The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSouthcentral AK Economy & Population-Base Study & Projections 1979RECEIVED MAR 2 8 1979 February,1979 SOUTHCENTRAL ALASKA’S ECONOMY AND POPULATION, 1965 - 2025: A Base Study and Projections A REPORT OF THE ECONOMICS TASK FORCE Prepared by University of Alaska Institute of Social and Economic Research SOUTHCENTRAL ALASKA ALASKA WATER Paes E=sWATER STUDY STUDY AN (Level B) Sscommrree Southcentral Alaska's Economy and Population, 1965-2025: A Base Study and Projection Report of the Economics Task Force Southcentral Alaska Water Resources Study (Level B) to the Alaska Water Study Committee prepared by Michael J. Scott Assistant Professor of Economics and Staff, Institute of Social and Economic Research University of Alaska Anchorage Fairbanks Juneau January 31, 1979 Alaska Water Study Committee SOUTHCENTRAL WATER RESOURCES STUDY (Level B) P.O. Box 3276 DT Anchorage, Alaska 99510 February 2, 1979 Memorandum To: Frank J. Urabeck, Director, Southcentral Alaska Water Resources Study From: E. Allen Robinson, Chairman, Economic Task Force EG. Subject: Economic Task Force Final Report On behalf of the Economic Task Force I am pleased to submit to you our final report which is intended to provide the basis for analyzing and projecting future use of water and related land resources in Southcentral Alaska. This report, reflecting the joint effort of the Task Force, was prepared by Michael J. Scott, Assistant Professor of Economics, and other staff of the Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska. Your attention is called to the Introduction, particularly some of the con- cerns expressed there relative to the use of the economic data and to the need for periodic updating of regional and subregional projections in light of new developments. Numerous key economic decisions now pending, some to be made external to Alaska, will affect future employment, incomes, and population. Therefore, I recommend that the Task Force continue to meet at least annually to review events as they might relate to the regional economic forecasts prepared for the Level B study. An important event will be the 1980 decennial Census. Another will be when the proposed natural gas pipeline is actually started. The necessity for a periodic update is underlined by the fact that many agencies are keying their activities and program planning to the Level B data. cc: Economic Task Force fi Introduction This report is a joint effort of several economists, planners, and agency experts who were members of the Economics Task Force of the South- central Alaska Water Resources Study (Level B) being conducted by the Alaska Water Study Committee. This final report of the Economics Task Force is the result of numerous meetings held in Anchorage over the past year and one-half. As the attached list of members indicates, the Task Force has been composed of representatives of seven Federal agencies, eight state agencies, four local governments (one municipality and three boroughs), and four Native corporations. The Task Force was charged with producing an economic base study and set of projections for the three study subregions--Cook Inlet, Kodiak- Shelikof, and the Gulf of Alaska. Initially, two projections were done, one corresponding to high economic development and one corresponding to low economic development. Population and employment were projected for these scenarios for each of the subregions in five-year intervals from 1975 to 2025 in this report. Supplementary data are available at a more aggregated level--for Anchorage and the remainder of Southcentral--to the year 2000. A third, or intermediate case was done about six months after the first two and appears in an addendum to this volume. The projections reported relied on two long-run econometric models devised by economists at the University of Alaska Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) and MIT-Harvard Joint Center for Urban Studies. Funding was originally provided by the National Science Foundation for ISER's Man in the Arctic Program (MAP). The two specific models used here are modifications of the Alaska state and regional models developed under that program. The models produced estimates of gross output, employment, income, and population for the years 1975-2000. Population and employment were disaggregated and extrapolated to the year 2025 by ISER researchers under Economics Task Force direction, and using a methodology developed jointly by the Task Force and ISER and described in Chapter 2 of the study. There are various strengths and limitations to using the models and methodology outlined in the report. Because of restrictions imposed by the timetable of the study, it was necessary to do the estimates with regional and statewide econometric models which were not matched to each other because only the state model had been updated through 1976. Time did not permit a complete update, so a series of patching routines were used to force plausible results. If the reestimate of these results is to become a routine event, an updated regional model is now available to run side by side with the state model, both incorporating 1976 data. It will still be necessary to do a careful review of the results even with later versions of the models, however, at least partly because the models were built with impact analysis rather than forecasting in mind. iii The Task Force has found that critical review and modification of assump- tions and the models themselves is an essential part of the projection process. For example, it was necessary to revise the projections late in the study process when Alaska Petrochemical Corporation (Alpetco) decided to locate their petrochemical facility at Valdez rather than at Kenai, as had originally been anticipated. Because many political decisions and business decisions made out- side of Alaska will undoubtedly affect employment, incomes, and popula- tion in the future, the Task Force recommends that it meet at least once a year hereafter to review these developments. One important development occurring in a little over one year is the 1980 decennial Census which will provide a benchmark for new projections. The proposed Northwest natural gas pipeline may or may not be constructed. These and other factors will require a continued update. Because many Federal and state agencies will be using these projections in their studies and operations, it is obvi- ously important that they be restudied annually or as major events require. The population projection for the year 2000 in the intermediate sce- nario for the total Southcentral region is 543,200. The four subregions are then projected to have 424,900 in Anchorage (the municipality), 78,400 in Other Cook Inlet, 14,600 in the Gulf of Alaska, and 25,300 in Kodiak- Shelikof. If transportation facilities are improved in the coming years (rail, bus, or car) between Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Valley, it is possible that population increases in Anchorage will be somewhat lower and those in Other Cook Inlet will be correspondingly higher. The report concludes that growth in the Southcentral region is likely to be substantial in any of the cases, with low case year 2000 population equal to 425 thousand and 2025 population equal to 501 thousand (compared to about 230 thousand in 1975), and high case year 2000 and 2025 population equal to 680 thousand and 963 thousand, respectively. These projections were intended to be used as control totals for projections of local and regional population in the planning process. The user should not become too dependent upon the specific projections, however, since the assump- tions which went into developing these numbers are at least as important as the numbers themselves. It should also be kept in mind that the art of economic projection is analogous to shooting at a moving target from a moving platform in a dense fog--one is happy to be somewhere near the mark. Planners and others using these numbers should therefore be alert for opportunities to do contingency planning rather than plan for only one set of possible futures. Users of this report will doubtless have the benefit of some additional hindsight with which to judge the plausi- bility of these projections. As this data becomes available, it should be incorporated, posthaste, into the planning process. Michael J. Scott Assistant Professor of Economics Principal Investigator, ISER iv Task Ferce Participants Federal a Bruce Baker Office of the Governor Div. of Policy Development and Planning E. Allen Robinson, Chairman Housing and Urban Development Robert Cross/Don Shira Alaska Power Administration Brent Petrie/Greg Doggett AK Div. of Land and Water Resources John Hopkins/Neil Michaelson Bureau of Land Management Edward L. Phillips AK Dept. of Natural Resources Div. of Minerals and Energy Management Clyde Stewart U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Donald Blasko U.S. Bureau on Mines Tom Warren Dept. of Interior Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Office Charles Welling/Ken Steele U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sterling Powell/Paul Feglestad Soil Conservation Services Gary Hickman/Gary Stackhouse U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service State Local Barbara Withers Municipality of Anchorage Michael Brogan Kenai Borough Harry Milligan Kodiak Borough David Simpson Mat-Su Borough Native Gene Sundberg KONIAG, Inc. Kirk McGee Cook Inlet, Region Inc. Ed Busch AK Community and Regional Affairs Wilson Justin AHTNA, Inc. Calvin Dauel/Calvin Hanson Alaska Dept. of Labor Carl A. Propes, Jr. Chugach Natives Inc. Michael Scott University of Alaska Institute of Social and Economic Resources Other Frank J. Urabeck Director, Management Team Vince Wright AK Dept. of Revenue Chuck Lone Wolf AK Federation of Natives, Management Team Nat Goodhue/Hope Reed AK Dept. of National Resources, Div. of Parks Dan Wilkerson DEC/State Representive, Management Team Sue Reisinger Management Team Charlette Chastain/Glenn Akins Environmental Conservation Jim Wiedeman/Fred Muller AK Commerce and Economic Development Table of Contents Memorandum of Transmittal .. .. 1. 65 ee ee we ees < Introduction .. 1. 66 22 ee oe we ne ee ee ee ii List of Task Force Participants <2 —_s0 ss 6s «ess a0 06 iv Table of Contents .. .. 2. 2. oe oe oe oe oe ee ee v List of Tables . 2. 1. ce ee ne ee eee we ee we WALL List of Figures ee eee wee ee ee oe ee we KLE Executive Summary .. 2. 6. 62 se) oe oe we ee ee we we KALE Chapter 1: Southcentral Alaska's Economy, 1965-1975. .. .. «. 1 - Growth of Southcentral Economy .. .. .. «2 oe ee of 3 - Distribution of Economic Growth Among Industries and Areas, Southcentral Region .. .. «2 of of of 14 @ Basic Industries .. .. .. «os ce se ec oe oe 14 e Support Sectors ee 22 - Comparison of Growth in the 3 Study Regions . .. .. .. 31 ~- Age-Sex Distribution of the Population .. .. .. .. cys - Summary, 1965 to 1975 2. wk nw oe we ne ene 44 Chapter 2: Methodology and Data Used in Projecting Southcentral Alaska's Economy, 1975-2025 .. .. .. «- «- 45 - The Econometric Models .. .. 2. 22 22 oe ee ee we 46 @ The State Model ee 00 ee oe eee 46 e@ The Regional Model .... «2 22 ee oe we we 49 e Strengths and Limitations .. .. .. «2 «2 «oF of 53 - Assumptions Used to Produce Economic and Population Projections, 1975-2000 .. .. .. 2. «2 ee ee ee 57 e Agriculture oe se ee ce pe ot oe. oe, 100. oe 58 Forestry .. 2 of 6 «se cf oe ne -06. ces eo 59 Fisheries .. 2. 2.2 of of «os oe os of oF ov 59 Mining, Including Oil and Gas .. .. 1. 22 oe oe 60 Food Manufacturing . .. .. «2 «2 «2 oF oe of 62 Lumber and Wood Products Manufacturing . .. .. .. 63 Pulp and Paper Manufacturing .. .. .. «2 «2 «-. 63 Other Manufacturing .. .. «2. «2 «2 of «2 of 64 Construction .. 1. 22 «2 oe oe oe oe oe oe 65 Federal Government . .. «2 .2 «6 oe oe oe ee 66 State Government .. «2. «e «2 oe oF os 08 oo 66 Local Government .. «2 «2 oe oe «6 oe 08 oe 67 Miscellaneous Assumptions .. .. .. .. «2 «of «- 68 Chapter 3: Projection Results for Southcentral Alaska, - Methodology Used to Disaggregate Regional Control vi Table of Contents (continued) Totals for the 3 Subregions .. - Assumptions Used to Estimate Employment and High Case .. .. «2 oF Low Case .. «2 «2 oe of Population, 2000 to 2025. .. 1975-2025 . «6 «+ ee oe oF es - Growth to 2000 .. .. «2 «- «- Output . «2 22 8 oF oe e Employment . .. «+ «+ «- Income . «2 «2 oe oe oe Population . .. «2 «+ o- - Distribution of Growth Among Industries . - Subregional Economic and Population Growth, 1975- 2000 - Post- High Case .. «2 «+ «2 oo Lew- Case 55s ee 2000 Results .. .. «. of - Summary . .- «5 «2 oe oe oe Addendum: Intermediate Case Projections A. Methodology and Data Used in Intermediate Case . - Intermediate Case Assumptions Used to Produce Economic and Population Projections, 1975-2000. Agriculture. .. 2 «+ « Forestry .. «2 e+ oF e- Fisheries .. .. «+ «+2 Mining, Including Oil and Gas .. Food Manufacturing . .. .. Lumber and Wood Products Manufacturing . Pulp and Paper Manufacturing Other Manufacturing oe oe Construction .. .. «- «- Federal Government . .. «- State Government .. .. «- Local Government .. .. «- Miscellaneous Assumptions .. 69 70 72 73 76 76 77 79 79 82 82 86 86 88 89 94 5 tio BeSSSEEEEE It NN DDUU BEBE vii Table of Contents (continued) Page - Intermediate Case Methodology Used to Disaggregate Regional Control Totals for the Three Subregions . .. AD-8 ~- Assumptions Used to Estimate Employment and : Population in the Intermediate Case, 2000-2025 .. .. AD-10 B. Intermediate Case Projection Results for Southcentral Alaska, 1975-2025 .. .. «2. «. «+ «- AD-13 - Growth to 2000 .. 2. 2. we ee ee ee we ee ee we = ADH 13 e@ Output . 6. we ee ee ee ee ee we ee we |= ADH e@ Employment . .. «2 «2 «2 ee ee ee ee ee ee AD-I5 e@ Income . 2. oe ee we oe we we ee we we we |= ADH 15 @ Population . .. 2 ee ee ee we we ee ee we = AD-1B - Distribution of Growth Among Industries . .. .. .. «- AD-18 - Subregional Economic and Population Growth, 1975 to 2000, Intermediate Case .. .. «2. «+ «- «+ AD-21 - Post-2000 Results, Intermediate Case. .. .. «. «- «+ AD-23 - Sensitivity Test: Northwest Gas Pipeline. .. .. .. .. AD-26 Appendices A. Historical Data on Southcentral Alaska's Economy .. .. A-1 B. Selected Regional Model Inputs and Outputs. .. .. .«- B-1 References . 2.2. «2 oe oe ee oe ee ee ne R-1 Number viii List of Tables Table Page Executive Summary: Southcentral Water Study High Case Projections .. .. Southcentral Water Study Intermediate Case ProjectionS .. «2 «2 oe «6 «8 oe oe oe Southcentral Water Study Low Case Projections. .. .. Text: Comparison of the Growth in Constant Dollar Real Output: Southcentral Alaska, Alaska, and the United States, 1965-1975 .. «2 «2 «2 oe oe oe Civilian Nonagricultural Wage and Salary Employment and Seasonality Coefficients: Southcentral Alaska and State of Alaska, 1965-1975 se ee ne ene State Agricultural Employment and Southcentral Fisheries Employment and Measures of Seasonality, 1965-1975 oe oe oe oe we tee Real Personal Income and Per Capita Income: Southcentral Alaska, Alaska, and the United States, 1965-1975 .. «2 ee 22 oe oe oe oe we Population Growth: Southcentral Region and Alaska, 1965-1975 .. 22 ee ee ee ee eee Anchorage and U.S. Consumer Price Index, Percentage Change, and Difference in Percentage Change, 1965-1975 2. we we we eee we Annual Percent Increase in Real Gross Output, Southcentral Region and State, 1965-1975 .. .. «- Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries Output Statistics, Southcentral Alaska, 1965-1975 os 06 oe oe oe Selected Measures of Growth, Cook Inlet Subregion, 1965-1975 2. 26 we we we eee xxvii xxix 10 11 13 15 21 32 ix List of Tables (continued) Number Table Page 10. Selected Measures of Growth, Gulf of Alaska Subregion, 1965-1975 .. 2.2. 1. oe ee oe oe we 34 11. Selected Measures of Growth, Kodiak-Shelikof Subregion, 1965-1975 .. 1.2. 22 «5 ee we wee 36 12. Age-Sex Distribution of the Resident Population, Southcentral Alaska, 1970 .. .. «2. «2 oe oe ee 38 13. Anchorage Census Division Age Distribution of Non- Military Base Population .. .. .. «oe «2 ee «+ 40 14. Kenai-Cook Inlet and Seward Census Divisions: Age Distribution of the Population, 1970 and 1976... .. 41 15. Valdez-Chitina-Whittier Census Division: Age Distribution of the Population, 1975 (Valdez only), and 1970 oc es see 08 06 ee ee 43 16. Growth of Constant Dollar (Real) Output: Anchorage, Other Southcentral, and Southcentral Alaska, $975 =2000 = 55 eee 78 17. Civilian Employment in Anchorage, Other Southcentral, and Southcentral Alaska, 1975-2000 ——.— 80 18. Real Wage and Salary and Proprietor Income Earned Plus Transfers, and Per Capita Income: Anchorage, Other Southcentral, and Southcentral Alaska, 1975-2000 .. 2. we wwe eee eee 81 19. Population Growth: Southcentral Region, 1975-2000. .. 83 20. Projected Civilian Employment Growth by Industry Group, Southcentral Alaska, 1975-2000 .. .. «2 «- 84 21. Average Annual Growth in Population and Civilian _. Employment, by Subregion, 1975-2000 oe ee we we 87 22. Southcentral Water Study High Case Projections (HIGHSC3) .. 2. we we we we we eee 90 23. Southcentral Water Study Low Case Projections (LOWSC6) 2. wk wee ee ee new 92 Number AD.1 AD.2 AD.3 AD.4 AD.5 AD.6 AD.7 AD.8 A.l A.2 A.3 List of Tables (continued) Table Addendum: Growth of Constant Dollar (Real) Output: Anchorage, Other Southcentral, and Southcentral Alaska, 1975-2000... .. «. «- Civilian Employment in Anchorage, Other Southcentral, and Southcentral Alaska, 1975-2000 .. 65 2 e we we eee Real Wage and Salary and Proprietor Income Earned Plus Transfers, and Per Capita Income: Anchorage, Other Southcentral, and Southcentral Alaska, 1975-2000 .. .. «2 «2 ee ee oe Population Growth: Southcentral Region, 1975-2000. Projected Civilian Employment Growth by Industry Group, Southcentral Alaska, 1975-2000 .. .. Average Annual Growth in Population and Civilian Employment, by Subregion, 1975-2000. .. .. Southcentral Water study Intermediate Case Projections (INTSC10) .. .. «+ «+ «2 «- Sensitivity of the Intermediate Case South- central Economy to the Elimination of the Northwest Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline .. .. Appendix: Gross Product, in Millions of 1958 Dollars: Anchorage, Other Southcentral, Southcentral, and State of Alaska eel leis | sie ||| leet] |ifetel| [lists Nonagricultural Wage and Salary Employment by Industry: Study Subregion, Southcentral Alaska, and State .. .. «2 «+ «+ oF «2 ef oe Wages and Salaries by Place of Work and Personal Income by Place of Residence, 1965-1975 ee AD-14 AD-16 AD-17 AD-19 AD-20 AD-22 AD-24 AD-27 A-10 Number A.4 A.5 A.6 xi List of Tables (continued) Table Estimated July 1 Resident Population, Study Subregions, Southcentral Alaska, and State, 1965-1975 .. Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage and Clerical Worker Families of Two or More Persons: Anchorage, Alaska - All Items, Groups, and Subgroups .. .. Traffic in Southcentral Alaskan Ports, 1965-1975 Selected Regional Model High Case, 1980-2000 Selected Regional Model Low Case, 1980-2000. Selected Regional Model Inputs and Outputs oe oe ee o- as Inputs and Outputs Inputs and Outputs Intermediate Case, 1980-2000 .. .. .. Page A-11 A-12 A-13 Number xii List of Figures Figure Executive Summary: Southcentral Alaska Water Study Subregions .. .. Total Wage and Salary Employment, Subregions, RG EPS) | ole! || loa || foie! | lial || be leil | ieiel || lied | ceiet | | laeiael | | tele Basic Sector Employment, Southcentral Alaska, 1975-2025 .. 25 06 of oe ee cf oF oF oe Population Projections, Anchorage, 1975-2025. .. Population Projections, Other Cook Inlet, 1975-2025 .. Population Projections, Gulf of Alaska, 1975-2025. Population Projections, Kodiak-Shelikof, 1975-2025 Text: Map of Alaska Census Divisions .. .. «2 «+ «- Value of Gross Output in Southcentral Alaska by Industry, 1965-1975 ssi] e816 sti eee see Gross Output and Employment in Contract Construction, Southcentral Subregions, 1965-1975 el | |} olel| || ee Employment in Support Sector Industries, Southcentral Alaska, 1965-1975 1.2. 2. 62 ee oe oe ewe Relationship of Real Personal Income to Real Output in Support Sector Industries, Anchorage, 1965-1975 Relationship of Real Output in Support Sector Industries to Real Income, Other Southcentral, BOG S197 D |e le | 4 lol | feel || | le ell || elm) mt | mer | et Th | se State and Local Government Employment, Selected Southcentral Alaska Subregions, 1965-1975 .. .. Alaska State Econometric Model, Version SG4.SC .. Alaska Southcentral Region Econometric Model, Version REGSC4 os 0s oe 06 ce 8 oe ve xiv xvi xviii xix xxi xxii xxiv 16 18 23 25 27 29 47 50 xiii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The report of the economic task force of the Southcentral Alaska Water Study (Level B) was to provide two major pieces of information for water resource planners: (1) it was to provide a summary of historical growth of the economy and population of Southcentral Alaska, to show the reasons behind past economic growth and population growth in the region, and to identify possible future trends; (2) it was to provide a set of control projections of the economy and population through the year 2025 to be used by resource planners in identifying future demands for water and related land resources in the Southcentral region and its three major subregions--Cook Inlet, Gulf of Alaska, and Kodiak-Shelikof. (See map, Figure A.) The base year for the projections was 1975. Chapter 1 traces the regional economy during the years 1965 to 1975, a period of rapid growth for both the State of Alaska and the region. Total employment in Alaska grew by over 100 percent, while Southcentral employment grew by 130 percent. Total real income increased at three times the U.S. rate in Alaska, and per capita incomes rose at twice the U.S. rate, bringing Alaska from among the "poor" states to among the wealthier in per capita terms. The Alaskan economy, which had been quite seasonal in the past, became significantly less so over the period, largely as a result of increased employment in the so-called support sector--trade and services, finance, insurance, real estate, transporta- tion, communications, and utilities. Part of the impetus for this growth came from major oil and gas development on the Kenai Peninsula and the North Slope, and from the associated construction projects such as the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline Project. Much of the rest of the support sector growth was a result of the growth of state and local government, which was funded heavily by taxes and other revenues of the oil and gas industry. os ; Division a vt . nel & ~~ Ay Z Aly Barrow-North Slope Division yere? weet “Upper Yukon De em eee eee errr ma ? Division Figure A Southcentral Alaska Water Study Subregions Yukon : le a nT Division cs d Division / a 4 t Southeast , Fairbanks, Division” . Hi} “rs Wade / ‘Hace, Kuskokwim Division ATX Mataniiska - Susitha deeb Division aie f See = < LON ee Bay Division ecey Division’s tal Son f Cordova. ivision, } ‘Bristol Bay Borough Division Aleutian Islands Division (Part) 4 , Division een Sitka Division 7 “Angcon “Division Southcentral Alaska went through three distinct phases of growth between 1965 and 1975, distinguished by the primary causal factor. Between 1965 and about 1970, a major driving force in the economy was - the development of the Kenai Peninsula and Upper Cook Inlet oil fields. During this period, wage and salary employment grew at a rate of 6.3 per- cent per year, population at a rate of 4.3 percent, income at 8.3 percent. Nineteen sixty-nine marked the beginning of a new period of growth. A $900 million mineral lease sale of lands at Prudhoe Bay, and a subsequent rapid increase in state budgets supplied much of the impetus for growth between 1970 and 1973. During this period, employment grew at 6.7 percent per year, population at 4.8 percent, and income at 7.0 percent. Finally, beginning in 1974, the construction of the .Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline took place, superimposing a large construction boom on top of an economy already expanding fairly rapidly. The average annual 1973-1975 growth rate in employment was 18.4 percent per year; population, 10.3 percent per year; and income, 18.0 percent. There are at least four distinct but interlinked economies in the Southcentral region, and each of the four grew at a different rate, largely because of the major influences creating economic growth in Alaska over the period 1965 to 1975. The Cook Inlet subregion is dom- inated by Anchorage which, as the major trade, transportation, and financial center of the state, grew fairly rapidly in each of the three subperiods. The remainder of Cook Inlet grew rapidly during the 1965- 1970 period, and during the expansion between 1973 and 1975, the latter a result of the suburbanization of Anchorage and the pipeline project. Gulf of Alaska showed hardly any growth until the pipeline, and rapid growth thereafter. Kodiak-Shelikof was relatively untouched by major development activity and maintained a low rate of growth in employment. Figure B summarizes the employment growth process in the regional econo- mies for the period 1965-1975. Employment (Thousands) Figure B 80 Total Wage and Salary Employment, k Subregions, 1965-1975 Corky ines 7° Anchorage Only 60 50 TAX 40 30 20 #0 "Other" Cook Inlet Only | Psd Gulf of Alaska 9 Kodiak-Shelikof xvii Chapter 2 deals with the methodology and data used to project the growth of the Southcentral economy between 1975 and 2025 for two scenarios—- high development and low development--while the methodology and assumptions for the intermediate case appear in the first section of the intermediate case addendum to the report. Those not interested in the details of the econometric models which were used may wish to skip the discussion of these models on pages 46 to 56 in the text. The procedure followed to the year 2000 was to estimate the highest, lowest, and an intermediate range of employment and/or output which could be expected for each of the basic industries for the state, Anchorage, and the remainder of Southcentral Alaska and to use the models to estimate nonbasic (support sector) employment and population. The combination of all high-range projections gave the high development scenario, the combination of all the low-range projections gave the low range scenario, and the combination of all intermediate-range projections, the intermediate scenario. The future total basic industry employment.is shown in five-year increments in Tables A, B, and C on pages xxv, xxvii, and xxix for the high, low, and intermediate cases and is summarized in Figure C. The methodology used to disaggregate the assumptions and results for the subregional level can be found on pages 69 to 72 in the text, and pages AD-8 to AD-10 in the addendum. The resulting output for civilian employment and population appears in Chapter 3, and in the third section of the intermediate case addendum. Briefly, the results are as follows: In Anchorage, the total population in the high case reaches 501 thousand in the year 2000, and 660 thousand by 2025. The corresponding levels in the intermediate case are 425 thousand and 534 thousand, and they are 375 thousand and 421 thousand in the low case. Anchorage population is shown in Figure D. A model run was also done to test the effect of removing the Northwest Alaska gas pipeline from the list of development projects in the intermediate case (pp. AD-26 to AD-28). Since Anchorage population depends upon economic development all over the state, the growth rates are substantial in spite of the fact Figure C Basic Sector Employment Southcentral Alaska, 1975-2025 Basic Sector Employment (Thousands) X High Development 100 90 “ TFEPAX 7° @ Intermediate Development 60 + so * Low Development ta7s, 1980 «1985 «1990 1995 2000 2005 Z0old 2015 2020 2085 109 Persons Figure D Population Projections, Anchorage, 1975-2025 800 ‘Too -* o a 600 la x? a “” x =~ - ae a 500 ew 3 Pal rT * / _ at } K ~~ / -— J woo J + 400 yf we one Fa r a a en ; Population. for: 4 fo fs ANCHORAGE < 4 x 4s) 300 / 4 “ory, 7 7 hoe : : X = High Case ae . + = Intermediate Case Za . 00 wee , : e = Low Case 100 1975 1980. 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 xx that very little of the projected development other than government growth occurs in Anchorage. Removing the gas line makes little difference. The remainder of Cook Inlet is illustrated in Figure E. Several large projects, including the Pacific LNG plant, oil development in Lower Cook Inlet, coal development at Beluga, the state capital move, and agricultural and fisheries development are tentatively planned for this region. Consequently, there is considerable disparity among the three cases, depending upon the level of development. The chief differ- ences between the high and intermediate cases are the level of government growth, which is much lower in the intermediate case, and the fact that only about half the fisheries and agricultural development programmed for the high case takes place in the intermediate case. The low case features still lower government growth (no capital move), essentially no fisheries and agricultural development, and reduced employment associated with oil and gas. Although not shown here, some of the population estimated for Anchorage may actually appear in this region because of increasing sub- urbanization of the Anchorage metropolitan area into the Matanuska- Susitna Borough. The entire region outside of Anchorage is relatively insensitive to the Northwest gas project, showing about 1,300 fewer people without the project by the year 2000, so no attempt was made to disaggregate the impact of the sensitivity run to the three subregions. Sensitivity estimates for the Southcentral economy are shown in Table AD.8 on page AD-27 of the addendum. Gulf of Alaska is featured in Figure F. In the high case, the major driving forces in the economy are the Alpetco petrochemical refinery, employing about 1,900 people, plus fisheries and government and oil and gas development in the Gulf of Alaska. In the intermediate case, there is an Alpetco project, but it is a fuels refinery which employs only about 400 people. In addition, there is less fisheries development, and oil and gas is not found in the Gulf of Alaska. The low case features only a little government and support sector growth and no oil and gas, fisheries, or Alpetco project. Persons Figure E Population Projections, Other Cook Inlet 1975-2025 260 BAo \ —xx 200 x 180 x 160: 4 Population for: 47 OTHER 140 / COOK INLET 120 ‘ ae x” ao X = High Case / a + = Intermediate Case + 7 7 t - e = Low Case go 60 40 1975 1980 #985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 108 Rersons Figure F Population Projections, Gulf of Alaska, 4o 1975-2025 * @? a 30 a 7 o ” a x’ x “* io of ™ 7X + 7 2 20 7 roa , “7 Population for: - ro --t GULF OF ALASKA orm se + “ro x -- - 7 _--+ / ct / 7 X = High Case / f _-7* + = Intermediate Case Las / + “7 e = Low Case =~ 7 en- 10 - ‘=z ee “ne x m-.2.4g--—- -— . + --¢ - _- —e— — -9er no @ er ~e---¢ 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Z2olc i —— eae ~ -~_- ~ ~ - Cd ~~ ~ eres xxiii Finally, Kodiak-Shelikof population is depicted in Figure G. In the high case, there are two major driving forces--fisheries development and Western Gulf of Alaska oil and gas. In the intermediate case, there is no discovery of oil and gas in the Western Gulf and the level of bottomfish development and additional development of current fisheries is cut in half. In the low case, there is no development of either oil and gas or fisheries, and the major source of growth is government employment. The following tables summarize the economic task projections for the high, intermediate, and low case. They are repeated in the text of the report. 103 Persons 60 50 Figure G Population Projections, Kodiak-Shelikof, 1975-2025 Eo < Population for: * KODIAK-SHE L I K O F X = High Case + = Intermediat e Case e = Low Case XXV Table A Southcentral Water Study High Case Projections (HIGHSC3) (Thousands) Other ~ Gulf of Kodiak-— Anchorage Cook Inlet _ Alaska Shelikof Total Resident Population: 1975, 177.8 31.2 11.7 8.8 229.5 80 206.0 39.0 : 10.8 9.7 265.5 85 255.2 61.1 15.8 17.6 349.8 90 324.1 79.2 17.4 22.7 443.4 95 391.9 103.1 16.5 25.8 537.4 2000 500.6 145.6 19.7 34.0 699.8 05 525.5 162.1 21.9 37.9 747.3 10 557.5 179.6 24.2 41.9 803.2 15 589.3 199.5 26.9 46.6 862.3 20 625.1 218.2 29.4 51.0 923.7 2025 659.5 236.1 31.9 55.1 982.6 Basic Sector Civilian Employment (1975 Wage and Salary Employment in Parentheses): Non-Ag. Wage & Salary 1975 (23.239) (4.460) (3.779) (2.376) (33.854) Civilian 1975 23.239 4.901 4.134 3.188 35.462 80 25.179 7.875 4.097 3.800 40.951 85 26.569 12.781 5.732 6.261 51.343 90 28.834 14.917 5.991 7.761 57.503 95 30.999 17.491 5.381 8.373 62.244 2000 33.364 21.987 6.084 10.659 72.094 05 35.577 24.502 6.780 11.878 78.737 10 38.862 27.171 7.518 13.172 86.723 15 41.928 30.199 8.356 14.640 95.124 20 - 45.482 33.022 9.137 16.009 103.650 2025 48.581 35.706 9.880 17.310 111.477 High Case Projections (continued) xxvi Other Gulf of Kodiak— . Anchorage Cook Inlet Alaska Shelikof Total Non-Basic Sector Civilian Employment: 1975 46.406 4.285 1.819 1.426 53.936 80 59.421 8.920 2.048 1.828 72.218 85 82.925 15.901 3.726 3.237 105.789 90 114.826 21.858 4.194 4.315 145.193 95 145.947 30.809 4.036 5.007 185.799 2000 199.482 48.221 4.867 6.864 259.434 05 209.356 53.739 5.424 7.649 276.168 10 221.726 59.592 6.015 8.483 . 295.816 15 234.155 66.234 6.685 9.428 316.502 20 248.049 72.425 7.310 10.309 338.093 2025 261.648 78.310 7.904 11.147 359.008 Total Civilian Employment (Excludes Self-Employed, except Fishing and Agriculture, and Military): Non-Ag. Wage & Salary Employment: f 1975 (69.645) (8.745) (5.598) (3.802) (87.790) Total Civilian Employment: i u 1975 69.645 9.186 5.953 4.614 89.398 . 80 84.600 16.795 6.146 5.628 113.169 85 109.494 28.682 9.458 9.498 157.132 90 143.659 36.775 10.185 12.076 202.695 95 176.946 48.300 9.417 13.380 248.043 2000 232.846 70.208 10.951 17.523 331.528 05 244.933 78.241 12.204 19.528 354.905 10 260.588 86.763 13.533 21.655 382.538 2 276.083 96.433 15.041 24.068 411.626 20 293.531 105.447 16.447 26.318 441.743 2025 310.229 114.016 17.784 28.457 470.485 xxvii Table B Southcentral Water Study Intermediate Case Projections (INTSC10) (Thousands) Other Gulf of Kodiak- Anchorage Cook Inlet Alaska Shelikof Total Resident Population: 1975 177.8 31.2 11.7 8.8 229.5 80 205.2 35.6 10.0 . 