HomeMy WebLinkAboutSuWa83Alaska Resources Library & Information Services
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Document
ARLIS Uniform Cover Page
Title:
Pre-application document : Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC
No. 14241
SuWa 83
Author(s) – Personal:
Author(s) – Corporate:
Alaska Energy Authority
AEA-identified category, if specified:
Volume I (notification of intent and pre-application document).
Volume II (pre-application document appendices).
AEA-identified series, if specified:
Series (ARLIS-assigned report number):
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project document number 83
Existing numbers on document:
Published by:
[Anchorage, Alaska : Alaska Energy Authority, 2011]
Date published:
December 2012
Published for:
Submitted to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Date or date range of report:
Volume and/or Part numbers:
Final or Draft status, as indicated:
Document type:
Pagination:
2 vols.
Related work(s):
Pages added/changed by ARLIS:
Notes:
Includes: (1) cover letter with distribution list attachment, and (2) Notice of intent to file application
for original license and request for designation as non-federal representative and for authorization
to initiate consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
All reports in the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Document series include an ARLIS-
produced cover page and an ARLIS-assigned number for uniformity and citability. All reports
are posted online at http://www.arlis.org/resources/susitna-watana/
Pre-Application Document
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 14241
Alaska Energy Authority
December 2011
VOLUME I OF II
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page ES-1 December 2011
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) is filing this Notice of Intent (NOI) and Pre-Application
Document (PAD) with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC, or Commission) for
an original license for the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 14241 (“Susitna-
Watana Project”, or “Project”). As proposed, the Project would include construction of a dam,
reservoir and power plant on the Susitna River starting at river mile (RM) 184, approximately 34
miles (mi) upstream of Devils Canyon. Transmission lines connecting into the existing Railbelt
transmission system and an access road would also be constructed. The FERC License
Application is scheduled for filing on or about September 2015.
Organization of the PAD
This PAD contains the following information, as required under Title 18 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR 18), § 5.6, which provides FERC’s licensing regulations governing major
hydroelectric projects:
Section 1 – Introduction, provides a brief overview of the proposed Project and the
contents of this PAD;
Section 2 – Process Plan, Schedule, and Communications Protocol, provides a
description and schedule of the FERC licensing process and AEA’s intended approach to
communications with stakeholders and record keeping during that process;
Section 3 – Project Location, Facilities, and Operation, describes in detail the
proposed facilities and their operational characteristics in terms of reservoir levels, power
output, plant discharges, etc, and a proposed timetable for Project development;
Section 4 – Description of Existing Environment and Resource Impacts, provides
information about the Project area, and a description of the affected environment in terms
of the various resources to be studied, and impacts to be assessed as part of the FERC
licensing effort; references to sources of information or relevant studies are provided at
the end of each resources section;
Section 5 – Preliminary Issues and Studies List, identifies issues that may be important
to the assessment of Project impacts and provides an initial list of potential studies, along
with an indication as to possible resource impact mechanisms and mitigation approaches;
Section 6 – Summary of Contacts, provides information documenting resource agency
and key stakeholder communications that have taken place during the formulation of this
PAD;
Appendices, contain selected environmental data, site photographs, and other
information compiled either during the 1980’s or more recently, and deemed relevant to
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page ES-2 December 2011
the understanding of the proposed Project and its potential impacts on a number of key
resources.
Background
A larger scale “Susitna Hydroelectric Project” was proposed by the Alaska Power Authority
(AEA’s prior name) in the early 1980s (FERC Project No. 7114). That Project was to be
composed of two major dams (the Watana Dam and Devils Canyon Dam) constructed in three
stages over a period of two decades, to serve the growing electricity needs in the Railbelt
(Southcentral) region. The state conducted extensive engineering and environmental studies and
filed an application for license with FERC; FERC prepared a draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS). Despite the extensive work that was conducted at the time, development efforts
were halted in 1986 because of a significant reduction in oil prices leading to a drop in State
revenue, coupled with discovery of large quantities of low cost, stranded gas in the Cook Inlet
area. As explained below, the situation has changed since 1986 and the State and Railbelt
utilities have determined there is a present need for the Project. The currently proposed Susitna-
Watana Project will be constructed at the same location as the former Alaska Power Authority
Susitna Project’s Watana development, although smaller. It does not include a Devils Canyon
development.
When the prior project ended, APA had just completed preparation of a draft amendment to its
previous license application (dated 1985) and closed the project out by preparing an extensive
index and bibliography of documents. This record provides a wealth of useful information
relevant to the planning and licensing of the current AEA proposed Project.
Future Railbelt Energy Needs
Much of the generation and transmission infrastructure of the Railbelt region of Alaska is aging
and is at or near its time for replacement. The Railbelt is generally defined as the service areas of
six regulated public utilities: Anchorage Municipal Light & Power (ML&P), Chugach Electric
Association (Chugach), Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA), Homer Electric
Association (HEA), Matanuska Electric Association (MEA), and the City of Seward Electric
System (SES). This region covers a significant area of the State and contains the majority of the
State’s population and economic activity; it extends from Homer to Fairbanks and includes
major metropolitan areas such as Anchorage, Fairbanks, and the Mat-Su Valley.
Even if very low future electricity demand increases are assumed for the Railbelt region,
retirement of older generating units will require substantial new generation capacity to be
constructed over the next two decades to meet demands and provide system reserves. Concern
over both the future cost and supply of fuel for generation in Southcentral and Interior Alaska,
and the projected high capital costs of new projects, caused the State Legislature in 2008 to task
AEA with developing a Regional Integrated Resource Plan (RIRP) and reevaluating
hydroelectric power from the Susitna River.
The 2010 RIRP is a long range conceptual generation and transmission plan for the Railbelt to
minimize future power supply costs, and maintain or improve on current levels of power supply
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page ES-3 December 2011
reliability. The intent of the RIRP was to include a diverse portfolio of power supply, and
reliable, stable priced electrical energy for the 50 year planning horizon.
In 2010, the Alaska State Legislature passed legislation establishing a State energy policy and
expressing intent that the State obtains 50 percent of its electrical generation from renewable and
alternative energy sources by 2025. Hydropower currently provides approximately 19 percent of
the electrical energy used in Alaska (11 percent in the Railbelt). While the situation continues to
change on an annual basis, the RIRP studies concluded that the Railbelt could not achieve the 50
percent renewable goal without a new, large hydroelectric project.
The 2010 Legislature provided funding to AEA for the preliminary planning, conceptual design,
and start of permitting and field work for hydroelectric projects along the Railbelt. In November,
2010, the AEA issued a Preliminary Decision Document (PDD) determining that the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project – identified as the Watana site on the Upper Susitna River – was to be the
primary large hydroelectric project for the State to pursue to help meet the State’s renewable
energy resources goals. The PDD recommended that engineering and environmental studies be
conducted for the Susitna-Watana Project. The significant amount of winter reservoir storage
provided by the Project would enable it to provide needed firm energy during the critical winter
months when electricity demands are highest. It would reduce natural gas deliverability
problems, increase generation diversity, and the new generation supplied would also help to
replace older generation which will be retired prior to Project completion. In addition, it would
make a substantial contribution to the State’s goal of 50 percent renewable electrical generation.
The AEA is currently working with the Railbelt utilites to update the previous RIRP in order to
reflect changes in planned unit additions and retirements for the utilities that were assumed in the
initial modeling. The Susitna-Watana Project is a key resource that is factored into individual
Railbelt utilities’ expansion plans as a resource available to meet projected electrical loads in the
2023-2025 time frame. In conjunction with the RIRP update, additional transmission system
stability and reliability modeling is planned for early 2012. Results from both of these activities
will provide input to future Project sizing studies, finalization of design and operational
parameters for the Susitna-Watana Project, and determination of how the Project will best
integrate into the Railbelt electrical system.
Description of the Proposed Project
The AEA initiated studies of the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project in January 2011. The
proposed Project would be located on the Susitna River at RM 184, which is roughly 90 river
miles northeast of the community of Talkeetna. As currently envisioned, the project would
include a large dam with a 20,000-acre (ac), 39-mi long reservoir. The type and height of dam
construction are still being evaluated as part of on-going engineering feasibility studies, but early
comparisons have demonstrated that it will most likely be a roller-compacted concrete structure.
The dam has a nominal crest elevation at elevation (El.) 2,025 ft mean sea level (msl)
corresponding with a maximum height of approximately 700 ft above the foundation and a crest
length of approximately 2,700 ft. Following completion of the studies mentioned above, a
nominal crest elevation up to El. 2,125 ft msl may be proposed in the license application,
corresponding to a maximum dam height of up to 800 ft above the foundation. Preliminary
studies have indicated the surface powerhouse should have three generating units and have a
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page ES-4 December 2011
nominal installed capacity of 600 megawatts (MW). However, optimization studies are ongoing
and the capacity of the Project eventually proposed for licensing could extend up to 800 MW.
The sizing and number of units may change as a result of further transmission system studies.
The unit size may be as low as 100 MW to ensure Railbelt electrical system reliability.
The Project has three possible alternatives for access roads and transmission lines. Two of the
alternatives would accommodate east-west running transmission lines in combination with a new
site access road connecting to the Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie Transmission line and the Alaska
Railroad. One of these corridors, designated as the Chulitna Corridor, would run north of the
Susitna River, and extend to the Chulitna siding area. The other alternative, designated as the
Gold Creek Corridor, would run south of the Susitna River, and extend to the Gold Creek area. A
third corridor, designated as the Denali Corridor, would run due north, connecting the Project
site to the Denali Highway by road over a distance of about 44 mi. If a transmission line is
constructed along this corridor, it would be extended westward along the existing Denali
Highway and connect to the Alaska Intertie near Cantwell.
The current plan is to operate the Project in a load-following mode such that firm energy is
maximized during the critical winter months of November through April each year to meet
Railbelt utility load requirements. To accomplish this, the reservoir would be drafted annually by
an average of about 120 ft; the maximum annual drawdown would be approximately 150 ft, and
this would occur about once in 50 years. Minimum instream flow releases would be made
through either the powerhouse or low level outlet works. Flow discharges through the
powerhouse under this operating plan would range from the minimum required instream flow
release (yet to be determined) to a high of about 14,500 cfs (based on 600 MW nominal installed
capacity) during times of maximum power generation. On rare occasions when the power plant
is off line during emergency outages, instream flow releases would be made through the low-
level outlet works in Watana dam. Daily power generation during the peak winter months would
average about 6,000 MWh and powerhouse discharges would average approximately 6,700 cfs
during that time.
For load following purposes, powerhouse discharges are expected to vary over a 24-hour period
during the peak winter months, typically ranging from a low of 3,000 cfs to a high of 10,000 cfs.
They could be as high as 14,500 cfs (at maximum plant output based on a 600 MW project) for
short periods of time during the day to meet load spikes. The daily flow variation may be
constrained because of environmental needs. For a Base Case preliminary test case operating
plan, initial model runs have been made using the Case E-VI minimum instream flow criteria
developed during the 1980s project studies. Those criteria specified a minimum wintertime flow
release of 2,000 cfs and a minimum summertime flow release of varying amounts at or above
about 9,000 cfs.
The average annual generation from the Project is estimated to be about 2,500,000 MWh. This
amount is equivalent to about half of the current annual Railbelt generation. The Project would
produce an average of about 250 MW of firm power capacity from November through April but
the output could vary from about 100 MW to 500 MW for shorter durations. Approximately 44
percent of the Project’s energy output, 1,100,000 MWh, would be delivered to meet electrical
load demands during the months of November through April, when Railbelt electricity needs are
at their highest levels.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page ES-5 December 2011
1980s Studies and Current Gap Analyses
In the early 1980s extensive environmental, geological, engineering and economic studies were
conducted, and APA completed a feasibility report for a three-stage hydroelectric development
on the Susitna River. However as noted above, development efforts were halted in 1986, and no
further work was performed until 2008 when the project was rekindled by the State of Alaska.
An extensive body of studies was documented during the 1980s, including more than 3,500
individual study reports. This information is archived along with the APA index and
bibliography, by the Alaska Resource Library Information System (ARLIS). The most relevant
data and reports have been recovered and reviewed by AEA and its consultants in order to
identify data gaps, and assess the validity of this earlier planning effort for use in current Project
evaluations. Data gap analyses have been completed in the areas of aquatic resources, wildlife
resources, cultural resources, subsistence and recreation and socioeconomics. These gap analyses
are helping to inform AEA regarding the extent to which additional studies to support an updated
environmental analysis and subsequent FERC license application are needed.
Overview of FERC’s Integrated Licensing Process
AEA is embarking on its formal licensing process starting with the filing of its Notice of Intent
and this Pre-Application Document. AEA has determined it would not seek any early waivers
and would follow the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) as the most appropriate licensing
process for the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project. The reasons for this include the ILP’s
defined structure and timeframes, formal study plan determination, and early NEPA scoping.
AEA intends, moreover, to offer ample opportunities for public and agency input throughout the
process, and has already followed this approach by initiating informal consultation with resource
agencies and the public before filing of the Notice of Intent and Pre-Application Document.
There are a variety of engineering feasibility, geotechnical, and environmental studies currently
underway. Many other studies and information gathering activities are now being planned. It is
expected that licensing could take up to five to six years to complete, however AEA is looking
for ways to expedite the timelines for planning, design, and construction of this Project in order
to comply with Legislative energy goals and help stabilize long term energy supply for the
Railbelt. The ILP culminating in a licensing decision by FERC, as well as the process of
obtaining other regulatory approvals, would comprise the first six years of the development
schedule. License implementation and construction would take an estimated five to six additional
years as shown in the ensuing diagram.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page ES-6 December 2011
Under the ILP, upon completion of NEPA scoping, the applicant must file a Proposed Study Plan
(PSP) that includes detailed plans for each study it proposes to perform. For the Susitna-Watana
Project this PSP is currently being drafted, and is slated for filing in June 2012. Prior to
completion of the PSP, AEA will engage stakeholders in workgroups centered on aquatic
resources, water resources, terrestrial resources, and social sciences disciplines including a
cultural resources workgroup in order to inform development of the PSP.
Within 30 days from completion of the PSP, AEA will hold a formal study plan meeting, and
subsequent workgroup meetings open to all interested participants who may file comments on
the PSP. AEA will then file a Revised Study Plan; and absent any formal disputes, FERC will
approve the Study Plan on or about November 29, 2012, directing AEA to perform the studies
FERC determines necessary and appropriate.
At the conclusion of each field study season, AEA will file a Study Report with FERC that
describes the progress in performing the studies, and identifies any variances and modifications,
including the potential need for new studies. All interested parties have an opportunity to
collaborate with AEA to discuss each report and file comments with FERC before FERC makes
a determination regarding any proposed modifications. The final Pre-Application activity phase
will commence when AEA files either a Draft License Application or a Preliminary Licensing
Proposal (PLP), followed by a Final License Application (FLA). Interested parties will have 90
days to file comments on the PLP or Draft License Application.
Post-Filing activities for the Project will commence once AEA files its FLA and FERC tenders
the application. During the Post-Filing activities FERC will: 1) determine if the application is
complete and ready for processing, and request additional information from AEA if needed; 2)
prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) consistent with NEPA; and 3) make a decision
on issuance of the license, including license terms and conditions deemed appropriate under the
Federal Power Act and other federal laws. In this process the public is notified and allowed to
participate through commenting on FERC’s NEPA document.
In summary, for the Susitna-Watana Project members of the public can expect to have multiple
opportunities to participate in the licensing process through:
Getting placed on mailing lists and accessing licensing information through each stage of
the process.
Providing written comments to FERC and all other parties at any time documenting
concerns with, or support for the Project.
Providing oral comments and asking questions of FERC staff and AEA at public scoping
meetings, site visits, and in other technical meetings.
Submitting study requests and participating in workgroups during study plan development.
AEA will utilize its licensing website http://www.susitna-watanahydro.org to keep stakeholders
apprised of these opportunities throughout the licensing process. Interested parties should check
the website regularly for updates or new information or events.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page ES-7 December 2011
Key Resource Issues and Potential Impacts
Based on review of existing information, data gap analyses and preliminary discussions with
agencies and other stakeholders (“licensing participants”), AEA has identified a number of
potential issues for the Project licensing. The issues for each resource area, and the
corresponding study needs, are described in Section 5 and are described briefly below. This
listing identifies the high-level preliminary issue topics that will continue to be developed and
refined through the ILP and preparation of the Study Plan for the Project. Some topics may drop
out and other topics may be added.
The identified study needs indicate those studies that AEA currently anticipates including in its
PSP, to be filed in June 2012 in accordance with requirements of FERC’s ILP. The PSP will
present detailed scope, objectives, and methodologies for each proposed study. AEA intends to
hold a series of resource workgroup meetings through the formal study planning phase in 2012 to
facilitate consultation with licensing participants on development of the study designs for
inclusion in the PSP and subsequently the Revised Study Plan (RSP). The study designs will
maximize the use of data from the earlier proposed APA Susitna Hydroelectric Project.
The Susitna-Watana Project would be located in a remote region of Alaska with abundant natural
resources. As such, it can be expected that it will have certain impacts on these resources both
during its construction and over the long-term operation. Some impacts may be beneficial and
others may be adverse. Issues to be evaluated and potential Project-related impacts will likely
include the following, among others:
Geology and Soils Issues, covering direct short-term effects of construction activities on
the landscape as well as long-term effects of project operation, including altered river
flows and reservoir fluctuations. Potential impacts to be analyzed may include reservoir
induced seismicity, reservoir bank instability, sediment transport blockage, surface soil
erosion, and downstream river channel aggradation and other morphological changes
affecting habitat quality.
Water Resources Issues, covering flow timing and quantity changes, river ice formation,
and changes in downstream flows and water levels. Potential impacts to the resources
described below would result from changes in the natural river flow regime below the
dam and the change from a free-flowing river to a reservoir for 39 miles.
Water Quality Issues, including effects of Project construction and long-term operation
on key water quality parameters such as turbidity, temperature, dissolved solids,
nutrients, and dissolved gas. Potential impacts might involve changes in water
temperature affecting aquatic species and overall water quality changes impacting aquatic
and terrestrial habitats. It is possible a reduction in turbidity downstream of the dam
could be a benefit to some fishery resources.
Geomorphology Issues, covering sediment transport, changes in upstream and
downstream river channel morphology and shoreline erosion. Potential impacts might
involve changes in aquatic habitat in the middle and lower Susitna River, changes in
spawning due to altered river morphology, and reduced sediment loading and woody
debris as a result of dam construction blocking transport.
Fisheries Resource Issues, including changes to aquatic habitats, evaluation of fish
distribution, composition, and abundance, impacts related to fluctuating river flows, fish
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page ES-8 December 2011
migration considerations, instream flow requirements, and impacts to special status
species. Potential changes might include enhanced quality of downstream habitat through
moderation of natural high flows. There may also be changes to riverine habitat, varying
access to spawning sloughs, and impediments to salmon migration.
Wildlife Resource Issues, including alteration and/or loss of habitat, effects of the
reservoir, roads and transmission lines on wildlife movement and migration patterns,
potential increased mortality, and impacts to special status species. Potential impacts
might include loss of habitats, habitat degradation, hazards/barriers to animal movements
and migration, and effects of an expected gradual increase in human use of the area due
to increased access. There could also be adverse effects on rare, threatened and
endangered (RTE) animal species from habitat alterations.
Botanical Resource Issues, including changes to vegetation, wetlands, and riparian
assemblages, and potential impacts to special status species. Potential impacts might
include loss of wetlands and riparian habitats from construction of the reservoir and other
project features, and from changes in the natural, historic river flow patterns. Although
there are no ESA-listed plant species, there is a potential for adverse effects on rare or
sensitive species if they are found in the Project area.
Recreation, Land Use and Aesthetic Issues, including direct short-term effects of
construction activities as well as long-term effects of Project operation, including altered
river flows and reservoir fluctuations. Potential impacts might include changes in river
access and downstream navigation during certain periods, winter use of the river corridor,
effects on fishing, hunting and trapping opportunities, changes in future land use and
ownership due to increased access to the area, visibility of the dam, powerhouse, roads
and transmission lines from important viewpoints, and visual effects of fluctuating
reservoir elevations throughout the year.
Cultural Resource Issues, covering construction and operation effects on cultural
resource sites, including prehistoric, protohistoric or historic properties. Potential impacts
might include inadvertent site damage or alteration during Project construction,
vandalism, inundation of known sites by the reservoir, and adverse effects of increased
human use on traditional spiritual areas. Aesthetic changes to a surrounding historic
landscape may also affect the historic and cultural significance of a property.
Subsistence Resource Issues, covering changes in subsistence fishing and hunting
opportunities due to Project-related effects on fish and wildlife populations. Subsistence
activities would be affected if there was a change in animal populations, or distribution of
animals, if the Project changed access to subsistence resources, or if it disrupted
traditional subsistence activities.
Socioeconomic and Transportation Resource Issues, including those related to Project
construction activities and long-term operation. Potential impacts might include demands
on resources and local economic effects of a large construction workforce rapidly being
mobilized and then demobilized when construction is completed, increased visitation to
the area both during construction and as a result of the Project’s presence, and secondary
land development impacts on the area’s economy. Potential beneficial effects include
creation of jobs, increased economic activity, and long-term lower cost electricity.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page ES-9 December 2011
Potential Resource Protection Measures (Environmental Commitments)
The AEA is committed to mitigating adverse impacts of the Project and providing enhancements
to environmental resources when possible. As part of its FERC Licensing Proposal the AEA will
work toward development of comprehensive resource management plans for protection and
enhancement of environmental resources including:
Sediment and Erosion Control Plan
Revegetation Plan
Historic Properties Management Plan
Instream Flow Release Plan
Recreation Development and Management Plan
Road and Access Management Plan
In addition, resource protection and enhancement measures will be an important aspect of Project
planning and design efforts. Measures already under consideration include:
Using best management practices (BMPs) to minimize or prevent adverse impacts
associated with Project construction activities.
Avoiding impacts through designing Project features or scheduling construction activities
to prevent loss of resources.
Minimizing impacts on river habitat by controlling and managing power plant flow
releases to maintain spawning habitats.
Rectifying fisheries impacts by restoring disturbed areas to provide fish habitat and
reestablishing fish in restored areas.
Reducing or eliminating impacts over time through monitoring, maintenance, and proper
training of Project personnel.
Rehabilitating altered habitat where possible or managing resources on Project or nearby
public lands to increase habitat value.
Prohibiting public access to the Project area during construction, and prohibiting hunting,
fishing, and trapping by employees and their families in the Project area during
construction.
Adjusting site access roads to avoid site-specific habitat loss or disturbance of wildlife.
Implementing waste-control measures, educational measures, and strict enforcement of
state regulations prohibiting intentional feeding to avoid creating attractive nuisances that
result in the destruction of animals.
Adjusting placement of the Watana construction camp and permanent housing sites to
avoid habitat loss and disturbance of spring brown bear and fall moose concentration
areas near Tsusena Butte.
Minimizing wetland impacts from project construction by minimizing volume
requirements for borrow extraction, which would reduce the overall project footprint.
Using local borrow and quarry sites near the Watana dam construction area to minimize
the length of haul roads and centralizing areas of disturbance.
Designing, siting, and aligning all facilities to avoid wetlands to the maximum extent
feasible.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page ES-10 December 2011
Marking private property and educating workers on avoiding private property without
permission.
Consolidating structures to minimize the amount of disturbance and need for
rehabilitation and site facilities to minimize vegetative clearing.
Developing and implementing soil erosion control and revegetation plans.
Screening material borrow sites from significant view corridors where practical.
Transmission line routing to minimize views of transmission line.
Developing cultural resource protection, mitigation and enhancement measures in
consultation with the appropriate agencies and entities to ensure effective resource
management and recovery; include avoidance; preservation in place; data recovery;
monitoring; and a public interpretation and education program.
Developing protection measures for archaeological resources in accordance with the
basic principles contained in the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s
“Recommended Approach for Consultation on Recovery of Significant Information from
Archaeological Sites”.
Avoiding large and rapid population influxes into communities, especially small local
communities.
Avoiding large traffic increases on the Denali and Parks Highways. This will help
prevent increases in traffic accidents and animal road kills.
Providing housing and related facilities for Project workers located near the Project
construction site, in order to avoid large population influxes into nearby communities.
Developing and implementing an Impact Management Program to reduce adverse
socioeconomic impacts caused by the Project.
Early Start 2012 Studies
Following is a list of studies proposed to start in early 2012. The AEA is proposing to start these
studies early for a number of reasons. It will take almost a year from issuance of the PAD to
FERC’s Study Plan approval. This is a year of potential environmental data collection that will
be lost if AEA waits for FERC’s Study Plan Determination to start collecting data. This
additional year of data collection is critical for some of the studies. In addition, obtaining the
information in 2012 will help inform and focus the Study Plan . Starting early would also be
useful if the weather, runoff, or other environmental factors result in abnormal conditions in
subsequent years.
Fisheries:
Synthesis of Existing Fish Data
Susitna River Salmon Run Apportionment Study
Middle River Habitat Utilization Study
Study of Chinook Salmon Presence Above Devils Canyon
Instream Flow Planning Study
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page ES-11 December 2011
Water Quantity and Quality:
HEC ResSim Model Development
Collection of Cross-Sectional Transect Data in Middle and Lower River Reaches
Review of Existing Water Temperature Data and Models
Documentation of Susitina River Ice Breakup and Formation
Sediment Transport and Geomorphology:
Determination of Bedload and Suspended Sediment Loads at Selected River Gaging
Stations
Geomorphic Assessment of the Middle River Reach Using Aerial Photos
Wildlife Studies:
Wildlife Habitat Use and Movement
Past and Current Big Game and Furbearer Harvest Study
Eagle and Raptor Nest Study
Botanical Studies:
Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study
Wetland Mapping Study
There will also be ongoing information gathering in the areas of Cultural Resources and
Recreation during the 2012 study season.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page i December 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... ES-1
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vi
List of Figures .................................................................................................................................x
List of Acronyms and Scientific Labels ................................................................................... xiv
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1. Project Need ................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2. Project Summary ............................................................................................ 1-4
1.3. Document Organization ................................................................................. 1-5
2. Process Plan, Schedule, and Communications Protocol............................................. 2-1
2.1. Overview of Licensing Approach and Early Consultation ............................ 2-1
2.2. Process Plan and Schedule ............................................................................. 2-2
2.3. Communications and Document Distribution ............................................... 2-6
2.3.1. Maintenance of the Public Reference File ................................... 2-6
2.3.2. Licensing Website ........................................................................ 2-7
2.3.3. ILP Meetings ................................................................................ 2-8
2.3.4. ILP Documentation ...................................................................... 2-8
2.3.5. Distribution of Licensing Documentation ................................... 2-9
2.3.6. Communications with FERC staff ............................................... 2-9
2.4. Work Group Structure for Pre-Filing Technical Efforts .............................. 2-10
2.5. Development of a Licensing Study Program ............................................... 2-11
3. Project Location, Facilities, and Operation ................................................................. 3-1
3.1. Authorized Agents for the Applicant ............................................................. 3-1
3.2. Project Location ............................................................................................. 3-1
3.3. Proposed Project Facilities ............................................................................. 3-1
3.3.1. Project Structures ......................................................................... 3-2
3.3.2. Reservoir Data ........................................................................... 3-18
3.3.3. Turbines and Generators ............................................................ 3-18
3.3.4. Appurtenant Mechanical and Electrical Equipment .................. 3-20
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page ii December 2011
3.3.5. Transmission Facilities .............................................................. 3-22
3.3.6. Description of Transmission and Interconnection Facilities ..... 3-22
3.5.1. Proposed Project Operations ...................................................... 3-30
3.5.2. Proposed Project Generation ...................................................... 3-33
3.5.3. Effects of Hydrologic Change ................................................... 3-45
4. Description of Existing Environment and Resource Impacts .................................... 4-1
4.1. Summary ........................................................................................................ 4-1
4.2. Basin Overview .............................................................................................. 4-5
4.2.1. Major Land Uses and Demography ............................................. 4-5
4.2.2. Major Water Uses ........................................................................ 4-8
4.2.3. Lakes and Dams ........................................................................... 4-8
4.2.4. Tributaries and Streams ............................................................. 4-10
4.2.5. Climate ....................................................................................... 4-10
4.2.6. References .................................................................................. 4-11
4.3. Geology and Soils ........................................................................................ 4-11
4.3.1. Regional Geology ...................................................................... 4-11
4.3.2. Seismic Geology ........................................................................ 4-13
4.3.3. Watana Dam Site Geologic Conditions ..................................... 4-15
4.3.4. Overburden and Project Area Soils ............................................ 4-18
4.3.5. Reservoir Shoreline and Downstream River Banks ................... 4-19
4.3.6. Geologic Conditions and Project Excavations ........................... 4-21
4.3.7. Potential Adverse Impacts ......................................................... 4-21
4.3.8. Potential Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement .................. 4-22
4.3.9. References .................................................................................. 4-24
4.4. Water Resources .......................................................................................... 4-25
4.4.1. Drainage Basin Hydrology ........................................................ 4-26
4.4.2. Existing and Proposed Water Uses ............................................ 4-43
4.4.3. Water Quality ............................................................................. 4-45
4.4.4. Ice Dynamics ............................................................................. 4-57
4.4.5. Bedload and Suspended Sediments ........................................... 4-59
4.4.6. Potential Access and Transmission Corridors ........................... 4-68
4.4.7. Potential Adverse and Positive Impacts ..................................... 4-68
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page iii December 2011
4.4.8. Potential Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement .................. 4-75
4.4.9. References .................................................................................. 4-76
4.5. Fish and Aquatic Resources ......................................................................... 4-87
4.5.1. Introduction ................................................................................ 4-87
4.5.2. Existing Fish and Aquatic Communities ................................... 4-89
4.5.3. Federally Designated Habitats ................................................. 4-116
4.5.4. Potential Adverse and Positive Impacts ................................... 4-117
4.5.5. Potential Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement ................ 4-121
4.5.6. References ................................................................................ 4-122
4.6. Wildlife and Botanical Resources .............................................................. 4-126
4.6.1. Introduction .............................................................................. 4-126
4.6.2. Wildlife .................................................................................... 4-128
4.6.3. Botanical Resources ................................................................. 4-171
4.6.4. Potential Adverse and Positive Impacts ................................... 4-195
4.6.5. Potential Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement ................ 4-206
4.6.6. References ................................................................................ 4-209
4.7. Wetlands, Riparian, and Littoral Resources .............................................. 4-226
4.7.1. Introduction .............................................................................. 4-226
4.7.2. Potential Adverse and Positive Impacts ................................... 4-232
4.7.3. Potential Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement ................ 4-235
4.7.4. References ................................................................................ 4-236
4.8. Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................ 4-242
4.8.1. Plant Species ............................................................................ 4-242
4.8.2. Special Status Birds ................................................................. 4-243
4.8.3. Special Status Mammals .......................................................... 4-248
4.8.4. Special Status Fish ................................................................... 4-252
4.8.5. Special Status Amphibians and Reptiles.................................. 4-253
4.8.6. Essential Fish Habitat .............................................................. 4-253
4.8.7. Relevant Biological Opinions, Status Reports, and Recovery Plans
.................................................................................................. 4-254
4.8.8. Potential Adverse and Positive Impacts ................................... 4-255
4.8.9. Potential Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement ................ 4-257
4.8.10. References ................................................................................ 4-257
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page iv December 2011
4.9. Aesthetic Resources ................................................................................... 4-265
4.9.1. Existing Aesthetic Resource Conditions .................................. 4-267
4.9.2. Potential Adverse and Positive Impacts ................................... 4-272
4.9.3. Potential Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement ................ 4-274
4.9.4. References ................................................................................ 4-277
4.10. Recreation and Land Use ........................................................................... 4-277
4.10.1. Introduction .............................................................................. 4-277
4.10.2. Current Recreational Use of the Region and Project Vicinity . 4-287
4.10.3. Recreation-Related Goals and Needs ....................................... 4-296
4.10.4. Protected River Segments ........................................................ 4-302
4.10.5. National Trails System and Wilderness Areas ......................... 4-303
4.10.6. Shoreline Buffer Zones and Adjoining Land Uses .................. 4-303
4.10.7. Land Uses and Management .................................................... 4-303
4.10.8. Potential Adverse and Positive Impacts ................................... 4-308
4.10.9. Potential Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement ................ 4-312
4.10.10. References ................................................................................ 4-314
4.11. Cultural and Subsistence Resources .......................................................... 4-317
4.11.1. Cultural Resources ................................................................... 4-317
4.11.2. Subsistence Resources ............................................................. 4-321
4.11.3. Applicable Laws and Regulations ........................................... 4-322
4.11.4. Potential Adverse and Positive Impacts ................................... 4-327
4.11.5. Existing Discovery Measures .................................................. 4-329
4.11.6. Affected Tribes and Populations .............................................. 4-336
4.11.7. Potential Protection, Mitigation and Enhancement ................. 4-338
4.11.8. References ................................................................................ 4-342
4.12. Socioeconomic Resources ......................................................................... 4-352
4.12.1. Introduction .............................................................................. 4-352
4.12.2. Land Use and Real Estate ........................................................ 4-354
4.12.3. Demographics .......................................................................... 4-356
4.12.4. Public Sector (Taxes and Services).......................................... 4-368
4.12.5. Electricity ................................................................................. 4-375
4.12.6. Potential Adverse and Positive Impacts ................................... 4-377
4.12.7. Potential Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement ................ 4-378
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page v December 2011
4.12.8. References ................................................................................ 4-380
4.13. Alaska Native Resources ........................................................................... 4-382
4.13.1. Introduction .............................................................................. 4-382
4.13.2. Alaskan Native Consultation ................................................... 4-382
4.13.3. Potential Impacts ...................................................................... 4-388
4.13.4. Potential Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement ................ 4-389
4.14. Transportation ............................................................................................ 4-391
4.14.1. Introduction .............................................................................. 4-391
4.14.2. Roads........................................................................................ 4-391
4.14.3. Rail ........................................................................................... 4-391
4.14.4. Aviation.................................................................................... 4-392
4.14.5. Potential Adverse and Positive Impacts ................................... 4-394
4.14.6. Potential Protection, Mitigation and Enhancement ................. 4-394
4.14.7. References ................................................................................ 4-395
5. Preliminary Issues and Studies List ............................................................................. 5-1
5.1. Development of Preliminary Issues and Studies ........................................... 5-1
5.2. Preliminary Issues and Information Needs .................................................. 5-10
5.2.1. Water Resources Issues.............................................................. 5-11
5.2.2. Water Quality Issues .................................................................. 5-13
5.2.3. Geomorphology/Geology/Soils Issues....................................... 5-16
5.2.4. Fish and Aquatic Resource Issues .............................................. 5-18
5.2.5. Wildlife Resource Issues............................................................ 5-23
5.2.6. Botanical Resource Issues.......................................................... 5-34
5.2.7. Aesthetic Resource Issues .......................................................... 5-38
5.2.8. Recreation and Land Use Resource Issues ................................ 5-40
5.2.9. Cultural Resource Issues ............................................................ 5-44
5.2.10. Subsistence Resource Issues ...................................................... 5-46
5.2.11. Socioeconomic and Transportation Issues ................................. 5-48
5.3 Relevant Plans .............................................................................................. 5-56
6. Summary of Contacts .................................................................................................... 6-1
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page vi December 2011
APPENDICES (SEE VOLUME II)
Appendix 4.4-1 Existing Water Quality Data for the Susitna River and Tributaries
Appendix 4.6-1 Wildlife Habitat Scores
Appendix 4.9-1 Photographs
Appendix 4.9-2 Landscape Character Type Descriptions
Appendix 4.9-3 Notable Natural Features Photographs
Appendix 4.9-4 Aesthetic value and Visual Absorption Capability Ratings
Appendix 4.10-1 ANCSA 17(b) Easement Maps
Appendix 4.13-1 Corporation and Tribe Contact Information
Appendix 6-1 Pre-PAD Correspondence and Meeting Notes
Appendix 6-2 Susitna-Watana Project Contact List
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.2-1 Susitna-Watana Proposed Process Plan and Schedule
Table 2.3-1 Documents Distribution Guidelines
Table 4.3-1 Potential geology and soils impact issues.
Table 4.3-2 Proposed protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures.
Table 4.4-1 Reach segmentation for the Susitna River basin water quality analysis
Table 4.4-2 USGS streamflow gages in the Susitna watershed
Table 4.4-3 Average monthly flows (cfs) at USGS gages in the Susitna watershed
Table 4.4-4 Average flows (cfs) at USGS Gage 15292000 – Susitna River at Gold Creek
Table 4.4-5 Average Flows (cfs) at USGS Gage 1529150 – Susitna River near Cantwell
Table 4.4-6 Estimated Monthly Average Flow (cfs) at the Watana Dam Site
Table 4.4-7 Percent flow contribution of Susitna River locations to flow at the Susitna Station
USGS gage (RM 25.8).
Table 4.4-8 Alaska State Water Quality Standards for the Protection of Aquatic Life and
Wildlife (18 AAC 70, May 2011).
Table 4.4-9 Alaska State Water Quality Standards for Toxics and Other Deleterious Organic
and Inorganic Substances (December 2008).
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page vii December 2011
Table 4.4-10 Location of water quality criteria exceedances in the Susitna River drainage.
Table 4.4-11 Available toxics threshold concentrations that affect select fish species known to
occur in the Susitna River drainage.
Table 4.4-12 Location of water quality conditions that present potential bioaccumulation of
toxics in fish species in the Susitna River drainage.
Table 4.4-13 Suspended sediment at Gold Creek – May to September 1952.
Table 4.4-14 1981 bedload transport data Susitna River Basin
Table 4.4-15 1982 turubidity and suspended sediment analysis
Table 4.4-16 Susitna River at Gold Creek – monthly summary of suspended sediment,
Wy 1953
Table 4.5-1 Summary of life history, known Susitna River usage, and known extent of
distribution of fish species within the lower, middle, and upper Susitna River
reaches (From ADF&G 1981 a, b, c, etc.).
Table 4.5-2 Sockeye salmon in-river abundance estimates from Yentna Rivera and Susitna
Riverb sonar counts, 1973 through 2009.
Table 4.5-3 Sockeye salmon in-river abundance estimates from Yentna River and Susitna
River mark recapture studies, 1974 through 2008.
Table 4.5-4 Sockeye salmon in-river abundance estimates from Yentna River and Susitna
River lake outlet weir counts, 1973 through 2009.
Table 4.5-5 Susitna River Chinook salmon escapement index counts derived from peak aerial
and foot surveys of index streams, 1979 through 2006.
Table 4.5-6 Susitna River Coho salmon in-river abundance derived from sonar and weir
counts and from peak aerial and foot surveys of index streams, 1981 through 2006
(Ivey 2009).
Table 4.5-7 Arctic grayling population estimates in the Upper Susitna River Reach proposed
impoundment zone, during 1981 and 1982.
Table 4.6-1 Terrestrial mammal species reported to occur in the Susitna River basin (reprinted
from ABR 2011b).
Table 4.6-2 Bird species recorded, or likely to occur, in the Susitna River basin (reprinted
from ABR 2011b).
Table 4.6-3 Extent and relative abundance of vegetation types mapped in the upper and
middle Susitna River basin for the original Susitna Hydroelectric Project.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page viii December 2011
Table 4.6-4 Invasive vascular plant species that may occur in areas disturbed during
development of the proposed Susitna–Watana Hydroelectric Project.
Table 4.6-5 Potential impacts of the proposed Susitna–Watana Hydroelectric Project on
terrestrial wildlife and botanical resources (adapted from LGL 1985a).
Table 4.6-6 Acreage of vegetation types expected to be lost to Stage I (Low Watana)
development for the original Susitna Hydroelectric Project (reproduced from APA
1985a).
Table 4.7-1 Wetlands (NWI classes) mapped for the APA Susitna Hydroelectric Project
(adapted from USFWS 1984).
Table 4.7-2 Acreage of wetland types expected to be lost to APA Project Stage I (Low
Watana) development (reproduced from APA 1985).
Table 4.8-1 Rare vascular plant taxa that have been collected in a broad region of Southcentral
Alaska, including the Susitna River drainage.
Table 4.8-2 Special status bird species that may occur in the study area.
Table 4.9-1 Aesthetic Impact Potential Composite Ratings.
Table 4.11-1 GMU 13 big game regulations.
Table 4.11-2 Summary of the number of known cultural resources and NRHP eligible sites
within 5 mi of each potential area of impact.
Table 4.11-3 Summary data for all resources harvested by Project area communities.
Table 4.11-4 List of Tribes and populations in Project area.
Table 4.11-5 Total potential subsistence population in Project area.
Table 4.12-1 Policy PO1-4; Park and open space levels of service.
Table 4.12-2 Populations of the CDPs, Boroughs and Railbelt in the Project study area.
Table 4.12-3 Populations of the CDPs, Boroughs and Railbelt in the Project study area, by race
and ethnicity.
Table 4.12-4 Populations of the CDPs, Boroughs and Railbelt in the Project study area, by
gender and age.
Table 4.12-5 Incomes in the CDPs, Boroughs and Railbelt in the Project study area.
Table 4.12-6 Employment in the CDPs, Boroughs and Railbelt in the Project study area, by
occupation.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page ix December 2011
Table 4.12-7 Employment in the CDPs, Boroughs and Railbelt in the Project study area.
Table 4.12-8 Employment in the CDPs, Boroughs and Railbelt in the Project study area, by
industry.
Table 4.12-9 Schools in the MSB school district near the Project site.
Table 4.12-10 Denali Borough budget for fiscal year 2012.
Table 4.12-11 MSB estimated expenditures for federal year 2011.
Table 4.12-12 MSB estimated revenues for federal year 2011.
Table 4.13-1 Federally-recognized Tribes (25 CFR § 86) within the Project impact area by
region.
Table 5.1-1 Summary of identified resource issues and corresponding studies, Susitna-Watana
Hydroelectric Project licensing.
Table 5.2-1 Summary of Subsistence Data Gaps
Table 5.2-1 Summary of subsistence data gaps.
Table 5.2-2 Potential Socioeconomic Issues Related to the Proposed Project.
Table 5.2-3 Summary of Socioeconomic Data Gaps.
Table 5.2-4 Transportation Issues Related to the Proposed Project.
Table 5.2-5 Summary of Transportation Data Gaps.
Table 6-1 Summary of communications with stakeholders since January 2011.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page x December 2011
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Susitna-Watana Project Area
Figure 2-1 Susitna-Watana Licensing Schedule Summary
Figure 3.3-1 Site Plan
Figure 3.3-2 Low Level Outlet
Figure 3.3-3 Outlet Spillway
Figure 3.3-4 Power Intake Structure
Figure 3.3-5 Powerhouse
Figure 3.3-6 Typical Road Details
Figure 3.3-7 One Line Diagram
Figure 3.3-8 Transmission Line Route and Typical Details
Figure 3.4-1 Project Development Schedule
Figure 3.5-1 Daily Reservoir Elevation (ft) for Selected Years
Figure 3.5-2 Reservoir Elevation (ft) for the Driest Period
Figure 3.5-3 Average Monthly Natural and Regulated Flows and Environmental Flow
Requirements at Gold Creek
Figure 3.5-4 Railbelt Utilities Typical January Day Load Shape
Figure 3.5-5 Projected Railbelt Electrical Demands
Figure 3.5-6 Annual Average Energy Generation (MWh)
Figure 3.5-7 Monthly Average Energy Generation (MWh)
Figure 3.5-8 Railbelt Monthly Energy Demand Pattern Compared with Reservoir Inflow
Pattern
Figure 3.5-9 Daily Power Output (MW) for Selected Years
Figure 3.5-10 Daily Powerhouse Discharge for Selected Years
Figure 3.5-11 Daily Outlet Releases at Watana Dam for Selected Years (cfs)
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xi December 2011
Figure 3.5-12 Natural and With-Project Flows at Watana
Figure 3.5-13 Natural and With-Project Flows at the Gold Creek USGS Gage
Figure 3.5-14 Natural and With-Project Flows at the Sunshine USGS Gage
Figure 3.5-15 Natural and With-Project Flows at Susitna Station USGS Gage
Figure 3.5-16 April Recorded Flows (cfs) – Susitna River at Gold Creek
Figure 3.5-17 June Recorded Flows (cfs) – Susitna River at Gold Creek
Figure 3.5-18 Annual Recorded Flows (cfs) – Susitna River at Gold Creek
Figure 3.5-19 April Recorded Flows (cfs) – Susitna River at Gold Creek
Figure 3.5-20 Change in Annual Mean Runoff (mm/day) for the Period 2080-2099
Figure 4.1-1 Project Study Area at Dam Site
Figure 4.1-2 Susitna River Schematic
Figure 4.2-1 Susitna River Hydrologic Features
Figure 4.4-1 Susitna River Drainage Basin Boundary and Streamflow Gage Locations
Figure 4.4-2 Susitna watershed USGS flow data – chronological availability.
Figure 4.4-3 Susitna River Flow Frequency at Gold Creek.
Figure 4.4-4 Susitna River Flow Frequency at Cantwell.
Figure 4.4-5 Estimated Susitna River Flow Duration at Watana Dam Site for Low Flow
Months based on Gold Creek Gage Measurements, 1949-2010.
Figure 4.4-6 Estimated Susitna River Flow Duration at Watana Dam Site for High Flow
Months based on Gold Creek Gage Measurements, 1949-2010.
Figure 4.4-7 Susitna River Flow Duration at Watana for Low Flow Months.
Figure 4.4-8 Percent flow contribution of Susitna River locations to flow at the Susitna Station
USGS gage.
Figure 4.4-9 Average annual recorded flows (cfs) – Susitna River at Gold Creek.
Figure 4.4-10 February recorded flows (cfs) – Susitna River at Gold Creek.
Figure 4.4-11 April recorded flows (cfs) – Susitna River at Gold Creek.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xii December 2011
Figure 4.4-12 June recorded flows (cfs) – Susitna River at Gold Creek.
Figure 4.4-13 Average annual recorded flows (cfs) – Susitna River at Gold Creek.
Figure 4.4-14 Susitna River Channel Morphology at River Mile 91 from August 1984 and 2011.
Figure 4.5-1 Locations of fish wheel capture sites, weirs, and radio tracking stations and final
locations of radio-tagged sockeye salmon based on 2008 aerial surveys in the
Susitna River. Image copied from Yanusz 2011.
Figure 4.5-2 Movement of radio-tagged Chinook salmon 660-1 in the Susitna River drainage
during June and July, Adult Anadromous Investigations. Source: ADF&G 1983a
Figure 4.5-3 Final locations of 300 radio-tagged coho salmon based on 2009 aerial surveys in
the Susitna River. Image copied from Merizon 2009.
Figure 4.5-4 Final locations of 239 radio-tagged chum salmon based on 2009 aerial surveys in
the Susitna River. Image copied from Merizon 2009.
Figure 4.5-5 Essential Fish Habitat for the Susitna River Drainage.
Figure 4.6-1 Regional Overview of the Susitna River Basin and Subbasins
Figure 4.6-2 Game Management Units and Subunits in and near the Susitna River Basin
Figure 4.6-3 Moose Study Area
Figure 4.6-4 Moose Movement
Figure 4.6-5 Moose Overwintering
Figure 4.6-6 Moose Calving Areas
Figure 4.6-7 Radio-collared Moose
Figure 4.6-8 Caribou Historic Range
Figure 4.6-9 NCH Population Estimates
Figure 4.6-10 Radio-collared Caribou during Calving Period
Figure 4.6-11 Nelchina Caribou Migratory Routes
Figure 4.6-12 Dall Sheep Study Area
Figure 4.6-13 Black Bear Habitat
Figure 4.6-14 Wolverine Ranges
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xiii December 2011
Figure 4.6-15 Fox Dens
Figure 4.6-16 Waterfowl Lakes
Figure 4.6-17 Extent of Regional Land-cover and Vegetation Mapping in the Susitna River
Basin
Figure 4.6-18 Vegetation Succession
Figure 4.7-1 Wetlands Mapped in the Western Portion of the Proposed Watana Reservoir
Study Area
Figure 4.7-2 Wetlands Mapped in the Eastern Portion of the Proposed Watana Reservoir Study
Area
Figure 4.8-1 Cook Inlet beluga whale critical habitat
Figure 4.9-1 Physiographic Regions
Figure 4.9-2 Landscape Character Types
Figure 4.10-1 Southcentral Alaska Recreational Amenities
Figure 4.10-2 George Parks Highway Recreational Amenities
Figure 4.10-3 Denali Highway Recreational Amenities
Figure 4.10-4 Susitna Area Plan Boundaries
Figure 4.12-1 Project Area
Figure 4.12-2 Matanuska-Susitna Borough Fire Service Areas
Figure 4.12-3 Electrical Utility Service Areas
Figure 4.14-1 Public Use Airports
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xiv December 2011
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND SCIENTIFIC LABELS
ABBREV. DEFINITION
AAC Alaska Administrative Code
AC Alternating current
ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
acre-feet Ac-ft
ACS American Community Survey
ACSR Aluminum conductor steel reinforced
AD Anno Domini
ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game
ADNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources
ADOT&PF Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
ADOTPFCR ADOT Central Region Planning
ADOTPFNR ADOT Northern Region Planning
AEIDC Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center
AFB Air Force Base
AHRS Alaska Heritage Resources Survey
AHMG Alaska Habitat Management Guides
Ahtna Ahtna, Inc.
AKNHP Alaska Natural Heritage Program
AMP Airport Master Plan
ANCSA Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
ANILCA Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980
AP Acid potential
APA Alaska Power Authority
APE Area of potential effect
APLICs Alaska Public Lands Information Centers
ARRC Alaska Railroad Corporation
AS Alaska Statutes
ASCP Alaska Shorebird Conservation Plan
ASG Alaska Shorebird Group
AST Alaska State Trooper
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATV All-terrain vehicle
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xv December 2011
AVC Alaska Vegetation Classification
BCC Birds of conservation concern
BDPs Best development practices
BIA U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs
BLM U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management
BLM-S BLM sensitive species
BLM-W BLM watch list species
BMC Birds of management concern
BMPs Best management practices
BOD Biochemical oxygen demand
BOF Alaska Board of Fisheries
BP Before present
BPIFWG Boreal Partners in Flight Working Group
BPLUD Mat-Su Borough Planning and Land Use Department
CATC CIRI Alaska Tourism
CDP Census-designated place
CEII Critical energy infrastructure information
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
cfs Cubic feet per second
CIBW Cook Inlet Beluga Whales
CIRI Cook Inlet Region, Inc.
cm Centimeter
CNIPM Alaska Committee for Noxious and Invasive Plants Management
CO Carbon monoxide
COY Cubs of the year
CSIS ADF&G Community Subsistence Information System
DBSD Denali Borough School District
DC Direct current
DCCED Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development
DEED Alaska Department of Education and Early Development
DHHS Alaska Department of Health and Social Services
DIDSON Dual Frequency Identification Sonar
DO Dissolved oxygen
DOI U.S. Department of the Interior
Doyon Doyon, Ltd.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xvi December 2011
DPOR ADNR Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation
DSM Demand Side Management
EARMP East Alaska Resource Management Plan
EE Energy Efficiency
EFH Essential fish habitat
EIM Environmental Information Management
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
El. Elevation
EMS Emergency medical services
EO Executive Order
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
et al. “et alia”; and the rest
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
ft Feet
ft MSL Feet Mean sea level
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FHA USDOT Federal Highway Administration
FMP Fishery Management Plan
fps Feet per second
FR Federal Register
FS Featured species
FSA Fire Service Area
FY Fiscal Year
g Gram
G2G Government-to-government
GIS Geographic Information System
GMP General Management Plan
GMU Game Management Unit
GPS Global positioning system
GU Globally unrankable
GVEA Golden Valley Electric Association
HDR HDR Alaska, Inc.; HDR, Inc.
HEA Homer Electric Association
HRA Historical Research Associates
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xvii December 2011
IFRR Instream Flow Relationships Report
ILP Integrated Licensing Process
in Inch
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
ISER University of Alaska Anchorage Institute for Social and Economic Research
ISR Initial study report
KABATA Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority
kcmil Circular mils
kg Kilogram
km Kilometer
km2 Kilometer(s) squared
kV Kilovolt
L Liter(s)
licensing participants;
Participants
Agencies, ANSCA corporations, Alaska Native entities and other stakeholders
LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan
LOEL Lowest Observable Effect Level
LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund
m Meter(s)
M Million
m2 Square meter(s)
MAPS Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship
Mat-Su Matanuska Susitna
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MEA Matanuska Electric Association
mg Milligram
mg/L Milligrams per liter
mi2; sq.mi. Square mile(s)
mi Mile(s)
ml Milliliter(s)
ML&P Anchorage Municipal Light and Power
mm Millimeter(s)
MON Museum of the North
MP Mile post
mph Miles per hour
M.S. Master of Science
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xviii December 2011
MSA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
MSB Matanuska-Susitna Borough
MSL Mean sea level
MVA Megavolt-Ampere
MW Megawatts (one million watts)
MWh Megawatt hour
n/a Not applicable or not available
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAWCP North American Waterfowl Conservation Plan
NAWMP North American Waterfowl Management Plan
NCI Northern Cook Inlet
n.d. No date
NCM Newton Centimeter
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NLCD National Land Cover Dataset
NLUR Northern Land Use Research
NMFS NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service
No. Number
NO2; NO2 Nitrogen dioxide
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOEL No Observed Effects Level
NOI Notice of intent
NPCA National Parks Conservation Authority
NPS U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service
NRC Natural Resources Consulting
NRCS USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NTU Nephelometric turbidity unit
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
NWR National Wildlife Refuge
O3 Ozone
O&M Operations and maintenance
OHV Off-highway vehicle
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xix December 2011
ORV Off-road vehicle
PAD Pre-Application Document
Pb Lead
PCE Primary Constituent Elements
PDD Preliminary Decision Document
PHABSIM Physical Habitat Simulation
PhD Doctor of Philosophy
PL Public Law
PLC Programmable logic controller
PLP Preliminary license proposal
PM Particulate matter
PM2.5; PM2.5 Particulate matter up to 2.5 microns in diameter
PM10; PM10 Particulate matter up to 10 microns in diameter
PM&E Protection, mitigation and enhancement
PMF Probable maximum flood
lb Pound
POW Palustrine open water (ponds under 20 ac)
ppb Parts per billion
Project Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project
PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration
PSP Proposed Study Plan
RASP Regional Aviation System Plan
RCC Roller compacted concrete
Rd Recreation-dispersed
RIRP Railbelt Integrated Resources Plan
RM River mile
ROS Recreational opportunity spectrum
RS Revised statute
RSP Revised study plan
RTE Rare, threatened and endangered
s Second
SANPCC Southcentral Alaska Northern Pike Control Committee
SaSI Salmonid Stock Inventory
SB Senate bill
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xx December 2011
SCORP Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan
SCRO ADNR South Central Regional Office
SD1 Scoping document 1
SD2 Scoping document 2
SDVCSC South Denali Visitor Center Steering Committee
SES City of Seward Electric System
sf; ft2 Square foot (feet)
SHP APA Susitna Hydroelectric Project
SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer
SMAP Susitna Matanuska Area Plan
SMP Shoreline Management Plan
SO2; SO2 Sulfur dioxide
SpUD Special use district
SQL Standard query language
SRMAs Special Recreation Management Areas
STB Surface Transportation Board
SVO Successor Village Organizations
SWHP Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project
TCP Traditional cultural property
TCW Talkeetna Mountains and Chulitna-Watana Hills
TDG Total dissolved gas
TDS Total dissolved solids
TEK Traditional Environmental Knowledge
TOC Total organic carbon
TSP Total suspended particulate
UAAES University of Alaska Agriculture Experiment Station
UAFAFES University of Alaska Fairbanks Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station
UCG Underground coal gasification
U.S., US United States
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S.C.; USC U.S. Code
USCB U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation
USFS USDA, Forest Service
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xxi December 2011
USFWS USDOI, Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS USDOI, Geological Survey
USR Updated study report
USSCP U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan
VFD Volunteer Fire Department
VHF Very high frequency
VOC Volatile organic compound
VRM Visual Resource Management system
WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
WSR Wild and Scenic River
yd Yard(s)
14C Carbon 14
ºC Degrees Celsius
ºF Degrees Fahrenheit
µg Microgram
µg/L Micrograms per liter
µg/m3 Microgram per cubic meter
μL Microliter(s)
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1-1 December 2011
1. INTRODUCTION
The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) is a public corporation of the State whose mission is to
reduce the costs of energy to Alaska. AEA is filing this Notice of Intent (NOI) and Pre-
Application Document (PAD) with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for an
original license for the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 14241 (“Susitna-
Watana Project”, or “Project”). The proposed Project would include construction of a dam,
reservoir, and power plant on the Susitna River at river mile (RM) 184, approximately 30 mi
upstream of Devils Canyon.
A Susitna Hydroelectric Project was formerly proposed by the Alaska Power Authority (now
AEA) in the early 1980s (FERC No. 7114). That Project was to be composed of two major dams
(the Watana Dam and Devils Canyon Dam) constructed in three stages, although it was never
licensed or built. A draft Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by FERC but
development efforts were halted in 1986 because of a significant reduction in oil prices leading
to a drop in State revenue and discovery of large quantities of low cost stranded gas in the Cook
Inlet area. The currently proposed Susitna-Watana Project dam is located at the same location as
the former Susitna Project’s Watana Dam site, although it is smaller and the project does not
include a Devils Canyon development. The Project would provide energy to the Railbelt region
of Alaska. The Railbelt region is generally defined as the service areas of six regulated public
utilities, including: Anchorage Municipal Light & Power (ML&P), Chugach Electric Association
(Chugach), Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA), Homer Electric Association (HEA),
Matanuska Electric Association (MEA), and the City of Seward Electrical System (SES). The
Railbelt region contains the majority of the State population and economic activity.
1.1. Project Need
Much of the generation and transmission infrastructure of the Railbelt is aging and in need
ofreplacement. Even at very low energy demand increases on the Railbelt the retiring of older
generation will require substantial new generation capacity 10 to 20 years from now. Several
Railbelt utilities have included the Project in their long-term generation plans.
Concern over both the future cost and supply of fuel for Southcentral and Interior Alaska
generation as well as the projected capital costs of projects caused the Alaska State Legislature
in 2008 to task AEA with developing a Regional Integrated Resource Plan (RIRP) and
reevaluating hydroelectric power from the Susitna River.
The 2010 AEA RIRP is a long range conceptual generation and transmission plan for the
Railbelt to minimize future power supply costs, and maintain or improve on current levels of
power supply reliability. The intent of the RIRP was to include a diverse portfolio of power
supply, and reliable, stable priced electrical energy for the 50-year planning horizon.
In 2010, the Alaska State Legislature passed legislation establishing a State energy policy and
expressing intent that the State obtains 50 percent of its electrical generation from renewable and
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1-2 December 2011
alternative energy sources by 2025. Hydropower currently provides approximately 19 percent of
the electrical energy used in Alaska (11 percent in the Railbelt). While the situation continues to
change on an annual basis, the RIRP studies concluded that the Railbelt could not achieve the 50
percent renewable goal without a new large hydroelectric project.
The 2010 Legislature provided funding to AEA for the preliminary planning, conceptual design,
start of permitting and field work for hydroelectric projects within the Railbelt. In November,
2010, the AEA issued a Preliminary Decision Document (PDD) determining that the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project – identified as the Watana site on the upper Susitna River was to be the
primary large hydroelectric project to pursue to help meet the State’s renewable energy resources
goals. The PDD recommended that engineering and environmental studies be conducted on the
Susitna-Watana Project.
The proposed project will provide stable priced firm winter energy, be part of a diverse
generation portfolio, and enable the State of Alaska to meet its State energy policy. The
significant amount of winter reservoir storage provided by the Project would enable it to provide
needed firm energy during the critical winter months when electricity demands are highest. It
would reduce natural gas deliverability problems, and the new generation supplied would also
help to replace older generation which will be retired prior to Project completion. In addition it
would make a substantial contribution to the State’s goal of 50 percent renewable electrical
generation.
In 2011 the Alaska State Legislature provided additional funds and passed SB 42 that gave
Alaska Energy Authority the power to acquire or construct a Susitna River hydroelectric power
project.
The AEA is currently working with the Railbelt utilities to update the previous RIRP in order to
reflect changes in planned unit additions and retirements for the utilities that were assumed in the
initial modeling. The Susitna-Watana Project is a key resource that is factored into individual
utilities’ expansion plans as a resource available to meet projected electrical loads in the 2023-
2025 time frame. In conjunction with the RIRP update, additional transmission system stability
and reliability modeling is planned for early 2012. Results from both of these activities will
provide input to future Project sizing studies, finalization of design and operational parameters
for the Susitna-Watana Project, anddetermination of how the Project will best integrate into the
Railbelt electrical system.
ProposedDam and Powerhouse
Chulitna Corridor
Proposed WatanaReservoir el. 2000 ft.
Denali Corridor
DDeeaaddmmaann CCrreeeekkT
T
s
s
u
u
sseennaa CCrreeeekkProposed ReservoirStudy Area Boundary el. 2,200 ft.DDeevviill CC rreeeekkPPoorrttaaggee CCrreeeekkGold Creek Corridor
ProposedCamp and Airstrip
DeadmanMountain
022S022S022S
022S
022S
022S022S
022S
022S
022S
022S
022S
022S
022S
022S
021S021S021S
021S
021S 021S
021S
021S
021S
021S
021S
021S
021S
021S
021S
020S 020S
020S
020S020S
020S
020S
020S 020S
020S
020S 020S
020S
020S
019S 019S
019S019S
019S
019S
019S
019S019S
019S
019S
019S
019S
019S
018S
018S 018S
018S018S018S
018S018S
018S 018S
018S 018S
018S018S
017S017S 018S
019S 020S019S
017S
020S
030N 030N 030N 030N 030N031N031N
031N
031N
031N
031N
031N 031N
031N 031N 031N 031N
031N
031N
031N
031N
030N
032N
032N 032N032N
032N
032N
032N
032N 032N
032N
032N
032N
032N
032N
032N032N
017S 018S
030N
021S
022S
017S
030N
021S
022S
032N
017S
020S
030N
017S
019S
031N
030N
033N
033N033N033N
033N
033N
033N
033N 033N
033N
033N
033N
033N
033N
033N033N
018S
017S
030N
030N
017S
017S
030N
033N
030N
017S
029N030N
017S
029N030N030N
017S
029N029N
017S
029N
018S
016S 017S
029N
016S
031N
019S
032N
016S
030N
017S
029N
020S
016S
Cantwell Denali Highway
George Parks HighwayÜ
0 5 102.5 Miles
LEGEND:
Susitna-Watana Project Area
State of AlaskaSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Ferc No.14241
Date: Dec. 2011Scale: As Noted
Figure 1-1
ProjectArea
Alaska Hi
g
h
w
a
yRichardsonHighwaySteese HighwayGlenn Highw
a
y
DenaliHighwa
y Taylor HighwayProposed Reservoir
General Land StatusDescription
Federal BLM
Private Land
PLS Meridian
! !Existing Transmission Intertie
Alaska Railroad
R8ER7ER6ER5ER4ER3ER2ER2WR1WR1E
R1WR2WR3WR4WR5WR6WR7WR9WR8W
T33N
T32N
T31N
T30N
T29N T18ST19ST20ST21ST22SR3ER2ER1E
State Lands
Proposed Reservoir Study Area Boundary
Proposed Transmission and Road Corridor
Proposed Transmission Corridor
Proposed Road Corridor
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1-4 December 2011
Governor Sean Parnell on July 25, 2011, announced that the State will move forward on the
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project with an expected completion date in 2023.
1.2. Project Summary
The proposed Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project dam would be located at RM 184, which is
roughly 90 river miles northeast of the community of Talkeetna. The Project as currently
envisioned would include a large dam with a 20,000-acre, 39 mile-long reservoir (normal
maximum pool elevation of 2,000 ft mean sea level [msl]). The powerhouse would have an
installed capacity of 600 megawatts (MW). Optimization studies are ongoing and the size of the
Project eventually proposed for licensing could extend up to 800 MW and a normal maximum
reservoir level of approximately 2,100 ft msl. Optimal unit size is also being investigated. The
type of dam construction is being evaluated as part of the on-going engineering studies and likely
will be earth embankment, roller compacted concrete (RCC) or concrete faced rockfill.
Recent studies have placed the annual generation of the plant at 2,500,000 megawatt-hours
(MWhrs). This amount is nearly 40 percent of the current Railbelt annual generation. The
Project would produce from 200 MW to 500 MW of firm power depending on the time of year.
The Project has three possible alternatives for road and transmission lines (see Figure 1-1). One
corridor, the Chulitna Corridor can accommodate east-west running transmission lines and a road
north of the Susitna River connecting to the Alaska Intertie and the Alaska Railroad near the
Chulitna station. Another east-west configuration would follow a corridor south of the Susitna
River running to Gold Creek station. A third corridor, the Denali Corridor, runs north, and
would connect the dam site to the Denali Highway by road over a distance of about 44 miles
(mi). If transmission lines are run north up the Denali corridor, they would need to also run west
along the existing Denali Highway to connect to the Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie Transmission
lines near Cantwell.
The proposed Project is on land owned partly by Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)
regional and village corporations, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land, and State-selected
lands.
Data gap analyses have been performed in the areas of aquatics, wildlife, hydrology, water
quality, subsistence, socioeconomics, transportation, recreation, and cultural resources. Data
from the original 1980s Susitna studies and more current data were reviewed to determine what
data gaps exist that may require additional studies.
The existing, relevant, and reasonably available information provided in the PAD is intended to
enable participants in the licensing proceeding to identify issues and related information needs;
develop study requests and study plans; and ultimately, to prepare documents analyzing AEA’s
Application for Original License (License Application) to be filed with FERC by September
2015. The PAD also is a precursor to the environmental analysis section of the License
Application and to FERC's scoping documents and environmental impact statement under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The requirement to file the PAD at the
same time as the NOI is intended to enable those who plan to participate in the licensing
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1-5 December 2011
proceeding to become familiar with the Project at the start of the proceeding and enhance the
success of FERC's scoping process.
1.3. Document Organization
The PAD follows the content and form requirements of 18 C.F.R. § 5.6 (d) with minor changes
in form for enhanced readability. The PAD is organized into two volumes. Volume I contains all
of the information required by 18 C.F.R. § 5.6 (c) and (d) and Volume II contains the
appendices. The PAD is being distributed to Federal and state resource agencies, local
governments, Alaska Native entities, ANCSA Corporations, members of the public, and others
likely to be interested in the licensing proceeding.
Because the Project will also require permits and approvals from other federal and state agencies,
this PAD, the licensing studies and the license application are intended to be developed in a
manner to allow all agencies to use one comprehensive set of environmental analysis documents
to satisfy the requirements of NEPA for all federal permits and also to establish a record to
support a water quality certification application, if needed under Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act.
Volume I is organized as follows:
Executive Summary
Table of Contents; Appendices; List of Tables; List of Figures; List of Acronyms and Scientific
Labels
Section 1 – Introduction; Project Need; Project Summary; Document Organization
Section 2 – Process Plan, Schedule and Communication Protocols; Process Plan and Schedule
for all licensing activities through filing of the License Application; Communication Protocols
Section 3 – Description of the Proposed Project; Project Overview; Water Conveyance System;
Hydro System; Lands of the United States; and Additional Information
Section 4 – River Basin Description; Project Area Overview; Major Land Uses; Major Water
Uses; Project Area Dams; Drainage Basins and Tributary Streams; Climate; and Watershed
Water Quality; Description of Existing Environment and Impacts by resource category
Section 5 – Issues, Studies and Plans by resource category
Section 6 – Summary of Contacts; Federal Agencies; Tribes; State Agencies; Regional Agencies;
Local Governments; Non-Governmental Organizations; and Public
Maps, figures and tables are incorporated into each Section as applicable.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1-6 December 2011
Volume II contains the following appendices:
Appendix 4.4-1 Existing Water Quality Data for the Susitna River and Tributaries
Appendix 4.6-1 Wildlife Habitat Scores
Appendix 4.9-1 Photographs
Appendix 4.9-2 Landscape Character Type Descriptions
Appendix 4.9-3 Notable Natural Features Photographs
Appendix 4.9-4 Aesthetic value and Visual Absorption Capability Ratings
Appendix 4.10-1 ANCSA 17(b) Easement Maps
Appendix 4.13-1 Corporation and Tribe Contact Information
Appendix 6-1 Pre-PAD Correspondence and Meeting Notes
Appendix 6-2 Susitna-Watana Project Contact List
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 2-1 December 2011
2. PROCESS PLAN, SCHEDULE, AND COMMUNICATIONS
PROTOCOL
The following sections contain information concerning licensing approach and early
consultation; process plan and schedule; communications and document distribution; working
groups; and development of a licensing study program.
2.1. Overview of Licensing Approach and Early Consultation
The Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project is being studied and evaluated by AEA under a
proposed Preliminary Permit pursuant to Section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA). For the
licensing of the Project, AEA is using the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP), the default process
used by FERC, to guide the application development process in a collaborative, but structured
manner. In accordance with the ILP requirements under 18 CFR Part 5, the NOI and PAD are
being filed simultaneously and distributed to federal and state resource agencies, local
governments, Alaska Native entities, ANCSA Corporations and members of the public and other
interested parties. The ILP provides a consistent framework for the consultation process with
agencies, Alaska Native entities, ANSCA Corporations, and other stakeholders during the period
leading up to the filing of the license application.
The PAD follows the content and form requirements of 18 CFR 5.6. The purpose of the PAD is
to provide substantial background information related to the engineering, operational, economic,
and environmental aspects of the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, as well as to identify
and define issues and potential study needs. AEA also intends to use the PAD as a first step in
developing appropriate protection, mitigation, and enhancement (PM&E) measures, which in
turn may lead to a formal agreement or agreements with stakeholders in support of a 50-year
FERC license. The filing of the NOI and PAD with FERC officially starts the ILP process for
this Project.
In preparing the PAD, AEA researched and reviewed reasonably available, relevant information
concerning the existing conditions and environment in and around the Project site. This
information was obtained through the search of various public information and reference
sources, site visits, and stakeholder contacts and consultations.
Starting in early 2011, AEA implemented a stakeholder outreach program and initiated baseline
environmental information gathering activities. AEA conducted meetings and has posted
extensive licensing information on its website at http://www.sustina-watanahydro.org. Goals of
the outreach process included providing stakeholders with relevant background information
related to the Project and environmental resources. In addition, these meetings have helped AEA
identify and scope issues and develop initial study plans to be incorporated into the PAD.
AEA has incorporated into this PAD the results of its early stakeholder outreach program,
including a list of issue statements and study plan summaries (Section 5), brief summaries of
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 2-2 December 2011
draft 2012 informal study plans and a summary of discussions with stakeholders prior to filing
this document (Appendix 6-1).
2.2. Process Plan and Schedule
The Process Plan and Schedule outlines the specific timeframes, deadlines, and responsibilities
of FERC, AEA (the Applicant), and other stakeholders in the ILP from the filing of the NOI and
PAD through the filing of the application for license. In accordance with FERC regulations [18
CFR 5.6 (d)(1)], AEA must adhere to the plan and schedule for pre-application activities
including timelines for pre-filing consultation, information gathering, and resource studies. The
plan and schedule also includes proposed locations and dates for the scoping meetingst. Table
2.2-1 presents AEA’s Process Plan and Schedule for pre-application activities. In developing the
proposed Process Plan and Schedule, AEA has included timeframes for Formal Dispute
Resolution, highlighted in yellow [18 CFR 5.14] even though AEA anticipates resolving any
study disputes through an informal process by working directly with all parties to reach
consensus.
Table 2.2-1. Susitna-Watana Proposed Process Plan and Schedule
18 C.F.R. § Lead Action Early Late
Start Finish
§ 5.5 AEA File Notification of Intent (NOI) 12/29/11
§ 5.6 AEA File Pre-Application Document (PAD) 12/29/11
§ 5.7 FERC Tribal Consultation 12/30/11 01/30/12
Initial Tribal Consultation Meeting (NLT 30 days after NOI) 12/30/11 01/30/12
§5.8 FERC FERC Notices NOI/PAD & Issues Scoping Document I 12/30/11 02/27/12
(a) FERC issues notice of commencement of proceeding and scoping
document
(b)(2) FERC request to initiate informal Section 7 ESA consultation and
designation of applicant as the Commission’s non-federal representative
(c) FERC issues Scoping Document 1 (SD1)
(b)(3)(viii) FERC Public Scoping Meeting & Site Visit 02/27/12 03/28/12
(Within 30 days after Commencement Notice)
(d) Project Site Visit (Proposed Dates) (08/29/11) (07/11/12)
Public Scoping Meetings (Proposed Dates) 03/22/12 03/28/12
§ 5.9 Participants Comments on PAD, SD1 and Study Requests 02/27/11 04/27/12
(a) Participants file comments on PAD & SD1 and study requests
(Within 60 days of Commencement Notices)
§ 5.10 FERC Scoping Document 2 (If Necessary) 04/27/12 06/11/12
FERC issues Scoping Document 2 (SD2)
(Within 45 days of SD1 comments)
§ 5.11 Applicant Applicant’s Proposed Study Plan & Study Plan Meetings 04/27/12 07/11/12
Applicant files w/ FERC a proposed study plan (Tied to SD1) 04/27/12 06/11/12
Conduct Study Plan Meetings 04/27/12 07/11/12
Initial Study Plan Meeting 07/09/12 07/11/12
(NLT 30 days after Applicant files study plan)
§ 5.12 Participants Comments on proposed study plan 06/11/12 09/10/12
Participants file comments on Applicant’s proposed study plan 06/11/12 09/10/12
(Within 90 days of Applicant filed plans)
§ 5.13 Revised study plan and study plan determination 09/10/12 11/29/12
(a) Applicant Applicant files revised study plan w/ FERC 09/10/12 10/10/12
(b) Participants Participants file comments on revised study plan w/ FERC 10/10/12 10/25/12
(c) FERC FERC issues Study Plan Determination 10/10/12 11/09/12
(d) Study plans approved (If no study plan dispute) 11/09/12 11/29/12
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 2-3 December 2011
§ 5.14 Formal study dispute resolution process (Formal Study Plan Dispute) 11/09/12 02/07/13
(a) MCA/T Mandatory condition agency/tribes (MCA/T) file Notice of Dispute 11/09/12 11/29/12
(Within 20 days)
(d) FERC FERC convenes Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) (Within 20 days) 11/09/12 12/19/12
(i) Applicant Applicant files comments re: dispute w/ FERC (NLT 25 days) 11/09/12 12/24/12
(k) DRP Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) delivers to FERC finding of dispute 12/19/12 01/18/13
(NLT 50 days)
(l) FERC FERC issues written determination re: dispute (NLT 70 days) 01/18/13 02/07/13
(d) Study plans amended/approved (Formal Study Plan Dispute Process) 01/18/13 02/07/13
§ 5.15 Conduct Studies 11/30/12 03/11/15
(a) Implement Study Plans (Tied to “No study plan dispute”) 11/30/12 11/30/14
Applicant Implement Study Plans (1st Season) 11/30/12 10/12/13
(b) Applicant Applicant prepares & files periodic Study Plan progress reports 02/01/13 11/11/13
(c)(1) Applicant Applicant prepares & files Initial Study Report 08/15/13 11/29/13
(NLT 1 year after FERC study plan approval)
Initial Study Report Filing Deadline 11/29/13
(c)(2) Applicant Applicant holds study plan meeting (Within 15 days) 11/29/13 12/13/13
(c)(3) Applicant Applicant files study plan meeting summary & plan modifications 12/13/13 12/27/13
(Within 15 days)
(c)(4) Participants Meeting summary & study plan disagreement filing by participants 11/29/13 01/24/14
(Within 30 days)
(c)(5) Applicant Applicant files response to disagreement (Within 30 days) 01/24/14 02/24/14
(c)(6) FERC FERC resolves disagreement & amends study plan (NLT 30 days) 02/24/14 03/26/14
(c)(7) Meeting Summary & Plan Modifications Approved 01/27/14
(No Disagreement Filed by Participants)
Meeting Summary & Plan Modifications Approved 03/26/14
(Disagreement filed by Participants)
(f) Applicant Applicant prepares & files Updated Initial Study Report 08/11/14 11/28/14
Applicant Applicant holds study plan meeting (Within 15 days) 12/12/14
Applicant Applicant files study plan meeting summary & plan modifications 12/23/14
Participants Meeting summary & study plan disagreement filing by participants 01/26/15
Applicant Applicant files response to disagreement (Within 30 days) 02/24/15
FERC FERC resolves disagreement & amends study plan (NLT 30 days) 03/27/15
Meeting Summary & Plan Modifications Approved 01/26/15
(No Disagreement filed by Participants)
Meeting Summary & Plan Modifications Approved 03/11/15
(Disagreement filed by Participants)
§ 5.16 Preliminary Licensing Proposal (Tied to “No study plan dispute”) 11/11/13 04/14/15
(a)(c) Applicant Applicant files Preliminary Licensing Proposal 04/14/15
(or Draft License Application)
(e) FERC FERC issues comments on Preliminary Licensing Proposal 04/14/15 07/13/15
(or Draft License Application)
§ 5.17 Filing of Application 09/11/15
(a) Applicant Applicant Files License Application 09/11/15
With this schedule, AEA assumes that formal field studies will be performed over two field
seasons, during 2013 and 2014. The proposed schedule allows for additional information
gathering activities and early studies in 2012. Figure 2-1 presents some of the key milestone
dates and activities in a summary form for 2012 through 2015. It is AEA’s intention to complete
all studies and data collection to support the license application in these three field seasons,
however, it is expected data may continue to be collected beyond 2014.
Under the ILP, the Commission conducts its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
scoping meeting and site visit within 90 days of filing of the applicant’s Notice of Intent. The
site visit is typically held in conjunction with the scoping meeting. However with the filing date
of December 29, 2011, that scoping meeting would take place at the end of March 2012; that
would not be a practical time to hold a site visit as there would be no chance to view the site free
of ice and snow and access to the project site could be limited by winter weather. In anticipation
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 2-4 December 2011
of the NOI and PAD filing dates, a site visit was held on August 29, 2011 to allow FERC and
interested parties a chance to view the site conditions in a snow free period. Under the ILP
schedule, FERC will conduct scoping meetings on March 27, 28, 29 and 30, 2012 in Anchorage,
Wasilla, at Su-Valley High School near Sunshine along the Parks Highway, Fairbanks, and
Glennallen, respectively. Typically, FERC holds one meeting during the day and this meeting is
planned for Anchorage and will focus on soliciting comments from resource agencies and Alaska
Native groups. The other scoping meetings at each location will be scheduled in the evening,
starting at 7:00 pm for the convenience of the public and non-governmental organizations. All
interested parties are invited to attend and participate in either or all of the scoping meetings.
The March 27, 2012 daytime meeting will be in Anchorage, planned to be held in the morning at
the Loussac Public Library, 3600 Denali Street. The March 27, 2012 evening meeting is planned
to be held at the Menard Sports Center Meeting Rooms, 1001 S Mack Drive in Wasilla. The
March 28, 2012 evening meeting is planned to be held at the Su-Valley High School at 42728 S
Parks Highway, Sunshine, AK 99676 near the junction of Talkeetna Road and the Parks
Highway. The March 28, 2012 evening meeting will be held at the Carlson Center, 2010 2nd
Avenue in Fairbanks and the March 29, 2012 evening meeting will be held at the Caribou Café
banquet room in Glennallen, AK 99588.
More detailed information regarding the scoping meetings will be announced by FERC and will
also be posted on the Susitna-Watana Project licensing website at http://www.susitna-
watanahydro.org. Additional information can also be obtained by contacting Mr. David Turner
with FERC at (202) 502-6091.
The scoping meetings will be recorded by a court reporter, and all statements, oral and written,
will become part of FERC’s official public record for this licensing. At the start of each meeting
all individuals who attend will be asked to sign in. Anyone wishing to make a statement for the
record will be asked to indicate this desire and to identify themselves and any organizations that
they represent.
In addition to the opportunity to comment at the scoping meetings, all stakeholders may provide
written comments to FERC by sending an original and eight copies of any written comments to:
The Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, NE
Washington D.C., 20426
Alternatively, stakeholders can e-file their comments to FERC’s website,
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp where instructions are posted about how to file
and view comments and documents in FERC’s eLibrary. For any comment submissions, it is
important to include the project name and project number, “Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric
Project, FERC No. 14241” on the first page of any written comments. As noted in Table 2.2-1,
the deadline for filing written comments on the PAD and FERC’s Scoping Document 1 will be
60 days from the date of FERC’s Notice of Issuance of the scoping document and consultation
process.
Licensing Activities Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012
Initial Alaskan Native Consultation
FERC Scoping Document 1
FERC Scoping Meetings
PAD Comments & Study Requests Due
AEA Study Plan & Scoping Document 2 Due
Initial Study Plan Meetings
Study Plan Comments Due
AEA Revised Study Plan Due
Revised Study Plan Comments Due
FERC Study Plan Determination
Implement Studies
2013
Implement ILP Studies
AEA Initial Study Report Due
Study Plan Meetings
AEA Updated Study Plan & Notes Due
2014
FERC Approves Study Plan Modifications
Implement ILP Studies
AEA Updated Study Report Due
Study Plan Meetings
AEA Updated Study Plan & Notes Due
2015
FERC Approves Notes & Implement Study Plan
Complete ILP Studies
AEA Preliminary Licensing Proposal (PLP)
Comments on PLP Due
AEA Files License Application
Study Periods Due Dates 2012 Studies
Figure 2-1. Susitna-Watana Licensing Schedule Summary1
NOI/PAD Filed 12/29/11
Meetings (1) Work group meetings will be planned as needed through 2015.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 2-6 December 2011
2.3. Communications and Document Distribution
This Communication Protocol (Protocol) is intended to facilitate communication and cooperation
among AEA, federal and state agencies, ANSCA Corporations, Alaska Native groups, and other
interested organizations and parties (collectively Participants) during the preparation of AEA’s
Application for Original License for the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project (Project). This
Protocol is structured to complement the requirements of the ILP for the pre-application
consultation period for the Project licensing effort. AEA believes that the ILP, supplemented by
the provisions outlined below, is the most effective process for completing the necessary pre-
application work while providing for meaningful participation by agencies, other interested
organizations and the public.
This Protocol is intended to provide a structured framework for communications among all
Participants and provide AEA’s plans regarding access to information regarding the consultation
activities related to the licensing and planning of the Project. The Protocol also applies to
communications to and from consultants on behalf of AEA, or any of the Participants. This
Protocol is not intended to apply to communications solely between Participants, or to any
Participant’s internal communications. The Communication Protocol is intended to provide a
flexible framework for dissemination of information and for document consultation among all
participants involved in the Project licensing.
2.3.1. Maintenance of the Public Reference File
AEA will maintain copies of relevant written communications and other materials produced
during the pre-filing consultation process. The consultation record will be updated regularly and
available to the public on the website. Copies of the PAD will be distributed to the listing
attached in Appendix 6-2 and the PAD and license application will also be provided to public
libraries, or other convenient public offices located in the vicinity of the proposed Project.
This information will constitute the Formal Consultation Record covering the period prior to
AEA filing the Final License Application with FERC and will be available for public viewing at
two locations:
1. Public Reference File, Alaska Energy Authority, 411 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 1,
Anchorage, AK 99501
2. Susitna-Watana Project Licensing Website: http://www.susitna-watanahydro.org
These materials will be available for public inspection during regular business hours in a form
that is readily accessible, reviewable and reproducible. Copies of the materials will be available
to a requester at AEA’s Susitna-Watana Project Office, through the mail or electronically. AEA
may charge the public the reasonable cost of reproduction, and if applicable postage, for any
hard copies.
AEA will delete from any information made available in the public reference file, specific site or
property locations the disclosure of which would create a risk of harm, theft, or destruction of
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 2-7 December 2011
archeological or Alaska Native cultural resources or of the site at which the sources are located,
or would violate any Federal law, including the Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979,
16 U.S.C. 479w-3, and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 16 U.S.C. 470hh. Certain
documents may also be restricted from publication on the licensing website in accordance with
FERC’s regulations protecting Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (CEII) (18 CFR§
388.113) or in cases where the document contains privileged information (e.g., sensitive species
locations, cultural resource sites, etc.). AEA will address requests for access to this information
on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with Alaska State and federal law as needed during the
licensing consultation process.
Consistent with federal and state paper-reduction policies, and in accordance with the objectives
of FERC Order No. 604, AEA will transmit and receive licensing related communications and
other written materials in electronic format when possible. Preferred formats are: MS Word,
Adobe, MS Excel, or ASCII text.
2.3.2. Licensing Website
AEA will maintain a website (www.susitna-watanahydro.org) as the primary mode of document
distribution and access to key documents developed during the course of the licensing
consultation, such as the PAD and NOI, meeting notices, meeting summaries, study plans and
study reports, preliminary licensing proposal/draft license application and final license
application.
AEA will maintain a current calendar of upcoming and past meetings, and will post meeting
materials (including agendas, handouts, and summaries) on the website to increase the
availability of these materials to all Participants.
AEA will use email notifications to Participants to announce important new postings, which will
help maximize review and comment opportunities, where applicable. The following table
summarizes the general guidelines that AEA will follow in determining the appropriate mode of
distribution for licensing documents.
Table 2.3-1. Documents Distribution Guidelines.
Document Type Distribution Mode(s)
Informal communications Email or regular mail
Formal ILP Meeting notices and agendas Website with email notice
Meeting summaries Website with email notice
Large licensing related documents (e.g., PAD, SD1,
PSP, study reports, progress reports, PLP, license
application)
Website with email notice and/or CD-ROM through
regular mail; paper format available upon request
PAD reference documents (to the extent practicable) Website (scanned PDF files) or at ARLIS
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 2-8 December 2011
2.3.3. ILP Meetings
AEA anticipates a variety of meetings being scheduled over the course of the pre-application
process. These will include meetings required by the ILP as well as additional general
information/project update meetings and technical work group meetings.
For meetings required by the ILP regulations, either FERC (e.g., scoping meeting) or AEA (e.g.,
study planning meetings) will comply with the applicable regulatory requirements and in
addition AEA will post the meeting information on the Project website.
AEA will schedule the meetings for which it is responsible. AEA will solicit input from
Participants on meeting dates, agendas and objectives and will seek to locate meetings to
facilitate Participant attendance to most effectively accomplish those objectives.
AEA will strive to notify all Participants of meetings scheduled by AEA at least 30 days prior to
the meeting date to the extent practicable. This notification may be made via email, posting on
the Project website or by telephone conversation. If circumstances do not allow for the full 30
days notice, AEA may hold a meeting with less than 30 days notice.
AEA shall establish the draft meeting agenda and will strive to post a written meeting agenda on
the Project website at least two weeks prior to a scheduled meeting. Participants may submit
comments on the agenda to AEA up to one week before the scheduled meeting and AEA will
distribute a final agenda at the meeting. In addition, the agenda may be modified at the beginning
of the meeting.
AEA will strive to make available documents and other information necessary to prepare for a
consultation meeting at least two weeks prior to the scheduled meeting.
2.3.4. ILP Documentation
All of the documentation requirements described below apply to substantive communications
regarding the licensing of the Project; communications related to procedural matters (e.g.,
responding to inquiries regarding meeting scheduling) are not subject to the same documentation
requirements.
2.3.4.1. Meeting Summaries
AEA will be primarily responsible for providing a written summary of the matters addressed at
group meetings where agendas are posted involving AEA and Participants. To the extent
practicable, a meeting summary will be posted to the Project Website within 15 days of the
meeting. Comments should be submitted within 15 days of posting.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 2-9 December 2011
2.3.4.2. Technical Documents
A variety of technical documents will be produced during the course of licensing consultation,
including the PAD, study plans, study reports, preliminary licensing proposal/draft license
application and final license application. Whenever comments are solicited on documents,
review periods will be established and communicated to Participants.
Review periods will typically be 30 days, unless longer periods are required by FERC
regulations (e.g., 60 day comment period on the PAD and Scoping Document 1; 90 day comment
period on the proposed study plan). AEA will consider adjusting comment periods to better
utilize available time within the course of pre-application consultation, without jeopardizing the
overall project schedule. Any such adjustments will be made in consultation with the
Participants and subject to FERC’s approval.
2.3.4.3. Written Correspondence
AEA requests that all licensing-related correspondence or other materials intended or required to
be part of the Formal Consultation Record contain the following reference, “Alaska Energy
Authority, Susitna-Watana Project, FERC Project No. 14241, Request for Inclusion in Formal
Consultation Record” and be addressed to:
Wayne Dyok
Susitna-Watana Project Manager
Alaska Energy Authority
813 West Northern Lights Boulevard, Anchorage, AK 99503
wdyok@aidea.org
2.3.5. Distribution of Licensing Documentation
Distribution of the PAD and preliminary licensing proposal/draft and final license application is
anticipated to be accomplished by mailing of CDs and posting the documents on the Project
website and in FERC’s e-Library. Hard copies of the PAD and license application documents
will be made available to public libraries in Fairbanks, Talkeetna, Palmer, Anchorage and
Juneau.
2.3.6. Communications with FERC staff
Communications with FERC staff that address the merits of the proceeding will be included in
the public record. In order to have written communication with FERC staff made a part of the
record for a project, it must be formally filed with FERC as follows:
The Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20426
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 2-10 December 2011
All written communications to FERC not electronically filed must include an original and eight
copies and have the following displayed on the first page:
“Alaska Energy Authority, Susitna-Watana Project, FERC Project No. 14241 –
Application for License.”
FERC is strongly encouraging stakeholders to file their comments electronically via the Internet
instead of submitting comments by paper. Instructions for e-Filing are provided at
www.ferc.gov under the eLibrary link. Additional information on this program can be found in
the regulations at 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii). Filing comments electronically with FERC also
eliminates the need for filing an original and eight copies.
2.4. Work Group Structure for Pre-Filing Technical Efforts
AEA will be responsible for coordinating ILP-related licensing activities during the pre-filing
period and has formed technical work groups of agencies, ANSCA Corporations, Alaska Native
groups and other interested organizations as the focal point for technical interactions. AEA
initiated discussions regarding development of such work groups in 2011, during the period
leading up to issuance of this PAD.
With the issuance of this PAD, AEA plans to continue utilizing work groups organized around
major technical resource areas to work with AEA to implement the pre-filing ILP activities.
Currently, AEA envisions work groups for the following major resource areas:
Water Resources & Geomorphology
Fisheries Resources
Terrestrial Resources (botanical, wildlife, wetlands)
Social Resources (recreation, socioeconomics, transportation, subsistence, aesthetics, and
land use and management)
Cultural Resources (archaeological and historical)
AEA envisions work groups will consist of representatives of agencies, Alaska Native groups
and other interested organizations who will engage with AEA in activities including:
Development of study plan components
Review of study work products
Evaluation of Project effects
Identification of potential protection, mitigation and enhancement (PM&E) measures
These work group efforts will occur within the ILP context to assist AEA as it develops the
Proposed Study Plan (PSP), implements the approved Study Plan, and develops the Preliminary
Licensing Proposal (PLP) and the License Application.
Membership in work groups will be voluntary, although AEA encourages agencies and other
interested organizations to assign representatives to participate regularly in the work group
activities of those resource areas in which they have interest. As noted above in section 2.3, AEA
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 2-11 December 2011
will communicate with licensing participants regarding work group activities primarily through
the Project licensing website.
AEA has compiled an initial list of work group participants based on sign-in sheets from
meetings and workshops held prior to the issuance of this PAD. Licensing participants’ interest
in one or more work groups may be communicated to AEA by utilizing sign-in sheets at
upcoming scoping meetings and other licensing-related meetings. Licensing participants can also
contact Betsy McGregor, Susitna-Watana Environmental Manager, at bmcgregor@aidea.org.
2.5. Development of a Licensing Study Program
This PAD includes summaries of existing, relevant information that AEA has compiled since
initiating its efforts to identify and obtain reasonably available, relevant information in early
2011. This body of information forms the basis for AEA’s current understanding of the resources
in the vicinity of the Project potentially impacted by its development and operation. Through
engagement of agencies and other interested organizations, AEA has developed a list of potential
issues related to the licensing of the Project. Together, existing information and identified issues
form the basis for the list of potential resource studies needed to support AEA’s license
application. Section 5 presents AEA’s preliminary list of licensing issues and study needs. The
following discussion describes the process for developing FERC-approved study plans as
provided for in FERC’s regulations.
Several sequential steps are involved in the ultimate development of a final approved study plan
for the program of studies to support AEA’s license application. These steps include the initial
identification of issues and study needs in this PAD, consideration of information or study
requests from licensing participants in response to the PAD and Scoping Document 1 (SD1),
development of the Proposed Study Plan (PSP), development of the Revised Study Plan (RSP) in
response to comments to the PSP, and FERC’s final Study Plan Determination and approval.
Details regarding the timing of these activities are included in Section 2.2.
Comments on the PAD and SD1, including information and study requests, must be received
within 60 days following the Commission’s notice of commencement of this licensing
proceeding and issuance of SD1. As required by section 5.9 of the ILP regulations, any
information or study request must:
1) Describe the goals and objectives of each study proposal and the information to be
obtained;
2) If applicable, explain the relevant resource management goals of the agencies or Alaska
Natives with jurisdiction over the resource to be studied;
3) If the requester is not a resource agency, explain any relevant public interest
considerations in regard to the proposed study;
4) Describe the existing information concerning the subject of the study proposal, and the
need for additional information;
5) Explain the nexus between project operations and effects (direct, indirect, and/or
cumulative) on the resource to be studied, and how the study results would inform the
development of license requirements;
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 2-12 December 2011
6) Explain how any proposed study methodology (including any preferred data collection
and analysis techniques, or objectively quantified information, and a schedule including
appropriate field season(s) and the duration) is consistent with generally accepted
practice in the scientific community or, as appropriate, considers relevant Alaska Natives
and knowledge; and
7) Describe considerations of level of effort and cost, as applicable, and why any proposed
alternative studies would not be sufficient to meet the stated information needs.
Within 45 days following the deadline for filing comments on the PAD and SD1, including
information and study requests, AEA must file its PSP with the Commission. With respect to
each proposed study, AEA’s PSP must include:
1) A detailed description of the study and the methodology to be used;
2) A schedule for conducting the study;
3) Provisions for periodic progress reports, including the manner and extent to which
information will be shared; and sufficient time for technical review of the analysis and
results; and
4) If AEA does not adopt a requested study, an explanation of why the request was not
adopted, with reference to the criteria set for in section 5.9(b) of the ILP regulations.
AEA’s PSP must also:
1) Describe the goals and objectives of each study proposal and the information to be
obtained;
2) Address any known resource management goals of the agencies or Alaska Native groups
with jurisdiction over the resource to be studied;
3) Describe existing information concerning the subject of the study proposal, and the need
for additional information;
4) Explain the nexus between project operations and effects (direct, indirect and/or
cumulative) on the resource to be studied;
5) Explain how any proposed study methodology (including any preferred data collection
and analysis techniques, or objectively quantified information, and a schedule including
appropriate field season(s) and the duration) is consistent with generally accepted
practice in the scientific community or, as appropriate, considers known Alaska Native
interests; and
6) Describe considerations of level of effort and cost, as applicable.
Lastly, AEA’s PSP must include provisions for initial and updated study reports and meetings.
AEA’s PSP, when filed with the Commission, will be accompanied by a proposal to conduct a
study plan meeting(s) within the first 30 days of the 90-day comment period on the PSP for the
purpose of clarifying AEA’s PSP and any initial information gathering or study requests, and to
resolve any outstanding issues with respect to the PSP. Other meetings may also be scheduled
within these timelines to resolve issues pertaining to the study plan.
Comments on AEA’s PSP, including any revised information gathering or study requests, must
be filed with the Commission by the end of the 90-day comment period. Any comments must
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 2-13 December 2011
include an explanation of any study plan concerns and any accommodations reached with AEA
regarding those concerns.
Within 30 days of the deadline for filing comments on the PSP, AEA will file its Revised Study
Plan (RSP) for FERC approval. The RSP must include comments on the PSP and a description
of the efforts made to resolve differences over study requests. If AEA does not adopt a requested
study, it must explain why the request was not adopted, with reference to the criteria in section
5.9(b) of the ILP regulations. Licensing participants may file comments on the RSP within 15
days following its filing. Within 30 days of the RSP filing, the Director of Energy Projects will
issue a Study Plan Determination, including any modifications determined to be necessary in
light of the record.
If no notice of study dispute is filed within 20 days of the Study Plan Determination, the study
plans shall be deemed approved and AEA will proceed with their implementation. The steps
associated with study plan dispute resolution (if needed) are outlined in section 5.14 of the ILP
regulations.
As described in the approved study plan and schedule, AEA will prepare and file no later than
one year after the study plan approval, an Initial Study Report (ISR) describing its overall
progress in implementing the study program, and the data collected, including an explanation of
any variance from the study plan and schedule. The report must also include any modifications
to ongoing studies or new studies proposed by AEA. AEA may present interim results to
Participants.
Within 15 days following the filing of the ISR, AEA will hold a meeting with licensing
Participants and FERC staff to discuss the study results to date and AEA’s or other Participants’
proposals, if any, to modify the study plan in light of the progress of the study plan and data
collected. Following the issuance of the meeting summary, there is an opportunity to file
disagreements and proposals to modify ongoing studies or propose new studies. Following
additional opportunity for responses, the Director of Energy Projects will resolve any
outstanding disagreements and amend the approved study plan, as appropriate.
Criteria for modification of an approved study or for requiring a new study are found in section
5.15(d) and (e) of the ILP regulations.
AEA will also file an Updated Study Report (USR) no later than two years after the approval of
the study plan. The USR will describe the overall progress in implementing the study program
and the data collected, including an explanation of any variance from the study plan and
schedule. The report must also include any modifications to ongoing studies or new studies
proposed by AEA. The review, comment and disagreement resolution provisions that apply to
the ISR also apply to the USR. AEA must promptly proceed to complete any remaining
undisputed information gathering or studies under its proposed amendments to the study plan, if
any, and must proceed to complete any information gathering or studies that are the subject of a
disagreement upon the Director of Energy Project’s resolution of the disagreement.
AEA intends for the work groups discussed in section 2.4 of this PAD to assist with the
implementation of the study program, including development of information gathering and study
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 2-14 December 2011
requests, participation in study plan meeting(s), and review of comments on the PSP. In this
regard it is AEA’s intent to minimize the need for use of the formal study dispute resolution
process available in the ILP regulations.
AEA also plans to utilize the work group structure during the review of the ISR and USR,
including the required study report meetings.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3-1 December 2011
3. PROJECT LOCATION, FACILITIES, AND OPERATION
This section of the PAD contains specific information regarding the proposed Project location,
facilities and operations. This information will serve as a basis for evaluating project impacts
during the licensing process.
3.1. Authorized Agents for the Applicant
The Applicant to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for the Pre-Application
Document (PAD) is the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), a public corporation of the State of
Alaska. The individual authorized to act as an agent for AEA during the process of applying for a
license is:
Name: Wayne Dyok
Agency: Alaska Energy Authority
Position: Susitna-Watana Project Manager
Address: 813 West Northern Lights Boulevard
Anchorage, AK 99503
Phone: 907-771-3000
Email: wdyok@aidea.org
3.2. Project Location
The proposed Project is to be located along the east-west segment of the Susitna River at 184
river miles above the mouth, approximately half-way between Anchorage and Fairbanks. The
Susitna River has its headwaters in the mountains of the Alaska Range about 90 mi south of
Fairbanks. It flows generally southwards for about 318 mi before discharging into Cook Inlet
just west of Anchorage. The nearest community is the unincorporated community of Cantwell in
the Denali Borough which is located about 45 air mi from the proposed Project dam while
Anchorage is approximately 180 air mi generally south of the Project area.
3.3. Proposed Project Facilities
The currently envisioned project would include a Watana Dam with a top level of elevation (El.)
2,025 ft above mean sea level (msl) with a maximum normal reservoir surface of El. 2,000 ft
msl. During the course of studies leading to a license application, depending on operating and
environmental studies and optimization of various reservoir levels, drawdown characteristics,
and operational requirements – the final proposed project configurations may vary and may
include a maximum reservoir elevation nearing 2,125 ft msl, thecorresponding maximum height
of the dam. The Watana Dam will be a concrete gravity structure, most likely constructed by the
roller compacted concrete (RCC) methodology. Optimization of the project during licensing
studies may result in a proposal for a nominal curve in the dam resulting in an arch-gravity
structure which would benefit the stability of the dam.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3-2 December 2011
Construction materials for the dam and appurtenant structures will utilize, as far as possible, rock
from the structure excavations to minimize the quarry development. Stable excavations and rock
cuts will be designed with suitable rock reinforcement and berms.
Thick alluvial deposits will be removed from the river bed in order to found the dam on sound
bedrock.
The powerhouse will be located immediately downstream of the dam, and will house three
generating units, each with a nominal capability of 200 MW unit output under average net head
(which will be close to the design head) for a total plant capacity of 600 MW under average
head. Unit sizing studies are continuing and the final unit size may be as low as 100 MW. The
firm energy of the project during the critical November - April time frame will be 1,094 gigawatt
hours. The powerhouse will be designed and constructed with an extra empty generating unit
bay for the potential installation of a fourth unit at some future time. Optimization studies are
ongoing and the capacity of the Project eventually proposed for licensing could extend up to 800
MW.
There would be two outlet works facility structures and four power intake structures (one
corresponding to the extra unused powerhouse bay). The outlet works facility in conjunction
with the three powerhouse units will be sized to allow discharge of a 50-year flood before flow
would be discharged over the spillway.
3.3.1. Project Structures
3.3.1.1. General Arrangement
The proposed Watana Dam will create a reservoir approximately 39 mi long, with a surface area
of about 20,000 ac , and a gross storage capacity of 4,300,000 acre-feet (ac-ft) at the normal
maximum operating level of El. 2,000 ft msl (See Figure 1-1).
If the proposed optimization studies were to lead to a normal maximum operating level of El.
2,100 ft msl, the accompanying reservoir would be longer and have a greater surface area.
The maximum water surface elevation of the project shown in the accompanying figures during
probable maximum flood (PMF) conditions will be El. 2,017 ft msl. The minimum operating
level of the reservoir will be El. 1,850 ft msl, providing 2,400,000 acre-ft of active storage during
normal operation.
The dam will likely be a concrete gravity structure (or an arch gravity structure) constructed by
the RCC methodology. The nominal crest elevation of the dam will be El. 2,025 ft msl, with a
maximum dam height of approximately 700 ft above the foundation and a crest length of
approximately 2,700 ft msl. Following completion of the studies mentioned above, a nominal
crest elevation up to El. 2,125 ft msl may be proposed in the license application, corresponding
to a maximum dam height of up to 800 ft above the foundation. The total volume of the concrete
structure will be approximately 5,200,000 cubic yards. During construction, the Susitna River
will be diverted through a concrete-lined diversion tunnel on the north side of the river,
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3-3 December 2011
approximately 35 ft in diameter and approximately 1,800 ft long, together with a sluice through
the base of the concrete dam of approximately 400-square foot (sf) cross section.
Each installed generating unit will be served by a single power intake located on the upstream
face of the dam. Each power intake will be a concrete structure with multi-level gates capable of
operating over the full reservoir operating range. From each intake structure, a steel penstock
will penetrate the concrete dam and will be anchored to the downstream face of the dam leading
to the powerhouse complex; after “day lighting”, the steel penstock will be surrounded in a
concrete encasement. The powerhouse will house three generating units with vertical shaft
Francis-type hydraulic turbines driving direct connected synchronous generators. A fourth
penstock will pass through the concrete dam, and the downstream end will be semi permanently
capped–to be removed only if and when an additional generating unit is eventually installed in
the future.
Access to the powerhouse floor level will be by means of a shotcrete-lined access tunnel,
necessary because of the steep valley sides, and a road from the north bank of the downstream
river valley. Turbine discharge will flow through three draft tubes (one per unit) and into the
common tailrace. Unit generator step up transformers will be located on the powerhouse deck
just downstream of the powerhouse building.
One three-phase generator step up transformer for each unit will be mounted on the deck,
together with a spare transformer. From the transformer bushings there will be 230-kV high
voltage lines that will connect to a switchyard on the left downstream abutment. The switchyard
will provide switching to three transmission lines.
The intakes for the low-level outlet facilities will be located on the upstream face of the dam to
the north side of the spillway, with a total combined capacity of approximately 24,000 cubic feet
per second (cfs). In combination with the average powerhouse flow of 7,380 cfs, the
arrangement provides for the storing and releasing of the 50-year flood without raising the pool
level above El. 2,000 ft msl and without spillway operation.
The spillway located on the north side of the powerhouse will consist of an upstream ogee
control structure with three radial gates and an inclined concrete chute and flip bucket designed
to pass a maximum discharge of 278,300 cfs. This spillway, together with the outlet facilities,
will be capable of discharging the estimated PMF of 326,000 cfs, while maintaining 8 ft of
freeboard on the dam. Additionally, emergency release facilities will be located in the diversion
tunnels after closure to allow controlled filling and for lowering of the reservoir over a period of
time for emergency inspection or repair of impoundment structures.
3.3.1.2. Dam Structure
The Watana Dam structure will be located at Susitna River RM 184, in a broad U-shaped valley
approximately 2.5 mi upstream of the Tsusena Creek confluence. The dam will be of concrete
most likely placed by the RCC methodology. A plan overview is shown on Figure 3.3-1 and is
described below.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3-5 December 2011
3.3.1.3. Construction Diversion
Diversion of the river flow during construction will be accomplished primarily with a single 35-
foot diameter circular diversion tunnel. The approximately 1,800-foot concrete-lined tunnel will
be located on the north bank of the Susitna River as shown on Figure 3.3-1. The dam structure
will incorporate a low level sluice approximately 20 ft wide and 20 ft high to form a second
diversion conduit. The tunnel, in conjunction with the sluice, is designed to pass a flood with a
return frequency of 1:50 years, equivalent to a peak inflow of 89,500 cfs. Routing effects are
small, and thus at peak flow the diversion will discharge 77,000 cfs. The estimated maximum
water surface elevation upstream from the cofferdam for this discharge will be El. 1,532 ft msl.
The design of the diversion facilities will take into account the special circumstances associated
with “break up”.
3.3.1.4. Emergency Release Facilities
The diversion tunnel will be converted to a permanent low-level outlet, or emergency release
facility. A local enlarging of the tunnel diameter to 45 ft will accommodate the low-level outlet
gates and expansion chamber. These facilities will be used to pass the required minimum
discharge during the reservoir filling period and will also be used for draining the reservoir in
an emergency.
During operation, energy will be dissipated by means of two gated concrete plugs separated by a
340-foot length of tunnel. Each plug will contain three water passages.
Bonneted high pressure slide gates will be installed in each of the passages in the tunnel plugs.
The gate arrangement will consist of one emergency gate and one operating gate in the upstream
plug and one operating gate in the downstream plug. The 340-foot length of tunnel between
plugs will act as an energy dissipating expansion chamber, and will be vented.
3.3.1.5. Permanent Outlet Facilities
The primary function of the outlet facilities will be to provide continuing flows if the powerplant
is inoperative. The arrangement of the outlet facilities is indicated on Figure 3.3-1 and Figure
3.3-2 presents further details. The use of fixed-cone discharge valves will ensure that
downstream erosion will be minimal and will be configured so that any increase in the dissolved
nitrogen content (as a result of the discharges) is minimized. The outlet facility will be able to
release water from a lower level than the dam spillways and thus provide a method of
discharging high flows without using the spillway. A secondary function will be to provide the
capability to draw down the reservoir during an emergency situation.
The facilities will be located on the north end of the dam structure close to the spillway and will
consist of two gated structures, and two steel conduits, each trifurcating into three steel pipes and
an energy dissipation and control structure housing located beneath the spillway flip bucket.
This structure will accommodate six fixed-cone valves which will discharge into the river below.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3-7 December 2011
3.3.1.6. Spillway
The spillway will provide discharge capability for floods exceeding the capacity of the outlet
facilities. The combined total capacity of the spillway and outlet facilities will be sufficient to
safely pass the routed PMF.
The spillway, shown on Figures 3.3-1 and 3.3-3, will be located on the dam structure and the
north bank of the Susitna River and will consist of a gated ogee control structure, a concrete-
lined chute, and a flip bucket.
The spillway is designed to discharge flows corresponding to a maximum reservoir elevation of
El. 2,014 ft msl.
3.3.1.7. Power Intake
Each of the three active penstocks will have its own power intake which will be a concrete
structure mounted at the upstream face of the dam. Access to the structure will be from the dam
crest road.
In order to draw from the reservoir surface over an expected drawdown range of 150 ft, two
parallel vertical openings will be provided in the upstream concrete wall of the structure for each
of the intakes. Sliding steel shutters operated in a common guide will be able to be adjusted to
facilitate selective withdrawal. All openings will be protected by upstream trash racks. A
heated boom will operate in guides upstream from the racks following the water surface,
keeping the racks ice free.
Lower control gates will be provided in each intake unit. A single set of upstream bulkhead
gates will be provided for routine maintenance of the individual intake gates.
The overall width of each intake will be 65 ft.
The upper level of the concrete structure will be set at El. 2,025 ft msl, corresponding to the crest
road. The level of the lowest intake is governed by the vortex criterion for flow into the penstock
from the minimum reservoir level elevation of El. 1,850 ft msl.
The spare intake for the unused bay will be constructed at the time of dam construction, but
will only be outfitted with stop logs to isolate the first part of the penstock.
The general arrangement of the power intake is shown on Figure 3.3-4.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3-10 December 2011
3.3.1.8. Penstocks
Each penstock is provided to convey water from the power intake to the powerhouse, one
penstock for each generating unit. The penstock geometry consists of a short horizontal reach
through the dam structure, a 50 degree bend, a penstock down the downstream face of the dam,
another 50 degree bend and a short horizontal reach before the spiral case. The penstock will be
approximately 16.5 ft in diameter, but their exact dimensions remain to be optimized. The
penstock on the downstream face of the dam will be encased in concrete for protection.
The design static head on each penstock is 570 ft, at centerline distributor level (El. 1,430 ft msl).
An allowance of up to 35 percent will be made for pressure rise in the penstock caused by
hydraulic transients.
3.3.1.9. Powerhouse
The powerhouse will be a surface structure approximately 285 ft long by 78 ft wide constructed
at the downstream toe of the dam, and will be founded on bedrock. Depending on the exact level
of sound rock in the river bed, the powerhouse may be founded, effectively, on a concrete “infill”
forming a downstream extension of the dam structure. This may be either RCC or conventional
concrete. The exact method of placement will be determined during the project design.
The powerhouse will be a surface structure parallel to the longitudinal access of the dam.
Vehicular access will be from the north, through an access tunnel and under the spillway
structure. The powerhouse will include an assembly bay, and three unit bays. Beyond the end
wall of the powerhouse - to the south - a further bay will be constructed in case, in the future,
AEA wishes to install a fourth unit.
On the draft tube deck will be mounted three unit transformers, together with a spare
transformer. High voltage power lines will be anchored to the downstream face of the dam,
spanning to the switchyard on the south bank of the river, downstream.
The general layout of the powerhouse complex is shown in plan and section on Figure 3.3-5.
The draft tube gate crane will be located on the draft tube deck, above the anticipated maximum
tail water level.
Vehicular access to the powerhouse at Watana Dam will be provided by a single unlined rock
tunnel from the north bank area at El. 1,560 ft msl, adjacent to the diversion tunnel portal. The
access tunnel will descend to the deck level at El. 1,475 ft msl and will continue under the
spillway structure to the powerhouse entrance. Access to the draft tube deck will either be from
outside the powerhouse, or from the erection bay, and will be arranged so that a transformer can
be offloaded and moved, or large equipment can access the areas around the powerhouse. The
gradient will not exceed 9.5 percent in the permanent access tunnel.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3-12 December 2011
A completely separate emergency egress will be provided at the southern end of the
powerhouse. In emergencies, personnel can exit and withdraw from the powerhouse across the
spare bay and up the separate access on the south abutment.
The main powerhouse will be designed to accommodate three vertical-shaft Francis turbines,
in line, with direct coupling to synchronous generators. The length of the powerhouse will
allow for a unit spacing of 65 ft, with a 90-foot long service bay at the north end for routine
maintenance and for construction erection. Multiple stairway access points will be available
from the main floor to each gallery level. Access to the transformer and draft tube deck from
the powerhouse will be by a door in the west side of the erection bay. A service elevator will
be provided for access to the various powerhouse floors.
Hatches will be provided through all main floors for installation and maintenance of heavy
equipment using the powerhouse cranes.
3.3.1.10. Main Site Access Plan
3.3.1.10.1. Access Objectives
The primary objective of both temporary and permanent site access facilities is to provide a
transportation system to support construction activities, and allow for the orderly development
and maintenance of the Project. The current planning assumes restricted access during
construction for safety considerations and permanent controlled public access. Another goal is to
co-locate access roads and transmission facilities, as far as possible, in the same corridor to
minimize impacts.
3.3.1.10.2. Access Plan Selection
The original license application in the 1980s reviewed 18 alternative access plans within three
distinct corridors. The three corridors identified at that time were described as:
A corridor running west to east from the George Parks Highway to the dam site on the
north side of the Susitna River;
A corridor running west to east from the George Parks Highway to the two dam sites on
the south side of the Susitna River; and,
A corridor running north to south from the Denali Highway to the Watana Dam site.
The final choice articulated in the 1985 draft amended license application after reflecting on the
criteria, was an access road from the north (Denali Highway).
The final choice in the 1980s (identified as Access Plan 18, and as Denali Corridor in this
document) continues to be a viable route now and would include a railhead facility at Cantwell.
A new road would start at mile post (MP) 113.7 of the Denali Highway, although it is assumed
that there would be improvements to approximately 20 mi of the Denali Highway at the Cantwell
end to support the increased traffic during construction. At MP 113.7 a new road would be
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3-13 December 2011
constructed south for approximately 44mi - as shown on Figure 1-1 to the Watana Camp site.
The highest elevation of this route is 4,100 ft msl.
Other routes were studied by Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
(ADOT&PF) in 2011. For this PAD there are three potential corridors including two western
corridors paralleling the Susitna River described below.
The second route (termed Chulitna) runs east-west along the north side of the Susitna River,
commencing at a new railroad facility at the Chulitna station. From this location, the road would
cross Indian River before heading east into the Portage Creek valley, crossing Devil Creek and
Tsusena Creek at higher elevations, before reaching the Watana camp. The new road
construction is approximately 45 mi with a maximum elevation of approximately 3,250 ft msl.
The third route (termed Gold Creek and similar to Access Plan 16) commences at a new railroad
facility to be constructed at the Gold Creek station. From Gold Creek, the route follows the
Susitna River on the south bank and is approximately 50 mi long with a maximum elevation of
3,500 ft.
AEA proposes to study these three corridors. Creeks would be crossed using standard
ADOT&PF bridge design, or using culverts as appropriate, and the construction is expected to be
achieved using standard methods and local borrow pits/quarries within the corridor for fill and
surfacing.
As noted the two east-west routes would not interconnect with a public road, terminating at the
railhead at Chulitna or Gold Creek.
A study corridor width of up to approximately 5,000 ft has been shown on Figure 1-1, although
at certain specific locations extra width may be required to skirt or surmount topographical
features. The corridor width is slightly increased at both Watana Camp and the railheads.
3.3.1.10.3. Description of Access Plan
Permanent access to the Watana Dam site will connect with the existing Alaska Railroad either
at Chulitna, Cantwell or Gold Creek, where at the chosen location a railhead and storage facility
occupying up to 40 ac will be constructed alongside the existing passing bays. New sidings of a
length up to 5,000 ft will be constructed so that off loading and transfer of goods and materials
can take place without interrupting the operations of the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC).
This facility will act as the transfer point from rail to road transport and as a back up or interim
storage area for materials and equipment, and as an inspection and maintenance facility for
trucks and their loads. Within the 40 ac would be a small residential camp for drivers trucking
equipment to the construction site, for laborers and staff operating the transfer, and for support
staff such as cooks, etc.
If the Denali Corridor is chosen for road access, in the community of Cantwell the pavement on
the first section of the Denali Highway will be extended for a distance of approximately 4 mi to
eliminate any problem with dust and flying stones. In addition, the following measures will be
taken:
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3-14 December 2011
Speed restrictions will be imposed along appropriate segments;
Improvements will be made to the intersections including pavement markings and traffic
signals.
3.3.1.10.4. Right-of-Way
If the Denali Corridor is selected the affected sections of the Denali Highway will be upgraded in
order to facilitate safe construction of the Project. It is not anticipated that the Denali Highway
would be a part of the Project.
Notwithstanding which road is chosen, the majority of the new road will follow terrain and soil
types which allow construction using side borrow techniques, resulting in a minimum of
disturbance to areas away from the alignment. A berm type cross section will be formed, with
the crown of the road being approximately 2 to 3 ft above the elevation of adjacent ground. To
reduce the visual impact, the side slopes will be flattened and covered with excavated peat and
other naturally occurring materials. A 200-foot right-of-way will be sufficient for this type of
construction. Typical road facilities are shown in Figure 3.3-6.
3.3.1.11. Site Facilities
Construction of the Watana Dam site development will require various facilities to support the
construction activities throughout the entire construction period. Following construction, the
operation of the Project will require a small permanent staff and facilities to support the
permanent operation and maintenance (O&M) program.
The most significant item among the temporary site facilities will be a construction camp. The
construction camp will be a largely self-sufficient community normally housing approximately
800 persons, but with a peak capacity of up to 1,000 people during construction of the project.
After construction, it is planned to remove most of the camp facility, leaving only those aspects
that are to be used to support the smaller permanent residential and operation and maintenance
facilities.
Other site facilities include contractors' work areas, site power, services, and communications.
Site power and fiber optic cabling will be brought either on the transmission line route, or along
the side of the access road. Items such as power and communications will be required for
construction operations, independent of camp operations.
Permanent facilities will include community facilities for O&M staff members and any families.
Other permanent facilities will include maintenance buildings for use during operation of the
power plant.
The airstrip and helicopter/airplane hard standing will be left in place after construction.
The location of the various facilities was essentially chosen during the infrastructure studies in
the 1980s, with due regard to: size; accessibility; soils; wetlands; topography; water supply;
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3-15 December 2011
visual quality; living environment; recreational impacts; wildlife habitat; fishery impacts;
cultural resources; and land ownership.
The construction camp will be surrounded by robust fencing to discourage local wildlife and
will need to be properly maintained during the construction period and beyond.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3-17 December 2011
3.3.1.11.1. Camp-Construction and Permanent Site Facilities
The proposed location of the temporary construction camp will be on the north bank of the
Susitna River near Deadman Creek, approximately six mi northeast of the Watana Dam site.
The north side of the Susitna River was chosen because most of the construction facilities and
the diversion will be on the north, and south-facing slopes can be used for location of the
structures. The proposed location is shown in Figure 4.1-1. During design development the
temporary construction camp location may be changed within the proposed Project boundary.
Close to, but separated from the dormitory area of the construction camp, will be constructed
separate accommodations for management staff from AEA; supervising engineers and
construction managers; management staff from the contractors; and guest houses for visiting
senior staff. Part of this separate area will remain as the permanent operator housing, but most of
it will be demolished, along with the dormitories, at the end of construction. The area will be
landscaped. The camp will be grouped around a service core containing recreation facilities, a
small store and communal facilities. Facilities such as a fire station and medical facilities will
also be part of the camp.
Construction power will be brought in by overhead line from the intertie, along the selected
access road route (or the permanent transmission line route) at a voltage of 12.47 kV. Two
transformers will be installed at a Watana substation to reduce the line voltage to the desired
voltage levels for distribution. Backup generators will be incorporated into the system, located at
the construction facilities. Power for the permanent accommodation will be supplied from the
station service system after the power plant is in operation, but a standby generator will be
incorporated.
The water supply system will provide for potable water and fire protection for the camp and
selected contractors' work areas. The principal source of water will be Deadman Creek, with a
backup system of wells drawing on ground water. The water will be treated in accordance with
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) primary and secondary requirements, and
Drinking Water Standards of the State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation
(ADEC).
Telephone and internet communications will be provided during construction via fiber optic
cables hung on the same poles as the construction power supply.
A wastewater collection and treatment system will serve the construction camp. One treatment
plant will serve all facilities. Gravity flow lines, with lift stations, will be used to collect the
wastewater from all of the facilities.
3.3.1.11.2. Contractors Facilities
The on-site contractors facilities will include offices; workshops; tire shops; stores for
construction equipment spare parts; stores for permanent materials to be included in the works
(both outdoor and climate controlled); fuel and grease storage; and general steel, woodwork,
electrical and other workshops.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3-18 December 2011
Space required by the contractors and their suppliers will be located between the main
construction camp and the dam. At the railhead, there will also be temporary storage, to allow
for scheduling of trucks from the railhead to the site.
3.3.1.11.3. Site Roads
Temporary construction roads will be needed to facilitate construction in and around the dam
site. Construction roads will form the basis of the permanent road system, or will be restored
with topsoil stored during construction.
3.3.1.11.4. Airstrip
Construction at the site is envisaged to proceed on the basis of 3 weeks on/1 week off (or
similar), which will require considerable movement of personnel at the beginning and end of
each working week, as well as the daily flow of visitors, food, spare parts, etc., and occasional
evacuation of individuals. Previous studies concluded that an airstripcapable of accommodating
Boeing 737 and C130 aircraft, as well as helicopters, is required.
At the time of the 1980s studies, an airstrip of a length 6,500 ft was selected because of the
required take off length for a 737-200. Subsequent 737 models require a somewhat longer
runway of 8,000 ft, and requirements for an increased runway length will be addressed during
Project design.
Nine areas were studied for the airstrip and the selected site, based on the criteria mentioned
above, as well as FAA criteria for glide paths and the requirements to accommodate the
prevailing wind, have resulted in the location shown on Figure 4.1-1. This location selection
will be revisited during licensing studies, but the final location will be within the proposed
FERC Project Boundary.
3.3.2. Reservoir Data
The Watana Reservoir, at normal operating level of El. 2,000 ftmsl, will be approximately 39 mi
long with a maximum width of approximately 2 mi. The total water surface area at normal
operating level is approximately 20,000 ac. The minimum reservoir level will be 1,850 ft msl
during normal operation, resulting in a maximum drawdown of 150 ft. The reservoir will have a
total capacity of 4.3 million ac-ft, of which 2.4 million ac-ft will be active storage.
3.3.3. Turbines and Generators
3.3.3.1. Unit Capacity
The Watana powerhouse will have three generating units, each with a maximum generator output
of 282 MVA at a 0.9 power factor corresponding to the maximum normal reservoir level of El.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3-19 December 2011
2,000 ft msl and a corresponding net head of 533 ft. The hydraulic capacity of each turbine will
be 4,900 cfs when the reservoir is at El. 2,000 ft msl.
The net head on the plant will vary from 384 ft to approximately 533 ft.
The generator rating has been selected to match with the maximum turbine output of 250 MW
under a net head of 533 ft. The generator output is assumed to be 98 percent of the turbine
output at full load.
3.3.3.2. Turbines
The turbines will be of the vertical-shaft Francis type with steel spiral casing and a steel lined
concrete elbow-type draft tube. The draft tube for each unit will comprise a single water passage
with a center pier.
At the design head of 458 ft, the output of the turbine will be 206 MW. For study purposes, the
best efficiency (best-gate) output of the turbines has been assumed as 85 percent of the full gate
turbine output. Additional studies will be conducted, including electrical system studies, to
determine turbine size. The unit size may be as low as 100 MW to ensure Railbelt electrical
system reliability.
Each turbine will be provided with a straight-flow type butterfly valve. These guard valves will
be located within the powerhouse, just upstream of the turbines.
3.3.3.3. Generators
Each of the three generators in the Watana powerhouse will be of the vertical-shaft type directly
connected to a vertical Francis turbine. There will be one three-phase step up transformer per
generator. The generators will be connected to the transformers by isolated phase bus through
generator circuit breakers.
Each generator will be provided with a high initial response static excitation system. The units
will be controlled from the regional energy control center in Anchorage or Fairbanks, with local
control facility also provided at a control room on site and from facilities on the powerhouse
floor. The units will be designed for black start operation.
The generators will be air-cooled, with a closed circuit air-to-water heat exchanger stator/rotor
cooling system.
The generators will be provided with a high initial response type static excitation system
supplied with rectified excitation power from transformers connected directly to the generator
terminals. The excitation system will be capable of supplying 200 percent of rated excitation
field (ceiling voltage) with a generator terminal voltage of 70 percent. The power rectifiers will
have a one-third spare capacity to maintain generation even during failure of a complete rectifier
module.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3-20 December 2011
3.3.3.4. Governor System
The governor system which controls the generating unit will include a governor actuator and a
governor pumping unit. A single separate governing system will be provided for each unit. The
governor actuator will be the programmable logic controller (PLC) based digital electronic
electric hydraulic type.
3.3.4. Appurtenant Mechanical and Electrical Equipment
Miscellaneous powerhouse mechanical equipment will include:
Powerhouse Cranes
Draft Tube Gates
Draft Tube Bulkhead Crane
Miscellaneous Cranes and Hoists
Elevators
Power Plant Mechanical Service Systems
- Station Water Systems
- Fire Protection System
- Compressed Air Systems
- Oil Storage and Handling
-Drainage and Dewatering Systems
-Heating, Ventilation, and Cooling
-Service Facilities Mechanical Systems
The mechanical services at the control center will include:
A heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system for the control room offices and other
rooms workers may occupy;
Domestic water and washroom facilities;
A fire protection system for the control room; and
A standby generator that will be located in a separate building or in a gallery adjacent to
the access tunnel.
3.3.4.1. Accessory Electrical Equipment
Accessory electrical equipment will include the following:
Main generator step-up 13.8/230-kV transformers;
Isolated phase bus connecting the generators and transformers;
Generator circuit breakers;
230-kV lines from the transformer terminals to the switchyard;
Control systems of the entire hydro plant complex;
Station service auxiliary AC and DC systems; and
Other equipment and systems including grounding, lighting system, and communications.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3-21 December 2011
3.3.4.1.1. Transformers and High Voltage Connections
The 3-phase transformers and one spare transformer will be located on the transformer (draft
tube) deck, separated by blast walls. The high voltage bushings of the transformers will be
connected to overhead transmission lines to the switchyard on the downstream left abutment.
The lines will be anchored to the downstream face of the dam.
The isolated phase bus main connections will be located between the generator, generator circuit
breaker, and the transformer. Tap-off connections will be made to the surge protection and
potential transformer cubicle, excitation transformers, and station service transformers.
The generator circuit breakers will be enclosed SF6 circuit breakers suitable for mounting in line
with the generator isolated phase bus ducts.
3.3.4.1.2. Control Systems
A PLC and PC-based Watana Control Room will be located at the power plant and will be linked
through the supervisory system to the Dispatch Control Center.
The supervisory control of the entire Alaska Railbelt electrical power system is at the Dispatch
Control Center. Independent operator controlled local-manual and local-auto operations will,
however, be possible at the Watana power plant for testing/commissioning or during
emergencies.
The Control Room at the project will be capable of control completely independent of the
Dispatch Control Center in case of system emergencies.
The Watana plant will be capable of "black start” operation in the event of a complete blackout
or collapse of the power system. The control systems of the plant will be supplied by a non-
interruptible power supply from the station battery (DC) system.
The unit control system will permit the operator to initiate an entire sequence of actions by
pushing one button at the control console, provided all preliminary plant conditions have been
first checked by the operator, and system security and unit commitment have been cleared
through the central dispatch control supervisor.
3.3.4.1.3. Station Service Auxiliary AC and DC Systems
A station service system will be designed to achieve a reliable and economic distribution system
for the power plant.
A double ended unit substation switchgear arrangement will be used for providing the 480-V AC
power distribution, the turbine-generator, and common station equipment. The switchgear will
be provided with an automatic tie system that will automatically switch the 480-V AC service in
the event that one of the unit substation main feeders fails. The system will also be automatically
backed up with a diesel standby generator system.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3-22 December 2011
A 120/208-V AC distribution system fed from the 480-V AC switchgear will be provided to
serve the lighting and small powerhouse loads.
A 125-V DC battery system will be provided to serve the turbine-generator control and
automation equipment along with other critical loads. Two station batteries will be provided.
Two redundant battery chargers will be provided for each of the batteries. The batteries will be
located in a ventilated battery room.
3.3.4.2. Switchyard
A surface switchyard will be sited on the south bank of the Susitna River (Figure 3.3-1). The
switchyard station will provide switching for the generator transformer banks and three
transmission lines. A breaker-and-a-half bus switching scheme will be provided as shown in the
single line electrical diagram in Figure 3.3-7. This arrangement provides the desired switching
flexibility and reliability of service required by the adopted system reliability criteria.
Disconnecting and grounding switches as well as voltage transformers will be provided for each
of the circuits.
3.3.5. Transmission Facilities
3.3.5.1. Transmission Facilities
The transmission facilities will consist of three overhead transmission lines, switchyards,
substations, and a communications system. The interconnection of the primary project
transmission line with the existing Alaska Intertie will either be near Chulitna, Gold Creek, or
Cantwell, depending on system considerations that will be studied during the License
Application preparation. The current plan is either two circuits running west and one north or all
three circuits running westward.
3.3.6. Description of Transmission and Interconnection Facilities
3.3.6.1.1. Transmission Corridor
At this time, three corridors are being considered. Two would run generally westward from the
dam, one on the north of the Susitna River and one south to connect with the Alaska Intertie near
Chulitna and Gold Creek, respectively. The third corridor would run north where it would
intersect with the Denali Highway and then follow the highway corridor to a point of
interconnection near Cantwell. The transmission facilities are intended to be co-located with the
road facilities to the extent possible as described in Section 3.3.6.1.2. The most likely
configuration of transmission is described below. The locations of the corridors under study are
shown on Figure 3.3-8.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3-25 December 2011
3.3.6.1.2. Components
At the Watana site, a 230-kV substation/switchyard will be provided. The generator
transformers will be located on the powerhouse draft tube deck. Overhead lines will connect the
generator transformers to the 230-kV switchyard. The switching arrangement at the switchyard
will be a breaker-and-a-half arrangement which will provide the necessary switching feasibility
and reliability.
From Watana, two single-circuit 230-kV lines will be built westward and one northward to the
Alaska Intertie and a switching station in Chulitna, Gold Creek or Cantwell. From the Watana
substation, the transmission corridors are essentially co-located with the corridors for the access
roads except for two specific areas:
1) For the northern westward route (Chulitna Corridor), only the first five mi of the twin
230-kV circuit will not follow the coincident road corridor. The two lines will cross the
river from the switchyard (together with the line destined for the northern route) in a
northerly direction for two mi, after which the two lines will turn northwesterly to cross
Tsusena Creek and three mi later will intersect the Chulitna road corridor. At the extreme
westerly end of the corridor, it will widen to facilitate the divergence of the road and the
transmission line which will continue to a switching station on the Alaska Intertie.
2) For the southern westward route (Gold Creek Corridor) the double circuit 230-kV lines
would not follow the planned road corridor, rather the transmission line can span the
rough topography running more parallel to the Susitna River. Near the westerly end of
the corridor, both the transmission lines and road can be co-located into one single
corridor all the way to Gold Creek where the transmission lines would terminate in a new
switching station on the existing Alaska Intertie.
3) For the northern route, the only divergence between the road and transmission line
corridor will occur at Deadman Lake, at which location the road will be aligned west of
Deadman hill, while the transmission will follow a lower corridor on the east of the hill.
Both corridors will rejoin some 9 mi later on the north side of the Deadman hill. At the
Denali highway, the northern transmission corridor will turn west and continue along the
Denali Highway to the Cantwell switching station.
3.3.6.1.3. Right-of-Way
The right-of-way for the transmission lines within the corridors will consist of a linear strip of
land. The width will depend on the number of lines. The transmission rights-of-way will be
200, 300, or 400 ft depending on whether one, two, or three lines run in parallel.
The switching and substations will occupy a total of approximately 16 ac.
Rights-of-way for permanent access to switchyard and substations will be required linking back
to the permanent site access road. These rights-of-way will be 100 ft wide.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3-26 December 2011
3.3.6.1.4. Transmission Lines
Access to the transmission line corridors will be:
a) Via unpaved vehicle access track from the permanent access roads at intermittent points
along the corridor. The exact location of these tracks will be established in the final
design phase.
b) By helicopter, where there is no access road projected.
Within the transmission corridor itself an unpaved vehicle access track 25 ft wide will run along
the entire length of the corridor, except at areas such as major river crossings and deep ravines
where an access track would not be utilized for the movement of equipment and materials.
The conductor capacity for the lines will be in the range of 1,950 kcmil; this can be provided in
several ways. Typical transmission facilities are shown in Figure 3.3-8. Typical of these is a
phase bundle consisting of two 954 kcmil "Rail" (45/7) Aluminum Conductor Steel Reinforced
(ACSR) or a single 2,156 NCM "Bluebird" (84/17) ACSR conductor, both of which provide
comparable levels of corona and radio noise within normally accepted limits. The single
“Bluebird" conductor attracts less load under wind or ice loadings and avoids the need to provide
the space damper devices required for a bundled phase. The single conductor is stiffer and
heavier to handle during stringing operations, although this will tend to be balanced out due to
the extra work involved in handling the twin bundle. Selection of the optimum conductor
arrangement will be made in final design. The conductor will be specified to have a dull finish
treatment to reduce its visibility at a distance.
Two overhead ground wires will be provided the full length of the line. These will consist of
3/8-inch diameter galvanized steel strands. The arrangement will be based on a shielding angle
of 15 degrees over the outer phases; this will provide protection against lightning strikes to the
line. More refined studies of the lightning performance of the line will be made during final
design to confirm the arrangement outlined above.
The transmission structures and foundations that serve to support the conductors and ground
wires will be designed for a region where foundation movement due to permafrost and annual
freeze-thaw cycling is common. Of the structural solutions that have proved successful in
similar conditions, all utilize an arrangement of guy cables to support the structure and depend
upon the basic flexibility inherent in guyed structures to resist effects of foundation movement.
The guyed “X” design has been selected for use on the Alaska Intertie and is therefore a prime
candidate for consideration on the Watana lines.
Structures for larger angle and dead-end applications will be in the form of individual guyed
masts, one for each phase. Individual guyed masts will also be used for lengths of line that are
judged to be in unusually hazardous locations due to exposure in extremely rugged terrain. All
structures will utilize a “weathering” steel which ages over time to create a dark brown
appearance which generally has a more pleasing appearance than galvanized steel or aluminum.
Foundations for structures will utilize driven steel piles in unstable soil conditions. In better soils
steel grillage foundations will be used and set sufficiently deep to avoid the effects of the freeze-
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3-27 December 2011
thaw cycle. Rock footings will employ grouted rock anchors with a minimum use of concrete to
facilitate winter construction. Foundations for cantilever pole type structures will be large
diameter cast-in-place concrete augered piles. Several types of guy anchor will be available for
use; they include the screw-in helix type, the grouted bar earth anchor, driven piles and grouted
rock anchors. Selection of the most economical solution in any given situation will depend on
the site specific constraints including soil type, access problems and expected guy load.
Foundation sites will be graded after installation to contour the disturbed surface to suit the
existing grades. Tower grounding provisions will depend upon the results of soil electrical
resistivity measurements both prior to and during construction. Continuous counterpoise may be
required in sections where rock is at or close to the surface; it also may be required in other areas
of high soil resistance. The counterpoise will take the form of two galvanized steel wires
remaining at a shallow bury parallel to and under the lines. These will be connected to each
tower and cross connected between lines in the right-of-way.
3.3.6.1.5. Substations at Interconnection with Alaska Intertie
Construction access to all sites will be over the route of the permanent access provided for each
location. Any grading of the sites will be carried out on a balanced cut-and-fill basis wherever
possible. Equipment will be supported on reinforced concrete pad-and-column type footings
with sufficient depth-of-bury to avoid the active freeze-thaw layer. Backfill immediately around
the footings will be granular to avoid frost heave effects.
Light equipment may be placed on spread footings if movements are not a significant factor in
operational performance.
The station equipment requirements are determined by the breaker-and-a-half arrangement
adopted, for reasons of reliability and security of operation. One and one-half breakers will be
needed for each line or transformer circuit termination. The transformer capacities are
determined by the load requirements at each substation. Control and metering provisions will
cater to the plan for remote operation of all the facilities in normal circumstances. Protective
relaying schemes for the 230-kV system will be in accordance with conventional practices, using
the general philosophy of dual relaying and the local backup principle.
The station layouts are based on conventional outdoor design with a two-level bus which will
result in a relatively low profile. This will assist in limiting the visual impact of the stations and
make the most of any available neutral buffers. Although they will be remotely controlled, all
stations will be provided with a control building; in larger stations an additional relay building
will be provided. A storage building will also be provided for maintenance purposes. Each
station will have auxiliary power at 480 V; the normal 480-V AC power will be supplied from
the tertiary on the autotransformers or the local utility.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3-28 December 2011
3.4. Proposed Construction and Development Schedule
The Project schedule presented in Figure 3.4-1, allows 12 years for Project development
including: FERC licensing, license implementation, design and contracting, construction,
demobilization, and site restoration. Several assumptions have been made regarding the times
required for the various activities.
The following are the time periods for major components of Project Development:
Total schedule – 12 years, 2012-2023
Pre-Application studies and related activities 3.5 years
FERC and Cooperating agencies post-filing activities – approximately 1.5 years.
Project Construction – 6.5 years
Reservoir filling – one to two years
Site Restoration – throughout construction.
Design work would be initiated or completed prior to issuance of the license, so that contracts
critical to the schedule (such as access roads and construction support facilities) will be ready to
be awarded shortly after issuance of the license and subsequent approvals.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3-30 December 2011
3.5. Project Operations
As noted previously, a final decision on the exact configuration and size of the generating
facilities will be made during the licensing studies. The preliminary Project design includes 600
MW installed capacity in 3 units. The current study program and collaboration with utilities will
continue to be carried out during the 2012-2013 timeframe to determine the optimum size of the
Project and units to meet projected future Railbelt power requirements over the operating life of
the Project. Based on those future projections a final project operating plan will be developed
for inclusion in the application to FERC for a license.
3.5.1. Proposed Project Operations
During the preparation of this document computer modeling of several potential reservoir
operation scenarios has been performed using the preliminary (Base Case) Project configuration
as described above in Section 3.3. It is planned that the Project would be operated in a load-
following mode such that firm power is maximized during the critical winter months of
November through April each year to meet Railbelt utility load requirements. To accomplish
this, the reservoir would be drafted annually by an average of about 120 ft; the maximum annual
drawdown would be approximately 150 ft, with a probability of occurring about once or twice in
50 years. Flow discharges through the powerhouse under this operating plan would range from a
low of zero cfs when the power plant is off line on rare occasions during emergency outages, to a
high of about 14,500 cfs during times of maximum power generation. When the power plant is
not discharging, instream flow releases would be made through a low-level outlet works in
Watana dam.
Daily power generation during the peak winter months would average about 6,000 MWh and
powerhouse discharges would average approximately 6,700 cfs during that time. For load
following, powerhouse discharges would vary over a 24-hour period in the winter months,
typically ranging from a low of 3,000 cfs to a high of 10,000 cfs. For the Base Case operating
plan, initial operation model runs have been made using the Case E-VI minimum instream flow
criteria developed during the 1980s APA Susitna Hydroelectric Project studies. Those criteria
specified a minimum wintertime flow release of 2,000 cfs and a minimum summertime flow
release of about 9,000 cfs. Environmental studies will guide the daily range of flow variation
permitted.
3.5.1.1. Reservoir Operation and Drawdown
The following description of a potential reservoir operation scenario has been developed using
results of initial Base Case operations model runs, and serves as a starting point for further
refinements. All information is subject to change as conceptual planning takes place for the
Project and the License Application is prepared.
The primary operating objective for the modeling of the Base Case scenario was to maximize
firm power generation during the winter months of November through April. Therefore, the
model assumes that the reservoir would be drafted to meet those objectives. The maximum
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3-31 December 2011
annual drawdown to achieve the target is projected to be about 150 ft, although different draw
downs will be considered during future conceptual planning studies. Figure 3.5-1 presents the
modeled daily reservoir elevations for four selected years (from the available flow records) of
operation, including the maximum year (1990), the minimum year (1970), the second minimum
year (1974), and the most nearly average year (1986). As indicated, the reservoir can be filled in
almost every year, even after reaching the minimum power pool level at El. 1,850 ft msl during
the minimum inflow year. Generation requirements were reduced during the minimum year
(1970) when the reservoir level was far short of filling in late summer and it would be known
that full generation requirements could not be met.
1840
1860
1880
1900
1920
1940
1960
1980
2000
2020
1-Oct1-Nov1-Dec1-Jan1-Feb1-Mar1-Apr1-May1-Jun1-Jul1-Aug1-Sep1-Oct1-Nov1-DecReservoir Elevation (feet)Maximum Year -1990
Average Year - 1986
2nd Minimum Year -1974
Minimum year - 1970
Figure 3.5-1. Daily Reservoir Elevation (ft) for Selected Years
The modeled reservoir fluctuation during the driest period of record is presented on Figure 3.5-2
for illustration purposes
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3-32 December 2011
1840
1860
1880
1900
1920
1940
1960
1980
2000
2020
2040
1-Jan-681-Feb-681-Mar-681-Apr-681-May-681-Jun-681-Jul-681-Aug-681-Sep-681-Oct-681-Nov-681-Dec-681-Jan-691-Feb-691-Mar-691-Apr-691-May-691-Jun-691-Jul-691-Aug-691-Sep-691-Oct-691-Nov-691-Dec-691-Jan-701-Feb-701-Mar-701-Apr-701-May-701-Jun-701-Jul-701-Aug-701-Sep-701-Oct-701-Nov-701-Dec-701-Jan-71Reservoir Elevation (feet)Maximum Normal Pool
Reservoir Elevation
Minimum Power Pool
Figure 3.5-2. Reservoir Elevation (ft) for the Driest Period
3.5.1.2. Minimum Flow Releases
Minimum flow requirements in the Susitna River downstream of the Watana Dam have not yet
been established. An acceptable flow regime will be determined through the planned licensing
studies and through agencies’ and other Participants’ collaboration.
Similar to the current, natural river flow conditions, after the Project is constructed downstream
flows at the project site are expected to vary significantly on a seasonal, weekly, and daily basis.
In addition to the flows discharged through the powerhouse for generation purposes, flow
augmentation, when required, will also be made by making releases through the low-level outlets
if the powerhouse is not operational. A preferred environmental flow regime (designated as
Case E-VI) was developed for the previous FERC License Application in 1985 for the larger
(1,790 MW) APA Susitna Hydroelectric Project proposal and is presented in Figure 3.5-3 below.
Although no final decision on these recommended flows was made during the 1980s license
considerations by FERC, this flow release schedule was considered by the applicant (Alaska
Power Authority) as the optimum to meet a variety of downstream requirements, and therefore it
has been used for the current operation study runs as the Base Case flow scenario. As shown on
Figure 3.5-3 on an average monthly basis, with the Project in place, regulated peak summer
flows downstream of Watana Dam at Gold Creek would be reduced and winter flows would be
increased in comparison to the natural flow regime. The previously recommended
environmental flow regime will be subject to further analysis during the licensing study period.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3-33 December 2011
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
1-Jan1-Feb1-Mar1-Apr1-May1-Jun1-Jul1-Aug1-Sep1-Oct1-Nov1-DecFlow (cfs)Minimum Flow Requirement at Gold
Creek, Case E-VI
Average Monthly Natural Flow at
Gold Creek
Average Monthly With Project
Regulated Flow at Gold Creek
Minimum Flow Requirement at Gold
Creek for Low Flow Years
Maximum Flow Constraint at Gold
Creek, Case E-VI
Minimum flow requirement
forlow flow years
Figure 3.5-3. Average Monthly Natural and Regulated Flows, modeled flows, and 1985 Environmental Flow
Schedules at Gold Creek (Case E-VI)
3.5.2. Proposed Project Generation
3.5.2.1. Operational Objectives
The 1985 FERC License Application envisioned the APA Susitna Hydroelectric Project as a
load-following project. Under that operating mode there would be variation in powerhouse
discharge to meet hourly and daily Railbelt electrical loads, satisfy downstream environmental
flow requirements, and prevent spill, therefore optimizing power generation within the
constraints of the system. As noted, this mode of operation was used as a premise for the initial
Base Case model runs.
For the Base Case model runs, the primary operating objectives of the Project included the
following:
Maximize firm power generation during the months of November through April.
Generate power as necessary to meet Case E-VI minimum flow requirements at Gold
Creek as stated in the 1985 FERC License Application.
Maximize power generation during the months of May through October without reducing
the firm power generation during the November through April period.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3-34 December 2011
Shape generation according to Railbelt area power requirements, to the extent possible
with the other given objectives.
Future operations model runs will examine variations from this Base Case scenario.
3.5.2.2. Future Railbelt Utility Electrical Loads
The Railbelt utilities are comprised of six regulated public utilities: Anchorage Municipal Light
& Power (ML&P), Chugach Electric Association (Chugach), Golden Valley Electric Association
(GVEA), Homer Electric Association (HEA), Matanuska Electric Association (MEA), and the
City of Seward Electric System (SES). The military bases are also currently considering
privatizing their utility operations which could add to the load demand. The Railbelt region
covers a significant area of the State of Alaska and contains large population centers; it extends
from Homer to Fairbanks and includes the major metropolitan areas such as Anchorage and the
Mat-Su Valley.
The Railbelt region currently generates about 11 percent of its electric energy needs from
renewable sources. This renewable energy principally derives from the Bradley Lake, Cooper
Lake and Eklutna hydroelectric projects. The Railbelt Integrated Resources Plan (RIRP),
prepared for AEA, assumed future deployment of a combination of large hydroelectric, wind and
geothermal resources to achieve the State’s 50 percent renewable energy target. For
development of the RIRP, load forecasts were provided by the utilities, and because the RIRP
Study has a 50-year planning horizon, load forecast data was extrapolated through 2060.
The tables below present the future projected coincident winter and summer peak demands for
the combined system. The coincident peak demand forecasts were developed by combining all
of the utilities’ hourly load profiles for 2008 and calculating the 2008 coincident peak demands.
The results were compared to the 2008 non-coincident peak demands to develop coincident
factors. These factors were applied seasonally to the non-coincident peak demand for both
winter and summer months of the study period to develop the resulting coincident peak demand
forecasts for the system.
