Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
The Growth of the Nunam Kitlutsisti Region a Projection 1981-2000 written 1981
BETH 019 BETH o\s Alaska Power Authority LIBRARY COPY INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA Fairbanks ¢ Anchorage ¢ Juneau BETH 019 a DATE ISSUED TO HIGHSMITH =—#42-222L PRINTED IN U.S.A. THE GROWTH OF THE NUNAM KITLUTSISTI REGION A PROJECTION 1981-2000 THE GROWTH OF THE NUNAM KITLUTSISTI REGION: A PROJECTION 1981-2000 by Lee Huskey,. William Nebesky, and Jim Kerr Institute of Social and Economic Research University of Alaska Anchorage, Alaska 99501 for Nunam Kitlutsisti July 1981 The preparation of this report was financed in part by funds from the Alaska Coastal Zone Management Program and the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, administered by the Division of Community Plan- ning, Department of Community and Regional Affairs. INTRODUCTION This report presents a set of projections which describe possible future levels of population and economic activity in three subregions of the area in southwestern Alaska served by Nuenam Kitlutsisti. The three subregions Coastal, Yukon, and Kuskokwim, are shown in Fig- ure A.1; subregions were selected to represent similar market and sub- sistence economies and to isolate the regions with high levels of in- teraction. Projections provide a description of a future level of activity. Projections cannot be assumed to be accurate descriptions of the fu- ture but rather a description of what could happen if the assumptions which determine the projection come true. This means the projections are probablistic. The uncertainty of the future, while it increases the problems associated with making projections, increases the importance of pro- jections. Planners and policy makers in government, as well as in the private sector, need information about the future in order to plan their actions. Decisions made today are both affected by and affect future events. The more uncertain are the future events, the more im- portant is the understanding projections provide. The major problem with projections is the uncertainty attached to them. The uncertainty results because of the uncertain nature of the assumptions which lie behind the projections. Assumptions are requir- ed for all methods of projection. (The assumptions which lie behind the projections reported in this study are described in Appendices A and B). Although uncertainty cannot be eliminated from the projec- tions, there are two major ways of limiting the importance of this problem. The first measure is to provide a clear, complete descrip- tion of the assumptions on which the projections are based; this al- lows users to know exactly what is behind the projections. The second measure involves producing a number of alternative projections instead of a single projection. This series of projections provide an indica- tor of the effect of altering major assumptions. These measures do not eliminate the uncertainty of any particualr projections. However, this approach allows the- researcher to establish a range in which he feels there is a very high probability the future level of major vari- ables will be. In this study three ecunomic growth scenarios are presented. Each describes a different level of overall economic and. population growth. We do not assume that the actual growth of the region will match any of these scenarios exactly in the level, timing, or magni- tude of events. We do assume that the most probable level of future activity lies within the range provided in this study. The remainder of this study is divided into three parts. The next section provides a brief introduction to the region and the main causes of growth. Following that will be the discussion of each sce- nario. Finally, conclusions will be presented. THE REGION OF ANALYSIS ( The region of analysis in this study lies within the Wade Hampton and Bethel Census Divisions. The most important part of this region excluded from our study is the city of Bethel. Bethel serves as the regional center for this region. By excluding Bethel, we concentrate on the rural or village economies of the region. In terms of the market economy this region is one of the poorest in the state. In 1978 the per capita income in this region was the lowest in the state (these figures included the city of Bethel). Em- ployment opportunities are limited and unemployment, particularly when "discouraged" workers are included, may also be the highest in the state (Department of Labor, 1981). The economy is built around gov- ernment and service sector and a small commercial fishing industry. The region does have an active nonmarket-subsistence economy. Approximately 95 percent of the households have members engaging in subsistence with 10 percent engaging in full-time subsistence (PAL, 1981). Unfortunately, the information and tools available do not al- low a comparison of the welfare generated in this sector with tradi- tional measures of economic welfare. One measure which may allow us to describe the welfare of the population considering both the market and traditional economies is the share of those out of the labor force who wish to work, that por- tion of the population called discouraged workers. Surveys have been “used to estimate that between 40-to-45 percent of those out of the la- bor force wish to work (PAL, 1981). They have dropped out of the la- bor force because of a lack of employment opportunities. This may in- dicate that the available subsistence and wage employment opportuni- ties do not fill the desires of the residents of the region, and wel- fare could be increased with more wage employment. Past growth of the region has been modest compared to other areas of Alaska. Growth averaged around two percent per year between 1970 and 1980. The low levels of population growth are inconsistent with the growth of employment. Between 1970 and 1980 nonagricultural wage and iar employment in the Wade Hampton Census Division grew at a rate of 7.2 percent per year from 468-to-872. Population during this same period grew at a rate of only 1.8 percent per year from 3,914 in 1970 to 4,665 in 1980. The regional economies described in this report are transitional economies, which may explain the inconsistency between population and employment growth. The economies are at a stage of development be- tween pure subsistence and pure market economies. The importance of the subsistence sector in the region eliminates the direct link be- tween economic and population growth which is usually assumed (see Ap- pendix B). For example, the subsistence sector provides both the rea- son and the opportunity for residents to remain in the region even without fill-time employment opportunities. The other characteristic of these economies which is important in our analysis is their small size. The small size (or scale) can be measured both in terms of population and income. The small scale has two important effects. First, the small size of the local economies means that the support sector growth will be small, since the income leakages from the economy will be large. Secondly, the small size means that some employment opportunities will result in population in- migration even if unemployed residents are available. The small size of the economy means that skills necessary for some jobs will not be available in the region and will need to be imported. The unique characteristics of transitional economies are often over looked when the future of rural Alaska economies are examined. The analysis of the growth in the regions in this study attempts to take these factors into account. Appendix B describes how the charac- teristics of the transitonal economy have been incorporated into the analysis. Our efforts in this study can only be considered a prelimi- nary analysis of the transitional economies of rural Alaska. REGIONAL GROWTH: 1981 and 2000 This section describes the projected growth of the three study regions between 1981 and 2000. Growth is described for three scenar- ios. Each scenario describes a reasonable pattern of growth in the basic sector of these economies; the basic sector includes those eco- nomic activities which sell their goods and services primarily outside the region. Appendix A describes the assumed growth in each of the industries which make up the basic sector. The remainder of this section of the report describes each sce- nario separately. Throughout the report year one of the projection period is 1981 and year twenty is 2000. The High Scenario Tables 1-13 describe the projected growth of employment and pop- ulation in the high scenario. EMPLOYMENT The high scenario shows the most rapid growth in the basic sector of the economy. The major factors which differentiate this scenario are the development of a bottomfish industry in the region, the pro- duction of OCS oil and gas in Norton Sound, and the rapid growth of government employment. Even in this high scenario resource develop- ment projects have only limited impact on the region. Both OCS and bottomfish employ regional residents, but the major activity in each of these industries takes place outside the region. Government growth is not as rapid as the region has experienced in the recent past. However, the four percent per year growth can still be considered rapid for two reasons. First, the past government growth in the region was a function of providing services, such as schools, which did not previously exist. Future growth will be to ex- pand these services, so growth will occur on a larger base. Secondly, much of the future growth of public services will probably locate in the regional center, Bethel, which is outside the study region. The necessary scale of certain public services makes it necessary to serve a large regional population, so a regional center location become log- ical to serve our study region. Tables 1-3 illustrate the employment growth projected in each re- gion. The Yukon region experiences a 3.4 percent annual average growth over the period. The Coastal region grows at 3.6 percent per year and the Kuskokwim region grows at 3.5 percent. The main determinant of growth in each region is the growth in government. Government increases its share of regional employment from 62-to-71 percent in the Yukon; 63-to-69 percent in the Coastal, and 62-to-69 percent in the Kuskokwim. The differential expansion of the support sector in each region (see Appendix B) accounts for the other differences. Different re- sponse is a function of both different growth in incomes and different scales of support sector activity. The employment in the support sec- tor grows at an annual average rate of 2.2 percent in Yukon, 3.0 per- cent in Coastal, and 2.9 percent in Kuskokwim. POPULATION Tables 4-6 show the projected population growth which results in the growth in employment described above. Two major factors influence the linkege between population and employment growth. First, a large ‘ tronot : ‘ . t : ‘ : : , : . ’ SYEARS bee 4 mee fh i> Gitar TO “so FH eH ee m oN Bm iouoan en n Table 1. Yukon Resident Employment 1981-2000 (Annual average employment) High Case EME EMP EMG EMS 139. 1 30. T 455, 1 139, 1 gi. f S41. 1 336. T 32. 2 A576 1 139, T 32. 1 683. 7 139. T 35. 0 7i2z. I 139. 1 37. 1 7ALe I 139. I u7. fT 7714 21 1239. 1 37. GO3-s 1 139. T S77. ff O36. 1 137. 1 3a. f 8790. 1 137. I oa. 7 FOG5- 1 1276 1 uo. Xf PAS. I 139. I ae, 2 731. 1 139, 1 $3. 0 1021, 1 3 i 37. LT ae 1 I 3 & I I i I I ] I T I I I + Traditional Fisheries Harvesting Traditional Fisheries Processing Covernment Support Sector Mining, OCS, Special Project Contruction Bottomfish Industry Total employment Code ee be HH Re eS pe ee a ete rime Coastal Resident Employment 1981-2000 (Annual average employment) Table 2. High Case TE EMB EMS EMG yg i rr ee er set <I <I - wt y } i 1 >I : + Pe ee tt i ee eoeoesesre secre eereesevese NODA SENSE DDAGUTNOATO BAORNVCOTEMINGCOHNODUMDONA SRP LIAS ANMMT WINS Om vw Ht RR Rm mt nie a ee ee ee ttt : : t ee eee rere cer reese es of CEP SVDONTITAMAMMMMMMM | iM ee reece eer cese rere s of DO OVAANNO PABA Ga aaeies | Ti rere O« mer j i SS SS Se ; eee ezeoeesreeseves DBOAMMANNNONAO~ DD SANMT NOT DDOANGS pT ee ee re SS Ss - 2d1e6 2196 cble 2936 A006 I I I I I I I I I q 1 I I ] t i i I ; I t 1 | ! 1 ' 1 ' pat t eee ree eee reese nee eae} 57B. oD NWEOMNOIRANOAMN™ ANDILAS 1 POO Oh St LEUVUDOOSID Heat ; Aaa] { ‘ 601. il I I 1 I 1 I 4; Vi 1 1 J I I J J J I ] eeoecereereceoreeecoeeene Rid nded nial ausd eu niadeusuasadarainicun: 240 SUedest eta 1 “t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 7 1) Peace reese cereeeeeeec ce} AMMMAMMAMMAMMAMAMMMAMMM eM |: LIA ID DIVAN Eo i i \ i | t t i : i ONDOMA TFMACILSCSLAO1, Pf NOTNO-DROGANMSNO™DDO) ttt aay |: LI..- | 1! A td a dt td dd et et td kd EMF = Traditional Fisheries Harvesting Traditional Fisheries Processing Government EMP EMG Support Sector u Pat Mining, OCS, Special Project Contruction EMB = Bottomfish Industry EMX = Total employment TE Kuskokwim Regional Employment 1981-2000 (Annual average employment) Table 3. High Case EMG ! eee weer eor ee wn eee s ere o) ONDT NH ATIAN TAS Coma! PNGRBALANGOMS OSX MTNUTNI MO OMATA IITA RHINE Se et et et te etd | \ ‘ ! ! tt tidied \ ! 1 1 JULI LU Pe ee tt ic a ee ee CDDONNNANODALTRARAAARAS I : t 8 t ‘ ! t t et et i te a eeoeveeeweve wee ees ee & ° ee ° DODDODOD DSP SAAAAINT OID : 7. bes i \ oy i t i ee ie RR mote ANTR GAANADASTTOCINDAMMS bE 1 J ' } ! 1 : i ! ! tj : i i ! i| i | i i ! i i & ee NNNNMAMMAMMAMMMMAMAMAMAMM I 1 ' 1 ! 1 4 1 1 1 1 + t . : peseeseserreeoeesreececs 1LDDDODNDWODNDDNDNDDNDDONDDULDO Peo DOP ine Tint) : i ' i : : i i i ' : : + 1 1 ' 1 + we we ee tee ee DE et ee ee tt et et ed 4 ANMSTASC™DOROGINMNSTNOF CTO! i Batata aN | ' Dt tt tt tt a et e a . DaMAM ONAN OMESAOTMNON KF EMF = Traditional Fisheries Harvesting EMP = Traditional Fisheries Processing EMG = Government EMS Support Sector - Mining, OCS, Special Project Contruction EMB = Bottomfish Industry EMX = TE = Total employment Table 4. Yukon Population 1981-2000 High Case ton---t st BP BPR, De NRPL = NRP2 UM TL TOTP : ‘ tYEAR: $----- ants z oe ———— ee ae pn ny I 120 4735. 1 4953, 2 436 7 334, 384. 1 5 i ail 4799, I SO18. f 48. 2 B52. 400. I oe I 30 4861. 1 Sosa. JT 404 1 349. 414, 1 1. 1 4 4921. 1 Sil40,. 1 43.) 384, 434, 0 Soa. rt SI 4979, I Sigs. 42, 1 AO4, 4352. I S374, I $1 S034, IT S254. 7 4G. T 4246 A472. I SAS? I 7T SO8S. Jo F308. I 49. 1 445 493. I SSS6, I 81 Sige. J Sago. J 4h, 7 444, b14. T Sé1s. I I S139, I S409, T 48. 7 ABI, S37. 1 S763. Io10% S234. 1 SAS4. I 43. 7 sil4e S42. I S784. Io42ir S281. I SSo1. 1 43, 7 S3?. SB7, TO Sede. Ioo4?l $323. 10 S543. 1 43. 1 56d. 614. I S74e. Io43t S344. 1 S584. 7 4g. 7 SOA 642, IT 6084. I 247 S403, I Sée3. 1 4G. 7 623, 671. I 6105. Ios GASP. To Gases. I ABs. T O46 702+ T S193 I 1457) SA7A,. IT ShP4. I 4S. 1 S84, 734. Lo 6272. I oi7Il S507. 1 S727. 2% 4S. J 720% 7456. 1 $353, I 18% S537. I S757. I 43, I 755. 603. I 6434. I 197 S566. I S786. 4G. 7 7O16 839. I 4515. { 20% S593. L S813. 1 4m. 7 B29. | 877. I 4593, bean nte nnn -4 Fark aloe Leaked tonncoec cto creer crt ssc ttc +a-s----- BP = Base population (residence independent of economic activity BPE = BP plus traditional fishery nonresident workers DP: = Construction and mining nonresident workers NPR1L = New residents (respond to government employment) / . NPR2 = New residents (respond to support sector employment) TL = DP + NPRL + NPR2 (not used in this analysis) TOTP = Total regional population | tH HR HA DH HHH NAS Coastal Population 1981-2000 Table 5. High Case wots ee ee eo ' ROANDNVODRAMONGONHEROAOSY DOTON ANS AMADANODANADN O~DDNADOANMMTNOCH DADO ammmMAmmMseer TOTP Fd ee tt et i lecceccccccetecsacses jer MOMTTORTODLTOTACOTOaN | IZAAMOBONSTRANANOMNOMA MMS SSTNNANNNODCON ES Dos Tl I tt at td tt et i | { | | re ee ee PHM ONS TS MMOME TAS aMN®@ PTOOMNSMNA NMTODOCANATODS preerurre asta N 1 i ! { 1 1 1 1 1 + 1 1 1 ' ‘ 1 ' + 1 1 t t ' 1 1 : 1 fe ee re ee re t eeoee rece sree errr se eee . DODIVOTO VOODOO COV SDOO NRP2 NRP1 DP. . MmOASNMNOE NWO AINADONOO WOOD AOMaYSeTEaerToONnyr POTS PEE OI Pe MOTE AOS HAAN ANNAN NNAAYNYAN NAN BPE 39926 oe ODDABIVNGT~ROD~LOLUVO TBM AL CINODANADATEON SEH MMT SANANGOOE E+ DDVADRD MT MO COE OS COO PANO TNO™DRODANNST NO~DDO! 1 : : masta aN | thot i i i ! t ! i i t ee tt ee ee de erent ene ee te ere = Base population (residence independent of economic activity = BP plus traditional fishery nonresident workers BP BPE DP Construction and mining nonresident workers = New residents (respond to government employment) = New residents (respond to support sector employment) NPR2 NPRI Tl DP + NPRL + NPR2 (not used in this analysis) = Total regional population TOTP Kuskokwim Population 1981-2000 Table 6. High Case TOTP Tl NRP2 NRPL DP BPE toon 7x <x ua > eeoeeeerer ete ere ese eeee SDOODCANMAMDE MOM NES MO SMANANDONDBDNDTOONAAND: DAANMMTANODOSDNDADOA- MOM MAOIMNMOAMAMMAIMMMAMAM +S 4237.6 Tm dk em pe ee ee te eee I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . . . . . e . . o . . . ° . . . . e WAMMNMOMNOAGAMIOATODOO NONVATOSZTONTOANLTEO Pe SS eS aN pO Oe 313. T37T.e I Pt te cece eer ees eses BCAMAAANCAVNOCO Sree Somos tt 89.6 -T5.6 —5b6 -5 136.6 “109.6 1 l2 1 ~~94, ery O. Oe Ow Oe O. O« O- O« Oe: O. Ow Os Os O. 0. O. O« O« 0. I a et ae pt eeoeeree sere eres esas AGORA EE AONWOWY NN PANTO DHVATDIOMNANAS SOLOMACE CEOS SEN OOS 213. oBee el ve I L- I I I I I I I ope - I I { I I I I I I I aeeceee Cor DoODO 49. ~~ 40 a 40% 40.6 64, b4. 6%. 64. 64. 64. bts 64. 64. o- O4 4 ; ee eee er eeceer reese ecceas of SMMC SOY OMCOBOCSR WM I SHE OCMNOVANLSN ONT ODS wD PODS IDO SASHA AAR Ce) | Pi a hen tee eae TF et er nm Tee ee eee I 3130 1 3078 1 I I T 1 I I I T I I J T I q I I I T I I 2374. eens NADAS HININTSDNODROA~ NI WONKAYATEONNEONTOSRONY 1 DUADROOOVAHAHANNNANNMMD | NANNANNMMMMMMMMMOMe MMMM t . ‘ : 5 : ! 1 PM mek ed at at ot a Bed ed Pet nd et et et + ANMTNO-DROANNS NS DDO} ‘ RA tH RH} : : : ' ! ' | : : ' De + me fp ew mw yp ee ic activity Base population (residence independent of econom = BP plus traditional fishery nonresident workers BP BPE DP Construction and mining nonresident workers New residents (respond to govern ew residents (respond to support sector em = DP + NPR + NPR2 (not used in this = Total regional population =N NPR2 NPRL Tl => u eG uv aE vr £0 vr Ea > ° ad a € o v c ev E analysis) TOTP portion of the base population would like to be employed and will fill jobs created, so there will be no need for in-migration. Secondly, fifty percent of the current population are estimated to be under nineteen (PAL, 1981). This will provide a substantial increase in the labor force in the future reducing the need for in-migrants to fill new jobs. Population growth is substantially below the projected growth in employment. Population grows to 6,598 in Yukon, 7,075 in Coastal, and 4,237 in Kuskokwim by 2000. Population grows at an annual average of 1.4 percent in Yukon, 1.7 percent in Coastal, and 1.7 percent in Kus- kokwim. The difference in growth of population between subregions oc- curs as a result of differences in the number of unemployed or "dis- couraged" residents in each region and the different demographic structure. These tables also provide a description of various components of the populstion— One major observation is the number of people in the region the come to work in the region. Of this group there are those nonresident employees who only come to work but do not maintain resi- dences; this group includes fishery workers, construction workers, and mining employees. The population impact of this group can be seen in columns two and three of Tables 4-6. Column two includes the base “The usefulness of this disaggregation may not be obvious. This is primarily a result of the model's usual use to analyze OCS impacts. population and nonresident employees in the traditional fishery. Column three shows the nonresident mining and construction employees. The fourth column shows the population associated with residents who move to the area to take government jobs. The sixth column of the teble shows the number of residents who migrate as a result of lack or a surplus of employment opportunities. One important component of the population is that population which is resident in the region now or which is born in the region, the base population. In all subregions this population is assumed to remain relatively constant because of out-migration. Tables 7-9 show how this EonppAene of the population participates in the labor force; it is this participation which primarily determines the level of eco- nomic migration necessary. In Yukon, 29 percent of the population is projected to be in the labor force in 1981; by 2000 the labor force participation is projected to increase to 32 percent. A similar pat- tern is found in the other subregions; labor force participation rates increase from 34-to-39 percent in Coastal and from 34-to-37. percent in Kuskokwim. This increase results from two factors. First, we assume an increase in the labor force participation as a result of increased attachment to the market economy (see Appendix B). Secondly, the aging of the population increases the number of working age popula- tion. The effect of the shifts in the age structure can be examined in Tables 10-12 which illustrate the changing demographic structure of Table 7. Yukon Labor Force Participation 1981-2000 High Case 7 ~ 7 r t af T I I 21 |, I I 1 at LGO?s I i I 4h LUa5. T I L ot 108 ! T I Si Lo I I t 7h aa I I t oT 4 t I I vi Li i I I LOT Li I Laea. 1 Iooait ad I 1421, 1 I jet 12 I 1642. 