Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA1858____...-ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY _-_-.I FINAL REPORT JULV 1984 DOCUMENT No.1858 ANCHORAGE/FAIRBANKS INTERTIE TRANSMISSION LINE ,WORKER SURVEY:FALL 1983 ~~=[g~~®©@ ~A JOINT VENTURE OONTRACT TO _.."~OfrrH &ASSOCIATES,INC. TK 1425 ,S8 F472 nO.1858 w ~ 0;@I ~/-i--'---------------------, ~-...,ffi til i!------------------------, o~~0==;I 2:11 SUSITNAw-I:l::i~;I HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT~~l < C»~o FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION PROJECT No.7114 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Document No. Susitna File No. 1858 4.5.2.1 .- - ANCHORAGE/FAIRBANKS INTERTIE TRANSMISSION LINE WORKER SURVEY:FALL 1983 Report by Frank Orth &Associates,Inc. Under Contract to Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture Prepared for Alaska Power Authority -Fi na 1 Report July 1984 ARLIS Alaska Resources Library &Information Servtces J\nchorage,AJaska - .... .... ANY QUEST:IONS OR COMMENTS CONCERNING .TH:IS RBPOR'%SHOULD DB D:IRECTED TO THE ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SUS:ITliA PROJEC-r OFF:ICB - - ..... ,..., TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF EXHIBITS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY 2.1 BACKGROUND 2.2 OBJECTIVES 2.3 METHODOLOGY AND RESPONSE RATE 3.0 KEY FINDINGS 3.1 PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS 3.2 LOCAL AND ALASKA EMPLOYMENT 3.3 WOMEN IN THE WOR]{FORCE 3.4 UNION STATUS OF WORK FORCE 3.5 WORKER IN-MIGRATION 3.6 DEPENDENTS ACCOMPANYING NON-LOCAL WORKERS 3.7 HOUSING 3.8 PLANS TO REMAIN IN COMMUNITY 3.9 COMPARISON TO SUSITNA MODEL ASSUMPTIONS 4.0 DETAILED RESULTS i PAGE ii 1 2 2 2 3 5 5 5 {) 6 7 8 10 10 11 14 .- EXHIBIT 29 30 31 32 33 LIST OF EXHIBITS (CONT.) CANTWELL WORKERS -UNION STATUS BY PRIOR LOCATION TALKEETNA WORKERS -UNION STATUS BY PRIOR LOCATION CANTWELL WORKERS -UNION STATUS BY OCCUPATION TALKEETNA WORKERS -UNION STATUS BY OCCUPATION ALL WORKERS -UNION STATUS BY OCCUPATION iii PAGE 42 43 44 45 46 - ..,.. 1.0 INTRODUCTION A survey of workers employed in the construction of the Alaska Power Authority's Intertie Transmission Line (Intertie)was conducted in October 1983.The survey was conducted to support the needs of the Social Science Program of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. The purpose of the survey was to provide information on the characteris- tics of people working on transmission line construction in the area of the proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project's proposed transmission line. Workers were asked questions about their prior and present residence; number,residence and employment status of dependents;housing;union status;and post-project plans. r-This survey was conducted early in the construction process;site clear- ing and construction on this project began in 1983.At the time of the survey,brushcuttets and foundation workers comprised the largest compo--nents of the Intertie work force.Field personnel associa:ted with the - - construction management and engineering portions of the project were also surveyed.An additional survey will be conducted in 1984 during later stages of project construction. Information gained from this and the subsequent Intertie worker survey will be used to refine the assumptions on work force characteristics and relocation patterns that are applied in the model used to project soeio- economic impacts of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. 1 .... - 2.0 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY 2.1 BACKGROUND The Alaska Power Authority is constructing a 170 mile,345kV trans- mission line between Willow and Healy.The Intertie line will link the electric power distribution systems in Anchorage and Fairbanks. There are two general contractors on the Intertie Project.The northern portion of the project is being constructed by Susitna Constructors,with project headquarters located in Cantwell.Irby-Northface Joint Venture is the contractor for the southern portion of the line,with project headquarters in Talkeetna. The two contractors have used different work force management tech- niques.Susitna Constructors is using union labor and is providing hous- ing for'workers whereas Irby-Northface JV is using non-union labor and only provides housing for administrative/engineering employees. Morrison-Knudsen is the Intertie construction manager;Commonwealth Associates is the design engineer. 