~ ,.--

DOCUMENT CONTROL

CONJ':tOENTfAl: PRiVIlEGED VVORK ftRObUCT PREPARED fN ANTlCIPA TION OF lfTfGATiON; RESTRICTED OfSTRiiUTJON

Alaska Research Associates

. .

ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY .

SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC ,PROJECT WILDLIFE AND BOTANICAL RESOURCES

IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND MITIGA1.,ION PLANNING S

FOR:

HARZA-EBASCO SUSlTNA JOINT VENTURE

711 H STREET

ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501

BY:

tGL ALASKA RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC.

505 W. NORTHERN LIGHTS BLVD.

ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503

.. REVISION NUMBER: 1 DATE: JUN 2 8 1!35

00&00~& o rgoo&®@@ . Susitna Joint Venture

Document Number

337io Please Return To

DOCUMENT CONTROL

CONFfDE:NTIAt.: PRIVILEaEO WORK ftROOUCT PREPAAED IN ANTICIPATION OJ= i.lTIGATION; RESTRICiEO OlSTRIIUTION

- i1 •um liM' JJJ-1'' &&

Alaska Research Associates

:

ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY

SlJSITNA HYDROELECTRIC ·PROJECT WILDLIFE AND BOT.A,NICAL RESOURCES

IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION PLANNING S

FOR:

HARZA-EBASCO SUSITNA JOINT ~NTURE

711 H STREET

ANCHORAGEt ALASKA 99501

BY:

LGL A1~ASKA RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC.

505 W. NORTHERN LiGHTS BL\'D.

ANCHORAGEt ALASKA 99503

'· ·-

REVISION NUMBER: 1 DATE: JUN 2 8 1985

SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

WILDLIFE AND BOTANICAL RESOURCES

IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION PLANNING StJI..IMARY

Report by

LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc.

Under Contract to

Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture

Prepal'ed for

Alaska Power Authority

REVISION 1

JUNE 1985

PREFACE

This document provides an ovt:!rview of potential imp.acte of the Susitn~ Hydroelectric Project on wil1life and botanical re­sources of the prc.ject area, and indicates the status of plan­ning to mitigate those impacts. The purpose is to provide a working record of imract assessment and mitigation planning in the form of a summary that is updated periodically. During the course oi major energy development projects, the tracking of environmental concerns from impact assessment through miti­gation proposals and subsequent action can become a cumbersome process. The following summary is organizeli in matrix -E:ormat to ease this process and to provide quick r~ference to current impact and mitigation reasoning. This record is presented to encourage input by al~ interested parties and to inform deci~ion-makers of the current state of thought concerning rel~vant res0urce issues.

~uch of the information contained in this planninp, summary is based on Exhibit E of the project license 4pplication to the Federal Energy Regulatory Co~ission (FERC~ (APA 1983a). How­ever) many of the impact assessments and mitigation plans pre­sented in the license application have been considerably re­fined since lic0nse application summittal in February 1983, with additional quantification ar.1d deta:Jl achieved through further baseline study and data analysis. Updates and refine­ments are bein& documented on a continuing basis in succP-ssive revisioDs of the project Mitigation Plan for Wildlife and Botanical Resources (LGL 1985) and in individual reports pre­pared by project biologists. Th2 planning summary provides an ongoing tracking system for these upoatas and refinements, and contai-;.1s references to the approp-=iate sonrce documents. Descriptions of ongoing and plann.:-d stud~.es are from the Alaska Power Authority's Fiscal Year 1985•plan of study for terrestrial programs.

For compl.::.tenes~, all potent'lal botanical and wildlife impact mechanismo ident1fiert in project-relateo documents and review comments on tho~e documents are included here. Most of the potential impact mechanisms list:ed in the matrix ha.•.rs. b·een identified by project biologists on the basis of. studies spon­sored since 1980 by the Alaska Power Authority. Other impact mechPnis~~ s~ggestcd by resource agencies are also listed. Although they have received attention, the inclusion of thesa edditional hypotheses does not imply that they are based on results of studies by project biologiscs, or that the sug­gested mechanisms are expected to produce important impacts.

A potential impact mechanism (whether adverse or beneficial) is considered to be ,import~ if, in the judgment of project bi.ologists, that mechanism is likely to produc·~~ an observable and persistent change, not attributable to natural fluctua­tions, in the size or productivity of a wildlife population, or in an area's carrying capacity for a wildlife. population (LGL 198~). About 23 percent of the impact mechanisms listed in the planning summar:r are currently considered to be in this category. For ~ost of these, sufficient inf~~ation already exists to support oni:;oing mitigation planning, o~md adcttionc:1 studies are not c~nsidered to be necessary. The remair.ing potentially important mechanisms are receiving further study, and the list of topics requiring such study is shortening as results accrue.

Pot.en!:i;:4l impact machanl.sms not judged to be j,mportant will not ~e subject tv further studies cr mitigation planning beyond standa~d engin~ering and construction p~actice and, in some cases, field monitcring.

The rat:[onale for determinittg whether a potential impact mech­anism is or is not important is provided in Section 2 (Species Accounts) of the wildlife mitigation plan (LGL 1985). That document is cross-referenced with this planning summary. Futur.e releases of the planning summary will be consistently revised to reflect current information on impact assessment and mitigation planning as reported in the wildlife mitigation plan.

The planning summary is organi~~d to show for each potential impact mechanism the current assessment status, ongoing or planned studies, monitoring plans, and proposed mitigation medsures. The major column headings describe the steps in the planning process a.s follows:

I)

II)

Affect~d ~~or Group: lists each species or group of spectes of concern in the project area and surround­ing region.

~ntial Impact Mechanis~: briefly explains ho~ speci­fic project ~ompouents may affect the listed species or group. Mechanisms judged to be important are under­lined.

(cont1nued on next page)

III) Impact AssessmP~c Status: provides an evaluation of the potential impact, including its perceived importance to the affected species or group and any quantification of the impact that has been developed.

IV) Ongoing and Planned Studies: provides a summary of investigations in progress or planned for the near future that are relevant to refining the particular impact assessment or proposed mitigation measures.

V) Proposed Monitoring Activities: summarizes field moni­toring programs that are proposed to be conducted during project construction and operation to document impacts and to assist in mitigating ~hem.

VI) Proposed Mitigation Measures: summarizes measures that have been proposed to assist in mitigating the effects of the pertinent impact mechanism.

In cases where the contents of a matrix cell have been changed from the previous revision of the planning summary, the text is preceded by an asterisk(*).

Each cell of the matrix can be uniquely identified by column (vertical) and row (horizontal). To identify a particular cell, it should bs cited first by the Affected Species or Group letter; second, by the Impact Mechanism number; and third, by column heading III, IV, Vt or VI. For example, the cell on page 1 describing proposed measu.ces to mitigate permanent loss of moose habit . .tt due to tho impoundments and other permanent facilities would be cited as A-1/VI. This format provides a shorthand notation that allows specific topics within the planning summary to be cited quickly and precisely in communications concerning im~act assP-ssment and mitigation. ::

• ' A Literature Cited section is provided at the end of this

document. Successive revisions of the planning summary will include an increasing number of citations; the goal is to provide document and page referenr.~o for all project-related reports and other project communications in which a particular impact mechanism, impact assessment, existing or proposed study, proposed monitoring program, or proposed mitigation plan. is discussed.

Ongoing studies sponsored by the Alaska Power Authority are continuing to provide netv and updated information pertinent to · .te evaluation of potential impacts. Subsequent revisions of this document will include info11nation provided by these studies and by refinements to impact assessments and mitiga­tion plans, in some cases altering the conclusions contained herein.

A.

B.

c.

D.

E.

F.

G.

H.

I.

J.

K.

L.

M.

N.

Botanical Resourcets

Moose • • • • • • " ................... f' •

Caribou • • • • • "' • • • • • e • • • • ,. • • • • • a • •

Dall Sheep ·······••1!'••••1••41•••-=

Brown Bear ............... ~······••411

Black Bear • • • • • • • • • • • • • .. • • c •••••

Wolf. • • • • • • • • • " ••••••••••••• Q ••••

Wolverine

Belukha Whale • • • • • • • • • • • • • " • 0 •••

Lynx. • • • . • • • • • . • • • .. • •. • • • • • , • • • • •

Coyote ..•.•••......••.•...•.....

Red Fox ....... c: •••••••••• -r· • 11 ••••

Beaw~r

Muskrat

•! • ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. ....................... .

1

7

16

19

21

23

26

28

29

30

31

31

32

34

TABLE OF CONTENTS

o. River Otter·················-···

P • Marten •..•••.••••••.•••• Ill •••••.•• 39

Q. Mink .•.•.••• o ••••••••• Q • • ....... . 40

R. Weasels ............................. 42

s. Small Mammals 44

T. W'aterbirds . ... "" ................ . 44

u . Bald Eagle • ••••• w ••••••••••••••• 45

v. Golden Eagle 47

w. Gyrfalcon .............. "" ........ . 48

X. Peregrine Falcon •••••••••••••••• 49

Y. Other Raptors and Raven ••••••••• 50

z. Terrestrial Birds • •••••• :J ....... . 51

References • ••••••••••••••••••••• 1i ••• 53

(I) (II)

Affected Potential Specie!:! or 1mp81.::t

Group Mechs1nis~ll

(III) (IV) Impact Ongoing

Assessment and Planned Status Studies

(V)

Proposed Monitoring Activities

(VI) Proposed

Mitigation Measures

Page 1.

l r---------~~------------------~~,-----------------------.---------------------~---------------------~-------------------------------

(A) Botanical Resources

(1.) Imp~~ts, access .coads, transm:l.ssion linE'a, and other permaneJ.ituiciiit. ·.s wi!l result in permanent loss of vegetatior~.

Impor~ant. 1.:63,360-scale vegetation mapping emphasizing un~erstory shrub species has been completed and digitized (Jan. 1.985) Wetlands mapping hns also been completed, These map products have pro­vided a more precise quantifi­cation of vegetation types and acreages that will be affec­ted. About 38,717 acres of primarily forest and shrubland vegetational types will be permanently removed. These include 32,890 acres of forest types, 5,270 acres of shrub­land, 447 acres of tundra l:md 1.10 acres of other vegetation types (APA 1.984).

The digitized 1:63,360-scale vegetation mapping will be used to support wildlife habi­tat selectivity analyses in spring, 1.986,

l

Mitigation plan provides for minimiza­tion, rectification, reduction, and compensation of impacts in a variety of ways (APA 1983a, pp. E-3-252 to 285),

Minimize facility dimensions (APA 1.983a, p. E-3-291 ~1),

Consolidate structures (APA 1983a, p. E-3-29J. 4J:2).

Site facilities in areas of low biomass (,~A 1983a, p. E-3-291 #3).

Site facilities to minimize clearing of less abundant vegetation types (APA 1983a, p. E-3-291 4J:4).

Site facilities to ~inimize clearing of vegetation types productive as wildlife habitat components (APA 1983a, p. E-3-291 #5).

Minimize vol~e requirements for borrow \:!Xtraction (APA 1983a, p. E-3-291 #6).

Disposal of spoil within the impound­ments or previously excavated areas (APA 1.983a, p. E-3-292 #7).

Avoidance of the Prairie Creek, Stephan Lake, Fog Lakes, and Indian River areas by access routing (APA 1983a, p. E-3-292 #14).

Agency coordination and participation in detailed planning of civil engineer­ing measur~s to minimize potential wet­lands impacts (APA 1.983a, p. E-3-292 f/:19) •

Minimize loss of forest areas through alignment of access road and tranmis­sion corridors, and other measures (APA 1983a, pp. E-3-539 #23, E-3-525 #1, E-3-526 :f/:2).

Designate compensation ~ands for habi­tat ma11agement measures (,\PA ·1983aJ P• E-3-292 #12).

Design and align roads, railroad and facilities to minimize impacts on wet­lands (APA 1983a, p. E-3-292 #18, L9).

Pag-e 2

(I) (II) (III) (IV) (V) (VI) Affected Potential Impact On~oing Proposed

' P1·oposed

Species or Impact Assessment and Planned Monitoring Mitigation G'!':oup Mechanism Status &tudies Activities Heasures

-(A) Botanical (2) Temporary facilities, dis- Not important. Temporary loss Monitor progress of reba- Minimize facility dimensions (APA

Resources turbed areas, and transmission or alteration of about 18,115 bilitation to identify lo· 1983a, p. E-3~291 ~2). (cont.) lines will result in temporary acres of vegetation (APA cations reouiring further

loss or alteration of vegeta- J.984). attention (APA 1983a, p. Consolidate structures (APA l983a, tion, E-3·292 Ul). P• E-3·291 #2).

Site fa~ilities in are~s of low biomass (APA 1983a, p. E-3-291 #3),

Site facilities to minimizP clearing of less abundant vegetation types (APA 1983a, p. E-3-291 #4).

Minimize volume requirements for borrow extraction (APA l983a, p. E-3-291 #6).

Dispose of spoil withi.n the impound-ments or previously excavated areas (APA 1983a, p. E-3-292 #7).

Dismantle nonessential structures as soon as they are vacated (APA 1983a, o E-3-2')2 ~F9).

Develop a comprehensive site rehabili-tation plan (APA ~983a, p. E-3-292 nu>. Plan and develop an environmental briefings program for all field personnel (APA 1983a, p. E-3-292 ~13).

Prohibit public use of access road and airfield during construction (APA l983a, p. E-3-534 #12, 14).

Discourage off-roaa recreational vehi-r cle activity, and phase in ~ecreational •! plan to limit recreational impacts on .

vegetation and 'vildlife (APA 1983a, I p. F.-3-292 116, 17).

Design and align roads, ra~lroad and facilittes to minimize impacts on wet-lands (Al'A 1983c., p. E-3-292 na, 19).

Agency coordination and parti~ipa~ion in detailed planning of civil ergineer-ing measures to mitdmi.ze potential wet-lands impacts (APA 1983n, p. E-3-292 #19).

Minimize habitat loss by side borrow techniques for road construction, spoil deposition in impoundments or deplete~ borl'ow areas, and consoliciation of pro-ject facilities (APA 19ij3a, p. E-3-52u #2).

Fertilize and revegetate disturbed sites (APA 1983a, p. E-3-526 #3).

Minimize loss of forest areas through alignment of access road and transmis-sian corridor ; , and otht::r measures (APA

I 1983a, pp. E-3-539 #23, E-3-525 #1, E-3-526 4~2) •

.

(I) Affected

'Species or Group

(A) Botanical Resources (cCint.)

(II)

Potential Impact

Mechanism

(3) Clearing operations in the impoundment ~ones wlll result in temporary loss or altera­tion of vegetation CQmmuni• ties.

(III)

lmpact Assessment

Status

Not important. Impacts simi­lar to (A-1) will occur 1 to 2 years earlier; effects will be greatest on forest veget.::.tion types (LGL 1985, Section 2.1). 1:63,360-scale vegetation map­p~ng emphasizing understory shrub species has bee~ comple­ted and b~ing digitiz~J and will be uoed to inc?rporate site specific vegetation ~n­formation into the impoundment clearing plan.

(IV) (V) Ongoing Proposed

and Planned Monitoring Studiet: Activities

Page 3

(VI)

Proposed Mitigation Measures

Haintain 200-foot buffer zones of un­disturbed vegetation alon~ both sides of river.

Employ habitat management measures in middle basin and on other lands to compensate for permanent habitat LOSS (APA 1983a, p. E-3·527 #6).

Develop moose canying capacity model to allow refinements to impact predic­tions and planned. mitigation measures (APA 1983a, p. E-3-530 #7).

~-------~---------------------------T-------------------------+---------------------------r---------------------~------------------------------~ (4) Erosion resulting from slides, flows, and stumpages along impoundme~t shores will result "';l loss or alteration of vegetation.

(5) Wind and dust may damage vegelation near cleared areas and along impoundment shores.

Not important. About 2,100 acros of vegetation upstream of the Watana Dam site and a smaller acreage in Devil Canyon will be subject to loss and alteration through~ a) destabilization of till, b) blowdowt1s, c) thawing of per­mafrost, d) desiccation of ex­pos~d soils, and e) changes in drainage patterns. Impacts may occur irregularly along 70 miles of impoundmer.t shores (APA 1983a, p. E-3-226).

Not important. Blowdown of trees muy occur near cleared areas and along impoundment: shores, mainly affecting black spruce stands. 'fjind-blown dust may affect vegetation through alteratit.n of snowmelt characteristics dn~ changes in the surficial chemical compo­sition o£ soils (A'PA 1983at PP• E-3-226 to 277').

1:63,360-ccale digitized vege­tation mapping will be msed to quantify, where feasibl1e, potential vegetation losses along impoundlllent shore:s.

Routine monitoring of shoreline processes will be cnnducted during filling and operation of impoundments.

Monitor progress of reha­bilitation to identify lo­cations:requiring further attention (APA 1983a, p. E-3-292 ffrll).

Employ habitat management measures in middle basin and on other lands to compensate for permanent habitat loss (APA l983a, p. E-3-527 ~6).

Develop moose population model to allow refinements to planned mitigation mea­sures.

Minimize facility dimensions (APA l983a, p. E-3-291 #1).

Consolidate structures (APA l983a, p. E-3-291 #2).

Hinimize volume reqoiremer.ts for borrow extraction (APA 1983a, p. E-3-291 #6).

Dispose oi spoil within the impound­ments of previously excavated areas (APA 1983a, p. E-3-292 #7).

Develop a comprehensive sit:e rehabili~ tation plan (APA 1983a, p. E-3-292 4.<10).

Fertilize and revegetate disturbed sites (APA 1983a, p. E-3-526 #3).

Employ measures to control road dust (APA l983a, p. E-3-511),

Page 4

(I) (II) (III) (IV) (V) (VI) Affected Potencial lmpact Ongoing Proposed Proposed

Species or Impact Assessment and Planned Monitoring Mitigation Group Mechanism Status Studies Activities Measures

(A) Botanical (6) Along access roads, dust Not important. Dust may be Monitor roads on re~lar, Site facilities in areas of low t~~~ss Resources deposition, erosion, leaching deposited within a few hundred year-round basis to e~sure (APA 1983a, p. E-3-291 #3). (cont.) of nutrients in drained areas, yards of roads; other affects proper functioning of

water-logging in areas of will be limited to vicinity of drainage structures, Site facilities to minimize clearing. of blocked drainage, anrl thawing roads. particularly during and vegetation types productive as Wildlife of adjacent permafrost may follow~ng spring breakup. habitat components (APA 1983a, p. E-3-damage or alter vegetation. 291 #5).

Develop a comprehensive site rehabili-tation plan (APA 1983a, p. E-3-292 .ffrlO).

Designate compensation lands for habi-tat management measur2s {APA 1983a, p. E-3-292 #12).

Design and align roads, railroad and facilities to minimiz~ impacts on wet-lands (APA 1983a, p. E-3-292 #18, 19).

Agency cooraination and participation in detailed planning of civil engineer-ing measures to minimize potential wet-lands impacts (APA 1983a, p. E-3-292 #19).

Hinimize habitat loss by side borrow techniques for road construction, spoil deposition in impoundments or depleted borrow areas, and consolidation of project facilities (APA 1983a, p. E-3-

I 526 41'2).

Fertilize and revegetate disturbed sites (APA 1983a, p. E-3-526 #3).

Employ habitat management measures in middle basin and on other lands '.J

:- compensate for permanent habitat lO!.S .. (APA 1983a, p. E-3-527 #6) • •

_\_

(7) Alteration of soil surface Not importan~ •• Changes in Expected impact severity not Monitor progress of reha- Minimize facility dimensions (APA albedo in cleared areas may albedo can produce chaages in sufficient to re;uire study. bilitation to identtfy lo- 19~3a, p. E-3-291 #1). ~ffect vegetation. surface hydrology, affecting cations re(uiring further

the tYPe of vegetation that attentiQ~, APA l9B3a, P~ Consolidate structures (APA 1983a, p. becomes esta~lished (APA E-3-292 #11). E-3-291 4fo3). 1983a, p. E-3-227).

I Site f&cilities to minimize clearing of . vegetation types produ~tive as wildlife habitat components (APA 1983a, p. E-3-791 #5}.

Develop a compt·.ehensive si'::e rehabili ... tation plan (APA 1983a, p. E-3-292 no).

I '

I

Page 5

r---~----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 (I) (II) (III) (IV) (V) (VI)

Affected Potential Impact Ongoing Proposed Proposed Species or Impact Assessment and Planned Monitoring Mitigation

Group Mechanism C:<:atus Studies Activities Measures

(}.) Botanical Resources (COI\t.)

(8) Cleating activities may increase incidence of disease or insect infestations of vegetation.

(9) Increased human activity and easier access mal result in an increased risltof fire.

(10) Flooding along impound­ment shores and delta forma­tion Where cr~eks enter the impoundments may alter vegeta­tion.

(11) Flow regulation and re­sultant changes in downstream floodplain 'morphology and ice related effects will alter vegetation successional pat-~· .

(12) Climatic changes near the reservoirs may alter vegeta­tion communities.

* Not important. This impact is not expected to occur because slash will be burned.

Important. Impact on vegeta­tion difficult to quantify.

Not important. Impact not quantified but not expected to be a significant ~oss; some alteration of vegetation types will occur. •

' Important. Regulated summer flows will produce a narrower active channel in downstream floodplain, allowing vegeta­tion to colonize to menn summer high-water line. Between the ice-front and Talkeetna, higher staging in winter will produce flooding o£ vegetation along channel margins (Helmet al. 198~; R&M Consultants et al. 1985).

Not important, Effects expec­ted to be local but may extend 2 miles from the reservoirs and would ue most noticeable along the nouth shores.

E~pected impact severity not sufficient to require study.

A quantitative prediction of the extent of impa.ct will not be undertaken.

Expected impact severity not sufficient to require study.

Downstream vegetation impact assessment if currently being finalized.

Expected impact severity not sufficient ot require study.

Monitoring will include attention to potential fire hazards.

Monitor changes in down­stream vegetative cover (APA 1983a, p. E-3-523 Jfo2).

No specific monitoring ac­tivities are planned.

Defer impoundment clearing until 3 or 4 years before filling; patches of vege­tation will be left until just before filling (APA 1983a, p. E-3-525 #l).

Clear impoundments prior to flooding and remove floating debris t~ reduce hazards to crossing (APA 1983a~ p. E-3-530 419).

Burn slash piles to minimiz~ effects of insects and disease (APA 1983a, p. E-3-271 and 509).

Plan and develop an environmental briefings program for all field personnel (APA 1984a) p. E-3-292 #13),

Develop a comprehensive site rehabili­tPtion plan (APA 1983a, p. E-3-292 4fol0).

Discourage off-road recreational vehi­cle activity, and phase in recreational plan to limit recreational impacts on vegetation and wildlife (APA 1983a, p. E-3-292 #16, 17).

Prohibit public use of access road and airfield during construction (JU>A 1983a, p. E-~-534 #n, 14).

No mitigation appears to ba feasible.

No mitigation appears to be feasiblP..

Use multilevel intake otructures on 'the , dams to maintain downstream river tem­peratures as close to normal as possi­ble (APA 1983a, p. E-3-526 4!5).