9.3 260.1 85 232.0 42.6 9.5 12.4 296.5 90 276.0 49.5 9.8 15.9 351.2 95 334.2 59.3 11.8 19.3 424.6 2000 425.0 75.5 14.6 25.3 > 540.4 05 444.5 84.2 15.7 27.2 571.6 10 465.1 90.8 16.9 29.3 602.1 15 486.5 98.0 18.2 31.6 634.3 20 509.4 106.1 19.8 34.2 669.5 2025 534.2 115.1 21.4 37.2 707.9 Basic Sector Civilian Employment (1975 Wage and Salary Employment in Parentheses): Non-Ag. Wage & Salary 1975 (23.239) (4.460) (3.779) (2.376) (33.854) Civilian 1975 23.239 4.901 4.134 3.188 35.462 80 24.611 7.401 3.635 3.458 39.105 85 25.683 8.427 © 3.369 4.282 41.761 90 27.203 9.438 3.296 4.251 44.188 95 28.879 10.379 3.707 5.132 48.097 2000 30.634 12.242 4.374 6.842 54.092 05 32.124 12.890 4.606 7.204 56.824 10 33.701 13.635 4.872 7.620 59.828 “15 35.365 14.441 5.160 8.071 63.037 20 37.143 15.348 5.484 8.578 66.553 2025 39.069 16.372 5.850 9.150 70.441 xxviii Intermediate Case Projections (continued) Other Gulf of Kodiak- Anchorage Cook Inlet Alaska Shelikof Total Non-Basic Sector Civilian Employment: 1975 46.406 4.285 1.819 1.426 53.936 80 54.418 8.153 1.812 1.663 66.046 85 71.833 10.124 2.189 2.214 86.360 90 91.332 13.147 2.307 2.364 109.150 95 119.551 16.958 2.780 3.069 142.358 2000 166.544 23.581 3.499 4.406 198.030 05 174.586 25.584 3.796 4.780 208.746 10 182.996 27.864 4.134 5.206 220.200 15 191.774 30.381 4.508 5.677 232.340 20 200.989 33.194 4.925 6.202 245.310 2025 211.000 36.370 5.397 6.796 259.563 Total Civilian Employment (Excludes Self-Employed, Except Fishing and Agriculture, and Military): Non-Ag. Wage & Salary Employment 1975 (69.645) (8.745) (5.598) (3.802) (87.790) Total Civilian Employment : 1975 69.645 9.186 5.953 4.614 89.398 80 79.029 15.554 5.447 5.121 105.151 85 97.516 18.551 5.558 . 6.496 128.121 90 118.535. 22.585 5.603 6.615 153.338 95 148.430 27.337 6.487 8.201 190.455 2000 197.178 35.823 7.873 11.248 252.122 05 206.710 38.474 8.402 11.984 265.570 10 216.697 41.499 9.006 12.826 280.028 - 15 227.139 44.822 9.668 13.748 295.377 20 238.132 48.542 10.409. 14.780 311.863 2025 52.742 11.247. 15.946 330.004 250.069 xxix Table C Southcentral Water Study Low Case Projections (LOWSC6) (Thousands) Other Gulf of Kodiak- . Anchorage Cook Inlet Alaska Shelikof Total Resident Population: 1975 177.8 31.2 11.7 8.8 229.5 80 205.0 34.2 8.6 8.8 256.6 85 226.7 34.2 8.8 12.0 281.7 90 261.1 38.1 8.4 11.1 318.7 95 309.7 : 43.3 8.6 11.5 373.1 2000 375.2 49.2 8.9 11.8 445.1 05 383.7 53.1 9.6 12.7 459.1 10 392.4 57.3 10.4 13.8 473.9 15 401.3 61.5 11.1 14.8 488.7 20 410.5 65.9 11.9 15.8 504.1 2025 420.7 70.4 12.7 16.9 520.7 Basic Sector Civilian Employment (1975 Wage and Salary Employment in Parentheses): Non-Ag. Wage & Salary 1975 - (23.239) (4.460) (3.779) (2.376) (33.854) Civilian 1975 23.239 4.901 4.134 3.188 35.462 80 24.964 7.133 2.659 3.221 37.977 85 25.238 6.640 2.679 3.791 38.348 90 25.900 6.456 2.361 3.286 38.003 95 26.631 6.573 2.377 3.310 38.891 2000 27.331 6.747 2.393 - 3.337 39.808 05 28.101 7.256 2.573 3.589 41.519 10 28.893 7.812 2.771 3.864 43.340 15 29.708 8.345 2.960 4.127 45.140 20 30.546 8.884 3.151 4.394 46.975 2025 31.459 9.426 3.343 4.662 48.890 Low Case Projections (continued) Other Gulf of Kodiak- Anchorage Cook Inlet Alaska Shelikof Total Non-Basic Sector Civilian Employment: 1975 46.406 4.285 1.819 1.426 53.936 80 59.522 7.836 1.170 1.440 69.968 85 68.451 8.362 “1.179 1.695 79.687 90 83.114 9.947 1.039 1.469 95.569 95 107.071 12.089 1.046 1.480 121.686 2000 141.162 14.709 1.053 1.492 158.416 05 144.131 15.820 1.133 1.605 162.689 10 147.131 17.033 1.219 1.728 167.111 15 150.164 18.194 1.302 1.846 171.506 20 153.229 19.369 1.387 1.965 175.950 2025 156.669 20.551 1.471 2.085 180.776 Total Civilian Employment (Excludes Self-Employed, except Fishing and Agriculture, and Military): Non-Ag. Wage & Salary Employment: 1975 (69.645) (8.745) (5.598) (3.802) (87.790) Total Civilian Employment: 1975 69.645 9.186 5.953 4.614 89.398 80 84.486 14.969 3.829 4.661 107.945 85 93.689 15.002 3.858 5.486 118.035 90 109.014 16.403 3.400 4.755 133.572 95 _ 133.702 18.662 3.423 4.790 160.577 2000 168.493 21.456 3.446 4.829 198.224 05 172.232 23.076 3.706 5.194 204.208 10 176.024 24.845 3.990 5.592 210.451 15 179.872 26.539 4.262 5.973 216.646 20 183.775 28.253 4.538 6.359 - 222.925 2025 188.128 29.977 4.814 6.747 229.666 CHAPTER 1 SOUTHCENTRAL ALASKA'S ECONOMY 1965-75 Between 1965 and 1975, Alaska's economy grew quite rapidly, and one of the fastest growing areas was Southcentral Alaska. There is no single summary measure of growth which is useful for all purposes, because economic growth is a multi-dimensional process. Therefore, this chapter presents several measures which together describe the general growth of Southcentral Alaska's economy and many of the changes which occurred in it during the ten-year period 1965 to 1975. The first section of this chapter discusses the economy of South- central Alaska as a single unit and relates economic growth in South- central to growth in the entire Alaska economy and to growth in the United States as a whole. The second section discusses the growth of individual sectors of the Southcentral economy, and the third section compares and contrasts economic growth in three principal subregions of Southcentral Alaska:-the Cook Inlet subregion, the Gulf of Alaska subregion, and the Kodiak-Shelikof subregion. These regions roughly correspond to the following Census Divisions from the 1970 Census of Population: Southcentral Alaska e Cook Inlet: Anchorage, Kenai-Cook Inlet, Matanuska- Susitna, Seward e Gulf of Alaska: Cordova-McCarthy, Valdez-Chitina-Whittier e Kodiak-Shelikof: Kodiak A map from the 1970 Census of Population appears as Figure 1, which allows the reader to identify the study region. In order to make the text more readable, only summary tables appear in the text. More detailed data appear in the Appendix. BARROW BRISTOL BAY BRISTOL BAY BOROUGH 8 9 10 Figure 1 LEGEND Places of 25,000 to 50.000 inhabitants outside SMSA's ALEUTIAN ISLANDS (PART) . A ~~ © . VD 8 ° Growth of Southcentral Economy The growth of the Alaska economy can be conveniently summarized by examining changes in the value of economic output, employment, incomes, population, and prices brought about through the growth process. All five measures increased substantially during the period 1965 to 1975. The real (inflation adjusted) value of output in Alaska went up at about three times the average U.S. rate, while Southcentral Alaska rose even faster. Employment in Alaska increased by over 100 percent during these years, and Southcentral employment grew 130 percent. There was also a marked reduction in the seasonality of employment during much of the period. Real incomes of Alaskans rose much faster than those of most Americans between 1965 and 1975: total real income increased at almost three times the U.S. rate, while per capita income increased at almost twice the U.S. rate. Partly as a result of the rapid growth of the econo- my, the population of the state rose about 53 percent between 1965 and 1975, while the Southcentral region's population grew about 73 percent. Prices, as measured by the Consumer Price Index, increased at a rate one to two percent less than the U.S. average, with the exception of the pipe- line construction years. One of the more useful measures of economic growth is gross product, which is the total value at final sale of the goods and services produced by an economy. The Institute of Social and Economic Research has pro- duced annual estimates of Alaska gross product since 1974. The Institute also has constructed historical series on a statewide level back to 1961 and regional series as far back as 1965.7 These series are comparable to similar estimates provided on a national scale by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Since the Institute began preparing these estimates, the U.S. series has been converted to 1972 constant dollars. The Alaska leross product estimation methodology is outlined in Kresge and Thomas [1] and Thomas and Goodwin [2]. series has been adjusted in Table 1 to account for this change, while the original Alaska series by detailed industry group appears as Table A.1 in the appendix. As can be seen from the table, the value of real out- put produced by the Alaska economy grew at a substantially faster rate than that of the U.S. as a whole. The Southcentral economy grew even faster over the ten-year period, while the pipeline construction years 1974 and 1975 show faster growth in the state than in Southcentral. In 1965, Southcentral produced 53.1 percent of all goods and services produced in Alaska. By 1973, the ratio had risen to 63.3 percent, and it was still 57.2 percent in 1975, even though the rest of the state had begun to overtake the Southcentral region. (The latter probably was a transitory phenomenon caused by pipeline construction.) Economic growth offers increased opportunities for employment. Table 2 shows the rate of growth in nonagricultural wage and salary employment for Southcentral Alaska and the State of Alaska, which is the most consistent indicator of growth in total employment available in the state. Estimates of other types of employment--self-employed, unpaid family workers, and agricultural workers and fishermen--are troublesome, particularly because of changing coverage for fishermen under the state's unemployment insurance laws. Separate estimates of persons employed state- wide (mostly Southcentral) in agriculture and in Southcentral region fish- ing are presented in Table 3. Since the reporting source and area covered is different in each case, and the definitions of who is employed vary, the reader is cautioned against adding the figures in Tables 2 and 3 to obtain an estimate of total employment. Finally, it should be noted that employment in Alaska has been quite seasonal in the past, so that the estimated annual average employment shown in these tables tells only part of the story. Accordingly, in Table 2 the ratio of average employ— ment in the highest quarter to average employment in the lowest quarter of the year is reported to show how seasonality in employment has varied, both over time and between Southcentral Alaska and the state as a whole. Table 1 Comparison of the Growth in Constant Dollar Real Output: Southcentral Alaska, Alaska, and United States 1965-1975 (Millions of 1972 Dollars) Southcentral Alaska Gross U.S. Gross Year Gross Product! State Product! National Product 1965 666.6 1,256.3 925,900 66 753.7 1,369.3 981,000 67 906.1 1,513.7 1,007,700 68 1,101.3 1,759.0 1,051,800 69 1,177.3 1,975.9 1,078, 800 70 1,264.3 2,075.5 1,075,300 71 1,330.4 2,106.6 1,107,500 72 1,283.4 2,032.5 1,171,100 73 1,338.4 2,115.1 1,235,000 74 1,546.4 2,508.2 1,217,800 75 1,838.3 3,214.8 1,202,100 Average Annual Rate of Growth 10.7% 9.9% 2.6% 1965-1975 1adjustment Factor = 1.514, the ratio of 1958 GNP in 1972 dollars to 1958 GNP in 1958 dollars. Civilian Non-Agricultural Wage and Salary Employment Table 2 and Seasonality Coefficients: Southcentral Alaska and State of Alaska 1965-1975 (Number of Persons) Southcentral Seasonality Year Employment Coefficient 1965 37,779 1.233 66 39,915 1.230 67 42,536 1.215 68 44,008 1.217 69 47,440 1.205 70 51,409 1.189 71 55,452 1.199 72 58,850 1.182 73 62,590 1.168 74 71,983 1.258 75 87,787 1.274 Average Annual Rate of Growth 8.8% -- 1965-1975 Alaskan Employment 70,527 73,193 76,785 79,802 86,563 92,465 97,585 104, 244 109, 852 128,177 161, 308 8.6% Seasonality Coefficient! 1.312 1.276 1.266 1.284 1.281 1.213 1.249 1.246 1.210 1.349 1.312 1 Ratio of average employment in highest quarter (usually, the third quarter) to employment in lowest quarter (usually, the first quarter). Table 3 State Agricultural Employment and Southcentral Fisheries Employment and Measures of Seasonality, 1965-1975 (Number of Persons) State Southcentral Agricultural Fishing High Month/ Employment Seasonality” Employment Annual Average Ratio 1965 900 2.333 NA NA 66 925 2.333 NA NA 67 900 2.333 NA NA 68 800 2.200 NA ; NA 69 750 2.000 NA NA 70 800 1.660 2,193 3.340 71 900 1.833 2,052 3.540 72 1,000 © 2.333 1,853 3.460 73 700 2.000 _ 2,235 3.270 74 750 1.666 1,998 3.080 75 750 1.500 2,031 3.100 Includes farm operators and other members of household who work on the farm during the survey week for 15 hours or more without receiving cash wages, plus hired workers who received pay for one or more hours of work on the farm in the survey week. Source: U.S.D.A., Alaska Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, Alaska Agricultural Statistics. Separate figures for Southcentral were not available. 2 High month survey week employment divided by low month survey week employment. Survey months are March, June, September, and December. 3 Data from special employment estimates made from Alaska Department of Fish and Game fish ticket data by George W. Rogers and Richard F. Listowski, 1978. Includes Aleutian Islands. July average divided by annual average. ‘able 3 reports the ratio of high quarter to low quarter state agri- cultural employment, and high month to annual average employment for fisheries in Southcentral Alaska. A declining ratio means reduced seasonality, while an increasing ratio means increased seasonality. As can be seen from Table 2, nonagricultural wage and salary employ- ment increased substantially during the ten-year period 1965 to 1975 in both the Southcentral region and in Alaska as a whole, while seasonality declined between 1965 and 1973. (Additional employment detail appears in Appendix Table A.2.) The decline in seasonality came from two sources. In the first place, as will be shown in the next section, much of the growth in employment occurred in the support sectors, such as government, trade, and services, which tend to be less seasonal than the traditional Alaska employment base in seafood processing, construction, and some mining. Second, there have been some technological innovations, such as year-round construction techniques, which have tended to reduce sea- sonality in traditionally seasonal industries. The sharp increase in seasonality in 1974 and 1975 was mainly due to the very large-scale seasonal pattern of employment on the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline project, for which statewide employment varied between five thousand in the low quarter to more than twenty thousand in the high quarter. Other evi- dence suggests that seasonality has eee to decline, apart from this project. Table 3 shows a fairly constant or slightly declining employment base in agriculture, with very marked seasonality. Most of this seasonality is a result of the hiring and laying off of part-time or seasonal help, while family help remains employed the whole year. Fisheries employment has increased substantially, while seasonality remains high. Table 2 shows that, because of its larger base in the relatively nonseasonal support sectors, the Southcentral economy has grown faster and tended _to remain less seasonal than the economy of the state as a whole. Besides the employment opportunities afforded by economic growth, another significant impact on individuals is the incomes earned in pro- duction. Table 4 shows the U.S. Department of Commerce estimates of residence-adjusted constant dollar personal income (real income) for Southcentral Alaska, Alaska as a whole, and the United States, reported in 1967 dollars. Additional detail appears in Table A.3 in the appendix. The Alaska data is reported in 1967 Anchorage dollars and the United States data in 1967 U.S. dollars. This data is useful for estimating the aggregate increase in purchasing power of persons living in each location; however, because of differences in prices between Alaska and the Lower 48 contiguous states (about 42 percent in the fall of 1975), Alaska real per capita incomes are not strictly comparable to U.S. figures. Per capita income for the Alaska locations is obtained by dividing real personal income by the Alaska popartnent of Labor estimate of population, which varies from the U.S. Bureau of the Census estimate for Alaska, and which is probably more accurate for 1975 than: the Census estimate. The table indicates that real income and real per capita income have been growing more rapidly in Alaska than in the United States as a whole. This was particularly true during the 1974-75 U.S. recession,,. during which income in the United States fell slightly, while Alaska income rose substantially as a result of the pipeline project even when increases in prices are taken into account. The overall income increase masks a very uneven distribution in income gains among the various popu- lation groups; however, it does fairly reflect an increase in overall purchasing power in the Alaska economy and increasing demand for goods and services. The rapid economic growth in Southcentral Alaska and in Alaska as a whole has resulted in substantial in-migration of people seeking jobs in the Alaska economy. Table 5 summarizes population growth in the region Table 4 Real Personal Income and Per Capita Income: Southcentral Alaska, Alaska, and the United States 1965-19751 (1967 Dollars) Southcentral Alaska Rest of State State of Alaska United States Real Income Per Capita Real Income Per Capita Real Income Per Capita Real Income Per Capita (103 $) Income (103 $) Income (103 $) Income (106 $) Income 1965 $489,559 $3,693 $421,269 $3,177 $910,828 $3,435 $562,988 . $2,947 66 496,716 3,638 429,284 3,181 926,000 3,411 595,845 3,087 67 572,572 4,083 444,428 3,228 1,017,000 3,660 620,023 3,188 68 608,281 4,163 473,597 3,413 1,081,878 3,798 650,469 3,318 69 686,241 4,520 488,452 3,422 1,174,693 3,988 672,348 3,400 70 730,364 4,459 556,132 4,014 1,286,496 4,255 682,279 3,410 71 = 783,927 4,516 600,483 4,367 1,384,410 4,450 702,351 3,406 72° =829,733 4,566 635,323 4,526 1,465,056 4,548 746,579 3,586 73° 894,842 4,742 765,754 5,405 1,660,596 5,027 785,198 3,742 74 1,022,756 5,257 791,284 5,053 1,814,040 5,166 778,329 3,682 75 1,246,726 5,433 1,013,944 5,789- 2,260,670 5,587 773,264 3,630 Average Annual Rate of Growth: 1965-1975 9.8% 3.9% 9.2% 6.2% 9.5% 5.0% 3.2% 2.1% li ecome data used to compile this table are from computer printouts provided by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economics Information System. Population data for - Alaska are from Alaska Department of Labor, Current Population Estimates by Census Division. 11 Table 5 Population Growth: Southcentral Region and Alaska 1965-1975 (Number of Persons) Southcentral Region State 1965 132,572 265,192 66 136,549 271,505 67 140,223 277,906 68 146,100 284,880 69 151,810 294,560 70 163,792 302,361 71 173,573 311,070 72 181,736 322,115 73 188,698 330,365 74 194,569 351,159 75 229,492 404 ,634 Average Annual Rate of Growth 5.6% 4.3% 1965-1975 12 and in the state as a whole. (Geographic detail appears in Appendix Table A.4.) Two major economic motivating factors explain the large population increase. One is that real per capita incomes have been rising in Alaska faster than in the United States as a whole, indicat- ' ing that Alaska has been a region of improving wage scales compared to the rest of the United States. In addition, employment growth provides additional job opportunities for individuals. Some migrant job seekers also bring families. The Alaska Department of Labor estimates that net migration accounted for 73 thousand of the 103 thousand increase in resident population between 1970 and 1975, about 72 percent of the in- crease, while natural increase accounted for only 29 thousand, or about 28 percent of the total. Growing economies often are characterized by growing demand and supply bottlenecks which add to pressures for rising prices. Offsetting this is the fact that growth provides opportunities for economies of scale in the distribution of goods and services and provides opportuni- ties for import substitution, which may reduce consumer prices. Alaska's prices are closely linked to U.S. prices, largely because Alaska pro- duces very few consumer goods, but rather imports most of them from the Lower 48. Table 6 indicates that the rate of growth of Alaska consumer prices, as measured by the Anchorage Consumer Price Index, was generally lower than that of the United States as a whole between 1965 and 1973, probably as a result of transportation savings, competition, and econo- mies in distribution in growing Alaska markets. During the pipeline construction period, however, which was also a period of business reces- sion in the Lower 48, Alaska prices grew at a rate faster than in the country as a whole. Table A.5 in the appendix shows the distribution of Alaska price increases among the major categories of goods and services purchased by consumers. 13 Table 6 Anchorage and U.S. Consumer Price Index, Percentage Change, and Difference in Percentage Change, 1965-1975 (1967 = 100.0) Index Percent Change Anchorage U.S. Anchorage U.S. Difference 1965 94.2 94.5 NA NA NA 66 100.0 97.2 6.2 2.9 + 3.3 67 100.0 100.0 0.0 2.9 - 2.9 68 102.6 104.2 2.6 4.2 - 1.6 69 105.9 109.8 3.2 5.4 - 2.2 70 109.6 116.3 3.5 5.9 - 2.4 71 112.9 121.3 3.0 4.3 - 1.3 72 115.9 125.3 2.7 3.3 - 0.6 73 120.8 133.1 4.2 6.2 - 2.0 74 133.9 147.4 10.8 10.7 + 0.1 75 152.3 161.2 13.7 9.4 + 4.3 14 Distribution of Economic Growth Among Industries and Areas, Southcentral Region The growth which took place in the Southcentral economy between 1965 and 1975 was not uniform across industries. Table 7 and Figure 2 demonstrate this fact in percentage growth terms for two subperiods: 1965 to 1973 (pre-pipeline) and 1974 and 1975 (pipeline construction). Both the figure and the table also show that the rate of growth in nearly all industries accelerated appreciably with the advent of pipe- line construction in 1974. Industry-by-industry causes of growth are discussed below, divided into basic industries (solid lines in Figure 2) and support sector (dashed lines in Figure 2). For purposes of this discussion, basic industries are mining, manufacturing, construction, agriculture-forestry-fisheries, and federal government. Support sec-— tor industries are transportation-communications-public utilities, wholesale and retail trade, finance-insurance-real estate, services, and state and local government. Basic Industries Growth in these sectors was led by two industries: mining (including petroleum) and construction. The main cause of growth in the mining sector was the production of oil and gas from the Kenai Peninsula and Cook Inlet fields. Oil was discovered at Swanson River in 1957, but production never amounted to more than 1 million barrels per month until 1966, which inaugurated a steady five-year increase that peaked in 1970 at 7.5 million barrels per month. Prior to 1966, total cumulative value of oil and gas production from Alaska was about $156 million. The annual value in 1966 alone was $47 million, and the estimated annual gross sales accelerated from there to $407 million by 1975. Employment in production, specialized drilling and construction, field services, and headquarters grew at an annual rate of about 40 percent in the late sixties, causing nearly a tripling of mining employment from 694 to 1,913 in the Cook Inlet subregion between 1965 and 1969. As production in the Table 7 Annual Percent Increase in Real Gross Output, Southcentral Region and State, 1965 to 1975 Southcentral Rest of State State Industry 1965-1973 1973-1975 1965-1973 1973-1975 1965-1973 1973-1975 Agr.-Forestry-Fisheries - 4.9 32.5 - 13.5 70.5 - 9.9 51.5 Mining 27.2 5.5 13.1 70.2 24.0 17.2 Construction 1.6 48.4 1.7 125.7 1.6 81.6 Manufacturing 10.0 4.5 3.2 3.4 5.4 3.8 Food Mfg. Only 10.1 - 1.3 1.9 0.7 5.6 - 0.4 Trans.-Comm.-P.U. 10.1 32.1 4.7 36.8 7.4 34.2 Transportation 9.7 32.6 4.5 47.4 7.2 38.9 Communications 10.4 34.5 4.1 32.5 6.6 33.4 Public Utilities 10.7 27.4 7.5 20.8 9.6 25.3 Trade 9.9 27.4 6.7 49.0 8.8 34.5 Wholesale 11.3 38.3 7.3 48.0 10.2 40.6 Retail 8.9 18.6 6.4 49.3 7.9 30.5 Finance 9.0 15.8 6.2 31.7 8.1 20.4 Services . 9.2 29.8 6.8 38.9 8.3 33.1 Government 2.4 3.6 %.2 0.8 1.0 1.8 Federal - 1.1 2.0 - 1.1 - 5.2 - 1.1 - 1.1 State/Local 9.4 8.2 8.2 8.5 8.8 8.0 ST | Millions of | 1958 Dollars Figure 2 | Value of Gross Output in Southcentral Alaska By Industry, 1965-1975 9T Trans.-Comm.-P.U. Manufacturin : 7 . . Agr.-Forestry-Fisheries Bene de oD ee een ee mon Pn a jo. = fj —______1 71s 1966 1967 1968 (970 41 1972. AB 1974 19% 17 Upper Cook Inlet fields first stabilized and then began to fall off, and with the completion of most exploration and development drilling, employment shrank to 1,343 in 1972. The modest growth in this sector after 1973 seems to have come from three sources. In spite of steady or declining production of oil, the Arab oil embargo and OPEC price increases caused over a 50 percent rise in the nominal value of Upper Cook Inlet production (and some increase in real value) between 1973 and 1975. Second, largely in response to a burgeoning Anchorage market, natural gas production increased sharply in 1975. Finally, Anchorage headquarters and other mining industry employment increased by 69 percent between 1973 and 1975 to 1,300, about 36 percent more than the previous peak year of 1970. Slight increases in oil field employment occurred on the Kenai Peninsula as a result of Tesoro refinery and Collier Carbon and Chemical petrochemical expansion, although neither facility employs people in mining directly. Recent development trends in the Cook Inlet area indicate a con- tinuation of growth in mining, at least for the near future. North Slope development and increased exploration elsewhere in the state suggest that Anchorage mining sector employment and output will continue to grow, while exploratory activity in Lower Cook Inlet, the Northern Gulf of Alaska, and the Kodiak shelf will lead to greatly expanded employment and output elsewhere in the region, if exploration efforts are successful. In any case, there will be some short-term employment increases associated with exploration efforts. Construction output remained fairly flat between 1965 and 1973, and then increased rapidly in response to demands arising both directly and indirectly from the Trans-Alaska Oil. Pipeline and other oil and gas de- velopments. As can be seen in the top half of Figure 3, constant dollar construction output declines in Anchorage in the late 1960s were about offset by increases elsewhere in the region (chiefly, the Kenai Peninsula). Both areas remained about flat between 1970 and 1973, then both grew rapidly be el of . Anchorage 195% Dollars Figure 3 50— Gross Output and Employment in Contract Construction, i Southcentral Subregions, 1965-1973 i 40 + i ‘ i - GROSS PRODUCT Other Southcentral Cook Inlet EMPLOYMENT 8T Gulf of Alaska 19 in response to Trans-Alaska Pipeline development. The bottom half of Figure 3 shows the pattern of employment in the three study subregions. The Cook Inlet subregion pattern was a result of the Kenai Peninsula boom in the late 1960s, followed by a smaller construction expansion in the 1973 to 1975 period.. The underlying causes were expansions of oil and gas processing facilities and related construction, combined with uneven but continuous employment increases in Anchorage after 1970, culminating in a construction boom in 1975. Gulf of Alaska subregion employment was influenced primarily by the construction boom in Valdez, resulting from the building of the pipeline terminal and facilities. Kodiak-Shelikof experienced contraction of its construction sector in the late 1960s, apparently due to declining Kodiak Naval Station employ- ment, stable population, and declining fisheries, but has experienced increases since about 1970, partly in response to increased fish proces— sing and in anticipation of offshore oil development. Overall, recent trends suggest that construction employment and output correspond with major construction decisions by outside agencies and firms (an example being the pipeline, or projects such as Pacific LNG's gas liquefaction facility), and responses of local community facilities to overall increase in population and demand for goods and services. There currently are several large projects pending or being discussed which will mean substantial direct construction employment, and which will probably lead to some overall increase in the size of Southcentral's economy, im- plying a secondary construction response. The likeliest subregion for the increase is the Cook Inlet subregion, since several major projects (Pacific LNG, capital move, Beluga coal, Susitna hydro) are proposed for this subregion, and because the subregion contains Anchorage which, as the major financial, trade, and government center, grows in response to business and government developments all over the state. The outlook for construction employment in the other two subregions is more likely to be tied to specific projects and be of a more cyclical nature. 20 The other basic sectors were less important to overall economic growth. Agriculture-forestry-fisheries sector, for example, showed its cyclical nature and did not show substantial increases in real value of Output. Table 8 shows the nominal value of agricultural production (not neces-— sarily sales), value of catch to fishermen, and inflation-adjusted output generated by this sector between 1965 and 1975. This sector accounted for about one percent of output in 1975, although it figures quite prominently in the local economies of Kodiak, Cordova, Homer, and Seward and provides raw materials for food manufacturing, which added another 2.8 percent of the value of 1975 Southcentral output. Forestry and lumber and wood products play only a very minor role in the South- central economy at present, contributing only about three-tenths of one percent of 1975 output and employing 426 people, about three-fourths of them in Anchorage. The Prospects for growth in the agriculture-forestry- fisheries sector and related processing depend on the ability of American fishermen and processors to take advantage of rising prices for their output, the new 200-mile fisheries conservation zone established in 1976, and the ability of the State of Alaska to enhance the very low salmon runs of recent years. It should be pointed out that even a doubling of output in agriculture-forestry-fisheries would result in very modest increases in the overall output of the Southcentral economy, though it may be important for the employment base of several communities. Other manufacturing, principally petroleum refining, petrochemicals, and printing and publishing, has been playing an increasingly important role within the manufacturing sector, historically dominated by fish processing. In 1965, other manufacturing accounted for 27.2 percent of manufacturing output in the Southcentral economy and 33.5 percent of manufacturing employment (about 53.6 percent of manufacturing employment in the Cook Inlet subregion). By 1974, output had increased to 33.9 per- cent of total manufacturing, with an increase of employment to 34.1 per- cent of the total (1974 is compared to 1965 in order to compare two "down" years in the salmon cycle). Prospects for growth in other manufacturing 21 Table 8 Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries Output Statistics, Southcentral Alaska, 1965-1975 Value of Value of Catch Real Gross Product Agricultural Output to Fishermen (Millions of Dollars)! (Millions of Dollars)? (Millions of 1958 Dollars) 1965 $ 3.9 $ 22.3 $ i. 66 4.2 33.4 16.5 67 4.2 21.7 10.0 68 4.0 39.7 13.5 69 3.5 30.9 12.5 70 4.2 40.7 15.6 71 4.1 36.7 13.1 72 4.6 44.8 12.4 73 5.4 73.5 7.4 74 6.4 65.9 11.0 75 7.2 61.0 3: 1 Source: Alaska Agricultural Statistics, various issues. 2 Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Commercial Fisheries Division, Alaska Catch and Production, various issues. 22 depend mostly on the ability of the region to attract chemical facilities based on oil and gas. The proposed ALPETCO refinery, for example, would employ more than double the number of persons employed in other manufac— turing in Southcentral in 1975. Federal government output, evaluated as the wages and salaries paid to federal employees, stayed just about constant over the entire period, as did federal civilian employment. There has been an increase in federal civilian employment of about six percent since 1970, or about 600 persons. While there is some reason to believe the number of federal positions in Southcentral Alaska will increase over time, as this part of Alaska becomes more urbanized and requires more government services, and functions currently provided in Juneau and Seattle are provided locally, this is not expected to be a major growth industry in the future. ‘Almost all future growth would probably occur in the Cook Inlet subregion, in Anchorage. Support Sectors The various support sector industries all followed very similar growth patterns between 1965 and 1975. Referring back to Table 7 and Figure 2, one can see that in Southcentral Alaska between 1965 and 1973, the real value of output in transportation, communications, public uti- lities, trade, finance (including insurance and real estate), services, and state and local government all grew at between 9 and 11 percent per annum. Figure 4 shows employment by industry. After 1973, the pipeline boom and its secondary effects caused these rates of increase to as much as triple the 1965-1973 rates. Some of the employment in transportation, communications, and public utilities and some of the employment in ser- vices was direct employment on the pipeline project and, therefore, should be included as part of the growth in basic sector employment. State and local government is also "basic" in one sense, since some of the increase in state and local employment and output can be attributed directly to increases in available revenues after the Prudhoe Bay lease sale in 1969. State and local government expansion provided part of the basic increase ” Thousand_ ' ‘1c of Persons Trade 2» 1975=17, 265 I5— 14- Figure 4 I3- Employment in Support Sector Industries, Southcentral Alaska State/Lo« 1965-1975 Governme1 ae ne lo- Trans .-Comm.