Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
APA1451
UPDATED PROJECTIONS OF SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS OF SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT PROJECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT c.~~ 0'1 O'l~ 0- o •o~"O ~~=II!SUSITNA~!HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION PROJECT No.711. ~,"ORTH &ASSOCIATES.INC. TK )~O"TRACT TO 1425 • a ~'~~~~®~®©@ F47 B:iA JOINT VENTURE no.451 FINAL REPORT MARCH 198'4 DOCUMENT No.145 1 -I ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY_--I ...... ALASKA !J,S.DEPT.OF SUSITRA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Document No.1451 Susitna File No.4.5.3 TK I J..fJS _S~ F41-2 no.l Li s-l - - SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT PROJECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT UPDATE PROJECTIONS OF THE SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Report by Frank Orth &Associates,Inc. Under Contract to Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture Prepared for Alaska Power Authority -- .... ARLIS Alaska Resources Library &Infonnation Servlces AnChi»mg~,~Amsk~·Final Report April 1984 - - - - NOTICE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS CONCERNING THIS REPORT SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SUSITNA PROJECT OFFICE - - - - - TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Purpose 1.2 Structure of Report 2.0 Overview 2.1 Key Characteri~tics 2.2 Description of the Scenarios Used For Comparison 2.3 Summary of Key Modifications and Their Effects 3.0 Matanuska-Susitna Borough (Off-site)--Summary of Socioeconomic Impact Projections 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Key Changes 4.0 Community of Talkeetna--Summary of Socioeconomic Impact Projections 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Key Changes 5.0 Community of Trapper Creek--Summary of Socioeconomic Impact Projections 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Key Changes 6.0 Community of Cantwell--Summary of Socioeconomic Impact Projections 6.1 Introduction 6.2 Key Changes 7.0 Municipality of Anchorage--Summary of Socioeconomic Impact Projections 7.1 Introduction 7.2 Key Changes 8.0 Municipality of Fairbanks--Summary of Socioeconomic Impact Projections 8.1 Introduction 8.2 Key Changes - -- INTRODUCTION - - SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT PROJECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE Summaries of impact projections for the Mat-Su Borough and the communi- ties that are expected to be significantly affected by the construction and operation of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project were conducted as part of the Social Sciences Program to support the needs of the Alaska Power Authori ty.Annual revisions of impact projections for potentially af- fected local areas are designed to convey updated information regarding economic,demographic,housing,facilities and services,and fiscal ef- fects of the project as more data related to important assumptions and parameters in the model,survey information on the communities,and an- nual updates of other baseline data become available.This process is part of a monitoring framework that provides updated and more accurate information about the future for project planning efforts,state agency review,and the public involvement process. 1.2 STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT The Socioeconomic Impact Projections Summary Report is divided into three major sections.The first section which consists of Chapter 1 describes the purpose and structure of the report.The second section which con- sists of Chapter 2 describes the key characteristics of the Susitna model,the scenarios that will be compared,and the key modifications incorporated into the model since its development and use for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)License Application. The discussion of key characteristics focuses on how the data on current conditions and assumptions about the future were combined to produce baseline projections of employment,population,housing,public 1 .- - ..-. - - - facilities and services,and fiscal balances.The description of the scenarios focuses on two transportation programs.The major modifica- tions that significantly affect the projections of socioeconomic vari- ables are discussed in the final section of Chapter 2.In addition, their anticipated effects on the communities of interest are described. The final section of the report consists of six chapters,each related to an area or community of interest.Areas of interest include:1)the Mat .....Su Borough;2)Talkeetna;3)Trapper Creek;4)Cantwell;5)Anchor- age;.and 6)Fairbanks.These chapters descri be the key differences in the projections of socioeconomic variables as well as the reason for such differences • 2 - ,..... - ,.,., - .- OVERVIEW - - - ,.... 2.0 OVERVIEW 2.1 KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MODEL ~:. Economic base theory was relied upon heavily for model construction be- cause its strength lies in estimating how secondary industry sectors will change in response to a change in direct industry sectors.This is rele- vant for this project because one of the most significant sources of impacts would be employment and population growth that is stimulated by the project's direct employment.As a result,the quantifying approach is deterministic '(causal)--relationships between the variables(s)to be forecast and influencing factors are identified and determined,and then incorporated into the forecasting process. In economic base theory,there are two key concepts.First,the economy is split into two sectors:direct and secondary.Businesses and other economic entities that sell goods and services at places outside of the local economy or whose demand originates from outside of the local econo- my (e.g.,tourism)comprise the direct sector,and those that sell goods and services wi thin the local economy comprise the secondary sec tor. Second,the amount of secondary activity is determined by the amount of direct activity.Thus,an increase in direct activity (e.g.,employment) is accompanied by a corresponding,and roughly predictable,increase in secondary activity.In the model,these predictions are based on aggre- gate employment multipliers. The Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER)projections for employment and population serve as the baseline projections for the State,Railbelt Region,and multi-borough levels.Baseline projections for smaller areas were derived by disaggregating the ISER projections using an historical percent share trend analysis. The model is composed of three main modules,each containing equations that compute baseline and with-project (construction and operations) projections on an annual basis.This general structure mirrors economic base theory,as the source of impacts rests in the economic-demographic 1 ..... module where the project's direct jobs induce secondary employment oppor- tunities.Both the direct and secondary jobs may,in turn,cause inmi- gration of people to balance labor demand and supply in the local areas. These impacts are reflected in the public facilities and services module and in the fiscal module.Project-related population can create demands on the housing and public facilities and services in local impact area communities as well as contribute to fiscal resources and increase fiscal outlays. In short,the model produces annual forecasts of employment,population, housing demand,effects on operations and capacities of facilities and services,revenues,and expenditures.Effects on housing and other so- cioeconomic variables are primarily population-driven.That is,changes in population directly influence changes in housing demand,the number of police required for protection,changes in fiscal receipts and outlays, etc. The present structure of the model (and the computerization of its proce- dures)was chosen for several reasons.First,it has the ability to quantify impacts in detail,and for small geographic areas.There are approximately 35 smaller impact areas within the region of interest. Second,it has the ability ·to efficiently handle multiple scenarios such as choice of access corridors,transportation modes to the site,and size of the construction camp/village.Third,the model makes it relatively easy to accommodate changes in important assumptions and to conduct sen- sitivity analyses.Finally,the model can create a variety of reports and output formats,an important consideration that allows the model to serve the diverse needs of the decision-maker. 2.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE SCENARIOS Two sets of impact projections are summarized and compared in the follow- ing chapters.The first set consists of impact projections that were reported in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)License Ap- plication.These projections were prepared in 1982 and were based on the use of personal vehicles by construction workers to gain access to the site.The second set of projections consists of two scenarios that 2 ..... incorporate updates of baseline information that were available from secondary sources and the socioeconomic surveys conducted in October of 1983,as well as enhancements that were made to the economic/demographic module.The two scenarios are differentiated by the mode of access to the site.One scenario considers personal vehicle transportation and the other considers bus transportation. The differences between the two scenarios are slight because the bus transportation scenario assumes that stops are made in every community between Fairbanks and the Project site.This set of pickup points does not alter the travel times between the communities and the Project site significantly.The net result is that the travel times for each communi- ty are similar under the two scenarios and the observed differences in relocation are slight.However,changes in the pick-up si tes could sub- stantially alter travel times and produce substantial differences in the distribution of project-related impacts. 