Page 6

r-< (I) (II) {III) (IV) (V) (VI)

Affected Potential Imp:1ct Ongoing Propose(} Proposed Species or Impact Assessment and Planned Hon:f.toring Hitigation

Gl'oup Mechanism Status Studies Activities Measures '

(A) Botanical (13) Rime ice and hoar frost Not important. Rime icing Expected impact severity not No specific monitoting Mitigation not expected to be required; Resources deposition caused by persia- ~·ill be limited to the immedi- su~ficient to require study. activities are planned. probably not feasible 1.n any case. (cont.) tent fog banks near the reser- ate area around the spillways.

voirs and open-water reaches Hoar fr·.st is expe~ted near downstream may dam~ge adjacent open water but is not expected understory vegetation. to damage vegetation.

(14) Increase in use of off- Not important. If such af- l>1onitor progress of reha- Develop a comprehensive site rehabili-road vehicles near project fects occur despite mitigation bilitation to identify lo- tation plan (APA 1983a, p. E-3-292 facilities may increase damage measures, negative ~pacts cations re(uiring further 1/:10). and alteration of vegetation will be local and mo=e aesthe- attention APA 1983a, p. communities. tic than biological in nature. E-3-292 4/:11). Plan and develop an environmental

briefings program for all field personnel (APA 1983a, p. E-3-292 #13).

Discourage off-road recreational vehi-cle activity, and phase in recreational plan to limit recreatio~al impacts on vegetation and wildlife (APA 1983a,

I p. E-3-292 #16, 17).

Prohibit public use of access road and airf:!.e:ld during construction (~A

I 19&3a, p. E-3-534 #12, 14).

(15) Removal of overstory ve- Not important. Will affect Design transmission corridors to allow getation in forested porrions about 6,017 acr~s (2,557 from selective cutting of trees and to ac-of the transmission corridors Healy to Fairbanks, 3,404 from commodate uncleared lmi shrub and tun-will change abundance of Healy to Willow, 1,274 from dra vegetation ~ithin rights-of-way forest communities. Willow to Cook Inlet, 46 from (APA 1983a, {i• E-3-292 4/:8).

Watana to Devil Canyon, and 462 rrom Devil Canyon to Gold Creek) of habitats containing trees, producing flU increas.:: in shrub-type vegetation • ..

'

(16) Blockage rf sediment Importance not predicted. Downstream impact assessment Collect data on changes in No mitigation appears to be feasible. transport by the impoundments is currently in progress. downstream vegetative co\,_ may incresse erosion down er (APA 1983a, p. E-3-523 stream, thereby affecting 4F2). vegetation on islands in the floodplain. . . ..

(17) Removal or alteration of Not important. No endangered Previous studies provided suf- No monitoring planned; en- Site facilities to minimize clearin~ of vegetation may disturb habi- species have been found in ficient information for impact dangered species not known less abundant vegetation types (~A tats of endangered plant surveys to date. assessment. No further stud- to occur in ~reject area. 1983a, p. E-3~291 4/:4), species. ies planned.

Design transmission corridors to allow selective cutting of trees a~d to ac-commodate undisturbed low shrub and t1mdra vegetation within rights-of-way (~A 1983a, p. E-3-292 #8).

Discourage off-road recreational vehi-cle activity, and phase in recreattonal plan to limit recreational impacts on vegetation and wildlife (APA 1983a, p. E-3-?.92 #16, 17} •

.

(I) Affected

Species or Group

(A) Botanical Resources (cont.)

(B) Moose

{II)

P.otential Impact

Mechanism

(18) Ioxic heavy metals, such as mercury, may leach from flooded soils and vegetation into the reservoir impound· ment.

(1) Filling of imooundments and construction of permanent Ta:ci'lities will result in permanent habitat loss for ~·

(II:i.)

Impact Assessment

Status

Not important. May affect primarily predatory fish, raptors, and carnivorous mannnals.

A literature search and analy­sis of the potential for leaching from soils and vege­tation into impoundmetlts has be"'.l completed.

Important. Habit~t-based assessment is in progress; refin~ment of moose carrying capacity model will quantify estimated impact magnitude (APA 1983a, pp. E-3412 to 414; LGL 1985, pp. 2.2-21, 22, 40).

(IV) Ongoing

and Planned Studies

* Refinement of population and carrying capacity models to ;etter estimate impacts on moose and determine acreage of habitat compensation is being conducted and planned. 1:63,360 scale vegetation map­ping and digitizing emphasi­zing understory moose forage ha& been completed. A browse inventory to provide quantita­tive input on forage biomass which will support the ongoing carrying capacity model devel­opment is currer.tly underway. Identification and assessment of candidate compensation lands is underway. Continued monitoring of moose habUat use and 'dnter snow sever! ty are underway.

Impacts will be further ad­dressed through impact assess­ment refinement.

(V) Proposed

Monitoring Activities

Need for monitoring will be determined, based on impact assessment.

Mor.itor browse production on lands enhanced for moose browse (APA 1983a, p. E-3-525 #11).

Page 7

(VI) :Proposed

Mitigation Measures

Mitigative measures not planned at this time.

Defer impoundment clearing until 3 or •* years before filling; patches of vege­tation will be left until just before filling (APA 1983a, E-3-525 #l).

Selectively clear vegetation in trans­mission corridor, permitting seral vegetation up to 10 ft in height (APA l983a, p. E-3-526 /~4).

Iransmission corridors will provide al­most 78,100 acres of winter habitat of reasonaUle quality (AF~ 1983a, p. E-3-528, Table E.3.145).

Designate compensation lands for habi­tat management measures (i'IPA 1983a, p. E-3-292 #12).

Employ habitat management measures in middle basin and on other landb to com­pensate for permanent habitat loss (APA 1983a, p. E-3-527 #6).

(1}

Affected Species or

Grou"P

(B) Moose (cont.)

(I!)

Potential Impact

Mechanism

* (2) Construction, mainten­ance, and UFe of access road and railroad c!lrrio.ors 'W'i~l result in permanent loss and alteration of moose habitat.

{III) Impact

As· ,essment Status

* Important. Borrow areas and gravel berms for roads and railroad will remove about 1s103 acres of vegetation. Direct loss of forage may be relatively small, but effec­tive loss maybe greater if disturbance results in avoid­ance (LGL 1985, p. 2.1-22)~

(IV) Ongoing

and Planned Studioes

* Refinement of population and carrying capacity mouels to estimate impa~ts on moose and determine acreage required for habitat compensation is being conducted. 1:63,360-scale vegetation mapping and digitizing to include access corridors and emphasizing understory moose forage has been completed. A browse inventory to provide quantita­tive iput on forage biomass which will support the ongoing ~a:rrying capacity model devel­opment is currently underway. Identification and assessment of candidate compensation lands is under way.

Impacta will be furthPr ad­rl~dsed through impact assess-

! ment refinement.

(V)

Proposed Monitoring Activities

Honitor browse production on lands enhanced for moose browse (APA 1983a, p. E-3-525 #11).

Page 8

(VI) Proposed

Mitigation tileasut"es

Minimize habitat loss by side borrow techniques for 1:oad constrt ~.tion ~ spoil deposition in iwpoundments or depleted borrow area~~ and consolidatioa of project facilities (A~A 1983a, p. E-3-5:l6 iF2),

Fertilize ann revegetate disturbed si.tes (APA 1983a, p. E-.3-526 .t!:3).

Employ habitat manngement measure~ in middle basin and on other lands to com­pensate for permanent habitat loss (APA 1983a, p. E··3-527 #6).

Incorporate changes to design and alignment of access road to reduce impacts on moose (APA l983a, p. E-3·533 #D.).

Minimize loss of forest areas through alignment of access road and transmis• sion corridors, and other measures (APA ~983a, pp. E-3-53S #23, 525 *~ to 526 #2),

Minimize loss and alteration of habi­tat, particularly less abundant habi­tats and senr>itive wildlife habi.tats (,.PA 1983a, pp. E-3-291, 292 #1-ll).

Designate compensation lands for habi­tat management measures (APA 1983a, P• E-3·292 :/fo12).

Avoid the Prairie Creek, Stephan Lake, Fog Lakes, and Indian River areas by access routing (APA 1983a, p. E-3-292 :/J:14).

I Design an~ align roads, railroad ru1d facilities to minimize impacts on w~t­lands (APA 1983a, p. E-3-292 #18, 19) •

. .....;----------+·-------,-···+ ~·--------t---------+--------------1 ·l * f3) Road benns impeding J *II! .. ~::;.............. Al.t:ered sur- I * Impact severity not: sunl.-

drain '!:"' ::=...:! :;."""'u.ng torest face water drainage wili cause cient to require study. or shrubland areas may alter very localized moose habitat moose habitat. alteration. There is equal

likelihood that either higher or lower qurlity b1.bitats will result. No net 1'4portant impact is antici1~ted (LGL 1985, p. 2.2-22).

M4n{nd.,.<> ln~;n of forest areal:! thrl.lUgh alignment of access road and transm1s­sion corridor, and other measures (APA 1983a, p. E-3-539 #23, 525 #1 to 526 #2).

Design and align r~ads, rai:road, and facilities to minimize impacts on wet­lands (APA 1983a, p. E-3-292 #18, 19).

Page 9

(1) (II) (III) (IV) (V) (V1) Affected Potential . Impact Ongoing Proposed Pr.oposed

Spec·;-.~r or :Impact Assessment and Planned Monitoring Mitigation u:roup Mechanism Status Studies Activities Measures

(B) Moose (4) Clearin~ of vegetation in Important. Clearing will re- ! ~Hnemen·L. of population and Monitor browse production Dt~fer impoundment clearing unt:i.'l 3 or 4 (cont.) the impoundment area Erivr to duce wint~r carrying capacity carryJ~g capacity models to on lands enhanced for years before filling; patches of vege-

1!It!ng wrrr reduce ca~ of the impoundment zone during better >':Stilllate impact& n.l woose browse (APA 1983a, ta~ion will be left until just b~for~ ~acitX ~or moose. l or 4 years prior to filling moose an~ detnrmine acreage p. E· 3•525 4Fl:.). filling (A~A 1983a, p. E-3-525 #1).

{APA 1983a, p. E3-398, Table reqcirementb fc~ h~bitat com-E.3.145; LGL 1985, p. 2.2-22). pensation is being co~ducted. Designate compensation lands for habi-

tat management meac.ures (APA 1983a, I p. E-3-292 #12).

Employ habitat management measures in middla basin and on other lands to com-pensate for permanent habitat loss (APA 1983a, p. E-3-527 #6).

(5) Removal of material from * Not important. Winter llabi- Refi11ement of population and Monitor browse production * Minimize h~bitat loss by side borrow ~orrow sites will result in tat for moose witl initially carrying capacity models to on lands ~anaged for moose techniques !.:or road construction, spoil. temporary loss of winter habi- be adversely affected. Reve- estimate impacts on moose and ' browse (APA 1983a, p. E- deposition in impoundments or depleted tat for moose. getation and natural succes- determine acreage requirements 3-525 #11). borrow areas, and consolidation of pro-

sion may restore these areas for habitat compensation is jec~ facilities (APA 19S3a, p. E-3-526 as moose habitat within 2-20 being conducted. tt2). years following disturbance (APA 1983a, Taole E.3.145; LGL Fertilize and allow revegetation of 1985, pp. 2.2-22 to 23). d:!.sturbed sites (APA 1983a, p. E-3-526

4fr3).

Employ habitat management measures in middle ba~in and on other lands to com-pensate for permanent habitat loss (APA 1983a, p. E-3-527 #6).

Des1g3ate compensation lands for habi-tat management measures (APA 1983a, p. E-3-292 :fFl2).

Design and align roads, railro~d, snd facilities to minimize impacts on wet-

, lands (APA 1983a1 p. E-3-292 #18, 19). , •! --' * (6) Locally high densities * Not important. Heavier * Refinement of population ann Monitor browse production Defer impoundment clearing until 3 or 4

of moose 1ispersing from im- browsing of shrubs growing carrying capcity models to on lands managed for moose years before filling; patches of vege-poutlded areas may temporarily near the reservoir margins estimate impacts on moose and '-.ro~>lse (APA 1S83a, p. tation will be left Uiltil just befor·e over-utilize forage resources will occur as wintering moose determine acreage requi~ements E-3-525 ltU). filling (APA 1983a, p. E-3-525 #1). near the reservoir margins. congregate. Overbrowsing of for habitatt compensation is

the shrubs is not considered being conducted, Employ habitat management measures in important because of the low middle basin and on other lands to quantity of winter forage at . compensate for permanent habitat loss the elevation of the Impound- (APA 1983a, p. E'-3-527 4t6). ment shoreline in many areas. Local habitat quality will not Designate compensation lands for habi-be substantially reduced below tat management measures (APA 1983a, the current low levels (LGL p. E-3-292 #12). 1985, p. 2.2-23).

* (7) Human activities may * Not important. Fires may A llt~rature review uf habitat Prohibit public use of access road and result in accideutal fires dagrade some moose habitat enhancement techniques has airfield during construction (APA that could tcmpcrarily degrade over the short term, but re- been conducted. 1983a, p. E-3-534 #12, 14). moose habita-. generated vegetation on burns

may provide productive moose Plan and develop an environmental habitat within 1 to 5 years briefings prog~am for all field later (AFA 1983a, p. E-3-398, personnel (APA 1983a, p. E-3-292 ~13). Table E.3.145; LGL 1985, p. 2.2-23).

. -~ --

Page 10

---- -(I) {II) (III) {JV) (V) (VI) Affected Pot'.!ntial Imp>7.Ct Ongoing Proposed Proposed

Species or Impact Assessment arnd Planned Monitoring Hitigation Group Mechanism Status Studies Activities Measures

~ . .

(B) Moose * (8) Following fl~oding, ero- * Not im~~rtant. Erosion <re- * Previous sl:udies provided Employ habitat manageuent measures in (cont.) sion of impoun&nent shore!t may sulting from slides and flows sufficient information for im- middle basin and on other lands to com-

remove or ~lter moose habitat. will be confined to the imme- pact aasessme\nt. No further pensate for perma~ent habir~t loss (APA di~te shoreltnes, Where colo- studies are ·planned. l983ar p. E-3-527 #12, 14). nization r)f disturbed soils by plants beneficial to moose Designate compensation lands for habi-~ould supply forage that will tat management measures (APA 1983a, offset any adverse impact with p. E-3-292 #12). a net ben~ficial impact (LGL 1985, pp. 2.2-23 to 2~).

Shorelines with a high poten-tial for slumping will be included in area calculations for habitat loss in the im-pc.undment zones (LGL 1985, p. 2.2-24).

* (9) Ma1Atenance of earl! * Important. About 6,017 A literature rtaview of habitat Selectively clear vegetation in trans-~ccessionar ve~etation stases acres of forested vegetation enhancement tet:hniques has mission corridor, permitting seral aion~ transmission line corri- will be cleared. Regr.owta been completed .. vegetation up to 10 ft in height (APA dors wili :i.mErove nabitat will be permitted to attain a 1983a, p. E-3-526 ~). ~~ty for moose. maximum height of 10 ft before

reclearing. Ibis represents a beneficial imoact fo' moose populations wintering along the transmission line corridor (LGL 1985, p. 2.2-24).

--* (10) Altered seasonal and . * 1mportant. Decreased summer Refinement of dcJwnstream vege- Collect data on changes in Use multilevel intake structures on the annual flow regimes of the flows, and decreased frequency tation impact as1sessment to downstream vege=ative cov- dams to maintain downstream river tem-Susitna River downstream of and severity of summer floods, better assess effects on moose er {APA 1983a, p. E-3- peratures as close to normal as possi-l5evU ~anyon •,;irl atter Hood- will promote encroachment of habitat will continue. 523 4/:2). ble (APA 1983a, p. E-3-526 #5). Elain habitat f?r wintering J pioneering vegetatricn (e.g. ~· willows). Howeve~, in the Employ habitat management measures in

absence of freque~t distur- middle basin and on other lands to com-bance all success anal stages pensate for permanent habitat loss (APA of vegetation above high win- 1983a, p. E-3-527 *6). ter flow levels will advance, resulting in habitat values declin1ng over time (LGL 1985. p. 2.2-24).

. I

l

L .

(I)

Affected Species or

Group

(II)

Potential Impact

Nechanism

(III) Impact

Assesslllcmt Status

(IV) Ongof.ng

and Planned Studies

- (V) Proposed

Monitoring ·Activities

(VI)

Proposed Mitigation Measures

Page 11

~------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~ r ·---------.,------------------------~----------------------r-----------------------~--------------------~~-----------~----------------~

(B) Moose (cont.)

* (11) Local climatic changes resulting from the impound­ments, inclt Jing increased summer rainfall, increased winds~ cooler summer tempera­tures, incrBased early winter snowfall, hoar frost deposi­tion on vegetation in ~dnter, delayed bpring plant phenol­ogy~ ~nd changes in plant I species composition may reduce habitat carrying capacity for moose.

* Not important. The impound­ments will moderate local sea­sonal temperatures. Effects will be localized around the impoundments, with the maximum effect at the prevailing wind­ward shoreline. Slight, but immeasurable precipitation increases of summer rainfall and early winter snowfall may occur. lloar frost deposiL:on may form on vegetation near the impoundment margins prior to ice formation on the reser­voir surface, 1mt measurable incre. ~ses above pre-project conditions would be neglig­ible. Cooler sprin~ tempera­tures may deley phenolo.~ical development. However, numer­ous other local factors com­bine to make changes in phen­ology difficult to attribute to climate alterations. Othe~ project-induced factors may positively influence early pl3nt oevelopment. Climatic changes are not expected to measureably reduce habitat carrfing capacity for moose (LGL 1985, p. 2.2-24).

* Previous studies provided sufflcient information for impact assessment. No further studies are planned.

~------------.~---------------------------~-----------------------------+----------------------------~-----------------------~r-----------------------------------~ * (12) Open and warmer Wuter in do\mstre~ areas ~ay alter plant phenology and affect spring forage and cover for rnoos2~

(13) Hoar frost deposition on floodplain • :get&tion may render 3ome browse unavailable and increase metabolic de•nanus of moose eating frost~bearing forage.

* Not important. Open and warmer <·later in early spring would serve both to retard river ice development in late winter and to mel~ existing river ice faster. 1 Both would tend to promote early, rather than late, development of veg­etation (LGL 1985, pp. 2.2-25 to 26).

* Not important. Open water may be present throughout the winter downstream to between RM 124 and RM 142 with the Watana-only project and to between RM 123 and RM 133 with both dams in operation. Moose are not known to avoid eating browse 'liith hoa1: frost at­tached. Hoar frost accumu­lates on vegetation under current conditions and is not likely to appreciably incre." as a result of the project (LGL 198S, P• 2,2-26).

Impact severity not sufficient to require study.

* Impact severity not suffi.­cient to require study.

Use multilevel intake structures on the dams to m&iutain downstream river tem­p~rat~res as close to normal as possi­ble (APA 1983a, ~· E-3-526 #5).

Use multilevel intake structures on the dams to maintain downstre~ river tem­peratures as close to normal as possi­ble \APA 1983a, p. E-3-526 #5).

~-----------~---·---------------------------~--------~-------------------~---------------------------~~--------------------~----------------------------------~

(I) Affected

Species or Group

(B) Moose (cont.)

(II)

Potential Impact

Mechanism

* (14) Drifting snow from the frozen impoQ~dment surfaces and in the transmission line corridor, and delayed melting of those drifts, may inhibit or prevent utilization of winter and early spring forage by moose.

(15) Drifting snow from fr~zen impoundment surfaces may im­pede moose movements south and southwest of the reservoir and reduce the value of the Fog Lakes area as moose winter range.

(16) Open water and/or ice shelving in the impoundments may block access to tradi­tional calving and wintering areas.

(III) Impact

Assessment Status

* Not impo··tant. 'Ih~ magni­tude of the effects of snow drifting from the frozen im­poundments will depend on several factors. Any snow accumulations that ~ccur are expected on the south and west Rhorelines. Most of the drifting snow will be inter­cepted by the decreasing re­servoir levels and the result· ing ice sheets and cracks that are formed. It is unlikely that sufficient quantities of snow will accumulate along impoundment shorelines to restrict movements of moose or cover browse that may be growing there. Snow drifting along shorelineD will be par­tially offset by shifting winds~ sublimation of snow, and water overflow onto the reservoir ice cover Which will melt snow and freeze it in place (~. 1985, pp. 2.2-26 to

I 27).

Vegetation will be permitted to reach 10 ft in height before ra-clearing the trans­mission corridor. Maintenance of this dense shrub growth will intercept blowing snow (LGL 1985> pp. 2.2-26, 27}.

* Not important~ Drifting snow from the impoundment sur­face will be localized occur­rence and moose1movements will probably not be impaired. The value of the Fog Lakes area will be unaffected by drifting snow (LGL 198~, p. 2.2-27)

* Not important. In November, ice will form along shorelines while the reservoir center remains open. Moose movements will probably be hindered during the short time period when the ice cover thi~kness is unsafe for moose. The slow deterioration of the melting reservoir ice cover in spring will present a barrier to movements during an approxi-mate 2-week period between early May and early June. Few moose are known to currently cross the Susitna River at

relatively few individuals

(!V) Ongoing

and Planned Studies

* Impact sev~rity tlot suffi­cient to require study.

* Impact severity not suffi­cient to require study.

* Previous studies provided sufficient information for impact asessment. No further studies are planned.

(V)

Prop.oBed Monitorin~

Activitien

Collect records of im­poundment crossings rutd impoundment-caused mortal­ity during open-water pe­riod (APA 1983a, p. E-3-524 4n4).

Page 12

(VI) Proposed

Mitigation Measure3

* Selectivel~· clear vegetation in transmission corridor, permitting seral vegetation up to 10 ft in height (APA 1983a, p. E-3-526 #4),

Minimize loss of rarest areas through aLignment of ~ccess road an~ transmis­sion corridor, and other measures (APA 1983a, p. E-3-539 #23),

Clear impoundments prior to flooding and remove floating debris to rejuce hazardcl to crossing (APA 1983a, p. E-3-530 ffo9).

