HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA1210I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I~
I
I
I
I "~·
,.---·" l I,.-_, _______ ·-------·--"-----------~
ll. i l
I : l I !
I I I
I SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT I I
I
DRAFT SUi\1-MARY OF E~lVIROj\JMENTill REPORT
' ' • !
I I
i
I i I
I !
I ' I i : I . i l
i i
l I
I • .
I ; Prepared by!
l
l
! I A~lll I
I
I
t
TASK 2 '=SURVEYS ~NO sn·E
"'·--~ .. -~.-'
FACILiTJES
SUBTASK 2J10-ACCESS ROAD
SEPTEr~BER 1S81
I •
I
, I
i
I
I
! • . • I ·:
l . •
.
I
I
l ' • • • I
i l
I I • • I 1
I
~-·-·"·-~-ALASKA POWER AUTriORJTY_-------------.~
1:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC 'PROjECT
n
DRAFT SUMMARY OF· ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
TASK 2 -SURVEYS AND SITE
FACILITIES
OCTOBER 1981
ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED
1000 Liberty Bank Building
Main at Court
Buffalo, New York 14202
Telephone: (716) P53-7525
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DRAFT
Access Road Environmental Analysis Summary
An environmental analysis was conducted of the eight access plans under
consideration. Each plan was evaluated in terms of its potential input to
ve~etation, wildlife(furbearers, big game, birds and sma11 mammals), fish
and culture resources. Each access plan involves construction of a road or
railroad in two or more of the fallowing segments:
Parks Highway to Gold Creek
Gold Creek to Devil Canyon Damsite
Devil Canyon Damsite to Watana Damsite via the north side of the
Susitna River
Devil Canyon Damsite to Watana Damsite via the south side of the Susitna
River
Denali Highway to Watana Damsite
Table I indicates the access plans studied.
The major potential environmental impacts identified for each of the access
segments were as follows:
Parks Highway to Gold Creek: Removal of wetland areas, disruption of
furbearer habitat, distur·bance of anadromous fisheries habitat in the
Susitna and Indian river and disturbance of archaeological resources.
Gold Creek to Devil Canyon Damsite: disturbance of forested area along
the Susna River.
Devil Canyon Datnsite to Watana Damsite via north side of Susitna
River; potential restoration difficulties, disturbance of cultural
resources.
Devil Canyon Damsite to Watana Damsite via south side of Susitna
River-: disturbance of wetland area and furbearer habitat near
Stephan Lake, Fog Lake and Fog £reek, disturbance of moose and
caribou habitat, increased fishing pressure to resident fishes.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
page 2
TABLE I. SUSITNA ACCESS PLANS
Plan Description
l~ Road from the Parks H'tghway to Devil Canyon~ conttnutng to
Watana on the south side of the Susitna River~
2. Railroad from Gold Creek to Devil Canyon~ continuing to
Watana on south side of the Susitna River,
3.. Road from the Parks Highway termi~ating at Devil Canyon.
A second road from the Denali Highway to Watana.
4.. Road from Gold Creek Terminating at Devil Canyon. A second
road from the Denali Highway to Watana.
5.
6.
7.
8.
· Road from ·the Parks Highway to Devil Canyon on the south side
of the Susitna river, crossing the Susitna and continuing to
Watana on the north side.
Road from Gold Creek to Devil Canyon on south side of Susitna .
River; connecting road between two dams on north side Susitna
River.
Road from Denali Highway to Watana
Road from Gold Creek to Devil Canyon south side of Susitna
River; connect·ing road between two· dams on north side of
Susitna River.
Road from Denali Highway to Watana.
Road from Gold Creek to Devil Canyon on south side of Susitna
River; crossing Susitna and continuing to·Watana on north side.
I
I
I
I
. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
page 3
Denali Highway to Watana Damsite: disturbance of fox denning sites
near Deadman Mountain, interference with migration and calviJg of
portions of the N~lchina caribou herd, disturbance to cultural
resources .
In addition to th,ese specific concerns~ a major concern for all acc:ess
plans was the creation of access to areas previously inaccessible or
relatively inaccessible. This increased access could lead to impacts to furbearers
(through trapping) and to big game through hunting." In addition, detrimental
effects could occur to all wildlife through disturbance and destruction
of habitat by ATV's. Cultural resources would al~o be vulnerable to
amateur collectors and ATV traffic.
Considering the potential of these impacts to occur in each plan resulted in
the conclusion that plan 8 woutd cause the least environmental distur~unce.
This was because the utilization of ~"oadway beginning at Gold Cre~k and
continuing to Watana will preclude public access into the area. Further-
more, the road from Devil Canyon to Watana on the north·side of the Susitna
River covers areas that are not of great importance to l'lildlife o."!" fisheries.
Plans 1,3,5, and 7 would provide increased access into the area'" This is
because the roadways would begin at the Parks Highway which is access.ible
to all outside traffic. For this reason, there plans were found not to
have the potentia 1 for greater impacts than Plan 8 L
Plans 1 and 2 connect the Watana and Devil Canyon dam sites via Ci road
on the south side of the Su~. i tna river. Because these p 1 ans wou1 d cross
wetlands and furbearer habitat n~ar Stephan and Fog ·Lakes and open this
area to increased fish·!ng pressure, tne plans were considered to be less
desirable than Plan 8.
Plans 3, 4, 6 and 7 ail involve a road from Watana dam north to the
Denali highway. Bec~use of the increased access this road would provide and
the potential for impacts t0 portions of the Nelchina caribou herd, to
furbearers (particularly fox denning areas) and to cultural rE!sources,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
;;
page 4
these plans were also considered less desirab1e than Plan So
The above evaluations were conducted without consideration of mitigation
plans. Certain mitigation techniques could be utilized to substantially
reduce the potential for impacts and permit utilization of plans other
than plan 8. For instance, timing restrictions for stream crossings and
utilization of siltation control devices could reduc~ impacts to
anadromous fish; final alignment of the road bed above wetland areas
would reduce impact to aquatic furbearers; strict patrols and·control
of access may reduce impacts to caribou.
Final plan selection will incorporate engineeri.ng, economic and environmental
consider .. ations, including utilization of mitigation techniques.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
page 5
Access Roads
Socioeconomic and Land Use Analysis Summary
Each of the acc~ss plans under consideration originates at·one·or two of
the following points; the Parks Highway at Hurricane,! the Alaska
Railroad at Gold C:·eek and the Denali Highway near Denali~ For purposes of
socioeconomic and land use analysis: the point of origination is the
dominant variable, with mode (road or railroad) an important variable
and actual alignment a minor· variable.
Each of the access plans was evaluated in terms of its effect on socio-
economic conditions and land use in the area. Socioeconomic parameters
evaluated included effects on population levels, cultural activities,
community, political and social organizations, housing, public service,
government finance, labor and economic base. Land use parameters evaluated
included land uses c.nd associated site-specific activities, disper·sed and .
isolated activities, land management activities, and related concerns
and natural aesthetics~
Impacts were evaluated for three general geographic areas:
-Parks Highway-Railroad corridor on Wes·i:side, containing the
communities of Healy, Cantwell, Chulitna, Talkeetna, Willow and
"'
Wasilla
-Richardson Highway corridor on eastsi.de. conta·itling the communitit:s
of Glennallen, Gu1kana, Paxson and others along the k.ichardson Highway
-Anchorage, Whittier and Fairbanks
Evaluations showed effects on Fairbanks to be .the same for each access
plan and therefore was not included in the comparisons.
Acres plans Clands) with a roadway originating at Hurricaine will
significantly impact the westside communities in terms of demand for
I
I
I
I
·-
1
I
I
I
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
••
I
I
page 6
increased services, changes in population, housing availability,
government expenditures and revenues, 1abor demand and unemployment.
There will also be significant effects on construction, retail trade
and tourism. Many of the changes will occur as construction workers-
attempt to relocate tJ the communities near the construction site.
Significant 1and use changes would occur in the Westside communities,
particularly in residential and commercial uses.
·-
Except ~or a possible significant increase in wholesale trade, roads frofit
the west should have only slight socioeconomic and land use effect on ,
' Anchorage, Whittier and the eastside communities.
Access plans 2 and 8 originate at Gold Creek. As such, impacts \'JOuld be
concentrated on the WeJtside communities as described for" plans 1 and 5 ..
However, the effects would be magnified in Talkeetna and Hurricane because
of their location at rail-highway intersections.
The Anchorage/Whittier area would bP significantly or moderately effected
in construction, port and rail transportation, wholesale and retail trade
and service industries. In addition, Whittier would experience moderate
effects on employment.
Only negligible effects would be felt on eastside communities.
Land use impacts are expected to be minor in the interio~ of the project
area, because access to the site would require utilizing the Alaskan
Railroad to Gold Creek. Significant land use change would occ~r in the
westside communities, particularly in residential and commercial uses-
in Talkeetna and Hurricane.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,,.