2.2 OBJECTIVES This survey effort was developed in order to obtain information that could be used to evaluate assumptions made in the Susitna Hydroelectric Project socioeconomic impact model.Two categories of information were sought: 1.Information on the characteristics of construction workers in Alaska. -2.Information on the effect of project management decisions (such as the use of union labor and the provision of housing)on the origin and relocation pattern of construction workers. 2 In addition,the project team adopted survey methods designed to be meth- odologically sound and feasible under field conditions.The question- naire was designed so that it could be administered at various stages of the project. 2.3 METHODOLOGY AND RESPONSE RATE Questionnaires were prepared on 5"by 8"cards that were distributed by the contractors to all workers on the Intertie Project in October 1983. A copy of the survey instrument is displayed in Figure 1. Approximately 148 questionnaires were distributed,and 88 responses were received.The following tabulation presents the response rate,by com- munity: .- .- Cantwell Talkeetna Total Number of Responses 45 43 88 3 Number Distributed 46 102 148 Percent Response Rate 98% 42% 59% j- .j I 1 j 1 1 J .1 J i - -}~ FIGURE 1 CONSTRUCTION HORKER SURVEY INSTRUMENT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY ANCHORAGE/FAIRBANKS INTERTIE WORKER SURVEY State tent ----other ? 1.What do you do on the Intertie Project?_ 2.Is your job:union ;non-union 3.What town do you live in now during the week?_ 4.What type of housing do you live in now during the week?(Check one) housing provided by employer travel trailer apartment=====lodge/hotel/motel =====mobile home =====house 5.What town do you usually live in on weekends and during other time off from work? Town ;State _ 6.What town did you live in,before you took this job?Town _ ~ IF YOU HAVE DEPENDENTS.PLEASE ANSWER QUESTION #7.IF YOU DO NOT.PLEASE SKIP TO QUESTION #8. 7a.What town did your dependents live in before you took this job? Town ;State ----------------- 7b.What town do your dependents live in now?Town ;State ___ 7c.What are the ages of each of your dependents?------------------- 7d.'How many of your dependents are currently employed?----------------8.Where do you plan to live after your job on this project is completed? Town ;State ---------------- 9.What is your age?------------ 10.Ma 1e :Fema 1e THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION. (See reverse side of card for more information about this survey.) - 3.0 KEY FINDINGS 3.1 PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS 1.Eighty-nine percent of the respondents were male,11 percent were female. 2.The largest categories of workers were:construction trades, mostly involved in laying foundations (24%);brushcutters and treefe11ers (23%);managers (13%);quality assurance employees (10%);engineering and surveying personnel (8%);and clerical workers (8%). 3.Approximately 36 percent of the responding workers indicated they held union jobs. 4.The average age of the respondents was about 36 years old. 3.2 LOCAL AND ALASKA EMPLOY]1ENT Overall,77 percent of the workers in the survey were residents of Alaska 1/prior to beginning work on the project.Thirty-three percent of the workers were from Anchorage and Fairbanks. As shown below,the Talkeetna portion of the project hired a signifi- cantly larger percentage of local residents (residents of the community or nearby areas within daily commuting distance)but a lower percentage of Alaska residents than the Cantwell portion: Local Hire Alaska Hire Talkeetna Portion 38% 68% Cantwell Portion 7% 85% -1.1 For purposes of this report,the term "Alaska resident"refers to an individual who lived in Alaska prior to beginning work on the project. 5 -- The relatively low percentage of Alaska hire in Talkeetna may be related to the fact that a larger portion of the respondents in that community were administrative/engineering employees,and thus not subject to the Alaska hire requirements.The union status of the Cantwell portion of the project appears to be partially responsible for the relatively low local hire in that community. In addition,it appeared that the use of union workers on the Cantwell portion of the project had a significant effect on the origin of the non-local work force.A large group of respondents from the Cantwell portion of the project were from Anchorage and Fairbanks (62%),large urban areas in which union hiring halls are located.In contrast,only 2 percent of the Talkeetna respondents were from Anchorage and none had lived in Fairbanks before they took the job on the Intertie Project. Local workers received jobs of all kinds on the project.They were strongly represented in the clerical and machine trades categories.