1 I Lat Le I 1664. 7 IO 4AT : I 14665, 1 Qo 4Sa i I 17604. I I iét 2 r 72s. 1 tooavt 13 t “Ty I 18T- L33 qT I io LPL LSE I T I RGt 13 Tt I t UT = Unemployed in traditional fishery activities = Population not in the labor force LF = Population in the labor force a a I " Coastal Labor Force Participation 1981-2000 Table 8. High Case o—+ NLF bomen t Fe ee te tt ee ee we Ce eee mercer crave veces FAMOSCANINSTNO- PR ONMODS § MODAN OAS ONIONS OMCN SN I TAINAN GIMME TTS SEL Wa en ae ' i i : i Ee het el lest tL 7 i 1 een meee mete amen wee pee 3 U ‘ Fe oe 8018 188 ile oe 8 . . or MINORS OT INON Oo SO NNNNANNM AA AANA OS Se NINNNNNNNN NINA NON ONAN 2 a ENO NNDB ONO MMM \o° TOE TE AOM MONT ORC eRe IAN BOC SORRAANNNNN mam FI tt ' : : ! { ’ SS tt ete + i ; AA ett ! : | 1 i 3 i i i foot ee es | | i | 1 4 1 t ' 1 ! k 1 5 { { ' ‘ } i t t aren ta 1 1 ‘ ++ NOTACTEDOANM SY NOL EDZOIL = Unemployed in traditional fishery activities = Population not in the labor force = Population in the labor force UT NLF ULF Kuskokwim Labor Force Participation 1981-2000 Table 9. High Case fee ee PRR te ee eet NLF weet x = stu > MNAMAETONS YT SAT DANG St PROCTO CORSE SRS ANION I A tt teat tte | i ' ‘ ' t { De i et J pee ee cere e cere see soe | ANGOY RAEN ROGNNGOROYS Tp DASE ROONM THORNS CI DWRRARDARDHODIODSOVSDINO=A aes ANN FAANANNANNNN ! ee t t i ' 1 1 1 ! 1 t t ' + ' ' ee cere eo ereeceeoe es FNS SOE NS OTE De 1 ' 1 ' 1 1 | + t 1 ! ' + 1936 uO5o6 614.6 B2T. oe IL: LS Oras EIR TOM SIA Ly ANOCL GOS TLL ENS 1 t 1 1 1 ' a+ ' ' 1 4 1 i 1 t t ' ‘ tt ee ANMTNVUEDROANMSNO~-RBDAO! : atta | ee ee et Cem eee rece reser reeset: WMOINS AR RONM FORM DRONDS I i i to o = Unemployed in traditional fishery activities = Population not in the labor force = Population in the labor force UT NLF LF Yukon Demographic Structure High Case Table 10. ——<— ——————_~_ —... “ ee tere =: Ha 28 Hb te cle we oe oe oe oe oe te op qe oe oe + ae oe 46 0 oe oe oe te SPs a eT EN Eee oe i 1 1 1 { 1 1 J 1 i 1 tee 2 + ee oO] : t ‘wt oe eee eed 1 1 uf ¢ «© «© © « 1 Pub onrminv rit i 1 fwuiMmormrmamo tl | fut onowna j Poelwvoocn amyl 1 lo Pave ai OW 1 laut ounce ® ! Ele OY Ot ! 1 Lei na eartin | 1 1 <2 1 OS Cai Cs 1 (x 1 1 I xt | 1 1x jus | tit 1 tt | lil 1. 1 uit tet (> lw 1 '1>twWwt 1 (otlut Pet { { twit 1 ' pel | Le te te oe oe om 00 oe oe oe fo Be cb ove bh oe 20 we te oe we oe oe 1 Be oh we oe te oe oe oe i <1 1 1 1<c} 1 1 1a 1 | foe ee ee ew et 1zl lee ee ee ed 12} le ee ew ! wr sr siVMNonnm st 1 [RnQri Adnan oartn tl 1 wii Ot No & ! Puta DR OTN 1 ' ln aoa norinn |) i PW WO Ra 1 fob AM rt ID 1 | lof em Mo i | {2 i Oe MO LD i tot 1 1 1nd 1 ! $l 1 i t 1 lox | 1 i | 1 1 { 1 1 1 I ! i Il i ! i ! ! 1 i 1 1 1 1 ! hte a ne oe 4e oe oe oe oe oe He sR te te te oe oe oe oe oe ae oe cin te Hb te a oe we oe oe oe t 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 t 1 1 ! 1Gle«we ewe ©] © I loteee ee eo oe doe 1 1 Olio + «© «© ee i Pui MerONVvaws 1 Ww 1 Putin mMeovwol ' Pu | wOnyerow 1 Pot Nw msm et 1 uo t furaommwcor im 1 oe ' Pau 1 omar gt es ust = 1o iteo' <0 es 1otb hb << oboe nm >i 1 ous I>leftl rin Il>let tre ft wd 1 tet tid 1 Petwil Pretiwt 1 Pet md ! tort wl (cl 1 1 <4 1 1 1c 1 1 KE Hb oe fh we we we we we oe oe He It Lh oe eee we te oe ve ce re eI 1 Enh oe ae oe oe te oe oe toot 1 Poa itil 1 Pa toro t ce 1a 10 # © © © © © TS ra ize fwe0e ee ee 2 1D a (mt Le ee ee a ror n+ wmwnnoeretwuwt dw a rormMmronnsesyrauw lo mh tomb ool we et IG i Siw i ovwwm cert i ke - pet Wt ansewuosroT! Ee be 1 eZtiwinewowo Cc 1 It aa 12 coc 1 !od Saad 1G oO ! foulm ms Ke | ae Le e 1 ic te e 1 ix 1 1x 1 1 1nd ! 1 xn aa i 1 1 bow co 1 i 1 1a ° 1 1 1 1 1 1 = ! 1 1 tort CH ' 1 1 et we Hb we te oe oe oe te we wh ee ve eb te ve oe oe oe te te ok wie te ote ae we te we oe oe cw 1 ui ' { ce i 1 Li 1 1s of 1 ui ! < 1 «2 trams TrwowenN 1s <= ‘ (9 freA Mer WN 1 < { a bowie te MO) em £3 ND ui 1 <= t iu Ww t < 1 it tu i <= a ce oe oe oe oe 0 oe we oe te oe > Ho oe ee oe ve oe te we oe te ee cr OM > Meee we oe me oe oe oe oe oe ve 1 (0-14), 2°(15-19), 3 (20-24), 4 (25-29), 5 (30-44), 6 (45-64), 7 (65+). 20 TOTFOFS YEAR Age Cohorts: Table 11. Coastal Demographic Structure High Case -Y£AR-—-]- TOTE DR... eae ene emer tone essere of YEAR LO-TOTRO cor tt +$—---+-------~ ---- : NON-NATIVE 4+ AGE tee ---- He fee nee eee : MALES Lt ALES _ +---+--------- teo-r----n DOONAN Wine ws eae neoee eee WOME TOW THCcCcecuan NONI IDC 1 (0-14), 2 (15-19), 3 (20-24), 4 (25-29), 5 (30-44), Age Cohorts: 6 (45-64), 7 (65+). Table 12. Kuskokwim Demographic Structure High Case ope eee AR 1 TCTr + : { +--+ —-- te a tae et en eee : : > 426. : 13 3 VW7le ; ; 33 : 11S. : { : 26 7 1240 ? i a Gere: too 2006 —- : 36. : 1845. 3 : De : 650 2 --- +-—------ + VEER =k haw a 1 + “4 “53 36.>-°: Ge 3 21 Tes 19%. 3 32 $l. 1426. : 40 44, 3 132. : 109 $3- °°: 2636 2 él TO. : l7ve : 23 48. 3 136. : YEAR-10--TO = 3 " ! i w o N w ° ( ! : t | | ! ' ‘ t ! ‘ ‘ : ' YEAR 26 TOTPS i 4 -J—3-—- --—-15 67. - “ent 49E. : 02 2 240 : 17C. : 152. 2:3: 295 : 202. ? 145. : : 4: 350 3. 173. : 132¢. 3: $2. d Tée 2 - 341. : BOS. = - 2 & EO. = 214. ¢ 200. 3% 7 7 ZBe : 174. = 194. : eH 4-H tee women te mee eee eg _YEAR. 20 TOTPOP=--— 4237+ -- - - Age Cohorts: 1 (0-14), 2 (15-19), 3 (20-24), 4 (25-29), 5 (30-44), 6 (45-64), 7 (65+). the population in each subregion. The most important trend we can ob- serve is the increase over the period in the proportion of the popula- tion of working age (20-65). This group increased from 48 percent of the population in Yukon in 1981 to 52 percent in 2000. The increase was similar in the other regions, increasing from 47-to-54 percent in Coastal and from 47-to-53 percent in Kuskokwim. The major reason for this increase are the aging of past highbirth cohorts, a reduction in the birth rate, and a high proportion of working age population among migrants. ECONOMIC WELFARE There are two major measures of economic welfare which can be as- sessed from this projection. They are the proportion of the popula- tion employed--the employment rate--and the per capita income. In- creases in the employment rate means a greater proportion of the pop- ulation is employed. Increases in per capita income mean that on average the population can purchase a greater amount of goods and ser- vices. Since employment grows faster than population in this projection, the employment rate increases in all subregions. The proportion of the population employed increases from 19-to-28 percent in Yukon, from 25-to-36 percent in coastal, and from 26-to-36 percent in Kuskokwim. The constraint to the growth of this rate is the lack of employment opportunities. Table 13 compares the per capita income in each sub- region. In all regions per capita incomes increase over the period. 10 Year 10 15 20 Table 13. Yukon 4,210 4,054 4,351 4,735 5,030 Real Per Capita Income Coastal 4,307 4,477 4,847 5,258 5,600 Kuskokwin 3,543 4,544 4,918 5,213 5,594 Per capita incomes increase by $800 in Yukon, $1300 in Coastal, and $2000 in Kuskokwim. These measures provide a incomplete description of economic wel- fare. The major dimension not described in these projections is the distribution of welfare. Two questions about distribution occur when assessing the welfare of the base population. First, what portion of the increased jobs go to new residents. In this scenario, for exam- ple, we assume 37 percent of the government jobs must be filled by outsiders. The "new" residents share of employment in 2000 is 26 per- cent in Yukon, 25 percent in Coastal, and 26 percent in Kuskokwim. The second question concerns the distribution of income. As shown in Appendix B the wages paid-in each industry differ significantly. This means that there will aslo be a significant difference emong the in- comes of households. The final consideration when discussing the welfare of the popu- lation concerns the subsistence economy. The subsistence economy is important in this region. Unfortunately, our model provides no direct description of the effects on the subsistence economy. Because of this, we have an incomplete description of the welfare effects of this projected growth. The limited population growth projected may imply that there will be only limited increases in pressure on the region's resources; however, an accurate conclusion depends on a real under- standing of the biology of the region's subsistence resources. 11 The Moderate Scenario This section provides a brief description of the results of the moderate scenario projections. The results of this projection are shown in Tables 14-26. The patterns of growth projected in this sce- nario to the high case, so that only the major differences will be discussed. Before the results are discussed a word about the relative prob- ability of each scenario is required. The three scenarios presented in this study represent three levels of basic sector growth. The probabilities of each scenario cannot be assessed, so that the high, moderate, and low labels cannot be assumed to assess the relative probabilities. What can be said is something about the cumulative probabilities of each scenario. In this sense the lower the level of assumed growth the greater probability that growth will be at least as great as described. The moderate scenario contains only minimal resource development; there is no OCS or bottomfish development in this scenario. In addi- tion, the moderate case assumes a lower level of government employment growth. This scenario assumes government employment in the region grows at 2 percent per year. This assumption assumes a moderate re- sponse to increased petroleum revenues by the state government. The growth rate is similar to that projected for the southwest region of the state under the assumption that the state pursues an expenditure path halfway between two extreme courses of action. Those extremes 12 Table 14. Yukon Resident Employment 1981-2000 (Annual average employment) Moderate Case EMG ce: eer . ONMAMDPRAAOMONNHENAOTX SSANSEL RANG SL DOM ARLES I BCOCDOIS SG RPAH NOUUNN CO | i 1° i : weer nore sre cc err ereeen| WANNNACOCOCINDDDADARDAS : f GAR ARN NN ettettticteiet oe eee ee ee SGoooseso O- Oe Oe Oe. Q. Q QO. QO. Oho ! Jf t { ' 1 ' mt t eee eee a seer e were ees DOMNANOARYDMOMAANAGLH . Pc l On AMT NOWRONANOGDR ATL I OOS eco i i ; i i i i : i i i HS SSR SHH HH RH we Tce ccc creer ce ccc ewces LOSNNNMMAMMAMMMMMMMMOMM PAM MMAMMMMMAMMMMRAMMMMOM eocrereoereereoerse ee eee ee ARRRABHHAAARRAARAHARAARAN ee er Ne | PE a et at a at tt at th dt tt at tt MARS dette ft Sok oe ee I 6! oe ee 4 t t t t { 1 t 1 ‘ { t { 1: ! mt | 1 1 { 1 1 ‘ ! ' ee et et et ae et et tt tt ANMS NOT DROGANMSNO LTDA! EMP = Traditional Fisheries Processing EMF = Traditional Fisheries Harvesting EMG = Government EMS = Support Sector EMX = Mining, OCS, Special Project Contruction EMB = Bottomfish Industry TE = Total employment Table 15. Coastal Resident Employment 1981-2000 (Annual average employment) Moderate Case eee ee ene e cen CNAMACD SL LN oD MESZIBLL ONTO CBO O Sata ee eanaty weteciecietyctetecteaet ct ee ee . rh DDDDDODODCCOOCOCCDS t tte j "pt fae . t t \ | eeoerwree eer ee oeen BMY HOGPNROMMION~ DDORANNNUNMV SAN WOT CAT O82 COT COE OT OT EMS 25 elle 2U26 2Ude CBI. eon. coerce eee er eee eee ese SE DRAMADOM™~OGON AEM Se enone oe EMG pose NPT ea eaperaeareneeaeae ae ars nme NO Alvan Adsuaeu Nadu avegeaig 226 Sal 24 EMP j eee eee eee eee erene erase J ATID PA PAPAPA MA MEA PA MATAR MA eA PLOIDY EI I ULI I I LN B = Bottomfish Industry ¢ 1, EMX = Mining, OCS, Special Project Contruction EMF = Traditional Fisheries Harvesting E EMP .= Traditional Fisheries Processing EMG = Government EMS = Support Sector » ' 1 ! Vy wt! I ' 1 u v + 1 ' t ! 1 ! ! 1 ' 1 1 1 ! ' 1 1 me ' 1 ' ! I . t 1 1 ! t 4+ 1 t t t 1 t t ! { ' mee i { ' 1 { 1 ' ' I ' 1 ' 1 [ ' ! 1 1 t ' tt tt PANMSTNOEDRAORNMSTNOF TRC! t BRR N f ' t ' 1 treeeeeee ee eet = Total employment TE Table 16. Kuskokwim Resident Employment 1981-2000 (Annual average employment) Moderate Case BASEL temas: EMG EMP. EMF ol co te ees 7 wees eee eres ereeete OI TANMAMPHNOOCNDUNADOS SaML DONG GH PONT ES WRK BALTAPORHADOOCTS RH ies nk ee A Ee ad et ttt + ' y C { i] ‘ 1 5 1. u - 1 1 1 weer rere rere reso os eee WOODASFOOOMMMMMMMMMAMM EF: ANNAN ttt § eo ees ese erecesee COCOCOCOCOTOCOCSOO ‘ Oo Oe - Gen Jn Oe O- were cree er ser eosce RARANNMS ONE DOMNTASTD IROSNMASING MOANMS sor SEL NONI OWLS 7Ole a! ' RR SH HR ee eoeeeereeereceee eo ese NNNNMM MM Meee ene ey 36 3e I 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I ecw eerewr eee ere eeee t ' ! q 1 ‘ 1 ' t + t tee e IDDDNDODDOMNNDDNDDDDDDD boo 0 1 ' ' 1 { t + ! ' ' i) + 68. Semen a ened a eemee let ecaeesooed i ceneesagcuan WDODDOOCDOODCCOOVND a tt tt at et a et att mt te MHINMT NO DROGANMTNO NTO! RAR SN ' 1 ee et te EMP = Traditional Fisheries Processing EMF = Traditional Fisheries Harvesting EMG = Government EMS = Support Sector Contruction EMX = Mining, OCS, Special Project EMB = Bottomfish Industry ple it. tae rm Yukon Population 1981-2000 Table 17. Moderate Case TOTP TL NRP2 NRP1 tt te ee AMFHOCONOAOTNSIOAINGS OR AIAN MMSTANOOEF ER DORADO DDD NDAN NANA NANAN NOS I I I I I I I I I I: = I I I I I I I I I I coe ee eee eee ee ee wees ot TOS NOMOM OOS OMans mmmrr TTS See AIAN I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I i I eoereree en scree eae nee AAMAS ME HNCOGNNNANROD BEX SCOR ANN IAT MM MMMM NNGMOMOGMAMOMAMMM MMMM mo Pervert rr)erbereterarga I T I I I I J I I qT. I ] 1 I I 1 1 I I T . eoer rere eee ec ese i 1 { 1 i 1 t ' + ! 1 1 { ! 1 t ' + t ! 1 ‘ I 1 t ‘ + ' . 1 SOCOSCoCOBOODSGOCCOCCSO 1 { 1 5 t ‘ + ' 1 1 1 ' ' ' t + ' 1 ‘ i ' 1 { ' + ' 1 1 1 t t ' { om - Oe Oe Pe ee . WOT COO MW SES OL eh 6 SO RONMS MMmMmrSTeS st orineina 329.6 346.6 AON. 3 6. = TO a we me me me rere rn me me op ene me mmm mee Abe I I I 1 1 I I 1 I I I I ] I I I I I I I 4B 4B. 436 “4u, 436 ee COBVLIONS LAIST OTE WSOP ONSTWNCS MHA Cm anime st oun Dor ANDNANDAN nn 214 D544 DSA? 34 Sé . PAADITVBRDROAMS MAST + ~OM 1 AUNT MUMOMAUNOOMrFOMONW I RDRROOSGANNIMT SAAN STS ITInnnnninnninnninin ft . ~~ oO 7 ' Co . . ~ N TAODTORMDSTON CORO HOANO i Oo ed ! wr Oo = Base population (residence independent of economic activity = BP plus traditional fishery nonresident workers = Construction and mining nonresident workers “BP BPE DP = New residents (respond to government employment) NPR1 = New residents (respond to support sector employment) = DP + NPRI + NPR2 (not used in this analysis)’ = Total regional population NPR2 Tl TOTP Coastal Population 1981-2000 Table 18. Moderate Case - POPL tone TOTP TL NRP2 NRPL DP BPE Re a ed tt et at at et pt et t ere ececrerer er seeoeeeeeee st DNAOMAOTAHONANOYROMOO! ANN ADMENRNORAOY DMN aN I WEN DREDOOSANNO MOS SN I MammmmMmarterrrte ses est | 1 14 ee tet ' ec cer renee eee eeee eee OENAAMABALRANOOSR TOW! RORONMTARDRAONMNOR AON! ; MMOS STS SE SST NINNANNNNOO! | ti ! : ! et tt et ee at et at at ed et ret red ret meat met rt + ' wee ee een ere reer eo eeel, Anmnaoaunnaooaninmcnme t | SRRRN WLR BOLDARRAR CON! ! peetred tert : 1 ' ' + eoeereeose eros ee ees seen es SONIDO ODOT HOR OS SURE ANMMS NOY PROGINS NODDANS HOM OAMMMentetetsSrre re et a et et ee eocreceoreetreee sears WOODONOWNTDONOVT BOTT NOVWBNOO ee en Rt ee ee oe eo ee scr s eee ee re eeoee MO SOROR NEO RANGOON CN SOD DOG rat WS ITO, InN Mare SOU OP ORR OES OTS DADDNDNNVDONNDDANVDNNNDNY ee ee QDDaROUNT IT ROT -VYoTT SCBOMPSKNONLCANNAGLS PONT MMT TANNODOOE EH ODOBDADD POS IES OOO MMO CE MIM CI OCA ee ee tt te te et ANMTONO-DROGANMT NOT DDO Asse SRN I ! ' a a en ee at et at et et pt nt ant at th = Base population (residence independent of economic activity BP BP plus traditional fishery nonresident workers = Construction and mining nonresident workers BPE DP = New residents (respond to government employment) NPRI . New residents (respond to support sector employment) = DP + NPR1 + NPR2 (not used in this analysis) = Total regional population NPR2 Tl TOTP Kuskokwim Population 1981-2000 Moderate Case Table 19. “POPUL tam ens TOTP Tl NRP2 NRP1 DP BPE I I I I I I I I I I Pe I I I I I I I I I + je ee eee eee esrereseee ISR OALTENAOMOR SAE TOMS pOSFNOORERATIOOMR AS ONAD lOSRNNMMS ST AINAOCO ON EE JMMMAMMMmmMmAmMmaMe mene m { | BB27. mt tet en tt en te ne tan nn pee eee et ed et Rd he pt Rd Be jee ee eee erence cr sero ene HS AMNONONSFORR MONS CHNWO SANNOE DOGRCANMNOS DORN immmmmmmge se tergersenn Pe ee i COSCOCOCVOSCCOCNCIOD9N9 Scere 036 6 34 22 4 v4 S 23 DL, 268 re 1c 32 4 3365, ee rc te! ANDASNONSNTIAMOBROB KI NORAD ae PONANONG ORONS F | RODBARDOOSFSSHANNNNNM I I INNA NAIM ma TRO EE TOT MET Ee eH 1: ! ; : 1 i t a a tet aa att NMOTNG DROANMTINO DDO} Hen f ¢ cia Si : : { si t i i ote ! Se a ep ! { } = Base population (residence independent of economic activity BP BP plus traditional fishery nonresident workers Construction and mining nonresident workers = New residents (respond to government employment) BPE DP = New residents (respond to support sector employment) = DP + NPRL + NPR2 (not used in this analysis) = Total regional population NPRL NPR2 Tl TOTP oj rs MOSCAMOOCRKHNTGNMOMONO WALT RONRIAS TAN toOaoe TL i Proms SAR ODER eRe | I tte st tet tet . * . ° . ‘te , ° 2 . . . . . ° . 4 . » ° AMT NASCNYDAY DART ON LOND! TTR OCOLR AML TC emIn SrA! + TAMANRODOOLO LLNS ~m MMA MMMOMMFAM A MMMM MMe | Yukon Labor Force Participation Moderate Case Bue 3806 6 SSTNAINANNN mae Logs 1 ee ere Pt et ak et tk kt MEAL DMOGANMS NOK UVTDROI Table 20. ! i i t —ErMPLC t—---4 21 wn eee et : T 7 testes E, = Unemployed in traditional fishery activities = Population not in the labor force = Population in the labor force NLF UT LF Labor Force Participation Moderate Case Coastal Table 21. NLF tame t sovrerscer see eee er eee ee AMNOEOAN ANS NOY CNMOKTS AANOUINNOMIM OSS IN tt ‘li3f. . eee e re res eceerseereee AMY ACOTFMOCOINMOANADRY SDO THE TOW OM DODRKROPOSE ONO Ca NNNANNNODOEMOAMVMMYMS SST NNNNN NN NNNANNNNNNOION o33t. eer cree ere eee esecee CIM NC OLS OS ES CIAL OMIM eR aH FOer Mere onweca corn: DRDGBOVO HAR ENNNNN MO et i et isl Heenan teen nnn nn tenn nnn ee ne teen _ TNO TAOS DROGNME NOM SHS ttt HAN ‘ ‘ ee ed a et WOON E SA STOMONSOTMSeeME It ttt tet] ' i = Unemployed in traditional fishery activities = Population not in the labor force = Population in the labor force , UT ’ NLF LF Kuskokwim Labor Force Participation Table 22. Moderate Case seer ecre rere eer ere os MATS ONOT DAS DANS vw YO OSI BONG SON DO RNAS COOs DO etc int tt tte ey ger NSN On a OO en NCS GOOGLE LILO SL BES = Unemployed in traditional fishery activities = Population not in the labor force = Population in the labor force UT NLF LF Yukon Demographic Structure Moderate Case Table 23. bee ee eeeeecee + : + tee deve . + ! ,otot \ ! * I Ul @#eee0e ee ot ! Pool e r h oaeor Qo | 1 Potormoco. | ' 1 oP PRANArmaNt 3 ! 1th 14 ie tabu \ i= petit 1 a yor od \ aie PR teet ceceee ts tex . 1 1 1 1 i= \ ' ! 1 eeeeeet ! 1 oY PNP MOWDHOONI ae Pop bid pare mest i ; | 1 oP 1 ONAN I | ! en ee a ee \ rf hoy orm f \ ; .! - op odd \ | ! J ororoet ty > ee i | ' rot 1 1 : ; | ‘ It TAL eee wee ol ee 1 NOWMOWNS wi : 1 Pt b AO etNNMN 1% 1 mame v ; bo PIPaNmMmaos Ie Hiss < bated le i ; i iota ie — Dp att to Ha fein ! Dots : lait \ : bec - : tivterte + ett i 1 otbaood a. | 1 a ee eee vele a uw. ft eeeene etn a2 5 » mol MOB~MOEMIL 2 LOI ANDoanaIa me ole = {I rmMyMOYIe:; F Pei Wwiwomovyor tt ot o ! i a 10, oO tit aa 10) rt rol ! ee ee a te | Voi oof \ Pons towel t— Tt o ! 