-P.U €Z Finance 24 in economic activity that fueled growth in the rest of the support sector. However, since a large part of the growth in government can be attributed to the increases in staffing due to increased population and to increased per capita demand for government services, state and local government has been included in the support sector. Of the available aggregate statistics, the one which best predicts growth in the support sector on a statewide level is personal income. Real personal income earned within a subregion is less in determining local support sector activity, the smaller and less isolated the sub- region. In small subregions, a high proportion of goods and services are either provided by other localities or are provided to other locali- ties. Even so, local real personal income (local demand) has a remarkably strong effect on the output of the support sectors. Figure 5 demonstrates that the real income-output relationship for Anchorage is fairly stable in services and also in trade, although there appears to have been some departure from the historical relationship in 1975. Transportation- communications-public utilities appears to have slowed in comparison with personal income growth in Anchorage in the early 1970s. A possible interpretation of this observation is that transportation in Anchorage experienced a pause between the Kenai construction boom and the North Slope construction boom as a result of slack statewide transportation demand (see Table A.6), while personal incomes of residents of Anchorage continued to grow from business generated locally and from the maturing Southcentral economy. Indeed, examination of the Anchorage census division employment data reveals that Anchorage transportation employ- ment was essentially unchanged between 1970 and 1973. Communications employment was also essentially flat between 1970 and 1974, while public utilities employment, which reflects local demand, increased steadily. The break from the past pattern in trade in 1974-75 seems to have been caused by a rapid maturing of the Anchorage economy; e.g. Anchorage wholesale trade employment increased by 40 percent between 1974 and 1975. 25 Output Millions of 1958 Dollars o0- qo Figure 5 ~ --Comn.-P.U. Relationship of Real Personal Income Trans.-Comn U to Real Output in Support Sector po- . Industries, Anchorage, 1965-1975 Trade 20- on Finance oo- 90- Services B ' 4o~ o- Personal Income Thousands of 1967 Dollars + ' 4 ’ 1 1 ’ : ee ’ t of °o loo 200 Beo 400 Boo 600 yoo 600 goo (080 26 Figure 6 data on the support sector outside of Anchorage demonstrate that 1974 and 1975 again represent a departure from the 1965 to 1973 trend. Transportation-communications-public utilities shows the larg- est difference from historical trends, mostly as a result of an increase of 50 percent in "other transportation" employment in the Gulf of Alaska subregion in 1974, and another 183 percent increase in 1975. The output data are clearly affected by the pipeline project (see tonnage data in Table A.6), and projections of the transportation sector would need a separate component for local demand and resource development-related demand. Trade output has also increased sharply in the Southcentral region, exclusive of Anchorage, with big percentage increases occurring at both the wholesale and retail level in 1974 and 1975. It should come as no surprise that the employment data from the individual census divisions indicate that large increases have occurred in employment in the Matanuska- Susitna Borough, the Kenai-Cook Inlet census division, and the Valdez- Chitina-Whittier census division, with little growth in Cordova-McCarthy and little or no growth at the wholesale level in Kodiak and Seward. In the case of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, much of the growth is due to the development of Wasilla as a retailing center. In the case of Valdez- Chitina-Whittier, much of the growth is a direct consequence of services provided as a result of the pipeline project, and in the Kenai Peninsula, probably the growth is a result of a deepening and maturing economy which comes with larger populations. Services did not keep pace with the increase in personal income outside of Anchorage between 1973 and 1975. This may be due to the fact that most services such as medical and business services are still obtained in Anchorage, while hotel, restaurant, and related services cannot yet be supported by internal business growth. The single ex- ception was business services in the Valdez-Chitina-Whittier census Figure 6 Relationship of Real Output in Support Sector Industries to Real Income, Other Southcentral, Real Output 1965-1975 Millions of 1958 Dollars 56- Trans .-Comm.-P.U. 1S 40- 30- Trade Services ow 100 200 oo 400 500 600 700 Thousands of 1967 Dollars 860 Personal Income LZ 10b0 28 division, and this is because many pipeline project operations’ employees are counted as employed in the business services sector by the Depart- ment of Labor. Again, the evidence suggests that, for projection pur- poses, the data be divided into local demand and direct demand caused by large-scale projects such as the pipeline. State and local government output in non-Anchorage Southcentral, as measured by state and local government wages and salaries, grew at an annual average rate of 8.6 percent between 1965 and 1975. The rates of growth in the periods 1965 to 1973 and 1973 to 1975 were 9.4 percent and 5.6 percent, respectively, appearing to show that the pipeline had little influence on the growth of this sector outside of Anchorage. Indeed, the rate of growth in employment in state and local government was lower in Kodiak during the pipeline boom than it had been in the previous eight years: 3.5 percent, as opposed to 11.1 percent. The Gulf of Alaska subregion showed some influence from the pipeline, since the rate of employment growth in this sector increased from 6.2 percent to 9.5 percent--nearly all the increase in Valdez-Chitina-Whittier census division. Within Cook Inlet subregion, all the census divisions except Anchorage showed a decrease in the rate of growth of state and local government employment after 1973. Figure 7 demonstrates what happened over the entire period in each subdivision. Most areas show an accel- eration in the rate of growth in employment either in 1969 or in 1970, probably reflecting both the expansion of state government after the Prudhoe Bay lease sale (beginning 1970) and the expansion of state revenue sharing to local governments, especially the School Foundation Program. The Kodiak-Shelikof subregion shows steady growth, probably a result of the roughly constant population and slow rate of real per capita spending. The Gulf of Alaska region shows its expected bulge in employment in 1973-1975 as the result of the pipeline. The Matanuska- Susitna Borough accelerated in 1970 and sustained the higher pace. This was probably a coincidence of expanded funding in 1970-1972 being fol- lowed by increasing population demands. Kenai-Cook Inlet initially | N oO Figure 7 State and Local Government Employment, Selected Southcentral Alaska Subregions, 1965-1975 Number of Persons ils Kenai-Cook Inlet F00= Gulf of Alaska $00 = 100- Kodiak- Shelikof 600. S00. 400~ a Seward 220. © po. t i t t ’ ‘ ‘ , ' 4 : és 66 67 68 64 70 7! 72 73 74 ws 30 shows the tail-end of oil expansion, an acceleration in 1970-1972 in probable response to increased funding, steady employment from 1972 to 1974 (estimated resident population shrank from 1971 to 1974), and a new round of expansion with population increases after 1974. Seward's resident population was growing until 1968, when it stabilized and began to fall. This probably accounts for the smaller revenue-induced accelera-— tion in state and local government employment in 1969 and 1970, and the relatively flat spending pattern after 1970. 31 Comparison of Growth in the 3 Study Subregions The three study subregions--Cook Inlet, Gulf of Alaska, and Kodiak- Shelikof--have economies which depend on different basic sectors and their 1965-1975 growth reflects these differences. The economic base -of Cook Inlet is essentially threefold. It depends upon local resource development, as exemplified by the operation of the Upper Cook Inlet oil and gas fields; it depends upon Anchorage's role as a transportation and financial hub for all of Alaska (except Southeast Alaska for surface transportation); and it depends upon Anchorage as a regional and state- wide governmental center. In contrast, both the other subregions cur- rently depend upon resource development to sustain their economies. Gulf of Alaska is sustained by local resource development (fisheries and oil and gas exploration) and the petroleum transshipment facilities at Valdez. Kodiak depends upon the fisheries and upon federal government employment in support of fishing and navigation. Summary Tables 9, 10, and 11 show that the three major economic events in the 1965-1975 period-- development of the Kenai oil and gas fields from 1965 to 1970, government expansion from 1970 to 1973, and pipeline-related development in 1974-- had different effects in each of the three subregions. Table 9 summarizes the changes in Cook Inlet. Anchorage dominates this subregion, and the maturing of the Anchorage economy plus its growth as a statewide service, trade, and financial center both in periods of rapid growth and in periods of slower growth made the support sector industries grow faster than the "basic" sector. As a result, the "basic" sector share of employment (about one-half of whom are federal government civilian employees) fell from 44 percent of the total in 1965 to 30 percent in 1975. Thé term "basic" is used in quotation marks, since several parts of the state government, transportation, communica— tions, wholesale trade, and services industries are arguably part of the subregion's “export base." However, much more information and analysis (Number of Persons)> 1965 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 "Basic" Sector Employment 15,144 15,278 16,169 16,447 16,552 17,193 17,666 17,963 18,147 20,812 23,505 Average Annual Rate of Growth 1965-1970 1970-1973 1973-1975 1965-1975 Table 9 Selected Measures of Growth Cook Inlet Subregion, 1965-1975 Non-Agricultural Wage and Salary Employment (Number of Persons) 34,134 35,761 38,317 40,073 43,578 47,407 51,091 54,329 57,156 65,918 78,389 6.8% 6.4% 17.1% 8.7% Real Personal Income (Million 1967 $) 442.5 448.7 522.6 555.9 631.2 667.3 716.8 769.4 820.8 943.3 1129.5 8.6% 7.1% 17.3% 9.8% Population 119,121 123,665 126,376 132,180 137,400 149 ,428 159,046 167,765 174,280 179,544 209,049 WUounF PUwWwan NNN (Number of Persons) ce 1, priculture, Forestry, Fisheries, Mining, Contract Construction, Manufacturing, Federal Government. 33 would be required than is currently available to identify the "basic" parts of these industries, on the one hand, or the strictly local- serving parts of construction and manufacturing, on the other. Examining Table 9, one can see that personal income gains in the Cook Inlet subregion were consistently larger than employment growth over the period, which means that many income benefits of increased employment opportunities were accrued to residents of the subregion. Employment grew more rapidly than population throughout the period, indicating the migration of primarily single and childless individuals to the subregion in search of employment and rising labor force par- ticipation of residents. Real per capita income rose throughout the period, because income rose more rapidly than population. The greatest jump occurred, not surprisingly, in 1973-1975, reflecting pipeline wages of residents. This is in spite of the fact that the reporting agency adjusted the data downward for those pipeline wages which did not remain in the communities (reportedly around 50 percent). Table 10, referring to the Gulf of Alaska subregion, shows that the pattern of employment is closely tied to changes in "basic" sector employ- ment, and that total employment changes in this region are in the same direction and about 1.2 - 1.6 times as large as employment changes in the "basic" sector in most years. The data are misleading to some degree since nonresident fishermen do not appear in the data; nor do self-employed and family workers in fishing; nor do fishing crew members before about 1972. However, it is clear that in this subregion the economy as a whole is much more dependent on the "basic" sector than in the Cook Inlet subregion. It is also clear that, although over the whole period per capita real resident personal income increased, many of the income benefits of the pipeline period went to people who worked in the region (and were counted as employed in the region), but who were not residents of the region (and therefore were not counted for income purposes). Thus, employment grew faster than either income or population. Table 10 Selected Measures of Growth Gulf of Alaska Subregion, 1965-1975 Non-Agricultural "Basic" Sector Wage and Salary Real Personal Employment 1 Employment Income Population (Number of Persons) (Number of Persons) (Million 1967 $) (Number of Persons) 1965 497 : 1,355 14.5 4,387 66 575 1,453 15.2 4,405 67 431 1,343 16.2 4,369 68 399 1,284 17.2 4,400 69 524 1,467 17.4 4,540 70 461 1,533 21.3 ~ 4,955 71 595 1,742 23.0 4,862 72 482 1,643 22.8 5,326 73 ~ 603 1,858 26.0 5,550 74 828 2,423 30.4 5,793 75 3,025 : 5,596 66.4 11,642 Average Annual Rate of Growth 1965-1970 - 1.5% 2.5% 8.0% 2.5% 1970-1973 9.3% 6.6% 6.9% 3.9% 1973-1975 224.0% 73.5% : 59.8% 44.8% 1965-1975 19.8% 15.2% 16.4% 10.3% ls sriculture, Forestry, Fisheries, Mining, Contract Construction, Manufacturing, Federal Government. ileal he cee ee a E 35 The fact that employment growth was concentrated in the "basic" sector (mainly construction) can be seen by comparing the basic sector and total employment growth in the two left-hand columns of the table. The Kodiak-Shelikof subregion's experience is summarized in Table 11. In comparison with the other two tables, one is struck by the relatively low rate of growth in personal income, declines in population, and the low (sometimes negative) rate of employment growth. Even the relatively strong showing in the "basic" sector between 1970 and 1973 is partly a statistical quirk. The extension of coverage to fishermen under unem- ployment insurance in 1972 caused the estimate of agriculture-forestry- fisheries employment to increase from 123 to 402 in one year. Much of the rest of basic employment is in manufacturing (mainly canning and fish processing), which accounts for the cyclical nature of both basic and total employment in this subregion. This economy is heavily depen- dent on the basic sector: in 1965, 64 percent of all wage and salary employees were in the basic sector, and in 1975, the percentage was still 55 percent. There are two somewhat offsetting trends in Kodiak basic employment. On the one hand, federal civilian employment has fallen by more than 50 percent since 1965--from 541 to 269, or from about 1 in 4 jobs in the Kodiak economy to 7 percent, or less than 1 in 10. On the other hand, the traditionally cyclical food manufactur-— ing industry increased from 618 to 1,134, or from 1 in 4 jobs to 1 in 3. Kodiak has increasingly become a one-industry economy dependent upon fishing, while the other two subregions have diversified economically. Job creation in Kodiak is increasingly dependent on growth in the fish- ing industry. The relative lack of stable economic opportunity and the decline in federal (military-related) employment may account for the estimated population declines. Since the gain in total employment is larger than the gain in personal incomes and is associated with esti- mated net population decreases, then either real wage rates are falling, which reduces income gains, or much of the income earned in the region goes to people who are not residents of the subregion. The latter seems the more likely explanation. Table 11 Selected Measures of Growth Kodiak-Shelikof Subregion, 1965-1975 Non-Agricultural "Basic" Sector Wage and Salary Real Personal Employment 1 Employment Income Population (Number of Persons) (Number of Persons) (Million 1967 $) (Number of Persons) 1965 1,483 2,310 32.6 9,064 66 1,678 2,710 32.9 8,479 67 1,760 2,876 33.7 9,478 68 1,505 2,650 35.2 9,520 69 1,228 2,395 37.6 9,870 70 1,206 2,469 41.7 9,409 71 1,205 2,619 44.2 9,665 72 1,453 2,878 37.5 8,645 73 2,067 . 3,576 48.0 8,868 74 2,006 3,641 49.1 9,232 75 2,045 3,802 50.9 8,801 Average Annual Rate of Growth 1965-1970 - 4.1% 1.3% 5.0% 0.7% . 1970-1973 19.7% 13.1% 4.8% - 2.0% 1973-1975 - 0.5% 3.1% 3.0% - 0.4% 1965-1975 3.3% 5.1% 4.6% - 0.3% lsericulture, Forestry, Fisheries, Mining, Contract Construction, Manufacturing, Federal Government. 9€ 37 Age-Sex Distribution of the Population The distribution of the population among age and sex categories is important insofar as it provides planning guidance on the probable demands for public services (e.g. schools versus Pioneers' Homes) and recreation opportunities (family motorhome camping and boating versus long-range hiking and kayaking, for example). Furthermore, it provides a benchmark for estimating the future natural increase in the population. The data available suggest that the faster growing areas in the region have gotten an increased concentration of working-age civilian popula— tion, accompanied by a relative decline in school-age population compared to 1970. Slow-growing areas such as Seward show a steep decline in the proportion of school-age population, a decline in the percentage of young (age 20-29) working-age population, and an increase in the proportion of older persons. If the results can be extended to the whole region, this suggests that rapidly growing areas will gain young adults, slow-growing areas will lose them, but that increases in young adults will not neces-— sarily mean a corresponding increase in children. Only fragmentary data are available on the age-sex distribution of the population of Southcentral Alaska since the 1970 Census of Population. The data from the Census appear in Table 12. The features worth noting are the relatively large number of young, working age individuals of both sexes, and especially young men aged 20 to 24, reflecting the military presence in Cook Inlet and Kodiak-Shelikof subregions especially, but also construction and fishing employment. The Gulf of Alaska subregion had the oldest distribution, with 31.7 percent of the population over 40 years old. Cook Inlet had the youngest, with 14.5 percent; while Kodiak-Shelikof had the intermediate age distribution, with 19.8 percent. Some fragmentary data are available on Anchorage population from a household survey conducted by the Anchorage Urban Observatory in the summer and fall of 1975. About 650 households were selected utilizing a cluster Table 12 Age-Sex Distribution of the Resident Population, Southcentral Alaska, 1970 Cook Inlet Subregion Gulf of Alaska Subregion Kodiak-Shelikof Subregion Age Male %1 Female Z Male _% Female 2% Male &% Female _%_ 0-1 1,743 1 1,680 1 58 1 51 1 124 1 132 1 1-4 6,163 4 5,889 4 200 4 167 3 432 5 385 4 5-9 9,082 6 8,778 6 285 6 161 3 609 6 544 6 10-14 8,813 6 8,436 6 285 6 278 6 478 5 455 5 15-19 6,488 4 6, 286 4 220 4 201 4 468 5 333 4 20-24 9,129 6 6,800 5 165 3 156 3 925 10 455 5 25-29 6,754 5 6,680 5 182 4 181 4 482 5 418 4 30-34 5,896 4 5,717 4 212 4 140 3 412 4 323 3 35-39 5,931 4 5,178 4 187 4 152 3 317 3 253 3 40-44 5,142 3 4,278 3 203 3 145 3 305 3 197 2 45-49 4,287 3 3,806 3 184 4 146 3 239 3 165 2 50-54 3,298 2 2,724 2 170 3 140 3 209 2 147 2 55-59 2,175 1 1,696 1 142 3 88 2 143 2 100 1 60-64 1,226 aE 1,055 1 107 2 58 1 91 1 60 L 65+ 1,375 2 4,132 1 240 30 65d 1330 2 72 77,502 52% 70,135 487% 2,726 55% 2,229 45% 5,365 57% 4,044 43% lpercent of total population in the subregion. May not add to total because of rounding errors. Source: 1970 Census of Population: PC(1) - B3, Table 35. ge 39 housing area probability sample from the entire Anchorage census division except the military bases. Table 13 compares the age distribution in this sample with the non-military base population of the 1970 Census. While the age groupings in the sample and the Census are slightly different, and the area sample in 1975 may have undercounted multiple family housing residents, it does appear that, at a minimum, the young adult population has increased substantially in comparison with school-age population. The relative number of older persons may also have increased. The Urban Observatory also did a series of age-sex distributions for the Kenai Borough in August and September 1976 in conjunction with the study Profile of Five Kenai Peninsula Towns, published in 1977. Pooling the sample populations, one is able to estimate the 1976 popu- lation-age distributions for the Seward and Kenai-Cook Inlet census divisions, which are reported in Table 14. Also shown in Table 14 are the closest comparable figures for the 1970 Census. Table 14 shows that, provided the sample populations are representative of the census division populations, Seward's population has gotten significantly older (compatible with observations of low employment growth in the census division). On the other hand, there has been an apparent increase in the number of young adults relative to the number of children in the Kenai-Cook Inlet subdivision, consistent with the findings for the Anchorage census division and the rapid growth in employment oppor- tunities in both areas. Finally, we consider the population of the Valdez-Chitina-Whittier census divisions. Dr. Michael Baring-Gould and Marsha Bennett of the Department of Sociology of the University of Alaska-Anchorage conducted a census in Valdez in July 1975. There are no equivalent data for the rest of the census division or for the pipeline camp population, but since similar changes likely occurred in the Glennallen area and the camp population was temporary, one may get some indication of the direc- tion of the "permanent" population distribution shifts between 1970 and 40 Table 13 Anchorage Census Division Age Distribution of Non-Military Base Population Percent of 1975 Sample Percent of 1970 Census Population _Age_ Percent _Age | Percent 0-4 : 9.5 0-4 10.4 5-14 19.8 5-14 23.5 15-30 34.1 15-29 28.1 30-40 15.3 31-39 15.5 40-50 11.9 40-49 12.4 50-64 7.3 50-64 8.6 65 + 2.1 65 + el Sources: Patricia L. Dolezal and Richard L. Ender, 1976 Population Profile, Municipality of Anchorage, September 1976. 1970 Census of Population PC(1) - B3, Table 35. 41 Table 14 Kenai-Cook Inlet and Seward Census Divisions: Age Distribution of the Population, 1970 and 1976 Kenai-Cook Inlet: 1976 . 1970 Age Percent Age Percent 0-9 17.8 0-9 23.4 10-19 20.8 10-19 22.0 20-29 18.8 20-29 15.4 30-39 18.8 30-39 15.5 40-49 12,0 40-49 12.4 50-59 Tok 50-59 7.4 60 + 4.8 60 + 4.0 Seward: 1976 , 1970 Age Percent Age Percent 0-9 6.0 0-9 18.4 10-19 4.0 10-19 19.8 20-29 9.8 20-29 13.5 30-39 12.8 30-39 11.3 40-49 13.1 40-49 14.0 50-59 18.7 50-59 12.5 60 + 35.6 60 + 10.7 Sources: Hitchins, et al, A Profile of Five Kenai Peninsula Towns, 1977. 1970 Census of Population PC(1) - B3, Table 35. 42 1975. The 1975 and 1970 distributions are reported in Table 15. The table indicates that, even excluding the pipeline camp population, there has probably been an increase in the working-age population relative to the 1970 Census for Valdez-Chitina-Whittier. This seems to be confirmed when the 1975 Valdez Census is combined with employment and population growth data supplied by the Department of Labor. In summary, in most of the census divisions and areas for which more recent data than the 1970 Census exists, it appears that the young, work- ing age population has increased dramatically relative to older workers and children. The exception is Seward, whose population distribution may have gotten older since the 1970 Census. In general, it appears that, as elsewhere, places experiencing strong economic growth tend to draw a young, working-age population, while low-growth areas are populated by the older workers, retirees, and the very young. 43 Table 15 Valdez-Chitina-Whittier Census Division: Age Distribution of the Population 1975 (Valdez Only) and 1970 1975 1970 Non-Camp Population, Valdez Valdez-Chitina-Whittier _Age — Percent _Age — Percent 0-4 7.3 0-4 “ 9.6 5-12 13.3 5-12 14.8 13-18 9.9 13-18 12.5 19-65 68.6 19-64 44.4 65 + 0.8 65 + 3.5 Sources: Valdez Census, July 1975: "Summary of Final Valdez Census, July, 1975." 1970 Census of Population, PC(1) - B3, Table 35. 44 Summary: 1965 to 1975 Three major economic events occurred during the years 1965 to 1975 which influenced the growth of the Southcentral Alaska economy. The first was the development of the Upper Cook Inlet oil and gas fields, which diversified the Cook Inlet subregional economy and caused strong economic growth in this subregion and Anchorage's growth as a trade and financial center. The second was the sale of Prudhoe Bay leases, which led to growth in state and local government in all areas and the in- creased development of Anchorage as a governmental center. The third was the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline project, which caused a boom in popula- tion and construction in Valdez and Anchorage, with population spillover effects into the Matanuska Valley and Kenai Peninsula, and important development effects in the Anchorage support sector. It seems clear from recent history that further economic develop- ment in Alaska, regardless of whether it takes place in the region or not, will increasingly affect Anchorage. It also seems clear that as Anchorage grows, the demands of its population will increasingly cause secondary economic changes of the sort now being experienced in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. Planning for the actual shape of Southcentral regional development in the future is uncertain, because much will depend upon the rate of development of natural resources not yet discovered and because much will also depend upon governmental (primarily state govern- ment) spending decisions not yet made. Therefore, the next chapter describes two hypothetical scenarios or sets of informed guesses con- cerning future development. Obviously, these are guesses; however, in combination they are intended to provide planning guidance as to the likely upper and lower bounds of economic development in Southcentral Alaska through the end of the century. 45 CHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGY AND DATA USED IN PROJECTING SOUTHCENTRAL ALASKA'S ECONOMY, 1975-2025 This chapter describes the methodology and data used to project high and low growth of Southcentral Alaska's economy and population on a subregional basis from the base year of 1975 to the year 2025. The methodology involved the use of a statewide and regional econometric model to provide regional control total projections between 1975 and 2000. Less formal techniques were used to estimate the subregional distribution of economic activity and population and to project the path of employment and population after the year 2000. The data required to run the model were provided by various members of the economics task force, the assumptions were reviewed by the task force, and the model outputs and tentative projections were reviewed for internal consistency and plausibility by ISER researchers and by the task force. The chapter is organized as follows: The next section describes the econometric models used, together with their strengths and limitations in the task for which they were used. The second section discusses the data required to do an econometric forecast of the Southcentral economy and population, with the actual assumptions relegated to Appendix B. The third section describes the assumptions and justifications used to disaggregate the regional control totals into projections for the Cook Inlet, Gulf of Alaska, and Kodiak-Shelikof subregions. The fourth and final section discusses the techniques used to project the subregional results after the year 2000. 46 The Econometric Models The State Model The method used to project the path of the Southcentral regional economy employed two econometric models. The first was a modification of the ISER Alaska state econometric model. The second was a version of ISER's regional econometric model which used outputs of the state model, and which was modified to simulate only the economies of Anchorage and the remainder of the Southcentral part of the state. This modification was done to reduce the requirements for data in other regions of the state and to reduce the cost of simulation. A diagram of the modified statewide model is shown in Figure 8. The basic structure of the model is as follows: The model is divided into exogenous or "basic" sectors and endogenous or "nonbasic" sectors. In the exogenous sectors, level of output is assumed to be determined by factors outside the state's economy. The endogenous, "nonbasic" sector's primary reason for existence is to serve local Alaska markets rather than export markets; therefore, the level of output is determined within the model primarily as a function of Alaska real disposable income. There are some industries whose output is determined by a mix of forces related to export-base markets and local Alaska markets. The most im- portant of these is construction, part of which is involved in the building of pipelines, seafood processing plants, etc., which serve export markets, and part of which serves (or can be explained by) growth in Alaska's economy and population. Many versions of the state model contain a large block of equations determining state and local govern- ment revenues and, using simple expenditure rules, the level of state and local employment, payroll, and capital spending. This was not done in the version used for two reasons. First, the level of expenditures and the resulting model output ordinarily are quite sensitive to the expenditure rule adopted, and the task force did not feel that they could forecast future budgets. However, they did have some confidence ENDOGENOUS SECTORS EXOGENOUS SECTORS Output, Endogenous Exogenous Construction Transportation, Services Total Population Endogenous Construction Employment Output, Construction Military Output, Employment, Transportation Transportation Exogenous Construction Employment Exogenous Construction Employment Construction Employment. Output, Employment, Services Services eee Native Output, Agriculture, ——— verano eli Natural Increase mpl > nee Employment, Output, Communications Communications Local Govt. Employment Native Population Employment, Wholesale Trade Output, State & Local Govt. Output, Wholesale Trade Non-Native Natural Increase State Govt. AN Employment. a Output, Civilian, < | Employment — Retail Trade Retail Trade Non-Native, L___— Nonconstruction| Population »Federal Civilian and Military Employment Manufacturing Employment |——“[-— Output, Finance, Insurance, Real Estate Output, Federal Govt. Output, Manufacturing Employment, Finance, Insurance, Real Estate U.S. Real Net Per Capita Income Migration Employment, Output, Public Utilities Public Utilities Real Disposable ; Personal Income Output, Mining Mining Employment Disposable Personal Incowe uv. S. Nominal Wages —— Tax Computation Alaska Personal Income Alaska Wages and Salaries (Each Sector) U.S. Total Output Real Wages Figure 8 Alaska State Econometric Model, Total Version SG4.SC Employment Alaska Wage Rates (Each Sector) Alaska Consumer Prices LY 48 in projecting high and low overall government employment growth. Second, whatever model was used, it was necessary to estimate government employ- ment growth at the subregional level anyway, there being no method within the model to estimate subregional employment in state and local govern- ment. Therefore, the unessential sections of the fiscal model were disabled, and exogenous estimates of government employment and capital expenditures were directly introduced into the model. The basic (primarily export) industries in the model are mining (which includes oil and gas); agriculture, forestry (SIC code 8 only-- most of what is usually thought of as "forestry" is actually included in lumber and wood products) ,— fisheries; food manufacturing (primarily seafood processing); lumber and wood products; pulp and paper manufac turing; "other" manufacturing (mostly petrochemicals and refining); the export-base component of construction; and government. For these indus- tries, an estimate must be made outside the model of the dollar value of output and level of employment for each year of the projection period. The nonbasic industries are transportation, communications, public utilities; wholesale and retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate; and services. For these industries, the level of output is determined by an equation which has real disposable personal income as the principal explanatory variable. The level of employment in the industry is then determined as a function of output in the industry, which in effect summarizes the workings of the labor market in that sector. "Wage rates"--real annual wages per worker--are determined as a function of the U.S. private weekly real wage. This captures the effect of Alaska's having an open labor market whose wage rates will be 2ctandard Industrial Classification Manual, Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, 1972. This reference docu- ment contains the standard U.S. methodology used to classify firms into industries, and is used by most state departments of labor, including Alaska. Alaska does keep track of government separately, as earlier versions of the manual direct. 