HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA555!
I I .
SUStTNA HY~)ROELECTR~C ?RO~jECT
TASK ~,-ENV~RONMEN"Tt\l.
sus·rASK 7. o~
SO ·: ~OE.C0•'40MIC ANALYSIS
50CIOCULTURJl\L REPORT
FINAL DRAFT
MARCH 1982
r• t~ ..
I I I
I • .
'r
I Pr epP.;ed by: Pr'3pa ~ed for:
1 s n:PHEN R. BR~uNo I t.N b ASSOCIATES
~-:::. ALASKI-\ POWEfi
•• _ .... •.•1."'1 •.
r ! I I ! illllll ii !
I i
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Prepared by:
STEPHEN R. BRAUND
AND ASSOClATES
TASK 7-ENVIRONMENTAL
SUBTASK 7.05
SOCIOECONOMIC ANALYSIS
SOCIOCULTURAL REPORT
FINAL DRAFT
MARCH 1982
Prepared for:
L---ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY __ ___,
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
SOCIOCULTURAL STUDIES
Submitted to
ACRES AMERICAN INC.
by
Stephen R. Braund
Thomas D. Lonner
Stephen R. Braund & Associates
P.O. Box 1480
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
March 1982
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION •••••••••••••••••••• •i •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1
2.0 SOUTHERN COMMUNITIES: Talkeetna, Trapper Creek,
and Railroad Communi ties
North of Talkeetna ...•.••••.••.•••••.. 4
2.1 SETTLEMENT PATTERNS .•••..•••...••.•..••••......••••••.•.•••...•••..• 4
2.1.1 Introduction .......................................................... 4
2.1.2 Talkeetna .......................................... ~.················· 5
2.1.3 Trapper Creek ...................................................... 9
2.1.4 Railroad Communities North of Talkeetna .••......••• 12
2.2 ECONOMIC OVERVIEW ...••••••.•..••.••...•••.••••..•••...•••••••......•••. 19
2.2.1 IntroduCtion .......................................................... 19
2.2.2 Talkeetna ................................................. ............ 20
2.2.3 Trapper. Creek ...................................................... 22
2.2.4 Railroad Communities North of Talkeetna •.....•••••• 23
2.3 POLITICS AND RESPONSE CAPACITY ............................. 25
2.3.1 Introduction .......................................................... 25
2.3. 2 Talkeetna ..•••••.•••.•••••.•.......•••.•••..••••••...•.... ••••....•... 27
2.3.3 Trapper Creek ...................................................... 31
2.3.4 Railroad Communities North of Talkeetna ••.....•.•.• 35
2.3.5 Response Capacity ............................................... 37
2.4 ATTITUDES TOWARD GROWTH, CHANGE, AND
ECOI\IOMIC DEVELOPMENT .......•••.......••••••••.......•••....•....•• 42
2.5 LAND AVAILABILITY ........................................................ 47
2.6 SOCIOCULTURAL IMPACTS .............................................. 49
2.6.1 Introduction •...•••••.........••......•. ·.•••........••••••.......•.•.. 49
2.6.2 Trapper Creek ••.••.....•...•..........••........•..•.•...•...•••... 50
2.6.3 Talkeetna ............................................................. 55
2.6.4 Railroad Communities North of Talkeetna .....••••... 56
2.6.5 Hurricane/Parks Highway Area ..•••..•.•.•.•.•.........•... 58
3.0 NORTHERN COMMUNITIES: Cantwell and McKinley
3.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS •..•....••••..••. 60
3.2 SOCIOCULTURAL IMPACTS (CANTWELL).......................... 66
4.0 REFERENCES ••.••......•.••.........•••••.....•.•.........•......•..•.•.........•......... 68
APPENDIX 1: Susitna Hydroelectric Sociocultural Studies Access Report (October
9, 1981).
APPENDIX 2: Susitna Hydroelectric Sociocultural Studies Access Report Addendum
Ill (November 1981).
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Because of the intensity of local residents' concerns related to potential impacts on
existing values and lifestyles, the Alaska Power Authority (APA) and Acres
American, Inc. added this sociocultural study to their original work plan. The
purpose of this report is to describe and analyze baseline sociocultural conditions
and provide a preliminary analysis of potential sociocultural impacts on those
communities most likely to be directly affected by the Susitna Hydroelectric
Project. The sociocultural categories addressed for the southern communities
include: settlement patterns; economic conditions and values; political systems and
community response capacity; and local attitudes toward growth, change, and
economic development. These topics are addressed at the local community level.
Residents' priorities related to access routes are discussed in the appendices.
The sociocultural impacts are based on socioeconomic data supplied by other
subcontractors. This information, supplied by others, includes descriptions of
baseline population and employment forecasts, project manpower requirements,
description of construction camp facilities, distribution of workers and new
residents to nearby communities, and socioeconomic effects of this in-migration on
governmental facilities and services. From this information, a preliminary analysis
of sociocultural impacts was developed.
-1-
The sociocultural study area and this report are divided into two major sections:
the southern communities, which include Talkeetna, Trapper Creek, and the railroad
communities north of Talkeetna (Chase, Curry, Sherman, and Gold Creek); and the
northern communi ties which include Cantwell and McKinley. Two researchers
worked on this project: Stephen Braund, who researched and wrote the baseline and
impacts related to the southern communities as well as the two Access Reports
attached as appendices; and Thomas Lonner, who researched and wrote the section
on the northern communities of Cantwell and McKinley.
Once the proposed access route to the project was identified as a highway
connected with both the Parks Highway at Hurricane and the Alaska Railroad at
Gold Creek, and not a road off of the Denali Highway near Cantwell, the potential
project related impacts on the northern communities greatly diminished. Conse-
quently, in this report, the northern communities are not addressed to the same
level of detail as those settlements further south. Section 3.1 does provide a
summary of findings and conclusions related to Cantwell and McKinley. (On file at
the Alaska Power Authority's Public Participation Office is a detailed draft report
on the sociocultural systems of Cantwell and McKinley).
The research for this report was conducted primarily from June through October of
1981. Much of the information was gathered during informal interviews with
community residents, Matanuska-Susitna Borough officials, and other knowledgeable
people. These interviews consisted primarily of a number of open-ended questions
which allowed residents to express their thoughts related to a variety of relevant
topics. The researchers did not use formal questionnaires, but asked standard
-2-
questions in all communi ties. These questions attempted to identify key
sociocultural issues related to hydroelectric development in the region. In addition
to the informal interviews, the researchers analyzed testimony and transcripts of
public meetings related to the Susi tna project; reviewed APA correspondence files
and meeting notes; and reviewed Matanuska-Susi tna Borough planning documents,
relevant reports, correspondence files, and a 1978 questionnaire related to study
area residents' priorities and goals. Also, a brief review of the past history and
settlement patterns of the study communities proved most useful.
-3-
2.0 SOUTHERN COMMUNITIES
2.1 SETTLEMENT PATTERNS
2.1.1 Introduction
Although in no way as dynamic as the population increases in the southern portion
of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, the settlement patterns in the communities in
the southern sociocultural study area (Talkeetna, Trapper Creek, and the railroad
communities north of Talkeetna) has not been static. In fact, given the greater
distance from Anchorage (which precludes them as bedroom communities to
Anchorage) and the relative lack of local economic opportunity, the influx of people
into these rural communities is surprising. A brief review of the settlement
patterns in these study communities is helpful in understanding local residents'
reasons for moving to the area, their values and priori ties, and their attitudes
toward change, economic development, and growth in the upper Susitna valley.
The settlement of the southern study area occurred in several distinct phases as
different groups of people were attracted to this subregion for various reasons.
Although the area's abundant natural resources comprise the basis for the attraction
to the area, people who, over time, settled in the communities can, in general, be
broken into two groups: those who came primarily to develop and extract and those
-4-
who came primarily to enjoy the natural resources. These two motives should be
viewed as extremes on a continuum which represents the entire spectrum of local
residents' values, motives, and attitudes. These two viewpoints still exist today,
and although they represent different philosophies toward rural environments, all
residents appear to have one commonality --their desire to live in a non-industrial,
relatively rural setting. This analysis of extremes does not mean that one who
came to extract (e.g. a miner) did not also enjoy the natural environment. Also,
not all groups neatly fit into the extremes of this continuum (e.g. the homesteaders
who came to farm the land around Trapper Creek). But these minor problems do
not overshadow the usefulness of this analysis as it reflects the current dichotomy
in the study area. Thus, this section on settlement patterns will briefly summarize
who came, when they came, and why they came to this subregion.
2.1.2 Talkeetna
Located at the confluence of the Susi tna, Chulitna, and Talkeetna Rivers approxi-
mately 114 miles north of Anchorage, Talkeetna is reportedly the site of a Tanaina
Indian village (Orth 1971). Although little information is available related to the
Tanaina habitation in this immediate area, long-time Talkeetna residents still refer
to their community as a "village". This reflects their view of Talkeetna as a small,
rural community which has a meaningful continuity with its past.
The discmrery of gold in the area in 1896 provided the impetus for Talkeetna's
colorful history as an early Alaskan mining town. Beginning in the early 1900's,
prospectors, miners, and freighters used Talkeetna as their base of operations for
-5-
the highly mineralized Yentna Mining District 50 to 60 miles west and northwest of
town. Many miners worked their claims in the summer and wintered in Talkeetna,
the closest community to the mining. district. Others left Alaska or wintered in
Anchorage, while some miners remained in the area and trapped. Thus, trapping
added to Talkeetna's historic economy, until fur prices declined in the 1940's.
The construction of the Alaska Railroad added to the growth in the area, and in
1920 a railroad station opened in Talkeetna, which quickly became the railroad's
district headquarters. The railroad greatly increased access to the upper Susitna
valley, and numerous miners entered the area in the 1920's and 1930's. Talkeetna
flourished as the operations base for local miners and trappers, who would take the
train from Anchorage to Talkeetna, spend a few days in town, and cross the Susi tna
River on their way to the mining district. Talkeetna's Fairview Inn, built in 1920,
was (and remains today) a popular gathering place for townspeople, local miners,
and travellers.
By 1939, most of Talkeetna's 136 residents were prospectors, miners, and trappers,
many of whom were older bachelors. Apparently, few young pepple or families
resided in the community at this time. After the Talkeetna airfield and FAA (CAA)
facility were constructed in 1940, more families moved in to work for the
government. The new airfield accommodated continual activity as pilots flew
miners back and forth from their claims. Thus, by World War II, the two primary
means of transportation in the area were railroad and air, and Talkeetna was a
center for,_both.
-6-
The establishment of transportation (Alaska Railroad and FAA) and communication
(COMSA T, now RCA) operations in Talkeetna created new jobs and attracted new
families. The result was a relatively stable, year-round economic base for a very
few people. Previously, local employment opportunities had been primarily seasonal
(mining, trapping, fishing, lodges) with only a few, low volume year-round businesses
(lodges and stores). To meet the educational needs of the new families, a one room
school house for grades 1 through 8 was built in Talkeetna in 1936.
As the gold rush era ended, Talkeetna entered a new period, which extends into the
present, based on tourism and recreation. Beginning in the 1950's, Talkeetna
became the center of operations for mountaineering expeditions to Mt. McKinley.
People from all over the world come to this old mining town to have local bush
pilots fly them to the base of Mt. McKinley. In addition to mountain climbing,
other recreational activities (hunting, fishing, guiding, and tourism) developed as the
basis of Talkeetna's economy since the 1940's and 1950's. Many people originally
came to the area as tourists and stayed because they enjoyed the rural, natural
setting of the community.
More than any other recent development, the construction of the Parks Highway and
the Talkeetna Spur Road paved the way for rapid change in the community. Before
the road was constructed in 1965, Talkeetna was a very isolated community. The
only access was by plane, boat, or train, and although the FAA facility did form a
separate compound, the 76 residents of Talkeetna in 1960 comprised a very close-
knit comiTJunity. Once it was connected to the main highway system, Talkeetna
became much more accessible to the population centers further south, especially
Anchorage. Consequently, more and more people gradually came into the area for
-7-
recreational (sightseeing, hunting, fishing, and mountaineering) and residential
purposes. Land was sold, and people built new homes. Although no single boom
really occurred, Talkeetna's population steadily increased as more families were
attracted to the area. This trend continues into the present.
Talkeetna's character as an old-timer's bachelor town comprised of miners and
trappers gradually changed as younger, more family oriented people moved .into the
community. Residences grew along the Talkeetna Spur Road as well as other areas
around the community. Because families and an increased population require more
services than bachelor miners and trappers, Talkeetna's infrastructure, although still
relatively meager, increased (e.g. schools, fire service area, library, ambulance
service, electricity, and state and federal agencies).
Many of these people who moved to Talkeetna in the late 1960's and throughout the
1970's sought what they considered the best of two worlds: life in a rural,
wilderness setting with basic services and, at the same time, relatively easy
automobile access to the wide range of services offered in Wasilla and Anchorage.
These newcomers came from different parts of the country and had different
backgrounds and outlooks than the older Talkeetna resident. In many ways (their
numbers, their families, and their need for services and employment), the relative
newcomers significantly impacted rustic Talkeetna. Consequently, although all
residents (both old and new) feel close to the land and nearby wilderness, long-time
Talkeetna residents tend to view their community with a weathered perspective -
-they have already witnessed years of change. Real old-timers were impacted by
the arrival of FAA and COM SAT (RCA) families, while pre-road residents were
-8-
significantly affected by the road construction and associated population influx into
the area. Consequently, when asked to give their views related to future growth
and change, the words of Of!~ }ong-:-time Talkeetna resident reflect a common
attitude, "I have lived here for 20 years and my lifestyle has changed 20 times. One
more time will not make any difference." On the other hand, the more recent
Talkeetna resident who came in pursuit of a rural, relatively self-sufficient
lifestyle, generally perceives future change as encroaching urbanization and
industrialization and therefore in serious conflict with the very basis of his
residence in Talkeetna. (Although the recent, 1970's, settlement of the railroad
area north of Talkeetna has had a significant impact on Talkeetna, this phenomenon
will be discussed below under Railroad Communities North of Talkeetna).
