HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA361ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES ANNUAL REPORT 1980
SUBTASK 7.05 SOCIOECONOMIC ANALYSIS
MAY 1981
Terre1trial
Environmental
Speciali1t1, Inc.
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES ANNUAL REPORT 1980
SUBTASK 7.05 SOCIOECONOMIC ANALYSIS
MAY 1981
by
FRANK ORTH & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Bellevue, Washington 98004
~d
TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS, Inc.
Phoenix, New York 13135
for
ACRES AMERICAN, INCORPORATED
Liberty Bank Building, Main at Court
Buffalo, New York 14202
ERRATUM
Unofficial information was received by Frank Orth & Associates, Inc. and
Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. from other project participants
concerning the possibility that a fairly well-developed construction
enclave would be provided, with a significant level of services and housing
for mid-and upper-level management personnel and their families. This
information was received in 1981, too late to consider in this 1980 Annual
Report. It is possible that, with such an enclave, there potentially could
be reduced magnitudes of impacts in certain socioeconomic categories.
These would include ethnicity, culture, community, housing type and availa-
bility, and possibly public ~ervices. Although absolute impacts may
decline somewhat in the aforemen~ioned categories,
each of the schemes likely would remain the same.
topics discussed on pages ix-x and 263-278.
relative magnitudes for
This erratum applies to
SUMMARY
SUMMARY
Introduction
Frank Orth & Associates, Inc. is identifying and analyzing socioeconomic
impacts that could result from hydroelectric development in the Upper
Susitna Basin. The overall objectives of this analysis {Phases I and
II), as well as Phase I and first year objectives for Subtask 7.05:
Socioeconomic Analysis, are as follows:
Overall Objectives
Determine which socioeconomic conditions are most likely to
be impacted and to what extent these conditions are likely to
change; and
-provide information that will aid in assessing the signifi-
"
cance of potential changes in socioeconomic conditions
Phase I Objectives
-Review impacts resulting from energy-development projects and
assess their applicability to proposed hydroelectric develop-
ment in the Upper Susitna Basin;
-develop descriptors {categories of variables) for socioecono-
mic conditions and determine which variables are most likely
to be influenced by hydroelectric development in the Upper
Susitna Basin;
-geographically delineate impact areas;
-identify and describe important socioeconomic conditions in
areas likely to be impacted by hydroelectric development in
the Upper Susitna Basin;
-review forecasting models and assess their applicability to
forecasting socioeconomic conditions in the impact areas;
-adopt, modify, and/or develop a methodology for forecasting
socioeconomic conditions and conducting preliminary and final
impact analyses;
co~duct preliminary socioeconomic impact analysis for hydro-
electric development in the Upper Susitna Basin, including
consideration of a one or two dam scheme, access routes,
transmission facilities, and other areas, concerns and issues
that may be appropriate to socioeconomic analysis; and
-forecast socioeconomic conditions in the impact areas under
the assumption that there will be no hydroelectric develop-
ment in the Upper Susitna Basin.
At the end of the first year, the first four Phase I objectives were
accomplished; work relating to the next three objectives was in process;
and work relating to the last objective had not yet begun.
Methodology
At the outset, a conceptual framework for the overall socioeconomic
analysis (Phases I and II) was developed and interrelations among
work packages (generally discrete work efforts) were defined.
Particular emphasis was placed upon de vel oping detailed work plans
for each of the four work packages of Phase I and defining interre-
lations among them. The basic objectives and methodologies for each
work package are:
Work Package 1: Literature Review
Impact studies of projects similar to the proposed Susitna Project
were identified and evaluated. This evaluation provided guidance
for the development of baseline socioeconomic profiles and con-
siderable insight concerning types of impacts to expect from
hydroelectric and other types of energy development.
vi
Work Package 2: Socioeconomic Profile Development
Socioeconomic profiles covering the immediate vicinity of the pro-
posed project~ broader regions, and the State of Alaska were deve-
loped. In these profiles, socioeconomic conditions most likely to
be impacted by the proposed project were identified and described in
significant depth. The profiles included, where applicable and
available, the following socioeconomic conditions and/or variables:
-Current population totals and distribution;
-Attitudes toward growth~ lifestyle, and quality of life;
-Housing stock, by type of unit and price/rent levels;
-Tax rates and revenues by type of jurisdiction;
-Public facilities: availability and adequacy;
-Transportation facilities~ by type;
-Education: enrollment, capacity, and ~osts;
Business activity, level, and trends;
-Employment and income levels;
-land use patterns and trends; and
-Fish and wildlife use patterns.
Work Package 3: Preliminary Socioeconomic Impact Studies
Preliminary impact analysis was conducted for alternative access
corridors. The railbelt region was split into "west'' and "east"
sides. Impacts that could occur on either side as a result of
constructing and utilizing alternative access corridors were iden-
tified and qualitatively assessed. Preliminary impact studies for
alternative hydroelectric design plans and a selected plan are to be
conducted during 1981.
vii
Work Package 4: Forecast of Future Socioeconomic Conditions in the
Absence of a Susitna Project
All relevant socioeconomic forecasting models and studies were iden-
tified and evaluated according to specific criteria. Based on this
analysis one or a combination of model types is to be selected for
utilization as a forecasting tool.
Results and Discussion of Baseline Study
Recent and current socioeconomic conditions in geographic areas (study
areas) that could be impacted by hydroelectric development in the Upper
Susitna Basin were identified and described. Literature and data re-
views and analyses served to "lay the foundation" and structure for the
socioeconomic baseline profiles. These included: 1) a review of recent
energy-development impact s~udies; 2) a review . of the process used to
define socioeconomic conditions, variables and study areas; and 3) a
preliminary analysis of conditions and variables most likely to be
impacted in each study area. This analysis provided substantial guid-
ance for selecting and emphasizing key socioeconomic conditions and
variables in the baseline profiles.
The socioeconomic baseline includes descriptions of population distribu-
tion, housing, government structure and taxation, infrastructure, economic
base, employment, land use, and recreation. Each of these categories
of socioeconomic conditions was described for each study area to the
extent appropriate. Information concerning places/communities in or
near the Upper Susitna Basin was provided subject to the availability of
secondary data.
viii
Impact Assessment
Preliminary impact analysis and assessment in regard to alternative
access routes was conducted. It was concluded that socioeconomic
impacts w·ill vary in both magnitude and area of concentration depending
upon which access route or combination of access routes is selected.
The analysis was predicated on several assumptions, one of which was
that there will not be an enclave with a broad range of services at the
project site, and that labor corrmuting patterns will develop as a func-
tion of accessibility to the dam sites. It was also assumed that if the
access is from the west, whether a road connecting with the Parks High-
way or a rail spur off the existing railroad, the port of entry would be
Anchorage; thus, impacts would be concentrated on the "west side". The
west side was defined as Anchorage, Matanuska-Susitna, Seward, Kenai-
Cook Inlet, and the southeast portion of Yukon-t.<oyukuk census divisions.
The areas of greatest concentration of impacts will be the Parks Highway
and railroad corridor. However, if the access corridor were from the
Denali Highway, then it was assumed that the port of entry would be
Valdez. In this scenario more impacts would occur on the "east side".
The east side was defined as the City of Valdez and the Valdez-Chitina-
Whittier census division, and the western portion of the Southeast
Fairbanks census division, (primarily the Richardson Highway and eastern
portion of the Denali Highway).
Potentially susceptible socioeconomic conditions and variables were exa-
mined for impact magnitude per each access route combination. This was
done for each access route combination on both the east and west sides;
as well as for an additional combination where the impacts are broadly
dispersed over both the east and west sides. A numerical scale of 1 to
5 was used, with 5 representing a large impact and 1 a small or negli-
gible impact. The numerical scale did not correspond to a quantitative
measure, but rather was a ranking system used to delineate the relative
magnitudes of impacts. Relative refers here to the socioeconomic base
NOTE: Please refer to the Erratum that precedes the Summary of this report.
ix
upon which the impact could occur. Thus, for the east side, in general
the impacts were rated fairly high because of its relatively less deve-
loped socioeconomic base.
Socioeconomic factors, issues and concerns relating to dam construction
and operation, were also addressed. Factors that will substantially
influence the geographic distribution and magnitude of socioeconomic
impacts were identified.
Some of the key issues are:
These factors give rise to several issues.
-what access route or combination of access routes results in the
most desirable distribution and magnitudes of socioeconomic impacts?
-what type and amount of public and private use of the project
site(s} and access route and adjacent/nearby land provides for the
desired impacts?
-is an enclave or construction camp desirable?
-can the timing of the demand for labor be changed and, if so, what
is the most desirable labor schedule?
-what types and amounts of construction supplies and services will
be purchased locally?
These issues are interdependent. They must be addressed and resolved
as such.
Associated with each issue will be concerns, which will usually be
expressed and voiced by persons who oppose or favor substantial changes in
the status quo {i.e., substantial changes in baseline socio-economic
variables and conditions}. The issues must be resolved by considering any
such concerns.
Mitigation
Mitigation planning to avoid or minimize potentially adverse socio-
economic impacts (i.e., potentially large changes in the forecasted
X
baseline conditions resulting from construction and/or operation of
hydroelectric and related facilities) should include consideration of
the distribution and relative magnitudes of potential impacts associated
with "west side" versus "east side" access to the project site(s). The
location and relative magnitude of impacts in almost every socioeconomic
impact category (set of socioeconomic variables) will vary considerably
depending upon which "side" is chosen for access. In general, choosing
"west side" access will result in minimizing large changes in impact
categories. Further, choosing access from the west. side, with a road
from the Alaska Rai 1 road to Devil Canyon and Watana, would result in the
least overall change in impact categories.
Mitigation planning should also consider minimizing irreversible impacts
on socioeconomic resources. Existing and potential mining claims and
recreational fishing areas in the vicinity of the alternative impound-
ment zones should enter in the dam(s) siting and design decision pro-
cesses.
xi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
liST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
1 -INTRODUCTION
v
XV
xxi
3
2 -METHODOLOGY -----------------------------------------------9
2.1 -Introduction --------------------------------------9 2.2 -Work Package 1: Literature Review ----------------12
2.3 -Work Package 2: Socioeconomic Profile
Development -------------------------------------17 2.4 -Work Package 3: Preliminary Socioeconomic Impact
Studies -----------------------------------------17 2.5 -Work Package 4: Forecast of Future Socioeconomic
Conditions in the Absence of a Susitna Project --20
3 -RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF BASELINE STUDY------------------31
3.1 -Introduction --------------------------------------31
3.2 -Population/Community ------------------------------38
3.3 -Housing -------------------------------------------57 3.4 -Government Structure and Taxation --~--------------71
3.5 -Infrastructure ------------------------------------85
3.6 -Economic Base ------------------------------------~ 140
3.7 -Employment ----------------------------------------209
3.8 -Land Use ------------------------------------------228
3.9 -Recreation ----------------------------------------238
3.10 -Methodology Development ---------------------------259
4 -IMPACT ASSESSMENT -----------------------------------------263 4.1 -Preliminary Socioeconomic Impact Assessment for
Alternative Access Routes -----------------------263
4.2 -Issues and Concerns Relating to Dam Construction
and Operation -----------------------------------271
5 -MITIGATION ------------------------------------------------277
6 -REFERENCES ------------------------------------------------281
6.1 -Introduction --------------------------------------281 6.2 -Energy Development Impact Studies -----------------281
6.3 -Data ----------------------------------------------284
6.4 -Methodologies ------------------------------------~ 294
7 -AUTHORITIES CONTACTED -------------------------------------303
7.1 -Introduction --------------------------------------303
7.2 Federal Institutions ------------------------------303
7.3 State Institutions --------------------------------304
7.4 Local Institutions --------------------------------310 7.5 Other Institutions, Organizations, and
Individuals -------------------------------------311
xiii
APPENDIX A -PROCESS FOR DEFINING SOCIOECONOMIC VARIABLES AND
STUDY AREAS-------------------------------------319
APPENDIX B -IMPACTS OF REPRESENTATIVE POWER DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS----------------------------------------327
APPENDIX C -COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF SOCIOECONOMIC CATEGORIES AND
VARIABLES---------------------------------------335
APPENDIX D -PROBABILITY AND DEGREE OF IMPACT FOR POTENTIALLY
IMPACTED VARIABLES------------------------------349
APPENDIX E -OVERVIEW OF MATANUSKA -SUSITNA BOROUGH ECONOMY --371
xiv
Table
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
LIST OF TABLES
Characteristics of Selected Socioeconomic Impact
Studies
Format for Compilation of Impacts from Relevant
Energy Impact Studies
Impacts of Representative Power Development Projects:
Potential Relevance for the Proposed Susitna Project
Economic Data Collection Matrix
Characteristics of Selected Socioeconomic Impact
Studies
Economic Data Collection Matrix
Total Residential Population and Components of Change
by Study Area: 1970-1980
Race of the Population by Study Area
Community Population
Matanuska-Susitna Borough Census Data 1939, 1950,
1960, 1970, 1976, 1980
Attitude Toward Development: Matanuska-Susitna Borough
Community Attitudes Toward Economic Development
Community Development Priorities
Housing Stock Estimates, December 1979
Estimated Housing and Vacancy Rates
Housing Stock Estimates by Areas of the Borough
Inventory of Transient Accommodations in Study Area 2
Owner-Renter Distribution by Housing Type
The Presence of Selected Housing Conditions
Municipal Property and Sales Tax Rates
Valuation, Population, and G.O. Bonded Debt
Community Facilities Summary
XV
14
15
16
18
33
35
41
44
47
50
51
52
58
59
60
63
64
67
82
86
88
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Total Traffic for Selected Alaska Ports
Principal Scheduled Common Carrier Marine Services to
Selected Alaska Ports
Port of Anchorage Freight Movements in Tons by
Commodity: 1965, 1970, 1972 -1979
Matanuska Telephone Association, Inc.
Total Number of Installed, and Spare Terminals and
1990 Estimate
Number of Electrical Consumers: Matanuska, Valdez,
and Glennallen Divisions
Residential Consumer Rates
Consumer Cost of Electric Energy for Specified
Usages and Suppliers
Medical Facilities/Services and Inpatient Utilization
Data
Characteristics of Public Schools: Matanuska-Susitna
School District
Characteristics of Public Schools: Copper River
School District
Value of Alaska•s Mineral Products: 1959-1979
Gross Unrestricted and Petroleum Revenues
Valuation of Residential, Nonresidential and Total
Building Included in Building Permits Issued in
Selected Areas of Alaska: 1974-1979
Domestic Fisheries of Alaska
36 Catch & Value from Alaska•s Domestic & Foreign
37
38
39
40
Fisheries
Alaska Timber Harvest (in thousand board feet,
Scribner scale) on Public Lands, By Ownership,
1959 -1979
Dollar Value of Agricultural Production
Cropland Utilization
Livestock on Farms
xvi
94
95
96
107
111
116
117
126
138
141
143
145
149
151
152
154
155
157
158
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Visitor and Expenditure Projections
Visitor Expenditures
Cities/Areas Visited
Total Sales of Visitor Industry Firms in Alaska and
Total Sales to Visitors
Employment Growth, Annual Average Rates,
Selected Alaska Industries
State of Alaska Index of Employment Seasonality,
Selected Industries
Combined Indicators for Banking, Savings and Loan
Associations, Federal Credit Unions, and
Small Licensee Activity: 1976 -1979
Total Number of Family Dwelling Units Included in
Building Permits Issued in Selected Urban Areas
1970 -1979
Alaska Insurance Business
-
Alaska Public Sector Wages Compared to All Wages
Received in Selected Years
Total Federal Government Obligations in Alaska
Plus Net Dollar Exchanges Among Levels of
Government
Alaska State Government, Expenditures by Function
State of Alaska, Revenues by Source, Last Ten
Fiscal Years
Local Government General Revenue and Direct General
Expenditures in Alaska: FY 1972 -FY 1978
Total Value of Permits Issued for Residential and
Non-Residential in Anchorage
Tax Revenue by Source
New Mining Claims Received
Classification and Number of Businesses
Borough and Pipeline Related Assessments
Comparison of Selected Public Fiscal Measures,
City of Valdez and Municipality of Anchorage
1978
xvii
160
161
162
163
165
167
169
170
172
173
175
176
177
178
180
184
185
186
187
191
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
Business Location and Type
Gross Business Receipts
Employment by Industry for Adult Residents of
Matanuska-Susitna Borough
Occupation of Matanuska-Susitna Borough Adult
Residents
State Annual Nonagricultural Employment by Sector
Study Area 3 Annual Nonagricultural Employment
by Sector
Anchorage Annual Nonagricultural Employment by Sector
Matanuska-Susitna Borough Annual Nonagricultural
Employment by Sector
Valdez-Chitina-Whittier Annual Nonagricultural
Employment by Sector
Civilian Labor Force Data and Percent Unemployed
for Selected Areas
Cross Industry Employment by Major Occupational
Group
Sport Fish Harvest, by Species
East Side Susitna Drainage Sport Fish Harvests
and Effort by Fishery and Species, 1978
West Side Cook Inlet-West Side Susitna River Drainage
Sport Fish Harvests and Effort and Species, 1978
Knik Arm Drainage Sport Fish Harvests and
and Effort by Fishery and Species, 1978
Glennallen Sport Fish Harvests and Effort by
Fishery and Species, 1978
Nelchina Herd
Fall 1979 Drawing Permit Applications
Moose -GMU 13 Nelchina Basin
Black Bear Harvest Data
Brown Bear Sport Harvest Summary
xviii
194
197
198
199
211
215
216
217
219
223
227
243
244
245
246
247
250
251
252
254
255
82 Potential Socioeconomic Impacts of Alternative
Access Route Combinations, by Socioeconomic Impact
Category
xix
268
XX
Figure
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
LIST OF FIGURES
General Framework for Plan of Study
Model Categorization and Evaluation Criteria
Study Areas
Total Population of Alaska
Major Inbound Commodity Flows
Major Outbound Commodity Flows
Principal Highways and Traffic Volumes for Selected
Points in Study Area 3
Principal Scheduled Alaska Air Service
Air Transportation
Residential Electric Consumers
Small Commercial Electric Consumers
Large Commercial Electric Consumers
Existing Fire Service Areas
Proposed Fire Service Areas
Dollar Value of Agricultural Production
Cropland Utilization
Tax Revenue by Source
New Mining Claims
Matanuska-Susitna Business Dispersion
Mineral Resources
Mining Districts
Coal Fields
xxi
10
22
26
39
91
92
98
102
103
113
114
115
122
123
155
157
184
185
195
203
205
207
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
3l
32
33
Alaska Nonagricultural Employment Index
Statewide Quarterly Total Nonagricultural Wage
and Salary Employment With Moving Average
Alaska Unemployment Rate
Nonagricultural Wage and Salary Employment Index
Alaska Statewide Employment Estimates, Percent
Distribution of Major Occupational Groups, 1979
Land Tenure
Native Claim Lands
Native Claim Lands
Federal Land Withdrawals in Southcentral Alaska
Access Route Schematic for Susitna Hydroelectric
Project
Census Divisions by East and West Definition
xxii
214
221
222
225
226
229
233
235
239
264
26n
1-INTRODUCTION
1 INTRODUCTION
Important elements of the feasibility of a hydroelectric development in
the Upper Susitna Basin are the socioeconomic impacts created by its
construction and operation. Such impacts are important not only in their
own right. but also because of the intense socioeconomic concerns so pre-
valent in Alaska. The intensity of these concerns was recently voiced as
the proposed Rampart Project on the Upper Yukon River was deferred indefi-
nitely. This project was deferred in large part because the homelands of
the Interior Natives. areas of habitat for caribou and other game animals.
and upstream and downstream fisheries would have been impacted in a manner
that was considered unacceptable at the time.
The socioeconomic analysis presented and discussed herein is designed to
assess the . important socioeconomic impacts that could result from
hydroelectric development on the Susitna River. The overall objectives of
the socioeconomic analysis are to: (1) determine which socioeconomic con-
ditions are most likely to be impacted and to what extent these conditions
are likely to change; and (2) provide information that will aid in assessing
the significance of potential changes in socioeconomic conditions. The
analysis has been divided into two phases. The first phase entails making
preliminary determinations in (1). The second phase effort is devoted to
providing for more rigorous determinations in {1) and to accomplishing
(2). Phase I results are to be included in the license application to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Co1m11ission (FERC) and Phase II is to be con-
ducted while the license is under consideration.
The specific objectives of the Phase I effort are to:
1) review impacts resulting from energy-development projects and
assess their applicability to proposed hydroelectric development
in the Upper Susitna Basin;
2) develop descriptors (categories of variables and variables) for
socioeconomic conditions and determine which variables are most
likely to be influenced by hydroelectric development in the Upper
Susitna Basin;
3) delineate impact areas;
4) identify and describe important socioeconomic conditions in areas
likely to be impacted by hydroelectric development in the Upper
Susitna Basin;
5) review forecasting models and assess their applicability to fore-
casting socioeconomic conditions in the impact areas;
6) adopt, modify, and/or develop a methodology for forecasting
socioeconomic conditions and conducting preliminary and final
impact analyses;
7) conduct preliminary socioeconomic impact analysis for hydro-
electric development in the Upper Susitna Basin, including con-
sideration of a one or two dam scheme, access routes, transmission
facilities, and other areas, concern and issues that may be
appropriate to socioeconomic analysis; and
8) forecast socioeconomic conditions in the impact areas under the
assumption that there will be no hydroelectric development in the
Upper Susitna Basin.
At the end of the first year of Phase I, objectives 1 through 4 were
accomplished; work relating to objectives 5 through 7 was in process; and
work relating to objective 8 had not yet begun.
Methodologies for conducting work related to each of the first seven
objectives are discussed in Section 2. Results of the first year effort
are presented and discussed in Section 3. First year impact assessment
work is presented in Section 4. Comments concerning mitigation are pre-
4
sented in Section 5 and references and authorities contacted during the
first year are provided in Sections 6 and 7, respectively.
2-METHODOLOGY
2 -METHODOLOGY
2.1 -Introduction
Work packages to attain the objectives of the socioeconomic analysis are
divided into those that are scheduled to be completed prior to submission
of the FERC license application (1 through 4 below) and those work packages
that may be completed during a later time period (5 through 9 below). The
work packages to be completed during Phases I and II are:
(1) Literature review;
(2) Socioeconomic profile development;
(3) Preliminary socioeconomic impact studies;
(4) Forecast of future socioeconomic conditions in the absence of a
Susitna Project;
(5) Forecast of future socioeconomic conditions with a Susitna Project;
{6) Detailed analysis and assessment of significant socioeconomic
project impacts (excluding those impa£ts associated with fish and
wildlife);
(7) Assessment of economic aspects (values) of important commercial,
recreational, and subsistence fish and wildlife resources
without the project;
(8) Determination and evaluation of project impacts on important
co11111ercial, recreational, and subsistence fish and wildlife
resources; and
(9) Assessment of social significance of the economic impacts of the
project on important commercial, recreational, and subsistence
fish and wildlife resources.
As can be seen in Figure 1, the first phase (pre-license submission) con-
sists of work packages designed to identify important socioeconomic
conditions that are likely to be impacted by the project and to do a preli-
minary assessment of these impacts. Based on the findings of Phase I, in-
depth analyses and assessments of potential project impacts are performed
in Phase II (p~st-license submission).
I--'
0
~
Literature
Review
2
Soc1 o-economi c
Profile
Development
3
Preliminary
Socio-economic
Impact
Studies
FIGURE 1
GENERAL FRAMHJORK FOR PLAN OF STUDY
PHASE I PHASE II
-------,
I
I
7 ' 4
9 1 Econom1 c Assessment _a
Forecast of Future of Important Commer-Assess Social Signifi-ciiil Recreational, Determine & Evaluate cance of Project's Socio-economic &Subsistence Fish & Project's Impacts on Economic Impacts on ;---eo Conditions in -Wildlife-Under 1-Important Commercial, Important Commercial, Absence of "Without Project" I--Recreational & Sub~ ~ Recreational & Project Conditions sistence Fish & Subsistence Fish & Wildlife P~sources Wildlife Resources I
I
I
f--I
I
I
_6.::.8._ I 5 6-A ' Assess Social·and I Forecast of Future Identify & Evaluate Economic Sign1fi-I Socio-economic 1-Significant Socio-1--cance of Impact I ~ Conditions in '--economic Project Evaluation Results. I Presence of Impacts (exclu. impact~
I One or Two on fish and wildlife)
I Dam Project I
I
I
I .,. __ ----..J
In the first work package of Phase I, impact studies of projects similar to
the proposed Susitna Project are identified and evaluated. This evaluation
provides guidance for the development of detailed socioeconomic profiles.
Socioeconomic profiles covering the immediate vicinity of the proposed pro-
ject, broader regions, and the State of Alaska are developed in the second
work package. In ~hese profiles, socioeconomic conditions most likely to
be impacted by the proposed project are identified and described in signi-
ficant depth. The profiles include, where applicable, the following
socioeconomic conditions and/or variables:
Population totals and distribution, current and projected;
-Housing stock, by type of unit and price/rent levels;
-Employment and income levels;
-Tax rates and revenues by type of jurisdiction;
-Public facilities, availability, adequacy, and cost;
-Land-use patterns and trends;
-Business activity, level, and trends;
-Education, enrollment trends, capacity, revenues, and costs;
-Transportation facilities, by type;
-Fish and wildlife use patterns;
-Attitudes toward life style and quality of life; and
-Attitudes toward growth.
Two preliminary socioeconomic impact studies are conducted in Work Package
3. The first preliminary impact study will consider several alternative
project plans provided by Acres American, Inc. This preliminary assessment
wi 11 be based in part upon the experiences reported in the 1 i teratu re
review in Work Package 1. The second preliminary impact study wi 11 con-
sider the plan selected by APA and Acres American, Inc. This ·impact study
will be more in-depth than the first impact study because it will benefit
from the use of projected baseline socioeconomic conditions. Potentially
large, or significant changes in the projected baseline conditions due to
the selected alternative are to be i denti fi ed in this second preliminary
11
impact study. Work Package 4 is a forecast of the relevant socioeconomic
conditions that were profiled in Work Package .2. This forecast is made
assuming that no hydroelectric development occurs, and is an important
input to the second preliminary impact study of Work Package 3.
In addition to the two preliminary impact studies above, additional preli-
minary impact studies may be conducted for alternative access routes and
transmission corridors, and other issues and concerns, as appropriate. The
need for these additional studies will become apparent during the course of
Phase I.
The two-phase study is designed to make effective use of existing
literature, studies, models, and highly qualified researchers with socio-
economic impact analysis and Alaska experience; the first three of these
elements serve to provide basic information and relevant methodologies, and
reduce the likelihood of duplicating effort; the_last element contributes
toward ensuring that the most appropriate data bases are accessed, the most
suitable methodologies applied, and that the results are evaluated and
applied in a manner which supports the objectives of the overall project.
Close coordination and frequent information exchange with other disciplines
of the study, specifically recreation, fisheries, wildlife, and land use,
will further enhance the study effort.
Methodologies for each work package are provided in Subsections 2.2 -2.5.
Substantial detail is provided for each work package. However, if further
detai 1 is desired, the reader is referred to the En vi ron menta 1 Studies
Procedures Manual for Subtask 7.05: Socioeconomic Analysis.
2.2 -Work Package 1: Literature Review
The objectives of this work package are to: 1) review impacts of other
power projects and assess their potential relevance to a hydroelectric
development in the Upper Susitna Basin; and 2} identify sources of social
and economic data and determine the quality of and 11 gaps 11 in such data.
12
The first objective is to be accomplished by collecting and screening
socioeconomic impact studies for hydroelectric projects simi 1 ar to the
range of potential hydroelectric developments in the Upper Susitna Basin
and other types of electricity-generating projects with major socioeconomic
impacts. Several studies are to be selected for detailed review according
to criteria relating to the anticipated characteristics of a hydroelectric
development in the Upper Susitna Basin. The criteria for selecting studies
are shown in Table 1. At least two of the studies are to be other than
hydroelectric. One is to be a large fossil fuel facility and the other is
to involve a large scale nuclear power project.
Next, a format for compi 1 i ng the impacts cited in each study is to be
developed. Table 2 illustrates the basic format with headings. The
headings refer to major impact areas which either directly, indirectly, or
potent1ally affect socioeconomic variables.
Finally, study impacts are to be assessed for relevance to Alaska according
to geographic area and degree. This assessment will yield a list of
impacts, by type, geographic area, and degree, which could be relevant for
the preliminary impact studies of Work Package 3. This assessment will not
be exhaustive. It will serve primarily as a guide for further research in
Work Packages 2, 3, and 4. The format for providing the results of the
assessment is partially presented in Table 3; the remainder of the format
is similar in structure to that shown and it covers additional types of
impacts such as community attitudes, economy, etc. In this format, the
impacts are listed in generalized form. They must be related to the speci-
fics of a Susitna hydroelectric project and its environment. This process,
to be conducted in Work Package 2, will permit refinement and further spe-
cification of potential impacts as to geographic area and degree.
The second objective, to identify sources of data and the apparent quality
of and gaps in such data, is to be accomplished by developing and imple-
menting data collection and interview guides. The end product will be: a)
an extensive bibliography of data sources numbered in alphabetical order;
13
(""")
:I:
);:o
::0
):>
(""")
-I
rr1
::0
1-1
(/)
-I
1-1
Hydroelectric Power
Large scale Hydroelectri
(Over 1000 MW Capacity)
(""") ..... (/)
3: -uo -I c );:o"'Tl )::o
(/) (""") to
rr1 -I (/) I
I rr1 "' Recent
JFrom 1977 on)
rr1 Vl I
(""") -I rr1 ..-
-I c:: (""") ..... a -I
0 ..... "'
In Alaska :z "'a (/)
(""") (/)
::0 0 ..... (""")
Remoteness -I .....
rn 0
::0 rr1 ....... (""")
);:o 0
Nuclear Power :z
0 ::: .....
Fossil Fuel Power (""")
Involves a
Anadramous Fisheries IT'I rn r-(/)
rn n
Foreign 3:::0 rn ,_.
:z "t:l
-I-I
Involves Native (/) .....
<
American Groups rr1
T-ABLE 2
FORMATS FOR COMPILATION OF IMPACTS FRm1
RELEVANT ENERGY IMPACT STUDIES
PROJECT: Title
Lead Agency
Date, Type of Study or Document
Applicant or Responsible Office
Descriptive Characteristics
Generating Capacity
Scope
Cost
Land Use and Features
Wildlife
Aquatic Species and Water Quality
Socioeconomic Categories
Population
Housing
Tax Base and Revenues
Employment
Public Services
Community Attitudes
Energy
Cultural Resources
Recreation
Aesthetics
COMMENTS: Pertaining to study format, scope, and quality.
15
DEGREE AND
GEOGRAPHIC
AREA OF
IMPACT
+ L,R
+ L
? L
? L,R
+ L,R
o L
+ L
? R
TABLE 3
IMPACTS Of REPRESENTATIVE POWER DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS:
POTENTIAL RELEVANCE FOR THE PROPOSED SUSITNA PROJECT
TYPE OF IMPACT
Land Use and Features
Total acreage required by project facilities and
right-of-ways.
Total acreage of land indirectly impacted by project facili-
ties and right-of-way.
Short-term impacts may be less substantial than the long-term
impacts.
Patterns of ownership and induced changes.
Changes in uses of land.
Value of land and natural resources above and below ground
1 est/gained.
Changes in potential uses of land (wilderness or roadless
areas, National Scenic River, etc.)
Potential for seismic activity.
Overall "productivity" of land could increase.
Increased accessibility will affect land and resource values.
Opportunities for flood protection.
Degree of impact: + is relatively large;
o is relatively small.
? is uncertain.
Geographic area of impact: L is the Upper Susitna area (local)
R is the railbelt and the state (i.e., outside
the upper Susitna area).
16
and b) a set of Economic Data Collection Matrix sheets that serve to orga-
nize the data· sources by descriptive characteristics. The draft format for
this Economic Data Collection Matrix is shown in Table 4. It is apparent
from the matrix structure that it can be (and has been) continually
updated.
2.3 -Work Package 2: Socioeconomic Profile Development
The purpose of this work package is to collect~ compile and analyze data
on socioeconomic conditions for the development of socioeconomic profi-
les that can then be utilized in the preliminary impact studies {Work
Package 3) and the forecasting of socioeconomic conditions (Work
Packages 4 and 5). For the purposes of this analysis, socioeconomic
conditions are to be broken down into socioeconomic categories and
variables. These categories and variables are to be qualitatively
assessed for probability of being impacted by a ~ydroelectric develop-
ment in the Upper Susitna Basin. The potential degree of impact on each
variable is to be estimated in a qualitative manner. The end product
will be a matrix showing the probability of a variable being impacted
{either high or low) and the degree of impact (relatively large or
small/negligible), by study area. Study areas, previously lacking clear
geographic definition, are to be defined quite precisely. A discussion
of the methods to be used for defining study areas and socioeconomic
variables is provided in Appendix A.
Next, data collection guides are to be developed and implemented for
each of the relevant variables. Compilation formats are to be developed
for the variables. The final items in this work package wi 11 be to
describe and begin to analyze the compiled baseline data and develop
socioeconomic profiles. These will include some analysis of socioecono-
mic trends and factors of change in each of the study areas.
2.4 -Work Package 3: Preliminary Socioeconomic Impact Studies
17
....
CD
TABLE 4
ECONOMIC DATA COLLECTION MATRIX
(Numbers in cells refer to attached bibliography)
TYPE OF DATA AREA AND CURRENCY OF INFORMATION
FAIRBANKS ANCHORAGE MATANUSKA-SUSITNA STATEWIDE
c-~~~-~"~~~~~ ~~""----·-----------·--------.---··-
R.U. 1 R.S. 2 O.M. 3 R.U. R.S. D.M. R.U. R.S. D.M. R.U. R.S. O.M.
-...
1R.U. = regular updates of data issued. 2R.S. =recent study. One time report with data within 1978-1980 period
3 O.M. =dated material. Data for period 1977 and prior.
The objective of this work package is to identify and "red flag 11 potential
socioeconomic impacts stemming from: (a) alternative hydroelectric deve-
lopment project plans in the Susitna Basin; (b) the selected hydroelectric
development project plan; and (c) alternative access routes and
transmission facilities, and other issues and concerns, as appropriate. It
is anticipated that work will begin on part (a) during January, 1981.
Specifically, for alternative hydroelectric development project plans in
the Susitna Basin, FO&A, Inc. will contribute socioeconomic impact infor-
mation to Acres American Inc. as requested or needed under Subtasks 6.06,
6.07, and 6.08 of the Plan of Study. FO&A, Inc. will determine the types
of and relative magnitudes for potential socioeconomic impacts for each
alternative project plan by study area. Socioeconomic variables
(descriptors of socioeconomic conditions) that are most likely to be signi-
ficantly impacted during operations and construction phases will be iden-
tified for each alternative. This will be a qualitative assessment. Next,
categories of socioeconomic variables that are most likely to be impacted
over the long term (operating phase) will be identified by study area.
FO&A, Inc. plans to use a matrix as a means for presenting these impacts.
The column headings will be alternative hydroelectric project plans and the
rows will be impact categories (i.e., categories of socioeconomic
variables). The alternative project plans will be grouped by study area.
This will allow for comparison of project impacts among study areas as well
as com parison of different project plan impacts within a study area.
Additionally, sensitive or key socioeconomic categories such as government
revenues, total labor demand, transportation, and unemployed labor, might
be further analyzed and presented through appropriate variables; and highly
qualified, gross quantitative estimates of changes in such variables could
be forthcoming for each alternative project plan, as data and information
permit.
A similar analysis and matrix will be developed for construction phase
impacts for each alternative project, as available information permits.
This depends in part upon engineering and economic data and information
available from Acres American, Inc.
19
There will be a discussion of impacts that are common to each alternative
project plan and impacts that are unique to one or more alternative project
plans. Emphasis will be placed upon addressing: (1) the potential impacts
created by the influx and efflux of construction and operations work
forces; (2) the approximate proportion of jobs likely to be held by current
A 1 ask a residents and the characteristics of these jobs (e. g., seasona-
lity, skill level, short-term, long-term, etc.); (3) potential changes in
personal income; (4) apparent shortages of public services, facilities, and
housing; (5) anticipated population changes/shifts and their potential
effects on the existing conmunities; (6} potential financial impacts on
boroughs and local government entities; (7) potential impacts on transpor-
tation systems; and (8} impacts on fish and wildlife use patterns.
Next, potential socioeconomic impacts of the selected project plan will be
i dent ifi ed and assessed. Most or all of these impacts wi 11 have already
been identified and qualitatively addressed in the preliminary impact ana-
lysis for alternative project plans. Any further potential impacts not
identified in the previous analysis will be identified at this time; thus,
an additional increment of impacts may be identified at this point.
The product of this part of Work Package 3 will be a qualitative assessment
of potential impacts of the selected project plan on all socioeconomic
categories and on sensitive or key variables within these categories. It
will pro vi de highly qualified, gross quantitative estimates of changes in
these selected variables from the baseline forecasted values of Work
Package 4. In contrast, the impact analysis of Work Package 6 wi 11 have
the benefit of two quantitative forecasts, one with and the other without
the selected alternative(s). It will provide for defensible quantitative
estimates of changes in most variables from the baseline forecast values.
2.5 -Work Package 4: Forecast of Future Socioeconomic Conditions in
the Absence of a Susitna Project
The objective of this work package is to develop a forecast of socioecono~
mic conditions under the assumption that no hydroelectric development
20
occurs in the Upper Susitna Basin. This work package will begin by iden-
tifying and collecting relevant socioeconomic models and studies. All
relevant forecasting models used regularly or occassionally by Alaska
institutions are to be identified and information on them collected. Other
potentially relevant models and studies, whether specific to Alaska or not,
are to be identified and collected. This literature search and collection
should be coordinated with Work Package 1 to the extent feasible.
Next, criteria are to be developed to describe and evaluate the studies and
models methodologies, including their levels of geographic disaggregation
and quality of data used. Draft evaluation guides are shown in Figure 2.
These guides are to be applied to each relevant study or model.
The next step to selecting a model type is to develop criteria to assist
with screening the models and methods for use as forecasting tools.
Criteria/factors to be considered will include:
-time and cost restraints (e.g., utilizing an existing Alaska-specific
model would probably be more cost-effective than using a
lower 48 model);
-need for a model that assesses both quantitative and qualitative
factors in a theoretically rigorous manner and meets or exceeds
-generally acceptable standards for simi 1 ar types of impact assess-
ments;
need for a model capable of assessing impacts at the .. micro level ..
(Study Areas 1 and 2 in Figure 3) and the 11 macro level 11 (Study Areas
3 and 4 in Figure 3); and
-need for a model flexible with respect to data needs, both in terms
of availability of data on a given topic and in terms of the
availability of time-series data for a particular variab}e. · {It will
be very important to coordinate the application of this screening
factor with the dat~ identification, collection, and compilation
efforts of Work Packages 1 and 2).
21
FIGURE 2
MODEL CATEGORIZATION AND EVALUATIO'IJ CRITERIA
MODEL-SPECIFIC:
1. Name of Model/Issuing Agency:
2. Literature citation:
3. Contact person/phone:
4. Alaska or Lower 48 model? AK Lower 48 (Specify area)
5. Type of Analysis:
Regression
Trend
Economic Base
Input-Output
Qualitative
6. Disaggregation by geographical area (zones): (Try to relate to Census Divisions'
Statewide ----
Regional ______ {Specify, i.e. Railbelt, Southeast, etc.)
Subregional {Specify by individual census division or cities/towns/
------villages)
7. Frequency of forecasting:
8. Time frame for forecast:
22
9. Input assumptions (Was a systematic approach used in developing assumptions?
Were the assumptions varied to test the sensitivity results
to changes in assumptions? Are the assumptions reasonable?)
10. Scenarios (if used): (Was a systematic approach used in scenaria development?
Are the scenarios reasonable?)
11. Feedback effects: (Are there any? Were they accounted for?)
12. How often is model updated?
23
13. Can we access model? If so, what are costs and conditions?
Items 14-19 for Alaska models only.
VARIABLE-SPECIFIC:
14. Variables utilized: (These should be c~tegorized to either directly or
by association to correspond with Work Package 1
Alaska Socioeconomic Data Collection Guide categories.
For each model reviewed, fill out a set of variable
work sheet(s) (sample follows) .
. 15. Data sources utilized are generally
Primary ___ _
Secondary ___ _
(Variable work sheets used in item 14, above, and Work Package 1 give
detailed information on data sources.)
16. Completeness of data --were there gaps? How did this bias result?
(Variable work sheets used in item 14, above, include this question.)
17. Currency of data (see variable work sheets from item 14, above).
18. Reliability {quality) of data: {see variable work sheets from item 14,
above).
19. Geographical area.
24
For Alaska models only.
Reference item 14.
t10DEL:
SUBSETS:
VARIABLE WORK SHEET
Data Sources: (specify if primary or secondary)
Completeness of data:
Geographical area:
Currency of data:
Reliability of data:
Data Sources: (specify if primary or secondary)
Completeness of data:
Geographical area:
Currency of data:
Reliability of data:
25
N
0'1
0 ·.
FIGURE 3
STUDY AREAS
1},-~
• • •
\ Fairbanks
Study Area 1
Upper Susitna River Basin
Study Area 2
Study Area 3
These factors and criteria and any others that are subsequently identified,
are to be applied to the models and methods reviewed. Based on this
analysis, one or a combination of model types is to be selected. In
addition, the models and methods are to be examined for direct utilization
as forecasting tools in the forecast of socioeconomic conditions. The
results of this examination are to be presented in a matrix format to faci-
litate comparison of models and methods.
27
3-RESUL TS AND DISCUSSION
OF BASELINE STUDY
3 -RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF BASELINE STUDY
This section describes recent and current socioeconomic conditions in
geographic areas that could be impacted by hydroelectric development in the
Upper Susitna Basin. This socioeconomic profile will be utilized in the
preliminary impact studies (Work Package 3) and the forecasting of
socioeconomic conditions (Work Package 4). This section is organized in 10
subsections. The first subsection introduces the reader to reviews and
analyses that serve to "lay the foundation" and structure for the socioeco-
nomic baseline study. This introduction includes a brief summary of the
literature review (Work Package 1); a review of the processes used to
define: socioeconomic conditions and variables and study areas; and a pre-
liminary analysis of conditions and variables most likely to be impacted in
each study area. This analysis provides substantial guidance for selecting
and emphasizing key socioeconomic conditions and variables in the baseline
description. Subsections 1.2 through 3.9 provide the baseline description
of socioeconomic conditions. Most of these sections are descriptive rather
than analytical and do not look toward the future. Further analysis and
identification of factors of change are treated as part of Work Package 4
during 1981. This section concludes with Subsection 3.10 which summarizes
progress to date on methodological development in Work Package 4.
3.1 -Introduction
The construction and operation of a hydroelectric facil it.v on the Susitna
River could have an effect on the residents in the surrounding region by
impacting socioeconomic conditions such as population, community structure,
housing, supply and demand, public services, the economy, land use and
recreation; essentially, the existing communities' fiber. To better
understand what could happen to communities near the proposed hydroelectric
development, Frank Orth & Associates, Inc. reviewed impacts of other
energy projects and assessed their potential relevance to a hydroelectric
development in the Upper Susitna Basin. This was accomplished by
collecting and screening socioeconomic impact studies for hydroelectric
projects similar to the range of potential hydroelectric developments in
the Upper Susitna Basin and other types of electricity-generating projects
with major socioeconomic impacts. Several studies were selected for
detailed review according to criteria relating to the anticipated charac-
teristics of a hydroelectric development in the Upper Susitna Basin. The
selected studies and criteria are shown in Table 5. All but two of these
studies were concerned with hydroelectric dam projects. The Boardman study
dealt with a large scale coal-fired generating facility and the Washington
Public Power Supply System study dealt with a large scale nuclear power
project. These latter two were identified and reviewed for purposes of
comparison and supplementation.
Next, a format for compiling the impacts from each study was developed.
Table 2 (see Subsection 2.2) illustrates the basic format with headinqs.
The headings refer to major items or elements which either directly,
indirectly, or potentially affect socioeconomic variables. Impacts cited
in each study were compiled using this format.
Finally, study impacts were assessed for relevance to Alaska according to
geographic area and degree. This assessment yielded a list of impacts, by
type, geographic area, and degree, which could be relevant for the prelimi-
nary impact studies of Work Package 3. This assessment was by no means
exhaustive. It served primarily as a guide for further research in Work
Packages 2, 3, and 4. The results of the assessment are partially pre-
sented in Table 3; the remainder of the results are provided in Appendix B.
In these exhibits, the impacts are listed in generalized form. They must
be related to the specifics of a Susitna hydroelectric project and its
environment. This process, conducted in Work Package 2, permitted refine-
ment and further specification of potential. impacts as to geographic area
and degree.
Several of the types of impacts shown in Table 3 (see Subsection 2.3 and
Appendix B) are not the primary responsibility of this socioeconomic analy-
sis. Some examples are land use and features, cultural resources, and
32
TABLE 5
CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED SOCIOECONOMIC
IMPACT STUDIES
PROJECT
1. Dickey-Lincoln
School lakes
2. Boardman
3. Susitna
4. Green Lake
5. Marysville Lake
6. Swan Lake
7. Terror Lake
8; Tyee lake
9. Solomon Gulch
10. N. Fork Stanislaus
11. Bad Creek
12. WPPSS*
* Washington Public Power
Supply System
I
s..
OJ
3
0 c..
u ..... s.. ..,
u
OJ -OJ
0 s..
"'0 >, :z:
<>
+
<>
<>
<>
<>
<>
<>
<>
<>
SELECTION CRITERIA
u ......
s..-
~~ OJ•r-..... u
~9 s..co
"'0 u >, -:z: 3 c:: s..
::l: 0 OJ OJ 3 ..... 0 "' Ill 0
100 "' "' 1/) c.. uo 0'1 ~ OJ
V1 ........ ........ Ill c:: s.. .., "' OJ "' OJS.. c::E ..... +-' OJ C"'OJ OJO ex:: 0 ..... s.. > us.. E u
100 OJI..L. c:: OJ ::l
....J-o::-...... 0:: z
+ <> <>
<>: <>
+ + + + .
<>~+ <>
+ <>
<> + <>
<> + <>
<> + <>
<> +
+
+ <>
+
s..
OJ
3
0 c..
.....
OJ
::l
I..L.
..... .....
V1
V1
0
L.J...
+
II
I
DESCRIPTIVE
ELEMENTS
1_1 I
Ill
OJ ......
s..
OJ ..c: OJ Ill
V1 >C.. ...... ..... ::l
I..L. +-'0
"' s.. 1/) Z(..!:)
::l cno V1C::
OJE c:: OJIO >o 0) > u r-s.. ...... ...........
0"'0 OJ OS->co s.. > OJ
c::c:: 0 c::E ~cC I..L. ...... ex::
+ +
<>
<>
<>
<> <>
<>
+ Determining characteristic
<:> Other characteristic
33
wildlife. These were included, however, because they do have implications
relevant to this analysis.
The second objective, to identify sources of data and the apparent quality
of and gaps in such data, was accomplished by developing and implementing
data collection and interview guides. The end product was: a) an exten-
sive bibliography of data sources numbered in alphabetical order; and b) a
set of Economic Data Collection Matrix sheets that serve to organize the
data sources of a) by descriptive characteristics. A sheet from this
Economic Data Collection Matrix is shown in Table 6. It is apparent from
the matrix structure that it can be (and has been) continually updated.
This matrix also facilitated the identification and extraction of relevant
data to be included in the socioeconomic baseline.
Work Package 2 began by further defining socioeconomic conditions, cate-
gories, and variables. The final list of categories and variables is shown
in Appendix C.
Next, these categories and variables were qualitatively assessed for proba-
bility of being impacted by a hydroelectric development in the Upper
Susitna Basin. The potential degree of impact on each variable was also
estimated in a qualitative manner. The end product was a matrix showing
the probability of a variable being impacted {either high or low) and the
degree of impact {relatively large or small/ negligible), by study area.
This product is provided in Appendix D.
Study areas were defined by applying the criteria presented in Subsection
2.3 and Appendix A. The areas are shown in Figure 3 and defined below.
3.1.1 -Study Area 1 -Immediate Impact Area
Includes the project site; portions of the transmission lines; access
corridors; and some staging areas.
34
w
01
TABLE 6
ACRE WORKPACKAGE 1 ECONOMIC DATA COLLECTION MATRIX
(Numbers in cells refer to attached bibliography)
TYPE OF DATA : EMPLOY AREA AND CURRENCY OF INFORMATION
FAIRBANKS ANCHORAGE MATANUSKA-SUSITNA STATEWIDE
R. U. 1 R.s.2 D.M. 3 R.U. R.S. D.M. R.U. R.S. D.M. R.U. R.S.
Employment/Unemployment Levels 5,9,10, 26 5,9 21, 5,9 37 31 4,5, 15
23 10, 35 10 9 t 10,
36 11
5,9, 10, 26 5,9 21 ,35 5,9, 37 4,5, 15
Type of Employment 23 10, 10 6,9,
36 10
5,9,10, 16 5,9, 16 35 5,9, 37 4,5, 16
Income Levels (personal) 23 10 10 6,9,
10
Projected Employment/Income 9' 10 9,10 9,10 4,9, 15
10,13
Other 3lb 13a
1 R.U. = regular updates of data issued. 2 R.S. = recent study. One time report with data within 1978-1980
period. 3 D.M. =dated material. Data for period 1977 and prior.
a = job openings; b = location of jobs.
D.M.
14
I
14
14
3.1.2 -Study Area 2 -Mat-Su/Valdez Area
Includes all of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (census division) and
potentially the Valdez-Chitina-Whittier census division. Treatment of
this area will be both in the aggregate and by selected communities
(places). This study area represents the primary political units
within which the project and, to a substantial degree, its impacts may
occur. The Valdez census division may be included in this study area
if access routes from the Denali Highway are utilized. In this case,
it is felt that substantial impacts may occur along the Richardson
Highway corridor from Valdez to the Denali Highway and on north to some
extent. It is possible that Valdez could become a port of entry for a
large volume of supplies for the project. This activity will create
attendant impacts. Also, simply due to the corridor's proximity to the
project, and relatively undeveloped socioeconomic base, substantial
impacts could accrue to the area.
Census divisions were selected to represent Study Area 2 (as well as
Study Area 3 below) because: (1) they are the smallest geographic
areas in Alaska for which economic and social information (beyond the
number of inhabitants by sex, age and race) are consistently available;
and (2) many of the places within the Mat-Su and, particularly the
Valdez-Chitina-Whittier census division, are not true communities hut
simply clusters of population with little or no economic or social
structure. Further, in places where there is apparently some economic
and/or social structure, little is known about this structure. More
study is needed on this subject before places serve as the basic unit
of analysis in a project of this dimension. Nevertheless, as indi-
cated above, significant effort wi 11 be made to co 11 ect, campi 1 e, and
analyze secondary information concerning places.
36
3.1.3 -Study Area 3 -Railbelt Region
This area wi 11 form the basis for most of the quantitative ana'lysi s
regarding many of the economic variables. These variables include
labor/employment, income distribution, and industry impacts. The
region constitutes the Alaska area from which many of the inputs for
the project will be drawn. It also represents the output or service
area to which electricity generated by the project will be providerl.
Analysis of the Alaska socioeconomic structure and distribution pattern
1 ed to the inclusion in this area of major census di visions of the
southcentral and interior Alaska, including: Anchorage, Kenai-Cook
Inlet, Seward, Valdez-Chitina-Whittier, Matanuska-Susitna,
Southeast Fairbanks, and Yukon-Koyukuk. The 1 atter will be subdivided
into the most relevant parts (see Figure 4).
3.1.4 Study Area 4-State
This area will include data aggregated for the State of Alaska.
Finally, as a prerequisite to drafting the socioeconomic profiles, data
collection guides were developed and implemented for relevant variables and
associated study areas. Data compilation formats were then developed and
implemented. The boundaries shown in Figure 3 provided the geographic
guidelines for the development of the socioeconomic profiles, with indivi-
dual places/communities not within these boundaries being treated where
appropriate (e.g. Chulitna, Gold Creek, Denali, and Cantwell). The
approach discusses each relevant category of variables separately; i.e.,
the first category was described in the context of each relevant study
area, then the second category was described in the context of each rele-
vant study area, and so forth. For Study Area 2, information was presented
at the place/community level of detail where secondary data allowed. These
places/communities included: Talkeetna, Willow, Wasilla, Palmer,
Glennallen, Paxson, Copper Center, Gulkana and Gakona.
37
3.2 -Population/Community
3.2.1 -State Population
Alaska is characterized as a land of extremes, ranging from extremes
in temperature and landmass to extremes in population, economy and
lifestyles. It encompasses more land than any state in the United
States, yet is the least populated, with approxi-mately half of the
population residing in Anchorage. Current (1980) estimates of Alaska
and Anchorage population are 400,331 and 173,992, respectively.
Alaska 1 s history has been shaped by the existence of abundant natural
resources and man 1 S attempts to realize the benefits associated with
these resources. The best indicator of these events is the fluctuation
in the level of population over the years.
Non-native settlement first began with Russi an fur trappers in pursuit
of precious and valuable furs. The first period of rapid growth
occurred between the years 1880 and 1890 with the discovery of gold and
the beginning of what became known as the Klondike Gold Rush. This was
followed by a period of relative inactivity, with first an efflux of
population and then a slight influx during the depression in response
to the increase in the price of gold. The second dramatic increase
occurred in 1939 due to the military presence in preparation for World
War II. The construction of the Al-Can Highway in 1942 established the
first overland connection with Alaska and contributed to the increase
in population. The most recent increase in population has been
observed si nee 1970 with the discovery of oi 1 in Prudhoe Bay and
construction of the Trans-Alaska pipeline. The preliminary 1980 census
figures reveal a 32.3 percent increase in total Alaska population in
the 10 year period from 1970 to 1980. The population changes that have
occurred over the past 100 years are displayed in Figure 4.
In 1900, the composition of the population was disproportionately 72
percent male dominated. However, with improvements in communication~
38
w
\0
12 ANNUAL
GROWTH RATE
0
-]
POPULATION
YEAR
1880
FIGURE 4
TOTAL POPULATION OF ALASKA
1110
(100 YEARS) 1880 -1980
ALASKA TOTAL POPULATION
1900
NOME
t----t GOLO RUSH
I(LONDIKk
GOLD RUSH
1900
t-----1
W.W.I
1810 1820
1---t
GREAT DEPRESSION ALCAN HWY. 1948 11bl
W.W. II RECESSION ALAS~A 5TATH<OOO
11140 1t50 11HIO
1170
NORTH SLOPE t---t
OIL LEASE PIPE LINE
AUCTION
1170
Source: Alaska Department of Labor. December 1979. Alaska Population Overview. Juneau, AK. p. 7.
460 ~
~
:::!
0 z
400 i .. a c
1:
J&o z
0 ..
300
2011
1&o
100
0
transportation, and economic stability, and with the growth in govern-
ment, the sex composition has stabilized to where the population is
only slightly male dominated at 54 percent.
As mentioned previously, roughly 50% of the total Alaskan population
resides in Anchorage and approximately 70 percent reside in the
Southcentral and Fairbanks portion of the state. Because this region
encompasses a large area geographically, 1s strategically located in
relation to the lower 48 states, and provides a wide array of economic
possibilities ranging from agriculture and fishing to petroleum, coal,
and mineral extraction and development, it has observed a considerable
increase in population in recent years. Table 7 reveals a 42 percent
increase in population between 1970 and 1980, slightly higher than the
32 percent average for the state.
3.2.2 -Study Area 2
When the focus becomes the Matanuska-Susitna Borough and the
Valdez-Chitina-Whittier census division, the recent increases in popu-
lation are even more substantial. For the same period 1970-1980, the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough witnessed an increase of 175 percent and the
Valdez-Chitina-Whittier census division increased 71 percent.
The construction of the Trans-Alaska pipeline was the single greatest
factor contributing to the increase in population in the
Valdez-Chitina-Whittier census division. The Mat-Su Borough was also
affected by the construction since it was a supplier of labor and ser-
vices and a place of residence for workers; it felt an equal, if not
greater, effect. The increasing size and importance of the municipa-
lity of Anchorage had an effect on the Borough in two di sti net ways:
1) the Borough became an easily accessible recreational area for
Anchorage residents; and 2) Anchorage became a supplier of jobs and
economic opportunities for Borough residents. Indicative of the latter
is the fact that 37 percent of the Mat-su Borough residents commute to
40
1980
Preliminary
Census
1970
Census
Net Change
Percent
Change
Change 1n
TABLE 1
TOTAL RESIDENT POPULATION AND COMPONENTS OF CHANGE
BY STUDY AREA: 1970 -1980
S d A tu ly rea 2 d Stu y Area 3* s d tu ly Area
Matanuska-Susitna Valdez-
Borough Cordova
17,938 8,546 285,011 400,331
6,509 5,000 200,023 302,361
+11 ,429 +3,546 +84,988 +97,970
+175 +71 +42 +32
Mi 1 i tary Pop +141 +58 -4,730 -8,102
Natural
Increase +1,430 +844 +45,107 +61,142
(Births &
Deaths)
Impl1ed net
Civilian 9,858 2,644 40,111 44,930
Migration
*Fairbanks, S.E. Fairbanks Mat-Su, Anchorage, Kenai Peninsula, and
Valdez-Cordova Census Divisions
Source: Alaska Department of Labor, Administrative Services Division.
January 1, 1981. Alaska's 1980 Population: A Preliminary
Overview. Juneau, AK. p. 26.
41
4
or through Anchorage on a daily basis, averaging 100 miles per day
{Overall Economic Development Program, Inc., 1980; p. XV). What has
transpired is a relationship where the Mat-Su Borough is a bedroom com-
munity to Anchorage.
3.2.3 -Matanuska-Susitna Borough
3.2.3.1 -Demography
The gold finds that brought so many miners to Alaska in the late 19th
century paved the way for the farmers who settled in the
Matanuska-Susitna Valley a few years later. The mines provided the
needed market for the farmers until their closing in the 1940•s.
Homesteaders first appeared in 1911 and within five years there were
approximately 500 established residents in the Knik, Wasilla and Palmer
area. The completion of the railroad in 1923 and the federal project
to re 1 ocate 200 fami 1 i es in the va 11 ey frem the cant i guou s states
during the depression spurred activity in the area. Initially, the
land tracts were limited to 40 and 80 acres, however, it became uneco-
nomical to farm such small tracts and consequently this limitation had
a detrimental effect on the development of the valley as an agri-
cultural region.
Historically, the Borough has been an area for cabins and recreational
housing, catering predominately to Anchorage residents. In recent
years, a large portion of the homesteading in the Borough has been in
the interest of land speculation. One example is Big Lake a major
recreation area in the Borough, where the majority of the houses are
owned by Anchorage residents. Evidence of this is the fact that
approximately 60 percent of the Borough•s tax notices are sent to
Anchorage addresses {1976). (Matanuska-Susitna Planning Department,
1978; p.38.)
The current (1980) estimate of the population in the Matanuska-
Susitna Borough is 17,938, of which approximately 51 percent are male;
42
49 percent female; 81 percent married; 12 percent single; and 7 percent
divorced. In 1970, 97 percent of the adult population were Caucasian;
2 percent were American Native; and 1 percent were black (see Table 8).
The present composition of the population is unknown, but will be
available when the 1980 census data is compiled. The average educa-
tional level for adults is 13 years with 20 percent having 16 or more
years of education. (Matanuska Electric Association, Inc., September
1980; p.4). The mean household income for the Matanuska-Susitna
Borough is $30,627, despite one of the highest unemployment rates in
the state of approxi-mately 20 percent.
A better understanding is obtained of the Borough and its individual
communities through examination of the transiency of its residents.
The rapid increase in population of 175 percent in the last ten years
gives empirical evidence of the growing attraction of the Borough as a
place to reside. The housing study conducted by Policy Analysts,
Limited in 1980 confronted this issue and provides comprehensive detail
of the demographics and tenure of the Borough residents.
The most obvious indicator of the transiency and recent growth in the
Borough is the fact that 56 percent of the residents surveyed have
1 ived in the Borough for five years or less and only 27 percent have
lived in the area over 10 years. The average length of residence in
the Mat-Su Valley is 9.3 years while the median is only 5.0 years.