49 influenced by the income alternatives available to workers elsewhere. In some industries the ratio of construction and mining employment to total wage and salary employment is added to capture the effect which large-scale resource development such as the trans-Alaska oil pipeline has on wages of workers in closely related industries such as trans- portation. Wages and salaries are then estimated for all industries from employment and wage rates, a series of equations computes an estimate of income taxes. These are deducted from income while nonwage income is added, to arrive at an estimate of disposable personal income. Income then feeds back into the output equations of the nonbasic sectors, so that total output and total income are arrived at simultaneously in each forecast year. Population is then determined in the state model in a series of steps. The model uses age-sex-race specific survival rates and age-race specific fertility rates for the female non-Native civilian population to project births, deaths, and natural increase in the civilian population. To this is added an estimate of civilian net migration, which is determined by the change in civilian employment opportunities and the difference be- tween real per capita income in Alaska and the United States as a whole. Migration is distributed by age and sex among the various population cohorts using 1970 census migration rates and age-sex proportions of migrating populations. The Native population is treated in a similar way, except that they are assumed not to migrate into or out of the state. Finally, an exogenous estimate of the military population is added to get total population. The Regional Model The regional model which works in a similar fashion, is portrayed in Figure 9. The regional model provides additional geographic detail by describing the Alaskan economy as a group of loosely integrated regional economies rather than as a single unit, but certain sectors of the Anchorage regional economy are influenced by statewide economic tate Model Outputs: 50 @ Exogenous Construction Employment @ Mining Employment @ Total Employment: e@ Civilian Non-Native Population © Mining Output e Total Population @ Communications Output e Alaska Prices Anchorage Economy: Other Southcentral Economy: Spenoous Endogenous Endogenous Exogenous ectors - Sectors Sectors Sectors -, Forest, Fish. aoe © Agr., Forest, Fis! @ Endog. Construction © Endog. Construction © Agr., Forest, Fish. e Mining e@ Transportation, Air e@ Transportation, Air Mining Exogenous Construction Food Manufacturing Lumber & Wood Mfg. Pulp & Paper Mfg. Other Manufacturing @ Exogenous Construction @ Food Manufacturing e@ Lumber & Wood Mfg. e Pulp & Paper Mfg. e@ Other Manufacturing Transportation, Other e Public Utilities ® Transportation, Other (part) @ Communications e Public Utilities (part) @ Wholesale Trade e Communications @ Retail Trade e® Wholesale Trade e@ Finance, Insurance, 7 e Retail Trade Real Estate Federal Government e Finance, Insurance, State Government e@ Services Real Estate Output, Each Sector Employment, Each Sector Anchorage Wage Rates, Anchorage Each Sector Wages and Salaries ' & Proprietor Incone Local Government Services (part) Exogenous Transport. Employment, Output for Each Sector Exogenous Pub. Utilities Exogenous Services Output, Each Sector Employment, Output for Employment, Each Sector Each Sector Other Southcentral Wage Rates, Each Sector Other Southcentral Wages and Salaries [— & Proprietor Income Transfers Anchorage Wage & Salary & Proprietor Income + Transfers Other Southcentral Wage & Salary & Proprietor Income + Transfers Anchorage Anchorage Total Employment Initial Civilian, Non-Native, Non-Exogenous Constr. Pop. (CNNP) Other Southcentral J Total Employment Other Southcentral Initial Civilian, Non-Native, Non-Exogenous Constr. Pop. State CNNP to (CNNP) 7 Non-Exogenous Construction Employment Exogenous Construction Employment Exogenous Construction Employment Anchorage CNNP [teen Figure 9 Feel Alaska Southcentral Region eieaey Econometric Model, - Population : Version REGSC4 Anchoraye i : re South copy: Other Southcentral CNNP 51 growth rather than just local growth. For each regional economy, as for the state model, there must be exogenous estimates of output and employ- ment in each basic industry. The model then annually estimates output, employment, and wages and salaries in each nonbasic industry, with regional output in each nonbasic industry a function of the sum of real nonmining and nonconstruction wages and salaries paid in the region. Non- mining, nonconstruction wages serve as a proxy for local real income in estimating output in the support sector. Certain nonbasic industries have been measurably influenced by factors other than local demand. For example, non-air transportation in "Other Southcentral" was strongly influenced by petroleum develop- ment on the Kenai Peninsula. This is captured in the specification of the model by making output in Other Southcentral's transportation (other than air transportation) industry a function of nonmining and mining wages and salaries. Communications industry output in each region seems to be not as well explained historically by local income changes as by expansion in the statewide communications network, itself a function of statewide incomes. Therefore, local communications output and employ- ment were projected using the statewide total output as an explanatory variable. In Anchorage, statistically significant nonlocal influences were found in the output of air transportation, wholesale trade, and retail trade. In Anchorage air transportation and wholesale trade, the specification of the output equation used statewide personal income and mining sector output as explanatory variables. In retail trade, the more complex causative factor mix was estimated using a decaying function of time and local wages to depict the important but declining influence on the retail sector of the maturing of the Anchorage economy. The regional model initially estimates total employment by industry in a fashion similar to that employed in the state model by summarizing the labor market for each industry in (usually) a single equation relat-— ing employment to real output. However, in both models, a series of 52 consistency conditions are imposed upon these first-round estimates. The period since statehood has been one characterized by the rapid maturing of the Alaskan economy--increasing availability of retail trade, wholesale trade, finance, insurance, and real estate, and busi- ness, medical, and personal services in Alaska--particularly Anchorage. Because the period during which the output equations were estimated is this period of rapid maturation of the economy, it appeared possible that the estimated equations might overestimate the growth of these sectors in the future when the economy was relatively mature (that is, offering the range of services offered in the United States as a whole). Consequently, in the state model, employment in trade, finance-—insurance- real estate, and services was constrained to be no greater a proportion of total wage and salary employment than it is in the economy of the United States as a whole, and total output was adjusted accordingly. The constraints were not binding until nearly the end of the century. The situation varied somewhat in the regional model. Because the Anchor- age economy is the most mature in the state, similar constraints, adjusted for Anchorage's share of these sectors in the state economy, were imposed in Anchorage. However, growth in the rest of Southcentral Alaska's non- basic employment was left unconstrained, since it is likely that the infilling and maturing which may occur in this economy should be well represented by the regional equations estimated for the historical period. Population was more difficult to estimate in the regional model than in the state model. This is because there is no good estimate or understanding of the process of intrastate migration in Alaska. The procedure which was followed was to break the total population into its non-Native civilian, Native civilian, and military components. Begin- ning with the starting date, civilian non-Native population not employed on large construction projects was estimated using a weighted average population-to-employment ratio that had as arguments the previous year's 53 regional estimate of the ratio of this component of population-to- employment (excluding exogenous construction employment), and the equivalent statewide ratio. The method implicitly distributes inter- state migration to Alaska across the state by allowing both the existing population/employment ratio and changes in the state ratio resulting from migration to determine the new population in each region. Nativé population was assumed to grow at its historic average--about 2 percent per year. Finally, military and exogenous construction employment were added to produce an estimate of total population. Strengths and Limitations The models described above have several strengths and limitations ‘which must be kept in mind when examining the output results. Among the principal strengths are that these models capture the essence of the Alaska growth process--i.e., that export-base industries and government create jobs in the local economy both directly through hiring, and in- directly through construction, purchases, and the personal incomes of workers and profits of Alaska-owned firms. These incomes in turn form the base of a local economy, the demand for whose goods and services increases with increased incomes, which creates demand for still more jobs in support industries. Finally, since Alaska is a relatively small labor market with a mobile labor force, the models primarily relate Alaskan real wages to U.S. real wages while permitting labor produc- tivity, local demand for labor, and consumer prices to influence salaries. Compared to an economic base model, the econometric specification of this type is preferred because it captures the dynamics of relative growth of industries. The economic base model is best at projecting the effects of marginal changes in existing industries and imposes the con- straint that changes in support sector employment be proportional to changes in the basic sector employment, thus missing the feedback effect of growth in the support sector and the changing responsiveness over time among the support sector industries. Compared to static input- output models, the econometric approach enjoys the advantage that it 54 implicitly captures the evolutionary changes which occur over time in the input-output coefficients as the vector of final demands increases. While the input-output approach more precisely defines the interindustry flows of purchases of goods and services, it is a true representation of the economy only in the period in which the matrix was estimated. To the extent that the matrix coefficients are changing over time, a dynamic approach. which permits change in the purchases and sales of one sector to another per dollar of final output has an advantage over the static approach. A truly dynamic I-O framework might do this if it could be built, but it would be unnecessarily expensive in an economy like Alaska's, with its few important interindustry purchases and rapidly changing structure. The econometric approach captures the historic evolutionary changes in industry importance and projects this evolution into the future. As a practical matter, there are some limitations to the approach and actual models used. In the first place, no model captures very well revolutionary changes in industry structure which violate the initial assumptions upon which the model is built, unless the structural change can be foreseen and incorporated by some alteration ‘imposed by the modeler. The development of major export-base manufacturing outside of lumbering, pulp and paper, and fish processing, together with secondary support services and goods-producing industries, is an example of such a change which would violate the assumptions that most service industry growth in Alaska can be attributed to (or explained by) local income. Nonevolutionary changes in the fundamental character of industries (e.g. sudden dominant development of different types of firms paying much higher or lower wages than traditional firms in a given sector) could also cause trouble. Accordingly, one must recognize that it was impos- sible to take into account all the possible changes in the Alaskan economy which could result from, for example, development of whole new industries such as large-scale trawl fisheries within fishing. Pur- chase of nontraditional services by a projected new industry in Alaska could bias the total employment projections produced by the model, but 55 combined with new industry employment structure and worker earnings, the overall effect is unclear. If industry requirements were well worked out, this might be one case in which dynamic I-O analysis would give some better answers than econometric models. Secondly, the further one extends the underlying model structure into the future, and the more precise one must be about the location of economic activity, the less likely one can expect to be "right." Consequently, results for 1985 are more likely to be correct than results for 1995, other things equal, while projections for the region are more likely to be correct than those for any subregion. This latter assertion is particularly true since the geographical allocation of basic economic activity and its timing are currently very uncertain and decisions of the economic task force to allocate this activity for projection purposes had to be arbi- trary, at least to some extent. Thus, while one might be fairly certain of the level of employment in oil and gas, one cannot be as certain of the location of work, of the workers’ salaries, or work rules related to time off, all of which would play a crucial role in their choice of residence and the geographic distribution of support services. It must be noted that due to time constraints on this project, the state and regional models used were not estimated over the same time period. The state model had been updated using data from the historical period 1961 to 1976 at the time this project began. However, the historical period for the regional model was 1965 to 1973, updates not having been done for the period since 1973. The regional model was altered somewhat to account for this fact by changing the intercept coefficients of key output equations with shift coefficients so that these equations passed through the last real data point. This procedure is equivalent to assuming for the regional economies that the 1965-1973 income elasticity of demand for the output of the support sectors is unchanged and that the unusual alterations in output level caused by the 1974-76 pipeline boom were a once-only phenomenon now built into the economy, probably not an unreasonable position to take. Since 56 insufficient post-pipeline data is available to say whether or in what manner the underlying model relationships may have changed during 1974- 1976, and since only a few variables from the statewide were used to calibrate the regional runs, we are unable to say exactly what effect a complete update might have had on the model results. Finally, it should be noted that both the regional high and low projections presented for 1975 to 2000 in the following chapter are contingent projections. That is, they correctly project the path of the economy on the conditions that: 1) the model structure estimated for the historical period, together with incorporated changes designed to reflect anticipated structural changes in the economy and imposed consistency conditions, adequately reflects the path of future struc- tural change in the economy; and 2) that the exogenously imposed assump-— tions reflecting conditions not determined within the Alaskan economy are all correct as to level, timing, and geographic distribution. The unlikelihood of the latter feature ever being wholly true is why this report emphasizes that the projections are primarily illustrative of general levels of development, given the assumptions. We turn now to those assumptions. 57 Assumptions Used to Produce Economic and Population Projections, 1975-2000 The use of the econometric model requires a set of assumptions related to the level and timing of development in the Alaskan economy and the Southcentral regional economy. The assumptions primarily consist of time series on employment and output in certain of the export—base industries and in government. The critical assumptions are organized into two scenarios which consist of all low-range assumptions taken together and, alternatively, all high-range assumptions taken together. The scenarios were intended to show a "reasonable" high and "reasonable" low development series of projects which together would offer about the broadest range of employment and population outcomes which could be foreseen. This does not mean that the task force predicts that all or any of the projects assumed will occur; on the contrary, there is a highly variable degree of uncertainty with respect to the level and timing of all developments in the scenarios. However, some projects were subjectively rated more likely than others, some unlikely, and some very unlikely. Task force consensus assigned most’ of the more likely projects to the low development scenario, some of the less likely to the high development scenario, and the remainder were assumed not to occur within the time horizon of the study. The resulting low and high scenarios should not be considered syno- nyms for the terms "minimum" and "maximum" development, nor for the terms "environmental quality" and "net economic development." The task force did not feel competent to say what the theoretical minimum or maximum possible level of economic development in Southcentral Alaska might be, since this could be influenced by government policy at federal, state, and local levels and by market developments beyond the power of anyone to predict at this time; nor would that exercise have been of much use to planners. The terms "environmental quality" and "net economic development" refer to planning objectives in level B studies for which resource management strategies are devised. While such strategies, if 58 actually implemented, might result in outcomes which look very much like the high and low scenarios, the economic task force could not take the unformulated strategies into account; nor were they asked. The assumptions are organized by industry and discussed in the text. The actual numbers for employment appear in Appendix B. Agriculture Agriculture is currently a marginal industry in Alaska, employing about a thousand people statewide (depending upon the definition of part-time, family help, and proprietors). In Southcentral Alaska, about 115 man-years per year are expended in agriculture. Under a set of very favorable public policy decisions and favorable markets, considerable further development might occur. Primary requirements include: public priority given to agricultural production in Alaska at the same level as petroleum, minerals, and marine products; active pursuit of statutes and programs to reserve and preserve agricultural lands; and public aid to innovative settlement and development techniques. In this case, the agricultural experts on the task force could foresee possible commercial agricultural employment of around 800 man-years in Southcentral Alaska per year, and about 4,600 statewide by the year 2000, rising to 6,900 by 2025. This reflects the current emphasis on develop- ment of the Tanana Valley, rather than Southcentral area. Total state- wide sales of agricultural products in the high case rise to about $400 million (1975 dollars) per year in the year 2000, and to about $500 million in 2025. Value of output in constant 1972 dollars rises to $78 million by 2000, about $12.9 million from Southcentral. By the end of the study period in the high case, about 1.06 million acres would be cultivated for crops, and 5.2 million acres of range land utilized. (Currently, about 20,000 acres are used for crops and grass in the state, about 12-13 thousand in Southcentral.) 59 In the low case, public priority is given to "national" and "public" interest in aesthetic, recreational, subsistence, and wilderness values, tending to reduce the amount of land available for crops and reducing the access and usability of land for agriculture. In addition, public agricultural agencies and institutions which support agriculture are allowed to atrophy. In this case, with market conditions continuing to be unfavorable to Alaskan agriculture, the Southcentral industry output and commercial agricultural employment drops to zero, as the land is subdivided for homesites and recreational use. Value of commercial output drops to zero by 1991, with only "amenity" (part-time, partly subsistence) output remaining. Forestry Aggregated in state statistics under Agriculture-Forestry-Fisheries, this is a tiny component of the forest products industry which employs about 22 people statewide in tree farms, nurseries, timber cruising, re- forestation, and pest control; and it is more fittingly placed with agri- culture than with the rest of the forest products industry. Employment in logging, for example, occurs in Lumber and Wood Products Manufacturing. In the high case, the forestry sector grows in proportion to growth in the rest of the forest products group, lumber and wood products. In the low case, it stays at current levels. Fisheries The fisheries sector primarily consists of persons actually engaged in fishing. It is difficult to count fishermen since this is an indus- try in which proprietors do much of the work, often with unpaid family help, because the work is seasonal in nature, and because many out-of- state persons take part. This causes the state's employment statistics, based on employment covered by unemployment insurance, to be misleading. Likewise, multiple licenses and unfished licenses make fisherman licen- ses a misleading indicator. Area-of-catch statistics collected on fish landed in Alaska, together with independent data on crew size, by gear 60 type, give a pretty good picture of total persons actually engaged in fishing. For Southcentral Alaska (but including the Aleutian chain), annual average employment on this basis is about two thousand persons, while it was 4,359 statewide in 1975. In the high case, it is assumed that in existing fisheries, expansion of fishing productivity would be offset by limited entry and labor-saving improvements in the fleet, leaving constant employment at existing levels. However, given very favorable conditions, major development of the American trawl fishery off Alaska's coast could result in 100 percent replacement of the for- eign fishing effort inside the 200-mile limit by the year 2000, employ- ing about 17.5 thousand persons in fishing statewide and 8.7 thousand (or 50 percent) in Southcentral. This was considered to be a very speculative development; consequently, no bottomfishing development was added in the low case, and existing fisheries just maintained current employment. Output level of existing fisheries in the high case expands consider- ably, since the state is assumed to undertake an aggressive hatchery and habitat improvement program, together with the 200-mile economic zone. The combined effect is assumed to be a quadrupling of salmon catch, while shellfish remain at about existing levels. The expansion of the trawl fishery was assumed to result in a Southcentral catch of 1.85 bil- lion pounds per year, worth $361 million ex-vessel in the high case. In the low case, all fisheries maintain their approximate 1975 levels. Mining, Including Oil and Gas The mining sector is dominated by employment and output in oil and gas, with lesser amounts in coal, sand and gravel, and a few persons engaged in precious metal exploration and extraction. For the state as a whole, oil and gas developments are expected to dwarf all other considerations in this industry. Within Southcentral Alaska, an im- portant local issue is the development of the Beluga coal field. 61 The developments in mining in the high case are assumed to be as follows: There is a small find of hydrocarbons in the Northern Gulf of Alaska, but no important production. If the mean expected reserves are found, peak production would be about 932 thousand barrels of oil per day in 1985, and peak gas production of 0.5 billion cubic feet per day in 1987. The Sadlerochit, Kuparuk River, and Lisburne: formations at Prudhoe Bay all combine in the high case for a 1.785 million barrels/ day flow of oil in 1985. In addition, the joint state/federal lease sale is assumed to contain oil and gas resources equivalent to total reserves of 1.9 billion barrels. The Lower Cook Inlet produces substan- tial oil and gas--about 930 thousand barrels per day of oil at peak production. There are also two lease sales--in the Northern Gulf of Alaska (Sale 55) and Western Gulf/Kodiak Area (Sale 46)--which result in moderate-sized oil finds. Peak oil production in the Northern Gulf is about .550 million barrels per day in 1986, and .515 million barrels per day in 1992 in the Western Gulf. Daily gas production peaks at 1.0 bcf/ day in the Northern Gulf and .26 bcf/day in the Western Gulf. Coal pro- duction in the high case would begin in 1983, with full-scale mining of 730,000 tons of coal per year by 1984 to feed a mine-mouth power plant, twice that amount by 1986 to feed a second plant, and development of exports amounting to six million tons/year by 1990. In the high ‘case, employment peaks at slightly over nine thousand in 1984, subsequently declining to 8,200 in 1995, while output rises to $4.8 billion (constant 1972 dollars), tailing off to $3.9 billion. Low case development basically consists of development at or around Prudhoe Bay. There is exploration in all the areas noted in the previous case, but exploration turns up far fewer prospects worth developing. While the Kuparuk and Lisburne are developed in this case and there is a joint offshore sale, the Beaufort sale turns up only 0.8 billion barrels of reserves instead of 1.9 billion. The Lower Cook turns up only a small find, while the Northern Gulf and Western Gulf are dry 62 and result in "exploration only" employment. Beluga coal is not developed in the low case. As a result of all this, statewide peak employment in mining rises to about seven thousand in 1984, dropping to less than 4,800 by the end of the century. Within the region, exploration plus development of oil and gas employ almost 4,800 persons by 1984 in the high case, declining there- after. Beluga coal adds about 220 workers by 1990, the first year of coal export. In the low case, the peak employment is only 2,700 persons in 1984, the peak year, and declines sharply thereafter. Food Manufacturing The food manufacturing industry in Alaska is dominated by seafood processing, a situation which is not expected to change in the near future. In the high case, the projected fourfold increase in the out- put of the salmon fisheries implies about a doubling in employment required to process the salmon. Since it was assumed that shellfish are at or near maximum sustained yield, the overall processing plant employment for existing fisheries is projected to increase about 25 percent. Also in the high case, by the year 2000 the 100 percent replacement of foreign bottomfish effort off Alaska results in a catch of 3.7 million metric tons per year, requiring estimated total process- ing employment of about 12,000 full-time bottomfish and short-term (five- month) seasonal employment of 21,211--for an annual average of 21,000 by 2000. However, we assumed that only about one-third of total catch would be processed in Alaska shore-based facilities, resulting in total Southcentral Alaska shore-based employment of 3,759 and affecting the local economy. The remainder of the 21,000 work on processing vessels nearshore and offshore, but their incomes probably would affect the Anchor- age economy and the statewide economy to some degree. Output for this industry was estimated by taking the expected ex-vessel value and using the historic ratio of ex-vessel to wholesale value, and the ratio of iM Se Mae 63 value-added to wholesale value. In the high cases, the value of catch in existing fisheries was assumed to rise at the same rate as total catch, yielding $220 million in value added in 2000, while catch in the emergent trawl fishery was assumed to rise to $722 million (3.7 million metric tons), yielding about $253 million of value added in processing (all value added in constant 1972 dollars). In the low case, a growth rate of one percent per year was projected for total output, yielding $123.3 million per year value-added by 2000. Lumber_and Wood Products Manufacturing The two critical assumptions for this industry are the annual cut of timber in the state, determined mostly by Forest Service allowable cut and Japanese market conditions, and. whether any dimension sawmills are built in Alaska. In the high case, the annual cut by the year 2000 was assumed to be 1,260 million board feet (probably partly from Native lands), compared with 660 million in 1970. In the low case, the increase is to only 960 million. No new mills are built in either case. While not exactly proportional, the increase in employment is similar: in the high case, statewide employment rises to 3,834 from 2,176 in 1975; in the low case, the rise is from 2,176 to 3,280. The output of this industry was estimated by calculating the 1975 ratio of output per employee. This was assumed to escalate at its 1965-1975 rate of growth in the high case (about 1.66 percent), but stayed at 1975 levels in the low case. Since almost all the prime timber likely to be exploited by an expanding industry is located outside the Southcentral region, we assumed that in Other Southcentral, the employment of firms in this sector would escalate by about 1 percent per year in the low case, by 2.3 percent per year in the high case, which is about the same or less than the statewide rates. Employment was assumed constant in Anchorage. 64 Pulp and Paper Manufacturing The growth in this sector is determined by most of the same factors as lumber and wood products. In neither case is there a pulp mill built in Southcentral Alaska, so there is no employment or output in this sec- tor within the region. In the state, the increase in total cut results in average employment increases of about 1.6 percent per year in the low case, 1.8 percent per year in the high, resulting in totals of 1,777 and 1,886, respectively. In the low case, productivity per worker remains at its 1975 value; in the high case, it increases at 2.76 percent annually, its 1965-1975 rate, resulting in 1972-dollar value added of $133.5 million and $141.7 million, respectively, in the year 2000. Other Manufacturing This sector is an odd mixture of a wide variety of cottage industries, printing and publishing, and consumer goods manufacture, together with a few major petrochemical plants and refineries. The major possible sources of new employment in this sector were assumed to be the Alpetco royalty oil refinery-petrochemical complex, Alaska Pacific LNG plant, and whatever other LNG or gas treatment facilities might be associated with gas out- put from Lower Cook Inlet and the Gulf of Alaska. In the high case, the total operating employment of these facilities was about two thousand persons (mostly working for Alpetco). In the low case, the only source was Pacific LNG, employing about 60 persons. Statewide output in this sector was more of a problem since it was unclear how much the output to be added by any of the LNG plants might be. It was decided to subsume LNG value-added under mining, and in the high case, value-added in other manufacturing was estimated as the existing level of output, plus total revenues of Alpetco, minus cost of feedstocks, from the Alpetco pro forma financial projections of March 10, 1978. All the growth was centered in Other Southcentral. In the low case, the existing level of output was used. 65 Construction For modeling purposes, it was only necessary to estimate total employment working on major projects exogenous to the economy, since the rest of construction is projected with the support sector and output in endogenous construction is determined in the models. In the high case, the significant projects within the region were assumed to be oil treatment and shipment facilities in the Gulf of Alaska and Kodiak Subregions and the Kenai-Cook Inlet Census Division, small LNG facilities associated with the Northern Gulf and Lower Cook Inlet development, a Beluga coal transshipment facility, Pacific LNG and Alpetco plants, and a new state capital in Willow. Outside the region, there is augmentation of TAPS pipeline capacity, the Northwest Alaska gas pipeline is constructed, and field development facilities are projected for the Beaufort Sea and the Kuparuk and Lisburne formations. Statewide, total exogenous construction employment peaks at a total of about 14 thousand in 1981, declining rapidly thereafter. In the region, the peak employment is a bit less than seven thousand in 1981. The level of construction employment was considerably less in the low case, both because of fewer developments in oil and gas, and because several projects needing state support do not occur, e.g. Alpetco and the state capital move. In this case, the Northwest Alaska pipeline is constructed, but the oil finds at Prudhoe Bay offshore areas are rela- tively small, as are those in Lower Cook Inlet. The Kuparuk and Lus- burne formations are developed, and the Pacific LNG plant is built. However, there is no new substantial augmentation to fish processing in the form of new plants to process bottomfish. In the low case, state- wide peak employment in exogenous construction is about 9,500, while in. the region it is about 1,800. 66 Federal Government Federal government employment has been growing very little over the last ten years, with civilian increases about offset by decreases in military employment. The rate of civilian increase has been about 0.5 percent per year, and in the low case, lacking the boost of any massive developments requiring federal support, and lacking a new state capital, the likely rate of increase in federal civilian dusiloyuant is assumed to remain at 0.5 percent. This means employment increases from 18 thousand to 21 thousand statewide, and from 10,900 to 12,250 in the region by 2000. In the high case, general development results in a doubling of the average rate of increase to about 1 percent per year in federal government in most of the state, and 1.2 percent per year in Southcentral to reflect the state capital move. This increases state- wide federal civilian employment from 18,000 to 22,000, and regional employment from 10,900 to 14,500. Federal military employment is as- sumed to remain constant at 1975 levels in both the state and region. State Government State government employment assumptions went through several revi- sions because of concern about state budgets. Historically, the rate of growth in this sector averaged 8.5 percent per year, a rate which most task force members believed was unlikely to continue. On the other hand, in the high case, bottomfish development, major oil development, and the moving of the state capital to Willow were likely to result in fairly substantial increases in state employment. In the high case, it was assumed that 2,750 positions were transferred from Juneau to Willow. Total state government employment would increase from 14,700 to about 39,000 in the year 2000, declining from around 7.6 percent of civilian wage and salary employment to about 7.2 percent. In the region, state employment bulks fairly large because of the state capital move, with the total from Anchorage and Other Southcentral combined moving from 5,400 to 14,900, or from 5.2 percent to 13.1 percent of total employment. 