"'·-·
page 7
Access plans 4 and 6 move the access origin from the Railbelt corridor to
the Denali Highway· in the north. Workers 1 families 'tJould tend to locate in
more communities and possibly concentrate in Anchorage. Significant or ~
major effects would likely be felt in Cantwell in terms of population,
culture/way-of-life, community, political and social o:rganization, housing
availability)' government expenditures and revenues, labor d£~mand,
unemployed labor, public services, construction, public utilities,
communications and retail trade and services.
Anchorage would experience a significant effect on wholesale trade and
Whittier would feel moderate effects on employment, retail trade and
service.
The eastside communiti.es would experience moderate changes, due permanently
to spillover effects of increased tourism from access on the Denali
Highway.
LJnd use changes would occur in Cantwell, primarily in residential and
t-tJmmercial use. There would also be changes in land use in the area between
Den(\li Highway and Watana, due to increased access.
Access Plans 3 and 7
These effects will be essentially the same as plans 4 and 6$ Westsirle
communities would be effected as workers• families move further up the
corridor. Significant changes would occur in many oi~ the communities
as road acces_s would begin at both Hurricane and Cantwell.
Evvects to Anchorage, Whittier and the Eastside communities would be the
same as for plans 1 and 5.
Land use changes in the interior may be great, as road access is provided
at two places. In addition, commercial and residential land use changes
would occur in the westside communities.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
<
••
I
I
I
~I
I
I
I
I
DRAFT
Access Road Environmental Summary
Public Preference
Public preference regal'·ding the access and recreation development plans
was acquired through mail-in 1vestionnaires, workshop questionnaires,
personal interviews and other forms of written and verbal communication.
As different groups were reache1.i through these various media the results
acquired from each are not di re,.:tl y comparab 1 e.
Mail-In Questionnaires -Recreation
As a component of the recreation planning program a mail-in questionnaire
was forwarded to 2145 residents, 715 to each of the Fairbanks, Anchorage
and Railbelt (excluding Fairbanks and Anchorage) areas. · 502 or 23
perr.ent of the questionnaires ~Jere completed and returned. As shown
on TZtble I t~e general concensus from all three regions was that 15-20%
of the respondents favored no or restricted access and no recreation deve1 opment
21-26% favored access with little or no recreation development and 56-60%
favored access with moderate to high development'. It must be noted that
when this questionnaire was distributed the option of providing access to
the site by rail was not offered as an alternative and thus the results of
this survey do not take the option of a rail access into accaunt. In addi-
tion, this questionnaire was distributed for the purpose of accessing the
degree and type of recreation development preferred. Thus the responses
may have differed somewhat had the primary questions been directed towards
t,e degree, mode and point of origin for access roads.
Public Workshop Questionnaire-Recreation
The results of the recreation questionnaire as received through the March .,
1981 public workshop differed significantly from the mail-in responses. The
exact reasons for this difference is unknown although speculation is pre-
sented. A total of 82 responses were received with 18, 35 and 29 from
Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Railbelt {excluding Anchorage and Fairbanks)
respectively. As shown on Table 2 the results f~om these sectors varied
••
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 1 2
greatly. In Fairbanks 72% of the. respondents favored no or restricted
a·ccess with no recreation development, and 8% favored access with moderate
to high recreatio.n development. Anc:mrage was almost the reverse with
6%, 9% and 71% favoring no or restricted access, access with minimum develop-
ment and access with moderate to high development, respectively. The results
of the centra 1 Rail belt as reflected by the responses from the Ta 1 keetna
workshop were more evenly divided with 45% favo.ring no or 1-;estri cted access,
l i% favori·ng access with minimal recreation development and 38% favoring
access with moderate to high development.
It is specula ted that the results from the Fairbanks workshop tend to .,
represent the views of'concerned interest groups that had a large
representation at the Fairbanks workshop. The dicotomy of the responses
from the Talkeetna workshop are probably a reflection of the attitudes
that exist in this community as indicated by the results of the socio-
cul tura 1 studies. In \nch-:>rage the very high leve 1 preference ·for access
with moderate to high recreation development differs in degree from the
mail-in results although both surveys demonstrate a preference in Anchorage
for access with development.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I"
I
Page 3
TABLE I: RESPONSE FROM MAIL-IN QUESTIONNAIRES ON RECREATION
)
Fairbanks Rail belt Anchorage
% % %
A) No road access or restricted 15 19 20
access
B) Access but little or no 26 26 21
recreation development
C) Access with moderate to 59 56 59
high development
TABLE II: RESPONSE FROM THE PUBLIC WORKSHOP QUESTIONNAIRE ON RECREATION
Fairbanks Rail belt Anchorage
% % %
A) No road access or restricted 72 45 6
access
B) Access but little or no 0 17 9
recreation development
C) Access with moderate to 8 38 71
high development
I
I
I
I
I
••
I
I
I
I
I
~.
I
I
I
.I
I
I
I
Page 4 ..
Public Workshop Questionnaire -Ace~~:!
The results of the access questionnaire as received through the March 1981
public workshop are presented in Table 3 below.
Ro.ute
A) Road access from
Parks Hwy to
both dam sites
B) Rail access from
Gold Creek to both
dam sites
C) Road from Denali Hwy
to Watana rail from
o both Creek to Devil
Canyon
D) Road from Denali Hwy
and Parks Hwy
No Preference
0
Fairbanks
%
6
72
17
0
6
Talkeetna Anchorage* Total
% % %
17 7 10
67 40 59
11 20 16
0 33 10
6 0 4
* Mail responses were mostly from the Anchorage area, reflecting the
thinking of that area, and were.thus included in the Anchorage results~
A total of 51 responses were received with 18, 15, and 18 from the Fairbanks,
Anchorage and Talkeetna areas respectively.
In Fairbanks 72% of the respondents favor~~ a ra i 1 only access, 17% favored
a combination of road rail and 6% favor'2d road only access. None of the
respondents favored road access from both the Denali and Parks Highway.
In Ta 1 keE::tna a simi 1 a r trend e;;"~erged with 67, 11 , 17 and 0~ favoring rail
access only, road and rail access, road only and road access to both Denali
and Parks Highways, respectively.
In Anchorage 40% of the respondents favored rail access only, 20% favored
road/rail access, and 41% favored road only. 33% of the total respondents
favored road access from both the Denali and Parks Highways
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 5
Those trends demonstrated by these results are comparable with the results
of the public workshop recreation questionnaire although the degree of pre-
ferences vary .. The Fairbanks respondents, which favored no or restric'-1
access with no recreation development also favored rail access only {72%).
In Talkeetna the dicotomy expressed in the public workshop recreation
questionnaire response is also reflected in the access questionnaire results,
however~ a definite preference (67%) was shown for the rail only access (40%)
and higher preference for some type of road access (60%) is again comparable
to the resul ts of the workshop recreation questi onna i.re. The grea.test
difference between the Anchorage and the Fairbanks/Talkeetna r!=sults in the
33% for no preference for road access from both the Parks and Denali highway.
.Questionnaire Interpretation .
Interpretation of the results frorq the public preference questionnaires
must be made with caution~ The largest sample size with 502 responses was
associated with the recreation· mail-in questionnaire. In addition, the
fact that the questi anna ire had a random distribution, improves the proba-
bility that it morfi accurately reflects the attitudes of the general public.
Its main drawback was that it was directed mainly towards the question of
recreation development with access being a secondary issue. The problem
in interpreting the results of the works:hop questionnaires is a comfirmation
of sample size (Recreation questionnaire -82 responses; Access question ...
naire -51 responses) and an evaluation as to what component of the com-
munities are actually represented.
Sociocultural Studies -Access Report
Railroad Communities north of Talkeetna
These communities prefer the access system which allows the minimum amount
of public access and least amount of population and industrial growth • .
They feeL) that the rail access only waul d lead to the minimal disrupt· ~n
to existing residential and recreational patterns.
I
I
>
I
I
I
I
I
·t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
Page 6
Talkeetna
Two factions were identified:
1) The first group desires minimum impact on the community as well
as the wildlife. and general environment of the surrounding area.
If the dam is constructed they perceive the railroad as the best
means to limit access and change in the study area.
2) The. second group ten·ds to be pro-economic development and was
divided into two subgroups.
a) This group is in favor of the dam although they still value
the rural, small-town atmosphere in which they have chosen
to 1ive. As such, to limit the impact on the community and
surrounding wilderness they prefer a ra i1 road access only to
the dam sites.
b) The second subgroup of Talkeetna residents which favor economic
development in general are also in favor of roads to open the
country. Views in this category represent the minority
opinion of those int~~viewed.
Trapper Creek
As with Talkeetna two factions emerged.
1) This group is against the Susitna project as well as other large
scale development in the area. This group expressed concern
about road access from the Parks Highway or Denali Highway •.