While 45.9 percent of the residents have moved in the past three years,
26.4 percent have moved two or more times. The mean number of moves
per household during the past three years is 1.07.
Palmer and Butte have the most stable populations with average lengths
of residence of 13.0 and 12.4 years respectively. Wasilla with an
average of 7.0 years, has the newest population. Only 3 percent of the
residents were born in the Borough, with the majority, 44 percent,
having moved from Anchorage, and an additional 15 percent coming from
/
other areas of the state.
43
RACE
Mat-Su
Eskimo 91
Indian 138
Aleut 43
TOTAL
NATIVE 272
White 6,189
Black 12
Filipino 1
Japanese 4
Other 31
TOTAL 6,509
TABLE 8
RACE OF THE POPULATION BY STUDY AREA
-1970 -
Stud) Area 2
Valdez-Ch1t1na-Study Area
% Whittier % 3
1.4 110 3.5 3,509
2.1 413 13.3 4,359
0.6 178 5.7 1,488
4.1 701 22.6 9,356
95.0 2,378 76.7 180,997
0.18 9 0.3 8,065
0.01 0 0.0 1' 158
0.06 3 0.09 622
0.47 7 0.22 1,159
100.0 3,098 100.0 200,778
Study Area
% 4 %
1.7 27,797 9.2
2.1 16,276 5.4
0.7 6,581 2.1
4.6 50,654 16.8
90.0 236,767 78.8
4.0 8,911 2.9
0.5 1,498 0.5
0.3 916 0.3
0.5 1,636 0.5
100.0 300,382 100.0
Source: Alaska Department of Labor. 1980. Annual Planning Information, FY 1981. Juneau, AK; p. 6.
E4/F
When asked what the reasons were for moving to the Borough, there was
no one reason that dominated, but rather a wide array of responses
(Overall Economic Development Program, Inc., 1980; pp. 81-84). This is
in many respects a reflection of the composition of the Borough. Of
the 868 reasons, 17.2 percent are work and job related; 14.5 percent
are negative comments of the Anchorage/urban lifestyle; 13.4 percent
focus on the rural, country-style atmosphere; 6.3 percent point out the
general Alaskan opportunities and lifestyle; and 9.0 percent want an
affordable home or land.
The majority of Matanuska-Susitna Borough adults are employed in
construction (17 percent) with the second and third largest employment
sectors being retail trade (11 percent) and transportation, utilities,
and communications (10 percent). Occupational staffing patterns reveal
that across all employment sectors, professional/technical occupations
form the single largest category at 20 percent.
3.2.3.2 -Population Distribution
The Matanuska-Susitna Borough is the second 1 argest organized borough
in the State of Alaska, covering a total of 23,000 square miles, which
amounts to approximately 4 percent of the total area of the state. Yet
despite this large geographic area, only about one quarter of the
Borough is currently inhabited. The remainder of the Borough is more
suitable for recreation, mining, and other forms of mineral develop-
ment. Of the inhabited area, approximately 90 percent of the popul a-
t ion lives within a 25 mile radius of Wasilla {Matanuska-Susitna
Borough Planning Department. April 1978; p. 46). This area includes
the two most populated communities; Palmer (2,143) and Wasilla (1,548).
The remainder of the population is distr·ibuted along the Parks Highway
and Railroad corridor. Several hundred inhabitants are scattered
throughout the wilderness regions accessible only by water or air.
45
3.2.3.3 -Communities
Communities are not necessarily defined by political incorporation; if
this were the case, then Palmer, Wasilla, and Houston would be the only
communities in the Borough.
The formation of communities is somewhat arbitrary and relies on the
bond of common interest. The feeling of a community can be in response
to living in an isolated area, such as Skwenta, where access is dif-
ficult and there is a great reliance on aircraft; to living on an iso-
lated road such as in Petersville; to living along the railroad or near
a railroad house such as Talkeetna; to living near a mine, or some
natural or manmade feature; or to having similar economic goals. There
are many such settlements in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough that share
one or more mutual interests and have developed into communities.
Communities range in size from several individuals to over 2,000.
Commercial development coincides with the community and the demands for
local services. Ordinarily this results in the development of a gas
station and general store. In other areas the development is much more
extensive.
The major population centers in the Borough are: Palmer, Wasilla, Big
Lake, Eska-Sutton, Willow, Houston, and Talkeetna. The growth and
current populations of these and other communities in the Borough are
shown in Table 9. Following are brief synopses of these major popula-
tion centers:
-Palmer: The only home rule city in the Borough. It is the primary
commercial center for the residents of Palmer, Butte, Matanuska and
Eska-Sutton, and offers a wide variety of services. Together with
Wasilla, this area of the Borough is classified as a sub-commercial
regional center within the Anchorage trading area.
46
TABLE 9
COMMUNITY POPULATION:
MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH CENSUS DATA
1939, 1950, 1960, 1970, 1976, 1980
Community 1939 1950 1960 1970 1976 1980*
Talkeeta --r3"l) --roo -n """"IS2" """128 """""2'65"
Willow 78 38 384 134
Wasi 11 a 96 97 112 300 1566 1548
Palmer 150 890 1181 1140 1643 2143
Montana 39 33 76 40
Big Lake 74 36 721 412
Butte 559 448 2207
Chickaloon 11 43 22 62 20
Eska Sutton 14 54 215 89 496
Curry 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMUNITY POPULATION:
OTHER COMMUNITIES NOT IN MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH
Community 1950 1960 1970 1976 1980*
Nenana 242 286 382 493 47T
Healy 79 503 333
Cantwel 1 85 62 95
Denali 3
Paxson 20 30
Glennallen 142 169 363 488
Copper Center 90 151 206 213
Gakona 50 33 88 85
Gulkana 65 51 53 111
*Alaska Department of Labor, Administrative Services Division. January 1,
1981. Alaska 1980 Population: A Preliminary Overview. Juneau, AK; pp.
14-24.
Source: Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Department. April 1978. Phase
I: Comprehensive Development Plan. Palmer, AK; p. 50.
47
-Wasilla: This community is strategically located along the Parks
Highway, the Alaska Railroad, and the Palmer-Wasilla Road which leads
to the Glenn Highway. Major commercial installations of all types can
be found in Wasilla. The rapidly increasing population has intensified
the need for municipal services.
-Talkeetna: Tourism, particularly for hunting and fishing trips and
mountain climbing expenditions, provides the main basis of the present
economy of Ta 1 keetna. Talkeetna is the take-off point for c 1 i mbi ng
expeditions to Mt. McKinley, and in the summer there is a great influx
of tourists. There are several lodges in town and the majority of all
businesses are oriented toward transients and tourists. Government
employment, particularly railroad employment, is an important factor in
the economy. The 1980 preliminary census count is 265, showing a 45
percent increase over the past 10 years.
-Big Lake: Big Lake originally consisted M recreational cabins and
homes owned almost exclusively by Anchorage residents. Over the past
few years a permanent resident community has started to develop and
services no longer cater only to transients.
-Eska-Sutton: Originally an active coal mining community, it is now a
community increasing in size with an economy based on the Palmer
Correctional Center, and services to the Glenn Highway. Massive depo-
sits of limestone located northeast of Eska-Sutton which could supply
sufficient raw material for a cement company represent the greatest
potential for new employment.
-Houston and Willow: Both Houston and Willow are located along the
Richardson Highway. They are small communities, Houston 3.93 and Willow
134, with scattered populations.
Houston became a second class city in 1973 and primarily provides ser-
vices to tourists along the highway and to its residents.
48
Willow is an unincorporated community. Its community activities are
centered around the Willow Civic Center. In 1976, when Willow was
designated as the site of the new capital, there was much land specula-
tion and development activity in anticipation of what was to transpire.
Willow has observed a 252 percent increase in population in the past 10
years.
Many of the residents of Willow and Houston are construction workers
who spend part of the year on homesteads and the rest of the year at
construction sites in other parts of the state.
3.2.3.4 -Attitudes toward Economic Development
When the Matanuska-Susitna Borough is viewed in its entirety as a com-
munity, it is possible to determine the community concensus regarding
future development. Highlights of a recent survey on this subject are
discussed below. The survey was conducted by Policy Analysts, Limiterl
and R. L. Endez in May 1980; the reader can refer directly to the docu-
ment if more detail is desired.
In general, the residents of the Borough are much more in favor of
greater economic development than they are opposed. When asked on a
scale of 1 to 7 if they were in favor of a lot more development (7} or
no more development (1), the median was 4.6 (Table 10).
Table 11 addresses the same question, hut has disaggregated the results
by community. While the general trend is still towards greater econo-
mic development, Willow and the communities to the north appear to be
less in favor of development.
Another indicator of community response to economic development is
exhibited in Table 12. Displayed in this Table are economic develop-
ment priority rank i ngs by community. Generally, the Borough residents
are in agreement as to what would be most beneficial for economic
49
TABLE 10
ATTITUDE TOWARD DEVELOPMENT:
MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH
On a seven-point scale, with #1 indicating no more development and #7
representing a lot more developmentt where do you place yourself?
% (n)
6.2 41 1 (No more development)
6.2 41 2
10.7 71 3
23.7 157 4
23.4 155 5
8.8 58 6
21.0 139 7 (A lot more development)
2 8 (Don • t -know)
15 9 (Missing)
4.6 Median
Source: Policy Analystt limited and Dr. Richard L. Ender. May 1980.
Mat-Su Housing and Economic Development Study: Survey findings; p.40.
/K
50
TABLE 11
COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TOWARD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
On a seven-point scale, with #1 indicating no more development and #7
representing a lot more development, where do you place yourself?
North of
Will ow Will ow Houston Wasilla Palmer
1-No more development 0 9.1 12.5 5.7 5.2
2 23.5 18.2 0 4.2 4.0
3 5.9 15.2 6.3 8.8 11.0
4 35.3 21.2 31.3 24.9 24.9
5 35.3 21.2 25.0 24.9 24.9
6 0 3.0 18.8 10.0 6.9
7-A lot more development 0 12.1 6.3 21.5 23.1
Source: Overall Economic Development Program, Inc. July 1980. Volume II:
Economic Conditions, Development Options and Projections; p. 12.
/I
51
TABLE 12
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES
North
of
Priority Willow " Willow % Houston % Wasilla " Palmer " High Tour* 94 Agr 100 Agr 100 Med 92 Med 90
85-100% Loan 88 Med 97 Mfg 94 Agr 89 Agr 89
Meat 88 Fish 91 Med 94 Fish 89 Fish 89
Fish 88 Ed/Res 91 Energy 94 Ed/ Res 89 Energy 89
Ret/Wh 88 Energy 91 Fish 93 Loan 88 Ed/Res 87
Loan 88 Meat 88 Meat 86 Loan 86
Timber 88 Capital 85
Loan 87 Energy 85
Dairy 87
Ca~ital 87
Med 82 Diary 82 Tour 81 Dairy 84 Meat 83
75-84% Mfg 82 Mfg 79 Ed/ Res 81 Mfg 84 Dairy 82
Agr 82 Ret/Wh 76 Ret/Wh 81 Ret/Wh 83 Mfg 82
Dairy 77 Mining 77 Ret/Wh 82
Energy 77 Tour 77 Capital78
_Pt. Mac 75 Tour 77
Pt.Mac 75
Knik C 71 Pt.Mac 72 Pt. Mac 73 Port 74 Timber 74
Favorab1 e Capital71 Meat 70 Knik C 69 Timber 74 Mining 72
60-74% Ed/Res 72 Rec 67 T&S 69 Knik C 72 Port 72
Rec 65 Timber 67 Fin/RE 67 Petro 67 Eli 68
Knik C 64 Port 67 T&S 67 Petro 68
Tour 64 Mining 63 Eli 62 Rec 66
Port 63 Rec 61 T&S 64
Knik C 65
Pt.Mac 59 Capital 59 Rec 55 Fin/RE 57 Fin/RE 51
Lower Port 59 Eli 50
50-59% EI I 59 Petro 50
Timber 53
Fin/RE 53
No Petro 47 T&S 49 H/C 44 H/C 49 H/C 47
Priority, Mining 47 Fin/RE 46 Gvt 31 Gvt 47 Gvt 42
less than T&S 47 Mining 42 Mil 13 Mil 24 Mi'l 26
50% H/C 24 H/C 42
Mil 18 Petro 39
Gvt 0 EI I 36
Gvt 27
Mil 21 * See page following for categor1es key.
Source: Overall Economic Development Program, Inc. July 1980. Volume I I :
Economic Conditions, Development Options and Projections; pp. 14-16.
/COP
52
TABLE 12 (continued)
Key:
Industrial -Support Facilities
Pt.Mac -Point MacKenzie Site Development
Port -Deep Water Port at Point MacKenzie
Knik C -Knik Ann Surface Crossing
T&S -Transport and Storage Fcilities
Petro -Petrochemical (Oil and gas} Industries
Ell -Encouragement of Energy Intensive Industries
H/C -Hovercraft and Port Facility to Connect Valleys with Anchorage
Government & Services
Gvt-Government Civilian Services (Federal, State, & local}
Mil -Military Bases
Med -Medical and Health Facilities
Ed/Res -Educational and Research Facilities
loan-Small Business loan Support Program
Resources Development
Fish -Fishing Industry (Processing & Hatchery Development}
Agr -Increased Agricultural Development
Meat -Red Meat Industry Development
Dairy -Expanded Dairy Industry
Timber-Timber (Wood Products, Pulp, etc.)
Mining-Refining Hard Rock Minerals (Iron Ore, Copper, etc.}
Commerce
Mfg-Light Manufacturing (such as Printing or Furniture Making)
Ret/Wh -Retail and Wholesale Business
Fin/RE -Finance Banking, Real Estate
Tourism
Tour. -Tourism
Rec -Recreational Site Development
Capital Site
Cap-Building New Capital at Willow
Alternate Energy
Energy-Alternate Energy Demonstration Projects {Wind, Solar, Peat, etc.)
53
prosperity, with the greatest va ri at ions observed once again between
the Palmer/ Wasilla residents and the residents in the communities
north of Willow. Where the communities north of Willow place highest
priority on the development of Tourism (94 percent), Palmer and Wasilla
rank it much lower (77 percent). The reverse is observed with the com-
munities north of Willow placing a lower priority on medical facilities
{82 percent), agriculture (82 percent), and educational and research
facilities (71 percent). Wasilla ranks medical and agriculture deve-
lopments as its number one and two priorities at 92 percent and 89 per-
cent respectively. Educational and research facility development is
priority ranked at 89 percent. A common thread throughout the Borough
is the low priority placed on the development of military bases.
3.2.4-Valdez-Chitina-Whittier
3.2.4.1 -Background
Valdez and the Copper River Region were originally settled by non-
native explorers of Russian and European extraction in response to the
gal d discoveries, and the need for a route from the coast to the
interior deposits. As a result, Valdez became the principal port to
the interior and later flourished with the discovery and development of
copper deposits and with the construction of the Copper River and
Northwestern Railway in 1911. In the early 20th century, Copper Center
and Gulkana were established as U.S. Army telegraph stations and Gakona
became a trading post. This, in conjunction with the construction of
the Al-Can Highway, the Richardson Highway, and the Trans-Alaska pipe-
line led to the genesis and development of many communities in this
Region.
3.2.4.2 -Demography
As indicated in Table 7, the Valdez-Chitina-Whittier census division
was, and is, sparsely populated relative to the Matanuska-Susitna
54
Borough. It did not experience as dramatic an increase in population
from 1970 to 1980 as the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. However, it did
witness a 71 percent increase, considerably greater than the state
average of 32 percent.
In comparison to the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, the Valdez-
Chitina-Whittier census division had a considerably greater native
population in 1970, with native Americans constituting approxi-mately
22 percent of the total population. The majority of the residents were
Caucasian {76. 7 percent} with Blacks accounting for approximately 0. 3
percent. This has in all likelihood changed somewhat as the population
has increased from 3,098 to 6,225 for the Valdez-Cordova census area
(excluding the Cordova census sub-area} during the 10 years period from
1970 to 1980.
It should be noted that all attempts have been made to present census
figures consistently. Difficulty arises due-to the fact that census
boundaries changed from the 1970 designations of the
Valdez-Chitina-Whittier census division and the Cordova census division
to the incorporation of the two to produce the 1980 Valdez-Cordova cen-
sus area. The 1980 Valdez-Cordova census area is divided into the cen-
sus sub-areas of Prince William Sound, Cordova, and Copper River,
however these sub-areas do not share common boundaries with the 1970
demarcations. To enable comparison between 1970 and 1980 figures, the
Prince William Sound and Copper River census sub-areas are combined to
closely approximate the boundaries of the 1970 Valdez-Chitina-Whittier
census division. The elimination of the Cordova census sub-area elimi-
nates 2,321 people from the total population count for the
Valdez-Cordova census area.
The greatest influence on the area, and the composition of its popula-
tion, was the introduction of the Trans-Alaska pipeline construction.
The population in the area peaked during the height of the pipeline
construction in 1976 and 1977 and has since tapered off. There are no
55
recent studies on the demographics of the area and until the 1980 cen-
sus information becomes available, the most reliable sources of data
are the Copper River Wrangell Socioeconomic Overview, prepared by
Charles Logsdon, et al (Institute of Social and Economic Research and
Agricultural Expermiment Station) in 1976; the Ahtna Region, Background
for Regional and Community Planning, 1973, prepared by AEIDC; various
other publications; and individual contacts. The City of Valdez is
currently reviewing proposals for the development of an economic model
for the City. This work will include the compiling and evaluation of
primary socioeconomic data for the City and the immediate area. Access
to the results of this study would enhance our ability to evaluate this
region in greater detail.
The only incorporated city within the area that has been desig-nated
Study Area 2 is Valdez, which is classified as a first class, home rule
city. The rest of the Region consists of unincorporated communities
1 ocated predominantly along the highways; the Richard son Highway, the
Glenn Highway; and the the Tok cut-off leading from the Richardson
Highway to the Al-Can Highway. These communities have developed in
accordance with changes occurring on the coast and in the transpor-
tation corridors. This is evidenced by the relative decline in popula-
tion and economic activity in the area following the opening of the
Parks Highway in early 1970's. Prior to its completion, the principal
route from Anchorage and Valdez to Fairbanks was along the Richardson
Highway. The re-routing of traffic along the Parks Highway resulted in
a decrease in activity along the Richardson Highway thereby decreasing
the demand for services. The reverse occurred with the construction of
the Trans-Alaska pipeline, however, which was a temporary situation.
56
3.3 -Housing
3.3.1 -Matanuska-Susitna Borough
The following section on housing in the Mat-Su Borough was extracted
from the Overall Economic Development Program, Inc. 1980: pp. 72-86.
3.3.1.1 -Projection of Housing Stock
There are substantial differences in the public estimates of the
current housing stock of the Mat-Su Borough. Table 13 describes a pro-
jection based on housing counts, employment data, and the 1979-80
housing survey prepared by Policy Analysts, Limited. At the end of
1979, there were an estimated 5,844 units in the Borough of which 5,546
are occupied. This produces a 5.1 percent vacancy rate {See Table 14).
The housing units in the Borough are disproportionately single family
(83 percent), with only a small number of multi-family (5.3 percent),
or mobile homes {11.3 percent). There are also an estimated 21 "other"
units
others.
including residences in commercial structures, teepees, and
Vacancies are projected to vary by type of structure with
multi-familiy having the highest vacancy rates. As can be noted, the
survey results {Policy Analysts, Limited) of housing type closely
approximate the projected counts, reinforcing the estimates made.
Mobile homes and multi-family are slightly higher (less than one
percent) due to the concentration of the survey samp 1 e in the road
access areas of the Borough.
Table 15 displays housing stock estimates for nine areas in the road
access area of the Borough and a tenth roadless area. The subcommunity
boundaries are not designed to represent political or service area
demarcations, but merely to represent general areas for comparative
purposes. The two largest concentrations of housing are found in the
Wasilla {34.6 percent) and Palmer areas (25.7 percent). About three-
57
TABLE 13
HOUSING STOCK ESTIMATES, DECEMBER 1979
Survey
Total Units Occu~ied Units Sam~le
n % n %
Total Units 5,844 100.0 5,546 100.0 100.0
Single Family 4,850 83.0 4,621 83.3 81.6
Multi-Family 310 5.3 282 5.1 5.6
Mobile Home 663 11.3 623 -11.2 12.4
Other 21 0.4 20 0.4 0.4
Source: Overall Economic Development Program, Inc. July 1980. Volume
II: Economic Conditions, Development Options and Projections;
p. 76.
58
TABLE 14
ESTIMATED HOUSING AND VACANCY RATES
TOTAL YEAR-ROUND OCCUPIED VACANT VACANCY
AREA HOUSING UNITS UNITS UNITS RATES (%)
Anchorage 1 56,823 51,054 5,769 10.2
Valdez 2 979 948 31 3.1
Fairbanks 1 11,809 10,737 1,072 9.1
Matanuska-Susitna 3 5,844 5,546 298 5.1
Valdez-Chitina-
Whittier N/A N/A N/A N/A
1 Fairbanks North Star Borough, Community Research Center. Fall 1980.
Community Research Quarterly, A Socioeconomic Review. Fairbanks, AK; p. 81
2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10. December 1979. ·Alaska
Petrochemical Company, Refinery and Petrochemical Facility: Environmental
Impact Statement; Appendix Vol. II. Valdez, AK; p. II-93.
3 Overall Economic Development Program, Inc. July 1980. Volume II: Economic
Conditions, Development Options and Projections, Palmer, AK; pp. 76.
59
TABLE 15
HOUSING STOCK ESTIMATES BY AREAS OF THE BOROUGH
Areas
1 Talkeetna, Montana
Caswel 1
2 Willow
3 Houston
4 Big Lake
5 Goose Bay, Knik,
MacKenzie
6 Wasilla
7 Sutton, Chickaloon
Independence Mine
8 Palmer
9 Butte
10 Roadless Areas
TOTAL
Total Year-Round Units
n 'l
214 3.7
173 3.0
225 3.8
425 7.3
83 1.4
2,020 34.6
143 2.4
1,502 25.7
519 8.9
540 9.2
5,844 100.0%
Estimated
Recreational
Units
97
274
92
530
13
133
2
Unknown
1,141
Source: Overall Economic Development Program, Inc. July 1980. Volume
II: Economic Conditions, Development Options and Projections;
p. 76.
60
fifths of the stock is located in these two subcommunities of the
Borough. Secondary concentrations are found in Butte and Big Lake with
all other areas having less than four percent of the total stock. The
roadless areas have an estimated 540 units.
Housing in all areas of the Borough is predominantly single family
simply because it composes 83 percent of the total stock. The small
number of multi-family units are primarily clustered in two areas -
Palmer and Wasilla (52 and 37 percent of the stock respectively).
Other multi-family units are scattered, with only Butte and Big Lake
with any measurable number. Mobile homes are more scattered throughout
the Borough (in the road access areas). This is due to the small
number of mobile home parks (most are in the Palmer area). It is esti-
mated that 72.5 percent of the mobile homes are on individually-owned
lots which leads to miscounting of many mobile homes as single family
structures.
In addition to an estimate of the year-round housing in the Mat-Su
Borough, Table 15 notes the number of recreational units by area. A
total of 1,141 of these units were estimated which is almost one-fifth
of the total stock and emphasizes the importance of the recreational
industry in the Valley. The greater Big Lake area has the highest con-
centration of these units, followed by Willow.
Reviewing the style of year-round housing in the Valley, the single
family house varies considerably. The greatest percentage (28.3
percent) are one story on a slab or pilings! while 24.9 percent are one
story with a basement; 23.4 percent are split level; and 15.5 percent
are two story with or without a basement. In addition, 6.2 percent are
log cabins and 1.7 percent, other cabins.
Multi-family units are primarily duplexes (58 percent), but include
structures with up to 18 units. Most have exterior entrances to the
individual unit {66.7 percent). The townhouse design (row style) has
61
yet to have a strong showing in the Borough {6.1 percent). Mobile
homes are predominantly the usual single-wide of varying length {82.9
percent), though 12.2 percent are double-wide, and 4.9 percent live in
travel trailers. Except for the mobile homes, wood is used almost
exclusively as a surface material for buildings.
Other accommodations in the area are those that are referred to as
transient facilities, i.e., lodges, motels, and campgrounds. Table 16
is an inventory of such facilities in Study Area 2.
3.3.1.2 -Ownership and Housing Payment
The dominant pattern in the Mat-Su is owning the residence one lives
in. This is largely predicated by the emphasis on the single family
house as the preferred type of dwelling. As noted in Table 17, only
16.5 percent rent or live in a unit they do not own. This ranges from
12.2 percent for single family to 65.8 percent for multi-family. For
owners (83.4 percent), the majority are purchasing their homes {59.4
percent) with the remainder {40.6 percent) owning their homes outright.
This high proportion of outright owners appears to be due to an
established subgroup of long-time state residents as well as the
prosperity of the area during the pipeline period. Looking at multi-
family homeowners, the bulk {92.4 percent) own or are purchasing the
entire building. This suggests that condominium arrangements are a
very small part of the multi-family market (2.6 percent).
The high proportion of outright ownership produces a high percent of
households who currently do not make any payment for their housing
(36.8 percent). This tends to underemphasize current payments as the
average for all households is $253 and the median is $200. The median
payment for only those currently making payments is $400; the median
payment for a single family home is $436; multi-family, $350; and
mobile home, $255. While the mobile homes appear to be the least
costly option, when land payments are added, the median cost is
62
TABLE 16
INVENTORY OF TRANSIENT ACCOMMODATIONS
IN STUDY AREA 2
Highway/Location
George Parks Highway
Wasilla to Willow
Willow to Talkeetna
Talkeetna to Cantwell
Cantwell to Nenana
Denali Highway
Paxson to Cantwell
Richardson Highway
Valdez to Glennallen
Glennallen to Isabel Pass
Glenn Highway
Anchorage to Glennallen
No. of Lodges/Motels
6
2
5
6
4
4
15
No. of Campgrounds
5
2
3
1
2
Source: Alaska Northwest Publishing Company. 1980. The Milepost.
Anchorage, Alaska. pp. 498.
63
TABLE 17
OWNER-RENTER DISTRIBUTION BY HOUSING TYPE
Mode of Single Multi-Mobile
OwnershiE Total Family Fami 1,~ Home
Rental 13.6 9.7 63.2 15.5
Rent free, not owning 2.9 2.5 2.6 4.8
Total Own 83.4 87.8 34.2 79.7
Purchasing (49.5) (54.2) (23.7) (32.1)
Own Outright {33.9} (33.6) (10.5) (47.6)
Source: Overall Economic Development Program, Inc. July 1980. Volume
II: Economic Conditions Development Options and Projections;
p. 79.
64
approximately $379, similar to multi-family. In summary, 45.7 percent
of those making payments for a single family home pay in excess of
$451. This compares to 78 percent of multi-family occupiers who pay
less than $450; and 100 percent of mobile home occupiers who pay less
than $450 for their units.
For those renting, only a minority have some or all their utilities
covered by their rental payment. Water (42.4 percent) and sewer (43.5
percent) are most often covered, while electricity {19.6 percent}, fuel
oil (9.8 percent}, and solid waste {22.8 percent) are seldom covered.
For those purchasing their home, about half include their real estate
taxes (57.0 percent) and insurance (48.1 percent) in their mortgage
payment.
3.3.1.3 -Facility Characteristics of Housing
The average size of a housing unit in the Borough was 5.3 census rooms
{excludes bathrooms, halls, unfinished rooms, open porches, etc.).
These units include an average of 2.6 bedrooms and 1.4 bathrooms.
There are significant differences by area in the Borough. On the
average, the more rural areas, including Independence Mine, Sutton,
·North of Willow, Willow, Big Lake, and Knik, have smaller units.
Generally, household facilities usually assumed to be present in a
modern dwelling are found in Mat-Su homes. For example, 92.0 percent
have a kitchen sink with piped water, 98.4 percent have a range or
stove; 96.0 percent, a refrigerator; 90.7 percent, hot and cold piped
water; 90.4 percent, flush toilet; and 90.4 percent have a bath tub or
shower. A unit with one deficiency is most likely to lack several
facilities. Many of these units are log cabins with year:--round occu-
pancy. Deficiencies are most likely to occur in rural areas noted
above, with Caswell, Montana, and Talkeetna having the greatest inci-
dence.
65
Turning to heating systems, a variety of fuels and combinations are
used. More households use wood (48.9 percent) than any other fuel,
though only 15.2 percent rely on wood exclusively. Second is electri-
city with 21.9 percent using only electric, and 21.4 percent using
electric and wood. Fuel oil only is used by 22.4 percent and with wood
by 12.4 percent. A small proportion of households also use propane or
coal. Of units with heating systems, 42.9 percent have built-in
electric; 15.5 percent have central air; 15.1 percent have circulating
water; and 37.4 percent have fireplaces or stoves. Fuel oil is used
most often in Palmer and Butte, while electricity is found generally
throughout all areas, though its use is greatest in the Wasilla-Houston
areas. Wood is also used everywhere, though least in Palmer and most
often in rural areas. Whatever the heating system used, most people
{90.1 percent) feel their home is warm enough in winter.
3.3.1.4 -Selected Housing Problems
Seven housing conditions were mentioned to each respondent of the
housing survey conducted by Policy Analysts, Limited and are shown in
Table 18. The existence of a particular condition ranged Jrom a 23
percent need for storm windows to a 7 percent estimate of rundown con-
dition. For each group which perceived a condition, only a minority
felt affected their wanting to move.
Many of the physical problems are somewhat more prevalent in the rural
areas. The exception is remoteness, which is perceived less often in
the more physically remote areas. This suggests that this conditon is
more a state-of-mind than what can be measured in miles.
From an overall perspective, respondents tend to rate their present
housing in positive term~. Excellent is the response of 42.4 percent;
42.8 percent answer good; 13.2 percent say fair; and only 1.6 percent
perceive their housing as poor.
66 -
TABLE 18
THE PRESENCE OF SELECTED HOUSING CONDITIONS
Effect on
Problem c.t Yes Movin2
Overcrowded Housing 14.7 High
Too Expensive 16.8 High
Insufficient Hot Water 14.2 Low
Poor Insulation 19.6 Low
Rundown Condition 6.8 Moderate
Need for Storm Windows 22.7 Very Low
Too far from your job,
shopping or friends 17.9 Moderate
Source: Overall Economic Development Program, Inc. July 1980. Volume
II: Economic Conditions Development Options and Projections;
p. 82.
/d
67
3.3.1.5 -Housing Preferences
Ninety-six percent of the people in the Mat-Su Borough would prefer to
buy a single family house. Preferences for all other structural styles
and rental situations are well below the existing proportion of alter-
native in housing units. The primary difference between actual and
preferred housing is the maximum amount one is able to pay each month
for housing. While the average is $41g, similar to the present average
payment, this is well below the actual cost of financing a new home.
The increasing cost of building, inflation in the present stock, and
the high cost of financing has pushed the monthly payments of newly-
financed structures from $600 mininum to well over $1,000 a month.
Presently, only 9.3 percent are paying over $600, and 15.8 percent say
they could afford a payment above $600.
While the single family house is the first choice of most respondents,
two alternative arrangements are presented for comment. The con-
dominium has become an important ownership alternative to the single
family house, while a planned mobile home park provides an inexpensive
ownership model with amenities and services. Both are designed to
reduce the cost to the consumer as the expense of housing continues to
rise.
The majority opposes both options. For the condominium, 91.3 percent
are negative or opposed to it for themselves, only 8.7 percent show
some interest in it as an option they would consider. Reasons given
include the crowded lifestyle of condos (21.4 percent), privacy
problems (13.8 percent), and insufficient land (6.7 percent). Almost
the same proportions are also opposed to mobile homes (91.0 percent}.
Even those who would consider a mobile home oppose the park concept and
want the unit on a large lot, the current configuration of most units
in the Valley. Again, respondents focus on the crowded conditions
(18.0 percent); are generally negative (14.2 percent); and see the
units as dangerous (7.0 percent), lacking privacy {7.1 percent), and
68
poorly constructed (5. 5 percent). Based on the responses, it would
appear that resistance to housing options other than the single family
unit is substantial.
3.3.1.6 -Housing Problems/Needs
-The elderly, many on fixed incomes and with increased health problems,
produce some unique housing problems. These range from the high cost
of housing to difficulties with maintenance. It is estimated that 5.6
percent (1,040 individuals) of the Borough population is 60 years of
age or more.
-The handicapped have both problems in obtaining affordable housing and
special needs in the design of housing to facilitate use by them.
Handicapped persons are estimated to be present in 288 households (5.2
percent). This includes 349 mentally or physically handicapped
individuals: 167 adults and 182 children (1.9 percent of the
population).
-The poor can be defined in a variety of ways. But whichever method is
used, the difficulties the poor have in finding adequate, sound housing
is not masked. One way to estimate those economically disadvantaged is
the use of the HUD income guidelines for program eligibility. These
ceilings vary by the size of the household from $14,000 for a single
person household to $25,000 for a household with eight or more members.
Using this approach 27.5 percent of Borough households are technically
eligible for federal assistance. This is similar to Anchorage {25.5
percent). Poverty also hits certain groups harder than others. For
example, 40.7 percent of the Mat-Su senior citizen households are eli-
gi b 1 e.
-Minorities are many times targeted for housing assistance because their
economic base is often more limited than that of whites. While the
69
minority population is quite small in the Mat-Su Borough (3.5 percent),
problems still exist. While it is difficult to make specific estima-
tes, it appears that the largest minority -Alaska Natives -are most
likely to have housing problems, both economicially and in terms of
their present housing condition.
3.3.2 -Copper River Region
The surge in activity and population in the Copper River Region attri-
buted to the pipeline construction put demands on housing that in most
cases were unable to be met. The result was an increase in the number
of temporary trailer parks located primarily along the Richardson
Highway. These parks ordinarily did not provide any services, and
since the completion of the pipeline many of the sites have been aban-
doned.
The more permanent structures that exist in the region are: 1)
established trailer courts which include utilities; 2) permanent cabins
and small homes, many of which are substantial with none or only some
utilities; and 3) new houses equipped with all utilities (Institute of
Social and Economic Research. 1976; pp. 2-3). There are no current
enumerations of the number of houses in each group, or of their
quality, vacancy rate, ownership, or cost.
In 1975, there was a housing study commissioned for the Ahtna Region by
the Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Division of Community
Planning. The results of the survey are outdated at this time in light
of the developments associated with the pipeline, however, the salient
points of the survey will serve as a benchmark. Of the native house-
hal ds surveyed, the average age of the residents in the area was 23
,years. Electricity was available in 77 percent of the homes; piped
water in 38 percent; and flush toilets in 38 percent (Copper River
Native Association. 1975; p. 3-4).
70
Since that time, HUD has funded twenty (20) elderly low rent rental
units, twelve {12} in the Native Village of Copper Center and eight (8)
in Gulkana Village. This helped to relieve some of the need in the
Copper River Basin, but there is still a strong demand.
Presently the Copper River Housing Authority is building twelve (12)
HUD Mutual· Help houses in Cantwell (conversation with Thea Smelcher,
Copper River Housing Authority).
More recent pertinent information regarding housing in the Copper River
Region is not available at this time unless primary data collection is
undertaken.
3.4 -Government Structure and Taxation
3.4.1 -Government Structure
State statutes under Title 29 provide for the establishment of boroughs
within the State of Alaska. The steps to becoming an organized borough
include first the recognition and desire of the constituents of an area
to organize; the submittal of a petition to the Department of Community
and Regional Affairs signed by 15% of the voters; review of the peti-
tion by the Department of Community and Regional Affairs; a public
hearing; and, finally an election. Even if an election meets with suc-
cess, the area must conform to certain requirements relating to popula-
tion, economy, transportation, and communication. Once the above steps
are met and the area is deemed capable of functioning as an organized
government, it then becomes an organized borough. As such, it automa-
tically assumes certain mandatory obligations and has the power to
assume others. The powers vested unto a borough and th~ ability to
assume other responsibilities varies depending on whether a borough is
classified as a First, Second, or Third class borough. The steps to
becoming an incorporated city are similar to those of a borough except
that the primary criterion is population. Formation of home rule muni-
71
cipalities is also provided for in the Municipal Code. A home rule
municipality is a municipal corporation and political subdivision and
is a borough of the first class, or a city of the first class, which
has adopted a home rule charter. It has all legislative powers not
prohibited by law or charter. The available powers and composition of
governing bodies are explained below in greater detail for Anchorage,
the Mat-Su Borough, Valdez, and individual communities.
3.4.1.1 -Municipality of Anchorage
Statehood in 1959 brought a home rule charter to the City of Anchorage
and in 1963 the Greater Anchorage Area Borough (GAAB) was established.
The Mandatory Borough Act gave the GAAB areawide powers for planning
and zoning, education, property assessment, and tax collection.
Additional powers including health, sewers, animal control, and tran-
sit, and service area provisions for fire, p~lice libraries, roads and
drainage were later added by voter approval. The term areawide refers
to responsibilities throughout the total area of the Borough including
those areas within incorporated cities.
The City of Anchorage offered a broad range of services including
police, fire, public works, parks and recreation, library, water, and
power, and operated a deep water port, a museum, a small airport, and a
large telephone utility. Utility services were even extended beyond
city limits. However, two years after the GAAB was formed, the concept
of government unification was developed. After much conflict and
several referendums, a unified Anchorage government was formed. At
present Anchorage is considered a unified home rule municipality and
operates as a mayor form of government with an eleven-member Municipal
Assembly elected from multimember districts. A city man.ager handles
the daily operational aspects of government and the Office of
Management acts as the focal point for budget decision-making. (Ender,
Richard L. et al. January 1980).
72
3.4.1.2 -Matanuska-Susitna Borough
The Matanuska-Susitna Borough was incorporated as a second class
borough on January 1, 1964. As such, at the time of incorporation, the
borough automatically assumed three areawide powers; taxation, educa-
tion, and planning, platting and zoning. In 1966 the citizens of the
borough voted to add parks and recreation as an areawide power.
In addition to the areawide powers listed above, each borough in Alaska
has certain "non-areawide" powers that it can exercise outside of
incorporated cities. As a second class borough, the non-areawide
powers are limited to those powers which are granted by law to first
class cities and specifically approved by citizens residing outside ·of
incorporated cities and with the formation of service areas. The
borough has non-area wide powers of solid waste disposal and libraries.
Areawide powers:
-Administration
-Taxation
Planning and zoning
-Education
-Parks and Recreation
Non-areawide powers:
Solid waste disposal
Libraries
Service areas were created and are exercised primarily in the delivery
of road maintenance and fire protection. There are presently six fire
service areas and six road service areas as follows (Matanuska-Susitna
Borough Planning Department. April 1978.):
73
Fire Service Areas
Houston
Wasi 11 a
Lakes
Palmer
Butte
Sutton
Other Service Areas
Talkeetna Water and Flood Control
3.4.1.2.1 -Organization
Road Service Areas
Garden Terrace Estates
Goddard Subdivision
Woodside Estates
Wilderness Valley
Valley Ranch
Caswell Lakes
The Borough Government is organized much the same as the
Municipality, with a part-time Mayor-~anager-Assembly form of
government. with the executive function performed by the Mayor,
the legislative function by the Assembly, and the administrative
direction by a full-time Manager. The five members of the
Assembly are elected by district with the Mayor elected at large.
The Borough administration, working under the direction of the
Manager, is currently organized under the following departments:
-F1nance
-Public Works
-Assessment
-Planning
The areawide school system is operated under the direction of the
school district administration, which is d1stinct from the general
government admi ni strati on, but subservi ant to the Borough
Assembly.
74
3.4.1.2.2 -Borough Administration Facilities
The City of Palmer serves as the seat of the Borough Government.
Borough General Government administrative offices, and school
district administrative offices are housed in separate structures
in the heart of the City. The Borough also operates a maintenance
faci 1 ity on the edge of town, which serves as the motor pool and
major repair facility.
3.4.1.2.3-Incorporated Places
There are three incorporated communities within the Matanuska-
Susitna Borough:
-Palmer-a first-class, home-rule city
-Wasilla - a second-class city
-Houston - a second-class city
-Pal mer
The City of Palmer is administratively under a
Mayor-Manager-City Counci 1 form of government, with a part-
time Mayor and a full-time City Manager. Administrative faci-
lities are housed in the City Hall, which shares a location
with the 1 i brary and fire station. The City also operates a
maintenance facility.
-Wasilla
The City of Wasilla has a part-time Mayor and a City Counci 1
with a full-time City Clerk. City offices are located in the
new Wasilla library building, which provides meeting space in
the lower level.
75
-Houston
The City of Houston has a part-time Mayor-City Council form of
government, with a part-time City Clerk. The City Hall and
fire department share a facility in the core area of the com-
munity. A meeting room is also included in the structure.
3.4.1.2.4 -Unincorporated Area
Within the 23,000 square miles of the borough, several unin-
corporated communities are recognized in addition to the three
incorporated places mentioned above. Most of these com-
munities are located within areas serviced by roads; however,
the bush community of Skwentna is located on the Skwentna
River approximately 40 miles from the nearest road. Much of
the Borough is mountainous and very sparsely inhabited, and .
thus does not lend itself to the development of community
organizations.
3.4.1.3 -Valdez and Copper River Region
With the exception of Cordova, the City of Valdez is the only
organized municipality in the Copper River region and is
classified as a first-class, home-rule city. The remainder of
the communities along the Richardson highway are unincor-
porated and are provided services by the State. State pro-
vided services include police, justice, highways, and public
health. The only organizations that resemble political enti-
ties are the school board and Ahtna Incorporated, the native
corporation formulated under the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (ANCSA).
76
3.4.2 -Taxation
The power to tax is not inherent in the organization of the boroughs
and cities, but rather a power granted by the Alaska State Constitution
and Statutes. Contained in the Alaska State Constitution is the provi-
sion that "no tax shall be levied ••• except for a public purpose"
(Article IX, Section 6). The following is a summary of the guidelines
governing taxation in the State of Alaska extracted from: Alaska
Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Division of Local
Government Assistance, January 1980. Alaska Taxable 1979: Municipal
Property Assessments and Equalized Full Value Determination. If
greater detail is desired it is suggested that the reader refer
directly to the source.
3.4.2.1 -Summary of Property Tax Provisions of the Alaska Statutes
3.4.2.1.1 -Power of Levy
(AS 29.53.010, AS 29.53.400, AS 29.53.410, AS 29.43.020)
Home rule and general law municipalities may levy tax on all real
and personal property located throughout the municipality to sup-
port services provided throughout the muncipality, with the excep-
tion of second class cities (which have a tax levy limitation of
one-half of one percent or five mills). The maximum rate of taxa-
_tion is three percent (thirty mills) of the full and true value of
the taxable property.
(AS 29.53.405)
Cities may levy a higher or lower rate of tax on the value of real
and personal property located within "differential tax zones" that
receive a higher or lower level of service than other areas of the
city.
(AS 29.53)
If a city is 1 ocated within an organized borough, the borough
77
remains responsible for assessment of property and collection of
taxes levied by the city. Cities located in an unorganized
borough are responsible for assessment and collection of local
property taxes.
(AS 29.53 415-460)
Subject to voter appraisal, Alaska municipalities are authorized
to levy and collect a sales tax equal to three percent of the
volume of sales, rents, and other services provided within the
municipality. Cities exercising this power within an organized
borough also exercising the power must tax and/or exempt the same
sales, units and other services that the borough does. There is
no such limitation on a city in an unorganized borough or a city
located within a borough which does not exercise the sales tax
power.
Second Class City:
{AS 29.53.410)
A majority vote is required before a second class city may exer-
cise the power of taxation.
Borough:
(AS 29.53.010)
Boroughs may levy a tax on the value of real and personal property
located outside cities (non-area wide) to support services pro-
vided to that area only.
(AS 29.63.090)
Boroughs may levy a tax on the value of real and personal property
located within special service areas to support a special service
or a higher or lower level of service than that provided on an
area wide or non-area wide basis.
78
3.4.2.1.2 -Tax Limitations
Municipalities:
(AS 29.53.050)
There is a general tax levy of 30 mills (three percent) for muni-·
cipalities. This includes the combined mill levy of a municipa-
lity and a borough. However, in 1 i ght of the Supreme Court
decision numbered 1750, October 20, 1978, municipalities may
exceed the 30 mills (three percent) ceiling if necessary to pay
bonded debt. This interpretation does not require that bonds be
in default or in a situation threatening default.
The combined mill levy of a city and a borough may not generate an
amount of revenue greater than an amount equal to $1,000
multiplied by the number of residents of the municipalities; nor
may a city and/or borough levy a tax upon that proportion of the
municipal tax base that exceeds an amount equal to 225 percent of
the average state assessed per capita valuation multipled by the
number of residents of the muni ci pa 1 ity. (The state average does
not include oil and gas property).
A general ceiling of three percent applies to municipal sales
taxes. Home rule municipalities may, however, exceed this limita-
tion. However, in a second opinion by the Supreme Court, number
1735, September 29, 1978, it became possible for a municipality to
levy a general sales tax on selected sales activities as opposed
to having to tax all sales activities.
Second Class Cities:
(AS 29.53.410)
Second class cities have a tax ceiling of 5 mills (one-half of one
percent), however, they may exceed this limit if it is necessary
to do so to avoid default on bonded or other indebtedness.
79
3.4.2.1.3 -Exemptions
The Alaska Statutes provide for a number of tax exemptions,
some of which are listed below:
Title 29: Required Exemptions
Municipal, State, or Federally-owned property, except that private
leaseholds, contracts, or other interest in the property is
taxable.
Property used exclusively for non-profit, religious, chari-
table, cemetery, hospital, or educational purposes.
Household furniture of the head of a family or a householder
not exceeding $500 in value.
Some non-business activities of veterans.
Money or deposit.
Real property owned by residents over 64 years of age in which
they permanently reside.
Title 43: Required Exemptions
Oil and gas-related properties.
Title 10: Corporations and Associations: Required Exemptions
Title 29: Optional Exemptions and Exclusions
Home Rule or First or Second Class Boroughs: A home rule or first
or second class borough may adopt an ordinance to bring its pro-
perty tax structure into entire or partial accordance with the
80
property tax structure of a city within it, including--though not
limited to--the exclusion of personal property from taxation, the
establishment of exemptions, and the extension of the redemption
period.
Home Rule or First Class Cities: A home rule or first class city
has the same power of exempting or excluding property from borough
taxes that already exist as city exemptions. However, the city
exercising this power must return to the borough a sum equal to
the revenues the borough would have received had the exclusions or
exemptions not been adopted. The borough assembly will determine
that amount annually.
Home Rule or General Law Cities: A home rule or general law city
within an organized borough may adopt an ordinance to assimilate
its property tax structure entirely or partially to that of the
borough, including partial or total exemptions.
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
The constitution provides that 11 real property interests conveyed
pursuant to this Act, to a native individual, native group, or
village, or regional corporation which are not developed or leased
to third parties, shall be exempt from State and local real pro-
perty taxes for a period of twenty years after the date of enact-
ment of this Act.11 (Public Law 92-203, 92nd Congress, First
Session, Section 21).
Table 19 lists the property and sales taxes for Anchorage,
Fairbanks, Valdez, and municipalities and service areas in the
organized Borough of Matanuska-Susitna. Communities along the
Richardson Highway that are unincorporated and unorganized do not
levy taxes. Of the co11111unities in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough,·
Palmer is the only municipality that levies a sales tax. The
sales tax revenues for the FY 1978-1979 were $404,516 (Overall
81
TABLE 19
MUNICIPAL PROPERTY AND SALES TAX RATES
CLASS I
TAX CODE PROPERTY TAX SAlES TAX
BOROUGH AND SERVICE AREA AREA 1977 1978 1979 1977 1978 1979
MUNICIPAliTY OF ANCHORAGE
(Unified Home Rule)
Anchora~e (SA) 01 .10
Adm1nistration 3.04 3.00 2.65
Schools 6.98 5.87 4.64
Sewer .56 .53 .46
l fbrary .52
Roads 1.65 l. 76
Police 2.51 2.60 2.00
Fire 1.65 1.79 1.59
Parks and Recreation .79 .68 .50
Solid Waste .13 .23 .19
Area Bonds 1.00
TOTAl TT.Ttf ~ TT.711
():)
N FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH
(Second Class)
Fairbanks (HR) 01 9.00 8.50 8.50 3.0 3.0 3.0
Administration 1.30 1.70 1.44 2.0 2.0 2.0
Schools 3.80 5.50 5.74
TOTAl l4.Tir T5":7IT T5":0l!" --s-:ll" --s-:ll" --s-:rr
VAlDEZ (HR)
ZONE I
----xDministration 7.249 4.1511 3.954
Schools 1. 711 1.9759 2.020
TOTAl ~ o.T27lT Dn
ZONE 11
~inistratfon 5.457 3.3445
Schools 1.711 1.9759
TOTAl T.T6lr ~
ZONE II I
Administration 4.561
Schools 1.711
TOTAl t:m
e4/tu.a
TABLE 19 (page 2)
TAX COO£ I'ROP£ RTY TAX SALES TAX
BOROUGH AND SERVICE AREA ClASS 1 AREA 1977 19711 11!79 1977 1978 1979 -·---------~--~--------__ , --------------
MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH
I Second Class)
Wasilla fire (SA) 01 .90 .so .60
Administration .54 1.15 1.35
Schools 6.96 6.05 5.85
land Fill and library .10 .20
TOTAl 1T.OO" T.IID ll.M
Palmer (HR) 05 5.00 5.00 2.0 2.0 2.0 ~ministration 3.54 1.15 1.35
Schools 6.96 6.05 5.85
land Fill .10
TOTAl T53U" t:JU" rr:N
Other Area 06
AdnnnlStration 3.54 1.15 1.35
Schools 6.96 6.05 5.85
Land Fill and library .20 .lOa .20
TOTAl m:m I:JIT IAlY
00 Talkeetna Flood Control (SA) 07 2.00 1.40 w
Adm1n1Strat1on 3.54 1.15 1.35
Schools 6.96 6.05 5.85
land Fill and library .20 .10 .20
Fire .60
TOTAl rr:m t:JU" ~
Houston (2nd) 12
Administration 3.54 1.15 1.35
Schools 6.96 6.05 5.85
land Fill .10
TOTAl l1.5'!f ""7:30" t:£0"
Wasilla (2nd) 13 .90 .so 1.00
Administration 3.54 1.15 1.35
Schools 6.96 6.05 5.85
land Ffll .10
Fire .60
TOTAl lT:lJIT t:JU" --s:mr
Talkeetna Fire Service (SA) 24
Administrat1on 1.35
Schools 5.85
land Fill and library .20
Fire .60
TOTAl lr.UU
e4/tax.al
TABLE 19 {page 3)
TAX COOE PROPUHY TAX
BOROUGH ANO SERVICE AREA ClASS 1 AREA 1977 1978 1979 --·--------~----
Nenana
----xGministration 10.00 10.00 10.00
Schools
Water and Sewer
TOTAL m:mr m:mr nr:mr
1 SA: Service Area; HR: Home Rule; 2nd: Second Class
a land fi 11 only
SALES TAX
1977 1978 1979
2.0 3.0 2.0
1.0 --r.u--r.rr --r.rr
Source: Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Division of local Government Assistance.
January 1980. Alaska Taxable 1979. Juneau, AK; pp. 54 -70.
e4/tax.a2
Economic Development Program, Inc. July, 1980. Volume III:
Appendices). The real property tax of 6 mills in Valdez is one of
the lowest in the state. Property taxes are reported in-terms of
mills and sales tax rates are reported as a percent.
Table 20 displays the real property valuation. The estimated
population, and general obligation bonded debt for Anchorage,
Fairbanks, Valdez, Palmer City and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough.
3.5 -Infrastructure
The ability of a community to respond adequately to increased demands is in
most part, a function of the ability of the institutions and services to
continue providing services to a larger constituency. The important con-
siderations are therefore, current usage and capacity. This section
describes the existing public services at the regional and local level, as
appropriate to the degree of probable impact of the Susitna Project. The
services addressed include: utilities, transportation, communication,
power availability, police, fire, health services, libraries, and educa-
tion. Information for this section was obtained from: Matanuska -Susitna
Planning documents; the Overall Economic Development Program, Inc., July
1980; Development Options and Projections; and personal contacts.
3.5.1 -Utilities
3.5.1.1 -Matanuska-Susitna
3.5.1.1.1 -Solid Waste
The Borough has non-areawide solid waste management &uthority and
currently operates a system of nine landfills. There is no
collection system operated by the Borough, therefore it is the
responsibility of individuals to transport their solid waste to
the various landfill locations. Palmer operates a collection and
85
co
0'1
TABLE 20
VALUATION, POPULATION, AND G.O. BONDED DEBT
FULL VALUE CIVILIAN G.O.
DETERMINATION POPULATION BONDED DEBT
BOROUGH 01/01/79 07/01/79 07/01/79
ANCHORAGE, MUNICIPALITY
TOTAL 6,540,804,000 185,280 260,836,000
FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR 2,303,862,300 60,227 36,643,000
Fairbanks City 727,804' 500 30,462 16,055,000
North Pole 64,264,000 823 350,000
TOTAL 2,303,862,300 60,227 53,048,000
MATANUSKA-SUSITNA 928,420,000 23,177 52,455,000
Palmer City 57,824,900 2,056 2,315,278
TOTAL 928,420,000 23,177 54,770,278
Valdez 1,652,877,200 4,066 59,595,000
Source: Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Division
of Local Government Assistance. January 1980. Alaska Taxable
1979. Juneau, AK; p. 50.
e4/tax.b
PER
CAPITA DEBT
1,408
608
527
425
881
2,263
1,126
2,363
14,657
PER CAPITA DEBT % TO
VALUATION VALUATION
35,302 3.99
38,253 1.59
23,892 2.21
75,85 .54
38,253 2.30
40,058 5.65
28,125 4.00
40,058 5.90
406,512 3.61
disposal system for city residents. They have a contract with the
Borough and State for use of the landfills.
3.5.1.1.2 -Sanitary Sewage
Palmer is the only municipality in the Borough that has a com-
munity sewage and water facility. Presently there are plans for
the construction of a sewage treatment facility and water supply
system for Wasilla with construction to begin in the summer of
1981. All other residents in the Borough living outside of these
city limits provide for themselves with wells and septic tanks.
There are 11 community sewage systems 1 ocated in the Borough.
These systems are not owned
by the Alaska Department
classified according to the
and operated, but are, however, rated
of Enviornmental Conservation and
number of people served. There are:
44 Class 11 A11 public sewage systems (rocated primarily in sub-
divisions and trailer parks); 77 Class 11 811 public sewage systems
(mostly located at schools and businesses); and 95 Class 11 C11
public sewage systems (mainly serving duplex and triplex
structures).
3.5.1.1.3 -Water
Outside of the Pal mer area water is provided for either on an
individual basis, i.e. a well, or by a community water system.
There are 22 community water systems within the Borough; 44 Class
11 A11 public water systems (mainly serving subdivisions and trailer
parks); 77 Class 11 B11 public water systems (primarily serving
schools and businesses); and 95 Class ncu public w:ater systems
(serving mainly duplexes and triplexes). The listing of community
water and sewage systems can be found in: Overall Economic
Development Program, Inc., July 1980. Volume III: Appendices.
87
co co
Nenana
Cantwell
Talkeetna
vJillow
Pa 1 mer
l·Jas ill a
Paxson
Glennallen
Copper Center
Gakona
Healy
Gulkana
Valdez
Anchorage
Fairbanks
Schools
~ >,
1'0 s....
+-' 1'0 c -o s....
Q) c Q) s....
E 0 .c Q)
Q) u O'l +-' ,...... Q) ...... co
L.LI (/) :I: 3
* * *
*
*
*
* * * *
• * *
* *
* *
* * *
-*
* * *
* * * *
* * * *
,......
co
Vl +-'
0 Vl c.. 0
Vl 0.. ......
Cl s....
Q) Q) ~ Q) n. u
+-' 0 ...... +-'
Vl 0 r-Vl
co s.... 0 >,
3: 1-0.. (/)
s.... -o Q) r-+-'
<ll ...... +-' co s....
~ r-co u ::I
0 +-' 0 0
(/) (/) (/) _..J L)
·/r * *
* *
* *
*
* * * ,., *
*
*
* * *
*
*
* * *
* *
* * * * *
* * * '~ *
* * * * *
TABLE 21
COMMUNITY FACILITIES SUMMARY
>, Government +-' c: ...... 0 . ,...... ...... co
u ...... +-' en ......
co u co c: Q) -o Q)
u... co ,...... +-' ...... u Q) ,......
u... co s.... "'0 .,... ::::::: ::I
Q) +-' 0 ,...... > ......... -o 0:::
s.... s.... ..c: ...... c.. .,... !.... c: Q)
Q) co +-' c.. Vl ::I Q) 0 Vl +-' Q)
+-' L) r-Vl c: co Q) E (/) ...... Vl Vl co E
c: 1'0 0 co u Q) +-' Vl 1'0 s.... 0 ,...... Q) E Q) :I: s.... >, ..... +-' Q) ro Q) 1'0 ,...... 0 :I: ,...... L) s.... :I: -o 1-0.. +-' 4-Vl c u ,...... ,...... L) c..
1'0 Q) ,...... ro .,... >, . ,... 4->, 0 ...... :;, L) s.... "'0 :::c .J:: 1-,...... 1'0 0 u s.... s.... c 0 (/) ..c: 1:: 0::: "'0 0 Q)
+-' 1'0 s.... Vl s.... ...... +-' co :::1 s.... 0.. ::J +-' c u . .....
Q) ,...... 0'1 +-' Q) "'0 ,...... ,...... Vl !.... ~ +-' ..::.t. Q) Q) E Q) Vl 0 c 4-
s.... 1'0 t: c c: co ..... ..c s.... ..c Vl s.... 3: ,...... E E !.... u ...... ...... ...... <ll 0 Q) <ll 0 co ::I ...... . ..... 0 0 1'0 0 Q) 0 0 . ..... <ll c: t:
u... ~ _..J "'"" c.!J ~ 0:: 0.. c:c _..J L) 0.. 0.. 0.. 1-u :::c u... (/) ::J :;:) ~-
* * * * * * * * * * ·It *
* * * * * * * * -k *
* * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * *
* "!~ * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * -k *
* * f( * * * * * * * * f: *
* * * * * * * * ·k *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * f: c * * * *
* * * * * * *
* * * * -.~ * * * * * * * * * •k
* * -J: * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * -~-* * * * *
3.5.1.2 -Copper River Region
3.5.1.2.1 -Solid Waste
As the communities in the Copper River Region are unincorporated
and in an unorganized borough, it is the State•s responsibility to
maintain landfills. There are currently several landfills main-
tained. It is ordinarily the practice of the residents to haul
their garbage to these locations. There is one commercial firm,
the Copper Valley Construction Co., that provides a garbage
collection service for a set monthly fee.
3.5.1.2.2 -Sanitary Sewage
Sewage in the Copper River Region is dealt with in several man-
ners. Many residents have their own septic tanks which are
emptied by the Copper Valley Construction Co. when necessary.
There are also several lagoons or 11 holding tanks,. in the region
that clusters of houses can utilize. These, too, are emptied by
the Copper Val ley Construction Co. There are only two sewage
treatment plants in the area, both maintained by the Central
Alaskan Mission at the Faith Hospital and Alaska Bible College.
There are approximately 20 to 25 houses tied directly into the
mission treatment facility. The Copper Valley Construction Co.
utilizes the treatment plants for the disposal of the sewage that
it collects.
3.5.1.2.3 -Water
Water in the Copper River Region is supplied by on~?, or a com-
bination of the following: private wells, State wells (of which
there are three), or Bishop & Sons, Inc., a commercial water
distributor. Bishop & Sons, Inc. has a 3,000 gallon tank truck
used for delivering water to private residences. It is believed
89
that approximately 50 percent of the residences receive their
water from Bishops & Sons, Inc. (conversation with Sheldon
Spector, Magistrate, Glennallen, AK).
3.5.2 -Transportation
This section first describes the marine, highway, rail, and air
transport networks for the three major cities in Study Area 3;
Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Valdez, and then for particular communities
in the vicinity of the proposed hydroelectric facility.