2.1.3 Trapper Creek
Although Trapper Creek's population is relatively recent (e.g. post 1950) compared ·
to that of Talkeetna, miners have long travelled through this area on their way to
their claims. In the early 20th century, a road house located on the Trapper Creek
side of the Susitna River served as a stopping point for freighters and miners.
Because it had the railroad (and later the airfield), Talkeetna, and not Trapper
Creek, became the center of the mining activity. Once they were on the west side
of the Susitna River, the miners gradually established a trail into the mining
district. This trail became the Petersville Road, which facilitated access into the
Trapper Creek area west of the Susitna River.
-9-
The usable agricultural land in the Trapper Creek area attracted the early
homesteaders, the first of whom arrived in the mid-1950's. These people, like the
"59ers" who followed them in 1959, took the train to Talkeetna and crossed the
Susitna River, the same way the miners had done before them. Thus, prior to the
construction of the Parks Highway in 1969, the first year of dependable year-round
road access to Trapper Creek, the early homesteaders depended on riverboats from
Talkeetna or small aircraft for transportation to their homes. Although most of the
early homesteaders left after a short time, many remained to farm the land and
raise families in this isolated setting.
The construction of the Parks Highway generally coincided with the State of
Alaska's original Open-to-Entry (OTE) land disposal program which operated from
1968 to 1973. Under this program, individuals could buy up to five acres of land
in designated areas if they staked the boundaries, leased the land from the State,
and had the property surveyed, at their own expense, in a five (extendable to ten)
year period. Because the purchase price was equivalent to the fair market value
at the time of entry, this land was fairly inexpensive, especially during the
inflationary 1970's. Large areas in the Susitna valley were open for entry, including
areas both in the vicinity of Trapper Creek and north of Talkeetna.
In Trapper Creek area, the Parks Highway as well as Petersville Road greatly
facilitated public access to the OTE land. The OTE program attracted a new group
of people, and the highway provided access to the general area. Although the State
generally ~~dvertised the OTE land as recreational (hundreds of people acquired
land), a few people and families, eager to start a new life in the wilderness, built
homes and lived year-round on their land. Similar to Talkeetna, the old-time
-10-
Trapper Creek residents were significantly impacted by the highway construction
and state land disposals that attracted a new wave of residents to both their
community and area. Also, like the Talkeetna area, many of the new residents were
younger, college educated, and had different backrounds and perspectives than the
older homestead families. Many of the people moved to the area because of its
natural beauty and relative isolation --not for economic reasons. Similar to recent
arrivals in the Talkeetna area, the relatively new Trapper Creek resident is much
more conservative and skeptical about future change and development than the
more progressive, long-time resident who has witnessed considerable change and
modernization precipitated by the Parks Highway and State land disposals.
Trapper Creek, like Talkeetna, became more diverse and complex and, with the road
and new people, services expanded (lodges, service station, post office, electricity,
troopers, telephone, school, and highway department). After spending a few years
on their OTE parcels, many young families moved to Trapper Creek, presumably to
be closer to the school and other services and live in a less isolated, although still
rural, setting. Trapper Creek offers a small community environment with many
services, easy access to Anchorage, and the Qenali State Park and other wilderness
areas nearby.
Trapper Creek, unlike Talkeetna, does not have a clearly recognizable townsite.
Instead, it has a cluster of buildings (residential and commercial) at the junction of
the Parks Highway, with residents living along both the Parks Highway and
Petersville-Road both east and west of the main highway. Homesteads, OTE
parcels, and a few scattered subdivisions and small tracts provide the residential
land base for Trapper Creek. In addition, numerous non-resident recreationists own
property in the area.
-11-
2.1.4 Railroad Communities North of Talkeetna
Long before any roads were constructed into the study area, the Alaska Railroad
provided land transportation into the region. Consequently, the railroad was a
major influence which affected the location, development, and decline of many
communities in the study area. For example, Talkeetna's population stabilized as
a result of the establishment of a railroad depot there around 1920. In addition,
Chase, Curry, Sherman, and Gold Creek were originally construction camps and
railroad stops associated with the early days of the Alaska Railroad. The following
represents the Alaska Railroad mileposts for the study communities going north
from Talkeetna: Talkeetna (Mile 226. 7); Chase (Mile 236.2); Curry (Mile 248.5);
Sherman (Mile 258.3); and Gold Creek (Mile 263.2).
At one time, Curry was actually a railroad station with a hotel which, for more than
25 years, accommodated overnight passengers and crew when the train took two
days to travel between Anchorage and Fairbanks. As late as 1958, Curry was still
used as a crew change point and had a population of 44 persons (Orth 1971). A fire
and a trend towards larger sections on the railroad led to the virtual desertion of
the stop. Today, section foremen and very small crews are stationed at Gold Creek,
Talkeetna, and Hurricane.
In addition to the railroad, there were gold mines and associated homesteads in the
vicinity of Gold Creek. Although most of the homesteads are now vacant, many of
the origin9_l settlers remained year-round and raised families in the area. A few
mines are still seasonally active. These old patented homesteads create a private
land base in the Gold Creek area that could accommodate future expansion and
-12-
growth. Located near the confluence of the Susitna and Indian Rivers as well as
adjacent to the Denali State Park, this area has many natural attractions.
Currently, the Gold Creek/Sherman area has a relatively sparse permanent
population with many absentee landowners, including homesteaders, those who
purchased small tracts from the original settlers, and more recent entrants
associated with the State of Alaska's land disposal programs.
Between Talkeetna and Gold Creek, very little remains from the early railroad days.
In fact, if it were not for the State's public land disposal programs, which began
in 1968, few people would own land north of Talkeetna. The original OTE program
(1968-73) coincided with the arrival in Alaska of many young people, a product of
the turbulent 1960's, who had rejected the industrialization and urbanization in the
"lower forty-eight" states and come to Alaska in search of an alternate lifestyle in
a wilderness setting. Once they got to Talkeetna, many of these people found
exactly what they were looking for: a small, relatively isolated rustic mining town
at the end of a spur road, a railroad system which, for a few dollars, could transport
them and their belongings to viturally free land, and a vast wilderness area
seemingly beyond the scope of any development plans. For 10 years, all the
entrants had to do was stake where they chose and pay a lease fee of $40 per year
to the State. Later the land had to be surveyed and purchased.
The railroad, while it provided access to Talkeetna's post office, stores, and inns,
was really only partial access into the area. Only a few people staked adjacent to
the railroad tracks; the majority took the train north from Talkeetna and then hiked
one to six miles west in order to establish more remote homesites. Consequently,
visiting these people generally involves much more than a simple train ride from
-13-
Talkeetna. This isolation and remoteness is, apparently, what these settlers had in
mind when they staked, or later purchased from original entrants, their land.
As discussed above, although the state established the OTE program primarily for
five acre recreational sites, many of those who staked land north of Talkeetna did
so with the goal of subsisting year-round, much like early pioneer homesteaders had
done before them. The majority of those who settled north of Talkeetna were
young people in their twenties or thirties, many with young children. Robert Durr
(1974:11-15), who interviewed many of these people, discussed their motivations as
follows:
Among the younger settlers, who constitute the majority, whether
obviously "counter-culture" of "hippie 11 types or not, the humanistic
range of values was clearly and consciously predominant. Virtually
all of them, in one degree or another, were motivated by a desire to
return to the land, to "Mother Earth," as they refer to it; and they
are representative, in this respect, of an important current in the
flow of American life today.
Others of the younger settlers, while sharing the general motivational
complex outlined above, have come to the woods for. specifically
religious reasons. Sometimes called 11 Jesus freaks 11 by their peers (the
term 11 freak 11 is not derogatory but simply designates an intense
enthusiasm for something, as, for example, "music freaks"), these
young men and women have turned away from wordly pursuits in
order to better know God amidst the undistracting quiet and
simplicity of the woods.
Still another set of motivations for returning to the land, ••• has to
do with the question of health or even survival, as they see it, in face
of the pollution, overpopulation and general ecological damage done
the earth by what they consider a technology gone mad. For them,
being able to breathe clean air, drink pure water, and grow food in
soil free of chemical fertilizers and insecticides ••.
... the majority of these people were both attracted to life in the
woods and repelled by 1i fe in the cities and suburbs: a twofold
motivation.
-14-
Quite a few of the younger ones, though by no means ail, would be
recognized generally as part of the "youth movement", or "counter
culture". Others are simply the kind of adventurous, individualistic
young people who had always been attracted to frontier life in our
country, from the earliest pioneer days to the present.
As Durr's final comment indicates, although people who move to a remote
wilderness area have many common goals and values, the people who settled north
of Talkeetna are not necessarily members of a homogeneous group. They represent
all age groups, singles, couples, families, people on food stamps, those who would
rather starve then accept any form of governmental assistance, former businessmen
and other professionals, as weil as members of the "youth movement". In addition,
Alaskan residents, as weil as newcomers to the State, acquired land in this area,
although it seems the majority of those who chose to live year-round were recent
arrivals to Alaska at the time.
Some of the new arrivals were from the east coast, and although they had attended
coilege, they had little money or possessions with which to begin a life in the woods,
and they were very inexperienced in basic rural skills. But, although they were
short on knowledge, many of these newcomers as weil as those who came later were
long on desire and commitment to remain on their land and learn the necessary
skiils. They built their own homes, some nicer than others, raise gardens, and
harvest fish and game in the vicinity. Apparently, when winter arrived, many, but
by no means all, left. Since that time other people have replaced them; a turnover
of people in the area has occurred. This is not an uncommon settlement pattern
in Alaska. Similarily, out of the fifty or so "59ers" who settled near Trapper Creek,
only a few remained a few years later. Of the estimated 300 to 400 hopeful
settlers who arrived in Talkeetna in the early 1970's, plus some more recent
-15-
arrivals, between 80 and 150 remain as permanent residents in the area between the
Talkeetna River and Gold Creek. The summer population may easily double or even
triple due to recreationists and absentee landowners who frequent the area.
Needless to say, the arrival of these young people in Talkeetna caused quite an
impact on this small community which only a few years before had received year-
round road access. Local residents estimate that 300 to 400 people arrived the
summer of 1971. Talkeetna's 1970 population was only 182 persons. The railroad
. parking lot and nearby open areas filled up with cars, buses, vans, tents, and people
on their way north to the OTE land. Although both the existing Talkeetna residents
and the newcomers valued the wilderness setting in the· Talkeetna area, in many
ways these two groups represent two distinct sets of values. Many of the
newcomers had consciously chosen to leave society and seek their isolated lifestyle.
Because they had very little at first, many received government assistance (e.g~
food stamps). Thus, to some outspoken Talkeetna residents, these people claimed
to want the independent wilderness lifestyle, but only as long as food stamps, the
railroad, and Talkeetna's services (laundry, stores, showers, and inns) are nearby.
Based on one's source of information, an entirely different view of these people
emerges. As one Talkeetna businessperson wrote to the Alaska Power Authority,
Talkeetna lifestyle!? I have a lifestyle too --but it is not the least
bit similar to my "hippie" or "up the track" neighbor. In fact --what
is their lifestyle? A good number of welfare cases, not subsistence
life as they would have one believe.
This view is reflected by a number of other Talkeetna residents who participated
in the Borough's goals study (Mat-Su Borough n.d.) as well as more conservative
residents who also live on OTE land. On the other hand, a typical resident of the
area north of Talkeetna said,
-16-
I had a dream of moving north to the woods. An idealistic point of
view to live off of the land --learn to live in the wilderness. The
call of the wilderness, to escape society, is my reason for being here.
I wanted to get away from the urban blight, from people, and try to
live closer to nature for my fulfillment.
Another person who guided recreationists added,
People here do not need much money to live. We live a simple life.
We live a happy life. We like to live it with enough money to make
things and provide for our children and enjoy the exhileration of being
in the country ourselves. We are in the country ourselves. We do
it for our own personal enjoyment.
Although this basic split still exists in the Talkeetna area, in the ten years since
the first people arrived to settle on the OTE land, the social relations between the
two groups has significantly improved. In short, they have, by necessity, learned to
live with one another. It is not uncommon for a long-time Talkeetna resident to
first give a diatribe on his "hippie" neighbors and then end the discussion with the
statement, "The ones who stayed are OK," or "Now, of those who are left, most
work seasonally. They are getting older, are not so radical, and blend into the
community."
In summary, it may seem peculiar how people with such seemingly diverse
backgrounds, attitudes, and values all settled into Talkeetna, Trapper Creek, and the
railroad communities (miners, trappers, construction workers, homesteaders, welfare
recipients, businesspeople, 11 counter culture" members, developers, anti-developers,
and so forth). But, in the larger perspective, all of these residents (both permanent
and part-time) represent a commanlity not found in more urban areas to the south
--a desire-to live in a rural, relatively undeveloped wilderness environment. The
group who came to settle north of Talkeetna in the 1970's, as well as those who
settled on OTE land near Trapper Creek, were not motivated. by economic
-17-
ambitions. They did not come to Alaska or this particular area to get rich. On
the contrary, as explained above, they sought what they considered to be a slower,
simpler, healthier, more natural life in the woods. Even the old-timers, many of
whom came to get a little richer (few did), remained in the area primarily because
they valued the land, the open spaces in a wilderness area, and a small town
atmosphere.
