1.1.
Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study
1.2.
Requestor of Proposed Study
Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) anticipates a resource agency will request this study.
1.3.
1.3.1.
Responses to Study Request Criteria (18 CFR 5.9(b))
Describe the goals and objectives of each study proposal and the
information to be obtained.
The goals and objectives of the multi-year vegetation and wildlife habitat mapping study are to:





identify, delineate, and map vegetation and wildlife habitat types in the Project area in
GIS;
compare the vegetation mapping results with the 1987 vegetation mapping study
conducted in the original Susitna Hydroelectric Project (SHP) area (Kreig and Associates
1987);
quantify the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to vegetation and wildlife
habitats from Project construction;
evaluate potential changes to vegetation and wildlife habitats from Project operations,
maintenance, and related activities; and
develop measures to protect and mitigate for the expected Project-related impacts to
vegetation and wildlife habitats, and prepare plans to enhance (restore) vegetation and
habitats as appropriate.
The information to be obtained from the study includes:



1.3.2.
a summary of the types and areal coverage of vegetation and wildlife habitats that occur
in the Project area, along with descriptions of their plant community composition and, for
wildlife habitats, descriptions of associated physiography, surface form, and soil drainage
characteristics;
maps showing the distribution of vegetation types and wildlife habitats in the Project area
and a geospatially-referenced relational database of vegetation and habitat data collected
during the 2012, 2013, and 2014 field seasons, including representative photographs of
vegetation types, landscape features, and soil characteristics; and
a comparative analysis of changes in vegetation types and/or vegetation structure relative
to the earlier (1987) mapping in the SHP area.
If applicable, explain the relevant resource management goals of the
agencies or Indian tribes with jurisdiction over the resource to be
studied.
There are no specific management goals for vegetation and wildlife habitats in Alaska. Federal
and state management goals for bird and mammal species are described in the various FERC
study requests for field surveys of birds and mammals for the proposed Project. Most of those
management goals have a habitat component, in which the maintenance of habitats for the
species or species group in question is part of the overall management goal(s). The results of the
Susitna–Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC # 14241
Vegetation and Habitat Mapping Study Request, 5/04/2012
Alaska Energy Authority
Page 1
vegetation and wildlife habitat mapping study will help in identifying which vegetation and
habitat elements should be included in the compensatory mitigation plan (for the loss of wildlife
habitats) and what specific actions should be implemented to satisfy mitigation requirements.
1.3.3.
If the requestor is a not resource agency, explain any relevant public
interest considerations in regard to the proposed study.
Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), as the license applicant, assumes that this study will be
recommended by resource management agencies during the study plan development process.
1.3.4.
Describe existing information concerning the subject of the study
proposal, and the need for additional information.
Several researchers contributed to vegetation mapping for the original SHP in the 1980s (see
AEA 2011). Maps were created by photo-interpretation of aerial photographs and the use of
ground-truth data for photo-signatures. Map polygons were delineated by hand on mylar or
acetate placed over aerial photographs and topographic maps.
During 1980–1982, the University of Alaska Agricultural Experiment Station (UAAES) mapped
vegetation communities classified to the Level III of the first version of the Alaska Vegetation
Classification (AVC; Viereck and Dyrness 1980); this mapping made use of ground-truth field
data collected in 1980 (McKendrick et al. 1982). The UAAES mapping covered a narrow
corridor confined to the Susitna River floodplain upstream from Talkeetna, expanded outward to
the basin level at Devils Canyon, and continued upstream from there (ABR 2011). Map scales
were 1:24,000 for the areas that would have been impacted directly and 1:250,000 for the
remainder of the basin. In addition, the area extending 16 km (10 mi) in all directions from the
upper Susitna River between Gold Creek and the mouth of the Maclaren River was mapped at a
scale of 1:63,360. A 1:24,000-scale map of “apparent wetlands” also was produced. The
1:63,360-scale map area included the SHP central transmission-line corridor, which ran along
both sides of the Susitna River between the original proposed Watana Dam site to Gold Creek.