}/ Local workers accounted for 63 percent and 50 percent of the total jobs in those categories,respectively. 3.3 WOMEN IN THE WORK FORCE Ten of the 87 respondents that answered the question on gender were women.Eighty percent of the women in the survey worked in Talkeetna. Approximately 60 percent of the women held clerical positions;the re- maining female respondents held the following types of positions: manager/foreman,laborer,quality assurance,and brushcutter. 3.4 UNION STATUS Union status differed dramatically among the two groups.In Cantwell, over two-thirds of the workers held union jobs.In Talkeetna,none of the respondel}ts had union jobs.Overall,union employees accounted for 36%of the survey respondents. 1/Includes mechanics and operators of machinery and equipment. 6 - Approximately 24 percent of the professional/technical/managerial em- ployees of the project belonged to unions.Over 70 percent of the union workers had lived in Anchorage or Fairbanks prior to joining the project. 3.5 WORKER IN-MIGRATION During the work week,all workers on the Intertie Project lived in or near Cantwell or Talkeetna,the communities serving as staging sites for the two contractors.Overall,the workers can be divided into two groups -- locals and non-locals -depending upon their relationship to the local communities and labor force.Non-locals can be further delineated into movers and weekly commuters,as indicated below: Locals -Individuals from the local work force who lived in or near Cantwell or Talkeetna prior to gaining employment on the Intertie Project.These workers did not change their place of residence due to their employment on the project and can also be considered non-movers. Non-Locals -1.Movers -Individuals from outside the local area who moved their weekend residence after obtaining this job.In most cases,these workers moved their weekend residence to Cantwell or Talkeetna.!/ 2:Weekly Commuters -Individuals whose previous residence was within weekend commuting distance from the staging site.These workers lived in Talkeetna or Cantwell dur- ing the work week,but commuted to their previous resi- dence during their time off. Overall,20.5 percent of the respondents (18 workers)were locals and 79.5 percent (70 workers)were non-locals.Of the non-locals,47 percent (33 workers)were weekly commuters and 53 percent (37 workers)were movers. !/The mover category includes four workers (two in the Cantwell survey and two in the Talkeetna survey)who moved from a prior residence to live in Talkeetna or Cantwell during the week,and a third location (usually Anchorage)during their weekends/time off (thus moving both their work week and weekend residences). 7 .... The survey results differed sharply for the two communities.In Cant- well,weekly commuters represented the·majority of the non-local work force (62 percent).In Talkeetna,most non-local workers were movers; weekly commuters represented only 25 percent of the non-local work force. Using these data and the information on response rates in Section 2.3, the total in-migration into the communities (includes survey respondents and workers that did not respond)can be estimated.In Cantwell,approx- imately 16 workers were movers and an additional 27 workers commuted weekly to the community.In Talkeetna,if survey results are representa- tive of the overall work force,approximately 50 workers were movers and an additional 17 workers commuted weekly to the community.It should be reiterated,however,that the relatively low response rate in Talkeetna makes generalizations from the survey results difficult to rely upon. This information is summarized below: Cantwell Survey Estimated Number Total Talkeetna Survey Estimated Number Total r - Movers Into Community 14 14 19 45 Movers Into Other Areas 2 2 2 5 Subtotal of Movers 16 16 21 50 Weekly Commuters 26 27 7 17 Total Non-Local Workers 42 43 28 67 3.6 DEPENDENTS ACCOMPANYlNG NON-LOCAL WORKERS As indicated above,79.5 percent of the workers surveyed were non-locals (Le.had not lived in the community prior to obtaining a job on the project).Questions about these workers'dependents yielded information on the population influx into the communities. Percent of Total Non- Number Local Workers Percent of Total Respondents - Non-local Workers Non-local Workers wI Dependents Non-local Workers wI Dependents Present 8 70 42 12 100.0% 60.0% 17.1% 79.5% 47.7% 13.6% Dependents could include spouses,children,or other individuals that live with the worker or that"are otherwise dependent on the worker for some amount of financial support. As shown in the tabulation above,60 percent of the in-migrant