-18-
2.2 ECONOMIC OVERVIEW
2.2.1 Introduction
Economic opportunities in Talkeetna, Trapper Creek, and the railroad communities
north of Talkeetna are few and unemployment is high. This lack of local
employment is not consistent with the recent population growth in the area because
most people do not move into this area for economic reasons. Rather, the current
trend in these communities seems to be that people first choose to live in this rural
environment, and second they figure out some way to support themselves once they
are there.
Local residents depend on a wide range of economic activities to enable them to
live in these communities. Because many people have families to support, the lack
of local jobs generally forces men to leave the area to work (e.g. the North Slope,
Wasilla, or Anchorage). The few retail businesses and services that do exist in
Talkeetna and Trapper Creek are generally associated with tourism and recreation.
Some government employment is also present. Because of lack of employment
opportunities in rural areas, some people do tend to seek governmental subsidies
(e.g. food stamps, energy assistance, aid to families with dependent children, or
other grants). Residents in the study area participate in these programs, but it is
not known to what extent. In addition, people in all communities produce arts and
-19-
crafts which they sell. Also, in all communities residents rely on local fish and
game, gather firewood as well as berries and other greens, and raise gardens.
2.2.2 Talkeetna
Tourism and recreation form the main basis of Talkeetna's present economy. This
colorful mining town, located off the main highway, is relatively isolated in the
heart of scenic wilderness.--qualities which add to its growing popularity. Visitors
have a scenic view of Mt. McKinley, riverboat or aircraft access to hunting and
fishing, and a relatively colorful night life in town. For an increasing number of
people, including both non-resident tourists as well as Anchorage weekend
recreationists, Talkeetna is an entertaining and relaxing place to visit. It still
retains much of its frontier character which attracts both visitors and new
residents. In addition, Talkeetna is the take-off point for climbing expeditions to
Mt. McKinley, which adds to its international reputation. Because the tourist
economy is generally slower in the winter, Talkeetna is currently promoting .cross
country skiing.
Of the communities in this area, Talkeetna has the largest number of businesses and
employers. A partial list of Talkeetna's businesses includes: two service stations,
a laundromat, four lodges/motels, five air taxis, a few recreation guide services,
two riverboat services, two realties, five retail stores and gift shops, one surveyor,
two const.tuction services, an aircraft rebuilder, a few miners, and other tourist
related businesses. Most of the commercial establishments are oriented towards
transient tourists and recreationists. Government agencies and services include the
-20-
Matanuska Electrical Association, Alascom, the borough school, the library, the
Talkeetna fire service area, a post office, the Alaska Railroad, FAA, and the State
Division of Aviation.
When asked who the main employers are in town, most people name the school,
Alascom, the railroad, FAA , and the local stores. Thus, a few people have
permanent employment, but there are many more people than jobs in Talkeetna.
Because most of the Takleetna businesses are owner-operated, they actually hire
few employees and consequently provide few job opportunities in the community. In
the past, the railroad provided significant employment in Talkeetna and the stops
further north, but layoffs have reduced Talkeetna 1s winter railroad employees to
two.
Many residents, who moved to the Talkeetna and Trapper Creek area primarily for
non-economic reasons (i.e. they preferred to live in a rural wilderness), now rely on
recreational guiding for income. In this way, they are able· to pursue wilderness
activities and also provide some economic security for themselves and their
families. In 1979, some of these individuals formed an association of guides called
Denali Wilderness Treks. As one local resident explained,
Essentially the people that live .•• in the Trapper Creek area and the
Talkeetna area are people who have lived in the woods and enjoy the
wilderness because they live in it and each of the individuals have
tried to get a business going that would enable them to make a living
at showing others the beauties of the area.
Because, as individuals, they found it difficult to be both in the woods and in town
advertising, they formed Denali Wilderness Treks, a non-profit association that
-21-
books clients and advertises for its members. These people are not hunting guides,
but instead they primarily sell cross country skiing, alpine skiing and moun-
taineering, backpacking, canoe trips, raft trips, ice fishing, dog sledding, and so
forth. Activities which "use the land and this beautiful wilderness area with a
minimum amount of impact." Denali Wilderness Treks' goal is to make it "feasible,
economically, (for tourists to) get out into this beautiful country and enjoy it as
wilderness."
2.2.3 Trapper Creek
As in Talkeetna, job opportunities are limited in Trapper Creek. As discussed
above, people, with the possible exception of the early homesteaders, now tend to
move to the area for non-economic reasons, accept a lower standard of living than
if they 1i ved and worked in more urban areas, and manage to support themselves.
Many people have seasonal work at other areas (e.g. construction employment,
commercial fishermen, or miners). In Trapper Creek, a few businesses, associated
with tourism and highway services, provide some employment (service stations,
store, restaurants, lodge). Also, there is some local mining, logging, and farming
in the area. The highway department, school, post office, trooper's facility, and
nearby state park also provide additional jobs. Other people do a variety of
activities including dog mushing, a local wood crafts business, and hunting guide.
There are also several local artists and craftsmen in the community who paint,
scrimshaw,._ and carve (wood, ivory, and soapstone).
-22-
2.2.4 Railroad Communities North of Talkeetna
Except for a few jobs associated with railroad maintenance in Gold Creek,
employment opportunities in this area are non-existent. There is one lodge and a
bar in the area, but they are family operations and do not provide any local
employment. In addition, very few people work in Talkeetna. Although many of
the original settlers entered the area with the intent of subsisting off of the land,
apparently the relative lack of local resources combined with the present population
density will not support such a lifestyle. Consequently, these people require some
cash to purchase staples (e.g. beans, flour, sugar, and cereals), pay for railroad
transportation back and forth from Talkeetna, and other necessities.
Related to earning the necessary cash to support this particular wilderness lifestyle,
the cycle of residence in the area varies considerably. The husband of a household
may leave seasonally to work, while his wife and children remain at home. In other
cases, a couple will leave to work until they earn adequate money to return to live.
When the money is gone, they leave to earn more. In some cases, people leave to
work during the summer (e.g. construction or on the railroad) and then spend the
winters in their cabins; others leave the state for six months during the winter and
return for the summer. And some, according to more conservative Talkeetna and
OTE residents, "Never seem to work, but instead live on welfare and food stamps."
In summary, those people who live, more or less permanently, north of Talkeetna
rely on a J;:ombination of sources to maintain their lifestyle. A typical household
may depend on the following: seasonal construction work out of the area,
-23-
supplemented with food stamps and unemployment, the harvest of local fish and
game resources, and personal gardens. Although it is by no means possible to live
completely off of the land in this area, many people reported that as much as one-
third to one-half of their food came from local fish, game, and gardens. For such
resources as game and firewood, it requires each household considerably more than
5 acres to live.
In some respects, it is the lack of an economic or employment base in the railroad
communities that often gives its residents the appearance of being a transient
population. People are continually coming and going for seasonal jobs, supplies, and
services (e.g. post office, stores, health care, library, schools, and so forth). In
addition, many other users of the area are, in fact, highly transient (sports hunters,
fishermen, and absentee land· and cabin owners).
-24-
2.3 POLITICS AND
·~
t !
R(JbNSE CAPACITY
Introduction
In this age of increasing political complexity for most rural areas, there are very
few local political organizations in Talkeetna, Trapper Creek, and the railroad
communitie~; north of Talkeetna. While rural Native communities often struggle to
determine which organization has control of what activity, the general trend in the
southern study communities has been a reluctance to form political groups.
Typically, in rural Alaskan Native villages, numerous political organizations exist or
have influence in each community (i.e. regional profit corporations, regional non-
profit corporations, cities, boroughs, traditional councils, and village corporations).
Because none of the southern study communities are Native villages under the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), they do not have either Native
corporations or traditional councils. Also, because none of the study communities
have incorporated under State law, there are no cities in the study area. The only
State recognized political organization in the area is the Matanuska-Susitna
Borough, incorporated as a second class borough in 1964, which encompasses the
entire study area except Cantwell and McKinley.
Because all of the southern study communities are unincorporated, they have no
governmental powers and are therefore dependent on services provided directly by
-25-
the State or the Borough. The Matanuska-Susitna Borough exercises areawide
powers (administration, taxation, planning and zoning, education, and parks and
recreation) and, because they are unincorporated, non-areawide (solid waste disposal
and libraries) powers in the southern study communities. In addition, the Borough
administers the Talkeetna Fire Service Area, the Talkeetna Water and Floor Control
Service Area, as well as the Talkeetna and Trapper Creek Road Service Areas. The
State provides some funds for these services. Presently, one member of the borough
Assembly lives in Talkeetna.
In the past few years, as more and more people have moved into the area, there
has been a tendency toward the formation of political organizations in Talkeetna,
Trapper Creek, and Chase. This trend is primarily the result of proposed
developments (the capital movement, the Susitna Project, and the Intertie), State
land disposals, anticipated population growth, and the growing belief that local
participation and control is necessary to maintain present values. On the other
hand, the formation of and participation in political groups is contrary to the
philosophy which motivated most people to settle in this rural area --individualism,
a desire for isolation, and a lack of governmental controls on one's life. This
section addresses local political organizations in the area, their formation, and
associated social divisions in the community, as well as community response
capacity.
-26-
2.3.2 Talkeetna
Over the years, Talkeetna residents formed a few local civic and community
organizations designed to increase the quality of life and respond to community
needs. For example, the Talkeetna Historical Society, founded in 1972, is active in
the community. Located in Talkeetna's original schoolhouse, the Society restored
the building and converted .it into a museum. It also operates a local library. The
Society's primary goal is to preserve as much of the local history as possible.
Currently, it owns other buildings in the community that it plans to restore for
public use. The Talkeetna Historical Society raises money at its Annual Moose
Dropping Festival in July. Other organizations in the community include the
Parent-Teacher's Association, six churches, a local library board, road and fire
service area boards, and the Talkeetna Chamber of Commerce.
Founded in 1978, the Talkeetna Chamber of Commerce was formed primarily to
promote a heal thy tot1rist and recreation industry in the area as well as encourage
new businesses to locate in the community. The desire to build a solid economic
.base in Talkeetna motivated local businesspersons to form the Talkeetna Chamber
of Commerce. Because of the lack of local municipality, the Chamber has assumed
responsibilities generally administered by a local government. For example, it
incorporated in order to be eligible to pursue grants and enter into contracts with
the Borough. Under such a contract, the Chamber constructed and present! y
maintains a combined riverboat landing and picnic area on land leased from the
Borough. In summary, the Talkeetna Chamber of Commerce is active in local
affairs and generally takes a position on issues which will promote tourism and
business development in the community.
-27-
In the spring of 1981, sixty-five Talkeetna residents submitted to the State a
petition for the incorporation of Talkeetna as a first class city. The petition
proposes a 1.4 mill local property tax levied for general operating expenditures and
for Public Safety in the new municipality. Although the petitioners acknowledged
that Talkeetna residents had met many of their needs through the formation of
community service organizations (i.e. the Chamber of Commerce, the Historical
Society, and borough service areas), they also believe that incorporation is necessary
to enable the community to better respond to future growth and have necessary
input into the resolution of community problems.
Supporters of Talkeetna incorporation contend that organized government is
necessary to ensure planned growth and police protection. They maintain that local
control over economic development will be needed to handle anticipated population
growth from the proposed Susitna River dam projects, the proposed capital
relocation at Willow, and general growth resulting from increased tourism and
recreation as well as State land disposals. Because Talkeetna is a tourist
community, incorporation proponents claim that it is in residents' best interest to
have a city that would control local development and protect nearby recreational
areas. Incorporation supporters also say that the borough headquarters in Palmer
are too far away to adequately represent local concerns. The City of Talkeetna
would provide a local legal entity recognized by other levels of government. If
Talkeetna incorporates, supporters want a small city· administration and a single
police officer. Presently, Aiaska State Troopers stationed at Trapper Creek (thirty
miles away), provide police protection for the community. Incorporation advocates
say State-shared revenue will p;'ly for city operations, not taxes.
-28-
Opponents of incorporation submitted their own petition, signed by 103 registered
voters residing within the proposed incorporation boundaries, to the State. They
pointed out that the services to be provided by the proposed city (i.e. fire
protection, public safety, and road maintenance) are already adequately provided for
by the Matanuska-Susi tna Borough and the Alaska State Troopers. In addition, they
contended that the proposed incorporation boundaries were too large and inappro-
priate --services could not be economically provided to the remote areas; and
downtown, rural and remote residents within the proposed boundaries are too
dissimilar to effectively participate in city government. (The Local Boundary
Commission reduced the original 102 square miles to 65 square miles, which
excluded large agricultural tracts and State classified remote parcels). Finally, the
anti-city petitioners maintained that Talkeetna has neither the economic nor
population stability nor the desire to support incorporation.
The issue of whether to incorporate or not became hotly contested and resulted in
two public hearings, an anti-incorporation rally, flyers, and posters in the Moose
Dropping Festival Parade. Incorporation opponents also formed a group called
TRAIN (Talkeetna Residents Against Incorporation Now). Members associated with
this organization insisted that Talkeetna already had sufficient government to serve
local needs, and more government would result in unwanted restrictions on their
relatively informal lifestyle. Many of these residents had moved to Talkeetna to
escape "government." To them, Talkeetna's attraction as a place to live is its lack
of governmental rules and regulations. Also, this group doubted if Talkeetna had
enough interested people who were willing to work on the city council.
-29-
In summary, although many of the anti-incorporation people believe that Talkeetna
should organize to protect itself, they also believe that the jump from an
unincorporated community to a first class city is too large. One of the major fears
associated with a first class city is the council's power to tax without a community
referendum. Instead of a first class city, many of these residents suggested that
Talkeetna organize as a second class city, which must ask its voters before it raises
taxes, or a community council, now formally recognized by the Matanuska-Susitna
Borough.