Winter Peak Demand Forecast:
Year Load (MW)
2011 869.3
2025 927.5
2030 959.0
2040 1,024.1
2050 1,092.0
2060 1,163.0
Source RIRP table 6-1
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3-35 December 2011
Summer Peak Demand Forecast:
Year Load (MW)
2011 668.0
2025 712.7
2030 736.9
2040 786.9
2050 839.1
2060 893.6
Source RIRP table 6-2
Currently, the Railbelt utilities maintain a 30 percent reserve margin above these peak load
values. Figure 3.5-4 below is a graph that shows the Railbelt load requirements on a typical
winter day.
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
123456789101112131415161718192021222324Total Railbelt Load (MW)Hour of the Day
January 2025 - Typical Day
Figure 3.5-4. Railbelt Utilities Typical January Day Load Shape
The following load projection in Figure 3.5-5 (Figure 9-6 from the RIRP) illustrates the scenario
used to model the various future supply options and compare total system power costs under a
wide variety of underlying assumptions. As indicated, even with Demand Side Management/EE
(DSM/EE) reductions, existing resources are only sufficient to meet overall demands, including
reserve requirements, until about the year 2029. Without these demand reductions new
generating resources will be needed much sooner. As indicated, with DSM/EE reductions, total
capacity requirements, including a 30 percent reserve margin allowance, are estimated to be
approximately 1,400 MW by the year 2060. This assumes that DSM measures are implemented
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3-36 December 2011
to reduce demand over that time frame. Without this level of DSM/EE load reductions, total
capacity requirements would be about 130 MW higher, totaling about 1,530 MW.
Scenario 1A: Capacity Requirements Including Committed Units with DSM/EE
Source RIRP Figure 9-6
Figure 3.5-5. Projected Railbelt Electrical Demands
3.5.2.3. Power Plant Operation to Meet Future Load Requirements
As noted previously the primary operating objective for modeling the Base Case scenario was to
maximize firm power generation during the winter months of November through April.
Therefore, the reservoir would be drafted on a daily and seasonal basis to meet those objectives.
Using that as an operating objective, Figure 3.5-6 below shows the resulting average power plant
generation in megawatt-hours (MWh) for each year of the Base Case simulation model run. The
average annual total generation is estimated to be 2,500,000 MWh, which corresponds to an
average of 285 MW of continuous power.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3-37 December 2011
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
19501951195219531954195519561957195819591960196119621963196419651966196719681969197019711972197319741975197619771978197919801981198219831984198519861987198819891990199119921993199419952001200220032004200520062007200820092010Annual Energy Generation (MWh)Long-term average
annual energy generation
Figure 3.5-6. Annual Average Energy Generation (MWh)
Figure 3.5-7 shows the modeled average monthly distribution of power output based on this
mode of operation. Firm power (98 percent reliable) output averages 250 MW during the
months of November through April and 223 MW for the entire year, with monthly variations
following the Railbelt average power demand shown on Figure 3.5-8. Figure 3.5-8 also shows
that the pattern of Railbelt energy demand is completely out of phase with the pattern of
reservoir inflows. To reshape the reservoir inflows into a release pattern that is more similar to
the power demands, active storage is used for an annual cycle of water storage and withdrawal.
With greater active storage, more complete regulation of inflows could be accomplished.
Non-firm power generation would occur mostly during the months of July through September
when the powerhouse would generate up to full capacity (600 MW installed in this case) to
reduce releasing water through the low-level outlet without generation. Non-firm generation
would average about 62 MW annually, or about 22 percent of the total generation. For the entire
year, the 223 MW of average firm power plus 62 MW of non-firm power would total 285 MW
of average power output, which is equivalent to the 2,500,000 MWh of average annual energy.
The Susitna-Watana generation values presented herein assume that all potential generation is
usable.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3-38 December 2011
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec AverageFirm and Non-Firm Energy (MWh)Non-Firm Energy
Firm Energy
Long-term average
averagemonthly energy
Figure 3.5-7. Monthly Average Energy Generation (MWh)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Monthly Energy Load as a Percentage of the January MaximumAverage Monthly Reservoir Inflows (cfs)Load Pattern
Reservoir Inflows
Figure 3.5-8. Railbelt Monthly Energy Demand Pattern Compared with Reservoir Inflow Pattern
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3-39 December 2011
Figure 3.5-9 presents the modeled daily power output for selected years - the maximum year
(1990), the minimum year (1970) and most nearly average year (1986). These years were
selected for illustration based on the annual power generation values. The 98 percent reliability
goal essentially means that the firm power objective of 250 MW during the November through
April period will not be met during one year in the 56-year period of simulation modeling.
Because significantly reducing the firm power objective causes system operating characteristics
to be substantially different in 1970 from other years, the second minimum generation year of
1974 is also included in the daily plots for illustration purposes.
On Figure 3.5-9, the minimum year (red line) for 1970 clearly shows the large firm power deficit
during most of the November through April period. Note that only one or two lines are visible in
places on the plots because the lines at times plot on top of each other. Power peaks at 600 MW
(the full plant capacity under this scenario) when the reservoir fills at times during June through
October.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
1-Oct1-Nov1-Dec1-Jan1-Feb1-Mar1-Apr1-May1-Jun1-Jul1-Aug1-Sep1-Oct1-Nov1-DecDaily Average Power Output (MW)Maximum Year -1990
Average Year - 1986
2nd Minimum Year -1974
Minimum year - 1970
Figure 3.5-9. Daily Power Output (MW) for Selected Years
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3-40 December 2011
3.5.2.4. Powerhouse Discharges
Daily powerhouse discharges into the Susitna River for the Base Case model run for selected
years are presented on Figure 3.5-10. As modeled, average monthly flows would be increased
from the existing natural flows from January through April in response to power demands. The
day-to-day flow variation is caused by both seasonal power demand variations and
weekday/weekend variations. Although the power demand remains the same in all years, some
powerhouse flow variations are caused by variations in local inflow between Watana and Gold
Creek while the powerhouse operates to meet the Base Case minimum instream flow schedule in
the Susitna River at Gold Creek. The large increases in powerhouse discharges during the June
through October period are in response to periods when the powerhouse would be operated at
maximum capacity to generate from flow that would otherwise be released through the low-level
outlet (i.e. to minimize spill volume and maximize generation). Refinements to this operating
scenario will be made as Project development plans progress during future licensing studies.
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
1-Oct1-Nov1-Dec1-Jan1-Feb1-Mar1-Apr1-May1-Jun1-Jul1-Aug1-Sep1-Oct1-Nov1-DecTotal Powerhouse Flow (cfs)Maximum Year -1990
Average Year - 1986
2nd Minimum Year -1974
Minimum year - 1970
Figure 3.5-10. Daily Powerhouse Discharge for Selected Years
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3-41 December 2011
3.5.2.5. Low-Level Outlet Releases
Figure 3.5-11 presents the daily low-level outlet discharges during the four selected years as
modeled. Low-level outlet releases occur when the active reservoir storage is full and reservoir
inflows exceed the powerhouse operating capacity. During most years, the low-level outlet
releases would be zero or of short duration. During the wettest year of 1990, substantial releases
would occur from mid-June through September. The average annual flow release would be 738
cfs, which is about 9 percent of the total reservoir inflow. Some low-level outlet releases would
occur during about 90 percent of the years, primarily during the months of July through
September. It is anticipated that low-level outlet release can be substantially reduced with future
refinements in the operating scheme.
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
1-Oct1-Nov1-Dec1-Jan1-Feb1-Mar1-Apr1-May1-Jun1-Jul1-Aug1-Sep1-Oct1-Nov1-DecReservoir Non-Power Releases (cfs)Maximum Year -1990
Average Year - 1986
2nd Minimum Year -1974
Minimum year - 1970
Figure 3.5-11. Daily Outlet Releases at Watana Dam for Selected Years (cfs)
3.5.2.6. Flushing Flows
The need for downstream flushing flows has not yet been determined. If required to protect or
enhance downstream resources, these flows would be provided either by making releases
through the powerhouse as part of planned power operations, or by releases through the low-
level outlet in combination with the powerhouse if powerhouse capacity is insufficient by itself.
A proposed plan will be included in the FERC License Application.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3-42 December 2011
3.5.2.7. Flow Ramping Rates
Flow ramping rates have not yet been determined. If restrictions on flow ramping are needed to
protect or enhance downstream resources, then hourly powerhouse and/or low-level outlet
schedules will be developed and included in the FERC License Application.
3.5.2.8. Downstream Susitna River Flow Changes
Project operations would alter the natural flows of the Susitna River downstream from Watana
Dam, with the effects becoming progressively less at greater distances downstream due to
tributary inflow, including several major rivers. For about five years during the early 1980s, the
USGS operated several streamflow gaging stations concurrently, which provides the opportunity
to use recorded streamflow data as the basis to display daily flows at several locations on the
Susitna River for both the recorded natural flows and the adjusted “With-Project” flows.
On the following four figures, the natural flows are shown in green and the “With-Project”
adjusted flows are shown in red for the Watana Dam site and at the three downstream USGS
gaging stations noted above. At the current stage of Project planning, the “With-Project” flows
are preliminary and subject to change, but it is useful to get an early approximate look at how
flows could be altered on the lower and middle sections of the Susitna River. Further, more
detailed modeling and downstream flow analyses will be performed as part of ongoing licensing
engineering studies prior to submittal of the FERC License Application.
There are two predominant effects of Project operation on downstream flows in the Susitna River
in comparison to the natural pre-Project flows. The first is an increase in the average November
through April flows, which corresponds to the period of greatest need for power generation. The
second major effect is a reduction in the average flow at the beginning to at least the middle of
the snowmelt runoff season from May through July, which is the period when the reservoir
would normally be refilled. In the latter part of the high flow season (late August through
October), the reservoir would usually be filled and average monthly reservoir releases would be
nearly equal to the natural flows. As shown on Figures 3.5-12 and 3.5-13, the difference in the
flow regime between Watana and Gold Creek is not great because the difference in drainage
areas at the two locations is not great. Moving downstream to Sunshine (Figure 3.5-14), below
the confluence with the Chulitna and Talkeetna rivers, the effects of Project operations are much
less pronounced. At Susitna Station (Figure 3.5-15), below the confluence with the Yentna and
other rivers, the effects of Project operations are further minimized by substantial tributary river
inflows.
Watana Dam Site (Figure 3.5-12) – the site is located at RM 184. The drainage area at Watana
Dam is 5,180 square mi and the annual average flow is about 8,100 cfs. Although there are no
USGS recorded flows at Watana, they can be reliably estimated from recorded flows
downstream at Gold Creek (RM 136.5) and upstream at Susitna River near Cantwell gage (RM
223.7).
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3-43 December 2011
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
5/1/19817/1/19819/1/198111/1/19811/1/19823/1/19825/1/19827/1/19829/1/198211/1/19821/1/19833/1/19835/1/19837/1/19839/1/198311/1/19831/1/19843/1/19845/1/19847/1/19849/1/198411/1/19841/1/19853/1/19855/1/19857/1/19859/1/198511/1/19851/1/19863/1/19865/1/1986Susitna River Flow (cfs)Watana Natural Flow
Watana with Project Flow Note: Results are approximate.
Downstream flow routing is not included.
Figure 3.5-12. Natural and With-Project Flows at Watana
Susitna River at Gold Creek (Figure 3.5-13) – this USGS gaging station is located at RM 136.5,
which is 47.5 mi downstream from Watana Dam. The drainage area at Gold Creek is 6,160
square mi and the annual average flow is about 9,800 cfs.
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
5/1/19817/1/19819/1/198111/1/19811/1/19823/1/19825/1/19827/1/19829/1/198211/1/19821/1/19833/1/19835/1/19837/1/19839/1/198311/1/19831/1/19843/1/19845/1/19847/1/19849/1/198411/1/19841/1/19853/1/19855/1/19857/1/19859/1/198511/1/19851/1/19863/1/19865/1/1986Susitna River Flow (cfs)Gold Creek Natural Flow
Gold Creek Flow with Project
Note: Results are approximate.
Downstream flow routing is not included.
Figure 3.5-13. Natural and With-Project Flows at the Gold Creek USGS Gage
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3-44 December 2011
Susitna River at Sunshine (Figure 3.5-14) – this USGS gaging station is located at approximately
RM 83.8, more than 10 miles downstream from the confluence of the Susitna River with the
Chulitna River (2,570-square mi drainage area) and the Talkeetna River (1,996-square mi
drainage area). The drainage area at Sunshine is 11,100 square mi and the annual average flow,
based on a short period of record, is about 23,900 cfs.
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
5/1/19817/1/19819/1/198111/1/19811/1/19823/1/19825/1/19827/1/19829/1/198211/1/19821/1/19833/1/19835/1/19837/1/19839/1/198311/1/19831/1/19843/1/19845/1/19847/1/19849/1/198411/1/19841/1/19853/1/19855/1/19857/1/19859/1/198511/1/19851/1/19863/1/19865/1/1986Susitna River Flow (cfs)Sunshine USGS Gage Natural Flow
Sunshine USGS Gage Flow with Project
Note: Results are approximate.
Downstream flow routing is not included.
Figure 3.5-14. Natural and With-Project Flows at the Sunshine USGS Gage
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3-45 December 2011
Susitna River at Susitna Station (Figure 3.5-15) – this USGS gaging station officially at RM
25.8, is located about 18 mi upstream from Cook Inlet at El. 40 ft msl where it measures the flow
of virtually the entire Susitna watershed. Between Sunshine and Susitna Station, the Yentna
River, with a drainage area of 6,180 square mi, joins the Susitna River. The total drainage area
at Susitna Station is 19,400 square mi and the annual average flow is about 50,400 cfs.
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
5/1/19817/1/19819/1/198111/1/19811/1/19823/1/19825/1/19827/1/19829/1/198211/1/19821/1/19833/1/19835/1/19837/1/19839/1/198311/1/19831/1/19843/1/19845/1/19847/1/19849/1/198411/1/19841/1/19853/1/19855/1/19857/1/19859/1/198511/1/19851/1/19863/1/19865/1/1986Susitna River Flow (cfs)Susitna Station USGS Gage Natural Flow
Susitna Station USGS Gage Flow with Project
Note: Results are approximate.
Downstream flow routing is not included.
Figure 3.5-15. Natural and With-Project Flows at Susitna Station USGS Gage
3.5.3. Effects of Hydrologic Change
Climate change can significantly modify the expected firm energy from hydroelectric projects
like Susitna-Watana due to altered seasonal and annual reservoir inflow regimes. In comparison
with projected future temperature changes, future changes in runoff patterns are considered to be
much less certain. As part of ongoing licensing studies, available literature will be reviewed
with respect to similar rivers with snowmelt dominated runoff under potential climate change
scenarios, and site-specific studies will be performed to assess how future climate changes in
Alaska might affect long-term Project generation estimates.
Stochastic hydrology techniques can be utilized to evaluate alternative runoff futures for the
Watana reservoir under both the historic river flow patterns and under changing climatic
conditions in the future. Stochastic hydrology analyses would generate 1,000 traces of equally
probable 50-year streamflow data sets for selected alternative future scenarios. This stochastic
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3-46 December 2011
hydrology will be used by project planners to further quantify firm energy reliability from the
Project.
Preliminary hydrology studies conducted to date indicate that there is a trend toward earlier snow
and glacier melt runoff in the Susitna River basin probably due to climate warming. As shown
on Figure 3.5-16, April is the month that shows the most dramatic trend toward increasing flows.
The months of June (Figure 3.5-17), July, and August, have historic trends toward decreasing
average flows. The net effect is that historic annual flows have shown essentially no trend
toward either increasing or decreasing flows, as shown on Figure 3.5-18.
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
1950196019701980199020002010Flow (cfs)Year
Apr
Linear (Apr)
Figure 3.5-16: April Recorded Flows (cfs) – Susitna River at Gold Creek
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3-47 December 2011
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Flow (cfs)Year
June
Linear (June)
Figure 3.5-17: June Recorded Flows (cfs) – Susitna River at Gold Creek
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Flow (cfs)Year
Annual
Linear (Annual)
Figure 3.5-18: Annual Recorded Flows (cfs) – Susitna River at Gold Creek
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3-48 December 2011
Figure 3.5-19 shows the historic average monthly flows at the USGS gage at Gold Creek (1949 –
2011) along with a projection of the trends in monthly flows to the year 2050. The 2050
projected flows also show no net change on an annual basis compared to the historic annual
flows.
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecMonthly Average Flow (cfs) at Gold Creek USGS Gaging StationHistoric 1949 - 2011 Average Flows
Projected Average Flows in 2050
Figure 3.5-19: April Recorded Flows (cfs) – Susitna River at Gold Creek
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has published an authoritative global
study of the effects of climate change. Starting with an ensemble of 23 Atmosphere-Ocean
General Circulation Models (AOGCMs) and multiple alternative emission scenarios, the IPCC
developed worldwide simulation model projections of changes in temperature, precipitation,
evaporation, runoff, and other parameters. Projections of temperature changes all indicated
temperature increases worldwide, but runoff projections showed both areas of increasing runoff
and decreasing runoff. As shown on Figure 3.5-20, simulation model projections indicate
increased Susitna River basin runoff in the coming decades (IPCC 2007). These projections are
based on the SRES A1B emission scenario and show the change in average annual runoff for the
2080-2099 period relative to 1980-1999. The regions are stippled on Figure 3.5-20 where at
least 80 percent of the models agree on the sign of the mean change. This means that the Susitna
watershed is in a region that is projected to have among the highest average annual increases in
runoff worldwide, with a high degree of agreement among the models that the change in runoff
will be an increase. Reading Figure 3.5-20 for the Susitna watershed and converting the units, it
translates to about a 10 percent increase in average annual runoff by 2050.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3-49 December 2011
Figure 3.5-20: Change in Annual Mean Runoff (mm/day) for the Period 2080 – 2099 Relative to 1980 – 1999
(Source: IPCC 2007)
Section 4.4.1.2.4 presents further information regarding considerations of climate change. If
increased average runoff does occur, it would be expected that there will be a net positive effect
(increase) in Susitna-Watana Project annual and firm power generation over time.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-1 December 2011
4. DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE
IMPACTS
4.1. Summary
The Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project would be located in a remote region with abundant
natural resources (see Figure 1-1). The description of the existing Project environment and
Project-related impacts presented in this section of the PAD are addressed for the following
resource areas:
Geology and soils
Water resources
Fish and aquatic resources
Wildlife and botanical resources
Wetland, riparian, and littoral resources
Rare, threatened, and endangered species
Visual resources
Recreation and land use
Cultural resources
Socioeconomic resources
Tribal resources
Transportation
The general geographic setting of the drainage basin is described in a brief overview section
preceding the discussion of individual resource areas. The descriptions of existing conditions
and potential Project-related impacts associated with each resource area are based on a review of
available existing information, which is cited in the text. For each resource area, the description
of the Project environment and potential impacts is generally organized as follows:
Description of the existing resources in the Project vicinity.
Description of potential adverse and positive impacts of the Project on these resources.
Description of potential PM&E measures to be evaluated for possible inclusion in the
new license.
The area directly affected by the construction of the Project (a.k.a. the Project “footprint”) is
delineated in Figure 1-1. This area includes the area of direct disturbance from construction of
the Project,however not all the area will be directly impacted by construction of Project
facilities. Portions of this area within this footprint would be proposed for inclusion within the
FERC Project boundary once facilities are sited. The lands and waters within a FERC project
boundary are those deemed necessary for operation and maintenance of the project and for other
project purposes including recreation facilities, shoreline and waterway protection, and
protection of environmental resources.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-2 December 2011
As described in Section 3, the Project involves construction of a major dam at RM 184 on the
Susitna River, a powerhouse structure situated at the downstream toe of the dam, three 230-kV
primary transmission lines, access road, and construction and operations facilities including an
airstrip. Figure 4.1-1 shows the main Project facilities at the dam site and Figure 4.1-2 shows the
Susitna River system and the locations of the upper, middle and lower river reaches as discussed
in this document.
The currently envisioned project would include a Watana Dam with a top level of elevation
2,025 ft above mean sea level (msl) with a maximum normal reservoir surface of El. 2,000 ft
msl. During the course of studies leading to a license application, depending on operating and
environmental studies and optimization of various reservoir levels, drawdown characteristics,
and operational requirements – the final proposed project configurations may vary and may
include a maximum reservoir elevation of up to about 2,100 ft and corresponding height of the
dam (i.e., about 2,125 ft). The Watana Dam will be a concrete gravity structure, most likely
constructed by the roller compacted concrete (RCC) methodology. Optimization of the project
during licensing studies may result in a proposal for a nominal curve in the dam resulting in an
arch-gravity structure which would benefit the stability of the dam. The proposed dam would
create a reservoir approximately 39 mi long, with a surface area of about 20,000 ac, and a gross
storage capacity of approximately 4.3 million acre-ft at the normal maximum operating level of
elevation 2,000 ft.
The powerhouse would be located immediately downstream of the dam, and would house three
generating units, each with a nominal capability of 200 MW unit output under average net head
(which will be close to the design head) for a total plant capacity of 600 MW under average
head. Unit sizing studies are continuing and the final unit size may be as low as 100 MW. The
firm energy of the of the project during the critical November - April time frame would be 1,094
gigawatt hours The powerhouse would be designed and constructed with an extra empty
generating unit bay for the potential installation of a fourth unit at some future time.
Optimization studies are ongoing and the capacity of the Project eventually proposed for
licensing could extend up to 800 MW.
There would be a spillway, one low-level outlet works facility structure and four power intake
structures (one corresponding to the extra unused powerhouse bay). The outlet works facility, in
conjunction with the three powerhouse units, will be sized to allow discharge of a 50-year flood
before flow would be discharged over the spillway. The Project would be operated in load
following mode. Under that operating mode there would be variation in powerhouse discharge
to meet hourly and daily Railbelt electrical loads, satisfy downstream environmental flow
requirements, and prevent spill. Reservoir levels would fluctuate daily with a maximum annual
drawdown of up to 150 ft.
Project construction would occur from 2017-2023, assuming access has been gained to the site
by road in early 2017.
The information presented in this section provides the foundation for the identification of
licensing issues and scoping of studies to be conducted to support the licensing process,
including FERC’s analysis to satisfy NEPA requirements. Section 5 of this PAD identifies
licensing issues and associated study needs for all resource areas described in Section 4.
Date: Dec 2011Scale: As Noted
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
C
h
u
l
i
t
n
a
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
rProposed Chulitna Road CorridorProposed Denali Transmission and Road CorridorProposed Watana ReservoirStudy Area (El. 2,200 feet)
ProposedQuarry Area A
Proposed Watana Damand Powerhouse
ProposedBorrowArea D
Proposed Quarry Area B
Proposed Permanent Camp
Proposed WatanaConstructionCamp
Proposed Air StripProposed Gold CreekTransmission and Road CorridorProject Study Area at Dam Site
State of AlaskaSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC No.14241
Figure 4.1-1Ü
0 1 20.5 Miles
Legend
Proposed Study Area
Proposed Watana Dam and Powerhouse
Proposed Permanent Camp
Proposed Watana Construction Camp
Proposed Air Strip
Proposed Watana Reservoir (El. 2000 feet)
Cook Inlet
Watana Dam
RM 184Devils Canyon
RM 150-152
Gold Creek
Station
RM 136.5
Talkeetna Community
RM 97
RM 28
RM 0
Susitna River System
(RM = River Miles from mouth)
RM 98
RM 233
Ma c L a re n R i ver
Ta l k eetna R iv e r Oshe
t
n
a RiverChulitna Riv
e
r
Ye
ntn
a RiverWatanaReservoir UPPER RIVER MIDDLE RIVER LOWER RIVERDate: Dec 2011Scale: As Noted
Susitna River Schematic
State of AlaskaSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC No.14241
Figure 4.1-2
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-5 December 2011
4.2. Basin Overview
The proposed Project is located in the Southcentral region of Alaska, approximately 120 mi
north-northeast of Anchorage and 110 mi south-southwest of Fairbanks. The Southcentral region
of the state is geographically bounded by the Alaska Range to the north and west, the Wrangell
Mountains to the east, and the Talkeetna Mountains to the south. This region encompasses
86,000 square mi of the total 586,000 square mi of the state.
The Southcentral region has wide geographic variety: broad, u-shaped valleys and plateaus,
rugged mountain ranges, with glaciers, forests, and coastal waters. Mount McKinley, the highest
mountain in North America at 20,320 ft, is located on the region's northwest border. Denali
National Park and Preserve and Denali State Park showcase the diversity of landscapes and offer
recreational opportunities.
4.2.1. Major Land Uses and Demography
Land ownership in Alaska is complex and in transition. Under terms of the 1959 Alaska
Statehood Act, the State of Alaska is authorized to receive over 103 million acres of land from
the federal government. To date, the state has received about 89.5 million acres of this land
(ADNR 2009).
Signed into law in 1971, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) settles the claim of
Alaska's native Indian, Aleut and Eskimo populations to aboriginal title to the land on which
they have lived for generations. The act provided for formation of 13 regional corporations, and
over 200 Native Villages, and allows transfer of up to 44 million acres of land from federal to
ANCSA corporations ownership. State and ANCSA conveyances have not been completed. The
federal government (Bureau of Land Management) is to convey ANCSA corporations about 9
million acres and is to convey the state about 16 million ac. Many of these remaining claims are
in conflict and will require many years to resolve. Various selections cannot be completed until
actual land surveys are done, which will also take many years. Upon completion of the
conveyance process, the state’s largest landowner will remain the federal government, with about
220 million acres or 60 percent of Alaska. The state will own 28 percent, ANCSA corporations
11 percent, private (non-ANCSA Corporation) 1 percent, and municipalities less than 1 percent
(ADNR 2009).
The Southcentral region extends from the hydrographic divide of the Alaska Range on the north
to the western Matanuska-Susitna Borough (MSB) boundary on the west, Kodiak Island on the
south, and the Alaska/Canada border on the east. It abounds with ocean shorelines, freshwater
lakes, free-flowing rivers, massive mountains, wildlife, and glaciers. The diversity of landscapes
and natural resources offer a wide variety of outdoor recreational opportunities. The
Southcentral region contains a more developed transportation system than other portions of the
state. Paved highways and gravel secondary roads provide access to many of the cities and
villages in the region. Use of planes to reach areas not accessible by road is also prevalent. The
Alaska Railroad and ferry systems also serve portions of the Southcentral region.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-6 December 2011
The Southcentral region includes the George Parks Highway, the Denali Highway, and the
Alaska Railroad. The George Parks Highway (numbered Interstate A-4 and Alaska Route 3)
extends 323 mi from the Glenn Highway 35 mi north of Anchorage to Fairbanks in the Alaska
Interior. The highway was completed in 1971. The highway, which mostly parallels the Alaska
Railroad, is one of the most important roads in Alaska. It is the main route between Anchorage
and Fairbanks (Alaska's two largest metropolitan areas), the principal access to Denali National
Park and Preserve and Denali State Park, and the main highway in the Matanuska-Susitna
Valley.
Most residential, commercial, agricultural, transportation and utility land use development
occurs in and around Parks Highway communities and along rural sections of the Parks Highway
west of the proposed Project area. That is, small towns such as Willow, Talkeetna, Cantwell, and
Healy have a mix of residential and commercial land and transportation lands for the highway,
other roads, railroad, and airstrips. Other scattered residential lands occur in agricultural,
homestead or other settlements along the highway, near the railroad or area rivers (APA 1985).
The Denali Highway is about 135 mi long and connects the Cantwell junction (located just north
of Broad Pass) on the Parks Highway with Paxson Lodge on the Richardson Highway while a
loop trip originating and returning to Fairbanks is about 436 mi. A loop trip from Anchorage is
close to 600 mi. The Denali Highway is generally open from mid-May to October 1.
The Alaska Railroad extends from Seward and Whittier, in the south, to Fairbanks (passing
through Anchorage), and beyond to Eielson Air Force Base and Fort Wainwright in the interior
of the state. The Alaska Railroad carries both freight and passengers throughout its system. The
railroad has a mainline over 470 mi long, and is well over 500 mi long when branch lines and
sidings are included. It is currently owned by the State of Alaska.
The Chugach National Forest, located south and east of Anchorage, surrounds Prince William
Sound. This 5.4 million-acre forest includes the Kenai Peninsula, the Russian River, and the
delta of the Copper River.
Denali State Park is approximately 324,240 acres in size. The State Recreation Areas include an
additional 1,470 acres. Although much smaller than Denali National Park and Preserve to the
north (6,028,203 acres), Denali State Park and its associated State Recreation Areas include
diverse landscapes. They afford tremendous views of Denali; contain three major rivers, the
Susitna, Chulitna, and Tokositna; and have three glaciers adjacent to or within their boundaries,
the Ruth, Eldridge and Tokositna. Vegetation ranges from lowland spruce and hardwood forests
to alpine tundra. The George Parks Highway transects the park and opens its scenery, wildlife
and other natural resources to the public. Primary uses of Denali State Park are camping, hiking,
fishing, viewing Mt. McKinley, canoeing, rafting, river boating, hunting and trapping.
The Consolidated General Management Plan (GMP) for Denali National Park and Preserve (NPS
2007) consists of an original GMP (1986) and three major amendments addressing the park
entrance area and road corridor (1997), south side development (1997), and backcountry
management (2006). Zoning broadly delineates the appropriate management strategies for
various lands, based on their resource characteristics and how they can best be used to achieve
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-7 December 2011
the park’s purpose and objectives. Areas of Denali are placed in four management zones: natural,
historic, park development, and special use.
The proposed Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project is within the northwest corner of the Bureau
of Land Management’s (BLM) Glennallen Field Office Planning Area. The planning area
includes approximately 7.1 million acres in east Alaska, including approximately 5.5 million
acres of lands that have been selected by the State of Alaska or Alaska Natives. The BLM is
responsible for management of selected lands until conveyance occurs or until the selections are
relinquished back to the BLM because of over selection. The planning area also includes private
land (including ANSCA corporations land) and state lands.
The Project is located within the MSB and adjacent to the Denali Borough. The nearest
community is Cantwell, which is located approximately 41 mi north-northwest of the proposed
Susitna-Watana dam site. Cantwell is an unincorporated community with an estimated
population of 219 in 2010 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB 2010). The nearest sizeable town is
Wasilla, with a 2010 population of 7,831 (USCB 2010). Wasilla is located approximately 91 mi
southwest of Watana and approximately 130 mi south of Cantwell (distances are “as the crow
flies”).
In the Denali Borough, the population is centered around the Parks Highway. The population of
this borough has remained relatively unchanged since it was formed. However, in the past 30
years the population of Cantwell has increased by almost 150 percent (from 89 to 219).
In the MSB, while a substantial amount of development is focused along the Parks and Glenn
highway corridors, development is more dispersed. The MSB has grown dramatically (by almost
400 percent) in the past 30 years. Much of this growth has been in the MSB’s core area, which
includes Wasilla and Palmer. The northern portion of the Borough near the proposed Project, has
also experienced growth but at a lower rate. These areas are less densely populated than the core
area.
According to the 2010 Census, the racial composition of the MSB and the Denali Borough is
predominantly Caucasian. The highest proportion of minority residents is found in the Cantwell
area, where approximately 23 percent of the residents are considered a minority (primarily
American Indian/Alaska Native). Overall, the Denali Borough and the MSB are less racially
diverse than the Southcentral region population. The gender distribution in the Denali Borough
and the MSB is similar to that of the Southcentral region, with slightly more than half the
population being male. The percentage of males is highest in Chase and Cantwell (64.7 and 58.4
percent, respectively). The median age in the Denali Borough and in Cantwell, Trapper Creek,
Chase and Talkeetna is higher than that of the MSB and the Southcentral region. This is not due
to significantly higher numbers of people aged 65 and over in these areas. Rather, it is due to a
relatively high percentage (26 to 53 percent) of the residents in these areas who were between the
ages of 45 and 59, according to the 2010 Census. Per capita and median household incomes are
lower in Trapper Creek and Cantwell than in the Denali Borough, MSB or the Southcentral
region as a whole. This is expected as these areas tend to have more people who live a
subsistence lifestyle rather than holding a year-round wage and salary job. According to the
2005-2009 American Community Survey (ACS), approximately one-third of the workforce in
the MSB and the Denali Borough work in management, professional and related fields; a percent
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-8 December 2011
that is similar to the Southcentral region as a whole. In Trapper Creek the occupation with the
highest number of people is production, transportation and material moving, while the
occupation with the largest number of people in Talkeetna and Cantwell is construction,
extraction, maintenance and repair.
Most employment in the Denali Borough is driven by Clear Air Force Base, Denali National
Park and Preserve, Usibelli Coal Mine, and Golden Valley Electric Association. Employment
dramatically increases during the summer months (from 1,000 in the winter to approximately
4,000) due to employment in tourism-related fields. A large number of these workers come from
outside the borough. Residents tend to work in less seasonal industries such as government
(including schools and national park personnel) and power generation (Fried 2009).
The economy of the MSB is more diverse than the Denali Borough economy. In general,
employment has been growing faster than the population and the MSB now offers more
employment opportunities than in the past. Two areas that have seen large increases in
employment are health care and retail. Increases in these sectors mean residents can meet more
of their needs without having to go into Anchorage or Fairbanks. While employment in the MSB
is increasing, many MSB residents commute outside the borough for employment. A substantial
number of these commuters travel to Anchorage, but many commute to places even further such
as the North Slope (Fried 2010).
4.2.2. Major Water Uses
Instream flow uses of the Susitna River include fish, wildlife, riparian vegetation, navigation and
transportation, recreation, waste assimilative capacity, freshwater recruitment to Cook Inlet
estuary, downstream water rights, hydroelectric power generation, and water required to
maintain the desirable aesthetic characteristics of the river itself. Irrigation, water supply, and
industrial uses are limited.
Water rights in Alaska are issued by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) and
are discussed in section 4.4.2.1.
4.2.3. Lakes and Dams
As shown in Figure 4.2-1 numerous named and unnamed lakes are located in the vicinity of the
proposed Project. Named lakes located closest to the proposed Project include:
Stephan Lake
Tsusena Butte Lake
Fog lakes
Big Lake
Deadman Lake
High Lake
No dams are located on the mainstem of the Susitna River.
RTalkeetnaR
SusitnaRChulitnaR
Ye
n
t
n
a
Cook Inlet Anchorage
Watana Dam Site
DeadmanLake
TangleLakes PaxsonLake
SusitnaLake
LakeLouise
TazlinaLakeTrapperLake
KosinaCreek
NenanaRiver
TyonneCreek
Maclaren RBig Lake
High Lake
StephenLake
Fog Lakes
ByersLake
Larson Lake
FlathornLake
LEGEND:
±^Watana Dam Site
#Gaging StationBasin Boundary
Anchorage
Fairbanks
NOTES:1. Spatial Reference: NAD83 Alaska Albers, meters2. Topography: USGS National Elevation Dataset (NED), 2-Arc Second3. Basin boundary based on modified USGS HUCs 19020501-5
Location Map
0 20 4010Miles Susitna River Hydrologic Features
State of AlaskaSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Ferc No.14241
Date: Dec. 2011Scale: As Noted
Figure 4.2-1
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-10 December 2011
4.2.4. Tributaries and Streams
The Susitna River drainage area is about 19,400 square mi. Upstream of the proposed location
of the Watana Dam (RM 184) the drainage area is about 5,180 square mi. The upper Susitna
River (i.e., area upstream of the proposed dam site) is fed by three glaciers in the Alaskan Range.
The glaciers cover an area of 290 square mi (Acres 1983a). The three glacially fed forks,
including the MaClaren River, flow southward for about 18 mi before joining to form the
mainstem of the Susitna River. The river flows an additional 55 mi southward through a broad
valley, where much of the coarse sediment from the glaciers settles out. The river then flows
west about 56 mi to the proposed Watana Dam site. Other tributaries that flow into the proposed
reservoir include Deadman, Watana (RM 194), Kosina (RM 206.8), Goose (RM 231.3), and Jay
creeks, along with the Oshetna River (RM 233.4).
Downstream of the proposed dam site, the Susitna River continues west for about 40 mi through
the Devils Canyon areas; the river valley in this reach is narrow with violent rapids. Within the
96-mile westward section of the Susitna River, there are numerous small, steep gradient, clear
water tributaries that flow into the Susitna River. Several of these tributaries traverse waterfalls
as they enter the gorge. Tributaries located between the proposed dam site and Devils Canyon
include Devil, Fog (RM 179.2), and Tsusena (RM 181.3) creeks. Portage Creek enters the
Susitna River below Devils Canyon. As the Susitna River curves south past Gold Creek (RM
136.8), about 12 mi downstream from Devils Canyon, its gradient gradually decreases. The
Susitna river is joined by two major rivers, the Chulitna (RM 98) and Talkeetna (RM 97), about
40 mi downstream of Gold Creek in the vicinity of the town of Talkeetna. A third major
tributary, the Yentna River (RM 28), joins the Susitna River about 70 mi farther downstream.
From the confluences with the Chulitna and Talkeetna rivers, the Susitna River flows south
through braided channels for about 97 mi until it empties into Cook Inlet near Anchorage,
approximately 318 mi from its source.
4.2.5. Climate
Alaska climate varies from brief, cool summers and long, frigid, dark winters in the Arctic
regions to southern, coastal areas where temperatures rarely fall below zero. Four general
climactic zones comprise Alaska, based on annual and monthly averages of temperature and
precipitation: Arctic Zone, Continental Zone, Maritime Zone, and Transitional Zone. The
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project area lies near the border of the Continental and
Transitional zones.
Continental Zone temperatures in the summer average around 60°F (15°C). Mean lows in the
winter are near -10°F (-23°C), with -45°F (-43°C) to -55°F (-48°C) on occasion. Annual
precipitation is generally about 10 inches with the majority falling within the summer months.
Where terrain lifting is a factor in precipitation augmentation, annual precipitation totals may
exceed 20 inches. In general, this zone is located south of the Brooks Range and inland. The sun
does not set for more than a month in the summer. Surface winds are lighter than those in the
Arctic.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-11 December 2011
The Transitional Zone includes the region around the Cook Inlet, the Chugach Mountains, and
areas as far east as the southern Copper River basin. The transitional zone follows approximately
1,492 mi of the Alaskan Coast. Unlike the other regions, this zone is difficult to define due to the
large variation in topography. The Transitional Zone has coolest month temperature averages
below 64°F (18°C) and above 20°F (-3°C) with the warmest month above 50°F (10°C). In
addition, it is considered to only have one to three months with a temperature above 50°F
(10°C). Moderate moisture is present in all seasons. Winds are moderate, skies are usually
cloudy, and the relative humidity is moderate to high. In addition, heavy fog is very frequent as a
result of maritime influences. Both continental and maritime climate systems affect the
transitional zone.
4.2.6. References
Acres. 1983a. Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Application for License for
Major Project Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Volume 5A, Exhibit E, Chapters 1 & 2.
Prepared for Alaska Power Authority.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR). 2009. Alaska’s Outdoor Legacy: Statewide
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) 2009-2014. ADNR Division of Parks
and Outdoor Recreation. July 2009. Anchorage, Alaska.
Alaska Power Authority (APA). 1985. Susitna Hydroelectric Project License Application.
Fried, N. 2010. “The Matanuska-Susitna Borough.” In Alaska Economic Trends: Population
Projections 2010-2034. Edited by S. Whitney. Alaska Department of Labor and
Workforce Development. pp. 12–19.
Fried, N. 2009. “The Denali Borough.” In Alaska Economic Trends: The Denali Borough.
Edited by S. Erben. Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development. pp. 4–10.
United States Department of Commerce, Census Bureau (USCB). 2010. United States Census
2010. Also available online at http://2010.census.gov/2010census/. Accessed July 2011.
USDOI National Park Service (NPS). 2007. Consolidated General Management Plan for
Denali National Park and Preserve. Denali National Park and Preserve.
4.3. Geology and Soils
4.3.1. Regional Geology
4.3.1.1 Stratigraphy
The oldest bedrock that outcrops in the region are a metamorphosed upper Paleozoic rock
sequence which trends northeastward along the eastern portion of the Susitna River basin (Acres
1982b). These rocks consist chiefly of coarse to fine-grained clastic flows and tuffs of basaltic to
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-12 December 2011
andesitic composition, locally containing marble interbeds. This system of rocks is
uncomformably overlain by Triassic and Jurassic metavolcanic and sedimentary rocks consisting
of a shallow marine sequence of metabasalt flows, interbedded with chert, argillite, marble, and
volcaniclastic rocks. These units are exposed in the Project area around Watana and Portage
creeks. The Paleozoic and lower Mesozoic rocks are intruded by Jurassic plutonic rocks
composed chiefly of granodiorite and quartz diorite. The Jurassic age intrusive rocks form the
batholithic complex of the Talkeetna Mountains.
Thick turbidite sequences of argillite and graywackes were deposited during the Cretaceous
period. These rocks were subsequently deformed and intruded by a series of Tertiary age
plutonic rocks which range in composition from granite to diorite and include related felsic and
mafic volcanic extrusive rocks. The Watana Dam site is underlain by one of these large plutonic
bodies. These plutons were subsequently intruded and overlain by felsic and mafic volcanics.
The mafic volcanics at the Watana site consist primarily of andesite porphyry (Acres 1982b).
4.3.1.2 Tectonic History
At least three major episodes of deformation are recognized for the project areas: a period of
intense metamorphism, plutonism, and uplift in the Jurassic, a similar orogeny during the middle
to late Cretaceous, and a period of extensive uplift and denudation from the middle Tertiary to
Quaternary periods.
Most of the structural features in the region are the result of the Cretaceous orogeny associated
with the accretion of northwest drifting continental blocks into the North American plate. This
plate convergence resulted in complex thrust faulting and folding which produced the
pronounced northeast/southwest structural grain across the region. The majority of the structural
features, of which the Talkeetna Thrust fault is the most prominent in the Talkeetna Mountains,
are a consequence of this orogeny. The Talkeetna Thrust represents an old suture zone,
involving the thrusting of Paleozoic, Triassic and Jurassic rocks over the Cretaceous sedimentary
rocks. Other compressional structures related to this orogeny are evident in the intense shear
zones roughly parallel to and southeast of the Talkeetna Thrust.
Tertiary deformations are evidenced by a complex system of normal, oblique slip, and high-
angle reverse faults. The prominent tectonic features of this period bracket the basin area. The
Denali fault, a right-lateral, strike-slip fault located 40 to 43 mi north of the Project dam site,
exhibits evidence of fault displacement during the Holocene epoch (<10,000 years from present).
The Castle Mountain fault system, which borders the Talkeetna Mountains approximately 70 mi
southeast of the Project dam site, is a normal fault which also has had fault displacement during-
the Holocene.
4.3.1.3 Quaternary Geology
The Quaternary period, approximately the last 2 million years, is commonly subdivided into the
Pleistocene and the Holocene epochs. Generally, the Pleistocene epoch is equated to the glacial
age and the Holocene epoch with post-glacial time, though such distinctions are less defined in
southern Alaska, where the mountains still contain extensive glaciers. A period of cyclic
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-13 December 2011
climatic cooling during the Quaternary resulted in repeated glaciations of southern Alaska (Acres
1982b). Little information is available regarding the glacial history in the upper Susitna River
basin. Unlike the north side of the Alaskan Range which is characterized by alpine type of
glaciations, the Susitna Basin experienced coalescing piedmont glaciers that originated from both
the Alaska Range and the Talkeetna Mountains and merged to fill the upper basin area.
At least three periods of glaciation have been delineated for the region based on the glacial
stratigraphy. During the most recent period (Late Wisconsinan), glaciers filled the adjoining
lowland basins and spread on to the continental shelf. Waning of the ice masses from the Alaska
Range and Talkeetna Mountains formed ice barriers which blocked the drainage of glacial
meltwater and formed large proglacial lakes. As a consequence of the repeated glaciation, the
Susitna and Copper River basins are covered by varying thicknesses of till, lacustrine, and
outwash deposits (Acres 1982b).
Within the Project site region, the late Quaternary surfaces include those of Holocene and
Pleistocene age (including the Wisconsinan and Illinoian stages). These surfaces range from a
few years to approximately 120,000 years before present.
Repeated glaciations modified the landscape, resulting in the development of many of the
distinct landforms found within the project area. At this time, the upper Susitna watershed, in
particular along the Alaska Range, is glaciated; however, the Project dam site is not impacted by
current glacial activity.
4.3.2. Seismic Geology
4.3.2.1 Regional Seismology
Alaska is the most seismically active State in the United States, and southern Alaska is a
particularly active region. The active faulting, seismicity, and volcanism of southern Alaska are
products of the regional tectonic setting. The primary cause of the faulting and seismic activity
is the stress imposed on the region by the relative motion of the Pacific lithospheric plate relative
to the North American plate along their common boundary. The Pacific plate is moving
northward relative to the North American plate at a rate of about 2.4 inches/year (WCC 1981).
The relative motion between the plates is expressed as three styles of deformation: high-angle
strike-slip faults, as seen along the Alaska Panhandle and eastern margins of the Gulf of Alaska;
underthrusting of the Pacific plate beneath the North American plate, as seen along the northern
margins of the Gulf of Alaska, including the Cook Inlet area and the central and western portions
of the Aleutian Islands; and oblique thrust faulting, noted at the eastern end of the Aleutian
Islands
The Project site is located within a relatively stable tectonic unit bounded by the Denali-
Totschunda fault to the north and east, the Castle Mountain fault to the south, a broad zone of
deformation with volcanoes to the west, and the Benioff zone at depth. All of the boundaries are
(or contain) faults with recent displacement except for the western boundary which is primarily a
zone of uplift marked by Cenozoic age volcanoes. Strain accumulation and resultant release
appears to be occurring primarily along the margins of this tectonic unit, as indicated by
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-14 December 2011
evidence for recent displacement along the Denali-Totschunda and Castle Mountain faults and
the Benioff zone; the absence of major historical earthquakes within the unit; and the absence of
faults within the unit that clearly have evidence of recent displacement. Some compression
related crustal adjustment within the unit is probably occurring as a result of the proposed plate
movement and the stresses related to the subduction zone. Study of selected faults for project
planning in the 1980s did not indicate that there would be potential seismic sources that could
cause seismic ground motions or surface rupture through the Project dam site (WCC 1982). The
magnitude 7.9 Denali earthquake originating on the Susitna Glacier fault in November 2002 was
within the range of potential earthquakes identified in the 1980s study. A review of the 1980s
evaluation indicates that the seismic hazard determined previously is still applicable, however,
there is a much better understanding of regional seismicity that should be incorporated in to the
design of structures (R&M 2009).
4.3.2.2 Reservoir-Triggered Seismology
Reservoir-triggered seismicity (RTS) is defined as the phenomenon of earth movement and
resultant seismicity that has a spatial and temporal relationship to a reservoir and is triggered by
nontectonic stress. Studies of the occurrence of RTS have shown that it is influenced by the
depth and volume of the reservoir, the filling rate of the reservoir, the state of tectonic stress in
the shallow crust beneath the reservoir, and the existing pore pressures and permeability of the
rock mass under the reservoir. Although direct measurements are difficult to obtain for some of
these factors, indirect geologic and seismologic data, together with observations about the
occurrence of RTS at other reservoirs, can be used to assess the potential for RTS at the Watana
Dam site.
Analysis of RTS by Harza-Ebasco (1985) included: (a) a comparison of the depth, volume,
regional stress, geologic setting, and faulting in the Project area with the same parameters at
comparable reservoirs worldwide; (b) an assessment of the likelihood of RTS at the Project area
based on the above comparison; (c) a review of the relationship between reservoir filling and the
length of time to the onset of induced events and the length of time to the maximum earthquake;
(d) an evaluation of significance of these time periods for the Project area; (e) the development
of a model to assess the impact of RTS on groundmotion parameters; (f) a review of the
relationship between RTS and rate of reservoir filling; and (g) an assessment of the potential for
slope instability around the reservoir rim resulting from RTS.
The Watana Reservoir will be about 600 ft deep, and will have a total volume of 4.3 million
acre-feet. For comparison, deep reservoirs have been characterized as having a maximum water
depth of 300 ft or deeper, and a very deep reservoir is 492 ft deep or deeper; a large reservoir has
a maximum water volume greater than one million acre-feet, and a very large reservoir has a
volume greater than eight million acre-feet. At the time of the 1980s review, 21 percent of all
deep, very deep, or very large reservoirs had been subject to RTS. Geologic and tectonic
conditions that are expected to influence the likelihood of RTS at the Watana Reservoir include
basin geology and proximity to faults with recent displacement. Review of worldwide case
histories of RTS indicates that there is a negative correlation between significant RTS and recent
loading and unloading as a result of glaciation (Harza-Ebasco 1985). In addition, RTS appears
to be more probable where reservoirs are underlain by sedimentary rock sequences as compared
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-15 December 2011
to metamorphic and igneous rock (AEA 2011). In terms of pre-existing active tectonics,
moderate to large RTS events are expected to occur only along faults with recent displacement,
and previous investigation concluded that no such faults exist within the hydrologic influence of
the Watana Reservoir (WCC 1980). With the exception of currently unidentified local faults, the
earthquake sources do not lie within the zone potentially influenced by reservoir filling. The
final major reservoir specific parameter defining RTS hazard is the filling history and the rate of
filling. Review of incidence of RTS at other locations indicates that sudden changes in water
level and sudden deviations in the rate of water level change can trigger seismicity. The initial
filling and seasonal fluctuation of the Watana Reservoir are not expected to occur at a rate that
would result in increased risk of RTS (Harza-Ebasco 1985).
It should be noted that RTS primarily represents the release of pre-existing tectonic strain, with
the reservoir being only a perturbing influence (AEA 2011). That is, reservoirs are believed to
provide an incremental increase in stress that may be large enough to trigger strain release in the
form of an earthquake. Thus, reservoirs are considered capable of triggering an earlier
occurrence of an earthquake (i.e., of decreasing the recurrence interval of the event) than would
have occurred if the reservoir had not been filled. The Susitna-Watana Reservoir is not expected
to trigger an earthquake larger than that which would occurr "naturally."
4.3.3. Watana Dam Site Geologic Conditions
4.3.3.1 Bedrock Lithology and Structures
Bedrock at the Watana Dam site is primarily an intrusive dioritic body which varies in
composition from granodiorite to quartz diorite to diorite (Harza-Ebasco 1985). The texture is
massive and the rock is hard, competent, and fresh except within locally developed sheared and
altered zones. The diortite has been intruded by mafic and felsic dikes which are generally only
a few feet wide. The contacts are healed and competent. The rock immediately downstream and
south of the Project dam site is an andesite porphyry. This rock is medium to dark gray to green
and contains quartz diorite inclusions. Where mapped or drilled, the contact zone is generally
weathered and fractured up to 10 to 15 ft.
Several shears, fracture zones, and alteration zones are present at the Project dam site. Shears,
which are generally discontinuous and less than one foot wide, occur in two forms. The first
form occurs only in the diorite and is characterized by brecciated zones of sheared rock that have
been rehealed into fresh and hard rock. The second form occurs in all rock types and consists of
unhealed breccia and/or gouge. These shears are soft and friable. Fracture zones range from 6 in
to 30 ft wide, but are generally less than 10 ft wide; where exposed at the ground surface, these
zones trend to form topographic lows. Alteration zones, where hydrothermal solutions have
caused the chemical breakdown of the feldspars and mafic minerals, are highly variable across
the site. These zones, which were encountered in boreholes, are rarely seen in outcrop as they
are easily eroded into topographic lows and gullies. Alteration zones range up to 20 ft thick but
are usually less than five ft thick, and the transition between fresh and altered rock is typically
gradational.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-16 December 2011
There are two major and two minor joint sets at the Project dam site. Set I, which is the most
prominent set, strikes 320° and dips to 80° northeast to vertical. This set is found throughout the
Project dam site and parallels the general structural trend in the regions. Set I has a subset,
which strikes 290° to 300° with a dip of 75° northeast. This subset is localized in the
downstream area near potential diversion tunnel portals. This subset also parallels the shear
zones in the downstream area of the Project dam site. Set II trends northeast to east and dips
vertically. This set is best developed in the upstream portion of the Project dam site, but is
locally prominent in the downstream areas. Sets III and IV are minor sets but can be locally well
developed. Set III trends north-south with variable dips ranging from 40° east to 65° west, while
Set IV trends 90° with subhorizontal dips. Set III forms numerous open joints on the cliff faces
the "Fingerbuster," described below, and several fracture zones and occasional shears parallel
this orientation. Set IV appears to have developed from stress relief from glacial unloading
and/or valley erosion.
Shears, fracture zones, and alteration zones at the Watana Dam site have resulted in formation of
several significant geologic features. The two most prominent alteration/shear zones are located
upstream and downstream of the proposed dam site. The upstream geologic feature (about 800 ft
upstream of the dam centerline), is exposed on the north bank of the riverand is characterized
predominantly by sound, jointed bedrock and a series of northwest trending zones of fractured
and/or sheared rock that has been altered. The rock mass in this zone contains near vertical rock
ridges 5-50 feet wide and steeply inclined northwesterly trending zones of closely fractured rock
up to 15-20 feet wide, 5-10 foot-wide zones of weak, friable altered rock, and shears which
measure one inch to approximately one foot in thickness. These zones have contributed to the
erosion of steep gullies, which are separated by intact rock ridges. There is no evidence
indicating persistence of the zones; however, the zones are difficult to trace due to the steepness
of the terrain, talus cover, and the thick overburden deposits above approximately el 2,000 ft msl.
The upstream end of this geologic feature coincides with a steep, narrow gulley, the contact
between the diorite and quartz diorite pluton and a large andesite porphyry dike outcrops. Above
the rock ridges comprising this northwest-trending geologic feature, a zone of highly weathered
to decomposed diorite exists locally at the bedrock surface that is overlain by a thick cover (70-
80 ft) of unconsolidated glacial sediments. The high-groundwater levels indicate a low
permeability of te rock mass associated with this geologic feature.
Downstream of the Project dam site (about 800 ft downstream of the proposed dam centerline) a
prominent geologic feature is exposed in a 40-foot-wide, deep, talus-filled gully on the north
bank, just upstream of the andesite porphyry/diorite contact. The rock is moderately close to
closely fractured rock with local shears and alteration zones which trend parallel to Set I (330°)
and Set III (0°). Slickenslides indicate vertical displacement. The degree of rock fracturing
varies widely in this area, and is influenced by structural control, near surface stress relief
fracturing, and under cutting of the south-facing slope. Because of the lack of exposure, and the
variability of the features, no major structural features were identified.
The two prominent geologic features or zones are geologic structures which could impact the
construction of the Susitna-Watana Dam. Accordingly, the dam and power facilities have been
located to avoid these geologic features. Main project features have been located between the
two geologic features to avoid the need to tunnel through these fracture/shear zones.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-17 December 2011
4.3.3.2 Relict Channel
A relict channel or buried valley is present north and south of the Susitna River at the Watana
Dam site. The Fog Lakes relict channel is located in the area between the Watana Dam site and
the mountain range approximately five mi to the southeast (Acres 1982b). At this location, the
bedrock surface dips to 350 ft below ground surface with the lowest point in the bedrock surface
approximating the normal mean operating pool elevation of 2,000 ft. The channel is overlain by
glacial deposits. The Watana relict channel, located north of the Watana Dam site, is much
deeper and is shorter in length than the Fog Lakes Relict Channel. The bedrock surface in the
“channel” is at about elevation 1775 ft msl, or about 225 ft below the proposed maximum
reservoir pool elevation.
The potential for seepage from the reservoir through the buried valleys or channels may occur,
thus bypassing the dam. During early evaluations of the Project site, the Watana relict channel
north of the Watana Dam site was presumed to pose the greatest potential for seepage, due to the
presence of permeable outwash and alluvial layers within the layered sequence of glacial and
interglacial deposits and the relatively short travel path, from the reservoir to Tsusena Creek
(Harza-Ebasco 1985). These evaluations also indicated that seepage through the buried channel
area could result in piping and erosion of materials at the exit point on Tsusena Creek. The Fog
Lakes relict channel southeast of the Project dam site is not expected to pose seepage problems
because of the low gradient and long travel distance (approximately 4-5 mi) from the reservoir to
Fog Creek.
The potential for seismically-induced failure in the relict channel areas following saturation of
soils following impoundment of the reservoir is considered low. The stratigraphy of the Watana
relict channel was defined during the 1970s and 1980s explorations (Harza-Ebasco 1985). These
explorations indicated that deposits are either well graded, dense to very dense or cohesive and
there are no apparent widespread or continuous units within the relict channel that are susceptible
to liquefaction. In addition, multiple periods of glaciation resulted in overconsolidating the
overburden deposits within the relict channel, thereby minimizing the potential for liquefaction.
4.3.3.3 Groundwater
The groundwater regime in the bedrock is a function of permeability, confined to movement
along fractures and joints of the rock mass. At the dam site, the water table is a subdued replica
of the surface topography. The groundwater table on the north abutment is generally from 5 to
30 ft below the surface except in areas with steep terrain, where it can reach depths of 60-90 ft
(Harza-Ebasco 1985). Icing can be found on both abutments in the winter, particularly on the
steep slopes of the south abutment, where the groundwater table is at the surface. Rock mass
permeability of the bedrock does not vary significantly within the site area, generally ranging
between 3.28 x 10-6 fps to 3.3 x 10-8 fps. Rock mass permeability is controlled by a degree of
fractures within the rock, with the higher seepage rates occurring in the more sheared and
fractured zones and decreasing with depth.
As the result of dam construction and reservoir impoundment, there will be the tendency for
seepage through the foundation rock. The potential for seepage in the foundation of the Watana
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-18 December 2011
Dam is not problematic and the bedrock foundations can be treated by grouting and controlled
with drainage curtains.
4.3.3.4 Permafrost
Permafrost was sporadic to continuous below approximately 2,500 ft elevation during the 1980s,
especially on north-facing slopes, as evidenced by ground ice, patterned ground stone nets, and
slumping of the glacial till overlying permafrost. Measurements in the 1980s indicated that
permafrost existed to depths of approximately 120 ft on the south abutment and up to 60 ft on the
north abutment. Temperature measurements showed the permafrost to be "warm" (within l°F of
freezing), and aerial photograph reconnaissance in the 1980s indicated that permafrost was
thawing in some locations. Current permafrost conditions at the Project dam site, along the
reservoir perimeter, and below project facilities, including the camp and airstrip, represent a data
gap.
Where permafrost currently exists in the Project area, future thawing will primarily affect
reservoir slope stability, liquefaction potential, and settlement of surface facilities constructed in
areas of deep overburden north of the Watana Dam site. The airstrip, and camps, and site roads
will likely encounter areas of permafrost, and although the soils in this area are not ice rich, some
settlements may occur because of thawing.
During site evaluations described in Harza-Ebasco (1985), fractures in the rock on the north and
south abutment at the Watana Dam site were ice-filled to approximately 60 and 120 ft
respectively. Thawing of this permafrost, which will be caused or accelerated by the thermal
effect of the reservoir remaining several degrees above freezing throughout the year, may
influence seepage as it will likely occur prior to grouting of the cutoff below the core.
4.3.4. Overburden and Project Area Soils
Overburden thickness on the dam abutments may reach up to 70 ft or more. Above El 1,900 ft
msl, overburden depth averages 20 ft with local zones to 50 ft on the south abutment. On the
north abutment, overburden thickness reaches 50 to 60 ft. In upper areas of the abutments, near
the top of the slopes, overburden consists of till, alluvium, and talus. Below El 1,900 ft msl,
overburden consists primarily of talus with an average thickness of 10 ft. Subsurface
investigations show the contact between the overburden and bedrock to be relatively
unweathered.
The river alluvium beneath the proposed dam is up to 140 ft deep, averaging about 80 ft. The
alluvium is thickest within the two large topographic lows, depressions in the bedrock surface
just upstream of the main dam. The alluvial material in the river channel is comprised primarily
of well graded coarse-grained gravels, sandy gravels, and gravelly sands with cobbles and
boulders.
Generally, the lower section of the Watana Reservoir and adjacent slopes are covered by a
veneer of glacial till and lacustrine deposits. Two main types of glacial till have been identified
in this area: ablation and basal tills. The basal till is predominately over-consolidated, with a fine
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-19 December 2011
grain matrix (more silt and clay) and low permeability. The ablation till has fewer fines, is a silty
sand and a somewhat higher permeability. Lacustrine deposits consist primarily of poorly
graded fine sands and silts with lesser amounts of gravel and clay, and exhibit a crude
stratification.
On the south side of the Susitna River, the Fog Lakes area is characteristic of a fluted ground
moraine surface. Upstream in the Watana Creek area, glaciolacustrine material forms a broad,
flat plain which mantles the underlying glacial till and the partially lithified Tertiary sediments.
Due to the highly variable geology and topography in the area, soil properties vary greatly over
short distances. Some of the soils are relatively thin overlying bedrock, whereas in other areas
the soil cover is quite thick over bedrock. Low-lying areas often have wet soils with a high
water table, whereas soils along the rivers are often composed of well drained coarse material.
Soil survey data at the level of detail required for project feature placement and site planning are
not currently available. Geologic characterization of the soils will be conducted during terrain
unit and geologic mapping of the reservoir, as well as site-specific geotechnical investigations at
proposed sites for facilities such as the camp, airstrip, and features such as quarry and borrow
sites, and along the access road and transmission line alignments. Project site soil information
including thickness and texturewill be considered in the implementation of soil management
during construction.
4.3.5. Reservoir Shoreline and Downstream River Banks
Most of the slopes within the Watana Reservoir are composed of unconsolidated materials.
Permafrost within basal till and lacustrine deposits was found to be sporadic to discontinuous.
Current data on permafrost distribution is not available, and the effect of permafrost thawing on
slope stability represents a source of uncertainty. Existing slope instability within the reservoir
indicates that the types of mass movement are primarily solifluction, skin flows, bimodal flows,
and small rotational slides. These types of failure occur predominantly in the basal till or areas
where the basal till is overlain by lacustrine deposits. In some cases, solifluction, which
originated in the basal till, has proceeded downslope over some of the floodplain terraces.
The 2,000 foot-elevation normal maximum operating pool level lies largely within the general
confines of the river valley. As a result, the drawdown zone will generally be in contact with
bedrock-controlled slopes with thin to no overburden. This does not preclude the potential for
slope instability along the shoreline of the reservoir, but it is anticipated that there could be less
potential for large rotational or block slides. Major factors which will contribute significantly to
slope instability in the Watana Reservoir are large seasonal fluctuations of the reservoir level,
changes in the groundwater regime, ice floes, freezing and thawing, and wind driven waves.
Because of the relatively slow rate of impounding, the potential for slope instability occurring
during flooding of the reservoir will be minimal and confined to shallow surface flows and
possibly some sliding.
Overburden data for the reservoir perimeter are not sufficient for predicting the gradation and
contribution of sediment from hillslopes to the reservoir. In addition, the amount of sediment
from glacial headwater streams that reaches the reservoir is not known. Coarse sediment will
likely settle out in the broad valleys above the dam, and finer materials are expected to form
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-20 December 2011
deltas where the river and tributaries meet the reservoir. Sedimentation within the reservoir will
reduce reservoir storage over time.
Sedimentation in the river channel downstream of the reservoir will be altered by regulated flows
and a sediment deficit due to sediment trapping in the reservoir. Immediately downstream of the
reservoir, lack of sediment from upstream will likely result in coarsening of bed material, and
reduced flows will result in increased channel stability. However, regulated flows may reduce
sediment transport at the confluences with the Chulitna and Talkeetna Rivers, which could lead
to local aggradation and aggradation-induced flooding and lateral channel erosion at these
confluences (URS, TT, and AHC 2011).
4.3.5.1 Reservoir Slope Stability
Shoreline erosion will occur as a result of two geologic processes: beaching and mass movement.
Beach erosion can give rise to general instability through the sloughing or failure of an
oversteepened slope, thereby enlarging the beach area. Aside from the formation of beaches
resulting from erosion, instability along the reservoir slopes can result from two principal causes:
a change in the groundwater regime and the thawing of the discontinuous permafrost. The types
of mass movement expected to occur within the reservoir are: bimodal flow, block slide, flows,
multiple regressive flow, multiple retrogressive flow/slide, rotational slides, skin flows, slides,
and solifluction flow.
Changes in groundwater regime resulting from reservoir creation and operation alter the
saturation and therefore stability of slopes. As a reservoir fills, the groundwater table in the
adjacent bank also rises, potentially causing a previously stable slope above the groundwater
table to become unstable due to increased pore pressures and seepage. Similarly, a rapid
drawdown of the reservoir and concurrent lowering of the water table may result in loading the
slopes and increased instability of susceptible slopes. Thawing of discontinuous permafrost can
result in solifluction slopes, skin flows, and the lobes of bimodal flows on low-angle slopes.
Slope mobility due to permafrost thaw is often substantial and rapid, as the movements are
generally distributed throughout the mass.
Slope failure as a result of liquefaction during an earthquake is possible but not likely due to the
limited extent of fine-grained sands, coarse silts, and other susceptible materials in the reservoir
area. No evidence of liquefaction has been noted in the Project area, however, permafrost thaw,
groundwater elevation changes, and saturation of susceptible materials in submerged slopes
could result in small slides, including slides below the reservoir level, during earthquake shaking.
4.3.5.2 Slope Stability Models
Based on historical data from previous slope stability models presented in Harza-Ebasco (1985),
the following conclusions can be drawn about the slope conditions of the Susitna-Watana
Reservoir after impounding:
The principal factors influencing slope instability are the large seasonal drawdown of the
reservoir and the thawing of frozen soils (discontinuous permafrost). Other factors are
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-21 December 2011
the change in the groundwater regime, the steepness of the slopes, coarseness of the
overburden material, thermal toe erosion, and the fetch length (maximum line of site
across the reservoir) available to wave action;
The potential for beaching is much greater on the north abutment of the reservoir;
A large portion of the reservoir slopes are susceptible to shallow slides, mainly skin and
bimodal flows, and shallow rotational slides;
The potential for a large block slide that might generate a wave that could overtop the
dam is remote.
4.3.6. Geologic Conditions and Project Excavations
4.3.6.1. Borrow Material and Quarry Site Development
Extensive investigations were conducted during previous site studies to identify quantities of
suitable materials for Project construction. Detailed discussion of material properties, geology,
and quantities are addressed in the Corps of Engineers (1975, 1979), Acres (1981, 1982) and
Harza-Ebasco (1983) reports. Exact material requirements will be determined following
finalization of Project design, and quarry and borrow site selection can be reassessed at that time.
Development of borrow material sites and quarry material will result in disturbance of the natural
terrain and impact on aesthetics, noise levels, and air quality. These sites will be sufficiently
removed from the camp facilities to minimize the noise and air quality impacts, however, exact
locations and amounts of required borrow material has yet to be determined for the Project.
4.3.6.2. Project Facilities
The primary geologic hazard for project facilities, including the construction camp, airstrip,
transmission lines, and roads is settlement due to the presence of soft organic soils and the
delicate thermal balance associated with areas of melting permafrost where overburden has some
thickness. The potential access routes and transmission line locations have the potential for
liquefaction, and for landslides which could occur during earthquakes.
4.3.7. Potential Adverse Impacts
Potential impact issues associated with development and operation of the Susitna-Watana
Project, which were described in above sections, are addressed in this secton.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-22 December 2011
Table 4.3-1 Potential geology and soils impact issues.
Impact Issue Category Impact Issue
Reservoir Creation
Filling and seasonal fluctuation associated with operation of the Watana Reservoir may increase
the occurrence probability of natural seismic events within the area of hydrologic influence.
Impoundment of water behind the reservoir may lead to seepage through the Watana relict channel
on the north abutment, upstream of the dam. Piping and erosion of soils within the relict channel
may occur at seepage exit on Tsusena Creek.
Impoundment will also increase the tendency for seepage through the foundation rock at the
abutments.
Increased ground temperature due to groundwater table alteration and the presence of a large
body of water which will remain above freezing throughout the year may lead to an increased rate
of thaw where permafrost exists within and around the reservoir rim.
Submerged slopes in granular materials, particularly loose, uniform fine sands, may be susceptible
to liquefaction during earthquakes.
Retention of sediment behind the reservoir will result in a sediment deficit downstream.
Seasonal fluctuations in reservoir elevation are likely to result in slope instability.
Groundwater and
Permafrost
Creation and seasonal fluctuations of the reservoir will alter the groundwater regime. Locally slope
instability may occur as a result of a corresponding increase in pore pressures and seepage
activity.
Whether natural or enhanced by the creation of the reservoir, permafrost thaw will impact slope
stability, liquefaction potential, settlement of site infrastructure, and seepage within bedrock along
the north and south abutments.
Solifluction slopes, skin flows, and the lobes of bimodal flows are caused by instability on low-angle
slopes resulting from thawing of permafrost.
River Flow Alteration
Reduced flow in the river may result in increased stability directly downstream of the dam, and
aggradation and aggradation-related channel migration at the confluences with the Chulitna and
Talkeetna rivers.
Quarry and Borrow
Development
Removal of vegetation and soil for quarry and borrow development will increase erosion potential.
Transport of quarry and borrow materials to the project site may result in erosion along the
transport route.
Airborne dust will be present in the quarry and borrow areas and along transportation corridors.
Transmission Lines,
Roads, Airstrip, and
Camp
Construction and operation of transmission lines, roads, airstrip, and construction camp will result
in increase erosion potential at these facilities and settlement may occur due to thawing of frozen
soils.
4.3.8. Potential Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement
Specific PM&E measures for geologic and soil resources have not been developed for the
Project. However, potential measures that may be applied to the Project are summarized in
Table 4.3-2.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-23 December 2011
Table 4.3-2 Potential protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures.
Impact Issue Category Potential Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures
Reservoir-Triggered
Seismicity
Historic estimates of reservoir-triggered seismicity (RTS) hazard will be re-evaluated for the current
Project based on contemporary models and understanding of seismic geology within the area of
hydrologic influence of the dam. However, based on past investigations significant RTS hazard is
not anticipated. Furthermore, the magnitude of an earthquake generated by RTS is unlikely to
exceed the magnitude of any earthquake which would normally occur in the area. Therefore, the
design level earthquake developed for the Project will provide the design criteria for any reservoir-
triggered earthquake.
The planned controlled, smooth filling curve, with no sudden changes in filling rate, will reduce the
RTS hazard.
A microseismic network installed to monitor seismic eventsprior to, during, and after impoundment
will help distinguish naturally occurring events (background seismicity) from those that could be
attributed to the filling and operation of the reservoir.
Reservoir Seepage
Grout curtain installation will be utilized to reduce or prevent normally occurring seepage within the
foundation rock below the dam.
An effective pattern of drain holes will be incorporated into the dam design in order to control
downstream pressures in the bedrock foundation.
Instrumentation of the dam abutments will be placed during construction for long-term, post-
construction monitoring of seepage.
Provisions will be made by virtue of the grouting and drainage galleries beneath the dam foundation
to allow for remedial grouting and additional drain hole installations for post-construction grouting
after abutment thawing and should excessive seepage develop during impoundment.
Reservoir Slope
Failures
While some degree of localized slope failures will be generated during reservoir filling, slope failure
is expected to be small and localized with much of the slide activity occurring underwater. Long-
term progressive activities such as beaching, skin flows, minor slides, will promote long-term stability
of reservoir shores.
Evaluation and monitoring of key slopes will be initiated prior to impoundment.
Permafrost and
General Soil Issues
Adequate structural designs will be implemented to mitigate for settlement in areas of frozen soils .
In addition, large pads of granular material may be placed in active areas in order to distribute the
load and insulate soil to retard permafrost thaw.
Regrading to offset the effects of differential settlement will be part of the maintenance program for
the airstrip in areas of permafrost.
Root systems remaining after tree clearing will help stabilize reservoir slopes in areas of thawing
permafrost until excessive pore pressures dissipate.
Soil Management
Areas where erosion may occur near streams or rivers will be protected during the construction
period and reseeded when construction is complete.
Construction site best management practices, including maintenance of native vegetation, temporary
reseeding, use of interception ditches, and installation of silt fences and other barriers, as described
in ADOT&PF (2011) and ADEC (2009) will be implanted at the site.
Project Facilities
Abandonment
All temporary access roads will be graded, re-contoured, and seeded following abandonment.
Borrow sites will be excavated only as necessary and will either be regraded and seeded with
appropriate species, or, if excavation is deep enough, converted to ponds.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-24 December 2011
4.3.9. References
Acres American Inc. (Acres). 1982a. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Feasibility Report.
Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska.
Acres 1982b. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, 1980–81 Geotechnical Report. Prepared for Alaska
Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska.
Acres. 1982c. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, 1982 Supplement to the 1980–81 Geotechnical
Report. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) Division of Water. June 2009.
Alaska Storm Water Guide.
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF). March 2011. Alaska
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Guide. Published on-line at
http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwddes/desenviron/asse ts/pdf/swppp/english/2011/swppp-
guide_with_all_apdx_2011.pdf. Accessed 9/15/2011.
Alaska Energy Authority (AEA). 2011. Briefing Memo on Reservoir Triggered Seismicity.
Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture (Harza-Ebasco). 1983. Watana Development Winter 1983
Geotechnical Exploration Program. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage,
Alaska.
Harza-Ebasco. 1985. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Draft License Application. Volume 12
Exhibit E Chapter 6. Geologic and Soil Resources.
URS, Tetra Tech, and Arctic Hydrologic Consultants (URS, TT, and AHC). 2011. AEA Susitna
Water Quality and Sediment Transport Data Gap Analysis Report.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1975. Hydroelectric Power and Related Purposes, Southcentral
Railbelt Area, Alaska Upper Susitna River Basin. Department of the Army, Alaska
District, Corps of Engineers. 12 December 1975.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1979. Hydroelectric Power and Related Purposes, Supplemental
Feasibility Report, Southcentral Railbelt Area, Alaska Upper Susitna River Basin.
Department of the Army, Alaska District, Corps of Engineers. February 1979.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants Inc. (WCC). 1980. Interim Report on Seismic Studies for Susitna
Hydroelectric Project. Prepared for Acres American Inc.
WCC. 1981. Draft Report Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project Design Earthquake Study:
Contract No. DACW 85-79-C-0045 Modification 0005, Department of the Army, Alaska
District, Corps of Engineers.
WCC. 1982. Final Report on Seismic Studies for Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Prepared for
AcresAmerican, Inc.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-25 December 2011
4.4. Water Resources
This section describes water resources in the Susitna River and its tributaries (See Figure 4.4-1).
Topics addressed include (1) drainage basin hydrology, including groundwater conditions, (2)
streamflow data, (3) hydrologic change, (4) existing and proposed water uses, (4) water quality
(chemical and physical parameters), (5) ice dynamics, and (6) bedload and sediment transport.
The primary focus of the water quality discussion is on parameters determined most important
for the maintenance of habitat for fish populations and other aquatic organisms, including
temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), total dissolved gas (TDG), pH, nutrients, chlorophyll-a,
turbidity, metals, among others.
Conditions are evaluated in the following reaches within the Susitna River basin: (1) in and
upstream of the proposed Watana Dam site at RM 184, (2) the middle Susitna River, from RM
184 downstream to the confluence with the Chulitna River at RM 98, and (3) the lower Susitna
River, from RM 98 downstream to Cook Inlet (Table 4.4-1). These reaches, identified during the
1980s FERC licensing process, were designated based on differences in channel morphology. In
addition to the mainstem, water resource conditions are assessed for important tributaries,
sloughs adjacent to the Susitna River mainstem, and at locations of potential access road and
transmission line stream crossings.
Water quality information presented in this section is derived primarily from studies conducted
in the 1980s and is supplemented with more recent, reasonably available information assembled
for the AEA Susitna Water Quality and Sediment Transport Data Gap Analysis Report (URS
2011). Recently collected water quality data pertain mainly to the Susitna River's tributaries
downstream from the town of Talkeetna.
The Data Gap Analysis Report (URS, TT and AHC 2011) concluded that existing water quality
information is insufficient for assessing baseline conditions in the Susitna River basin and for
evaluating potential Project effects. The gap report concluded that the nearly 30-year-old water
quality data do not represent present conditions, and more current information is needed to assess
potential impacts to fish and other aquatic biota in the mainstem Susitna River and at the mouths
of tributaries downstream of the proposed Project. The gap report (URS, TT and AHC 2011) also
concluded that existing sediment transport data allow for only limited analysis because of the age
of the data and a lack of points for calibration with current investigations. Predictions for
changes to sediment transport in the Susitna River require that a current and comprehensive
baseline of information be developed.
To gain a better perspective of potential water quality issues and potential future studies, baseline
water quality data are analyzed on a seasonal basis and then compared to Alaska's water quality
standards (Section 4.4.4.1). Construction and operation of the Susitna-Watana Project will
change some water quality conditions. These potential changes are addressed under Potential
Adverse Impacts (Section 4.4.9). Potential protection, mitigation and enhancement measures are
discussed in Section 4.4.10.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-26 December 2011
4.4.1. Drainage Basin Hydrology
4.4.1.1. Basin Description
The Susitna River drainage area is about 19,400 square mi. Upstream of the proposed location
of the Watana Dam (RM 184) the drainage area is about 5,180 square mi. The upper Susitna
River (i.e., area upstream of the proposed dam site) is fed by three glaciers in the Alaskan Range.
The glaciers cover an area of 290 square mi (Acres 1983a). The three glacially fed forks,
including the MacLaren River, flow southward for about 18 mi before joining to form the
mainstem of the Susitna River. The river flows an additional 55 mi southward through a broad
valley, where much of the coarse sediment from the glaciers settles out. The river then flows
west about 56 mi to the proposed Watana Dam site. Other tributaries that flow into the proposed
reservoir include Deadman, Watana (RM 194), Kosina (RM 206.8), Goose (RM 231.3), and Jay
creeks, along with the Oshetna River (RM 233.4).
Table 4.4-1. Reach segmentation for the Susitna River basin water quality analysis.
Bounds of Reach
(Susitna River Mi) Reach Number General Description
313 – 184 1
Upper Susitna River,
including headwaters and
tributaries above the
proposed Watana Dam site
184 – 150 2a
Middle Susitna River and
tributaries from below
proposed Watana Dam Site
through Devils Canyon
150 – 98 2b
Middle Susitna River and
tributaries from the mouth of
Devils Canyon to the Susitna
– Chulitna – Talkeetna
confluence
98 – 0 3
Lower Susitna River from
Susitna – Chulitna –
Talkeetna confluence to
mouth at Cook Inlet
RTalkeetnaR
SusitnaRChulitnaR
Ye
n
t
n
a
Cook Inlet Anchorage
Watana Dam
LEGEND:
±^Watana Dam Site
#Gaging StationBasin Boundary
Anchorage
Fairbanks
NOTES:1. Spatial Reference: NAD83 Alaska Albers, meters2. Topography: USGS National Elevation Dataset (NED), 2-Arc Second3. Basin boundary based on modified USGS HUCs 19020501-5
Location Map
0 20 4010Miles Susitna River Drainage Basin Boundaryand Streamflow Gage Locations
State of AlaskaSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Ferc No.14241
Date: Dec. 2011Scale: As Noted
Figure 4.4-1
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-28 December 2011
Downstream of the proposed dam site, the Susitna River continues west for about 40 mi through
the Devils Canyon areas; the river valley in this reach is narrow with violent rapids. Within the
96-mile westward section of the Susitna River, there are numerous small, steep gradient, clear
water tributaries that flow into the Susitna River. Several of these tributaries traverse waterfalls
as they enter the gorge. Tributaries located between the proposed dam site and Devils Canyon
include Devil, Fog (RM 179.2), and Tsusena (RM 181.3) creeks. Portage Creek enters the
Susitna River below Devils Canyon. As the Susitna River curves south past Gold Creek (RM
136.8), about 12 mi downstream from Devils Canyon, its gradient gradually decreases. The river
is joined by two major rivers, the Chulitna (RM 98) and Talkeetna (RM 97), about 40 mi
downstream of Gold Creek in the vicinity of the town of Talkeetna. A third major tributary, the
Yentna River (RM 28), joins the Susitna River about 70 mi farther downstream. From the
confluences with the Chulitna and Talkeetna rivers, the Susitna River flows south through
braided channels for about 97 mi until it empties into Cook Inlet near Anchorage, approximately
318 mi from its source.
4.4.1.2. Project Streamflow Data
4.4.1.2.1. USGS Recorded Streamflow Data
A summary of recorded flow data in the Susitna River watershed is useful to many groups
associated with the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project. Recorded flow data is also needed to
develop a long-term estimate of flow and flood frequency at the Watana Dam site for use in
Project design, reservoir operation and power generation studies. Fifteen gaging stations have
been intermittently operated by the USGS within the Susitna River watershed between 1949 and
2011 (Table 4.4-2). An additional station on the Little Susitna River, which is not a tributary of
the Susitna River, was included in Table 4.4-2 due to its proximity to the Susitna River and the
exceptionally long period of record for this gage.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-29 December 2011
Table 4.4-2: USGS streamflow gages in the Susitna watershed.
USGS
Gage
Number
Gage Name
Drainage
Area
(sq.mi.)
Latitude Longitude
Gage
Datum
(feet)
Available Period of Record
15290000 Little Susitna River near Palmer 62 61°42'37" 149°13'47" 917 63 years: 1948 - 2011
15291000 Susitna River near Denali 950 63°06'14" 147°30'57" 2,440 27 years: 1957 - 1976; 1978 - 1986
15291200 Maclaren River near Paxson 280 63°07'10" 146°31'45" 2,866 28 years: 1958 - 1986
15291500 Susitna River near Cantwell 4,140 62°41'55"147o32'42"1,900 17 years: 1961 - 1972; 1980 - 1986
15291700 Susitna River above Tsusena Creek N/A 62°49'24"148o36'17"1,500 Established October 2011
15292000 Susitna River at Gold Creek 6,160 62o46'04" 149
o41'28"677 57 years: 1949 - 1996; 2001 - 2011
15292400 Chulitna River near Talkeetna 2,570 62°33'31" 150°14'02" 520 19 years: 1958 - 1972; 1980 - 1986
15292700 Talkeetna River near Talkeetna 1,996 62°20'49" 150°01'01" 400 39 years: 1964 - 1972; 1980 - 2011
15292780 Susitna River at Sunshine 11,100 62o10'42" 150
o10'30"270 5 years: 1981 - 1986
15292800 Montana Creek near Montana 164 62°06'19" 150°03'27" 250 4 years: 2005 - 2006; 2008 - 2011
15294005 Willow Creek Near W illow 166 61°46'51"149°53'04" 350 25 years: 1978 - 1993; 2001 - 2011
15294010 Deception Creek near Willow 48 61°44'52" 149°56'14" 250 7 years: 1978 - 1985
15294100 Deshka River near Willow 591 61°46'05" 150°20'13" 80 21 years: 1978 - 1986; 1988 - 2001
15294300 Skwentna River near Skwentna 2,250 61°52'23" 151°22'01" 200 23 years: 1959 - 1982
15294345 Yentna River near Susitna Station 6,180 61°41'55" 150°39'02 80 6 years: 1980 - 1986
15294350 Susitna River at Susitna Station 19,400 61°32'41" 150°30'45 40 19 years: 1974 - 1993
The locations of the gaging stations listed in Table 4.4-2, along with the watershed boundaries
for the entire Susitna River and the portion of the tributaries, are shown on Figure 4.4-1. Figure
4.4-2 shows the chronological availability of USGS flow data in the Susitna watershed.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-30 December 2011
USGS Station
Number Station Name
194819491950195119521953195419551956195719581959196019611962196319641965196619671968196919701971197219731974197519761977197819791980198119821983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201115290000 Little Susitna River near Palmer
15291000 Susitna River near Denali
15291200 Maclaren River near Paxson
15291500 Susitna River near Cantwell
15291700 Susitna River above Tsusena Creek
15292000 Susitna River at Gold Creek
15292400 Chulitna River
15292700 Talkeetna River
15292780 Susitna River at Sunshine
15292800 Montana Creek near Montana
15294005 Willow Creek Near Willow
15294010 Deception Creek near Willow
15294100 Deshka River near Willow
15294300 Skwentna River
15294345 Yentna River near Susitna Station
15294350 Susitna River at Susitna Station
Note: Data are on a calendar year basis.
Legend
Complete years of record
Partial years of record
Figure 4.4-2: Susitna watershed USGS flow data – chronological availability.
Average monthly flows over the period of record for the gage sites listed in Table 4.4-2 are
presented in Table 4.4-3.
Table 4.4-3: Average monthly flows (cfs) at USGS gages in the Susitna watershed.
Little
Susitna
River near
Palmer
Susitna
River near
Denali
Maclaren
River near
Paxson
Susitna
River near
Cantwell
Susitna
River at
Gold Creek
Chulitna
River near
Talkeetna
Talkeetna
River near
Talkeetna
Susitna
River at
Sunshine
Montana
Creek near
Montana
Willow
Creek near
Willow
Deception
Creek near
Willow
Deshka
River near
Willow
Skwentna
River near
Skwentna
Yentna
River near
Susitna
Station
Susitna
River at
Susitna
Station
(61.9mi2) (950mi
2) (280mi
2) (4,140mi
2) (6,160mi
2) (2,570mi
2) (1,996mi
2) (11,100mi
2) (164.1mi
2) (166mi
2) (48mi
2) (591mi
2) (2,250mi
2) (6,180mi
2) (19,400mi
2)
January 31 262 105 961 1,590 1,367 666 4,375 39 84 18 277 1,120 3,265 8,487
February 25 220 90 828 1,414 1,132 562 3,939 33 73 15 239 953 2,985 7,739
March 21 199 82 779 1,297 1,001 508 3,496 31 61 15 240 837 2,576 7,136
April 27 233 89 915 1,753 1,171 703 3,948 54 95 39 590 1,095 3,863 10,021
May 240 2,135 850 7,908 14,138 8,169 5,050 27,970 888 653 169 2,800 8,599 26,433 64,825
June 661 7,279 2,894 18,230 26,417 21,474 10,631 56,472 547 981 95 902 19,001 47,997 118,479
July 485 9,831 3,240 17,542 23,871 26,363 10,151 66,238 346 637 89 831 17,644 53,394 130,317
August 409 8,159 2,548 14,918 21,365 22,516 9,102 60,972 576 619 84 1,140 13,401 49,070 113,051
September 306 3,296 1,136 7,936 13,741 11,834 5,860 35,202 541 633 91 1,231 8,466 27,608 74,446
October 148 1,181 421 3,365 6,345 5,188 2,946 16,600 246 427 72 1,161 4,522 14,003 39,578
November 64 525 192 1,575 2,679 2,169 1,201 6,787 70 158 47 673 1,945 5,823 15,966
December 41 339 130 1,117 1,892 1,576 820 4,877 47 105 25 338 1,327 3,893 9,983
Annual 206 2,793 981 6,340 9,805 8,792 4,039 23,864 242 388 65 903 6,640 20,208 50,417
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-31 December 2011
Table 4.4-4 presents the average monthly flows for the period of record at the nearest USGS
gaging station downstream from the Watana Dam site (Gold Creek), and Table 4.4-5 presents
similar information for the nearest USGS gaging station upstream from the dam site (Cantwell).
Table 4.4-4: Average flows (cfs) at USGS Gage 15292000 – Susitna River at Gold Creek
(RM 136.5).
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1949 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 24,250 15,650 6,335 2,583 1,439 ---
1950 1,027 788 726 870 11,510 19,600 22,600 19,880 8,301 3,848 1,300 1,100 7,687
1951 960 820 740 1,617 14,090 20,790 22,570 19,670 21,240 5,571 2,744 1,900 9,439
1952 1,600 1,000 880 920 5,419 32,370 26,390 20,920 14,480 8,202 3,497 1,700 9,820
1953 1,100 820 820 1,615 19,270 27,320 20,200 20,610 15,270 5,604 2,100 1,500 9,738
1954 1,300 1,000 780 1,235 17,280 25,250 20,360 26,100 12,920 5,370 2,760 2,045 9,762
1955 1,794 1,400 1,100 1,200 9,319 29,860 27,560 25,750 14,290 4,951 1,900 1,300 10,087
1956 980 970 940 950 17,660 33,340 31,090 24,530 18,330 5,806 3,050 2,142 11,712
1957 1,700 1,500 1,200 1,200 13,750 30,160 23,310 20,540 19,800 8,212 3,954 3,264 10,758
1958 1,965 1,307 1,148 1,533 12,900 25,700 22,880 22,540 7,550 4,811 2,150 1,513 8,891
1959 1,448 1,307 980 1,250 15,990 23,320 25,000 31,180 16,920 6,558 2,850 2,200 10,824
1960 1,845 1,452 1,197 1,300 15,780 15,530 22,980 23,590 20,510 7,794 3,000 2,694 9,872
1961 2,452 1,754 1,810 2,650 17,360 29,450 24,570 22,100 13,370 5,916 2,700 2,100 10,575
1962 1,900 1,500 1,400 1,700 12,590 43,270 25,850 23,550 15,890 6,723 2,800 2,000 11,633
1963 1,600 1,500 1,000 830 19,030 26,000 34,400 23,670 12,320 6,449 2,250 1,494 10,961
1964 1,048 966 713 745 4,307 50,580 22,950 16,440 9,571 6,291 2,799 1,211 9,807
1965 960 860 900 1,360 12,990 25,720 27,840 21,120 19,350 7,205 2,098 1,631 10,225
1966 1,400 1,300 1,300 1,775 9,645 32,950 19,860 21,830 11,750 4,163 1,600 1,500 9,121
1967 1,500 1,400 1,200 1,167 15,480 29,510 26,800 32,620 16,870 4,900 2,353 2,055 11,390
1968 1,981 1,900 1,900 1,910 16,180 31,550 26,420 17,170 8,816 3,822 1,630 882 9,560
1969 724 723 816 1,510 11,050 15,500 16,100 8,879 5,093 3,124 1,215 866 5,502
1970 824 768 776 1,080 11,380 18,630 22,660 19,980 9,121 5,288 3,407 2,290 8,076
1971 1,442 1,036 950 1,082 3,745 32,930 23,950 31,910 14,440 5,847 3,093 2,510 10,291
1972 2,239 2,028 1,823 1,710 21,890 34,430 22,770 19,290 12,400 4,826 2,253 1,465 10,641
1973 1,200 1,200 1,000 1,027 8,235 27,800 18,250 20,290 9,074 3,733 1,523 1,034 7,897
1974 874 777 724 992 16,180 17,870 18,800 16,220 12,250 3,739 1,700 1,603 7,694
1975 1,516 1,471 1,400 1,593 15,350 32,310 27,720 18,090 16,310 7,739 1,993 1,081 10,595
1976 974 950 900 1,373 12,620 24,380 18,940 19,800 6,881 3,874 2,650 2,403 8,027
1977 1,829 1,618 1,500 1,680 12,680 37,970 22,870 19,240 12,640 7,571 3,525 2,589 10,511
1978 2,029 1,668 1,605 1,702 11,950 19,050 21,020 16,390 8,607 4,907 2,535 1,681 7,810
1979 1,397 1,286 1,200 1,450 13,870 24,690 28,880 20,460 10,770 7,311 4,192 2,416 9,892
1980 1,748 1,466 1,400 1,670 12,060 29,080 32,660 20,960 13,280 7,725 3,569 1,915 10,689
1981 2,013 1,975 1,585 2,040 16,550 19,300 33,940 37,870 13,790 7,463 3,260 1,877 11,910
1982 1,681 1,486 1,347 1,783 13,380 26,100 24,120 15,270 17,780 6,892 2,633 2,358 9,608
1983 2,265 1,996 1,690 1,900 14,950 24,510 21,150 24,500 13,590 8,301 3,153 2,258 10,079
1984 2,048 1,969 1,900 1,810 12,960 26,770 23,540 20,400 9,429 5,670 3,093 2,394 9,382
1985 1,939 1,643 1,726 1,977 11,170 26,330 26,510 19,920 15,640 6,944 2,673 1,929 9,915
1986 1,658 1,561 1,394 1,565 12,080 20,010 21,870 17,250 12,860 12,680 3,450 1,955 9,084
1987 1,615 1,518 1,500 2,048 12,990 23,000 29,890 21,750 13,340 5,924 2,483 1,600 9,868
1988 1,561 1,500 1,500 1,587 17,370 29,720 25,690 19,540 13,780 7,674 3,013 2,000 10,467
1989 2,000 1,800 1,800 2,137 13,740 26,770 23,650 22,390 15,430 8,025 2,997 1,848 10,267
1990 1,765 1,700 1,852 4,250 25,630 33,800 23,510 23,730 26,510 6,895 2,447 2,200 12,906
1991 1,897 1,800 1,619 1,613 6,048 25,630 21,220 18,280 12,350 5,817 2,440 2,200 8,441
1992 1,965 1,800 1,868 2,100 6,104 23,140 25,540 21,150 10,170 4,379 2,733 2,039 8,628
1993 1,865 1,754 1,639 2,537 20,880 23,480 19,350 18,750 21,290 9,915 3,327 2,529 10,660
1994 2,058 1,786 1,526 3,221 14,610 31,090 20,960 18,580 9,357 4,530 2,780 2,097 9,421
1995 1,855 1,718 1,700 2,846 17,710 24,710 25,500 18,380 19,140 6,482 2,657 1,442 10,394
2002 1,548 1,421 1,303 1,330 11,510 16,550 18,150 23,780 16,250 10,950 5,394 2,590 9,288
2003 1,655 2,243 1,509 2,173 8,019 24,330 29,200 21,120 13,510 8,109 2,500 1,810 9,732
2004 1,471 1,276 1,081 2,730 23,570 25,330 20,160 17,720 6,452 3,300 1,733 1,610 8,930
2005 1,439 1,239 1,045 2,611 26,940 34,320 26,760 21,970 22,860 8,238 2,143 1,497 12,650
2006 1,400 1,389 1,361 1,535 15,730 23,290 23,140 30,810 12,300 10,390 3,140 2,319 10,648
2007 2,024 1,905 1,744 2,273 17,190 19,710 21,580 19,260 13,500 5,017 3,222 2,813 9,241
2008 1,842 1,343 1,360 1,670 11,860 21,120 22,030 19,730 14,520 5,529 1,548 1,300 8,703
2009 1,385 1,300 1,340 4,547 22,930 23,110 19,370 18,470 12,480 7,122 2,807 1,842 9,783
2010 1,468 1,350 1,305 1,847 19,610 20,020 27,520 20,080 15,820 --- --- --- ---
Average 1,596 1,418 1,300 1,760 14,274 26,528 24,047 21,433 13,861 6,372 2,680 1,891 9,805
Maximum 2,452 2,243 1,900 4,547 26,940 50,580 34,400 37,870 26,510 12,680 5,394 3,264 12,906
Minimum 724 723 713 745 3,745 15,500 16,100 8,879 5,093 3,124 1,215 866 5,502
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-32 December 2011
Table 4.4-5: Average Flows (cfs) at USGS Gage 1529150 – Susitna River near Cantwell
(RM 223.7).
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1961 --- --- --- --- 9,688 15,710 14,820 16,700 6,725 3,281 1,800 1,400 ---
1962 1,300 1,000 940 1,200 10,000 28,320 20,890 16,000 9,410 4,326 2,200 1,400 8,116
1963 1,000 850 760 720 11,340 15,000 22,790 18,190 9,187 3,848 1,300 877 7,214
1964 644 586 429 465 2,806 34,630 17,040 11,510 5,352 3,134 1,911 921 6,625
1965 760 680 709 1,097 8,818 16,430 18,350 13,440 12,910 3,116 1,000 750 6,538
1966 700 650 650 875 4,387 18,500 12,220 12,680 6,523 2,322 780 720 5,103
1967 680 640 560 513 9,452 19,620 16,880 19,190 10,280 3,084 1,490 1,332 7,018
1968 1,232 1,200 1,200 1,223 9,268 19,500 17,480 10,940 5,410 2,406 1,063 618 5,992
1969 508 485 548 998 7,471 12,330 13,510 6,597 3,376 1,638 815 543 4,094
1970 437 426 463 887 7,580 9,909 13,900 12,320 5,211 2,155 1,530 1,048 4,693
1971 731 503 470 529 1,915 21,970 18,130 22,710 9,800 4,058 2,050 1,371 7,056
1972 1,068 922 881 876 9,694 20,000 16,690 15,620 9,423 --- --- --- ---
1980 --- --- --- --- --- 17,370 20,460 14,870 8,570 5,472 2,487 1,658 ---
1981 1,694 1,186 919 1,218 12,150 14,020 20,870 22,760 9,417 3,829 1,627 1,297 7,646
1982 1,061 698 573 573 8,219 16,500 16,540 11,010 9,942 3,309 1,600 1,400 5,982
1983 1,300 1,200 1,148 1,210 8,196 16,460 16,250 17,000 8,656 5,377 2,130 1,600 6,751
1984 1,500 1,500 1,481 1,403 8,571 18,810 17,700 14,260 5,137 2,758 1,632 1,167 6,362
1985 990 880 844 1,028 5,541 15,810 19,880 12,730 7,522 3,087 1,367 891 5,916
1986 729.4 674.3 660 734.7 7,245 15,490 18,890 --- --- --- --- --- ---
Average 961 828 779 915 7,908 18,230 17,542 14,918 7,936 3,365 1,575 1,117 6,340
Maximum 1,694 1,500 1,481 1,403 12,150 34,630 22,790 22,760 12,910 5,472 2,487 1,658 8,116
Minimum 437 426 429 465 1,915 9,909 12,220 6,597 3,376 1,638 780 543 4,094
As shown on Figure 4.4-3 for the Gold Creek gage and Figure 4.4-4 for the Cantwell gage, flow
in the Susitna River and its tributaries is highly seasonal, with peak flows in July corresponding
with summer snow melt conditions, and low winter flows occurring when much of the
precipitation is stored in the watershed as snow.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-33 December 2011
Figure 4.4-3: Susitna River Flow Frequency at Gold Creek RM 136.5, Period 1949-2010.
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecDaily Flow (cfs)5% Exceedance
10% Exceedance
25% Exceedance
50% Exceedance
90% Exeedance
Based on Historic
Recorded Daily Flows
in theSusitna River
nearCantwell -USGS
Gage 15291500
Figure 4.4-4: Susitna River Flow Frequency at Cantwell RM 223.7, Period 1961-1986.
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Daily Flow (cfs)
5 percent Exceedance
10 percent Exceedance
25 percent Exceedance
50 percent Exceedance
90 percent Exeedance
Based on Historic
Recorded Daily Flows
in the Susitna River at
Gold Creek - USGS
Gage 15292000
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-34 December 2011
Similar tabular and graphical information for other USGS stations is presented in MWH
Americas, June 2011, Technical Memorandum on Watana Hydroelectric Project Hydrology TM-
03-0003-050411.
4.4.1.2.2. Watana Dam Site
No USGS recorded streamflow data is available in the immediate vicinity of the Watana Dam
site, except for the very short period of provisional record available at the new gage 15291700
that was established above the Tsusena Creek confluence in October 2011. A modeled daily
flow data set for the Watana Dam site was developed from the daily data at the downstream gage
at Gold Creek (RM 136.5) and the upstream gage near Cantwell (RM 223.7). The drainage area
at the Watana Dam site, 5,180 square mi, is approximately half-way between the drainage area at
Cantwell (4,140 square mi) and Gold Creek (6,160 square mi). The drainage areas for these sites
were confirmed with GIS measurements. The 17 years of concurrent data at the Cantwell and
Gold Creek gaging stations were used to calculate monthly scaling factors for use in estimating
flows at the Watana Dam site, with the resulting monthly flows summarized in Table 4.4-6
(MWH Americas, June 2011, Technical Memorandum on Watana Hydroelectric Project
Hydrology TM-03-0003-050411).
The Susitna River is typical of unregulated northern, glacial rivers with high, turbid summer
flows and low, clear winter flows. Runoff from snowmelt and rainfall in the spring causes a
rapid increase in flow in late April and May relative to the low discharges experienced
throughout the winter. Peak annual floods usually occur during this period. The maximum,
mean, and minimum monthly estimated flows at the proposed Watana Dam site are 42,842 cfs
(June 1964), 8,114 cfs, and 575 cfs (March 1964), respectively (Table 4.4-6). The peak annual
flow, which occurred on June 7, 1964, was estimated to be 90,700 cfs at Gold Creek. Rainfall-
related floods often occur in August and early September, but generally these floods are not as
severe as the spring snowmelt floods. Approximately 80 percent of the annual flow occurs
between May and September. Note that the critical streamflow for dependable capacity occurred
in water years 1969 and 1970.
At the proposed Watana Dam site, average flow approaches 5,000 cfs in October (the beginning
of the water year) and then decreases in November and December as the river freezes, with a low
flow of about 1,000 cfs occurring in March and/or April. Breakup of the river ice has
historically occurred in early to mid-May. Average monthly flows at the Watana Dam site are
over 11,000 cfs in May and peak at about 22,000 cfs in June. Average monthly flows gradually
decrease to 20,500 cfs in July, 18,000 cfs in August, and 11,000 cfs in September. Annual and
monthly flow duration curves for the proposed Watana Dam site, for low flow and high flow, are
shown in Figures 4.4-5 and 4.4-6. Flows are based on historic recorded daily flows at the Gold
Creek gage, adjusted for the drainage area between the Cantwell and Gold Creek gaging stations.
From October 1982 through October 1984, streamflow data were collected near the Watana Dam
site by a consultant to the Alaska Power Authority (R&M Consultants 1985b). A comparison of
the recorded streamflow data near the Watana Dam site to the estimated flows based on the Gold
Creek and Cantwell data is shown on Figure 4.4-7. Periods of no recorded data are highlighted
with the red line. Results show an acceptable comparison of recorded and estimated daily flows.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-35 December 2011
The only consistent difference between the recorded and estimated flows is for the period of
highest flows when the greatest error would be expected in recorded data.
Table 4.4-6: Estimated Monthly Average Flow (cfs) at the Watana Dam Site.
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1949 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 20,518 12,726 4,970 2,086 1,170 ---
1950 829 625 583 706 9,297 16,203 19,360 16,821 6,750 3,019 1,050 894 6,394
1951 775 651 594 1,312 11,381 17,187 19,334 16,643 17,272 4,370 2,216 1,544 7,813
1952 1,291 794 707 746 4,377 26,760 22,607 17,701 11,775 6,434 2,825 1,382 8,150
1953 888 651 658 1,310 15,565 22,585 17,304 17,439 12,417 4,396 1,696 1,219 8,055
1954 1,049 794 626 1,002 13,958 20,874 17,441 22,084 10,506 4,213 2,229 1,662 8,089
1955 1,448 1,112 883 973 7,527 24,685 23,609 21,788 11,620 3,884 1,535 1,057 8,388
1956 791 770 755 771 14,265 27,562 26,633 20,755 14,905 4,555 2,464 1,741 9,718
1957 1,372 1,191 963 973 11,107 24,933 19,968 17,379 16,101 6,442 3,194 2,653 8,893
1958 1,586 1,038 922 1,243 10,420 21,246 19,600 19,072 6,139 3,774 1,737 1,230 7,383
1959 1,168 1,038 787 1,014 12,916 19,279 21,416 26,382 13,759 5,145 2,302 1,788 8,979
1960 1,489 1,153 961 1,054 12,746 12,839 19,686 19,960 16,678 6,114 2,423 2,190 8,163
1961 1,979 1,393 1,453 2,149 13,638 22,784 19,840 19,480 10,146 4,638 2,263 1,760 8,509
1962 1,609 1,257 1,177 1,457 11,333 36,017 23,444 19,887 12,746 5,560 2,509 1,709 9,927
1963 1,309 1,185 884 777 15,299 20,663 28,767 21,011 10,800 5,187 1,789 1,195 9,143
1964 852 782 575 609 3,579 42,842 20,083 14,048 7,524 4,759 2,368 1,070 8,263
1965 863 773 808 1,232 10,966 21,213 23,236 17,394 16,226 5,221 1,565 1,204 8,436
1966 1,060 985 985 1,338 7,094 25,940 16,153 17,391 9,214 3,270 1,202 1,122 7,172
1967 1,102 1,031 890 850 12,556 24,712 21,987 26,104 13,673 4,019 1,934 1,704 9,269
1968 1,618 1,560 1,560 1,577 12,827 25,704 22,083 14,148 7,164 3,135 1,355 754 7,829
1969 619 608 686 1,262 9,314 13,962 14,843 7,772 4,260 2,403 1,021 709 4,819
1970 636 602 624 986 9,536 14,399 18,410 16,264 7,224 3,768 2,496 1,687 6,435
1971 1,097 778 717 814 2,857 27,613 21,126 27,447 12,189 4,979 2,587 1,957 8,722
1972 1,671 1,491 1,366 1,305 15,973 27,429 19,820 17,510 10,956 3,786 1,820 1,191 8,734
1973 968 953 803 833 6,652 22,982 15,634 17,168 7,379 2,928 1,230 840 6,559
1974 705 617 581 804 13,069 14,773 16,105 13,724 9,961 2,933 1,373 1,303 6,372
1975 1,223 1,168 1,124 1,292 12,399 26,711 23,746 15,306 13,263 6,071 1,610 879 8,773
1976 786 754 723 1,114 10,194 20,155 16,225 16,753 5,595 3,039 2,141 1,953 6,661
1977 1,476 1,285 1,204 1,363 10,242 31,390 19,591 16,279 10,278 5,939 2,847 2,104 8,697
1978 1,637 1,325 1,289 1,380 9,653 15,749 18,007 13,868 6,999 3,849 2,048 1,366 6,471
1979 1,127 1,021 963 1,176 11,203 20,411 24,740 17,312 8,758 5,735 3,386 1,964 8,205
1980 1,411 1,164 1,124 1,355 9,741 23,399 26,741 18,005 10,995 6,632 3,044 1,790 8,836
1981 1,858 1,592 1,262 1,641 14,415 16,738 27,599 30,539 11,668 5,700 2,468 1,596 9,841
1982 1,380 1,103 971 1,196 10,876 21,443 20,443 13,203 13,977 5,154 2,132 1,893 7,849
1983 1,797 1,610 1,427 1,565 11,673 20,605 18,773 20,861 11,196 6,882 2,657 1,939 8,465
1984 1,782 1,741 1,697 1,613 10,831 22,908 20,707 17,421 7,347 4,257 2,384 1,799 7,917
1985 1,479 1,273 1,298 1,517 8,439 21,226 23,293 16,432 11,702 5,073 2,039 1,426 7,975
1986 1,207 1,131 1,038 1,162 9,734 17,817 20,424 14,596 10,457 9,947 2,787 1,589 7,707
1987 1,303 1,205 1,204 1,661 10,493 19,014 25,605 18,403 10,848 4,647 2,006 1,301 8,195
1988 1,260 1,191 1,204 1,287 14,031 24,569 22,007 16,533 11,206 6,020 2,434 1,626 8,661
1989 1,614 1,429 1,445 1,733 11,098 22,131 20,260 18,945 12,547 6,296 2,421 1,502 8,496
1990 1,424 1,350 1,487 3,447 20,703 27,942 20,140 20,078 21,557 5,409 1,977 1,788 10,650
1991 1,531 1,429 1,300 1,308 4,885 21,188 18,178 15,467 10,043 4,563 1,971 1,788 6,998
1992 1,586 1,429 1,500 1,703 4,930 19,130 21,879 17,895 8,270 3,435 2,208 1,657 7,175
1993 1,505 1,393 1,316 2,058 16,866 19,411 16,576 15,865 17,312 7,778 2,687 2,056 8,778
1994 1,661 1,418 1,225 2,612 11,801 25,702 17,955 15,721 7,609 3,554 2,246 1,705 7,800
1995 1,497 1,364 1,365 2,308 14,305 20,428 21,844 15,552 15,564 5,085 2,146 1,172 8,595
1996 1,007 942 883 1,095 5,342 12,987 13,715 14,494 8,465 --- --- --- ---
2001 --- --- --- --- --- 25,628 18,889 18,437 8,424 3,797 2,122 1,542 ---
2002 1,249 1,128 1,046 1,079 9,297 13,682 15,548 20,121 13,214 8,590 4,357 2,105 7,666
2003 1,336 1,781 1,212 1,762 6,477 20,114 25,014 17,870 10,986 6,361 2,019 1,471 8,077
2004 1,187 1,013 868 2,214 19,039 20,940 17,270 14,993 5,247 2,589 1,400 1,309 7,390
2005 1,161 984 839 2,118 21,761 28,372 22,924 18,589 18,589 6,463 1,731 1,217 10,448
2006 1,130 1,103 1,093 1,245 12,706 19,254 19,823 26,069 10,002 8,151 2,536 1,885 8,818
2007 1,633 1,513 1,400 1,844 13,885 16,294 18,486 16,296 10,978 3,936 2,603 2,287 7,643
2008 1,486 1,066 1,092 1,355 9,580 17,460 18,872 16,694 11,807 4,337 1,250 1,057 7,213
2009 1,118 1,032 1,076 3,688 18,522 19,105 16,593 15,628 10,148 5,587 2,267 1,497 8,071
2010 1,185 1,072 1,048 1,498 15,840 16,550 23,575 16,990 12,864 --- --- --- ---
Average 1,282 1,122 1,041 1,419 11,415 21,818 20,420 18,054 11,173 4,978 2,164 1,536 8,116
Maximum 1,979 1,781 1,697 3,688 21,761 42,842 28,767 30,539 21,557 9,947 4,357 2,653 10,650
Minimum 619 602 575 609 2,857 12,839 13,715 7,772 4,260 2,403 1,021 709 4,819
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-36 December 2011
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Daily Flow (cfs)Percent of Time Flow is Equaled or Exceeded
Annual
January
February
March
April
November
December
Based on Estimated Flowsin
the Susitna River at Watana
Modeled from Historic
Recorded Daily Flowsat
Gold Creek
Figure 4.4-5: Estimated Susitna River Flow Duration at Watana Dam Site for Low Flow
Months based on Gold Creek Gage Measurements, 1949-2010.
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Daily Flow (cfs)Percent of Time Flow is Equaled or Exceeded
Annual
May
June
July
August
September
October
Based on Estimated Flowsin
the Susitna River at Watana
Modeled from Historic
Recorded Daily Flowsat
Gold Creek
Figure 4.4-6: Estimated Susitna River Flow Duration at Watana Dam Site for High Flow
Months based on Gold Creek Gage Measurements, 1949-2010.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-37 December 2011
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
01-Oct-8201-Nov-8201-Dec-8201-Jan-8301-Feb-8301-Mar-8301-Apr-8301-May-8301-Jun-8301-Jul-8301-Aug-8301-Sep-8301-Oct-8301-Nov-8301-Dec-8301-Jan-8401-Feb-8401-Mar-8401-Apr-8401-May-8401-Jun-8401-Jul-8401-Aug-8401-Sep-8401-Oct-84Flow (cfs)R & M Data near
Watana Dam Site
Periods of R & M
Estimated Data
MWH Estimated at
Watana Dam Site
Figure 4.4-7: Susitna River Flow Duration at Watana for Low Flow Months
4.4.1.2.3. Susitna River Flows Downstream of Watana Dam Site
Flows in the Susitna River increase gradually with distance downstream as small tributaries enter
the watershed. Flows then increase significantly as the result of input from the Chulitna and
Talkeetna rivers. The reach that would contain the proposed Project represents about one third
of the total Susitna River flow immediately downstream of Talkeetna. Hence, the Susitna-
Watana Project would have the greatest flow effect in the reach immediately below Watana Dam
downstream to the Chulitna-Talkeetna confluences. Farther downstream, the Yentna River
provides about 41 percent of the total Susitna River flow that discharges into Cook Inlet.
Overall, the Susitna River at the proposed Watana Dam site accounts for about 17 percent of the
total Susitna flow into Cook Inlet. A summary of average monthly flows at the proposed Watana
Dam and downstream USGS gaging stations is presented in Table 4.4-7. The values are
expressed as a percent of the flow at Susitna Station, the most downstream gaging station that
essentially represents the entire flow of the Susitna River. The corresponding average annual
values are plotted on Figure 4.4-8.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-38 December 2011
Table 4.4-7: Percent flow contribution of Susitna River locations to flow at the Susitna
Station USGS gage (RM 25.8).
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
Susitna River at Watana 5,180 20 19 21 18 20 20 18 16 15 14 15 18 17
local inflow a 9805554543344344
Susitna River at Gold Creek 6,160 24 24 26 22 25 24 21 19 19 18 18 22 21
Chulitna River near Talkeetna 2,570 20 16 17 14 13 17 21 20 17 16 16 19 18
Talkeetna River near Talkeetna 1,996 9 8 8 7 8 10 9 9 9 8 7 9 9
local inflow a 3742776653431104
Susitna River at Sunshine 11,100 55 56 57 50 51 56 53 52 48 43 42 50 52
Yentna River near Susitna Station 6,180 38 38 40 45 42 44 44 44 37 34 32 35 41
local inflow a 2,120 6 6 3 6 6 1 3 4 15232615 7
Susitna River at Susitna Station 19,400 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
a Percent of flow attributed to local inflow is equal to the increase in flow between gaged locations on the Susitna River.
Drainage
Area
(sq.mi.)
52% Susitna River at Sunshine
4% local inflow between Gold Creek and Sunshine
9% Talkeetna River
Cook Inlet
17% Susitna River at Watana
21% Susitna River at Gold Creek
local inflow between Watana and Gold Creek 4%
100% Susitna River at Susitna Station
Chulitna River 18%
YentnaRiver 41%
7% local inflow between Sunshine and Susitna Station
Figure 4.4-8: Percent flow contribution of Susitna River locations to flow at the Susitna
Station USGS gage (RM 25.8).
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-39 December 2011
4.4.1.2.4. Hydrologic Change
Climate change models project that the greatest increases in temperature will occur at high
latitudes. Over the past 50 years, Alaska has warmed at more than twice the average rate for the
rest of the United States. Average annual temperature has increased 3.4 ˚F (2.1 ˚C), while
winters have warmed by 6.3 ˚F (3.5 ˚C) (Karl, et al. 2009). As a result, climate change impacts
could be expected to be more pronounced in Alaska than in other regions of the United States.
Among other effects, higher temperatures should contribute to earlier spring snowmelt, a higher
percentage of precipitation falling as rain instead of snow, and glacier retreat.
The effect of increasing average annual temperatures on annual average streamflow is not easily
predicted. Major factors to be considered include climate change effects on precipitation,
evaporation, transpiration, snow ablation (direct change in phase from solid to vapor), and the
net rate of glacier loss. Increased flows from glacial melt can be more than balanced by reduced
runoff due to increased evaporation and transpiration. Conversely, if continued glacier wasting
resulted in reduced runoff from glaciers at some time in the distant future, it could potentially be
counterbalanced by increased precipitation and snowmelt runoff (IPCC 2007). Projections of
future average precipitation at a location are generally considered to be less certain than
projections of future average temperatures.
The long-term USGS streamflow record measured at the Gold Creek gage is useful for assessing
the effects of climate change on long-term reservoir inflows for the proposed Susitna-Watana
Project. MWH evaluated the average annual flows at Gold Creek for the complete calendar year
period of record and determined that average annual flows were essentially unchanged over the
period of record as shown on Figure 4.4-9.
However, analysis of monthly flow data at Gold Creek presents an entirely different picture from
the annual data. As shown in Figure 4.4-10 for February data and Figure 4.4-11 for April data,
the linear trend lines show a pronounced increase in average monthly flows over time. Statistical
tests of significance indicate with very high reliability that the observed trends in streamflow are
not random. The April trends are most significant and undoubtedly result from an earlier
initiation of the spring snowmelt as well as more precipitation falling as rain instead of snow. If
annual average flows remain constant while winter and early spring flows are increasing, flows
in other months must be decreasing. A statistically significant decrease in flows has been
observed in June, as shown in Figure 4.4-12. Although the percentage decrease in flows is less
than the percentage increase in flows in other months, June is the month with the highest average
flow, so that a smaller percentage change is indicative of a larger empirical change in flow.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-40 December 2011
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Flow (cfs)Year
Annual
Linear (Annual)
Figure 4.4-9: Average annual recorded flows (cfs) – Susitna River at Gold Creek
(RM 136.5).
By projecting the monthly average streamflow trends to the year 2050, a comparison of the
historic and projected average monthly flows at Gold Creek can be made as shown on Figure
4.4-13. Monthly average flows are projected to increase in the 8 months from October through
May, decrease in the 3 months from June through August, and remain about the same in
September. The average annual flows, resulting from the sum of the projected monthly flows in
2050, would remain the same as the historic average annual flow. The net effect of this seasonal
change in flows would be to increase the generation of the Susitna-Watana Project by a few
percent. The increased generation is produced by more flow in the colder months when power
demand is the highest and less flow in the warmest months when inflows fill the reservoir and at
times exceed the powerhouse hydraulic capacity.
Reservoir operation and power studies have traditionally used historic flow records as the basic
hydrologic input data. AEA proposes to use Watana reservoir inflows developed directly from
USGS records as the basic hydrologic input dataset for the reservoir operation and power studies.
However, based on the MWH analysis, for the licensing studies, AEA plans to consider
alternative hydrologic input datasets, which account for potential future hydrologic change.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-41 December 2011
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Flow (cfs)Year
Feb
Linear (Feb)
Figure 4.4-10: February recorded flows (cfs) – Susitna River at Gold Creek (RM 136.5).
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Flow (cfs)Year
Apr
Linear (Apr)
Figure 4.4-11: April recorded flows (cfs) – Susitna River at Gold Creek (RM 136.5).
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-42 December 2011
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
1950196019701980199020002010Flow (cfs)Year
June
Linear (June)
Figure 4.4-12: June recorded flows (cfs) – Susitna River at Gold Creek (RM 136.5).
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecMonthly Average Flow (cfs) at Gold Creek USGS Gaging StationHistoric 1949 - 2011 Average Flows
Projected Average Flows in 2050
Figure 4.4-13: Average annual recorded flows (cfs) – Susitna River at Gold Creek
(RM 136.5).
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-43 December 2011
4.4.2. Existing and Proposed Water Uses
Instream flow uses of the Susitna River include fish, wildlife, riparian vegetation, navigation and
transportation, recreation, waste assimilative capacity, freshwater recruitment to Cook Inlet
estuary, downstream water rights, hydroelectric power generation, and water required to
maintain the desirable aesthetic characteristics of the river itself. Irrigation, water supply, and
industrial uses are limited. Considerable work on instream flow needs, primarily for anadromous
and resident fisheries, was undertaken in the early 1980s. Instream flows would be required for
the mainstem Susitna River, side channels, and sloughs, particularly in the reach between Devils
Canyon and Talkeetna.
4.4.2.1. Water Rights
Water rights in Alaska are issued by the ADNR under the Alaska Water Use Act (AS 46.15). A
water right allows a specific amount of water from a specific water source to be diverted,
impounded, or withdrawn for a specific use. Water Rights were examined for the Susitna Project
in 1981 as part of the Susitna Project Feasibility Study (Dwight, Linda Perry 1981). That study
examined water rights for 18 different areas in the Susitna River basin. The only significant uses
of surface water in the Susitna basin occur in the headwaters of the Kahiltna and Willow Creek
township grids. The principal use of the water rights is for mining operations on a seasonal
basis. There were no surface water withdrawals from the Susitna River on file with ADNR.
Further, groundwater appropriations on file with ADNR for the mainstem Susitna River corridor
were minimal, both in terms of numbers of users and the amount of water being withdrawn. An
analysis of topographic maps and overlays showing the specific location of each recorded
appropriation within the mainstem Susitna corridor indicated that neither the surface water
diversions from small tributaries nor the groundwater withdrawals from shallow wells were
likely to be adversely affected by the proposed Susitna Project as configured at that time.
An August 2011 search of the ADNR website for water rights along the Susitna River corridor
from the proposed Watana Dam site to Cook Inlet revealed that additional water rights have been
granted since the 1981 assessment (www.dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/mapguide/water). Of the 40
townships reviewed, only 12 included surface or groundwater water rights, with a total of 110
water appropriations. Similar to the findings of the 1981 study, most of the appropriations were
relatively small and would not likely be adversely affected by the proposed Susitna-Watana
Project.
4.4.2.2. Fisheries Resources
The Susitna River supports populations of both anadromous and resident fish. Important
commercial, recreational, and subsistence species include pink (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha), chum
(O. keta), coho (O. kitutch), sockeye (O. nerka), and Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha), eulachon
(Thaleichthys pacificus), rainbow trout (O. mykiss), Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus), burbot
(Lota lota), and Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma). Natural flows presently provide for fish
passage, spawning, incubation, rearing, overwintering, and outmigration. These life-history
stages are correlated with the natural hydrograph. Salmon migrate upstream and spawn on the
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-44 December 2011
receding limb of the spring hydrograph and throughout most of the summer. The eggs incubate
during the low-flow winter period, and fry outmigration occurs in association with spring
breakup. Rainbow trout and grayling spawn during the high flows of the breakup period with
embryo development occurring during the early summer. Further information on Susitna River
basin fisheries is presented in Section 4.5 of this PAD.
4.4.2.3. Navigation and Transportation
Navigation and transportation on the Susitna River from the headwaters to the proposed Watana
Dam site is limited, being primarily related to hunting and fishing access to the Tyone River after
launching at the Denali Highway. However, some recreational kayaking, canoeing, and rafting
also occur in this reach. Devils Canyon rapids offer 11 mi of some of the most challenging
whitewater in the world, which for that reason is rarely accessed. The river is used for
navigation up to Portage Creek (RM 149), which is at the downstream end of Devils Canyon.
This entire reach is navigable under most flow conditions, although abundant floating debris
during extreme high water and occasional shallow areas during low water can make navigation
difficult. Downstream of Devils Canyon, the Susitna River is used for sport fishing, hunting,
recreational boating, sightseeing, and transportation of some supplies. Access to the river is
gained from four principal boat launch sites (Talkeetna, Sunshine Bridge, Kashwitna Landing,
and Willow Creek), from several minor tributaries, and from Cook Inlet.
4.4.2.4. Recreation
The summer recreation uses of the Susitna River include recreational boating, kayaking,
canoeing, sport fishing, hunting access, and sightseeing. In winter, recreation uses include snow
machines and dogsleds. See Section 4.10 for additional information.
4.4.2.5. Wetlands, Riparian Vegetation, and Wildlife Habitat
Wetlands cover large portions of the Susitna River basin, including riparian zones along the
mainstem Susitna River, sloughs, and tributary streams. Wetlands generally support a greater
diversity of wildlife species per unit area than most other habitat types in Alaska. In addition,
riparian wetlands provide winter browse for moose and during severe winters can be a critical
survival factor for this species. They also help to maintain water quality throughout watersheds.
Water storage in wetland complexes may also be an important source of streamflow during low-
flow months, especially in smaller tributaries to the mainstem Susitna River.
The physical processes affecting riparian vegetation include freeze-up, spring ice jams, and
flooding. In the middle Susitna River downstream of Devils Canyon both flooding and freeze-up
are believed to be important factors affecting vegetation. Because of the braided morphology of
the river channel downstream of Talkeetna, flooding is likely to be the dominant factor
influencing riparian vegetation in this reach.
See Sections 4.6, 4.7 and 4.8 for additional information.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-45 December 2011
4.4.2.6. Waste Assimilative Capacity
The primary source of pollution in the Susitna River watershed is placer mining operations
(ADEC 1978). Although suspended sediment may be introduced into the watershed, no
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) is exerted on the system, and therefore, the waste
assimilative capacity remains unaffected by the mining activities. BOD discharges in the
watershed include one municipal discharge in Talkeetna, two industrial wastewater discharges at
Curry and Talkeetna, and three solid waste dumps at Talkeetna, Sunshine, and Peters Creek.
4.4.2.7. Freshwater Recruitment to Cook Inlet Estuary
The Susitna River is the most significant contributor of freshwater to Cook Inlet, and as such, has
a major influence on the salinity of upper Cook Inlet. High summer freshwater flows associated
with the occurrence of snowmelt, rainfall, and glacial melt cause reduced salinities. During
winter, low flows permit the more saline ocean water to increase Cook Inlet salinities. The large
Cook Inlet tides increase the mixing of freshwater and saltwater. Salinity measurements were
recorded at the mouth of the Susitna River during spring tides and high flows of 90,000 cfs on
August 18 and 19, 1982 and during low flows on February 14, 1983 to determine if salinity
penetration occurs upstream of the mouth of the river; no saltwater intrusion was detected.
4.4.3. Water Quality
4.4.3.1. Alaska State Water Quality Standards
The State of Alaska has promulgated Water Quality Standards for the Protection of Aquatic Life
and Wildlife (Table 4.4-8). Within the Susitna River basin, primary concerns are for the
protection of anadromous and resident fish species. Hence, much of this water quality section is
focused on the parameters that have the potential to affect anadromous and resident fish.
Water quality parameters that exceed state standards are of interest because of the proposed
Project's potential to influence these parameters (either positively or negatively), thereby having
a potential effect on anadromous and/or resident fish. Locations in the drainage where
exceedances have occurred are identified. The purpose of the analysis presented below is to
identify locations where existing conditions for important fish populations may be degraded, as
well as the potential cause or causes of the degradation.
Turbidity measurements were summarized from existing datasets, but not evaluated against
criteria and not interpreted further. The turbidity criterion is based on comparison against a
natural background measurement and requires several observations from the same location
within a specified period of time. Unless turbidity exceedances were identified at a location and
within a reviewed report it was not possible to appropriately determine a turbidity exceedance
from existing data. In addition, the Susitna River and several of the tributaries are glacially fed
and are naturally quite turbid.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-46 December 2011
The Alaska State Water Quality Standards for metals concentrations and other xenobiotics are
reported in Table 4.4-9. Most water quality criteria for metals are dependent on the hardness of
the source water measured concurrently with the metals concentrations. Due to the nature of the
available water quality data, determining specific metals criteria for individual sample
collections was not achievable. Companion water quality data (e.g., hardness) used to determine
effective concentrations of metals toxicity to aquatic life were not available. Therefore, metal
exceedances of state criteria that are hardness-dependent have not been determined. Metal
concentrations found in the Susitna River and its tributaries are compared to known toxic
thresholds, thereby providing valuable information on the potential impact of metals on fish
populations.
Table 4.4-8. Alaska State Water Quality Standards for the Protection of Aquatic Life and
Wildlife (18 AAC 70, May 2011).
Parameter Criteria
Color
(platinum-cobalt
scale)
Color or apparent color may not reduce the depth of the compensation
point for photosynthetic activity by more than 10 percent from the
seasonally established norm for aquatic life. For all waters without a
seasonally established norm for aquatic life, color or apparent color may
not exceed 50 color units or the natural condition, whichever is greater.
Fecal Coliform
Bacteria
Not applicable.
Dissolved
Oxygen (DO)
DO must be greater than 7 mg/l in waters used by anadromous or
resident fish. In no case may DO be less than 5 mg/l to a depth of 20 cm
in the interstitial waters of gravel used by anadromous or resident fish for
spawning (see note 2). For waters not used by anadromous or resident
fish, DO must be greater than or equal to 5 mg/l. In no case may DO be
greater than 17 mg/l.
Total Dissolved
Solids (TDS)
TDS may not exceed 1,000 mg/l. A concentration of TDS may not be
present in water if that concentration causes or reasonably could be
expected to cause an adverse effect to aquatic life.
pH May not be less than 6.5 or greater than 8.5. May not vary more than 0.5
pH unit from natural conditions.
Temperature May not exceed 20°C at any time. The following maximum temperatures
may not be exceeded, where applicable:
Migration routes 15°C
Spawning areas 13°C
Rearing areas 15°C
Egg & fry incubation 13°C
For all other waters, the weekly average temperature may not exceed
site-specific requirements needed to preserve normal species diversity or
to prevent appearance of nuisance organisms.
Sediment The percent accumulation of fine sediment in the range of 0.1 mm to 4.0
mm in the gravel bed of waters used by anadromous or resident fish for
spawning may not be increased more than 5 percent by weight above
natural conditions (as shown from grain size accumulation graph). In no
case may the 0.1 mm to 0.4 mm fine sediment range in those gravel beds
exceed a maximum of 30 percent by weight (as shown from grain size
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-47 December 2011
Parameter Criteria
accumulation graph). In all other surface waters no sediment loads
(suspended or deposited) that can cause adverse effects on aquatic
animal or plant life, their reproduction or habit may be present.
Turbidity May not exceed 25 nephelometric turbidity unit (NTU) above natural
conditions. For all lake waters, may not exceed 5 NTU above natural
conditions.
Toxic and Other
Deleterious
Organic and
Inorganic
Substances
The concentration of substances in water may not exceed the numeric
criteria for aquatic life for fresh water and human health for consumption
of aquatic organisms only shown in the Alaska Water Quality Criteria
Manual, or any chronic and acute criteria established in this chapter, for a
toxic pollutant of concern to protect sensitive and biologically important
life stages of resident species of this state. There may be no
concentrations of toxic substances in water or in shoreline or bottom
sediments, that, singly or in combination, cause, or reasonably can be
expected to cause, adverse effects on aquatic life or produce undesirable
or nuisance or aquatic life, except as authorized by this chapter.
Substances may not be present in concentrations that individually or in
combination impart undesirable odor or taste to fish or other aquatic
organisms, as determined by either bioassay or organoleptic tests.
Total Dissolved
Gas
The concentration of total dissolved gas may not exceed 110 percent of
saturation at any point of sample collection.
1 For water supply over a 30 day period, the geometric mean of fecal coliform (FC) may not exceed 20
FC/100 ml, and not more than 10 percent of the samples may exceed 40 FC.
Table 4.4-9. Alaska State Water Quality Standards for Toxics and Other Deleterious
Organic and Inorganic Substances (December 2008).
Parameter Acute Criteria (CMC) Chronic Criteria (CCC)
Aluminum,
Total recoverable
750 µg/L
(1-hr avg)
87 µg/L
(4-day avg)
Ammonia,
(total ammonia
nitrogen in
mg N/L)
1.77 to 28.1
Criteria are pH dependent1
(1-hr avg)
Criteria are pH and temperature
dependent2
(30-day avg)
Arsenic,
Dissolved
340 µg/L
(1-hr avg)
150 µg/L
(4-day avg)
Barium No Criteria No Criteria
Cadmium,
Dissolved
Criteria Hardness Dependent3
(1-hr avg)
Criteria Hardness Dependent3
(4-day avg)
Chloride,
Dissolved
860,000 µg/L
(1-hr avg)
Applies to dissolved chloride when
associated with sodium.
230,000 µg/L
(4-day avg)
Applies to dissolved chloride when
associated with sodium.
Copper,
Dissolved
Criteria Hardness Dependent3
(1-hr avg)
Criteria Hardness Dependent3
(4-day avg)
Iron No Criteria 1,000 µg/L
Lead,
Dissolved
Criteria Hardness Dependent3
(1-hr avg)
Criteria Hardness Dependent3
(4-day avg)
Manganese No Criteria No Criteria
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-48 December 2011
Parameter Acute Criteria (CMC) Chronic Criteria (CCC)
Mercury,
Dissolved
1.4 µg/L
(1-hr avg)
0.77 µg/L
(4-day avg)
Mercury,
Total 1.694 µg/L 0.9081 µg/L
Nickel,
Dissolved
Criteria Hardness Dependent3
(1-hr avg)
Criteria Hardness Dependent3
(4-day avg)
Selenium,
Total recoverable
See Note4
(1-hr avg)
5.0 µg/L
(4-day avg)
Zinc,
Dissolved
Criteria Hardness Dependent3
(1-hr avg)
Criteria Hardness Dependent3
(4-day avg)
1 pH values in the Susitna River range from 6.8 to 8.6. Using Appendix C in the Alaska Water Quality Criteria
Manual for Toxic and Other Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances the criteria for Total Ammonia
Nitrogen as N would range from 1.77 to 28.1 mgN/L.
2 Chronic criteria for Ammonia should be calculated based on pH and temperature when early life stages of fish
are present as shown in Appendix D of the Alaska Water Quality Criteria Manual for Toxic and Other Deleterious
Organic and Inorganic Substances.
3 To calculate dissolved metals criteria please refer to the table in Appendix A of the Alaska Water Quality Criteria
Manual for Toxic and Other Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances. 4 The CMC = 1/[(f1/CMC1) + (f2/CMC2)] where f1 and f2 are the fractions of total selenium that are treated as
selenite and selenate, respectively, and CMC1 and CMC2 are 185.9 g/l and 12.82 g/l, respectively.
4.4.3.2. Overview of Water Quality Conditions
As described above, the Susitna River is characterized by large seasonal fluctuations in flow.
These flow variations, along with the glacial origins of the river's water, strongly influence the
water quality of the river. Water quality data are presented according to season: ice breakup,
summer, and winter. Breakup water quality data were considered to be collected during the
month of May. However, as discussed above, breakup may start in April, particularly in recent
years due to the effects of climate change. The summer data period was considered to extend
from the end of breakup (June 1) until the water temperature dropped to essentially 0˚ C (32˚ F).
Winter was considered to extend from the end of summer to the beginning of breakup (May 1).
Although the Susitna River is relatively pristine, a number of parameters exceeded state water
quality standards. These parameters, the location and season during which the criteria were
exceeded, and the respective source of the criteria limits, are identified in Table 4.4-10. Note
that water quality standards generally apply to human-induced alterations and constitute the
degree of degradation that may not be exceeded. Because there are no industries except for
placer mining operations, no significant agricultural areas, and no major cities adjacent to the
Susitna, Chulitna, and Talkeetna rivers, the measured levels of these parameters are considered
to be background conditions.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-49 December 2011
Table 4.4-10. Location of water quality criteria exceedances in the Susitna River drainage.
Reach
Number
Bounds of
Reach
(Susitna
River Mile)
General Description Water Quality Criteria
Exceedance
1 313 – 184
Upper Susitna River, including
headwaters and tributaries above
the proposed Watana Dam site
Aluminum
Iron
2a 184 - 150
Middle Susitna River and
tributaries from below proposed
Watana Dam Site through Devils
Canyon
Total Dissolved Gas
Temperature for Migration
Aluminum
2b 150 – 98
Middle Susitna River and
tributaries from the mouth of
Devils Canyon to the Susitna –
Chulitna – Talkeetna confluence
Temperature for Migration
Aluminum
Iron
Total Mercury (Mainstem at Gold
Creek)
3 98 – 0
Lower Susitna River from Susitna
– Chulitna – Talkeetna
confluence to mouth at Cook Inlet
Temperature for Spawning
(Talkeetna River)
Dissolved Oxygen
pH
Iron
Mercury
4.4.3.3. Water Temperature
4.4.3.3.1. Mainstem Susitna River
During winter (October through April), the entire mainstem Susitna River is at or near 0 ˚C.
However, there are a number of small discontinuous areas with groundwater inflow where
temperatures are approximately 2 ˚C (36˚ F). As spring breakup occurs the water temperature
begins to rise, with the downstream reaches experiencing warming first. During summer, glacial
melt is near 0 ˚C, but as the river flows across the wide gravel floodplains downstream of the
glaciers, the water begins to warm. By the time the Susitna River reaches the proposed Watana
Dam site, summer temperatures are as high as 14 ˚C (57˚ F) (Appendix 4.4-1). Further
downstream there is additional warming, but because of significant tributary inflow,
temperatures are cooler at some locations. Maximum recorded temperatures at Gold Creek and
Susitna Station are approximately 15 ˚C (59˚ F) (Appendix 4.4-1). In August, temperatures
begin to drop, reaching 0 ˚C in late September or October.
4.4.3.3.2. Sloughs
Water temperatures in sloughs along the middle Susitna River from Devils Canyon to the
Chulitna-Talkeetna river confluences are important for anadromous fish spawning. As measured
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-50 December 2011
in the 1980s, intergravel temperatures were relatively constant at each location during the winter
but exhibited some variability between locations. At most locations, intergravel temperatures
were about 2-3 ˚C (36-37˚ F). Surface water temperatures in sloughs showed more variability
and were generally lower than intergravel temperatures (Trihey 1982c). During higher flow
periods in the spring and summer, when the heads of most sloughs are overtopped, slough water
temperatures correspond closely to mainstem temperatures. However, once the flow at the heads
of the sloughs is eliminated, spring and summer slough water temperatures tend to diverge from
mainstem temperatures. Water temperatures in sloughs during late summer and early fall can
exhibit marked diurnal variations caused by increased solar warming of the shallow water during
the day and subsequent long wave re-radiation at night. For example, during the summer of
1981, Slough 21 (RM 142) had a diurnal temperature range of 4.5-8.5 ˚C (40-47˚ F)at the water's
surface but a constant intergravel temperature of 3 ˚C (37˚ F).
4.4.3.3.3. Tributaries
Tributaries to the Susitna River are generally cooler than the mainstem. During the early 1980s,
continuous water temperatures were monitored by both the USGS and the ADF&G in the
Chulitna and Talkeetna rivers near Talkeetna, and by ADF&G in the Indian River (RM 138.6)
and Portage, Tsusena, Watana, Kosina, and Goose Creeks, and the Oshetna River. Both the
Talkeetna and Chulitna rivers are cooler than the Susitna River. The Talkeetna River was 1-3 ˚C
(34-37˚ F) cooler on an average daily basis and the Chulitna River was an additional 0-2 ˚C (32-
36˚ F) cooler, being closer to its glacial headwaters. Steep-walled tributaries like Portage Creek
were consistently cooler than flatter terrain streams like Indian River, which are more easily
influenced by solar and convective heating. There were noticeable diurnal fluctuations in the
tributary water temperatures, although not as extreme as in the sloughs.
Winter stream temperatures are usually very close to 0 ˚C, as all the tributaries become ice
covered. Groundwater inflow at some locations creates local conditions where temperatures are
above freezing, but the overall temperature regime is dominated by the extremely cold ambient
air temperatures.
In 2008 and 2009, the Cook Inlet Keepers measured water temperatures in 13 tributaries of the
lower Susitna River basin. The maximum water temperatures of these tributaries during June,
July, and August typically exceeded the temperature criteria for protection of salmon spawning
areas (i.e., 13 ˚C, 55˚ F).
4.4.3.4. Dissolved Gases
4.4.3.4.1. Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations are generally high throughout the Susitna River. Winter
values average 11-16 mg/l, while average summer concentrations are between about 11 and 14
mg/l. These average concentrations equate to summer saturation levels between 97 and 105
percent. Winter saturation levels decline slightly from summer levels, averaging 98 percent at
Gold Creek and 80 percent at Susitna Station.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-51 December 2011
4.4.3.4.2. Total Dissolved Gas
Total dissolved gas (TDG) concentrations were monitored in the vicinity of Devils Canyon
during 1981 and 1982. Limited 1981 data revealed saturated conditions of approximately 100
percent above the Devil Creek rapids. However, downstream TDG concentrations in the Devils
Canyon area were measured in the supersaturation range of 105-117 percent (Schmidt 1981).
From August 8 to October 6, 1982, a continuous tensionometer was installed immediately
downstream of Devils Canyon. The data revealed a linear relationship between TDG and
discharge at Gold Creek. TDG ranged from 106-115 percent for discharges from 11,700 to
32,500 cfs (ADF&G 1983). Computations yielded decay rates that suggest variations in the rate
of decay of supersaturation with discharge, distance downstream, and channel slope and
morphology characteristics (ADF&G 1983; Peratrovich et al. 1983). In 1985, TDG
measurements at the proposed Watana Dam site varied from 97-101 percent during summer and
from 97 - 99 percent during fall (Appendix 4.4-1). Alaska water quality standards specify a
maximum TDG concentration of no higher than 110 percent.
4.4.3.5. pH
Average pH values in the Susitna River basin tend to be slightly alkaline, with values ranging
between 6.8 and 8.5. Low pH levels are common in Alaskan streams and are attributable to the
acidic tundra runoff (i.e., humic, tannic, and fulvic acids). At Denali, pH variations between 7.1
and 7.6 occurred during winter, while the summer range was 7.4-7.9. Winter pH levels at the
Gold Creek station have been measured between 7.6 and 8.0; the range of summer values were
6.8-8.3. Generally, these pH values are within the State's water quality standard of 6.5-8.5.
4.4.3.6. Nutrients
Of the four major nutrients (carbon, silica, nitrogen, and phosphorous), phosphorous is the
limiting nutrient in the Susitna River because it is in a form that is unavailable to microflora.
Studies of glacial lakes in Alaska (ADF&G 1982b) and Canada (St. John et al. 1976) indicate
that over 50 percent of the total phosphorous occurred in the biologically inactive particulate
form (Peterson and Nichols 1982). The bio-available phosphorous, namely orthophosphates, is
typically 0.1 mg/l or less throughout the Susitna River basin (Appendix 4.4-1).
Based on sampling conducted in the 1980s, nitrate nitrogen exists in low to moderate
concentrations (< 0.9 mg/l) in the Susitna River. Summer concentrations at Gold Creek varied
between 0.02 mg/l and 0.25 mg/l. During winter, the range of variability was reduced, with the
concentration being about 0.15 mg/l. Maximum recorded concentrations in the watershed of 1.2
mg/l occurred at the Talkeetna River monitoring station.
4.4.3.7. Chlorophyll-a
Chlorophyll-a, a measure of algal biomass, is low in the Susitna River due to the low penetration
of light in the sediment-laden waters. The only chlorophyll-a data available for the Susitna River
were collected at the Susitna Station gage (RM 25.8). Values up to 1.2 mg/m3 (chlorophyll-a
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-52 December 2011
periphyton, uncorrected) were recorded. However, when the chromospectropic technique was
used, values ranged from 0.004 to 0.029 mg/m3 for three samples in 1976 and 1977. All
recorded values from 1978 through 1980 were less than detectable limits when analyzed using
the chromographic fluorometer technique. With the high suspended sediment concentrations and
turbidity values in the upper Susitna basin, it is expected that chlorophyll-a values would be low.
4.4.3.8. Turbidity and Vertical Illumination
The Susitna River is typically clear during the winter months, with turbidity values at or near
zero. Turbidity values measured by the USGS in January and April 1982 were 1.1
Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU) or less at Gold Creek (RM 136.5),, Sunshine (RM 83.8),
and Susitna Station (RM 25.8). Turbidity increases as snowmelt and breakup commence. Peak
turbidity values occur during summer when glacial input is greatest. During 1982,
measurements of up to 720 NTU were recorded at Vee Canyon (RM 223). At the USGS gaging
station on the Chulitna River, a value of 1,920 NTU was observed. In contrast, the maximum
value recorded on the Talkeetna River was 272 NTU. More current measurements for the
Talkeetna River indicate that turbidity has not changed significantly, with values of 340 NTU.
In the lower Susitna River, turbidity values were up to 790 NTU at Susitna Station.
Turbidity values were measured for select Middle Susitna River sloughs in 1981, and data
indicated that sloughs were generally clear until their upstream ends were overtopped. At a Gold
Creek discharge of 17,000 cfs, no sloughs were overtopped, and turbidity in all sloughs during
the June 1981 measurements was less than 1 NTU. Corresponding turbidity at Gold Creek was
100 NTU. During July measurements, Gold Creek flow was in excess of 35,000 cfs, and the
upstream ends of several sloughs were overtopped, although Slough 19 was not. Turbidity in the
overtopped sloughs varied from 130 to 150 NTU, whereas turbidity in Slough 19 was 2.5 NTU,
and Gold Creek turbidity was 170 NTU. During September, with Gold Creek flow at 8,500 cfs,
maximum slough turbidity was 1.1 NTU, with turbidity at Gold Creek being 5.5 NTU. During
overtopping, slough turbidities reflected mainstem values. Even with overtopping some sloughs
maintained lower turbidity due to the dilution effect of groundwater or tributary inflow.
In general, vertical illumination through the water column varied directly with turbidity and,
hence, followed the same temporal and spatial patterns described above. Although no
quantitative assessment was conducted, summer vertical illumination was generally a few inches.
During winter months, the river bottom was seen in areas without ice cover. However, vertical
illumination under an ice cover was reduced, especially when the ice was not clear or when snow
cover was present.
4.4.3.9. Metals
The concentrations of many metals monitored in the river were low or within the range
characteristic of natural waters. In addition, 15 parameters were below detectable limits when
both the dissolved (d) fraction and the total recoverable (t) quantities were counted. For
antimony, boron, gold, platinum, tin, radium, and zirconium, both (d) and (t) were below
detection limits. The dissolved fraction of molybdenum was also not detectable.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-53 December 2011
The concentrations of some trace elements, however, exceeded water quality standards for the
protection of freshwater organisms (Table 4.4-10). These concentrations were likely the result of
natural processes but could include depositions from air pollution, because with the exception of
some placer mining activities, there were no human-induced sources of these elements in the
Susitna River basin. Metals that exceeded criteria included both dissolved and total recoverable
aluminum, mercury, cadmium, copper, and zinc. In addition, the dissolved fraction of bismuth
and the total recoverable quantities of iron, lead, and nickel also exceeded criteria.
Metals concentrations at the Susitna River stations are presented in Appendix 4.4-1. Metals data
are compared with the toxics threshold criteria in Table 4.4-11 to determine if concentrations are
likely to adversely affect fish populations. Although toxics data were not available for all fish
species of interest, conclusions from the toxics threshold comparison indicate that some metals
concentrations exceeded the No Observed Effects Levels (NOELs) and that this pattern was
consistent in multiple reaches for the same metals (Table 4.4-12). Based on the historic data,
some metals concentrations would have been sufficient to have chronic effects on
salmon/rainbow trout species. However, much of this information may not reflect current
conditions and, therefore, may no longer be a factor in determining fish habitat suitability.
4.4.3.10. Other Water Quality Parameters
4.4.3.10.1. Total Dissolved Solids
Total dissolved solids (TDS) were found to be higher during the winter low-flow periods than
during summer. TDS concentrations generally decreased in a downstream direction. At Gold
Creek, TDS winter values were measured at 100-188 mg/l, whereas summer concentrations were
between 55 and 140 mg/l. Downstream measurements at Susitna Station ranged from 109-139
mg/l during winter and between 56 and 114 mg/l in the summer. All values were well within
state water quality standards.
4.4.3.10.2. Specific Conductance
Conductivity values, which generally correlate with TDS concentrations, provided salinity
contents are reasonably low (Cole 1975), were also higher during winter than during summer. In
the upstream reaches of the Susitna River, conductivity values were typically higher than in
downstream reaches. At Denali, specific conductance values ranged from 351-467 µmhos/cm in
winter/spring to 123-226 µmhos/cm in summer/fall. Gold Creek specific conductivities varied
from 84-300 µmhos/cm in winter to 75-227 µmhos/cm in summer. Specific conductance levels
at Susitna Station ranged from 180-225 µmhos/cm during winter to 96-154 µmhos/cm during
summer (Appendix 4.4-1).
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-54 December 2011
Table 4.4-11. Available toxics threshold concentrations that affect select fish species known
to occur in the Susitna River drainage.
