HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA2319lJ.~DEPT.OF lNIE1~iOR
'EDERAL ENERGY REGln"ATORY COMMISSION .
PRO.'ECT No.711.
OCTOBER 1984
DOCUMENT NO.2319
FINAL REPORT)lK OR-TH&AS·SOCIATES.INC.
II'CONTRACT TO
~~~=[§®~®OOrNAJOINTVENTURE
IJ _
cALASKA POWER AUTHORITY _______
SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT PROJECTIONS
SUMMARY REPORT:COMPARISON OF CAR.
AND AIR TRANSPORTATION SCENARIOS
SUSITNA
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Document No.
Susitna File No.
-n<
2319 /4JS
4.5.3
.SZ
FL{1 2
\'\0-:;23 \q
~,
-
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT PROJECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT:
COMPARISON OF CAR AND AIR TRANSPORTATION SCENARIOS
Report bv
Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.
Under Contract to
Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture
Prepared for
Alaska Power Authority
ARLIS
Alaska Resources
Library &.InformatIon ServIces
Anchorage.Alaska
Final Report
October 1984
-
-
ANY QUESTl:OlfS OR COMMER'l'S CONCERNING
TBl:S REPOR~SHOULD BE DI:RECTED TO
TBB ALASKA POWER AOTBORl:TY
SUS:IDA PROJECT OPPl:CB
-
-
--
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Purpose
1.2 Description of the Scenarios Used For Comparison
1.3 Structure of the Report
2.0 Matanuska-Susitna Borough (Off-site)--Summary of Socioeconomic
Impact Projections
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Key Differences
3.0 Community of Talkeetna--Summary of Socioeconomic Impact
Projections
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Key Differences
4.0 Community of Trapper Creek--Summary of Socioeconomic Impact
Projections
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Key Differences
5.0 Community of Cantwell--Summary of Socioeconomic Impact
Projections
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Key Differences
6.0 Municipality of Anchorage--Summary of Socioeconomic Impact
Projections
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Key Differences
7.0 Municipality of Fairbanks--Summary of Socioeconomic Impact
Projections
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Key Differences
8.0 Summary of Transportation Policy Effects
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Key Differences
i
PAGE
ii
1
1
7
8
8
17
17
23
23
29
29
35
35
40
40
44
44
44
-
-
.....
-
.-
~,
Table
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
LIST OF TABLES
Travel Time to Construction Site Under Alternative Scenarios
For Selected Communities in the Railbelt
Projections of Cumulative Population Influx Into the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough (Off-Site)Under the Car and
Four Air Transportation Scenarios,1985-2002
Matanuska-Susitna Borough (Off-Site)Economic/Demographic
Impacts,Watana Peak Construction Year,1990
Matanuska-Susitna Borough (Off-Site)Facilities/Services
Impacts,Watana Peak Construction Year,1990
Matanuska-Susitna Borough (Off-Site)Facilities/Services
Impacts,Watana Peak Construction Year,1990
Matanuska-Susitna Borough (Off-Site)Fiscal Impacts,
Watana Peak Construction Year,1990
Projections of Cumulative Population Influx Into the
Community of Talkeetna Under the Car and Four Air
Transportation Scenarios,1985-2002
Community of Talkeetna Economic/Demographic Impacts,
Watana Peak Construction Year,1990
Community of Talkeetna Facilities/Services Impacts,
Watana Peak Construction Year,1990
Projections of Cumulative Population Influx Into the
Community of Trapper Creek Under the Car and Four Air
Transportation Scenarios,1985-2002
Community of Trapper Creek Economic/Demographic Impacts,
Watana Peak Construction Year,1990
Community of Trapper Creek Facilities/Services Impacts,
Watana Peak Construction Year,1990
Projections of Cumulative Population Influx Into the
Community of Cantwell Under the Car and Four Air
Transportation Scenarios,1985-2002
Community of Cantwell Economic/Demographic Impacts,
Watana Peak Construction Year,1990
Community of Cantwell Facilities/Services Impacts,
Watana Peak Construction Year,1990
ii
3
12
13
14
15
16
20
21
22
26
27
28
32
33
34
LIST OF TABLES
(continued)
Table Page
-
16 Projections of Cumulative Population Influx Into the
Municipality of Anchorage Under the Car and Four Air
Transportation Scenarios,1985-2002 38
.....17 Municipality of Anchorage Economic/Demographic Impacts,
Watana Peak Construction Year,1990 39
,~
18 Projections of Cumulative Population Influx Into the
Municipality of Fairbanks Under the Car and Four Air.-
Transportation Scenarios,1985-2002 42
r-19 Municipality of Fairbanks Economic/Demographic Impacts,
Watana Peak Construction Year,1990 43
-
-
-
20 Transportation Scenario Impact Summary,Population Impact
by Community and Percent of Impact Over Baseline Population
(1990)
iii
45
-
~
,i
1.0 INTRODUCTION
-
-
,.,..
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE
This report provides a summary and comparison of socioeconomic impact
projections of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project under alternative worker
transportation scenarios for the communities that are expected to be
significantly affected by the Project.These projections were developed
under the auspices of the Social Sciences Program to support the needs of
the Alaska Power Authority.This report is part of a monitoring frame-
work that provides updated and more accurate information about the future
for project planning efforts,state agency review,and the public in-
volvement process.
The comparison of impact projections is designed to convey information
regarding the effect that an air transportation program can have on the
socioeconomic impacts of the Project.The information in this report
will complement the March 1984 i'Socioeconomic Impact Projections Summary
R ,,1/i h .i f "C"d"B"eport ;- n t at report,project ons or ar an us transporta-
tion scenarios,using updated information on baseline conditions,were
compared with the projections included in the Susitna Hydroelectric
Project Application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
1.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE TRANSPORTATION SCENARIOS
In this report,the term transportation program is used to designate the
provision by the Alaska Power Authority of organized transportation to
the work site for construction workers.
Transportation program~~are often initiated for major projects in order
to assist the project in competing for skilled workers and in cutting
1/Frank.Orth &Associates,Inc.,"Socioeconomic Impact Projections
Summary Report:Update Projections of the Socioeconomic Impacts of
the Susitna Hydroelectric Project",Prepared for Alaska Power
Authority Under Contract to Harza-Ebasco Joint Venture,Document No.
1451,Anchorage,AK:March 1984.