As the alternative that would have the least impact on their
community as well as the environment in general thiy preferred
the railroad only pl~n.
2) The second group although in favor of Susitna was divided on
the issue of access modes and routes.
a) The first subgroup preferred not to see the area opened up
with roads. They preferred the railroad only plan and were
opposed to highway access from Hurricane to Gold Creek.
I
•••
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I .
' -:
I
I
Page 7
b) Member"'S of the second subgroup preferred road access in order
to provide the maximum public access to otherwise inaccessible
areas •. This subgrotip is comprised mai~y of older residents
who have already experienced considerable change in the area.
Cantwell
In regards to access the fall owing groups emerged:
1) Pro. the Denali Spur:
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 enh1nce economit progress of the
community. This group was a 1 so in favor of upgrading of the
Denali Highway. People in this category·had a strong voice
liut did not represent the majority opinion in Cantwell.
b) Members of this subgroup acknowledge that Cantwell needs
the economic stimulation and appreciate the logic and eng-
ineering compatability of the Denali Spur. Ho\'1ever, they
are very concerne~ about the potential adverse impacts on
wildlife in the area and would only be in· favor of the Dena1i
Spur if stringent hunting regulations were implemented and
enforced. This group represented the majority opinion in
Cantwell.
2) This group has considerable concern regarding the potential
impact on the fish and wild1 ife of the area. This group, which . .
represented the minority of those interviewed, was comprised
mainly of local trappers~ non-locals with recreational cabiris
and 1 oca 1 s -\'~'ho fe 1 t the potentia 1 adverse impact on wi 1 dl i fe
outweighed the use of this corridor.
Native Preference
The CIRI Corporation has stated that it is their intent, with or without
the project n to develop th.e 1 ands surrounding the Devil Canyon and Watana
I
I
··.J·
. .
I
I
I
I!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
••
I
I
Page 8
proposed damsites mainly for its mineral potential .. As ;;ech they are
strongly in favor of a permanent road to the damsite and have stated
their preference for the Southern Road from the Parks Highway. They c.lo
not favor a railroad but if a railroad is built they feel the railroad
bAd should be converted into a permanent road with access to the Parks
Highway. It is also their contention that since much of the land in
qu~stion is private 1 and, b€:i onging to CIRI, access should be subject
to their wisheso
••
I
I
I
I
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
••
·~
I
I
I
I
I
....
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION OFFICE
ACCESS REPORT
October 9, 1 Sel
I.
I
I
••
I
1:
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
.I
I
I
I
I
I
Section I.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
March 1981 Workshop Results
The results of three workshops held and questionnaires sent out by
the Public Participation Office concerning the question of access to the
proposed Watana and Devil Canyon hydroelectric sites show a preference
for a rail only alternative. Sixty (60) percent of the participants in
the workshops held in Fairbanks, Talkeetna, and Anchorage preferred rail
access. Almost 80% of the Talkeetna respondents and more than 80% of the
Fairbanks participants favored the rail only alternative.~ Likewise, a
sizeable portion of the game guides registered in Unit 13 (Upper Susitna
Basin) v.Jho responded to a questionnaire favored the rail access.
The rt:.asons for this preference varied somewhat among communities
and interest groups. Nevertheless, a pattern did emerge. The partici-
pants at the Talkeetna meeting felt that their way of life would be al-
tered tf road access through any nearby community-was selected. The
\>lorkshop participants~ choice of rail only access reflects their concern
for the potential amount of change that could occur if such an access
road were selected.
A second factor in the choice of the rail only route ttas the desire
to limit the impact on wildlife and the ecology of the Upper Susitna
Basin that increased recr·eational opportunity would cause. This was es-
pecially true of the participants in Fairbanks and the responses of the
9ame guides . Both these group·s did not respond to 1 i mi ti ng impacts on
the communities along the Parks Highway, but tended to focus on the po-
tentia 1 impacts on game and the environment. Of primary cnncern \ttas the
Nelchina caribou herd and also the moose and bear populations. All three
groups mentioned potential impacts from all terrain vehicles {ATV's) and
increased hunting ·and fishing opportunities~
...
I
I
I
I;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 2
In analyzing these responses and in recent discussions with Ro~ert
Anderson of Terrestial Environmental Specialists (TES), Peter Rogers of
Frank Orth & Associates~ and ~tephen ~raunrl who is conductirg t~e socio-
cultural study~ severalvariables need tQ be considered in respect to a
rail only alternative. It is our thinking that several potential im-
pacts could result from a rail only access that were not considered by
these contnunities. One wocld be the size and location of a staging or
stockpiling area for construction materials (and its possible visua1
impact or the size of the work force needed to operate it). A second
would be the regularity that workers would" be allowed to ride the train
to the construction site. If workers could ride in either daily, week-
o
ly, or bi-weekly, impacts in the southern communities could be nearly as
great as with a road access. This would include the need for parking <
facilities in Talkeetna or Hurricanec; and the result of workers and their
families relocating in the southern communities. The increased deman\.i
in service could potentially impact a broad range of activities that the
Talkeetna participants expressed an interest in limiting.
The Pub!ic Participation Office (PPO) intends to point out these
things to the communities when we hold our next workshop sessions the
week of October 19. As the result of recent discussions among the PPO.sta~f
Braund, Peter Rogers, and Robert Anderson, one possible
way to reduce impacts on the southern communities is a northern access
from the Denali Highway, with a full service construction camp, com-
muter schedules, and clearly defined state policies, in combination
with no access from the west (either rail or road). Although a north-
ern route only \'las originally c.onsidered, it was not among the options
presented at the community workshops in March 1981. Another option to
reduce impacts would be all rail or rail to Gold Creek with workers
commuting to and from Anchorage by airplane. This option was not pre-
sented either. vle suggest that these access options and the explana-
tion of ihe possible impacts of the rail ~nly access need to be present-
ed to the southern communities in order that a more informed decision
can be made. Especially because the thinking of these communities tend-
ed to feflect the idea that the rail only access would have the least
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
.I
I
I
I
I
Page 3
impact an tfiei'r conmuntti'es. It i's pass i b l e that the fu11 range of
impacts, o·oth· primary and secondary, nave not Been understood or con-
sidered. The primary consideration appeared to be the long term im-
plications of public access after construction. Nevertheless, construc-
tion related impacts may be of greatest concern to these communities
given the 10 to 15 year time span of construction.
In addition, the results of the recreational development question,:.
naire that was also distributed at the corrrnunity workshops also showed a
preference for limiting development and access. Nore than 60% of those
who responded to the recr·eation questionnaire favored a minimally devel-
oped and managed wilderness. This choice demonstrated a desire to either
limit or permit no access to the project area. Rail access was men-
tioned several times as the best method of access.
-Communities Where No yJorkshops Were Held
Willow, Houston, Wasilla, and Palmer:
It should be pointed out that community wcrks.hops were not held in
the communities south of Talkeetna (Willow, Houston, Hasi11a, and,Palmsr)
and no one from these areas attended the March 1981 workshop in Talkeetna ..
Generally, the Mat-Su area has been economically siow in recent years
(the capital move to Willow has not occurred) and people in some of
these communities may well perceive changes and impacts bro~ght about by
the Susitna project as benE~ficial if economic development is stimulated.
Data from a study conducted in the Mat-Su Borough by the Overall Economic
Development Program, Inc. (Economic Conditions, Development Options ard -.
Projections9 July 1980) indicates that people in Willow, Houston, Wasilla)
and Palmer tend to favor a higher rate of development than the communi-
ties north <>f Willow.. Additional inf'.lrmation frm planners at the Mat-Su
Borough, the Borough ~·1anager, Assembly, Planning and Zoning Corrmission,
and local residents might be useful.
Trapper Creek:
The 1 ack of representation from Trapper Creek at. the March \-'lorkshnp
at Talkeetna a1so limits the information from that meeting.. The community
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
Page 4
of Trapper Crt1ek di'd not seem to perceive the Susitna projects as having
a potential impact on their community. One member of the community coun-
cil later expressed the perception that Trapper Creek would be less af-
fected than Talkeetna would be by Susitna. In addition, the workshop
was held in Talkeetna which is a 60 mile round trip for Trapper Creek
residents and,_ given the public sentiment as reflected by the above state-
ment,_it doesn't seem likely that people would make the trip. Stephen
Braund has recently spent some time in the Trapper Creek area and his in-
formation should help in assessing the preference of that community. A
joint meeting with Trapper Creek and Talkeetna is being planned for Wed-
nesday, October 21. It will be held at St:sitna Valley High: School, 1o-
cated half way between Trapper Creek and Talkeetna, and we hope to get
rep.resenta t ion from both these communities.
