6-18
Doc. 0423B
,•
j
l
l
!
!
I
I
f
t
f
j ·-
('
I
I
.. ·1:
I
·I·
I'
I
I
I
I
file, and information from current projects. All techniques
will be evaluated with re.gard to their applicahili ty and efte~
tiveness for the Susitna Basin.
17. Work Effort: Mitigatio~ Plan Refinement (identifica-
tion of candidate lands for habitat
enhancement)
Primary Responsibility: H'-E/LGL/ ADF&G
Issues Addressed: T-35
Deliverable Due Dates: Draft Report due 1/15/84, Draft Mi tiga-
tion Plan Status Report due on 6/15/84
Scope: Approximately 100 5 000 acres of land sui table for moose
and bear habitat enhancement will be identified and mapped. The
large area allows for maximum flexibility in oiting the approxi-
mate 20,000 acres of landl that will eventually be selected for
actual enhancement. Selection criteria and an implementation
procedure for selection CJI"i teria will be developed in conjunc-
tion with ADF&G moose c.:.::Ld bear investigators and Area Biolo-
gists. A major data sour·ce for this effort will be the ADF&G
Habitat Division data developed for the Susitna Area Plan. The
report will address acquisition problems and management options.
6.17 .4. 2 Downstr~_MoE!l~ The impacts of the project on moose
downstream of Devil Canyon ar.e being assessed by modeling the physi-
cal processes (e.g., flooding, ice scouring) affecting downstream
mo,ose habitat, modeling the changes in downstream moose habitat re-
sulting from the modification of the hydrologic regime, and deter-
mining the magnitude, distribution, habitat selection, and timing of
moose use of these floodplain habitats. Potential habitat enhance-
ment measures are being studied by closely monitoring moose winter
use of disturbed sites known to be heavily used by moose in winter.
Close coordination with the aquatic program is being conducted to
assure consistency of inputs and outputs where practical. Figure
6-2 portrays the linkages among the various work efforts involved in
this approach-.
6-19
Doc. '0423B
•
n ., '
0
l
; .
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.Figure 6-2. Linkages Among Components of Downstream Moose Impact
Assessment and Mitigation Plan Refinement Efforts ,_
Downstream Downstream Changes in
Hydrologic Vegetation ... Moose Habitat
r
Model i Model (Qualitative)
~~
Winter ,, ,,
Floodplain .... Changes in ~ Moose
Census Moose Numbers Mitigation
Aquatic (Cualitative) Plan
Program ·~ -f Fio.od plain Hydrologic
and ~tribution and
Hydraulic bitat Use Winter Use I Model nitoring ___ of Disturbed
In'Q_uts/Outputs
'.llr..f!f
Site MonitorinlU
severe
Winter
Studies
All work efforts will be conducted at some level during FY 1984. A
very weak link exists in the modeling efforts. This weakness is the
lack of i..nformation on which to base the representation of the ef-
fects of 'hysical processes on vegetation. This lack of information
and the probable long-term nature of any studies that could be con-
ducted to obtain the informatlon, significantly limits the ability
of the vegetation model to make quantitative predictions with a rea-
sonable degree of accuracy. For this reason, the modeling efforts
will be reevaluated to assess their value and role in the overall
effort.
Brief riCope descriptions of each work effort alotig with the organi-
zations with primary responsibility, deliverable due dates, and the
specific issues each work effort is designed to address are provided
below.
6-20
Doc. 0423B
•
l
l
l
I
1
}
l
J
I
l
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1. WorkEffort: _D_o_wn __ s_;_r_e_a_m __ ~~drol_o~g~i~c ____ a_n_d ___ Ve~~tati~--~~
Refinement
Primary Responsibility: LGL/H-E/ADF&G
Issues Addressed: T-1) T-20
Deliverable Due Dates: Final 1983 Terrestrial Model Report due
12/15/83,, Draft 1984 Workshop Report
(including terrestrial model status)
due 6/30/84
Scope: Refinements to the downstream hydrologic and vegetation·
models will be made in coordination with the Aquatic and Hydro-
logy Study Teams to the extent that budget and new data allow
only following a reassessment of their value to the downstream
assessment effort. In addition to or instead of tilOdel refine-
ment, a refined assessment of downstream vegetation impacts will
be conducted based on a review of published and unpublished in-
formation and discussions with ice experts.
2. Work Effort: Flood~~~in Distrib~tion and Habitat ~e_Monitorin&
Primary Responsibility: ADF&G
3.
Issues Addressed: T-20, T-35, T-40
Deliverable Due Dates: Draft Annual Report due 4/1/84
Scope: Existing radio-collared moose will be relocated approxi-
mately twice a month from November to May and weekly between
mid-May and mid-June. Monitoring during summer and monitoring
of moose away from areas that are likely to be impacted by the
project or serve as mitigation lands will be at a minimum level
to maintain contact.
Work Effort: Winte .. r Floodplain -~ensuses
Primary Responsibility: ADF&G
Issues Addressed: T-20, T-35, T-40
Deliverable Due Dates: Draft Annual Report due 4/1/84
Scope: Aerial censuses for moose in Susitna River floodplain
habitats and disturbance subclir:ax vegetative sites from Cook
Inlet to Devil Canyon will be conducted six times, through win-
ter as long as snow cover conditions permit.
6-21
Doc. 0423B
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4. Work Effort: Winter Use of Disturbed Site Monito~ing
Primary Responsibility: ADF&G
Issues Addressed: T-20, T-35, T-40
Deliverable Due Dates: Draft Annual Report due 4/1/84
Scope: Samples of 12 mose will be radio-collared from each of
3 (Montana west, Montana middle and Kashwitna Lake north) ana 6
moose on one (Talkeetna west) of the previously studied "dis-
turbed'" sites (Modafferi 1983). To distribute sampling inten-
sity over the winter period, 4 moose will be captured and
radio-collared at each of the former 3 sites during each of 3
sampling periods (mid-November, mid-January, and mid-March).
Three moose will be captured and radio-collared during each of
the later sampling periods at the Talkeetna west site.
There is evidence that some moose use such areas only during
periods of deep snow nccumulation. Consequently, tagging will
be regulated by the changes in numbers of moose using the
sites. If aerial censuses and observations made on radio track-
ing flights indicate that additional moose are no longer moving
to the area, tagging will be suspended.
A sample of blood and an inciso.r tooth will be collected from
each individual moose for determinatior, of physiological condi-
tion and age.
Radio-collared moose will be relocated every two weeks, weather
permitting, except during the mid-May to mid-June calving period
when they will be relocated each week.
6-22
Doc. 0423B
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5. Work Effort: Severe Winter Studies
Primary Responsibility: ADF&G
Issues Addressed: T-20, T-40, T-41
Deliverable Due Dates: Draft Annual Report due 6/1/83 if
severe winter occurs and funding is
available.
Scope: Spatial and temporal variation in snow accumulati~n pat-
terns makes it difficult to define a "severe w:tnter." Moose may
respond differently to early accumulation of snow than they do
to the same accumulation late in the winter. Therefore, a
"severe winter" will be defined largely by the movements of
moose. The winter of 1982-83 will be used as a standard.
Severe winter procedures will be initiated when river censuses
indicate larger numbers of moose in the downstream flood plain
thm1 were observed in 1982-83.
Four addi tiona! river censuses will be conducted. In conjunc-
tion with one rive~ census, distribution of moose to either side
of the. river will be mapped to determine the availability, loca-
tion and habitat: type of critical winter range outside of the
floodplain.
6. Work Effort: Mitigat~n Plan Refipement (see Upstreatu Moose
Studies)
6.17. 4. 3 Caribou. The primary impacts of project development on
caribou are likely to result from the potential movement barriers
created by the access roads and the impoundments. The extent to
which these features may affect movements is very difficult to pre-
dict due to the variability exhibited by caribou in their reaction
to other barriers reported in the literature and thelr unpredictable
range use patterns relative to other large North American herbivores.
6-23
Doc. 0423B
•
I •
. ,,. "'* ' "''"~· :\\-""":. ,,
I
! t I.
I
t
l
! I
l;
~ I
l I
I j .·
l
!
l
! I 1
i . l '~ i ..
I
I
1
I
1
I t
l I.,
I I ,
l
I '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I '
·~
The best approach to evaluate pt'<lject impacts appears to be through
building up a large data base on pre-project movements and range use
so that effective mitigation measures can be recommended and that
the effects of the barriers after project devalo~ment can be ful!y
~valuated. Thus, the FY 1984 program includes monitoring the size,
productivity, and movement patterns of caribou in the project area.
The scope of work for these studies, the organizations with primary
responsibility, deliverable due dates, and the specific issues each
work effort is designed to address are provided below.
1. Work Effort.: Main Nelchina Herd Moni t•:>ring
Primary R$ponsibility: ADF&G
Issues Addressed: T-20
Deliverable Due Dates: Draft Annual Report due 4/1/84
Scope:
tained
cated
routes
ments)
A pool of about 25 radio-collared
in the main Nelchina herd. These
throughout the year often enough
(parti.cular ly in the vicinity of
and seaeonal range use; !~ surveys
caribou will
caribou will
to document
the proposed
ia winter,
be dl'.l..-·1-
be relo-
movement
impound-
4 surveys
during spring mig1:ation, 2 surveys during calving, 2 surveys
during summert 2 during autumn dispersal and 1 during the rut.
Estimates of population growth and herd productivity of the
main Nelc.hina herd will be made ·chrough annual censuses and
composition sampling.
