Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUS332AUSI<A Pa'£R At.mm I TY SUSITNA HYOOOELECTRIC PROJECT ENVI RCN-£NT AL Sl1ID I ES ~ES r-IANUAL SUBTASK 7.11 WILDLIFE ECOL..CGY- BIG GA'£ Irf>ACT ASSESseiT AND MITIGATION PLANNING Tettelltial I nvitonmenlal Jpeciali1l1, Inc. ? ------- PLASKA PMR Al1'rlm ITY SUS ITNA HYmOELECTR I C PROJECT ENV IRaftENT"Al STIJD I ES ~ES I'WU.IAL SUBTASK 7.11 WILDUFE . Ecoux;v- BIG GNo£ I~ACT ASSEsseiT AND MITIGATION PLANNING Submitted by Terrestrial F.nvironmer,tal Specialists , Inc . to Acres AIIErican, Inc. Enviro11IJEntal Stu Grouo Leader (TES) July 1980 Copy No . l b __...;; __ ctor (TES) This procedures manual is a controlled document. Each copy is numbered and issued i n trust to an individual whose name is recorded on a distribution log maintained by Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc., in Phoenix, New York. Amendments to this document, as they are issued, will be sent to the authorized holder of each copy. Upon completion of the project (or by December 31, 1982) all copies of the manual are to be returned to Terrestrial Environmental Specialists , Inc. Table of Contents I. IMPJI.CT ASSESSMENr MITIGAT!al PLAN II. TEX:RNICAL PRX:EI:XJRES • IMPACI' A.5SE5SMENl' l!pper Susi tna Basin oirectimpacts ~s. Borrow Areas Transmission Line and Access Roads Hlll\an Activity Iooirect ~cts • • Den site D1sturbance Alteration of llbose Habitat • A! teratia) of Carib:>u r-t:>vement Patterns • Il!pacts on Cotmuni ~ I?ynanics . llbose-Habi tat Dynamics • . • Predator-Prey Dynamics lower Susitna Basin MITIGA.TIOO PLAN General ~ch • . Identificat1on and Classification of ~cts Analysis of Mitigation Alternatives Avoidable Impacts • Unavoidable rmpacts • Reccmneooations • III. DATA PIO:EOORES • IV. QUALIT'! CCNl'roL • v. VI. PEPS:NNEL • 1 2 2 5 5 5 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 13 List of Figures Figure 1. Potential avenues of i..rrpact en big game soecies in the ~r Susi tna Bas in. Figure 2 . Big game i.n'pact assessment .:rd mitigation plan ~paration schedule. One of the ncs'C iflt:lortant aspects of the Susi tna Hydroelectric Studies is the assessment of likely i~cts en big game species that currently use p:>rticns of the Susitna drainage. Big game anirrals are very irrp:>rtant to the Alaskan lifestyle and ecoromy. '!hey provide food for nany state residents, support a consi~rable sport tunting economy, and are an integral ~nent in the ability of the state to attract tourists. 'Ihese factors are magnified en this pro~'i!Ct due to the locatien of the Susitna area between Fairbanks e-nd Anchorage, the population centers of the st.:lte. IMPACr ASSESSMENI' '!he general oojecti ve of this assessment is to predict the nature and magnitude of inpacts that the prop:>sed Susitna Proj ect may have en seven big game species. '!he ~ies to be considered are: moose (Alces alces ), carioou (Rangifer tarandus ), t.ir!t>er wolf (canis ~), black bear (Ursus cnericanus), brOWri/grizzly bear (Ursus arctos), wolverine (G.J.lo gulo), and Dall sheep (Ollis dalli ). Each of these species will be considered in the analysis of the ~tream study area, which is defined as that p:>rtioo of the Susitna Basin upstream fran the prop:lsed Devils canycn dam . Downstream fran the Devils canycn dam the type of inpact will be considerably different. Here , considerations will focus oo possible ~cts oo rroose wintering areas along the river to a~ximately the Delta Islands. Following the preparation of an ~ct assessment, a detailed mitigatien plan will be prepared. ~ring Phase I (pre-license application) this plan will consist primarily o f an analysis and comparison of feasible mitigatioo alternatives . Recommendations will be made concerning the best app1:0ach to mitioatien including the type of mitigatien to be undertaken, the land a r ea to be used , and the type of research to be conducted dur ing Phase II (p:>St-lieense application). Phase II research will focus upa1 i nformatien needed prior to actual i.npl ementation of the plan. II • TEX:HNICAL PRXEOORES 'nle big game irrpact assessment will be based oo data collected by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), Acres sul:x:ontractors, TES subcontractor