2.3 SUMMARY OF KEY MODIFICATIONS AND THEIR EFFECTS A summary of the important changes that were made in the model routines and procedures since its development and use in the FERC license applica- tion are described below.-The section is divided into subsections that correspond to important socioeconomic variables such as employment,popu- lation,etc. 2.3.1 Employment 2.3.1.1 Village Assignment Procedures.Explicit consideration of the types of workers (by labor category,origin,and marital status)that would be assigned to the limited number of family housing units at the village was made to account for the effects of different housing unit allocation schemes on population inmigration into areas that may be significantly affected by the construction and operation of the Susi tna Hydroelectric Project. Effect.Reduces the number of workers that permanently relocate to local impact area communities.Because it is assumed that family housing units 3 .- - I I r - - at the village will primarily be allocated to out-of-state workers,the amount of inmigration into Anchorage and Fairbanks by these workers is reduced in the revised set of impact projections as compared to the FERC license application. 2.3.1.2 Work Camp Attractiveness Factors.Consideration of the attrac- tiveness of the work camp led to an upward adjustment in the number of single workers that may relocate their residence to places in the local impact area (defined as the Mat-Su Borough and the Railbelt portion of the Yukon-Koyukuk census area).Currently,the number of single workers that will consider relocation within the Railbelt is slightly higher (10 percent)than that assumed fo~the FERC license application (0 percent) and reflects a judgment by the consultant that the suburbanization of Anchorage is not ·strictly limited to married people. Effect.Slight increases in employment by place of residence and popula- tion in communities near the project. 2.3.2 Population 2.3.2.1 Baseline Population Updates.Baseline forecasts were revised based on socioeconomic surv~y results and updated ISER projections. Effect.Baseline and with-project populations (and hence derived fac- tors)are higher in revised forecasts than in FERC license application, except for Anchorage.Changes vary across locations,but direction of change is consistent,again,with the exception of Anchorage. 2.3.2.2 Addi tion of a Gravi ty Model.Changes in community allocation procedures that distribute population to places in the impact area were made.The introduction of an attraction-constrained gravity model cre- a tes the ability to trade-off travel time and community amenities,an ability that more accurately reflects a worker's decision-making process about the relocation of a household.Previously,allocation was deter- mined entirely by travel time considerations. 4 - - .... Effect.Varies across communities;tends to increase the with-project population in communities with more amenities and decrease them in com- munities with fewer amenities. 2.3.2.3 Inclusion of Additional Communities.The community allocation model was modified between the FERC license application and the revised impact projections to include more communities,thus distributing popula- tion among a larger number of communities.Communities that were recent- ly added include:Healy,McKinley Park,Nenana,Glennallen,Copper Cen- ter,Gulkana,Valdez,and Paxson.The additional communities provided a more comprehensive listing for places -into which workers may choose to relocate. Effect.In the revised forecasts,communities that were included in the FERC license application show lower population effects since impact popu- lation is distributed across more communities. 2.3.2.4 Relocation Prior To 1987.In the FERC license application, construction workers living in the Railbelt were not allowed to relocate into the local impact area (Mat-Su Borough and Railbelt portion of the Yukon-Koyukuk census area)until 1987.In the revised set of impact projections,it was assumed'that Railbelt workers could start relocation in 1985.Potential Railbelt employees would have an incentive to reduce their commuting time as qUickly as possible once employment on the proj- ect is obtained.Some workers would a+.so want to move quickly in order to act on their preference for rural lifestyle. Effect.Varies across communities depending on whether they are inside or outside the local impact area.Communi ties wi thin the local impact area would experience higher population impacts in 1985 and 1986 while Anchorage and Fairbanks would experience lower population due to higher rates of outmigration (since these communities are sending workers into the local impact area in 1985 and 1986)• 5 ..... I - 2.3.2.5 Outmigration of Direct Workers.Assumptions regarding the out- migration of direct workers from places of relocation following termina- tion of employment were changed to reflect more current information from other projects.In the FERC license application,the outmigration rate for direct workers was 0 percent.Modifications to the model increased the outmigration rate for workers of Railbelt origin to 20 percent and the outmigration rate for workers of other Alaska and out-of-state ori- gin to 50 percent.Studies of other construction projects have shown that between 20 and 60 percent of relocating workers leave after their work ona project is completed. Effect.For the local impact area communities,increasing the out- migration rate (reducing the retention rate)for the direct inmigrating workers will cause population to be lower in the revised set of impact projections than in the FERC license application projections after 1990. For Anchorage and Fairbanks,this change tends to increase the revised population projections compared to the projections in the FERC license application after the year 1990. 2.3.2.6 Outmigration of Secondary Workers.Assumptions regarding the outmigration of secondary workers from places of relocation were also changed to reflect both the desire of these workers to remain in places more rural than Anchorage and their knowledge of local employment oppor- tunities.Accordingly,outmigration rates of secondary workers who relocated to the local impact area were changed from 100 percent in the FERC license application to 30 percent in the revised impact projections. Effect.For local impact area communities,the effect of reducing the outmigration rate for secondary workers resulted in an increase in the population impact of the project on these communities after 1990 for the revised impact projections as compared to the projections in the FERC license application.These workers are still tracked as project-related population because it is assumed that they would not have relocated in the local impact area unless they obtained long-term jobs on the Susitna Project. 6 .... - - - - For Anchorage and Fairbanks,the effect of reducing the outmigration rate for secondary workers resulted in an increase in the population effect of the project after 1990.Because secondary employment multipliers are es- timated to be high for these communities,this change reflects a substan- tial percentage of the difference between the two sets of projections. 2.3.2.7 Dependents Per Construction Worker.Based on additional studies of construction workers and their characteristics,the household size for the project-related population during construction was increased from 3.11 persons per household in the FERC license application projections to 3.51 persons per household in the revised projections.Data from three surveys of construction workers supported the change in the assumption. Effect.The population associated with a given number of inmigrating construction workers is higher in the revised set of projections for communities experiencing net inmigration than with the assumptions used in the FERC license application. 2.3.2.8 Labor Force Participation Of Secondary Household Members.In the revised forecasts,statewide data on the number of jobholders per household were used to estimate labor force participation of other mem- bers of secondary worker households,thus lowering the population in- migration for secondary employment.No such adjustments were made for the projections in the FERC license application. Effect.This modification lowers the impact population and with-project population forecasts for communities receiving secondary inmigration as compared to the forecasts of population in the FERC license application. 2.3.2.9 Adjustment for Vacated Local Jobs.In the revised forecasts,an adjustment was made to account for jobs that would be vacated by local r~sidents who obtained employment on the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. An estimate of vacated local jobs,based on employment rates,was made in order to determine the number of jobs that might require inmigration of nonlocal residents.These jobs are not counted as secondary employment 7 r- i - - I""'" i benefi ts of the project since they existed prior to the project.How- ever,consideration of these jobs allows a more comprehensive approach to be taken in specifying the labor demand in relevant impact areas,match- ing this with the available local supply of labor,and forecasting the amount of in-migration. Effect.The effect of this modification is to raise the population im- pacts forecast in the revised set of projections when compared to those in the FERC license application. 