People living along the railroad north of Talkeetna:
The small clusters of people north ~f Talkeetna along the railroad
were also not well represented at the Talkeetna workshop. Sorne people
from the Chase area attended the workshop, but people further north a-
lorig the railroad (Lane Creek, Sherman, and Gold Creek) did not atte~d.
The PPO did communicate with people living or owning land at Lane Creek
and Sherman during the pub1ic participatio11 work on the intertie project ..
The general feeling in these areas was one of strong opposition to the
tr·ansmission lines because people had moved to the area to get away from
development. \·le would expect strong resistance to any access choice
which would cause changes along the railroad in these areas.
Cantwell ano NcKin1ey Park areas:
Another area where the PPO had no contact concerning access is the
Cantwell and McKinley Park areas. In communications with both these
areas on the intertie issue, Cantwell has been generally pro-development
and pro-:intertie. Community sentiment indicated the desire for a sub-
station at Cantwell (along with distribution ·lines) so the community ,
would not have to rely on diesel generation for~ electricity. Discussions
t'lith Stephen Braund and Tom·Lonner hav.a indicated that the McKinley
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I ._.-
••
I
I
I
I
-••
' I
...
Page 5
Park area would not be affected by access plans, but Cantv1ell would,
especially if the Denali Highway acce~s is selected. To better under-
stand the concerns of the Cantwe 11 community, a community \'IOrkshop is
being p 1 e.nned for Thursday, October 22.
Indian River Subdivision and Indian River Remote lands:
A final group of people whose preference was not obtained was the
Indian River Subdivision m·mers and the Indian River remote parcel owners.
The subdivision contains about 140 parcels on or near the Parks Highway
in the area of the proposed road access to Devil Canyon. The Department
of Natural Resources estimates that 90 of these sites have been awarded
since July 1981. Consequently the people who are now m•mers have not
been contacted concerning their views on either Susitna in general or on .
the question of access. ONR also reports that demand was not great for
the subdivision lands except along the highway. This was not the case
for the Indian River remote parcels. Because these remote parcels had
railroad aceess and most remote parcels have no access at all, DNR re-
ports that it was one of the more popular remote parcel offerings the
state has had. Seventy-five person were given authorization to stake
in this area .
Conclusions
1. \~hat emerges from the responses received in the community work-
"' shops, both on access and recreation, is the desire to limit gro\'tth and
development that could occur should the Susitna project be constructed,
especially in the Talkeetna area and the railroad communities north.of
Talkeetna. One of the drivers of the type and magnitude of the impacts
on the southern communities is the :ocation of the acce~s route and the
mode of transportation used on the route. Although the clear preference
stated is for a rail only access, more information needs to be presented
to the potentially impacted communities concerning the nature of impacts
during the construction phase if a rail oniy route is selected.
'
I
I
I
I.
I:
I
I
I .....
I
I
I ........
I
I
I
I \.-·•
j
I
I
I
Page 6
2~ In recent 9i,scus.s\vns w.\th. Stephen P.raund, RoJel~t Pnoerson, and
Peter Rogers) tt fias oecome c1ear that tfie question of a~.:cess and mode
alone are not the on1y consi·derati'ons tfiat need to be p·resent~d to the
potenti'a lly impacted communtti'es. An equally :~mportant consideration is
the si2e and nature of the construction facilit8. Various options are
available and depending on what is selected the impacts on the surround-
ing communities will vary. A full service, planned community providing
the widest rangi of services for the workers and their families would
have a much different impact than a low service, construction camp with
no fami1y facilities. This type of decision, as well as the policies
that the State of Alaska (through the Power Authority) would adopt or
not adopt concerning the nature of the construction site, access to the
' site, and the scheduling of commuting workers to and from the site will
be the primary factor in determining the impacts on local comunities.
3. PPO suggests the following method for looking at how various
options would :ither decrease or encourage the amount of change that
could potentially occur in local communities. Six possible objectives
are giver, below. We recognize that some of these objec;tives appear
mutually exc 1 us i ve. They do, however, reflect the i-ange of preferences
that have been heard in the communities so far. PPO would like more
community input to determine which preference reflects the w..ajority of
a given community.
The six objectives are:
1. To encourage changes in the W·illow, Houston, Hasi11a and
Palmer areas.
2. To limit changes in the raflroad communities north of Talkeetna,.
3. To limit changes in the Talkeetna and Trapper Creek areas.
4. To encourage changes in the the Talkeetna and Trapper Creek
areas.
5. To encourage changes in the Cantwell area.
6. To limit. changes in the Cantwell area.
I
I
I'
~ ...
I
·~.
I
I . .
I
I ~-·
I
I
I
I
l
I
I V'
I
I
I
.
.
I
•.
---·~·· -~ ' ·-··'"
Page 7
· The !'lext four pages are a preliminary discussion of how decisions
could be made to.implement either one_or a combination of these objec-
tives.. The information on these pages was written in a work session
with Robert And~rson, Peter Rogers~ Stephen Braund, anc PPO staff. More
time could be spent in refining this. In addition, the thinking of
several other disciplines is needed to make the picture more complete.
Based on what we know now, the Power Authority's "access/recreation/
construction facilities/construction policies" objectives would be to:
1) encourage change in the Willow, Houston, Wasilla, and Palmer areas;
and 2) to limit changes in the railroad communities north of ialkeetna.
We do not yet have enough information to establish clear planning ob-
jectives for the Trapper Creek~ Talkeetna, and Cantwell areas. ***
.The remainder of the report (Section II) is the back-up data that
supports the summary and conclusions from the workshops and question-
naires. Inc1uded as exhibits are copies of the various questionnaires
used to solicit responses.
*** PPO is relying on the sociocultural study being conductecl by Stephen
Braund and Associates to supply ~dditional information in order to better
articulate these objectives. In addition~ we intend to theck our perceptions
of community preferences one more time with the communities the week ,of
October 19th.
-! ...
OBJECTIVE I: To encourage changes in Willow, Houston, Wasilla, and Palmer areas.
PLAN A:
1. Access Corridor: access from the \<Jest; no access at all from the Denali Highway.
2. Node: road.
3. Nature of construction camp facilities: Minimal construction camp: trailers, mess hall,
r·ecreation hall, some family facilities for supet .. visory personnel.
4. Policies:
a. Individuals drive their own private vehicles to the sites.
b. No policies about when workers come and go, from where, or use of private vehicles.
5. Commuter Schedules;
a. None.
b. No policy on public access.
c. No policy on use of fish and game.
·,
-.......... ~ t9
\
-( -
Objective I: To encourage changes in Willow9 HOuston~ Wasilla, and Palmer areas.
PLAN B:
1. Access Corridor:
2. Mode: ra i 1
rail access, either through Gold Creek with road.to site or
ra i 1 directly to Dev i1 Canyon.
3. !i_ature of construction camp facilities: Minimal construction camp: trailers, mess hall,
recraation hall, some family facilities for supervisory personnel.
4. Po 1 i ci es:
a. Policy reagarding use of personal vehicles by workers.
b. Policy to control public access to area.
5. Commuter Schedules: Organized commuter schedule using aircraft ·from the ~lasilla
Pa 1 mer area.
Or organized rail commuter schedule with workers getting on and off the train
in the Palmer and Wasilla areas.
OBJECTIVE II: To limit changes in railroad communities north of Talkeetna.
PLAN A:
1. Access Corridor: Road from Denali Highway to Watana; service road from ~latana ~o Devil
Canyon; no access at all from the west (neither rail nor road).
2. ~1ode: road.
3. Nature of construction camp facilities:
The larger the camp, and the more services, the less the impacts on surrounding local
comnunities. Services that would help reduce impacts include: stores~ post office, schools.
Proposal: to construct a .. mixed camp 11
, meaning a camp where workers live with their families
if desired, or where workers live in trailers or barracks without families if desired.
Part of the constroction camp could/would become a permanent city for the operating phase.
The temporary camp could be sited and located so that it would be inundated by water later.
The siting of a permanent camp for families would be important so that the experience is as
pleasant as possible: meaning1 it-was sited on dry lal}d so people could get out and walk,
and near trees and sun exposure if possible. The more pleasant the place is to live, the
more families will enjoy living there and impact existing local communities less.
Limited r & r would be available at camp; workers or families would periodically get out to
other areas (larger areas like Anchorage and Fairbanks) for more extended r & r and cultural
activities, etc.
4. Po 1 i c i es :
a. strfct regulations where people can go in the upper basin to protect resources, especially
hunting and fishing. .
b. No private planes flying in and out.
c. Policy regarding use of personal vehicles.
~· Policy-to control 'public access off corridor.
0
---·----·-~--·
OBJECTIVE II: Plan A cont.
5. Commuter Schedules:
·,
a. ORGANIZED co.rnmuter schedule for those \vho don • t live with fami 1 ies. Could be busing
from Fairbanks, Anchorage, or Cant·nell.
""
b. ORGA~!IZED air commuting from Anchorage, or fom Palmer and ~·~asilla.