s, wildlife liter ature, and the exper ience of the author m other .:onsultants. Details concerning the collection of the data to be used can be fourd in the specific plans of study and/or procedures manuals for ADF&G Big Game Studies, Plant Ecology Studies, Furbearer Ecology Studies , Hydrology, and Design Developnent. r.:wer Susi tna Basin In order to determine the ~ct of the Susitna Proj ect oo big game species in the Upper Susitna Basin (a.t:x:7ve Devils Canyon ), it will first be necessary to identify the habitat/species relationships that are operative, predict inpacts oo a::xttX>Oents of the system, and then predict what changes impacts oo system components will have on the entire system . Figure 1 was prepared to illustrate the major o::mp::ments of the system aro the rrost likely pathways of impact that could occur throughout the system. The following discussion is based on Figure 1 and is divided into sections concerning direct impacts, indirect impacts , aro impacts oo o::mnuni t:y dynamics. The discussion of impacts oo conmuni ty dynamics surmarizes the flow of direct aro indirect impacts througoout the components of the habitat/big game community. Direct Impacts Direct Lmpacts may originate ~ the following four components of the project: the impoundments, the torrow areas, the transmissioo line and access roads, and increased human activity associated with the constructioo aro operatioo of the facility . "As illustrated in Figure 1 , one or rrore of these four aspects of the project may directly i.moact rroose habitat , den sites , bear f.Op.llations , 'NC>lf f.Op.llatio~c;, Dall sheep f.Opulations, and caritou rroverrent patterns. This is rot to irrply that an illustrated impact will necessarily occur, nor does it infer the extent or ultimate in;>ortance of a specific line of ~ct. Figure sinply identifies, for consideration, f.X)tential ;>· •• :mues of impact. Irrpoundmen ts The creation of ~ large ~undments will result in the eliminatioo of a presently unlm:lwn quantity of key wintering habitat for JTOOse. This is especially true in respect to the Watana imp:)undment which will inundate a large area including a portion of the Wa tana Creek drainage, an area which has already been identified as a key wintering area for rroose. The elimination of moose wintering habitat will ~ly be the rrost i!T'Ip)rtant big garre impact associated with the project . Figure 1 , shows that many components of the system can be affected by changes in the rroose f.Op.llation . In turn, the factor rrost likely to affect the JTOOse f.Op.llation is an alteration of habitat . Fortunately this aspect of the project will be the easiest to quantify aro thus the identification of direct Unpact oo moose habitat will be quite reliable. The determination of impact on moose habitat will be based oo the following information: 1) the locaticn of key wintering areas for IOCXJSe, (data supplied by ADF&G); 2) the distribution , acreage , and condition of key plant corrrnuni ty types (data supplied by Sub task 7 . 12) ; and 3) the extent of inundation (data supplied by Acres). The vegetation assessment (Subtask 7 . 12), in conjuncticn with a delineation of the imp:)undment zone , will enable the determination of h:::>w much moose habitat will be eliminated. Not all of the habitat outlined by the vegetation assessment may necessarily be available to ITO')Se, due to factors such as SI'X)Iol depth. Therefore, aerial survey data from ADF&G, as well as snow course data from R&M, will be factored in to define ...nat porticn of each plant community is actually available and used by JTOOse. 2 TRANSMISSION LINE & ACCESS ROADS IMPOUNDMENT BORROW AREAS HUMAN ACTIVITY DEN SITE DISTURBANCE ALTERATION OF MOOSE HABITAT ALTERATION Of CARIBOU MOVEMENT PATTERNS I \ I --- PLANT REMAINING SUCCESSION -/ MOOSE TRENDS HABITAT ' \. ' '---~--~// / ' MOOSE \ ..... --\---, POPULATION ~~ «' \~ II\ ~~1-\11 \ \ ~1-__ .