2.3.2.10 Support Operations Workers.The number of secondary operati~ns workers that would reside in Mat-Su Borough communities and in Anchorage were reestimated in the revised forecasts by developing an adjustment for income spent by direct operations workers.First,the percentage of income spent in each community that would provide goods and services to the operations workers was determined.Second,these percentages were applied to the total direct operations work force to determine the size of the income effect and to define it in terms of employment.Third, these employment estimates were used to project the number of secondary operations workers that would reside in each community. Effect.Population projections for the Mat-Su Borough and Anchorage are higher during the operations period in the revised forecasts than com- pared to the forecasts in the FERC license application. 2.3.2.11 Changes in Community Boundaries.In order to keep certain community boundaries compatible with on-going survey and data collection efforts,several community boundaries were changed. Effect.The effect of this change varies by community.For example,in the revised forecasts,the boundaries of Talkeetna were contracted to include only the townsite rather than the area being considered for in- corporation in 1981.Trapper Creek boundaries were changed to exclude one area on west Petersville Road and to include an area extending six miles south on Oilwell Road.The net effect was a reduction in the areas of Talkeetna and Trapper Creek,which reduced the population of these communities in the revised forecasts. 8 .... - :, 2.3.3 Housi ng 2.3.3.1 Changes in Household Size.Average household sizes for the baseline population of the local impact area communities,Anchorage,and Fairbanks were revised to reflect changes made by the Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER)in their projections for the state household size in 2005 as well as updated information on current conditions in the communities.It was assumed that household sizes for communities would converge to the state household size by the year 2005.The ISER projec- tion for Alaska's household size in 2005,which was used in the FERC license application,was 2.556 people per household.ISER's revised figure of 2.844 was used in the revised impact projections.Estimated 1983 household sizes were revised downward slightly for all communi ties of interest,except Cantwell which dropped significantly from 2.8 to 2.38. Effect.The net result of increased household size is that every commun- i ty except Cantwell experiences less housing demand from .i ts baseline population in the revised impact projections than in the projections in the FERC license application.For Cantwell,housing demand is lower prior to 1995 and greater thereafter when compared to the FERC license application projections. 2.3.4 Facilities and Services 2.3.4.1 Change in Recreation Standard.The recreation standard in the FERC license application is based on housing units.However,because of the large number of vacant housing units in the Mat-Su Borough,it was determined that households would be a better indicator of the need for such facilities. Effec to The effect of this change is to lower the need for recreation facilities in the revised projections as compared to the projections in the FERC license application. 9 2.3.4.2 Change in Number of Inmigrating Married Workers.The number of married workers moving into the community of Cantwell was raised to be comparable to the proportion of married workers inmigrating into other communities. Effect.This change raises the number of school children forecast for Cantwell compared to the FERC license application projections. 2.3.4.3 Change in School Children Calculations.The number of school children per accompanied inmigrating worker was raised from 0.89 in the FERC license application to 1.003 in the revised set of projections. Effect.This modification raises the number of school children forecast for the Mat-Su Borough and the communites of Trapper Creek,Talkeetna, and Cantwell compared to the forecasts in the FERC license application. 2.3.5 Fiscal. 2.3.5.1 Changes in Per Capita Multipliers.Per capita multipliers of all services and for all sources of revenues were adjusted in the revised set of impact projections to reflect updated information from budgets. Effect.Varies across services in the Mat-Su Borough. 2.3.5.2 Changes In The Growth Rate For Areawide Assessed Valuation.The growth rate for areawide assessed valuation in the Mat-Su Borough was adjusted upward from 4 percent per year to 7 percent per year to reflect more current data on property valuation. Effect.Raises the revenue side of the fiscal balance equation for the Mat-Su Borough in the revised 1983 forecasts compared to the forecasts in the FERC license application. 10 MATANUSKA-SUSIJNA BOROUGH ,..., "... - 3.0 MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH (OFF-SITE) SUMMARY OF SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT PROJECTIONS 3.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter summarizes and compares the projected impacts of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project on the Matanuska-Susi tna Borough.The following tables present the baseline,with-project,and impact forecasts for the FERC License Application and for the two transportation scenarios in the 1983 revised projections.Table 1 presents the population forecasts for each of these scenarios annually from 1985 to 2002.Tables 2 and 3 show the employment,population,and housing demand forecasts for the years 1990 (peak construction)and 2002 (full operations).Tables 4 through 11 summarize the facilities/services/fiscal forecasts for the same two years. 3.2 KEY CHANGES Table 1 presents the baseline,with-project,and impact population pro- jections for each of the three scenarios under consideration.In all cases,the impact population peaks in 1990 and falls until 1995 before rising to a lower peak in 1999.Thereafter,population falls toward a more stable long-term pattern during the operations period for the hydro- electric project. As shown in tables 1 through 11,the main differences between the FERC license application projections and the revised forecasts developed in 1983 were: - 1. 2. 3. higher baseline population projections in the 1983 forecasts, although differences narrow after 1994; higher impact population projections in every year in the 1983 forecasts except for 1987 to 1989 under the car transportation scenario; higher with-project and impact population forecasts for the bus 1 ....4. transportation scenario than the revised car transportation scenario,impact population is 5 to 9 percent higher over the projection period under the bus transportation scenario; higher impact employment by place of residence in the 1983 fore- casts through 2002,revised car and bus transportation scenarios are 6 percent and 11 percent higher,respectively,in 1990; 5.higher baseline household projections in the 1983 forecasts until 1996; 6.lower impact household projections in the 1983 forecasts until 1995 (see changes in outmigration rates,section 2.3.2.6) 7.higher baseline and impact police manpower requirements in the 1983 forecasts; - 8.lower baseline and impact recreation facility requirements in the 1983 forecasts (see recreation standards,section 2.3.4.1); 9.higher baseline and impact school children enrollments for both the primary and secondary ages groups and higher school capacity estimates in the 1983 forecasts; 10.higher baseline and impact revenues and expenditures for the general fund in the 1983 forecasts,leading to lower deficits or higher surpluses in the fiscal balance in the 1983 forecasts; 11.lowler baseline and impact service fund outlays and higher base- line and lower impact service fund revenues,leading to greater, positive revised baseline and impact fiscal balance forecasts; 12.higher baseline revenues and lower baseline expenditures for the school district,leading to greater positive baseline fiscal balances in the 1983 forecasts;and -- 13.higher impact revenues and mixed effect on impact outlays for the school district in the 1983 forecasts,leading to greater surpluses or lower deficits with differences narrowing over time. 2 - ..... TABLE 1 MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH (OFF-SITE) POPULATION PROJECTIONS t FERC LICENSE APPLICATION SCENARIO t AND 1983 REVISED CAR AND BUS TRANSPORTATION SCENARIOS t 1985-2002 Year FERC License Application Revised Impact Projections With-Project and Impact With-Project and Impact Population Projections Population Projections Personal Vehicle Transportation Scenario Transportation Scenario Car Bus Baseline W-Proj.Impact Baseline W-Proj.Impact W-Proj.Impact 1985 31 t 202 31 t 312 110 35 t 224 35 t 620 396 35 t 655 431 1986 33 t 950 34 t 096 146 37,624 38,143 519 38 t 181 557 1987 36 t 894 37 t 615 721 39 t 610 40 t 261 651 40 t 304 694 1988 39,323 40,308 985 42 t 004 42 t 495 941 42,559 1 t 005 1989 41 t 543 42 t 650 1 t 107 44 t 163 45,248 1,085 45 t 327 1 t 164 1990 42 t 96L~44,353 1 t 389 47 t 246 48,639 1 t 393 48,735 1,489 1991 45 t 263 46,600 1,337 49,168 50,530 1 t 362 SOt 620 1 t 452 1992 47,112 48,322 1,210 52,401 53 t 676 1,275 53 t 764 1,363 1993 49 t 734 50,747 1,013 54,797 55 t 964 1,167 56,040 1,243 1994 51,988 52,925 937 56 t 990 58,118 1,128 58 t 199 1,209 1995 54,607 55,498 .891 58,975 60 t 074 1,099 60,151 1,176 1996 57 t 191 58 t 115 924 61 t 235 62 t 362 1,127 62,442 1,207 1997 60,272 61,247 975 63,675 64,858 1 t 183 64,929 1 t 254 1998 63,000 64,032 1,032 66 t 062 67 t 275 1 t 213 67,356 1,294 1999 66,338 67,385 1 t 047 68,514 69,734 1,220 69,819 1 t 305 2000 69,331\.70 t 355 1,021 71,079 72 t 278 1,199 72,355 1,276 2001 72 t 731 73 t 661 930 73,718 74,843 1 t 125 74,927 1 t 209 2002 76,295 n t 132 837 76 t 452 77 ,531 1,079 77 t 590 1,138 Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983 • 3 .....TABLE 2 MATANUSKA SUSITNA BOROUGH (OFF SITE) ECONOMIC/DEMOGRAPHIC IMPACTS WATANA PEAK CONSTRUCTION YEAR,1990 Socioeconomic Variable FERC License Application Impact Projections (Projected in 1982) Revised Impact Projections (Projected in 1983) 1/Employment (Manpower) Transportation Scenario Car Bus Baseline With-Project Impact Population (People) Baseline With-project Population Impact Households (Occupied Units) Baseline With-project Impact 6,914 7,857 943 42,964 44,353 1,389 14,417 14,903 486 7,857 8,856 999 47,246 48,639 1,393 15,375 15,791 416 7,857 8,904 1,047 47,246 48,735 1,489 15,375 15,822 447 - 1/Employment is by place of residence. Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983. 4 TABLE 3 MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH (OFF-SITE) ECONOMIC/DEMOGRAPHIC IMPACTS FIRST YEAR OF FULL OPERATION,2002 .-Socioeconomic: Variable FERC License Application Impact (Projected in 1982) Revised Impact Projections (Projected in 1983) .....1/Employment (Manpower) Transportation Scenario Car Bus ..... Baseline With-Project Impact Population (People) Baseline With-project Population Impact Households (Occupied Units). Baseline With-project Impact 2/ 2/ 6 76,295 77 ,132 837 28,715 29,004 289 10,976 11,021 45 76,452 77 ,531 1,079 26,454 26,781 327 10,976 11,021 45 76,452 77,590 1,138 26,454 26,799 345 1/Employment is by place of residence. 2/Employment was not projected for the Mat-Su Borough (off-site)in the FERC license application. Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983. 0356h 5 TABLE 4 MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH (OFF-SITE) FACILITIES/SERVICES IMPACTS WATANA PEAK CONSTRUCTION YEAR,1990 ..... Socioeconomic Variable FERC License Application Impact Projections (Projected in 1982) Revised Impact Projections (Projected in 1983) Transportation Scenario Car Bus Solid Waste Disposal (Cumulative Acres): .... Baseline With-project Impact of Project Capacity 1..1 Project-related Increase (%)11 %of Capacity Utilization 11 44.7 45.3 0.6 217.0 1.3% 21.4% 49.1 49.8 0.7 212.0 1.4% 23.5% 49.1 49.9 0.8 212.0 1.6% 23.5% Police Protection (Manpower Requirements): Recreation Facilities (Acres of Community Parks):4/ .... ,... I Baseline With-project Impact of Project Number of Police Personnel !/ Project-related Increase (%3 11 %Inc.OVE!r Existing Staff ~ Baseline With-project Impact of Project Hospital Requi.rements (Number of Beds): Baseline lVi th-pro jE!C t Impact of Project Capacity Y Project-rE!1ated Increase (%)Y %of Capacity Utilization rJ 48 49 1 20 2.1% 145.0% 80.0 acres 82.0 acres 2.0 acres 60.0 61.0 1.0 23.0 1.7% 260.9% 52.4 54.1 1.7 29.0 3.2% 86.6% 73.8 75.4 1.6 60.5 62.3 1.8 30.0 1.4% 207.7% 52.4 54.1 1.7 29.0 3.2% 86.6% 73.8 75.5 1.7 60.5 62.4 1.9 30.0 1.6% 208.0% 1./CapClci ty!personnel numbers used in FERC projections were from 1981;the similar numbers used in the revised projections were from 1983. 2/ 3/ 4/ Calculated by dividing the impact number by the baseline number. Calculated by dividing the with-project number by the capacity number. Recreation facility requirements are lower in the revised projections due to a refinement in the projection methodology. Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983. TABLE 5 MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH (OFF-SITE) FACILITIES/SERVICES IMPACTS FIRST YEAR OF FULL OPERATION,2002 Socioeconomic Variable FERC License Applica tion Impact Projections (Projected in 1982) Revised Impact Projections (Projected in 1983) Transportation Scenario Car Bus Solid Waste Disposal (Cumulative Acres): .....Baseline With-project Impact of Project Capacity 1./ Project-related Increase (%)~ %of Capacity Utilization ~ 182.4 185.3 2.9 217.0 1.6% 85.4% 194.0 197.4 3.4 212.0 1.8% 93.1% 194.0 197.6 3.6 212.0 1.9% 93.2% Police Protection (Manpower Requirements): Recreation Facilities (Acres of Community Parks):4/ """ r- ! - - Baseline With-project Impact of Project Number of Police Personnel 11 Project-related Increase (%1 ~ %Inc.Over Existing Staff -! Baseline With-project Impact of Project Hospital Requirements (Number of Beds): Baseline With-project Impact of Project Capacity l.1 Project-related Increase (%)II %of Capacity Utilization ~ 87 88 1 20 1.1% 345.0% 154.2 acres 155.6 acres 1.4 acres 128.0 129.0 1.0 23.0 0.7% 560.9% 87.3 88.6 1.3 29.0 1.5% 205.5% 126.9 128.2 1.3 128.5 130.3 1.8 30.0 1.4% 434.3% 87.3 88.6 1.3 29.0 1.5% 205.5% 126.9 128.3 1.3 128.5 130.4 1.9 30.0 1.5% 434.8% II -'l:../, i 31 ~ 4/ Capacity/personnel numbers used in FERC projections were from 1981; the similar numbers used in the revised projections were from 1983. Calculated by dividing the impact number by the baseline number. Calculated by dividing the with-project number by the capacity number. Recn~ation facility requirements are lower in the revised projections due to a refinement in the projection methodology. Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983. 7 ~, TABLE 6 MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH (OFF-SITE) FACILITIES/SERVICES IMPACTS WATANA PEAK.CONSTRUCTION YEAR,1990 Transportation Scenario Car Bus r Socioeconomic Variable FERC License Application Impact Projections (Projected in 1982) Revised Impact Projections (Projected in 1983) 10,011 10,372 361 6,516 3.6% 159.2% ..... - Primary School Children: Baseline With-project Impact of yroject Capacity 1.. Project-Related Increase 2/ Percent of Capacity Uti1ization1! Secondary School Children: Baseline With-project Impact of Project Capacity}j Project-Related Increase ~ Percent of Capacity Uti1izatio~/ Total School Enrollment: Baseline With-project Impact of Project Capaci ty 1./ Project-Related Increase (%)~ Percent of Capacity Uti1izatio~/ 5,406 5,608 202 3,136 3.7% 178.8% 4,605 4,764 159 3,380 3.5% 140.9% 5,911 6,117 206 4,835 3.5% 126.5% 5,036 5,211 175 4,080 3.5% 127.7% 10,947 11,328 381 8,915 3.5% 127.0% 5,911 6,131 220 4,835 3.7% 126.8% 5,036 5,224 188 4,080 3.7% 128.0% 10,947 11,355 408 8,915 3.7% 127.3% 1/Includes existing and planned capacity.Capacity estimates projections were from 1981.Estimates for revised projections 1983. for FERC were from 2/ 3/ Calculated by dividing the impact number by the baseline number. Calculated by dividing the with-project number by the capacity number. Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983. 8 A..LASKA R B.S.DEPTo OP (fH~:t IL~"llrJi:i~~IOR .., """I TABLE 7 MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH (OFF-SITE) FACILITIES/SERVICES IMPACTS FIRST FULL YEAR OF OPERATION,2002 Socioeconomic Variable FERC License Application Impact Projections (Projected in 1982) Revised Impact Projections (Projected in 1983) - Transportation Scenario Car Bus ~ Primary School Children: - Baseline With-project Impact of Project Capacity 1/ Project-Related Increase 2/ Percent of Capacity Utilizatiord! Secondary School Children: Baseline With-project Impact of Project Capacity 1/ Project-RI=lated Increase 2/ Percent of Capacity Utilizatiod/ Total School Enrollment: 10,300 10,402 102 3,136 1.0% 331.7% 8,774 8,861 87 3,380 1.0% 262.2% 10,321 10,483 162 4,835 1.6% 216.8% 8,792 8,930 138 4,080 1.6% 218.8% 10,321 10,492 171 4,835 1.7% 217.0% 8,792 8,937 145 4,080 1.6% 219.0% Baseline 19,074 With-project 19,263 Impact of Project 189 Capaci ty 1/6,516 Project-Related Increase (%)2/3.6% Percent of Capacity Uti1ization~./295.6% 19,113 19,413 300 8,915 3.5% 217.7% 19,113 19,429 316 8,915 3.7% 217.9% 1/ 2/ 3/ Includes existing and planned capacity.Capacity estimates for FERC projections were from 1981.Estimates for revised projections were from 1983. Calculated by dividing the impact number by the baseline number. Calculated by dividing the with-project number by the capacity number. - Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983. 9 TABLE 8 MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH (OFF-SITE) FISCAL IMPACTS WATANA PEAK CONSTRUCTION YEAR,1990 Socioeconomic Variable FERC License Application Impact Projections (Projected in 1982) Revised Impact Projections (Projected in 1983) Transportation Scenario Car Bus General Fund (thousands of dollars):-Baseline RE~venues 28000 39068 39068 With-project Revenues 29000 40220 40301 Impact on Revenues 1000 1151 1231 Baseline Expenditures 33100 42873 42873 With-project Expend.34200 44138 44224 Impact on Expend.1100 1265 1351 Net Fiscal Balance (baseline)-5100 -3805 -3805 Net Fiscal Balance (w-project)-5200 -3918 -3923 Project Impact -100 -113 -118 2700 3400 700 9400 9600 200 -6700 -6200 500 ..... - Service Area Fund (thousands of dollars): Baseline Revenues With-project Service Area Rev. Impact on Service Area Revenues Baseline Service Area Expend. With-project Ser.Area Expend. Impact on Service Area Expend. Net Fiscal Balance (baseline) Net Fiscal Balance (w-project) Project Impact 5186 5229 44 5025 5064 39 161 165 4 5186 5233 47 5025 5067 42 161 166 5 Note:Sums may not equal totals due to independent rounding. Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983. 10 TABLE 9 - Socioeconomic Variable MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH (OFF-SITE) FISCAL IMPACTS FIRST YEAR OF FULL OPERATION,2002 FERC License Application Impact Projections (Projected in 1982) Revised Impact Projections (Projected in 1983) Transportation Scenario Car Bus General Fund (thousands of dollars): Baseline Revenues 46500 86202 86202 With-project Revenues 47400 87420 87487-Impact on Revenues 900 1216 1283 Baseline Expenditures 58800 76247 76247 With-project Expend.59400 77324 77382 Impact on Expend.600 1076 1135 Net Fiscal Balance (baseline)-12300 9955 9955 Net Fiscal Balance (w-projec t)-12000 10096 10105 Project Impact 300 141 150..... 