Mean dose Mean dose Mean dose
LC50(µg/L)LOEL (µg/L) NOEL(µg/L)
Steelhead Aluminum 7,761 1,496
Steelhead Antimony 19,749 5,193
Chinook Arsenic 96hr 66,216 17,411
Steelhead Beryllium 28day 380
Sockeye Cadmium (dissolved) 96hr 18
Chinook Cadmium (dissolved) 96hr 13 4
Steelhead Cadmium (dissolved) 96hr 12 2
Chinook Chromium (hexavalent) 96hr 124,152 10
Steelhead Chromium (hexavalent) 96hr 69,000 49
Steelhead Chromium (trivalent) 96hr 23,250
Steelhead Cobalt 28day 490
Chinook Copper 96hr 59 24
Sockeye Copper 96hr 283 100
Steelhead Copper 96hr 74 12
Steelhead Iron 5,000
Steelhead Lead 96hr 24,565 131
Steelhead Magnesium 96hr 367,000 660,500
Steelhead Manganese 28day 2,910
Steelhead Nickel 96hr 13,841 162
Chinook Nitrate-Nitrogen 96hr 1,310,000
Chinook Nitrate-Nitrogen 7day 1,080,000
Steelhead Nitrate-Nitrogen 96hr 1,360,000
Steelhead Nitrate-Nitrogen 7day 1,060,000
Steelhead Nitrite-Nitrogen 96hr 190 - 390
Chinook Selenium (IV) 96hr 19,111 102
Chinook Selenium (VI) 96hr 112,918 6,944
Steelhead Selenium (IV) 96hr 10,490 47
Steelhead Selenium (VI) 96hr 24,000 2,891
Steelhead Silver 96hr 65 0
Coho Sulfate (Copper Sulfate) 24hr 23 - 100
Coho Sulfate (Copper Sulfate) 96hr 19.3 - 31.9
Coho Sulfate (Copper Sulfate) 30 day 500
Sockeye Sulfate (Copper Sulfate) 96hr 100 - 240
Chinook Sulfate (Copper Sulfate) 24hr 78 - 145
Chinook Sulfate (Copper Sulfate) 96hr 54 - 60
Steelhead Thallium 28day 170
Coho Total Suspended Solids 96hr 1,300,000 1,300,000
Chinook/Steelhead Total Suspended Solids 20,000 - 650,000 100,000 - 1,300,000
Steelhead Vanadium 28day 160
Steelhead Zinc 96hr 915 187
Chinook Zinc 96hr 969 861
Sockeye Zinc 96hr 2,041 595
CHEMICALSPECIES STUDY TIME
Note: Values taken from Biological Evaluation for Central Puget Sound Stormwater National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permits, January 2009.
LC01(µg/L) LC10(µg/L)
LC01, LC10, and LC50 = the concentration of a toxin required to cause mortality of 1 percent, 10 percent, and 50 percent of the population, respectively,
after the specified duration.
LOEL = Lowest Observable Effect Level.
NOEL = No Observable Effects Level.
4.4.3.10.3. Significant Ions
Concentrations of the seven significant ions–i.e., bicarbonate, sulfate, chloride, and the dissolved
fractions of calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potassium–which account for a major portion of
TDS, were generally low to moderate, with summer concentrations lower than winter values.
The range of concentrations recorded upstream of the proposed Watana Dam site at Denali and
Vee Canyon, and downstream of the dam site at Gold Creek, Sunshine, and Susitna Station are
presented in Appendix 4.4-1.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-55 December 2011
Table 4.4-12. Location of water quality conditions that present potential bioaccumulation
of toxics in fish species in the Susitna River drainage.
Reach
Number
Toxics Threshold
Exceedance Parameter
Toxics Threshold
Exceedance Location
1
(RM 313-184)
Aluminum LC50 and NOEL
Copper NOEL
Iron NOEL
MacLaren River, Summer
MacLaren River, Summer
MacLaren River, Summer and Mainstem at Vee
Canyon, Summer
2a
(RM 184-150) NO DATA NO DATA
2b
(RM 150-98)
Cadmium LC50 and NOEL
Aluminum LC50 and NOEL
Copper LC50
Copper NOEL
Iron NOEL
Mainstem at Gold Creek, Summer
Mainstem at Gold Creek, Spring & Summer
Mainstem at Gold Creek, Summer
Mainstem at Gold Creek, Spring & Summer
Mainstem at Gold Creek, Spring & Summer
3
(RM 98-0)
Aluminum LC50Aluminum
NOEL
Copper LC50
Copper NOEL
Iron NOEL
Lead NOEL
Zinc NOEL
Mainstem at Sunshine, Spring & Summer
Mainstem at Sunshine, Spring, Summer& Fall;
Talkeetna River, Summer
Mainstem at Sunshine, Spring;
Mainstem at Susitna, Winter, Spring & Summer;
Talkeetna River, Summer
Mainstem at Sunshine, all year;
Mainstem at Susitna, all year;
Talkeetna River, Spring & Summer
Mainstem at Sunshine, Spring & Summer;
Mainstem at Susitna, Spring, Summer, Fall;
Talkeetna River, Summer
Mainstem at Sunshine, Spring & Fall;
Mainstem at Susitna, all year;
Talkeetna River, Summer & Fall
Mainstem at Sunshine, Summer;
Talkeetna River, Spring
4.4.3.10.4. Total Hardness
In general, waters of the Susitna River are moderately hard in winter and soft to moderately hard
in summer. In addition, there is a general trend towards softer water in the downstream
direction. Total hardness– measured as the sum of the calcium and magnesium hardness and
reported in terms of CaCO3– ranged from 99-120 mg/l at Gold Creek during winter to 35-110
mg/l in summer. At Susitna Station, values were 75-95 mg/l and 44-66 mg/l in winter and
summer, respectively (Appendix 4.4-1).
4.4.3.10.5. Total Alkalinity
Total alkalinity concentrations, with bicarbonate typically the only form of alkalinity present,
were high during winter and low to moderate during summer (Appendix 4.4-1). In addition,
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-56 December 2011
upstream concentrations were generally higher than downstream concentrations. Concentrations
at Denali were 112-161 mg/l during winter and 42-75 mg/l during summer. At Gold Creek,
winter values ranged from 46 to 88 mg/l, whereas summer concentrations were in the range of
23-87 mg/l. In the lower river at Susitna Station, winter concentrations were 60-75 mg/l, and
summer levels were 36-57 mg/l.
4.4.3.10.6. Free Carbon Dioxide
Free carbon dioxide (CO2), in combination with carbonic acid and the previously discussed
bicarbonates (alkalinity), constitute the total inorganic carbon components present in the Susitna
River. In the upper river basin, summer measurements of free CO2 at Denali ranged from 1.5-4.5
mg/l, and winter/spring measurements from 5.5-25 mg/l (Appendix 4.4-1). At Gold Creek, the
summer and winter values varied from 1.6-33 mg/l and 0.5-16 mg/l, respectively. In the lower
river basin at Susitna Station, summer data ranged from 0.4-8 mg/l, and winter data ranged from
1.8-17 mg/l.
4.4.3.10.7. Total Organic Carbon
Total organic carbon (TOC) varies with the composition of the organic matter present (McNeely
et al 1979). At Gold Creek, summer TOC levels varied from 1.4 to3.8 mg/l, and winter
concentrations ranged from 1.1 to1.2 mg/l (Appendix 4.4-1). Downstream at Susitna Station,
TOC ranged from 2.7 to 11.0 mg/l in summer and 0.4 to 4.0 mg/l in winter. The upper threshold
criterion for TOC has been suggested to be 3.0 mg/l (McNeely 1979), because water with lower
levels has been observed to be relatively clean. However, as noted above, streams and rivers in
Alaska receiving tundra runoff frequently exceed 3.0 mg/l (R&M Consultants 1982g).
4.4.3.10.8. Chemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical oxygen demand (COD) is a useful measure of water quality and an indirect measure of
pollution. COD data are limited to observations at Vee Canyon and Gold Creek. Summer
concentrations at Vee Canyon ranged from 8to 39 mg/l and winter concentrations from 6 to 13
mg/l (Appendix 4.4-1). At the Gold Creek monitoring station, summer concentrations varied
from 1.3to 24 mg/l and winter concentrations from 2to 16 mg/l.
4.4.3.10.9. True Color
Color reduces the amount of light penetrating the water and can have a significant impact on the
productivity of algae and macrophytes. True color, measured in platinum cobalt units, typically
displays a wider range during summer than winter. This phenomenon is attributable to organic
acids (especially tannin) characteristically present in the summer tundra runoff. Data gathered at
Denali, with its dominant glacial origins, were 0 to 10 color units and 0 to 5 color units during
summer and winter, respectively (Appendix 4.4-1). However, color levels at Gold Creek, with
its significant tundra runoff, varied from 0 to 5 units during winter and from 0 to 30 units in
summer; spring values were as high as 50 units. At Susitna Station, spring values have been
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-57 December 2011
measured at 50 units. Although they were high, it is not uncommon for color levels in Alaska to
reach 100 units for streams receiving tundra runoff (R&M Consultants 1982g).
4.4.3.10.10. Bacteria
No data are available for bacteria in the upper and middle Susitna River reaches. However,
because of the glacial origins of the river and the absence of domestic, agricultural, and industrial
development in the watershed, bacteria levels are expected to be low. Limited data on bacterial
indicators are available for the lower river basin. Data for the Talkeetna River indicate that total
coliform counts were generally low, with 70 percent of the samples registering less than 20
colony-forming units per 100 ml (Appendix 4.4-1). Occasional high values have been recorded
during summer months, with a maximum value of 130 colony-forming units per 100 ml. Fecal
coliform concentrations were also low, usually registering less than 20 colony-forming units per
100 ml; the maximum recorded summer values were 92 and 91 units per 100 ml in the Talkeetna
and Susitna rivers, respectively. Fecal streptococci data displayed a similar pattern: low values
in winter and occasional high counts during summer. Recorded values likely reflected natural
variation within the river originating from endemic wildlife, as there were no significant human
influences throughout the basin that would affect bacterial counts.
4.4.4. Ice Dynamics
4.4.4.1. Freeze-Up
Air temperatures in the Susitna River basin increase from the headwaters to the lower reaches.
Although this temperature gradient is partially due to the two-degree latitudinal extent of the
river, it is mostly due to the 3,300-foot elevation difference between the lower and upper basins
and the climate moderating effects of Cook Inlet on the lower river reaches. The gradient causes
a period (late October – early November) during which the air temperatures in the lower basin
are above freezing, while the upper basin temperatures are below freezing. Frazil ice begins
forming in the upper segment of the river in early October due to the cold temperatures of glacial
melt and cold ambient air temperatures. Additional frazil ice is generated in the fast-flowing
rapids between Vee Canyon and Devils Canyon. The frazil ice generation normally continues
for a period of 3-5 weeks before a solid ice cover forms in the river downstream of Devils
Canyon.
The frazil ice pans and floes jam at natural lodgement points, which are near channel
constrictions or low-velocity areas. Border ice formation along the river banks also restricts the
channel and allows ice cover closures or bridgings to form. From the natural lodgement points,
the ice cover progresses in an upstream direction as additional ice is supplied from farther
upriver. However, before the ice cover can progress upstream, a leading edge stability criterion
must first be satisfied. This translates into a velocity at the upstream end of the ice front that is
sufficiently low to allow the flowing ice to affix itself to the ice front, causing an upstream
progression of the ice front. If the velocities at the ice front are too high, the ice flowing
downstream will be pulled underneath the ice front and deposited downstream on the underside
of the established cover. In reaches where the velocity permits ice deposition, a thickening of the
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-58 December 2011
ice cover will occur. The thickening ice cover constricts the flow downstream of the ice front by
increasing the resistance, thus creating a backwater effect. The velocity upstream of the ice front
is thereby reduced until the leading edge criterion is satisfied. In the thickening process, the
maximum velocity attained underneath the ice deposits is about 3 ft/second.
During freeze-up, the upstream progression of the ice front on the Susitna River often raises
water levels by 2-4 ft, but higher stages have also been observed. However, the water level
increase in a particular reach of the river is dependent upon the prevailing discharge at which the
ice cover was formed in that reach. The variability in discharge at freeze-up, and hence water
level increase, coupled with the varying berm elevations at the upstream ends of sloughs, results
in some sloughs being overtopped during freeze-up, other sloughs occasionally being
overtopped, and still others not being overtopped.
The Susitna River is the primary contributor of ice to the river system below Talkeetna,
contributing 70-80 percent of the ice load in the Susitna-Chulitna-Talkeetna Rivers (R&M
Consultants 1982d). Ice formation in the Chulitna and Talkeetna rivers normally commences
several weeks after freeze-up on the upper and middle Susitna River.
4.4.4.2. Winter Ice Conditions
Once a solid ice cover forms on the Susitna River, open leads still occur in areas of high velocity
or ground water upwelling. These leads shrink during cold weather and are the last areas in the
main channel to be completely covered by ice. Ice thickness increases throughout the winter.
The ice cover averages over 4 ft thick by breakup (R&M Consultants 1982d), but thicknesses of
over 10 ft have been recorded near Vee Canyon.
Some of the side-channels and sloughs upstream of Talkeetna have open leads during winter due
to groundwater upwelling. Winter groundwater temperatures, generally varying between 2 and 4
˚C, contribute enough heat to prevent the ice cover from forming (Trihey 1982a). These areas
are often salmonid egg incubation areas.
4.4.4.3. Breakup
The onset of warmer air temperatures in the lower Susitna River basin occurs several weeks
earlier than in the middle and upper basins. The low-elevation snowpack melts first, causing the
river discharge to increase. The rising water level puts pressure on the ice, causing fractures to
develop in the ice cover. The severity of breakup is dependent upon the snow melt rate, the
depth of the snowpack, and the amount of rainfall, if it occurs. A heavy snowpack and cool air
temperatures into late spring, followed by a sudden increase in air temperatures, may result in a
rapid rise in water elevation. The rapid water level increase initiates ice movement, and when
coupled with ice left in a strong condition due to the cooler early spring temperatures, can lead to
numerous and possibly severe ice jams, which result in flooding and erosion, as occurred in 1982
(R&M Consultants 1982h). Local velocities during severe ice jams may reach 10 fps.
Breakup floods can result in high flows through the side channels and sloughs in the Middle
Susitna River reach (i.e., above Talkeetna). The flooding and erosion that occur during breakup
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-59 December 2011
are believed to be the primary factors influencing channel morphology in the middle Susitna
River (R&M Consultants 1982d).
4.4.5. Bedload and Suspended Sediments
The USGS collected bedload and suspended sediment data in 1981 and 1982 in the Susitna,
Chulitna, and Talkeetna rivers. Data were collected monthly in 1981 during July, August, and
September, and weekly from June throughAugust 1982, with two samples in September. Very
little data have been collected since.
Gravel-bed streams such as the Susitna River are essentially inactive most of the time (Parker
1980). Parker indicates that the conditions necessary for mobilization of a gravel bed typically
occur for only several days or weeks during the year during high-flow periods. The gravel
"pavement" is maintained between transport events.
4.4.5.1. Upper Susitna River
The Susitna River and its major tributaries experience extreme fluctuations in suspended
sediment concentrations as a result of glacial melt and runoff from snowmelt or rainfall. The
West Fork, Susitna, East Fork, and Maclaren glaciers are the primary sources of suspended
sediment in the upper river. Commencing with spring breakup, suspended sediment
concentrations begin to rise from their average winter levels of approximately 10 mg/l. During
summer, values as high as 5,690 mg/l have been recorded at Denali, the gaging station nearest
the glacially-fed headwaters. Downstream of the mouth of the Maclaren River to the proposed
Watana Dam site, there are no significant glacial sediment sources. Hence, concentrations
decrease due to both the settling of the coarser sediments and dilution by the inflow from several
clear-water tributaries. However, at high flows, when erosion is more prevalent, the tributaries
can become significant contributors of suspended sediment. Maximum summer concentrations
of 2,620 mg/l have been observed at Gold Creek. Table 4.4-13 shows suspended sediment
concentrations at Gold Creek in 1952. Estimates of the average annual suspended sediment load
for Denali and Cantwell are 2,965,000 and 6,898,000 tons per year (R&M Consultants 1982c).
The latter figure is the estimated suspended sediment load upstream of the proposed Watana
reservoir. R&M Consultants also estimated that between 20 and 25 percent of the suspended
sediment is less than 4 microns (0.004 millimeters) in diameter.
In general, bed material size ranges from coarse gravel to cobble throughout the upper Susitna
River. The 1980s studies estimated that movement of the medial bed material size could occur
above 35,000 cfs. R&M Consultants (1982d) suggest that an armor layer consisting of cobbles
and boulders exists throughout most of the river.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-60 December 2011 Table 4.4-13 Suspended sediment at Gold Creek (RM 136.5) – May to September 1952. May June July August September Suspended Sediment Suspended Sediment Suspended Sediment Suspended Sediment Suspended Sediment Day Mean Discharge (cfs) Mean Concentration (mg/1) Tons Per Day Mean Discharge (cfs) Mean Concentration (mg/1) Tons Per Day Mean Discharge (cfs) Mean Concentration (mg/1) Tons Per Day Mean Discharge (cfs) Mean Concentration (mg/1) Tons Per Day Mean Discharge (cfs) Mean Concentration (mg/1) Tons Per Day 1 1,100 9 27 25,000 1,730 117,000 33,000 1,300 116,000 41,900 1,390 157,000 30,000 870 a70,50 2 1,200 13 a42 23,500 2,030 129,000 31,100 1,220 102,000 38,300 981 101,000 28,700 772 59,800 3 1,300 17 60 27,500 2,200 a163,000 29,500 562 44,800 32,100 826 71,600 24,500 682 45,100 4 1,400 18 a68 29,000 1,800 a141,000 27,800 544 40,880 27,100 900 65,900 21,400 602 34,800 5 1,500 19 a77 26,500 1,300 a93,000 25,900 695 48,600 24,500 900 59,500 18,000 560 a27,200 6 1,600 19 82 22,500 940 a57,100 23,600 670 42,700 23,500 909 57,700 14,800 520 20,800 7 1,600 20 a86 24,400 1,000 a65,900 22,500 560 34,000 23,600 860 54,800 12,900 420 a14,600 8 1,600 21 a91 22,300 950 a57,200 21,100 687 39,100 24,700 828 55,200 11,900 270 a8,680 9 1,500 22 a89 21,500 730 a42,400 19,700 595 31,600 25,600 824 57,000 12,400 130 4,350 10 1,400 23 87 26,800 495 35,800 18,900 429 21,900 26,200 873 61,800 12,700 70 a2,400 11 1,400 20 a76 37,300 249 25,100 17,700 662 31,600 27,400 836 61,800 13,500 54 1,970 12 1,500 18 a73 36,700 189 18,700 17,200 1,030 47,800 24,400 1,150 75,800 14,200 50 a1,920 13 1,600 18 78 34,000 290 26,600 19,500 1,190 62,700 22,400 2,190 132,000 13,500 50 a1,820 14 1,700 15 69 31,400 464 39,300 23,300 1,140 71,700 20,400 2,100 a116,000 12,300 50 a1,660 15 1,900 12 62 37,400 49 49,800 25,000 1,150 77,600 19,800 1,580 a84,500 10,800 50 a1,460 16 2,100 12 a68 42,400 562 64,300 25,400 909 62,300 18,700 1,200 a60,600 10,200 58 1,600 17 2,200 15 a89 43,300 936 109,000 25,700 756 52,500 16,500 960 a42,800 10,500 65 1,840 18 2,400 17 a110 41,300 885 98,700 25,400 860 a59,000 15,600 650 27,400 10,000 70 a1,890 19 2,600 19 133 40,200 256 27,800 25,200 990 a67,400 14,800 531 21,200 9,500 70 a1,800 20 2,800 30 a227 36,300 241 23,600 24,700 1,130 75,400 14,400 639 24,800 10,000 70 a1,890 21 3,000 50 a405 35,400 232 22,200 24,200 1,080 70,600 14,800 554 22,100 11,300 70 a2,140 22 3,400 80 734 35,600 212 20,400 23,700 837 53,600 15,100 414 16,900 15,700 73 3,090 23 3,700 270 a2,700 34,700 203 19,000 24,700 918 61,200 15,300 435 18,000 15,400 76 3,160 24 4,500 549 6,670 34,300 213 19,700 25,900 873 61,000 15,200 531 21,800 14,800 90 3,600 25 6,000 828 13,400 34,100 184 16,900 27,400 972 71,900 15,000 377 15,300 13,800 90 3,350 26 8,000 1,120 24,200 33,600 278 25,200 28,900 972 75,800 15,000 275 11,100 12,900 99 3,450 27 10,000 1,270 34,300 34,300 1,040 96,300 28,400 888 68,100 14,200 293 11,200 12,300 110 3,650 28 15,000 747 30,300 33,000 1,220 109,000 31,300 927 78,300 13,500 410 a14,900 12,000 89 2,880 29 25,000 450 30,400 33,400 1,220 110,000 38,300 1,120 116,000 13,600 568 20,900 12,000 81 2,620 30 28,000 540 40,800 33,400 1,270 115,000 41,300 1,310 146,000 15,000 720 a29,200 12,400 68 2,280 31 27,000 1,670 122,000 -- -- -- 41,700 1,360 153,000 20,000 860 a46,400 -- -- -- TOTAL 168,000 -- 307,603 971,100 -- 1,938,000 818,000 -- 2,085,000 648,600 -- 1,616,200 434,400 -- 336,300 Total discharge for period (cfs-days) 3,067,700Total load for period (tons 6,284,363Note a = Computed from estimated concentration graph.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-61 December 2011
4.4.5.2. Middle and Lower Susitna River
Bedload data collected in 1981 indicate that the Chulitna River is the primary contributor of
bedload at the Susitna-Chulitna-Talkeetna confluence (Table 4.4-14). This was confirmed by
studies conducted in 1982. Susitna River bedload above the confluence was about 80,000 tons
during 1982, whereas bedload in the Chulitna River was 1.2 million tons. That is, the Chulitna
River had an estimated bedload volume 15 times greater than the Susitna River near the
confluence. Data at Sunshine Station (RM 84) indicate that bedload is less than the sum of the
upstream bedload, suggesting that aggradation may take place upstream of Sunshine.
Suspended sediment concentrations immediately downstream of Talkeetna are increased because
of the contribution of the sediment-laden Chulitna River, which has 28 percent of its drainage
area covered by ice year round. Maximum values of 3,510 mg/l have been recorded downstream
at the Sunshine monitoring station. Downstream of Talkeetna, the Yentna River is the only other
major glacial river entering the Susitna River. Other sediment sources in the Susitna River
include bank erosion, talus slides, and the re-suspension of sediments. Re-suspension of
sediments from sand and gravel bars during flow increases can be a significant source of
sediment, especially in the wide, braided portions of the river. When flow decreases, the
sediments are deposited on bars downstream. Table 4.4-15 shows suspended sediment
concentrations at various locations in 1982. The 1982 data indicate that the suspended sediment
load for the Susitna River above the confluence was 3.7 million tons, while the suspended
sediment load for the Chulitna River was 7.1 million tons. That is, the suspended sediment load
of the Chulitna was approximately twice that of the Susitna River above the confluence.
Suspended sediment discharge has been shown to increase with river discharge (R&M
Consultants 1982c). Table 4.4-16 shows the increase in suspended sediment discharge at Gold
Creek (RM 136.5) with the river discharge of 1953.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-62 December 2011
Table 4.4-14 1981 bedload transport data Susitna River Basin.
Station Date Water Discharge
(cfs)
Total Bed Load
Transport Rate
(tons/day)
Susitna River at Gold Creek 7/22/81 37,200 2,180
Chulitna River 1 7/22/81 31,900 3,450
Talkeetna River 7/21/81 16,800 1,940
Susitna River at Sunshine 7/22/81 89,000 3,520
Susitna River at Gold Creek 8/26/81 25,900 380
Chulitna River 8/25/81 22,500 5,000
Talkeetna River 8/25/81 9,900 800
Susitna River at Sunshine 8/26/81 61,900 4,520
Susitna River at Gold Creek 9/28/81 8,540
Chulitna River 9/29/81 6,000 3,820
Talkeetna River 9/29/81 2,910 30
Susitna River at Sunshine 9/30/81 19,100 400
Note: Bedload data gathered approximately 4 mi below Chulitna river gaging site on 7/22/81.
Data gathered at Chulitna gaging site on other dates.
Table 4.4-15 1982 Turbidity and suspended sediment analysis.
Location Date
Sampled
Date
Analyzed
Turbidity2
(NTU)
Suspended3
Sediment
Concentration
(mg/1)
Discharge
(cfs)
Susitna River
at Vee
Canyon (RM
223)
6/4/82
6/30/82
7/27/82
8/26/82
6/11/82
8/3/82
8/18/82
9/14/82
82
384
720
320
Susitna River
Near Chase4
(RM 103)
6/3/82
6/8/82
6/15/82
6/22/82
6/30/82
7/8/82
7/14/82
7/21/82
6/11/82
6/24/82
6/24/82
8/3/82
8/18/82
8/18/82
8/3/82
8/18/82
140
130
94
74
376
132
728
316
769
547
170
426
392
156
729
232
35,800
44,400
24,200
37,000
30,200
20,700
30,800
24,900
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-63 December 2011
Location Date
Sampled
Date
Analyzed
Turbidity2
(NTU)
Suspended3
Sediment
Concentration
(mg/1)
Discharge
(cfs)
7/28/82
8/4/82
8/10/82
8/18/82
8/25/82
8/31/82
9/19/82
8/18/82
8/18/82
8/26/82
8/26/82
9/14/82
9/14/82
10/12/82
300
352
364
304
244
188
328
464
377
282
275
221
252
439
30,800
22,700
20,000
17,700
16,800
19,300
28,700
Susitna River
at Cross
Section LRX-
41, 4 (RM 99)
5/26/82 5/29/82 81
Susitna River
below
Talkeetna1,5
(approximately
RM 91)
5/26/82
5/28/82
5/29/82
5/30/82
5/31/82
6/1/82
5/29/82
6/2/82
6/21/82
6/2/82
6/2/82
6/2/82
98
256
140
65
130
130
43,600
42,900
38,400
39,200
47,000
Susitna River
at Sunshine-
Parks
Highway
Bridge5 (RM
83)
6/3/82
6/10/82
6/17/82
6/21/82
6/28/82
7/6/82
7/12/82
7/19/82
7/26/82
8/2/82
8/9/82
8/16/82
8/23/82
8/30/82
6/1182
6/24/82
6/2482
8/3/82
8/18/82
8/382
8/3/82
8/18/82
8/18/82
8/18/82
8/26/82
8/26/82
9/14/82
9/14/82
164
200
136
360
1.056
352
912
552
696
544
720
784
552
292
847
414
322
755
668
507
867
576
1,180
704
746
728
496
439
71,00
64,500
50,800
78,300
75,700
46,600
59,800
60,800
96,800
62,400
54,000
47,800
38,600
39,800
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-64 December 2011
Location Date
Sampled
Date
Analyzed
Turbidity2
(NTU)
Suspended3
Sediment
Concentration
(mg/1)
Discharge
(cfs)
9/17/82 10/12/82 784 1,290 86,500
Chulitna
River1
(approximately
1 mi above
Chulitna-
Susitna
Confluence
5/26/82
5/2882
5/29/82
5/30/82
5/31/82
6/1/82
5/29/82
6/2/82
6/2/82
6/2/82
6/2/82
6/2/82
194
272
308
120
360
324
Chulitna River
(Canyon6) (18
mi above the
Chulitna-
Susitna
Confluence)
6/4/82
6/22/82
6/29/82
7/7/82
7/13/82
7/20/82
7/27/82
8/3/82
8/11/82
8/17/82
8/24/82
9/1/82
9/18/82
6/11/82
8/3/82
8/18/82
8/3/82
8/18/82
8/18/82
8/18/82
8/18/82
8/26/82
8/26/82
9/14/82
9/14/82
10/12/82
272
680
1,424
976
1,136
1,392
664
704
592
1,296
632
316
1,920
424
813
1600
1030
1200
1250
1010
960
753
1250
843
523
1550
11,500
19,500
29,000
20,700
22,700
23,100
31,900
23,300
21,300
21,900
18,200
17,300
29,200
Talkeetna
River at
Railroad
Bridge1,7 (0.5
mi above
Susitna-
Talkeetna
Confluence)
5/26/82
5/28/82
5/29/82
5/30/82
5/31/82
6/1/82
5/29/82
6/2/82
6/2/82
6/2/82
6/2/82
6/2/82
17
39
21
20
44
55
5,680
6,250
5,860
5,660
7,400
9,560
Talkeetna
River at USGS
Cable (6 mi
above
6/2/82
6/9/82
6/17/82
6/11/82
6/24/82
6/24/82
146
49
28
340
311
216
17,900
14,700
11,400
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-65 December 2011
Location Date
Sampled
Date
Analyzed
Turbidity2
(NTU)
Suspended3
Sediment
Concentration
(mg/1)
Discharge
(cfs)
Susitna-
Talkeetna
Confluence)
6/23/82
6/29/82
7/7/82
7/13/82
7/20/82
7/28/82
8/3/82
8/10/82
8/17/82
8/24/82
8/31/82
9/20/82
8/3/82
8/18/82
8/3/82
8/3/82
8/18/82
8/18/82
8/18/82
8/26/82
8/26/82
9/14/82
9/14/82
10/12/82
26
41
20
132
148
272
49
53
82
68
37
34
164
321
100
226
226
180
212
198
263
276
301
12,400
10,700
6,750
8,880
8,400
14,200
8,980
6,980
6,230
5,920
9,120
14,800
Notes:
1. Samples collected by R&M Consultants. All other samples were collected by USGS.
2. R&M Consultants conducted all turbidity analysis.
3. Suspended sediment concentrations are preliminary unpublished data provided by by the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS).
4. Discharges for “Susitna near Chase” and “Susitna at LRX-4” are from provisional USGS stream
gage data at the Alaska Railroad Bridge at Gold Creek.
5. Discharges for “Susitna below Talkeetna” and “Susitna at Sunshine” are from provisional USGS
stream gage date at the Parks Highway Bridge at Sunshine.
6. Discharges for “Chulitna River (Canyon)” are from provisional USGS stream gate data at the
Parks Highway Bridge at Chulitna.
7. Discharges for “Talkeetna at R.R. Bridge” and “Talkeetna at USGS Cable” are from provisional
USGS stream gage data near Talakeetna.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-66 December 2011
Table 4.4-16 Susitna River at Gold Creek (RM 136.5) – monthly summary of suspended
sediment, WY 1953.
Month Discharge (cfs-days) Suspended Sediment (tons)
1952
October 254,260 30,120
November 104,900 2,700
December 52,700
1953
January 34,100 --
March 22,900 --
April 48,450 --
May 597,400 1,053,00
June 819,700 2,248,000
July 626,100 1,965,000
August 638,900 1,819,000
September 458,180
USGS studies from the 1980s found that the Chulitna and Talkeetna Rivers, despite a combined
smaller drainage area than the upper Susitna River, transport three times as much total sediment
as the upper Susitna River (Knott and Lipscomb 1985; Knott et al. 1986; Knott et al. 1987). The
Lower Susitna River Aggradation Study: Field Data (R&M Consultants 1985) reports that
approximately 80 percent of the total sediment load in the Susitna River below Talkeetna
originates in the Chulitna and Talkeetna Rivers. Figure 4.4-14 shows the Susitna River Channel
configuration at approximately RM 97, below Talkeetna in August 1984 and August 2011. The
river chanels, bars, and riparian areas have changed considerably in the 25 years between the two
sets of photos.
On an annual average basis, the flow contributions from the Susitna River and the Chulitna River
to the flow at Susitna Station USGS gage are similar; however, the morphology of these two
systems is markedly different. The relatively stable channel morphology of the Susitna River
indicates that much of the sediment generated in the headwaters is stored in the upper basin, such
that the sediment supply delivered downstream of the proposed Watana Dam site more closely
matches the transport capacity of the flows, or that the channel in Reach 2 downstream of Devils
Canyon is coarser and the bed and banks have become armored over time. Alternately, the
braided morphology of the Chulitna River indicates an excessive sediment supply relative to
transport capacity.
Date: Nov 2011Scale: As Noted
Susitna River Channel Morphology at River Mile 91 from August 1984 and 2011
State of AlaskaSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC No.14241
Figure 4.4-14
August 1984(source: Aerometric)August 2011(source: e-Terra)
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-68 December 2011
4.4.6. Potential Access and Transmission Corridors
Three corridors are being considered: Denali Corridor, Gold Creek Corridor, with two sub-
options near the proposed Watana Dam, and Chulitna Corridor. The Denali Corridor would
follow Deadman Creek for much of its way to the Susitna River, crossing Seattle, Shale,
Burshkana, and Deadman creeks. The Gold Creek Corridor would cross Fog Creek and the upper
end of Prairie Creek, if the southern route is selected, along with five unnamed streams. If the
northern route is selected, an additional unnamed creek would be crossed, but this segment of the
Gold Creek Corridor would not cross Prairie Creek. For the Chulitna Corridor, Tsusena Creek,
Devil Creek, Portage Creek and two unnamed tributaries would be crossed in addition to Indian
River.
Little water quality data are available for these streams. However, as noted in the fisheries
section, many of the major streams that would be crossed are known to support populations of
anadromous fish (Gold and Chulitna corridors) and/or Arctic grayling (Denali Corridor). These
fish species are generally residents of clear, cold streams (Scott and Crossman 1973), and as a
result water quality is generally expected to be good. In contrast, water quality conditions
associated with tundra runoff may also be expected. Among the conditions that might be
expected are pH levels in the 6-7 range, TOC concentrations exceeding the suggested criterion of
3.0 mg/l (McNeely et al. 1979), and true color values as high as 100 units. During periods of
high flow resulting from Spring snowmelt and summer rainstorms, elevated suspended sediment
and turbidity levels are expected.
4.4.7. Potential Adverse and Positive Impacts
Potential impacts to water resources may occur during three phases of Project development and
existence: Project construction, initial reservoir filling, and ongoing Project operations. This
section presents a provisional assessment of potential impacts based on the current Project
description (Section 3) and existing water resources information. More detailed evaluations will
be conducted during FERC licensing to assess the water resource related impacts of the proposed
Project.
4.4.7.1. Project Construction Impacts
An approximately 1,800-foot-long segment of the Susitna River will be dewatered during
construction of the main Watana Dam. The majority of construction material will come from
borrow areas outside the river channel (Figure 4.1-1). Some construction material may be
excavated from the dewatered reach at the dam site.
During construction, water will temporarily be diverted around the construction site via a
diversion tunnel. Because there will be essentially no change in flows, no effects on downstream
water temperature are anticipated. Because there will be minor ponding upstream of the
diversion tunnel and an ice boom will likely be used to establish a stable ice cover, a more rapid
ice front progression upstream of the proposed Watana Dam site is likely to take place, but there
should be no effect on water temperatures. Ice break-up is expected to be similar to what occurs
under baseline conditions.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-69 December 2011
Suspended sediment and turbidity levels will increase at the Watana Dam site and for some
distance downstream. Effects downstream from Talkeetna are expected to be negligible.
Increased concentrations of nutrients and organic compounds could occur due to the disturbance
of vegetation and soil cover and subsequent erosion of overburden and spoil materials.
No significant impacts on trace metal concentrations are expected from construction related
disturbances to soils and rock on the river bank and in the riverbed, because contact time will be
short.
Accidental spillage and leakage of petroleum products could contaminate surface water and
groundwater during construction.
The wastewater and waste concrete associated with operation of a batch plant at the Watana Dam
site, if discharged directly to the river, could degrade downstream water quality and result in
mortality of aquatic organisms. No significant dust problems are anticipated because a modern
control batch plant is planned.
Because no change in mainstem discharge is expected and no change in river water level other
than in the immediate area of the Watana dam site, no groundwater impacts are expected
upstream or downstream of the site.
The construction, operation, and maintenance of facilities could impact the Tsusena and
Deadman creek drainage basins and nearby small lakes.
Minimal impacts to instream flow uses below the diversion are expected during construction
unless flows exceed the cofferdam design flood. The construction of support facilities for the
workforce may result in water quality effects, particularly as the result of the development of a
water supply from a local water body and the construction and operation of a wastewater
treatment plant.
4.4.7.2. Reservoir Filling
It is anticipated that it will take up to two years to complete the filling of the reservoir, depending
on flows at the time. The trapping of bedload and suspended sediment within the reservoir will
reduce the sediment being transported by the Susitna River, particularly from the Watana Dam to
the confluence of the Chulitna and Talkeetna rivers. Bedload movement will be limited within
this reach because of the existing armor layer and reduced flows. The lack of suspended
sediment within this reach will significantly reduce siltation in calmer areas. The main channel
would likely become narrower and more defined, and encroachment of riparian vegetation would
begin. Tributary streams, including Portage Creek, Indian River, Gold Creek, and Fourth of July
Creek, would extend their alluvial fans into the river. Some tributaries between the dam and
Talkeetna could perch.
Overflow into most side channels would not occur because high flows would be reduced to a
maximum of about 30,000 cfs immediately downstream of the Watana Dam site during reservoir
filling. Backwater effects at the mouths of the side channels and sloughs in the Watana-
Talkeetna reach would also be reduced, leading to vegetation encroachment in the side channels
and sloughs.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-70 December 2011
At the confluence of the Susitna and Chulitna rivers, the Chulitna River is expected to expand its
alluvial deposits to the east and south. Downstream of this confluence, reduced flows would
decrease the frequency and amount of bed material movement.
With the commencement of initial reservoir filling, many of the physical, chemical, and
biological processes common to a lentic environment should begin to appear within the reservoir,
including sedimentation, leaching, nutrient enrichment, stratification, and ice cover formation.
Reservoir water temperatures will reflect inflow water temperatures, increased somewhat near
the surface by the effects of solar heating. The reservoir will initially fill rapidly to a depth of
about 400 ft, and the effects of surface heating will not penetrate to the depth at which the dam
intake is located. Consequently, the outlet water temperatures during the first year of reservoir
filling are expected to be an average of existing river water temperatures, with warming and
cooling of the reservoir lagging behind that occurring in the inflow due the greater thermal mass
of the reservoir relative to that of the river. The volume of water that would be stored in the
reservoir is estimated to be about 2 million ac-ft in the first year. From November through April,
reservoir outflow temperatures are expected to be about 4 ˚C (39 ˚F), rather than the 0 ˚C (32 ˚F)
that currently exists in the river at this time of year. As the reservoir level gets closer to full, the
reservoir temperatures will be similar to conditions expected during post-filling operation of the
Project.
During winter of the first season of filling, the 4 ˚C water immediately downstream of the dam
site would cool to 0 ˚C, but, based on water temperature modeling conducted in the 1980s, it may
require a distance of more than 20 mi downstream of the dam for this cooling to occur. In the
summer, the reverse would occur, with downstream water temperatures being cooler than
existing conditions in the Watana to Talkeetna reach.
Downstream of Talkeetna, the Susitna River water temperatures would reflect those of the
Talkeetna and Chulitna rivers, because of their higher flows. Downstream of the confluence of
the Yentna River, no significant deviations from natural water temperature conditions are
expected.
An ice cover is expected to form on the proposed reservoir in late November. Because of the 4
˚C water being released in late fall and winter, there will be a delay in the formation of ice in the
Watana-Talkeetna reach. In mid to late December, it is expected that ice generation would occur
upstream of Devils Canyon. Freeze-up staging at this time is expected to be similar to natural
freeze-up conditions. Sloughs and side channels that are currently overtopped are likely to be
overtopped during the winter freeze up. Ice cover formation downstream of Talkeetna is
expected to be delayed during reservoir filling because the Watana-Talkeetna reach currently
contributes most of the ice for ice cover formation. During the March-April period, the 4 ˚C
water being released from the reservoir, together with reduced flows, should result in less severe
ice breakup conditions than what currently occur.
During the filling process, dissolved oxygen levels in the proposed Watana Reservoir should
approximate riverine conditions. As filling progresses, some vertical stratification of the
reservoir would begin to develop. However, because of the volume of freshwater inflow, the
effects of wind and waves, and the ability to withdraw water at depth in the reservoir, the
reservoir is expected to remain relatively well mixed. No significant biochemical oxygen
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-71 December 2011
demand is anticipated. Dissolved oxygen is expected to remain sufficiently high to support a
diverse aquatic fauna.
Supersaturated total dissolved gas conditions currently exist in the Susitna River downstream of
the Devils Canyon rapids. Supersaturated gas conditions can occur below high head dams as a
result of water passing over a spillway into a deep plunge pool, but because all water released
during reservoir filling will pass through a low-level outlet, supersaturated dissolved gas
conditions are unlikely immediately downstream of Watana Dam.
It is expected that nutrient concentrations will increase for a short time during reservoir filling,
especially in close proximity to the reservoir bottom, primarily due to leaching from the
substrate.
Based on studies at other reservoirs, short-term increases in dissolved solids, conductivity, and
most of the major ions could occur immediately after reservoir filling begins. This is attributable
to the initial inundation and leaching of materials from rocks and soils on the reservoir bottom.
However, the products of leaching are expected to remain in a narrow layer adjacent to the
reservoir floor. Inorganic glacial sediment would quickly blanket the reservoir bottom, thereby
inhibiting the leaching process. Increased levels of these parameters could occur downstream of
the dam.
Because of the decreased summer flows, water levels in the mainstem Susitna River in the
Watana to Talkeetna reach would likewise be reduced. This in turn would cause a reduction in
adjacent groundwater levels. However, the groundwater level changes would be confined to the
river floodplain area. A similar process would occur downstream from Talkeetna, but the
changes in groundwater levels would be smaller because of the decreased effect of the proposed
Project on river stage farther downstream.
The reduced mainstem summer flows would slightly modify groundwater relationships between
the mainstem and the sloughs. The mainstem water levels upstream and downstream of a slough
control the groundwater gradient in the slough, and because both levels change by the same
amount for different flows, the gradient is expected to be similar to what occurs under current
conditions. As long as the water levels in the slough remain above the ground level, the
upwelling rate should be similar to existing conditions.
Instream flow uses are expected to be affected during reservoir filling. Impacts on fishery
resources, riparian vegetation, and wildlife habitat are discussed in other sections of this PAD.
Reduced summer flows could affect navigation between the dam site and Talkeetna. Minimal
impacts downstream of the confluence with the Chulitna River are expected. Use of the river by
snow machine and dogsled will be delayed. The potential for kayaking in the reservoir reach
would be lost. Because of the reduced flows to Cook Inlet during reservoir filling (i.e., about a
10 percent reduction), localized increases in salinity are likely to occur in Cook Inlet, but
previous studies indicate that the increases would not be substantial (i.e., the maximum increase
would be about 1,400 mg/l during June when the greatest reduction in flows occurs).
4.4.7.3. Project Operations
The Project would be operated in a storage-and-release mode, with summer high flows stored for
release in winter. Under normal hydrologic conditions, flow from the proposed reservoir would
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-72 December 2011
be totally regulated. Day-to-day changes are expected to be variable, but there would be
significant changes from one season to the next and possibly for the same month from one year
to the next.
As the sediment-laden Susitna River enters Watana Reservoir, water velocity would decrease
and the larger diameter suspended sediment would settle out to form a delta at the upstream end
of the reservoir. The delta formation would be constantly adjusting to the changing reservoir
elevation. Trap efficiencies were estimated at 80 percent or more during the 1980s studies.
Sedimentation would also occur at the mouths of tributaries flowing into the reservoir. Erosion
would occur along the reservoir shoreline as the result of fluctuation in water surface elevation
due to Project operations and as a result of wave action.
Downstream of the proposed Project, alteration of sediment transport would influence channel
morphology, aquatic habitats, channel erosion, and flooding via the following mechanisms:
regulated flows released from the proposed Project, the discontinuity in sediment supply and
transport through the proposed reservoir, and sediment transport capacity below the major
tributary confluences (lower Susitna).
Downstream of the Project, impacts of operations on river channel morphology from May
through September would be similar to those occurring during reservoir filling. The reduction in
streamflow peaks and the trapping of bedload and suspended sediments in the reservoir would
continue to significantly reduce morphological dynamics upstream of the Susitna-Chulitna
confluence. The mainstem river channel would become constrained and clearly defined.
Channel width reduction would continue as the result of vegetation encroachment.
Elimination of bed material from the upstream basin could lead to clearer-water scour in the
reach between the proposed dam and the head of Devils Canyon and possibly coarsening of the
riverbed. Additionally, reduced flows could change sediment transport capacity immediately
downstream of the confluences with the Chulitna and Talkeetna rivers in the lower Susitna
River, which in turn could lead to some local aggradation and aggradation-induced flooding and
lateral channel erosion. Conversely, reduced flows could enhance the existing stability of the
reach between the mouth of Devils Canyon and the Chulitna-Talkeetna confluence. Depending
on the balance between reduced flows and the sediment introduced by tributaries downstream of
the dam, it is possible that there could be coarse sediment deposition within the middle Susitna
River that might increase the available habitat for various life stages of salmonid species
downstream of the mouth of the Canyon.
As noted above, USGS studies from the 1980s found that the Chulitna and Talkeetna rivers,
despite a combined smaller drainage area than the upper Susitna River, transport three times the
total sediment as the upper Susitna River (Knott and Lipscomb 1985; Knott et al. 1986; Knott et
al. 1987). The Lower Susitna River Aggradation Study: Field Data (R&M Consultants 1985)
reports that approximately 80 percent of the total sediment load in the Susitna River below
Talkeetna originates in the Chulitna and Talkeetna rivers. Based on this information, the
trapping of sediment in the proposed Watana Reservoir may only affect sediment dynamics
significantly between the dam site and the Susitna-Chulitna-Talkeetna confluence (primarily
downstream of Devils Canyon because the Devils Canyon reach is bedrock controlled and
currently has very low sediment storage potential). The magnitude of the influence will depend
largely on the natural sediment loading from the upper watershed and ability of the sediment
loading from the tributaries between the dam site and the Susitna-Chulitna-Talkeetna confluence
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-73 December 2011
to offset sediment-related impacts of the Watana Project. The relative stability of the Susitna
River morphology upstream of the Susitna-Chulitna confluence could possibly be enhanced,
depending on the regulated outflows from the Project.
Side channels and sloughs are of particular importance to fisheries, so Project-induced changes
to the relationships between flow and stage at which the habitats are accessible could impact
fisheries. Overtopping at the upstream ends of sloughs during summer would seldom occur
because of reduced flows. Movement of sand and gravel bars in the sloughs would be
minimized. Vegetation encroachment in sloughs and side-channels may also occur as high flows
are reduced. Other factors that could be affected by the Project include the cleaning of spawning
gravels, hyporheic flows through redds, groundwater inflows, and hydraulic connectivity for
outmigration to the main channel elevation. Beaver dams and debris dams previously washed
out by high flows, would remain in place, unless steps are taken to remove these barriers.
After impoundment, the Watana Reservoir would exhibit the thermal characteristics of a deep
glacial lake. Deep glacial lakes commonly show temperature stratification during both winter
and summer. However, stratification is often relatively weak. The seasonal variation in
temperature within the Watana Reservoir and for a distance downstream of the dam would
change after impoundment. The timing of high and low temperatures would also change.
During June and July, water temperatures in the Watana-Talkeetna reach are expected to warm,
whereas during August little heating or cooling is expected. In September, cooling of the outlet
temperatures is expected. This cooling would continue throughout the winter months. However,
based on previous model studies, it is expected that the post-Project temperatures will be within
the same general range as natural temperatures.
During Project operation, water temperatures in the sloughs are expected to be similar to those
under existing conditions for those times when the sloughs are not overtopped. Previous
investigations indicated that groundwater temperatures in areas of upwelling in the sloughs
reflected the long-term average water temperature of the Susitna River, which is approximately 3
˚C (37 ˚F). Upstream of Talkeetna, the long-term average water temperature is not expected to
change significantly from existing temperatures.
In the reaches downstream of Talkeetna, summer water temperatures should reflect the
temperatures of the Talkeetna and Chulitna rivers. However, during fall, winter, and early spring
when natural flows are low, the Susitna River will experience increased flows and as a result it
will have some effect on downstream temperatures. In the early fall, the water temperatures
could be above the normal temperature of 0 ˚C for several miles downstream. Later in the fall
and during winter, the Susitna River water temperature near Talkeetna will be about 0 ˚C.
As noted above, an ice cover is expected to form on Watana Reservoir in late November and
continue to thicken through the winter. Open water conditions are expected in the latter half of
May. In the reach downstream of Watana Dam, because of the release of warmer water during
the normal freeze-up period, frazil ice would not be generated for a considerable distance
downstream. The reach between Watana and Devils Canyon is expected to remain ice free.
Downstream of Devils Canyon a stable ice cover would form, but there would still be open leads
due to high velocities and groundwater upwelling. In spring, the onset of warmer air
temperatures in the lower basin occurs several weeks before those in the middle and upper
reaches. This will progressively break up the cover starting from the downstream end.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-74 December 2011
However, the warmer water released from Watana Dam is expected to melt the cover between
Devils Canyon and Talkeetna. The regulation of the spring flood will encourage melting in
place. Hence ice jamming is expected to be significantly reduced. Between the proposed dam
and the Chulitna River, the current effects on channel morphology resulting from ice forces
during breakup would be effectively eliminated.
In the sloughs, during Project operations, the higher discharge at freeze-up will lead to a higher
stage than under natural conditions. Consequently, discharge could be increased through those
sloughs that are currently overtopped. The higher discharges could cause scouring in the
sloughs, although higher backwater levels at the slough mouths would reduce velocities and the
potential for scour.
Because the Susitna River is currently the main source of ice to the river below Talkeetna, the
timing of ice formation downstream from Talkeetna may be delayed about a month. The higher
Project winter flows, combined with the ice formation, would increase water levels downstream.
Studies at glacial lakes indicate that fine glacial sediment may pass through the reservoir.
Particle diameters of 4 microns have been estimated to be the approximate maximum size of the
sediment particles that will pass through Watana Reservoir. Based on the particle size
distribution curve, this would imply a trap efficiency of about 80 percent. Re-entrainment of
sediment from the shallow depths along the reservoir's shore during high winds would likely
result in short-term elevated turbidity levels.
Turbidity patterns could have an impact on fisheries, both in the reservoir and downstream. The
turbidity pattern is a function of the thermal structure, wind mixing, and re-entrainment of fine
sediments along the reservoir boundaries. Based on data collected at Eklutna Lake, the potential
turbidity at Watana Reservoir was estimated during the 1980s studies to be in the range of 10 to
50 NTU. Winter turbidity at the outlet is expected to be in the 10-20 NTU range, with summer
values in the 20-50 NTU range, and the maximum expected values at freeze-up about 40 to 50
NTU.
Susitna River inflow to the reservoir is expected to continue to have both high dissolved oxygen
concentrations and percentage saturations. The relatively weak stratification that is anticipated
in the reservoir may limit the oxygen replenishment in the hypolimnion. The spring turnover
will cause mixing, but the extent of mixing is unknown. It is expected that the upper 200 ft of
the reservoir will maintain high dissolved oxygen. Decreased downstream flows during summer
operation will cause a reduction in the levels and variation of dissolved gas concentrations below
Devils Canyon.
For all but the highest flood levels when flow would be released through the spillway,
supersaturated dissolved gas (nitrogen) levels are not expected to be increased by project
operations.
Reservoir trophic status is determined in part by the relative amounts of carbon, silicon, nitrogen,
and phosphorus present in a system, as well as the quality and quantity of light penetration.
Phosphorus is expected to be the limiting nutrient in Watana Reservoir. Based on the spring
phosphorus loading levels, Watana Reservoir is expected to be oligotrophic.
Metals in soils and rock may be mobilized as the result of changes in the river's hydrology
resulting from Project operations, particularly if portions of the tributaries that likely supply
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-75 December 2011
metals-laden sediment are inundated. The leaching process is expected to result in increased
levels of total dissolved solids, conductivity, significant ions, alkalinity, and metals within the
reservoir immediately after impoundment. Although the magnitude of change was not quantified
in the 1980s studies, the changes were not expected to be significant and were expected to
diminish over time as the most soluble elements dissolved into the water. Additionally, much of
the inorganic sediment carried by the Susitna River would settle in Watana Reservoir. An
accumulation of inorganic sediment would retard the leaching process at the reservoir's bottom.
Dissolved solids concentrations are expected to increase near the surface of the reservoir during
winter because the formation of ice at the reservoir's surface would likely force dissolved solids
out of the freezing water. No significant impacts are expected either in the reservoir or
downstream as the result of this process.
It is possible that there will be some precipitation of metals like iron, manganese, and other trace
elements in the reservoir. Oligotrophic reservoirs with higher pH and high dissolved salt
concentrations generally precipitate more metal than reservoirs with low pH and low dissolved
salt concentrations. Although neither TDS nor pH is excessively high in the Susitna River, some
precipitation of metals could reduce the quantities of metals in the reservoir and downstream.
Groundwater impacts along the mainstem downstream of the Project are expected to be similar
to those described for reservoir filling. During winter in the Watana-Talkeetna reach, some of
the sloughs will be located adjacent to an ice-covered section of river. In these areas, the Susitna
River will have staged to form an ice cover at Project operation flows that are significantly
higher than natural flows. The associated water level could be a few ft above normal winter
water levels and would cause an increase in the groundwater table. This would in turn cause an
increase in groundwater flow adjacent to an ice covered reach of river. During summer,
mainstem-slough groundwater interaction would be the same as that discussed under reservoir
filling, except that operational flows will be greater than the downstream flows during filling.
Thus, the groundwater table will be closer to the natural elevation under normal operations than
during reservoir filling.
The effects on instream flow uses will generally be the same as those described for reservoir
filling.
4.4.8. Potential Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement
4.4.8.1. Project Construction Impacts
Best management practices (BMPs) would be used to minimize or prevent adverse impacts
associated with Project construction including access road construction over streams. Measures,
including the use of settling ponds, would be implemented to minimize the introduction of
suspended sediment.
BMPs would be implemented to reduce the risk of increased concentrations of nutrients and
organic compounds resulting from ground and vegetation disturbance and subsequent erosion of
overburden and spoil materials.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-76 December 2011
A Spill Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC) would be developed to
reduce the risk and potential adverse effects resulting from any spills of petroleum or other
harmful substances associated with construction equipment and procedures.
BMPs would be incorporated into construction protocols to minimize the risk of wastewater and
waste concrete being discharged directly into the river. A modern control batch plant is planned
to prevent concrete dust issues.
BMPs would also be applied to minimize potential impacts of construction, operation, and
maintenance of facilities on the Tsusena and Deadman creek drainage basins and nearby small
lakes.
Measures will be implemented to minimize or prevent impacts associated with support facilities
for construction crews that have the potential to affect water quality, particularly as it pertains to
water supply from a local water body and construction and operation of a wastewater treatment
plant.
4.4.8.2. Reservoir Filling and Project Operations
During reservoir filling, downstream flow requirements and a flood storage safety factor will be
met. Natural flows will be maintained during the November through mid-April period.
Temperature impacts associated with the early stages of reservoir filling would be reduced once
the outlet facilities can be operated; when the outlet facilities become operational, reservoir
temperatures should more closely approximate natural conditions, i.e., during the second winter
of filling, outlet temperatures should be closer to 0 ˚C.
Once the Project is operating, temperature impacts to the river downstream of the dam would be
minimized by taking advantage of the temperature stratification in the reservoir through the
installation and operation of a multi-level intake in the Project forebay. A selective withdrawal
facility could also be used to manage dissolved oxygen levels in the river downstream of the dam
by withdrawing water from depths in the reservoir where dissolved oxygen concentrations are
suitably high. There could be some tradeoff associated with balancing dissolved oxygen and
temperature objectives for the river downstream of the Project. For all but the highest flood
levels, supersaturated dissolved gas (nitrogen) levels are expected to be managed by fixed cone
valves; operation of the cone valves would be influenced by reservoir inflows and summer
energy demand.
4.4.9. References
Acres. 1983a. Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Application for License for
Major Project Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Volume 5A, Exhibit E, Chapters 1 & 2.
Prepared for Alaska Power Authority.
Acres. 1983b. Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Application for License for
Major Project Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Volume 5B, Exhibit E, Chapter 2 Figures.
Prepared for Alaska Power Authority.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-77 December 2011
Adams, W.J. 1976. The Toxicity and Residue Dynamics of Selenium in Fish and Aquatic
Invertebrates. Ph.D. Thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. 109 pp.
AEA. 2010. Railbelt Large Hydro Evaluation Preliminary Decision Document. Prepared by the
Alaska Energy Authority (AEA).
Anadu, D.I, G.A. Chapman, L.R. Curtis and R.A. Tubb. 1989. Effect of zinc exposure on
subsequent acute tolerance to heavy metals in rainbow trout. Bulletin of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology. 43(3): 329-336.
APA. 1984. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Economic and Financial Update. Draft Report dated
February 27, 1984. Prepared by the Alaska Power Authority (APA).
APHA. 1998. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. (20th ed.)
American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, and Water
Environment Federation.
Balon, E. 1984. Life histories of Arctic charrs: an epigenetic explanation of their invading ability
and evolution. In: Biology of the Arctic Char, Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Arctic Charr, Winnipeg, Manitoba, May 1981. Univ. of Manitoba Press,
Winnipeg.
Behnke, R. 1980. A systematic review of the genus Salvelinus. In: Charrs - Salmonid Fishes of
the Genus Salvelinus. W. Junk Publishers, the Hague, the Netherlands.
Behnke, R.J. 1992. Native Trout of Western North America. American Fisheries Society
Monograph 6, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Bell, H. L. 1971. Effect of low pH on the survival and emergence of aquatic insects. Water
Resources. 5:313.
Bell, M. 1986. Fisheries Handbook of Engineering Requirements and Biological Criteria. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Office of the Chief of Engineers, Fish Passage Development
and Evaluation Program. Portland, OR.
Benoit, D.A., et al. 1976. Toxic effects of cadmium on three generations of brook trout
(Salvelinus fontinalis). Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 105:550.
Bills, T.D., L.L. Marking and L.E. Olson. 1977. Effects of residues of the polychlorinated
biphenyl aroclor 1254 on the sensitivity of rainbow trout. Progressive Fish-Culture.
39(3):150. (March 25 letter to Quentin Pickering, National Fishery Research Laboratory,
Lacrosse, WI).
Birge, W.J., W.H. Benson and J.A. Black. 1983. The induction of tolerance to heavy metals in
natural and laboratory populations of fish. PB84-111756. National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, VA.
Birge, W. J., Black, J. A., and Westerman, A. G. 1979. Evaluation of aquatic pollutants using
fish and amphibian eggs as bioassay organisms. In: Animals as Monitors of
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-78 December 2011
Environmental Pollutants. S.W. Nielsen, G. Migaki, and D.G. Scarpelli (Eds.), pp. 108-
118 Symposium, Storrs, C.N. National Academy of Sciences. Washington, DC.
Birge, W. J., Black, J. A., Westerman, A. G., and Hudson, J. E. 1980. Aquatic Toxicity Tests on
Inorganic Elements Occurring in Oil Shale. United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Bjornn, T., and D. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. In: Influences of
Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Environments.
American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. Bethesda, MD.
Brown, V., D. Shurben, W. Miller and M. Crane. 1994. Cadmium toxicity to rainbow trout
Oncorhynchus mykiss Walbaum and brown trout Salmo trutta L. over extended exposure
periods. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 29:38-46.
Buhl, K. and S. Hamilton. 1990. Comparative toxicity of inorganic contaminants released by
placer mining to early life stages of salmonids. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety.
20(3):325-342.
Buhl, K.J. and S.J. Hamilton. 1991. Relative sensitivity of early life stages of Arctic grayling,
coho salmon, and rainbow trout to nine inorganics. Ecotoxicology and Environmental
Safety. 22:184-197.
Burgner, R., J. Light, L. Margolis, T. Okazaki, A. Tautz, and S. Ito. 1992. Distribution and
Origins of Steelhead Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Offshore Waters of the North
Pacific Ocean. International North Pacific Fisheries Commission. Bulletin 51.
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Bury, N.R., F. Galvez, and C.M. Wood. 1999. Effects of chloride, calcium, and dissolved
organic carbon on silver toxicity: comparison between rainbow trout and fathead
minnows. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 18(1):56-62.
Candy, J. and T. Quinn. 1999. Behavior of adult Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
in British Columbia coastal waters determined from ultrasonic telemetry. Canadian
Journal of Zoology. 77:1161-1169.
Cardwell, R.D., et al. 1976. Acute toxicity of- selected toxicants to six species of fish. EPA-
600/3-76-008. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia.
Carroll, J.J., S.J. Ellis, and W.S. Oliver. 1979. Influences of hardness constituents on the acute
toxicity of cadmium to brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). Bulletin of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology. 22(4/5):575-581.
Cavender, T. 1978. Taxonomy and distribution of the bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus
(Suckley). American Northwest. California Fish and Game. 3:139-174.
Chakoumakos, C., R. Russo, R. Thurston. 1979. Toxicity of copper to cutthroat trout (Salmo
clarki) under different conditions of alkalinity, pH, and hardness. Environmental Science
and Technology. 13(2):213-219.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-79 December 2011
Chapman, G.A. 1975. Toxicity of copper, cadmium and zinc to Pacific Northwest salmonids.
U.S. EPA, Corvallis, Oregon.
Chapman, G.A., and D.G. Stevens. 1978. Acute lethal levels of cadmium, copper, and zinc to
adult male coho salmon and steelhead. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society.
107(6):837-840.
Crane, P., L. Seeb, and J. Seeb. 1994. Genetic relationships among Salvelinus species inferred
from allozyme data. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 51(1):182-197.
Cusimano, R.F., D.F. Brakke, and G.A. Chapman. 1986. Effects of pH on the toxicities of
cadmium, copper, and zinc to steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri). Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 43(8):1497-1503.
Dalzell, D. and N. Macfarlane. 1999. The toxicity of iron to brown trout and effects on the gills:
a comparison of two grades of iron sulphate. Journal of Fish Biology. 55(2):301-315.
Davies, P.H., J.P. Goettl Jr., J.R. Sinley, and N.F. Smith. 1976. Acute and chronic toxicity of
lead to rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) in hard and soft water. Water Research.
10(3):199-206.
Davies P., J. Goettl, J. Sinley. 1978. Toxicity of silver to rainbow trout Salmo gairdneri. Water
Research. 12(2):113-118.
Davies, P.H. and W.C. Gorman. 1987. Effects of chemical equilibria and kinetics on the
bioavailability and toxicity of cadmium to rainbow trout. American Chemical Society
National Meeting. 194:646-650.
Davies, P.H., W.C. Gorman, C.A. Carlson and S.F. Brinkman. 1993. Effect of hardness on
bioavailability and toxicity of cadmium to rainbow trout. Chemical Speciation and
Bioavailability. 5(2):67-77.
Di Toro, D., H. Allen, H. Bergman, J. Meyer, P. Paquin, R. Santore. 2001. Biotic ligand model
of the acute toxicity of metals. 1. Technical Basis. Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry. 20(10):2383-2396.
Eaton, J.G., et al. 1978. Metal toxicity to embryos and larvae of seven freshwater fish species-I.
Cadmium. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 19:95.
Ernst, W.R. and E.T. Garside 1987. Lethal effects of vanadium to two life stages of brook trout
(Salvelinus fontinalis). Journal of Canadian Zoology. 65(13):628-634.
Evans, D. 1987. The fish gill - site of action and model for toxic effects of environmental-
pollutants. Environmental Health Perspectives. 71:47-58.
Farag A., D. Woodward, J. Goldstein, W. Brumbaugh, J. Meyer. 1998. Concentrations of metals
associated with mining waste in sediments, biofilm, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish
from the Coeur D'alene River Basin, Idaho. Archives of Environmental Contamination
and Toxicology. 34(2):119-127.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-80 December 2011
Finlayson, B.J. and K.M. Verrue. 1982. Toxicities of copper, zinc and cadmium mixtures to
juvenile Chinook salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 111:645-650.
Florence, T., G. Batley. 1980. Chemical speciation in natural waters. Critical Reviews in
Analytical Chemistry. 9(3):219-296.
Hale, J.G. 1977. Toxicity of metal mining wastes. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology. 17(1):66-73.
Hamilton, S.J. and K.J. Buhl. 1990. Safety assessment of selected inorganic elements to fry of
Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety.
20:307-324.
Hansen, J., J. Lipton, P. Welsh. 2002. Relative sensitivity of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus)
and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) to acute copper toxicity.
Healey, M. 1991. Life History of Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Pacific Salmon
Life Histories. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver.
Hodson, P.V., D.J. Spry, and B.R. Blunt. 1980. Effects on rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) of a
chronic exposure to waterborne selenium. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences. 37(2):233-240.
Holcombe, G., D. Benoit, E. Leonard, J. Mckim. 1976. Long-term effects of lead exposure on
three generations of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). Journal of the Fisheries Research
Board of Canada. 33(8):1731-1741.
Hollis, L., J.C. McGeer, D.G. McDonald, and C.M. Wood. 1999. Cadmium accumulation, gill
Cd binding, acclimation, and physiological effects during long term sublethal Cd
exposure in rainbow trout. Aquatic Toxicology. 46(2):101-119.
Howarth, R.S. and J.B. Sprague. 1978. Copper lethality to rainbow trout in waters of various
hardness and pH. Water Resources. 12:455-462.
Hunn, J.B., S.J. Hamilton, and D.R. Buckler. 1987. Toxicity of sodium selenite to rainbow trout
fry. Water Resources. 21(2):233-238.
Hutchinson, T. H., Solbe, J., and Kloepper-Sams, P. J. 1998. Analysis of the ECETOC Aquatic
Toxicity (EAT) database III - comparative toxicity of chemical substances to different
life stages of aquatic organisms. Chemosphere. 36:129-142.
Ingersoll, C. G., Mount, D. R., Gulley, D. D., LaPoint, T. W., and Bergman, H. L. 1990. Effects
of pH, aluminum, and calcium on survival and growth of eggs and fry of brook trout
(Salvelinus fontinalis). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 47:1580-
1592.
IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, Cambridge University Press, 996 pp.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-81 December 2011
Ishida, Y., A. Yano, M. Ban, and M. Ogura. 2001. Vertical movement of a chum salmon
(Oncorhynchus keta) in the western north Pacific Ocean as determined by a depth-
recording archival tag. Fisheries Science. 67:1030-1035.
Johansen, J.A., and G.H. Geen. 1990. Sublethal and acute toxicity of the ethylene glycol butyl
ether ester formulation of triclopyr to juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch).
Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 19(4):610-616.
Johnson, W.W. and M.T. Finley. 1980. Handbook of acute toxicity of chemicals to fish and
aquatic invertebrates. Resource Publication 137. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, D.C.
Johnson, O., W. Grant, R. Kope, K. Neely, F. Waknitz, and R. Waples. 1997. Status Review of
Chum Salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA
Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-32, 280 p.
http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/publications/techmemos/tm32/.
Karen, D.J., D.R. Ownby, B.L. Forsythe, T.P. Bills, T.W. LaPoint, G.B. Cobb, and S.J.
Klaine.1999. Influence of water quality on silver toxicity to rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss), fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas), and water fleas (Daphnia magna).
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 18(1):63-70.
Karl, Thomas R., Jerry M. Melillo, and Thomas C. Peterson, (eds.), 2009. Global Climate
Change Impacts in the United States, Cambridge University Press.
Katz, M. 1961. Acute toxicity of some organic insecticides to three species of salmonids and to
the threespine stickleback. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 90(3):264-
268.
Knott, J.M. and S.W. Lipscomb. 1985. Sediment Discharge Data for Selected Sites in the
Susitna River Basin, Alaska, October 1982 to February 1984. USGS Open File Report
85-157. Prepared in cooperation with the Alaska Power Authority. Anchorage, Alaska.
Knott, J.M. Lipscomb, S.W., and T.W Lewis. 1986. Sediment Transport Characteristics of
Selected Streams in the Susitna River Basin, Alaska, October 1983 to September 1984.
USGS Open File Report 86-424W. Prepared in cooperation with the Alaska Power
Authority. Anchorage, Alaska.
Knott, J.M. Lipscomb, S.W., and T.W Lewis. 1987. Sediment Transport Characteristics of
Selected Streams in the Susitna River Basin, Alaska: Data for Water Year 1985 and
Trends in Bedload Discharge, 1981-85. USGS Open File Report 87-229. Prepared in
cooperation with the Alaska Power Authority. Anchorage, Alaska.
Marking, L.L., T.D. Bills, and J.R. Crowther. 1984. Effects of five diets on sensitivity of rainbow
trout to eleven chemicals. The Progressive Fish-Culturist. 46:1-5.
Marr, J.C.A., J. Lipton, D. Cacela, J.A. Hansen, H.L. Bergman, J.S. Meyer and C. Hogstrand.
1996. Relationship between copper exposure duration, tissue copper concentration, and
rainbow trout growth. Aquatic Toxicology. 36(1-2):17-30.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-82 December 2011
Mayes, M. A., Alexander, H. C., and Dill, D. C. 1983. A study to assess the influence of age on
the response of fathead minnows in static acute toxicity tests. Bulletin of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology. 31:139-147.
Mcgeachy, S., and D. Dixon. 1989. The impact of temperature on the acute toxicity of arsenate
and arsenite to rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri). Ecotoxicology and Environmental
Safety. 17(1):86-93.
McKim, J.M. and D.A. Benoit. 1971. Effects of long-term exposures to copper on survival,
growth and reproduction of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). Journal of the Fisheries
Research Board of Canada. 28:655.
Mckim, J., G. Olson, G. Holcombe, E. Hunt. 1976. Long-term effect of methyl mercury II
chloride on three generations of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) toxicity accumulation
distribution and elimination. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada.
33(12):2726-2739.
McKim, J.M., J.G. Eaton and G.W. Holcombe. 1978. Metal toxicity to embryos and larvae of
eight species of freshwater fish - II. Copper. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination
and Toxicology. 19:608-616.
Moore, J. W. and Ramamoorthy, S. 1984. Heavy Metals in Natural Waters: Applied Monitoring
and Impact Assessment. Spring-Verlag, New York, New York.
Morton, W. 1970. On the validity of all subspecific descriptions of North American Salvelinus
malma (Walbaum). Copeia. 1970(3):581-587.
Mount, D. I. 1973. Chronic effect of low pH on fathead minnow survival, growth and
reproduction. Water Resources. 7:987.
Mudge, J.E., T.E. Northstrom, G.S. Jeane, W. Davis and J.L. Hickam. 1993. Effect of varying
environmental conditions on the toxicity of copper to salmon. In: Environmental
toxicology and risk assessment. Gorsuch, J.W., F.J. Dwyer, C.G. Ingersoll and T.W.
LaPoint (Eds.). ASTM STP 1216. American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, PA. pp. 19-33.
Myers, J., R. Kope, G. Bryant, D. Teel, L. Lierheimer, T. Wainwright, W. Grand, F. Waknotz, K.
Neely, S. Lindley, and R. Waples. 1998. Status Review of Chinook Salmon from
Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-
NWFSC-35. Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA.
National Academy of Sciences (NAS). 1972. Accumulation of Nitrate. Washington, D.C.
National Academy of Sciences.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2005. Designation of Critical Habitat for 12
Evolutionarily Significant Units of West Coast Salmon and Steelhead in Washington,
Oregon, and Idaho; Final Rule. National Marine Fisheries Service. Portland, OR.
http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Publications/FR-Notices/2005/upload/70FR52630.pdf.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-83 December 2011
Nebeker, A., C. Mcauliffe, R. Mshar, and D. Stevens. 1983. Toxicity of silver to steelhead and
rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) and (Daphnia
magna). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 2(1):95-104.
Nebeker, A.V., C. Savonen, and D.G. Stevens. 1985. Sensitivity of rainbow trout early life stages
to nickel chloride. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 4(2):233-239.
Normandeau Associates, Inc. 1999. Draft Lower Snake River Juvenile Salmon Migration
Feasibility Report/Environmental Impact Statement. Appendix C. Water Quality. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District, Walla Walla, Washington.
Omata, Y., Y. Umeshita, M. Watarai, M, Tachibana, M. Sasaki, K. Murata, and T. Yamada.
2006. Brucella-species infection in killer whales (Orcinus orca) mass-stranded on the
coast of Shiretoko, Hokkaido, Japan. 68(5):523-526.
Pagenkopf, G. 1983. Gill Surface Interaction-Model for Trace-Metal Toxicity to Fishes - Role of
Complexation, pH, and Water Hardness. Environmental Science and Technology.
17(6):342-347.
Pratt, L. 1992. A Review of bull trout life history. In: Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain Bull
Trout Workshop. Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society. Corvallis, OR. 67
pp.
Post, G., and T.R. Schroeder. 1971. Toxicity of four insecticides to four salmonid species.
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 6(2):144-155.
Quane, T., Morrow, P., and I. Quaral. Undated. Task 14 Support Technical Report,
Hydrological Investigations at Selected Lower Susitna River Study Sites. Prepared by
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Aquatic Habitat and Instream Flow Project.
Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies Report Series. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority.
Anchorage, Alaska.
Quinn, T. and B. terHart. 1987. Movements of adult sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) in
British Columbia coastal waters in relation to temperature and salinity stratification:
ultrasonic telemetry results. Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences. 96:61-77.
Quinn, T., B. terHart, and C. Groot. 1989. Migratory orientation and vertical movements of
homing adult sockeye salmon, Oncorhynchus nerka, in coastal waters. Animal
Behaviour. 37:587-599.
Rombough, P. 1983. Effects of low pH on eyed embryos and alevins of Pacific salmon.
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 40(10):1575-1582.
Ruggerone, G., T. Quinn, I. McGregor, and T. Wilkinson. 1990. Horizontal and vertical
movements of adult steelhead trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, in the Dean and Fisher
channels, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences.
47:1963-1969.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-84 December 2011
Russo, R. C., Smith, C. E., and Thurston, R. V. 1974. Acute toxicity of nitrite to rainbow trout
(Salmo gairdneri). Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada. 31:1653-1655.
R&M Consultants. 1985a. Lower Susitna River Aggradation Study: Field Data. Final Report.
Prepared under contract to Harza – Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture. Prepared for Alaska
Power Authority. Document No. 2719.
R&M Consultants. 1985b. Susitna Hydrological-Meteorological Data Summary, October 1982-
December 1984. Final Report. Prepared under contract to Harza – Ebasco Susitna Joint
Venture. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority. Document No. 2830.
Salo, E.O. 1991. Life history of chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta). In: Pacific Salmon Life
Histories. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Sauter, S., et al. 1976. Effects of exposure to heavy metals on selected freshwater fish. Toxicity
of copper, cadmium, chromium and lead to eggs and fry of seven fish species. EPA-
600/3-76-105. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia.
Savvaitova, K. 1980. Comments on the "Systematic Review of the Genus Salvelinus". In Charrs
- Salmonid Fishes of the Genus Salvelinus. W. Junk Publishers, the Hague, the
Netherlands.
Schoettger, R.A. 1970. Fish-Pesticide Research Laboratory: Progress in Sport Fishery Research.
U.S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Resources.
Publication 106:2-40 (Published in Part as 6797).
Seagren, D.R., and R.G. Wilkey. 1985. Summary of Water Temperature and Substrate Data
from Selected Salmon Spawning and Groundwater Upwelling Sites in the Middle Susitna
River. Technical Data Report No. 12. Prepared by the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game. Anchorage, Alaska.
Seiders, K. and K. Kinney. 2004. Washington State Toxics Monitoring Program Toxic
Contaminants in Fish Tissue and Surface Water in Freshwater Environments, 2002.
Washington State Department of Ecology, Environmental Assessment Program. Pub. No.
04-03-040.
Seim W., L. Curtis, S. Glenn, and G. Chapman. 1984. Growth and survival of developing
steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri) continuously or intermittently exposed to copper.
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 41(3):433-438.
Servizi, J.A. and D.W. Martens 1978. Effects of selected heavy metals on early life of sockeye
and pink salmon. International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission. 26:39.
Servizi, J., D. Martens. 1991. Effect of temperature, season, and fish size on acute lethality of
suspended sediments to coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 48(3):493-497.
Servizi, J. and D. Martens. 1992. Sublethal responses of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) to
suspended sediments. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 49(7):1389-
1395.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-85 December 2011
Shaw, P. A. and Mago, J. A. 1942. The effect of mining silt on yield of fry from salmon
spawning beds. California Fish and Game.
Sinley, J.R., J.P. Goettl Jr., and P.H. Davies. 1974. The effects of zinc on rainbow trout (Salmo
gairdneri) in hard and soft water. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology. 12(2):193-201.
Smith, C. E. and Williams, W. G. 1974. Experimental nitrite toxicity in rainbow trout and
Chinook salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 103:389.
Spehar, R.L. and A.R. Carlson. 1984. Derivation of site-specific water quality criteria for
cadmium and the St. Louis River Basin, Duluth, Minnesota. Environmental Toxicology
and Chemistry. 3:651.
Spehar, R., J. Fiandt. 1986. Acute and chronic effects of water quality criteria-based metal
mixtures on three aquatic species. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 5(10):917-
932.
Spry, D., J. Wiener. 1991. Metal bioavailability and toxicity to fish in low-alkalinity lakes a
critical review. Environmental Pollution. 71(2-4):243-304.
Steevens, J. A., J. E. Mirecki, and T. S. Bridges. 2005. Summary and analysis of dioxin, metal,
and nutrient concentrations in outflow of levee ponds in Lewiston, Idaho. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. Walla Walla District.
Steffens, W. T. Mattheis, and M. Riedel. 1993. Field observations on the production of rainbow
trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) under high-concentrations of water-borne iron. Aquatic
Sciences. 55(3):173-178.
Towill, L. E., Shriner, C. R., Drury, J. S., Hammons, A. S., and Holleman, J. W. 1978. Reviews
of the environmental effects of pollutants: III chromium (Rep. No. EPA 600/1-78-023).
U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1976. Development document for effluent
limitations guidelines (BPCTCA) for the bleached kraft, groundwood, sulfite, soda, deink
and non-integrated paper mills segment of the pulp, paper, and paperboard point source
category (Rep. No. EPA 440/1-76/047-b). United States Environmental Protection
Agency.
U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1984. Ambient water quality criteria for copper -
1984 (Rep. No. U. S. EPA Report 440/5-84-031). United States Environmental Protection
Agency.
U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1986. Quality criteria for water 1986 the gold
book (Rep. No. EPA 440/5-86-001). Office of Water. Regulations and Standards: United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1987. Ambient Aquatic Life Water Quality
Criteria Document for Zinc. EPA-440/5-87-003 (NTIS PB87-153581), United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Environmental
Research Laboratories, Duluth, Minnesota, Narragansett, Rhode Island.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-86 December 2011
U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. Mercury and Mercury Compounds Report:
2002 Toxics Release Inventory. Mercury and Mercury Compounds Toxics Release
Inventory Fact Sheet. U.S. EPA Region 9.
U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2003b. EPA region 10 guidance for Pacific
Northwest state and tribal temperature water quality standards (Rep. No. EPA 910-B-03-
002). United States Environmental Protection Agency.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2000a. Final Bull Trout and Dolly Varden
Management Plan. Region 1 USFWS. Olympia, Washington.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/bulltrt/bulldoly.htm#execsum.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007a. Endangered, Threatened, Proposed,
and Candidate Species, Critical Habitat, and Species of Concern in Western Washington.
http://www.fws.gov/westwafwo/pdf/species_list.pdf.
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). 2007. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and Puget Sound Partnership; Phase 1: Initial Estimate of Toxic Chemical
Loadings to Puget Sound. Ecology Publication Number 07-10-079. Olympia,
Washington.
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). 2008. Environmental Information
Management (EIM). Olympia, WA. .http://www.ecy.wa.gov/eim/.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Service (WDFW). 2002. Salmonid Stock Inventory
(SaSI) 2002. Northwest Fisheries Science Center. Seattle, WA.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/sasi/.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Service (WDFW). 2008. Oncorhynchus mykiss:
Assessment of Washington State’s Steelhead Populations and Programs. Preliminary
Draft for Fish and Wildlife Commission. Olympia, Washington.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/papers/steelhead/assessment_steelhead_populations_programs_f
eb2008.pdf.
Westin, D. T. 1974. Nitrate and nitrite toxicity to salmonid fishes. The Progressive Fish-
Culturist. 36:86.
Willford, W.A. 1966. Toxicity of 22 therapeutic compounds to six fishes. Investigative Fish
Control No.18, Resource Publication No.35. U.S. Department of the Interior. Fish
Wildlife Service. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. Washington, D.C.
Withler, I. 1966. Variability in life history characteristics of steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri)
along the Pacific Coast of North America. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada.
23: 365-393.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-87 December 2011
4.5. Fish and Aquatic Resources
4.5.1. Introduction
The Susitna River basin provides habitat for resident fish, i.e., those spending their entire life
cycle within the river. It also provides habitat for anadromous fish; i.e., those that spawn in fresh
water, spend varying amounts of time in river or lake environments in immature life stages, and
then move into saltwater where they complete the maturation process (Morrow 1980).
Resident and anadromous fish are important to commercial, sport, personal use, and subsistence
fisheries in the Susitna River basin. Sport fisheries occur in the Susitna River basin for the five
species of Pacific salmon indigenous to Alaska, Arctic grayling, Dolly Varden, rainbow trout,
burbot, and northern pike (Esox lucius). Pacific salmon and eulachon in the Susitna River basin
support commercial fisheries (Shields. 2010), and Pacific salmon, Dolly Varden, rainbow trout,
lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush), eulachon, whitefish, and burbot support subsistence and
personal use fisheries (Oslund and Ivey 2010, Fall and Foster 1987). Non-key species (those not
important to a fishery) can be important to aquatic food chains as either predator or prey species,
and include round whitefish (Prosopium cylindraceum), longnose sucker (Catostomus
catostomus), Bering cisco (Coregonus laurettae), Arctic lamprey (Lethenteron japonicum),
threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus acoleatus), and sculpin (Cottid). Fish species (by common
and scientific name) that occur or are likely to occur in the Susitna River drainage, their life
history strategy, and their usage of the Susitna River are listed in Table 4.5-1.
Fish use and aquatic habitat requirements of the Susitna River drainage was extensively studied
during the early 1980s in support of the APA Susitna Hydroelectric Project (APA Project). This
effort, led by the ADF&G, included several additional contractors and was referred to as The
Susitna Hydroelectric Aquatic Studies Program. Studies were conducted from 1980 to 1984 and
included the following components (Jennings 1984):
Relative abundance and distribution of 19 species of resident and rearing anadromous
fish
Dominant age classes and sex ratios for most of those species
Population estimates for Arctic grayling in the Upper Susitna River Reach
Outmigration timing for most species of juvenile Pacific salmon
Movements of selected species of resident adult fish in the Susitna River
Identification of spawning habitats of certain species
Identification of overwintering habitats of certain species
Potential changes to the availability and quality of selected habitats in relation to changes
in instream flow regime
Documented migration timing of salmon runs in the Susitna River
Estimated population size and relative abundance of salmon in sub-basins of the Susitna
River
Estimated total slough escapements for salmon in sloughs above the Talkeetna and
Chulitna Rivers confluence
Estimated relative abundance of spawning salmon in tributaries above the Talkeetna and
Chulitna Rivers confluence
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-88 December 2011
Quantified selected biological characteristics for salmon stocks in the Susitna River (i.e.,
sex ratio, fecundity, age, and length)
Identification of important and/or sensitive habitat types
Investigations of habitat suitability for selected key species and life stages of salmon and
the relationship between habitat suitability and changes to the physical environment
Table 4.5.1. Summary of life history, known Susitna River usage, and known extent of
distribution of fish species within the lower, middle, and upper Susitna
River reaches (From ADF&G 1981 a, b, c, etc.).
Common Name Scientific Name Life Historya Susitna Usageb Distributionc
Alaska blackfish Dallia pectoralis F U U
Arctic grayling Thymallus arcticus F O, R, P Low, Mid, Up
Arctic lamprey Lethenteron japonicum A,F O, M2, R, P Low, Mid
Bering cisco Coregonus laurettae A M2, S Low, Mid
Burbot Lota lota F O, R, P Low, Mid, Up
Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha A M2, R Low, Mid, Up
Chum salmon Oncorhynchus keta A M2, S Low, Mid
Coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch A M2, S, R Low, Mid
Dolly Varden Salvelinus malma A,F O, P Low, Mid, Up
Eulachon Thaleichthys pacificus A M2, S Low
Humpback whitefishd Coregonus pidschian A,F O, R, P Low, Mid, Up
Lake trout Salvelinus namaycush F U U
Longnose sucker Catostomus catostomus F R, P Low, Mid, Up
Northern pike Esox lucius F P Low, Mid
Pacific lamprey Lampetra tridentata A,F U U
Pink salmon Oncorhynchus gorbuscha A M2, R Low, Mid
Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss F O, M2, P Low, Mid
Round whitefish Prosopium cylindraceum F O, M2, P Low, Mid, Up
Sculpine Cottid M1f, F P Low, Mid, Up
Sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka A M2, S Low, Mid
Threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus A,F M2, S, R, P Low, Mid
a A = anadromous, F = freshwater, M1 = marine
b O = overwintering, P = present, R = rearing, S = spawning, U = unknown, M2 = migration
c Low = Lower River, Mid = Middle River, Up = Upper River, U = Unknown
d Whitefish species that were not identifiable to species by physical characteristics in the field were called
humpback by default. This group may have contained Lake (Coregonus clupeaformis), or Alaska (Coregonus
nelsonii) whitefish.
e Sculpin species generally were not differentiated in the field. This group may have included Slimy (Cottus
cognatus), Prickly (Cottus asper), Coastal range (Cottus aleuticus), and Pacific staghorn (Leptocottus armatus).
f Pacific staghorn sculpin were found in fresh water habitat within the Lower Susitna River Reach.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-89 December 2011
The Susitna Hydroelectric Aquatic Studies Program greatly advanced the understanding of
aquatic resources in the Susitna watershed. Reports from this program comprise a portion of over
3,500 documents generated by the 1980s APA Project (Harza-Ebasco 1987). Since the
conclusion of the 1980s APA Susitna studies, research on aquatic resources in the Susitna
drainage has largely been directed at improving sustainable management of fishery resources by
the ADF&G.
In early 2011, an Aquatic Resources Data Gap Analysis was conducted to review relevant,
available literature to identify potential data needs for the current Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric
Project (HDR 2011). A key goal of this analysis was not only to review the relevant literature
from the study efforts of the 1980s, but also to identify and review relevant investigations that
have been conducted over the 25 years since the 1980s APA studies were concluded.
The data gap analysis began with a review of key summary and synthesis documents that were
completed near the conclusion of the 1980s APA Project. Examples include the 1985 amended
draft license application (Harza-Ebasco 1985a), Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS;
FERC 1984a and 1984b), and 1985 Aquatic Plan of Study (Harza-Ebasco 1984a). The 1985
Aquatic Plan of Study identified remaining information needs to resolve issues raised by
resource agencies regarding effects of the 1980s APA Project on aquatic resources. These
recommendations were used as a starting point for review of available and relevant literature
pertaining to the currently proposed Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project.
The Aquatic Resources Data Gap Analysis also included a review of resource-specific summary
documents from the 1980s APA Project, including completion reports from the Susitna
Hydroelectric Aquatic Studies Program. A database generated from the 3,500 documents library
(Harza-Ebasco 1987) was queried to identify other relevant documents. Contemporary literature
sources were uncovered through library searches, online searches of agency publications, and
personal contacts with biologists and aquatic scientists working in the Susitna watershed.
Information was considered in terms of relevance to current FERC licensing requirements for
environmental analysis of the proposed Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, completeness, and
the applicability of methods used. The authors used professional judgment to make this
assessment, recognizing that this was a first effort beginning a long, interactive public and
agency process. Identified topic areas were listed as potential data gaps with the understanding
that these would be refined, modified, and further developed as the study planning process
evolves. Information gaps that are ultimately determined to be worthy of future study will be
determined based on analysis of Project issues and the needs of the regulatory agencies.
4.5.2. Existing Fish and Aquatic Communities
4.5.2.1. Aquatic Communities by Reach
Much of the Susitna River is an extremely complex network of channels, each with a different
response to changes in mainstem discharge. While each channel is unique, they can be grouped
into different channel types with similar characteristics in both morphology and general
hydraulic response/sensitivity to changes in mainstem discharge. Each channel type also has
similarities in species/life-stage utilization. The 1980s APA Project instream flow study was
designed specifically to analyze the various channel types in the study area. The process for
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-90 December 2011
identifying and prioritizing major channel types involved extensive and detailed field data
collection, analysis, and documentation of the hydraulic and hydrologic relationships between
the major channel types and mainstem discharge.
A substantial body of well documented information relevant to current instream flow information
needs is available in the environmental baseline study reports prepared for licensing of the
previous Project (HDR 2011). The 1980s APA Project instream flow study efforts focused on
establishing the relationships between physical variables, fluvial processes and fish resources in
the middle Susitna River. Faced with the complexity of the number of environmental variables
involved and the number of species of fish which inhabit the middle Susitna River, it was
deemed necessary to focus only on the most important physical variables and carefully identified
fish resources which were most sensitive to project-related changes (Trihey & Associates and
Entrix 1985b).
4.5.2.1.1. Upper Susitna River Reach
The Upper Susitna River reach is defined as the section of river above the proposed Watana Dam
(RM 184), including the upper Susitna and McLaren rivers which arise directly from large
temperate glaciers of the Alaska Range. Their upper reaches traverse the wide valley south of the
Alaska Range in broad, braided channels.
The Upper Susitna River reach contains at least eight species of resident freshwater fish: Arctic
grayling, Dolly Varden, humpback whitefish (Coregonus spp.), round whitefish, burbot,
longnose sucker, and sculpin. Lake trout are known to be present in Lake Lucille, but their
distribution beyond that in the Upper Susitna watershed is unknown. Two other species may be
present: northern pike and Alaska blackfish (Dallia pectoralis). One anadromous species,
Chinook salmon, was documented in two tributaries to the proposed reservoir during 2003 and
2011 ADF&G sampling efforts. Juvenile Chinook salmon were found in Kosina Creek (~RM 6 –
8) in 2003 and one adult was observed in 2011 at an approximate elevation of 2,800 ft; juveniles
were also found in the Oshetna River near its confluence with the Susitna River, but none were
observed in 2011 (ADF&G 2003a & b, 2011c). Greater detail regarding the distribution and
abundance of key fish species is provided below.
4.5.2.1.2. Middle Susitna River Reach
The Middle Susitna River reach encompasses the 86-mile section of river between the proposed
Watana Dam site and the Chulitna River confluence, located at RM 98. The river flows from
Watana Canyon into Devils Canyon, the narrowest and steepest reach on the Susitna River. In
Devils Canyon, constriction creates extreme hydraulic conditions including deep plunge pools,
drops, and high velocities. The Devils Canyon rapids form a barrier to the migration of pink,
chum, coho and sockeye salmon and only a few Chinook salmon have been able to make it
above Devils Canyon (HDR 2011).
The Middle Susitna River reach contains at least 17 species of resident freshwater and
anadromous fish. Arctic grayling, Dolly Varden, humpback whitefish, round whitefish, burbot,
longnose sucker, sculpin, Bering cisco, threespine stickleback, Arctic lamprey, Chinook salmon,
chum salmon, coho salmon, pink salmon, sockeye salmon, rainbow trout, and northern pike all
inhabit the Middle Susitna River Reach. Two other species may be present: Alaska blackfish and
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-91 December 2011
Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata). Chinook salmon are the only anadromous species
documented above Devils Canyon; they have been found in the Fog and Tsusena creeks
(ADF&G 2003a & b, 2011c).
During the 1980s, ADF&G sampled the Middle Susitna River reach for benthic and drifting
invertebrates to evaluate available fish food resources and the relationship between flow and
benthic invertebrate habitat availability (ADF&G 1985a). Four side channel and side slough sites
were sampled at head and mid channel locations using drift nets and modified Hess samplers
(ADF&G 1985a). A total of 52 invertebrate taxa were identified in drift and benthic samples,
with Chironomidae being the dominant taxon (ADF&G 1985a).
The 1980s APA Project instream flow studies focused on the middle river from below Devils
Canyon (RM 150) downstream to the confluence with the Talkeetna River at RM 103 (Trihey &
Associates and Entrix 1985b). APA’s reasoning for the lower boundary just above Talkeetna was
the assumption that cumulative flow from downstream tributaries, primarily the Chulitna,
Talkeetna, Kashwitna, and the Yentna rivers, would significantly buffer the effects of the
proposed project operations on habitats in the lower river.
One methodology applied in the APA Project instream flow study was the Physical Habitat
Simulation (PHABSIM) component of the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM).
IFIM is one of the most widely used instream flow methods in the world for assessing the effects
of flow manipulation on river habitats (Bovee et al. 1998). The PHABSIM component was a key
methodology applied in the Instream Flow Relationships Reports (IFRR) prepared for the
licensing of the APA Project. Because of the size and geomorphic and hydraulic complexity of
the Susitna, other methods, in combination with the PHABSIM, were required to adequately
characterize and model habitat flow relationships. Other methods included upstream passage
studies for anadromous salmonids and wetted surface area/habitat studies of sloughs and off-
channel habitats.
Specific areas were categorized into basic channel types based upon their instantaneous
hydraulic and morphologic characteristics (Harza-Ebasco 1985). Side channel and slough
habitats are known to be critical for salmon production in the Susitna River. All salmon species
except for Chinook were found to use side channel and slough habitats for spawning. Chum
salmon in particular are known to rely on groundwater upwelling areas especially in sloughs.
In general, side channels convey mainstem water more than 50 percent of the time during the
summer, open water season. Side channels are less sensitive to changes in flow than the main
channel but are directly affected by mainstem discharge sufficiently great to breach the upstream
ends of the channels (HDR 2011). Sloughs are less responsive to mainstem discharge changes in
that mainstem discharges sufficiently great to breach the upstream ends occur less than 50
percent of the time during the open water season. However, at lower discharge levels, the
mainstem discharge may affect slough habitat conditions, particularly at the mouths, through
backwater effects. Mainstem discharge less than that sufficient to breach the upstream end may
also affect habitat conditions through the influence on groundwater upwelling.
4.5.2.1.3. Lower Susitna River Reach
The Lower Susitna River Reach is defined as the approximate 98-mile section of river between
the Chulitna and Talkeetna Rivers confluence and Cook Inlet (RM 0). An abrupt change in
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-92 December 2011
channel form occurs where the Chulitna and Talkeetna Rivers join the Susitna River near the
town of Talkeetna. The Chulitna River drains a smaller area than the middle Susitna River at the
confluence, but drains higher elevations (including Denali and Mount Foraker) and many more
glaciers. The annual flow of the Chulitna River is approximately the same as the Susitna River at
the confluence, though the Chulitna contributes much more sediment than the Susitna. For
several miles downstream of the confluence, the Susitna River becomes braided, characterized
by unstable, shifting gravel bars and shallow subchannels. For the remainder of its course to
Cook Inlet, the Susitna River alternates between single channel, braided, and meandering with
multiple side channels and sloughs. Major tributaries drain the western Talkeetna Mountains (the
Talkeetna River, Montana Creek, Willow Creek, Kashwitna River), the Susitna lowlands
(Deshka River), and the Alaska Range (Yentna River). The Yentna River is the largest lower
river tributary, supplying about 40 percent of the total mean annual Susitna River flow at the
mouth (HDR 2011).
The Lower Susitna River Reach contains at least 19 species of resident freshwater and
anadromous fish. Arctic grayling, Dolly Varden, humpback whitefish, round whitefish, burbot,
longnose sucker, sculpin, eulachon, Bering cisco, threespine stickleback, Arctic lamprey,
Chinook salmon, chum salmon, coho salmon, pink salmon, sockeye salmon, rainbow trout, and
northern pike all inhabit the Lower Susitna River Reach. Pacific lamprey have been documented
in the Deshka River (J. Buckwalter, ADF&G, pers. comm.); their use of the Sustina River other
than for migration is unknown. Additionally, Alaska blackfish and Pacific lamprey may be
present.
4.5.2.1.4. Potential Access and Transmission Corridors
AEA is currently evaluating three different access corridors that would provide transportation
from the existing transportation network (i.e., existing road or rail systems) to the proposed
Watana Dam site. There are also three proposed transmission corridors following the same
general routes as the three road corridors. The corridors, labeled Denali, Chulitna and Gold
Creek are described in Section 3 and shown on Figure 1-1. A new access road in either the
Chulitna or Gold Creek corridors would cross streams within the Susitna River watershed; a road
in the Denali corridor would cross streams within both the Susitna and Nenana River watersheds.
Recent fisheries work specific to each of the proposed road alignments’ stream crossing
locations has not been conducted. However, the ADOT&PF recently evaluated potential access
corridors, including the Denali and Chulitna River options (HDR 2011). The analysis considered
the number of fish stream crossings as one criterion, among many others, during the screening
process (HDR 2011). The sources of fisheries information summarized below include the recent
ADOT&PF analysis (HDR 2011); recent data from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
(ADF&G) Anadromous Waters Catalog (ADF&G 2011), and data collected during the 1980s
(Schmidt et al. 1984; ADF&G 1981).
4.5.2.1.4.1. Denali Corridor
A road in the Denali Corridor would cross Seattle Creek and Brushkana Creek, two major
drainages within the Nenana River watershed. Deadman Creek is the major stream crossed
within the Susitna River watershed.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-93 December 2011
A road in this corridor would require a total of 15 stream crossings. In the 1980s, biologists
conducted fish presence surveys in the vicinity of 10 of the 15 stream crossing sites and recorded
general habitat and water quality conditions (Schmidt et al. 1984). Sculpin were confirmed to be
present near nine of the proposed crossing locations; Dolly Varden and Arctic grayling were
present near six of the proposed crossings (Schmidt et al. 1984).
Three crossing sites had intermittent flow and were deemed unsuitable for long-term fish use;
these sites were not sampled for fish presence. The ADF&G Anadromous Waters Catalog
(AWC) does not list Seattle Creek as providing habitat for anadromous fish (ADF&G 2011); no
anadromous fish were captured during the 1980s sampling efforts (Schmidt et al. 1984).
4.5.2.1.4.2. Gold Creek Corridor
A Gold Creek access route would require 23 stream crossings. The major streams that would be
crossed by the Gold Creek access route include Gold Creek, Fog Creek, and Cheechako Creek.
Smaller streams crossed include tributaries to Prairee and Jack Long creeks, and a number of
unnamed tributaries to the Susitna River.
The AWC identifies the presence of anadromous fish in Gold, Fog, Cheechako, Prairee, Jack
Long, and Chinook creeks (ADF&G 2011). However, much of the available fish data were
collected downstream of the proposed crossing sites (ADF&G 2011; ADF&G 1981; Schmidt et
al. 1984). Anadromous fish presence is assumed in streams where upstream barriers were not
documented.
Gold Creek (AWC No. 247-41-10200-2540) and Jack Long Creek (AWC No. 247-41-10200-
2570) support Chinook, coho, chum, and pink salmon (ADF&G 2011). The alignment would
cross two tributaries of Jack Long Creek. Although data were not collected in these tributary
streams, the presence of anadromous fish is assumed at the two crossing locations since barriers
were not identified. Chinook salmon presence has been identified in Cheechako Creek (AWC
No. 247-41-10200-2596) and Fog Creek (AWC No. 247-41-10200-2696).
Additionally, the presence of anadromous fish in the lower portion of Slough 20 and Slough 21,
downstream of barriers, is reported by Schmidt et al. 1984. All three proposed crossings on
tributaries to these sloughs are located upstream of the anadromous reach; however, since
sampling was not conducted the presence of resident fish is assumed.
4.5.2.1.4.3. Chulitna Corridor
A road in the Chulitna Corridor would require about 30 stream crossings. The majority of
streams that would be crossed are smaller tributary streams to larger systems. However, a road in
the Chulitna Corridor would also cross a few larger streams such as the Indian River, and
Thoroughfare, Portage, Devils, Tsusena, and Deadman creeks.
Both the Indian River (AWC No. 247-41-10200-2551) and Portage Creek (AWC No. 247-41-
1020-2585) are cataloged (ADF&G 2011) to provide habitat for Chinook, coho, chum, and pink
salmon near the crossing sites. Additionally, Chinook salmon have been documented in
Thoroughfare Creek (AWC No. 247-41-10200-2582-3201) near the crossing site (ADF&G
2011).
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-94 December 2011
The Chulitna River alignment would also cross 10 small, unnamed tributaries of Portage Creek,
the mainstem of Devils Creek and three of its tributaries, and seven smaller tributaries to the
upper Susitna River (in the Swimming Bear drainages; Schmidt et al. 1984). The Chulitna
alignment would also cross Tsusena Creek and two of its tributaries. Since fish presence
sampling has not been conducted in many of these tributary streams and passage barriers have
not been identified to date, fish presence should be assumed.
4.5.2.2. Key Fish Species
For this project, key fish species are considered those that provide a significant contribution to
commercial, sport, subsistence, or personal use fisheries in the region. In some cases, forage
species that provide essential nutrition to key species can also be considered key species. The
fish species discussed below are considered the key species that are likely to be of greatest
interest during the Project licensing. Non-key species are listed in Section 4.5.2.2.11, Non-Game
Species.
4.5.2.2.1. Sockeye Salmon
The most abundant and economically valuable salmon species in the Susitna River system is
sockeye salmon. The Susitna River is considered the third largest producer of sockeye salmon in
upper Cook Inlet, following the Kenai and Kasilof river systems. Estimates of annual sockeye
salmon run sizes into the Susitna River have ranged from 147,000 to 773,000 fish (Fair et al.
2009). Due to their commercial value, sockeye salmon in the Susitna River have been studied
more extensively than other salmon species.
The ADF&G is responsible for managing the Susitna River sockeye stocks and regulates
commercial fisheries for high sustained yields by achieving desired escapement goals. The
annual abundance of Susitna River sockeye salmon stocks is difficult to quantify due to the
nature of the large, glacially occluded watershed. Early attempts by the ADF&G to monitor
escapement into the mainstem of the Susitna were abandoned due to these challenges. A Bendix
side scan sonar site was established in 1976 to monitor sockeye salmon escapement on the
Yentna River (Westerman and Willette 2010). The Yentna River is known to produce a large
portion of the salmon in the Susitna drainage and has conditions more conducive to acoustic
monitoring methods than the mainstem Susitna River. When a fish passes through the sonar
beam projected across the river a sonic reflection called a “target” is returned to the transducer
on the river’s bank. Sonar targets are allocated to the respective salmon species in proportion to
catches at an adjacent fish wheel site. Sockeye salmon escapement has been estimated for the
Yentna River consistently each year since 1981 using the Bendix sonar count and fish wheel
species apportionment method (Table 4.5-2). The Bendix escapement estimates became a proxy
for escapement into the entire Susitna River watershed.
From 1999 to 2005, the Bendix-sonar-based Yentna River sockeye salmon escapement estimates
were below the sustainable escapement goal for five of seven years. In response to this trend, a
comprehensive research program was initiated by ADF&G to better quantify Susitna River
sockeye salmon abundance and improve sustainable management of Susitna sockeye salmon
stocks. Key study components of this effort included mark-recapture experiments and a radio
telemetry study (Yanusz et al. 2007, Fair et al. 2009). Fish wheels in the lower river captured
sockeye salmon for tagging. Recaptures occurred upriver by additional fish wheels and weirs.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-95 December 2011
Knowing the number of tags released and the ratio of tagged to untagged sockeye at points
upriver allowed calculation of the entire sockeye escapement. Weirs were an important part of
the recapture methodology. ADF&G has monitored sockeye salmon escapement by weir at
Chelatna Lake, a subbasin of the Yentna, seasonally from 1992 through 1998 and from 2006 to
present. Weirs have also been operated at Judd Lake, Shell Lake, also in the Yentna subbasin,
and Larson Lake in the Talkeetna subbasin. Mark-recapture experiments with radio telemetry
and dart tags deployed at downstream fish wheels and recaptured at upstream fish wheels and
weirs were conducted (Yanusz et al. 2007, Fair et al. 2009). The mark-recapture methods also
showed about three-fourths of sockeye were bound for the Yentna River, while the remainder
stayed in the mainstem Susitna River (Table 3). Locations of fish wheel capture sites, weirs, and
radio tracking stations and final locations of radio-tagged sockeye salmon based on 2008 aerial
surveys in the Susitna River are shown in Figure 4.5-1.
The mark-recapture studies have shown that the Bendix sonar program that was used to estimate
passage in the Yentna River for approximately 30 years was biased significantly low due to a
selectivity of the fish wheel catches (Fair et al. 2009). ADF&G has recently transitioned to the
use of Dual Frequency Identification Sonar (DIDSON), which has resulted in better detection
and quantification of fish targets. However, the issue of accurately apportioning acoustic targets
to the correct salmon species has not been completely resolved. Consequently, sockeye salmon
passage estimates based on the DIDSON remain unreliable (Fair et al. 2009).
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-96 December 2011
Table 4.5-2. Sockeye salmon in-river abundance estimates from Yentna Rivera and
Susitna Riverb sonar counts, 1973 through 2009.
a Yentna River sonar site is located at Yentna River mile 4.
b Susitna River sonar site was located at Susitna Station just downstream of the Yentna River confluence.
Sources: Fox 1998 and Fair et al. 2009.
Year
Sonar Estimate
Yentna River Susitna River
Bendix DIDSON Bendix
1978 94,400
1979 156,980
1980 190,866
1981 139,401 340,232
1982 113,847 265,332
1983 104,414 175,936
1984 149,375 279,446
1985 107,124 227,924
1986 92,076
1987 66,054
1988 52,330
1989 96,269
1990 140,290
1991 109,632
1992 66,074
1993 141,694
1994 128,032
1995 121,220
1996 90,660
1997 157,899
1998 119,623
1999 99,029
2000 133,094
2001 83,532
2002 78,591
2003 180,813
2004 71,281
2005 36,921
2006 92,896 166,697
2007 79,901 125,146
2008 90,146 131,772
2009 28,428 44,098
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-97 December 2011
Table 4.5-3. Sockeye salmon in-river abundance estimates from Yentna River and
Susitna River mark recapture studies, 1974 through 2008.
Year Mark Recapture
Yentna River Susitna Rivera Total
1974 54,978
1981 133,489
1982 151,500
1983 71,500
1984 130,071
2006 311,197 107,000 418,197
2007 239,849 87,883 327,732
2008 288,988 70,772 359,760
a Susitna River estimates are upstream of the Yentna River confluence.
Source: Fox 1998, Fair et al. 2009, and Yanusz et al. 2007, 2008, and 2011.
Figure 4.5-1. Locations of fish wheel capture sites, weirs, and radio tracking stations and
final locations of radio-tagged sockeye salmon based on 2008 aerial surveys
in the Susitna River. Image copied from Yanusz 2011.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-98 December 2011
Due to the unreliability of the sockeye salmon escapement estimated from the Bendix sonar
counters, the ADF&G introduced a new approach to escapement monitoring at the 2009 Alaska
Board of Fisheries meeting (Fair, 2009). ADF&G identified three lakes within the basin,
Chelatna and Judd lakes of the Yentna subbasin and Lafron Lake of the Talkeetna subbasin, that
had the quality and quantity of escapement data necessary for establishing a sustainable
escapement goal (Table 4.5-4). The long-standing, sonar-based Yentna River goal was
eliminated and replaced with two sustainable escapement goals monitored by weir counts at
Chelatna Lake (20,000-65,000) and Judd Lake (25,000-55,000). An additional goal was
established for the mainstem of the Susitna River, to be monitored by weir at Larson Lake
(15,000-50,000).
Escapement estimates vary greatly by year and study method; the current state of knowledge
finds the escapement estimates derived from mark recapture studies and weir counts to be a more
reliable index of sockeye salmon escapement than the historic sonar program (Fair et al. 2009).
Sockeye salmon spawning is widespread throughout the Susitna River drainage, with most
occurring in tributaries and lakes. ADF&G’s sockeye salmon radio telemetry study (Yanusz et
al. 2007, 2011) was conducted from 2006 through 2008 and provides the most comprehensive
accounting of the distribution of adult spawners completed to date. The 2006 telemetry study
estimated that 42 percent of the sockeye in the lower Susitna entered Larson (17 percent),
Chelatna (15 percent), or Judd (10 percent) lakes (Yanusz et al. 2007). The same study estimated
that 63 percent of the sockeye in the Middle Susitna (Sunshine Station above the Yentna
confluence) migrated into Larson Lake. Overall, 23 percent of the population spawned in other
lakes, while the remaining 35 percent spawned in sloughs and tributary rivers and streams
throughout the drainage (Figure 4.5-1). Note that this study had the primary objective of
estimating in-river abundance and relied on recapture at lake outlet weirs. Sockeye salmon were
radio-tagged at Sunshine so this study did not evaluate spawning locations in the Lower Susitna
River and much of the Middle Susitna River. Historic studies indicated that nearly all sockeye
salmon that spawn in the Middle River use slough habitats (WCC 1985).
Table 4.5-4. Sockeye salmon in-river abundance estimates from Yentna River and
Susitna River lake outlet weir counts, 1973 through 2009.
Year
Weir Count
Yentna River Susitna River Total
Chelatna Judd Larson
1973 26,428
1980 43,350
1984 35,254
1985 37,874
1986 32,322
1987 16,753
1989 12,792
1992 35,300
1993 20,235
1994 28,303
1995 20,124
1996 28,000
1997 84,899 40,282
1998 51,798 34,416 63,514 149,728
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-99 December 2011
1999 18,943
2000 11,987
2005 9,751
2006 18,433 40,633 57,411 116,477
2007 41,290 58,134 47,736 147,160
2008 73,469 54,304 35,040 162,813
2009 17,865 43,153 41,929 102,947
Sources: Fox 1998 and Fair et al. 2009.
Sockeye salmon migratory timing has been well described (Jennings 1984; ADF&G 1984a,
1985a; Yanusz et al. 2007). The first run of sockeye described by Jennings (1984) spawns
exclusively in Papa Bear Lake and inlet streams in the Talkeetna River from mid July through
early August. The second run (Jennings 1984) is abundant in the Middle Susitna River from late
July through the end of August. The rate of movement of tagged second run sockeye into the
middle river was documented by ADF&G. Adults, tagged at Sunshine Station, moved between
2.5 and 5.8 mi per day (mpd), from Sunshine Station to the Talkeetna Stations. The average rate
of travel from the Talkeetna Station to the Curry Station ranged from 2.4 to 8.5 mpd from 1981
through 1984 (ADF&G 1981a, 1983a, 1985c).
Sockeye salmon runs into the Susitna River drainage over the past decade have been reported to
be declining (Shields 2010). At the 2008 Alaska Board of Fisheries (BOF) meeting, Susitna
River sockeye salmon were found to be a stock of yield concern1. As a result, an action plan was
developed by ADF&G, identifying conservative management measures and a research plan.
Studies contained in the research plan were funded beginning in 2006 and included:
Mark-recapture and radio telemetry projects intended to estimate the number of sockeye
salmon entering the system, which also allowed for the identification of spawning areas
in the drainage
Limnological investigations of numerous lakes throughout the drainage to assess
production potential
Fry and smolt population estimates in as many as seven different lakes
Evaluation of the effects of northern pike predation and beaver (Castor canadensis) dams
on production
Comprehensive genetic stock identification (GSI) study of sockeye salmon fisheries in
UCI to determine the river of origin of all harvested fish. Based on results from the 2006
season, minor modifications to the GSI project were implemented
Continuing studies may be conducted by ADF&G to quantify fish wheel selectivity and develop
corrections for use in species apportionment of sonar passage estimates. In the meantime,
escapement goals have been established and are being monitored at four lakes (Judd, Shell,
Chelatna, and Larson) that are known to be the major producers of sockeye salmon in the
drainage. Attempts are also being made to identify and decrease the impacts of beaver dams and
northern pike predation on sockeye salmon production. At the 2011 BOF meeting, ADF&G
recommended that Susitna River sockeye salmon remain a stock of yield concern. The impetus
1 A stock of yield concern is defined in the State of Alaska’s Policy for Management of Sustainable Salmon
Fisheries (5 AAC 39.222), as a concern arising from a chronic inability, despite the use of specific management
measures, to maintain expected yields, or harvestable surpluses, above a stock’s escapement needs.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-100 December 2011
behind this recommendation is to allow more time for studies to provide information needed to
formulate management strategies that will further the goal of increased yields (Shields 2010).
The average fecundity of a Susitna River female sockeye is approximately 3,350 eggs per female
(ADF&G 1984b). Emergence of fry from spawning gravels occurs in March (ADF&G 1983b).
Juvenile sockeye generally rear in lake habitats and outmigrate as Age 1+ or 2+ fish. In the
Middle Susitna River Reach, suitable lakes are not available for rearing sockeye (Harza-Ebasco
1985a). Therefore, juvenile sockeye either migrate to the Lower Susitna River or rear in suitable
areas of the Middle Susitna River during their first year (ADF&G 1983a, 1984c). It is possible
that Age 0+ fish that move out of the Middle Susitna River Reach move into side channel, side
slough, or tributary mouth areas in the Lower Susitna River Reach where they overwinter;
however, results of outmigrant collections at the Flathorn Station in 1984 indicate that movement
of Age 0+ juveniles to the estuary also occurs (ADF&G 1985d). Based on adult scale analysis, it
is likely that most of these fish do not survive (ADF&G 1985c).
The Age 0+ sockeye in the Middle Susitna River grow from an average length of 30 mm in May
to 56 mm by the end of August (ADF&G 1985d). The Age 0+ sockeye in the Lower Susitna
River grow from an average of 36 mm in early June to an average of 60 mm in October
(ADF&G 1985d). Age 1+ fish grow from an average length of 71 mm in May to an average
length of 92 mm in July (Harza-Ebasco 1985a).
Outmigration of Age 1+ juveniles begins and peaks in mid May immediately after the river
becomes ice free (Harza-Ebasco 1985a). Outmigration rates of Age 1+ fish then decrease, and
the migration is essentially complete by mid to late June (ADF&G 1985d).
4.5.2.2.2. Chinook Salmon
The Susitna River Chinook salmon stock is fourth largest in Alaska (Ivey et al. 2009). The
ADF&G has management responsibility for this species and conducts a majority of the ongoing
stock assessment programs. Although Susitna River Chinook salmon make a small contribution
to commercial fisheries, they are the most important species to recreational and guided sport
fisheries. Sport fisheries in the Susitna drainage are managed under the Eastside Susitna and
Westside Susitna subunits. Important Chinook salmon sport fishing streams in the Eastside are
typically clear, and many are accessible from the Parks Highway. From 1979 to 2009, the
Eastside Susitna Chinook sport harvest ranged from 1,298 in 1979 to a high of 22,688 in 1993.
From 2001 to 2009, Eastside Chinook sport harvests declined from 13,504 to 3,462 (Oslund and
Ivey 2010). In October 2010, the ADF&G recommended that the BOF declare Willow Creek and
Goose Creek Chinook salmon as a stock of yield concern and at the regulatory meeting for the
Northern Cook Inlet (NCI) Management Area, in February of 2011, the BOF enacted the
recommendation.
Westside streams are remote and accessed only by boat or air; tributaries are larger and Chinook
are more abundant. Westside Susitna Chinook sport harvests from 1979 to 2008 ranged from
5,768 in 1979 to 21,836 in 1991. The 2009 sport harvest of 4,713 was the lowest in 30 years
(Oslund and Ivey 2010). In 2008, the popular Chinook salmon fishery in Alexander Creek was
closed, and at the regulatory board meeting for the Northern Cook Inlet (NCI) Management Area
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-101 December 2011
in February 2011, the ADF&G recommended that the BOF declare Alexander Creek Chinook
salmon a stock of management concern2 (ADF&G 2011a).
Chinook salmon escapement in the Susitna watershed is currently monitored with aerial and foot
spawning ground surveys in clear water tributaries and with limited weir counts. The ADF&G
has conducted annual aerial Chinook escapement surveys on nine Eastside streams and five
Westside streams since 1979 (Table 5). Spawning ground surveys are generally conducted in
streams with sport fisheries (i.e. Alexander Creek, Willow Creek, Goose Creek, and others) and
provide an index of escapement which is used to periodically evaluate escapement goals.
Sustainable escapement goals, as defined under the Policy for Statewide Salmon Escapement
Goals (5 AAC 39.223), were established in 1993 and are formally reviewed on a three-year
regulatory cycle by ADF&G and the BOF.
Since 1995, a weir count project estimates the Deshka River Chinook salmon escapement. These
data provide escapement trends across years but offer little information regarding the total
escapement (Fair et al 2010). Total Chinook escapement is estimated for all of Upper Cook Inlet,
which includes 5 major river systems, but is not apportioned further thus the total escapement for
Chinook to the Susitna River is unknown.
2 A stock of management concern is defined in the State of Alaska’s Policy for Management of Sustainable Salmon
Fisheries (5 AAC 39.222), as a concern arising from a chronic inability, despite the use of specific management
measures, to maintain escapement for a salmon stock within the bounds of the SEG, BEG, or OEG or other specified
management objectives for the fishery.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-102 December 2011
Table 4.5-5. Susitna River Chinook salmon escapement index counts derived from peak
aerial and foot surveys of index streams, 1979 through 2006.
Susitna River
Year Eastside Tributariesa Westside Tributariesb Total
1979 5,082 39,552 44,634
1981 7,419 2,025 9,444
1982 10,700 25,224 35,924
1983 17,859 42,850 60,709
1984 25,678 27,974 53,652
1985 18,177 38,932 57,109
1986 15,828 32,330 48,158
1987 26,535 23,936 50,471
1988 26,255 40,963 67,218
1989 23,117 4,818 27,935
1990 25,040 28,042 53,082
1991 21,773 19,425 41,198
1992 15,782 18,899 34,681
1993 13,066 18,028 31,094
1994 11,904 9,423 21,327
1995 21,778 15,828 37,606
1996 22,084 16,802 38,886
1997 35,927 38,437 74,364
1998 24,393 32,958 57,351
1999 24,306 30,260 54,566
2000 20,161 11,137 31,298
2001 23,047 15,102 38,149
2002 35,137 28,066 63,203
2003 15,341 24,294 39,635
2004 22,567 54,421 76,988
2005 21,780 27,774 49,554
2006 16,934 23,074 40,008
a Eastside index streams are Willow, Deception, Little Willow, Sheep, Goose, Montana, Clear, Praire, and Portage
creeks and Chulitna, Indian, and Kashwitna rivers. Honolulu, Byers, Troublesome, Bunco, Birch, Sunshine, and
Larson creeks are sometimes included.
b Westside index streams are Alexander, Peters, Lake and Cache creeks and the Talachulitna and Deshka rivers.
Donkey, Red, Red Salmon, Canyon, and other creeks are sometimes included.
Source: Ivey 2009
Abundance and distribution of adult and juvenile Chinook salmon above Devils Canyon and the
proposed Watana dam site is poorly understood (HDR 2011). Prior to 1982, Devils Canyon was
thought to provide a barrier to upstream migration of all salmon (Acres 1982). Subsequent
studies conducted by ADF&G, however, reported that a few Chinook salmon (20–45
individuals) were observed in small tributaries upstream of the Canyon (ADF&G 1983a,
ADF&G 1984a). In 1984 Chinook spawning was documented above Devils Canyon at Chinook
Creek (RM 156.8 n=15) and Fog Creek (RM 176.7; n=2) (ADF&G 1985a). In 2003 ADF&G
conducted electrofishing in the upper Susitna above Watana Canyon. Juvenile Chinook salmon
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-103 December 2011
were observed in Kosina Creek (RM 201) and as far upstream as the mouth of the Oshetna River
(RM 225) (ADF&G 2011c). In 2011, ADF&G completed further Chinook presence
investigations and observed adults at Kosina Creek. No other adults have been observed in these
tributaries, but the presence of rearing juveniles suggests the possibility of Chinook spawning
this far upstream.
Limited radio telemetry data exist for Chinook salmon. A small number of radio transmitters
were placed in Chinook salmon at RM 103 in 1981 and 1982. Results did not contribute to the
understanding of habitat utilization with the majority of the few fish tagged tracked to tributaries
below the tagging location (ADF&G 1984a) however; one tagged Chinook was tracked to Devils
Canyon as far as RM 150 (Figure 4.5-2). Recent radio telemetry studies of Susitna salmon stocks
conducted by ADF&G have not included Chinook salmon.
Chinook salmon enter the Susitna River in late May and early June soon after the river becomes
ice free. In general, 90 percent or more of the Chinook escapement moves past the Flathorn
Station (RM 8) and the Susitna Station (RM 26) prior to July 1 each year (ADF&G 1983a,
1985c). Once the adults move into the river, they begin to disperse into various tributaries to
spawn. Movement of Chinook past the Sunshine Station (RM 80) begins in early June, peaks in
mid to late June and is essentially complete (more than 90 percent) by early July (ADF&G
1983a, 1985c).
Figure 4.5-2 Movement of radio tagged Chinook salmon 660-1 in the Susitna River
drainage during June and July, Adult Anadromous Investigations. Source: ADF&G 1983a
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-104 December 2011
Movement of adult Chinook into the Middle Susitna River begins in early June and continues to
mid-July, with 90 percent of the migration past Curry Station (RM 120) completed by late July
(ADF&G 1983a, 1985c). Adult Chinook that reach Sunshine Station enter one of the three major
upper subbasins of the Susitna River Drainage: the Chulitna River, the Middle Susitna River, or
the Talkeetna River. The rate of movement of adult Chinook from the Sunshine Station upstream
into the Middle River is 1.8 to 3.3 mpd from Sunshine to Talkeetna Station and 2.2 to 4.3 mpd
between the Talkeetna and Curry Stations (ADF&G 1983a, 1985c).
The average fecundity of female Chinook has not been estimated for the Susitna River, but
Morrow (1980) reports average fecundities for Alaska between 4,200 to 13,600 eggs per females
(Harza-Ebasco 1985a). Emergence of fry in Alaska occurs in March or April (Harza-Ebasco
1985).
Chinook fry remain near their natal areas in tributaries for one to two months before beginning a
downstream movement into rearing and overwintering areas (ADF&G 1984c). The initial
downstream movement may result from territorial behavior by juveniles (Harza-Ebasco 1985).
Some Age 0+ Chinook fry move into the Susitna mainstem and have been collected throughout
the basin during summer (Harza-Ebasco 1985). The remainder of the Age 0+ juveniles
apparently remain in natal tributaries for initial rearing and overwintering (ADF&G 1984c). In
general, approximately 40 percent of the juvenile Chinook (all ages) in the Middle Susitna River
Reach are found in mainstem associated habitats from May to November. Approximately
60 percent are found in tributary habitats during the same period (Harza-Ebasco 1985).
The Age 0+ juveniles that move into the mainstem of the Middle Susitna River generally occupy
areas with moderate water velocity (less than 1.5 fps), shallow depths (less than 2 ft), and
complex habitat (ADF&G 1984c). If complex habitat is not available, juveniles use turbid water
for cover (ADF&G 1984c, WCC 1985). In the Lower Susitna River, the highest densities of Age
0+ fish were collected in tributary mouths characterized by deep, low velocity, clear water
(ADF&G 1985d).
In May, Age 0+ Chinook averaged between 40 and 45 mm in length (ADF&G 1985d). By
October, average length of Age 0+ fish ranged from 60 to 80 mm (ADF&G 1985d). From
September through November, Age 0+ fish move into clear water areas such as tributaries,
tributary mouths, and side sloughs where they overwinter (WCC 1985, ADF&G 1984c). Age 1+
juveniles average between 85 to 95 mm in length in late May (Harza-Ebasco 1985), indicating
they grow during the winter. Average lengths of outmigrating Age 1+ fish are between 100 and
120 mm at the end of July and early August (Harza-Ebasco 1985).
Outmigration patterns of juvenile Chinook salmon from the Middle Susitna River differ between
Age 0+ and 1+ fish (Harza-Ebasco 1985). Age 0+ juvenile outmigration, as determined from
outmigrant trapping rates at Talkeetna, occurs at a relatively constant rate throughout the
summer, with two peak outmigration periods recorded in 1982, i.e., late June/early July and mid-
August (ADF&G 1984c). In 1983, several peak outmigration events were observed (ADF&G
1985d). A similar, relatively constant rate of outmigration was observed at the Flathorn Station
in the Lower Susitna River Reach (ADF&G 1985d). Age 1+ fish begin to outmigrate from the
Middle Susitna River Reach in early May, and migration is essentially complete by mid-July
(ADF&G 1984d, 1985d). Outmigration for the Lower Susitna River Reach peaks in mid-June
and is completed by early August (ADF&G 1985d).
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-105 December 2011
It is not clear whether Age 0+ outmigrant juvenile Chinook survive once they enter salt water
(Harza-Ebasco 1985). Although a large portion of the outmigrating juveniles are Age 0+ fish,
scale analysis of returning adults indicates that fish outmigrating as Age 0+ juveniles account for
less than 5 percent of the total escapement (ADF&G 1985c). Based on scale analyses, it is
estimated that more than 95 percent of the adult Chinook salmon returning to the Susitna River
outmigrated as Age 1+ juveniles (ADF&G 1985c).
In general, adult Chinook salmon return to the Susitna River to spawn as Age 5 and 6 fish, with
considerable variation in age composition between years (ADF&G 1984b, 1985c). Each year
some Age 3 and 7 fish are also present in the population and occasionally may constitute a
significant portion of the spawning population (ADF&G 1984b).
4.5.2.2.3. Pink Salmon
Susitna River pink salmon stocks contribute to both commercial and sport fisheries in the
northern Cook Inlet area. Two distinct stocks of pink salmon use the Susitna River to spawn. All
pink salmon follow a two-year life history and return to spawn as Age 2 fish. The two stocks are
distinguished as even-year fish (those which spawn in even-numbered years) and odd-year fish.
Pink salmon are generally more abundant in even years and are widely dispersed using a
minimum of 40 tributaries within the Susitna River basin for spawning (ADF&G 1985b).
Estimates of pink salmon escapement were made from mark-recapture studies at Flathorn Station
(below the Yentna River confluence) in 1985 (Thompson et al. 1986). The point estimate of total
escapement was 479,500 fish with a standard deviation of 83,700 fish. An estimated 42,600 pink
salmon reached sunshine station, suggesting that most spawning occurs in the lower river. Mark-
recapture studies of pink salmon were also conducted by ADF&G in 2009 and 2010. The
objective of these studies was to understand the proportion of west bank oriented fish at Susitna
Station that are destined for the Yentna River (Willette 2011, pers. comm.). These data have not
yet been reported.
Pink salmon enter the Susitna River in late June to early July and are numerous in the lower river
at Yentna Station (RM 28) from the second week of July to the third week of August (Jennings
1984; ADF&G 1984a). The rates of upstream movement of pink salmon ranged from 2.6 to 7.7
mpd from the Sunshine Station to the Talkeetna Station and from 5.7 to 17.0 mpd from
Talkeetna to Curry (ADF&G 1985c).
Incubation of pink salmon embryos begins with deposition of eggs in August (Harza-Ebasco
1985). Emergence of fry probably occurs in March and April (Harza-Ebasco 1985). The
estimated fecundity of pink salmon in the Susitna River is 1,500 eggs per female (ADF&G
1984b). After emergence from the spawning gravels, juvenile pink salmon move out of the
tributaries and the Middle Susitna River Reach almost immediately with no increase in size
(Harza-Ebasco 1985). Peak outmigration of pink salmon juveniles occurs by mid June and is
complete by mid July (ADF&G 1985d).
4.5.2.2.4. Coho Salmon
Susitna River coho salmon stocks contribute to both commercial and sport fisheries in the
northern Cook Inlet management area. Presently, the ADF&G has only limited ability to gauge
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-106 December 2011
run size of coho stocks as they enter the fresh waters of the Susitna River (Oslund and Ivey
2010). From 1997 to 2003, a weir was operated on Willow Creek, and a weir has operated on the
Deshka River since 1995 (Oslund and Ivey 2010). Fish wheels operated in conjunction with
sonar have been used to estimate coho salmon abundance in the Yentna River from 1981 to 2008
(Table 6) (Westerman and Willette 2010). However, since this sonar program was designed to
estimate sockeye salmon escapement the study timing does not coincide with the entire coho
migration and the species apportionment based on fish wheel catch affects the accuracy of these
estimates (Ivey 2009).
A four-year spawning distribution study targeting Susitna coho salmon was started by ADF&G
in 2009 (Merizon et al. 2010). This study has used radio telemetry methods and described
spawning distribution throughout the Susitna River drainage.
Coho mark-recapture studies using in the mainstem Susitna and Yentna River began in 2010
with the objective of generating abundance estimates. A total of 6,993 coho were marked in the
Lower Susitna River. At upstream fish wheels in the mainstem Susitna 643 coho were captured,
of which, 23 were mark-recaptures. At upstream fish wheels in the Yentna River 6,134 coho
were captured, of which, 176 were mark-recaptures (Cleary 2010). Preliminary in-river
abundance from 2010 studies is estimated at 60,000 coho in the mainstem Susitna and 136,000
coho in the Yentna River (Yanusz and Merizon 2010). In 2011, ADF&G intended to continue
with data collection, review and generate abundance estimates, increase the sample size at the
mainstem sites by using larger wheels to fish deeper, and refine data collection methods (Cleary
2010).
Based on 2010 radio telemetry studies, coho salmon spawning locations are identified
throughout the main channels, side sloughs, and smaller tributaries. Approximately 2/3 of the
total coho run was found to spawn in the Yentna River. Many coho were found to spawn within
the Middle Susitna River which includes the important and most accessible sport fishery
tributaries including the Deshka River, Willow Creek, Sheep Creek, and Montana Creek (Figure
4.5-3).
Table 4.5-6. Susitna River Coho salmon in-river abundance derived from sonar and weir
counts and from peak aerial and foot surveys of index streams, 1981 through
2006 (Ivey 2009).
Susitna River
Year Westside Tributariesa Total Yentna Riverb Deshka Riverc
1981 17,017
1982 34,089
1983 8,867
1984 18,172
1985 9,181
1986 23,457
1987 6,279
1988 12,173
1989 25,695
1990 21,346
1991 57,275
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-107 December 2011
1992 29,073
1993 37,752
1994 25,173
1995 74,406 12,824 87,230
1996 34,420
1997 13,670 8,036 21,706
1998 24,769 6,773 31,542
1999 37,933 4,563 42,496
2000 40,921 26,389 67,310
2001 47,077 29,927 77,004
2002 75,090 24,612 99,702
2003 45,222 17,305 62,527
2004 92,343 62,940 155,283
2005 76,890 47,887 124,777
2006 132,889 59,419 192,308
a Some years include Rabideux Creek index counts which range from 20 to 656 fish.
b Yentna River estimates are from sonar counts with species apportioned by fish wheel catch. All estimates from
1985 - 2006 are partial because the Yentna River sonar project was designed to estimate sockeye and shut down
before the end of the coho run.
c Weir count located at Deshka River mile 7. 1998, 1999, 2002, and 2005 are incomplete counts due to the weir
being underwater during high flows for extended periods of time.
Source: Ivey 2009
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-108 December 2011
Figure 4.5-3. Final locations of 300 radio-tagged coho salmon based on 2009 aerial surveys
in the Susitna River. Image copied from Merizon 2009.
Coho salmon enter the Susitna River in mid-July and are abundant in the lower Yentna River
from the third week of July until the third week of August (ADF&G 1984b, Jennings 1984). The
majority of coho pass Sunshine Station (RM 80) between the end of July and the end of August.
Coho salmon are numerous in the Talkeetna to Devils Canyon segment of the middle Susitna
after the last week of July.
Mark-recapture estimates of annual escapement into the Susitna above RM 80 were made as part
of the APA Project environmental studies from 1981 to 1984 (ADF&G 1984b, 1985e). Annual
estimates averaged 86,000 fish (Jennings 1984). It should be noted that significant coho salmon
stocks returning to tributaries below RM 80 are excluded from this estimate. In 2002, ADF&G
estimated the total abundance of coho in the entire drainage at 663,000 fish (Willette et al. 2003).
The movement of adult coho from Sunshine Station upstream into the middle Susitna River
varies from year to year. The rate of migration from Sunshine Station (RM 80) to Curry Station
(RM 120) averaged 4.0 mpd in 1981, 5.3 mpd in 1982, 1.4 mpd in 1983, and 2.9 mpd in 1984.
Movement rates from the Talkeetna Station to Curry Station averaged 11.3 mpd in 1981, 10.0
mpd in 1982, 5.7 mpd in 1983, and 2.8 mpd in 1984 (ADF&G.1981a, 1983a, 1984c).
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-109 December 2011
Incubation of coho embryos begins in mid September in the Susitna River (Harza-Ebasco 1985).
Average fecundity is approximately 2,800 eggs per female (ADF&G 1983a, 1984b, 1985c).
Emergence of fry from the spawning gravels occurs between late April and early May (ADF&G
1984c). There are two distinct patterns of juvenile rearing and outmigration (Harza-Ebasco
1985). The majority of juvenile coho rear for two complete years prior to outmigrating as Age 2+
fish (Harza-Ebasco 1985). However, a significant number of the juvenile coho rear for only one
year and outmigrate as Age 1+ fish (Harza-Ebasco 1985).
After emergence from the spawning gravels, juvenile coho initiate a general downstream
movement within the tributaries (Harza-Ebasco 1985). Some of the Age 0+ juveniles move out
of their natal tributaries into the mainstem (Harza-Ebasco 1985). The remainder of the coho
apparently stay in the tributaries for rearing and overwintering (Harza-Ebasco 1985). At Age 1+,
more coho juveniles move out of the tributaries for rearing and overwintering (Harza-Ebasco
1985). Age 1+ juveniles also remain in the tributaries, overwinter for a second year, and
outmigrate as Age 2+ fish (ADF&G 1984c, 1985d).
Juvenile coho that move into the mainstem of the Middle Susitna River Reach generally move
into clearwater areas including tributaries, tributary mouths, upland sloughs, and side sloughs
(ADF&G 1984c, 1985d). Juvenile coho prefer low-velocity clearwater areas with complex
habitat diversity (Harza-Ebasco 1985). During the fall, juvenile coho move into upland and side
sloughs to overwinter (Harza-Ebasco 1985).
The average length of Age 0+ juvenile coho in the Middle Susitna River Reach increased from
approximately 40 mm in May to 70 mm in September, as measured at the Talkeetna Station
outmigrant trap (ADF&G 1985d). In the Lower Susitna River Reach, the average length of Age
0+ coho increased from approximately 40 mm in June to approximately 90 mm in late
September and early October (ADF&G 1985d). Age 1+ juveniles in the Middle Susitna River
Reach grew from an average length of 70 mm in June to over 115 mm in October (Harza-Ebasco
1985). In the Lower Susitna River Reach, the average length of Age 1+ juveniles increased from
90 mm in May to approximately 110 mm in October (ADF&G 1985d). No length increase was
evident based on the few Age 2+ juvenile coho collected in each sampling period could be
estimated (ADF&G 1985d).
In 1983, outmigration of Age 0+, 1+, and 2+ juveniles from the Middle Susitna River Reach was
relatively constant through the summer (Harza-Ebasco 1985). A major peak of outmigrating Age
0+ juveniles in August coincided with the redistribution of the fish to overwintering habitats in
the Lower Susitna River Reach (ADF&G 1984c). In 1984, Age 0+ juveniles outmigrated in early
August, and Age 1+ and 2+ fish outmigrated in June (ADF&G 1985d).
Outmigration of Age 0+ juveniles from the Lower Susitna River Reach peaked in late August
and again in early October in 1984 (ADF&G 1985d). Peak outmigration of Age 1+ and 2+ fish
occurred in early September (ADF&G 1985d).
Based on scale analyses of returning adult coho, it is likely that most of the outmigrating Age 0+
fish do not survive once they move into saltwater (Harza-Ebasco 1985). The majority of the adult
population outmigrated as Age 1+ or Age 2+ juveniles (Harza-Ebasco 1985).
The age composition of adult coho indicates two predominant life histories in the population that
spawns in the Susitna River (Harza-Ebasco 1985). The majority of the spawning population
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-110 December 2011
consists of Age 4 fish that outmigrated from freshwater as Age 2+ juveniles (Harza-Ebasco
1985). The remaining adults return to spawn as Age 3 fish that outmigrated from freshwater as
Age 1+ juveniles (Harza-Ebasco 1985). A few coho adults return to the river as Age 2 or 5 adults
(ADF&G 1983a, 1984b, 1985c).
4.5.2.2.5. Chum Salmon
Susitna River chum salmon stocks contribute to both commercial and sport fisheries in the
northern Cook Inlet area. In 2008, chum salmon stock status was brought before the Alaska
Board of Fisheries and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough issued a resolution to ADF&G to declare
Susitna River chum salmon a stock of concern, enumerate escapement, and set escapement goals.
In response, the Alaska State Legislature established funding for the Cook Inlet Salmon Task
Force to examine conservation and allocation issues (Merizon et al. 2010). In 2009, ADF&G
initiated a four-year (2009–2012) study to apply radio transmitters to chum salmon in the lower
river. The objective of the study is to estimate drainage wide escapement and distribution. Radio
tagged fish were tracked by fixed stations and by aerial surveys. Results from 2009 are published
(Merizon et al. 2010). Results from 2010 remain unpublished. Objectives for the 2011 season
will include ground-based tracking, which will provide more precise locations of spawning
salmon and their associated habitats (Merizon, 2011, pers. comm.). Susitna River chum salmon
are not currently listed as a stock of concern by the Alaska Board of Fisheries (BOF 2011).
Chum mark-recapture studies in the mainstem Susitna and Yentna River began in 2010 with the
objective of generating in-river abundance estimates. A total of 4,598 chum were marked in the
Lower Susitna River. At upstream fish wheels in the mainstem Susitna 1,291 chum were
captured, of which, 14 were mark-recaptures. At upstream fish wheels in the Yentna River 6,191
chum were captured, of which, 158 were mark-recaptures (Cleary 2010). Preliminary in-river
abundance from 2010 studies is estimated at 155,000 chum in the mainstem Susitna and 136,000
and 202,000 chum in the Yentna River (Yanusz and Merizon 2010). In 2011, ADF&G intended
to continue with data collection, review and generate abundance estimates, increase the sample
size at the mainstem sites by using larger wheels to fish deeper, and refine data collection
methods (Cleary 2010).
During the 1980s APA Project study years of 1981–1983, the annual chum salmon total
escapement in the Susitna River averaged 356,200 fish (Jennings 1984). The total chum salmon
escapement was derived by summing the population estimates at Yentna Station (RM 28) and
Sunshine Station (RM 80) and adding five percent to account for fish spawning in other portions
of the basin. The majority (83 percent) of Susitna River chum salmon entered the Talkeetna-
Chulitna subbasin.
Adult chum salmon use the widest range of habitats for spawning of any of the Pacific salmon
using the middle reach. Based on estimated escapements past each of the sampling stations, over
95 percent of the total chum salmon in the Susitna River spawn in areas upstream of the
Sunshine Station at RM 80 (ADF&G 1985d). A four-year spawning distribution study targeting
Susitna chum salmon was started by ADF&G in 2009 (Merizon et al. 2010). This study used
radio telemetry methods to characterize spawning distribution throughout the Susitna drainage.
Chum salmon were found to use tributary, side slough, side channel, and mainstem areas for
spawning within the middle reach. Approximately ½ of the total Susitna River run spawns in the
Yentna River (Figure 4.5-4).
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-111 December 2011
Figure 4.5-4. Final locations of 239 radio-tagged chum salmon based on 2009 aerial
surveys in the Susitna River. Image copied from Merizon 2009.
Chum salmon enter the Susitna River in late June and are abundant in the lower river at Yentna
Station by the third week of July (Jennings 1984, Merizon et al. 2010). Migration of chum
salmon past the Sunshine Station generally begins in early July and is essentially complete by the
end of August each year. Peak movement of chum past the Sunshine Station (RM 80) generally
occurs in the last week of July or the first week of August (ADF&G 1981b, 1983a, 1985c). The
average rates of movement upstream from Sunshine to Talkeetna ranged from 3.3 mpd in 1981
to 5.8 mpd in 1984. From Talkeetna to Curry (RM 120), average movement rates ranged from
4.2 mpd in 1981 and 1982 to 8.5 mpd in 1982 and 1984 (ADF&G 1981b, 1983a, and 1985c).
In the Susitna River, incubation of chum embryos begins with deposition of the eggs in mid
August to late September (Harza-Ebasco 1985). Emergence of the fry from the spawning
substrate occurs in February and March (ADF&G 1984c, 1985d). The fecundity of chum salmon
is approximately 3,200 eggs per female (ADF&G 1984c).
After emerging from spawning gravels, juvenile chum remain near their natal areas until early to
mid-May (Harza-Ebasco 1985). Then they begin a general downstream movement out of the
Middle Susitna River Reach (Harza-Ebasco 1985). All juvenile chum outmigrate from the
Middle Susitna River Reach by the end of July (ADF&G 1984c, 1985d). Based on studies
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-112 December 2011
conducted in the 1980s, juvenile chum increased in length from 40 mm in May to 48 mm in July
(ADF&G 1985d).
Outmigration from the Lower Susitna River Reach into the Cook Inlet similarly occurs between
late May and mid-July (ADF&G 1985d). Peak outmigration of juvenile chum occurs in mid-June
for both the Middle and Lower Susitna River Reaches (ADF&G 1985d).
In general, the majority of the returning adults were Age 4 chum, followed by Ages 3 or 5
(ADF&G 1981b, 1983a, 1984b, 1985c). In 1983, Age 5 fish were most abundant (Harza-Ebasco
1985). A few returned at Age 6 (Harza-Ebasco 1985). All chum salmon returning to spawn in the
Susitna River outmigrated as Age 0+ juveniles (ADF&G 1981a, 1983a, 1984b 1985c).
4.5.2.2.6. Arctic Graying
Arctic grayling contribute substantially to the sport fisheries of the Susitna River and its
tributaries (Harza-Ebasco 1985). Silt-laden glacial systems, such as the Susitna River, are
believed to support relatively few Arctic grayling; however, such systems may provide essential
migratory channels and overwintering habitat (ADF&G 1981c). During ice breakup from April
to June, adults migrate from ice-covered lakes and large rivers into clear, gravel bottomed
tributaries to spawn (Morrow 1980). Arctic grayling reach sexual maturity between Ages 2 and 7
and are capable of spawning several times during their lifetime (Harza-Ebasco 1985). After
spawning, the adults move from spawning areas (Harza-Ebasco 1985). In late August, a
downstream migration to overwintering areas begins in large rivers and deep lakes (Harza-
Ebasco 1985).
During 1980-1981, Arctic grayling were captured in all three Susitna River reaches, from
RM 10.1 through the proposed impoundment area above RM 184 (Harza-Ebasco 1985).
During the 1980s studies, there was no evidence of Arctic grayling spawning at any sampling
locations between Devils Canyon and Cook Inlet (Harza-Ebasco 1985). It is thought that adult
Arctic grayling form the mainstem Susitna River below Devils Canyon migrate into non-glacial
tributaries to spawn in late April or May (Harza-Ebasco 1985). In the Upper Susitna River
Reach, Arctic grayling fry were captured at the Watana Creek study area in 1981, indicating
spawning in the immediate vicinity (Harza-Ebasco 1985).
Arctic grayling population estimates were calculated (Table 4.5-7) based on mark–recapture data
from 1981 and 1982 for the proposed impoundment zone. In the Upper Susitna River Reach,
adult Arctic grayling spawned in tributary pools (ADF&G 1983c). These spawning pools had
low water velocity, were three to six ft deep, and had sand to 1-inch diameter gravel substrate
(ADF&G 1983c). Juvenile Arctic grayling were found in small schools (less than 25 fish) in
tributary side channels, side sloughs, and sides of pools (ADF&G 1983c). These habitats were
characterized by low water velocity, shallow depth, and cover (ADF&G 1983c). During early
summer in the mainstem Upper Susitna River Reach, juvenile Arctic grayling occurred at mouths
of tributaries and clear water sloughs (ADF&G 1983c).
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-113 December 2011
Table 4.5-7. Arctic grayling population estimates in the Upper Susitna River Reach
proposed impoundment zone, during 1981 and 1982.
Location 1981 1982
Oshetna River 2017 2,426
Goose 1,327 949
Jay 1,089 1,592
Kosina 2,787 5,544
Watana 3,925
Deadman 979 734
Tsusena 1,000
Fog 176
Source: ADF&G 1981c and 1983c
4.5.2.2.7. Eulachon
The eulachon is an anadromous member of the smelt family that spends most of its life in the
marine environment (Harza-Ebasco 1985). Adults are believed to live at moderate ocean depths
in close proximity to shore (Harza-Ebasco 1985). In the northern portion of its range, eulachon
spawn in May and June (Harza-Ebasco 1985). Eulachon are an important forage species for
beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) and are harvested as part of a small commercial and
subsistence fishery.
During 1982, the spawning migration appeared to be composed of two segments: an early run
that started prior to May 16 and ended about May 31, and a late run that started about June 1 and
ended about June 10 (ADF&G 1983a). The second run was approximately 4.5 times larger in
than the first run (Harza-Ebasco 1985).
Eulachon used the Lower Susitna River reach at least as far upstream as RM 58 in 1981 and RM
48 in 1982 (ADF&G 1983a). In 1982, eulachon spawned in riffle areas and offshore of cut banks
on unconsolidated sands and gravels (ADF&G 1983a). Spawning occurred at water temperatures
between 3.0 °C (37 °F) and 9.5 °C (49 °F) (ADF&G 1983a). Eggs are fertilized in the water
column, attach to the substrate, and hatch after 20 – 40 days, at which time the larvae are flushed
to the ocean.
4.5.2.2.8. Dolly Varden
Three forms of Dolly Varden have been identified: an anadromous form that generally inhabits
coastal streams, a resident freshwater form that inhabits rivers and lakes, and a dwarf resident
freshwater form that occupies stream and lake habitats (Morrow 1980). There are many life
history types to the species Dolly Varden, and it is likely that the Susitna River basin supports
numerous different populations with various life histories and growth rates.
Within the Susitna River drainage, Dolly Varden inhabit areas from the Oshetna river (RM
233.4) to the Cook Inlet (ADF&G 1981c, d, 1983c, 1984c, 1985d).
In the Upper Susitna River reach, Dolly Varden are found in tributary plunge pools (ADF&G
1983c). In the Middle and Lower Susitna River reaches, Dolly Varden are found at tributary
mouth habitat (ADF&G 1981d).
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-114 December 2011
Based on available data, Dolly Varden from the Middle and Lower Susitna River reaches
presumably move into tributaries during the summer to rear and feed (Harza-Ebasco 1985). In
November and December, they move into the mainstem to overwinter (Harza-Ebasco 1985).
Sexual maturity is reached around Age 4 (ADF&G 1984c).
In the Upper Susitna River reach, Dolly Varden populations are apparently small and widely
distributed (ADF&G 1983c). Total lengths of fish collected in this reach ranged from 120 mm to
205 mm (Harza-Ebasco 1985).