--------·~
OBJECTIVE IV: To limit changes in the Talkeetna and Trapper Creek areas.
PLAN A:
1. Access Corridor: Road from Denali Highway to Watana (this \'/ould spread the impacts to
include Cantwell). Service road from \~atana to Devil Canyon; no access at all from the
west (neithe~ rail nor road).
2. Mode: road.**
_ .....
3. Nature of construction camp facilities: The larger the camp, and the more ser.vices, the
less the impacts on surrounding local communities. Services that would help reduce impacts
include: stores, post office, schools.
Proposal: to construct a 11 mixed camp 11
, meaning a camp where workers live with their families
if desired, or where worke~s live in trailers or barracks without families if desired.
Part of the construction camp could/would become a p.ermanent city for the operating phase.
The temporary camp could be sited and located so that it would be inundated by water later.
The siting of a p.ermanent camp for families \'JOuld be important so that the experience is as
pleasant as possible: raeaning, it was sited on dry lane! so people could get out and walk,
and near trees and sun exposure if possible. The more pleasant the place is to live, the
more families will enjoy living there and impact existing local communities less.
Limited r & r would be available at camp; \•IOrkers or families would periodically get out to
other areas (1 arger areas like Anchorage and Fairbanks) for more extended r & r and cul tura 1
activities, etc.
4. Policies:
a. strict regulations where people can go in the upper basin to protect resources, especially hungi~ and fishing.
b. do private planes flying in and out.
c. Policy regarding use of personal vehicles.
·,d., Policy to control public access off corridor.
J
·-'
---,. -
0 '?J ct{-h\,~· , ... / : --·Pitit\ A --t.i;l\..t-. --
5. Commuter Schedules:
a. ORGANIZED commuter scedule ·for those who don•t live with families. Could be busing
from Fairbanks, Anchorage, or Cantwell.
b. Assumption was made that air commuter would not be reliable enough because of weather.
**Rail on this route could be feasible, but was not considered .
. 0
) .
--------------
OBJECTIVE IV: To limit changes in the Talkeetna and Trapper Creek areas.
PLAN B:
1. Access Corridor: Either r·ai1 to f'evil Canyon orGold Creek: or all rail.
No direct road access from the west or nort~.
2. Mode: ra i 1 •
3.. Nature of construction camp facilities: Something less than a full service camp would
appropriate if the \-Jorkers can commute in and out to be with their families on a weekly
or bi-weekly basis.
4. Policies: the same policies would apply as in Plan A.
5. Commuter Schedules:
a. ORGANIZED commuter air and rail schedules from the Anchorage and Wasilla-Palmer areas.
__ ,
------------------'-
OBJECTIVE V: To encourage changes in the Cantvtell area,
1. Access Corridor: access from the Det~a 1 i Highway on 1 y, with a ra i 1 head at Cantwe 11 . No
access from the west.
2. ~1ode: rail to Cantwell and road from Cant\oJe11 to the Hatana site.
3. Nature of construction camp facilities: Minimal facilities: trailers to sleep in (or
barracks), mess hall, recreation hall, some family housing for supervisory personnel.
4. Policies:
a. individuals drive their own private vehicles to the sites.
b. No policies about when workers come and go, from where, or use of private vehicles.
Again, the same as in Objective III: the absence of policies by the state of Alaska (through
the Power Authority) might result in the most changes in Cantwell.
Another kind of policy would be the lack of assertive action: for instance, a state policy to
upgrade only the west side of the Denali Highway (and not the entire route} would encourage
users to come from Cantwell and go back out to Cantwell, rather than driving on through to the
Richardson Hi gh\-'lay.
5. Commuter Schedules:
a. None.
b. No policy on public access.
c. No policy on use of fish and game along corridor.
\
,·,:.
---------------~---
OBJECTIVE VI; To ltmit changes in the Cantwell area.
1. Access Corridor: access from the Parks Highway on the west; no access at all from
the Denali Highway.
2. Mode: either road or railroad.
3. Nature of construction camp facilities: full service camp, with complete services for
all who wish to bring their families~· Same description that limits changes in the southern
corrmunities would also help to limit changes in Cantwell. ·see Objective IVa.
4. Polices:
Same policies that limit changes in the southern communities would help to limit changes in
Cantwell also. See Objective IVa.
5. Commuter Schedules:
ORGANIZED commuter schedules on some regular basis (weekly or bi-weekly.)
\
I
I
I . .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 11
SECT!Ct\; 2
BACK-UP Ol\T~
COHMUNITY WORKSHOPS
Comnunity workshops were held in Fairbanks, Talkeetna, and Anchorage
in t·1arch 1921 in an attempt to detenr.ine what concerns the peoo1e of
these areas had relating to recreation and access planning on the Susitna
hydroelectric feas i bi 1 i ty study. Information \'las preseTted at each
workshop concerning several access and recreation plans c.nd cor:unents
reco~dc~ that could be used to help in acce~s and recreati1n plan~ing.
In all) more than 300 com-nents were received in response to printed
questionnaires. Of these 50 pertained directly to the question of access.
Questionnaires were also received relating to recreation, but these
comments also often related to access.
Participants in the workshops were presented with four alternative
access plans whicl1 used various combinations of road and rail access in
combination with existing routes (Figure 1). They were: 1) Access
Route A -construction of a new road from Hurricane to the Devil Canyon
and v:atana sites; 2) Access Route B -construction of a railroad to both
dam sites from Gold Creek; 3) Access Route C -construction of a road
from the Denali Highway to the ~4atana site!' construction of a service
road from Watana to Devil Canyon, and construction of a rail~oad spur
from Gold Creek to Devil Canyon; and 4) Access Route 0 -the same as
Route C except that a ne\v road from the Parks Highway would replace the
rail spur.
The following table shows the response of the works~op participants.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page· 12
Route Talkeetna -, Anchcrage
I r
Route A 1 I ..., 1 l -0
I I Route B 13 12 1 ,.. I :> -J.-..
Route ~ 3 2 I
0 3 v
Rt:>Ute D f 0 0 "' ? .) ._
~Jo Preference I 1 1 0 0
*Mail responses were mostly from the Anchorage area and reflect the
thinking of that area.
(}
Total
5
30
8
....
!)
2
I
I
I
I
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
.·I
This r.ab 1 e shm·Js tha! most of the oeojj i e attending ~he vJorkshoJs in
Fairbanks and Talkeetna favor rail access during and after constructio~.
Additionally, almost half the people in Anchorage favored the rail only
alter~ative. Some o~ the reasons given were: 1) fewer environmen~al
impacts; 2) easier to limit the number of people and types of activ·lty
in surrounding areas; 3) less expensive; and 4) more energy efficient.
i'.bout h.ri1f the peoi)le in ,\nchorage and one-third of the ;Jeople in
Fairbanks and Talkeetna favored some type of road access because they
(:Ould gain access to areas they feel al'E cw~rently inaccessib1e. The
Anchor·age people tended to favor the Denali routet but in Fairbanks
several people spoke out against it because of the potential adverse
effects on caribou calving grounds near that route.
In addit~on, some peop1e at each workshop indicated they favorgd no
access or very limited access. Suggestions ranged from brining in
supplies during th~ winter on snow roads to access by air. Those in
favor of air access suggested it as a way to bring workers to the construct~on
site that would lessen impacts on other r-ailbelt communities~
The following is a ·~etailed breakdo~tm of the reasons behind the
prefPrences expressed in the Fairbanks, Talkeetna, and Anchorage workshops.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
••
Page 14
rftlRBANKS (36 attended, 17 responded)
One who pr~ferred access Rou-ce A 9EVt~ thi:; reason:
1. As a 1 and owner ( 1 ottery winner -20 acres in iH~ea east of Indian
~iver and north of Susitna) I'm in favor of access Route A for ac-
cessibility into my property. There are a total of 75 people who
will be staking up to 20 acres each in the are I've mentioned ...
Narilyn Stark
Those who preferred access Route B gave these reasons:
l. Less environmenta1 damage; iess public access the better. Also
lower cost. I dcnst want any access.
2. Route B would give the least acc~ss and thus cause the least human
im~act onto land and wildlife. This is the only hope for preserving
any of the Ne1china ca~ibou herd.
3. I prefer the all rail alternative because it curtails unlimited
public road access. If a road is built, I don't think there's any
doubt that pressure wi11 be exerted eventually to open it to the
public (as with the haul road). The mere presence of the reservoir(s)
will greatly increase boat and float (and ski) plane access, and 1
think that's enough (too much, in fact). A railroad is the best
approach to cr.:n·::""'olling unlimited access. If alternative route A-2
is feasible, ';,.,;~:' i:: rail link from Gold Creek to Devil Canyon
should be included, and a road on the north side to Watana, just so
there isn 1 t road access· all the way in.