1 10; oO t tt 1O { ! aan | ee ed ee ee IN | [tee ooke Ke ee cece ence th 1 pee beet eeee eens + aa Se ! : ; imi aw t wt 1a | 4 1 wv ad BAANMTALM Tey] ef 1 OG banmaniom is | ot | woot ' 1 fur; tw poe ot purl Pad Hoe ee eet eeeeeeeececeee + > pt te seqee eeeee te > | yp eee ee ee . seeee om) 1 (0-14), 2 (15-19), 3 (20-24), 4 (25-29), 5 (30-44), 6 (45-64), 7 (65+). Age Cohorts: Coastal Demographic Structure Moderate Case Table 24. 2 2G TCTP : + + + Oe Oe te ee ee ee eeee eet : 1 1 1 en 1 : 1 1 1 1 LU eeeeeeet i ! ot 1 1 Peed Com a Oud t ! 1 1 to, 1 boi@oannsant : ! I 1 Pf PPAR | : ' ' 1 ! | tut t 1 1 1 Patat ! | t 1 ' I> ru t 1 : 1 1 4 Stes tod ! : 1 + + , be beet + ot ' \ 1 reo ot 1 ' t ' 1 tt 1 enveevenat PNOANDA 1 1 fo f & £ TNT DRADONSNO! | WN OOIND toute Poy bE aD OMT I | toro roto bt Poon eee i to owert robo bb gat ! { 1 ot 1 pofor 4 ret : ' : ne a) ,ototot \ | robo ob | \ popoy bob i eet + ee seseeeereeee + H \ fos 4 ent censor esse cess + | toot on boro: | 1 Tt eevee set oj | 1 INieseecevel oe i 1 bid oonrnonta! Sb PW eNO OE 1 i 1 tolvannnmaic! bo Popnnvnorn i wi tet beste buy ! reas : ‘ is p2r3) is tot 1 ; i — rere | poi; yerey < { . ‘ Pre tccecceeeceesee dt it : lil teetes c+ : trrot Io. ft tury a a. OD Ett bw eee eet a! OF Tt Lee we ee te ou a ot t IPSNAM™~OWIO, BD Cro ina~Mumn - ee lel PIANMTOUNTR! F&F PZ ILL onmtrows | Oo Oo 1 tat | = 10; OF Io - 1 A wor itt jp te; re toiat ! ! ‘ yf 1 : = T Siti tes kn ! tied ot ! ' : at 1 [bee ee db eeqeeeeeeeeeee dh |b bee tee teeeees seen eeend x wio'ou tt 4 tre! a oF wot : 1 Se “ory PaO OM fay Bor Yo banmraom fst t wot oe ot i put} oul obo woot rhs s Sd adeeneeen te | beste peccpeseeseenee i | i ! 1 (0-14), 2 (15-19), 3 (20-24), 4 (25-29), 5 (30-44), 6 (45-64), 7 (65+). e Cohorts: Sc Oo A A Kuskokwim Demographic Structure Table 25. Moderate Case = ic ¥ SRT OTe! ; NATIVE - Se ee es $---4¢------- 5 - - $e et o ! t 1 le ' > 1 _ 1 1 e { to: <x \ 7 tf za teen . ae tio ta: =i Leer eee elm OIrNtiryamMomani na! ZlurrammMmom te tit i 1Oj (<1 i te wet jot tot ‘ be: toy en eet ce bee ee cece aces + woot | 1a; CG tenmencn pal | i putt eeetee Heeeeeeeeeeeeee tm: i ; — a “TOTPR ~~ >> R16 al --YE Heeb oe t | 1 1 ' rot Pout 1 fod toc : 1 tect tutu ' Popted t aa 1 1 Lhe + oe bce eeee ene oot rd 1 ' 12 L tf eewenoat ! PNILODAON+D I t fo oThthoammancar tb: PoP NAN tf ' (att { 1 i tows to: toro | I | ! ! 1 Hee ee bh eee ee ee eneeee + | ' ! 1 : 1 . I TNL eeeeeset eo! 1 PW POMONININO 1M PoP ou trent tweet iw >It io trad ' fetal { . tarot tot ll tee tees . + ree 1 ia. 4 tLeeeeee etc ICIiNiv~nmMeonnroia IS lWlrAnNMoNnn le 1 tot : 1O ' iat i tke Pore j on torot? ; toe Poo’ yg : to + Oe toe te te weer essen + ' 1 ud 1 1a: 1 YO tanmsynom ia! 1 od 4 | tio! tre reee st | s+ >] H ' { 1 i ! ' YEAR -20 TOTPRS +---4+-----~-~_---- -t+------- +e t+ reereee on ! Ut © ewe eaoe Leb Moe SPAN mom Sites st atl wd ! ot coe : ! bee eeeoe WNLONNTOM™ LIE AOmM aE 1 DAA mt <tl 1 1 ' + e t Dl eeeeve of Lilborowrroes | Jr ennwen 1 sl 1 ! ' ' ! + + | ! lee e eee oy LADODN~Y DRO] PWNMMOO | 1 1 1 1 Ot eeeeceees rr { ‘ 1 PoNMruo™ | t . 25 YEFLR 26 TOTP3P 1 (0-14), 2 (15-19), 3 (20-24), 4 (25-29), 5 (30-44), 6 (45-64), 7 (65+). Age Cohorts: Table 26. Real Per Capita Income Year Coastal Yukon Kuskokwim 1 4,307 7 4,210 3,543 5 4,284 3,905 4,372 10 4,364 3,945 4,462 15 4,452 4,012 4,547 20 4,557 4,097 4,648 are to spend all revenues except the legally required savings and to only spend to maintain real per capita. expenditures (Tuck, 1981). The major effects of these changes show up in the relative growth of employment end population. Over the period employment grows at an average annual rate of 1.5 percent in Yukon, 1.8 percent in Coastal, and 1.8 percent in Kuskokwim. Population grows at a rate of 1.0 per- cent in Yukon, 1.2 percent in Coastal, and 1.2 percent in Kuskokwim. Comparing these projections to the high case shows that the employment growth rate is reduced by about half, the population growth rate is reduced substantially less. The importance of non-economic determi- nants of population growth in rural Alaska allows population growth to be maintainted even though employment growth is not as rapid. The other major difference occurs in the measures of economic welfare. The employment rate increases throughout the projection pe- riod, but not to the extent shown in the high case. In all cases, real per capita income growth is not as great as in the high case; per capita income falls in the Yukon subregion in this projection. These effects are also the result of the limited link between employment and population growth. 13 The Low Scenario The low scenario projections are presented in the following tables. This scenario differs from the moderate scenario only in its assumed growth of government employment. Government employemnt in the region is assumed to grow at one percent per year. The comparison of this scenario with the moderate case provides a test of the independence of population growth and employment growth assumed in our model. In this projection, while employment in the re- -gion by 200 is 14 percent lower than in the moderate case, population is only 4 percent lower. 14 — eo eo Table 27. Yukon Resident Employment 1981-2000 (Annual average employment) Low Case EMG eeeve eeceeer eee eone of WIS TGANGART SENOS Y ONMNGD 1 CSDTSNMMS NETS XT ROHNMS I GRIEDSICOCOCC COSI Seti te seems t ob eer d * 1 : . : Pr NNNNDPOCODOVDDDDVRAARAIDD P Rm R BRANNAN Getta amon wen teem > I I I i I I I i I me eee I I I I J I J I I I + —= it Bd ek td Pt pd Pd dt Pt rt et pt mt H : TOD RADONNS DANSODONM NO PROC CPR RRNAN aM eee eee rere eee eee eon e PE a et pd Pat dd Pd md at Pt Pet Pt Pt RDRRARAKRKAAMAAMARARAAAD AMMOMAMAMMAMAMMMAMMMM MMMM | RRR tte EMF = Traditional Fisheries Harvesting EMP = Traditional Fisheries Processing EMG = Government Support Sector EMS = E} Mining, OCS, Special Project Contruction EMB = Bottomfish Industry = Total employment TE Table 28. Coastal Resident Employment 1981-2000 (Annual average employment) Low Case EMS EMG EMF UAL tore Pe SANNNST STE OCNTONIG I NMOSCNOMTBPOANMS NOT DT 1 PRAPPRODPOOOTOSOCOSO Rede marina eeoesreoersee ees er eer enere SS nrxererwodo0cocoococo Ratt ee emocooccyoscseco Oe Qe O- Oe! O- Oe Oe Oo eee rteeer reer eereseoers ~QDDATTAMOCINNDHMORHSO MT SUXANIDPIRPOOCOGARKARAARNN DIR ON CLONER, CN OE OO TELE CTY I I q 1 I 1 I I I I I I 1 1 I 1 I i ] eenrVercerreaeeeeosee BONDMDNAY MT MNBS A LOE EMD ROOSHANTE S CUE SSO I SD i KO4G, GTTe ee we a ¢ ef 8 te eT 45 HTle RSs SS SSS See coo eer ere eee ee eoer eee oe NANMM ee ee Peal eralalararalalarareralalararalalaral t Rt te tt tt et tt ANMTNOFDROGNMNSNO™DRAOL Ast sAN I ' 1 EMF = Traditional Fisheries Harvesting EMP = Traditional Fisheries Processing EMG = Government EMS = Support Sector EMX = Mining, OCS, Special Project Contruction EMB = Bottomfish Industry TE = Total employment Table 29. Kuskokwim Resident Employment 1981-2000 (Annual average employment) Low Case EMG ZYEAR eee eee sere er eereereec eal WOO GAT COOMMMMMMNMMMMMGE . ANNN Geese] = i, \ | I be. ‘ ! | rs oan PASSAT, aha aaa SSS SoS. Ot at at tt ta tt em i ' ' i + ; r t ecoveveevreereevreoereee eee ev ef Ocecood poSoessers ss" I : t ' tye tapes atte teevn te wie eer eepee ences cette oe eeerereecreoeseoeeese MPM AT ME ONMODOMAY SO! IMTS MNANCOL ON iD NE PER PINS FO LOEIN ES TORN OT et a et tt et erence eeeroe eee oe seees MOBO O ABORT NT MDMDPNOS ™coa7 a: eae Fern n> STF TS EAI CE AA ELA ! i i : ! : : : i ! i i ! ! i : : | Re eS SESS I 1 ' ~t ! 1 ‘ t ‘ a+ ' { ! { ‘ 38 i e . NN MAMMMAMAMAMMMAMAMM MAM oO eoeereecee oer eee eee eee es DDDOMDODDDDNDDDDDODMNODO WOOO DOCDODOCODONDDODD0D i re eee wp ee ww nme Hen Pe ae a a a et ee tt et at et NMOS NO DRAOGANMTINOFDDO Ht tg ' 1 ee ee ee et et et et et bean penne pe sp ett - LI I 2- J I I I I ] I I I I ] 1 I I I I I I I I i 4 EMF = Traditional Fisheries Harvesting EMP = Traditional Fisheries Processing EMG = Government EMS = Support Sector EMX = Mining, OCS, Special Project Contruction EMB = Bottomfish Industry - TE = Total employment Yukon Population 1981-2000 Low Case Table 30. TOTP TL 5 NRP2 DP NRPL BPE BP tose wer ‘pose nee Fis lal fold lol otal eles lab lal oie lela [a PORmMOMMNNNONNS FDAMN GOMES PMNOODAEMOMOMY NOANAMIOOM PORAANNMMSTOANOCSCHE EE DODD eovreeereoereene eee eee eee FATOOUMARTNOmMRONMNS ISS belo b lable cle ble ele ele leltle s 0 le | CODTMANMORNAR MANOOTrO Lae amen acca KRNNMMAMMAMMOMMAMMOO MAM MT jrprrprtrrrrerttrretretee eee emer ere reese ecee . . TODDOCOCCODODCODOS9N0OG ! 1 pee ee t | Ic Ne eeoeereeeeeseer rere CNA HDUTNCROEEE OVO IIS TNOO-DROOCGNNTNDO IMM MMMAMMm MoT SSS Adee a3). ! | | 1 ! fe Re et te ! | ! i: ! De et re et eee eeceoere eee eee ewe ose TCOOSTCHOO AMY MOYES SOT OWNORCH CY DAWNING DS SSA IS SL OLS SO DAR AAR AR AAA AAAARARAN 27866 . NRaePTLOTROANMAIT YS SOM MAONEMSMAMINOOME COMO RHODROOSGINNMAMY STON SPST STII IATA ID A i et et tt ANT NOM DROANMS NON DNS t AAAI AN t 7 : : i f te et et ee et i { 1 t 1 t 1 t ' 1 + 1 ' 1 1 1 { 4 t + ' 1 1 1 ty 1 i 1 + { i i i) 24 vt t 1 i ' 1 ! ' t ' ! t + = Base population (residence independent of economic activity BP BP plus traditional fishery nonresident workers = Construction and mining nonresident workers BPE DP New residents (respond to support sector employment) = New residents (respond to government employment) = DP + NPR1 + NPR2 (not used in this analysis) NPR2 NPR1 TL Total regional population TOTP TOTP Tl NRP2 Table 31. Coastal Population 1981-2000 Low Case DP “NRPL BPE POPU pan ee MOM AAAOARETOCOSNONM DANDNAMIOSONARAINANA SERN DQORCOS TIANA MAMMMMMOMMS terete tes 4383: Ce CWOTN AAG arn aa SOCCHHNAKRMMMMS SS met ee ~10! -145¢ eee eee ees . eee eee eoe ima aleteleleelelolololelntolole Os See ieee Ue eee eye eee ree weer eee ree sea ee RO MONRO MOET NOOR SHS MOMMA em ee ee TO: TAANROSONN ODDS MOOV ey FUER MOTI tt et ee nt et tt Rd ee ee oe TANS NO VROANMI NOY DDO! A tty ft ff ee Base population (residence independent of economic activity = BP plus traditional fishery nonresident workers = Construction and mining nonresident workers DP + NPRL + NPR2 (not used in this analysis) = New residents (respond to support sector. employment) Total regional population = New residents (respond to government employment) BP BPE DP NPRI NPR2 Tl TOTP Kuskokwim Population 1981-2000 Low Case Table 32. “POPL hed TOTP Tl NRP2_ NRP1 DP BPE TYEAR I et tt et et et et et et a ODN RONNOTAOENMOP MALT SANNMAMMSTSETONNNO OG e m oO a AMM MMM AMM MAMMMMOAMMAMMMM 3107. I tt a et et at Peat ett Pt Pt Pe LARMMARNDNAEINNDOMCMOSTNC COSHRTNAE CDE DDROGANMSN MAMMMMeMMMAMMS SoS S tt et et tt at td at dt tt rk Pt cooeoere eer ero eo eer eet e . - t OHSAS NNMMMMMMS A Ret itde “141+ I bee ne nn fp ee en enn pee eee t ee eee Ee T eoeeove . eo0coqgococeocaocjacoo O- a i a ee be a a te ee et ee eceerosreeseeerese eer ee WV AMPH CO MAWAEMNNO LOS NOON DOKTBEDPROGGNMYNS NO CER RIAD UNOS TE OT MCT I ] I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 64-6 O46 64 64.6 64%. 64. t 4 ' ' 4 t ’ 1 { 4 1 + 1 1 ' 1 1 1 q TO Ree gt lel ol alee co ete ce eet en te cee pe ee tt ee ee coer eee eree se ew ee oe re AWAGNGOHRINTSTRMODRINR~N MNONDDaATHONLE ONY CKHONS SOMOBRDDOCSAASGANNNANMYMD RIN NRRL MIE MIMI EN MIE we we ee ee tee et eet tt tt ANOS AGS DROANNS NO DIO PAN I a ete tt ; i ; = Base population (residence independent of economic activity = BP plus traditional fishery nonresident workers BP BPE DP Construction and minitg nonresident workers = New residents (respond to government employment) = New residents (respond to support sector employment) NPRL NPR2 P + NPR1 + NPR2 (not used in this analysis) otal regional population D T i | ‘ ' ‘ Yukon Labor Force Participation Table 32. Low Case a te I 3893 wee ne en te ne ee teen ee eet I Ee at at tk a a Pe Pa Pent et Bot tt eoeeoeereeoereerenesees NODNMDOANLANMMANO YS MMe CHAK INTORMONAIWA™ TSOP STOOD OOS RE Pe tt ttt te i : a tt ro ANINOV-DAADONTIN ROO CSE MISOAOUING OC FNANANDD OSS MOAMAMMAMMMAMMAMAMMAMMOM ] 1 I I ] l 1 I I 1 J 1 1 I 1 J 1 l eereeoeeanereere eee ese NA DWOANNODAMS SONOS we COMO OSS CO eomMor-C eres BODO COOR SBS ANNNNN OMS ve Ee tt tt et nt at et tt a * m ANMTNOGELROANMSNO~VDO!I PAA ARAN I i . i ! ' t = Unemployed in traditional fishery activities = Population not in the labor force = Population in the labor force UT NLF LF Coastal Labor Force Participation Table 33. Low Case NLF “peered Sy ix iu > i> ' ! ! | | te | t ! { + . MAMOCANINGE HOHE OOMODS FE MORAN OOM O NS OCA EF TTA NN MMM OS nan aA SAS HOP MGDONMMANGER TOD 1 ONES ECO RE ROR RED OSS INNNNNNM OE AMAMAM St INNNNNNNNNNNANNNNNNN ! eee reese eo ere reese ree NON SET ON MMO MMe O Nh Sa DAMS TAME ACK OO Tae POBDDDAHARAANNNANMAMO Ht HA HR Pt a at ed ant tt ANMST NOS DROANMS NO“ DROOL Season eheoane Hts ft: i \ ‘ 5 ; i ! i ' : 3 t 1 ee ee ee 2 fishery activities = Unemployed in traditional UT ov o u ° wo vo wou o0 Ou 3 aw ° Go og vA eo die 3 wv os Eon gs 3 dood vu og da 33 & B. ° Pa By oon NLF LF Kuskokwim Labor Force Participation Table 34. Low Case NLF ' 1 { 1 1 ' ' J : i : ‘ 3 : 7 ' voeee te ! 1 ! 1 + poke <= pw - AMAL TONOS DAN DANS SAIS SR DONM SOR MAHAN CCOT CORR HR NN, . ° . . . . . . e . . ° . . . * . . N SOm tS PROraa arin 4 &: RR DRRRDRDFPRDIODODIDOODOO tt St RONAN S1ols fee pwn ne ene fn enn eee penne end I I 1 I I I I | I I I r I I I 1 I 1 I eeesreerrese ee eaneeeooeoe FIST OMOGAE AOS TE Dam Urh- Cac’ yrnecee Tw Oa NONLCLSGSGOLS SSS hye vs B2T. 21 31 I 1 om TI I 91 I I 21 31 I I I I I I I _ ANMSTALGMHDOROGINMTNO- DIO | SAAN ‘ \ i ! : ; ‘ i et ed ee et et Re at pt tt at ad = Unemployed in traditional fishery activities = Population not in the labor force = Population in the labor force UT NLF LF Yukon Demographic Structure Low Case Table 35. —YEAR—1--TCTPP -- . . + YEAR 20 TOTeAD + + toot 7 + Het ce eeee ee coeeee + t 1 ! t 1 : ! i 1 ! 1 | : | aeee | : 1 1Uit wee wees] 1 1 : 1 1 oP SOS i I Pu) Ch tuum au 4 1 1 | 1 ' CHU erm | ! ! PIIoMmmonracy I : } 13 NATO : i ! \ SIR ANN Nt ‘ Hae ot al ' 1 ' btw to: 1 Iutue i 1 I : >t 1: f >i 1 ' | ' t ! : lm { 1 1 + \ fRe+ ti | Tb tee te cece erence enon ! ' beta por boron 1 1 ' | 121 tou ; TEL teeesvect ! ' }o'os 1} fob INiwrr one t re rot Pod Pat wanes 1 ' 1 {4 ' ! t dy ' { ! ! 1PIIPmNaaenny 1 top, at ' Poa | fo oaoverg 4 ' ee ee i tooo | ! owt | i oot 1 1 t 1 of 1 : ' | 1 ! ' an | 1 toys tog 1! Poy 4 : tora | wee 1 + + | Heed eederesecseecceend — | | Heeb et cone cees + ' 1! Poot a ' tj tort 1 t "aI | 1 TAL eee eee et oF ' 1 TN eevee oy ! wt tor j 1b PWLatrnmoain: 1 ot tluUlmoworeo! ' a! tol : bo Pa bONNMmy st! i 1 PIE NMeoN, | tuli<ct rol. tuired Iw? i bub et 1 r>rsd fins i Poe t : bac : oe eae 1 tara toy fo aaban: i, op ; bata 1 rei Poo dette bb rer ! tu sey se ecesnes ere : 1 Zl + 00 Fever eevee wl i isd l ! ' oe rrr tat PeeeestoetO, A Ett , Q 121 | \ LOTMIMNNDONGOIOA; 2 1c ' a: 2 1011 1 PE PWIONIMGAGes ti ke Le I mI - 1 fwd 1 1 tt a! 10O' Cc fl 1 oO; oO 1 tot 1 oii trie | iat Fe! Be o1 oie \ toa boboror obo ores ! tod pueda ! i ile id | esi Pe eg ag bth * | é Por ares 7 u a yo ot wot fe poerope ct et 2 | S| BLS +e . 4 << testbed eseesecete ieee to r Pores | > joetort ! | | 1 | i 4 ft 1 (0-14), 2 (15-19), 3 (20-24), 4 (25-29), 5 (30-44), 6 (45-64), 7 (65+). 5937. Age Cohorts: Year 10 15 20 Table 38. Coastal 4,307 4,199 4,191 4,188 4,199 Yukon 4,210 3,837 3,807 3,799 3,805 Real Per Capita Income Kuskokwim 3,543 4,289 4,293 4,289 4,298 Summary The study has presented a set of projections which describe the possible growth of the Nunam Kitlutsisti region of southwest Alaska. The alternative scenarios differ in their assumed growth of the basic sector of the economy. The basic sector consists of that portion of the economy which sells its goods and services outside the region; the sector has traditionally been defined as the major determinant of eco- nomic growth in regional economies. The projections describe a relatively stable region for the pro- jection period. Population grows relatively slowly throughout the pe- riod; the average population growth rate is less than two percent per year. The stability of population growth projections across scenarios is noticeable, especially when the difference in projected employment growth is considered. Tables 39 and 40 show the regional growth in population and employment. While the year 2000 difference in employ- ment is 63 percent between the high and low cases, popvlation differs by only 14 percent. The projections presented in this study depend on the assumptions behind them. Population and employment will only reach these levels if the assumptions involved in these projections: economic growth and community response assumptions. The three scenario presented above examine the effect of changes in economic growth scenarios. 15 Coastal Demographic Structure Low Case Table 36. 1 TOTRD YEAR ont : : Oe tet cee en eens ooes 1 od As Ut eeeennes : 1 Lutes UI) OPewesewoe dt. 1 Poot oc ! SAlbHOrnaoo | | 1 totto LE S SEE WAieteeen” ! ; ! ttine ' te 1 : : a4 ttt | wits : tutu | pot . i! i bo tuws Ito 1 : : -beetoot The ee t + Ph tet zt (eri) ‘ reer ! | Ca ee i zt ote pyiw 1, ' 1 1wim py etse | i 1 ob ubbes bp foe a j 1 tite pfist Vio \ torent] pp,ies 1 ; | owes tjeou i! | : i iariteey tet ' i i ' ! nit Vi beet cet coove oeeeceeet | | | tee oe tos to be 1 Vie Heer | ID1 eeeeseole , . 1 {Al eesveset se ' PWLOFONNORRIM | ~ ' PUP OORT ANE 1 tliodisanana in | + 1 tottannorn eo ttud <td { 1o: C Loic Lo born 7 ory Se toeard i par ut i ty 7s roar ' Ril ' Valith ee Preiut t (eit : t | ee iat t. [cee Oe ee | ' u 1 Pe eeeeeet I 1 ! ia: a. | trot mae a Leewc'eoan et om 3:4 Cand a. bse Leeoeeee otc 1OlmMNImwoannaenn~ tia 12 Ripa tOrNinnywonrr ia I21IWINagteresr ie - re ite | PWT WANMMONrT IE frre { 10 | O° oro © tat, ay 1© tpt ! te Je re fe bby te barbed i wi ani ( t2t te bid in lo o fo reo 1c ittot | ' on a SOE iN $e tet ceen sees Me engl | | tee tens +] tfw ot ] ta le See a bor 1}O tanmsnoris | & & bef 1 0 te sp | | | tut ul ul furs to a ote iu Hee eeee + eoeeesceneveee + > [> > > + 000000 + speocece ; od 1 (0-14), 2 (15-19), 3 (20-24), 4 (25-29), 5 (30-44), 6 (45-64), 7 (65#). Age Cohorts: Table 37. Kuskokwim Demographic Structure Low Case ~Y-ESR—]—TOTP P-- = ---- nee Se ee tere ee : : NGN- CNATIVE : NATIVE AGE +2 eee te te ee ten ee ee tere ene : > MALES : FEMALES : FEMALES +t---t¢--------- to-------- ee sol: 4l, 3 40- : 4256 7 23 13. : lle : 172. $23 32. : 206 : llé. : 4: 36. : 260 : 1256 2 503 63. : 2le : 2906 I Bo eer 1a “~~ 1896" > 7 3 De le: Ee +---+ YEAR 2 1 3 40. D27. AQ. 3 Tame tooe Lhe lI s lates 2: 203 26. : 120. 13G¢. : 2 4 3 33. : 120. 127. : 2 53 es. : 248, : 25546 : tert le to 1536 174. 2 2 7 3 21. : 148. 134. : Oe ad $e em ee ee om te “YEAR 10 TOTP: Oo: HY EBR—20 TOT PD nn nn nn ene nc cre eens eee 41 15 17 20 50 35 22 YEAR 20 TOTPO; 36746 Peeve vereceev ee poe Hoe Age Cohorts: 1 (0-14), 2 (15-19), 3 (20-24), 4 (25-29), 5 (30-44), 6 (45-64), 7 (65+). a oe — ec eo eo Table 39. Population 1981-2000 Nunam Kutlutsisti Region Scenario Year High Moderate Low 1981 11,802 11,769 11,755 1985 12,658 12,453 12,361 1990 13,722 13,184 12,979 1995 14,800 13,856 13,520 2000 15,910 14,487 13,994 Table 40. Employment 1981-2000 Scenario Year High Moderate Low 1981 2,687 2,653 2,636 1985 3,100 2,884 2,786 1990 3,714 3,124 2,920 1995. 4,442 3,390 3,046 2000 5,176 3,670 3,174 Equally as important to the results are our assumptions about the community response to economic growth. Assumptions about community response describe the basic economic-demographic linkages. In these projections we assume that these rural regions respond as they histor- ically have with only marginal changes to these patterns. The major changes assumed are reductions in fertility rates and an increasing attachment to the market economy. The importance of the linkage between population growth, the mar- ket economy, and subsistence make the rural Alaska economy unique. These links also provide a major area of questions about future 16 growth. A major question remains how these linkeges will change with increased awareness of the market economy, increased job opportuni- ties, and increased cost of essentials. The pattern of growth in the region will be influenced more by changes in these responses than by changes in basic sector activity. 