Seasonal movements of the population in the Upper Susitna River reach appear to be similar to
those described for the Lower and Middle Susitna River reaches (Harza-Ebasco 1985).
4.5.2.2.9. Rainbow Trout
Rainbow trout inhabiting the Susitna River constitute one of the northernmost populations of this
species (Morrow 1980). Within the Susitna River, rainbow trout populations are found up to and
in Portage Creek at RM 148.8 (Harza-Ebasco 1985).
During spring and summer, rainbow trout are distributed in clearwater areas associated with
tributaries and tributary mouths (ADF&G 1984c). By mid-September, rainbow trout move to
tributary mouth areas and presumably move into the mainstem to overwinter (Harza-Ebasco
1985).
Spawning activity probably occurs in late May to early June in upper reaches of tributaries
(Harza-Ebasco 1985). This is based on the inability to capture juvenile rainbow trout at locations
associated with the mainstem in early to mid summer (Harza-Ebasco 1985). Juveniles were
collected more frequently in the lower portions of tributaries as winter approached (ADF&G
1984c, 1985d). Growth of juvenile rainbow trout was similar to other northern populations
(ADF&G 1981d).
Habitats suitable for rainbow trout include clearwater areas with velocities less than 0.5 ftps and
depths greater than 2 ft (Harza-Ebasco 1985). Rainbow trout are also associated with areas
containing complex habitat such as undercut banks, large woody debris, and substrate particles
greater than 3 inches (ADF&G 1984c).
Movement of rainbow trout during the summer and winter months has been documented through
tracking of radio-tagged fish (Harza-Ebasco 1985). Based on those results, rainbow trout
apparently move freely from tributary to tributary during summer and throughout the mainstem
during winter (ADF&G 1981d, 1983b, 1984c, 1985b). In summer, the mainstem serves
principally as a migratory pathway; whereas, in winter, the mainstem serves as a holding area
(ADF&G 1985d).
4.5.2.2.10. Burbot
Burbot mature between ages 3 and 6 and may live 15 to 20 years (Harza-Ebasco 1985). Burbot
are widely distributed throughout the mainstem Susitna River. Adults have been found at
tributary and slough mouths and in turbid mainstem areas (Harza-Ebasco 1985). Burbot are
typically sedentary but may move considerable distances during fall before spawning in winter
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-115 December 2011
(ADF&G 1983c). Burbot occurred in all three reaches of the Susitna River and an upstream
distribution was not determined (ADF&G 1981c).
In the Upper Susitna River reach, burbot were located in mainstem habitats with backwater-
eddies and gravel substrate (ADF&G 1983c). In the Middle and Lower Susitna River reaches,
burbot were found in slough mouth habitat, mainstem habitat, and side channel complexes
(Harza-Ebasco 1985).
In the Susitna River, spawning occurs from November to February (ADF&G 1981d). Although
no spawning activity was observed, the increase in density of adult fish at the mouth of the
Deshka River and the migration of radio-tagged adult fish to the mouth of the Deshka River
indicated a high probability that spawning occurs in that area (ADF&G 1985c).
4.5.2.2.11. Non-game Species
These non-game species also occur in the Susitna River drainage:
Bering cisco is a member of the whitefish family that occurs from the Beaufort Sea to
Cook Inlet (Harza-Ebasco 1985). While populations of anadromous and resident
freshwater forms exist, the Susitna River populations appear to be strictly anadromous
(Harza-Ebasco 1985). Bering cisco were collected in the Lower Susitna River reach
between RM 70 and RM 98.5 in the early 1980s (ADF&G 1983a). Spawning of Bering
cisco does not appear to occur in the Middle Susitna River reach (Harza-Ebasco 1985).
Bering cisco have been observed in the Susitna River between August and October, at the
conclusion of the field season (ADF&G 1983a), presumably they are in the system later
in autumn. Spawning is believed to occur in October.
Round whitefish are distributed all across Arctic and Interior Alaska (Harza-Ebasco
1985). In the Susitna River basin, densities of round whitefish were greatest in the Middle
Susitna River Reach, between Devils Canyon and Talkeetna (Harza-Ebasco 1985).
Humpback whitefish consist of a complex of three closely related species of whitefish:
humpback whitefish, Alaska whitefish, and lake whitefish (Harza-Ebasco 1985). Due to
similar appearance and overlapping distributions, data collected on the three species have
been reported under the general heading of humpback whitefish (Harza-Ebasco 1985).
Field crews captured humpback whitefish most frequently from the Cook Inlet to the
Talkeetna River (ADF&G 1981c).
Longnose sucker were collected throughout the study area from Cook Inlet to the Upper
Susitna River reach (Harza-Ebasco 1985). Downstream of Devils Canyon, longnose
suckers were more abundant than upstream of the canyon (Harza-Ebasco 1985). Adults
congregate in spawning areas during late May and early June (Harza-Ebasco 1985).
During other times of the year, adults disperse in the mainstem (ADF&G 1983c, 1985d).
Juveniles appear to use clearwater sloughs and tributary mouth habitats to a greater extent
than adults (ADF&G 1983d).
Threespine stickleback in the Susitna River basin display both anadromous and resident
freshwater life histories (Harza-Ebasco 1985). These life-history types are differentiated
by various morphological features (von Hippel and Weigner 2004). In the Susitna River
basin, they have been observed from Devils Canyon to Cook Inlet (Harza-Ebasco 1985).
Slimy Sculpin were abundant in the Susitna River basin (Harza-Ebasco 1985). Up to
three other sculpin species may exist in the Susitna River (Harza-Ebasco 1985). They
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-116 December 2011
were present in nearly all clearwater habitats in the Susitna Basin and the adults and
juveniles occupied these habitats and exhibit little movement between habitats (Harza-
Ebasco 1985).
Arctic lamprey were captured in the Susitna River during 1981and 1982 (ADF&G
1981d, 1983d). ADF&G speculated that approximately 30 percent of the Arctic lamprey
in the Susitna River were anadromous (ADF&G 1981d). Arctic lamprey were captured in
the Susitna River from the beginning of May–mid October in 1982 (ADF&G 1983d).
Northern pike (invasive) were illegally introduced into the Yenta drainage from the
Yukon drainage during the 1950s (SANPCC 2010). Since then, several floods allowed
for the spread of northern pike to the rest of the Susitna drainage (SANPCC 2010).
Throughout Southcentral Alaska and specifically the Susitna drainage, juvenile salmon
and trout are preferred prey for pike (Rutz 1996, 1999). The loss of salmon due to pike
predation can adversely affect ecosystem functions (SANPCC 2010).
Lake trout were collected during the 1980s near the Upper Susitna River Reach (Harza-
Ebasco 1985). Lake trout are present in Lake Lucille (J. Buckwalter, ADF&G, pers.
comm.). However, it is unknown if lake trout inhabit any lakes in the proposed
impoundment zone.
Pacific lamprey are an anadromous fish that has been reported in nearby rivers (Nemeth
et al. 2010) as well as the Deshka River (J. Buckwalter, ADF&G, pers. comm.).
This species may occur in the Susitna River drainage:
Alaska blackfish (invasive), though not captured in the Susitna River, may have been
introduced to the basin.
4.5.3. Federally Designated Habitats
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) is the federal law
that governs U.S. marine fisheries management. In 1996 Congress added new habitat
conservation provisions to that act in recognition of the importance of fish habitat to productivity
and sustainability of marine fisheries, which includes freshwater habitat used by anadromous
species.
The MSA, as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267),
established procedures designed to identify, conserve, and enhance Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)
for those species regulated under a federal Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The MSA requires
federal agencies to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on all actions, or
proposed actions, authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency, that may adversely affect
EFH (MSA §305[b][2]).
Congress defined EFH as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding,
feeding, or growth to maturity." The NMFS EFH guidelines further interpret the EFH definition
as follows:
Waters include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological
properties that are used by fish and may include aquatic areas historically used by fish
where appropriate
Substrate includes sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and
associated biological communities
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-117 December 2011
Necessary means the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and the managed
species' contribution to a healthy ecosystem
“Spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity" covers a species' full life cycle
The EFH mandate applies to all species managed under a federal FMP, which includes all five
species of Pacific salmon. Freshwater EFH for Pacific salmon includes all those streams, lakes,
ponds, wetlands, and other water bodies currently, or historically, accessible to salmon. NMFS
has designated the anadromous fish stream maps prepared by ADF&G (ADF&G 2010) as the
definition of EFH within freshwater habitats in Alaska. This stream catalogue designates
anadromous waters throughout much of the Susitna watershed and along the mainstem of the
Susitna River to the mouth of the Oshetna River at approximately RM 225 (Figure 4.5-5). EFH
maps are subject to update as new information becomes available.
Cook Inlet has also been designated as EFH for the juvenile and adult stages of several Gulf of
Alaska marine species including: Pacific cod, sculpin species, walleye pollock, and eulachon.
Although these marine species may be present in Upper Cook Inlet and may enter the Susitna
River estuary, existing information suggests that they are likely not abundant except for seasonal
presence of eulachon (Pentec 2005; Moulton, 1997; Dames & Moore 1983).
In addition to EFH, portions of Cook Inlet have been designated by NMFS as critical habitat for
the endangered Cook Inlet beluga whale (see Section 4.8 of this PAD). The Susitna River
estuary and adjacent portions of Cook Inlet are within the critical habitat designation. Some
Susitna River fish species, including salmon and eulachon, are important forage species for
belugas and have been listed as primary constituent elements in the critical habitat designation.
4.5.4. Potential Adverse and Positive Impacts
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the 1980s APA Project determined that potential
environmental impacts would occur as a consequence of Project development (FERC 1984).
FERC regulations require “a description of any known or potential adverse impacts and issues
associated with construction, operation, or maintenance of the proposed project, including
continuing and cumulative impacts.” The greatest downstream effects on aquatic habitats were
expected within the Talkeetna to Devils Canyon reach of the Susitna River (Middle River).
Downstream from Talkeetna, the inflow from the Talkeetna and Chulitna rivers was expected to
reduce the magnitude of change in physical processes under with-project conditions (Jennings
1984).
Specific, quantified impacts of the currently proposed Susitna-Watana Project are unknown at
this time and will require comprehensive analysis. While the design and operation of the
currently proposed project may differ from the previously evaluated project, the types of impacts
are likely to be similar. To evaluate the potential impacts and protect aquatic resources and
habitats, current conditions must be described at a level of reliability necessary to detect and
explain possible future changes caused by the proposed hydroelectric development. Additionally,
establishing a complete and accurate assessment of baseline conditions is essential to developing
and implementing Project mitigation and for monitoring the long-term effectiveness of that
mitigation.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-118 December 2011
Figure 4.5-5. Essential Fish Habitat for the Susitna River Drainage
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-119 December 2011
Impacts identified for the Watana portion of the 1984 APA Project based on the results of the
original study program (FERC 1984), as well as by the ongoing outreach program conducted as
part of the current FERC licensing process, were used to identify potential impacts of the
proposed Susitna-Watana Project, as described below. The following sections include both
potential adverse and beneficial impacts of the proposed Susitna-Watana Project.
4.5.4.1. Adult Salmon
Known or potential impacts and issues associated with construction, operation, or maintenance
of the proposed Project, including continuing and cumulative impacts to adult salmon, are listed
below:
Alteration of flow in the lower river resulting in habitat changes: impacts may be
adverse or beneficial depending on species.
Restricted access to spawning sloughs due to changes in flow: access to sloughs used
for spawning (mainly by chum and sockeye salmon in the middle river) may be
restricted by reduced summer flows during reservoir filling and operation. Impacts
may vary according to the site-specific topography of the sloughs.
Impediments to salmon migration upstream to tributary spawning habitat: decreases
in mainstem flows in the middle river during reservoir filling and operation may
potentially cause reduced depths of tributary mouths, increased scour, back-cutting of
tributary beds, and perching.
Loss of side channel and mainstem spawning habitat: decreased mainstem flows in
the Middle River from May through July could result in decreased water depths and
velocities in some locations and dewatering in others. This may alter the availability
or suitability of some spawning habitat.
Alterations to stream temperature may affect spawning timing and incubation
duration: impacts will depend on Project operating characteristics and ability to
control the temperature of water released from the powerhouse.
Increased fishing pressure: sport fishing may increase for all salmon species
throughout the middle Susitna River due to improved access.
Shifts in relative abundance: alteration of salmon habitat in the middle river due to
changes in flows, sediment transport, and temperatures may affect the abundance of
each species of salmon.
Fish injury or mortality resulting from elevated total dissolved gas concentrations:
supersaturated total dissolved gas concentrations occur at times under natural
conditions in the Susitna River downstream of the Devils Canyon rapids. For all but
the highest flood levels, supersaturated dissolved gas (nitrogen) levels resulting from
the Project are expected to be managed by fixed cone valves. As a result, little effect
on fish due to total dissolved gas concentrations is anticipated.
Reduced salmon production above Talkeetna: production for all five species may be
reduced, especially during the second and third years of filling of the Susitna-Watana
reservoir.
Salmon production above the proposed dam site would be eliminated: a relatively
small number of Chinook may currently spawn or rear above the proposed dam site.
Potential impacts on commercial, sport, or subsistence fisheries: changes in catch
may be approximately proportional to changes in the size of the spawning stocks.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-120 December 2011
4.5.4.2. Resident and Rearing Anadromous Fish
Known or potential impacts and issues associated with construction, operation, or maintenance
of the proposed Project, including continuing and cumulative impacts to resident and rearing
salmon, are listed below:
Permanent loss of riverine habitat at the Susitna-Watana dam construction site, with
accompanying loss of existing fish populations that are dependent on that habitat.
In the area of inundation, conversion of river habitat to lake habitat in the Susitna
River and lower reaches of several tributary streams.
Potential creation of a lake-based fishery.
During reservoir filling and operation, downstream of the confluence with the
Chulitna and Talkeetna rivers, growth rates of juvenile salmon and resident species
may be suppressed by cool temperatures.
During reservoir operations, potential redd dewatering may occur during winter
above Sherman due to reduced ice staging.
During Project operations, reduced stranding of fry during freshet flows may be
expected due to stabilization of flow.
Potential increases in incubation rates due to warmer water temperatures in winter
and autumn may occur. Early-spawning pink and chum salmon (mid-July) may
complete development to emergence stage by mid to late October.
Winter silt loading resulting from Project operation may reach levels detrimental for
downstream redds.
Stabilization of flows and reduction in summertime turbidity may increase benthic
productivity and food availability for juvenile salmon in the middle river.
Stable winter flow may alter the distribution of rearing fish, with the potential for
increased survival in some areas and decreased survival in others.
Depletion of woody debris above the Chulitna River confluence may occur due to
attenuation of peak flows that erode wooded riverbanks and blockage of upstream
sources of this debris. Progressive washout downstream may result in degradation of
rearing habitat.
Potential advancement of the timing of salmon smolt out-migration due to warmer
water temperatures in winter and early spring and earlier breakup of ice. This is
identified as a potential detrimental effect because early entrance to cold coastal
waters could result in reduced survival.
A large reduction in salmon production could occur during the second and third years
of reservoir filling. However, this lost production could be partially offset by
increased production in other systems because salmon that would normally continue
to migrate up the Susitna River would select the warmer water of the Talkeetna River.
All five salmon species could increase their use of the Devils Canyon to Talkeetna
reach during reservoir operation, although the rate of return to higher production
levels would vary depending on species, life cycle, and strength of returning year
classes following completion of filling.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-121 December 2011
4.5.4.3. Aquatic Macroinvertebrates
Known or potential impacts and issues associated with construction, operation, or maintenance
of the proposed Project, including continuing and cumulative impacts macroinvertebrates and
periphyton, are listed below:
Increases in aquatic plant and invertebrate productivity in the Susitna River due to
decreases in summertime turbidity and stabilization of flows.
Increased benthic algae and invertebrate production on the submerged riverbed in the
reservoir during both filling and operation of the dam – decrease in wetted surface
area due to reduced summer flows.
No changes in aquatic plant and invertebrate communities are expected during open-
water season downstream of the confluences of the Chulitna and Talkeetna rivers, due
to the overwhelming influences of these rivers on both flow and turbidity.
Within the Susitna River and clearwater tributaries located within the proposed
reservoir, poorly developed benthic invertebrate communities (due to oligotrophic
water quality and seasonally high silt loading) may be displaced by inundation.
Gradual replacement with benthic species and zooplankton typical of reservoirs
would occur.
Zooplankton communities would develop in the reservoir and have potential to be a
food source for fish that could supplement the availability of riverine invertebrates
downriver. However, the reservoir would also be expected to be oligotrophic, so that
zooplankton populations might not be extensively developed. Biomass of the ensuing
community of zooplankton would likely be limited by fluctuating water elevations
(affecting littoral zones) and heavy sedimentation rates (affecting deep zones).
4.5.5. Potential Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement
APA stated the objective of the aquatic resources mitigation planning for the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project, during the 1980s, was to provide habitat of sufficient quality and quantity
to maintain natural reproducing fish populations (Harza-Ebasco 1985a). A hierarchical approach
to mitigation was developed as follows:
Avoid impacts through design features or schedule activities to prevent loss of
resources.
Minimize impacts by controlling flow releases and by implementing best
management practices.
Rectify impacts by restoring disturbed areas to provide fish habitat and reestablishing
fish in restored areas.
Reduce or eliminate impacts over time through monitoring, maintenance, and proper
training of Project personnel.
Based on impact assessment for the APA Project, APA developed proposed PM&E measures
(Harza-Ebasco 1985a). Some of these measures may be appropriate to the proposed project.
Project evaluation species were selected to assess impacts to species with high human use,
dominance in the ecosystem, and sensitivity to project impacts (Harza-Ebasco 1985a). Life
stages and habitat use were selected for the evaluation species, and mitigation measures were
proposed to maintain habitat (Harza-Ebasco 1985a). Various flow regimes were considered to
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-122 December 2011
address the issue of flow alteration and its effect on evaluation species and their habitats (Harza-
Ebasco 1985a).
The creation of the Susitna-Watana reservoir will affect the downstream temperature regime of
the Susitna River, thus potentially impacting incubation timing of resident and anadromous fish,
benthic invertebrates, and outmigration timing of anadromous fish (Harza-Ebasco 1985a). Multi-
level gates at the power intake could be used to regulating the temperature of downstream
releases (Harza-Ebasco 1985a).
In order to avoid nitrogen supersaturation, the use of fixed-cone valves is proposed.
4.5.6. References
Acres 1982.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 1981a. Adult anadromous Phase I final
species/subject report. Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies. Prepared for Alaska Power
Authority.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 2011, Catalog of Waters Important for
Spawning, Rearing or Migration of Anadromous Fishes.
http://gis.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/FlexMaps/fishresroucemonitor.html?mode=awc (accessed
October 2011).
—. 1981b. Phase I final draft report. Adult Anadromous Fisheries Project. Susitna Hydro
Aquatic Studies. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority.
—. 1981c. Resident fish investigation on the Upper Susitna River. Susitna Hydro Aquatic
Studies. Phase I Final Draft report. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority
—. 1981d. Resident fish investigation on the Lower Susitna River. Susitna Hydro Aquatic
Studies. Phase I Final Draft Report. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority.
—. 1983a. Adult anadromous fish studies, 1982. Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies. Phase II Basic
Data Report. Volume 2. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska.
—. 1983b. Winter aquatic studies (October 1982 – May 1983). Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies.
Phase II Basic Data Report. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority.
—. 1983c. Upper Susitna River impoundment studies, 1982. Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies.
Phase II Basic Data Report. Vol. 5. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority.
—. 1983d. Resident and juvenile anadromous fish studies on the Susitna River below Devils
Canyon, 1982. Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies. Phase II Basic Data Report. Vol. 3.
Prepared for Alaska Power Authority.
—. 1984a. Susitna Hydro aquatic studies report no. 1. ADF&G, Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies
Report Series, Susitna Hydro Document No. 1450, Anchorage, Alaska.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-123 December 2011
—. 1984b. Adult anadromous fish investigations, May – October, 1983. Susitna Hydro Aquatic
Studies. Report No. 1. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority.
—. 1984c. Resident and juvenile anadromous fish investigations (May – October, 1983). Part
II: The distribution and relative abundance of juvenile salmon in the Susitna River
drainage above the Chulitna River confluence. Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies. Report
No. 2, Draft. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority.
—. 1984d. An evaluation of chum and sockeye salmon spawning habitat in sloughs and side
channels of the Middle Susitna River. Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies. Report No. 3.
Chapter 7. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority.
—. 1985a. Availability of invertebrate food sources for rearing juvenile Chinook salmon in
turbid Susitna River habitats. ADF&G Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies Report 8. Susitna
Hydro Document No. 2846. Anchorage, Alaska.
—. 1985b. Adult salmon investigations, May–October 1984. ADF&G Susitna Hydro Aquatic
Studies Report No. 6. Susitna Hydro Document No. 2748. Anchorage, Alaska.
—. 1985c. Adult anadromous fish investigations, May–October 1984. ADF&G Susitna Hydro
Aquatic Studies Report No. 6. Susitna Hydro Document No. 2748. Anchorage, Alaska.
—. 1985d. Resident and juvenile anadromous fish investigations (May – October 1985). Susitna
Hydro Aquatic Studies. Report No. 7. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority.
—. 1985e. Resident and juvenile anadromous fish investigations (May–October 1984), Parts 1
and 2. Susitna Hydro Document No. 2836. ADF&G, Anchorage, Alaska.
__. 2003a. Fish survey nomination fish distribution database, Nomination 04-067, Waterway
247-10-10200-2880. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, Alaska.
__. 2003b. Fish survey nomination fish distribution database, Nomination 04-066, Waterway
247-10-10200-2810. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, Alaska.
—. 2011a. Alexander Creek king salmon stock status and action plan, 2011. Report to the Alaska
Board of Fisheries. ADF&G, Divisions of Sport Fish, Commercial Fisheries, and
Subsistence.
—. 2011b. Willow Creek and Goose Creek king salmon stock status and action plan, 2011.
Report to the Alaska Board of Fisheries, Anchorage, Alaska
—. 2011c. Synopsis of ADF&G’s Upper Susitna Drainage Fish Inventory, August 2011.
Bader, D., and R. Sinnott. 1989. South Central Anadromous Waters Catalog Nomination Form
for Granite Creek near the Parks Highway. AWC Stream No. 247-41-10200-2381-3600,
Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Buckwalter, J., J. Wells, and J. Lazar. 2003. Fish Surveys Station #3826, Survey ID:
FSS0310A02. Odyssey Data Systems Fish Reource Monitor, Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Sport Fish Division.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-124 December 2011
Cleary, P. 2010. Abundance and Spawning Distribution of Susitna River Chum and Coho
Salmon. ADF&G, Division of Sport Fish. Oral Report.
Fair, L.F., T.M. Willette. 2010. Review of Salmon Escapement Goals in Upper Cook Inlet,
Alaska, 2011. ADF&G, Division of Sport Fish, Fisheries Manuscript Series No. 10-06.
December 2010.
Fair, L.F., T.M. Willette, and J.W. Erickson. 2009. Escapement goal review for Susitna sockeye
Salmon, 2009. Fishery Manuscript Series No. 09-01. ADF&G, Anchorage, Alaska.Fall,
J.A., and D.J. Foster. 1987. Fish and game harvest and use in the middle Susitna basin
results of a survey of residents of the road-connected areas of game management units
14B and 16A, 1986. ADF&G Technical Paper no. 143.Anchorage, Alaska.
FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). 1984. Draft environmental impact statement:
Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Main Text, volume 1. Applicant: Alaska Power Authority,
Anchorage, Alaska.
Fox, J. 1998. Northern District Sockeye Salmon Stock Status, 1998. Report for the Alaska Board
of Fisheries, ADF&G Regional Information Report 2A98-01.
Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture. 1984a. Evaluation of alternative flow requirements. Final
Report. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority.
—. 1985a. Fish, wildlife, and botanical resources. Exhibit E, Volume 9. Alaska Power
Authority, Anchorage, Alaska.
—. 1987. Susitna Hydroelectric Records Management System File Reference Report.
Anchorage, Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska.
HDR. 2011. Aquatic resources data gap analysis. Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, Railbelt
Large Hydro. Prepared for Alaska Energy Authority. DRAFT.
Ivey, S., C. Brockman, and D. Rutz. 2009. Area management report for the recreational fisheries
of Northern Cook Inlet, 2005 and 2006. Fishery Management Report No. 09-27.
Jennings, T.R. 1984. Fish resources and habitats of the Susitna basin. Woodward-Clyde
Consultants, prepared for the Alaska Power Authority, Susitna Hydro Document No.
3052, Anchorage, Alaska.
Merizon, R.A.J., ADF&G Division of Sport, and ADF&G Division of Commercial. 2010.
Distribution of spawning Susitna River chum (Oncorhynchus keta) and coho (O. kisutch)
salmon, 2009. ADF&G, Division of Sport Fish, Research and Technical Services,
Anchorage, Alaska.
Morrow, J.E. 1980. The freshwater fishes of Alaska. Alaska Northwest Publishing Co.,
Anchorage, Alaska.
Oslund, S., and S. Ivey 2010. Recreational fisheries of Northern Cook Inlet, 2009–2010: Report
to the Alaska Board of Fisheries, February 2011. ADF&G Fishery Management Report
No. 10-50. Anchorage, Alaska
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-125 December 2011
Rutz, D. S. 1996. Seasonal movements, age and size statistics, and food habits of northern pike
in upper Cook Inlet during 1994 and 1995. ADF&G, Fishery Data Series No. 96-29
Anchorage, Alaska.
—. 1999. Movements, food availability and stomach contents of northern pike in selected Susitna
River drainage, 1996—1997. ADF&G, Fishery Data Series No. 99-5, Anchorage, Alaska.
SANPCC (Southcentral Alaska Northern Pike Control Committee). 2010. Management plan for
invasive northern pike in Alaska. Prepared for ADF&G and USFWS.
Schmidt, D, C. Estes, D. Crawford, and D. Vincent-Lang. 1984. Access and transmission
corridor aquatic investigations (July – October 1983), Report No. 4. Susitna Hydro
Aquatic Studies. APA Doc No. 2049. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage,
Alaska.
Shields. 2010. Upper Cook Inlet commercial fisheries annual management report, 2010.
ADF&G Fisheries Management Report No. 10-54. Anchorage, Alaska.
Thompson, F. M., S. Wick, and B. Stratton. 1986. Adult salmon investigations, May–October
1985. Report No. 13. Susitna Hydro Document No. 3412, Anchorage, Alaska.
von Hippel, F.A. and H. Weigner. 2004. Sympatric anadromous-resident pairs of threespine
stickleback species in young lakes and streams at Bering Glacier, Alaska. Behaviour
141(11-12):1441-1464.
WCC. 1985. Instream flow relationships report series: fish resources and habitats in the Middle
Susitna River. Technical Report No. 1. Prepared for Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture,
Anchorage, Alaska.
Westerman, D.L., and T. Willette. 2010. Upper Cook Inlet salmon escapement studies, 2008.
ADF&G, Fishery Data Series No. 10-16. Anchorage, Alaska.
Westerman, D.L., and T.M. Willette. 2007. Upper Cook Inlet salmon escapement studies, 2006.
ADF&G, Fishery Data Series No. 07-82, Anchorage.
Willette, T.M. 2010. Cook Inlet Physical Habitat and Beluga Prey Abundance and Distribution.
https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/protectedresources/whales/beluga/recovery/rt_meeting3_
guest_willette.pdf. Accessed online October 1, 2011.
Willette, T.M., R. DeCino, and N. Gove. 2003. Mark recapture population estimates of coho,
pink and chum salmon runs into Upper Cook Inlet in 2002. ADF&G, Regional
Information Report No. 2A03-20. Anchorage, Alaska.
Yanusz, R., R. Merizon, D. Evans, M. Willette, T. Spencer, and S. Raborn. 2007. Inriver
abundance and distribution of spawning Susitna River sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus
nerka, 2006. ADF&G, Fishery Data Series No. 07-83. Anchorage, Alaska.
Yanusz R., and R. Merizon. 2010. Abundance and Spawning Distribution of Susitna River Chum
and Coho Salmon. ADF&G, Division of Sport Fish. Oral Report RC4, TAB 7.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-126 December 2011
Yanusz, R., R. Merizon, M. Willette, D. Evans, and T. Spencer. 2011. Inriver abundance and
distribution of spawning Susitna River sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka, 2008.
ADF&G, Fishery Data Series No. 11-12. Anchorage, Alaska.
4.6. Wildlife and Botanical Resources
4.6.1. Introduction
This section incorporates both information prepared for the wildlife data-gap analysis for the
Project (ABR 2011b) and material prepared in the early 1980s to support the FERC license
application for the original APA Susitna Hydroelectric Project (APA 1985a, 1985b). As
identified in the data-gap analysis, a number of information deficits exist. Therefore, adaptations
of older data are used here (ABR 2011b). Similarly, preliminary predictions of Project-related
impacts have been adapted from the draft amended application for the APA Project, which
closely resembled the project currently being proposed.
Three reaches of the Susitna River are recognized:
Upper—from the proposed Watana dam site upstream to the headwaters of the
drainage;
Middle—from the Watana dam site downstream to the confluence with the Chulitna
River, just upstream from the community of Talkeetna;
Lower—from the Chulitna confluence downstream to the mouth of the Susitna River
at Cook Inlet.
The upper and middle reaches are included in the Upper Susitna River subbasin (Figure 4.6-1).
Specific study areas varied among the different species and taxonomic groups of wildlife,
depending on their distribution and movements.
For the purposes of wildlife population management and reporting, the State of Alaska is divided
into 26 game management units (GMUs). The Susitna River basin contains all or parts of GMUs
13E, 13A, 13B, 14A, 14B, 16A, and 16B (Figure 4.6-2). GMU subunits are subdivided further
into Uniform Coding Units (UCUs) for harvest reporting. There are 136 UCUs in and near the
entire Susitna River basin, each comprising one or more small drainage basins.
Botanical resources in the project area function primarily as wildlife habitat and wetlands
(discussed later in Section 4.7).
Glenn HighwayDenali HighwayParks HighwayLakeLouiseCook InletKnik ArmSkwentna RiverY en tn a R iv e r Matanuska RiverChulitna RiverSusitna RiverTalkeetna R ive rMaclaren RiverSusitna RiverYentna RiverUpper Susitna RiverLower Susitna RiverChulitna RiverTalkeetna RiverWillowPaxsonPalmerWasillaSkwentnaCantwellTalkeetnaAnchorageGlennallenPetersvilleMcKinley ParkALASKA RANGEDenali National Parkand PreserveTALKEETNA MOUNTAINSC opper RiverDevils CanyonPortage Cr.Jay Cr.Watana Cr.ButteLakeCLEARWATER MOUNTAINSCHUGACH MOUNTAINSLittle Nelchina R.Kosina CreekGulkana R i v e r
Broad PassOshet n a R i v e rBlack RiverTsusen a C r .MountWatanaPrairie Cr.StephanLakeDeadman Cr.Goose CreekD e s h k a R .Indian R.Gold Cr.ShermanTyone RiverDevil Cr.Fort RichardsonCh i s t o c h i n a R iv e r WatanaLakeSummitGoose Cr.Vee CanyonALPHABET HILLSWATANA CR.HILLSTrapper CreekValdezSlanaWRANGELLMOUNTAINSIndi a n C r .T a n a na River144°0'0"W145°0'0"W146°0'0"W147°0'0"W148°0'0"W149°0'0"W150°0'0"W151°0'0"W152°0'0"W153°0'0"W154°0'0"W155°0'0"W63°30'0"N63°30'0"N63°0'0"N63°0'0"N62°30'0"N62°30'0"N62°0'0"N62°0'0"N61°30'0"N61°30'0"N61°0'0"NLEGENDProposed Watana ReservoirNational Hydrography Dataset Subbasin*RoadsRailroad101000101020203030KmKmSusitnaBasin"NomeBarrowFairbanksAnchorage55005510101515MilesMiles±ABR File: Susitna_Hydro_HUC_Basins_11-159.mxd;3 November 2011*Subbasins are based on the 4th level Hydrological UnitCode (HUC) boundaries. Dataset was produced by theUSGS, NRCS, and the EPA and can be downloaded fromhttp://nhd.usgs.gov/Figure 4.6-1Regional Overview of theSusitna River Basin and SubbasinsState of AlaskaSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 14241Date: Nov 2011Scale = 1:1,525,000
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-128 December 2011
4.6.2. Wildlife
4.6.2.1. Descriptions of Wildlife Populations and Habitat Use
4.6.2.1.1. Mammals
At least 38 species of terrestrial mammals occur in the Susitna River basin (Table 4.6-1). The
bulk of the wildlife studies conducted for the APA Project focused on mammals, especially big
game and certain furbearers. Moose (Alces americaus), caribou (Rangifer tarandus), Dall’s
sheep (Ovis dalli), brown bear (Ursus arctos), black bear (Ursus americanus), wolf (Canis
lupus), and wolverine (Gulo gulo) for example, were the focus of studies because of their
ecological importance and management concerns for human use, whether consumptive
(subsistence and sport hunting) or nonconsumptive (wildlife viewing). The APA Project studies
were conducted during 1980–1982 (Phase I) and 1983–1984 (Phase II) in a broad area
surrounding the two dams and reservoirs proposed for that project, depending on the species.
Detailed research reports were prepared for individual species and summary progress reports on
the big game studies provided overviews of the research results and data gaps from Phases I and
II (ADF&G 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984a). No study efforts as comprehensive as the APA Project
program have been undertaken in the region since the mid-1980s, but ADF&G has continued
species-specific studies for research and management of selected species in various portions of
the Susitna basin.
A number of information sources regarding the distribution and abundance of mammals are
available for the region in various map atlas efforts (ADF&G 1973, 1978, 1985a, 1985b) and
related products from the Susitna River Basin Study (USDA 1985a, 1985b) and the Susitna Area
Plan (e.g., the fish and wildlife element map atlas; ADF&G 1984b), but the information in those
maps has not been updated recently. Among those mapping efforts only selected information on
some species from the Alaska Habitat Management Guides (AHMG) project (ADF&G 1985a,
1985b) has been digitized for specific projects. The AHMG project produced useful summaries
of wildlife species distribution and seasonal concentration areas through a statewide series of
reference maps. The summaries were based on literature review and the expert judgment of
research biologists and area wildlife biologists (no local or traditional knowledge component was
incorporated) and forms the basis of much of the mapping still used today.
4.6.2.1.1.1. Moose
The moose is a species of primary importance in Southcentral Alaska. It is a keystone species
that shapes vegetative communities and is a major prey species for large carnivores, as well as
being one of the most hunted mammals for human consumption. GMU 13 is an important area
for moose hunting due to its accessibility and proximity to Anchorage and Fairbanks (Figure 4.6-
2). Moose densities in GMU 13 were low in the early 1900s, increased in the 1940s, and peaked
in the mid-1960s (Tobey and Schwanke 2008). Numbers then declined over the next 10 years,
reaching a low in 1975 due to severe winters, increased predation, and large human harvests of
both bulls and cows. The population increased during 1978–1987, by an average 5 percent
annually, and then declined by a total of 47 percent in the early 1990s. Populations reached a low
in 2001. After wolf control resumed in GMU 13 in 2003, moose numbers started to rebound
(Tobey and Schwanke 2008). In a further effort to increase moose numbers, the hunting season
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-129 December 2011
was liberalized for brown bears, which in some areas may kill up to 50 percent of moose calves
within the first 6 weeks of life (Tobey and Schwanke 2008).
Table 4.6-1. Terrestrial mammal species reported to occur in the Susitna River basin
(reprinted from ABR 2011b).
English Name(s) Scientific Name
Cinereus shrew, masked shrew, common shrew Sorex cinereus
Pygmy shrew Sorex hoyi
Dusky shrew, montane shrew Sorex monticolus
Water shrew Sorex palustris
Tundra shrew (formerly lumped with arctic shrew) Sorex tundrensis
Alaska tiny shrew Sorex yukonicus
Little brown myotis, little brown bat Myotis lucifugus
Coyote Canis latrans
Wolf Canis lupus
Red fox Vulpes vulpes
Lynx Lynx canadensis
River otter Lontra canadensis
Wolverine Gulo gulo
Marten Martes americana
Ermine, short-tailed weasel Mustela erminea
Least weasel Mustela nivalis
Mink Neovison vison
Black bear Ursus americanus
Brown bear, grizzly bear Ursus arctos
Moose Alces americanus
Caribou, reindeer Rangifer tarandus
Mountain goat Oreamnos americanus
Dall’s sheep Ovis dalli
Hoary marmot Marmota caligata
Arctic ground squirrel Spermophilus parryii
Red squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus
Beaver Castor canadensis
Meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius
Northern red-backed vole Myodes rutilus
Brown lemming Lemmus trimucronatus
Singing vole Microtus miurus
Root vole, tundra vole Microtus oeconomus
Meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus
Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus
Northern bog lemming Synaptomys borealis
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-130 December 2011
English Name(s) Scientific Name
Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum
Collared pika Ochotona collaris
Snowshoe hare, varying hare Lepus americanus
Sources: Kessel et al. (1982); APA (1985b: Appendix E7.3); MacDonald and Cook (2009); continental modifiers of English
names (e.g., North American river otter) have been dropped from this list.
The current management objective for the moose population of GMU 13 is 20,000–25,000
animals, while maintaining fall population ratios of at least 25–30 calves:100 cows, 25 bulls:100
cows, and 10 yearling bulls:100 cows (Tobey and Schwanke 2008). Trend counts in various parts
of GMU 13 show an increasing population and an average of 0.5 moose/km² (1.3 moose/mi²)
among trend count areas (specific areas counted as a metric of moose population trends). In fall
2007, ratios of 32 bulls:100 cows and 22 calves:100 cows were recorded (Tobey and Schwanke
2008). The most recent density estimates for GMUs 13, 14, and 16 were in the range of 0.19–
0.58 moose/km² (0.5–1.5 moose/mi²) (Harper 2008). The highest moose densities in GMU 13
tend to occur on the southern slopes of the Alaska Range (Subunits 13B and 13C) and in the
eastern Talkeetna Mountains (Subunit 13A). The lowest densities occur in the Lake Louise flats
(Subunit 13D).
Moose typically are found in subalpine habitats during the fall rut and post-rutting period, and
then move to lower elevations as snow depth increases. Earlier movements may occur where
wolf densities have been reduced in riparian areas at lower elevations. Known wintering areas in
GMU 13 include the southern Alphabet Hills, the upper Susitna River, the eastern foothills of the
Talkeetna Mountains, the Tolsona Creek burn, and the Copper River floodplain in the eastern
part of the unit. Winter survival of moose is strongly related to snow depth, with mortality
increasing markedly when snow depth exceeds 0.75 m (30 in) (Tobey and Schwanke 2008).
Calves are most severely affected, followed by yearlings, adult bulls, and cows. Deep snow also
results in lower survival of calves the following spring. Moose mortality during severe winters
does not appear to be density-dependent.
Baseline studies of moose in the Susitna River basin began several years before the formal APA
Project study program commenced in 1980. The moose studies for the APA Project were divided
into upstream and downstream (above and below Devils Canyon) components, with different
investigators and objectives. The upstream study began with radio-collaring in 1976 and ended in
January 1986 (Ballard and Whitman 1988, Ballard et al. 1991). The downstream studies began in
1980 and continued through 1986 (Modafferi 1987), with monitoring of population dynamics
continuing through 1991 using some of the animals collared for the APA Project studies
(Modafferi and Becker 1997).
Glenn HighwayDenali HighwayParks HighwayLakeLouiseCook InletKnik ArmSkwentna RiverY en tn a R iv e rMatanuska RiverChulitna RiverSusitna RiverTalkeetna R ive rMaclaren RiverSusitna River19D16B13E19C13D13A13B14A14B14C13C16A20CWillowPaxsonPalmerWasillaSkwentnaCantwellTalkeetnaAnchorageGlennallenPetersvilleMcKinley Park144°0'0"W145°0'0"W146°0'0"W147°0'0"W148°0'0"W149°0'0"W150°0'0"W151°0'0"W152°0'0"W153°0'0"W154°0'0"W155°0'0"W63°30'0"N63°30'0"N63°0'0"N63°0'0"N62°30'0"N62°30'0"N62°0'0"N62°0'0"N61°30'0"N61°30'0"N61°0'0"N101000101020203030KmKmSusitnaBasin"NomeBarrowFairbanksAnchorage55005510101515MilesMiles±ABR FIle: Susitna_Hydro_GMU_11-159.mxd; 3 November 2011Figure 4.6-2Game Management Unitsand Subunits in and nearthe Susitna River BasinState of AlaskaSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 14241LEGEND:ADFG Game Management Units*Susitna BasinProposed Watana ReservoirRoadsRailroad*ADFG Game Management Units and Subunits weredownloaded April 2011 from http://dnr.alaska.govDate: Nov 2011Scale = 1:1,525,000
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-132 December 2011
4.6.2.1.1.1.1. Upper Susitna River Subbasin
In the Upper Susitna subbasin, Taylor and Ballard (1979) began radio-collaring moose in 1976–
1977, and that work was continued later for the APA Project (Ballard and Whitman 1988).
Between 1976 and 1985, 463 moose, comprising 218 neonates, 61 calves aged 5–10 months, and
184 adults, were equipped with either visual collars or VHF (very high frequency) radio-collars
(Ballard and Whitman 1988). Twelve subpopulations were identified throughout the original
APA Project study area, which included most tributaries of the Susitna River upstream of the
mouth of Portage Creek (just below Devils Canyon) (Figure 4.6-3). Early studies conducted for
the APA Project found the highest density of moose upstream of the proposed Watana dam site,
between Watana Creek and Jay Creek at elevations of 650–850 m (2,133–2,789 ft) (Taylor and
Ballard 1979, Ballard and Whitman 1988).
All moose exhibited seasonal movements within their home ranges, but the magnitude varied
substantially. Moose were classified as resident if seasonal ranges overlapped between summer
and winter, or as migratory if they did not. Ballard et al. (1991) reported that home-range sizes
averaged 290 km² (112 mi²) for resident moose and 505 km² (195 mi²) for migratory moose.
Distances between the summer and winter ranges of migratory animals ranged from 1 to 93 km
(0.6–58 mi) (Ballard and Whitman 1988); the moose that moved the farthest were those that
summered in the Clearwater Mountains north of the Denali Highway and wintered along the
Susitna or Maclaren rivers.
Three periods of major movements were identified: autumn and spring migrations and
movements during the rut (breeding season) (Figure 4.6-4). During rut in late September and
early October, some moose made distinctive movements to upland areas not used at other times
of the year. Most movements of radio-collared sedentary moose occurred from higher elevations
in the summer to lower elevations in winter (Ballard and Taylor 1980). Fall migration began
between late October and November and appeared to be correlated with the first heavy snowfall
(>0.3 m, or 1 ft). Figure 4.6-5 shows moose overwintering ranges during 1977–1982 (Ballard et
al. 1983a, cited in FERC 1984). Spring migration occurred more gradually, from mid-April
through mid-July. General calving ranges during 1977–1982 are shown in Figure 4.6-6 (Ballard
et al. 1983a, cited in FERC 1984).
Ballard and Whitman (1988) documented 170 crossings of the Susitna River, by 59 (52 percent)
of 113 radio-collared moose, in the two impoundment zones for the APA Project. Crossings
occurred in all months of the year but were common during late winter, peaking in April, when
moose occupied winter ranges at lower elevations. These numbers are conservative because of
the nature of VHF radio-telemetry, which requires tracking from aircraft, unlike the more
frequent monitoring that is now possible using satellite or GPS radio-telemetry.
Vegetation types dominated by spruce and willow were used preferentially by moose. Taylor and
Ballard (1979) recorded 70 percent of moose observations (n = 376) in spruce-dominated
habitats (three of their nine habitat types were dominated by spruce) and reported that most
locations where calves were first seen (n = 20) were in spruce-dominated habitats. Areas with
relatively low browse biomass, such as habitats with a spruce overstory, were used heavily by
moose during winter regardless of the lower volume of food, because more browse was available
due to shallower snow cover (Ballard et al. 1991). Moose used lower-elevation areas more often
during severe winters and moose survival declined during severe winters (Ballard and Whitman
1988, Ballard et al. 1991). The number and density of moose using the Watana impoundment
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-133 December 2011
zone varied widely among winters of moderate severity (1981–1983 and 1985), ranging from 42
to 580 (0.2 to 2.3 moose/km² or 0.4–6.0 moose/mi²) (Ballard and Whitman 1988).
Radio-tracking of collared calves in the APA Project study area showed that predation, primarily
by brown bears, was responsible for 83–86 percent of the mortality of moose calves (Ballard et
al. 1981a, Ballard and Whitman 1988), with 94 percent of the deaths occurring before July 19.
Ballard et al. (1990) found that brown bears killed 46 percent of the calves in their study, black
bears killed 9 percent, and wolves killed 7 percent. Elsewhere in interior Alaska (north of Tok),
the highest predation rates on adult moose by brown bears were attributed to killing of cow
moose during calving by male bears (Boertje et al. 1988). Bear densities and predation rates on
moose calves were independent of moose density and were thought to be more related to factors
such as availability of alternative foods. Relocation of brown bears from a 3,346-km² (1,292-mi²)
study area in Southcentral Alaska lowered bear density by 60 percent and resulted in a
significant (P < 0.05) increase in moose calf survival from birth to November (Ballard and
Miller 1990).
4.6.2.1.1.1.2. Lower Susitna River Subbasin
The Lower Susitna River drainage has long been known as an important wintering area for
moose. Modafferi (1987) summarized the downstream studies conducted for the APA Project,
which focused on identifying subpopulations and seasonal movements of moose using the
Susitna River floodplain, as well as identifying candidate lands for mitigation of potential habitat
loss caused by the APA Project. VHF telemetry was used to study the movements and habitat
use of 51 female and 18 male moose during April 1980–June 1985, and aerial censuses and other
surveys were conducted repeatedly (6–11 times) during winter from December 1981 to December
1986. A population survey was conducted using stratified random sampling in March 1985.
Fourteen subpopulations were identified in the downstream study area from Devils Canyon
downstream to Cook Inlet. Although some moose used the Susitna River floodplain year-round,
most used the floodplain primarily in winter when snow levels restricted foraging in other
habitats (Figure 4.6-7) (Modafferi 1987). Some moose of each sex migrated up to 25 km (15 mi)
from summer or fall ranges to winter on the floodplain, whereas the summer/fall ranges of other
moose were smaller and coincided with floodplain winter range. The highest densities of moose
occurred in open forest habitats, especially on high-relief islands near Cook Inlet where
prevailing winds precluded deep snow accumulation. Overall, the greatest numbers of moose
used low-relief floodplains where dynamic river flows maintained early succession plant
communities that provided high-quality forage. On a late-winter survey in March 1985, 91
percent of the moose were found in 36 percent of the 353 sample units surveyed (4,252 mi², or
11,013 km²); in those units, density ranged from 2 to 13 moose/mi² (0.8–5 moose/km²)
(Modafferi 1987).
Snow depth was the principal factor contributing to variation within and between years in moose
counts on the middle and lower Susitna River floodplain. For the area downstream of Devils
Canyon, maximum winter counts of moose on the floodplain ranged from 369 animals in a mild
winter with shallow snow cover to 934 animals in a severe winter with deep snow cover
(Modafferi 1987). In view of the generally low densities of predators in the lower Susitna valley
at the time of their studies, Modafferi and Becker (1997) concluded that malnutrition was the
principal cause of mortality in severe winters.
Date: Nov 2011Scale: As Noted
kj
Proposed Watana Damand Powerhouse
Proposed Watana Reservoir
Denali
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
George Parks HighwayFOG C R EE K
CHULITNA RIVERDEADM AN CRE
E
KNENANA RIVERJAY
C
R
E
E
K
GOLD CREEK
TALKEETNA RIVERKOSINA CREEKINDIAN RIVERPORTAGE CREEKTSUSENA CREEKWATANA CREEK
Moose Study Area
State of AlaskaSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC No.14241
Figure 4.6-3Ü
0 10 205Miles
Legend
kj Proposed Watana Dam and Powerhouse
Proposed Watana Reservoir
Highway
Alaska Railroad
Susitna River
Selected Tributaries and Nearby Streams
Moose Study Area
source: APA 1985b
Date: Nov 2011Scale: As Noted
kj
Proposed Watana Damand Powerhouse
Proposed Watana Reservoir
Denali
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
George Parks HighwayFOG C R EE K
CHULITNA RIVERDEADM AN CRE
E
KNENANA RIVERJAY
C
R
E
E
K
GOLD CREEK
TALKEETNA RIVERKOSINA CREEKINDIAN RIVERPORTAGE CREEKTSUSENA CREEKWATANA CREEK
Moose Movement
State of AlaskaSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC No.14241
Figure 4.6-4Ü
0 10 205Miles
Legend
kj Proposed Watana Dam and Powerhouse
Susitna River
Selected Tributaries and Nearby Streams
Susitna River Basin
Highway
Alaska Railroad
Moose Study Area
Moose Movement
source: APA 1985b
Date: Nov 2011Scale: As Noted
Proposed Watana Damand Powerhouse
Proposed Watana Reservoir
Denali
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
George Parks HighwayFOG C R EE K
CHULITNA RIVERDEADM AN CRE
E
KNENANA RIVERJAY
C
R
E
E
K
GOLD CREEK
TALKEETNA RIVERKOSINA CREEKINDIAN RIVERPORTAGE CREEKTSUSENA CREEKWATANA CREEK
Moose Overwintering
State of AlaskaSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC No.14241
Figure 4.6-5Ü
0 10 205Miles
Legend
kj Proposed Watana Dam and Powerhouse
Susitna River
Selected Tributaries and Nearby Streams
Susitna River Basin
Highway
Alaska Railroad
Moose Overwintering
source: APA 1985b
Date: Nov 2011Scale: As Noted
Proposed Watana Damand Powerhouse
Proposed Watana Reservoir
Denali Highwa
y
George Parks HighwayCantwell
Moose Calving Areas
State of AlaskaSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC No.14241
Figure 4.6-6Ü
0 8.5 174.25 Miles
Legend
kj Proposed Watana Dam and Powerhouse
Proposed Watana Reservoir
!.Selected Populated Place
Highway
Alaska Railroad
Susitna River
Selected Tributaries in Susitna River Watershed
Susitna River Basin
Moose Calving Area
source: APA 1985b
Date: Nov 2011Scale: As Noted
Glenn HighwayGeorge Parks HighwayGlenn HighwayRadio-collared Moose
State of AlaskaSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC No.14241
Figure 4.6-7Ü
0 10 205Miles
Legend
kj Proposed Watana Dam and Powerhouse
Proposed Watana Reservoir
Susitna River
Selected Tributaries in Susitna River Watershed
Susitna River Basin
Highway
Alaska Railroad
Susitna River Moose Zones
Moose Radio-collar Concentration Area
AREA I
AREA IV
AREA III
AREA II
source: APA 1985b
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-139 December 2011
4.6.2.1.1.2. Caribou
Caribou herds in Alaska generally are delineated by ADF&G on the basis of their fidelity to
calving grounds, following the herd concept proposed by Skoog (1968). Caribou that occur in the
upper Susitna River basin belong primarily to the Nelchina Herd. Figure 4.6-8 illustrates the
historical range of the Nelchina Herd, which comprises a large area extending from the
Talkeetna Mountains eastward across the Nelchina Basin and Lake Louise Flats to the Wrangell
Mountains, and northward from the Chugach Mountains to the Alaska Range (Skoog 1968;
Hemming 1971; LGL 1985a; Pitcher 1982).
Since the first herd-size estimates became available in the late 1940s, the Nelchina Herd peaked
at approximately 70,000 caribou in the early 1960s, then declined precipitously to 7,000–10,000
by the early 1970s (Figure 4.6-9; estimates before 1955 (red bars) likely underestimated the true
herd size, judging from the 1955 and 1956 estimates). During the period of the original APA
Susitna Hydroelectric Project studies, the herd increased from 18,713 animals to 27,528 animals
by 1985 (Pitcher 1982 and 1987); continued to grow to about 50,000 animals by 1995, declining
and remaining fairly stable, in the range of 30,000–35,000 caribou since. The size of the
Nelchina Herd has remained near ADF&G’s population management objective of 35,000–40,000
animals in fall; the most recent herd size estimates were 32,569 in fall 2007 and 32,288 in fall
2008 (Tobey and Schwanke 2009).
Caribou investigations in 1980–1985 identified three resident subherds in the area surrounding
the two proposed APA Project reservoirs. About 400 caribou were estimated to reside year-round
in the headwaters of the Talkeetna River south of the APA Project impoundment zones. Nearer
the Susitna River, the Chunilna Hills had a resident group of about 250 caribou, and about 1,500
caribou used the upper Susitna, Nenana, and Chulitna river drainages year-round. Two additional
subherds were suspected to occur in the western Talkeetna Mountains and in the Clearwater
Mountains along the southern slopes of the Alaska Range. Recent caribou management reports
have not discussed the subherds that Pitcher (1987) described during the APA Project studies, so
the current status of those groups is not clear. Some of the Global Positioning System (GPS)
collars mentioned above were deployed in the area north of the Susitna in the area previously
occupied by the Nenana–Susitna subherd, and indications are that a subherd still occupies the
upper Susitna drainage.
For as long as records have been kept on the herd, the primary calving grounds of the Nelchina
Herd have been centered between the Little Nelchina River and Kosina Creek, south of the upper
Susitna River and southeast of the proposed Project (Figure 4.6-10). The average elevation of
females located during calving was 1,141 m (3,742 ft). Primary summer range for females was
on the northern and eastern slopes of the Talkeetna Mountains (Figure 4.6-11). During spring,
calving, and summer, males tended to use habitats at lower elevations and females used highland
tundra–herbaceous habitats. During summer and fall, Nelchina caribou disperse over a broad
area extending from the Denali Highway near Butte Lake (north of the proposed Watana
reservoir) as far east as the Gulkana River (Tobey and Schwanke 2009). During rut in October,
caribou were spread from the Talkeetna Mountains east to the foothills of the Wrangell
Mountains. Spruce forests were used primarily during rut and winter. The winter distribution is
more extensive, ranging from Cantwell and Broad Pass on the west, east through the Alphabet
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-140 December 2011
Hills and Mentasta Mountains, to the area around Tok and almost to the Alaska–Yukon border,
in GMU 20E. Formerly, GMU 20E provided high biomass of winter forage (lichens) in old (>50
years) burns, but much of that area burned in 2004, reducing winter forage availability. ADF&G
currently maintains an annual sample of 40–60 radio-collared animals in the herd to track
seasonal distribution, movements, and productivity (Tobey and Schwanke 2009). The telemetry
dataset for the Nelchina Herd consists almost entirely of VHF radio-collars, but 20 GPS collars
were deployed on Nelchina females during 1999–2003 (B. Dale, ADF&G, pers. comm.).
Wolves, grizzly bears, and Golden Eagles prey on caribou in the study area. Predator
management programs have reduced the number of wolves in the range of the Nelchina Herd
since 2001 and calf survival has increased (Tobey and Schwanke 2009).
Caribou from the adjacent Delta Herd to the north have begun moving into the Nelchina Herd
range in recent years. During 2006–2008, radio-telemetry revealed that some caribou from the
Delta Herd crossed from the north into the upper Susitna drainage along the Denali Highway as
far as Butte Lake (Seaton 2009), mixing with Nelchina Herd animals. As many as 15 percent of
the females from the Delta Herd may calve south of the Alaska Range (west of the Parks
Highway) and some Delta Herd animals now spend most of the summer in GMU 13, but thus far
the herds have remained separate during censuses (B. Dale, ADF&G, pers. comm.). Delta Herd
animals remain north of the Susitna River and do not use the area of the proposed Watana
reservoir, but they occur along the Denali Highway near the potential Project access road route.
Spring migration to calving grounds in the eastern Talkeetna Mountains sometimes crossed the
upper portion of the proposed Watana impoundment zone. Historical records indicated that the
reservoir would intersect a major migratory route used by pregnant females moving to calving
grounds during late April and May, and by females and calves moving from calving grounds to
summer range during late June and July (Pitcher 1982). Crossings generally were infrequent but,
during spring migration in 1984, 50 percent of female caribou in the main Nelchina Herd crossed
the Susitna River from north to south within the proposed Watana impoundment zone (LGL
1985a). Skoog (1968) considered the geographic area in which the Watana impoundment zone
was located to be among the most important year-round areas for the herd. Habitat loss was not
considered to be an important concern, as only a relatively small area of apparently low-quality
habitat would be inundated by the reservoirs (Pitcher 1982). The area of the Devils Canyon
impoundment zone was used little by caribou, but the proposed access road from the Denali
Highway would have traversed historical summer and winter range.
Because of its proximity and accessibility to residents of Fairbanks and Anchorage, the Nelchina
Herd has long been an important resource for hunters. The management goal is to provide for an
annual harvest of 3,000–6,000 caribou; actual annual harvests per regulatory year (July 1–June
30) were lower, estimated at 1,087–3,090 animals from 2003/2004 through 2007/2008 (Tobey
and Schwanke 2009). Since 1977, Nelchina caribou have been hunted by permit only, and since
1990 almost all permits have been issued only for state and federal subsistence hunts.
Date: Nov 2011Scale: As Noted
Proposed Watana Damand Powerhouse
Proposed Watana ReservoirGeorge Parks HighwayTok Cut-OffR
i
c
h
a
r
d
s
o
n
H
i
g
hw
a
y
Denali Highway
Glenn Highway
Alaska Highway
Edg
e
r
t
o
n
H
i
g
h
w
a
y Taylor HighwayPaxson
Cantwell
Talkeetna Glennallen
Caribou Historic Range
State of AlaskaSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC No.14241
Figure 4.6-8Ü
0 10 205Miles
Legend
kj Proposed Watana Dam and Powerhouse
Proposed Watana Reservoir
Susitna River
Susitna River Basin
Highway
Alaska Railroad
!.Selected Populated Place
Caribou Historic Range
source: APA 1985b
Figure 4.6-9. Estimated population size of the Nelchina Caribou Herd, 1948–2008.
Sources: Watson and Scott 1956; Siniff and Skoog 1964; Skoog 1968; Hemming
and Glenn 1968; Bos 1973, 1974; Davis 1978; Pitcher 1982, 1987; Tobey 1993,
2001, 2005; Tobey and Kelleyhouse 2007a; Tobey and Schwanke 2009.
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
1948195019521954195619581960196219641966196819701972197419761978198019821984198619881990199219941996199820002002200420062008Number of caribouYear
Date: Nov 2011Scale: As Noted
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
Proposed Watana Damand Powerhouse
Proposed Watana ReservoirGeorge Parks HighwayRicha
rdson
H
ighway
Denali Highwa
y
Glenn Highway
Edg
e
r
t
o
n
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
Paxson
Cantwell
Talkeetna Glennallen
Radiocollared Caribou During Calving Period (May 15 - June 10, 1980 & 1981)
State of AlaskaSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC No.14241
Figure 4.6-10Ü
0 10 205Miles
Legend
kj Proposed Watana Dam and Powerhouse
Proposed Watana Reservoir
Susitna River
Selected Tributaries in Susitna River Watershed
Susitna River Basin
Highway
Alaska Railroad
!.Selected Populated Place
Caribou - Radiocollared
Female
#*Male
source: APA 1985b
Date: Nov 2011Scale: As Noted
Proposed Watana Damand Powerhouse
Proposed Watana ReservoirGeorge Parks HighwayTok Cut-OffR
i
c
h
a
r
d
s
o
n
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
Denali Highwa
y
Glenn Highway
Alaska Highway
Edg
e
r
t
o
n
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
Paxson
Cantwell
Talkeetna Glennallen
Nelchina Caribou Migratory Routes
State of AlaskaSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC No.14241
Figure 4.6-11Ü
0 10 205Miles
Legend
kj Proposed Watana Dam and Powerhouse
Proposed Watana Reservoir
Susitna River
Selected Tributaries in Susitna River Watershed
Susitna River Basin
Highway
Alaska Railroad
!.Selected Populated Place
Caribou - Nechina Migratory Route
source: APA 1985b
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-145 December 2011
4.6.2.1.1.3. Dall’s Sheep
Dall’s sheep occur in the mountains surrounding the proposed Project. ADF&G conducts
periodic aerial surveys and compiles harvest reports for sheep in subunits 13A, 13E, 14A and
14B (Talkeetna Mountains and Chulitna–Watana Hills), but the Watana Creek Hills, located
north of the proposed Watana reservoir, have received little attention since the APA Project
studies ended (Figure 4.6-2). According to the most recent report available, surveys were
conducted in the Watana Hills in 1999 and 2003, producing counts of 97 sheep (18 percent
lambs) and 50 sheep (14 percent lambs), respectively (Peltier 2008a). In the overall reporting
region (subunits 13A, 13E, 14A and 14B), the estimated sheep population has varied
substantially through time: 2,500–3,000 in the mid-1970s; ~2,500 in the late 1980s; 2,000–2,500
in 1994 and 2,500–3,000 in 1999, followed by a steep decline to ~1,750 after the severe winter
of 1999–2000 (Peltier 2008a). The population subsequently increased from 2000 to 2003, but
declined again during 2004–2007. Lohuis (2010) noted that, in general, the sheep population in
Southcentral Alaska had declined since 1990. A 3-year study to identify factors limiting
population growth of sheep began in 2009 in the central Chugach Mountains (southeast of the
Talkeetna Mountains), examining population dynamics in relation to disease and weather factors
(e.g., formation of ice layers) that adversely affect sheep.
During 1981–1983, ADF&G surveyed three areas of sheep habitat near the Watana and Devils
Canyon dams proposed for the APA Project (Figure 4.6-12, Tankersley 1984): Mt. Watana
(south of the Susitna River), Portage Creek–Tsusena Creek–Denali Highway (near the potential
access corridor north of the Susitna River), and the Watana Creek Hills (nearest to the proposed
Watana reservoir). The study employed aerial surveys in March and June and ground
observations of sheep using mineral licks during May–July in the study area. During the Phase I
study in 1980–1981, sheep were discovered using a mineral lick below alpine habitat on lower
Jay Creek in the Watana Creek Hills, adjacent to the proposed Watana reservoir. Several licks
were located along that creek, extending upstream 6.5 km (4 mi) above its confluence with the
Susitna River. Another mineral lick, the East Fork lick, was located along Watana Creek, about
12 km (7.5 mi) north of the Jay Creek lick. Investigators quantified use of the lick areas by
different sexes and ages of sheep, recorded the seasonal timing of lick use, and collected soil
samples for chemical analysis. Sheep used mineral licks primarily between mid-May and mid-
June. A minimum of 46 different sheep were recorded using the Jay Creek licks. At least 31
percent of the sheep population observed in 1983 traveled 8 km (5 mi) or more to the Jay Creek
lick. Sheep traveled to the area even though another, smaller lick with similar chemical
characteristics was located in their alpine range.
Date: Nov 2011Scale: As Noted
Proposed Watana Damand Powerhouse
Proposed Watana Reservoir
Denali Highwa
y
George Parks HighwayRichardson
H
i
g
hw
a
y
Glenn Highway
Cantwell
Talkeetna Glennallen
Portage-Tsusena
Watana Hills
Mt. Watana Grebe Mtn.
Dall Sheep Study Area
State of AlaskaSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC No.14241
Figure 4.6-12Ü
0 10 205Miles
Legend
kj Proposed Watana Dam and Powerhouse
Proposed Watana Reservoir
Susitna River
Selected Tributaries in Susitna River Watershed
Susitna River Basin
!.Selected Populated Place
Highway
Alaska Railroad
Dall Sheep Study Area
Dall Sheep Aerial Survey Area
source: APA 1985b
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-147 December 2011
4.6.2.1.1.4. Brown Bear
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game periodically estimates brown bear density in various
parts of GMU 13 (Figure 4.6-2). Since 1979, those estimates have ranged from 16 to 41
bears/1,000 km² (386 mi²) (Tobey and Kelleyhouse 2007b). Regardless of the method used,
Subunits 13A and 13E appear to have some of the highest brown bear densities in interior and
northern Alaska (Tobey and Kelleyhouse 2007b). Density estimates in 1985 (27.1 bears/1,000
km²) and 1995 (40.8 bears/1,000 km²) indicate that the population was increasing during that
period. In 2000, 2001, and 2003, line-transect surveys were completed in portions of Subunit
13E, producing a preliminary estimate of 32.2 bears/1,000 km².
GMU 13 has been designated by ADF&G for intensive management, so reducing the bear
population is a management priority to boost the survival rates of moose and caribou for human
consumption. Plans to accomplish population reduction, rely on liberalized bear hunting
regulations involving longer seasons and higher bag limits (one bear per hunter per year vs. one
bear every four years previously), increasing the mean annual harvest of brown bears from 61
animals during 1975–1978 to 139 animals during 2005–2008 (Miller et al. 2011). Although final
results are not yet available, preliminary results comparing capture–mark–resighting (CMR)
surveys conducted recently in Subunit 13A West with previous CMR survey results, suggests
that the brown bear population in that area may have declined approximately 20 percent after
two decades of higher harvests (B. Dale, ADF&G, pers. comm.).
Studies in the western Susitna basin (south of the Alaska Range between the Yentna and
Chulitna rivers) during 1998–2000 found that habitat use by brown bears varied significantly
within years and among seasons for different bears, and habitat use also differed between
daytime and night-time periods. Brown bears foraged heavily at salmon spawning streams and
salmon consistently composed a major portion of their diet, making an important contribution to
body condition (Belant et al. 2006). Black bears avoided salmon streams occupied by defensive
brown bears and instead foraged heavily on berries (Belant et al. 2006, 2009). The importance of
salmon to brown bears specifically and to terrestrial ecosystems in general were discussed by
Hilderbrand et al. (1999a, 1999b, 2004), who reviewed the role that spawning salmon play in
transporting marine-derived nutrients into terrestrial ecosystems, where their consumption by
bears and a variety of other wildlife species plays a crucial role in nutrient cycling.
All previous studies of brown bears in relation to the APA Project were conducted upstream of
Devils Canyon; no downstream study was conducted for this species. Brown bears were studied
from 1980 to 1985, during which time 97 bears were equipped with VHF radio-collars (Miller
1987). Density was estimated at 27.9 bears/1,000 km² (386 mi²; Miller 1987, Miller et al. 1997).
Bears used the Watana reservoir inundation area twice as frequently as expected, both in the
spring and for all months combined. This pattern of use was evident for males and most females,
but not for females accompanied by cubs of the year (COY). Bears spent the highest proportion
of time in the Watana impoundment zone during June, when they foraged on south-facing slopes
for roots, new vegetation, and overwintered berries, and preyed on moose calves. Females with
COY tended to stay at higher elevations, possibly to reduce the risk of predation on cubs by male
brown bears.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-148 December 2011
No dens were found in the area that would have been inundated by either of the proposed APA
Susitna Hydroelectric Project reservoirs. Den sites were found at elevations in the range of 613–
1,625 m (2,010 to 5,330 ft), mostly above the maximal water surface elevation of the proposed
Watana reservoir (610 m [2,000 ft]). Miller (1987) mapped approximate den locations and
provided detailed descriptions of den sites and dates of entrance and emergence.
Important sources of food for brown bears in the Susitna study area were ungulates, salmon, and
berries. Attention was focused heavily on predation rates of brown bears on moose calves (Miller
1987, Ballard and Miller 1990, Ballard et al. 1990). Brown bears preyed on moose calves from
late May to early June, with predation rates declining substantially by mid-July (Ballard et al.
1990). In addition to moose calves, the Susitna bear population had access to salmon, which is
unusual for brown bears in interior Alaska. Bears, especially males, moved to the Prairie Creek
drainage, southwest of Stephan Lake (between the proposed Devils Canyon and Watana dam
sites), during July and early August to feed on spawning Chinook salmon (LGL 1985a). Despite
the availability of protein-rich animal foods, berry production appeared to be the major factor
limiting brown bear productivity in the Susitna study area (LGL 1985a).
Miller (1987) estimated berry abundance and canopy coverage within and above both
impoundment zones proposed for the original APA Project. Crowberries (Empetrum nigrum)
were most abundant in the impoundment zones, whereas blueberries (Vaccinium spp.) and
lowbush cranberries (Vaccinium vitis-idaea) were distributed more evenly across the area.
Horsetails (Equisetum spp.), an important spring food, were more abundant outside the
impoundment zones, but some sites with abundant horsetails would have been inundated by the
proposed APA Susitna Hydroelectric Project reservoirs (Helm and Mayer 1985).
The APA Project study included data on river crossings by bears to facilitate post-construction
comparisons (Miller 1987). Brown bears frequently crossed rivers. Of 658 point locations for
males, 14.9 percent were on the opposite side of the Susitna River from the preceding location,
as were 9.1 percent of 1,668 locations for females. Home ranges of male bears were larger than
those of females, so were more likely to span the river. Miller (1987) cited Simpson (1986), who
stated that grizzly bears in the vicinity of the Revelstoke Reservoir in British Columbia “would
cross a river but not the reservoir.” Also at Revelstoke, Bonar (1985) noted “the radio-collared
bears [of both species] haven't crossed as often as they did before the water came up.”
4.6.2.1.1.5. Black Bear
There are no current estimates of population size for black bears in the upstream or downstream
study areas along the Susitna River. The most recent report for GMU 13 (Tobey 2008) cited
population estimates from the original APA Project studies and the GMU 14 report (Peltier
2008b) contained no population estimates.
Black bear studies for the APA Project were conducted only upstream from Devils Canyon, with
the exception of a dietary study in the downstream area. Suitable habitat in the upstream study
area was primarily in the immediate vicinity of the Susitna River and its major tributaries (Figure
4.6-13). In contrast to the upstream area, black bear habitat occurred over most of the
downstream study area (Miller 1987). At the time of the original APA Project studies, a
standardized method for estimating black bear density had not yet been developed (LGL 1985a,
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-149 December 2011
Miller 1987). The density of 89.7 bears/1,000 km² (386 mi²) that was estimated for a portion of
the study area should, therefore, be interpreted cautiously.
Black bears were particularly abundant in the APA Project impoundment zones during May and
June, presumably foraging for overwintered berries and newly emerged plants such as horsetails,
and preying on moose calves (the same spring food resources used by brown bears). Of 54 dens
found in the vicinity of the proposed Watana reservoir, 30 (55 percent) were in the area that
would have been inundated. The rate of reuse of individual dens in the upstream area was high,
suggesting that availability of den sites was limited. The historical studies also included data on
stream crossing behavior of radio-collared bears to facilitate post-construction comparisons
(Miller 1987). Black bears made extensive seasonal movements up and down the river,
remaining within the forested habitats along the river.
Although black bears in the upstream area occasionally ate moose calves, berries seemed to be
their most important food source (LGL 1985a). Bears spent most of their time in forested areas
along creek bottoms, but moved out into adjacent shrublands during late summer as they foraged
for berries, particularly in the area between Tsusena and Deadman creeks, near the proposed
Watana reservoir (Miller 1987). The potential for human–bear conflicts was higher in those areas
because the shrublands were favored sites for camps, borrow areas, and permanent residences
(Miller 1987). Berries were an important food for black bears in the downstream area as well. In
contrast to the upstream area, movement data showed that black bears in the downstream area
moved to riparian areas in July and August. Miller (1987) hypothesized that those black bears
were eating salmon along river sloughs; however, he conducted a scat study in late August and
concluded that black bears were foraging almost exclusively on the berries of devil’s club
(Oplopanax horridus) rather than salmon.
Date: Nov 2011Scale: As Noted
Proposed Watana Damand Powerhouse
Proposed Watana Reservoir
Denali Highwa
y
George Parks HighwayRichards
o
n
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
Cantwell
Talkeetna
Black Bear Habitat
State of AlaskaSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC No.14241
Figure 4.6-13Ü
0 10 205Miles
Legend
kj Proposed Watana Dam and Powerhouse
Proposed Watana Reservoir
!.Selected Populated Place
Susitna River
Selected Tributaries in Susitna River Watershed
Susitna River Basin
Highway
Alaska Railroad
Black Bear Habitat
source: APA 1985b
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-151 December 2011
4.6.2.1.1.6. Wolf
Most of GMU 13 (except Subunit 13D, south of the Glenn Highway; Figure 4.6-2), including the
upper Susitna River basin, currently is managed by ADF&G under a predator control program
instituted in response to the state’s intensive management law, passed in 1994. Wolves have been
the target of a number of control programs over the decades, beginning before statehood. Wolves
in the Nelchina Basin were reduced to an extremely low level by federal predator control in the
late 1940s and early 1950s. After those control efforts ceased in 1959, the population recovered
to 300–400 wolves by the mid-1960s and early 1970s, then declined to about 275 animals as
harvest increased in the mid 1970s. After land-and-shoot hunting using airplanes was
discontinued in 1988, the wolf population of GMU 13 increased rapidly, peaking at 12.4
wolves/1,000 km² (386 mi²) in 1999–2000, for an estimated population of 520 animals
(Schwanke 2009). Land-and-shoot hunting was reinstated in January 2004 and the population
subsequently declined to about 380 wolves by fall 2004 (Kelleyhouse 2006) and to 254 wolves
(6.3 wolves/1,000 km²) by fall 2007 (Schwanke 2009). Since 2006, the number of wolves has
been within the current management goal range of 135–165 wolves (3.3–4.1 wolves/1,000 km²)
for the unit, after the end of the hunting and trapping seasons. Shooting wolves from aircraft has
been permitted by ADF&G since the winter of 2006–2007. The wolf population in GMU 13 has
consistently shown the potential to increase by 60–120 percent between spring and fall, under
general hunting and trapping regulations (Schwanke 2009).
In neighboring GMU 14, the wolf population was estimated at 100–130 animals in fall 2004 and
145–180 in fall 2007, well above the management objective of a minimum population of 55
wolves (Peltier 2006, 2009). None of GMU 14 is included in the state’s predator control
programs, however. Lice infestation has been a problem for wolves in Subunit 14B and adjacent
Subunit 16A since at least fall 1998, possibly reducing wolf population size and harvest rates. On
the western side of the Susitna River (downstream from about Willow), the western half of
Subunit 16A and all of Subunit 16B are included in the state’s current predator control program.
In other research in the region, Golden and Rinaldi (2008) investigated the spatial dynamics of
wolves in relation to prey availability and human activity in the Nelchina Basin, including
investigation of the use of snowmachine trails by wolves. The study ended early after the radio-
collared study animals were killed as part of a predator control program, however. Rinaldi (2010)
reported that the movements of five packs containing GPS-collared wolves were not influenced
in consistent ways by snow conditions and prey distribution. Although they traveled faster on
snowmachine trails and used trails more when snowmachine activity was low, wolves neither
selected nor avoided linear features.
The wolf study for the APA Project was conducted in the Nelchina Basin and upper Susitna
River basin between October 1981 and December 1983 (Ballard et al. 1982, 1983b, 1984), as a
continuation of regional research begun in 1975 (Ballard et al. 1981b, Ballard et al. 1987, Ballard
and Dau 1983). Wolf packs used almost the entire upper Susitna basin, except for areas above
1,219 m (4,000 ft) elevation. Elevational use varied seasonally, probably in response to changes
in relative availability of prey species. For example, the Watana pack depended heavily on
moose as a source of food. Within the range of this pack, both moose and wolves occurred at the
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-152 December 2011
lowest elevations in February, then generally moved to higher elevations until October before
moving downward again during winter.
During the APA Project study period, 13 different packs and a lone individual were documented
using areas in or adjacent to the two impoundment zones proposed for that project. In any year,
5–6 wolf packs used the areas that would have been inundated by the APA Susitna Hydroelectirc
Project impoundments. Territory sizes of seven intensively monitored packs in 1982–1983
ranged from 329 to 1,559 km² (127–602 mi²) and averaged 1,171 km² (452 mi²).
Den and rendezvous sites usually were located on knolls or hillsides with sandy, frost-free soil
and mixed, semi-open stands of spruce, aspen and willow (Ballard and Dau 1983). Wolves
generally selected sites with south or east exposures and often used dens formerly occupied by
red foxes (Vulpes vulpes). The mean elevation for all sites (den and rendezvous) was 777 m
(2,550 ft) and the mean distance to water was 257 m (843 ft). The average distance between a
den site and its nearest concurrently used neighbor was 45.3 km (28.1 mi). The authors noted
that suitable sites for wolf dens appeared to be numerous in the area and that human
encroachment was unlikely to result in a shortage of den sites as long as red fox densities
remained similar to historical levels.
4.6.2.1.1.7. Wolverine
No further research on wolverines has been conducted in the Susitna basin since the APA Project
study ended. During a radio-telemetry study between April 1980 and April 1983 (Figure 4.6-
14), ADF&G found that the average annual home-range size of wolverines in the region was 535
km² (207 mi²) for males and 105 km² (41 mi²) for females (Gardner and Ballard 1982; Whitman
and Ballard 1983, 1984; Whitman et al. 1986). The sex ratio for the total of 158 wolverines
captured for the study or harvested by trappers was 50:50 and approximately 30 percent of the
harvested animals were juveniles.
Habitat use by wolverines varied among seasons, with respect to both elevation and vegetation
types. The mean elevations at which wolverines were located were 1,043 m (3,422 ft) in July and
818 m (2,684 ft) in January (Whitman et al. 1986). Collared wolverines avoided tundra habitats
in winter and forested habitats in summer, probably because of seasonal changes in prey
availability, and used other habitats in proportion to their availability. The spring and summer
diet of wolverines consisted mainly of arctic ground squirrels, other small mammals, and
ground-nesting birds, whereas caribou and moose carrion were important winter foods.
New survey techniques have been developed to evaluate the distribution and density of
wolverines over large areas of Alaska (Golden et al. 2007, Becker et al. 1998, Magoun et al.
2007, Gardner et al. 2010). Hence, estimates of population density from the earlier APA Project
study are not directly comparable.
Date: Nov 2011Scale: As Noted
Proposed Watana Damand Powerhouse
Proposed Watana Reservoir
Denali Highwa
y
George Parks HighwayRichards
o
n
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
Cantwell
Talkeetna
Wolverine Ranges
State of AlaskaSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC No.14241
Figure 4.6-14Ü
0 10 205Miles
Legend
kj Proposed Watana Dam and Powerhouse
Proposed Watana Reservoir
Susitna River
Selected Tributaries in Susitna River Watershed
Susitna River Basin
Highway
Alaska Railroad
!.Selected Populated Place
Wolverine Ranges
Male
Female
source: APA 1985b
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-154 December 2011
4.6.2.1.1.8. Beaver
Beavers (Castor canadensis) are common in freshwater aquatic habitats bordered by woody
shrub and forest vegetation in the Susitna River basin. A large body of research demonstrates
that the beaver is a keystone species that exerts profound ecological effects on hydrology,
geomorphology, vegetation, nutrient cycling, the productivity of aquatic habitats, and the
distribution and abundance of fishes and other aquatic organisms (Butler 1995, Collen and
Gibson 2001, Müller–Schwarze and Sun 2003, Rosell et al. 2005). No recent studies have been
conducted on the beaver population in the Susitna River basin. The furbearer reports produced
by ADF&G contain general abundance information obtained from trapper questionnaires, but not
drainage-specific population data.
Aerial surveys for beaver (and muskrat, Ondatra zibethicus) were conducted in the upstream
study area during spring and summer 1980 (Gipson et al. 1982). No active beaver lodges or bank
dens were found on the Susitna River upstream of Devils Canyon (Gipson et al. 1982). Colonies
in the vicinity of the two impoundment zones proposed for the original APA Susitna
Hydroelectric Project occurred mostly in lakes between 610 and 730 m (2,000 and 2,400 ft)
elevation, relatively close to the planned water-surface level of the proposed Watana reservoir.
Colonies also were present in slow-moving sections of most of the larger tributaries, particularly
Deadman Creek (Figure 4.6.1).
Beavers were the only furbearers included in the Phase II studies for the APA Project. The
beaver was the species selected to predict downstream impacts of the APA Project on furbearers,
and was studied almost exclusively in the downstream study area (Gipson et al 1982, 1984;
Woolington et al. 1984, 1985; Woolington 1986). Studies employed both aerial surveys to
identify locations of lodges and caches and estimate population levels and overwinter survival, as
well as boat surveys in summer to assess beaver sign. The river was surveyed in three sections:
Devils Canyon to Talkeetna, Talkeetna to Goose Creek, and Goose Creek to the Deshka River.
In general, beaver sign increased substantially with distance downriver from Devils Canyon
(Gipson et al. 1982, 1984).
Side channels and sloughs were the habitat types used most often. Caches, lodges, and dens were
found most often in habitats that had silty banks, willows, and poplars. Little to no sign of beaver
activity was found in any section of the mainstem of the Susitna River during summer surveys
(Gipson et al. 1984). Above Talkeetna, beaver numbers may be limited by a lack of lodge or
bank den sites, and high water velocity also may prevent year-round occupation (Gipson et al.
1984). Away from the Susitna River, beaver sign was found along slow-flowing sections of most
tributaries, including Portage Creek, the Indian River (especially along a tributary of the Indian
River flowing out of Chulitna Pass), streams along the alternative access-road route between
Gold Creek and Devils Canyon, and Prairie Creek (Gipson et al. 1984).
Spring and fall counts of lodges and food caches were conducted in the middle reach of the
Susitna between Talkeetna and Devils Canyon (Gipson et al. 1984; Woolington et al. 1984,
1985; Woolington 1986). Fall counts were conducted annually during 1982–1985 and spring
counts were conducted in 1984 and 1985. The number of fall food caches detected varied
substantially (Woolington 1986). Observer experience and hydrologic regime were thought to
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-155 December 2011
have the greatest effect on the number of caches detected. Beavers build caches during fall as
water levels drop and stabilize to winter flow levels. If surveys are conducted before water levels
stabilize, cache construction may not yet be underway. It also was possible that the initiation date
of cache construction varied by habitat (main channel, slough, side channel, etc.), although
Woolington (1986) found little evidence to support that idea. The beaver population inhabiting
the floodplain in that reach of river was estimated by assuming that each cache represented five
beavers. Between 1982 and 1985, that population was estimated at 70–220 beavers.
Overwinter survival of colonies during 1983–1984 was high due to a mild spring in 1984; 23 of
27 colonies survived. Two lodges along the main channel and one along an upland slough were
partially destroyed by ice during breakup (Woolington et al. 1984). During 1984–1985, at least
23 of 45 colonies successfully overwintered (Woolington et al. 1985). All evidence of caches or
lodges was destroyed during breakup at 10 sites, 7 of which were on the main channel. Flooding
caused by ice jams destroyed lodges in two sloughs and one side channel. Survival of colonies
was higher in sloughs than in side channels. Survival was lowest in the main channel.
Overwinter survival estimates were considered essential to assess the effects of river flooding
and ice-scour on beaver colonies (Woolington et al. 1985).
During summer, beavers fed primarily on a variety of herbaceous plants, whereas during fall and
winter they ate mostly willows (Salix spp.), balsam popular (Populus balsamifera), and some
birch (Betula spp.) (Gipson et al. 1984). Alders (Alnus spp.) typically were not eaten, but beavers
used them preferentially for construction purposes.
Habitat use varied among years, which may have been due to variability in August and
September flows (Woolington 1986). When flow rate was high, the number of caches
constructed along the main channel was low, but when flow rates were stable by August, then
caches were distributed fairly evenly among the main channel, side sloughs, and upland sloughs.
4.6.2.1.1.9. Other Furbearers
Other species of furbearers occurring in the Susitna River basin include river otter (Lontra
canadensis), marten (Martes americana), mink (Neovison vison), ermine (Mustela erminea),
least weasel (Mustela nivalis), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), coyote (Canis latrans), lynx (Lynx
canadensis), and muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus). No detailed studies of furbearers in the Susitna
basin have been conducted since the original APA Project studies ended. ADF&G management
reports for furbearers (e.g., Schwanke and Tobey 2007) do not include data on density,
population estimates, or habitat preferences. Rather, they present results of trapper questionnaires
as a way of assessing the general abundance of furbearer species and their importance to people.
Marten are considered to be the most important furbearer species for trappers in GMU 13
(Schwanke and Tobey 2007), but harvest data are unavailable because marten hides from that
unit do not have to be sealed, unlike wolf, wolverine, beaver, lynx, and river otter.
The APA Project included studies specific to marten, red fox, and muskrat. Observations of
coyote, lynx, and weasels, however, were recorded incidentally to other work (Gipson et al.
1982, 1984; Buskirk 1983, 1984; Buskirk and MacDonald 1984; Buskirk and McDonald 1989;
Hobgood 1984).
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-156 December 2011
4.6.2.1.1.9.1. Marten
The population density of marten in the area that would have been inundated by both of the
original APA Susitna Hydroelectric Project reservoirs was estimated at 84.7 animals/100 km²
(38.6 mi²), based on aerial track surveys, estimates of home-range size, and habitat associations
(Gipson et al. 1984). Marten occurred from Portage Creek to the Tyrone River, but their density
was highest between Devil Creek and Vee Canyon (Gipson et al. 1982) (Figure 4.6.1). The total
population of marten in both impoundment zones was estimated as a minimum of 218 animals,
but aerial track surveys suggested that the population could be up to twice that number (Gipson
et al. 1984). Nearly three times as many marten were estimated to inhabit the Watana
impoundment zone as the Devils Canyon impoundment zone (Gipson et al. 1982). Marten rarely
crossed water that would require them to swim; the Susitna River and larger creeks formed home
range boundaries (Gipson et al. 1982).
Marten were most common in coniferous and mixed forest below 1,000 m (3,281 ft) elevation
(Gipson et al. 1982). Habitat use in the study area was measured by the numbers of tracks
observed during winter in different vegetation types (Gipson et al. 1984). Marten tracks occurred
most frequently in forest and woodland cover types and less frequently in shrub cover types, in
relation to the availability of those types in the survey area (Gipson et al. 1984). Winter resting
sites typically were located in old or active squirrel nests (Gipson et al. 1984). Food habits were
studied by analyzing marten scat and gastrointestinal tract contents (Gipson et al. 1984).
Microtine rodents and squirrels were the most important food classes during fall, winter, and
spring. Too few marten scats were collected during summer to include in seasonal analyses.
4.6.2.1.1.9.2. Red Fox
Denning surveys showed that the most red fox dens by far occurred on the north side of the
upstream reach of the Susitna River (Figure 4.6-15), despite extensive searches on the south side
(Gipson et al. 1982). Typical den locations were 1,000–1,200 m (3,280–3,936 ft) elevation on
south-facing slopes with sandy soils and a good view of the surrounding area; most dens were
adjacent to lakes. The population density in the study area was estimated at 1 family/83 km² (32
mi²; Gipson et al. 1982).
Winter surveys found most fox tracks at 516–1,129 m (1,692–3,704 ft) elevation and track
density increased with distance upstream from Devils Canyon (Gipson et al. 1982). Track
densities were similar on both sides of the river except for the area between Kosina Creek and
the Tyone River, where tracks were more abundant on the south side of the river, most likely due
to the presence of dispersing foxes. A major dispersal period occurred in mid-November (Gipson
et al. 1984), when dispersers generally moved toward the upper reaches of the river, crossing
from the north side to the south side. On the south side of the river, the habitat above Vee
Canyon transitioned to marshy flats, which provided good foraging habitat for foxes (Gipson et
al. 1982). Radiotelemetry data showed that dispersing foxes readily crossed the Susitna River
(Gipson et al. 1982).
Date: Nov 2011Scale: As Noted
Proposed Watana Damand Powerhouse
Proposed Watana Reservoir
Denali Highwa
y
George Parks HighwayCantwell
Fox Dens
State of AlaskaSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC No.14241
Figure 4.6-15Ü
0 10 205Miles
Legend
kj Proposed Watana Dam and Powerhouse
Proposed Watana Reservoir
Susitna River
Selected Tributaries in Susitna River Watershed
Susitna River Basin
Highway
Alaska Railroad
!.Selected Populated Place
Fox Study Area
Fox Habitat Site Type
.Primary Site
(Primary Alternate Site
!Secondary Site
#Tertiary Site
*Shelter Site
source: APA 1985b
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-158 December 2011
4.6.2.1.1.9.3. Muskrat
Aerial surveys for muskrat pushups were flown upstream from Gold Creek during spring 1980
(Gipson et al. 1982). Muskrat sign was seen most often in lakes on plateaus above the river
valley, at 610–730 m (2,001–2,395 ft) elevation. Muskrat in the upstream area appeared to
depend on fairly small, isolated areas of wetland habitats. Muskrat also were seen along slow-
moving sections of creeks and at locations where creeks drained into larger streams, particularly
near the Stephan Lake–Prairie Creek and Deadman Lake–Deadman Creek drainages.
4.6.2.1.1.9.4. Other Species
Other species, including river otter, mink, and weasels, were included in track surveys flown
along the Susitna River upstream from Devils Canyon (Gipson et al. 1982). River otters were
distributed fairly evenly throughout the upper Susitna drainage below 1,200 m (3,936 ft)
elevation. During a November survey, large numbers of otter tracks were seen on shelf ice along
the Susitna River; those otters may have been feeding on grayling as the fish left tributaries to
overwinter in the Susitna. Mink tracks were observed along all major tributaries below 1,200 m
elevation; 50 percent of all mink tracks were in the upper reaches of the Watana impoundment
zone. Most (87 percent) of the weasel tracks recorded were in the upper reaches of the study area
near the Oshetna River; overall, 80 percent of weasel tracks were found in black spruce
woodland or medium-height shrubland. Studies of furbearers in the downstream area were
limited to a single August survey of beaver and muskrat along the Susitna River from Devils
Canyon to Cook Inlet (Gipson et al. 1982).
4.6.2.1.1.10. Small Mammals
Small mammals found in the Susitna River basin include the snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus),
porcupine (Erithizon dorsatum), hoary marmot (Marmota caligata), arctic ground squirrel
(Spermophilus parryii), red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), pika (Ochotona collaris),
several species of voles, mice, and shrews, and the little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus) (Table 4.6-
1). The meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius) was not recorded during the original APA
Susitna Hydroelectric Project studies but has since been documented from the middle Susitna
River (MacDonald and Cook 2009). The occurrence of the northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys
sabrinus) in the region is unknown and in need of clarification (MacDonald and Cook 2009) but,
if present, the species probably does not occur in the middle or upper reaches.
The species composition, relative abundance, and habitat use of small mammals in the middle
and upper Susitna River basin were studied in 1980 and 1981 along 49 trapline transects (using
both snap-traps and pitfall traps) located in a variety of different habitat types (Kessel et al.
1982). The little brown bat and water shrew were not captured during the APA Project study but
were included in the list of species based on sight records and tracks, respectively (Kessel et al.
1982), and on specimen data collected in the surrounding region since the APA Project studies
ended. The study area for small mammal studies extended from Sherman (near Gold Creek) on
the west to the mouth of the Maclaren River on the east and for approximately 16 km (10 mi) on
each side of the Susitna River. No surveys of small mammals were conducted downstream of
Sherman.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-159 December 2011
The most abundant and widespread small mammal species in the study area were the cinereus
shrew (Sorex cinereus), northern red-backed vole (Myodes rutilus), and arctic ground squirrel.
Red-backed voles and ground squirrels were thought to be the most important prey species for
predators (both birds and mammals) in the upper Susitna River basin. Population levels of most
shrews and voles varied considerably during the study period, but their relative abundance
rankings remained unchanged. Patterns of habitat occupancy among these species indicated that
shrews and red-backed voles were habitat generalists, exploiting a wide range of vegetation
types, whereas meadow voles, tundra voles, singing voles, and lemmings were habitat
specialists, using a narrower range of tundra and herbaceous vegetation types. Meadow voles and
singing voles were the most selective, with the former preferring wet and mesic sedge–grass
meadows and the latter preferring herbaceous shrub tundra. Habitat occupancy patterns were
affected by changes in density and probably by competition among species.
Six species of small mammals occurring in the study area were not sampled directly by Kessel et
al. (1982): arctic ground squirrel, hoary marmot, collared pika, red squirrel, porcupine, and
snowshoe hare. Of those species, the arctic ground squirrel was the most abundant in the
upstream study area and was considered to be ecologically important. Collared pikas and hoary
marmots were locally common in alpine habitats, whereas red squirrels, snowshoe hares, and
porcupines were fairly common to uncommon in forest and shrub habitats at lower elevations.
Snowshoe hares, which constitute an important prey species for predators throughout interior
Alaska, generally were restricted in the upper basin to areas east of Watana Creek. Localized
high-density pockets of hares occurred in the vicinities of Jay Creek, Goose Creek, and the lower
Oshetna River. Long-term information on hare abundance, provided by several local residents,
suggested that the low numbers of hares in 1980 and 1981 were typical for the area, rather than
representing a low phase in a population cycle.
No detailed studies of small mammals in the Susitna River basin have been conducted since the
original APA Project studies. Species inventories are available in neighboring regions such as
Denali National Park and Preserve (Cook and MacDonald 2003) and Fort Richardson near
Anchorage (Peirce 2003), and long-term population monitoring (1992–2005) of three species of
voles was conducted in Denali National Park and Preserve (Rexstad and Debevec 2006).
The most noteworthy change since completion of the original APA Project studies is the
recognition and description of a new species — the Alaska tiny shrew (Sorex yukonicus;
Dokuchaev 1997), the smallest mammal in North America. The earliest specimen was trapped in
1982 near the upper Susitna River during the original APA Project study, but was identified at
the time as a cinereus shrew. By the late 1990s, the species had been recorded over a broad area
of interior, western, and northern Alaska, and inventory and monitoring efforts on national
parklands in 2000 through 2003 added greatly to the knowledge of the species. By 2007, the total
number collected statewide had increased to 38 specimens from at least 22 locations
(MacDonald and Cook 2009). Early information on habitat affinities indicated it occurred
primarily in riparian habitats, but as trapping efforts expanded, it also was captured in scrub
habitats.
The Alaska Natural Heritage Program classifies the Alaska tiny shrew as “unrankable” globally
(GU), presumably because little information is available, and as “vulnerable” in the state (S3;
AKNHP 2011a), probably due to its restricted range and relatively few populations. The species
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-160 December 2011
is listed as a sensitive species by BLM (2010a), presumably because of its S3 ranking by
AKHNP. That ranking warrants further scrutiny, however, in view of the species’ cryptic nature,
the possibility of misidentification, the difficulty of capture, and its widespread distribution, as
documented by inventory work in various parts of the state in the relatively brief time since the
species was described (MacDonald and Cook 2009). Shrews generally are underrepresented in
older studies due to sampling methods used at the time.
Other changes since the original APA Project studies have involved taxonomic and
nomenclatural changes for various species. For example, the tundra shrew was split from the
arctic shrew, which no longer is considered to occur in Alaska, and the names of several genera
have changed (MacDonald and Cook 2009).
4.6.2.1.1.11. Marine Mammals
Two species of marine mammals, the harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) and the Cook Inlet beluga
whale , seasonally utilize the Susitna River delta area.
All marine mammals are afforded protection under the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA); additionally, Cook Inlet beluga whales are classified as endangered under the ESA and
critical habitat has been designated for the whales that includes the Susitna River area. The Cook
Inlet distinct population segment (DPS) of the beluga whale is the most abundant marine
mammal in upper Cook Inlet and, specifically, in Susitna delta area. Cook Inlet beluga whales
are discussed in Section 4.8.1.3.
Harbor seals also frequently occur in the delta.The Gulf of Alaska stock of harbor seals, which
includes Cook Inlet seals, is not classified as a strategic or depleted stock and is not listed under
the ESA (Allen and Angliss 2010). New genetic information on harbor seals in Alaska which
indicates the current division of Alaskan harbor seals into the Southeast Alaska, Gulf of Alaska,
and Bering Sea stocks needs to be reassessed. The most recent population estimate for this stock
was 45,975 (Allen and Angliss 2010).
Harbor seals are more abundant in lower Cook Inlet than in the upper inlet, but they also occur in
upper Cook Inlet throughout the year. A traditional haulout site is located near the West
Forelands, although harbor seals have also been reported to haulout intermittently near the
Susitna River delta and in Turnagain Arm at Chickaloon Bay (Nemeth et al. 2007).
In Cook Inlet, harbor seals are year-round residents; they move into the upper inlet in summer,
coinciding with movements of their anadromous fish prey such as eulachon and salmon. Harbor
seals occasionally forage near river mouths during summer and fall salmon runs when fish
aggregate there typically in large numbers. During salmon runs, seals have been observed in
upper Cook Inlet in the Susitna River and are believed to enter other Cook Inlet rivers (e.g.,
Shelden et al. 2008; Shelden, Rugh, et al. 2009; Shelden, Goetz, et al. 2009). Harbor seals were
seen at the Susitna Delta during offshore surveys from May through October 2006 (Nemeth et al.
2007). Harbor seals were seen in 71 different events, totaling 130 individual seals. Harbor seals
were sighted during all months of the study period, with two-thirds of sightings occurring in May
and June. Harbor seals were seen on 72 occasions during offshore surveys, for a total of 130
individual harbor seals. The most seals sighted were in the mouth or delta of the Susitna River
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-161 December 2011
during June, with seals sighted adjacent to, or hauled out on the mudflats. The most common
group size was one or two individuals, however, on June 2, a group of 48 were observed; eight of
the seals in this large group in the water adjacent to the mudflats and the remaining 40 were
hauled out on the edge of the mudflats. Sightings declined steeply in July with only four
sightings in the Susitna Flats area. From July through October, harbor seals were rarely seen in
the Susitna Flats area (Nemeth et al. 2007). During winter, seals are absent from the upper inlet
and have likely moved into the lower inlet.
4.6.2.1.2. Birds
At least 142 bird species are known or are likely to occur in the Susitna basin (Table 4.6-2), of
which 135 were recorded in the upper and middle basins during the APA Project studies in
1980–1981 (Kessel et al. 1982). All migratory species of birds are protected under the federal
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and several migratory bird conventions. Eagles also are protected
under the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
Since the original APA Project studies ended in the 1980s, a number of bird species have been
identified by various entities as being of conservation or management concern. Most relevant to
this analysis is the Memorandum of Understanding between the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission and the U.S. Department of the Interior United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Regarding Implementation of Executive Order 13186, “Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to
protect Migratory Birds,” which went into effect on March 30, 2011. That agreement was
created to establish a voluntary framework to ensure that both agencies cooperate to conserve
birds and their habitats by identifying and mitigating potential adverse effects resulting from the
development of energy infrastructure. The MOU defines bird “species of concern” as those
species (1) listed by USFWS as Birds of Conservation Concern (USFWS 2008); (2) priority
migratory species identified in various bird conservation plans (BPIF 1999; Kushlan et al. 2002,
2006; ASG 2008); (3) species or populations of waterfowl of high or moderately high continental
importance (NAWMP 2004); (4) species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA
(which also are listed as Birds of Conservation Concern, USFWS 2008); and (5) gamebirds of
management concern (USFWS 2009a). In addition to those lists, the State of Alaska identifies
“featured species” in its comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, and BLM has created a
list of sensitive species (BLM 2010a) and a related “watchlist” of species about which concern
has been expressed (BLM 2010b), but which have not been classified as sensitive species.
The resulting list of 103 special status bird species potentially occuring in the Susitna River basin
can be found in Section 4.8.1.2 (Table 4.8-2).
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-162 December 2011
Table 4.6-2. Bird species recorded, or likely to occur, in the Susitna River basin (reprinted
from ABR 2011b).
English Name Scientific Name Status1 Relative Abundance2
Greater White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons M uncommon
Snow Goose Chen caerulescens M uncommon
Brant Brant bernicla M not present
Canada Goose Branta canadensis M uncommon
Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator B fairly common
Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus M uncommon
Gadwall Anas strepera M, S rare
American Wigeon Anas americana B fairly common
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos B common
Blue-winged Teal Anas discors M rare
Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata B uncommon
Northern Pintail Anas acuta B common
Green-winged Teal Anas crecca B fairly common
Canvasback Aythya valisineria M uncommon
Redhead Aythya americana M uncommon
Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris M rare
Greater Scaup Aythya marila B common
Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis B common
Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus B fairly common
Surf Scoter Melanitta perspicillata B fairly common
White-winged Scoter Melanitta fusca M fairly common
Black Scoter Melanitta americana B fairly common
Long-tailed Duck Clangula hyemalis B fairly common
Bufflehead Bucephala albeola M uncommon
Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula B fairly common
Barrow’s Goldeneye Bucephala islandica B fairly common
Common Merganser Mergus merganser B uncommon
Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator B uncommon
Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus R rare
Spruce Grouse Falcipennis canadensis R fairly common
Willow Ptarmigan Lagopus lagopus R common
Rock Ptarmigan Lagopus muta R common
White-tailed Ptarmigan Lagopus leucura R uncommon
Red-throated Loon Gavia stellata B uncommon
Pacific Loon Gavia pacifica B uncommon
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-163 December 2011
English Name Scientific Name Status1 Relative Abundance2
Common Loon Gavia immer B fairly common
Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus B uncommon
Red-necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena B uncommon
Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus ? rare
Osprey Pandion haliaetus M rare
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus B uncommon
Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus B fairly common
Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus B uncommon
Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis B uncommon
Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis B uncommon
Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos B fairly common
American Kestrel Falco sparverius M rare
Merlin Falco columbarius B uncommon
Gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus R uncommon
Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus M unknown
Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis M uncommon
American Golden-Plover Pluvialis dominica B common
Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus B uncommon
Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularius B common
Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria B uncommon
Wandering Tattler Tringa incana B, M uncommon
Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca B uncommon
Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes B, M fairly common
Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda B rare
Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus B uncommon
Unidentified turnstone Arenaria sp. M rare
Surfbird Aphriza virgata B rare
Sanderling Calidris alba M rare
Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla B, M uncommon
Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla B fairly common
Baird’s Sandpiper Calidris bairdii B uncommon
Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos M uncommon
Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus M uncommon
Wilson’s Snipe Gallinago delicata B common
Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus B fairly common
Black-legged Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla M rare
Bonaparte’s Gull Chroicocephalus philadelphia B, S uncommon
Mew Gull Larus canus B, S common
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-164 December 2011
English Name Scientific Name Status1 Relative Abundance2
Herring Gull Larus argentatus M, S uncommon
Arctic Tern Sterna paradisaea B fairly common
Parasitic Jaeger Stercorarius parasiticus M rare
Long-tailed Jaeger Stercorarius longicaudus B fairly common
Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus R uncommon
Snowy Owl Bubo scandiacus M rare
Northern Hawk Owl Surnia ulula R uncommon
Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus B?, M, S uncommon
Boreal Owl Aegolius funereus R rare
Belted Kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon B uncommon
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius ? rare
Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens R uncommon
Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus R uncommon
American Three-toed Woodpecker Picoides dorsalis R uncommon
Black-backed Woodpecker Picoides arcticus R rare
Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus B uncommon
Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi B uncommon
Western Wood-Pewee Contopus sordidulus B rare
Alder Flycatcher Empidonax alnorum B uncommon
Say’s Phoebe Sayornis saya B uncommon
Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus A accidental
Northern Shrike Lanius excubitor B uncommon
Gray Jay Perisoreus canadensis R common
Black-billed Magpie Pica hudsonia R uncommon
Common Raven Corvus corax R common
Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris B common
Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor B fairly common
Violet-green Swallow Tachycineta thalassina B fairly common
Bank Swallow Riparia riparia B common
Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota B common
Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus R uncommon
Boreal Chickadee Poecile hudsonicus R fairly common
Brown Creeper Certhia americana B uncommon
American Dipper Cinclus mexicanus R uncommon
Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa M uncommon
Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula B common
Arctic Warbler Phylloscopus borealis B fairly common
Northern Wheatear Oenanthe oenanthe B uncommon
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-165 December 2011
English Name Scientific Name Status1 Relative Abundance2
Townsend’s Solitaire Myadestes townsendi B uncommon
Gray-cheeked Thrush Catharus minimus B fairly common
Swainson’s Thrush Catharus ustulatus B fairly common
Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus B common
American Robin Turdus migratorius B common
Varied Thrush Ixoreus naevius B common
American Pipit Anthus rubescens B common
Bohemian Waxwing Bombycilla garrulus B common
Lapland Longspur Calcarius lapponicus B abundant
Smith’s Longspur Calcarius pictus B uncommon
Snow Bunting Plectrophenax nivalis B fairly common
Orange-crowned Warbler Oreothlypis celata B uncommon
Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia B rare
Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata B common
Townsend’s Warbler3 Dendroica townsendi ? ?
Blackpoll Warbler Dendroica striata B fairly common
Northern Waterthrush Parkesia noveboracensis B fairly common
Wilson’s Warbler Wilsonia pusilla B common
American Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea B abundant
Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis B abundant
Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca B fairly common
Lincoln’s Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii B uncommon
White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys B abundant
Golden-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla B uncommon
Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis B common
Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus B?, M, S uncommon
Gray-crowned Rosy-Finch Leucosticte tephrocotis B common
Pine Grosbeak Pinicola enucleator R uncommon
White-winged Crossbill Loxia leucoptera B, S fairly common
Common Redpoll Acanthis flammea R abundant
Pine Siskin Spinus pinus B uncommon
1 M = migrant (transient); B = breeding; S = summering; R = resident; ? = uncertain (Kessel et al. 1982; APA 1985b:
Appendices E5.3 and E6.3).
2 From Kessel et al. (1982) and APA (1985b: Appendices E5.3 and E6.3).
3 Added here by ABR, based on probable occurrence in lower basin (Matsuoka et al. 1997).
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-166 December 2011
4.6.2.1.2.1. Raptors
The FERC license application for the APA Project (APA 1983) provided information on 53
nesting locations used by raptors and ravens in the middle and upper Susitna River basin. Those
locations were discovered during raptor surveys conducted in 1974 (White 1974), 1980-1981
(Kessel et a1. 1982), and during field work on other avian species in the project area in 1982.
Later surveys identified 14 more raptor nesting locations, bringing the total to 67 (Roseneau
1984, APA 1985b). Raptor surveys were not conducted downstream in the lower Susitna
drainage, but some eagle nest locations were recorded there during moose surveys (Modafferi
1987).
White (1974) found 10 active nests in the area he surveyed, including two Gyrfalcon (Falco
rusticolus), one Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and seven Common Raven (Corvus
corax) nests, along with 14 inactive nests (eight ravens and three each of Golden Eagle [Aquila
chrysaetos] and Bald Eagle). Active sites located during the two years of study by Kessel et al.
(1982) included four Common Ravens, one to two Gyrfalcons, and one Northern Goshawk
(Accipiter gentilis) nest. Kessel et al. (1982) reported a linear nesting density for Bald Eagles of
0.04 nest/km (0.07 nests/mi) along the upper Susitna River. No Peregrine Falcons (Falco
perigrinus) were found nesting in the APA Project study area in the early 1980s (Kessel et al.
1982). In 1984, two previously known nesting locations of Golden Eagles were reevaluated and
seven more eagle nests (five Golden Eagles, and two Bald Eagles) were found (LGL 1984); five
of the eagle nests were in outlying areas not previously surveyed and two nests were in
previously surveyed areas along the river. A total of 33 eagle nests (23 Golden Eagle and ten
Bald Eagle) were located in the APA Project area in the middle Susitna basin in 1984, but only
four of the Golden Eagle nests and seven of the Bald Eagle nests were active that year (Roseneau
1984). Kessel et. al (1982) and Roseneau (1984) include text descriptions of historic nest
locations, but maps were not included.
The USFWS surveyed approximately 805 linear km (500 mi) of river within the Susitna drainage
basin for nesting Bald Eagles in May 1988 (Parker 1988), locating 69 nests (49 active), of which
26 nests (20 active) were on the Susitna River. Linear density ranged from zero to 0.18 nests/km
(0.29 nests/mi), with the highest density occurring on the Susitna River from Talkeetna
downstream to the mouth. All nest trees were black cottonwoods (Populus tricocarpa), except
for two white spruces (Picea glauca). A nest tree was typically the largest in a stand of
cottonwoods, and was located within 18 m of the river. It was estimated that 58 Bald Eagle
nesting territories occurred on the Susitna River, with five additional territories farther away
from the river in the Susitna Flats. The nest occupancy rate on that survey was 71 percent, much
higher than the 22 percent reported by King (1980; cited in Parker 1988). The difference may be
attributable to a difference in survey timing; the 1980 survey was conducted in mid-April, when
some nests may not yet have been occupied.
Ritchie and Ambrose (1996) summarized information on nesting distribution, breeding ecology,
and migration of Bald Eagles in interior Alaska, including portions of the Susitna River. Most
nests along the Tanana River were within 100 m of a shoreline. Along the Tanana and the
Susitna rivers, most nest trees were balsam poplars, but white spruces were used commonly.
Birds, especially waterfowl, were an important part of the diet of Bald Eagles, particularly in the
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-167 December 2011
spring. Salmon were the most important food in late summer and fall. Eagles typically began
nesting activities in late April and most young fledged by late August. Recaptures of banded
birds indicated that some Bald Eagles nesting in interior Alaska wintered at widespread locations
in the continental U.S. The numbers of nest territories were estimated for several individual
drainage areas, including the Susitna basin (150–250 nesting pairs). For interior Alaska overall,
the number of nesting pairs was estimated at 525–725, with a fall population (including
subadults and nonterritorial adults) of over 2,000 birds. The population of Bald Eagles appeared
to be increasing, attributed to a combination of factors: (1) restrictions on organochlorine
pesticides since 1973, (2) decreased persecution of eagles by humans in Alaska, (3) expanding
eagle populations elsewhere in North America, and (4) warming climate.
Using aerial transect surveys, NRC (2010) surveyed Bald Eagle nest sites during 25-30 April
2010 in the Matanuska–Susitna Borough, including the Susitna River floodplain downstream to
the mouth from the vicinity of Trapper Creek, the area between the Susitna River and Knik Arm,
and the area around Wasilla and Palmer (Figure 4.6.1). A partial survey was flown along the
middle reach of the Susitna River up to Indian River, locating seven nests. In all, 221 nest
locations were recorded on that survey, of which approximately 101 were active nests.
Two previously undescribed eagle nests (one of each species) and a raven nest were found in a
small survey area, including 4 km (2.5 mi) of the Susitna River, near the locations of proposed
boreholes at a prospective material site south of the Watana dam site in late June 2011 (ABR
2011a), suggesting that nest distribution may have expanded since the original APA Project
studies.
4.6.2.1.2.2. Waterbirds and Shorebirds
Annual population surveys of breeding waterfowl are conducted by USFWS throughout Alaska,
and several transects within the Stratum 2–Nelchina survey area are located in the upper Susitna
River basin (Mallek and Groves 2009a), east of the proposed Watana reservoir. The westernmost
transect (oriented northeast–southwest) in that stratum parallels the Oshetna River and the
northeast–southwest stretch of the Susitna River just upriver from the Oshetna (Figure 4.6.1).
Ten transects, sampling 135 km² (52 mi²), extend from that western transect eastward across the
Nelchina and Copper River basins to Chistochina and Indian River. Twelve species were
recorded on surveys of that area in 2009; the most abundant taxa were the two species of scaup
(Athya spp.), Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola), scoters (Melanitta spp.), Mallard (Anas
platyrhynchos), and American Wigeon (Anas americana) (Mallek and Groves 2009b).
A complete census of Trumpeter Swans on their breeding grounds in Alaska began in 1968 and
was repeated at 5-year intervals between 1975 and 2005 (Conant et al. 2007). Together, two
survey areas (Unit 3–Gulkana and Unit 5–Cook Inlet) include the entire Susitna River basin
(Conant et al. 2007: Figure 1). The population of Trumpeter Swans (Cygnus buccinator)
summering in Alaska has increased since 1975 and breeding has expanded into peripheral
habitat. In Unit 3–Gulkana, the count of swans was highest in 1995 (~4,500 adults and young),
with slightly lower numbers in 2000 and 2005. In Unit 5–Cook Inlet, the count of swans was
highest in 2005 (~2,600 adults and young), an increase of over 1,000 from the 2000 census.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-168 December 2011
For the original APA Project studies, lakes, ponds, and wetlands were surveyed in 1980 and
1981 for waterfowl and shorebirds using ground-census methods during the breeding season and
aerial surveys during migration (Figure 4.6-16, Kessel et al. 1982). Brood surveys were
conducted on foot in July 1981 to document the presence of breeding waterbirds (adults with
young). Aerial surveys were conducted by helicopter for migrating waterbirds (loons, grebes,
and waterfowl) in spring 1981 and fall 1980 and 1981. Little survey effort was expended along
the middle reach of the Susitna downstream to Talkeetna.
To quantify the use of waterbodies by migrating waterbirds and identify those used most heavily
by various species and groups, a relative “importance value” was derived for each surveyed
waterbody in each season, incorporating the number of species, the number of birds, and the
density of birds on the waterbody in relation to the overall numbers and densities recorded on the
surveys. Kessel et al. (1982) compared the use of waterbodies on the Susitna plateau with those
in the upper Tanana River valley in east–central Alaska and concluded that the Susitna plateau,
comprising mostly high-elevation subalpine habitats, was not a major migratory route for
waterbirds.
4.6.2.1.2.3. Landbirds
Breeding landbirds and some shorebirds were studied for the original APA Project using a
modified territory-mapping technique on repeated visits to 12 census plots, each 10 ha (24.7 ac)
in size, during 20 May–3 July 1981 (Kessel et al. 1982). Except for the alpine tundra site, each
plot was established in a uniform area of one of the major woody habitats used by birds in the
region (one plot per habitat type). The alpine tundra plot included several of the common habitats
found at higher elevations in the study area. More than 60 habitat variables were measured on the
plots for analysis of habitat selection and avian community data were summarized in terms of
species composition, richness, diversity, and breeding density and biomass. The relative
abundance of species was determined to be largely a function of habitat availability, with
Common Redpoll (Acanthis flammea), Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis), White-
crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), Lapland Longspur (Calcarius lapponicus), and Tree
Sparrow (Tachiycineta bicolor) being the most abundant landbird species (Kessel et al. 1982).
Wintering birds were surveyed in the 12 APA Project census plots in February 1981 (MacDonald
and Cooper 1981) and resident birds were censused later in the project during early winter (29
November–1 December 1984), midwinter (23–25 January 1985), and late winter (27–29 March
1985), along two line transects in the Devils Canyon area and four transects in the Watana area
(LGL 1986). Thirteen species were recorded during the winter surveys in 1981 (MacDonald and
Cooper 1981) and 11 species were recorded in 1984–1985 (LGL 1986). In total, 16 species were
seen in at least one winter survey. The most abundant resident birds were ptarmigan and redpolls
in 1981 and Boreal Chickadee and Gray Jay in 1984–1985.
Survey methods for breeding landbirds have been further refined and standardized since the
original APA Project studies. Several roadside routes on the Denali and Parks highways have
been surveyed as part of the North American Breeding Bird Survey
(http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/) since the 1980s, providing supplemental information on
regional species composition and abundance. Landbirds have been monitored in Denali National
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-169 December 2011
Park and Preserve over the last couple of decades, and several sites have been established there
as part of the Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) Program
(http://www.birdpop.org/maps.htm). McIntyre (2006) reported changes in the abundance of
selected species in Denali National Park and Preserve.
Date: Nov 2011Scale: As Noted
Proposed Watana Damand Powerhouse
Proposed Watana Reservoir
Denali Highwa
y
George Parks HighwayCantwell
Maclaren River/Tyone River
Tyone River/Oshetna River
Fog Lakes Group IIPortage Creek/Devil Creek Fog Lakes Group I
Lower Deadman Creek Group
Upper Deadman Creek Group
Lower Portage Creek Group Lower Watana Creek Group
Waterfowl Lakes
State of AlaskaSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC No.14241
Figure 4.6-16Ü
0 8.5 174.25 Miles
Legend
kj Proposed Watana Dam and Powerhouse
Proposed Watana Reservoir
Susitna River
Selected Tributaries in Susitna River Watershed
Susitna River Basin
Highway
Alaska Railroad
!.Selected Populated Place
Waterfowl Lakes
source: APA 1985b
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-171 December 2011
4.6.2.1.3. Amphibians
4.6.2.1.3.1. Wood Frog
Amphibians were not included in the original APA Project environmental program studies.
However, amphibians are of increasing conservation concern worldwide because of widespread
population declines and loss of local populations (Collins and Storfer 2003, McCallum 2007). Of
the eight species of amphibians that occur in the state of Alaska, only one inhabits interior
Alaska—the wood frog, Lithobates (formerly Rana) sylvatica, which is the most common
amphibian in Alaska (MacDonald 2003). The species occurs in suitable habitats throughout
southern Alaska and in the interior north to the southern slopes of the Brooks Range. Wood frogs
appear to be common throughout interior Alaska, but few quantitative data exist to evaluate their
abundance. Wood frogs have been captured in Denali National Park and Preserve and are known
to occur near Healy and in the lower Susitna drainage (Cook and MacDonald 2003; Anderson
2004; Gotthardt 2004, 2005; Hokit and Brown 2006). Recent studies of wood frogs in
Southcentral Alaska indicated that the species was “widespread and abundant” in developed
areas along eastern Cook Inlet (Gotthardt 2004), although anecdotal reports from the Kenai
Peninsula, Anchorage bowl, and the Talkeetna area suggested that wood frogs were no longer
present at some historical breeding sites (Gotthardt 2005). Resource management agencies have
devoted more attention to inventorying and monitoring wood frog populations due to population
declines of amphibians elsewhere in North America and to reports of deformities in wood frogs
elsewhere in Alaska (Anderson 2004).
Wood frogs occur in a wide variety of habitats during the year, moving into wetland areas to
breed in the spring (beginning late April–early May) and then moving into adjacent wetland and
upland habitats, usually within a few hundred yards of the breeding areas, during the summer
(MacDonald 2003). Beaver ponds provide high-value habitat for wood frogs (Stevens et al.
2006). Egg-laying occurs in small ponds or lakes in wooded or open habitats; wood frogs
reportedly avoid egg predation by fish by selecting waterbodies that are free of fish (Gotthardt
2005). Birds such as gulls prey on frogs during the breeding season. Wood frog breeding
populations may vary by a factor of 10 and juvenile populations may vary by a factor of 100
among years (Berven 1990). Adult survival depends on rainfall, drought, and winter severity
(Berven 1990, Anderson 2004). Wood frogs hibernate throughout the winter, entering
hibernation as early as late August; the species is remarkable because of its ability to tolerate
freezing during winter hibernation by producing chemicals that act as a natural “antifreeze” to
prevent cell disruption (MacDonald 2003).
4.6.3. Botanical Resources
An array of plant species and vegetative communities occurs in the Project area. The areas
examined for the assessment of botanical resources includes the Susitna River watershed
upstream from the proposed Watana dam site, the riparian corridor encompassing the Susitna
floodplain downstream from the proposed dam site to the confluence with the Chulitna River and
continuing an as-yet-undefined distance farther downstream in the lower river, as well as along
corridors for access roads and transmission line routes and the areas affected by infrastructure
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-172 December 2011
needed at the dam site. The existing information on vegetation types, plant species, and wildlife
habitats pertinent to the Project can be grouped into four broad categories:
occurrence and distribution of vegetation types;
plant species occurrence, including rare and invasive species;
studies of the availability and quality of browse for moose; and
assessment of habitat values for a broad range of mammal and bird species.
4.6.3.1. Vegetation Types
Relatively recent land-cover maps (BLM et al. 2002a, 2002b) covering parts of the Susitna River
basin were produced for Ducks Unlimited, Inc., in cooperation with BLM and the U.S. Air
Force, based on classification of satellite imagery. Two separate mapping efforts were
conducted—one for the upper Susitna River drainage and Gulkana area (BLM et al. 2002a),
which covers much of the APA Project study area, and the other for the lower Susitna River
drainage, Cook Inlet, and westward (BLM et al. 2002b)—but a sizable gap in map coverage
occurs around the middle reach of the Susitna River (Figure 4.6-17). The classification scheme
used for both maps was a modification of the Alaska Vegetation Classification (AVC) (Viereck
et al. 1992), including a combination of Level III and Level IV. The classification does not
differentiate among types of tall shrubs or distinguish low alder from low willow, both of which
are key factors when evaluating habitat value for moose for example. Few of the field sites used
to verify map accuracy were located in the Project study area, so the vegetation types mapped
there may not be represented accurately. In addition, the map that covers most of the original
APA Susitna Hydroelectric Project study area (BLM et al. 2002b) was based on a composite of
three Landsat scenes from different years and different dates during the growing season,
resulting in increased variability of spectral signatures across the scenes.
Another land-cover map of the entire Susitna basin is available through the National Land Cover
Dataset (NLCD) (Stehman and Selkowitz 2010), which is based on a classification of Landsat
imagery. This work was part of a nationwide land-cover mapping effort and the mapping,
performed at a 30-m-pixel scale, covers Alaska in its entirety. However, that scale is coarse and
the cover classes mapped are very generalized (roughly equivalent to AVC Level II); hence, this
mapping is of limited use for meaningful assessments of vegetation occurrence or habitat
analyses for the Project.
Fine-scale mapping was conducted specifically for the APA Project by several different groups
of researchers in the early 1980s, which remains the best source of information on the vegetation
communities in the Project area. All maps were hand-drawn on mylar or acetate overlaid on
aerial photos and topographic maps. The University of Alaska Agricultural Experiment Station
(UAAES) conducted vegetation mapping during 1980–1982, based on field work conducted in
1980 (McKendrick et al. 1982). Mapping was based on field data and air-photo interpretation,
and was primarily done to the Level III vegetation classes (e.g., Willow Shrub) presented in the
initial version of the AVC (Viereck and Dyrness 1980). Later, those data were incorporated into
a separate mapping effort that focused on forage availability for moose, for which field work was
conducted in 1984 (Kreig and Associates 1985; as reported in APA 1985a) and the revised
version of the AVC (Viereck et al. 1982) was used.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-173 December 2011
The vegetation mapping by McKendrick et al. (1982) covered a narrow corridor confined to the
Susitna River floodplain upstream from Talkeetna, the mapping corridor then expanded outward
to the basin level at Devils Canyon and upstream of that point (Figure 4.6-17). The1982 mapping
boundary (blue boundary in Figure 4.6-17) was digitized (ABR 2011b) from a scan of an original
map copy included in APA (1983), but the corridor mapped downstream of Devils Canyon was
not available, so is not depicted on the figure. The map scales were 1:24,000 for the areas that
would have been impacted directly by the original APA Project and 1:250,000 for the remainder
of the Susitna River basin. In addition, the area extending 16 km (10 mi) in all directions from
the upper Susitna River from Gold Creek upstream to the mouth of the Maclaren River was
mapped at a scale of 1:63,360. Two other 1:63,360-scale maps, for the proposed northern (Healy
to Fairbanks) and southern (Willow to Cook Inlet) transmission-line corridors, also were
prepared. The central transmission-line corridor was included on the 1:63,360-scale map of
portions of the upper basin. Those maps were included in the report by McKendrick et al. (1982).
The mapping conducted subsequently by Kreig and Associates (1985 [in APA 1985a], 1987)
covered much of the upper and middle Susitna River basin, from the mouths of the Maclaren,
Tyone, and Oshetna rivers (upstream of the proposed Watana dam site) downstream below
Devils Canyon to Gold Creek (red boundary in Figure 4.6-17, digitized from APA 1985a).
Nearly 1.6 million acres were mapped in that effort, which focused primarily on quantifying
habitats with regard to moose forage value. Mapping was conducted at the 1:63,360-scale and
incorporated the previous mapping conducted by McKendrick et al. (1982) and existing ground
data and photography provided by ADF&G, BLM, and the USFS, as well as additional ground
and aerial data. The mapping used the revised AVC scheme of Viereck et al. (1982), with
modifications made as a result of a workshop in March 1984. All vegetation types were mapped
to at least AVC Level III and those types with high forage value for moose (mainly scrub and
forest types) were mapped to AVC Level IV. Each map polygon was assigned values for
understory cover of willows, dwarf birch, and alder.
The description of the occurrence and distribution of vegetation in the upper Susitna River basin
provided below is based on the mapping performed by Kreig and Associates (1985; in APA
1985a). That mapping represents the most current, fine-scale vegetation mapping available for
the APA Project area because the revised vegetation mapping in the final report by Kreig and
Associates (1987) has not yet been located. The 1985 vegetation map encompassed both of the
dam sites proposed for the APA Project and most of the currently envisioned corridors for access
roads and transmission lines. It did not cover the downstream floodplain of the Susitna River
between Gold Creek and Cook Inlet, however. Because neither paper nor digital copies of the
vegetation maps produced by Kreig and Associates have been located, the spatial distribution of
the mapped vegetation types in the upper Susitna River basin cannot be displayed here.
Ninety vegetation types were mapped by Kreig and Associates (1985; in APA 1985a); to
simplify the presentation in this document, those 90 types were aggregated into 34 broader
classes (Table 4.6-3), following the summary approach used by APA (1985a). In most cases, this
aggregation of vegetation types involved combining the open and closed forms of forest and
scrub habitats. For simplicity, areas are listed in the English units (ac) originally used by APA
(1985a), rather than in metric units with English equivalents (for reference, one hectare = 2.47
ac).
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-174 December 2011
Like many areas in Alaska that encompass mountainous terrain and river drainages, the
vegetation and habitat types in the Upper and Middle Susitna River basin are diverse, ranging
from rocky, barren areas and dwarf-scrub alpine tundra at higher elevations to low and tall scrub,
forests, and graminoid-dominated meadow habitats at lower elevations.
Table 4.6-3. Extent and relative abundance of vegetation types mapped in the upper and
middle Susitna River basin for the original APA Susitna Hydroelectric Project.1
Vegetation Type2 Area (ac) percent of Mapped Area
Conifer Forest
White Spruce Forest 33,895 2.1
Black Spruce Forest 25,067 1.6
Black & White Spruce Forest 148,996 9.3
White Spruce Woodland 37,444 2.3
Black Spruce Woodland 819 0.1
Black & White Spruce Woodland 24,915 1.6
Subtotal 271,136 17.0
Broadleaf Forest
Paper Birch Forest 5,852 0.4
Birch–Aspen Forest 2,257 0.1
Other Broadleaf Forest 3,710 0.3
Broadleaf Woodland 1,420 0.1
Subtotal 13,239 0.8
Mixed Forest
Spruce–Birch Forest 94,031 5.9
Spruce–Birch–Poplar Forest 1,215 0.1
Spruce–Birch–Aspen Forest 3,614 0.2
Spruce–Poplar Forest 2,726 0.2
Mixed Woodland 8,819 0.5
Subtotal 110,405 6.9
Dwarf Tree Scrub
Conifer Dwarf Tree Scrub 37,703 2.4
Other Dwarf Tree Scrub 220 <0.05
Subtotal 37,923 2.4
Tall Scrub
Tall Alder Shrub 73,915 4.6
Other Tall Shrub 12,650 0.8
Subtotal 86,565 5.4
Low Scrub
Low Dwarf Birch Shrub 136,115 8.5
Low Willow Shrub 149,736 9.4
Low Ericaceous Shrub 8,006 0.5
Low Dwarf Birch–Willow Shrub 248,829 15.6
Low Dwarf Birch–Ericaceous Shrub 136,120 8.5
Other Low Shrub 597 <0.05
Subtotal 679,403 42.6
Dwarf Scrub 238,248 14.9
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-175 December 2011
Vegetation Type2 Area (ac) percent of Mapped Area
Graminoid Herbaceous
Wet Graminoid Herbaceous 10,621 0.7
Mesic Graminoid Herbaceous 3,550 0.2
Dry Graminoid Herbaceous 115 <0.05
Subtotal 14,286 0.9
Forb & Bryoid Herbaceous 208 <0.05
Sparse Vegetation 38,324 2.4
Barren 74,043 4.6
Water 31,671 2.0
Cultural–Urban Developed 110 <0.05
Total 1,595,561
1 Mapping conducted by Ray A. Kreig and Associates (1985), as reported in APA (1985a).
2 Following the Viereck et al. (1982) classification system, with modifications made as a result of the Alaska Vegetation
Classification workshop conducted in March 1984. Although vegetation complexes were mapped in many cases, only the
major component is represented here to simplify the presentation. All open and closed types in the forest and scrub categories
were aggregated (see text).
Glenn HighwayDenali HighwayParks HighwayLakeLouiseCook InletKnik ArmSkwentna RiverY en tn a R iv e rMatanuska RiverChulitna RiverSusitna RiverTalkeetna R ive rMaclaren RiverSusitna RiverWillowPaxsonPalmerWasillaSkwentnaCantwellTalkeetnaAnchorageGlennallenPetersvilleMcKinley Park143°0'0"W144°0'0"W145°0'0"W146°0'0"W147°0'0"W148°0'0"W149°0'0"W150°0'0"W151°0'0"W152°0'0"W153°0'0"W154°0'0"W63°30'0"N63°30'0"N63°0'0"N63°0'0"N62°30'0"N62°30'0"N62°0'0"N62°0'0"N61°30'0"N61°30'0"N61°0'0"N101000101020203030KmKmSusitnaBasin"NomeBarrowFairbanksAnchorage55005510101515MilesMiles±Land-cover TypeAgricultureAquatic BedBryoidClear WaterClosed DeciduousClosed Mixed Needleleaf/DeciduousClosed NeedleleafClosed WillowClouds, SmokeShadow - Cloud or TerrainCoastal MarshDwarf ShrubEmergentFire ScarLow Shrub - LichenLow Shrub - WetMesic/Dry HerbaceousMossNon-vegetated SoilOpen DeciduousOpen Mixed Needleleaf/DeciduousOpen NeedleleafOpen PoplarOpen WillowSnow/Ice, OtherRock/GravelSaltwaterSandSparse VegetationTall ShrubTidal Mud FlatTurbid WaterTussock TundraUrban/DevelopedWet ForbWet GraminoidWoodland Needleleaf1985 Vegetation Mapping Extent1982 Vegetation Mapping ExtentProposed Watana ReservoirLand-cover mapping comprises final maps from two earth-covermapping projects (Susitna on the west and Gulkana on the east)accomplished through cooperative agreements between DucksUnlimited, Inc., the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, and several other federal, state, and localcooperators. Refer to BLM and DU (2002) and BLM et al. (2003) formore information. Digital mapping data were acquired from DucksUnlimited.Figure 4.6-17Extent of Regional Land-coverand Vegetation Mappingin the Susitna River BasinState of AlaskaSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 14241ABR File: Susitna_Hydro_Landcover_AEA_11-159.mxd; 3 November 2011Date: Nov 2011Scale = 1:1,525,000
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-177 December 2011
4.6.3.1.1. Forest Types
Fifteen forest types were mapped in the upper Susitna River basin, including six coniferous-
dominated types, four broadleaf-dominated types, and five mixed forest types. Forests occur at
lower elevations and covered 394,780 acres or 25 percent of the area mapped by Kreig and
Associates (1985; in APA 1985a). Coniferous-dominated forests are the most common and
covered 271,136 acres or 17 percent of the mapped area. Mixed forests are less common
(110,405 acres or 6.9 percent of the mapped area) and broadleaf-dominated forests are
uncommon (13,239 or 0.8 percent of the mapped area).
The mean elevation of the forest areas sampled was 523 m (1,716 ft), ranging from 335 m to 792
m (1,100–2,600 ft). The average elevational limit for trees (black and white spruce, paper birch,
trembling aspen, and balsam poplar) in the project area was 975 m (3,200 ft) (McKendrick et al.
1982), with a range of 853–1,067 m (2,800–3,500 ft). Black (Picea mariana) and white spruce
are the most frequent species at or near treeline. The deciduous trees—paper birch (Betula
papyrifera) and trembling aspen (Populus trembuloides)—generally occur below 701 m (2,300
ft) and balsam poplar stands are found only on floodplains. Black spruce generally occurs on
wetter sites than white spruce and both species of spruce occur on colder sites than do deciduous
or mixed forests. For all tree species, closed forests occur on warmer sites more often than do
open forests.
4.6.3.1.1.1. White Spruce Forest
In this type, at least 75 percent of the total tree canopy cover is composed of white spruce. This
type includes both open and closed stands of white spruce (approximately 83 percent of the
White Spruce Forest in the mapped area was classified as open and 17 percent was classified as
closed). Open white spruce forest commonly occurs on well-drained convex sites, along
drainages, and near treeline, whereas closed white spruce forest typically occurs along drainages
or well-drained slopes of north, northeast, and northwest aspects. The understory is composed of
diamondleaf willow (Salix pulchra), dwarf birch (Betula nana), and alder, with more shrub cover
in the open stands because of the sparser tree canopy. Wetter sites generally support a greater
percentage of willows and drier sites support more dwarf birch. Typical ground cover species in
open forests are crowberry, northern Laborador tea (Ledum groenlandicum), bog blueberry
(Vaccinium uliginosum), mountain cranberry (Vaccinium vitis-idaea), woodland horsetail
(Equisetum sylvaticum), bluejoint (Calamagrostis canadensis), feather moss (Hypnaceae), and
lichens. Closed white spruce ground cover includes cloudberry (Rubus chamaemorus),
nagoonberry (Rubus arcticus), woodland horsetail, twinflower (Linnea borealis), and feather
mosses. White Spruce Forest covered 33,895 acres or 2.1 percent of the mapped area.
4.6.3.1.1.2. Black Spruce Forest
In this type, at least 75 percent of the tree canopy cover is composed of black spruce. This type
includes both open and closed stands of black spruce (approximately 81 percent of the Black
Spruce Forest in the mapping area was classified as open and 19 percent was classified as
closed). Black Spruce Forest typically occurs on poorly drained, organic soils with a restrictive
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-178 December 2011
permafrost layer. Willows, dwarf birch, and alders occur in the shrub layer. Ground cover
species include Labrador tea (both species), bog blueberry, beauverd spirea (Spirea stevenii),
crowberry, sedges (Carex spp.), woodland horsetail, nagoonberry, and Sphagnum mosses. Black
Spruce Forest covered 25,067 acres or 1.6 percent of the mapped area.
4.6.3.1.1.3. Black and White Spruce Forest
In this type, black and white spruce are codominant in the tree canopy, together comprising at
least 75 percent of the total canopy cover. Both open and closed stands of black and white spruce
are included in this type. This type occurs near the elevational limits of trees on moist sites, and
in ecotonal areas between black and white spruce forests. Willows, dwarf birch, and occasionally
alders occur in the shrub layer. Common understory species include netleaf willow (Salix
reticulata), shrubby cinquefoil (Dasiphora fruticosa), bog blueberry, mountain cranberry,
woodland horsetail, sedges, feather mosses, Labrador tea (both species), and crowberry. Black
and White Spruce Forest is the most common forest type in the upper Susitna River basin and
covered 148,996 acres or 9.3 percent of the mapped area.
4.6.3.1.1.4. White Spruce Woodland
This woodland community has low values (10–25 percent) of tree canopy cover. In this type, at
least 75 percent of the tree canopy cover is composed of white spruce. This type generally occurs
on well-drained sites near treeline, in areas of regenerating vegetative growth, or in ecotonal sites
between white spruce forests and low-shrub habitats. This type is similar to open white spruce
forests, but with more shrub cover because of the more open tree canopy. Willows, dwarf birch,
and occasionally alders occur in the shrub layer. Important ground cover species are northern
Labrador tea, bog blueberry, mountain cranberry, woodland horsetail, polargrass (Arctagrostis
latifolia), fireweed (Epilobium angustifolium), and feather mosses. White Spruce Woodland
covered 37,444 acres or 2.4 percent of the mapped area.
4.6.3.1.1.5. Black Spruce Woodland
In this woodland community, at least 75 percent of the tree canopy cover is composed of black
spruce. This type occurs on cold, poorly drained sites and often transitions into peat bogs. The
shrub layer includes willows and dwarf birch. Common ground cover species are Alaska bog
willow (Salix fuscescens), swamp cranberry, Labrador tea, bog blueberry, cottongrass
(Eriophorum spp.), sedges, and Sphagnum mosses. Black Spruce Woodland is an uncommon
forest type in the upper Susitna River basin and covered 819 acres or 0.1 percent of the mapped
area.
4.6.3.1.1.6. Black and White Spruce Woodland
In this woodland community, black and white spruce are codominant in the tree canopy and
together comprise at least 75 percent of the total canopy cover. This type occurs near the
elevational limits of trees on moist sites, and in ecotonal areas between black and white spruce
forests. Willow, dwarf birch, and occasionally alder occur in the shrub layer. Common
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-179 December 2011
understory species include netleaf willow, shrubby cinquefoil, bog blueberry, mountain
cranberry, woodland horsetail, sedges, feather mosses, Labrador tea (both species), and
crowberry. Black and White Spruce Woodland covered 24,915 acres or 1.6 percent of the
mapped area.
4.6.3.1.1.7. Paper Birch Forest
In this type, at least 75 percent of the tree canopy cover is composed of paper birch. This type
includes both open and closed stands of paper birch. Paper birch forests are found on well-
drained slopes, along floodplains, and in drainage ravines. Open paper birch (about 56 percent of
this type) is typically found on well-drained slopes and drainages. Closed stands and drier open
stands have sparse willow and alder shrub understories with low cover values. On moist sites
(especially moist open sites), the shrub understory layer is better developed, consisting of
willows, alders, and dwarf birch. Common ground cover species include bluejoint, Labrador tea,
crowberry, bog blueberry, mountain cranberry, bunchberry (Cornus canadensis), oak fern
(Gymnocarpium dryopteris), and Polytrichum mosses. Like all broadleaf-dominated forests in
the upper Susitna River basin, Paper Birch Forest is an uncommon type and covered 5,852 acres
or 0.4 percent of the mapped area.
4.6.3.1.1.8. Birch–Aspen Forest
In this type, paper birch and aspen are codominant in the tree canopy, together comprising at
least 75 percent of the total canopy cover. This type includes both open and closed stands of
paper birch and aspen. Birch–Aspen Forests are typically found on well-drained slopes with
southern aspects. Willows and alders occur occasionally in the understory, but cover values are
low. Other common understory species are prickly rose (Rosa acicularis) and bearberry
(Arctostaphylos spp.). Birch–Aspen Forest is an uncommon type in the upper Susitna River basin
and covered 2,257 acres or 0.1 percent of the mapped area.
4.6.3.1.1.9. Other Broadleaf Forest
Other Broadleaf Forest represents several different vegetation types, which were lumped in this
document because of the low areal extent of each of the constituent types. Included in Other
Broadleaf Forest are balsam poplar forests (80 percent of Other Broad Leaf Forest in the mapped
area), birch–poplar forests (18 percent), and aspen forests (2 percent). Both open and closed
stands of each of these broadleaf communities are included in this type. Willows and alders
occur frequently in the shrub layer, along with other understory species such as bunchberry,
mountain cranberry, twinflower, and highlands cranberry. Other Broadleaf Forest, as a
composite type, is uncommon in the upper Susitna River basin and covered 3,710 acres or 0.2
percent of the mapped area.
4.6.3.1.1.10. Broadleaf Woodland
This woodland community has low tree canopy cover values (10–25 percent), at least 75 percent
of which is composed of broadleaf trees. Broadleaf woodlands are composed of the same
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-180 December 2011
deciduous tree species (birch, aspen, and balsam poplar) that occur in open broadleaf forests.
Because these woodland habitats are more open, however, the understory shrub and ground
cover species are more prevalent and have higher cover values than in open broadleaf forests.
Broadleaf Woodland is an uncommon type in the upper Susitna River basin and covered 1,420
acres or 0.1 percent of the mapped area.
4.6.3.1.1.11. Spruce–Birch Forest
In this mixed forest type, spruce (either white or black spruce or both) and paper birch are co-
dominant in the tree canopy and together comprise at least 75 percent of the total canopy cover.
This type includes both open and closed stands of spruce and birch (approximately 51 percent of
the Spruce–Birch Forest in the mapping area is classified as open and 49 percent is classified as
closed). Spruce–Birch Forest occurs commonly on well-drained south-facing slopes and along
drainages (where white spruce is more dominant) and on poorly drained north-facing slopes
(where black spruce is dominant). Willow and alder are present in the shrub layer of closed
stands, but often provide little understory cover, while denser thickets of willow, alder, and
dwarf birch are present in open stands. Typical understory species in closed stands include bog
blueberry, mountain cranberry, bluejoint, bunchberry, Labrador tea (both species), and
Polytrichum mosses. In open stands, common understory species include beauverd spirea,
fireweed, bluejoint, oak fern, and feather mosses. Spruce–Birch Forest is a common forest type
in the upper Susitna River basin and covers 94,031 acres or 5.9 percent of the mapped area.
4.6.3.1.1.12. Spruce–Birch–Poplar Forest
White spruce, paper birch, and balsam poplar are codominant in the tree canopy of this mixed-
forest type, together comprising at least 75 percent of the total canopy cover. The type includes
both open and closed stands of spruce, birch, and poplar (approximately 37 percent of the
Spruce–Birch–Poplar Forest in the mapping area was classified as open and 63 percent was
classified as closed). Spruce–Birch–Poplar Forest occurs on river floodplains. Willows and
alders are present in the understory shrub layer. Beauverd spirea, bunchberry, northern Labrador
tea, crowberry, bog blueberry, and mountain cranberry are other common understory species.
Spruce–Birch–Poplar Forest is an uncommon type in the upper Susitna River basin and covered
1,215 acres or 0.1 percent of the mapped area.
4.6.3.1.1.13. Spruce–Birch–Aspen Forest
White spruce, paper birch, and aspen are codominant in the tree canopy, together comprising at
least 75 percent of the total canopy cover. This type includes both open and closed stands of
spruce, birch, and aspen (approximately 12 percent of the Spruce–Birch–Aspen Forest in the
mapping area was classified as open and 88 percent was classified as closed). Spruce–Birch–
Aspen Forest occurs on well-drained south-facing slopes. Willows, dwarf birch, and occasionally
alders are present in the understory shrub layer. Other common understory species include
bunchberry, twinflower, mountain cranberry, northern Labrador tea, feather mosses, and bog
blueberry. Spruce–Birch–Aspen Forest is an uncommon type in the upper Susitna River basin
and covered 3,614 acres or 0.2 percent of the mapped area.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-181 December 2011
4.6.3.1.1.14. Spruce–Poplar Forest
In this mixed forest type, white spruce and balsam poplar are codominant in the tree canopy,
together comprising at least 75 percent of the total canopy cover. This type includes both open
and closed stands of spruce and poplar (approximately 37 percent of the Spruce–Poplar Forest in
the mapping area was classified as open and 63 percent was classified as closed). Spruce–Poplar
Forest is similar in ecological function to Spruce–Birch–Poplar Forest and also occurs on river
floodplains. Willows and alders occur in the understory shrub layer. Woodland horsetail,
fireweed, bunchberry, beauverd spirea, and Polytrichium mosses are other common understory
components. Spruce–Poplar Forest is an uncommon type in the upper Susitna River basin and
covered 2,726 acres or 0.2 percent of the mapped area.
4.6.3.1.1.15. Mixed Woodland
This is a woodland community with low cover values (10–25 percent) of tree canopy. Mixed
Woodland represents three different types, each codominated by spruce (either white or black
spruce, or both): spruce–birch woodland (97 percent of the occurrence of this type in the mapped
area), spruce–poplar woodland (1 percent) and spruce–birch–aspen woodland (2 percent). These
woodland types are similar in species composition to the open mixed conifer–broadleaf forests
described above. Because these woodland habitats have more open canopies, however, the
understory shrub and ground cover species are more prevalent and provide more cover than in
open conifer–broadleaf forests. Mixed Woodland is an uncommon type in the upper Susitna
River basin and covered 8,819 acres or 0.6 percent of the mapped area.
4.6.3.1.2. Scrub Types
In the Alaska Vegetation Classification (AVC; Viereck et al. 1982, 1992), scrub habitats are
dominated by dwarf trees, tall shrubs (height > 1.5 m [5 ft] at maturity), low shrubs (<1.5 m and
>0.2 m [8 in.]), and/or dwarf shrubs (< 0.2 m). By definition, scrub types have <10 percent
canopy cover by forest (trees of height > 5 m [16 ft] at maturity) and shrubs comprise at least 25
percent of the total canopy cover. In the upper and middle Susitna basin, scrub habitats are a
prominent feature of the landscape. As a group, scrub habitats covered 1,042,131 acres or 65
percent of the area mapped by Kreig and Associates (1985; in APA 1985a). Low scrub was by
far the most common scrub type and covered 679,403 acres or 43 percent of the mapped area.
Dwarf scrub also was common and covered 238,248 acres or 14.9 percent of the mapped area.
Tall scrub (86,565 acres or 5.4 percent of the mapped area) was less common and dwarf tree
scrub (37,923 acres or 2.4 percent of the mapped area) was the least common scrub type.
4.6.3.1.2.1. Conifer Dwarf Tree Scrub
At least 75 percent of the dwarf tree canopy cover is composed of conifer species. This type
includes woodland and open and closed stands of dwarf conifers (approximately 20 percent of
the Conifer Dwarf Tree Scrub in the mapping area was classified as woodland, 69 percent was
classified as open, and 11 percent was classified as closed). The woodland form of Conifer
Dwarf Tree Scrub is usually a black spruce type occurring on wet, poorly drained sites with a
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-182 December 2011
restrictive permafrost layer; these types often transition into bog habitats. In such areas, the
understory shrub layer is composed of willows and dwarf birch. Other common understory
species include bog rosemary, Labrador tea, cotton grasses, horsetails, Alaska bog willow,
buckbean (Menyanthes trifoliata), narrow-leaved burred (Sparganium angustifolium), marsh
cinquefoil (Potentilla palustris), and Sphagnum mosses. The woodland form of Conifer Dwarf
Tree Scrub also can occur as dwarf white spruce and/or black spruce trees at the elevational limit
of trees. The open form of Conifer Dwarf Tree Scrub is usually a black spruce type similar to the
woodland form, occurring on poorly drained sites or on cold north-facing slopes, both with
permafrost. The understory shrub layer includes willows, dwarf birch, and occasionally alders.
Other common understory species include sedges, bluejoint, bog blueberry, Labrador tea (both
species), crowberry, Alaska bog willow, swamp cranberry, coltsfoot (Tussilago farfara),
cloudberry, cotton grasses, horsetails, and Sphagnum mosses. The closed form of Conifer Dwarf
Tree Scrub is usually a black spruce type occurring on cold north-facing slopes with permafrost
or on wet, poorly drained depressions. Common understory species include sedges, bluejoint,
bog blueberry, Labrador tea, crowberry, cloudberry, woodland horsetail, and Sphagnum mosses.
Conifer Dwarf Tree Scrub covered 37,923 acres or 2.4 percent of the mapped area.