Alaska •s transportation needs are unique compared to the contiguous
states. Given a small population scattered over a large geographic
area, in most cases impassable by road, there is a great reliance on
marine and air transportation. Of the different regions in Alaska, the
southcentral and interior regions have the most comprehensive transpor-
tation networks. Two reasons for this comprehensive and extensive
transportation system are: 1) diverse economies relative to other
areas in the state; and 2) greater concentrations of population. These
factors make such a transportation system both feasible and affordable.
The main source of information contained in this section on transpor-
tation was: Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of
Alaska. June 1980. Alaska Review of Social and Economic Conditions:
Alaska•s Unique Transportation System. pp. 28.
3.5.2.1 -Marine
The dominant mode of transport in Alaska is marine. Practically every
significant population center in Alaska is connected by marine
transport, Fairbanks is an anomaly in this sense. Figures 5 and 6 show
the major inbound and outbound commodity flows for the State of Alaska
in 1977.
90
Far East
880,000
FIGURE 5
Major Inbound Commodity Flows
1977
1 Ketchikan 13 Homer
2 Wrangell 14 Kenai
3 Petersburg 15 Anchorage
4 Sitka 16 Kodiak
5 Juneau 17 Unalaska
6 Haimes 18 Dillingham
7 Skagway 19 Bethel
8 Yakutat 20 Nome
9 Cordova 21 Kotzebue
10 Valdez 22 Barrow
11 Whittier 23 Prudhoe Bay
12 Seward 24 Healy
25 Fairbanks
c:J Annual Tons in Thousands
Vancouver
490.000
Seattle
1,200,000
We~t Coast
890,000
Source: Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska. June 1980. Alaska
Review of Social and Economic Conditions. Alaska's Unique Transportation System. p.6.
FrfiURE 6
'
Major Outbound CommOdity Flows
1977
I Ketchikan ~ Wrangell 3 Sitka
4 Haines
5 Skagway
6 Valde~
1 WhiWet 9 Homer
10 kenai ,
Anchatage 12 Kodiak 13 Prudhoe Bay
L::J Annual Tons in Millions
Natthwesr
4,700,01Jo
Ca/ifotnia
13,30o,OOIJ
Source: Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska. June 1980. Alaska
Review of Social and Economic Conditions. Alaska's Unique Transportation System. P. 7.
3.5.2.1.1 -Valdez
Valdez is the state•s largest port in terms of annual tonnage.
(See Table 22). This is due almost exclusively (99 percent) to
its being the terminus of the trans-Alaska pipeline and therefore
the principal port for the shipment of crude petroleum. Currently
estimated annual throughput is 60 million tons. The City of
Valdez is nearing completion of a 750 foot container terminal,
which will introduce container cargo shipping to Valdez.
Presently there is no container cargo. The Port of Valdez has
also just recently inaugurated monthly barge service between
Valdez and Seattle with Pacific Western Lines. Table 23 lists the
current carrier marine services now operating out of Anchorage and
Valdez. Transshipment from the Valdez port is by truck.
3.5.2.1.2 -Anchorage
The Port of Anchorage handles approximately 90 percent of the con-
tainer cargo for the Southcentral region and is second to Valdez
in annual tonnage. It is Alaska •s largest general cargo port.
Current freight throughput is estimated at approximately 2 million
tons. Of this, about 90 percent of the general cargo is inbound,
with close to half being petroleum products. The remaining
freight consists of bulk construction material delivered by barge
from Seatt 1 e. Tab 1 e 24 shows the trend in freight movement by
commodity from 1965 to 1979. It is estimated that the Port of
Anchorage is operating at approximately 50 percent of container
handling capacity (PRC Harris, Inc. and Alaska Consultants, Inc.
September 8, 1980).
Approximately 60 percent of the cargo moving into the Port of
Anchorage is destined for the City of Anchorage with the remainder
being dispersed throughout other areas in the region. Trans-
shipment is by both truck and rail out of Anchorage.
93
TABLE 22
Total Traffic for Selected Alaska Ports:
Historical Trends
(in thousands of short tons)
Ports 1977 1976 1974 1972 1970 1968 1966
Ketchikan 2,168 1,559 2,162 2,186 1,868 1,881 1,542
Metlakatla 224 174 318 291 117 70 15
Wrangell 656 827 1,023 1,169 1,181 755 502
Petersburg 67 56 205 157 294 134 114
Sitka 553 998 970 1,243 916 1,009 1,072
Juneau 152 i67 154 201 119 126 133
Skagway 1,026 833 1,514 1,388 1,273 575 297
Valdez 10,667 507 357 254 478 182 188
Cordova 36 66 35 42 34 44 57
Seward 115 237 72 62 29 117 49
Homer 126 31 12 170 190 17 14
Whittier 414 457 662 646 349 312 N/A
Anchorage 2,220 2,932 2,340 2,058 1,937 1,311 1,009
Kodiak 501 388 217 193 124 109 213
Unalaska 325 350 157 190 252 121 171
Bethel 96 110 41 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Nome 64 30 32 43 21 41 47
Bristol Bay 71 59 12 34 169 26 61
Source: U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Waterborne Commerce of the United States, Part 4.
From:Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska.
June 1980. Alaska Review of Social and Economic Conditions: Alaska's
Unique Transportation System; p. 4.
94
TABLE 23
PRINCIPAL SCHEDULED COMMON CARRIER MARINE SERVICES
TO SELECTED ALASKA PORTS
Between
Anchorage Valdez
Anchorage Seattle
Abbreviations
Carrier
A.M.H.S
S.L.S
T.O.T.E.
P.W.L.
C.B.L.
Five times weekly (mid-May--mid-
September}
Twice weekly container ship
Twice weekly Roll-on-Roll-off
ship
Barge every two weeks (mid-March
--mid-November}
Barge monthly {April-November}
A.M.H.S. Alaska Marine Highway System
S.L.S. Sea-Land Service
T.O.T.E. Totem Ocean Trai'ler Express
P.W.L. Pacific Western Lines
C.B.L. Coastal Barge Line
Source: Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of
Alaska. June 1980. Alaska Review of Social and Economic
Conditions: Alaska•s Unique Transportation System; p. 3.
95
TABLE 24
PORT OF ANCHORAGE FREIGHT MOVEMENTS IN TONS8
BY COMMODITY: 1965, 1970, 1972-1979
Freight N.O.s.b ........... .
Cement, Drilling Mud, etc. . ... .
Iron & Steel Articles .....•..•
Lumber ..............•.••
Oil Field & Equipment
Supplies ....•..........
Petroleum Bulk ..........•..
Petroleum N.O.S ........... .
Vans, Flats, Containers .. , .... .
Vehicles ................. .
Plastic Material, Insulation .... .
Total. ............ .
Freight N.O.S ............. .
Cement, Drilling Mud, etc. , ... .
Iron & Steel Articles ........ .
Lumber .................•
Oil Field & Equipment
Supplies ..........••...
Petroleum Bulk ............ .
Petroleum N.O.S ....... , .•..
Vans, Flats, Containers ....... .
Vehicles ................•.
Plastic Material, Insulation .... .
Total. ............ .
1965
17,046
569
10,816
9,532
228
675,052
865
192,777
15,323
922,208
1975
7,564
44,384
8,823
8,315
1,290,065
2,084
838,676
21,518
391
2,851,820
1970
1,258
24,510
3,459
197
2,279
1,320,960
2,169
478,234
4,543
1,837,609
1976
6,147
40,360
7,421
266
1,695,000
1,395
978,610
36,677
1,273
2,767,149
1972
1,805
7,459
6,828
393
1,501,184
639
462,546
4,271
1,985,125
1977
3,073
37,943
13,680
2,748
1,130,986
851
978,584
40,360
0
2,208,225
a/ Includes both inbound and outbound traffic from local, domestic and foreign ports.
b/ N.O.S. =Not Otherwise Specified.
Source: Port of Anchorage.
1973
1,845
14,994
3,336
539
1,507,994
1,008
476,883
5,739
2,012,338
1978
5,784
21,879
14,184
272
0
977,600
604
1,013,427
39,746
0
2,073,495
1974
8,005
18,225
14,787
13,921
1,595,667
2,220
590,474
11,846
2,255,175
1979
2,324
21,423
5,751
34
0
678,008
1,427
934,125
28,626
0
1,671,720
From Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Division of Economic Enter-
prise. June 1980. Alaska Statistical Review 1980. p. J-5.
Two physical phenomena hamper activity in the port. The first is
the fact that the harbor is not ice free, however, the tidal
action does keep the ice broken. A second problem arises from the
need to dredge the channel on an annual basis in order to maintain
a sufficient depth for ocean-going vessels.
3.5.2.2 -Marine Highway
The Alaska Marine Highway primarily serves southeastern Alaska con-
necting the numerous islands and communities with each other and
Seattle. Another section of the Marine Highway connects Valdez,
Cordova, and Whittier. Part of this system connects cities on the
Kenai Peninsula with various communities out on the Alaska peninsula
and Aleutian Islands. Total traffic on this system during 1978 was
47,000 passengers and 13,000 vehicles. Valdez was among the busiest
ports. There is no service to Anchorage.
3.5.2.3 -Road and Highway
The road and highway system in Alaska consists of roughly 11,000 miles
of paved and unpaved surfaces. The pri nci pa 1 roads connect Anchorage
and Valdez with Fairbanks and connect these points to the Alaska
Highway. The Alaska Highway is the only overland route connecting the
Lower-48 with Alaska. The Al-Can Highway consists of approximately
1,520 miles of gravel road and runs from Dawson Creek, British Columbia
to Fairbanks. Figure 7 presents a schematic of the major highways and
traffic volumes for selected points in Study Area 3.
The Parks Highway is the principal route within the Matanuska-Susitna
Borough, connecting what were previously remote sites with both
Fairbanks and Anchorage. Of the highways in this region, the Parks is
the newest and most heavily used. A wide variety of commodities are
transported along the Parks Highway including about 75,000 tons for
local delivery and approximately 150,000 tons of items bound for
97
I
Parks Highway
FIGURE 7 .
PRINCIPAL HIGHWAYS AND TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR SELECTED POINTS IN STUDY AREA 3
Al-Can Highway
Talkeetna
\
I •
\
\
\
\
\
*Avera§e Daily Traffic=58 \
I 1" = 40 mi. ,
Automatic Traffic Average Annual Daily High Traffic
Highway Name Recorder Number Mile Traffic -1979 ·Month -Count
1-Glenn F-1-42 138.50 17,328 Aug. 22,241
2-Parks F-2-35 35.95 1,248 Aug. 2,442
3 -Parks F-3-35 150.58 442 Aug. 842
4 -Parks F-4-35 268.91 914 Aug. 1,398
5 -Glenn F-4-42 262.89 425 July 739
6 -Richardson F-3-71 66.71 197 July 433
7-Richardson F-1-71 122.66 638 July 810
8 -Richardson F-2-71 223.61 202 July 371
Source: Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Transportation
Planning Division. 1979. Alaska Highways and Annual Traffic Volume
Report. Vol. I, p. 44.
98
Fairbanks and other interior points (Institute of Social and Economic
Research. June 1980. p. 19) The Borough is also connected with Valdez
and the Al-Can Highway via the Glenn and Richardson Highways. During
the summer months, the Denali Highway, a 160-mile dirt road, connects
the Parks Highway with the Richardson Highway. The Denali Highway is
not plowed in the winter, and therefore closed to traffic.
The construction and maintenance of roads in the Matanuska-Susitna
Borough are performed under the auspices of a number of agencies and
includes: federally assisted state projects; State bonded projects;
state assisted borough projects (including the Local Service Roads and
·Trails Program, and the State Revenue Sharing Programs for roads admi-
nistered through road service areas at the rate of $2,500 per mile of
dedicated public road); and privately developed public roads {the
Borough requires local roads and collectors to be built to minimum
standards in accordance with its subdivision regulations). (Overall
Economic Development Program, Inc. July 1980).
The Richardson Highway, the State's oldest road, is the main arterial
route connecting Valdez with Anchorage and Fairbanks. The 370 miles of
this highway from Fairbanks to Valdez was used quite heavily during
construction of the trans-Alaska pipeline, which has left several sec-
tions of the road in particularly poor condition. The section from
Gulkana to Delta Junction is perhaps the worst. The highway is four
lanes from Fairbanks to Eielson and two lanes the remainder of its
length. {Institute of Social and Economic Research. June 1980).
3.5.2.4 -Rail
The 470-mile corridor from Seward to Fairbanks is connect~d, in addi-
tion to the Parks Highway, by the only federally-owned and operated
railroad in the United States. Physically, the system is well-
maintained. Major renovations and upgrading of the track and struc-
tures during the 1975-1977 period accounts for its excellent conditon.
99
Annual traffic volume varies between 1.8 and 2.3 million tons, with
coal and gravel accounting for 75 percent of this. It is estimated
that the system is working at only 20 percent of its capacity at pre-
sent (conversation with Fred Hoefler, Alaska Railroad). About half the
total volume is transported during the summer months in transporting
gravel, from Palmer to Anchorage. Coal from Healy mines, amounting to
approximately 500,000 to 600,000 tons annually, is transported to
Fairbanks and Eielson Air Force Base. (Institute of Social and
Economic Research. June 1980; p. 21).
Freight service operates three times weekly between Anchorage and
Fairbanks, with overnight delivery to Fairbanks of goods arriving in
Anchorage by ship. In addition, coal trains operate twice weekly from
Healy to Fairbanks; there is service once or twice weekly from
Anchorage to meet barges in Whittier; once weekly to Seward, mostly for
1 og movements; and five or six times weekly for summer gravel trains
from Palmer to Anchorage. Freight rates are calculated on a per volume
basis and therefore no set rate exists.
Daily Anchorage-Fairbanks and Anchorage-Whittier passenger service is
provided during the summer months with service being reduced to twice
and three times weekly, respectively, during the winter. The passenger
train will stop at any location for embarking or disembarking
passengers.
3.5.2.5-Air
Because of the long distances between populated centers and the lack of
roads in Alaska, air transportation is the major form of transportation
in moving passengers throughout the state. If it were not for air
transportation, many coastal and bush communities would be inac-
cessible. The airport facilities at Anchorage and Fairbanks are of
international classification and there are two airlines that schedule
daily flights to Valdez; Valdez Airlines and Alaska Aeronautical
100
Industries. Also available is commercial weekly service to Glennallen,
Tok, and Delta Junction.
Anchorage is the air traffic hub, not only of the region and the state,
but also for the Northern Pacific Rim. It is also a major refueling
point for air traffic between the Far East and Europe. Both Fairbanks
and Anchorage serve this function as a refueling stop, however,
Fairbanks is becoming increasingly more important in this role because
of the new jet fuel refining capabilities at Earth Resources North Pole
refinery outside of Fairbanks.
Figure 8 is a schematic of international, interstate, and intra-
regional scheduled air services.
Private air transportation, is a primary form of transportation to com-
munities that do not offer commercial scheduled service. For many
areas in Alaska this may be the only link to populated centers. This
is not necessarily the case in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough and the
Valdez-Cordova census division because of the comprehensive highway
system, nonetheless, many communities have active airstrips. The
largest airport in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough is the Palmer
Municipal Airport, with a 5,000 foot runway. As displayed in Table 21
and Figure 9, community airstrips are abundant in Study Area 2.
3.5.3 -Communications
3.5.3.1 -Matanuska-Susitna Borough
3.5.3.1.1 -Telephone
The Matanuska Telephone Association (MTA} was incorporated in 1953
and originally provided services to four exchanges in the
Matanuska Valley; Chugiak, Palmer, Wasilla, and Sutton. It was
not until 1965 that the Susitna Valley first received service.
101
......
0
N
1 Ketchikan
2Wranoeu
3 Petersburg
4 S11ka
!i Juneau
6WhitehorM
1 Yaku.,t
8 Cordova
9 Anchorage
10 Homer
II Kodiak
12 Iliamna
13 Kong Salmon
14 Dillingham
15 Port Heiden
To
Adak,
Auu.
lind Shernv•
16 Sand Point
17 Cold Bay
18 Ou t~h HarbOr
19 Bethel
20 Aniak
21 St. Mary'J
22 McGrath
23 Unalaklell
24 Nome
2!i Galenl
26 Fairbank•
27 Kotzebue
28 Barrow
29 Prudhoe Bay
To the Orient~
--~··-"'
28
6'4>1
I
)
FIGURE 8
To Europe \
Honolulu
Principal Scheduled Alaska
Air Service
-----Wien Air Ala•ka
Alaska Airlines
• ... • Reeve Aleutian Airways
• • • Western Airlinll
• • • Northwest Orient Airline!
International Carrion
point I
San FranciJCo
Source: Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska. June 1980. Alaska Review of
Social and Economic Conditions. Alaska's Unique Transportation System. p. 23.
FIGURE 9
AlR TRAN~PORTATlON
Soocce' Mat•no,k•-So,ltn• Bocoogh Pl•nnlng Dep•ctment. •pc\1 197B. Ph''' 1' Compcehen'''' De,elopment Pl•n·
Pa1mer, AK. 245 pp.
MTA currently operates nine exchanges, the majority of which are
in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. Three exceptions are the Healy
and Cantwell exchanges which are located directly north of the
Borough a 1 ong the Parks Highway, and the Tyonek exchange 1 ocated
on the north shore of Cook Inlet. At the end of 1979, the MTA was
serving 10,881 telephones in nine exchanges (conversation and
correspondence with Don Taylor, Matanuska Telephone Association,
Pa 1 mer).
Overall station growth slowed in 1979 to about eight percent,
which allowed greater emphasis on service improvements and expan-
sions. MTA's service area recently expanded to incorporate the
area along the Glenn Highway which was previously served by the
Copper Valley Telephone Association. Among other plans for
extending service is one, which pending state utilities Commission
approval, will extend lines in the summer of 1981 to include the
Pt. McKenzie agricultural development project. It is anticipated
that there will be approximately 75 to 80 new services when the
development is completed {Frontiersman, January 15-21, 1981).
There are also plans for the completion of a new digital switching
system office in Wasilla in 1982. The existing Wasilla Central
Office Equipment will be available for re-use for required addi-
tions in the future. MTA is also proceeding this year with its
plans to implement a backbone microwave system.
Other plans include the implementation of a mobile radio telephone
and radio paging service for the Palmer and Wasilla area, and
later to other areas as demand dictates. This project is
currently in the budget for 1981. Approval for the provision of
cable television to selected areas in the Borough has been granted
by the Alaska Public Utilities Co11111ission, and is ·awaiting FCC
approval. Rural radio systems provide service to isolated indivi-
dua 1 subscribers in the Cantwell-Talkeetna area (Matanuska
Telephone Association, Inc. 1978).
105
MTA is a member of the Rural Electrification Association
Cooperative and as such must submit loan proposals for the
necessary capital for expansions and improvements. The proposals
are based upon subscriber data, population forecasts, and histori-
cal trends in the service area. The 1978 -1983 supplemental loan
proposal which amounted to $41,011,390 was in anticipation of the
capita 1 needs for the above 1 is ted expansions and improvements.
As of January 14, 1980, Talkeetna had 232 total lines and telphone
numbers in service for single and multi-line customers and it was
forecasted that there would be a need for 672 in 1990. At the
same time, Palmer and Wasilla had 2,725 and 2,500 respectively,
with an anticipated increase to 8,841 in 1990 for Palmer and
12,164 for Wasilla. At the end of 1979 Cantwell had 45 with an
expected increase to 95 in 1990 and Healy had 230 with a predic-
tion for a need of 779 in 1990. (Fill Report, December 1980).
In the immediate future there are plans· for the addition of 100
lines and 100 terminals in Healy; 200 lines and 200 terminals in
Willow; and 200 lines and 100 terminals in Talkeetna (conversation
with Don Taylor, Matanuska Telephone Association, Inc.).
Table 25 displays the 11 capacities 11 or numbers of installed ser-
vices of all classes in the various exchanges in the Borough; the
number presently assigned; and the available spare. This does not
take into consideration the above mentioned additions.
3.5.3.1.2 -Radio
While many of the Anchorage radio stations can be received in the
Borough, the Borough is now served by its own station.. Formed in
1972 by a group of Valley residents, Valley Radio Corporation went
on the air in September, 1979. KABN's Big Lake studio broadcasts
approximately 138 hours per week on 1150 AM, with a power of 5,000
watts. The transmitter and other equipment are engineered for
106
Exchange
Big Lake
Healy
Palmer
Talkeetna
Tyonek &
Cantwell
Wasilla
Will ow
TABLE 25
MATANUSKA TELEPHONE ASSOCIATION, INC.
TOTAL NUMBER OF INSTALLED, ASSIGNED, AND
SPARE TERMINALS AND 1990 ESTIMATE
-DECEMBER 1980-
Installed Assigned Spare
900 686 214
400 274 126
3,300 2,881 419
400 257 143
90 47 23
5,500 2,614 2,886
300 246 54
Estimated
1990
2,151
779
8,841
672
80
95
12,164
701
Source: Matanuska Telephone Association, Inc. December 1980. Fill
Report. Palmer, AK; 12 pp.
ES/P
107
stereo transmission, although broadcasting is currently in mono.
Its light rock format includes numerous special interest programs
giving special attention to Valley activities (Markle, June 19,
1980).
3.5.3.1.3 -Television
Valley residents presently receive the four Anchorage television
stations. The MTA is studying the feasibility of expanding its
services to include Cable TV for both rural and core area subscri-
bers. Following the analysis of the market and construction
costs, rates will be set and the application to the Alaska Public
Utilities Commission will begin {Matanuska Telephone Association,
1980).
3.5.3.1.4 -Newspapers
The area is served by two weekly newspapers; the Valley Sun which
is distributed to all of the Borough's 7,400 postal patrons, and
the Frontiersman, founded in 1947, which is distributed to 2,500
paid subscribers.
3.5.3.2 -Valdez and Copper River Region
Prior to the implementation of the RCA-Alascom communication system in
the Valdez and Glennallen region, television, telephone, and telex ser-
vices were either non-existent or of debatable quality in most com-
munities. Now service is provided to nearly all settled communities in
the area and distributed by several franchises.
108
3.5.3.2.1 -Telephone
Telephone service is provided by Copper Valley Telephone
Cooperative (CTV) to both Valdez and the Glennallen Region. The
Copper Valley Telephone Cooperative currently provides over 3,900
phones for a population of 4,100, and the Glennallen region is up
to 1,200 phones from the 700 reported in 1976. It is reported
that there were more phones installed in Valdez in 1979 than any
year since the ·1973-76 pipeline era boom. (Alaska Journal of
Commerce, January 26, 1981).
3.5.3.2.2 Radio
There are no local Valdez radio stations. However, the residents
of the city are able to receive a station from Anchorage, KBYR.
The residents of Glennallen and surroundfng communities are served
by KCAM, which is broadcast by the Central Alaska Mission in
Copper Center.
3.5.3.2.3 -Television
At the present time, television is brought into Valdez by the
State Satellite Television Project, which provides a series of
prerecorded television programs. Cable television is also
available through the Valdez Cable Company.
Glennallen and surrounding communities just recently started
receiving programs provided through the State Satellite Television
Program. Television from fairbanks (KFAR) can also b~ received in
some portions of the region by a booster station.
109
3.5.3.2.4 -Newspaper
Currently only one newspaper is published in Valdez, The Valdez
Vanguard. It is a weekly and has an estimated ci rcul ati on of
1,500 in the city and immediate area.
Published in Kenny Lake is The Copper Valley Views. It serves the
area from Paxson to Valdez along the Richardson Highway and has an
estimated circulation of 750. The newspaper is moving from Kenny
Lake to Mile 182 on the Richardson Highway in the summer of 1981.
3.5.4 -Power Availability
3.5.4.1 -Matanuska-Susitna Borough
The Matanuska-Susitna Borough and northern portion of the Muncipal ity
of Anchorage are currently serviced by , the Matanuska Electric
Association, Inc. (MEA), located in Palmer. As of August 31, 1980, MEA
served 12,969 meters in 3,360 square miles of southcentral Alaska.
Just as Copper Valley Electric Association was impacted by the
construction of the pipeline, MEA witnessed an increase in power
requirements primarily as a result of workers moving into the service
area. A second occurrence that spurred residential and commercial
activity in MEA's service area, therefore increasing power demands, was
the vote to move the State Capital from Juneau to Willow. Table 26
illustrates the growth in the region with a steadily increasing number
of consumers from 1975 to 1980.
Wholesale power is purchased primarily from Chugach Electric
Association's natural gas-fired turbines at Beluga and Bernice Lake, as
well as from the Alaska Power Administration's Eklutna hydroplant and a
small hydroelectric operation at Cooper Lake located on the Kenai
Peninsula.
110
TABLE 26
NUMBER OF ELECTRICAL CONSUMERS:
MATANUSKA, VALDEZ, AND GLENNALLEN DIVISIONS
1975 -1980
MATANUSKA DIVISION
CONSUMER 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
Residential 1 6,729
Small Commercial 896
Large Commercial 62
CONSUMER 1975
Residential 1 533
Small Commercial 164
Large Commercial 21
Other 14
CONSUMER 1975
Residential 1 418
Small Commercial 115
Large Commercial 24
Other 26
7,681
1,056
72
8,991 10,830 11,287 11,957
1,183 1,214 1,255 1,254
82 93 100 99
VALDEZ DIVISION
1976
1,052
207
24
14
1977
1,040
190
32
14
GLENNALLEN DIVISION
1976
621
138
33
31
1977
651
163
40
33
1978 -
892
196
33
19
1978
666
173
21
34
1979
959
194
33
23
1979
629
200
18
35
1980
1,053
195
32
30
1980
644
209
17
35
1 Full time residential and seasonal are combined. For the Mat-Su
Division, seasonal consumers account for 638; 645; 670; 678; and 660
of the total consumers for the period 1975 to 1979, inclusive
(approximately 9 percent of the total residential).
Sources: Copper Valley Electric Association, Inc.
Overall Economic Development Program, Inc. July 1980.
Volume II: Economic Conditions, Development Options and
Projections, p. 90.
111
Over the years, MEA has followed an aggressive expansion program to
keep pace with the rapidly increasing population of the Borough.
However, as people have become more energy conservative, the average
energy usage has actually declined since 1978. Energy awareness is
exhibited by the upgrading of the quality of insulation in houses and
the utilization of wood burning stoves as a back-up source of heat.
The downturn in the economy has also been a contributing factor to a
lesser power demand. Figures 10, 11, and 12 show the trends in
kilowatt hrs./month/ consumer for residential, small corrnnercial, and
large commercial.
Currently 95 percent of new houses being constructed in the
Matanuska-Susitna portion of the service area are equipped with
electric heat. This figure is much lower in the southern portion of
the service area where less than 5 percent have electric heat because
of the readily available low cost gas in the area.
Table 27 provides MEA and Copper Valley Electric Association
Residential consumer rates and Table 28·shows consumer cost relative to
other areas in the state and country. Similar information for small
commercial and large commercial is also available. Since the coopera-
tive purchases all of its electricity, its rates are largely dependent
upon its wholesale purchase price. The price of hydroelectric power
purchased from the Alaska Power Administration can be expected to
remain relatively stable. However, power from Chugach Electric
Association will probably increase in price due to increases in the
price of natural gas. Beluga Field natural gas used for power may take
an immediate leap from 13.3¢/mcf to 84.7¢/mcf when Pacific-Alaska LNG
purchases gas from the same field. There has also been a move by the
federal government to limit the use of natural gas by el~ctric utili-
ties. However, even if limitations are not imposed, the price is
expected to increase. (Overall Economic Development Program, Inc.,
July 1980; pp. 86-87).
112
1,300
1,100
900
.s:::
3 700 ~
500
300
100
FIGURE 10
RESIDENTIAL ELECTRIC CONSUME~S
11AT-SU, VALDEZ, AND GLENt~ALLEN DISTRICTS
(kwh/month/consumer)
• ..... .......... _. ____ .
.......... ... _. ',
·--·--· --·-
', _ ... ·---·--·
1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
f1at-Su
Valdez
Glennallen
Source: Conversation with Dan Teggler, Copper Valley Electric
Association.
Conversation with Ken Ritchey, Matanuska Electric Association.
113
2,600
2,40Cl
2,200
2,000
..r::
.:.-
..::L. 1,800
1.600
1,400
1,200
1,000
FIGUR~ 11
Sr1ALL CQr.1~1ERCIAL ELECTRICAL CONSLit·1ERS
~1AT -SU, VALDEZ, AND GLENNALLEN DISTRICTS
·-
(kwh/month/consumer)
.......... _-
."" ·~ • Glennallen
\
\
\
\
\ • • Valdez
' ' I
·--. \ I \\ /
\ '/ " .......... .........
felat-Su
1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
Source: Conversation with Dan Teggler, Copper Valley Electric
Association.
Conversation with Ken Ritchey, Matanuska Electric Association.
114
46,000
42,000
38,000
34,000
~ 30,000 3
~
26,000
22,000
18,000
14,000
10,000
FIGURE 12
LARGE conr1ERCIAL ELECTRICAL CO~·~SUt'tERS
r·1AT -SU, VALDEZ, AND GLEf!W\LLEN DISTRICTS
(kwh/month/consumer)
I
I
• 1\
I \
\ I
I
\I •
• /"
• I ·--· / .:::..:....-· /
I --. /. ',·~·
e; • '
I I ' . '
•
I
;•
I
I
I
/
I
I ' --· '.-
1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
G1ennallen
r·1at-Su
Valdez
Source: Conversation with Dan Teggler, Copper Valley Electric
Assocation.
Conversation with Ken Ritchey, ~1atanuska Electric Assosication.
115
TABLE 27
RESIDENTIAL CONSUMER RATES
MATANUSKA ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION!
First 100 kwh @ 11.6¢ per kwh
Next 150 kwh @ 7.7¢ per kwh
Next 250 kwh @ 5.8¢ per kwh
Next 700 kwh @ 3.2¢ per kwh
Over 1,200 kwh @ 2.6¢ per kwh
COPPER VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION2
First 100 kwh @ 24.0¢ per kwh
Next 100 kwh @ 20.5¢ per kwh
Next 400 kwh @ 17.0¢ per kwh
Over 600 kwh @ 13.0¢ per kwh
VALDEZ DISTRICT
First 200 kwh @ 20.0¢ per kwh
Next 400 kwh @ 12.0¢ per kwh
Over 600 kwh @ 10.0¢ per kwh
1 Source: Overall Economic Development Program, Inc.
2 Source: Conversation with Dan Teggler, Copper Valley Electric
Association.
116
..... ..... ......
TABLE 28
CDNSUMER OOST OF ELB::TRIC mERGY
FDR SPECIFIED USI\GFS AND SUPPLIERS
(Residential Rate Analysis -lklllars p:!r ~l>nth Billed)
seattle
J<ilowatt-City
hours Light
500 5,84
1300* -
3000 38.80
4500 -
CFJ\
Urban
Rate
19,90
39.85
74.65
104.65
19.79
45.31
99.54
157,39
CF.NI'S PER 1<1-IH 1 sarre usa~s and BI.IEE1 iers I
500 1.17 3.98 3.96
1300* -3.07 3.49
JOOO 1.29 2.49 3.32
4500 -2.33 3.28
CEA
SubUrban
Rate
25.15
48.25
83.05
113.05
5.08
3.71
2.77
2.51
Dallas,TX
Power &
Light ~!FA
27.76 37.65
-62.65
147.33 106.85
-145.85
5.55 7.53
-4.82
4.91 3.56
-3.24
CFJ\
Rural
Rate
43.71
73.96
107.96
137.96
8.74
5.69
3.60
3.07
**HEA (N.of IDs, ling,
Kachcmak Water &
Bay) Power
35,25 32.05
74.25 -
135.25 192.27
180.25 -
7.05 6.41
5.71 -
4.51 6.41
4.01 -
N.Yk.City
COnsol. CIIEA
GIJFA Edison Valdez
48.59 49.03 62.40
114.91 -135.40
228,99 277.52 279.90
326.49 -407.40
9.72 9.81 12.48
8.83 -10.41
7.63 9.25 9.33
7.26 -9.05
* I1F1I approxiJMte average usage, figure used to determine ranking: left to right is low to high. ** Prom rate request suhmitted to APlJC, May 19, 1900.
Prepared by Public Infornation Office
Matanuska Electric Association, Inc.
Palrrcr, Alaska
June, 1980
CEA
HEA
lirA
GVEA
CVJ::A
Chugach Electric Association, Inc.
~~tanuska Electric Association, Inc.
HCII'Cr Electric Association, Inc.
Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc.
Copper Valley Electric Association, Inc.
CVEA
Glenn-
allen
64.90
154.10
322.40
470.90
12.98
11.85
10.74
10.46
Source: Overall Economic Development Program Inc. July 1980. Volume II: Economic Conditions, Development
Options and Projections. Palmer, AK. p. 91.
MEA assumes, as indicated in the 1979 Power Requirements stud.v, that
the downturn in the economy is nearing its end, and will gradually
recover over a two-year period. The 1979 Power Requirements study has
a less opti~istic outlook than the 1978, but MEA estimates that at the
end of five years, total requirements will be 324 million kwh/yr., and
at the end of 10 years, total requirements will be 413 million kwh/hr.
{Matanuska Electric Association, Inc., September 1980). Given the
vicissitudes of growth in the Borough in the past, and the uncertainty
of developments in the future, it is difficult to predict the future
power requirements.
3.5.4.1.1 -Coal
There are significant coal deposits in the Matanuska-Susitna
Borough. The community of Eska-Sutton was composed mostly of
employees of the Jonesville mine. Over 80 percent of the local
coal market was represented by the Anchorage military bases. The
mines were closed in the winter of 1968 after the bases completed
their plant conversion from coal to gas. Coal mining activity
today is limited to providing fuel for a few households.
3.5.4.1.2 -Natural Gas
None of the area has natural gas service.
3.5.4.2 -Valdez and Copper River Region
The area from Valdez to Paxson is supplied with electricity by the
Copper Valley Electric Association, a non-profit Rural Electrifi-
cation Administration electric utility. This service are~ is divided
into two districts: the Glennallen district and the Valdez district.
The Glennallen service district encompasses the area north to Paxson
and South to Thompson Pass along the Richardson Highway and west to
118
Chickaloon on the Glenn Highway. The eastern boundary extends to Slana
on the Tok cut-off. The boundaries of the Valdez service area extend
from the Valdez port to the Keystone Canyon area leading to Thompson
Pass. At present, an intertie between the two districts does not
exist, but construction of a intertie is scheduled for completion in
the fall of 1981 when the Solomon Gulch hydroelectric facilit.v is on
line. The Solomon Gulch facility will produce 12 megawatts {MW). A
second supplemental source of power in the future would be the
installation of a 9.0 MW pressure-reducing turbine in the Trans-Alaska
pipeline near Valdez. This plan would utilize the oil· flowing through
the pipeline to power a turbine {U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
December 1979). Currently, all power is supplied by diesel generators.
As illustrated in Table 26, the number of residential consumers doubled
in the Valdez district from 1975 to 1976 reflecting the peak pipeline
construction period. There was a slight decrease immediately following
1977, but the level has remained at almost 'double that of the pre-
pipeline period. Small commercial and large commercial did not show
any dramatic changes in the Valdez district, nor did any of the con-
sumer classes in the Glennallen division.
In terms of average kilowatt hours/month/consumer, as Tables 10, 11,
and 12 illustrate, there has actually been a reduction in the average
use in all classes of consumers in both the Valdez and Glennallen
district except for small and large commercial consumers in the
Glennallen district. Whereas the number of large commercial consumers
has actually decreased since 1975 in the Glennallen district, the
average kwh/mo./consumer in 1980 is over five times that of the 1975
level. This increase in requirements is directly related to the pipe-
line, and specifically, the installation of two pumping st~tions, three
mechanical refrigeration sites, and a series of thirteen block valve
sites in the Glennallen area ,{Institute of Social and Economic
Research. 1976. pp. 3-7).
119
3.5.5 -Police
3.5.5.1 -Matanuska-Susitna Borough
Pol ice protection in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough is provided by the
Alaska State Troopers, of which there are a total of 14 in the Borough,
with the largest detachment of seven in Palmer. The remaining seven
are dispersed throughout the Borough with two in Wasilla, one at Big
Lake, one at Trapper Creek, and three in Talkeetna. Four additional
troopers have the responsibility of fish and wildlife protection and
enforcement.
The City of Palmer is the only first class, home rule city in the
Borough and therefore has police powers of seven officers and five
civilian support personnel. The most common crime is vandalism in an
otherwise low crime rate district.
There are three detention and correctional facilities in the Borough:
a temporary detention facility in Palmer maintained by the Palmer
Police Department; Mclaughlin Youth Center in Wasilla providing long
and short term correctional facilities for juveniles, and the Adult
Correctional Facility located near Sutton providing long and short term
correctional facilities for adults.
The Hilstrom Building in Palmer houses the one court in the Borough.
(Overall Economic Development Program, Inc. July 1980).
3.5.5.2 -Valdez
As would be expected, the City of Valdez experienced a dramatic rate of
increase in criminal activity during the pipeline construction period.
In fact, crime increased at a rate that far surpassed the rate of
increase in population. Steady increases were observed in larcenies
and alcohol related disturbances. Consequently, the Valdez Police
120
Department has expanded from a staff of two. prior to the commencement
of the pipeline. to its present size of 13 full time officers and five
full-time dispatchers. Out of the 13 officers. one is an investigator.
and one is a juvenile officer.
The Valdez Police Department occupies a recently completed wing in the
City Hall and has a contract with the state for use of the seven cell
detention facility with a total of 12 beds.
There is a state trooper post in Valdez that is staffed by two troopers
and one scale operator. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
December 1979; p. II-64).
3.5.5.3 -Glennallen
The only state trooper post between Valdez and Fairbanks along the
Richardson highway is in Glennallen. This ·facility maintains seven
troopers. four dispatchers. and one motor vehicle clerk. One addi-
tional trooper is located in Paxson assigned to fish and wildlife
enforcement.
Also located in Glennallen is a court building which contains two
holding facilities and a court room for the one full time magistrate.
3.5.6-Fire Protection
3.5.6.1 -Matanuska-Susitna Borough
The existing fire service areas of Houston, Wasilla, Palmer, Butte, and
Sutton are displayed in Figure 13. Figure 14 represent~ the recent
work of the Mission Research Corporation in establishing and proposing
fire service areas that would provide fire protection for up to 95 per-
cent of the Matanuska-Susitna Valley population. The large circles
correspond to existing fire stations and the small circles represent
121
.......
N
N
FIGURE 13
EXISTING FIRE SERVICE AREAS
C:2:) EXISTING FIRE SERVICE AREAS'
~ POPULATION BOUNDARY (<10/•q. mi.) 11985)
EJ:1 HIGH DENSITY POPULATION AREA (>50/•q. mi.) (1985)
Source: Mission Research Corporation, Fire Protection Plan for the Matanuska-Susitna Borough -Alaska,
Interim Report, April 1980.
,.....
N w
FIGURE 14
PROPOSED FIRE SERVICE AREAS
CAPITOL
t:::2:::J RECOMMENDED FIRE SERVICE AREA BOUNDARIES
~ POPULATION BOUNDARY C<10j1q. mi.) (1985)
E::::C:J HIGH DENSITY POPULATION AREA (>50/lq. mi.) (1985)
Q EXISTING FIRE STATION
0 NEW FIRE STATION
Source: Mission Research Corporation, Fire Protection Plan For The Matanuska-Susitna Borough ~ Alaska,
Interim Report, April 1980.
proposed stations. The need for a redefinition of service areas and
the addition of six fire stations is in response to the increased popu-
lation in the Borough. Mission Research Corporation based its proposed
boundaries on response time, road conditions, and the need for a
balance between area and population. The cost of fire protection in
these areas is funded by a special village rate on the assessed
valuation within the service areas.
The expansion of the boundaries in addition to providing more compre-
hensive service in the Palmer and Wasilla area, includes the addition
of service in the vicinity of Willow and Big Lake. Population is per-
ceived to increase in Willow whether or not the capital move materiali-
zes. There are a few other fire protection facilities in the Borough,
namely the Talkeetna Fire Hall with three pieces of equipment and the
inactive Trapper Creek facility. There are no changes recommended in
the boundaries of these areas. Areas of the Borough not within the
boundaries of a fire service area must rely on their own resources and
volunteer assistance of their neighbors.
The fire stations in Palmer and Houston are the only two city-
maintained stations in the Borough and have three full time employees,
two in Palmer and one in Houston. All other fire stations are main-
tained by the Borough and rely on volunteer service.
3.5.6.2 -Copper River Region
Fire Protection in the Copper River region is carried out by volunteer
forces. There are presently two fire stations in the region: one in
Glennallen with five pieces of equipment and one in Copper Center with
two pieces of equipment. The fire stations are maintained .Primarily by
state revenue sharing.
124
3.5.7-Health Services
The Municipality of Anchorage, being the predominant metropolitan area
and transportation center in the state, has developed a comprehensive
acute and long-term health care system in keeping with the needs of the
state, and therefore provides the main medical care for the residents
of southcentral Alaska. The communities in the outlying areas are not
without medical facilities; but it is not uncommon for patients to be
airlifted to Anchorage when necessary.
Table 29 should suffice in providing the necessary information for eva-
luating the capabilities of the various medical facilities in
Anchorage, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Valdez, and·the communities
along the Richardson Highway. The best indicators of performance and
capacity are the occupancy rates and average day per patient figures.
The low average day per patient figure for Valdez reflects the young,
healthy composition of the residents. Even during the peak of the
pipeline construction, the occupancy of Valdez Community Hospital never
exceeded 50 percent. {Conversation with supervising nurse, Valdez
Community Hospital, Valdez, AK).
3.5.7.1 -Anchorage
Anchorage provides a wide spectrum of health services to its residents
in addition to the acute care mentioned above. The following section
briefly describes the long term care, ambulatory service, and other
health services offered. This information on health facilities in
Anchorage is extracted from Ender, Richard L., et al. January 1980.
Volume I: Gulf of Alaska and Lower Cook Inlet Development Scenarios
Anchorage Socioeconomic and Physical Baseline. Anchorage, .AK. p. 363.
125
1-'
N
0'1
TABLE 29
MEDICAL FACILITIES/SERVICES AND INPATIENT UTILIZATION DATA
-19RO-
FAITH 1 VAlDrl
VAttn 1 ALASKA] ALA<;KA NATTVE?
Hospital COMMUN!TYl PROV HlENCE 2 MfOICAL r£NTFR ----
location Glennallen Valdez Palmer Anchorage Anchorage Anchoraqe
Type Emergency and Emergency and Acute and long-Acute Acute Acute
short-term minor surgery term cure
facH ity
Service Area Approx. Paxson Valdez Matanuska-Susitna Anchorage and Anchorage Anchorage &
to Gulkana on Borough vicinity and vicinity vicinity
Richardson High-
way & 100 miles
west on Glenn
Highway.
No. of Beds 5 adult 15 23 199 268 170
1 pediatric
2 hospHal-3 8 214 N/A No. of Ooctors N/A
based
Cost per day $100/day semi-$210/day semi-$185/day semi-$220/day semi-
private private private private N/A N/A
$200/day CCU or $230/day private $190/day private $225/day private
ICU
Occupancy Rate 30% 13.4% 49'l 56% 82.4'1: 72.3%
Admissions 271 301 1,289 7,926 11,356 4,629
Average Day/ 2.43 2.45 10.3 4.6 5.7 9.7
Patient
Patient Days
Per Year 661 737 13,276 36,459 69,729 44,901
Outpatients
Served '9,900 3,725 11,965 N/A N/A N/A
No. of Ambulances 2 2 EMT out of Palmer
Fire Hall
N/A N/A N/A
Patients Evacuated
To Anchorage Anchorage Anchorage Seattle Seattle N/A
1 Source: Conversations with personnel at hospital.
2 Source: Ender, Richard L., et al. January 1980. Volume I: Gulf of Alaska and lower Cook Inlet Petroleum Development Scenarios. Anchorage
Socioeconomic and Physical Baseline. Anchorage, AK. (1978 data)
3.5.7.1.1 -Long-Term Care
Convalescent and long term care is provided by the following:
a. Skilled nursing facilities. There are 101 skilled nursing
beds for 24-hour professional restorative care.
b. Intermediate care facilities. The role of the intermediate
care facilities is to provide limited nursing and personal
care to long-term patients with chronic medical problems.
There are currently 217 intermediate care beds available in
Anchorage.
c. Residential and custodial care facilities. Constraints
involved in securing licensing and adequate funding have
precluded the development of needed residential and custodial
facilities. There are currently 100 beds in the Anchorage
Pioneer Home for 65-year old Alaska'n residents (of at least
15 years). There are approximately 14 residential facilities
for youth, drug, alcohol, and other rehabilitative clients.
Because of federal government reimbursement requirements,
custodial care is more costly to the state than intermediate
care and therefore, this element of a comprehensive health
care system has not developed in relation to the needs indi-
cated within the community.
3.5.7.1.2 -Ambulatory Care
As an alternative to institutionalized care, ambulatory care
through outpatient services, private clinics, practices, etc. is
designated to facilitate at-home convalescence.
127
3.5.7.1.3 -Emergency Care
Trained medics with the Muncipality of Anchorage Emergency Medical
Services provide on-site aid in emergency situations. The
Emergency Medical Division has five medic units with 36 personnel
on staff including administration.
3.5.7.1.4-Specialty Services
In addition to standard medical facilities and services available,
the local delivery system also provides: full burn and debriding
room; hypothermia expertise; comprehensive or orthopedic surgical
and therapy unit; neurosurgery and neurology expertise; two
comprehensive critical care units; two comprehensive neo-natal
intensive care units; open-heart I.C. surgical expertise; renal
dialysis; cardiovascular catheterization; and nuclear medicine.
3.5.7.1.5 -Mental Health
Mental health care is provided by both the private and public sec-
tor. Types of services that presently exist in Anchorage are:
psychiatric inpatient (200 beds at Alaska Psychiatric
Institute);
outpatient therapy and counseling;
crisis lines;
rape and assault counseling;
battered women and children•s services;
group homes;
facilities for developmental and emotional disabilities; and
pastoral counseling.
In addition, each acute care facility provides inpatient
psychiatric services~ as well as many of the services listed
above.
128
3.5.7.1.6 -Social Services
The Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, Division of
Social Services is the principal provider of social services in
the Municipality of Anchorage. Additional services, to a limited
degree, are also provided by the local municipal and select pri-
vate organizations.
Local social services available in the Anchorage area fall into
six categories:
1. children's services;
2. senior citizens' assistance;
3. employment assistance;
4. income assistance;
5. housing assistance; and
6. youth services.
For greater detail and a more comprehensive understanding of the
medical and social services provided in the Anchorage area, it is
suggested that the reader consult directly to the source: Ender,
Richard L. et al., January 1980.
3.5.7.2 -Matanuska-Susitna Borough
3.5.7.2.1 -Acute Care
The Valley Hospital in Palmer currently provides acute and some
1 ong-term care with a total of 23 beds; 19 for acute and 4 for
long-term. There are a total of 8 doctors, consisting of a
pediatrician, surgeon, OB/GYN specialist, and five family practic-
tioners.
129
One explanation for the re·latively high average day per patient
figure is (Table 29) due to the fact that surgery is performed at
the Valley Hospital, therefore requiring a longer period of time
in the hospital.
The 11,965 outpatients served in 1980 is a combination of
emergency care and X-ray/lab patients in both the Valley Hospital
and the Wasilla satellite X-ray lab facility.
The Valley Hospital, which was built in 1954, was once more than
adequate to serve the residents of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough.
However, it is now beginning to reach its limits. An independent
consultant recently completed a cost study of several alternatives
for expanding hospital services in the Borough. The recommen-
dation was that a new hospital be built in Palmer rather than
Wasilla due to the extra costs of sewage, road access, wells and
power extension associated with the Wasflla site evaluated. The
recommendation was unanimously accepted by the Board of Directors
of the Valley Hospital Association, and they will now continue
efforts to secure funding for the project. Both traditional sources
of finance and a State grant are being explored, however, the
board has found existing loan programs to be too costly and a
State grant seems most immenent (Frontiersman, Apri 1 9-15, 1981,
pp 1).
3.5.7.2.2 -Long-Term Care
The Palmer Pioneer Home provides long-term nursing and non-nursing
care for the elderly.
3.5.7.2.3-Emergency Medical Services
Ambulance service in the Borough is dispatched through the Palmer
Fire Center on a 24-hour basis. There are presently 10 ambulances
130
located throughout the Borough with one back-up at the Borough
office in Palmer. Ambulances are distributed as follows: one
ambulance in Sutton; two in Palmer; two in Wasilla; one in
Houston; one in Willow; one in Trapper•s Creek; one in Talkeetna;
and one at Matanuska Glacier.
The 911 emergency service number is connected directly to the
ambulance dispatch center at the Palmer Fire Station and the
Valley Hospital.
3.5.7.2.4-Public Health Centers
Three public health centers are located in the Borough: Palmer
Health Care Center; Wasilla Health Care Center; and Cook Inlet
Native Association Health Care Center {Wasilla).
These centers provide the following-services: we 11 child
assessment, immunizations, pap screening, pregnancy tests,
glaucoma screening, TB skin tests, VD tests and treatment, and
educational material on health.
3.5.7.2.5-Mental Health
There are two mental health facilities located in the Borough:
Langdon {Wasilla) and the Mat-Su Mental Health Center (Wasilla).
Both facilities provide are: individual and group therapy; family
and marital counseling; and alcohol and drug consultation.
3.5.7.3 -Valdez
The extensive health service facilities available to the residents of
Valdez include the 15-bed Valdez Community Hospital; the Valdez Mental
Health Center; and the Harborview Developmental Center, a state faci-
lity for the mentally and physically handicapped.
131
Additional service is provided by a public health nurse. Services
include childhood services, communicable disease surveillance, immuni-
zations, school health services, maternity care, and women•s clinics.
Three physicians, a dentist, and an optometrist provide the medical
expertise for the community which is supplemented by regular visits by
specialists from other areas of the State.
3.5.7.3.1 -Mental Health
The Valdez Mental Health Center began full-time operations in
1979. In its first year, the director recognized the need for an
alcohol counseling program and has since implemented one.
Sources of the Center•s budget include state and city contribu-
tions, client payments, and third party payments.
3.5.7.3.2-Emergency Medical Service
The 25-to-30 person volunteer emergency medical team operates two
ambulances on a 24-hour basis. The voluntary team works in
cooperation with the Valdez Fire Department.
3.5.7.3.3 -Social Services
The following state programs and services are offered in the City
of Valdez through the Alaska State Department of Health and Social
Services and coordinated by the one part-time social worker:
1) adoption services;
2) child protection services;
3) counseling;
4} early and periodic screening;
5) diagnosis and treatment for health problems;
6) foster care; and
7) homemaker service
132
3.5.7.4-Copper River Region
The Faith Hospital, located in Glennallen, and the State Public Health
Nurses, located in various communities provide the framewor.k for the
medical and health services in the Copper River Region. The Faith
Hospital is owned and maintained by the Central Alaskan Mission and
depends on outside mission support. It is a 6-bed facility providing
emergency and short term treatment for residents in the immediate vici-
nity. (see Table 29).
A State Public Health nurse located in Glennallen provides itinerant,
preventative care including well baby clinics, prenatal care, TB sur-
veillance, school testing, and health teaching to the residents of the
Copper River basin area. The residents of Cantwell receive similar
service from a health nurse located in Fairbanks.
Dent a 1 services are provided for one week every month by a vi siting
dentist from Wasilla. The Copper River Native Association is currently
utilizing a fully equipped mobile dental facility. All of the com-
munities and villages in the region are accessible by road, and there-
fore receive the services of the mobile dental unit.
The Copper River Native Association maintains six health clinics which
are supported by the Indian Health Services and staffed by health
aides. The clinics are located in Cantwell, Chistochina, Chitina,
Copper Center, Gulkana, and Mentasa. The health aides provide imme-
diate emergency care to the residents of the surrounding area.
Other services and programs available to the residents of the Copper
River region include a nutrition program; an out-reach pr~gram; a men-
tal health program; an alcohol program; an Indian child welfare act
program; and homemaker services. Funding is provided through a com-
bination of federal, state, and local organizations. (conversations
with Ms. Billy Peters, Copper River Native Association).
133
3.5.8 -Libraries
3.5.8.1 -Matanuska-Susitna Borough
The Matanuska-Susitna Borough has non-areawide library powers meaning
that libraries within incorporated cities must be maintained by city
residents and all other libraries are the responsibility of the
Borough. Funds for the libraries are administered by the
Matanuska-Susitna Library Association, an organization established for
this such purpose. The Borough currently maintains the following
1 i bra ri es:
Palmer District Court Library: contains law library with current
reference books on Alaska State 1 aws and Alaska Supreme Court
decisions
Talkeetna Library
Glenn Highway Rural Community Library in the glacier view area
Matanuska-Susitna Community College Library, avai 1 able to the
public
Willow Library, for the greater Willow Community
Sutton Community Library, for the Sutton Community
Palmer and Wasilla each have a library which is city maintained. The
Palmer City Library contains general reading material, audio-visual
films, and records. The Wasilla Library contains general reading
material with an emp~asis on children's material. In addition to
Borough and City libraries, libraries are located in various Borough
schools.
3.5.8.2 -Copper River Region
The Copper River Region currently maintains two State grant-supported
public libraries which are located in Glennallen and Kenny Lake. The
1 ibraries were originally housed in donated space and maintained by
134
volunteers. Several small libraries are also located in some of the
public schools. There are also several small libraries at some of the
public schools.
3.5.9 -Education
Education in the State of Alaska is directed by a nine member State
Board appointed by the Governor. The State Board in turn appoints the
commissioner who holds responsibility for the management of the
Department of Education.
There are 52 school districts in Alaska with approximately 450 public
schools. About one-half of the state•s 88,000 plus students and one-
half of its 5,000 teachers are found in the Anchorage School District.
The remainder of the school districts are, in comparison, very small in
student enrollment, but extremely large in area. Individual school
enrollments range from one room schools with ·less than 10 students to
2,000-3,000 student schools in Anchorage.
Roughly 75 percent of the operating funds for local schools is provided
by the state. Loca 1 governments, where they exist, pay about 20 per-
cent, and federal government about 5 percent. (Alaska Department of
Education. December 1980).
135
SCHOOL BOARD
EXPENDITURE PER PUPIL
School District
Matanuska-Susitna
North Slope Borough
Anchorage
Copper River
National Average
3.5.9.1 -Matanuska-Susitna Borough
$/Pupi 1
$ 3,491
11,311
2,864
N/A
2,800
The Matanuska-Susitna Borough presently operates 17 schools: 12 elemen-
tary schools, two junior high schools, and three high schools.
Junior Elementary
Communities High School High School School
Trapper Creek X
Talkeetna X
Montana Creek X X
Wi 11 ow X
Wasilla X X X
Big Lake X
Palmer X X X
Glacier View X
Skwentna X
Butte X
At the end of the 1979-80 school year there were approximately 4,330
students enrolled in the school system. The 1982 projection for total
enrollment is 4,457, representing an increase of only 72 students from
the current 1980 enrollment figure (Frontiersman, Jan. 15-21, 1981).
The capacities and 1980 enrollments for the schools are displayed in
136
Table 30. Also illustrated are .plans for the expansion of existing
facilities. The Borough schools are equipped to provide education and
training for mentally retarded and physically handicapped children.
There is a great demand for vocational training in the Borough school
system for programs such as auto mechanics, welding, electronics, sur-
veying, home economics, office accounting, small engines, and car-
pentry. The vocational training facilities are tied directly into the
regular school facilities and are, at present, able to keep pace with
the demand. There are plans for the expansion of certain areas pending
an authorization and funding. Besides serving the needs of the imme-
diate community, the schools also provide education by correspondence
to any resident in the State of Alaska.
Situated between Wasill~ and Palmer is the Matanuska-Susitna Community
College, a branch of the University of Alaska, which provides academic
and vocational courses to residents in the region. The college has
shown steady and healthy growth increasing from an enrollment of 512 in
1969 to 1,177 in 1980.
3.5.9.2 -Copper River Region
The School Board for the Copper River School District is the only auto-
nomous political unit in the Copper River Region. The school board is
responsible for operating the school system, including the disposition
of state funds, which cover all of local education costs. The size of
the school district is comparable to the size of the State of West
Virginia, encompassing an area north to Isabelle Pass (in the vicinity
of the Denali and Richardson highway junction), south to Thompson Pass,
west to the east side of Cantwell, and east to Mentasta Lake. Buses
are the principal means of transportation to and from school, covering
a total of 1,300 miles per day.
137
....... w
OJ
School
Big Lake
Butte
Glacier View
Iditarod
Sherrod
Skwentna
Snowshoe
Swanson
Talkeetna
Trappers Creek
School 1
Type Grade
E 1-6
E 1-6
E/J 1-8
E Pre-6
E Pre,
3-6
E/J/S 4-12
E 1-6
E 1,2
E 1-6
E 1-6
TABLE 30
CHARACTERISTICS OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS:
MATANUSKA-SUSITNA SCHOOL DISTRICT
-1980-
Capacity 2 ·Enrollment 1
280 132
500 280
70 55
450 438
450 433
15 11
500 345
350 205
120 47
70 38
Condition/
Plans for Expansion
No plans.
No plans.
Currently consists of port-
ables. Plan to build two
classrooms.
Recently burned down. Plan
to have back in operation by
10/81.
No plans.
No plans.
New facility.
No plans.
No plans.
Presently four portable
facilities. Have submitted
a grant proposal for a multi-
purpose faci 1 i ty.
....... w
1.0
School 1
School Type Grade
Wasilla Elem. E 1
Willow Elem. E 1-6
Palmer J 7-8
Wasilla J 7-8
Palmer s 9-12
Susitna Valley J/S 7-12
Was ill a s 9-12
Matanuska-
Susitan Com-cc N/A
munity College
Capacity 2
125
120
420
600
900
180
1,200
N/A
TABLE 30
(cont.)
Enrollment 1
87
97
287
333
594
130
673
1,177
E = Elementary; J = Junior; S = Senior; CC = Corrmunity College
Condition/
Plans for Expansion
Very old facility with half of
building condemned. Have
plans for a new facility in
1984.
Expansion considered in the
five year building plan.
No plans.
Recently completed addi-
tion to facility.
No plans.
Plans for additions for the
band and Vocational studies.
Recently completed addition
to the facility.
N/A
~ Alaska Department of Education. December 1980. 1980-81. Alaska Education Directory; pp. 36, 37.
Conversation with Mr. Hotchkiss; Business Manager of Mat-Su School District.
E4/Xl
There are a total of seven schools in the area (including the Nabesna
school} as well as a branch of the Prince William Sound Community
College located in Copper Center, and the Alaska Bible School. School
enrollments range from 9 to 312 for a total of less than 600 students.
The characteristics of the various schools and plans for expansion are
summarized in Table 31.
School enrollments during the pipeline construction period were the
highest ever witnessed, and in some instances surpassed the capacities
of the facilities. Enrollments have lowered since the pipeline, but
increases are anticipated in the future and there are several bills
presently before the State legislature concerning the expansion, impro-
vement, and/or addition of facilities in the region. An active capital
improvement program includes the construction of four new instructional
areas and a multipurpose facility in Copper Center; a multipurpose
faci 1 ity in Gakona; and remodeling at Kenny Lake School. In the past
there was a 11 per head .. school tax, however,· it was rescinded in the
last legislative session.
The school facilities play a vital role in these communities which are
sparsely populated and scattered over a large area. They are relied
heavily upon as a place of convergence for community meet·ings, sporting
events, and adult education meetings.
3.6 Economic Base
3.6.1 -State Economic Base
3.6.1.1 -Introduction
This section will present general descriptions of the major components
of the Alaska economy. It is organized by general industry groups.
Industry groups are loosely grouped together into a productive sector
and service/support sector. This approach approximates a
140
Location of School
Copper Center
Gakona
Paxson
Chistochina
Glenallen
Kenny Lake
Copper Center
TABLE 31
CHARACTERISTICS OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS:
School
Type
E
E/J
E/J/S
E/J
E/J/S
E/J/S
cc
COPPER RIVER SCHOOL DISTRICT
·1980-
Grade Capacity Enrollment
1-6 100 40
1-8 60 35
1-12 30 11
1-8 40 9
1-12 345 312
1-12 150 110
E = Elementary; J = Junior High; S = Senior High; CC = Community College
Plans for Expansion
Building four new instructional
areas and multi-purpose facility
for Fall 1981. 100 student
capacity.