workers that were surveyed answered that they had dependents (53%in Cantwell, 72%in Talkeetna).However,only 12 of the 42 non-local workers working in Cantwell or Talkeetna,who had dependents,were accompanied by their dependents.Thus,17 percent of all non-local workers were accompanied by dependents. The survey showed an average of 0.39 dependents present in the"communi- ties per non-local worker,or 2.25 dependents per accompanied non-local worker.Approximately 16 school-age non-local workers with dependents present. school children per accompanied worker. children accompanied the 12 This equals an average of 1.3 The following tabulation shows the population in-migration for each Com- munity,in terms of both the survey respondents and the estimated total work force: Cantwell Survey Estimated Number Total Talkeetna Survey Estimated Number Total Workers that Moved 16 16 21 50 ......Weekly Commuter Workers 26 27 7 17 Dependents 13 13 14 33 Total Population In-migration*42 43 28 67 In-migrating Schoolchildren 9 9 7 17 *This definition of in-migration includes weekly commuters who are not-present in the community all seven days per week. Only two of the 27 non-local dependents that in-migrated into the local communities were employed.This results in approximately 0.17 employed dependent per accompanied non-local worker • ..... I -9 - - - 3.7 HOUSING Although there is some ambiguity in the information concerning types of housing reported by survey respondents,the data show clear differences in the patterns of housing utilization by the workers in the two portions of the project.These differences appear to result from differences in housing policies by the two contractors.In Cantwell,at least 58 per- cent of the work force Iived in housing provided by the employer;in addition,another 33 percent of the workers lived in single family homes, mobile homes and lodging that may have also been provided by the contrac- tor.In contrast,only 12 percent of the Talkeetna work force responded that they lived in employer-provided housing;an additional 19 percent living in mobile homes may have had their housing provided by the em- ployer as well.The majority (52%)11ved in single-family units. As would be expected,the majority of project workers that were accom- panied by their families resided in single family units and mobile homes (76%)• 3.8 PLANS TO REMAIN IN COMMUNITY Thirteen percent of the non-local workers who responded to this question indicated that they planned to remain in the community they were working in upon completion of the project.An additional 14 percent indicated that they were uncertain where they would live after the project is com- pleted.Fifteen of the 19 non-local workers who were considering remain- ing in the communities were in the Talkeetna portion of the project. It is interesting to note that intention to remain in the communities of Talkeetna and Cantwell was higher among weekly commuters than among movers.However,the reverse is true if those uncertain about remaining are included in the calculation: .Plan To Stay Weekly Commuters (n=33)18.2% Movers (n=37)8.1% Total (n=70)12.9% 10 Uncertain 3.0% 24.3% 14.2% Do Not Plan To Stay 78.9% 67.6% 72.9% The survey also showed that workers with dependents (whether present in the community or not)were more likely to plan to remain in the community than workers without dependents.However,this conclusion is based upon a relatively small sample,and thus should not be relied upon without further substantiation: Plan To Stay Do Not Plan To Stay Uncertain Workers wi Dependents (n=42) Workers wlo Dependents(n=28) Total (n=70) 16.6% 7.1% 12.9% 66.7% 82.1% 72.9% 16.6% 10.7% 14.2% ..... ..... -- ~, 3.9 COMPARISON TO SUSITNA MODEL ASSUMPTIONS Exhibit 1 contains a comparison of data from the Intertie survey with assumptions used in the Susitna socioeconomic impact model that were related to construction worker characteristics. 3.9.1 Method of Comparison Because of the complexity of the Susitna model projections,two aspects related to these figures should be noted.First,the model assumptions presented in Exhibit 1 are from the December 1983 update of the car transportation scenario,since these data are the most current and also represent the transportation scenario presented in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission License Application.Second,where an assump~ion varies over time,the 1990 figure is used. 3.9.2 Results of Comparison As Exhibit 1 shows,the Susitna model assumptions are very close to the data collected on worker origin from the Intertie work force in Cantwell, but differ substantially from data on the Talkeetna portion,and,there- fore,the total Intertie work force. The work force origin figures from the Cantwell survey are practically identical to the assumptions used in the Susitna model.For instance, the Susitna model assumes that 6 percent of the work force will be locals 11 ,.... ..... .