HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA372ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
SU$ITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
FIRST SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT
(JANUARY -JUNE,1980)
SUBTASK 7.05:
SOCIOECONOMIC ANALYSIS
SUBMITTED BY
FRANK ORTH &ASSOCIATES,INC~
TO
TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS,INC.
AUGUST 15,1980
rec-lJ..
lA.H\-"T'q (9lf
MIKE MILLS
(Ii'
lY:'JI)
,So
Ad3
()O,'67'2
-
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
"Page
List of Exhibits iii
I.Introduction 1
II.Methodology 2
III.Literature Review 16
IV •Results and Discussion of Baseline Study 91
V.Impact Assessment 92
VI.Mitigation 93
VII.Summary 94
VI II .References 96
IX.Authorit i es Contacted 97
ii
ARLIS
Alaska Resources
Library &Information ServIces
Anchorage,Alaska
....
II-l
II-2
II -3
II -4
I II-1
III -2
I I 1-3
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Socioeconomic Interview Guide
Characteristics of Selected Socioeconomic
Impact Studies
Format for Compilation of Impacts from
Relevant Energy Impact Studies
Data Collection Guide,Alaska Socioeconomic Data
Bibliography for Impact Studies Survey
Characteristics of Selected Socioeconomic
Impact Studies
Profiles of Power Development Impact Studies
Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes
Boardman
Susitna
Green Lake
Marysville Lake
Swan Lake
Terror Lake
Tyee Lake
Solomon Gulch
N.Fork Stanislaus
Bad Creek
4
5
7
8
17
19
21
22
27
32
37
40
45
49
52
56
59
63
....
....
....
....
III-3a Impacts of Representative Power Development Projects:
Potential Relevance for the Proposed Susitna Project 66
111-4 Alaska Socioeconomic Data Bibliography,
First Edition,June 1980 73
111-5 Economic Data Collection Matrix 76
111-6 Forecasting Studies and Models Bibliography 88
iii
-
-
.-
I.INTRODUCTION
An important element of the feasibility of the proposed Susitna Hydro-
electric Project is 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 prevalent in Alaska.
The overall objectives of the socioeconomic analysis are to:(1)
determine which socioeconomic conditions 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 the 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 deter-
minations in (1)and to accomplishing (2).Phase I results are to be
included in the license application to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Comnission (FERC)and Phase II is to be conducted while the license is
under consideration.This phased approach helps to ensure that only the
most relevant impacts are addressed in detail.The utilization of this
approach will help produce results that are responsive to and consistent
with the 1979 FERC 1i cens i ng requirements as well as to the needs of the
citizens of Alaska.
Phase I is composed of the following work packages:
1)Literature Review;
2)Socioeconomic Profile Development;
3)Preliminary Socioeconomic Impact Studies;and
4)Forecast of Socioeconomic Conditions with the"Susitna Project.
During January through June,1980,work effort focused upon Work Package 1
and the first part-of Work Package 4.The objectives Qf Work Package 1
were to:(1)review impacts of other power development projects and assess
their potential relevance to the proposed Susitna Project;(2)identify
sources of social and economic data and determine the quality of such data;
and (3)determine what data "gaps"exist.The objective of the first part
of Work Package 4 was to identify and review alternative forecasting
methods.
Work Package is complete and the first part (work item)of Work Package 4
is complete.This semi-annual report describes these Work Packages and
their results.Although this report is intended to stand alone,the
interested reader might wish to supplement his understanding of this report
by reading the socioeconomic analysis procedures manual •
1
-
I )
..
II.METHODOLOGY
A.WORK PACKAGE 1:LITERATURE REVIEW
Description
Socioeconomic impact studies for-hydroelectric projects and other
types of power projects similar to the range of proposed Susitna
projects:-current major assessments of Alaska demographic:-social:-and
economic conditions:-and literature pertaining to the Alaska
soci ocultura1 env ironment were i dent ifi ed:-revi ewed,and evaluated.In
addition,information developed in other Subtasks of Task 7:-and other
Tasks of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project,were reviewed andused:o as
available and appropriate.It was anticipated that some information from
Tasks 1 (Power Studies),8 (Transmission)and 12 (Public Participation
Program)would be relevant,and this data was to be accessed as it became
available.Because this information was not available as of June 30,
1980,it will have to be incorporated into Work Package 1 at a later
date.This work package was divided into four work items:
a.Collection of studies;
b.Impacts of similar hydroelectric projects;
c.Identification,review,and assessment of data and infor-
mation concerning Alaskan socioeconomic conditions;and
d.Relevance of similar hydroelectric studies.
Work Pack age 1 has been comp 1eted,and the methodo 1ogi es for work
items are described below.The reader is also referred to Section III,
Literature Review,and Section IX,Authorities Contacted,for supporting
documentation to this discussion of Work Package methodology.
Work Item a.:Collection of Studies
Socioeconomic impact studies for:(1)hydroelectric projects Slml-
1ar to the range of poss ib 1e Susitna projects,and other types of pro-
jects with major soci oeconomi c impacts;(2)current major assessments of
Alaska demographic,social,and economic conditions;and (3)literature
pertaining to the Alaska sociocultural environment were identified.
Studies were collected in the following manner:
1.Consulted Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.(FO&A).and the Univer-
sity of Washington (U.W.)libraries for studies and biblio-
graphies.Both FO&A and the U.W.possess extensive collections
of Alaska socioeconomic and economic data as well as biblio-
graphies and studies pertaining to hydroelectric and other power
projects,including methodologies.
The primary reference source utilized to identify and locate
relevant environmental and socioeconomic impact studies was EIS,
2
-
.....
.....
.....
.....
i )
"
Di ests of Environmental 1m act Statements.This is published
by norma lOn esources Press.1S a roonthly publication
which indexes and abstracts from ill statements issued by the
federal government.Statements are catalogued beginning with
1977.The use of EIS greatly facilitated the search for rele-
vant impact studies--.--
2.Organizations contacted in efforts to obtain citations of rele-
vant studies and/or copies of the studies included:U.S.
Envi ronmenta 1 Protection Agency,Reg ion 10,Seattl e,WA;
.Information Resources Press,Arlington,VA (publishers of EIS);
Bonnevi 11 e Power Authority,OR;U.S.Corps of Engi neers,New
England Division,vJaltham,MA;Puget Sound Power and Light
Company,Bellevue,WA;and Washington Public Power Supply
System,Richland,WA.
3.Persons contacted in efforts to obtain information concerning
potentially relevant studies included c.P.Wolf,Ph.D.,editor
of Soci a1 Impact Assessment,and Wi 11 i am Workman,Consul tant,
Socioeconomic Analysis.
4.A Socioeconomic Interview Guide (see Exhibit 11-1)was developed
for interviews with knowledgeable persons.This guide was
implemented during a one week trip to Alaska and is described in
the discussion of Work Item c.below .
Work Item b.:Impacts of Similar Hydroelectric Projects
The method for this work item was as follows:
-
1.After identifying and/or acquiring potentially relevant impact
studies,those most applicable for the Susitna analysis were
selected to be reviewed in detail.These studies were selected
based on criteria relating to the anticipated characteristics of
the Susitna Project.Exhibit 11-2 summarizes this procedure for
the studies reviewed.
All studies selected to be reviewed dealt with the development
of electrical generation facilities.All but two of the studies
were of hydroelectric dam projects.The two other studies dealt
with a large scale coal-fired generating facility and a large
scale nuclear power project.These latter two were identified
for purposes of comparison and supplementation.
An attempt was made to review all recent hydroelectric projects
in Alaska,both those in process or completed.The projects,by
virtue of location,are relevant to the proposed Susitna project.
The remainder of the studieS reviewed dealt with recent and/or
large scale hydroelectric projects that have prominent features
similar to the Susitna project.
3
r
...,.
-
r-
i
..-
--
..
EXHIBIT II-I
SOCIOECONOMIC INTERVIEW GUIDE
Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.is currently preparing a bibliography of socio-
economic data for Alaska.This is the first step in a socioeconomic impact
assessment for the proposed Susitna River hydroelectric project.
Although the primary focus is on areas which could be directly impacted by
the project,we are collecting data on all of Alaska,since the indirect
effects of the project could possibly impact the entire state.We are inter-
ested in all potential sources of socioeconomic data on Alaska,including
computer files,books,government publications,and journal articles.
(Interviewer can show interviewee a map of the proposed project area,the
Data Collection Guide which details type of materials requested,and other
pertinent information on the study,in order to enhance interviewee under-
standing of the work package purpose.)
* ****
1.Do you have a printed listing or card catalog of your Agency's
(Department's,Group's,etc.)publications?
a.If so,interviewer should access and record on Data
Collection Guide (DCG).l
,.,.,
2.
b.If not,do you have a library I could look through?
Do you have a printed listing of your computer files?
a.If so,may I access --or can you describe the listings?
(Interviewer should fill in DCG.)
b.What data would be available to us?(i.e.,which data is
not confidential?)
c.Would it be possible to access confidential data in aggregated
or coded form to protect confidentiality?
....
-
d.Would there be a charge for accessing this data?
e.What procedures do we need to follow to access data?
f.What lead time is required?
3 •.Can you recommend any other persons,agencies,etc.who might p.lso be
helpful in identifying data sources?
lIf the same data is available.at multiple sources,only one DCG need be
·fil1edout,r and·it should identify the multiple sources.
4
-1 J I J J i J I J .1 )J -]1 1 ]r-),
•
-.J
(J'l
..I
I
'I
I
I
Hydroelectric Power
Large scale Hydroelectri
,~(Over 1000 MW Capacity)
I Recent
,~I ,(From 1977 on)
In Alaska
Remoteness
Nuclear Power
Fossil Fuel Power
I
Involves
Anadramous Fisheries
1
Forei gn
Involves Native
American Groups
c
n::c:
)=>
~n
-Irn
;:;0.....
VI
-I-n
.....til
3:m
\J 0 x
)=>-r,:::r::
Vl n .....
rn -I Vl o:J
I rn -m VlI -I
n -1m
"""1 en .....
1-1 0-1 -0 .....rn I:z rno N
tiln Vl
;0 C).....n
-I .....
m 0
;:;0 m
1-1 n
)::>0:z
0:::::.....
n
CJrnm
I Vl
~g
rn .....:z -0
"""1-1
til .....
-<rn
I {
In addition to the studies formally reviewed,a number of
studies were initially perused as part of a screening process
for study selection for eventual review.
2.After initially reviewing several studies,a format for com-
piling the impacts from the various studies was created.The
format is essentially innutline form subdivided into major
impact areas.Due to the length and variety of the impacts,
this format was easier to implement than a matrix chart would·
have been.Exhibit II-3 illustrates the basic format with
headings.The headings refer to major impact areas which either
directly,indirectly,or potentially affect socioeconomic vari-
ables.
Attempts were made to separate construction versuS operating and
maintenance related impacts.Due to the differences in the
studies'treatments of impacts this was impractical to imple-
ment.However,the description of the impacts generally provi-
des sufficient information to make evident into which category
they belong.One other important category associated with
energy projects that became evident is impacts relating to
transmission facilities.
4.Impacts of the projects that were unusual and/or analyzed in
substantial detail by the researchers,and that appeared to be
relevant to Alaska and the Susitna area,were highlighted by
Jldiamonds Jl •
-
3.Impact information was extracted from the studies and placed in
the format shown in Exhibit 11-3.
.-
Work Item c.:Identification,Review,and Assessment of Data and
Information Concerning Alaskan Socioeconomic Conditions
The method for this work item was as follows:
.....1.Developed a format for illustrating important characteristics of
economic and social data bases and information.This format
included location of data,form for access,frequency of
coverage,latest data covered,area covered (statewide,SMSA,or
community/village/town)and type of data (i.e.,population,pro-
jected population,housing,projected housing growth,etc.)
Exhibit II-4 shows this data collection format.
As described in Work Item a.and shown in Exhibit II-l,a
Socioeconomic Interview Guide was developed for use when inter-
viewing authorities of Alaska economic and social data bases and
condit ions.
Both the Data Collection Guide and Interview Guide were imple-
mented in Seattle (FO&A and U.W.libraries)and Alaska.
Contacts included:
-
2.
.....
3......
6
r
--
.....
--
--
rI
r
~J
EXHIBIT Il-3
FORMAT FOR COMPILIATION OF IMPACTS FROM
RELEVANT ENERGY IMPACT SrUDIES
PRoaECT:Title
Lead Agency
Date,Type of Study or Document
Applicant or Responsible Office
Descriptive Characteristics
Generating Capacity
Scope
Cost
Land Use and Features
Wildl ife
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.
7
-
.....
,.,..
.....
--
EXHIBIT II-4
DATA COLLECTION GUIDE
ALASKA SOCIOECONOMIC DATA
TITLE (Use TES Bibiography format:remember to include number of pages)
LOCATION,CONTACT PERSON,TELEPHONE AND/OR ADDRESS
FORM (i.e.,book,government publication,computer tape)
EASE OF ACCESS (i.e.~free,in-library use only,pay for computer printout)
DATA TIME FRAME (i.e.,1964 -1978)
FREQUENCY OF REPORTING --CHECK APPROPRIATE CATEGORY(S):
ONE-TIME--
ANNUAL (month of issue:
QUARTERLY
MONTHLY
OTHER (specify)
8
)
-
.-
....
--
EXHIBIT 11-4 (cont.)
DATA COLLECTION GUIDE
Page 2
AREA COVERED --CHECK APPROPRIATE LISTING(S):
ALASKA TOTAL (not broken down by regions)
ALL ALASKA CENSUS DIVISIONS (by individual region)
SELECTED INDIVIDUAL CENSUS DIVISIONS
Aleutian Islands
Anchorage
Angoon
Barrow-North Slope
Bethel
Bristol Bay Borough
Bristol Bay
Cordova-McCarthy
Fairbanks
Haines
Juneau
Kenai-Cook Inlet
Ketchikan·
Kobuk
Kodiak
KuskokvJim
Matanuska-Susitna
Nome--Outer Ketchikan
Prince of Wales
Seward
Sitka
Skagway-Yakutat
Southeast Fairbanks
Upper Yukon
Valdez-Chitina-Whittier
~~-Wade Hampton
Wrangell-Petersburg
Yukon-Koyukuk
OTHER (i.e.~components of census divisions,aggregations~and
. .disaggregations)(specify):
9
EXHIBIT 11-4 (cont.)