4. a) lowest S cost to build and operate
b) possible interruptions in imported oil supply make more fuel-
efficient railroads desirable
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 15
c) r•n concerned about impac~ on Denali Highway
5. ~1inima1 cost; minimal impact on fish and wildlife, wetlands; -ninima1
access; minimal fue1 consumption; minimal other energy waste.
Ir. short RAIL ONLY IS THE NEXT ROUTE TO tiO~IE AT ALL.
6. This choice minimizes impact if T m~st choose an access.
I also see this as a way to control access as if it is a public
project sponsorea by public S and tne public can 1 ega lly demanc
access (i.e. the haul road). But if A, ~oul~ be fu11y controlled
I(d go with that because as reads it causes minimal impact.
7. I would prefer no access from the Denali Highway and I think this i~
th~ only access route that prevents this. Also, I think maybe a
railroad line could be built to Devil Canyon then a service road
could be built on the north side of the river to Watana. The
engineering con~erns might put construction back two or three years,
out thi~ v10uld save 100 years effect on wildlife and environmenta1
concerns.
8. Since feasibility studies on the whole hydro studies are incomplete
and inconclusive~ as well as studies on access routes, one cannot
make a well informed decision at this time. Therefore, I cannot
find any particular route acceptable. However, since a rail access
route would be most limiting to private vehicu1al4 traffic, I favor
it over others, since I value the existinq recreational and scenic
potential~ and hope for a minimal change in those potentials.
9. a) railroad right-of-way has less impact than a road or highway.
b) access of the general public is better ~ontrolled into the area.
c) construction of the rai 1 road appe~rs to be 1 ess costly t'lay to
go. You can haul more material or freight on one train than v1hat
60 trucks could d~.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
In
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 16
1n., to 1init the access to recreationa1ists; no racreational. vehicles;
·l"'o speed boats.
11. no road; co~ts less; costs less to maintain road.
12. Raii .only has the ieast long ~errn impact. 1 feel this should oe
considered even if it puts your starting date for construction back
1-3 years. The added time (i.e. setback) will be the best for the
long ter-m. I favor as little ir:1pact. (I prefer no Susitna dam).
I 7 the dam \~as bui 1 t --ra i 1 shou 1 d be the .?•11_y access.
13. With a railroad spur whi:h will be needed to move in tte big
turbines and other pieces of equipment you ~ill not need a road
system and it is also the less costly of all of the access routes
and it will keep the area wilderness and limit public access.
Those who favored access Route S qave these reasons:
1. The highway access v~a. the Denali should be eliminated if "C 11 is
considered (environmen~a1 concerns and mainstream development to
the south are prime reasons for this choice. I would like to see
interconstruction development at rail nodes kept to a minimum and
a consistent awareness for the local habitants kept as a forerunning
concern.
2. Most expedient, hence lowest cost especially as regards Watana.
3. Apparently lowest 'impact on wi'ldlife habitat along Denali Highway.
Watana route, depending on recreational plan decided on.
4. The least environmental impact.
No reason for favoring Route D.
One co.mment with.no choice:
1. i don't feel I have ~nough information as to the pros and cons of
'I
.
I .. '
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 17
route .
Eacn one interferes with wilclife habitat and migration routes ~n
about equal ways~ it seems.
Using a railroad seems a iess disturbing way --it ca.n con~rol
access --but a road cannot. Even the railroad will allow off roa~
vehicles to ge~ in there.
TALKES:TNA (38 attended, 17 responded)
These who favored access Route A did so for these reasons:
1. Keep the countryside as much like it is as possible.
2. a) Retain the wilderness status of this area as much as possible.
b) I do not accept the assumption that there will be public access .
c) Rail access from Go1d Creek with tourists riding in ard out
may be acceptable.
d) I especially don't want to see boats on the lake and their as-
sociatec hunting and fishing, camping, etc. pose a great threat
to the wilderness.
e) Large buffer zones of no access on the lake and power lines.
3. Minimum road access.
Those who favored access Route B did so for these reasons:
1. a) restrict private and commercial vehicles to the sites.
b) environmental impact of railroad (after construction) wouid
appear to be much less severe than a road.
1) no stop?ing, parking, shooting, etc. from ~he side of the
road.
2) no 4 x 4's or ATV's driving off into the wildernes.s.
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
Page 13
c) cheaoest alternative
d) least impac: on communities.
1) would limit the manoov1er· to air tl~ansoor:.
2. Least public impact, yet allowing those thct a1'"e willing :o go
through the trouble to get there, the ways and the means to do so.
Also, once completed possibly would be less problem maintaining.
3. Least adverse effect on environment over long tenn.
4. The railroad \'VOUld at least minimize impact on the area.
5. Limit access for construction and ma~ntenance only; no public road
needed;·railroad easiest to regulate in :his manner could be removed
after construction is finishec.
~
o. Railbelt area already handles population. Expanding this~service is
easier than developing new population centers or areas. Pub1ic
access is contained to cer·tain places (designated by train stops).
7. Railroad only gives greater control over access. Americans must and
can learn to divorce themselves from their vehicles. With railroad
on1y, you gain greater control over total numbers going to the site
and also contro1 over develooments along t11e route.
8. Would get the project completed with the least amount of ---
9. The ra i 1 road wou 1 d be far more economi ca 1 \•tay to move materia 1 s with
'I
the least long-lasting impact.
10. Least impact on area and future generations will get to see and enjoy
it as ~twas. People don't bring their ATV with them on the train,
nor do they have the ability to stop every\·Jhere. 'ihe area along rail-
roads is less impacted than areas along roads. And oeople in the
future will travel via public transportation not private cars.
11" Limits access by the mass.es by train or air. I am 100(~ opposed to any
road use especially as jt applies to vehicular (private autos),
I
I 1 •
\ . ...
I
I
I
I
I
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
Page 19
One favored C over A for this reason:
1. The reasol"t for··my choice bet\·u:en A or C is cost. I live close to
~ile 99~ Parks Highway. I'm not necessarily excited about more roads
but there is a need. If a road is put in hopefully the wildlife would be
protected for all to see and enjoy. No hunting permitted close to the
highway .. Perhaps park rangers would teach ~eople how to appreciate and
care for their state. I'd just like to see people enjoy Alaska as we did
16 years ago before it became overcrowd~d.
No one favored D .
One didn't mark a choice~ but noted this (:Omrnent:
This meeting is supposed to be part of a feasibility study so you shouldn't
be. giving just four options to choose from. I resent the feeling you give
.
me""th3t you are trying to SE~11 me a plan with a fe;.J options to choose from.
If I must accept this dam then I favor access routes that a11ow the least
amount of public access and the least amount of human population growth.
The social and economic aspects of the dam will have the greatest impact
on the natural environment, and they should be minimized. The haphazard
way you gather cor.tments is not good. It favors peop 1 e \'lho are most vocal
and doesn•t give a true consensus of opinion. The less people that enter
the area the better. M. C. Schwab
ANCHORAGE (40 attended, 4 responded)
No one oreferred access Route A.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .)
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 20
One preferred access Route· 8 for this rea so~
1. Access B wi11 limit impacts.
Is it possi~le to mail materials ahead of t~me so publi~ can study?
\~hy hasn • t Corps study been read')
Has effect of overall population on recreation been considered?
~Jhy isnt t more hard data available to public?
No one preferred C.
,,
Three oreferred 0 for these reasons:
1. This alternative will provide quick access for construction with
later maximum r·ecreational benefit. C is second choice, A is third,
8 is fourth.
2. Provides ma~imum public access to otherwise inaccessible areas~
Provides better acce~s from Anchorage to Denali Highway area. The
g1~ea ter 1 ength of hi gh\'lay sys tern decreases hunting pressure on any
segment of road or nearby fly "in lakes.
l\dditional routes allow for flexibility and diverstiy in hauling in
materials, equipment and supplies.
The serv.ice road between the dam r~UST be open for the pub1ic as public
f~nds will be usea for This access to this area is requi~ed
re2ardless of dam constructton.
3. Pr·efer D \vith modifications·
-
Road mode is most flexible during construction phase and most useable
by the public after construction --I am very familiar with the country
and favor a road from Hurricane to Devil Canyon, then cross the river
and on to Watana on the north side -~ this segment wi11 have south
slope aspect (much better than south side of river), a lot of ·11ind ex-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
••
I.
I
I
I
I
I
-•
-Page 21
posure so wi11 be easier to keep snow free --I do not favor cor.-
struction from Denali Hignway south to Watana that is unnecessary
if the abcve scheme were followed --pe~mafrost, wetlands impacts and
deep snow problems abound on this route --the preferred "watc.na
cons~ructi on fi r·st" can be accomp i i shed with this propose 1 as you
.
will have to cross at Devil Canyon anyway --this routing w6uld also
avoid some very difficult construction along south side of Su east of
De~il Canyon.