Work Effort: Upper Sus~tna-Nenana. Subher:_d Monitorin[
Primary Responsibility: ADF.&G
Issues Addressed~ T-20
Deliverable Due Dates: Draft Annual Report due 4/1/84
Scope: A sample of about 8 radio-~o]lared carib~u will be main-
tained in the upper Susi tna-Nenana s:..bherd. They will be relo-
cated aboot 10 times per year to determine seasonal range use
and movement patterns.
6-24
Doc. 0423B
!
I
l
l ' I
' I 1
l
l
I
t ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The dispersed nature of the upper Susitna-Nenana subherd make
traditional census techniques impractical. A minimum population
estimate will be made based on direct counts, during the rut.
Observations of radio-collared caribou, tracks in snow and an
analysis of seasonal habitat use will be used to ensure that
major portions of the herd are not missed.
6.17. 4. 4 Dall Shee~ The major potsntial direct impact cf project
development on Dall Sheep will be inundation of a portion of the Jay
Creek mineral lick and human disturbance at or near the 1:ck.
Therefore, additional studies are concentrating on quantifying sheep
use of Jay Creek and other nearby licks, assessing and comparing the
minera.l content of these licks, and monitoring seasonal habitat use
of sheep range in the project area. FY 1984 studies will simply
involve completing those efforts inititated in late FY 1983. These
efforts are briefly described below.
1. Work Effort: _Dall She~ Lick Use P~~
Primary Responsibility: ADF&G
Issues Addressed: T-20 T-42 ,
Deliverable Due Dates: Draft Annual Report Due 4/1/84
Scope: The following procedures are for the summer of 1983.
Most work will be accomplished during FY 1983, however observa-
tions will extend into early FY 1984.
Tw~nty-one she:~p in the Wa tana Hills were color-marked by spe-
cially adapted firearms shot from a helicopter in early April
1983. Ten sheep marked in the northern Watana Hills were marked
red; 11 sheep in the southern Watana Hills were marked blue.
An observtion blind was erected in early or mid-May to quantify
use of various areas of the Jay Creek lick bluff and identify
individual sheep (color-marked and others) using the main Jay
Creek lick and the secondary lict. area on the opposite ridge.
Observtions were made by 1 or 2 observers with the aid of bino-
culars and spotting scopes. Most observatio~.s were made
6-25
Doc. 0423B
•
I"
l'
l
(
' ! '
I
j
j
I
I l ,,
I ,
I
!
I
l
l
L
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
during the roost likely lick activity period ( 0440-2000 hours).
The sex, a.~e, dye-markings, individual identity (if known),
length of lick use, zone of lick use, date, time, weather condi-
tions and other pertinent information will be recorded. Obser-
vations will continue until late July or when a seasonal drop in
use is evident. Similar observations were made at the East Fork
lick from late May to mid-June and at other Watana Hills' licks~
2. Work Effort: Mineral Li~k Elemental Analysis
Primary Responsibility: ADF&G
Issues Addressed: T-20, T-42
Deliverable Due Dates: Draft Annual Report due 4/l/84
Scope: Samples will be taken from various areas in the Jay
Creek lick, nearby secondary licks (upstream and on opposite
ridge), East Fork lick and any other licks found in the Watana.
hills &"ld nearby areas outside the licks for comparison. The
samples will l:e taken with plastic utensils and placed in plas-
tic containers to avoid contamination from metal. Sampling will
occur aftar lick observations have ascertained preferred licking
zones. The samples will be analyzed for water soluable and to-
tal elemental levels o.f Na, K, Ca, Mg, and 29 other elements by
the inductively coupled argon plasma (ICAP) method. Analyses of
the Jay Creek lick will be completed by fall 1983.
One hundred foot ele7ation contours of various areas of the Jay
Creek lick will be documented using a Wallace and Tiernan model
FA181 altimeter, and visibly marked for use during sheep obser-
vations. Project engineers and soils geologists will be con-
sul ted to predict the physical effects of the impoundmen~ on the
Jay Creek lick.
6-26
Doc. 0423B
i
)I
I
I
I
I
i
j
'
I
!
l
j·
I
l
l
' I
)
I
l
l
l
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6.17. 4 . .5 Black and Brown Bears 0 Direct project impacts on bears
I will result primarily from loss of denning and foraging habitat.
Bear habitat use, especially for foragi1g, exhibits considerable
seasonal and annual variability.
pre project distribution, habitat
Therefol'e, a large data base on
use, numbers, and food habits is
preferred for impact assessment. Also, because of the suspected
importance of brown bear pred~tion on moose calves in limiting moose
populations, additional data on this phenomenon is desired as input
to moose modeling efforts. Studies designed to collect these data
are currently underway. They are identified along with the linkages
among them in Figure 6-3.
All studies are currently planned to be conducted in FY 1984. The
responsible organizations for each work effort are listed below:
1. Impact Area Use Monitoring -ADF&G
2. Den Site Use Monitoring -ADF&G
3. Food Resource Identification -ADF&G
4. Spring Plant Phenology Stud¥ (progress report only) -
U of A Palmer
5. Moose Population Model Refinement -ADF&G/LGL
6. Bear Population 2>1odel Refinement -ADF&G/LGL
7. Hoose Mitigation Plan Refinement -H-E/LGL/Agenc.i,es
8. Bear Mitigation Plan Refinement -H-E/LGL/Agencies
6-27
Doc. 0423B
"
r
I
I
f I,
l'. I,
t I
l .
}
I I .
f\ 1~ L~)
I
r
)
i
(
f
!. .
!
'
f
I •
'I
I A
j
1 ,. .·. I ; .. , ' '
-., I
·,"" I ~ ~ i .. I
' ~ 1
'"' .~ f
U
,,.:;o{ .
.
--~----------------
0\
I
N
00
..
Figure 6-3.
l•pact Are•
Use Honi tor ina
Den Site Uae
Monitoring
Food Resource
Identificaiton
Spring Plant
Phenology
St,udiea
Vegetation
Happing
-
LIIIOCBS ~ ~81'S OF IUJl DIPACT ASSISS-111'
AltO NITICATIO. PLUI IIEFINBIIIarr !PPOUS
Bear
Bear Population
.... Mitigation Hode.ls I • Plan
·~
_]
...Jt.
Hoose
Hooae Population
Mitigation Hodel ' Plan
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I '
I
I
I
I
1. Work Effort: Impact Area Use Monitoring_
Primary R.esponsibil1tyi ADF&G
. 2.
3.
Issues Addrassed: T-20, T-44
Deliverable Due Dates: Draft Annual Report due 4/1/84
Scope: Samples of approximately 20 brown bear~ and 20-25 black
bears will be maintained. These bears will be relocated 6 times
a month between late April and mid-June and 3-4 times a month
the remainder of the active season.
Wor.k Effort: Den Si~~ Use Monitori~£
Primary Responsibility: ADF&G
Issues ~Adressed: T-20,'!-44
Deliverable Due Dates: Draft Annual Report due 4/1/84
Scope: Dens of radio-collared individuals will be marked anc!
examined. Emphasis will be on black bear dens. This proced1-1re
will establish the proportion of available denning habitat: that
will be lost to the project. Examination of the dens will es-
tablish the characteristics of den sites in the impact zone,
these data w:i.ll permit evaluation of the degree o~ impact on
bear populations when individuals are excluded from using cur-
rent denning habitats.
Work Effort: Food Resource Identification
Primary Responsibility: ADF&G
Issues Addressed: T-20, T-44
Deliverable Due Dates: Draft Annual Report due 4/1/84
Sco·pe i Special emphasis will be placed on iden ti fica tion of the
food resources utilizad by bears during the periods of seasonal
concentrations believed to be motivated by food availability.
The most important area of these investigations will be on foods
utilized by bears during spring and early summer in the impound-
ment i~undation area and vicinity. Emphasis will also be placed
on food habits of bears that congregate around salmon spawning
areas in order to evaluate the significance of salmon in the
diets of these bears.
6-29
Doc. 0423B
•
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I
I
I
I
IJ
I
4.
5.
6.
7.
Bear scats will be collected by extensive on-the-ground search-
ing. Contents of scats will be determined through laboratory
analysis. These data will be supplemented by direct observatio~
of bear feeding activity when possible.
Observations of bears feeding on ungulates will be made during
radio-tracking flights. A selected sample of bears will be re-
located twice a day in conjunction with calf mortality studies
to estimate the rates of predation on ungulates by both species
of bear.
Work Effort:
Work Effort:
Sprir:g Plant Phen_o_l_ogy St':!dz (s.:)e Upstream Moose
Studies)
Moose Population Model Refinement (see Upstream
Moose Studies)
Work Effort: Bear ~~~~ation Model Refinement
Primary Responsibility: ADF&G/LGL
Issues Addressed: T-20, T-44
Deliverable Due Dates: Final 1983 Terrestrial Model Report due
12/15/83, Draft 1984 Workshop Report
(including terrestrial model status) due·
6/30/84
Scope: Refinements to the bear population model will be made to
the extent that budget and new data allow.
Work Effort: Moose Mitig_~tion ~la_D:.._~~~.!!! (see Upstream
Moose Studies)
6-30
Doc. 04231)
•
I
'I ' ~ .. ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8. Work Effort: Bear Mitigation Plan Refinement (identification ---~ ----
of candidate lands for habitat enhancement)
Primary Responsibility: H-E/LGL/ADF&G
Issues Addressed:
Deliverable Due Dates:
T-44
Draft report due on 1/15/84, Draft
MitigatiLn Plan Status Report due on
6/15/84
Scope: In general the bear mi tiga t:ion plan will be refined to
the extent that the moose mitigation plan io refined.