__ _ __, BEAR POPULATION -_, WOLF POPULATION I I -. .j I '' I r --- ,I/ CAR IBOU POPULATION FIGURE 1. POTENT IA L AVENUES OF IMPACT ON BIG GAME SPEC IES IN TIE UPPER SuS ITNA BAS IN. I I I I --DIRECT IMPACT INDIRECT IMPACT -l SC AVENGERS : 1 ', I -1---' I _--1 I I I I I I I I ,I -;, WOLVERINE & RE O FOX OALL SHEEP POPULATION A secorrl type of i.rrpact that could result fran the creatien of the two inp)urrlnents is the immdation of den sites. This is especially i.np:>rtant in regard to wolf dens, which are often use:i year after year and the loss of ...tlich nay result in abancbnment of an established territory by a pack. Since many wolf dens are created by enlarging e.xisting red fox dens, i t will be inp:>rtant to also consider the eliminatien of existin; fox dens, or suitable fox denniJ'l3 areas, which oould represent future sources of new denning opportunities for wolves. The i.rrpact of inundatien en wolf dens will be determined by mapping the location of krown wolf de.ns, as determined by radio telemetry (by ADF&G), in relatien to the projected inp:>unanent zone. Likewise, maps of existing red fox dens, as well as sui table areas for denning, will be mapped to determine the relative loss of potential denning opportunities. There is also the possibility of ~cting suitable bear denning areas. Although bears are not as limited as wolves as to availability 4 of sui table den sites, certain types of areas may be pr-eferred, oc required, and loss of such areas could cause a subsequent i.rrpact to occur. Since rost brown/grizzly bears den at altitudes higher than the proposed in'p:>l..lrdnent, it is unlikely their densities will be affected by this aspect of the project. Black bears, en the other hand, may use areas within the i.np:>unctnent zone foc dennil'l3 and therefore are rore likely to be affected. Data fran radio-rollared bears will be used by ADF&G to establish locations of dens during the winter of 198Q-81 and 1981-82. 'lbis, in axti>inatien with literature oo black bear denninq characteristics, vegetation rraps arx3 to{:Ographic maps, will serve as the tool for predictin; i.rrpact en this inp::lrtant aspect of black bear ecology. One of the rost controversial questiollS associated with the Susitna Project concerns the to55ible disruption of migration p3tterns of the Nelch.\na caril:xx.l herd. The upper reaches of the Watana .iJrq;x:>uncinet may intersect a route ...tlich is reported to be pt"esently use:i for rovement to and fran a calving area south of the Susitna River in the vicinity of Kosina Creek. Several questions I'IIJSt be answered before a predictioo can be made concerning the impact oo caribou ITOVements. The key problem ooncerns difficulties in predicting caribou behavior. It is anticipated that through aerial surveys and radio telemetry data, ADF&G will d:>cunent the current novement p3tterns of the Nelchina herd and suwlement that data with historical information. fbwever, it will be very difficult to pr-edict future novement p!ltterns. caril:xx.l behavior is a little understood phen::xneral and ant prediction will have to be t.ent:>ered with appropriate cpal.ifications. Followi.n; the determinatien of current migratioo routes, the critical aspect of the caribou {X'Oblem is the condition of the irrp:>urdnent at the tine of the year when they rnt!tJ at~ to cross it. It is to55ible that the pr-edicted winter dra\od:Ml nay create conditions such as ice-shelving, nu:3 banks, cr nu:3 banks oovered with extensive blocks of ice of various thicknesses. Factoring in such variables as bank to{:Ography and timin:J of migration, it will first be necessary to determine what types of conditions the caribou will face if they oontinue to cross the Susitna in the i..Jrpxlrdnent zone. 'lbis informatien will be provided by Peres and R&M. 'lllen the rore speculative task of predicting the behavioral re~ of c:aritx:>u to those ronditions nust be dealt with. Although sare research has beEn done concerni!'l:3 caribou response to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, it nay rot apply to the oonditions in this case. 5 In 5U11"Mr'Y of the c:arioou ~lem, sufficient data will be available to describe the current s ituation . Data srould be available fran the engineering and hydrology disciplines to enable a Ff:ediction o f conditions that caribou face if they are still crossirY:l the Susi tna River in the 2Dle of the pt'Op:)Sed ~ts. A Ff:ediction o f c:aritx>u reS(XXlSE! to these conditions will be speculative but will be base::) en all