HAIL (11 responded, mostly from the Anchm~age area)
One who preferred access Route i\ oave this reason:
l. Felt a road to both dam sites would be of benefit to all parties,
both during and after construction.
2. No practical reason to build road from Denal1; the majori~y of workers
will be coming from Anchorage and Fairbanks and for the few workers
from Delta, Glennallen, and Paxon the extra distance wouldn't justify
the cost. Tourists will come from Anchorage also .
Those who favored access Route B gave these reasons.
1. a) minimal disruption to existing recreation patterns
b) minimal tax dollar waste to accommodate governmentally contrived
recreation programs, frivo1ity in a time of serious national needs.
c) minimal imposed detriments to the habitat.
~ .
2. a) rail access sufficient for construction and maintenance
b) delay is a plus -more tir.1e to study en vi ronmenta 1 implications
such as impact on Cook Inlet fisheries.
c) rail access least expe~sive.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1:
I
I
I
I
••
I.
I
Page 22
3. ra i 1 acc~'SS 1 esser evi 1 as access cou~ d be more effectively 1 imi ted.
The potential 1oss of wet-;ancs and r-ap:or nesting l1ab~tat is par-
ticularly disturbing.
4. a} cheapest (don 1 t \-.ras.te tnoney)
b) disturbs the wi1derness least; can be removed ~hen bo~h dams
are built.
c) access for maintenance by float plane or helicopter.
a) hard to maintain either a railroad or highway in heavy snow or
cold winters.
5. restricts or limits access and has minimal effect to the area.
One who favored Cor D gave these reasons.
1. Gets away fr·om the scheduling problems of .A. and B.
2. Economically best after B.
3. Opens up large new area for recreation.
4. Preserves the environmental integrity of the roadless south side of
the river.
Two who favored access Route C gave these reasons.
1. llaving worked for the Dept. of Highways in the area for 20 years~
observation that a road from the Denali would be easiest to build
and maintain; less hills, less wetlands, and is more suited to road
construction.
2. a) provides easy access for construction and opens up beautiful
areas for recreational purpo~esi
I
I
I:
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
Page 23
b) hignway access is importan~ not only for construction but for
.continued public access net dependent ~f train scnedules or
passenger services limitations.
Two who favored access Rou~e D gave these reasons:
1. Would let most all highway travellers see one dam area while keeping
the Watana area under less pressure by peopie.
Do~n't want to see State and Federal governments involved in railroad
unless the State purchases the railt-oad before the dams are constructed.
2. a) no service road between dams.
b) construct and service power lines between dams ~ith helicopters.
c) boat access to reservoirs; road access would make it look like
Big Lake.
~HNERS AND GAME GUIDE QUESTIONNAIRES
Two separate questionnai"res were distr·ibuted: ·one to gan1e guides I)
registefed in Unit 13 of the Upper Susitna Basin; the other to members
of the Alaska Miners Association in Fairbanks and Anchoraae. The aame ... ..,
guide questionnaire was mailed to 200 guides and 29 responses we~e
received, a· return of 15~;. The miners' questionnaires were given to
members of the Min~rs Association i~ Fairbanks and the Board of Directors
in Anchorage. 1t is not known how many were distributed. Eighteen were
returned.
Fifty-six (56) percent of the game guides Ylere in favor of public
access while 315f were opposed. Responses on what game habitats should
not be disturbed were val-ied, but tended to indicate several areas of
conce""'n. One was the Deacimah's Creek drainage and the area south of the
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1, ~
Page 24
Denali High\>Jay that is :1tilized by the Nelchina caribou herd. ·Jtner
areas mentioned \aJere the Susi tna River proper and severa 1 of it-s majcr
tributary areas. The project area in genera 1 '.-:as seen to be a prime game
and fishing area. Over 40% of the guides favored rail only access and
this was o~ten mentioned as first cnoice with others listed second or
third.
The questionnaire included a map (Figure 2) that showed four accass
routes. These were not the same routes that v1ere presented at the com-
munity workshops. The reason for this is the route north of the Susitna
was eliminated from consideration due to environmental and engineering
problems around the Portage Creek area.
Almost all the miners (90~~} favored some type of public access,
but the questionnaire did not oresent alternative routes. Most of this
group used the general project area for some type of mineral r·e1a-ced
activity and use was limited to summer months.
I.
I
I
I
-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
1:
I
I
Page 25
GAME GUIDE QUESTIONNAIRE -February and Narch 1981
1. -What areas of the Su~itna River basin do·vou use? -
General answers incl~Jed Upper Susitna, Tsusena Valley, Clark Creek,
Talkeetna River to Kosina Creek, Denali Creek at~ea, Clarence Lake,
Lake Louise, Watana CreeK.
8 said they used all or most of it. 5 said they used none of it.
2. What kind of use?
25 considered themselves primarily game guides. Of these, 19 i~cluded
the words 11 hunting and fishingu as part of their ()Ccupation, such as
in ~~guiding hunting and fishing trips". A total of 22 included 11 hunting
or "fishing .. p 1 us~ some other use, such as ··m; ni ng, prospecting It, "rock-
hounding11, 11 trapping", "rafting 11
, or ~~photogr-aphy".
3. Hhat level of use do you give these areas?
The words 11 heavy", 11 rnoderate", a.nd 11 1 ight" wer-e used in similar pro-
portion. The seasons listed most were spting througn fall. Three
persons respondea that they use the area fro~ eight months to all year.
Specificaily:
May -October: 3
June -Oc~ober: 2
July -.A.ugus t: 1
June-Sept.: 1
August-Sept.: 2
July -Sept.:
t·tay -Dec. ;
10 mo.iyear:
Apr. -~1ay/Aug, -Sept.
4. \1hat game habitats shou1d not be disturbed?
1
1
1 ..
I ....
Specific locations mentioned included ~~atana Creek~ Kosina Creek,
Jay Creek, the area along the Susitna River, Fog Creek,.north and
southwest of Moosehorn lake, Stephan Lake, Clarence Lake, Big Lake,
a"1ong the Alaska Railroad proposed, Portage Creek, Butte lake, Otter
Lake. One person expressed concern about the possible disturbance
of swan and salmon spawning grounds. Several expressed concern for
the habitats of moose, grizzly and black bear, and caribou. Some
specific statements were:
Impossible to list, Big Su is a key·game habitat; effort
should be"made to stay near water with all travel~
Caribou migration routes, winter moose areas, black a~d
grizzly bear denning areas.
The .area bounded by Portage Creek to the west, the Susitna
River to the south and east and the Dena 1 i Hi gh'llay to
the north is the best game country left in the Talkeetna
Nountains.
Wintering areas in a11 major drainages should not be disturbed.
Those who saw no problems if game habitats are disturbed: 9 .
Those who mentioned concern about the disturbance in specific locations,
or of specific animals, or disturbance of the wilderness in general: 16.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.
6.
7.
0 \.>.
Page 26
Which access ... do you prefer?
The guides ware given four choices: Corr~dor 1 -No~th s1ce of
Susit~a River from Talkeetna; Corridor 2 -South side of Sus~tna
River from Talkeetna; Corridor 3 -North ·from Dena1i h1ghway; ar.d
Railroad -South side of Susitna River. They v1ere aiso a11o\'ted to
check a11 the boxes they felt were acceptable.
Corridor 1
Corridor 2
Corrido'!" 3
6
11
10
Reasons for the above choice:
Railroad
Left it b 1 onk
Ansv1ered "none of the above·
•:whatever is cneap,est and best''
Comments supporting the r:ii 1 road included: ''1 !:!SS vehicle access
means less impact on the animal population and the environment~~; OR
"It wou1d be more direct.n When specific corridors were chosen,
the corriJnents tended to be ger.eral about the possible distrubance
18
4
1
1, ..
of one or another animal population. Occasionaily thel'·e \·ias a specific
individual comment, such as, 11 ! suppos~ it 1 S j~st selfishness but
Corridor 1 come c1osest to the access I use."
Would you li~e to see pub1ir: access to the project area by privately-
owned vehicles after· construction 1s comoleted?
Yes:
No:
18
10
Not sure:
Limited access only:
No response:
Reason for posi_tion on publ.:c access;
1
""'
Thos~ who said yes: I*m paying for it sc 1·11 use it; I support hydro
power; all Americans have the right to all of l\IT'erica. with the ex-
ception of l~nd that is privately ovmed; we need tourist developm::.trt
a1;d recreational development.
Those who said no: There will bs an innundatiou Gf people; business
wi'll suffer; animal habitats will be destroyed a'iong the dver; would
prefer the area· be left a wildernes-s; what wi11 happen to the fish;
:this is a power project, nnt a r-ecreationa~ facility.
Respondents to ~rlis questionna; .... n reside in:
fl.nchorage 0 Haines 1 "' Eagle Ri \fer· 1 Chugiak 2 Palmer 3 Homer ..