6.17.4.6 Wolf and Wolverine. Wolves are likely to be affected by a
variety of project impact mechanisms, among which, reductions in
prey populations and distribution may be most severe. It is desire-
able to have a large data base on the number and distribution of
wolf packs and the size of each wolf pack using the upstream moose
zone of impact in order to assess the project impact on wolves, as
well as the irupact o.f wolves on moose. Studies to be conducted by
ADF&G are planned for each of these areas in FY 1984. In addition,
information on wolverine distribution, abundance, home range size,
habitat selection, and food habits will be collected opportunistic-
ally by relocating wolverine during wolf tracking flights. Brief
descriptions of these work efforts are provided below.
1. Work Effoi:'t: !lol.J...!!_ck Territ~_ry and Food HC!_~its l!onitoring_
Primary Responsibility: ADF&G
Issues Addressed: T-20, T-43
Deliverable Du'~ Dates: Draft Annual Report due on 4/1/84
Scope: A sample of wolves will be radio-collared in each pack
that is believed to make substantial use of the upstream moose
zone of impact. Territory boundaries and areas of seasonal iru-
portance such as den sites and rendezvous sites will be mapped
by plotting of relocation. Food habitats, with emphasis on prey
species likely to be influenced by the hydroelectric project
will be documented through observations of kills made on reloca-
tion flights and analysis of scats.
6-31
Doc. 0423B
•
I
i
t
l
i
l
l
l
i'
I
l
j
I
I
I
I
l
l I J' I ;I i' ;·
;
I
I
l
j
l
! '
l
' ·=-t·.-~-.. ·-·.· ......... ·' ' .. ..'
' .
' ' '
~· li v
.. ll. t'
Relocation and food habitats data will be used to asses the de-
pendence of each pack on moose in the moose zone of impact.
2. Work Effort: Wolf Numbe~~toring
Primary Responsibility: ADF&G
Issues Addressed: T-20, T-43
Deliverable Due Dates: Draft Annual Report due on 4/1/84
Scope: Number of wolves in each pac.k l·;ill be monitored through-
out the year thr.ough observation of radio-collared wolves and
wolves accompanying them.
3. Work Effort: Wolverine Monitoring
.. ----~ -~-
Primar-y Responsibility: .ADF&G
Issues Addres$ed: T-20
Deliverable Due Dates: Draft Annual Report due on 4/1/84
Scope: Wolverine radio-collared during FY 1983 will be relo-
cated oppt)rtunistically during wolf tracking flights. No speci·-
fic expenditures of money will be directed at wolverine less new
information suggesting s i~ifican t Jmpacts arise.
6.17.4.7 Belukha Whale. Because of the potential for project ef-
fects on belukha whales near the mouth of the Susitna River, aerial
surveys were flown in spring and summer 1982 and 1983o FY 1984 work
will be limited to data anaJ.ysis and report writing (Appendix B).
No additional field studies will be conducted unless ne.w information
on the impacts of fish populations be:tif!ved to be important to belu-
khas becomes available.
6.17. 4. 8 Other Spec~7s. The only other species for which special
work. is planned during FY 1984 is the beaver. FY 1984 work w·i 11 be
limited to refinement of the l,eaver carrying capacity model to the
extent possible without additional beaver field work, and refinement
of the downstream hydrologic and vegetation models and the furbeare~
mitigRtion plan. These efforts a.long with future field studies and
the linkages among them are identified in Figure 6-4. Other species
will be addressed through refinement of their mitigation plans.
6-32
Doc. 0423B
•
.;.;,,;,,
a (· I 0 •' i
l
I
!
'
. :
~ ! L-I
'"
A.
-...... -------~ .. ... ~
Jil!!!l!!!l!!!l iltJW .. -
Figure 6-4 • LI~GIIS A-.c ~ftS OP IIIIIIIISTuq ... VIla
IIIP.&CT ASSI:SSIO!III' AMD IIITICATIOII PLU DPI ... III'
0\
I w w
r-------------·~···------~--------~
Aquatie Pl'G&r••
' -·-=---I
Hydrologic
.amd·
Hydr,ulic
Hodel l !nputa /Outputs
• 1
Identification
Of Forage
Resources
,,_, ______ , "'' .. ._ '• ... --..·~
-:;·
Cache Count
Survey a
Downstream
Hydrologic
Hodel
I
Downstream
Vegetation
Hodel
Beaver
Carrying
Capacity
Hodel
Winter Survi•Jal
Studies
Furbearers
Mitigation
Pl~n
Aquatic Program
Fish
Mitigation
Plan
-.. ..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II . I
I
I
I
I
.
1. Work Effort: Beaver _Cache Count Survevs
Primary Responsibility: U of A -Fairbanks
Issues Addressed: T-20, r-46
Deliverables Due Date: Draft Report due 11/30/83
Scope: An aerial survey of the number of beaver caches ( repre-
senting colonies attempting to csverwinter) will be conduc.ted in
fall 1983 along the Susitna River between Por~age Creek and Cook
Inlet. A complete count will be made between Portage Creek and
Talkeetna and a representative area count will be made between
Talkeetna and Cook Inlet. This information will allow assess-
ment of annual variability in colony numbers between Portage
Creek and Talkeetna and will allow a general estimate of beaver
abundance downstream of Talkeetna to be made.
2. Work Effort: Bea.ver Winter Survival Studies
3.
4.
Primary Responsibility: U of A -Fairbanks
Issues Addressed: T-20, T-46
Deliverables Due Date: Draft Report due 5/30/84, if funding is .
available
Scope: These studies will involve returning to beaver colony
loc~.tions (marked during the cache surveys) shortly before and
after break-up for colony overwifiter survival determinations, to
sample the quality of cache food, to determine if lodges or bank
dens were destr~yed by break-up, and to measure certain et ·riron-
mental parameters. This information will be used directly in
refining the beaver model.
Work Effort: Downs·tream Hydro_l.OJl!.£. and Ve~.tatio_l'!..,_:'!,_O~
Refinement (see Downstream Moose Studies)
Work Effort: Beaver. Cel:Eryin_g Capato!ity l!.f)~
Primary Responsibility: LGL/U of A -Fairbanks
Issues Addressed:
Deliverables Due Date:
T-20, T-4.5
Final 1983 Terrestrial Model Report due
11/30/83. Draft 1984 Workshop Rep~rt
(including terrestrial model status)
due 6/30/84.
6-34
Doc. 0.+23B
"
)
I
l
l r
I
!
)
I 1 I
l ' I 1
I
I
I
I
I l
"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I!
ll
,,_.~
I
~~
I
5.
Scope: Refine~nts to the beavt:'r carrying capacity model will be
made to the extent that budget and new data allow.
Work Effort: Furbearer Mitigation ?Ian Refinement ----------
Primary Responsibility: H-E/LGL/U of A -Fairbanks
Issues Addre~sed: T-20, T-45j T-47, T-49
Deliverables Due Dati!: Draft Mitigation Plan, Status Report due
on 6/15/84
Scope: Refinements to the furbearer mitigation plan will be
made to the extent that budget and new data allow.
6. Work Effort: Bald Eagle _!!~~Impact_ Issue
Primary Responsibility: H-E/LGL
Issues Addressed: T-54
Deliverables Due Date: Status Report due 12/15/83
Scope: Because the Susitna Hydroelectric Project may be in con-
flict with the Bald Eagle Protection Act, the options for reso-
lution of this conflict will be investigated. The options with
the highest probability of success will be pursued and status
reports will be issued.
7. Work Effort: Other;_~ecies It!!.E.act As~essment~~~tigatio~ -~~a~
Refinement
Primary Responsibility: H-E/LGL
Issues Addressed: Many
Deliverables Due Dates: Draft Mitigation Plan Status Report due
on 6/15/84, other reports as
appropriate.
Scope: Impact assessment and mitigation pJ an refinement efforts
will be conducted for ~pecies not addressed above where the need
is identified i.n technical meetings and to the extent that bud-
get allows. Brief report3 covering individual topics will be
prepared and all refinements will be summarized in the Mitiga-
tion Plan Status Report. Current status of these efforts will
be updated in the Tracking ai1d Documentation System.
6-35
Doc. 0423B
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ' ·,
!
~ ;
. I
1;. 1
i
i 1:
I
I
I:
I.
I.
I
7. 0 STUDY COORDINATION AND MANAGEZ4ENT
7.1 HARZA-EBASCO
The Terrestrial Program will be performed by a study team under the
overall guidance of the Harza-Ebasco Environmental and Regulatory
Operations Manager, Dr. G. Lawley. Personnel participating in the
Terrestrial Study Team under the di.rection of Dr. Lawley include:
Group Leader R. Fairbanks
Sr. Terrestrial Ecologist R. Densmore (part-time)
~upport Terrestrial Ecologist E. Dudley (part-time)
Support Terrestrial Ecologist R. Lindsay (part-time)
Staff Biologist A. Rivkin (part-time)
7. 2 lliTERACTION WITH OTHER STUDY TEAMS
The Terrestrial Study Team will work closely with members of the
Licensing and Permitting Group to provide necessary support in com-
plying with FERC and other agency licensing and permitting require-
ments and requests for additional information.
The assessment of potential impacts and the effectiveness (and im-
pacts) of mitigation measurus on aquatic and terrestrial habitats
and organisms will be coordinated with the Aquatic and Hydrology
Study Teams. Coordination will also take place be tween the Social
Scl.ence and Terrestrial Study Teams especially relative to the im-
pacts of and mitigation measures for wildlife users.
Members of the Terrestrial Study Team will also provide support to
the Transmission Line Investigation and other special investiga-·
tions, as required, in all matters rel~ :,ing to wildlife and botan-
ical resources.