17 REFERENCES Alaska Department of Labor; Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Labor Market Analysis. 1981. : Policy Analysts, Ltd. Nunam Kitlutsisti Baseline Study. 1981. APPENDIX A BASIC SECTOR EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS FOR THE YUKON-KUSKOKWIM COASTAL BOUNDARY AREA I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this appendix is to develop projections of annual full-time, basic-sector employment for the Yukon-Kuskokwim dbbeens boundary study area. The employment projections are used as input for the SCIMP model. ‘As shown in Figure A-1, the study area is divided into three geographic subregions plus the city of Bethel. Although Bethel is located in the Kuskokwim subregion, I have isolated Bethel employment projections from the overall study area. The industries discussed in the following sections include II. Fisheries, III. Mining, IV. Oil and Gas, V. Energy, VI. Agricul- ture, and VII. Government.: Three scenarios of resource development are outlined--moderate, high, and low. The moderate scenario summarized in Summary Tables 1 through 3 reflect historic trends where appropriate, plus che most up-to-date information on potential future tev etlopaeet activity. In several cases, the opinions of industry specialists supplemented other data or filled missing data gaps. The high scenario summarized in Summary Tables 4 through 6 generally includes moderate scenario activity plus additional projects that could occur but with less certainty. The low scenario, summarized in Summary Tables 7 through 9, is identical to the moderate scenario except that government employment grows at 1 percent per year, or at half the rate of govern- ment employment in the moderate scenario. A list of references is included at the end. Fish larvesting SUMMARY TABLE 1. Fish Processing MODERATE SCENARIO EMPLOYNENT YUKON SUBREGION R 139 + 39 203 203 R 30 31 32 32 32 33 33 I 1S 16 16 16 16 7 uv, Mining Oil & Gas Energy R oI Roo: R 1 1 10 4 12 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 ‘ ‘2 G J 1 tL tL 4 + 2 10 4 12 4 0 Agriculture Is oooo BEeow BD ARADA VYUuUUUU to R 594 606 0 618 630 643 655 . 669 ” 682 , 696 709 724 738 753 768 783 799 815 , 831 848 a . 865 Government 1 220 224 229 233 238 242 248 252 258 262 268 273 279 284 290 296 302 307 314 320 Total = 767 781 794 806 826 840 851 864 880 894 909 924 936 949 971 987 1003 1019” 1036 +1053 I~ 460 465 470 474 479 484 490 494 500 504 510 515 521 526 532 538 544 549 556 562 TT Fish Harvesting Year R 1981 68 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 68 R = Resident 1= Imported L 18 18 SUNNARY TABLE 2. Fish Processing NRNNN ID ww In ae s———— holppn ——- eee MODERATE SCENARIO EMPLOYNENT KUSKOKWIM SUBREGION WBN ww wBwWLWw uw fining 1 19 19 Bt) 19 29 29 29 29 29 25 Oil & Gas : Energy Agriculture RoI R I oR 4 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 3 3 0 0 4 5 5 4 ll 11 4 boll OG 11 ll 4 6 6 7 0 0 7 7 7 7 10 4 10 10 10 10 0 0 0 0 10 0 —— ee. Government R 481 491 501 511 521 * 532 542 553 564 575 587 599 611 623 635 648 661 674 688 701 1 178 182 185 189 193 197 201 205 209 213 217 222 226 231 235 240 245 249 255 259 — i= 556 566 576 586 599 615 631 652 653 670 670 682 694 706 721 734 747 760 774 807 uo Ee Total ited 216 220 223 227 242 251 261 265 269 264 262 267 271 276 280 ‘ 285 290 294 299 303 L9€ T9E Sse ore "9E sce cee 8ze ze Lie zre soe 10€ 967 16Z 187 Tle 892 £97 657 =f 016 968 le 798 L708 zee 118 208 6Bl SLL zoL nol lee 61L 904 769 089 899 * $s9 TevoL 299 cl soe $78 667 608 Coz €6L L827 ddl zz z9L 9L% dol Uz wel 99% gil 09% 90L SS@ 069 osz L419 Sz £99 19% 0s9 9£% g€9 1€z Sz9 Lez £19 @2z 109 BIZ 68S €1z Lg 602 99S T au Juowuyza009 parsodwy quopysoy uw 0 0 0 0 0 0 oy 8 z 9% ot es 0002 6661 8661 L661 . 9661 S661 7661 cool 7661 1661 0” 8 0661 ge 9 6861 | 8861 L86t Bc 9 9861 ; sey won Seot 6% £ sa €@ 986l 62 € Il tz C8ol 6% € Ul aa 7861 0 0 0 0 0 0 6% € IL a ol es 1861 Tt u I 4 I YW I Y T y 1 XY FEIT Danz[noyasy RI7ouy St) 8 110 BUyUTH Suyssoo0rg Ysts Tuy ysoaaey Ystg NOIDTUMNS IVLSVOD LNINAOTIRA OFUVNAIS ALVAIGON °€ ATVL AYVNAS iii TTA SUMMARY TABLE 8. LOW SCENARIO EMPLOYMENT KUSKOKWIM SUBREGION . Fish Harvesting Fish Processing Mining Year 1 R oL Ro 1981 op 18 2 1 2 Wy 1982 2 1 2 19 1983 2 1 2 19 1984 2 1 2 19 1985 3 2 3 29 1986 3 2 3 29 1987 3 29 1988 3 29 1989 3 29 1990 5 25 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 68 18 3 2 5 25 —________.. "R= Resident l= Imported Oil & Gas Energy Agriculture Government Total R ot Rk o- R I R i R 1 a) o 0 3 0 477 176 552 215 3 481 178 556 217 .3 486 —-180 561 218 3 491 182 566 220 0 0 4 - 496 184 574 233 5 5 4 501 185 584 239 Moo 4 506 187 595 247 wo 4 511 189 600 249 Woo 4 516 191 605 251 6 6 7 } 521 193 610 244 o 0 7 527 195 610 240 7 532 197 615 242 7 537-199 620 244 7 543201 626 246 , 10 548 203 634 248 10 553-205 639 250 10 559 207 645 252 10 565 209 651 254 10 “$70 211 656 252 o oO 0 0 10 0 576 = 213 661 254 AT Year 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 SUMMARY TABLE 4. NIGH SCENARIO EMPLOYNENT YUKON SUBREGION Fish Harvesting Fish Processing Mining Oil & Gas Energy R I RL R 1 R o1 R 1 139 203 33 7 1 10 4 12 0 0 34 7 1 . 0 35 18 . 0 139. 203 37 19 4 12 0 140 214 38 19 5 252 4 141 218 39 20 5 413 142 225 * 40 20 7 241 143 232 4 21 12 470 144 244 4) 21 1 24 653 147-262 4321 2 | 27 494 150 284 43 22 30 415 154 317 45 23 20 229 160 361 45 23 172 168 424 46 23 195 171 509 47 24 224 48 24 205 pb 49 25 185 50 25 167 51 26 195 160 509 52 26 2 10 20 224 4 0 —$$$ R = Resident I = Imported AAARD NUUUMNU a Agriculture Government Total R oL RoL R 1 0 0 606 224 783 466 0 631 233 809 475 0 657 243 836 486 0 683 253 864 497 3 712 263 903 758 4 741 274 935 935 4 771 285 969 781 4 803 297 1008 1030 4 836 309 1054 1237 870 322 1098 1109 905 335 1139 1066 943 349 1173 928 981 363 1217 929 1021 378 1266 1030 1063 393 1313 1160 1107 410 1358 1158 1152 426 1404 1155 1200 444 1453 1155 1249 462 1503 1202 0 1300 481 1555 1250. Year 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 SUMMARY TABLE 5. HIGH SCENARIO EMPLOYNENT KUSKOKWIM SUBREGION pone _—_—— R 1 Resident Imported — Fish Harvesting Fish Processing Mining R 1 R I ROL 68 18 2 1 2 19 68 18 3 2 2 19 68 18 3 2 2 19 68 18 3 2 2 19 68 19 4 2 3 29 68 19 4 2 3 29 68 19 4 2 3 29 69 20 5 3 3 29 69 21 6 3 3 29 69 22 7 3 5 25 69 23 9 5 70 25 11 6 70 28 15 8 72 32 20 10 73 37 25 13 26 713 37 26 13 5 25 no ee Po Oil & Gas ‘Ro. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _0 - 0 0 0 0 3. 239 4 229 12 385 14 293 1S 233 10-136 100 114 133 121 108 97 114 10 133 Energy RoI 0 0 0 0 0 oO 0 0 0 0 5 5 1 1M 110611 11 11 Agriculture Ro 3 0 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 .7 r 7 7 7 7 10 Government R oL 491 182 511 189 532 197 554 205 577 213 601 222 625 231 651 241 678 251 705 261 734 272 764 283 796 295 828 306 862 319 898 332 935 346 973 360 1013 375 1054 390 i= 566 587 608 630 656 685 718 . 747 783 813 839 867 903 942 985 1022 1059 1097 1137 1178 Total i 220 228 236 244 263 277 531 534 700 610 558 475 456 487 . 531, 528 529 532 564 598 yA SUNNARY TABLE 6. HIGH SCENARIO EMPLOYNENT COASTAL SUBREGION Fish Harvesting Fish Processing Mining Year R 1 RoI “ROL 1981 53 10 23 12 3 29 1982 53 10 24 12 3 29 1983 53 10 25 13 3 29 1984 53 10 26 13 3 29 1985 54 11 28 14 4 38 1986 54 11 29 1S 4 38 1987 55 12 31 16 4 38 19KB 55 13 31 16 4 38 1989 56 14 33 17 4 38 1990 57 16 35 7 8 40 1991 58 18 37 19 1992 61 21 41 21 1993 64 25 45 23 1994 68 31 51 26 1995 14 39 59 30 1996 14 39 60 31 1997 74 39 61 31 1998 74 39 61 31 1999 74 39 62 31 2000 14 39 63 32 8 40 R = Resident Imported ix oooo Oil & Gas Energy I o Agriculture Government Total RoI Rol R 1 0 0 578 214 657 265 601 222 681 273 626 232 707 284 652 241 734 293 678 = 251 764 314 706 261 793 325 735 272 827 497 765 283 860 637 797 295 903 781 829 307 945 75 863 319 983 1066 899 333 1020 564 936 346 1064 538 974 360 1112 583 1014 375 1116 630 - 1056 391 1204 633 1099 407 1253 636 1144 423 1298 639 1191 441 1346 677 0 0 1240 459 1346 716 TRA SUNMARY TABLE 7. LOW SCENARIO EMPLOYMENT YUKON SUBREGION Fish Harvesting Fish Processing Mining Oil & Gas Energy Agriculture Government Total Year R iM ROL a R oI need Ro Rite R I 1981 139 203 30 15 1 10 4 12 0 0 0 0 588 218 762 458 1982 31 16 0 0 594 220 769 461 1983 32 16 0 0 600 222 7716 463 1984 32 16 0 0 606 224 792 465 1985 32 16 r 4 3 612 226 795 467 1986 33 17 4 618 229 803 471 1987 ; 4 624 231 809 473 1988 4 630 233 815 475 1989 : 1 4 637 236 822 478 1990 z 5 643 238 830 480 1991 5 649 240 836 482 1992 5 656 243 B43 48S 1993 5 |. 662 245 849 487 1994 5 669 248 856 490 1995 6 676 250 864 - 492 1996 6 682 252 870 494 1997 6 689 255 877 497 1998 6 , 696 258 884 500 1999 6 703 260 891 $02 2000 139 203 33. «17 2 10 4 12 4 0 6 0 710 263 898 505 me nt cee . — nce ce ees He on Year 1981 1982 19B3 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 SUMMARY TABLE 8, LOW SCENARIO ENPLOYNENT KUSKOKWIM SUBREGION Fish Harvesting Fish Processing Nining Oil & Gas Energy R 1 Ree RoL RoI RoL 6 18 2 1 2 Vy 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 19 2 1 2 19 2 1 2 19 3 2 3 29 0 0 3 2 3 29 5 3 29 11 11 3 29 wool 3 29 lool 5 25 6 6 0 0 68 18 3 2 5 25 0 0 0 0 R = Resident = Imported BVeEwWe Ix Peone Agriculture Government Total I R oL R 1 0 477 176 $52 215 481 178 556 217 486 180 561 218 491 182 566 220 496 184 574 233 501 185 584 239 506 187 595 247 511 189 600 249 . 516 191 605 _ 251 3 521 193 610 244 527 195 610 240 532 197 615 242 537 199 620 244 543 201 626 246 548 203 634 248 553 205 639 250 559 207 645 252 565 209 651 254 570 211 656 252 0 576 213 661 254 Year 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Fish Harvesting R 53 53 1 10 10 R 1 2 R I esident mported SUMMARY TABLE 9. R 22 22 23 23 24 24 Fish Processing I 11 ll 11 11 12 12 — —— os — —! LOW SCENARIO EMPLOYMENT COASTAL SUBREGION Mining Oil & Gas R ol kR 1. 3 29 0 0 3 29 3 29 | 3 29 4 38 4 38 = 4 38 8 40 8 40 ar) Energy R 7 I 0 R 0 Agriculture i 0 a —— —_—_— —— em Government R OL 561 208 566 209 572 212 578 214 583 216 589 218 595 220 601 222 607 225 613 227 619 229 625 231 632 234 638 236 644 238 651 241 657 243 664 246 671 248 677 250 639 644 651 657 664 670 676 682 688 698 704 710 717 723 729 735 741 748 755 761 Total Im 258 259 262 264 276 278 280 282 285 289 291 293 296 298 300 303 305 308 310 312 Figure A-1. Coastal Yukon-Kuskokwim Coastal Boundary Study Area Subregions II. FISHING PROJECTIONS HARVEST EMPLOYMENT Salmon. Our projections of residence harvest employment in the Yukon and Kuskokwim Delta (Y-K) salmon fishery are based on informa- tion from several sources. The projections of fish landed and total direct harvest employment shown in Table A-1 are taken from Western Alaska and Bering-Norton Petroleum Development Scenarios: Commercial Fishing Industry Analysis (1980), produced under the Alaska Sea Grant Program. ! The direct employment figures from the Sea Grant study correspond to a management area that is geographically larger than the Kuskokwim and lower Yukon coastal boundaries relevant to this study. Using data from Langdon: (1980), we approximated the proportion of permit holders within the coastal boundary area from the overall Sea ' Grant management area (83 percent for Kuskokwim and 91 percent for lower Yukon). This adjustment is shown in column 2 of Table A-1. Again, using 1979 data from Langdon (1980), we estimated the resident and nonresident status of permit holders for the period 1976 to 1979 (78 percent for Kuskokwim and 89 percent for lower Yukon). Although landed catch is projected to increase moderately at two percent per year, fishing effort expressed in man months of direct employment remains constant in the Sea Grant study throughout the Terom here on we refer to this report as the Sea Grant study. Kuskokwim Total man months 12-month average Lower Yukon Total man months 12-month average *Joseph M. Terry, et al. TABLE A-1. PROJECTED COMNERCIAL SALMON ANNUAL HARVEST EMPLOYMENT: 1980-2000 Total Fishermen Total Fishermen Resident Employment in Employment Fisherman Nonresident Management Area in Study Area Employment * Employment 7 2025 1681 1311 370 (169) (140) (109) (31) 1755 1597 1421 176 (146) (133 (118) 15) Western Alaska and Bering-Norton Petroleum Scenarios: Commercial Fishing Industry Analysis, Alaska Sea Grant Program (Anchorage, 1980), Tables 4.24 and 4.31. Base on proportion of permit holders within study region from the overall management area. From Steve Langdon, Transfer Patterns in Alaska Limited Entry Fisheries, University of Alaska (Anchorage, 1980). “Based on residency status of permit holders in 1979. (78 percent for Kuskokwim; 89 percent for lower Yukon). Langdon, 1980 ! 20-year projection period. Average catch per boat is, therefore, projected to increase from 1,600 to 2,300 pounds. After adjusting the Sea Grant projections for geographic discrep- ancies and for resident status, we project the resident commercial harvest employment in the Y-K salmon fishery to remain constant at 277 persons over the 20-year forecast period. As discussed above, this employment estimate is a full-time equivalent (FTE) for use in the SCIMP model. The actual crew size and length of fishing season is highly variable. Small, open skiffs requiring a two-man crew are common for both commercial and subsistence fishing in the Y-K coastal boundary area. The season typically lasts two months but may extend longer if other species are also harvested. In 1979 over 1,300 com- mercial salmon gill net fishing permits were held for the combined Y-K fisheries. According to Langdon, between 80 and 90 percent of these were held by local residents. The 1980 total Y-K commercial salmon harvest..was. almost. four times larger than the subsistence harvest (AFN, 1981). Using Langdon's (1980) data on the residency of permit holders, we estimate the distribution of salmon harvesting employment as follows: . (See Table A-6) Subregion Proportion of Study Area Employment Yukon 51 Kuskokwim 30 Coastal 6 Bethel City 13 100 Herring. The amount of employment in the commercial herring fishery is considerably more difficult to project because the fishery is in such an early stage of development. Although commercial herring fishing is only permitted in specific districts, fishing effort is not limited as in the salmon fisheries. Potential herring yields to coastal fishermen are also strongly affected by the presence of large Japanese catcher processors in open waters. The herring fishery is unique in that it plays an extremely important role in subsistence. The districts open to commercial herring fishing included Secur- ity Cove, Goodnews Bay, and Cape Romanzof. Table A-2 identifies several characteristics of the 1980 herring season for each district. Although the quantity of fish landed is distributed evenly across diuerares | the number of fishermen, the average number of days fished, and median catch per boat differ considerably. The common feature shared by all the herring fishing districts is that only gill net boats are used. The gill net is comparatively more labor intensive and less productive than purse seining. However, the muddy coastal waters and shallow depths severely limit seining techniques. Using preliminary Alaska Department Fish and Game (ADF&G) esti- mates of the number of boats in the 1980 herring fishery, authors of the Sea Grant study projected catch and fishing efforts for the Secur- ity Cove, Goodnews Bay, ‘and Cape Romanzof fisheries. These are shown in Table A-3. Note that as with salmon, the amount of fishing effort is expected to remain constant. These projections assume gill net fishing gear only. TABLE A-2. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE 1980 HERRING SEASON Metric Tons Number of Resident Status | Average Catch Per Boat District Landed Fishermen Boats Fishermen Days Fished Average Median Security Cove 611 178 20-30 110-120 9.8 6.0 2.5 Goodnews Bay 407 165 NA 3.5 6.4 3.0 b 78% of catch Cape Romanzof 554 69 54 40% of catch 4.2 7.0 6.0 Lynn Hale, Melvin Monsen, and Dan Strombon, Western Alaska's Fising Industry: a Profile. Alaska Native Foundation, April 1981, othe high number of fishermen per boat may reflect a certain degree of sharing among related and unrelated fishermen. SOURCE: Steve Langdon, The Western Alaska Sac Roe Herring Fishery, 1980: A Summary of ANF Questionnaire Findings. Alaska Native Foundation, December 1, 1980. TABLE A-3. PROJECTED HARVEST AND FISHING EFFORT IN THE YUKON-KUSKOKWIM ROE HERRING FISHERIES: 1980 to 2000 Number of Catch District Catch Boats Fishermen Per Boat (Metric tons) (Metric tons) Security Cove 640 7 111 333 5.8 Goodnews Bay 430 44 132 . 9.8 Cape Romanzof 590 59 162 10.9 627 SOURCE: Sea Grant Study, Table 4.65. We converted the projected number of fishermen (jobs) into annual full-time equivalent (FTE) by assuming that the average day lasts twelve hours and the average season lasts fourteen days. Under these assumptions the commercial herring fishery will generate 53 FTE jobs per year from 1981 to 2000. We allocated this employment to the Yukon and coastal subregions using data on the location and number of fish- ermen in Table A-3. The results are shown in Table A-6. Shellfish. According to the Sea Grant study, total king and tanner crab fishing effort in the Bering Sea grew from a combined total of 884 man months (74 man years) in 1970 to 5154 man months (430 man ad in 1980; an average growth rate of nearly 20 percent per year. The Sea Grant projections indicate that shellfish effort is expected to stabilize over the forecast period. Lynn Hale of Alaska Native Foundation cautioned that virtually no crabbing operations are presently based in the Yukon-Kuskokwim region, with possible exception to start up location at Mekoryuk on Nunivak Island. In their study entitled Measuring Socioeconomic Impacts of Alaska's Fisheries, Rogers, Listowski, and Mayer (1980) provide some helpful clues on the Y-K resident status of Bering Sea crabbers based on the geographic distribution of crab pots gear by owner's residence and area of activity (Chapter 9, p. 77). Using their data for 1971 through 1976, an average of two percent of crab pots used in the Bering Sea were based in the Wade Hampton Census Division. This proportion was applied to the Sea Grant forecast to yield resident TABLE A-4. Direct Harvest Employment® KING AND TANNER CRAB FISHING EFFORT Resident King Tanner Total Employment” Year Bering Sea Bering Sea (Man months) (Man years) (Han years’ (Man months) (Man months) 1970 692 192 884 74 0 1974 1260 192° 1452 121. 2 1977 1832 1128 2960 247 6 1978 1476 1704 3180 265 6 1979 2404 1724 4128 344 7 1980 1700 3454 5154 430 9 2000 1700 3454 5254 430 9 Yukon subregion boundaries selected for this study. 