67 In the low case, it was assumed that government growth is restricted by lower development needs, by funding constraints or public opinion, and by the fact that the state capital does not move. Before 1985, state government employment growth is held to about 2 percent per year, with zero growth thereafter. As a result, state employment goes from 14,700 in 1975 to 19,159 in 2000, about 6.4 percent of civilian employment in the latter year. In the region, total state employment rises from 5,400 to 7,140 in 1985-2000, about 6.1 percent of civilian employment in 1975 and 3.1 percent in the year 2000. Local Government Local government was assumed to be influenced in the future by many of the same factors influencing the rate of growth in state employment. The historic rate from 1965 to 1975 was 10.5 percent (10.1 percent in Southcentral), partly a result of development of school systems and the transfer of state-operated rural schools in the Unorganized Borough to local control. Due to increasing numbers of functions being performed at the local level and rural development in the high case, statewide growth was expected to be faster than in Southcentral, where local gov- ernments are already well organized. Due to the moving of the state capital and due to local government response to fishing and oil, local government employment was projected to sustain about a 4 percent per year growth rate outside the region and about 3.4 percent within the Southcentral region. This meant a statewide increase in local employ- ment from 14,200 in 1975 to 34,900 in 2000. In the low case, since the state capital does not move and state-local transfers are expected to be sharply curtailed after 1985, the assumed rates of growth are about 2 percent until 1985 and about 1 percent thereafter. Total employment in local government goes from 14,200 in 1975 to 20,100 in 2000. Within the region, local government in the high case grows from about 8,100 to about 18,600. In the low case, regional local government employment grows from 8,100 to 11,300. 68 Miscellaneous Assumptions In the model, Alaskan wage rates are determined in most industries as a function of Alaskan prices and U.S. average weekly wages in the private economy, deflated by the U.S. Consumer Price Index for Urban Clerical Workers. (Both the latter series are published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.) Alaskan prices are in turn determined as a func- tion of U.S. prices and local demand conditions, reflected by changes in employment. Finally, migration to Alaska is calculated as a function of the change in employment opportunities and relative per capita income in Alaska, compared to the rest of the country. In order to project a "high" and "low" scenario, the economics task force reexamined the assumptions usually used to run the model for impact-assessment purposes in Alaska and concluded that "high" or "low'' growth could occur because of movements of the economy outside the state as well as inside the state. In parti- cular, the rates of growth of U.S. disposable personal income per capita (2.0 percent) and wages (1.2 percent) appeared a bit optimistic for the low case. Therefore, in the low case, "pessimistic" forecasts by Data Resources, Inc. were used: 1.0 percent per annum average increase in real wages and 1.77 percent average increase in real disposable personal income per capita. These two changes had little influence on the out~ -come of the projections. Government expenditures other than wages and salaries directly in- fluence output in the construction sector. To avoid having to make a series of complex assumptions of doubtful validity concerning government capital spending programs, the task force assumed other government spending increased proportionately to government employment. Finally, the task force recognized that some of the service, public utilities, and transportation employment in the Southcentral area would not be local-serving employment at all. Particularly, employment in these sectors for Alyeska Pipeline Service Company and Beluga coal extrac- tion would be essentially exogenous to the local economy. Consequently, an exogenous component was added for employment in these three sectors to adjust for the employment by Alyeska and by Beluga. atic 69 Methodology Used to Disaggregate Regional Control Totals for the 3 Subregions The econometric models used by the task force give projections of employment and population at the regional level, the two "regions" projected by the model being Anchorage and the remainder of Southcentral Alaska. It was therefore necessary to devise a method consistent with the known facts about the Southcentral economy which would permit dis- aggregation of the regional results into subregional totals. The method used was a multistep process employing a simple series of desk calculator manipulations of the output data. The method required three types of - major assumptions: 1. The location of "basic" industry activity within the respective subregions in "Other" Southcentral. (Anchorage is projected as a separate region by the model.) 2. The ratio of "nonbasic" to "basic" employment in at least two of the subregions over time (the third sub- region could take all residual nonbasic employment). 3. The manner in which population change could be expected to follow employment changes. The decisions concerning the location of most basic industry employment were relatively straightforward, since most activity was associated with a small series of specific developments, such as the Pacific LNG plant and support bases for Western Gulf of Alaska oil exploration, whose likely location could be pretty well established. The exceptions were agricul- ture, whose activity was allocated to the Matanuska-Susitna and Kenai- Cook Inlet Census Divisions on the strength of their superior transpor— tation links; fishing, which was allocated in accordance with historical shares of activity; and government, where separate estimates had to be made for each census division by the task force's government employment expert. A separate ratio of nonbasic to basic employment was estimated for the Gulf of Alaska and Kodiak-Shelikof subregions, with the remain- der of nonbasic employment allocated to Other Cook Inlet (Cook Inlet 70 subregion, excluding Anchorage). This was done since it was assumed most of the support sector growth would actually occur in Other Cook Inlet, and because the historical period showed that the expected basic employment increases in the other two subregions was to occur in industries which have not typically resulted in large support sector increases. Nevertheless, the assumptions were different in the high and low cases, to reflect different ideas about the rate of maturation of rapidly growing, subregional economies. Finally, population was allocated by first projecting changes in total employment in each sub- region, estimating each subregion's share of the total, and then allocat- ing the corresponding regional change in civilian non-Native population not employed in exogenous construction by these shares. Exogenous construction employment was allocated by assuming the construction workers lived at or near the construction site; Native population was allocated by the percentages of Natives living in villages in each of the subregions within Other Southcentral in 1974. Military population was allocated using the state's estimate of military population by census division for 1975. High Case Specifically, the following was done in the high case. Basic employment (mining, exogenous construction, manufacturing, government excluding federal military, agriculture-forestry-fisheries, plus approxi- mately 500 service and transportation sector jobs at Valdez related to the pipeline terminal) was allocated by giving the Other Cook Inlet all its existing employment, plus all Beluga coal; Lower Cook Inlet oil ex- .ploration and development; one-fourth of Northern Gulf of Alaska mining, construction, and other manufacturing; Pacific LNG, new capital city employment; about 32 percent of fishing and fish processing; and all agriculture. Gulf of Alaska got its existing employment, plus three- fourths of Northern Gulf of Alaska activity, all Alyeska pipeline activity (including 500 support sector jobs allocated to basic employment), its existing proportion (about 3.4 percent) of fishing and fish processing, 71 plus all Alpetco employment. Kodiak-Shelikof got all its existing ac- tivity, all activity related to Western Gulf of Alaska oil, and about 65 percent of fisheries-related activity. Nonbasic employment was projected specifically for the Gulf of Alaska and Kodiak-Shelikof subregions. For the Gulf, the ratios of nonbasic employment to basic employment for Valdez-Chitian-Whittier Census Division for 1973 and 1975 were estimated, 1973 showing pre-boom conditions and 1975 showing boom conditions. If the Alpetco petrochemical plant is built, and fish processing expands, this area can be expected to develop a larger support sector. The Kenai Peninsula, during the years 1965 to 1975, was used as a model, and the ratio of nonbasic-to-basic employment was assumed to approach current levels in the Kenai-Cook Inlet census division. Kodiak was expected to be a somewhat more stable and growing economy than the Gulf of Alaska area as a consequence of major fisheries developments in the high case. It was therefore assumed that the ratio of nonbasic-to-basic employment would approach the current regional average toward the end of the century. The date picked was ten years after startup of oil production from the Western Gulf of Alaska--1996. The remaining nonbasic employment was allocated to Other Cook Inlet. Population was allocated by beginning with the state's estimate of 1975 population by census division and then allocating the regional population changes as outlined above in the general description of the methodology. An exception had to be made for the Gulf of Alaska in 1980. In the low case, about 2,124 net jobs were estimated to have been lost from the Gulf's economy between 1975 and 1980 as a result of pipeline completion. Total 1975-1980 growth of regional population in the low case was 1,331 persons, who were allocated to the three subregions according to share of employment growth. This meant that since the Gulf showed a decline amounting to -57.3 percent of total employment change, it got -57.3 percent ot total civilian non-Native, nonexogenous construc— tion population change. In 1990-1995, the winding down of Northern Gulf 72 of Alaska oil activity resulted in the net loss of about eight hundred jobs. However, population loss was estimated at over two thousand, which seemed to imply too many dependents of oil workers. An adjustment was made instead by making the 1975 Valdez population/ employment ratio of 1.3 the population "multiplier," which was thought to produce popu- lation losses more in keeping with the type of jobs and population in the subregion. Low Case. The same basic procedure was followed in the low case as in the high case, except that the amount of basic employment to be allocated was less and there were different assumptions to be made concerning the nonbasic/basic employment ratio for Gulf of Alaska and Kodiak-Shelikof. In the low case, the nonbasic/basic ratio for Gulf of Alaska in 1975 (slightly lower than the average of 1973 and 1975 ratios for the Valdez- Chitina-Whittier Census Division) was used throughout the forecast period to reflect no "filling in" or maturing of the subregional economy. In the Kodiak subregion, no impetus was expected to come from additional fisheries development. Consequently, no change in the nonbasic/basic ratio was projected for Kodiak-Shelikof. The remainder of regional nonbasic employment (except 500 Alyeska terminal jobs in Valdez desig- nated "basic") was allocated to Other Cook Inlet. With respect to the allocation of population change, the declines in employment in Gulf of Alaska and Kodiak-Shelikof between 1985 and 1990 as a result of failed oil exploration programs in the Gulf of Alaska were larger than the net regional employment growth. This produced implausibly large declines in population. Therefore, an adjustment was made that used the 1975 population/employment ratios for these two areas as "multipliers" to estimate population decline. The Other Cook Inlet area was then ad- justed to the control total of regional population change. 73 Assumptions Used to Estimate Employment and Population, 2000-2025 The task force was charged with estimating total employment and population after the year 2000, but the econometric models' results were doubtful that far in the future. The task force instead developed some educated guesses concerning the Alaskan economy in the post-2000 period, and these were used to extrapolate the year 2000 results to 2025. Basically, the same methodology was used as above. The basic sector employment was projected by individual industry, a relationship between nonbasic and basic employment was assumed, and then a relationship be- tween population and employment assumed and projected. This was done regionally both for Anchorage and Other Southcentral, and the results allocated proportionately within Other Southcentral using year 2000 proportions for employment and population. Basic employment was projected as follows. Since there were no significant additional prospects for oil development in Southcentral Alaska after 2000, this sector was assumed to stabilize at its year 2000 level, replacing old fields with some additional development. This was true in both cases. Exogenous construction tends to follow oil develop- ment, so it, too, was left at its year 2000 level. Federal civilian employment continued to grow to serve the expanding post-2000 population: by 1.2 percent per year in the high case and 0.5-0.6 percent in the low case. State and local government continued to grow at the rates pro- jected for their respective cases from 1975 to 2000, with fairly rapid expansion in the high case, and virtually no expansion in the low case. Agriculture continued to expand after 2000 in the high case, with some significant opening up of lands other than in Other Cook Inlet. There was no post-2000 development in the low case. Since manufacturing of fish products, lumber, wood, and pulp was assumed to fully utilize the available resources (as in the high case), or its growth was restricted 74 by external institutional market factors (as in the low case), the level of employment in these industries was held constant at the year 2000 level. Fishing itself was assumed to replace ten percent of the foreign bottomfishing effort after 2000 by the year 2025 in the low case, but there was assumed to be no change in the traditional fisheries beyond their year 2000 level. In Other Manufacturing, the year 2000 employment level was sustained, except that nonpetrochemical " other" manufacturing was projected to double after the year 2000 to serve local markets in the high case. The extrapolations were done separately for Anchorage and Other Southcentral, added together into basic sector employment, and disaggregated within Other Southcentral based on the year 2000 proportions of basic employment. In projecting the nonbasic/basic ratio, somewhat different procedures were used for Anchorage and the rest of the region. In Other Southcentral, the year 2000 regional ratio of nonbasic-to-basic employment was multiplied times regional basic employment each year out"to 2025 and disaggregated, using year 2000 proportions, which permitted proportional growth in the nonbasic sector in each subregion after the year 2000. In the high case, the nonbasic/basic ratio was assumed to converge to the existing 1975 U.S. ratio by 2025, but it was found to be already there by 2000. In Anchorage, it was recognized that much of the "support sector" employ- ment in fact serves statewide needs in transportation, financial services, etc. Therefore, an estimate was made of local-serving nonbasic employ- ment by multiplying the statewide nonbasic/basic ratio times local basic sector employment. The remainder was designated "statewide-serving" non- basic employment, which was assumed to grow at the same rate as basic employment because Anchorage statewide services in both the basic sector and this part of the nonbasic sector can be assumed to grow in response to similar statewide demands for central offices and general support services. With the Anchorage economy relatively mature by that time, it is more difficult to argue that statewide-serving nonbasic firms would continue to grow faster than their counterparts in the basic industries after 2000 than before 2000. 75 Finally, civilian non-Native population not employed in exogenous construction was estimated using year 2000 population/employment ratios at the regional level and allocated to subregions using year 2000 pro- portions. Any assumption other than proportional population growth among subregions after 2000 was judged too difficult to defend, since so little is known about the character of Alaska's economy at that point. To this was added exogenous construction employment (no growth), Native population (2 percent growth per year), and military (no growth). 76 CHAPTER 3 PROJECTION RESULTS FOR SOUTHCENTRAL ALASKA, 1975-2025 Growth to 2000 The economy of Southcentral Alaska grows quite rapidly under both the high and low sets of assumptions until the year 2000, and somewhat less rapidly thereafter. In the high case, gross real output of the Southcentral economy more than quadruples before the end of the century, and it more than doubles in the low case. Correspondingly, employment in the high case grows to about 3.7 times its 1975 level by the year 2000, and more than doubles in the low case. Population grows to almost 700 thousand people (three times the 1975 level) by the year 2000 in the high case and to 445 thousand (or about double the 1975 level) in the low case. The rate of growth is lower in the first twenty-five years of the next century in these scenarios: year 2025 population, for example, is "only" 40 percent larger than its year 2000 level in the high case, and 17 percent higher than its year 2000 level in the low case. This chapter presents several of the relevant measures of economic activity on a regional basis to the year 2000; it also includes detailed estimates of employment and population, disaggregated to the subregional level and projected to the year 2025. The first section of this chapter discusses the Southcentral Alaska economy as a single unit to the year 2000. The second section discusses growth in the individual sectors, focusing on employment; and the third section compares and contrasts economic and population growth in each of the three subregions identified in the first chapter: Cook Inlet, Gulf of Alaska, and Kodiak-Shelikof. Because Anchorage is atypical and so important to both the regional economy and the Cook Inlet subregion, Anchorage results are reported separately. The final section discusses the projection results for the period 2000 to 2025. 77 Output Table 16 reports total output in 1972 dollars for the high and low cases for Anchorage, Other Southcentral, and the region. The pattern of industrial output in the region is strongly influenced by construc- tion and oil production projects in the 1980s in both cases. Real out- put shows a huge bulge in the Other Southcentral subregion related to building of the Pacific LNG plant and oil exploration in both cases, the additional impact of state capital construction, Alpetco construction, and the beginnings of oil production in Lower Cook Inlet and fisheries development between 1980 and 1985. That this boom is primarily oil and exploration-related is shown by the rather sharp tailing off of output after 1985 (and particularly after 1990) in both cases. Fisheries development, government growth, and ongoing oil production keep output in the high case at relatively high levels in the 1990s, but they cannot match the exploration and development impact of the oil industry. For example, the nonoil and construction output of the Other Southcentral economy actually increases relatively little between 1975 and 1980 (from $230.7 million to $349.4 million in 1972 dollars). In contrast, the output of Anchorage's economy grows fairly vigorously in both cases, with the higher level in the later years of the century being sustained by overall state growth. Anchorage output is apparently below that of Other Southcentral in the years up through 1985 in the low case and 1990 in the high case. In terms of economic activity, this is misleading, however, since oil industry output accounts for well over 75, percent of the Other Southcentral total during the period. By 2000 in the high case, the Anchorage economy dominates the region with 65 percent of out- put, even when the oil industry is counted. When the oil industry is subtracted, then Anchorage accounts for 74 percent of the total. In the low case, the corresponding figures.are 69 percent and 88 percent, show- ing that the Anchorage economy is relatively less dependent on development within the region. Table 16 Growth of Constant Dollar (Real) Output: Anchorage, Other Southcentral, and Southcentral Alaska, 1975-2000 (Millions of 1972 Dollars) High Development: Low Development: Other. Other Year Anchorage Southcentral Southcentral Anchorage Southcentral Southcentral 1975 $1,281.6 $556.7 $1,838.3 $1,281.6 $556.7 $1,838.3 80 1,743.7 2,953.8 4,697.5 1,722.4 2,664.8 4,387.2 7 85 2,261.6 6,444.7 8,706.3 1,892.4 2,711.2 4,603.6 7 90 3,017.9 5,179.8 8,197.7 2,173.3 1,416.7 3,590.0 95 3,907.2 2,567.7 6,474.9 2,674.2 1,456.7 4,130.9 2000 5,455.4 2,894.0 8,349.4 3,341.5 1,504.0 4,845.5 A aad? 79 Employment Next, consider the employment opportunities offered by the devel- opments projected in the two cases. These are shown in Table 17. Southcentral civilian employment is projected to rise substantially in both cases, relative to its 1975 level. The oil industry is a high- output, low-employment industry, which is revealed by the fact that the total output bulge created by oil development is much larger in per- centage terms than that in employment associated with exploration and development of Southcentral oil fields in both cases between 1980 and 1990. Of more importance to the employment totals in Other Southcentral is the construction of several large projects in the 1980s (compare the jump in employment between 1980 and 1985 in Other Southcentral in the high case with the almost flat employment pattern in the low case), and government growth and fisheries development which occur between 1985 and 2000 in the high case, but not in the low case. Anchorage again shows quite steady and sustained growth in both cases but much greater employ- ment in the high case because of overall state growth, growth in govern- ment employment in Anchorage, and continued construction and expansion of the support sector. Income In addition to the employment impacts, an important impact on indi- viduals is the effect of growth on income. Table 18 shows real per capita income gains averaging about 1.1 percent per year in the high case, and 0.8 percent in the low case. In the high case, this is a rate of increase about like that in the United States in the last ten years; in the low case, it is more like the rate of increase during a recession. While the model projection is silent on the question of distribution of income, Table 18 data do give some idea of the aggregate prosperity of the resi- dents of Southcentral Alaska. One thing to consider while examining these figures is that they are not residence-adjusted income figures; therefore, they may be too high in Other Southcentral, for example, if people live in Anchorage or out-of-state and commute to jobs in the Table 17 Civilian Employment in Anchorage, Other Southcentral, and Southcentral Alaska, 1975-2000 (Number of Persons) High Development: Low Development: Other Other Year Anchorage Southcentral Southcentral Anchorage Southcentral Southcentral 1975! 69,645 19,753 89,398 69,645 19,753 89 ,398 80 84,600 28,569 113,169 84,486 23,459 107,945 85 109 ,494 47,668 157,132 93,689 24,346 118 ,035 90 143,659 59,036 202,695 109 ,014 24,558 133,572 95 176,946 71,097 248 ,043 133,702 26,875 160,577 2000 232,846 98,682 331,528 168,493 29,731 198,224 leorresponding nonagricultural wage and salary employment for 1975 appears in Table A.2. 08 Table 18 Real Wage and Salary and Proprietor Income Earned Plus Transfers, and Per Capita Income: Anchorage, Other Southcentral, and Southcentral Alaska, 1975-2000 (1967 Dollars) HIGH CASE: Total Income (10°) : Per Capita Income: Other Other Year Anchorage Southcentral Southcentral Anchorage Southcentral Southcentral 1975 $ 962.4 $ 299.3 $1,261.7 $5,413 $5,789 $5,498 80 1,095.3 391.1 1,486.4 5,317 6,566 5,598 85 1,453.4 704.4 2,157.8 5,695 7,450 6,169 90 1,957.2 871.5 2,828.7 6,039 7,303 6,380 95 2,517.6 1,061.5 3,579.1 6,424 7,297 6,660 2000 3,458.1 1,563.2 5,021.3 6,908 7,847 7,175 LOW CASE: Total Income (10°S) : Per Capita Income: Other Other Year Anchorage Southcentral Southcentral Anchorage Southcentral Southcentral 1975 $ 962.4 $ 299.3 $1,261.7 $5,413 $5,789 $5,498 80 1,112.5 315.3 1,427.4 5,427 6,112 5,563 85 1,265.0 334.7 1,599.7 5,580 6,077 5,679 90 1,473.6 349.5 1,823.1 5,644 6,064 5,720 95 1,923.2 410.0 2,333.2 6,210 6,467 6,254 2000 2,481.6 482.7 2,964.3 6,614 6,908 . 6,660 T8 82 Other Southcentral census divisions. The table indicates in general that real per capita income grows throughout the period, except for a small drop in Anchorage between 1975 and 1980 caused by faster price inflation and faster initial population growth in the high case, and reductions in Other Southcentral in the 1980s caused by the winding down of development related to the oil industry. Population Population growth is one important response to the growth of the Southcentral economy in both the high and low cases. The amount and rate of population growth in Anchorage and the rest of Southcentral is shown in Table 19. The most obvious general observation one can make about population growth in the two cases is that the causes of growth in Anchorage and Other Southcentral differ. Other Southcentral is expected to be influenced strongly by local development; while Anchorage, which depends on statewide growth, is affected less by the choice of scenario. The spread between the cases is also large, ranging from 94 percent growth in the low case over the next 25 years, which is 2.7 percent per year or about 48 percent of the 1965 to 1975 rate, to 205 percent growth in the high case over 25 years, which is 4.6 percent per year or 82 per- cent of the 1965 to 1975 rate. In neither case is Southcentral Alaska projected to grow as fast as in the ten years preceding the forecast period. The high growth case is roughly equivalent to the rate of growth experienced between 1965 and 1973, prior to the pipeline boom, while the low growth case is less than the rate of growth during the years between the earthquake and the North Slope lease sale. Distribution of Growth Among Industries Table 20 shows the projected growth of the Southcentral economy in the high and low cases, divided into four groups of industries: "nonrenewable resource" basic industries (defined here as mining, ex- ogenous construction, exogenous transport, public utilities, services, Table 19 Population Growth: Southcentral Region, 1975-2000 (Thousands of Persons) High Development: Low Development: Other Other Year Anchorage Southcentral Southcentral Anchorage Southcentral Southcentral 1975 177.8 51.7 229.5 177.8 51.7 229.5 80 206.0 59.5 265.5 205.0 51.6 256.6 85 255.2 94.6 349.8 226.7 55.0 281.7 90 324.1 119.3 443.4 261.1 57.6 318.7 95 391.9 145.5 : 537.4 309.7 63.4 373.1 2000 500.6 199.2 699.8 375.2 69.9 445.1 Average Annual Rate of Growth 1975-2000 4.2% 5.5% 4.6% 3.0% 1.2% 2.7% £8 84 Table 20 Projected Civilian Employment Growth by Industry Group, Southcentral Alaska, 1975-2000 (Thousands of Persons) HIGH CASE: Nonrenewable Renewable Support Year Resources Resources Government Sector Total 1975 6.117 4.997 24.348 53.936 89.398 80 8.297 5.699 26.955 72.218 113.169 85 12.188 7.324 31.830 105.790 157.132 90 9.648 10.635 37.220 145.192 202.695 95 6.260 13.565 42.420 185.798 248.043 2000 6.260 17.763 48.070 259.435 331.528 LOW CASE: Nonrenewable Renewable Support Year Resources Resources Government Sector Total 375 6.117 4.997 24.348 53.936 89.398 80 6.473 4.889 26.615 69.968 107.945 85 4.305 4.868 28.075 80.787 118.035 90 4.246 4.836 28.921 95.569 133.572 95 4.246 4.852 29.794 121.685 160.577 2000 4.246 4.852 30.692 158.434 198.224 85 and "other" manufacturing), "renewable resource" basic industries (agriculture-forestry-fisheries, food manufacturing, lumber and wood products, and pulp and paper), government, and the support sector. The table demonstrates that most of the growth in the high cane occurs in the support sector, the largest of the four groups. Government grows steadily throughout the period, just about doubling during the 25 years. Nonrenewable resources enjoys a boom which peaks in the middle 1980s, then tails off until the end of the period when it is about its 1975 level. Renewable resources (especially fishing) take over in the middle and late 1980s and sustain the growth in the export- base industries (nonrenewable and renewable combined), which in turn impacts the support sector. While the support sector still accounts for the bulk of the growth in the low case, this case shows a much smaller long-term expansion of nonrenewable resource industries and a decline relative to 1975 by the end of the period. Renewable resource industries decline slightly due to the disappearance of commercial agriculture in this case, and while government expands by. about 15 percent in the first 10 years, little further expansion takes place. The support sector expansion is prob- ably due to several causes, including: the short-term expansion of the economy between 1980 and 1985 and the twenty-plus percent rise in real per capita incomes; maturing of the Alaskan economy; and economic expan- sion elsewhere in Alaska. The difference in support sector employment in Anchorage by the year 2000 is 41 percent between the two cases; it is 247 percent in the rest of the region, because there is relatively little support sector development in the low case (9,700 new jobs), while sup- port sector development in the high case is spectacular (52,400 new jobs). 86 Subregional Economic and Population Growth, 1975 to 2000 The 1975 to 2000 distribution of employment and population growth in the Southcentral Alaska's subregions can be summarized as follows: In the high case, the fastest growing subregion is Other Cook Inlet followed by Kodiak-Shelikof, Anchorage, and Gulf of Alaska, in that order. Although there is considerable year-to-year variation in the rate of growth, only the Gulf of Alaska shows a negative growth rate or even one which could be described as slow during any decade before the end of the century. This is largely because several important development projects are projected for the region in the high case. In the low case, the comparative lack of major developments means that only Anchorage, which depends upon developments outside the region as well as inside it, can post substantial and consistent rates of gain in employ- ment and population. It is trailed by Other Cook Inlet, Kodiak-Shelikof, and Gulf of Alaska, which in the low case actually records a loss in population relative to the boom year 1975. Table 21 summarizes growth rates in population and civilian employment at the subregional level between 1975 and 2000 in the high and low cases, respectively. The results for the years 2000 to 2025 are discussed in the next section, where the projected totals are presented. High Case As can be seen in Table 21, high case population growth rates are quite variable over time, depending upon what specific developments are occurring. Other Cook Inlet shows the fastest overall growth rate, largely as a result of the assumption that support sector employment would be relatively slowly developed in Gulf of Alaska and Kodiak, com- bined with the fact that rising incomes and basic sector employment in the region outside of Anchorage were projected to generate some 50 thou- sand support sector jobs over the 25-year period. Given the assumed location of much of the basic sector development, the task force analysis concluded that most of the support sector development would probably occur 87 Table 21 Average Annual Growth in Population and Civilian Employment, by Subregion, 1975-2000 HIGH DEVELOPMENT: Other Kodiak- Anchorage Cook Inlet = Gulf of Alaska Shelikof Total Population: 1975-80 3.0% 4.7% - 1.6% 2.0% 3.0% 1980-90 4.6% 7.3% 4.9% 8.9% 5.3% 1990-2000 4.4% 6.3% 1.2% 4.1% 4.7% 1975-2000 4.2% 6.4% 2.1% 5.6% 4.6% Civilian Employment: 1975-80 4.0% 12.8% 0.6% 4.0% 4.8% 1980-90 5.4% 8.2% 5.2% 7.9% 6.0% 1990-2000 5.0% 6.7% 0.7% 3.8% 5.0% 1975-2000 5.0% 8.5% 2.5% 5.5% 5.4% LOW DEVELOPMENT: Population: 1975-80 2.9% 1.8% - 6.0% 0.0% 2.3% 1980-90 2.4% 1.1% - 0.2% 2.4% 2.2% 1990-2000 . 