7-1
Doc. 0423B
•
l
i
; I
j ·,
l
l
f
I
i
l
)
'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1:
I
I:
1:
1:
I
I·
I~
I.
I
I
I
Finally, the Terrestrial Study Team will work closely with the H-E
Logistics Task in coordinating the logistic requirements of the Team.
7. 3 SUBCONTRACTORS
At the present time the subcontractors for terrestial studies and
their areas of responsibility for the Susitna Project include:
SUBCONTRACTOR
Alaska Department of
Fish & Game (ADF&G)
AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY --
Big game studies and moose and bear
modeling
LGL Alaska Research
Associates (LGL)
Impact assessment and mitigation plan-
ning; raptor studies; bear modeling;
responses to agency
License Application
University of Alaska Botanical resource studies
Palmer (U of A)
University of Alaska Furbearer studies
P. Gipson (U of A)
comments
University of Alaska Small bird and mammal studies
B. Kessel (U of A)
on
Environmental and Social MOdeling coordination; vegetation;
Systems Analysts (ESSA) small bird and mammal, and beaver
modeling
US Fish & Wildlife Hydrologic and moose modeling
Service -WELUT
7-2
Doc. 0423B
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The AD.F&G contract is a Reimbursable Services Agreement (RSA) with
the Power Authority. Similarly, the USFWS-WELUT contract is a Memo-
randum of Agreement with the Power Authority. Subject to the ap-
proval of the Power Authority, H-~ w·ill retain LGL, U of A-Palmer,
and P. Gipson and B. Kessel of the U of A (as required) to conduct
FY '84 work efforts. ESSA will remain a subcontractor to LGL. An
organization chart for the Terrestrial Study tea:n is presented in
Figure 7-1.
7. 4 COORDINATION AND MANAGEMENT OF SUBCON'l'RACTORS
---~----.....---.....
In order to accomplish the Terrestrial Program Harza-Ebasco will
enter into contractual agreements with the: subcontractors identified
above. Section 6. 5 provides a description of the work activities
involved with subcontractor coordination and management.
7-?,
Doc. 0423B •
--t---;--·-'"':'·-~·-""""~~,........, ........ ,_ .... __
, ~: ::r:~~~~, ... ;~~·.::,Y~~:·:~·~~:~~;~~
""I., P· A'!~,,Jii/.r':·uj,.,_,~~,~lt~n·f ') . _... ' ~ ,, ~-'.tf. "_,..,,1. •. ' •
I r
I
J
l
f
I
1 L~ f,..,l r 1
j '. I :
I
t.,.
f.{ l .
L ..
r
l .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 7·-1. TERRES'l'!.IAL S1't1DY 1'EAM OR.GANIZAIION
r-
' I
I
f
Resource
A&ency
Input \
\
--
I
'>----
Hatza-Ebaaco
r erres tr ia1
.
AD F & G
Big Ga11e
USIVS
WILUT
~
I
I
Hydr ol~ 11 c: &
Mooae ~ odelina
Doea 04231
LGL/ESSA
Modaliq, Iapa(!t
Aa•••••nt, Mitig.
I
I
I
--L
7-4
Ala au
Power
Authority
Harza-Ebaac:o
Project
Man.ageaen t
1--------
U of A
P&laer
, Plant Ecology
I
Har za-Ebuco
Aquatic:
Social Sc:ienc:ea
Per11ittina
Engineer in&
U of A
Gipaon
Kesael
Purbearers & Birds
I
.._----~
•
I
I~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8. 0 SCHEDULE AND DELIVERAB!ES
Deliverables -
1. general Investigation Memorandum
2. Plan of Study for FY 1984
3. Monthly Status Reports
4. Technical Meeting Minutes
5. Impact Ass~ssment/Mi tigation Plann.ing
Tracking & Documentation System
6. Beaver Cache Survey Report
7. Spring 1983 Terrestrial Modeling
Workshop Final Report
8. Transm.ission Line Investigation Report
9. Bald Eagle Nest Impact Status Report
10. Candidate Lands for Habitat Enhancement
Report
11. Responses to Agency Comments on License
Applica t.ion
12. Pilot Browse Sampling Report
13. FERC Supplemental Information Request
Responses
14. Update License Applicat.ion
15. Habitat Enhancement Techniques Review
16. Spring Plan Phenology Study Report
17. ADF&G Plan of Study
18. ADF&G Annual Report Drafts
19. Final FY 1985 Work Scopes
20. Moose Food Hab.its Report
Due Date
11/18/83
12/15/83
Monthly
As required
11/30/83
11/30/83
12/15/84
12/15/84
12/15/83
1/15/84
1/19/84
1/31/84
2/9/84
3/15/84
3/15/84
3/31/84
3/31/84
4/1/84
4/30/84
4/30/84
(if funding is available)
21. ADF&G Annual Report and Reviews 6/15/84
22. Draft EIS Review Comments 5/30/84
23. Beaver Overwinter Survival Study Report 5/30/84
(if funding is available) 24~ Mitigation Plan Status Report 6/15/84
25. Draft Forage Vegetation Maps 6/15/84
(if funding is available) 26. Spring 1984 T1arrestrial Program
Workshop Draft Report 6/30/84
27. Extensive Browse Inventory Progress Report 6/30/84
(if funding is available)
28. Other Settlement Process Input As required
8-1
Doc. 0423B
•
·:+
,}(' ' '•')9
' ·=:=]~"'·-·.-.···.·· ·.·' . c· .
' '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
9.0 BUDGET
Table 9-1 below presents the FY'84 budget for the Terrestrial
Program. This budget provides one person-year for management of the
program and 1.5 person-ye.ars for management assistance and technical
input from the Harza-Ebasco staff.
TABLE 9-1
FY'84 TERRESTRIAL PROGRAM BUDGET ________ ._.,_
---------------------------------
Position Workhours
Group Leader Z,l60 (one full-time person)
Sr. Terrestrial Ecologist 1,100 (one half-time person)
Support Terrestrial Ecoiogists 1,240 (two part-time person$)
Staff Biologist 900 (one half-time person)
'IDTAL 5,400
-------------------------------------------------------
9-1
Doc. 0423B
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I
Doc. 0423B
10.0 ATTACHMENTS
APPENDIX A -AGENCY RAISED ISSUES
APPENDIX B -MAJOR SUSITNA PROJE,CT TERRESTRIAL STUDIES
lD-1
•
1
j
I
1
j
~
!
i I
) "" !
·~I
I
l
1
!
o· ;1
-I " I
I
I
ll/).:~ . l .
'
l .
-
. l
--.. ,... -
Subtask: T~ccestci4l Resources
ISSUE
T-1 Down~tteam Effectu
The assessment of the extent an~· .severity of
downstream habitat. alteration neeas to be
refined. NeeQ to continue hydrologic aPi
vegetation succe.s.sion IIIOd·:eUing and additional
field studies whF!Ce necessc,:ry, in order to
refine impact asl>essment :.111~1: mitigation pl<l.Qning
foe downstream e:ffects. ·Should use
ge0111ocpholog ical c:coss-se.,~t ions info.lt'mation and
possibly mon i toe these c t os!S-sect ion.to.
T-2 Downstce~ Vegetation Hap~
Need to map floodplain vegetatii>n in downstream
areas inc 1 udi n<J the Talkeetna .. t~) a.t leillst Delta
Islands segml':nt :( 10 year floo<iplai n) in oc~~r to
refine quantific.a.tion of flow cbam,ge impacts.
T-3 ~i::t' hep:coach to SUffi:'>ld~.
!Jll...E!,.<!Cts/~i.tiga t ton Me .. ts;uces
Need to ev'.,aluate impacts and especia,ll!y
Jllitiga t ior. .. 111easu:ces foe ec;ch spec les 11el at;. i ve -.;o
all others using, a 11atcix format. corosJdec
aquatic resource~ ic this aatr•~ analysis.
T-4 Hap of Permafrost Areas
Need Lo map and eva1uar3 permafrost areas to
assess impacts due to erol,HI'n and v~r~et~tion
C'l!moval.
T-5 F.· ost lmpa~n \lagetat10o
Need to study and qua.-lt.\fy tl1e ~ffects of f1cost
htH ld-up on vegetation adjacent to the re~ecvoir •
.. ---.. .. -.. -.. .. -PR£LIHINARY APPENDIX A
SUS!TNA ll:tOROE.I..EC'J'RIC PROJECT: AGENCt-RAISED lSSIJES
4 October 198)
Page ~ of _ljl_
AGENCY SOURCe
S'rATUS
YWS 1. Testimony before APA
Board 4/16/62 p.l (FWS}
Draft Ex. E Comments
COHPLET!Ott DATE
-------------------------·---------------------------------------------------------------------
ADI',.i
FWS 2.
fW.S 3.
Ji.DFG
fl'WS il.
FHS 5.
p. 34, 35. 37, 58
68, 69, 98 (FWS)
Feb/Mac '83 Workshop
Recommendation p. 155,
16:Z (PWS)
Draft Ex. ~
Comments p .• B-6, B-7 (ADPG)
Peb/Mar '83 Workshop
Re,:ommt!ndation p. 155,
162 (ADFG)
Draft Ex. E::
Comments p. 12, 34
Dcdft Ex. E
Comsnents p. 18-19 (FWSl
Feb/Hac '83 Workshop
Recommendation p • .163
(MlFG}
Dc~1ft P..x. f.