DATA COLLECTION GUIDE
Page 3
CHECK ITEMS COVERED:
.....
I
.1
.-
--
POP
LANDI
HOUSE
EMPLOY
BS
TAX
Population
Projected population
Other (specify)
Land-use patterns
Land-use projections
Other (specify)
Housing stock
Single
--Multiple
Commercial
Projected housing stock
Price/rent levels
Other (specify)
Employment/unemployment levels
Type of employment
Income levels (personal)
Projected employment/income
Other (specify)
Industry studies
Business level and income
Projected business trends
Business activity variables (specify)
Other (specify)
Tax rates
Tax revenues
Projected tax revenues
Other (specify)
"...
I
1 Includes commercial;residential,recreational,and wilderness.
10
.....
-
-
INFRA
UTIL
ED
F&W 2
SOCIO
REC
EXHIBIT 11-4 (cont.)
DATA COLLECTION GUIDE
Page 4
Public facilities
Projected public facilities
Transportation facilities
Projected transportation facilities
Other (specify)
Ut i 1ity rates
Utility usage
Projected utility usage
Other (specify)
Education enrollments
Education facilities
Education costs/revenues
Projected education
Other (specify)
Fish resource use patterns
Wildlife resource use patterns
Other (specify)
Attitudes toward growth
Attitudes toward lifestyle and quality of life
Other (specify)
Recreational activity
Projected recreational activity
Other (specify)
-
.-
,....
I
2 Fish and wildlife employment 5 income 5 and business activity should be
r~ported in those sections.The resource use section applies to resource
levels 5 management 5 propagation,etc •
11
....
....
r-
I
i
I
i"
i
.....
i
....
j I EXHIBIT 11-4 (cant.)
DATA COLLECTION GUIDE
Page 5
TYPE OF ANALYSIS
REGRESSION
TREND
ECONOMIC BASE
INPUT-OUTPUT
___~QUALITATIVE
DISAGGREGATION
STATEWIDE
REGIONAL
SUBREGIONAL
DATA SOURCES UTILIZED
PRIMARY
SECONDARY (specify primary source if known)
IS METHODOLOGY DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE?
12
.....
-
-
....
r
a.Fairbanks Borough Planning Department
b.Fairbanks Borough Corrmunity Information Center
c.Alaska Northwest Pipeline Company
d.Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce
e.University of Alaska Economics Department
f.University of Alaska Institute for Economic and Social
Research
g.Fairbanks Visitors Bureau
h.Fairbanks Industrial Development Corporation
i.First National Bank of Fairbanks
j.Doyon Corporation
k. Alaska Department of Energy
1.Alaska Power Authority
ffi.Cook Inlet Region,Inc.
n.Municipality of Anchorage Planning Department
o.Municipality of Anchorage Economics Department
p.Overall Economic Development Program,Inc.
q.Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Department
r.Matanuska Valley Electric Company
s.Matanuska Telephone Association
t.U.S.Department of Agriculture
u.Alaska Department of Transportation
v.Alaska Department of Labor
w.Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development
4.A format for organlZlng data and a bibliography were prepared.
(See Section III.Literature Review,below,for examples and
discussion.)
5.A follow-up notebook was developed which lists names of persons
who may have further information and names or descriptions of
documents still in press or studies 'still being performed.
Dates for future contact and the type of data available are
included in the notebook.Upon receipt of follow-up informa-
tion,FO&A can update Data Collection Matrix sheets and
Bibliography as shown in Section III.Literature Review,below.
Work Item d.:Relevance of Similar Hydroelectric Studies
.The project impacts identified and presented in Work Item b.,above,
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 preliminary impact
studi~s (Work Package 3).
This work item was conducted as follows:
1 •.Impacts designated by "diamonds"in Work Item b.were compiled
according to type of impact.Ordinary impacts (i .e.,impacts
commonly addressed by socioeconomic researchers and analyzed in
little detail)were also compiled according to type of impact.
13
....
....
.-
.....
....
r
!I
2.A preliminary determination .of the most likely geographic
distribution and degree of the diamond-designated impacts was
made.Each designated impact was assigned to the (1)Upper
Susitna area or (2)the railbelt and/or state and was judged to
be relatively large and significant or relatively small and
insignificant.(Note:As the socioeconomic analysis pro-
gresses,the designation of geographic area and degree will be
refined and made specific to each type of impact or set of
impacts.)
B.WORK PACKAGE 4:FORECAST OF SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN THE ABSENCE OF
THE SUSITNA PROJECT
Description
Assuming no hydroelectric development,socioeconomic conditions are
to be forecast.It is possible that the forecasting methodology to be
used in this work package will be borrowed directly from,or modified
slightly from methodologies used by Alaska government or academic
institutions.Further,relevant results already generated by acceptable
methodologies are to be adopted.Where certain desired results are
lacking,existing methodologies will have to be modified and implemented·
to produce such results.This work package has been divided into six
work items:
a.Literature search
b.Literature review and evaluation
c.Development and application of methodology evaluation criteria
d.Selection of studies and their results for adoption
e.Methodology revision (if necessary)
f.Implementation of methodology (if necessary)
Work Item a.of this work·package has been completed.The methodology
for this work item is described below.The reader is al so referred to
Section II,Literature Review,and Section IX,Authorities Contacted,for
supporting documentation to this presentation of Work Item methodology.
Work Item a.:Literature Search
To increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the search,this
work item was coordinated with Work Items a.and c.of Work Package 1.
This~work item was conducted as follows:
1.Energy development impact studies of Work Package 1,Work Item
a.,were revi ewed for presence of forecast i ng methods.Those
that contained potentially relevant methods were identified.
~.2~During the data source identification efforts of Work Package 1,
Work Item c.,Alaskan social scientists who have participated in'
forecasting .socioeconomic conditions were interviewed.
Forecasting models and methods utilized by these persons were
identified.
14
I "
-
.....
3.C.P.Wolf,Editor,Sbcial Impact Assessment,was contacted in
regard to forecasting methods.He provided citations and a
bibliography of impact studies and methods..
4.A list of studies containing forecasting methods and forecasting
models was developed.Both Alaska and ilL ower 48 11 forecasting
studies and methods were included on 'the list.
15
-
-
-
~
I
III.LITERATURE REVIEW
A.WORK PACKAGE 1:LITERATURE REVIEW
Description
As discussed in Section II.Methodology,Work Package 1 consisted of
a literature review from two major perspectives:
a.Collection and review of socioeconomic impact studies for
hydroelectric projects and other types of power projects similar
to the range of proposed Susitna projects.
b.Identification of data on Alaska demographic,social,and econo-
mic conditions.
End products of this Work Package are (1)bibliographies of data and
studies identified and (2)a systematic presentation of major attributes
of the studies and data identified with particular emphasis on usefulness
of these studies and the data for future Work Packages.The Work Package
1 literature review was comprehensive but not exhaustive.Bibliographies
and data descriptions will be continually updated as work effort
progresses on other Work Packages.
Socioeconomic Impact Literature Review (Reference Work Items a,band d
as described in II.Methodology,above)
Work Item a.
As previously mentioned in the methodology description under Work
Item a.,part of the literature review involved a process of screening
socioeconomic impact studies to determine which were relevant to the pro-
posed Susitna project.Numerous studies were considered and/or perused
to determine their applicability.As mentioned above,the search was
made easier by utilizing the EIS reference periodical.The studies cho-
sen for review are listed in Exhibit III-lo This exhibit also serves as
a bibliography for the studies.Exhibit III-2 surrmarizes the selection
criteria and descriptive elements for these studies.The number asso-
ciated with each study refers to its order of presentation in this
report.
It is important to note that one project listed in Exhibit III-2 is
in the process of being reviewed.This is the Washington Public Power
Supply System's (WPPSS)nuclear generating project currently under
constructi on at the Hanford Reservati on in Washi ngton state.Extens ive
studies were done,both prior to construction and on an ongoing basis
since construction began.Due to its scale,currency,and documentation,
it is a valuable and re-levant study to include here.--As the requested
materials arrive,the project's studies will be reviewed.
The WPPSS studies and the Boardman study (also presented in Exhibit
III-2.)are the only two that are not hydro-related projects.Their
16
-.U.S.
-I
U.S.
.-
U.S ..-
-U.S.
~
U.S.
~
:
U.S.
-
EXHIBIT IlI-l
.BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR IMPACT STUDIES SURVEY
A.Relevant Socioeconomic Impact Studies
International Engineering Company,Inc.,Robert W.Retherford Associates,
Division.December 1979.Tyee Lake Hydroelectric Project -Peters-
burg &Wrangell,Alaska:Application for License Before the Federal
Regulatory Commission for the Alaska Power Authority.Anchorage,
AK 99502.2 vo1s.
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.
Department of Energy,Bonneville Power Administration.March 1980.
Boardman Coal Plant and Associated Transmission,Adopted Rural
Electrification Administration Final EIS (USDA-REA-EIS-77-4F).
Washington,DC 20545.n.p.
Department of Energy,Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.April
1980.Swan Lake Project No.2911-A1aska:Final Environmental Impact
Statement.Washington,DC 20545.n.p.
Department of Energy,Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
December 1978.Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project,Kodiak Island,
Alaska:Application for License before Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission 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 the Army,Office of the Chief of Engineers.January
1977.flydroe1ectric Power Deve-1opment,Upper Susitna River Basin,
Southcentral Railbelt Area,Alaska:Final Environmental Impact
Statement.Washington,DC 20545.398 pp.
Oepartment of the Army,Corps of Engineers.March 1977.Marysville
Lake Project,Yuba River,California:Draft Environmental Impact
Statement.Sacramento,CA.358 pp.
Department of Energy,Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.March
1978.Solomon Gulch Project No.2742-Alaska:Final Environmental
Impact Statement.Washington,DC 20545.n.p.
Depa.rtment of Energy,Federal Energy Regul atory Corrmiss ion.November
1979.~orth Fork Stanislaus River Project No.2049 -California:
Draft Environmental Impact Statement.Washington,DC.223 pp.
17
-
-
....
-
-
-
-
,~
-
-
EXHIBIT 111-1 (cont.)
u.s.Department of the Army,Corps of Engineers,New England Division.
September 1978.Dickey-L incoln School Lakes Project at Dickey,
Maine,.Draft Environmental Impact Statement.Waltham,MA 02154 •
11 vols.
B.Additional Literature Utilized
Information Resources Press.1977-1980.EIS -Digest of Environmental
Impact Statements.Arlington,VA 22209.Vol.1-#1 -Vol.4-#3.
18
EXHIBIT 111-2
CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED ,SOCIOECONOMIC
IMPACT STUDIES
SELECTION CRITERIA
I j
DESCRI PTIVE
ELEMENTS
.....
-,-..;:;-;:
u+,
0)-,-(J)
s-r-U 0)
0)~~-,-
3:s-S-
o S-<o 0)0)
c..-0 U 3:...c:0)til
>,..-..0 til >0..
U :r:3:e S-o...-,--,-::::l
-,-::E 0 0)LL -lJ0
S-O)3:r-<oS-
+'r-O ,......til 0 0)til Z l!J
U <00 ,......<0 til c..::::l :::I
0)uo en ..:Y.0)LL UJ 0 tile
r-III r-i r-i III e s-O)E e 0)'"
0)+'<0 0)<0 r-><0 Ol >u
0 O)S-eE r-+'0)-r-r-s--r-r-.'-
s-OlO)0)0 c::(0 r-III 0-0 0)o s-
PRO~IECT -0 s->us-E u III ><0 S->0)
>,~2 0)lL-s::0)::::l 0 es::0 s::E
::c 0:::.................0:::z:LL ......c::(LL .........c::(
I.Di ckey-Li neal n <>+<><>School "Lakes
2.Boardman <><>+
3.Susitna ++++(>++
<>..<>+-<><>4.Green Lake
5.t~arysvi 11 e Lake <>+<><>
6.Swan Lake <>.<>+<><>
7.Terror Lake <><>+-<><><>
8;Tyee Lake <><>+<>
9.Solomon Gulch <><>+<>
10.N.Fork Stanislaus ~+
II.Bad Creek <>+<>'-.
~
WPPSS*+
.
*Review in progress.+.<>.
19
Determining characteristic
Other characteristic
....
.....
....
inclusion is warranted by the fact that the impacts in general and the
socioeconomic ones in particular associated with such projects require a
high degree of detail and analysis.In addition,the scale of most of
these projects is comparable to Susitna.
Work Item b:
The studies were reviewed utilizing the format shown previously in
Exhibit II-3.Impacts are surrmarized into essential qualities.The
revi ew process attempted to be comprehens ive without bei ng tr ite with
regard to detail.The purpose behind the review was primarily to relate
impacts to a socioeconomic context.The results of the review process
are presented as Exhibit 111-3.
Also,as part of Work Item b.,impacts particularly relevant to
Alaska and the Sus itna area were i dentifi ed and have been hi gh 1i ghted
using diamond-shaped markers.This work item is incorporated into
Exhibit III-3.
Work Item d•
The results of this work item are presented in Exhibit III-3a.The
impacts listed in this exhibit have been extracted from the profiles pre-
sented in Exhibit 1II-3.The assessment of the profi les has yielded a
list of impacts which could be relevant to the Susitna project.This
list is by no means exhaustive and serves primarily as a guide for futher
research and analysis in Work Packages 2,3 and 4.The impacts are
listed in a generalized form and,like the profiles,must be related to
the specifics of the Susitna Project and its environment.This process,
to be conducted in Work Package 2,will permit refinement and further
specification of the impacts as to degree and geographic area.
Several of the types of impacts in Exhibit III-3a are not the pri-
mary respons i b il ity of a soc i oeconomi c assessment.Some examples are
recreation,aesthetics,and wildlife.These were included,however,
because they do have implications relevant to socioeconomic analysis.It
is expected that most of this type of information will be provided by
other study team members.
Impacts from the profi le of the Upper Susitna River Basin were
excluded from the profile assessment process.All impacts cited therein
are potentially relevant although the specific findings will not
~necessfiarilybe adopted by frartk,Orth ,&Associ ates,Inc.In·any case,
most would be subsumed in some form or another in Exhibit 1II-3a.
.....