The Talkeetna incorporation issue did not reflect normal social division in the
community. Both newcomers and long-time residents opposed incorporation.
Members of these two groups, often with opposing viewpoints, agreed on the
negative results of incorporation: taxation, unnecessary bureaucracy caused by
another level of government, and additional regulations which threaten their
independent, self-reliant lifestyle. On the other hand, this issue did divide long-
time residents as well as local businesspersons --members of both took different
stances regarding incorporation.
The Local Boundary Commission decided that despite the intense opposition, there
was adequate interest in the Talkeetna incorporation issue to put the question on
the ballot. In November of 1981, Talkeetna voters, by nearly a three to one margin,
rejected incorporation as a first class city. Local people estimated that the voter
turnout of approximately 265 persons represented "100 percent or a little better" of
the registered voters. They attributed the high vote to last-minute registration.
One of the goals of incorporation was to give local residents a unified, recognized
voice with which they could address issues which might affect Talkeetna's future.
-30-
Instead the voters expressed a different unified, strong message --they do not want
a first class city in Talkeetna at this time ..
2.3.3 Trapper Creek
In 1978, a group of residents who lived on OTE parcels northwest of Trapper Creek
formed the Tokosha Citizens Council which proposed a seven year sunset clause for
a unique residential and recreational roadless area. The land affected totaled four
contiguous townships (144 square miles) north of the Petersville Road and west of
tt:Je Parks Hit~hway. This area was a part of the original OTE State land disposal,
and different individuals held approximately 300 five acre parcels in the area at the
time.
A spirited public debate ensued which represented a wide cross section of property
owners in the proposed roadless area. Both sides of the issue, which represents the
two opposin~1 attitudes toward economic development and change in the area,
emerged. On the one hand, those in favor of the proposal included both residents
and some part-year recreationists who had laboriously hauled in supplies and
materials to build rustic wilderness cabins; who eloquently espoused the natural,
untouched beauty of the area and its wildlife; and who enumerated problems
connected with road access (theft, vandalism, litter, and noise) but not. associated
with dog mushing or ocoss country skiing.
Those who opposed the roadless concept primarily included non-local inholders who
had either acquired the land for speculation or recreational purposes. Many feared
-31-
a decline in land values associated with no roads (although the Tokosha Citizens
Council maintained the values would actually rise because of the unique qualities of
a roadless, wilderness area). In addition, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Assembly
was not in favor of the concept in this area. Also, the proposed road less area
included approximately seven sections (over 4,000 acres) of a State subdivision,
which contained numerous surveyed roads. Finally, one preferred route to the
proposed Tokositna Visitors Center, which would serve the south side of McKinley
(now Denali) Park, went through the proposed roadless area. The public testimony
indicated that· a majority of non-local and non-resident land owners were opposed
to the roadless concept because it cut off recreational access to their property. In
the final analysis, the area simply had too many inholders at the time of the
proposal. As one borough official explained, "It was a good concept, but in the
wrong place."
Although it did not succeed in its efforts to establish a roadless area, the Tokosha
Citizens Council did have two effects in Trapper Creek: 1) it clearly established
two opposing attitudes toward economic development and change in the area; and
2) it served to alert residents who tended not to become politically involved that
if they did not participate in the political process, others, possibly with opposing
views, would speak for them. The leaders of the Tokosha Citizens Council, many
of whom eventually moved to Trapper Creek, were well-educated, polite and
presented an articulate, well-organized, and reasonable proposal. They polled 250
land owners in the area; approximately 25 to 30 percent responded, and of the
respondents, approximately 75 percent apparently approved the concept. These
political strategists represented a different type of rural resident --not the typical
homesteaders who tended to avoid public meetings, political organizations, and what
-32-
they may consider esoteric discussions on the quality of life. Instead, the older
homesteaders were likely to devote their efforts to repairing a farm building or
buying their next tractor. They took issue with the statement that a majority of
inholders desired a roadless area because it seemed to reflect a no-growth attitude
in the Trapper Creek area --a position to which they could not adhere. They had
experienced eonsiderable change, had been impacted by the road and newcomers,
and were not necessarily opposed to future change. In addition, many of these long-
time residents did not feel that the newer group actually represented a majority
opinion in Trapper Creek.
From the poi.nt of view of political organization, the developments surrounding the
Tokosha Citizens Council had a positive effect in Trapper Creek --all factions
began to participate in the political process. Prior to the emergence of the Tokosha
Citizens Council, there were not many organizations in Trapper Creek. By the time
the Trapper Creek Community Council was formed, all segments of the community
increasingly rnade sure their views were represented. Long-time residents attribute
the formation of these political organizations to the influx of new people who
recently moved into the area. Once. these newer arrivals began organizing, the
older residents "became involved for self-defense." As one long-time resident
explained,
The Trapper Creek Community Council was formed because too many
people with a vested interest were saying, "We represent the
community," and the people of Trapper Creek knew nothing about it.
Trapper Creek residents formed the Trapper Creek Community Council three years
ago in order to bring local issues into the open, afford residents the opportunity for
-33-
maximum participation in community self-government, and hopefully influence
higher levels of government related to community development and services. In this
context, Trapper Creek Community Council provides a local forum by which
different factions in the community can discuss their differences and priorities,
decide on a solution, and present a unified position to the Borough or State.
Critical to the effectiveness of this organization is whether it is recognized by
higher levels of government. In August of 1981, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough
passed an ordinance (81-97) which recognized community councils as "nonprofit,
voluntary, self-governing associations composed of residents located within geo-
graphic areas designated as districts by the Assembly." Community councils will
primarily act on advisory levels to Borowgh planners related to comprehensive or
community plans and capital improvement programs in their area.
To date, the primary concern of the Trapper Creek Community Council has been
associated wi.th the acquisition of community facilities and services desired by a
family-oriented community. The new Trapper Creek Elementary School, which will
replace outdated, portable units, has occupied much of the council's time. Other
future goals discussed by the council include the acquisition of a cemetery, baseball
field, park and picnic area, community center, fire station, and fire engine.
As discussed above, the older homestead families have lived without these
organizations and services, and the recent idea for their formation and acquisition,
respectively, seems to be attributable to the new residents. In addition to the
community council, other Trapper Creek organizations include the Denali Arts
Council, the Parent-Teacher's Association, the Denali Drama Group, a newly
-34-
organized library association which may build a library, four churches, and a
community schools program. While some residents believe that the cost of some of
these services is too great compared to the relatively low population in the area,
the trend seems to be towards more services. The Trapper Creek Community
Council provides a public forum whereby local residents can determine their
priori ties.
2.3.4 Railroad Communities North of Talkeetna
Given their propensity for isolation, individualism, and anarchism, most residents
who live north of Talkeetna have tended to avoid involvement in political
organizations. It was not until 1979 that the first political group, the Chase
Community Association, emerged. Residents formed this non-profit corporation
primarily to resist the proposed Chase II State land disposal in their area. In the
spring of 19BO, the State had offered the Chase Remote Parcel selection areas,
which allowed a maximum of 185 entrants to stake up to 40 acres each. Chase
residents did not oppose this disposal because it seemed to reflect the spirit of their
rural way of life. But, when local residents became aware of the State's future
plans for Chase II , a subdivision of 418 separate 5 acre lots, they banded together,
hired an attorney, and protested the development. Residents feared that the
increased population density would become too great to support their semi-
subsistence lifestyle. They maintained that five acres is inadequate to supply
firewood and other resources for each family. In addition, representatives of the
Chase organization said many of the lots were located in the floodplain, had no
practical access, and could result in waste disposal problems. Largely because of
-35-
their protest, the State did not hold the lottery as scheduled. Instead, the State made
some minor changes (i.e. increased the size of the lots) and scheduled the lottery for
the fall of 1981. The Chase Community Association, through their attorney, is still
fighting this subdivision.
The Chase Community Association has also responded to other potential developments
which its members believe threaten their rural, semi-remote way of life. These
include the Susi tna Hydroelectric Project and the Intertie power line. Association
members tend to believe that by supporting these three developments, the State has
betrayed them. In their opinion, they moved to this relatively isolated area under a
state remote parcel program, which reflected the State 1s support for rural lifestyles.
This is, they believe, inconsistent with State sponsored hydroelectric development,
massive power lines, and high-density land disposals. Consequently, they formed an
association to fight these developments. Because it has more power, association
members are considering the formation of a second class city in Chase.
There is no easy way to determine how many people the Chase Community
Association represents, but, based on the. interviews .with local residents, it seems
likely that this organization represents between 50 to 75 percent of the permanent
area residents. In any event, it is clear that the Chase Community Association does
not represent all of the local residents, some of whom disagree with their protests.
These lines of social division are similar, on a smaller scale, to those in Talkeetna.
Related to Chase politics, it should be mentioned that because many people who live
in this area are continually in and out of Talkeetna, they tend to become very
interested in Talkeetna politics. For example, even though the railroad communities
-36-
north of Talkeetna were not included within the proposed incorporation boundaries,
many residents from this area were very vocal in their opposition to incorporation.
One of the potential threats incorporation posed for these people was increased police
protection in Talkeetna. The pro-city group maintains that the troopers located in
Trapper Creek are unable, because of manpower restrictions, to respond to the kinds
of public safety problems which frequently arise in Talkeetna. · · For example, they
contend that the influx of summer visitors requires Talkeetna to regulate camping,
traffic, parking of vehicles and boats, dogs, livestock and farm animals, and the use
of public places such as parks, boat ramps and docks. The regulation and associated
police enforcement of these activities would likely result in conflict with many Chase
residents when they are in Talkeetna. They keep vehicles and trailers parked in the
railroad lot for long periods of time, often camp in and around town, may travel with
a dog, and tend to make use of public parks.
2.3.5 Response Capacity
Often, community values and public objectives are articulated and implemented (or
not implemented) through political processes. The major sources of community
change potentially induced by economic development (increased population, employ-
ment, and land and service demands) can have a variety of effects upon local political
subsystems. These include the development of conflict within the community,
formation of political groups, shifts in political power, and increasing pressure upon
the ability of local people and governments to supply and guide growth. In addition,
rapid growth forces local government to take a more active and expansive role in the
lives of community residents (Jirovec, R. 1979), a trend rural communities may
oppose.
-37-
A community's response capacity, or ability to affect, guide or control change with
the context of iits own values, is largely a function of the political subsystem (Braund
and Behnke 1979:26). Often, a community's response capacity can be qualitatively
measured by an analysis of the local political structure and processes. In determining
a community's response capacity, four factors seem important:
• Information: Knowledge of what is likely to happen, and what alternatives are
available •
• Consensus: Agreement on community (or regional) priorities, and what
should be done to implement or protect common values •
• Organization: Knowledge of how to do what needs to be done, and the
existence of a system for doing it. It is important to determine
whether the community will receive support from the higher
levels of government (borough, state, or federal government)
and/or the developer.
• Resources: The availability of human, physical, and financial resources to do
what needs to be done. The benefits a community may derive
from development depend on the ability of the local government
to exercise land control either through ownership or planning and
zoning tools, the taxing authority, and the quality of community
leaders. Local, borough, and state resources are important.
Comparison of these four factors with the community political subsystems seems to
indicate that if the communities are confronted by both governmental (borough, state,
and federal) and industrial pressures for development of the Susitna project, their
existing response capacity might prove inadequate to control change within the
-38-
context of local values. Although the response capacity may vary between
communities, for purposes of analysis, a generalized approach is used.
Currently, the community residents do not have adequate information regarding the
nature and potential consequences_of Susitna hydroelectric development, especially at
the local level. Much of the needed information has only been recently gathered, and
copies of the Feasibility Report as well as the documents it is based on need to be
made available to community residents.
Although there is a general agreement that small, rural towns or wilderness areas are
a far more favorable place to live than more urban environments, residents in the
southern study area do not agree on either community priorities or what should be
done to protect common values. As should be clear from the preceding discussions
on settlement patterns and politics, there is ho consensus of opinion in the area.
Rather, individualism and self-reliance seem to be more prevalent. Because division
weakens the local ability to control, the trend towards political organization may
continue as rural residents band together to protect their rural environment.
At this point, wiithout any real knowledge of what to expect, the communities are not
in a position to know what needs to be done. As more information becomes available
to local residents, they can begin to formulate what has to be done to adequately
respond to potential community impacts. Although none of the communities currently
have an adequate system by which they can respond to development impacts, Trapper
Creek is buildint;l a viable organization of interested people who actively represent the
community. Even though it only has an advisory capacity, the Trapper Creek
Community Council is recognized by the Borough. The Chase Community Association,
-39-
on the other hand, does not have easy access to its members because they live in
more remote areas. In addition, the Chase organization has an image that it works
more against development as opposed to working to provide community facilities
and services. In some cases, this lessens their effectiveness with higher levels of
government. The pending hydroelectric development could serve to help form
additional political organization in the communities if the potential impacts are
considered inconsistent with common values. Talkeetna may form a community
council or consider a second class city.
The ability to exercise land control through planning and zoning and the taxing
authority in the area belong to the Borough. The State, the Borough, and Cook Inlet
Region, Inc. are the major land owners in the general vicinity. Thus, the. most
common tools by which local residents usually control local development are not
controlled at the community level. In this context, it is important to note ·that the
Borough represents all residents within its boundaries, not just those who live in the
study area. Related to the exercise of these powers, the important question centers
around how well the communities provide local input into the Borough planning and
decision process.