L that time of year, thus

I will be affected by the delay (LGL 1985, pp. 2.2-27 to 28),

.---l-----1-.--· ----!.--.---...!-..-~-'

Page 13

(I) (II) {'Lit) (IV) (V) (VI)

Affected Potential Impact Ongoing Proposed Proposed Species or Impact Assessment and !'lanned Monitoring Mitigation

Group Mechanism Status Studies Activities Measures

(B) Moose * (17) Open water downstream * Not important. Moose read- 'tt Previous studies provided" Use multilevel intake structures on ~e (::ont.) from Devil Canyon in winter ily cross open water during sufficient information for dams to maintain downstream river tem-

may restrict moose movements winter, even during cold am- impact assessment. No further peratures as close to normal as possi-across the river and to island bient air temperatures (e.g., studies are planned. ble (APA 1983a, p. E-3-526 #5). vinterlng areas, perhaps -20 C). Movements by moose to blocking accesR to critical and from islands during winter vinter forage or spring calv- and early spring will not be ing areas. restricted by o~en water (LGL

1985, p. 2.2··28 •

(18) Increases in moose den- * Important. Decreases in A moose calf mortality study Collect information on sit:y caused bl disJ:!Iacement of numbers or productivity of has be~n condu~ted, and moose wolf populations through-moose and pred,\tors following moose caused by projer.t-relat- population modeling is under- out construction and into impoundment ~IILing 2 and ed increases in predation way. operation (APA 1983a, p. blockage of normai miSEatiun could be caused by these arti- E-3-525 in). movements could increase pre- ficial local increases in d~n-dation rates, possib!z driving sities. This will probably Collect information on ~ose EOEu!ations to low increase the direct mortality bear populations and dis-

I levels which max be maintained of both adults and calves. tribution of bear harvest there bz predation. Effects will probabl) even- (APA 1983a, p. E-3-534

tually diminish or disappear itl4). as relative densites of pre-dators and moose in the peri-pheral areas respond to other limiting factors controlling moose population levels (LGL ~985, pp. 2.2-28 to 29).

(i9) Increased levels of bunt- * Important. Hunting can be Further data collection and Prohibit public use of access road a ltd

ing and poachina maz result in regulated by the appropriate analysis regarding current and airfield during construction (APA increased mortalltz of moose. state agency, but increased future use of 'tdldlife in the 1983a, p. E-3-5:4 #12, 14).

poaching resulting from project area i8 planned, increased ~ccess is difficult Prohibit use of project facilities or to control (APA~983a, Table equipment by employees and families for E.3.145). Moose!a~ currently hunting and trapping (APA 1983a, p. poached along tffe Susitna E-3-534 tF14), River; increase~ access could increase the illegal removal I£ needed, recommend restrictions to of dnimals in the absence ~f hunting regulations to reduce harvest enforcement measures. (r,GL levels (APA 1983a, p. E-3-534 ~14). 1985, p. 2.2-29).

Discourage off-road recreational vehi-cle activity, and phase in recreational plan to limit recreational impacts on

. vegetation and wildlife (APA l983a, P• E-3-292 UG, 17).

Page 14

r---~------------------------------------------------------------------------------------·-------------·--------------------------------·--------~--------~ (I)

Affected Specfes or·

• Group

(II)

Potential llllpt'lct.

Mechanism

(III) Impact

Assessment Status

(IV) Ongoing

and Pla.~::or1 Studies

(V) Proposed

Monitoring Activities

(VI)

Proposed Mitigation Measures

~------------------------------------------------------------------------·--------------------------------------------------------_,

(B) Moose (cont.)

j (20) J.'hin o;:stable shore

1 ice and floatin~r; tee or debris may cause direcc mortality to

,moose attempting to ~ross the impoundment.

* (21) Open water downstream from Devil Canyon in winter may cause increased levels of mortality in moose attempting to cross the rive~.

* (22) Increases in train and automobile traffic levels, and plowing of snow from right­of~ways during winter, may increase collision mortality of moose.

* Not important. Under cur­rent conditions, moose are occassionally injured or killed as they cross the river. Moose vonturing onto the outer edge of the reser­voir border ice may fall through. Because only a few animals are likely to die in this \Yay each year (natural lakes in moose habitat offer the same hazard), the impact is not expected ~o be impor­tant. !his impact can be expected. to decrease through time (APA 19S3a, p. E-3-411, Table E.3. 145; LGL 1985, p. 2.2-29).

* Not important. Bank to bank open water will not contribute to mortality of moose. Per­sistent thin ice or open leads bordered by thicker shore ice ~ay cause some mortality. Under pre-project conditions some moose attempting to use the river fall through the ice and die. However, increased levels of mortality after the project are not expected to be significant (LGL 1985, pp. 2.2-29 to 30).

* Not important.!; During con­struction and operation of the access roads and~railway, it is likely that some moose will be killed as a result o£ col­lisions with vehicles and trains (APA 1983a, pp. E-3-477-478, Table E.3. 145). Moose will suffer higher mor­tality rates during the con­struction period. During winters with deep snow, moose may become temporarily trapped by drifted or plowed snow along these corridQrs. Some of those moose will be killed by collisions with vehicles or trains. However, most of the conditions necessary for pro­ducing a critical problem will not occur during winter over most of the length of the ac­cess roads and railways. Ad­ditional vehicle and railroad traffic associated tiith pro­ject activities is not expec­ted to significantly increase collision mortality of moose above pre-project levels (LGL 1985, p. 2.2-30).

* Impact severity not suffi­cient to require study.

* Impact severity not suffi­cient to require study.

* Previous studies provided suff1cient information for iro~act assessment. No further

" stt.\dies are planned.

Colleci: records of il:l­poundment crossings and impoundment-caused mortal­ity during open-water pe· riod (APA 1983a, p. E-3-524 'lt4).

Collect mortality data on road and railroad colli­sions (APA 1983a, P• E-3-523 4Fl).

Clear impoundments prior to flooding and remove floating debris to reduce hazards to crossing (APA 1983a, p. E-3-530 #9).

Use multilevel intake structures on the dams to maintain downstream river tem­peratures as close to normal as possi­ble (APA 1983a, p. E-3-526 #5).

Implement changes in design and align­ment of access road to reduce impacts on moose (APA 1983a, p. E-3-533 ~11).

Possibly implement controls on volume, speed, and frequency of access road traffic (APA 1983a, p. E-3-534 #12).

(I) Affected

Species or G,foup

(B) Moos-2 ((;uC·;;.)

(Ilj

Potential Impact

Mechanism

I (23) Ac~~3s corrLdor traf;ic, villa~e ac~ivities, dam con­struction, aircraft over-flights, and associ&ted dis­turbancss may alter. distrib~­tion of moose,

(24) Slash and human distur­bance associated with impound­ment clearing activities may impede or inhioit movements of moose.

(III) (IV) (V) Impact Ongoing Proposed

Assessment and Planned Monitoring Stat'Js Studies Activities

I +Not im?ortant At.::-i_t:._J._e_s_-r_I_m<p~-a-c-;·-s-.. -.v=y [.ot s.•Jzficient-r Collect mor~:aHty nat.a on l

reed and railroad ~vtll· J sicns (APA 19a3a, p. h-3·· 523 #1).

along ac~ers corridors will to require study. probably disturb the normal a~tivit!es of some moose at-tempting to cross co~o..titl.ors, particularly during the con-struction period and during the hunting season (APA 1983a, p. E-3-479, Table E.3.145; LGL 1985, p. 2.2-30). However, major disruptions of seasonal migrations are unlikely to occur (LGL l.9B5, pp. 2.2-30 to 31).

Moose appear to be more toler­ant of disturbances than moat ungulates, farticulary if disturbances are predictable, neutral, stimuli, such as moving vehicles. Ateas near sources of disturbanc~ would proua?ly continue to be used if facilities sites are re­stricted to as small an area as possible, if hunting from project facilities is prohi­o:~ed, and if moose are not directly approached and haras­sed by machines or project personnel. Aircraft enroute to or from the Watana ~irstrip may cause minor disturbances to moose, but ample evidence ofhabituation to aircraft overflights suggest that little or no impact will occur (APA l.983a, pp. E;3-402-403, Table E.3.145; LGJ., 1985, pp. 2.2-30 to 31)\

'

* Not important. Noisy and unpredictable activities may cause avoidance of the active clearing area (APA 1983a, p. E-3-403, Table E.3.145). However, moose are expected to utilize forage newly made available in cleared areas. Slash piles wiU be burned, and are not expected to inhibit movements of moose (LGL 1985, p. 2.2-31) •

!mpact severity not sufficient to require study.

Page 15

(VI) Proposed

Mi.tigation Measures

Prohibit major ground Jctivity near sensitive uUdlife areas during sensi­tive periods {APA 1983a, p. E-3-532 .f/:10).

Implement changes iu design and ali~­ment of access road to reduce impacts on moose (APA 1983a, p. E-3-533 #J:l).

Possibly implement controls on volume, speed, and frequency of access road traffic (APA 1983a, p. E-3-534 ~12).

Prohibit public use of bccess road and airfield during const~-uction (APA l.S83a, p. E-3-53l~ 4fol2~ 14).

Plan and develop an environmental briefings program for all field personnel (APA 1983a, p. E-3-292 tl3).

Avoid the Prnirie Creek, Stephun Lake, Fog Lakes~ and Indian River areas by access routing (APA 1983a, p. E-3-292).

Discourage off-road recreational vehi­cle activity, and phase in recreational plan to limit impacts on vegetation and wildlife (APA 1983a, p. E-3-292 #16, 17).

Prohibit use of project facilities or equipment by employees and f~~ilies for hunting and trapping (APA 1983a, p. E-3-534 #14).

If needed, recommend restrictions to hunting regulations to reduce harvest levels (APA 1983a, p. E-3-534 ~14).

Aircraft will maintain minimum alti­tudes of 1,000 ft AGL during flights (APA 1983a, p. E-3-531 #10),

Defer impoundmet.t clearing until 3 or 4 years before filling; patches of vege­tation will be left until just before filling (APA 1983a, p. E-3-525 #1).

Prohibit major ground activity near sensitive wildlife areas during sensi­tive pe~iods (APA 1983a, p. B-3-532 4!:10).

. ~--------------~-------------------------------~------------------------------~-----------·-------------~--------------------------~-----------------------------------------~

. (I) (II)

Affected Potential Species or Impact

Group Mechanism

(III)

Impact Assessment

Status

(IV) Ongoing

and Planned Studies

(V)

Proposed Honitoring Activities

(VI) Proposed

Mitigation Measures

Page 16

r-----------~-------------------------T------------------------~------·-------------------r--------------------~------------------------------~ (B) Moose

(cont.)

(C) Caribou

{25) Increased recreational activities may result in dis­turbance of moose over the entire basin.

(1) Clearing and filling of the impound~ents and develop­ment of borrow areas, access corridors, and facilities sites will remove caribou foraging habitat.

(2) Accidental fires resulting rrom human activities may temporarily degrade caribou habitat.

(3) In spring, ice at the Watana impoundment edges, drifting ice floes, anu float­ing debris may cause mortality of caribou attempting to cross the impoundment.

*Not important. A general increase in levels of distur­bance can be expected over the Susitna basin as humad popula­tions increase. Commercial development activities such as mining, building of guest lodges or cabins, and a gen­eral increased awareness of new public access to a pre­viously remote area will un­doubt~dly influence moose pop­ulations. Except for mortal­ity effects of hunting, re­creational activity is not ex­pected to reduce moose produc­tivity or population numbers {LGL 1985, p. 2.2-31).

* Not important. Wllpa.ct not expected to be signifi~ant (LGL 1985, p. 2.3-11).

* Not important. Difficult to quantify; but not expected to cause a significant decrease in total range availability (LGL 1985, p. 2.3-12).

. ' •! •

Importance not predicted, Im­pact difficult to quantify or predict; may be serious, or may result in little adverse impact (LGL 19RS, pp. 2.3-12, 14).

This impact mechanism will re­ceive further attention during impact assessment refinement.

Continued studies of ~ovements and range use.

Continued studies of movements and range use.

Continued studies of mov~­ments, range use, population 2ize, and productivity; con­tinued studies of movements of upper Susitns-Nenana subherd and its population .size.

* Collect data on caribou movements and population size, especially as re­lates to impoundment cros­sing (LGL 1985, p. 2.3-12).

Collect records of im­poundment crossings and impoundment-caused murtal­it:y during open-water pe­riod (LGL 1985, P• 2.3-12).

Prohibit public use of access road and airfield during constriction (APA 1983a, p. E-3-534 #12, 14).

Prohibit use of project facilities or equipment by employees and families for hunting and trapping (APA l983a, p. E-3-534 U4).

Plan and develop an environmental briefings program for all field personnel {APA 1983a, p. E-3-292).

Discourage off-road recreational vehi­cle activity, and phase in recreational plan to limit recreational impact on vegetation and wildlife (APA 1983a, p. E-3-292 #16, 17).

Fertilize and revegetate disturbed sites (APA 1983a, p. E-3-526 #3).

Prohibit public use of access road and airfield during construction (APA 1983a, p. E-3-534 #12, 14).

Discourage off-road recreational vehi­cle activity, and phase in recreational plan to limit recreational impacts on vegetation and wildlife (APA 1983a, P• E-3-292 #16, 17).

Clear impoundments prior to flooding and remove floating debris to reduce hazards to crossing (APA 1983a, p. E-3-530 4~9).

* Support the proposed Nelchina Public Use Area, or other projects to offset population limiting factors (e.g., ~re­dation or hunting) on the Nelchina herd in nearby areas could be used to com­pensate for project-related losses, should they occur (LGL 1985, p. 2.3-12).

~------------~---------------------------~-------------------~-----------~---------------------------~·--------------------*--------------------------------------~

--(:n

Affected Species or

Group

(C) Caribou (cont.)

{II)

Potential Impact

Mechanism

(4) Increased access by bunters to caribou Tange may result in increased legal harvest levels of curibou.

(5) Increased access by poachers to caribou range may cause increased mortality in caribou.

( 6) Cons tntction traffic and increased recreational traffic may cause increases in colli­sion oortality of caribou.

(7) Increased predation will lead to increased caribou mortality.

(III)

Impact Assessment

Status

* Not important. Because caribou hunting is regulatP-d by pei1nit, increased acces~ will affect only the distri­bution of legal hunters, not their total numbers. The max­imum number of animals legally harveste1 in the project vicinity will not increase unl£ss so warranted by the ADF&G (LGL 1985, p. 2.3-15).

* Not important. Increased poaching may occur but is not expected to cause population effects (tGL 1985, p. 2.3-15).

* Not important. Impact dif­ficult to predict but is not expected to cause population effects (LGL 1985, p. 2.3-15).

r •!

* Not important. Impact may or may not be important, depending on degn:e !lf herd movement restrictions caused by project facilities (LGL 1985, p. 2.3-17).

(IV) Ongoing

and Planned Studies

Sufficient information is available for impact predic­tions.

Sufficient information is available for Lrnpact predic­tions.

Continued studies of movemenrs and range use of herd and sub­herds {APA 1984b, F'l85 Task 22).

(V) Proposed

Monitoring Activities

Collect mor.tality data on road and railroad colli­sions (P.PA J.983a, p. E-3-523 f/:1).

* Collect data on caribou movements and population size (APA 1983a, p. E-3-523 f/:3).

Page 17

(VI) Proposed

Mitigation Measures

Prohibit use of project facilities or equipment by employees and families for hunting and trapping (APA 1,83a~ p. E-3-534 4~14).

Prohibit public use of a~cess road and airfield during construction (APA 1983a, p. E-3~534 #12, 14).

Discourage off-road recreational vehi­cle activity, and phas~ in recreational plan to limit recreational impacts on vegetation and wildlife (APA 1983a, p. E-3-292 #16, 17).

Prohibit use of project facilities or equipment by employees and families for hunting and trapping (APA 1983a, p. E-3-534 #1?., 14).

Implement changes in decign and align­!llert~ of access road to reduce impacts on caribou (APA 1983a, p. E-3-533 till).

* Use buses and prohibit pe=ronal vehicles on the access road during construction (APA 1983a, p. E-3-534 U2).

Prohibit public use of access road and airfield during construction (At-A 1983a~ p. E-3-534 #12, ~4).

Discourage off-road recreational vehi­cle activity, and phase in recreational plan to limit recreational impacts on vegetation and wildlife (APA J.983a, p. E-3-292 #16, 17).

* Implement changes in design and alignment of access road to reduce im­pacts on caribou (APA 1983a, p. E-3-533 4/:ll).

Page 18

(I) (II) (III) (IV) (V) (VI) I Affected Potential I:npact Ongoing Proposed Proposed Species or Impact Assessmem: and Planned Monitoring Mitigation

Group Mechanism Status Studies Activities Measures

(C) Caribou (8) l'be WatB!la impoundment * Importance not predicted. Continued studies of movement Collect data on ~~~ibou Clear impoundments prior to flooding (cont.) could, by p~esenting a batTier Impact difficult to quantify of herd, range use, population movements and popul,,tion and remove floating debris to reduce

to caribou movement, reduce or predict; altered movements size, and productivity; con- size, especially as re- hazards to crossing (APA 1983a, p. E-3-·::aribou productivity. are not likely to produce pop- tinued studies of movements n£ lates to impoundment 530 #9).

ulstion-level effects (LGL upper Susitna-Nenana subherd. cro~sing (APA 1983a, p. 1985, pp. 2.3-lJ to 18). E-3-523 ff:3).

Collect records of irn-poundrnent crossings and impoundment-caused mortal-ity during open-water pe-riod (APA 1983a, p. E-3-524 4J:5).

(9) Access roads and asso- * !mpo~tance not predicted. Continue~ studies of movements Collect data on caribou Implement changes in design and align-ciated traffic may result in Blocked crossing of the access and popul~tions size of sub- movements and population ment of access road to reduce impacts blockage or alteration of herd road is not anticipated to herd. size (APA 1983a, p. E-3- on caribou (APA 1983a, p. E-3-533 #11). movements, preventing caribou cause population-level effects 523 4fo3). from reaching foraging or (LGL 1985, pp. 2.3-18 to 19). * Use buses and prohibit personal calving areas and also pro- vehicles on the access road during ducing increased energy construction (APA 1983a, p. E-3-534 demands (particularly on U2). pregnant cows or cows with calves).

·-· (10) Construction activities * Not important. Impact not Continued studies a£ movements Collect data on caribou Defer impoundment clearing until 3 or 4 and impoundment-clearing oper- quantified but not ezpeeted to of h·~rd. movements and population years before filling; patches of vege-ations may prevent caribou result in any population size (APA 1983a, p. E-3- tation will be left until just before from reaching foraging areas, effects (LGL 1985, pp. 2.3-19 I 523 #3). filling {APA 1983a, p. E-3-525 #1). thereby reducing herd produc- to 20). tivity. Prohibit clearing activities near con-

centrations of migrating caribou during sensitive periods (APA 1983a, p. E-3-

: 532 41:10). •! . ' (11) Aircraft overflight~ * Importance not predicted. Sufficient information is Aircraft will maintain minimum alti-

t1ight disturb caribou, causing Impact not quantified, but not available for impact assess- tudes of 1000 ft AGL during flights, increased energy demands and I expected to be significant 1f ment and mitigation planning. and possibly 2000 ft over calving ar.eas increased calf mortality. I pilots maintain sufficient No further studies are plan- (APA 1983a, pp. E-3-416 and 531 #10).

alt-'.tucle (LGL 1985, PP• 2.3-20 ned. to 1.1). Prohibit aircraft landings within

calving area in !alkeetna Mountains 15 May-30 June {APA 1983a, p. E-3-531 {folO).

Plan and develop an environmental briefings progralil for all field personnel (APA 1983a, p. ~-3-292 #13).

Prohibit public use of access road and airfield during construction (APA l983a, p. E-3-534 #12, 14).

(I)

Affected Species or

Group

(II)

Fotential Itnpact

Mechanism

(III)

Impact Assessment

Status

(IV)

Ongoing and Planned

Studies

(V)

Propos~>d

Monitor1.ng ActiviUes

Page 19

------------cn __ > _________ l Proposed

Mitigation Measures

j-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------··--------------------------·--------·------·-r-------------------,----------------------------------~-------------------------------------~---·-------------------------------r---------------------------~----------------------------------------··-

\ ") C:~t'ibou (:cont.)

(12) Drifted snow south and southwest of the reservoir ~y block caribou movements to important forage supplies.

* Not important. Impact not quantified, but not expected to be significant (LGL 1985, p. 2.3-21).

Continued studies of movements Collect. ·~ata on caribou of herd. movemen~a and population

size, especially llB re­late1 to impoundment crr;&sing (APA 1983a, p. £<3-523 4fo3).

! Collect records of im-' poundment crossings and

impoundment-caused mortal­ity during open-water pe­riod (APA 1983a, p. E-3-524 4/1-+).

r------------------+---------------------------------4----------------------------------·~----------------·-----------r---·-----------------------~-----------~----------------·---------------

(D) Dall Shee.p

(13) Increases in recreational activitie~ and in the develop­ment of lands near the immedi­ate project area, both facili­tated through increased ac­cess, might causa changes in range use, alteration of mi­gration patterns, and abandon­ment of calving areas, thus reducing caribou productivity.

(1) Ihe Watana impoundment

l will partially flood tha Jay Creek mineral liclc area.

Importance not predicted. Difficult to predict but not anticipated to cause popula­tion-level impacts (LGL 1985, p. 2.3-21).

*Not important. Unlikely that sheen will discontinue use of the lick due to partial inundation (APA 1983a, pp. E­~-419 to 420, Table E.3.148). In addition, sit~s to be inun­dated accounted for only 2.6~ of licking in 1983 (Tankersley 19e4). Impact not ant~cipated to be important (LGL 1985, pp. 2.4-7 to 9).

Continued studi~s of movements and range use.

* Sufficient information is available for impact assess­ment and mitigation planninB•

Collect data on caribou movements and population size (APA 1983a, p. E-3-523 4fr3).

Collect information on sheep use of the mineral lick after in.undati.on (AP~.; 1983a, p. E-3-524).

Ir.iplement changes in design and aU.gn,­~ent of access road to red!.lCf~ impacts

1 on car:tbou (APA 1983a, p. E-3-533 :t<ll).

Prohibit public use of access road and airfield during construction (APA 1983a, p. E-J-534 #12, 14).

Discourage off-road recreationel vehi­cle activity, and phase in recre.atiortal plan to limit recreational impa~ts on vegetation and wildlife (APA 1983a, p. E-3-292 #16~ 17).

If needed, e~pose new soil at Jay Creek mineral lick (APA 1983a, p. E-3-534 #13).

~----------------~-------------------------------+-----------------------------~------------------------------+-------~---------------+------------------------------------~ (2) Portions of the Jay Creek lick complex below maximum fill level ;nay be affected by leaching and erosion, leading to the lQss of lick sites and other :ocations used by sheep.

(3) The Watana impoundment may contribute to delayed spring plant development and lead to increased rmow acumulal;ion on south-facing slopes o£ the Watana Creek Hills.

* Importance not predicted. ~rosion may increase avail­ability of minerals, however this is not anticipated to affect the quality of the lick significantly. Imp~ct of leaching has not 1ecn fully quantified (LGL 19fJ5, pp. I 2.4-9 to 10).

* Not important. Impact not expected to be significant (LGL 1985, p. 2.4~1.0).

* Sufficient information is available for impact assess­ment and mitigation planning.

Impact severity not sufficient to require study.

Collect infC'.:'mation on sheep use rf miueral lick and on le<.ching (.·f. soils after im~ndation (JiYA 1983a, ;:. E-3-524 #5),

If needed, expose new soil at Jay Cre~k Mineral lick (APA 1983, p. E-3-534

,, ~fol3).