1
.....,
-
costs.In addition,a transportation program can be designed to alter
socioeconomic impacts by discouraging non-local workers from moving into
communities near the Susitna Project site and/or by making it easier (or
less expensive)for workers Iiving outside daily commuting distance of
the Project to travel to the site without relocating into the Local
Impact Area.The effectiveness of a transportation program in minimizing
socioeconomic impacts of a project can be dependent upon a number of
policy issues,including the mode of transport,the number and distri-
bution of the locations at which workers can embark,the cost of the
transportation program to the worker,the travel allowance that is
provided and the availability of private vehicle access to the site.
The scenarios summarized in this report provide some insight into the
effect that two of these policy variables (the location of air departure
and the availability of private vehicle access to the site)can have on
the effectiveness of an air transportation program.For each community
or area of interest,socioeconomic impact projections for five alterna-
tive transportation program scenarios are summarized and compared:1)Car
access;2)Air From Fairbanks;3)Air From Anchorage;4)Air From
Anchorage and Fairbanks;and 5)Car or Air Access.All scenarios assume
that a work camp and permanent village will be located at the Project
site and that workers will be housed at these facilities during scheduled
work shifts.
The following additional assumptions are included in the scenarios:
-
1.Car.Under this scenario,the Project will not provide any
organized transportation to the site,and construction workers
would be expected to travel to the site using personal vehicles.
Each worker is expected to make the decision on whether and
where to relocate based upon 1)the amount of time it takes to
travel to the site from various communities,and 2)the worker's
preferences regarding community characteristics,such as the
availability of housing,public facilities and services,and
commercial services.The average travel times to the construc-
tion site from each community,under this scenario,are shown in
Table 1.
2
TABLE 1
TRAVEL TIME TO CONSTRUCTION SITE UNDER ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS
FOR SELECTED COMMUNITIES IN THE RAILBELT
,-Average Travel Time By Scenario (In Hours)
Air From
Community Air From Air From Fairbanks/Air or Car
f'$Ii1IliI Of Origin Car Fairbanks Anchorage Anchorage Car Access
Mat-Su Borough:-Palmer 6.4 9.8 1.8 1.8 1.8
Wasilla 6.0 9.4 1.8 1.8 1.8
Houston 5.7 9.1 2.2 2.2 2.2
Trapper Creek 4.2 7.6 3.6 3.6 3.6
Talkeetna 5.0 8.4 3.6 3.6 3.6
Yukon-Koyukuk:
Cantwell 1.9 5.2 6.0 5.2 1.9
Healy 2.8 4.2 7.0 4.2 2.8
Nenana 4.2 2.9 8.4 2.9 2.9
Anchorage 7.1 10.5 0.8 0.8 0.8
Fairbanks-N.Star 5.5 1.5 9.7 1.5 1.5-
-
..-
NOTE:All travel times are year-round averages of time spent under both fair weather
and winter conditions.The time spent in road travel,air travel and rail
travel are included,as appropriate.
3
"""
-
-
2.
Under the "Car"scenario,the.closer a community is to the work
site by road,the more attractive the community will be for
relocation,from the point of view of travel time.Thus,com-
munities in the Mat-Su Borough and the southern portion of the
Yukon-Koyukuk census division are projected to receive the
largest proportion of in-migration resulting from the project.
Air From Fairbanks.It is assumed,under this scenario,that
all laborers and semi-skilled/skilled workers in the construc-
tion phase of the project will be flown to the site from Fair-
banks by project-arranged air transportation.Construction
workers who do not live in Fairbanks would need to travel there
first in order to obtain access to the site.Administrative/
engineering workers would be able to fly to the site from either
Anchorage or Fairbanks.No personal vehicles would be allowed
on the access road or at the work site during Project construc-
tion with the exception of residents who lived in local impact
area communities prior to Project construction.In this
scenario,it is assumed that no workers from Fairbanks will
relocate to other communities.
As shown in Table 1,the travel times from Cantwell,Anchorage,
all Mat-Su Borough communities and Healy would be higher under
the "Air From Fairbanks"scenario than under the "Car"scen-
ario.Travel times for Fairbanks and Anchorage would be lower
than they would be under the "Car"scenario.
As a result,in-migration into Fairbanks would be higher under
this scenario than under the "Car"scenario,and in-migration
into the Mat-Su Borough communities and Cantwell would be lower
than under the "Car"scenario.
3.Air From Anchorage.It is assumed,under this scenario,that
all"construction workers will be flown to the site from Anchor-
age by project-arranged air transportation.Construction work-
ers who do not live in Anchorage would need to travel there
first in order to obtain access to the site.No personal
vehicles will be allowed on the access road or at the work site
4
.....
I
.....
....
-
....
4.
during Project construction with the exception of residents who
lived in local impact area communities prior to Project con-
struction.Because of the ease of transport from Anchorage
under this scenario,it is assumed that no workers from Anchor-
age will relocate to other communities as a result of obtaining
work on the Project.
As shown in Table l,the travel times from Anchorage and all
Mat-Su Borough communities would be lower under the "Air From
Anchorage"scenario than under the "Car"scenario.In addition,
the table shows that whereas the communities in the northern
part of the Mat-Su Borough (Trapper Creek and Talkeetna)had
shorter travel times than the southern communities (Palmer,
Wasilla,and Houston)under the "Car"scenario,these communi-
ties would have relatively longer travel times than the southern
communities under the "Air From Anchorage"scenario.Travel
times for Fairbanks and the Yukon-Koyukuk communities would be
higher under this scenario.
As a result,in-migration into Anchorage will be dramatically
higher under this scenario than under the "Car"scenario,
in-migration into Trapper Creek,Talkeetna and the Yukon-Koyukuk
census division communities will be significantly lower under
this scenario than under the "Car"scenario,and in-migration
into the southern part of the Mat-Su Borough will be higher
under this scenario.
Air From Anchorage and Fairbanks.Under this scenario,it is
assumed that project-arranged air transportation to the work
site will be available to construction workers from both Anchor-
age and Fairbanks.Construction workers would be able to leave
from either city and are aSl'mmed to leave from the city that
results in the shortest travel times from their places of resi-
dence.No personal vehicles will be allowed on the access road
or at the work site during Project construction with the excep-
tion of residents who lived in local impact area communities
prior to Project construction.Because of the ease of transport
from Anchorage and Fairbanks under this scenario,it is assumed
5
.....
.....
.....
5.
that no workers from Anchorage or Fairbanks will relocate to
other communities as a result of obtaining work on the Project.
As can be seen in Table 1,the travel times from the Mat-Su
Borough communities and Anchorage are lower when the workers use
air service from Anchorage;thus,workers living in these com-
munities are assumed to fly from Anchorage under this scenario.