- ~I (residents of the Local Impact Area),and that approximately 86 percent of the Susitna work force will be Alaskan residents,with 81 percent coming from the Railbelt.Correspondingly,the Cantwell portion of the Intertie survey showed 7 percent of the respondents to be locals and 85 percent to be Alaska residents,with 80 percent from the Railbelt. The Susitna model assumes that approximately 33 percent of the non-local work force would be movers.This is similar to data obtained in the Cantwell portion of the Intertie survey,in which 38 percent of the non-local work force were movers.For the Susitna Project,however,we recognize that employer-provided housing will not be sited in the communities (except for Railhead workers)and that this may affect the comparison made above. The close relationship between the Susitna model assumptions and the Cantwell Intertie work force may be related to the fact that the Susitna model assumed a unionized work force,and thus was directly comparable to the Cantwell portion of the Intertie • There are several-possible reasons for the difference between the Susitna model projections and the Talkeetna portion of the Intertie work force. First,the Talkeetna portion of the project did not have any union posi- tions,and thus the origin of the work force was different.In addition, the Talkeetna work force had a higher percentage of respondents that were administrative/engineering employees than the work force in Cantwell or the work force assumed for the Susi tna pro ject.Finally,the low res- ponse rate in Talkeetna causes some uncertainty as to whether the survey results in Talkeetna are representative of the ;overall work force. In the cases of two types of assumptions,the data on the Intertie work force differs substantially from the assumptions in the Susitna model. First,the Susitna model assumes that 90 percent of the workers who relocate their permanent residence in nearby communities will be accompanied by dependents,whereas in the Intertie survey,only 27 percent of the relocating respondents brought dependents to the community.However,it should be remembered that most unaccompanied workers on the Susitna Project are expected to reside at the work camp. 12 .... - Second,the Susitna model assumes that approximately 74 percent of the workers that in-migrate will remain in the Local Impact Area.The Inter- tie work force survey indicates that only about 20 percent are expected to remain.A significant difference in the Susitna projections and the Intertie work force was expected,in these types of characteristics, because of the differences in the length of the project construction periods. The two-year construction period of the Intertie Project would be expect- ed to cause different relocating behavior by workers than will occur on the Susitna project,which will be built over a seventeen-year period. However,such a 1arge·variance was not expected,and the Susitna assump- tions will be reevaluated in light of information from this and the sub- sequent Intertie survey • 13 4.0 DETAILED RESULTS ., EXHIBIT 1 COMPARISON OF SELECTED SURVEY RESULTS WITH ASSUMPTIONS USED IN THE SUSITNA SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT MODEL Susitna Model Assumptions !/ Intertie Survey Data Cantwell Talkeetna Total Percent Locals Percent Alaska Residents Origin of Work Force Rallbelt Other Alaska Out-of State Percent of Non-Local Workers That Are Movers Percent of Movers that are Accompanied by Dependents Number of Dependents Per Accompanied Worker Number of Schoolchildren Per Accompanied Worker Percent of Movers that Plan to Remain in Community 6% 86% 81% 5% 14% 33% 90% 2.51 1.003 74% 7% 85% 80% 4% 16% 38% 31% 2.17 1.5 38% 68% 56% 14% 30% 75% 24% 2.33 1.2 20% 77% 68% 9% 23% 53% 27% 2.25 1.3 20%'l:./ From the Susitna Hydroelectric Project Socioeconomic Impact model (December 1983 Update,Car Transportation Scenario). In the Intertie survey,respondents answered that they were planning to stay,not planning to stay,or uncertain.For purposes of this table,it was assumed that approximately 50 percent of those answer- ing "uncertain"would remain. 14 ..- I EXHIBIT 2 INTERTIE WORKERS BY OCCUPATION CANTWELL NUMBER PERCENT PROFESSIONAL,TECHNICAL,MANAGERS 15 33.3% CLERICAL,SALES 04 8.9% AGRICULTURE,FISHERY,FORESTRY 12 26.7% MACHINE TRADES !./02 4.4% STRUCTURAL 11 24.4% MINING 01 2/2% ,~ 45 99.9% .....TALKEETNA NUMBER PERCENT PROFESSIONAL,TECHNICAL,MANAGERS 14 33.3% CLERICAL,SALES 04 9.5% AGRICULTURE,FISHERY,FORESTRY 08 19.0% MACHINE TRADES !