Page 20

·-(I) (II) (III) (IV) (V) (VI) Affecteci Potential

.. Impact Ongoing Proposed Proposed

Species or Impact As~Sessment and Pl!inned Monitoring Mitigation Gt'oup Mechanism Status Studies Activities \:-ieasures

(D) Dall (4} Ihe Watana impoundment may * Not important. Sheep may Collect records of im- * Clear impoundments prior to flooding Sheep block movement to lick sit~s cross open water or ice, move poundment crossings and and remove floating debris to reduce (cont.) on the east side of Jay Creek. upstream 1 mile before impoundment-caused mortal- hazards to crossing (APA 1983a, p.

crossing, or not cross the ity during open-~ater pe- E-3·530 #9). Special attention to

I impoundment, potentially riod (at Jay Creek) (APA remove debris in the lower Jay Creek reducing the availability of 1983a, p. E-3-524 #4). ar.ea will be accomplished (LGL 1985, lick sites on the east side of p. 2.4-12). Jay Creek. However, the main Collect information on lick on the west side of the sheep use of mineral lick If ne~ded, extose new soil at Jay Creek creek will remain available, and on leaching of soils mineral lick APA 1983a, p. E-3-534 therefore not resulting in an after inundation (APA #13). important level of impact (LGL 1983a, p. E-3-524 #5). 1985, pp. 2.4-10 to U).

* (5) The Watana impoundment * Importance not predi~ted. * Clear impoundments prior to flooding may block movement of sheep Impact not quantlfied (L~~ and re1110ve floating debris to reduce between the Watana Creek Hills 1985, p. 2.4-11). hazards to crossing (APA 198~a, p. popul.ation and the Talkeetna E-3-530 #9). Special attention to MountaL1s population. remove debris in the lower Jay Creek

area will be accou plished (LGL 1985, p. 2.4-12).

-(6) Ice on slopes of the Jay * Not important. Unlikely to Collect information on Creek mineral lick area may cause mortalit~ of more than a sheep use o~ the mineral cause accident-related mortal- few sheep, not expected to lick after inundation ities in early spring. cause population-level impacts (APA 1983, p. E-3-524).

{LGL 1985, pp. 2.4-11 to 12).

- -* (7) Increased legal harvest * Not important. Total number levelo may result f.rom in- of legally harvested sheep creased hunter access to D~ll regulated by ADF&G and should sheep range. not increase substantially

(LGL 1985, p. 2.4~12) • • • - ·-

* (8) 1ncreased mortality may * Not important. Increa.se in Prohibit use of project facilities or result from increas1ed access illegal harvest not expected equf.pment by employees and families for by poachers to Dall sheep to be significant to overall hunting and trapping (APA 1983a, p. range. population levels (LGL 1985, E-3-534 ~1:14).

p. 2.4-12). If needed, recommend restrictions to huttting regulations to reduce harvest levels (APA 19834, p. E-3-534 #14).

(9) Dall sheep responses to Importance nur. prPqicted. Sufficient information i.s Aircraft will maintain minimum alti-aircraft overflights may lead Impact not quantified but not available for impact assP.ss- tudes of 1000 ft above ground level to increased metabolic energy expet:ted to be significant if ment .and mitigation planning. during flights (APA 1983a, p. E-3-531 requirements ~nd local range height restrictions are main- No studies planned. UO}, abandonment. tained (APA 1983a, pp. E-3-418

to 419, Table E.3.148; LGL Plan and develop an environmental 1985, pp. 2.4-12 to 13). briefings progr.am for all field

personnel (APA 1983a, p. E-3-292 #13).

l

(!) Affected

Species or Group

(II)

'Potential Impact

Mechanism

(III)

Impact Assessment

Status

(IV) Ongoing

and Planned Studies

(V)

Proposed Monitoring Activities

(VI) Proposed

Mitigation Measures

Page 21.

r----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~ r-----------.---------------------~------------~---------,----~---------------------~-----~------~----~-------------------------------;

I (D) Dall Sheep (cont.)

(10) Impout'.dment clearing activities may disturb Dall sheep uaing lower elevation winter and spring habitats.

(11.) Disturbance from aircraft landings, and recreational boating ~n the Watana impound­ment may reduce or prevent sheep use of the Jay Creek mineral lick area.

Not important. Impact not quantified. Disturbance will occur only over the. short-term period of impoundment clearing and will probably not produce a serious population effect (APA J.983a, Table E.3.148; LGL 1985, p. 2.4-13).

* Importance not predicted. Impact not quantified; but not expe~ted to bo significant with planned proje~t controls, provided there is little re­creational disturbance. Fre­.quet~t visits could result io abandonment of the lick with resultant changes in distri­bution and local population levels (APA 1903at p. E-3-420, Table E.3.148; LGL 1985, p. 2.4-13).

Sufficient information is available for impact assess­ment and mitigation. No stud­ies planned.

Collect information on sheep use of mineral lick and on leaching of soils after inundation (APA 1.983a, p. E-3-524 #5).

Impoundment clearing schedule is to be determined in consultation with re­source agencies (APA 1983a, p. E-3-526 ifl).

Aircraft will maintain minimum alti­tudes of 1000 ft AGL during flights (APA l983a, p. E-3-531 #10).

* Prohibit aircraft landings and boat traffic ~ithtn 0.5 mile of Jay Creek licks, 1. Ma•r -1.5 July (APA 1°B3a, p. E-3-531 #10; LGL 1985, p. 2.4-~3).

* Prohibit major ground activity (in­cluding boat aud floatplane use) within 0.5 mile of Jay Creek licks, 1 May-15 July (APA 1.983a, p. E-3-532 #10; LGL

* Impoundment clearing will avoid the Jay Creek lick area from 1 May-15 July J 1985, p. 2.4-13).

(LGL 1.985, p. 2.4-13). ;

1------t----· ----,---1-------1-----1---

(E) Brown Bear

* (12) Improved access will lead to disturbaoce of bhc~p by hunters and hikers.

~poundment clearing and filling will remove habitat used by many arown bea~r fora~ing i~.s~rin& and~ few 4 or foras:ng from ~g to fall. ·

(2) Reserve~ cle.aring and filling,. borrow site develop­ment, and access corridor de­velopment and use could cause bears to abandon the ttse of traditional denning areas.

..,I

* Not important. Impact not expected to be significant (LGL 1985$ p. 2.4-14).

., . .. Importaat. 0£ radio-collared brown beaTs present in the proje~t area, 50% in 1980 and 61% in 1981 moved into the future ill:1Jotmdment nmes in spring. This loss is expected to be reost importat.t to brown bear populations itt spring When greatest use of inundated and adjac~nt areas occurs. Some use alao occu£s in summer and fall. (APA 1983a, p. E-3-420 to 425, Table E.3.149; LGL 1985, p. 2.5-1.1.}.

Sufficient infor.maticn is availabln for impact assess­ment and mitigation. No studies planned •

Continued studies of habitat use and timing, and analyris of den site charact~ristics, and seasonal food b~.bits.

Not important. Impact may Continued analysis of den site o~cur on potential or unknown characteristics. den sites, but has not been quantified; noL ~xpected to be significant (A!'A 1983a, Table E.3.149; LGL 1985, p. 2.5-12).

Collect inf~rmation on bear populations and dis­tri~ution of bear harvest (APA 19ea, p. E-3-534 4F14}.

Employ habitat enhancement and protec­tion maasures en replacement lands to compensate for permanent habitat loss may benefit btown bears (APA 1983a, p. E-3- 527 #6).

J)efer impoundment clearing until 3 or .:.. years before filling; patches of vege­tation will be left until just before filling (APA l983a, p. E-3-525 U).

l'age 22

r-----~--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------,1 (I) (II) (III) (IV) (V) (VI)

Affected Potential Impact Ongoing Proposed Proposed Species c1r Impact Assessment anc Planned Honitoring ~litigation

Group Mechanism Status Studies Activities Measures

(E) Brow.:t Bear (cent:.)

(3) Borrow site development will temporarily remove important food supplies of brown bears.

Not important. Impact not q~an~ified. Habitat values may increase on reclaimed areas during early stages of pla~t succession (APA 1983a, p. E-3-42~ to 422).

Continued studies of habitat use and timing.

Minimize habitat loss by side borrow techniques for road construction, spoil deposition in impoundments or depleted borrow areas, and con~olid~cion of pro­ject facilities (APA ~983a, p. E-3-526 4~2).

Fertilize and revegetate of disturbed sites (APA 198Sas p. E-3-526 4fo3).

r--------------~~--------------------------------~--·------------------·-----------~------------------------~~-------------------------~-------------------------------------~ * (4) Accidental fires result­ing from human activities may temporarily degrade some bear foraging habitat.

* (5) Clearing of transmission corridors may improve habitat by enhanci.ng food production.

* {6) Local clim~tic changes resulting from the impound­ments could alter the capacity of local habitats to produce bear ·t:ood.

(7) ImpouP~ment clearing and filli•tih and construction and use of access roads, could block the normal movement of bears to sources of annually recurring food abundance, or could block immigration or emmigration of dispersing juveniles.

(8) Habitat loss due to im­poundment clearing and filling will probably temporarily increase the level of intra­specific pr~dction.

,. Not important. ImpRct not rtuantified. May produce uhart-term adverse effects on bear food abundance (i.e. berries), but productivity of berries would probably be enhanced after ~0-20 years (LGL ~985, p. 2.5-12).

,~,Not important. The precise effects of clearing on berry production cannot be predic­ted, but the total change in production is lilcely to be negligible (LGL ~985, p. 2.5-~2).

* !mportance not predicted. Impact not quantified (LGL ~985, pp. 2.5-12 to 13).

: •! •

Impox·tance not predicted. Im­pact n?t quantified and diffi­cult to predict (APA l983a, pp. E-3-426, 483, 484, Table E.3.149; LGL ~985, p. 2.5-~3).

Continued anah·$iS of seasonal habitat use an•:: movements.

Importance not predicted. May Continued studi,.s of seasonal affect cub survival, increase habitat use and food habits. predation pr2ssure on ungu-lates, increase intraspecific mor·tality, and decrease repro-duction (LGL 1985, p. 2.5-13).

Collect records of im­poundment crossings and impoundment-~al!sed mortal­ity during apen··water pe­riod (fPA 19B3a, p. E-3-52!4 ~frl+).

Collect information on bear populations amJ dis­tribution of bear bar ;t (APA l983a, p. E-3-~ :f/:14).

I

Prohibit public use of access road and airfield during construction (APA ~983a, P• E-3-534 #12, 14).

* Discourage off-road recreational vehicle activity, and phase in recrea­tional plan to limit recreational im­pacts on vegetation and t,>ildlife (APA ~983a, p. E-3-292 4~16, ~7).

Clear impoundments prior to flooding and remove floating debris to reduce hazards to crossing (APA 1983a, p. E-3-5'30 ;19).

~·-------------~----------------------------------~-------------------·---------_. ___________ ~------~-----------~---------------------- ----~~--------------------------------------~

Page 23

r---~~------------------------------------------------------------------·--------------------------------------------·---------------~ (!) (Il)

Afftacted Pote;ttial Species <Jr T.mpact

Group Mechanism

(E} B~:own B'ea·~· (cont.)

(9) Increased human access will caUSP increased oear morfiiiiEY from 1eaa1 hunters' 2oachers and persons defending life or pr~.

(10) Increased human activity along the access road, near the dam site, and elsewhere, may cause bears to stop feeding in important foraging areas, r~ducing the potential of the bears to gain weight .:tnd thus to maintain higb produt:.tivity.

(II!) Impact

Assessment Status

-

Important. Hunting policy for the project area currently allows libera~ brown bear harvest levels whictl can be regulated in the futur. Losses to poachers will be an unavoidable ad~erse impact (APA 1983a, pp. E-3-423, 4:6, 484, !able E.1.149; LGL 19851 p. 2.5-13 to 14).

Importance not predicted. 1m­pact includes loss of feeding habitat near access corridors, vi.llages, airstrips, and borrow sites. Some bears may be displaced or alter their movements; others may habitu­ate and '!ead to hUI!lan/bear inter-act~.l"n problems (APA. 1983a, p. E-3-424, Table E.3.149; LGL 1985, p. 2.5-14).

-

(IV) {V)

Ongoinz Proposed and Plr..nned Monitoring

Studies Activities -·-....... _T __

Sufficient information is CQllect information on available fli'::t impact assess- iH!ar populations and db-ment and !l!.ildgation planning.. l tdbution cf hear harvest No studi.es are planile(l. f (APA 1983a, p. E-3-531•

'l'Fl4).

Continued studies ~f habitat use F..nd timing.

Collect information on be~r populationn and uis­tribution of bear harvest (AJ·A 1983a, p. E-3-534 :fl:ll.).

(VI) Proposed

Hitigation M~asures

Prohibi~ public use of access road and ai~fielc rluring construction (APA 1983a, P• E-3-534 ~12, 14).

Prohibit ~se of project facilities or equipment by employees and families for hunting and trappin~ (APA 1983a, p. E-3-534 tf:1l•).

If needed, recommetid restrictions to hunting regulations to reduce harvest levels (APA 1983a, p. E-3-534 #14).

Discourage off-road recreational vehi­cle activity, and phase in recre~tional plen to l~~it recreational impact~ 1n vegetation and wildlife {APA 1983a, p. E-3-292 #16, 17).

Possibly implement controls on volume, speed and frequency of access road traffic (APA 1983a, p. E-3-534 ~12).

Avoid the Prairie Creek and Stephan Lake areas by access routing (APA 1983a, p. E~3-292 #14).

~--------~~--~------------------------------------4------------------------------------,~--------------------------------+-----------·------ -----------~------------------------------------------------1 {11) Human activity in the near vicinity of denning bears may cause bears to leave the d.ens, with possible fatal consequences.

!mportance not ~t;>redicted. Significllrtt i.mpt'C$: not expecM ted because brown;. bear dens are typically at higher eleva­tions than proposed project facilities; identified dens are not in the vicinity of such facilities (Miller 1984, Table 23 £nd Fig. 8; LGL 1985, l!· 2.5-14).

Continued an;;.>.;J.";,'is of den site cha>:'a.cteristic.s ..

~-----------------~----------------------------·---------+------~-------------------------------~----------~ (F) Black

Bee.r (l) Impound:n21.t clearing and rnung and the establishment or permanent factlities-wrrr­remnve nabitat used by §lack bears for foragirig"irr:t en­ning.

Important. Will eKclude black bears upstream from Watana Creek and significantly lcwer. populations in the project area (APA 1983a, p. E-~-427, Table E.3. 150; LGL 1985~ p. 2.6-8).

J This will be reali.-.ed nrior to 1 {m?"'·~~::':' • .:. .. ~ 1.3.u.1ng due to

cle&ring activities (APA 1983a, P• E-3-428, Table E.3.150J.

Contiuuerl analysis of biack bear pQp.ulations and move­mer:t~.

Co1lect information on den locations throu~nout con­struction (APA 1983a, p. E-3-524 fr6).

Coll(~t information on bear populations .J.nd dis­tri~ution of bear harvest (AFA 1983a, p. E-3-534 UZ.).

Prohibit ground activity within 0.25 miles of known active bear dens 15 September-15 May (APA 1983a, p. E-3-532 i/:10).

Plan and develop an environmental brieHngs program for ~11 field personnel (APA 1983a~ p. E-·3-2Q2 #13).

Employ habitat enhancement and protec­tion measures on replacement lands to compensate for permanent habitat loss will provide some benefits for black bears (APA 1983a, p. E-3-527 *6).

Deter impoundment ·clearing until 3 or 4 years before filling; patches of vege­tation will be left until just befor.a

& "' .., .... ~ - - ...,~- ~,-" 4-LJ..i.J..UI:; \n.C.t1 ..L7t..~Jc1, }l• ...,. ...,. ... n: .. o.~ .,._, •

I (I) (II)

Affected Potential Species or Impact

Group Hechanism

(III) (IV')

Impact Ongoing Assessment and Planrted

Status Studies

(V)

:'reposed Monitoring Activities

(VI)

Pro~osed

Hitigation Meaf!ure,a

Page 24

r-----------r----------------------r----------------------r----------------------r----~------------~~--------------------------~ (F) Black

Bear (cont.)

(2) Reductions in moose or in downstream salmon populations could remove an important high-energy food source f~~ black bears, thereby reduci~ productivity.

Importance not predicted. Project impacts on some food resources of black bears are as yet uncertain, and bears may not be adversely affected {APA 198:3a~ 11• E-3-429, Table E.3.150; LGL 1985, p. 2.6-8).

Continued analysis of bear food habits will better docu­ment important food sources for black bears.

Collect information on bear populations and dis­tribution of bear harvest (APA 1983a, p. E-3-534 #14).

Impacts from decreased prey availabil­ity should be reduced by measures to mitigate impacts to salmon and ungulate , populations (APA 1983a, p. E-3-536 4£16).

r-------------~------------------------~r-------------------------r---------------------------+----------------------4----------------------------------(3) Activities at borrow area sites and along the transmis­sion corridor will cause vlack bears to temporarily lose hab­itat.

Not important. Impact repre­sents a temporary loss of hab­itat for black bears. Revege­tation will provide spring forage during early succes­sional stages, and regrowth of forest will provide continued habitat for bears (APA 1983a, p. E-3-427, Table E.3.150; LGL 1985, pp. 2.6-8 to 9).

Analysis of black bear popula­tions and movements are con­tinuing.

* Collect information on bear populations and dis­tribution of bear harvest (APA 1983a, p. E-3-534 #14).

Minimize habitat loss by side borrow techniques for road construction, spoil deposition in impoundments or depleted borrow areas, and consolidation of pro­ject facilities (APA 1~83a, p. E-3-52b 412).

Fertilize and revegetate disturbed sites (APA 1983a, p. E-3-526 #3).

Minimize loss and alteration of habi­tat, particularly less abundant habi­tats and sensitve wildlife habitats (APA J.983a, p. E-J-291 #1-11).

* Selectively clear vegetation in transmission corridor, permitting seral vegetation up to 10 ft in height (APA 1983a, p. E-3-526 #4).

* Minimize loss of forest areas through alignment of access road and transmis­sion corridor, and other measures (APA 1983a, F• E-3-539 #23).

r------------~r--------·------------·------+-----------------------------+--------------------------r-----------------------+------------------------------------~

* (4) Accidental firP.s result·· ing from human ~ctivities may temporarily degrade some bear foraging habitat.

(5) Local climatic changes re­sulting from the presence of the reservoirs and the pres­ence of an extended open-water period in the rive>: downstream ~~the reservoirs could alt•r ve~etation composition or pr~~ duction, and thus bear food supply.

*Not important •• Impact not quantified. May~roduce short·term adverse effects on bear food abundariee (i.e. berries); but, upstream of Devil Canyon, productivity may be eni.t • .n .:ed over time (LGL 1985, p. 2.6-9).

Not important. Nc noticeable i~pact expected on black bears (APA 1983a, P• E-3-429·; WL 1985, p. 2.6-9).

* Continued refinement of downstream hydrology modeling may b~tter enable preriiction of effects on black bc..1rs.

Collect date on changes in downstream vegetative cov­~r (APA l983a, p. E-3-523 :fl:2).

* Prohibit public use of access road and airfield during construction (APA 1983a, p. E-3-534 #12, 14).

* Discourag~ off-road ~ecreational vehicle activity, and phase in recrea­tional plan to limit recreational im­pacts on vegetation and wildlife (APA 1983a, p. E-3-292 #16, 17).

Use multilevel intake structures on the dams to maintain downstream river tem­peratures as close to normal as possi­ble (APA 1983a, p. E-3-526 #5).

Page 25

i (!) (II) (III) (IV) (V) (VI) Affected Potential Impact Ongoing Proposed Proposed

Species or Impact Assessment and Planned Monitoring Mitigation Group Mechanism Status Studies Activities Measures

(F) Black (6) Ihe ~resence of the ~- Important. Impact uot quanti- Continued analysis of habitat Collect information on D~ lb1poundment clearing until 3 or 4 Bear Eoundments 2 access roads with fied, althou~~ some habitua- use and black bear movements. bear populations anu dis- years before fi.lling; patches of vege-(cont.) trafric 2 and other facilities tion to human activities will tribution of bear harvest tation will be left until just before

With human activit! could ~ccur (APA l983a, p. E-3-427, (APA 1983a, p. E-3-534 fillwng (APA 1983a, p. E-3-525 ~1). block the normal movement of l Table E.3.150), 1Fl4). bears to imEortant sources of Possibly implement controls on volume, ~ood or hinder the disEersa~

I * 1he consequences of these speed and frequency of access road

of ju-.•eniles. barrie~s in blocking dispersal tr~ffic (APA 1983a, ~· E-3-534 #12). or access to food cunnot pre-sently be estimated, but the Prohibit public use of access road and barriers would probably effect airfield during construction (APA

I population size (LGL 1985, 1983a, p. E-3-534 #12). pp. 2.6-9 to 10). .

I Avoid the Fog Lakes and Indian River

' areas by access routing (APA 1983a, p. E-3-292 #14).

Discourage off-road ~ecreational vehi-cle activity, and phase in recreational plan to limit recreational impacts on vegetation and wildlife (APA 1983a, P• E-3-292 #16, 17).

I

(7) Clearir.g and filling of Not important. Impact diffi- Analyses of bear movements and Collect information on the im;~undments will force cult to quantify or predict mortality sources are contin- bear populations and dis-black bears into closer prox- (APA 1983a, Table E.3.150; LGL uing. tribution of bear harvest imity with conspecifics and 1985, p. 2.6-10). (APA 1983a, p. E-3-534 brown bears, probably causing ~n4). temporarily greater than usual rates of intra- and intet.spe-cific mortality.

(8) Provision of easier human Important. Hunting mortality Sufficient information is Collect information on Prohibit use of project facilities or access to 2 and incr~ased num- can be regulated. although available for impact assess- bear populations and dis- equipment by employees and f~ilies for bers of EeOP.le in the ~usitna increased poachihg losqes may ment and mitigation planning. tribution of bear harvP.st hunting and trapping (APA 1983a, p. Project area will cause in- represent an unavoidable No studies are planned, (APA 1983a, p. E-3-534 E-3-534 4Fl4). creased bear mort~l.t ti _!_rom adverse icpact (nPA 1983~~ 4f14). hunters t Eoachers: and Eersons Table E.3.150; LGL 1985, If need~d, recommend restrictions to def~nding Iiie or EroEertv. p. 2.6-10). hunting regulations to reduce harvest

levels (APA 1983a, p. E-3-534 ~14).

* (9) Increased human activity * Not important. Impact in- Continued analysis o£ habitat Collect information on . Possibly implement controls on volume, along the acc~ss road, near eludes loss of feedirg habitat use and timing. bear populations and dis- speed and frequency of access road the dam sites, at ~orrow areas near access corridors, vill- tribution of bear harvest traffic (APA 1983a, p. E-3-534 #12). and elsewhere may cause bears ages, airstrips, and borrow (APA l983a, p. E-3-531~ to abandon prime foraging sites. Some bears may be U4). Avoid the Prairie CrEek and Stephan habitat, thus affectirrg weight displaced or alter their move- Lake areas by access routing (APA gain and productivity. ments; others may habituate 1933a, p. 1·J-292 #14).

and lead to human/bear inter-

I action prob'.ems (APA 1983a, p. E-3-427; LGL 1985, pp. 2.6-10 and ll).