20223 20278 54 19284 19325 40 939 953 14 20223 20275 51 19284 19322 38 939 953 14 4200 5200 1000 19200 19300 100 -15000 -14100 900 With-project Service Area Rev. Impact on Service Area Revenues Baseline Service Area Expend. With-project Ser.Area Expend. Impact on Service Area Expend. Net Fiscal Balance (baseline) Net Fiscal Balance (w-project) Project Impact Service Area Fund (thousands of dollars): Baseline Revenues r Note:Sums may not equal totals due to independent rounding. Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983. .....0344h 11 r-, TABLE 10 MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT FISCAL IMPACTS WATANA PEAK CONSTRUCTION YEAR,1990 Socioeconomic Variable FERC License Application Impact Projections (Projected in 1982) Revised Impac t Projections (Projected in 1983) Transportation Scenario Car Bus - School District Fund (thousands of dollars): Baseline Revenues 50300 57972 57972 With-project Revenues 53400 62523 62648 Impact on Revenues 3100 4552 4676 Baseline Expenditures 61100 56804 56804 With-project Expend.65100 60608 60742 Impact on Expend.4000 3804 3938 Net Fiscal Balance (baseline)-10800 1168 1168 Net Fiscal Balance (w-project)-11700 1915 1906 Project Impact 900 747 738 Note:Sums may not equal totals due to independent rounding. Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983. 12 - TABLE 11 MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT FISCAL IMPACTS FIRST YEAR OF FULL OPERATION,2002 - .- Socioeconomic Variable FERC License Application Impact Projections (Projected in 1982) Revised Impact Projections (Projected in 1983) Transportation Scenario Car Bus .- ..... - - ,.- School District Fund (thousands of dollars): Baseline Revenues 93400 110885 110885 With-project Revenues 95100 113509 113595 Impact on Revenues 1700 2624 2711 Baseline Expenditures 116400 99177 99177 With-project Expend.118600 101533 101611 Impact on Expend.2200 2356 2434 Net Fiscal Balance (baseline)-23000 11708 11708 Net Fiscal Balance (w-project)-23500 11976 11985 Percent Increase in Deficits 500 268 277 Note:Sums may not equal totals due to independent rounding. Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983. 13 .- ! .- - .- COMMUNITY OF TALKEETNA .- - 4.0 COMMUNITY OF TALKEETNA SUMMARY OF SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT PROJECTIONS 4.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter summarizes and compares the projected impacts of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project on the community of Talkeetna.The following tables present the baseline,with-project,and impact forecasts for the FERC License Application and for the two transportation scenarios in the 1983 revised projections.Table 1 presents the population forecasts for each of thesl~scenarios annually from 1985 to 2002.Tables 2 and 3 show the ,employment,population,and housing demand forecasts for the years 1990 (peak construction)and 2002 (full operations).Tables 4 through 5 summarize the facilities/services forecasts for the same two years. 4.2 KEY CHANGES Table 1 presents the baseline,with-project,and impact population pro- jections for each of the three scenarios under consideration.In all cases,the impact populatio~peaks in 1990 and falls until 1995 before rising to a lower peak in 1999.Thereafter,population falls toward a more stable long-term pattern during the operations period for the hydro- electric project. As sho~m in these tables,the main differences between the FERC license application projections and the revised forecasts developed in 1983 are: 1.lower baseline population projections in the 1983 forecasts (see changes in community boundaries,section 2.3.2.11); -2.lower with-project and impact population projections in the 1983 forecasts except for 1985 and 1986; 1 3.higher with-project and impact population forecasts for the bus transportation scenario than the revised car transportation scenario,impact population is 5 to 14 percent higher over the projection period under the bus transportation scenario; 4.lower impact employment by place of residence in the 1983 fore- casts,revised car and bus transportation scenarios are 40 per- cent and 43 percent of the FERC projections,respectively,in 1990; 5.lower baseline,with-project,and impact household projections in the 1983 forecasts; - - 6. 7. lowE~r baseline and impact school children enrollments for both the primary and secondary ages groups but higher percent in- crease over baseline in the 1983 forecasts;and lower school capacity estimates in the 1983 forecasts. 2 - - - TABLE 1 COMMUNITY OF TALKEETNA POPULATION PROJECTIONS,FERC LICENSE APPLICATION SCENARIO, AND 1983 REVISED CAR AND BUS TRANSPORTATION SCENARIOS, 1985-2002 Year FERC License Application Revised Impact Projections With-Project and Impact With-Project and Impact Population Projections Population Projections Personal Vehicle Transportation Scenario Transportation Scenario Car Bus Baseline W-Proj.Impact Baseline W-Proj.Impact W-Proj.Impact 1985 780 805 25 358 410 52 416 58 1986 820 853 33 376 446 70 456 80 1987 862 1,036 174 395 485 90 493 98 1988 906 1,143 237 415 547 132 557 142 1989 952 1,219 267 436 588 152 599 163 1990 1,000 1,335 335 457 652 195 666 209 1991 1,051 1,374 323 480 670 190 684 204 1992 1,104 1,398 294 504 684 180 694 190 1993 1,160 1,410 250 529 691 162 698 169 1994 1,219 1,452 233 556 711 155 721 165 1995 1,281 1,503 222 584 732 148 746 162 1996 1,347 1,576 .229 613 768 155 778 165 1997 1,415 1,655 240 643 805 162 815 172 1998 1,487 1,740 253 676 841 165 859 183 1999 1,563 1,820 257 709 873 164 891 182 2000 1,642 1,893 251 745 909 164 924 179 2001 1,726 1,956 230 782 933 151 950 168 2002 1,814 2,023 209 821 968 147 975 154 Source:Frank Orth &Associates~Inc.,1983. TABLE 2 COMMUNITY OF TALKEETNA ECONOMIC/DEMOGRAPHIC IMPACTS WATANA PEAK CONSTRUCTION YEAR,1990 ...... Socioeconomic Variable FERC License Application Impact Projections (Projected in 1982) Revised Impact Projections (Projected in 1983) Employment (Manpower)1/ Transportation Scenario Car Bus - Baseline With-Project Impact Population (People) Baseline With-project Population Impact Households (Occupied Units) Baseline With-pro jec t Impact 2/ 2/ 240 1,000 1,335 335 334 451 117 2/ 2/ 95 457 652 .... 195 149 208 59 2/ 2/ 103 457 666 209 149 214 65 1/Employment is by place of residence. 2/Employment at the community level was not projected. Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983. ;. -- - TABLE 3 COMMUNITY OF TALKEETNA ECONOMIC/DEMOGRAPHIC IMPACTS FIRST YEAR OF FULL OPERATION,2002 Socioeconomic Variable FERC License Application Impact Projections (Projected in 1982) Revised Impact Projections (Projected in 1983) .....Transportation Scenario Car Bus - ,..., Employment (Manpower)Y Baseline With-Project Impact Population (People) Baseline With-project Population Impact Households (Occupied Units) Baseline With-project Impact 2/ 2/ 6 1,814 2,023 209 683 755 72 2/ 2/ 4 821 968 147 284 330 46 2/ 2/ 4 821 975 154 284 332 48 ..... - ..... 1/Employment is by place of residence. 2/Employment at the community level was not projected • Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983. 0354h Socioeconomic Variable TABLE 4 COMMUNITY OF TALKEETNA l/ FACILITIES/SERVICES IMPACTS WATANA PEAK CONSTRUCTION YEAR,1990 FERC License Application Impact Projections (Projected in 1982) Revised Impact Projections (Projected in 1983) Primary School Children: Transportation Scenario Car Bus Baseline Wi th -pro jec t Impact of ~roject Capaci ty !:..! Project-Related Increase 1! Percent of Capacity Utilizatio~ Secondary School Children:5/ Baseline With-project Impact of Project Project-Related Increase 3/ Total School Enrollment: Baseline With-project Impact of Project Project-Related Increase 3/ 126 164 48 120 30.2% 136.6% 107 138 41 38.3% 233 302 69 29.6% 57 86 29 100 50.8% 86.0% 49 74 25 44.9% 106 160 54 50.9% 57 88 31 100 54.3% 88.0% 49 75 26 53.0% 106 163 57 53.7% 1/The Talkeetna area was defined differently in the license application and in the current version of the Susitna model.In the current version,the Talkeetna area corresponds to the townsite area or that used in the socioeconomic surveys.In the license application,the Talkeetna area also included the area along the Talkeetna Spur Road. 2/Includes existing and planned capacity.Capacity estimates projections were from 1981.Estimates for revised projections 1983. for FERC were from 3/Calculated by dividing the impact number by the baseline number. Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983......: 4/ 5/ Calculated by dividing the with-project number by the capacity number. There are no secondary schools located in Talkeetna • 6 ,....Socioeconomic Variable TABLE 5 COMMUNITY OF TALKEETNA 1./ FACILITIES/SERVICES IMPACTS FIRST FULL YEAR OF OPERATION,2002 FERC License Application Impact Projections (Projected in 1982) Revised Impact Projections (Projected in 1983) Primary School Children: Transportation Scenario Car Bus Baseline With-project Impact of Project Capacity Y Project-Related Increase 11 Percent of Capacity Utilizatio~ Secondary School Children:5/ Baseline With-project Impact of Project Project-Related Increase 3/ Total School Enrollment: Baseline With-project Impact of Project Project-Related Increase 3/ 245 270 25 120 10.2% 225.0% 209 231 22 11.0% 454 501 47 10.4% 111 133 22 100 19.8% 133.0% 94 113 19 20.2% 205 246 41 20.0% 111 135 24 100 21.6% 135.0% 94 114 20 21.2% 205 249 44 21.4% 1/The Talkeetna area was defined differently in the license application and in the current version of the Susitna model.In the current version,the Talkeetna area corresponds to the townsi te area or that used in the socioeconomic surveys.In the license application,the Talkeetna area also included the area along the Talkeetna Spur Road. ..... I 2/ 3/ 4/ Includes existing and planned capacity.Capacity estimates for FERC projections were from 1981.Estimates for revised projections were from 1983. Calculated by dividing the impact number by the baseline number. Calculated by dividing the with-project number by the capacity number • 5/There are no secondary schools located in Talkeetna. Source:Frank Orth"&Associates,Inc.,1983. 