available literature and scientific opinion . Borrow Areas The use of certain ron-~t l.aOO for the acquisition o f constructiO'I materials (borrow areas ) will result in disturbance and elimination of s::xne big game habitat. The t:lo() likely in{lacts o f torrow areas are further' eliminaticn of rocose habitat, and I=OSSible disturbance of den sites for ...:>lves and bears. The same approach to identifying these tw:> areas o f ~ct will be followed as previously discussee for ~t-related ~cts. Transnission Line and Access lh!ds It is ~ticipated that the nDSt lik,dy iJTpact of the CDOStruction arx3 operatiO'I of the transmissicn line and access roads will be 0'1 the disturbance of den sites a-.d alteration of caribou rrovement t:atterns. In this case, it is rore likely that disturbance of den sites will result from the fl['esence and use of the transmissicn line and road, rather than habitat t'E!!TDVal as would OC'Ct1r in the case of the ~ts and to-crow areas. 'llle pr-ocedure to be used in Ff:ed i.cting ~ct in this case will ronsist of first ~riog the locatiO'I of the line and road in relationship to krown ...:>1 f dens and territories, as well as areas determined to be suitable fat" bear denning. Scientific literature and the experience of researchers in simi liar situations will then be used in o rder to generate a predicticn ooncerni!'l:3 likely i.rrpacts. 'nle fl['ediction of ~ct 0'1 carioou ncvement is also different than that discussed in regard to the in'pxudnents. Although the problem of predicting caribou behavior remains the same, the transmissicn line and access road represent unnatural structures to the caritx>u. 'lllerefore, experience gained through research and corrparable problems alon:J the Trans-Alaska Pipeline may prove of use in this c..1Se . Aqain, data provided by ADF&G concerning carioou mi<;ration routes and calviog areas will be mapped in relaticn to the access road arx3 transmission line routes. Hunan Acti vi tv Predictiog the inpact o f increased tunan activity 0'1 big game speci es will probably be the rrost subj ective I=Orticn of the big game inpact assessment. Although s.Jfficient data will exist to enable o::mparing areas of various degrees of hl.IT\al'\ activity to key behavioral and habitat parameters of the big game populations, it will be difficult to project behavioral resp:>nses with the same degree of accuracy as with ~ other i.np!cts. HLIT\an activity will include both constructioo and operatioo activities, including the presence of people aroun:i ~. construction sites, traffic oo the access roads, and all air traffic associated with the project. 'lhe i.Jypact analysis will consider the direct i.np!ct of tunan activities oo den sites, caril:::a.l rmvement patterns, wolf pop..~lations, bear p:::lplllations, and Dall sheep populations. 'lhis will be acconplished by mapping loci of hlJnan activity and ranking then in order of intensity and dlration. 'Ibis will then illustrate the juxtapositioo of various levels of activity to carib::lu migration routes, \ooOlf dens, key bear foraging areas, etc. As a result i t will be possible to determine, oo a relative basis, where and in regard to which species, the i.np!ct of tunan activity is rrost likely to occur . As in some other areas of concern, informatioo gathered during the oonstruction and operation of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline will be consul ted and may prove useful in predicting behavioral resp:>nses to this aspect of the project. '11le Susitna Project may result in an increased utilization of the Upper Basin by sp:>rt hunters . '!he extent o f change will deper¥:3 to a large extent oo \olhether or rot the access road is cpeued to the p.lblic . '!be big game inpact assessment will consider th.i3 potential chan<;Je and project ~t effect it will have oo big game pop.1lations. Although this aspect of the project could have a significant effect, the impact can be mitigated, if deemed necessary, by alterinq the game regulations. Indirect llrpacts Following the determination of direct project i.np!cts oo den sites, JroOse habitat, caribxl rovement patterns, wolf, bear and sheep pop.Jlations, the process will be carried ooe step further to determine indirect inpacts. As illustrated oo Figure 1, there is some overlap where both direct and indirect inpacts may be operative. 