4.6.3.1.2.2. Other Dwarf Tree Scrub
Other Dwarf Tree Scrub represents several different vegetation types, which are lumped here
because the distribution of each type was fairly restricted in the mapping area. Included in Other
Dwarf Tree Scrub are woodland, open, and closed forms of broadleaf dwarf tree scrub, in which
75 percent of the total dwarf tree canopy cover is composed of broadleaf species. Willows, dwarf
birch, and alders are common understory shrubs in broadleaf dwarf tree scrub. Other Dwarf Tree
Scrub also includes woodland, open, and closed forms of mixed broadleaf–conifer dwarf tree
scrub, in which dwarf broadleaf and conifer tree species are codominant, together composing 75
percent of the total dwarf tree canopy cover. Other Dwarf Tree Scrub, as a composite type, is
rare in the upper Susitna River basin (<0.1 percent of the mapped area) and covered only 220 ac.
4.6.3.1.2.3. Tall Alder Shrub
In this type, 75 percent or more of the total shrub canopy cover is composed of alder. This type
includes both open and closed stands of alder (approximately 49 percent of the Tall Alder Shrub
in the mapping area was classified as open and 51 percent was classified as closed). This type is
strongly dominated by Sitka alder, which is often the only species in the tall shrub canopy, and
especially so in closed stands. Open Tall Alder Shrub communities are found along rivers or on
steep slopes above treeline. Willows occasionally occur in the shrub understory in open stands.
Other common understory species include bluejoint, woodland horsetail, and twinflower. Closed
stands are usually found on steep slopes above treeline, along drainages, and as pioneering
communities on river floodplains. The understory species in closed stands are similar to those
found in open stands. Tall Alder Shrub (both open and closed stands) also occurs frequently as
narrow strips within other vegetation types on slopes adjacent to the Susitna River. Tall Alder
Shrub covered 73,915 acres or 4.6 percent of the mapped area.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-183 December 2011
4.6.3.1.2.4. Other Tall Shrub
Other Tall Shrub is composed of several different plant communities, which are lumped here
because each is relatively uncommon in the mapped area. Included in Other Tall Shrub are tall
alder–willow shrub (82 percent occurrence of this type in the mapping area), tall willow shrub
(15 percent), tall shrub birch shrub (1 percent), tall shrub birch–willow shrub (1 percent), and tall
shrub birch–ericaceous shrub (1 percent). Both the open and closed forms of tall alder–willow
shrub (72 percent open, 28 percent closed) and tall willow shrub (22 percent open, 78 percent
closed) are included in this type. Tall alder–willow shrub communities are usually found on
steep slopes above treeline, as riverine communities along drainages, and on floodplains.
Common understory species include polargrass and Bigelow sedge. Tall willow shrub
communities occur commonly as riverine habitats along stream drainages, as pioneering
communities on floodplains, and on slopes above treeline. The shrub layer often is composed of
feltleaf willow (Salix alaxensis), grayleaf willow (Salix glauca), and diamondleaf willow.
Understory species include sedges, polargrass, arctic dock (Rumex arcticus), woodland horsetail,
fireweed, and bluejoint. Other Tall Shrub, as a composite type, is uncommon in the upper
Susitna River basin and covered 12,650 acres or 0.8 percent of the mapped area.
4.6.3.1.2.5. Low Dwarf Birch Shrub
Low Dwarf Birch Shrub typically occurs on convex, well-drained sites and is strongly dominated
by dwarf birch, which comprises 75 percent or more of the total low-shrub canopy cover.
Approximately 41 percent of this type in the mapping area occurs in an open form and 59
percent in a closed form. This type also includes the open and closed forms of a variant
community (low dwarf birch–grass shrub). Important associated species are willows, Labrador
tea, crowberry, bog blueberry, mountain cranberry, beauverd spirea, sedges, bearberry,
cloudberry, nagoonberry, fescue grass (Festuca spp.), Stereocaulon lichens, Nephroma lichens,
reindeer moss (Cladonia rangiferina), and feather mosses. Low Dwarf Birch Shrub is a common
low-scrub habitat in the upper Susitna River basin and covered 136,115 acres or 8.5 percent of
the mapped area.
4.6.3.1.2.6. Low Willow Shrub
In this type, at least 75 percent of the total low-shrub canopy cover is composed of willow
species. Approximately 64 percent of this type in the mapping area occurs in an open form and
36 percent in a closed form. This type also includes the open and closed forms of a variant
community, low willow–grass shrub. Low Willow Shrub communities occur along drainages, in
wet concavities, on wet flat benches, and on slopes and along streams at higher elevations.
Common understory species in open communities include vanilla holygrass, fescue grass, netleaf
willow, burnet, northern anemone, ragwort, gentian, Arctic dock, cloudberry, shrubby cinquefoil,
bog blueberry, and Stereocaulon lichens. Common understory species associated with closed
communities include sedges, Arctic dock, polargrass, shrubby cinquefoil, horsetails, hairy
butterwort (Pinguicula villosa), saussurea, and meadow bistort (Polygonum bistorta). Low
Willow Shrub is a common low-scrub habitat in the upper Susitna River basin and covered
149,736 acres or 9.4 percent of the mapped area.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-184 December 2011
4.6.3.1.2.7. Low Ericaceous Shrub
At least 75 percent of the total low-shrub canopy cover is composed of two ericaceous species,
Labrador tea and bog blueberry. Approximately 86 percent of this type in the mapping area
occurs in an open form and 14 percent in a closed form. Also included in this type is a third
variant community, open low ericaceous–grass shrub. Each of the component communities
included in Low Ericaceous Shrub occurs on steep, dry slopes above treeline. Common species
in the understory include Arctic willow, netleaf willow, diamondleaf willow, dwarf birch,
crowberry, mountain cranberry, sedges, fescue grass, four-angle mountain heather (Cassiope
spp.), bearberry, white mountain-avens (Dryas octopetala), wormwood, polargrass, feather
mosses, club mosses, and Polytrichum mosses. Low Ericaceous Shrub is an uncommon type in
the upper Susitna River basin and covered 8,006 acres or 0.5 percent of the mapped area.
4.6.3.1.2.8. Low Dwarf Birch–Willow Shrub
Low dwarf birch and willows are codominant and together comprise at least 75 percent of the
total low-shrub canopy cover. Approximately 58 percent of this type in the mapping area occurs
in an open form and 42 percent in a closed form. This type also includes the open and closed
forms of a variant community, low dwarf birch–willow–grass shrub. Each of the component
communities in Low Dwarf Birch–Willow Shrub occurs on moist slopes. Common species in the
understory include bog blueberry, woodland horsetail, sedges, mountain cranberry, Labrador tea,
coltsfoot, crowberry, fescue grass, polargrass, bearberry, fireweed, netleaf willow, feather
mosses, wormwood (Artemesia alaskana), and bluegrass. Low Dwarf Birch–Willow Shrub is a
common low-scrub habitat in the upper Susitna River basin and covered 248,829 acres or 15.6
percent of the mapped area.
4.6.3.1.2.9. Low Dwarf Birch–Ericaceous Shrub
Low dwarf birch and ericaceous shrubs are codominant and together compose at least 75 percent
of the total low-shrub canopy cover. Approximately 86 percent of this type in the mapping area
occurs in an open form and 14 percent in a closed form. This type also includes the open and
closed forms of a variant community, low dwarf birch–ericaceous–grass shrub. Each of the
component communities included in Low Dwarf Birch–Ericaceous Shrub occurs on well-drained
convex slopes. The dominant low-shrub species in this type are dwarf birch, Labrador tea, and
bog blueberry. Common species occurring in the understory include mountain cranberry,
crowberry, polargrass, Arctic bluegrass, fescue grass, bearberry, wormwood, sedges, netleaf
willow, Arctic willow, and feather mosses. Low Dwarf Birch–Ericaceous Shrub is a common
low-scrub habitat in the upper Susitna River basin and covered 136,120 acres or 8.5 percent of
the mapped area.
4.6.3.1.2.10. Other Low Shrub
Other Low Shrub is composed of two related plant communities, which are lumped here because
each is rare in the mapping area. Included in Other Low Shrub are low alder shrub (54 percent
occurrence in the mapping area) and low alder–willow shrub (46 percent). Both the open and
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-185 December 2011
closed forms of low alder shrub (79 percent open, 21 percent closed) and low alder–willow shrub
(82 percent open, 18 percent closed) are included in this type. Other Low Shrub occurs along
streams and on slopes at higher elevations. Common species occurring in the understory include
bluejoint, sedges, bog blueberry, mountain cranberry, twinflower, and four-angle mountain
heather. Other Low Shrub, as a composite type, is rare in the upper Susitna River basin (<0.1
percent of the mapped area) and covered only 597 ac.
4.6.3.1.2.11. Dwarf Scrub
Several different plant communities occur in the Dwarf Scrub type in the upper and middle
Susitna River basin. Included in this type are the open and closed forms of Dwarf Scrub, dwarf
ericaceous shrub, dwarf willow shrub, dwarf mat and cushion–grass shrub, and dwarf birch–
ericaceous shrub. The open Dwarf Scrub communities (approximately 87 percent of the mapped
type) are found on dry, windy ridges and rocky areas usually above treeline. Typical species in
these communities include roundleaf willow, Arctic willow, polar willow, netleaf willow,
diapensia, bog blueberry, mountain cranberry, crowberry, red fescue (Festuca rubra), Labrador
tea, and alpine azalea (Loiseleuria procumbens). The closed Dwarf Scrub communities
(approximately 13 percent of the mapped type) also are found on dry slopes and ridges at higher
elevations. Typical species include four-angle mountain heather, sedges, netleaf willow, Arctic
willow, bog blueberry, mountain cranberry, diapensia, crowberry, alpine azalea, purple reedgrass
(Calamagrostis purpurascens), red fescue, and white mountain-avens. Dwarf Scrub, as a
composite type, occurs commonly in mountainous parts of the upper Susitna River basin and
covered 238,248 acres or 14.9 percent of the mapped area.
4.6.3.1.3. Herbaceous Types
In the AVC (Viereck et al. 1982, 1992), areas classified as herbaceous can be dominated by
herbaceous vascular and/or nonvascular plants, but these areas must have < 25 percent cover of
woody plants. In the upper and middle Susitna River basin, herbaceous habitats are not well-
represented on the landscape. As a group, herbaceous habitats covered 14,494 acres or 0.9
percent of the upper Susitna River basin area mapped by Kreig and Associates (1985; in APA
1985a). The graminoid herbaceous types are by far the most common, covering 14,286 acres or
0.9 percent of the mapped area. Herbaceous habitats dominated by forbs, mosses, or lichens are
rare and covered only 208 acres (<0.1 percent of the mapped area).
4.6.3.1.3.1. Wet Graminoid Herbaceous
Three different plant communities occur in the Wet Graminoid Herbaceous type in the upper and
middle Susitna basin, all dominated by cotton grasses and sedges: wet sedge meadow, wet
sedge–herb meadow, and wet sedge–moss bog. Wet Graminoid Herbaceous communities occur
on wet concave sites, which typically have standing water and often are underlain by permafrost.
These areas often are strongly dominated by cotton grasses and sedges. Other common species
include buckbean, marsh cinquefoil, swamp horsetail, and Sphagnum mosses. Wet Graminoid
Herbaceous, as a composite type, is uncommon in the upper and middle Susitna basin and
covered 10,621 acres or 0.7 percent of the mapped area.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-186 December 2011
4.6.3.1.3.2. Mesic Graminoid Herbaceous
Mesic Graminoid Herbaceous communities occur on moist flat sites, typically without standing
water. These communities often are dominated by bluejoint, Bigelow sedge, and tussock
cottongrass. Other common species include diamondleaf willow, dwarf birch, Labrador tea, bog
blueberry, mountain cranberry, and Arctic bluegrass (Poa arctica). Mesic Graminoid
Herbaceous is an uncommon type in the upper and middle Susitna basin and covered 3,550 acres
or 0.2 percent of the mapped area.
4.6.3.1.3.3. Dry Graminoid Herbaceous
Dry Graminoid Herbaceous communities are grasslands, often dominated by fescue grass and
red fescue. These grasslands occur on well-drained, dry rocky slopes and steep south-facing
slopes. Other common species in this type include purple reedgrass, shortstalk sedge (Carex
podocarpa), tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia cespitosa), timothy (Phleum pratense), arctic
wormwood, netleaf willow, white mountain-avens, and mountain cranberry. Dry Graminoid
Herbaceous is a rare type in the upper and middle Susitna basin (<0.1 percent of the mapped
area) and covered only 115 ac.
4.6.3.1.3.4. Forb and Bryoid Herbaceous
Three different plant communities occur in the Forb and Bryoid Herbaceous type in the upper
and middle Susitna basin. Included in this type are forb-dominated communities (dry forb
herbaceous) and moss- and lichen-dominated communities. Dry forb herbaceous communities
occur on dry, rocky, well-drained tundra slopes. No species are strongly dominant, but
characteristic forb species include three-tooth saxifrage (Saxifraga tricuspidata), arctic
wormwood, diapensia, moss campion (Silene acaulis), alpine bistort, mountain harebell
(Campanula lasiocarpa), arctic cinquefoil, and dwarf fireweed. Both the moss- and lichen-
dominated communities in the mapping area occur most commonly on well-drained rocky
slopes. The dry moss communities often include Rhacomitrium and Dicranum mosses, and the
dry lichen communities are characterized by Cladonia, Cetraria, and Stereocaulon lichens. Forb
and Bryoid Herbaceous, as a composite type, is rare in the upper Susitna River basin and covered
only 208 acres (<0.1 percent of the mapped area).
4.6.3.1.4. Sparse Vegetation
Plant communities were treated as sparsely vegetated when 5-10 percent of an otherwise barren
area was vegetated with forest, scrub, or herbaceous communities. Sparse Vegetation covered
38,324 acres or 2.4 percent of the mapped area, but no information was presented in APA
(1985a) on the landscape features associated with this type.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-187 December 2011
4.6.3.1.5. Barren
A map polygon was classified as barren or barren bedrock if less than 5 percent of the area was
vegetated. Barren sites covered 74,043 acres or 4.6 percent of the mapped area, but no
information was presented in APA (1985a) on the landscape features associated with this type in
the mapping area.
4.6.3.1.6. Water
In the vegetation mapping for the upper Susitna River basin, this type includes open water in
lakes, ponds, rivers, and streams. Also included in this type, however, are freshwater aquatic
herbaceous communities, often with emergent vegetation, which occur in standing water along
the margins of waterbodies. Characteristic species in the latter habitats include yellow pond lily
(Nuphar polysepala), common marestail (Hippuris vulgaris), narrow-leaved burreed, common
bladderwort (Utricularia macrorhiza), sedges, and horsetails. The Water type covered 31,671
acresres or 2.0 percent of the mapped area.
4.6.3.1.7. Cultural–Urban Developed
Developed areas with gravel fill were rare in the mapping area for the upper Susitna River basin
and covered only 110 acres (<0.1 percent of the mapped area).
4.6.3.2. Plant Species Occurrence
In 1980 and 1981, floristic surveys were conducted in the Susitna basin upstream of Talkeetna by
McKendrick et al. (1982). Those survey data provide information on the numbers and
distribution of plant species that occurred in those portions of the project area at that time. In the
middle and upper basin above Gold Creek and in the Susitna floodplain downstream to
Talkeetna, 295 vascular plant species, belonging to 151 genera and 57 families, were identified
(McKendrick et al. 1982: Table 2). Of that total, 255 species were identified in the basin above
Gold Creek and 76 species were identified downstream from Gold Creek.
Of the 57 vascular plant families represented in the floristic data collected by McKendrick et al.
(1982), eight families had the greatest number (13–23) of species recorded: Cyperaceae (sedges),
Poaceae (grasses), Asteraceae, Ericaceae (heath family), Ranunculaceae, Rosaceae, Salicaceae
(willows and poplars), and Saxifragaceae. Within the nonvascular flora, 11 genera of lichens
(including at least 12 species) and 7 moss taxa were identified. The focus of the floristic surveys
was on vascular plants, which probably accounts for the low numbers of nonvascular taxa
recorded. Likely a majority of the nonvascular species or genera occurring in the area were not
identified.
Of the 76 vascular plant species found in the Susitna floodplain downstream, 54 also were found
in middle and upper basin above Gold Creek, leaving only 22 additional species found in the
downstream area. The sites sampled downstream from Gold Creek, however, were confined to
the floodplain, which reduced the number of habitats represented and the niches available for
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-188 December 2011
plant species in relation to the much greater diversity of habitats sampled in the middle and upper
basin farther upstream. The greater sampling effort upstream also may have contributed to a
larger number of species being recorded there.
4.6.3.2.1. Invasive Vascular Plant Species
No surveys of invasive vascular plants were conducted as part of the origina APA Susitna
Hydroelectirc Project studies, primarily because the risk of invasive species was not considered a
major concern at the time. Resource agencies have become increasingly concerned, however,
about the potential for invasive plant species to become established as a result of construction
activities associated with new developments. As a result, the USFS, NPS, BLM, Alaska Natural
Heritage Program, and other stakeholders formed the Alaska Committee for Noxious and
Invasive Plants Management (CNIPM) and developed the Strategic Plan for Noxious and
Invasive Plants Management in Alaska (Graziano 2011). The CNIPM has developed a statewide
mapping program and provides internet updates regularly as new surveys are conducted
(http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/maps/akepic/). Based on invasive plant surveys conducted along the
road systems near the Susitna basin and on other regional surveys, 22 invasive plant species have
been identified that potentially could occur in areas disturbed by development of the Project
(Table 4.6-4). Areas particularly vulnerable to the establishment of invasive plants include
quarry sites, road edges, work pads, and gravel river bars (which are naturally disturbed by
flooding and ice scouring). A species of particular concern is Melilotus alba (white sweetclover),
which establishes readily and often forms monoculture stands along roadsides, trails, and river
bars. The ability of this species to colonize linear features in the landscape is especially
problematic because they act as corridors for dispersal.
Table 4.6-4. Invasive vascular plant species that may occur in areas disturbed during
development of the proposed Susitna–Watana Hydroelectric Project.
Scientific Name Common Name Invasiveness Rank1
Phalaris arundinacea Reed canarygrass 83
Melilotus alba White sweetclover 81
Cirsium arvense Canada thistle 76
Prunus padus European bird cherry 74
Sonchus arvensis Perennial sowthistle 73
Vicia cracca Bird vetch 73
Hordeum jubatum Foxtail barley 63
Bromus inermis ssp. inermis Smooth brome 62
Trifolium repens White clover 59
Taraxacum officinale ssp. officinale Common dandelion 58
Trifolium hybridum Alsike clover 57
Crepis tectorum Narrowleaf hawksbeard 54
Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass 52
Poa annua Annual bluegrass 46
Polygonum aviculare Prostrate knotweed 45
Plantago major Common plantain 44
Capsella bursa-pastoris Shepherd's purse 40
Poa compressa Flat-stem bluegrass 39
Chenopodium album Lambsquarters 37
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-189 December 2011
Cerastium glomeratum Sticky chickweed 36
Matricaria discoidea Pineapple weed 32
Brassica napus Rapeseed mustard rutabaga NR
1 Assigned according to the Invasiveness Ranking System for Non-native Plants of Alaska (Carlson et al. 2008).
Species are ranked on a scale of 0 to 100, with 100 being an extremely invasive species; NR = not ranked.
4.6.3.2.2. Species of Important Commercial, Recreational, or Cultural Value
Commercial use of forest resources in the Project area has been limited to small logging
operations along the Susitna River floodplain in the lower basin (ADNR 1991, 2010). Vegetation
in the upper basin is almost entirely undisturbed, cannot be accessed by roads, and is not
addressed in the most current forestry and land management plans for the region (ADNR 1991,
2010). Lands with highest forestry potential within the Project area are located in the Susitna
River floodplain downstream from the confluence with Portage Creek.
Although plant species generally do not provide direct recreational value to humans, as
components of plant communities they are an essential part of the landscape that provides the
setting for a number of recreational uses in the Susitna River basin. Recreation activity is
widespread in the Susitna River basin and includes summer sport fishing, boating, hiking,
climbing, hunting for big game, and snowmachine use, skiing, and trapping in the winter months.
A number of plant species in the Susitna River basin are of cultural importance. Probably the
most important are the tree species, especially spruce and birch and, to a lesser extent, poplar and
aspen, which provide a source of wood used by local residents for home building and/or heating
(ADNR 2010). The total consumption of wood for these local uses, however, is probably
relatively small on a basin-wide basis. Other species of cultural importance, in this case for
subsistence uses, include those berry-producing plants that predictably produce a harvestable
fruit crop in localized areas. The primary species of importance in this regard are highbush
cranberry, crowberry, dwarf blueberry, bog blueberry, mountain cranberry, nagoon berry,
cloudberry, raspberry, trailing black currant, and red currant.
4.6.3.3. Inventory of Moose Browse
A substantial amount of vegetation-related research for the APA Project focused on the
availability and quality of forage for moose. The most important browse species for moose were
shrubs, including willows, dwarf birch, and mountain cranberry (Steigers et al. 1983; Helm and
Mayer 1985). The vegetation types with the highest availability of moose browse on the middle
and lower Susitna River were late successional forests, including mature balsam poplar stands
and mixed stands of white spruce and paper birch (UAAES and TES 1981; TES 1982; Steigers et
al. 1983; UAFAFES 1985). Steigers et al. (1983) also found high availability of moose browse in
dwarf birch–willow stands. In the upstream project area, late-successional forests occurred
primarily in the floodplain of the Susitna River.
Steigers et al (1983) conducted browse inventory and plant phenology studies in the middle
Susitna River basin, as well as an inventory and assessment of an area in the Alphabet Hills (east
of the upper Susitna River) before prescribed burning by BLM and USFS. The browse inventory
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-190 December 2011
quantified shrub stem density, browse availability, browse use, and current annual growth
biomass by vegetation class. Dwarf birch–willow vegetation was the most valuable type for
moose browse. The hypothesis that moose focused on eating herbaceous plants during spring
after snowmelt was not supported by the data. The study in the Alphabet Hills suggested that fire
could increase the potential of forested vegetation classes as moose habitat and that shrubs were
the primary food source of moose in these types.
Helm and Mayer (1985) studied plant phenology in areas inhabited by radio-collared moose in
the proposed impoundment zones. Transects sampled along different elevations provided
observations of shrub, forb, and graminoid phenology. Moose used the areas heavily during
spring, before calving. Fecal analysis of moose pellets showed that moose in the area were eating
mostly willows, mosses, resin birch, and mountain cranberry, with willows being the most
important component; forbs and sedge were not significant forage plants for moose.
The majority of the area mapped in the Susitna basin for the APA Project was covered by low
mixed shrub, woodland and open black spruce stands, sedge–grass tundra, mat and cushion
tundra, and birch shrub (UAAES and TES 1981). Less than 3 percent of the area mapped for the
Phase I vegetation study was occupied by deciduous or mixed coniferous–deciduous forests,
which occurred on the Susitna River floodplain and would have been lost to inundation. Plant
succession and available moose browse in the Susitna River floodplain would have been affected
downstream of the dam sites due to altered water flow (UAFAFES 1985). To understand the
potential effects of altered flow, the authors of that study examined successional patterns and
abundance of vegetation types (Figure 4.6-18). They concluded that the most valuable
successional stage for moose browse on the middle and lower Susitna River was late
successional forests, including mature stands of balsam poplar and mixed stands of white spruce
and paper birch, because they occupied a large proportion of the vegetated floodplain area
downstream (48–72 percent) and had high browse diversity, even though the stem density of
browse was lower than in earlier successional stages.
Habitat use by moose in the lower Susitna drainage was conducted by Collins and Helm (1997)
in the early 1990s, in conjunction with a companion study of floodplain ecological succession
(Helm and Collins 1997, described further in Section 4.8 under Riparian Ecology). The
investigators were two of the authors for the APA Project study of riparian succession
(UAFAFES 1985). Browse availability was the principal factor influencing winter habitat
selection by moose, and early shrub and old balsam poplar successional stages were most
important to wintering moose. Browse availability depended on winter snow depth. Feltleaf
willow (Salix alaxensis) was the most important browse species, with a utilization rate of 76
percent in a winter with average snow depth. Unvegetated sites, dry sloughs, and frozen river
channels accumulated significantly less snow than other sites and were used preferentially by
moose for access to foraging areas as snow cover deepened. The authors concluded that, unless
flow of the Susitna River was affected by hydroelectric development, habitat enhancement for
moose should focus on upland sites rather than on riparian habitats on the floodplain, because
normal river flow rejuvenated early successional stages without human intervention.
Collins (2002) also studied moose forage use and plant secondary compounds in the Oshetna
River and Tyone Creek drainages south of the upper Susitna River, in the Nelchina study area of
Testa (2001, 2004). Use of feltleaf willow was highest in winters with deep snow, when
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-191 December 2011
diamondleaf willow (Salix pulchra) plants were mostly buried by snow. Moose used dwarf birch
possibly because lower levels of tannin provided more digestible protein. Moose had low
reproductive rates even when winter browse availability was not limited, and browse did not
appear to be limiting to the population until the protein-limiting effect of tannins was taken into
account. Because of tannins in browse plants, moose in the study area may be experiencing
severe nutritional limitation in winter.
Date: Nov 2011Scale: As Noted
Vegetation Succession
State of AlaskaSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC No.14241
Figure 4.6-18
source: APA 1985b
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-193 December 2011
4.6.3.4. Wildlife Habitat Evaluation
The habitat evaluations used in the State of Alaska’s Susitna Area Plan (ADNR 1985) and local
Matanuska–Susitna Borough land-use planning efforts were derived from the APA Project and
Susitna River Basin Study efforts (ADF&G 1984b, USDA 1985b) and from the AHMG map
atlases (ADF&G 1985a, 1985b). Since then, no resource mapping efforts have been undertaken
that are as comprehensive in coverage as those early efforts, described below. Several reports
prepared in the early 1980s for the APA Project addressed the topic of wildlife habitat
evaluation, as did the contemporaneous Susitna River Basin Study (USDA 1985a, 1985b).
Wildlife habitats were evaluated for the APA Project using vegetation cover types mapped
within 16 km (10 mi) on each side of the Susitna River between Gold Creek and the Maclaren
River (TES 1982). Wildlife experts who worked on the APA Project assigned habitat-value
scores (“life requisite values”) for various wildlife species, using numerical rankings of seasonal
(spring/early summer, late summer/fall, winter) values for cover and food and for reproduction.
In all, 21 habitats were ranked for 146 species (116 bird species and 30 mammal species) and the
rankings were summed across all seasons for each species and habitat type (Appendix 4.6-1).
Those sums were totaled across all species to produce overall numeric scores for each habitat
type. Four general categories of relative habitat value were designated: “excellent” and “good”
habitats had mean scores that were above the average value and “fair” and “poor” habitats had
below-average mean scores. Open mixed forest, closed mixed forest, wet sedge–grass meadow,
and white spruce woodland were the habitat types receiving the highest rankings in the project
area and were considered to be of “excellent” value to wildlife. Habitat types classified as
“good” included open white spruce forest, balsam poplar forest, lake, open black spruce forest,
black spruce woodland, closed birch forest, willow shrub, and open birch forest. Habitats
categorized as “fair” included mixed low shrub, sedge–shrub tundra, sedge–grass tundra, birch
shrub, tall shrub, grassland, and mat-and-cushion tundra. River and rock habitats were ranked the
lowest and were considered of “poor” value.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-194 December 2011
The Susitna River Basin Study (1985a) was a major collaborative effort among the USDA, State
of Alaska, and USFWS to inventory resources in the Susitna River watershed and provides
information on which to base land-use planning decisions and land sales. One of the reports
generated for that study was a regional evaluation of wildlife habitats (USDA 1985b). The
watershed was split into four subbasins: Beluga, Willow, Talkeetna, and Upper Susitna (the latter
subbasin covered most of the area of interest for the Project), but it is important to recognize that
these subbasins were not defined hydrologically (as in Figure 4.7-1). The inventory data
developed for the Upper Susitna subbasin were confined to the Talkeetna Mountains south of the
Project area and part of the Lake Louise flats east of the Project area, however, and were not as
detailed as for the other subbasins. Therefore, most of the inventory data presented in the report
(USDA 1985b) applied to the lower basin, but not the middle and upper basin. Fish and wildlife
modeling and mapping were done to varying degrees. The technical analyses consisted of
collaborative work to model the fish and wildlife values of basin lands and to assist ADF&G in
creating fish and wildlife “element” maps that could be used to assess land-use alternatives.
Habitats were evaluated in terms of their ability to provide seasonal food and cover for selected
wildlife species, their ability to support a diversity of wildlife species, and their relative
abundance within the basin (USDA 1985b). A wildlife species diversity model was applied to
identify and map those vegetative communities (habitats) that were capable of supporting the
highest diversity of wildlife species. Cover types identified as having high diversity included
open mixed forest, open conifer forest, tall shrub (riparian willow or mixed species), open
deciduous forest, closed mixed forest, and low shrub (willow, resin birch). Types with moderate
diversity included closed conifer forest, closed deciduous forest, open short black spruce forest,
Sphagnum bog with shrubs, tall shrub alder, and grassland.
A “habitat scarcity” model was developed to incorporate a regional perspective in the
development of fish and wildlife element maps (USDA 1985b). Relative scarcity of different
habitats was assessed by determining how much area each type covered (minimum mapping unit
was 40 ac) and then comparing that with the area of subbasin that each type would cover if all
types were equally abundant. Habitat scarcity rankings were derived for 12 cover types in the
Upper Susitna subbasin:
Very Scarce (types covering <1.6 percent of the subbasin): open mixed forest; open
conifer forest; tall shrub alder–willow (riparian); closed conifer forest; closed deciduous
forest; open short black spruce forest; Sphagnum bog, with or without shrubs; grassland
(Calamagrostis);
Scarce (1.6–4.5 percent): closed mixed forest;
Neither Scarce nor Abundant (4.6–8.5 percent): low shrub willow–resin birch;
Abundant (>8.5 percent): tall shrub alder; tundra.
After completing the diversity and scarcity models, a “habitat synthesis” model was created to
use computerized inventory data to develop fish and wildlife element maps (ADF&G 1984b).
The final modeling effort combined the habitat diversity and scarcity results to identify those
cover types that were not abundant, that supported the greatest variety of wildlife species, and
that provided year-round moose range. This exercise identified 197,152 acres (11.8 percent) of
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-195 December 2011
the Upper Susitna subbasin as being of high value for fish and wildlife, consisting of Very
Scarce and Scarce types having high species diversity, Very Scarce types having moderate
diversity, and shrub tundra and low shrub willow–resin birch types (USDA 1985b).
4.6.4. Potential Adverse and Positive Impacts
4.6.4.1. Wildlife
Five general classes of impacts on terrestrial vertebrates may occur as a result of Project
construction and operation:
1. Permanent habitat loss from inundation and placement of project facilities, gravel
pads and roads;
2. Temporary habitat loss and alteration resulting from reclaimed and revegetated areas
such as borrow sites, temporary rights-of-way, transmission corridors, and from local
alteration of climate and hydro1ogy;
3. Creation of barriers, impediments, and hazards to animal movements;
4. Disturbance associated with project construction and operation; and
5. Consequences of increased human access and changes in recreational and hunting
patterns not directly related to project activities.
Riverine, riparian, forest, shrubland and wetland habitats as well as specific habitat components
such as raptor nest trees will be permanently lost within the Project footprint, including the
access road, project facilities and impoundment area. While the creation of the reservoir will
create habitat for some species during some portions of the year, the reservoir will impact
mammal movement, migration patterns and distribution. Development of riparian habitat along
the reservoir will be limited by the large annual water surface elevation fluctuations and potential
shoreline erosion. Vegetation within the transmission corridors will be permanently altered from
forest or tall shrub communities to low shrub and herbaceaous communities. The species
composition and structural complexity of vegetation will also be altered along the edges of the
transmission corridors, access road, project facilities and reservoir. There will be temporary
impacts to vegetation at borrow sites and other sites temporarily impacted during construction
activities until these areas are restored following construction. In addition, the composition and
extensiveness of riparian habitat below the Project will be altered due to Project-induced changes
to streamflow, water temperature and ice processes. Changes in the botanical resources due to
project construction and operation are discussed in Section 4.6.4.2. These changes will benefit
some animal species while displacing others.
The Project will impact big game species such as moose, caribou, Dall’s sheep, black bear,
brown bear, and wolf and furbearers including beaver, marten, wolverine, river otter and red fox.
The effects on big game and furbearers would result from habitat loss by inundation; interference
with movements due to the impoundment zone, changes in ice cover and disturbance from
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-196 December 2011
project construction and operations; habitat alteration along project facilities and in the riparian
corridor below the dam; and consequences of increased human access afforded to hunters,
trappers, recreationists, and poachers, including harvest, disturbance and displacement or
abandonment of the area, collision mortality and increased likelihood of killing nuisance
animals. Species-specific potential impact mechanisms are indicated in Table 4.6-5
Birds would be affected primarily by habitat loss to inundation and disturbance of nests,
particularly for raptors such as eagles. Waterbirds using lacustrine habitats would experience
minor impacts due to the small area of lakes and ponds that would be affected. Trumpeter swans
nesting on lakes in the Project area could be adversely affected by low-flying aircraft. Birds
using fluvial habitats would experience a substantial loss of habitat. Sandbars, islands, and
riparian shoreline areas used for feeding, roosting, and loafing by shorebirds would be flooded.
The reservoir drawdown zone could be used as loafing habitat for migrant shorebirds, but food
availability would be low. Although the middle basin is not an important migration corridor, the
open-water areas within the impoundment may be used for loafing by early migrants before other
waterbodies are open. Although fish and invertebrate prey are expected to be present, the
impoundment is likely to offer only low densities of food for migrant or resident species. Open-
water areas downstream from the Watana dam may benefit migrant waterfowl and shorebirds
and provide winter habitat for dippers and possibly a few species of waterfowl. Although the
large impoundment would greatly increase the surface area of water in the middle basin, the
drawdown of the reservoir would reduce its value as lacustrine habitat.
Project development is expected to eliminate breeding habitat for thousands of landbirds. The
losses would be disproportionately large for species restricted to forested habitats. Habitat
alteration would affect the distribution and abundance of species, again with birds restricted to
closed forest habitats suffering losses, whereas species associated with habitat edges, disturbed
habitats, and artificial habitats would benefit. Ravens and gulls are likely to increase in numbers
in the basin.
Only those species of small mammals that are restricted to forest habitats are expected to
experience a decrease in regional abundance. Porcupines, snowshoe hares, pygmy shrews, and
red squirrels will be most affected. Although they are found in nearly every vegetation type in
the proposed Project area, red-backed voles are most common in spruce and cottonwood forests
and are likely to decrease in abundance in the basin. Meadow vole abundance may increase in
the basin due to the creation of disturbed and revegetated areas. The major impact of the Project
on small mammals will be local alterations in the distribution and abundance of species.
The APA Project habitat analysis described earlier (TES 1982) identified a disproportionately
large impact on wildlife habitats ranked as being of “excellent” and “good” value, based on
diversity of use, seasonal value for food and cover, and reproduction.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-197 December 2011
Table 4.6-5. Potential impacts of the proposed Susitna–Watana Hydroelectric Project on
terrestrial wildlife and botanical resources (adapted from LGL 1985a).
Moose
• Removal of material from borrow sites could result in temporary loss of winter habitat.
• Maintenance of early successional vegetation along transmission line corridor may improve habitat quality.
• Altered flow regime downstream of dam would alter floodplain habitat for wintering moose.
• Open and warmer water in downstream areas may alter plant phenology and affect spring forage and cover.
• Hoar frost deposition on floodplain vegetation may render some browse unavailable and increase metabolic
demands of moose eating frost-bearing forage.
• Drifting snow from frozen impoundment surface and in the transmission line corridor, and delayed melting of
those drifts, may inhibit or prevent use of winter and early spring forage.
• Drifting snow from frozen impoundment surface may impede moose movements south and southwest of the
reservoir and reduce the value of the Fog Lakes area as winter range.
• Open water downstream from dam in winter may restrict moose movements across the river and to island
wintering areas, perhaps blocking access to critical winter forage or spring calving areas and may result in
mortality of moose attempting to cross the river.
• Increases in moose density caused by displacement of moose and predators following impoundment and by
blockage of migration movements could increase predation, possibly driving moose populations to low levels that
may be maintained by predation.
• Increased hunting and poaching would result in increased mortality.
• Thin or unstable shore ice and floating ice or debris may cause direct mortality of moose attempting to cross the
impoundment.
• Increases in train and automobile traffic and plowing of snow from rights-of-way would increase collision
mortality.
• Access corridor traffic, village activities, dam construction, aircraft overflights, and associated disturbances may
alter distribution of moose.
Caribou
• In spring, ice at the impoundment edges, drifting ice floes, and floating debris may cause mortality of caribou
attempting to cross the impoundment.
• Increased access by hunters and poachers would result in increased harvest.
• Construction and recreational traffic would cause increases in collision mortality.
• Increased predation may lead to increased mortality.
• The impoundment could reduce productivity by presenting a barrier to movement.
• Access roads and associated traffic may block or alter herd movements, preventing caribou from reaching foraging
or calving areas and also increasing energy demands (particularly for pregnant cows or cows with calves).
• Construction and impoundment-clearing may prevent caribou from reaching foraging areas, thereby reducing
productivity.
• Aircraft may disturb caribou, causing increased energy demand and calf mortality.
• Drifted snow south and southwest of the reservoir may block caribou movements to forage.
• Increased recreation and development of lands near the Project may change range use, alter migration patterns, and
cause abandonment of calving areas, thus reducing productivity.
Dall’s Sheep
• The impoundment may partially flood the Jay Creek mineral lick area and may block movement to licks on the
east side of Jay Creek.
• Portions of the Jay Creek lick complex below maximum fill level may be affected by leaching and erosion,
leading to the loss of lick sites.
• The impoundment may contribute to delayed spring plant development and increased snow accumulation on
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-198 December 2011
south-facing slopes of the Watana Creek Hills.
• The impoundment may block movement between the Watana Creek Hills and Talkeetna Mountains populations.
• Ice on slopes of the Jay Creek mineral lick area may cause accident-related mortalities in early spring.
• Disturbances from recreational boating on the impoundment may reduce or prevent sheep use of the Jay Creek
mineral lick area.
Brown and Black Bears
• Clearing of transmission corridors may improve habitat by enhancing food production.
• Potential declines in moose or salmon populations may reduce food supply, thereby reducing productivity.
• Local climatic changes resulting from the reservoir and an extended open-water period in the river downstream of
the reservoir may alter vegetation composition or production and affect food supply.
• Impoundment and construction and use of access roads may block movement to forage or dispersal of juveniles.
• The impoundment may force black bears into closer proximity with conspecifics and brown bears, temporarily
increasing mortality.
• Increased human activity may cause bears to abandon foraging habitat, thus affecting weight gain and
productivity, and cause bears to abandon dens.
Wolf
• Reduction in moose and other prey abundance would reduce carrying capacity.
• Inundation of parts of home ranges may alter distribution of wolf packs.
• Wolf numbers may increase near the impoundment.
• The impoundment and dam facilities may hinder access to caribou and moose calving areas.
• Access routes would be used by wolves when hunting.
• Open water downstream from the dam may hinder movement.
Wolverine
• Reduction in density of small mammals and grouse may affect movements, population density, and productivity.
• Increased carrying capacity of moose and ptarmigan along the transmission-line corridor may result in increased
wolverine carrying capacity.
• The impoundment and dam facilities would change wolverine home range boundaries and alter habitat use
patterns.
Lynx
• Transmission-line corridor would result in permanent loss of forest habitat.
• Habitat alteration at borrow sites would result in loss of forest habitat for species such as lynx, weasels.
Coyote, Red Fox
• Construction and operation of the Project may increase coyote abundance near developed areas.
• Early successional plant communities in areas reclaimed from construction activities may provide increased
availability of small mammals, benefitting predators, such as coyotes, red foxes, weasels
• Open water downstream from the impoundment may hinder mammal movements in winter.
Aquatic Furbearers
• Higher water temperatures downstream of the impoundment could maintain open water for longer periods
benefiting beaver, muskrat, river otter.
• Downstream flow variations may freeze or flood beaver lodges and/or food caches.
• Habitat alterations downstream of the impoundment may affect river otters, mink, beaver, and muskrats
• The Project would result in water quality changes to the Susitna River that may impact fish populations, prey to
river otters.
• Early successional plant communities in areas reclaimed from construction activities may provide increased
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-199 December 2011
availability of small mammals and birds, also benefitting predators such as marten, mink.
Waterbirds
• Project construction would result in loss of river, stream, and lacustrine habitats for waterbirds, including shoreline
nesting habitats.
• The transmission line corridor would cross waterbird nesting areas or movement corridors and would increase the
probability of mortality from transmission-line collisions.
• Increased hunting and poaching may result in increased mortality of gamebirds.
Raptors
• Impacts of erosion, blowdowns, etc., on forest vegetation may result in loss of nest sites and habitat alteration for
bald eagles, golden eagles, gyrfalcons and other tree nesting raptors.
• Increased air traffic, construction, and recreation may result in disturbance and nest abandonment.
• Human activities along the transmission-line corridor may result in loss or abandonment of nesting locations.
• Potential losses of raptors by shooting resulting from increased recreation.
• Potential electrocution of raptors at transmission towers and power poles.
• Potential losses of peregrine falcons from collisions with high-tension wires and other man-made obstructions.
• Potential adverse impacts on salmon and other fish in downstream areas may affect habitat quality for bald eagles.
• Potential improvement of peregrine falcon nesting habitat due to impoundment.
Landbirds
• Clearing for the access corridor and borrow sites would alter forest habitats.
• Vegetation encroachment on downstream river floodplains may increase breeding habitat for some species.
• Effects of erosion, blowdowns, etc., on forest vegetation may result in a loss of nest sites and forest habitats.
• Presence of transmission lines, towers, and vehicles would result in collision mortality.
4.6.4.2. Botanical Resources
Impacts on vegetation from the Project would occur in severalways:
Direct loss of vegetative cover within the impoundment zone, access road, and Project
facilities;
alteration of vegetation adjacent to the project footprint and within the transmission
corridor;
temporary alteration of vegetation during construction within the upland borrow pits,
temporary housing, etc;
disturbance from construction and operations/maintenance activities, followed by
alterations in plant community types;and
alteration of riparian habitat below the Project from changes in the stream flow regime.
These impacts are described in more detail below.
4.6.4.2.1. Direct Loss of Vegetation
Using acreages calculated for Stage I (Low Watana) of the APA Project as the best available
information (pending preparation of a unified GIS database for the current project), construction
of the Project would result in the direct removal or inundation of vegetation in an area of
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-200 December 2011
approximately 21,430 acres (APA 1985a). This acreage includes the proposed dam and
impoundment, access road, construction camp and village, quarry and borrow sites, airport,
transmission line switchyards, and construction roads (Table 4.6-6). Of the acreage that would
lost, 4,146 acres are water and 69 acres are barren. Removing those amounts leaves a total of
17,213 acres of vegetation that would be lost from development of the Project.
Forests and woodlands make up the vast majority (13,874 acres or 81 percent) of the affected
area. Spruce forests and woodlands account for 7,107 acres or 51 percent of the forest types that
would be lost. Mixed forests and woodlands, primarily spruce–birch and spruce–birch–aspen
forests, also account for a substantial amount of the forested area that would lost (6,039 acres or
44 percent of the forest types affected). Broadleaf forests make up the remaining 728 acres (5
percent) of the forest types that would be lost. Dwarf tree scrub and low scrub combined account
for 3,132 acres (or 18 percent) of the vegetation that would be lost. Small areas of tall scrub (88
ac), dwarf scrub (60 ac), herbaceous vegetation (35 ac), and sparse vegetation (14 ac) would be
lost; in combination, those areas constitute one percent of the vegetation types that would be lost
from development.
The total area of 17,213 acres of vegetation that would be lost includes 1,459 acres that would be
revegetated after the completion of the construction phase (see Table 4.6-6). Initially, grassland
habitats would be created in those areas to quickly establish a vegetation layer to minimize
erosion; over time, those areas would undergo succession to scrub and forest types, depending on
drainage and site conditions.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-201 December 2011
Table 4.6-6. Acreage of vegetation types expected to be lost to Stage I (Low Watana)
development for the original APA Susitna Hydroelectric Project1 (reproduced from APA
1985a).
Vegetation Type2
Impoundment
& Dam
Access
Road3
Camps
&
Villages4
Quarry &
Borrow
Sites5
Other
Facilities
6 Total
Conifer Forest
White Spruce Forest 1,066 21 0 1 0 1,088
Black Spruce Forest 1,636 3 0 16 8 1,663
Black & White Spruce Forest 3,135 6 0 245 5 3,391
White Spruce Woodland 348 1 0 7 6 362
Black Spruce Woodland 377 0 0 0 0 377
Black & White Spruce Woodland 77 9 1 139 <0.5 226
Subtotal 6,639 40 1 408 19 7,107
Broadleaf Forest
Paper Birch Forest 242 0 0 8 0 250
Birch–Aspen Forest 389 0 0 0 0 389
Other Broadleaf Forest 89 0 0 0 0 89
Broadleaf Woodland 0 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal 720 0 0 8 0 728
Mixed Forest
Spruce–Birch Forest 4,013 0 0 194 39 4,246
Spruce–Birch–Poplar Forest 0 0 0 14 0 14
Spruce–Birch–Aspen Forest 1,333 0 0 0 0 1,333
Spruce–Poplar Forest 389 0 0 51 0 440
Mixed Woodland 6 0 0 0 0 6
Subtotal 5,741 0 0 259 39 6,039
Dwarf Tree Scrub
Conifer Dwarf Tree Scrub 1,709 0 0 27 0 1,736
Other Dwarf Tree Scrub 0 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal 1,709 0 0 27 0 1,736
Tall Scrub
Tall Alder Shrub 63 6 0 17 0 86
Other Tall Shrub 0 2 0 0 0 2
Subtotal 63 8 0 17 0 88
Low Scrub
Low Dwarf Birch Shrub 12 77 214 93 32 428
Low Willow Shrub 164 158 10 4 1 337
Low Ericaceous Shrub 7 0 0 0 12 19
Low Dwarf Birch–Willow Shrub 125 158 63 10 15 371
Low Dwarf Birch–Ericaceous
Shrub
<0.5 25 <0.5 183 33 241
Other Low Shrub 0 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal 308 418 287 290 93 1,396
Dwarf Scrub 0 60 0 0 0 60
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-202 December 2011
Vegetation Type2
Impoundment
& Dam
Access
Road3
Camps &
Villages4
Quarry &
Borrow
Sites5
Other
Facilities6 Total
Graminoid Herbaceous
Wet Graminoid Herbaceous 25 1 0 9 0 35
Mesic Graminoid Herbaceous 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dry Graminoid Herbaceous 0 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal 25 1 0 9 0 35
Sparse Vegetation 14 0 0 0 0 14
Barren 68 1 0 0 0 69
Water 4,146 <0.5 12 0 0 4,158
Total 19,433 528 300 1,018 151 21,430
1 Indicated all facilities and features for which total clearing would occur; revegetation of some areas would occur following
construction (see footnotes below); does not include transmission-line rights-of-way, in which only tall vegetation would be
cleared.
2 Based on the Alaska Vegetation Classification (Viereck et al. 1982), with modifications (see text). Although vegetation
complexes were mapped in many cases, only the major component is represented here to simplify the presentation; all closed
and open types in the forest and scrub categories were aggregated.
3 Included only the Denali Highway–Watana access road alternative; assumed average clearing width for that 43.6-mile road
was 100 ft, of which approximately 40 ft (or 211 out of 528 ac) would be revegetated after road construction.
4 Included Watana construction camp and permanent village; approximately 200 acres would be rehabilitated after construction.
5 Included 33 percent of the area of the APA Susitna Hydroelectric Project Quarry Site A, 67 percent of the area of Borrow Site
D, and 67 percent of the area of Borrow Site E. All quarry and borrow site areas would be revegetated after construction.
6 Included the airport (44 ac), Watana construction roads (80 ac), and transmission-line switchyards at Watana (12 ac) and Gold
Creek (16 ac); approximately 30 acres of the construction roads would be revegetated after construction.
4.6.4.2.2. Effects of Erosion and Deposition
Erosion is a persistent problem at dam construction sites in northern latitudes (APA 1985a).
Erosion following the clearing of vegetation may result from several factors, including the
destabilization of slopes (especially glacial till), blowdown of trees near cleared areas, thawing
of permafrost, desiccation of exposed soils, and changes in drainage patterns.
Three factors are primarily responsible for slope instabilities: changes in the groundwater
regime, the magnitude of water-level fluctuations in the reservoir, and thawing of permafrost
(APA 1985a). Slope stability studies noted in APA (1985a) indicate that areas particularly
vulnerable to vegetation loss from erosion include side slopes of the canyons from the south
abutment of the Watana dam site (RM 184) upstream to Vee Canyon (RM 225), along Watana
Creek (RM 194), and at the upper limits of the Watana reservoir.
The Watana reservoir generally would occupy the steeply sloping sidewalls of the river canyon.
Those areas have bedrock-controlled slopes with little or no overburden and are quite stable. The
major areas of slope instability are expected along Watana Creek, where lacustrine slopes overlie
frozen tills. These areas currently are unstable and likely will remain so or become more unstable
after reservoir filling.
Assuming the Watana impoundment is similar to other northern reservoirs, the drawdown zone
in areas where there is some overburden would remain partially or totally unstable after dam
construction and filling, until bedrock or gravel/cobble/boulder substrates are exposed. The
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-203 December 2011
drawdown zone in the impoundment would remain essentially unvegetated, resulting in a barren
area between the maximum and minimum pool elevations. Shoreline recession would be likely,
with consequential further loss of vegetation (APA 1985a). Except during a series of drought
years, vegetation would not be expected to invade the drawdown zone and no effects on
vegetation from ice shelving would be expected. Although some of the evolving shoreline above
the drawdown zone would be colonized by early seral stages consisting of characteristic grass
and herbaceous species, stabilization of the upper shoreline may require 30 years or more.
4.6.4.2.3. Vegetation Alteration from Wind and Dust
Blowdown (also called wind throw) of trees is a recognized problem in cleared areas (APA
1985a). Wind speeds increase near reservoirs due to the greater fetch across cleared areas.
Because northeasterly winds predominate in the Project area during most of the year, the greatest
blowdown potential would be in the black spruce stands on the south side of the Watana dam
site. The shallow rooting depth typical of black spruce (30 cm, 12 in) predisposes such trees to
blowdown.
Wind-generated dust would be expected to occur during construction activities, particularly
during and following clearing of vegetation. The direct effects of dust on plants vary with plant
species and the chemical composition of the dust. For example, densities of cottongrass would
likely increase, but stiff clubmoss, sphagnum moss, and some fructicose lichens may decrease in
abundance when exposed to dust (APA 1985a).
4.6.4.2.4. Effects of Altered Drainage and Changes in Solar Radiation
Local alteration of drainage patterns and surface water flow may result from clearing, ditching,
and other construction activities. Blocking drainage patterns may cause waterlogging of soils,
thermal and hydraulic erosion, and shifts of surface flow to adjacent drainages (APA 1985a). The
resulting changes in surface water flow gradually would cause changes in plant communities
over time. The time required for those changes to occur, and the extent of the changes, would
depend on the extent of hydrologic alterations and on plant succession dynamics.
Soils cleared of vegetation usually absorb more solar radiation than do vegetated soils;
consequently, unvegetated soils thaw sooner in spring and deeper over the summer. Conversely,
with less insulation, soils freeze earlier and deeper in the winter. The resulting changes in
surface-water hydrology would cause changes in plant communities over time.
4.6.4.2.5. Indirect Effects of Vegetation Removal
Methods of vegetation removal may have indirect effects on existing vegetation nearby. Spruce
budworm disease, which occurs in areas adjacent to the Susitna watershed (APA 1985a), may be
more likely to invade the area if spruce trees are cut but not removed or burned. Clearing also
may enable other insects and decay organisms to increase in abundance.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-204 December 2011
4.6.4.2.6. Local Climatic Changes and Effects on Vegetation
The presence of the Watana reservoir would moderate local seasonal temperatures and would
promote delayed onset of cold temperatures in fall and prolonged colder temperatures in spring
(APA 1985a). These effects were expected to be localized around the impoundment, extending
up to one to five mi away from the shoreline, depending on the width of the reservoir, with the
maximum effect expected to occur along the prevailing windward shoreline. Slight precipitation
increases in both summer rainfall and early winter snowfall precipitation would be expected to
occur near the windward shoreline. Similarly, hoar frost deposition may form on vegetation near
the impoundment margins during fall before ice formation on the reservoir surface. However,
hoar frost currently forms in areas not influenced by open water in the river, and the reservoir
would not be expected to increase the severity of hoar-frost formation.
The reservoir would act as a heat sink or cold sink, depending on the season. This effect may
delay spring plant phenological development by a maximum of three to five days near the
windward shoreline (APA 1985a). Plant phenology in and near the river canyon currently is
influenced by a number of other factors, such as yearly ambient temperature variations,
elevation, slope, aspect, and vegetation type. Other factors such as plant species, site history,
snow depth, soil water content, and depth of the moss insulating layer also influence plant
phenology. Because so many local factors combine to influence plant phenology, the moderating
influence of localized temperature depressions during early spring would be difficult to detect.
Factors such as the warming effect of light reflectance from surface waters or ice onto
surrounding vegetation, and the warming and subsequent thawing of permafrost soils near the
reservoir, may positively influence early spring plant growth. Dust deposition along
impoundment shorelines may promote early snowmelt, thereby exposing the underlying
vegetation for use by moose. Because of these many interrelated factors, any measurable change
in plant phenology would not be reliably ascribed to the effects of any particular impact.
Similarly, changes in plant species composition would not be expected to occur because of
changes in local climate.
Another thermal effect of the impoundment would be its moderation of diurnal temperature
changes, such that local night temperatures during May and June would be higher, and daytime
temperatures would be lower, than before development. Average fall temperatures near a lake of
similar size to the proposed Watana reservoir were characterized by a 9.9° F (5.5° C) lower
maximum and a 4.0° F (2.2° C) higher minimum than temperatures away from the lake (APA
1985a). The effects of these thermal changes on the vegetation would be difficult to predict
quantitatively.
4.6.4.2.7. Effects of Increased Human Use on Vegetation
During the filling of the proposed Watana reservoir and the operational stage of the facility,
project personnel would have an impact on vegetation in the upper Susitna basin. The most
severe human-use impacts likely would be associated with off-road vehicles (ORVs) and
accidental fires, assuming that no regulation of project personnel is enforced to mitigate these
impacts. Similar, but more extensive, impacts would be expected from increased use of the area
by the general public.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-205 December 2011
4.6.4.2.7.1. Off-road Vehicles
The effects of ORV use on vegetation varies with season, soil moisture and depth, the presence
or absence of permafrost, vehicle weight, frequency of use, and other factors (APA 1985a).
The ground layer of vegetation is more susceptible to damage by ORVs than are other layers,
and is most susceptible to damage in summer. In winter, snow and ice layers minimize damage
to the underlying vegetation and organic mat. Dry habitats (e.g., alpine areas) are less susceptible
to damage by ORVs, but often require long periods to recover if damaged. A few passes of light-
track vehicles over relatively dry, well-drained soils may result in slight compaction of the
organic and/or plant layer, a net soil temperature gain, and deeper thaw of the active soil layer.
The typical result is minor subsidence and an influx of ground water. In contrast, tundra and
wetlands, especially sites with underlying permafrost, are the most vulnerable habitats.
Repetitive off-road traffic or use of heavy vehicles in moist areas is likely to remove vegetation
and also the underlying organic mat. This impact would in turn cause soil temperature increases,
deeper thaw, subsidence to 1 m (3 ft) or more, groundwater input, and severe erosion that may
last 5 to 50 years or more (APA 1985a).
Near the Denali Highway, after ORV use, gullies were observed as wide as 8 m (26 ft) and up to
3 m (10 ft) deep, with severe side erosion and cave-ins, as well as active transport of sediment
downhill (APA 1985a). A similar effect was noted when firelines were established on
Wickersham Dome, near Fairbanks (APA 1985a). These effects would be most severe where
ground-ice content is high. When removed or substantially reduced, the organic layer of tundra
soils in such areas may require more than a century to regenerate. However, some grasses, such
as b1uejoint, may invade mineral substrates on such sites rapidly.
4.6.4.2.7.2. Fire
The increased numbers of people in the Project area would be likely to cause increased incidence
of fires. Fire is a natural factor shaping plant communities in the region, so increased fires would
cause changes in plant communities similar to those already observed there.
Wildfire is a common and natural phenomenon throughout the conifer forests of interior Alaska.
Characteristics affected by fire in these forests include: live biomass, dead and decaying
biomass, available nutrients, soil temperature and soil moisture. Fire in black spruce forest
greatly reduces the overstory biomass, although standing dead snags may persist. Intense burning
partially or completely oxidizes organic constituents of the forest floor, releasing large quantities
of available nutrients such as phosphorus. Soil temperatures become warmer through enhanced
absorption of solar radiation. Permafrost, where present, recedes because of several factors
including changes in albedo and loss of vegetative insulation. Thus, the active layer significantly
increases in depth (APA 1985a).
Although the magnitude of tundra fires is extremely variable, in most cases many signs of the
fire disappear after six to eight years. Recovery takes much longer in areas with abundant lichen
cover, however (APA 1985a). In shrubland and forest, a variety of successional patterns may
result from a fire, depending on fire intensity and burning patterns, vegetation type, soil moisture
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-206 December 2011
and temperature, time of year, and post-fire weather patterns. For example, some willow species,
while highly adapted for reseeding burned areas, produce seeds that are viable for only short
periods of time in the spring or fall (APA 1985a).
Trees and shrubs—including aspen, birch, willow, and alder—resprout and grow vigorously after
fires. Shallow-rooted shrubs such as cranberry are destroyed in areas heavily burned to mineral
soil, but burning to mineral soil is necessary for the establishment of willow seedlings (APA
1985a). In the short term, increased productivity of browse plants such as willow, aspen, and
birch is likely as a result of the release of soil nutrients. Many berry-producing plants also
increase in density after fire (APA 1985a). Production of moose browse, especially willow, often
reaches high levels during the shrub stage after a fire. In one study referenced by APA (1985a),
the amount of willow browse available to moose increased 680 percent, from 6.5 to 44.1
kg/hectare (5.8 to 39.3 pounds/acre), within 3–7 years after a fire in black spruce forest.
Similarly, BLM (unpublished data, cited in APA 1985a) reported a 1,280 percent increase in
willow density, from 1,800 to 23,000 stems/hectare (728 to 9,308 stems/acre), within 7 years
after a moderate-intensity fire in a white spruce forest.
The ecological effects of fire on Alaskan vegetation have received considerable attention, and the
accumulated knowledge allows a degree of prediction of the effects of a given type of fire on a
specific area (APA 1985a). This knowledge, plus increasingly effective fire-control methods, has
resulted in fire being used as a land-management tool to create desired vegetation changes.
4.6.5. Potential Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement
4.6.5.1. Wildlife
PM&E measures will be defined during course of licensing studies and at the appropriate stage
of the licensing efforts. However, the following list of proposed mitigation measures is
summarized from the draft amended FERC license application (APA 1985b) and encapsulates
the outcome of the large amount of effort that was devoted to impact assessment and mitigation
planning for the APA Project (LGL 1985a, 1985b). These measures can provide a starting point
for PME identification relative to the proposed Project.
4.6.5.1.1. Avoidance
Using best management practices in transmission-line design to avoid electrocution of
raptors.
Prohibition of public access to project during construction.
Prohibition of hunting and trapping by employees.
Local adjustment of access route to avoid site-specific habitat loss or disturbance of
wildlife.
Implementation of waste-control measures, educational measures, and strict
enforcement of state regulations prohibiting intentional feeding to avoid creating
attractive nuisances that result in the destruction of nuisance animals.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-207 December 2011
Preparation of BMP manuals for project design, construction, and maintenance: oil-
spill contingency planning, erosion and sedimentation control, handling of liquid and
solid wastes, handling of fuels and hazardous materials, and water supply.
Adjusting placement of the Watana camp sites to avoid habitat loss and disturbance
of spring brown bear and fall moose concentration areas near Tsusena Butte.
4.6.5.1.2. Minimization
Delaying the start, and scheduling the timing, of vegetation-clearing operations to
minimize the effects of habitat losses on moose, bears, marten, and nesting birds
(especially raptors).
Specific siting and use of side-borrow techniques during road construction and
consolidation of infrastructure to minimize habitat losses for wildlife.
Selective clearing and retention of shrubs and small trees (up to 3 m [10 ft] tall) in
transmission line corridors to minimize habitat losses for some wildlife species.
Minimization of aircraft-related disturbance through establishment of altitude
restrictions and seasonal, spatial restrictions on air traffic near specific wildlife habitat
areas deemed to be sensitive.
Minimization of disturbance of sensitive wildlife areas through spatial and temporal
(seasonal) restrictions on ground-based activities associated with project construction
and operation, with special emphasis on eagle nests.
Realignment of access road and use of specific methods, such as side-borrow
techniques, to minimize disturbance of caribou range-use areas.
Minimizing the amount of forested areas disturbed during access road and
transmission line construction to minimize habitat losses for black bear, marten, small
mammals, and landbirds, along with clearing of the narrowest corridors possible,
retention of vegetation in middle of transmission line corridor, delay of impoundment
clearing.
Limit access during Project operation.
Regulating traffic volume on access road to minimize traffic-related disturbance and
vehicle-related injuries and mortality of caribou and other wildlife.
4.6.5.1.3. Rectification
Revegetation and fertilization of disturbed sites to partially rectify the effects of
vegetation removal and provide forage for moose and bears for up to 30 years.
Creation of new soil exposures at the Jay Creek mineral licks used by Dall’s sheep, if
monitoring indicates loss of use of lick areas as a result of project construction or
activities.
4.6.5.1.4. Reduction
Institution of monitoring programs to provide the information needed to reduce
impacts over time during the life of the project.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-208 December 2011
4.6.5.2. Botanical Resources
The expected impacts on botanical resources could be minimized in several ways, including:
Minimizing the overall project footprint, by co-locating process roads and transmission
lines and using excavated material at dam site for construction of Project facilities;
Disposing of spoil from excavation work in the impoundment area, and
Discouraging ORV use in the project area to minimize trail propagation and erosion
effects.
BMPs for erosion and sediment control.
BMPs to prevent the spread of invasive plant species.
In addition, agency input into engineering design and construction planning of civil works would
be sought in an effort to further minimize potential vegetation impacts. A comprehensive
restoration plan would be developed to guide revegetation of areas to be rehabilitated following
construction. During the permitting process, habitat enhancement and preservation likely would
be considered as potential options to mitigate habitat losses from construction of the Project.
Minimizing the project footprint would reduce both the areal extent of vegetation to be removed
and the volume requirements for material extraction from borrow sites. Minimizing the size of
the project footprint could also be accomplished by (1) using road alignments and pad locations
that follow well-drained upland terrain with soils suitable for use as construction material; (2)
using side-borrow and balanced cut-and-fill road and railroad construction techniques; and (3)
incorporating a flexible or variable road-design speed to avoid the necessity for deep sidehill cuts
with excessive fill requirements. The borrow and quarry sites identified by APA (1985a) were
close to the dam site, so the lengths of haul roads were minimized and the areas of disturbance
were centralized as much as possible.
Disposal of spoil from construction and borrow excavations would create the potential for
vegetation impacts through direct burial and clearing for spoil disposal sites. A cost-effective
way to avoid additional vegetation losses for spoil disposal would be to deposit the spoil within
the impoundment zone. However, this option would be limited by the need to prevent fine
sediments from being entrained in surface water flow. Thus, the locations for spoil disposal
within the impoundment zone must be selected carefully in areas in which water would pond
during reservoir filling, well away from turbulent flows associated with intake structures.
Rehabilitation of temporary vegetation impacts would be conducted to the maximal extent
possible. Provided that appropriate hydrologic and soil characteristics are not extensively altered,
vegetation recovery could proceed at various rates, depending on slope, aspect, elevation, soil
types, moisture and drainage conditions, and other factors. Without restoration of mineral and
organic soils, recovery of scrub and, especially forest, habitats in the project area could take 150
years or more. Some semblance of the original pattern of vegetation lost may be restored within
150 years if areas to be restored are prepared for rehabilitation, but predictions of how plant
succession would proceed on these lands are difficult. Because rehabilitation procedures for
disturbed lands in Alaska are best developed on a site-specific basis, preparing a comprehensive
restoration plan for the original APA Susitna Hydroelectric Project was designated as a task for
the detailed engineering-design phase (APA 1985a). An individual restoration plan should be
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-209 December 2011
developed for each area to be rehabilitated. Guidelines and best management techniques for
erosion and sedimentation control would be followed (e.g., Densmore et al. 2000, Wright and
Hunt 2008).
4.6.6. References
ABR. 2011a. Field report: Watana borehole raptor survey, 27 June 2011. Prepared for Alaska
Energy Authority, Anchorage, by ABR, Inc.—Environmental Research & Services,
Fairbanks. 3 pp.
ABR. 2011b. Wildlife data-gap analysis for the proposed Susitna–Watana Hydroelectric Project.
Draft report prepared for Alaska Energy Authority, Anchorage, by ABR, Inc.—
Environmental Research & Services, Fairbanks. 114 pp.
ADF&G (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 1973. Alaska’s wildlife and habitat. Juneau.
144 pp. + reference maps.
ADF&G. 1978. Alaska’s wildlife and habitat. Vol. II. Juneau. 74 pp. + reference maps.
ADF&G. 1981. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, environmental studies: annual progress report.
Subtask 7.11—Big game. Report prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, AK.
450 pp. [APA Doc. No. 391]
ADF&G. 1982. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Phase I final report: big game studies. Vol. I—Big
game summary report. Report prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, AK. 76
pp. [APA Doc. No. 404]
ADF&G. 1983. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Phase II progress report: big game studies. Vol.
I—Big game summary report. Report prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage,
AK. 39 pp. [APA Doc. No. 405]
ADF&G. 1984a. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, 1983 report: big game studies. Vol. I—Big game
summary report. Report prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, AK. 65 pp.
[APA Doc. No. 2320]
ADF&G. 1984b. An atlas to the fish and wildlife resources element for the Susitna Area
planning study. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Division, Anchorage.
ADF&G. 1985a. Alaska Habitat Management Guides, Southcentral region map atlas. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Division, Juneau.
ADF&G. 1985b. Alaska Habitat Management Guides reference maps, Southcentral region.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Division, Juneau.
ADF&G. 1998. State of Alaska special status species: Species of Special Concern. Available
online (accessed 14 July 2011):
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=specialstatus.akconcern
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-210 December 2011
ADF&G. 2010. State of Alaska endangered species list. Available online (accessed 29 October
2010): http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/special/esa/esa_home.php
ADNR (Alaska Department of Natural Resources). 1985. Susitna area plan. Alaska Department
of Natural Resources, Division of Land, Anchorage.
ADNR. 1991. Susitna forestry guidelines. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of
Land, Anchorage. 115 pp.
ADNR. 2010. Susitna–Matanuska area plan. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division
of Mining, Land and Water, Anchorage. 243 pp.
AKNHP (Alaska Natural Heritage Program). 2008. Rare vascular plant tracking list, April 2008.
Alaska Natural Heritage Program, University of Alaska, Anchorage. 8 pp. Available
online (accessed 31 August 2011): http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/botany/rare-plants-
species-lists/
AKNHP. 2011a. Species tracking list (updated January 2011). Alaska Natural Heritage Program,
University of Alaska, Anchorage. 31 pp. Available online (accessed 12 August 2011):
http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2010/11/All_Tracking_Lists_Combined1.pdf
AKNHP. 2011b. BIOTICS rare species data portal. Available online (accessed 31 August 2011):
http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/maps/biotics/
Anderson, B. C. 2004. An opportunistic amphibian inventory in Alaska’s national parks, 2001–
2003. Final report, National Park Service, Alaska Region Survey and Inventory Program,
Anchorage. 44 pp.
APA (Alaska Power Authority). 1983. Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission:
Application for license for major project—Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Vols. 6A and
6B, Exhibit E, Chapter 3: Fish, wildlife, and botanical resources.
APA. 1985a. Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Draft amended application for
license for major project—Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Volume 10, Exhibit E, Chapter
3: Fish, wildlife, and botanical resources.
APA. 1985b. Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Draft amended application for
license for major project—Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Volume 11, Exhibit E, Chapter
3: Fish, wildlife, and botanical resources.
ASG (Alaska Shorebird Group). 2008. Alaska Shorebird Conservation Plan. Version II.
Anchorage.
Ballard, W. B., and J. R. Dau. 1983. Characteristics of gray wolf, Canis lupus, den and
rendezvous sites in Southcentral Alaska. Canadian Field-Naturalist 97:299–302.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-211 December 2011
Ballard, W. B., and S. D. Miller. 1990. Effects of reducing brown bear density on moose calf
survival in Southcentral Alaska. Alces 26:9–13.
Ballard, W. B., and K. P. Taylor. 1980. Upper Susitna Valley moose population study. Final
report, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Projects W-17-9 through W-17-11, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Juneau. 101 pp. [APA Doc. No. 524]
Ballard, W. B., and J. S. Whitman. 1988. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, big game studies, Vol.
II—Moose upstream. Report prepared by Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Anchorage, AK, for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, AK. [APA Doc. No. 3494]
Ballard, W. B., T. H. Spraker, and K. P. Taylor. 1981a. Causes of neonatal moose calf mortality
in south central Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management 45:335–342.
Ballard, W. B., R. O. Stephenson, and T. H. Spraker. 1981b. Nelchina Basin wolf studies. Final
report, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Projects W-17-8 through W-17-11, Alaska
Department of Fsh and Game, Juneau. 201 pp.
Ballard, W. B., C. L. Gardner, J. H. Westlund, and J. R. Dau. 1982. Susitna Hydroelectric
Project, Phase I final report, big game studies, Vol. V—Wolf. Report prepared by Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage. 220
pp. [APA Doc. No. 412]
Ballard, W. B., J. S. Whitman, M.G. Tankersley, L. D. Aumiller, and P. Hessing. 1983a. Susitna
Hydroelectric Project, Phase II progress report, big game studies, Vol. III—Moose –
Upstream. Report prepared by Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, for
Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage.
Ballard, W. B., J. S. Whitman, L. D. Aumiller, and P. Hessing. 1983b. Susitna Hydroelectric
Project, Phase II progress report, big game studies, Vol. V—Wolf. Report prepared by
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, for Alaska Power Authority,
Anchorage. 41 pp. [APA Doc. No. 413]
Ballard, W. B., J. S. Whitman, L. D. Aumiller, J. H. Westund, and P. Hessing. 1984. Susitna
Hydroelectric Project, 1983 annual report, big game studies, Vol. V—Wolf. Report
prepared by Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, for Alaska Power
Authority, Anchorage. 40 pp. [APA Doc. No. 2324]
Ballard, W. B., J. S. Whitman, and C. L. Gardner. 1987. Ecology of an exploited wolf population
in south-central Alaska. Wildlife Monographs 98:1–54.
Ballard, W. B., S. D. Miller, and J. S. Whitman. 1990. Brown and black bear predation on moose
in Southcentral Alaska. Alces 26:1–8.
Ballard, W. B., J. S. Whitman, and D. J. Reed. 1991. Population dynamics of moose in south-
central Alaska. Wildlife Monographs 114:1–49.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-212 December 2011
Becker, E. F. 1991. A terrestrial furbearer estimator based on probability sampling. Journal of
Wildlife Management 55:730–737.
Becker, E. F., and P. X. Quang. 2009. A gamma-shaped detection function for line-transect
surveys with mark–recapture and covariate data. Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and
Environmental Statistics 14:207–223.
Becker, E. F., M. A. Spindler, and T. O. Osborne. 1998. A population estimator based on
network sampling of tracks in the snow. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:968–977.
Becker, E. F., H. F. Golden, and C. L. Gardner. 2004. Using probability sampling of animal
tracks in snow to estimate population size. Pages 248–270 in W. L. Thompson, editor.
Sampling Rare or Elusive Species: Concepts and Techniques for Estimating Population
Parameters. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Belant, J. D., K. Kielland, E. H. Follmann, and L. G. Adams. 2006. Interspecific resource
partitioning in sympatric ursids. Ecological Applications 16:2333–2343.
Belant, J. D., B. Griffith, Y. Zhang, E. Follmann, and L. G. Adams. 2009. Population-level
resource selection by sympatric brown and American black bears in Alaska. Polar
Biology 33:31–40.
Benson, A.-M. 2004. Habitat selection and densities of passerines breeding in interior Alaska.
Report prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northern Alaska Ecological Services,
Fairbanks, by Alaska Bird Observatory, Fairbanks. 20 pp. + appendices.
Berven, K. A. 1990. Factors affecting population fluctuations in larval and adult stages of the
wood frog (Rana sylvatica). Ecology 71:1599–1608.
BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 2010a. BLM–Alaska sensitive animal and plant lists.
Alaska State Office, Anchorage.
BLM. 2010b. BLM–Alaska watch lists. Alaska State Office, Anchorage.
BLM, U.S. Department of the Air Force, and Ducks Unlimited, Inc. 2002a. Gulkana earth-cover
classification. BLM–Alaska Technical Report 25, Anchorage. 47 pp.
BLM, U.S. Department of the Air Force, and Ducks Unlimited, Inc. 2002b. Susitna MOA earth-
cover classification. BLM–Alaska Technical Report 44, Anchorage. 67 pp.
Boertje, R. D., W. C. Gasaway, D. V. Grangaard, and D. G. Kelleyhouse. 1988. Predation on
moose and caribou by radio-collared grizzly bears in east central Alaska. Canadian
Journal of Zoology 66:2492–2499.
Bonar, R. L. 1985. Susitna Hydroelectric Project: meeting with Richard Bonar regarding the
Revelstoke, B.C. hydro project. File memorandum by R. Fairbanks, Harza–Ebasco
Susitna Joint Venture, Anchorage. 5 pp. [APA Doc. No. 2797]
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-213 December 2011
Bos, G. N. 1973. Nelchina caribou report. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau. 25 pp.
Bos, G. N. 1974. Nelchina and Mentasta caribou reports. Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Juneau. 34 pp.
BPIFWG (Boreal Partners in Flight Working Group). 1999. Landbird conservation plan for
Alaska biogeographic regions. Version 1.0. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage.
Buskirk, S. W., and S. O. MacDonald. 1984. Seasonal food habits of marten in south-central
Alaska. Canadian Journal of Zoology 62:944–950. [APA Doc. No. 2632]
Buskirk, S. W., and L. L. McDonald. 1989. Analysis of variability in home-range size of the
American marten. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:997–1004.
Butler, D. R. 1995. Zoogeomorphology: Animals as Geomorphic Agents. Cambridge University
Press, New York, NY. 231 pp.
Carlson, M. L., I. V. Lapina, M. Shephard, J. S. Conn, R. Densmore, P. Spencer, J. Heys, J.
Riley, and J. Nielsen. 2008. Invasiveness ranking system for non-native plants of Alaska.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alaska Region, publication R10-TP-143.
218 pp.
Collen, P., and R. J. Gibson. 2001. The general ecology of beavers (Castor spp.), as related to
their influence on stream ecosystems and riparian habitats, and the subsequent effects on
fish—a review. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 10:439–461.
Collins, W. B. 2002. Interrelationship of forage and moose in Game Management Unit 13.
Research final performance report, 1 July 1995–30 June 2001, Federal Aid in Wildlife
Restoration W-24-4 to W-27-4, Study 1.50, Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Juneau. 22 pp.
Collins, W. B. 2006. Habitat use, foraging behavior, and nutritional ecology of Nelchina caribou.
Federal Aid Research Final Performance Report Grants W-27-5 and 33-4 Project 3.47,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau. 5 pp.
Collins, W. B., and D. J. Helm. 1997. Moose, Alces alces, habitat relative to riparian succession
in the boreal forest, Susitna River, Alaska. Canadian Field-Naturalist 111:567–574.
Collins, J. P., and A. Storfer. 2003. Global amphibian decline: sorting the hypotheses. Diversity
and Distributions 9:89–98.
Conant, B., J. I. Hodges, D. J. Groves, and J. G. King. 2007. Alaska Trumpeter Swan status
report, 2005. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Juneau. 49 pp.
Cook, J. A., and S. O. MacDonald. 2003. Mammal inventory of Alaska’s national parks and
preserves: Denali National Park and Preserve. 2002 annual report prepared for National
Park Service, Alaska Region Survey and Inventory Program, Anchorage, by Idaho State
University, Pocatello. 24 pp.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-214 December 2011
Davis, J. L. 1978. History and current status of Alaska caribou herds. Pages 1–8 in D. R. Klein
and R. G. White, editors. Parameters of caribou population ecology in Alaska. University
of Alaska Biological Papers, Special Report No. 4.
Densmore, R. V., M. E. Van der Meer, and N. G. Dunkle. 2000. Native plant revegetation
manual for Denali National Park and Preserve. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological
Resources Division, Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/ITR–2000-0006.
42 pp.
Dokuchaev, N. E. 1997. A new species of shrew (Soricidae, Insectivora) from Alaska. Journal of
Mammalogy 78:811–817.
Everitt, R. R., N. C. Sonntag, G. T. Auble, J. E. Roelle, and W. Gazey. 1983. Susitna
Hydroelectric Project draft report: terrestrial environmental mitigation planning
simulation model. Report prepared by Environmental and Social Systems Analysts Ltd.,
Vancouver, BC; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Collins, CO; and LGL Ecological
Research Associates, Bryan, TX; for LGL Alaska Ltd., Anchorage and Fairbanks. 243
pp. [APA Doc. No. 3382]
FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). 1984. Draft environmental impact statement:
Susitna Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 7114—Alaska. Office of Electric Power
Regulation, Washington, DC.
Gardner, C. L., and W. B. Ballard. 1982. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Final phase I report, big
game studies, Vol. VII—Wolverine. Report prepared by Alaska Department of Fish and
Game, Anchorage, for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage. 43 pp. [APA Doc. No. 416]
Gardner, C. L., J. P. Lawler, J. M. Ver Hoef, A. J. Magoun, and K. A. Kellie. 2010. Coarse-scale
distribution surveys and occurrence probability modeling for wolverine in interior
Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:1894–1903.
Gasaway, W. C., S. D. DuBois, D. J. Reed, and S. J. Harbo. 1986. Estimating moose population
parameters from aerial surveys. Biological Papers of the University of Alaska, No. 22.
108 pp.
Gipson, P. S., S. W. Buskirk, and T. W. Hobgood. 1982. Susitna Hydroelectric Project
environmental studies, Subtask 7.11: furbearers—Phase I report. Report prepared by
Alaska Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, for
Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. 81 pp. [APA Doc. No. 395]
Gipson, P. S., S. W. Buskirk, T. W. Hobgood, and J. D. Woolington. 1984. Susitna Hydroelectric
Project furbearer studies: Phase I report update. Final report prepared by Alaska
Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, for Alaska Power
Authority, Anchorage. 100 pp. [APA Doc. No. 2329]
Golden, H. N. 2004. Furbearer management technique development. Research final report,
Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Grants W-27-5, W-33-1, and W-33-2, Study 7.19,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau. 11 pp.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-215 December 2011
Golden, H., and T. Rinaldi. 2008. Population ecology and spatial dynamics of wolves relative to
prey availability and human activity in the Nelchina Basin, Alaska. Research final
performance report, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Grant W-33-6, Project 14.24.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau. 13 pp.
Golden, H. N., J. D. Henry, E. F. Becker, M. I. Goldstein, J. M. Morton, D. Frost, Sr., and A. J.
Poe. 2007. Estimating wolverine Gulo gulo population size using quadrat sampling of
tracks in snow. Wildlife Biology 13 (Supplement 2):52–61.
Gotthardt, T. 2004. Monitoring the distribution of amphibians in the Cook Inlet watershed: 2003
final report. Alaska Natural Heritage Program, University of Alaska, Anchorage.
Gotthardt, T. 2005. Wood frog conservation status report. Alaska Natural Heritage Program,
University of Alaska, Anchorage.
Graziano, G. 2011. Strategic plan for invasive weed and agricultural pest management and
prevention in Alaska. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Agriculture,
Alaska Plant Materials Center, Palmer. 36 pp.
Handel, C. M., and M. N. Cady. 2004. Alaska Landbird Monitoring Survey: protocol for setting
up and conducting point count surveys. U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center,
Anchorage. Available online (accessed 11 August 2011):
http://alaska.usgs.gov/science/biology/bpif/monitor/alms/ALMSprotocol_2004.pdf
Harper, P., editor. 2008. Moose management report of survey and inventory activities, 1 July
2005–30 June 2007. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau. 687 pp.
Harza–Ebasco. 1984a. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, habitat management methods to increase
moose browse production in Alaska: a review, synthesis and annotated bibliography of
available information. Report prepared by Harza–Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture,
Anchorage, for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage. 150 pp. [APA Doc. No. 2046]
Harza–Ebasco. 1984b. Use of candidate lands for wildlife habitat mitigation. Report prepared by
Harza–Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture, Anchorage, for Alaska Power Authority,
Anchorage. 9 pp. [APA Doc. No. 2423]
Helm, D. J., and W. B. Collins. 1997. Vegetation succession and disturbance on a boreal forest
floodplain, Susitna River, Alaska. Canadian Field-Naturalist 111:553–566.
Helm, D., and P. V. Mayer. 1985. Susitna Hydroelectric Project environmental studies: plant
phenology study. Report prepared by University of Alaska–Fairbanks, Agricultural and
Forestry Experiment Station, Palmer, and Harza–Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture,
Anchorage, for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage. 250 pp. [APA Doc. No. 2932]
Hemming, J. 1971. The distribution and movement patterns of caribou in Alaska. Wildlife
Technical Bulletin No. 1, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau. 60 pp.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-216 December 2011
Hemming, J. E. and L. P. Glenn. 1968. Caribou report. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration
Project W-15-R-2, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau. 41 pp.
Hilderbrand, G. V., C. C. Schwartz, C. T. Robbins, M. E. Jacoby, T. A. Hanley, S. M. Arthur,
and C. Servheen. 1999a. The importance of meat, particularly salmon, to body size,
population productivity, and conservation of North American brown bears. Canadian
Journal of Zoology 77:132–138.
Hilderbrand, G. V., T. A. Hanley, C. T. Robbins, and C. C. Schwartz. 1999b. Role of brown
bears (Ursus arctos) in the flow of marine nitrogen into a terrestrial ecosystem.
Oecologia 121:546–550.
Hilderbrand, G. V., S. D. Farley, C. C. Schwartz, and C. T. Robbins. 2004. Importance of salmon
to wildlife: implications for integrated management. Ursus 15:1–9.
Hobgood, T. W. 1984. Ecology of the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) in the upper Susitna Basin, Alaska.
M.S. thesis, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. 163 pp. [APA Doc. No. 2751]
Hokit, D. G., and A. Brown. 2006. Distribution patterns of wood frogs (Rana sylvatica) in Denali
National Park. Northwestern Naturalist 87:128–137.
Kavalok, T. P. 2007. Unit 14 brown bear management report. Pages 155–163 in P. Harper,
editor. Brown bear management report of survey and inventory activities, 1 July 2004–30
June 2006. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau.
Kelleyhouse, R. A. 2006. Unit 13 wolf management report. Pages 90–99 in P. Harper, editor.
Wolf management report of survey–inventory activities, 1 July 2002–30 June 2005.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau.
Kellie, K. A., and R. A. DeLong. 2006. Geospatial survey operations manual. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Fairbanks. 55 pp.
Kessel, B., S. O. MacDonald, D. D. Gibson, B. A. Cooper, and B. A. Anderson. 1982. Susitna
Hydroelectric Project environmental studies, Phase I final report—Subtask 7.11: Birds
and non-game mammals. Report prepared by University of Alaska Museum, Fairbanks,
and Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc., Phoenix, NY for Alaska Power Authority,
Anchorage. 149 pp. [APA Doc. No. 398]
King, R. 1980. Bald Eagle survey maps. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird
Management files, Fairbanks. [Original not seen; cited in Parker 1988]
Klein, E., E. E. Berg, and R. Dial. 2005. Wetland drying and succession across the Kenai
Peninsula lowlands, south-central Alaska. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research
35:1931–1941.
Kreig and Associates. 1985. Susitna Hydroelectric Project vegetation mapping. Prepared by Ray
A. Kreig and Associates, Inc., Anchorage, for Harza–Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture,
Anchorage. [Original not seen; cited in APA 1985a]
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-217 December 2011
Kreig and Associates. 1987. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, vegetation mapping final report and
user guide. Report prepared by Ray A. Kreig and Associates, Inc., Anchorage, for Harza–
Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture, Anchorage. 92 pp. [APA Doc. No. 3509]
Kushlan, J. A., M. J. Steinkamp, K. C. Parsons, J. Capp., M. Acosta Cruz, M. Coulter, I.
Davidson, L. Dickson, N. Edelson, R. Elliot, R. M. Erwin, S. Hatch, S. Kress, R. Milko,
S. Miller, K. Mills, R. Paul, R. Phillips, J. E. Saliva, B. Sydeman, J. Trapp, J. Wheeler,
and K. Wohl. 2002. Waterbird conservation for the Americas: the North American
Waterbird Conservation Plan. Version 1. Waterbird Conservation for the Americas,
Washington, DC. 78 pp.
Kushlan, J. A., M. J. Steinkamp, K. C. Parsons, J. Capp., M. Acosta Cruz, M. Coulter, I.
Davidson, L. Dickson, N. Edelson, R. Elliot, R. M. Erwin, S. Hatch, S. Kress, R. Milko,
S. Miller, K. Mills, R. Paul, R. Phillips, J. E. Saliva, B. Sydeman, J. Trapp, J. Wheeler,
and K. Wohl. 2006. Conservation status assessment factor scores and categories of
concern for solitary-nesting waterbird species. Addendum to waterbird conservation for
the Americas: North American Waterbird Conservation Plan. Version 1, April 17, 2006.
Waterbird Conservation for the Americas, Washington, DC.
LGL (LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc.). 1984. Susitna Hydroelectric Project: update and
refinement of bald and golden eagle impact assessments and mitigation plans. Report
prepared by LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc., Anchorage, for Alaska Power
Authority, Anchorage. 68 pp. [APA Doc. No. 2374]
LGL. 1985a. Susitna Hydroelectric Project: mitigation plan for wildlife and botanical resources.
Draft report prepared by LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc., Anchorage, for Alaska
Power Authority, Anchorage. Var. pag. [APA Doc. No. 3200]
LGL. 1985b. Susitna Hydroelectric Project: wildlife and botanical resources impact assessment
and mitigation planning summary. Draft report (revision 1) prepared by LGL Alaska
Research Associates, Inc., Anchorage, for Harza–Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture and
Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage. 58 pp. [APA Doc. No. 3376]
LGL. 1986. Susitna Hydroelectric Project: winter bird populations in forest habitats of the
middle Susitna River basin, Alaska. Report prepared by LGL Alaska Research
Associates, Inc., Anchorage, for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage. 22 pp. [APA Doc.
No. 3327]
Lipkin, R., and D. F. Murray 1997. Alaska rare plant field guide. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Alaska Natural Heritage Program,
and U.S. Forest Service, Anchorage, AK.
Lohuis, T. 2010. Ewe Dall's sheep survival, pregnancy and parturition rates, and lamb
recruitment in GMU 13D, Chugach Mountains, Alaska. Annual performance report,
Federal Aid in Wildlife Rsetoration Grant W-33-8, Project 6.16, Alaska Department of
Fish and Game, Juneau. 6 pp.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-218 December 2011
Long, R. A., P. MacKay, W. J. Zielinski, and J. C. Ray, editors. 2008. Noninvasive Survey
Methods for Carnivores. Island Press, Washington, DC. 385 pp.
MacDonald, S. O. 2003. The amphibians and reptiles of Alaska: a field handbook. Version 1.0.
University of Alaska Museum, Fairbanks. 43 pp. Available online (accessed 13 August
2011): www.alaskaherps.info
MacDonald, S. O., and J. A. Cook. 2009. Recent Mammals of Alaska. University of Alaska
Press, Fairbanks. 387 pp.
MacDonald, S. O., and B. A. Cooper. 1981. Winter bird and small mammal survey, upper
Susitna River Basin, 7–10 February 1981. Trip report prepared by University of Alaska
Museum, Fairbanks, for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage. 4 pp. [APA Doc. No.
3399]
Magoun, A. J., J. C. Ray, D. S. Johnson, P. Valkenburg, F. N. Dawson, and J. Bowman. 2007.
Modeling wolverine occurrence using aerial surveys of tracks in snow. Journal of
Wildlife Management 71:2221–2229.
Mallek, E. J., and D. J. Groves. 2009a. Alaska–Yukon waterfowl breeding population survey.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks and Juneau, AK. 30 pp.
Mallek, E. J., and D. J. Groves. 2009b. Map of transects within Stratum 2 (Nelchina) of the
Alaska–Yukon Waterfowl Breeding Population Survey [map of Interior Alaska portion of
the survey]. 1 p.
Matsuoka, S. M., C. M. Handel, and D. D. Roby. 1997. Nesting ecology of Townsend's Warblers
in relation to habitat characteristics in a mature boreal forest. Condor 99:271–281.
McArt, S. H., D. E. Spalinger, W. B. Collins, E. R. Schoen, T. Stevenson, and M. Bucho. 2009.
Summer dietary nitrogen availability as a potential bottom-up constraint on moose in
south-central Alaska. Ecology 90:1400–1411.
McCallum, M. L. 2007. Amphibian decline or extinction? Current declines dwarf background
extinction rate. Journal of Herpetology 41:483–491.
McIntyre, C. L. 2006. Apparent changes in abundance and distribution of birds in Denali
National Park and Preserve. Alaska Park Science 6:62–65. Available online (accessed 10
August 2011): http://www.nps.gov/akso/AKParkScience/symposium2006/mcintyre.pdf
McKendrick, J. D., W. Collins, D. Helm, J. McMullen, and J. Koranda. 1982. Susitna
Hydroelectric Project environmental studies, Phase I final report, Subtask 7.12—Plant
ecology studies. Report prepared by University of Alaska, Agricultural Experiment
Station, Palmer, for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage. 124 pp. + appendix. [APA Doc.
No. 1321]
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-219 December 2011
Miller, S. D. 1987. Susitna Hydroelectric Project final report, big game studies: Vol. VI—Black
bear and brown bear. Report prepared by Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Anchorage, for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage. 276 pp. [APA Doc. No. 3497]
Miller, S. D., G. C. White, R. A. Sellers, H. V. Reynolds, J. W. Schoen, K. Titus, V. G. Barnes,
Jr., R. B. Smith, R. R. Nelson, W. B. Ballard, and C. C. Schwartz. 1997. Brown and black
bear density estimation in Alaska using radiotelemetry and replicated mark–resight
techniques. Wildlife Monographs 133:1–55.
Miller, S. D., J. W. Schoen, J. Faro, and D. R. Klein. 2011. Trends in intensive management of
Alaska’s grizzly bears, 1980–2010. Journal of Wildlife Management 75:1243–1252.
Modafferi, R. D. 1987. Susitna Hydoelectric Project, final report, Vol. I—Moose downstream.
Report prepared by Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, for Alaska Power
Authority, Anchorage, AK. 179 pp. [APA Doc. No. 3493]
Modafferi, R. D., and E. F. Becker. 1997. Survival of radiocollared adult moose in lower Susitna
River Valley, Southcentral Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management 61:540–549.
Mowat, G., and D. Paetkau. 2002. Estimating marten Martes americana population size using
hair capture and genetic tagging. Wildlife Biology 8:210–209.
Müller–Schwarze, D., and L. Sun. 2003. The Beaver: Natural History of a Wetlands Engineer.
Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. 190 pp.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan Committee. 2004. North American Waterfowl
Management Plan, 2004 — Implementation framework: strengthening the biological
foundation. Canadian Wildlife Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Secretaria de
Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales. 106 pp.
NRC (Natural Resources Consulting.). 2010. Matanuska–Susitna Borough Bald Eagle survey
summary. Report prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services,
Anchorage, by Natural Resources Consulting, Inc., Denver, CO. 3 pp. + map figures.
Paragi, T. F., and K. A. Kellie. 2011. Habitat evaluation techniques for moose management in
interior Alaska. Project status report, 1 July 2007–30 June 2010, Project 5.20,
ADF&G/DWC/PSR-2011-1-R3, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau.
Paragi, T. F., C. T. Seaton, and K. A. Kellie. 2008. Identifying and evaluating techniques for
wildlife habitat management in Interior Alaska: moose range assessment. Final research
technical report, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Grants W-33-4 through W-33-7,
Project 5.10, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau. 76 pp.
Parker, J. 1988. Susitna valley Bald Eagle survey. Unpublished report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Anchorage. 8 pp.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-220 December 2011
Peirce, K. N. 2003. A small mammal inventory on Fort Richardson, Alaska. Report prepared by
Center for Environmental Management of Military Lands, Colorado State University, for
U.S. Army Environmental Resources Department, Fort Richardson, Alaska. 40 pp.
Peltier, T. 2006. Unit 14 wolf management report. Pages 100–108 in P. Harper, editor. Wolf
management report of survey–inventory activities, 1 July 2002–30 June 2005. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Juneau.
Peltier, T. 2008a. Subunits 13A, 13E, 14A and 14B, Talkeetna Mountains and Chulitna–Watana
Hills. Pages 90–97 in P. Harper, editor. Dall sheep management report of survey–
inventory activities, 1 July 2004–30 June 2007 Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Juneau.
Peltier, T. 2008b. Unit 14 black bear management report. Pages 175–186 in P. Harper, editor.
Black bear management report of survey and inventory activities, 1 July 2004–30 June
2007. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau.
Peltier, T. 2009. Unit 14 wolf management report. Pages 104–112 in P. Harper, editor. Wolf
management report of survey and inventory actives, 1 July 2005–30 June 2008. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Juneau.
Pitcher, K. W. 1982. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Phase I final report, big game studies, Vol.
IV—Caribou. Report prepared by Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, for
Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage. 101 pp. [APA Doc. No. 410]
Pitcher, K. W. 1983. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Phase II, 1982 annual report, big game
studies, Vol. IV—Caribou. Report prepared by Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Anchorage, for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage. 43 pp. [APA Doc. No. 411]
Pitcher, K. W. 1987. Susitna hydroelectric project, final report, big game studies, Vol. IV—
Caribou. Report prepared by Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, for
Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage. 59 pp. [APA Doc. No. 3496]
Ralph, C. J., J. R. Sauer, and S. Droege, editors. 1995. Monitoring bird populations by point
counts. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-149, U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest
Research Station, Albany, CA. 187 pp.
Rexstad, E., and E. Debevec. 2006. Dynamics of small mammal populations in the Rock Creek
watershed, Denali National Park and Preserve. Alaska Park Science 6:69–72. Available
online (accessed 10 August 2011):
http://www.nps.gov/akso/AKParkScience/symposium2006/rexstad.pdf
Rinaldi, T. A. 2010. Influence of linear features and snowmachine activity on resource selection
by wolves. M.S. thesis, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, BC. 144
pp.
Ritchie, R. J., and S. Ambrose. 1996. Distribution and population status of Bald Eagles
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) in interior Alaska. Arctic 49:120–128.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-221 December 2011
Rosell, F., O. Bozser, P. Collen, and H. Parker. 2005. Ecological impact of beavers Castor fiber
and Castor canadensis and their ability to modify ecosystems. Mammal Review 35:248–
276.
Roseneau, D. 1984. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, summary statement of nest losses and
conflicts for bald and golden eagles in the Susitna Hydroelectric Project Area. Report
prepared by LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc., Anchorage, for Alaska Power
Authority, Anchorage. 21 pp. [APA Doc. No. 2373]
Sawyer, H., M. J. Kauffman, R. M. Nielson, and J. S. Horne. 2009. Identifying and prioritizing
ungulate migration routes for landscape-level conservation. Ecological Applications
19:2016–2025.
Schwanke, R. A. 2009. Unit 13 wolf management report. Pages 93–103 in P. Harper, editor.
Wolf management report of survey and inventory activities, 1 July 2005–30 June 2008.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau.
Schwanke, R. A., and R. W. Tobey. 2007. Units 11 and 13 furbearer. Pages 116–139 in P.
Harper, editor. Furbearer management report of survey and inventory activities, 1 July
2003–30 June 2006. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau.
Seaton, C. T. 2002. Winter foraging ecology of moose in the Tanana Flats and Alaska Range
Foothills. M.S. thesis, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. 101 pp.
Seaton, T. 2009. Unit 20A caribou. Pages 122–135 in P. Harper, editor. Caribou management
report of survey and inventory activities, 1 July 2006–30 June 2008. Project 3.0, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Juneau.
Seaton, C. T., T. F. Paragi, R. D. Boertje, K. Kielland, S. DuBois, and C. L. Fleener. 2011.
Browse biomass removal and nutritional condition of Alaska moose Alces alces. Wildlife
Biology 17:55–66.
Senner, R. 1984. Notes on the habitat compensation lands meeting of November 18, 1983.
Memorandum to Harza–Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture, Anchorage, from LGL Alaska
Research Associates, Inc., Anchorage. 11 pp. [APA Doc. No. 716]
Simpson, K. 1986. Impacts of a hydroelectric reservoir on populations of caribou and grizzly
bear in southern British Columbia. Report prepared by Keystone Bio-Research for the
B.C. Ministry of Environment. 40 pp. [cited in Miller 1987]
Siniff, D. B., and R. O. Skoog. 1964. Aerial censusing of caribou using stratified random
sampling. Journal of Wildlife Management 28:391–401.
Skoog, R. O. 1968. Ecology of the caribou (Rangifer tarandus granti) in Alaska. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. 699 pp.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-222 December 2011
Stehman, S. V., and D. J. Selkowitz. 2010. A spatially stratified, multi-stage cluster-sampling
design for assessing accuracy of the Alaska (USA) National Land Cover Database
(NLCD). International Journal of Remote Sensing 31:1877–1896.
Steigers, J., W. D., D. Helm, J. G. MacCracken, J. D. McKendrick, and P. V. Mayer. 1983.
Susitna Hydroelectric Project environmental studies, final report, Subtask 7.12—1982
plant ecology studies. Report prepared by University of Alaska, Agricultural Research
Station, Palmer, for LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc., Anchorage. 289 pp. [APA
Doc. No. 559]
Stevens, C. E., C. A. Paszkowski, and G. J. Scrimgeour. 2006. Older is better: beaver ponds on
boreal streams as breeding habitat for the wood frog. Journal of Wildlife Management
70:1360–1371.
Sturm, M., C. Racine, and K. Tape. 2001. Increasing shrub growth in the Arctic. Nature
411:546–547.
Tankersley, N. 1984. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, final report, big game studies, Vol. VIII—
Dall sheep. Report prepared by Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, for
Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage. 91 pp. [APA Doc. No. 1704]
Taylor, K. P., and W. B. Ballard. 1979. Moose movements and habitat use along the Susitna
River near Devils Canyon. Proceedings of the North American Moose Conference
Workshop 15:169–186.
TES (Terrestrial Environmental Specialists). 1982. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Task 7—
Environmental studies, wildlife ecology: wildlife habitat-value analysis. Report prepared
by Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc., Phoenix, NY, for Acres American, Inc.,
Buffalo, NY. 100 pp. [APA Doc. No. 390]
Testa, J. W. 2001. Population dynamics of moose and predators in Game Management Unit 13.
Research final performance report, 1 July 1994–30 June 2000, Federal Aid in Wildlife
Restoration Grants W-24-3 through W-27-3, Study 1.49. Alaska Department of Fish and
Game, Juneau. 43 pp.
Testa, J. W. 2004. Interaction of top-down and bottom-up life history trade-offs in moose (Alces
alces). Ecology 85:1453–1459.
Tobey, R. 1993. Units 13 and 14B caribou management report. Pages 83–100 in S. M. Abbott,
editor. Caribou management report of survey and inventory activities, 1 July 1990–30
June 1992. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau.
Tobey, R. 2001. Units 13 and 14B caribou management report. Pages 90–105 in C. Healy, editor.
Caribou management report of survey and inventory activities, 1 July 1998–30 June
2000. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-223 December 2011
Tobey, R. 2005. Units 13 and 14B caribou management report. Pages 89–104 in C. Brown,
editor. Caribou management report of survey and inventory activities, 1 July 2002–30
June 2004. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau.
Tobey, R. 2008. Unit 13 black bear management report. Pages 167–174 in P. Harper, editor.
Black bear management report of survey and inventory activities, 1 July 2004–30 June
2007. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau.
Tobey, R., and R. Kelleyhouse. 2007a. Units 13 and 14B caribou management report. Pages 82–
99 in P. Harper, editor. Caribou management report of survey and inventory activities, 1
July 2004–30 June 2006. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau.
Tobey, R., and R. Kelleyhouse. 2007b. Unit 13 brown bear. Pages 143–154 in P. Harper, editor.
Brown bear management report of survey and inventory activities, 1 July 2001–30 June
2006. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau.
Tobey, R., and R. Schwanke. 2008. Unit 13 moose management report. Pages 151–164 in P.
Harper, editor. Moose management report of survey and inventory activities, 1 July
2005–30 June 2007. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau.
Tobey, R., and R. Schwanke. 2009. Units 13 and 14B caribou management report. Pages 83–98
in P. Harper, editor. Caribou management report of survey and inventory activities, 1 July
2006–30 June 2008. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau.
UAAES (University of Alaska Agricultural Experiment Station) and TES (Terrestrial
Environmental Specialists). 1981. Susitna Hydroelectric Project environmental studies,
annual report 1980, Subtask 7.12—Plant ecology studies. Report prepared by University
of Alaska, Agricultural Experiment Station, Palmer, and Terrestrial Environmental
Specialists, Inc. Phoenix, NY, for Acres American, Inc., Buffalo, NY. 101 pp. [APA Doc.
No. 420]
UAFAFES (University of Alaska Fairbanks Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station).
1985. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, riparian vegetation succession report. Draft report
prepared by University of Alaska–Fairbanks Agricultural and Forestry Experiment
Station, Palmer, for Harza–Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture and Alaska Power Authority,
Anchorage. 169 pp. [APA Doc. No. 3099]
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1985a. Susitna River Basin Study–Alaska: summary of
USDA investigations and analyses. Final report, prepared by USDA, Soil Conservation
Service, in cooperation with the State of Alaska and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Anchorage. 102 pp.
USDA. 1985b. Identifying wildlife lands: fish and wildlife analysis for the Susitna River Basin
Study. Final report, prepared by USDA, Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service, in
cooperation with the State of Alaska and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage. 99
pp. + appendices.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-224 December 2011
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007. National Bald Eagle management guidelines.
Washington, DC. 25 pp.
USFWS. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern, 2008. Division of Migratory Bird Management,
Arlington, VA. 85 pp. Available online (accessed 12 July 2011):
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds
USFWS. 2009a. Birds of Management Concern. Division of Migratory Bird Management,
Arlington, VA. Available online (accessed 12 July 2011):
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/SpecialTopics/BirdsofMana
gementConcern09[1].pdf
USFWS. 2009b. Eagle permits; take necessary to protect interests in particular localities; final
rule. Federal Register 74:46836–46879.
USFWS. 2010. Endangered, threatened, proposed, candidate, and delisted species in Alaska.
Anchorage Fish and Wildlife Field Office. 2 pp. Available online (accessed 12 July
2011): http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/stateOccurrenceIndividual.jsp?state=AK
Viereck, L. A., and C. T. Dyrness. 1980. A preliminary classification for vegetation of Alaska.
General Technical Report PNW-106, U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and
Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR. 38 pp.
Viereck, L. A., C. T. Dyrness, and A. R. Batten. 1982. Revision of preliminary classification for
vegetation of Alaska. Unpublished (on file with Institute of Northern Forestry, Fairbanks,
AK). 72 pp.
Viereck, L. A., C. T. Dyrness, A. R. Batten, and K. J. Wenzlick. 1992. The Alaska Vegetation
Classification. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-285, U.S. Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 278 pp.
Watson, G. W., and R. F. Scott. 1956. Aerial censusing of the Nelchina caribou herd.
Transactions of the North American Wildlife Conference 21:499–510.
White, C. M. 1974. Survey of the peregrine falcon and other raptors in the proposed Susitna
River reservoir impoundment areas. Interim report prepared by Brigham Young
University, Provo, UT, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage. 4 pp. [APA Doc.
No. 3374]
Whited, D. C., M. S. Lorang, M. J. Harner, F. R. Hauer, J. S. Kimball, and J. A. Stanford. 2007.
Climate, hydrologic disturbance, and succession: drivers of floodplain pattern. Ecology
88:940–953.
Whitman, J. S., and W. B. Ballard. 1983. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, 1982 annual report,
Phase II progress report, big game studies, Vol. VII—Wolverine. Report prepared by
Alaska Department of Fish and Game for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, AK. 25
pp. [APA Doc. No. 417]
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-225 December 2011
Whitman, J. S., and W. B. Ballard. 1984. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, final report, big game
studies, Vol. VII—Wolverine. Report prepared by Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Anchorage, AK, for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, AK. 25 pp. [APA Doc. No.
2326]
Whitman, J. S., W. B. Ballard, and C. L. Gardner. 1986. Home range and habitat use by
wolverines in Southcentral Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management 50:460–463.
Woolington, J. D. 1986. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Furbearer studies, fall 1985: beaver.
Report prepared by LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc. and Harza–Ebasco Susitna
Joint Venture, Anchorage, for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage. 23 pp. [APA Doc.
No. 3334]
Woolington, J. D., P. S. Gipson, and D. Volsen. 1984. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Furbearer
studies, fall 1984: beaver. Report prepared by LGL Alaska Research Associates,
Anchorage, and Alaska Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, Fairbanks, for Alaska Power
Authority, Anchorage. 30 pp. [APA Doc. No. 2592]
Woolington, J. D., R. H. Pollard, and P. S. Gipson. 1985. Susitna Hydroelectric Project.
Furbearer studies, spring 1985: beaver. Report prepared by LGL Alaska Research
Associates and Arkansas Game & Fish Commission for Alaska Power Authority,
Anchorage. 14 pp. [APA Doc. No. 2925]
Wright, S. J., and P. Hunt. 2008. A revegetation manual for Alaska. Alaska Department of
Natural Resources, Division of Agriculture, Alaska Plant Materials Center, Palmer. 64
pp. + appendices.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-226 December 2011
4.7. Wetlands, Riparian, and Littoral Resources
4.7.1. Introduction
This section describes the wetlands, riparian, and littoral habitat areas surrounding, and
potentially affected by, the Project and conforms to the content requirements of 18 CFR §
5.6(d)(3)(vi). The assessment area includes potential effects, both direct and indirect, caused by
access road and transmission-line corridors; hydrologic changes, including flooding of terrestrial
areas; dam facilities; and filled areas. The information presented in this section relies heavily on
the findings of studies conducted for the APA Project in the early 1980s, as summarized in the
reports cited below and in the draft amended FERC license application (APA 1985). Additional
information is incorporated from the terrestrial wildlife data-gap analysis completed for the
Project (ABR 2011).
4.7.1.1. Wetlands and Littoral Habitats
A cooperative agreement between the APA and the USFWS in the 1980s resulted in the
production of a preliminary wetlands map of the APA Project area at a scale of 1:63,360, through
the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) program (USFWS 1984). The NWI maps for the APA
Project area were based on the vegetation mapping done by McKendrick et al. (1982), and
incorporated additional modifications from stereoscopic interpretation of aerial photos. The
original vegetation classes were converted into wetland classes using the classification scheme of
Cowardin et al. (1979). Although the APA Project differs from the currently proposed Project,
wetlands constituted <10 percent of the project area habitats for the original APA Project (APA
1985). Wetland types in the project area consisted of Riverine (rivers, creeks, and gravel bars)
and Palustrine wetlands (bogs, marshes, forested lowlands, shrublands, and meadows) and open
waters (ponds), but were dominated by Palustrine forested and scrub–shrub and Riverine
habitats. No lakes (and therefore, littoral habitats) were considered likely to be impacted directly
by the APA Project. Because mapping was not finalized by the time the amended license
application (APA 1985) was submitted to FERC, a table of wetland classes identified during the
APA Project study was prepared and is reproduced here as the best summary of wetlands
occurrence in the area of the proposed Project (Table 4.7-1).The plant species most commonly
found in wetlands in the project area are listed in Table 4.7-1 and descriptions of wetland
vegetation types are provided in Section 4.6 (Botanical Resources).
An update of mapping of existing wetlands has not been conducted yet for the Project. Figures
4.7-1 and 4.7-2 provide an indication of the occurrence of wetland habitats in areas potentially
affected by the project.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-227 December 2011
Table 4.7-1. Wetlands (NWI classes1) mapped for the APA Susitna Hydroelectric Project
(adapted from USFWS 1984).
NWI Class /
NWI Code Description
Lacustrine (Lakes)
L1UBH Permanently flooded, open-water areas greater than 8.1 hectares (20 ac) in
size. The water depth usually exceeds 2 m (6.6 ft).
Riverine (Rivers and Streams)
R3UBH (formerly R3OWH) Permanently flooded, open-water channels of upper perennial rivers and
streams.
R3USC Seasonally flooded river flats and bars within upper perennial river channels.
Palustrine (Ponds)
PUBH (POWH) Permanently flooded, small open waterbodies (ponds). Vegetation is generally
lacking within the open-water area, but aquatic beds or emergents may provide
sparse cover (<30 percent) along the pond edge.
PUB/AB3H (formerly
POW/AB3H)
Permanently flooded ponds supporting aquatic (floating- leaved) vegetation.
Dominant plants include yellow pond lily (Nuphar polysepala) and pondweed
(Potamogeton spp.).
Palustrine Wetlands
PEM1B Saturated, emergent, bog-type wetlands in depressions below the tree line, and
high-elevation sedge–grass tundra areas on poorly drained soils. Common
emergent species include cottongrass (Eriophorum spp.), sedges (Carex spp.),
and bluejoint (Calamagrostis canadensis).
PEM1C Seasonally flooded emergent marshes occurring in the floodplain of small
streams and on the periphery of ponds and lakes. Surface water is present in
these areas for 1–2 months during the growing season. Species of primary
importance include sedges, cottongrass, bluejoint, and horsetails (Equisetum
spp.).
PEM1F Semipermanently flooded emergent marshes. These marsh areas usually
exhibit standing water throughout the growing season in most years. This
wetland type usually occurs in wetter portions of typical emergent and shrub
bog situations, and along the periphery of ponds and lakes. Dominant
vegetation includes water sedge (Carex aquatilis), marsh horsetail (Equisetum
palustre), buckbean (Menyanthes trifoliata), marsh cinquefoil (Potentilla
palustris), and rushes (Juncus spp.).
PEM1H Permanently flooded emergent marshes. These areas exhibit standing water
throughout the year in all years. The dominant vegetation consists of water
sedge, horsetails, and buckbean.
Palustrine Scrub–Shrub Wetlands
PSS1A Temporarily flooded, dense shrub areas on river and stream floodplains
consisting primarily of willows (Salix spp.) and alders (Alnus spp.). This
wetland type often occurs on riverbars that have become stable enough to
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-228 December 2011
NWI Class /
NWI Code Description
support persistent woody vegetation.
PSS1/USA Temporarily flooded areas on river and stream floodplains consisting of a mix
of shrubs and unvegetated riverine flats. Shrub species are primarily willows
and alders.
PSS1B Saturated, dense shrub wetlands usually occurring in seepage areas on slopes.
Tall willow and alder are the most common species.
PSS1/EM1B Saturated bogs and moist tundra areas on poorly drained soil with 30 percent
or more of the canopy consisting of low broad-leaved deciduous shrubs. The
remaining portion of the canopy consists of persistent emergent vegetation.
Common shrub species include dwarf birch (Betula nana), resin birch (B.
glandulosa), willows, bog blueberry (Vaccinium uliginosum), Labrador tea
(Ledum groenlandicum), crowberry (Empetrum nigrum), bog rosemary
(Andromeda polifolia), and bearberry (Arctostaphylos spp.). Dominant
emergent species include cottongrass, sedges, and bluejoint.
PSS1/EM1C Seasonally flooded areas occurring on floodplains in stream and creek
corridors. These wetlands are characterized by a mixture of broad-leaved
deciduous shrubs and emergent vegetation. Common shrubs include tall
willow and alder. Emergent species of primary importance include sedges,
cottongrass, bluejoint, and horsetails.
PSS1/EM1F Patterned bogs (string bogs and reticulate bogs) and other semipermanently
flooded complexes of emergents and broad-leaved deciduous shrubs. This
wetland type is sometimes found in areas influenced by beaver activity. In
patterned bog areas, the shrub species include those described for PSSI/EMIB
wetlands. Dominant emergent species include sedges, horsetails, marsh
cinquefoil, buckbean, and rushes.
PSS4B Saturated, closed-canopy black spruce (Picea mariana) scrub wetlands. The
black spruce in these areas is less than 6 m in height.
PSS4/EM1B Saturated, open-canopy black spruce scrub wetlands with an emergent
understory.
PSS4/1B Saturated, open-canopy black spruce scrub wetlands with a dense deciduous
shrub understory. The deciduous shrub species include dwarf birch, Labrador
tea, bog blueberry, and willows.
Palustrine Forested Wetlands
PFO4B Saturated, black spruce forested wetlands. These areas are characterized by a
closed canopy of black spruce.
PFO4/SS1B Saturated, open-canopy black spruce forested wetlands with an understory of
broad-leaved deciduous shrubs. The areal coverage of the black spruce is
between 30 percent and 50 percent.
PFO4/SS4B Saturated, open-canopy black spruce forested wetland with an understory of
scrub black spruce.
PFO4/SS1A Temporarily flooded wetlands adjacent to streams and rivers that are a
complex of black spruce on higher terraces and deciduous shrubs on lower
terraces. Willows and alders are the common shrub species.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-229 December 2011
NWI Class /
NWI Code Description
PFO4/EM1B Saturated, open-canopy black spruce forested wetlands with an emergent
understory.
PFO4/1B Saturated, closed-canopy forested wetlands consisting of a mix of broad-
leaved deciduous and needle-leaved evergreen trees. Black cottonwood
(Populus trichocarpa) and balsam poplar (P. balsamifera) are the dominant
deciduous species. Black spruce is the dominant evergreen species.
PFO1A Temporarily flooded, deciduous forest wetlands occurring on river floodplains.
Balsam poplar and black cottonwood are the common trees on these sites.
PFO1/SS1A Temporarily flooded wetlands on river and stream floodplains consisting of a
mix of broad- leaved deciduous forest and broad-leaved deciduous shrubs.
Dominant tree species are balsam poplar and black cottonwood. Willows and
alders are the dominant species in the shrub areas.
PFO5C Seasonally flooded, dead-tree forested wetlands generally found along streams
and small rivers. The dead trees usually result from beaver activity.
1 NWI = National Wetland Inventory (based on the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States,
Cowardin et al. 1979). NWI codes in parentheses were used in the original classification but are no longer valid.
4.7.1.2. Riparian Habitats
Ecological succession on the Susitna River floodplain is highly dynamic, both spatially and
temporally. Riparian habitats are shaped largely by the responses of different plant species to
disturbance by flooding and ice scour, the dominant physical processes affecting them. Until
sufficient silts and sands are deposited by wind and water to provide parent material for soil
development, the establishment of vegetation occurs slowly on the Susitna floodplain.
Floodplain vegetation is dominated by riverine herbaceous, scrub, and forest types and can be
grouped into three successional community types, depending on the extent of recent disturbance.
The description of these successional types below is based on the APA Project Phase I
vegetation mapping conducted along the Susitna River from Devils Canyon to Talkeetna and on
vegetation succession studies conducted in the floodplain between Gold Creek and the Deshka
River (Figure 4.6-18) (McKendrick et al. 1982, UAFAFES 1985).
4.7.1.2.1. Early Successional Stages
Early successional communities accounted for five to ten percent of the vegetated habitats on the
floodplain and generally become established between 5 and 25 years after island or river bar
stabilization. The ground cover in these types usually is dominated by meadow horsetail and/or
Drummond mountain-avens (Dryas); in the shrub layer, balsam poplar and/or willow are
dominant. Characteristically, these communities have little total vegetative cover (often >50
percent bare ground). Plant species in these types generally have rhizomes or horizontal
underground stems, which can extend for considerable distances and are effective at binding
loose sand and silt. Drummond mountain-avens is especially important in stabilizing gravelly
sites. In most stands, balsam poplar and willow occur at greater densities than do other woody
species, but alders have relatively rapid growth rates and begin to overtop willow and balsam
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-230 December 2011
poplar within two to three years after establishment. Young balsam poplar and willow stands
may last up to 25 years or more from the time of the last major disturbance. Aging of these
stands is difficult because floods frequently bury several years’ plant growth in silt, and new
growth is present above the silt. This cycle may be repeated a number of times before vegetation
succession advances to the mid-successional stage.
4.7.1.2.2. Mid-successional Stages
Deposition of sands and silts that raise the elevation of river bar and island sites above the level
of frequent flooding is necessary for the transition of vegetation from the early successional to
the mid-successional stage. Mid-successional stands accounted for about 20 percent of the
vegetated habitats surveyed in the Susitna floodplain. Thinleaf alder and balsam poplar, which
develop into tall shrubs or immature trees, dominate these stands. The alder type is the first phase
and appears to dominate from 25 to 50 years after stabilization. Balsam poplar appears to
dominate from 50 to 90 years after stabilization, but stands of this type are much less common
than are the younger alder-dominated stands. As noted earlier, alder overtops balsam poplar
during the transition from early to mid-successional stages. After about 20 years, however, the
balsam poplar that remains increases rapidly in height, thereby overshadowing the alder and
developing into the immature balsam poplar stands of the mid-successional stage. In both alder
and balsam poplar stands, there is very little bare ground. As balsam poplars become more
dominant and the trees become larger, their density and that of thinleaf alder and feltleaf willow
decline. Other shorter shrub species, such as Sitka alder, prickly rose, and highbush cranberry,
increase in density in the balsam poplar-dominated stands, however.
4.7.1.2.3. Late Successional Stages
As the balsam poplar stands of the mid-successional stage mature, white spruce may appear in
the canopy. Mature and decadent balsam poplar stands dominate from 90 to 170 years after
stabilization. Eventually the large balsam poplars die, leaving space for the development of more
balsam poplar or white spruce and paper birch, if no disturbances interrupt the process. Mixed
paper birch–white spruce forests probably dominate from 170 to 300 years or more after
stabilization. Mature and decadent (gradually dying) balsam poplar stands were found on 25 to
40 percent the vegetated floodplain, and mixed stands of birch and spruce occupied 23 to 32
percent of the area studied. Mixed birch–spruce forest types had the greatest variation in stand
structure of the vegetation types found on the floodplain, and there is some evidence that these
stands are self-perpetuating. Upon reaching over-maturity, the birch overstory tends to fall,
making the spruce more susceptible to wind-throw, and thereby allowing a shrubby paper birch–
alder–highbush cranberry–prickly rose community to develop. That shrub community then
progresses again to the mixed birch–spruce forest stage.
4.7.1.2.4. Riparian Ecology
Descriptions of the potential effects of the APA Project on the riparian ecology of the Susitna
River drainage focused on the river reaches downstream from the proposed Watana dam and
impoundment. There is no current detailed description of riparian areas upstream of the proposed
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-231 December 2011
dam. In general, the upstream riparian areas are confined to a narrow canyon with fairly steep
slopes, a well-defined river channel, and very few islands; in contrast to downstream, where the
floodplain is better-developed with a wider variety of riparian habitats. The successional stages
described above by UAFAFES (1985) were considered to be generally applicable to the “middle
river” (defined in that study as extending from the Oshetna River mouth downstream to the
Chulitna River confluence, thus including parts of the upper and middle reaches defined for the
Project). The vegetation types that would have been affected by the APA Project Stage I (Low
Watana) reservoir consisted principally of open and closed white and black spruce forest, as was
described in Section 4.6. Those types are common in the riparian zone upstream from the
proposed Watana dam.
A number of recent studies provide further background regarding ecological interactions on
riparian floodplain habitats downstream from the Project. Helm and Collins (1997) examined the
dynamics of vegetation succession on the Susitna floodplain at 29 sites located from Chase
(above Talkeetna) downstream to the mouth of the Deshka River (near Willow). That paper was
based on field work conducted in the early 1980s during the original APA Susitna Hydroelectric
Project studies, supplemented with additional work conducted in 1995, plus comparisons with
historical aerial photos from 1951. The same successional stages were described as above —
Early Shrub (Dryas, juvenile poplar, willow, horsetail), Intermediate (alder, young poplar), and
Late (old poplar, birch–spruce). The youngest stage of succession comprised four distinct
communities based on substrate texture. The effects of a variety of factors—flooding, ice scour,
wind, browsing by herbivores, and human activities such as logging—were assessed and a
conceptual model of successional pathways was developed. The authors concluded that the
major factors influencing vegetation succession were sedimentation and erosion from flooding
and herbivory by wildlife. Vegetation establishment varied annually in relation to precipitation
and flooding.
Nutrient dynamics on the Susitna floodplain are influenced by both downstream and upstream
sources. The presence of spawning salmon in freshwater systems is an important, well-
documented mechanism through which marine-derived nutrients (especially nitrogen and
phosphorus) are transported into terrestrial ecosystems (Cederholm et al. 1999, Naiman et al.
2002), where they are cycled further by the wildlife that feed on salmon (Hilderbrand et al. 1999,
2004; Helfield and Naiman 2006). In the floodplain of the Tanana River (interior Alaska),
hyporheic water is an important source of nitrogen for willows on early successional silt bars
(Koyama and Kielland 2011). That source of nitrogen may explain the sustainability of highly
productive plant communities on the floodplain despite the apparently inadequate rates of
nitrogen mineralization in the soil. Several recent studies have shown that subsurface hydrology
directly affects nitrogen availability in the floodplain forests of Interior Alaska (e.g., Lisuzzo et
al. 2008). Thus, flow regimes affect nutrient availability for plants through changes in hydrology
as well as sediment input.
The riparian zones of Alaska rivers, including the Susitna, provide important foraging habitats
for herbivores, principally moose, snowshoe hares, and beavers, which exert profound effects on
vegetation succession and nutrient cycling (Helm and Collins 1997, Collins and Helm 1997,
Kielland et al. 1997, Butler and Kielland 2008). Changes in habitat distribution and productivity
of important forage species, such as willows, poplars, and paper birch, may affect the
populations of these mammals. Conversely, herbivory is an important factor affecting the species
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-232 December 2011
composition and successional patterns of riparian vegetation (Kielland et al. 1997, Hanley 2008).
Thus, effects on herbivore populations may lead to changes in riparian plant communities. More
generally, because aquatic and terrestrial food webs in riparian zones are interdependent
(Ballinger and Lake 2006), changes in flooding regimes can affect transfer of energy between
riparian and terrestrial ecosystems in ways that are difficult to predict.
4.7.2. Potential Adverse and Positive Impacts
4.7.2.1. Wetlands, Waters, and Littoral Habitats
Wetland impact analysis of the Project footprint, including the impoundment zone, Project
facilities, construction sites, and three alternative access corridors alternatives being considered
(Figures 4.7-1 and 4.7-2), will be generated after the USFWS releases the new digital versions of
the NWI mapping for spatial analysis and new detailed wetland mapping is completed. The
direct loss of wetlands as a result of inundation and fill placement during development of APA
Project Stage I (Low Watana; analogous to the Project) was quantified in the draft amended
FERC application for the APA Project (APA 1985) and is reproduced in Table 4.7-2. The
primary wetland types lost to the Watana dam, impoundment, and spillway would include black
and white spruce and balsam poplar forests; scrub–shrub; and forest–scrub–shrub complexes.
The Denali Corridor alternative is similar to an alignment considered for the APA Project. The
wetland types primarily affected within the Denali Corridor would be primarily scrub-shrub
(Table 4.7-2).
Impacts are prioritized on the basis of resource vulnerability, the probability of the impact
occurring, and the duration of the impact. Direct losses of wetland habitats are judged to be most
important because of the certainty and the permanence of the impact. The importance of the loss
of specific wetland types depends on the magnitude of the acreage lost in relation to their total
abundance in the project area and their regional significance. Indirect changes in plant
communities are considered less important than direct losses because changes are less
predictable and often of shorter duration than permanent losses.
The greatest wetland impacts from the APA Project would have occurred on the northern side of
the Susitna River, where the slope to the river edge generally is not as steep as on the southern
side, particularly in the area of the proposed Watana reservoir (APA 1985). Palustrine scrub–
shrub, forested and forest–shrub lowlands, and rivers and streams were the wetland types that
would be affected most. Approximately 45 percent of the black spruce woodland (Palustrine
scrub–shrub) in the vegetation mapping area was predicted to be lost. The losses of these and
other vegetation types represented important habitat losses for some wildlife, especially black
bear, moose, marten, beaver, raptors, small mammals, and passerine birds.
Based on data collected in July 1981, wetlands in the project area support low densities of
waterbirds in the summer (10 adults/40 hectares [100 ac]). Scoters, scaup, Mallard, American
Widgeon, swans, Arctic Tern, and other waterbird species were found during surveys. Although
the lakes and ponds in the project area were used more by migratory birds during spring and fall
migrations, the density and diversity of bird species were lower in the Susitna project area than
in other areas of interior Alaska (Kessel et al. 1982). Emergent wetland types along the margins
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-233 December 2011
of ponds and lakes are the most valuable to breeding waterfowl, providing food, cover, and
nesting areas. None of the lakes in the general vicinity of the project area were expected to be
affected by the APA Project, but some small ponds would have been affected by the
impoundment and dam, access roads, and construction camps.
Indirect wetland losses may occur as a result of erosion, permafrost melting, landslides and mass
wasting, ORV use, blow-down of trees, and other causes (see Section 4.7.4.2 above). Although
some of these losses would be short-term and would be followed by typical vegetation
succession or by shifts to new vegetation types, long-term vegetation losses enduring for 30 to
>100 years may occur on sites degraded by continual erosion, land slumping, or ORV use. The
acreages that may be lost as a result of those factors would be small compared with the acreages
lost to inundation by the proposed Watana reservoir, however.
Table 4.7-2. Acreage of wetland types expected to be lost to APA Project Stage I (Low
Watana) development (reproduced from APA 1985).
Wetland Type1 Impoundment & Dam APA Access Road2
Palustrine
Forested 636 0
Forested with scrub–shrub 843 1
Forested with emergent vegetation 8 0
Scrub–shrub 1,553 41
Scrub–shrub with forest 12 0
Scrub–shrub with emergent vegetation 155 42
Emergent vegetation 36 8
Emergent vegetation with forest 16 0
Emergent vegetation with scrub-shrub 29 11
Ponds (open water) 31 1
Subtotal 3,319 104
Lacustrine
Lakes (open water) 0 0
Riverine
Rivers and creeks (open water) 3,768 1
Gravel/sand bars 432 0
Subtotal 4,200 1
Total 7,519 105
1 Based on the NWI classification system (Cowardin et al. 1979).
2 Similar to Project Denali Corridor alternative.
4.7.2.2. Riparian Habitats
The Project would affect riparian areas both upstream and downstream from the proposed dam.
Project construction and operation would inundate approximately 39 mi of riparian habitat within
the impoundment zone upstream from the Watana dam.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-234 December 2011
Downstream ecological effects involving vegetation and wildlife habitats were addressed in the
riparian vegetation succession study by the University of Alaska–Fairbanks Agricultural and
Forestry Experiment Station (UAFAFES 1985). The narrative below is summarized from that
report and from APA (1985). The purpose of the riparian succession study was to provide an
understanding of existing downstream floodplain dynamics and to predict the changes likely to
result from construction and operation of the APA Project.
Project operations would have the effect of greatly reducing natural fluctuations in river flow
throughout the year. Following construction, river levels in summer would be lower than under
natural conditions. Summer flood or high-flow events would be reduced in severity and
frequency. High-flow events would be notable in the middle river only if extreme flooding
occurred upstream when the reservoir was nearly full. In winter, water levels would be higher
than normal, and ice formed at those higher levels may encase vegetation for up to four months
each winter at some locations. The duration of ice cover will change due to increased water
temperatures, relative to existing conditions.
Between the Oshetna and the Chulitna rivers, summer flooding events would be fewer and less
severe. No bedload sediments would be transported from the upper river because they would be
trapped in the reservoir. Fine silts and clays would continue to pass through the middle river, but
would not be deposited. The riverbed would likely develop an “armor” layer as fine sediments
are scoured and not replaced. Due to the more uniform flow, the channel may become deeper and
narrower, with some vegetative encroachment occurring upstream of the maximum ice-front
progression. Below the dam, the upper portion of the middle river would no longer have winter
ice cover. Below that, spring melt likely would be slower, with little or no ice jamming or
associated flooding and scouring.
In the lower river, long-term aggradation would be likely to occur in the first few mi below the
Chulitna River confluence, causing the Chulitna delta to expand farther toward the east bank of
the Susitna River. A well-defined channel eventually would develop through that delta due to the
stabilized flows in the middle river. The magnitude of changes due to high-flow events would
decrease, although the difference would be less marked than in the middle river, because the
lower river also is affected by floods generated in the Chulitna and Talkeetna rivers. No major
changes in ice dynamics are expected in the lower river.
Reduced seasonal fluctuations in the river level potentially would affect the establishment of
poplar and willows in early successional habitats on the Susitna floodplain. Seeds of those
species are dispersed during spring floods (the only time they are viable). Seedlings establish and
grow during summer, after the water level recedes. Reduced flooding likely would limit seed
dispersal on suitable substrates and lower summer flows may affect seedling growth and survival
negatively. Construction of the project may affect succession at sites where vegetation is already
established. Under natural conditions, succession frequently is “reset” by summer floods and
winter ice jams. With those events reduced in frequency and severity during project operation,
the relative abundance of vegetation at different successional stages may be altered. Such
alteration could affect forage availability for some wildlife species, such as moose and snowshoe
hare, because browse abundance differs among successional stages.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-235 December 2011
Generally, the likely overall effects of the project on riparian habitats downstream would be a
more stabilized floodplain, a decreased number of subchannels, and increased vegetative cover.
The expected lower summer flows would have three principal effects: (1) more land would be
available for possible plant colonization; (2) soil moisture levels would be drier, and (3) water
level fluctuations would be reduced. The lower level of existing vegetation appears to be related
to flows between the average summer flow (23,000 cfs) and the mean annual flood (52,000 cfs),
except in a few locations where ice jams regularly occur. More than 75 percent of the terrain
elevations representing the lower vegetation limit correspond to flows greater than 23,000 cfs,
but less than 10 percent correspond to flows greater than 52,000 cfs. The absence of ice jams
would result in the lower limit of vegetation coinciding with summer flows, assuming all that
land is suitable for colonization by plants. Hence, the area between elevations corresponding to
the post-construction summer flows and the natural summer flows likely would become
vegetated, or at least would not be inhibited by floods or other disturbance factors.
Stanford et al. (2005) described the naturally shifting habitat mosaic of river ecosystems.
Damming a river alters these mosaic patterns resulting in effects such as the loss of seasonal
fluctuations in water level and the natural disturbance regime. These changes increase the rate of
colonization by nonnative, invasive plants and senescence of native riparian species. Research in
both Montana (Nyack River) and Alaska (Susitna and Talkeetna rivers) has shown that flood-
related disturbance is important for maintaining habitat diversity in riparian areas (Helm and
Collins 1997, Bowen et al. 2003, Whited et al. 2007, Hanley 2008). In rivers where flow is
regulated by dams, changes in the flooding regime can affect the distribution of both individual
species and habitat types across the landscape (Nilsson et al. 1997, Whited et al. 2007). The
complexity of such interactions has been investigated using modeling (e.g., Tealdi et al. 2011)
that demonstrates the important influences of uncertain flow regimes and sediment transport on
riparian vegetation. In both the Nyack and Talkeetna floodplains, species richness of vascular
plants was highest at sites with the finest alluvium (Mouw et al. 2008). The spatial distribution of
alluvium texture was determined by flow energy, and thus could likely to be altered by
hydroelectric development. In Sweden, plant species richness and dominance were affected by
the distribution of anchor ice (Engstrom et al. 2011), which also would be expected to change
directly downstream from dams.
4.7.3. Potential Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement
4.7.3.1. Wetlands and Littoral Habitats
Wetland impacts from project construction will be minimized by reducing volume requirements
for borrow extraction and co-locating access and transmission lines, which would reduce the
overall project footprint. This reduction could be accomplished by using alignments that avoid
wetlands and follow well-drained upland terrain with soils suitable for use as construction
material; the use of excavated material from dam site in construction of facilities to minimize
borrow sites; the location of borrow sites in upland areas; the use of side-borrow and balanced
cut-and-fill road and railroad construction techniques; and incorporating a flexible road-design
speed to avoid the necessity for deep side hill cuts requiring excessive fill. The borrow and
quarry sites will be located near the Watana dam site, minimizing the length of haul roads and
centralizing areas of disturbance. The disposal of spoil from construction and borrow
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-236 December 2011
excavations would create the potential for wetland impacts either through direct burial or through
clearing for spoil disposal sites. A cost-effective way to avoid removing vegetation for spoil
disposal would be to deposit the spoil within the impoundment areas. However, that option
would be limited by the need to prevent fines from being entrained by surface water flow. Thus,
locations for spoil disposal within the impoundment areas would need to be selected carefully
and designated clearly in areas that would pond quietly during filling, well away from turbulent
flows associated with intake structures.
Additionally, the siting and alignment of all facilities will be designed to avoid wetlands to the
maximum extent feasible. Access by ORVs would be discouraged to minimize indirect wetland
impacts. Agency coordination and review of detailed engineering design and construction
planning of Project facilities would be conducted to minimize potential wetland impacts.
Rehabilitation of temporary impacts on wetlands would be conducted to the maximum extent
possible. Provided that the appropriate hydrologic and soil characteristics are not extensively
altered, wetland recovery would proceed at various rates (which are difficult to quantify),
depending on factors such as slope, aspect, elevation, soil types, moisture and drainage
conditions. A specific restoration plan would be developed for each area to be rehabilitated.
Guidelines and best management techniques for erosion and sedimentation control would be
followed (e.g., Densmore et al. 2000, Wright and Hunt 2008).
Wetland mitigation measures will be determined in conjunction with the USACE 404 permitting
process.
4.7.3.2. Riparian Habitats
To mitigate direct and indirect impacts on riparian habitats, several recommendations were made
for the APA Project, which may be considered for this Project (UAFAFES 1985). They
identified logging of mature paper birch–white spruce stands as being the most promising option
for establishing riparian habitat, because logged areas have been shown to produce abundant
birch browse, as well as rose and highbush cranberry, which also are attractive forage species for
herbivores. Controlled burns also could be used to create similar desirable effects. The nature of
riparian habitats generally precludes extensive natural fires, and burning would release nutrients
to the soil that would not occur with logging.
Flows may be manipulated to enhance riparian conditions below the Project.
4.7.4. References
ABR 2011. Wildlife data-gap analysis for the proposed Susitna–Watana Hydroelectric Project.
Draft report prepared for Alaska Energy Authority, Anchorage, by ABR, Inc.—
Environmental Research & Services, Fairbanks. 114 pp.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-237 December 2011
APA. 1985. Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Draft amended application for
license for major project—Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Volume 10, Exhibit E, Chapter
3: Fish, wildlife, and botanical resources.
Ballinger, A., and P. S. Lake. 2006. Energy and nutrient fluxes from rivers and streams into
terrestrial food webs. Marine and Freshwater Research 57:15–28.
Bowen, Z. H., K. D. Bovee, and T. J. Waddle. 2003. Effects of flow regulation on shallow-water
habitat dynamics and floodplain connectivity. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 132:809–823.
Butler, L. G., and K. Kielland. 2008. Acceleration of vegetation turnover and element cycling by
mammalian herbivory in riparian ecosystems. Journal of Ecology 96:136–144.
Cederholm, C. J., M. D. Kunze, T. Murota, and A. Sibatani. 1999. Pacific salmon carcasses:
essential contributions of nutrients and energy for aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.
Fisheries 24(10):6–15.
Collins, W. B., and D. J. Helm. 1997. Moose, Alces alces, habitat relative to riparian succession
in the boreal forest, Susitna River, Alaska. Canadian Field-Naturalist 111:567–574.
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and
deepwater habitats of the United States. Northern Prairie Publication 0421, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 131 pp.
Densmore, R. V., M. E. Van der Meer, and N. G. Dunkle. 2000. Native plant revegetation
manual for Denali National Park and Preserve. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological
Resources Division, Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/ITR–2000-0006.
42 pp.
Engstrom, J., R. Jansson, C. Nilsson, and C. Weber. 2011. Effects of river ice on riparian
vegetation. Freshwater Biology 56:1095–1105.
Hanley, T. A. 2008. River conservation and terrestrial mammals: key ecological processes. Pages
71–75 in 2008 World Wetland Day Commemorative Symposium, 31 Jan.–1 Feb. 2008,
Gunsan, Korea. Korean Wetlands Society, Seoul.
Helfield, J. M., and R. J. Naiman. 2006. Keystone interactions: salmon and bear in riparian
forests of Alaska. Ecosystems 9:167–180.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-238 December 2011
Helm, D. J., and W. B. Collins. 1997. Vegetation succession and disturbance on a boreal forest
floodplain, Susitna River, Alaska. Canadian Field-Naturalist 111:553–566.
Hilderbrand, G. V., T. A. Hanley, C. T. Robbins, and C. C. Schwartz. 1999. Role of brown bears
(Ursus arctos) in the flow of marine nitrogen into a terrestrial ecosystem. Oecologia
121:546–550.
Hilderbrand, G. V., S. D. Farley, C. C. Schwartz, and C. T. Robbins. 2004. Importance of salmon
to wildlife: implications for integrated management. Ursus 15:1–9.
Kessel, B., S. O. MacDonald, D. D. Gibson, B. A. Cooper, and B. A. Anderson. 1982. Susitna
Hydroelectric Project environmental studies, Phase I final report—Subtask 7.11: Birds
and non-game mammals. Report prepared by University of Alaska Museum, Fairbanks,
and Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc., Phoenix, NY for Alaska Power Authority,
Anchorage. 149 pp. [APA Doc. No. 398]
Kielland, K., J. P. Bryant, and R. W. Ruess. 1997. Moose herbivory and carbon turnover of early
successional stands in interior Alaska. Oikos 80:25–30.
Klein, E., E. E. Berg, and R. Dial. 2005. Wetland drying and succession across the Kenai
Peninsula lowlands, south-central Alaska. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research
35:1931–1941.
Koyama, L., and K. Kielland. 2011. Plant physiological responses to hydrologically mediated
changes in nitrogen supply on a boreal forest floodplain: a mechanism explaining the
discrepancy in nitrogen demand and supply. Plant Soil 342:129–139.
Kreig and Associates. 1987. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, vegetation mapping final report and
user guide. Report prepared by Ray A. Kreig and Associates, Inc., Anchorage, for Harza–
Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture, Anchorage. 92 pp. [APA Doc. No. 3509]
Lisuzzo, N. J., K. Kielland, and J. B. Jones. 2008. Hydrologic controls on nitrogen availability in
a high-latitude, semi-arid floodplain. Ecoscience 15:366–376.
McKendrick, J. D., W. Collins, D. Helm, J. McMullen, and J. Koranda. 1982. Susitna
Hydroelectric Project environmental studies, Phase I final report, Subtask 7.12—Plant
ecology studies. Report prepared by University of Alaska, Agricultural Experiment
Station, Palmer, for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage. 124 pp. + appendix. [APA Doc.
No. 1321]
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-239 December 2011
Mouw, J. E. B., J. A. Standford, and P. B. Alaback. 2008. Influences of flooding and hyporheic
exchange on floodplain plant richness and productivity. River Research and Applications
(2008). Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.com), DOI:
10.1002/rra.1196.
Naiman, R. J., R. E. Bilby, D. E. Schindler, and J. M. Helfield. 2002. Pacific salmon, nutrients,
and the dynamics of freshwater and riparian ecosystems. Ecosystems 5:399–417.
Nilsson, C.. R. Jansson, and U. Zinko. 1997. Long-term responses of river-margin vegetation to
water-level regulation. Science 276:798–800.
Stanford, J. A., M. S. Lorang, and F. R. Hauer. 2005. The shifting habitat mosaic of river
ecosystems. Verhandlungen des Internationalen Verein Limnologie 29:123–136.
Sturm, M., C. Racine, and K. Tape. 2001. Increasing shrub growth in the Arctic. Nature
411:546–547.
Tealdi, S., C. Camporeale, and L. Ridolfi. 2011. Modeling the impact of river damming on
riparian vegetation. Journal of Hydrology 396:302–312.
UAFAFES (University of Alaska Fairbanks Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station).
1985. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, riparian vegetation succession report. Draft report
prepared by University of Alaska–Fairbanks Agricultural and Forestry Experiment
Station, Palmer, for Harza–Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture and Alaska Power Authority,
Anchorage. 169 pp. [APA Doc. No. 3099]
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1984. Wetlands mapping [no title page]. Report
section prepared for Harza–Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture, Anchorage. 29 pp. [APA Doc.
No. 2376]
Whited, D. C., M. S. Lorang, M. J. Harner, F. R. Hauer, J. S. Kimball, and J. A. Stanford. 2007.
Climate, hydrologic disturbance, and succession: drivers of floodplain pattern. Ecology
88:940–953.
Wright, S. J., and P. Hunt. 2008. A revegetation manual for Alaska. Alaska Department of
Natural Resources, Division of Agriculture, Alaska Plant Materials Center, Palmer. 64
pp. + appendices.
extent of mapping147°50'0"W148°0'0"W148°10'0"W148°20'0"W148°30'0"W62°55'0"N62°50'0"N62°50'0"N62°45'0"N1100112233KilometersKilometersSusitnaBasin"MapView$NomeBarrowFairbanksAnchorage0.50.5000.50.5111.51.522MilesMiles±National Wetland Inventory Descriptions (Wetlands Only)LakeUpper Perennial RiverRiver BarPondSeasonally Flooded PondBeaver PondAquatic BedEmergent MarshEmergent Wet MeadowScrub ShrubForestedUnknown (to be determined)Study AreaABR File: Susitna_NWI_NE_AEA_11-159.mxd; 9 December 2011Wetlands mapping is from draft digital conversion of NWI maps producedby USFWS in 1984 from vegetation mapping conducted in 1982 for theoriginal Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Draft data were provided courtesy ofthe USFWS NWI office in Anchorage, AK, for presentation purposes only.Figure 4.7-1Wetlands Mapped in theWestern Portion of the ProposedWatana Reservoir Study AreaState of AlaskaSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 14241Date: Dec 2011Scale = 1:103,000
e x t e n t o f m a p p i n gextent of mapping147°20'0"W147°30'0"W147°40'0"W147°50'0"W148°0'0"W62°45'0"N62°45'0"N62°40'0"N62°40'0"N1100112233KilometersKilometersSusitnaBasin"MapView$NomeBarrowFairbanksAnchorage0.50.5000.50.5111.51.522MilesMiles±National Wetland Inventory Descriptions (Wetlands Only)LakeUpper Perennial RiverRiver BarPondPartially Flooded PondSeasonally Flooded PondBeaver PondAquatic BedEmergent MarshEmergent Wet MeadowScrub ShrubForestedUnknown (to be determined)Study AreaFigure 4.7-2Wetlands Mapped in theEastern Portion of the ProposedWatana Reservoir Study AreaState of AlaskaSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 14241ABR File: Susitna_NWI_SE_AEA_11-159.mxd; 9 December 2011Date: Dec 2011Scale = 1:100,000Wetlands mapping is from draft digital conversion of NWI maps producedby USFWS in 1984 from vegetation mapping conducted in 1982 for theoriginal Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Draft data were provided courtesy ofthe USFWS NWI office in Anchorage, AK, for presentation purposes only.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-242 December 2011
4.8. Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species
This section identifies species that have both a special state or federal conservation designation
and a habitat range that intersects the general study area. It also includes a brief description of
each type of conservation status.
4.8.1. Plant Species
No plant species listed or under consideration for listing under authority of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) are known or suspected to occur in areas that might be directly affected by
Project construction or operation, including changes in riverine habitats downstream of the dam.
The single ESA-listed plant species in Alaska occurs on the Aleutian Islands, approximately
1,300 mi from the Project area (USFWS 2011b).
The BLM has developed lists of Sensitive and Watch List plant species. The agency manages
special status species on BLM-administered lands according to BLM Manual 6840 (BLM
2008a). It also includes among its special status species those species listed as threatened or
endangered, and those considered as candidate or proposed species, under the ESA, as well as
species that have been de-listed from the ESA in the past five years. An objective of its special
status species policy pertinent to this Project is “to initiate proactive conservation measures that
reduce or eliminate threats to Bureau sensitive species to minimize the likelihood of and need for
listing of these species under the ESA.” It further references the State Director’s responsibility
for “[i]nventorying BLM lands to determine which BLM special status species occur on public
lands, the condition of the populations and their habitats, and how discretionary BLM actions
affect those species and their habitats.” Implementation of BLM policies regarding sensitive
species may include “[d]etermining, to the extent practicable, the distribution, abundance,
populations, condition, current threats, and habitat needs for sensitive species, and evaluating the
significance of BLM-administered lands and actions undertaken by the BLM in conserving those
species.” Watch List species “are not subject to the [BLM] sensitive species policy, and they
have no implied relevance to the NEPA process” (BLM n.d.). Sponsors of natural resource
development projects recently proposed in Alaska have been required or asked to perform rare
plant surveys on BLM-administered lands as part of the baseline information development effort.
The State of Alaska does not have jurisdiction over plant species based on their rarity, nor does it
have any programs other than the BIOTICS Database of the Alaska Natural Heritage Program
(AKNHP) for managing rare species (AKNHP 2011b). The AKNHP’s BIOTICS Database tracks
the locations of plants that available data indicate may be rare or imperiled on a statewide or
global basis. A plant’s appearance on this list does not itself confer any regulated status.
Data searches for this analysis have not identified any known occurrences of rare or other special
status plant species in the approximate Project footprint (AKNHP 2008, FERC 1984, Hultén
1968, Lipkin and Murray 1997, MON 2011, Santosh 2011). The AKNHP database indicates that
19 rare vascular plant taxa with S1 (critically imperiled) and S2 (imperiled) rankings have been
collected in the regional search area, which includes the Susitna River drainage (Table 4.8-1).
One of these taxa, an aquatic species known as flatleaf pondweed or Robbins pondweed
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-243 December 2011
(Potamogeton robbinsii), has been recorded in the Project area in Watana Lake (McKendrick et
al. 1982), evidently representing a second record for the species in the search area (the only other
record was near the Summit airstrip in 1953). Potamogeton robbinsii is listed as S1S2 within
Alaska and as G5 (demonstrably secure globally), indicating that populations are more numerous
outside Alaska. Like most rare species, many of the taxa on the list of 19 rare plant taxa
considered in this assessment often occur in a narrow range of habitats (e.g., Artemisia
dracunculus on exposed bluffs) but, given the wide array of habitats available in the Susitna
basin, ranging from alpine areas to lowland forests, meadows, and aquatic habitats, it is possible
that one or more of the other 18 rare plant taxa may occur in or near the Project area.