/06 14.3% STRUCTURAL 05 11.9% PACKAGING AND MATERIALS HANDLING 01 2.4% MINING 03 7.1%-MISCELLANEOUS 01 2.4% 42 99.9% NON RESPONSE 01 TOTAL NUMBER PERCENT PROFESSIONAL,TECHNICAL,MANAGERS 29 33.3% CLERICAL,SALES 08 9.2% AGRICULTURE,FISHERY,FORESTRY 20 23.0% MACHINE TRADES !/08 9.2% STRUCTURAL 16 18.4% PACKAGING AND MATERIALS HANDLING 01 1.1% MINING 04 4.6% .MISCELLANEOUS 01 1.1% 87 99.9% NON RESPONSE 01 1/Includes mechanics and operators of machinery and equipment. 15 16 .... YES NO NO YES NO EXHIBIT 4 IS YOUR JOB A UNION JOB? CANTWELL TALKEETNA TOTAL 17 NUMBER 32 13 45 NUMBER 43 43 NUMBER 32 56 88 PERCENT 71.1% 28.9% 100.0% PERCENT 100.0% 100.0% PERCENT 36.4% 63.6% 100.0% EXHIBIT 5 WHERE IS YOUR WORK WEEK RESIDENCE?1/ CANTWELL - .- CANTWELL TALKEETNA TRAPPER CREEK WILLOW. MONTANA CREEK TALKEETNA CANTWELL TRAPPER.CREEK WILLOW MONTANA CREEK TALKEETNA TOTAL NUMBER 45 45 NUMBER 40 1 1 1 43 NUMBER 40 45 1 1 1 88 PERCENT 100.0% 100.0% PERCENT 93.0% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 99.9% PERCENT 45.5% 51.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 99.9% 1:.1 Three workers indicated that they live in Anchorage or Fairbanks during the week.For purposes of this tabula- tion,it was assumed that these workers misunderstood the question and they were coded as residing during the week in the community in which they worked. 18 - ..... EXHIBIT 6 WHAT TYPE OF HOUSING DO YOU LIVE IN? 1/Because employer-provided housing could include other types of housing (for example,mobile homes,lodge/hotel/motel), these categories are not mutually exclusive and the results are somewhat ambiguous • 19 EXHIBIT 7 WHERE DO YOU LIVE ON THE WEEKEND OR ON YOUR TIME OFF? CANTWELL NUMBER PERCENT CANTWELL 15 34.1% OTHER MAT-SU 04 9.1% ANCHORAGE 09 20.5% FAIRBANKS 11 25.0% OTHER RAILBELT 02 4.5% OUT-OF-STATE 03 6.8% 44 100.0% NON RESPONSE 01 TALKEETNA NUMBER PERCENT TALKEETNA 34 79.1% TRAPPER CREEK 01 2.3% OTHER MAT-SU 05 11.6%.-ANCHORAGE 03 7.0% 43 100.0% TOTAL ~NUMBER PERCENT TALKEETNA 34 39.1% CANTWELL 15 17.2% TRAPPER CREEK 01 1.1% /~OTHER MAT-SU 09 10.3%_ ANCHORAGE 12 13.8% FAIRBANKS 11 12.6% OTHER RAILBELT 02 2.3% OUT-OF-STATE 03 3.4% .....87 99.8% NON RESPONSE 01 ...... -20 EXHIBIT 8 PRIOR LOCATION OR RESIDENCE CANTWELL r-NUMBER PERCENT CANTWELL 03 6.7% OTHER MAT-SU 03 6.7%-ANCHORAGE 16 35.6% FAIRBANKS 12 26.7% OTHER RAILBELT 02 4.4% OTHER ALASKA OUTSIDE RAILBELT 02 4.4% OUT-OF-STATE 07 15.6% 45 100.1% TALKEETNA NUMBER PERCENT TALKEETNA 15 34.9% TRAPPER CREEK 01 2.3% OTHER MAT-SU 07 16.3% ANCHORAGE 01 2.3% OTHER ALASKA OUTSIDE RAILBELT 06 14.0% OUT-OF-STATE 13 30.2%- 43 100.0%-TOTAL NUMBER PERCENT TALKEETNA 15 17.0% CANTWELL 03 3.4% TRAPPER CREEK 01 1.1% OTHER MAT-SU 10 11.4% ANCHORAGE 17 19.3%_ FAIRBANKS 12 13.6% OTHER RAILBELT 02 2.3% OTHER ALASKA OUTSIDE RAILBELT 08 9.1% OUT-OF-STATE 20 22.7% 88 99.9% - 21 ..... 22 EXHIBIT 10 PRIOR LOCATION OR RESIDENCE OF MOVERS CANTWELL - ANCHORAGE FAIRBANKS OTHER ALASKA OUTSIDE RAILBELT OUT-OF-STATE NUMBER 08 01 02 05 16 PERCENT 50.0% 6.3% 12.5% 31.3% 100.1% -TALKEETNA ~NUMBER PERCENT OTHER MAT-SU 02 9.5% OTHER ALASKA OUTSIDE RAILBELT 06 28.6% OUT-OF-STATE 13 61.9% 21 100.0% - TOTAL- NUMBER PERCENT OTHER MAT-SU 02 5.4% ANCHORAGE 08 21.6% FAIRBANKS 01 2.7% OTHER ALASKA OUTSIDE RAILBELT 08 21.6% OUT-OF-STATE 20 48.6%..- 88 99.9% 23 ,~ EXHIBIT 11 WHERE WAS YOUR DEPENDENTS PRIOR RESIDENCE? r- CANTWELL .-NUMBER PERCENT CANTWELL 01 4.3% OTHER MAT-SU 02 8.7% ANCHORAGE 08 34.8% FAIRBANKS 06 26.1% OTHER RAILBELT 01 4.3% OTHER ALASKA OUTSIDE RAILBELT 01 4.3% OUT-OF-STATE 04 17.4% 23 99.9% ~~ TALKEETNA -NUMBER PERCENT TALKEETNA 10 33.3% TRAPPER CREEK 01 3.3% OTHER MAT-SU 03 10.0% f-FAIRBANKS 01 3.3% OTHER ALASKA OUTSIDE RAILBELT 01 3.3% OUT-OF-STATE 14 46.7% 30 99.9% TOTAL NUMBER PERCENT TALKEETNA 10 18.9% CANTWELL 01 1.9% TRAPPER CREEK 01 1.9% OTHER MAT-SU 05 9.4% ANCHORAGE 08 15.1%--07 13.2%-I FAIRBANKS OTHER RAILBELT 01 01.9% OTHER ALASKA OUTSIDE RAILBELT 02 3.8% OUT-OF-STATE 18 33.9% 53 100.0% .... I ..... 24 i "'- EXHIBIT 12 WHERE IS YOUR DEPENDENTS PRESENT RESIDENCE? CANTWELL NUMBER PERCENT CANTWELL 07 30.4%-OTHER MAT-SU 02 8.7% ANCHORAGE 06 26.1% FAIRBANKS 05 21.7% OUT-OF-STATE 03 13.0% 23 99.9% TALKEETNA NUMBER PERCENT ..