Related to the local human resources required to effectively guide change, there
are some inherent conflicts in the necessary process. There is little doubt that
capable leaders live in all communities. The problem rests in the conflict between
local rural values and the necessary political organization likely required to
adequately control growth. Successful response to the development project may
likely compel people who wanted to get away from people and government to band
together with one another and form consensus to meet a common goal or threat.
-40-
In effect, residents have to form government to fight government and industry.
Above all, this is time consuming, requires considerable energy, disrupts emotional
peace, and detracts from individualism --a process generally in conflict with rural
values in the southern study area. Rural people are already very busy tending to
basic chores not necessary in urban areas. During the interviews, numerous people
expressed fatigue related to the effort they had already expended to fight State
land disposals and the Intertie. They explained that they moved to the area to
escape government and congestion, not to spend all of their time at meetings.
Unfortunately, nearby development projects which cause above average growth
generally force local government to become more active and expansive in the lives
of community residents.
-41-
2.4 ATTITUDES TOWARD GROWTH, CHANGE,
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Two different philosophies toward economic development and rural growth emerged
in the southern communities. Because these two factions, which represent extremes
on a continuum of attitudes and opinions, were found in Talkeetna, Trapper Creek,
and the railroad communities north of Talkeetna, all communities are discussed
together in this section. These different attitudes toward economic development
and growth in rural environments include:
1) On one end of the continuum, residents have a desire to protect rural, small-
town and wilderness atmospheres, minimize change, avoid industrial develop-
ment i1n the area, as· well as preserve wildlife and recreational areas.
Residents in this group take issue with the charge that they are against
growth and economic development. Rather, they point out that economic
development does not only mean industrial growth. They believe that the
real, long-range value for the upper Susitna valley is not its minerals or hydro
potential, but its untapped potential for visual and recreational enjoyment,
both summer and winter. These residents argue that a recreational/tourist
economy caters to people who enjoy the land without defacing it, which is
preferred to a commercial, industrial economy which does scar the landscape.
-42-
Typical comments by people with this attitude include:
They are talking about using the Petersville Road clear up to
Tokositna Visitor's Center, which will open it up to tourism.
object to the fact that that beautiful wilderness area will be
open, but I am also objective enough to realize that if we have
a tourist economy we have to put the bulk of them somewhere
RATHER THAN the Susitna Dam opening up this entire area to
industrial growth. We have a choice. We have no choice, but
we have a choice. We are going to be inundated. This area is
prime. So our questions are "Are we going to be inundated with
tourists that will be here six months of the year and not deface
the land too badly?" We know they are going to do some
damage, or "Are we going to have a Susitna Dam that opens up
this entire area to industrial and commercial growth." We will
get both probably because of the energy crisis.
I do not necessarily propose non-development of the area. I
propose planned, reasonable development of the area, and I
propose that the people that live here and have a love and
interest in the land, have a say, a major say, in what that plan
is.
Similarly, people who support recreation and tourism do not favor big game
guiding in the area. As one recreational guide said,
... seeks to utilize the beauty of the area and enhance its
wilderness aspects and not become paid for the destruction of
what is here. The animals are part of the pristine beauty of
this area. If you kill the animals, you loose a certain amount
of flavor of the wilderness ... Recreational development versus
kill development.
These people tend to be opposed to the Susitna Hydroelectric Project as well
as other large-scale development schemes in the area. Their concerns related
to the Susitna dam include:
• It would likely introduce and encourage industrial development in the
Susitna valley because it would generate excess amounts of cheap, or
cost-stable, electricity.
-43-
• It would have a negative effect on wildlife and fish in the general area
which would affect both the general well-being of local residents as well
as nearby recreational areas •
• It is simply too large •
• Dam construction will attract construction workers, cause an influx of
people into the area, inflate land values, crowd .existing communities,
and cause new towns to be built •
• The potential dangers associated with earthquakes cause concern.
Because of these concerns, these residents do not feel that the Susi tna dam
is compatible with a tourist and recreational economy which relies on a
pristine, wilderness environment.
2) On the pro-development end of the continuum, residents ao not necessarily
desire industrial development in the area, but they cannot identify with what
they feel is a no-growth attitude. Residents with an extreme development
view tend to favor roads
0
to open up additional country and believe that
progress (including hydroelectric dams, more people, and roads) will come
regardless of what they, or anyone else, want. Generally, long-time
residents, many of these people have already witnessed considerable change
in the area, and they do not view future developments as necessarily
undesirable (see Settlement Patterns above). Most of these people are
generally in favor of the Susitna project because they perceive that it will
provide a needed economic boost to a depressed area.
-44-
It should be pointed out that these residents do not generally desire to see
their community radically changed, nor do they necessarily wish for industrial
development to become the economic base in the area. Like their neighbors,
they enjoy small-town qualities and desire to live in a non-industrial,
relatively isolated, rural environment. But, they view change as inevitable,
feel the local economy will benefit from development, and as long as there
is no danger to life, not necessarily lifestyle, the Susitna project is
acceptable.
As discussed throughout this report, few people, in recent years, have moved to
Talkeetna, Trapper Creek, or the area north of Talkeetna for economic or job
opportunities. In fact, according to many local residents, one of the largest limits
for growth in Trapper Creek and Talkeetna is the lack of local jobs. Some of these
residents, with a conservative attitude towards economic development, maintain
that if jobs were available, they would not want to live in the area because the
increased job opportunities would attract more people. This population i-nflux would,
for these residents, make Trapper Creek and. Talkeetna less desirable as rural places
to reside. Others, for example homesteaders who raised .their families in Trapper
Creek, or long-time Talkeetna residents, desire economic development in the area
so their children have access to local employment.
There is a wide variety of opinions, discussed throughout this report, related to
economic development in-the area, which ranges from pro-Susitna and associated
development to anti-Susitna and preservation of surrounding wilderness. Generally,
the difference of whether a resident is in favor of or opposed to the Susitna dam
depends on how he perceives it will impact the area. If it is characterized as a
-45-
massive, unnecessary project which will provide excess energy and lead to total
industrialization of the area, which some people believe, then very few rural
residents are in favor of it. But, Ol") the other hand, if the project's impacts will
be relatively minor, and it will provide constant and cost-stable electrical power in
the area, as well as jobs, then more people are pro-Susitna. Consequently,
consensus related to the Susitna Project may likely only emerge once residents of
this subregion have adequate information about the project and its impacts upon
which an intelligent dialogue and decision can be made.
Based on the recent settlement patterns in the southern study area, it appears as
though the trend is towards those who favor the development of tourism and
recreation, minimum disruption of small-town qualities, the reasonable preservation
of local wildlife and fish, and the enjoyment, not deterioration, of the natural
environment. Concomitantly, these people oppose industrial development, rapid
growth, and urbanization in the area. A recent survey (Policy Analysts, Ltd, 1980)
in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough helps verify this conclusion. According to the
survey, Borough residents who live north of Willow, which includes the southern
study area, tend to be less in favor of economic development than residents who
live south of Willow. Based on the survey findings, the highest economic priority
in the communities north of Willow was the development of tourism. Further
indication of this trend is found in how people who are pro-Susitna tend to express
their opinion on the subject. Rather than say, "I am for the dam," most people who
were interviewed said, "I am not opposed to Susitna.11 As one long-time Talkeetna
resident said, "It is not acceptable to speak out in favor of development these days."
-46-
2.5 LAND AVAILABILITY
Between 1979 and 1981, the State of Alaska offered seven disposals in the Talkeetna
area (four agricultural, two subdivisions, and one remote parcel). In 1980-81, six
disposals (one agricultural, four subdivisions, and one remote parcel) were offered
in the Trapper Creek area. In 1980, the State of Alaska offered the Chase Remote
Parcel area and in 1981, the Chase II Subdivision. Similarily, the State offered the
Indian River Remote Parcel area in 1980 and the Indian River Subdivision in 1981.
Thus, the State of Alaska had offered a total of 17 land disposals in the Talkeetna,
Trapper Creek, Chase, and Hurricane area in the past three years. (This is in
addition to the early Open-To-Entry Program which was in effect from 1968 to
1973).
Although not all of the lands are accessible by road, these land disposals as well as
numerous large unsubidivided homesteads and other tracts in the Trapper Creek and
Talkeetna area provide a more than adequate land base for substantial growth. In
addition, if the highway is relatively close, subdivision roads are relatively
inexpensive to construct in this area, and large tracts can be converted into
subdivisions fairly quickly. Given any economic incentive for development, it is
likely that numerous subdivisions will rapidly appear in the upper Susitna valley.
-47-
Related to the state land disposals, a relatively common trend in residents'
attitudes has developed in the study area. Once an area is opened up to settlement
(either recreational or residential)J those people who first acquire land are generally
opposed to any further land disposals in the immediate area which would increase
the population density to levels beyond what they believe the land can support.
Most people were attracted to these land disposals because the land is relatively
isolated in a wilderness area. Generally, persons who acquire a remote parcel or
establish residency on the land wish to preserve the unpopulated, wilderness flavor
of the area. They perceive that additional state land disposals, especially
subdivisions, conflict with this desire. Although at first this may seem like a selfish
motive, it should be kept in mind that the State of Alaska has virtually bombarded
this area with public land disposals (seventeen in three years). [)uring the
interviews, some people claimed had they known what the State had in store for this
region, they might not have acquired this remote land in the first place. (Many
newer, absentee land owners from Anchorage do not fall in this category).
-48-
2.6 SOCIOCULTURAL IMPACTS
2.6.1 Introduction
The sociocultural impacts are based on study area population, school-age children,
and housing stock projections supplied by another subcontractor. In this section, the
Base Case refers to baseline forecasts (i.e. future projections without the Susitna
Project). These Base Case projections are then compared to the forecasts of
population, school-age children, and housing stock in the local communities which
have resulted from the project. The difference between the two forecasts results
in the project impacts. These community level forecasts are only available for
Trapper Creek and Talkeetna; therefor-e, the discussion of impacts related to the
railroad communities north of Talkeetna is totally qualitative.
For purposes of analysis, only the population projections specifically allocated to
Trapper Creek and Talkeetna were used. If those project-related people who locate
outside of the immediate communities (11 0ther11 category) are proportionally
allocated to the greater Trapper Creek and Talkeetna "areas11 , the impacts would be
greater.
-49-
2.6.2 Trapper Creek
According to the forecast information, the Susitna Project will cause a 61 percent
population increase in Trapper Creek from 1986 to 1987. (The project adds 175
residents to a Trapper Creek Base Case population of 285 for a total population of
460). Included in this one year population influx are 45 school-age children. By
19~0, the Watana peak, Trapper Creek is projected to have a population of 661, aver
twice as many people as without the project (320). Included in these cumulative
figures for 1990 are an additional 88 school-age children (a 117 percent increase
aver the 75 Base Case projections). Also, by 1990, project related families who
move to Trapper Creek will require an additional 133 houses over the Base Case
ho usi nr:1 stack.
As Watana winds down, the work force is reduced, and some families leave the area.
The low point between Watana and "Devil Canyon construction occurs in 1995, when
project related persons in Trapper Creek drops to 198 (from a high of 341 in 1990).
As a result, Trapper Creek's population drops from a high of 661 in 1990 to a low
of 588 in 1995 (11 percent drop). (Although 143 project related people leave the
community, Base Case growth adds 70 persons during the same period. Conse-
quently, a total of 213 move in and out of Trapper Creek.) At the peak of Devil
Canyon construction in 1999, the project accounts for 245 of Trapper Creek's 701
people (a 54 percent increase over the Base Case population of 456). By the end
of the project forecast period (2002), 70 project related people (29 percent of the
1999 peak) leave Trapper Creek. It is assumed that Base Case growth accounts for
57 additional in-migrants for a net populatiun loss of 13 people between 1999 and
2002.
-50-
There can be little doubt that, although the long time frame of the Susitna Project
cushions any final decline (one is hardly noticeable by the year 2002), the projected
rapid influx of project related persons in Trapper Creek between 1986 and 1990
results in a boom situation for the community.
Davenport (1979:1), a "boom town" is defined as
According to Davenport and
l. A community experiencing above average economic and population growth;
2. which results in benefits for the community, e.g. expanded tax base,
increased employment opportunities, social and cultural diversity;
3. but which also places or results in strain on existing community and
societal institutions (e.g. familial, education, political, economic).
Related to impacts on residents who live in the community prior to the rapid
population growth, social scientists have identified social impacts which seem to
apply whenever small rural communities become boom towns (see Davenport and
Davenport 1979; 1980a).
Not all impacts associated with boom towns are negative. For example, positive
consequences include substantial benefits to the local economy such as more jobs,
more businesses, higher pay scales, increased prosperity, and an increased tax base.
In addition, an expanded and updated educational curriculum may result from the
new demands made by incoming students and their parents. Generally, the benefits
associated with rapid growth caused by a large development project are primarily
economical. In the case of Trapper Creek, for the segment of the population which
is not primarily motivated by economic advancement, the negative effects of rapid
growth will likely overshadow any benefits.
-51-
Among the consequences and human costs associated with boom towns, the following
major problem areas have been identified (Cortese and Jones 1979; Davenport and
Davenport 1979):
• Demands for and strain on existing facilities and services, including human
services, that exceed the capacities of local systems to meet them.
Included are municipal services (school, police and fire protection, street
and road construction and maintenance, water, and sewer) and human
(marital, child abuse, and delinquency counseling) services.
• Economic problems centered around high inflation caused by increased
demands of large numbers of incoming project related personnel and
families (increased cost of living, especially for housing; new pay scales
beyond the limits of some local businesses; more formal way of conducting
business; and hardships associated with inflation on those living on fixed
incomes such as the elderly or chronically unemployed).