Table 4.8-1. Rare vascular plant taxa1 that have been collected in a broad region of
Southcentral Alaska, including the Susitna River drainage.
Scientific Name
Common Name
No. of
Collections
State
Rank2
Global
Rank3
Arnica diversifolia Sticky arnica 1 S1 G5
Arnica lessingii ssp. norbergii Norberg arnica 1 S2 G5T2Q
Arnica mollis Hairy arnica 1 S1 G5
Artemisia dracunculus Dragon wormwood 2 S1S2 G5
Blysmopsis rufa Red clubrush 1 S1 unranked
Botrychium ascendens Upward-lobed moonwort 1 S2 G2G3
Carex athrostachya Slender beak sedge 1 S1S2 G5
Carex parryana Parry sedge 2 S1 G4
Ceratophyllum demersum Common hornwort 1 S1 G5
Chamaerhodos erecta ssp. nuttallii Nuttall's ground-rose 1 S1S2 G5T4T5
Cicuta bulbifera Bulb-bearing water-hemlock 1 S2 G5
Eleocharis kamtschatica Kamchatka spike-rush 1 S2S3 G4
Eriophorum viridicarinatum Green-keeled cottongrass 1 S2 G5
Erysimum asperum var. angustatum Wallflower 1 S1S2 unranked
Glyceria striata var. stricta Fowl mannagrass 3 S2 G5T5
Maianthemum stellatum Starry solomon-plume 4 S2 G5
Potamogeton obtusifolius Blunt-leaf pondweed 2 S2S3 G5
Potamogeton robbinsii 4 Flatleaf pondweed 1 S1S2 G5
Potentilla drummondii Drummond cinquefoil 1 S2 G5
1 Data from the Alaska Natural Heritage Program’s spatially explicit database of rare species (AKNHP 2011b).
2 State rarity rankings: S1 = critically imperiled, S2 = imperiled, and S3 = vulnerable.
3 Global rarity rankings: G2 = imperiled, G3 = vulnerable, G4 = apparently secure, G5 = demonstrably secure, T = rank of
subspecies or variety, and Q = indicates uncertainty about taxonomic status that may affect global rank.
4 Recorded by McKendrick et al. (1982) in the upper Susitna River basin (Watana lake), representing the second record for this
species in the region searched (see text).
4.8.2. Special Status Birds
The area considered for the potential presence of RTE birds includes the area that may be
directly affected by Project construction or operation, including riverine areas downstream from
the dam to the Talkeetna and Chulitna River confluences.
No bird species listed as threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate under the federal
Endangered Species Act or endangered under Alaska Statute 16.20.190 occur in the Project area
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-244 December 2011
(USFWS 2009a, ADF&G 2011c). The Project area includes habitat for other birds that are
identified as special status species by state and federal agencies in Alaska that will be involved in
the WHP review process. The USFWS and FERC have recently developed a Memorandum of
Understanding regarding protection of migratory birds (FERC and USFWS 2011). While it
covers all species of migratory birds, it emphasizes Species of Concern that are identified in
other documents prepared by the USFWS and multi-organization working groups. Those
categories of special status species are among those described below and a complete list of
special status species can be found in Table 4.8-2.
The USFWS defines Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) as species, subspecies, and
populations that are not already federally-listed as threatened or endangered but that without
additional conservation actions are likely to become candidates for federal listing (USFWS
2008a). The USFWS identifies Birds of Management Concern (BMC) that present management
challenges for reasons such as population declines, small or restricted populations, dependence
on restricted or vulnerable habitats, or overabundance to the point of causing ecological or
economic damage (USFWS 2009b).
The Boreal Partners in Flight (PIF) lists species of conservation priority using a species
prioritization process found in the Landbird Conservation Plan for Alaska Biogeographic
Regions (Andres 2000).
The BLM designates sensitive species and their habitats “to promote their conservation and
reduce the likelihood and need for such species to be listed pursuant to the ESA” (BLM 2008a).
They must be native species found on BLM-administered lands, and either: 1) be thought to be in
a downward trend such that its viability is at risk in at least a signification portion of this range;
or 2) depend on ecological refugia or unique habitat on BLM lands, and such areas may be
threatened with alteration that might cause risk to the species’ viability there (BLM 2008a). They
also include ESA-designated candidate species, proposed species, and delisted species for the
period extending five years following the species’ delisting. BLM’s responsibilities include
determining the “distribution, abundance, population condition, current threats, and habitat needs
for sensitive species, and evaluating”...the significance of its actions in conserving those species
(BLM 2008a). BLM also manages a broader group of “special status species” comprised of its
sensitive species and species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA.
The State of Alaska no longer maintains a list of Species of Special Concern. It uses its
Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (sometimes referenced as its Wildlife Action
Plan) to assess the conservation needs of particular species (ADF&G 2011c). In that plan, it
identified featured species (FS). The ADF&G developed its featured species list based on a set of
11 criteria that includes declines in abundance or productivity, deformity, disease or other
mortality, rarity, at-risk species, endemics, seasonal use of restricted local range, sensitivity to
environmental disturbance, status of species is unknown, species is representative of a broad
array of other species in a particular habitat, and international importance (ADF&G 2006).
Three other plans cited in the Memorandum of Understanding between FERC and USFWS
regarding migratory bird species identify conservation objectives and priorities for various bird
species. These include: the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP), the North
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-245 December 2011
American Waterbird Conservation Plan (NAWCP), and the Alaska Shorebird Conservation Plan
(ASCP) (NAWMP 2004; Kushlan et al. 2006; Alaska Shorebird Group 2008).
Table 4.8-2 Special status bird species that may occur in the study area.
Common Name Scientific Name Conservation Status1
American Three-toed Woodpecker Picoides dorsalis FS
American Dipper Cinclus mexicanus PIF
American Golden-plover Pluvialis dominica ASCP
America Wigeon Anas americana BMC, NAWMP
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus FS
Bank Swallow Riparia riparia FS
Belted Kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon FS
Blackpoll Warbler Dendroica striata BLM-S, PIF, FS
Black Scoter Melanitta americana BMC, NAWMP
Black-backed Woodpecker Picoides arcticus PIF, FS
Blue-winged Teal Anas discors BMC, NAWMP
Bohemian Waxwing Bombycilla garrulus PIF
Boreal Owl Aegolius funereus PIF, FS
Boreal Chickadee Poecile hudsonicus FS
Brant Brant bernicla BMC
Brown Creeper Certhia americana FS
Canada Goose Branta canadensis BMC, NAWMP
Canvasback Aythya valisineria BMC, NAWMP
Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota FS
Common Loon Gavia immer FS, NAWCP
Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula BMC, NAWMP
Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis FS
Gadwall Anas strepera BMC, NAWMP
Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos BLM-S, FS
Golden-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla PIF
Gray-cheeked Thrush Catharus minimus BLM-W, PIF
Greater white-fronted Goose (Tule) Anser albifrons BMC, NAWMP
Green-winged Teal Anas crecca BMC, NAWMP
Great gray Owl Strix nebulosa FS
Great-horned Owl Bubo virginianus FS
Greater Scaup Aythya marila BMC, NAWMP
Gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus PIF, FS
Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus BMC, NAWMP
Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus FS
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-246 December 2011
Common Name Scientific Name Conservation Status1
Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus FS
Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus BCC, FS, NAWCP
Hudsonian Godwit Limosa haemastica ASCP, BLM-W
Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes BCC,BMC,FS, ASCP
Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis BMC, NAWMP
Long-tailed Duck Clangula hyemalis BMC, NAWMP
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos BMC, NAWMP
Merlin Falco columbarius FS
Northern Shrike Lanius excubitor PIF
Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus FS
Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus FS
Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis FS
Northern Hawk Owl Surnia ulula FS
Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata BMC, NAWMP
Northern Pintail Anas acuta BMC, NAWMP
Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi BCC, BLM-S, PIF, FS
Osprey Pandion haliaetus FS
Pacific Loon Gavia pacifica FS, NAWCP
Peregrine Falcon2 Falco peregrinus anatum BCC, FS
Pine Grosbeak Pinicola enucleator FS
Pine Siskin Spinus pinus FS
Redhead Aythya americana BMC, NAWMP
Red-throated Loon Gavia stellata BCC, BLM-W, FS, NAWCP
Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis FS
Red-necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena FS, NAWCP
Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis FS
Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris BMC, NAWMP
Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus PIF, BCC, BLM-S, FS
Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus BLM-S, FS
Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus FS
Smith's Longspur Calcarius pictus BCC, PIF, FS
Snow Goose Chen caerulescens BMC
Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria BCC, BMC, FS, ASCP
Surf Scoter Melanitta perspicillata BMC, NAWMP
Surfbird Aphriza virgata ASCP
Townsend's Warbler Dendroica townsendi BLM-W, PIF, FS
Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator BLM-S, BMC
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-247 December 2011
Common Name Scientific Name Conservation Status1
Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus BMC
Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda BCC, BMC, ASCP
Varied Thrush Ixoreus naevius PIF, FS
Violet-green Swallow Tachycineta thalassina FS
Western Wood-pewee Contopus sordidulus PIF
Whimbrel Heteroscelus incanus BCC, BMC, ASCP
White-tailed Ptarmigan Lagopus leucurus PIF
White-winged Crossbill Loxia leucoptera PIF, FS
White-winged Scoter Melanitta fusca BMC, NAWMP
White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys FS
Wilson’s Warbler Wilsonia pusilla FS
Wilson’s Snipe Gallinago delicata BMC
1 Conservation Status: FS = Featured Species (ADF&G 2006); BCC = Birds of Conservation Concern (USFWS 2008); BMC =
Birds of Management Concern (USFWS 2009b); PIF = Boreal Partners in Flight Working Group (Andres 2000); NAWMP = the
North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP 2004); NAWCP = North American Waterbird Conservation Plan(Kushlan
et al. 2006); ASCP = Alaska Shorebird Conservation Plan (Alaska Shorebird Group 2008); BLM-S = BLM Sensitive Species;
BLM-W = BLM Watch List Species (BLM n.d.; AKNHP 2011b)
2 Previously listed as Threatened under ESA, the American Peregrine Falcon was de-listed August 1999
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act provides for the protection of the Bald Eagle and the
Golden Eagle by prohibiting, except under certain specified conditions, the taking, possession,
and commerce of such birds. The USFWS developed the National bald eagle management
guidelines in May 2007, which should be followed to comply with the Eagle Act. Protection of
Bald Eagles has included definition of zones around nest trees that are guidelines for avoidance
of disturbance. The primary zone extends 330 ft from the nest tree, and land clearing or
construction may be discouraged year round. Human disturbance is discouraged particularly
during the spring-summer nesting season. A secondary zone ranges to a distance of 660 ft from
the nest, and human disturbance must be minimized during the breeding season, but construction
may be possible outside the nesting season. A third zone that extends up to one-quarter to one-
half mile from the nest, depending on topography and line of sight to the nest, permits most
activities, timber clearing, construction blasting, and similar major disturbances outside the
breeding season (USFWS 2007).
Some activities and projects are eligible for federal permits under the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act. The regulation set forth in 50 CFR § 22.26 provides for issuance of permits to
“take” bald eagles and golden eagles where the taking is associated with, but not the purpose of,
the activity and cannot practicably be avoided. Most take authorized under this section will be in
the form of disturbance; however, permits may authorize non-purposeful take that may result in
mortality (50 CFR § 22.26).
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-248 December 2011
4.8.3. Special Status Mammals
The Distinct Population Segment of beluga whale that inhabits Cook Inlet (CIBW) was listed as
an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on October 22, 2008 (73 FR
62919) and a depleted stock under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Section 7 of the ESA
requires that federal agencies must ensure they do not fund, authorize, or carry out any actions
(e.g., issuance of a FERC license) that would jeopardize the continued existence of the listed
species, or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. Beluga whale occurrence and
habitat use in the Susitna River area are discussed in the Project data gap analysis for aquatic
resources (HDR 2011).
No other terrestrial or marine mammals listed (threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate)
under the ESA are likely to use the study area (USFWS 2009a, NOAA 2011a). There are no
state-listed endangered mammal species in the area potentially affected by the Project (ADF&G
2011c). The little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus) is listed as a featured species by the ADF&G and
likely occurs in the study area (ADF&G 2006). The Alaska tiny shrew (Sorex yukonicus) is the
only mammal listed by the BLM as sensitive that may be in the Project area (BLM 2010aa);
AKNHP 2011b).
This analysis summarizes knowledge related to CIBW mammal use of the Susitna River, its
mouth, and delta, for use in identifying potential impacts of the proposed Susitna-Watana
Hydroelectric Project.
Five stocks of beluga whale occur in Alaskan waters: Cook Inlet; Bristol Bay; eastern Bering
Sea; eastern Chukchi Sea; and Beaufort Sea (Allen and Angliss 2010). The Cook Inlet stock is an
isolated population likely confined to Cook Inlet throughout the year (Rugh et al. 2000; Hobbs et
al. 2006; Hobbs and Shelden 2008; Hobbs et al. 2008; NMFS 2008). The estimated abundance
for the CIBW was 340 individuals in 2010 (Shelden et al. 2010).
Aerial surveys of CIBWs were carried out in 1982 and 1983 as part of the original licensing
effort (Harza-Ebasco 1985), confirming the summer aggregation of belugas at the Susitna Delta
also documented by more recent surveys (NMFS 2008; Shelden et al. 2010). A time series of
data from annual aerial surveys of CIBWs exists for the period between 1993 and 2010 (NMFS
2008; Shelden et al. 2010). Surveys are conducted at the peak of seasonal use of the study area
during June and July to support annual abundance estimates. Additional surveys are conducted in
August to document presence of calves.
4.8.3.1. Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Occurrence
Aerial surveys conducted since 1993 have consistently documented high CIBW use of Knik
Arm, Turnagain Arm, Chickaloon Bay, and the Susitna River delta areas of the upper inlet
(NMFS 2008). Satellite tagging data further support the high use of these areas by belugas
(Hobbs et al. 2005).
Several factors likely influence beluga whale distribution in Cook Inlet. Prey availability,
predator avoidance, sea-ice cover and other environmental factors, reproduction, sex and age
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-249 December 2011
class, and human activities play an important role in beluga seasonal distribution within Cook
Inlet (Rugh et al. 2000; NMFS 2008). Seasonal movement and density patterns as well as site
fidelity appear to be closely linked to prey availability, coinciding with seasonal salmon and
eulachon concentrations (Moore et al. 2000). CIBWs forage intensely during the summer when
prey availability is high and locally concentrated near river mouths (Huntington 2000; Moore et
al. 2000). This seasonal feeding is presumably important in providing energy storage and
reserves for the winter. Availability of prey species appears to be the most influential
environmental variable affecting Cook Inlet whale distribution and relative abundance (Moore et
al. 2000). The patterns and timing of eulachon and salmon runs have a strong influence on
beluga whale feeding behavior and their movement during the spring and summer (Nemeth et al.
2007; NMFS 2008). The presence of prey species may account for the seasonal change in beluga
group size and composition (Moore et al. 2000). Belugas frequent areas near coastal mud flats
and river mouths in Cook Inlet from spring through fall (Goetz et al. 2007; NMFS 2008). Beluga
whales tend to concentrate at rivers and bays in upper Cook Inlet during summer and fall, then
disperse to waters in the mid-inlet during winter and spring (NMFS 2008).
CIBWs exhibit site fidelity to distinct summer concentration areas and are reliably found
annually in these areas (Seaman et al. 1986), typically near river mouths and associated shallow,
warm, and low-salinity waters (Moore et al. 2000). Aerial surveys conducted in late April and
early May reported beluga whales in the upper inlet as eulachon runs reached the Susitna and
Twenty mile rivers (NMFS 2008). During the summer, beluga whales are frequently observed
along Susitna Flats, gathering at the Susitna and Little Susitna rivers and other small streams on
the western side of Cook Inlet, following runs of eulachon, Chinook salmon, and coho salmon
(Hobbs and Shelden 2008; NMFS 2008; Allen and Angliss 2010). In late summer and fall,
beluga whales aggregate near the mouths of streams on the western side of the inlet south from
Susitna Flats to Chinitna (NMFS 2008).
CIBWs appear to calve primarily in the Susitna Flats portion of upper Cook Inlet (Huntington
2000). Calves represented 7-8 percent of whales observed in the Susitna Flats area during
various surveys, including aerial and boat-based surveys (Funk et al. 2005; McGuire et al. 2008;
McGuire et al. 2009). However, during 2009 photo-identification surveys, 63 percent of whale
groups photographed in Knik Arm contained neonates, compared with 47 percent of groups in
Susitna, indicating there may be more than one nursery area in upper Cook Inlet (McGuire et al.
2011).
The traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) of Alaska Natives and NMFS aerial survey data
document a historical contraction of the summer range of CIBWs (Huntington 2000; NMFS
2008; Rugh et al. 2010; Carter and Nielsen 2011). While belugas were once abundant and
frequently sighted in the lower inlet during summer, they are now primarily concentrated in the
upper half of the inlet (Rugh et al. 2010). Potential explanations for the range contraction
include:
Habitat change;
Predator avoidance; or
Use of spatially limited optimal habitat by a remnant population.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-250 December 2011
The first indication of a possible recovery may be reoccupation of more peripheral habitats
(Rugh et al. 2010).
Large groups of belugas arrive at the Susitna River mouth in the spring during eulachon runs in
May and June, and suggesting that Cook Inlet beluga whale distribution is associated with the
seasonal presence of prey species (Calkins 1984; Hazard 1988; Nemeth et al. 2007; NMFS
2008). Eulachon runs in the Susitna River number in the several hundred thousand individuals
during May, with several million fish present in June (Calkins 1989). Eulachon filled the
stomach of one beluga whale harvested at the Susitna delta in 1998 (NMFS 2008), suggesting the
importance of Susitna River spring eulachon runs to CIBWs. In summer, as runs of eulachon
decline in abundance, belugas begin feeding heavily on Pacific salmon (NMFS 2008).
4.8.3.2. Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Critical Habitat
Critical habitat was designated for CIBWs by the NMFS on April 11, 2011 (76 FR 20180). The
critical habitat area includes upper Cook Inlet from the upper end of Knik and Turnagain arms to
an area south of Kalgin Island, Kachemak Bay, and near shore areas extending from Tuxedni
Bay to Kamishak Bay (Figure 4.8-1). Proposed critical habitat for the Cook Inlet beluga whale is
present in lower reach and mouth of the Susitna River. The lower Susitna River, mouth, and
delta are located in Area 1 of the designated critical habitat.
NMFS identified five primary constituent elements (PCEs) in the final ruling that are essential to
the conservation of CIBWs:
PCE 1 -Intertidal and subtidal water of Cook Inlet with depths <30 ft (mean low lower
water) and within 5 miles of high and medium flow anadromous fish streams
PCE 2 -Primary prey species consisting of four species of Pacific salmon (Chinook,
sockeye, chum, and coho), eulachon, Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus), walleye
pollock (Theragra chalcogramma), saffron cod (Eleginus gracilis), and yellow fin sole
(Limanda aspera)
PCE 3 -Waters free of toxins or other agents of a type or amount harmful to CIBWs
PCE 4 -Unrestricted passage within or between the critical habitat areas
PCE 5 -Waters with in-water noise below levels resulting in the abandonment of critical
habitat areas by CIBWs
Although PCEs 1-5 are present in the lower Susitna River and its mouth, only PCEs 1 and 2
could potentially be directly affected by the proposed hydroelectric project. Potential effects of
the Susitna-Watana Project on Cook Inlet beluga whale critical habitat are described below.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-251 December 2011
Source: http://www.[ala.noaa.gOY/newsreleases/images/cibelugachmap.jpg
4.8.3.3. Cook Inlet Beluga Whale use of the Susitna River area
Available information indicates that the Susitna River mouth and delta are vital habitats for the
Cook Inlet beluga whale. The lower reach of the Susitna River lies within critical habitat Area 1.
Area 1 critical habitat contains shallow tidal flats, river mouths, or estuarine areas, and is
important as foraging and calving habitat. These habitats may also serve other biological needs,
such as molting or escape from predators (Shelden et al. 2003).
Figure 4.8-1 Cook Inlet beluga whale critical habitat
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-252 December 2011
Area 1 critical habitat has the highest concentrations of belugas from spring through fall as well
as the greatest potential for adverse impact from anthropogenic threats. Intensive summer
feeding by belugas occurs in the Susitna delta area. Risk from harm from anthropogenic factors
in Area 1 is increased by the fact that whales occur here in high densities.
Though belugas are known to enter Cook Inlet area streams, information on their distribution and
occurrence of is limited18. The NMFS (NMFS 2008) identified beluga "feeding hotspots" in
Cook Inlet as the Susitna and Little Susitna rivers, Knik Arm from Eagle Bay to the Eklutna
River, the Ivan River, the Theodore River, the Lewis River, the Chickaloon River, and
Chickaloon Bay. Whales may gather in estuaries or river mouths in order to carry out
biologically important, such as:
Calving or breeding, because warm water may facilitate thermoregulation in neonates
and/or adults (Calkins 1989; Moore et al. 2000; NMFS 2008)
Feeding in spring when blubber resources are lowest (Calkins 1989; NMFS 2008)
Escaping predators (Shelden et al. 2003; NMFS 2008)
Sheltering during storms (Calkins 1984; Huntington 2000)
HDR (2010) reviewed CIBW presence upriver of the mouths of various tributaries of Cook Inlet.
Whales were found to be present upriver in spring, summer, and autumn (approximately April-
September). Documented presence of whales upriver was confirmed for the Susitna River, Kenai
River, Twenty mile River, Placer River, Knik River, and Beluga River (as far upriver as Beluga
Lake at RM 30. Bird Creek, Chickaloon River, Glacier Creek, Fox River, Ivan River, Lewis
River, Little Susitna River, McArthur River, and Theodore River (HDR 2010).
Tags applied to adult salmon migrating up the Susitna River at RM 20, 22 and 80 during the
1980s APA Project Aquatic Studies Program were recovered in January 1986 from the stomach
of a male beluga whale found stranded in Turnagain Arm (Calkins 1989). Since it is unlikely
that a spawning adult salmon would migrate up to 80 miles downstream to exit the river, and
belugas are not known to feed on dead or dying fish, (Calkins 1989) the whale may have taken
the salmon upriver. In spite of this, crews manning fish-tagging stations along the Susitna River
did not see whales upstream of RM 3 (Calkins 1989).
Traditional hunting areas for beluga whales included upriver feeding locations in the Susitna,
Little Susitna, Ivan, Theodore, and Lewis rivers (Calkins 1989). According to traditional
ecological knowledge, CIBWs are known to ascend the Susitna River at least as far as the power
lines near RM 5 and occasionally as far as RM 30 to 40 (Huntington 2000).
Whales have also been observed above tidewater in seven other Cook Inlet streams, including
the nearby Beluga River, Kenai River, and streams entering both Knik and Turnagain Arms
(HDR 2010), indicating a pattern of frequenting upriver habitats.
4.8.4. Special Status Fish
No fish species listed under the ESA may be found in the project area (USFWS 2009a, NOAA
2011a). The State of Alaska does not identify any fish species as endangered which may be in
the Project area or affected by the Project. Three salmon stocks in the Susitna watershed have
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-253 December 2011
been designated as “stocks of concern” by the ADF&G and the Alaska Board of Fisheries
(BOF). A “stock of concern’ is defined by the Alaska Policy for Management of Sustainable
Salmon Fisheries (5 AAC 39.222) as a salmon stock that exhibits a yield, management or
conservation concern. A conservation concern is the highest level of concern under this policy
and none of these stocks have this status. Susitna River sockeye salmon were established as a
stock of “yield concern” under this policy in 2008. A “yield concern”, is defined as a chronic
inability, despite specific management efforts to maintain expected harvestable surpluses above
the stock’s escapement needs. The BOF also found the Willow and Goose Creeks Chinook
salmon stock to be a yield concern in February of 2011. ADF&G provided a stock status report,
action plan, and research plan for these stocks at the February 2011 BOF meeting (ADF&G
2011d).
The Alexander Creek Chinook salmon stock was designated a stock of “management concern”
under the policy in February 2011. A “management concern” is a higher level of concern than a
“yield concern” and results from a chronic inability to achieve the sustainable escapement goal
for the stocks despite the use of specific management efforts. Stock status reports, action plans
and research plans were developed for these stocks (ADF&G 2011d, 2011e) and the BOF
modified fishing regulations to address the concern (Alaska Board of Fisheries 2011).
4.8.5. Special Status Amphibians and Reptiles
No amphibian or reptile species listed under the ESA may be found in the project area (USFWS
2009a). The BLM does not show any amphibians or reptiles on its Alaska sensitive or watch lists
(BLM n.d.). The ADF&G lists the wood frog as a featured species, and it is likely to found in
the Project area (ADF&G 2006).
4.8.6. Essential Fish Habitat
The Project area includes essential fish habitat (EFH), as explained below. The Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) is the federal law that governs U.S.
marine fisheries management. In 1996 Congress added new habitat conservation provisions to
that act in recognition of the importance of fish habitat to productivity and sustainability of U.S.
marine fisheries which includes freshwater habitat utilized by anadromous3 species. The MSA,
as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267), established
procedures designed to identify, conserve, and enhance EFH for those species regulated under a
federal fisheries management plan. The MSA requires federal agencies to consult with NMFS on
all actions, or proposed actions, authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency, that may
adversely affect EFH (MSA §305[b][2]).
Congress defined EFH as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding,
feeding, or growth to maturity." The NMFS EFH guidelines further interpret the EFH definition:
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-254 December 2011
“Waters” include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological
properties that are used by fish and may include aquatic areas historically used by fish
where appropriate
“Substrate” includes sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and
associated biological communities
“Necessary” means the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and the managed
species' contribution to a healthy ecosystem
"Spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity" covers a species' full life cycle
The EFH mandate applies to all species managed under a federal fishery management plan,
which includes all five species of Pacific salmon. Freshwater EFH for Pacific salmon includes all
those streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other water bodies currently or historically accessible
to salmon and includes those waters identified in ADF&G’s Catalog of waters important for the
spawning, rearing, or migration of anadromous fishes (ADF&G 2011a). This catalog designates
anadromous waters in the main stem of the Susitna River extending upstream to the mouth of the
Oshetna River at approximately river mile 225.
4.8.7. Relevant Biological Opinions, Status Reports, and Recovery Plans
The following reports may be pertinent to the only ESA-listed species potentially affected by the
project:
Biological Opinions:
- Fort Richardson – US Army, Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion on the
Resumption of Year-Round Firing Opportunities at Fort Richardson, 05/2011 (NMFS
2011aa)
- Knik Arm Bridge And Toll Authority: Knik Crossing, ESA Section 7 Consultation
Biological Opinion, Knik Arm Crossing, 11/2010 (NMFS 2010aa)
- Port of Anchorage Expansion, Endangered Species Act, Section 7 Consultation
Biological Opinion for the Marine Terminal Redevelopment Project at the Port of
Anchorage, Alaska, 07/2009 (NMFS 2009aa)
- List of additional consultation documents for projects related to the Cook Inlet beluga
whale are available on the NOAA website (NMFS 2011bb)
Status Reports:
- Stock Assessment report, 2010 (Allen and Angliss 2011aa)
- Status Review Supplement for Cook Inlet, 10/2008 (Hobbs and Shelden 2008aa)
- 2008 Status Review for Cook Inlet, 04/2008 (Hobbs et al. 2008aa)
o Not published in the FR
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-255 December 2011
o 2006 Status Review for Cook Inlet, 03/24/2006 (Hobbs et al. 2006aa)
o 73 FR 14836
Recovery Plans:
- Notice of intent to prepare a recovery plan for the Cook Inlet beluga whale. 75 FR 4528,
January 28, 2010 (NMFS 2010cc)
- Recovery Outline for Cook Inlet Beluga whales, 02/2010 (NMFS 2010bb)
- Conservation Plan for the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale, 10/2008 (NMFS 2008aa)
o Discusses the need for a Recovery Plan under the ESA
4.8.8. Potential Adverse and Positive Impacts
Potential adverse impacts to RTE species, populations, and habitats require an understanding of
the project footprint, locations of construction activities, project operations, habitats, and refined
inventories of RTE species and their use of affected areas relative to their full ranges. Some of
the Project information is still under development or unknown. Once it is refined, the Project and
species information can be analyzed to describe potential impacts to RTE species, potentially
limited by lack of species information specific to the Project area.
4.8.8.1. Plant Species
The Project would not affect any ESA-listed plant species. Due to the lack of past floristic
surveys conducted within the study area, potential adverse impacts to other rare or sensitive plant
species cannot yet be determined. If individuals of RTE plant species occur within areas directly
affected by the Project, adverse impacts could include physical disturbance or destruction
through Project construction or operation. The Project could potentially eliminate individual
populations of special status plants. Because no federally-listed threatened or endangered plant
species live in the Project area, the stringent species protection measures of the ESA would not
be applicable.
4.8.8.2. Animal Species
Construction of Project structures and Project operations would alter habitat and its use by RTE
species. The only species listed under the ESA that might be affected is the Cook Inlet beluga
whale. The beluga whale could be affected if its habitat (for example, mudflats) or prey species
were affected. These prey species particularly include anadromous species: Chinook, sockeye,
chum, and coho salmon; eulachon, and saffron cod (NMFS 2008aa). They could also include
marine species that use the Susitna River mouth and delta: Pacific cod, walleye pollock, and
saffron cod (Moulton 1997).
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-256 December 2011
4.8.8.2.1. Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Critical Habitat
PCE 1 - Areas of shallow mudflats surrounding and within the Susitna River mouth and delta are
part of critical habitat PCE 1. If maintenance of these mudflats is dependent on the sediment
output of the Susitna River, possible changes in sediment-loading at the river mouth due to the
project could affect PCE 1.
Shallow mudflat habitats have been shown to correlate highly with beluga whale presence
(Goetz et al. 2007). CIBWs frequent deeper waters during the winter, and shallower areas during
summer and autumn. Sediment discharged by glacial tributaries makes up the majority of
substrate, as well as rain, snowmelt runoff, and the Alaska Coastal Current (Schumacher et al.
1989). Possible functions of shallow habitats:
Concentrate prey, increasing availability to belugas (NMFS 2008)
Provide predator escape habitat (NMFS 2008)
Provide optimal conditions for molting, calving, and nurturing young
Shallow areas may serve to concentrate fish, with the result that belugas may preferentially use
areas with favorable bathymetry over areas with greater prey concentrations (NMFS 2008). For
example, belugas do not often feed at the Kenai River mouth although salmon return there in
high concentrations (NMFS 2008).Belugas gather at the edge of the Susitna River delta at lower
tides to feed on salmon holding in this area before they migrate upstream at higher tides, and
belugas have been reported to block channel entrances to the river delta in order to feed
(Huntington 2000).
Data needs for assessing potential impacts to this PCE will be fulfilled under data gaps identified
under Hydrology, Ice, Sediment, Geomorphology, and Climate, Section 8.
PCE 2 - PCE 2 consists of the following primary prey species for beluga whales : Chinook,
sockeye, chum, and coho salmon; eulachon; Pacific cod; walleye pollock; saffron cod; and
yellowfin sole. All of these species, except yellowfin sole, have been caught offshore of the
Susitna Delta (Moulton 1997). Occurrence of marine fish species in the mouth and lower (tidal)
reaches of the river are unknown. Chinook, sockeye, chum and coho salmon; and eulachon
spawn in the Susitna River (Harza-Ebasco 1985). Concentrations of saffron cod in the shallow
near shore areas may create a valuable prey source for belugas during spring (NMFS 2008).
Pacific salmon (Chinook, sockeye, chum, and coho), Pacific eulachon, Pacific cod, walleye
pollock, saffron cod, and yellowfin sole constitute were identified as the most important food
sources for CIBWs through research and TEK. Stomach sampling indicates the above species
make up the majority of prey consumed by weight during the ice-free season. A hydroelectric
project that could potentially affect fish stocks spawning in the Susitna River or using habitat in
its mouth or delta could impact Cook Inlet beluga whale critical habitat PCE 2.
PCE 3 - PCE 3 consists of waters free of toxins or other agents of a type or amount harmful to
CIBWs. Potential for effects on beluga whale critical habitat from the Project exists since the
Project has potential to affect water quality and contaminant-loading of sediment of the Susitna
River, although the effects, if any, will likely be attenuated by tributary inflows below Watana
Dam. Upper Cook Inlet has been designated a Category 3 water body, or a water for which there
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-257 December 2011
is insufficient or no data to determine whether any designated use would be impaired; therefore,
there are no identified water quality concerns or total maximum daily loads for Cook Inlet. Water
quality of the river mouth and contaminant-loading of sediment at the mouth are unknown.
PCE 4 - Changes in water levels could change belugas access to estuarine and upriver habitats in
the Susitna River. If waters become too shallow, whales may not physically be able to enter
them. Belugas have been documented traveling in large, tightly packed groups in both the east
and west tributaries of the Susitna River, thought to be pursuing fish (Rugh et al. 2000). Belugas
may use bathymetric features such as river banks and shallow mud flats in order to increase their
hunting success. Changes in water levels could affect feeding success.
PCE 5 - Noise levels in critical habitat areas are not expected to be affected by the project since
no noise impacts are expected at the river mouth/delta, as the proposed dam would be more than
180 miles upriver.
4.8.8.3. Essential Fish Habitat
Construction activities and project operation could alter and affect Essential Fish Habitat. The
effects will become better known as Project features are sited and additional information is
developed on the salmon use of areas directly affected by Project components and flow changes.
FERC will need to analyze potential adverse effects to EFH, develop appropriate mitigation
measures, and consult with NMFS regarding EFH conservation.
4.8.9. Potential Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement
Protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures (PM&Es) will be developed during the FERC
licensing process.
4.8.10. References
76 FR 20180. Endangered and Threatened Species: Designation of Critical Habitat for Cook
Inlet Beluga Whale.
73 FR 62919. Endangered and Threatened Species; Endangered Status for the Cook Inlet Beluga
Whale.
ABR, Inc.—Environmental Research & Services. 2011.Wildlife Data-Gap Analysis for the
Proposed Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project: Draft Report. Anchorage: Prepared for
The Alaska Energy Authority.
Alaska Board of Fisheries. 2011. Findings regarding regulatory action taken to address salmon
stocks of concern in the Upper Cook Inlet. Board Finding 2011-266-FB, March 26,
2011. Juneau, Alaska.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-258 December 2011
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 2006. Our wealth maintained: A strategy for
conserving Alaska's diverse wildlife and fish resources. Juneau, Alaska. Available at:
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=species.wapabout.
—. 2011a. Anadromous waters catalog. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/sf/SARR/AWC/ (accessed
August 20, 2011).
—. 2011b. Refuges, sanctuaries, critical habitat areas, & wildlife ranges.
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=protectedareas.locator (accessed September
6, 2011).
—. 2011c. Special status species.
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=specialstatus.main (accessed September 6,
2011).
—. 2011d. Willow Creek and Goose Creek King Salmon Stock Status and Action Plan, 2011.
Report to the Alaska Board of Fisheries, February 2011. Alaska Department of Fish and
Game, Juneau, Alaska.
—. 2011e. Alexander Creek King Salmon Stock Status and Action Plan, 2011. Report to the
Alaska Board of Fisheries, February 2011. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau,
Alaska.
AEA (Alaska Energy Authority). Susitna-Watana Project Description. http://www.susitna-
watanahydro.org/Home/About (accessed August 11, 2011).
Alaska Natural Heritage Program (AKNHP). April 2008a "Alaska Natural Heritage Program rare
and vascular plant tracking list." Alaska Natural Heritage Program: Botany.
http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/botany/pdfs/Rare PLant List 2008.pdf. (accessed October 1,
2009).
—. November 2008b. "Alaska Natural Heritage Program Vertebrate Species Tracking List for
2008." Alaska Natural Heritage Program: Botany.
http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/zoology/pdfs/tracking_lists/2008_VertebrateSpeciesTracking
List.pdf. (accessed October 1, 2009).
—. 2011a. "Species List." University of Alaska: Alaska Natural Heritage Program.
http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/zoology/species-list/ (accessed August 10, 2011).
—. January 2011b. Element Occurrence Data for Rare and Endangered Species in Alaska.
Vector Digital Data. University of Alaska Anchorage. Available online at
http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/maps/biotics.
Allen, B.M., and R.P. Angliss. 2010. Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessments, 2009. NOAA
Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-206. National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle,
Washington.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-259 December 2011
Allen, B. M., and R. P. Angliss. 2011. "Beluga Whale (Delphinapterus leucas): Cook Inlet
Stock." In Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessments, 2010, 89-94. U.S. Department of
Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-223. Available online at
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/ak2010whbg-ci.pdf.
Andres, B. A. 2000. Boreal partners in flight working group 1999 annual report. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Nongame Migratory Bird Management.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). No date. Attachment 1 – BLM-Alaska Sensitive Animal
and Plant Lists; Attachment 2 – Criteria and process for designating sensitive speciesin
Alaska; Attachment 3 – BLM-Alska Watch Lists. Provided by Bruce Seppi, District
Wildlife Biologist, Anchorage Field Office U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Land Management. September 20, 2011.
—. 2008a. BLM Manual 6840 – Special Status Species Management. December 12, 2008.
—. 2008b. "Plant Conservation." U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management:
Alaska. 29 05. http://www.blm.gov/ak/st/en/prog/plant_conservation.html (accessed
August 12, 2011).
—. May 18, 2010aa. "BLM-Alaska Revised Sensitive Species List." Instruction Memorandum
No. AK-2010-018 to District Managers, AFS Managers, DSD-Division of Lands, Office
of Pipeline Monitoring. Anchorage, Alaska: United States Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Land Management.
Calkins, D. 1984. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Final Report: Big Game Studies. Vol. IX
Belukha Whale. ADF&G, Anchorage, Alaska.
Calkins, D. G. 1989. Status of beluga whales in Cook Inlet. Pages 109-112 in L. E. Jarvela and
L. K. Thorsteinson, eds. Proceedings of the Gulf of Alaska, Cook Inlet, and North
Aleutian Basin Info Update Meeting, Anchorage, Alaska. OCS Study MMS 89-0041.
Carter, B.T.G., and E.A. Nielsen. 2011. Exploring ecological changes in Cook Inlet beluga whale
habitat though [sic] traditional and local ecological knowledge of contributing factors for
population decline. Marine Policy 35:299-308.
DNR (Alaska Department of Natural Resources). 2011. "General Land Status." Proposed Susitna
Dam Location. Anchorage, Alaska.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 1984. Draft Environmental Impact Statement:
Susitna Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 7114--Alaska. Washington, D.C.: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Electric Power Regulation.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and U.S. Department of the Interior United States Fish
and Wildlife Service. March 30, 2011. Memorandum of Understanding Regarding
Implementation of Executive Order 13186, “Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to
Protect Migratory Birds.”
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-260 December 2011
Funk, D.W., T.M. Markowitz, and R. Rodrigues, eds. 2005. Baseline Studies of Beluga Whale
Habitat Use in Knik Arm, Upper Cook Inlet, Alaska: July 2004–July 2005. Rep. from
LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc., Anchorage, AK, in association with HDR Alaska,
Inc., Anchorage, AK, for Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority, Anchorage, AK,
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Anchorage, AK, and Federal
Highway Administration, Juneau, AK.
Hazard, K. 1988. Beluga Whale Delphinapterus leucas. Pages 195–235 in J. W. Lentfer, ed.
Selected Marine Mammals of Alaska: Species Accounts with Research and Management
Recommendations. Marine Mammal Commission, Washington, DC.
[HDR] HDR Alaska, Inc. 2010. A review of beluga whale behavior and response to in-water
structures. Prepared for Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority and Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities Anchorage, Alaska, and, Juneau, Alaska.
HDR Alaska, Inc. (HDR). 2011. Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Railbelt Large Hydro:
Aquatic Resources Data Gap Analysis. Draft. Prepared for Alaska Energy Authority. July
20, 2011.
Hobbs, R. C., and K. E. W. Shelden. 2008. Supplemental status review and extinction assessment
of Cook Inlet belugas (Delphinapterus leucas). AFSC Processed Report 2008-08, Seattle,
Washington: Alaska Fisheries Science Center, NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service.
Available online at
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/statusreviews/belugawhale_cookinlet_supplemental.p
df.
Hobbs, R. C., K. E. W. Shelden, D. J. Rugh, and S. A. Norman. 2008. 2008 status review and
extinction risk assessment of Cook Inlet belugas (Delphinapterus leucas). AFSC
Processed Report 2008-02, Seattle, Washington: Alaska Fisheries Science Center, NOAA
National Marine Fisheries Service. Available online at
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/statusreviews/belugawhale_cookinlet.pdf.
Hobbs, R. C., K. E. W. Shelden, D. J. Vos, K. T. Goetz, and D. J. Rugh. 2006. Status review and
extinction assessment of Cook Inlet belugas (Delphinapterus leucas). AFSC Processed
Report 2006-16, Seattle, Washington: Alaska Fish Science Center, NOAA National
Marine Fisheries Service. Available online at
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/statusreviews/belugawhale_cookinlet2006.pdf.
Hobbs, R.C., K.L. Laidre, D.J. Vos, B.A. Mahoney, and M. Eagleton. 2005. Movements and
Area Use of Belugas, Delphinapterus leucas, in a subarctic Alaskan estuary. Arctic
58(4):331–340.
Hultén, E. 1968. Flora of Alaska and Neighboring Territories. Stanford University Press,
Stanford, CA.
Huntington, H.P. 2000. Traditional knowledge of the ecology of belugas, Delphinapterus
leucas, in Cook Inlet, Alaska. Marine Fisheries Review 62(3):134–140.
Kushlan, J.A., M.J. Steinkamp, K.C., Parsons, J. Capp, M. Acosta Cruz, M. Coulter, I. Davidson,
L. Dickson, N. Edelson, R. Elliot, R.M. Erwin, S. Hatch, S. Kress, R. Milko, S. Miller, K.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-261 December 2011
Mills, R. Paul, R. Phillips, J.E. Saliva, B. Sydeman, J. Trapp, J. Wheeler, and K. Wohl.
2002. Waterbird conservation for the Americas: the North American Waterbird
Conservation Plan. Version 1. Waterbird Conservation for the Americas, Washington,
DC. 78 pp.
—. 2006. Conservation status assessment factor scores and categories of concern for solitary-
nesting waterbird species. Addendum to Waterbird Conservation for the Americas: North
American Waterbird Conservation Plan. Version 1, April 17, 2006. Waterbird
Conservation for the Americas, Washington DC.
Lipkin, R., and D.F. Murray. 1997. Alaska Rare Plant Field Guide. Alaska Natural Heritage
Program and University of Alaska Museum.
McGuire, T.L., C.C. Kaplan, and M.K. Blees. 2009. Photo-identification of Beluga Whales
in Upper Cook Inlet, Alaska: Final Report of Belugas Re-sighted in 2008. Report
prepared by LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc. for National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc, Anchorage, Alaska.
McGuire, T.L., C.C. Kaplan, M.K. Blees, and M.R. Link. 2008. Photo-identification of beluga
whales in Upper Cook Inlet, Alaska. 2007 Annual Report. Report prepared by
LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc., Anchorage, AK, for Chevron, National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation, and ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., Anchorage, Alaska.
McGuire, T., M. Blees, and M. Bourdon. 2011. Photo-identification of Beluga Whales in Upper
Cook Inlet, Alaska. Final Report of Field Activities and Belugas Resighted in 2009,
Anchorage, Alaska. Report prepared by LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc.,
Anchorage, AK, for National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Chevron, and
ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc.
Moore, S.E., K.E.W. Shelden, L.K. Litzky, B.A. Mahoney, and D.J. Rugh. 2000. Beluga,
Delphinapterus leucas, habitat associations in Cook Inlet, Alaska. Marine Fisheries
Review 62(3):60–80.
Moulton, L.L. 1997. Early marine residence, growth, and feeding by juvenile salmon in northern
Cook Inlet, Alaska. Alaska Fishery Research Bulletin 4(2):154–177.
Museum of the North (MON). April 12, 2011. "Links and References." University of Alaska
Museum of the North. April 12, 2011. http://www.uaf.edu/museum/collections/herb/links-
and-references/ (accessed August 4, 2011).
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). October 11, 1996. "Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act." NOAA Fisheries Service.
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/magact/ (accessed August 15, 2011).
—. 2011. "Management and Recovery of Cook Inlet Beluga Whales." National Marine Fisheries
Service Alaska Regional Office.
http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/protectedresources/whales/beluga/management.htm#esa
(accessed August 11, 2011).
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-262 December 2011
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Office of Protected
Resources. 2011a. Species information. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/ (accessed
September 6, 2011).
—. 2011b. Critical habitat. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/criticalhabitat.htm (accessed
September 6, 2011).
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). March 2006aa. "Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants; Announcement of Initiation of a Status Review of the Cook Inlet
Beluga Whale under the Endangered Species Act." Federal Register (Available online at
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/fr/fr71-14836.pdf) 71, no. 57: 14836-7.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2008. Conservation plan for the Cook Inlet beluga
whale (Delphinapterus leucas). Juneau, Alaska: National Marine Fisheries Service.
Available online at
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/belugawhale_conservationplan.pdf.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2009aa. Endangered Species Act: Section 7
Consultation Biological Opinion for the Marine Terminal Redevelopment Project at the
Port of Anchorage, Alaska. Anchorage, Alaska: Prepared for the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Maritime Administration; U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska; and
National Marine Fisheries Service. Available online at
http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/protectedresources/whales/beluga/section7/poa_biop0709,
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2010aa. Endangered Species Act: Section 7
Consultation Biological Opinion for the Knik Arm Crossing, Anchorage, Alaska.
Anchorage, Alaska: Prepared for the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal
Highways Administration. Available online at
http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/protectedresources/esa/section7/knikarm/biop1110.pdf.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2010bb. Recovery Outline for Cook Inlet Beluga
Whales (Delphinapterus leucas). NMFS internal preplanning document, National Marine
Fisheries Service. Available online at
http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/protectedresources/whales/beluga/recovery/ci.htm.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). January 2010cc. "Endangered and Threatened
Species: Notice of Intent to Prepare a Recovery Plan for Cook Inlet Beluga Whales."
Federal Register (Available online at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/prules/75fr4528.pdf) 75,
no. 18: 4528.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2011aa. Endangered Species Act: Section 7
Consultation Biological Opinion for the Resumption of Year-Round Firing Opportunities
at Fort Richardson, Alaska. Anchorage, Alaska: Prepared for the U.S. Army, Alaska, and
NMFS. Available online at
http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/protectedresources/esa/section7/ftrichardson/biop052011.pdf.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-263 December 2011
—. 2011bb. Cook Inlet Beluga Whales: Development Projects in Cook Inlet Beluga Habitat.
http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/protectedresources/whales/beluga/development.htm (accessed
September 22, 2011).
NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life, Version 7.1.
http://natureserve.org/explorer (accessed October 15, 2009).
—. 2010. "NatureServe Conservation Status." NatureServe Explorer.
http://natureserve.org/explorer/ranking.htm (accessed August 10, 2011).
Nemeth, M.J., C.C. Kaplan, A.P. Ramos, G.D. Wade, D.M. Savarese, and C.D. Lyons. 2007.
Baseline Studies of Marine Fish and Mammals in Upper Cook Inlet, April through
October 2006. Final report prepared by LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc,
Anchorage, Alaska for DRven Corporation, Anchorage, Alaska.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan Committee. 2004. North American Waterfowl
Management Plan, 2004 – Implementation framework: strengthening the biological
foundation. Canadian Wildlife Service, U.S. Fish and Wildife Service, Secretaria de
Medio Ambient y Recursos Naturales. 106 pp.
Rugh, D.J., K.E.W. Shelden, and B.A. Mahoney. 2000. Distribution of Belugas,
Delphinapterus leucas, in Cook Inlet, Alaska, during June/July 1993-2000. Marine
Fisheries Review 62(3):6–21.
Rugh, D.J., K.E.W. Shelden, and R.C. Hobbs. 2010. Range contraction in a beluga whale
population. Endangered Species Research 12:69–75.
Santosh, B.K.C. August 11, 2011."RE: Request for data: Watana study area." E-mail to Maaike
Schotborgh, HDR, regarding species spatial data and GIS shape files. Anchorage,
Alaska: On file with HDR Alaska, Inc.
Schumacher, J.D., P.J. Stabeno, and A.T. Roach. 1989. Volume transport in the Alaska
Coastal Current. Continental Shelf Research 9(12):1071-1083.
Seaman, G.A., K.J. Frost, and L.F. Lowry. 1986. Investigations of Belukha whales in
coastal waters of western and northern Alaska. I. Distribution, abundance, and
movements. Pages 221-357 in N. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Ocean
Service and U.S. Department of Interior Minerals Management Service, editor Outer
Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program, final reports of principal
investigators. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Ocean Service, Office of
Oceanography and Marine Assessment, Ocean Assessments Division, Alaska Office,
Anchorage, Alaska.
Seppi, B. September 20, 2011. Telephone conversation between Seppi, BLM District Wildlife
Biologist, and Anne Leggett, HDR Alaska, Inc.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-264 December 2011
Shelden, K.E., D.J. Rugh, B.A. Mahoney, and M.E. Dahlheim. 2003. Killer whale predation on
belugas in Cook Inlet, Alaska: Implications for a depleted population. Marine Mammal
Science 19(3):529–544.
Shelden, K.E.W., K.T. Goetz, L. Vate Brattström, C.L. Sims, D.J. Rugh, and R.C. Hobbs. 2010.
Aerial surveys of belugas in Cook Inlet Alaska, June 2010. National Marine Fisheries
Service, National Marine Mammal Laboratory, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Seattle,
Washington.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. National bald eagle managment guidelines.
http://www.fws.gov/pacific/eagle/NationalBaldEagleManagementGuidelines.pdf
(accessed March 23, 2011).
—. 2008a. Birds of conservation concern 2008. United States Department of Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management.
http://library.fws.gov/bird_publications/bcc2008.pdf (accessed August 11, 2011).
—. 2008b. "Landbirds/Raptors." U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Migratory Bird Management.
http://alaska.fws.gov/mbsp/mbm/landbirds/landbirds.htm (accessed August 12, 2011).
—. 2009a. Alaska region endangered species.
http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/endangered/listing.htm (accessed September 12, 2011).
—. 2009b. Birds of Management Concern. Division of Migratory Bird Management,
Arlington,VA. Available online (accessed September 15, 2011):
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/SpecialTopics/BirdsofMana
gementConcern09[1].pdf
—.2009c. "Alaska Region Eagle Permit Program." U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Alaska Region.
http://alaska.fws.gov/eaglepermit/index.htm (accessed August 18, 2011).
—. 2010. Endangered Species; Candidate Conservation.
http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/endangered/conservation.htm (accessed September 19,
2011).
—. 2011a. FWS critical habitat for threatened & endangered species.
http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/crithab/ (accessed August 15, 2011).
—. 2011b. Species reports.
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/stateOccurrenceIndividual.jsp?state=AK (accessed
September 19, 2011).
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-265 December 2011
4.9. Aesthetic Resources
As described in APA’s 1985 Susitna Hydroelectric Project FERC License Application (APA
1985a), the APA Project facilities, including the transmission line, would be located within two
of Alaska’s physiographic regions: the Southcentral Region and the Interior Region (see Figure
4.9-1).
The Southcentral Region is bounded by the Alaska Range to the north and west, the Wrangell
Mountains to the east, and the Chugach Mountains and Gulf of Alaska to the south. This region,
which encompasses most of the Susitna Project features, is characterized by rugged mountainous
terrain, plateaus and broad river valleys. Anchorage, the state’s largest city, is located in the
Southcentral Region.
Mount McKinley, the highest mountain in North America, is on the Southcentral Region’s
northwest border. Spruce-hemlock and spruce-hardwood forests, wetlands, moist and wet
tundra, plateau uplands and a number of active glacially-bedded mountain valleys are also
present. These diverse landscapes include a wide variety of wildlife and fishery resources.
The Interior Region is bordered by the Brooks Range to the north, the Bering Sea to the west,
Canada to the east, and the Alaska Range to the south. It is generally characterized as a broad
and open landscape of large, braided and meandering rivers and streams. River valleys are
primarily vegetated with spruce-hardwood forests giving way to treeless tundra, brush covered
highlands, and large wetland areas. The Yukon River, which bisects the Interior Region, is its
most prominent natural features. Fairbanks, the state’s second largest city, is located in the
Interior Region.
The 39,000-square-mile Middle Susitna River basin is located entirely in the Southcentral region.
The basin is bordered by the Alaska Range to the north, the Chulitna and Talkeetna Mountains to
the west and south, and the northern Talkeetna Plateau and Gulkana Uplands to the east.
Although the basin is not considered to be unusually scenic in comparison to other areas of
Alaska, it has distinct and diverse combinations of landforms, waterforms, vegetation, and
wildlife species. The deep V-shaped canyons of the Susitna River, the Talkeetna Mountains, and
the upland plateau to the east are the dominant topographic forms. Elevations in the basin range
from approximately 700 ft to over 6,000 ft. Distinctive landforms include panoramic tundra
highlands, active and post-glacial valleys, and numerous lakes. The most well-known features in
the basin are the vertical-walled Devils and Vee Canyons on the Susitna River.
Tributaries to the Middle Susitna River in the vicinity of the Proposed Project include Portage
Creek, Devil Creek, Fog Creek, Tsusena Creek, Deadman Creek, Watana Creek, Kosina Creek,
Jay Creek, and Butte Creek. Scenic waterfalls occur on several creeks near their confluences
with the Susitna River. The most notable falls occurs on Devil Creek.
Date: Nov 2011Scale: As Noted
kj
INTERIOR
FAR NORTH
WESTERN
SOUTHCENTRAL
SO
U
T
H
E
A
S
T
Barrow
Bethel
Juneau
Anchorage
Fairbanks
Physiographic Regions
State of AlaskaSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC No.14241
Figure 4.09-1Ü
0 200 400100Miles
Legend
kj Proposed Watana Dam and Powerhouse
Alaska Regions
Far North
Interior
Southcentral
Southeast
Western
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-267 December 2011
Wildlife species present in the middle Susitna River basin include Dall sheep, moose, caribou,
grizzly and black bears, bald and golden eagles, trumpeter swans, and numerous migratory
waterfowl. All five Alaskan salmon species, grayling, burbot, rainbow trout, and lake trout
occur in the basin. Devils Canyon rapids serve as a barrier to upstream migration of salmon. As
a result, few salmon are found upstream of the canyon.
The Denali Highway passes through the northern portion of the basin. The highway is about 135
mi long and connects Paxson Lodge on the Richardson Highway (east end) with Cantwell
junction on the Parks Highway (west end). It is generally open from mid-May to October 1, and
is paved only for the first 21 mi west of Paxson and 3 mi east of Cantwell. Several short roads
and trails traverse the tundra to mining claims, fishing lodges, and hunting lodges. The main
Susitna-Watana Project facilities are located approximately 35 mi south of the Denali Highway.
Access into this part of the Susitna River basin is generally limited to hiking, float planes, all-
terrain vehicles (ATVs), watercraft, and snowmachines when conditions permit.
Recent photographs of the Project region are included in Appendix 4.9-1.
4.9.1. Existing Aesthetic Resource Conditions
APA’s 1985 Susitna Hydroelectric Project FERC License Application included a detailed
assessment of the aesthetic resources in the vicinity of the proposed Project vicinity. This
assessment included a description of landscape character types; notable natural features; viewers
and views; aesthetic value ratings; visual absorption capability; and composite ratings. The
assessment, which remains valid and relevant to the proposed Project, is summarized below.
4.9.1.1. Landscape Character Types
Landscape character types are a description and classification of land areas with common
distinguishing visual characteristics. They are used as a frame of reference to classify physical
features of an area and are based, in large part, on physiographic units. Using aerial photographs
and USGS topographic maps, physiographic units were identified as part of the previous FERC
licensing effort. These units were subsequently verified and inventoried in the field. The
inventory included evaluations of four major landscape characteristics:
Landforms: Physiographic units defined by their degree of enclosure, geologic history
and composition, slope gradient and distinguishing landscape patterns, and notable
natural features.
Waterforms: The location of water bodies, lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands, and the
pattern and character of their occurrence. Rarity is also noted.
Vegetation: A description of the vegetation patterns that exist within the basin. Special
or unusual vegetation occurrences are noted.
Views: A description of special visual characteristics within a landscape character type,
panoramic views, and potential viewers.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-268 December 2011
Landscape character types identified in the vicinity of the proposed Project are graphically
shown on Figure 4.9-2 and described in detail in Appendix 4.9-2. These landscape character
types include:
Mid Susitna River Valley
Susitna River Near Devil Creek
Susitna River
Vee (River) Canyon
Susitna Upland Wet Tundra Basin
Portage Lowlands
Chulitna Moist Tundra Uplands
Chulitna Mountains
Wet Upland Tundra
Talkeetna Uplands
Talkeetna Mountains
Susitna Upland Terrace
Susitna Uplands
4.9.1.2. Notable Natural Features
Notable natural features may serve as destinations for visitors and residents seeking recreation
opportunities. Notable natural features were identified during the previous FERC licensing
effort. The location of these features is shown on Figure 4.9-2. Photographs of these features
(taken as part of the previous FERC licensing effort) are included as Appendix 4.9-3.
Devils Canyon, which surrounds an 11-mile stretch of the Susitna River, begins just downstream
of the mouth of Devil Creek and ends approximately 1.5 mi upstream of Portage Creek. High
volumes of glacial water, steep inaccessible canyon walls and large boulders highlight this
turbulent and dynamic landscape. Four sets of rapids, known collectively as Devils Canyon
rapids, encompass approximately five mi of the canyon. These rapids are Class VI (the most
difficult rating) on the International Whitewater Scale. Between the Class VI rapids, the fast-
moving whitewater is rated Class II or Class III. Because of the extreme challenge that the
rapids present, few kayakers are known to have attempted to run Devils Canyon.
Two large waterfalls pass through narrow gorges on Devil Creek, just upstream of its confluence
with the Susitna River. Vertical rock walls and colorful vegetation punctuate the settings.
Stephan Lake, a large waterbody located at the base of the Talkeetna Mountains, has one
fishing/hunting lodge and several cabins (collectively known as Stephan Lake Lodge) along its
shore. Wetlands and gentle hills covered with mixed woods and tundra comprise the lake’s
natural shoreline. Stephan Lake is used as a staring place for kayaking and rafting on the
Talkeetna River. A trail leads southwest from the lake to nearby Murder Lake and Daneka Lake.
Date: Nov 2011Scale: As Noted
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
Proposed Watana Damand Powerhouse
Proposed Watana Reservoir
Denali
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
George Parks HighwayFOG C R EE K
CHULITNA RIVERDEADM AN CRE
E
KNENANA RIVERJAY
C
R
E
E
K
GOLD CREEK
TALKEETNA RIVERKOSINA CREEKINDIAN RIVERPORTAGE CREEKTSUSENA CREEKWATANA CREEK
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1 10
Landscape Character Types
State of AlaskaSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC No.14241
Figure 4.09-2Ü
0 10 205Miles
Legend
^_Notable Natural Features
Proposed Watana Dam and Powerhouse
Proposed Watana Reservoir
Highway
Alaska Railroad
Susitna River
Selected Tributaries and Nearby Streams
Landscape Character Types
Chulitna Moist Tundra Uplands
Chulitna Mountains
Devils Canyon
Mid Susitna River Valley
Portage Lowlands
River Canyon
Susitna River
Susitna Upland Terrace
Susitna Upland Wet Tundra Basin
Susitna Uplands
Talkeetna Mountains
Talkeetna Uplands
Wet Upland Tundra
Notable Natural Features
1 Devils Canyon Rapids
2 Devils Creek Falls
3 Stephan Lake
4 Tsusena Creek Falls
5 Tsusena Butte/Lake
6 Deadman Creek Falls
7 Fog Lakes
8 Big/Deadman Lakes
9 Caribou Pass
10 Vee Canyon
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-270 December 2011
A spectacular rocky canyon covered with mixed woods and tundra, and a series of rapids and
cataracts provide the backdrop for Tsusena Creek Falls. The falls are located on Tsusena Creek,
approximately three mi above its confluence with the Susitna River.
Located at the edge of the Chulitna Mountains, Tsusena Butte Lake was created by a glacial
moraine. The Tsusena Creek valley includes a large variety of tundra landscapes and colorful
rock formations.
Similar to other tributary falls that flow into the Susitna River, Deadman Creek Falls occurs in a
steep, small-scale rocky canyon.
The Fog lakes are a series of large, linear lakes on the south side of the Susitna River. They
occur in a gently rolling to flat landscape covered with wetlands, mixed forest, and open tundra
vegetation.
Big Lake and Deadman Lake are picturesquely set between three large, tundra-covered buttes.
There are many outstanding views from the lakes into the middle Susitna River basin.
Two long lakes, surrounded by glaciated mountains, are located in a narrow valley known as
Caribou Pass. Wetlands and tundra cover the valley floor where the middle fork of the Chulitna
River has its headwaters.
Vee Canyon is a narrow, vertical, rocky canyon that encloses the Susitna River for over a mile.
Located upstream of the confluence with Jay Creek, the canyon includes a double hairpin bend, a
deeply cut channel, and a stretch of whitewater rapids. The canyon’s steep ridges, varied
coloration, and rock formations make it a visually interesting feature.
4.9.1.3. Viewers and Views
Aesthetic resource assessment requires an understanding of who the viewers are, when and
where they view the landscape, what they can see, and what preconceptions they bring with them
about views.
Existing viewers in the vicinity of the Project include hunters, anglers, guides, flyers, boaters,
packrafters, motorists, and hikers. Concentrated at places such as Stephan Lake, many of these
viewers are attracted to the area because of its remote setting and recreational opportunities. The
Parks Highway has been recognized as both a National and Alaska State Scenic Byway.
Significant views of the Project vicinity were identified as part of the previous FERC licensing
effort. These views incorporate foreground (0-0.5 mile from viewer), middleground (0.5-3 mi
from viewer), and background (greater than 3 mi) landscape elements. There are many important
foreground views within the valleys of Chulitna Mountains, within the Parks and Denali
Highway corridors, within the Alaska Railroad corridor, and within the Susitna River corridor.
Panoramic views, which incorporate middleground and background landscape elements, include:
From Parks Highway, looking northwest towards the Alaska Range
From Denali Highway, looking north towards the Alaska Range
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-271 December 2011
From Deadman Creek, looking northeast to southeast towards the Clearwater Mountains
From Big Lake and Deadman Lake vicinity, looking south across the Susitna River
towards the Talkeetna Range
From high ground located north of the Susitna River and west of its confluence with
Tsusena Creek, looking south across the Susitna River towards the Talkeetna Range
4.9.1.4. Aesthetic Value Ratings
Each landscape character type was evaluated for its aesthetic value (high, medium, low) during
the previous FERC licensing effort. Aesthetic value was defined as a relative measure of the
visual landscape based on the following three characteristics:
Distinctiveness: The visual impression of an area, based on patterns of landforms,
waterforms, rocks, vegetative patterns, etc.
Uniqueness: The relative scarcity or commonality of the landscape and natural features.
Due to Alaska’s varied and numerous high quality landscapes and natural features,
uniqueness is assessed at statewide and Project area scales.
Harmony and Balance: The degree to which all elements of the landscape form a unified
composition. This includes how well man-made elements are integrated into the natural
setting.
The characteristics above were evaluated by on on-site examination of each landscape character
type. This on-site examination also considered visibility and the potential for views.
4.9.1.5. Visual Absorption Capability
Each landscape character type was evaluated for its visual absorption capability during the
previous FERC licensing effort. Visual absorption capability was defined as the relative ability
of a landscape to absorb physical change. Each landscape character type was rated as high,
medium, or low, based on aesthetic value, topographic enclosure, vegetative cover, ground plane
color, and visibility. Each landscape character type was also evaluated through on-site
examination with respect to potential project facilities.
The ratings for aesthetic value and visual absorption capability are included in Appendix 4.9-4.
4.9.1.6. Composite Ratings
The aesthetic value rating and visual absorption capability rating for each landscape character
type were combined to create a composite rating as part of the previous FERC licensing effort.
The range of relationships can be stated as follows:
The most durable and easily altered landscape character types are those with a high visual
absorption capability and low aesthetic character rating.
The most fragile and difficult to alter landscape character types are those with a low
visual absorption capability and high aesthetic character rating.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-272 December 2011
These relationships, and others, are illustrated in Table 4.9-1, below.
Table 4.9-1. Aesthetic Impact Potential Composite Ratings.
Aesthetic Value
Visual
Absorption
Capability
High Medium Low
Low 9 7 4
Medium 8 5 2
High 6 3 1
(High) <------------ Aesthetic Impact ------------> (Low)
Composite Ratings 9 and 8 describe landscapes with high aesthetic value and moderate to low
ability to visually absorb Project features. Facility designs should be similar in character and
equal in boldness with the landscape, or remain visually subordinate to the natural surroundings.
Composite Ratings 7, 6, and 5 describe landscapes with moderate to high ability to visually
absorb Project features. Facility designs may visually dominate the landscape, but should relate
to the surrounding form, line, color, and texture to be compatible with the surroundings.
Composite Ratings 4, 3, 2, and 1 describe landscapes with low to moderate aesthetic value and
high ability to visually absorb Project features. New elements may add to aesthetic quality by
introducing visual interest and/or complementing the landscape.
4.9.2. Potential Adverse and Positive Impacts
The potential visual impacts described below are based on the Project as currently envisioned.
Development of the proposed facilities would change the visual character of portions of the
Project area from an undeveloped, remote setting to an area characterized by development and
increased human activity and noise. Temporary visual and noise impacts would be generated by
construction personnel, traffic, materials, staging areas, and worker camps.
The Project would have positive visual impacts. The access roads, reservoir, and recreational
facilities would provide new recreational and viewing opportunities to the public. Viewing of
the notable natural features in the vicinity would substantially increase as a result of Project
access and recreational facilities. Additionally, the dam is expected to be visually interesting to
many.
Anticipated aesthetic impacts associated with construction and operation of the Project are
described below.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-273 December 2011
4.9.2.1. Watana Dam and Reservoir
Construction of the dam and associated structures, the impoundment area, and the construction
camp would substantially alter the landscape, especially in the Middle Susitna River Valley
Landscape Character Type and in the southern portion of the Wet Upland Tundra Landscape
Character Type. The currently remote and largely undisturbed Susitna River valley would
become an area of increased human activity, noise and development.
The dam and reservoir would become the most prominent visual feature in the previously natural
setting of the middle Susitna River basin. The geometric lines and forms of the dam and
associated structures would contrast with the natural forms, lines, colors, and textures of the
valley. These structures would be viewed by Project personnel, support staff, recreationists in
the area, and individuals flying overhead.
Visual changes resulting from the Project may include inundation of Vee Canyon rapids and
Deadman Creek Falls, which are notable natural features of local or regional importance. Much
of Vee Canyon and its scenic rock formations would remain, since its location in the upper
reaches of the Watana Reservoir prevents complete inundation. The other notable natural
features described in 4.9.1.2 would not be directly affected by the Project. Indirect visual
changes on Devils Canyon and Devil Creek Falls could result from changes to hydrology in the
Susitna River immediately below the proposed dam.
A maximum reservoir drawdown would generally take place in the spring (April and May) and
would result in exposure of substantial silt bars. In places, these silt bars would be more than a
mile wide and visible to people near the reservoir once the snow and ice cover melted. They
would be visible from late spring until midsummer (i.e., until the reservoir refills each year).
4.9.2.2. Borrow Areas and Camps
While their exact locations are yet to be determined, a number of borrow areas would be located
upstream and downstream of the proposed dam. The presence of borrow areas not inundated by
the reservoir would create long term visual impacts. Borrow areas along the river below the dam
would be in full view from the dam area. Borrow areas located above the reservoir shoreline
would create rigid, angular forms visible to visitors in the area. Trucks and other equipment used
for borrow operations would generate noise.
The development of a temporary construction camp near the proposed dam (a site near the north
abutment is currently proposed) would cause short-term and long-term visual impacts. Short-
term visual impacts would include roads, structures, and appurtenant facilities. Short-term noise
impacts would also occur.
The development of a permanent camp near the proposed dam (a site near the north abutment is
currently proposed) would cause short-term and long-term visual impacts. Short-term visual
impacts would include construction of housing, offices, storage/maintenance buildings and
related infrastructure. Short-term noise impacts would result from the removal of native
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-274 December 2011
vegetation and development of camp facilities. Operation and maintenance of the permanent
camp would generate low-moderate levels of noise.
An airstrip, about 8,000 ft-long, would be built to accommodate movement of construction
personnel and supplies. This airstrip would become a permanent feature; resulting in short-term
and long-term impacts. Short-term visual and noise impacts would result from construction of
the airstrip. Long-term visual and noise impacts would result from removal of native vegetation
and use of the airstrip by planes and helicopters.
4.9.2.3. Access Routes and Transmission Facilities
Access routes and transmission facility alignments have yet to be finalized. Figure 1-1 describes
3 potential corridors. These corridors have been labeled "Denali," "Chulitna," and "Gold Creek."
Construction of road and transmission routes could result in substantial visual impact to the
landscape. Cutting, filling, and vegetative clearing would take place. Areas of potential erosion
could be created. Borrow areas located adjacent to the access routes could create rigid, angular
forms visible to visitors in the area. Some people may consider the access routes to be a visual
intrusion that detracts from their enjoyment of the natural landscape. At the same time, the
access routes would provide new access to scenic views for visitors and recreationists. Such
views would include panoramic scenes of the Alaska Range, Clearwater Range, and Talkeetna
Mountains.
Transmission towers could be 100 ft or more in height. Some single steel-pole structures could
be used for angles and steep slopes. The right-of-way could be 300-500 ft wide. The
transmission line towers and conductors would be silhouetted against the sky from various
viewpoints along the road and from viewpoints near the dam. Through wooded areas, the
cleared right-of-way would be highly visible from the air.
4.9.3. Potential Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement
APA’s 1985 Susitna Settlement Plan (APA 1985b) and associated 1985 Susitna Hydroelectric
Project FERC License Application included Visual Resource PM&E measures. These measures,
many of which remain valid and relevant to the proposed Project, include best development
practices, siting refinements, and design considerations intended to minimize the visual impacts
identified above. These measures are described below.
Refinement of the measures will continue throughout the FERC licensing phase of the Project
and into the design phase in order to reflect new or updated site-specific engineering
information.
4.9.3.1. Best Development Practices
Best development practices (BDPs) are general measures typically used in construction projects
to avoid or reduce impacts. BDPs commonly include measures for erosion control, educational
programs for workers, rehabilitation techniques, and construction guidelines. Most BDPs can be
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-275 December 2011
implemented at no additional cost to a project. In addition to BDP measures identified here,
measures identified in BMP manuals developed specifically for the Project would help reduce or
avoid visual impacts.
Best development practices related to the Project could include:
Consolidate structures to minimize the amount of disturbance and need for rehabilitation.
Site facilities to minimize vegetation clearing.
Identify areas of notable vegetation before construction that are not necessary to remove,
and mark them for protection.
Develop an environmental briefing program for construction personnel that includes
visual resource concerns.
Use fracture and bench construction methods for cut slopes to avoid uniform cut slope
appearances and to provide spaces for debris to collect and vegetation to grow.
Adhere to standard erosion control practices for areas around stream crossings.
Feather clearings in forested areas rather than making straight-edged clearings.
Provide dust control for roads, parking, construction areas that are not paved.
Round cut-and-fill slopes for side borrow construction of access roads to match the
rolling character of the surrounding landscape.
Grade borrow sites for access roads to minimize steep cuts and conform to surrounding
topography.
Screen borrow sites from significant view corridors.
Prioritize borrow sites so that sites with the least visual impact would be used first.
Complete reclamation and revegetation as soon as borrow sites, construction camp, and
other facilities are no longer being used.
Consolidate railhead facilities to reduce the amount of disturbance and rehabilitation
needed (if applicable).
Keep parking areas at railheads dark-toned, if paved, to reduce visual contrast (if
applicable).
Use non-specular conductors unless the hazard to aircraft is too great.
Minimize transmission line clearing and construction activities in vicinity of streams.
Limit transmission line clearing to material that poses a hazard.
Vary transmission line right-of-way and create openings in the forest edge where line
must parallel a roadway.
4.9.3.2. Siting Refinements
Siting refinements are adjustments in the location of facilities made in the detailed design stage.
They are used to reduce adverse visual impacts. In addition, siting refinements can avoid
impacts that would require costly mitigation.
Siting refinements for the Project could include:
Locate Project recreation facilities in borrow areas and in locations with good views of
the dam, impoundment, and natural features.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-276 December 2011
Refine road locations to: minimize cut and fill; select stream crossings for bridge
locations; establish horizontal and vertical curves to take advantage of long side valley
views; and avoid passing through forested areas, staying at the tundra edge whenever
possible.
Coordinate road siting and transmission line siting to minimize views of transmission line
from roads.
Orient roads to maximize distant views of Mt. McKinley.
Maintain vegetated buffers between roads and borrow areas.
Consolidate structures with the construction areas to minimize disturbance and need for
rehabilitation.
Use land forms, vegetation, and minor alignment adjustments during detailed
transmission design to screen towers from significant views.
Locate transmission lines so intervening vegetation interrupts views down the rights of
way.
Site transmission lines along natural linear features (such as the bottom of a ridge, valley,
or cliff) or along edges of muskeg openings or forests (instead of siting in middle of
muskeg or forests).
Cross major roadways with transmission lines as near to perpendicular as possible to
allow for maximum setback of facility structures and minimum visibility from the
roadway into the right-of-way on each side.
4.9.3.3. Design Considerations
Design considerations are recommended modifications to facilities to reduce visual contrast with
surroundings and/or enhance the visual quality of an area. They range widely in cost and overlap
with siting refinements as part of the planning and design process. Because of design constraints
imposed by weather conditions and construction cost, there may be substantial limitations on
making major changes during the detailed design phase.
Design considerations for the Project could include:
Locate recreation facilities to maximize views and interpretive opportunities.
Use materials (stone, concrete, etc.) in the design of recreation and other Project facilities
that visually integrate the facilities with the dam and natural surroundings.
Coordinate reclamation of borrow sites with views from access roads and recreation
facilities. Excavate borrow edges above reservoir water line to follow natural contours.
Reclaim access road borrow areas according to designated post-construction land uses
(campsites, trailheads, ponds, etc.).
Make maximum use of elevated paths and pads to reduce soil and vegetation degradation
in the construction camp.
Use long spans and tall towers where transmission lines must cross valleys to retain as
much existing vegetation as possible and to reduce construction impacts to slopes.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-277 December 2011
4.9.3.4. Site Restoration and Aesthetics Plan
AEA anticipates preparing a Site Restoration and Aesthetics Plan for the Project in consultation
with resource agencies and other interested parties. The following elements are likely to be
included in this plan:
Introduction
Existing Conditions
Proposed Project Features
Strategies for Blending Project Works into the Existing Environment
Disposal of Cleared Vegetation and Spoil Materials
Screening from Key Viewpoints
Temporary Revegetation
Permanent Revegetation
Monitoring Program and Reports
Procedures to Revegetate Unsuccessful Areas
Implementation Schedule and Estimated Costs
Consultation
Literature Cited
Strategies for blending project works into the existing environment are likely to include the best
development practices, siting refinements, and design considerations described above.
4.9.4. References
Alaska Power Authority (APA). 1985a. Susitna Hydroelectric Project License Application.
Alaska Power Authority (APA). 1985b. Susitna Settlement Plan.
4.10. Recreation and Land Use
The Project facilities, including the transmission line, would be located in the Southcentral
region of Alaska. Since recreational and land use planning for the Project must fit within the
framework of existing and future regional recreation and land uses, it is important to understand
the regional and Project area patterns and trends.
4.10.1. Introduction
While most of Alaska’s 322 million acres of public lands are available for recreation, about 168
million ac, or 46 percent of Alaska, is managed for wildland recreation. Sixty percent of
America’s national park acreage, the country’s largest state park system, and the nation’s two
largest national forests (the Tongass in Southeast with 17 million ac, and Chugach in
Southcentral with 5.7 million ac) though not managed exclusively for recreation, are located in
Alaska. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA) placed large
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-278 December 2011
parts of Alaska in the nation’s conservation, wilderness, and recreation systems, wild and scenic
rivers, forests, wildlife refuges, and parks. Combined with the older federal reserves and an
expanding state park system, these designations create opportunities for outdoor recreation
unsurpassed anywhere (ADNR 2009).
Approximately 12 percent of state land is under some form of legislative designation that
protects or enhances wildland recreation. Approximately 82.4 million acres of federal land and
400,000 acres of state land are designated as wilderness. Alaska’s state parks are the primary
roadside gateways to outdoor recreation. In addition, millions of acres of general state-owned
land (managed by the ADNR, Division of Land) and federal domain land (managed by the BLM)
are open to wildland recreation. These lands are becoming increasingly popular. There are few
regulations imposed on users of these lands. The state also owns about 65 million acres of
tidelands, coastal submerged lands, and lands under navigable waters, all having virtually
unlimited potential for wildland recreation (ADNR 2009).
The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) is also one of the
most important providers of recreation within the state. Alaskans rely on roads for a broad
spectrum of recreational opportunities. Alaska has over 13,250 mi of public roads, approximately
26 percent (or 3,500 mi) of which are paved. Most recreation occurs along, or is accessed from
the road system. Viewing wildlife and scenery from vehicles and bicycling along the road are
important components of the state’s tourism industry, as well as resident recreation (ADNR
2009).
4.10.1.1. Regional Recreation
The Southcentral (a.k.a., Railbelt) region extends from the hydrographic divide of the Alaska
Range on the north to the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (MSB) boundary on the west, Kodiak
Island on the south, and the Alaska/Canada border on the east. It abounds with ocean shorelines,
freshwater lakes, free-flowing rivers, massive mountains, wildlife, and glaciers. The diversity of
landscapes and natural resources offer a wide variety of outdoor recreational opportunities.
Figure 4.10-1 shows existing and proposed regional recreational amenities.
The Southcentral region contains a more developed transportation system than other portions of
the state. Paved highways and gravel secondary roads provide access to many of the cities and
villages in the region, as well as access to many of the recreational lands in the region. Use of
planes to reach areas not accessible by road is also prevalent. The Alaska Railroad and ferry
systems also serve portions of the Southcentral region. These transportation systems, combined
with the population concentration, make the region’s recreational opportunities more accessible
and, therefore, more heavily used than in other portions of Alaska.
The bulk of the state park system acreage and units (78 units, including 19 marine parks) lie
within the Southcentral region including Chugach, Denali, and Kachemak Bay state parks.
Additionally, nearly 20 million acres of national park land, including Kenai Fjords National
Park, Denali National Park and Preserve, and Wrangell-St. Elias National Park, the 1.9 million-
acre Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, the 5.7 million-acre Chugach National Forest, and 16 state
special areas (critical habitat areas, sanctuaries, and refuges) are located within this region. The
Tanana Valley State Forest has 1.8 million acres (ADNR 2009).
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-279 December 2011
The proposed Project is within the northwest corner of the BLM Glennallen Field Office
Planning Area. The planning area includes approximately 7.1 million acres in east Alaska,
including approximately 5.5 million acres of lands that are selected by the State of Alaska or
Alaska Natives. Management measures outlined in the BLM’s East Alaska Resource
Management Plan (BLM 2006) apply only to BLM-managed land in the planning area; no
measures have been developed for private, state, or other federal agency lands. The BLM
prepared this Resource Management Plan to provide direction for managing public lands within
the Glennallen Field Office boundaries. The primary types of regulated recreational activities on
lands managed by the Glennallen Field Office are guided hunting, guided sport fishing, guided
float trips, and use of BLM campgrounds and waysides.
Date: Nov 2011Scale: As NotedGeorge Parks HighwayAnchorage
Fairbanks
Southcentral AlaskaRecreational Amenities
State of AlaskaSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC No.14241
Figure 4.10-1Ü
0 30 6015Miles
Legend
kj Proposed Watana Dam and Powerhouse
Borough
Highway
Susitna_River
CIRI Lands (Patented and Interim Conveyed)
BLM East Alaska Resource Management Planning Area
Iditarod National Historic Trail
State Forest (SF)
State Park (SP)
National Park (NP)
National Forest (NF)
National Wildlife Refuge (NWR)
Public Use Area
Wrangell-St. Elias NP
Denali NPand Preserve
Denali SP
Tanan
a
V
a
l
l
e
y
S
.
F
.
Chugach NF
Chugach SP
KenaiNWR
KenaiFjordsNP
Kachemak Bay SP
Kachemak Bay SPGeorge Parks Hwy.Denali Hwy.Richa
rdson
Hwy
.
Glenn Hwy.
Nelchina PublicUse Area(ADNR)
Chugach NF
Tetlin NWR
Kukon-Charley RiversNational Preserve
Lake Clark NP
Date: Oct 2011Scale: As Noted
")
")
")
")
!9
")
!9
!9
")
")
")
")
!9!9!9!9
!9
!9
!9
!9
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
Denali National Park and Preserve
Denali State Park
Nelchina Public Use Area
Chena RiverState Rec. Area
Glacier
Glacier
Ester
Healy
Nenana
Anderson
Cantwell
Fairbanks
Talkeetna
North Pole
McKinley Park
Chase
Canyon Chulitna
Gold Creek
Broad PassMount McKinley Hurricane Gulch
Ester Gold Complex
Byers Lake Campground
Alaska Railroad Museum
Denali Visitors Center
Chulitna River Wayside
Eielson Visitors Center
Alaska Veterans Memorial
Denali View South Wayside
Nenana River Bridge Wayside
Minto Flats State Game Reserve
Talkeetna/Denail Visitors Center
Proposed South Denail Visitors Center Complex
Denali View North Campground
Alfred Starr Cultural Center
Denali View North Wayside
Lower Troublesome Creek
Indian River
D
e
n
ali Highwa y
G l e n n HighwaySteese HighwayR
ic
h
ardson Highway
George Parks HighwayElli
ot Highway
Dalton Highway
Glenn HighwayGeorg e P arks HighwayGe
o
r
g
e
P
arks Highway
George Parks HighwayRecreational Amenities
State of AlaskaSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC No.14241
Figure 4.10-2Ü
0 20 4010
Miles
Legend
kj Proposed Watana Dam and Powerhouse
!.Selected Populated Place
Highway
George Parks Highway Scenic Byway
Alaska Railroad
Susitna_River
Denali NP Road RFB
Point of Interest
")Point of Interest
!9 Campground
CIRI Land (Patentend and Interim Conveyed)
BLM East Alaska Resource Management Planning Area
State Forest
State Park
National Park
National Forest
National Wildlife Refuge
Public Use Area
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-282 December 2011
The Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race is an annual sled dog team race across Alaska. A portion of the
race is run along the Iditarod National Historic Trail. Mushers and teams of 12-16 dogs cover
the 1,000-1,100 mi between Anchorage and Nome in 9-15 days. A northern route is taken in
even years and a southern route in odd years. The race begins on the first Saturday in March.
The Iditarod began in 1973 as an event to test the best sled dog mushers and teams but evolved
into today's highly competitive race. The race is the most popular sporting event in Alaska. The
race crosses the lower Susitna River near the Town of Susitna.
Recreational facilities in the Southcentral region include those along the George Parks Highway,
the Denali Highway, and along the Alaska Railroad right-of-way.
The George Parks Highway (numbered Interstate A-4 and Alaska Route 3) runs 323 mi from the
Glenn Highway 35 mi north of Anchorage to Fairbanks in the Alaska Interior (Figure 4.10-2).
The highway was completed in 1971, and given its current name in 1975. The highway, which
mostly parallels the Alaska Railroad, is one of the most important roads in Alaska. It is the main
route between Anchorage and Fairbanks (Alaska's two largest metropolitan areas), the principal
access to Denali National Park and Preserve and Denali State Park, and the main highway in the
Matanuska-Susitna Valley.
The Parks Highway, open year-round, has been recognized as both a National and Alaska State
Scenic Byway. Driving along the Parks Highway for sightseeing purposes is a major
recreational use.
The Denali Highway is about 135 mi long and connects the Cantwell junction (located just north
of Broad Pass) on the Parks Highway with Paxson Lodge on the Richardson Highway. A loop
trip originating and returning to Fairbanks is about 436 mi. A loop trip from Anchorage is close
to 600 mi. Several days travel is required for either of these trips. The Denali Highway is
generally open from mid-May to October 1. As described by the BLM (2008), numerous
recreational amenities are located on or near the Denali Highway (Figure 4.10-3)
The Alaska Railroad extends from Seward and Whittier, in the south, to Fairbanks (passing
through Anchorage), and beyond to Eielson Air Force Base and Fort Wainwright in the interior
of that state. Uniquely, the Alaska Railroad carries both freight and passengers throughout its
system. The railroad has a mainline over 470 mi long, and is well over 500 mi long when branch
lines and sidings are included. It is currently owned by the State of Alaska. The railroad is a
major tourist attraction in the summer. The Alaska railroad coach cars feature single-level
seating throughout the train, with dome cars that are available for passengers to enjoy. The wide
windows and domes provide a great view of the Alaskan scenery. Private cars owned by the
major cruise companies are towed behind the Alaska Railroad's own cars, and trips are included
with various cruise packages.
Located at the confluence of the major rivers (the Susitna, the Talkeetna and the Chulitna River)
is the historic village of Talkeetna, which was established during construction of the Alaska
Railroad. Panoramic views of the Alaska Range can be enjoyed and photographed from the
village. Talkeetna is a popular base for flightseeing, packrafting, fishing, riverboat tours
(including jetboat tours on the Susitna River upstream to the bottom reach of Devils Canyon),
hiking, Nordic skiing, mushing, and mountain climbing (AlaskaTours.com 2011).
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-283 December 2011
Gold Creek, located between Talkeetna and Hurricane, is a flag stop on the “Hurricane Turn”
train. Hunters, anglers, those rafting down the Susitna River, homesteaders, and those with
mining claims in the area frequent the area in summer. Nine seasonal use cabins are found in the
Gold Creek vicinity. The town has one permanent resident. Additional stops used by
recreationists along the “Hurricane Turn” line include: Curry, Chulitna, Sherman, Chase, Indian
River, and Hurricane.
Date: Nov 2011Scale: As Noted
Denali State Park
Nelchina Public Use Area
Glacier
Denali NationalPark & Preserve
Clearwater MountainsAlaska Range
Gulkana Wild Riv
e
r
Delta Wi
l
d
&
S
c
e
n
i
c
R
i
v
e
r
Polychrome Overlook
Lower Troublesome Creek
Denali View South Wayside
9
8 5
4
3
2
1
30
29
26 25
31 28
27 24 23
22
21
20
19
18 16
17
14
15
12 11
10 7
6
13
Healy
Paxson
Cantwell
McKinley Park
Denali Hi g h w a y Ri
chardson Hi
g
h
wa
y
George Parks HighwayDenali HighwayRecreational Amenities
State of AlaskaSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC No.14241
Figure 4.10-3Ü
0 9 184.5
Miles
Legend
kj Proposed Watana Dam and Powerhouse
!.Selected Populated Place
Highway
Alaska Railroad
Susitna_River
BLM East Alaska Resource Management Planning Area
CIRI Land (Patented and Interim Conveyed)
")Point of Interest
State Forest
State Park
National Park
National Forest
National Wildlife Refuge
Public Use Area
National Wild and Scenic Rivers
Point of Interest Point of Interest1 Paxson Lodge and Denali Highway Cabins 16 Waterfowl Lakes2 Alaska Range - Glacial Geology 17 Clearwater Wayside/Outhouse3 Wrangell Mountain Viewpoint 18 Eskers4 Tangle Lakes Archaeological District 19 Susitna River5 Tangle River Inn 20 Gracious House6 Pavement ends/begins 21 Valdez Creek Mine Viewpoint7 Tangle Lakes Campground 22 Alaska Range Viewpoint8 Delta National Wild and Scenic River Wayside 23 Alaska Range Interpretive Sign9 Tangle Lakes Lodge 24 Adventures Unlimited10 Landmark Gap Viewpoint 25 Brushkana Creek Campground11 Alaska Range and Maclaren River Viewpoint 26 Taiga12 Palsa 27 Denali Highway Orientation Sign13 Kettle Lakes 28 Nenana River29 Mt. McKinley Viewpoint30 Pavement begins/ends15 Crazy Notch 31 Junction with Parks Highway
14 MacIaren River Lodge, MacIaren Glacier Viewpoint, Maclaren River Bridge
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-285 December 2011
4.10.1.2. Project Area Recreation
Big Lake and Deadman Lake are situated between three large, tundra-covered buttes located
about ten miles northeast of Deadman Creek’s confluence with the Susitna River. There are
many outstanding views from the lakes into the middle Susitna River basin. Private cabins exist
at Big Lake.
The Nelchina Public Use Area covers about 2.5 million acres in the Talkeetna Mountains. The
Public Use Area was established by the Alaska legislature in 1985 and is managed by the ADNR
Division of Mining, Land, & Water. The Nelchina Public Use area is the biggest legislatively
designated area on state land in Alaska. It is an outstanding area for hunting, fishing, recreation,
and mining. The vast area is home for the Nelchina Caribou herd, the third largest caribou herd
in Alaska. It also supports important populations of trumpeter swans, moose, Dall's sheep, and
brown bear. The Susitna River forms the northern boundary of the Nelchina Public Use Area,
and portions of the proposed Project area located south of the river are within its boundaries.
These areas are located within Nelchina Management Area 13. Stephan Lake and the Fog lakes
area also located in the Public Use Area.
Stephan Lake, a large waterbody located at the base of the Talkeetna Mountains, has one
fishing/hunting lodge and several cabins (collectively known as Stephan Lake Lodge) along its
shore. Private cabins also exist at Stephan Lake. Wetlands and gentle hills covered with mixed
woods and tundra make up the lake’s natural shoreline. Stephan Lake is used as a starting place
for kayaking and rafting on the Talkeetna River. As described below, a trail leads southwest
from the lake to nearby Murder Lake and Daneka Lake.
The Fog lakes are a series of large, linear lakes on the south side of the Susitna River. They
occur in a gently rolling to flat landscape covered with wetlands, mixed forest, and open tundra
vegetation.
Devils Canyon, which surrounds an 11-mile stretch of the Susitna River, begins just downstream
of the mouth of Devil Creek and ends approximately 1.5 mi upstream of Portage Creek. Four
sets of rapids, known collectively as Devils Canyon rapids, encompass approximately five mi of
the canyon. These rapids are Class VI (the most difficult rating) on the International Whitewater
Scale. Between the Class VI rapids, the fast-moving whitewater is rated Class II or Class III.
The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Class on lands managed by the BLM in the
vicinity of the proposed Project is “Primitive” (BLM 2006). These lands, located within the
BLM Glennallen Field Office’s East Alaska Resource Management Plan Planning Area, are
characterized by an essentially unmodified natural environment of fairly large size. Interaction
between users is very low and evidence of other users is minimal.
Multiple trails and routes exist in the Susitna-Watana Project area. The State of Alaska has
formally identified six Revised Statute (RS) 2477 trails in the Project area. Many of these are
still are used to access mining claims, fishing and hunting areas, or remote cabins from
communities such as Chase, Curry, and Hurricane that exist along the rail corridor. Use of these
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-286 December 2011
trails is governed by the generally allowed uses defined by the State. Recognized RS 2477
public right-of-way trails in or around the Project area include (HDR Alaska 2011):
Susitna River Trail (also referred to as the Gulkana/Denali Winter Trail, RS Trail 294:
Access to this 125-mile long trail is from the Denali Highway where the highway crosses
the Susitna River. The trail travels southeast, following the river to its junction with the
Maclaren River. The trail continues up the Maclaren River and ultimately connects with
trails originating from the Lake Louise area.
Curry Landing Strip to Lookout Tower Trail (RS Trail 1509): This trail is access from the
Curry Station along the Alaska Railroad right-of-way and travels west to the lookout
tower. The trail is used to access views of the Alaska Range and Mt. McKinley.
McWilliams/Gold Creek Trail (RS Trail 469): This trail is accessed from the railroad
station and community of Gold Creek at Mile 263 of the Alaska Railroad. The trail heads
east, following the base of the hills, climbs the plateau south of the Susitna River, and
then continues south-southeast toward mining claims on John Creek. The trail is
approximately 36 mi long.
Indian River-Portage Creek Trail (RS Trail 100): This trail is accessed from the Chulitna
Station at Mile 274 of the Alaska Railroad. It heads eastward, crossing the Indian River,
and continuing east to cabins on Portage Creek. The trail is approximately eight mi long.
Murder Lake North to Ridgeline Trail (RS Trail 80): This trail is accessed from Murder
Lake and heads northwest to a ridge. Historically used for berry picking and hunting
access purposes, the trail is two mi long.
Stephan Lake to Murder Lake Trail (RS Trail 61): This trail connects the south shore of
Stephan Lake to Murder Lake. The trail is approximately one-half mile long and has
been used for access between landowners on Stephan Lake and Murder Lake, and as a
recreational trail to access fishing on Murder Lake.
Stephan, Murder, and Daneka Lakes Connector Trail (RS Trail 377): This trail is access
from the west end of Stephan Lake, and heads southwest to Murder Lake. It then
continues southward, crossing Prairie Creek and terminating at Daneka Lake. It is used
to access cabins and for recreational fishing, hiking, and hunting.
Most of the lands in the Project area are currently owned by the Cook Inlet Region, Incorporated
(CIRI). Visitors may access and use CIRI land on a limited basis with written permission.
Guides, hunters and anglers, campers, tour operators, photographers, scientists, dog mushers and
other outdoor enthusiasts are encouraged to respect CIRI land and contact the CIRI Land and
Resources Department to learn more about land use policies (CIRI 2011).
Several ANCSA 17(b) easements are located in the Susitna-Watana Project vicinity. These
easements (see Appendix 4.10-1) provide access through private Native lands to public lands and
waters. Reserved and managed by the federal government, these easements (ADNR 2010a)
include:
26a: Existing Stephan Lake west shore campsite, managed by BLM state office.
26: Existing trail, running west from 26a, managed for general public use by ADF&G.
27a: Existing Stephan Lake east shore campsite, managed by ADF&G.
28: Existing trail, running southeast from 27a.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-287 December 2011
46a: Existing Stephan Lake north shore campsite, managed by BLM state office.
46: Existing trail, running north from 46a to 14, managed by BLM district office and
State of Alaska.
22d: Existing Fog lakes campsite, managed by ADF&G.
22a: Proposed trail, running south from 22d, sponsored by ADF&G.
14: Existing Susitna River west (Talkeetna Mountains USGS Quadrangle D-4) campsite,
managed by BLM district office and ADF&G.
71: Existing Susitna River east (Talkeetna Mountains USGS Quadrangle D-4) campsite,
managed by BLM district office and ADF&G.
72: Proposed trail, running north from 71, sponsored by BLM district office and BLM.
48: Existing general public use trail from Gold Creek to lands south of Devils Canyon.
18: Existing general public use trail from Chulitna to lands north of Devils Canyon,
managed by State of Alaska and ADF&G.
4.10.2. Current Recreational Use of the Region and Project Vicinity
Recreational use within the Southcentral Region and within the Project vicinity is described
below.
4.10.2.1. Regional Recreational Use
As described in the “Socioeconomic, Recreation, Air Quality, and Transportation Data Gap
Analysis” (HDR Alaska 2011), outdoor recreation is a key part of the way of life in Alaska.
Alaskans participate in wildland recreation at twice the rate of the rest of the country; 96 percent
of resident survey respondents said that parks and recreation were important or very important to
their lifestyle (ADNR 2009). Alaska offers a considerable amount of space and facilities for
outdoor recreation. The state is home to 60 percent of the acreage of the National Park System,
the nation’s two largest national forests, and the nation’s largest state park system (ADNR 2009).
Outdoor recreation in Alaska includes a diversity of activities. In 2009, the Statewide
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) reported that the ten favorite activities
Alaskans participate in include hiking, fishing, hunting, snow machining, cross country skiing,
camping, biking, OHV riding, skiing and snowboarding, and running. Other popular activities
include bird and wildlife watching, walking the dog, backpacking, berry picking, using
playgrounds, driving for pleasure and sightseeing, recreational mining, mountaineering,
whitewater rafting, spelunking, dog mushing, kayaking, power boating and participating in beach
activities (ADNR 2009).
Ownership of outdoor equipment, an indication of the value that Alaskans place on various types
of outdoor recreation, increased between 2004 and 2009, according to SCORP. Notably,
ownership of ORV/ATV (28.5 percent increase), snow machine (21.3 percent), hunting (17.3
percent), and canoe and raft (14.2 percent) equipment showed the largest increases in ownership
(ADNR 2009). Within the Southcentral region, access to recreation areas is primarily along the
road system; facilities such as campgrounds, trails, trailheads, cabins, and boat launches are key
links that provide access from the road system to more inaccessible lands and recreation areas.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-288 December 2011
Access to land for recreation is also provided by plane (float, wheeled, or ski) and boat. In
addition to recreation by Alaska residents, outdoor recreation also plays a major role in attracting
tourists to the state. The number of tourists visiting Alaska is expected to increase at a rate of 10
percent per year in the coming years (ADNR 2006). In the past, the majority of visitors to the
Southcentral region and to the MSB, in particular, were independent travelers with interests in
camping, fishing, and hiking. In recent years, however, the number of tourists who arrive in
Southcentral Alaska on package commercial tours, such as cruise passengers, has been
increasing (ADNR 2006). In the MSB this has been due in large part to the opening of 2 large
lodges, the Mt. McKinley Princess Wilderness Lodge and the Talkeetna Alaskan Lodge, which
opened in 1997 and 1999, respectively. These lodges cater primarily to cruise passengers and
have resulted in a more than doubling of the borough’s bed tax revenues between 1999 and 2004
(ADNR 2006). Through these lodges, many guests also participate in day “excursions” that
include recreation activities such as sightseeing, tours, river rafting, hiking, and sportfishing.
Since the APA Project was first evaluated by FERC in the 1980s, Alaska’s population has
continued to increase. In 1980, the state had a population of 401,851. The population had
increased to 710,231 by 2010. In general, the urbanized parts of the state are growing faster than
rural areas, with some rural areas losing population. The MSB has been one of the fastest
growing areas in the country in recent years. The 2010 population (88,995) is approximately 50
percent higher than the 2000 population (59,322). The increase in population of the Southcentral
region and the MSB in particular has resulted in an increased demand for year-round recreation
opportunities and facilities throughout the region (NPS 2006a).
Population growth has also spurred increasing development in the Southcentral region and in the
MSB in particular. Land along the Parks Highway has experienced changes in land ownership
and use as federal and state land is conveyed to the MSB government, the CIRI, the Mental
Health Trust, the University of Alaska, and private landowners. The MSB believes that this
growth may have significant impacts on the availability of recreational trails in the area, as few
recreational trails have been formally designated and many currently cross private property. As
the level of development on private parcels increases, access to many of these trails could be
blocked.
The SCORP also evaluated potential recreation needs in the State of Alaska. About 74 percent of
respondents were either very or somewhat satisfied with recreation facilities within an hour of
their community. In addition, 84 percent of respondents felt that when allocating limited funds,
that funds should be spent to maintain present facilities before developing new facilities. The
desire to allocate funding toward existing facilities was also highlighted by the fact that the
public rated maintaining existing trails, building roadside toilets, and improving the maintenance
of existing facilities as the most important recreation needs in the state with 67, 63, and 58
percent, respectively, of respondents ranking these needs as very important. In contrast, just 39
percent of respondents felt that building new parks from existing state land was very important
(ADNR 2009).
Despite the abundance of high value recreation lands, some wildland recreation opportunities are
in short supply. Facilities such as campgrounds, trails, trailheads, cabins, boat launches, and
other facilities are often the critical link between users and otherwise “wild” and inaccessible
lands, especially along the road system and in the Southcentral region. In many parts of the state,
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-289 December 2011
facilities, even if primitive or limited in number, make the difference between a potential outdoor
experience and a reality (ADNR 2009).
In “Recreation and Tourism in South-Central Alaska: Patterns and Prospects” (USFS 2002a) the
extent and nature of recreation and tourism activities in Southcentral Alaska were described.
The study area extended east and south from the Alaska Range, through the Talkeetna and
Chugach Mountains and Prince William Sound, and into the Wrangell-St. Elias Mountains
ending at the Canadian border. It encompasses the following places: Kenai Peninsula Borough,
Municipality of Anchorage, MSB, and the Valdez-Cordova Census Area. It also encompassed
the Project area. The quantitative data sources used for the study included:
Chugach National Forest recreation use data
National Park Service use data
Alaska State Parks use data
Alaska Visitor Statistics Program reports
Regional Convention and Visitors Bureau data and studies
Alaska Department of Transportation traffic counts
Alaska Department of Fish and Game angler surveys and license data
Alaska Department of Community and Economic Development business license files
Alaska Department of Safety vehicle registration records
Alaska cities and boroughs with sales and bed taxes
Previous surveys and special studies for specific purposes or clients
Prince William Sound kayak use database
The Chugach National Forest was found to be heavily used as a scenic resource by motorists and
waterborne passengers, and increasingly as a road-accessible playground for fishing, camping,
and commercially mediated, motor-assisted recreation. More than half of the time (recreation
visitor days) people spent on the Chugach National Forest was spent viewing scenery, wildlife,
and fish. Viewing was the most popular activity in all Chugach National Forest ranger districts
and had been increasing steadily since 1989. Hiking also seemed to be growing, whereas
camping was roughly flat, consistent with capacity constraints. Active sports, such as mountain
biking and whitewater rafting, seemed to be growing fastest among summer activities. Special
use permit data showed that commercially mediated recreation was occurring increasingly on the
forest. Although the overall numbers of clients in activities conducted under special use permits
almost doubled between 1994 and 1998, the increase in camping, kayaking, and hiking grew
much faster than the overall average. Much of the guided camping activity was linked to sea
kayaking. Evidence, particularly from hunting and fishing license numbers, indicated that use of
the forest by nonresidents was rising faster than use by Alaska residents. These data were
consistent with the perception that nonresidents were “discovering” the forest and spending some
of their time on guided land tours. It seemed that facilities built and maintained by the Forest
Service operate at, or near, capacity. Although there were some lulls in usage, the facilities were
in excess demand during peak months. Forest staff suggested that on some hiking trails and
backcountry areas, increased use was displacing users seeking a wilderness experience. Quality
of scenery was important to visitors. People surveyed in 1992 and 1995 overwhelmingly reported
that they were satisfied with the quality of scenery and considered it essential for a high quality
recreation visit.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-290 December 2011
Primary uses of Denali State Park are camping, hiking, fishing, viewing Denali, canoeing,
rafting, river boating, hunting and trapping (ADNR 2006). The primary visitor contact station for
Denali State Park is at Byers Lake where there is a visitor and interpretive center for the Alaska
Veterans Memorial. Buses from package tour companies usually stop once in Denali State Park,
either at one of the viewpoints or at the Veterans Memorial. In 2004, the Veterans Memorial
received 54,110 visitors, up from 33,619 visitors in 2003. The number of buses stopping at the
visitor center increased as well, going from 853 in 2003, to 1096 in 2004. These dramatic
increases could be attributed to the fact that the Denali Viewpoint South was closed until late
August 2004 for construction. However, the numbers of tour buses do not include Princess Tours
buses. As in Denali National Park and Preserve, most park visitation occurs during the months of
June, July, and August. During the winter months, only the two public use cabins at Byers Lake
remain open. State Park staff attempt to collect visitor count data whenever possible; however,
the numbers can vary widely due to factors such as construction closing a site, or
employee/volunteer turnover (formula used to calculate visitor counts at a site changes). Visitor
calculations take into consideration the number of vehicles parked at a site, average stay, and
average number of people per vehicle. General trends and ranger reports indicate that visitor
numbers are steadily increasing at popular state park sites such as the Veterans Memorial and the
Kesugi Ridge Trail system, and visitor numbers are predicted to continue to rise as the cruise
industry continues to increase their bus traffic into the area. Based on raw data visitor counts
provided by the Alaska Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, visitation to Denali State Park
increased from 399,607 in fiscal year 1990 to 474,699 in fiscal year 1995 for an average annual
growth rate of 3.5 percent. From fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2003 visitation dropped
from 357,472 to 280,262. A variety of factors are at play in accounting for this decline (NPS
2006b):
There has been a drop in the numbers of independent travelers that drive to Alaska due to
the rising cost of gasoline.
Popular destinations in Denali State Park have had construction projects, resulting in their
closing for all or part of the visitor season: Denali View North Campground, the Alaska
Veterans Memorial, Byers Lake Campground, and Denali View South.
Budget cuts reduced the ranger staff in the park from three to one, resulting in a greater
dependence upon inconsistent visitor counting by volunteer staff.
While it should be noted that the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation considers the
reliability of state park visitation data to be questionable except for purposes of providing rough
orders of magnitude in regard to visitation levels as well as past trends, general information on
Denali State Park visitation includes the following:
Non-resident visitors to Denali State Park are at least 33 percent of the total visitation,
based upon vehicle license plates. This figure does not capture non-residents that fly to
Alaska and rent vehicles. This has remained remarkably constant over the last 10 years.
Peak visitation typically occurs in July.
Summer visitors (May-August) comprise about 80 percent of the annual visitation to
Denali State Park.
The two developed scenic viewpoints (Denali View South and Denali View North and
the Alaska Veterans Memorial) account for about 42 percent of the park’s visitation.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-291 December 2011
The three campgrounds in the park account for about 42 percent of the park’s visitation.
Backcountry use accounts for at least three percent of the visitation, but lack of consistent
backcountry visitor counts keep park managers from having accurate data.
Backcountry users do not have to register to use Denali State Park.
Most visitors stop along the Parks Highway within Denali State Park at various pullouts
and undeveloped scenic views.
In 1972, when the George Parks Highway opened, visitor use at Denali National Park totaled
88,615. Over the next 12 years visitor use grew at an average rate of 25,000 visitor days per year
to a total of 394,426 visits in 1984. Visitation for 2007, 2008, and 2009, respectively was
458,307; 432,301; and 358,040 (NPS 2010). Based on current trends it is expected that the
demand for use of Denali will increase by another 250,000 people by the end of the 2007-2017
planning period (NPS 2007).
Because of the general accessibility and minimal regulatory limitations on lands under
management of the BLM’s Glennallen Field Office, local dependence on these lands has strong
ties to utilization of the region's hunting and fishing resources and pursuit of OHV recreation
opportunities (BLM 2006). In addition to the resident population, regional urban populations
depend upon the planning area to pursue recreational activities. The priorities of the recreation
program are public health and safety, resource protection, visitor services, and requests for
information and use authorizations. With tourism as a leading industry in the planning area,
demand for recreational opportunities and providers for those opportunities will continue to
grow. Demand for additional infrastructure and facilities (including interpretation) and
commercial recreation opportunities will be a direct result, increasing the need for active
management of the recreation resource. Use numbers on the Gulkana and Delta Rivers rose from
736 and 5,979 visitors, respectively, in 1999, to 1,271 and 7,506 visitors, respectively, in 2004.
The Glennallen Field Office administers special recreation permits for commercial use recreation
activities occurring on BLM-managed lands. Approximately 60 special recreation permits were
issued in 2003, a slight increase in the number of permits issued over the previous ten years.
These permits were mostly for uses within the Delta and Gulkana National Wild and Scenic
River (WSR) areas. Commercial use on the Gulkana River was mainly focused on fishing; use
on the Delta River was mainly focused on wilderness camping and paddling. Other permits were
issued for heli-ski operations, hunting guides, and competitive events. Areas of concentrated
recreational use in the Glennallen Field Office Planning Area include: Delta WSR Corridor Area,
Gulkana WSR Corridor Area, Tiekel Area (between Glennallen and Valdez on the Richardson
Highway), and the Delta Range Area.
As previously noted, the Parks and Denali highways are recreational amenities. Both packaged
tours and independent travelers often drive these roads for pleasure and to view scenery and
wildlife. Mountaineering, hiking, dog mushing, snowmobiling, and bicycling are also popular.
Travelers use the Alaska Railroad for similar purposes (HDR Alaska 2011).
Traffic volume along the Parks Highway tends to decrease from Wasilla to the entrance to
Denali National Park and Preserve. From there, volume tends to increase as the road approaches
Fairbanks. Traffic on the Parks Highway can vary significantly depending on time of year, with
volumes being much higher during summer than winter (HDR Alaska 2011). As described in the
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Central Region “Annual Traffic
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-292 December 2011
Volume Report” for 2007-2009 (ADOTPFCR 2010), the annual average daily traffic counts
(AADTC) for locations on the Parks Highway in 2007, 2008, and 2009, respectively, were as
follows:
Junction with Palmer/Wasilla Highway – 32,398; 33,420; 34,471
Junction with Talkeetna Spur Road – 1,680; 1,520; 1,479
Junction with Denali Highway (Cantwell) – 2,279; 2,193; 1,306
Junction with Denali National Park Road – 3,364; 3,094; 2,892
Junction with 28th Avenue (Fairbanks) – 14,710; 14,283; 14,716
The Denali Highway is not maintained in the winter (October 1 to mid-May), and is used
primarily to access adjacent lands during summer (mid-May to September 30). As described in
the ADOTPF North Region “Annual Traffic Volume Report” for 2007-2009 (ADOTPFNR
2010), the AADTCs for locations along on the Denali Highway in 2007, 2008, and 2009,
respectively, were as follows:
Junction with Richardson Highway – 115; 110; 130
At Tangle Lakes Campground – 75; 65; 65
Junction with Parks Highway – 280; 200; 230
Boating on the lower Susitna River is a common recreational and commercial activity. Several
companies from Talkeetna, such as Denali River Guides, Mahay’s Riverboat Service, and
Talkeetna River Guides, advertise boating and fishing tours up river as far as the entrance to
Devils Canyon. However, few, if any, go past the entrance to Devils Canyon, as the river is
considered non-navigable in this area (HDR Alaska 2011).
In 2010, the Alaska Railroad had a passenger ridership of 405,135 passengers and moved 6.33
million tons of freight. Based on previous trends, passenger and freight volumes are likely to
increase in the future. Most of the Alaska Railroad’s passenger trips are recreation/tourism-
oriented (ARC 2010). Approximately 20 people take the “Hurricane Turn” from Talkeetna to
Gold Creek on an average summer weekend. Recreational use of the “Hurricane Turn” is much
higher in the summer than in the spring, fall, or winter. However, winter visits to the area are
becoming increasingly popular, offering Northern Lights viewing, cross country skiing, dog
sledding and snowmobiling trips (Talkeetna/Denali Visitors Center 2007).
4.10.2.2. Recreational Use in the Project Vicinity
Both guided and non-guided hunting occur in the Project vicinity, particularly near Stephan, Fog,
Clarence, Watana, Deadman, Tsusena, and Big lakes, as well as many of the smaller lakes. Both
lodges and cabins provide field bases for hunters. Big game hunting guides operate guide
businesses which use the area. Generally, the businesses provide hunting as well as other
activities, including fishing and boating (APA 1985a).
Fishing pressure is currently very light in the immediate vicinity of the Project, due to its remote
location. Fishing occurs either as a separate pursuit or in close association with other activities,
such as hunting and trapping. Considerable fishing for lake trout, grayling, and salmon occurs in
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-293 December 2011
the Stephan Lake-Prairie Creek drainage. Salmon fishing occurs in lower Portage and Chunilna
creeks, and in the Indian River. Fishing in Fog, Clarence, Watana, Tsusena, Deadman, Big, and
High lakes appears to be associated with other activities, such as hunting, summer cabin use, and
mining. There is little stream fishing elsewhere in the Project area (APA 1985a).
Trapping in the Project area occurs mostly on the south side of the Susitna River near Stephan
and Fog lakes. Some trapping occurs near Tsusena Creek and Clarence and High lakes. Traps are
also set using airplanes in the easternmost portions of the Susitna River valley (APA 1985a).
The ADF&G maintains harvest data and other information required for management of wildlife
game species in the Nelchina Public Use Area. Available information for Management Unit 13
(Nelchina-Upper Susitna) and Subunit 13E (Upper Susitna River), which include the Susitna-
Watana Project area, includes that pertaining to black bear, brown bear, caribou, Dall sheep,
furbearers, moose, and wolf. This information is summarized below.
Black bears are numerous in portions of Unit 13 with suitable forest habitat. Field observations
and harvest data indicate that black bears are abundant in large portions of Subunit 13E. There is
no closed season in Unit 13, and the bag limit is three per year. Hunting of black bears over bait
is allowed in spring. Harvest data have been available since 1973, when the sealing of black
bears became mandatory. Black bear harvest in Unit 13 averaged 67 per year during the 1970s,
81 per year during the 1980s, and 93 per year during the 1990s. The reported harvest of black
bears during the 2003-2004 season was 123 bears. The increasing harvest trend shows black
bears are gaining in status as a desirable big game animal, and black bear hunting is more
popular than in the past. Non-residents took 26 (21 percent) black bears in Unit 13 during 2003-
2004. Successful black bear hunters spent an average of 4.5 days in the field in 2003-2004.
Among successful 2003-2004 hunters in Unit 13, highway vehicles (32 percent) and boats (21
percent) were the most popular methods of transportation (ADF&G 2005a).
Density estimates for brown bears in the previous Susitna Hydroelectric Project study area of
Subunit 13E in 1985 and 1995 were 18.75 and 23.31 independent bears/1,000 square kilometers,
respectively. The average annual brown bear harvests in Unit 13 for the decades of the 1960s,
1970s, 1980s, and 1990s were 39, 59, 105, and 113, respectively. Interest in brown bear hunting
and yearly harvest by recreational hunters increased over the years as seasons were lengthened
and bag limits increased. Liberalization of brown bear hunting regulations started in 1980 with
the initiation of a spring season. The bag limit in Unit 13 was increased to one bear a year
between 1983 and 1988 and again starting in 1995. Brown bear harvests have been the highest
in those years when the bag limit has been one bear per year and the resident tag fee waived.
The reported 2005-2006 harvest of brown bears in Unit 13 and Subunit 13E was 135 and 54,
respectively. More brown bears have been reported harvested from 13E over the years than any
other subunit. Non-residents took 32 (24 percent) brown bears in Unit 13 during 2005-2006.
The high cost of guided hunts appears to be limiting participation by most non-residents.
Successful hunters average 4.4 days in the field in 2005-2006. Successful non-residents tend to
spend about two more days in the field to take a bear than residents. The most important method
of transportation for brown bear hunters in Unit 13 during 2005-2006 was four-wheelers
(OHVs). Unit 13 has many far-reaching trail systems that are ideally suited to four-wheeler
transportation during fall hunting season. Aircraft and highway vehicles are consistently
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-294 December 2011
important, while snow machine use is highly variable and dependent on snow conditions during
the spring season (ADF&G 2007a).
The Nelchina caribou herd has been important to hunters because of its proximity to Anchorage
and Fairbanks. Accessibility to human population centers makes the herd particularly vulnerable
to overharvesting. Starting in 1977, hunting the Nelchina herd was limited by a drawing permit
system with a fall hunting season and since then, all hunting of Nelchina caribou has been
controlled by permits. From 1959 (the first year of statehood) to 1971 there was an annual
average of 4,233 hunters, and from 1972 through 1984, there was an annual average of 1,442
hunters. For 1972 through 1984, harvests by all Alaskans averaged 779 animals. Harvest
gradually increased, along with herd size, especially in the late 1980s and early 1990s. From
1985-1987, harvests by all users (subsistence and non-subsistence) of Nelchina caribou averaged
3,127, with a low of 958 (1986) and a high of 5,628 (1996). From 1998-2009, the average
annual harvest by all hunters was 1,795 caribou. The Nelchina caribou herd is probably the only
herd in the state with over 30,000 animals that can have its upper population limit controlled
solely by human harvests. If the herd can be stabilized at 35,000-40,000, the projected annual
harvests are expected to be about 3,000-4,000 caribou each year (ADF&G 2010). For
subsistence hunters between 2002 and 2004, four-wheelers were the predominant method of
transportation, followed by highway vehicles, boats, and snow machines. Highway vehicles have
been the most important transportation method in the Unit 13 federal subsistence hunt (ADF&G
2005b).
Dall sheep harvest in the Talkeetna Mountains and Chulitna-Watana Hills (TCW, which includes
Subunit 13E) is limited to adult rams. Since 1989 hunters have been allowed to harvest only
full-curl (horn) rams in the TCW area. The estimated population of Dall sheep in the TCW
increased from 2,000-2,500 in 1994 to 2,500-3,000 in 1999. A severe winter in 1999-2000
decreased the sheep population about 40 percent. Surveys from 2000-20001 and 2003-2004
indicated the population was recovering. The hunting season in the TCW for regulatory years
2004 through 2006 was August 20-September 20. The bag limit was one ram with a full-curl
horn or larger. Hunter harvest in the TCW averaged 55 rams during 2004-2007, lower than the
average harvest of 65 rams during 2001-2003 and much lower than the average of 82 rams from
1990-2000. The total number of hunters has decreased steadily. Non-residents were more
successful than residents. Non-residents accounted for 14 percent of hunters, but took 47 percent
of sheep during 2004-2006. This higher success rate was because non-residents are required to
have a guide, and they more often use aircraft to access remote areas than residents. Most
successful hunters reported using aircraft or four-wheelers to access their hunting areas (ADF&G
2008a). The Jay Creek mineral lick is frequented by Dall sheep. Peak sheep use of this mineral
lick is in May and June (APA 1985b).
Historic harvest data are limited for furbearers in units 11 and 13 (Nelchina and Upper Susitna
Rivers, Wrangell Mountains) prior to the initiation of sealing requirements. Wolverine and
beaver sealing became mandatory in 1971, followed by lynx and land otter in 1977. Beavers and
land otter are considered relatively abundant in both units 11 and 13. Lynx numbers have
rebounded from the low point in 2002-2003, following a ten-year cycle that mimics that for
hares. Wolverines are considered common in the more remote mountainous regions of units 11
and 13, and remain relatively scarce at lower elevations. Marten numbers appeared to peak
about 1988 and have been fluctuation annually since. Coyotes are relatively abundant
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-295 December 2011
throughout units 11 and 13, and are commonly found in river bottoms and creek drainages. Fox
and muskrat are found in both units. The beaver hunter/trapper harvest in Unit 13 from 2003 –
2006 was variable, and averaged 234 per year. Average annual land otter harvest was 39 in Unit
13 for this same period. Lynx harvest in Unit 13 increased annually between 2002 and 2006,
suggesting that the population may peak again in 2008. The wolverine harvest in Unit 13
remained relatively stable between 1985 and 2006, averaging 35 per year. Harvest data for other
species noted above are not available. The transport method most used by successful trappers
during the 2003-2006 period was snow machine. Beaver trappers in Unit 13, however, used a
wide variety of transportation methods. Other common transport methods were airplane, dog
sleds, snowshoes, skis and highway vehicles. Trapping in Southcentral Alaska has become more
of a weekend/recreational activity, compared to the long-line/commercial activity seen during the
1970s and 1980s. Much of the trapping (30 percent) occurs along the roadside. Many trappers
in units 11 and 13 begin to pull sets by late January, as recreational snow machine activity
increases (ADF&G 2007b).
Historically, Unit 13 has been an important area for moose hunting in Alaska. Annual harvests
were large, averaging more than 1,200 bulls and 200 cows during the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Hunting seasons were long, with both fall and winter hunter hunts. As moose number began to
decline, harvests were reduced by eliminating hunts and changing bag limits. During the 1990s
the harvest declined, and reached a low of 468 in 2001. Between 2002 and 2007 the population
in Unit 13 steadily increased. The BLM implemented a subsistence moose hunt on federal land
in 1990. This is a very popular hunt for Unit 13 and Delta Junction residents with more than
1,000 permits issued in most years. The amount of federal land open for this hunt is extremely
limited, accounting for less than two percent of the moose habitat in Unit 13. The non-resident
moose hunting season was closed in 2002. The success rate for moose hunters in the Unit 13
general hunt was 17 percent in 2006, up from 13 percent in 2001. Hunting effort remained
steady in the general hunt during the 2005-2007 period, averaging 7.4 days per hunter for
successful hunters and 7.6 days for unsuccessful hunters. The last two weeks of the season
accounted for more than 60 percent of harvest between 2001 and 2007. This pattern is
predictable, because moose are more vulnerable later in September. Leaf fall starts to occur at
this time, bull movements increase, and onset of the rut increases the effectiveness of calling.
Four-wheelers have been the most important method of transportation, accounting for 71 percent
of the total moose harvest in 2006 (ADF&G, 2008b).
Wolf numbers in Unit 13 were low from about 1900 until the early 1930s, reflecting
corresponding low prey densities. Wolf numbers increased after this period, and by the mid-
1940s wolves were considered common. As a result of predator control between 1948 and 1953,
wolf numbers declined dramatically. Following the cessation of wolf control, numbers increased
rapidly. Beginning with statehood in 1959, the wolf season was closed in Unit 13 for a five-year
period. In 1965, a short season was held. During the late 1960s, seasons were established that
approximated current dates with no bag limits. In 1971, mandatory sealing was established and
aerial shooting without a permit was prohibited. Between 1971 and 1991, an annual average of
91 wolves were sealed in Unit 13. Harvest increased through the mid-to-late 1990s, averaging
155 wolves per year. Wolves are harvested under trapping and hunting regulations. Trapping
season runs from October 15 until April 30. Hunting season runs from August 10 until April 30
with a bag limit of 10 wolves per day. Hunters and trappers harvested 223 wolves in Unit 13
during the 2001-2002 season. Four non-residents took four wolves, 25 local residents took 84
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-296 December 2011
wolves, and 41 non-local residents took 135 wolves. February had the highest reported wolf
harvest, but there was little difference between all the mid-winter months. The change in harvest
chronology between years probably reflects changes in snowfall and temperature, which
influences access and trapping conditions. In recent years, use of snow machines has surpassed
using aircraft as the most important method of transportation. This changes occurred not only
because it became illegal to take wolves same-day-airborne, but because of improvements in
snow machines. As a result, trappers and hunters are able to penetrate further into remote
portions of Unit 13 (ADF&G 2003).
The Upper and Middle Susitna River has received attention for whitewater boating recreation.
The rapids of Watana Canyon are rated as Class IV and are considered dangerous even for
experienced boaters. The rapids of Devils Canyon have been called the “biggest whitewater on
the continent and some of the biggest ever run in the world” and the “Mount Everest of
kayaking”. The rapids of Devils Canyon are rated as Class VI at water flows that have been
successfully run; the first successful kayak run of Devils Canyon was recorded in 1976 (HDR
Alaska 2011). Because of the extreme challenge that the rapids present, few kayakers are
known to have attempted to run Devils Canyon.
No use information is currently available for Stephan Lake Lodge, for RS trails in the Susitna-
Watana Project vicinity, or for CIRI lands.
4.10.3. Recreation-Related Goals and Needs
Recreation-related goals and objectives, contained in various state and local planning documents,
are described below.
4.10.3.1. Alaska State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan
As part of its 2009-2014 SCORP planning effort, the ADNR Division of Parks and Outdoor
Recreation (DPOR) posted an online survey for the general public, park professionals, and youth
(ADNR 2009). Also, a telephone survey was conducted during April 2009. Information from a
mail survey of recreation providers and the general public was collected in spring 2009. Five
public meetings were held throughout the state. The online youth survey was taken by students at
several different school districts. Through a contract with an Alaskan research firm, households
throughout the state were contacted and surveyed by telephone. Respondents were questioned
about their outdoor recreation activities and preferences, and their attitudes towards revenue
generating programs to fund recreation facilities and programs. In addition to presenting the
SCORP at public meetings, the ADNR DPOR mailed 165 surveys to many of Alaska local
government’s recreation professionals. The survey asked outdoor recreation providers to identify
the most significant outdoor recreation needs of their community and regional area.
The biggest difference between regions is the level of satisfaction with facilities. Southeast
residents registered the highest level of satisfaction, followed by Railbelt (where the Susitna-
Watana Project area is located), then rural (all areas other than the Southeast and Railbelt). This
is a shift from the last survey where the Railbelt residents had the highest level of satisfaction
with southeast being second. The most common reason for dissatisfaction among rural residents
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-297 December 2011
is the shortage or absence of recreation facilities within their community or within an hour’s
traveling time. However, before developing new facilities, all three regions overwhelmingly
support improving the maintenance of existing facilities (Railbelt 72.5 percent, Rural 86.2
percent, and Southeast 74.4 percent).
Southeast residents are the strongest supporters of non-motorized trails, more picnic areas, and
an expanded cabin system. Railbelt residents, which make up 73 percent of the state’s
population, are the strongest supporters of more trailheads, recreational vehicle (RV)
campgrounds, new parks from private land and state land, and an increase in law enforcement in
the parks. Rural residents were the strongest supporters of more facilities for the disabled, boat
launches, off road vehicle trails, roadside toilets, RV dump stations, more recreation programs,
more visitor centers, and improved maintenance of existing parks.
Rural residents stated that the facilities are crowded when they go to use them but they also
stated that there are enough parks.
Rural residents are almost twice as likely as Railbelt residents to own powerboats and are more
likely to own hunting equipment, fishing equipment, ORV/ATVs, and snow machines. Railbelt
residents are considerably more likely than others to own bicycles and ski equipment and for the
first time dog teams at an almost two to one ratio over the rural residents. Southeast residents
have more sea kayaks than the Railbelt and rural areas combined. Sport fishing is the favorite
activity of southeast and Railbelt residents. Sport hunting, also an important subsistence activity,
is the favorite activity among rural community residents.
Issues, goals, and recommended strategies identified in the 2009-2014 SCORP are as follows:
Lack of Adequate Funding
Tourism and the Economy
Improved Access to Outdoor Recreation Resources
Opportunities to Meet Recreation Needs in Communities
4.10.3.2. Susitna Matanuska Area Plan, 2010 Public Review Draft
The following recreation-related goals and management guidelines are contained in the Susitna
Matanuska Area Plan (SMAP) Public Review Draft (ADNR 2010b).
Recreation Opportunities Goal: Lands will be provided for accessible outdoor recreational
opportunities with well-designed and conveniently located recreational facilities. In addition,
undeveloped lands should be provided for recreation pursuits that do not require developed
facilities.
Management guidelines to achieve the recreation opportunities goal are as follows:
Coordinate with Other Landowners and Users of an Area.
Identify Roles of Different Public Land Owners in Providing Public Recreational
Opportunities.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-298 December 2011
Public Use Sites. Uses that adversely affect public use sites or areas should not be
authorized.
Private Commercial Recreation Facilities and Operations on State Land. If authorized,
these uses should be sited, constructed, and operated in a manner that minimizes conflicts
with natural values and existing uses.
Commercial Recreation Leasing Processes. Given the broad scope of the SMAP, the
determination of particular sites is impractical, although such uses are generally
appropriate within most plan designations.
Permits, Easements, and Leases Adjacent to Recreation Facilities. May be issued, based
upon manager’s determination.
Management of Recreation Use on State Lands. ADNR is to enable a variety of uses and
vehicle types, while minimizing fish and wildlife impacts and avoiding user conflicts.
Consultation with ADF&G. To take place where important species or habitats are likely
to occur.
Public Access Goals: 1) Preserve, enhance, or provide adequate access to public and private
lands and resources. Provide for future trail and access needs, and protect or establish trail
corridors to ensure continued public access consistent with responsible wildlife and fish habitat
conservation. 2) Ensure adequate opportunities for the public’s use of public resources of local,
regional, and statewide significance.
Management guidelines to achieve the public access goals are as follows:
Reservation of Public Use Easements. Before disposing of land, ADNR will reserve
easements pursuant to the requirements of Alaska Administrative Code.
Retain Access where Appropriate. Improve or preserve access to areas with significant
public resource values.
Provide Access to Non-State Lands. Reasonable access will be provided across state
lands to outer public and private land.
Ensure Management of Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) 17(b)
Easements. The state will identify new 17(b) easements and ensure that public access is
maintained to existing 17(b) easements.
Provide Access for Development. When an access route is constructed over state land,
public access should generally be maintained.
Limit Access where Appropriate.
Coordinate with Borough Recreational Trails Plan.
Consult with ADNR South Central Regional Office (SCRO) and Division of Mining,
Land, and Water.
Site and Construct Temporary and Permanent Roads or Causeways to Avoid
Environmental Impacts.
Protection of the Environment.
Joint Use and Consolidation of Surface Access.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-299 December 2011
4.10.3.3. Matanuska-Susitna Comprehensive Development Plan, 2005 Update
As described in the MSB Comprehensive Plan, 2005 Update (MSB 2005), the Borough
maintains a large number and diversity of parks, campgrounds and recreational areas. As the
Borough’s population continues to grow, the demand for various year-round passive and active
recreational opportunities increases. The Borough should accommodate such demand with the
following goals and recommendations:
Goal (Parks and Open Space, PO-1): To acquire, develop, and redevelop a system of parks,
recreation facilities, community centers, and open spaces that is safe, functional, and accessible
to all segments of the population.
Policy PO1-1: Acquire parks, community centers, recreation, and open space facilities in
those areas of the Borough facing population growth, commercial development, and in
areas where facilities are deficient.
Policy PO1-2: Develop pedestrian and bicycle linkages between schools, public facilities,
neighborhoods, parks and open spaces and population centers where feasible.
Policy PO1-3: Ensure adequate maintenance and operation funding prior to development
of parks and recreational facilities.
Policy PO1-4: Ensure that parks and open spaces are provided using the following
standards to determine the need for parks: 5 acres of neighborhood parks/1,000 persons;
10 acres of community parks/3,500 persons; 15 acres of nature and open space
parks/5,000 persons.
Policy PO1-5: Actively promote through various land use techniques the preservation of
agricultural land.
Goal (PO-2): Protect and preserve natural resource areas.
Policy PO2-1: Work cooperatively with numerous resource management agencies,
community councils, and citizens to care for lakes, wetlands, streams, rivers, and wildlife
habitat and corridors while providing public access for recreational opportunities that
have minimal impacts to such areas.
Policy PO2-2: Preserve opportunities for people to observe and enjoy wildlife and
wildlife habitats.
Policy PO2-3: Identify, through analysis, potential natural resource areas throughout the
Borough that should be protected.
4.10.3.4. East Alaska Resource Management Plan
The East Alaska Resource Management Plan (EARMP) replaces the Southcentral Management
Framework Plan approved in 1980 and is now the base land use plan for public lands
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-300 December 2011
administered by the BLM Glennallen Field Office’s EARMP Planning Area. The overall
recreation goal for this planning area, which surrounds the Project area, is to “manage recreation
to maintain a diversity of recreational opportunities” (BLM 2006).
Five Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) are designated in the EARMP. These
areas are managed with the specified recreational emphasis:
Delta Wild and Scenic River Corridor Area.
Gulkana Wild and Scenic River Corridor Area.
Denali Highway Area.
Tiekel Area.
Delta Range Area.
Areas outside those identified above are managed as Extensive Recreation Management Areas,
with existing ROS classes maintained. Inventory and monitoring could occur and standards may
be identified for trail density in these areas based on monitoring and inventory information.
Some education/interpretation at trailheads may occur, particularly at 17(b) easement trailheads
within these areas.
4.10.3.5. Susitna Area Plan
The Susitna Area Plan (ADNR 1985) is a land use plan for public lands in the Susitna Area. The
plan designates the uses that are to occur on much of the public land within the Susitna Area
(Figure 4.10-4), which covers approximately 15.8 million acres in Southcentral Alaska. Much of
the land in the MSB is included in the planning area. The Project area is in the Susitna Area
Plan’s “Talkeetna Mountains” Subunit (11). This subunit encompasses roughly 6 million ac, the
majority of which is publicly owned. The Nelchina Public Use Area (see below) lies within this
subunit. Recreation goals and management guidelines included in the plan include:
Resource protection;
Economic development;
The role of different public land owners in providing public recreation opportunities;
Public use cabins;
Private recreation facilities on public land; and
Promotion of underutilized areas.
The Talkeetna Mountains portion of the Susitna Area Plan described recreational opportunities
associated with the proposed Project.
Date: Nov 2011Scale: As Noted
Denali National Park and Preserve
Denali State Park
Nelchina Public Use Area
Chugach State Park
ChugachNationalForest
Glenn HighwayGeorge Parks HighwayRichardson H
ighway
Seward
H
i
g
h
w
a
y Tok Cut-OffDenali Highway
Edgerton Highwa
y
Susitna Area Plan Boundaries
State of AlaskaSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC No.14241
Figure 4.10-4Ü
0 20 4010
Miles
Legend
kj Proposed Watana Dam and Powerhouse
Highway
Susitna_River
Susitna Area Plan Boundary
Talkeetna Mountains Subunit
CIRI Lands (Patented and Interim Conveyed)
BLM East Alaska Resource Management Planning Area
State Park
National Park
National Forest
National Wildlife Refuge
Public Use Area
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-302 December 2011
4.10.3.6. Nelchina Public Use Area
As described in the Nelchina Public Use Area Fact Sheet (ADNR 2000) the area is managed, in
part, to:
Protect fish and wildlife habitat, particularly caribou calving areas, trumpeter swan
nesting areas, and other important habitats for moose, Dall sheep and brown bear so that
traditional public uses of fish and wildlife populations may continue;
Perpetuate and enhance public enjoyment of fish and wildlife and their habitat including
fishing, hunting, trapping, viewing, photography;
Perpetuate and enhance general public recreation in a quality environment;
Perpetuate and enhance additional public uses described in the Susitna Area Plan; and
Allow additional public uses of the area in a manner compatible with the purpose
specified above.
4.10.3.7. Cook Inlet Region, Incorporated
Visitors may access and use CIRI land on a limited basis with written permission. Guides,
hunters and anglers, campers, tour operators, photographers, scientists, dog mushers and other
outdoor enthusiasts are encouraged to respect CIRI land and contact the CIRI Land and
Resources Department to learn more about land use policies (CIRI 2011).
4.10.4. Protected River Segments
Twenty-five Alaskan rivers and over 3,200 river mi are protected under the National Wild and
Scenic River designation. Additionally, there are six legislatively designated State Recreation
Rivers, encompassing 460 river mi and 260,000 upland acres (ADNR 2009).
The Tangle Lakes and Tangle River area, accessible from the Denali Highway northeast of the
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project area, has been designated as part of the Delta National
Wild and Scenic River.
The EARMP (BLM 2006) planning team conducted a wild and scenic river eligibility review for
the planning area. The Susitna River from the headwaters to the confluence of Kosina Creek
(which is located within the proposed Susitna-Watana Project boundaries) was considered. This
is a glacial, free flowing river that is accessible from the Denali Highway. Jet boats go up
through the East Fork. Boating occurs from the highway crossing downriver to the Maclaren
River and upriver on the Maclaren to the Denali Highway. It is also possible to continue down
the Susitna River to the Tyone River, upriver on the Tyone and out through Lake Louise. This
river and adjacent lands provide a diversity of recreational opportunities. The river is road
accessible and the potential exists for several different semi-primitive motorized experiences. In
the vicinity of the Denali Highway, there are numerous opportunities to access the river for short
day hikes or simply viewing the river from the highway for a roaded-natural experience.
Opportunities certainly still exist for quality primitive experiences along the river corridor. This
portion of the Susitna River was tentatively classified as “Scenic”. It is free of impoundments,
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-303 December 2011
with shorelines still largely undeveloped. Exception in this segment is where the river is crossed
by the Denali Highway. In the area of the Denali Highway crossing, the river is also paralleled
for a short distance by the Valdez Creek road. South of the Denali Highway, the river is
paralleled at a distance by the Susitna South OHV trail, but this trail does not access the river.
Powerboat use occurs on the river and is a traditional and established use.
No designations or tentative classifications apply to the Susitna River in the vicinity of the
Project area.
4.10.5. National Trails System and Wilderness Areas
The Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race is run along or near the formal 418-mile long Iditarod National
Historic Trail. Mushers and teams cover the 1,000-1,100 mi between Anchorage and Nome in 9-
15 days. Beginning on the first Saturday in March, the race is the most popular sporting event in
Alaska. The race crosses the lower Susitna River on the Historic Trail near the Town of Susitna.
Approximately 1.9 million acres of Denali National Park and Preserve were designated a
wilderness area in 1980.
No national trails system or wilderness area lands are located in the vicinity of the Project area.
4.10.6. Shoreline Buffer Zones and Adjoining Land Uses
The shoreline of the Susitna River and its tributaries in the vicinity of the proposed Project is
steep, rocky, and covered with mixed woods and tundra. Areas adjacent to the shoreline are
owned by the CIRI. These lands, and those managed by the BLM’s Glennallen Field Office and
the ADF&G’s Nelchina Public Use Area that surround it on the north and south, are undeveloped
(covered with mixed woods and tundra) and suitable for use as a shoreline buffer zone.
4.10.7. Land Uses and Management
Recreational uses and management in the Southcentral region and Project area are detailed
above. Additional uses and management of these lands are described below.
4.10.7.1. Regional Land Uses and Management
Land ownership in Alaska is complex and in transition. Under terms of the 1959 Alaska
Statehood Act, the State of Alaska is authorized to receive over 103 million acres of land from
the federal government. To date, the state has received about 89.5 million acres of this land
(ADNR 2009).
Signed into law in 1971, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) won a unique
settlement from the United States for Alaska’s Native population. The act extinguished
aboriginal land claims, provided for formation of 13 regional, four urban, and 200 village
ANSCA corporations, and transfer of 44 million acres of land from federal to Native corporation
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-304 December 2011
ownership. State and ANCSA conveyances have not been completed. The federal government
(Bureau of Land Management) owes ANCSA corporations about 9 million acres and owes the
state about 16 million ac. Many of these remaining claims are in conflict and will require many
years to resolve. Various selections cannot be completed until actual land surveys are done,
which will also take many years. Upon completion of the conveyance process, the state’s largest
landowner will remain the federal government, with about 220 million acres or 60 percent of
Alaska. The state will own 28 percent, ANSCA corporations 11 percent, private (non-ANCSA
Corporation) one percent, and municipalities, less than one percent (ADNR 2009).
The Southcentral region extends from the hydrographic divide of the Alaska Range on the north
to the MSB boundary on the west, Kodiak Island on the south, and the Alaska/Canada border on
the east. It abounds with ocean shorelines, freshwater lakes, free-flowing rivers, massive
mountains, wildlife, and glaciers. The diversity of landscapes and natural resources offer a wide
variety of outdoor recreational opportunities. The Southcentral region contains a more
developed transportation system than other portions of the state. Paved highways and gravel
secondary roads provide access to many of the cities and villages in the region. Use of planes to
reach areas not accessible by road is also prevalent. The Alaska Railroad and ferry systems also
serve portions of the Southcentral region.
The Southcentral region includes the George Parks Highway, the Denali Highway, and the
Alaska Railroad. The George Parks Highway (numbered Interstate A-4 and Alaska Route 3)
runs 323 mi from the Glenn Highway 35 mi north of Anchorage to Fairbanks in the Alaska
Interior. The highway was completed in 1971. The highway, which mostly parallels the Alaska
Railroad, is one of the most important roads in Alaska. It is the main route between Anchorage
and Fairbanks (Alaska's two largest metropolitan areas), the principal access to Denali National
Park and Preserve and Denali State Park, and the main highway in the Matanuska-Susitna
Valley.
Most residential, commercial, agricultural, transportation and utility land use development
occurs in and around Parks Highway communities and along rural sections of the Parks Highway
west of the Project area. That is, small towns such as Willow, Talkeetna, Cantwell, and Healy
have a mix of residential and commercial land, and transportation lands for the highway, other
roads, railroad, and airstrips. Other scattered residential lands occur in agricultural, homestead or
other settlements along the highway, near the railroad or area rivers (APA 1985a).
The Denali Highway is about 135 mi long and connects the Cantwell junction (located just north
of Broad Pass) on the Parks Highway with Paxson Lodge on the Richardson Highway. A loop
trip originating and returning to Fairbanks is about 436 mi. A loop trip from Anchorage is close
to 600 mi. The Denali Highway is generally open from mid-May to October 1.
The Alaska Railroad extends from Seward and Whittier, in the south, to Fairbanks (passing
through Anchorage), and beyond to Eielson Air Force Base and Fort Wainwright in the interior
of that state. The Alaska Railroad carries both freight and passengers throughout its system. The
railroad has a mainline over 470 mi long, and is well over 500 mi long when branch lines and
sidings are included. It is currently owned by the State of Alaska.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-305 December 2011
The Chugach National Forest, located south and east of Anchorage, surrounds Prince William
Sound. This 5.4 million acre forest includes the Kenai Peninsula, the Russian River, and the
delta of the Copper River. The Chugach National Forest Revised Land and Resource
Management Plan (USFS 2002b) sets forth the direction the Chugach National Forest will follow
in the future management of lands and resources within its boundaries.
Denali State Park is approximately 324,240 acres in size. The State Recreation Areas include an
additional 1,470 ac. Although much smaller than Denali National Park and Preserve to the north
(6,028,203 ac), Denali State Park and its associated State Recreation Areas are very diverse area.
They afford tremendous views of Denali; contains three major rivers, the Susitna, Chulitna, and
Tokositna; and have three glaciers adjacent to or within its boundaries, the Ruth, Eldridge and
Tokositna. Vegetation ranges from lowland spruce and hardwood forests to alpine tundra. The
George Parks Highway transects the park and opens its scenery, wildlife and other natural
resources to the public.
Primary uses of the park are camping, hiking, fishing, viewing Mt. McKinley, canoeing, rafting,
riverboating, hunting and trapping.
The proposed Project is within the northwest corner of the BLM’s Glennallen Field Office
Planning Area. The planning area includes approximately 7.1 million acres in east Alaska,
including approximately 5.5 million acres of lands that are selected by the State of Alaska or
Alaska Natives. The BLM is responsible for management of selected lands until conveyance
occurs or until the selections are relinquished back to the BLM because of over selection. The
planning area also includes private land (including Native Corporation land), state land, and
lands managed by other federal agencies. Management measures outlined in the BLM’s EARMP
(BLM 2006) apply only to BLM-managed land in the planning area; no measures have been
developed for private, state, or other federal agency lands. The BLM prepared this Resource
Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to provide direction for
managing public lands within the Glennallen Field Office boundaries.
4.10.7.2. Project Area Land Use and Management
The Susitna Area Plan (ADNR 1985) is a land use plan for public lands in the Susitna Area. The
plan designates the uses that are to occur on much of the public land with the Susitna Area
(Figure 4.10-4), which covers approximately 15.8 million acres in Southcentral Alaska. Much of
the land in the MSB is included in the planning area.
The Project area is in the Susitna Area Plan’s “Talkeetna Mountains” Subunit (11). This subunit
encompasses roughly six million ac, the majority of which is publicly owned. The Nelchina
Public Use Area (see below) lies within this subunit. In addition to private lands held by
ANSCA corporations there are also numerous, scattered small parcels owned by private
individuals. These holdings are generally of two types: state offered open-to-entry sites adjacent
to recreational fly-in lakes; and federal, patented mining claims. The Talkeetna Mountains
Subunit is managed as a multiple use area emphasizing recreation (including hunting and
fishing), protection of fish and wildlife habitat, and mining. Most of this rugged, mountainous
area is to remain remote and very sparsely developed. Additional road access and concentrated
settlement on public lands will be contingent on a demonstrated need for such development in
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-306 December 2011
order to facilitate activities such as mining or dam construction. The Talkeetna Mountains
portion of the Susitna Area Plan described the recreational opportunities associated with the
proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project.
The Nelchina Public Use Area covers about 2.5 million acres in the Talkeetna Mountains of
Southcentral Alaska. The Public Use Area was established by the Alaska legislature in 1985 and
is managed by the ADNR Division of Mining, Land, & Water. The Nelchina Public Use area is
the biggest legislatively designated area on state land in Alaska. It is an outstanding area for
hunting, fishing, recreation, and mining. The vast area is home for the Nelchina Caribou herd,
the third largest caribou herd in Alaska. It also supports important populations of trumpeter
swans, moose, Dall sheep, and brown bear. The Susitna River forms the northern boundary of
the Nelchina Public Use Area, and portions of the Susitna-Watana Project area located south of
the river are within its boundaries. These areas are located within the Susitna Area Plan’s
Talkeetna Mountains Subunit (11).
The Nelchina Public Use Area is managed for multiple uses. The broad array of activities that
have taken place on these lands continues to be allowed. Guidelines were adopted in the
ADNR’s Susitna Area Plan (see discussion above) to maintain or enhance the special values of
this area and to ensure that the variety of public uses occur compatibly. The guidelines set by the
area plan cover mineral exploration and development in caribou calving areas during the calving
season (May 1 to June 15). Guidelines also address road construction throughout the area.
The SMAP Public Review Draft (ADNR 2010b) establishes the land use designation for state
land within the Susitna Matanuska Area and describes their intended uses. The plan directs
which state lands will be retained by the state and which should be sold to private citizens, used
for public recreation, or used for other purposes. It also identifies general management guidelines
for major resources and land uses within the planning area, as well as guidelines for the
development and use of resources for specific parcels. The Project area is located within the
SMAP “Talkeetna Mountains” Region. Most lands in this region are managed for wildlife
habitat, water resource, and public recreation values. All state land within this region is to be
retained. This region is not considered appropriate for grazing, commercial timber harvest, or
remote settlement – given its inaccessibility and unsuitable terrain. Locatable mineral exploration
and development is appropriate within general domain land as well as within the Nelchina PUA,
but any such activity must ensure that the numerous mineral licks are avoided or proper
mitigation is provided.
The MSB Comprehensive Plan, 2005 Update (MSB 2005) provides general goals and policy
recommendations to help guide future development in order to enhance our quality of life and
the public health, safety, and welfare.
Land use goals and policies contained in the 2005 Update are as follows:
Goal (LU-1): Protect and enhance the public safety, health, and welfare of MSB residents.
Goal (LU-2): Protect residential neighborhoods and associated property values.
Goal (LU-3): Encourage commercial and industrial development that is compatible with
residential development and local community desires.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-307 December 2011
Goal (LU-4): Protect and enhance the MSB’s natural resources including watersheds,
groundwater supplies and air quality.
Goal (LU-5): Recognize and protect the diversity of the MSB’s land use development patterns
including agricultural, residential, commercial, industrial and cultural resources, while limiting
sprawl.
Goal (LU-6): New developments greater than five units per acre should incorporate design
standards that will protect and enhance the existing built and natural environment.
Goal (LU-7): The MSB should actively limit sprawl through setting appropriate density
standards and encouraging residential and commercial development to occur in areas that are
centrally located and within close proximity to public and private services.