I

-(1)

Affected Species or

Group

-(F) Black

Bear (cont.)

(II)

Potential Impact

Mechanism

(10) Activities of people and machines near Jens may cause bears to abandon dens, poten­tially leading to bedr mortal· ity.

(III) Impact

Assessment Status

Importance not predicted. Of known black bear dens in the project area, 54% ware in the Watana and 6% were in the Devil Canyon im~undmaot zones (Miller 1983).

(IV) Ongoing

and Planned Studies

Identification of active den sites of black bears will con­tinue.

(V)

Proposed Monitoring Activ:l.ties

Collect information on black bear den locations throughout construction (APA 1983a, p. E-3-524 ~~6).

Page 26

(VI)

Proposed Mitigation Heasures

Prohibit major ground activity within 0.25 miles of all known actiVQ bear dens between 15 September an1 15 ~lay (APA 1983a, p. E-3-532 ~10),

~··------------r--------------------------r--------------------------~---------------------------;----------------------r-----------------------------------; (G) Wolf (1) Construction and opera­

tion of the impoundments will result in permanent habitat loss for wolves. ---

Important. Impact represents an absolute habitat loss for wolves. Impoundment filling will result in a loss of all or portions of terr;; tories for at least six wolf packs.

Previous studies have provided sufficient infocmation for impact assessment. No further studies planned.

Collect informat1,on on wolf populations through­out construction and into operation (APA 1983a, p. E-3-525 4fo7}.

Land3 will be selected and managed tc compensate for lost wildlife habitat (APA 1983a, p. E 3-292 #12'.

~------------r-------------------------------------r-------------------------------r-------------~-----------------+---------------------·----~---------------------------------------~ (2) Reduction in carrying capacity of moose (and other P.rey) will result in a reduc­tion of the carrying capacity of wolves.

Important. Though the impact No further studies planned. is not quantified, reduction in wolf carrying capacity will result from reduction in prey bas~ carrying capacity (APA 1983, p. E-3-430, 431; LGL 1985, p. 2.7-8).

Collect information on wolf populations through­out construction and into operation (APA l983a, p. E-3·525 #7).

Impacts from decreased prey availabil­ity· to wolves should be reduced ty mea­sures to mitigate impac~s to ~gulate populations (APA 1983a, P• E-3-536 ft16).

Employ habitat IDPnagement mt:asures in mid~le basin and on oth~r lands to compensate for permanent habitat loss (APA l983a~ p. E-3-527 #6).

r-----------~-+--------------------------------r-------------------------------r----------------------------------r---------------------------+--------------------------------------~ (3) lnu~dation of parts of home ranges of at least six packs may cause upheaval of the historical lstl:ibution of packs due to associated social strife.

(4) Construction and filling of the impoundments will result in increase~ wolf numbers near the impoundment zone.

(5) Presence of the impound­ment ana dam fHcilitics may hirJder movement ':lf some packs to caribou and moose calving ar~ao.

Importance not predicted. The change in wolf distribution, as well as the change in prey JVailability will combine to create impacts that would require additional study to determine.

I ~

Importance not predicted. Short-term beneficial ,,._,act may result. To dat:e•"' .. 0 the reoult of increased ~,, .. £ num-bers on both prey availability and the long-term affect on wolf density would require additional informatiQn.

Not important. Impact not quantified (APA 1983a, Table E.3.151; LGL 1985, p. 2.7-9).

No further studies ~lanned.

No further studies planned.

Previous studies have provided sufficient information for impact assessment. No further studies planned.

Collect information on wolf populations through­out const~JCtion and into operation (APA 1983a, p. E-3-525 ft7}.

Collect information on wolf populations throu~~­out construction and into ope,ation (APA 1983a, p. E-3-525 4t7).

Collect records of im­poundment cros~<ngs and imp~undment-caused mortal­ity during open-water period (APA 1983a, p. E~ 3-524. fi:4).

Defer impoundment clearing tmtil 3 or 4 years before filling; patches of vege­tation will be left until jus:· before filling (APA 1983a, p. E-3-~2~ ~1).

Clear impoundments prior to flooding and remove fleeting debris to reduce ha~ards to c~ossing {APA 19d3d, p. E-3-530 ¥9).

~----------------~--·----------------------------~--·------------------·-----------~~------------------~---------~~-----------------------~---------------------------·------~

{I) (II)

Affected Potential Species or Impact

Group Mechanism

(III) Impact

Assessment Status

(IV) Ongoing

and Planned Studies

(V)

Proposed Monitoring Activities

(tr:o

Proposed ditigat.:!on Measures

Page 27

r------------r----~----------------~~----------------------r------------------------r--------------------,-----------·------------------_, (G) Wolf

(cont.) (6) Access route5 may b~ used by wolves to their benefit when hunting prey.

(7) Open water downstream from the dams may hinder movements of wolves.

(8) Increased hunting and trapping pressure and poaching will result in increased wolf mortality.

(9) Disturbance and harassment resulting from construction activities will cause abandon­ment of den sites, resulting in increased pup mortality.

(10) Disturbance and harass­ment resulting from increased recreational use will cause a~audonment of den sites, re­sulting in increased pup mor­tality.

Not important. Beneficial impact not quantified; not egpected to be significant (APA 1983a, Table E.3.151; LGL 1985, p. 2.7-9).

Importance not predicted. The number of wolves or packs likely to be ~ffected is un­known. Location of the ice front, and timing of freezeup will vary, so the number of wolves affected may vary.

Important. Hunting of wolves can be regulated, but in­creased poaching losses may represent an unavoidable adverse impact (APA 1983a, p. E-3-l•85 and 518, Table E.3.151; LGL 1985, pp. 2.7-10 to 11). IncLeased mortality could lead to changes in age structure, pack stability, and territory use.

N~t: important. Early movement of wolve~ away from den sites will not likely res1llt in pup mortality (APA 1983a, p. E-3-430, Table E.3.15l; LGL 1985, p. 2.7-11). r

•:

Not important. Early movement of wolves away from dln sites will not likely result in pup mortality (APA 1983a, p. E-3-430, Table E.3.151; I~L 1985, p. 2. 7-11).

Impact severity not sufficient to require study,

No further studies planned.

Sufficient information is available fur impact assess­ment and mitigation planning. No further studies planned.

Previous studies have provided sufficient information for impact assessment. No further studies planned.

Previous studies t.ave provided sufficient information for impact assessment. No further studies planned.

Collect information on den I locations throughout con­struction (APA 1983a, p. J E-3-524 4~6).

Collect information on den locations throughout con­struction (APA p. E-3-524 4fo6).

Prohibit use of project fadlities or equipment by employees and families for hunting and trapping (APA 1q83a, p. E-3-534 4F14).

If needed, recommend restrictions to hunting regulationr to reduce harvest levels (APA 1983a, p. E-3-534 ~14).

Aircraft will maintain minu·um alti­tudes of 1000 ft above groc'd level during overflights (APA l9£~a, p. E-3-531 no). Prohibit aircraft landings within 0.2S miles of known active wolf deLs or rendezvous sites during 1 May to 31 July (APA 1983a, p. E-3-531 #10).

Prohibit ground activity within 0.25 miles of known activ~ wolf dens or rendezvous sites between l May and 21 July (APA 1983a, p. E-3-531 ~~10).

Plan and develop an environmental briefings program for all field personnel {APA 1983a, p. E-3-292 #13).

Prohibit public use of access road and airfield during construction (AIA 1983a, p. E-3-534 #12, 14).

Discourage offroad recreational ve~icle activity, and phase in recreational plan to limit recreational itnpn.cts on "egetation and wildlife (API!. 1983a. P• E-3-292 #16, 17). I

~----------~----------------------~----------------------~------------------------~--------------------~-------------------------·~

r (I) Affected

Species nr Group

(G) Wolf (cont.)

(H) l-7ol verine

(II)

Potential Impact

Mechanism

(11) Habituation of wolves to human presence may lead to increased wolf mortality due to destruction of problem· animals.

(12) D~sturbance and harass­ment resulting from construc­tion activities will cause permanent abandonment of areas.

(1) Impotmdment construction and filling will result in permanent loss of winter for­aging habitat used by waiver-~-

(III)

Impact Assessment

Status

Not :l.mportant. Destruction of some nuisance wolves may occur if mitigation measures are not enforced (APA 1983a, p. E-3·· 430, Table E.3.151), however, this impact is unlikely to be significant in these heavily exploited wolf populations (LGL 1985, p. 2.7-12).

Not important. Some habitua­tion will likely occur; impa~t not expected to be significanc (APA 1S33a, p. E-3-430, Table E.3.151; LGL 1985, p. 2.7-12).

Important. Winter habitat for several wolverines will be lost; changes in movements, densities and productivity will affect surrounding popu­lations (APA 1983a, p. E-3-432 to 433, Table E.3.151).

(IV) Ongoing

and Planned Studies

Impact severity not sufficient to require study.

I'revious studies have provided sufficient information for impact assessiner.t. No further studies plann~d.

Opportunistic collection of data during wolf surveys.

(V)

Proposecl t4onitoring Activities

-

Collect information on wolf populations and den locations throughout con­struction (~A 1983a, pp. E-3-524-525 #6, 7).

(VI) Propos~d

Hitigation Me~sures

Page 28

_____________ , ____________________ ~

Education program, and strict garbage­control measures and enfor~ement to prevent creation of nuisance animals (AFA 1983a, p. E-3-535 #15).

Prohibit ground activity within 0.25 miles of known active wolf dens or rendezvous sites between 1 May and 31 July (APA 1983a, p. E-3-532 #10).

Possibly implement contr~ls on volume, speed and frequency of access road traffic (APA 1983a, p. E-3-5~ #12).

~---------------~-----------------------------·-+----------------------------·-------r--------------------------------;--------------------------;-----------------------------------------~

(2) Reduction in density of small mammals and grouse vilt affect wolverine movements, population densities, and productivity.

(3) Clearing of the impound·· ment zones will result in a temporary increase in prey availability for wolverine in adjacent areas.

(4) Increased carrying capa­city of moose and ptarmigan along the transmission corri­dors will result in ~creased wolverine carrying capacity.

Not important. Difficult to predict whether increases in ungulate carrion availability will offset losses of smaller prey (APA 1983a, p. E-3-433, Table E.3.152). r,

•.

Not important. Impact repre­sents a short·term beneficial effect (APA 1983a, Table E.3.152).

Not important. Impact repre­sents a small but beneficial effect on wolverines (APA 1983a, Table E.j.lS2)

Impact severity not sufficient ~o require study.

Impact severity not sufficient to require study.

Impact severity not sufficient to require study.

Selectivelt clear vegetation in trans­mission corridors permitti.og seral vegetation up to 10 ft in height (APA 1983a, p. E-3-526 #4).

(I)

Affected Species or

Group

(H) Wolverine (cont.)

(II)

Potential Impact

Mechanism

(5) Increased hunting and trappinf pressure, and poach-~-~~ wol~

(6) Disturbance and habitat loss due to impoundment clear­ing will displace v7ol verines, particularly in Winter.

--

(III)

Impact Assessment

Status

Important. Impact not quanti­fied but li~ely the most im­p9rtant impact on wolverines. Hunting and trapping can be regulated, but poaching may represent an unavoidablP adverse impact (APA l983a, p. E-3-486, Table E.3.J52).

Important. Impact will be similar to (H)(l) and will occur 1-2 years prior to im­poundment filling (APA 1983a, Table E.3.152).

(IV) Ongoing

and Planned Studies

·-

Sufficient information is available for impact assess­ment and ~it1gtation planning. No studies are planned.

Opportunistic collection of data during wolf surveys.

(V)

Proposed H,.titoring Activities

(VI) Proposed

Mitigation Measures

Page 29

If ne~ded, recommend restrictions to hunting and tra~ping regulations to reduce harvest levels (APA l983a, p. E-3-534 #14).

Prohibit use of project facilities or equipment by employees and families for hunting and trapping (APA 1983a, p. E-3-534 U4).

Prohibit public use of access road and airfield 1uring construction (APA 1983a, p. E-3-534 #12, 14).

Defer impoundment clearing until 3 or 4 years before filling; patches of vege­tation will be left until just before filling (APA 1983a, p. E-3-525).

~--------~-----------------------r----------------------~--------------------~---------------------r-----------------------------~

{I) Belukha Whale

(7) The impoUDdments and dam facilities w·y ~hange wolver­ine home ra~ge boundaries and alter habitat use patterns.

(8} Disturbance and harassment from construction and/or re­creational activities will alter habitat use patterns and cause permanent abandonment of areas.

(1) The presence of the Davil Canyon and Watana impoundments may alter the late spring­early summer water temperature downstream in the Susi~a River, and therefore in the Susitna estuary, and could have possible adverse effects on the calving success of belUkha that use the estuary.

Not important. Conflicting data on home range boundaries of wolverines and terrain features make this impact difficult to predict; not expectP.d to be significant {APA 1983a, p. E-3-432).

Not important. Impact not quantified; not expected to be significant unless hi~l levels of recreational disturbance occur {APA 1983a,f,p. E-3-486, Table E.3.152). ;

'

Not L~portant. Water temper­atures will not change signi­ficantly at the river mouth; impact not expected to occur (APA 1983a, p. E-3-433; LGL 1985, p. 2.9-5).

Opportunistic collection of data during wolf surveys.

Opportunistic collection of data during wolf surveys.

Impact se"<>rity not sufficient to requ:re study.

Possibly implement controls on voltune, .speed and frequency o.E access road traffic (APA 1983a, p. E-3-534 ~12).

Prohibit public use of access road and airfield during construction (APA 1983a, p. E-3-5J4 #12).

Discourage off-road recreational vehi­cle activity, and phase in recreational plan to limit recreational impacts on vegetation and wildlife (APA 1983a, p. E-3-292 #16, 17).

Use multi.:t,•;el intake structures on the dams to maintain downstream river tem­peratures as close to norma~ as possi­ble {APA 1983a, p. E-3-526 #5).

(l)

Affected Species or

Group

(I) Belukha Whale (cont.)

(J) Lynx

(II)

Potential Impact

Mechanism

( 2) The presence of the Devil Canyon and Watana impoundments may alter prey (fish) avail­ability in the area at the mt'uth of the Susitna River that is used by belukhas, thus affecting uelt•l--.hu condition and productivity.

(1) Imp~undment construction midfrlling will result in permanent loss of lynx habi-E!!E.·

(2) Forest and brush clearing in the impoundment zone will result in habitat alteration and temporary habitat loss.

(3) Transmission corridor con­struction and operation will result in permanent loss of forest habitat.

(4) Habitat alteration at borrow sites will result in pennanent loss of forest babitat.

(III) Impact

Assessment Status

Not important. Salmon de­creases would at most be 5-8% of Susitna river stocks; im­pact not expected to be signi­ficant (APA 1983a, P• E-3-434).

Important. Impact will result in loss of habitat for probab­ly all lynx (a few animalv), within the middle basin (APA 1983a, p. E-3-440 to 442).

Not important. Short-term impact that will precede habi­tat loss due to impoundment filling (APA 1983a, Table E.3.157).

Not important. Impact will result in loss of 3831 acres of forest habitats useful to lynx (APA 1983a, Table E.3.86).

. •!

Not li~portant. R~moval of 3,341 acres of spkuce forest habitats. Revegetation will probably not return habitat to spruce communitie~ during the license period (APA 1983a, Table E.3.157).

(IV) Ongoing

and Planned Stu<lies

Impact severity no~ 3Ufficient to Warl·ant further stcn;.

Continued sJrveys of furbearer distributiJn will improve im­pact asse',sment and mitigation planning (APA 1984b, FY85 Iask 26, subr ask 1) •

Continued surveys of furb~arer distribution will improve im­pact assessment and mitigation plannjng (APA 1984b, FY85 Task 26, subtask 1).

Previous studies have provided sufficient information for impact assessment. No further studies are planned.

Previous studies have provided sufficient info11nation for impact assessment. No further studies are planned.

(V) Proposed

Monitoring Activities

Page 30

(VI)

Proposed Mitigation Measures

Rectify impacts from decreased prey availability by measures to mitigate impacts to salmon populations (APA l983a, p. E-3-536 #16),

Defer impoundment clearing until 3 or 4 years before filling; patches of vege­tation will ue left until juct before filling (APA 1983a, p. E-J-525 #1).

Selectively clear vegetation in trans­mission corridor, permitting seral vegetation up to 10 ft in height (APA 1983a, p. E-3-526 #4).

Minimize loss and alteration of habi­tat, particularly less ab~ndant habi­tats and sensitive Wildlife habitats (APA 1983a, p. E-3-291 to 292 #1-1l) •

Fertilize and revegetate disturbed sites (APA 1983a, p. E-3-526 4~3). This will provide some fo~aging habitat prior to forest succession.

~-----------------r-----~----------------·----------~~-----------------------------------~---------------------·------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------------------------~ · (5) Construction and operation of the project will create barriers and hinderances to lynx movements.

(6) Increased vehicle traffic on access routes will result in increased lynx mortality.

Not important. Redistribution of home ranges to conform to impoundment shores will occur (APA 1983a, Tabla E,3,157).

Not important. Impact not quantified but not expected to be significant (APA 1983a, Table E.3.157).

Ibis impact mechanism will re­ceiv& further atten~ion during impact assessment refinements (APA 1984b, FY85 Task 5),

Impact severity not sufficient to requir~ further study.

Collect mortality data on road and railroad colli­sions (APA 1983a, p. E-3-525 4/:l).

Clear impoundments prior to floodi.ng and remove floating debris to reduce hazards to crossing (APA 1983a, p. E~3-530 #9). Ibis will aid dispersal but will not completely mitigate barrier effects.

r---~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------·--------------------, (VI) (I) (lt)

Affected Potential Species or Impact

Group Hechanism

(III)

Impact Assessment

Status

(IV) Ongoing

and Planned Studiet:

(V)

Proposed Honitoring Activities

Proposed Mitigation Measures

r---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~--------------------------------·----------;

(J) Lynx (cont.)

(K) Coyote

(7) Incredsed trapplng and poaching ~till result in in­creased lynx mortality.

(8) Disturbat~c~ ~ .,d harassment resulting from ccnstruction and recreational activities will cause pet1na.1ent abandon­ment of areas.

(1) Construction and operation of the prn~ect may cause an increase in the coyote popula­tion near developed areas.

Important. Hunting and trap­ping can be regulated, but poaching losses may represent an unavoidable adverse impact (APA 1983a, Tabel E.3.157).

Not important. Lynx are un­common and will be able to avoid Qeveloped areas. Not expected to be a significant impact (APA 1983a, Table E.3.157).

Not important. Impact may represent a ben~flcial effect on coyotes (APA 1983a, p. E-3-439).

Surveys of trappers are con­tinuing to rlociJI!Ient current harvest levels (APA 1984b, FY85 Task 20).

This impact mechanism will receive further attention during impact assessment refinements (APA 1984b, FY85 Task 5).

Continued surveys of furbearer distribution, including dowl­stream areas, will document changes in coyote populations (APA 1984b, FY85 Task 26, sub­task 1).

Prohibit use of prcject facilities or equipment by employees and families for hunting and trapping (APA 1983a, p. E-3-534 n4).

If needed, recommend restrictions to hunting and trapping regulation~ to reduce harvest levels (APA 1983a, p. E ~3-534 #14).

Prohibit major ground activity near sensitive wildlife areas during sensi­tive periods (APA 1983a, p. E-3-532 4.010).

Discourage offr,ad recreational vehicle activity, and phase in recreational plan to limit recreational impacts on vegetation and wildlife (APA 1983a, p. E-3-292 #15-17).

Prohibit public use of access road and airfield during construction (APA J.983a, p. E-3-534 :f.Ol2, 14)

r--------------~~-----------------------------~----------------------------~---------------------------------~-----~----------------+-------------------------------------~ (L) Red Fox (1) Early successional ?lant

communities in areas reclaimed f const~ction activities wi.LJ. provide increased avail­ability of smail mammals.

Not important. Impact may represent a ber1e'ficial effe~t on foxes (APA lg,83a, Table E.3.156).

Impact severity not sufficient to require further study.

Fertilize and revegetate disturbed sites (APA 1983a\' p. E-3-526 :/fr3).

·-------+·-----------------~------------+--------------------~----------+-----------------------------+-------------------------------------------~

(2) Open water downstream from the impoundments will hinder movements of fox !n winter.

(~) Increased hunt~ng, trap­ping, and poaching will result in increased fox mortality.

Not i.mportant. Impact not quantified but not ~xpected to he sign~~icant (APA 1983a, ':.:t'ble E.3.156).

Important. Hunting and trap­ping can be regulate(}, but voaching !osses may represent 4n unavoldable adverse impact (APA 1983a, p. E-3-439, Table E.3.15&).

Impact severity not sufficient to require study.

Surveys u£ trappers are ~on­ti;uing to do~ument current harvest levels (APA 1984b, FY85 Task 20).

Use multilevel intake structures on the dams to maintain downstream river tem­peratures as close to normal as possi­ble (APA 1983a, p. E-3-526 #5).

Prohibit use of project facilities or equipment by employees and families for hunting and trapping (APA 1983a, p. E-3-534 U4).

If needed, recommend restrictions to l hunting and trapping regulations to reduce harvest levels (APA 1983a, p. E-3-534 #14).

Page 32

··-(I) (II} (III) (IV) (V) (VI)

Affected Potential 1m? act Ongoing Proposed Proposed Species or Impact Assessment and Planned Monitoring Mitigation

Group Mechanism Status Studies A::tivities Heasures

(L) Red Fox (4) Habituation oi foxeJ to Not important. May affect This impact mechanism will re- Implement educatton programs and strict (cont.) human presence may lead to local fox populations (lPA ceive further attention during garbage control measures and enforce-·

increased £ox mortality due to 1983a, ~· E-3-440, Table impact assessment refinements ment to prevent creation of nuisance destruction of problem ES.156 • (APA 1984b, FY85 Task 5). animals (APA 1983a, p. E-3-535 415). animals.

(5) Disturbanc~ and harassment Not important. SIJme negative Surveys of fox den use in Collect .'nformation on fox Prohibit major ground activity near resulting from construction effects may occur but habitua- areas of potential impact den locations throughout sensitive ~v-ildlife areas during sensi-and recreational activities tion to human activities ts (APA 1984b, FY85 Task 26, construction (APA 1983a, tive periods (APA 1983a, p. E-3-532 may cause abandonment of den very likely; im.pact not e.xpec- s.ubtask 3). P• E-3-524 416). ifolO). sites. ted to be significant (APA

19~3a, )• E-3-439; Table E.3.156 •

' I (M) Beaver (1) Construction of the im- Not important. Impact is of Previous surveys 11ave provided Continue surveys to locate Minimize habitat loss by side borrow poundments ~d a3sociated minor significance to area sufficient information for active beaver colonies. techniques for road construction, sp.)il facilities will result in populations due to the small impact assessment. Fall and spring surveys deposition in impoundmeuts or depleted permanent loss of beaver numbers affected (APA 1983a, could serve to determ!ne borrow areas, and consolidation of pro-habitat. Table E.3.153; LGL 1985, changes in beaver popula- ject facilities (APA 1983a, p. E-3-526

p. 2.13-10). tion after project con- #2). struction.