-TALKEETNA 15 50.0%I TRAPPER CREEK 01 3.3% OTHER MAT-SU 03 10.0% FAIRBANKS 01 3.3% OTHER ALASKA OUTSIDE RAILBELT 01 3.3% OUT-OF-STATE 09 30.0% ,~~30 99.9% TOTAL NUMBER PERCENT TALKEETNA 15 28.3% CANTWELL 07 13.2% TRAPPER CREEK 01 1.9% OTHER MAT-SU 05 9.4% ANCHORAGE 06 11.3% FAIRBANKS 06 11.3% OTHER ALASKA OUTSIDE RAILBELT 01 1.9%- OUT-OF-STATE 12 22.6% 53 99.9% AL.iaSl(Ji J-~'1'~~()lJ'J:eCJ5~~1~Ji1rt!lJ)"D R$..DEPT.OF INTE1:WR 25 - EXHIBIT 14 NUMBER OF DEPENDENTS ACCOMPANYING MOVERS ~ CANTWELL NUMBER PERCENT ,~1 01 20.0% 3 04 80.0% ACCOMPANIED MOVERS 05 100.0% NUMBER OF DEPENDENTS 13 tllJ!llIl'llt.AVG DEPENDENTS PER WORKER wi DEPENDENT 2.6 STANDARD DEVIATION 0.9 AVERAGE DEPENDENTS PER WORKER 0.3 TALKEETNA NUMBER PERCENT 1 02 40.0% 2 01 20.0% 3 01 20.0% 4 01 20.0% ACCOMPANIED MOVERS 05 100.0% NUMBER OF DEPENDENTS 11 AVG DEPENDENTS PER WORKER wi DEPENDENT 2.2 STANDARD DEVIATION 1.3 AVERAGE DEPENDENTS PER WORKER 0.3 TOTAL NUMBER PERCENT 1 03 30.0% 2 01 10.0%- 3 05 50.0% 4 01 10.0% ACCOMPANIED MOVERS 10 100.0% NUMBER OF DEPENDENTS 24 i~ AVG DEPENDENTS PER WORKER wi DEPENDENT 2.4 STANDARD DEVIATION 1.1 AVERAGE DEPENDENTS PER WORKER 0.5 ~~ 27 EXHIBIT 15 GROUPED AGE OF LOCAL AND NON-LOCAL DEPENDENTS CANTWEll r-AGE NUMBER 00 -04 06 05 -13 19 14 -17 10 18 -19 01 20 -29 03 30 -39 05 40 -49 03 50 -64 00 65 +00 TOTAL 47 MEAN 15.7 STANDARD DEVIATION 12.4 TALKEETNA AGE NUMBER 00 -04 14 .....05 -13 29 14 -17 19 18 -19 02 20 -29 06.-30 -39 08 40 -49 02 50 -64 01 .....65 +00 TOTAL 81 MEAN 14.5 STANDARD DEVIATION 11.6 ....TOTAL AGE NUMBER 00 -04 20 ~05 -13 48 14 -17 29 18 -19 03 ~20 -29 09 30 -39 13 40 -49 05 50 -64 01 ,~ 65 +00 TOTAL 128 .....MEAN 14.9 STANDARD DEVIATION 11.9 ~28 EXHIBIT 16 GROUPED AGE OF LOCAL AND NON-LOCAL RESPONDENTS CANTWELL AGE NUMBER 18 -19 03 20 -29 10 ~o1ll 30 -39 16 40 -49 11 50 -64 05 65 +00f"'"TOTAL 45 MEAN 35.8 r-STANDARD DEVIATION 10.4 TALKEETNA AGE NUMBER 18 -19 01 i""'"20 -29 09 30 -39 22 40 -49 04 50 -64 06 65 +00 TOTAL 42 MEAN 35.7 STANDARD DEVIATION 11.6 TOTAL AGE NUMBER 18 -19 04 20 -29 19 30 -39 38 40 -49 15 50 -64 11 65 +00 ".,'"'M TOTAL 87 MEAN 35.8 STANDARD DEVIATION 11.0 ~ .-29 EXHIBIT 17 GROUPED AGE OF LOCAL AND NON-LOCAL WORKER'S HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS !I I""'" I CANTWELL AGE 00 -04 05 -13 14 -17 18 -19 20 -29 30 -39 40 -49 50 -64 65 + TOTAL MEAN STANDARD DEVIATION MEDIAN AGE OF ALL RESIDENTS TALKEETNA AGE 00 -04 05 -13 14 -17 18 -19 20 -29 30 -39 40 -49 50 -64 65 + TOTAL MEAN STANDARD DEVIATION MEDIAN AGE OF ALL RESIDENTS TOTAL AGE 00 -04 05 -13 14 -17 18 -19 20 -29 30 -39 40 -49 50-64 65 + TOTAL MEAN STANDARD DEVIATION MEDIAN AGE OF ALL RESIDENTS NUMBER 06 19 10 04 13 21 14 05 00 92 25.5 15.7 24.0 NUMBER 14 29 19 03 15 30 06 07 00 123 21.7 15.2 19.0 NUMBER 20 48 29 07 28 51 20 12 00 215 23.4 15.5 21.0 II Includes all Intertie workers and all dependents. 30 EXHIBIT 18 GROUPED AGE OF NON-LOCAL DEPENDENTS THAT ARE PRESENT IN THE COMMUNITIES DURING THE WEEK ,-CANTWEIJ.. AGE NUMBER OF DEPENDENTS F""A 00 -04 01 05 -13 07 14 -17 02 18 -19 00 20 -29 01 30 -39 02 40 -49 00 TOTAL 13 MEAN 14.6 STANDARD DEVIATION 11.1 ~ TALKEETNA AGE NUMBER OF DEPENDENTS 00 -04 03 05 -13 05 14 -17 02 18 -19 00 20 -29 00 30 -39 03 40 -49 01 TOTAL 14 MEAN 16.4 STANDARD DEVIATION 13.1..... TOTAL AGE NUMBER OF DEPENDENTS 00 -04 04 ,05 -13 12 14 -17 04 18 -19 00 20 -29 01 30 -39 05 40 -49 01 TOTAL 27 MEAJ.'f 15.5 STANDARD DEVIATION 12.0 i!l\liiiIill1 31 EXHIBIT 19 GROUPED AGE OF NON-LOCAL WORKERS r CANTWELL AGE NUMBER 18 -19 02 20 -29 10 30 -39 15 40 -49 10 50 -64 05 65 +00 TOTAL 42 MEAN 36.2 STANDARD DEVIATION 10.4 TALKEETNA AGE NUMBER 18 -19 01 20 -29 05 30 -39 13 40 -49 04 50 -64 05 65 +00 TOTAL 28 MEAN 37.5 STANDARD DEVIATION lL2 TOTAL AGE NUMBER 18 -19 03 20 -29 15 30 -39 28 40 -49 14 50 -64 10 65 +00 TOTAL 70 MEAN 36.7 STANDARD DEVIATION 10.6 32 EXHIBIT 20 GROUPED AGE OF NON-LOCAL WORKER'S HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS 1/ CANTWELL AGE NUMBER 00 -04 06 05 -13 18 14 -17 09 18 -19 03 20 -29 13 30 -39 20 40 -49 13 50 -64 05 65 +00 TOTAL 87 MEAN 25.6-STANDARD DEVIATION 15.9" TALKEETNA AGE NUMBER 00 -04 07 05 -13 20 14 -17 14 18 -19 02 20 -29 06 30 -39 20-40 -49 06 50 -64 06 65 +00 TOTAL 81 MEAN 23.4 STANDARD DEVIATION 16.0 ~ TOTAL ~AGE NUMBER 00 -04 13 05 -13 38 14 -17 23 18 -19 05 20 -29 19 30 -39 40 40 -49 19 50 -64 11 65 +00 TOTAL 168 MEAN 24.5 STANDARD DEVIATION 15.9 1/Includes non-local Intertie workers and their dependents. 33 EXHIBIT 21 GROUPED AGE OF MOVERS ~(WORKERS AND DEPENDENTS) CANTWELL AGE NUMBER 00 -04 02 05 -13 11 14 -17 03 18 -19 00 ~>1lil!20 -29 05 30 -39 11 40 -49 05 50 -64 01 65 +00 TOTAL 3B" MEAN 24.7 STANDARD DEVIATION 15.3· TALKEETNA AGE NUMBER ,~00 -04 06 05 -13 13 14 -17 10 18 -19 02 20 -29 06 30 -39 14 40 -49 04 ~50 -64 05 65 +00 TOTAL 60 MEAN 23.5 STANDARD DEVIATION 16.3 TOTAL AGE NUMBER 00 -04 08 05 -13 24 14 -17 13 ,~18 -19 02 20 -29 11 30 -39 25 40 -49 09 50 -64 06 65 +00 TOTAL """9S" MEAN 23.9 STANDARD DEVIATION 15.8 34 - EXHIBIT 22 NUMBER OF EMPLOYED DEPENDENTS PRESENT AMONG NON-LOCAL WORKERS WITH DEPENDENTS PRESENT 35 - - - - .... 