Demo raphic,Social,and Economic Data
c.as described in II.Methodo 0
Reference Work Items a.and
The 'end~prQduct of theA 1aska socioeconomic data identification,
review,and evaluation Work Item c.consists of two products:
a.A bibliography of documents numbered in alphabetical order,and
20
.....
.....
......
....
I J
EXHIBIT 111-3
PROFILES OF POWER DEVELOPMENT IMPACT STUDIES
21
.....
.....
i
I !
PROJECT:Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Project at Dickey,Maine
u.S.Army,Corps of Engineers,Waltham,Massachusetts
September,1978,Draft EIS
Located on the st.John River,Maine
Two-dam hydroelectric project with a total holding capacity
of 7.8 million acre-feet.
Generating capacity -830 MW initially,and 380 MW will be
added later.
Estimated cost -$757.5 million at 3.3%irate
$822.4 million at 6.4%irate.
Project includes 365 miles of transmission lines.
Land Use and Features
Project would encompass 134,242 acres of water and land,of
which:
-88,650 acres of terrestrial land would become aquatic.
-247 acres of agricultural land would be inundated.
-81,946 acres of timberland would be lost.
278 miles of free-flowing streams and 30 ponds and lakes
woul d be lost.
One of the major wilderness areas in New England would be
substantially altered.
Would provide flood protection to 4,500 acres of agricul-
tural land downstream of the project.
Wildlife
36,893 acres of deer habitat would be destroyed,which could
reduce deer population by 50 percent •
Rare and unique plants would lose habitat,including the
Furbish lousewort (Pedicularis firbishiae),which has been
proposed for Rare and Endangered Species list.
Increased access would lead to greater pressures from
hunting.
22
...
--
.....
Aquatic Species and Water Qualitx
Proj ect wou 1d a Her spec i es of fi sh from stream and small
lake type to that of a large reservoir.
Oownstream effects would raise temperature of water -may not
.freeze.
Socioeconomic Categories
Population
Increase significantly by an estimated 2,700 to 3,200 new
residents,10 percent of which are estimated to stay after
construction period.
Earlier workers expected to bring families.
73 percent of the population of town of Allagash would be
relocated.These families could experience economic,
physical,psychological,and social problems from
re 1oc at i on •
166 families would be relocated.
Housing
Major impact on town of Allagash,where majority of town
would be inundated •
Rents and market values in residential areas near project
would rise,due to pressure from relocating families and
influx of new workers.
Preferred alternative to mitigate construction phase
impacts is to construct scattered site temporary housing
in or near existing housing areas.
Tax Base and Revenues
Slight increase in tax base during construction phase,or
"boom period,"due to appreciated land values •
Revenues would increase somewhat due to increased economic
act ivity.
Would not offset increased costs to governments.
Tax losses on acquired land would amount to an estimated
$97,000 for forest lands and $40,000 for town of Allagash.
23
Employment
Project construction would employ an average 200 persons
in winter and 900 in SUfilller.
Project would take eight years to complete •
.Ouri ng peak years 4 through 7,maximum number of workers
would be 1,900 persons.
Transmission line work would employ an additional 300-450
individuals in years 4 and 5.
Project would provide $60 million in salaries.
Would reduce employment in timber industry somewhat.
Wages would be federal scale and,thus,adversely affect
wages in other sectors.
r"'",
,
-+
+
Agriculture and forestry industries would be adversely
affected by project's demand for skilled labor •
.Most of work force would be hired locally.
Project would add 350 to 550 secondary and tertiary jobs,
primarily in years 4-7.
Operation and maintenance of dams would require 68
workers,60 of whom would be hired locally.
-
....
Maintenance of transmission lines would add 21 jobs.
Economy
200 miles of private logging roads would be inundated.
16 corrmerci a1 f acil it i eswoul d be relocated.
Agriculture in area would benefit from reduced flooding •
Timber placed on local market as a result of clearcutting
could depress prices.
Multiplier effects on local economy from $35 million spent
locally on supplies for project over seven year period
represents three percent of area's annual sales.
Service sector could receive up to $25 million.
Retail sector would experience increased·activity,al-
though much could be of Ill ow quality".
24
-
.....
.....
r I
Lost timber production earnings,including wages,taxes,
and income,would range between $206 and $311 million over
the lOO-year project lifetime.
Project could lead to localized temporary inflation.
Availability of power may encourage industry to move in,
but project is designed for peaking purposes.
Timber industry in area would experience increased harvest
costs due to inundation of service roads and large area to
circumvent.
Current timberland owners would incur large capital gains
taxes.
Present economic structure would be altered permanently.
Public Services
Educational system would need to accommodate 400 to 600
school children and could be easily done.
Influx of workers and families would require increased
social services.
Three to nine additional policemen would be required.
Judicial system would be strained,and fire department as
well.
Would extend shortage of health services.
Planning is required to mitigate impacts.
Increased traffic would require more road maintenance.
Community Attitudes
.....
++
++
Tension would exist between residents and immigrants.
Lack of recreation,social isolation,and close quarters
would put stress on workers.
Present social structure would be altered permanently.
New set of values and standards would replace,in part,old
set •
25
.-
-
-
-
-
.....
f I
COMMENTS:
Energy
Project would produce 19 percent of New England1s peaking
power needs by mid-1980's •
Hydropower produces little noise,no pollution,and is a
renewable energy source.
Project is equivalent to 2.3 million barrels of oil yearly.
Regulated river flows would benefit Canadian hydropower
plants downstream.
Cultural Resources
37 archeological sites and six historical sites would be lost.
41 historic sites would be in viewshed of transmission lines.
Recreation
Project would alter types of recreation available.
Major portion of river available for white water canoeing
would be eliminated.
Hunting in area would increase,while game populations would
decrease.
Aesthetics
Visual and scenic character of area would change.
Transmission lines would affect scenic vistas.
EIS form utilizes construction and O&M phase distinction as
well as "immediate impact area"and "service area impact"
designations •
USFWS recorrmended against project because it lacked a fish and
wildlife mitigation plan.
26
"
.....
PROJECT:Boardman Coal Plant and Assoc i ated Transmiss ion Faci li:t i es
Bonneville Power Administration,U.S.Department of Energy
March 1980,Adopted Final EIS
(Adopted Rural Electrification Administration,Final EIS,January,
1978).
550 MW coal-fired steam electric generating station near
Boardman in Morrow County,Oregon •
Includes construction of approximately 35 miles of trans-
mission lines,a 1,400-acre cooling pond and a SOD-acre ash
disposal area.
Estimated cost with escalation is $450-500 million.
Project is being coordinated with other major construction
projects,e.g.,an Alumax aluminum facility.
Land Use and Features
Site is located within a 100,000 acre agriculture-industrial
park owned by the state of Oregon.
97 percent of land for transmission line is located in Class
VII and VIII land best suited for grazing,woodland,or
wildlife.
Impacts of transmission line will be minimal.
Reservoir will provide storage for 11,500 acre feet of irri-
gation water.Land suitable for high value crops will
experience increased utilization.
Loss of land due to project is insignificant.
Associated impacts will be created by coal mining at distant
sites and transportation by rail.
7,000 tons of ash per month will be produced and disposed of
at site.
Wind erosion of soil will occur during construction.
Emissions during operation will be within Class II Federal
standards.
27
J
T
T
I
T
T
,I
r
r
I
r
I
r
t ,
Wil dl ife
Carty Reservoir will have a beneficial impact on wildlife via
creation of riparian vegetation and habitat.
No rare or endangered species will be affected by project.
Aquatic Species and Water Qual~
Reservoir will be fi 11 ed and mai nta i ned by withdrawal of
water from the Columbia River through existing structures.
Withdrawal of water from the Columbia River will have minimal
impact on river life (estimated maximum of 0.5%loss of
aquatic organisms).
Project will utilize a closed cooling system thereby avoiding
thenna1 impacts to other bodies of water.
Project will not affect the local water table.
Socioeconomic Categories
Population
Area is experiencing significant growth due to industrial
and agricultural expansion.
Construction of project,coupled with construction of an
Alumaxaluminum reductiori facility in area,could generate
a population influx of 16,400,a number larger than the
city of Pendleton.
Depending on whether or not major facility construction is
maintained after completion of project,population will be
stable or decrease.
Service population for area's growing work force will
increase proportionally with a one year lag.
No f ami 1i esor individuals will need to be relocated due
to siting of project.
Housing
Demand for hous iog,both temporary and permane(lt"wi 11
largely depend upon whether other major construction pro-
jects are in progress.If so,parti cipants may have to-
attract workers from outside commuting area which would
significantly increase demand for temporary housing.
28
~T'
T
T
T
I
+
+
Project participants will build temporary housing in short
term and facilitate the construction of permanent housing.
Demand for permanent housing in area will increase with or
without the project.
Care should be taken in not overbuilding stock,i.e.,
supply should fit demand.
T
T
r
.1
Tax Base and Revenues
Taxes on coal trains will total over $100,000 per year in
five states;$14,000 will accrue to local government in
Oregon.
Us ing 1975 wage rates and income tax 1aws,each worker
will pay $2,665 to the Federal Government and $945 to the
state of Oregon during construction period -average
annual totals of $1,455,000 and $516,000,respectively.
Plant operating personnel will pay an average $2,440 in
federal taxes and $826 in state taxes -average annual
totals of $364,000 and $123,000,respectively.
Participants will pay $3,900,000 in local property taxes
from 1975-1979.
After start-up in 1980,local property taxes are estimated
at $2,150,000 for 1980 and 1981,and will increase by 6
percent per annum.
Employment
tax schedul es,the average
taxable income will be
payroll of $48.4 million
,...
.1
:1
r
.1
-.
Project will employ an average of 546 workers over a 4.5
year period with a peak work force of 780.
Significant portion of workers will be temporary.
Workers will be hired out of union halls in Pe'ndleton,
Hermiston,Umatilla,Tri-Cities,The Dalles,and Portland.
If other projects are under construction at same time,
more workers will be hired from outside this area.
Based on 1975 wage scales and
construction worker's annual
$19,700 for a total on-site
spread over 4.5 years.
Operation and maintenance of plant wi 11 require 150 per-
manent workers with an annual operating payroll of,approx-
imately $2.8 million.
29
I"i'",IiI
1'1""
I
r
r
T
r
r
r
r
Economy
Project includes paving one public road and.a railroad
spur to site.
Participants hope'to avoid a "Boomtown"scenario.
Secondary impacts will be significant because area is
rural in nature.
Public Services
Demand for services wi 11 increase in Boardman with or
without the project due to agricultural and industrial
expansion in area.
Infrastructure (water and sewer facilities)for permanent
housing need to be expanded.Boardman has planned facili-
ties to accommodate a population of 7,000 (present popula-
tion is 700).
Induced and occurring growth will require increased police
and fire protection services.
Current excess capacity all ows time for pl anning future
expansion.
Energy
Consequences of a sizeable and prolonged shortage of electri-
cal energy will have a serious economic and social impact on"
the region:
Unemployment will rise and economy in general will suffer.
Would negatively impact irrigation agriculture and roost
industries.
Social services would suffer without a significant reduc-
tion in the real standard of living in the region.
"Reduction of poverty and increase of economic welfare are
dependent on an increase in per capital personal "income.
The standard of living and per capita income both are
directly related to the per capita consumption of energy."
Cultural Resources
Project will have no effect on any historical sites.
Archaeological sites in·area will be investigated.
30
T
T
T
T
.1
j
cOt~MENTS:
Recreation
Project will not affect any recreation facilities.
No part of project lands will be made available for recre-
ational purposes.
Aesthetics
Noise and temporary aesthetic disturbances will be minimal
due to remoteness of site.There are no residences~recre-
ation parks or public areas within four miles.Nearest road-
way is seven miles away.
Remoteness of setting helps minimize impacts.
Extensive mitigation procedures are planned~especially regard-
ing socioeconomic impacts.
Prime concerns are social and economic in nature~not physical.
31
!"f"
I
:1
T
rr
II
T
.,...
1,I
I
r
r
r
PROJECT:
++
Hydroelectric Power Development
Upper Susitna River Basin
Southcentral Railbelt Area,Alaska
Office of the Chief of Engineers
Department of the Army
Washington,D.C.20314
Responsible Office:Alaska District Corps of Engineers
Anchorage,Alaska 99510
January 1977,Final EIS
Proposed two-dam hydroelectric project with approximately
1400 MW capacity.
Includes construction of access roads,364 mi les of trans-
mission lines and facilities,and recreational facilities.
Estimated first cost of project:$1.5 billion.
Land Use and Features
55,000 acres for 84 miles upstream of Devil's Canyon would be
inundated.
6100 of the 8200 acres required for transmission lines would
be cleared.
Dams would be built to withstand an 8.5 earthquake (R i chter
scale)centered 40 miles away.Area contains seismic faults.
Project would have significant impact on natural features of
area,especially as relates to potential for wilderness
designation and scenic river classification.Area and river
would probably both qualify.
Project would prevent future mineral extraction on inundated
land.
Options for land use of transmission corridor land would be
1imited.
Values of natural resources would be significantly impacted
by construction of roads.
Wildlife
Migratory patterns of ·caribou would be impacted especially
between calving and summer ranges.
32
r
I
T
r,I
r
·Moose would be directly impacted~as caribou,by loss of
habitat.
Greatest impact would result from increased hunting effort
due to increased accessibility of area.
Subc1imax growth on transmission line corridor would benefit
wildlife.
A general impact would occur by "ripple effects"through the
food chain or wildlife "web".
Aquatic Species and Water Quality
50 miles of river downstream of the project would suffer
general channel degradation.
Transmission facilities would add to increased siltation of
rivers and lakes in nearby areas.
IJReduction of existing surrrner sedimentation peaks should have
a beneficial effect on anadromous and resident fish popula-
tions for some distance downstream from Devil's Canyon Dam."
Channel modification to enhance salmon spawning could be
part of project.
E1 imi nate downstream f1 oodi ng vm i ch is detrimental to salmon
spawning.
Increase turbi dity and introduce "gl aci a1 f1 our"(suspended
sediment)in river downstream of project.
Impoundments will mainly impact fisheries upstream of project.
May be able to establish fisheries in reservoirs although
steep walls are not conducive to fishery development.
Unlikely any migratory species could be established due to
problems with high level dams.
During periods of excessive run-off,increased nitrogen
supersaturation could harm fish.