7 - ..... - ..... - - COMMUNITY OF TRAPPER CREEK - - - 5.0 COMMUNITY OF TRAPPER CREEK SUMMARY OF SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT PROJECTIONS 5.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter summarizes and compares the projected impacts of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project on the community of Trapper Creek.The following tables present the baseline,with-project,and impact forecasts for the FERC License Application and for the two transportation scenarios in the 1983 revised projections.Table 1 presents the population forecasts for each of these scenarios annually from 1985 to 2002.Tables 2 and 3 show the employment,population,and housing demand forecasts for the years 1990 (peak construction)and 2002 (full operations).Tables 4 through 5 summarize the facilities/services forecasts for the same two years. 5.2 KEY CHANGES Table 1 presents the baseline,with-project,and impact population pro- jections for each of the three scenarios under consideration.In all cases,the impact populati0!1 peaks in 199'0 and falls until 1995 before rising to a lower peak in 1999.Thereafter,population falls toward a more stable long-term pattern during the operations period for the hydro- electric project. As shown in these tables,the main differences between the FERC license application projections and the revised forecasts developed in 1983 are: 1.lower baseline population projections in the 1983 forecasts (see changes in community boundaries,section 2.3.2.11); - ,.,... 2.lower with-project and impact population projections in the 1983 forecasts except for 1985 and 1986,although differences in impact population narrow after 1990 (see changes in outmigration rates,section 2.3.2.6); 1 .- - 3. 4. higher with-project and impact.population forecasts for the bus transportation scenario than the revised car transportation scenario,impact population is 6 to 10 percent higher over the projection period under the bus transportation scenario; lower impact employment by place of residence in the 1983 fore- casts,revised car and bus transportation scenarios are 46 per- cent and 50 percent of the FERC projections,respectively,in 1990; 5.lower baseline,with-project,and impact household projections in the 1983 forecasts; ,- - 6.lower baseline and impact school children enrollments for both the primary and secondary ages groups in the 1983 forecasts but differences in the number of impact school children become smaller under 1983 forecasts after 1990;and - '"'" - 7.higher school capacity estimates in the 1983 forecasts. 2 - TABLE 1 COMMUNITY OF TRAPPER CREEK POPULATION PROJECTIONS~FERC LICENSE APPLICATION SCENARIO~ AND 1983 REVISED CAR AND BUS TRANSPORTATION SCENARIOS ~ 1985-2002 Year FERC License Application Revised Impact Projections With-Project and Impact With-Project and Impact Population Projections Population Projections Personal Vehicle Transportation Scenario Transportation Scenario Car Bus Baseline W-Proj.Impact Baseline W-Proj.Impact W-Proj.Impact 1985 263 295 32 246 324 78 332 86 1986 274 317 43 255 362 107 368 113 1987 285 526 241 266 396 130 409 143 1988 296 633 337 276 469 193 479 203 1989 308 686 378 287 504 217 528 241 1990 320 795 475 299 584 285 608 309 1991 333 784 451 311 589 278 613 302 1992 346 733 387 323 583 260 604 281 1993 360 648 288 336 569 233 589 253 1994 375 625 250 349 571 222 592 243 1995 390 617 227 363 582 219 595 232 1996 406 653 -247 378 600 222 620 242 1997 422 700 278 393 628 235 644 251 1998 439 745 306 409 650 241 667 258 1999 456 770 314 425 666 241 689 264 2000 474 776 302 442 679 237 696 254 2001 493 749 256 460 680 220 700 240 2002 513 725 212 478 689 211 702 224 Source:FrankOrth &Associates~Inc.,1983. - TABLE 2 - - Socioeconomic Variable COMMUNITY OF TRAPPER CREEK ECONOMIC/DEMOGRAPHIC IMPACTS WATANA PEAK CONSTRUCTION YEAR,1990 FERC License Application Impact Projections (Projected in 1982) Revised Impact Projections (Projected in 1983) Transportation Scenario Car Bus 1/Employment is by place of residence. 2/Employment at the community level was not projected. -. - - Employment (Manpower)1/ Baseline With-Project Impact Population (People) Baseline With-project Population Impact Households (Occupied Units) Baseline With-project Impact 2/ 2/ 239 320 795 475 107 275 168 2/ 2/ 110 299 584 285 97 • 183 86 2/ 2/ 120 299 608 309 97 191 94 -. - - - Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983. TABLE 3 COMMUNITY OF TRAPPER CREEK ECONOMIC/DEMOGRAPHIC IMPACTS FIRST YEAR OF FULL OPERATION,2002 Socioeconomic Variable FERC License Application Impact Projections (Projected in 1982) Revised Impact Projections (Projected in 1983) Transportation Scenario Car Bus - - Employment (Manpower)1/ Baseline With-Project Impact Population (People) Baseline With-project Population Impact Households (Occupied Units) Baseline With-project Impact 2/ 2/ 6 513 725 212 193 266 73 2/ 2/ 4 478 689 211 165 230 65 2/ 2/ 4 478 702 224 165 234 69 - 1/Employment is by place of residence. 2/Employment at the community level was not projected. Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983. 0355h TABLE 4 COMMUNITY OF TRAPPER CREEK FACILITIES/SERVICES IMPACTS WATANA PEAK CONSTRUCTION YEAR,1990 Socioeconomic Variable FERC License Application Impact Projections (Projected in 1982) Revised Impact Projections (Projected in 1983) ..... Pr-imary School Children: Transportation Scenario Car Bus - ..... - - -. Baseline With-project Impact of Project Capacity l./ Project-Related Increase ~ Percent of Capacity Utilizatio~ Secondary School Children:5/ Baseline With-project Impact of Project Project-Related Increase 3/ Total School Enrollment: Baseline With-project Impact of Project Project-Related Increase 3/ 40 !/ 153 75 30 282.5% 510.0% 34 92 58 170.5% 112 245 133 118.8% 37 78 41 50 110.8% 156.0% 32 67 35 109.3% 69 145 76 110.1% 37 81 44 50 118.9% 162.0% 32 70 38 118.7% 69 151 82 118.8% -. - 1/ 2/ 3/ 4/ 5/ The FERC License Application projections included an estimate of school children from Trapper Creek,shown above,and in addition,a projection of the enrollment in the Trapper Creek elementary school of 78 students in 1990.The Trapper Creek elementary school serves a wide area in the northern part of the Mat-Su Borough.The numbers in this table only refer to the school children expected to be living in Trapper Creek. Includes existing and planned capacity.Capacity estimates for FERC projections were from 1981.Estimates for revised projections were from 1983. Calculated by dividing the impact number by the baseline number. Calculated by dividing the with-project number by the capacity number. There are no secondary schools located in Trapper Creek. Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983. 6 -- - TABLE 5 COMMUNITY OF TRAPPER CREEK FACILITIES/SERVICES IMPACTS FIRST YEAR OF FULL OPERATION~2002 Transportation Scenario Car Bus- Socioeconomic Variable Primary School Children: FERC License Application Impact Projections (Projected in 1982) Revised Impact Projections (Projected in 1983) - Baseline With-project Impact of Project Capacity 'l:../Project-Relat~d Increase 11 Percent of Capacity Utilizatio~/ Secondary School Children:5/ Baseline Wi th-pro jec t Impact of Project Project-Related Increase 11 Total School Enrollment: Baseline With-project Impact of Project Project-Related Increase 3/ 69 1/ 94 25 30 36.2% 313.0% 59 81 22 37.7% 128 175 47 26.9% 65 96 31 50 47.6% 192.0% 55 82 27 49.0% 120 178 58 48.3% 65 98 33 .50 50.7% 196.0% 55 83 28 50.9% 120 181 61 50.8% 1/ - The FERC License Application projections included an estimate of school children from Trapper Creek~shown above,and in addition,a projection of the enrollment in the Trapper Creek elementary school of 78 students in 1990.The Trapper Creek elementary school serves a wide area in the northern part of the Mat-Su Borough.The numbers in this table only refer to the school children expected to be living in Trapper Creek. 2/Includes existing and planned capacity.Capacity estimates for FERC projections were from 1981.Estimates for revised projections were from 1983. 4/Calculated by dividing the with-project number by the capacity number.-3/ 5/ Calculated by dividing the impact number by the baseline number. There are no secondary schools located in Trapper Creek. -Source:Frank Orth &Associates~Inc.,1983. 6 - ,- - ..... - - COMMUNITY OF CANTWELL - ..... - 6.0 COMMUNITY OF CANTWELL SUMMARY OF SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT PROJECTIONS 6.