Building multi-purpose facility.
No plans.
Bill presently before 1 eg i s 1 a-
ture for construction of a new
building for 1982.
Bill before legislature for
construction of a new senior
high school fn 1985.
Remodel elementary school.
Branch of Prince William Sound
Community College.
Source: Conversation with Dr. Keinke. Superintendent of Copper River School District
basic/non-basic classification which will be utilized in the forecast
and impact analysis sections of the study where use of an economic base
model is contemplated.
The rationale for an economic base model, and distinguishing between
basic and non-basic industries, is the premise that growth in a
region•s economy occurs in response to basic or exogenously determined
demands. The region can be defined at any level where it is feasible
to make the required distinctions. Individual industries can also be
further allocated to basic and non-basic sectors.
When appropriate these characteristics will be mentioned below. Still
the purpose here is to present an overview and not a detailed analysis
of linkages between industries and other dynamic elements of the eco-
nomy such as income or employment multipliers.
Detailed analysis will be performed later through utilization of pre-
vious work on the subject for Alaska, analysis of interconnections of
industries, analyzing exports, employing location quotients, or other
methods.
3.6.1.2 -Mining
3.6.1.2.1 -Oil and Gas
The sector which provides the greatest impetus for the contem-
porary Alaskan economy is the mining sector. Within this sector
the major industry is oil and gas. Table 32 shows the historical
trends of output for various mineral products. Based on prel imi-
nary figures for 1979, crude petroleum and natural gas comprise 97
percent of the total value of mineral production in the state.
This trend is expected to continue as the federal leasing program
progresses through 1985.
142
Year
1959 .......... .
1960 ..•........
1961 .......... .
1962 .......... .
1963 .......... .
1964 .......... .
1965 .......... .
1966 .......... .
1967 .......... .
1968 .......... .
1969 .......... .
1970 .......... .
1971 .......... .
1972 .......... .
1973 .......... .
1974 ..•........
1975 .......... .
1976 .......... .
1977 .......... .
1978 .......... .
1979P ......... .
TABLE 32
VALUE OF ALASKA'S MINERAL PRODUCTS: 1959 · 1979
(thousands of dollars)
Crude
Petroleum8
$ 295
1,230
17,652
31,187
32,650
33,627
34,073
44,083
88,187
196,695
214,464
232,829
234,337
221,747
239,574
347,408
364,626
318,788
988,874
2,701,522
5,493,596
Natural
Gasb
$ 16
30
129
467
1,111
1,719
1,799
6,335
7,268
4,388
12,665
18,164
17,972
17,989
19,482
22,505
42,786
60,455
66,605
. 89,626
91,533
Sand &
Gravel
$ 5,265
5,483
4,185
5,355
22,005
18,488
34,467
21,793
27,683
20,366
18,615
41,092
32,806
15,214
19,913
52,788
25,780
204,738
134,251
145,300
150,000
Gold
$ 6,262
5,887
3,998
5,784
3,485
2,045
1,479
956
910
835
881
1,265
537
506
695
1,461
2,419
2,868
2,812
3,610
w
Other
Mineralsc
$ 8,673
9,230
8,789
11,399
8,589
10,068
11,637
13,133
13,099
9,416
11,018
16,782
14,044
16,293
26,821
14,861
39,514
34,191
33,443
14,752
17,543
Total
$ 20,511
21,860
34,753
54,192
67,840
65,947
83,455
86,300
137,147
221,700
257,643
310,132
299,696
271,749
306,485
439,023
475,125
621.040
1,225,985
2,954,810
5,752,672
a/ Value figures for Prudhoe Bay oil are values at the point where the oil enters the trans-Alaska pipeline. Consequently,
value figures shown above do not include pipeline transportation charges.
b/ All natural gas values shown above include values of both dry and liquid gas, including casing head gas.
c/ Included are values symbolized by a W (withheld).
Source: Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department of the Interior; Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, Office of the
Governor.
From: Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Division of Economic Enter-
prise. June 1980. The Alaska Statistical Review. 1980. Juneau, AK. p. B-3.
The impact of the oil and gas industry pervades all areas of
Alaska's economy. In fiscal year 1980, it was estimated that the
industry would contribute $1,233 million to the state's coffers.
According to the State Department of Revenue, the industry
actually paid approximately $2.5 billion in various taxes to the
state in 1980. This constituted about 86 percent of gross reve-
nues to the state. In 1981, the Department estimates the industry
will provide $3.28 billion (90 percent) in unrestricted revenue.
The advent of this revenue directly led to abolition of the state
income tax in 1980. Table 33 summarizes the trend in petroleum
revenues since 1971. In addition to revenue impacts, the industry
employs substantial numbers of workers and creates employment and
output in virtually all other sectors of the Alaskan economy. Oil
companies plan to spend approximately $15 bill ion on field deve-
lopment in Prudhoe Bay alone in the future to maintain production
at close to 1.5 million barrels per day.
The overwhelming majority of crude oil production is shipped out
of state to Northwest and California refineries. In Alaska, pri-
mary production of oil and gas has spawned several major projects
which are or may serve as support facilities or purchasers/ pro-
cessors of oil and gas products. The Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline is
the largest of this type of project. Constructed between 1974 and
1977, the pipeline employed thousands of workers during its peak
period and cost approximately $12 bi 11 ion. The growth-inducing
impacts from the project were ubiquitous, but especially dramatic
in Fairbanks and Valdez, the terminus of the pipeline. Anchorage
experienced substantial economic growth as well.
Several major projects are currently in the planning ,tages. The
largest of these is the Northwest Alaska Gas Pipeline which would
run from Prudhoe Bay to the midwestern United States. The 1979
estimates set the tag for the Alaskan portion at $6 to $8 billion.
Another project associated with the oil industry is the Alaska Oil
144
Fiscal Year
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980***
1981****
1982****
TABLE 33
GROSS UNRESTRICTED* Am> PETROLEUM REVENUES
(In Millions of Dollars)
Alaska
Fiscal Years 1971-1982**
Gross
Unrestricted
Revenues
$ 220.4
219.2
208.1
255.1
333.3
709.7
874.1
787.4
1,178.5
2,632.0
3, 641.5
4,936.4
$
--Gross Petroleum
% of
Amount ted
46.2
47.1
49.3
79.3
87.6
386.1
472.5
430.3
819.0
2,253.5
3,279.6
4,572.4
Revenues-
Unrest ric-
Revenues
21~~
2U
2' OJ ~'"
31%
26%
54%
54%
55%
69%
86%
90%
93%
* Incoming revenue which has not
(excludes federal grants).
been designated for a specific purpose
** The state's fiscal year runs from July 1 of the preceding year through
June 30 of the year listed.
*** Preliminary.
**** Estimated.
Source: Revenue Sources FY1980-1932, Alaska Department of Revenue;
compiled by the CRC.
From: Fairbanks North Star Borough~ Community Research Cente.r. Winter
1980, Vol. III, No. 4. Community Research Quarterly A Socio-
Economic Review. Fairbanks, AK. p. 31. '
145
Company's oil refinery in Valdez. Originally envisioned as a $1.5
billion petrochemical complex, the project has been pared down to
a refinery only. Construction is scheduled to begin in 1980.
Another project on the boards is a liquified natural gas plant
located on the Kenai Peninsula. The Pacific Alaska Company pre-
dicts the plant would handle up to 430 million cubic feet of gas
per day for shipment to California. A more general project is
being studied by a consortium of major businesses including Dow
Chemical and Shell Oil. The Dow-Shell Group is performing feasi-
bility studies concerning development of a petrochemical industry
in Alaska. Potential sites which are under consideration include:
Fairbanks, Seward, Valdez, the Kenai Peninsula, and Point McKenzie
in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough.
3.6.1.2.2 -Hard Minerals
The history of hard mineral production in Alaska is characterized
by "rushes 11 and "retreats ... Overall, the potential for a growing
mineral extraction industry is bright, based on rising world pri-
ces and the uncertainties and risks inherent in reliance on
foreign supplies. Geologically, Alaska's potential is enormous;
economically, however, constraints exist which will require
substantial investment to overcome.
The primary hard minerals mined in Alaska are gold, sand and gra-
vel, coal, stone, and tin. Also mined are small quantities of
copper, silver, lead, gemstones, molybdenum, and barite. The
value of all non-petroleum minerals in 1979 was roughly $170
million.
This component of the mining industry is different in that most
output is consumed in Alaska. Tab 1 e 32 indicates that the va 1 ue
of sand and gravel production is second only to petroleum. This
146
commodity has been used almost exclusively for local construc-
tion. Similarly coal, until quite recently, was used entirely for
local energy production.
The hard mineral industry is characterized by few large scale
operations and numerous small ones. Mining employment plays an
important role in rural Alaska. Most mining activity in Alaska
occurs in the Yukon region, Cook Inlet/Mat-Su area, and on the
Seward Peninsula, in that order. Based on output, the Yukon
region leads, followed by Kuskokwim, Seward Peninsula, and then
Cook Inlet/Mat-Su area.
The mining industry in Alaska is constrained by several major fac-
tors. Access to areas of mineral potential are restricted by
ownership and/or land status. Access and development is also dif-
ficult due to lack of surface transportation routes. Each of
these factors as well as Alaska•s climate, topography, and loca-
tion relative to other markets contribute to the high cost of
mineral exploration and extraction. In addition environmental
regulations add to the costs associ a ted with de vel oping mineral
resources.
In general, with the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation
Act, which resolved the status of the D-2 1 ands, and continued
high prices for various minerals, Alaska will likely experience a
boom of sorts in the near future. Alaska •s extensive coal depo-
sits may encourage development of an export industry at some
point. Currently, there is only one operating coal mine which is
near Healy and supplies coal for the generation of heat and
electricity for the Fairbanks area. Supplies recoyerable with
current coal technology, are estimated to exceed 100 billion tons.
Substantial deposits are also located in the Beluga coal fields
near Cook Inlet.
147
3.6.1.3 -Construction
Apart from the seafood industry, the construction industry is the most
seasonal industry in Alaska. As elsewhere it is also a highly cyclical
industry depending upon general economic conditions. More importantly,
the industry in Alaska is extremely dependent upon impetus in the form
of major projects, usually related to natural resource and energy deve-
1 opments.
Construction is both a basic and non-basic industry in that it is
determined in part by demand generated externally and in part by inter-
nally generated demand. Table 34 presents the trends in construction
activity during the 1974 -1979 period for the major urban areas. The
impact of the Trans-Alaska pipeline is apparent in both residential and
non-residential categories. Dramatic increases occurred in Anchorage
and Fairbanks beginning in 1975. However, in both Anchorage and
Fairbanks 1979 permit valuation is actually lnwer than in 1974. These
figures accurately reflect the boom/bust cycle created by the pipeline
construction.
The construction industry appears on the verge of rebound. Numerous
public projects are being spawned by the wealth accruing to the state
government. These projects include highway, airport, harbor, school,
public works, and cultural facilities throughout the state. Coupled
with planned major private sector projects, primarily relating to oil
and gas, a new wave of construction activity appears likely.
3.6.1.4 -Manufacturing
The manufacturing industry in Alaska consists of two major components;
food processing (mainly seafood) and forest products. These two com-
ponents accounted for 72 percent of average manufacturing employment in
1979. Each of these are discussed below, although seafood processing
is subsumed under the general category 11 Fishing 11
•
148
TABLE 34
VALUATION OF RESIDENTIAL, NONRESIDENTIAL AND TOTAL BUILDING
INCLUDED IN BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED IN SELECTED
AREAS OF ALASKA: 1974 · 1979
(in thousands of dollars)
Annual
1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979
Anchorage:
Residential ......... $ 88,171.3 $125,022.5 $101,094.0 $156,852.5 $145,691.5 $ 73,565.8
Nonresidential ...... 72,467.3 117,744.5 117,269.7 204,299.6 69,435.7 45,190.6
---·--------
Total. .......... $160,638.6 $242,767.0 $218,363.7 $361,152.1 $215,127.3 $118,756.4
Fairbanks:
Residential ......... $ 20,515.0 $ 44,043.4 $ 44,624.8 $ 52,279.9 $ 33,139.7 $ 22,800.1
Nonresidential ...... 26,293.8 93,734.0 94,336.7 31,379.4 17,448.2 17,356.7
...... --------· -------------
..j::> Total. .......... $ 46,808.8 $137,777.4 $138,961.5 $ 83,659.3 $50,587.9 $ 40,156.8
"' Juneau:
Residential ......•.. $ 4,330.3 $ 7,468.4 $ 15,311.9 $ 22,293.1 $ 18,066.3 $ 17,774.4
Nonresidential ...... 10,818.3 3,469.9 7,834.2 8,261.2 13,019.4 15,622.3
----------------------------------------
Total •.......... $ 15,148.6 $ 10,938.3 $ 23,146.1 $ 30,554.3 $ 31,085.7 $ 33,396.7
Total All Areas:
Residential ......... $113,016.6 $176,534.3 $161,030.7 $231,425.5 $196,897.5 $114,140.3
Nonresidential ...... 109,579.4 214,948.4 219,440.6 243,940.2 99,903.3 78,169.6
-·----~ -----~----------------------
Total. , .•....... $222,596.0 $391,482.7 $380,471.3 $475,365.7 $296,800.9 $192,309.9
Source: City and Borough Building Officials.
From: Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Division of Economic Enterprise.
June 1980. The Alaska Statistical Review. 1980. Juneau, AK. p. G-1.
3.6.1.4.1 -Seafood Processing
Since the passage of the Fishing Conservation and Management Act
of 1976 commonly referred to as the 11 200-mile limit .. , the Alaskan
fishing industry has been in a state of flux. Fortunately, the
overall impact from the law has been quite favorable to the
industry. The trend in terms of both volume and value of the
catch has been steadily increasing. Tables 35 and 36 show this
trend for both domestic and foreign fisheries. Underlying these
figures is a transferring of catch in high valued species such as
salmon and crab from the foreign to the domestic fleet. The
fishing effort of the foreign fleet has adjusted to this by
targeting other species such as groundfish. Regardless of who
catches the product, practically all of it is exported out of the
state, principally to Japan.
The domestic industry is characterized ty numerous private par-
ticipants in the harvesting sector and relatively fewer processing
companies with large domestic and foreign corporate involvement.
Different species are concentrated upon in different regions of
Alaska. The processing industry employs close to 15,000 during
the height of the season in July. Average monthly employment was
about 7,000 during 1979.
Opportunities for growth in the industry exist in fisheries for
groundfish and other underutilized species. It has been estimated
that only eight percent of the total allowable domestic catch is
being utilized. However, major economic problems impede develop-
ment, including transportation costs, high input costs, and low
margins.
150
.....
c.n ......
TABLE 35
DOMESTIC FISHERIES OF ALASKA
Catch Landed in Alaska, Payments to Fishermen, and Wholesale (Processed) Value
SALMON
OTHER FIN FISH
SHELLFISH
GRAND TOTALS
Catch (000 000 lbs) •.•......
Payments to Fishermen
($000 000) ............ .
Wholesale Value
($000 000) ............ .
Catch (000 000 lbs) ........ .
Payments to Fishermen
{$000 000) ............ .
Wholesale Value
($000 000) ............ .
Catch (000 000 lbs) ........ .
Payments to Fishermen
($000 000) ............ .
Wholesale Value
($000 000) ............ .
Catch 1000 000 lbs). ....... .
Payments to Fishermen
($000 000) ............ .
Wholesale Value
($000 000) ............ .
WHOLESALE VALUE INDEX
(Dollar Value in 1974"' 1.00) ............... .
REAL VALUE INDEX (Wholesale Dollar Value
Adjusted by Changes in U.S. Consumer
Price Index: 1974 = 1.00) ................. .
P Preliminary.
1974
132
66
137
60
16
22
272
66
95
464
148
254
1.00
1.00
1975
140
56
134
58
19
27
247
55
132
445
130
293
1.15
1.06
1976
246
118
245
54
24
29
317
97
179
617
240
452
1.78
1.54
1917
307
171
380p
45
21
27p
312
157
316p
664
349
723p
2.85
2.32
1978
408p
238p
528p
64p
33p
43p
334p
272p
547p
so6P
543p
1,118p
4.40
3.33
SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, National Marine Fisheries Service, and Alaska Department of Commerce
and Economic Development.
1979
459p
317p
704p
89p
58p
75p
341p
231p
464p
889p
606P
1,243p
4.89
3.32
FroM: .\lu.ska · ~rartmcnt of Commerce and Economic Dcvclorr.1cnt, Division of Economic [nt~r!lrise.
June 19~0. The Alaska Statistical R0vi~w. 198~. Juneau, AK. p. B-1 6 .
......
Ul
N
TABLE 36
CATCH & VALUE FROM ALASKA'S DOMESTIC & FOREIGN FISHERIES
1977 1978 1979
CATCH LANDED IN ALASKA
(DOMESTIC FISHERIES CATCH)1
soaP BB9p Catch (000 000 lbs) ..................... 664
Ex Vessel Values ($000 000) ............... 349p 543p 606p
Wholesale Values ($000 000) ............... 723 1,118p 1,243p
FOREIGN CATCH FROM ALASKA Fcz2
p Catch (000 000 lbs) ...•................. 3,033 3,457 3,177p
Ex Vessel Values ($000 0()())3 .............. 17Bp 352 330
Wholesale Values ($000 000)4 .............. 979 1,936p 1,815p
All FISHERIES COMBINED p p Catch (000 000 lbs) ..................... 3,697 4,263p 4,066p
Ex Vessel Values ($000 000) ............... 527 895 936
Wholesale Values ($000 000) ............... 1,702p 3,054p 3,058p
P Preliminary.
1/ The domestic catch (fish caught by U.S. citizens) very nearly coincides with amounts landed and processed in Alaska.
2/ FCZ = U.S. Fishery Conservation Zone (Area between 3 and 200 miles from shore).
3/ Ex Vessel values indicated for foreign catch are pounds of fish, per specie, multiplied by prices paid to fishermen in U.S.
ports.
4/ Wholesale values for foreign catch are estimates of what the values would have been if these fish had been landed by U.S.
fishermen.
SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, National Marine Fisheries Service, and Alaska Department of Commerce
and Economic Development.
From: Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Division of Economic
Enterprise. June 1980. The Alaska Statistical Review. 1980. Juneau, AK p. B-16.
3.6.1.4.2 -Forest Products
The Alaskan forest products industry centers around the resources
of two national forests, the Chugach in Southcentral Alaska and
the Tongass in Southeastern Alaska. These two forests are the
largest in the United States and account for roughly 93 percent of
the annual Alaskan timber harvest. Table 37 presents the histori-
cal timber harvest from public lands by ownership. From the table
it can be seen that the Tongass National Forest accounts for about
90 percent of the Alaskan timber harvest. The industry is con-
centrated in the Southeast, and the principal products of the
industry are pulp, cant lumber (cut on at least two sides), and
round logs. Over 50 percent of Alaska • s forest products are
exported to foreign countries, principally Japan. Most of the
remainder is shipped to the Lower-48.
The transfer of lands to native corpDrations is expected to
increase the availability of timber resources, especially round
logs. In general, the industry is quite cyclical depending upon
housing construction patterns in the United States and abroad.
3.6.1.5 -Agriculture
Agriculture represents an emerging industry in Alaska. The USDA•s Soil
Conservation Service identified approximately 19 million acres of
tillable land climatologically suitable for growing crops. Of this
area, only 20,000 acres are currently cultivated.
The Matanuska-Susitna area is the major agricultural region in the
state both in terms of value of production and acres under cultivation.
Figure 15 and Table 38 list the value of production by area for the
years 1977-1979. Based on these figures the Matanuska Valley accounts
for 69 percent of Alaska crop production, 76 percent of livestock and
poultry production, and 72 percent of combined total agriculture pro-
duction.
153
TABLE 37
Alaska Timber Harvest (in thousand board feet, Scribner scale) on Public Lands,
By Ownership, 1959·1979
Bureau of Land Management National Forest
Bureau of
Year State Indian Affairs Free Use Cut Total Tongass Chugach Total Total
1959 0 0 2,499 8,666 11,165 266,591 7,596 274,187 285,352
1960 210 0 1,588 14,289 15,877 347,496 3,613 351,109 367,196
..... 1961 1,987 0 4,683 11,342 16,025 338,206 7,117 345,323 363,335
(J1 1962 6,872 0 8,049 5,936 13,985 366,275 7,157 373,432 394,289
~ 1963 10,633 0 7,535 3,620 11,155 395,143 3,847 398,990 420,778
1964 18.144 0 5,524 5,666 11,190 443,736 1,373 445,109 474,443
1965 24,161 2,990 5,045 3,263 8,308 397,610 6,888 404,498 439,957
1966 31,220 1,650 5,349 848 6,197 474,277 1,217 475,494 514,561
1967 45,816 9,067 2,587 572 3,159 474,337 2,479 476,816 534,858
1968 47,974 8,192 612 491 1,103 529,496 3,807 533,303 590,572
1969 49,018 8,684 79 280 359 519,344 3,997 523,341 581,402
1970 53,568 12,855 81 493 574 560,081 895 560,976 627,973
1971 43,190 1,870 113 346 459 527,740 1,680 529,420 574,939
1972 50,591 5,070 17 28 45 547,500 3,021 550,521 606,227
1973 35,356 28,795 11 145 156 588,491 3,109 591,600 655,907
1974 51,241 12,083 39 114 153 544,025 5,608 549,633 613,110
1975 33,540 52 50 930 980 408,371 4,683 413,054 447,626
1976 41,714 1,011 844 295 1,139 462,776 9,402 472,178 516,042
1977 60,251 7,835 325 29 354 NA NA 455,700 524,140
1978 30,301 1,799 1,862 149 2,011 398,701 9,873 408,574 442,685
1979 32,381 480 159 121 280 NA NA 459,507 492,648
Source: Respective agencies. For the Bureau of Land Management, the 1979 figures are for the fiscal year ended September 30.
For the Bureau of Indian Affairs, figures for 1977, 1978, and 1979 are for the fiscal years ended September 30. Other figures
are for the calendar years.
From: Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Division of Economic Enterprise.
June 1980. The Alaska Statistical Review. 1980. Juneau, AI<. p.B-8.
FIGURE 15 -TABLE 38
DOLLAR VALUE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION
By Agricultural Area
Matanuska
Valley
71%
% of Total Crops
1979
Tanana Valley
Crops
Livestock & Poultry
% of State Total
Matanuska Vallez
Crops
Livestock & Poultry
% of State Total
Kenai Peninsula
Crops
Livestock & Poultry
% of State Total
Southeao;t
Crops
Livestock & Poultry
7. of State Total
Southwest
Crops
Livestock & Poultry
7. of State Total
State Total
Crvps
Livestock & Poultry
% of State Total
* Less than one half of
Alaska
1977-1979
1977
~1,602,300
1,109,500
492,800
16%
$7,303,900
3,883,500
3,420,400
757.
$ 6~1.200
499,000
102,200
67.
$ 12,200
0
12,200
*
$ 269,400
14,000
255,400
3%
$9,789,000
5, 506,000
4,283,000
100%
1%.
Matanuska
80%
i. of Total Livestock
1979
1978 1979
$1,871,900 $1,724,500
1,404,500 1,269,000
467,400 455,500
20% 19%
$6,570,000 $6,541,900
3,433,500 3,491,000
3,136,500 3,050,900
71% 727.
$ 492,900 $ 466,600
377,000 386,000
115,900 180,600
6% 5%
$ 16,500 $ 21,600
0 0
16,500 21,600
* *
$ 297,700 $ 314,400
14,000 22,000
283,700 292,400
3% 4%
$9,249,000 $9,069,000
5,229,000 5,068,000
4,020,000 4,001,000
100% 100%
Peninsula
2%
Source: Compiled by the Community Information Center from Alaska Agricultural
Statistics, Alaska Crop and Livestock Reporting Service.
From: Fairbanks North Star Borough, Community Research Center. Winter 1980,
Vol. III, No.4. Community Research Quarterly, A Socioeconomic Review.
Fairbanks, AK. p. 45.
155
The Tanana Valley, or Big Delta region, is the second most important
area. It accounts for 25 percent of the state • s crop production, 11
percent of its livestock and poulty production, and 19 percent of all
agricultural production.
Based on the 1978 U.S. Census of Agriculture, there were 383 farms in
the state of which 184 were in the Anchorage/Mat-Su area, 75 in the
Kenai/Cook Inlet region, 90 in the Fairbanks/Tanana region, 24 in the
Aleutian Islands, and 10 in the Angoon/Juneau region.
Figure 16 and Table 39 list the number of acres cultivated by crop and
area. The Matanuska Valley accounts for 54.3 percent of all cropland
in Alaska. The Tanana Valley constitutes 37.5 percent of such land.·
Except for barley and rapeseed, the Matanuska Valley produces more of
every crop. It also produces more milk, eggs, pork, and beef. (See
Table 40). The 1978 Census of Agriculture reported over 95 percent of
the state • s dairy products were sold in the Anchorage/Mat-Su area and
that 82 percent of the state's milk cows were located in this area.
Alaska's agriculture industry may have great potential but it faces
several hurdles before the potential can be realized. Alaska imports
most of its food. Even with the high costs of transporting food from
the Lower-48, most imported products can still be sold for less than
Alaskan products. The reasons for this can be attributed to high input
costs (labor, capital, and supplies) and the inability to realize eco-
nomies of scale due to the relative size of the Alaskan market.
3.6.1.6 -Tourism
Tourism is not an industry in itself, but is usually d.escribed and
analyzed in terms of those sectors affected by travel expen-
ditures. Tourism mainly affects the support and service sectors
of the economy, although the resources upon which it is based are
primarily the natural resources of Alaska. In some ways, tourism
156
FIGURE 16 -TABLE 39
CROPLAND UTILIZATION
By Agricultural Area
Alaska
. 1979
~..:;o.-.::::::::;:==:=::;;.sout hwes t
Valley 1%
54%
Feed Crops
64%
1. of State's Planted Area Tanana Valley Planted Area
Source:
From:
Planted Area (in acres)
Commercial Vegetables
Potatoes
Lettuce
Cabbage
Carrots
Other Vegetables
Feed Crops
All Oats
All Barley
Grain Mixtures
Grassland Harvested
Grass
% of Total Planted Area
Harvested Area (in acres)
Commercial Vegetables
Potatoes
Lettuce
Cabbage
Carrots
Other Vegetables
Feed Crops
Oats
Barley
Grain Mixtures
Grass
% of Total Harvested Area
.Tanana Matanuska Kenai
Vallev Valley Peninsula Southwest
7! 671
171
120
17
8
6
20
4,900
400
4,400
ioo
2,600
2,600
38%
152
110
13
7
5
17
7,230
350
4,180
100
2,600
11,091
541
340
93
25
22
61
2,950
500
2,050
400
7,600
7,600
54%
10,928
508
330
77
23
20
58
10,420
~
. 1, 970
400
7,600
55%
20
20
0
0
0
0
350
300
50
0
1,100
1,100
7%
20
20
0
0
0
0
1,450
300
50
0
1,100
n.:
200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
200
200
200
0
0
0
0
0
0
200
0
0
0
200
State
!£!.!.!_
20,432
732
480
110
33
28
81
8,200
1,200
6,500
500
11,500
11,500
100%
19,980
680
460
90
30
25
75
19,300
1,100
6,200
500
11,500
Compiled by the Community Information Center from Alaska Agricultural
Statistics, Alaska Crop and Livestock Reporting Service.
Fairbanks North Star Borough, Community Research Center. Winter 1980,
Vol. III, No. 4. Community Res&arch Quarterly, A Socioeconoic Review.
Fairbanks, AK. p. 46. 157
TABLE 40
LIVESTOCK ON FARMS
By Agricultural Area
Alaska
1979-1980
!anana
Valley
Matanuska
Valley
Kenai
Peninsula
~ (January 1, 1980) 370 2,330 560 Steers 36 60 To Bulls 20 so 40 Calves 50 S70 180 Beef Cow& that. have Calved 150 100 200
Milk Cows that have Calved 40 1,020 30
Beef Replacement Heifers 50 60 80 Dairy Replacement Heifers 20 470 10
% of State T-otal 47. 287. n
Hogs (December 1, 1979) 570 430 30 % of State Total 52% 397. TI
Southwest
5,140
290
1,190
1,100
1,950
10
500
0
on
10
u
State
Total
8,400
400
1,300
1,900
2,400
1,100
BOO
500
100;;
1,100*
1007.*
Chickens (December 1, 1979) 900 23,200 400 100 25,000** % of State Total 37. v. 937. ......... .. ... .... Total includes 60 hogs (5% of state total) raised in the Southeast •
Total includes 400 chickens {2% of state total} raised in the Southeast .
Less than one half of 17..
1007.**
Source: Compiled by the Community Information Center from Alaska Agricultural
Statistics, Alaska Crop and Livestock Reporting Service.
From: Fairbanks North Star Borough, Cornuni ty Research Center. L~inter 1980.
Vol. III, No.4. Community Research Quarterly, A Socioeconomic Review.
Fairbanks, AK. p. 44.
158
represents a 11 basic component.. of the Alaskan economy in that
there is externally generated demand for Alaskan products and ser-
vices.
The most recent detailed studies of the Alaska visitor industry
were performed during the 1975 -1977 period. The following
information is extracted from these reports which were prepared
for the Division of Economic Enterprise of the Alaska Department
of Commerce and Economic Development.
During the winter and summer (1976 -1977) 505,189 individuals
were projected to have visited Alaska. Table 41 summarizes the
reasons given for visiting Alaska and estimated expenditures for
the winter, summer, and combined periods. Not surprisingly, the
table illustrates the seasonal nature of visitor trips to Alaska,
especially regarding pleasure trips. On the other hand, it is
interesting . to note that fewer business· trips are made in the
summer than in the winter, the reasons for which are unclear.
Visitor expenditures by type are presented in Table 42 on a per
capita basis and as a percentage of all visitor expenditures.
Cities and areas visited are presented in Table 43. Anchorage by
far, receives more visitors than any other city in Alaska. This
points to the fact that Anchorage is the business center of Alaska
as well as the 11 gateway 11 to the state. Table 44 presents infor-
mation concerning visitor-related firms' sales. The table shows
the substantial contribution made to the Alaskan economy by the
visitor-related industry. The numbers presented are for 1975 and
therefore are probably somewhat low.
Tourism is a growth 11 industry 11 in Alaska. However, the importance
of the tourism industry to the Alaskan economy is probably less
now than before due to dramatic growth in other sectors.
Nonetheless, tourism is an important component of the economy of
various areas.
159
.....
0\
0
TABLE 41
Winter 1976-1977 -~---Gyrnm•~<J77 ___ Combined Winter; Summer
Purpose of Total Number Per Capita Total Dollar Toted Nurnh"r l'•'r ,·apita Tot a I Doll ilr Total ~.;urrdH~r P·~r ( · apit•l Totul ))r)llilr
TriQ of Visitors ExQenditurc Projections _Qf~!i_~,_I!f!L'i_ . L?U:J c n! l_i_tu w _!i()[CCti,1n:; _ _Ql_'{!2!!ors £xpe ndi ture _f_rr)jeq_Ems
(000) (llOO) (Or) I))
Pleasure only 56,579 s 432, 24,442. I ?21,476 :~ ?fif), 16ll, 321. R 278,055 s 69 3. Sl!J2,7fi3,'J
Mostly pleasure/
some business 10,082 5 I 3, 5,172.1 16,049 74 I. I I , fl'J 2. 3 26, 131 653. 17, Oli·1, ·1
Half pleasure/half
business 11,925 583. 6,952.3 16,049 67 :,, lU,H33, I 27,974 630, 17,7H'l,4
Mostly business/some
pleasure 30,894 1004. 3t,rll7.6 25,67H 938. 24,0RG,O 56,572 974. 55,1()3,6
Business only 74,548 792. 59,042.0 41 • 72 7 7F,4, 3l,H79.4 116,275 782. 90,921.4
Source: State of Alaska, Division of Economic Enterprise, Department of Commerce and Economic Development. Visitor Census & Expenditure Survey, Summer 1977. March 1978; p. 12.
TABLE 42
VISITOR EXPENDITURES
Winter Total Summer Total
Share Of Share Of
Per Capita All Visitors Per Capita All Visitors
Expenditures Expenditures Expend! ture s Expenditures
...§_ ~ 2_ %
Transeortation to and
from Alaska 331. ll 177. li
Air 299. 45 131. 22
Ship 9. 1 25. 4
Automobile 22. 3 lB. 3
Bus 1. * 1. *
Railroad 2. *
Organized tours B. 1 266. 45
Food/meals 70. 10 35. 6
Lodging 83. 13 27. 5
Retail purchases 53. 8 27. 5
Entertainment/recreation 49. 7 lB. 3
Auto expense (within the
State) 35. 5 14. 2
Other transportation (within
the State) 15. 2 13. 2
Miscellaneous/ other 20. 3 12. 2
TOTALS $664. 100% $589. 100%
*Less than o. 5%
Source: State of Alaska, Division of Economic Enterprise, Department of
Commerce and Economic Development. Visitor Census & Expenditure
Survey, Summer 1977. March 1978; p. 43.
161
TABLE 43
CITIESLAREAS VISITED
Winter Summer
Total* Total June l!ili::. August Sept.
% % % % ~ % --Anchorage 76 68 65 67 66 76 Fairbanks 23 41 41 51 39 34 Juneau 15 38 46 36 .39 27 Ketchikan 10 29 41 22 29 24 Kenai 8 12 11 14 13 11
Sitka 7 21 25 23 23 9 Soldotna 6 9 9 9 9 8 Mt. McKinley Nat'l. Park 6 34 36 41 34 26
Haines 4 9 -13 5 12 6 Valdez 4 6 6 6 6 7
Kodiak 4 2 2 2 3 3 Homer /Seldovia 3 5 5 6 5 5 Prudhoe Bay 3 2 1 2 2 3 Nome 3 8 9 9 8 8 Skagway 2 33 43 33 30 26
Glacier Bay 2 25 29 27 23 20 Kotzebue 2 9 9 9 9 8 Seward 2 4 4 5 4 4 Barrow 2 3 3 4 3 2
* Columns refer to percentage of total visitors in the time period who
visited that city. Figures include multiple city visits.
Source: State of Alaska, Division of Economic Enteprise, D~partment of
Commerce and Economic Development. Visitor Census· & Expenditure
Survey, Summer 1977. Harch 1978, p. 19.
162
TABLE 44
TOTAL SALES OF VISITOR INDUSTRY FIRMS IN ALASKA
AND TOTAL SALLES TO VISITORS
Hotels, motels and
lodges
Gift, souvenir and
jewelry shops
Travel agencies
Air taxis and air'
charters
Bus Co. (tour and
airport)
Railroads
Tour wholesalers and
operators
Restaurants
Guides
Car rentals
Hunting and fishing
camps
Boat charters
Airlines
Cruise ships
General stores
Marine Highway System
Department of Fish
& Game*
Other
TOTALS
* To non-residents
for the year 1975
Total
Sales
$ 92,233,498
128,377,694
24,298,150
39,169,272
3,800,656
48,055,908
505,509
39,178,071
2,489,825
5,223,382
666,550
975,430
187,677,308
169,060
14,666,640
15,164,782
1,682,711
5,450,604
$609,785,050
Sales to
Visitors
$ 54,606,135
2,626,480
963,250
8,438,536
3,545,339
1,561,596
505,509
10,953,684
2,405,490
3,760,835
595,850
864,290
38,173,643
169,060
1,395,147
7,885,687
1,682,711
431,454
$140,564,696
% Sales to
Visitors
59.2%
2.0
4.0
21.5
93-3
3.2
100.0
28.0
96.6
82.0
89.4
88.6
20.3
100.0
9.5
52.0
100.0
7-9
23.1%
Source: State of Alaska, Division of Economic Enterprise, Department of
Commerce and Economic Development. Impact of Visitor Expenditures
upon Alaska's Economy, For the Year 1975. February 1978; p. 23.
163
3.6.1.7 -Service and Support Components
This sector of the Alaskan economy has experienced substantial growth
and diversification in the past decade. The growth in this sector is
in part attributable to the demand created by expansion of the basic
sector of the economy, and in part by the maturation process of the
Alaskan economy in general. The growth in the non-basic sector
paral1els the general trend of the nation, yet reflects as well the
fact that Alaska has passed the threshold level of economic activity at
which substantial demand for goods and services is generated locally or
internally.
Table 45 shows employment growth rates for selected industries over
various periods. The total support group has consistently grown faster
than that of the total economy. Dramatic growth has occurred in many.
of the more service oriented categories, i.e., finance, insurance, real
estate, and services. Growth in wholesale trade reflects the demand
for goods and services generated from other sector activity which is
being met by local Alaskan firms.
The figures shown in Table 45 tend to mask the effects of the post-
pipeline economic slowdown. Recent employment figures however, indi-
cate some contractions in many categories occurred. This trend is
apparent upon visual inspection of many of the communities in the
railbelt area, especially in the Anchorage Mat-Su and Fairbanks areas.
Numerous vacant stores and half completed developments are scattered
throughout these areas.
The dip in economic activity after the pipeline boom is an expected
occurence. More surprising is the apparent resilience of .certain sec-
tors or industries. The slowdown as recorded by employment figures did
not occur until several years after the pipeline construction period
ended. Reasons for this are indeterminate and may be related to econo-
mic behavior or perhaps measurement techniques. Nonetheless the
overall trend is for continued expansion of the non-basic sector.
164
TABLE 4o
EMPLOYMENT GROWTH
ANNUAL AVERAGE RATES
SELECTED ALASKA INDUSTRIES
(Percent)
1960 1964 1969 1973
to to to to
1963 1969 1973 1978
Wholesale Trade 3.6 11.4 3.9 11.7
Retail Trade 3.6 9. 1 7.8 8.6
Services 4.4 8.8 g., 7 12.5
Transportation -3.6 6.9 1.7 9.3
Communications 11.3 -0.7 11.0 7. 1
Public Utilities 12.0 5.6 14.7 5.0
Finance Ins., Real Estate 8.1 6. 1 12.4 14.2
Total Support 3.3 7.9 7.6 11.0
Total Nonagricultural 1.1 5.8 6. 1 8.0
Note: Prior to 1964, only jobs covered by unemployment insurance were
included in the reported data. Thus, the pre-1964 period is not
strictly comparable with the period beginning in 1964.
Source: Compiled from data in 11 Statistical Quarterly,11 (Alaska Department
of Labor).
From State of Alaska, Division of Economic Enterprise, Department of
Commerce and Economic Development. The Performance Report of the Alaska
Economy in 1979. Vol. Eight. p. 25.
165
Another emerging characteristic of these sectors is seasonal variation.
The trend is discernible comparing the ratio of first quarter
employment to third quarter employment. Table 46 presents this series.
Only the services and public utilities sections did not show decreasing
seasonality.
Brief discussions of most service and support industries are presented
below. These categories are also treated in Subsection 3.7.
3.6.1.7.1 -Wholesale Trade
According to the 1977 Industry Census, there were 649 firms
engaged in wholesale trade in Alaska with sales of $1.563 billion.
The largest component of sales was petroleum and related products
constituting $532 million or 34.1 percent of total wholesale
sales. Groceries and related products accounted for $270 mill ion
or 17.3% of the total. Machinery equipm~nt and supplies accounted
for $262 million or 16.8 percent of the total.
Wholesale trade could be considered non-basic now because with
recent rapid population growth, especially in the Anchorage area,
and the expansion of the oil and gas industry, it has become cost-
effective for local, as opposed to Seattle-based wholesalers, to
serve the growing local retail trade.
3.6.1.7.2 -Retail Trade
According to the 1977 Industry Census, there were 3, 781 retai 1
establishments in Alaska with sales of $1.831 billion. Grocery
stores accounted for the largest share of sales, $410 or 22.4 per-
cent. Eating and drinking establishments accounted for $254
million or 13.9 percent of total retail sales. Automotive dealers
accounted for $241 mill ion or 13.2 percent of the total, and
general merchandise stores had $227 million or 12.4 percent.
166
TABLE 46
STATE OF ALASKA INDEX OF EMPLOYMENT SEASONALITY,
SELECTED INDUSTRIES*
1960 1970
Trade .826 .869
Services .770 .937
Transportation .784 .854
Communications .876 .899
Public Utilities .835 .885
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate .888 .793
Total Support .810 .881
1978
.899
.874
.871
.939
.847
1.012
.898
* Ratio of-January, February and March nonagricultural employment
to July, August and September nonagricultural employment.
Source: Compiled from data published by the Alaska Department of
Labor in the "Statistical Quarterly."
From State of Alaska, Division of Economic Enterprise, Department of
Commerce and Economic Development. The Performance Report of the
Alaska Economy in 1979. Vol. Eight. p.26.
167
Retail trade has grown as a function of other local changes which
reflect expansion of demand in the state. Economies of scale
resulting from a larger market apparently have assisted develop-
ment of retail outlets.
3.6.1.7.3 -Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate
Recent trends and activity in this sector of the economy in Alaska
are comparable to what has occurred in the U.S. in general. High,
widely fluctuating interest rates and restricted credit have
created an air of uncertainty and business caution. Consequen-
tially, lending activity has slacked off. This impact is pre-
sented in Table 47 which shows combined indicators for financial
institutions. A noteworthy distinction between Alaska and most of
the U.S. in general is that the state can offset the restrictive
policies of the Federal Reserve Board by depositing large funds in
state financial institutions. Thus the outlook and financial cli-
mate may be more favorable in Alaska than elsewhere.
Real estate activity in Alaska has ridden a seesaw over the past
decade corresponding to the boom/bust cycle of the pipeline pro-
ject. In addition recent record high interest rates have limited
existing activity. Excess capacity, mainly in retail space and
housing stocks left over from the pipeline period is slowly being
filled. This has been the case in Anchorage and Fairbanks espe-
cially. Certain communities have fared better than the state in
general. Demand for commercial office, industrial, and warehouse
space fared better, than non-commercial real estate but has been
relatively flat since the pipeline period.
Table 48 shows housing permits issued in various cities. The
table shows a slowdown beginning in 1978. It also shows clearly
the fact that Anchorage accounts for roughly ha 1f of all home
construction activity.
168
TABLE 47
COMBINED INDICATORS FOR BANKING,
SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATIONS,
FEDERAL CREDIT UNIONS, AND
SMALL LOAN LICENSEE ACTIVITY: 1976-1979
(in millions of dollars)
End Total Combined Combined
of Number of Value of Total
Year Institutions All Loans Assets
1976 65 $ 1,455 $ 2,357
1977 64 1.784 2,674
1978 60 1,935 2,912
1979 60 1,833 3,013
Source: Divisioi of Banking, Securities, Small Loans and
Corporations, and the Division of Economic Enterprise,
Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development.
From State of Alaska, Department of Commerce and Economic
Development, Division of Economic Enterprise. Alaska Statistical
Review and General Information. June 1980~ p. L-1.
169
Year
1970
1971
1972
....... 1973 .......
0
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
Source:
From:
TABLE 48
TOTAL NUMBER OF FAMILY DWELLING UNITS INCLUDED IN BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED
IN SELECTED URBAN AREAS OF ALASKA, 1970 -1979
Anchorage Fairbanks Homer Kenai Palmer Seldovia Seward Soldotna Valdez Total
3,000 444 6 17 19 1 8 11 3,507
3,050 348 12 23 15 3 8 4 0 3,463
2,951 439 11 22 9 1 39 16 6 3,494
2,086 446 17 13 2 8 1 11 6 2,590
2,822 594 35 25 7 7 4 37 161 3,692
4,010 1 ,051 13 100 8 5 3 87 85 5,362
3,938 998 60 161 72 13 11 138 39 5,430
4,877 1 ,561 117 267 75 8 39 177 33 7 t 154
3,289 806 92 160 125 9 36 69 14 4,600
1,469 431 130 47 68 22 50 40 29 2,286
City and Borough building officials, and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Division of Economic Enterprise. June 1980.
The Alaska Statistical Review. 1980. Juneau, AK. pp. G-2, G-3.
Activity in the insurance industry usually follows the general
trend set by other sectors. Table 49 shows the value of total
insurance premiums written from 1959-1979. Since 1966, the total
value has steadily increased. This reflects the general economic
growth occurring in Alaska over the time period, and also the
effects of inflation on the industry. Adjusted for increases due
to inflation the total would show a downward trend from 1977-1979.
3.6.1.7.4 -Services
The services industry has experienced significant growth over the
past decade as measured by employment figures, (See Subsection
3. 7). As is the case for the United States, the service industry
is characterized by numerous small establishments. This category
includes such professional services as doctors, lawyers, accoun-
tants, and economists. Due to the expanding economy this group is
experiencing substantial growth. The-industry serves almost
exclusively locally generated demand.
3.6.1.8-Government
The role of the public sector has been an important one throughout
A 1 ask a • s hi story. The trend over the past decade has been one of a
declining share for government bodies in terms of total wages paid
especially during the pipeline period. This has been the result of
significant expansion in the private sectors of the economy.
Nonetheless, government in Alaska accounted for 41 percent of all jobs,
and the Federal government including military personnel remains the
single largest employer in the state. Table 50 presents data for total
wages paid for the government sectors and shows governmen~ wages as a
percentage of total wages paid in the state. The most striking trend
is the growth in the state and local component. Also noteworthy is the
relatively small increase in military wages. This is due to the fact
that military employment has consistently decreased over the past
171
TABLE 49
ALASKA INSURANCE BUSINESS
Total Insurance Premiums Written: 1959-1979
(in millions of dollars)
Year
1959 .....•.......••.••........•
1960 ..•....••••....•..•.•.•....
1961 .••..••.•.....••.......•.•.
1962 ..•..••.•.•••••.•......•..•
1963 .......................... ..
1964 .....••.....•••...........•
1965 ..•........................
1966 ..•.........•..............
1967 .....•...........•.........
1968 ..•..•.•...................
1969 .......................... .
1970 ..•.•.•...•...•.•.... ~ .... .
1971 ......•......•.............
1972 ..•.•..•.•....•............
1973 ..........•..•.............
1974 ......•...••..•............
1975 ..•.•••....•.••............
1976 .....•.•.....•.............
1977 ...• ~ ..................... .
1978 .•.....••..•.•...••...•....
1979 ...•.........•........•....
Total
Insurance
$ 30.0
34.2
36.9
40.1
42.9
74.6
58.6
64.7
70.2
79.8
93.9
113.2
131.5
146.0
155.8
189.6
206.2
356.5
452.5
473.7
488.7
Source: Alaska Depanment of Commerce and Economic Development, Division of Insurance.
From: Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Division
of Economic Enterprise. June 1980. The Alaska Statistical Review.
1980. Juneau, AK. p. M-1.
172
......
"'-J w
TABLE 50
Alaska Public Sector Wages*
Compared to All Wages Received
in Selected Years
(in Millions of Oollars)
1960 1965 1970 1975 1976
Total Wages $586 $772 $1251 $2R60 $:l294
Government 287 376 594 973 1054
Federal Civilian 108 138 195 295 318
Federal Military 138 144 226 261 26R
State and Local 42 94 173 417 467
Government Wages
as Percentage of Total
Alaska 49.0 48.7 47.5 34.0 32.0 u.s. 14.8 16.0 18.3 19.2 J!).O
*Total Labor and Proprietor's Income by Place of Residence -BEA Personal Income Series.
Source: Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development. July 1978. Jobs and Power
for Alaskans, A Program for Power and Economic Development. Juneau, AK. p. 33.
decade, although total wa':}es paid has generally increased. Table 51
presents government expenditures broken down by federal, state, and
1 ocal components. In 1979 the federal government spent about $1.5
billion in Alaska. The state spent nearly one billion, and local
governments spent an estimated $662 mi 11 ion. Total government expen-
ditures in Alaska are estimated at over $3 billion. Federal government
spending and employment should be considered a basic component because
it is exogenously determined for the most part. State and local
government, on the other hand, should be considered non-basic. Growth
in this sector is largely attributable to the increases in state reve-
nues and expenditures. Eventually its growth will be constrained by
demands for services of Alaska residents and Alaska•s overall popula-
tion growth rate.
Table 52 breaks down state government expenditures by function
i ncl udi ng amounts awarded to local governments. Table 53 presents
revenues by source for the state government. These figures only go up
to 1979 and therefore do not show the fact that the income tax was abo-
lished in ·1980. In addition, revenues from oil and gas taxes have
risen substantially.
Table 54 presents similar information for local governments.
3.6.2 -Regional Economic Bases
This section will briefly describe the major components of the economic
base for the areas included in Study Areas #2 and #3. These areas
include: Anchorage; the Kenai Peninsula, including Seward; Fairbanks
and Southeast Fairbanks; Matanuska-Susitna Borough; and the
Valdez-Chitina-Whittier census division.
174
.......
. .....
C.11
FEDERAL OBLIGATIONS
Fiscal Year Total Minus
Ending State-Local
June 30 Total Govt Grants
1973 1,011 807
1974 1,107 887
1975 1,279 1,021
197S 1,358 1,050
1977 1,501 1,190
1978 1,701 1,35S
1979 1,887 1,506E
TABLE 51
TOTAL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OBLIGATIONS IN ALASKAa
PLUS STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT GENERAL EXPENDITURESb
AND NET DOLLAR EXCHANGES AMONG LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT
(in millions of dollars)
STATE OF ALASKA GENERAL EXPENDITURES __ ___.. ____ --.. ---. --------------·-
By Source of Funds By Type of Expenditure LOCAL GOVT GENERAL EXPENDITURES
From Awarded From From
Own Federal Direct to Local Own From Federal
Total Sources Funds Expenditures Govt Units Total Sources State Govt
S22 433 189 499 123 28S 148 123 15
SS2 474 188 519 143 324 149 143 32
78S 552 234 S19 1S7 3SO 1S9 1S7 24
956 S75 281 750 20S 42S 193 206 27
1,029 75S 273 794 234 539 267 234 38
1,157 8S3 294 893 2S4 59S 281 2S4 51
1,279E 9S4E 315E 979E 300E SS2E 29SE 3ooE ssE
TOTAL
GOVERNMENT
SPENDif\IG
IN ALASKA
1,592
1,730
2,000
2,226
2,524
2,845
3,147E
----------------~--------------------·--------· ------------------- ------------------------------------
E Estimated by the Division of Economic Enterprise, Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development.
a! Total Federal government obligations include all amounts set aside for direct spending by Federal agencies and also include grants and loans to the ~tate of
Alaska, to local government units, or to other organizations or individuals in Alaska. Figures for fiscal years ending June 30 are interpolated from published
figures for Federal fisc·al years ending September 30.
b/ General expenditures of State and local governments include all expenditures except those from trust funds (including retirement funds and the unemployment
insurance benefit fund) and expenditures by publicly owned utilities supported by service fees.
Source: Community Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce; and the Division
of Economic Enterprise, Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development.
From: Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Division of Economic Enterprise. June 1980. The
Alaska Statistical REview. 1980. Juneau, AK. p. E-1.
......
.......
0'\
Fiscal Years Social
Ending June 30 Education Services Health
1970 $ 98,592 $ 15,262 $11,114
1971 150,393 25,525 17,841
1972 177,509 31,855 19,714
1973 172,255 49,689 23,929
1974 184,637 51,887 29,611
1975 251,653 65,192 31,101
1976 307,800 79,872 39,198
1977 358.790 91,736 53,823
1978 378,816 102,084 64,000
1979 422,087 118,371 74,585
o/o of FY 1979
Expenditures By
Function 33.0% 9.3% 5.8%
TABLE 52
ALASKA STATE GOVERNMENT
EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTION
(thousands of dollars)
Natural
Resources &
Environmental Public Administration
Conservation Protection of Justice
$16,330 $ 3,967 $14,914
19,776 5,547 19,573
22,104 5,284 23,529
24,305 7,028 31,281
27,233 7,925 35,341
35,362 12,953 43,669
49,764 18,383 54,579
81,792 20,430 67,989
86,046 24.453 70,641
96,592 28,221 81,189
7.6% 2.2% 6.3%
General
Development Transportation Government
$ 13,514 $ 97,391 $ 25,293
22.480 106,621 38,491
225,904 119,797 47,206
24.414 145,735 64,398
30,623 166,376 63,113
42,237 194,964 74,762
46,995 235,755 89,202
54,657 253,121 104,412
50,168 265,922 106,144
68,383 249.483 140.443
5.3% 19.5% 11.0%
Note: Included in the above figures are State funds awarded to local units of government for the functions indicated. Not included in the above figures
are expenditures from trust funds, including retirement funds and the unemployment insurance benefit fund.
Source: Division of Finance, Alaska Department of Administration.
Total
All
Functions
$ 296,377
406,247
672,902
543,034
596,746
751,893
921,548
1,086,750
1,148,274
1,279,354
100.0%
From: Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Division of Economic Enterprise. June 1980. The Alaska
Statistical Review. 1980. Juneau, AK. p. E-3.
..... ......
Fiscal Year
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
Taxes
$ 76,265
85,546
91,154
98.465
109.401
187,980
578,023
751,703
541,549
798,680
TABLE 53
STATE OF ALASKA
REVENUES BY SOURCE
LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS
(thousands of dollars)
Licenses & Intergovernmental
Permits Revenue
$10,015 $ 93,579
10,551 133,099
10,794 145,874
11.420 167.440
11,113 173,708
24,052 205,297
16,641 319,908
17,897 312,210
19,099 312,794
19,772 313,373
Charges Fines & Miscellaneous
For Services Forfeitures Revenue
$12,293 $ 574 $964,232a
12,165 662 110,142
14,677 708 106,366
19,090 814 80,038
33,399 953 95,250
28.493 3,956 102,803
19,343 3,353 80,566
21,805 2,132 80,794
21,258 2,307 179,224
24,925 2,177 266,652
....,. a/ $900,041,605 was Oil Lease Sale.
TAX REVENUES BY SOURer:
LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS
(thousands of dollars)
Conservation Tax
Income Business & Disaster Tax Oil-Gas Production
Fiscal Year Tax License Tax Fuel Tax School Tax Tax & Severance Tax Cigarette Tax Property Tax Other Taxes
1970 $ 37,294 $14,912 $10,372
1971 41,718 17,909 10,958
1972 45,724 17,909 11.402
1973 50,400 18,813 12.404
1974 57,617 20,353 13,743
1975 104,320 29,724 25,214
1976 177,328 19,071 24,403
1977 246,243 23,252 20,418
1978 179,332 21,675 23,287
1979 374,731 28,158 22,323
$2,097 $ 8,249
1,466 10,527
1.493 11,401
1,576 12,028
1,643 14,760
2,151 29.424
2,637 31,189
2,589 30,189
2.401 116,143
2,530 185,823
$2,711
2,967
3,224
3,224
3,430
3,311
4,617
4,851
4,627
4,410
$
6.480
306,429
409,768
177,031
163,448
Source: Alaska Department of Administration, Division of Finance. (Table first published in State of Alaska Annual Financial Report Year Ending June 30, 1979.)
$
From: Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Division of Economic Enterprise. June 1980. The
Alaska Statistical Review. 1980. Juneau, AK. p. E-4.
263
15,232
17.426
19,939
20,013
...... ........
o:>
Total General Revenue .•.••.......•...
From Federal Government •.•.......•
From State Government •..•.....•..•
Own Sources ••.•.....•.....•....
Charges and Miscellaneous ..........
Taxes •.....•..........•.• -..
Property .•.•..•••...... · · · ·
General Sales ......•.........
Total Direct General Expenditures ........
Education ...•...•.•............
Highways •.........••.........•..
Public Welfare .......••.........•.
Health and Hospitals ....•........•.
Police Protection ........•.........
Fire Protection ..••...............
Sewerage ........•..............
Financial Administration •...........
Interest on Debt ..................
Other Programs .....•••...........
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Cens1,1s.
TABLE 54
LOCAL GOVERNMENT GENERAL REVENUE AND DIRECT GENERAL
EXPENDITURES IN ALASKA: FY 1972-FY 1978
(in millions of dollars)
FY 1972 FY 1973 FY 1974 FY 1975
$194.9 $215.7 $311.3 $350.4
6.2 15.1 32.0 24.1
93.3 94.5 132.5 154.6
95.4 106.1 146.8 171.7
48.3 52.1 65.1 78.2
47.1 54.0 81.7 93.5
34.8 41.5 63.5 69.3
12.3 11.1 16.6 22.1
$244.6 $285.5 $324.0 $360.0
111.8 151.9 156.5 161.3
12.1 13.9 13.7 17.3
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4
3.8 5.6 9.6 11.4
6.4 7.4 9.0 12.3
6.1 6.5 7.8 11.5
13.7 16.2 20.3 23.2
4.4 5.4 8.4 9.5
13.8 16.5 18.1 21.5
52.2 61.7 80.1 91.6
FY 1976
$430.5
26.9
193.8
209.8
84.4
125.4
94.0
28.9
$425.7
196.7
21.0
0.4
16.2
14.8
12.1
26.5
11.3
24.8
101.9
From: Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Division of Economic Enterprise.
Stati sti ca 1 REview. 1980. Juneau, AK. p. E-5.
FY 1977 FY 1978
$499.6 $602.0
38.1 51.0
201.5 216.0
260.0 335.0
99.2 144.6
160.9 190.5
126.6 152.3
31.4 34.8
$539.2 $595.6.
253.4 253.6
29.1 21.5
0.9 .1
15.4 17.9
19.6 21.1
16.1 20.9
34.0 32.6
16.4 16.5
17.6 62.9
136.7 148.5
June 1980. The Alaska
3.6.2.1 -Anchorage
As the major population center in Alaska, Anchorage is the hub of the
state•s economy. The metropolis provides many of the support services
required by development in other parts of the state with the possible
exception of Southeastern Alaska. Most major industries have their
state headquarters in Anchorage. In addition, the sheer size of the
city creates internal demand for a wide range of goods and services.
Anchorage is virtually all service or support oriented, except for some
fish processing and construction-related manufacturing.
The city has been characterized as a .. maturing teenager entering the
post-adolescent life, experiencing an unsettling slowdown of its growth
rate 11
• Indeed, growth over the past decade has been dramatic even
though the rate of growth in economic activity has slowed since the
pipeline days. Unlike Fairbanks, Anchorage's economy did not suffer a
precipitous drop in activity after the pipeline, but tended to level
off at a higher economic plateau. Indications at present suggest that
resumed growth at a moderate rate will materialize, especially as much
of the excess capacity created by the pipeline surge is filled.
The slowdown in Anchorage•s economy was most pronounced in the trade
and construction sectors. This, in turn, affected the real estate
industry. Table 55 shows the value of construction authorized for
Anchorage by quarter for 1975 through 1980. Deflated figures are pre-
sented also. The slowdown in activity is readily apparent in comparing
current dollar figures for the first quarter of 1980 with the first
quarter of 1975.
Anchorage is unique in Alaska in that activity almost anywhere else in
the state stimulates its economy. Thus, if any of the major projects
mentioned in the state economic base section occur, the effects will be
noticed in Anchorage. Even without major resource development projects
occurring, Anchorage•s economy will be boosted by the many public pro-
179
TABLE 55
TOTAL VALUE OF PERMITS ISSUED FOR RESIDENTIAL AND
NON-RESIDENTIAL IN ANCHORAGE
(expressed in current and 1967 dollars)
1975
1 2 3 4 1
C:ONSTRUC:TION
Total Con&truchon (in 000 current Sl 3.632 49.214 48.01~ 22.302 22.323
Rnodent1al (in 000 currentS] 1,227 38,126 38.065 11.137 6.369
Non·•••dent•al (in 000 curr..,t $) 2.405 1T.088 9.945 11.165 15.954
TCIC•I Construction (in 000 19e7 Sl0 2.542 32.809 31.216 14.169 14,058
Res•dent•a• (•n 000 1967 S\ 859 25.417 24.750 7.076 4.011
Non-residential (in 000 1987 Sl 1.683 7.392 6.466 7.093 10.047
1977
1 2 3 4 1
CONSTRUCTION
Total Construction (In 000 current$) 18,563 131,747 134.961 56.064 23.711
Res•dent•al (1n 000 current$) 10.G42 49.584 81.605 23.383 16.196
Non-resrdent•al(in 000 current$) 8.519 S2.163 53.356 32.681 7.515
Total Construct ron (1n 000 t967 S)0 10.957 76.331 76.078 31,621 13,232
Residential (in 000 1967 $) 5.928 28.728 46,001 13.188 9,038
Non-ruidentoal (1n 000 1967 $) 5.029 47.603 3007'7 18.433 4,194
1979
1 2 3 4 1
CONSTRUCTION
Total Construction (1n 000 current$) 11.813 49.367 28.295 11.359 5.399
Res1dent1al (1n 000 current$) 7.054 37.695 17.682 6.947 1,826
Non~res1denhal (in OO'J current$) .. .759 11.672 10.613 4,412 3,573
Total Construct1on (in 000 t 967 $)' 5.963 24.403 13.643 5.320 2.474
Res1dent1al (in 0001967 $) 3,561 18.633 8.526 3,2!)4 137
Non-resid&nt•al (in 000 1967 $) 2.402 5.no 5.117 2.067 1,637
a Reflects all current dollars using Anchorage CPI.