Workers from the Yukon-Koyukuk communities and Fairbanks-North
Star Borough are assumed to fly from Fairbanks.
In-migration to all Mat-Su Borough and Yukon-Koyukuk communities
would be significantly lower under this scenario than under the
"Car"scenario and in-migration into both Anchorage and Fair-
banks would be higher than under the "Car"scenario.
Car Or Air.Under this scenario,it is assumed that construc-
tion workers will be allowed to travel to the site using either
project-arranged air transportation (from either Anchorage or
Fairbanks)or personal vehicles,and that workers will utilize
the mode of travel that provides the shortest travel time.
Because of the ease of transport from Anchorage and Fairbanks
under this scenario,it is assumed that no workers from Anchor-
age or Fairbanks will relocate to other communities as a result
of obtaining work on the Project.
Workers living in Anchorage and in Ma t-Su Borough communities
are assumed to fly from Anchorage under this scenario.Workers
from the Cantwell and Healy area are assumed to drive to the
site.Workers living in the area of Nenana and the
Fairbanks-North Star Borough are assumed to fly from Fairbanks.
This scenario would result in in-migration patterns very similar
to the "Air From Anchorage and Fairbanks"scenario.In-migra-
tion into all Mat-Su Borough and Yukon-Koyukuk communities would
be significantly lower than under the "Car"scenario and
in-migration into both Anchorage and Fairbanks would be higher
than under the "Car"scenario.
6
1.3 STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT
Each of the following chapters of this report provide information on the
socioeconomic impacts of the Project,under the various scenarios,for a
specific area of interest,The following areas of interest are in-
cluded:1)Matanuska-Susitna Borough;2)Trapper Creek;3)Talkeetna;
4)Cantwell;5)Anchorage;and 6)Fairbanks,1/For each area of
interest,impacts of the Project on population,
public facilities and services,and the fiscal
employment,housing,
conditions of local
jurisdictions are compared,as appropriate,The final section of the
report provides a brief summary of the alternatives,
!/These were the major communities for which socioeconomic impacts of
the Susitna Hydroelectric Project were discussed in Alaska Power
Authority,"Application for License for the Susitna Hydroelectric
Project",Exhibit E,Chapter 5,Anchorage,AX:February 1983.
7
......
......
-
MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH
-
-
2.0MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH
(OFF-SITE)SUMMARY OF SOCIOECONOMIC
IMPACT PROJECTIONS
.....
f"""
I
2.0 MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH (OFF-SITE)
SUMMARY OF SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT PROJECTIONS
2.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter summarizes and comp~res the projected impacts of the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project on the Matanuska-Susitna Borough.The following
tables present the baseline,with-project,and impact projections for
each of the five transportation scenarios •
Table 2 presents the projections of cumulative population influx related
to the Project during the project construction period (1985 to 2002)for
each of the five scenarios.Table 3 shows the employment,population,
and housing demand forecasts for the peak construction year of 1990.'
Tables 4 through 6 contain projections of the impacts on public facili-
ties and services and on the budgets of the Matanuska-Borough and the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District in 1990.
2.2 KEY DIFFERENCES
1.All four of the air transportation scenarios would result in a lower
level of population influx into the Mat-Su Borough than would occur
with only personal vehicle access to the site (the "Car"scenario).
This occurs because the relative difference between the travel time
from the Mat-Su Borough and other areas of the state is reduced by
the availability of air transport.This change in relative travel
times reduces the incentive for workers to relocate to the Mat-Su
Borough.
2.The projections indicate that an air transportation program could
reduce the peak (1990)population influx into the Mat-Su Borough,of
1,393 under the "Car"scenario,by between 38 percent and 80 percent
depending on the transportation program used.
In the year 2002,the remaining project-related population under the
air scenarios was projected to range from 175 to 700 people.These
8
figures are between 35 percent and 84 percent lower than the remain-
ing project-related population of 1,079 projected under the "Car"
scenario.
3.The "Air From Anchorage"and "Air From Fairbanks"scenarios result in
peak cumulative population influx projections of 775 and 869,respec-
tively as compared to a peak population influx of 1,393 people under
the "Car"scenario.
The scenarios in which workers are allowed to fly from either Anchor-
age or Fairbanks -the "Air From Fairbanks and Anchorage"and the
"Car or Air"scenarios --provided the lowest projections of popula-
tion influx into the Mat-Su Borough (258-261 people by the year
1990).These scenarios result in the lowest in-migration projections
because the workers from both Anchorage and Fairbanks will have no
incentive to relocate,and the majority of workers on the project are
expected to come from these two cities.
The close results of the "Air From Fairbanks and Anchorage"and the
"Car or Air"scenarios also indicates that the allowance of personal
vehicle access may not make a significant difference in the mitiga-
tion of socioeconomic impacts.
4.The air transportation scenarios would result in larger percentages
of in-migrant workers who move out of the Mat-Su Borough during the
two periods of declining construction work forces (1990-1995 and
1999-2002)than the "Car"scenario.However,because a smaller
number of in-migrant workers are projected to move into the borough
initially as a result of use of an air transportation program,these
scenarios show a smaller boom-bust effect than the "Car"scenario.
The reason for the difference in the percent of in-migrant work(~rs
who move out after 1990 and 1999 is related to the facts that
(1)workers from out-of-state are expected to have less of a tendency
to remain in the Local Impact Area after project completion than
workers who originate from Alaska;and (2)under the various air
transportation scenarios,many workers who originate in Anchorage or
9
5.
Fairbanks have no incentive to relocate;thus,workers from
out-of-state would represent a larger percentage of the total pool of
relocating workers.This will result in larger overall percentages
of workers who move out of the Local Impact Area after project
completion than would be the case in the Car Scenario.
The use of an air transportation program would also reduce the peak
level of employment,by place of residence,from approximately 1,000
workers under the "Car"scenario to between 450 and 754 under the
various air scenarios.
This decrease in projected employment (by place of residence)is
related to the reduction in the number of non-local workers who will
move into the Mat-Su Borough and the corresponding number of secon-
dary jobs created.It does not indicate any reduction in direct job
opportunities on the Project for current borough residents.
.-
-
6.Projections of project-re1ated requirements for housing,schools,
police protection,recreation facilities,hospital requirements,and
solid waste disposal are lower under the four air transportation
scenarios than under the "Car"scenario,in approximately the same
ratio as the projections of population influx.
7.Under all scenarios,the projected requirements for most facilities
and services (with the exception of community parks and landfills)
will exceed the existing and planned capacity of these facilities.