Project would impact vegetation .and fish in tributary creeks
above dams.
According to a 1974 study,an estimated 24,000 chum,5,200·
pink,1,000 red,some Chinook,and between 4,000 and 9,000
coho salmon migrated into the 50 mile section of the Susitna
between the Chulitna River and Devil's Canyon during a seven
week period (July 23 to September 11).
33
T '
-I~.I
~
r::
rr
:1
r
r
.1
-r
r
r
Due to natural barriers,no salmon presently migrate above
Devil's Canyon.
Overall effects on downstream fisheries would be limited by
techniques of release.
During construction,water would be rerouted and flow
regul ated.
Socioeconomic Categories
Population
Population in the Railbelt area is expected to increase
with or without the project.The report states:
"Construction of the project is not expected
to have any long-range effect on the overall
population growth,but is rather designed to
fulfill presently projected needs of a grow-
ing population as one alternative means of
producing power which will have to be pro-
vided in one way or another."
Housing
Temporary campus for construction workers would be built.
Inmigration of a few construction ~'/orkers'families to
nearby towns would cause some impact.
During O&M only a few families and workers would stay on
and take up permanent res idence •
Tax Base and Revenues
Not addressed.
Employment
Project would anployHOO men during peak construction
period (April through October).
Economy
Seasonal nature of construction of project would adversely
impact communities during the winter.
Impacts on local communities would be temporary in nature
(i.e.,occur during ~onstruction phase).
34
·.
Ff',i
I
'"r
I
T
T
T
r"
II
f
T
r
r
:I
r
r
I
r
rI
"A 10 year Devil1s Canyon-Watana hydroelectric development
program would have an economic impact on the Southcentral
Railbelt area that would be felt to a greater degree
during the construction phase of project development..•
The proposed .••project will not create large blocks of
excess electrical power for heavy energy-consuming
industries."If this is desired,more energy is required.
The project is "designed to serve population needs --not
to stimulate growth."
Project would not affect river transportation below
Tal keetna.
Public Services
"Various community,borough,state,and private facilities
and agencies would be impacted to various degrees."
Increased accessibility to area near project would require
additional law enforcement and fire prevention services.
Community Attitudes
Not addressed.
Energy
Hydropower cou ld replace foss il-fu el based power in
Fairbanks.
Project would create a renewable non-polluting energy
resource equivalent to 15 million barrels of oil.
Cultural Resouces
Archaeological potential not known.
Project would inundate one historical site.
Recreation
Reservoir would flood nine of 11 miles of whitewater section
of Devil's Canyon.
Project would substantially increase impacts on resources
affected by outdoor recreational activities.
Recreational developments would eventually include vis itor
centers,boat launching areas,campgroundS,picnic areas,
trail systems,etc.-
35
-------~----------~~-------------------------
•,Initial annual visitation estimated at about 77,000
persons.
,
Access roads,dams,and transmission lines would impair
visual quality of area.
"What is now a natural and scenic area showing little of
man's influence would be impacted substantially."Area pro-
bably would qualify for wilderness designation and National
Scenic River classification.
Recreational
roads and
f aci 1it i es •
Aestheti cs
opportunities
creation of
would be
project
increased by access
related recreational
r
r
T
T
!
,I
r
r
COMMENTS:
Project would prevent various forms of pollution (heat,
air,noise)from alternative types of energy generation.
Replacement of fossil-fuel based power in Fairbanks could
help "all ev iate the severe winter ice fog and smoke problems
in that areal!.
Descriptions of most impacts are very qualitative and not sub-
stantiated.
Socioeconomic part is very weak.
36
T
TI,
"'1"'.
I
I
!'j
,I
T
J
n-
:1
T
T
T
r
r
f
PROJECT:Green Lake Project
#2818 -Alaska
Federal Energy Regulatory Corrmission
February,1979,Final EIS
Applicunt:The City and Borough of Sitka,Alaska
16.5 MW hydroelectric dam on Volopad River,10 miles south of
city of Sitka.
$41.9 million estimated total cost.
Land Use and Features
Project would encompass 1,585 acres.
~ould destroy 1,020 acres of forested land.
Severe erosion potential during construction.
Construction of eight miles access road would impact 67 acres.
,~Project would facilitate access to mineral claims in area.
~Project is located in active seismic area.
Wildlife
Four bald eagle nests would be disturbed.
60 acres of Sitka deer habitat would be eliminated.
825 acres of river bottomland would be inundated,reducing
available wildlife habitat.
~Vancouver Canadian geese sites would be eliminated.
Aquatic Species and Water Quality
Increased turbidity would occur during construction period.
Size of lake would increase by 830 acres to 1,000 acres.
Three miles of Volopad River would be inundated eliminating
nearly all accessible spawning habitat for brook trout,
thereby causing a decline in trout stocks.
37
T
I
T
T
I
T
~
I,I
T
T
r
Salmonids would be adversely affected downstream by sedimen-
tation during construction.
Ouring O&M,turbidity would be less than at present.
Little,if any,downstream effects.
Socioeconomic Categories
Population
Due to dearth of housing _for sale or rent,the high cost
of living,and ease of air transportation to major cities,
very few workers would relocate and bring families.
Population would increase by 175 to 200 persons as a
result of project.
Housing
Existing conditions very tight and expensive.
Workers would be housed either in leased hotel space or a
camp near site.
Tax Base and Revenues
$36,600 in revenue over three years would accrue to city
due to four percent sa 1es tax,assumi ng 80 percent of
construction workers·expenditures are taxable.
Increased revenue expected to offset additional costs to
government.
Employment
50 to 150 workers would be employed during three year
construction phase.
O&M would employ less than 10 persons.
Lack of skilled construction workers in Sitka means
majority of workers would be lIimported ll
•
Economyr
r +
Project would increase personal income of res idents
slightly.
Assuming workers spend $380/month,or 15 percent of $2,525
monthly wage for 3,010 man-months,$1,143,800 would be
generated to business establishments.
38
r
....
I~
Benefactors of spending would include restaurants,drink-
ing places t drug stores,men's apparel stores,sporting
goods stores,and personal service establishments.
Public Services
Increase of estimated 23 school children could be easily
accommodated.
Project would lead to some increased demand on police and
fire services.
Community Attitudes
Not addressed .
Energy
Project would allow applicant to place on "stand-by"plans
to install a 5.5 MW diesel generator (with attendant
benefits).
Project would reduce the need for operating an 8.6 MW diesel
generator located near city with its attendant noi se and
pollution.
Cultural Resources
No impacts cited.
Recreation
Increased access to area would facilitate hiking and hunting
activities in area.
Aesthetics
....
....
COMMENTS:
What is a serene wi lderness area would beccme a noisy con-
struction site and man-made lake .
Project would be visible primarily to aircraft t which are
numerous in area.
Project is very small and isolated •
39
-.
-
~J
PROJECT:Marysville Lake Project,Yuba River,California
U.S.Army,Corps of Engineers,Sacramento,California'
March,1977,Draft EIS
Two-dam hydroelectric project creating 6,640 acres of
reservoir,or 916,000 acre-feet.
Capacity:1,350 MW with capability to add 900 MW more.
Cost:$1 billion.
Land Use and Features
Maximum 8,140 acres would be lost,including 1~530 acres of
grassland and agricultural land.
Would change 20 miles of river and streams to a 6,640-acre
1 ake.
Ownership patterns would change.
May II improve ll or preserve approximately 14,350 acres.
Potential effects of dam on seismic activity (noted as
i nc 0 nc1usiv e)•
Nearby land uses would change due to increased opportunities
for recreation and irrigation.(Secondary impact.)
Wil d1 ife
Loss of 7,320 acres of wildlife habitat and 12 miles of
riparian vegetation.
,..,.
600 deer adversely affected.
100 turkeys displaced.
Pressures on wildlife would increase due to
growth,development~and agricultural production.
impact.)
subsequent
(Secondary
.....,
Aquatic Species and Water Quality
20 miles of river and tributary streams fisheries would
become a lake fishery.
Alter downstream flows and temperatures (O&M).
40
.....
-
Increased sedimentation and turbidity of water during
construction.
Fish hatchery and spawning channel would be constructed and a
spawning gravel management program would be instituted for
downstream areas.-
Regulated flows,suitable timely discharges of regulated
temperatures,coupled with hatchery and downstream control
would 1ead to overall increase in river productivity.
Salmon --10 percent of
River king salmon would
would lead to overall
salmon.
spawning and nursery area of Yuba
be lost,but enhancement program
increase of approximately 70,000
.....
.....
-
Steel head --enhancement program would offset adverse effects
and increase stocks by approximately 10,000 •
Shad --would benefit from river regulation and enhancement.
Resident fish --largemouth and smallmouth bass could be
established in lake,as well as bluegills.Rainbow and brown
trout would require planting program.
Estimated benefits of enhancement program:$3,720,000 per
year accruing to commercial and sport fishermen.
Estimated costs of enhancement program:$1,260,000-2,000,000
depending on i rate used.
Evaporati on woul d reduce river volumes 22,000 acre-feet per
year.
~ocioeconomic Categories
Population
Maximum 4,752 estimated increase due to inmigration of new
workers and fami 1i es (three persons per fami ly per new
worker)•
500 people and 13 businesses would be relocated.
Increased opportunities for irrigation,recreation,land
development,and new industry would create secondary
growth-inducing impacts.
Hous ing
160 units would be relocated or acquired.
41
,.
I
T
T
T
T
Tax Base and Revenues
Loss of $198,720 of revenue per year to local government
bodies.
Remove 2.2 percent of county's assessed val uation,or 6.6
percent of assessed land area.
Reduce flood prevention expenditures for downstream
governments.
Revenues would increase over time due to appreciation of
land values associated with recreational and agricultural
development.(Secondary impact.)
Employment
Maximum 3,520 workers on site (in year 6).
Represents five percent increase in area work force.
Maximum 1,935 jobs available to local workers.
45 percent of work force would be new to area,or 1,584
maximum new workers.
Operation and maintenance would require 40·full-time and·
10 part-time employees.
Economy
Irrigation rights may be altered.
Reduced flooding downstream and availability of water for
irrigation would increase agricultural productivity.
Flood damages would decrease from $345 million to $9.3
million per year.
Opportunities for recreational development would lead to
increased construction act ivity and attendant bus inesses.
(Secondary impact.)
Public Services
School population would increase by maximum 1,109,or
seven percent of existing school-age population in year 6
(.7/new family or worker)..
Police,fire departments,and other services would need to
expand to accommodate growth.
42
"
1
r
Substantial impact in residential centers from influx of
workers :and relocating individuals.Existing conditions
are already tight.
25 miles of electric lines and seven miles of telephone
lines would be affected.
25 miles of roads would be inundated.Replacement would
lead to overall upgrading of routes,however.
Community Attitudes
Project would alter character of area,especially in higher
population density with attendant problems.
Extensive social structure and social pattern changes would
result •
EnergY'
Project would replace two existing hydro facilities (total
capacity:56 MW).
Would result in net energy capacity of approximately 1,300 MW
initially,and approximately 2,200 MW ultimately.
Cultural Resources
2 cemeteries would be relocated.
Of the 430 known prehistorical and historical sites,245
would be inundated or disturbed.Remainder would change
ownership.
A representative sample would be preserved or displayed at a
vis itor center.
Old powerhouses would be preserved as well.
Recreation
r
r
[
r
r,
+.Stream fishing and white water boating in immediate area
wou ld be 1cst.
Six small recreation sites would be established.
Project would add 235,000 recreation days/year initially,and
approximately 600,000 da,Ys/year ultimately.'-
Increased recreational opportunities relating to hunting,
camping,picnicing,swimming,fishing,and boating.
43
T
J
T
rr"
II
r.•....:J '.
r
r
r
COM\1ENTS:
Aesthetics
Project would alter rural and visual character of area.
Drawdown marks around·reservoir would average four feet and
reach a maximum of 19 feet.
Constructi on period would degrade air quality somewhat and
increase ambient noise level.
Noise impacts would be due to changes in land use and human
activity,not to changes in noise sources or patterns.
(Secondary impacts during O&M).
Assessment attempts to quantify in monetary terms,impacts on
fisheries and recreation.
Distinguishes between construction and operating and maintenance
(O&M)phases.
44
rr
LI
iT"
.1
T
T
r
r
r
.I
PROJECT:Swan Lake Project No.2911 -Ketchikan,Alaska
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
April,1980,Final EIS
Applicant:Ketchikan Public Utilities
22 MW hydroelectric dam on Falls Creek and Swan Lake.
Construct 30.5 miles of transmission lines.
Construct port facility and access roads.
Capital investment cost -$80.9 million.
Land Use and Features
Project would use 2,448 acres •
80,000 acre-foot reservoir would cover 1,500 acres,of which
460 acres would change from terrestrial to aquatic environ-
ment.
Lose 743 acres of Sitka spruce and Western hemlock.
Wildl ife
Construction activity including hunting,trapping,and noise
would scare away bear,deer,and wolf.
During operation and maintenance,impacts would occur due to
(1)habitat modification,and (2)habitat limitation.
Bald eagles in area may be adversely impacted.
Overall impact not substantial.
Aquatic Species and Water Quality
Loss of 3.5 miles of lake spawning area used by Dolly Varden
and Kokanee would result in some decline in stocks.
r
:1
r
r
r
..+Sediment runoff and water di vers ions woul d adversely impact
salmonids and eggs.
Port facility would have little impact.
-Mitigative measures could include stocking lake and estab-.
lishing new spawning areas.
45
i
;1
I
.....
.....
Socioeconomic Categories
Population
Impacts concentrated in City and Borough of Ketchikan.
Not many families expected to mi grate--if a 11 workers
were from outside (unlikely),fewer than 25 percent would
relocate with family.
Housing
Existing stock adequate •
Tax Base and Revenues
Assuming 80 percent of workers'expenditures are spent in
Ketchikan at 4 percent city sales tax,revenue would be
$15,200 over 3 years.
Tax Base and Revenues
Assuming 80 percent of workers'expenditures are spent in
Ketchikan at 4 percent city sal es tax,revenue would be
$15,200 over 3 years.
Some additional revenue would occur,due to personal pro-
perty tax on construction equipment of contractor (hard to
estimate)..
Expenditures expected to be offset by revenues.
Employment
Three year construction phase.
53 to 185 workers at site;average 100.