1976
2 3
38.842 n.692
29.795 36.876
9.G47 40.816
2.4.021 47.115
18.426 22.363
5.595 24.752
1978
2 3
56,828 n.ss3
47.100 54.999
9,728 22.854
30.952 41,301
25.654 29.m
5.298 12.124
1980
2 3
34.838 60.162
20.615 48.02A
14.223 12.138
15.484 26.:>40
9.162 21.0213
6.322 5.314
Source: Municipality of Anchorage. First Quarterly 1980. Quarterly
Economic Indicators. Anchorage, AK. pp. 4-5.
180
4
-40.797
21 . .t81
19.316
24.298
12.794
11.504
4
38.081
23.440
14.6<11
19.629
12.082
7.547
jects planned for the area. Most important of these is 11 Projects
80's, .. a large scale civic improvement and construction program. The
major elements of this program are described below.
Civic/Convention Center - A $20 million project of 50,000 square feet,
capable of seating 4,500 people, and sized to handle 85 percent of the
conventions held in the U.S.
Performing Visual Arts Center -To be built in phases, Phase One will
be a $15.5 million project consisting of a 2,700-seat concert hall and
300-seat drama center. Ultimately it will include an 1 ~800-seat opera
house and 800-seat playhouse.
F Street Mall -To be built in phases. Phase One will be a $5.4
million project. The mall will serve as a pedestrian-only connection
between the previously two projects.
Sports Arena - A $25 million enclosed sports facility which will seat
up to '10,000 people.
In addition to the $68 million authorized for 11 Projects 80's,11 a
variety of state-financed civil projects are planned. An estimated
$97.4 million in capital works projects was budgeted by the state
government for projects in Anchorage in addition to the 11 Projects 80s 11
monies. These projects included an airport satellite building; various
roads, highways, sewer, and sanitation facilities; and new educational,
institutional, and public use buildings.
Completion~ continuation, and implementation of these and other pro-
jects wil help sustain Anchorage's construction industry and economy in
general through the mid-1980's.
181
3.6.2.2 -Kenai Peninsula
The economic base of the Kenai Peninsula is based primarily on the oil
and gas industry, fishing and fish processing, and the tourism and
recreation-related industries. These industries have greatly expanded
over the past decade and generally broadened the economic base.
Employment distribution in the region is concentrated in the
Kenai-Nikiski industrial area.
The Kenai-Cook Inlet area is uncormnonly dependent upon manufacturing
and extractive industries. Alaska's largest petrochemical plant, Union
Oil Company's Callier Carbon and Chemica 1 Corporation's ammonia-urea
plant, is located in the Kenai-Nikiski area. Tesoro-Alaska's refinery,
Phillips Marathon LNG plant, and SOCAL's refinery also operate in the
Western Kenai area. Nikiski was also chosen as the site for
Pacific-Alaska's LNG plant which has been delayed due to legal
conflicts concerning the California receiving facility.
Eastern Kenai Peninsula is dominated by Seward. The principal economic
activity used to be related to the port and the Alaska railroad. This
activity, though, has been reduced as Anchorage and Valdez have become
the major ports of entry for cargo. Presently, 50,000 to 150,000 tons
per year are handled through Seward. The port now serves as a shipping
point for log and wood chip exports to Japan. Approximately 40,000
tons are shipped per year. Future economic activity in the area will
likely develop around the fishing, forest products, and oil and gas
industries.
3.6.2.3 -Fairbanks
As the major city closest to the Trans-Alaska pipeline, Fairbanks
enjoyed the greatest stimulus and the sharpest declines resulting from
its construction. By almost all indicators, Fairbanks economy suffered
a substational 11 bust 11 from which it is still recovering.
182
Figure 17 and Table 56 presents sales and property tax revenue since
1969 for the Fairbanks North Star Borough. The rise and fall of sales
as reflected by revenues during the pipeline is apparent. If the
figures were discounted to account for inflation impacts, the decrease
would be even more dramatic. The trend in property tax revenues
reflects the impact of pipeline-related property, an oil refinery, and
general inflation.
Fairbanks is similar to other cities in Alaska in that it is charac-
terized by few manufacturing and many service or support firms. As the
regional center for interior Alaska, the recent upswing in mining acti-
vity is a favorable event. Figure 18 and Table 57 present data con-
cerning new mining claims received. During the first eight months of
1980, 32 percent of all new claims were filed in Fairbanks.
Table 58 presents a list of businesses in the borough classified by
S.I.C. categories. The table illustrates the service/support orien-
tation of the area. Of particular note is the number of construction
firms. An important element of the Borough economy which does not show
up in the table is the military presence. Eielson Air Force Base and
Fort Wainwright, together account for approximately 7,000 military and
related civilian employees.
A major basic industry has emerged in the Borough. This is the 30,000
barrels per day North Pole Refinery of Earth Resources Company. The
company recently expanded its capacity to produce more jet fuel and
diesel/heating oil. The refinery supplies all the jet fuel sold at the
Fairbanks airport, including the 66 flights per week attributable to
foreign carrier refueling stops. Besides assuring a supply of fuels
for the interior, the refinery generates substantia 1 revenues to the
borough. Its assessed value was $33,058,125 in 1980.
Total Borough assessment is presented for 1977-1980 in Table 59 along
with related pipeline assessments. From the Table it is apparent that
183
FIGURE 17 -TABLE 56
TAX REVENUE BY SOURCE
City of Fairbanks and Fairbanks North Star Borough
Fiscal Years 1969-1980*
16,000
til 12,000
I.<
(1)
.-1 .......
,2
'-
0 8,000
:r.
-r:l :r:
;J
0 ..r: 4,000 E-<
0
Fiscal Year*
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
-----Property Tax
Fairbanks North Star Borough
-----Sales Tax
,.---
~ ~
/
/
/
1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979
-----City of Fairbanks-----Fairbanks North Star Borough**
Sales Tax Property Tax Sales Tax Property Tax
$2,166,000 $1,137,000 $1,679,000 $ 2,747,000
2,526,000 1,254,000 2,087,000 3,331,000
2,757,000 1,650,000 2,188,000 2,448,000
2,949,000 2,123,000 2,360,000 1,504,000
3' 111.000 2,354,000 2,497.000 1,786,000
3,878,000 2,360,000 2,780,000 2,290,000
6,~24,000 3,148,000 4,518,000 3,035,000
7,489,000 3,697,000 6,596,000 4,034,000
7,385,000 3,761,000 6,744,000 6,820,000
6,257,000 4,076,000 7,100,000 6,977,000
5,645,000 4,004,000 5,819,644 11 '621 '2:;_ 9***
5' 707' 136**·** 4,278,210**** 5,586,641 13,206,637***
* The city's fiscal year runs from January 1 through December 31 of the
year listed. The borough's fiscal year runs from July.l of the previ-
ous year through June 30 of the year listed.
** Fairbanks North Star Borough figures in years after 1975 reflect the
modified accrual basis for revenue.
*** Does not include the partial residential property tax exemption.
**** The 1980 tax figures are preliminary subject to audit.
Source: Fairbanks North Star Borough, Finance Department; compiled by the
Community Information Center.
From: Fairbanks North Star Borough, Community Research Center. Fall 1980.
Community Research Quarterly, A Socioeconomic Review. Fairbanks, AK.
p. 38. 184
Fairbanks
Barrow
Manley Hot Springs
Nulato
Mt. McKinley
Nenana
Rampart
Ft. Gibbon
Kotzebue
Talkeetna
Palmer
Nome
Seward
Juneau
Haines
Skagway
Petersburg
Wrangell
Ketchikan
Sitka
Anchorage
Iliamna
Aleutian Islands
Bristol Bay
Seldovia
Cordova
Chitina"'"'
Valdez
Bethel
Kuskokwim
Kodiak
Homer
Kenai
TOTAL
FIGURE 18 -TABLE 57
NEW MINING CLAIMS RECEIVED
Alaska
1979-1980, First Eight Months Comparisons
Anchorage 4%
w:::::=--------1
Petersburg 4%
8%
Total Filings for First
Eight Months of 1980
--------------------------------1980-------------------------------1979
B Month B Month % Change
January February March April ~ June July August Total Total 1979-80
65 158 165 293 600 361 1,240 998 3,880 1,110 250%
0 0 0 0 362 0 0 0 362 150 141%
19 0 0 0 7 73 4 42 145 32 353%
5 19 2 0 452 31 14 23 546 17 3,112%
6 1 28 128 110 0 2 0 275 47 485~:
0 5 15 17 4 8 15 6 70 67 4%
0 0 12 0 0 0 6 0 18 3 500:1
12 0 0 0 0 9 2 0 23 68 -66%
0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 840 -100%
26 266 122 58 227 28 152 334 1,213 694 7 5 ;;
12 61 93 98 108 14 72 95 553 226 145%
141 125 0 137 1,281 42 100 65 1,891 98.C. 92%
5 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 17 137 -88~~
0 50 102 105 206 125 37 6 631 177 256%
0 4 0 3 4 18 5 7 41 4 925?.
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 "' 0 47 335 0 0 45 30 30 487 197 147%
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 " 2 0 0 0 0 3 58 17 80 208 -62%
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 "' 311 0 46 98 0 13 0 16 484 39 1,141%
0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 " 1 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 13 0 " 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "' 0 0 1 12 0 1 0 14 28 4 600%
69 4 104 32 164 20 8 2 403 21 1,819%
0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 5 -20%
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 59 62 -5%
0 0 162 45 2 720 0 5 934 0 " 0 0 0 27 0 30 0 2 59 6 883%
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 " 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *
674 756 1,187 1,077 3,531 1, 545 1,746 1,721 12,237 5,419 126%
" Number of units is too small to make a valid percentage comparison.
"" Includes both the former districts of Chitina and Glenallen.
Source: Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological and
Geophysical Surveys; compile<i by the Community Information Center.
From: Fairbanks North Star Borough, Community Research Center. Fall 1980.
Community Research Quarterly, A Socioeconomic Review. Fairbanks, AK.
p. 48.
185
..... co en
Type of Business
~grlculture, Fore9try and Fishing
A~rlrultural Prnductlon -Crops
Agricultural Production -Livestock
Agricultural Services
Forestry
Mining
Md.{IH!ning
Bituminous Coal and Lignite Mining
Oil and Gas f.xtraction
Nr'lllmrtallic Minerals, Except Fuels
Coustructlon
G~neral Building Contractors
Heavy Construction Contractors
Plumbing, Heating, 1\ir Conditioning
PaJutJn~, Paper Hangin~, Decoratfu~
Ele<tr leal Work
H.1sonry, Stonework and Plasterlnp;
Carpentry and Flooring
Rooflnp; and Sheet Metal Work
Concr•'te Work
Water Well Drilling
Miscellaneous Special Trade Contrartor~
1:t2.nufacturing
App01r~l and Other Textile Product•
Lumber and Wood Products
f•Jrnlture and Fixtures
Printing and Publishing
Petroleum and Coal Products
Rubbt>r 11nd Miscellaneous Plastics PnHlur:ts
Leather and Leather Produtts
Stone, Clay and Glass Products
Primary Netal Industries
Fabricated Metal Products
Machinery, Except Electrical
Electrical and Electronic Equipment
Instruments and Related Products
Hl•cellaneous Manufacturing Industries
Transportation and Public Utilities
Lr:wcal and Interurban Passenger Transit
Trucking and Warehousing
Water Transportation
Alt Trant~;portatlon
PtpelJn~s. EJtccpt N.1tur:tl Gas
Tr~••~portatlon S~rvices
Cnmrnun i cat Ion
Elrctrlc, G~s :tnd S:ttlitary S~rvlces
Wl1"' I es;JJ r. Tri-tUl"'
\..rlu; i l-'~So"if~-(r·:;d~: -Oq r:1h 1 P c;nntl!;
Whnl £'S.1 ie Tr ad,~-~PiuhJr~h l e r.ood s
TABLE 58
CLASSIFICATION AND NUMBER OF BUSINESSES
Fairbanks North Star Borough
March and September, 1980
Number of RuslnPssrs
Harch SPptemhPr
~~-, _ ___!21!Q_
4
0
)I, 1
-94
50
60
12
J1
17
19
4
3
9
42
RO
4
II
I
14
2
0
If>
1
5
J
0
14
106
28
I
l5
I
II
2'1
I 7
IIi
7
~0
i i
I 5
27
10
~-
150
9h
49
hi
II
H
In
lA
6
4
11
47
91
6
ll
16
2
2
I
16
1
8
6
J
I
I~
107
fi
2'i
I
·1o
I
1\
27
l1
I'
II
4 ChnnRe
March -
sr:pt_._l.'!._~
-Rr.
67. -6'
-16~
07,
If>?;
~oi:
IA7.
Joot
Jl•%
0%
OY
07.
1n
607.
-11<7.
07.
*
7 •• ·-
1%
11,-i:
-117,
o::
20%
0/:
-'"10%
IW'
-n
RPta i I Trari~
i\.u 1-l(li~ H.,··t £'r 1<~1 s and G.1rd'-•n Supp l h•s
Genernl MPrrhandlse Stores
Foocl Store!;.
Automot Lve Dl"'.1lerg and Service 5tat Jons
Appnrel .1nd Arccs!lorl£'~ StorPS
FurnlLurr a11d !lome Furnlshlngfi Stores
f.lting and Orluklng Places
Ort•R and Proprietary Stores
Li c1uor Store~
l1H•·rl MPrch~•••llse Stores
Mlo:.ce11.1m'nt.l!i ~;hoppJng Gonds Scorr>s
Nonstnrl"' Retailers
FuP l Oil f),, a lt.•rs
f'ti~t·£'1lilnPnu~ R£'ta11 Stores
f-luanc~, Tnsuranrc and RNll f.:citnte r:r ~·~"i"ft-Xl~t·:~;c-t e·:i· ·ottw-;:--n~~-tl\-n:lllis--
St·cur It le!-;/Commndit h~H Rrokt'r!" .11u:l 5Prvlres
lt1sur~ttc~ C;trrters
lll"'urmwf' Ag£'ntq, Rrokers and SPrvl('cs
RC".1I Esr;ttP
lh,Jrling ,,nd Other lnveostm~nt Offirf"a
s(~rv ices
ii;,l(.1_5_-;lnd OthPr LodglnR Place!;
Pcr"it'll·IJ .S~rv j c:e!i
Advt>rtlsluR
Crl'dlt Reporting nnd C"llectlon
M;liJ lng, Reproductton, Stcuo
SE'rvlccs to BuJldtn~s
Pf'rsonnrl Supply SPrvlres
ComputPr <111d Datil Pror.esr;inr,. Servire~
Ml~c~llm1£'tHic;. Ruslness Sl~rvice!;
Auto RPpilir, S£'rvtces n11(l GaraRrs
Miscellaneous Hepalr SC'rvtccs
Motion PJcturcs
ArmJ~C'mf'nt .1nd lkcr~atll'fl So:--rvlct"•S
li(•a lt h SP rv i rer.
l.r,~;\l SPrvlcr~
Fdnc.1liondl Sf•rvl_rr.~
Sr•<' I al Sr-rv I cl'~
~hi~Piltn"i 1 l\nt.111lc:.'ll 1 Znolnp,lrnl G.1rtll"nS
~kmhcrship Organization!?>
~llsrellanPour; SC"rvices
TOTAl.
Numher of Rusln~sses
H.1 rch .Sr>pt r-mh1• r
)qAO 1980
-~--------
1_,_0_'>_0
'" 22
41
)(,
42 ,.,,,
Jl(,
h
I J
27
177
~~I
10
lin
51
.1
1R
I
2 '>
102
7
5
44
~~6
2
lh
111
141
Ill
1R
4
18
lA
6
1n
1.177 -··D.
28
40
H
44
48
11~ ..,
11
2H
lA)
](,/,
2A
42
0
905
~ -[4
l!O
6
5
4)
46
2
15
141
146
II 7
2
~ ...
44
I
II
118
Num\wr of units is too small to m:lkP •• vnlid r--·rrr-nt.,r.c rrunp.ar1o;;~'n.
% ChanRe
M<~rch -
S~_r.t_.__!J_!l_Q
_l_l!
2 '~
17%
-7t
-Jr.
5'-
-14%
1!
-17~
Ot
4··
~r.
1fl"!
-It
Ql:
fi~
-])7,
07.
11~
or.
117.
*
5%
-U
~z
-141.
Ot
-2%
0%
07.
-67.
9~
4 •.
5~
0"'
1'•:.
-1'>'.
1 ~~t
' .. •4-t.
0~
o-
J )"'
-r:
~--
Not{': ThP S:tJps Tax orfit'P USPS thP Srollld<ird 11ulustrl.11 rl."l~slfir:ltlcm rfldt" List
tn rlasslfv buslne~s.es tlhtt havf' ri:'~~Ist('rl'd \ol{th thr 1-".1lrh.1nks Nnrrh St.1r
n(lrnugh.
Source: Fairbanks North Star Borough, Sales Tax Office; compiled by the Community Information Center.
TABLE 59
BOROUGH AND PIPELINE RELATED ASSESSMENTS
Fairbanks North Star Borough
1977-1980
% Change Pipeline % Change % Change
From Previous Related From Previous Fr:>m Previous
Year Borough Assessment Year Assessment* Year Total Assessment Year
1977 $ 856,118,575 NA $505,32o,780 NA $1,361,445,355 29%
1978 1,039,003,025 21% 595,071,640 18% 1,634,074,665 20%
1979 1,158,310,825 11% 795,252,410 34% 1,950,563,235 19%
1980 1, 271,671,200 10% 638,848,930 -20% 1,910,520,130 -2%
NA Not available. • Assessed by the State •
Source: Fairbanks North Star Borough, Assessing Department; compiled by the
Community Information Center.
From: Fairbanks North Star Borough, Community Research Center. Fall 1980.
Community Research Quarterly, A Socioeconomic Review. Fairbanks, AK.
p. 40.
pipeline assessments constitute about a third of the borough•s total
assessments.
3.6.2.4 -Southeast Fairbanks
The Southeast Fairbanks Borough is unincorporated and consists pri-
marily of communities spread out along the Alaska Highway. The econo-
mic base of the area is dependent upon highway-related services and
businesses, Fort Greely, and agriculture. Government bodies including
the military accounted for 82 percent of total employment in 1978. The
military-related entities employed about 63 percent of the total.
Roughly half of the non-government related employment was in the ser-
vices category. Retail trade accounted for over a quarter of non-
government employment.
Because government plays such a dominant role in the economy, seasonal
variations in total employment are minor. Highway-related businesses,
however, have a definite seasonal cycle.
Agriculture activities in the Tanana River Valley, especially in the
Delta area near the intersection of the Richardson and Alaska Highways,
have been expanding in recent years. In 1978, 58,000 acres of undeve-
loped land was sold by lottery. Loans were made available through the
state for agricultural development. Tracts ranged in size from 2,000
to 3,600 acres. An additional 16,000 acres has been offered for agri-
cultural development since that time.
The Tanana River Valley activity, known as the Delta Agricultural
Project, has emphasized barley and rapeseed production for both
domestic and export markets. A test marketing program in 1979 indi-
cated that Delta barley was equal to or better than export quality.
Rapeseed is also getting more attention as an export crop, and fits in
well with barley cultivation on a rotation basis.
188
Several native villages are in the Southeast Fairbanks Borough.
Employment in these communities is, in general, the same as for the
Borough. Many natives, however, also pursue traditional hunting and
gathering activities. Trapping is also a winter occupation for some.
During the summer, some natives work for the BLM.
3.6.2.5 -Valdez-Chitina-Whitter
This region can be divided into two sections; Valdez and the interior
co11111unities along the Richardson Highway. Each section is addressed
separately below.
3.6.2.5.1 -Valdez
Historically Valdez served as an important point of entry into
interior Alaska. Although ·in the past Valdez's prominence was
usurped by Anchorage, the construction of the pipeline and ter-
minal in Valdez ensured the City's role as a major transshipment
point to the Interior. Oil shipments account for the overwhelming
majority of gross tonnage moving through the port. Under
construction, however, is a $40 million containerized cargo faci-
lity which will expand the port•s capacity to handle cargo other
than oil.
State and local government is the largest employer in Valdez
accounting for about 25 percent of the entire workforce.
Transportation-communications-utilities sector also employs about
a quarter of the employed labor force. Retail trade and construc-
tion follow as the next largest employers.
Growth in the local government sector can be attributed to the
explosion in assessed value of land incorporated by Valdez. The
pipeline terminal is the major piece of property within the city
limits, but the Alaska Oil Company's planned refinery will add a
substantial amount when completed.
189
The City of Valdez currently has the second largest per· capita
assessed value, trailing only the North Slope Borough. Table 60
presents an avera 1 1 fi sea 1 camp a rison with Anchorage. The per
capital projects expenditures figure shows the large capital
construction effort undertaken. Footnote (6) refers to the cargo
facility which is being financed through general obligation bonds.
Valdez is likely to become one of Alaska•s few manufacturing-
oriented cities. The City is actively promoting diversification
of the local economy. Efforts are underway to promote the fishing
industry which include the development of harbor facilities and a
processing plant.
3.6.2.5.2 -Interior Communities
The economy of the interior communities is based largely upon
tourism-related and transportation activities. The latter cate-
gory includes maintenance and operation activities relating to the
trans-Alaska pipeline as well as the highways.
The region has experienced a substantial increase in mining acti-
vity recently as Table 57 in Section 3.6.2.3 illustrates.
Important minerals in the area include copper, gold, silver, lead,
iron, molybdenum, and chromite. Sand and gravel deposits are
abundant in the area as well. Most mining operations at this time
are small, placer-type mines. Although many minerals occur in
commercial quantities, development problems remain, similar to
those mentioned earlier for the state in general.
Government constitutes the most important economic sector for the
Valdez-Chitina-Whittier area employing about 40 percent of the
work force. The next largest sector in terms of employment is
transportation-communication-utilities followed by services and
retail trade. A large part of the latter two is probably attribu-
190
TABLE 60
Comparison of Selected Public Fiscal Measures,
City of Valdez and Municipality of Anchorage 1978
Per capita(1 ) general
government expenditures
Per capita capital projects
expenditures
City employees per
thousand population
Property tax levy (area wide
average) (in mills)
Real and personal property
valuation (full value)
(in billions)
Per capita real and personal
property valuation
(full value)
Per capita bonded debt
Bonded debt as percentage
of full value
Notes
Valdez
$963(2 )
$1,130
13
5.7(3)
$372,589(5)
$2,752(6)
Anchorage
$539(2)
$357
10
14(4 )
$5.27
$28,517
$1,248
4.38
(1) 1978 per capita calculations made on the basis of official population
estimates (State of Alaska) of 184,775 for Anchorage; 4,481 for Valdez.
(2) Excludes local support of schools; Source: City of Valdez Budget,
1979 -1980; Municipality of Anchorage. The 1978 Budget in Brief.
(3) There were two tax zones in Valdez in 1978 with mil}age rates of
6.127 and 5.3204 respectively.
(4) There were 14 tax zones in the Municipality with millage rates from
17.67 (Anchorage) to 10.42 (Borough outside Bowl).
(5) Valdez does not have a personal property tax; Anchorage does.
(6) In 1979 Valdez increased its bonded debt four fold with the sale
of $48 million in General Obligation Bonds for construction of a
new port.
Source: Alaska Petrochemical Company, Refinery and Petrochemical
Facility. December 1979. Environmental Impact Statement.
Valdez, AK. p. II-59.
191
table to seasonal tourist-related activities. The region offers
extensive natural resources conducive to climbing, hunting,
fishing, and camping.
Employment opportunities in the interior communities is generally
limited. Seasonal jobs occur in construction and fire-fighting.
Some natives are employed by AHTNA, Inc. and other Native cor-
porations. Some natives either rely on or supplement their live-
lihood through traditional hunting, trapping, and gathering
activities.
3.6.2.6 -Matanuska-Susitna Borough
Much of the information in this section is derived from two sources.
One is the report prepared by the Overall Economic Development Program,
Inc. (OEDP), July, 1980, consisting of Annual Report {Volume I),
Economic Conditions, Development Options and Projections {Volume II),
and Appendices (Volume III). The other principal source is the
Background Report, Phase I: Comprehensive Development Plan,
Apri 1 1978, prepared by the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning
Department. It should be noted that the plan, of which this document
is a part, was not adopted by the Borough.
The reader is referred to both of the above documents for extensive
discussions of the economic base of the Borough. The OEDP study is
especially pertinent. Chapter 2 of Volume I 11 Changes in the Economy,11
has been included in this report as Appendix E because it provides a
brief synopsis of the economic conditions and problems facing the
Borough today.
Because the Borough is the area which wi 11 be most impacted from the
Susitna hydroelectric project if constructed, a more extensive
discussion is presented than was for other areas.
192
The economy of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough is dominated by forces
emanating from Anchorage. Development as a result has occurred within
close proximity to Anchorage concentrated along the Parks Highway
except for the City of Palmer. Approximately 37 percent of the Borough
residents work outside the Borough. (Policy Analysts, 1980) Thus, the
Borough, to a large degree, is a bedroom community. Moreover, many of
the recreational homes in the area are owned by Anchorage residents.
The Big Lake area is perhaps a prime example. The Borough • s most
recent planning document notes: 11 Indicative of the link between the
Borough and Anchorage is the fact that approximately 55 percent of the
Borough•s tax notices are mailed to Anchorage addresses ... (Borough,
Apri 1 1978, p. 172)
The dominant sectors of the Borough•s economy reflect the large
influence of the tourism, recreation and residential elements present
there. Table 61 presents an estimate for the types and locations of
businesses in the major communities. Figure 19 presents the aggregated
data graphically. From the table it can be seen that the largest
number of businesses are in the support and service sectors. Services,
retail trade, and finance-insurance-real estate firms comprise the
majority of businesses in these com-munities. Construction is also a
major category of businesses in the Borough. This reflects the growth
and development conditions present there.
Next to Palmer, Wasilla has the greatest number of businesses.
Dramatic growth in the community occurred during the pipeline years.
Most of all the businesses in Wasilla are service or construction--
oriented.
Manufacturing businesses are concentrated in the Palmer ar~a. In 1972,
the city created the Palmer Industrial Park to encourage economic deve-
lopment. The park is zoned for light to medium industry. Half the
sites have been filled.
193
......
lO
~
TABLE 61
BUSINESS LOCATION AND TYPE
Number in Community*
Standard Industrial Classification Big Lake Houston Palmer Talkeetna Wasilla Willow
Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries 3 22
Mining 2
Construction 19 3 50 3 91 4
Manufacturing 3 21 2 4 3•
Transportation & Public Utilities 2 20 8 6
Wholesale Trade 11
Retail Trade 24 3 80 19 18
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate 1 22 2 37 3
Services 17 1 115 13 129 4
Public Administration 1 12 3 5
Nonclassifiable Establishments 6 19 1 98
Total 74 9 374 51 364 38
* SIC classifications were assigned by the OEDP staff for use in this table, and number of establishments
must be considered approximations.
Source: Overall Economic Development Program Inc. July 1980. Volume II: Economic Conditions, Development
Options and Projections. Palmer, AK. pp. 19-21.
FIGURE 19
MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BUSINESS DISPERSION
• \\'illow -38
Big Lake -
.Talkeetna -51
.Houston -9
-374
Source: Overall Economic Development Program Inc. July ~980.
Volume II: Economic Conditions, Development Options and
Projections. Palmer, AK. p. 24.
195
The Borough is encouraging economic development and is concentrating on
promoting the Point MacKenzie area which is situated across the Knik
Arm from Anchorage. The foci of the development plan are dairy farming
and an industrial complex.
Other indicators of the economy show that the Borough's base is
oriented towards the service sectors. Table 62 presents gross business
receipts for 1977 for Palmer and the Borough. Overall, Palmer
accounted for 35 percent of total sales in 1977. Notable categories in
the table include construction, retail and services especially real
estate. Sales in these sectors relate to the tourism, recreation and
residential-oriented components of the economy. Real estate sales
account for the majority of sales in the finance, insurance, and real
estate sector. Most likely this includes a large speculative element
associated with the potential capital move to the Willow area.
Examination of employment data for the Borough provides a different
view of the major components of the economy, although the view that
emerges conforms with that of the state in general. The largest
employer is the government sector. State and local bodies account for
about 90 percent of total government employment. Retail trade is the
next largest, followed by services, transportation-communications-
utilities, and construction. (See section 3.7 for data).
Employment figures used in the preceding paragraph are based on place
of work. Utilizing survey data dealing with employment by place of
residence, the Borough's profile can be presented as in Table 63. The
major difference is in the construction category. This is probably
attributable to the fact that construction workers who maintain resi-
dences there are employed in other parts of Alaska.
Table 64 presents occupational information for the Borough's residents.
The large professional/technical and manager/official categories are in
keeping with the services and bedroom community orientations of the
population and economy.
196
TABLE 62
GROSS BUSINESS RECEIPTS
January 1, 1977, to December 31, 1977
Standard Industrial Classification
Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Transportation & Public Utilities
Wholesale Trade
Retail Goods
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate
Services
Nonclassifiable Establishments
Palmer
79,938
3,505,346
1,363,967
1,679,365
1,463,515
16,980,898
954,292
2,792,649
Total 28,819,970
Source: Alaska Department of Revenue
Gross Business Receipts
Mat-Su Borough
Excluding Palmer
441,859
644,188
22,313,229
899,123
1,134,058
3,383,748
15,104,553
2,952,816
5,589,364
799,689
52,618,439
($)
Mat-Su
Borough
521,797
644,188
25,818,575
2,263,090
2,813,423
4,847,263
32,085,451
3. 907.108
8,382,013
799,689
81,438,409
From: Overall Economic Development Program Inc. July 1980. Volume II: Economic Conditions, Development
Options and Projections. Palmer, AK. pp. 30-32.
TABLE 63
EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY FOR ADULT RESIDENTS
OF MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH
Industry
Agriculture-Fishing
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
(percent of total adults)
Transportation, Utilities, Communications
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate
Professional Services
Other Services
Education
Federal Government
State Government
Local Government
Percent of
Adults
2.9
5.5
16.6
2.5
10.5
2.8
11.4
4.5
9.4
9.4
9.1
6.3
5.4
3.6
Source: Policy Analysts, Limited, and Dr. Richard L. Ender. May
1980. Mat-Su Housing and Economic Development Study:
Survey Findings. p. 72.
198
TABLE 64
OCCUPATION OF MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH ADULT RESIDENTS
(percent of total adults)
Occupation
Professional/Technical
Manager, Official
Clerical, Sales
Craftsmen
Operatives
Service Workers
Laborers
Farmers
Armed Forces
Others (Trappers, Self Employed, etc.)
Percent of
Adults
20.2
13.8
16.0
14.6
12.2
10.6
9.7
1.2
0.9
1.0
Source: Policy Analysts, Limited, and Dr. Richard L. Ender. May
1980. Mat-Su Housing and Economic Development Study:
Survey Findings. p. 73.
199
Table 64 presents occupational information for the Borough•s
residents. The large professional/technical and manager/official
categories are in keeping with the services and bedroom community
orientations of the population and economy.
Outside of the major communities in the Borough, economic activity
is related to mining, agriculture, timber products, or in pro-
viding recreational services. Figure 20 shows locations of some
of the known mineral deposits in the Borough. Many of the mining
sites in the Borough are placer mines which work alluvial deposits
for minerals. Figures 21 shows locations of mining districts in
the Borough. In addition, the central area from the Talkeetna
Mountains north to the Alaska Range has been designated a multiple ·
use area which will permit mining activity. Virtually all mining
historically has occurred in these districts and this pattern is
expected to continue (OEDP 1980, p. 139). Of particular relevance
to the proposed Susitna dams are the following areas:
The Susitna-Chulitna portion of the Yentna Mining District
where molybdenum, gold, copper, lead, silver, and antimony are
scattered over a distance of several tens of miles.
The Upper Susitna River area where the Denali prospect, a
copper deposit, has been discovered but has not yet been deve-
loped into a mine.
The major mineral resource in the Borough is coal. Extensive
deposits of varying quality occur in the river valleys. Figure
22 shows locations of known fields. Also present in the Borough
are peat bogs which may become an important energy source.
The U.S. Forest Service has classified 1,295,000 acres in the
Borough as conmercial forest land. This acreage is located pri-
marily in the lowlands, since elevations above 1,500 feet in
200
Outside of the major communities in the Borough, economic activity is
related to mining, agriculture, timber products, or in providing
recreational services. Figure 20 shows locations of some of the known
mineral deposits in the Borough. Many of the mining sites in the
Borough are placer mines which work alluvial deposits for minerals.
Figures 21 shows locations of mining districts in the Borough. In
addition, the central area from the Talkeetna Mountains north to the
Alaska Range has been designated a multiple use area which will permit
mining activity. Virtually all mining historically has occurred in
these districts and this pattern is expected to continue (OEDP 1980, p.
139). Of particular relevance to the proposed Susitna dams are the
following areas:
The Susi tna-Chul itna portion of the Yentna Mining District where
molybdenum, gold, copper, lead, silver, and antimony are scattered
over a distance of several tens of miles.
The Upper Susitna River area where the Denali prospect, a copper
deposit, has been discovered but has not yet been developed into a
mine.
The major mineral resource in the Borough is coal. Extensive deposits
of varying quality occur in the river valleys. Figure 22 shows loca-
tions of known fields. Also present in the Borough are peat bogs
which may become an important energy source.
The u.s. Forest Service has classified 1,295,000 acres in the Borough
as commercial forest land. This acreage is located primarily in the
lowlands, since elevations above 1,500 feet in Alaska are not conducive
to timber growth. (There are no commercially valuable timber stands in
Study Area 1 due to the elevation.) Most of the Borough.•s timber is
suitable only for pulp and chip production. Some lumber is produced
for the local market. Louisiana-Pacific Corporation signed a 10-year
contract with Japanese concerns for wood chips, much of which is being
produced in the Borough.
201
FIGURE 20
MiNERAL RESOURCES
MA1ANUSKA-SUSITNA
1\U Cold t\o
St BH'I\\llll Ill
C Coal • Pe
tc ter,,l c ClaY • Pb
Co Cobalt Pt
Cu Copper Sb
Fe Iron Sn
r.v Gypsum • II
!Ia lla ydlte • Zn
llg
\.
t\4
I
I
I
I
I
I
. .
~
~ -~
..
.........
,r \ .•' ·~ -~--__,
> ·'\ \.._/ I
; : '·~·· . '
''"'' \=' ,_.,, . \
\~~·l:
I .
. '" I ,~•
.· :.:.
FIGURE 21
MINING OISTRICTS
(Locatable Minerals-lodes & placer)
A-WILLOW CREEK DISTRICT·
B--NELCHINA DISTRICT
c-VAI:.DEZ DISTRICT
o ....:_.. CHULITNA DISTRICT
E--YENTNA DISTRICT
Source:
.~~ .. ~~:"~~I'::~~~ .... ~
"T"'-.r· . . .. ,_ \ \
~-f{;?-I )~;:~51,~\-; :cptJ
Matanuska-Susitna Borough
Planning Department
FIGURE 22
COAL
A-i\1\T/\IlUSKA
s -BRO.I\0 PI\SS
c-SUSITIII\
0-BEL!IGI\
E-OTHER
FIELDS
Source: Matanuska-Susitna Borough
Planning Department
From: Overall Economic Development Program Inc. July 1980. Volume II: Economic Conditions, Development Options
and Projections. p. 134.
Agriculture has played an important part in the historical development
of the Borough. Up until the early 1960 1 s commercial agriculture pro-
duction continued to ·increase. Since then the number of farms and
volume of production has declined. This condition is due to changes in
economic activity within the Borough. 11 The focus of public attention
has turned to land speculation, residential subdivisions, service and
construction businesses to meet the needs of the Valley•s suburban
population and public services for people whose employment is not
related to agriculture in any manner. 11 (Borough, 1978, p. 104). The
Borough government is attempting to reverse the decline through various
means including the Point MacKenzie Project.
3.7 -Employment
3.7.1 -Introduction
The best indicator for levels of economic activity and changes in eco-
nomic activity in Alaska is employment data. Income (wage and salary)
data could also be used as an indicator, but this data is not as
reliable as employment data. Thus, employment data from several years
is presented and analyzed in this subsection to provide a better
understanding of the state economy, the economy of Study Area 3, the
component local economies and interrelations among these economies.
Data from 1970, 1975, and 1979 was chosen so as to provide an
understanding of the economies before, during, and after the
trans-Alaska pipeline. Data from 1979 is the most current avail able.
Extensive and detailed analysis of this and other employment data is
deferred until the forecasting methodology is finalized (See Subsection
3.10).
Unemployment, total civilian workforce, and o_ccupational data are also
presented in this subsection. This data helps describe economic acti-
vity and structure. As with employment, extensive and detailed analy-
sis of this and other unemployment and occupational data is deferred
209
until the forecasting methodology is finalized. Additionally, income
data will be presented in the future as a supplement to the employment
data.
3.7.2 -Employment by Sector
3.7.2.1 -State Trends
Alaska•s economy has been historically dependent upon development of
its natural resources, primarily fisheries, minerals, and timber.
Employment as a result has been oriented towards these extractive
industries. In addition, the military has played a major role since
World War II. In 1965 approximately 37 percent of Alaska •s work force
were military employees.
Beginning in the 196o•s significant shifts in employment began,
paralleling the trends for the nation in general. Table 65 presents
Alaska•s nonagricultural wage and salary employment, categorized by
major industry sector, for the years 1970, 1975, and 1979. The Table
presents both levels and percent of total for each industry group. The
most notable shift occurred in federal government employment. From
1970 to 1979, total civilian federal employment grew slightly while
state total employment rose 80 percent.
federal government employment fell from
employment in 1970 to 10.8 percent in 1979.
Thus, the proportion of
18.5 percent of total
The sector with the largest absolute gain is state and local government
employment. From 1970 to 1979, this sector employed an additional
18,000 persons. The sector•s share increased slightly over the period
to 22 percent of total employment. This trend reflects the increasing
role of state and local governments in providing services to residents.
As petroleum-based revenues accrue to the state and if these are are
passed on to state and local governments, then this trend will probably
continue.
210
N
1:-'
1-'
TABLE 65
STATE ANNUAL NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT BY SECTOR
1970 1975 1979.
Total % Total % Total %
TOTAL 1-Nonagricultural Industries 92,400 100.0 161,689 100.0 166,406 100.0
Mining 3,000 3.2 3,790 2.3 5, 773
Construction 6,900 7.5 25,735 15.9 10,092
Manufacturing 7,800 8.4 9,639 6.0 12,818
Transportation -Communication &
Utilities 9,100 9.8 16,473 10.2 16,704
Wholesale Trade 3,200 3.5 5,908 3.7 5,511
Retail Trade 12,100 13.1 20,300 12.6 23,877
Finance-Insurance and Real Estate 3,100 3.3 6,030 3.7 8,035
Services 11,400 12.3 25,136 15.5 28,345
Federal Government 17,100 18.5 18,288 11.3 17,915
State and Local Government 18,500 20.0 29,247 18.1 36,617
Miscellaneous 200 .2 1,143 .7 720
1 Figures may not total correctly because of averaging.
Source: Alaska Department of Labor. Statistical Quarterly. Juneau, AK.
(various issues)
3.5
6.1
7.7
10.0
3.3
14.3
4.8
17.0
10.8
22.0
.4
Total government employment in the state accounted for 32.8 percent of
total employment. This represents a decline from 1970 when government
employed 38.5 percent of the total. Nevertheless, government still
accounts for more employment in Alaska than any other sector.
Another discernible trend over the period is the growth in the service
and support sectors. The industry share for services rose by 4.7 per-
cent over the period. This was the largest increase in percentage
terms of any sector. Transportation, conmunications, and utilities
(TCU); retail trade; and finance. insurance. and real estate (FIRE) all
showed increases in industry share. This reflects the 11 maturation 11 of
the Alaskan economy as it becomes 1 arge enough to support these sec-
tors.
Ironically, perhaps, the role of the 11 producing 11 sectors which provide
the economic base of the state 1 s economy, is not as important in terms
of overall direct employment. With the exception of mining. the pro-
ducing sectors show a decline in industry share of employment during
1970 to 1979.
Another pattern which is apparent is the aberrations in the overal 1
trend from 1970 to 1979. Construction employment almost quadrupled
from 1970 to 1975. Wholesale trade as well as construction reached
higher levels of employment in 1975 than in 1979. These figures
reflect the impact created by construction of the Trans-Alaska pipe-
line. The project employed thousands of construction workers between
1974 and 1977. Wholesale trade employment surged during the same
period as large quantities of sand, gravel. and machinery were
required.
The impact of the pipeline is evident in the total employment figures.
The state experienced a majority of growth in employment over the
period tabulated between 1970 and 1975 when employment increased 75
percent to 161,689. From 1975 to 1979 total employment increaserl only
212
3 percent. Figure 23 presents employment data graphically from 1974 to
August 1980. The sharp increase prior to the beginning of 1976 as well
as the "leveling off" from 1976 onward are evident.
3.7.2.2-Study Area 3
Table 66 presents non-agricultural employment data for Study Area 3.
This area is comprised of the following census divisions: Anchorage,
Fairbanks, Southeast Fairbanks, Matanuska-Susitna, Valdez-Chit ina-
Whittier, Kenai, and Seward. The data was obtained by summing over
these divisions. Included in Table 66 are figures showing each sector
as a percent of total state employment in the sector. These figures
provide estimates of Study Area 3's (regional) share of total state
employment in each sector.
In general, the same trends are apparent here as for the state figures.
Notable differences are the relatively higher· share of the service and
support sectors and relatively lower shares for producing sectors with
the exception of construction. These differences are to be expected
considering that seafood processing and wood products firms (main com-
ponents of manfucturing) are dispersed along the coasts and in
Southeast Alaska, and many mining operations occur outside of Study
Area 3. This structure is highlighted in the regional share figures.
Table 67 presents employment data for Anchorage including regional
share figures relative to Study Area 3 and the state. The figures
clearly illustrate Anchorage's dominance relative to Study Area 3 and
the state. Not surprisingly then, general trends for Anchorage are
similar to those for the region and state.
3.7.2.3 -Study Area 2
Table 68 presents employment data for the Matanuska-Susitna Borough
including the Borough's share relative to Study Area 3. Most striking
213
I
N
usa
p 1441
e
X
128
FIGURE 23
ALASKA NONA G. EMPLOYMENT INDEX t 972= t 00
AUGUST=164.3
7& 78 77 78 78 •a .,
YEAR
Source: Alaska Department of Labor. October 1980. Alaska Economic Trends. Juneau, AK. p.S.
TABLE 66
STUDY AREA 3 ANNUAL NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT BY SECTOR
PERCENT OF STATE
1970 1975 1979 1970 1975 1979
Total _!_ Total _..!_ Total _!__ _1_ _I_ _I_
TOTAL 1-Nonagricultural Industries 62,690 100.0 113,818 100.0 113,204 100.0 67.8 70.4 68.0
Mining 1,610 2.6 2,243 2.0 2,822 2.5 53.7 59.2 48.9
Construction 5,264 8.4 16,359 14.4 8,257 7.3 76.3 63.6 81.8
Manufacturing 1,850 3.0 2,596 2.3 3,705 3.3 23.7 26.9 28.9
Transportation -Communication &
N Ut 11 it ies 6,021 9.6 12,094 10.6 12,062 10.7 66.2 73.4 72.2
.......
!.n Wholesale Trade 5,366 4.7 5,083 4.5 90.8 92.2
12,111 19.3 79.2
Retail Trade 15,965 14.0 18,309 16.2 78.6 76.7
Finance-Insurance and Real Estate 2,520 4.0 4,696 4.1 6,139 5.4 81.3 77.9 76.4
Services 8,868 14.1 20,995 18.4 19,674 17.4 77.8 83.5 69.4
Federal Government 12,372 19.7 13,022 11.4 12,728 11.2 72.4 71.2 71.0
State and local Government 11,585 18.5 17,799 15.6 21,130 18.7 62.6 60.9 57.7
Miscellaneous 52 .1 217 .2 712 .6 26 19.0 98.9
1 Figures may not total correctly because of averaging and disclosure limitations on data.
Source: Alaska Department of labor. Statistical Quarterly. Juneau, AK. (various issues}
TABLE 67
ANCHORAGE ANNUAL NONAGRl CULTURAL H1PLOYt1ENT BY SECTOR
PERCENT OF
STUDY AREA 3 PERCENT OF STATE
1970 1975 1979 1970 1975 1979 1970 1975 1979
Total __!_ Total __!_ Total ~ I _,_ I -' _1 _1
TOTAL 1-Nonagricultural Industries 41.995 100.0 69.561 100.0 77.569 100.0 67.0 61.1 68.5 45.4 43.0 46.6
Mining 958 2.3 1.300 1.9 1.984 2.6 59.5 58.0 70.3 31.9 34.3 34.4
Construction 3.514 8.4 6.913 9.9 5.735 7.6 66.8 42.3 69.5 50.9 26.9 56.8
Manufacturing 1.018 2.4 1.572 2.3 1.735 2.3 55.0 60.6 46.8 13.0 16.3 13.5
N Transportation -Communication & ......
0'1 Utilities 3.907 9.3 7.343 10.6 7.998 10.6 64.9 60.7 66.3 42.9 44.6 47.9
Wholesale Trade 4,076 5.9 4,012 5.3 76.0 78.9 69.0 72.8
8.617 71.2 56.3
Retai 1 Trade 20.5 10.852 15.6 13.130 17.4 68.0 71.7 53.5 55.0
Finance-Insurance and Real Estate 1.980 4.7 3.615 5.2 4,894 6.5 78.6 77.0 79.7 63.9 60.0 60.9
Services 6.403 15.2 13.188 19.0 13.306 17.6 72.2 62.8 67.6 56.2 52.5 49.9
Federal Government 9.509 22.6 10.176 14.6 9.758 12.9 76.9 80.0 76.7 55.6 55.6 54.5
State and Local Government 6.037 14.4 10.416 15.0 12.403 16.4 52.1 58.5 58.7 32.6 35.6 33.9
Miscellaneous 52 .1 110 .2 614 .a 100 50.7 51.9 26 9.6 61.0
1 Figures may not total correctly because of averaging.
Source: Alaska Department of Labor. Statistical Quarterly. Juneau. Ak. (various issues)
TABLE 68
MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH ANNUAL NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT BY SECTOR
PERCENT OF
STUDY AREA 3
1970 1975 1979 1970 1975 1979
Total _!__ Total ..1._ Total ..1._ I _1_ _I
TOTAL 1-Nonagricultural Industries 1,145 100.0 2,020 100.0 3,078 100.0 1.8 1.8 2.7
Mining * * 11 .3 * * .o
Construction 120 10.5 188 9.3 184 6.0 2.3 1.1 2.2
Manufacturing * 30 1.5 40 1.3 * 1.2 1.1
Transportation -Communication &
Utilities 114 9.6 218 10.8 316 10.2 1.9 1.8 2.6
N ...... Wholesale Trade 44 2.2 49 1.6 .8 1.0 ......
174 15.2 1.4
Retail Trade 271 13.4 696 22.6 1.7 3.8
Finance-Insurance and Real Estate 22 1.9 62 3.1 129 4.2· .a 1.3 2.1
Services 179 15.6 288 14.3 447 14.5 2.0 1.4 2.3
Federal Government 106 9.3 124 6.1 97 3.1 .9 1.0 .8
State and Local Government 376 32.8 758 37.5 1,101 35.8 3.2 4.3 5.2
H1sce llaneous * * 21 .7 * * 1.8
* Data unavailable due to disclosure policy.
1 Figures may not total correctly because of averaging and disclosure limitations on data.
Source: Alaska Department of Labor. Statistical Quarterly. Juneau, AK. (various issues)
is the 35.8 percent industry share for the state and local government
sector, (The regional share figures are quite similar). Borough
accounts for only 2. 7 percent of total employment in Study Area 3 yet
accounts for 5.2 percent of state and government employment.
A simi 1 ar pattern is found in the retai 1 sector. The sector 1 s share
within the Borough is 22.6 percent and the regional share is 3.8 per-
cent. In general, the Borough•s employment is virtually all govern-
ment, service, and support sector-oriented.
An interesting comparison is made possible by using the regional share
figures. By comparing the percentage share of total employment with
that of each sector a relative concentration "coefficient" can be
derived. This is basically a modified location quotient method which
may indicate if the area is providing (exporting) or demanding services
to the rest of the region. This is a rough estimation procedure and
the results may indicate that a given area•s ~opulation has a different
demand pattern for services. Still, results obtained from this may be
enlightening.
For Anchorage, most regional shares are higher than the regional share
of total employment indicating that Anchorage "exports" services.
Mat-Su, on the other hand, shows the opposite pattern indicating it
"imports" many services. These results are not surprising based on the
relative size of each economy. However, as mentioned above, this also
reflects the different structures of the economies.
Table 69 presents employment data for Valdez-Chitina-Whittier. As with
Mat-Su, state and local government employs substantially more persons
than any other sector. The transportation, communications,, and ut"ili-
ties sector is the next largest component. This is due to the fact
that employment associated with the pipeline is classified as transpor-
tation.
218
1'\) .....
1.0
TABLE 69
VALDEZ-CHITINA-WHITTIER ANNUAL NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT BY SECTOR
PERCENT OF
STUDY AREA 3
1970 1975 1979 1970 1975
Total _!_ Total _L Total ...!_ _ s _s _
TOTAL 1-Nonagricultural Industries 831 100.0 4.763 100.0 2.180 100.0 1.3 4.2
Mining * * * * *
Construction 21 2.5 2.518 52.9 86 3.9 .4 15.4
Manufacturing * 14 .3 19 .9 * .5
Transportation -Communication &
Ut11ities 61 7.3 389 8.2 472 21.7 1.0 3.2
Wholesale Trade 62 1.3 18 .8 1.2
95 11.4 .8
Retail Trade 321 6.7 181 8.3 2.0
Finance-Insurance and Real Estate * 73 1.5 70 3.2 * 1.6
Services 99 11.9 709 14.9 445 20.4 1.1 3.8
Federal Government 63 7.6 58 1.2 46 2.1 .5 .4
State and Local Government 464 55.8 613 12.9 840 38.5 4.0 3.4
Miscellaneous 0 D.O * * 0.0 *
* Data unavailable due to disclosure policy.
1 Figures may not total correctly because of averaging and disclosure limitations on data.
Source; Alaska Department of Labor. Statistical Quarterly. Juneau. AK. (various issues)
1979 _s
1.9
*
l.D
.5
3.9
.4
l.D
1.1
2.3
.4
4.0
*
3.7.3 -Unemployment and Total Civilian Workforce
Historically the unemployment rate for Alaska has been higher than
rates for states in the Lower-48. In 1970, unemployment in Alaska was
10.3 percent. The rate dropped as the pipeline was constructed. In
1975, a pipeline year, the rate was 6.9 percent. In 1979 the average
unemployment was 8.9 percent.
The usually higher unemployment rate for Alaska compared with other
states is due to several factors. One is that Alaska's population
growth has been historically spurred by "boom" type periods. Many in-
migrants are attracted -many of whom do not have the appropriate
skills. Ironically, because Alaska's workforce is relatively small,
workers with special skills are often recruited from the Lower-48 sta-
tes. The influx of workers, both skilled and unskilled, can tend to
offset the demand created. Therefore, the unemployment· rate may not
drop as dramatically as one would expect.
The boom-oriented workforce also may not fit into the economy once the
particular project is completed. The resulting out-migration can be
significant as occurred in the post-pipeline years.
Apart from boom periods, Alaska's economy is highly cyclical, espe-
cially in the resource-oriented sectors such as fisheries and forest
products. Alaska's climate also creates cyclical employment (and
unemployment) patterns in the construct ion sector and tourism-related
industries. This pattern is evident in Figure 24 which shows
employment by quarter and as a moving average since 1966. These swings
are even more noticeable in Figure 25 which plots the unemployment rate
since 1975.
An additional factor affecting the unemployment figures is the native
population which tends to have a high unemployment rate. The reasons
for this are both cultural and structural. Many natives are outside
the money economy and many have low educational and skill levels.
220
FIGURE 24
t--t--------t--------t-------t--------t--------t-------t--------t--------t-------t--------t--------t-------t--------t-Employ-
STATEWIDE QUARTERLY
TOTAL NONAGRICULTURAL WAGE AND SALARY EMPLOYMENT
WITH MOVING AVERAGE
I" I \ ,
I
I
' , , ,
I
1~
I I
I \ I ,
---Actual (Ouorterlyl
-Moving Average
188769
-186471
-184173
181975
-179::076
-177278
-174980
172682
170394
168086
16::0787
163499
l611'i'l
158893
156595
-15-4291
151'i'99
-14'i'700
147402
-145104
-l-42806
140508
138209
-135'i'll
-133613
-131315
1.29017
126719
-12-44:;!0
-122122
-119924
-117526
115::!2S
-112930
110631
108333
-106035
103737
-101439
-'i'9140.:I
-96842.3
-94~44.2
-92246
-81'947.8
-97649.7
-8:>3~1.5
-930~3.3
-80755,~
-78457
-761::08.8
-/3860.7
-7156:!.5
-69264.]
-66966.2
-64668
~--t--------t--------t-------t--------t--------t-------t--------t--------t-------t--------t--------t-------t--------t-
I
9
6
6
t
9
6
7
I
9
6
8
9
6
9
'i'
7
0
9
7
I
Source: Alaska Department of Labor.
Juneau, AK. p. 9.
'i'
7
9
7
3
9
7
4
'i'
7
5
'i'
7
6
9
7
7
9
7
8
9
7
'i'
1980. Annual Planning Information, FY 1981.
R
A
T
E
FIGURE 25
ALASKA UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
.·
Source: Alaska Department of Labor. September 1980. Alaska
Economic Trends. Juneau, AK. p.7.
222
Table 70 presents data on unemployment rates and total workforce for
the state and census divisions included in Study Area 3 for the years
1970, 1975, and 1979.
Most individual divisions follow the trend shown for the state, i.e., a
relatively high rate in 1970, dropping in 1975 due to pipeline impacts,
and increasing to a rate in 1979 slighly lower than the 1970 figure.
The only exception to this is Fairbanks. Fairbanks experienced the
greatest growth-inducing impacts from construction of the pipeline, yet
unlike the state and Anchorage, Fairbanks employment subsequently
dropped precipitously. This comparison is graphically presented in
Figure 26. As out-migration of the workforce occurred, the
unemployment rate began to fall.
The highest unemployment rate in each year was for the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough. Comparing total civilian labor force to
total nonagricultural employment figures, the wide discrepancy is
apparent. One reason for this is that the nonagricultural statistics
do not include agricultural, self-employed, domestic household, unpaid
family, striking workers, or unemployed workers. Another reason is
that a substantial number of workers commute to Anchorage. The OEDP
study estimated this at 37 percent of the Borough's total population.
3.7.4-Occupational Distribution
Occupational distribution patterns in Alaska have changed over time
reflecting the changing structure of the economy. As the service and
support sectors have grown, occupations associated with these sectors
have expanded. Figure 27 illustrates the distribution of total state
employment by major occupational group for 1979. Table. 71 presents
cross-industry employment by major occupational group for 1978.
223
N
N
-Po
Area
State
Study Area 3
Anchorage
Fairbanks
Kenai-Cook Inlet
Seward
Southeast Fairbanks
Matanuska-Susitna
Valdez-Chitina ..
Whittier
1 By Place of Residence
TABLE 70
CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE DATAl AND
PERCENT UNEMPLOYED FOR SELECTED AREAS
1970 1975
Percent Percent
Labor Force Unemployed Labor Force Unemployed
116,800 10.3 155,104 6.9
79,347 9.9 110,283 6.1
51,398 8.3 65.938 5.9
18,003 10.4 24,989 4.8
5. 727 17.1 8.576 8.7
938 17.1 1.255 9.2
{included in Fairbanks) 2,041 3.8
2,130 20.3 4, 784 11.1
1,151 11.5 2,700 5.3
1979
Percent
Labor Force Unemployed
180,000 8.9
126,110 9.0
78.822 7.1
20.537 12.3
10,971 12.1
1,494 10.9
2.052 10.7
9,018 13.8
3,216 9.5
Source: 1970 data -Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Division of Economic
Enterprise. 1979. Numbers. Juneau, AK. 127 pp.
1975 and 1979 data -Alaska Department of Labor, Research and Analysis Section.
FIGURE 26
NONAGRICULTURAL WAGE ~~D SALARY EMPLOYMENT INDEX
(1972 = 100)
Fairbanks, Anchorage and Alaska
1974-1980
220.0 ~------------------------------------------------------~ -Fairbanks
---Anchorage
··· · · · ·· Alaska
190.0 +---------~-+.~~--------------------------------------~
::< : •• .• t ..... • • •• ~ 160' 0 +-------1-------l . .· •, .
~ . ~
1-1 ...... • rv--
... /
./ ,/ .. ··/ 130.0+-----~~---------------------------------------------~
1974 19/5 1976 1977 1978 1979
Source: Community Research Center.
From: Fairbanks North Star Borough, Community Research Center. Community
Research Quarterly. A Socioeconomic Review. Fairbanks, AK. p. 46.
225
FIGURE 27
ALASKA STATEWIDE EMPLOYMENT ESTIMATES
PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF MAJOR OCCUPATIONAL GROUPS
1979
Managers & Officers -9.1%
Craft Workers, Operators & Laborers -32.5%
Salespersons -5.2%
Clerical Workers -21.6%
Source: Alaska Department of Labor. August 1979. Occupational
Employment Forecast. Juneau, AK. p. 4.
226
N
N
-..J
Managers and
Officers
Professional
Technical
Service
Maintenance and
Production
Clerical
Sales
TOtal A,!l
Occupations
Source:
26 270 431 332 404 121 114 765
32 712 119 160 53 40 ~5 221
690 20 11 11 68 21
30 81 51 154 12 16 14 18
275 3,029 l.D64 3,422 2.617 717 1,086 12
30 653 309 282 3)2 142 122 3,007
33 15 81 30
396 5,468 3,992 .4,385 3,510 1,083 1,463 4,048
TABLE 71
CROSS INDUSTRY El'lPLOYMENT BY MA-JOR OCCUPATIONAL GROUP
ALASKA STATF.WIDE 1978
213 282 294 197 75 424
87 99 220 46 55 545
2l 15 0 0 210
94 270 2,,307 383 1,316
U7 330 276 402 582
323 347 470 231 1,122
60 109 281 43 20 136
57
0
895
56
25
956 1,452 I, 781 3,339 1,166 4,335 1,037
204 82 218 136 426 370 227 5,668
12 42 799 491 796 426 898 5,910
57 0 5l2 0 41 14 427 2,160
27 2l7 559 16 737 544 31 7, 795
680 82 83 280 358 215 17,726
270 109 889 628 511 805 458 12,041
71 55 4 0 6 51 1,016
I, 321 607 3,084 1,272 2, 797 2,568 2 ,256 52,316
Alaska Department of Labor. September 1979.
Industries 1978. Juneau, AK. p. 5.
Occupational Employment Statistics --Nonmanufacturing
3.8 -Land Use
3.8.1 -Introduction
This section is included in the socioeconomic baseline profile because
of the fundamental role land use issues play in determining economic
activities in a given area. Relative to potential Susitna
hydroelectric development projects, the most important land use con-
siderations involve the area in close proximity to the dams, impound-
ments, access routes, and transmission corridors. Land use issues in
the area are being analyzed under Subtask 7.07. As such, discussions
concerning Study Area 1 are deferred to this 1980 Annual Report. Land
use considerations out side of Study Area 1 but within Study Area 2 are
briefly addressed below.