The mapping completed by Kreig and Associates (1987) covered parts of the upper and middle
Susitna basin, from near the mouth of the Oshetna River (upstream of the Watana Dam site) to
just downstream of the Devils Canyon Dam site. That mapping effort focused on habitats
important for moose forage. Mapping was performed at the 1:63,360 scale and incorporated the
earlier mapping conducted by UAAES (McKendrick et al. 1982). Vegetation types with high
forage values (mainly shrub and forest types) were mapped to the AVC Level IV (vegetation
structure combined with dominant plants). A relational database of attributes for every polygon
was developed and exported in digital format to floppy disk, and those data were provided to
ADF&G.
Although the vegetation mapping conducted in the 1980s provides an overview of the vegetation
types that occur in the Project area, the maps are likely to be outdated because of changes in
landscape characteristics over the intervening 25 years. Vegetation and habitat changes may have
occurred in response to fire, insect outbreaks, development, and climate change. In particular,
increases in woody shrub habitats, reductions in forest cover from fires and insect outbreaks, and
permafrost degradation have been documented in recent decades in interior Alaska. These
Susitna–Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC # 14241
Vegetation and Habitat Mapping Study Request, 5/04/2012
Alaska Energy Authority
Page 2
landscape changes will not be represented in vegetation mapping data from the 1980s. In
addition, the vegetation maps do not include information necessary to describe wildlife habitats.
The vegetation and wildlife habitat mapping study proposed here will involve an integrated
approach to the mapping of vegetation and wildlife habitats (see Criterion 1.3.6 below), based on
methods developed for Ecological Land Surveys (ELS) studies conducted in tundra, boreal
forest, and coastal regions in Alaska (see Jorgenson et. al. 2003 for an example study in southcentral Alaska).
1.3.5.
Explain any nexus between project operations and effects (direct,
indirect, and/or cumulative) on the resource to be studied, and how the
study results would inform the development of license requirements.
Project construction and operations and maintenance activities will affect vegetation both
upstream and downstream of the proposed dam, as well as along access road and transmission
line routes. Project effects will include direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on vegetation and
wildlife habitats. The vegetation and wildlife habitat mapping study will provide information
necessary to (1) quantify the loss of vegetation types and wildlife habitats from development of
the proposed Project; and (2) evaluate potential direct and indirect effects of Project operations
and maintenance on vegetation and wildlife habitats. Following a complete assessment of the
expected Project-induced impacts, mitigation measures can be developed to address adverse
impacts.
The vegetation and wildlife habitat mapping study will help to address the following issues
identified in the PAD (AEA 2011):




losses of vegetation types and productivity from reservoir inundation and the
development of other Project facilities (direct effects);
changes to vegetation types along access roads, transmission corridors, and reservoir
edges due to alteration of solar radiation, temperature moderation, erosion and dust
deposition, reservoir fluctuation, and pathogen dispersal and abundance;
potential introduction of invasive plants (see Criterion 1.3.6 below) due to Project
construction; and
potential changes in rare plant populations (see Criterion 1.3.6 below) related to the
development of the reservoir, access road and transmission line facilities, and
construction and operation activities, including erosion and dust deposition.
In the vegetation and wildlife habitat mapping study, ABR vegetation ecologists will determine
the number of acres and distribution of vegetation types and wildlife habitats to provide a basis
for impact analyses and the development of mitigation measures. Data from the study will also
be used to augment information obtained in the wetland mapping, rare plant, and invasive plant
studies.
1.3.6.
Explain how any proposed study methodology (including any preferred
data collection and analysis techniques, or objectively quantified
information, and a schedule including appropriate field season(s) and
the duration) is consistent with generally accepted practice in the
Susitna–Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC # 14241
Vegetation and Habitat Mapping Study Request, 5/04/2012
Alaska Energy Authority
Page 3
scientific community or, as appropriate, considers relevant tribal values
and knowledge.
The study area for the mapping of vegetation and wildlife habitats will be formally defined in
consultation with management agency personnel over the course of developing the 2013–2014
study plan, but a working study area for the 2012 season includes all areas within a 5-mile buffer
surrounding the proposed reservoir impoundment zone, the infrastructure of the dam and
powerhouse and supporting facilities, the access route and transmission-line corridors, and
material sites.