4.10.7.3. Project Area Wetlands and Floodplains
The Project area is characterized by an isolated subarctic environment comprised primarily of
coniferous and mixed forests and low shrubs. Numerous creeks flow into the Susitna River and
occasional lakes dot this remote region. Wetland mapping of much of the Alaska was completed
as part of the National Wetlands Inventory, conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS). Federal regulations define wetlands as areas that, under normal circumstances, would
support vegetation typically adapted to saturated soils. By this definition approximately one-third
of Alaska is wetlands. In the Project vicinity, wetland areas include Brushkana and Upper
Deadman creeks, the area between Deadman and Tsusena creeks, the Fog lakes area, the Stephan
Lake area, Swimming Bear Lake, and Jack Long Creek (APA 1985a).
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) conducts hydraulic analyses to determine
floodplains for the Federal Insurance Program of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA). Floodplains of interest to the Federal Insurance Program are defined as "the lowland
and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters, including at a minimum, that area
subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in a given year". Due to the remote nature
of the state, floodplain studies and mapping have occurred only in communities and populated
regions. No floodplain studies have been prepared in the middle Susitna basin.
The USACE has mapped the 100-year flood elevation on the Nenana River at the community of
Nenana and at Chulitna-on Pass-Creek, a tributary of the Chulitna River. The 100-year
floodplain of the Ta1keetna, Susitna, and Chulitna Rivers has been mapped within the townsite
of Talkeetna, where flooding has occurred in the past. The floodplain of the Talkeetna River at
Talkeetna is wide and developed only on the south side at the mouth of the river. Open spaces in
the floodplain are extensive and may come under pressure for future development (APA 1985a).
The Floodplain Information Report for Talkeetna, Alaska, is a basis for the adoption of land use
controls to guide floodplain development and prevent loss and damage. Peak discharge for the
Intermediate Regional Flood, or the 100-year flood, at Talkeetna is estimated to be 268,000 cfs.
Peak discharge for the Standard Project Flood was estimated to be 315,000 cfs. These estimates
are for the Susitna River downstream of the confluences with the Chulitna and Talkeetna Rivers
(APA 1985a).
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-308 December 2011
Additional information concerning wetlands and riparian areas is contained in Section 4.7 of this
document.
4.10.8. Potential Adverse and Positive Impacts
Potential impacts to recreation, land use and land management are described below.
4.10.8.1. Recreation
The potential recreation impacts described below are based on the Project as currently
envisioned. Access routes and transmission facility alignments have yet to be finalized. Figure
1-1 depicts the locations of three potential corridors. These corridors have been labeled “Denali”,
“Chulitna,” and “Gold Creek." Development of the Project facilities would change the
recreational character of portions of the Project area from an undeveloped, remote setting to an
area characterized by development and increased human activity. Portions of the Susitna River
and adjacent lands would be altered.
Temporary recreation impacts could be generated by construction personnel, traffic, materials,
staging areas, the worker camp, and noise. The Project would also have positive recreation
impacts. The proposed access roads and transmission line corridors, reservoir, and recreational
facilities would provide new recreational opportunities to the public.
As described in the 1985 FERC License Application (APA 1985a), hydroelectric development
would have both direct and indirect impacts on existing recreation patterns. Direct impacts are
those that result from physical changes to the existing recreation settings. Impacts to these
settings might either increase or decrease the desirability and probability of continued recreation
use. They may also make new types of activity possible. Indirect impacts are those resulting
from changes in recreation use of the Project area, including increased demand associated with
construction workers and the general public.
Construction and operation of the Project would impact recreation resources by increasing
activity, altering portions of the Susitna River and adjacent land, and restricting or increasing
access. These activities would result in changes in the nature of the recreation experience,
changes in hunting or fishing opportunities, and/or changes in other recreation opportunities.
Increased activity in the area would affect fishing and hunting activities by disturbing fish and
wildlife and by changing the perceived image of the area from “pristine” to “developed."
Increased activity from Project construction and operation could include the presence of workers
and their families, the transportation of personnel and materials to and from the site, and the
disruption caused by operating heavy equipment in the area. Streams near the construction camp
could receive increased fishing pressure from construction workers and their families. Streams
such as Deadman Creek could be overfished unless additional management restrictions are
instituted. The effects of such activities on fish and wildlife are discussed in more detail in
sections 4.5 and 4.6 of this document.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-309 December 2011
The direct impacts of construction activities extend beyond the areas being physically disturbed.
A substantial change would result as the remote character of portions of the area changes to one
of heavy construction. This is an unavoidable impact only partially mitigated by careful
management of remaining lands.
The development of a temporary construction camp near the proposed dam (a site near the north
abutment is currently proposed) would cause short-term and long-term visual impacts. The dam
would alter the river for about 39 mi upstream, changing its character from wild, with
challenging rapids at Vee Canyon, to a large lake with reduced current.
Improved access would benefit many recreationists by increasing hunting, fishing, hiking,
camping, and other opportunities.
Direct impacts that are unmitigatable are the loss of remote character in portions of the Project
area and inundation of Class IV rapids at Vee Canyon.
Impacts on fishing would result from creation of the reservoir. Inundation of the lower reaches of
clear-water tributaries in the impoundment zone would eliminate existing grayling habitat.
Affected tributaries would include Deadman, Watana, Kosina, and Jay Creeks (APA 1985a). The
existing level of boating activity in Devils Canyon, downstream from Devils Canyon to
Talkeetna, and upstream from the dam site would be largely unaffected during construction.
When reservoir filling begins, water levels downstream would decrease slightly during those one
or two summer recreation seasons. Based on river navigability studies completed in 1985, this
reduction in flow is not expected to appreciably affect river boating or packrafting downstream
of the dam.
The dam and reservoir would change existing boating and packrafting patterns on the Susitna
River. The reservoir would inundate 39 mi of the 125-mile route between the Denali Highway
and the Stephan Lake Portage. During much of the year, the Vee Canyon rapids would be
inundated.
The inundated portion of the Susitna River would change in character from a remote and
undisturbed river environment with occasional rapids to a flatwater condition. With a loss of
current, boaters and packrafters would need manual or mechanical propulsion to navigate the
reservoir. Devils Canyon rapids, located downstream, would remain runnable to experts during
construction, since flows would be similar to those under natural conditions. These rapids would
also remain runnable during Project operation. Boaters desiring to kayak these rapids during
construction would need to fly in and hike to the river below the dam site, or, if floating the river,
be allowed to portage via the construction area.
Following construction, portions of the land areas associated with the Project would be used for
operations. Land not required for operations would be rehabilitated. Rehabilitated areas could be
used for recreation.
Once operation of the Project begins, the public may gain access to the area via road. This would
increase recreation opportunities.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-310 December 2011
During operation, the reservoir drawdown would reach its low point in April and May. The
reservoir would fill from June through August, reaching its highest point in early September.
Lake shorelines exposed during low water would have large silt flats, steep banks, tree stumps,
and slumping soils. This would limit the development of the reservoir as a major recreational
attraction. Safety would be a concern to boaters or packrafters, since the reservoir’s large size
may lead to hazardous conditions during periods of high wind (APA 1985a).
Vee Canyon, a notable natural feature located about 38 mi upstream of the dam, would have its
Class III rapids inundated seasonally. During typical water years, these rapids, located at
approximately elevation 1,950 ft, would be exposed from January through June, approximately 1
month longer than in drier years. As a result, Vee Canyon rapids could still be runnable by
boaters in June (APA 1985a).
The impoundment would inundate wildlife habitat. Dall sheep and caribou populations may be
affected by construction of Project facilities, but not as much by the reservoir filling (APA
1985a).
New access roads could provide vehicular access into a large area previously open only to ORVs
and hikers. The roads would be maintained year-round. If the Denali Corridor is chosen for the
permanent access road, this could allow increased access opportunities along the Denali
Highway segment which is currently closed each winter by snow.
Road improvements and access into new areas could change existing recreational patterns and
recreational resources in several ways. Winter snowplowing along the Denali Highway could
cause an increase in winter recreationists using the area for cross-country skiing, snowmobiling,
dog sledding, and other winter sports. Denali Highway improvements could also make the area
adjacent to the highway more attractive to recreationists during the summer months than it is at
present. Increased Denali Highway traffic associated with commuters, truck drivers, and new
local residents would introduce other potential users to the recreational opportunities adjacent to
the road. Increased recreational activity would likely follow existing patterns and take the form
of increased roadside camping in old gravel pits along the road, as well as hunting, fishing, and
hiking (APA 1985a).
Access roads and transmission lines would pass through areas that presently have very low levels
of recreational activity. Access road and transmission construction activities would affect
hunting, fishing, and hiking activities that might have occurred in those areas, and users would
be displaced into the surrounding areas.
The presence of transmission towers and cleared corridors would reduce the area’s appeal as a
remote area. The impacts of the transmission corridors on existing recreation patterns are
primarily visual, as discussed previously. Positive impacts would also result, since cleared
transmission corridors are commonly used by hunters and hikers.
Indirect impacts would result from the Project as access to and recreational use of the area
increase. Recreational use of the Project area would begin rising once the Project is complete.
Once the reservoir is filled, obstacles to boat and packraft access such as the Vee Canyon rapids
would be inundated, allowing access from upstream via the Denali Highway. Currently, most
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-311 December 2011
boaters and packrafters travel only to the Tyone River or to Goose Creek above Vee Canyon,
with the exception of the occasional whitewater boaters that continue through the Vee Canyon
rapids.
Indirect impacts resulting from increased use would consist of two types: change in the general
character and image of the area, and impacts from fishing, hunting, and other recreation activities
(APA, 1985a).
An influx of hunters, anglers, hikers, campers, and sightseers could change the character and
image of the area from primitive and remote to more accessible and well-used, especially near
the access roads and dam site. Entry patterns near Project facilities would change from primarily
fly-in to trips dominated by roads and vehicles. The Project would enhance the experience for
the user group that accesses fishing and hunting sites via roads. The experience would be
adversely affected for the user group that desires a remote fly-in experience. The enhancement
of opportunities to users by opening a new area to vehicular access would be greater in
magnitude than the adverse impact of the Project to the few existing fly-in users (APA 1985a).
Improved access would increase pressure on some existing fish populations. Fishing pressure on
creeks in the vicinity of access roads could increase. Access roads would also provide easier
access to and increase fishing pressure in nearby lakes.
Improved access would also increase pressure on game populations. Road access would increase
hunting and trapping in areas that were previously accessible, for the most part, only by air. This
would substantially increase pressure on species that are not heavily regulated. The Project
reservoir would increase access for hunting and trapping, particularly in drainages above the dam
such as Watana Creek, Kosina Creek, and Jay Creek. When public access to the reservoir is
provided, hunting and trapping via boat and packraft would occur. Float planes would use the
reservoir to gain access to adjacent areas for hunting.
Non-consumptive activities might increase a result of the Project. These include camping,
hiking, and sightseeing, and could result in minor disruptions to wildlife populations or lead to
possibly more needs for emergency services and possibly lead to some conflicts between user
groups depending on seasonal use patterns. Disturbances would be greatest near Project
recreation facilities, along the access roads and transmission line, and near the dam site. Over
time, some wildlife would likely avoid these areas of increased human presence.
4.10.8.2. Land Uses and Management
Land use impacts would result from the construction of the following Project facilities: dams and
impoundments, construction camps, recreation facilities, access roads, railhead and permanent
transmission line. Some impacts would be temporary, such as with borrow sites which can be
reclaimed. Other impacts, such as the inundation of lands covered by the reservoir, would be
permanent.
Direct land use impacts would occur on those lands converted from current uses to Project uses.
The Project reservoir would inundate approximately 20,000 ac, changing land from forest used
for dispersed recreation to reservoir used for hydropower generation and potential recreation.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-312 December 2011
Additional forest and low shrub land would be temporarily or permanently disturbed for borrow
and quarry sites. Placement of construction camps would convert low shrub and mixed forest
land to developed community use. In addition, land would be permanently disturbed by road,
transmission line corridor and recreation facilities.
Provision of access into the Susitna River basin, an otherwise remote, unroaded area, could result
in changes in land uses on surrounding lands. A new, temporary population center would be
established at the construction camp (and at the railhead facility). The public could access the
area via a road/transmission line route, navigable river routes leading into the reservoir, and by
floatplanes landing on the reservoir. New opportunities through use of the reservoir for access to
surrounding lands would be opened. An increase in numbers of people would in turn increase
recreational and other activity levels and put new harvest, extraction, and development pressures
on fish, wildlife, and other natural resources. Current activity patterns would change, and
displacement of a small number of resource users such as guides and trappers would follow. As
more people are attracted to this area, peripheral commercial and other development would
occur, thus stimulating the regional economy. The opportunities for additional roads extending
off the access road could encourage mineral and other resource extraction. Land values may be
affected. Also, an impetus for more active land management and cooperative agreements
between landowners would be created to address such issues as trespassing on private land (APA
1985a).
The Project area has been relatively undeveloped, because of limited access and unfavorable
economic feasibility. Without the Project, little change is likely to occur in existing land use or
activity patterns. However, in the past, the CIRI and Native Villages have expressed a desire to
develop the timber, mineral, and recreational potential of their lands south of the Project area
with or without the Project (APA 1985a).
Within the approximate boundaries of the dam and impoundment, there are wetlands of various
types, including riverine. The dam, powerhouse, borrow sites, impoundment, and appurtenant
facilities would occupy some of these wetlands. The construction camp, access road/transmission
line corridor, and airstrip could occupy additional wetland acreage. Potential Project impacts on
wetlands are discussed in Section 4.7.2 of this document. Project impacts on designated
floodplains cannot be ascertained at this time, because of the lack of data for the Middle Susitna
basin. However, extensive Project-related data for the previous APA Project showed that floods
up to the 50-year event would be diminished in magnitude on the middle reach of the Susitna
River from Devils Canyon Dam to Talkeetna (APA 1985a).
4.10.9. Potential Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement
Potential PM&E measures for recreation, land use, and land management are described below.
4.10.9.1. Recreation
AEA anticipates preparing a Recreation Plan for the Project in consultation with resource
agencies and other interested parties. The following elements may be included in this plan:
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-313 December 2011
Existing recreation facilities
Current and future use
Proposed recreation facilities
Implementation schedule and estimated costs
Operations and maintenance
Future recreation needs
Consultation
Proposed recreation facilities may include: roads and parking lots, scenic overlooks, directional
and informational signage, boat launches, picnic areas, campgrounds, hiking trails, and
interpretive exhibits.
Borrow areas created during Project construction would be adaptively reused to create roadside
pull-offs, scenic overlooks, picnic areas, and other recreational facilities.
The alignment chosen for the roads and transmission lines would avoid areas of environmental
sensitivity to the maximum extent practicable and, therefore, avoid placing undesirable
recreation pressure on these areas. Final alignments would also attempt to avoid disrupting areas
that are known to be popular existing and potential recreational settings. (APA 1985a).
Access roads, and transmission lines would not be open to the public during construction and
may be restricted or limited access after construction. Control points and/or physical barriers
would prohibit access during construction to ensure public safety and site security.
Portions of the Denali Highway would possibly be upgraded as part of the Susitna-Watana
Project, if the Denali Corridor is selected for road access. These upgrades would benefit
recreationists.
4.10.9.2. Land Uses and Management
Potential mitigation measures associated with fish, wildlife, and botanical resources and
wetlands affected by the impoundment and other Project-related activities are discussed in
Sections 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7 of this document. Sections 4.3 and 4.9 describe reclamation and/or
stabilization of disturbances at borrow and quarry sites.
Potential mitigation measures for indirect land use impacts are discussed in other chapters of this
document. For example, potential mitigation for the influx of people into the Project area and
impacts on special population/occupation groups (i.e., guides, lodge and air taxi operators) are
discussed under Socioeconomic Impacts, Section 4.12. Increases in recreation opportunities and
mitigation measures for increased activity levels are discussed in Recreational Resources,
immediately above. Potential aesthetic resource mitigation measures are discussed above in
Section 4.9. Potential mitigation measures for cultural, subsistence, and tribal resources are
discussed in Sections 4.11 and 4.13.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-314 December 2011
4.10.10. References
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 2003. Wolf Management Report of Survey-
Inventory Activities 1 July 1999-30 June 2002. ADF&G Division of Wildlife.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 2005a. Black Bear Management Report of
Survey-Inventory Activities 1 July 2001-30 June 2004. ADF&G Division of Wildlife.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 2005b. Caribou Management Report of
Survey-Inventory Activities 1 July 2002-30 June 2004. December 2005. ADF&G Division
of Wildlife.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 2007a. Brown Bear Management Report of
Survey-Inventory Activities 1 July 2004-30 June 2006. June 2006. ADF&G Division of
Wildlife.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 2007b. Furbearer Management Report of
Survey-Inventory Activities 1 July 2003-30 June 2006. ADF&G Division of Wildlife.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 2008a. Dall Sheep Management Report of
Survey-Inventory Activities 1 July 2004-30 June 2007. ADF&G Division of Wildlife.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 2008b. Moose Management Report of Survey-
Inventory Activities 1 July 2005-30 June 2007. ADF&G Division of Wildlife.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 2010. Overview of Nelchina Caribou Herd
Regulation and Harvest History. October 2010. ADF&G Division of Subsistence.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR). 1985. Susitna Area Plan. June 1985.
Anchorage, Alaska.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR). 2000. Nelchina Public Use Area Fact Sheet.
January 2000. ADNR Division of Mining, Land & Water.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR). 2006. Denali State Park Management Plan.
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR). 2009. Alaska’s Outdoor Legacy: Statewide
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) 2009-2014. ADNR Division of Parks
and Outdoor Recreation. July 2009. Anchorage, Alaska.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR). 2010a. “ANCSA 17(b) Easements.” ADNR
Division of Mining, Land & Water. www.dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/trails/17b/index.htm.
Accessed 9/27/11.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR). 2010b. Susitna-Matanuska Area Plan
Public Review Draft. February 2010. ADNR Division of Mining, Land and Water,
Resource Assessment & Development.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-315 December 2011
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Central Region Planning
(ADOTPFCR). 2010. Annual Traffic Volume Report: Central Region 2007-2008-2009.
ADOTPFCR Traffic Data Section.
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Northern Region Planning
(ADOTPFNR). 2010. Annual Traffic Volume Report: Northern Region 2007-2008-2009.
ADOTPFNR Traffic Data Section.
Alaska Power Authority (APA). 1985a. Susitna Hydroelectric Project License Application.
Alaska Power Authority (APA). 1985b. Susitna Settlement Plan.
Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARC). 2010. “Alaska Railroad Fact Sheet.”
www.Alaskarailroad.com/AboutARRC/FactSheet/tabid/452/Default.aspx. Accessed
10/10/11.
AlaskaTours.com. 2011. “Talkeetna Day Trips, Tours & Excursions.”
www.alaskatours.com/talkeetna/default.aspx. Accessed 8/16/11.
Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (CIRI). 2011. “Land Use.”
www.ciri.com/content/community/land.aspx. Accessed 10/1/11.
HDR Alaska, Inc. (HDR Alaska). 2011. Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project: Socioeconomic,
Recreation, Air Quality, and Transportation Data Gap Analysis Draft.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough (MSB). 2005. Comprehensive Development Plan: 2005 Update.
MSB Planning and Land Use Department.
Talkeetna/Denali Visitors Center. 2007. “Talkeetna/Denali Visitors Center.”
www.talkeetnadenali.com. Accessed 10/1/11.
USDA Forest Service (USFS). 2002a. Recreation and Tourism in South-Central Alaska:
Patterns and Prospects. October 2002. USFS Pacific Northwest Research Station. General
Technical Report PNW-GTR-551.
USDA Forest Service (USFS). 2002b. Chugach National Forest Revised Land and Resource
Management Plan. May 2002. USFS Alaska Region. Chugach National Forest. R10-MB-
480C.
USDOI Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2006. East Alaska Proposed Resource
Management Plan. June 2006. USDOI BLM Glennallen Field Office.
USDOI Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2008. “Denali Highway Points of Interest.”
www.blm.gov/ak/st/en/prog/recreation/denali-highway/denali-poi.html. Accessed 8/16/11.
USDOI National Park Service (NPS). 2006a. Denali National Park and Preserve Final
Backcountry Management Plan: General Management Plan Amendment and Environmental
Impact Statement. January 2006. Denali National Park and Preserve.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-316 December 2011
USDOI National Park Service (NPS). 2006b. Denali National Park and Preserve Final South
Denali Implementation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. April 2006. Denali
National Park and Preserve.
USDOI National Park Service (NPS). 2007. Consolidated General Management Plan for
Denali National Park and Preserve. Denali National Park and Preserve.
USDOI National Park Service (NPS). 2010. Denali 2010 Fact Sheet. February 2010. Denali
National Park and Preserve.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-317 December 2011
4.11. Cultural and Subsistence Resources
The following sections describe cultural resources, subsistence activities, potential impacts
related to the Project and potential protection, mitigation, and enhancement (PM&E) measures.
4.11.1. Cultural Resources
For cultural resources, the Project study area encompasses the Watana Reservoir site, the
potential transmission lines, and road corridors (Chulitna, Denali and Gold Creek corridors),
including portions of the Nenana River valley to the north and the Chulitna River valley to the
west of the Watana Reservoir area. As so defined, and within five mi of each of these features,
the Project area contains 260 known prehistoric and historic sites that relate to human land use
and settlement of the region. Archaeological research in the Project area began in 1953 with
Irving and Skarland’s reconnaissance surveys associated with proposed dam sites along the
upper Susitna River Skarland’s (Irving 1957). Nearly 25 years later, archaeological and cultural
resources studies resumed with investigations associated with the proposed development of dam
sites at Devils Canyon and Watana (Bacon 1978a, 1978b, 1975). A vast majority of our
knowledge on the prehistory of the region stems from cultural resources investigations conducted
between 1978 and 1986 associated with the APA Project, (Greiser et al. 1986; Dixon 1985;
Dixon et al. 1985; Bacon 1978a, 1978b).
The Project area contains some of the earliest known sites in interior Southcentral Alaska
(Railbelt) and demonstrates human land use in the region back to at least 11,000 Before Present
(BP). The area lies within the traditional territories of three ethnographically-documented
Alaska Native groups: the Ahtna, Dena’ina (previously called the Tanaina) and Lower Tanana
Athabascans (Nenana-Toklat band). A generalized regional prehistory for the interior regions of
Southcentral Alaska can be divided into four broad archaeological cultural traditions: the
American Paleoarctic, Northern Paleoindian, Northern Archaic, and Athabascan traditions.
Archaeological cultural “traditions” imply cultural continuity and consistent regional patterns
over broad areas and time periods. The framework of Southcentral Alaskan prehistory given here
differs from a standard cultural chronology which was derived in large part from the early
Susitna studies (Dixon 1985); this reflects the considerable advances in archaeological methods,
theory, data accumulation and synthesis that have taken place over the past three decades.
Several sites in the region have American Paleoarctic tradition components that date 11,000 to
6,000 BP, marking the earliest recognizable tradition in interior Alaska (Holmes 2001, West
1981). These early human populations were terrestrial foragers, exploiting both upland and
lowland areas, focusing on bison, wapiti (elk) and sheep, but utilizing a broad range of animals
including other large and small mammals, fish and birds, especially waterfowl (Potter 2008a,
2008b; Powers et al. 1983; Bowers 1980). Stone artifact types that define American Paleoarctic
tradition assemblages include microblades, bifacial points; large bifacial cores and tools; burins
made on flakes, endscrapers and other expedient tools made on macroblades. The American
Paleoarctic tradition relates stone tool technologies observed from Alaskan sites to terminal
Pleistocene stone technologies from Northeast Eurasia (Anderson 1970).
In the Nenana River valley, several sites have components that lack microblade technology (i.e.,
microblade cores/blades) and are dated to about 11,000 BP (Hamilton and Goebel 1999). Stone
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-318 December 2011
artifacts from these components include large uniface chopper-like artifacts and flake tools, and
bifacially-worked projectile points or pointed-tools. Powers and Hoffecker (1989) initially
proposed that the “Nenana Complex” was a precursor to the microblade-defined Denali Complex
(West 1967), however, a 12,000-year old microcore-bearing component at the Swan Point site,
located in the Middle Tanana Valley, now casts doubt on the exclusivity of the Nenana and
Denali complexes (Holmes 2001). Some archaeologists consider the Nenana Complex to be the
technological precursor to the Clovis Complex of mid-latitude North America (Goebel et al.
1992, Powers and Hoffecker 1989).
The Northern Paleoindian tradition is one of the most recently-defined archaeological traditions,
and one of the least clearly defined in interior Alaskan prehistory (Kunz and Reanier 1994). Sites
in interior Alaska that may contain occupations attributable to this tradition including the bifacial
occupation in Component II at the Dry Creek site (Hoffecker 2008, 2005), and the lowest
component at a Susitna River Valley site known as the Jay Creek Ridge site (Dixon 1999).
Northern Paleoindian sites are some of the oldest, well-documented sites in Alaska, dating as old
as 11,600 to 11,200 BP, with most ages clustering around 10,000 BP (Bever 2001). The stone
tool assemblages from Northern Paleoindian sites show similarities in artifact forms, especially
between large lanceolate projectile points, spurred gravers, and end and thumbnail scrapers.
Subsistence practices within this tradition likely focused on big game such as bison, musk ox,
sheep, caribou and moose (Hedman 2010, Kunz et al. 2003). Hoffecker (2005) views the Mesa
Complex of the Northern Paleoindian tradition as primarily focused on bison hunting. Some
archaeologists interpret the unique characteristics of the Northern Paleoindian lithic assemblages
to imply temporal and cultural connections with early sites in more temperate latitudes such as
the Great Plains and the American Southwest (Hoffecker 2008, 2005; Kunz and Reanier 1995).
After 6,000 BP, new technologies, including side-notched projectile point forms, begin to appear
in interior Alaskan archaeological assemblages. Archaeologists generally have designated these
side-notched biface assemblages as part of the Northern Archaic tradition (Workman 1978,
Anderson 1968). This tradition dates to between about 6,000 and 1,000 BP in interior Alaska.
The broad occurrence of the side-notched point type throughout interior Alaska and southwestern
Yukon may represent the spread of a new boreal forest-oriented cultural tradition (Dixon 1985,
Anderson 1968). Conversely, it may also reflect the possible diffusion of a trait or type rather
than a separate archaeological tradition (Cook and Gillispie 1986). The continuity of microblade
and other technologies through this period suggests that the Paleoarctic and Northern Archaic
traditions may be related (Potter 2008c). Regardless of the differing interpretations of the
cultural history of this period, the middle Holocene saw a shift in foraging economies of the
region, from broad-based exploitation of both lowland and upland fauna to more pronounced
hunting of caribou in upland areas, though a broad spectrum of animals were acquired, including
large and small game, birds and fish. Bison hunting still occurred in lowland settings, though
apparently at lesser frequencies (Potter 2008a, 2008b, 2008c).
The Athabascan tradition is a prehistoric culture attributed to the ancestors of northern
Athabascans of Alaska (Dixon 1985; Cook 1970, 1968). Aspects of this archaeological tradition
appear around 1,000 BP and continue into the historic period to about AD 1880. Aspects of this
tradition continue into the historic period in the late nineteenth century up to the present time, as
influences of non-native cultures increased. Early prehistoric Athabascan tradition sites are
characterized by the presence of housepit and subsurface cache features associated with a variety
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-319 December 2011
of flaked and ground stone, bone and antler artifacts. Proto-historic (or late prehistoric)
Athabascan sites include those artifact assemblages predominately characterized by Native-made
items (with an increased occurrence of organic and copper tools), and a smaller amount of non-
Native trade goods, such as iron and glass beads obtained through indirect contact, but datable to
Hudson’s Bay Company and Russian American Company fur trade and to prospector and
missionary influence (AD 1740 through 1850). Faunal materials found at Athabascan tradition
sites consist of a broad spectrum of boreal forest wildlife including moose, caribou, beaver, hare,
small rodents, fish and birds (Reuther et al. 2008, Plaskett 1977, Rainey 1935).
The Project area is situated in the traditional territories of the Ahtna, Dena’ina and Lower Tanana
Athabascans. The western territorial boundary for the Western Ahtna and northeastern boundary
of Upper Inlet Dena’ina speaking groups overlap within the Project area, where several Ahtna
and Dena’ina place names have been recorded (Kari 2008, Kari and Fall 2003). Within the
Project area, contacts between the Lower Tanana, the Ahtna and Dena’ina were likely confined
to a few traversable passes in the Alaska Range, such as the Chulitna and Nenana River valleys.
In general, protohistoric and early historic land use and settlement patterns in the Project area
were associated with seasonal movements related to the distribution of subsistence resources.
The timing of annual subsistence cycles and land use patterns depended on the terrain and
accessibility to resources (de Laguna and McClellan 1981). Before historic contact, these
Athabascan groups had semi-permanent winter and fishing villages (McKennan 1981, Townsend
1981, Osgood 1937). Temporary camps were utilized during hunting trips for large game and
the trapping of small mammals. Hunting was associated with seasonal movements along trails
and frozen rivers between lowland and upland regions. De Laguna and McClellan (1981: 646)
give a general description of a protohistoric and early historic Ahtna seasonal round:
“In spring and summer people lived first in the salmon camps, after which they
moved upland to meat camps, hunting small game along the way. In fall they
descended once more to the rivers, trapping and hunting, until the several
families gathered in the winter houses. These were usually near summer fish
camps where salmon were stored. By late January or February, families again
were scattering to secure what game or freshwater fish they could.”
In areas of the Upper Susitna River, where salmon were not as abundant, whitefish, ling cod and
trout were important subsistence resources (de Laguna and McClellan 1981, Irving 1957).
Caribou, moose, Dall sheep, bear and small mammals were taken periodically throughout the
year outside of villages (Irving 1957: 39). In late summer to fall, hunting excursions focused
more on caribou. Interior Dena’ina groups appear to have had similar seasonal rounds as Ahtna
groups (Townsend 1981). Lower Tanana bands used the Nenana River and other drainages in
their seasonal movements from summer salmon fishing camps along the Tanana River to spring
and fall moose, caribou and Dall sheep hunting grounds in the northern foothills of the Alaska
Range (Schneider et al. 1984, Gudgel-Holmes 1979). Seasonal rounds and settlement patterns
likely changed during the fur trading period (AD 1740 through 1850) as late fall and winter fur
trapping became more of a focus than it had been during the protohistoric period.
The first documented European presence in southern Alaska was the Russians in AD 1741 and
1742, with the Bering and Chirikov expeditions who mapped the coastlines (Black 2004). Their
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-320 December 2011
initial settlement and exploration focused on coastal zones, but later moved into the interior
regions along the easiest transportation routes; wide rivers and valleys. Subsequent European
and American expeditions followed the Russian example, moving first into the coastal regions
and soon after into the interior.
By the nineteenth century, the Russians had long been active in the Cook Inlet area, but it was
not until 1834 that Russian explorer, Malakoff, first navigated the Susitna River (Cole 1979,
Bacon 1975, Brooks 1973). After the Russians initial exploration, the Upper Susitna River was
left virtually unexplored until the 1896 gold rush when hundreds of prospectors explored the
Knik and Susitna River valleys. William Dickey’s party became one of the first well-
documented trips up the Susitna. Dickey and his men made it upstream to what is now known as
Devils Canyon where they were forced to turn back, being unable to portage their boats around
the canyon and continue on (Marsh 2002, Cole 1979). Very little was known about the Upper
Susitna, above Devils Canyon, until the summer of 1897 when a party of nine men traveling in
small boats made the first recorded trip to the headwaters, reaching that area on July 29, 1897
(Cole 1979, Bacon 1975, Eldridge 1900).
Military and scientific parties began to come into the region in 1898 to explore the areas mineral
deposits and to scout routes to the interior. W.J. Jack guided George Eldridge and his team of
geologists up the Susitna to Indian Creek and then up as far as the Nenana River (Cole 1979,
Bacon 1975). The route up Indian Creek was used later by other scientists, geologists,
prospectors and military explorers and was eventually chosen as the route for the Alaska
Railroad.
In 1903, a group of gold seekers headed out from Valdez toward the Upper Susitna River. In late
summer of that year, after prospecting every tributary along the Upper Susitna, they struck gold
along Valdez Creek (Cole 1979, Bacon 1975). Over the next several years, miners traveled to
Valdez Creek and put in claims along the creek and its tributaries, from the Susitna River to
Grogg Creek. By the mid 1930s, an estimated $700,000 in gold was produced from the claims
that were worked in the Upper Susitna (Bacon 1975). Valdez Creek became a prominent mining
district in Alaska (VanderHoek 2011, Dessauer and Harvey 1980).
The discovery of major coal fields in the Matanuska Valley led to the construction of the Alaska
Central Railroad, later renamed the Alaska Railroad, which began in Seward, Alaska, in 1903
(Fall 1987: 22). As railroad construction progressed, construction camps sprang up along the
way and were quickly abandoned after use. Towns that were established at major river
crossings, such as Nenana and Talkeetna, at division or section points, such as Curry and
Cantwell, and at coal mining centers, such as Healy, survived beyond the construction era
(Brown 1991). The Alaska Railroad connected Alaska’s interior with the ice-free port at
Seward, and by ship to Seattle and the rest of the world. It became an invaluable resource to the
territory by generating new towns and agricultural enterprises, providing low cost freighting for
mining and construction operation (Brown 1991).
After the Alaska Railroad was completed all the way to Fairbanks in 1923, Cantwell became the
center for the resupply route to Valdez Creek. In the early 1920s the Alaska Road Commission
(ARC) established a sled route to provide a route between Cantwell and the mining district at
Valdez Creek. By the mid 1930s, the ARC improved this trail and upgraded it to a gravel road.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-321 December 2011
This road would later become the Denali Highway (completed in 1957) that followed the old
routes to Valdez Creek from Paxson at the east, and Cantwell at the west (Bacon 1975). The
George Parks Highway was completed in 1971. This provided a much shorter road route
between Anchorage and Fairbanks, as well as Denali National Park, Healy and Cantwell.
4.11.2. Subsistence Resources
When Alaska became a state in 1959, it gained authority from the federal government for the
management of fish and wildlife and the responsibility for managing subsistence. Since before
statehood, Alaska’s regulatory system had managed subsistence separately from recreational and
commercial harvesting. In 1978, the State legislature established its first subsistence law
defining subsistence as “customary and traditional uses” (AS 16.05.940 (33)) of fish and
wildlife, thereby highlighting the continuing role of subsistence fishing and hunting in sustaining
long-established ways of life in the state. Under this law, subsistence was established as the
priority consumptive use of fish and wildlife resources (AS 16.05.258).
Subsistence surfaced as an issue for the United States federal government in 1971 when
Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). ANCSA extinguished
aboriginal hunting and fishing rights in Alaska in exchange for almost $1 billion in cash and 44
million acres of land transferred to Alaska ANSCA corporations. In 1980, Congress passed the
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). ANILCA mandated that the state
maintain subsistence hunting and fishing preference for rural residents statewide or forfeit its
management of subsistence uses by rural Alaska residents on federal lands. Title VIII of
ANILCA contains the rural preference provision (see also, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
Title 36, Part 242 or Title 50, Part 100 (36 CFR 242.1 or 50 CFR 100.1)). Section 810 of
ANILCA also requires that an evaluation of subsistence uses and needs be completed for any
federal determination to “withdraw, reserve, lease, or otherwise permit the use, occupancy, or
disposition of public lands.”
In 1986 the state amended its statutes to match ANILCA by limiting subsistence uses to rural
residents. However, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled in McDowell v. Alaska (785 P.2d 1
(Alaska 1989)) that the rural preference violated the equal access clauses of the Alaska
Constitution. This meant that the state could not provide the rural preference for rural residents
required by ANILCA.
Because Alaska law no longer provided for the"rural" resident preference required by ANILCA,
the federal government moved to take over management of subsistence hunting on federal public
lands on July 1, 1990 (USFWS 1992). Management of subsistence fishing was complicated by a
separate question involving whether the state or federal government would manage subsistence
fishing on navigable waterways. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Katie John. v.
United States that federal agencies have jurisdiction under ANILCA to manage subsistence
fishing in navigable waters in which the federal government has reserved water rights, in
addition to waters running over federally-owned submerged lands.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-322 December 2011
4.11.3. Applicable Laws and Regulations
The term “cultural resources” is often used as a synonym for the legal term “historic properties”
defined in the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and its accompanying regulations (36
CFR 800). Historic properties include prehistoric or historic sites, buildings, structures, objects
or districts eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (36 CFR 800,
36 CFR 60). These may be resources such as prehistoric and historic sites, cultural landscapes,
traditional cultural properties (TCPs) and paleontological sites. A number of laws and
regulations apply to the treatment of historic properties in the vicinity of the Susitna-Watana
Project.
Federal legislation includes:
Historic Sites Act of 1935 (16 U.S.C. § 1982)
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended in 2006) (16 U.S.C. § 470)
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. § 4321-4347)
Archaeological Data Preservation Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. § 469)
American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. § 1996)
Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. § 470aa-470ll)
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (25 U.S.C. § 3001 et
seq.)
Paleontological Resources Preservation Act of 2009 (16 U.S.C § 470aaa)
Federal regulations include:
18 CFR 5: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Licensing, Permits,
Exemptions, and Determination of Project Costs
18 CFR 380: Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act
36 CFR 60: National Register of Historic Places
36 CFR 79: Curation of Federally Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections
36 CFR 800: Protection of Historic Properties
43 CFR 7: Protection of Archaeological Resources
43 CFR 10: Native American Graves and Repatriation Act
Federal Executive Orders (EO) include:
EO 11593: Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment (1971)
EO 12898: Environmental Justice
EO 13007: Indian Sacred Sites (1996)
State legislation includes:
Alaska Historic Preservation Act (Alaska Statute 41.35)
A number of ordinances, resolutions and preservation plans may affect cultural resources at the
local level, including Matanuska-Susitna Borough Ordinance 87-007 and Historic Preservation
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-323 December 2011
Plan (adopted 1987) and the state’s Cultural Resource Management Plan for the Denali Highway
Lands (VanderHoek 2011). This review does not include tribal or village council resolutions
that may exist in the records of various Native organizations. Private lands are directly affected
by federal cultural resources legislation, especially the NHPA and implementing regulations (36
CFR 800), as long as any aspect of the proposed action has federal involvement. Thus the
Project will fall under the Section 106 review process regardless of land status within the Project
area (federal, state, municipal or private). If any aspect of a project is affected by a federal
undertaking (permit, license or funding), then the federal review process applies to the entire
Project area.
Several publications provide guidance on cultural resources investigations, in relation to federal
and state laws and regulations, including:
Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC
Hydroelectric Projects. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington D.C.
(2002).
National Register Bulletin Series, National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior.
(Available on-line at: http://www.NPS.gov/history/nr/publications/#bulletins)
Historic Preservation Series, Alaska Office of History and Archaeology, Division of
Parks and Outdoor Recreation, Alaska Department of Natural Resources. (Available on-
line at: http://dnr.alaska.gov/parks/oha/hpseries/hpseries.htm)
Human Remains and Cultural Resource Management in Alaska: State Laws and
Guidelines. (Dale and McMahan 2007)
Under Alaska State law, subsistence refers to the practice of taking wild fish or game for
subsistence uses (AS 16.05.258). Defined in Alaska State law as the “noncommercial customary
and traditional uses” of fish and wildlife, subsistence uses include the following:
Food
Customary trade, barter, and sharing
Homes and other buildings
Fuel
Clothing
Tools and home goods
Transportation
Handicrafts
State law protects customary and traditional uses of fish and game resources, and the state must
provide a reasonable opportunity for those uses before providing for recreational or commercial
uses. To decide if a fish stock or game population is associated with customary and traditional
uses, state regulation directs the Board of Game and the Board of Fish to consider eight factors,
called the Eight Criteria (5 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 99.010(b) Boards of fisheries and
game subsistence procedures). The Eight Criteria are summarized as follows:
The length and consistency of use of the resource;
A pattern of use that occurs on a regular seasonal basis;
A pattern of use that is characterized by efficiency and economy of effort and cost;
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-324 December 2011
An area in which the pattern of use occurs;
Traditional methods of handling, preparing, preserving, and storing used in the past, but
not excluding recent advances;
A pattern that includes the handing down of knowledge, skills, and values and lore from
generation to generation;
Traditional patterns of distribution and exchange including customary trade, barter, and
gift-giving; and
A pattern that includes the use of, and reliance upon, a wide diversity of fish and game
that provides substantial economic, cultural, social, and nutritional elements of the
subsistence way of life.
Under federal law, the term "subsistence uses” is defined as the customary and traditional uses
by rural Alaska residents of fish and wildlife and other renewable resources for food, clothing,
shelter and handicrafts (§803 Definitions in ANILCA P.L. 96-487, as amended). The Federal
Subsistence Board determines which fish stocks and wildlife populations have been customarily
and traditionally used for subsistence. These determinations identify a specific community's or
area's use of specific fish stocks and wildlife populations. For areas managed by the U.S.
National Park Service (USNPS) where subsistence uses are allowed, the determinations may be
made on an individual basis. Like the state, the Federal Subsistence Program uses eight factors
to determine customary and traditional use, which are similar to those used by the state (USFWS
2007).
Both federal and state governments have a mechanism for establishing preferences among
subsistence users when a fish or wildlife population is not large enough to support harvest by all
those who are eligible for subsistence uses. Under the federal program, this narrowing process is
based on: customary and direct dependence upon the populations as the mainstay of livelihood;
local residency; and availability of alternative resources. This is sometimes called a “Section
804” process, named for the section of ANILCA’s Title VIII that establishes it as a means of
reducing the number of eligible subsistence users.
Under state management, the narrowing process is called the “Tier II” process. Tier II is an
allocation system to distinguish and identify those individuals most dependent on a particular
fish stock or wildlife population among all subsistence users. Tier II gives priority to users based
on: customary and direct dependence; and availability of alternative resources. The state has
managed several Tier II hunts, including moose and the Nelchina caribou herd in Game
Management Unit (GMU) 13.
Alaska is divided into 26 GMUs, allowing the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)
to more efficiently manage and control hunting within the state. GMU 13 consists of that area
westerly of the east bank of the Copper River, and drained by all tributaries into the west bank of
the Copper River from Mi Glacier and including the Slana River drainages north of Suslota
Creek; the drainages into the Delta River upstream from Falls Creek and Black Rapids Glacier;
the drainages into the Nenana River upstream from the southeast corner of Denali National Park
at Windy; the drainage into the Susitna River upstream from its junction with the Chulitna River;
the drainage into the east bank of the Chulitna River upstream to its confluence with the
Tokositna River; the drainages of the Chulitna River (south of Denali National Park) upstream
from its confluence with the Tokositna River; the drainages into the north bank of the Tokositna
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-325 December 2011
River upstream to the base of the Tokositna Glacier; the drainages into the Tokositna Glacier; the
drainages into the east bank of the Susitna River between its confluences with the Talkeetna and
Chulitna Rivers; the drainages into the north and east bank of the Talkeetna River, including the
Talkeetna River to its confluence with Clear Creek, the eastside drainages of a line up the south
bank of Clear Creek to the first unnamed creek on the south, then up that unnamed creek to lake
4408, along the northeast shore of lake 4408, then southeast in a straight line to the northernmost
fork of the Chickaloon River; the drainages into the east bank of the Chickaloon River below the
line from lake 4408; the drainages of the Matanuska River above its confluence with the
Chickaloon River (ADF&G 2011). GMU 13 is divided into five subsections (GMU 13A, GMU
13B, GMU 13C, GMU 13D, and GMU 13E).
In GMU 13, the state has made customary and traditional use findings for all major game
resources: Dall's sheep (Ovis dalli dalli); black bears (Ursus americanus); grizzly bears (Ursus
arctos); caribou (Rangifer tarandus granti); and moose (Alces alces) (5 AAC 99.025). Of these
resources, caribou and moose are the most popular. Salmon and other fresh water fish in the
Copper River, except for the Chitina Subdistrict, have also been found to be customarily and
traditionally taken and used for subsistence (5 AAC 01.616). This means that all of these
resources are classified as subsistence resources.
The state has also managed subsistence use of game in GMU 13 under Tier I and Community
Subsistence Harvest (CSH) hunts. Under Tier I, one person from a household may obtain a
permit to hunt caribou. Under CSH hunts, the Alaska Board of Game may establish community-
based subsistence harvest hunt areas. If the board has established a community harvest hunt area
for a big game population, residents of the community or members of a group may elect to
participate in a community harvest permit hunt. Among other conditions, a person representing a
group of 25 or more residents or members may apply to the department for a community harvest
permit by identifying the community harvest hunt area and the species to be hunted, and by
requesting that the department distribute community harvest reports to the individuals who
subscribe to the community harvest permit. Community harvest hunt areas for caribou and
moose have been established for Gulkana, Cantwell, Chistochina, Gakona, Mentasta, Tazlina,
Chitna, and Kluti-Khah (Copper Center), collectively called the Copper Basin CSH area.
Current hunting regulations are listed in Table 4.11-1.
Table 4.11-1. GMU 13 big game regulations.
Regulations Harvest Limits Season
Federal Regulations, GMU 13E
Caribou, all rural residents of Units 11, 2,
13 and Chickaloon
2 bulls Aug. 10–Sept. 30 and
Oct. 21–Mar. 31
Moose, all rural residents of Unit 13,
Chickaloon, Slana and area between
mileposts 216–239 Parks Highway
1 antlered bull Aug. 1–Sept. 20
Dall sheep, all rural residents 1 ram Aug. 10–Sept. 20
Black Bear, all rural residents 3 bears July 1–June 30
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-326 December 2011
Regulations Harvest Limits Season
Brown bear, all rural residents 1 bear Aug. 10–May 31
State of Alaska Regulations
Caribou – all of GMU 13, all Alaska
residents
1 caribou Aug. 10–Sept. 20 and
Oct. 21–Mar. 31
Registration hunt 1 moose Aug. 10–Sept. 20 and
Oct. 21–Mar. 31
Community hunt 1 moose Aug. 10–Sept. 20 and
Oct. 21–Mar. 31
Drawing hunt 1 moose Aug. 10–Sept. 20 and
Oct. 21–Mar. 31
Moose, all of GMU 13, all Alaska residents
Community hunt Aug. 10–Sept. 20
Harvest ticket Sept. 1–Sept. 20
Two drawing hunts Sept. 1–Sept. 20
Dall sheep, Unit 13E, open to all Alaska
residents
1 full curl ram Aug. 20–Sept. 20
Black bear, all Alaska residents 3 bears No closed season
Brown bear, all Alaska residents
Unit 13E within Denali State Park 1 bear Aug. 10–June 15
Remainder of Unit 13 1 bear No closed season
Note(s): Table prepared by NLUR from State and Federal big game regulations, 2010–2012.
Source(s): ADF&G 2011; USFWS 2010.
Additionally, beluga whales are an important subsistence resource for Alaska Natives living on
and around Cook Inlet, including Tyonek residents, who hunt for belugas near the mouth of the
Sustina River. Declining populations of belugas throughout the 1990s led to co-management
agreements between the Native Village of Tyonek and other Alaska Natives and National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) allocating harvest and identifying harvest practices. Populations
continued to decline, and in 2007 Tyonek subsistence hunters voluntarily stepped down from a
hunt to further support recovery of the beluga population. NMFS released a record of decision
for the supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale
Subsistence Harvest in 2008, which resulted in the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Subsistence Harvest
Management Plan.
The ADF&G’s Joint Board of Fisheries and Game designated five nonsubsistence areas in the
state of Alaska. Relevant to the proposed Project, the area north of Cantwell and Paxson is in the
Fairbanks Nonsubsistence Use Area, and the areas east and south of Talkeetna (including a
portion of the Nelchina Public Use Area) are in the Anchorage-Mat Su-Kenai Peninsula
Nonsubsistence Use Area. Nonsubsistence areas are defined as areas where dependence on
subsistence (i.e., customary and traditional uses of fish and wildlife) is not a principal
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-327 December 2011
characteristic of the economy, culture and way of life (AS 16.05.258(c)). In nonsubsistence
areas, the Joint Board of Fisheries and Game may not authorize subsistence fishing or hunting,
and the subsistence priority does not apply.
4.11.4. Potential Adverse and Positive Impacts
The potential impacts of the Project on cultural resources and subsistence activities are described
below.
4.11.4.1. Cultural Resources
The study area currently encompasses the areas of potential impacts that include the dam site,
Project construction site, and three potential road and transmission corridors (Chulitna, Denali
and Gold Creek corridors). A total of 260 cultural resources sites presently recorded in the
Alaska Heritage Resources Survey (AHRS 2011) database are situated in the Project area. Many
of these sites were documented during surveys conducted between 1978 and 1986 associated
with the previous Susitna Project. Two hundred and twenty-six of these sites (86.9 percent) have
prehistoric remains present. Four sites (1.5 percent) have protohistoric remains, 27 sites (10.4
percent) have historic and modern remains and one site (0.4 percent) has paleontological
remains. Two sites (0.8 percent) do not have an accompanying description to the AHRS
database entry.
Two hundred and fifty-seven (98.8 percent) of these 260 cultural resources sites have not been
evaluated for their eligibility for listing on the NRHP (AHRS 2011). This includes all of the
prehistoric sites. The Susitna River Railroad Bridge (49-TLM-00006), located near the proposed
Gold Creek Corridor, is listed on the NRHP. The Alaska Railroad Corporation Timber Bridge at
Mile Post (MP) 267.7 (49-TLM-00265) of the Alaska Railroad, located within five mi of the
proposed Chulitna and Gold Creek corridors, was determined eligible for listing on the NRHP,
but has yet to be listed. The Seattle Creek Bridge (49-HEA-00353), located at MP 112.2 of the
Denali Highway and within five mi of the proposed Denali Corridor, was determined not eligible
for inclusion on the NRHP. Table 4.11-2 summarizes the known cultural resources within each
of the Project’s potential areas of impact by the period of remains present, and by status of
eligibility to the NRHP as designated in the AHRS (2011) database.
Ahtna and Dena’ina place names also have been recorded in and near the Project area; these
provide valuable sources of geographic information pertaining to past human land use. Simeone
et al. (2011) note that over 350 Athna and 50 Dena’ina place names occur within or near the
Project area. Ahtna place names are more prevalent toward the northern portion of the Project
area, north of Devils Canyon, the traditional boundary of the Ahtna and Dena’ina people. Devils
Canyon has both Ahtna and Dena’ina place names, and Dena’ina place names are more prevalent
to the south of the canyon. Lower Tanana place names are less well-documented than Athna and
Dena’ina place names, but also may be present in the northern portion of the Project area. TCPs
have not yet been identified within the Project area. However, the identification of TCPs within
the NRHP framework began after the formerly proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project, and these
property types may be identified through further cultural resources investigations.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-328 December 2011
Potential impacts of the currently proposed Project to historic properties may include disturbance
during construction of the dam and associated facilities, access routes, and transmission lines.
Additionally, those sites inundated by rising water levels at the reservoir will also be impacted.
Inadvertent disturbance or vandalism to historic properties could occur due to increased land-
based access for recreational activities. Aesthetic changes to a surrounding historic landscape
may also affect the historic and cultural significance of a property.
Table 4.11-2. Summary of the number of known cultural resources and NRHP eligible
sites within five mi of each potential area of impact.
AHRS Site Totals NRHP Eligibility Status
Watana Dam Site
Total # of Known Cultural Resources: 177
Prehistoric – 160
Historic – 9
Prehistoric/Historic – 2
Historic/Modern – 1
Protohistoric – 4
Paleontological – 1
# of Resources with Evaluations of NRHP
Eligibility Incomplete – 177
Watana Construction Camp
Total # of Known Cultural Resources: 40
Prehistoric – 38
Historic – 2
# of Resources with Evaluations of NRHP
Eligibility Incomplete – 40
Proposed Chulitna Corridor
Total # of Known Cultural Resources: 82
Prehistoric – 71
Historic – 7
Historic/Modern – 4
# of Resources with Evaluations of NRHP
Eligibility Incomplete – 81
# of Resources Determined Eligible for Inclusion
to the NRHP, But Not Currently Listed – 1
Proposed Denali Corridor
Total # of Known Cultural Resources: 86
Prehistoric – 77
Historic – 7
Undefined – 2
# of Resources with Evaluations of NRHP
Eligibility Incomplete – 85
# of Resources Determined Not Eligible for
Inclusion on the NRHP – 1
Proposed Gold Creek Corridor
Total # of Known Cultural Resources: 50
Prehistoric – 39
Historic – 8
Historic/Modern – 3
# of Resources with Evaluations of NRHP
Eligibility Incomplete – 48
# of Resources Listed on NRHP – 1
# of Resources Determined Eligible for Inclusion
to the NRHP, But Not Currently Listed – 1
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-329 December 2011
4.11.4.2. Subsistence Resources
The proposed Project area is remote and accessible only by airplane, boat or all-terrain vehicles.
The area is not close to any established communities, and construction of the dam would likely
have little direct effect on subsistence. Subsistence activities would be affected if there was a
decline in animal populations, a change in the distribution of animals, if the Project reduced
access to subsistence resources or if the Project disrupted traditional subsistence activities.
The Project may affect the population of local species, such as small animals that live in the
reservoir area. The level of impact on moose and caribou populations is debatable. The area
directly affected by the Project had low use levels in the past; current data are needed. The
Nelchina caribou herd is a major resource for Tier II subsistence harvests, so any adverse effects
on caribou would impact subsistence users.
There is a potential for the Project to change wildlife migration patterns because of the Watana
Dam, the Watana reservoir and infrastructure development such as the Denali corridor. The
presence of humans and machinery during and after construction could negatively affect the
distribution of animals. The construction of the access road within the Denali corridor, if open to
the public, would increase access to the area and opportunities for hunting. This would increase
competition for resources.
There is a potential for reduced access to resources if the proposed Chulitna corridor, Gold Creek
corridor, or Denali corridor have restricted access.
4.11.5. Existing Discovery Measures
Existing discovery measures for cultural resources for cultural and subsistence resources are
detailed below.
4.11.5.1. Cultural Resources
Cultural resources investigations associated with the Project area have been periodically
conducted since 1953. With increased understanding of the prehistory of interior Alaska, the
methods used to identify and evaluate resources also have changed over this 58 year period.
Cultural resources field surveys in Alaska commonly employ site location models to stratify the
study area into field survey segments. Within the survey segments, researchers identify higher
and lower potential areas for the presence of prehistoric, protohistoric and early historic (before
AD 1880) cultural resources (Reuther et al. 2010, 2011; Potter 2005; Gerlach et al. 1996; Mason
et al. 1994; Dixon et al. 1985; Greiser et al. 1985). These models vary in approach and relative
success in site discovery; they can be judgmental and intuitive-based, or more statistically
oriented and less subjective. The basic premise behind many of the site location models is that
prehistoric, protohistoric and early historic land use patterns are highly dependent on local
natural resources, such as subsistence resources and raw materials for making tools, equipment,
housing and clothing. The distributions of many of these resources are constrained by
environmental variables such as topography, elevation, vegetation and surficial geology.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-330 December 2011
The 1953 field study methods consisted of an initial aerial and pedestrian reconnaissance of the
then proposed Devils Canyon Dam site area, demarcating areas with a high likelihood for the
location of archaeological remains (Skarland 1953). An intensive on-the-ground survey was
conducted along the shores of Lake Susitna, Tyone Lake and the Tyone River, and the hills on
the southwest side of Lake Louise (Irving 1953). This intensive on-the-ground survey consisted
of subsurface testing at high potential landforms, and documentation of the cultural resources
that were identified. Details of the methods, depth and specific locations of subsurface testing
during the 1953 survey are minimal (Irving 1953).
The majority of the previous cultural resources investigations took place between 1978 and 1985
(Greiser et al. 1985, 1986; Dixon et al. 1985; Bacon 1978a, 1978b). In 1978, Bacon (1978a,
1978b) developed an initial site location model for the previously proposed Devils Canyon and
Watana Dam site areas. Bacon (1978a) conducted an aerial reconnaissance to refine the model
with field data from the Project area, prior to on-the-ground survey. The majority of the 1978
on-the-ground surveys concentrated on an area between Tsusena and Deadman creeks, north of
the Susitna River (Bacon 1978a, 1978b). An on-the-ground survey was also conducted at the
then-proposed locations for the left abutment, right abutment and spillway for the Watana Dam,
along with proposed locations for an airstrip, camp pad, two material sites, access roads and a
portion of a the proposed dam site at Devils Canyon (Bacon 1978a, b). This survey consisted of
subsurface testing and the documentation of identified cultural resources. Subsurface testing
consisted of small tests dug with entrenching tools and hand trowels. The test locations were
placed throughout high potential areas at non-systematic intervals. The subsurface tests were not
mapped.
Field studies conducted between 1980 and 1984, lead by the University of Alaska Museum, also
focused on the Watana and Devils Canyon Dam sites and associated ancillary impacts (Dixon et
al. 1985). The ancillary impacts surveyed and tested during the early to mid-1980s field studies
include three transmission corridors (Healy-to-Fairbanks, Healy-to-Willow and Willow-to-
Anchorage) and 12 borrow pits (Borrows A through L) that were designated as potential material
sources. Alternative access routes (Corridor 1 North, Corridor 2 South and Corridor 3 Denali-
North) were preliminarily surveyed. Researchers developed a site location model primarily
based on environmental variables including the local geomorphology, elevation and vegetation.
Landforms such as overlooks, lake margins, stream/river margins, quarry sites; caves and rock
shelters, constrictions and mineral licks were considered to have a high potential for association
with archaeological sites. Localized survey segments that were considered to have a high
potential for sites were designated as “survey locales” (Dixon et al. 1985). One-hundred and
eighty-two locations were intensively surveyed and subsurface tested during the field studies
conducted between 1980 and 1984 (Dixon et al. 1985: D-1). The locations of these survey
locales and sites were mapped on 1:63,360 scale U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic
maps (Dixon et al. 1985: 6–10). Survey locales appear to have been walked over (Dixon et al.
1984); however, written details in survey reports are minimal pertaining to the methods
employed during the surface reconnaissance.
The distance between subsurface tests at each survey locale was discretionary (i.e., at the
discretion of individual field crew leaders. Subsurface tests at survey locales and sites that were
not chosen for systematic testing typically consisted of round shovel tests approximately 30
centimeters (cm) in diameter (12 inches (in)) and not deeper than 50 cm (20 in) (Dixon et al.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-331 December 2011
1985: 6–10). If artifacts were found in a buried context, at least one 40 by 40 cm (16 by 16 in)
square test pit was excavated to acquire additional information on the stratigraphy and number of
cultural components present at the locality. Tests excavated at survey locales and sites were
plotted on sketch maps.
A total of 253 archaeological sites, covering an area broader than the present study area, were
documented during field studies conducted between 1980 and 1984 (Dixon et al. 1985: D-1).
Sixty-three of these sites were chosen for systematic testing to determine the size of each site,
and gather additional field data on the types of and relative density of artifacts and features,
physical integrity of the archaeological context of cultural deposits at each site, and the number
and age of components. Systematic testing consisted of excavating subsurface tests along grids
that were placed at the periphery of, and excavated towards, the observed cultural materials.
Systematically tested sites were mapped using a transit and stadia rod. Sediment was screened
through one-quarter-inch to one-eighth-inch mesh. The provenience of artifacts was recorded
according to their association with natural stratigraphic units or by 5 cm (2 in) arbitrary levels.
Site sizes at systematically tested sites were determined by the observed horizontal distribution
of cultural remains, while sizes of non-systematically tested sites were estimated based on the
local topography of landforms on which the sites were located. It is unclear how many sites
within the study area have had enough information collected from which a determination of
eligibility to the NRHP could be made (a part of the Section 106 process and a necessary step in
site evaluation; 36 CR 800).
An important part of the 1980s Susitna studies was the application of a variety of
geoarchaeological techniques. In addition to studies of regional sediment stratigraphy, some 83
radiocarbon dates were obtained in an attempt to place archaeological discoveries in
chronological context. Tephrochronology (using petrographic and other methods to characterize
and compare the widespread volcanic ash layers in the area) was used to provide relative dating
of some sites (Dixon and Smith 1990).
In 1985, the Alaska Power Authority (APA) contracted with Historical Research Associates
(HRA) to develop a predictive site location model and survey strategy for several proposed linear
features, including transmission lines, access roads and railroad corridors (Greiser et al. 1985).
Three transmission lines were designated as the Gold Creek–Watana (36.2 mi in length), Healy–
Fairbanks (94.4 mi in length), and Willow–Anchorage (64.4 mi in length) lines which tied into
existing transmission lines along the railbelt. The proposed railroad access consisted of 10.2 mi
of rail from Gold Creek to Devils Canyon. Approximately 76 mi of access road was proposed
between the Denali Highway and the construction site for the previously proposed Watana Dam
site and Devils Canyon.
The Greiser et al. (1985) survey model assessed potential relationships between known
archaeological site locations from all time periods and the characteristics of the vegetation and
terrain in the Project area. About 280 linear mi of survey area were gridded into about 550
square plots, each one-half square mile in size, superimposed over the linear survey path of the
proposed transmission lines and road and railroad access corridors. Eighty-nine (16 percent) of
these plots were completely surveyed and five (0.9 percent) plots were partially surveyed
(Greiser et al. 1986: 2–4). The survey plots were chosen to represent the variation in vegetation
and terrain across the survey area.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-332 December 2011
The field survey method used during 1985 was for one or more archaeologist(s) to walk transects
across each selected plot with transects spaced 30 meters (m) (98 ft (ft)) apart (Greiser et al.
1986: 2–14). Subsurface tests were systematically placed every 20 cm (8 in) to 50 m (164 ft)
along each transect in a given square survey plot. Additional tests were placed at the field
archaeologist’s discretion on higher potential landforms. The depth of the subsurface testing
varied between 30 cm (12 in) to not more than 50 cm (20 in) below the surface and sediments
were screened through one-quarter inch mesh.
A total of 40 cultural resources were documented during the 1985 season, including seven
prehistoric, two ethnohistoric, 15 historic and 16 recent sites (Greiser et al. 1986: 3–16, 3–22).
Prehistoric site sizes were determined by systematic shovel testing along grids that radiated from
the observed cultural materials. Tests were excavated at 10 cm (4 in) intervals along these grids.
The recordation protocols closely followed those of Dixon et al. (1985).
In 2011, AEA drilled four geotechnical boreholes using a helicopter-carried drill rig in the
vicinity of the currently proposed Watana Dam site, within an area designated as Material Site
“A” in the 1979 to 1985 Susitna studies program. A cultural resources field survey was carried
out by Northern Land Use Research (NLUR) in June 2011. Based on the NLUR survey, no
cultural resources were encountered at any of the four localities, nor were cultural materials
reported for this general area by previous investigators (e.g., Dixon et al. 1985: E-273). NLUR
recommended a finding of no historic properties affected (36 CFR 800.4(d)(1)) (Bowers 2011).
Alaska Native place names have been documented in the Project area since at least 1953 (Kari
2008, Kari and Fall 2003, Greiser et al. 1986, Irving 1953). These names often document
aspects of the way people view, use and relate to a particular landscape. Ahtna, Dena’ina and
Lower Tanana place names often relate to the surrounding natural environment such as
description of landforms, hydrology, vegetation, fauna and aspects of the local weather. Place
names can also refer to past human history and activities such as gathering places, areas of
trading, territorial boundaries and spiritual places. Thus, place names can be very useful in
archaeological studies. The understanding of how people relate and use local landscapes and
resources can provide a framework to understand continuity and change in past land use systems
in the archaeological record. Place names and the archaeological record can often provide
information pertinent to the identification and understanding of the potential significance of
TCPs. Place names and TCPs are often identified and documented through archival research and
oral interviews.
4.11.5.2. Subsistence Resources
The ADF&G’s Division of Subsistence conducted baseline harvest surveys for Copper basin
communities, including Cantwell. Two of these studies were conducted in the 1980s (McMillan
and Cuccarese 1988, Stratton and Georgette 1984), while a more recent baseline survey was
conducted in Cantwell from 1999 to 2000 (Simeone 2002). The USNPS has conducted recent
community subsistence studies in Mentasta, Slana, Tazlina and Copper Center (results have not
yet been published), and plans to conduct further studies in 2012 and 2013.
The Division of Subsistence conducted resource issue studies related to the Copper River
subsistence salmon fishery (Simeone and Fall 2003, Fall and Stratton 1984, Stanek 1981,
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-333 December 2011
Stickney and Cunningham 1980), and Nelchina caribou (Fall and Simeone 2010, Stratton 1983,
Stanek 1981). The division also produced non-issue related reports concerning different aspects
of subsistence within the Copper River basin (Simeone and McCall-Valentine 2007, Simeone
and Kari 2005, Simeone and Kari 2002). Reports produced by other entities include Haley and
Nemeth (2002) and Reckord (1983).
The Division of Subsistence conducted baseline harvest surveys in the communities of Trapper
Creek, Chase, Gold Creek and the Hurricane–Broad Pass area (Stanek and Foster 1988, Fall and
Foster 1987).
Table 4.11-3 presents summary information for all resources harvested by Project area
communities. Project area residents show high percentages of using wildlife resources and
attempting to harvest wildlife resources during the study year. In addition, the communities have
a pattern of sharing wildlife resources, with high percentages of respondents reporting giving
away subsistence harvests as well as receiving harvests into their households. The average
pounds harvested per household and per capita are higher in the communities listed in the table
compared to harvests in Alaska’s urban centers, such as Anchorage, Fairbanks or Juneau. The
last Copper River Basin-wide household survey, in 1987-1988, estimated the overall per capita
harvest of wild foods at 140 pounds per person. The rural harvest contrasts with the urban area
per person annual average of about 22 pounds per year (Wolfe and Bosworth 1994).
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-334 December 2011 Table 4.11-3. Summary data for all resources harvested by Project area communities. Community (Year) Note 1 Percent Using ( percent) Percent Attempting to Harvest ( percent) Percent Harvesting ( percent) Percent Giving Away ( percent) Percent Receiving ( percent) Reported Harvest (lbs) Average Lbs Harvested per Household Per Capita Lbs Harvested Cantwell (1999) 97.4 97.4 97.4 61.8 90.8 21,727.26 293.61 135.24 Cheesh-Na (1987) [Chistochina] 100 100 100 64.3 75 19,873.76 709.78 261.52 Chickaloon (1982) 100 -- 88.9 -- -- 9389.85 521.66 223.57 Chitina (1987 94.4 88.9 88.9 50 72.2 11,297.33 627.63 342.38 Gakona (1987) 92.7 100 85.5 52.1 82.6 -- 284.51 95.33 Glennallen (1987) 100 91.8 91.8 64 86 -- 274.61 99.49 Gold Creek (1986) 100 100 100 40 100 1,739.5 347.9 173.92 Gulkana (1987) 95 100 90 40 80 9,305.98 465.3 152.56 Hurricane–Broad Pass (1986) 100 100 100 62.5 75 4,804.3 600.54 177.93 Lake Louise (1987) 100 100 100 47.1 82.4 6,271.49 368.91 179.17 Matanuska Glacier (1982) 100 -- 96.7 -- -- 8,553.9 285.13 96.11 Mentasta (1987) 95.8 91.7 91.7 58.3 83.3 9,284.9 386.87 125.48 Mentasta Pass (1987) 100 100 100 70 80 4,510.81 451.08 187.95 Northway 91.7 88.3 88.3 10 31.7 7,129 798.9 243.3
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-335 December 2011 Community (Year) Note 1 Percent Using ( percent) Percent Attempting to Harvest ( percent) Percent Harvesting ( percent) Percent Giving Away ( percent) Percent Receiving ( percent) Reported Harvest (lbs) Average Lbs Harvested per Household Per Capita Lbs Harvested (2004) North Wrangell Mtns (1982) 100 -- 100 -- -- 2,411.3 482.26 219.24 Parks Highway (1985–1986) 86.7 90.0 83.3 33.3 56.7 -- 162.7 58.1 Talkeetna (1985–1986) 94.1 91.2 85.3 50.0 69.1 -- 156.3 55.05 Trapper Creek (1985–1986) 100.0 100.0 100.0 63.2 89.5 -- 107.3 65.64 Upper Petersville Road (1986–1986) 100.0 94.1 94.1 29.4 76.5 -- 423.1 167.26 Paxson (1987) 92.9 100 92.9 57.1 71.4 9,252.94 660.92 289.14 Paxson–Sourdough (1982) 100 -- 100 -- -- 3,100.9 310.09 124.04 Sourdough (1987) 100 100 88.9 44.4 77.8 2,713.25 301.47 117.96 West Glenn Highway (1987) 100 92.5 92.5 54.7 96.5 -- 243.07 91.8 Note(s): Information in this table is summarized from data available online at the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Community Subsistence Information System (CSIS) website, http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/sb/CSIS/ (accessed September 8, 2011). The community name is the one used by the CSIS. The year is the most recent community-wide information available. Updates for some resource categories are available for some, but not all communities (for example, subsistence harvests of birds or fish). The updated information is not included in this table.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-336 December 2011
4.11.6. Affected Tribes and Populations
Cultural resources and subsistence resources associated with Tribes are described below.
4.11.6.1. Cultural Resources
The communities potentially affected by the Project have different histories and cultures, but are
characterized by strong ties to the land and its resources and, in some cases, through strong
kinship connections. The successful completion of the Consultation and Coordination phase of
the Section 106 process will require the development of an efficient and effective consultation
process that addresses the letter of the laws and regulations within the context of local custom
and practice. Several Alaska Native tribal entities recognized by the U.S. Department of Interior
(USDOI), and established through the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971,
are broadly located near the study area (HDR 2011). In Alaska, consultation typically occurs
with the 229 federally-recognized tribes, the 13 Alaska Native Regional Corporations and some
200 Alaska Native Village Corporations created by the ANCSA. (The Regional and Village
Corporations are recognized as “Indians tribes” for NHPA purposes).
Twenty-two tribes recognized by the USDOI’s Bureau of Indian Affairs under 25 CFR 83.6(b)
are located within or near the study area include:
Cheesh-Na Tribal Council
Chickaloon Village Traditional Council
Chitina Traditional Village Indian Council
Gulkana Village
Healy Lake Village
Kenaitze Indian Tribe
Knik Tribal Council
Mentasta Traditional Council
Native Village of Cantwell
Native Village of Eklutna
Native Village of Gakona
Native Village of Kluti-Kaah
Native Village of Tazlina
Native Village of Tetlin
Native Village of Tyonek
Nenana Native Association
Ninilchik Traditional Council
Northway Village
Seldovia Village Tribe
Tanacross Village Council
Village of Dot Lake
Village of Salamatoff
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-337 December 2011
Regional Native Alaskan corporations that have interests within or near the Project area include:
Ahtna, Incorporated (Ahtna)
Cook Inlet Region Incorporated (CIRI)
Doyon, Ltd. (Doyon)
In addition, ANCSA recognized and non-recognized village; group and urban corporations; as
well as village organizations are located and may have interests near the Project area. These
entities include:
Alexander Creek, Incorporated
Caswell Native Association
Chitna Native Corporation
Chickaloon Moose Creek Native Association
Dot Lake Native Corporation
Eklutna, Incorporated
Gold Creek-Susitna NCI
Knikatnu, Incorporated
Little Lake Louise Corporation
Lower Tonsina Corporation
Kenai Natives Association, Inc.
Nebesna Native Group, Inc.
Menda Cha-ag Native Corporation
Montana Creek Native Association
Ninilchik Natives Association, Incorporated
Northway Natives, Incorporated
Point Possession, Incorporated
Salamatkof Native Association, Incorporated
Slana Native Corporation
Seldovia Native Association, Incorporated
Tanacross, Incorporated
Tetlin Native Corporation
Toghotthele Corporation
Twin Lake Native Group, Incorporated
Tyonek Native Corporation
4.11.6.2. Subsistence Resources
Several federally-recognized Tribes were identified as having potential interests within the
Project region that may be affected by the proposed Project, based on the location of traditional
tribal territories. Federally-recognized Tribes with lands or historical use that may be affected by
the Project do not have a signed treaty with the U.S. Government identifying the rights of the
Tribes. None of the identified Tribes has a reservation or trust lands directly within or adjacent
to the proposed Project boundary. The Project area has been used by Tribes for subsistence for
thousands of years. Tribes in the Project area are listed in Table 4.11-4.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-338 December 2011
Table 4.11-4. List of Tribes and populations in Project area.
Affected Tribes Total Population Estimated Tribal Population
Native Village of Mentasta 112 85
Native Village of Cheesh Na’ (Chistochina) 93 50
Native Village of Gulkana 119 91
Native Village of Gakona 218 43
Native Village of Tazlina 297 100
Native Village of Kluti-Kaah
(Copper Center)
328 159
Native Village of Chitina 126 25
Native Village of Cantwell 219 34
Native Village of Chickaloon 272 17
TOTALS 1784 604
Because the State of Alaska recognizes all residents of the state as subsistence users, there are
other communities or populations which may have a potential interest within the Project region.
These communities are listed in Table 4.11-5. The total population figure represents the
minimum number of people with subsistence interests in the Project region.
Table 4.11-5. Total potential subsistence population in Project area.
Community Total Population
Wasilla 7,831
Willow 2,102
Houston 1,912
Talkeetna 876
Trapper Creek 481
Petersville Road dispersed households 4
Chase 34
Palmer 5,937
Sutton–Alpine 1,447
Glennallen 483
Paxson 40
Slana 147
Silver Springs 114
McCarthy 28
Nelchina 59
Mendaltna 39
Lake Louise 46
Kenny Lake 355
TOTAL 21,935
Source of population figures: DCCED n.d.
4.11.7. Potential Protection, Mitigation and Enhancement
Potential PM&E measures for cultural resources and subsistence resources are described below.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-339 December 2011
4.11.7.1. Recommended Approach for Consultation on Recovery of Significant
Information from Archaeological Sites
Cultural resource protection, mitigation and enhancement measures will be developed in
consultation with the appropriate agencies and entities. Measures concerning archaeology will
be developed in accordance with the basic principles contained in the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation’s (ACHP’s) “Recommended Approach for Consultation on Recovery of
Significant Information from Archaeological Sites” (ACHP 2010):
The pursuit of knowledge about the past is in the public interest.
An archaeological site may have important values for living communities and cultural
descendants in addition to its significance as a resource for learning about the past; its
appropriate treatment depends on its research significance, weighed against these other
public values.
Not all information about the past is equally important; therefore, not all archeological
sites are equally important for research purposes.
Methods for recovering information from archaeological sites, particularly large-scale
excavation, are by their nature destructive. The site is destroyed as it is excavated.
Therefore management of archeological sites should be conducted in a spirit of
stewardship for future generations, with full recognition of their non-renewable nature
and their potential multiple uses and public values.
Given the non-renewable nature of archeological sites, it follows that if an archeological
site can be practically preserved in place for future study or use, it usually should be
(although there are exceptions). However, a simple avoidance of a site is not the same as
preservation.
Recovery of significant archeological information through controlled excavation and
other scientific recording methods, as well as destruction without data recovery, may both
be appropriate treatment for certain archeological sites.
Once a decision has been made to recover archeological information through the
naturally destructive methods of excavation, a research design and data recovery plan
based on firm background data, sound planning, and accepted archeological methods
should be formulated and implemented. Data recovery and analysis should be
accomplished in a thorough, efficient manner, using the most cost-effective techniques
practicable. A responsible archeological data recovery plan should provide for reporting
and dissemination of results, as well as interpretation of what has been learned so that it
is understandable and accessible to the public. Appropriate arrangements for curation of
archeological materials and records should be made. Adequate time and fund should be
budgeted for fulfillment of the overall plan.
Archeological data recovery plans and their research designs should be grounded in and
related to the priorities established in regional, state, and local historic preservation plans,
the needs of land and resource managers, academic research interests, and other
legitimate public interests.
Human remains and funerary objects deserve respect and should be treated appropriately.
The presence of human remains is an archeological site usually gives the site an added
importance as a burial site or cemetery, and the values associated with burial sites need to
be fully considered in the consultation process.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-340 December 2011
Large-scale, long-term archeological identification and management programs require careful
consideration of management needs, appreciation for the range of archeological values
represented, periodic synthesis of research and other program results, and professional peer
review and oversight.
4.11.7.2. Multi-Phase Program for Cultural Resources
For the previously proposed hydroelectric project in the 1980s, a multi-phase program was
developed to ensure compliance with laws and regulations relating to the consideration of
cultural resource issues in project planning and development. The three principal phases of the
program included: data collection and analysis; impact assessment; and mitigation planning and
implementation. For the currently proposed Project, it is likely that a similar multi-phase
program will be developed to address cultural resource issues and concerns.
4.11.7.3. Mitigation Plan for Cultural Resources
As presently envisioned, the mitigation plan for the Project includes: avoidance; preservation in
place; data recovery; monitoring; and a public interpretation and education program. These
components are discussed further below. In consultation with the appropriate agencies and
entities, the mitigation plan would also include a procedure for identifying, evaluating and
treating cultural resources discovered after the issuance of the Project license.
4.11.7.3.1. Avoidance
Avoidance, the preferred mitigation technique, would normally be feasible only for those sites
located in direct impact areas, other than impoundments and associated erosion areas and the
Project dam site. Access to cultural resource sites within or in close proximity to construction
laydown areas would, wherever possible, be restricted during Project construction.
4.11.7.3.2. Data Recovery (Excavation)
Data recovery (excavation) would be the principal mitigation technique employed. Based on the
Susitna Project proposed in the 1980s, it is believed that the nature of the known archeological
data base suggests that there are a large number of redundant site components (according to age
and function). For this reason, it is anticipated that data recovery would be undertaken at a
sample of sites likely to be directly impacted by the Project. The selection of sites for data
recovery would be determined by a number of site factors, including but not limited to: site
condition; the nature and degree of impact to the site; and the site's ability to contribute to the
solution of important research questions.
Sites which would be destroyed by ground-disturbing activities associated with construction
would be given priority, followed by sites which are located within the Project reservoir
drawdown area. The latter would be subjected to steady erosion. Sites within the permanent pool
will then be selected to fill any remaining requirements of the site selection sample procedure.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-341 December 2011
Some sites located along reservoir margins in close proximity to construction activities or within
the permanent reservoir pool may be selected for preservation in place. This may take the form
of the construction of protective barriers to minimize erosion, controlled burial or fencing of the
site to restrict access.
4.11.7.3.3. Monitoring Program
The monitoring program for the Project would include several components. Limited monitoring
of construction activities would be implemented to ensure that compliance with the mitigation
program occurs. Long-term monitoring involving regularly scheduled inspections of sites along
reservoir margins would be undertaken to ascertain if these sites are being adversely affected.
4.11.7.3.4. Interpretation and Education Program
In addition, a public interpretation and education program about the Project area's cultural
resources would be developed for the benefit of site visitors and the public in general.
An adjunct to the education program would include an orientation for all construction and
supervisory personnel to inform them about: reasons for the presence of restricted areas;
restrictions on the vandalism of archeological or historic sites and on the collecting of artifacts;
the nature of cultural resources sites in the Project area and how to recognize them; and
procedures to be followed in the event that cultural resources are discovered or disturbed during
construction.
4.11.7.4. Pre-Construction Cultural Resource Surveys
Pre-construction cultural resources surveys will be conducted along the rights-of-way for the
Project's transmission lines and access roads, as part of the overall mitigation plan. AEA would,
in consultation with the SHPO, determine which portions of these areas are likely to contain
cultural resources. The selection of areas would be based upon the tested model of cultural
resources distribution (Greiser et al. 1985). If cultural resources are located in any survey area,
appropriate mitigation will be considered. The latter may include things such as changes in tower
placement or movement of Project centerlines. If neither of these procedures is feasible, data
recovery would be undertaken. The scope of any data recovery activities conducted in such
circumstances would be developed in consultation with the SHPO.
4.11.7.5. Cultural Resource Field Study Permits
All required state and federal permits will be obtained prior to each year's field studies. The
SHPO, the Alaska State Archeologist, as well as archeologists with the National Park Service
and the Bureau of Land Management, will be consulted throughout the development and
execution of a cultural resources program for the Project. Copies of annual field reports and
reports on other aspects of the cultural resources program will be provided to these agencies on a
regular basis. Consultation with these agencies will be on a continual basis regarding: the
evaluation of the significance of sites in the Project area; the development, testing and
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-342 December 2011
implementation of a model to assess the archeological sensitivity of unsurveyed areas of the
corridors associated with Project transmission lines, access roads and the railroad; and the details
of the proposed mitigation plan.
4.11.7.6. Proposed Potential Subsistence Mitigation and Enhancement Measures
Proposed PM&E measures will be developed in consultation with interested parties during the
licensing process.
4.11.8. References
Ager, Thomas A., and Linda B. Brubaker. 1985. Quaternary Palynology and Vegetational
History of Alaska. Records of Late Quaternary North American Sediments. Ed. by B.
Vaughn, Jr., and F. Holloway. American Association of Stratigraphic Palynologists.
Dallas. pp 353–384.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR), Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation,
Office of History and Archaeology. 2011. Cultural Resource Management Plan for the
Denali Highway Lands. Published online at
http://dnr.alaska.gov/parks/oha/denalihwylands/index.htm. Accessed November 2011.
Alaska State Historic Preservation Office (Alaska SHPO). 2011. Alaska’s Historic Preservation
Plan. Published online at http://dnr.alaska.gov/parks/oha/shpo/akpreservepln.pdf.
Accessed November 2011.
Anderson, Douglas D. 1970. Microblade Traditions in Northwestern Alaska. Arctic
Anthropology. 7 (2): 2–16.
———. 1968. A Stone Age Campsite at the Gateway to America. Scientific American. 218 (6):
24–33.
Bacon, Glen H. 1978a. Archaeology in the Upper Susitna River Basin, 1978. Report prepared for
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, by Alaskarctic under contract DACW85-78-C-0017.
Fairbanks, Alaska.
———. 1978b. Archaeology Near the Watana Damsite in the Upper Susitna River Basin. Report
prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, by Alaskarctic under contract DACW-
85-78-C-0034. Fairbanks, Alaska.
———. 1975. Heritage Resources Along the Upper Susitna River. Report prepared for the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers by Alaska Division of Parks under contract DACW85-75-C-
0041. Anchorage, Alaska.
Bever, Michael R. 2001. An Overview of Alaskan Late Pleistocene Archaeology: Historical
Themes and Current Perspectives. Journal of World Prehistory 15 (2): 125–191.
Black, Lydia T. 2004. Russians in Alaska. Fairbanks. University of Alaska Press.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-343 December 2011
Bowers, Peter M. 2011. Cultural Resources Assessment of Four Watana Dam Site Boreholes,
South-Central Alaska. Report by Northern Land Use Research, Inc., to ABR, Inc. and the
Alaska Energy Authority, Fairbanks.
———. 1980. The Carlo Creek Site: Geology and Archaeology of an Early Holocene Site in the
Central Alaskan Range. Cooperative Park Studies Unit. University of Alaska, Fairbanks.
Paper No. 27.
Brooks, Alfred H. 1973. Blazing Alaska’s Trails. Fairbanks. University of Alaska Press.
Brown, William. 1991. A History of the Denali – Mount McKinley, Region, Alaska. United States
Department of the Interior. National Park Service Southwest Regional Office. Santa Fe.
New Mexico.
Cole, Terrence. 1979. The History of the Use of the Upper Susitna River: Indian River to the
Headwaters. Report prepared for the State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources,
Division of Research and Development. Anchorage. Alaska.
Cook, John P. 1970. The Athabascan Tradition: A View from Healy Lake in the Yukon-Tanana
Upland. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Northeast Anthropological
Association, Ottawa.
———. 1968. The Early Prehistory of Healy Lake. PhD diss., University of Wisconsin,
Madison.
Cook, John P., and Thomas E. Gillespie. 1986. Notched Points and Microblades. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the Alaskan Anthropological Association, Fairbanks, Alaska.
Dale, Rachel J., and J. David McMahan. 2007. Human Remains and Cultural Resource
Management in Alaska: State Laws and Guidelines. Alaska Journal of Anthropology 5
(2): 87–95.
Dessauer, P.F., and D.W. Harvey. 1980. An Historical Resource Study of the Valdez Creek
Mining District, Alaska – 1977. Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage Field Office,
Anchorage.
Dixon, E. James. 1999. Bones, Boats & Bison: Archaeology of the First Colonization of Western
North America. Albuquerque. University of New Mexico Press.
———. 1985. Cultural Chronology of Central Interior Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 22 (1): 47–
66.
Dixon, E. James, Jr., George S. Smith, Jr., William Andrefsky, Jr., Becky Saleeby, and Charles J.
Utermohle. 1985. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Cultural Resources Investigations,
1979–1985. Alaska Power Authority, Susitna Hydroelectric Project, and Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission Project No. 7114 Volume VI, Appendices E and F. University of
Alaska Museum. Fairbanks, Alaska.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-344 December 2011
———. 1984. Preliminary Report on the Archaeological Survey of the Middle Susitna River,
Alaska, in Connection with the Susitna Hydroelectric Project, 1983. Antiquities Permit
Report no. 81-AK-209. University of Alaska. Fairbanks, Alaska.
Dixon, E. James, Jr., and George S. Smith. 1990. A Regional Application of Tephrochronology
in Alaska. In Geological Society of America, Centennial Special Volume No. 4, Chapter
21. pp 383-398.
Eldridge, George H. 1900. A Reconnaissance in the Sushitna Basin and Adjacent Territory,
Alaska, in 1898. In 20th Annual Report of the U.S. Geological Survey, Pt. VII.
Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office.
Fall, James A. 1987. The Upper Inlet Tanaina: Patterns of Leadership among an Athabaskan
People, 1741–1918. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 21 (1–2): 1–80.
Gerlach, S. Craig, Stacie J. McIntosh, Peter M. Bowers, and Owen K. Mason. 1996.
Archaeological Survey and Assessment of Prehistoric Cultural Resources on Eielson Air
Force Base, Alaska. NLUR Technical Report No. 43. Report prepared for Shannon and
Wilson, Inc., and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, by Northern Land Use Research, Inc.
Fairbanks, Alaska.
Goebel, Ted, W. Roger Powers, and Nancy H. Bigelow. 1992. The Nenana Complex of Alaska
and Clovis Origins. Clovis Origins and Adaptations. Ed. by R. Bonnichsen and K.
Turnmire. Center for the Study of the First Americans, Oregon State University.
Corvallis. pp. 49–79.
Greiser, T. Weber, Sally T. Greiser, Glenn H. Bacon, Thomas A. Foor, Priscilla Russell Kari,
James Kari, David F. Gallacher, and Janene M. Caywood. 1985. Susitna Hydroelectric
Project: Phase I Report: Background Research and Predictive Model for Cultural
Resources Located Along the Susitna Hydroelectric Project's Linear Features. Report
prepared for Alaska Power Authority by Historical Research Associates, Missoula,
Montana, with contributions from Alaska Heritage Research Group, Inc. through Harza-
Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture. Anchorage, Alaska.
Greiser, T. Weber, Sally T. Greiser, Glenn H. Bacon, David F. Gallacher, Thomas A. Foor, and
James A. Fall. 1986. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Phase II Final Report. Sample Survey
and Predictive Model Refinement for Cultural Resources Located along the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project Linear Features Volumes 1 and 2. Report prepared for Harza-
Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture and Alaska Power Authority by Historical Research
Associates. Missoula, Montana.
Gudgel-Holmes, D. 1979. Ethnohistory of Four Interior Alaskan Waterbodies. Alaska
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Research and Development. Anchorage.
HDR Alaska, Inc. 2011. Tribal Resources Data Gap Analysis. Report prepared for the Alaska
Energy Authority, Anchorage, by HDR Alaska, Inc. Anchorage.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-345 December 2011
Hamilton, T. D., and T. Goebelevation 1999[2005]. Late Pleistocene Peopling of Alaska. In Ice
Age Peoples of North America, 2nd ed. Ed. by R. Bonnichsen and K. L. Turnmire.
College Station. Texas A&M University Press. pp 156–199.
Hedman, William H. 2010. The Raven Bluff Site: Preliminary Findings from a Late Pleistocene
Site in the Alaskan Arctic. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management,
Fairbanks District Office. Fairbanks, Alaska.
Hoffecker, John F. 2008. Assemblage Variability in Beringia: The Mesa Factor. Paper presented
at the 73rd Annual Meeting for the Society of American Archaeology, Vancouver B.C.,
Canada.
———. 2005. Incredible Journey: Plains Bison Hunters in the Arctic. The Review of
Archaeology 26 (2): 18–23.
Holmes, Charles E. 2001. Tanana River Valley Archaeology Circa 14,000 To 9000 BP. Arctic
Anthropology 38 (2): 154–170.
Kari, James. 2008. Ahtna Place Names Lists. Revised, 2nd ed. Alaska Native Language Center.
Fairbanks, Alaska.
Kari, James, and James A. Fall, eds. 2003. Shem Pete's Alaska. The Territory of the Upper Cook
Inlet Dena'ina, 2nd ed. University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Fairbanks, Alaska.
Kunz, Michael, and Richard Reanier. 1994. Paleoindians in Beringia: Evidence from Arctic
Alaska. In Science 263: 660–662.
Kunz, Michael, Michael Bever, and Charles Adkins. 2003. The Mesa Site: Paleoindians Above
the Arctic Circle. BLM-Alaska Open File Report 86, April 2003. U.S. Department of the
Interior. Bureau of Land Management.
de Laguna, Frederica, and Catherine McClellan. 1981. Ahtna. In Subarctic. Ed. by J. Helm.
Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 6, William C. Sturtevant, general editor,
Washington, D.C. Smithsonian Institution Press. pp 641–663.
Marsh, Kenneth L. 2002. A River Between Us: The Upper Susitna River Valley of Alaska, A
Historical Story Collection. Trapper Creek, Alaska. Trapper Creek Museum Sluice Box
Productions.
Mason, Owen K., Peter M. Bowers, and S. Craig Gerlach. 1994. Predictive Model for Discovery
of Cultural Resources on Eilson Air Force Base, Alaska. NLUR Technical Report 29.
Report prepared for EA Engineering, Science and Technology, Inc. and the U.S. Air
Force by Northern Land Use Research, Inc., Fairbanks.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough. (No date.) Historic Preservation Plan. Published online at
http://www.matsugov.us/planning/historic-preservation-commission. Accessed November 2011.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-346 December 2011
McKennan, Robert A. 1981. Tanana. In Subarctic. Ed. by J. Helm. Handbook of the North
American Indians, Vol. 6, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Washington, D.C.
Smithsonian Institution.
Osgood, Cornelius. 1937 [1966]. Ethnography of the Tanaina. Yale University Publications in
Anthropology 16. New Haven. Human Relations Area Files Press.
Plaskett, David. 1977. The Nenana Gorge Site: A Late Prehistoric Athabaskan Campsite in
Central Alaska. Master’s Thesis, University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Potter, Ben A. 2008a. Radiocarbon Chronology of Central Alaska: Technological Continuity and
Economic Change. Radiocarbon 50 (2): 181–204.
———. 2008b. Exploratory Models of Intersite Variability in Mid to Late Holocene Central
Alaska. In Arctic 61 (4): 407–425.
———. 2008c. A First Approximation of Holocene Inter-assemblage Variability in Central
Alaska. In Arctic Anthropology 45 (2): 88–112.
———. 2005. Site Location Model and Survey Strategy for Cultural Resources in the Alaska
Railroad Northern Rail Extension Project Area. Report prepared for ICF Consulting
Services, LLC, by Northern Land Use Research, Inc. Fairbanks.
Powers, W. Roger, and John F. Hoffecker. 1989. Late Pleistocene Settlement in the Nenana
Valley, Central Alaska. In American Antiquity 54 (2): 263–287.
Powers, W. Roger, Dale R. Guthrie, and John F. Hoffecker. 1983. Dry Creek: Archaeology and
Palaeoecology of a Late Pleistocene Alaskan Hunting Camp. Unpublished manuscript.
National Park Service. Anchorage.
Rainey, Froelich. 1939. Archaeology in Central Alaska. Anthropological Papers of the American
Museum of Natural History 36 (4): 351–405.
Reuther, Joshua D., Molly Proue, Justin M. Hays, Heather Hardy, and Victoria Florey. 2008.
Data Recovery at Locus 1B of HEA-062, the Nenana River Gorge Site, Interior Alaska.
NLUR Technical Report No. 348. Report prepared for Alaska Railroad Company by
Northern Land Use Research, Inc., Fairbanks.
Reuther, Joshua D., Carol Gelvin-Reymiller, Ben A. Potter, Justin M. Hays, Molly M.
Proue, and Chris B. Wooley. 2010. Site Locational Model and Survey Strategy for Cultural
Resources along the Proposed Donlin Creek Project Pipeline Corridor: Beluga to Donlin
Creek, Alaska. Report prepared for Donlin Creek LLC by Northern Land Use Research,
Inc., Fairbanks, and Chumis Cultural Resources Services, Anchorage.
Reuther, Joshua D., Chris Wooley, Carol Gelvin-Reymiller, Justin M. Hays, Kris
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-347 December 2011
Farmen, Patrick T. Hall, and Gayle Neufeld. 2011. Results of the 2010 Phase I Cultural
Resources Survey of the Proposed Donlin Creek Natural Gas Pipeline Project. Report
prepared for Donlin Creek LLC by Northern Land Use Research, Inc., Fairbanks, and
Chumis Cultural Resources Services, Anchorage.
Schneider, W., D. Gudgel-Holmes, and J. Dalle-Molle. 1984. Land Use in the North Additions of
Denali National Park and Preserve: An Historical Perspective. Research/Resources
Management Report AR-9. National Park Service, Alaska Region. Anchorage.
Simeone, William E., Adam Russell, and Richard O. Stern. 2011. Watana Hydroelectric Project
Subsistence Data Gap Analysis. Prepared for ABR, Inc. by Northern Land Use Research,
Inc. Fairbanks.
Skarland, Ivar. 1953. Report on the Susitna Archaeological Survey, 1953. University of Alaska,
College.
Townsend, Joan B. 1981. Taniana. In Subarctic. Ed. by J. Helm. Handbook of North American
Indians, Vol. 6. Washington, D.C. Smithsonian Institution Press. pp 626–640.
VanderHoek, R. 2011. Cultural Resource Management Plan for the Denali Highway.
Lands, Central Alaska. Draft manuscript. Alaska Office of History and Archaeology Report
Number 112. Alaska Office of History and Archaeology, Division of Parks and Outdoor
Recreation, Anchorage.
West, Frederick H. 1981. Archaeology of Beringia. New York. Columbia University Press.
———. 1967. The Donnelly Ridge Site and the Definition of an Early Core and Blade Complex
in Central Alaska. American Antiquity 32: 360–382.
Workman, William C. 1978. Prehistory of the Aishihik-Kluane Area, Southwest Yukon
Territory. National Museum of Man, Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey Paper 74.
Archaeological Survey of Canada, National Museum of Canada. Ottawa.
Alaska Administrative Code (AAC). 5 AAC 99.025. Customary and Traditional Uses of Game
Populations. http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis. Accessed September 20, 2011.
Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (DCCED). No
date. “Alaska Community Directory.” Published on-line at
http://commerce.alaska.gov/dca/MuniDirPublic/MODP.htm. Accessed September 19,
2011.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 2011. “Unit 13, Nelchina-Upper Susitna.”
Published on-line at
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/regulations/wildliferegulations/pdfs/gmu13.pdf.
Accessed September 21, 2011.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-348 December 2011
—. 2006. Wildlife Action Plan; our wealth maintained: a strategy for conserving Alaska’s
diverse wildlife and fish resources. Juneau, Alaska. Published online at
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=species.wapview. Accessed November
2011.
—. 1992. Division of Habitat Restoration and Division of Wildlife Conservation. Minto
Flats State Game Refuge Management Plan. Published online at
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/lands/protectedareas/_management_plans/minto.pdf.
Accessed November 2011.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR). 2011. Susitna Matanuska Area Plan.
Published online at
http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/planning/areaplans/sumat/pdf/smap_prd_complete.pdf.
Accessed November 2011.
—. 2008. Southeast Susitna Area Plan for State Lands. Published online at
http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/planning/areaplans/ssap/pdf. Accessed November 2011.
—. 1991. Susitna Forestry Guidelines. Published online at
http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/planning/mgtplans/susitna_forestry_guidelines/index.htm.
Accessed November 2011.
—. 1985. Susitna Area Plan. Published online at
http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/planning/areaplans/sap/pdf. Accessed November 2011.
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). P.L. (43 USC 1601).
http://www.lbblawyers.com/ancsa.htm. Accessed June 2011.
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). P.L. 96-487 (94 STAT. 2371) (16
USC 3101).
—. Regulations. (Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 36, Part 242 or Title 50, Part 100
(36 CFR242.1 or 50 CFR100.1).
Alaska Statutes, Title 16, Fish and Game, Fish and Game Code, Definitions (AS 16.05.940 (33)).
http://touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title16/Chapter05/Section940.htm.
Accessed June 2011.
—. Subsistence Use and Allocation of Fish and Game (AS 16.05.258).
http://touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title16/Chapter05/Section258.htm.
Accessed June 2011.
Alaska v. Babbitt (Katie John I), 72 F.3d 698 (9th Cir. 1995).
Fall, James A., and Daniel J. Foster. 1987. Fish and Game Harvest and Use in the Middle
Susitna Basin: The Results of a Survey of Residents of the Road-Connected Areas of
Game Management Units 14B and 16A, 1986. Technical Paper No. 143. Alaska
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-349 December 2011
Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska.
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/tp143.pdf. Accessed June 2011.
Fall, James A., and William E. Simeone. 2010. Overview of Nelchina Caribou Herd Regulation
and Harvest History. Special Publication BOG 2010-05. Alaska Department of Fish and
Game, Division of Subsistence, Anchorage, Alaska.
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/specialpubs/SP2_SP2010-005.pdf. Accessed June 2011.
Fall, James A., and Lee Stratton. 1984. The Harvest and Use of Copper River Salmon: A
Background Report. Technical Paper No. 96. Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/tp096.pdf.
Accessed June 2011.
Haley, Beth, and Mattcher J. Nemeth. 2002. Atlas on Non-Salmon Fish Harvested for
Subsistence by Selected Communities in the Upper Copper River Drainage, 2001. Final
Report for USF&WS FIS Project 03-010 by LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc.,
Anchorage, Alaska. http://alaska.fws.gov/asm/pdf/fisheries/reports/03-010final.pdf.
Accessed June 2011.
John, Katie v. United States, 216 F.3d 885, 886 (9th Cir. 2000). The title of the case was
changed from Alaska v. Babbitt.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough (MSB). 2009. Mat-Su Borough Forest Management Plan.
Published online at http://ww1.matsugov.us/CommunityDevelopment/index. Accessed
November 2011.
McDowell v. Alaska (785 P.2d 1 (Alaska 1989)).
McMillan, Patricia O'Brien, and Sal V. Cuccarese. 1988. Alaska Over-the-Horizon Backscatter
Radar System: Characteristics of Contemporary Use Patterns in the Copper River Basin
and Upper Tanana Area: Draft Report. 2 vols. Arctic Environmental information and
Data Center (AEIDC), University of Alaska in cooperation with the Alaska Department
of Fish and Game and U.S. National Park Service, Anchorage, Alaska. (UG1424.A4M27
v. 1 and v.2 ARLIS).
Reckord, Holly. 1983. That's The Way We Live—Subsistence in the Wrangell-St. Elias National
Park and Preserve. Occasional Paper No. 34. Anthropology and Historic Preservation,
Cooperative Park Studies Unit, University of Alaska Fairbanks. (NPS/Technical
Information Center Report 190/D-10)
Stanek, Ronald T. 1981. Nelchina Caribou User Group Assessment. Technical Paper No. 28.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska.
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/tp028.pdf. Accessed June 2011.
—. 1981. Supplemental Notes: Copper River Subsistence Fisheries 1979 and 1980.
Technical Paper No. 31. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence,
Juneau, Alaska. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/tp031.pdf. Accessed June 2011.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-350 December 2011
Stanek, Ronald T., James A. Fall, and Daniel J. Foster. 1988. The Harvest and Use of Fish and
Game, and Plant Resources by the Residents of Chase, Gold Creek-Chulitna, and
Hurricane-Broad Pass, Southcentral Alaska. Technical Paper No. 161. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska.
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/tp161.pdf. Accessed June 2011.
Stickney, Alice A., and Paul Cunningham. 1980. Report on the Survey of Permit Holders in the
Copper River Subsistence Fishery, 1979. Technical Paper No. 36. Alaska Department of
Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska.
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/tp036.pdf. Accessed June 2011.
Stratton, Lee. 1983. Copper Basin Caribou Use: A Research Update. Technical Paper No. 75.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska.
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/tp075.pdf. Accessed June 2011.
Stratton, Lee, and Susan Georgette. 1984. Use of Fish and Game by Communities in the Copper
River Basin, Alaska: A Report On A 1983 Household Survey. Technical Paper No. 107.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska.
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/tp107.pdf. Accessed June 2011.
Simeone, William E. 2002. Wild Resource Harvests and Uses by Residents of Cantwell, Alaska,
2000. Technical Paper No. 272. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of
Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/tp272.pdf. Accessed
June 2011.
Simeone, William E., and James A. Fall. 2003. Patterns and Trends in the Subsistence Salmon
Fishery of the Upper Copper River, Alaska. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Agreement No. 7018101296, Project No. FIS 00-40 by Alaska Department of
Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Anchorage, Alaska in collaboration with the
Copper River Native Association, Cheesh Na' Tribal Council, Chitina Tribal Council.
http://alaska.fws.gov/asm/pdf/fisheries/reports/00-040finalpart2.pdf. Accessed June
2011.
Simeone, William E. and James Kari. 2005. The Harvest and Use of Non-salmon Fish Species
in the Copper River Basin. Office of Subsistence Management, Fisheries Resource
Monitoring Program, Technical Paper No. 292. Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Division of Subsistence, Anchorage, Alaska.
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/tp292.pdf. Accessed June 2011.
—. 2002. Traditional Knowledge and Fishing Practices of the Ahtna of Coopper River,
Alaska. Technical Paper No. 270. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of
Subsistence, Anchorage, Alaska and in collaboration with the Copper River Native
Association, Cheesh Na' Tribal Council, Chitina Tribal Council.
http://alaskafws.gov/asm/pdf/fisheries/reports/00-040finalpart1.pdf. Accessed June 2011.
Simeone, William E. and Erica McCall Valentine. 2007. Ahtna Knowledge of Long-Term
Changes in Salmon Runs in the Upper Copper River Drainage, Alaska. Technical Paper
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-351 December 2011
No. 324. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Anchorage,
Alaska. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/tp324.pdf. Accessed June 2011.
United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association
(NOAA). 2008. Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Subsistence Harvest Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement. National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected
Resources. Juneau, Alaska.
United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association
(NOAA), and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008. Conservation Plan for
the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale (Delphinapterus leucas). Published online at
http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/protectedresources/whales/beluga/mmpa/final/cp2008.pdf.
Accessed November 2011.
United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2007. East
Alaska Resource Management Plan. Published online at
http://www.blm.gov/ak/st/en/prog/planning/east_alaska_plan/east_frmp.html. Accessed
November 2011.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Alaska Region. 2010. “2010/2012 Federal
Subsistence Wildlife Regulations; Hunting Unit 13, Nelchina-Upper Susitna.” Published
on-line at http://alaska.fws.gov/asm/pdf/wildregs/unit13.pdf. Accessed September 20,
2001.
—. 2008. Federal Subsistence Management Program in Alaska. Published online at
http://alaska.fws.gov/asm/about.cfml. Accessed November 2011.
—. Subsistence Management Office. 2007. “Subsistence Management Information.”
Published on-line at http://www.subsistmgtinfo.org/fvss.htm. Accessed September 22,
2011.
—. 1992. Subsistence Management for Federal Public Lands in Alaska—Final
Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Subsistence
Board, Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska.
Wolfe, Robert J. and Robert G. Bosworth. 1994. Subsistence in Alaska: 1994 Update. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-352 December 2011
4.12. Socioeconomic Resources
4.12.1. Introduction
The Project is located within Matanuska-Susitna Borough (MSB) (see Figure 4.12-1). The
nearest community is Cantwell, which is approximately 41 mi north of Watana. Cantwell is an
unincorporated community with an estimated population of 219 in 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau
(USCB) 2010). The nearest major town is Wasilla, with a 2010 population of 7,831 (USCB
2010). Wasilla is located approximately 91 mi south-west of Watana and approximately 130 mi
south of Cantwell (distances are “as the crow flies”).
Based on the current Project description, the principal areas being considered as part of this
analysis are the Denali Borough and the MSB. Within the Denali Borough, the principal area
under consideration is Cantwell as this is the closest community to the proposed Project. In the
MSB, the Trapper Creek, Chase, and Talkeetna community council areas will be documented in
greater detail due to their proximity to the proposed Project.
Information for the Railbelt has also been included to provide a regional context. For the
purposes of this analysis, the Railbelt is defined as the Kenai Peninsula Borough, Municipality of
Anchorage, MSB, Denali Borough, Fairbanks North Star Borough, Four Mile Road census-
designated place (CDP) and Nenana CDP. When the Project description has been finalized,
including the identification of the transmission line and access corridors, the areas being
considered for analysis will be re-evaluated. In addition, if a transmission line is built on a new
alignment, these areas being considered for analysis might also change.
Date: Nov 2011Scale: As Noted
MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH
DENALI BOROUGH
KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH
FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH
MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE
Kenai
Paxson
Palmer
Seward
Whittier
Cantwell
Anchorage
Fairbanks
Talkeetna Glennallen
Delta Junction
Trapper Creek CDP Chase CDP
Cantwell CDP
Talkeetna CDP
Nenana CDP
Four Mile Road CDP
Ri
ch
a
r
ds
o
n
H
ig
h
w
ayGlenn High w ayGeorge Parks HighwayDenali Hig h w ayTok Cut-OffAlaska Highway
Sterling H ig hway
E d g e r ton Highway
R
i
c
h
ardson HighwayGeorge P arks Hig h way
Glenn HighwayProject Area
State of AlaskaSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC No.14241
Figure 4.12-1Ü
0 10 205
Miles
Legend
kj Proposed Watana Dam and Powerhouse
Proposed Watana Reservoir
Susitna River
Major Streams
Highway
Alaska Railroad
!.Selected Populated Place
Borough
Census Designated Place (CDP)
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-354 December 2011
4.12.2. Land Use and Real Estate
The MSB is comprised of over 24,000 square mi and contains urbanized, suburban, rural and
remote areas (Mat-Su BPLUD 2005). There are 26 recognized communities, each distinguished
with unique lifestyles and community values (Mat-Su BPLUD 2005). The U.S. Census Bureau
(USCB) identifies the MSB as a metro area of Anchorage, Alaska (USCB 2011).
Since the first MSB-wide Comprehensive Plan was developed and adopted in 1970, the Borough
has dramatically changed in terms of its economy, population and built/natural environment. For
instance, in 1970 the MSB had an agricultural-based economy, a population of approximately
7,500 and limited infrastructure (Mat-Su BPLUD 2005). By 2005, retail, finance and real estate
services became the primary sectors of the MSB’s economy, the population increased to almost
75,000, and both public and private infrastructure grew significantly (Mat-Su BPLUD 2005).
The new growth has also brought new industries and technologies to the MSB. Some of these
new industries and technologies, such as communication towers, waste incinerators, and oil and
gas development, have created compatibility issues in residential neighborhoods and recreational
areas (Mat-Su BPLUD 2005). Managing these and other land uses to enhance the quality of life
of Borough residents, while also improving and diversifying the local economy, is one task of
comprehensive planning (Mat-Su BPLUD 2005). According to the Mat-Su Comprehensive
Development Plan (2005), the borough has become distinguished by its diversity in land patterns
and communities.
Additional information regarding recreation land use can be found in section 4.10 of this PAD.
4.12.2.1. Parks and Open Spaces
Parks and other open spaces make a distinct contribution to the landscape and quality of life in
the MSB (Mat-Su BPLUD 2005). The Mat-Su Comprehensive Development Plan (2005) notes
that as the borough experiences additional growth pressures, the protection of parks and spaces is
needed, and the equitable dispersion of parks and open spaces needs to be addressed. The MSB
faces challenges including (Mat-Su BPLUD 2005):
Acquiring and developing additional parkland, campgrounds and recreational areas in
sections of the borough where these amenities are deficient, by providing additional
neighborhood parks, community parks, campgrounds, recreational areas and open spaces;
Providing additional pedestrian and bicycle trails and linkages, between parks, open
spaces, water bodies and neighborhoods; acquiring additional pubic greenways to
enhance such trails and linkages;
Developing facilities such as restrooms and additional benches in new and existing parks
and recreational areas;
Providing ongoing renovation and maintenance of parks and recreational areas associated
facilities; and
Promoting habitat conservation through acquisition and preservation of important natural
areas, including farms and open spaces.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-355 December 2011
The MSB maintains a large number and diversity of parks, campgrounds and recreational areas
(Mat-Su BPLUD 2005). As the Borough’s population continues to grow, the demand for various
year-round passive and active recreational opportunities increases. The Mat-Su Comprehensive
Development Plan (2005) includes a policy aimed at ensuring that parks and open spaces are
provided using the specific standards to determine the need for parks. This policy is shown
below on Table 4.12-1.
Table 4.12-1. Policy PO1-4; Park and open space levels of service.
Facility Standard
Neighborhood Parks 5 ac / 1,000 persons
Community Parks 10 ac / 3,500 persons
Nature / Open Space Parks 15 ac / 5,000 persons
Source(s): Mat-Su BPLUD 2005
4.12.2.2. Natural Areas and Conservation
Natural areas and open spaces are noted as vital components “of the health and well being of the
[b]orough” in the Mat-Su Comprehensive Development Plan (2005). In surveys and workshops,
MSB citizens have consistently identified natural areas as being a key component of the
borough’s life quality (Mat-Su BPLUD 2005). The Mat-Su Comprehensive Development Plan
(2005) asserts that the conservation and enhancement of the ecological resources found within
the borough should be a primary component of the borough’s land use and park planning.
The MSB has hundreds of lakes, streams and rivers that provide valuable habitat for fish and
wildlife, contribute to water quality and provide recreational opportunities (Mat-Su BPLUD
2005). Open space corridors serve many important functions, including recreation, fish and
wildlife habitat, and the connection of individual features that comprise a natural system (Mat-Su
BPLUD 2005).
4.12.2.3. Natural Water Systems
The Mat-Su Comprehensive Development Plan (2005) indicates that the Borough has been
embarking on a study/plan to address the past, current and future impacts, as well as to evaluate
and record the primary functions, existing problems and future opportunities, within the Big
Lake Watershed natural system. This effort is indicative of the importance of planning efforts
have when addressing borough-wide watershed issues (Mat-Su BPLUD 2005). The Mat-Su
Comprehensive Development Plan (2005) encourages preserving the natural drainage system to
the greatest extent feasible, and discourages non-essential structures, land modifications or
impervious surfaces in the drainage system to “assist in ensuring optimal natural functioning
within the drainage area.”
4.12.2.4. Land Use Regulations
The MSB uses both borough-wide and special use district (SpUD) zoning ordinances (Mat-Su
BPLUD 2005).
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-356 December 2011
4.12.2.5. Real Estate
The USCB (2011) reports that in 2009 there were 28,744 housing units in the MSB. Between
2005 and 2009, 10.2 percent of housing units were in multi-unit structures in the borough (USCB
2011). During this time period, the homeownership rate in the MSB was 79.9 percent; above the
homeownership rate for Alaska overall (63.8 percent) (USCB 2011). The median value of
owner-occupied housing units for 2005 through 2009 was $205,000 (USCB 2011).
4.12.3. Demographics
In the Denali Borough, the population is centered around the Parks Highway. The population of
the Borough has remained relatively unchanged since it was formed (see Table 4.12-2).
However, in the past 30 years the population of Cantwell has increased by almost 150 percent
(from 89 to 219).
In the MSB, while a substantial amount of development is focused along the Parks and Glenn
highway corridors, development is more dispersed. The MSB has grown dramatically (by almost
400 percent) in the past 30 years. Much of this growth has been in the MSB’s core area, which
includes Wasilla and Palmer. The northern portion of the Borough near the proposed Project, has
also experienced growth but at a lower rate. These areas are less densely populated than the core
area.
Tables 4.12-2 through 4.12-6 below summarize demographic characteristics, including race,
gender, age, and occupation, of the Denali Borough, the MSB, and the Trapper Creek, Chase,
Talkeetna, and Cantwell CDPs. (The 2010 Census does not provide information on a community
council basis. For the purposes of this analysis, the CDP will be used.) Demographic
characteristics for the Railbelt are also summarized in Tables 4.12-2 through 4.12-6. The MSB
and Denali Borough boundaries, as well as the CDP boundaries, are illustrated in Figure 4.12-1.
Table 4.12-2. Populations of the CDPs, Boroughs and Railbelt in the Project study area.
Trapper
Creek
CDP
Chase CDP Talkeetna
CDP
MSB Cantwell
CDP
Denali
Borough
Railbelt
1980 No data No data 264 17,816 89 No data 271,982
1990 296 38 250 39,683 147 1,797 386,733
2000 423 41 772 59,322 222 1,893 454,469
2010 481 34 876 88,995 219 1,826 536,049
Source(s): 2010 U.S. Census Bureau
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-357 December 2011
According to the 2010 Census, the racial composition of the MSB and the Denali Borough is
predominantly white (see Table 4.12-3). The highest proportion of minority residents is found in
the Cantwell CDP, where approximately 23 percent of the residents are considered a minority
(primarily American Indian/Alaska Native). Overall, the Denali Borough and the MSB are less
racially diverse than the Railbelt population.
Table 4.12-3. Populations of the CDPs, Boroughs and Railbelt in the Project study area, by
race and ethnicity.
Trapper
Creek CDP
Chase CDP Talkeetna
CDP
MSB Cantwell
CDP
Denali
Borough
Railbelt
#
percent
#
percent
#
percent
#
percent
#
percent
#
percent
#
percent
White 416 86
percent
34 100
percent
801 91
percent
75,540 85
percent
169 77
percent
1,637 90
percent
391,942 73
percent
Black or
African
American
2 0
percent
0 0
percent
3 0
percent
856 1
percent
1 0
percent
10 1
percent
21,785 4
percent
American
Indian
and
Alaska
Native
31 6
percent
0 0
percent
32 4
percent
4,901 6
percent
34 16
percent
65 4
percent
39,211 7
percent
Asian 5 1
percent
0 0
percent
4 0
percent
1,096 1
percent
0 0
percent
19 1
percent
27,919 5
percent
Pacific
Islander
0 0
percent
0 0
percent
4 0
percent
221 0
percent
0 0
percent
1 0
percent
6,638 1
percent
Other 0 0
percent
0 0
percent
2 0
percent
640 1
percent
4 2
percent
14 1
percent
9,283 2
percent
Two or
More
Races
27 6
percent
0 0
percent
30 3
percent
5,741 6
percent
11 5
percent
80 4
percent
39,271 7
percent
Hispanic
Origin
(any
race)
5 1
percent
0 0
percent
16 2
percent
3,301 4
percent
3 1
percent
42 2
percent
32,698 6
percent
Not
Hispanic
(any
race)
476 99
percent
34 100
percent
860 98
percent
85,694 96
percent
216 99
percent
1,784 98
percent
503,351 94
percent
Source(s): 2010 U.S. Census.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-358 December 2011
The gender distribution in the Denali Borough and the MSB is similar to that of the Railbelt,
with slightly more than half the population being male (see Table 4.12-4). The percentage of
males is highest in Chase and Cantwell (64.7 and 58.4 percent, respectively).
The median age in the Denali Borough and the Cantwell, Trapper Creek, Chase and Talkeetna
CDPs is higher than that of the MSB and the Railbelt (see Table 4.12-4). This is not due to
significantly higher numbers of people aged 65 and over in these areas. Rather, it is due to a
relatively high percentage (26 to 53 percent) of the residents in these areas who were between the
ages of 45 and 59, according to the 2010 Census.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-359 December 2011 Table 4.12-4. Populations of the CDPs, Boroughs and Railbelt in the Project study area, by gender and age. Trapper Creek CDP Chase CDP Talkeetna CDP MSB Cantwell CDP Denali Borough Railbelt # percent # percent # percent # percent # percent # percent # percent Gender Male 253 52.6 percent 22 64.7 percent 453 51.7 percent 46,040 52 percent 128 58.4 percent 1,002 54.9 percent 276,035 51.5 percent Female 228 47.4 percent 12 35.3 percent 423 48.3 percent 42,955 48 percent 91 41.6 percent 824 45.1 percent 260,014 48.5 percent Age Under 5 years 32 6.7 percent 0 0.0 percent 47 5.4 percent 6,900 8 percent 12 5.5 percent 114 6.2 percent 40,386 7.5 percent 5 –9 years 22 4.6 percent 0 0.0 percent 48 5.5 percent 7,082 8 percent 13 5.9 percent 114 6.2 percent 38,262 7.1 percent 10 –14 years 20 4.2 percent 0 0.0 percent 44 5.0 percent 7,189 8 percent 11 5.0 percent 118 6.5 percent 37,839 7.1 percent 15– 19 years 28 5.8 percent 3 8.8 percent 34 3.9 percent 6,985 8 percent 16 7.3 percent 97 5.3 percent 39,028 7.3 percent 20– 24 years 18 3.7 percent 0 0.0 percent 18 2.1 percent 5,009 6 percent 5 2.3 percent 49 2.7 percent 42,615 7.9 percent 25– 29 years 18 3.7 percent 1 2.9 percent 34 3.9 percent 5,849 7 percent 8 3.7 percent 96 5.3 percent 43,063 8.0 percent 30– 34 years 17 3.5 percent 3 8.8 percent 72 8.2 percent 5,738 6 percent 16 7.3 percent 136 7.4 percent 36,761 6.9 percent
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-360 December 2011 Trapper Creek CDP Chase CDP Talkeetna CDP MSB Cantwell CDP Denali Borough Railbelt # percent # percent # percent # percent # percent # percent # percent 35– 39 years 27 5.6 percent 0 0.0 percent 53 6.1 percent 5,946 7 percent 18 8.2 percent 138 7.6 percent 35,474 6.6 percent 40– 44 years 30 6.2 percent 4 11.8 percent 82 9.4 percent 6,234 7 percent 19 8.7 percent 131 7.2 percent 35,392 6.6 percent 45– 49 years 50 10.4 percent 2 5.9 percent 79 9.0 percent 7,067 8 percent 13 5.9 percent 189 10.4 percent 40,693 7.6 percent 50– 54 years 65 13.5 percent 9 26.5 percent 101 11.5 percent 7,279 8 percent 28 12.8 percent 191 10.5 percent 41,760 7.8 percent 55– 59 years 45 9.4 percent 7 20.6 percent 103 11.8 percent 6,364 7 percent 16 7.3 percent 198 10.8 percent 37,055 6.9 percent 60– 64 years 47 9.8 percent 3 8.8 percent 72 8.2 percent 4,284 5 percent 14 6.4 percent 118 6.5 percent 26,668 5.0 percent 65– 69 years 32 6.7 percent 1 2.9 percent 43 4.9 percent 2,913 3 percent 16 7.3 percent 73 4.0 percent 16,574 3.1 percent 70– 74 years 12 2.5 percent 0 0.0 percent 20 2.3 percent 1,712 2 percent 7 3.2 percent 37 2.0 percent 9,736 1.8 percent 75 –79 years 13 2.7 percent 0 0.0 percent 17 1.9 percent 1,188 1 percent 5 2.3 percent 19 1.0 percent 6,701 1.3 percent 80– 84 years 5 1.0 percent 0 0.0 percent 4 0.5 percent 730 1 percent 2 0.9 percent 5 0.3 percent 4,493 0.8 percent 85 years and over 0 0.0 percent 1 2.9 percent 5 0.6 percent 526 1 percent 0 0.0 percent 3 0.2 percent 3,549 0.7 percent Median age 48 52 45.4 34.8 42.7 41.5 32.0¹
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-361 December 2011 Trapper Creek CDP Chase CDP Talkeetna CDP MSB Cantwell CDP Denali Borough Railbelt # percent # percent # percent # percent # percent # percent # percent Population 18 years and over 385 80.0 percent 32 94.1 percent 709 80.9 percent 63,276 71 percent 173 79.0 percent 1,415 77.5 percent 395,920 73.9 percent Population 65 years and over 62 12.9 percent 2 5.9 percent 89 10.2 percent 7,069 8 percent 30 13.7 percent 137 7.5 percent 41,053 7.7 percent Note(s): ¹ The median age for the Railbelt was calculated based on the census age range information as more detailed information was not available. The actual median age for the Railbelt may vary. Source(s): 2010 U.S. Census.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-362 December 2011
Per capita and median household incomes are lower in the Trapper Creek and Cantwell CDPs
than in the Denali Borough, MSB or the Railbelt as a whole (see Table 4.12-5). This is expected
as these areas tend to have more people who live a subsistence lifestyle rather than holding a
wage and salary job.
Table 4.12-5. Incomes in the CDPs, Boroughs and Railbelt in the Project study area.
Trapper
Creek CDP
Chase CDP¹ Talkeetna
CDP
MSB Cantwell
CDP
Denali
Borough
Railbelt
Per Capita
Income:
$18,247 No data $21,737 $24,906 $22,359 $44,689 N/A
Median
Household
Income:
$27,031 No data $56,538 $75,052 $51,875 $91,875 $62,500²
Note(s):
¹ Information is not available for the Chase CDP because the reference population was too small to protect the
anonymity of the data.
² The median household income for the Railbelt was calculated based on the median household income range
information as more detailed information was not available. The actual median household income may vary.
Source(s): 2005–2009 ACS.
According to the 2005–2009 American Community Survey (ACS), approximately one-third of
the workforce in the MSB and the Denali Borough work in management, professional and
related fields; a percent that is similar to the Railbelt as a whole (see Table 4.12-6). In Trapper
Creek the occupation with the highest number of people is production, transportation and
material moving, while the occupation with the largest number of people in Talkeetna and
Cantwell is construction, extraction, maintenance and repair.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-363 December 2011 Table 4.12-6. Employment in the CDPs, Boroughs and Railbelt in the Project study area, by occupation. Trapper Creek CDP Chase CDP¹ Talkeetna CDP MSB Cantwell CDP Denali Borough Railbelt # percent # percent # percent # percent # percent # percent # percent Management, Professional and Related 21 16.8 percent No data 86 21.1 percent 10,589 29.8 percent 14 25.0 percent 320 34.4 percent 86,292 35.0 percent Service 6 4.8 percent No data 101 24.8 percent 6,278 17.7 percent 10 17.9 percent 154 16.6 percent 43,024 17.4 percent Sales and Office 33 26.4 percent No data 60 14.7 percent 8,179 23.0 percent 9 16.1 percent 171 18.4 percent 61,598 25.0 percent Farming, Fishing, and Forestry 0 0.0 percent No data 0 0.0 percent 317 0.9 percent 0 0.0 percent 0 0.0 percent 1,517 0.6 percent Construction, Extraction, Maintenance and Repair 15 12.0 percent No data 92 22.5 percent 6,647 18.7 percent 15 26.8 percent 175 18.8 percent 31,636 12.8 percent Production, Transportation and Material Moving 50 40.0 percent No data 69 16.9 percent 3,530 9.9 percent 8 14.3 percent 109 11.7 percent 22,790 9.2 percent Note(s): ¹ Information is not available for the Chase CDP because the reference population was too small to protect the anonymity of the data. Source(s): 2005–2009 ACS.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-364 December 2011
4.12.3.1. Industry and Employment
Most employment in the Denali Borough is driven by Clear Air Force Base, Denali National
Park and Preserve, Usibelli Coal Mine, and Golden Valley Electric Association. Employment
dramatically increases during the summer months (from 1,000 in the winter to approximately
4,000) due to employment in tourism-related fields. A large number of these workers come from
outside the borough. Residents tend to work in less seasonal industries such as government
(including schools and national park personnel) and power generation (Fried 2009).
The economy of the MSB is more diverse than the Denali Borough economy. In general,
employment has been growing faster than the population and the MSB now offers more
employment opportunities than in the past. Two areas that have seen large increases in
employment are health care and retail. Increases in these sectors mean residents can meet more
of their needs without having to go into Anchorage or Fairbanks. While employment in the MSB
is increasing, many MSB residents commute outside the borough for employment. A substantial
number of these commuters travel to Anchorage, but many commute to places even further such
as the North Slope (Fried 2010).
Table 4.12-7 and Table 4.12-8 list employment statistics for MSB and the Denali Borough as
well as the Trapper Creek, Talkeetna and Cantwell CDPs, and the Railbelt.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-365 December 2011
Table 4.12-7. Employment in the CDPs, Boroughs and Railbelt in the Project study area.
Trapper
Creek CDP
Chase
CDP¹
Talkeetna
CDP
MSB Cantwell
CDP
Denali
Borough
Railbelt
Total Potential
Work Force
(Age 16 years
and over)
291 No data 705 62,046 94 1,259 394,750
Total
Employment:
125 No data 496 40,787 66 1,062 282,857
Civilian
Employment
125 No data 408 40,300 66 948 268,470
Military
Employment
0 No data 47 487 0 114 14,387
Civilian
Unemployed
(and seeking
work)
11 No data 41 4,760 10 19 21,613
Population 16
and over not in
Labor Force
155 No data 209 21,259 28 197 111,893
Class of Worker
Private wage
and salary
workers
71 No data 307 25,691 27 596 174,272
Government
Workers
29 No data 33 6,373 6 262 53,360
Self-employed
in own not
incorporated
business
workers
25 No data 68 3,268 23 71 18,403
Unpaid Family
Workers
0 No data 0 208 0 0 822
Note(s):
¹ Information is not available for the Chase CDP because the reference population was too small to protect the
anonymity of the data.
Source(s): 2005-2009 ACS.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-366 December 2011
Table 4.12-8. Employment in the CDPs, Boroughs and Railbelt in the Project study area,
by industry.
Trapper
Creek CDP
Chase CDP¹ Talkeetna
CDP
MSB Cantwell
CDP
Denali
Borough
Railbelt
#
percent #
percent #
percent #
percent #
percent #
percent #
percent
Agricultural,
Forestry,
Fishing and
Hunting, and
Mining
20 16.0
percent
No
data 32 7.8
percent 1,846 5.2
percent 1 1.8
percent 48 5.2
percent 10,659 4.3
percent
Construction 15 12.0
percent
No
data 69 16.9
percent 5,192 14.6
percent 10 17.9
percent 27 2.9
percent 23,599 9.6
percent
Manufacturing 9 7.2
percent
No
data 0 0.0
percent 779 2.2
percent 0 0.0
percent 0 0.0
percent 5,691 2.3
percent
Wholesale
Trade 0 0.0
percent
No
data 0 0.0
percent 685 1.9
percent 5 8.9
percent 9 1.0
percent 6,126 2.5
percent
Retail Trade 0 0.0
percent
No
data 160 39.2
percent 4,848 13.6
percent 7 12.5
percent 99 10.7
percent 29,409 11.9
percent
Transportation
and
warehousing,
and utilities
14 11.2
percent
No
data 10 2.5
percent 2,341 6.6
percent 5 8.9
percent 71 7.6
percent 19,330 7.8
percent
Information 6 4.8
percent
No
data 10 2.5
percent 1,021 2.9
percent 2 3.6
percent 5 0.5
percent 6,301 2.6
percent
Finance and
insurance, and
real estate and
rental and
leasing
0 0.0
percent
No
data 19 4.7
percent 1,195 3.4
percent 0 0.0
percent 4 0.4
percent 12,422 5.0
percent
Professional,
scientific, and
management
and waste
management
service
0 0.0
percent
No
data 48 11.8
percent 2,821 7.9
percent 3 5.4
percent 265 28.5
percent 23,074 9.3
percent
Educational
services, and
health care and
social
assistance
12 9.6
percent
No
data 30 7.4
percent 7,422 20.9
percent 3 5.4
percent 49 5.3
percent 53,056 21.5
percent
Arts,
entertainment,
and recreation
and
accommodation
and food
services
22 17.6
percent
No
data 20 4.9
percent 3,250 9.1
percent 18 32.1
percent 154 16.6
percent 21,868 8.9
percent
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-367 December 2011
Trapper
Creek CDP
Chase CDP¹ Talkeetna
CDP
MSB Cantwell
CDP
Denali
Borough
Railbelt
#
percent #
percent #
percent #
percent #
percent #
percent #
percent
Other services
except public
administration
13 10.4
percent
No
data 10 2.5
percent 1,952 5.5
percent 0 0.0
percent 41 4.4
percent 12,323 5.0
percent
Public
administration 14 11.2
percent
No
data 0 0.0
percent 2,188 6.2
percent 2 3.6
percent 157 16.9
percent 22,999 9.3
percent
Note(s):
¹Information is not available for the Chase CDP because the reference population was too small to protect the
anonymity of the data.
Source(s): 2005-2009 ACS.
4.12.3.2. Community Identity and Quality of Life
The Mat-Su Comprehensive Development Plan (2005) states that the MSB’s natural
environment, with its abundant supplies of clean water, aesthetics and other natural resources,
has attracted people to the community for generations. Natural systems serve many essential
biological, hydrological and geological functions that significantly affect life and property in the
borough (Mat-Su BPLUD 2005). The Mat-Su Comprehensive Development Plan (2005) also
recognizes that the borough’s natural environment provides other valuable amenities, such as
scenic landscape, community identity, open space and opportunities for recreation, culture and
education.
The Mat-Su Comprehensive Development Plan (2005) indicates that the Borough is a “place to
work and play;” an image the community projects which attracts businesses and industries. The
tourism and recreational industries have capitalized on the MSB’s quality of life in recent
decades (Mat-Su BPLUD 2005). The Mat-Su Comprehensive Development Plan (2005) further
notes that the Borough’s citizens recognize and often comment upon the important role of the
natural environment plays in their quality of life; and that the Borough’s challenge for the future
will be accommodating new and infill growth while protecting and enhancing natural systems on
public and private lands.
4.12.3.3. Education
Between 2005 and 2009 the USCB reports that 90.6 percent of MSB residents (age 25 or greater)
had graduated from high school. This is close to percentage of high school graduates for the
state of Alaska overall (90.7 percent) during the same time period.
Between 2005 and 2009 the USCB (2011) reports that 19.9 percent of MSB residents (age 25 or
greater) had a bachelor’s degree or higher. This is lower than the percentage of Alaskan
residents with a bachelor’s degree or higher (26.5 percent) (USCB 2011).
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-368 December 2011
4.12.3.4. Commuting
From 2005 through 2009, the mean travel time to work (for workers age 16 and above) for MSB
residents was 33.6 minutes; which was above the mean travel time to work for Alaskans overall
(17.9 minutes) (USCB 2011).
4.12.3.5. Households, Income and Poverty
Between 2005 and 2009 the USCB (2011) reports that there were 21,956 households in the
MSB, with an average of 3.86 persons per household. In 2009 the median household income
was $70,442; which was higher than the median household income for Alaskan residents overall
($66,712) (USCB 2011).
The USCB (2011) states that in 2009, 8.7 percent of MSB residents lived below the poverty
level. This percentage is lower than that of Alaskan residents overall living below the poverty
level in 2009 (9.1 percent) (USCB 2011).
4.12.4. Public Sector (Taxes and Services)
The following section describes existing public services and facilities in the Denali Borough and
the MSB.
4.12.4.1. Local Government
The Denali Borough was formed in 1990. It includes four communities (Anderson, Clear,
Cantwell and Healy) and includes a number of smaller settlements. The borough includes
approximately 12,750 square mi of land and 25 square mi of water. Approximately 70 percent of
the borough is the Denali National Park and Preserve.
The MSB was established in 1964. The MSB includes the incorporated cities of Palmer, Wasilla
and Houston. In addition, there are numerous smaller unincorporated communities such as
Willow and Big Lake. The MSB consists of approximately 24,680 square mi of land and 580
square mi of water.
4.12.4.2. Water and Wastewater
In the Denali Borough, most residents and businesses use individual wells and septic systems to
meet their water and wastewater needs. Both the Usibelli Mine and Healy Clean Coal Project
have individual water well systems. The Clear Air Force Station provides piped water and sewer
for base facilities.
According to the Draft MSB Public Facilities Plan Revision, approximately 83 percent of
households in the MSB are on private well and septic systems (MSB 2009). There are more than
20,000 active septic tanks in the MSB (MSB 2009). As much of the future residential growth is
expected to occur on larger lots, the MSB anticipates approximately 56,000 active septic tanks
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-369 December 2011
by 2030 (this forecast is based on an estimated 2030 MSB population of 137,682) (MSB 2009).
There is no regional septage handling facility in the MSB. In addition, some residents rely on
hauling water and outhouses, while the more densely developed areas near Wasilla, Palmer, and
Talkeetna have piped systems.
4.12.4.3. Solid Waste
The Denali Borough operates a landfill at Milepost (MP) 282.2 of the Parks Highway
(approximately two mi southeast of the Clear Air Force Station). It is estimated that the landfill
will reach capacity around 2023 (Denali Borough 2007). The Denali Borough also operates the
Cantwell Transfer Station, located at mile 213.2 Parks Highway.
Currently, The MSB Solid Waste Management Division operates several solid waste disposal
facilities including (MSB 2009):
One permitted Class I landfill near Palmer
One unattended trench fill near Skwentna
Twelve waste drop-off sites (waste transfer stations and dumpsters)
One recycling facility
As of 2002, the lifespan of the landfill was estimated to exceed 70 years (MSB 2009).
In each borough, some residents dispose of their solid waste on their own property, either by
burning it or by burying it.
4.12.4.4. Police
The Alaska State Troopers (AST) provide police services within the Denali Borough. There are
AST posts in Cantwell and Healy. In addition, the northern portion of the Denali Borough may
receive police service from the AST post in Nenana.
Within the MSB, police services are provided by the AST, the Wasilla Police Department, and
the Palmer Police Department. The Houston Police Department is currently not staffed, and
emergency calls are being handled by the AST (City of Houston n.d.).
4.12.4.5. Fire
Fire protection in the Denali Borough is provided by volunteer fire departments (VFD)
including:
Cantwell VFD
McKinley VFD
Tri-Valley VFD
Anderson City Fire Department
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-370 December 2011
The MSB Department of Emergency Services, the City of Palmer and the City of Houston
provide fire department services within the MSB (MSB 2009). The MSB Department of
Emergency Services provides fire coverage for areas within a Fire Service Area, but not all
property in the MSB in covered by a Fire Service Area (areas outside a Fire Service Area rely on
their own resources for fire protection) (see Figure 4.12-2). The MSB Fire Service is primarily a
volunteer department.
Fire protection in the City of Palmer is provided by Palmer Fire and Rescue. Palmer Fire and
Rescue is staffed by paid on-call volunteers who live in the City of Palmer or the Greater Palmer
Fire Service Area. It operates out of six stations:
Station 3-1; 717 S. Cobb St. (downtown Palmer)
Station 3-2; 3 mi north of Palmer at 5955 N. Glenn Hwy (Mile 51)
Station 3-3; 15855 E. Clark Rd. (Lazy Mountain)
Station 3-4; 901 S. Airport Rd. (Palmer Airport)
Station 3-5; 8200 E. Turner Rd. (Palmer Fishhook Rd.)
Station 3-6; 645 E. Cope Industrial Way in Palmer
Station 3-6 also functions as the Palmer Fire and Rescue Training Center.
The Houston Fire Department is housed in the Houston Emergency Services building at mile
57.3 on the Parks Highway.
Date: Nov 2011Scale: As Noted
kj
!.
!.
!.
G l e n n HighwayGeorge Parks HighwayMATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH
MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE
Willow FSA #35
Wasilla Lakes FSA #130
West Lakes FSA #136
Butte FSA #2
Caswell FSA #135
Greater Palmer FSA #132
Talkeetna FSA #24
Sutton FSA #4
Trapper Creek FSA #18 (no fire protection)
PalmerWasilla
Talkeetna
Matanuska-Susitna BoroughFire Service Areas
State of AlaskaSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC No.14241
Figure 4.12-2
Ü0 8 164
Miles
Legend
kj Proposed Watana Dam and Powerhouse
Proposed Watana Reservoir
Susitna River
!.Selected Populated Place
Alaska Railroad
Highway
Borough
MSB Fire Service Area
Butte FSA #2
Caswell FSA #135
Greater Palmer FSA #132
Sutton FSA #4
Talkeetna FSA #24
Trapper Creek FSA #18 (no fire protection)
Wasilla Lakes FSA #130
West Lakes FSA #136
Willow FSA #35
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-372 December 2011
4.12.4.6. Health Care
In the Denali Borough, health care is available through the Cantwell Clinic, Anderson Health
Clinic and the Tri-Valley Community Center. The Cantwell Clinic is operated by the Copper
River Native Association and is a primary health care facility. The Anderson Health Clinic is a
part of the Interior Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Region. Tri-Valley Community Center
in Healy is a Community Health Center operated by the Interior Community Health Center. It is
funded by a federal grant under Section 330 of the Public Health Service Act (DHHS 2009).
Community Health Centers are required to treat all patients, regardless of their ability to pay.
In addition, there is the seasonally operated Canyon Health Clinic at Denali Park. These Denali
Borough facilities are usually staffed by health aides. The government also operates the Clear
Air Force Station (AFS) Medical Clinic. For more advanced health care, residents must go to
facilities in the MSB, Anchorage and Fairbanks.
In the MSB, the largest health care facility is the Mat-Su Regional Medical Center. Opened in
2006, it has 74 beds and offers a wide variety of specialties and services. However, some patients
still need to travel to Anchorage or to facilities outside Alaska for their medical care. The
Sunshine Community Clinic, a Community Health Center in Talkeetna, is an emergency care
clinic. There are numerous other clinics and private medical facilities in the MSB. The MSB
Department of Emergency Services provides emergency medical care to the entire MSB.
4.12.4.7. Schools
The Denali Borough School District (DBSD) operates three schools (Anderson School, Cantwell
School and Tri-Valley School) and a statewide correspondence school (Denali-PEAK),
employing 27 teachers (State of Alaska 2010). According to the Alaska Department of
Education and Early Development (DEED), as of October 1, 2010, there were a total of 768
students enrolled within the DBSD: Anderson School had 39 students between Kindergarten and
Grade 12 (K-12), Cantwell School had 32, Tri-Valley School had 179 and Denali-PEAK had
491. An additional 27 students were enrolled in Pre-Elementary programs (DEED 2010).
In 2010, the MSB School District had a total of 17,079 students and employed 1,004 teachers at
44 schools, including 20 elementary schools, five middle schools, six high schools, four K-12
schools, a home school, six charter schools and three alternative education schools (MSB 2011;
State of Alaska 2010). In the north-west part of the school district (closest to the Project
location), there are three schools: Talkeetna Elementary, Trapper Creek Elementary and Su-
Valley Jr./Sr. High (see Table 4.12-9).
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-373 December 2011
Table 4.12-9. Schools in the MSB school district near the Project site.
School Name Grades Enrollment as of October 1, 2010
Talkeetna Elementary Pre-Kindergarten to Grade 6 113 (Pre-Kindergarten students not reported)
Trapper Creek Elementary Kindergarten to Grade 6 23
Su Valley Jr./Sr. High Grades 7 through 12 190
Source(s): DEED 2010
4.12.4.8. Taxes/Municipal Finances
The Denali Borough is a Home Rule Borough. A Home Rule Borough has its powers and duties
established through its adopted charter ratified by the voters. It can exercise any powers except
those prohibited by federal or state law or by the home rule charter (DCCED 2003). The Denali
Borough operates the schools and the landfill. Most other public services are not provided in the
borough. The school district is the Denali Borough’s biggest expense followed by the Assembly
(approximately 2.1 million and 1.3 million dollars, respectively). Taxes are the borough’s largest
revenue source (approximately 2.3 million dollars). Table 4.12-10 summarizes the finances for
the Denali Borough in fiscal year (FY) 2012.
Table 4.12-10. Denali Borough budget for fiscal year 2012.
General Fund
Estimated Revenues Expenditures
Taxes $2,290,000
Intergovernmental, Federal $289,387
Intergovernmental, State $569,068
Other $11,500
Assembly $1,272,237
Mayor $856,794
School District $2,069,720
Deposits to Borough Fund
Accounts
$441,481
Matching Grants $30,588
Total $3,159,955 $4,334,754
Enterprise Funds
Land Management Fund $4,000 $277,420
Solid Waste Fund $437, 652 $818,771
Source(s): Denali Borough 2011.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-374 December 2011
The MSB is incorporated as a second class borough and can levy fees and taxes which fund
borough government and services. (General law boroughs obtain their powers and duties
through established law. A first class general law borough can exercise powers not prohibited by
law on a non-areawide basis by adopting an ordinance, while a second class borough must have
voter approval to exercise non-areawide powers (DCCED 2003).) The MSB manages its school
district as well as solid waste, fire protection (the MSB only organizes fire protection within a
fire service area) and emergency medical services. Many other services such as water, sewer and
law enforcement are managed locally by the cities of Palmer, Wasilla and Houston. Similar to
the Denali Borough, the school district is the MSB’s biggest expenditure (approximately 256.9
million dollars) and taxes are their largest revenue source (approximately 103.6 million dollars).
Borough operations are the second highest expenditure (45.2 million dollars). Estimated
expenditures and revenues for FY 2011 are shown in Table 4.12-11 and Table 4.12-12.
Table 4.12-11. MSB estimated expenditures for federal year 2011.
FY 2011 Expenditures (in millions)
School Operations $256.9
Debt Service 19.9
Borough operations $45.2
Fire Service Area operations $6.5
Road service area operations $10.3
Enterprise operations $11.5
Capital Projects $12.8
Dust control program $1.2
Miscellaneous grants $2.6
Other service areas and E-911 operations $1.3
Total Expenditures: $368.2 million
Source(s): MSB 2010a.
Table 4.12-12. MSB estimated revenues for federal year 2011.
FY 2011 Revenues (in millions)
Taxes $103.6
Interest $0.5
Fees $15.1
State $193.3
Federal $31.5
Other $4.1
Total Revenues: $348.1 million
Source(s): MSB 2010a.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-375 December 2011
4.12.5. Electricity
The following electric utility companies are interconnected within the Railbelt electrical system:
Matanuska Electric Association, Inc.
Homer Electric Association
Chugach Electric Association
Seward Electrical Association
Municipal Light and Power (ML&P)
Golden Valley Electric Association
The service area for each utility is shown in Figure 4.12-3.
Date: Nov 2011Scale: As Noted
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*
KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH
MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH
DENALI BOROUGH
FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH
MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE
Kenai
Homer
Valdez
Seward
Wasilla
Soldotna
Glennallen
Anchorage
Fairbanks
Homer Electric Association
Matanuska Electric Association
Golden Valley Eelctric Association
Copper Valley Eelctric Association
Chugach Electric Association
City of Seward
Electrical Utility Service Areas
State of AlaskaSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC No.14241
Figure 4.12-3
Ü0 25 5012.5
Miles
Legend
kj Proposed Watana Dam and Powerhouse
Proposed Watana Reservoir
Susitna River
!.Selected Populated Place
Highway
Borough
#*Power Station
Railbelt Electrical Service Area
Chugach Electric Association
City of Seward
Copper Valley Eelctric Association
Golden Valley Eelctric Association
Homer Electric Association
Matanuska Electric Association
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-377 December 2011
4.12.6. Potential Adverse and Positive Impacts
The area in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Project is relatively isolated and unpopulated.
Many of the Project’s potential adverse impacts are related to the potential change in the location
of the population. Once this has been quantified, a more detailed assessment of the
socioeconomic impacts of the Project will be done.
Potential adverse impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the proposed Project
are listed below. As stated previously, these impacts need to be quantified to better determine the
actual impact to socioeconomic resources.
Changes in subsistence harvesting opportunities would impact fish and wildlife
populations and resources in the Susitna River watershed.
Influxes in population would impact lifestyles in area communities, change the local real
estate market, increase area traffic, alter employment opportunities, affect community
identities and reputations, and increase demands on public services and facilities.
Commercial fishing, hunting, trapping, etc., opportunities could be negatively impacted
by activities associated with the proposed Project.
Secondary development impacts on Native corporation undeveloped lands may occur.
4.12.6.1. Air Quality
Because of its remote location far from human activity, the existing air quality of the Project area
is expected to be generally pristine. Only natural events such as forest fires and volcanoes could
be expected to measurably impact air quality in the Project area, given the current low levels of
human developments in the region. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the proposed Project
would significantly alter area air quality.
4.12.6.1.1. Prevention of Significant Deterioration
The previous APA Project License Application from the 1980s provides some useful estimates
of emissions from point sources and fugitive sources that would exist for portions of the
projected six-year construction period for the currently proposed Project.
4.12.6.1.2. Total Suspended Particulate Matter
Information in the previously proposed APA Project license application from the 1980s indicates
that ambient monitoring was conducted near a field camp in the project vicinity for total
suspended particulate matter (TSP), which was previously the regulated form of Particular
Matter (PM). Maximum 24-hour average TSP concentrations are cited in the previous
application as being less than 10 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3), based on the monitoring.
The currently regulated forms of PM are particles under 10 microns (PM10) and particles under
2.5 microns (PM2.5). Since PM10 and PM2.5 represent the finer fractions of TSP, the
concentrations of these regulated forms of PM are expected to be even lower than the TSP values
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-378 December 2011
measured earlier. Given the remoteness of the Watana site from human development, and the
lack of any new emission sources in the Project area since the earlier measurements, it is
expected that all size fractions of PM in the Project area would currently have concentrations less
than 10 μg/m3.
4.12.6.1.3. Regional Monitoring
The only recent regional monitoring data identified has been collected in the northeast corner of
Denali National Park, approximately one mile west of the McKinley National Park Airport. This
site is just over 60 mi north of the currently proposed Project location. Between 2000 and 2003,
PM2.5 was monitored at this location and showed values generally far below the 24-hour
average and annual average National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Two 24-hour
concentrations over the 35 μg/m3 NAAQS level occurred in August 2002, but these may have
been of local origin, as most other 24-hour samples from the four-year period show values in the
single digits, and typically a fraction of a μg/m3 in the winter period. Notably, these high levels
did not constitute a measured violation of the NAAQS, because the standard is based on the
average of the 98th percentile value of measured concentrations over a three-year period.
Ozone data have also been collected for more than ten years, including up to the present, at the
same Denali location where PM2.5 data were collected. These data have generally shown
concentrations well below the current eight-hour ozone NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb).
However, for a one-week stretch in April 2008, ozone concentrations at the Denali monitor
remained significantly elevated with the maximum eight-hour value on one day equaling 76 ppb.