Modifications of borrow requirements and techniques to minimize loss of habitat for aquatic furbearers (APA 1983a, p. E-3-536 #17).

Develop a downstream beaver carrying capacity model to yield better impact predictions and refinements to mitiga-t:l.on measures (APA 1983a, p. E-3-537 #18).

Enhance sloughs downstream from Devil Canyon (APA 1983a, p. E-3-537 #13).

Minimize loss of forest areas through alignment of. access road and transmis-sion corridor, and other measuras (APA 1983a, p. E-3-539 #23),

I ~inimize loss and aicaration of habi-tat, pa~ticularly less ~bundant habi-tats and sensitive wildlife habitats (APA 1983a, p. E-3-291 to ~92 #1-11) • . Design and align roads, railroad and facilities to minimize impacts on wet-lands (APA 1983a, p. E-3-292 #18, 19) •

. --

{I)

Affected Species or

Group

(H) Beaver (cont.)

(II)

Potential Impact;

Mech&nism

(2) Operation of the dams will result in stabilized water flows downstream from the dam.

* (3) Higher water ti:.!Illpera­tures released from the im­poundments will resu~t in maintenance of open water for longer periods.

* (4) Construction and opera­tion of the project will create barriers to beaver movements.

(5) Downstream daily flow flu~tuations will freeze out or flood beaver lodges and/or food caches in winter.

(6) Increased trapping .and poaching will result in in­creased beaver mortality.

-(III)

Impact Assessment

Status

* Important. Stabilized water flows will decre~se the ~aunt of habitat suitable for beaver, increase mortality, and likely result in. fewer beaver (LGL 1985; p. 2.13-12).

* Not important. Delayed ice cover may allou beaver to for­age later in the fall. Beaver would not be likely to estab­lis.h colonies between the dams and the ice front (LGL 1.985; p. 2.1.3-12).

* Not important. Impact is ~f minor significance to area populations due to small num­bers affected (LGL 1985, p. 2.13-13).

' Not important. Short-term flow fluctuations in winter are not anti~ipated to be of a magnitude detrimental to beaver .~urvival (APA 1.983a, p. E-3-435).

* Not Important. Hunting and trapping can be regulated, but poaching losses may represent an unavoidable adverse impact (APA 1983a, p. E-3-436, Table E.3.153). Continued low in­terest il:l beaver trapping will not be affected by project actions (LGL 1985, p. 2.13-13).

(IV) Ongoing

and 'F1lanned Studies

Additional information will be obtained from downstream hydrologic ~nd vegetation modeH.ng.

* Previous studies have pro­vided sufficient information for impact assessment. No further studies planned.

* Previous surveys have pro­vided sufficient information for impact assessment. No further studies planned.

* Impa ... c severity not suffi­cient to r·equire further study.

* Previous surveys have pro­vided sufficient information for impact assessment. No further studies planned.

-(V)

Proposed Monitoring Activities

Collect data on changes in dow~strearn vegetative cover (APA ~983a, p. E-3-523 4~2).

Collect information on beaver distribution in Deadman Creek and in the downstream floodplain (APA 1983a, p. E-3-525 #8).

Continue surveys to locate active beaver colonies. Fall and spring surveys could serve to determine changes in beaver popula­tion after project con­struction.

Continue surveys to locate active beaver colonies. Fall and spring surveys could serve to determin~ changes in beaver popula­tion after project con­struction.

Continue surveys to locate active beaver colonies. Fall and spring surveys could serve to determine changes in be~ver popula­ti~n after project con­struction.

(VI)

Proposed Mitigation Measures

Page 33

Enhance sloughs downstrefu~ from Devil Canyon (APA 1.983a, p. E-3-537 #19).

*Design and align roads, railroads, and facilities to minimize impacts on wetlands (APA 1983a, p. E-3-292 ~18, 19).

Prohibit use of project facilities or equipment by employees and familjes £or hunting and trapping (APA 1983a, p. E-3-534 4fo14).

If needed, recommend r~strictions to hunting and trapping regulations to reduce harvest levels (APA 1983a, p. E-3-534 #14).

Page 34

(I) (II) (III) (IV) ' (V) (VI) Affected Potential Impact Ongoing Proposed Proposed

Species or Impact Assessment and Planned Monitoring Mitigation Group Mechanism Status Studies Activities Measures

r-----------------------------------------------------------~----------------------------------~--------------------------------··--~

(M) Beaver (cont .• )

(N) Muskrat

* (7) Disturbance 'because of construction and recreational activities Will cause perma­nent abandonment of areas.

(1) Can~truction of the im­poundments and asscciated facilities •Jill result in permanent loss of muskrat habitat.

* (2) Operation of the dams will result in stabilized water flows downstream from the dams.

* (3) Higher water tempera­tures released from the ~­poundments will result in maintenance of open water for longer periods.

* Not important. Construction activides may temporarily move beaver from areas, but they will likely reastablish at sites if suitable habitat remains. Disturbance related to recreation will not likely cause beaver to abandon areas (LGL 1985, p. 2.13-14).

Not important. Impact is of minor sibnificance to area populations d~e to the small numbers affected (APA 1983a, pp. E-3-4~ to 436, Table E.3.153).

*Not important. Impact may adversely affect the muskrat population, but is of minor significance because of the small numbers affected (LGL 1985, p. 2.14-5).

* Not important. Impect may allowmuskrat access to open­water later in the winter, but is of minor significance because of the small numbero affected (LGL 1985, p. 2.14-7).

* Impact severity not suffi­cient to require further study,

Previous surveys have provided sufficient information for impact assessment. No further work is planned.

Additional information will be obtained from downstream hy­drologic and vegetation model­ing.

* Previous surveys have pro­vided sufficient information for impact assessment , No further studies planned.

Continue surveys to locate active beaver colonias. Fall and spring surveys could serve to determine changes in beaver popula­tion after project con­struction.

Collect data on changes in dc.~~•nstream vet:etative cover (APA l983a, p. E-3-523 ~m.

Minimize habitat loss by side borrow techniques for road construction, spoil deposition in impoundments or depleted borrow areas, and consolidation of project facilities (APA 1983a~ p. E-3-526 4k2).

Modifications of borrow requirements and techniques to minimize loss cf habitat for aquatic furbearers (APA 1983a, p. E-3-536 #17).

Enhance sloughs do~nstream from Devil Canyon (APA 1983a~ p. E-3-537 #19).

Minimize loss of forest areas through alignment of acceGs road and transmis­sion coTridor, and other measures (APA 1983a, p. E-3-5~9 #23).

Minimize loss and alteratior of habi­tat, particularly less abundant habi­tats and sensitive wildlife habitats (APA 1983a, p. i-3-291 to 292 ~1-ll).

Design and align roads, railroad and facitities to minim1ze impacts on wet­lands (.\PA 1983a, p. E-3-292 #18, 19).

Enhance sloughs downstream from Devil CatttYI'lll (APA 1983a, p. E-3-537 :/Fl9).

* Enhance sloughs downstream from Devil Canyon (APA 1983a, p. E-3-537 #1?).

~-------------------L---------------------------------------~---------------------------------------~-------------------------------------~------------------------------~-----------------------~-----------------J

(I)

Affected Species or

Group

(N) Muskrat (cont.)

(II)

Potential Impact

Mechanism

(4) Increased hunting apd trapping pressure and poaching will ll'esult in increased ID'Jsk­rat mortality.

* {5) Disturbance because of construction and recreati~~al activities will cause perma­nent abandonment of areas.

(III)

Impact Assessment

Status

* Not J,mportant. Hunting and trapping can be regulated, but poaching losses may represent an un.awoidable adverse impact (APA 1983a, p. E-3-436, Table E.3.153). Continued low in­terest in muskrat trapping will not be affected by pro­ject actions (LGL 1985, p. 2.14-7).

* Not important. Construction activities may temporarily move beave~ from areas, but they will likely reestablish at sites if suitable habitat rema1ns. Disturbance related to recreation will not likely cause muskrats to abandon areas {LGL 1985, p. 2.14-8).

(IV)

Ongoing and Planned

Sl~udies

* Previous surveys have pro­vided sufficient information for impact assessment. No further studies planned.

Previous surveys have provided sufficient information for impact assessment. No further studies planned.

(V)

Proposed Monitoring Activities

!

(VI)

Proposed Mitigation Measures

Page 35

Prohibit use of project facilities or equipment by employees and families for hunting and trapping (APA 1983a, P• E-3-534 4fo14).

If needed, recommend restrictions to hunting and trapping regulations ·to redu-:e harvest levels (APA 1983a, P• E-3-534 ~14).

~------------~~---------------------------------~--------------------------------~~-------------------------------~-------------------------------4-------------------------------------~ (0) River

Otter (1) Construction and operation of the impoundments and other permanent taciL1.ties will result in permanent loss of river otter habitat.

* Important. Elimination of 86 miles of mainstem river habitat and 39 miles of stream habitat (APA 1~83a, p. E-3-84 and 129).

Previous surveys have provided sufficient information for impact assessment. No further studies ptanned.

* Set aside other lands used by river otter to prevent further decline pf otter habitat.

r------------;--------------------------------;------------------------·--------;-------------------------------;----------------------------+--------------------------------------; (2) Forest and brush clearing in the impoundment zone will result in habitet alteration and temporary habitat loss.

Not important. Short-term im­pact affecting the same popu­lations affected by impound­ment filling. ~pact would occur 2-3 years pl: ior t·o filling {APA 198Ja, Table E.3.155). ·

Previ~us surveys have provided sufficient information for impact assessment. No further studies planned.

(I)

Affected Species or

Group

{0} River Otter (J;:ont.)

(II)

Potential Impact

Mechanism

(3) Construction and operation of the prolect will result in water qual ty changes to the ~a River.

(III)

Impact Assessment

Status

* Important. Water turbidity of the reservoirs would l~ke!y be such that low fish produc­tion would prevent otters from using available aquatic habi­tat. Water turbidity down­stream from the reservoir would be decreased in summer, and increased in winter £rom present conditions. Large numbers of spawning fish would be available to otters, even wi~ll high ~urbidity levels. Overwintering {ish would be more difficult for otter3 to capture because of reduced visibility (LGL 1985, p. 2.15-9). Water runoff from fuel storage facilities, solid waste disposal and the con­struction viUar-e is not ex­pecte~ to reach water bodies because of co~struction de­signs (APA 1983a, p. E-3-128). Project const~ction would likel7 increase heavy metal content in the t:ater, but the degree of increase, and effects on otters are not known.

(IV) (V)

Ongoing Prorosed and Planned Monit~dng

Studies Activities

Pa&·!l 36

-(VI)

Proposed Mitigation M«:!asures

* Hater for camp and construction use would be treated before discharge back into the Susitna River. Storm drainage and oily water runoff from the con­struction camp would be collected and treated (APA 1983a, p. E-3-12a). A Spill Prevention Containment and Coun­termeasure Plan (SPCC) ~ould be devel­oped.

~~---------------+------------------------------------+-----------------------------------~----------------------------------r-----------------------------------r-·----,--------·-------------------------------~

* (4) Higher water t~moerature released from the impoundments will result in maintenance of open water for longer periods.

* Important. Increased water temperature will delay ice formation in th!!. fall, down­ztream from the impound~ents, and will melt out earlier in the spring. In ~ddition, the ice front on the.river will fluctuate berweea River Mile 123 and 142 (Harza-Ebasco 1984). The ne.t change in habitat availability woulu depend upan the amount of open water, which '"ould vary with weather condUions and r.~ll'ter temperature. Expected to be a beneficial impact to the river otter population.

Additional information will be obtained from downstream hydrologic and vegetation studies.

* Use multilevel intake structures ~n the uams to maintain downstream river temperatures as close to pre-project temperatures as possible {APA 1983a, p. E-3-526 #5).

(I)

Affected Specie'i or

Group

{O) River Otter (.cont.)

(II)

Potential Impact

.Mechantsn

* (5) Operation of the dams will re~~lt in stabilized water flows do'iitlstream from the dam.

(III)

Impact Assessment

Status

1 * Not important. l'uring :re­$ervoir filling, average flow b.el >w the impoundments will be reduced from pxesent flows, and many side clumnels and sloughs will be dewatered !n ~!ay ~ June and July (APA 1983a). During operation, summer floods of the magnitude experienced under nat~·al con­ditions will be prevented. Wint~r ftows will he higher than under natural ccn1itions (Harza-Ebasco 1984-a.}. Staging in ice-covered areas will raise the 'vater level up to 7 feet above natural winte: levels (Harza-Ebasco 1984b). Sp::-ing bnak-up would be delayed nnd less severe.

(IV) Ongoing

and Planned Studies

* Previous studies have pro­vided sufficient information for impc:.ct assessment. No further studies planned.

(V)

Proposed Monitoring Activities

{VI) Proposed

Mitigation MeasureG

Page 37

~-----------+------------------------~-----------------------~------------·------------~----------------------~----------------------·"·~-------; * (6) Habitat alterztions dmmstrean frcm the impound­ments Wi.'~.l result in changes in the beaver population.

(7) Early successional pla.~t co~ities in areas reclaimed fro~ construction activities ~tll provide increused avail­ability of small manmals.

* Not important. Should pro­ject actions result in in­creased beaver numbers, rest­ing and denning habitats for river otters might be in­creased. Probably w~uld r.ot result in any apprec~.ab" increase in otter numbet'"' ,,...,;L 1985, p. 2.15-11).

* Not imporcant. It is not likely that increased small me=mal populaticns as a res~lt of reclaimed areas would bene­fit otter populations (LGL 1985, p. 2.15-12h

l

* Previous studies have pro­vidPd sufficient information for impact assessment. No further work is planned.

Previous surveys have provided sufficient information for impact assessment. No further work is planned.

* Collect information on beaver distribution, abun­dance and overwinter sur­vival.

Fertilize and revegetate disturbed sites (APA 1983a, P• E-3-526 ~3).

~------------+---------------------------~--------·---------------------+----------------------------·+-------------------------~----------------------------------~ * (8) Construction and opera­tion of the project will create barriers and hinder­ances to river otter move­ments.

Not important. Data not available to determine the number of otter moving through the impoundment are•, or to quantify the importance of the dam sites to traveling otters. Impact not likely to have an tmpo<tant impact on otte~ movements (LGL 1985, p. 2.15-'12).

Impact severity not sufficient to require further study.

~I)

Affected Species m;

Group

(IJ:)

l'otent1..al Impact

Mechanism

(TII)

I~pact

Assessment: StaLt:S

(IV)

Ongoing and Planned

Studies __ ,._ -

(V)

Proposed l'tonitoring Activities

(V!)

Proponed Miti~ation

Meaeures

Page 38

r~------------~--------·----------------~--------------·---------r------------------------~------------------~···~~-----------------------------~ (0) River (9) Increased hunting an( * Not important. Huntir:; and Pre•·i.ous s'~udies have provided I Prohibit use of proj~ct facilities or

~te"" trapping pressure ancl trapping car. be regulated, but suffic.i.er information for 1 equipment by employees and families fnr ~ t"ln.::.) poaching, will result in poaching may be an unav.:.iaable impact as&essmant. t{o furthE'r J hunting R'ld t~apping (APA 1f;fl3a, p.

incr;:alir,j river otter im_1act (APA 1983a, p. E-3-346, studies planned. E-3-53'+ 4/:14). mo..:·.:.ality. f Table E .3 .153). Cot:tinued low

inter:>st itt otter trapping ~iil not ue affected by pro­ject a"t. ,ns (LGL 1985, p. 2.15-lJ).

If needed, recom,;nd restrictions tL huntir:g regull:it:1 t..ts to reduce harvest levels {AnA 1983~, p. E-J·534 #14).

· * Lands s~alected to compensate f1 r lost wildHfe habitat could be a sour.::e of river otters that could colonize areas vacated because of increased mortality (LGL 19R5, p. 2.15-16).

r-----------------r---------------------------------r--------------------·--------4----------~---------·------4-------------·------------!-----------------------------------~

* {10) Increased vehicle traf­fic on access routes will re­~ult in increased river otter UtOt tality,

* Not ittportant. Mortality caused by increased vehicle traffic would be an adverse impact, but not likely to become important (LGL 1985, p. 2.15-13).

* Impact severity not suffi­eient to require further study.

1~---~---~-~---~--~

* (11) Dist~rbance and harass- * Not important. Otters may Impact severity not sufficient Prohibit major ground activity near

I ment becat:se ~:f construction initially leave construction to require further study.. I sensitive wildlife areas during sensi-~ctivities will cause perma- areas because of disturtance, tive po.riods (APA 1983a, p. E-3-532 nent abandonment of area. but permanent habit~t loss #10).

would prevent otters from occupying the area inundated by the impoundments. Distur­bance along access routes would probably not result in complete abandnnment of the area along those r.outes (LGL 1985) p. 2.15-13)~

Possibly implement controls on volume, speed and frequency of access road traffic (APA 1983a, p. E-3-534 #12).

Discourage offroad recreational vehicle activity, and phase in recreational plans to limit recreational impacts on vegetation and wildlife (APA 1983a, p. E-3-292 #16, 17).

Prohibit public use of access road and airfield during c~nstruction (APA 1983a, p. E-3·'>34 #12, 14), l

I ~----------------r--------------------------~------------------------------4----------------·------------+------------------------+------------------------------------~

* (12) Disturbance and harass­ment because of recreational activides will cause perma-

1 n~nt abandonment of area.

* Not important. Increased recreational use of the water­way~ concributing to direct harPssment and disturbance of otters could cause otte~s to abandon areas without sufH­cient escape cover. The importance of this potential adverse impact would depend \lpon recreational use patterns (APA 1983a: p. E-2·505; LGL 1985, p. 2.15-14).

Impact severity not sufficient to require further sturly.

Di~courage offroad recreational vehicle activity, and phase in recreational plan& to limit recreational impacts on vegetatio~ and wildlife (APA 1983a, p. E-3-292 it.J6, 17).

Prohibit public use of access roaQ and airfield during construc.tion (APA 1983a1 p. E-3-534 :ffr12, 14).

-~'~-~----~----~~---~----~

(I)

Affer.ted Species or

Gr'Jup

(P) Marten

(II)

Potential Impact

Mechanism

(l) Conrtruction and operation of the impoundments and other perman~nt facilities will result in lermanent loss of ·narten hab tat.

(2) Forest and bi"ttSh clearing in the impoundment zone will result in habita~ alteration and temporary habitat loss.

* (3) Early successional plant ~ommunities in areas reclaimed from constructi~n activities will provide increased avail­abi.lity of sanall mammals and birds.

(4) Construction and operati~n

1 of tn<a prnject will create barrier~ and hinderarces to l m'lrten.. movements.

(5) Increased vehicle traffic on access routes will result in increased martP.n mortality.

(III)

!..lpact Assessment

Status

* Important. Impoundment filling and construction facilities will ~e~anently remove 32,833 acr,.~s of vege­tation types consi~P.red marten habitat, access route con­struction will renove 234 acres, th~ transmission corridor will remove 2,249 acres, and 2,735 acres will be altered at borrow sites; potentially affecting the h&~itat for a total of at least 129 marten (APA 1983a, p. E-3-440 to 4~2, LGL 1985, p. 2.16-5).

Not important. Short-term impact that will precede habitat loss due ~o impound­ment filling (APA 1983a, Table E.3.157). :

•.'

' * Not important. Because of the small tmonnt of land af­fected, this beneficial impact is not likely to remrlt in changes to the marten popula­tion.

Not impo::tant. Marten usuall:' align home rangrs ~long rivers or other ;1aterbodies. RE'dis­tribution of. home ranges to co"ion.. to impuundment shores will occur (APA 1~ .... 3a, Tab1.e E.3.157).

Not important. Impact not quantified but not expected to be significant (APA 1983a, Table E.3.157).

(IV)

Ongoing and Planned

Studies

* Previous stutHes provided sufficielt informatio~ for impact assessm<!nt. No further stud]Ps planned.

* Previous r.tudies have pro­vided sufficient information for impact assessment. No further studies planned.

* Pravious studie& have pro­vided 'lUff:l.cient information for imnact assessment. No further studies plannPn.

* Previous studies have pro­vided sufficient information for impact assessment. No further studies are.planned.

Impact severity not suificient to re~uire further study.

(V)

Proposed Monitoring Activities

Collect mortality data on road and railroad colli­sions (APA 1983a, p. E-3-525 ~F1).

(VI) Pr:.1>osed

Mit1f!'ation Measur\.'S

Page 39

Set aside other land used by marten to prevent further decline of marten habitat. Harten may benefit i.f moose browse manipulation procedures result in increaoed small mammal numbers adjacent to mature forests.

Minimize habitat loss ~y aide borrow techuiqu~s for t·oad construction, spoil deposition in impoundments or depleted boTrow areas, and consolidation of pro­ject facilities {APA l983a, p. E-3-526 ~~2).

Min:l.iiihe loss of forest areas through alignment of the access road and trans­mis3ion corridors, and other measures (APA 1983a, p. E-3-539 #23).

Minimize loss and alteration of habi­tat, particularly less abundant habi­tats ano sensitive wildlife habitats (APA 1983a, pp. E-3-2ql to 292 #1-11).

Selectively clear vegetation in trans-­mission corridors, permitting seral vegetation up to 10 ft in height (APA 1983a, p. E-3-526 4."·).

Fertilize and revegetate disturbed sites (APA 1983a, p. E-3-526 ~3).

Defer impoundment cl~aring until 3 or 4 years before filling; patches of vege­tation will be left until just before fiFing (APA 1983a, P• E-3-525 41:1).

* Fertilize and revegetate disturbed sites (APA 1983a, p. E-3-526 #3).

Clearing of impoundments prior to flooding and removal of floating debris to reduce hazards to crossing (APA 1983a, p. E•3-530 #9) wiLl aid dispersal but may not- compla(~ely mitigate barrier effects.

! !

(I) ~ffected

Species or Group

(P) Marten (cont.)

.(Q) Mink

(Il)

Potential Impact

Mechanism

(6) Increased hunting and trappinf pressure, and. poach­ing wil result in increased marten mortal{~.

(7) Disturbance and harassment because of construction activ­ities will cause permanent abandorJnent of areas.

(1) Construction and operation of the impoundments will re­sult in uermanent loss of mink habitat.

(2) For€st and brush clearing in the impoundment zone will result in habitat alteration and temporary habitat loss.

(III)

Imvact Assessment

Status

Important. Hunting and trap­ping can be regulated, but poaching losses may represent an unavoidable adverse impact (APA 1983a, Table E.J.157).

NoL tmportant. Marten are un­likely to be affected, or will be able to avoid developed areas. Not expected to be a significant imJ~Ct (APA 1983a, Ia.ble E.3.157).

Important. Elimination of a substRntial portion of good quality habitat (86 miles of mainstem p1.us 39 miles of stream habitat) will occur (APA 1983a, P• E~3-436, Table E.3.155).

. . Not imoortant. Short-tt--:m im­pact affecting t~e same popu­lations affected by imround­ment filling. 1mpact will occur 2 to 3 years prior to filling (APA 1983a, Table ?:.3.155).