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter summarizes and compares the projected impacts of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project on the community of Cantwell.In the Federal Ener- gy Regulatory Commission (FERC)"license application,two scenarios re- J.ated to the presence or absence of a land constraint in Cantwell were reported.Presently,the Ahtna Native Regional Corporation owns most of the private land in the community so that any significant expansion will require the consent of,and support by,the Corporation.This aspect of the community's response to the Susi tna Hydroelec tric Pro jec twas di s- cussed in the FERC license application and has not been repeated here. In the 1983 revised projections,two transportation scenarios that in- clude a "no land constraint"assumption were presented.One scenario considers personal vehicle transportation and the other considers bus transportation.These two scenarios reflect updates of baseline informa- tion that were available ·from secondary sources and the socioeconomic surveys conducted in October 1983,as well as enhancements that were made to the economic-demographic module used for project planning • The present model uses an attraction-constrained gravity model to redis- tribute population among local impact area communities and is not capable of dealing with supply constraints such as the availability of land. However,it is expected that impact projections using updated baseline information would be about the same as those shown in the FERC license application scenario that includes a land constraint. The following tables present the baseline,with-project,and impact fore- casts for the FERC License Application and for the two transportation scenarios in the 1983 revised projections. 1 ,- - ..... Table 1 presents the population forecasts for each of these scenarios annually from 1985 to 2002.Tables_2 and 3 show the employment,popula- tion,and housing demand forecasts for the years 1990 (peak construction) and 2002 (full operations).Tables 4 through 5 summarize the facilitiesl services forecasts for the same two years. 6.2 KEY CHANGES Table 1 presents the baseline,with-project,and impact population pro- jections for each of the four scenarios under consideration.In all cases,the impact population peaks in 1990 and falls until 1995 before rising to a lower peak in 1999.Thereafter,population falls toward a more stable long-term pattern during the operations period of the hydro- electric project. As shown in these tables,the main differences between the FERC license application projections and the revised forecasts developed in 1983 are: 1.higher baseline population projections in the 1983 forecasts; - - 2. 3. lower with-project and impact population projections in the 1983 forecasts except for 1986,although differences in impact popu- lation narrow after 1990 (see changes in outmigration rates, section 2.3.2.6); higher with-project and impact population forecasts for the bus transportation scenario than the revised car transportation scenario,impact population is 6 to 8 percent higher over the projection period under the bus transportation scenario; ,..., 4.lower impact employment by place of residence in the 1983 fore- casts,revised car and bus transportation scenarios are 88 per- cent and 95 percent of the FERC projections,respectively,in 1990; 2 5.higher baseline and lower with-project and impact household projections in the 1983 forecasts;and - - - - 6.higher baseline,with-project,and impact school children en- rollments in the 1983 forecasts. 3 - - - - TABLE 1 COMMUNITY OF CANTWELL POPULATION PROJECTIONS.FERC LICENSE APPLICATION SCENARIO. AND 1983 REVISED CAR AND BUS TRANSPORTATION SCENARIOS, 1985-2002 Year FERC License Application Revised Impact Projections With-Project and Impact With-Project and Impact Population Projections Population Projections Land No Land Transportation Scenario Constraint Constraint Car Bus Basel.W-Proj.Impact W-Proj •.Impact Basel.W-Proj.Impact W-Proj.Impact 1985 194 424 230 624 430 201 569 368 596 395 1986 198 428 230 653 455 205 693 488 720 515 1987 202 367 165 840 638 209 581 372 611 402 1988 206 384 178 980 774 213 748 535 786 573 1989 210 394 184 1.053 843 217 835 618 880 663 1990 214 412 198 1,214 1,000 222 1,019 797 1,080 858 1991 219 416 197 1,203 984 226 1.006 780 1,068 842 1992 223 417 194 1,184 961 231 964 733 1,020 789 1993 228 418 190 1,148 920 235 901 666 949 714 1994 232 362 130 1,026 794 240 880 640 930 690 1995 237 366 129 "1.022 785 245 872 627 919 674 1996 241 370 129 1,026 785 250 891 641 941 691 1997 246 375 129 1.039 793 255 926 671 975 720 1998 251 381 130 1,047 796 260 952 692 1,001 741 1999 256 386 130 1,044 788 265 966 701 1,019 754 2000 261 391 130 1.028 767 270 962 692 1,013 743 2001 267 395 128 1.011 744 276 925 649 973 697 2002 262 387 125 1,016 744 281 900 619 938 657 Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983. - 1/Employment is by place of residence. 2/Employment at the community level was not projected. Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983. 5 TABLE 3 r ! -r Socioeconomic Variable COMMUNITY OF CANTWELL ECONOMIC/DEMOGRAPHIC IMPACTS FIRST YEAR OF FULL OPERATION,2002 FERC License Application Impact Projections (Projected in 1982) Revised Impact Projections (Projected in 1983) Employment (Manpower)1/ Land No Land Constraint Constraint Transportation Scenario Car Bus .... Baseline With';"Project Impact Population (People) 2/ 2/ 7 2/ 2/ 16 0 'l:./ 2/ 10 2/ 2/ 10 '""" - Baseline 272 With-project Population 397 Impact 125 Households (Occupied Units). 272 1,016 744 281 900 619 281 938 657 Baseline Wi th-project Impact 99 141 42 99 349 250 101 287 186 101 298 197 1/Employment is by place of residence. 2/Employment at the community level was not projected. Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983. 6 - TABLE 4 COMMUN ITY OF CANTWELL FACILITIES/SERVICES IMPACTS WATANA PEAK CONSTRUCTION YEAR,1990 r- I Socioeconomic Variable FERC License Application Impact Projections (Projected in 1982) Revised Impact Projections (Projected in 1983) School Children:1/ Land Constraint No Land Constraint Transportation Scenario Car Bus - Baseline With-project Impact of Project Capacity 2! Project-ReI.Increase 4/ %of Cap.Utilization ~ Police:Y Baseline With-project Impact of Project No.of Police Personnel Project-ReI.Increase 4/ %Inc.Over Existing Staff 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 39 189 150 60 384.6% 315.0% 1 6 5 1 500.0% 600.0% 40 257 217 60 542.5% 428.3% 1 6 5 1 500.0% 600.0% 40 274 234 60 585.0% 456.7% 1 6 5 1 500.0% 600.0% - 1/ 2/ 3/ Cantwell has only one school that contains grades K-12. Facili ty and service requirements were only projected for the No Land Constraint scenario. Includes existing and planned capacity.Capacity estimates for FERC projections were from 1981.Estimates for revised projections were from 1983. 4/Calculated by dividing the impact number by the baseline number. 5/Calculated by dividing the with-project number by the capacity number. - 6/The requirements for police at the Cantwell State Trooper post,related to the project,are calculated by adding the requirements related to project personnel projected to live in Cantwell and the requirements of the work camps.The work camps/village are expected to affect the Cantwell post because it will be the closest post to the work sites,by road. Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983. 7 TABLE 5 COMMUNITY OF CANTWELL FACILITIES/SERVICES IMPACTS FIRST YEAR OF FULL OPERATION,2002 ...Socioeconomic Variable FERC License Application Impact Projections (Projected in 1982) Revised Impact Projections (Projected in 1983) School Children:1/ Land Constraint No Land Constraint Transportation Scenario Car Bus .-Baseline With-project Impact of Project Capacity ~ Project-ReI.Increase 4/ %of Cap.Utilization 2! Police:!:! 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 49 117 68 60 138.8% 195.0% 50 218 168 60 336.0% 363.3% 50 228 178 60 356.0% 380.0% Baseline Wi th-projec t Impact of Project No.of Police Personnel Project-ReI.Increase 4/ %Inc.Over Existing Staff Jj 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 1 1 1 6 6 6 5 5 5 1 1 1 500.0%500.0% 500.0% 600.0%600.0%600.0% 1/ 2/ 3/ 4/ 5/ 6/ Cantwell has only one school that contains grades K-12. Facility and service requirements were only projected for the No Land Constraint scenario. Includes existing and planned capacity.Capacity estimates for FERC projections were from 1981.Estimates for revised projections were from 1983. Calculated by dividing the impact number by the baseline number. Calculated by dividing the with-project number by the capacity number. The requirements for police at the Cantwell State Trooper post,related to the project,are calculated by adding the requirements related to project personnel projected to live in Cantwell and the requirements of the work camps.The work camps/village are expected to affect the Cantwell post because it will be the closest post to the work sites,by road. ,~ Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983. 8 .- - - - - ... - - MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE - - 7.0 MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE SUMMARY OF SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT PROJECTIONS 7.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter summarizes and compares the projected impacts of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project on the municipality of Anchorage.The following - tables present the baseline)with-project t and impact forecasts for the FERC License Application and for the two transportation scenarios in the 1983 revised projections.Table 1 presents the population forecasts for each of these scenarios annually from 1985 to 2002.Tables 2 and 3 show the employment)population)and housing demand forecasts for the years 1990 (peak construction)and 2002 (full operations). 