Curniments p. 31', 90
DCGI(t EX. E
Conunents p. 37
10.,..2
,.--,·-·--::·-·,----·"•-:-:--·-"'\.' ,..t'"'"':".""'7':":~;;.-:""" ..... ,.._....__._ ....... ~,.,.~--
Had~ls have been developed; continue~
refinement includiny further technical
meetings ace planned.
New mapp&ng not currently planned.
£xis,t&ng 1n,1pping consi&~s of McKendrick
et aJ. (1982) mapping of the susitna
floodplain downstream to Talkeetna at a
scale of 1:24,000.
'l'he use of t·his. approach As being
considered.
The use of this appco,ach is betng
considered.
Stud1es ace not currently planned.
Dec. 1985
Jan. 1984
-
·-~~
/l
/ .·
; .. ·
..
-
•
A
~
fiii!J!III W!M -•• -
Subtaak: Terre~trial Resources
ISS DE
T-6 Reservoir Ice and nrawdown Zone
Should evaluate information on the tiaing of
for~tion, extent, thickness, and ti.e of
breakup of reservoir ice and the co~po~ition and
physical characted.stics of t)le reaervoir
shoreline ana drawdown zones to assess wildlife
impacts.
T-7 Revege~ation Study
Need to initiate revegetation test plot-s as part
of continuing project studies to provide
information on which succes'-'ful sit;{~ .restoration
can be based. WildH·Ie food/cover p~~mts should
be considered in developing restoration plans.
T-8 H:.!>itat Loss due to Var ~.ous Dam Heiqht£(:;
Should quantify the terrestrial· habitat tot~ be
inundated due to the proposed darn height and att
array of lower dam heights.
T-9 Type and S1ting of construct~on
~amp/Village
Avoidance of adverse impacts was not given ·nigh.
enough priority in the siting a(id selection of
type of construction camp and village.
T-10 Scheduling of Construction and ~eservoH_
Pilling
Avoidance of adverse i~pacts was not given high
enough priority in the scheduling of
construction and reservoir f~lling.
T-11 Estimates of Project Area Recreational Ulse
Heed better estimates of cu~rcent <lnd fH_-I:;.ure
recreational use of the pco)ect area.
.. ---.. ,. Rill .. .. .. ·--
PRELIHIN~~ 4 October 1983
SUS.ITNA ii¥DHOELECTRIC PROJEC'I'. AGEr•cY-RAISEO lSSOES
AGENCY
FWS
FWS
FW~
FWS
PHS
AUFG
6.
7.
8.
9.
SOURCE
Letter 10/5/S~·p.S
Pcaft Ex. Ii;.
Comments p. 18,
Letter 10/S/82-p. 4
Lette& 10/5/82-p.6
Draft Ex. E
Comments -p. 4
of letter
10. ~raft Ex. E
Comments -p. 4
of letter
Letter l0/5/82~p.6
11. Peb/Mar '83 Workshop
Reco~nendation p. 154
10-3
S'fATUS
No specif1c stud1es are planned;
however re-vegetation experience
in the proJeCt area was gathered
this year and in pcev1ous rears.
Under considerat1on
Under consideration
P.aqe '2-of jJ_
COHPH~TIOH 0'\TE
---.,._,._.__._,_.__. __ ~---~~.--............... --:_.~~-··· ~ ",_..,.... ·~ "!'.....,. •·:··~·:;"""..... ~--::~,..,--..., r·r ----. ..........., ... ===
-~-~---~ !'"'*}
-
~
,, '.:',..-\•;;.
f
Q
~:·>.~~>I
?'{)~ l
l
Ll','r-·:;J., .• l .
. .
' '
..
--~ ---.. .. .. ----.. ---..
llRE'LlH INARlC 4 October 19S3
SUf;lTNA HlCll>l(lELECTHIC PROJECT: AG£NCY~RAISEO ISSUES
Subtask: Teccest~ial Resources
Page ~ of _Li_
lSSUt; AGENCl( SOURCE STA:L!!S COMPLETION DATE
·--~--~------------------------------------------------------------------~·~------------·--------------------------------------------------------------------------------·----------~--~------------
•
A
T-12 Project Recreation Development
Avoidance of adverse i11pact:s \ias not given high
enough priority in the design of project
recreatiou development.
T-13 Mode, Timing, and Routing of constructAon
Access
Avoidance of adverse impacts was not given high
enough pclority in sele~tion of the .ode, tiaing
and routing of cunstruction ~ccess.
T-14 Identification of Construction Traffic
Mode~ and Restrictions
The spflciffic mode o~ construct~on trafftc and
restricti-ons on worker use of access road;~ needs
to be identified.
T-15 Identificat1on o! Restrict io.c~ on PU·iJl ic
use of Ac~ess Road
The extent of restrictions on ~~b1ic use of
access roads needs to be idJentified.
T-16 TraE,ic-related Impa~ts
Extent of and effects of increased tr~(fic on
vacio.us road .tnd railroad sey.nents have not
~dequately been evaluated a~d relat~d to big
ga!Ule disturbctnce and collision mortallty.
T-17 .9_l!'!_ntification of ·Moose Jfilpacts Along
.1\ccess Routes
Need to quM,tify cuccent .tnt! ?Otent ial
hunter de maud and hat vests 1 ar.4a moose
popula tions 1 ,and ha' .tt:a,t guu~J tt fu~ ~ccess
route areas in brder to f~lly assess i~pacts.
~---~···~:-c~:~-~ _.,,... e--'-""'"'"_ .......... _, __ ,_<~ ..... -............ --~ • ..-.,.-..._ ...
PHS
J.l'W!.I
FWS
FWS
ADFG
PWS
12. Draft ex. E
Comments ~ p. 4
of letter
13. Draft Elt. e
Comments -p. 4
of letter 1 IJ· (l
14. D.raft Ex. E
Cumments -p. 41
15. Draft Ex. ~
com.'llent~ -p. 41
!6. Draft Ex. E
Comments -p. 0-52
17. Deaf t Ex. £
Coiiunents p. 66
10-4
Under consideration.
Under consideration.
Under consideration.
Under consideration.
Under consider~tion.
-
~
"'".
I_/
J
I:·
I
lMKi ::M:IiiN:
·~ ~
•
A
-2.~.2 --.. Ll -
PRELUUNARY
~ ~ -.. .a ---.. -....
, OctObP.r 196)
SUSITNA HYDHOt::.~1.:"1'R.lC PRO..IECT; A.Gt:NC:t'-RAIS£0 ISSUES
Subtask: Terrest,d.al Resources
··----~--~-
ISSUE
T-18 Sec.ondary Eff~cts. of Improved Access
Effects of secondary developaent an~ increased
recreational use resulting fcoa iaproved access
have not been fully evaluated.
T-19 £!!!."!.lati ve Impacts
Effects of cumulative impacts bave gen{!rally not
b~n ad~quately addressed.
T-20 Quantification of Impact$
In general, impacts have not been adequately
quantified and determinations of sign:flcance
have not been wel1-.:tocWllented.
T-21 Impac~s_Based on Current Popclldtlons
Impact evaluatio<lS should be based on 'the range
of population levels that could reasonably be
expected to occur during the life of the pro)ect
rather than on cur(ent populat1on levels as is
generally done.
'l'-22 Resource Cat~~~..!t':.te~'!!.!..'!.~J:Jrn for
Evaluf ~5.~ecte'!_
The habitat of c· .bou, brown oear, ::.nd wolf 10
tte pro)ect area should be given a resource
category ~eterainat1on of 2 for the purpose of
defining mitigucion goals.
T-23 Habitat Based Approach
A habitat based approach should be used dS the
primary means of assessing wildlife impacts.
AGENCY
AOPG
PWS
PWS
ADPG
ADFG
FWS
ADFG
FWS
PWS
SOURCE
18. Draft Ex. E
Comment~ -p. B-~
(ADFG)
19.
Testimony ~efoce APA
Board 4/16/82 p. ,
(FWS)
Draft Ex. e
comments -p. 19
(FWS}
Draft Ex. e
comments -p. 8-5,
B-55 {ADPG)
20. Draft Ex. E
Comments -p. B-l
{ADPG)
Draft Ex. ,E
Comments -p. 17 (FWS}
Testimony before APA
B~ard 4/16/82 p. 1
(FWS)
21. O[aft Ex. E
Comments -p. 8-3,
B-{, 8-5
22. Letter 1/24/83
23. Testimony before APA
Board UHi/82
p. 2 and 3
10-5
d ~fJ Page .....1__ of .lL_
:;T.ATUS COMPt.ETlON DATe
Under consider•tioh.
Under consideration.
More quantificat1on and documentatlon
was added to the final License
~P?~ication. Continuing studies will
peovide for further quantification.
~he impact $ections of the f1nal L1cense
Application have been largely rewritten
to address this problem.
Jan. 1986
....
•:;.
::)
l
. ·,
_>~~--,_< .....
"-:-<yo,'
"'
J
-
•
A
----f .. iL~. IRI -.. --i-' ---.. -..
SUbta~llc.: Terrestrial Resour~es
ISSUE
T-24 Access. Road li. T-Line Borrow Areas
Should conduct a complete wildlife iapact
assessment of borrow areas for the access road
and transaission line and access to these sites.
T-25 !-Line Buffer Around swan Nes~q
Recoma.end mini111ua 150 m buffers between
swan nests and any port~ons of the trans-
mission corridor.
T-26 T-Line Hoose Calving and Bear Denning
Describe the presence/absenc~ of moos<.
~alving grounds and bear denning sites
along the T-Line segment between Cook
Inlet and Willow.
T-27 Specific T-Line Erosion Control Plan
An erosion contra) plan specific to T-Line
project features and schedules should be
developed.