It should be noted,however,that the requirements for these public
facilities would exceed existing/planned capacity even if the Project
were not constructed.In most areas of the Mat-Su Borough,the
population influx related to the Project will only add slightly to
the substantial increases in need for public facilities and services
that will result from the population growth under the Baseline
(without-Project).
10
.....
8.An air transportation program would reduce possible adverse impacts
on the Mat-Su Borough General Fund.The "Air From Fairbanks or
Anchorage"and the "Car or Air"scenarios would decrease the project-
related deficit more than any of the other scenarios.
9.By reducing the Project-related school enrollment in the Mat-Su
Borough,the use of an air transportation program would increase the
small budget surpluses that are projected for the Mat-Su Borough
School District.!'/The "Air From Fairbanks or Anchorage"and the
"Car or Air"scenarios would increase the Project-related surplus
more than any of the other scenarios (as shown in Table 6).
10.The slight positive impacts of the Project on the Service Area Fund
would be decreased by the use of an air transportation program (see
Table 6).
1/In recent years,the Mat-Su Borough school district budget has shown
very small budget surpluses while at the same time enrollment has
risen.While this indicates that the budget surpluses have in-
creased with enrollment,it also indicates that the education expen-
ditures per pupil have been declining.In the Susitna socioeconomic
impact model,the historical trend of slight budget surpluses has
been assumed to continue in the future,but it should be noted that
the accompanying decline in per capita expenditures indicates this
is not necessarily a beneficial trend •
11
,...,
TABLE 2
PROJECTIONS OF CUMULATIVE POPULATION INFLUX INTO THE
MATANUSKA-SUS1TNA BOROUGH (OFF-SITE)UNDER THE CAR
AND FOUR AIR TRANSPORTATION SCENARIOS,
1985-2002
Year Transportation Program
Air From
AIr From Air From Fairbanks Choice of
Car Fairbanks Anchorage or Anchorage Car or AIr
1985.396 242 288 131 125
1986 519 361 405 159 144
1987 651 417 406 152 144
1988 941 570 547 198 182
1989 1,085 659 628 211 208
1990 1,393 869 775 261 258
1991 1,362 851 745 258 247
1992 1,275 800 694 230 230
1993 1,167 741 641 201 192
1994 1,128 727 613 197 197
1995 1,099 710 592 190 183
1996 1,127 726 612 196 196
1997 1,183 752 643 209 203
1998 1,213 764 660 222 209
1999 1,220 768 663 222 212
2000 1,199 761 656 214 205
2001 1,125 727 610 195 192
2002 1,079 700 563 179 175
Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1984.
12
:r-a
TABLE 3
-MATANUSKA-SUSlTNA BOROUGH (OFF-SITE)
ECONOMIC/DEMOGRAPHIC IMPACTS
WATANA PEAK CONSTRUCTION YEAR,1990
Socioeconomic Variable Transportation Program
Air From
Air From Air From Fairbanks Choice of
Car Fairbanks Anchorage or Anchorage Car or Air
Employment 1/(Manpower)-
Basel.lne 7,857 7,857 7,857 7,857 7,857
~
Wlth-Project 8,856 8,611 8,573 8,313 8,307
Impact of Project 999 754 716 456 450
Population (People)
Baseline 47,246 47,246 47,246 47,246 47,246
Wlth-Project 48,639 48,115 48,021 47,507 47,504
Impact of Project 1,393 869 775 261 258
Households (Occupied Units)
Baseline 15,375 15,375 15,375 15,375 15,375
With-Project 15,791 15,635 15,607 15,454 15,453
Impact of Project 416 260 232 79 78
1/Employment by place of residence.
Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1984.
13
TABLE 4
MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH (OFF-SITE)
FACILITIES/SERVICES IMPACTS
WATANA PEAK CONSTRUCTION YEAR.1990
Note:Sums may not equal totals due to independent rounding.
Source:Frank Orth &Associates.Inc ••1984.
14
TABLE 5
MATANLISKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH (OFF-SITE)
FACILITIES/SERVICES IMPACTS
WATANA PEAK CONSTRUCTION YEAR,1990
F'"
Socioeconomic Variable Transportation Program
Air From
..-Air From Air From Fairbanks Choice of
Car Fairbanks Anchorage or Anchorage Car or Air
Primary School Children
Baseline 5,911 5,911 5,911 5,911 .5,91 I
With-Project 6,117 6,038 6,025 5,949 5,949
Impact of Project 206 127 114 38 38
Capaclty!(4,835 ~4,835 4,835 4,835 4,835
Project-Related Increase <%)!!3.5%2.1%1.9%0.6%0.6%
Percent Capacity Uti 1Izatlon 3/126.5%124.9%124.6%123.0%123.0%
Secondary School Chi Idren
Baseline 5,036 5,036 5,036 5,036 5,036
With-Project 5,211 5,145 5,132 5,068 5,068
Impact of Project 175 109 96 32 32
Capaclty!(4,080 4,080 4,080 4,080 4,080
Project-Related Increase (%)2/3.5%2.2%1.9%0.6%0.6%
Percent Capacity Utilization 3/127.7%126.1 %125.7%124.2%124.2%
Total School Enrollment
Baseline 10,947 10,947 10,947 10,947 10,947
With-Project 11,328 11,183 11,157 11,007 11,007
Impact of Project 381 236 210 60 60
Capacity !(8,915 8,915 8,915 8,915 8,915
F""Project-Related Increase (%)!!3.5%2.2%1.9%0.5%0.5%
Percent Capacity Utilization 3/127.0% 125.4%125.1%123.5%123.5%
.-
1/
21
3/
Includes eXisting and planned capacity,December 1983.
Calculated by dividing the Impact number by the baseline number.
Calculated by dividing the with-project number by the capacity number.
Note:Sums may not equal totals due to Independent rounding.
Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1984.