7.2 KEY CHANGES Table 1 presents the baseline t with-project t and impact population pro- jections for each of the three scenarios under consideration.For the bilizing. FERC forecasts t the cumulative population influx peaks in 1990 and falls until 1995 before rising to.a lower peak in 1999.Thereafter t population falls toward a more stable long-term pattern during the operations period for the hydroelectric project.For the 1983 forecasts t the impact popu- lation grows after 1990 until 1995 t before declining to a lower level in -, 1999.Thereafter t the impact population grows until 2002 before sta- - As shown in these tables t the main differences between the FERC license application projections and the revised forecasts developed in 1983 are: 1.lower baseline population projections in the 1983 forecasts except for 1985 and 1994; 2.lower with-project population projections in the 1983 forecasts except for 1985 and 1992 to 1995; 1 - 3.lower impact population projections in the 1983 forecasts until 1992,differences between impact population projections widen until 1995,narrow until 1999,and widen after 1999 (see changes in outmigration rates,sections 2.3.2.5 and 2.3.2.6); 3.higher with-project and impact population forecasts for the bus transportation scenario than the revised car transportation scenario in the years 1985,1992,1999,and 2002,travel time to project site does not change between scenarios,but relative travel time compared to Fairbanks does change slightly; - - - 4.lower impact employment by place of residence in the 1983 fore- casts until 1994,revised car and bus transportation scenarios are each 83 percent of the FERC projections in 1990; 5.lower baseline and with-project household projections in the 1983 forecasts except in 1990 to 1995;and 6.lower impact household projections in the 1983 forecasts until 1992. 2 - - - - ..... TABr,.E 1 MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE POPULATION PROJECTIONS,FERC LICENSE APPLICATION SCENARIO, AND 1983 REVISED CAR AND BUS TRANSPORTATION SCENARIOS, 1985-2002 Year FERC License Application Revised Impact Projections With-Project and Impact With-Project and Impact Population Projections ,Population Projections Personal Vehicle Transportation Scenario Transportation Scenario Car Bus Baseline W-Proj.Impact Baseline W-Proj.Impact W-Proj.Impact 1985 200·,962 201,394 432 203,106 203,248 142 203,251 145 1986 209,820 210,409 589 208,061 208,214 153 208,214 153 1987 217,298 217,623 325 210,290 210,111 -179 210,III -179 1988 222,731 223,213 482 212,003 212,012 9 212,012 9. 1989 224,822 225,359 537 216,719 216,811 92 216,811 92 1990 224,027 224,690 663 223,196 223,376 180 223,376 180 1991 226,005 226,561 556 223,780 223,977 197 223,977 197 1992 227,024 227,278 254 229,944 230,275 331 230,279 335 1993 229,940 229,721 -219 232,002 232,842 840 232,842 840 1994 232,299 231,894 -405 232,952 234,216 1,264 234,216 1,264 1995 234,507 233,984 -523 232,879 234,245 1,366 234,245 1,366. 1996 237,668 237,257 -411 233,733 234,996 1,263 234,996 1,263 1997 241,086 240,867 -219 235,060 236,282 1,222 236,282 1,222 1998 244,125 244,050 -75 235,981 237,175 1,194 237,175 1,194 1999 247,759 247,723 -36 236,936 238,116 1,180 238,119 1,183 2000 251,102 251,010 -92 238,077 239,277 1,200 239,277 1,200 2001 254,617 254,284 -333 239,256 240,540 1,284 240,540 1,284 2002 258,182 257,650 -532 240,532 242,205 1,673 242,208 1,676 Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983 • 3 """'I - Socioeconomic Variable TABLE 2 MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE' ECONOMIC/DEMOGRAPHIC IMPACTS WATANA PEAK CONSTRUCTION YEAR,1990 FERC License Application Impact Projections (Projected in 1982) Revised Impact Projections (Projected in 1983) r 1/Employment (Manpower) Transportation Scenario Car Bus 1/Employment is by place of residence. .... - - - Baseline With-Project Impact Population (People) Baseline With-project Population Impact Households (Occupied Units) Baseline With-project Impact 131,705 134,715 3,010 224,027 224,690 663 79,028 79,241 213 129,493 131,995 2,502 223,196 223,376 180 79,232 79,295 63 129,493 131,995 2,502 223,196 223,376 180 79,232 79,295 63 .... Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983 • - TABLE 3 MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE ECONOMIC/DEMOGRAPHIC IMPACTS FIRST FULL YEAR OF OPERATION,2002 Socioeconomic Variable FERC License Application Impact Projections (Projected in 1982) Revised Impact Projections (Projected in 1983) 1/Employment (Manpower) Transportation Scenario Car Bus r ,- Baseline With-Project Impact Population (People) Baseline With-project Population Impact Households (Occupied Units), Baseline With-project Impact 160,611 160,765 154 258,182 257,650 -532 97,209 97,038 -171 146,105 146,417 312 240,532 242,205 1,673 84,724 85,313 589 146,105 146,417 312 240,532 242,208 1,676 84,724 85,314 590 ,.- 1/Employment is by place of residence. Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983. 0357h 5 - r-, i ...... - - MUNICIPALITY OF FAIRBANKS ..... - -i I - - - 8.0 MUNICIPALITY OF FAIRBANKS SUMMARY OF SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT PROJECTIONS 8.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter summarizes and compares the projected impacts of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project on the municipality of Fairbanks.The following tables present the baseline.with-project,and impact forecasts for the FERC License Application and for the two transportation scenarios in the 1983 revised projections.Table 1 presents the population forecasts for each of these scenarios annually from 1985 to 2002.Tables 2 and 3 show the employment,population,and housing demand forecasts for the years 1990 (peak construction)and 2002 (full operations). 8.2 KEY CHANGES Table 1 presents the baseline.with-project,and impact population pro- jections for each of the three scenarios under consideration.In the FERC forecasts.the project's population impact is positive only in 1985 and 1986.The project caus~s net outmigration in all other years of the projection.In the 1983 forecasts,the population impact of the project is negative between 1985 and 1993 and between 1998 and 2000.The project causes a positive population impact between 1994 and 1997 and after 2001. As shown in these tables.the main differences between the FERC license application projections and the revised forecasts developed in 1983 are: 1.higher baseline and with-project population projections in the 1983 forecasts; 2.lower impact population projections in the 1983 forecasts until 1991; 1 3.slightly lower with-project and impact population forecasts for the bus transportation scenario than the revised car transpor- tation scenario in most years;travel time to project site in- creases slightly in the bus transportation scenario compared to the car transportation scenario; - 4.higher impact employment by place of residence in the 1983 fore- casts until 2002,revised car and bus transportation scenarios are over 13 percent higher than the FERC projections in 1990, net outmigration occurs because all workers originally from Fairbanks do not remain,some relocate to the local impact area; 5. 6. higher baseline and with-project household projections in the 1983 forecasts;and higher impact household projections in the 1983 forecasts after 1989. 2 - - - - TABLE 1 MUNICIPALITY OF FAIRBANKS POPULATION PROJECTIONS,FERC LICENSE APPLICATION SCENARIO, AND 1983 REVISED CAR AND BUS TRANSPORTATION SCENARIOS, 1985-2002 Year FERC License Application Revised Impact Projections With-Project and Impact With-Project and Impact Population Projections Population Projections Personal Vehicle Transportation Scenario Transportation Scenario Car Bus Baseline W-Proj.Impact Baseline W-Proj.Impact W-Proj.Impact. 1985 28,798 28,880 82 30,370 30,322 -48 30,318 -52 1986 31,807 31,914 107 31,536 31,457 -79 31,453 -83 1987 31,392 31,303 -89 32,654 32,476 -178 32,469 -185 1988 29,485 29,365 -120 33,478 33,238 -240 33,232 -246 1989 29,568 29,432 -136 34,631 34,363 -268 34,360 -271 1990 29,628 29,455 -173 36,266 36,070 -196 36,066 -200 1991 29,892 29,721 -171 37,149 36,986 -163 36,982 -167 1992 30,312 30,099 -213 38,295 38,135 -160 38,131 -164 1993 30,887 30,607 -280 39,803 39,766 -37 39,763 -40 1994 31,366 31,060 -306 41,358 41,411 53 41,411 53 1995 31,886 31,563 "-323 42,177 42,270 93 42,266 89 1996 32,496 32,184 -312 43,198 43,257 59 43,257 59 1997 33,145 32,850 -295 44,320 44,348 28 44,345 25 1998 33,844 33,568 -276 45,391 45,363 -28 45,360 -31 1999 34,555 34,284 -271 46,483 46,452 -31 46,449 -34 2000 35,266 34,993 -273 47,681 47,675 -6 47,672 -9 2001 36,300 35,991 -309 49,097 49,021 76 49,021 76 2002 37,041 36,700 -341 50,241 50,422 181 50,418 177 Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983. 3 ..... TABLE 2 MUNICIPALITY OF FAIRBANKS ECONOMIC/DEMOGRAPHIC IMPACTS WATANA PEAK CONSTRUCTION YEAR,1990 Socioeconomic Variable FERC License Application Impact Projections (Projected in 1982) Revised Impact Projections (Projected in 1983) Employment (Manpower)1/ Transportation Scenario Car Bus 1/Employment is by place of residence. - - - Baseline With-Project Impact Population (People) Baseline With-project Population Impact Households (Occupied Units) Baseline With-project Impact 2/ 2/ 705 29,628 29,455 -173 11,104 11,048 -56 2/ 2/ 800 36,266 36,070 -196 13,537 13,505 -32 2/ 2/ 798 36,266 36,066 -200 13,537 13,504 -33 2/Employment at the community level was not projected. Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983. 4 TABLE 3 MUNICIPALITY OF FAIRBANKS ECONOMIC/DEMOGRAPHIC IMPACTS FIRST FULL YEAR OF OPERATION,2002 Socioeconomic Variable FERC License Application Impact Projections (Projected in 1982) Revised Impact Projections (Projected in 1983) 1/Employment (Manpower) Transportation Scenario Car Bus Baseline With-Project Impact Population (People) Baseline With-project Population Impact Households (Occupied Units) Baseline Wi th-project Impact 2/ 2/ 40 37,041 36,700 -341 15,287 15,177 -llO 2/ 2/ 31 50,241 50,422 181 17,874 17,905 31 2/ 2/ 30 50,241 50,418 177 17,874 17,904 30 1/Employment is by place of residence. 2/Employment at the community level was not projected. Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983. 0358h 5