10 *Sea Grant Study, Table 4.76 and 4.89. b Based on two percent of total direct Bering Sea harvest employment from Rogers, Listowski, and Mayer, 1980. This employment is located in the Wade Hampton Census Division which is geographically similar to the shellfish employment expressed in annual FTE units of nine persons per year (see Table A-4). We assume that projected shellfish employment is located in the Yukon subregion. Bottomfish. The bottomfish industry in western Alaska is just beginning to develop. ayaekan harvesting, processing, and marketing capabilities still lag far behind the extensive harvesting, process- ing, and marketing systems of foreign fleets. Expectations reflected in the Sea Grant study, Arthur D. Little, and others suggest, however, that over the next 20 years U.S. and Alaskan bottomfishing efforts will gradually displace the foreign counterpart, assuming an increas- ing proportion of total foreign and domestic catch each year. Under this general setting, we assume the following pattern of harvest employment based on Sea Grant projections adjusted for consid- erations specific to the Y-K study area. The Sea Grant study assumes a constant 40 percent average annual rate of growth in Bering Sea trawler fishermen and catch/processor fishermen over the forecast period. Only 8 percent of these total direct Bering Sea harvest levels are assumed. to be resident-based in the Y-K region. This proportion reflects the proportion of total processing capacity in western Alaska's traditional fisheries that exists in the Y-K study area. Prior to 1985 we assume that there is not any resident-based bottomfish harvest employment in the Y-K study area. 11 After applying a similar adjustment to the total Bering Sea bottomfish catch, the catch relevant to Y-K fishermen grows steadily to 29,000 metric tons by 1995. This is equal to the processing capac- ity of one processing plant according to Arthur D. Little,’ Inc. (1978). After 1995, we assume the Y-K bottomfish industry stabilizes so that harvest and processing ‘(discussed below) remain constant at 1995 Tevels<- (See Table A-5.) There was no indication of how bottomfish employment would be allocated across Y-K subregions and to Bethel. To estimate this distribution, we used. the proportion of processing capa- city in each subregion. The resulting regional allocation of bottom- fish employment is shown in Table A-6. Total commercial fishing resident harvest employment in the Yukon Kuskokwim study area is summarized in Table A-6 for salmon, herring, shellfish, and _ groundfish. Excluding groundfish, total resident harvest employment equals 289 persons in the year 2000. This repre- sents 78 percent of traditional and bottomfisheries combined. Tradi- tional, plus bottomfish harvesting, employment would grow to 372 per- sons by 1995 and stabilize at that level thereafter. The moderate scenario includes only traditional fisheries employment. The high scenario includes traditional, plus bottomfish, employment as shown in Table A-6. For the purpose of a high case scenario, one could posit that harvest employment would continue to grow at 40 percent per year after 1995, although the absolute levels of employment would rapidly in- crease and the implied infrastructure demands would be unrealistically high. 12 TABLE A-5. BOTTOMFISH EMPLOYMENT IN THE YUKON-KUSKOKWIM STUDY AREA Year Employment® Number of Boats? (Man years) 1980 0 0 1981 0 0 1982 °0 0 1983 0 0 1984 0 0 1985 3 1 1986 4 1 1987 6. 1 1988 8 2 1989 11 3 1990 16 4 1991 22 5 1992 31 7 1993 43 10 1994 60 15 1995 83 21 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 83 21 *Sea Grant Study, Table 4.110. Passuming a crew size of four, ADL (1978, p. 102). 13 vat TABLE A-6. COMMERCIAL FISHING RESTDENT NARVEST EMPLOYNENT FOR THE YUKON-KUSKOKWIN COASTAL BOUNDARY AREA (Number of Annual Full-time Employces) Salmon __- Herring Shell fish® Bottomfish? Total Harvest Employment Year Yuk Kusk Coast Bethel Total Yuk Coast Yuk Yuk Kusk Coast Bethel Total Moderate Case High Case 1980 116 68 14 29 227 14 39 9 0 0 0 0 0 289 289 1981 0 0 0 0 0 289 1982 0 0 0 0 0 289 1983 0 0 0 0 0 289 1984 0 0 0 0 0 289 1985 1 0 1 4 3 292 1986 2 0 1 1 4 293 1987 2 0 2 2 6 295 1988 3 1 2 2 8 . 297 1989 4 1 3 3 11 300 1990 6 1 4 5 16 305 1991 9 1 5 7 22 311 1992 12 2 8 9 31 320 1993 7 2 11 13 43 332 1994 23 4 15 18 60 349 1995 32 5 1 25 83 372 1996 1997 ; 1998 . : 1999 b bv L 4 v + v L + 2000 116 68 14 29 227 14 39 9 32 21 25 83 289 372 *king and Tanner Crab, High case only. The allocation of total bottomfish harvesting employment is based on the distribution of processing capacity in the coastal boundary study area; Yuk = 39%; Kusk = 6%; Coast = 25%; and Bethel = 30%; Total = 100%. The reader is reminded that the employment figures in Table A-6 and supporting tables are expressed in annual. full-time equivalent (FTE). To some extent, they obscure the relationships between season- al jobs and crew size which may be far more important than the FTE measures for planning purposes. In the case of bottomfish which occurs year-round the level of employment is roughly equal to the number of jobs. Based on data from Langdon (1980) the relationship between fish- ermen jobs and FTE employment varies across geographic areas and with total gate the bigger the catch, the greater the amount of employ- ment per job. Averaged over the period 1969 through 1976, the ratio of FTE employment to fishermen jobs was 41 percent. Each job gener- ates less than half a FTE al bah position. The same ratios for the lower Yukon area gives .75, showing a considerably higher employ- ment to job ratio than Kuskokwim fishermen. When averaged together the data from both regions yield about .67 FTE per job. This is probably a representative estimate to apply to salmon harvest employ- ment. PROCESSING Processing employment projections in both traditional and bottom- fisheries are derived from the Sea Grant study and adjusted for resi- dency in the Yukon-Kuskokwim coastal boundary study area. 15 In general, we assume that the present configuration of salmon processing facilities in the Y-K study area is maintained over the projection period. Using Alaska Department Fish and Game data, Alaska Native Foundation study (1981) indicates that about 36 land-based processors exist within the Y-K coastal boundary study area. There are also several floating processors at the mouths of the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers. The growth in processing employment under condi- tions of fix plant and equipment and constant harvest employment relfects the gradual increase in catch per boat over time (note that harvesting employment remains constant). Data from various sources suggest that between 50 and 90 percent of processing employment is held by residents of the region. Migration of job Leekere between villages is common during the fishing season. we assume that on aver- age, 67 percent of total direct processing employment including inter- regional migration is resident-based. The remainder is imported from outside the region or the state. Processing employment in traditional fisheries adjusted for resi- dency is shown in Table A-7 for the moderate and high cases. A land- based bottomfish processing plant will be located in Goodnews Bay and will begin operations in 1995. Plant capacity will equal 29,000 met- ric tons per year which is roughly equivalent to the 1995 bottomfish harvest by Y-K fishermen. Construction of the plant will begin in 1991 and will require the man years of employment distributed over a four-year period (Porter, 1980, p. 44). we assume that the resident bottomfish processing employment that occurs before the plant comes on 16 LT TABLE A-7. PROCESSING ENPLOYNENT FOR THE YUKON-KUSKOKWIM COASTAL BOUNDARY AREA (Number of Annual Full-time Employces) Moderate Case* High Case Total Total’ Year Yukon Kuskokwim Coastal Bethel ‘ Resident Imported Yukon Kuskokwim Coastal Bethel Resident Imported 1981 30 2. 22 23. 77 39 33 2 23 25 © 83 42 1982 31 2 22 24 79 40 34 3 24 26 86 43 1983 32 2 23 24 81 40 35 3 25 27 90 . 45 1984 32 2 23 25 82 41 37 3 26 28 94 47 1985 32 3 24 25 84 - 42 38 4 28 30 100 50 1986 33 3 24 25 85 43 39 4 29 31 103 52 1987 33 3 24 25 85 43 40 4 31 32 107 54 1988 33 3 24 25 85 43 41 5 31 34 1 56 1989 33 3 24 25 85 43 4 6 33 36 116 58 1990 33 3 24 25 85 43 43 7 35 39 123 61 1991 33 3 24 "25 85 43 43 9 37 40 129 65 1992 33 3 24 25 85 43 45 11 41 44 141 71 1993 33 3. 24 25 85 43 45 15 45 “49 154 77 1994 33 3 24 25 85 43 46 20 51 55 172 86 1995 33 3 24 25 BS 43 47 25 59 64 195 98 1996 33 3 24 25 85 43 48 26 60 64 198 100 1997 33 3 24 25 85 43 49 26: 61 65 201 101 1998 33 3 24 26 86 44 50 26 | 61 66 203 102 1999 33 3 24 26 86 44 51 26 62 68 207 104 2000 33 3 24 26 86 44 52 26 63 68 209 105 *Traditional fisheries processing employment only. SOURCE: See text. line in 1995 takes place on floating processors or outside the study area on a short-term, temporary basis. We allocated processing employment across subregions using the proportions of processing capacity that presently exists in each subregion. Bottomfish processing employment is allocated to the coastal and Kuskokwim subregions and the city of Bethel. 18 III. MINING PROJECTIONS The mining industry in Yukon-Kuskokwim coastal region consists of a few small, scattered placer mining operations. The mineral deposits are typically isolated, rich deposits of platinum, gold, mercury, and cassiterite (tin). Although hundreds of claims exist, only three mines have been operated on a commercial scale over the past sixty -years: Nyac (gold), Goodnews (platinum), and Red Devil (mercury). Table A-8 identifies the active periods, average annual and Paaulaeive production, crew size, and length of mining season for each operation. Intermitent periods of shutdown occur from a combination of reduced market prices and mineral depletion.. Nyac is presently the only active operation. Goodnews is expected to resume operations this summer (1981). The location and amount of future mineral production in the Y-K coastal region is shown in Table A-9. The quantities of future mineral production are based on estimates from Eberlein (1978) com- bined with historical production levels from the active mines listed in Table A-8. According to Eberlein, future mercury discoveries in this region could exceed present cumulative production by three-to- four times. This would amount to about 100,000 flasks.> We assume 34 flask equals 76 pounds. 19 TABLE A-8. CHARACTERISTICS OF KUSKOKWIM REGION MINES Future . Mineral Period Production Product & Crew Length of Mine Location Type Active Total Annual 1981 Value Size Season (day/yr) Goodnews Bay 10 mi S of Platinum 1934-75, 641,000 oz? 16,000/yr 10,000 oz 25° 365° Goodnews (Pt) 1981 yr $525/oz Red Devil 8 mi NV of Mercury «1939-467 33, 000 4,600 0° 344 130° Sleetmute (Hg) 1953-63 flasks flasks 1969-72 (40 mil oz) Nyac® 35 mi NE of Gold 1926-81 NA 4-50000z/ 4-50000z/ si-375 160-180 days x Aniak . “ (Au) . yx yr “Anchorage Daily News, 19 April 1981, Section A, p. 1. chuck Hawley of C. C. Hawley and Associates, personal conversation, 4 April 1981. “Joe Fisher of C. C. Hawley and Associates (mining engineer at Nyac) personal conversation, 5 April 1981. 7 pureau of Mines, Report of the Mine Inspector. | TABLE Mineral Mercury Gold Platinum A-9. MINERAL PRODUCTION IN THE YUKON-KUSKOKWIN DELTA REGION, 1981-2000 Production 100,000 flasks 4,600 flasks/year 100,000 flasks 5,000 oz/year 500,000 oz 10,000 oz/year 21 Active Period 20 years 20 years 50 years that mercury production will occur over the next twenty years at two locations: Cinnabar Creek and DeCoursey Mountain (see Figure A-2). Production will average 4600 flasks annually and employ thirty-five professional, skilled, and semi-skilled workers over a duration of about 120-130 days. Eberlein estimates that gold resources from placer deposits would be . . . “at least half of the gold previous produced" . . . in cen- tral Alaska. The Nyac operation currently produces between 4,000 and 5,000 ounces per year and employs a seasonal crew of about forty work- ers on two twelve-hour shifts, seven days a week. The Marshall and Arolic sites also have commercial prospects. We assume that beginning in the mid-1980s output from the Narshall and Arolic mines will equal half of Nyac production and will employ a crew of twenty each season. Platinum will be produced exclusively at the Goodnews mine. Production will equal 10,000 ounces per year starting in 1981. A crew of twenty-five will be employed year-round. Additional direct employment in mining will result from ongoing exploration. Based on discussions with Chuck Hawley of C. C. Hawley and Associates, Inc., we assume that over the twenty-year forecast period ten full-time, seasonal workers will be involved in exploratory work in the Y-K coastal boundaries area. 22 Figure A-2. Mining Operations Projected to Be Active: 1981-2000 23 A total of 130 direct mining jobs will occur in Y-K study region mining industry. These must be converted into full-time equivalent (FTE) employment and be adjusted for residency status. We divided the number of hours worked per season by the number of hours worked in typical full-time job (2000 hours per year) to convert the number of jobs into FTE employment. As shown in Table A-10, the relationship between jobs and employment varies according to the type of mineral and to location. In general, the intensity of work nearly compensates for the short duration of the season. The amount of total direct employment equals 115 persons by the mid-1980s; about 88 percent of the total number of direct jobs. Participation in mining employment by local Y-K residents has fluctuated over the past 60 years. For example, by the late 1960s, eight Native employees, representing one-third of the total labor crew, worked full time at Goodnews Bay. By the mid-1970s, Native employment declined considerably due largely, according. to one mining. engineer, to the income effects of ANCSA payments and of other social programs. Those actively involved in ‘mining in this region suggest that on average, about one-third of the semi-skilled employment is drawn from the resident population. Until the mining industry becomes more firmly established in this region resident employment is not expected e to exceed ten percent of the total mining work force. 24 Sz TABLE A-10. TOTAL DIRECT EMPLOYMENT IN THE YUKON-KUSKOKWIM MINING INDUSTRY, 1981-2000 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Days Worked irs Worked Total Hrs as % 2000 Total Direct Mineral Type No. of Jobs Per Scason® Per Day® [(3) x (4)]/2000 Employment (5) x (2) Mercury Cinnabar Creek DeCoursey Mt. 35 120 12 a = Gold Nyac (1981-2000) 40 160 12 96 . 38 Marshall . : Arolic (1985-2000) 20 160 12 96 19 Platinum Goodnews 25 250 8 100 25 Exploration 10 130 12 78 8 Total No. of Jobs 130 Total Direct Employment: 1981-1985 96 1985-2000 115 *Based on discussions with Chuck Hawley of C. C. Hawley and Associates and Dave Headerly-Smith of the Division of Minerals and Energy Management. For the first half of the forecast period resident employment is equal to ten percent total direct employment. From 1990 to 2000, we assume that resident participation grows to twenty percent. The total number of full-time resident mining employees and their regional location is summarized in Table A-11. 26 TABLE A-11. RESIDENT EMPLOYMENT IN THE YUKON-KUSKOKWIM NINING INDUSTRY, 1981-2000 (Number of Full-time Employees) City of Subregions Year Total Bethel Yukon Kuskokwim Coastal 1981 10 4 1 2 3 1982 . 10 4 1 2 3 1983 10 “4 1 2 3 1984 10 4 1 2 3 1985 12 4 1 3 4 1986 12 4 1 3 4 1987 12 4 1 3 4 1988 12 4 1 3 4 1989 12 4 1 3 4 1990 23 8 2 5 8 1991 23 8 2 5 8 1992 23 8 2 5 8 _1993° 23 8 2 5 8 1994 23 8 2 5 8 1995 23 8 2 5 8 1996 23 8 2 5 8 1997 23 8 2 5 8 1998 23 8 2 5 8 1999 23 8 2 5 8 2000 23 8 2 5 8 27 IV. OIL AND GAS Offshore The location of loading terminals and support facilities for offshore petroleum development in the Bering Sea will depend on the location and size of oil discoveries and on several environmental constraints relevant to the Bering Sea subarctic and arctic environ- ment. Offshore petroleum development in the vicinity of the Yukon- Kuskokwim coastal boundary area is confined to five outer continental shelf planning areas. The expected levels of discoveries and the associated 5-95 percent confidence intervals for those discoveries are shown for each of the OCS planning areas in Table A-12. Planning area locations are shown in Figure A-3. Of the five OCS planning areas, we immediately excluded. the St. George Basin and North Aleutian Basin lease sale scenarios from consideration. The Alaska OCS Studies Office, Bureau of Land Manage- ment (BIN), indicates that support bases and loading and storage facilities for the St. George and North Aleutian lease sales are all linked to Aleutian Islands ports and harbors, including Dutch Harbor, Cold Bay, Mukuskin Bay, and possibly the Pribilof Islands. The deci- sion to locate the St. George support arm on the Aleutian Islands rather than the western Alaska Y-K delta area was independent of 29 TABLE A-12. ESTIMATES OF RECOVERABLE OIL AND GAS IN SELECTED OFFSHORE PROVINCES OF THE BERING SEA, ALASKA Location Oil (billion barrels) Gas (trillion cubic feet) 95% - Mean 5% 95% Mean 5% Norton Sound 0 0.2 0.9 0 1.2 5.5 Navarin Basin 0 0.8 3.7 0 . 5.2 22.1 St. Matthew-Hall 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 St. George Basin 0 0.4 2.2 Qo 2.3 10.7 North Aleutian Basin 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 SOURCE: U.S. Department of the Interior, Geologic Survey, Estimates of ; Undiscovered Recoverable Resources of Conventionally Producible Oil and Gas in the United States, Open-File Report 81-192, 1981. 30 Figure A-3 156° TER vokerarlos HELF ALASKA 4. —— oy SHUMAGIN . 136° 23 oo 31 whether a shore-based terminal/pipeline or an offshore loading config- uration is ultimately selected. According to a January 2, 1981, BLM press ru the North Aleutian Shelf lease sale area is confined to at or below 56° 30' N latitude. This decision ee the upper portion of the North Aleutian Basin from scheduled OCS activity was made to protect the immediate Bristol Bay fisheries habitat. Of the remaining three lease sale planning areas, the Narvarin Basin offers the highest potential: 0.8 billion barrels of oil and 5.2 trillion cubic feet of gas. However! this particular petroleum planning area is located west of 174° W, over 250 miles west of Hooper Bay on the Y-K delta. The logical support base location would be St. Matthew Island for which petroleum industry sources indicate strong preference. Recent USGS estimates of undiscovered oil and gas reserves in the St. Matthew-Hall Basin indicate zero potential at the low, mean, and high probability levels. Even if commercial discoveries were made in St. Matthew-Hall, several important environmental factors suggest that a shore-based support facility or loading terminal on the Y-K delta would not be likely. The principal deterent is water depth. The offshore provinces of St. Matthew-Hall (particularly the coastal areas) are generally more 32 shallow than the Norton Sound Basin which has an average depth of 60 feet. An onshore loading terminal requires 20-to-30-feet of draft for support and supply boat operations and 50-to-60-feet for tanker movement. Furthermore, the shallow coastal waters are prone to violent tidal and wave activity when coupled with storm surges. According to a recent BLM document, "the low-lying coastal regions and shallow avec! lade much of the Bering Sea shoreline particularly susceptible to this type of flooding." (Dames and Moore, 1980, p. C-16.) This, of course, increases the risk and vulnerability of shore-based facili- ties in the Y-K delta. Season pack ice in the Bering Sea represents an additional haz- ard, although less dangerous than the depth factor. The main problem with pack ice is that it can guage the ocean floor due to pressure ridge development which would severely threaten subsurface pipelines and sea bottom drilling apparatus. According to John Tremont, a BLM geographer, these and other environmental constraints in the Bering Sea strongly reduce the like- lihood of a shore-based terminal in the St. Matthew-Hall Basin. Tremont suggests that probable development scenario would mirror the original exploratory Norton COST well which consisted of a floating warehouse barge anchored near a drilling vessel, preferably a "jackup" rig. The barge provides support to the rig and receives airlifted 33 supplies from a shore-based location, such as Dutch Harbor or possibly Bethel depending on the tract location. If a commercial discovery is made, a three-sided offshore loading structure could be anchored near the drilling vessel to accommodate ice reinforced tankers. The general thrust of Tremont's arguments suggests that direct interaction between OCS petroleum exploration and development in St. Matthew-Hall and the Y-K delta region is not likely, except possi- bly by using Bethel as a shore-side support base for the floating warehouse. The combination of environmental constraints and negligi- ble reserves estimates suggest that the St. Matthew-Hall OCS planning area has a very low probability of success and should be excluded from these resource development scenarios. The Norton Basin represents the only remaining scheduled lease sale having interactive potential in the Y-K coastal boundary study area. According to Dames and Moore (1980) the potential tract loca-. tions for the exploration only, the high medium, and low find scenar- ios all occur in the proximity of Cape Nome. As a result, pipelines from the offshore rigs bring oil and gas to the north coast, away from the Yukon River delta on the southern side of Norton Sound. However, in BIM news release dated February 1980, the area of call for tract selection covered a wide cross-section of the Norton Sound Basin with tracts located in the proximity of the Yukon delta. 