An integrated mapping approach is proposed for the vegetation and wildlife habitat mapping
study, which would involve mapping terrain units such as vegetation type, physiography, surface
form, and disturbance type, and then combining them into units with ecological importance (in
this case wildlife habitats). The proposed integrated terrain unit (ITU) mapping methods are
flexible and well suited to the use of existing GIS data layers for terrain units (when available).
The method of combining various ITUs allows for the preparation of a number of thematic maps
depending on the specific needs of the Project. For the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, we
are proposing the development of a vegetation map at the Level IV of the AVC (Viereck 1992)
and a wildlife habitat map based on the best combination of ITUs, to yield a habitat map that
accurately reflects use by wildlife. A concerted effort will be made to incorporate data from
existing vegetation mapping layers (McKendrick et al. 1982, Kreig and Associates 1987).
Ground-truth surveys will be conducted in the field to verify the photo-signatures to be used in
the mapping of vegetation and wildlife habitat types. At each survey plot visited in the field, a
number of variables will be recorded, including vegetation, physiography, and surface form
classes, visual plant cover estimates for all plant species present, and site characteristics such as
vegetation structure, landscape position, soil characteristics, and plant phenological observations.
Any wildlife observations, signs of wildlife use, and occurrences of rare and invasive plants also
will be recorded. All field data will be recorded digitally using a standardized data entry form
designed to link directly to a widely available relational database format (Microsoft Access), and
this database will be prepared as a study deliverable.
Preliminary vegetation and habitat maps will be prepared before the field surveys, and once
those maps have been verified and corrected, as needed, using field data, the various attributes
assigned to each polygon will be combined to produce a large number of preliminary habitat
types. The preliminary habitats then will be aggregated into a smaller set of derived habitat types
that share similar characteristics considered important to wildlife, such as the expected levels of
available food sources and cover for escape and/or shelter. These factors can be directly related
to vegetation and physiography types, soils, hydrology, microtopography (surface forms), and/or
microclimates. When the aggregation process is complete, a number of summary statistics will
be generated using standard ArcGIS geoprocessing techniques.
The ITU mapping approach proposed here has been used to support vegetation and habitat
analyses for a variety of projects in Alaska, including developing land resource management
plans for military lands (Ft. Wainwright [Jorgenson et al. 1999], Ft. Greely [Jorgenson et al.
2001] and Ft. Richardson [Jorgenson et al. 2003a]); ecosystem inventories in national parks
Susitna–Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC # 14241
Vegetation and Habitat Mapping Study Request, 5/04/2012
Alaska Energy Authority
Page 4
(Wrangell-St Elias National Park and Preserve [Jorgenson et al. 2008] and Arctic Network of
Parks [Jorgenson et al. 2009]); and as part of environmental evaluations and impact assessments
(e. g., Northern Petroleum Reserve Alaska [Jorgenson et al. 2003b] and the proposed Pebble
Mine [ABR, Inc. 2012]).
1.3.7.
Describe considerations of level of effort and cost, as applicable, and
why any proposed alternative studies would not be sufficient to meet
the stated information needs.
An alternative to the vegetation and wildlife habitat mapping study would be to use the
vegetation mapping that was prepared for the Project area in the 1980s, with supplemental
mapping conducted in areas where no previous mapping was prepared. As previously discussed,
however, notable changes in plant community composition and vegetation types may have
occurred since the original vegetation maps were prepared. In addition, the 1980s maps were
prepared at a variety of scales (1:24,000 to 1:250,000), which would make it difficult to
consistently and accurately derive habitat types from the variably mapped vegetation classes.
This would diminish the effectiveness of the habitat map for wildlife habitat evaluations and
impact analyses for wildlife habitats.
The vegetation and wildlife habitat mapping study is planned as a 3-year effort, with field
sampling conducted each year by 4 observers (2 crews of 2 each) during the summers of 2012,
2013, and 2014. Surveys would be conducted for approximately 20 days in each year, depending
on the needs for additional ground-verification data (less extensive field surveys may be needed
in 2014 as the mapping of the study area progresses). Field surveys will be conducted in
conjunction with the wetland mapping study to maximize efficiency and reduce costs. For
example, where appropriate, in this study field data will be collected that are consistent with U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) requirements for conducting wetland determinations. The
vegetation and wildlife habitat mapping study will involve extensive, office-based activities to
delineate vegetation and habitat boundaries in a GIS and to prepare study reports. The
approximate total cost for this study over the course of all three years is on the order of
$1,000,000.