'lbe following discussioo concerns the prime avenues of indirect in"pact including inpacts of den site disturbance oo \ooOlf and bear pop..~ lations, impact of rooose habitat alteraticn en l'lkX)se populations, and impact of alteration of carilx>u rTOVement patterns oo caribou p:>pulations. Den Site Disturbance The distutbance of den sites through either increased human activity, inundation, or borrort areas, could result in changes in the pop.Jlation of wolves and bears. Currently used wolf dens and bear denning areas, particularly tl'x:>se of black bears, will be mapped and carpared to areas to be inundated and centers of tunan activity. '!be degree to which wolf and bear pop..~lations may change as a result of den disturbance will be difficult to determine. It will depend to a great degree oo the availability of alternative dens or areas suitable for denning. It is anticipated that sufficient data will be gathered ':/j ADF&G concerning the physical characteristics of den sit.es, associated territories, and forag i ng areas to treciict the relative extent of inpact oo wolf packs and black bears. 6 Alteration of Moose Habitat 'Itle nost in'portant aspect of altering I!'OOse habitat will be the reduction o f key wintering areas . 'Itlis, in turn, could cause a decrease in the noose p:JpUlation in nuch of the UJ?Per Susitna Basin. OJri.ng Phase I it will be p:>ssible to determine tre relative percentage of noose winter habitat that will be lost. Phase II studies will include a detailed analysis of browse quantity an:3 quality an:3 will thus enable a refinement of the net loss of noose winter habitat. In a general manner, as previously described, it will be p:>ssible to pt"edict the extent of reduction in the capacity of the habitat to support IT'OOse p:>pulations in winter. 'lb a~lish this will entail C'Ort'parinq rot only the area of habitat loss, but aloo its relative use to var ioLIS subp:>pulations of IT'OOse . Population data will be collected by ADF&G in the form of aerial surveys and radio telemetry studies . The mapping an:3 quantification of p:>pulat ion an:3 habitat data will enable the iden tification of those subpopulations which will be i.rrpacted, an:3 tre degree of iJ'Il)act. 'Itlis will be expressed as number of noose that can be supported, as well as the availability of alternative wintering areas. Alteration of caribou z.blfenent Patterns The iJTpact oo IX>Pllations of alterirJ3 JlDV'ement patterns of caribou will be nore difficult to assess than the ~ of habitat alteration oo IT'OOse p:>pulations because tre former indirect iJTpact can take tre form o f either a change in caribou utilization of the UJ?Per Susitna Basin, or a chan9e in tre total herd size, or a <Dtbination of both. The assessment of the caribou inpacts will be based oo aerial surveys an:3 radio telemetry data which will identify current migration routes, the timing of novements, and habitat needs. These data will be mapped in corttlarisal to project aspects such as i.np:lunanent bc::x.Jr¥::!aries, access roads , transmission lines, and centers of tunan activity. A key factor in determinir¥3 tre extent of iJTpact on caribou populations will be the description of ice and water oonditions at likely crossing p::>ints. The ultimate prediction of inp3ct on t:r.e Nelchina herd will have to be subjective , but will utilize all available data, literature, and scientific opinion. ~cts on catmunity Dynamics The big game a::mrunity in the UJ?Per Susitna Basin is a dynamic system . 3pecies are constantly interacting with habitat corrp:>nents and other species . As a result, any inpact, either direct ()[' indirect as illustrated on Figure 1 , may affect sane ()[' all oorrpxlents of tre system . Therefore, the final i.rrpact analysis will attenpt, by using the pr-e- viously described direct an:3 indirect iJTpact predictions as tools, to describe the total chan<Je in the big game oonmmity that will take pla~ 7 as a result of the Susit."'la Project. 