• Increases in the incidence and nature of many "people problems" (rise in
alcoholism, child abuse, crime, suicide attempts, divorce, and the lack of
trained medical personnel), likely associated with stress related to rapid
change.
• Potential conflict between the values, norms, beliefs and lifestyles of local
residents and the newcomers.
• Local government is forced to take a more active and expansive role in the
lives of community residents as it tries to expand services and respond to
rapid growth. Generally, a time lag exists between the demand for
services and their availability.
-52-
Based on its lack of infrastructure, its small rural nature, and the characteristic
that a significant portion of its residents are not primarily motivated by economic
advancement, most of the preceding general comments related to boom town
problems seem to apply to Trapper Creek. In addition, the problems are
compounded by the 1995 lull and a second project peak in 1999. Based on the
projections, Trapper Creek will experience a boom (1986-1990), a downswing (1991-
1995), and upswing (1996-1999), and a slow decline in project-related persons
beginning in 2000. The lull in the early 1990's could be especially problematic as
people (especially indirect and induced) will live in anticipation of another project.
This period will likely be easier for primary workers because they will likely go
elsewhere to work.
Uncontrolled rapid growth generally results in negative consequences. Local
residents who live in the small community prior to the growth tend to blame the
developer and the new residents for problems associated with population influxes.
These problems are exacerbated if the community does not have the infrastructure
to accommodate the new growth. Resentment between current residents and
newcomers may develop -because the former often bears the burden of the expense
for new facilities and services, often in the form of higher taxes. The result is
often citizen against citizen; the town against the developer; and local government
against higher levels of government (borough and state).
One way to diffuse many of these potential conflicts is to distribute the costs and
benefits of the project equitably (Jirovec 1979). In this case, those who gain the
benefits (the developer, the state) help pay the costs. In this way, those who
-53-
generally pay the costs (the rural community resident) are hopefully protected and
their quality of life preserved.
Generally, a town facing rapid growth desires to develop the local capability to
assure that the effects of growth will be as beneficial as possible. Controlling the
impacts of rapid growth on small, rural towns within the context of local values
begins with community planning, community organization, and research (see Jirovec
1979 upon which much of this discussion is based). As Jirovec points out, urban
planning techniques may not apply; a rural community needs rural planning. The
success of any plan depends on community support and organization. In addition,
it requires the developer to share with the community detailed information about
the project. Finally, a community requires time (i.e. 2 years) for planning and
preparation for rapid growth.
Even if it is effectively managed, boom growth apparently· results in urbanization
and modernization of the rural style of living --the population becomes more
diverse; current residents know a smaller percentage of their neighbors; more and
more interactions between people become formal and contractual rather than
personal and face to face (Cortese and Jones 1979). Planning and community
organization to prepare for the boom become part of the problem. The . planning
process adds anonymity, differentiation, bureaucratization, impersonalization, and so
forth (Cortese and Jones 1979). In effect, in rural communities, the solution
becomes the problem. • According to Jirovec (1979:83) prospective boom towns must
choose between uncontrolled rapid growth (with many negative side-effects),
managed or controlled rapid growth (with greater urbanization and modernization),
or moderate or no growth (which would maintain the status quo). Unfortunately,
-54-
from the community perspective, local residents do not always have the latter
choice.
2.6.3 Talkeetna
Based on the population forecasts (both Base Case and project-related), the most
significant feature of Talkeetna's future is the constant growth without the project.
Whereas Trapper Creek experiences a boom between 1986 and 1990, Talkeetna's
project related population, during the same period, only increases 6.5 percent per
year over the Base Case projections. During the biggest year of project impact,
1986-87, the project adds 138. persons to a Base Case population of 862. This
represents a one year increase of 16 percent where Trapper Creek had a 61 percent
project related increase in the same year. The forecast situation in Talkeetna
emphasizes that although project impacts are much less than Trapper Creek, the
cumulative effect of both the Base Case population increase and the project induced
growth is significant and represents the real change with which Talkeetna must
contend.
Without a community effort to identify and implement common goals, this growth
in Talkeetna may result in the community losing its small-town, rustic, frontier
flavor which attracts many tourists. It will likely continue as a tourist town and
staging area for McKinley climbing parties. The increased population and access
related to the project will likely result in increased rate of decline in local wildlife
populations, which local residents highly value. Increased human populations in the
work· camps and increased aerial activity will likely contribute to this trend.
-55-
It is possible that many more people than are anticipated will move to Talkeetna
as a result of the project. This partially depends on the work schedule, whether
Trapper Creek successfully accommodates its projected growth, and the possibility
that people find Talkeetna, despite its additional 30 miles from the project, a more
desirable place to live. Because Talkeetna and Trapper Creek are similar
communities, all of the potential problems discussed for Trapper Creek increasingly
apply to Talkeetna as its population (both with and without the project) increases,
and therefore are not discussed here.
2.6.4 Railroad Communities North of Talkeetna
Although there is an abundance of land available, primarily due to the State land
disposals, it is unlikely that the permanent population in the Chase/Curry area will
increase dramatically, either with or without the project. Without the project,
employment opportunities will likely remain relatively non-existent, and the main
attraction to the area will continue to be recreational for most people and
residential for only a few persons. In this area, the recreational impact, again both
with and without the project, could be significant. Without the Susitna project,
recreation seekers will continue to use the area as Talkeetna continues to promote
tourism. As more and more people visit this subregion, the chances that they will
apply for some of the surplus available State land increases. The railroad will
continue to provide access into the area, and although it will likely remain
relatively unpopulated, seasonal recreationists will probably increasingly visit it. As
more and more of the existing residents in this area have families, they will likely
desire additional services, such as a school and better access to Talkeetna.
-56-
With the Susitna project, recreation in the area will more than likely significantly
increase (i.e. more than without the project). Workers and their families who move
to the area will certainly hunt, fish, and participate in other outdoor activities.
Improved access to and increased awareness of the area east of the Susitna River,
due to the project, will likely attract more recreationists. The proposed access road
will provide vehicle access to the east side of the Susitna River and therefore make
the general area more accessible to more people. (Policies related to public use of
this road during project construction could postpone some impact). As more and
more people recreate in this area, the chances for conflict between them and local
residents increases.
The Susitna project will result in increased employment opportunities for residents
in this area, which will enhance the well-being in these communities by providing
potential jobs. At the same time, the increased employment opportunity created by
the project will attract more people into the general area. This population influx
will likely have a negative effect on the existing small town or rural way of life
for those people in the railroad communities who value relative isolation in a
wilderness environment.
With the project, the Gold Creek area is likely to be the most heavily impacted.
If the proposed access route is chosen, Gold Creek will be connected by an 18 mile
road to the Parks Highway. The patented homesteads in the vicinity comprise a
private land base that could accommodate future expansion and growth, a likely
occurrence if the area becomes easily accessible by road. People affected by this
potential development will be mainly local miners, a few local residents, and
c:bsentee, recreational property owners, all of whom value their wilderness retreat.
-57-
If vehicular access occurs in this area, local residents and absentee landowners
between Hurricane and Gold Creek, as well as entrants in the Indian River Remote
Parcel land disposal will be subject to increased traffic, noise, and congestion.
2.6.5 Hurricane/Parks Highway Area
Currently, no one lives in the Hurricane/Parks Highway area nor are any services
available. But, three factors indicate that some development may occur here
related to the project: it is the intersection of the proposed access road and the
Parks Highway, private land is available, and it will be only 44 road miles from
Devil's Canyon. In the spring of 1981, the State of Alaska offered the Indian River
Subdivision. Located at the junction of the Parks Highway (Mile 168) and the
Alaska Railroad (just south of Hurricane), access is available from both the Parks
Highway and the railroad. The 140 separate four to five acre lots in this subdivision
as well as the roads are surveyed and platted, although the roads within the
subdivision are not constructed. Currently, none of the lots have any structures on
th_em.
Because of their location, it is likely that some people· will buy these lots, and, if
the project proceeds, a small settlement will probably develop. Currently, there are
no services here, and, even with the project, it is unlikely that a school will be
constructed in the vicinity. Families that locate in the Hurricane area could use
the Trapper Creek Elementary School and the Su-Valley High School; these facilities
are 54 miles and 69 miles away respectively. Because of the relatively long
distance to these schools, it is unlikely that many families with children will locate
-58-
in the Hurricane area. It is more reasonable to assume that single persons or
couples without children will acquire lots in the Indian River Subdivision and move
a trailer or build a small cabin on their land.
Once the project begins, it is likely that a limited amount of services will appear
near the subdivision: for example, a service station, restaurant, bar, and motel
(lodge). Because no one currently lives in this area, this development will not
impact an existing community. Without the project, people may purchase lots from
the State, and a few· persons may build recreational cabins. Once the proposed
access route becomes final, it is likely that people will purchase lot~: in the Indian
River Subdivision for speculation. In this respect, the project, whether it is built
or not, will influence land values in the area.
-59-
3.0 NORTHERN COMMUNITIES
3.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this section is to highlight those similarities and dissimilarities
between Cantwell .and McKinley which account for both their stance and likely
responses to certain aspects of energy project.
Both Cantwell and McKinley are small, relatively new communities created in large
part by actions of federal and state agencies. While Cantwell has a much longer
history as a Native village, its present size, economy, and ethnic composition is
accounted for, in large part, by public transportation systems (railroads, highways),
public employment, homestead opportunities, and Native claims settlement. Mc-
Kinley was created almost entirely by the designation and development of Denali
(formerly McKinley) National Park. Its population is comprised almost entirely of
persons who are or were employees of the Park or businesses serving Park visitors.
Both communities are unorganized communities within an unorganized borough;
therefore, both are dependent upon services provided directly by the State and, in
the case of McKinley, limited community support by the Park. Among the
consequences of being unorganized is an inability to tax; to control the provisions
of local services; to engage in planning, zoning, and litigation; to have formal
-60-
representation in public decisions; and to have accurate representation (census) of
its residents and of its econon.,y.
The growth of both communities is severely limited by the unavailability of land.
Both communities are closely hemmed by large and dedicated public lands and lands
being conveyed to the Ahtna Corporation. The consequences of lack of lands are:
preservation of rural and pristine environments, inability for seasonally employed
persons to permanently settle in the area, lack of secondary (construction, services)
economic growth from primary economic activities (tourism, energy projects),
escalating costs of land acquisition, increased density of construction and residence
on available lands; and potential inability to accommodate major growth from new
enterprises.
The growth of both communities is equally severely limited by the unavailability of
employment; there is an unavoidable interaction between lack of lands and lack of
employment. Employment in Cantwell is based, in the main, on direct public
employment --transportation, communications, public health and safety, and
education. The small private sector is based upon services to public sector
employees and to the seasonal visitors to the general recreation area. Employment
in McKinley is based almost exclusively on year-round maintenance of the Park and
seasonal visitation to the Park. Residents of either community who are employed
full-time in public employment usually have the means to purchase land, build
homes, and maintain themselves in admirable, though seldom extravagant, lifestyles.
Residents of either community who are employed only seasonally or are retired have
a far more difficult time in obtaining land, acquiring housing, and being comfortable
during more harsh seasons. They tend to seek a wide range of different occupations
-61-
to sustain themselves from season to season. Thus, many more persons would and
could live in these communities were only land and employment more available.
Both communities ·have undergone considerable growth in the past few years due to
major improvements of the road system, the communications system, government
expenditures, and the growth of visitation. This has resulted in a greater ability to
remain in the communities year-round, raise children, obtain supplies, and withstand
the physical hardships of weather and isolation. These changes have sustained a
larger permanent population than have been carried historically and may be reaching
or exceeding the physical carrying capacity of adjacent lands and wildlife.
These changes may also be close to exceeding the carrying capacity of local social
systems; sufficient numbers of persons may be residing in the communities or
attempting to settle there that the capacity of the existing forms of social
organization, amity, and decision-making may be exceeded. Differences among
values and requirements of residents may be more extreme than at any previous
point in recent history, leading residents to fear for the future of community life,
to be pondering the creation of community government, and to be reassessing their
own attachment to the immediate area.
This, then, is the critical stage in the life of each community, in terms of attitude
toward growth, forms of economic development, tolerances of change, community
organization and identity, and attachments to the non-rural world. The introduction
of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project and the Willow-Healy Intertie is only one of
several forces which appear in these communities' perceived range of opportunities
and risks; these energy projects are, however, most immediate realities.
-62-
Both communities are desirous of long-term economic development, not merely
short-term economic growth. This is due to their desire to provide an economic
base compatible with environmental values and sufficient to maintain them there
indefinitely into the future. They wish to be neither overwhelmed nor bypassed by
economic opportunity; they are concerned with balance.
Cantwell and McKinley differ significantly in their perceptions and stance toward
these energy projects, based on differences in history, geography, economics,
population, and values. Located at the juncture of the Parks and Denali Highways,
Cantwell sees itself at the center of these energy projects as well as secondary
industries leading to long-term development of population, economy, and employ-
ment. If lands around Cantwell can be made available to accommodate the
thousands of workers anticipated to be associated with these projects, the economic
growth of Cantwell will be assured. This would result in economic security for
current residents and, perhaps as important, for their children who currently have
few local employment prospects. As a result, Cantwell residents are pinning their
hopes on the Hydroelectric Project and are almost indifferent to the Intertie. The
Intertie is of interest in terms of residents' ability or inability to draw power from
it, as currently they must generate all electricity locally; they do not believe that
the Intertie will be a significant employer. More importantly, they do not believe
that local distribution of power from the Intertie is necessary for the economic
development of Cantwell; if hydroelectric and other industrial projects generate
large local magnitudes of population and economic activity, there will be, they
believe, sufficient money to construct and distribute locally-generated power. In
addition, if such large scale industrial development occurs, it will be, they believe,
in the State's interest for governments and utilities to provide a local substation
from the Intertie at a later point.