(IV) Ongoing

and Planned Studies

* Previous studies have pro­vided sufficient information for impact assessment. No further studies planned.

Impact severity not sufficient to require further study,

Distribution of f•lrbearers in the downstream ar~a and in the impoundment zones will be >tudied (APA 1984b, FYBS Task 26, subtask 1).

Di~tribution of furbearp~s in the downstream area awl in the impoundment zones will be studies \,I.PA 1984b, FY85 Taslt 26, subtask 1).

(V) Proposed

Monitoring Activities

(VI)

Proposed Mitigation Measures

Page 40

Prohibit use of projP.ct facilities or equipment by employees and families for hunting and trapping (APA 1983a, p. E-3-534 4~14).

If needed, recommend restrictions ~o hunting and trapping regulations to r~duce harvest levels (APA 1983a, P• E-3-543 #14).

Prphibit major e-;:ound activity near sensitive wildlife areas during s~nsi­tive periods (APA 1983a, p. E-3-352 UO).

Discourage offroad recreational vehicle activity, and phasP in recreational plan to limit recreational impacts on vegetation and wildlife (APA 1983a, p. E-3-292 #16, ~7).

Prohibit public use of access road and airfield during construction (APA 1983a, p. E-3-534 #12, 14).

Defer impoundment cl~aring until 3 or 4 years before filling; patches of vege­tation will be left unti':!. just before filling (APA 1983a, p. E • .J.525 U).

Page 4~

' (I) (II) (III) (IV) (V) (VI)

Affected Potential 1mpnct Ongoing Proposed Proposed Species or Impact Assessment and Planned Monitoring Mi•-igat:ton

Group Mechanism Status Studies Activities Measures

(Q) ~i!nk (3) Access corridor construe- Not :Lnpcrtant. Proposed road ?revious studies provided suf- Minimize habitat loss by side borr· (cont.) tion and operation will result route witl ~emove 12.3 miles ficient infot~ation for impact techniques for road construction, sp~il

in permanent loss of stream of stream shore habitato along assessment. No further otud- deposition in impoundments or depleted habitats used by mink. Deadman Creek (APA 1983a, p. ies are plannecl. · borrow areas, and consolidation of

E-3-438). project facilities (APA ~983a, p. E-3-526 41:2).

Modifications of borrow requirements and techniques to minimize loss of hab-itat for aquatic furbearers (APA 1983a, p. E-3-536 #17).

Minimize loss of forest areas through ~

alignment of access road and transmis-sion corridors, and other measures {APA 1983a, p. E-3-539 41:23).

Minimize loss and alteration of habi-tat, pr-ticularly less abundant habi-tats and sensitive wildlife habitats (APA 1983a, p. E-3-291, 292 ~Fl-11).

r--

(4) Early successional pla~t Not important. This impact Impact sever'\ty not suffid.e,lt Fertilize and revegetate disturbed connnunities in areas reclain.~d represents a bensficia~ impact to require study. sites (APA 1983a, p. E-3-526 41:3). from construction activities to mink, although ben~fits will provide increased avail- .;~ill probably be of little ability of small mannnals. si~nificance (APA 1983a, Table

E,3.1'>5).

1---

(5) Habitat aleratinn down- Not tmportant. Impact may SurveyJ of furbearer pnpula- Enhance sloughs downstream from Devil stream from the impoundments represent a benefici~l effect tions and distribution in the Canyon (APA 1983a, p. E-3-537 ~19). will result in changes in the on mink (APA l983a, Table downstream area are planned m1nk population. E.3,l55). (APA 1984b FY85 Task 26, sub-

r task 1). • l I

:6) Increased huntin~ and Important. Hunting and trap- Surveys of trappers are con- Prohibit use of project facilities or traEEin~ Eressure 2 and Eoach- ping can be regulated, but tinuing to document current equipment by emp1oyees and families for In~ will result in increased poaching losses may represent harvest levels. hunting and trapping (APA 1983a, p.

· mink mortalitv. an unavoida~le adverse im)act E-3-534 4Fl4). (APA 1983a, Table E.3.155 •

If needed, recommend restrictions to hunting regulations to reduce harvest levels (APA 1983a, p. E-3-534 #14).

:

·-· I

Page 42

'0

(I) (li) {III) (IV) (V) (VI) Affected Potential Impact:

h Om going Proposed Proposed

SpecieP or Impact Assessment and Planned Monitoring Mitigation Grnup Mechanism Status Studies Activities cleasures

-· (Q) Mink {7) Disturbanct~ and harassment Hot important. ~ffects would This impact mechanism will Prohibi 0 major ground activity near

{cont.) because of const~Jcti~n and be most noticPable on the receive further attent:l.on sensiti ·e wildlife areas during sensi-r~creational activitiecl will remaining habitat areas along through continued impact tive periods (APA 1983a, p. E-3532 cause permanent abanconment of the upper reaches of tributary assessmex.+- refinement. ~~10). use areas. creeks nPar the {mpoundments

I (APA 1.983a, p. E··3-438, Table Discourage off-road recreati~nal vehi-E.3.1!>5). cle activity, and phase in of recrea-

tional plan to limit recreational im-pacts on vegetation and wildlife (APA l9B3a, p. E-3-292 #16t 11).

Prohibit public use of access road and airfield during construction (APA 1983a, p. E-3-534 #12, 14).

(R) Weasels (1) Construction and OEeration Important. Impact will rermlt Continued surveys of furbearer of the imEoundments will re- in loss of habitat for approx- qistribution will improve im-sult in ~ermanant loss of imately 5% of the population pact assessment and mitigation weasel habitat. --- of TJeasels within the middle planning.

~asin (APA 1983a, p. E-3-440 to 442).

(2) Access corridor construe- Important. Impact will likely Impact severity not sufficient Mi.nimize habitat loss by side borrow tion and oEeration will resuit result in redistribution of to require further study. techniques for road construction, spoil in permanent loss ot weaec-1 home ranges of affected fur· deposition in impoundments or depleted habitat. bearers (APA 1983a, p. E-3- borrow arees. and consolidation of

I 487, Table E.3. 157). project facilities (APA 1983a, p. En3-

526 if2).

Minimize loss of forest areas through alignme~t or ~he access road and trans-mission corridor, and o~~e~ ~~asures (APA 1983a, p. E-3-539 #23).

Minimize loss and alteration of babi-

J tat, particularly less abundant habi-tats and sensitive wildlife habitats (A'PA 1983a pp. E-3-291 to 292 #1-11).

,, -( 3) rores't and bru!sh clearing Not important. Short-term im- Continued surv~ys of £urbearer I Defer impoundment clearing until 3 or 4 in the impoundment ~one will pact that will precede habitat distribution will improve im- years before filling; patches of v~ge-~sult in habitat alteration loss due to impoundment pact asc~ssment and mitigation tation will be left until just before

: nd temporary habitat loss. filling (APA ~983a, Table planning. filling (APA 1983a, p. E-3-525 #1). E.3.l57).

,.

(4) Transmissi~a corridor con- Mot important. Impact will Previous studies have provided Selectively clear vegetation in trans-struction and operation will result in alteration of 3,831. sufficient information for mission corridor, permitting seral result in permanent loss oi acres of forest habitats ~se- impact assessment. No further vegetation up to 10 ft in height (APA forest babitat2 used by ful to weasels, but will be studies are planned. 1983a, p. E-3-526 #4). weasels. replaced by early sera! stages

of some use to weasels (APA Hinimize loss and alteration of habi-1983a, Table E.3.86). tat, particularly less abundant habi-

ta~s and sensitive wildlife habitats (APA 1983a, p. E-3-291 to 292 #1-11).

c

(~)

Affected Species or

Group

(R) Weasels (cont.)

Page 43

--------------------·-------------------------------------------------------------------------·------------------------~ (II)

Potential Impact

Mechanism

(5) Habitat alteration st bor­row sites and other reclaimed areas will t·esult in permanent loss Df forest habitats.

(.6) Increased vehicle traffic on access routes will result in increased weasel mortality.

(~ Construction and operation oi the projecc will create b •. r -riers and hinderances to w~asel movements.

(III)

Impact Aasessment

Status --Important. Removal of 3,341 ecres ~f spruce forest habi­tats. Revegetation will pro­bably not return habitat to spruce commuuities during the licenoe period (APA l983a, Table E,3. 157).

Not important. Impact not quantified but not expecte1 to be significant (APA l983a, Table E.3.157).

Not important. Weasels pro­bably align home ranges along r.ivers and other waterbodi~s. Redistribution of home ranges tc conform to impoundmer.ts and open river will occur (APA l983a, Appendix EllJ, Volume lOB Table E.3.1S7).

(IV)

Ongoing and Planned

Studies

Previous studies have provided sufficient information for impact assessment. No further studies are planned.

Impact severity not sufficient to require further st~dy.

Previous studies have provided sufficient information for impact assessment. No further work is planned.

I

(V)

Proposed ~lunitoring

Activit1es

Collect mortality data on road and railroad colli­sions (APA l983a, E-3-525 U).

(VI)

P4·opored Mitigation Measures

Fertilize and revegetate disturbed sites (APA l983a, p. E-3-526 #3). This will provide some foraging habitat prior to forest succession.

Use multilevel intake structures on th~ dams to maintain downstream river ter.r­peratures as close to normal as possi­ble (APA 1983a, p. E-3-526 #5).

r------------+-------·--------------------r-------------------------+---------------------------r-----·----------------~--------------------------------~

(8) Increased hunting and ~pping pressure, and poach­ing wifl result in increased weasel mort~l~.

Important. Eonting and trap­ping can be regulated, but poaching losses may represent an unavoidable adverse imeact (APA l983a, Table E.3.157,.

~

'

Surveys of trappers are con­tinuing to doct~ent current harvest lP.~els (APA 1984b, FY85 Task 20).

Prohibit use of project facilities or equipment by employees and families for hunting and trapping (APA l983a, p. E-3-534 4~14).

If needed, recommend restrictions to hunting and trapping regulations to reduce harvest levels (APA l983a, P• E-3-534 #14).

~----------~·-+------~----------------------~---------------.~· ·---------t-----------------------------r-----------------------~-----------------------------------~ (9) D:stUrbaC~P and harassment because of construction and

1 .. t'er;reaticnu.l a.cb.vities will.

cause pcrna.n~ot abandonment of use are:}s.

Not important. Wea~el are un­likely to be affected or will be able to avoid developea are~s. Not expected to be a significant impact (APA l983a, Table E.3. 157).

* Impact severity not suffi­cient to require further study.

Prohibit major ground activity near sensitive wildlife areas during sensi­tive periods (APA l983a, p. E-3-532 4Fl0).

Discourage off-road r~creational vehi­cle activity, and phase in recreational plan to limit recreational impacts on vegetation hnd wildlife (APA 1983a, p. E-3-292 UG, 17).

Prohit•t public use of access road and airfield during ~onstruction (APA 1983a, p. E-3-534 #12, 14).

I ~·--------~-------------~--------~----------------------~----------------------~------------------~----------------------------~

(I)

Affected Species or

Group

(S) Small Ma.lr.:na ls

tf) ~aterbirds

(II) {III) Potential Impact

Impact Assessi.;ent Mechanism Status

(1) Filling of the im..£_0~ I Important. Habitats lost are ments and construction of similar to those of birds [see other permanent project facil- Section (Z)(l)]. Normally ities will result in-permanent rapid population turnover habitat loss to smal~mammaiS7 rates and reshuffling of ter-

(2) Rev~getation on borro~­s~tes and other areas will increase populations of some small mammals.

(3) Small mammals that have recolonized disturbed areas in the impoundment clearing zone will be displaced during im­poundment filling.

(l) Construction of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project, including dams, reservoirs, camps, and other faci.lities, will result ln permanent loss of river, stream and lacu­strine habitats for water­birds.

ritories ~y small mammals will minimize limnediate impacts; however, long-term loss o£ habitat will reduce overall populations (APA 1983a, p. E-3-461; LGL 1985, Section 2.19).

Not important. Impact repre­sents a beneficial effect for some small mammal species (APA 1983a, p. E-3-462; LGL 1985, Section 2.19).

Not important. Temporary ad• verse impact., which resulted from a previously beneficial effect on small mammal popula­tions (APA l983a, Appendix Ell.J, Volume lOB; LGL 1985) Section 2.19).

Not important. Numbers of birds affected have not been estimated but imp~ct is un­likely to have a ~ajar popula­tion effect. Effects will be greatest on riverine species, particularly harlequin duck, common and red-breasted mer­gansers, spotted sandpiper, semipa'mated plover, and American dipper (APA l983a, pp. E-3-454 to 455; LGL 1985, Section 2.20).

(IV) Ongoing

and Planned Studies

Previous ntudies provlded suf­ficient information for impact assessment. No further stud­ies planned.

Impact severity not sufficient to re~uire study.

Impact severity not sufficient to require study.

Previous studies provided suf­ficent information for impact assessment. No further work is planned.

(V) Proposed

Monitoring Activities

Page 44

(VI)

Proposed Mitigation

Measures

Selectively clear vegetation in trans­mission corridors, permitting seral vegetation up to 10 ft in height (APA 1983a, P• E-3-526 #4).

Minimize loss and alteration of habi­tat, particularly less abundant habi­tats and sensitive wildlife habitats (APA 19'83a, pp. E-3-291 to 292 #l.-U/.

* Protect habitats on compensation lands to prevent further loss of habi­tat to development (L~ 1985, Section 2.19).

Selectively clear vegetation in trans­mission corridors, permitting seral vegetation up to 10 ft in height (APA 1983a, p. E-3-526 #3). l

Defer impoundment clearing until 3 or 4 years before filling (APA 1983a, p. E-3-525 4frl).

* Protect riverine habitats on compen­sation lands to benefit waterbirds by protecting habitat from further devel­opment.

,.

~------------4------------------------------r----------------·-----------7----------------------------~-----------------------4----------------------·----------~ (2) Impoundment clearing and facility site clearing will alter ~horeline nesting habi­tats.

Not: important. Temporary im­p<J.ct; in most areas preceding impoundment filling by 2 to 3 years (APA 1983a, p. E-3-455; LGL 19851 Section 2.20).

Impact severity not sufficient to require study.

Hinimb. habitat loss by side-borrow techniques for road constrJction, spoil deposition in impoundments or depleted borrow areas, and consolidation of project facilities (APA 1983a, p. E-3-5:G6 ifr2).

Design and align roads, railroad, and facilities to minimize impa~ts on w~t­lands (APA 1983a, P• E-3-292 #18, 19).

r - -(I) (II) (III) LV) (V) (VI) Affected Potential !mpact Ongoing Proposed Proposed

Species or !m'.>act Assessment and Planned Monitoring Mitigation Group i.'.iechanism Status Studies Activities Measures

- -(T) Waterbirds (3) Transmission c~rridor may * Importance not prec:licted. Surveys of all affected areas Collect information on Prohibit n1ajor ground activity within

(cont~) cross waterbird nesting areas Depending on coxridor align- for trumpeter s~mns and nests, swan nest locations 0.5 miles of waterbodies used by swans or movement corridors and will ment, impacts on waterbirds including the transmission throughout construction when they are present (APA 1983a, increase the probability of (particularly trumpeter swans) corridor are planned once (APR 1983a, p. E-3-525 p. E-3-532 ~10; LGL 1985, Section mortality from ~-ansmission may be important (LGL 1'~85, final selection of the trans- UO). 2.20). line collisions. Section 2.20). mission route~ are initiated.

Design and align roads, railroad, and facilities to minimize impacts on wet-lands (APA 1983a, p. E-3-292 #18, 19).

(~) Increased hunting and *Not importattt. Hunting can Impact severity not suffic!.~nt Prohibit us~ of project facilities or poaching will result in in- be regulated but increased to require study. equipment by e-.mployees .and families for ·creased mortality of game- poaching losses will probably hunting and trapping (APA 1983a, r. birds. not affect local population E-3-534 4.k14).

levels of gamebirds (LGL 1985, Section 2,20). If lll!eded, recommend restrictions to

hunting regulations to reduce harvest levels (APA 1983a, p. E-3-534 #1~).

(5) Disturbance of waterbirds * Importance not predicted. Impaet severity not sufficient Collect information on * Project aircraft \-rill maintain mini-in areas of intense human Local population effects could to requi~e study. swan ne$t locations mum altit,Jdes of JJO ft above ground acti11ity (e.g. construction occur if recreational use of throughout construction level (AGL) during flights and will zones, impoundment clearing ~ake systems in the project (APA 1983a, p. E-3-525 restrict activities within 0.25 mile of zones, aircraft landing areas vicinity ts high (LGL 1985, #10; APA 1905, FY86 Task important \vet lands (LGL 1985, Section and flight corriaors, and re- Section 2.20). 6; LGL 1985, Section 2.20). creational areas) will result 2.20). in birds avoiding preferred Aircraft will maintain a 0.25 mile habitats. 1,000 ft. AGL buffer around lakes used

by trcmpeter swans durin~ the nesting period (APA 1983a, p. E-3-531 #10; LGL 1985, p. 2.20-11)

Prohibit major grrJnd a~~i•~cy within 0.5 miles of waterbodies used by swans when swans are present (APA 1983a,

I p. E-3-532 ~10; LGL 1985, Section 2.20).

Discourage off-road recreational vehi-cle activity, a.nd phase in recreational plan to limit recreational impacts on vegetation and wildlife (APA 1983a, p. E-3-2'92 ~16, 17).

l Prohibit public use of access road and airfield during construction (APA 1983a, p. E-3-534 ~12, 14).

j (U) Bald (1) 1illin~ of the i.mEound- Important. Nestir.g location Food habits and foraging range * Surveys of middle basin * Build artificial nest sites for l.lald Eagle I ments will result in Eermanent loss will affect 2-3 pairs of of bald eagles will be stud- raptor nests and nesti~g eagles to compensate for the 3 nest

loss of 3 nesting locations bald eagles. Loss of hunting ied. Information will be used locations will contin~e to sites lost by inundation. A fourth and huntin8 habitat for bald habitat will not be aF L~por- for mitigation planning ef- document use areas prior nest site at the edge of the impound-eagles. tant as loss of nest sites, forts to help determine the to, during, and after con- ment will he stabilized to prevent

because ,~resence of suitable optimal locations of arti!i- structi.on (LGT.- 1985, Sec- damage by moving ice or other factors nest trees is probcbly more cial eagle nests. tion 3.4). and establishment of alternate artifi-limiting (APA 1983a, pp. E-3~ cial nest sites nearby is planned (LGL 443 to 1+51; LGL 19r ' .. ). 1985, Section 3.4).

'

(I) (II) (III}·

Affect«>d Potential Itnp<lCi: Species or Impact Assessment

Group M'.lchanism Status

-(IV)

Ongoing and Planned

Studies

(V}

Proposed Monitoring Activities

(VI)

Proposed Mitigation Measures

Page 45

t-----~------~----------------------------,-----------------------------r----------------------------r---------------~~--~------------------------------------; I (U) Bald

Eagle (cont.)

(2) Clearing of tt1e impound­ment zones will result in loss of 3 nesting locations (!of bald eagles.

(3) Impacts of erosion, blow­downs, etc., on forest vegeta­tion will result ln loss of nest sites and habitat alter­ation.

(4} Detrimental impacts on salmon and oth~r fish prey in downstream areas could affect bald eaBle habitat qualitv

Important. T,oss will affe.ct 2-3 pairs oi bald eagles but will be short ter.m, prior to peroanent loss as described in U-1.

Not important. Impacts not qua.lltifie:i, but not expe-cter;! to be significant (APA 1983a, Appendix EllJ, Volume lOB).

Not important. 1'roposed miti­gation of impact3 co salmon should also lessen impacts. on bald eagles. Not expected to be significant (APA 1983a, Appendix EllJ, Volume lOB).

Impact s~verity not sufficient to require study.

Surveys of bald eagle nest sites in do~nstre~ reaches are planned and will provide baseline population data for future monitoring studies.

* Surveys of m'ddle basin raptor nests and nesting locations will continue to document use areas prior to, during, .<;.nd after con­struction (LGL 1985, Sec­tion 3.4).

* Curteil clearing operations within 0.5 mile r~dius of nests within ~~e impoundment zone prior to impoundment filling (!..Gl 1985, Section 3 ·'•).

* Implement artificial nest site miti­gat.ion measures. See above io ll·l.

Impacts from decreased prey availabil­ity should be reduced by measures to mitigate impacts to salmon populations (APA 1983a, p. E-3-536 #16).

~------·-------------------- ---------------------~-----------------·---------------~---------------~--------·-------r--------------------------------~--------------------------------------------~ (5) Co~struction of the trans­mission line will result in increased electrocution of bal'' eagles.

(6) Disturbance along access corridors may result in aban­:,nment.of 2 bald eagle nests.

Importance not predicted. Impact difficult to quantify. Selected tower and line con­figuration for permar.ent transmission line is Ulllikely to caune eleetrocution. Elec­trocution mav occur on 34 kv ·construction- tra .. smission line if used (APA l983a, p. E-3-497, Table E.3.159; lCL 1985, Section 3.4). r

•; • •

Important. Nesting locations are within 0.5 mile of rail­road and just beyond 0.5 mile from access road.

Previou~ studies provided suf­ficient information for impact assessment. No further stud­ies are planned.

Surveys of middle basin raptor nests &nd nesting locations will continue to document use areas and potential disturbance effects prior to, during, and after construction (LGL 19&5, Section 3.4).

Use pole-line configurations and possi­ble perch guards to avoid rsptor elec­trocution on permanent transmission lines (APA 1983a, p. E-3-539 tF22; LGL 1985, p. 3.4-8). Use of diesel genera­tors for power sources during construc­tion may eliminate electrocution poten­tial ~·n temporary line (Lm. 1985, p. 3.4-8).

The Denali Highway-to-Wat~,a access road was realigned tc avoid (remain 0.5 miles distant from) the vicinity of nest BE~G, the recommended distance to avoid disturbance impacts (APA l983a, p. E-3-537 #10, Fig. E.3.81; LGL 1985, Section ~.4). The railroad route can­not be realigned to avoid nest BE-8 beyond 0.25 mites. Placement of arti­ficial nest st~cture farther away from the railroad will be done if distur­b;,.,tce effects occur (LGL 1985, Section 3.4).

Curtail construction activities during the sensiti~e (nesting) period in the vicinity of active nests (LGL 1985, Section 3.4).

"~I)

Affected Species or

Group

(II)

Potential Ill'lpact

Mechanism

(II!) (IV)

Impact Ongoing Assessment and Planned

Status Studies

Page 47

(V) (VI)

Proposed Proposed Monitoring Mitigation Activities Measures

-------------------------------------·----------------------------------------------------------------"--------------------------------~

l

(U) Bald E~gle (cc:tt.)

(V) Golden Eagle

{7) Disturbance along the tt:·ansmission route may result i,n abandonment of bald eagle nests.

(8) Increased aircraft traf­fic, construction activity and recreational activity that is facilitated by increased ac·· cess wiil result in distur­bance of bald eagles.

(1) Filling of the impound­ments will ~esult in loss of 5 nesting locations of golden eagles.