'Itlis will require a thoro~ consider- ation of key oormunity relationships. Figure 1 sbJws that the relationship between IT'OOse populations an:3 IT'005e habitat is critical to tre entire system. Likewise the predator-prey dynamics involvinq bears, wolves, IT'OOSe, and caribou are of pararoount i..rttX>rtance. '!be followirJ3 is a general description of l1:Jw these factors will be analyzed. A detailed discussion is oot included at this time since many specifics of tre approach will require 9:me baseline data before techniques can be selected . 8 lb:>se-Habi tat Dynamics Any alteration of ncose habitat will result in s:me level of impact on the Susitna rroose p:>p.llation. This , in turn, wi ll alter the interrelationship bebleen the noose popu lation and the remaining available habitat . As stated previously, sufficient data will be gathered fran the vegetation analysis and rrcx:>se p:>pulation studies to determine the ano.mt of winter habitat ret011ed an:3 the anount remaining . It can be assuned that additional browsing rressure will then be ~li ed by the ll'OOSe on the re!llai.nin; habitat. It will therefore be necessary t:> det:ermine row 111Jdl browsing pressure the remaining habitat can 9.lpf!Ort. This will be done usinj data on the rroose p:>p.llation , the general anount o f habitat resraining, the plant successional trends that are operative , and the current corxHtion of browse in the remaini~ area. Predato r-Prey Dynamics The f i nal analysis, based upoo ~1 [receding considerations , will assess the p:>ssible alteration of predator-prey dynamics in the tJF:per Susitna Basin. !he key rredator-prey relationship is between noose and ~lves, with carirou and 1o10lves beinj a 5eCOOOary relationship. Bear predation on m:x:>se calves will also be considered in the analysis. As illustrated in Figure 1, the relationship betweEn rrost predator and ;rey species is a ~ relationship. '!his is especially true ir regard to 1o10lves ~ on rroose, caribou, an:3 sheep. 'nle abundance c ·f all <r any of these prey species will affect the l"l.JJt)er o f 1o10lves that the area can support. Likewise the nl..lnber o f 1o10lves in an area can, under certain circunstances, affect the density of 01e or all o f t!"lese prey species. 'therefore, a:trf chanqe in either 1o10lf nlltbers or prey nt.l!t)ers as a result o f the {X'Oject can result in a shift in JX'edaticn pressure and subsequent changes in the nuroers of o ther species. By using data concerning direct and indirect inpicts as previously discussed, especially ~cts on rroose, an analysis will be conducted tc determine p:>SSible ramifications to the big game pt:'edator-prey system. Lower Susi tna Basin !he big game in"pact assessment concerning the area d::>wnstream from the Devils Canyoo dam to the Delta Islands will be directed at determining what effect an alteration of flow regimes will have :n rroose habitat and subsequently on rroose [X){:Ulations that winter along the lower Susitna. The major avenue o f irrpact that could occur in t.'1e downstream area is a change of rroose habitat resulting fran tx:>th annual and lonq-term chanqes in the flow regime o f the river. Data fran a variety of studies will be required to assess the ~cts on rroose. I t is currently felt that noose nove into the riparian zooe along the lower Susitna durinj the winter and feed on browse species on islands and the flood plain imnediately adjacent to the ri vt"r. 'Ib determine the extent of USQ by rroose, ADF&G will conduct aerial surveys during the winter ncnths and also nonitor radio-collared noose year round. '!his will enable the identification o f key wintering areas along the nver, as well as determine the extent o f p:>SS ible inpact on JroOSe for a a::.:\siderable distance on tx:>th sides o f the river. 9 Both ADF&G and TES subcontractors will assess the general status of rroose trowse along the river during Phase I • A more detailed browse study, incltxling data en quantity, quality, availability, and utilization will be performed during Phase II . The Phase I data will enable a general assessnent of the quality of rooose habitat and, in ront>ination with rroose ;opulation data, allow fbr the identification of critical wintering areas. 