T-28 Snow Accumulation Data
~eed data on sn~· accumulation by eleYation in
Lhe upper su~itna a~~i~~
T-l9 Wetlands Happing
Need to delineate plant communities
characteristic of wetlands (as defined by
Cowat'din et al, 1979} to a level of detail
that will usefuliy support facility siting
and design, quantification of wetland impacts,
and preparation of permit applications
regc&ired oy Section ·104 of the Clean Water Act.
PRELIMINARY 4 October 1983
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT: AGENCY-~\ISfD ISSUES
AGENCY
PWS
~;iS
PWS
PWS
ADPG
f'WS
SOURCE
24. Letter
l0/5/82-p.6
25. Draft Ex. E
Comments p. 42
26. Dt'aft Ev.. E
ComiAents p. 61
27. D~:aft Ex. E
Comments p. ?
28. Peb/Kar 'B3 Workshop
Recon~endations p. 154
29. Draft Ex. E
Comments p. 17
10-6
Page 5" of JL
STATUS COMPLETION DATE
Under consideration.
AVailable data will be presented in
upcoming transmission line report.
This will be developed in the near
future.
Dec. 1983
1985
Prepare large-scale (1:24,000) wetland 1984
maps of the impoundment, access road,
bot'row pit and other direct impact areas
and ad)acent areas •
-
-
,.,.. .£'
.,V.
A
0
--.. -..
Subtask: Terrestrial Resources
T-30 Hoose Browse Happing
Need to provide a ~uantifiable data bas~
for prtacise type and areal extent of aoose
browse ~ithin the direGt iapact area to
support carrying capacity aodeling.
T-31 General Vegetation Mapping
Need to pcollide general mapping of vegetation
types based on iaproved aerial imagery as a data
base for refined impact assessment ancJ aitiga-
tion p'lanning. Include the three T-Line stuos
in this new ll.tpping.
T-32 Assessment of Habitat Values
Need to evaluate habitat values for steeles
other than aoose, forbearers, and birds rather
than relying on analysis o~ populations only.
The habitat assessaent needs to be used in
developing tiaely, comprehensive mitigation
aeasures.
~-lJ Integration of Hoose ' Vegetation Data
Heed to correlate moose relocation data with the
revieed vegetation maAPing in order to under-
stand habitat use and preferences. Also con-
sider incorporating elevallon, slope, and other
habitat param2ters into the analysis.
1111 --... .. ---.. -.. Iriill
PRE!.IHINA.RY 4 October 1~83
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT: AGENCY-RAISED ISSUES
. -..............
-----
P'WS
ADFG
FWS
FWS
PWS
.SOIJ'flCE
30. Draft Ex. E
Comments p. 45 (P'WS)
Peb/Har '33 Workshop
Recolllliendations
p. 160 (ADPG)
31. Draft Ex E.
Comments p. 17
32. Draft £x. E
Comments p. 17-16
Letter 10/5/82
Letter 1/5/82
Letter 6/23/80
Letter 11/l<!:i/79
Testimony 4/i6/S2
33. Draft Ex. E
Comments p.4S
10-7
Page ~ of _ljL_
COH!lLETION DATE
Prepare large-scale (1:24~000) aaps 1984
of the impoundment, access coad 1 borrow
pit~ and other direct impact areas and
adJacent areas de!!~c~ting shrub
vegetation types in a ~etailed aanner.
Prepare 1:63,360-scal~ vegetation maps 1984
of the Watana and Gold Creek watersheds
using larger-scale photography than was
used previously. Although the daJaB-to-
Intertie segment is in9luded in this
mapping (and the moose browse l'llapping
above) the Willow to Anchorage and Healy
to Fairbanks segments ace not currently
included.
Where habitat can be readily evaluated,
it has been done. Further evaluation
is under consideration.
This analysis is planned to be cond~cted 1965
when new vegetation mapping is completed.
~-1• '••.-•··--~._,._.,~~f~L-:··-·•-·-----~-~-.----~·"·------·:-----------~~~C'~~----~·---·--~·--·-----·-------· ·------·-------------------·----··-·
,_
)>
~:" •.
-
-
"
"" / \ . . ---
·----~~ -----
subtask: Terresctial Resources
ISSOE
T-34 Moose carrying Capacity Hodel
Need to conduct a habitat-based assessment of
aoose habitat loss/~odification i•pacts aR the
basis for i•pact prediction and •itigation
planning.
T-35 Hoose Habitat Enhancement
Need to evaluate techniques for increasing
moose ~arrying capacity through habitat
enhancement and identify candidate areas for
habitat enhancement in order to mitigate foe
project-induced carrying capacity reductions.
T-36 Hoose Browse Inventory
Need to conduct a moose browse inventory in the
1mpoundment areas to support the moose carrying
capacity modeling efforts.
., .... -·.f:.4:~"'· ,,.;.:~l·-~~. , .. ~ -~· :.'~~.<· ;,._,;·: .• q--~i ~c; ..,.-~~-lllit.iJ;a;.;:;~l .. . ··aq . I . """"'.-JL~ .... ""~! ~...2±-& 0. --·~"""""': 5" , • , ,...,m_,; a:mw.!!'!l!!!!!!!l!l. ~-~UI!!!li¥V'A -.. ---.. ... ~ .. --..
PRELIHINARY
SUSITNA IIYDROELEC'l'RIC PROJECT: AGENCY-RAISED ISSUES
AG£NCY
PWS
ADFG
FWS
ADFG
FWS
ADFG
SOURCE
34. Draft Ex. E
Comments p. 17, 18
52, 12 (FWS)
Feb/Mar '83 Workshop
Recommendation p. 161
(ADPG)
35. Draft Ex. ~·
Com111ents p. 40, 72
(FWS)
Letter 10/5/82 p. 4
(FWS)
Feb/Mar 'BJ Workshop
Recommendati('4ns
p. 161, 162, 177
(AOPG)
36. Draft Ex. E
Comments p. 34 (FHS)
Feb/Mar '83 Workshop
Recommendation
p. 160 ( ADP.G)
10-8
~ Ocl::.obec 1983
Page _L of jJ_
STATUS COHPLE'l'ION DATE
Continue to model moose carrying Dec. 1985
capacity in direct impact areas using
bio~nergetics, vegetation, and population
models, modeling effort includes aodel
validation and calibration under field
conditions using four 1-m2 pens at
Kenai Nat'l Hoose Range.
Conduct Alphabet Hills burn, and document 1984?
degree of and immediate effects of burn
soon thereafter. Monitor plan succession
and especially moose browse production in
succeeding years in already-established
permanent plot.s.
Possibly conduct tests of other habitat 1985
enhancement techniques (e.g., crushing,
chain1ng, logging). Monitoring of AOPG
chaining area near Palmer could be con-
ducted. Also sampling of browse produc-
tion in disrupted ar~as along the lower
susitna River should be conducted and the
results correlated with the age of
disturbance.
Conduct a more complete evaluation of 1984
the potential size and locations of habitat
enhancement areas in the project area.
Conduct a survey of the potential size 1964
and location of habitat enhancement areas
in the lower Susitna Basin.
First, conduct a pilot study to develop 1985
efficient sampling methods (e.g., plot
size, sample size, method of accounting
for browse availability under variable
snow depths) for an extensive browse
!oventory. The fielct portion of this
effort has been completed. The analysis
is in progress.
Then conduct an extens1ve brow~e inven-
tory of the impoundment areas (stratified
based on moose browse vegetatlon types)
to esLimate standing crop biomass, nitro-
gen content, and in VLtro digestibility
of browse spec1es.
..
-~----~--··--·-··-----~------~--c-·--·::,---·-,-.. ~---~-··--.·~---·~·------------·------·-----------------~---------_, ... , .... ____ , ....... _~--,,._-~.--...... ___ ~-------..., ·-~~~----·~~---· ---~---------
' 'I -~
-~·-
,f +-,,.
~
-
..
A
-
Subtask~ Terrestrial Resources
ISSUE
'l'-37 Hoose Food Ha!~
Need to conduct a limited •oose food habits
study to support the moose cArrying capaci~y
modeling efforts.
T-38 Spring Plant Phenology
Need to determine the temporal and spatial
pattern of spring plant green-up in and adjacent
to the impoundment zones in order to assess the
significance of this seasonal forage resource to
•oose and bear reproduction and carrying
capacity and to assess the portion of the
resource to be lost due to impoundments. Also,
need this information to refine the evalu~tion
of aicrocli10ate changes, due to the reservoirs,
on spring green-up.
T-39 Upstre~m Hoose Field Studies
Need more data 1[)n moose numbers, herd composi-
tion, calf mortality and movements (especially
during the critical winter and spring periods)
relative to the impoundment areas to refine
iMpact assessment and 11itigation planning.
T-40 Downstream Hoose Field Studies
Need mor2 data on moose use of downstream ri-
parian areas during winter and apcing to refine
impac~ assessment and aitigation planning,
especially because of the annual variability in
this use. Also need more data on moose popula-
tion, sex, and age composition on the downstream
disturbed sites.
~ ~ ~~-.. ~ --... --PRELIHlNt....llY
4 Octobec 1983
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT: AGENCY-RAISEU ISSUES
AGENCY
FWS
ADPG
FWS
ADPG
ADFG
FWS
ADl'G
SOURCE
37. Draft Ex. E
comments p. 45 (PWSl
Peb/Har '83 Workshop
Recommendation
p. 160 (ADPG)
38. OraH Ex. E
Comments ~· 36, 53
(PWS) .
feb/Hac '83 Workshop
Reconuner,dation
p. 159, 160 (ADfG)
39. Feb,'Har '83 Workshop
Recommendation
p. 175, 176 (ADPG)
Draft EX. E
Commer1ts p. 47
(PWS)
40. Peb/Har '83 Workshop
Recommendation p. 177
10-9
Page 2_ of jJ_
STATUS COMPLETION DATE
Conduct a limited moose food habits 1964
study through collection and laboratory
analysis of fresh fecal pellets du!ing
winter, spring, summer and fall (pellets
have already been collected for aoae
seasons).