3.8.2 -Land Use Issues within Study Area 2
3.8.2.1 -Land Use Issues in Matanuska-Susitna Borough
The status of land in the Borough is an on-going issue. The topic is
complicated and made more important due to the fact the Borough is
experiencing substantial growth concentrated in the southern portion.
Both land use and land tenure are topics of debate.
Figure 28 shows the land tenure in the Borough as of May 1967. Changes
have occurred si nee that time due to state and federal 1 and disposal
policies, especially the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. The
former is currently a major issue in the Borough. The Alaska
Department of Natural Resources was mandated in 1978 to dispose
throughout the state of 100,000 acres per year for five years to pri-
vate ownership. The program did not achieve the mandated level in FY
1979 or FY 1980. 11 The problem is •• ,11 a state official noted, " ••• that
we 1 re offering lands, but not the type of lands people really want.11
(Frontiersman, November 20, 1980).
228
FIGURE 28
LAND TENURE
D PRIVATE
D BOROUGH
0 51ATE
r /~/I
GEJ..t(R:.LIZ£0
t>~E :CYJNhNT
Sf.(: T 10 t~
S H A r~t.;
From: Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Department. April 1978. Phase I: Comprehensive Development Plan.
Palmer, AK. p. 43.
'--/' r(T
.'ij.
: ~ ' .. :
Conflict apparently is inevitable due to the procedures for land dispo-
sal. Native claims were granted first priority, then boroughs and
municipalities. State agencies were then allowed to pick out areas of
"statewide interest such as parks and recreation lands, wildlife habi-
tats, and state forests." {ibid) What remained went into the land
bank for disposal.
Problems in the Borough stem mainly from incompatible uses and/or
tenure. Protection of wildlife habitat precludes most forms of deve-
lopment, for example. In addition, after lands are designated for
disposal and platted by the state, servicing them becomes the respon-
sibility of the Borough. Many of the parcels offered are in remote
areas without adequate access. Problems also arise because of restric-
tions on access to other public lands created by converting certain
public lands to private ownership.
Intensive land use activities are concentrated in the southern part of
the Borough and along the principal highways. The majority of land in
the Borough, however, is used for more dispersed activities, prin-
cipally recreation and mining. For a current detailed description of
land use activities in the Borough, the reader is referred to the
Susitna Basin Land Use/ Recreation Atlas. {Alaska Department of Natural
Resources, 1980).
Selections and withdrawals of land in the Borough by Cook Inlet Region,
Inc. (CIRI) and its member village corporations have encountered
obstacles. (See the Borough 1 s Phase I Comprehensive Plan, April 1978,
Appendix C, for a detailed discussion of ANCSA 1 s implications for CIRI
and the Borough.) These obstacles are predominately legal in nature.
One important characteristic of the Native land selections relative to
the Susitna project is that much of the project site has been selected
by CIRI. Figures 29 and 30 show tentative land selections in the
Borough. Figure 29 shows regional corporation selections and Figure 30
shows village corporation selections. Future use of this area will
231
NATIVE CLAIM LANDS
MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH
TENTATIVE SELECTIONS-1977
D
D
COOK INLET REGION LAND TRADE
REGIONAL SELECTIONS
From: l·latanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Department. April 1978. Phase I: Comprehensive Development Plan.
Palmer, AK. p. 239.
FIGURE 30
NATIVE CLAIM LANDS
MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH
TENTATIVE SELECTIONS -1977
D CIRI VILLAGE SELECTIONS
D
~
If'· .. ,\
~ ... ~·'" l·-·""'
I
I
From: Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Department. April 1978. Phase I: Comprehensive Development Plan.
Palmer, AK. p. 240.
depend largely on the Native corporations policies. For a summary of
land management activities and issues in the project area, see
Subtask 7.07 1980 Annual Report.
Land use planning powers in the Borough reside with the various land
owners for the most part. The Borough, however, does exercise overall
planning authority for all lands within its boundaries. Roughly half
of the Borough is designated as a special use district. This area
includes all of the Talkeetna Mountains north to the Alaska Range and
project site. The designation permits multiple use of the lands within
the district. The ordinance (79~35) states:
"It is further the purpose to conserve the
unspoiled beauty of the mountains and the
alpine region, to be consistent with its
historic and continued use as a mining
district, and to aid wildlife habita·t
while permitting resource development,
recreation, grazing and related activities
where appropriate."
Passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act ANILCA)
in December, 1980, had little impact on land within the Borough. The
only Borough land affected was that near Mount McKinley National Park.
Figure 31 shows the location for the proposed hydroelectric project,
Borough boundaries and lands withdrawn in January 1979, as part of the
ANILCA process.
3.8.2.2 Land Uses in the Valdez-Chitina-Whittier Census Division
There are no organized boroughs and only a few incorporated cities
(Valdez, Cordova, and Whittier) in this region. As such land use
planning authority resides with the various land owners for much of the
area. Private ownership of 1 and is 1 imited to mining claims, remote
home sites, and portions of communities along the highways.
237
Ahtna, Inc., the regional native corporation and its affiliated village
corporations, will eventually hold title to roughly 2 million acres in
the region. As in the Mat-Su Borough, 1 and use and tenure issues are
controversial matters. Access to and use of lands is perhaps the issue
of greatest concern in the area.
ANILCA established the Wrangell-Saint Elias National Park and Preserve
in the region (See Figure 31), and classified the Middle Fork, Gulkana
River, and parts of the Delta River as National Wild and Scenic Rivers.
The passage of the ANILCA legislation is considered by many to be a
positive step forward, primarily because it resolves (or begins to
resolve) various issues which were uncertain before. Regulations con-
cerning use of some of the lands remain to be formulated.
Overall, the region is similar to the rural/remote areas of the Mat-Su
Borough in that land use outside of the federal lands is primarily
oriented toward dispersed activities, i.e; mining and recreation.
Future use will be determined largely by Ahtna, Inc., the native
village corporations, and the State.
3.9 -Recreation
This section will focus upon the recreation resources and degrees of
utilization which occur in Study Area 2, focusing on the Upper Susitna
River basin. Study Area 2 includes Study Area 1 and, in a few
instances, this section will deal with it specifically.
3.9.1 -Introduction
Situated between the major population centers of Anchorage and
Fairbanks, the Mat-Su Borough and Copper River-Wrangell Mountains area
provides a wide range of recreational opportunities. As is true of
Alaska in general, many of the recreation experiences available are
unique in the nation. Endowed with vast natural resources supporting
238
FIGURE 31
FEDERAL LAND WITHDRAWALS IN SOUTHCENTRAL ALASKA
.. ··.·: .· :.:·:· .. . ' ....... . ··:·:·.·.·.·: .... . . . . · ...
,~'
239
Susitna River
Wrangell-Saint Elias
National Park and
Preserve
Mj ifJNew National Monuments
~ vJi 1 derness Study Areas
(.·.::·./l Existing Federal Reserves
D Other (includes private, state,
and unallocated federal lands)
many varieties and species of wildlife, Alaska offers numerous oppor-
tunities for recreational activities. These activities are generally
characterized by low intensity, low impact, resource-oriented uses.
Hunting and fishing are the principal "consumptive" recreational acti-
vities while sightseeing, backpacking, and climbing are examples of
basically "non-consumptive" activities. In addition to these kinds of
activities, recreation within the various corrmunities includes more
socially oriented activities, e.g., baseball, ice skating, swimming,
and basic socializing.
3.9.2 -Regional Recreation Areas
The "largest" attraction in the region is Mount McKinley National Park
and the surrounding Denali National Park and Preserve. The road
entrance to the park is off the Parks Highway north of the Borough
where a variety of services and accommodations are available. For
climbing expeditions in the Park, Talkeetna serves as a primary take-
off point.
Chugach State Park, located 10 miles east of Anchorage, is a major
recreation area for the metropolis. The park consists of 495,000 acres
and offers camping, canoeing, fishing, hiking, and a variety of winter
uses.
The Denali State Park is the largest state park within the Borough.
Consisting of 282,000 acres, the park is located west of the project
site (Study Area 1). The Denali Master Plan calls for development of a
range nf recreational facilities. Winter sports, including cross
country skiing, dog mushing, ice skating, ice fishing, sledding, and
snowmobi 1 i ng are planned or presently avai 1 able. Campgrounds, boat
launches, picnic areas, and a visitor center are also provided or
planned.
Nancy Lake Recreation Area, 1 ocated just south of Will ow, is a 23,000
acre area of numerous 1 akes. The State Di vision of Parks plans to
-240
develop the area into a major recreation area with extensive facilities
including cabins, horse trails, camping, picnicing sites, and swimming
beaches. The plan ultimately calls for a total of 1,760 camping units.
The Lake Louise area in the southeastern part of the Borough is a major
fishing, boating, and hunting area. The area is predominately in pri-
vate ownership. Lake Louise feeds the Tyone River which is a tributary
of the Upper Susitna.
The Big Lake area between Wasi 11 a and Wi 11 ow has deve 1 oped into a
recreation area mainly catering to persons from Anchorage who maintain
summer cabins on the shores.
Other pubic and private recreational developments in the Borough
include roadside campgrounds and lodges, scenic pullouts, and hunting
lodges in remote areas.
Road transportation is the primary means of access to the aforemen-
tioned areas. For more remote areas, boats, float planes and 1 i ght
aircraft are often used. All-terrain-vehicles (ATVs) and snowmobiles
have also become major modes of transportation, especially for hunting.
Use of these vehicles is becoming more restricted, however, as hunting
pressure increases and herds decrease. ATVs can also be very detrimen-
tal to the fragile ecosystems of the area.
3.9.3 -Sport Fishing
Many of the developed recreation areas in the Borough occur around
bodies of water. This is due to the inherent aesthetic values as well
as the activities available, i.e., fishing and boating.
Throughout southcentral Alaska, sport fishing is a major recreational
activity. Perhaps the most reknowned area is the Kenai Peninsula.
Fishing pressure there has recently become so intense that fishermen
241
are practically elbow to elbow during the season. One result of this
has been an increase in the use of alternative areas in the region.
The Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) estimates that 71 percent
of the 1,285,063 angler days fished in Alaska in 1978 were spent in the
Southcentral region. The Cook Inlet area (Anchorage, Knik Arm
Drainage, East Susitna Drainage, West Cook Inlet -West Susitna
Drainage, and the Kenai Peninsula) accounted for 752,966 angler days or
59 percent of the total State effort in 1978. The Kenai Penninsula
itself had 521~498 or 41 percent of total angler ~ays fished. (Mills,
1980.)
Data for four subareas of the Southcent ral region which incorporate
Study Areas 1 and 2 are presented in Tables 72 through 76. These
subareas are East Susitna Drainage, West Cook Inlet -West Susitna
Drainage, Knik Arm Drainage, and Glenallen. Table 72 presents aggre-
gated statistics for these areas by species~ In terms of number of
fish harvested~ pink salmon, rainbow trout, and arctic grayling are the
three most popular species for the combined area. A total of 244,887
angle days were expended in the area which constitutes 19 percent of
the State total and 27 percent of the Southcentral effort. From 1977
to 1978, angler days spent in the area increased ten percent (ibid.).
Fishing is a major recreational activity for both Alaska residents and
non-residents. Approximately three-quarters of the estimated 206,185
anglers who fished in 1978 were residents. Thus, roughly 50,000 sport
fishermen were visitors~ i.e., nonresidents. More than half of all
sport fishermen in 1978 who were Alaska residents were from the
Anchorage and Mat-Su Borough area (ibid.).
It should be noted that the data presented here was gathered by means
of a postal survey to random samples of Alaska sport fishing license
holders. This data was corroborated using on-site creel surveys of
random samples of fishermen. The data was then statistically adjusted
242
TABLE 72
SPORT FISH HARVEST BY SPECIES1
ESTIMATED
RANK SPECIES SYMBOL2 NUMBER OF FISH HARVESTED
1 Pink Salmon PS 58,808
2 Rainbow Trout RT 46,453
3 A ret i c Grayling GR 42,226
4 Coho Salmon ss 27' 154
5 Land locked
Coho Salmon LL 24,071
6 Dolly Varden, DV
Artie Char AC 18,034
7 Chum Salmon cs 17,970
8 Bur bot BB 8,099
9 Lake Trout LT 7,413
10 Sockeye Salmon RS 4,746
l1 Chinook Salmon KS 4,184
12 Whitefish WF 3,634
13 Other 1,345
14 Northern Pike NP 316
15 Steel head SH 45
1For the following areas: East Susitna Drainage, East Cook Inlet -West
Susitna Drainage, Knik Arm Drainage, and Glenallen.
2symbols are used to identify species in the following tables.
243
N .p.
.p.
TABLE 73
EAST SIDE SUSITNA DRAINAGE* SPORT FISH HARVESTS AND EFFORT BY FISHERY AND SPECIES, 1978
Days DV
fJahed KS ss LL RS PS cs RT AC LT GR B8 Olher
Willow Creek 22,682 41 90S 0 S6 18,901 2,4S8 913 280 0 208 9 21
Hontana•Creek 25 ,762 408 2,4SI 0 8S 15,619 4,429 1,191 6)] 0 958 9 27
Clear (Chunilna)
Creek 5,040 12 2,200 0 28 2,014 1,912 1,501 1,817 0 8S9 21 0
Sheep Creek 11,869 256 478 0 14 6,981 1,697 470 108 0 461 18 9
Little Willow Creek 5,687 0 151 0 28 ],142 I ,OJS )14 61 0 114 0 0
Othus 14,970 161 2,388 2,368 56 3,994 2,692 1,519 2,139 871 3,110 208 90
GRAND TOTAL 86,010 886 8,513 2,368 267 50,111 14,203 5,930 5,640 811 6,600 271 151
*East Side Su$ltna Drainaae (Ares H): All East side drainages of lhc Susitna River below tts confluence with the Oshetna River.
fish taken while fishing from the East bank of the Susitna River are Inc 1u•lcd in this area.
Source: Mills, Michael J. July 1, 1979-June 30, 1980. Annual Performance Report for Alaska State-
wide Sport Fish Harvest Studies, Vol. 21. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Sport Fish
Division. Juneau, AK. p. 44.
N
-Po
01
TABLE 74
WEST SIDE COOK INLET-WEST SIDE SUSITNA RIVER DRAINAGE* SPORT FISH HARVESTS AND EFFORT
BY FISHERY AND SPECIES, 1978.
Days DV
Fished KS** ss RS PS cs RT AC LT GR NP BB Othel"
Dnhka Rlvel" 9, Ill 850 I, 798 0 697 0 J,6J4 0 0 579 0 0 72
Lalee Creek 8,767 326 2,212 254 2,833 1,015 2,721 154 36 2,115 9 45 18
Alrxandel" Cl"eek 6,914 769 2,401 183 1,146 215 2,640 ))6 0 1,871 0 0 181
Talachulltna Rlvrl" 732 12 88 141 Jl 234 0 235 0 99 0 0 0
Chult Rlvel' 1,185 408 277 0 155 0 443 461 0 0 0 0 0
Theodol"e Rlvel" 9os· 58 101 0 449 0 226 353 0 0 0 0 0
Lewh Rl"el' 172 12 0 0 46 0 54 27 0 0 0 0 0
Othel" Rhen 6,011 112 3,683 662 898 I ,171 1,528 1,220 0 1,953 0 72 6)
Shell Lake )02 0 0 28 0 0 27 0 45 0 0 0 0
Vhhkey Liller 129 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Jlew I tt Lake 172 0 0 0 0 0 127 0 0 0 0 0 0
Judd Lake lSI 0 0 70 0 0 0 371 0 0 0 0 0
Othel" J.aku 3,420 0 0 268 0 0 1,618 551 515 108 307 )6 36
GRAND TOTAL 38,771 2,517 10,560 1,634 6,255 2,6)5 1),018 J,508 596 6, 725 316 15) )70
Razol" Clams Total Diggins Days: 800 Total C1a111s Taken: )9 ,175
*Vest Side Cook Inlet-Vest Side Sucltnl! River Drainage (AI"ea N): All Vest aide Susltna River dralnaae• and all Vest aldr Coole Inlet
"'a leu Southward .to Care Douglas. Fish takrn while fishing hom the West bank of the Susltna Rlvel" al"e included In thh al"ea.
·~Kings leas than 20 Inches.
Source: Mills, Michael J. July 1, 1979-June 30, 1980.
Statewide Sport Fish Harvest Studies, Vol. 21.
Fish Division. Juneau, AK. p. 45.
Annual Performance Report for Alaska
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Sport
TABLE 75
KNIK ARM DRAINAGE* SPORT FISH HARVESTS AND EFFORT BY FISHERY AND SPECIES, 1978
Days DV
Fhhed ICS ss LL RS PS cs RT AC LT GR BD Other
LiLlie Suslln• River 12,127 93 4,86~ 0 859 1,~17 956 886 570 0 54 9 759
Wasilla Creek
(Rabbit Slough) 3,446 47 2,112 0 0 219 59 45 325 0 0 0 0
• Finser Lake 11,502 0 0 8,~88 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N Kepler La•e Comple111 5,730 0 0 298 0 0 0 5,180 0 0 985 0 0
.j:>o
0'1 Lucille Lake 4,803 0 0 4,963 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Big Lake 9,865 0 0 226 0 0 0 4,845 5,433 0 0 18 0
Nancy Lake Recreation
Area, including Nan~y
Lal<e 7,647 0 0 262 14 0 0 1,853 18 127 0 145 0
Olhen 20,420 0 918 4,547 366 ·46 117 10,330 I ,636 380 1,374 280 36
GRANO TOTAl. 75,540 140 7,895 18,884 1~239 1,842 \,132 23. IJ9 7,982 507 2,4JJ 452 795
•Knik Ar~ Orainase (Area K): All waterl inside the area bounded by the Little Susilna River on the North ~nd Weal and the Knik Arm on
the South, lndudin& all drainagea of the llalanuska and Knik Rivers. (Boundary streams Included in the area).
Source: Mi 11 s, Michael J. July 1 ' 1979 -June 30, 1980. Annual Performance Report for Alaska Statewide
Sport Fish Harvest Studies, Vol. 21. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Sport Fish Division.
Juneau, AK. p. 42.
TABLE 76
GLENNALLEN* SPORT FISH HARVESTS AND EFFORT BY FISHERY AND SPECIES, 1978
llaya DV
Fhhed JCS ss LL RS PS cs RT LT Sll AC GR wr DB Other
Gulhna River 6,:no 606 0 0 662 0 0 1140 lB 0 0 1,4114 361 9 0
Lake Louise,
Lake Susltna,
Trone Lake 13,161 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,522 0 0 2,278 672 2,947 0
Van (Silver)
Lake 1,335 0 0 1,074 0 0 0 461 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N
.,f::o ....... Paxson Lake
Summit Lake 6,111 0 0 0 0 0 0 316 1,085 0 0 1,474 114 307 18
Strelna Lake 495 0 0 1,058 0 0 0 190 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sculpin Lake 754 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,790 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Crouwind Lake 2,800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 714 0 0 651 2,004 868 0
Other Waters 13,334 JS 126 687 944 0 0 669 1,094 45 904 14,591 423 3,092 9
GR/IND TOT/It 44,566 641 126 2,819 1,606 0 0 4,366 5,433 45 904 26,488 3,634 7,223 27
•Glennallen (Area I): /Ill water• and drainages of the Oshetn.l River and the Copper River upstrealll Croll • line between the South bank of
Haley Creek and the South bank of Canyon Creek In Woods Canyon, and Including the Upper Su~ltnil River draln•ge fro11 Ita conCluence with
thr O~hrtna River.'
Source: Mi 11 s, Mi chae 1 J. July 1, 1979 -June 30, 1980. Annual Performance Report for Alaska Statewide
Sport Fish Harvest Studies, Vol. 21. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Sport Fish Division.
Juneau, AK. p. 40.
to provide estimates of overall harvest levels and effort. This data
regarded by sport fish biologists as in providing effective estimates
of sport fishing activity. (ibid.)
3.9.4 -Hunting
Hunting is the major recreational activity in the region between the
Talkeetna Mountains and the Alaska Range. The major species hunted are
caribou, moose, and bear. Each of these species is briefly addressed
below. For the purposes of this study, ADF&G 1 S Game Management Unit 13
will be used as the source of hunting data. When available, Subunit
13E, which corresponds more closely to Study Area 1, will be used as
the rlevent data area.
3.9.4.1 -Caribou
The caribou in the region near the project site are part of the
Nelchina herd. This herd reached a peak population of about 70,000 in
1962 and a low of about 8,000 in 1972. Reasons for the decline include
natural factors as well as intensive hunting. Current population esti-
mates put the size of the herd at about 19,000.
The following information is taken from the Alaska Wildlife Management
Plans (Draft, 1980) page 81, published by the Alaska Department of Fish
and Game.
The Nelchina herd has been the most
heavily sports-hunted caribou herd
in Alaska since 1950. Harvests
exceeded 4,000 caribou in most years
from 1959 to 1971. Sharp restric-
tions in hunting seasons and bag
limits in 1972, from an eight-month
season to a six-week season, and a
248
three caribou bag limit to one cari-
bou, reduced the kill to about 600.
The harvest increased to 800 in 1973
and to 1,200 in 1974. In 1975, a
further reduction in season length
to three weeks reduced the kill to
about 800 caribou. Large harvests
in the period 1967-1971 and propor-
tionally large kills on a reduced
population since 1972 can be attri-
buted to increased access, greater
use of all-terrain vehicles, and
increased hunting pressure.
Table 77 presents data on harvest totals, hunting effort and other
variables for the Nelchina herd hunting effort since 1972. Since 1977
the number of permits has been substantially reduced and, correspon-
dingly, the size of the herd has increased dramatically. (The popula-
tion was estimated at 7,842 caribou in 1972 and 18,981 caribou in
1978). ADF&G received 5,600 permit applications and issued 1,300 per-
mits to harvest Nelchina caribou during the 1980 season. Hunters har-
vested 630 caribou. (See Tab 1 e 78; note that this includes parts of
GMU 14)). ADF&G intends to allow the herd to increase to 20,000 ani-
mals which will support an estimated 2,000 annual harvest.
3.9.4.2 -Moose
Data for moose harvests, and hunting pressure are presented in Table 78
and 79 for game management Unit 13. This unit includes a large part of
Study Area 2 including the project site.
Since 1972, the moose harvest (as well as population) has remained
fairly constant, accounting for approximately 20 percent of annual
state harvests. Since the early 1970•s, increasingly restrictive regu-
249
N
t.n
0
TABLE 77
NELCHINA HERD
Reported Unit 13 caribou harvest by sex, residency of hunter, success ratios, and total
extrapolated harvest, 1972-1978.
Total Number
reported Total extr. reported Success Number Number Resident Nonresident
Year harvest harvest hunters ratio males _(_!>~cent) females {Percent) harvest harvest -----No. ! No. %
1972 555 N/A 1,586 34% 3~8 (72%) 153 (28%) 301 (56%) 237 (44%)
1973 629 810 1,982 32% 411 (67%) 203 (33%) 401 (68%) 187 (32%)
1974 1,036 1,192 2,550 41% 656 (66%) 343 (34%) 820 (82%) 181 (18%)
1975 669 806 1,991 34% 441 (69%) 201 (31%) 515 (80%) 126 (20%)
1976 776 822 1,807 43% 560 (74%) 201 (26%) 642 (85%) 117 (15%)
1977 360 580 62% 275 (78%) 77 (22%)
1978 539 747 72% 416 (79%) 111 (21%) 510 (95%) 25 (4%)
PREPARED BY: Sterling Eide, Game Biologist III
Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Game. March 1980. Annual Report of Survey-Inventory
Activities, Part II, Bison, Caribou, Moose and Muskoxen. Juneau, AK. p. 33.
TABLE 78
FALL 1979 DRAWING PERMIT APPLICATIONS
Species Hunt # Season Dates Area & Game # Permits Total # Tota 1 # Percent
Management to be Applications Harvested Successful
Uni tl/ Issued Received Hunts
Caribou 503 Aug. 20 -Units 13 & 1 ,300 5,600 630 48
(either sex) Sept. 20 14, except
14C
Moose 910 Sept. 1 -Matanuska 200 2,740 97 48
(antl erl ess) Sept. 20 Valley -l4A
9ll Sept. 1 -Willow to 100 667 22 22
Sept. 20 Talkeetna -
N 148 U1 ......
913 Jan. 23 -Willow to 50 6,011 43 86
Feb. 6 Talkeetna
Source: ADF&G records.
11 The Willow Subbasin encompasses southwest portion of 148 and· western half of 14A.
From: Soil Conservation Service, et. al., December 1980. Susitna River Basin Study. Draft Report. p. 4-86.
TABLE 79
MOOSE -GMU 13 Nelchina Basin
A comparison of Annual Moose Harvest and Hunting Pressure, 1963-1978
Year Season
1963 Total
1964 Total
1965 Total
1966 Total
1967 1st
2nd
Total
1968 1st
2nd
Total
1969 1st
2nd
Total
1970 1st
2nd
Total
1971 1st
2nd
Total
1972 1st
2nd
Total
1973 Total
1974 Total
1975 Total
1976 Total
1977 Total
(1977)****Tota1
1978 Total
Male
1385
1213
1318
1336
1009
112
1217*
1013
171
1240*
817
87
1204*
746
271
1141*,**
703
205
1126*
559
39
689*
604
768
690
708
684
855
846
Female
343
394
3
181
319
0
319
243
0
243
0
7
7
56
58
220
333
338
670***
5
2
7*
4
3
2
1
1
1
Unknown
7
0
10
36
16
29
8
8
14
8
30*
18
7
1
16*
10
23
23
23
13
16
Total
1735
1607
1331
1553
1552
1512
1219
1391
1814
712
618
794
715
732
698
855****
863
Hunters
4163
4027
4476
2553
3535
4881
3199
2513
2770
2978
3122
2299
3698****
3034
* Moose whose date of kill is unknown are included in the total.
Percent
Success
37
28
34
48
39
37
22
24
29
24
23
30
23
28
** Adult, antlerless bulls killed during the late antlerless season are included.
*** Data from antlerless permit returns. Harvest ticket returns indicated a
female kill of 614.
**** Extrapolated results to correct for absence of reminder letters in 1977.
(Total= 855 ± 133, p = .OS; hunters= 3698 ± 1,080, p = .05).
PREPARED BY: Sterling Eide, Game Biologist III
Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Game. March 1980.
Annual Report of Survey-Inventory Activities, Part II, Bison, Caribou,
Moose and Muskoxen. Juneau, AK. p. 105.
252
lations have been adopted in an attempt to limit the harvest in the
face of increasing effort. Currently, the bag limit reads, 11 0ne bull
having an antler spread of at least 36 inches or at least 3 brow tines
on one antler.11
In light of the demand for permits (to hunt antlerless moose) in 1979,
as evidenced from data for the Willow subbasin where more than ten
times the number of available permits were applied for, the moose
resource in Southcentral Alaska is being fully utilized and cannot meet
existing demand. (See Table 78).
As with caribou, practically all hunters are residents of Alaska.
3.9.4.3 -Bear
The two species of bear hunted in Unit 13 are brown and black bear.
Brown bears are the targeted species, whi 1 E: black bears are most often
taken incidentally. Tables 80 and 81 present harvest data for each
species.
Several characteristics of bear hunting activities are noteworthy.
Foremost is the fact that many fewer bear are taken and fewer hunters
involved than for either caribou or moose. Of the hunters many are
non-residents. It is likely that this is a result of the fact that
fewer non-residents can participate in hunting other species and that
brown bear are often hunted as trophies. Bear are a 1 so often taken
incidentally by hunters after caribou or moose.
3.9.4.4 -Other Species
In the 1978 -1979 season 69 wolves, 59 wolverines, '68 lynx, and 17
otter were taken in Unit 13. With the possible exception of wolves,
these species are primarily utilized for commercia1 purposes and pri-
marily taken by trapping methods.
253
N
U1
~
TABLE 80
BLACK BEAR HARVEST DATA, GAME MANAGEMENT UNIT 13, 1973-1978
r~o. kill~ Percent
Regulatory Total No. Percent by Mean skull Percent salvaging
year kill males males nonres. size males(mm) incidental kill meat Season and bag limit
1973 69 42 61 34 411 3 bears; provided that
the taking of cubs or
females accompanied by
cubs is prohibited.
No closed season.
1974 50 32 64 10 413 Same
1975 71 47 66 15 429 Same
1976 60 38 63 13 425 48 55 Same
1977 58 37 64 10 421 41 52 Same
1978 64 41 68 11 419 39 64 Same
PREPARED BY: Robert Tobey, Game Biologist II
Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Game. December 1979. Annual Report of Survey-Inventory
Activities, Part I, Black Bear, Brown Bear, and Polar Bear. Juneau, AK. p. 36.
TABLE 81
UNIT 13
Brown bear sport harvest summary by year, sex of bear, residency of hunter, and length of season.
Calendar Total No. of No. of % of % of No. of No. by % by Length of
Year Kill** Males Females Males* Females* Unknown Nonres. Nonres. season
1961 0041 020 020 050% 050% 001 025 061% 30 days
1962 0034 021 013 062% 038% 000 019 056% 30 days
1963 0041 021 019 053% 048% 001 026 063% 30 days
1964 0036 015 020 043% 057% 001 023 064% 30 days
1965 0044 025 018 058% 042% 001 021 048% 30 days
1966 0063 033 026 056% 044% 004 041 065% 30 days
1967 0031 016 014 053% 047% 001 014 045% 30 days
1968 0038 018 019 049% 051% 001 018 047% 21 days
1969 0017 015 002 088% 012% 000 008 047% 31 days
N 1970 0027 018 008 069% 031% 001 015 056% 21 days (J'I
(J'I 1971 0072 032 035 048% 052% 005 044 061% 35 days
1972 0048 028 020 058% 042% 000 025 052% 31 days
1973 0044 026 017 060% 040% 001 026 059% 31 days
1974 0072 040 031 056% 044% 001 034 047% 40 days
1975 0080 043 031 058% 042% 006 037 046% 40 days
1976 0059 028 025 053% 047% 006 023 039% 40 days
1977 0038 031 007 082% 018% 000 012 032% 40 days
1978 0063 036 025 059% 041% 002 028 044% 40 days
TOTALS 0848 0466 0350 0057% 0043% 0032 0439 052%
* All perc~ntages are based on total known sex bears.
** Harvest totals for previous years may change as late sealing certificates are added.
PREPARED BY: Lee Miller, Game Technician V
Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Game. December 1979. Annual Report of Survey-
Inventory Activities, Part I, Black Bear, Brown Bear, ·and Polar Bear. Juneau, AK. p. 95.
In the 1978 -1979 season, 77 sheep were harvested from Units 13 and
14. The majority of the sheep came from the Talkeetna Mountains area.
Hunting pressure has been fairly constant over the past decade
averaging about 300 hunters per year.
3.9.5 -Boating and Kayaking
Much of the boating activity occurring in the waterways of the region
is associated with fishing or hunting, i.e., a means of transportation.
Some pH~asure boating occurs in the more developed recreation areas.
Kayaking, canoeing, and rafting occur throughout the region where
feasible. All levels of difficulty can be found, the pinnacl€ of which
is the Devil Canyon run. Few individuals have dared the whitewater.
Cole in his History of the Use of Upper Susitna River; Indian River to
the Headwaters (Cole, 1979), recounts the various expeditions which
attempted to pass through the canyon. Most d1d not succeed though they
escaped with few serious injuries.
The fol'lowing paragraph describing the whitewater resource in the
region is taken from the study done for the Army Corps of Engineers by
Jones & Jones in 1975.
Not only does much of the Upper Susitna
River occupy a stream-cut valley, but the
rapids in Devil •s Canyon are so excep-
tionally violent and spectacular as to
constitute a nearly unique aethestic and
recreational resource. Most Alaskan
rivers occupy broad glacially scoured
valleys, and whitewater beyond class III
is rare (conversations with members of
the U.S.D.I. Alaska Task Force respon-
sible for recomnendations on additions to
256
the National Wild and Scenic Rivers
System, 1974). Only three major whi-
tewater rivers are known in Alaska: the
Susitna and the Bremner in the
Southcentral Region, and the Alsek in the
Southeast. All are class VI rivers
(I.A.C. rating), at the limit of naviga-
bility, and cannot be attempted without
risk of life. All three are glacial
rivers; the near-freezing water and its
opacity further add to the danger posed
by the turbulence of.their rapids. The
Susitna and Alsek were recently both suc-
cessfully kayaked by Dr. Walt Blackadar
for the first time. It is not known if
anyone has yet attempted the Bremner, a
tributary of the Copper. According to
whitewater boaters, the characteristics
of the three are quite different,
although equally violent. The Bremner is
a small, steep river in an exceptionally
narrow slot-like gorge; the Alsek is a
short, very steep, turbulent river; the
Susitna has a relatively flat gradient
and owes its violence to its great
volume, the constriction of its channel
in Devil 1 s Canyon, and the rocky obstruc-
tions in its bed. Blackadar has
described Devil 1 s Canyon as much more.
difficult than the Grand Canyon and as
the "Mount Everest" of kayaking
(Anchorage Daily Times, March 28, 1973).
Dr. Blackadar also wrote a letter to the Corps responding to the draft
environmental impact statement concerning the Susitna hydroelectric
257
project describing in detail his trip through the canyon. Apparently
there are certain sections which have never been traversed by anyone.
3.9.6 -Miscellaneous Recreational Activities
As referred to in other parts of this section numerous recreational
activities occur in the region. Readers are referred to the Susitna
Basin Land Use/Recreation Atlas for de-tailed locations and types of
these activities. Activities not previously mentioned include berry
picking, bird watching, hang gliding, rock hunting, and off-road
driving. Suffice it is to say that the interior southcentral region of
Alaska offers a variety of recreational activities, albeit many are
highly seasonal.
3.9.7-Related Businesses
Air taxi services, lodges, and guides comprise the businesses which
directly service remote hunting and fishing activities. Air taxi ser-
vices operate out of many of the communities within the region. Lodges
can be divided into two groups; remote and non-remote. The latter
would be readily accessible by road, whereas the former would require
ATv•s or planes for access. Lodges usually cater to visitors and pro-
vide package trips.
There are 49 guides for Unit 13, each of which has an exclusive area.
Additionally, about 250 other guides are registered to conduct trips in
the unit although they must receive permission from those who have
exclusive areas. These figures give the impression that many guided
hunting trips occur when in fact they are a small percentage of total
trips. As noted previously, most moose and caribou hunting is con-
ducted by residents. Residents in general do not use guides.
In addition to those mentioned above, numerous other businesses in the
Borough are involved with recreation/tourism related activities. These
258
range fr.om real estate to grocery stores. In the Mat-Su Borough the
overall impact on the economy is substantial. This relative dependence
on recreation and tourism is a major cause for the seasonal nature of
employment in the Borough and helps explain why the service sector is
relatively large.
3.10-Methodology Development
During 1980, all relevant forecasting models used regularly or occasionally
by Alaska institutions and other potent·ially relevant models and studies,
whether specific to the Alaska economy or not, were identified and infor-
mation concerning them was collected. Next, the following evaluation cri-
teria were developed:
-time and cost restraints (e.g., utilizing an existing Alaska-specific
model would probably be more cost-effective than using a
1 ower 48 model);
-need for a model that assesses both quantitative and qualitative
factors in a theoretically rigorous manner and meets or exceeds
-generally acceptable standards for similar types of impact assess-
ments;
need for a model capable of assessing impacts at the 11 micro level ..
(Study Areas 1 and 2 in Figure 3) and the 11 macro level 11 (Study Areas
3 and 4 in Figure 3); and
-need for a model flexible with respect to data needs, both in terms
of availability of data on a given topic and in terms of the
availability of time-series data for a particular variable. (It will
be very important to coordinate the application of this screening
factor with the data identification, collection, and compilation
efforts of Work Packages 1 and 2).
These cr-iteria were applied to each relevant or potentially relevant model
or study. A matrix was developed to facilitate comparison of models and
methods. Based on this analysis, it was concluded that the primary
259
approach to forecasting would be causal (i.e., where the level of one
variable, the "causal variable," determines the level of another variable,
the "forecasted variable"). It was further determined that time series or
trend analysis, and qualitative (judgemental) analysis would serve as sup-
porting approaches, where appropriate.
With respect to a type of causal model, two types remained under con-
sideration at the close of 1980. These were economic base and econometric
models. Severa 1 methodological structures for an economic base model are
being developed. The advantages and disadvantages of each alternative
structure are to be weighed against the advantages and disadvantages asso-
ciated with the existing, or a modified, Man in the Arctic Program
(econometric) model.
260
4-IMPACT ASSESSMENT
4 -IMPACT ASSESSMENT
During the first year of Phase I, the only preliminary impact
assessment that was conducted was in regard to alternative access
routes. A discussion of this assessment is provided in Subsection
4.1. In addition, some issues and concerns relating to construction
and operation impacts of hydroelectric development in the Upper
Susitna Basin are discussed in Subsection 4.2.
4.1 -Preliminary Socioeconomic Impact Assessment for Alternative
Access Routes
In the fall of 1980, Frank Orth & Associates, Inc. was requested to
address and analyze the issue of potential socioeconomic impacts in con-
nection with three access corridors proposed by R&M Consultants, Inc.
The following is a preliminary analysis of this issue.
It is FO&A, Inc.'s professional judgment that the impacts will vary in both
magnitude and area of concentration depending on which corridor or com-
hi nation of corridors is chosen. To faci 1 it ate a better understanding of
the access corridors 1, 2, and 3, they have been defined in terms of
"access route combinations". The analysis is based on the impacts which
would arise from the entire project, and not solely on a particular access
route regarded in isolation. Therefore, it was deemed necessary to develop
access route combinations based on the mode of transportation to be used
and its connection with existing transportation facilities. It is
understood that there would be differences in the very local socioeconomic
impacts associated with the different access routes and corridors. These,
however, are either obvious (e.g., the road would pass in close proximity
to one of the lodges in the area or by an existing mining claim) and/or are
too small to be considered in a cost effective manner. The different
access route combinations are illustrated in Figure 32 and are defined as:
(a) Access routes by a new road from the west; (corridor 1) Chulitna
north of Susitna River to Devil Canyon and north of Susitna River
NOTE: Please refer to the Erratum that precedes the Summary of this report.
263
FIGURE 32
ACCESS ROUTE SCHEMATIC FOR SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Devil •s
"'0 \] 10
0 s... Canyon ..-.,.... Site 10
0:::
rtl
..:.t:.
Ill
10 ..-
c:t:
Parks
Highway
Denali Highway
0 watana
Site
Access Route 1 · \7 D
"A" r-v
Acces~c~oute i II I I I '\j I I I I I 0
Access Route
no"
Access Route ~ liE II ----
264
---0-e~~hway
Denali Highway
0/
>,
10
3: .s::;
Ol .,....
:c
s:::
0
Ill
"'0 s...
rtl .s::;
u .,....
0:::
to Watana, or (corridor 2) Chulitna, south of Susitna River to
Devil Canyon, and south of Susitna River to Watana.
(b) Access route utilizing existing railroad connecting .with a new
road to Devil Canyon and Watana (corridor 2).
{c) Access route utilizing existing railroad connecting with a new
railroad to Devil Canyon and Watana (corridor 2).
{d) Access route by a new road from the North, Denali Highway, to
Watana and possibly Devil Canyon {corridor 3).
{e) Access routes by existing railroad connecting with a new road from
the west to Devil Canyon {corridor 2) and by a new road from the
north to Watana (corridor 3).
The analysis is predicated on several assumptio~s, one of which is that
there wi 11 not be an enclave with a broad range of services at the pro-
ject site, and that labor commuting patterns will develop as a function
of access'ibility to the dam sites. It is also assumed that if the
access is from the west, whether a road connecting with the Parks
Highway or a rail spur off the existing railroad, the port of entry
would be Anchorage, and impacts would be concentrated on the "west
si de 11
• The west side is defined as Anchorage, Matanuska-Susi tna,
Seward, Kenai-Cook Inlet, and the southeast portion of Yukon-Koyukuk
census divisions. The areas of greatest concentration are the Parks
highway and Railroad corridor. However, if the access corridor were
from the Denali Highway, then it is assumed that the port of entry would
be Valdez. In this scenario more impacts would occur on the 11 east
side 11
• The east side is defined as the City of Valdez and the
Valdez-Chitina-Whittier Census Division, and the western portion of the
Southeast Fairbanks Census division, (primarily the Richardson Highway
and eastern portion of the Denali Highway). {See Figure 33).
265
d\..
d p;»
t> 0 • .
FIGURE 33
CENSUS DIVISIONS BY EAST AND WEST DEFINITION
\
\
I
Fairbanks
Valdez
I I WEST SIDE
~ EAST SIDE
Based on the above premises, an extensive literature review, and pro-
fessional judgment, the susceptible socioeconomic conditions and variables
were examined for impact magnitude per each access route combination. This
was done for the east and west sides, as well as for the fifth-combination
"E" where the impacts are dispersed over both the east and west sides. A
subjective numerical scale of 1 to 5 was used, with 5 representing a great
impact and 1 a small or negligible impact. The numerical scale does not
correspond to a quantitative measure, but rather is a scoring system used
to delineate the relative magnitudes of impacts. Relative refers here to
the socioeconomic base upon which the impact will occur. Thus, for the
east side, in general the impacts are rated fairly high because of its
relatively less developed socioeconomic base. This analysis is a -process
by which to examine the direct and indirect impacts on existing facilities
and demands on those facilities, not induced impacts. For instance, the
attractiveness of an increased and, perhaps, a less expensive power supply
for industry, and the impacts associated with such changes have not been
considered in our impact analysis.
Examination of Table 82 reveals certain patterns that have developed as
a result of the socioeconomic variables being analyzed in this manner.
Generally, if access corridor "A 11 is chosen, then the impacts will be
concentrated on the west side, and few impacts of any significant magni-
tude will occur on the east side. This is viewed as the result of an
easily accessible corridor, a road connection to the Parks Highway, for
construction materials, equipment, and labor sources, and for post-
construction alternative uses of the Susitna Basin.
The impacts to the west associated with access combination "B" are
generally less than those of ''A" because of the more restrictive nature
of rail, rather than road, as the initial link. The fact that there is
a roadhead at the railroad as opposed to the Parks Highway will limit
access, and thereby reduce the impacts. As with combination "A", the
impacts upon the east side with combination "B" are assumed to be minor.
267
TABLE 82
POTENTIAL SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE
ACCESS ROUTE COMBINATIONS, BY SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT CATEGORY 1
West Side
IMPACT CATEGORY A B C
Population Levels 5 4 5
Ethnicity~ Reliqion 1 1 1
Culture/Way of Life 2 2 2
Community, Social,
and Political Organi-5 4 4
zations/Facilities
Housing -Ty_g_e 3 2 2
Housing -Availability 5 4 4
Public Services 5 3 3
Government Revenues 5 4 4
Total Labor Demand 5 4 5
Unemployed Labor 5 4 4
Economic Base:
Construction 5 4 5
Mining 3 2 2
Agriculture 1 1 1
Forestry 3 2 2
Manufacturinq 3 3 3
Fisheries (Commercial) 1 1 1
Oil and Gas 1 1 1
Transportation-Motor 4 2 2
-Rail 2 4 5
Public Utilities 4 3 3
Communications 2 2 2
Wholesale Trade 5 4 4
Retai 1 Trade 5 3 3
Services 5 3 3
Tourism/Recreation 5 3 2
0 A
2 1
1 1
1 1
2 1
1 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 2
2 2
3 2
1 1
1 1
1 1
2 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
2 2
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
East Side
B C
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
2 2
2 2
2 2
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
2 2
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1 --
0
5
3
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
1
3
3
1
1
4
1
5
3
5
5
5
5
East/West
E
4
2
3
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
3
2
1
2
3
1
1
4
3
4
2
4
4
4
5
1 Socioeconomic conditions are described by socioeconomic categories. Each category
is further described by socioeconomic variables. Socioeconomic categories and
variables are shown in Appendix C. NOTE: A subjective numerical scale is used in
which 5 represents a great impact and 1 a small or negligible impact.
268
Combination 11 C11 represents an access route that is essentially the same
as 11 8 11 from a socioeconomic standpoint. The major differences appear to
be engineering and physical/biological/chemical in nature • ._ There are
deviations from this pattern, however, which are illustrated by the
categories, total labor demand and rail transportation. Since the
construction of a railroad is assumed to be more labor intensive than
the construction of a road, these categories witness an increase in
impact. A decrease in impact magnitude is exhibited in mining, due to
the more restrictive access associated with rail.
Access combination 11 0" shifts the impacts from the west side to the east
side, which is displayed by a substantial decrease in relative magnitu-
des under column D on the west side, and a dramatic increase in relative
magnitudes on the east side. As aforementioned, this is due to the
assumption that marine, and perhaps, air access will be through Valdez
and that the Richardson Highway will be the haul road. Even with such a
shift, impacts are sti 11 witnessed on the west side because it is
believed that industry and labor pools along the Parks Highway will con-
tinue to be utilized.
Access combination .. E.. appears to have the greatest impacts associ a ted
with it, due to the fact that they wi 11 be dispersed over a greater
area, as opposed to being concentrated in any one area.
Not all categories conform to these generalities. Some categories will be
impacted, or not impacted regardless of which access corridor is chosen,
and are essentially composed of 11 i ndependent.. variables. For example,
categories such as housing availability, total labor demand, unemployed
labor, construction, wholesale and retail trade, and services will all be
greatly impacted on the west side, independent of which access corridor is
chosen. Whereas categories such as agriculture, fisheries (commercial) and
oil and gas, on the other hand, will be impacted negligibly regardless of
the access route.
269
It was FO&A, Inc.•s intention to delineate the impacts most likely to occur
with the implementation of any one access route combination, and to exhibit
their relative magnitudes. These goals were realized and are displayed in
Table 82. However, since it was necessary to examine the large quadrangle
from Anchorage and Valdez north to Fairbanks, the focus was very broad and
-
the more localized categories such as land ownership, sport and subsistence
fishing, and mining claims were not addressed in this analysis.
The analysis is not as rigorous as had previously been envisioned due pri-
marily to the limitations imposed by unanswered questions. Those hurdles
were partially overcome by making assumptions. Before a more concrete ana-
lysis can be undertaken attempts should be made to address questions such
as:
Will there be an enclave where all services are provided? Or w-ill
workers commute and seek services in existing coiiiT!uniti es? Or some
other combination?
-Would the port at Valdez be utilized as opposed to Anchorage if the
access route were from the Denali Highway?
-What are the goals for the project site during and after
construction? Should access be restrictive during construction? After
canst ruction?
-What is the intent of the project? What relative weights will be
placed on economic and social benefits/costs? (End of memorandum)
Finally, some of the impact analysis for alternative access corridors is
relevant, by gross inference, to the impact analysis for a selected
hydroelectric plan. The reader is referred to the last column·in Table 81.
By looking down this column, one can compare relative socioeconomic impact
magnitudes for each of the various socioeconomic categories. Those cate-
gories with higher values wi 11 be substantially impacted whi 1 e those with
270
lower values will be impacted only slightly, if at all, by the selected
hydroelectric project plan. Since engineering and engineering-economic
information was not used by Frank Orth & Associates, Inc. ir¥-the access
corridor analysis, nor in this inference method used to approxi~ate impacts
for a selected hydroelectric project plan, these results are highly preli-
minary. Preliminary impacts for the alternative as well as selected
hydroelectric project plans will be developed during 1981.
4.2 -Issues and Concerns Relating to Dam Construction and Operation
As indicated above, certain factors will substantially influence the
geographic distribution and magnitude of socioeconomic impacts. Some of
the more important factors are the following:
-the type of access route;
-the type and amount of public and private uses intended for the
project site(s) and access routes and adjacen~/nearby land;
-the existence of an enclave with a broad range of services at or
very near the construction site(s) or the existence of a
construction camp with minimal services (i.e., some workers would
comnute to thesite and many workers would seek services in
nearby communities);
-the amount and timing of in-migration into Study Area 2 and com-
munities in Study Area 2 resulting from project-generated demand for
labor;
-the values of in-migrants relative to residents;
-the number of persons (relatives) that accompany in-migrants;
-The propensity of in-migrants to reside in Study Area 2 after
their project jobs terminate; and
-the amount and timing of the project•s demand for locally-produced
goods and services.
A very preliminary impact analysis was conducted at the outset of Work
Package 2. While the primary purpose of this analysis was to serve as a
271
guide for choosing variables to include in the baseline socioeconomic
profiles, it also indicates which variables are most susceptible to
change as a result of dam construction and/or operation. A"description
and the results of this analysis are presented in Appendix B. The
important point to remember in reviewing these results is that assump-
tions were explicitly or implicitly made concerning each of the above
factors. These assumptions had a definite influence on the geographic
distribution and relative degree of impacts.
The factors give rise to issues, and the issues can create concerns. To
illustrate this, consider the following example. Suppose that:
-the access route is a road from the Parks Highway to the Devil Canyon
and Watana sites;
- a large amount of public and private use of the project sites and
access road and adjacent/nearby land is permitted;
there are small construction camps at each project site;
in-migration to the Mat-Su Borough (particularly Talkeetna) is
substantial: the values of the in-migrants differ substantially from
those of the residents of Talkeetna and the Mat-Su Borough in general;
and each worker brings two relatives (immediate family);
-there is a low propensity for workers to remain in the Borough
after the project jobs end.
Given these assumptions, the following could occur in Talkeetna:
-population could double, triple, or even quadruple;
-great demands could be placed on community facilities and public
services, housing, the existing employed and unemployed labor pool,
etc.;
-sectors of the economic base such as construction, wholesale and
retail trade, services and tourism/recreation could change signifi-
cantly or face substantial pressures to change; and
-ethnicity, religion, and the culture/way of life could be significantly
altered.
272
These same impacts waul d accrue, albeit to a lesser extent, to other
communities along or near the Parks Highway.
The above list of exemplary impacts is not comprehensive nor.;:is it sup-
ported by substantial analysis. The reason for listing these potential
impacts is to show that the factors give rise to issues. Some of the
key issues are:
-what access route or combination of access routes results in the
most desirable distribution and magnitudes of socioeconomic
impacts?
-what type and amount of public and private use of the project
site(s) and access route and adjacent/nearby land provides for the
desired impacts?
-is an enclave or construction camp desirable?
-can the timing of the demand for labor be changed and, if so, what
is the most desirable labor schedule?
what types and amounts of construction supplies and services wi 11
be purchased locally?
These issues are interdependent. They must be addressed and resolved as
such.
Associated with each issue will be concerns. These concerns will usually
be expressed and voiced by persons who oppose or favor substantial changes
in the status quo (i.e., substantial changes in socio-economic variables
and conditions). The issues must be resolved by considering concerns that
arise and this also needs to be done in an interdependent manner.
273
5-MITIGATION
5 -MITIGATION
The location and magnitude of potential socioeconomic impact~ associated
with canst ruction and operation of an access route ( s), a dam ( s), and
transmission facilities will be influenced by the decisions made with
respect to each of the issues presented in Subsection 4.2. At present,
mitigation planning to avoid or minimize potentially adverse socioecono-
mic impacts (i.e., potentially large changes in the forecasted baseline
conditions resulting from construction and/or operation of hydroelectric
and related facilities) should include consideration of the preliminary
impacts, factors and issues presented in Subsection 4.2.
In particular, one should consider the different locations and relative
magnitudes of potential impacts associated with "west side" versus "east
side" access. It should be apparent from Table 81 that the location and
relative magnitudes for almost every impact ca~egory vary considerably
depending upon which "side" is chosen for access. It should also be
apparent from the Table that choosing "west side" access (instead of "east
side" access) will result in minimizing large changes in impact categories
(See Figure 32 for descriptions of "west" and "east" side accesses). Thus,
choosing "west side" access could be considered a mitigation measure in
itself. Further, choosing access combination B on the west side would
result in the least change in impact categories. Access combination C
(west side) would result in slightly larger changes in impact categories
than access combination B (west side). These larger changes could be con-
sidered "positive" because they involve hi ring more 1 abor, particularly for
railroad construction. It should be recalled that the impact analysis for
alternative access routes was preliminary. It was preliminary because two
essential ingredients, detailed engineering and engineering-economic infor-
mation, and the forecasts of socioeconomic conditions with· and without
hydroelectric development in the Upper Susitna Basin, were not available
for utilization in the analysis.
At present, mitigation planning should also consider minimizing irrever-
sible effects on socioeconomic resources. Two examples are existing and
277
potential mining claims and recreational fishing areas in the vicinity of
the alternative impoundment zones. The dam(s) should be sited and designed
with these resources in mind.
278
6-REFERENCES
6 -REFERENCES
6.1 -Introduction
The following is a list of sources examined and utilized in the ~evelop
m~nt of the Susitna hydroelectric project socioeconomic profile •. They
are arranged into three sections: 6.2 -Energy Development Impact
Studies; 6.3 -Data; and 6.4 -Methodologies. Sources that have been
cited in the text are denoted by an asterisk in the left column.
6.2 -Energy Development Impact Studies
Community Development Services~ Inc. October 1976. Socioeconomic Impact
Study WPPSS 1 and 4~ Vol. 1: First Progress Report. Seattle~ WA
144 pp. (prepared for Washington Public Power Supply System).
ColTITlunity Development Services~ Inc. Socioeconomic Impact Study WNP 1
and 4, Vol. 4. Final Report. Seattle~ WA. 157 pp. (prepared for
Washington Public Power Supply System.)
Community Development Services, Inc. September, 1978. Socioeconomic
for Washington Public Power Supply System.)
ColTJTlunity Development Services, Inc. October 1975. An analysis of the
socioeconomic impacts of WNP-3 and WNP-5. Seattle~ WA. 121 pp.
(prepared for Washington Public Power Supply System.)
Flynn~ C.B. and J.A. Chalmers. January 1980. The Social and Economic
Effects of the Accident at Three Mile Island: Findings to Date.
Mountain West Research, Inc. Tempe, AZ 85282. 99 pp.
Idaho Power Company. January 1980. Application for License: Project
No. 2848: Cascade Hydroelectric Project. Boise, ID.
Information Resources Press. 1977-1980. EIS -Digest of Environmental
Impact Statements. Arlington, VA 22209. Vol. 1-#1 -Vol. 4-#3.
International Engineering Company~ Inc.~ Robert W. Retherford Associates
Di vision. December 1979. Tyee Lake Hydroelectric Project -Peters-
burg & Wrangell, Alaska: Application for License Before the Federal
Regulatory Conmi ss ion for the Alaska Power Authority. . Anchorage~
AK 99502. 2 vols.
Jones~ V.K. September 1978. Payments to the Public Sector for
Construction of a Nuclear Generating Station: A Case Study of
Washington Public Power Supply Systems Projects WNP-3 and WNP-5.
Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland~ WA. 43 pp.
281
Matchett, Suzanne et a 1. October 1980. Copper Creek Project Draft
Environmental Impact Statement Support Document: Human Environment.
pp. 95.
Pacific Northwest Laboratory and Batten e Human Affairs Resear€ih Centers.
May 1979. Beluga Coal Field Development: Social Effects and
Management Alternatives. (prepared for U.S. Department of Energy).
Seattle City Light. January 1981. Copper Creek Project: Draft and Final
Environmental Impact Statement. Seattle, WA.
Seattle City Light. August 1980. South Fork Tolt River Hydroelectric
Project: Draft SEPA En vi ronmenta 1 Impact Statement. FERC Project
2959. Washington. 349 pp.
U.S. Bureau of Power, Federal Power Commission. March 1977. Bad Creek
Project No. 2740-South Carolina: Final Environmental Impact
Statement. Washington, DC. 361 pp.
U.S. Department of Energy, Bonnevi 11 e Power Admi ni strati on. March 1980.
Boardman Coal Plant and Associated Transmission, Adopted Rural
Electrification Administration: Final EIS (USDA-REA-EIS-77-4F).
Washington, DC 20545. n.p.
U.S. Department of Energy, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. March
1978. Solomon Gulch Project No. 2742-Alaska: Final Environmental
Impact Statement. Washington, DC 20545. n.p.
U.S. Department of Energy, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
December 1978. Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project, Kodiak Island,
Alaska: Application for License before Federal Energy Regulatory
Corrrnission for Kodiak Electrical Association, Inc. Washington, DC
20545. n.p.
U.S. Department of Energy, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. February
1979. Green Lake Project No. 2818-Alaska: Final Environmental
Impact Statement. Washington, DC. 189 pp.
U.S. Department of Energy, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. November
1979. North Fork Stanislaus River Project No. 2049 -California:
Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Washington, DC. 223 pp.
u.s. Department of Energy, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. April
1980. Sultan River Project No. 2157 -Washington, Draft
Environmental Impact Statement. Washington, DC 20426. n.p.
U.S. Department of Energy, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. April
1980. Swan Lake Project No. 2911-Alaska: Final Environmental Impact
Statement. Washington, DC 20545. n.p.
282
U.S. Department of the Army, New England Division, Corps of Engineers.
August 1977. Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes: Environmental Impact
Statement. Waltham, MA n.p. ?
U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Engl an4 Division.
September 1978. Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Project at Dickey,
Maine: Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Waltham, MA 02154.
11 vols.
u.s. Department of the Army, Office of the Chief of Engineers. January
1977. Hydroelectric Power Development, Upper Susitna River Basin,
Southcentral Railbelt Area, Alaska: Final Environmental Impact
Statement. Washington, DC 20545. 398 pp.
U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers. March 1977. Marysville
Lake Project, Yuba River, California: Draft Environmental Impact
Statement. Sacramento, CA. 358 pp.
Washington Public Power Supply System. January 1980. Satsop
Construction Report Quarterly Socioeconomic Report of WNP-3/5 Vol.
3, Report No. 4. October 1, 1979 to December 31, 1979. Seattle,
WA.
Washington Public Power Supply System. January 1, 1980 to March 31,
1980. Satsop Construction Project Quarterly· Socioeconomic Report of
WNP-3/5 Vol. 4, Report No. 1. Richland, WA.
Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Environmental Systems Department.
December 1974. Socioeconomic Effects of Construction and Operations
of WNP-3 and WNP-5 and Alternatives to Alleviate Adverse Effects.
Pittsburg, PA. n.p.
283
6.3 -Data
Agricultural Experiment Station, School of Agriculture"' and Land
Resources Management and the Institute of Social arid Economic
Research, University of Alaska. 1978. Yukon-Porcupipe Regional
Planning Study. Fairbanks, AK. n.p.
Alaska Department of Commerce and
Economic Enterprise. Various
Reporting System. Juneau, AK.
Economic
quarterly
Development, Division of
issues. Information &
*Alaska Department of Commerce & Economic Development,
Economic Enterprise (Prepared by Parker Research
Division of
Corporation).
December, 1977. Visitor Census and Expenditure Survey, 1977,
Winter, 1976-1977. Juneau, AK. 31 pp.
*Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development. July 1978.
and Economic Jobs and Power for Alaska, A Program for Power
Development. Juneau, AK. n.p.
*A 1 ask a Department of Commerce
Economic Enterprise. 1979.
and Economic Development, Division
Numbers. Juneau, AK. 127 pp.
of
Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Division of
Economic Enterprise. The Performance Report of the Alaska Economy
in 1979. Juneau, AK. Volume Eight. 32 pp.
Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Division of
Economic Enterprise. June 1979. An Assessment of the Domestic
Market for Alaska Wood Products. Juneau, AK. 32 pp.
Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Division of
Economic Enterprise. June 1979. What You Never Thought to Ask
About Mining. Juneau, AK. 28 pp.
Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic
Economic Enterprise. February 1980.
Juneau, AK. n.p.
Development, Division of
Community Project Matrix.
*Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Division of
Economic Enterprise. June 1980. The Alaska Statistical Review
1980. Juneau, AK. n.p.
Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic
Economic Enterprise and U.S. Department
Research Service. April 1977. Alaska
Survey.· Juneau, AK. 22 pp.
284
Development, Division of
of Agriculture Economic
Farm Cost of Production
Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic
Energy and Power Deve 1 opment. 1980.
Resources Planning Project, Phase 2,
Development. (Prepared for D.O.E.
Assessment.) n.p.
Development, Division of
Alaska Regional Energy
Vol. II, Hydroelectric
Office of Environmental
~laska Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Division of
Occupational Licensing, Guide Licensing and Control Board. August
1980. State of Alaska Guide Register 1980. Juneau, AK.
Alaska Department of Community and Regional
Pipeline Corridor Smaller Communities Survey.