.L
Cantwell 1 Ketr.hikan 1
Hillow 3 Jur.eau l
G.ustavus 1 Ka!;i1 CJf 1
Fairbanks 1 Was n·,a 1
·rok Highway 1 No name or address 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MINERS QUESTIONNAIRE --Februa1~ and ~arch 1931
l. ~1ember of what group or groups: Miners reside in:
Fairbanks Alaska Miners 11
Anchorage A1aska Miners 6
Nome .t.l ask a t1i ners 1
Interfor Alaska Trappers 0
Southcentral Trappers 0
Registered guide 1
Other: Fur Takers of .America 1
Fairbanks 10
Anchorage 6
Macl~ren River 1
Palmer 1
2~ What part ofthe Uope'~' Susitn2__Q_asin is of particular interest to you:
Almost every respondent had j different ans\'ler. Specifically they were:
Wata~a Creek 1 Butte Creek 1
Coal Creek 1 Clearwater Htns. 1
~ Portage Creek-Fog _akes 1
Tsusena Creek 1 Gold Creek 1
Valdez Creek 1 Chulitna 1
Oshetna and Maclaren 1
Black Rivers 1 All parts 4
Devil Canyon 1 No parts 1
Upper Susitna Basin 1
One respondent who answered the form in detaii said, ~rof course,
the tw1acl aren is of major interest to m.c: si nee that is my home base.
However~ I would be violently opposed to using the Oena1i Highway as
as dam access. Aside from the esthetic reasons. it would be ~n
economic disaster for Ttle, as c major portion of my trap 1 i ne runs
from f•1i 1 e 7 Dena 1 i Highway to Hi 1 e 71. n
3. t~hat area of the river basin do you cutrently us_ft!_
4.
Answers mirrored those abov~. Specifically:
Nhat
W3tana Creek 2
Coal Creek 1
Chulitna Canyon 1
Chulitna Cre~k 1
Stephan-Fog Lakes 1
South side-Susitna
drainage of
Fhunilma.Creek 1
kind of use?
Minerals exploratior,
Trapping·wolves that
prey on wintering
moose ·
Hineral development
Trapping
2
1
1
1
Butte Creek 1
Clearwater Mt~s. 1
Lower Susitna 1
Upper Susitna l
Upper + Middle 1
Upper Tsusena Creek 1
De vi 1 Canyor;
N/A
None
Recreation/rest.
Hining
Hunting/fishin9
Hardrock minsrals
None
N/A
1
2
t: ..,;
4
1
1
1 ~
-.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
?age 2&
5. What level cf use do you give the areas:
Light use was listed most frequen:ly, though moderate and he.avy
use were also pu~ down. Specific cates:
june -September
Oct. 15 -April I
7
plus s~~~. dser rrunt 1
Nooe 1
~/A
Fall and Ylinter
Year-round
September -October
1 ..,
2
1
1
6. Would you like to see public acces~ via privately-.:)\·med vehicle
after·construction is comoleted?
7.
Yes 16
No 2
What is the principal reason for your position on access?
Yes answers:
Access to potentially productive mineral deposits
?ublic fundst pub1ic use
Recreation use
Hunting and fishing
5
10
~
<.1
1
One respondent who answered yes~ added, HI strongly feel we should
extract all minerals ~rom this area before we complete the darn and
begin flooding the ar~a.u
No answers:
The area is undisturbed now, don•t want to lose that 1
Th~ game population will be driven down 1
I ,
~
.I
I
I
I ,
I :·
I
I ·I
!
I
I I
·I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A C C E S S
,.::11 en r~..:,~es s. ~-u~J tt.·~ do you
"-
I"·
!.
. 1ease givE: the :~~u:cn.~ fur
....... ____ ~------_ ... --.. --..
·--~-..... -....... -· ... -__, ~ .... "" . ---
---·---.... ~ --·-
. --_,._ ... --
. ----------
Page 36
L t ,.. r ~ .. ! ' t ,_ f' ...... •. ' , j ...
::. ~ t ...., . ' ~-.--c_._J t ~ ~ ~ ~..: ll •• ·~
... --~· -.. _.,._ ..... "' -----.. ""'-........ --·--... ~ .. """ -j .. ~ ..... -''"
r.: ••... : acteJ,Jlub1e l • 'I\. I
-' ..
{iJ~W C!iJ h.'.!~ ..
--------------------· ~
....... ---"'.,.,~--·-~----·----...--....
_..,
• I
•· =• n'"'
I
·I
QUEST10~diAIHE FOR GANE GUIDES, UiHT 13 L ... n:.lt~ ,981
I
I
I·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l .
2.
....
..) ..
6.
..,
I •
Page 37
i\.lh~\.Sii.\. J•c~\\'I·:J~ Ar"I'IU,l!.l'l'"r
ACCESS TG PHOPOSED SU~ITN.A. :IYDRCJELECTRIC PRU~ECi
Hhat arens of the Susitna Piv~;r ba.!,in do you cun·ent::l use? --.. -·----·-------
-----~--------... ---... -------------------·-· ----·--
What kind of use? ------------------·-------------.. --~--..
What level of use do you give those iH~eas? {!3e dS specific as possibie: montns
01 J(:U t ? every year'? heavy, iliOdera te Ot~ 1 i gh t'! etc. !)
-·---------·----------·----·· ... _ ----.... -·-~--... ______ ,.. __________ ,. _ .... _...,__00:00.
Please list the location of significan*" game habitats that you feel should n!)t be
distut'bed. Be as specific as possible. ·Efforts ,.;ill be \lade to avoid key game
hahi tats. -----------·---------------------·-------------·
-------------------------------·-----
_,__, __ _ -------·-·--... --·· -~ ... ----·· ·--·------.---;.,------------
Lc,ok tit the map on the bac.k of the yellow flyer. Hhicn access do you prefer·?
Cne_sL ~ll_ !_he .Q.!l£.5_ X£U_ find E_Cf~J~lab_l_~.
__ Con'idor one ·---Cor~idot~ t\<J:J ·-_ --~ \:o1Tidor three Rai1road
0 1ease give your reasons for ;our choices in =5, (Your reasons give tne planners
important information tc use in tnJking their recommendations for an acceS$ olan.}
_.....__ -· ----------..,. ..... --.. .... ....... --"' ......... -....... ' ......... ---·-· ~ ....... --....-------"'"""' ~--· ~ ....
--.-.....-----·-----·-"'• ...... -. ~ ...... O(J ... "" • -.... --~··· ""',.......,.,.__ -------~,..,__,., ... __ _,
-·>~------·-,.,.,...;;. . ..... -........ ··---·~ ....... -. ..,_....._. _____ . ______ .
----·--______ .. _____ ,..-""""'"" • --10 ··-····-··-·-·····----------------------------·
.·iould you like to seQ public cJt.Ce~s to the !:>usitnc. Jwdroelecu·ic project area by
pr'ivut.ely cvmed ve;n·icle after L!le construction is completed?
--------·-· ----~-. ,.. . . --.. ---.. -.. --" _______ ___.._
.~hat is the pr·inciple reason for your !·,o~ition on tmtJlic access tc the project area?
.......-:--------------·-·-·-----........... --·--------4 .. ---·---------------·----
.. ---.. . ~ ...... -. . ....... -..---------
~ ·------··..------·----·---"" ""-• • ;!I .... ---a --~oop. .,.,. __________ , ______ _
....... -......... .--.........---·--·-........ ----... ·-.. -....... -""' ..... _ 4 -·"'" .....
..., ___ ...,..__.,_--""' --,., ..... -..... -----.. ... .... I' ..... '• .... ,
Alaskd Power Authority
Public Partic~pation Office
333 West 4th ;venue, Suite 31
Ancho~age~ Alaska 99501 ·
ZIP ---·-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I
I
l) ~ I V J·. lt S 1 T Y 0 r A L A S K. A. F ·\ I H B t\ N K S
fotrbonks. Alasko 9970'
SCSITNA HYDROELECTRIC ?ROJECi
RECkEATION PLAN
Pub)ic Forurr. Questionn~ire
Page 39
1. The development approach I most prefer is {List on1y one.)
'/1 et•oY" \ -\ .\.-v f I
2. Do you have any suggested modifice:ticn to the above se1ected ap~r-oach?
Please number each suggestion.
----------------------------~--------·------------------------------~---
3. Hhy did you !:h(ise your particular approach?
------------------------------------------------------------------·-----
4. a. In which reg i en of the state do you 1 i ve:
Anchorage
Fairba'1ks
Ra1lbelt (between Anchorage and fairbanks}
b4 How would you classify the place where you live?
Urban Small town
Rural Rural remote ----
Other ... list
c. Oo you represent a particular interest group? If sc, please l1st.
-~------------------·
Yot: rna; usa the back side for .t!ny additional COIIt.tents.
Thank you.