-63-
The orientation and interest of McKinley is almost totally with the Intertie (and
other physical alterations in the highway-railroad corridor) since it finds itself too
distant from any direct relationship with the Hydroelectric Project, other than a
generalized environmental concern. Given the lack of land and services and the
distance from the Hydroelectric Project, McKinley sees little that wouJ.d change.
On the other hand, the visual, economic, health, and other aspects of the Intertie
(and other transmission lines) are paramount in the minds of McKinley residents.
They also have little interest in any short-term economic activity related to the
construction or maintenance of the Intertie and only slight interest in drawing
power from it. McKinley sees itself bearing major costs and absolutely no benefits
from the Intertie. They argue that the urban communities who expect to receive
benefits from the Intertie will not receive them and v.. ill still bear the
environmental burden of visual losses to their favorite major recreation area.
McKinley residents disagree with the economic justifications for the Intertie and
argue vociferously that the line will significantly alter the visual amenities of the
area, damaging both their personal aesthetic values and limiting the recreational-
economic potential of the region; routes which avoid the visual corridor, they also
argue, will damage wilderness areas and wildlife already in jeopardy from excessive
guiding, road-hunting, and human use and settlement patterns. McKinley is also
extremely concerned about the growth of visitation within the Park as an
-environmental impact and growth outside the Park as damaging to current lifestyles.
If more land becomes available, they fear a huge growth in recreational housing; if
land remains restricted, they fear continued inability to remain employed and
housed in the area. Land unavailability is also predictive of continued escalation
of property values and eventual conversion of highway residential properties (most
residences are adjacent to the highway) to strip commercial properties, altering
both the values and character of the community.
-64-
Both communities feel that their futures are dependent upon the decisions made by
urban interests and that they are generally helpless in the face of these interests.
Each appears hopeful but not optimistic that its interests, values, and character will
be protected in these decisions and also by the historical volatility and uncertainty
of Alaska development, which has variously produced huge projects and abandoned
projects. Each would prefer more gradual, planned, and certain forms of economic
development but is not politically or economically organized to assure this kind of
development.
-65-
3.2 SOCIOCULTURAL IMPACTS: -CANTWELL
Cantwell, situated 85 road miles from Devil's Canyon, lies at the extreme boundary
for worker commutation to the construction site. However, in practical terms, the
41 highway miles between Hurricane and Cantwell are winding and seasona11y
hazardous. This distance, combined with lack of available private property, makes
it unlikely for construction workers or secondary or induced workforces to make
Cantwell their place of primary residence.
This is not to say that Cantwell wi11 not see itself as significantly affected by the
design of the project. Briefly, the growth and development of Cantwell is limited
by unavailability of private land and of economic opportunity (jobs or businesses).
As a consequence, neither incoming populations nor the children of current residents
perceive much opportunity to settle in this otherwise attractive locale. Many local
residents rely on seasonal and/or nonlocal employment in order to continue to reside
in Cantwell.
While recognizing the profound implications of rapid major industrial growth in the
immediate area, many Cantwell residents were counting on such growth in order to
underwrite their own and their children's continuance in Cantwell. The access
determination which placed Cantwell many road miles from the project may have
dashed these hopes for economic growth by creating feelings of relative deprivation
among many residents.
-66-
With a primary industrial access road to the construction sites on the Denali
Highway, Cantwell saw itself filling a number of useful functions:
• housing a workforce of 3,000 people;
• providing R and R, shopping, and other services for the workforce;
• providing access for construction materials from the railroad to the
highway, including trucking and warehousing functions; and
• providing direct services in the construction of housing, roads, and other
required facilities.
As some residents saw it, the need to provide permanent and transient housing for
such large numbers of persons would result in the transfer of public lands into
private hands. With the lands and front-end capital, the community would finally
have jobs and small businesses would have customers. They recognized that such
growth, by itself, could result in a serious economic decline at the end of the
construction project; however, they felt that an energy project of such magnitude
would surely result in increased industrial activity in the immediate area and that
long-term prosperity would result for both current and future populations.
As a consequence of the current design, their hopes for economic progress based on
proximate access to the project will be dashed. In order for them to participate
effectively in the project, they will be compelled to move closer, individually, to
the job site during the construction period (similar to workers coming from
Anchorage to Fairbanks). While they may receive somewhat more highway traffic
and highway business due to generally increased activity within the region as a
whole, these benefits are likely to be offset by the personal, familial, and economic
costs of temporary and permanent outmigration.
-67-
REFERENCES
Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Division of Local
Government Assistance
1981 Report to the State of-Alaska Local Boundary Commission on the
Petition to Incorporate Talkeetna as a City of the First Class.
Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Division of Local
Government Assistance
n.d. Talkeetna Incorporation File •.
Alaska Local Boundary Commission
1981a State of Decision (Re: Petition for the Incorporation of Talkeetna).
1981b Minutes of Meeting of July 24, 1981 in Talkeetna.
Alaska Power Authority
1981 Minutes of Public Meetings in Talkeetna, Anchorage, Fairbanks, and
Wasilla.
n.d.
Braund, S.R.
1979
Correspondence Files.
and S.R. Behnke
Lower Cook Inlet Sociocultural Systems Analysis. Technical Report
Number 47. Prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior, BLM,
Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies Program.
Campbell, Nola H.
1974 Talkeetna Cronies.
Cortese, C.F. and B. Jones
1979 The Sociological Analysis of Boom Towns. In Boom Towns and
Human Services, Davenport and Davenport, eds., 1979.
Davenport,
1979
1980a
1980b
Durr, R.A.
1974
Judith A. and J. Davenport, eds.
Boom Towns and Human Services. University of Wyoming Publi-
cations Volume XLIII, Published by University of Wyoming, Depart-
ment of Social Work, Laramie.
The Boom Town: Problems and Promises in the Energy Vortex.
Published by University of Wyoming, Department of Social Work,
Wyoming Human Services Project, Laramie.
Grits and Other Preventive Measures For Boom-Town Bifurcation.
In the Boom Town: Problems and Promises in the Energy Vortex,
Davenport and Davenport, eds.
Land: Bridge to. Community in the Open to Entry Area North of
Talkeetna. For the Alaska Humanities Forum and the Talkeetna
Historical Society.
-68-
Frank Orth
1982
and Associates, Inc.
Fitch, E.M.
1967
Jirovec, R.
1979
Jubenville, A.,
1981
Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Draft Final
Report, Subtask 7.05: Socioeconomic Analysis Volume 1. Prepared
for Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. and Acres American,
Inc.
The Alaska Railroad. Frederick A. Praeger, Publishers, New York.
Preparing a Boom Town for the Impact of Rapid Growth. In Boom
Towns and Human Services, Davenport and Davenport, eds.
T. Gasbarro, and S. Regan
Annual Report on Land-Use Analysis. Agricultural Experiment Sta-
tion, School of Agriculture and Land Resources Management.
University of Alaska, Fairbanks.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Commission
1979 Minutes of August 10, 1979 Public Hearing related to the Tokosha
Roadless Concept.
1980a Minutes of June 16, 1980 Public Hearing related to the Tokosha
Roadless Concept.
1980b Written Testimony (June 16, 1980 Public Meeting) related to the
Tokosha Roadless Area.
Matanuska-Susi tna Borough Planning Department
1978a Comprehensive Development Plan Phase 1: Background Report.
1978b Comprehensive Development Plan Phase II: Goals Statement.
n.d. Goals Questionnaire Files.
n.d. Planning Files on Talkeetna and Trapper Creek.
Orth, D.
1971 Dictionary of Alaska Place Names. U.S. Geological Survey Pro-
fessional Paper 567, Washington D.C., US GPO.
Policy Analysts, Limited and Dr. Richard L. Ender
1980 Matanuska-Susitna Housing and Economic Development Study: Sur-
vey Findings.
Regan, Susan
n.d. Transcriptions of Taped Interviews.
Terrestrial Environmental Services, Inc.
1981 Environmental Studies Annual Report 1980, Subtask 7 .05, Socio-
economic Analysis.
-69-
APPEI\JDIX 1
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC SOCIOCULTURAL STUDIES
ACCESS REPORT
Submitted to
ACRES AMERICAN INC.
by
Stephen R. Braund
Stephen R. Braund & Associates
P.O .. Box 1480
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
October 9, 1981
During the interviews related to access possibilities to the Susitna Project, it
became apparent that many people were viewing the map of the access routes
for the first time. Generally,t~ey felt that they did not have adequate infor-
mation, they had not reviewed the feasibility studies, and they had not thought
much about the problem. Consequently, many people did not feel capable of
making an informed decision at that time and expressed an interest in a future
public meeting related to access routes, modes, and points of entry.
Railroad Communities north of Talkeetna (Chase, Lane Creek, Curry, Sherman,
and Gold Creek) [Thirty people interviewed]
Although the first preference for residents of these railroad communities is no
dam the magnitude of the Susitna. Project, they discussed access possibilities
should the dams be constructed. Generally, residents in this region, including
periodic recreational users, part-year residents (ie. six months), and more
permanent year-round residents, unanimously favor the access route, point of
entry, mode, and construction camp facility which will have the least
environmental (both physical and human) impact in the area.
Because the vast majority of these people intentionally moved into this
relatively unpopulated area to pursue a slower, simpler, wilderness life in a
remote setting, they are generally opposed to industrial development, including
large scale hydroelectric dams, in the local area. These people purposely settled
in a relatively undeveloped area devoid of more urban services (public water,
sewer, fire protection, electricity, and roads). Concomitantly, if a dam is to be
-1-
built, the thirty people interviewed in this area unanimously preferred an access
route and mode that would most effectively limit public access into the general
area and have the least environmental impact on existing ecosystems.
Residents of this area p~rceived a railroad only access as the best mode because
)
it appears to be the m~thod that limits access the most. Although it means
more rail traffic in their area, the people who live (either temporarily or
permanently) between Talkeetna and Gold Creek prefer this alternative over the
construction of any roads into the general area east of the existing railroad.
Generally, these people are accustomed to the railroad as a means of entering
the area and feel that it effectively retards undesirable activities which a road
system promotes (increased recreationists, ATV's, 4 X 4's, roadside shooting, and
vandalism). In short, residents feel that less vehicular access translates into
fewer impacts on wildlife and environment in general, both local priorities.
Local residents in this subregion felt that some access from the west would
likely occur given the large amounts of materials (cement and steel) required by
the Devil's Canyon dam. Based on this assumption, they preferred a rail only
access system. When asked if they would prefer a road from the Denali Highway
only, because it would seemingly minimize impacts in their area, most of the
people who live along the railroad north of Talkeetna expressed concern for the
wildl1fe and people who lived in the Denali Highway area. Because they lacked
knowledge of the Denali Highway area and because they generally associated
roads with unfavorable impacts, these people favored the railroad only route
from the south. In relation to this choice, they unanimously oppposed any road
connection from the Parks Highway to the dam site.
-2-
Thus, the residents of these railroad communities feel that the railroad gives
greater control over access, limits the type of activity in the area, and tends
to limit the number of people who enter the area both during and after
construction. In summary, these people perceive that the rail only route is the
next best thing to no access route at all. In other words, if they must accept
the dam, then they favor the access system which allows the minimum amount
of public access and the least amount of population and industrial growth. They
feel that the railroad would lead to the minimal disruption to existing residential
and recreational patterns.
Talkeetna (Twenty residents interviewed)
In Talkeetna, two factions emerged which represent different philosophies
towards rural environments:
1) The first group is comprised of people who want to protect Talkeetna's
rustic, small-town atmosphere and minimize change to the point that they are
against the massive Susitna Project. These Talkeetna residents desire mini-
mum impacts on the community as well as the wildlife and general
environment of the surrounding area. They moved to Talkeetna because they
value small town qualities and feel threatened by impending development. If
the dam is constructed, they perceive the railroad as the best means to limit
access to and change in the study area.
-3-
2) The second group includes people who tend to be pro-economic development,
including the Susitna Project. People in this category are divided into two
subgroups:
a) Although they are in favor of the dam, these Talkeetna residents still
value the rural, small-town atmosphere in which they have chosen. to
live to the point that they do not want it changed extensively by the
construction of a dam. Although they enjoy a community of 400, they
would not like to see Talkeetna grow to 1,000 in the near future. They
also enjoy and utilize the wilderness area around Talkeetna for hunting,
fishing, and other recreational activities. Because these people
perceive it to have the least impact on the community and surrounding
wilderness, they prefer a railroad access only to the dam sites.
Talkeetna residents are familiar with the railroad, and it does not pose
the threat of unlimited public access like roads. They reason that the
dam could give an economic boost to the community as well as provide
power to the railbelt region, while the use of rail could minimize
impacts in the general area.
It should be pointed out that during access conversations, not all
Talkeetna residents understood the possible ramifications of a rail only
route. Not all of them were aware that such an access system may
include a large parking facility in Talkeetna. This needs to be
addressed at the public meeting on access. Of those who were aware
of this occurrence, two groups emerged. One group changed their
access preference to road from the north (either Hurricane or Denali)
-4-
to avoid Talkeetna, while the other still preferred the tern porary
construction impacts associated with a rail only route to the permanent
impacts related to a road system. In addition, some of the impacts
associated with a parking lot to accommodate the rail only access could
be dispersed to locations other than Talkeetna.
b) The second subgroup of Talkeetna residents in favor of economic
development in general and the Susitna project in particular are also in
favor of roads to open the country. At the extreme, these people would
like to see a highway loop from the Parks Highway to Gold Creek to
the dam sites and on to the Denali Highway. They tend to prefer the
road access between dam sites along the south side of the river because
it would open that area to both recreation and mineral extraction. For
these people, public roads would maximize public access and develop-
memt in the area. Ultimately, they would like to see a road connect
Talkeetna and Gold Creek. Views in this category represent the
minority opinion of those interviewed.