1.3.8.
Literature Cited
ABR Inc. 2012. Pebble Project environmental baseline document 2004 through 2008. Chapter
16: Wildlife and Habitat Bristol Bay Drainages. Section 16.1. Final report to The Pebble
Partnership. Anchorage, AK. 657 pp.
AEA (Alaska Energy Authority). 2011. Pre-Application Document: Susitna-Watana
Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241. December 2011. Prepared for the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission by the Alaska Energy Authority, Anchorage, Alaska.
Jorgenson, M.T., J.E. Roth, M.K. Raynolds, M.D. Smith, W. Lentz, A.L. Zusi-Cobb, and C.H.
Racine. 1999. An ecological land survey for Fort Wainwright, Alaska. CRREL Report 99-9.
Susitna–Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC # 14241
Vegetation and Habitat Mapping Study Request, 5/04/2012
Alaska Energy Authority
Page 5
Jorgenson, M. T., J.E. Roth, M.D. Smith, S. Schlentner, W. Lentz, E.R. Pullman, and C.H.
Racine. 2001. An ecological land survey for Fort Greely, Alaska. Technical Report
ERDC/CRREL TR-01-4.
Jorgenson, M. T., J.E. Roth, S.F. Schlentner, E.R. Pullman, M. Macander, and C.H. Racine.
2003a. An ecological land survey for Fort Richardson, Alaska. ERDC/CRREL Technical
Report 03-19. 101 pp.
Jorgenson, M.T., J.E. Roth, M. Emers, S. Schlentner, D.K. Swanson, E. Pullman, J. Mitchell, and
A.A. Stickney. 2003b. An ecological land survey for the Northeast Planning Area of the
National Petroleum Reserve Alaska, 2002. Report for ConocoPhillips, Anchorage, AK, by
ABR, Inc., Fairbanks, AK. 128 pp.
Jorgenson, M.T., J.E. Roth, P.F. Loomis, E.R. Pullman, T.C. Cater, M.S. Duffy, W.A. Davis, and
M.J. Macander (ABR, Inc.—Environmental Research & Services), and J. Grunblatt (National
Park Service). 2008. An ecological survey for landcover mapping of Wrangell-St. Elias
National Park and Preserve. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/WRST/NRTR—
2008/094. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. D-100.
Jorgenson, M. T., J. E. Roth, P. F. Miller, M. J. Macander, M. S. Duffy, A. F. Wells, G. V. Frost
and E. R. Pullman. 2009. An ecological land survey and landcover map of the arctic network.
Natural Resources Technical Report NPS/ARCN/NRTR—2009/270. National Park Service,
Fort Collins, Colorado. Prepared by ABR, Inc.--Environmental Research & Services. 307 pp.
Kreig and Associates. 1987. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, vegetation mapping final report and
user guide. Report by Ray A. Kreig and Associates, Inc., Anchorage, for Harza–Ebasco
Susitna Joint Venture, Anchorage. 92 pp. [APA Doc. No. 3509].
McKendrick, J.D., W. Collins, D. Helm, J. McMullen, and J. Koranda. 1982. Susitna
Hydroelectric Project environmental studies, Phase I final report, Subtask 7.12—Plant
ecology studies. Report by University of Alaska, Agricultural Experiment Station, Palmer,
for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage. 124 pp. + appendix. [APA Doc. No. 1321]
Viereck, L.A., and C.T. Dyrness. 1980. A preliminary classification for the vegetation of Alaska.
General Technical Report PNW-106, Portland, OR. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Forest and Range Experiment Station, 38 pp.
Viereck, L.A., C.T. Dyrness, A.R. Batten, and K.J. Wenzlick. 1992. The Alaska vegetation
classification. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-286. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 278 pp.
Susitna–Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC # 14241
Vegetation and Habitat Mapping Study Request, 5/04/2012
Alaska Energy Authority
Page 6