3.7% 2.6% 0.6% 0.6% 3.4% 1975-2000 3.0% 1.8% - 1.1% 1.22% 2.7% Civilian Employment: 1975-80 3.9% 10.2% - 8.4% 0.2% 3.8% 1980-90 2.6% 0.9% - 1.2% 0.2% 2.2% 1990-2000 4.4% 2.7% 0.1% 0.2% 4.0% 1975-2000 3.6% 3.4% - 2.2% 0.2% 3.2% 88 on the Kenai Peninsula and in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. The Gulf of Alaska figures represent a sharp decline and recovery of the sub- regional economy from Northern Gulf development between 1975 and 1980-- a recovery which shows up more strongly in the 1980 to 1990 figures. Since there is little additional post-1990 basic sector activity in this region, relatively little additional population growth is expected during the nineties, most of it a result of support sector growth. Kodiak- Shelikof figures in the high case show expansion related to fisheries which is strong after 1980, and which coincides with Western Gulf of Alaska development. The expansion is more concentrated in fisheries in the 1990s, with lower probable per capita income gains. This will tend to reduce the rate of migration somewhat during the late 1990s, reducing the overall growth rate below that in the 1980s. Low Case In the low case, all areas show considerably lower population growth during most of the subperiods. Anchorage is the least affected by assump- tions concerning Southcentral regional development, but even in Anchorage, low case population and employment growth rates before 1990 are consider- ably less than those in the high case. Other Cook Inlet is the most profoundly affected subregion. Because much of the basic employment growth due to development is assumed to occur in this subregion, the failure of development to take place in the low case reduces the average rate of population growth from a rapid 6.4 percent to a relatively modest 1.8 percent over the period. The figures for the Gulf of Alaska are a bit misleading, since the Gulf enjoys some construction boom. periods between the years used here as signposts; however, the overall long-term employment picture under the assumptions of the low case is one of lower long-term employment than the 1975 boom year, with approximately steady population between 1980 and 2000. (The percentage changes represent small changes of 200 to 300 people.) Kodiak-Shelikof enjoys much slower growth in the low case than in the high. The principal causal factors of the difference are the lack of bottomfish development in the low case am 89 (reflected as little employment growth in the 1980s) and the failure of Western Gulf of Alaska oil exploration, which eliminates oil development (indicated by the flat 1980 to 1990 employment growth). Finally, all areas are impacted by the slower growth of government in the low case. Post-2000 Results As outlined in the previous chapter, the economics task force departed from formal modeling methodology for the period 2000 to 2025. The reasons for this were many, but the principal one is that the structure of the post-2000 economy is likely to be different from today's in ways that could not be estimated well enough to justify a formal modeling method- ology with its inherent difficulty and expense. Therefore, the task force decided to make some relatively cruder forecasts concerning the path of development of the basic sector after 2000. The main features of the method used were the simplest possible link between basic employ- ment and nonbasic employment, and estimates of population using simple population-to-employment ratios likely to be characteristic of the latter part of this century. It was hoped that the resultant projections would be robust enough to withstand a wide margin of error in assumptions con- cerning individual sectors. The results are shown in Tables 22 and 23, along with those for the pre-2000 period. Post-2000 development is distributed proportionately across the non- Anchorage subregions by assumption, because the post-2000 results for these specific areas are not a result of analysis of the individual economies as are the pre-2000 results. Consequently, all three non-Anchorage areas show the same rate of population growth, about 1.9-2.0 percent, in the high case; while Anchorage, clearly the most mature economy, shows about 1.1-1.2 percent. Timing of development is obviously important. If the schedules for development in the high case were stretched out, the total population of each area might well be lower by 2025, but the rate of 90 Table 22 Southcentral Water Study High Case Projections (HIGHSC3) (Thousands) Other © Gulf of Kodiak- Anchorage Cook Inlet Alaska Shelikof Total Resident Population: 1975 177.8 31.2 11.7 8.8 229.5 80 206.0 39.0 10.8 9.7 265.5 85 255.2 61.1 15.8 17.6 349.8 90 324.1 79.2 17.4 22.7 443.4 95 391.9 103.1 16.5 25.8 537.4 2000 500.6 145.6 19.7 34.0 699.8 05, 525.5 162.1 21.9 37.9 747.3 10 557.5 179.6 24.2 41.9 803.2 15 589.3 199.5 26.9 46.6 862.3 20 625.1 218.2 29.4 51.0 923.7 2025 659.5 236.1 31.9 55.1 982.6 Basic Sector Civilian Employment (1975 Wage and Salary Employment in Parentheses): - Non-Ag. Wage & Salary 1975 (23.239) (4.460) (3.779) (2.376) (33.854) Civilian 1975 23.239 4.901 4.134 3.188 35.462 80 25.179 7.875 4.097 3.800 40.951 85 26.569 12.781 5.732 6.261 51.343 90 28.834 14.917 5.991 7.761 57.503 95 30.999 17.491 5.381 8.373 62.244 2000 33.364 21.987 6.084 10.659 72.094 05 35.577 24.502 6.780 11.878 78.737 10 38.862 27.171 7.518 13.172 86.723 15 41.928 30.199 8.356 14.640 95.124 20 45.482 33.022 9.137 16.009 103.650 2025 48.581 35.706 9.880 17.310 111.477 91 High Case Projections (continued) Other Gulf of Kodiak- Anchorage Cook Inlet Alaska Shelikof Total Non-Basic Sector Civilian Employment: 1975 46.406 4.285 1.819 1.426 53.936 80 59.421 8.920 2.048 1.828 72.218 85 82.925 15.901 3.726 3.237 105.789 90 114.826 21.858 4.194 4.315 145.193 95 145.947 30.809 4.036 5.007 185.799 2000 199.482 48.221 4.867 6.864 259.434 05 209.356 53.739 5.424 7.649 276.168 10 221.726 59.592 6.015 8.483 295.816 15 234.155 66.234 6.685 9.428 316.502 20 — 248.049 72.425 7.310 10.309 338.093 2025 261.648 78.310 7.904 11.147 359.008 Total Civilian Employment (Excludes Self-Employed, except Fishing and Agriculture, and Military): Non-Ag. Wage & Salary Employment: 1975 (69.645) (8.745) (5.598) (3.802) (87.790) Total Civilian Employment: 1975 - 69.645 9.186 5.953 4.614 89.398 80 84.600 16.795 6.146 5.628 113.169 85 109.494 28.682 9.458 9.498 157.132 90 143.659 36.775 10.185 12.076 202.695 95 176.946 48.300 9.417 13.380 248.043 2000 232.846 70.208 : 10.951 17.523 331.528 05 244.933 78.241 12.204 19.528 354.905 10 260.588 86.763 13.533 21.655 382.538 15 276.083 96.433 15.041 24.068 411.626 20 293.531 105.447 16.447 26.318 441.743 2025 310.229 114.016 17.784 28.457 470.485 92 Table 23 Southcentral Water Study Low Case Projections (LOWSC6) (Thousands) Other Gulf of Kodiak- Anchorage Cook Inlet Alaska Shelikof Total Resident Population: 1975 177.8 31.2 11.7 8.8 229.5 80 205.0 34.2 8.6 8.8 256.6 85 226.7 34.2 8.8 12.0 281.7 90 261.1 38.1 8.4 11.1 318.7 95 309.7 43.3 8.6 11.5 373.1 2000 375.2 49.2 8.9 11.8 445.1 05 383.7 53.1 9.6 12.7 459.1 10 392.4 57.3 10.4 13.8 473.9 15 401.3 61.5 11.1 14.8 488.7 20 410.5 65.9 11.9 15.8 504.1 2025 420.7 70.4 12.7 16.9 520.7 Basic Sector Civilian Employment (1975 Wage and Salary Employment in Parentheses): Non-Ag. Wage & Salary 1975 (23.239) (4.460) (3.779) (2.376) (33.854) Civilian 1975 23.239 4.901 4.134 3.188 35.462 80 24.964 7.133 2.659 3.221 37.977 85 25.238 6.640 2.679 3.791 38.348 90 25.900 6.456 2.361 3.286 38.003 95 26.631 6.573 2.377 3.310 38.891 2000 27.331 - 6.747 2.393 3.337 39.808 05 28.101 7.256 2.573 3.589 41.519 10 28.893 7.812 2.771 3.864 43.340 15 29.708 8.345 2.960 4.127 45.140 20 30.546 8.884 3.151 4.394 46.975 2025 31.459 9.426 3.343 4.662 48.890 93 Low Case Projections (continued) Other Gulf of Kodiak- Anchorage Cook Inlet Alaska Shelikof Total Non-Basic Sector Civilian Employment: 1975 46.406 4.285 1.819 1.426 53.936 80 59.522 7.836 1.170 1.440 69.968 85 68.451 8.362 1.179 1.695 79.687 90 83.114 9.947 1.039 1.469 95.569 95 107.071 12.089 1.046 1.480 121.686 2000 141.162 14.709 1.053 1.492 158.416 05 144.131 15.820 1.133 1.605 162.689 10 147,331 17.033 1.219 T2728 167.111 15 150.164 18.194 1.302 1.846 171.506 20 153.229 19.369 1.387 1.965, 175.950 2025 156.669 20.551 1.471 2.085 180.776 Total Civilian Employment (Excludes Self-Employed, except Fishing and Agriculture, and Military): Non-Ag. Wage & Salary Employment: 1975 (69.645) (8.745) (5.598) (3.802) (87.790) Total Civilian Employment: 1975 69.645 9.186 5.953 4.614 89.398 80 84.486 14.969 3.829 4.661 107.945 85 93.689 15.002 3.858 5.486 118.035 90 109.014 16.403 3.400 4.755 133.572 95 133.702 18.662 3.423 4.790 160.577 2000 168.493 21.456 3.446 4.829 198.224 05 172.232 23.076 3.706 5.194 204.208 10 176.024 24.845 3.990 5.592 210.451 15 179.872 26.539 4.262 5.973 216.646 20 183.775 28.253 4.538 6.359 222.925 2025 188.128 29.977 4.814 6.747 229.666 94 growth between 2000 and 2025 would be somewhat greater. Likewise, there is no guarantee that growth would necessarily be proportional among sub- regions after 2000, but one could argue that general regional growth may reduce the transportation and market size barriers which currently inhibit development in the Gulf and Kodiak areas. The regional post-2000 rate of growth is projected at about one-third of the pre-2000 rate. In the low case, the three non-Anchorage populations grow at 1.4 per- cent in the post-2000 period, while Anchorage grows at about 0.5 percent. The chief causes of growth in this case are limited bottomfish development (which takes place much earlier in the high case) and government (espe- cially local). Very little development was forecast for this case, so it is conceivable that additional development in forestry, local-serving manufacturing, fishing, or development of oil fields not currently pro- jected for lease sales could significantly change the results of the low case by 2025. The rate of growth for the whole region after 2000 is forecast to be about 0.6 percent, about 20-25 percent of the pre-2000 rate. Summary The Southcentral economy and population show substantial future growth regardless of whether high or low development assumptions are used. However, the difference between the high and low cases is sub- stantial, and growth might well have very different impacts on South- central water resources in the two cases. The high case represents about the highest economic and population growth that could reasonably be expected to occur in Southcentral Alaska before the year 2025, given what is currently known about the prospects for the development of the region's resource base. In this case, the real output of the economy grows to 4.6 times its 1975 boom-year level by the ELLE 95 end of the century, accompanied by a 270 percent increase in employment, and a tripling of population. The fastest growth takes place in the Cook Inlet subregion on the strength of several major projects in oil and gas, fisheries development, movement of the state capital, and broadening of the support sector. Because fishing grows so much in this case and because of its initial small size, Kodiak follows in per- centage employment and population gains, followed by Anchorage, largely influenced by statewide growth, and finally by the Gulf of Alaska, with the Alpetco project its main source of growth. After the turn of the century, the rate of growth falls to about one-third its 1975 to 2000 rate, largely because the economy is maturing and because no major projects are forecast for after the year 2000. The low case represents about the lowest plausible growth rate for Southcentral Alaska, although some major projects included in this case such as the Northwest-Alaska gas pipeline may not in fact be built. Nevertheless, the task force felt that even if some of the developments identified explicitly in the assumptions did not occur, the assumptions were inimical enough to development that some other unforeseen project was reasonably likely to take its place. In this case, the real output of the Southcentral economy increases to about 2.6 times its 1975 level by the end of the century, while civilian employment more than doubles, and population nearly doubles. In the low case, the major center of growth is Anchorage, which grows largely because of statewide develop- ments in oil and gas, not because of regional development (which is minimal). After the turn of the century, the growth rate falls in this case to about one-fourth its pre-2000 rate, again largely because no major ‘development projects can be currently foreseen for the early twenty-first century. There is obviously plenty of room to pick between these two alter- natives. Consequently, a third intermediate scenario was constructed and evaluated to give water resources planners a better idea of the 96 sensitivity of the population and employment estimates produced in the main report. This does not mean that planners should automatically take the middle case as the "most likely" and plan only for that case while ignoring the range of possible outcomes presented in this report. On the contrary, successful water resource planning for Southcentral Alaska will have to be a dynamic process, incorporating not only contin- gency plans or planning processes for the entire range of possibilities presented here, but also being updated periodically as better information becomes available. ADDENDUM: INTERMEDIATE CASE PROJECTIONS AD-1 METHODOLOGY AND DATA USED IN INTERMEDIATE CASE Intermediate Case Assumptions Used to Produce Economic and Population Projections, 1975-2000 The intermediate case scenario used in this study was constructed in a manner similar to the high and low scenarios. That is, the economic task force took into account certain of the critical factors likely to cause differing rates of economic growth in Southcentral Alaska and made assumptions concerning these factors for the time period 1975 to 2000. For the most part, the assumptions fell between the high’ and low cases, and closer to those in the low case. The assumptions in the intermediate case produced estimates nearer the low case than the high; thus, this third case is not in any sense simply an "average" of the high and low. However, since the task force also did not have a firm idea of the relative likelihood of the three cases, it is somewhat misleading to call the intermediate case assumptions "best guess" or "most likely." ' Quite frequently, the assumptions represented compromises of mutually exclusive and firmly held positions of different members of the task force. It is only in the sense of consensus, compromise, or collective ignorance that the intermediate case is "most likely." ‘ The intermediate case does not constitute a prediction of the future path of the Southcentral economy any more than the high and low cases do. The intermediate case is a contingent projection, based upon the assump- tions which follow. The assumptions are organized by industry and are discussed in the text. The actual numbers appear in an appendix to the report. Agriculture The growth of agriculture in the intermediate case is predicated upon a fairly pessimistic evaluation of the chances for a combination of favorable public policy decisions and favorable markets. It is assumed that relatively low priority will be given to agricultural development relative to aesthetic, recreational, subsistence, and wilderness uses of Alaska's lands, or that market opportunities for Alaska's agricultural products will remain minimal due to such factors as strong competition from imported foodstuffs and high operating costs. In the intermediate case, Southcentral employment in commercial agriculture rises from its current level of about 115 man-years to about 200 man-years in the year 2000. Dollar value of agricultural sales in constant 1975 dollars rises to $16.5 million, for an addition to gross state product of $3.2 million in 1972 dollars. Statewide, the level of employment rises to 1,150 from its current level of about 750 by the year 2000, and the 1975 constant dollar agricultural sales rise to $100 million. Agriculture's total contribution to gross state product in the year 2000 is estimated at 19.3 million constant 1972 dollars, about one-fourth the level in the high case. In the intermediate case, year 2000 agricultural sales rise to about three times their 1975 level. Forestry Employment and output of this small component of the forest products industry is assumed to grow at the same rate as lumber and wood products, which constitutes the bulk of the forest products industry. This growth is described below. Fisheries The high case scenario for this industry assumed a very ambitious fisheries development program to replenish salmon stocks and replace for- eign bottomfish harvesting efforts with U.S. domestic fishermen. The low case assumed no change from current levels. The intermediate case takes a moderate position halfway between these two extremes. That is, while limited entry in salmon fishing and possibly shellfish limit employment growth in existing fisheries, there is assumed to be a 50 percent replace- ment of the foreign bottomfish effort off Alaska by the year 2000, re- quiring about 8,750 additional persons in fishing. While employment in salmon fishing is assumed to be constant, the real value of output from existing fisheries doubles by the year 2000 as salmon run enhancement projects begin to have large impacts. Bottomfish output is estimated at $316 million statewide, $158 million in Southcentral. Mining, Including Oil and Gas The mining sector intermediate case incorporates assumptions which are closer to the low case than to the high case. In the intermediate case, the Kaparuk River Sands formation at Prudhoe Bay are developed, as well as 0.8 billion barrels of new petroleum finds offshore of Prudhoe Bay. The maximum rate of throughput of the TAPS oil pipeline is increased to 1.6 million barrels per day. While exploration takes place in both the Northern Gulf of Alaska and the Western Gulf/Kodiak area as a result of federal lease sales, there is no oil found, and exploration activity soon ceases. In contrast, there is a significant find in Lower Cook Inlet amounting to about 2.6 billion barrels, which results in output of about 930 thousand barrels per day at peak production, same as the high case. The Beluga coal fields are developed in the intermediate case; how- ever, in contrast to the high case, there is no export of coal. Instead, a single mine-mouth electrical generating plant utilizing 730,000 tons of coal per year is built and operated. In the intermediate case, state- wide employment in mining rises to a peak of about 7,100 persons in 1984, dropping to 5,200 by 2000. Statewide value added in mining rises to almost $3.0 billion 1972 constant dollars in 1984, trailing off to $1.7 billion by the year 2000. Within the region, mining exploration and development employ about 2,800 persons in 1984, declining thereafter to about 1,350 in the year 2000. This includes about 60 miners at Beluga, with most of the rest in oil and gas. Food Manufacturing As in the high and low case, food manufacturing is dominated by sea- food processing, whose growth is mainly determined by the level of output in fishing, As the industry grows, however, there are opportunities for labor-saving innovations which keep the rate of growth in employment less than the rate of growth in output. For instance, in order to handle the projected doubling of the output of the salmon fleet, it is expected that only a 50 percent increase in fish processing employment would be required. Overall, existing fisheries are projected to require a 15 percent in- crease in processing employment, while the 50 percent replacement of foreign bottomfish catching effort would require about 10 thousand persons statewide (on- and offshore) by the year 2000, about one-third of these onshore, and about one-half of the onshore processing employ- ment in the region. The total value added by food manufacturing rises to $268 million (1972 dollars) by the year 2000, about $124 million of that in the region. Lumber and Wood Products Manufacturing Since lumber and wood products contain most of what is thought of as the "forestry industry," an increase in logging activity would result in growth of this sector. In the intermediate case, statewide lumber and wood products growth is the same as in the low case; however, addi- tional information has become available in the last six months on federal withdrawals of timber land in the southeast part of Alaska, which indicates that a larger part of the timber harvesting effort in the state may take place in the Southcentral region in the future. Employment in the Other Southcentral lumber and wood products industry increases from the 1975 level of 278 to 925 by the year 2000. Employment in Anchorage holds constant. Pulp and Paper Manufacturing The growth of this sector is determined by the same factors as lumber and wood products, with the exception that all logging activity in Southcentral is assumed to be carried out by firms engaged in manu- facture of lumber and wood products rather than pulp and paper. Total manufacture of statewide employment increases to 1,777 persons in the year 2000 (none in Southcentral), same as the low case. Value added is the same as in the low case statewide; it is zero in Southcentral. AD-5 Other Manufacturing Growth of the miscellaneous manufacturing sector is directly depen- dent upon a series of large-scale petrochemical projects whose future can only be guessed at this time. In the intermediate case, the projects which are included are a large fuels refinery utilizing state royalty oil from the Alaska North Slope, an LNG facility of the type proposed in the Pacific LNG Alaska-California project, and a smaller LNG facility to utilize Lower Cook Inlet gas. The fuels refinery is substituted for the proposed Alpetco facility shown in the high case because of per- sistent doubt concerning the economic viability of a grass-roots petro- chemical plant, combined with ongoing state preferences for in-state processing of royalty oil. The fuels refinery is more likely to be viable, requires fewer construction personnel, and employs about 400 persons during its operations phase (in contrast to over 1,800 required in the Alpetco basic proposal). Both the Pacific LNG and the other LNG plant employ about 60 people during operations. Statewide employment in Other Manufacturing rises from 1,941 in 1975 to 2,512 by the year 2000. Within the region, Other Manufacturing rises from 348 to 879 in Other Southcentral, compared to 408 in the low case and 2,333 in the high case. Anchorage employment remains at 1,100. Construction Major projects constructed statewide during the period 1975 to 2000 in the intermediate case include oil treatment and shipment facilities for the Lower Cook Inlet oil fields, two LNG plants and a major oil refinery, the Beluga coal mine-mouth power plant, facilities for opera- tion of the Kaparuk formation at Prudhoe Bay, development of the Prudhoe Bay offshore oil field with pipeline capacity expansion, the Northwest Alaska gas pipeline, and a small state capital campus somewhere in Southcentral Alaska which conforms to the concept of a limited capital move. Statewide, the level of construction employment on these major projects reaches a peak of 11,800 in 1981, declining rapidly thereafter. In the Southcentral region, exogenous construction employment reaches 2,800 in 1981. AD-6 Federal Government Federal government employment in Alaska has been growing very little during the last ten years, the increases in civilian employment being off- set by declining military employment. The decline in military employment has slowed or halted, however, and civilian employment is expected to con- tinue to grow slowly. In the intermediate case, federal civilian employ- ment rises at the same rate as in the low case--about 0.5 percent per year. This results in federal civilian employment of about 21 thousand statewide, and 12,250 in the region by the year 2000. Military employ- ment is assumed constant at 1975 levels. State Government The rate of growth of state government may be one of the key driving forces in the Alaska economy, after construction. A fairly persuasive story can be told about nearly any projected rate, but an annual rate of two percent was assumed through 1990, and about 1.5 percent thereafter. This is similar to the low case, but government growth continues after 1985. In the intermediate case, it was assumed some sort of limited state capital move would take place which would transfer major central govern- ment functions to a capital campus somewhere in Southcentral Alaska-- possibly Willow. The number of positions involved in an immediate move of just the legislature, commissioners, and the governor and their immediate staffs was calculated at roughly 750 persons. Since some growth in these staffs will probably occur by the time the move is likely to be conducted, and other government operations may also move, the task force assumed a move between 1982 and 1990 involving about one thousand employees in two groups of 500. State government employ- ment reaches 4,100 in Other Southcentral and 6,200 in Anchorage by the year 2000, for a total of 10,300. Local Government Local government growth is partly conditional upon local sources of revenue, but also depends upon revenues available from federal sources and the growth of demand for government services. In the intermediate case, the projected rate of growth was fixed at three percent, halfway between the rates in the high and low cases. This results in statewide local government employment of about 29,000 in the year 2000, and regional employment of 14,900. Miscellaneous Assumptions The Alaska economy is influenced by growth in U.S. per capita dispos- able (after tax) income, wages, and prices, since these set bounds on the ability of Alaska to encourage or discourage migration and increase the real incomes of Alaskans. In the high case, real wages rise at 1.2 per- cent per annum and real per capita disposable incomes at 2 percent. In the low and intermediate cases, U.S. real per capita disposable income and wages track the Data Resources, Inc., "pessimistic" long-term fore- casts of 1.77 percent for real income and 1.0 percent for wages. { Government spending is again assumed proportional to expenditures for government wages and salaries, just as in the high and low cases. Finally, the exogenous components of transportation, public utilities, and services represented by major basic projects such as the oil pipeline was estimated. In the intermediate scenario, Beluga coal development does not require a large support facility, although 90 persons are employed by the coal-fired power plant. Most of the employment added by these large projects in transportation, public utilities, and services is attributable to the oil pipeline project and its continued operations. Long-term employment in the intermediate case is estimated at 250 in transporta- tion, about 1,000 in services, and 90 in public utilities. AD-8 Intermediate Case Methodology Used to Disaggregate Regional Control Totals for the Three Subregions The disaggregation methodology used in the intermediate case was similar to that used in the high and low case. That is, specific pro- jections of basic employment were made for the Anchorage, Other Cook Inlet, Gulf of Alaska, and Kodiak-Shelikof subregions. The econometric model produced an estimate of nonbasic, civilian employment in the Anchorage subregion, while the model's estimate of Other Southcentral nonbasic employment, computed by the model, was allocated to the three remaining subregions by projecting specific ratios of nonbasic-to-basic employment for Kodiak-Shelikof and Gulf of Alaska subregions. The remainder was allocated to Other Cook Inlet. The resulting changes in total civilian employment were used to estimate changes in population. Each subregion's share of the change in total civilian employment in each five-year period was used to allocate the corresponding five-year regional change computed by the model of the non-Native, civilian popu- lation not directly engaged in large construction projects. Finally, exogenous construction employment, military population, and Native population estimates were added for each subregion to give total sub- regional population. Specifically, the task force made the following assumptions. Basic employment in Other Cook Inlet (Cook Inlet, less Anchorage) included existing mining employment, all employment related to Lower Cook Inlet oil and gas, one-fourth of Northern Gulf of Alaska oil employment, all Beluga coal employment, 36 percent of lumber and wood products employ- ment by the year 2000, historic proportions of fishing, food manufacture, pulp and paper, employment related to the compact capital move, low growth in government employment, Pacific LNG and Lower Cook petrochemi- cals employment, and all agricultural employment in the region. Gulf of Alaska employment included existing mining, three-fourths of all direct employment related to Northern Gulf lease sales 39 and 55, direct em- ployment related to the Alpetco fuels refinery, 40 percent of lumber and wood products employment by the year 2000, historical proportions of fishing and food processing employment, low growth in government employ- ment with an addition of fifty local government workers during Alpetco plant construction, and 500 transportation and service workers employed in the operation of the oil pipeline. The Kodiak-Shelikof area employ- ment featured all existing activity, all the oil exploratory activity related to federal OCS lease sale 46, 24 percent of lumber and wood products employment in the region outside of Anchorage by the year 2000, historical proportions of fisheries and food processing manufacturing, and slow government growth. Nonbasic employment was specifically projected for the Gulf of Alaska and Kodiak-Shelikof subregions. The major driving factors leading to development of a support sector in these two subregions are the same as in the high case, but more modest in impact. Since the Valdez area can be expected to develop a support sector comparable to that of the Kenai Peninsula as a result of major refining and oil transshipment operations employment in the area, the Gulf subregion ratio of nonbasic/basic employ- ment is assumed to change at the same rate as did the nonbasic/basic ratio in the Kenai-Cook Inlet census division between 1960 and 1975, the period during which the Kenai oil shipment and manufacturing facilities were con- structed and began operations. In Kodiak-Shelikof, many of the same factors are at work as in the high case broadening the support sector, although basic employment is expected to be less. The same rate of change in the nonbasic/ basic ratio was used in the intermediate case as in the high case for the Kodiak-Shelikof subregion, giving approximately the current Other Southcentral average for this ratio by 1996. The remainder of Other Southcentral nonbasic employment was allocated to the Other Cook Inlet subregion. AD-10 Civilian, non-Native, nonconstruction population was allocated within Other Southcentral by beginning with the state's estimate of 1975 popula- tion by census division and then allocating region-wide population changes as described in the text above. An exception was made for the Gulf of Alaska region between 1975 and 1980. In the intermediate case, 505 jobs were lost from the subregional economy, about -7.9 percent of the total gain in jobs in the region. This would have translated into a net civilian population loss of 269 between 1975 and 1980. This seemed a little high when compared to the low case, where .36 people were lost per lost job. Consequently, the .36 ratio was imposed, resulting in a population loss of 181 people. The rest of 1975-1980 Other Southcentral population growth was allocated proportionately between Kodiak-Shelikof and Other Cook Inlet. Assumptions Used to Estimate Employment and Population in the Intermediate Case, 2000-2025 The same basic methodology was followed in the intermediate case as in the high and low cases for the period after the year 2000. Since the econometric model was considered unreliable that far in the future, the task force made some simple assumptions concerning growth of basic sector employment by industry for Anchorage and the rest of Southcentral. The task force then assumed a moving ratio of nonbasic employment to basic employment. Finally, population was derived by estimating a population/ employment ratio for civilian, non-Native, nonconstruction population and then adding Natives, military, and construction employees working on large-scale projects to the resultant total. The basic sector assumptions were as follows: Since, as in the low and high cases, the task force could foresee no significant additional prospects for the oil and gas industry in Southcentral after the year 2000, the task force simply assumed that the industry stabilized at its level in that year, with new, smaller finds replacing older fields. Since AD-11 exogenous construction is dependent upon large-scale projects, and none of these is foreseen in the intermediate case after the year 2000, exoge- nous construction employment was specified at its year 2000 level. Federal civilian employment continued to increase after the year 2000 at the same rate as in the low case, and state government employment grew at about the rate it grew between 1985 and 2000. The rate of growth of local government employment was assumed to be half the rate of increase for this sector in the high case. Agriculture was beset with unfavorable conditions for further growth in the intermediate case, so the year 2000 level of employment was chosen for the period 2000 to 2025. Fisheries were being influenced by active replacement of foreign bottomfishing effort in the year 2000. This process was assumed to continue with a further ten percent replacement between 2000 and 2025. Food manufactur- ing employment due to this part of the fishing industry also was assumed to increase by ten percent. Lumber and wood products may be using most of their available timber lands by 2000. Consequently, employment in this sector was assumed to stabilize by the year 2000. In contrast, it is likely that the larger population base may begin to give rise to import substitution and some miscellaneous manufacturing other than petrochemicals. This portion of Other Manufacturing was projected to increase by 50 percent after the turn of the century. Total basic sector employment in Anchorage increases 8,400-plus jobs after the turn of the century in the intermediate case, about 27.5 percent. In Other South- ‘central, it grows 7,900 jobs, or about 33.7 percent. This compares with increases for Anchorage of 4,100 jobs and Other Southcentral of 5,000 jobs in the low case and 15,200 and 24,200 jobs, respectively, in the high case for the period 2000 to 2025. The nonbasic/basic employment ratio was projected separately for Anchorage and the rest of Southcentral. In Other Southcentral, the nonbasic/basic ratio was assumed to continue to trend in the direction of the "current" (1975) United States value of about 1.55, which it AD-12 reaches in 2025. In the high case, this value for the ratio is reached much sooner--the year 2000--while in the low case, it only reaches about 1.38 (about twice its current level) in the year 2000, where it remains. This puts the intermediate case about halfway between the high and low case for support sector growth after the turn of the century. In Anchor- age, the support sector was divided into "statewide" and "local-serving" components. The former was assumed to grow at the same rate as the Anchorage basic sector, except local government. The local-serving component was set equal to the statewide nonbasic/basic ratio times the basic sector employment in Anchorage. The reason for the division was that part of the employment in the Anchorage support sector, especially in finance and transportation, provides many of the same headquarters functions as the basic sector employment in Anchorage. ‘Consequently, ’ one would expect it to grow at about the rate of the basic sector in Anchorage, except for local government, which has an obviously local function in spite of being basic. Civilian, non-Native population not engaged in major construction projects was estimated using year 2000 population to employment ratios, allocated proportionately to subregions using year 2000 proportions. Any other assumption than proportionality was judged too difficult to defend. To this was added construction employment on major projects, Native population, and military. AD-13 INTERMEDIATE CASE PROJECTION RESULTS FOR SOUTHCENTRAL ALASKA 1975-2025 Growth to 2000 In the intermediate case, the economy of Southcentral Alaska more than doubles in size before the year 2000. The rapid rate of growth in this case puts total employment at 252.1 thousand by the year 2000, com- pared with 198.2 thousand in the low case and 331.5 thousand in the high case. This is about 25 thousand closer to low case than to the high. The principal reason is, of course, that many of the "best guess" or "most likely" assumptions were shaded toward the conservative end of the range of possibilities outlined in the main body of the report. When it came to what the task force actually thought was the likeliest outcome of a large group of possible scenarios of varying probabilities, the task force was inclined to be conservative and to discount heavily the more optimistic of their opinions. Output The Southcentral Alaska economy's gross output increased to 3.4 times its 1975 level between 1975 and 2000 in the intermediate case. This was about 29 percent more than the low case agd about 25 percent less than the high case. Table AD.1 reports the 1972 constant dollar industrial output for Anchorage and the rest of Southcentral. Real output is dominated in the 1980s, as it is in the other two cases, by the impact of several major construction projects. The importance of oil and gas is shown by the relatively low gross output in Other Southcentral in the 1990s. Fisheries development, government growth, and ongoing oil and timber production keep output from falling as far as in the low case, but they are unable to match the relatively lucrative oil and gas industry. Non-oil and construction output of the Other Southcentral economy grows at an average rate of 4.9 percent during the period 1975 to 2000, reaching $961 million (1972 dollars) in 2000. Anchorage non-oil output grows at a slower rate of 3.9 percent per year, reaching $3.7 billion in the year 2000. Year 1975 80 85 90 95 2000 AD-14 Table AD.1 Growth of Constant Dollar (Real) Output: Anchorage, Other Southcentral, and Southcentral Alaska, 1975-2000 (Millions of 1972 Dollars) Intermediate Development: Other Anchorage Southcentral $1,281.6 $ 556.7 1,722.4 2,664.8 1,979.9 . 