15
.-
TABLE 6
MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH (OFF-SITE)
FISCAL IWACTS
WATANA PEAK CONSTRUCTION YEAR,1990
Socioeconomic Variable
General Fund (000 dol lars)
Car
Air From
Fairbanks
Transportation
Air From
Anchorage
Program
Air From
Fairbanks
or Anchorage
Choice of
Car or Air
-
Baseline Revenues
With-Project Revenues
Impact on Revenues
Baseline Expenditures
With-Project Expenditures
Impact on Expenditures
Net Fiscal Balance (Baseline)
Net Fiscal Balance (W-project)
Project Impact
39,068
40,220
1,151
42,873
44,138
1,265
-3,805
-3,918
-113
39,068 39,068 39,068 39,068
39,787 39,709 39,284 39,284
718 640 215 215
42,873 42,873 42,873 42,873
43,662 43,576 43,110 43,110
788 702 238 238
-3,805 -3,805 -3,805 -3,805
-3,875 -3,867 -3,826 -3,826
-70 -62 -21 -21
Service Area Fund (000 dollars)
Baseline Revenues 5,186 5,186 5,186 5,186 5,186
With-Project Revenues 5,229 5,213 5,211 5,194 5,194,-Impact on Revenues 44 27 24 8 8
Baseline Expenditures 5,025 5,025 5,025 5,025 5,025
With-Project Expenditures 5,064 5,049 5,047 5,032 5,032
Impact on Expenditures 39 24 22 7 7
Net Fiscal Balance (Baseline)161 161 161 161 161
Net Fiscal Balance (W-project)165 164 164 162 162
Project Impact 4 3 3 I I
Note:Sums may not equal totals due to Independent rounding......
School District Budget (000 dol lars)
Baseline Revenues
With-Project Revenues
Impact on Revenues
Baseline Expenditures
With-Project Expenditures
Impact on Expenditures
Net Fiscal Balance (Baseline)
Net Fiscal Balance (W-project)
Project Impact
57,972
62,523
4,552
56,804
60,608
3,804
1,168
1,915
747
57,972
61,826
3,854
56,804
59,850
3,046
1,168
1,976
808
57,972
61,508
3,534
56,804
59,502
2,698
1,168
2,006
838
57,972
60,426
2,452
56,804
58,319
1,515
1,168
2,107
939
57,972
60,426
2,452
56,804
58,319
1,515
1,168
2,107
939
.....Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1984 •
0456h
16
-
r,
,,
,-
!
,....
i
i
l
i
,-
-
3.0 COMMUNITY OF TALKEETNA
SUMMARY OF SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT
PROJECTIONS
-
-
3.0 COMMUNITY OF TALKEETNA
SUMMARY OF SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT PROJECTIONS
3.1 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 projections for
each of the five transportation scenarios.
Table 7 presents the projections of cumulative population influx related
to the Project during the Project construction period (1985 to 2002)for
each of the five scenarios.Table 8 shows the employment,population,
and housing demand forecasts for the peak construction year of 1990.
Table 9 summarizes the impacts on school enrollment in 1990.
3.2 KEY DIFFERENCES
1.All four of the air transportation scenarios would result in a lower
level of population influx into Talkeetna than would occur with only
personal vehicle access to the site (the "Car"scenario).This
occurs because the relative difference between the travel times to
the construction site from Talkeetna and from other areas of the
state is reduced by the availability of air transport.This change
in relative travel times reduces the incentive for workers to relo-
cate to Talkeetna.
2.The projections indicate that an air transportation program could
reduce the peak (1990)population influx into Talkeetna (195 people
under the "Car"scenario)by 45 percent if air transport from Fair-
banks is provided,and by up to 93 percent if air transport from
Anchorage and car access are also available.
The scenarios which include air transport from both Anchorage and
Fairbanks result in the lowest in-migration projections for Talkeetna
17
-
....
because the workers from both Anchorage and Fairbanks will have no
incentive to relocate and the majority of workers on the Project are
expected to come from these two cities.
In the year 2002,the remaining project-related population under the
air scenarios was projected to range from 7 to 83 people.These
figures are between 56 percent and 95 percent lower than the remain-
ing project-related population of 147 projected under the "Car"
scenario.
3.The use of an air transportation program would also reduce the peak
level of project-related employment,by place of residence,from
approximately 95 workers under the "Car"scenario to between 8 and 55
under the various air scenarios •
This decrease in projected employment (by place of residence)is
related to the reduction in the number of non-local workers who will
move into Talkeetna and the corresponding number of secondary jobs
created.It does not indicate any reduction in direct job
opportunities on the Project for current Talkeetna residents.
4.As a result of the lower population influx projections,the project-
related increase in housing demand in Talkeetna would also be lower
under each of the transportation scenarios than under the "Car"
scenario.
5.The 1990 project-related increase in enrollment at the Talkeetna
elementary school could be reduced from an estimated 29 students
under the "Car"scenario to 16 students under the "Air From Fair-
banks"and to only 2 students under the "Air From Anchorage and
Fairbanks"and the "Car 'or Air"scenarios.
This decline in elementary school enrollment could reduce the capa-
city utilization of the school from 86 percent under the "Car"
scenario to between 59 percent and 73 percent under the various air
transportation scenarios.This will result in a corresponding
decline in Project-related school revenues and operating costs.
18
ro-
I
.....
6.The 1990 project-related increase in secondary school children living
in Talkeetna could be reduced from an estimated 25 students under the
"Car"scenario to 14 students under the "Air From Fairbanks"and to
only 2 students under the "Air From Anchorage and Fairbanks"and the
"Car or Air"scenarios.This will result in a corresponding decline
in Project-related revenues and school operating costs.
0460h
19
TABLE 7
PROJECTIONS OF CUMULATIVE POPULATION INFLUX
INTO THE COMMUNITY OF TALKEETNA UNDER THE CAR
AND FOUR AIR TRANSPORTATION SCENARIOS,
1985-2002
-Year Transportation Program
Air From
Air From Air From Fairbanks Choice of
Car Fairbanks Anchorage or Anchorage Car or Air.....
1985 52 31 14 7 7
1986 80 45 21 7 7
1987 98 52 17 7 7
1988 132 69 27 7 13
1989 152 86 31 13 13
1990 195 107 34 13 13
1991 190 107 31 13 13
1992 180 100 31 13 13
1993 162 93 31 10 10
1994 155 90 27 10 10
1995 148 87 27 7 7
1996 155 90 27 10 10
1997 162 93 31 10 10
1998 165 93 31 13 10
1999 164 93 31 13 10
2000 164 93 31 13 10.....2001 151 90 27 10 10
2002 147 83 24 7 7
Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1984.
-
-
20
-TABLE 8
COMMUNITY OF TALKEETNA
ECONOMIC/DEMOGRAPHIC IMPACTS
WATANA PEAK CONSTRUCTiON YEAR,1990
fliIIl'1lIll
Socioeconomic Variable Transportation Program
Air From
Air From Air From Fairbanks Choice of
Car Fairbanks Anchorage or Anchorage Car or AIr
Employment 1/
PIill
(Manpower)-
Basel I ne 21 2/2/2/2/
Wlth-Project 2/2/2/21 2/
Impact of Project 95 55 19 8 8
Population (People)
Baseline 457 457 457 457 457
With-Project 652 564 491 470 470
r-
Impact of Project 195 107 34 13 13
Households (Occupied Units)
Basel I ne 149 149 149 149 149
With-Project 208 181 159 153 153
Impact of Project 59 32 10 4 4
1/Employment by place of r~sldence.