60 percent would be Alaskans (by law),if qualified.
Specialized labor would be "imported".
$2,525 average monthly wage.
15 to 20 day work periods at site •
During O&M,10 persons would be employed.
Economy
Effects and impacts would center in Ketchikan.
Bulk of supplies,however,would likely be imported to
site.
46
·.
i""'"
I
ml'J9l!l,
....
Estimated $342~OOO wou1d be spent in Ketchikan over three
years,if 25 workers relocate and spend 15 percent of
month ly wage.
Estimated $135~OOO would be spent in Ketchikan over three
years,if 15 men for five days/month @ $SO/day for food,
lodging,and vacation.
Public Services
If migration occurs as mentioned,28 school children would
be added to local system which can easily acconmodate up
to 700 more;i.e.,little impact.
Campsite for workers is outside police jurisdiction;
1ittl e impact.
Might be some problems with parking in Ketchikan if
workers bring cars.
Community Attitudes
Not discussed;little impact due to isolation of site.
Energy
+Project would allow applicant to retire existing diese1-
driven generator to reserve status.
Hydropower benefits include renewag1e,non-polluting energy
source.
Cultural Resources
Project would inundate one 10~cabin dating from 1940's to
19S0's --judged not signifi cant;does not meet historic
criteri a.
Petrog1yphs in area may be disturbed.
Wi ers at Leask Cove may be historic and may be disturbed.
Recreation
Hike-in trail access would be constructed.
Site would include boat dock,picnic,toilet,and interpre-
tive facilities.
47
~
I
....
-
.....
COMt1ENTS:
Construct ion act iviti es wou ld preclude area for recreation
purposes.
Aestheti cs
Transmission lines would impair some scenic vistas from ocean
spots.
Change natural setting to man-made scene.
Project is very small,but EIS deals with Alaskan topics.
Setting is remote;most impacts discussed are direct •
48
-
-
-
-
--
....
....
PROJECT:Terror Lake Hydroe1ectric Project,kodiak Island,Alaska
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Application for Project License No.2743,December,·1978
Applicant:Kodiak E1ectrical Association,Inc.
20 MW hydroelectric dam.
78,000 acre-feet storage capacity.
$81 million estimated total capital investment.
Land Use and Features
Part of project area lies within Kodiak National Wildlife
Refuge.
Rest of project includes land owned by state,borough,and a
Native village corporation.
Will increase size of lake from 270 to 850 acres.
580 acres wi 11 be inundated and 70 acres cl eared for li nes,.
roads,and other facilities.
Wil dl ife
Loss of wildlife habitat and construction activities will
have negative impact on Kodiak bear,mountain goats,beaver,
and Peregrine falcon.
Construction impacts include noise,physiological stress,and
will affect wildlife survival rates.
O&M period unlikely to have much impact on wildlife.
Increased trapping and hunting in area would result from
increased accessibility affecting otter,red fox,weasel,
deer,and brown bear populations •
Aquatic Species and Water Quality
Construction of dam and clearing of right-of-ways will have
minor impact on aquatic species,unless it occurs during fall
spawning season.
River productivity coul d actually benefit from flow regul a-
tion,which would prevent freezing and flooding.
ADFG is considering a hatchery below project to take advan-
tage of flow regulation •
49
would
loca 1
....
....
....
-
....
....
No fish in Terror Lake presently •
Dam would affect turbidity,velocities,temperatures,super-
saturation of gases,and sedimentation downstream.
Average annual river flow at mouth would be reduced by 35
percent.
Intertidal zone would be monitored.
Socioeconomic Categories
Population
Negligible impact;slight temporary increase could be
expected.
Housing
Workers would be housed at construction camp near site.
Tax Base and Revenues
Revenues may increase slightly.
Employment
Construction of project would create 225 jobs,which would
be filled mainly by Alaskans •
75 percent of work force would be skilled labor.
One or two full-time jobs would be created during O&M
phase.
Economy
Short-term (i.e.,construction phase)benefits
accrue to local economy --mainly to merchants,
suppliers,and transportation sectors.
Project could encourage industries dependent on reliable
energy to make long-term investments in area •
Salmon fishery could potentially benefit from enhancement
projects associated with project.
Public Services
Little impact,due to isolation of project and workers.
Community Attitudes
Not addressed,and perhaps not applicable.
50
,....
..
....
-
COMMENTS:
Energy
Primary impact is that project would 'increase applicant's
overall available electrical energy.
Project would replace expensive diesel-generated electrical
energy.
Project would "save"approximately 20 million barrels of oil
over 75 years.
Cultural Resources
No historical sites would be impacted,although there may be
archeological sites in area.
Recreation
Public access would be restricted to project area.
Aesthetics
Isolation of project makes impacts negligible,except for
transmission lines.
Three waterfalls would be adversely impacted.
Although noise would occur during construction phase,project
overall would reduce ambient noise level by replacing diesel
generator.
One letter noted that,concerning fi shery enhancement,perfor-
mance would depend to a large extent on the intent of operation;
i.e.,its stated purposes.
Assessment does not quantify much data,nor is it specifi c in
procedures,although this could be due to the fact that the pro-
ject and impacts are of such a small scale.
This was an application,not an EIS.
Project is very small and very isolated.
51
-
....
....
PROJECT:Tyee Lake Hydroe 1ectr ic Project -
Petersburg &Wrangell,Alaska
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
December 1979
Application for Project license for the Alaska Power Authority
20 MW hydroelectric facility with 10 MW additional capacity
planned.
No dam will be constructed initially.(Is included as part
of 10 MW addition.)
Tyee lake will serve as reservoir.
Project includes 81 miles of tranmission facilities of which
69 will be overhead and 12 submarine cables •
Cost in 1980,with a 6.5%interest rate and a 7%per year
inflation allowance,estimated at $53 million.
Land Use and Features
Project will encompass 4,500 acres.
-
+
+
+
1,250 acres will be disturbed by construction activities.
Transmission lines will cross some LUD II land (land to be
managed in a roadless state).
Transmission facilities will cross 39 rivers and streams,and
occupy 1,675 acres of which 289 is private property.
The transmission facilities utilize Itl ow productivity land
areas where poss ib 1e --perhaps thereby enhanci ng an other-
wise non-productive area."
Hi gh probabil ity exists that one or more earthquakes of a
magnitude of 7.0 or greater on the Richter Scale would occur
during the project's lifetime.
Powerhouse facilities and Tyee Lake are located in the
Tongass National Forest.
No road access to Tyee lake will be constructed.
Helicopters will be used extensively to mitigate impacts.
52
~
I
.....
Wildlife
Predominant impact on wildlife will result frolll increased
accessibility of area to recreationists.
Short-term impacts are related to construction activities and
are proportional to the "overall carry capacity (the popula-
tion an area will support without undergoing deterioration)
of areas adjacent to project facilities,"i.e.,density of
each wildlife species.
Falcons and bald eagles may be disturbed.
Constructi on camps ite is presently a 1oggi ng camp and thus
many impacts have already occurred.
Long-term impacts are associated with the alteration of topo-
graphy and habitat.
Clearing of right-of-way for transmission lines would stimu-
late low-growth vegetation benefitting certain species.
Aquatic Species and Water Qualitx
Arctic grayling stocks in Tyee Lake may be impacted but
stocks are already depressed.
Submarine cables could affect the shrimp fishery.
Possibility for a fish hatchery utilizing tailwaters of pro-
ject could enhance salmon fisheries.
Constructi on of transmi ss ion 1;nes coul d deteri orate water
quality in rivers and streams used by salmon.
Socioeconomic Categories
Population
Contractor would not encourage workers and families to
resettle but would allow workers to fly home at intervals.
Housing
Housing for workers at site would be provided using an
existing logging camp.
Tax Base and Revenues
Not addressed.
53
....
-
Employment
.Project will employ a maximum of 60 workers.
Operation and maintenance will require one or two full time
caretakers.
Total gross earnings of all employees would be $16 million
throughout construction period.
Tunnel work would be on a continuous basis for nine months
a year,six days a week.
Operation and maintenance will require one or two full time .
caretakers.
Economy
Project will have overall minimal impact on Petersburg and
Wrangell.
Significant income would accrue to two cities as a result
of transmission line staging there.
Opportunity to manage timber in right-of-way would be fore-
gone,and on adjacent lands as well.Cost of harvesting
timber near transmission lines may increase.
Hydropower could "help stabilize operational costs of
industrial power users and help them to remain competi-
tive.It could also encourage industries that are depen-
dent on reliable energy to make long-term investments in
Petersburg and Wrangell."
Local merchants will benefit from project workers spending
part of their earnings there.
Local suppliers of construction materials and transpor-
tation services would benefit •
Public Services
Project will create minor traffic increases in Petersburg
and Wrangell.
Energy
Power from project expected to come on-line in 1984.
Would replace diesel-generated power for estimated 11 years
when more power would be needed.Local residents would be
54
,.
-
....
I
COW1ENTS:
relieved of noise and odor of diesel generators •.
liThe major socioeconomic consideration would be the avail-
ability of power at a stable,long-term,lower-price for
electrical energy to all the consumers,individual,business,
and industrial,of the service area."
By the year 2000,10 MW of power could be added by construc-
tion of a dam on Tyee Lake.
Cultural Resources
Not addressed.
Recreation
Transmission line corridor would open areas up for recre-
ational pursuits,e.g.,snowmobiles,cross country skiing and
hunting.
Limited use of Tyee Lake does and would continue to occur due
to remoteness of area •
Some public use facilities mainly for boaters,would be con-
structed at the powerhouse,e.g.a shelter,picnic tables,
and sanitation facilities.
Land would be reserved for expansion of recreational facili-
ties as the need arose.
Aesthetics
Transmission lines and powerhouse facilities wouldimpaet
aesthetic values of area.
Project is small and isolated.
Impacts are not quantified.
55
-
,'
PROJECT:Solomon Gulch Project No.2742 -Alaska
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
March 1978,Final EIS
Applicant:Cooper Valley Electrical Association,Inc.
Glenallen,Alaska
12 MW hydroelectric project.
Will enlarge present dam and install turbine facilities.
Located on Solomon Gulch Creek,4 miles south of city of
Valdez.
Project includes 104 miles of transmission lines to Glenallen
and four miles of line to Valdez.
Land Use and Features
Project would encompass 820 acres of which 700 acres is
state-owned and 120 acres administered by BLM.
Transmission lines would require 1300 acres.
Project would inundate 515 acres.
Solomon Lake would increase by 100 acres to 615 acres.
Existing dam (old hydro development never completed)encom-
passes 180 acres.
Aquatic Species and Water Quality
Diversion of water from Solomon Gulch Creek would alter
downstream riparian habitat.
Salmon spawning areas at mouth of creek could be adversely
impacted by sedimentation during construction.
Overall impact on fisheries would be minor •
.
Wil dl ife
515 acres of wildlife habitat would be lost.
Bald eagles,peregrine falcons,bears,and goats could be
adversely impacted.
56
-
....
.....
--
t .'
•.Contact between bears and people could increase,resulting in .
a bear population decrease.
Undergrowth by transmission lines will be beneficial to
wildlife.
Socioeconomic Categories
Population
Impacts would be negligible.
Housing
Area has excess capacity as a result of Alaska pipeline
construction.
Construction camp consisting of mobile homes would be
built for workers.
Tax Base and Revenues
Not specifically addressed.
Employment
20 to 30 workers would be employed during construction.
Economy
Adverse impacts would be negligible •
Stable,cheap supply of energy could enhance economic
development potential.
Public Services
Not addressed.
Energy
Project would reduce dependence on an expensive and erratic
diesel based power supply.
Project would link existing electricity distribution networks
in Glenallen and Valdez.
Cultural Resources
No known archeological or historical sites would be impacted.
57
-
--
Recreation
A hiking trail to the reservoir would be constructed along
the access road.
+Area would be used an estimated 250 to 500 visits per year.
.....
-
-
Aesthetics
Rerouting of creek through powerhouse and transmission lines
would degrade natural scenery of area.
COMMENTS:
Size of project is very small,as are resulting impacts.
Impacts are negligible compared with those associated with
construction of Alaska pipeline.
58
-
.....
.....
'"""
".
PROJECT:North Fork Stanislaus River Project
#2409 -California
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
November,1979,Draft EIS
Applicant:Calaveras County Water District
205.2 MW installed capacity.
Project would consist of one main dam,two diversion dams,
and 56 miles of transmission lines.
Land Use and Features
Project would encompass 3,508 acres.
1,900 acres would be inundated.
Wildlife
2,500 acres of wildlife.habitat,including 200 acres of
critical meadow habitat -important to deer,would be wiped
out.
Poaching would likely increase with development of area.
Mitigative measures could include compensation for lost habi-
tat through lIimprovement ll of other areas.
Aquatic Species and Water Quality
12.5 miles of stream habitat would be destroyed.
Trout stocks would be adversely affected both during con-
struction and O&M phase periods due to temperature,flow,and
gas saturation level changes.
Construction would increase turbidity and sedimentation of
river downstream.
During O&M,sedimentation would increase downstream due to
lack of flushing.
59
.....
-
-
,,
Socioeconomic Categories
Population
~Impact depends on three parameters:
(a)Percent of relocating workers who are married
according to a 1975 Mountain West Research study of
energy projects in the West,figure is 75 percent.
(b)Percent of relocating workers who WJu1d bring
families estimated to be between 50 percent and 78
percent.
(c)Average number of children per family:estimated .75.
In California,however,workers tend not to relocate with
famili es,but return for visits at times.Therefore,it
is assumed 40 percent of re 1ocat i ng workers wi 11 bri ng
fami 1i es.
Net population gain would be between 1,900 and 2,170
during construction phase •
Hous i ng
Project would create need for 510 units for families,plus
dormitory-type accommodations for 770 persons.
Since stay of most fami lies would be short-term,leasing
might be preferable.
Not much housing available within a 45-minute commute.
If applicant provides worker housing,little overall per-
manent impact will occur.
Tax Base and Revenues
$276,000 in revenue would accrue t6 county due to taxes
applicable to construction equipment (one percent in
Ca 1i for ni a)•
Four.percent sales tax would increase revenues from
construction related expenditures.
Applicant agreed to pay $110,000 to sheriff's department
and maintain three miles of county roads,thus offsetting
impacts and costs.