'lb utilize this information in a pt"edicti ve fashion, Phase I stooies to be c:oOOucted by TES subcontractors will attempt to gain an understarding of plant succession trerds along the river. Since it is likely that the key factor affecting the successicn process is periodic flooding, the validity of the entire i..npact assessment will depend oo predicting changes in the hydrology of the lower Susitna. A descritr tion of likely changes in river hydrology cn:l resulting changes in river rroqtx:>logy will be provided by R&M. By l.ll'lderstarding both annual and long-term hydrologic parameters it will be IDSSible to generate a predicticn of hoi the riparian areas and thus plant succession trends may be altered by the Susitna Project. 'Illese factors directly influence rooose EXJp.llations over a very large area alon; the lower Susi tna Valley. MITIGATICN PLAN General Appr"oach The mitigation plan will be based on the inpact assessment as previously described. An att.e!\'q?t will be made to develop a mitigation plan taking into ronsideration rot ally species-specific inpacts oot aloo the i..Jrpacts oo corrmmi.ty relationships . 'lb assure that all mitigation alternatives ace mroughly considered and developed, a mitigatioo team will be created . 'Ille following TES personnel or subcontractors will ~se the ~oa:king core of the mitigatioo team. Mr. Edward T. F.ee:3 (TES), Wildlife Ecology Group Leader, will function as team roordinator. Mr. Reed will work closely with Mr. Jose,;:t~ M. McMullen (TES), Plant Ecology Group Leac"er, Mr. William Collins, Plant Ecology In~tigator (University of Alaska), and the big gane expert wtD \nil perform the i..npact assessment. In addition, it is suggested that at least ooe representative fran the following organizations serve oo the mitigation team: Alaska Power Authority, Acres ltnerican, Inc., Alaska Department of Fish and Game, United States Fish ard Wildlife Service, United States Bureau of Land Management, and Cook Inlet Region Inoorporated. pt)st of the pl~ and developnent work associated with this task will be performed by the rore rnestbers of the team. Prio r to the <XlmTlerlC."emnt of actual planning, inp.Jt will be solicited fran other team rnestbers in order to a::xrpile specific roncerns, opinions, suggestions, and philosophies. It is anticipated that a series of progress meetings will be held througoout the mitigation planning process in order to brief tean lt'lelltlers oo the status of the effort and to pr:esent q:p:>rtuni ties for discussion and group decision rraking concerning key issues and problems. 10 Identification and Classification of ImpaCts 'Ihe first step in the pr:eparation of a miti gation plan will be a thorough review of the inpact analysis. OJring t:J1 is review, impacts will be grouped into two catc;pries: irrpacts that may be avoided or minimized by alteration of project design and operation, and unavoidable ~cts. In each case information identifying the nature of the i.Jrpact, species, and land area involved will be analyzed. Then a list of feasible mitigation alternatives will be developed and analyzed. Analysis of Mitigation Alternatives Avoidable Impacts Detailed consideration will be given to means of avoiding ~cts. Depending on the nature of the inpact, a variety of actions can be recomnended. Aspects of the Susitna Project that will be considered include, but are not limited to: extent of the impoundment zone, alteration of <Dwnstream flow regimes, location of access roads ard transmissioo line, and timing of certain co;1Struction and operation activities. The analysis of such alternatives will require input fran Acres engineers . Unavoidable rmpacts This portion of the effort will consider mitigation alternatives that could be irrplemented to compensate for unavoidable impacts on big game poPJlations. Again the irrpact assessment will provide rrost of the data necessary to accomplish this analysis. 'll1e ultimate goal of this effort wi ll be to develop a big game management program that will either allow for the maintenance of existing poPJlations or the enhancenent of other p::>{:Ulations tn the extent necessary to offset project-related l osses. 