Affairs. July 1973.
Juneau, AK.
Alaska Department of
Community Planning.
Alaska Communities,
pp.
Community and Regional Affairs, Division of
March 1974. Selected 1970 Census Data for
Part V -Southcentral Alaska. Juneau, AK. 60
Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Division of Community
Planning, February 1976. Report of FY 75 Trans-Alaska Pipeline
Impact Expenditures by state and local governments. Juneau,, AK.
34 pp.
*Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Division of Local
Government Assistance. January 1980. Alaska Taxable 1979 Municipal
Property Assessments and Equalized Full Value Determinations.
Juneau, AK. 135 pp.
Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Division of Local
Government Assistance. City Financial Reporting Manual, FY 1980.
Juneau, AK.
*A 1 as ka Department of Education. December
59. pp.
1980. 1980-1981 Alaska
Education Directory. Juneau, AK.
*Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Game. December 1979.
Annual Report of Survey-Inventory Activities, Part I, Black Bear,
Brown Bear, and Polar Bear. Juneau, AK. 115 pp.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Game, Alaska Board of Game.
1980. Alaska Game Management Units. Juneau, AK. Map.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Game, Alaska Board of Game.
1980. Alaska Hunting Regulations. No. 21. Juneau, AK. 71 pp.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Game, Alaska Board of Game.
1980. Alaska Trapping Regulations. No. 21. Juneau, AK. 58 pp.
*Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Game.
Annual Report of Survey-Inventory Activities, Part
Caribou, Moose and Muskoxen. Juneau, AK. 197 pp.
285
March 1980-.
II, Bison,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Game. June 1980. Annual
Report of Survey-Inventory Activities, Part III, Deer, Elk, Marine
Mammals, Mountain Goats, and Sheep. Juneau, AK. 107 pp. ~
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Game. June 1~80. Annual
Report of Survey-Inventory Activities, Part IV, Furbearers, Upland
Game, Wolf, and Wolverine. Juneau, AK. 111 pp.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, Alaska Board
of Fisheries. 1980. 1980 Alaska Sport Fishing Seasons and Bag
Limits. Juneau, AK. 80 pp.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. November 1979. Susitna Hydroelectric
Project: Preliminary Final Plan of Study. Anchorage, AK. 82 pp.
*Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1980. Sport Fish Survey. Juneau, AK.
24 pp.
Alaska Department of Labor, Administrative Services Division.
1980. Trade and Regulated Industries Occupational
Statistics. 1979. 69 pp.
September
Employment
*Alaska Department of Labor, Administrative Services Division. January
Juneau, 1, 1981. Alaska 1980 population: A Preliminary Overview.
AK. 44 pp.
Alaska Department of Labor, Employment Security Division. May 26, 1972.
Economic Analysis, Issue 10, Vol. 1. Juneau, AK. 15 pp.
Alaska Department of Labor. Labor Market Information Directory. Juneau,
AK. 23 pp.
Alaska Department of Labor. Undated. Educational Institutions
Occupational Employment Statistics. Juneau, AK. 15 pp.
*Alaska Department of Labor. Various issues. Statistical Quarterly.
Juneau, AK.
*Alaska Department of Labor. Various monthly issues. Alaska Economic
Trends. Juneau, AK. 22 pp.
Alaska Department of Labor. Various monthly issues. Labor Force
Highlights. Juneau, AK. 80 pp.
Alaska Department of Labor. Various Annual Issues.
Selected Occupations Anchorage, Fairbanks and
Wage Rates for
Regional Areas.
Juneau, AK.
Alaska Department of Labor. June 1978. Occupational Employment
Statistics-Manufacturing Industries 1977. Juneau, AK. 28 pp.
286
Alaska Department of Labor. July 1978. Alaska Economic Outlook to 1985.
Juneau, AK. 37 pp.
Alaska Department of Labor. August 1979. Occupational Employment
Forecast. Juneau, AK. 17 pp.
~laska Department of Labor. September 1979. Occupational Employment
Statistics --Nonmanufacturing Industries 1978. Juneau, AK. 68 pp.
*Alaska Department of Labor. December 1979. Alaska Population Overview.
Juneau, AK. 53 pp.
Alaska Department of Labor. December 1979. Occupational Supply and
Demand. Juneau, AK. 30 pp.
Alaska Department of Labor. 1980. Annual Planning Information, FY 1981.
Juneau, AK. 80 pp.
Alaska Department of Labor, September 1980. Occupational Supply and
Demand. Juneau, AK. 35 pp.
Alaska Department of Labor. October, 1980. Occupational Employment
Statistics, 1979. Juneau, AK. 28 pp.
Alaska Department of Labor. November, 1980. Planning Information for
Vocational Education. Juneau, AK. 63 pp.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Agriculture and U.S.
Department of Agriculture. Various Annual Issues. Alaska
Agriculture Statistics. Palmer, AK.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division
U.S. Department of Agriculture. June 1980.
Statistics. Palmer, AK. 30 pp.
of Agriculture and
Alaska Agricultural
*Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Research and
Development, Land and Resource Planning Section. 1980. Susitna
Basin Land Use/Recreation Atlas, Planning Background Report.
Anchorage, AK. n.p.
Alaska Department of Revenue, Petroleum Revenue Division. March 1978.
Petroleum Revenue Forecast. Juneau, AK. 48 pp.
*Alaska Department of Transportation and
Transportation Planning Division. 1979.
Traffic Volume Report, Volume I. Juneau, AK.
Public Facilities,
Alaska Highways Annual
402 pp.
Alaska Division of Agriculture,
Agriculture Experiment Station.
Palmer, AK. n.p.
Cooperative Extension Service,
Monthly. Alaska Farm Reporter.
287
Alaska Division of Economic Enterprise and Municipality of Anchorage.
March 1978. Anchorage: An Alaskan Community Profile. 2 pp.
Alaska Miner's Association, Inc.
Alaska Miner. Anchorage, AK.
t\laska Miner's Association, Inc.
Alaska Miner. Anchorage, AK.
Dawn Kirk ,. ed.
23 pp.
Dawn Kirk, ed.
23 pp.
January "'1980.
December 1980.
The
The
*Alaska Northwest Publishing Company. 1980. The Mi 1 epost. Anchorage,
AK. 498 pp.
Alaska OCS Socioeconomic
Fairbanks Case Study.
Studies Program. May 8,
Anchorage, AK. 118 pp.
1978. Alyeska-
Alaska Office of the Governor. November 1980. The Alaska Economic
Information and Reporting System, Quarterly Report. Juneau, AK. 10
pp.
A 1 ask a Office
Planning.
pp.
of the Governor, Division of Policy
1978. Alaska Data Inventory Catalog.
Development
Juneau, AK.
and
137
Alaska Office of Labor, Research and Analysis.
State, and Local Government Occupational·
Juneau, AK. 27 pp.
October 1980. Federal,
Employment Statistics.
Alaska Pacific Bank. Alaska Business Trends, 1979 Economic Forecast.
Anchorage, AK. 39 pp.
Alaska Power Authority. April 1980. A Report of the First Series of
CoiTillunity Meetings on the Feasibility Studies for the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project and Other Power Alternatives. Fairbanks,
Talkeetna, Wasilla, Anchorage, AK. 61 pp.
Anchorage Economic Development Commission. September 1976. Anchorage
Economic Report. Anchorage, AK. 15 pp.
Bantz, Don and Associates, N.D. Tribal Health Plan: Copper River Native
Association Health Department. Anchorage, AK. 83 pp.
Bornhoff and Associates. 1973. Palmer Comprehensive Development Plan.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough. Anchorage, AK. 80 pp.
Bureau of Land Management, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Office.
March 1980. Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies Program:· Lower Cook
Inlet Petroleum Development Scenarios, Local Socioeconomic Systems
Analysis. Technical Report Number 46, Volume 1. Anchorage, AK.
319 pp.
288
Bureau of Land Management, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Office.
March 1980. Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies Program: Lower Cook
Inlet Petroleum Development Scenarios, Local Socioeconomic Systems
Analysis. Technical Report Number 46, Volume 2. Ancnorage, AK.
356 pp. and Appendix.
Coastal Zone Management Program Development. Alaska Federal Withdrawals.
January 1979. {map)
Cole, Terrence. July 1979. The history of the use of the upper Susitna
River: Indian River to the Headwaters {for Alaska Department· of
Natural Resources, Division of Research and Development). 39 pp.
*Coopers & Lybrand. February 1978. Impact of Visitor • s Expenditures Upon
Alaska•s Economy for the Year 1975. Anchorage, AK. 28 pp.
*Darbyshire and Associates. June 1980. Socioeconomic Community Profiles, A
Background for Planning: Delta Junction, Dot Lake, Northway, Tanacross,
Tetlin, Tok. (prepared for Northwest Alaskan Pipeline Company). n.p.
Ender, Richard L. December 1977.
or Local Public Policy Issues.
Anchorage, AK. 156 pp.
The Opinions of the Anchorage Citizen
Anchorage Urban Observatory Program.
*Ender, Richard L. et al. June 1978. Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies
and Physical Baseline Executive
33 pp.
Program. Anchorage Socioeconomic
Summary. Technical Report No. 124.
Ender, Richard L. et al. January 1980. Alaska OCS Socioeconomic
Studies Program. Gulf
Development Scenarios.
Baseline Vol. I. 357 pp.
of Alaska and Lower Cook Inlet Petroleum
Anchorage Socioeconomic and Physical
Ender, Richard L. et al. January 1980. Alaska OCS Socioeconomic
Studies Program. Gulf of Alaska and Lower Cook Inlet Petroleum
Development Scenarios.
Technical Report No. 48,
Anchorage Impact Analysis. Vol. II.
Vol. II. 250 pp.
*Fairbanks North Star Borough, Community Information Center.
issues. Community Information Quarterly. Fairbanks, AK.
Fairbanks North Star Borough, Community Information Center.
issues. The Energy Report. Fairbanks, AK.
*Fairbanks North Star Borough, Community Research Center .•
issues. Community Research Quarterly, A Socioeconomic
Fairbanks, AK.
Various
Various
Various
Review.
Fairbanks North Star Borough. December 1979. 1979 Annual Report.
Fairbanks, AK. 24 pp.
289
*Fairbanks Town and Village Association for Development, Inc. January
1979. Corrmunity Facilities Summaries. Fairbanks, AK. 187 pp.
Fairbanks Town and Village Association for Development, Inc. April 8-9,
1978. A Report of the Upper Tanana Regional Forum on the Impact of
Construction and Operation of the Al-Can Gas Pipeline. Fairbanks,
AK. 64 pp.
Fairbanks Town and Village Association for Development,
Development District Association. September 1980. The
Economic Development Program for the Economic Development
of Interior Alaska. Fairbanks, AK. 101 pp.
Interior
Overall
District
Fison, Sue, Don Moore and Cindy Quisenberry. 1977. Energy Costs,
Consumption and Impacts in Fairbanks. Fairbanks North Star Borough,
Fairbanks, AK. Impact Information Center -Special Report No. 5.
69 pp.
Fison, Sue and Cindy Quisenberry. 1977. Impact Information Center
FinaJ Report. Fairbanks North Star Borough, Fairbanks, AK.
Chapters 3, 7, 8, 10, 12, and 13.
Forrest, Marilynn. July 1979. Fairbanks Cost of Living
Fairbanks North Star Borough, Community Information
Fairbanks, AK. Special Report No. 5. 42 pp.-
Update.
Center,
Forrest, Marilynn. July 1979. North Pole Refinery Energy Impact Study.
Fairbanks North Star Borough, Community Information Center,
Fairbanks, AK. Special Report No. 6. 45 pp.
*Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska. June
1980. Alaska Review of Social and Economic Conditions: Alaska's
Unique Transportation System. Anchorage, AK. 28 pp.
*Jones & Jones. March 4, 1975. An Inventory and Evaluation of the
Environmental, Aesthetic and Recreational Resources of the Upper
Susitna River, Alaska. Seattle, WA. 320 pp.
*Logsdon, Charles, et al. (undated) Copper River-Wrangell Socioeconomic
Overview. The Institute for Social and Economic Research and the
Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Alaska, Fairbanks,
AK. n.p. .
Logsdon, Charles, Kenneth L. Casavant, and Wayne C. Thomas. 1977.
Input-Output Tables for Alaska's Economy: A First Look •. Agricultural
Experiment Station, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK. Bulletin 48.
15 pp.
*Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. September 1980. Alaska 2
Matanuska Power Requirements Study. Palmer, AK. 26 pp.
290
* Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Department.
Comprehensive Development Plan. Palmer, AK.
Apri 1 1978.
245 pp.
Phase I:
Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Department. May 1978. " Phase II:
Comprehensive Development Plan. Palmer, AK. Preliminary D~;_aft.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Department. January 1979. Phase
-III: Comprehensive Development Plan. Palmer, AK. Pre 1 i mi nary
Draft.
*Matanuska Telephone Association, Inc. Supplemental Loan Proposal.
1978-1983.
*Matanuska Telephone Association, Inc. December 1980. Fi 11 Report.
Palmer, AK. 12 pp.
Matz, George, Ben Harding and Russell Wertz. July 1979. 1978 Fairbanks
Energy Inventory. Fairbanks North Star Borough, Community
Information Center, Fairbanks, AK. Special Report No. 4. 88 pp.
Mills, Michael J. July 1, 1978 -June 30, 1979.
Report for Alaska Statewide Sport Fish Harvest
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Sport Fish
AK. 112 pp.
*Mills, Michael J. July 1, 1979-June 30, 1980.
Report for Alaska Statewide Sport Fish Harvest
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Sport Fish
AK. 65 pp.
Municipality
Profile.
of Anchorage
Anchorage, AK.
Planning
32 pp.
Department.
Annual Performance
Studies, Vol. 20.
Division. Juneau,
Annual Performance
Studies, Vol. 21.
Division. Juneau,
1978. Population
*Municipality of Anchorage Planning Department. Various Undated Issues.
Quarterly Economic Indicators. Anchorage, AK. Vol. 1, No. 1. 11
pp.
Municipality of Anchorage. November 6, 1979. Anchorage Recreation
Facilities Committee Reports. Anchorage, AK.
Municipality of Anchorage. August 1980.
4 pp.
Anchorage Economic Development
Report. Anchorage, AK.
Overall Economic Development Program, Inc. July 1, 1979 -June 30, 1980.
Annual Overall Development Program Report. Wasilla, AK. ~7 pp.
*Overall Economic Development Program, Inc. July 1980. Volume I:
Annual Overall Economic Development Program Report July 1, 1979-June
30, 1980. 31 pp.
*Overall Economic Development Program, Inc. July 1980.
Economic Conditions, Development Options and Projectios.
291
Volume
268 pp.
II:
Overall Economic Development Program, Inc. Volume I II: Appendices.
July 1980.
*Policy Analysts, Limited and Dr. Richard L. Ender. May 1980. Mat-Su
Housing and Economic Development Study: Survey Findings. ?;
Porter, Edward D. June 1980. Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies Program.
-Bering-Norton Petroleum Development Scenarios Economic and
Demographic Analysis. Technical Report No. 50. Institute of Social
and Economic Research. University of Alaska. 175 pp.
*PRC Harris Inc. and Alaska Consultants Inc., September 8, 1980.
Summary: Southcentral Region of Alaska Deep-Draft_ Navigation Study.
Anchorage, AK. 42 pp.
Rogers, George W. and Jack Kreinheder. 1980. Socioeconomic Analysis
for Fishery Areas and Census Division. Limited Entry Study
Committee. 241 pp. (Prepared for Alaska Legislative Affairs
Agency.)
Scott, Michael, J. February 1979. Southcentral Alaska•s Economy and
Population, 1965-2025: A Base Study and Projections. The Institute for
Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska. Anchorage,
Fairbanks, Juneau, AK.
Skagit Alaska, Inc. January 15-21, 1981. The Frontiersman (untitled).
Wasi 11 a, AK.
Skagit Alaska, Inc. April 9-15, 1981. The Frontiersman "Palmer Proves Best
Hospital Site". Wasilla, AK.
Soi 1 Conservation Service. December 1980. Susi tna River Basin Study,
Willow Subbasin. Draft Report. n.p.
TRA/FARR. Wasi 11 a Comprehensive P1 anni ng Study. Matanuska-Susitna
Borough Newsletter I. April 28, 1980. Seattle, WA.
TRA/FARR. Wasilla Comprehensive Planning Study. Matanuska-Susitna
Borough Newsletter II. August 25, 1980. Seattle, WA.
Tryck, Nyman & Hayes. March 1975. Community Development Plan (Vol. I &
II). Anchorage, AK. Report for City of Delta Junction, AK. 2 vols.
*University of Alaska, Arctic En vi ronmenta 1 Information and Data Center.
July 1977. Copper River Region Community Folios; A Background for
Planning: Cantwell, Chistochina, Chitina, Copper Center, Gakona,
Gulkana, Mentasta Lake, Tazlina, n.p.
*University of Alaska, Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center.
1973. The Ahtna Region, Background for Regional and Community Planning.
Anchorage, AK.
292
United States Department of Energy, Alaska Power Administration. January
1979. Power Market Analysis: Draft. 125 pp.
United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Manage~ent. 1980.
Proposed Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sale.,. Lower Cook
Inlet -Shelikof Strait: Draft Environmental Impact-Statement.
Anchorage, AK. 288 pp. and Appendices.
United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
1980. Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Lower Cook Inlet -
Shelikof Strait, Oil and Gas Lease Sale #60, Index. Anchorage, AK.
16 pp. and Glossary.
United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administra-
tion and Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities.
March 27, 1980. Richardson Highway Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (from Milepost 100 to Milepost 106.5; Copper Center, AK).
156 pp.
United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, News.
April 22, 1980. San Francisco, CA. 2 pp.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10. Apri 1 1980.
Alaska Petrochemical Company, Refinery and Petrochemical Facility:
Final Environmental Impact Statement. Valdez, AK. 341 pp.
*United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10. December 1979.
Alaska Petrochemical Company, Refinery and Petrochemical Facility,
Appendix Vol. II: Environmental Impact Statement. Valdez, AK. 579
pp.
293
6.4 -Methodologies
Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development. Undated.
State of Alaska Quarterly Econometric Model. Juneau, AK. n.p.
~laska, State of, Division of Policy Development and Planning. August 5,
1980. State of Alaska Railbelt Electrical Power Alternatives Study,
Request for Proposals (additional information). Juneau, AK. n.p.
Alaska Division of Policy Development and Planning. October 1975.
Bibliography of Community Planning Supplement. Juneau, AK. n.p.
Anderson. 1970. A Note on Economic Base Studies and Regional Econometric
Forecasting Models. Journal of Regional Science. Vol. 10, No. 3.
pp. 325-333.
Andrews, Wade H. and Dennis C. Geertsen. January 1974. Social
Dimensions of Urban Flood Control Decisions. Utah State University,
Logan, UT 84322. 69 pp.
Andrews, Wade H. et al, December 1974. Social Impacts of Water Resource
Developments and Their Implications for Urban and Rural Development:
A Post-Audit Analysis of the Weber Basin Project in Utah. Institute
for Social Science Research on Natural Resources, Utah State
University, Logan, UT. 178 pp.
Andrews, Wade H. et al., ed. 1973. The Social Well-Being and Quality of
Life Dimension in Water Resources Planning and Development.
Institute for Social Science Research on Natural Resources, Utah
State University, Logan, Utah. Proceedings of the Conference of the
University Council on Water Resources, July 10-12, 1973. 213 pp.
Arizona Office of Economic Planning and Development. July 1977.
Description and Technical Description of the Economic/Demographic
Projection Model.
Baker, Janet K., Norbert Dee, and James R. Finley. 1974. Measuring
Impacts of Water Resource Developments on the Human Environment.
American Water Resources Association, Water Resources Bulletin.
Vol. 10, No. 1. pp. 10-21.
Bendix, Selina and Herbert R. Graham. 1978. Environmental Assessment -
Approaching Maturity. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann
Arbor, MI. 288 pp.
Bi swas, As it K. and Robert W. Durie. Sociological Aspects of Water
Development. Water Resources Bulletin. n.p.
Canter, Larry W. 1977. Environmental Impact Assessment. McGraw Hill
Book Company, New York. 331 pp.
294
Canter, Larry W. 1979.
Technology Sourcebook.
Arbor, MI. 529 pp.
Water Resources Assessment -Methodology &
Ann Arbor Science Publishers, In,c., Ann
Center for the Study of Social Policy. 1975. Handbook of For"ecasting
Techniques. Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Fort Belvoir, VA. Contract DACW 31-75-C-0027. 314 pp.
Chalmers, J. A. 1977. Bureau of Reclamation Construction Worker Survey.
Engineering and Research Centert U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denvert co. 222 pp.
Chalmers, J. A. and Anderson, E. J. 1977. Economic/Demographic
Assessment Manu a 1 : Current Practices, Procedural Recommendations,
and a Test Case. Engineering and Research Center, U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, Denver, CO. 300 pp.
Cheremisinoff, Paul N. and Angelo c. Morresi.
Assessment and Impact Statement Handbook.
Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI. 438 pp.
1977.
Ann
Environmental
Arbor Science
Clonts, Howard A. and Lonnie P. Cain. 1976. Implications of Watershed
Development on Land Value and Landowner Attitudes. Agricultural
Experiment Station/Auburn University, Auburn, ,AL. Bulletin 479. 41
pp.
Construction Engineering Research Laboratory. June, 1976. The Economic
Impact Forecast System: Description and User Instructions.
Technical Report N-2. n.p
Corwin, Ruthann, et al. 1975. Environmental Impact Assessment.
Freeman, Cooper and Company, San Francisco. 277 pp.
Daniels, Belden, H., et al, November 9, 1979. The Consideration of
Social and Economic Measures in Project Evaluation -An Overview.
Boston, MA. 85 pp.
Department of the Army, Seattle District, Corps of Engineers.
Manual for Social Impact Assessment. Seattle, WA. Draft.
1975. A
51 pp.
Eakland, Peter, et al. January 1980. Alaska OCS Socioceconomic Studies
Program: Western Gulf of Alaska Petroleum Development Scenarios
Transportation Systems Analysis. Technical Report No. 37. 273 pp.
Field, Donald R., James C. Barron, and Burl F. Long. 1974. Water and
Community Socia 1 and Economic Perspectives. Ann Arbor Science
Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI. 302 pp.
Finsterbusch, K. and Wolf, C. P. 1977. The Methodology of Social Impact
Assessment. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross Publishing Co.,
Stroudsberg, PA.
295
Finsterbusch, K. 1977. Methods of Evaluating Non-Market Impacts in
Policy Decisions with Special Reference to Water R~sources
Development Projects. U. S. Army Engineer Institute for Water
Resources, Fort Belvoir, VA. IWR Contract Report 77-78. 46tpp.
Floyd, F. Charles and Clemon F. Sirmans. July 1975. The Economic
-Impact of Recreational Land-Use in an Island Environment: A case
study of Jekyll Island, Georgia. Skidaway Island, Georgia. 184 pp.
Foell, Wesley K. {Ed.). 1979. Management of Energy/Environmental
Systems. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, U.K. 487 pp.
Glickman, Norman J. February, 1977. Impact Analysis with Regional
Econometic Models (Draft). University of Pennsylvania, PA. n.p.
Goldsmith, Scott and Lee Huskey. 1980. Electric Power Consumption for
the Railbelt: A Projection of Requirements, Technical Appendices.
Institute of Socia 1 and Economic Research for the State of A 1 ask a
House Power Alternatives Study Committee and Alaska Power Authority,
Anchorage, AK.
Guseman, P. K. and Dietrich, K. T. 1978. Profile and Measurement of
Social Well-Being Indicators for Use in the Evaluation of Water and
Related Land Management Planning. U. S. Army Engineers Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Misc. Paper Y-78-2. 112 pp.
Laboratory of Architecture and Planning, MIT. November 1976.
Predicting the Local Impacts of Energy Development: A Critical
Guide to Forecasting Methods and Models (Draft). Cambridge, MA.
n.p.
Leistritz, F. L., D. M. Senechal, and Lorent Low. 1980. Socioeconomic
Effects of Energy Development: The Role of Impact Models in Policy
Making. Paper presented at National Energy Policy Conference,
University of West Virginia, Morganstown, May 1, 1980. n.p.
Lerner, Sally C. 1980. Energy Policy: A Potential Source of Positive
Social Impacts. Paper presented at National Energy Policy
Conference, University of West Virginia, Morgantown, May 1, 1980.
Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. August 20, 1980. Best and Final
Proposal for Isolated Industrial Facilities Development for Alaska
OCS Oil and Gas Activities. Fairbanks, AK. n.p.
Louis Berger, Inc. March 1973. ·Methodological Improvements in
Measuring Economic Effects of Multi-purpose Water Resource
Projects. East Orange, NJ. 79 pp. {prepared for the Office of
Water Resources Research).
296
McEvoy, James III and Thomas Dietz {Eds.). 1977. Handbook for
Environmental Planning and Social Consequences of Environmental :;: Change. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 323 pp.
Malone, D. W. 1975. An Introduction to the Application of Interpretive
Structural Modeling in Baldwin, M.M. (ed.) Portraits of Complexity:
Applications of Systems Methodologies to Societal Problems.
Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, OH.
Markusen, Ann Roell. February 1978. Socioeconomic Impact Models for
Boomtown Planning and Policy Evaluation. Paper for Presentation at
the Western Regional Science Association Meeting, 25 February 1978.
38 pp.
Michalson, Edgar et al., (ed.) 1974. Multiple Objective Planning for
Water Resources. Volume 1. Proceedings of the UCOWR Work Shop on
Multiple Objective Planning and Decision-Making, Las Vegas, Nevada,
July 16-18, 1974. Idaho Research Foundation, Inc., Moscow, ID. 63
pp.
Michalson, Edgar et al., (ed.) 1975. Multiple Objective Planning for
Water Resources. Volume 2. Proceedings of the UCOWR Conference on
Multiple Objective Planning and Decision-Making, Boise, Idaho,
January 14-16, 1975. Idaho Research Foundation, Inc., Moscow, 10
122 pp.
Mitchell, A. et al. 1975. Handbook of Forecasting Techniques. U.S.
Army Engineer Institute for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, VA. IWR
Contract Report 75-J. 316 pp.
Mitchell, Arnold. 1977. Handbook of Forecasting Techniques. Part I.
Center for the Study of Social Policy under Contract to U.S. Army
Institute for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, VA. Supplement to IWR
Contract Report 75-7. 74 pp.
Mountain West Research, Inc. for Water and Power Resources Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior. August 1980. Bureau of Reclamation:
Economic Assessment Model (BREAM), Technical Description and User's
Guide. Tempe, AZ. 115 pp.
Mountain West Research, Inc. October 1977. Construction Worker Survey.
Tempe, Arizona. 222 pp.
Mountain Research, Inc. January 1978. Bureau of Reel amation. Economic
Assessment Model (BREAM) Technical Description. for U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Tempe, AZ 85282.
n.p.
Mountain West Research, Inc. December, 1975. Demographic and Economic
Projections for Rosebud County, Montana. Tempe, Arizona.
297
Mountain West Research, Inc. 1979. A Guide to Methods for Impact
Assessment of Western Coal/Energy Development. Billings, Montana. _,
Mountain West Research, Inc. 1976. Mid-Yellowstone Areawide Planning
Organization: Economic Demographic Projection Model. B'illings,
Montana.
Muller, T. 1976. Economic Impacts of Land Development: Employment,
Housing and Property Values. The Urban Institute, Washington, D.C.
URI 15800. 148 pp.
Muller, T. 1975. Fiscal Impacts on Land Development. The Urban
Institute, Washington, D.C. URI 98000. 68 pp.
Murdock, Steve H. and F. Larry Leist ritz. 1979. Demographic and
Economic Effects of Large-Scale Energy Development in Rural Areas:
An Assessment Model in Gene F. Summers and Arne Selvik (eds.),
Nonmetropolitan Industrial Growth and Community Change. Lexington,
Lexington, MA. pp. 223-53.
Murdock, Steve H. and F. Larry Leistritz. 1979. Energy Development in
the Western United States. Praeger Publishers, New York. 363 pp.
Nachmias, David. 1979. Public Policy Evaluation~ St. Martin•s Press,
Inc., New York. 195 pp.
National Research Council. 1979. Sociopolitical Effects and Energy Use
and Policy, Supporting Paper 5, Study of Nuclear and Alternative
Energy Systems. National Academy of Sciences. Washington, D.C.
511 pp.
North Slope Borough, Department of Public Safety. Challenge to the
Police Role in Rurual Alaska: The North Slope Borough Experience.
34 pp.
Reaume, David M. 1980. Migration and the Dynamic Stability of Regional
Econometric Models. State of Alaska, Department of Commerce and Economic
Development, Juneau, AK.
Rosen, Sherman J. 1976. Manual for Environmental Impact Evaluation.
Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 232 pp.
Shields, Mark A.
Bibliography.
Belvoir, VA.
1974. Social Impact Assessment: An Analytic
U.S. Army Institute for Water Resources, Fort
IWR Paper 74-P6. 129 pp.
Singh, Raghu N. and Kenneth P. Wilkinson. 1974. On the Measurement of
Environmental Impacts of Public Projects from a Sociological
Perspective. American Water Resources Association, Water Resources
Bulletin. Vol. 10, No. 3. pp. 415-425.
298
Smith, Charles R. et al. 1973. Social and Cultural Impact of a Proposed
Reservoir on a Rural Kentucky School District. Kentuckl Water
Resources Institute, Lexington, KY. 189 pp.
Smith, Charles R. 1970. Anticipation of Change: A Socioeconomic
Description of a Kentucky County before Reservoir Construction.
Kentucky Water Resources Institute, Lexington, KY. 166 pp.
Sonnen, Michael B. and Larry C. Davis. 1979. Wild Rivers -Methods for
Evaluation. American Water Resources Association, Water Resources
Bulletin, Vo. 15, No. 2. pp. 404-419.
Stinson, D. S. and O'Hare, M. 1977. Predicting the Loca1 Impacts of
Energy Development: A Critical Guide to Forecasting Methods and
Models. Laboratory of Architecture and Planning, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. 98 pp.
Suchman, Edward A. 1967. Evaluative Research. Russell Sage
Foundation, New York. 186 pp.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. September 1975. A
Manual for Social Impact Assessment, Seattle, WA. 51 pp.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seatt1e District. 1980. Community Impact
Reports Chief Joseph Dam. Seattle, WA.
u.s. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. September 1975. A
Manual for Social Impact Assessment, Seattle, WA. 51 pp.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. April 1980. Final Supplement No. 1
to the Fin a 1 Environmental Statement for Pebble Springs Nuclear
Plant, Units 1 and 2 Proposed by Portland General Electric Company.
Washington, D.C. 20555. n.p.
United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis.
1975. Evaluation of Economic and Demographic Data Useful in Water
Resources Planning. U.S. Army Engineer Institute for Water
Resources, Fort Be1voir, VA. IWR Pamphlet No. 3.
University of Alaska, Arctic En vi ron menta 1 Information and Data Center.
1980. Current Research Profile for Alaska, 1979. Anchorage, AK.
420 pp.
University of Alberta, Faculty of Extension. 1980. Computer Mpdels for
Forecasting Socioeconomic Impacts of Growth and Development.
Edmonton, Alberta. Proceedings of conference, April 20-23, 1980.
Wakeland, W. 1976. QSIM2: A Low-Budget Heuristic Approach to
Modeling and Forecasting. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change. Vol. 9. pp. 213-229.
299
Warden, Richard E. and w. Tim Dagodag. 1976. A Guide to the
Preparation and Review of En vi ronmenta 1 Impact Reports. ;>ecu rity
World Publishing Co., Inc., Los Angeles. 138 pp. ·
White, William T., B. Malamund and J. Nixon. May, 1976. A M~de1 for
the Socioeconomic Analysis of Water Projects.
{75)6.4
300
?-AUTHORITIES CONTACTED
7 -AUTHORITIES CONTACTED
7.1 -Introduction
Contained in this section is a comprehensive list of government agencies
prganizations, institutions, and individuals contacted to assist in the
development of this socioeconomic profile. The section is divided into
four distinct categories: 7.2-Federal Institutions; 7.3-State
Institutions; 7.4-Local Institutions; and 7.5-0ther Institutions,
Organizations, and Individuals.
7.2 -Federal Institutions
U.S DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
Anchorage, AK
Michael Brown
-Phone discussion with Peter Rogers; January 30, 1981; discussed
type, quality, and quantity of data available regarding the historic
use of Alaska•s inland waters for travel, trade or commerce.
Bureau of Land Management, Outer Continental Shelf (SESP)
Gary Hennigh; Charlie Smythe
-Meeting with Andy Woolford; January 9, 1981; discussed OCS, SESP
Studies and Enclave Development Study (Louis Berger & Associates).
Charlie Smythe, Socioeconomic Specialist
-Meeting with David Davies; September 24, 1980; identify sources of
socioeconomic data and information.
Bureau of Mines
-Meeting with Andy Woolford; January 8, 1981; obtained information
and map on mining claim locations in Upper Susitna River Basin.
Joanne Gidlund, Public Affairs Office
-Phone discussion with David Davies; February 10, 1981; regarding
information on D-2 legislation.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Anchorage, AK
E.R. Robinson, Director
-Phone discussion with Andy Woolford; February 12, 1981; infor-
mation on housing data for Copper River Region.
303
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Delon Brown, Chief Researcher
-Meeting with Irene Gendron; June 5, 1980; identify ~forecasting
models and socioeconomic data and information.
U.S. Soil Conservation Service
Anchorage, AK
Sterling E. Powell, P.E., River Basin Planning Staff
-Meeting with Peter Rogers; January 29, 1981; discussed goals,
objectives and status of river basin planning project.
ECONOMICS, AND STATISTICS SERVICE
Natural Resource Economics Division
Anchorage, AK
Paul Fuglestad, Agricultural Economist
-Meeting with Peter Rogers; January 29, 1981; discussed methods and
results of agriculture and timber potential studies for the Willow
subbasin; discussed plan of study for other subbasins; discussed
population projects for the river basin.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
Alaska Railroad
Fred Hoefler, Traffic Officer
-Meeting with Andy Woolford; January 9, 1981; discussed freight
schedules, capacity, upgrading, employment, and payroll.
7.3-State Institutions
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Juneau, AK
Lee Hays
-Phone discussion with Andy Woolford; February 3, 1981; regarding
information on school districts in the Mat-Su Borough.and Valdez-
Chitina-Whittier censuc: division. Will be sending pertinent infor-
mation.
304
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Valdez, AK
Rick Quiroz, Planner
-Phone discussion with Andy Woolford; January 27, 1981.; regarding
Environmental Assessments for portions of Richardson Highway.
Sending EA's for Copper Center and Glennallen (will send fA for Mile
125 to Paxson in Spring when complete).
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Anchorage, AK
Reed Gibby, Transportation Planner
-Phone discussion with Andy Woolford; November 5, 1980; regarding
Mat-Su Borough Transportation Study. Presently no forma.l study
exists. Recommends contacting individual town offices for speci-
fic questions. Study just commencing.
-Meeting with Andy Woolford; January 7, 1981; discussed and
obtained data on highway and bridge conditions, road capacities and
plans for upgrading for Parks, Glenn, Denali, and Richardson
Highways.
Bill Humphrey, Transportation Planner I
-Phone discussion with Andy Woolford; November 5, 1980; regarding
Mat-Su Borough Transportation Study (no such study completed at this
time).
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS (CRA)
Richard Spitler, Planner
-Meeting with Peter Rogers; November 21, 1980; disciJssed CRA's
activities in the Valdez-Chitina-Whittier census division and
obtained studies on communities in this division.
Mark Stephens, Planner VI
-Meeting with Andy Woolford; January 6, 1981;
in Valdez-Chitina-Whittier census division
corridor) and existing community profiles.
discussed activities
(Richardson Highway
-Phone discussion with David Davies; September 25, 1980; identify
sources of socioeconomic data and information.
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
Anchorage, AK
Sterling Eide, Regional Supervisor for Game Division
-Meeting with David Davies; September 23, 1980; establish com-
munication and obtain data.
305
-Meeting with Peter Rogers; August 19, 1980; establish com-
munication and obtain data on harvest.
Sterling Miller, Game Biologist III
-Meeting with David Davies; September 23, 1980; establJsh com-
munication and obtain data.
Larry Heckart, Fisheries Biologist IV
-Meeting with David Davies; September 23, 1980; establish com-
munication and obtain data.
Michael Mills, Fishery Biometrician III
-Meeting with David Davies; September 23, 1980; establish com-
munication and obtain data.
-Meeting with Peter Rogers; October 14, 1980; request for answers
to questions of ADF&G's Final Preliminary Plan of Study; determine
status of ADF&G•s Susitna effort; determine and establish optimal
communications channels and methods of coordination with ADF&G;
obtain socioeconomic data and information on recreational fisheries
for Areas 2 and 5 from ADF&G; establish timetables for data and
information outputs and sharing with ADF&G.
Christopher Estes, Fisheries Biologist III
-Meeting with David Davies; September 23,_ 1980; establish com-
munication.
Ron Stanek, Resource Specialist II
-Meeting with David Davies; September 23, 1980; establish com-
munication.
Dennis Haanpaa, Fisheries Biologist IV, Commercial Fisheries
-Meeting with David Davies; September 23, 1980; establish com-
munication.
Jerry Sexton, Game Biologist II
-Meeting with Peter Rogers; August 19, 1980; establish com-
munication and obtain gain harvest data.
Lee Miller, Fish and Game Technician V
-Meeting with Peter Rogers; August 19, 1980; establish com-
munication and obtain game harvest data.
Greg Bas, Game Biologist IV
-Phone discussion with David Davies; February 10, 1981; .regardin9
obtaining a copy of the Alaska Wildlife Management Plans.
306
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
Division of Fish and Wildlife Protect1on
Rodney Mills, Detachment Commander
Meeting with David Davies; September 23, 1980; establish
conmunication.
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Division of Research and Development, Land and Resources Planning
Carol Larsen, Public Information Officer
-Meeting with David Davies; September 25, 1980; identify sources of
socioeconomic data and information.
Bob Loeffler, Associate Planner
-Meeting with David Davies; September 25, 1980; identify sources of
socioeconomic data and information.
-Meeting with Peter Rogers; November 19, 1980; discussed land use
planning methods, status of Willow subbasin area land use planning,
and socioeconomic implications of land use zoning.
Steve Reeves, Chief, Land Resourcer Planner; Randy Cowart, Planner
-Meeting with Andy Woolford; January 9, 1981; discussed time sched-
ules and collaboration regarding Regional Plan for the Upper
Susitna.
Division of Pipeline Surveillance
Fairbanks, AK
Elstun Lausen, Socioeconomic Officer .
-Phone discussion with Andy Woolford; January 7, 1981; regarding
conmunity profi 1 es and studies of Southeast Fairbanks and Valdez-
Chitina-Whittier census divisions.
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
Juneau, AK
Linda Lockridge, Records and Licensing Supervisor, Fish & Game
Licensing Division
-Meeting with Peter Rogers; August 20, 1980; obtain info~mation on
game harvest
Bill Yankee, Economist II
-Meeting with Peter Rogers; November 21, 1980; discussed structure
on non-petro revenue model and revenues from hydro projects.
-Phone discussion with David Davies; February 6, 1981; regarding
data on gross sales by census division.
307
Hazel Nowlin, Administrative Assistant I
-Phone discussion with David Davies; February 20, 1981; regarding
Gross Business Receipts by Borough -North Start, Mat-Su, Anchorage,
1970 -77.
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Anchorage, AK
Heinz Noonan, Energy Economist
-Meeting with Irene Gendron; June 3, 1980; identify sources of
socioeconomic data and information.
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Division of Research and Analysis
Steve Harrison, Labor Economist
-Meeting with Peter Rogers; November 20, 1980; discussed population
data and LABMOD (short-run labor projections model).
Chuck Caldwell, Chief of Research and Analysis
-Meeting with Peter Rogers; November 20, 1980; discussed levels of
disaggregation of employment data and employment estimates.
Chris Miller, Labor Economist
-Meeting with Peter Rogers; November 20, 1980; discussed structure
of LABMOD and income and employment multipliers.
Rod Brown, Supervisor of Research
-Meeting with Peter Rogers; November 20, 1980; discussed income and
employment multipliers and economic base analysis.
Neil Fried, Labor Economist
-Meeting with Peter Rogers; January 30, 1981; discussed employment
data, multipliers, labor supply data, location quotients and the
availability of commuting and labor migration studies.
Cal Dauel, Administrative Officer
-Meeting with Andy Woolford; January 8, 1981; discussed income and
employment multipliers; industry linkages; and consumer price index
for Matanuska-Susitna Borough.
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Juneau, AK
Sally Saddler, Labor Economist
-Phone discussion with David Davies; February 23 and 25; request
for labor data information.
308
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Energy and Power Development
Secretary
-Phone discussion with David Davies; September 25, 1980; identify
sources of socioeconomic data and information.
David Reume, Economist
-Meeting with Irene Gendron; June 6, 1980; identify forecasting
models.
-Phone discussion with Peter Rogers; January 30,1981; discussed
availability of State•s Long-Term Energy Plan.
UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA
Institute of Social and Economic Research
Lee Huskey, Economist
-Meeting with Andy, Woolford; January 6, 1981; discussed employment
and population multipliers and Valdez-Chitina-Whittier community
studies.
Scott Goldsmith, Assistant Professor of Economics
-Meeting with Irene Gendron; June 4, 1980; identify forecasting
models.
-Meeting with Peter Rogers; July 8, 1980; determine relevance of
ISER demographic and economic models for Work Package 4.
ARCTIC ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION AND DATA CENTER {AEIDC)
Barbara Sokolov, Director, Information Services
-Meeting with Andy Woolford; January 6, 1981; apprised of AEIDC
data cataloging and retrieval, especially as it pertains to
Richardson Highway corridor.
HOUSE POWER ALTERNATIVES STUDY COMMITTEE
Juneau, AK
Hugh Malone
-Meeting with Irene Gendron; June 6, 1980; establish communication
channels.
309
GLENNALLEN STATE TROOPER POST
Glenna 11 en, AK
Bob Cockrell, State Trooper
-Phone discussion with Andy Woolford; February 4, 1981; ~egarding
trooper facilities and personnel in the Valdez-Chitina-Whittier cen-
sus divisions.
ALASKA STATE HOUSING AUTHORITY
Bill Foster, Housing Director
-Meeting with Andy Woolford; January 9, 1981; discussed housing
studies/surveys in Matanuska and Valdez-Chitina-Whittier census
divisions.
7.4 -Local Institutions
MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE
Anchorage, AK
Mike Meehan, Director of Planning
-Meeting with Irene Gendron; June 4, 1980;. establish contact and
identify sources of socioeconomic data and information.
Shawn Hemme, Assistant Planner
-Meeting with Irene Gendron; June 4, 1980; establish contact and
identify sources of socioeconomic data and information.
Barbara Withers, Regional Economist
-Meeting with David Davies; September 23, 1980; discussion of
socioeconomic information and studies.
Chuck Becker, Economic Development Director
-Meeting with David Davies; September 23, 1980; discussion of
socioeconomic information and studies.
MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH OFFICE
Palmer, AK
Rodney Schulling, Planning Director
-Phone discussion with Andy Woolford; February 6, 1981; regarding
Borough areawide and non-areawide services, with particular atten-
tion to Talkeetna and vicinity.
Alan Tesche, In-house Authority
-Meeting with David Davies; September 26, 1980; general discussion
of Borough.
Lee Wyatt, Acting Borough Manager
-Meeting with David Davies; September 26, 1980; discuss Borough
development objectives.
310
MATANUSKA-SUSITNA SCHOOL DISTRICT
Palmer
Mr. Hotchkiss, Business Manager
-Phone discussion with Andy Woolford; February 13, 1981; c~pacities
and plans for expansion of public school facilities in the Mat-
Su Borough.
FAIRBANKS BOROUGH
Fairbanks, AK
Philip Berrian, Planning Director
-Meeting with Irene Gendron; June 2, 1980; identify sources of
socioeconomic data and information.
VALDEZ POLICE DEPARTMENT
Valdez, AK
Police Officer
-Phone discussion with Andy Woolford; February 5, 1981; regarding
coiTITlunity and judicial facilities in the Valdez-Chitina-Whittier
census divisions.
MAGISTRATE
Glenna 11 en, AK
Sheldon Spector, Magistrate
-Phone discussion with Andy Woolford; February 5, 1981; regarding
COITITlunity and judicial facilities in the Valdez-Chitina-Whittier
census divisions.
COPPER RIVER SCHOOL DISTRICT
Glennallen, AK
Dr. Krinke, Superintendent
-Phone discussion with Andy Woolford; February 5, 1981; regarding
school facilities and enrollment for the Copper River region.
7.5-Other Institutions, Organizations, and Individuals
AHTNA, INC.
Copper Center, Ak
Lee Adler, Director
-Phone discussion with Andy Woolford; February 5, 1981; regarding
community facilities/infrastructure for the Ahtna region.
311
-Phone discussion with David Davies; February 20, 1981; to deter-
mine status of Ahtna, Inc. lands in Susitna area.
ALASKA HOSPITAL
Anchorage, AK
Head Nurse
-Phone discussion with Andy Woolford; February 4, 1981; regarding
data on facilities and capacity.
ALASKA MINER 1 S ASSOCIATION
-Meeting with Andy Woolford; January 7, 1981; discussed location
and number of mining claims in the Upper Susitna Basin; discussed
implications of access routes to mining activity.
COOK INLET REGION, INC.
Anchorage, AK
Marge Sagerser, Land Manager
-Meeting with Irene Gendron; June 3, 1980; establish communications
channels and identify sources of socioeconomic data and information.
COPPER RIVER HOUSING AUTHORITY
Copper Center, AK
Thea Smelcher, Housing Director
-Phone discussion with Andy Woolford; February 11, 1981; housing
information in Copper River Region.
COPPER RIVER NATIVE ASSOCIATION
Copper Center, AK
-Phone discussion with Andy Woolford; February 4, 1981; regarding
community facilities in the Ahtna region.
Ms. Billy Peters, Health Director
-Phone discussion with Andy Woolford; February 20, 1981; infor-
mation on health services in Copper River Region.
COPPER VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION
Valdez, AK
Dan Teggler
-Phone discussion with Andy Woolford; February 2, 1981; regarding
Copper Valley Electric Association rates, capacities, power require-
ments. Will be sending pertinent information.
312
COPPER VALLEY VIEWS
Kenny Lake~ AK
Reporter
-Phone discussion with Andy Woolford; February 2~ 1981; r-egarding
circulation and information on other media in the immediate
vicinity.
DARBYSHIRE AND ASSOCIATES
Anchorage~ AK
Ralph Darbyshire
-Phone discussion with Andy Woolford; January 7~ 1981; regarding
socioeconomic profiles.
DOYON CORPORATION
Fairbanks, AK
Doug Williams, Land Planner
-Meeting with Irene Gendron; June 3, 1980; establish communication
channel and identify sources of socioeconomic data and information.
FAIRBANKS TOWN AND VILLAGE ASSOCIATION FOR DEVELOPMENT, INC.
Art Patterson
-Phone discussion with Andy Woolford; January 9, 1981; discussed
community profiles and other studies they have prepared for Interior
Di strict.
GUIDE LICENSE REVIEW BOARD
-Phone discussion with David Davies; September 25, 1980; infor-
mation on guide services in Susitna River Basin area.
HIGH LAKE LODGE
John Wilson, Resident Manager
-Meeting with Peter Rogers; July 7, 1980; obtain socioeconomic data
from along the Upper Susitna River.
FAIRBANKS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Fairbanks, AK
Bob Dempsey, Business Analyst
-Meeting with Irene Gendron; June 2, 1980; identify sources of
socioeconomic data and information.
313
FAIRBANKS BOROUGH COMMUNITY INFORMATION CENTER
Fairbanks, AK
Karen Fox, Research Analyst
-Meeting with Irene Gendron; June 2, 1980; identify S®rces of
socioeconomic data and information.
MATANUSKA ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC.
Palmer, AK
Ken Ritchey, Engineeering Services
-Phone discussion with Andy Woolford; November 5, 1980; requesting
Power Requirements study. Will be sending pertinent information.
-Phone discussion with Andy Woolford; February 19, 1981; infor-
mation on average electricity consumption from 1975 -1980.
Bud Goodyear, Public Information Officer
-Meeting with David Davies; September 26, 1980; obtain information
on electrical supply and demand and future projections.
-Meeting with Irene Gendron; June 6, 1980; obtain information
regarding power requirements study.
MATANUSKA TELEPHONE ASSOCIATION
Palmer, AK
Don Taylor
-Phone discussion with Andy Woolford; February 10, 1981; infor-
mation on telephone service in Mat-Su Borough.
Graham Rolstad, Chief Engineer
-Meeting with David Davies; September 26, 1980; obtain information
on telephone service and projections.
N.W. ALASKAN PIPELINE COMPANY
Sue Fisson, Socioeconomic Coordinator
-Phone discussion with David Davies; January 8, 1981; discussed gas
pipeline corridor community profiles; obtained copies.
-Meeting with Frank Orth; June 16, 1980; determine .Northwest
Alaskan Pipeline Company•s recent and current activities in
socioeconomics.
Virginia Manna
-Meeting with Irene Gendron; June 3, 1980; identify sources of
socioeconomic data and information.
314
OVERALL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM, INC.
Wasilla, AK
Don Lyon, Director
-Meeting with Irene Gendron; June 5, 1980; identify Sq!.!rces of
socioeconomic data and information.
-Meeting with David Davies; September 26, 1980; discuss socioecono-
mic data and information and obtain recent study.
-Meeting with Peter Rogers; November 19, 1980; discussed results of
Economic Program for the Matanuska-Susitna Borough.
PALMER FIRE HALL
Palmer, AK
Dan Conteeni, Fire Chief
-Phone discussion with Andy Woolford; February 4, 1981; regarding
data on EMT (ambulance) and fire facilities in the Borough.
PALMER VALLEY HOSPITAL
Palmer, AK
Ann Demmings, Nurse
-Phone discussion with Andy Woolford; February 4, 1981; regarding
data on facilities and capacity.
VALDEZ COMMUNITY HOSPITAL
Valdez, AK
Nurse
-Phone discussion with Andy Woolford; February 4, 1981; regarding
data on facilities and capacity.
VALDEZ VANGUARD
Valdez, AK
Reporter
-Phone discussion with Andy Woolford; February 2, 1981; regarding
circulation, service area, and existence of other publications in
the area.
315
APPENDIX A
A -PROCESS FOR DEFINING SOCIOECONOMIC VARIABLES AND STUDY AREAS
A.1 -Introduction
The results of Work Package 1 will provide the groundwork for defining
the socioeconomic variables and delineating the study areas. This work
pack. age wi 11 include the compilation of impacts from a 1 ternat i ve soci a-
economic studies with particular emphasis on hydroelectric studies, and
a review of socioeconomic data bases and relevant literature. In addi-
tion, preliminary work on Work Package 4 will yield relevant information
concerning potential variables. Also, the first stages of actual data
collection will provide information that will be used in defining
variables and study areas.
The approach in defining the variables and the study areas is both
theoretical and pragmatic. Based on pertinent literature and in-house
expertiset the variables and areas are to be partially defined. In con-
junction with this "a priori" approach, actual variables and areas uti-
lized in other studies or for which data definitely exists are then to
be examined and synthesized.
A.2 -Socioeconomic Variables
Essentially four major sources will be utilized to determine the socio-
economic categories and variables. These are: 1) other socioeconomic
impact studies; 2) 1 iterature concerning socioeconomic impact assess-
ment; 3) socioeconomic data especially in terms of Susitna project spe-
cific material; and 4) in-house expertise.
A preliminary list of socioeconomic variables will be gleaned from
various environmental impact statements i ncl udi ng Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission Exhibit w•s and other socioeconomic reports and
studies. In addition, this process will yield the major categories for
the variables. These categories essentially will be subject titles or
headings under which specific variables dealing with details wil~ fall.
One example of a Susitna project-specific category and variable is
recreation. Because of the unique and important role the natural
resources of Alaska play in the socioeconomic structure, it will be
necessary to treat it separately. This treatment is especially
warranted in terms of the fish and wildlife resources. These con-
siderations suggest that recreation be treated discretely and that it
should be broken into two major areas; recreation utilizing fish or
wildlife resources and recreation not dependent upon these resources.
As part of this work, an economic data collection matrix is to be deve-
loped and revised as necessary. The purpose of the matrix is to clas-
sify data by socioeconomic categories and geographical area. The latter
function is employed to facilitate the allocation of data to the study
areas as these become defined. Data is also classified in the matrix
according to its currency and periodicity. This consideration insures
that the most up-to-date information will be utilized in the development
of socioeconomic profiles.
Next, from the preliminary list of categories and variables and data
collection matrix, a "wish list" of variables for our study will be pre-
pared. Due to the 1 arge val ume of data it is necessary to begin with
such a "wish list 11 and reduce it as more is learned from the data col-
lection matrix concerning data availability. This ensures that few
variables, if any, will be overlooked in the process. This list is sub-
ject to further refinement as more input is received. Moreover, since
the scope of the Susitna socioeconomic study is limited to secondary
data, data availability and quality will determine which variables will
be quantitatively handled, which qualitatively regarded, and which will
not be dealt with at all. Another factor which will influence the ulti-
mate inclusion of variables is the degree of importance each will have
relative to Susitna. This selection process will occur throughout the
320
course of the study. Also, during the course of the study, the list
will be pared down in efforts to minimize variable redundancy. ~he cri-
teria for this will be quality of the data base and relevanc~ to the
forecasting methodology.
The final list of socioeconomic variables, to be called 11 Comprehensive
List of Socioeconomic Categories and Va ri ab 1 es, 11 wi 11 rep resent the
culmination of the selection of variables. This list will be further
defined relative to the study areas {discussed below).' This process
will be similar to the process of refinement in general, i.e., variables
will be assigned to study ~reas based on importance, relevance, and
availabiity of data.
A.3 -Definition of Study Areas
In the event that hydroelectric development occurs in the Upper Susitna
Basin, the socioeconomic 'impacts will be felt or occur in varying de-
grees over a considerable distance. Ideally, the impacts could be
traced by drawing a series of concentric circles emanating from the dam
site{s) which would represent a lessening degree of impact as one pro-
gressed outward. (In general, the project impacts can be expected to be
more intense the closer they are to the project site and staging areas).
However, demographic, social, and economic activity patterns do not
follow such a precise configuration. Human activity is most pronounced
a 1 ong transportation corridors and population centers. More impor-
tantly, each socioeconomic category as it relates to an activity may
have a unique pattern. Nevertheless, for the sake of organization and
to facilitate analy~is, it is appropriate to delineate study areas.
The process of defining the study areas for each socioeconomic category
involves analyzing sources and availability of data, socioeconomic stu-
dies and literature, other team member's study areas, plans of study and
reports, and input from various state agencies. As before with the
321
socioeconomic variables, the nature of the study requires a system which
is flexible and can accommodate a certain degree of change. for this
reason, there is a propensity to have very small as well as very large
study areas. This is warranted for two reasons. One is that substan-
tial impacts relative to the existing socioeconomic conditions will
occur at the local or "micro" level. In general, it is at this level
that secondary information is hardest to find and thus it deserves to be
focused upon. The other reason for such delineation is that it makes it
possible to aggregate data across study areas. This will facilitate
analysis at the "macro" level and comparison between "micro" and "macro"
levels.
In recognition of the above considerations, the following criteria are
to be applied in defining study areas:
(I) the smallest study area shall conform ~s closely as possible
to those of closely-related disciplines (e.g., recreation;
land use; cultural resources, etc.);
(2) the next smallest study area shall be at the community level
{i.e., the smallest statistical area for which relevant time-
series economic and social data are available; and the area
must be large enough to contain a population sufficient in
size to allow for the organization of social life for the
pursuit of one or several common interests and the necessary
support systems;
{3) the next 1 arger study area shall be composed of two or more
communities {as defined above) that are most likely to be
impacted directly by hydroelectric development in the Upper
Susitna Basin. What is commonly referred to as the com-
munities that comprise the "railbelt region" may be a good
first approximation; and
322
(4) the largest study area shall be the State of Alaska.
In defining the study areas, the following factors are to be taken into
consideration:
(1) proximity to project site, access routes. and staging areas;
(2) population distribution and density patterns; and
(3) political units and boundaries. especially in terms of census
divisions and municipality boundaries.
323
APPENDIX 8
APPENDIX B
The results of Work Package 1, Work Item D, are summarized in the following
table. These impacts or areas of concern have been extracted from profiles
of various en vi ronmenta 1 impact studies of other energy deve 1 opment pro-
jects. The assessment of the profi 1 es yielded this 1 i st of impacts or
areas of concern which could be relevant to the proposed Susitna Project.
The list is by no means exhaustive but is intended to serve as a guide for
further research and analysis. Specific items were evaluated as regards
their potential relevance to the Susitna Project in terms of degree and
geographical area of impact.
POTENTIAL
DEGREE AND
GEOGRAPHIC
-AREA OF
IMPACT
+ L,R
+ L
+ l
? L, R
? l, R
0 l
+ L
? L
APPENDIX B
IMPACTS OF REPRESENTATIVE POWER DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS:
POTENTIAL RELEVANCE FOR THE PROPOSED SUSITNA PROJECT
TYPE OF IMPACT
Land Use and Features
Total acreage required by project facilities and
right-of-ways.
Total acreage of land indirectly impacted by project facili-
ties and right-of-way.
Short-term impacts may be less substantial than the long-term
impacts.
Patterns of ownership and induced changes.
Changes in uses of land.
Value of land and natural resources above and below ground
1 ost/gai ned.
Changes in potential uses of land (wilderness or roadless
areas, National Scenic River, etc.)
Potential for seismic activity.
Overall "productivity" of land could increase.
Increased accessibility will affect land and resource values.
Opportunities for flood protection.
Degree of impact: + is relatively large;
o is relatively small.
? is uncertain.
Geographic area of impact: L is the Upper Susitna area (Study Area 1 and 2)
R is the railbelt and the state (Study Area 3
and 4)
328
POTENTIAL
DEGREE AND
GEOGRAPHIC
AREA OF
IMPACT
+ L
+ R
+ L
+ L
? L
+ L, o R
+ L, R
+ L
+ L
o R
TYPE OF IMPACT
Socioeconomic Categories
1. Population
Temporary versus permanent impacts.
Number of workers; families, and other inhabitants expected
to relocate.
Population may grow with or without project, and coupled
with other projects (e.g. the gas pipeline.)
Project may induce secondary population growth.
2. Housing
Impacts to region may depend on percentage of workers re-
cruited from outside region.
Availability or tightness of housing market determines scale
of impact.
Demand for housing many be determined independently of pro-
ject and in part by other major construction projects.
Most workers will be housed in temporary construction camps;
commuting is unlikely.
Rents and market values in the closer residential areas may
rise.
3. Tax Base and Revenues
Taxes on construction property may accrue to certain govern-
ment entities.
Depending on workers' spending habits, various communities
may experience an increase in revenues from sales tax.
Appreciated land values may lead to an increase in tax base.
Participants and/or governments may agree to offset certain
costs incurred by various governments.
Revenues will accrue to the Federal government via income
taxes on construction and operating personnel income.
329
POTENTIAL
DEGREE AND
GEOGRAPHIC
AREA OF
IMPACT
+ L
+ L
+ L, R
+ L
+ L, R
+ L
o L
+ L, o R
+ R
+ L
+ L, o R
? L, R
+ L, o R
TYPE OF IMPACT
Revenues may increase over time due to appreciation of land
values relating to increased opportunities for development
(secondary impact).
Changes in land use will alter value of tax base.
4. Employment
Number of employees required during operation and mainte-
nance.
Income figures for workers (total annual, average per worker,
timing, etc.)
Secondary employment may occur in economic infrastructure due
to multiplier effects.
Number of construction workers and timinq of work force
loading.
Percentage of work force hired locally and regionally.
Seasonal variations in employment.
Number of workers employed by transmission line construction.
Effect on other industries and sectors of economy created by
/ project 1 s demand for labor.
Impacts of laws related to number of state residents required
to be employed.
Breakdown of work force by trade and function.