Conduct plant phenology study during 1984
late April through early June along 32
transects cunning from the beach above
the river down to the river in the ia-
poundment areas. These field studies
have been conducted; data analysis
remains.
Conduct a census and herd composition 1984
survey of moose in the zone of impact for
the impoundments; monitor the movements
of a sample of moose in and ad)acent to
the zone of impact, especially during
winter and spring; correlate relocation
data with new vegetation maps to
determine seasonal habitat selectivity;
correlate relocation data with phenology
study results to assess the celationsh1ps
between movements and spring green-up;
determine calf mort~lity rates by cause
through use of mortality-detecting radio
collars in spring 1984 •
Conduct periodic winter censuses along
the river and in disturbed vegetation
sites and maintain a ~inimal monitoring
program foe moose ~ovem~nts relative to
riparian habitats. Use existing radlo-
collared moose primarily during winter
and spring.
1984
C'-'Ttll
.... -~-~"r~--.-~-----·---,--~.-..... ~ .... ·-~-----.--.--~~--.,.....--"L,r---·~-... ---~-.~-.-.::·.-.~~·..,....·--·-.......... _..._:;-~------~-· ~ ... '. ~-,.·-:--::----~ .. ~~-... · .~ _..,...,.;t_: ~~~0:t-:n. . ..r... , ... :p_ ..• ··:..~·.~~-,' • ....,_.,~._~,1;.~ .. -~. '.rr.~~E--.-.:.~4~...._mm ... ~·.'£·.~-i:. wa:m~4i.IJIILJw: . .............::~ 1:
·,._r:::;
~ \.
·¢
~~
5 j ~·~
fiRI
"
A
i • •
..., I ..,"
Q --. • • ~............ "'~~~ .... ~;a:
""" .-. .. ~~.4---~~ .... ..,.._.:.,;.....,;..,j~~'"' ,-,,-~~--
IIIII 1411 ------.. -.. .. .. .. ---
PRELI11INAR'l! 4 Oct.ob~c 1983
SUSITNA UXDROELECTRIC PROJECT: AGENCY-RAISED ISSUES
Subtask: Terrestrial Resources
ISSUE
T-tl Severe Winter Field Studies
Need to gather intensive data on aoose distribu-
tion, habitat selection and wolf ~redation
during a severe winter.
T-t2 Jay Creek Lick Enhancement
A demonstration project should be conducted to
verify that the lick can be enlarged by blasting
or backup •itigation measures should be outlined.
T-43 ~olf Field Studies
Need to gather 1o1ore information on movements,
territory locations, predation cates, etc., of
wolves in upstream zone of impact to refine
as$"essment and aitigation planning.
T-U Black and erown Bea.c Field Studies
Heed to gather core information on habH~at use
(especially relative to the impoundmela"~'.s),
denning habitats and availability of food habits
to refine impact assessment and mitigation
planning. Need to b~ttec evaluate importance
of salaon to area bears. ~verall, need to
better quantify &mpacts and d!~r~~s cumulative
iapacts on brown bears.
1'-45 Beaver Carcyi ng Capacity Hodel
Heed to continue beaver caccying capacity model
development as the basis f,or tefining impact
predictions and determin~ng miti9ation needs, if
~ny.
AGENCY
ADPG
PWS
ADFG
ADFG
FWS
FWS
SOURCE
41. Peb/Hac '83 Workshop
Recommendation p. 177
42. Draft Ex. E
Comments p. 19
43. Feb/Har '83 workshop
R.ecommenda::ion p. 176
44. Feb/Hac '83 Work$hop
Recommendation
p. 171, 172, 179,
180, 161 (ADPG)
Draft Ex. E
Comments p. 57, 63
(FWS)
45. Draft Ex. E
Comments p. 74
10-10
Page _j_ of _1L
STATUS COHPLRTION DATE
Intensify moose relocation efforts in 1984
upstream areas, map moose distribution,
conduct a census during March within (5)
miles of the impoundments, collect data
on moose mor~alities, and intensively
monitor wolf movements and ~oose preda-
tion. In the downstream areas conduct
additional censuses, map moose distribu-
tion, radio collar additional moose on
the river over the winter, and intensify
relocation surveys.
Under consideration.
Conduct minimal relocation surveys and 1984
monitor numbers of wolves foe each pack
using the upstream moose zone of 'mpact.
Collect information on predation.
Cond.uct relocation surveys to document 1984
habitat use and determine timing and
magnitude of use of seasonal con-
centration areas. Collect additional
data on the location and characteristics
of den sites. Collect and analyze bear
scats and make direct observations to
determine food habits especially during
spring and near salmon spawn1ng streams.
Continue development of a model of beaver 1965
carry1ng capacity for the Devil Canyon to
Talkeetna portion of the f loodpl. in.
Inputs to the model will include data on
hydrology, slough morphology; and forage
avail~b11ity; and the results of
different flo~ releases and water
temperatures on av~ilabil1ty of
overwintering habitat wil! be tested.
Continued monitoring of beaver
populations will test the validity oi the
mode\ and refine its accuracy.
-
,. ~-.....-~,..,..,.-:--~~~---~~._. .... -~~-:'----------~ ....... -....... , ..... -,-....... ..... "'\' . .~"--~ (::
lll'll
,.
• ·~, <
\ ~(:. 4.
~
--.. .. --
Subtask: Terrestrial Resources
ISSUE
T-46 Beaver Field Studies
Ne~d additional beaver field studies to fill
data gaps to support •odel develop•ent and to
monitor beaver qUQbeca for aodel testing.
T-•7 Ma::ten !labitat Hod';.L
Heed to continue marten habitat model
development as the basis for refining impact
-:~dictions ~nd determining mitigation needs.
N~ed the ~ssistance of a marten expert. Need
better informati~n on trapping intensity.
~-48 Harten Field Studies
Need additional marten field studies to fill
dt·ta ga~s to support model devi!lopment and to
110.nitor •arten nu11bers for motlel testing.
T-49 ~ntification of Lynx, weasel, Mink, '
Other Densities ' ·
Ne1~d ,same quantification of the C"·•alitative
teras in Ex. E •
T-5C Peregrine Falcon Surveys
Should conduct per~grine falcon
su.rveys annually, in early July, through-
out project studies and construction, or
until there is s~fficient evidence that
~ecegrines do not inhabit the project area
(i.e.i no aightaogs over several years of
~elicopter surveys by a reputable observer
d.Jri:.g the proper time ot year).
--1111 -.. .. ... -.. --PRELIMINARY
4 October 1981
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT: AGENCY-RAISED ISSUES
AGENCY
PWS
FWS
PWS
FWS
fWS
SOURCE
46. Draft Ex. E
Comments p. 4~, 74
Peb/Har '81 Workshop
Recommendation
p. 154, 165, 166,
167, 168
47. Draft ex. E
Comments p. 74
Peb/Har 'B3 Workshop
Recommendation
p. 168, 169
48. Draft Ex~ E
Comments p. 7
49. Draft Ex. E
Comments p. 49, 64
50. Draft Ex. E
Comments p. 50
10-11
J.>aga _lQ_ of _jJ_
STATUS COMPLETION DATE
Conduct field studies to: (1) deteraine 1985
characteristics of successful and failed
overwintering sites; (2) determine
trapper harvest; (3) monitor the effects
of break-up on known lodges and caches;
(4) obtain data on forage vegetation near
caches and near R'H cross-sections; (5)
determine contents of one or aore caches;
(6) obtain an accurate estimate of the
number of individuals per colony; (7)
continue annual monitoring of mainste•
populations between Portage cr. and
Talkeetna and in Prairie, Portage, and
Deadman Creek areas; (8) monitor level of
trapping. Also, FWS (p.48) recommended
that the extent to which bank lodges are
used downstream of Devil Canyon be
investig.:.ted.
Continue refinement of simple; marten
habitat -loss model using cevined
vegetation mapping.
Additional studies not curreutly planned.
Habitat loss is expected to support on
the order of 100 martens or l~ss.
Under consideration.
Conduct helicopter surveys of proJect
area 1ncidental to other captor work.
1985
1985
-
-----~·-·"'~~ ... -----·~--_ _......._,.. ___ ..,_ . .,.,_.,,-~. =--"r-----~-:--:·---~· ~,J '"-' ·~ ,-;:.::,, ~:-.._f-·~;~~,o. "\:~ ')~,.;.:~~~~!/.~~·~h1{~•~~··.';f\~~~'.-~1~~r~:;~iJ!~1-*~>i.W."iAiiJili*A+ ~~
·-~
•_! ·~
..
•
"
.. ---Lll -lllli1 -.. ----.. 181 --
Subtasl: Terrestrial ~esources
l::iSUE
T-51 Bnid Eagle Nest Sur•;c=ys-Downstre~m
Need to obtain accurate locations for bald
eagle nest sites downstreaa of Cold Creek
due to existing discrepancies in order to
adequately assess project i11pacts.
T-52 Artificial Raptor ~~st Sites
A d~nonstration project sho~ld be conducted
to verify that drtificial ra~tor nest sites
c~n be created satisfactorily or backup
mitiga.tion mei\sures should ·ne outlined. A
survey ~.'; necessary to locate trees, cliffs,
etc. for nest site enhance~nt.