Trapper Creek (Twenty residents interviewed)
As was the case with Talkeetna, two factions, which represent different
philosophies towards economic development and rural growth, emerged in
Trapper Creek:
1) Similar to the corresponding group in Talkeetna, this group is against the
Susitna project as well as other large scale development in the area. (They
-5-
prefer smaller hydroelectric projects where the potential impacts are not so
great). These people find Trapper Creek a desirable rural place to live --a
small community with a wilderness setting, good hunting and fishing, near Mt.
McKinley, but with road access to Anchorage or Wasilla for shopping.
Generally against any roads in wilderness areas, these Trapper Creek
residents fear the impacts on their community of any highway access to the
dam sites, whether via Hurricane or Cantwell. Although a road which
connects Hurricanee to Gold Creek would seemingly have greater impacts on
Trapper Creek (Trapper Creek would be less than 100 miles from the Devil's
Canyon site), these residents also expressed concern about increased Parks
Highway traffic should the Denali Highway access be constructed. Because
it ~ould have the least impact on their community as well as the environment
in the g:eneral area, these residents preferred the railroad only route out of
Gold Creek.
2) Again, similar to Talkeetna, the Trapper Creek residents who are in favor of
the Susitna project are divided on the issue of access modes and routes. The
following two subgroups emerged:
a) Although they are in favor of the dam, these Trapper Creek residents
prefer not to see the area opened up with roads. They consider Trapper
Creek a unique wilderness area with good hunting and fishing as well as
relatively easy access to Anchorage. Because they prefer to minimize
the impacts on their community and because they feel that the dam
could be constructed without opening up the entire area with roads,
they prefer the railroad only access out of Gold Creek. Residents in
this subgroup are opposed to highway access from Hurricane to Gold
Creek.
-6-
b) Members of this Trapper Creek subgroup tend to believe that progress
(which includes hydroelectric dams, people, roads, and industrial
development) wm come to their area regardless of what they want.
These residents prefer road access in order to provide the maximum
public access to otherwise inaccessible areas. They quickly point out
that Alaska has far too few roads, and they would like to gain access
to areas that are currently inaccessible by road. They also argue that
beeause eventually a road will be needed so people can utilize the area
for recreation, it would be wasteful to build a railroad now and later
build the inevitable road. They feel that the public should be allowed
easy access to the dam sites to enjoy their recreational and visual
potential. A continuous road loop from Hurricanee-Gold Creek-Devil 's
Canyon-Watana-Denali Highway would facilitate this goal. In Trapper
Creek, this subgroup is comprised mainly of older residents who have
already experienced considerable change in the area. They point out
that 1:here is no permancy with the railroad as most of the railroad
towns in Alaska died.
Although it is difficult to determine the prevailing opinion related to either the
dam or access route in Talkeetna and Trapper Creek (due to both the lack of
a formal survey and the changing opinions as people gain new knowledge), the
interviews tend to indicate that although the majority of Talkeetna residents
may favor the Susitna project, they prefer the access route, mode, and point of
entry which least impacts the community and the surrounding environment on a
long term basis. Generally, this is percieved as a rail only route out of Gold
Creek. Although a rail only route may h&ve implications for Talkeetna related
-7-
to a large parking facility nearby (which was not adequately addressed during the
interviews), most Talkeetna residents utilize the surrounding area and do not
want to see permanent, year-round roads left in this region after the
construction period. For these reasons, they are generally not in favor of the
highway connection between Hurricane and Gold Creek. Similarly, propor-
tionately more people in Trapper Creek seem to favor less development and less
impact related to the Susitna project.
In conclusion, although the majority of residents in the southern communities of
the study area (Talkeetna, Trapper Creek, Chase, Lane Creek, Curry, Sherman,
and Gold Creek) do not seem to agree on whether the dam should be built, they
do tend to favor a limit on public access and development in the general area.
Related to this, they tend to think that a rail only access from the south would
have the least impact, both during and after construction, on their communities
and surrounding environment.
Cantwell (Thirty residents interviewed)
Although Cantwell residents are generally in favor of both the intertie and the
Susitna Project (the people desire an electrical substation as well as distribution
lines), the community is split on the issue of access via a road from the Denali
Highway to the Watana site (Denali Spur). Based on the interviews in Cantwell,
the following groups emerged:
-8-
1) Pro the Denali Spur. Although one portion of this group favored the
construction of the Denali Spur without qualification, another segment only
favored this route provided certain safeguards could be implerne!lted.
a) Many Cantwell residents, especially local businessmen and those in
search of a job, are strongly in favor of the dam, a railhead at
Cantwell, the Denali Spur, and any additional development which would
enhance the economic progress of the community. If roads are
neeessary for the construction and operation of the dams, these people
are in favor of them without hesitation. In addition, if access to the
dams from the Denali Highway is constructed, they feel it will increase
the likelihood that the Denali Highway will be upgraded, an occurrence
that would be good for the local tourist business. Also, these residents
Iook forward to the local jobs which would be provided by the upgrade
of the Denali Highway as well as the construction of the Denali Spur
and Susitna dams. Based on the interviews, people in this category had
a strong voice, b\lt did not represent the majority opinion in Cantwell.
b) Members of this subgroup-acknowledge that Cantwell needs the
economic stimulation and electricity that may result from the Susitna
Project and they appreciate the logic and engineering compatibility
belhind the Denali Spur, but they are very concerned about the potential
adverse impacts such a road will have on the wildlife in the area
(moose, caribou, bear, sheep, and fish). They fear that the Denali Spur
will ruin the hunting and fishing in the area - a region that locals
currently utilize.
-9-
What separates members of this group from those in the third group
(see below) is that although these residents wish to protect the wildlife
in the area, they feel that this could be accomplished even though the
Denali Spur is constructed. For example, if this access road is only
used for the dam site construction and is not opened to the public, the
impact on the wildlife may not be so great. Methods local residents
suggested to accomplish this goal included: provisions for no road
hunting, close the road to motorized vehicles for hunting purposes,
walk-in hunting only, or no hunting within one mile of the road.
Without these or similar limitations, members of this group may be
opposed to the Denali Spur.
In sum, these people are generally not opposed to the Susitna Project,
but they do have serious concerns, centered around wildlife, with an
access road from the Denali Highway. Based on the interviews,
members of this group represent the majority opinion in Cantwell. But,
as was the case with the communities further south, many Cantwell
residents viewed the access map for the first time during the
interviews. Because a community dialogue has now developed, a public
me~eting would be useful to identify if this is in fact the majority
opitnion in Cantwell as well as determine if the concerns associated with
the wildlife are so great that they make the community not favor the
Denali Spur.
Because many Cantwell residents would probably resist governmental
limitations on the use of a road, the limited access concept has many
-10-
problems. Even those who favor this approach have serious reser-
vations. There is a large anti-federal government feeling in Cantwell
which primarily grew out of the d-2 park expansions. Related to the
-aceess question, the reasoning is circular and points out the conflicting
forces at work in Cantwell which leave many residents with mixed
feelings related to access. They favor the project and acknowledge the
possible need for the Denali Spur. But, because they fear the impacts
on the game in the area, they tend to support a limited access road.
ThJls goes against their beliefs related to public use of public roads and
lands in general. If a road is constructed they want to use it as well
as the surrounding countryside. Many Cantwell residents feel that there
are already enough parks in the area which restrict their activities.
Consequently, they have argued for a public road which defeats their
gmtl of wildlife protection through a limited access road.
2) Although members of this group are not necessarily opposed to the dam
either, they feel that the Denali Spur will have such an adverse impact on
the wildlife and general environment in the area that they would rather see
a route from the south. They are not necessarily concerned about the
potential. impacts on the community of Cantwell itself, but focus their
attention primarily on the wildlife and fish populations in the area. They
refer to how game on both sides of the Denali Highway has been hunted out
by road hunters. In addition, they point out that this area is very susceptible
to ATV use, and a road from the Denali Highway would lead to a huge swath
where game is taken by both road hunters and A TV's.
-11-
This group, which represented the minority opinion of those interviewed, was
comprised mainly of local trappers, non-locals with recreational cabins in the
area, and locals who simply felt the potential adverse impact on wildlife
outweighed the use of this corridor.
If the Susi tna Project resulted in the construction of a Denali Spur, many
Cantwell residents felt a better route off of the Denali Highway is near Butte
Lake. They pointed out that there was less snow in this area (it blows away),
and the Butte Lake route would, for local hunting purposes, have less impact on
game. Aceording to these . residents, during the fall hunting season, there are
many caribou and moose in the foothills in the vicinity where the proposed road
leaves the Denali Highway. They preferred not to have this area greatly
impacted by a newly constructed road.
The following generalizations pertain to the route north or south of the Susitna
River between dam sites:
• In Cantwell, people who expressed an opinion on this issue were generally
those who hunted or trapped in the area. These Cantwell residents tended
to use the area north of the river for hunting and fishing and therefore
preferred any access road or rail to be located south of the river .
• Most people in the southern communities felt inadequately informed to
address this decision. Those that preferred minimum impacts in their area,
-12-
perceived the route north of the river as best, while those Talkeetna
residents who desired economic development in the area preferred south of
the river so that region could be developed.
Generally speaking, most of those people interviewed were opposed to a new
community at the dam site. Those who wanted development desired the
economic benefits to occur in their community, not in some new community.
Additionally, those who wanted to limit access and change in the area, did not
favor the construction of a new community in the region. Therefore, both
groups tended to prefer a temporary construction camp at the site.
-13-
APPENDIX 2
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC SOCIOCULTURAL STUDIES
ACCESS REPORT
Addendum #1
Submitted to
ACRES AMERICAN INC.
by
Stephen R. Braund
Stephen R. Braund & Associates
P.O. Box 1480
Anchorage, AJaska 99510
November 1981
Because it is beyond the study area as identified in the RFP, the investigator
did not visit the area between Gold Creek (ARR Mile 263.2) and the point where
the Parks Highway and the Alaska Railroad intersect near Hurricane (ARR Mile
280). ·But, because this area may be affected by the Susitna project, especially
if road access comes from the Parks Highway near Hurricane, every effort was
made to interview all interested parties whenever the opportunity arose. In this
area, three groups of landowners were identified: 1) those who acquired land
prior to the state Indian River land disposals; 2) Indian River Remote Parcel
entrants; and 3) Indian River Subdivision entrants.
1) Of those who acquired land prior to the recent state land disposals, only two
were interviewed. Both of these parties had property south of Chulitna. One
family primarily spent summers at their cabin, while the other said they lived
year round in the area. In both cases, these landowners preferred to keep
access to the area to a minimum (ie. railroad only). They had experienced
the influx of people into the area as a result of the recent state land
disposals and felt a road into the area would have too great an impact on
existing land and resource use patterns. (Although no one from or north of
Chulitna was interviewed, apparently a number of people own property in this
area. Some were reported to live along the "Chulitna Road" - a rough road
from Hurricane to Chulitna).
2) The Indian River Remote Parcel land disposal is a large area (approximately
6,500 acres) located adjacent to and east of the Alaska Railroad between
approximately Mile 267 and 273 and bordered on the south by the Susitna
River. In the fall of 1980, the State of Alaska offered 75 successful lottery
winners an opportunity to stake. a remote parcel site in this selection area.
The maximum size per entry is 20 acres, so theoretically 1,500 acres could
be staked from May 30, 1981 through June 1, 1982. Althought the Parks
Highway (Milepost 169 near Hurricane) is only 5 miles from the northwest
corner of this remote parcel selection area, access is only by railroad or
riverboat to the Susitna or Indian Rivers. To date, 34 lottery winners have
entered, staked, and filed on their land. Of these, 5 were interviewed.
The five Indian River Remote Parcel lottery winners who were interviewed
all resided in Anchorage and had acquired land in the Indian River area for
remote recreational purposes. They felt that because the State of Alaska had
offered this land as a 11remote 11 parcel selection and had kept the number of
entrants low, it would be improper for the state to now provide highway
access to this relatively secluded region. The very reason these people had
applied for and staked this land was because it was advertised as and is
relatively remote. It is not easy to reach from Anchorage because the only
access is by railroad or riverboat. If a road were built into the area, it would
no longer be remote nor satisfy the purposes for which these entrants
acquired the land. Many entrants staked along the Indian River and railroad
-the probable corridor for a road from the Parks Highway to Hurricane. All
of those interviewed were building cabins and spent numerous weekends at
their newly acquired property. In summary, although they were not opposed
to the Susitna dam, they were against the construction of any roads in the
area which, in their opinion, would ruin the remoteness of the area.
-2-
3) The State of Alaska offered the Indian River Subdivision in the spring of
1981. Located near the junction of the Parks Highway (Mile 168) and the
Alaska Railroad (just south of Hurricane), access is available from both the
Parks Highway and the railroad. This subdivision, comprised of 140 separate
four to five acres lots, allows for a much greater population density than the
remote parcel selection areas. The lots and roads are surveyed and platted, ·
although the roads within the subdivision are not constructed. Although all
140 lots were available in the spring 1981 lottery, interested parties only
filed on 74 lots. At present, it is not certain that all 74 successful lottery
winners will actually purchase their lots. If they do, 66 lots still remain
unsold. Of significance to the Susitna project, this subdivision, located
adjacent to the Parks Highway just south of Hurricane, has existing road and
rail access to 140 residential lots. No lottery winners from this land disposal
were interviewed.
-3-