3,062.5 2,382.4 1,885.4 3,034.4 2,006.3 4,052.9 2,219.3 Southcentral $1,838.3 4,387.2 5,042.4 4,267.8 5,040.7 6327252 AD-15 Employment Civilian employment is projected to rise quite rapidly overall, though not nearly as fast as in the high case. Table AD.2 shows total employment for the intermediate case. As can be seen from the table, total employment increases some 182 percent, which is considerably more than the 121 percent increase in the low case, but which falls far short. of the 271 percent increase in the high case. There are several causal factors which contribute to the difference. Since a less elaborate Alpetco project was assumed for this case than the high case, and since oil exploration in the Western and Northern Gulf of Alaska proves unsuc- cessful, the amount of oil-related development is much lower. This tends to depress the rate of increase. In addition, the smaller capital move and the slower rate of increase in fisheries also tend to keep total employment increases below those in the high case. On the other hand, there is an oil refinery built, the capital does move, and there is some replacement of the foreign bottomfish effort; and these combine to make the increase about 50 percent larger than in the low case. Income As in the other two cases, an important impact of economic growth on individuals is the effect on their incomes. Table AD.3 shows how per capita income earned in Anchorage and the rest of Southcentral is affected by the intermediate case. As in the other cases, the model does not give a projection of residence-adjusted income; therefore, the total earned income shown in the table may not capture the effects on income of the resident population caused by the fact that’ some workers may be com- muters or out-of-state workers. The table indicates that real incomes plus transfers received increase some 195 percent over the 25-year period, which compares to 298 percent in the high case and 135 percent in the low case. The increase in real per capita income in the inter- mediate case averages 0.9 percent per year, close to the low end of the range established by the high and low cases (1.1 percent and 0.8 percent, AD-16 Table AD.2 Civilian Employment in Anchorage, Other Southcentral, And Southcentral Alaska, 1975-2000 (Number of Persons) Intermediate Development: Year Anchorage Lr aaa Southcentral 1975 69,645 19,753 89,398 80 86,689 24,819 111,508 85 97,516 30,605 128,121 90 118,535 34,803 153,338 95 148 ,430 42,025 190,455 2000 197,178 54,944 252,122 AD-17 Table AD.3 Real Wage and Salary and Proprietor Income Earned Plus Transfers, and Per Capita Income: Anchorage, Other Southcentral, and Southcentral Alaska, 1975-2000 (1967 Dollars) Intermediate Development: TOTAL INCOME (10°) Year Anchorage Meee Southcentral 1975 $ 962.4 $ 299.3 $1,261.7 80 Ltd2 63 315.3 1,427.4 85 1,313.8 430.6 1,744.4 90 1,641.2 495.4 2,136.6 95 2,116.3 625.6 2,741.9 2000 2,871.1 851.8 3,722.9 PER CAPITA INCOME Year Anchorage HAs Southcentral 1975 $5,413 $5,789 $5,498 80 5,427 6,112 5,563 85 5,664 6,614 5,872 90 5,946 6,576 6,081 95 6,333 6,914 6,457 2000 6,755 7,380 6,888 AD-18 respectively). In the intermediate case, the only period in which real per capita income does not increase is the period 1985 to 1990 (in Other Southcentral). This is because of a decline in the number of high- paying oil and gas and construction jobs related to oil field develop- ment between those years. Population The growth in the Southcentral regional economy causes net in- migration to Southcentral Alaska, which in turn results in population increases. Table AD.4 shows the growth of the population of Anchorage and the balance of Southcentral in the intermediate development case. ‘As can be seen in the table, Anchorage shows a relatively rapid rate of growth--3.6 percent, compared to 4.1 percent in the high case and 2.8 percent in the low case. Other Southcentral, which benefits from the Alpetco project, limited capital move, some bottomfish development, and forest products industry development in the intermediate case, grows quite a bit faster than in the low case: 3.3 percent, compared with 1.2 percent. However, the limited nature of this development and the lack of success in Gulf of Alaska oil exploration keep the rate of in- crease well below the 5.5 percent in the high case. Overall, the rate of increase of Southcentral population shown in the intermediate case is 3.5 percent--halfway between the high and low rates. Distribution of Growth Among Industries Table AD.5 shows the distribution of growth among four groups of industries for the intermediate case. The "nonrenewable resource" basic industries (mining, exogenous construction, exogenous transportation, "other" manufacturing) grow rapidly until public utilities, services, and the middle 1980s, then tail off until the end of the period. The pattern is similar to the high case, but not so pronounced. The "renewable resource" basic industries (agriculture-forestry-fisheries, food manu- facturing, lumber and wood products, and pulp and paper) do not grow as es a eet AD-19 Table AD.4 Population Growth: Southcentral Region, 1975-2000 (Thousands of Persons) Intermediate Development: Year Anchorage map eneeibedd Southcentral 1975 177.8 51.7 229.5 80 205.2 54.9 260.1 85 232.0 64.5 296.5 90 276.0 75.2 351.2 95 334.2 90.4 424.6 2000 425.0 115.4 540.4 Average Annual Rate of Growth 3.6% 3.3% 3.5% 1975-2000 AD-20 Table AD.5 Projected Civilian Employment Growth by Industry Group, Southcentral Alaska, 1975-2000 (Thousands of Persons) Intermediate Development: Nonrenewable Renewable Support Year Resources Resources Government Sector Total 1975 6.117 4.997 24.348 53.936 89.398 80 7.208 5.327 26.615 61.948 101.098 85 6.865 5.912 29.102 86.360 128.239 90 5324. 6.894 32.095 109.150 153.463 95 4.997 8.561 34.659 142.358 190.575 2000 4.997 11.725 37.490 198.030 252.242 AD-21 fast as in the high case; but, in contrast to the low case, which shows almost no employment growth in this sector, intermediate case renewable resource industry employment grows by 123 percent by the year 2000. Government growth also lies in-between the two previous cases. Since state and local government grows somewhat faster than in the low case because of the state capital move and lack of a ceiling on gov- ernment employment, total government grows 80 percent more than the low case. The growth is not as great as in the high case because the state capital does not move, fewer local government personnel are hired (partly due to lower population), and federal government civilian employment growth is assumed to be very conservative. Reflecting the growth in the basic sector industries, the support sector grows at a rate which lies about midway between the rates in the high case and the low case. In Anchorage, the underlying development of the Alaska economy keeps support sector growth at about the level one would expect: between 1975 and 2000, the support sector grows 323 per- cent, compared to 407 percent in the high case and 259 percent in the low. Although Other Southcentral is more dependent upon local develop- ments than Anchorage, the total growth in the support sector in this part of the region grows 318 percent, compared to 129 percent in the low case and 696 percent in the high. Subregional Economic and Population Growth, 1975 to 2000, Intermediate Case Table AD.6 summarizes the population and civilian employment growth _at the subregional level for the period 1975 to 2000. The rates of growth during the five-year subperiods were quite variable, highly dependent upon which economic developments were occurring at the time. For example, Other Cook Inlet is currently undergoing very rapid growth Population: 1975-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 1975-2000 Average Annual Growth in Population and AD-22 Table AD.6 Civilian Employment’, by Subregion, 1975-2000 Intermediate Development: Civilian Employment: 1975-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 1975-2000 Other Gulf of Kodiak- Anchorage Cook Inlet Alaska Shelikof Total 2.9% 2.7% -3.1% 1.1% 2.5% 3.0% 3.4% -0.2% 5.5% 3.0% 4.4% 4.3% 4.1% 4.8% 4.4% 3.6% 3.6% 0.8% 4.3% 3.5% 2.6% 11.1% -1.8% 2.1% 3.3% 4.1% 3.8% 0.3% 2.6% 3.8% 5.2% 4.7% 3.5% 5.4% 5.1% 4.2% 5.6% 1.1% 3.6% 4.2% AD-23 as the support sector employment in the Matanuska-Susitna Boroughs and the Kenai Peninsula deepens, drawing many residents into the year-round labor force. The Gulf of Alaska region shows a drop in both employment and population between 1975 and 1980 because the building of the Alpetco project is not expected to employ as many people as the pipeline did at its peak. Subsequently, however, the deepening of the support sector and the provision of many new basic sector jobs in petrochemicals (the Alpecto refinery), lumber and wood products, and fishing cause this area's popu- lation to grow modestly over the period as a whole. The Kodiak-Shelikof region grows at a relatively fast clip during the 1980s, due to oil exploration, expansion of the bottomfishery, and the increasing relative size of the support sector. Anchorage grows at a steadily increasing rate over the period in response to the growth in the state as a whole, import substitution, and the municipality's continuing role as a trans- portation, governmental, trade, and financial center. Overall, the intermediate case shows population and employment growth somewhat nearer the rates in the low case than in the high case. Post-2000 Results, Intermediate Case The methodology used in the high case and low case was also extended to the intermediate case. That is, basic employment was estimated for each applicable industry for the years 2000 to 2025, the nonbasic/basic ratio was assumed to change in a specified manner, and the year 2000 population/employment ratio was applied to the estimate of total employ- 'ment. The post-2000 development was distributed proportionately across the subregions because, as before in the high and low case, results for the post-2000 ehonneay are not the result of analysis of individual sub- regions. The results for 1975 to 2025 are shown in Table AD.7. AD-24 Table AD.7 Southcentral Water Study Intermediate Case Projections (INTSC10) (Thousands) Other Gulf of .Kodiak- Anchorage Cook Inlet Alaska Shelikof Total Resident Population: 1975 177.8 31.2 41.7 8.8 229.5 ~ 80 7. 205.2 35.6 10.0 9.3 260.1 85 232.0 42.6 9.5 12.4 296.5 90 -; 276.0 49.5 9.8 15.9 351.2 95 334.2 59.3 11.8 19.3 424.6 2000 425.0 75.5 14.6 25.3 540.4 05 444.5 84.2 15.7 2 faede 5716. 10 465.1 90.8 16.9 29.3 602.1 15 486.5. 98.0 18.2 31.6 634.3 20 509.4 106.1 19.8 34.2 669.5 2025 534.2 115.1 21.4 37.2 707.9 Basic Sector Civilian Employment (1975 Wage and Salary Employment in Parentheses) : Non-Ag. Wage & Salary 1975 (23.239) (4.460) (3.779) (2.376) (33.854) Civilian 1975 23.239 4.901 4.134 3.188 35.462 80 24.611 7.401 3.635 3.458 39.105 85 25.683 8.427 3.369 4.282 41.761 90 27.203 9.438 3.296 4.251 44.188 95 28.879 10.379 3.707 5.132 48.097 2000 30.634 12.242 4.374 6.842 54.092 05 32.124 12.890 4.606 7.204 56.824 10 33.701 13.635 4.872 7.620 59.828 15 35.365 14.441 5.160 8.071 63.037 20 37.143 15.348 5.484 8.578 66.553 2025 39.069 16.372 5.850 9.150 70.441 AD-25 Intermediate Case Projections (continued) Other Gulf of Kodiak- Anchorage Cook Inlet Alaska Shelikof Total Non-Basic Sector Civilian Employment: 1975 46.406 4.285 1.819 1.426 53.936 80 54.418 8.153 1.812 1.663 66.046 85 71.833 10.124 2.189 2.214 86.360 90 91.332 13.147 2.307 2.364 109.150 ao 119.551 16.958 2.780 3.069 142.358 2000 166.544 23.581 3.499 4.406 198.030 05 174.586 25.584 3.796 4.780 208.746 10 182.996 27.864 4.134 5.206 220.200 is 191.774 30.381 4.508 5.677 232.340 20 200.989 33.194 4.925 6.202 245.310 2025 211.000 36.370 5.397 6.796 259.563 Total Civilian Employment (Excludes Self-Employed, Except Fishing and Agriculture, and Military): Non-Ag. Wage & Salary Employment 1975 (69.645) (8.745) (5.598) (3.802) (87.790) Total Civilian Employment 1975 69.645 9.186 5.953 4.614 89.398 80 79.029 15.554 5.447 5.121 105.151 85 97.516 18.551 5.558 6.496 128.121 90 118.535 22.585 5.603 6.615 153.338 95 148.430 27.337 6.487 8.201 190.455 2000 197.178 35.823 7.873 11.248 252.122 05 206.710 38.474 8.402 11.984 265.570 10 216.697 41.499 9.006 12.826 280.028 15 227.139 44.822 9.668 13.748 295.377 20 238.132 48.542 10.409 14.780 311.863 2025 250.069 52.742 11.247 15.946 330.004 AD-26 Sensitivity Test: Northwest Gas Pipeline As the work of the economics task force progressed, the members became aware that the initial assessments they had made concerning the characteristics of certain large-scale development may have been incor- rect. One example of this was the Alpetco project, which the task force initially assigned to the Kenai area. Subsequently, it was announced that Alpetco had chosen Valdez as its site, and the report had to be corrected for this fact. Another example of a large-scale project for which the outcome is highly questionable is the Northwest Alaska natural gas pipeline project. The task force originally included this project in all three scenarios, but it appears at this writing that the project may be significantly delayed or never built. Consequently, the task force felt it was im- portant to estimate the difference the lack of such a project might make to the Southcentral regional economy. A true sensitivity test is difficult to do in this case for two reasons: (1) the construction and operations activity directly involved with the project occurs outside the region, which causes the regional effects to be dependent on a few tenuous links between the state and regional models; and (2) it is im- possible to estimate what psychological impacts on other development the failure of such a large project would have. Here, it has been assumed that model structure correctly portrays the regional impacts and that there is no deterrence to other major projects because the Northwest pipeline is not built. Table AD.8 summarizes the results of the sensitivity test. While the impact is certainly noticeable, the Northwest pipeline is apparently not crucial to the Southcentral regional economy. For example, by the year 2000 it makes a difference of 1,100 jobs out of a total of 252 thou- sand, about 0.4 percent in the intermediate case. ‘Population is about ~ 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 AD-27 Table AD.8 Sensitivity of the Intermediate Case Southcentral Economy to the Elimination of the Northwest Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Civilian Real Output Employment Real Income Population (Millions of (Millions of 1972 Dollars) (Thousands) 1967 Dollars) (Thousands) 0 0 0 0 -13.8 -.514 -9.9 -4.5 -19.4 -.747 -14.2 -6.3 -22.1 -.740 -15.6 -6.6 -31.2 -1.079 22.6 -7.3 AD-28 7,300 lower than it otherwise would have been (probably including families of workers who commute to the line), which is a difference of 1.4 percent, taking the intermediate case as a base. While the difference would be somewhat larger or smaller with a larger or smaller economy, the sensi- tivity test reveals that the outcome is not critically dependent upon the natural gas pipeline project. APPENDIX A HISTORICAL DATA ON SOUTHCENTRAL ALASKA'S ECONOMY Anchorage: Agr.-Forestry~Fisheriles Mining Construction Manufacturing Food Lumber and Wood Pulp and Paper Other Trans.-Comm.-P.U, Transport Air Other Communications Public Urilities Trade Wholesale Retail Finance Services Hotel Personal “Business Medical Other Government Federal State/Local Total p = preliminary Source: Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska. Table .A.1, Gross Product, in Millions of 1958 Dollars Anchorage, Other Southcentral, Southcentral, and State of Alaska 1970 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975P 2 ol al ol el 1 2 +2 ol ol 1 16.8 23.7 37.2 53.4 63.6 80.3 77.3 65.6 57.6 47.7 79.9 25.5 23.0 22.1 19.8 25.2 27.9 31.1 33.3 31.9 45.3 54.0 8.6 9.9 8.3 9.7 9.5 11.1 . 22.3 13.2 14.7 15.0 18.6 2.9 4.5 2.7 3.8 2.5 3.1 3.2 3.4 4.4 3.7 5.9 ol ol +2 ol el «4 “5 4 5 7 1.3 el ol ol ol el el el +2 ol +2 +3 5.5 5.2 5.3 5.7 6.8 7.5 8.5 9.2 9.7 10.4 11.3 52.1 55.0 59.0 66.0 75.5 84.3 101.8 108.9 109.5 140.0 127.0 24.1 27.2 29.1 32.4 38.4 43.6 41.6 45.4 52.0 67.6 85.0 14.3 17.9 20.1 22.4 26.9 29.2 28.8 32.5 38.4 38.7 51.7 9.8 9.3 9.0 10.0 11.5 14.4 12.8 12.9 13.6 28.9 33.3 19.2 18.8 19.5 22.4 24.5 26.9 43.6 44.6 35.6 44.5 67.3 8.8 9.0 10.4 11.2 12.6 13.8 16.6 18.9 21.9 27.9 34.7 47.5 52.5 57.9 61.8 72.1 - 82.0 89.2 94.6 103.0 121.7 163.9 19.3 22,8 25.2 27.4 33.3 37.9 39.7 42.3 46.5 56.3 86.3 28.2 29.7 32.7 34.4 38.8 44.1 49.5 52.3 56.5 65.4 77.6 38.0 40.4 39.9 40.9 45.0 55.3 59.5 67.7 78.5 89.3 103.5 23.3 25.1 26.3 28.0 33.1 38.0 41.1 44.7 48.1 60.4 84,0 2.3 2.6 2.7 2.6 3.4 3.7 3.4 3.8 3.7 5.1 2.5 2.7 2.8 3.1 3.1 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.3 detail 6.0 6.2 6.3 6.4 7.9 8.4 8.5 8.1 8.6 13.5 not 4.7 5.1 5.3 5.8 6.9 7.7 8.7 10.3 11.4 12.5 available 7.8 8.5 9,2 10.1 11.8 14.8 17.0 18.9 20.7 26.0 131.3 132.6 134.4 135.9 133.7 134.7 141.9 141.9 146.0 166.3 155.3 116.3 116.5 117.0 117.2 112.4 112.3 116.5 112.9 115.2 132.2 118.6 15.0 16.1 17.4 18.7 21.3 22.4 25.4 29.0 30.8 34.1 36.7 343.3 362.3 385.2 415.6 457.8 513.7 554.4 570. 589. 685.9 846.5 I-V 1975? Table A.1. (continued) Other Southcentral: A-2 DADNHOANODNDADANNNHNAMNOS NAERTON NNONNASTHR STOO AON N detail AYTONOCONNGCSCONOMHMONNAON Snasond ASddadsadccad AQ AN Aadia Ary AINNeodQquqwatatonns ravss Sadan sidered a Anon oaoNnn not available ZTOWUMHAN ANNADAYH AEALLAOAHRONM MACNN HMOAHN Novos AgQudddrgachad. Ag aa a NAC TQBOOOMANN MAOH HORN A NAaonrmnad AGVGAT “CSaGnHH HAN daa 4 a N YQINamMondssonomomoana AANDS ddsag wadsnin doaqaa : AVTOTNOCONNOTOVOHHROAN agons AGN AK Kone SH Nada a TANWWNCMNHONCHOYTONNDAN CHOON NASH SoNCHH dtodd AIMANNNOHONHONONNHARMRA Sera onda wzwoeodsesrs aed an a o dl H Z 3 2 a on : Qe Ral ou 3 gu od =o ° ° hie ge o> ¢ H ec e su gu a vw Ont av ue wOoD a ad a caw ec 2 Oo Od 8 a vo vo wo oOaxHogU a a J yu ov wo davon on QH oO 2° pyvvoadgi <O8d AGgYvUYUDSH me ONS OBS Eo evuvunvwe 1 evruoaasvoaow Sse fcven og sa DAM ANMORH ONVUVsHM AG >mraA weed 8 9 Gh Wi oO Me Me aA oO RO H & an “nanonn ddddycd Mdoerozn iddgeog AqAyLeAaNnS soe ee danas Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska. Business Medical Other State/Local Total Government Federal p = preliminary Source: Table A.1. (continued) 1965 196) 967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 Southcentral Total: Agr.-Forestry-Fisheries a3.2 16.5 10.0 13.5 12.5 15.6 13.1 12.4 Mining 35.1 66.8 160.8 267.2 291.8 304.5 303.3 245.3 Construction 32.6 31.5. 32.5 31.9 33.0 32.5 38.0 39.2 Manufacturing 22.8 28.7 23.9 28.4 - 23.0 29.5 30.9 33.1 Food 16.2 22.3 17.1 20.7 12.9 17.9 18.0 19.8 Lumber and Wood 3 3 4 4 6 1.0 1.4 +9 Pulp and Paper ° al ol el el «1 ol el +2 Other 6.2 6.0 6.3 7.2 9.4 10.5 11.4 12.2 Trans.-Comm.-P.U. 60.7 64.5 72.2 79.1 89.1 98.6 117.7 127,9 Transport 27.6 31.3 36.3 38.8 45.3 49.5 46.6 50.5 Air 15.8 19.5 21.9 24.8 29.5 31.4 30.5 34.4 Other 11.8 11.8 14.4 14.0. 15.8 18.1 16.1 16.1 Communications 19.7 19.4 20.1 23.1 25.2 29.2 47.5 50.5 Public Utilities 13.4 13.8 15.8 17.2 18.6 19.9 23.6 26.9 Trade 53.8 60.9 66.5 71.1 82.9 92.6 99.5 105.6 Wholesale 20.8 25.2 - 27.3 30.4 36.9 41.0 42,2 45.2 Retail 33.0 35.7 39.2 40.7 46.0 51.6 57.3 60,4 Finance 42.7 45.6 44.6 45.9 50.4 60.9 65.1 73.5 Services 27.6 30.3 31.9 33.9 38.8 43.7 °47.0 51.0 Hotel 3.0 3.4 3.5 3.3 4.0 4.4 4.5 5.2 Personal ‘ 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.3 3.3 3.6 3.7 3.9 Business 6.9 7.5 7.8 8.0 9.1 9.3 9.2 8.6 Medical 5.6 6.2 6.6 7.1 8.3 9.4 10.4 12.1 Other 9.5 10.3 11.0 . 12.2 14.1 17.0 19.2 21.2 Government 153.9 153.0 . 156.1 156.4 156.1 157. 164.1 159.7 Federal 133.4 130.5 132.0 130.7 127.2 126.1 128.6 119.8 State/Local 20.5 22.5 24.1 25.7 28.9 31.1 35.5 39.9 Total 440.3 » 497.8 598.5 727. 777.6 835.1 878.7 847.7 Pp = preliminary Source: Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska. fre) w > w w& OPWKDORPODDWONWEER ER OUDBHPHOWOWS iS) w& 164.1 122.0 42.1 884.0 oT nee ao + o PUORFUYNUONW 1975? 13.0 267.7 81.5 53.4 34.0 4.0 3 15.1 229.3 101.6 54.5 47.1 78.5 49.2 185.4 93.5 91.9 113.7 94.0 detail not available 176.2 126.9 49.3 1214.2 > Table A.1. (continued) 1965 1966 967 1968 State of Alaska: Agr.-Forestry-Fisheries 31.9 38.0 20.9 30.4 Mining 50.4 82.8 180.8 298.0 Construction 52.4 47.2 48.4 48.5 Manufacturing 82.4 92.0 79.5 94.3 Food 41.3 51.8 37.4 50.5 Lumber and Wood 8.8 10.6 13.9 13.8 Pulp and Paper 23.5. 21.1 19.5 19.9 Other 8.8 8.5 8.7 10.1 Trans.-Comm.-P.U. 135.3 145.3 152.1 161.7 Transport 56.3 61.1 68.3 72.8 Air 32.1 37.0 41.8 46.4 Other 24,2 24.1 26.5 26.4 Communications 57.1 61.4 58.5 61.0 Public Utilities 21.9 22.8 25.3 27.9 Trade 84.6 93.5 102.0 110.5 Wholesale 29.2 34,2 37.8 41.4 Retail 55.4 59.3 64.2 69.1 Finance 62.9 67.0 66.4 68.6 Services 45.7 + 48.0 52,2 55.9 Hotel 5.3 6.0 6.3 6.3 Personal 4.1 4.5 4.6 5.0 Business 10.5 10.6 11.6 13.1 Medical 10.0 10.4 10.8 11.3 Other 15.8 16.5 18.9 20.2 Government 284.2 290.6 297.5 293.9 Federal 238.2 240.1 243.6 236.8 State/Local 46.0 50.5 53.9 57.1 Total 829.8 904.4 999.8 1161.8 Pp = preliminary Source: Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska. 1969 23.6 301.9 107.6 118.8- 46.1 71. 299, 125. 174, 170. 153. NSEOUVUVnLUCHON detail not available 318.7 212.9 105.8 2123.4 Table A.2. Non-Agricultural Wage and Salary Employment by Industry Study Subregion, Southcentral Alaska, and State (Number of Persons) Cook Inlet Subregion: 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 Agr.-Forestry-Fisheries 39 30 38 57 85 87 103 180 233 235 250 Mining | 694 1,007 1,591 1,913 1,843 1,626 1,453 1,343 1,346 1,556 2,115 Contract Construction 3,509 3,393 3,687 3,738 3,963 3,994 4,477 4,803 4,631 6,479 7,876 Manufacturing 1,211 1,183 1,079 1,218 1,499 1,710 1,841 1,965 2,159 2,384 2,774 Food 521 528 381 445 470 583 560 639 789 863 983 Lumber and Wood * * * * _ * * * * * * Pulp and Paper * * * * * * * * * * * Other 649 624 651 728 944 1,021 1,119 1,212 1,242 1,282 1,392 Trans.-Comm.-P.U. 2,877 2,923 3,257 3,489 3,928 4,350 5,019 . 4,960 5,120 6,213 8,203 Transport 1,844 1,928 2,234 2,355 2,689 3,065 3,039 3,050 3,351 4,293 5,973 Air 799 887 1,018 1,172 1,388 1,537 1,495 1,670 1,873 2,173 2,685 Other 1,045 1,041 1,216 1,183 1,292 1,528 1,544 1,380 1,478 2,120 3,287 Communications 692 654 654 743 824 836 1,494 1,380 1,192 1,304 1,575 Public Utilities 341 341 369 391 415 449 486 530 571 616 66C Trade 5,746 6,259 6,868 7,216 8,335 9,410 10,126 10,805 11,539 13,299 16,286 Wholesale 1,303 1,547 1,671 1,761 2,121 2,349 2,398 2,555 2,579 3,008 4,326 Retail 4,443 4,712 5,197 5,455 6,214 7,061 7,728 8,250 8,960 10,291 11,959 Finance 1,402 1,477 1,468 1,571 1,736 2,109 2,201 2,544 2,936 3,302 3,821 Services 4,180 4,580 4,921 5,331 6,205 7,049 7,677 8,516 9,287 11,215 14,533 Hotel 519 570 601 599 766 836 812 1,005 979 1,323 1,531 Personal 417 ~ 450 464 506 517 554 576 582 602 “600 652 Business 868 975 1,041 1,090 1,244 1,301 1,285 1,204 1,328 1,852 3,938 Medical 776 844 901 1,019 1,186 1,376 1,682 1,986 2,267 2,553 2,550 Other : 1,600 1,741 1,914 2,117 2,493 2,982 3,322 3,739 4,109 4,887 5,862 Federal Government 9,691 9,665 9,774 9,521 9,162 9,776 9,792 9,672 9,778 10,158 10,490 State Government 1,989 2,177 2,242 2,367 2,546 2,872 3,619 4,119 4,306 4,646 4,796 Local Government 2,796 3,067 3,388 3,652 4,276 4,424 4,783 5,422 5,821 6,431 7,239 Total 34,134 35,761 38,317 40,073 43,578 = 47,407 51,091 54,329 57,156 65,918 78 ,389 *Information suppressed to avoid disclosure of individual firm data. Source: Estimated from Alaska Department of Labor Research and Analysis Section Worksheets. ‘ Table A.2. (continued) Gulf of Alaska Subregion: Agr.-Forestry-Fisheries Mining Contract Construction Manufacturing Food Lumber and Wood Pulp and Paper Other Trans.-Comm.-P.U. Transport Air : Other Communications Public Utilities Trade Wholesale Retail Finance Services Hotel Personal Business Medical Other Federal Government State Government Local Government Total 1965 13 186 138 130 * 138 114 39 75 * * 136° 16 120 16 129 40 * * * 59 138 327 112 1,355 147 24 123 18 135 31 * * * 69 126 350 118 1,453 1967, 150 144 139 * * * 109 80 19 61 * * 149 25 124 20 139 37 * * * 67 103 382 113 1,343 1968 53 165 159 * * * 94 67 23 44 * * 139 27 122 18 139 27 * * * 77 110 410 85 1,284 *Information suppressed to avoid disclosure of individual firm data. 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 0 0 2 24 50 37 58 * * * * * * * 74 57 278 108 91 427 2,555 220 212 130 193 315 224 227 213 208 125 183 303 214 217 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * x * * * 90 97 98 121 167 221 473 67 74 70 92 106 155 392 23 29 16 19 23 29 35 44 45 54 73 83 126 357 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 158 165 149 138 159 230 495 48 52 35 19 20 44 62 120 113 114 119 139 186 433 18 23 26 30 39 75 76 151 171 183 182 178 286 673 30 43 72 76 80 155 198 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 86 89 89 90 58 88 124 114 103 97 84 84 80 99 419 482 520 500 508 531 j 854 107 134 171 190 204 252 1,467 1,533 1,742 1,643 1,858 2,423 5,596 e o Table A.2. (continued) Kodiak-Shelikof Subregion: 965 196 967 968 1969 1970 971 1972. 197 1974 1975 Agr.-Forestry-Fisheries 0 13 13 16 22 26 18 189 252 282 307 Mining * * * * * * * * * * * Contract Construction 312 291 191 - 166 84 46 61 125 131 206 269 Manufacturing 630 831 1,014 811 664 743 768 866 1,421 1,274 1,260 Food 618 801 977 7179 637 701 738 842 1,383 1,220 1,134 Lumber and Wood * * * * * * * * * * * Pulp and Paper * * * * * * * * * * * Other * * * * * * * * * * * Trans.-Comm.-P.U. 142 161 226 227 236 216 267 228 223 264 219 Transport 117 126 192 196 209 181 197 121 168 200 1690 Air - 37 43 sl 57 62 53 47 51 59 75 87 Other 80 83 141 139 147, 128 150 70 109 125 73 Communications * * . * * * * * * * * * Public Utilities * * * * * * * * * * * Trade 211 324 331 319 326 346 343 355 394 429 484 Wholesale 10 10 13 11 12 12 12 11 9 10 33 Retail 201 314 318 308 314 334 331 344 385 420 451 Finance 36 40 43 47 5L 59 64 60 64 78 91 Services 196 215 193 166 168 191 241 232 268 302 387 Hotel 39 50 46 29 28 30 55 50 52 63 83 Personal * * * * * * * * * * ® Business * * * * * * * & * * * “Medical 19 27 35 36 44 63 66. 76 140 95 85 Other 96 107 99 94 92 91 112 95 63 134 189 Federal Government 541 541 539 504 449 387 351 272 263 244 269 State Government 77 94 lll 140 143 167 160 190 178 168 199 Local Government 165 188 212 249 243 284 339 360 382 394 401 Total 2,310 2,710 2,876 2,650 2,395 2,469 2,619 2,878 3,576 3,641 3,802 *Information suppressed to avoid disclosure of individual firm data. Table A.2. (continued) Southcentral Alaska: Agr.-Forestry-Fisheries Mining Contract Construction Manufacturing Food Lumber and Wood Pulp and Paper Other Trans.-Comm.=-P.U. Transport Air Other Communications Public Utilities Trade Wholesale Retail Finance Services Hotel Personal Business Medical Other Federal Government State Government Local Government Total 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 52 67 52 74 107 113 123 394 535 554 615 716 1,038 1,629 1,988 1,968 1,720 1,549 1,417 1,409 1,616 2,201 4,007 3,922 4,029 3,957 4,121 4,097 4,816 5,036 4,853 7,113 10,700 1,979 2,173 2,237 2,195 2,383 2,665 2,739 3,024 3,895 3,878 4,201 1,268 1,482 1,497 1,383 1,320 1,492 1,422 1,664 2,475 2,297 2,334 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 664 655 690 761 975 1,055 1,150 1,242 1,290 1,326 1,427 3,157 3,194 3,592 3,810 4,254 4,664 5,384 5,308 5,510 6,698 8,900 2,076 2,137 2,506 2,618 2,965 3,320 3,306 3,263 3,625 4,646 6,525 875 954 1,088 1,252 1,473 1,619 1,558 1,740 1,955 2,277 2,807 1,201 1,183 1,419 1,367 1,483 1,701 1,748 1,523 1,670 2,371 3,717 700 666 662 749 828 848 1,542 1,462 1,253 -1,376 1,645 382 391 423 443 462 496 536 584 633 674 730 6,093 6,730 7,349 7,674 8,819 9,920 10,618 11,298 12,092 13,958 17,265 1,328 1,581 1,709 1,799 2,181 2,413 2,445 - 3,674 2,608 3,062 4,421 4,765 5,149 5,639 5,885 6,648 7,508 8,173 8,713 9,484 10,897 12,843 1,454 1,535 1,531 1,636 1,805 2,191 2,291 2,634 3,039 3,456 3,988 4,505 4,930 5,254 5,636 6,524 7,410 8,101 8,930 9,733 11,803 15,573 598 651 684 655 824 909 939 1,131 1,111 1,541 1,812 427 464 475 515 523 563 585 595 617 612 673 906 999 1,048 1,092 1,245 1,302 1,288 1,207 1,329 1,858 4,236 820 900 967 970 1,263 1,475 1,766 2,074 2,444 2,683 2,677 1,755 1,917 2,080 2,288 2,671 3,162 3,523 3,924 4,230 5,109 6,175 10,370 10,332 10,416 10,136 9,725 10,266 10,240 10,028 10,125 10,482 10,858 2,393 ' 2,621 2,736 2,917 3,109 3,521 4,299 4,809 4,993 5,345 13,490 3,073 3,373 3,713 3,986 4,626 4,842 5,293 5,972 6,407 7,077 id 37,799 39,915 42,536 44,008 47,440 51,409 55,452 58,850 62,590 71,983 87,789 *Information suppressed to avoid disclosure of individual firm data, Individual entries may not add to total because of rounding errors. Table A.2. (continued) State of Alaska: 1965 1966 1967 1968 2969 1970 1971 2972 1973 1974 1975 Agr.-Forestry-Fisheries 145 166 154 146 174 193 226 835 1,040 1,031 1,013 Mining 1,088 1,372 1,967 2,455 3,494 2,995 2,431 2,113 1,966 2,977 3,790 Contract Construction 6,455 5,864 5,991 5,998 6,653 6,894 7,445 7,893 7,837 14,068 25,876 Manufacturing 6,274 6,634 6,621 6,924 7,025 7,839 7,780 8,060 9,349 9,612 9,639 Food 3,007 3,373 3,090 3,313 3,191 3,741 3,612 3,745 4,576 4,293 4,320 Lumber and Wood 1,080 1,266 1,616 1,570 1,581 1,743 1,754 1,799 2,177 2,395 2,176 Pulp and Paper 1,228 1,060 957 947 967 1,016 1,010 1,013 1,022 1,244 1,202 Other 959 933 958 1,093 1,283 1,339 1,408 — 1,505 1,574 1,681 1,941 Trans.-Comn.-P,.U. 7,267 7,279 7,483 7,811 8,807 9,100 9,808 9,993 10,403 12,380 16,473 Transport 4,711 _ 4,709 5,062 5,309 6,272 6,428 6,116 6,365 6,768 8,534 11,943 Air 1,923 1,986 2,230 2,492 3,132 3,071 2,761 3,012 3,266 3,975 4,782 Other 2,789 2,724 2,832 2,817 3,142 3,356 3,354 3,354 3,501 4,557 7,16) Communications 1,897 1,905 1,725 1,764 1,771 1,857 2,779 2,693 2,631 2,809 3,409 Public Utilities 659 665 696 740 763 819 913 935 1,004 1,039. 1,121 Trade 9,950 10,806 11,754 12,519 13,946 15,365 16,148 17,107 18,337 21,135 26,209 Wholesale 1,853 2,140 2,380 2,554 2,923 3,245 3,224 3,347 3,405 4,049 5,909 Retail 8,096 8,666 9,374 9,965 11,024 12,121 12,924 13,760 14,932 17,086 20, 300 Finance 2,171 2,285 2,315 2,483 2,652 3,098 3,245 3,713 4,243 4,894 6,029 Services 7,513 7,890 8,692 9,289 10,486 11,435 12,559 14,034 15,182 18,313 25,136 Hotel 1,030 1,131 1,222 1,216 1, 366 1,448 1,639 1,849 1,884 2,513 3,158 Personal 679 712 739 600 825 852 878 905 869 868 922 Business 1,397 1,415 1,564 1,756 2,128 1,999 2,070 2,061 2,070 2,887 7,318 Medical 1,453 1,517 1,603 1,717 1,925 2,173 2,572 3,005 3,368 3,828 4,330 Other 2,954 3,116 — 3,564 3,801 4,245 4,963 5,402 6,218 6,991 8,218 9,408 Federal Government 17,429 - 17,509 17,422. 16,860 16,453 17,112 17,269 17,234 17,166 18,016 18,288 State Government 6,994 7,677 8,105 8,684 9,329 10,363 11,730 13,277 13,757 14,164 14,678 Local Government 5,240 5,719 6,284 6,640 7,548 8,078 8,956 9,987 10,575 11,591 14,176 Total 70,527 73,193 76,785 79,802 86,563 92,465 97,585 104,244 109,852 128,177 161, 308 Cook Inlet Subregion Weges and Salaries Personal Income Real Income (1967 $) Gulf of Alaska Subregion Wages and Salaries Personal Income Real Income (1967 $) Kodiak-Shelikof Subregion Wages and Salaries Personal Income Real Income (1967 $) Southcentral Region Wages and Salaries Personal Income Real Income (1967 $) State Wages and Salaries Personal Income Real Income (1967 $) 1965 372,045 416,618 442,482 9,341 13,658 14,499 25,239 30,689 32,579 406,625 461,165 489,559 759,000 858,000 910,828 1966 399,733 448,679 448,679 10,398 15,169 15,169 26,663 32,868 32,868 436,794 496,716 496,716 811,000 926,000 926,000 Table A.3. Wages and Salaries by Place of Work and Personal Income by Place of Residence, 1965-1975 967 462, 881 522,634 522,634 11,930 16,214 16,214 27,533 33,724 33,724 502, 344 572, 572 572,572 891,000 1,017,000 1,017,000 (Thousands of Dollars) 196 511,502 570,397 555,943 13,343 17,646 17,199 29,877 36,053 35,193 554,722 624,096 608, 281 978,000 1,110, 000 1,081,871 1969 597,538 668,400 631,161 11,051 18, 459 17,431 32,675 39,870 37,649 641, 264 726,729 686,241 1,110,000 1,244,000 1,174,693 197 642,069 731, 366 667,304 . 