T-53 Rapt~_Nest Surveys -Middle Ba.!Oin
Heed to obtain accurate elevations
of l~rge r.aptor nests in the impoundment
areas due to existing .~iscrep·ancies.
T-54 ProJect Impacts on Bdld Ea~lO! Nests
Project development may be in conflict with the
Bald Edgle Protection Act due to impacts on ba-l.j
eagle nests.
T-S5 Co~teelation of Bi cd ~ec ies & . Habitat
C!langes
Should correlate btcd spectes and their relat1~e
abundance with postulated uegative and positive
effects of habitat alteration •
1
1
HI::LHHNARY 4 October 198J
St:Sl'l'NA 1JYDROl::LI::CTlUC PHOJECT: AGENCY-RAISED ISSUES
AGENCY
FWS
PWS
PWS
1>WS
PWS
Pa9e _1jl_ of ~ ________ , _________ _
SOURCE
----------~--------------
51. Peb/Har '83 workshop
R~commendat i.on .p·. 170
52, nrait Ex. E
Comments p. 19
53. Pe')/Har '83 Workshop
Recornmendat1on
p. 169, 170
54. Lettet 6/9/83
55~ Draft EX. E
Comments p. 61
10-12
S'£1\'I'US COHPLET ION DA'l'lc:
·----------------
Exc~pl foe thoue n~st dites that may be 1984
irnpdcted by T-Line clear1ng, this survey
do~:; not appear lo be 1~e~ded. T-Line
impact 11est sites should be surve~ed.
Heli~opter surveys will be conducted to 1984
locate trees, cliffs, etc. for nest site
enhancement. The remainder of the
propus~d work is under consideration.
Helicopter surveys Wtll be conduct~d to 1984
measure elevdtion~; and horizontal
locations dccurately.
Under considerdtlon.
-
,,,,,---·,·-:""7~-,--,,·--"··--·-----------.. ------~~rc---~-------~ --:-,".:·<~~:::-~,·~·-,:~":,·1··rr~~"<i<"'':"~~,:.,ft~~:'-·<r;•;1!~~~---«~ailiSiill:!ili!il a;::•&-Jii&• r _._
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX B
MAJOR SUSITNA PROJECT TERRESTRIAL STUDIES
Steig;ers, WoD., D. Helm, J. G. ~cCracken, J.D. McKendrick and
P. V. Mayer. 1983 Environmental StudJ..es-Subtask 7 .12, 1982 Plan\t
Ecology Studies, Final Report. Alaska Power Authority 1 Susitna
Hydroelectric Project. Prepared for LGL Alaska Rese~rch A$so-
ciate~, Inc. University of Alaska Agriculture Expef.iment Sta-
tion1 Palmer.
McKendrick, J., Wo Collins, D. Helm, J. McMuller, and J. Koranda.
1982 Plant ecology studies, Phase I Report. Susitna Hydro-
electric Project, Environmf~ntal Studies, Subtask 7.12. Sub-
mitted to Terrestrial Environmental Sp,~c1alists, Inc. Prepared
for Alaska Power Authority. University of Alaska Agricultural
Experiment Station, Palmer.
Moose
Ballard, W. B., J.S. Whitman, N. G. Tanke~sley, L. D. Aumiller,
and P. Hes;ing. 1983. Big Game Studies, Volume III, Moose-Up-
stream. Susitna Hydrcelect'7ic Project, Phase II Progress Re-
port. Su.bmi tted to Alaska Power Authority. Alaska Department
of Fish & Game.
Ball&rdt W.B., Co L. Gardn@r, J. H. Westlund, and J.R. Dau. 1982.
Big Game Studies, Volume III, Moose-Upstream. Susitna Hydro-
electx:"ic Project, Phase I Final Report. Submitted to Alaska
Power Authority. Alaska Department of Fish & Game.
lD-13
Doc. 0423B
•
't
l
l
I.
I
I l
I
L l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ballard W. B., and K. P. Tayloe. 1980. Upper Susitna Valley moose
population study. Alaska Department of Fish & Game P-R Proj.
Final Rep., W-17-9, W-17-lOt and W-17-11. 102 p.
Ballard W. B., and K. P. Taylor. 1978. Upper Susitna River moose
population study. Alaska Department of Fish & Game. Fed. Aid in
Wildl. Rest. Proj. Final Rep W-17-9 and W-17-10, Job 1.20R. 61 p.
Modafferi, R. D. 1983. Big game studies, Volume II,
Moose-Downstream. Susi tna Hydroelectric Project, Phase II Pro-
gress Report. Submitted to Alaska Power Authority. Alaska Fish
& Gaxa.e.
Modafferi, R. D. 1982. Big game studies, Volume II,
Moose--Downstream. Susi tna Hydroelectric Pro jE~ct, Phase I Final
Report. Submitted to Alaska Power Authority, Alaska Department
of Fish & Game.
Caribou
Pitcher, K.W. 1983. Big game studies, Volume IV, Caribou. Susitna
Hydroelectric Project, Phase II Progress Report. Submitted to
Alaska Power Authority. Alaska Department of Fish & Game.
Pitcher, K. W. 1982. Big game studies, Volume IV, Caribou~ Susitna
Hydroelectric Project, Phase I Final Report. Sp.bmi tted to
Alaska Power Authority, Alaska Deprtment of Fish & Game.
Dall S.hee.E.
Tankersley, N. G. 1983. Big game studies, Volun~ VIII, Dall Sheep.
Susi tna Hydroele\':tric Project, Phase II Prc,gress Report. Sub-
mitted t:o Alaska Power Authority. Alaska Department of Fish &
Game.
10-14
Doc. 0423B
•
·,. c i\ ·'
_.,·U. ~, \\
nr !,\
\1
'' I •
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Tobey, R.W. 1981. Big ga~ studies, Part VIII, Sheep. Susitna
Hydroelectric P~o ject, Annual Progress Report. Submitted to
Alaska Power Authority. Alaska Department of Fish & Game.
Black and Brown Bears
Miller, S. D. 1983. Big game studies, Volume VI, Black bears and
brown bears.. Susi tna Hydroelectric Project, Phase II Progress
Report. Submitted to Alaska Power Authority. Alaska Department
of Fish & Game.
Miller, S~ Do, J. S. Whitman, L. D. Aumiller, and P. Ne~sing. 1983.
Big game studies, Volume V, Wolf. Susitne Hydroelectric Pro-·
jact, Phase II Progress Report. Submitted to Alaska Power Au-
thority. Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Wolf
Ballard, W.B., J.S. Whitman, L.D. Aumiller, and P. Messing. 1983.
Big game studies, Volume V, Wolf. Susitna Hydroelectric Pro-
ject, Phase II Progress Report. Submitted to Alaska Power Au-
thority. Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Ballard, W, B., C. L. Gardner, J. H. Westlund, and J. R. Dau. 1982
Big game studies, Volume V, Wolf. Susi tna Hydroelectric Pro-
ject, Phase I Final Report. Subndtted to Alaska Power Author-
ity. Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Wolver.ine ----
Whitman, J. S., and Wa B. Ballard. 1983. Big game stu~ies, Volume
VII, Wolverine. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Phase II Pro-
gress Report. Submitted to Alaska Power Authority. Alaska De-
partment of Fish and Game.
10-15
D.oc. 0423D
•
I
fi
I~
I,
I!
r:
IJ
![
IJ
I!
I
t
[!
,[
IJ
Gardner, C. L., and W. B. Ballard. 1982. Sig game studies, Volume
VII, Wolverine. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Phase I Final
Report. Submitted to Alaska Power Authority. Alaska Department
of Fish and Game.
Beluk..lta Whale
Calkins, D. G. 1983. Big game studies, Volume IX, Belukha Whale.
Susi tna Hydroelectric Project, Phase II Progress Report. Sub-
mi,tted to Alaska Power Authority. Alaska Department of Fish and
Game.
Other Wildlife
Buskirk, S. W. 1983. The ecology of marten in southcentral Alaska.
Ph. D. Thesis, University of Alaska, Fairbanks.
Gipson, P. S., and J. D. Durst. 1982. Susitna beaver population
survey. Progress Report. Submitted to LGL. Prepared for
Alaska Power A'.lthority. Alaska Cooperative Wildlife Research
Unit, University of Alaska, Fairbanks.
Gipson, P. S., S. W. Buskirk, and T. W. Hobgood. 1982. Furbearer
studies, Phase I Report. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Envi-
ronmental Studies, Subtask 7 .11. Submitted to Terrestrial En-
vironmental Specialists, Inc. Prepared for Alaska Power Author-
ity. Al~ska Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, University of
Alaska, Fairbanks.
10-16
Doc, 0423B
..
r
I'
t:
I.
'~
~~
I~
l
[
l
1:
Other Wildlife (Continued)
Kessel, B., S. 0. MacDonald, D. D. Gibson, B. A. Cooper, and B. A.
Anderson. 1982. Birds and non-game mammals, Phase I Report.
Susitna Rydroe1ectric Project, Environmental Studies, Subtask
7 .11. Submitted to Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc.
Prepared for Alaska Power Authority. University of Alaska
Museum, Fairbanks.
Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. 1981. Environmental
Studies Summuary Annual ~eport -1980. Submitted to Acres Ame-
rican, Inc. Prepared fQ~ Alaska Power Authority. Terrestrial
Environmental Specialists, Inc., Phoenix, N.Y.
10-17
Doc. 0423B
,.
' ' ..
t ., '
1
I· t·~
j,
I
l
l