60
....
~,
Employment
Construction of project would anploy 810-1~500 workers
over three-year period,for a total 21,160 man-months of
on-s He 1abor.
150 workers,or 25 percent of the work force,from
2-county area could be employed by project.
220 workers expected to live in 2-county area (150)or
corrmute from outside 2-county area PO);the remaining
1,280 would relocate to area.
(2)Employment at retail,service,and financial institu-
tions in area would increase.
Unemployment would decrease due to project.
Economy
Total of $59,500,000 in wages would be paid over 3-year
period.
A portion of total wages paid would become income for area
businesses and workers (i.e.,wages and salaries~proprie-
tors'income,rent,interest~and profit).Estimated at
$9,000,000 via following process:
$59,500,000 Total wages
-19,500,000 For taxes,insurance premiums,and
automatic savings
-10,000,000 For mortgage payments,education,and
other fi xed payments
$30,000,000 In discretionary income
Half of discretionary income can be assumed to go for
vacations elsewhere or sent to families living elsewhere.
Thus:
$30,000,000
-15,000,000
$15,000,000 would be spent locally,of which 40%,
or -6,000,000 would go to wholesalers~distributors,
and manufacturers outside of 2-county
area;
61
I
thus $9,000,000 net income increase.
Multiplier effects from income increase are'estimated at
15 percent of total,or $1,350,000.(Secondary impact.)
Public Services
New sewer and water faci 1it i es may be necessary to accom-
modate population increase.
Project may necessitate expansion of schools to accom-
modate increase in school population {510 families relo-
cated with 380 children,of which 280 are school age;
public school system would need to accommodate maximum
225 at one time (80 percent);costs would be offset by
increased state funding.
Sheriff estimates two more policemen and two cars would be
required.
Road maintenance would increase due to increased traffic.
I"'"
I
-
COMMENTS:
Cultural Resources
Seven archaeological sites would be inundated.
Recreation
Project would inundate some areas currently used by an esti-
mated 4,000 persons per year.
60 'campsites,boat launch facilities,primitive campsite
areas,and group sites would be developed as part of project.
Project may beneficially impact 17 mile white water river run
by flow stabilization (run is one of the most heavily used in
the United States).
Aesthetics
Scenic quality of numerous areas would be affected.
Agreement was made with DFG to protect,preserve,and enhance
fisheries and wildlife.
62
r
PROJECT:Bad Creek Pumped Storage Project No.2740
Federal Power Commission
March,1977,Final EIS
Applicant:Duke Power
Located in Oconee County,South Carolina.
1,000 MW Pumped Storage Complex.
Near existing pumped storage.
Tie-in with Oconee Nuclear Power Station.
Land Use and Features
505 acres of vegetation supporting timber,wi 1d1ife,agri-
cultural activities,and recreation would be permanently
lost.
370 of 505 acres would be inundated.
820 acres impacted during construction.
Transmission lines would affect an additional 315 acres.
No commercially valuable mineral deposits in area.
Some commercially valuable timber would be lost.
Wil d1 ife
Loss of habitat would affect game and non-game species of
wild1 i fe.
Aquatic Species and Water Quality
Project would lower stream productivity.
2.3 miles of cold water stream fishery and riparian wildlife
habitat would be inundated .
....
••Trout would be adversely impacted;project would eliminate
approximately one percent of state's trout habitat.
Construction phase would increase turbidity and sedimentation
of downstream areas.
63
-
-
-
....
J '
Socioeconomic Categories
Population
10 percent of work force expected to relocate,or 100 new
fami li es.
Housing
Not expected to be significant because 75 percent of work
force is expected to be hired locally.
Tax Base and Revenues
Signifi cant and substantial positive impact --$950,000
during years one through three and $1,350,000 per year
during subsequent years;equivalent to 25 percent of
existing tax revenues on real estate and personal
property.
Employment
Eight to nine year construction period employing maximum
of 500 during fourth year.
75 percent hired locally.
Assumi ng 95 percent of work force is in impact area,
$6 million in gross wages would be paid.
Multiplier effects from project would create secondary and
tertiary jobs.
O&M period would employ 12 persons full-time.
Economy
Not discussed.
Public Services
Littl e impact.
Minor impact on schools.
Community Attitudes
Not addressed •
64
-
f J
Energy
Project would create savings in cost to applicant.Project
would be used to maintain nuclear and fossil fuel at or near
full capacity at which those plants are more efficient.
Cultural Resources
Not discussed.
Recreation
30-mile hiking trail would be constructed as part of project.
•••
Project area itself~however~would be closed to public.
Project would displace 68 hours of angling~or 30-40 fishing
trips @.$6.30/day ,=$189 to $252 annual loss.(Most recent
estimates value day trips at $13.90 -$160.36;average $32.30
per day.)
Some loss to dispersed recreation activities which occur pre-
sently (1 ~500 vi sitars/year currently for hi ki ng,pr imit i ve
c~~ping,and nature study).
-
Aesthetics
Substantial~but not visible (draw down mud strip).
Isolated nature of project reduces aesthetic impacts.
CCMMENTS:
Different type of project than Susitna (pumped storage versus
conventional hydroelectric dam).
65
r
....
.-
DEGREE AND
GEOGRAPHIC
AREA OF
IMPACT
+L,R
+L
?L
?L,R
+L,R
o L
+L
?R
o L,R
EXHIBIT III-3a
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
lost/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.
Wildl ife
Rare or endangered species impacted (e.g.bald eagles,
geese)•
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).
66
-
,....
,
-
""'",
DEGREE AND
GEOGRAPHIC
AREA OF
IMPACT
o L
+L
o L
?L
o L
o L
?L,R
o L
?L
?R
o L
EXHIBIT III-3a (cont.)
TYPE OF IMPACT
Pressures on wildlife created by project,short-term during
construction and long-term created by alteration of topo-
graphy and habitat (acres lost or altered).
Secondary impacts on wildlife created by increased accessi-
bility and use of area by recreationa1ists and trappers/
hunters.
Species of wildlife affected and percent change in population.
Poaching/abuse of wildlife may increase due to increased ac-
cessib"ility.
Clearing of right-of-way could benefit certain species by
stimulating low-growth vegetation.
Aquatic Species and Water Quality
Changes in river behavior could impact riparian ecosystem •.
Construction of dam and clearing of right-of-ways will have a
short-term and probably minor impact depending on timing.
Permanent alteration and regulation of river flows could have
a beneficial/harmful impact on downstream fisheries;in
particular,salmon.
Fisheries above impoundments would be impacted;percent of
area I s resource.
Spawning areas of fisheries are most sensitive area impacted.
Project operation could alter freezing temperatures of
water downstream.
~cioeconomic Categories
1.Population
Temporary versus permanent impacts.
Number of workers,families,and other inhabitants expected
to relocate.
67
-
...,
DEGREE AND
GEOGRAPHI C
AREA OF
IMPACT
+R
?R
+R
o L
?L
o R
?L
?L
EXHIBIT III-3a (cont.)
TYPE OF IMPACT
Population may grow with Dr 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-
men t en tit i es •
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 and state governments via
income taxes on construction and operating personnel income.
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 bas~.
4.Employment
Number of employees required during operation and mainte-
nance.
68
r
.....
-
.....
DEGREE AND
GEOGRAPHIC
AREA OF
IMPACT
+L
+ R
o L
o L
o R
+R
+L,0 R
?L,R
+L,0 R
?L,R
o L
?L
?L
7·L
EXHIBIT III-3a (cont.)
TYPE OF IMPACT
Income fi gures for workers Jtota 1 annual,average per worker,
timing,etc.)
Secondary employment may occur in economic infrastructure due
to multiplier effects.
Number of construction workers and timing of work force
loading.
Percentage of work force hired locally.
Seasonal variations in employment.
Number of workers employed by transmission line construction.
Effect on other industries and sectors of economy created by
project'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 local communities from increased economic activity
associated with project.
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.Pub li c Services
Demand for educational services.
Demand for police and fire protection services •
69
....
""'"DEGREE AND
GEOGRAPHIC
AREA OF
IMPACT
?L,R
?L
?L
a L
?L,R
+L,R
+R
+R
+L,R
EXHIBIT III-3a (cant.)
TYPE OF IMPACT
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
e 1eetr i city.
....
-
.....
-
+L,o R
+L
+L,o R
+L,o R
£ommunity Attitudes
Tensions could exist between residents and immigrants project
may attract.
Lack of recreation,social isolation,and close quarters may
place stress on workers.
Present social structure would be altered permanently.
A new or modifi ed set of values and standards may arise.
Cultural Resources
Value of archeological and/or historical sites lost or made
accessible •
70
.-
.-
DEGREE AND
GEOGRAPHIC
AREA OF
IMPACT
EXHIBIT III~3a (cont.)
TYPE OF IMPACT
Recreation
Project may increase accessibility of area for recreational
pursuits.
-?L,R
?L,R
?L
~
+L
Project area availability for public use.
Value of recreation opportunities gained/lost (e.g.,hiking,
hunting,fishing,kayaking).
Transmission line corridor may increase accessibility of
areas for recreational pursuits.
Aesthetics
Natural scenic area would be substantially impacted.
.....
--
o l,R
o L
Transmission lines will impact visual quality of numerous
areas .
Impacts may be "neg ligible lJ due to remoteness of project
area.
71
"""
-
-
.....
}.
b.A set of Economic Data Collection Matrix sheets which correspond
to the numbered bibliography and the descriptive characteristics
obtained from the Alaska Socioeconomic Data Collection·Guides
(as shown in Exhibit 11-4 above.)
These end-products are shown in Exhibits 111-4 and 111-5.
It should be noted that the Bibliography and Data Collection Matrix
sheets are a First Edition of what will be a continuing data search and
organization process through all Work Packages.
Thus~in many instances where there are blank cells in a matrix~it
is not necessarily the case that no data exist in this category.Also~
additional data in categories where data was identified may be uncovered
at a later date.Particularly in areas where FO&A will interact with
other Task teams~there will be significant information transmitted in
the future.Land use and recreation are two examples of the type of data
to be shared among Task teams.
As i de from use of the Follow-up Notebook (as described in 11.
Methodology~above)to update information,and interaction with other Task
teams,additional data sources have been identified.These include:
a.Alaska Department of Commmerce and Economic Development:
Local and State government debt and expenditures
Manufacturing capital expenditures
Housing permits by size of structure
State tax revenues
b.Alaska Department of Education:
Enrollment by district
Number of schools~number of professional staff~expendi-
tures and cost per pupil by district
c.Alaska Department of Fish &Game:
Various inventories,surveys,and data·
d.Alaska Department of Natural Resources:
Various mineral resource inventories
Timber inventories
Mining claims
e.Alaska Department of Revenue:
List of Alaska businesses
B.WORK PACKAGE 4:FORECAST OF SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN THE ABSENCE
Of THE SUSITNA PROJECT
Description
.....
As discussed in II.Methodology,Work Item
socioeconomic forecasting studies and m::ldels.The
work item is a bibliography of studies and models.
presented in Exhibit 111-6.
72
a.was a search for
end product of this
This bibliography is
EXHIBIT 111-4
ALASKA SOCIOECONOMIC DATA BIBLIOGRAPHY
FIRST EDITION,JUNE 1980
1.The Agricultural Experiment Station,School of Agriculture and Land
Resources Management and the Institute of Social and Economic
Research,University of Alaska.1978.Yukon-Porcupine Regional
Planning Study.Fairbanks,AK.n.p.
2.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.
3.Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development,Division of
Economic Enterprise.February 1980.Community Project Matrix.
Juneau,AK.
4.Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development,Division of
Economic Enterprise.Various quarterly issues.Information &
Reporting System.Juneau,AK.
Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development,Division of
Economic Enterprise.1979.Numbers.Juneau,AK.127pp .
Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development,Division of
Economi c 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.What You Never Thought to Ask
About Mining.Juneau,AK.28 pp.
5.
.-
I 6.I
-
7.
8.Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development,Division of
Economic Enterprise and U.S.Department of Agriculture Economic
Research Service.April 1977.Alaska Farm Cost of Production
Survey.Juneau,AK.22 pp.
9.Alaska Department of Labor.Various monthly issues.Alaska Economic
Trends.Juneau,AK.
-
10.Alaska Department of Labor.1980.Annual Planning Information,FY
1981.Juneau,AK.80 pp.
11.Alaska Department of Labor.Vartous monthly issues.Labor Force
Highlights.Juneau,AK •
.
12.Alaska Department of Labor.Labor Market Information Directory.
Juneau,AK.23 pp.
13.Alaska Department of Labor.
Forecast.Juneau,AK.
August 1979.
17 pp.
Occupational Employment
73
14.
-15.
16.
~
-
~
I
EXHIBIT 111-4 (cont.)
Alaska Department of Labor.June 1978.Occupational Employment
Statistics--Manufacturing Industries 1977.Juneau,AK •.28 pp.
Alaska Department of Labor.September 1979.Occupational Employment
Statistics--Nonmanufacturing Industries 1978.Juneau,AK.68 pp.
Alaska Department of Labor.August 1979.Wage Rates for Selected
Occupations Anchorage,Fairbanks and Regional Areas.Juneau,AK.
27 pp.
17.Alaska Department of Natural Resources,Division of Agriculture and U.S.
Department of Agriculture.June 1979.Alaska Agriculture
Statistics.Palmer,AK.
18.Alaska Department of Revenue,Petroleum Revenue Division.March 1978.
Peb-oleum Production Revenue Forecast.Juneau,AK.48 pp.
19.Alaska Office of the Governor,Division of Policy Development and
Planning.1978.Alaska Data Inventory Catalog.Juneau,AK.
137 pp.
20.Alaska Pacific Bank.Alaska Business Trends,1979 Economic Forecast.
Anchorage,AK.39 pp.
21.Anchorage Economic Development Commission.September 1976.Anchorage
Economic Report.Anchorage,AK.15 pp.
22.Fairbanks North Star Borough.December 1979.1979 Annual Report.
Fairbanks,AK.24 pp.
23.Fairbanks North Star Borough,Community Information Center.Various
issues.Community Information Quarterly.Fairbanks,AK.
24.Fairbanks North Star Borough,Community Information Center.April 1980.
The Energy Report.Fairbanks,AK.Vol.1,No.1.22 pp.
25.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.