This did not constitute a measured violation because the standard is based on a three-year
average of the annual 99th percentile of daily maximum eight-hour concentrations. Also, review
of the meteorological data for the week of elevated ozone values in 2008 indicates that the ozone
may have come from the stratosphere. A strong storm system followed by high pressure can mix
some of the high ozone concentrations from the stratosphere down to ground elevation. Thus,
this event was most likely due to such a natural occurrence, as opposed to manmade pollution.
4.12.6.1.4. Immediate Project Vicinity
While only TSP concentrations data have been collected in the immediate Project vicinity,
expectations are that other pollutant levels in the Project vicinity are near background/natural
levels, considering the lack of nearby human activity. Data from the prior 1980s Susitna Project-
area TSP monitoring, and more recent data from the Denali monitoring site, will be summarized
in the Project License Application.
4.12.7. Potential Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement
PM&E measures proposed in the 1984 Project license application are listed below. These
measures will likely be applied to the currently proposed Project.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-379 December 2011
Avoiding large and rapid population influxes into communities, especially small
communities. This will help prevent substantial shortages of housing, community
facilities and services, cost of living increases and changes in lifestyle.
Avoiding large traffic increases on the Denali and Parks Highways. This will help
prevent increases in traffic accidents and animal road kills.
Minimize, reduce or eliminate overtime, or compensate for significant adverse impacts
resulting from Project construction worker-related population influxes and effluxes.
Having a leave, shift and shift-change rotation schedules. This would result in different
amounts and patterns of residence relocation and commuting by Project workers.
Additionally, there would be different costs for transportation programs since more
frequent rotations increase the number of trips per worker.
Considering providing housing and related facilities for Project workers located near the
Project construction site. To avoid large population influxes into nearby communities,
single status accommodations at the Project site could be constructed for shift workers.
Family accommodations and related facilities could be provided for Project workers who
would be at the work site on a more permanent basis. These arrangements, together with
appropriate leave and other schedules, would reduce resettlement by workers in nearby
communities.
Having a transportation program for Project workers. The presence of a transportation
program in the early construction phases should have the general effect of decreasing
population influxes into small communities located nearest to the Project site. These
employees and their families, who would otherwise in-migrate to small communities,
could retain their residences (which may be in Anchorage or Fairbanks). The type of
transportation program instituted (i.e.; air, bus and/or van transportation) will affect the
degree to which the Project-related population is shifted.
Implement Project-community interaction between AEA, local agencies, state agencies
and affected communities.
Develop and implement an Impact Management Program to reduce adverse
socioeconomic impacts caused by the Project.
Providing updated information about Project features, labor needs, schedules, and Project
impacts on communities to all concerned parties.
Monitoring the socioeconomic conditions in communities affected by the Project,
including the availability of housing, facilities and services.
Developing an interdisciplinary task force to refine and implement Project mitigation
measures.
The Project will comply with management plans for the state and federal lands, as well as the
boroughs, in the Project area. Camps for workers will be considered during construction to avoid
impacts and conflicts with area residents. Alternatively, construction workers could be bused into
the site from a centralized meeting point. Mitigation measures for air emissions may be needed
during the construction period. During any periods when roads or non-vegetated areas become
dry and dusty, watering or other fugitive dust suppression measures will be employed to
minimize migration of dust off-site.
Additional measures will be identified at a later date to address ongoing socioeconomic impacts
of the Project associated with its construction and long-term operation.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-380 December 2011
4.12.8. References
Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (DCCED). 2003.
Municipal Government Structure in Alaska. Available online at
http://www.dced.state.ak.us/dca/logon/muni/muni-structure.htm. Accessed July 2011.
Alaska Department of Education and Early Development (DEED). 2010. Assessment and
Accountability. Also available online at
http://www.eed.state.ak.us/stats/SchoolEnrollment/2011SchoolEnrollment.pdf. Accessed
July 28, 2011.
Alaska Department of Health and Social Services (DHHS). 2009. Directory of Alaska Health
Care Sites. Also available online at http://www.hss.state.ak.us/pdf/HC_Sites_Dir.pdf.
Accessed July 2011.
Chugach Electric. No date. Railbelt Service Areas. Also available online at
http://www.chugachelectric.com/pdfs/railbelt.pdf. Accessed July 2011.
City of Houston. No date. Houston Police Department. Also available online at
http://www.houstonak.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC= percent7BA3BF3399-
0617-46EE-B3FB-42AC20F8AF11 percent7D. Accessed August 1, 2011.
Denali Borough. 2011. An Ordinance for the Denali Borough Providing for the Establishment
and Adoption of the Budget for the Fiscal Year 2012. Also available online at
http://www.denaliborough.govoffice.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=
percent7B848B925E-4DB0-4BA8-B32F-F5B021C55353 percent7D&DE=
percent7BE3253F55-06D4-4C36-AA4B-CB865D19D4BB percent7D. Accessed July
2011.
Denali Borough Planning Commission. 2009. Comprehensive Plan 2009. Published online at
http://www.denaliborough.govoffice.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={B965F92F
-F014-4BC3-8310-8445438750AB}&DE={8B35EEA5-40FC-4E5E-B812-
D7C332892D37}. Accessed November 2011.
Denali Borough Landfill (Denali Borough). 2007. Class II Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Solid
Waste Permit Application Milepost 282.5 George Parks Highway Anderson, Alaska.
Healy, Alaska. Also available online at
http://www.denaliborough.govoffice.com/vertical/Sites/ percent7B63112C6F-13FC-
4147-831D-8F3F0E33EC53 percent7D/uploads/ percent7BCB3B50D3-E534-42CA-
A936-219A7A3036CF percent7D.PDF. Accessed July 28, 2011.
Fried, Neal. 2010. “The Matanuska-Susitna Borough.” In Alaska Economic Trends: Population
Projections 2010-2034. Edited by S. Whitney. Alaska Department of Labor and
Workforce Development. pp. 12–19.
—. 2009. “The Denali Borough.” In Alaska Economic Trends: The Denali Borough. Edited
by S. Erben. Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development. pp. 4–10.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-381 December 2011
Matanuska-Susitna Borough (MSB). 2011. Mat-Su Borough School District. Also available
online at
http://www.matsuk12.us/173310101794536783/blank/browse.asp?A=383&BMDRN=20
00&BCOB=0&C=55573. Accessed July 28, 2011.
—. 2009. Draft MSB Public Facilities Plan Revision. Published online at
http://www.matsugov.us/planning/borough-plans/comprehensive-plans. Accessed July
28, 2011.
—. 2010. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Approved Annual Budget Fiscal Year 2011. Also
available online at
http://www.matsugov.us/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=280
5&Itemid=238. Accessed July 2011.
—. 2005. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning and Land Use Department. Matanuska-
Susitna Borough Comprehensive Development Plan. Published on-line at
http://www.matsugov.us/planning/borough-plans/comprehensive-plans. Accessed
August 9, 2011.
—. 1999. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning and Land Use Department. Talkeetna
Comprehensive Plan. Published online at http://www.matsugov.us/planning/borough-
plans/comprehensive-plans. Accessed November 2011.
—. 1993. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning and Land Use Department. Chase
Comprehensive Plan. Published online at http://www.matsugov.us/planning/borough-
plans/comprehensive-plans. Accessed November 2011.
—. (No date.) Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning and Land Use Department. Draft
Public Facilities Plan. Published online at http://www.matsugov.us/planning/borough-
plans/comprehensive-plans. Accessed November 2011.
State of Alaska. 2010. Alaska Community Database Community Information Summaries.
Department of Community and Regional Development. Also available online at
http://www.dced.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF_CIS.htm. Accessed July 2011.
United States Department of Commerce, Census Bureau (USCB). 2011. State and County
QuickFacts; Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Alaska. Published on-line at
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/02/02170.html. Accessed August 15, 2011.
—. 2010. United States Census 2010. Also available online at
http://2010.census.gov/2010census/. Accessed July 2011.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-382 December 2011
4.13. Alaska Native Resources
4.13.1. Introduction
The Susitna River basin has been a source for subsistence hunting, fishing, and gathering, travel
to other areas and settlement. It is an area with a long traditional history and cultural importance
to Alaska Natives in the region.
Alaska Native resources as an analysis category encompasses many resources, including (but not
limited to): fish and aquatic resources, wildlife and botanical resources, subsistence resources,
cultural resources, recreation and land use. As such, Alaska Native resources are discussed in
general terms, acknowledging these other studies and their applicability where appropriate.
This analysis focuses on summarizing and analyzing information relating to land and other
resources of interest to identified Alaska Native entities that may be affected by the Project. In
order to account for the range of Alaska Native entities recognized in federal statute under the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), as well as Tribes recognized by the U.S.
Department of the Interior, two main types of Alaska Native entities were reviewed for this
document: Alaska Native tribes federally-recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs pursuant to
25 CFR 83.6(b); and Alaska Native entities defined under ANCSA (43 USC §1602; i.e.,
Regional Corporations, Village Corporations, Group Corporations and Urban Corporations).
The study area for Alaska Native resources encompasses a broad area, and includes the Susitna
basin and Upper Cook Inlet. Because of the potential for resources within this area to be of
interest to Alaska Native entities elsewhere in the state, baseline information was reviewed for
all Alaska Native entities within the Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (CIRI) and Ahtna Inc. regions, as
well as Alaska Native entities in the Doyon, Ltd. region with lands or interests near the northern
boundary of the Susitna basin.
Of the over 229 Alaska Native groups federally-recognized as Indian tribes in Alaska, 22 are
located within or in close proximity to the Project area, and may have interests in the Project (see
Table 4.13-1). Additionally, there are three Regional Corporations with interests in areas that
may be affected by the Project. There are also 14 Village Corporations, five Group Corporations,
and one Urban Corporation with land and/or other resource interests that may be affected by the
Project. These Alaska Native entities are identified in the following pages. To understand the
specific nature of their respective interests, further consultation with these entities should occur,
in a manner consistent with government-to-government and public involvement consultation
policies, as appropriate.
4.13.2. Alaskan Native Consultation
Identified Alaska Native communities, governments, corporations, and other resources are
described below.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-383 December 2011
4.13.2.1. Identified Communities and Alaska Native Tribal Governments
Historically, in what is now the lower-48 United States, tribal governments made nation-to-
nation agreements with the federal government, or treaties, in which Indian tribes agreed to
relinquish ownership rights to vast amounts of their traditional territories in exchange for smaller
areas over which they would exercise exclusive possession and control. Many of these
agreements also recognized hunting and fishing rights in areas outside “reserved” areas. These
agreements created what has been described as a “trust relationship,” in which the U.S.
government and all agencies have a duty to protect tribal rights and resources. Despite some
erosion of tribal rights by statute and judicial interpretation, courts continue to recognize Indian
tribes as “domestic dependent nations,” with inherent sovereignty over their own affairs. United
States policy is thus predicated on an interaction with Indian tribes on a government-to-
government basis. Although, with a few exceptions, the indigenous peoples in Alaska did not
enter into treaties with the U.S., there are 229 Alaska Native groups within the State of Alaska
that have been listed as tribal governments by the Department of the Interior.
Based on this history, the Federal Power Act, which delineates the licensing process for
hydroelectric projects, defines an Indian Tribe as that:
“which is recognized by treaty with the United States, by federal statute, or by the U.S.
Department of the Interior in its periodic listing of tribal governments in the Federal Register in
accordance with 25 CFR 83.6(b), and whose legal rights as a tribe may be affected by the
development and operation of the hydropower project proposed (as where the operation of the
proposed project could interfere with the management and harvest of anadromous fish or where
the project works would be located within the tribe's reservation).”
Identified tribal governments with potential interests in land and other resources that may be
affected by the Project are listed in Table 4.13-1.
Table 4.13-1. Federally-recognized Tribes (25 CFR §86) within the Project impact area by
region.
CIRI Region Ahtna Region Doyon Region
Chickaloon Native Village Cheesh-Na Tribe (formerly the
Native Village of Chistochina)
Village of Dot Lake
Eklutna Native Village Native Village of Gakona Healy Lake Village
Kenaitze Indian Tribe Gulkana Village Nenana Native Association
Ninilchik Village Native Village of Kluti-Kaah (also
known as Copper Center)
Northway Village
Village of Salamatof (Kenai) Mentasta Traditional Council Native Village of Tanacross
Seldovia Village Tribe Native Village of Tazlina Native Village of Tetlin
Native Village of Tyonek Native Village of Cantwell
Knik Tribe Native Village of Chitina
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-384 December 2011
4.13.2.2. Regional Corporations
The Alaska Statehood Act, enacted in 1958, authorized the new State to select approximately
104 million acres of vacant, unappropriated, unreserved federal land in the Alaska territory.
Soon after passage of the Act, the State began its land selections, in some cases selecting prime
lands around Native villages or lands that were important to Alaska Natives for hunting and
fishing. Alaska Natives successfully challenged many of the State selections, complicating the
State’s selection process. In an attempt to settle the aboriginal claims of Alaska Natives,
Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) in 1971. ANCSA
authorized the transfer of over 45 million acres of land and the payment of nearly $1 billion to
Alaska Natives.
In contrast to the federal policy implemented with respect to Indian tribes in the lower-48 states,
ANCSA uniquely relies on the establishment of State-chartered corporations. ANCSA created
two tiers of Native Corporations to manage the lands transferred to the Alaska Natives and to
help promote and undertake economic development: 13 Regional Corporations; and over 200
Village Corporations. ANCSA provided for Village Corporations to file applications for land
selections with BLM. Upon approval of an application, the Village Corporation is conveyed title
to the surface estate, and the Regional Corporation generally is conveyed title to the subsurface
estate.
4.13.2.2.1. Cook Inlet Region, Incorporated (CIRI)
CIRI was founded for Alaska Natives with ties to the Cook Inlet region. CIRI has over
7,300 shareholders, approximately 1.25 million acres of surface estate entitlements and
2.25 million acres of subsurface entitlement lands within and around the Susitna basin. CIRI
holdings within the Susitna basin are a mixture of selected, interim conveyance and patented
land.
CIRI actively is pursuing alternative energy development through projects in Cook Inlet, near the
mouth of the Susitna. CIRI projects include Fire Island Wind and Stonehorn Ridge Underground
Coal Gasification (UCG). CIRI also maintains an oil and gas leasing program for much of its
land holdings around Cook Inlet, including lands adjacent to the Susitna basin.
CIRI Alaska Tourism (CATC), a subsidiary of CIRI, owns and operates the Talkeetna Majestic
Lodge in Talkeetna.
4.13.2.2.2. Ahtna, Incorporated (Ahtna)
Ahtna, Inc. owns approximately 1,528,000 acres from an entitlement of 1,770,000 ac, primarily
in the Copper River basin. Ahtna land holdings within the Susitna basin are all interim
conveyances. Ahtna has over 1,600 shareholders, most of which reside in the Copper River
basin.
In 1980, seven of the eight village corporations in the Ahtna region merged with Ahtna, Inc.
Consequently, Ahtna acquired surface estate rights to the seven village corporations’ lands.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-385 December 2011
However, the merger agreement allowed the seven villages to maintain shareholder committees
known as Successor Village Organizations (SVO), who reserve the right to withhold consent to
any new development within former village lands.
Ahtna has 15 subsidiaries, including one involved in forestry and gravel sales, and one tasked
with developing a tourism program and business opportunities within the Ahtna region. The
Ahtna Land Department manages surface estate and gravel (excluding timber); Ahtna Minerals
Company, Inc. manages subsurface estate, and Ahtna Forest Products, Inc. manages timber.
4.13.2.2.3. Doyon, Ltd. (Doyon)
Doyon has over 17,550 shareholders and 11.4 million acres of surface, subsurface estate and
mixed estate land holdings. None of these holdings are located within the Susitna basin.
The nearest conveyed or selected lands are northeast of the Susitna basin, near the communities
of Dot Lake, Tanacross and Northway, north of the basin, near Nenana, and northwest of the
basin, near Telida, Nikolai, McGrath and Takotna. Each of these areas, however, is
geographically separated from the Susitna basin by the Alaska Range.
Doyon Tourism operates the Kantishna Roadhouse in Kantishna, the Denali River Cabins and
the Cedars Lodge near the entrance to Denali National Park, as well as Kantishna Wilderness
Trails, which offers day trips around Kantishna. Through a joint venture with ARAMARK (a
provider of food services and facilities management), Doyon Tourism is the authorized
concessioner for various tours, activities and other services offered within Denali National Park
and Preserve.
4.13.2.2.4. Village Corporations
Village corporations within the CIRI Region include:
Chickaloon Moose Creek Native Association
Eklutna, Inc.
Knikatnu, Inc.
Ninilchik Natives Association, Inc.
Salamatof Native Association, Inc.
Seldovia Native Association, Inc.
Tyonek Native Corporation
The only remaining village corporation within the Ahtna region is Chitina Native Corporation.
However, Successor Village Organizations exist for Cantwell, Chistochina, Gakona, Gulkana,
Kluti-Kaah (Copper Center), Mentasta and Tazlina.
Village corporations within the Doyon Region include:
Dot Lake Native Corporation
Menda Cha-ag Native Corporation (Healy Lake)
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-386 December 2011
Northway Natives, Inc.
Tanacross, Inc.
Toghotthele Corporation (Nenana)
The Tetlin Native Corporation was originally identified by Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) for
this analysis; however, during this review, its land holdings could not be verified. While Tetlin
Native Corporation likely does not hold lands within the Susitna basin, its status will be verified
for consultation on other resources, such as subsistence and cultural resources.
4.13.2.3. Group Corporations
ANCSA provided for the establishment of Group Corporations to hold, invest, manage and/or
distribute lands, property, funds, and other rights and assets for and on behalf of members of
certain small Native communities of less than 25 members. Group Corporations include:
In the CIRI Region:
– Alexander Creek, Inc.
– Caswell Native Association
– Gold Creek-Susitna NCI
– Montana Creek Native Association
– Point Possession, Inc.
4.13.2.4. Urban Corporations
ANCSA also provided for the establishment of Urban Corporations to hold, invest, manage
and/or distribute lands, property, funds, and other rights and assets for and on behalf of members
of urban communities of Natives. Four urban communities were identified as having significant
Native Alaskan populations and were allowed to develop Urban Corporations. Of these four
communities, only Kenai may be potentially affected by the Project. The Urban Corporation for
Kenai is Kenai Natives Association, Inc.
4.13.2.5. Alaska Native Allotments
In addition to the land and other interests of the Alaska Native entities, there are 98 individual
Native allotments within the Susitna basin in various stages of the adjudication and conveyance
process. Native allotments are lands selected by individuals under the Alaska Native Allotment
Act. The land claims applications were submitted to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management
(USBLM) and are in various stages of adjudication or conveyance. Once conveyed, title to the
land can be shared by any number of individuals through inheritance. An accompanying geo-
database has been prepared that delineates the allotments; the owners will be identified and
consulted regarding their specific interests. There are two categories of Alaska Native
allotments: restricted and unrestricted. Restricted allotments are held in fee, but are subject to
statutory restrictions against alienation; therefore, any land use agreements or other alienation of
interests in restricted allotments must be authorized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-387 December 2011
Unrestricted allotments are allotments that are no longer subject to restrictions against alienation,
for instance as a result of a petition for unrestricted status by the allotee.
4.13.2.6. Subsistence Resources
The Alaska Native people that are represented by the Alaska Native entities discussed in this
document consider wildlife and fish populations, particularly moose, caribou and salmon, to be
important subsistence resources and central to their cultural identity. Subsistence resource
information is summarized and analyzed in section 4.11 of the PAD (Cultural and Subsistence
Resources). Specific information regarding subsistence resources and use areas within the
Project area, as well as access routes to these resources, will need to be updated.
As discussed in section 4.11 of this PAD, beluga whales are an important subsistence resource
for Alaska Natives living on and around Cook Inlet, including Tyonek residents, who hunt for
belugas near the mouth of the Sustina River. Declining populations of belugas throughout the
1990s led to co-management agreements between the Native Village of Tyonek and other Alaska
Natives and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) allocating harvest and identifying
harvest practices. Populations continued to decline, and in 2007 Tyonek subsistence hunters
voluntarily stepped down from a hunt to further support recovery of the beluga population. The
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NMFS released a record of
decision for the supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Cook Inlet Beluga
Whale Subsistence Harvest in 2008, which resulted in the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Subsistence
Harvest Management Plan. In October 2008, NMFS listed the Cook Inlet population of beluga
whales as endangered under the Endangered Species Act.
4.13.2.7. Cultural Resources
In addition to subsistence resources, cultural resources are also of vital interest to Alaska
Natives. Cultural resource information is summarized and analyzed in section 4.11 of the PAD;
however, in light of their particular importance to Alaska Natives, two classes of cultural
resources are identified here: ANCSA section 14(h)(1) [43 USC §1613(h)(1)] sites and National
Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) sites.
The importance of cultural resources to Alaska Natives is reflected in section 14(h)(1) of
ANCSA, which specifically authorized the conveyance of cemeteries and historical sites to the
appropriate regional corporations. Conveyances or selections made under ANCSA 14(h)(1)
within the Susitna basin will be identified. Additionally, section 106 of the NHPA requires
special consideration of historic properties of traditional religious and cultural significance to
“Indian Tribes,” statutorily defined to include ANCSA Native villages, Regional Corporations
and Village Corporations. Any properties of traditional cultural and religious significance that
may be affected by the Project will be identified and evaluated for listing in the National Register
of Historic Places (NRHP), in consultation with the appropriate Alaska Native entities.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-388 December 2011
4.13.3. Potential Impacts
Impacts to Alaska Native resources specifically were not evaluated during the 1980s licensing
effort. However, the draft EIS for the 1980s Alaska Power Authority (APA) hydroelectric
project determined that potential environmental impacts may occur to a number of other resource
categories as a consequence of the development. As previously identified in this section, Alaska
Native resources as an analysis category encompasses many resources, including (but not limited
to): fish and aquatic resources, wildlife and botanical resources, subsistence resources, cultural
resources, recreation and land use. Consequently, previously identified environmental impacts to
these classes of resources also may affect Alaska Native resources. Discussions of the impacts to
these resource classes are presented elsewhere within this document and may be appropriate in
identifying potential adverse impacts to Alaska Native resources but are not restated here.
Instead, basic impact mechanisms are identified and discussed within the context of generally
identified Alaska Native resources.
Project impact mechanisms that could affect Alaska Native resources include construction and
operation of the dam and reservoir, access roads, ancillary facilities and transmission lines, and
the resulting environmental impacts, such as variations in water conditions downstream of the
facility during operation, direct ground disturbance during construction and operation, and the
introduction of audio and/or visual elements during construction and operation.
In general, impacts to Alaska Native resources may include environmental impacts to the
terrestrial and aquatic habitats of plants and animals that are of interest and/or significance to
Alaska Native individuals and entities with respect to access to and use of subsistence resources;
acquisition or use of individual, tribal and corporation lands for Project construction and
operation; disturbance to archaeological, historic and traditional cultural sites of interest and/or
significance to Alaska Native entities; impacts to Alaska Native entity financial resources, such
as corporation-owned recreation and tourism businesses or natural resource development areas;
and other socioeconomic impacts.
Construction and operation of the Project dam and reservoir, access roads, ancillary facilities and
transmission lines could affect subsistence interests by limiting, increasing or otherwise changing
access to subsistence use areas and resources, or increasing competition for such resources. The
same impact mechanism may also affect Alaska Native resources by limiting, increasing or
otherwise changing access to Alaska Native-owned lands, including individual allotments.
Specific potential impacts of the currently proposed Project are unknown at this time and will
require comprehensive consultation and analysis. While the design and operation of the currently
proposed Project may differ from the previously evaluated project, the types of impacts are likely
to be similar.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-389 December 2011
4.13.4. Potential Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement
4.13.4.1. Alaska Native Consultation Procedures and Guidelines
With the issuance of Executive Order (EO) 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments, the President emphasized the trust relationship with federally-recognized
tribal governments, while also recognizing the right of Indian tribes to self-government and the
federal government’s support for tribal sovereignty and self-determination. EO 13175 requires
federal agencies to support the policy of tribal self-determination by implementing an effective
process to ensure meaningful and timely consultation with tribes during the development of
policies that may have tribal implications. Tribal consultation is intended to assure meaningful
tribal participation in planning and decision making processes for actions with the potential to
affect tribal interests. The mandates of EO 13175 apply whenever regulations, legislative
comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions have substantial direct
effects on Indian tribes, on the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian
tribes. Although EO 13175’s mandates apply only to policymaking activities and are not binding
on independent regulatory agencies like the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the
EO does reiterate the policy of government-to-government interactions with tribes. Moreover,
while EO 13175 itself applies specifically to federally-recognized tribal governments, pursuant to
Pub. L. 108-199, 118 Stat. 452, as amended by Pub. L. 108-447, 118 Stat. 3267, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and other Federal agencies are required to “consult with Alaska
Native corporations on the same basis as Indian tribes under Executive Order No. 13175.”
Alaska tribal government-to-government (G2G) consultation is thus a relationship that is distinct
and separate from engagement with the general public. By definition, G2G consultation requires
a higher level of engagement, logistical planning and investment toward relationship building—
which will be critical for the success of the Project’s development. To this end, a Project-specific
consultation program is being developed to identify interested tribal entities, Alaska Native
corporations and communities, as well as strategies for the effective involvement of tribal
governments, Alaska Native entities and rural communities within the proposed Project’s study
area.
Maintaining G2G relationships and proper protocols is essential to consultation under Section
106 of the NHPA, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and in FERC licensing
procedures. Tribal and Alaska Native entity consultation is inherently a multifaceted process
involving parties with diverse cultural backgrounds, regulatory experiences, practical needs,
political realities and long-term goals. Such consultation associated with large-scale projects
poses a unique set of challenges that require an understanding of a myriad of federal and state
laws as they apply particularly to the FERC licensing process.
4.13.4.2. Consultation Plan
Identified Alaska Native entities listed in this document will be contacted and invited to attend
regularly scheduled meetings to discuss Alaska Native resources and interests, and any concerns
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-390 December 2011
regarding potential Project effects to resources and land interests. Specifically, consultation will
be conducted at varying levels of involvement, based on the G2G relationship between federally-
recognized tribal governments and the federal government, and with Regional and Village
Corporations accordingly:
G2G consultation will be conducted, with initial contact made by FERC officials together
with AEA representatives, and follow-up from AEA project managers, as delegated as
appropriate by FERC.
Meetings also will be initiated with Regional and Village Corporations. Consultation
meetings with federally-recognized tribal governments will be separate from meetings
with Regional and Village Corporations and other Alaska Native organizations, to
recognize the unique nature of the G2G relationship and to acknowledge the potentially
varying interests of tribal governments and Native Corporations.
Confirmation of each entity’s interest in the proposed Project will be assessed, as well as
the mode of communication each entity would like to utilize (e.g., quarterly update
meetings, e-mail communication, conference calls, etc.).
Whenever possible, face-to-face meetings will be conducted with interested Alaska
Native entities to help establish constructive, long-term relationships with Alaska Native
stakeholders during the licensing process and Project development.
It is anticipated that consultation meetings will occur at varying phases of the FERC licensing
process and Project development, and will overlap with consultation requirements under Section
106, NEPA and FERC licensing procedures. Meetings will occur with either smaller, focused
groups or large groups as the situation requires.
4.13.4.3. Alaska Native Land Interests and Resource Database
As discussed above, a standard query language (SQL) server-based web database application has
been developed to document and track Alaska Native entity status, contact information, and any
documents associated with Alaska Native resource interests that may be impacted by the Project.
This database will be updated periodically by Project staff as a result of further consultation and
investigation during licensing and Project development, as a tool for continued and
comprehensive understanding of Alaska Native resources and land interests. The database will
be updated as potential impacts and proposed protection, mitigation and enhancement measures
are identified and can be shared with Project stakeholders and G2G partners, to demonstrate how
the Project is collating Alaska Native resource interests for understanding throughout the
duration of the FERC licensing and Project development processes.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-391 December 2011
4.14. Transportation
4.14.1. Introduction
In the Railbelt region, the public transportation system is dominated by road, rail and aviation.
This analysis provides additional information to characterize the current baseline conditions of
the public transportation system in the Railbelt area, especially around the middle and upper
Susitna River system.
In coastal communities, water-based transportation systems are important, especially the ports of
Anchorage and Seward. In other communities, marine is used mostly for fishing and recreational
purposes as opposed to a primary means of transportation. As a result, water-based transportation
is not included in this analysis.
4.14.2. Roads
The primary road near the Project site is the George Parks Highway. The highway was
completed in 1971 and is approximately 323 mi long. The Parks Highway connects the Glenn
Highway to Fairbanks, providing the primary access to the MSB, Denali Borough, Denali
National Park and Preserve and Denali State Park along the way. The Parks Highway is mostly a
two lane highway but some segments are built to a higher standard (four lanes, divided
controlled access, etc.) (ADOT&PF 2008). The section between Mile Post (MP) 132 and 248 is
designated as an Alaska State Scenic Byway. (Along the Glenn Highway, mileposts do not
begin with 0. Instead, they begin at MP 35 because they continue the milepost numbering of the
Glenn Highway which starts at MP 0 in Anchorage.)
Also near the Project is the Denali Highway (also known as Route 8). The Denali Highway
connects the Parks Highway (near Cantwell) to the Richardson Highway (near Paxton). It was
opened in 1957 and is approximately 135 mi in length. It is a gravel highway but small portions
of the highway (eastern 21.3 mi and western 2.6 mi) are paved. The Denali Highway is not
maintained in the winter (i.e., October 1 through mid-May). The Denali Highway is used
primarily to access adjacent lands for hunting, harvesting or recreational purposes.
Other than the Parks Highway, the Denali Borough has a relatively limited road network, with
most roads providing local circulation and property access. By comparison, the MSB has a fairly
extensive road network of arterial, collector and local roads.
Additional information regarding road use and road maps can be found in section 4.10
(Recreation and Land Use) of this PAD.
4.14.3. Rail
The Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) is the only railroad in the Railbelt region (see Figure
4.14-1). Since 1985, the ARRC has been owned and operated by the State of Alaska. The
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-392 December 2011
southern terminus of the ARRC mainline is in Seward and the northern terminus is Eielson Air
Force Base (AFB). In addition, there are several spur lines including one in the Denali Borough
that connects the ARRC mainline to the Usibelli Coal Mine. The ARRC is currently pursuing a
rail extension within the MSB (Port MacKenzie Rail Extension). The Port MacKenzie Rail
Extension involves the construction of 30 to 45 mi, depending on the route, of new rail line
connecting the existing rail system to the MSB’s Port MacKenzie. This Project is estimated to be
completed in 2014.
Additional information regarding railroad use can be found in section 4.10 (Recreation and Land
Use) of this PAD.
4.14.4. Aviation
The largest airport in Alaska is the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport followed by the
Fairbanks International Airport. Both airports have large volumes of passenger and cargo
service. These two airports also provide the main links between Alaska and other states and
countries.
In addition to two international airports, there are numerous other public airports, private
airports, private landing strips and floatplane lakes throughout the Denali Borough and the MSB
(see Figure 4.14-1). Many of these are private-use, privately owned airports, seaplane bases and
heliports, and will not be discussed here because they are not available for public use. In
addition, many lakes, rivers, gravel bars and backcountry strips exist in the study area. As these
are used mainly for access to property or for recreational purposes, such as hunting or fishing,
they will not be discussed further in this report.
Date: Nov 2011Scale: As Noted
kj
!.
!.
!.
!.
!Ä
!Ä
!Ä
!Ä
!Ä
!Ä
!Ä
!Ä
!Ä
!Ä
!Ä!Ä
!Ä
!Ä
!Ä
MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH
DENALI BOROUGH
FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH
MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE
Valdez
Wasilla
Soldotna
Glennallen
Anchorage
Fairbanks
HOPE
WILLOW
SKWENTNA
GIRDWOOD
BIG LAKE
TALKEETNA
GOOSE BAY BIRCHWOOD
PALMER MUNI
NENANA MUNI
MERRILL FIELD
SHEEP MOUNTAIN
DELTA JUNCTION
Public Use Airports
State of AlaskaSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC No.14241
Figure 4.14-1Ü
0 20 4010
Miles
Legend
kj Proposed Watana Dam and Powerhouse
Proposed Watana Reservoir
Susitna River
Borough
!.Selected Populated Place
Alaska Railroad
Highway
!Ä Public Airport or Seaplane Base
Private Airport or Seaplane Base
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-394 December 2011
Within the Denali Borough, the following publically owned airports are available for public use:
Healy River
Kantishna
Clear
Stampede
McKinley National Park (commercial and business use of the McKinley National Park
airport is not allowed unless authorized by the NPS)
The airport in Cantwell is privately owned but public use is allowed.
Within the MSB, the following publically owned airports are available for public use:
Wasilla
Palmer Municipal
Big Lake
Goose Bay
Skwentna
Talkeetna
Willow
Lake Louise (Lake Louise airport is currently closed due to safety concerns; there are
plans to reconstruct the runway and re-open the airport in the future)
Sheep Mountain
Summit
No major improvements have been identified for airports within the Denali Borough. Within the
MSB, most of the major improvements will be for the Wasilla and Palmer Municipal airports.
4.14.5. Potential Adverse and Positive Impacts
It is assumed that the majority of the impacts to the transportation network would be associated
with construction. Impacts to the transportation system during the operation of the Project are
not expected to be substantial based on existing information.
4.14.6. Potential Protection, Mitigation and Enhancement
Protection, mitigation and enhancement (PM&E) measures will be identified following the
completion of the study process. If the Denali Corriodor is chosen for road acess, then some
potential PM&Es include:
Limiting the number of construction vehicles on the Parks Highway during peak traffic
times;
Limiting traffic on access roads to Project-related traffic;
Establishing a flight path for Project related air traffic;
Limiting Project-related traffic near residential properties during nighttime hours; and
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-395 December 2011
Paving the Denali Highway from Cantwell to the Denali Access Road Junction.
4.14.7. References
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADT&PF). 2010. Interior Alaska
Transportation Plan. Published online at
http://dot.alaska.gov/nreg/studies/iatp/documents.shtml. Accessed November 2011.
—. 2008. George Parks Highway Scenic Byway Corridor Partnership Plan. Also available
online at dnr.alaska.gov/parks/plans/georgeparkshwyscenicbyway.pdf. Accessed June
2011.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough (MSB). 2008. MSB Regional Aviation System Plan (RASP).
Published online at http://www.regionalaviation.info/. Accessed November 2011.
—. 2007. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). Published
online at http://www.matsugov.us/planning/projects. Accessed November 2011.
City of Palmer. 2009. Palmer Airport Master Plan (Palmer AMP). Published online at
http://www.cityofpalmer.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={6FF51789-DA6D-
4CAD-92EE-76B112D1E68C}&DE={4A2FD4F2-865C-4C79-B7AD-791500569099}.
Accessed November 2011.
City of Wasilla. 2010. Wasilla Airport Master Plan (Wasilla AMP). Published online at
http://www.wasillaairportfuture.com/Plans/IYS percent20AMP percent20master
percent20file percent20Final percent20Draft percent20Narrative.pdf. Accessed
November 2011.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-1 December 2011
5. PRELIMINARY ISSUES AND STUDIES LIST
5.1. Development of Preliminary Issues and Studies
Based on review of existing information, data gap analyses, and preliminary discussions with
agencies and other stakeholders (“licensing participants” or “participants”), AEA has identified a
number of issues for the proposed Project licensing. The issues for each resource area, and the
corresponding study needs, are listed and described below. The identified study needs represent
preliminary information regarding those studies that AEA proposes to include in its Proposed
Study Plan (PSP), to be filed in June 2012 in accordance with requirements of FERC’s Integrated
Licensing Process (ILP). The PSP will present a detailed scope, objectives, and methodologies
for each proposed study. AEA intends to hold resource workgroup meetings during the formal
study planning phase in 2012 to consult with licensing participants on development of the study
designs for inclusion in the PSP and subsequently the Revised Study Plan (RSP).
Resource issues and proposed studies to address those issues are summarized in Table 5.1-1.
More detailed descriptions of the licensing issues and associated study needs, by resource area,
are provided in Section 5.2. Also listed below under resource area subheadings are AEA’s early
study and information development activities planned for 2012, which will provide additional
information for use during formal study planning.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-2 December 2011 Table 5.1-1. Summary of identified resource issues and corresponding studies, Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project licensing. Identified Resource Issue(s) [see Section 5.2 for issue descriptions] Licensing Study/Information Need Status – 2012 Early Information Development Activity Water Resources: WR1 and WR3 Reservoir and Flow Routing Model Development: A HEC ResSim model to evaluate reservoir operations under various constraints and operating scenarios, as well as downstream routing effects is being developed. The HEC ResSim model is being proposed for this project due to its ability to model both aspects, reservoir operations and downstream routing simultaneously. The model will provide hourly flows and water surface elevations at selected transect locations where stream profiles and other information is known. The flow routing model is needed to serve as input to other water quality and fisheries resources modeling efforts. WR-S1: Locate and update 1981 hydrographic river transect information for the Middle Susitna River reaches for use in HECResSim (Reservoir Simulation Model) modeling. Include additional transects for lower river reaches. Water Resources: WR2 Water Resources River Ice Study: The overall study objective is to determine Project effects on downstream river ice formation process. Specific objectives are to (1) document the timing and process of ice cover formation, (2) identify the relationship between river ice processes and channel morphology, vegetation and aquatic habitats, and (3) forecast expected changes in river ice formation and processes as a result of Project construction and operation. WR-S2: Document the formation and break up of river ice downstream of the proposed Watana Dam site. Document relationship between river ice process and river morphology, riparian habitat and aquatic habitats. Identify reaches most likely to experience changes in ice processes due to Project construction and operation. Water Quality: WQ1 - WQ4 Water Quality Impacts Study: Study objectives: (1) verify baseline water quality conditions with select water quality measurements, (2) assess potential effects of Project construction and operations on temperature, turbidity, total dissolved/suspended solids, dissolved oxygen, pH, metals, and chemical/nutrient characteristics within the proposed Watana Reservoir and the mainstem river downstream of the proposed Watana Dam site (RM 184), and (3) evaluate potential effects of Project operations on total dissolved gas concentrations downstream of the proposed dam. WQ-S1: Review of existing temperature data and models. Geomorphology: G1 - G10 Geology/Soils: GS1 and GS2 Geomorphology Study: The study objective is to assess the potential change in Lower, Middle, and Upper Susitna River morphology, including mainstem, side channels, sloughs, and tributary mouths as a result of Project construction and operation. G-S1: Determine bedload and suspended sediment load by size fraction at Tsusena Creek, Gold Creek, and Sunshine Gage stations to improve sediment rating curves and total bed material load calculation. G-S2: Geomorphic assessment of the Middle River reach using aerial photography to quantify how channel types change with flow and assess relative
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-3 December 2011 Identified Resource Issue(s) [see Section 5.2 for issue descriptions] Licensing Study/Information Need Status – 2012 Early Information Development Activity stability of channel features. G-S3: Assessment of project effects on lower river channel morphology. Upper River Fish and Aquatic Resources: F1 - F3 Middle River Fish and Aquatic Resources: F4 - F8 Lower River Fish and Aquatic Resources: F9 - F10 Fish Abundance and Distribution Study: Study objectives: (1) characterize resident and anadromous fish species composition, spatial and temporal distribution, and relative abundance by subbasin and channel type and (2) develop habitat fish use information for impact assessment and use in the Instream Flow Study. Upper River Fish Study: Study objectives: (1) characterize resident and anadromous fish species composition, spatial and temporal distribution, and relative abundance and (2) characterize the habitat within the reservoir inundation zone. Productivity Study: Study objectives: (1) document benthic algae and macroinvertebrate taxonomic composition (to family level) and abundance in representative habitats in the Susitna River, (2) compare (using existing literature) the benthic algae and macroinvertebrate taxonomic composition and abundance to river systems having turbidity regimes (and flow/temperature regimes, if possible) similar to the turbidity estimated during Project operation, (3) estimate the effects of altered flow, temperature, and turbidity regimes on primary and secondary production/abundance, (4) identify factors currently limiting resident fish and juvenile salmonid growth (food availability, turbidity and/or water temperature) and evaluate the effects of changes in water temperature, turbidity, and food availability on resident fish and juvenile salmonid growth and habitat. Instream Flow Study: The objective of the study is to provide habitat-flow relationships necessary to quantify potential effects of Project operations and alternative flow scenarios on aquatic and riparian habitat. F-S1: Synthesis of existing fish data. F-S2: Susitna River salmon run apportionment. F-S3: Middle River habitat utilization study. F-S4: Chinook salmon presence above Devils Canyon F-S5: 2012 Instream Flow Planning Study
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-4 December 2011 Identified Resource Issue(s) [see Section 5.2 for issue descriptions] Licensing Study/Information Need Status – 2012 Early Information Development Activity Potential impacts to the Endangered Cook Inlet beluga whale: Information is needed to understand any connection, if any between potential Project effects and the listed beluga whale. Information about the beluga whale prey will be needed to evaluate potential indirect effects, if any to this species. F-S6: Cook Inlet beluga whale anadromous prey study analysis. Wildife Resources: W1 - W6 Big Game Study: Study objectives for moose: (1) complete population estimates for the Upper and Middle Susitna River basins and road and transmission corridors, (2) use spatial analysis of seasonal range use and movements based on telemetry data to provide information on habitat use, movements, and extent of winter range through the Project area, and (3) measure forage quality and browse intensity in the impoundment zone, access routes, and transmission corridors to quantify habitats that would be lost or altered, estimate timing of use and degree of dependency of resident and migratory populations, and compare habitat quality to other adjacent regions. Study objectives for caribou: (1) complete population estimates for the Project area including the Nelchina and Delta herds, especially estimates of sub-herd numbers and distribution in areas north of the proposed impoundment area, (2) evaluate current and historic Nelchina and Delta herds, movements, traditional migration routes across the proposed impoundment area, and sensitive seasonal distributions such as calving ranges, and (3) use spatial analysis of seasonal range use and movements based on current telemetry data from GPS/satellite collared caribou to provide information on current habitat use and movements throughout the Project area. Study objectives for Dall's sheep: (1) complete population estimate and delineate seasonal ranges in mountain regions next to the Project area, including road and transmission corridors and (2) assess current condition and use of mineral licks on lower Jay Creek. Study objectives for brown and black bears: (1) complete population estimates in the proposed Project area, (2) evaluate berry production in the impoundment zone and access corridors, (3) evaluate use of salmon spawning streams downstream from the proposed dam site W-S1: Wildlife habitat use and movement (corresponds to big game study). Compile existing population data and extrapolate to Project areas for moose, caribou, bears, Dall’s sheep, and wolves. Analyze other available ADF&G datasets for related to habitat use.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-5 December 2011 Identified Resource Issue(s) [see Section 5.2 for issue descriptions] Licensing Study/Information Need Status – 2012 Early Information Development Activity including use of Prairie Creek, (4) identify denning areas. Study objectives for wolves: (1) complete population estimates, determine number of packs and individuals using the Project area, including road and transmission corridors, (2) use spatial analysis of telemetry data to map pack territories and movements, and (3) identify locations of dens, rendezvous sites, hunting areas, and other essential areas for each pack. Furbearer Study: Study objectives: (1) evaluate existing data on distribution, habitat use, and movements of wolverine, beaver, river otter, mink, muskrat, and other furbearers, (2) complete current estimate of active beaver colonies in the middle and lower river, (3) complete spring surveys to evaluate overwinter survival of beaver, and (4) evaluate potential marten home range and dispersal movements between old forest stands. Small Game Mammal and Upland Gamebird Study: Study objectives for snowshoe hare, ptarmigan, and grouse: (1) evaluate existing data on distribution, habitat use, and movements and (2) evaluate seasonal habitat use, potential habitat fragmentation effects, and dispersal capabilities. Harvest Study for Big Game, Furbearers, Small Game Mammals and Upland Gamebirds: Study objectives for moose, caribou, Dall's sheep, bears, wolves, and furbearers: (1) evaluate and compile existing past and current data on harvest effort, harvest locations, hunter access, and hunter mode of travel and (2) compare current harvest locations to current patterns of seasonal habitat use and movements. Study objectives for small game mammals and upland gamebirds include: (1) evaluate and compile existing past and current data on harvest effort, harvest locations, hunter access, and hunter mode of travel and (2) compare current harvest locations to current patterns of small game mammals and upland gamebird abundance, seasonal habitat use, and dispersal capabilities. W-S2: Past and current big game and furbearer harvest study. Compile existing harvest and hunter effort within finest available harvest units; compare past and current distribution of reported harvest and effort, compare harvest locations to seasonal movements and recommend additional data collection.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-6 December 2011 Identified Resource Issue(s) [see Section 5.2 for issue descriptions] Licensing Study/Information Need Status – 2012 Early Information Development Activity Eagle and Raptor Study: Study objectives for bald and golden eagles: (1) evaluate existing data on distribution, established nest sites and pair territory locations, and foraging habitats, (2) complete current surveys to locate active nests and alternative nest sites within habitats affected by the impoundment, access road corridor, and transmission line corridors, (3) complete current surveys to document fall and winter communal roost sites, and (4) evaluate seasonal habitat use. Study objectives for cliff nesting raptors: (1) evaluate existing data on nest site locations, identify potentially suitable cliff nesting habitat locations and (2) complete current nest surveys at identified suitable cliff habitats to document use throughout the Project area. Study objectives for other raptors and owls: (1) evaluate existing data on nest site locations, identify potentially suitable nesting habitats and (2) complete current nest surveys in potentially suitable nesting habitats during late-winter early spring for owls and during early spring for other raptors throughout habitat potentially affected by the Project. Waterbirds, Seabirds, and Waterfowl Study: Study objectives: (1) evaluate existing data on nesting, brood-rearing, and migration staging distributions for waterbirds and waterfowl, (2) complete current surveys for nesting, brood-rearing, and migration staging habitats to determine abundance of waterbirds and waterfowl throughout the Project area, and (3) evaluate seasonal habitat use and movement patterns. Landbird and Shorebird Study: Study objectives: (1) evaluate existing data on nesting and migration staging habitats for landbirds and shorebirds, (2) complete current surveys for nesting and migration staging habitats to determine distribution and abundance of landbirds and shorebirds throughout the Project area, and (3) evaluate seasonal habitat use and migration routes. W-S3: Eagle nests and raptor nest study. Compile existing nest site, tree and cliff habitat data, determine current spatial distribution of potentially suitable habitats and complete aerial and ground-based surveys.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-7 December 2011 Identified Resource Issue(s) [see Section 5.2 for issue descriptions] Licensing Study/Information Need Status – 2012 Early Information Development Activity Non-Game Species of Conservation Concern Study: Study objectives for little brown bat: (1) evaluate existing data on distribution, habitat use, and movements, (2) evaluate geologic and topographic data to identify areas potentially containing Karst topography with cave features within the Project area, and (3) complete current distribution and habitat use surveys for bat species in the inundation zone, and the Middle Susitna River area. Study objectives for Wood Frog: (1) evaluate existing data on distribution, habitat use, and movements and (2) complete current distribution surveys for wood frogs throughout the Project area. Study objectives for small mammals: (1) evaluate existing data on distribution, habitat use, and movements and (2) complete distribution and abundance surveys within the inundation zone, and along road and transmission corridors. Study objectives for birds: (1) compile list of migratory bird species of concern and identify occurrence data and distribution of suitable habitats within the Project area based on existing data on distribution, habitat use, and movements and (2) complete current population and habitat use estimates for birds of concern throughout the Project area. Botanical Resources: B1 - B5 Vegetation Mapping Study: Study objectives: (1) determine the appropriate mapped scales, areal extents, and the Alaska Vegetation Classification level for vegetation mapping, (2) develop vegetation maps at suitable scales, and (3) provide habitat acres and distribution to support the development of related studies. Wetland-Riparian Study: Study objectives: (1) determine the appropriate scales and areal extents for wetland delineations in consultation with the USACE and compile available existing wetland mapping, (2) conduct field surveys to collect site-specific wetland data, (3) develop a wetland functional assessment, (4) determine natural fire-spread patterns in the proposed reservoir reach of the Susitna River, and (5) evaluate the relationship of wetland and riparian vegetation to the hydrologic regime. B-S1: Vegetation and wildlife habitat mapping. Compare current and historical vegetation and land cover mapping, determine appropriate map scales, areal extents and classification level, complete preliminary mapping from recent aerial images, complete initial field verification of preliminary mapping and identify habitat/plant community associations for rare and sensitive plants. B-S2: Riparian study. Identify riparian field sites and data from 1980s studies for potential resampling, review process and succession models for predicting downstream effects, complete preliminary mapping of riparian habitats from recent aerial images including wildlife habitat elements, and complete initial field verification of preliminary mapping.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-8 December 2011 Identified Resource Issue(s) [see Section 5.2 for issue descriptions] Licensing Study/Information Need Status – 2012 Early Information Development Activity Rare Plant Study: Study objectives: (1) identify the locations of rare plant populations in the Project area and (2) identify potential habitat enhancement locations. Noxious Weed Study: Study objectives: (1) identify locations of populations of target invasive weed species in the Project area and (2) identify potential treatment locations. B-S3: Wetland mapping. Compile current and historical wetland mapping, determine appropriate map scales, areal extents for wetland delineation, complete delineations on current photography incorporating data from vegetation mapping study, identify riparian and wetland delineation field sites and data from the 1980s studies for potential re-sampling, and select sampling locations and complete initial field surveys. Aesthetic Resources: A1 Aesthetic Resources Study: Study objectives: (1) assess significance of impacts of borrow and spoil areas, transmission lines, access roads, construction camps, and dams on scenic resources and (2) assess potential effects on scenic resources due to Project operation and maintenance activities. A-S1: Inventory BLM VRM designations. A-S2: Identify initial key viewing areas and key viewpoints. Recreation and Land Use Resources: R1 - R6 and L1 - L2 Recreation Resources and Land Use Study: Potential study objectives: (1) assess potential Project-related impacts on fishing, including the availability of fish, access, and quality of experience, (2) evaluate potential Project-related impacts on recreational hunting and trapping, including the availability of resources, access, and quality of experience, (3) assess potential Project-related impacts on boating and pack rafting downstream of Devils Canyon, including access to the water and possible impediments to navigation, (4) evaluate potential Project-related impacts on non-consumptive activities (e.g., bird watching and hiking), including availability of resources, access to the resources, and quality of the experience, (5) assess potential Project-related impacts of construction worker recreational activities on fish and wildlife resources in the Susitna River watershed, (6) evaluate potential Project-related impacts due to increases in recreational use resulting from improved access, creation of the reservoir, altered stream flow, and the need to accommodate and manage recreation use, (7) assess potential changes/effects to recreationist and local resident access patterns from potential Project-related changes in freeze-up conditions in the middle reach of the Susitna River, (8) evaluate the feasibility and desirability of restrictions on recreation to R-S1: Identify proposed recreation developments. R-S2: Informally survey recreation providers. R-S3: Collect existing recreation demand and supply data. L-S1: Title and site control research. L-S2: GIS base map updates.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-9 December 2011 Identified Resource Issue(s) [see Section 5.2 for issue descriptions] Licensing Study/Information Need Status – 2012 Early Information Development Activity reduce impacts on fish and wildlife resources in the Susitna River watershed, and (9) formulation of a recreation plan. Cultural Resources Issues: C1 - C4 Cultural Resources Study: Study objectives: (1) identification and significance of the potential effects on cultural, historical, and archaeological sites and (2) formulation of a cultural resources mitigation plan. C-S1: Pre-field data assessment and information gathering and compilation. Subsistence Resources Issues: S1 Subsistence Resources Studies: Study objectives: (1) assess potential Project-related effects on subsistence activities, (2) evaluate potential Project-related effects on the population of local animal species, including potential changes in wildlife migration patterns (addressed via Wildlife Resources studies), and (3) assess potential Project-related effects on human access to the Project vicinity (addressed via Recreation Resource studies). S-S1: Collect and analyze existing subsistence information. Collect exisiting harvest data, resource use, subsistence land use maps, place names and traditional environmental knowledge. Socioeconomic and Transportation Issues: So1 - So8 Socioeconomic Resources Study: Study objectives: (1) assess potential Project-related impacts to lifestyles in area communities, (2) evaluate potential Project-related changes to commercial opportunities related to fishing, hunting, trapping, etc., (3) assess potential Project-related changes in employment in area communities, (4) evaluate potential Project-related increases in demand on resources offered by the Mat-Su Borough and communities to provide public services and facilities for the Project and Project employees, (5) assess potential Project-related secondary development impacts on undeveloped ANCSA Corporation lands, (6) evaluate potential Project-related impacts resulting from residency and movement of Project construction personnel, (7) assess potential Project-related displacement and influences on residences and businesses, and (8) evaluate potential Project-related changes in economic conditions in the region. Transportation Study: The objective of the transportation study will be to assess the potential impacts to transportation systems resulting from the construction and operation of the proposed Project. No specific socioeconomic study is being scoped, however data collection and information gathering will continue in order to inform the study plans developed in 2012.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-10 December 2011
5.2. Preliminary Issues and Information Needs
Preliminary Issues were identified from reviewing the 1980s licensing efforts, data gap reports
and agency consultations as areas of potential inquiry regarding effects from the construction,
presence of facilities, and operation and maintenance of the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric
Project. This listing identifies the high-level preliminary issue topics that will continue to be
developed and refined through the ILP and preparation of the study plan for the Project. Some
topics may drop out and other topics may be added. Each issue is given a alpha-numeric
designation for reference and tracking. The key to the alpha designation is as follows:
GS- GEOLOGY AND SOILS (INCLUDED IN SECTION 5.2.3)
WR – WATER RESOURCES (SECTION 5.2.1)
WQ – WATER QUALITY (SECTION 5.2.2)
G – GEOMORPHOLOGY (SECTION 5.2.3)
F – FISHERIES AND AQUATIC RESOURCES (SECTION 5.2.4)
W – WILDLIFE RESOURCES (SECTION 5.2.5)
B – BOTANICAL RESOURCES (SECTION 5.2.6)
A – AESTHETICS (SECTION 5.2.7)
R – RECREATION (SECTION 5.2.8)
L – LAND USE (SECTION 5.2.8)
C – CULTURAL RESOURCES (SECTION 5.2.9)
S – SUBSISTENCE RESOURCES (SECTION 5.2.10)
SO – SOCIOECONOMIC AND TRANSPORTATION RESOURCES (SECTION 5.2.11)
Immediately after identifying and listing preliminary issues, this section provides summaries of
AEA proposed studies that may be needed to evaluate the preliminary issues. In developing
these Study Plan summaries, AEA has considered the preliminary issues, the data gap reports,
and the adequacy of existing, relevant and reasonably available information to address these
issues. Additionally, AEA has considered the seven criteria for study requests listed in 18 CFR §
5.9, as discussed in Section 2.5, which all licensing participants should address in making any
study requests. The proposed studies should be considered preliminary and subject to
modification during FERC’s Scoping and subsequent Study Plan development.
After the study descriptions, a list of planned 2012 studies and information development efforts
is provided. More up-to-date information on the 2012 studies is provided on the Susitna-Watana
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-11 December 2011
Project website (http://www.susitna-watanahydro.org). The specific 2012 studies follow the
naming convention listed above for the issues with an additional “” to designate “study.”
The preliminary issues arise from the Project’s construction, presence of facilities and/or
operation and maintenance activities and have a Project nexus. The existing information from
the 1980s, or any applicable work that has been undertaken in the Project area, will be used to
the extent possible in conducting the studies and resolving issues. It is anticipated that some of
these issues can be resolved without performing new studies. As appropriate, the existing
information will be used for baseline conditions and/or built upon and supplemented with new
information to address the preliminary issues.
5.2.1. Water Resources Issues
WR1: Project operations will affect flow timing and magnitude compared to current conditions
in Susitna River reaches below the proposed dam, which in turn can affect fish and riparian
habitats and fish movement.
WR2: Potential effects of Project operations on reservoir reach and downstream ice processes.
Changes in ice processes may affect river morphology and water quality, which can affect fish
and riparian habitats.
WR3: Changes in timing and magnitude of flows from Project operations on the interconnection
and overtopping into side channel and side sloughs may affect fish habitat and productivity.
5.2.1.1. Project Operations HEC ResSim Model
Study Rationale and Objectives
Project operations will alter the flows and flow regime downstream of the dam and reservoir
fluctuations will affect the natural resources in the reservoir area. An operations model that can
predict reservoir levels and downstream hourly flow and water surface elevations at places of
interest will be essential to other environmental analyses to determine effects on resources in the
area. Changes in timing and magnitude of flows can change the interconnection and overtopping
of side channel and side sloughs and flow routing models can provide input into further fisheries
and stream morphology investigations to understand how these changes could affect aquatic
habitats.
Study Area
The study area includes the Susitna River downstream to the mouth, from the upstream end of
the proposed Watana Reservoir.
Study Components
The USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC) has developed a series of programs for
hydrologic and hydraulic modeling including the HEC ResSim (Reservoir System Simulation)
model. HEC ResSim is able to model reservoir operations under various constraints and
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-12 December 2011
operating scenarios, as well as downstream routing effects. The HEC ResSim model is being
proposed for this Project due to its ability to model both aspects, reservoir operations and
downstream routing, of the Susitna-Watana Dam project simultaneously.
The HEC ResSim model setup of the watershed will include major inflows to the Susitna River
where time-series flow data is available including the Chulitna, Talkeetna, and potentially the
Yentna Rivers, as well as cumulative local inflows. The model setup will also include control
points at the Watana Dam site and Gold Creek, and comparison points with historic data at the
Sunshine and Susitna Station USGS Gaging Stations. Reservoir and dam characteristics from
the 1985 FERC application will be the initial basis of the physical and operating parameters in
the model, and updated, when applicable, to reflect the current configuration. Downstream
routing will be performed based on the Muskingum-Cunge channel flow routing method and will
use 8-point cross-sections initially based on survey data collected in 1980 and 1981 and
summarized in the Hydrographic Surveys Closeout Report, Final Draft (R&M Consultants
1981). The 1980s cross-section data will be updated as a part of the current studies. Location
and elevation cross-section data were collected in the 1980s at 68 locations on the Susitna River
between Talkeetna River and just upstream of Portage Creek near Devils Canyon. Data for 23
additional cross-sections was collected between Devil Creek and Deadman Creek, which is just
downstream of the Watana Dam site. Additional cross sections will be needed in the Lower
River as no complete transects were obtained in the 1980s and there is interest in understanding
the likely changes in flows and water surface elevations in the Lower River reaches.
5.2.1.2. Water Resources River Ice Study
Study Rationale and Objectives
Water released for winter generation is expected to alter the natural formation and breakup of
river ice by:
Preventing or delaying in-channel (frazil and aufeis) and ice cover formation for several
miles downstream of the reservoir.
Increasing the elevation at which the ice cover forms downstream of this open reach.
Preventing the formation of a stable ice cover on the reservoir.
The overall study objective is to determine Project effects on downstream river ice formation
process. The specific objectives are to:
Document the timing and process of ice cover formation.
Identify the relationship between river ice processes and channel morphology, vegetation
and aquatic habitats.
Forecast expected changes in river ice formation and processes as a result of Project
construction and operation.
Study Area
The study area includes the Susitna River downstream to the mouth, from the upstream end of
the proposed Watana Reservoir.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-13 December 2011
Study Components
At a minimum, the study will include the following study components:
The 1980s river ice studies will be thoroughly reviewed, and where possible, compiled in
geo-mapping format for comparison with present day observations. If compilation of
1980s study results are available to guide study site selection, observations of river ice
formation and breakup would commence in 2012-13 and continue through 2014-15.
Otherwise, site specific measurement and observation would not commence until winter
2013-14.
Document existing ice cover formation between River Mile (RM) 0 and 250 using
repetitive aerial observations and videography.
Measurement of ice thickness and surface elevation would be made between RM 80 and
150 and RM 180 and 200.
The presence or absence of frazil ice and aufeis ice as well as the timing and process of
ice cover formation on aquatic habitats between RM 98 and 150 will be documented.
Particular attention will be given to the relationship that exists between river ice and
vegetation, geomorphology and aquatic habitats within the reach. Some aspects are
vegetation succession, wood recruitment, sediment transport, channel migration,
upwelling, and fish survival.
Information will be compiled regarding river ice and existing hydroelectric projects in
arctic and sub-arctic climates outside Alaska.
Assessment of the effect of the ice process change on geomorphology, vegetation and aquatic
habitat would occur within those respective studies.
5.2.1.3. 2012 Water Resources Study Components
WR-S1: Locate and update 1981 hydrographic river transect information for Middle Susitna
River reaches for use in HECResSim (Reservoir Simulation Model) modeling. Identify new
cross section locations and obtain relevant data at representative locations in the Lower River
reach.
WR-S2: Document the breakup and formation of river ice downstream of the proposed Watana
Dam site. The progression of ice breakup and formation will be documented using repetitive
aerial observations. Ice thickness and ice surface elevation measurements will be made.
5.2.2. Water Quality Issues
WQ1: Potential effects of Project construction activities, such as accidental spills and releases
of petroleum products or other materials, disturbance of vegetation and soil cover, increased
stormwater runoff, and, increased suspended sediment/turbidity or nutrient levels within the
reservoir reach and downstream of the dam.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-14 December 2011
WQ2: Potential effects of reservoir filling, Project operations, including reservoir surface
elevation fluctuations, on temperature, turbidity, total dissolved/suspended solids, dissolved
oxygen, pH, metals, and chemical/nutrient characteristics within the reservoir.
WQ3: Potential effect of Project operations on temperature, turbidity, total dissolved/suspended
solids, dissolved oxygen, pH, metals, and chemical/nutrient characteristics of the mainstem river
downstream from the proposed Watana Dam site (RM 184).
WQ4: Potential effects of the proposed spillway operations on total dissolved gas concentrations
in the Susitna River downstream of the Project.
5.2.2.1. Water Quality Impacts Study
Study Rationale and Objectives
Project operations are going to impact water quality. Water quality studies will help quantify
those impacts. This study has the following objectives:
Verify baseline water quality conditions with select water quality measurements.
Assess potential effects of Project construction and operations on temperature, turbidity,
total dissolved/suspended solids, dissolved oxygen, pH, metals, and chemical/nutrient
characteristics within the proposed Watana Reservoir and the mainstem river downstream
from the proposed Watana Dam site (RM 184).
Evaluate potential effects of Project operations on total dissolved gas concentrations
downstream of the proposed Watana Dam site.
Study Area
The study area includes the Watana Reservoir and the Susitna River downstream of the reservoir.
Study areas will likely vary and be defined during the course of the study plan development to
address specific study components.
Study Components
The study will include the following study components:
Review and summarize existing water quality information: All available previous water
quantity and modeling data will be reviewed and summarized and used to the extent
possible to inform any additional water quality and modeling work.
Baseline water quality monitoring: The Susitna River and its tributaries will be
monitored to determine baseline water quality conditions. Measurement of temperature,
turbidity, total dissolved/suspended solids, dissolved oxygen, pH, metals, and
chemical/nutrient will be collected. Monitoring stations will be established and sampling
will be performed for comparison within and between sites over time.
Evaluate and select appropriate reservoir and riverine water quality models. Ensure that
the selected models have the capability to incorporate ice processes.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-15 December 2011
Use the temperature models to simulate water temperature during the portions of the year
that may be of most concern to aquatic species and ice processes. Modeling development
steps include:
o Collect/develop model inputs as necessary such as channel and reservoir
geometry data, solar shading data (topographic and riparian), meteorological data
(air temperature, wind speed, relative humidity, solar radiation), hydrology data,
and boundary condition flow and water temperature data for the modeled river
reaches and reservoirs.
o Calibrate and validate the hydrodynamics and heat budget portions of the water
temperature model(s) with empirical water temperature (river reaches and
reservoirs) and meteorological data (e.g., use data collected in 2005-2008).
Calibrate water travel time either with data collected in this study or data
collected in another study (Instream Flow).
Characterize modeled water temperatures (i.e., seasonal, daily, within-day temperatures)
for existing, Project, and alternative flow conditions. For Project and alternative flow
conditions, model a range of flow releases.
Evaluate and select appropriate reservoir turbidity modeling approach based on
empirical/literature data from other systems and numerical modeling, as appropriate.
Any reservoir turbidity modeling approach will be based on a significant empirical data
foundation. As appropriate, the study will use data from similar glacial river/reservoir
systems and validation of the modeling approach.
The reservoir turbidity modeling will be used in combination with mass flow/turbidity
modeling in the Susitna River (downstream) to characterize turbidity for Project and
alternative flow regimes. Modeling will be coordinated with the Instream Flow Study to
ensure that all important habitat types are included in the modeling (main channel, side
channel, side slough, upland slough, tributary mouths) along the length of the river.
Stream temperature and meteorological monitoring will be used to establish baseline
conditions and support reservoir and stream temperature modeling of potential Project
effects.
Stream turbidity monitoring within the Susitna River will be used to establish baseline
conditions and used to assess potential downstream Project effects.
Stream heavy metals concentrations (copper and aluminum) have been reported in the
Susitna River during prior sampling efforts. The potential source of these elements will
be assessed using geology and soils analysis. In addition, a review of previously
collected data will be made to determine the form of metal reported from previous
sampling (dissolved vs. total) and its potential bioavailability to aquatic organisms.
5.2.2.2. 2012 Water Quality Study Components
In addition to the above proposed studies, the following studies or study components will be
started in early 2012 in advance of formal Study Plan development for the Project. AEA is
currently working with the resource agencies to determine the full scope of this work. The
resulting studies or study components will be included in the Proposed Study Plan when it is
filed with FERC.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-16 December 2011
WQ-S1: Review of existing temperature data and models. Obtain and evaluate water and
meteorological temperature data, including 1980s data that was used to calibrate the SNTEMP
and DYRESM temperature models that were used.
5.2.3. Geomorphology/Geology/Soils Issues
Reservoir Geomorphology Issues
G1: Potential longevity of Watana Reservoir as a result of sediment entrapment based on
present day particle sizes in transport.
G2: Potential change in morphology at the upper end of the proposed reservoir resulting from
sediment entrapment. Changes in the river morphology at the upper end of the reservoir may
affect fish migration and habitat.
G3: Potential effects of Project operations on mass wasting, shoreline erosion, tributary mouth
migration, and stability within the reservoir inundation zone. These changes may affect fish and
wildlife or cultural resources.
G4: Potential temporary effects of soil erosion and sedimentation from Project construction
activities, including construction and use of access roads and borrow areas, in the Susitna River.
Middle River Geomorphology Issues (Watana Dam Site (River Mile [RM 184]) downstream to
Three Rivers Confluence [RM 98])
G5: Potential effects of reduced sediment load and changes to sediment transport as a result of
Project operations within the Middle River. Streambed coarsening due to reduced sediment
transport may alter river morphology, riparian conditions, and distribution and abundance of
mainstem, side channels, and side sloughs that affect fish habitat.
G6: Potential effect of Project operations on the stability of tributary mouths and access to the
tributaries within the Middle River. Potential tributary mouth morphological changes may affect
fish access to tributaries.
G7: Potential effects of Project construction and operation on the recruitment and deposition of
large wood within the Middle River. Changes in large wood abundance may affect aquatic
habitat.
G8: Potential effects of Project and infrastructure construction (dam, access roads, borrow areas,
transmission facilities) on sediment recruitment to water bodies within the Project vicinity.
Lower River Geomorphology Issues (Three Rivers Confluence [RM 98] downstream to Cook
Inlet [RM 0])
G9: Potential effects of reduced sediment load and changes to sediment transport as a result of
Project operations within the Lower River.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-17 December 2011
G10: Potential effects of Project construction and operation on the recruitment and deposition of
large wood to the Lower River reach. Changes in large wood abundance may affect aquatic
habitat.
Geology and Soils Issues
GS-1: Potential increases in erosion resulting from construction and operation of transmission
lines, roads, an airstrip, and construction camp.
GS-2: Potential seismic effects on the proposed dam and other facilities.
5.2.3.1. Geomorphology Study
Study Rationale and Objectives
Project operations will influence the sediment supply and sediment transport capacity of the river
due to changes in the high flow regime and entrapment of sediment in Watana Reservoir. This
could have potential effects on fluvial processes and channel morphology. Project operations
may influence water temperatures and the formation of ice and ice break-up that could alter river
flood stage and scour processes, potentially changing river channel morphology. Within the
Watana Reservoir inundation zone changes in river flow and stage, and changes in sediment
transport processes, could alter channel stability upstream of the reservoir, cause changes in the
morphology of tributaries entering the reservoir, and could induce erosion along the reservoir
shoreline.
It is important to predict the type and magnitude of geomorphologic changes that may occur in
the Susitna River due to the proposed Project. Existing data on the sediment supply and
sediment transport characteristics of the river is both spatially and temporally limited to a few
USGS stations.
The study objective is to assess the potential change in lower, middle and upper Susitna River
morphology, including mainstem, side channels, sloughs, and tributary mouths.
Study Area
The geomorphology study would consider the reservoir inundation zone and the remaining
segments of the Middle River, and the Lower River reaches.
Study Components
The overall study approach is to review existing and collect new data in order to:
Identify channel stability and changes in channel morphology today in comparison to
recent historic data using aerial photography, available channel geometry data, or other
geo-referenced data sources.
Characterize slope stability and soil conditions along the reservoir inundation zone.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-18 December 2011
Collect channel geometry and gradient data for tributaries entering the Watana Reservoir
inundation zone.
Verify 1980s study of trap efficiency of Watana Reservoir. In combination with data
collected for sediment load and particle sizes entering reservoir, and sediment transport
modeling, calculate sediment accumulation rate.
Quantify bed and suspended sediment load, timing of sediment delivery, sediment sizes,
and sediment transport rates in longitudinal profile along the river.
o Prepare sediment rating curves for existing USGS station data.
o Collect new sediment transport and particle size data for stratified study reaches
lacking data.
Collect cross-sectional and longitudinal profile channel geometry data for representative
river reaches to be used in hydraulic and sediment transport modeling.
This data would be used in combination with geomorphic principles and criteria/thresholds
defining probable channel forms, and with sediment transport and hydraulic modeling
methodologies to predict the potential for alteration of channel morphology.
5.2.3.2. 2012 Geomorphic Study Components
In addition to the above proposed geomorphic studies, the following studies or study components
will be started in early 2012 in advance of formal Study Plan development for the Project. AEA
is currently working with the resource agencies to determine the full scope of this work. The
resulting studies or study components will be included in the Proposed Study Plan when it is
filed with FERC.
G-S1: Determine bedload and suspended sediment load by size fraction at Tsusena Creek, Gold
Creek, and Sunshine Gage stations.
G-S2: Geomorphic assessment of the Middle River reach using aerial photography.
G-S3: Assessment of Project effects on Lower River channel morphology.
5.2.4. Fish and Aquatic Resource Issues
Upper River Fish and Aquatic Issues (Upstream of the Watana Dam Site [RM 184])
F1: Effect of change from riverine to reservoir lacustrine habitats resulting from Project
development on aquatic habitats, fish distribution, composition, and abundance, including
primary and secondary productivity.
F2: Potential effect of fluctuating reservoir surface elevations on fish access and movement
between the reservoir and its tributaries and habitats.
F3: Potential effect of Watana Dam on fish movement.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-19 December 2011
Middle River Fish and Aquatic Issues (Watana Dam Site [RM 184] downstream to Three Rivers
Confluence [RM 98])
F4: Effect of Project operations on flow regimes, sediment transport, temperature, and water
quality that result in changes to seasonal availability and quality of aquatic habitats, including
primary and secondary productivity. The effect of Project-induced changes include streamflow,
stream ice processes, and channel morphology (streambed coarsening) on anadromous fish
spawning and incubation habitat availability and suitability in the mainstem and side channels
and sloughs in the Middle River above and below Devils Canyon.
F5: Potential effect of Project flow regime on anadromous fish migration above Devils
Canyon. Devils Canyon is a velocity barrier to most fish movement and changes in flows can
result in changes in the potential fish movement through this area (approximately RM 150).
F6: Potential influence of the proposed Project flow regime and the associated response of
tributary mouths on fish movement between the mainstem and tributaries within the Middle
River reach.
F7: Influence of Project-induced changes to mainstem water surface elevations July through
September on adult salmon access to upland sloughs, side sloughs, and side channels.
F8: Potential effect of Project-induced changes to stream temperatures, particularly in winter,
changing the distribution of fish communities, particularly invasive northern pike.
Lower River Fish and Aquatic Issues (Three Rivers Confluence [RM 98] downstream to Cook
Inlet [RM 0])
F9: The degree to which Project operations affect flow regimes, sediment transport,
temperature, water quality that result in changes to seasonal availability and quality of aquatic
habitats, including primary and secondary productivity.
F10: Potential impacts to the Endangered Cook Inlet beluga whale.
5.2.4.1. Fish Abundance and Distribution Study
Study Rationale and Objective
The intent of the fish population studies is to address Project-induced macro-habitat changes and
subsequent changes to habitat quality and fish abundance and distribution. This study has the
following objectives:
Characterize resident and anadromous fish species composition, spatial and temporal
distribution, and relative abundance.
Develop habitat fish utilization information for use in the impact assessments and the
Instream Flow Study.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-20 December 2011
Study Area
The study area includes the Susitna River corridor and its tributary mouths from the proposed
Watana Dam site downstream. Study areas will likely vary and be defined during the course of
Study Plan development to address specific study components.
Study Components
The study will include the following study components:
Compile and summarize existing information on fish population composition, spatial and
temporal distribution, and abundance.
Develop a sampling approach to obtain habitat utilization (including turbidity/
temperature) information in channel types (main channel, side channels, side sloughs,
upland sloughs, tributary mouths, and tributaries) in selected study reaches.
Evaluate fish movement through Devils Canyon.
Assess access to tributary mouths based on geomorphologic studies.
Combine results from the Water Temperature and Turbidity Study with the current fish
distribution and water temperature criteria data for various species/lifestages of native
and introduced species to estimate fish distributions within the Project area.
Data reporting for Susitna River fish populations will include:
o Spatial and temporal distribution maps of resident and anadromous fish species
and lifestages for existing conditions.
o Periodicity charts for each species/lifestage by season and location within the
study area.
o Spatial and temporal abundance estimates for resident and anadromous fish
(adults and juvenile rearing and outmigration).
o Summary of channel type and mesohabitat utilization of fishes.
5.2.4.2. Upper River Fish Study
Study Rationale and Objective
The intent of the reservoir fish habitat study is to address the change from riverine habitats to
reservoir habitats and the impact of Project operations on reservoir habitat quality, tributary
access, and fish distribution. This study has the following objectives:
Characterize resident and anadromous fish species composition, spatial and temporal
distribution, and relative abundance.
Characterize the habitat within the inundation zone.
Study Area
The study area includes the area of inundation of the proposed Watana Reservoir. Study areas
will likely vary and be defined during the course of Study Plan development to address specific
study components.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-21 December 2011
Study Components
The study will include the following study components:
Compile and summarize existing information on fish population composition, spatial and
temporal distribution, and abundance and characterize the existing habitat.
Characterize the expected water surface elevation patterns and approximate pool volumes
of the proposed Watana Reservoir using Project operations modeling.
Assess potential fish passage barriers at river and stream inlets to Watana Reservoir.
Summarize expected water quality information (water chemistry, temperature, turbidity)
with respect to thermocline location, epilimnion and hypolimnion water temperatures and
dissolved oxygen concentrations for proposed Watana Reservoir using Project operations
modeling and data from the water temperature/water quality modeling studies.
Characterize the expected fish species assemblage and estimate the trophic state (e.g.,
oligotrophic) of proposed Watana Reservoir.
5.2.4.3. Productivity Study
Study Rationale and Objectives
The intent of the Productivity Study is to characterize the macroinvertebrate community. Project
operations are going to impact the habitat in the river and have subsequent impacts on
macroinvertebrate communities. This study has the following objectives:
Document benthic algae and macroinvertebrate taxonomic composition (to family level)
and abundance in representative habitats in the Susitna River.
Compare (using existing literature) the benthic algae and macroinvertebrate taxonomic
composition and abundance to river systems having turbidity regimes (and
flow/temperature regimes, if possible) similar to the turbidity estimated during Project
operation.
Estimate the effects of altered flow, temperature, and turbidity regimes on primary and
secondary production/abundance.
Identify factors currently limiting resident fish and juvenile salmonid growth (food
availability, turbidity and/or water temperature) and evaluate the effects of changes in
water temperature, turbidity, and food availability on resident fish and juvenile salmonid
growth and habitat.
Study Area
The study area includes the Susitna River downstream of the proposed Watana Dam. Study
areas will likely vary and be defined during the course of Study Plan development to address
specific study components.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-22 December 2011
Study Components
The study will include the following study components:
Review and summarize historical algal and macroinvertebrate communities, and fish
growth/production information in the study area.
Document the algal and benthic macroinvertebrate communities and abundance
(including different macrohabitat types).
Document the algae/benthic macroinvertebrate community in other river systems with
turbidity regimes similar to that which will occur with the Project (rivers must have
applicable temperature and flow regimes and substrates).
Evaluate changes to juvenile growth and abundance from potential Project-induced
changes to temperature, turbidity and flow, and their impacts on food availability.
5.2.4.4. Instream Flow Study
Study Rationale and Objectives
The intent of the Instream Flow Study is to evaluate effects of Project operations on habitat
quality and availability.
The overall study objective is to characterize aquatic and riparian habitat as a function of flow
using site-specific data, ecological principles, and modeling methodologies as needed. The
information developed from this study, in combination with other resource studies (e.g., water
temperature, fish abundance and distribution, geomorphology, and riparian), will provide a basis
for streamflow-related resource management decisions and impact analyses.
The specific objective of the study is to provide habitat versus flow relationships necessary to
quantify the potential effects of the Project and other alternative flow scenarios on aquatic and
riparian habitat.
Study Area
The study area includes aquatic habitats and riparian habitat (related to river flow) in the Susitna
River downstream of the proposed Watana Dam. Study areas will likely vary and be defined
during the course of Study Plan development to address specific study components.
Study Components
The study will include the following study components:
Use Aquatic Resources Working Group to refine and develop Study Plan for Instream
Flow Modeling.
Compile, evaluate and validate 1980s instream flow studies.
Stratify the study area into study reaches.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-23 December 2011
Estimate relative abundance of mesohabitat types (e.g., pool, run, riffle) within
representative channel types (main channel, side slough, upland slough, tributary
mouths), in selected river reaches.
Select target species/lifestages.
Development of macro, meso and/or microhabitat suitability criteria for selected species
life stage for use in developing habitat versus flow relationships.
Quantify the habitat versus flow relationships for selected species.
Use the habitat versus flow relationships to develop a time series analysis of aquatic
habitat under existing and Project conditions.
Identify the time periods, flow conditions, and life stages when habitat may be a limiting
factor for selected fish species for the existing and with Project conditions.
5.2.4.5. 2012 Fish and Aquatic Study Components
In addition to the above proposed fishery studies, the following studies or study components will
be started in early 2012 in advance of formal Study Plan development for the Project. AEA is
currently working with the resource agencies to determine the full scope of this work. The
resulting studies or study components will be included in the Proposed Study Plan when it is
filed with FERC.
F-S1: Synthesis of Existing Fish Population Data.
F-S2: Susitna River Salmon Run Apportionment Study.
F-S3: Middle River Habitat Utilization Study.
F-S4: Chinook Salmon and Presence Above Devils Canyon.
F-S5: 2012 Instream Flow Planning Study.
F-S6: Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Anadromous Prey Analysis
5.2.5. Wildlife Resource Issues
W1: Potential loss and alteration of wildlife habitats, including key habitat features such as
den sites and mineral licks, from Project construction and operation.
W2: Potential physical and behavioral blockage and alteration of movements due to reservoir
water and ice conditions; access and transmission corridors; new patterns of human activities.
W3: Potential changes in wildlife mortality rates due to Project-related fluctuating water and
ice conditions in the reservoir and downstream river reaches.
W4: Potential impact of changes in predator and prey abundance and distribution related to
increased human activities and habitat changes resulting from Project development.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-24 December 2011
W5: Potential impacts to wildlife from changes in hunting, vehicular use, noise, and other
disturbances due to increased human presence resulting from Project development.
W6: Potential impacts to special status wildlife species.
5.2.5.1. Big Game Study
Study Rationale and Objective
The overall study objective is to build on existing information and develop current information
on abundance, distribution, movements, and habitat use for moose, caribou, Dall’s sheep, black
bears, brown bears, and wolves to accurately evaluate potential Project-related effects on big
game resources in the upper and middle Susitna River basins. The information developed from
this study, in combination with other resource studies (e.g., vegetation mapping, wetland
mapping, wildlife-habitat relationships, salmon spawning distributions, big game harvest
locations, distribution of sensitive wildlife habitats), will provide a basis for impact assessments,
development of mitigation, and will inform harvest and population management decisions.
Many wildlife studies conducted for the APA Susitna Hydroelectric Project focused on big game
mammals because of their ecological importance and because of management concerns for
human use, both consumptive (subsistence and sport hunting) and non-consumptive (wildlife
viewing).
The specific objectives of the study include:
Moose
Complete current population estimates for moose for Upper and Middle Susitna River
basins and road and transmission corridors.
Use spatial analysis of seasonal range use and movements based on telemetry data to
provide information on moose habitat use, movements, and extent of winter range
through the Project area.
Measure moose forage quality and browse intensity in the impoundment zone, access
routes, and transmission corridors to quantify habitats that would be lost or altered,
estimate timing of use and degree of dependency of resident and migratory populations,
compare habitat quality to other adjacent regions, and develop mitigation.
Caribou
Complete current population estimates for caribou in the Project area including caribou
from Nelchina and Delta caribou herds, especially estimates of sub-herd numbers and
distribution in areas north of the impoundment area.
Evaluate current and historic Nelchina and Delta caribou herd identification, movements,
traditional migration routes across the proposed impoundment area, and sensitive
seasonal distributions such as calving ranges.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-25 December 2011
Use spatial analysis of seasonal range use and movements based on current telemetry
data from GPS/satellite collared caribou to provide information on current caribou habitat
use and movements throughout the Project area.
Dall’s Sheep
Complete current population estimate and delineate seasonal ranges for Dall’s sheep in
mountain regions next to the Project area, including road and transmission corridors.
Assess current condition and use of mineral licks on the lower Jay Creek.
Brown and Black Bears
Complete current population estimates for bears in the Project area.
Evaluate berry production in the impoundment zone and access corridors.
Evaluate use of salmon spawning streams downstream from the proposed dam location
including the use of Prairie Creek.
Identify denning areas.
Wolves
Complete current population estimates for wolves, determine number of packs and
individuals using the Project area, including road and transmission corridors.
Use spatial analysis of telemetry data to map pack territories and movements.
Identify locations of dens, rendezvous sites, hunting areas, and other essential areas for
each pack.
Study Area
The study area includes all areas that will be directly or indirectly affected by Project
construction and operations; including facility sites, access roads, transmission lines
laydown/storage areas, the inundation zone for the reservoir, and the downstream Susitna River.
Study Components
The study will include the following study components:
Identify, compile, and evaluate existing population data.
Spatial analyses of existing telemetry data to determine seasonal habitat use and
movements.
As appropriate, aerial and ground surveys may be used to estimate populations in the
upper and middle Susitna River basins, and road and transmission corridors.
As appropriate, ground-based surveys may be used to evaluate moose forage quality and
browse intensity in the impoundment zone, access routes, and transmission corridors.
As appropriate, ground-based surveys may be used to evaluate bear use of salmon
spawning streams in the middle Susitna River Basin.
Ground-based surveys to evaluate significant habitat features such as current use of the
Jay Creek mineral licks.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-26 December 2011
Data reporting will include:
o Spatial and temporal distribution maps for big game mammals with emphasis on
delineation and temporal use of sensitive habitats and consistently used movement
corridors.
o Detailed mapping of moose foraging habitats including quantity and quality
information for impact assessment and development of mitigation.
o Accurate population estimates for big game mammals using the Project area.
5.2.5.2. Furbearer Study
Study Rationale and Objectives
The overall study objective is to develop current information on abundance, distribution, habitat
use and movements of terrestrial (wolverine, marten, lynx, red fox, and coyote) and aquatic
(beaver, muskrat, river otter, and mink) furbearing mammals to evaluate potential Project-related
effects on habitat loss and alteration; blockage or alteration of movements; changes in mortality;
and changes in human harvest and disturbance. The information developed from this study, in
combination with other resource studies (e.g., vegetation mapping, wetland mapping, wildlife-
habitat relationships, fish distributions, furbearer harvest locations, distribution of sensitive
wildlife habitats), will provide a basis for impact assessments. Many wildlife studies conducted
for the original SHP focused on furbearing mammals because of their ecological importance and
management concerns for human use, both consumptive (subsistence and sport hunting) and
non-consumptive (wildlife viewing).
The specific objectives of the study may include:
Evaluate existing data on distribution, habitat use, and movements of wolverine, beaver,
river otters, mink, muskrat, and other furbearers.
Complete current estimate of active beaver colonies in the middle and lower river.
Complete spring surveys to evaluate overwinter survival of beavers.
Evaluate potential marten home range and dispersal movements between old forest
stands.
Study Area
The study area includes all areas that will be directly altered or disturbed by Project construction
and operations; including facility sites, access roads, laydown/storage areas, the inundation zone
for the reservoir, and the downstream Susitna River.
Study Components
The study will include the following study components:
Identification and compilation of existing terrestrial and aquatic furbearer population
size, seasonal distribution, suitable habitats, and movement data.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-27 December 2011
Spatial analyses of existing data to determine location of sensitive habitats such as beaver
lodges and cash sites; and river otter, red fox and coyote den sites.
Winter track surveys to estimate wolverine and other furbearer population size in the
upper and middle Susitna River basins, including road and transmission corridors.
Aerial and ground-based surveys to document distribution and activity of beaver colonies
and overwinter survival.
Data reporting will include:
o Spatial and temporal distribution maps for furbearers with emphasis on
delineation of seasonal ranges and suitable habitat.
o Detailed mapping of beaver lodges; river otter, red fox, and coyote den sites.
o Accurate population estimates for furbearers using the Project area.
5.2.5.3. Small Game Mammal and Upland Gamebird Study
Study Rationale and Objectives
The overall study objective is to develop current information on abundance, distribution, habitat
use, and movements of snowshoe hare, ptarmigan and grouse to evaluate potential Project-
related effects on habitat loss and alteration; blocked movements, changes in mortality; and
changes in human harvest. The information developed from this study, in combination with
other resource studies (e.g., vegetation mapping, wetland mapping, wildlife-habitat relationships,
predator distributions, and harvest locations), will provide a basis for impact assessments.
Currently there is little information on potential effects of increased human access on these small
game resources. The area has limited human access and use and may provide refugia and source
populations of snowshoe hare, ptarmigan and grouse for neighboring regions with higher human
use and harvest levels.
The specific objectives for snowshoe hare, ptarmigan, and grouse include:
Evaluate existing data on distribution, habitat use, and movements.
Evaluate seasonal habitat use, potential habitat fragmentation effects, and dispersal
capabilities.
Study Area
The study area includes all areas that will be directly altered or disturbed by Project construction
and operations; including facility sites, access roads, laydown/storage areas, the inundation zone
for the reservoir, and the downstream Susitna River.
Study Components
The study will include the following study components:
Identification and compilation of existing population, distribution, habitat, and movement
data.
Spatial analyses of existing data to determine distribution of suitable habitats.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-28 December 2011
Winter track surveys to estimate snowshoe hare populations throughout the Project area.
Aerial and ground-based surveys to document abundance, distribution, and productivity
of small game and upland gamebirds.
Telemetry samples to document seasonal habitat use, seasonal movement patterns, and
dispersal capabilities.
Data reporting will include:
o Spatial and temporal distribution maps with emphasis on delineation of suitable
and used habitats.
o Detailed mapping of seasonal and dispersal movements with evaluation of
habitats crossed.
o Accurate population estimates for the Project area and adjacent harvested areas.
5.2.5.4. Harvest Study for Big Game, Furbearers, Small Game Mammals and Upland
Gamebirds
Study Rationale and Objectives
The overall study objective is to compile and evaluate past and current human use and harvest
locations and levels within the Project area for big game mammals–especially moose and
caribou, furbearers, snowshoe hare, ptarmigan and grouse to evaluate potential Project-related
effects on changes in access and related changes in human harvest. The information developed
from this study, in combination with other resource studies (e.g., big game use and movements in
the Project area; furbearer, small game mammal and upland gamebird use of the Project area;
waterfowl use of the Project area; vegetation and wetland mapping; wildlife-habitat
relationships; and predator distributions), will provide a basis for impact assessments, and
development of mitigation. Currently there is little information on potential effects of increased
human access on these game resources, although it has been noted that human access has
increased since the studies completed for the APA Susitna Hydroelectric Project in the 1980s.
The current Project area has limited human access and may provide refugia and source
populations for neighboring regions with higher human use and harvest levels.
The specific objectives for moose, caribou, Dall's sheep, bears, wolves, and furbearers include:
Evaluate and compile existing past and current data on harvest effort, harvest locations,
hunter access, and hunter mode of travel.
Compare current harvest locations to current patterns of seasonal habitat use and
movements.
The specific objectives for small game mammals and upland gamebirds include:
Evaluate and compile existing past and current data on harvest effort, harvest locations,
hunter access, and hunter mode of travel.
Compare current harvest locations to current patterns of small game mammals and upland
gamebird abundance, seasonal habitat use, and dispersal capabilities.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-29 December 2011
Study Area
The study area includes ADF&G, Game Management Units (GMU) 13A, 13B, 13E and any
additional areas that will be directly altered or disturbed by Project construction and operations,
including facility sites, access roads, laydown/storage areas and the inundation zone for the
reservoir.
Study Components
The study will include the following study components:
Identification and compilation of existing harvest and hunter effort within appropriate
harvest units.
Development of additional data collection and harvest monitoring for hunters and
trappers currently using the Project area.
Spatial analyses of existing data to determine and compare past and current distribution
of hunter and trapper reported harvests and reported effort.
Comparison of current harvest patterns to current abundance and seasonal movements of
big game, furbearers, small game mammals and upland gamebirds.
Data reporting will include:
o Spatial and temporal distribution maps of hunter/trapper harvest and effort by
game species within minimum reporting units (Uniform Coding Units or
subunits).
o Current harvest monitoring reports including location, mode of transportation,
effort expended, and game species harvested within GMUs affected by the Project
and surrounding units for comparison.
5.2.5.5. Eagle and Raptor Study
Study Rationale and Objectives
The overall study objective is to develop current information on distribution, abundance, and
habitat use including active nest locations for bald and golden eagles, peregrine falcons, and stick
nesting raptors to evaluate potential Project-related effects on habitat loss and alteration; changes
in mortality; and changes in human disturbance. The information developed from this study, in
combination with other resource studies (e.g., vegetation mapping, wetland mapping, wildlife-
habitat relationships, fish distribution studies), will provide a basis for impact assessments and
development of mitigation including seasonal avoidance of active nest sites for birds of
management or conservation concern.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-30 December 2011
The specific objectives of the study include:
Bald and Golden Eagles
Evaluate existing data on distribution, established nest sites and pair territory locations,
and foraging habitats.
Complete current surveys to locate active nests and alternative nest sites within habitats
affected by the impoundment, access road corridor, and transmission line corridors.
Complete current surveys to document fall and winter communal roost sites.
Evaluate seasonal habitat use.
Cliff Nesting Raptors
Evaluate existing data on nest site locations, identify potentially suitable cliff nesting
habitat locations.
Complete current nest surveys at identified suitable cliff habitats to document use
throughout the Project area.
Other Raptors and Owls
Evaluate existing data on nest site locations, identify potentially suitable nesting habitats.
Complete current nest surveys in potentially suitable nesting habitats during late-winter
early spring for owls and during early spring for other raptors throughout habitat
potentially affected by the Project.
Study Area
The study area includes all areas that will be directly altered or disturbed by Project construction
and operations; including facility sites, access roads, laydown/storage areas, the inundation zone
for the reservoir, and the downstream Susitna River.
Study Components
The study will include the following study components:
Identification and compilation of existing historical nest site locations, and locations of
suitable tree and cliff nesting habitats.
Spatial analyses of existing data to determine distribution of suitable habitats.
Late winter aerial and ground-based surveys for owls.
Early spring (prior to leaf out) aerial and riverine-based surveys to document active tree
and cliff nest sites.
Late-spring and summer surveys to verify and monitor nest activity, and search for
additional nests.
Data reporting will include:
o Compilation of past eagle and other raptor nest locations with survey extents to
compare to current survey data.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-31 December 2011
o Early reporting of current nest locations and activity for eagles with coordinates
and appropriate buffer zones to protect active eagle nests from disturbance during
field studies.
o Spatial summary and mapping of suitable forest, riparian, and cliff habitats to
evaluate extent of suitable nesting habitats within the Project area.
5.2.5.6. Waterbirds, Seabirds, and Waterfowl Study
Study Rationale and Objectives
The overall study objective is to develop current information on nesting, brood-rearing, and
migration staging habitat use by loons, grebes, gulls, terns, geese, swans, and ducks. The
information developed from this study, in combination with other resource studies (e.g.,
vegetation mapping, wetland mapping, wildlife-habitat relationships, fish distribution studies),
will provide a basis for impact assessments.
The specific objectives of the study include:
Evaluate existing data on nesting, brood-rearing, and migration staging distributions for
waterbirds and waterfowl.
Complete current surveys for nesting, brood-rearing, and migration staging habitats to
determine abundance of waterbirds and waterfowl throughout the Project area.
Evaluate seasonal habitat use and movement patterns.
Study Area
The study area includes all areas that will be directly altered or disturbed by Project construction
and operations; including facility sites, access roads, laydown/storage areas, the inundation zone
for the reservoir, and the downstream Susitna River.
Study Components
The study will include the following study components:
Identification and compilation of existing historical nesting, brood-rearing and migration
staging locations.
Spatial analyses of existing data to determine distribution of high use habitats.
Aerial spring surveys to determine distribution and abundance of nesting waterbirds and
waterfowl.
Ground-based surveys for nesting harlequin ducks and brood-rearing harlequin ducks and
mergansers along the upper and middle Susitna River and major tributaries.
Aerial summer surveys to determine distribution, abundance, and habitat use for brood-
rearing waterbirds, seabirds, and waterfowl.
Aerial fall surveys to determine distribution, abundance, and habitat use for migration
staging by waterbirds and waterfowl.
Data reporting will include:
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-32 December 2011
o Compilation and delineation of past waterbird and waterfowl nesting habitats,
brood-rearing areas, and migration staging locations with survey extents to
compare to current survey data.
o Early reporting of current nest locations and activity for harlequin ducks in
riparian habitats subject to field studies with coordinates and appropriate buffer
zones to protect active nests from disturbance during field studies.
o Spatial summary and mapping of suitable aquatic and wetland habitats to evaluate
extent of suitable nesting, brood-rearing, and migration staging habitats within the
Project area.
5.2.5.7. Landbird and Shorebird Study
Study Rationale and Objectives
The overall study objective is to develop current information on nesting distribution, abundance,
and current use of wetland and upland habitats by landbirds and shorebirds. The information
developed from this study, in combination with other resource studies (e.g., vegetation mapping,
wetland mapping, bird-habitat relationships), will provide a basis for impact assessments.
The specific objectives of the study include:
Evaluate existing data on nesting and migration staging habitats for landbirds and
shorebirds.
Complete current surveys for nesting and migration staging habitats to determine
distribution and abundance of landbirds and shorebirds throughout the Project area.
Evaluate seasonal habitat use and migration routes.
Study Area
The study area includes all areas that will be directly altered or disturbed by Project construction
and operations; including facility sites, access roads, laydown/storage areas, the inundation zone
for the reservoir, and the downstream Susitna River.
Study Components
The study will include the following study components:
Identification and compilation of existing historical nesting habitat association, and
migration staging areas.
Spatial analyses of existing data to delineate habitats used by a high diversity of birds.
Ground-based surveys for breeding landbirds and shorebirds throughout the Project area.
Data reporting will include:
o Compilation and delineation of high density and diversity bird habitats.
o Delineation of potential migration routes and staging habitats.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-33 December 2011
5.2.5.8. Non-Game Species of Conservation Concern Study
Study Rationale and Objectives
The objective of this study is to develop current information on distribution, abundance, and
habitat use in the Project area for non-game animals that have been identified as Covered Species
in Alaska’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan and/or as species of concern by various
groups as defined in the FERC/USFWS MOU on migratory birds. Preliminary reviews have
identified little brown bats, wood frogs, and certain birds as species of concern that occur within
the Project area. The information developed from this study, in combination with other resource
studies (e.g., vegetation mapping, wetland mapping, wildlife-habitat relationships), will provide
a basis for impact assessments and development of mitigation.
The specific objectives of the study include:
Little Brown Bat
Evaluate existing data on distribution, habitat use, and movements.
Evaluate geologic and topographic data to identify areas potentially containing Karst
topography with cave features within the Project area.
Complete current distribution and habitat use surveys for bat species in the inundation
zone.
Wood Frog
Evaluate existing data on distribution, habitat use, and movements.
Complete current distribution surveys for wood frogs throughout the Project area.
Small Mammals
Evaluate existing data on distribution, habitat use, and movements.
Complete distribution and abundance surveys within the inundation zone, and along road
and transmission corridors.
Birds
Compile listing of migratory bird species of concern and identify occurrence data and
distribution of suitable habitats within the Project area based on existing data on
distribution, habitat use, and movements.
Complete current population and habitat use estimates for birds of concern throughout the
Project area.
Study Area
The study area includes all areas that will be directly altered or disturbed by Project construction
and operations; including facility sites, access roads, laydown/storage areas, the inundation zone
for the reservoir, and the downstream Susitna River.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-34 December 2011
Study Components
The study will include the following study components:
Identification and compilation of existing population, distribution, habitat, and movement
data.
Spatial analyses of existing data to determine distribution of suitable habitats potentially
affected by the Project.
Acoustic surveys to identify areas used by bats in the Middle and Upper Susitna River
areas.
Auditory surveys for wood frogs in the Project area during the spring breeding season
around waterbodies and wetlands in the impoundment zone, in the upper river, in riparian
habitats in the middle river, and along road and transmission corridors.
Trapping surveys for small mammals, including the Alaska tiny shrew, within the
impoundment zone, facility sites, road and transmission corridors.
Various surveys for raptors, owls, waterbirds, seabirds, waterfowl, shorebirds, and
landbirds as applicable with species specific surveys if standard methods are insufficient
to determine presence in the Project area (such as harlequin duck, or American dipper
surveys).
Data reporting will include:
o Early reporting of current nest locations and activity for owls and other raptors,
loons, swans, and harlequin duck nests with coordinates and appropriate buffer
zones to protect nest from disturbance during field studies.
o Spatial delineations of habitats used by bats, wood frogs, Alaska tiny shrew and
bird species of concern.
5.2.5.9. 2012 Wildlife Resource Study Components
Some of the components of the proposed studies discussed above will be initiated in 2012 in
order to help inform the formal study plans. AEA is currently working with the resource
agencies to determine the full scope of this work. The resulting studies or study components will
be included in the Proposed Study Plan when it is filed with FERC.
W-S1: Wildlife Habitat Use and Movement (corresponds to Big Game Study).
W-S2: Past and Current Big Game and Furbearer Harvest Study.
W-S3: Eagle Nests and Raptor Nest Study.
5.2.6. Botanical Resource Issues
B1: Losses of vegetation and wetland communities and productivity from reservoir inundation
and other Project facilities development (direct effects).
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-35 December 2011
B2: Changes to vegetation and wetland communities along access roads, transmission corridors,
and reservoir edges from changes in solar radiation, temperature moderation, erosion and dust
deposition, reservoir fluctuation, pathogen dispersal and abundance.
B3: Potential introduction of invasive plants due to Project construction.
B4: Potential changes in wetlands, wetland functions, riparian vegetation, and riparian
succession patterns related to altered hydrologic regimes below the dam.
B5: Potential changes in rare plant populations related to the development of the reservoir,
access and transmission facilities, and construction and operation activities including erosion and
dust deposition.
5.2.6.1. Vegetation Mapping Study
Study Rationale and Objectives
The overall study objective is to develop vegetation and habitat GIS cover data both using
existing information and developing Project-specific aerial image interpretation. The
information developed from this study, in combination with other resource studies (e.g.,
wetlands/riparian study, rare plant study, invasive plant study, and various wildlife habitat
studies), will provide a basis for vegetation/habitat management decisions, impact analyses, and
mitigation development.
The specific objectives of the study include:
Determine the appropriate mapped scales, areal extents, and the Alaska Vegetation
Classification level for vegetation mapping.
Develop vegetation maps at suitable scales.
Provide habitat acres and distribution to support the development of related studies.
Study Area
The study area includes all areas that will be directly altered or disturbed by Project construction
and operations, including facility sites, access roads, laydown/storage areas, and the inundation
zone for the reservoir. The study area also includes all downstream areas that will be included in
riparian vegetation and wildlife habitat studies.
Study Components
The study will include the following study components:
Identification of available current and historical vegetation and land cover mapping data.
Determining appropriate mapped scales, areal extents, and the Alaska Vegetation
Classification level for vegetation mapping.
Preliminary vegetation mapping from recent aerial images.
Field verification of mapped vegetation.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-36 December 2011
Identify locations for ground-based botanical, rare plant, invasive plant, and moose
browse inventory data collection.
Reporting of study results, including reporting that is coordinated with other pertinent
studies.
5.2.6.2. Wetland-Riparian Study
Study Rationale and Objective
The overall study objective is to characterize wetland and riparian habitat, develop a wetland
functional assessment, and identify potential changes related to an altered hydrologic regime and
from disturbance related to Project construction and operations. The information developed
from this study, in combination with other resource studies (e.g., aquatic habitat, vegetation
mapping, hydrology, geomorphology, and ice processes studies), will provide a basis for wetland
and riparian management decisions, impact analyses, and mitigation development.
The specific objectives of the study include:
Determine the appropriate scales and areal extents for wetland delineations in
consultation with USACE and compile available existing wetland mapping.
Conduct field surveys to collect site-specific wetland data.
Develop a wetland functional assessment.
Determine natural fire spread patterns in the reservoir reach of the Susitna River.
Evaluate the relationship of wetland and riparian vegetation to the hydrologic regime.
Study Area
The study area includes all areas that will be directly altered or disturbed by Project construction
and operations, including facility sites, access roads, laydown/storage areas, and the inundation
zone for the reservoir. The study area for riparian vegetation, but not for wetland delineation,
also includes representative reaches of the Susitna River downstream of the dam site.
Study Components
The study will include the following study components:
Determine appropriate scales and areal extents for wetland delineations in consultation
with USACE.
Compile available wetland mapping at various scales for development of wetland
delineations based on current aerial photography.
Incorporate data from the Vegetation Mapping Study and available data on natural fire
patterns along the reservoir and the Susitna River.
Identify riparian and wetland delineation field sites and data from the 1980s studies for
potential resampling.
Conduct field surveys for wetland delineations, wetland functional assessments and
riparian vegetation conditions.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-37 December 2011
Report study results, including results that are coordinated with other pertinent studies
(hydrologic, ice processes, geomorphology etc.).
5.2.6.3. Rare Plant Study
Study Rationale and Objectives
The overall study objective is to identify the location of rare plant populations in the Project area.
The information developed from this study, in combination with other resource studies (e.g.,
vegetation mapping and wetland studies), will provide a basis for habitat management decisions,
impact analyses, and mitigation measures.
The specific objectives of the study include:
Identify the locations of rare plant populations in the Project area.
Identify potential habitat enhancement locations.
Study Area
The study area includes all areas that can safely be accessed that will be directly altered or
disturbed by Project construction and operations, including facility sites, access roads,
laydown/storage areas, and the inundation zone for the Watana Reservoir.
Study Components
The study will include the following study components:
Identification of target species.
Identification of the study area and locations for field surveys.
Conducting field surveys for the target species.
Reporting of study results, including reporting that is coordinated with other pertinent
studies.
5.2.6.4. Noxious Weed Study
Study Rationale and Objective
The overall study objective is to identify the location of target invasive plant populations in the
Project area. The information developed from this study, in combination with other resource
studies (e.g., vegetation mapping and rare plant studies), will provide a basis for habitat
management decisions, impact analyses, and mitigation measures.
The specific objectives of the study include:
Identify the locations of populations of target invasive weed species in the Project area.
Identify potential treatment locations.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-38 December 2011
Study Area
The study area includes all areas that can safely be accessed that will be directly altered or
disturbed by Project construction and operations, including facility sites, access roads,
laydown/storage areas, and the inundation zone for the Watana Reservoir.
Study Components
The study will include the following study components:
Identification of target invasive plant species.
Identification of the study area and locations for field surveys.
Conducting field surveys for the target invasive plant species.
Reporting of study results, including reporting that is coordinated with other pertinent
studies.
5.2.6.5. 2012 Botanical Resources Study Components
In addition to the above proposed botanical studies, the following studies or study components
will be started in early 2012 in advance of formal Study Plan development for the Project. AEA
is currently working with the resource agencies to determine the full scope of this work. The
resulting studies or study components will be included in the Proposed Study Plan when it is
filed with FERC.
B-S1: Vegetation Mapping and Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study.
B-S2: Riparian Study.
B-S3: Wetland Mapping.
5.2.7. Aesthetic Resource Issues
A1: Potential effects on visual resources due to Project development and operation.
5.2.7.1. Aesthetic Resources Study
Study Rationale and Objectives
APA’s 1985 Susitna Settlement Plan identified visual resource study questions and topical issues
associated with hydroelectric project development. These questions and issue areas provide
additional insight into information needs that will be useful to understanding the larger visual
resources issue as described above along with identifying the significance of potential new noise
sources resulting from construction and operation of the Project. The main Project facilities
(dam, powerhouse, reservoir, camp, etc.) are located in a remote area a way from developed
areas, however, the terminus portions of the Project access road and transmission facilities along
with railroad siding facilities would be close to sparsely developed areas. Many of the lands
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-39 December 2011
within the reservoir area and potentially along access and transmission routes are on BLM lands.
The BLM manages visual resources of its lands through its Visual Resource Management
(VRM) system. The construction and operation of the Project will affect the scenic landscape
within these settings and noise will be generated from the transportation of materials and
construction personnel in the area. To understand the nature and magnitude of these changes, the
following broad objectives have been defined for the visual resources studies, corresponding to
many of the 1985 study efforts.
The specific objectives of the study include:
Understanding the significance of impacts of borrow and spoil areas, transmission lines,
access roads, construction camps, and dams on scenic resources.
Identify potential effects on scenic resources due to project operation and maintenance
activities.
Study Area
The study area includes all areas that will be directly altered or disturbed by Project construction
and operations, including facility sites, access roads, laydown/storage areas, and the inundation
zone for the reservoir. Additionally, the transportation corridors that will be used for
construction will be within the study area for evaluations of potential increases in noise.
Study Components
The visual resource study process is outlined in APA’s 1985 Susitna Settlement Plan and 1985
Susitna Hydroelectric Project FERC License Application. That process was based on the U.S.
Forest Service’s Visual Resource Management System (USFS 1974) and refined through field
reconnaissance and professional judgment. Information generated from new visual resource
studies can be incorporated into the BLM’s VRM, as the BLM holds land in the Project area, not
the Forest Service. Many aspects of that process are similar to the BLM’s VRM system and
those components including identifying:
Landscape character types and notable natural features within the Project area will be
identified and evaluated based on a high, medium, and low basis for their aesthetic value
(a relative measure of scenic quality and visual sensitivity) and their visual absorption
capability (a relative ability of a landscape to absorb physical change).
The aesthetic value and visual absorption capability ratings for each landscape character
type are then combined to create composite ratings grouped into categories and used to
determine the degree of visual impact and potential for mitigation.
The visual resource studies will entail identifying existing landscape character, scenic integrity
levels, scenic attractiveness, visual priority routes and use areas along with key view points.
Landscape visibility maps and visual absorption capability classes would be created from the
studies. These items will be refined through field reconnaissance and professional judgment, and
used to determine the degree of visual impact and potential for mitigation of Susitna-Watana
Hydroelectric Project features.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-40 December 2011
Several resource management plans may be useful and are likely relevant to visual resources in
the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project vicinity. These plans will be obtained and evaluated
for potential use in the analysis including:
1985 Susitna Hydroelectric Project Settlement Plan.
1985 Susitna Hydroelectric Project FERC License Application.
2010 Susitna Matanuska Area Plan.
ADNR Nelchina Public Use Area documents (various).
2009-2014 Alaska State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan.
Recreation and Tourism in South-Central Alaska: Patterns and Prospects.
ADF&G documents (various).
BLM East Alaska Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement.
2006 Denali State Park Management Plan.
Denali National Park documents (various).
Cook Inlet Regional Corporation documents (various).
5.2.7.2. 2012 Aesthetic Resources Study Components
Some of the components of the proposed studies discussed above will be initiated in 2012 in
order to help inform the formal study plans. AEA is currently working with the resource
agencies to determine the full scope of this work. The resulting studies or study components will
be included in the Proposed Study Plan when it is filed with FERC.
A-S1: Inventory BLM VRM designations
A-S2: Identify initial key viewing areas and key viewpoints
5.2.8. Recreation and Land Use Resource Issues
R1: Potential flow-related effects to river access and navigation within and downstream of
reservoir.
R2: Potential changes in the timing and extent of winter use of the river corridor due to Project-
related changes in ice cover.
R3: Potential effects on fishing opportunities due to the Project.
R4: Potential effects on hunting and trapping opportunities due to the Project.
R5: Potential effects of recreation use by construction workers on fish and wildlife in the
Project vicinity.
R6: Potential need to accommodate and manage increased recreation use due to increased
access to the Project area.
L1: Changes in land use and ownership due to construction and operation of the Project.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-41 December 2011
L2: Consistency of the Project with relevant land use and management plans.
5.2.8.1. Recreation and Land Use Studies
Study Rationale and Objectives
The proposed Project will occupy a combination of BLM, State, ANCSA Corporation and
possibly other private lands. Special use and occupancy permits will be needed from the BLM
and State for use of these lands, and private lands will need to be acquired for some of the
Project facilities. The proposed studies are aimed at providing information needed to guide
recreation and land use and occupancy management decisions for the Project. The land use
study provides land use information about the Project area that will be incorporated into the
FERC license application and potentially right-of-way permits and use and occupancy
applications submitted to the BLM and other similar information determined in conjunction with
ANCSA Corporations and potentially other private land owners affected by the Project.
APA’s 1985 Susitna Settlement Plan identified recreation and land management study questions
and potential issues associated with hydroelectric project development. These study questions
and issues which tier off of the Project issues identified in Section 5.2.7, are presented below as
potential study objectives:
Assess potential Project-related impacts on fishing, including the availability of fish,
access, and quality of experience (R2).
Evaluate potential Project-related impacts on recreational hunting and trapping, including
the availability of resources, access, and quality of experience (R3).
Assess potential Project-related impacts on boating and pack rafting downstream of
Devils Canyon, including access to the water and possible impediments to navigation
(R1).
Evaluate potential Project-related impacts on non-consumptive activities (e.g., bird
watching and hiking), including availability of resources, access to the resources, and
quality of the experience.
Assess potential Project-related impacts of construction worker recreational activities on
fish and wildlife resources in the Susitna River watershed (R4).
Evaluate potential Project-related impacts due to increases in recreational use resulting
from improved access, creation of the reservoir, altered stream flow, and the need to
accommodate and manage recreation use.
Assess potential changes/effects to recreationist and local resident access patterns from
potential Project-related changes in freeze-up conditions in the middle reach of the
Susitna River.
Evaluate the feasibility and desirability of restrictions on recreation to reduce impacts on
fish and wildlife resources in the Susitna River watershed.
Formulation of a recreation plan.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-42 December 2011
Study Area
The study area includes all areas that will be directly altered or disturbed by Project construction
and operations, including facility sites, access roads, laydown/storage areas, and the inundation
zone for the reservoir. Additionally, the transportation corridors that will be used for
construction will be within the study area for evaluations of potential changes to recreation
resources within a broader study area along with other regional recreation resources that could be
affected by development of the Project and associated new recreation opportunities.
Study Components
The recreation resource study process has components identified from a variety of sources
including APA’s 1985 Susitna Settlement Plan, 1985 Susitna Hydroelectric Project FERC
License Application, and AEA’s “Socioeconomic, Recreation, Air Quality, and Transportation
Data Gap Analysis.” The general approach involves review of pertinent recreation literature,
discussions regarding recreation-related plans and consultation with state and federal resource
agencies and ANCSA Corporations, and completion of informal recreation and resource use
surveys to support demand evaluation efforts. Additionally, a field reconnaissance program will
be necessary to document, evaluate, plan and verify locations of proposed recreation sites. A
six-step approach taken in the 1980s provides the outline to the proposed study as follows:
Step 1: Determined study objectives and developed a detailed work plan. This activity
included review of all relevant agency documents and their objectives and their
objectives, and interviews with key agency personnel.
Step 2: Inventoried existing recreation facilities and plans, and estimated future
recreation demand with and without the Project.
Step 3: Inventoried potential recreation sites within the Project area. This activity
involved a review of relevant documents and previous studies, and extensive on-site
investigations.
Step 4: Evaluated recreation opportunities at the potential sites identified in Step 3. The
sites were evaluated by defining the qualitative and quantitative aspects of their
recreation potential based on information from steps 2 and 3.
Step 5: Refined the opportunity evaluation and recommended Recreation Plan and
alternatives.
Step 6: Developed an implementation plan, including phasing, demand monitoring, and
cost estimate.
The approach taken in the 1980s APA Susitna Hydroelectric Project will be replicated for the
currently proposed Project.
As recommended in the Gap Report the following analyses will be updated (as part of Step 2):
Reasonably foreseeable future recreation facilities. Private recreation facilities
information.
Recreation use, satisfaction, and attitude survey.
Alaska Railroad passengers and whistle-stop use.
Lodge owner survey.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-43 December 2011
Air taxi survey.
Guide survey.
Survey of boaters and pack rafters exiting at Susitna Landing; Talkeetna Boat Launch
and Airstrip; and Willow Creek.
Current and future recreation commercial recreation use of Project area.
Projected demand for recreation opportunities in the Project area.
The land use study will identify current land uses and land ownership information for all Project
areas. These include open space, rural and urban residential uses, commercial and industrial
uses, agriculture including irrigated farmland and transportation and utility use lands affected by
the Project. Recent aerial photography, title searches, and GIS data showing land status will be
used to determine the primary uses and where these land use types are affected. State, Federal
and Borough plans will be reviewed and evaluated for any potential conflicts and/or
consistencies with Project construction and operation plans, and the results will be quantified in
tables.
The land use studies for the Project will include the following:
Identification of all relevant comprehensive plans and land management plans, and a
discussion of the Project’s consistency or lack of consistency with each plan.
If not consistent, justification for accepting the lack of consistency.
Depiction of uses of land and resources adjacent to the project using maps, air photos, or
drawings that clearly delineate the project boundary and boundaries of public lands.
Documentation of consultation with agencies having land management or planning/
zoning authority in the area.
The studies will rely on recreational information, comprehensive plans, and land management
plans described above, as well as other items revealed during the FERC licensing process.
Also, in cooperation with the ANCSA Corporations, resource agencies, the MSB, and other
interested entities, AEA will develop appropriate land use and management plans for the Project.
A comprehensive land use management plan, if needed, could help AEA, and other land owners,
and FERC to be able to identify reasonable balance between developmental and recreational
interests, and wildlife and fisheries resource values.
Several resource management plans may be useful and are likely relevant to visual resources in
the Project vicinity. These plans will be obtained and evaluated for potential use in the analysis
including:
1985 Susitna Hydroelectric Project Settlement Plan.
1985 Susitna Hydroelectric Project FERC License Application.
Susitna-Matanuska Area Plan Public Review Draft.
MSB Comprehensive Development Plan: 2005 Update.
ADNR Nelchina Public Use Area documents (various).
2009-2014 Alaska State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan.
Recreation and Tourism in South-Central Alaska: Patterns and Prospects.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-44 December 2011
BLM East Alaska Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement.
2006 Denali State Park Management Plan.
Cook Inlet Regional Corporation documents (various).
South Denali Visitor Center Steering Committee.
Denali National Park and Preserve Final Backcountry Management Plan: General
Management Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement.
Denali National Park and Preserve Final South Denali Implementation Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement.
Consolidated General Management Plan for Denali National Park and Preserve.
Susitna Area Plan.
5.2.8.2. 2012 Recreation and Land Use Study Components
Some of the components of the proposed studies discussed above will be initiated in 2012 in
order to help inform the formal study plans. AEA is currently working with the resource
agencies to determine the full scope of this work. The resulting studies or study components will
be included in the Proposed Study Plan when it is filed with FERC.
R-S1: Identify proposed recreation developments.
R-S2: Informal survey of recreation providers and user groups.
R-S3: Collect existing recreation demand and supply data.
L-S1: Title and site control research.
L-S2: GIS base map updates.
5.2.9. Cultural Resource Issues
C1: Potential effects on cultural resource sites including those determined eligible for listing on
the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), including impacts due to inundation of historic
properties from reservoir water levels.
C2: Potential effects of construction, operation, and maintenance activities and increased human
use on traditional/tribal spiritual areas and other traditional uses (Traditional Cultural Properties)
within the Area of Project Effect (APE).
C3: Inadvertent disturbance or vandalism to historic properties from increased access for
recreational activities.
C4: Aesthetic changes to surrounding historic landscape may affect the historic and cultural
significance of a property.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-45 December 2011
5.2.9.1. Cultural Resources Studies
Study Rationale and Objectives
The proposed Project will impact a variety of lands and landscape features within the area.
Cultural resources in the area may be affected and several sets of analyses are needed to identify
the appropriate changes and mitigation, if any through a formal process under Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The proposed studies are aimed at providing
information needed to evaluate the effect of cultural resources from Project development and
operations. Cultural resource study objectives for proposed Project include:
The identification and significance of loss of affected cultural, historical and
archaeological sites.
Formulation of a cultural resources mitigation plan.
Study Area
The study area will be what is defined by the APE. This will include all areas that will be
directly altered or disturbed by Project construction and operations, including facility sites,
access roads, laydown/storage areas, and the inundation zone for the reservoir. This will also
include any surrounding historic landscape or area of indirect affects.
Study Components
The cultural resources study investigations will identify and revisit appropriate previously and
newly recorded historic properties within the APE, update the current location and condition of
each site, update or create site forms for each site, develop a prioritized list of sites and evaluate
whether they are eligible for the NRHP, and evaluate the Project’s effects on historic properties
within the proposed FERC project boundary.
The cultural resources study components will be determined in consultation with the SHPO,
BLM, FERC, Alaska Native groups and other interested participants. Prior to developing this
PAD, a report summarizing data gaps was developed and these gaps provide a starting point for
laying out the components of a cultural resources study program. The data gaps identified for
cultural resources can help serve as the basis of the studies anticipated and include the following
compoments:
Mapping-related Activities:
o Synthesis of existing locational data for known sites.
o Map site locations and environmental variables.
o Field verification of existing site locational data.
o Identify previous survey coverage.
o Add existing and baseline place names.
o Identify and map prehistoric resource locations (settlement patterns, historic land
use).
Synthesis and Analysis Activities:
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-46 December 2011
o Develop historic contexts and Project significance standards (to evaluate potential
eligibility to NRHP).
o Develop site locational predictive modeling.
o Update cultural chronology using radiocarbon and tephra sampling data.
o Update and retrieve legacy records and artifact collections.
o Perform oral history interviews with 1978-85 field research principals.
o Inventory 1978-85 records.
Identify and update information related to Traditional Cultural Properties.
Summarize Paleontological records and develop site location model.
Develop plan for unanticipated discoveries.
Prepare Historic Properties Management Plan.
Relevant Cultural Resource Plans
Existing cultural resource management plans that are relevant to the proposed Project include:
The Alaska Office of History and Archaeology’s (operated under the Alaska Department
of Natural Resources’ Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation) Cultural Resource
Management Plan for the Denali Highway Lands.
Mat-Su Borough Ordinance 87-007.
Mat-Su Borough Historic Preservation Plan.
Alaska’s Historic Preservation Plan.
Additionally, cultural and historic preservation plans, resolutions and programs may exist in the
record of various Native organizations.
In the Project licensing process, further research and consultation will be conducted to identify
existing cultural resource plans that are relevant to the Project. Project design, construction and
operation will be conducted in compliance with those plans identified.
5.2.9.2. 2012 Cultural Resources Studies
C-S1: Pre-Field Data Assessment and Information Gathering and Compilation.
5.2.10. Subsistence Resource Issues
S1: Potential changes in subsistence fishing and hunting opportunities due to Project-related
effects on fish and wildlife populations.
5.2.10.1. Subsistence Resources Studies
Study Rationale and Objectives
The proposed Project will impact a variety of lands and landscape features within the area.
Access to and quality of subsistence resources in the area may be affected. The proposed studies
are aimed at providing information needed to evaluate the effect on subsistence resources from
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-47 December 2011
Project development and operations. Potential study objectives may include: Assess potential
Project-related effects on subsistence activities.
Evaluate potential Project-related effects the population of local animal species, including
potential changes in change wildlife migration patterns (addressed via Wildlife Resources
studies).
Assess potential Project-related effects on human access to the Project vicinity (addressed
via Recreation Resource studies).
Study Area
The study area includes all areas that will be directly altered or disturbed by Project construction
and operations, including facility sites, access roads, laydown/storage areas, and the inundation
zone for the reservoir. Additionally, the transportation corridors that will be used for
construction will be within the study area for evaluations of potential changes to access to
subsistence resources within a broader study area.
Study Components
Prior to developing this PAD, a report summarizing data gaps was developed. The data gaps
identified for subsistence resources provides a listing of the specific information needs that will
be moved into study plans and are listed in Table 5.2-1.
Table 5.2-1. Summary of Subsistence Data Gaps
Data Gap Specific Information Needed
Current subsistence information Current, quantitative information on subsistence resources
in the Project area
Subsistence harvesters Information on subsistence harvesters who may currently
be using the Project area for subsistence
Subsistence use area maps Current subsistence use area maps for each community, or
for all species harvested in each community
Subsistence harvest or subsistence use area map
information for communities, dispersed households and
lodges along the road system and the Alaska Railroad
Subsistence summary tabular data Access to subsistence summary tabular data from ADF&G
ANILCA Section 810 analysis Data adequate to prepare an ANILCA Section 810 analysis
of impacts of the Project on subsistence where federal
lands may be withdrawn, reserved, leased or otherwise
permitted for use, occupancy or disposition
Traditional Environmental
Knowledge (TEK) documentation
TEK documentation specific to Project area
Place names Research on place names in proposed Project area, using
an integrated approach including archaeology, oral history
and library research
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-48 December 2011
As stated earlier in this section, current data is needed with regards to the use of the Project area
for subsistence resources. Low use levels were previously reported in the area that will be
directly impacted by the Project, but updated information will be needed to determine existing
use levels.
Existing plans and programs regarding subsistence resources that are relevant to the proposed
Project include:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Federal Subsistence Management Program.
Minto Flats State Game Refuge Management Plan.
East Alaska Resource Management Plan.
Alaska Department of Fish & Game’s Wildlife Action Plan.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources’ (ADNR’s) Susitna Area Plan.
ADNR’s Southeast Susitna Area Plan for State Lands.
ADNR’s Susitna Matanuska Area Plan.
ADNR’s Susitna Forestry Guidelines.
Mat-Su Borough Forest Management Plan.
Conservation Plan for the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale.
In the Project licensing process, additional research will be conducted to identify existing
subsistence resource plans that are relevant to the Project. Project design, construction and
operation will be conducted in compliance with those plans identified.
5.2.10.2. 2012 Subsistence Resources Studies
S-S1: Collect and analyze existing subsistence information. Collect exisiting harvest data,
resource use, subsistence land use maps, place names and traditional environmental knowledge.
5.2.11. Socioeconomic and Transportation Issues
So1: Effects of Project construction activities on regional and local economic conditions.
So2: Effects of Project power output on regional and local economic conditions.
So3: Potential effects on economic conditions from changes in recreation use due to the Project.
So4: Potential effects to lifestyles in area communities related to increases in transportation and
other construction-related activities due to the Project.
So5: Changes in direct and indirect commercial opportunities related to recreation, including
fishing, hunting, and trapping, and commercial non-consumptive uses due to the Project.
So6: Potential for increased demand on services provided by Mat-Su Borough and communities
related to Project construction and operation (e.g. health and human services, law enforcement,
emergency services, education, etc).
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-49 December 2011
So7: Secondary development impacts on undeveloped lands.
So8: Potential for air quality impacts during construction.
5.2.11.1. Socioeconomic Resources Study
Study Rationale and Objectives
The proposed Project will lead changes in socioeconomic conditions in the greater Railbelt area
and local communities. The proposed studies are aimed at providing information needed to
evaluate the effect of changes resulting from Project development and operations.
Socioeconomic issues are broken out into general social and economic study questions and those
related to the transportation systems of Alaska.
Socioeconomic issues and study questions arose when the APA Susitna Project was previously
proposed in the 1980s. Many of these remain relevant to the currently proposed Project.
Potential study objectives include:
Identify potential Project-related impacts to lifestyles in area communities (So4).
Understand potential Project-related changes to commercial opportunities related to
fishing, hunting, trapping, etc. (So5).
Identify potential Project-related changes in employment in area communities (So6).
Estimate potential Project-related increases in demand on resources offered by the Mat-
Su Borough and communities to provide public services and facilities for the Project and
Project employees (So7).
Assess potential Project-related secondary development impacts on undeveloped ANCSA
Corporation lands (So8).
Identify potential Project-related impacts resulting from residency and movement of
Project construction personnel.
Estimate potential Project-related changes in economic conditions in the region.
The degree of socioeconomic impact resulting from proposed Project construction and operation
on nearby communities, as well as on local and regional economies, will be assessed.
Study Area
The study area includes all areas that will be directly altered or disturbed by Project construction
and operations, including facility sites, access roads, laydown/storage areas, and the inundation
zone for the reservoir. Additionally, the transportation corridors and community bases that will
be used for construction will be within the study area for evaluations along with development of
the Project and its associated new recreation opportunities.
Study Components
The Socioeconomic study components have been identified from a variety of sources including
APA’s 1985 Susitna Settlement Plan, 1985 Susitna Hydroelectric Project FERC License
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-50 December 2011
Application, and AEA’s “Socioeconomic, Recreation, Air Quality, and Transportation Data Gap
Analysis.”
Many of the Project’s potential adverse impacts are related to the potential change in the size and
location of the population. Once this has been quantified, a more detailed assessment of the
socioeconomic impacts of the Project will be done. A preliminary summary of potential areas of
study and inquiry specific to socioeconomic resources is provided in Table 5.2-2.
Table 5.2-2. Potential Socioeconomic Issues Related to the Proposed Project
Impact Issue
Category Issue
Related to social
environment during
construction and
operation
Potential for increases in population
Potential impacts in quality of life for existing residents (due to
increased noise, traffic, development, etc.)
Potential increase in demand for community facilities (education,
public safety, etc.)
Potential impacts on ability to fund increase in community facility
demand or degradation of service quality
Potential for increased demand for housing
Potential impacts to community cohesion
Availability of an additional source of electricity in case of emergency
Potential conversion of land to industrial or transportation related
purposes
Potential impact on subsistence resources availability
Impacts to aesthetics for residents
Potential displacement of existing residents
Potential for new development along access roads or the Denali
Highway
Potential for localized impacts on local particulate matter levels in the
Project area due to earthmoving, aggregate mixing and construction
vehicle travel on unpaved roads
Potential improvements to air quality in the Railbelt due to a lower use
of fossil fuels by existing utility plants
Significance of ambient air quality impacts during Project construction
Related to economy
during construction
and operation
Potential increases in income
Potential reduction in unemployment
Potential for lower cost energy
Potential for increased business opportunities during construction and
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-51 December 2011
Impact Issue
Category Issue
operation of the Project
Potential changes in tourism and tourism related employment
Potential for increased property tax revenue
Prior to developing this PAD, a report summarizing data gaps was developed. These data gaps
help serve as the foundation for developing study plans and information needs for the licensing
of the Project. The data gaps specific to socioeconomics are shown below on the Table 5.2-3.
Table 5.2-3. Summary of Socioeconomic Data Gaps
Data Gap Specific Information Needed
Local Government Structure
Update local government baseline
to include Denali Borough
Anderson
Clear
Cantwell
Healy
Smaller settlements (Ferry, McKinley Village,
Carlo Creek, etc.)
Update baseline to incorporate
MSB Community Councils
Identify baseline conditions and impacts for a community
council level where appropriate
Population
Update baseline population and
demographic information
Population
Number of households
Household characteristics
Age characteristics
Race/ethnicity
Gender
Education
Project future population and
demographic information
Anticipated population change with and without
the Project
Community-level forecasts
Develop a construction-related
population change estimate
Demographic information during construction period
Identify minority and low-income
population for environmental
justice analysis
Identification of minority and low-income communities
Income
Update baseline income
information
Median household income
Per capita income
Population below poverty level
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-52 December 2011
Data Gap Specific Information Needed
Housing
Update baseline housing conditions Existing housing stock
Forecasted housing stock
Availability
Vacancy rates
Housing tenure
Affordability
Tenure
Residential properties near dam site,
impoundment area, access corridors and
transmission corridors
Update vacancy rates Expected vacancy rates
Public Services and Facilities
To be determined as Project is refined
Water and Wastewater
Update baseline water and
wastewater demand
Existing water/wastewater demand
Forecasted water/wastewater demand
Update baseline water and
wastewater system capacity
Planned capacity of systems
Number of people who can be accommodated by
systems
Locate well locations Utility conflict report to determine location of wells in
areas directly impacted by Project
Locate private systems Identify private systems impacted by Project
Update baseline and projected
wastewater demand and capacity
Area served by system
Future capacity of system
Solid Waste
Update landfill capacity
information
Verify projected capacities of landfills in each
borough
Information about replacement landfill in Denali
Borough
Police
Update baseline police coverage Existing staffing levels
Projected staffing levels
Detachment location and coverage areas
Level of service standards
Update baseline information to
include Wildlife Troopers
Location of detachments
Existing/baseline staffing of detachments
Projected staffing needs
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-53 December 2011
Data Gap Specific Information Needed
Fire
Update baseline fire protection in
the MSB
Service area boundaries
Station location and resources
Planned improvements (focus on stations/Fire
Service Areas near Project area)
Update baseline information to
include Denali Borough Volunteer
Fire Departments (VFD)
Coverage of each VPD
Station locations
Target response times
Anticipated date of exceeding capacity
Health Care
Update baseline health care
information
Existing health care facilities
Facility capacities
Education
Update school capacity, baseline
and future enrollment
Projected school enrollment for baseline year
Projected school enrollment for Project design
year
School capacity
Electricity
Update electric power information Current electrical power information
Air Quality
Update Project emissions for
construction permitting
Construction equipment needs
Construction activity levels
Summarize baseline fossil-fuel
generation emissions
Estimates of criteria air pollutants for each plant
Breakdowns of electric generation by type
Add regional air quality data Summarize data for nearest regional monitors
Compare measured data against current National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
Local and regional land use plans relevant to socioeconomic resources include:
MSB Comprehensive Development Plan
Denali Borough Comprehensive Plan
Talkeetna Comprehensive Plan
Chase Comprehensive Plan
MSB Draft Public Facilities Plan
In the Project licensing process, additional socioeconomic resource plans may be identified that
are relevant to the Project.
No specific 2012 study activities are planned, however information gathering activities will
continue to inform the basis of planning for 2013 studies.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-54 December 2011
5.2.11.2 Transportation Study
Study Rationale and Objectives
The proposed Project will lead changes in transportation conditions in the greater Railbelt area
and local communities. The proposed studies are aimed at providing information needed to
evaluate the effect of changes resulting from Project development and operations. Potential
transportation issues related to the Project are summarized in Table 5.2-4. The objective of the
transportation study will be to assess the potential impacts to transportation systems resulting
from the construction and operation of the proposed Project. A more detailed evaluation on
impacts to the transportation system will be conducted during the licensing effort.
Table 5.2-4. Transportation Issues Related to the Proposed Project
Impact Issue Category Issue
Related to Project roads
during construction and
operation
Potential changes in existing transportation network
Potential changes in access
Potential increases in traffic volumes
Potential increases in transportation related noise
Potential impacts from the paving of the Denali Highway
Potential increased in accidents due to conflicts between
construction vehicles and other traffic
Possible improvements to the transportation system needed to
support construction activities
Potential impacts to other resources due to the footprint of Project
access roads and transmission lines.
Potential conversion of land to transportation related uses
Potential for increased maintenance needs on non-Project owned
roads
Related to aviation during
construction and operation
Potential changes in air traffic patterns
Potential for increased noise due to increase air traffic
Potential for airport land being unavailable for non-Project related
use
Potential for take-off and landing delays for other airport users
Potential for Project needs to conflict with existing airport users
Potential impacts to other resources due to the footprint of
aviation related Project components
Potential for increased air traffic in the Project area
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-55 December 2011
Related to rail during
construction and operation
Potential for increase in traffic delays at-grade crossings
Potential for increased vehicle/train accidents due to increased
volumes of rail traffic at at-grade crossings
Potential conversion of land to transportation related uses
Potential for increased noise due to increases in rail traffic
Potential impacts to other resources due to the footprint of rail
related Project components
Related to other
construction needs
Possible improvements to the elements of the transportation
system needed to support construction activities and limited
access to those facilities while they are being improved
Potential conflicts with existing shippers/freight traffic depending
on how construction materials are sent to Alaska
Geographic location of impacts could occur throughout Railbelt
depending on how construction materials are sent to Alaska
Study Area
The study area includes all areas that will be directly altered or disturbed by Project construction
and operations, including facility sites, access roads, laydown/storage areas, and the inundation
zone for the reservoir. Additionally, the transportation corridors and community bases that will
be used for construction will be within the study area for evaluations along with development of
the Project and its associated new recreation opportunities.
Study Components
Prior to developing this PAD, a report summarizing data gaps was developed. These data gaps
help serve as the foundation for developing study plans and information needs for the licensing
of the Project. The data gaps identified for transportation provides a listing of the specific
information needs are shown below on the Table 5.2-5.
Table 5.2-5. Summary of Transportation Data Gaps
Data Gap Specific Information Needed
Roads
Identify future road network Location of road
Roadway characteristics
Identify existing and future local
roads
Location of road
Traffic volume
Identify RS 2477 trails Location of existing RS 2477 corridors
Location of potential RS 2477 corridors
Status of corridor
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-56 December 2011
Identify existing bridges/structures Location of bridges/structures
Vehicle restrictions (height, weight, width, etc.)
Update baseline and future traffic
volumes and capacity
Current traffic volumes
Roadway configuration (number of lanes, traffic
signals, etc.)
Turning movements
Anticipated growth in Project area
Rail
Identify baseline and future
capacity of ARRC system
Track usage and capacity
Number of rail cars/trains that would move each
day
Time of year construction would occur
Origin of construction materials
Aviation
Identify and locate private aviation
facilities
Construction equipment needs
Construction activity levels
Identify and assess airport capacity Baseline and projected takeoffs and landings
Availability of unleashed land for construction
staging
Local and regional plans relevant to transportation resources include:
Interior Alaska Transportation Plan.
MSB Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP).
Palmer Airport Master Plan (AMP).
Wasilla AMP.
MSB Regional Aviation System Plan (RASP).
In the Project licensing process, additional transportation plans may be identified that are
relevant to the Project.
No specific 2012 study activities are planned however information gathering activities will
continue to inform the basis of planning for 2013 studies.
5.3 Relevant Plans
Section 10(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Power Act requires FERC to consider the extent to which a
project is consistent with Federal or state comprehensive plans for improving, developing, or
conserving a waterway or waterways affected by the Project. Under 18 CFR 4.38, in developing
its license application, AEA must identify relevant comprehensive plans and explain how and
why the Project would or would not comply with such plans. The most current listing of the
Commission’s List of Comprehensive Plans is from June 2011. AEA intends to evaluate the
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-57 December 2011
Project with respect to the following plans identified by FERC in the June 2011 listing, along
with other relevant plans described in Section 4 and 5 of this document.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Susitna Flats State Game Refuge, March 1988. Juneau,
Alaska.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1989. Northwest area plan for state lands. Fairbanks,
Alaska. February 1989. 168 pp.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Matanuska-Susitna Borough. 1985. Susitna Basin area
plan. Juneau, Alaska. June 1985. 440 pp.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Matanuska-Susitna Borough. 1991. Susitna Basin
recreation rivers management plan. Anchorage, Alaska. August 1991. 181 pp.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1998. Catalog of waters important for spawning, rearing
or migration of anadromous fishes. November 1998. Juneau, Alaska. Six volumes.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1998. Atlas to the catalog of waters important for
spawning, rearing or migration of anadromous fishes. November 1998. Juneau, Alaska. Six
volumes.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 1986. Matanuska Valley moose range management
plan. Anchorage, Alaska. October 1986. 256 pp.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Alaska's Outdoor Legacy: Statewide Comprehensive
Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP): 2009-2014. Anchorage, Alaska.
Bureau of Land Management. 1981. South central Alaska water resources study: Anticipating
water and related land resource needs. Anchorage, Alaska. October 1, 1981. 97 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Undated. Fisheries USA: the recreational fisheries policy of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 6-1 December 2011
6. SUMMARY OF CONTACTS
In accordance with 18 CFR 5.6(d)(5), this section summarizes contacts with Federal, State,
Tribes, non-governmental organizations or other members of the public made in connection with
preparing the PAD. AEA initiated stakeholder outreach in early 2011. These communications
are summarized in Table 6-1 and copies of correspondence, meeting notes and draft documents
are included in chronological order in Appendix 6-1 unless otherwise noted in the table.
Stakeholder contacts are identified in correspondence or meeting notes and a corresponding
Project contact mailing list is provided in Appendix 6-2.
Table 6-1. Summary of communications with stakeholders since January 2011.
Date Communication Event Description
April 14, 2011 Initial Coordination
Meeting with FERC Office
of Energy Projects, Division
of Hydropower Licensing
Introductory meeting with
FERC staff and AEA to
discuss the planning and
processes associate with
licensing the Susitna-
Watana Hydroelectric
Project.
April 21, 2011 Aquatic/Terrestrial Pre-Gap
Analysis Meeting
Meeting with stakeholders
to discuss the work efforts
underway for the aquatic
and terrestrial resources gap
analyses.
May 24, 2011 AEA Letter to CIRI AEA requesting permission
to access CIRI lands near
dam site.
June 2, 2011 Tyonek Native Corporation
letter to AEA
Letter granting AEA
permission to enter lands
for exploratory drilling near
dam site.
June 4, 2011 Talkeetna Community
Council Letter to State
Representatives copied to
State officials and AEA
Letter to Alaska
Representatives and State
officials transmitting
questions concerns about
the planning and potential
effects of the proposed
Project.
June 27, 2011 Stakeholder Licensing
Process Meeting
Meeting with stakeholders
to discuss the licensing
process options of the
proposed Project.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 6-2 December 2011
June 30, 2011 Email from Jan Konigsberg,
Natural Heritage
Institute/Hydropower
Reform Coalition to AEA
Email regarding licensing
meeting topics discussed in
June 27th meeting.
July 13, 2011 Alaska Ratepayers Letter to
AEA
Letter to AEA supporting
development of the
proposed Project and
planning approach.
July 14, 2011 Utilities Information
Meeting
Meeting to discuss power
demand and project sizing.
July 22, 2011 AEA Letter to Talkeetna
Community Council
Letter to Talkeetna
Community Council
transmitting preliminary
responses to questions and
concerns letter of June 4th.
August 3, 2011 Email from Susan Walker
to AEA
Email regarding licensing
meeting topics discussed at
June 27th meeting.
August 5, 2011 ADF&G Letter to AEA Letter to AEA discussing
information development
and licensing process needs.
August 5, 2011 USFWS Letter to AEA Letter to AEA discussing
information needs and
licensing process needs.
August 18, 2011 Aquatic and Terrestrial Gap
Analysis Meeting
Meeting with stakeholders
to discuss the aquatic, water
quality and terrestrial
resources gap studies.
August 19, 2011 Initial coordination meeting
with USACE
Meeting with USACE to
discuss proposed Project
planning and information
needs related to USACE
regulatory program under
the Clean Water Act.
August 26, 2011 Alaska Conservation
Alliance Letter to AEA
Letter to AEA discussing
licensing process needs.
August 29, 2011 Public Meeting in Talkeetna Meeting with stakeholders
to discuss planning,
timeline, information needs
and issues regarding the
proposed Project.
September 1, 2011 Anchorage Public Meeting Meeting with stakeholders
to discuss the ILP process.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 6-3 December 2011
September 6, 2011 Introductory coordination
meeting with USGS
Meeting with USGS to
discuss hydrologic
information and ongoing
analyses.
September 7, 2011 Introductory coordination
meeting with the BLM
Meeting with BLM to
discuss planning, timeline
and information needs
related to permit for
potential use of BLM lands
within the proposed Project.
September 8, 2011 The Nature Conservancy
Letter to AEA
Letter to AEA regarding
information sources and
information needs.
September 9, 2011 Jan Konigsberg, Natural
Heritage Institute Letter to
AEA
Letter to AEA regarding
information needs, the gap
analyses, and licensing
process.
September 9, 2011 USFWS Letter to AEA Letter to AEA discussing
licensing process and
information needs.
September 9, 2011 NMFS Letter to AEA Letter to AEA discussing
licensing process.
September 12, 2011 Jan Konigsberg, Natural
Heritage Institute Errata
Notice to AEA
Errata note to September 9
letter.
September 16, 2011 AEA Letter to USACE Letter summarizing Project
licensing, expressing
interest in having USACE
as cooperating agency with
FERC and inquiring about
agency resource needs.
September 16, 2011 AEA Letter to USFWS Letter summarizing Project
licensing plans and follow
up on agency resource
needs and participation.
September 16, 2011 AEA Letter to NPS Letter summarizing Project
licensing plans, agency
resource needs and
participation.
September 16, 2011 AEA Letter to NMFS Letter summarizing Project
licensing plans, agency
resource needs and
participation.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 6-4 December 2011
September 16, 2011 AEA Letter to ADNR Letter summarizing Project
licensing plans, agency
resource needs and
participation.
September 16, 2011 AEA Letter to ADEC Letter summarizing Project
licensing plans, agency
resource needs and
participation.
September 16, 2011 AEA Letter to BLM Letter summarizing Project
licensing plans, agency
resource needs and
participation.
September 18, 2011 National Wildlife
Federation Letter to AEA
Letter to AEA discussing
information and licensing
needs and concerns.
September 22, 2011 Pre-PAD Recreation
Resources Information
Questionnaire Transmittal
Letter to commercial
recreation services
providers transmitting Pre-
PAD recreation resource
information questionnaire.
September 29, 2011 Introductory coordination
meeting with EPA
Meeting with EPA staff to
discuss Project planning,
information needs regarding
potential resource issues
and integrated regulatory
processes.
September 30, 2011 Introductory coordination
meeting with ADEC
Meeting with ADEC staff to
discuss Project planning
and regulatory issues and
framework for the State
water quality certification
process and stormwater
permitting programs.
September 30, 2011 Meeting with Cassie
Thomas of NPS
Meeting to discuss potential
information sources and
needs.
October 13, 2011 Introductory coordination
meeting with the SHPO
Meeting to discuss Project
planning and overview
Section 106 process.
October 24, 2011 Aquatic Resources
Preliminary Issues
Identification Meeting
Meeting with stakeholders
to discuss the identification
of potential aquatic
resources issues and related
information needs.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 6-5 December 2011
October 25, 2011 Terrestrial Resources
Preliminary Issues
Identification Meeting
Meeting with stakeholders
to discuss the identification
of potential terrestrial
resources issues and related
information needs.
November 2, 2011 Public Outreach Meeting
with Chugiak/Eagle River
Chamber of Commerce
Presentation to provide
project overview and status
update. Addressed
questions from community
members.
November 3, 2011 Meeting Ratepayers
Association and Resource
Development Council
Presentation to provide
project overview and status
update, as part of the
Resource Development
Council’s annual
conference.
Meeting with Ratepayers
Association to introduce
key Project staff.
November 4, 2011 Meeting with Alaska
Senator Thomas
Meeting with state Senator
Thomas to discuss project
status and identify potential
constituent questions and
comments.
November 4, 2011 Meeting with Alaska
Interior Delegation
Presentation with Alaska
Legislature’s Interior
Delegation and staff to
provide project overview,
status update, answer
questions and identify
potential constituent
questions and comments.
November 4, 2011 Meeting with Golden
Valley Electric Association
Meeting with senior staff of
Golden Valley Electric
Association to discuss the
utilities potential power
needs, current power
supplies and identify
potential ratepayer
questions and comments.
November 4, 2011 Presentation to Osher
Lifelong Learning Institute
Presentation to provide
project overview and status
update and to answer
questions from residents of
Interior Alaska.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 6-6 December 2011
November 9, 2011 Meeting with Alaska
Conservation Alliance
Presentation to provide
project overview and status
update. Addressed
questions from Alaska
Conservation Alliance,
primarily focused on
environmental concerns and
aquatic resources.
November 10, 2011 Meeting with Ahtna
Corporation
Meeting with senior
management of Ahtna
Corporation to discuss
resource concerns, land
ownership and access
issues.
November 14, 2011 Meeting with Village of
Cantwell
Presentation and meeting
with members of the
Village of Cantwell and the
community to provide a
project overview, status
update and to answer
questions from village and
community members,
primarily about access and
land use.
November 18, 2011 Meeting with CIRI
Corporation
Meeting with senior
management of CIRI
Corporation to discuss
cooperative relationship,
and land ownership and
access issues.
December 7, 2011 2012 Water Resources
Studies Workshop
Meeting with stakeholders
to discuss 2012 study
planning for water
resources and
geomorphology.
December 7, 2011 2012 Aquatic Studies
Workshop
Meeting with stakeholders
to discuss 2012 study
planning for aquatic
resources.
December 8, 2011 2012 Terrestrial Studies
Workshop
Meeting with stakeholders
to discuss 2012 study
planning for terrestrial
resources.
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 6-7 December 2011
December 8, 2011 2012 Social Sciences
Studies Workshop
Meeting with stakeholders
to discuss initial issue
identification and study
needs for recreation, land
use and management,
aesthetics, socioeconomics
and transportation,
subsistence and cultural
resources.
December 13, 2011 Meeting with Knikatnu Inc. Meeting with president of
Kinkatnu to discuss cultural
issues, the tribal
consultation process and
land ownership.
December 13, 2011 Meeting with Tyonek
Corporation
Meeting with senior
management of Tyonek
Corporation to provide
project overview and status,
discuss tribal consultation
process, land ownership,
and cooperative
relationship.