Not important. Impact not completely quantified, but not likely to affect bald eagles.

Imfortance not preaicted. Impact not quantified but may cause abandonment of nests or nest failure (APA 1983a, p. E-3-451 to 454, Table E.3. 159).

Important. Wi11~tresult in loss or dis~lacement ·~1. 2-3 pairs of eag1.es (LGL 1984, P• 7).

Surveys to identify bald eagle nest sites along the proposed tranfmission corridor are planned (APA 1984b, FY85 Task 27).

* Surv~ys of middle basin raptor nests and nesting loca­tions will continue to docu­ment use areas prior to, dur­ing, and after construction (LGL 1985, Section 3.4).

Surveys flown prior to line construction will identi~y any newly established nest sites which may ue located withi~ the corridor (APA

Present route has taken into considera­tion known bald eagle nests and will remain at least 0.5 miles from nest siteo (LGL 1985, Section 3.4).

1984b, FY85 Task 27). j

Collect information on ac­tive raptor nest locations throughout construction (APA 1983a, p. E-3-525 4i:9).

Aircraft will maintain minimum alti­tudes of 1000 ft above ground level. dL:ing flights \APA 1983a, p. E-3-531 UO).

Aircraft landin~s will be prohibited within 0.25 miles of active bald eagle nests between 15 March and 31 August (APA 1983a, p. E-3-531 *10),

Maintain adherence to raptor protection criteria (LGL 1985, pp. 3.4-2 to 3).

Changes in facility siting or alignment or in construction schedules to avoid disturbance to raptor nest sites (APA l983a, pp. E-3-533 #10, including spe­cific measures faY specific sites).

· Prohibit public use of access road and airfield during construction (APA 1983a, p. E-3·534 :fF12, 1/~).

Discourage off~road rec·reational vehi­cle activity, and phase in recreational plan to limit recreational :hnpacts on vegetation and wildlife (APA 1983a, p. E-3-292 #16, 17).

* Construction of artificial nest sites on nearby cliffs fo~ golden eagles are proposed to compensate for loss of nesting locations (APA 1983a, p. E-3-538 and. 539; LGL 1985, Appendix A). Hunting habitat exists mainly at eleva­tions above the impoundments and will not be affected.

~---------------+-----------·~------------------------+---------------------------------~----------·-·------------------t------------------------·--~-------------·----------~-------------~ (2) Construction of the trans­mission linE will result in increased electrocution of golden eagles.

Importance not prodicted. Impact difilcult to quantify. Selected tower &nd line con­fi&~ration for permanent transmissi ·n line is unli1cely to cause electrocution. Elec­trocutie may occur on 34 kv construction ~ransmission line if used (APA l983a, p. E-3-497, Table E.3.159; LGL 1985, Section 3.4).

Previous studies provided suf­ficient information for impact assessment. ~o further stud­ies are planned.

Page 48

.---~----------------------------------------------·----------------------------------------------------------------------. (!) (U) (III) (IV) (V) (VI)

Affected Potential Impact Ongoing ~ropose6 Proposed Species or Impact Assessment and Planned Monitoring Mitigation

Group Mechanism Status Studies Activities Measures

(V) Golden Eagle (cont.)

(3) Disturbance at borrow pits, near clearing activi­ties, and along the access corridor will result in ef­fective loss ~f nesting loca­tions.

*Importance not predicted. T~tal of 14 nesting locations are in areas subject to poten­tial disturbance effects {LGL 1984, pp. 2 to 4). Distur­bance effects at nest GE-18 may occur within 0.5 mile of the nest sites and will con­tinue through operation phases due to the presence of the transmission ~Qrridor, road, br:l.dge, and da!ll site (LGL 1.985, Section 3.4).

* Surveys ~f middle basin raptor nests and nesting loca­tions will continue to docu­ment use areas prior to, uur­ing, and following construe~ tion (LGL 1985, Section 3.4).

* Curtail clearing operations within 0.5 mile of any active nesting loca­tions during the sensitive (nesting) period (LGL 198~, Section 3.4).

* Curtail some borrow excavation activ­ities at affected pits during the sen­sitive period, if necessary, or, if im~ractical, construction of alternate artificial nest sites in nearby areas to compensate for effective nest loss due to disturbance (LGL 1985, Section 3.4).

* Build alternate nest site(s) for GE-18 if disturbance effects are anticipated (LGL 1985, Section 3.4).

~----------+--------------------------4-------------------------~----------------------~---------------------~---------·-----------------------~ (4) Increased aircraft traf­fic, construction activity, and recreational activity (fa­cilitated by increased access) will result in disturbance of golden eagles.

Not ~~portant. Impact not quantified but may cause at~n­donment of nests or nest fail­ure (APA 1983a, p. E-:-451 to 454, Table E.3. 159).

Collect information on ac­tive raptor nest locations throughout construction (APA 1983a, p. E-3-525 ifo9).

Aircraft will maintain minimum alti­tudes of 1000 ft AGL during flights (APA 1983a, p. E-3-531 #1.0).

Prohibit aircraft land~.ngs will be prohibited within 0.5 roiles of active golden eagle nests between 15 March and 31 August (APA 1093a, p. E-3-531 ~10).

Maintain adherence to aptor protection criteria (LGL 1985, pp. 3.4-2 to 3).

Implement changes in facility siting or alignment or in construction schedules to avoid disturbance to raptor nest sites (APA 1983a, pp. E-3-533 #10, in­cluding specific measures for specific sites).

Prohibit public use of access road and airfield during construction (APA 1983a, p. E-3-534 #12, 14).

Discourage off-road recreational vehi­cle activity; and phase in recreational plan to limit recreational unpacts on vegetation and wildlife (APA 1983a, p. E-3-292 ://:16, 17).

~----------~----------------------------~---------------------------~-----------------------+--------------------;-·--------------------·-----------1 (W) Gyrfalcon (1) Construction of Borrow

Site K and disturbance from the transmission corridor may result in loss o£ a nesting locations.

Not important. Recent sur~eys found no suitable nesting habitat for gyrfalcons within 0.25 mile of the borrow site or the tran~mission corridor.

t4aintain adherence to raptor protection criteria (LGL 1985, pp. 3.4-2 to 3).

~--~----------------------l_ _____________ ~-----------------~-----------------~-----------------------~

(I) Affected I Sped : r

(W} Gyrfalcon (cont.)

.

l-(X) Peregrine

Falcon

1

-

--·

{II)

Potential Impact

Hechanism

(2} Heman activities along the transmisoion corridor may re-sult in abandonrue:nt of several raptor and raven nests or nesting locations (including a peregrine falcon lest).

(3) Increase in aircraft r.raf-fie, construction activity, and recreational activity that is facilitated by increased access will result in distur-bance of gyrfalcons.

* (l) Potential improvement of nesting habitat because of impoundment filling.

* (2) Potential direct losses by electrocution on transmis· sion towers end power poles.

* (3) Potential direct losses Iro~ collisions with high-ten-sian wires and other man-made obstructions.

(III)

bpact Assessment

Status

Importance not predicted. Impact not completely quanti-fied but will affect 2 gyrfal-con nesting locations if con-struction activities occur during nest site attend~nce periods (}~A 1983a, pp. E-~-452 to 454, Table E.3.159).

Not ii:lportant. Impact not quantifie•l but may cause aban-donment of nests or nest fail-ure (APA l983a~ p. E-3-451 to 454, Table E.3. 159).

~ . .. • • <

* Importance not pr~dicted. Filling the Devil Cany~n im-poundment will alter local habitat and create a broan waterbody near some of the remaining cliffs that may make them more attr~~tive to peregrines.

* Not important. Impact not quantified, but unlikely to result in significant losses of peregrines.

r Not important. Im~a·~t not quantified but unlikely to result in significant losses of peregrines.

'

Page 49

l (IV) (V) (VI)

Cngoing Proposed Proposed and Planned Monitoring Mitigation

Studies Activities Measures

Surveys to look for and deter- Collect information on ac- Maintain adherence to raptor protection mine use of raptor nest sites tive raptor nest locations criteria (LGL 1985, pp. 3.4-2 to 3). along the transmission corri- throughout construction dors are planned once finali- (APA l983a, P. E-3-525 Implement changes in facility siting or zation of routes is completed. 4fo9). a1 isnment or in construction schedules

to avoid disturbance to raptor nest sites (APA l9R3a, pp. E-3-537 #20, E-3-533 #10).

Collect information on ac- Aircraft Will maintain minimum alti-tive raptor nest locations tudes of 1000 ft AGL during fligPts throughout construction (APA 1983a P• E-3-531 #10). (APA 1983a, p. E-3-525 ~}9). Prohibit aircraft landings within 0.25

miles of active gyrfalcon nests between 15 F~bruary and 15 August (APA 1983a, p. E-3-531 #10).

Maintain adherence to raptor protection criteria (LGL 1985, pp. 3.4-2 to 3) •

Implement change~ in facility siting or alignment or in construction schedules to avoid disturbance to rartor nest sites (APA 1983a, pp. E-3-533 ~10, in-eluding specific measures for specific sites).

Prohibit public use of access road airfield during construction (APA 1983a, p. E-3-534 #12, 14).

and

Discourage off-road recreational vehi-cle activity, and phase in recreational plan to limit recreational impacts on vegetation and wildlife (~PA l983a, p. E-3·292 #161 17) •

* Potential impact is positive * Surveys of middle basin * Potential impact is positive and and not of a level sufficient raptor nests 'dl1 continue mitigation measures are not required. to warrant further study. to document use areas

before, during, and after "Constructic: (LGL 1985, Appendix 2), .

* Impact severity not suffi- * Transmission towers and power poles cient to warrant further \~ill include designs that minimize study. electrocution of raptors.

* Impact severity not suffi• C'lent to warrant further study.

(!) Affecled

Species or Group

(:&:) Peregrine FC\lCOH. (cont.)

- 1H1 I "tential

Impact Me.;hanism

---~

* (4) Pf'tt:ntinl direr.t losses by shooti.ig re&t.Iti'i'g from in­ct~aseli re•,;rel:-.·i<'nal activi­Cias.

(III)

Impact Assessment

Status

* Not important. Impact not quantifi~ad but unlikely to result in significant losses of peregrines.

(IV) Ongoing

and Planned Studies

* Icpact severity not suffi­cient to ua:rrant further study.

.-(V)

Proposed Monitoring Activities -

(VI)

Proposed Mitigation Measures

Page 50

1'-----·--+-------<-o.--. ----!---------- ---+--·-----·------:f-----------+----------------·-1

I

* (5) Potential a;Januo,;Eent of nesting 1;-cc.tionu res'Ol'.. ~rlg ~rom distur.bance.

* Not important. Nesting sites for peregrine falcons were previously reported to be within one mile of the pro­posed t~ansmission line cross­ing of the Tanana River near Nenana (APA 1983a, E-3-497). However, surveys made in 1984 determined th~t the nearest historical neating location is 1.4 miles east of the trans­mi.E'sion line center1.ine {Roseneau 1984, LGL 19R5, Section 2.24), and construc­tion and maintenance activi­ties are unlikely to cause abandonment, provided they remain more than one cile from the nesting location Wenana Bluff No. 2}.

* Impact severity not suffi­cient to warrant further study.

* Surveys to monitor use of the nesting location near the transmission line crossing of the Tanana River a~e planned for the construction phase (APA 1983a, p. E-3-525 #9; LGL 1985, Section 2.24).

it Maintain adherence to raptor protec­tion criteria (Roseneau 1984; LGL 1985, Appendix 2).

A Section 7 Consultation (under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended in 1982) wi1' ~e held with the USFWS to ensure protection of the his­torical nesting location if (1) certain prohibited activities (e.g., blasting "rock crushing") are planned within two miles of the nesting location (see Roseneau 1984), or (2) if realignment would cause other disturbing activities (e.g., aircraft) to occur within one mile of the nesting location.

~----- ----~------------------------+------------------+--------------------r--------------+-------·--------------------~ CO Other

Raptors aud Raven

\1} Co11~tr _c.rion of impotmd·· ~ts, c.;..e~ .. ._!oad, borro•JII Sites, an~-.r permanent pr~ject facilities will result ~n k'"'"""'!:nl:mt loss of nestin~ -· illcat.ions and foragiflg habi-!!!!.·

Important. Complete quantifi­~ation for all raptors and rnvens is not possible but will affect northern goshawk, S~3rp-shinned ha~k~ red-tailed hawk, merlin, great horned owt., J;tortnern hawk-cwl, bore~! owl 1 <t"O!Iilfior. raven .rand possibly 11orthcrn h.1rrl.er, • great grav

f owl, anrl short-eated o~·rl-

1-·----·-+----------------!~--"· (2) Impot.ndment cleu.ring No'" important. Impact will activities will result in loss preacd~ eventual permanent

· habitat. Table K:.3.159) •

Previous studies have provided sufficient information for impact assessment. No further work is planned.

Previous ntudies have provided sufficient information for impact assessment. No further work is planned.

* Protect forested land on compensation lands and create openings for moose browse protect nest sites and provide foraging habitat for raptot's, although some absolute loss of habitat (parti­cularly for resident species) will probably occur a' a residual impact (LGL 1985, in prep.).

Defer impoundment clearing until 2 or 3 years before filling; (APA 1983a, p. E-3-537).

~ of nest sites a.~d foraging loss ty 2·3 years (APA l983a,

. --------~-------------------~----·--~---------l----------------1-------------~r-----------------------4 1

(3) Imvacts of erosion, blow· l. do:~s, etc., on forest vegeta­tion will Tesult i~ loss of nest sites and habita~ altera­tion.

(4) Huoan activi~ies along the transmission co:rrittN:'s may :.·e­sult in abandonment of ra~t~r or raven nests or neGtin& locations.

Not iPJ~ortant. Impacts not quantified, but not expected to be significart (APA 1983a, Appendix EllJ, Vnlun.e lOB).

Not igportant. Impact not quantified btrt not expected to be important.

Impact severity n~t sufficient to require study.

Planned surveys for trumpeter I. swan and bald eagle nests along the transmission corri­dor will also take note of obviol~ nests of other species.

Realign the transmission corridor in order to avoid known raptor nest sites. Clearing of the transmission corridor will probably improve hunting oppor­tunities for most species (LGL 1985~ in prep.).

L~--~---~~--~--~----~

,..-....-

I I I i

(I)

Affected Species or

Gi.i'Up

(Y) Ot~:l"r Imptorc 4nd Ra7•'n \cont.}

(Z) TP.rrestrial ::Hrds

-.:-...... .._. HI)

Potentio.l It:? act

Necbaaisn

(It!)

lmt~act

Aszassment Status

(IV) Ongoing

and. Planned Studies

(V)

Proposed Monitoring Activities

(Vl) Proposed

Mitigation Heasures

Page .::-1

--------------------------------------------------·-------------------·------------------------------------_,

I' (:;) Increased aircra.ft truf~ ~l.rr;portant. Im'(>acr. «o<-Hc~ construction <rctivi!':l', ~ ~~~ntiiiad lmt may eause a[,an-and recreational a :~ivi~y I. rloru::.en~ o'E ne.:~t"' ur- ne!.'t fail-

' facilit'lted by 1.'lcl!'ea-;ed •:re tAPA 1981;!1.1 p. ·~-3-451 to access, will causi! distur' , «·'i4; T;;~le B,.3, 1.59). banc:e. f

!.

l

Collect information on ac­tive raptor nest locations throughout construction (APA 198Ja, p. E-.3-525 4.19).

A~rcraft will maintain minimum alti­tudes of 1000 ft above ground level during flights (APA l.983a, p. E-3-531 .f/:10).

Maintain adherence to raptor protection criteria (LGL 1985, pp. 3.lt-2 to 3).

Implement changes in facility siting or alignment or in construction schedules to avoid disturbance to raptor nest sites {APA 1983a, pp. E-3-533 #10, in­cluding specific measures for specific sites).

Prohibit public use of access road and airfield during construction {APA l.983a, p. E-.3-534 #12, 14).

Discourage off-road recreational vehi­cle activity, and phase in recreational pJan to limit recreational impacts on vegetation and wildlife (APA l.98·3a, p. E-3-292 #16, 17).

--------------------+------------------------~---+--------~----~------------r-----------------------~----------------------------------~ (1) Filling of the impo'E!£:. ments and construction of pemanent tac;i.li~;ies will ro­sur t: '!n a permanent loss of, nabitat fnr birds.

Impo ... tant. Loe.s of 45:688 acres of habitats used by over 1no,ooo birus, resultin~ in loss and displacement of breedingJ migrating, and resi­dent birds particularly those reatricted to f'lresteti ~tabl­r.ats. Clearing will remove forested babltats 2-3 years priot" to fill.'.ng. Species preferring shrub or tundra habitats will not lm severely affected (APA :i.983a., pp. E-3-456 to 459, Tables·E.3.165 and 166; APt 1983b; L~ 1~85, Sec­tion 2.26),

Sutvays of rJinter birrt use of the im~o~'me,t zones ~ill be used to im~ro~re impact asseso­ment aud mitigation pl~nning effort's. ~UJ't,hers of birds af­fected will be revbetl tollow­ing ccapletion of vege~a~lon maps.

* Defer impoundment clearing until 3 or 4 years before filling; patches of vegetation will be left until just before filling (APA 1983a, E-3-525 ~1), and clearing requirements for many project facilities will be reduced (APA 1983a, p. E-3-253).

* Protert forest lands and proposed habitat compensation lands to benefit forest-inhabitating birds and provide some compansation for furthet loss of bird habitat (LGL 1985, Section 2.26).

---+1------------------------------+-------------------~-------~----------------------~--------------------------------------~ (2) Construction of tbv- trans- · * Not important. 1:. prclimi- Previous studi'?.s provided E:JJ£- Selectively clear vegctat.ion !.n trans-m~ssion corridors v7i:i.l alter nary estimate of 10,515 acres ficiant infqrmation :<:or iv.osct mission corridor, pe:nnitting seral habit"tts f\lr birds. indicates that habitat. for assessment. Numbers of ~irds vegetation up to 10 ft in height (APA

over 2,000 breeding birds will affected <-1itl be revised fol- 1983a, p. E-3-526 :/14). be affected. Forest-inhab- loWing compl;:.;tion of vegeta• iting species will be replaced tion maps and finalization of by birds preferring m~•e open the transmiBsion routes. habitats (APA 1983a, p. E-3-490; APA 19~3b, Tables E.3.7~, 80, and 86; LGL 1~85, Section 2.26).

~linimize loss of forest areas throug~ alignment of transmission corri1or (APA 1983a, p. E··3-539 ~ft23).

Minitnize loss and alteration of hab~.­tat, particularly less abund<.nt habi­tats and sensitive wildlife hubitats (APA l983a, pp. E-3-291 and 292 if:l-11).

* Protect forest habitat on compensa­tion lands to benefit forest-inhabiting species (LGL 1985, Section 2.26).

Page 52

I (I) (II) (III) (IV) (V) (VI)

Affected Potential Impact Ongoing Proposed Proposed

I_ Species or Impact Assessment and Planned Monitoring Mitigation

Group Mechanism Status Studies Activities Measures

~ .

(Z) Terrestrial * (3} Clearing for the access * Not important. Alteration * Previous studies pro~ided * Fertilize and revegetate disturbed Birds corridor and borrow sites will of 4,752 acres of habitat will sufficient i.nformation for im- sites (APA ~983a, p. E-3-526 ~3). (cont.) alter forest habitats for occur. Forest-inhabiting spe- pact assessment. Revised

birds. cies will be replaced by birds estimates of numbers of birds * Minimize alteration of less abundant preferring more open habitats affected will follow comple- habitats and sensitive wildlife areas (APA 1983b, Tables E.3.83 and tion of vegetation maps. {APA ~983a, pp. E-3-29~ to 292 ~~-J~). 84; LGL 1985, Section 2.26).

(4) Vegetation encroachment on Not important. Impact repre- Impact not sufficient to re- Collect data on changes in downstream river floodplains sent only a slight beneficial quire study. downstream vegetative will increase breeding habitat effect for most birds (APA cover (APA ~983a, p. E-3-for some species. 1983a, p. E-3-459). 523 4£2).

{5) Effects of erosion, blow- * Not important. Impact not Impact severity not sufficient downs, etc., on forest 7egeta- quantified but not expected to to require study. tion will result in a loss of be significantly widespread to . nest sites and forest habi· affect bird populations (APA tats. 1983a, Appendix EllJ, Volume

lOB).

I (6) Presence of transmission * Not important. Impact dif- Impact severity not sufficient lines, towers, and vehicles ficult to prevent but popula- to require study. will cause an increase in mor- tio~ loss is predicted to be tality from birds colliding insignificant (APA 1983a, with them. p. E-3-497; LGL 1985, Section

2.26).

(7) Increased hunting and * Not important. Hunting and * Impact severity not suffi• Prohibit use of project facilities or poaching ~ill increase po~ching may increase along cient to require further equipment by employees and families for mortalit}· of gamebirds. roads an~ at other access study. hunting and trapping (APA 1983a, p.

points but unlikelt to cause E-3-534 4/:14). important populati~n effects (LGL 1985, Section

12.26).

(8) Intense human activity in Not import'~nt. Not expected Impact severity not sufficient Discourage off-road recreational vehi-construction zones~ impound- to be significant. to require study. c~~ activity, and phase in recreational ments clearing zones, and ru- plan to limit re~reational impacts on creational areas will result vegetation and wildlife (APA 1983a, in avoidance of these area~ uy p. E-3-292 41'16, J.7). birds. .

Prohibit public use of access road and airfielu during construction (APA 1983a, p. E-3-534 #12, 14).

Page 53

LITERATURE CITED

Alaska Power Authority. 1983a. Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Application for license for major project. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Exhibit E. Anchorage. 13 volumes.

Alaska Power Authority. 1983b. Responses to FERC supple­mental information request of April 12, 1983. Filed with FERC Juiy 11.

Alaska Power Authority. 1984. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Responses to agency comments on license application -References. Submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on February 15, 1984.

Helm, D., W.B. Collins, and J.C. LaBelle. 1985. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Riparian vegetation succession report. Draft report by the University of Alaska Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station. Prepared under contract to Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture for the Alaska Power Authority. 185 pp.

LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc. 1984. Summary Statement on Nest Losses and ~onflicts for ~ald and Golden Eagles in the Susitna Hydroelectric Project Area. Report to the Alaska Power Authority~ Anchor~ge.

LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc. 1985. Susitna Hydro­electric Project, Mitigation Plan for Wildlife and Botanical Resources. Draft Report to Harza-Ebasco Susitna Jolnt Venture and Alaska Power Authority. Anchorage.

Hiller, S.D. 1983. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Phaoe II progress report. Big game studies. Vol. VI. Black bear and brown bear. Alaska Department of Fish an~ G&me. Anchorage. 99 pp.

Miller, S.D. 1984. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Phase II progress report. Big game studies. Black bear and brown bear. Alaska Department and G~me. Anchorage. 174 pp.

Draft Vol. VI. of Fish

R&M Consultants et al. 1985. Susitna River ice processes: Natural conditions and project effects of hydroelectric development. Draft report prepared for the Alaska Power Authority, Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Two volumes. 447 pp.