26.Fison,Sue and Cindy Quisenberry.1977.Impact Information Center
Final Report.Fairbanks North Star Borough,Fairbanks,AK.
Chapters 3,7,8,10,12,and 13.
27.Forre?t,Marilynn.July 1979.Fairbanks Cost of Living Update.
Fairbanks North Star Borough,Community Information Center,
Fairbanks,AK.Special Report No.5.42 pp.
28.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.
74
-
.....
-
EXHIBIT 111-4 (cont.)
29.Logsdon,Charles,et al.(undated)Copper River-Wrangell Socioeconomic
Overview.The-rnstitute for Social and Economic Research and the
Agricultural Experiment Station,University of Alaska,fairbanks,
AK.n.p.
30.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.
31.Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Department.April 1978.Phase I:
Comprehensive Development Plan.Palmer,AK.245 pp.
32.Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Department.May 1978.Phase II:
Comprehensive Development Plan.Palmer,AK.44 pp.
33.Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Department.January 1979.Phase
III:Comprehensive Development Plan.Palmer,AK.Preliminary
Draft.
34.Matz,George,Ben Harding and Russell Wertz.July 1979.1978 Fairbanks
Energy Inventory.Fairbanks North Star Borough,Comnunity
Information Center,Fairbanks,AK.Special Report No.4 88 pp.
35.Municipality of Anchorage Planning Department.1978.Population
Profile.Anchorage,AK.32 pp.
36.Municipality of Anchorage Planning Department.(undated)Quarterly
Economic Indicators.Anchorage,AK.Vol.1,No.1.11 pp.
37.Policy Analysts,Limited,Dr.Richard L.Ender.May 1980.Mat-Su
Housing and [conomi c Dev e1opment Study:Survey Fi ndi ngs •.
38.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.)
39.United States Department of Energy,Alaska Power Administration.
January 1979.Power Market Analysis.Draft.125 pp.
75
1 1 1 --J 1 I I )1 i
EXHIBIT II 1-5
ACRE WORKPACKAGE 1 ECONOMIC DATA COLLECTION MATRIX
(N'umbers'in cells refer to attached bibliography)
First Edition 6/17/80
TYPE OF DATA :socIa AREA AND CURRENCY OF INFORMATION
"-.J
O'l
FAIRBANKS ANCHORAGE.MATANUSKA-SUSITNA STATEWIDE
R.U.1 R.S.2 3 R.U.R.S.D.M.R.U.R.S.D.M.R.U.R.S.D.M.D.M.
",
Attitudes Toward Growth 37 32,33 3
"Atti tudes Toward Li festyl e and
Qua 1ity of Life 37 32,33 3 I,----
,
I
,
I
Other I
I '.
I
,
I
l R.U.=regular updates of data issued.2R.S.=recent study.One time report with data within 1978-1980 period
30.M.=dated material.Data for period 1977 and prior.
-J 1 J J ]J )I 'I J I 1
EXHIBIT 111-5 (cont.)
ACRE WORKPACKAGE 1 ECONOMIC DATA COLLECTION MATRIX
(Numbers in cells refer to attached bibliography)
First Edition 6/17/80
TYPE OF DATA:F &W AREA AND CURRENCY OF INFORMATION
-.../
"""-l
FAIRBANKS ANCHORAGE.MATANUSKA-SUSITNA STATEWIDE
R.U.l R;S.2 3 R.U.R.S.D.M.R.U.R.S.D.M.R.U.R.S.D.M.D.M.
\
\
I
Fish Resource Use Patterns
\
I
I I
I
..
I IWildlifeResourceUsePatterns
I
I
\
Other
I
I
dated material.Data for period 1977 and prior.
1R.U.=
3D•M.=
regular updates of data issued.2R.S.=recent study ..One time report with data within 1978-1980 period
I 'C~.~-~'J ]J J ]-I I )J I --1 1 )
EXHIBIT 111-5 (cont.)
ACRE WORKPACKAGE 1 ECONOMIC DATA COLLECTION MATRIX
(Numbers in cells refer to attached bibliography)
First Edition 6/17/80
TYPE OF DATA:ED AREA AND CURRENCY OF INFORMATION
-...J
00
FAIRBANKS ANCHORAGE MATANUSKA-SUSITNA STATEWIDE
R.U.1 R;S.2 3 R.U.R.S.D.M.R.U.R.S.D.M.R.U.R.S.D.M.D.M.
Education Enrollments 21 I 31 .
Education Facilities I I 31
",.
Education Costs/Revenues I
Projected Education 3
,
I
Other 35,a I
II
l R.U.=regular updates of data issued.2R.S.=recent study ..One time report with data within 1978-1980 period
3D.M•=dated material.Data for period 1977 and prior.
II =0.1111"'::1+;nn 10\101
'-I i I ]J )-11
]I J
EXHIBIr 111-5 (cant.)
ACRE WORKPACKAGE 1 ECONOMIC DATA COLLECTION MATRIX
(Numbers in cells refer to attached bibliography)
First Edition 6/17/80
TYPE OF DATA:UTtL AREA AND CURRENCY OF INFORMATION
-...J
1.0
FAIRBANKS ANCHORAGE MATANUSKA-SUSITNA STATEWIDE
R.U.1 R.S.2 3 R.U.R.S.D.M.R.U.R.S.D.M.R.U.R.S.D.M.D.M.
I
Util i ty Rates 23,24 27,34
25,26,39 I 31,39 I 39
1
39 .
I
I I
Uti 1ity Usage 23,24 34 125,26,36 39 31 ,39 39
39
I
I
Projected Utility Usage 39 39 \39 3 39
Other.23 a I 1
I
I
lR.U.=regular updates of data issued.2R.S.=recent study ..One time report with da~a withinl978-l980 period
3D.M.=dated material.Data for period 1977 and prior.
a =generating capacity.
I J C']J C."1 j ....))J ')1 1
EXHIBIT 111-5 (cant.)
ACRE WORKPACKAGE 1 ECONOMIC DATA COLLECTION MATRIX
(Numbers in cells refer to attached bibliography)
First Edition 6/17/80
TYPE OF DATA :INF~A AREA AND CURRENCY OF INFORMATION
00o
FAIRBANKS ANCHORAGE'MATANUSKA-SUSITNA STATEWIDE
R.U.l R.S.2 3 R.U.R.S.D.M.R.U.R.S.D.M.R.U.R.S.D.M.D.M.
I
I
Public Facilities 31 ,33.'I
Projected Public Facilities I
I
\
I
3
I
Transportation Facilities 23
\
31,33
.
I
Projected Transportation
\
\
Faci1 iti es I ' 3
Other I ,.,
l R.U.=regular updates of data 'issued.2R.S.=recent study.One time report with data within -1978-1980 period
3D.M.=dated material.Data for period 1977 and prior.
-1 I }J J j ]J J
EXHIBIT 111-5 (cont.)
ACRE WORKPACKAGE 1 ECONOMIC DATA COLLECTION MATRIX
(Numbers in cells refer to attached bibliography)
First Edition 6/17/80
TYPE OF DATA:TAX AREA AND CURRENCY OF INFORMATION
co.....
,STATEWIDEFAIRBANKSIANCHORAGEMATANUSKA-SUS1TNA
R.U.1 R;S.2 3 R.U.T R.U.R.S.D.M.R.U.R.S.O.M.D.M.R.S ..D.M.
'.,.
Tax Rates 27 I
Tax Revenues 23
Projected Tax Revenues I I
I I
I
Other 123 a
I
\
".
'R.U.=regular updates of data issued.2R.S.=recent study ..One time report with da~a withinl978-1980 period
.30.M•~dated material.Data for period 1977 and prior.
I Cl ····1 1 j 1 i
EXHIBIT 111-5 (cont.)
ACRE WORKPACKAGE 1 ECONOMIC DATA COLLECTION MATRIX
(Numbers in cells refer to attached bibliography)
First Edition 6/17/80
TYPE OF DATA:BS·AREA AND CURRENCY OF INFORMATION
00
N
,FAIRBANKS ANCHORAGE MATANUSKA-SUSITNA STATEWIDE
R.U.1 R.S.2 3 R.S.D.M.R.U.R.S.D.M.R.U.R.S.D.M.D.M.II R.U.
17 d 2a \2a 17 d 2a ,31
I
7cIndustryStudiesII3,~,2a ,20
I 17 I
I
Business Level and Income 23 II 21 I 4,6 20
I
Projected Business Trends I I
I 3 20
I
I I
I I
23 f 27 9 26 g 36 h 21 e I bBusinessActivityVariablesI4b,
11
6 II
Other I
I ,
I
dated material.Data for period 1977 and prior.
lR.U.=
3 0 •M•=
regular updates of data issued.2R.S.=recent study.One time report with data within1978-1980 period
a =1977.Railbelt Wood Demand.
b =banking,interest rates,Anchorage CPl.
c =mining.
d =agriculture.
e =CPI,building permits,port &
airport activity.
f =banking,CPl.
g =CPl.
h =CPI,transportation ac-
tivitv.bankinq,con-
I 1 1 J 1 J I J J J ]j I J ~I 1 I
EXHIBIT 111-5 (cant.)
ACRE WORKPACKAGE 1 ECONOMIC DATA COLLECTION MATRIX
(Numbers in cells refer to attached bibliography)
First Edition 6/17/80
TYPE OF DATA:EMPLOY AREA AND CURRENCY OF INFORMATION
cow
FAIRBANKS ANCHORAGE MATANUSKA-SUSITNA STATEWIDE
"R.U .1 R.S.2 3D.M.R.U.R.S.D.M.R.U.R.S.D.M.R.U.R.S.D.M.
Employment/Unemployment Levels 5,9,10,26 5,9 21 ,5,9 37 31 4,5,15 14
23 10,
I
35 10 9,10,
,36 11 .
5,9,10,26 5,9 21,35 5,9,37 4,5,15 14
Type af Employment 23 10,i 10 6,9,
I
'36 I 10
5,9,10,16 5,9,16 35 5,9,37 4,5,16 I
Income Levels (personal)23 10 10 6,9,
I 10
I
Projected Employment/Income 9,10 19,10 9,10 1 4 ,9,15 14
!10,13
Other 31 b 13 a
I I
l
I
i l
1R•U•=regular updates of data i~~ued.2R•S•=recent study ..One time report with data within 1978-1980 period
,3D.M•=dated material.Data for period 1977 and prior.
a =job openings.
1 1 -1 I J J }1 i J
EXHIBIT 111-5 (cant.)
ACRE WORKPACKAGE 1 ECONOMIC DATA COLLECTION MATRIX
(Numbers in cells refer to attached bibliography)
First Edition 6/17/80
TYPE OF DATA:HOUSE AREA AND CURRENCY OF INFORMATION
D::J
+:0
FAIRBANKS ANCHORAGE I MATANUSKA-SUSITNA STATEWIDE
R.U.l R.S.2 3 R.U.R.S.D.M.R.U.R.S.D.M.R.U.R.S.D.M.D.M.
I
\
Housing Stocks 23 34
\
21 ,,37 .
3S
I
\
I
1 1
\
\1 3 ,6 aProjectedHousingStock
\
I I
I
I
\
I
.\Rent/Price Levels 35 37 =
Other 23 c
\
\36 d 21 b 37 e
,
\\\Ii
1R.U•=regular updates of data issued.2R.S.=recent study.One time report with data within -1978-'1980'period
3 0.M.=dated material.Data for period 1977 and prior.
a =building permits.
b =rental vacancies and homes for sale.
c =building permits,mortgage values.
d =construction;vacancy rates.
--._.-I.!......!._ __.{:L-._t I".;n n
"1 I I J J J J 1 )1 !
EXHIBIT 111-5 (cant.)
ACRE WORKPACKAGE 1 ECONOMIC DATA COLLECTION MATRIX
(Numbers in cells refer to attached bibliography)
First Edition 6/17/80
TYPE OF DATA:LAND AREA AND CURRENCY OF INFORMATION
co
1Jl
FAIRBANKS ANCHORAGE MATANUSKA-SUSITNA STATEWIDE
R.U.l R.S.2 3 R.U.R.S.D.M.R.U.R.S.D.M.R.U.R.S.D.M.ID.M.
I
'I
Land-Use Patterns I
\
31 ,33 II
I
\\
Land-Use Projections
I
I 3,
I I I
I
Other I
\
\\
dated material.Data for period 1977 and prior.
lR.U.=
,3 0 •M•=
regular updates of data issued.2R.S.=recent study.One time report with data within -1978-1980 period
~..'1 "'=CC""]t 1 J ]C~]1 I J 1 c_.~
EXHIBIT 111-5 (cant.)
ACRE WORKPACKAGE 1 ECONOMIC DATA COLLECTION MATRIX
(Numbers in cells refer to attached bibliography)
First Edition 6/17/80
TYPE OF DATA:POP'AREA AND CURRENCY OF INFORMATION
co
0"\
FAIRBANKS ANCHORAGE MATANUSKA-SUSITNA STATEWIDE
R.U .1 R.S.2 3 i R.U.R.S.D.M.O.M.R.U.R.S.O.M.R.U.i R.S.O.M.
Population 5,10,23 26,39 5,10 B5,39 5,10 37 31,33,4,5,39
I
39 10
I
I I
1 10ProjectedPopulation10 10 33 4,10
I
,
Other Population 3S a I \
I
\,'
l l ",
lR.U.=regular updates of data issued.2R.S.=recent study.One time report with data within 1978-1980 period
,~D.M.=dated material.Data for period 1977 and prior.
~=:lnl3 +rrlrp.
~'C1 ::C:--'j :t 1 J J ")---~J I J -)1 ----J ~--l
.~
EXHIBIT III-5 (cant.)
ACRE WORKPACKAGE 1 ECONOMIC DATA COLLECTION MATRIX
(Numbers in cells refer to attached bibliography)
First Edition 6/17/80
TYPE OF DATA :REC AREA AND CURRENCY OF INFORMATION
co
""-J
FAIRBANKS ANCHORAGE MATANUSKA-SUSITNA STATEWIDE
R.U.l R.S.2 3 R.U.R.S.D.M.R.U.R.S.D.M.R.U.\R.S.D.M.D.M.
\,
IRecreationalActivity
\I
31,
\
Projected Recreational Activity
I
I I 31 3I
,
I
Other
I
I
I
I I
l I I
dated material.Data for period 1977 and prior.