1/Refers to whether respondent Intertie workers plan to remain in their work week residences. 36 EXHIBIT 24 INTENT TO REMAIN AFTER PROJECT COMPLETION !/ NON-LOCAL WORKERS (IN PERCENT) CATEGORY OF WORKER YES NO UNCERTAIN TOTAL MOVER WI TH DEPENDENTS PRESENT :!:../(n=10)10.0%50.0%40.0%100.0%-MOVER W/OUT DEPENDENTS PRESENT :!:../(n=14)14.3%71.4%14.3%100.0% MOVER W/OUT DEPENDENTS (n=13)0.0%76.9%23.1%100.0% TOTAL MOVERS (n=3])8.1%67.6%24.3%100.0%-COMMUTERS WITH DEPENDENTS PRESENT ~/(n=2)0.0%100.0%0.0%100.0%I COMMUTERS W/OUT DEPENDENTS PRESENT ~/(n=16)25.0%68.8%6.3%100.0% COMMUTERS W/OUT DEPENDENTS (n=15)13.3%86.7%0.0%100.0% TOTAL COMMUTERS (n=33)18.2%78.8%3.0%100.0% TOTAL NON-LOCAL WORKERS (n=70)12.9%72.9%14.2%100.0% n =Number of respondents in each category of worker. !/Refers to whether respondent Intertie workers (non-local)plan to remain in their work week residences after project completion. 2/Refers to presence of dependents in community where worker resides during the week. 37 EXHIBIT 25 I SEX OF RESPONDENTS CANTWELL NUMBER PERCENT MALE 43 95.6% FEMALE 02 4.4% ,14=&11 45 100.0% TALKEETNA NUMBER PERCENT MALE 34 81.0% FEMALE 08 19.0% ----- ~42 100.0% NON RESPONSE 01 TOTAL NUMBER PERCENT MALE 77 88.5% FEMALE 10 11.5% 87 100.0% NON RESPONSE 01 ~ - - 38 WEEKLY COMMUTERS 13 50.0% 13 50.0% 26 100.0% ,~ EXHIBIT 26 DO YOU HAVE DEPENDENTS? BY TYPE OF RESIDENT CANTWELL MOVERS NON-MOVERS NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT YES 09 56.3%01 33.3% NO 07 43.8%02 66.7% 16 100.1%03 100.0% TALKEETNA Nill1:BER PERCENT YES NO NUMBER 15 06 21 PERCENT 71.4% 28.6% 100.0% NUMBER 10 05 15 PERCENT 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% NUMBER 05 02 07 PERCENT 71.4% 28.6% 100.0% TOTAL-NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT YES 24 64.9%11 61.1%18 54.5% NO 13 35.1%07 38.9%15 45.5% 37 100.0%18 100.0%33 100.0% ~ - 39 - - 40 EXHIBIT 28 ALL WORKERS UNION STATUS BY PRIOR LOCATION OF RESIDENCE 1/ UNION STATUS UNION NON-UNION TOTAL PRIOR LOCATION TALKEETNA 00 15 15 .....CANTWELL 01 02 03 TRAPPER CREEK 00 01 01 OTHER MAT-SU 02 08 10 ANCHORAGE 14 03 17 FAIRBANKS 09 03 12 OTHER RAILBELT 02 00 02 OTHER ALASKA OUTSIDE RAILBELT 01 07 08 OUT-OF-STATE 03 17 20 TOTAL 32 56 88 FollIN 1/No Intertie workers in Talkeetna held union jobs. 41 EXHIBIT 29 CANTWELL WORKERS UNION STATUS BY PRIOR LOCATION OF RESIDENCE UNION STATUS UNION NON-UNION TOTAL.....PRIOR LOCATION TALKEETNA 00 00 00 CANTWELL 01 02 03 TRAPPER CREEK 00 00 00 OTHER MAT-SU·02 01 03 ANCHORAGE 14 02 16 FAIRBANKS 09 03 12 OTHER RAILBELT 02 00 02 OTHER ALASKA OUTSIDE RAILBELT 01 01 02 OUT-OF-STATE 03 04 07- TOTAL 32 13 45 - "...., ..... - 42 .- EXHIBIT 30 TALKEETNA WORKERS UNION STATUS BY PRIOR LOCATION OF RESIDENCE ~/ UNION STATUS TALKEETNA TRAPPER CREEK OTHER MAT-SU ANCHORAGE OTHER ALASKA OUTSIDE RAILBELT OUT-OF-STATE NON-UNION 15 01 07 01 06 13 43 PERCENT 34.9% 2.3% 16.3% 2.3% 14.0% 30.2% 100.0% - - - -! ! 1/No Intertie workers in Talkeetna held union jobs. 43 EXHIBIT 31 CANTWELL WORKERS UNION STATUS BY OCCUPATION UNION STATUS UNION NON-UNION TOTAL OCCUPATION PROFESSIONAL,TECHNICAL,MANAGERS 07 08 15 CLERICAL,SALES 00 04 04 SERVICE WORKERS 00 00 00 AGRICULTURE,FISHERY,FORESTRY 12 00 12 PROCESSING 00 00 00 MACHINE TRADES 01 01 02 BENCHWORK 00 00 00 STRUCTURAL 11 00 11 .....ARMED FORCES 00 00 00 RECREATION-BASED 00 00 00 MOTOR FREIGHT &TRANSPORTATION 00 00 00 PACKAGING AND MATERIALS HANDLING 00 00 00 MINING 01 00 01 MISCELLANEOUS 00 00 00 TOTAL 32 13 45 44 EXHIBIT 32 TALKEETNA WORKERS UNION STATUS BY OCCUPATION 1/ .....PROFESSIONAL,TECHNICAL,MANAGERS CLERICAL,SALES AGRICULTURE,FISHERY,FORESTRY MACHINE TRADES STRUCTURAL PACKAGING AND MATERIALS HANDLING MINING MISCELLANEOUS UNION STATUS NON-UNION 14 04 08 06 05 01 03 01 42 PERCENT 33.3% 9.5% 19.0% 14.3% 11.9% 2.4% 7.1% 2.4% 99.9% .- ..... ..... ...,.. 1/No Intertie workers in Talkeetna held union jobs • 45 EXHIBIT 33 ALL WORKERS . UNION STATUS BY OCCUPATION 1/ I"""UNION STATUS UNION NON-UNION TOTAL OCCUPATION PROFESSIONAL,TECHNICAL,MANAGERS 07 22 29 CLERICAL,SALES 00 08 08 SERVICE WORKERS 00 00 00 AGRICULTURE,FISHERY,FORESTRY 12 08 20 PROCESSING 00 00 00 MACHINE TRADES 01 07 08 BENCHWORK 00 00 00 STRUCTURAL 11 05 16 ARMED FORCES 00 00 00 RECREATION-BASED 00 00 00 MOTOR FREIGHT &TRANSPORTATION 00 00 00 PACKAGING AND MATERIALS HANDLING 00 01 01 MINING 01 03 04 MISCELLANEOUS 00 01 01 TOTAL 32 55 87 1/No Intertie workers in Talkeetna held union jobs. ,~ 46