2/Baseline employment at the community level was not projected.
Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1984.
21
TABLE 9
COMMUNITY OF TALKEETNA
FACILITIES/SERVICES IMPACTS
WATANA PEAK CONSTRUCTION YEAR.1990
Socioeconomic Variable Transportation Program
Air From
Air From Air From Fairbanks Choice of
Car Fairbanks Anchorage or Anchorage Car or Air
Primary School Ch IIdren J.!
Baseline 57 57 57 57 57
With-Project 86 73 62 59 59-Impact of Project 29 16 5 2 2
Capacity 2/100 100 100 100 100
Project-Related Increase (%)3/50.9%28.1 %8.8%3.5%3.5%
Percent Capacity Uti Ilzatlon 4/86.0%73.0%.62.0%59.0%59.0%
Secondary School Children 5/
Baseline 49 49 49 49 49
With-Project 74 63 54 51 51
Impac:of Project 25 14 5 2 2
Project-Related Increase (%)~51.0%28.6%10.2%4.1%4.1 %
Total School Enrollment
~
Baseline 106 106 106 106 106
Wlth-Project 160 136 116 110 110
Impact of Project 54 30 10 4 4.....Project-Related Increase (%)3/50.9%28.3%9.4%3.8%3.8%I
1/
2/
3/
4/
5/
The Talkeetna elementary school serves an area wider than the townsite area of Talkeetna.For this
reason.enrollment may be understated by Including only the schoolchildren living In Talkeetna.
Includes existing and planned capacity.December 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 Talkeetna.
Note:Sums may not equal totals due to Independent rounding.
Source:Frank Orth &Associates.Inc ••1984.
0456h
22
-
.....
-
4.0 COMMUNITY OF TRAPPER CREEK
SUMMARY OF SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT
PROJECTIONS
.....
-
4.0 COMMUNITY OF TRAPPER CREEK
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 Trapper Creek.The following
tables present the baseline,with-project,and impact projections for
each of the five transportation scenarios •
Table 10 presents the projections of cumulative population influx related
to the Project during the project construction period (1985 to 2002)for
each of the five scenarios.Table 11 shows the employment,population,
and housing demand forecasts for the peak construction year of 1990.
Table 12 summarizes the impacts on school enrollment in 1990.
4.2 KEY DIFFERENCES
1.All four of the air transportation scenarios would result in a lower
level of population influx into Trapper Creek than would occur with
only personal vehicle access to the site (the "Car"scenario).This
occurs because the relative difference between the travel times to
the construction site from Trapper Creek and from other areas of the
state is reduced by the availability of air transport.This change
in relative travel times reduces the incentive for workers to
relocate to Trapper Creek.
2.The projections indicate that an air transportation program could
reduce the peak (1990)population influx into Trapper Creek (285
people under the "Car"scenario)by,5Cl percent if air transport from
Fairbanks is provided,and by up to 95 percent if air transport from
~Anchorage and car access are also available.
In the year 2002,the remaining project-related population under the
air scenarios was projected to range from 10 to 107 people,depending
.....
23
'J
upon the scenario used.As with the 1990 projections~these figures
are between approximately 50 percent and 95 percent lower than the
remaining project-related population of 211 projected under the "Car"
scenario.
Under the "Air From Fairbanks"scenario,the relative difference in
travel times for Trapper Creek and communities to the north of
Trapper Creek will be altered but it will take less time to travel to
the construction site from Trapper Creek than from Anchorage,Palmer~
and other areas to the south.Thus ~under this scenario ~
in-migration to Trapper Creek will be reduced but not completely
prevented.Under the scenarios which provide air transport from
Anchorage~however~communities to the south of Trapper Creek will
also be more attractive to relocation than Trapper Creek~from a
travel time point of view.For this reason~these scenarios result in
very small levels of in-migration into Trapper Creek.
..",
-
3.The use of an air transportation program would also reduce the peak
level of project-related employment,by place of residence~from
approximately 110 workers under the "Car"scenario to between 6 and
55 under the various air scenarios.
This decrease in projected employment (by place of residence)is
related to the reduction in the number of non-local workers who would
move into Trapper Creek and the number of secondary jobs created.It
does not indicate any reduction in direct job opportunities on the
Project for current Trapper Creek residents.
4.As a result of the lower population influx projections,the project-
related increase in housing demand in Trapper Creek would also be
lower under each of the transportation scenarios than under the "Car"
scenario.
5.The 1990 project-related increase in enrollment at the Trapper Creek
elementary school could be reduced from an estimated 41 students
under·the "Car"scenario to 21 students under the "Air From Fair-
banks"and to only 2 students under the "Air From Anchorage and
24
-
"""'i
,....-
-
I""'",
-
Fairbanks"and the "Car or Air"scenarios.
Under the "car"scenario,the projected enrollment at the Trapper
Creek elementary school would be equal to 156 percent of the school's
present capacity,thus indicating the need for additional classroom
space or double-shifting of students.Under the "Air From
Anchorage","Air From Fairbanks or Anchorage"and "Car or Air"
scenarios,the project-related elementary school enrollment could be
reduced to the point that the present school capacity would be
sufficient,thus avoiding the capital expense of adding new
classrooms or the inconvenience of double-shifting.
6.The 1990 project-related increase in secondary school children living
in Trapper Creek could be reduced from an estimated 35 students under
the "Car"scenario to 17 students under the "Air From Fairbanks"and
to only 2 students under the "Air From Anchorage and Fairbanks"and
the "Car or Air"scenarios.
0460h
25
TABLE 10
PROJECTIONS OF CUMULATIVE POPULATION INFLUX
INTO THE COMMUNITY OF TRAPPER CREEK UNDER THE CAR
AND FOUR AIR TRANSPORTATION SCENARIOS,
1985-2002
Year Transportation Program
Air From
Air From Air From Fairbanks Choice of
Car Fairbanks Anchorage or Anchorage Car or Air
1985 78 35 10 7 7
1986 107 58 20 10 10
1987 130 65 20 10 10
1988 193 95 23 10 10
1989 217 108 33 10 10-1990 285 142 40 13 13
1991 278 135 40 13 13
J992 260 129 33 10 10
1993 233 114 30 10 10
1994 222 114 30 10 10
1995 219 108 30 10 10
1996 222 114 30 10 10-1997 235 114 30 10 10
1998 241 117 30 10 10
1999 241 117 30 10 10
2000 237 117 30 10 10
2001 220 113 30 10 10
2002 211 107 27 10 10
....
~Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,J984.
,~
....
26
TABLE II
COMMUNITY OF TRAPPER CREEK
ECONOMIC/DEMOGRAPHIC IMPACTS
WATANA PEAK CONSTRUCTION YEAR.1990
Socioeconomic Variable Transportation Program
Air From
....Air From AI r From Fairbanks Choice of
Car Fairbanks Anchorage or Anchorage Car or Air
Employment 1/(Manpower)-
~~
Basel I ne 2/2/ 2/2/21
Wlth-Project 2/2/2/2/2/
Impact of Project 110 55 15 6 6
Population (People)
Baseline 299 299 299 299 299
Wlth-Project 584 441 339 312 312.-
Impact of Project 285 l42 40 13 13
Househo Ids (Occup Iad Un Its)
Baseline 97 97 97 97 97
Wlth-Project 183 140 109 101 101
Impact of Project 86 43 12 4 4
1/Employment by place of residence.
2/-Baseline employment at the community level was not projected.
Source:Frank Orth &Associates.Inc ••1984.
27
TABLE 12
COMMUNITY OF TRAPPER CREEK
FACILITIES/SERVICES IMPACTS
WATANA PEAK CONSTRUCTI ON YEAR,1990
Socioeconomic Variable Transportation Program
Air From
Air From Air From Fairbanks Choice of
Car Fairbanks Anchorage or Anchorage Car or Air
Pr Imary Schoo I Ch IIdren .!!
Baseline 37 37 37 37 37
With-Project 78 58 43 39 39
r Impact of Project 41 21 6 2 2
Capacity 2/50 50 50 50 50
Project-Related Increase <%)3/110.8%56.7%16.2%5.4%5.4%
i~Percent Capacity Utilization 4/156.0%116.0%86.0%78.0%78.0%
Secondary School Children 5/
Baseline 32 32 32 32 32
WI th-Proj ect 67 49 37 34 34
Impact of Project 35 17 5 2 2
Project-Related Increase <%)3/109.3%53.1%15.6%6.2%6.2%
Total School Enrollment
....
Baseline 69 69 69 69 69
With-Project 145 107 80 73 73
Impact of Project 76 38 II 4 4
Project-Related Increase <%)3/110.1%55.0%15.9%5.8%5.8%
....
I
1/
2/
3/
4/
5/
The Trapper Creek elementary school serves an area wider than the community of Trapper Creek.For this
reason,enrollment may be understated by Including only the schoolchildren living In Trapper Creek.
Includes existing and planned capacity,December 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 •
Note:Sums may not equal totals due to Independent rounding.
Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1984.
0456h
28
!
I
I
-
r-
I
5.0 COMMUNITY OF CANTWELL
SUMMARY OF SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT
PROJECTIONS
....
5.0 COMMUNITY OF CANTWELL
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 Cantwell.The following tables
present the baseline,with-project,and impact projections for each of
the five transportation scenarios.
Table 13 presents the projections of cumulative population influx related
to the Project during the project construction period (1985 to 2002)for
each of the five scenarios.Table 14 shows the employment,population,
and housing demand forecasts for the peak construction year of 1990.
Table 15 summarizes the impacts on school enrollment in 1990.
5.2 KEY DIFFERENCES
1.All four of the air transportation scenarios would result in a much
lower level of population influx into Cantwell than would occur with
only personal vehicle access to the site (the "Car"scenario).This
occurs because the relative difference between the travel times to
the construction site from Cantwell and from other areas of the state
is reduced by the availability of air transport.This change in
relative travel times reduces the incentive for workers to relocate
to Cantwell.
2.The projections indicate that an air transportation program could
reduce the peak (1990)population influx into Cantwell (797 people
under the "Car"scet.:ario)by 79 percent if air transport from Fair-
banks is provided,and by up to 99 percent if air transport from
Anchorage is also available.In the case of Cantwell,project-
related population growth would be lowest under the "Air From Fair-
banks or Anchorage"scenario.
29
In the year 2002,the remaining project-related population under the
air scenarios was projected to range from 3 to 131 people,depending
upon the scenario used.As with the 1990 projections,these figures
are between approximately 21 percent and 99 percent lower than the
remaining project-related population of 619 projected under the "Car"
scenario.
As indicated above,the differences among the scenarios relate to
relative travel times to the construction site.Under the "Car"
scenario,Cantwell accounts for the lowest travel time to the site of
all the communities in the Rai1be1t,and thus is the community
receiving the largest amount of population influx.Under the "Air
From Fairbanks"scenario,all communi ties to the north have lower
travel times,and under the scenarios in which air transport from
Anchorage is available,most communities to the south have lower
travel times as well.
3.The use of an air transportation program would also reduce the peak
level of project-related employment,by place of residence,from
approximately 253 workers under the "Car"scenario to between 1 and
52 under the various air scenarios.
This decrease in projected employment (by place of residence)is
related to the reduction in the number of non-local workers who would
move into Cantwell and the number of secondary jobs created.It does
not indicate a reduction in direct job opportunities on the Project
for current Cantwell residents.
4.As a result of the lower population influx projections,the project-
related increase in housing demand in Cantwell would also be lower
under each of the transportation scenarios than under the "Car"
scenario.
5.The 1990 project-related increase in enrollment at the Cantwell
school could be reduced from an estimated 217 students under the
"Car"scenario to 44 students under the "Air From Fairbanks"and to
only 1 student under the "Air From Anchorage and Fairbanks"and the
"Car or Air"scenarios.
30
-
6.
."
Under the "Car"scenario,the projected enrollment at the Cantwell
school would be equal to 428 percent of the school's present
capacity,thus indicating the need for an additional school.Under
the "Air From Anchorage It,..Air From Fairbanks or Anchorage II and "Car
or Air"scenarios,the project-related elementary school enrollment
could be reduced to the point that the present school capacity would
be sufficient,thus avoiding the capital expense of building a new
school.
Police requirements at the Cantwell post will be only slightly lower
under the various air scenarios than the requirements under the "Car"
scenario.The project-related requirements for police at the Cant-
well State Trooper post were calculated by adding the requirements
related to project personnel living in Cantwell and the requirements
of the work camps and family village.The work camps/village are
expected to affect the Cantwell post because it will be the closest
post to the work sites,by road.