16, 336 23,382 21,334 36,427 45,731 41,725 694,832 800,479 730, 364 1,243,000 1,410,000 1,286,496 1971 709,675 809, 234 716,771 18,889 25,915 22,954 39,938 49,905 44,203 768, 502 885,054 783,927 1,360,000 1,563,000 1,384,410, Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System. 1972 777,076 891, 765 769,426 19,520 26,444 22,816 33,094 43,452 37,491 829,690 961,661 829,733 1,477,000 1,698,000 1,465,056 August 1977 printouts, 1973 828,956 991,585 820,849 21,433 31,448 26,033 42,210 57,936 47,960 892,599 1,080,969 894,842 1,621,000 2,006,000 1,660,596 1974 1,055,883 1,263,057 943,284 40,656 40,696 30,393 49,549 65,717 49,079 1,146,088 1,369,470 1,022,756 2,167,000 2,429,000 1,814,040 ee Ko ~ vy 1,447,492 1,720,195 1,129,479 185,903 101,065 66,359 59,971 77,593 50,888 1,693, 366 1,898, 764 1, 246, 726 3,449, G00 3,443, 000 2,260,670 OI-v Table A,4. Estimated July 1 Resident Population, Study Subregions Southcentral Alaska and State, 1965-1975 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970" 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 Cook Inlet Subregion Anchorage 102,337 105,925 107,817 111,6007 114,150 126,333 134,971 143,255 149,440 153,112 177,817 Kenai-Cook Inlet 8,446 9,020 9,400 11,300 13,550 14,250 14,204 13,830 13,808 13,962 15,621 Matanuska~Susitna 6,125 6,481 6,379 6,420 7,000 6,509 7,293 8,310 8,586 9,787 12,462 Seward 2,213 2,239 2,780 2,860 2,700 2,336 2,578 2,370 2,446 2,683 3,149 Total 119,121 123,665 126,376 132,180 137,400 149,428 159,046 167,765 174,280 179,544 209 ,049 Gulf of Alaska Subregion Cordova-McCarthy 1,991 1,956 2,088 2,200 2,240 1,857 1,930 1,862 1,982 1,960 2,003 Valdez-Chitina-Whittier 2,396 2,449 2,281 2,200 2,300 3,098 2,932 3,464 3,568 3,833 9,639 Total 4,387 4,405 4,369 4,400 4,540 4,955 4,862 5,326 5,550 5,793 11,642 Kodiak-Shelikof Subregion Kodiak 9,064 8,479 9,478 9,520 9,870 9,409 9,665 8,645 8,868 9,232 8,801 Southcentral Alaska Total 132,572 136,549 140,223 146,100 151,810 163,792 173,573 181,736 188,698 194,569 229,492 State Total ; 265,192 271,505 277,906 284,880 294,560 302,361 311,070 - 322,115 330,365 351,159 404 634 lapril 1970 Census of Population. Data may be lower than July 1 partially due to seasonality of employment, especially in fishing. ~ 2special Census taken in October 1968 tabulated 113,522. i Source: State of Alaska Department of Labor Research and Analysis Section, Population Estimates by Census Division. TI-V 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 - October Index cited Table A.5. Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage and Clerical Worker All Items 94.2 100.0 100.0 102.6 105.9 109.6 112.9 115.9 120.8 133.9 152.3 Families of Two or More Persons Anchorage, Alaska - All Items, Groups, and Subgroups (October 1967 = 100) Food 96.8 100.0 100.0 101.3 104.7 107.2 109.2 113.1 124.4 145.7 167.6 Housing 92.2 96.8 100.0 103.2 107.1 110.5 113.8 117.3 120.4 131.5 152.7 1969--1975 - Average Annual Index cited Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, D.C. Apparel and Health. and Upkeep Transportation Recreation 95.0 96.1 94.5 100.7 97.2 97.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 103.4 100.5 103.5 104.3 102.7 106.6 108.8 106.9 112.2 112.2 111.4 116.0 115.7 111.8 118.5 120.6 113.1 122.8 128.5 122.6 136.1 138.6 134.6 152.5 cr-¥ Table A.6. Traffic in Southcentral Alaskan Ports, 1965-1975 (Short Tons, Number of Persons) Port 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 970 1971 Cook Inlet Subregion Anchorage Tonnage 1,080,094 1,008,999 1,406,128 1,310,981 1,807,405 1,936,976 1,782,064 Passengers 19 11 4 NA 1,754 1,954 2,840 Homer . Tonnage 10,871 13,811 22,957 17,424 19,488 189,748 52,564 Passengers 1,353 2,328 836 3,123 3,911 5,074 5,850 Ninilchik Tonnage NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Passengers NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Seward ' Tonnage | 37,462 49,326 90,857 117,329 60,084 29,309 126,664 Passengers A 3,185 2,954 2,757 2,987 1,443 1,712 2,041 Seldovia : Tonnage 20,566 12,232 51,589 15,321 92,713 98,145 18,944 Passengers 180 2,026 1,477 881 1,331 1,952 1,896 South Side Alaska Peninsyla Tonnage NA NA NA 9,783,924 11,340,000 13,284,699 12,587,185 Passengers NA NA NA 408 435 . 227 370 Total ‘ Tonnage 1,148,993 1,084,368 1,571,531 11,244,979 13,319,690 15,538,877 14,567,421 Passengers 4,737 - 7,319 5,074 7,399 8,874 10,919 12,997 t Source: Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers. Waterborne Commerce of the United States, Part 4. 1972 2,058,199 2,342 170,382 7,052 NA 61,726 2,612 9,447 2,279 12,399,786 632 14,699,540 14,917 1973 2,624,763 2,900 146,349 8,666 51,913 2,926 10,663 2,662 11,864,646 859 14,698,384 18,013 2,340,181 11,939 10,511 71,844 7,628 9,171 4,317 11,778,847 1,165 14,211,982 23,621 1975 2,936,159 39,279 11,215 763 382,051 8,859 9,462 4,523 11,764,374 891 15,132,088 25,488 eT=v. Table A.6. (continued) Port Gulf of Alaska Subregion Valdez Tonnage Passengers Cordova Tonnage Passengers - Whittier Tonnage Passengers Total Tonnage Passengers Kodiak-Shelikof Subregion Kodiak Tonnage Passengers Old Harbor Tonnage Passengers Total Tonnage Passengers SOUTHCENTRAL REGION Tonnage Passengers 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 51,336 188 ,093 215,022 181,945 354,935 477,677 288,728 253,505 301,076 NA 3,789 NA NA NA 16,162 20,004 12,277 25,297 43,169 56,830 51,114 43,666" 46,405 34,455 68,553 42,114 46,750 3,882 4,197 941 3,594 3,187 4,247 5,637 5,616 5,851 177,249 NA NA 311,997 485,380 348,954 713,290 646,609 392,491 — NA NA 4,339 8,045 13,449 16,535 18,833 19,186 271,754 244,923 266,136 537,608 886,720 861,086 1,070,571 942,228 740,317 3,882 7,986 941 7,933 11,232 33,858 42,176 36,726 50,334 127,584 212,675 133,247 109,645 115,863 124,479 148,444 192,963 236,612 3,219 3,790 6,407 3,755 4,959 5,839 7,985 9,717 10,875 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 3,166 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA _ 127,584 212,675 133,247 109,645 115,863 124,479 148,444 192,963 239,778 3,219 3,790 6,407 3,755 4,959 5,839 7,985 9,717 10,875 1,548,331 1,541,966 1,970,914 11,892,232 14,322,273 16,524,442 15,786,436 15,834,731 15,678,479 11,838 19,095 12,422 19,087 25,065 50,616 63,158 61,360 79,222 1974 356,967 25,577 35,218 8,291 666,315 20,173 1,058,500 54,041 217,024 11,846 1,416 218,440 11,846 15,488,922 89,508 654,514 25,039 43,132 8,256 667,112 18,942 1,364,758 52,237 329,639 12,350 732 330,371 12,350 16,827,217 90,075 vI-V APPENDIX B SELECTED REGIONAL MODEL INPUTS AND OUTPUTS Employment Appendix B Selected Regional Model Inputs and Outputs (Note: Suffix R5 denotes Anchorage, R4 denotes Other Southcentral) Exogenous Industries (Basic Employment) EMA9A EMA9B EMA9C EMMF EMML EMMP EMMO — EMP9 ECONX EMPUX EMS9X EMTOX EMGF EMGS EMGL EM99 Employment Employment Employment Employment Employment Employment Employment Employment Exogenous Exogenous Exogenous Exogenous in in in in in in in in agriculture (103 persons) forestry (103 persons) fisheries (103 persons) food manufacturing (103 persons) lumber and wood products (103 persons) pulp and paper (103 persons) other manufacturing (103 persons) mining (103 persons) construction employment (103 persons) public utilities employment (103 persons) services employment (103 persons) transportation employment (103 persons) Employment by the federal government (103 persons) Employment by the state government (103 persons) Employment by local government (103 persons) Total employment (103 persons) Endogenous Industries (Nonbasic Employment) EMCN1 EMCM EMTA EMTO EMPU EMFI EMDW EMDR EMS9 . Employment Employment Employment Employment Employment Employment Employment Employment Employment in in in in in in in in in endogenous (nonbasic) construction qo? persons) communications (103 persons) air transportation (103 persons) other transportation (103 persons) public utilities (103 persons) 3 finance, insurance, and real estate (10- persons) wholesale trade (103 persons) retail trade (103 persons) services (103 persons) Population (Note: Anchorage total and non-Native civilian population not engaged in major construction projects has been adjusted upward in the text by 20 thousand persons from the number shown in this appendix to hit the 1978 population estimated by the Municipality of Anchorage.) ‘B-2 Population (continued) CNNP2 Non-Native civilian population not engaged in major construction projects (103 persons) POPNE Native population (03 persons) POPM Military population (includes only active duty military) (103 persons) High Case Employment (102 persons) 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 198s 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 EMA9AR4 0.089 0.089 0.083 0.094 Ol 0.107 O.112 0.118 O13 0.154 0.186 0.224 0.274 06341 0.409 06456 0.506 0.873 0.643 0.725 0.823 EMMFR4 2,188 2.231 2428 2.4337 2406 2.485 2.5982 2.698 2.838 3.008 3.23 3.319 3.41 3.51 364613 34724 3.841 3.964 4.097 46236" 4.334 EMASARS oO. O- Oo. O. O- EMMFRS 0.496 0.529 0.562 0.628 0.662 0.695 0.728 0.761 0.794 0.827 0.86 0.893 0.928 0.959 0.992 1,025 1,058 1.094, 1.124 46457 EMA9ER4 EMMLR4 0.311 0.319 0.326 0.333 0,341 0.349 0.357 0.345 0.374 0.382 0,391 0.4 O.409 0.419 0.4238 0.438 0.448 0.458 0.469 0.48 O+47L EMAQBRS oO. O- Oo. oO. EMMLRS 0.148 0.148 0.148 0.148 0.148 0.148 0.143 0.148 0.148 0.148 0.148 0.148 0.148 0.148 0.148 0,148 0.148 0.148 0.148 0.148 0.148 EMA9CR4 24467 ° 26572 2.753 26961 3.228 3.573 3.879 4.247 4.689 76 BAD 74807 8.305 8.845 9 4ASL 10.068 10.76 EMMFR4 EMA9CRS oO. Oo. O- oO: Or O. O. oO. oO. oO. O. O- Oo. €-@ High Case Employment (10? persons) 1930 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1937 1988 1989 1999 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1957 1988 1939 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 EMMOR4 EMMORS 0.398 0.458 0,458 0.458 2.383 2443 2.443 2-383 2.333 2.333 2,333 26333 2.333 24333 2+333 2.333 2.333 2.333 2.333 BRR REPRE BE ERR ERR RRR ee ee ee ee ee ee BPR RHR EERE EHR ERE ERE RRR EMPUXR4 EMTOXR4 EMF ORA 26532 3.03 3.762 4S? 4,779 44D 4.167 3.892 46448 3-547 3.551 3.249 246395 1.243 1.243 1.243 1,243 1.243 EMS9XRA 0.05 0.09 0.12 0.12 OL 0.08 0.08 0606 0.08 0.12 EMPORS 1,009 1.009 1.009 1.009 1.009 1,009 1.009 1.009 1,009 1.009 16009 1.0097 1.009 1.009 1.009 1.009 1.009 1.009 1.009 1.009 1.009 EMGFR4 1.486 14536 1.592 26206 2.144 ECONXR4 2.132 66417 me 5-952 6-11 2.676 2.487 226 24844 3eilG4 22.928 23.082 23.238 23.395 23.555 23-7417 23,852 24, 24.118 24,238 24436 24.482 24.5 24.719 24-839 24.96 25.082 ECONXKRS 0.626 0.524 0.027 oO. oO. Oo. Oe oO. O- Oo. oO. oO. oO. Oo. oO. oO. oO. QO. Oe oO. O- EMGSR4 2.085 2.245 PATS 2.735 3.0L zx 3.554 3.805 A074 4.362 4667 4969 5.287 56626 5.967 6.37 6.664 6.971 74292 7.628 7-98 9-@ High Case Employment (107 persons) 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 EMGSRS 4.75 4.827 4.906 4986 5.067 SiS 5.256 5.363 56473 5.585 Se7 5.806 S.9L4 6.024 64136 6625 663534 66521 4661 6.804 6.695 EMGLR4 2447 2.708 26969 3.254 3.567 3.91 4.179 4.4465 4.772 sel 5.45 5.713 56989 662792 6.582 669 7.218 76GAP 7 +897 8.26 8.64 EMGLRS 6.8 6.935 7.072 7.212 76354 765 7+ G44 7791 794 8.094 8.25 8.413 8.58 8.749 8.923 9el 9.273 9645 9.63 9.813 10. c-a High Case Employment (10? persons) 1930 1931 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1983 1989 1990 1994 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 1980 1991 1982 1983 1984 1985 1996 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995, 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 EMCNIR4 2.12729 3640604 B6S9L4S 349267 3.48293 3.49281 3688646 4.30468 467417 4. 68479 79S 0298 6.19758 6.65221 7616677 7673151 8.35651 9.051538 EMTOR4 0.760286 0.908737 0.98185 1.07628 1.06093 1.07337 1.05868 1.06685 1.1461 1406963 1607942 {1.06295 0.964218 0.817004 0.934669 0.846726 0.867083 0.888394 0.910449 0.933521 06957644 EMCNIRS 5+ 74844 6621602 6650023 6666957 6. B8516 724026 7467276 8.00797 8.47143 8.89282 9.20498 9.56134 26 PA0AG 10.3761 10.7435 11.2459 11,8398 12.4682 13.1574 13.8695 14.4448 EMTORS 1.63451 167567 1477862 1.87454 1693032 (2.02192 2.13301 2.21878 2.3369 2.44386 2.82284 2461274 2.70814 2.91735 2.90918 3.03436 3.19184 3.33717 3.50688 3.68149 3.82203 EMCMRA 0.379977 0.403392 OA06S19 0.422793 0.434184 0.450854 0469483 0.494431 0.503654 0.52189 06539367 Oe 312179 06632693 0.654535 0667966 0.703884 0.729329 06756004 EMPUR4 04352789 06397509 0.412 0.432801 0456726 O+476104 0.492564 0.514566 0.570974 0.586922 0.606037 0.662562) 06650483 0.67012 06695463 0.722573 0.751286 0.781866 0.814661 EMCMRS eee +LO671 12304 a 2is 3 2.37374 2447973 2.657785 2.67578 2.78122 24688279 2.97516 3407707 3.19558 3.31102 3.43306 36563565 3.71465 3.86101 4.01554 4.17837 EMPURS O-919091 1.0136 1.03081 1.6107 L615196 1462268 1.3192 1639173 1649327 1.5848 4.65683 1673749 1.82415 1692476 2.01044 2.12878 2.27042 2.42223 2.59097 2.76765 2691206 EMTARA oO Oe e 0. oO. Oe o- Oo. Oo oO. oO. QO. QO. oO. oO. QO. O- oO. EMFIRA 0 Oe O. 0.85 oO. Oe Or OQ. Oo oO. Oo. O- O. O- oO. Oo. ° QO. 1. 1. 1. 160764 170727 180432 192117 194357 194041 189786 187179 19534 154446 185239 i8lSi4 167849 141051 1433 144224 145097 145984 146875 - e41 9775 492526 503606 8 g 97 867731 SPG643 620192 652184 698202 708456 736389 76045 789438 819298 857429 887719 927031 96936 01446 06283 11505 EMTARS 5. 5es 6.443825 6.31059 6696902 7+ 19775 Be g3742 9.58682 10,2402 10.8707 11,3801 12.0002 2.8455 13.6449 19.4277 20.9092 EMFIRS 4.96199 5.6398 5.76545 6.32713 6666754 7.23981 7.96131 8.15078 8.79478 9.25919 9.56125 10.241 10.6311 11.0827 11.5958 12.3518 13.4312 14.3863 15.6765 16.8063 17.7068 High Case Employment (10° persons) 1980 19981 1982 1983 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 EMDWR4 0609311 0.940547 1.00698 1.11723 1.01548 1.06563 i+10 1.19626 1.32401 1.28192 1130449 1.57333 1.6872 1.81309 1.95103 2+10346 +2727 EMIWRS 7 PAL94 7624628 968432 10.1188 10.7659 11.5601 15 591 15 3997 16.8796 17.3043 18.149 19.1458 20.2057 21.3887 le +4878 EMIRK4 S.1L7775 3.92908 "41935 4.657071 5.03359 5475908 6621765 6474824 8.80138 9 AS294 9 9AS26 10.6239 11.3717 12.1875 13.0835 14.0733 EMIRRS 14.4841 16.1241 16.4479 17.7883 18.5944 19.9245 21.5709 22.8762 24.7038 26463993 2746809 29 1594 30.78 3246066 33.4271 35.0588 346.9844 39,0318 AL.S171 43.6765 45.372 EMS9OR4 5.30948 9+ 4AP216 10.1805 11.306 9672151 10.4003 11.0324 1245124 14.0972 14,0083 14.1999 14.7049 15.8055 | 17.1006 18.7461 19.4664 21.303 23.374 2546894 28.3008 31,2618 EMSORS 16.3822 18.7464 19.1882 21.154 22.5625 24.4118 27.0107 29.1016 32.1016 34.9373 55.899 37.3925 39.1542 40.9928 42,5827) AS.9911 AD 9201 s4,.i64i 58.9028 63.9229 66-6502 L-4@ High Case Population (107 persons) 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1999 1994 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1993 1999 2000 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1984 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 + 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1993 1999 2000 CNNF2RA AD 2459 63.2747 68,4019 75.3483 78.3599 83.1146 84.6514 93.9389 101.824 103.463 108.379 112.175 116.521 120.68 128,93 134.659 143.36 1 917 163.31 174.724 187.375 POF RA 5? +5656 78.0265 2.8387 90.0965 89.8297 94 S545 98.0267 165.164 114.428 215.08 119.332 122.927 127.406 131.751 140,192 145.464 154.363 164.122 174.721 186.345 199.21 CNNFP QRS 166.29 180.685 183.638 195.6706 203.381 215.359 230.046 241.613 76979 3.142 36449 295.218 307.761 322.12 33 85 370.648 392.098 415.827 440.262 458.071 POFRS 184.026 200.459 203.05 261.768 278.294 293.622 304.117 316.0383 328.755 343.293 354.339 371.928 392.377 414,019 437.946 462.592 480.595 0.589 - FOPMR4 0.836244 0.836244 0.836244 0.834244 0.836244 06836244 0.834244 0.836244 0.834244 0.834244 0.836244 0+836244 0.834244 0.836244 0.836244 0.836244 0.836244 0.836244 0.836244 0+836244 0.836244 FOPMRS 12,0817 12.0817 12.0817 12,0817 12,0817 12.0817 12,0817 12,0817 12.0817 12.0817 12.0817 12.0817 12,0817 12.0817 12.0817 12.0817 12.0817 12,0817 12.0817 12,0817 12,0817 FOFNE4 7+ 35156 749859 7+64G5S5 780152 795755 8.11669 8.27902 8.44445 8.61349 8.78575 8.96146 9.14068 9.32349 9650796 9.70015 9.89415 10.092 10.2939 10,4997 10.7097 10.9239 FOFNES 7.02763 7.16818 7.31154 7+AS777 7604592 7675905 7691423 8.07251 8.23395 8.39863 8.54646 8.73792 8.91263 9.09093 9.27274. 9 ASSL? 9.64735 9.84029 10.0371 10.2378 10.4425 Low Case Employment (10° persons) 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 L993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 1980 19981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1983, 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 EMASAR4 0.084 0.078 0.078 0.064 0.6063 0.048 0.038 0.029 0.023 0.016 Oo. Oo. oO. EMMFR4 2.003 2.003 2.003 2.003 2.003 2.003 | 2.003 ' 2,003 2.003 2.003 12.003 2.003 2.003 2.003 2.003 2.003 2.003 2,003 2.003 2.003 2.003 EMAQARS EMMFRS 0.331 0.331 0.331 06331 O.S31 0.331 0.331 0.331 0.331 0.331 0.331 0.331 0.331 0.331 0.331 0.331 0.331 0.331 0.334 0.331 0.331 EMAPER4 EMMLE4 0.292 0.295 0.298 0.301 0.304 0.307 0.31 0.313 O.3LSG 0.32 0.323 06326 0 0.346 0.349 0.352 0.357 EMAQERS EMMLRS 0.143 0.148 0.148 0.148 0.148 0.148 0.148 0.148 0.148 0.148 0.146 0.148 0.148 0.148 0.148 0.143 0-148 0.148 9.148 0.148 0.148 EMA9CR4 2.031 2.031 2.031 2,031 2.031 2.031 2,031 2.031 2.031 EMA9CRS 6-d Low Case Employment (10? _persons) 1980 1981 1982 1983 1994 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1993 LE9P 2000 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1957 1983 1989 1990 L99L 1992 1993 1994 1995 1994 1997 1998 1999 2000 EMMOR4 0.348 0.408 0.408 0.408 0.408 0.408 0.408 0.408 0.408 0.408 0.403 0-408 0.408 0.408 0.408 0.408 0.408 0.408 0.408 0.408 0.408 EMPUXR4 Oe EMMORS BRE REE PE REE ER EERE HERR Ee se eee eee ee we eee eee BREE PRR E HERE EER RRR RRR EMTOXR4 O65 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 O65 O65 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 O.5 0.5 0.5 EMF9ORA 2.4363 24644 2.59 2447 26731 2.388 1.931 1.297 1.229 1.229 1.229 1.229 eee 7 1.229 1.229 1,229 1.229 1.229 14229 414229 EMS9XR4 EMP9RS 1.009 14009 1,009 1.009 1.009 1.009 1.009 1,009 1.007 1.009 1.009 1.009 1.009 1.009 1.009 1.009 1,009 1.009 1.009 “1.009 1,009 EMGFR4 1.484 1.486 1.486 1,484 16486 1.496 1.486 1.49 1.492 1.494 ECONXR4 0.527 1.294 1.065 0.284 04099 Oo. Oo. O. Os Oe O. oO. EMGFRS 22.332 22.391 22.451 ” 2 2 23.001 23.071 23.141 23,211 23.282 23.341 23.401 23.461 23.521 23.592 ECONXRS 0.6246 0.524 0.027 - EMGSR4 1.89 1.938 1.986 2.036 2.087 2.14 2.14 2.14 2-14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 OoTt-a Low Case Employment (10? persons) 1980 198) 1982 1983 1984 1985 1984 1987 1989 1989 1970 L9PL 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 RE CR O a G cece ee eee et HOA U au . EMGLR4 2.325 2.384 2.444 2.5056 24657 2.4635 2.661 2.688 26745 26742 26769 26797 2.825 2.853 2.9982 26914 2694 26969 2.999 3.029 3.059 EMGLRS 6675 6.819 6.888 6695 7.029 Fel 7el71 76243 7315 7-388 7462 7537 76612 7.688 76765 7 B43 7924 8. 8.08 8.161 8.243 TI-@ Low Case Employment (103 persons) 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1983 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1965 1986 1987 1998 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 _ 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 EMCNIR4 1.468314 1.94813 1.93969 1.78646 1678469 1.79313 1.84182 1,84172 1.88931 1.95708 2.01829 2408497 2.14771 2.22098 24+ 3o54 24644047 2651995 2.60418 2469908 2478312 EMTOR4 0.708977 0.766343 0.75103 0.745861 0.753805 0.725248 04687694 0.605848 0.601157 0.611073 0.627% 0.636153 0.645146 0.654301 0+463144 0.671877 0.680893 0.690339 0.699356 04709339 EMCNIRS 5+81442 6:07018 5.99211 614256 6+31482 6646244 6671447 6677087 &+93871 7626853 7 S1L43l 7683704 8.10533 8.42028 8.70495 7606222 9 42504 9.80824 10.2269 19.6426 11.102 EMTORS 1.6518 1.471867 1.69828 16737 1478245 1.8208 1.88616 1.90077 1.94416 240292 2409238 2.17508 2624364 24323589 2439622 2.48675 2457839 2467488 2477993 2.883993 2+99855 EMCMR4 0.374244 0+ 386799 0.380748 0+ 386033 O+BPA7S9 0.402438 O-ALL BSD 06414524 06419274 0.432 0.44 7 0.454581 0.505122 0.516614 06526931 065358493 0.550146 EMPUR4 06334269 0634629 0.348081 0.347185 wd ke 0.357634 0+ 358282 Oe SG62961 0.369078 0637465 0.380238 0.385489 0.391577 0.397519 0.403555 0.409755 0.416224 0.422988 0429659 0+434874 EMCMRS 1.94501 2.0141 1.98105 2.01019 2.05885 2.10139 2.15401 2+16894 2619556 2626969 2632522 2439489 2644296 2.50453 265625 24 G2996 2668425 2475066 2.81047 248777 2+ P4557 EMPURS 0.946810 O.9P8626 1.0338 1.06414 1.11633 1.12808 1416319 1.2328 1.28519 1.35445 1.41294 1.48199 14654496 1.62473 1,70655 1.79383 1.89018 1.98682 2409473 EMTAR4 0.158596 0.164757 0.162038 0616375 0.159704 0.1517 0.135939 04134334 0.135292 0.136025 0.136758 0.137503 0.138 0413906 O.,139h09 0.14052 0.141242 0.141998 0.142683 0.143453 EMFIR4 0.394166 0.410762 0.413243 0-412002 0.416259 0.420418 0.426512 0.427415 06435937 0+442486 0.450299 ° 0.458144 0.46582 0.474131 0.482541 0.491104 06499922 0.509148 0.518677 0.528384 065358756 EMTARS 3+12366 5664693 S+1S774 3+24823 5650231 5+63799 5.83048 5.70024 5.60128 5.92102 24913 6.59582 6.84066 716031 7.50115 785509 8.13893 8.48401 8.82428 9615605 9655592 EMFIRS 5+ 05557 5+42473 S.311 5+SS107 5.78731 6.01049 6+39904 6.48729 64675266 7628613 744759 8.02438 8.29651 8.60166 9.01179 9.549098 10.2422 10.8342 11.6559 12,3278 13.0734 éT-& Low Case Employment (10° persons) 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 19837 1988 1989 1990 1994 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 EMDWR4 0.496608 0.572565 0.56555 0+531062 06553494 0.525507 0.524591 06505966 O.S13909 06531648 06547526 06564757 0.581037 O-SP9PL7 0.618496 066372335 0.656523 04676908 0.698506 0.720191 04744206 EMDWRS 7SP987 8.23944 7+60835 7672523 8.04817 8.23326 8.49343 8.35607 8426473 8.75019 9 OP418 96536 9.84625 10,2493 10.6713 11.1253 11.4691 11.8998 12.3185 12.7338 13.2215 EMDRR4 2.88718 3.0744 3.10274 3.0805 3.13 3.18517 3.25578 3426628 3.3425 3.44334 3.53638 3463067 3.72374 3.82543 34692927 4.03578 4.14691 4.26405 4.38621 4.51187 4664748 EMDRRS 14.7084 15.6167 15.3738 15.9215 16.5502 17.0966 18.0232 18.2485 18.8307 20.1195 21.0608 22.3077 23,3615 24.6112 25467571 27.2095 28.705 30.3069 3240807 33.8677. 3548699 EMS9R4 3490864 4.67668 4.64928 4.16488 4.14702 4.47115 4.31203 4.45023 4.64919 4.83032 502921 3.21782 345984 5-659 5.88268 6.11557 6+36408 6652954 64689929 7+20052 EMSRS 16.6971 17.989 17.5863 18.3362 19.233 20.0236 21.4048 21.7191 22.6664 24,578 26,0453 28.027 29.7212 31.764 33.0953 35.5268 38,0693 40.795 43.7977 46.885 50-3008 €1-a Low Case Population (107 persons) 1980 19381 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 L9PL 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1993 1999 2000 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1983 1989 1990 L991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 CNNF2RA 42.8752 4661244 46.2818 45.552 4G 1947 466125 46.0301 45.0263 45.7408 46.8339 47.8376 48.8149 AP 67096 50.7133 S1L.6914 52.672 5366777 54.7334 5826 669271 S8.119 -POPR4 51.59 55.7533 8316 444737 560875 160734 1453 34.3072 35-1905 56.4559 97 66353 w8.7918 59684693 61.0595 62.2278 63.4024 644606 65.8635 674162 68.4731 69.8791 CNNP2RS 165.272 173.088 170.885 175.55 181.625 186.9 194.651 196,983 201.991 212.691 220.409 O.798 236.921 243.4606 6.883 268.18 279.578 29714662 304.958 S18.102 SS26675 POFRS 185.007 192.862 190.305 195.089 201.314 206.74 214.647 217.137 2224307 233.171 241.057 251.599 259.916 269.773 278.237 289.719 301.307 $13,583 327.077 340.422 355.128 POPMRA 0.836244 0836244 0.856244 0.836244 0+ 836244 0.836244 0.836244 0.835244 0.936244 0.836244 068356244 0.836244 068346244 0.836244 0.836244 0.836244 06836244 0+836244 FOPNRS 12.0817 12.0817 12.0817 12.0817 12.0817 12,0817 12.0817 12,0817 12.0817 12.0817 12.0817 12,0817 12.0817 12,0817 12.0817 12,0817 12,0817 12.0817 12.0817 12,0817 12,0817 POPNE4 735156 TAPES 7+ 6485 7.8015 795755 8.11669 8.27902 8.444G 8.61349 8.78575 8.96146 9414068 9+ 32349 POPS 9670015 9.89415 10.092 10,2939 10.4997 10.7097 10.9239 POFNES 7.02753 7.16818 7.31154 7.45777 7.60692 7.75905 7.91423 8.0725 8.23395 8.39863 8.5666 8.73792 8.91268 9.09093 9427274 9.45819 9.64735 9.84029 10,0371 10,2378 10.4426 91-d Intermediate Case Employment (103 persons) EMA9AR4 EMAARS EMAGER4 EMASERS EMA9CR4 EMA9CRS 1980 0.089 O. oO. oO. 2-231 QO. 1981 0.091 Oo. oO. “Oe 24263 0. “1982 9.093 oO. oO. Oo. 2.3 0. 1983 0.096 oO. oO. oO. 24342 oO. 1984 0.093 Oo. O. Oo. 2-392 7 oO. 1985 0.1 Oo. 0. O. 24449 0. 1986 O.1L o. — OF Q. 26516 Ge 1987 0.42 Oo. OQ. QO. 2.6593 Oo. 1988 0.13 oO. oO. o. 2.682 0. 1989 : 0.14 QO. Oo. Oo. 2.785 O. 1990 0.15 oO. O. Oo. ; 2.905 O- 1991 0.155 oO. oO. . oO. 3.044 oO. 1992 O14 oO. oO. . oO. 3.205 oO. 1993 0.165 oO. Oo. oO. 36392 O- 1994 Ol? Oo. O- Oo. : 3.608 G. 1995 O.175 oO. O+ oO. 3.859 oO. 1996 0.18 Oo. Oo. oO. 4.149 QO. 1997 0.185 oO. . O- O- 4.486 O. 1993 O.19 O. . Oe oO. 4.877 : oO. 1999 0.195 Oo. OQ. OQ. +329 oO. 2000 0.2 O- O« 0. 5.853 oO. EMMFR4 EMMFRS EMMLR4 EMMLRS EMMFR4 EMMPRS 1980 2.154 0.375 0.33 0.148 Oo. oO. 1981 2.18 0.384 0.36 0.148 O. oO. 1982 2.208 0.394 . O.3F 0.148 Oo. QO. 1983 2.24 0.403. O.42 0.148 Oo. oO. 1984 2.273 0.413 0.45 0.148 O- 0. 1985 2.311 0.424 0.43 0.148 Oo. O. 1986 2.353 0.434 0.5! 0.148 QO. oO. 1987 244 0.445 0.54 6.148 oO. 0. 1988 22452 0-456 0.57 0.148 o. 0. 1989 2.51 0.468 0.6 0.148 QO. °. 1990 26577 0.479 0.63 0.148 oO. oO. 1991 2665 O.491 0466 0.148 Oo. oO. 1992 2.733 0.504 0469 0.148 Oo. 0. 1993 2-828 0.516 0.72 0.148 Oo. 0. 1994 24936 0.529 0.75 0.148 Oo. 0. 1995 346057 0.942 0.78 9.148 oO. 9. 1996 3.197 0.556 6.8L 0.148 Oo. oO. 1997 3,357 0.57 0.84 0.148 QO. oO. 1993 3.538 0.584 — 0.87 0.148 Oo. oO. 1999 3746 O59? 0.9 0.148 O. oO. 2000 3.985 0.614 0.925 0.148 Oo. oO. st-@ 3 Intermediate Case Employment (10 persons) EMMOR4 EMMORS EMPOR4 EMPORS ; ECONXR4 ECONXRS 1980 0.348 lel 2.363 1.009 1.609 0.229 1981 : 0.408 14 24664 1.009 2.809 0.626 1982 0.819 del 2.59 1.009 1.714 0.524 1983 O.B19 Led 2.7 : 1.009 1.052 0.027 1984 0.819 tel 2.761 1.009 0.701 oO. 1985 0.879 Led 2.448 1.009 0.809 oO. 1986 0.879 Led 1.6994 1.009 0.675 20. 1987 0.879 Led 1.357 1.009 0.415 Oo. 1988 0.879 ied 1.357 1,009 0.552 oO. 1989 0.879 Led 1.357 1.009 0.442 0. 1990 0.879 Lei 16357 1.009 0.359 0. 1991 0.879 ied 1.357 1,009 0.265 oO. 1992 0.879 ded 1.35) 1.009 0.249 0. 1993 0.879 1.1 1,009 0.249 o. 1994 : 0.879 dol 1,009 0.032 oO. 1995 0.879 1.1 1.009 0.03 oO. 1996 0.879 1. 1.009 0,032 Oo. 1997 0.879 Lei 1.35 1.009 0.032 0. 1998 0.879 ded 1.357 1.009 0,032 oO. 1999 0.879 ald 1.357 1.009 > 0.032 O. 2000 0.879 Led 1.357 - 1.009 0.032 | fl Oe EMPUXR4 EMTOXR4 EMSOXR4 EMGFR4 EMGFRS EMGSR4 1980 Oo. O.5 0.05 1.486 22.332 - 1.89 1981 O. 0.5 0.09 14486 B91 1.982 1982 oO. 0.5 0.12 1.486 454 2.131 1983 O. 0.5 0.12 1.486 2.292 1984 . 0.09 0.5 0.06 1.486 2.454 1985 — 0.09 0.5 0.03 16486 2.65 1986 0.09 O05 0.03 1.496 2,911 1987 0.09 0.5 0.03 1.506 2.982 1988 j 0609 0.5 § 0.03 3.164 1939 0.09 0.5 0.03 ; 3.357 1990 0.09 0.5 0.03 22.932 3.561 1994 0.09 045 0.03 23.001 3.613 1992 ' 0.09 “5 0.03 23.071 3.666 1993 0.09 0.5 0.03 23.144 3.72 + 1994 0.09 0.5 0.03 23.241 3.775 1995 0.09 0.5 0.03 16536 23,282 3.83 1996 0.09 o.5 0.035 | 16546 23.344 3.886 1997 0.09 0.5 9.03 1.556 23.401 3.943 1998 ; 0.09 0.8 0.03 14566 23.461 4, 1999 0.09 0.5 0.03 1.6576 23.521 4,059 » 2000 ) 0.09 0.5 0.03 1.576 23,582 4.118 91-4 Intermediate Case Employment (10? persons) 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1994 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 EMGSRS 4.75 4.799 4.948 4.6898 4.949 Se +076 5-152 EMGLR4 2.328 2.416 24506 2.601 2-698 2.8 246905 3.014 3.127 3. 343567 36493 3.625 3.764 3.6902 4.049 4.201 4.359 4.4523 4.693 46869 EMGLRS 6475 6.885 76023 7163 76308 10,031 LT-@ Intermediate Case Employment (10> persons) EMCNIR4 EMCNIRS EMCMR4 EMCMRS EMTAR4 EMTARS 1980 1.91157 5.50613 0.363055 1.88344 0.156805 4.41059 1981 2440723 6413407 0.392702 2604719 O.165111 5+68765 1982 2439662 644251 0.403491 2.10837 0.164349 6.00606 1983 24622752 6629625 0.396568 2.06969 0.164824 5.59507 1984 263 6.45473 0404874 2.11498 0.166173 5.62367 1985 243598 6+66 9.415334 2417347 0.161516 6604445 1986 2642385 6687569 0.423271 2.21801 0.153171 6.1039 1987 2.41928 6.98415 0.429057 2 O55 0.13784 6.0793 1988 2660371 7628379 0.440241 24631365 0.138552 6.23608 1989 2474022 7+6693 0.457111 2+40927 0.139525 6.83102 1990 2.87488 7697869 0.470087 2.48318 0.140199 7621004 1991 2499838 8.3559 0.483354 2.655907 0.140929 7+6165 1992 34614506 8.70008 0495626 2462953 0.141636 8.00064 1993 3.32433 8.99581 0.51045 2.71505 0.142404 8.48446 1994 3443224 9633436 0.524001 2479345 06143093 8.96621 1995 3.662871 9678094 06540627 2+89013 0.14386 9.54183 1996 3.84389 10.2418 0.55509 2.97458 0.14459 10.0299 1997 4.08018 10.7411 0.572499 3607656 0.145332 10.6392 1998 4634059 11.288 0.58927 3.17543 0.146105 11.2741 1999 44662323 11.8482 0.608117 3.28692 0.146811 11.9419 2000 4.93856 12.4639 0627053 3639945 0.147599 12.7043 EMTOR4 EMTORS EMPUR4 EMPURS EMFIR4 . EMFIRS 1980 0.720553 1.57088 0.342474 0.870861 0.405483 4.62412 1981 0.806827 1.73533 06364262 O. 994899 0.43 3 5+51656 1982 . 0.801824 1.81562 0.375986 1.06003 5.98016 1983 0.790881 1.77759 0+376082 1,03 5675748 1934 O79B191 - 1.81879 ¢ 1,062 0.461107 3699872 1985 06782964 1.87205 1.105 0.475532 31426 1986 i 0741024 1.92788 1.14 0+487876 SS 1987 0655776 1.95589 1.1 O.49SS14 1988 9+671002 2.03312 0.420073 1623604. 06514649 1939 ‘ 0-684492 2.13213 O+433176 1.31846 06933436 :1990 0.695998 2.2113 0.445788 1.38536 0.55161 6.02577 1991 0+70703 2.3075 0+456602 1.46782 06567261 8.67618 1992 06719033 26 3PADD 0-468314 1.54388 0.984282 9606161 1993 0.732876 26AG994 0.481282 1460934 0.603213 9.33127 1994 0.742441 2.55551 06492877 1468603 0662021 9.83 1995 . 0.756722 2466802 06507094 1.78758 0+641143 10.4945 1996 O+771376 24678369 0.522291 1.89362 0+663629 11.3642 1997 04786732 2.90858 0.538573 2.00987 0-68784 12.1433 1998 0.802982 3.04483 O-S55921 2413875 04713773 13.1972 1999 - 06819342 3.18388 06574429 2427242 0.741589 14.1141 2000 0.837101 3.33611 06594239 2+42118 © 0.771527 15.1326 gT-@ 3 Intermediate Case Employment (10° persons) 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 EMDWR4 0.549721 Oe 0 Oo. 685637 +681726 oO. 641153 643181 0+667603 . QO. oO. oO. oO. 0 oO. 0 oO. Oo. i. i 1 1 1. 669673 648155 | 694249 728874 +762688 793823 +830602 oO. 87542 902674 PSL671 OOS17 +06581 +12835 #19818 27604 EMDURS 6670129 8.33388 8.7193 B.16996 8.4586 8.7567 8.8558 8.840086 9413082 9 B119S 10.2891 10.797 11.2741 11.871 12.4556 13.1561 13.7504 14.4869 15.2444 16.0461 16.9434 EMIRR4 3.01441 3436386 3.55881 3+ 56039 3466648 3.84266 3699564 4.09132 433443 457776 4.8 L745 5602722 6+38452 6674285 71339 76S6171 8.03165 EMDRRS 13.6678 15.8384 16.9502 1644604 17.0459 17.8042 18.6085 1960269 20.1562 21.6278 22,8324 24.3194 25.6992 2649033 34. 6425 39.1341 AL.9196 EMS9R4 4667037 6624736 6627064 6. 8997 7. 12469 7 SSE 7+9S1 38 8.44488 904543 9.4075 10.0778 10.8222 11-6515 12.5794 13.602 14.7612 EMSORS 15.1828 18.3195 19.9495 19,1431 19.9821 one 103 2.308 a asian 24. Coe 26.9894 28.9162 31.5418 33,6275 34.516 34.0974 3960765 42,2383 45467205 49 S879 5346776 58.2225 61-a Intermediate Case Population (107 persons) 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 CNNF2R4 44.9433 50.5342 52.2336 S1L.9948 53.0592 54.914 GAPS wi 6 9876 59.2189 246133 65.0197 67.489 7os 0728 79 6597 83.5803 87.9052 9246512 97.8537 103,408 FOPRA 54.7401 61.678 62.4324 61.6856 62.554 64.6759 65.7397 ' 65.6835 6942206 7261969 {7561764 7767309 80.6715 84,0533 ‘ 86.6412 90.4221 94.5405 99.0673 104.019 109.432 115-4 CNNP2RS 165.229 174.839 183.126 179.703 198.893 203.127 247, 718 258.3894 267.365 277.841 292.623 307.834 324.44 342.815 361.686 S82.511 POPRS 184.965 194.715 203.044 199.27 204.944 211.951 218,889 223.281 233.033 245.76 256.019 268.537 279.888 288.537 299.195 314.163 329,563 346.362 344.934 384.005 405.035 POPMRA 0.836244 0.836244 0.836244 0.836244 0.836244 0.836244 0.836244 0.836244 0.836244 0.836244 0.836244 0.836244 0.836244 0.836244 0.836244 | FOPMRS 12.0817 12,0817 12.0817 12,0817 12,0817 12,0817 12.0817 12.0817 ieee +0817 12,0817 +0817 13/0817 12.0817 12.0817 12.0817 12,0817 12,0817 12,0817 12,0817 12,0817 FOPNE4 735156 749859 7+64855 7.80152 795755 8.11669 8.27902 8.4446 8.61349 8.73575 8694146 914068 932349 9650996 9.70015 9.89415 10,092 10,2939 10.4997 10-7097 10,9239 POFNES 7602763 716818 731154 7645777 7+60692 7675905 7091423 8.07251 8,23395 8.39863 8.5666 8.73792 8.91268 9.09093 9.27274 9 ASSL . 9664735 9.34029 10.0371 “10.2378 10,4426 ° nN oO References 1. Kresge, David, and Thomas, Monica. "Estimated Gross State Product for Alaska," Alaska Review of Business and Economic Conditions, 11(1), April 1974. 2) Thomas, Monica and Goodwin, Earlene. "Estimates of Alaska Gross Product, 1965-1973," Alaska Review of Business and Economic Conditions, 12(1), March 1975. 3. Dolezal, Patricia L. and Ender, Richard L. 1976 Population Profile, Municipality of Anchorage, Anchorage, Alaska: Anchorage Urban Observatory Program, University of Alaska-Anchorage, September 1976. 4. Hitchins, Diddy R. et al. A Profile of Five Kenai Peninsula Towns: An Analysis of the Demographic Characteristics and Attitudes Toward Services and Community Development in Kenai, Soldotna, Seward, Seldovia, and Homer, Anchorage, Alaska: Bureau of Management and Urban Affairs and Anchorage Urban Observatory, University of Alaska-Anchorage, 1977. Government Documents State of Alaska, Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries. "Alaska Catch and Production: Commercial Fisheries Statistics," Statistical Leaflet Nos. 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28. Juneau, Alaska: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Various Issues. State of Alaska, Department of Labor, Employment Security Division, Research and Analysis Section. Alaska Labor Force Estimates by Industry and Area. Various Issues. - State of Alaska Current Population Estimates by Cénsus Division. Various Issues. . State of Alaska Current Population Estimates by Labor Market Area, July 1, 1971. Juneau, Alaska: Alaska Department of Labor, n.d. State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas. Statistical Report for the Year 1975. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Alaska Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. Alaska Agricultural Statistics. Palmer, Alaska: Alaska Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. Various Issues. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1970 Census of Population: PC(1)-B3, General Population Characteristics, Alaska. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Survey of Current Business, 56(1), parts 1 and 2, January 1976. - Survey of Current Business, 57(7), July 1977.