34 In spite of considerable sediment movement from the Yukon River-- 200,000 cubic feet per second--which circulates into the southern portions of the Norton Sound, we cose that for the Y-K high scenario, the Norton Basin lease sale 84 has a commercial discovery comparable to the USGS Norton Basin mean reserves estimates in tracts located near the Yukon River delta. The recoverable reserves would include 0.2 billion barrels of oil and 1.2 trillion cubic feet of gas. The sale is proposed to take place in June 1984. Exploration commences in 1985. The offshore-loading employment configuration in the St. George sale 70 was used to model the direct employment impact of sale 84 in the Yukon delta area. The sale 70 employment figures were scaled down by 50 percent in proportion to the ratio of recoverable reserves in sale 84 to those in sale 70. Table A-13 displays the local resulting (resident) and imported (nonresident) direct employment impacts for sale 84. In general these figures assume that 2 percent of total direct onshore construction employment; 25 percent of transportation employees; and 100 percent of onshore production employees (mining) will be residents. Local resident employment was allocated into study area subregions and those peridids in Bethel according to the propor- tion of regional population in each location. The draft proposed OCS planning schedule has another lease sale 99 in the Norton Basin in June 1986. We assume this sale has no impact on the Y-K coastal boundary study area. 35 9€ TABLE A-13(a). PROJECTED LOCAL AND IMPORTED DIRECT EMPLOYMENT IMPACTS FOR SALE NO. 84 Mining Transport Construction Total Year Local Imported Local Imported Local Imported Local Imported 1984 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1985 0 150 0 72 1 18 1 240 1986 0 234 0 114, 1 54 1 401 1987 0 268 8 153 2 375 10 795 1988 0 234 23 181 0 903 23 1318 1989 15 352 . 45 190 0 1381 60 1923 1990 15 362 56 169 0 956 m1 1487 1991 15 544° 63 188 0 478 78 1209 1992 15 467 35 105 0 106 50. 678 1993 15 394 35 105 0 0 50 499 1994 15 467 35 105 0 0 50 572 1995 15 559 35 105 0 0 50 664 1996 15 498 35 105 0 0 50 603 1997 15 436 35 105 0 0 50 541 1998 15 379 35_ 105 * 0 0 50 484 1999 15 467 35 105 0 0 50 572 2000 15 559 "35 105 0 0 50 664 SOURCE: Alaska OCS Studies Office, St. George lease sale no. 70, modified to reflect lower USGS reserves estimates in the Norton Basin as discussed in text. TABLE A-13(b). PROJECTED LOCAL OFFSHORE PETROLEUM EMPLOYMENT BY SUBREGIONS Local Subregions 37 Year Yukon Kuskokwim Coastal City of Bethel Total 1984 0 O- 0 0 0 1985 1 0 0 0 1 1986 1 0 0 0 1 1987 3 3 2 2 10 1988 8 4 5 6 23 1989 20 12 13 15 60 1990 23 14 16 18 71 1991 26 15 17 20 78 1992 16 10 11 13 50 1993 16 10 11 13 50 1994 16 10 11 13 50 1995 16 10 11 13 50 1996 16 10 . 11 13 50 1997 16 10 11 13 50 1998 16 10 ll 13 50 . 1999 16 10 11 13 50 2000 16 10 11 13 50 Onshore To date eighteen exploratory wells and stratigraphic test holes drilled in western Alaska have shown little or no sign of oil or gas resources. Only one stratigraphic test hole was drilled in the Y-K study area, about ten miles east of Baird Inlet in the Kuskokwim delta. The most probable scenario of future onshore oil and gas activity in this region will be confined to exploratory work only. The Yukon Delta Refuge was included in federal acreage recently opened for oil and gas exploration by the Secretary of the Interior. Modest levels of surface testing have been allowed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the Yukon delta for several years. © We assume that over the next twenty years two phases of oil and gas exploration will be conducted each season. In the first phase, siesmic testing will occur over a Teen eare period from mid-winter to early spring. A crew of twenty-five working ten-to-twelve-hour _ shifts will operate out of a portable camp. The crew breakdown is as follows: Crew _ Hours pilot 2 . mechanic 2 party manager 1 cook 1 camp attendant 2 cable repairs 1 power magazine 1 field crew 25 w uw Total 38 According to discussions with John Krook of Mile Hi Exploration in Anchorage, the firm that has been conducting siesmic tests near Emmonak under a partnership between Calista and ANOCO, about fifty percent of the field crew were local residents from Emmonak. Food and fuel supplies were provided by a catering firm contract- ed out of Anchorage although, on occasion a small amount of fuel and groceries were purchased from the village’ store in Emmonak. Air support (primarily helicopter) was also contracted from outside the region. Thus, the overall impact of exploration-camp expenditures on the regional economy was negligible. We assume that this trend contin- ues. The second phase consists of test hole drilling. According to Chat Chatterson of Rowan Drilling in Anchorage, an on-site drilling crew of four plus two catering employees is required. The duration of drilling is fifteen days plus two additional weeks for mobilization and clean up. Thus, for thirty days, six persons work two twelve-hour shifts. As with siesmic work, air support is contracted and remains on location. Chatterton does not believe drilling operations will employ local residents. Emplopnent will continue to be imported until a conmercial discovery occurs. Thus, according to earlier assump- tions, there is not any local employment generated in phase two of oil and gas exploration. 39 Measured in FTE units, we estimate total direct employment from siesmic and drilling exploration to be sixteen persons, of which four employees are also local residents in the vicinity of the explor- atory work (see Table A-14). We assume resident employment is drawn from the Yukon subregion over the twenty-year forecast period. 40 Crew Size Siesmic Operations 10 Field 15 ge Drilling Operations 2 Rig 4 TOTAT, 31 TABLE A-14. ANNUAL OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION EMPLOYNENT Proportion of Hours Resident Status Annual Worked FTE Employment Hours Out of a Resident Nonresident Worked 2000 Hours Resident Nonresident Total 0 10 1080 54% 0 6 6. 8 7 1080 54% 4 4 8 0 2° 360 18% 0 1 1 0 4 360 18% 0 1 1 8 23 4 12 16 *T assume resident employment is drawn from the Yukon subregion over the entire forecast period. SOURCE: Based on discussions with John Krook of Mile Hi Exploration and with Chat Chatterton of Rowan Drilling, both companies in Anchorage, Alaska. 42 V. ENERGY PROJECTS Kisaralik River Hydroelectric The Kisaralik River hydroelectric project consists of 7 300-feet high dam located 69 miles southeast of Bethel. According to an Alaska Power Authority (APA) feasibility study (Retherford, 1980) te leo structed, the dam will be powered by two fifteen megawatt generators capable of producing 131,000 megawatt hours of energy per year. This is enough power to meet the projected high-growth power requirements for Bethel and twelve small communities in the year 2000. The dam will cost about 100 million in 1979 dollars. Construc- tion will take five years to complete. Figure A-4 is an excerpt from the APA study and identifies the construction schedule for the primary components of the project. According ‘to Carl Steeby, a civil engineer with Robert W. Rether- ford Associates and co-author of the APA study, the second, third, and fourth years of construction represent the primary, on-site construc- tion phase. Over this period Steeby estimates that 135 man years of labor will be required, averaging 45 full-time equivalent (FTE) man years per year. About twenty five percent of this labor will be un- skilled. The remaining seventy five percent will include equipment operators, electricians, miners, carpenters, production plant opera- tors, and other skilled positions. Steeby estimates that over this period fifty percent of the total skilled and unskilled work force 43 Figure A-4. Construction Schedule for the Kisaralik River Hydroelectric Power Project en | thie Fourth | Fiftre nen gener 7 petetsqeete[zy2 tte tete 7 7 at { | | | i i rE ae in Eo sic i i 1 | | ; ' goa ! | il | ' i; oa ft TH UML EL Ril Pp ery ti te | Dam Siripring | i | | | | \ | Quarrying oo ! | | | Greut Cep ; | | | | | | | ! ; offerdar : ' i | To | | sf} LL! | fi ty d Recnliil - Dam | | _ | cor ic. 1 | i Powerhouse Toad | = i : i | Transinissicn & Substations | | | Gai | amen | | Eqimpment installation / ! | i | | i - eee i ! ' Testing First Unit } ! | i ' | i ject i | ! Testing Gecond Unit i | | ! i toy d - | | | cm i \ 1 Demobilization & Clean-Up { | | | \ | | \ ; = ey ‘ SOURCE: Robert W. Retherford Associates, Reconnaissance Study of the Kisaralik River Hydroelectric Power Potential and Alternate Electric Energy Resources in the Bethel Area. Anchorage, 1980. 44 will be supplied by local labor. This equals about twenty-two per- sons. We assume that half of this local employment is drawn from the city of Bethel and half from the Kuskokwim subregion. The first and fifth years of construction consist mainly of mobilization and clean up. We assume that half of the primary on-site work force would be required for these phases, and that fifty percent of the work force would be. local residents. Construction employment for the Kisaralik hydroelectric project is summarized in Table A-15. We assume the project starts up in calendar year 1986. The local work force will probably come from Bethel. Prior to construction start up, a two-year period of environmental and engineering studies and licens- ing procedures will be conducted. This work will be seasonal and involve primarily professional people. The reconnaissance effort will require some food and fuel supplies from Bethel. However, the bulk of supplies are usually brought in by catering outfits contracted from outside the region. Air support (particularly helicopter) is typical- ly brought in from outside the region as well. Coal There are several known or reported occurences of coal in western Alaska with sufficient quantities to supply many western Alaska vil- lages for several decades. However, the coal deposits themselves do ‘his conclusion is based on discussions with numerous groups that conduct seismic, exploratory and environmental assessment in remote locations. They include the University of Alaska's Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center, C. C. Hawley and Associ- ates, Rowan Drilling, and Mile Hi Exploration. 45 TABLE A-15. CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYNENT FOR THE KISARALIK RIVER HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECT Local No. of full-time employees Year Bethel? Kuskokwim? Imported Total 1986 6 S| || 11 22 1987 11 11 23 45 1988 11 11 23 45 1989 11 11 23 45 1990 5 6 11 22 *city of Bethel. bkuskokwim subregion. 46 not occur in the Y-K coastal boundary study area. According to a recent study by C. C. Hawley and Associates, Inc. ,* commercial-size coal deposits for local supply exist to the east and north of the Y-K study area. The closest potential sites include the Windy Fork River near Farewell (4,000-15,000 tons per year) and the Williams Nine about 100 miles south of Koyukuk | on the Yukon River (500-1600 tons per year). These coal deposits occur in the Doyon Native Corporation boundaries. While they do not offer employment opportunities for Calista region residents, they do represent potentially competitive upstream sources of fuel for space heating. Peat Peat deposits in various sizes exist in many locations throughout western Alaska. According to a study entitled Peat Resource Estima- tion in Alaska by Northern Technical Services and EKONO, Inc. (1980), substantial deposits of fuel grade peat with a depth of over five feet occur within three miles of Sheldon Point. The feasibility of using peat as fuel for space heating is still under question because of high water saturation levels. There is presently little information about the employment generating potential. Should peak production and 2cary Friedman of C. C. Hawley and Associates, Assessment of Coal, Peat, and Petroleum Resources of Western Alaska prepared for Robert W. Retherford Associates for the Alaska Power Authority, Janu- ary 1981 (Appendix H in Draft Report: Reconnaissance Study of Energy Resource Alteratives for Thirteen Alaska Villages, Retherford, 1981). 47 drying occur on a commercial scale, it would probably serve local markets and employ local residents exclusively. We assume that over the projection period peat production will remain a small, scattered, and marginally-commercial cottage industry with a modest seasonal employment level of twelve jobs for three months. This converts to a annual full-time equivalent (ETE) of four employees starting in 1985. We assume this employment is drawn from the Yukon subregion. 48 VI. AGRICULTURE Agricultural potential in the Yukon-Kuskokwim delta study area faces problems akin to those of the bottomfish industry--limited mar- keting infrastructure (processing, packaging, and transporting) and limited market potential. reek inputs, such as fertilizer and herbi- cides, are not locally available. Large-scale agricultural processing facilities needed to lower unit costs also do not exist. The rela- tionship between the biological production potential and the economic feasibility of a farm enterprise is still unknown. Despite the bene- fits of proximity to local markets, agricultural production in Alaska cannot yet compete with the agri-business complex of other pacific northwest states located several thousand miles from Alaska markets. Furthermore, agriculture in Alaska is still viewed as a highly specu- lative venture by the financial community. Wayne Burton of the Agricultural Experiment Station in Fairbanks suggests, on the other hand, that agricultural development potential in the Y-K delta is strong. In 1976 testimony to the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry in the U.S. Senate, Dr. Burton indicated that a total of 3543 acres supporting cereal grains, hay silage, pasture, fruits and vegetables, and other crops was possible for development ‘in the Y-K delta. According to Burton's estimates, commercial develop- ment would be geared toward livestock while fruit and vegetables would 49 be produced for subsistence. Burton estimated that a total of 10,678 man years of employment could be generated when "latent" agri- culture was fully developed. This scale of development would require 700 thousand tons of fertilizer, 20 thousand gallons of diesel fuel, 30 thousand gallons of gasoline, and 120 million kilowatt hours of electricity. Capital faveethent would exceed $5 billion in 1973 dollars (about $9 billion in 1980 dollars). To date, there is no comprehensive agricultural development plan in western Alaska, nor is a schedule of development leading up to Burton's peak estimates available. There is currently only about a dozen acres of land in use for subsistence crop production. A more recent Agricultural Experiment Station document (Lewis and Lewis, 1980) suggests that a moderate level of commercial crop produc- tion is possible for communities on the lower portion of the Kuskokwim River. Their analysis of agricultural potential assumes that land is cleared and that support and storage facilities are.in place (subsi- dized). Aniak is chosen as a major production and distribution point, as well as the location of the largest storage facility. Using the estimates contained in this study, we broadened the analysis to include St. Mary's starting in 1985 as the agricultural hub for the Yukon River communities. Table A-16 shows the acreage production schedule, proportion of market area captured, and annual FTE resident farming employment over the twenty-year projection period. 50 Us TABLE A-16. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT SCHEDULE FOR THE YUKON AND KUSKOKWIM BASINS Annual FTE Location & Acreage _ Proportion of Market Area Captured Population Resident Served in | Farming Year St. Mary's Aniak St. Mary's Aniak Bethel Red Devil Market Area Employment . Y kK Total 1980 6 80 740 0 2 2 1981 12 80 15 80 1832 0 3 3 1982 12 80 15 80 1832 0 3 3 1983 12 80 15 80 1832 0 3 3 1984 12 80 15 80 1832 0 3 3 1985 6 24 25 80 44 80 4310 3.4 7 1986 12 24 50 80 44 80 5021 4 4 8 1987 12 24 ' 50 80 44 80 5021. 4 4 8 1988 12 24 50 80. 44 80 5021 4 4 8 1989 12 24 50 80 44 80 5021 4 4 8 1990 18 30 70 80 59 80 6476 5 7 12 1991 18 30 70 80 59 80 6476 5 7 12 1992 18 30 70 80 59 80 6476 5 7 12 1993 ~ 18 30 70 80 59 80 6476 5 7 12 1994 18 30 70 80 59 80 6476 5 7 12 1995 24 36 80 80 59 80 6765 6 10 16 1996 24 36 80 80 59 80 6765 6 10 16 1997 24 36 80. 80 59 80 6765 6 10 16 1998 24 36 80 - 80 59 80 6765 6 10 16 1999 24 36 80 80 59 80 6765 6 10 16 2000 24 36 80 80 .59 80 6765 6 10 16 SOURCE: Based on data from C. Lewis and J. Lewis, 1980 for Kuskokwim Basin. Population of Market Areas Aniak 986 St. Mary's 2897 Bethel 5833 Red Devil 272 52 | | i VII. GOVERNNENT EMPLOYMENT Government employment grew rapidly in the Bethel and Wade Hampton Census Divisions during the 1970s. As shown in Table A-17, state and local government employment represents the primary source of overall rapid growth, increasing at an average annual rate of 19.6 percent from 1970 to 1979. Federal government employment in both census divisions grew at an average rate of only 2.2 percent per year. Since 1975 when school district administration has decentralized and the number of school districts were increased, an important source of state and local economic growth has been in educational services. The effect of increased rural educational expenditures is evident from the sharply contrasting employment growth rates before and after 1974. While government employment was strong throughout the 1970s in the Wade Hampton Census Division, the growth of government employment quadrupled to 46.2 percent during the five-year period after 1974 compared with 10.5 percent per year for the early 1970s. A similar, though less extreme, pattern occurs in the Bethel Census Division. The trend in state and local government employment growth suggests also that remote areas outside of a regional hub, such as Bethel, were receiving substantially greater injections of public spending than the regional centers. Over the next twenty years, we believe that remote village commu- nities will continue to receive the thrust of public spending. How- ever, the unprecedented rates of state and local government growth are 53 9S : "6L6L ‘H-1 2997eNd ‘K[Faqaeng Teotystqyeqys “Toqey jo quowjiedaq eyserTy :eqep > 6261 *quow -do[aaag Ituouedg Y sdTauM0gJ Jo quowqziedag eyseTy :e3ep Bl-S/6l ‘saqewtysy ao10j Joqey eyseTy :e3eP 41-0161 2990S %SI- RL a %9° O- 62-7261 %6°9 “OO: %0°S 4L-0L6T %e°% hy € %8°T 6L-OL6L YIM0I9 Sys HEL Ily 6461 oss I€l 614 8L61 8zs O€l 86E LL61 “46S ° 09t HEY 9461 9S. 6LT Lty SL6t 83S 991 ZY "4261 sss Sy 0747 €L61 SIS 60 904 ZLEL L947 Ill oce LL6l 8947 66 67E OL6T [erspesz %0° 9% 42°99 %Z° St 6L-7L6T “7°97 %S OT %L°ST 7L-OL6T %9° 6T hI 6% 28°91 6L-OL6T 434039 €8El 874 SE6 6L61 gil HSE L7g SL6L £98 Oez €£9 LL6L 94h 6ST Ls 9L6t 169 LOL 06S SL6L aly L9 Sov yL6L 084 SL 0] €L6t S0y 99 Lye ZL6L Ole Sy . S9z IL61 9LZ cy LEZ OL61 TeI0L vozduey oper Teaqizseg aeot Teo0y ¥ 922835 (saafkotdugz awtz-[[nNZ Fo Taquwny) 6L6T-OL6T NOYL NOISIAIG S{iSN39 NOLdNVH 3C¥A GQNV TSHL3@ HL NI LNANAOTINY LNGINNYAAOD “LI-¥ FTaVL based on circumstances that will probably not continue with the same degree of momentum. The education system is now somewhat in place and comparable with the size and distribution of remote communities. During the 1970s, the pattern of federal government employment growth is exactly the bebeebe of state and local government employ- ment. Positive growth occured in the early 1970s followed by rela- tively marginal declines after 1974 in both census divisions. Federal government employment will probably continue to play a less visible role and is not likely to increase over the next twenty years. Government will continue to be a major component in the economies of the region. Future growth will be importantly determined by state expenditures and transfers to local government. The recent large increase in petroleum revenues has limited our ability to estimate the future pattern of this growth. In order to account for the uncertain- ty in forecasting government growth, we present a range of assump- tions. In no case do we assume growth will be as. rapid as in the past. Recent growth was building on a limited base. We assume total government employment in each subregion will grow at an annual average rate of four percent in the high case, two percent in the moderate case, and one percent in the low case. Of this growth we assume 37 percent must be imported to the region because of skill or manage- ment requirements. 