1R•U•=
3D.M.=
regular updates of data issued.2R.S.=recent study.One time report with data within 1978-1980 period
r-
i
I
[
i
I
r
t
EXHI BIT II 1-6
FORECASTING STUDIES AND MODELS BIBLIOGRAPHY
State of Alaska,Department of Commerce and Economic Development.Undated.
State of Al?ska Quarterly Econometric Model.Juneau,AK.
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.
Anderson.1970.A Note on Economic Base Studies and Regional Econometric
Forecasting Models.Journal of Regional Science.Vol.10,No.3.pp.
325-333.
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 •
Biswas,Asit K.and Robert W.Durie.Sociological Aspects of Water Develop-
ment.Development.Water Resources Bulletin,1971.
Chalmers,J.A.1977.Bureau of Reclamation Construction Worker Survey.
Engineering and Research Center,U.S.Bureau of Reclamation,Denver,CO.
Chalmers,J.A.and Anderson,E.J.1977.Economic/D.emographic Assessment
Manual:Current Practices,Procedural Recommendations,and a Test Case.
Engineering and Research Center,U.S.Bureau of Reclamation,Denver,CO.
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.
Finsterbusch,K.and Wolf,C.P.1977.The Methodology of Social Impact
Assessment.Dowden,Hutchinson and Ross Publishing Co.,Stroudsberg,PA.
Finsterbusch,K.1977.Methods of Evaluating Non-Market Impacts in Policy
Decisions with Special Reference toWa-ter Resources Development Projects.·
U.S.Army Engineer Institute for Water Resources,Fort Belvoir,VA.IWR
Contra~t Report 77-78.46 pp.
Glickman,Norman J.February,1977.Impact Analysis with Regional
Econometic Models (Draft).University of Pennsylvania.
Goldsmith,Scott and Lee Huskey.1980.Electric Power Consumption for the
Railbe1t:A Projection of Requirements,Technical Appendices.Institute
88
;,
EXHIBIT 111-6 (cont.)
of Social and Economic Research for the State of Alaska House Power
Alternati ves Study Conmittee and Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage.
Guseman,P.1<.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.
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.
Lerner,Sally C.1980.Energy Policy:A Potential Source of Positive
Social Impacts.Paper presented at National Energy Policy Conference,
University of West Virginia,Morganstown,May 1,1980.
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.
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.-
Mitchell,A.et al.1975.Handbook of Forecasting Techniques.U.S.Army
Engineer TnstTtute for Water Resources,Fort Belvoir,VA.IWR Contract
Report 75-7.316 pp.
Mountain West Research,Inc.December,1975.
Projections for Rosebud County,Montana.
Demographic and Economic
Tempe,Arizona.
Mountain West Research,Inc.1976.Mid-Yellowstone Areawide Planning
Organization:Economic Demographic Projection Model.Billings,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 Leistritz.1979.Oemographic and Economic
Effects of Large-Scale Energy Development in Rural Areas:An Assessment
Model -in Gene F.Summers and Arne Selvik (eds.),Nonmetropolitan
I ndustrT al Growth and Conrnunity Change.Lexi ngton,Lexi ngton,MA.pp.
223-53.
Priscoli,Jerry D.
P1ann;n9:Some
Water Resources
pp.953-958.
1977.Integrating Social Analysis into Water Resources
Emerging Trends in the Corps of Engineers.American
Association,Water Resources Bulletin.Vol.13,No.5.
89
------------_~_--_._-_~_._------
-
-
'"'"'1
-,
""",I
i
!
;.EXHIBIT 111-6 (cont.)
Reaume,David M.1980.Migration and the Dynamic Stability of Regional
Econometric Models.State of Alaska,Department of Commerce,and Economic
Development,Juneau,AK.
Schaffer,William A.April,1977 (mimeo).The Role of Input-Output
Analysis Models in Regional Impact Analysis.
Shaw,L.Gardner,S.Cohen and T.G.Ingersoll.1980.Community Involvement
in the Assessment of the Socioeconomic Effects of Energy Development.
Paper presented at National Energy Policy Conference,University of West
Virginia,Morganstown,May 1,1980.
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.
Smith,Charles R.et al.1973.Social and Cultural Impact of a Proposed
Reservoir on a~ural Kentucky School District.Kentucky Water Resources
Institute,Lexington,KY.189 pp.
Smith,Charles R.1970.Aniticipation of Change:A Socio-economic
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 OIHare,M.1977.Predicting the Local 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.
University of Alberta,Faculty of Extension.1980.Computer Models 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.
White,William T.,B.Malamund and J.Nixon.May,1976.A Model for the
Socioecono~ic Analysis of Water Projects.
90
r
j
r
.-
I
[
r
I
-
.-
!
-
.....
1
IV.RESULTS 'AND DISCUSSION OF BASELINE STUDY
The baseline study,Work Package 2 (Socioeconomic Profile Development),
is to be conducted during July through November,1980 •
91
r
i
.-
I
.-
[
....
-
....
-
e ,
v.IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The impact assessment~Work Package 3 (Preliminary Socioeconomic Impact
Studies)~is to be conducted during October through December~1981 .
92
r
....
.....
~
I
r
I
VI.MITIGATION
Mitigation,included in Work Package 3 (Preliminary Socioeconomic
Impact Studies),is to be conducted during October through November,1981 •
93
""'"
I
,~
"""I
r
i'Ii
\L
r
l
VII.SUMMARY
At this stage of the socioeconomic analysis it is not possible to pro-
vide any conclusions.However,several major points that were made above
and a few corrrnents would be appropriate.These points and corrments are
presented below by work package.
A.WORK PACKAGE l:LITERATURE REVIEW
With respect to the review of representative power development
studies,it was quite evident that there was substanti a1 diversity in
the quality,scope,and methods employed.In general,the depth of
analysis,scope,degree of substantiation and quantification,
appropri ateness of methodo logy,and overall qual ity were greater when
the project was large and/or the soci oeconomi c impacts were extens ive
and controversial.Of the many studies perused and the eleven reviewed
in depth,the Dickey-L incoln School Lakes study,the Boardman coal
facility study,and the Washington Public Power Supply Systemts st~dies
(as reviewed so far)were the most desirable in terms of the above
attributes.Many of the impacts of these projects were determined to
be potentially relevant for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project.In
addition,some aspects of the methodologies used in the socioeconomic
studies for these projects will be relevant for Work Package 4.
In read i ng many of the summary impact documents,it was apparent
that either the underlying socioeconomic analysis was weak or that the
summary document itself was poorly written.Many of the documents,for
example,used conditional or indeterminate phraseology.To say,with
no substantiating information,that something could have a beneficial
impact is to make an insignificant statement.Unfortunately,many of
the socioeconomic summaries contained this type of material.
Finally,some of the studies reviewed and perused stressed the
importance of analyzing impacts from a broad as well as narrow
perspective.A broad perspective could be particularly relevant for
Alaska because the proposed Sus itna Proj ect mi ght have a si gnifi cant
influence on the railbelt and/or state economy.Additionally,other
proposed AI askan projects,if I arge and contemporaneous with the pro-
posed Susitna Project,would have to be integrated into the socioecono-
mic impact analysis for Susitna,e.g.the proposed gas pipeline.
Impact analysis in Alaska,perhaps more than elsewhere,must be both
.broad and narrow.The approach taken in conducting Work Package 1 (and
the first part of Work Package 4)recognizes this procedure.
.With regard to the identification and categorization of social and
economic data,it appeared that the overall quality,availability,and
currency of these data are uneven.By and large,data onemp I oyment,
population,housing,education,revenues,and uti lities are recent and
continually updated.Varying degrees of data also exist for other
categories such as attitudes toward growth and recreational usage.On
the other hand,three prominent examples of data that are of relatively
poor quality,availability and/or currency are (1)land use,(2)
industrial use (especially industry studies and business activity
levels and income),and (3)fiSh and wildlife use patterns (e.g.,fish
94
and wildlife population
be stressed·that these
At present the ultimate
.....
--
--
.....,
population and catch levels by stream/river,
and harvest by geographic area).It should
II ratings ll of data are broad and preliminary.
extent of these shortcomings are unknown.
In Work Package 1,Work Item c.,it was stressed that data iden-
tification and categorization is an on-going process.The functions of
this process are to identify sources of data,form of data,ease of
data access,data time frame,frequency of data reporting,geographic
area covered,and data "gaps lt.The apparent data "gaps ll noted above
are currently bei ng investigated and the extent of the shortcomi ngs
will soon be determined.
B.WORK PACKAGE 4:FORECAST OF SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN THE ABSENCE
OF THE SUSITNA PROJECT
The first work item of this work package was to identify and
collect socioeconomic studies and models.This was done by accessing
forecasting studies and models in Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.ls
library and by searching for other forecasting studies and models in
coordination with the Work Package 1 work effort.This search began in
Alaska and then extended throughout the IILower 48 11
•Social scientists
at the University of Alaska,Institute for Social and Economic
Research,and the Alaska Department of Corrrnerce and Economi c
Development were interviewed and several prominant social scientists in
the Lower-48 were contacted.The result of these interviews and search
was the compilation of a rather comprehensive bibliography of fore-
casting studies and models.These studies and models will be reviewed
and evaluated during the next few work items of.Work Package 4.The
objective is to determine which forecasting methodology would be most
appropriate for the socioeconomic analysis via this broad survey pro-
cess.
95
....
I
-
r
r!,
[I
VIII.REFERENCES
The references for this report are provided in Exhibits 111-1,111-4,
and 111-6.These references will be updated as the socioeconomic analysis
continues.The only reference cited in this report was:Information
Resources Press.1977-1980.EIS -Direst of Environmental Impact State-
ments.Arlington,VA 22209.VOl.1-#through Vol.4-#3.
96
r
I
IX.AUTHORITIES CONTACTED
~
I,,
.....
While conducting Work Package 1 and the beginning of Work.Package 4,
several persons from local,state,and federal agencies and private institu-
tions were contacted.These persons are listed below by Work Package and
city in which the contact was made.Persons contacted as part of project
management are also listed .
A.WORK PACKAGE 1
Several persons were contacted as part of Work Package 1,
Literature Review.The purpose of the contacts was to obtain infor-
mation to:
1.Identify sources of socioeconomic studies,data,and informa-
tion;
2.Establish cOrMlunication channels with data source personnel and
key informants;
3.Identify forecasting models;interview model developer and/or
users;and
4.Identify current and projected activities which could influence
socioeconomic variables.
-
Data collection guides as described in II,Methodology,above,were uti-
lized during the interviews.
Fairbanks,Alaska
1.Philip Berrian,Fairbanks Borough Planning Director.
Karen Fox,Research Analyst,Borough Community Information
Center.
Karla Zervos,Executive Director of the Fairbanks Visitor and
Convention Borough.
Bob Dempsey,Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce.
Bill Workman,Consultant,Socioeconomic Analysis.
Virginia Hanna,Alaska Northwest Pipeline Company.
Dave Williams,Land Planner,Doyon Corporation.
Sue Fison,Director,Socioeconomic Studies,Northwest Alaskan
Pipeline Company --Availability of socioeconomic data and
review of recent and upcoming activities.
2.
3.
~4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
-
97
-
-
-
-I
-
-
-
-
9.Alan Jubenville,Principal Investigator,Recreation &Land Use
S~udies,Susitna Hydroelectric Project.
10.Bill Workman,Consultant,Socioeconomic Analysis,Susitna
Hydroe 1ectr ic Proj ect.
Anchorage,Alaska
1.Heinz Noonan,Economist,Alaska Department of Energy.
2.Marge Sagerser,Land Manager,Cook Inlet Region,Inc.
3.Lee Gorsuch and Scott Goldsmith,Institute for Social Research.
4.Mike Meehan,Director of Planning,and Shawn Hemme,Assistant
Planner,Municipality of Anchorage.
5.Nancy Blunk,Alaska Power Authority.
6.Robert Krogseng,Resident Manager,TES.
7.Richard Ender,University of Alaska Urban Observatory.
Pa1mer,Alaska
1.Don Lyon,Executive Director of OEDP,Inc.
2.Bud Goodyear,Public Information Officer,Matanuska Valley
Electric Co.
3.Chamber of Commerce.
4.Delon Brown,U.S.Department of Agricu1ture.
Juneau,Alaska
1.David Reume,Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Develop-
ment.
2.Hugh Malone,House Power Alternatives Study Committee.
Seattle,Washington
1.Terry Galbraith,Public Relations Officer,Puget Sound Power
and Light Co.
'2.Dan Sternborn,Team Leader,EIS Review Section,and Judi
Schwarz,Environmental Protection Specialist,Environmental
Evaluation Branch,U.S.Environmental Protection Agency.
98
-
-
B.
Richland,Washington
1.Alice Lee,Coordinator -Socioeconomic Division,Washington
Public Power Supply System.
Arlington,Virginia
1.Gene Allen,Information Resources Press.
WORK PACKAGE 4
The following persons were contacted during the beginning of Work
Package 4.The purpose of these contacts was to identify and revi ew
forecasting methods and applications of such methods.
Portland,Oregon
1.Ruth Love,Sociologist,U.S.Army Engineer District.
New York,New York
1.C.P.Wolf,Editor,Social Impact Assessment.
Anchorage,Alaska
1.Scott Goldsmith,Assistant Professor of Economics,Institute of
Social and Economic Research,University of Alaska.
.....
-
r
C.PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Talkeetna,Alaska
1.Various citizens.
Watana Base Camp,Alaska
1.Alan Jubenville,Principal Investigator,Recreation &Land Use
Studies,Susitna Hydroelectric Project,and Dr.Jubenville's
staff.
2.Various Susitna Hydroelectric Project team members including,
but not limited to,archaeologists,avian ecologist (Dr.B.
Kessel),predator ecologist (Dr.P.Gipson),drillers,and
seismologists.
High Lake Lodge,Alaska
1.John Wilson,Resident Manager.
99
r
Anchorage,Alaska
1.Nancy Blunk,Coordinator,Public Participation Program,Alaska
Power Authority.
Seattle,Washington
1.Bill Workman,Consultant,Socioeconomic Analysis,Susitna Hydro-
electric Project.
L'BRARY
HABITAT DF1VF1~~~GAME
KA DEPT.0 dALAS333RaspberryRO:9518AnchorageJA\aska
100