'Ihe analysis will consist of three major p,:1rts: management q:>tions that can be irrplemented, availability of suitable land areas and the legal feasibility of executing management q:>tions, and final! y, the pt:ojected cost of implementing the mitigation plan. One cpestion to be answered is whether or rot there is sufficient land of a suitable nature available within the ~r Susitna Basin to manage for increased big game populations. If rot, it Wl.~ necessary to identify alternative areas where poPJlations can be enhanced through management pr:acti1::es. This will require an investigatioo of both present habitat coroitions, garre FOPJlations, land ownership,·and associated regulations governing the use of sur.h land. Reccmnendations The end ~uct of the Phase I mitigation planning will be a recomnended plan of mitigation . This will probably be a general 11 plan outlinir¥J the rost pran:isi.n:J 1'1'1ana9ement o ptions, the best larrl area to be used, and an estimate o f mitigation oosts. It is tnlikely, due to the loog-term studies beil'¥3 conducted by ADF&G, that sufficient data will be available prior to license application to develop a plan that can be executed. !be rea:mnende:'i plan will require refinement as additional data are received. 'ntis is especially true c:onceming detailed moose habitat data, which is a Phase II effort . Included i n the Phase I effort will als:> be recomneudations identifying additional research that will have to be conducted in order to fine tune the mitigation plan to the ~int where the maxi.nun benefit will be realized fran its inplementation. III. DATA PRX:mJRES '!here will not be ant data collected directly by invest igators working oo the big game i.nplct assessment and mitigat.ion plan. All data used in this assessment will be provided by ADF&G I Acres I Acres subcontractors , and TES sulx:ontractors. TES will depend oo q.Jality oontrol procedures inplemented by the collectors of data to be ~ in the big game assessnent. 'nle actual organization o f data required to produce an ~ assessment will be ba.s63 to a great de9ree oo the profess1onal opinioo ard philosophy of the ilrpact investigators. To assure that the i.nt*:t assessment is thorough ard has adequately addressed all issues and incorporated all feasible oontingencies, several experts outside of the rxoject team will be contacted an:! asked to review and comnent oo the impact assessment and mitigation plan . 'ntis will allow for the review o f all practical aspects of the situatioo and will avoid the ~ssible problem of c:onfining the assessment entirely to the expertise and ~inion o f o ne oc bo indi •riduals. v. SCHmJLE !be big game intlact assessment and mitigatioo planniJ'¥3 will be a continual pt"'CeSS througoout Phase I • Since many aspects of the analysis are dependent oo receipt of data fran other sources, there will be an uneven distribution of time spent oo these efforts. Sane field time will be expended to gain an in-depth familiarity with many aspects of the species and habitat <D~Tp:l'lents. 'ntis will be necessary to place data into perspective with all project <XlrllX>nents. Figure 2 is a schedule of activ ities as currently envisioned. Literature Review Field Reconnaissance Coordination Meeting Impact Assessme nt & MitiqaLion Plan Prep. Report Preparation Report Due to TES 1980 1981 198 2 -=J-:F::-:-cM:-:-A--::M-:-::J:-J A S 0 N D J F M A M J J A S 0 N D JF M A MJ X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Figure 2. Big game impact assessment and mitigation plan preparation schedule . 13 VI. PERS:HlEL The following key persoonel will be involved in the preparation o f the ilrpact assessment an:3 mitigatioo plan. Additional external review experts will be CDnSulted at a later date. Edward T. Reed -Wildlife Ea:>logy Group Leader, TES; several years experience in assessing proj ect ~ oo wildlife pop.Llations and ccxm:Hnatioo o f study efforts. Josept M. McMullen -Plant Ecology Group Leader, TES; several years experience in vegetation analysis Cl'ld ronmmi cy successioo process. William Co llins - Irtp!ct Expert - Plant Ecology Investigator, University of Alaska Agricultural Experiment Station; thorough familiarity with big game habitat analysis procedures. 'lb be selected by Septe!Tt:ler 1 , 1980; extensive experience with big game species and habitat in subarctic regions .