55 The other form in which government expenditures affect the local economy is in expenditures on construction projects. Government induced construction activity is incorporated directly into the model with the assumption that one-half current construction activity is a result of government employment and this relation holds throughout the period. In addition, we ihtnepbcaes a pattern of construction employ- ment based on the recent State Capital Improvement Program. There are currently $106 million dollars worth or projects scheduled between 1982-1989 for the region. This will generate average annual employ- ment of approximately twenty over the period. We distribute this employment across subregions based on the proportions of population. We assume 20 percent of the employees are nonresident and brought into the region for the job. In the high case we assume this level of spending continues throughout the period. . In the low and moderate cases we assume the level of spending drops to one-half the 1982-1989 level after 1990. 56 REFERENCES Agricultural Potential in Alaska. Washington, D.C.: Subcommittee on Agricultural Production, Marketing, and Stabilization of Prices of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry of the United States Senate, 1976. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. Western and Arctic Alaska Transportation Study: Working Paper on Employ- ment. Juneau, Alaska: 1980. Alaska Division of Budget and Management. Executive Budget: Books I and II. Juneau, Alaska: Office of the Governor, 1981. Alaska Division of Mines and Minerals and the Alaska Geologic Survey, Annual Reports. (Previous to Statehood reférences: Reports to the Mine Inspector) Juneau, Alaska: 1959-1971. Alaska Legislative Council, Interim Committee on Resource Matters. The Potential for Expanding into an Alaskan Bottomfish Industry. Juneau, Alaska: January 7, 1978. Alaska Native Foundation. Western Alaska's Fishing Industry: a Pro- file. April 1981. Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center. Mineral Terranes of Alaska. Plate C and D. Anchorage, Alaska: University of Alaska, November 1979. Arthur D. Little, Inc. The Development of a Bottomfish Industry: Strategies for the State of Alaska. Technical Appendix, Vol- ume 2. November 1978. j Brown, Rod; J. Hadland ; S. Hannigan; and S. D. Burrow. Lower Yukon- Kuskokwim Region Labor Market Analysis. Juneau, Alaska: Depart- ment of Labor, 1981. Darbyshire and Associates. City of Bethel Comprehensive Development Plan. Anchorage, Alaska: Department of Community and Regional Affairs, 1980. : Earl R. Combs. System Strategy to Support Fisheries Development in Alaska. Mercer Island, Washington: November 1980. Eberlein, G. Donald, and W. David Menzie. Maps and tables describing areas of metalliferous mineral resource potential of central Alaska (to accompnay Open-file Report 78-1-D). Menlo Park Cali- fornia: U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, 1978. 57 Hanley, Peter T.; William W. Wades; Gordon S. Harrison; Douglas F. Jones. Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies Program Norton Basin OCS Lease Sale No. 57 Petroleum Development Scenarios. January 1980. Hawley, C. C. and J. W. Whitney. The Economic Importance of the Small Mining Business in Alaska. Anchorage, Alaska: Prepared for the Congress of the United States Office of Technology Assessment Materials Program, 1977. Langdon, Steve. Transfer Patterns in Alaskan Limited Entry Fisheries. Anchorage, Alaska: University of Alaska, January 17, 1980. Langdon, Steve. "The Western Alaska Sac Roe Herring Fishery, 1980: A Summary of ANF Questionnaire Findings." Anchorage, Alaska: University of Alaska, December 1, 1980. Lewis, Carol E. and John S. Lewis. The Agricultural Potential of the Middle Kuskokwim Valley. Fairbanks, Alaska: Agricultural Experi- ment Station, 1980. Morehouse, Thomas A. and George W. Rogers. Limited Entry in the Alaska and British Columbia Salmon Fisheries. Anchorage, Alaska: Institute of Social and Economic Research, Nay 1980. Northern Technical Services. Reconnaissance Study of Energy Require- ments and Alternatives: Togiak, Goodnews Bay, Scammon Bay, and Grayling. Draft report. Anchorage, Alaska: February 1981. North Pacific Fishery Management Council. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Is- lends Area. Anchorage, Alaska: September 1980. North Pacific Fishéry Management Council. The Social and Economic Impacts of a Commercial Herring Fishery on the Coastal Villages of the Arctic/Yukon/Kuskokwim Area. Anchorage, Alaska: Septem- ber 15, 1978. North Pacific Fishery Management Council. "Western Alaskan King Crab, Draft Fishery Management Plan." May 1980. "Oil Exploration Underway in Yukon Delta." - The Tundra Drums, Febru- ary 12, 1981, p. 1. Porter, Ed. Economic and Policy Scenarios for Railbelt Electric Power Study. Anchorage, Alaska: Institute of Social and Economic Research, Working Paper for Battelle Pacific Northwest Labora- tories, 1981. Scott, Michael J. "Prospects for a Bottomfish Industry in Alaska." Alaska Review of Social and Economic Conditions. Volume XVII, Number 2, April 1980. 58 Robert W. Retherford Associates. Reconnaissance Study of Energy Re- source Alternatives for Thirteen Western Alaska Villages. An- chorage, Alaska: Alaska Power Authority, 1981. Robert W. Retherford Associates. Reconnaissance Study of the Kisaralik River Hydroelectric Power Potential and Alternate Elec- tric Energy Resources in the Bethel Area. Anchorage, Alaska: March 1980. Rogers, George W. "Critique of the Arthur D. Little, Inc., Analysis and Recommendations for State Policy and Directions for Develop- ing a Bottomfish Industry for Alaska." Prepared for Alaska Legislative Affairs Agency. Mimeographed. April 24, 1979. Rogers, George W.; Richard F. Listowshi; and Donna Mayer. Measuring the Socioeconomic Impacts of Alaska's Fisheries. Anchorage, Alaska: Institute of Social and Economic Research, April 1980. Terry, Joseph M.; Roger G. Scoles; and Douglas M. Larson. Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies Program Western Alaska and Bering-Norton Petroleum Development Scenarios: Commercial Fishing Industry Ana- lysis. Alaska Sea Grant Program, University of Alaska,. August 1980. Tuck, Bradford H. and Lee Huskey. Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies Program. St. George Basin Petroleum Development Scenarios - Economic and Demographic Analyses. Anchorage, Alaska: Institute of Social and Economic Research, April 1981. ‘ "Watt Opens up Alaska for Onshore Oil Exploration." The Tundra Drums, May 7, 1981, p. 1. APPENDIX B REGIONAL RESPONSE TO BASIC SECTOR GROWTH INTRODUCTION A projection provides a description of a future level of activi- ty; the projections in this report describe possible future levels of population and employment in the Yukon-Kuskokwim coastal region of Alaska. Projections aepense on a set of assumptions about future events and they describe what will happen if these assumptions are true. The purpose of this appendix is to describe some of the major assumptions which lie behind the projections reported in this study. : All methods for projecting future activity require assumptions. The simplest projection technique is to assume a certain growth rate for each variable of interest. More complex methodologies employ some. form of model to translate assumptions about specific events into projections. Nodels describe the relationship between vaci bien about which assumptions are made and those for which projections are made. An important assumption when a model is used is that the relationship described by the model remains constant. The use of. models makes the assumptions used explicit. We can distinquish two types of assumptions which lie behind the projections in this study. They are economic growth and community response parameters. The economic growth assumptions describe the future level of activity in those sectors of the regional economy which primarily serve markets outside the region. The economic growth assumptions were described in Appendix A. This appendix describes the assumptions about the community response to the growth of the basic sector. The assumed response is described by the structure of the SCIMP model and the parameters selected (see Huskey, 1980). The assumed community response will determine the growth which results from a given change in economic activity; different assumed responses will result in differences in regional growth even with the same basic sector growth. The main components of the community's response to change in the basic sector are the willingness and ability to participate in the increased eco- nomic activity and the expansion of the local serving economic activi- ty in response to the expansion of basic industries. The main purpose of this appendix is to provide a clear under- standing of the assumptions which lie behind the projections presented in the report. In addition, this appendix will provide a preliminary description of some of the important economic linkages in rural Alaska. This description provides the basis for our selection of both the structure of the model and parameters. Rural Alaska economies differ significantly from the market economies of the urbanized areas of Alaska and other parts of the state. This appendix will provide a starting point for the description of these economies. DETERMINANTS OF GROWTH Traditional descriptions of growth in regional economies are not appropriate for describing the growth of regions in rural Alaska. The traditional approach makes two major assumptions. First, that the economy can be easily separated into two sectors basic and nonbasic. The basic sector includes those industries which sell their goods primarily to outside markets, while the nonbasic sector includes industries which sell their products primarily in local markets. The nonbasic sector is assumed “6 grow in response to growth in the basic sector; in most analyses this growth is assumed to follow a constant relation described by the multiplier. The second important assumption is that population growth is determined solely by eoconomic growth. Population changes directly in proportion with employment growth. Rural Alaska economies differ from this traditional economic description of a region. The linkages between basic sector and non- basic sector are not as direct as in the traditional economy. In addition the linkage between population and employment growth is not clear. The major reasons for this are the importance of the subsis- tence sector in the economy and the frontier nature of the economy. Fisk (1975) describes the transition from nonmonetary self- subsistent economic activity to full participation in the monetized exchange system of the market ‘in four Stages. These stages are, 1. Pure subsistence in isolation; 2. Subsistence with supplementary cash activity; 3. Cash orientation with supplementary subsistence; and 4. Complete market specialization. The economies of rural Alaska are transitional economies which are in stages two or three of the transition. The importance of subsistence as an economic activity affects such things as the need for market goods, the labor force participation, the seasonality of participa- tion, the migration of population, and effects the community response to basic sector changes. The second reason for the difference in rural Alaska is the frontier nature of the economy. Frontier economies can-be described as economies with a high level of resources per capita. Growth occurs with the development of these resources. Since the local economy in these areas is undeveloped, the character of economic growth is deter- mined by the character of the resource which is developed. For exam- ple, because of the labor used in the petroleum industry is highly skilled, the labor employed may be mostly imported. In addition, because frontier regions are not Be seetly populated or filled with infrastructure, resource developments may be completely unconnected to existing population centers. Resource developments may occur in enclaves. Enclaves are separate from existing communities, and their major links are with communities outside the region. Resource devel- opment in enclaves has little effect on the local economy. The importance of subsistence and frontier nature of these re- gions make the traditional description of economic growth inappropri- ate. This section will describe how these differences were incorpo- rated into our analysis. Unfortunately the model cannot capture all of the subtleties of rural Alaska economies. In many cases, in this study we must be satisfied with the awareness of the difference and the possible range of effects this difference may have. LOCAL COMMUNITY RESPONSE In large, well developed, stable market economies the response to basic sector growth can be assumed to be the same as the historic response. For reasons outlined above, the traditional economies cannot be similarly treated. Transition defines the formation of a market economy, so it would be expected that many of those character- istics of response to the market economy may change with development. In this study, the parameters and model structure selected are not simply based on historical evidence. One important reason for this is that there is only limited historical information about these subregions. Parameters and model structure were selected based on information from the region, patterns in similar regions, and theore- tical analysis. Where information about the region is used that information is derived from the baseline study conducted by Policy Analysts, Ltd. (1981). Community response consists of four major areas, non-economic population growth, economic migration, and support (nonbasic) sector growth. This section will discuss the assumptions used to describe each of these responses. The reasoning behind each of these assump- tions will also be defined. The asssumptions for each subregion will be presented when they differ. Natural Population Increase Natural increase in the population is traditionally defined as the excess of births over deaths. The other major component of popu- lation change is migration. Traditionally migration is assumed to be related to economic growth. However, there are non-economic reasons for migration; these include education and the attraction of the "bright lights" of the bigger city. Because of this, we include a component of non-economic migration as part of natural population change. Each of these components of natural increase is influenced by the demographic composition of the population. Two regions with the same total population will have a different natural increase if the demo- graphic structure of the region differs. One obvious illustration is that the number of births depends on the number of females in the population. The pattern of births, deaths, and non-economic migration is described by a series of cohort specific parameters which relate the specific demographic event to each age-sex-race cohort. These rates are, e Survival rates which describe the proportion of popula- tion in each cohort which survives to the next period. ° Fertility rates which illustrate the number of birtls expected per female in each cohort. ° Migration rates which show the proportion of population in each cohort assumed not to migrate for non-economic reasons in each year. The survival and fertility rates used in this study are shown in Table 1. Each of these sets were based on the 1970 census statewide native and non-Native population, births, and deaths. Statewide results were used to adjust for special circumstances which may be found in any region in one year. Census information was used to develop age specific rates. Fertility rates were adjusted to reflect aggregate 1979 rates for the Wade Hampton region (Alaska Vital Statis- tics, 1981). In developing regions the components of natural population in- crease are not static; they change with development. One of the trends found in developing regions throughout the world is called the "demographic transition" (see Mahler, 1980). The dencgraphic transi- tion" describes the relation between fertility and survival rates. In undeveloped areas, initial contact with the developed regions brings an initial and dramatic rise in the survival rates as a result of better health and medical practices. The fall in fertility rates takes longer as the population adjusts to lower infant mortality and other benefits of development. This pattern means that population growth rates increase dramatically at the beginning of development and TABLE 1. SURVIVAL AND FERTILITY RATES (Used in all subregions) Survival Rate Fertility Rate Non-Native Native Non-Native Native Age Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 0-14 -997 -998 -997 -998 - -002 - -004 15-19 -997. -999 -993 -997 - -128 - -114 20-24 -997 +999 -992 -997 - 144 - -204 25-29 -997 -999 -995 -996 - -093 - -143 30-44 -995 +998 993 -990 - -021 - -050 45-64 -980 -990 -978 -980 - 0 - 0 65+ -945 -961 -940 -962 - ; 0 - 0 SOURCE: Derived from U.S. Census and Alaska Vital Statistics. Statewide | rates are developed. — drop slowly as the fall in fertility rates catches up with the in- crease in survival rates. To describe the demographic transition we assume that Native fertility rates drop at a rate of .8 percent per year so that the rate falls to three-fourths the differnece between the current aggregate rate (Wade Hampton, 25.1) and the projected U.S. rate (21.6) (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1977). The non-Native fertility rates are assumed to fall at the same rate as the projected aggregate U.S. rates, a rate of .5 percent per year. Migration has always been an important component of population change in rural Alaska. Most experts expect this trend to continue (see Alonso and Rust, 1976). Changes in Minldue life such as schools and other services may support arguments that migration in the future will be less than in the past. Counterarguments could be made which hypothesize higher levels of migration in the future. The young age structure of the population may mean increased migration, since the younger population is usually more mobile. In addition, as rural population becomes better educated and more informed about urban areas, the pull of the areas will increase. The growth of rural regional centers may also lead to an increase in migration from rural villages since they present aa area of opportunity which is less foreign than the urban areas of the state. Since reasonable hypotheses can be developed which support both a decrease and increase in migration, we assume that the structure of migration remains the same as found bewteen 1970 and 1980. The struc- ture as described by the cohort specific migration rates is shown in Table 2. Change in migration, with this assumption, occurs because of changes in the age structure of the population. The rates in Table 2 were found by comparing 1980 survived population with actual popula- tion for each cohort in each subregion. Economic Migration Economic migration is the population change which results from a change in employment opportunities. In traditional analyses of re- gional growth, economic migration is found by subtracting the popula- tion in the labor force from the number of employment opportunities. If there are more jobs than available, labor in-migration occurs; if the opposite, out-migration occurs. This pattern does not describe economic migration in rural Alaska. Although job opportunities (or the lack of them) influence migration in rural Alaska, three factors make the relationship less direct than usually assumed. The relation between economic migration,. labor force, and jobs is affecetd by the determinants of labor force participation, the ability to commute to work, and the availability of required skills. Participation in the labor force is usually defined as those employed or actively seeking work. Labor force is not a static con- cept; many factors influence the number of people in the labor force. The decision to participate is made based on a comparison of employ- ment opportunities and wage rate with other uses of time and other 10 TABLE 2. NATIVE NET MIGRATION RATES! >? Regions Age Coastal Kuskokwim Yukon 0-14 .999 ; -999 -996 15-19 -992 -992 -998 20-24 -990 -990 -982 25-29 -990 -990 -995 30-44 -995 -995 +995 45-64 -995 -995 +995 65+ 1.008 1.008 1.022 1Shows proportion of the population in each cohort remaining after one year. 2Assumes male and femal rates are similar. Assumes non-Native migration occurs solely in response to economic factors. SOURCE: PAL, 1981. 