5. Economy
Increased accessibility to area could encourage development ..
associated with recreational opportunities.
Multiplier effect on local and regional economy.
Incentives for industrial development created by stable
energy availability.
Impacts on communities from increased economic activity
associated with project.
330
POTENTIAL'
DEGREE AND
GEOGRAPHIC
AREA OF
IMPACT
- ? L, R
+ L
+ L
+ L
+ L
+ L, R
+ L
+ L
+ L
+ L, R
+ L, R
+ R
+ R
+ L, R
+ L, o R
+ L
TYPE OF IMPACT
Percentage of work force income spent locally or in region.
Impact on personal income of area residents.
Various sectors of the economy would benefit.
6. Public Services
Demand for educational services.
Demand for police and fire protection services.
Effects on existing services and transportation facilities.
Demand for sewer and water facilities.
How costs for public services will be incurred and funded.
Demand for judicial and health services.
Need for planning at various levels.
Energy
Hydropower is a relatively pollution-free, renewable
resource. Its use prevents impacts of alternatives.
Project could reduce and/or replace dependence on fossil-fuel
based power.
Project may add over 1000 MW of generating capacity to
region.
Large shortages of electrical energy could have a serious eco-
nomic and social impact.
Could provide a stable, long-term, lower-price supply of
electricity.
Community Attitudes
Tensions could exist between residents and immigrants project
may attract.
Lack of recreation, social isolation, and close quarters may
place stress on workers.
331
POTENTIAL'
DEGREE AND
GEOGRAPHIC
AREA OF
IMPACT
? L, R
+ L
+ L
+ L
+ L
+ L, R
+ L
+ L
+ L
+ L, R
+ L, R
+ R
+ R
+ L, R
+ L, o R
+ L
TYPE OF IMPACT
Percentage of work force income spent locally or in region.
Impact on personal income of area residents.
Various sectors of the economy would benefit.
6. Public Services
Demand for educational services.
Demand for police and fire protection services.
Effects on existing services and transportation facilities.
Demand for sewer and water facilities.
How costs for public services will be incurred and funded.
Demand for judicial and health services.
Need for planning at various levels.
Energy
Hydropower is a relatively pollution-free, renewable
resource. Its use prevents impacts of alternatives.
Project could reduce and/or replace dependence on fossil-fuel
based power.
Project may add over 1000 MW of generating capacity to
region.
Large shortages of electrical energy could have a serious eco-
nomic and social impact.
Could provide a stable, long-term, lower-price supply of
electricity.
Community Attitudes
Tensions could exist between residents and immigrants project
may attract.
Lack of recreation, social isolation, and close quarters may
place stress on workers.
331
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX C ·
COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF
SOCIOECONOMIC CATEGORIES AND VARIABLES 1
I. POPULATION
A. Population levels
1. Historical
2. Present
3. Projected
4. Component of Change (births, deaths,
in-out migration)
B. Ethnicity, Culture, Religion
C. Population Distribution (city, borough,
state) by:
1. Age
2. Sex
3. Race
4. Occupation (general)
5. Education
a. Retired, wage, salary
b. Sector, activity
c. Employment
D. Population Density
E. Family/Household Characteristics
1. Extent
2. Marital Status
3. Migration patterns
a. mobility/stability
b. point of origin
c. out/in migration
4. Length of Residence
a. in house
b. in community
c. in state
5. Place of work (commuting distance)
F. Attitudes Toward Change/Economic Development
G. Projections
1 Each of these categories and variables will be addressed to the extent
that data and information allow and to the extent that they are relevant
for the purposes of this analysis.
II . COMMUNITY
A. General Description/Facilities
B. Organizations (clubs, churches, veteran groups)
C. Political Involvement
D. Information/Media
E... Social Interaction
F. Entertainment
G. Projections
336
III. HOUSING
A. Historical Info (growth rate)
B. Type
1. Single family
2. Multi-family
3. Mobile home
4. Recreation Facilities
5. Transient Facilities
* Variables to be considered for above
a. number of units
b. quality
c. cost/prices
d. vacancy rate
C. Vacancy Rate
D. Status
1. Renting
2. Buying
3. Own
4. Other
E. Land availability
F. Zoning/Building Regulations (& patterns)
G. Financial Climate (incentives/disincentives)
H. Real Estate Activity
1. Sales
2. Construction
3. Plans
Projections
337
IV. PUBLIC SERVICES & GOVERNMENT REVENUE
A. Government Structure/Organization
1. Towns
2. Cities
3. Boroughs
B. Government Services
c.
1. Water Supply and Treatment
2. Waste Water Treatment
3. Solid Waste Disposal
4. Police Protection
5. Legal System (courts, retention facilities)
6. Fire Protection
7. Health Care (including Social Services)
8. Parks and Recreation
9. Libraries
10. Education (day care, vocational, others)
11. Public Transportation
12. Roads and Highway System
13. Telephone Service/Communication
14. Electric Power Service
* Variables to be considered for· above
a. Service area
b. Usage figures
c. Deployment patterns (distances/response
times)
d. Capacity figures
e. Condition/quality
f. Relevant standards
g. Occurrence rates
h. Plans for expansion
i. Government expenditures
Tax Base and Revenues
1. Taxes
a. personal
i • rates
i i. base
b. industry
i. rates
i i • base
c. Sales
i . rates
ii. base
d. other
338
IV. c. (cont.)
2. Other revenue sources
3. Government debt {borrowing capacity)
D. Projections
339
V. ECONOMIC BASE
A. General Description (History and Area Trends)
B. Total Work Force
C. Employment Multiplier
D. Output Multiplier
E. Major Basic Industry Description
1. Construction
2. Mining
3. Agriculture
4. Timber and related products
5. Manufacturing
6. Fishery
7. Oil and gas
8. Transportation
i. Rai 1
ii. Air
iii. Motor transport
iv. Marine
9. Public Utilities
10. Communications
11. Wholesale trade
12. Retail trade
13. Finance, insurance, real estate
14. Services
15. Public Administration (Federal, State, Local)
16. Tourism
* Variables to be considered for above
a. hi story
b. statistics {present sales, prod., etc.)
c. emp 1 oyment
1. 1 abor force
2. percent of total work force
3. payro 11
4. average wage rate
d. resource base (land use)
e. service area
f. usage figures
g. capacity
h. condition/quality
i. product value
j. marketing patterns
k. relative to state and U.S.
1. future outlook
340
V. (cont.)
F. Conclusions
G. Projections
341
VI. HUMAN RESOURCES (Labor & Income)
A. Historical Labor Changes
B. Emp 1 oyment
1. Present Profile (employment by sector)
a. absolute
b. percentage
2. Multipliers
a. basic industry to non-basic industry
b. export trade sector
c. services
3. Length of work week
4. Seasonality
C. Occupational Staffing Patterns by
1. Sector/Industry
2. Ethnicity
3. Sex
4. Unemployment
5. Percentage of work force
6. Wages (selected occupations)
D. Working Conditions and Absenteeism
E. Union Presence
F. Unemployment for Area
1. Age
2. Sex
3. Race
G. Income
1. Hi story
2. Per Capita Income
a. General
b. Sex
c. Ethni city
3. Source
a. Wages/salaries
b. Social Security
4. Subsistence income (moderate standard of living)
5. Consumer Price Index {CPI)
H. Projections
342
VI I. LAND USE
A. Historical/General
B. Land Tenure (ownership)
c. Existing
1. Forestry
2. Agriculture
3. Mining
4. Timber
5. Native Lands
6. Federal
7. State
8. Parks
9. Oil and Gas
10. Unexploited Natural Resources
11. Industry/Commercial
12. Urban
13. Rural
14. Residential
15. Military
16. Transportation
* Variables to be considered for above
a. acres
b. value
c. ownership
d. management plans
e. historical trends
f. percentage of total
D. Population Density
E. Land Use Plans and Control
1. Public
2. Private
3. Municipalities
4. Borough
5. Flood plains
F. Projections
343
VIII. RECREATION
A. Utilizing Fish & Wildlife Resources
1. Sport Fishery
a. All species
2. Wildlife
a. Caribou
b. Moose
c. Black Bear
d. Brown Bear
e. Mountain Goats
f. Sheep
g. Wolverine
i. Waterfowl~ Birds
j. Other Furbearers
* Variables to be considered for above
1. Historical
2. Present
a. area {acres and 1 ocat ion)
b. effort (visitor days/# of visitors)
c. Success {harvest)
d. Resident (pt. of origin/% of total)
e. Non-Resident {gen. geo .• pt. of origin/
%of total)
f. Species (stats relative to State)
g. Subsistence (personal consumption/
business)
h. Trophy
i. Management Plans
i. Regulations
ii. Revenues (total/relative to
state/flow of money)
iii. Enforcement (ways/numbers/capacity)
B. Not Related to Fish & Wildlife Reserves
1. Water Sports {canoe, kayak, rafting)
a. Historical
b. Area
1. effort
2. resident/non-resident pt. of or1g1n
2. Land Sports {hiking, picnicing, climbing)
a. Historical
b. Area
1. effort
2. resident/non-resident pt. of origin
C. Other
344
VIII. (cont.)
D. Related Business
1. Guides ( #!$)
2. Air Taxi Operators (#/$)
3. Lodge Owners (#/$)
4. Land Owners (#)
E. Projections
345
APPENDIX D
D -PROBABILITY AND DEGREE OF IMPACT FOR POTENTIALLY IMPACTED VARIABLES
BY STUDY AREA
The purpose of Work Package 2 is to collect and compile data on the
socioeconomic conditions for the development of a socioeconomic profile
that can then be utilized in the preliminary impact studies (Work
Package 3), and the forecasting of socioeconomic conditions (Work
Package 4). For the purposes of this project, socioeconomic conditions
have been broken down into socioeconomic variables. To this point, the
selection criteria for the variables have been described in general or
generic terms, and their relevance to the study areas have been
explicated. Table D is both a refinement of this process in that it
lists the various components of the selection criteria, paying par-
ticular attention to the needs of the Susitna Project, and is an initial
assessment of the probabi 1 ity and degree of impact for those variables
likely to be impacted. The format of the tabl~ is such that it is
divided into four major groupings: categories and variables; selection
criteria; study areas; and disqualifying factors. The function of the
table is to illustrate the following:
(1) selection criteria relevant to individual variables;
(2) socioeconomic conditions, described by variables, that are
considered to be susceptible to change as a result of con-
struction and/or operation of a Susitna Project;
(3) the probability of a variable being impacted (either high or
low) and the degree of impact, if an impact were to occur as
a result of construction and/or operation, for each of the
four study areas; and
(4) variables that will not be examined, regardless of merited
worth, due to either contractual constraints or unavailabi-
lity of data.
A more detailed explanation and discussion of the major groupings
follows.
349
0.1 -Selection Criteria
As discussed in previous sections, the categories and variable~ listed
in Table D were initially selected from: (1) other socioeconomic impact
studies; (2) literature concerning socioeconomic impact assessment; (3)
socioeconomic data pertinent to the Susitna Project; and {4) in-house
expertise. The various components of the selection criteria listed in
the table delineate the specific reason(s) whay a variable will be
addressed. For example, present population figures {Table D, Item IA 2 )
are of importance because: {1) such information is required for the
implementation of the forecasting methodology (the criteria for the
selection of a methodology are discussed in Subsection 2.5); (2) it is
necessary for the development of a comprehensive socioeconomic profile;
and (3) it is a variable that could potentially be impacted due to the
construction and/or operation of the Susitna dam. These are all indi-
cated by an 11 X11 in their respective columns. A variable that has been
identified as being potentially impacted has been deemed so based on:
{1) an extensive literature reveiw of other hydroelectric projects in
Alaska and the Lower-48 (Work Package 1, Work Items a, b, and d); (2)
interviews and discussions with knowledgeable officials and personnel;
and (3) in-house expertise.
The remaining two columns, 11 Project Specific 11 and 11 Expressed Public
Concern .. are not pertinent to the variable, 11 present population levels, ..
but are so for other variables. For definition purposes, 11 Project
Specific 11 is a term used to identify those variables that warrant con-
sideration because of their unique and important role in Alaska, and to
the Susitna Project in particular. This selection criteria is espe-
cially pertinent to variables related to fish, wildlife, natural
resources, and land ownership. Such variables are ordinarily not the
primary responsibility of a socioeconomic assessment, but due to the
potential social and economic implications, they are included. An
example of such a variable is a phenomenon unique to Alaska, and there-
fore is an issue that merits consideration.
350
Variables that reflect public concerns expressed through either APA
public participation meetings or newspapers have been indicated~as such
in the last column 11 Expressed Public Concern 11
•
-
Every effort has been made to ensure that all variables pertinent to the
Susitna project will be addressed, without being over inclusive.
D.2 -Study Areas
Based on the same criteria used to determine if a variable will be
potentially impacted, FO&A, Inc. has completed a preliminary assessment
of impact probability and degree for each of the variables likely to be
impacted in relation to the four study areas. If and when an impact
occurs, it will have differing effects in each of the study areas. For
this reason, the probability and degree vary from,one study area to the
next. Table D illustrates our knowledge to date of both probability
and degree. 11 H11 and 11 L11 refer to probability of impact, with 11 H"
meaning that a particular variable has a high probabi 1 ity of being
impacted as a result of the Susitna Project, and 11 L11 meaning a low
probability. It should be understood that probability of impact is in
no way an attempt at making value judgments, impacts could have either a
positive or negative implications depending on one•s outlook.
Degree of impact refers to the magnitude, with a 11 +11 signifying relati-
vely large, and a 11 011 relatively small. Again, the positiveness or
negativeness associated with a large or small magnitude is left to the
discretion of the individual.
0.3 -Disqualifying Factors
Disqualifying factors are those factors that would eliminate a variable
from inclusion in the socioeconomic profile either because it is not
351
within the scope of our work (designated by a "x"), or because data
appears to be unavailable for particular study areas {designate~numeri
cally according to study area).
352
w
(}"'
w
I.
--·-·
TAilLt."D
PROBABILITY AND DEGREE OF IMPACT FOR POTENTIALLY
IMPACTED VARIABLES, BY STUDY AREA
SELECTION CRITERIA
u .,.....
...-..c ...... :::::1
>, til>, QJ a.. ...-c:cn >
r-0 0 ,..... -a
ttl-a .,..... ,..... +JQJ u QJN
.,..... QJ +JO c...-.j.J .,..... VlC:
.j.J .j.J u-a ,..... ..c U4-Ill 1-
CATEGORIES c: u QJ 0 1-ttl QJ•r-QJ QJ
2:!~ .,...,_c U·.-.,..., u I-u
VARIABLES O+J Ill I-0 QJ c..c:
0 E I-QJ QJttl s... 0 >< 0 a.. ,_ O..::E: O> a.. l/l LJJ u
POPULATION ·--·--
A. Population levels -
1. Historical X X
2. Present X X X ----·-
3. Projected X
4. Component of Change (births,
deaths, in-out miqrati<!n) X X X -
B. Ethnicity, Culture, Religion X X ---c. Population Distribution (city,
borough, state) by:
1. Age X X -
2. Sex X X -
3. Race X X ---
4. Occupation (general) X X
5. Education X X ·---
D. Popu 1 at inn Dens it.Y ----
E. Family/Ho~sehold Characteristics -·---.. -
1. Extent X X --·---·-... ·------
STUDY AREAS ' D I SQUALl FYI NG
FACTORS
Local Regi anal
.::.t.
1->,
0 .j.J
ttl ttl ttl ttl 3 .,...
QJ QJ QJ QJ ,.....
1-1-1-1-'+-·.-(Y')
o:::( .:X: .:X: o:::( 0 ..Cttl ...... N (V') o::;t tti+J
>,~*' >,'II >,~ >,'II QJ ,...... ttl
-a -a -a "0 c.. ~,.,. Ci
:::::1 :::::1 :::::1 :::::1 0 ttl
.j.J .j.J .j.J .j.J u >'+-
l/l l/l l/l l/l l/l o:::CO
·-· r--·--
·--
HO H+ HO HO
-
HO H+ HO HO ----
HO HO LO LO 1,2 -
HO H+ HO HO
HO H+ HO HO
HO H+ HO HO ' -
HO H+ HO HO --
HO H+ HO HO ·i' ,,
--. .....
---
-----· ----
H H LO LO 1_,_4_ -----
SELECTION CRITERIA STUDY AREAS DISQUALIFYING
FACTORS
' u Local .,... Regional .--
..0 ..:..:
.-i :::1 s... >, >, ~n>, Q) 0.. 0 +J
r-t:c::n > ttl ttl ttl ttl 3: .,..
r-00 .--o Q) Q) Q) Q) .--ra-o .,... .--+JQ) u QJN s... s... s... s... '+-•r-(Y)
.,... Q) +-10 0...--+J .,... In c:::: <( <( <( <( 0 ..ora +J +J u-o .-..o U4-In s... .-i N M .q lti+J t: u Q) 0 s... ttl QJ•r-Q)Q) >, "'*' >,"'I >,"'I= >,=u Q) .-ttl . .., u 3~ . ..,.,e U•.-0 Q) s... u -o -o "0 -o 0.. ·..-o
O+J In s... 5-0 o..c:::: :::1 :::1 :::1 :::1 0 ttl o E s... Q) QJro O..Vl >< 0 +J +J +J +J u >4-0.. ...... 0..:::!::: Cl > wu Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl <(O
2. Marital Status X X H H LO LO
3. Migration patterns
a. mobility/stability X X X X HO H+ HO LO
b. point of origin X
4. Length of Residence
a. in house X X
b. in community X X
c. in state X X
5. Place of work (commuting
distance) X X X X HO H+ HO LO
F. Attitudes Toward Change/Economic
Development X X
II. COMMUNITY
A. Community Facilities X X X HO H+ LO LO
B. Organizations (clubs, churches, i' •I·
veteran groups) X X HO L+ LO LO X
c. Political Involvement X X
D. Information/Media X X
w
()1
()1
III.
E. Social Interaction
F. Entertainment
HOUSING
A. Historical Info (growth rate}
B. . Type
1. Single family
2. Multi-family
3. Mobile home
4. Recreation Facilities
5. Transient Faci 1 iti es
* Variables to be considered for
above
a. number of units
b. quality
c. cost/prices
d. vacancy rate
c. Status
1. Renting
2. Buying
SELECTION CRITERIA
u
•r-.--
.0 ...... ::I >. 11'1>, llJ c.. .--ern > ,_ 00 1-Cru "U
~"U .,_ r-u ruN
•r-llJ +'0 a..-+J •r-VIC
.j....l .j....l U"U r-.0 U4-11'11-c u llJ 0 ~-~ llJ•r-llJ Q}
39 ·.-,.c U•r-.,_., u 1-U
O+.l VI 1-0 llJ a.c ~ 0 o E !... QJ Q)~ 0.. (/) >< 0
0.. ...... o.z Cl> LJ.J u
X X
X X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
STUDY AREAS D I SQUALl FYI NG
FACTORS
Local Regional
..:..:
1->,
0 ....,
~ ~ ~ ~ ::3: ·.-
QJ llJ Q} Q} ,_
1-1-1-1-4-•o-f")
<( c:::( c:::( c:::( 0 .0~ ...... >.~ M oc:;t ~.j-..1
>,"!~;: >,'tl:o >,"'I QJ .-~
"U "U "0 "0 a. •r-Cl
::I ::I ::I ::I 0 ~ ...., .j....l .j....l ...., u >'+-
(/) (/) (/) (/) (/) <(0
HO H+ LO LO
HO H+ LO LO
LO H+ HO LO
LO H+ HO LO
LO H+ HO LO
H+ H+ HO LO
LO H+ HO LO
•i'l 'tf
LO H+ HO LO
LO H+ HO LO
w
()1
O'l
IV.
3. Own
D. Land availability
E. Zoning/Building Regulations
(& patterns)
F. Financial Climate (incentives/
disincentives)
G. Real Estate Activity
1. Sales
2. Construction
3. Plans
PUBLIC SERVICES & GOVERNMENT REVENUE
A. Government Structure/Organization
1. Towns
2. Cities
3. Boroughs
B. Government Services
1. Water Supply and Treatment
2. Waste Water Treatment
3. Solid Waste Disposal
SELECTION CRITERIA
u .,....
.--
.a -:J
>. 111>. Q) 0...
r-ccn > .--0 0 .;;w <:!
IU<:l .,.... ..-u QJN
.,.... Q) ~0 a...-~ .,.... 111C
~~ U\:1 ,.... .a U4-111 1-c u Q) 0 1-IU Q) .,..... Q) Q)
Q) ttl ·..-,..c::: U•r-. ....., u 1-u
6[§-0~ 111 1-0 Q) a..c
1-Q) Wttl 1-0 >< 0
0... ...... o...;:<: 0> 0...(/) wu
X
X X X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X X X
X X X
X X X
STUDY AREAS D I SQUALl FYI NG
FACTORS
' I
Local Regional
~
1->.
0 ~
IU IU IU IU 3: .,....
Q) Q) Q) Q) .--
1-1-1-1-l+-•I"'"(V")
<( c::( c( <( 0 .a.u ...... N CVl o;;t IU~ >.>a: >. 'll->.:u: >.'11 Q) .--~
"0 <:! -a -a a.. .,.... 0
:J :J :J :J 0 ttl ...., ~ ~ ~ u >'+-
V1 (/) V1 (/) (/) <(0
H+ HO LO LO
LO LO
l+ H+ LO LO
LO H+ LO LO
LO H+ LO LO
H+ H+ LO LO
'I' I'
L+ H+ LO LO
L+ H+ LO LO
L+ H+ LO LO
w
U1
""-'
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
*
Police Protection
Legal System (courts, retention
facilities
Fire Protection
Health Care (including Social
Services
Parks and Recreation
Libraries
Education (day care, vocational,
others)
Public Transportation
Roads and Highway System
Telephone Service/Communication
Electric Power Service
variables to be considered for
above
a. Service area
b. Usage fiqures
SELECTION CRITERIA
u .,....
.--
.0 ...... ::I >.. Ill>, <lJ 0..
r-COl > .--00 ~<ll -o
IOU .,_ r-u <lJN
.,.... <lJ +.10 a...-....., .,.... VIC: ....., ....., u-o ,.... .0 Ul+-VI!.. c: u <lJ 0 !.... tU <ll•.-QJ<lJ
~9 ·.-,..c. U·r-.,..., u !.... u
0+"' VI !.... 0 QJ o...c:
o E !.... QJ <lltU s... Cl XO
0.. ...... O..::::E: O> a.. U1 u.J u
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
STUDY AREAS DISQUALIFYING
FACTORS
Local Regi anal
..:..::
!.... >..
0 .....,
tU tU tU tU 3 .,....
<lJ <lJ <lJ <lJ ....-
!.... !.... !.... !.... 1+-•r-f")
c( c( c( c( 0 .010 ...... N f") q IU+"'
>,"!" >,"'I >,"'I< >,"'I <lJ .--I1J -o -o -o -o 0... .,.... Cl
::I ::I ::I :::1 0 tU ....., ....., ....., ....., u >'+-
U1 U1 U1 U1 U1 c:x:o
L+ H+ HO LO
LO LO H+ LO
H+ H+ LO LO
LO H+ LO LO
H+ H+ HO LO
LO HO LO LO
LO H+ HO LO
LO HO LO LO
H+ H+ HO LO
LO H+ LO LO
H+ H+ H+ H+
;· 'lj
w
<.n
00
c. Tax
1.
2.
3.
c. Deployment patterns
(distances/response times)
d. Capacity figures
e. Condition/quality
f. Relevant standards
g. Occurrence rates
h. Plans for expansion
i. Government expenditures
Base and Revenues
Taxes
a. personal
b. industry
c. sales
d. property
e .• other
Other revenue sources
Government Debt (borrowing
capacity)
SELECTION CRITERIA
u ......
~
.0
...-i ::l
>, VI>, Q) 0. .-COl > .-00 .;:;(I) -c ro-c ..... ,....... u Q)N
...... Q) +-10 o..-+-1 .,..... VIC:
+-1 +-1 u-c .-.o U4-VI !...
t: u Q) 0 !... tU W•.-Q)Q)
!':l9 "'I .J:: U•r-''I u !... u
0+-1 VI !... 0 Q) O..t:
o E !... Q) Q)tQ !-Cl X: 0
0... ,....... O...::E: Cl > 0... (/) L.l.JU
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X
STUDY AREAS 0 I SQUALl FYI NG
FACTORS
Local Regional
..::.&.
!... >,
0 +-'
rtJ rtJ rtJ rtJ 3 .,...
Q) Q) Q) Q) ,.......
!... !... !... !... 4-•r-(V)
c:( o::( c:( c:( 0 .0113
...-i N (V") oc:t rr:l+-1
>,=t~o >,=tl >, 'tl: >,"'I Q) ,....... rtJ
-c -c -c -c 0.. .,_. 0
::I ::I ::I ::I 0 rtJ
+-1 +-1 +-1 +-1 u >4-
(/) (/) (/) (/) (/) c:(O
LO H+ LO LO
LO H+ LO LO
LO H+ LO LO
LO H+ LO LO
LO H+ LO LO
LO H+ LO LO
w
Ul
1.0
v. ECONOMIC BASE
A. General Description (History and
Area Trends)
B. Total Work Force
c. Employment Multiplier
D. Output Multiplier
E. Major Basic Industry Description
1. Construction
2. Mining
3. Agriculture
4. Timber and related products
5. Manufacturing
6. Fi sher_y_
7. Oil and gas
8. Jransportation
L Rail
ii. Air
iii. Motor transport
iv. Marine
SELECTION CRITERIA
u .,....
,.......
.D ...... ::l
>. VI>, Q) 0..
.--c::cn > ,... 0 0
lfQ) ~N llS"O .,.... .--u
•r-Q) +JO o.....-+-> •r-VI C:: .... .... u-o r-..0 U4-VIS...
c:: u Q)O s... rc QJ•r-Q)CIJ
~~ .,...,_c: U•r-.,..., u !-U
0+-' VI S... 0 ClJ 0... c::
o E s... Q) QJI'C s... 0 >(O
c.. ....... O..:::E; Cl ::> o.. VI wu
X
X X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X x· X X
X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
STUDY AREAS D I SQUALl FYI NG
FACTORS
I
Local Regional
..:..: s... >.
0 ....
llS llS llS llS 3: .,....
Q) Q) Q) Q) ...-s... s... s... s... 4-·r-f"')
c:( c:( c:( c:( 0 n rc ...... N M <:::t rei+-'
>,~~o: >.~1 >.~ >.~1 Q) ,... rc
"0 "0 -o -o 0. .,.... Cl
::l ::l =' =' 0 rc .... .... .... .... u >'+-
VI VI VI VI VI c:(O
LO H+ HO LO
H+ HO LO
H+ HO LO
LO H+ H+ LO
LO H+ HO LO
LO H+ HO LO
LO H+ HO LO
LO H+ HO LO
LO LO LO LO
LO LO HO LO
; ' I
H+ H+ HO LO
H+ H+ HO LO
H+ H+ HO LO
LO H+ HO LO
w en
0
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
*
Public Utilities
Conmunications
Wholesale trade
Retail trade
Finance. insurance. real estate
Services
Public Administration (Federal,
State, Local)
Tourism
Variables to be considered for
above
a. history
b. statistics (present sales,
prod., etc.)
c. employment
1. labor force
2. percent of total work
force
3. payroll
SELECTION CRITERIA
u .,....
~
.0
.--4 ;::,
>. Ill>, QJ 0... ,..... c:: O'l > ,..... 0 0 ~QJ "Q
1'0"0 .,.. ..-u QJN
...... QJ +lO 0..---.j...l ...... VlC::
.j...l .j...l u-o r-.0 U4-IllS... c:: u (lJ 0 S....ta QJ.,... QJQJ
29 ·.-,..c. U•r-'o;-) u s... u
O+l Ill s... 0 (lJ o.c::
o E s... QJ (Uta s... 0 XO
0... ...... O...;:E: Cl > Cl.. (./) LJ.J u
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
STUDY AREAS 0 I SQUALl FYI NG
FACTORS
'
Local Regi anal
,:,{.
s... >.
0 .j...l
tO tO tO tO 3: .,..
QJ QJ QJ QJ ,.....
s... s... s... s... 4-•r-(V)
c( c( c( c( 0 .Ota
.--4 N M .._,.. ta+l
>,:tt;: >.,'tl >.'tt:: >.,'tl QJ .-ru
"Q -o -o "Q 0. .,.. Cl
:::l ;::, ;::, ;::, 0 tO
.j...l +l .j...l .j...l u > 4-
(./) (./) (./) (./) (./) c(O
LO H+ HO LO
H+ H+ HO LO
LO H+ HO LO
LO H+ HO LO
HO H+ HO LO
LO H+ HO LO
LO LO LO LO
H+ H+ HO HO
'II' ,,
SELECTION CRITERIA STUDY AREAS DISQUALIFYING
FACTORS
u Local Regional .....
...-
.0 ~ ..... :::J ~ ~ >-, Vl>-, QJ 0... 0
r-C::Ol > 1'0 n:l 1'0 1'0 3: .,... ,....... 00 ~QJ u ClJ QJ QJ QJ .--
n:I"O .,..... r-u QJN ~ ~ ~ ~ 4-.,.....,..,
...... QJ +-'0 a..--+J ..... VlC:: c:I:: c::( c::( c:I:: 0 .OrO
+J +J u -o .-.o U4-Vl~ ..... N M q 1'0+-' c: u QJ 0 ~ n:l QJ.,... QJQJ >-,"'to >,=tt >-,=~~o >,=tt QJ r-rO
QJ n:l 'I'"') ..c: u·.-... u ~ u -o -o '0 "0 a. .,... Cl
6~ 0+-' Vl ~ 0 QJ o..c:: :::J :::J :::J :::J 0 1'0 ~ QJ QJrO s... 0 >< 0 +J +J +J +J u >4-
0... ....... a..::<: Cl > 0... (/) LJ.J u (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) c::(O
4. average wage rate
d. resource base (land use)
e. service area
f. usage figures
g. capacity
h. condition/quality
i. product value
j. marketing patterns
k. relative to state and U.S.
1. future outlook
VI. HUMAN RESOURCES (Labor & Income)
A. Historical Labor Changes X X
B. Employment
1. Present Profile (employment by
sector) X X X X LO H+ HO LO I'
a. absolute
b. percentaqe --
2. Multipliers
a. basic industry X X X X LO H+ HO LO
w
Cfl
N
c.
D.
E.
F.
G.
b. export trade sector
c. services
3. Lenqth of work week
4. Season a 1 i t_y
Occupational Staffing Patterns by
1. Sector/Industry
2. Ethnicity
3. Sex
4. Unemp 1 o_vrnent
5. Percentage of work force
6. Wages (selected occupations)
Working Conditions and Absenteeism
Union Presence
Unemployment for Area
1. Aqe
2. Sex
3. Race
Income
1. History
SELECTION CRITERIA
u .,... .....
LJ
.-i :::l
>. Ill>, ClJ 0.... ,...... 1:: O'l > ..... 00 ,.... "0
~"0 .,... ,....-+JQJ u ruN
.,... ClJ +-'0 a..-+-' .,... Ill c::
+-' +J u "0 ,...._o U4-Ill s....
c: u Q) 0 s.... ttl W•r-ru <11
~~ 't'"")...C:: U•r-'OJ u I-u
0+-' Ill I-0 QJ 0. c::
o E I-ClJ ru ~ s.... 0 XO
0.. 1-< 0..::!: O> 0.. U) wu
X X X X
X X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X
X X X X
X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X
STUDY AREAS D I SQUALl FYI NG
FACTORS
Local Regional
~
s.... >.
0 +J
~ ~ ~ ~ ::;c .,....
ClJ ClJ Q.l ClJ .--
s.... s.... s.... s.... If-•r-(V)
c:( c:( c:( c:( 0 Llttl
r-i N ("'} -.::t ~+J
>. 'll.o >.'11 >.~ >.'11 ClJ ..... ttl
-o -o "0 "0 0. .,... Cl
:::l :::l :::l :::l 0 ~
+J +-' +J +J u >4-
I/') 1.1) 1.1) I/') I/') c:(O
LO H+ HO LO
LO H+ HO LO
LO H+ LO LO
LO H+ LO LO
LO H+ LO LO
LO H+ LO LO
LO H+ LO LO
LO H+ LO LO
LO H+ HO LO
LO ff+ HO LO
LO H+ HO LO
w
"' w
VII.
2. Per Capita Income
a. General
b. Sex
c. Ethnicit.Y
3. Source
a. Waqes/salaries
b. Social Securit.v
4. Subsistence income (moderate
standard of living)
5. Consumer Price Index (CPI)
LAND USE
A. Historical/General
B. Land Tenure (ownership)
c. Existing
1. Forestry
2. Aqriculture
3. Mining
4. Timber
SELECTION CRITERIA
u ......
....-..c
...-I :::1
~ In~ Q) 0... ....-ccn > ....-0 0 ..... -a
11:1"0 ..... ....-....,Q) u Q)N
...... Q) +-10 0...-..., .,.... tnt: ..., ..., u-o r-..0 U4-InS... c u Q) 0 s... 11:1 Q) .,.... Q) QJ
Q) 11:1 .,....., .t: U•r-.,., u s...u
-t-IC 0+-1 In s... 0 QJ O.t:
o E s... QJ (1)11:1 s.. a ><O
0... >--< o... L: O> 0... Vl wu
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X X X
X
X X
X X X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
STUDY AREAS 0 I SQUALl FYI NG
FACTORS
Local Regi anal
~ s... ~
0 ...,
tO tO tO 11:1 3 ......
Q) Q) Q) Q) ..-
s... s... s... s... 4-•r-(V)
<:( c::c: <:( <( 0 ..011:1 ....... ~~ M "'1 11:1+-1
~"*" ~"*" ~"ll QJ ..-11:1 -o -o -o -o 0. .,.... Cl
:::1 ::l :::1 :::J 0 11:1 ..., ..., ..., ..., u >4-
Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl <CO
LO H+ LO LO
LO H+ LO LO
LO H+ LO LO
LO H+ HO LO
H+ LO LO
H+ H+ LO LO
L+ l+ LO LO ·11 ,,
LO H+ LO LO
H+ HO LO LO
l+ l+ LO LO
SELECTION CRITERIA STUDY AREAS DISQUALIFYING
FACTORS
u Local Regional .,....
~
..0 ~
...-1 ::I 1->-,
>-, Vl>-, Q.J 0.. 0 .......
,..-c:cn > ttl ttl ttl ttl 3 .,....
,..-0 0 ,.... ~N Q.J Q.J QJ Q.J r-
tti'"O ·.-~ +JQ.J u 1-1-1-1-'+-•r"(Y")
.,.... Q.J +JO O.r-........ ,.... Vl c: ex: ex: ex: ex: 0 ..Ott!
.............. u '0 r-..0 U4-VII-r-1 N C"') c:;t rtl+J
c: u Q.J 0 1-rtl Q.J·.-Q.JQJ >-, "*" >-,"'I >,'Ito >.=u QJ .-rtl
~9 'I"") ..C. U•r-. ....., u 1-u '0 '0 '0 -o 0.. •r-Cl
O+J Vl 1-0 Q.J 0. c: ::I ::I ::I ::I 0 ttl
0 E 1-Q.J QJn;) 1-0 X 0 ....... ....... ....... ....... u >'+-
0... ...... a..:;: O:> 0.. l/) wu l/) l/) l/) l/) l/) ct;O
5. Native Lands X X X H+ H+ LO LO
6. Federal X X X H+ H+ LO LO
7. State X X X H+ H+ LO LO
8. Parks X X
9. Oi 1 and Gas X X LO LO LO LO
10. Unexploited Natural Resources X X H+ H+ HO LO
11. Industry/Commercial X X LO H+ HO LO
12. Urban X X LO LO LO LO
13. Rural X X LO HO LO LO
14. Residential X X LO LO LO LO
15. Mi 1 itary X X LO LO LO LO
16. Transportation X X X L+ H+ LO LO
* Variables to be considered for abo e
a. acres
b. value
ownership
,,
c.
d. management plans
e. historical trends .
f. percentage of total
w m
U1
VIII.
D. Population Density
E. Land Use Plans and Control
1. Public
2. Private
3. Municipalities
4. Borough
5. Flood plains
RECREATION
A. Utilizing Fish & Wildlife Resources
1. Sport Fishery
a. All species
2. Wildlife
a. Caribou
b. Moose
c. Black Bear
d. Brown Bear
e. Mountain Goats
f. Sheep
SELECTION CRITERIA
u .,....
......-
..0 ...... ::I >. Ill>, (lJ 0.. ......-c 01 >
,--00
.;;(l.l
""0
11:3"0 .,... .---u Q)N
.,.... (lJ .j..JO o...--+J .,.... lilt:
.j..J .j..J U"' ,..._o U4-Ill s.. c u cue s.. n:l ClJ .,.... Q)(l.l
28 ·..-,..c:: U•r-. ....., u s..u
Q.j..J IllS-0 (lJ o..c
o E s.. ClJ <lJ11:3 s... 0 xo
0.. ........ a..:;: Cl > a.. Vl wu
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
STUDY AREAS D I S~QUAL I FYI NG
FACTORS
Local Regional
~ s.. >,
0 .j..J
11:3 11:3 11:3 11:3 3: .,....
ClJ (lJ (lJ Q) .---s.. s.. s.. s.. 4-•r-(Y)
c{ c{ c:( c{ 0 ..On:! ...... N M q 11:3-j..J
>,'l~o >,'ll >,"tt: >,'ll Q) ..... n:l
""0 "0 "0 "0 0.. .,.... Cl
::I ::I ::I ::I 0 11:3
.j..J .j..J .j..J .j..J u >4-
Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl c:(O
L+ HO LO LO
H+ H+ LO LO
H+ H+ LO LO
LO HO LO LO
LO H+ LO LO
LO H+ LO LO
H+ H+ LO LO
H+ H+ LO LO
H+ H+ LO LO
·' .,
H+ H+ LO LO
H+ H+ LO LO
H+ H+ LO LO
w en en
-
*
g. Wolverine
i. Waterfowl, Birds
j. Other Furbearers
Variables to be considered for
above
1. Historical
2. Present
a. area (acres and
location)
b. effort (visitor
days/# of visitors)
c. Success (harvest)
d. Resident (point of
origin/% of total)
e. Non-Resident (gen.
geo. pt. of origin/
%of total)
f. Species (stats
relative to State)
SELECTION CRITERIA
u .,....
~
.0 ....... :::::1
>, Ill>, QJ Cl..
,....-C::O'l > ,.-oo ,.... -gN 10 "0 .,... ,.-+-IQ.I u
.,... Q) +-10 o...-+-1 .,.... VIC::
+-1 +-1 u-o ~.o U4-VIS... c:: u Q) 0 s... 10 Q.l•r-Q)Q)
~8 .,.., ..c U•r-.,.., u s... u
0+-' Ill s... 0 Q) o.c:: o E s... Q) Q.JIO s... 0. ><O
Cl.. ........ Cl..::E: O> Cl.. V1 I.J.JU
X X X
X X X
X X X
STUDY AREAS DISQUALIFY IN
FACTORS
G
'
Local Reg i anal
~ s... >,
0 .j...J
10 10 10 10 3 .,...
QJ Q) Q) Q) ....-s... s... s... s... 4-•r-(Y")
o::( o::( c:( c:( 0 .Ottl ....... N (V) <::t 10+-1
>,"''"' >,"'). >,'U< >,'II Q) ..-10
"0 "0 -o -o 0. .,.... 0
:::::1 :::::1 :::::1 :::::1 0 10
+-1 +-1 +-1 +-1 u >'+-
V1 V1 V1 V1 V1 o::(O
H+ H+ LO LO
HO HO LO LO
H+ H+ LO LO
SELECTION CRITERIA STUDY AREAS D I SQUALl FYI NG
FACTORS
u Local Regional •r
r-
_() ..:><: ...... ::l "->,
>, Ill>, Q) 0... 0 +J
r-CO"! > ltl ltl ltl ltl 3: .,..
r-0 0 ~Q) ~N Q) Q) Q) Q) r-
lti""'CI .,.. ...-u "-"-"-"-'+-•.-(Y)
.,... QJ +JO a...-+J•r-UIC c::C c::C c::C c::C 0 ..010 ....., ....., U""'CI .-.a U4-IllS... ...... N M 'r:::t 10-4-J cu Q) 0 "-10 OJ·.-Q) Q) >,'lie >,=u >,'lie >,'41 Q) ...... 10
Q) rtJ ... .c U·.-.... u "-u \J <:1 <:1 "0 a. .,... Cl
6~ 0+-J IllS... 0 Q) o.c ::l ::l ::l ::l 0 ltl
"-Q) Q)ftl "-0 XO ....., ....., ....., ....., u >'+-0.. ........ a...::;: 0> 0.. V1 UJU V1 V1 V1 V1 V1 <CO
g. Subsistence (persona
consumption/business
h. Trophy
i. Management Plans
i. Regulations
ii. Revenues
(total rela-
tive to state)
iii. Enforcement
(effort/costs)
B. Not Related to Fish & Wildlife
Reserves
1. Water Sports (canoe, kayak,
rafting) X X X X H+ HO LO LO
a. Historical
b. Area
1. effort
2. resident/non-resident
_pt. of origin
w
0'1
00
2. Land Sports (hiking, picnicing,
climbing)
a. Historical
b. Area
1. effort
2. resident/non-resident
_Qt. of origin
c. Other
D. Related Business
1. Guides (#/$)
2. Air Taxi Operators (#/$)
3. lodJLe Owners (#/$)
4. Land Owners (#)
Probabi lit~ of Impact Degree of Impact
H = High l =.low + = relatively larg1
0 = relatively small
1Necessary for projections methodology
2As expressed through APA Public Participation
Program
3 Numbers correspond to study areas where data
may be dificult to obtain at disaggregated leve
SELECTION CRITERIA
u .....
~
.0
..-< ::1
>, VI>, Q) 0... ..... c::cn > ..-0 0 .... ~N 10"0 ..... ..-.j..)QJ u
..... QJ .j..JO n.~ ......, ..... VI C ......, .j..J U"O r-.0 u~ VI ~ c u QJ 0 1-rO QJ•.-QJQJ
2Q ·r"") .c u·.-. ....., u 1-u
Q.j..J VI I-0 Q) o..c
OE ~ QJ Q)rO s... Cl X 0
0.. 1-i c..::;: C> 0.. U1 LJ.J u
X X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
STUDY AREAS D I SQUALl FYI NG
FACTORS
Local Regi anal
~
~ >,
0 .j..J
10 10 10 10 3 .....
Q) Q) Q) QJ ...-
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •r-(Y)
c:( c:( c:( c:( 0 ..Ott~
..-< >,~ (Y) o:::t rU.j..J
>,=tl: >, 'll< >,"'I QJ ..-tO
"0 "0 "0 "0 Cl. ..... C)
::1 ::1 ::1 ::1 0 Ill .j..J .j..J .j..J .j..J u >~
U1 Vl U1 U1 U1 c:(O
H+ HO LO LO
H+ H+ LO LO
H+ H+ LO LO
H+ H+ LO LO
H+ H+ LO LO
APPENDIX E
APPENDIX E
This appendix presents a chapter of a report prepared by the Overall
Economic Development Programs, Inc. This is a nonprofit corporation "whose
purpose is to develop and strengthen the Matanuska-Susitna Borough
economy." The report from which this chapter is extracted was prepard as an
account of work sponsored by the Farmers Home Administration and the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough. Published in July, 1980, the report consists of
three volumes: Annual Report {Volume I), Economic Conditions, Development
Options, and Projections {Volume II), and Appendices (Volume III).
Chapter 2 of Volume I, "Changes in the Economy 11
, -has been included in this
report because it provides a good synopsis of the economic conditions and
problems facing the Borough today.
371
CHANGES IN THE ECONOMY
LOCATION
The Matanuska-Susitna Borough is located in Southcentral Alaska. It covers a
23,000 square-mile area, approximately the same size as the combined New
England States of Vermont, New Hampshire and Connecticut.
Palmer, the seat of Matanuska-Susitna Borough government, is about 40 miles
north of the City of Anchorage.
HISTORICAL BRIEF
AGRICULTURAL DOMINANT ECONOMIC FORCE UP TO THE 1960's.
In 1935, two hundred families relocated here from the depression and drought-
stricken Midwest. The purpose of the Matanuska Valley Colonization was not to
develop commercial agriculture, but to determine the feasibility of settling
potentially self-sustaining regions of Alaska. The highly structured
community has a colorful history as the ''Matanuska Valley Colony," replete
with picturesque farms worked by hardy families of Scandinavian stock. At the
time of colonization, each of the 200 fam·il ies was awarded a 40 to 80 acre
tract of land in the Federal Government sponsored program. Most of these 40
or 80 acre parcels were turned into individual farms.
A farmers cooperative was fanned at the time of colonization, and served as a
central political, social, and economic enterprise until the 1960's, when it
gradually faded out of existence. During the first 20 years, the "co-op"
operated a creamery, grocery store, dry goods store, feed and garden supply
store, service station, auto parts house, farm equipment sales, and a bureau-
cracy of several well-staffed offices. ·
In 1949, the Alaska Agricultural Experiment Station was established at Palmer.
The advent of World War II and the consequent military build up in the
Anchorage area created a market for commerci~l agriculture. With the tech-
nical expertise offered by the University of Alask·a Experiment Station to the
local farmers, commercial agriculture grew and reached a peak in 1961-1962,
with 47 dairy farms and 22 vegetable-potato farms in operation within the
Matanuska Valley.
In the late 1960's, commercial agriculture fell steadily to a few operating
farms. Today, less than a dozen farms are in operation, and commercial
farming is relatively unimportant from . an economic point of view. The
important qualities of prime farm land now are speculation and subdivision
development potential.
In 1964, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough was incorporated, forming a second-
class Borough. The primary functions being education,. planning and zoning,
and assessment and tax collection.
The military complex in Anchorage purchased coal mined north of Palmer until
the 1960 • s, when they converted from co a 1 to natura 1 gas from Kenai. This
produced a sharp decline of employment in the Valley and an exodus of many
miners, and adding to the general economic lull of the late 1960's.
RAPID SUBURBAN GROWTH DURING MOST OF THE 1970's -THEN DECLINE.
During the pipeline boom of the 70's, real estate and construction became a
major industry in the Matanuska Valley. Growth was doubling every five years -
the highest in the State. In this period, many new small businesses were
started though many only lasted a few years. In the last year-and-a-half,
over 100 businesses in the Valley have collapsed.
Statistics released by the Department of Labor show that by the winter of
1979-1980, unemployment in Alaska was around 10 percent; Fairbanks was the
373
second highest with around 13%, and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough was first in
the State with an official unemployment rate of around 20%.
State officials concede that the actual unemployment rate in the Matanuska-
Susitna Borough is much higher because the Department of Labor statistics
represent only those people who are currently receiving unemployment insurance
benefits. Not included in the Department of Labor figures are those persons
with expired eligibility for unemployment insurance and those persons who are
not actively seeking employment. These individua 1 s are described as "dis-
couraged job seekers," all of whom remain as Borough residents (some unable to
leave because of the poor home sale market).
The Matanuska-Susitna Borough business community has been hard hit by the
slump in economic conditions, blamed chiefly on the high unemployment rate
among the Borough's some 20,000 residents.
ACTIONS TO COUNTER ECONOMIC DECLINE.
Early in March 1980, Matanuska-Susitna Borough officials and executives of
·utility cooperatives joined a group of local business people in an organized
effort to solicit emergency State economic assistance for the Matanuska-
Susitna Borough. Approximately 60 members of the organized group flew to
Juneau to lobby for recognition of the Matanuska-Susitna area as an economic
disaster area by the Legislature. The delegation presented some suggestions
they felt the State could take (these were an extension of unemployment
benefits, retirement of debts accumulated by the local government for school
construction, increased revenue sharing by the State,1 and the deferment of
some business loan payments. Little real relief has come to the Valley as the
summer of 1980 begins.
Prospects of Point MacKenzie development, Wi 11 ow Capital Site development,
Susitna Dam Project, and natural resource development in the area remain only
as prospects and no longer produce major speculative development in antici-
pation of their occurrence.
MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH NEEDS/PROBLEMS
The problems are complex and based upon a number of forces impacting the
Borough. The Matanuska-Susitna Borough has enormous recreational and
industrial potential, but has serious problems; residents of the Valley are
engulfed in what may be the most serious economic recession in the State.
THE BOROUGH'S PROXIMITY TO ANCHORAGE PRESENTS A UNIQUE PROBLEM.
With a population of 200,000, Anchorage is not only Alaska's iargest city by
far (Fairbanks is next at 45,000, the capital, Juneau, is third at 30,000),
but also the third fastest growing area in the United States. The region
around Anchorage contains about 75% of the State's entire population.
Anchorage's ability to expand is hindered by its combined geographic location
and building limitations, therefore, much of its excess growth is overflowing
into the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. Any additional growth, which is requisite
to the economic viability of the southcentral region, will further impact the
Valley, whether from Anchorage or specific industrial or commercial activity
within the Borough.
374
land speculation in the Borough caused by the prospect of moving the present
capital from Juneau to a 100-square-mile site near the Borough community of
Willow is one important factor lending to the economic instability of the
Matanuska-Susitna Valley. Many Valley businessmen mortgaged their homes to
expand their businesses in anticipation of bustling commercial activity, after
voters chose in 1974 to move the State Capital.
Equally disconcerting is the high rate of business failures, particularly in
Wasilla, with a commercial vacancy rate of 40%, and other areas close to
Willow. The anticipated demand in housing construction and retail trade
created many new capital project and retail trade establishments with low
dollar business volumes. Demand was not there. This situation has led to
many businesses closing their doors or only maintaining minimum staffing,
resulting in a mass transfer of residents who must work outside the Borough.
Sixty businesses have failed in Wasilla alone in the past 18 months, and 15
firms in Houston.
THE MAJORITY OF ECONOMIC PROBLEMS FACING THE BOROUGH ARE CAUSED BY THE PAR-
TICULAR KIND OF POPULATION GROWTH WHICH IS TAKING PLACE.
Despite the absence of employment, the population of the area has continued
the growth pattern that started briskly in the early 1970 1 s. Between 1970 and
1976, the population expanded 138%. The annual growth rate has been 20% since
1970. While this has leveled off in 1979, it is anticipatecl_to rise again now
that the state-wide economy is beginning to improve.
Realtors and developers report that the Borough•s available housing is slowly
being filled by newcomers, and they speculate that new home construction--at a
virtual standstill the past two years--will start up modestly again in the
spring. Anchorage residents and others continue to move to the Valley in
search of 11 a different style of living."
PRESENT GROWTH DOES NOT PAY FOR ITSELF.
The Borough growth is anticipated to continue at a moderately high rate. This
residential increase will continue to strain the ability of the Borough to
provide such basic services as education, fire protection and road main-
tenance. As the demand for services increases with population, the Borough•s
tax base continues to run a deficit. Normally, the local property tax is the
major source of local revenue; however, in terms of income, the Borough is
unusually dependent upon the Federa 1 and State funds to pay for services:
• Federal and State Government provides nearly 2/3
of the revenue {State 58%, Federal 5%)
• Property tax 27%
• Miscellaneous local revenue 9%
• Service areas 1%
375'
Approximate Borough expenditures are:
I Schools 80%
I General government 15%
I Non-areawide services 3%
• Service areas 2%
Ordinarily, "lower 48 11 schools absorb about 60% of the local budget. The
widespread nature of the Borough•s school population and other factors unique
to Alaska result in higher education costs. The net result is that there are
less funds for other services. The very high service costs are due to the
widely spread residential nature of the growth.
The great majority of expansion in the Borough continues to be generally of
the type \..,hich does not pay for itself, since it is mostly residential. There
is little industry to provide a diversified tax base. Approximately 90% of
the growth is residential; only 10% is commercial or business related.
The average home does not pay taxes in an amount equa 1 to the services it
receives. For example, using the one predominant service, schools:
1 It costs about $1,500 on the average to send one child to
school each tax year.
1 Taxes from an average home costing about $60,000 amounts
to approximately $570.
1 The average home has about 1.0 to 1. 5 children. There-
fore, it costs about $1,000 to $1,500 more per year to
provide education than the average home returns in taxes.
THE BOROUGH HAS CHRONIC UNEMPLOYMENT; IT FLUCTUATES MONTHLY BETWEEN THE FIRST
AND THIRD HIGHEST AREA IN THE STATE, AVERAGING ANNUALLY ABOUT 15%.
In January 1980, it had the highest rate of unemployment among all the
Boroughs, at 19.9% (Fairbanks was second at 13.5%). Research by State Represen-
tative Pat Carney estimates the true total unemployment rate is between 46 and
51%. OEDP figures indicate a 26% unemployment rate. Whatever the rate, the
shortage of work is clearly one of the most pressing problems; the Borough
doubtlessly has one of the highest rates of unemployment in the nation.
The rate of unemployment would be even higher if an increasing number of
Borough residents did not commute at great expense to Anchorage for work. In
1970, about 20% of the Borough work force drove to Anchorage; by 1976, the
number had risen to 32%. OEDP estimates, derived from the recently completed
housing and eocnomic study, indicate that the current percentage is 36% (24%
work in Anchorage, 12% use Anchorage as a transportation hub). Additionally,
data indicates that less than 1.1 adults per family are employed as compared
to the 1.5 Anchorage figure; in other words, because of location and other
factors, only one adult family member is able to find employment. A greater
variety and number of jobs must be created in the Borough.
376
The State Division of Economic Enterprise figures indicate that the ratio of
1978 Matanuska-Susitna Census Divison per capita personal income to U.S. per
capita income is only 1.13. The State total is 1.39 ~nd Anchorage ratio is
1.56. Further, the family budget required in the Matanuska.-Susitna Census
Division (1978) for a moderate standard of living is $27,374 compared with the
average U.S. family budget of $18,622. This indicates it costs approximately
47% more than the average U.S. family of four for the same standard of living.
The Alaska and Anchorage family budget required for a moderate standard of
1 iving (1 978) is $28,942 and $26,329, respectively. The Anchorage Census
Division costs are 41% more than the national average.
The average monthly wage per worker in 1978 for the Matanuska-Susitna Census
Divison was $1,377, as compared to the State average of $1,595 and Anchorage's
average of $1,599. The average unemployment rate (1978) for the ~1atanuska
Susitna was 18.2%, compared to the State annual average total of 11.1% and
Anchorage's average total of 8.3%.
Matanuska-Susitna per capita income comparison to Anchorage indicate that the
family budget requirements for a moderate standard of living are 4% higher in
the Matanuska-Susitna. Data compiled by Economic Enterprise indicate the
purchasing power of persons living within the Matanuska-Susitna Borough is 31%
less than those persons living in Anchorage. The cost for maintaining a
moderate standard of living in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough are high, income
levels are low, and employment opportunities in the Valley remain poor.
While the rate of growth is very high, having risen from a Matanuska-Susitna
Borough population of 6,500 in 1970 to an estimated 18,536 in 1980, the
Borough is basically rural, open, and the population is dispersed. None of
its three municipalities has a population over 3,000. Wasilla, the population
of which has doubled every two years for the past six years, had an estimated
1979 population of 2,148. Palmer, the only city with zoning, had a 1979 esti-
mated population of 2,056. Houston is the smallest incorporated city at about
440 persons in 1979.
Much of the population is spread out, 1 iving on one acre or larger unzoned
lots. Past subdivision activity has been rampant. Between January, 1977, and
November, 1977, a total of 460 subdivision plats had been either recorded or
filed with the Borough. The average size of the plats is 2 acres. Thus, some
25,521 acres, comprising 12,824 separate parcels, have been subdivided in less
than a four-year time frame. Although subdivision activity has stabilized,
there are enough unoccupied parcels to satisfy the population growth for the
next four to six years.
It is this widely dispersed population which is endangering, not only the
rural qualities of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, but the natural resources
and natural beauty, which are fundamental to its economic vitality. The loss
of farm land and fish and wildlife habitat continues.
Another issue is the rapid loss of some of Alaska's finest agricultural land.
Most of the State's produce farms are located in the Matanuska-Susitna
Borough. In 1979 the Borough produced approximately 70% of the State's crops,
79% of the livestock and poultry, and 50% of the State's milk.
377
Agricultural activity has been declining, however, because of increasing
costs, limited markets, price competition, aging farmers and rising taxes. In
spite of State efforts to help through a differential farmland assessment
rate, the number of full-time Matanuska-Susitna farmers has dropped from 70 in
1965 to 30-40 in 1979.
For some of the fanners and homesteaders, speculative land purchasers and
subdividers have offered a financially attractive .,.retirement fund 11 in place
of their land. A number of these farms had been uneconomic in size and rising
land prices in the area prohibited expansion.
The most suitable areas for agriculture are around Palmer and the Matanuska
River Valley, and to the west along the Susitna River, the Kahiltna River, and
the Yentna River. Within the Palmer-Butte area, approximately 30 farms have
been subdivided within the last four years. Much of the good farm land abut-
ting the Parks Highway between Willow and Talkeetna is in the path of sub-
division growth.
Other problems continue to persist. Welfare rolls have shown a marked
increase, property tax delinquencies are up over last year, and office
buildings and shopping centers are reporting higher vacancy rates. Stores are
offering closeout sales, and the local newspapers are filled with foreclosure
notices.
A recently completed report by Northern Consultants, 11 A Study of The Economic
Needs of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough 11
, March 1980, supported OEDP findings
and, although implied in the above text, several facts are worthwhile
mentioning.
RECAP
I Many businesses are construction related.
virtually halted when availability of funds
Veteran•s Administration and Alaska Housing
ended.
Housing construction
for housing from State
Finance Corporation was
1 There is a mismatch in the supply and demand for labor skill between
Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough.
1 Work in Anchorage is not an option for many persons because of the
distance (time, economics, safety, etc.).
1 Bank credit has tightened up, interest rates have gone up and
accounts receivable have soared.
1 Businesses have the lack of operating capital even if jobs become
available or demand increases.
1 The Matanuska-Susitna Borough •s tax revenues are not increasing
because of the public•s inability to meet its tax obligations.
A key economic factor causing hardship to the Borough remains the particular
kind of growth with its unbalanced residential emphasis.
378
Residences do not fully repay in taxes for the services that they require.
The Borough's consistently high rate of unemployment, partly a result of
growth in response to the cyclical construction industry, is further compl i-
cated by the large work force having to seek employment outside the Borough.
Wages in the Borough are lower than for Anchorage or Juneau.
With the population doubling nearly every five years; coupled with business
instability, lack of employment opportunities, l.ower family incomes, and a
lower standard of living, much information needs to be collected and analyzed
to adequately understand this complicated situation. Sound economic decisions
on how to apprqach these problems in a 1 imited time frame cannot be made
without adequate and appropriate information.
The economic program's thrust is to remedy these problems by diversifying the
economic base. At the moment, business comprises just 10% of the tax base,
with residences filling the remaining 90%. One objective of the program is to
increase the percentage and variety of businesses in the Borough. Through
these measures, it is hoped that employment will increase and that the tax
base will become more sound.
To help accomplish the strengthening and diversification of the Borough's
economic base, the first of a multi-year program was established in 1979. The
coordinated Matanuska-Susitna Borough/OEDP, Inc. program has begun to build a
data bank of important planning information which will be used in the compre-
hensive planning efforts. This is an important step in the efforts of meeting
program needs designed specifically to gather complete and accurate economic
data to be used in job-creating projects.
The efforts of the Overall Economic Development Program provide the Matanuska-
Susitna Borough new information to answer many important questions necessary
to promote economic development. The data gaps are being identified. Infor-
mation from the Housing Study conducted this year may result in communities
being eligible to seek Farmers Home Administration grant assistance, HUD Block
Grant assistance, or other aid. Several million dollars could easily be
brought into the community. Although the amount of public funds _which might
be expected to be invested in the Borough is difficult to define, an estimated
7.7 year-round jobs would be created for every $1,000,000 worth of single-.
family dwelling investments. Since construction is seasonal, this would
equate to approximately 15.4 six~month jobs. These figures were based upon
calculations done by Jim Sullivan, Divison of Economic Enterprise, using 1969
data.
The second-year program, in concert with the first year's development
strategy, will continue to emphasize economic revitalization strategies,
update inventories, fill data gaps, strengthen community .participation,
institute promotion programs, complete economic profiles, and add specific
projects to achieve the goals and objectives.
379