11 sources of income. The availability of subsistence activity and transfer incomes reduces the labor force participation in rural Alaska. Given these other opportunities, residents of rural Alaska have another option to labor force participation which is withdrawing from the labor force. This is similar to the discouraged worker effect; when jobs are not available, people do not actively seek jobs, so they are by definition out of the labor force. This reduces the out-migration associated with a lack of employment opportunities. The discouraged worker effect is quite high in the. study subregions; between 40-to-45 percent of the population over sixteen which is not in the labor force is estimated to be willing to work if work was available (PAL, 1981). The second adjustment to a lack of jobs is commuting out of the community to work. Labor is one of the traditional export commodities of Alaska's rural villages (Alonso and Rust, 1976). When there are limited employment opportunities in the community, Iabor usually takes jobs outside the community for a few months to provide income. These laborers maintain residence in the community. Surveys indicate the extent of this effect; the 1980 WAATS survey found 29 percent of the households with members employed out of the village (PAL, 1981). The importance of resource development in the region as a source of jobs also means the link between jobs, local labor force, and migration is less direct than usually assumed, The technical nature of many of the jobs in rural Alaska means that employees will be 12 imported even though there are unemployed workers in the region. Additionally, since the majority of the capital available for resource development comes from outside the region, companies will import managers and engineers. Another example of this effect is the impor- tation of teachers to staff the new village schools. Because of this, the creation of some jobs will lead directly to in-migration even though unemployed labor exists in the region. One last factor is important for describing economic migration is rural Alaska, the seasonality of both labor supply and labor demand. Many jobs in rural Alaska ane seasonal in nature, lasting only a few months. The seasonality is often determined by weather. Willingness to participate in wage employment may also be seasonally influenced by the subsistence cycles. The matching of this seasonal components also affects migration. These factors are explicitly treated in the model both by the model structure and parameter assumptions. In the model used in this report, economic migration occurs for two reasons. First, a certain proportion of the employment growth is assumed to be imported; these migrants provide skills not available in the region. Secondly, eco- nomic migration does occur to bring labor force and job opportunities into equilibrium. This equilibrium takes into account the ability to commute to work. 13 This second component of economic migration is found as follows. The supply of labor from each region consists of two components, labor force and those out of the labor force who would work if jobs were available. Labor supply is calculated in terms of months to account for the seasonal component of labor supply. Labor supply is compared to total employment opportunities; the net excess labor is allocated between leaving the labor force and working as a commuter; the remain- der migrates from the region. In all cases economic migration is assumed to be accompanied by dependents. The following parameter assumptions describe the labor market interaction. LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES Labor force participation rates describe the proportion of each age-sex-race cohort in the labor force. In this study we assume that historic rates would serve as starting rates. These rates are shown in Table 3. These rates were derived from recent survey work. in the region. We assume that Native labor force participation changes over the period at a rate of .5 percent per year. We expect labor force par- ticipation to increase as a result of three trends. First, the in- creasing socialization and acculturation through schools will increase 14 TABLE 3. LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES? Native Regions Coastal Kuskokwim Yukon Age Male Female . Male Female Male Female 0-14 - - - - - - 15-19 -387 +353 -387 -353 -304 -277 20-24 +721 -658 715 -652 -558 +509 25-29 -781 -712 -776 - 708 -606 -553 30-44 -690 -629 -685 -625 -535 - 488 45-64 -416 -379 -413 -377 -320 -292 65+ -107 -098 -106 .097, -081 -074 Non-Native Regions Coastal : Kuskokwim Yukon Age Male Female Male Female "Male Female 0-14 - - - - 7 - 15-19 -729 -665 ~ -748 -682 “748 - 682 20-24 -971 - 886 -996 -908 -996 - -908 25-29 -971 - 886 -996 +908 -996 -908 30-44 -971 - 886 -996 -908 -996 -908 45-64 - 780 . e711 -800 -730 800 . -730 65+ --- .560- ~ .511 S74 - 524 9° ~ .574 “524 1Shows proportion of cohort in the labor force. SOURCE: PAL, 1981. 15 the participation in the market economy. Secondly, increasing job opportunities will draw people into the labor force. As the chance of getting employment increases more people will seek employment. Thirdly, the utility of money will increase as more goods become available through village stores or through the increased ease of transportation. Supporting this trend will be the increased depen- dence on money incomes. Living th the villages requires money. The cost of energy is an important part of village life which will almost certainly increase (Nebesky and Goldsmith, 1980). The technology of subsistence also is becoming cash intensive. This dependency on cash we assume will increase and be partially responsible for increases in labor force participation. We assume that historic rates will prevail in two other areas. First, we assume the historic rates of discourage workers will pre- vail. This means the proportion of the population over sixteen not in the labor force but willing to work would remain constant throughout the projection period; this rate was estimated as 40 percent in the coastal and Kuskokwim subregions and 45 percent in the Yukon subregion (PAL, 1981). The second historic feature we assume to prevail is a preference for working less than a full year. Surveys found that of the unemployed 40 percent preferred full-time work, 30 percent part- time, and 30 percent were indifferent. We assumed these preferences held for the whole population and that part-time meant four months and the indifferent group preferred six-month employment. This meant an average employment preference of eight months. 16 COMMUTERS AND EQUILIBRIUM UNEMPLOYMENT We assume that thirty percent of those in the labor force who cannot find work commute outside the region to work but maintain residence in the region. This is consistent with the historical proportion of households with members employed out of the region. The equilibrium unemployment rate determines how many in the labor force without jobs remain in the region. Given our assumptions about the increasing importance of money income, we assume the ability to simply withdraw from the labor force diminishes. Because of this assumption, we use the historic unemployment rates to denote equili- brium levels. The rates used were 25.8 percent in the Kuskokwim subregion, 31.5 percent in the Yukon subregion, and 25.7 percent in the cozstal subregion. DEPENDENTS The migration of employees is accompanied by migration of depen- dents. Only migrants in construction, mining, and OCS industries were assumed to bring no dependents. Migrants in the other sectors of the economy were assumed to bring migrants at a ratio of .5 dependents per employee which was the ratio of non-Native dependents to labor force found in the Wade Hampton Census Division (PAL, 1981). Tables 4 and 5 17 TABLE 4. LONG-TERM MIGRANT AGE-SEX-RACE DISTRIBUTION Employees Dependents Non-Native Native Non-Native Native Age Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 0-14 - - - 4. oe -203 -171 -023 -019 15-19 .030 .030 -009 -008 +014 -014 -002 002 20-24 .116 .068 -012 -010 - -014 - -002 25-29 .125 = =.093 -013 -012 - -008 - .001 30-44 .217 .068 -016 .014 7 -008 - -001 45-64 .114 .038 -004 - 003 - -016 - -002 65+ im i _ 7 _ 7 _ i SOURCE: Based on Wade Hampton age-sex distribution for labor force and nonlabor force (PAL, 1981). Assumes racial distribution of migrants is .1 Native and .9 non-Native. Assumes no migrants over 65. 18 a TABLE 5. SHORT-TERM RESIDENT AGE-SEX-RACE DISTRIBUTION Employees Non-Native Native Age Male Female Male Female 0-14 - - - - - 15-19 -045 -015 -013 -004 20-24 -150 036 -017 -004 25-29 -172 -044 -015 -006 30-44 +251 -034 -122 -006 45-66 -133 -019 -O11 -003 65+ - 7 - - SOURCE: Based on Wade Hampton labor force age-sex distribution. Assumes migrants distributed .9 non-Native and .1] Native. Assumes female migrants only one-half of labor force rates. Assumes no migrants over 65. 19 show the ege-sex-race distribution assumed for the migrants. Out- migrants are assumed to resemble the existing population in its dis- tribution by age-sex-race. The model assumes two types of economic migrants, long -term migrants who bring dependents and short-term migrants who come to the region for the job and to not bring depen- dents. Support Sector Response The local support sector consists of that portion of the local economy which provides goods and services to the local community. This sector consists of portions of the following industries: trade, service, finance, construction, transportation, communication, and utilities. The growth of this sector responds to the growth of the local community. Traditional regional analysis treats the growth of this sector as responding in direct proportion to the growth of the basic sector. This simple description does not work well in rural Alaska, and a broader description of this response is needed. In reality, this sector grows as incomes are spent on local goods and services. Growth in local incomes is the real Hececniaaat of this response; incomes grow not just through wages, but also through increases in transfer payments. The size of this sector is limited by the extent or size of the market. The size of the market is determined by the income available 20 in the region. As income grows two changes in the local economy may take place. First, more of the goods and services available in the region will be sold. Secondly, more goods and services will be made available in the region. Each of these changes may increase employ- ment in the region's support, sector. The availability of goods and services in the region is influenced by the scale of the economy. As the size of the market increases, the costs of providing goods locally changes; and more goods are made available. We assume that increasing incomes are the major determinant of the growth in the support sector. However, two other factors play an important part in that growth. First, a portion of the support sector is assumed to respond directly to the growth in government employment. This portion of this sector accounts for social service activities and construction sponsored by government. Secondly, those employees in the region for short-term employment (construction workers and OCS employees) have a different impact on the support sector than full- time residents. The following assumptions describe the support sector response. INCOME GROWTH Incomes grow because of increases in employment, increases in other sources of income, and increases in the real wage. We assume that the real wages in all sectors remain constant throughout the 21 period. Table 6 shows the compensation per man year (12 months of employment) which was used in these projections. For most industries the existing wage in the Wade Hampton or Bethel Census Divisions were used (Department of Labor, 198.). Fish- ing incomes were estimated from survey data for traditional fisheries. Average household fishing income was adjusted to account for the proportion of households fishing. It was assumed that each household provided approximately one-half a man-year of fishing effort. Bottom- fish wages were taken from existing work on the bottomfish industry (Scott, 1980). Wages earned by commuters were estimated as the aver- age Bethel wage; commuters were assumed to work an average of three months outside the region. Other sources of income included transfer payments from govern- ment, dividends, trapping, and arts and crafts. These types of income are assumed to grow in response ‘to thé growth of segments of the population. Transfer payments are assumed to grow’in proportion to the growth of the non-employed population; transfers are assumed to equal $938 per person. Other incomes are assumed to grow in response to population at a rate of $213 per capita. These assumptions are based on survey data (PAL, 1981). 22 TABLE 6. INDUSTRY YEARLY WAGES Industry Average Annual Wage Traditional Fishery $19,300 ($16,000 in Kuskokwim) Fish Processing 7,900 Construction and Mining 7 18 ,000 Government 15,130 Support Sector 7,580 Bottomfish 20,000 Commuter Wage 3,000* *Assumes commuters work an average of three months per year. SOURCE: i Traditional fishery assumes average fishery income $5,309 per household and 55 percent of the household participate for six months (PAL, 1981). 2. Bottomfish from Scott, 1980. 3. Rest from Department of Labor, 1981. 4. Commuter wage is based Bethel average annual wage. 23 EMPLOYNENT/EXPENDITURE RESPONSE The level of employment in the local support’ sector is determined by the eepenaiturelloe local residents on goods and services provided in the region. The level of expenditure or consumption is determined by the level of income within the region; as incomes increase, con- sumption increases and employment in the support sector increases. Two factors limit the employment Leebnse connnected with an increase in incomes in rural Alaska; both are connected with the scale of the economy. The smaller scale of the local village economies limits the response of the support sector in two ways. First, a portion of residents' consumption expenditures occurs outside the region. Pur- chases are made by mail or on trips to the regional or state centers. The main reason for this type of purchase is that because of limited scale of the local economy not all goods are provided in the region. Table 7 shows the average pattern of expenditure in the Yukon- Kuskokwim-Coastal region. About 27 percent of the expenditures flow directly out of the region or go to savings. As the table shows the regional pattern of auendd tire varies .across different types of expenditures. The second effect of scale is to limit the effect of expenditures within the region. Because of the small size of these economies, little is produced in the region. Much of the expenditures within the 24 TABLE 7. SHARE OF INCOME SPENT LOCALLY Local Share of Income Group A Fuel -159 Food -250 Clothing a) -021 Subsistence Gear ; -132 Housing . 030 Utilities : -031 Group B Household Goods -017 Transportation -014 Health -002 Entertainment -015 Savings 7 Other -059 Total ; .730 SOURCE: PAL, 1981. 25 region are used to purchase imported goods. Expenditures within the region leave the region in the second round of purchases. Both the direct and indirect leakages limit the employment response to an increase in income. As the scale of the economy increases, more is provided and more is produced in the region, so the leakages from the economy are reduced. To model this response we assume a typical consumption pattern. Expenditures in the region are determined by the income of residents. Expenditures affect employment. We assume a fixed relation between employment and expenditure throughout the period; in other words, we assume the growth of the local economies will not generate scale effects. If scale effects do occur they will probably occur in the regional center, Bethel. Income is assumed to affect the expenditure pattern in two ways. First, local expenditures will increase in proportion to population growth if there is no change in per capita income. Secondly, we assume the distribution of expenditures will change if per capita incomes change. Since different types of expenditures have different local shares, changes in the expenditure pattern will affect local employment. The employment multipliers are shown in Table 8. The per capita income multipliers were calculated assuming 73 percent of the 1980 per capita income was spent locally and that 24 percent of a change from 26 TABLE 8. Existing Per Capita! Income Change in Per Capita” Income 3 Government Nonresident Coastal -062 -005 -094 -023 Mvulitplied by population. *Multiplied by change from 1980 per capita income and by popula- tion. EMPLOYMENT MULTIPLIERS Kuskokwim -062 -005 -094 -023 3Hultiplied by government employees. 4 Multiplied by nonresident employees. Yukon -039 -003 -027 -023 that level was spent locally. This assumes the pattern of expenditure out of increases in per capita income would be spent in the following pattern; three-fourths of the income increase would go to Group B (see Table 7) and one-fourth to Group A. The employment generated by this expenditure was assumed to be constant per thousand dollars of expenditure. This was estimated as -020 in coastal, .013 in Yukon, and .024 in Kuskokwim. These were estimated using the most recent employment and income information (PAL, 1981) and assuming one-half of services and construction re- sponded to government growth. Government response multipliers were based on the same recent employment information. Nonresident multi- pliers were based on similar work done for the Aleutians (Tuck, 1981). The expenditures are assumed to be lagged one year. SUMMARY This appendix has provided a description of the important assump- tions used in the projections. These assumptions describe what must happen if the projections are to come true. Hopefully, this section will also provide the information necessary for those who disagree with the assumptions to estimate the effect on the projections chang- ing the assumptions. This section also provides a preliminary description of rural Alaska economies and their interaction with population growth. This 28 description is limited primarily because of data limitations. Although the surveys used provide a good picture of existing condi- tions, they do not provide the ability to estimate responses to change. A description of rural Alaska economies is important not only for modeling and projection, but also for formulating effective eco- nomic policies for rural areas. 29 REFERENCES Alaska Department of Health and Social Services. Alaska Vital Statis- tics, Annual Report. 1979. Alonso, W. and E. Rust. The Evolving Pattern of Village Alaska. Federal/State Land Use Planning Commission. 1976. Fisk, E. "The Response of Nonmonetary Production Units to Contact with the Exchange Economy," in Agriculture in Development Theory, ed. L. Reynolds. Yale. 1975. Huskey, L. and J. Kerr. Small Community Population Impact Model. Alaska OCS Studies Program. 1980. Policy Analyst, Ltd. Nunam Kitlutsisti Baseline Study. 1981. Mahler, H. "People" in Scientific American, Vol. 243, No. 3, 1980. Nebesky, W. and S. Goldsmith. The Impact of Rising Energy Costs on Rural Alaska. Institute of Social and Economic Research. 1980. Scott, M. "Prospects for a Bottomfish Industry in Alaska." Alaska Review of Social and Economic Conditions, Vol. 17, No. 1, 1980. Tuck, B. and L. Huskey. St. George Basin Petroleum Development Sce narios, Economic and Demographic Analysis. Alaska OCS Studies Program. 1981. : U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Cnesus. Population Projec- tions of the Population of the United States: 1977-to-2050. Current Population Reports. 1977.