.-
0460h
31
-
TABLE 13
PROJECTIONS OF CUMULATIVE POPULATION INFLUX
INTO THE COMMUNITY OF CANTWELL UNDER THE CAR
AND FOUR AIR TRANSPORTATION SCENARIOS,
1985-2002
.-Year Transportation Program
Air From
Air From Air From Fairbanks Choice of
Car Fairbanks Anchorage or Anchorage Car or Air-
1985 368 71 7 4 16
1986 488 109 7 4 20
1987 372 81 6 2 12
1988 535 104 6 2 16
1989 618 119 7 7 19
If.IIIII'lI!ll 1990 797 164 12 7 19
1991 780 159 12 7 19
1992 733 149 9 7 19
1993 666 137 7 3 14
1994 640 133 7 3 14
1995 627 130 7 3 14
1996 641 133 7 3 14
1997 671 137 7 3 14
1998 692 143 7 3 14
1999 701 143 7 3 16
2000 692 140 7 3 16
~
2001 649 134 7 3 14
2002 619 131 7 3 10
Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1984.
32
.-
~
TABLE 14
COMMUN ITY OF CANTWELL
ECONOMIC/DEMOGRAPHIC IMPACTS
WATANA PEAK CONSTRUCTION YEAR.1990
,,-
Socioeconomic Variable Transportation Program
Air From
~Air From Air From Fairbanks Choice of
Car Fairbanks Anchorage or Anchorage Car or Air
Employment 1/(Manpower)-
1""'\
I
Baseline 2/21 2/21 21
.....2/21 2/21 2/Wlth-Proj ect
Impact of Project 253 52 2 6
Population (People)
Baseline 222 222 222 222 222
Wlth-Project 1.019 386 234 229 24\
Impact of Project 797 164 12 7 19
Households (Occupied Units)
Baseline 88 88 88 88 88
WI th-Proj act 329 138 92 90 94
.-Impact of Project 241 50 4 2 6
!
II Employment by place of residence.
21-Baseline employment at the community level was not projected.
Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc ••1984.
-
33
Note:
1/
2/
3/
4/
5/
Cantwel I has only one school,containing grades K-12.
Includes existing and planned capacity,December 1983.
Calculated by dividing the Impact number by the baseline number.
Calculated by dividing the with-project number by the capacity number.
The Project-related requirements for police at the Cantwell State Trooper post were calculated by
adding the requirements related to project personnel living In Cantwell and the requirements of the
work camps and family village.The work campS/Village are expected to affect the Cantwell post because
It wll I be the closest post to the work sites,by road.
Sums may not equal totals due to Independent rounding.
Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1984.
0456h
34
6.0 MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE
SUMMARY OF SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT
PROJECTIONS
,P'I
6.0 MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE
SUMMARY OF SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT PROJECTIONS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter summarizes and compares the projected impacts of the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project on the Muncipality of Anchorage.The following
tables present the baseline,with-project,and impact projections for
each of the five transportation scenarios.
Table 16 presents the projections of cumulative population influx related
to the Project during the project construction period (1985 to 2002)for
each of the five scenarios.Table 17 shows the employment,population,
and housing demand forecasts for the peak construction year of 1990.
6.2 KEY DIFFERENCES
1.All four of the air transportation scenarios would result in a higher
level of population influx into Anchorage than would occur with only
personal vehicle access to the site (the "Car"scenario).
A higher level of population influx is expected to occur under the
scenarios that include air transport from Anchorage because the
relative difference between the travel time from Anchorage and other
areas of the state is reduced by the availability of air transport.
This change in relative travel times increases the incentive for
workers from Anchorage to remain and for workers from other areas to
relocate into Anchorage.This in turn results in a larger amount of
secondary in-migration as well.
Under the "Air From Fairbanks"scenario,it was assumed that
administrative/engineering workers currently living in Anchorage
would be able to fly from Anchorage to the site.This is expected to
result in less relocation by these employees to the work site or the
Local Impact Area.This in turn results in a larger amount of
secondary in-migration as well.
35
.....
.-
.-
2.
3.
The projections indicate that an air transportation program could
increase the peak (1990)population influx into Anchorage due to the
project (180 people under the "Car"scenario)by 89 percent if air
transport from Fairbanks is provided,and by up to 1088 percent if
air transport from Anchorage is available.
In the case of Anchorage,project-related population growth would be
highest under the "Air From Anchorage"scenario,in which Anchorage
has the lowest travel time to the site of all the communities in the
Railbelt.Although the cumulative project-related population growth
under this scenario would be equal to 2,139 people in 1990,it would
represent only a 0.9 percent increase over the city's baseline popu-
lation for that year.
In the year 2002,the remaining project-related population under the
air scenarios was projected to range·from 1,721 to 2,140 people,
depending upon the scenario used.These figures are between approxi-
mately 3 percent and 28 percent higher than the remaining project-
related population of 1,673 projected under the "car"scenario.
The patterns of population change in Anchorage differ substantially
under the various scenarios.Under the "car"and "Air From Fair-
banks"scenarios,population growth in the first eight years is
relatively small,and increases substantially during the 1992-1995
period;the increase during the 1992-1995 period is related to 1)the
moving back to Anchorage of some workers who had previously moved
from Anchorage to communities in the Local Impact Area and 2)the
gradual increase of the secondary work force,as the Anchorage econ-
omy matures.In the scenarios in which air transportation from
Anchorage is provided,project-related population growth in Anchorage
is greatest -during the Watana build-up period (1985-1990).This is
because 1)there is more initial relocation to Anchorage unq~r these
scenarios and 2)these scenarios assume that no Anchorage!workers
I
will relocate to the Local Impact Area.In addition,this means that.
there would be no workers moving back to Anchorage from local impact
area communities as construction on the Watana portion of the Project
winds down •
36
.....
I
I~
I
..-
4.The use of an air transportation program would also result in an
increase in the peak level of project-related employment in Anchor-
age,by place of residence,from approximately 2,502 workers under
the "Car"scenario to between 2,608 and 3,765 under the various air
scenarios.
This increase in projected employment (by place of residence)is
related to the reduction in the number of Anchorage workers who would
move out of Anchorage and the related increase in secondary employ-
ment.
5.As a result of the higher population influx projections,the project-
related increase in housing demand in Anchorage would also be higher
under each of the transportation scenarios than under the "Car"
scenario.
0460h
37
TABLE 16
PROJECTIONS OF CUMULATIVE POPULATION INFLUX
INTO THE MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE UNDER THE CAR
AND FOUR AIR TRANSPORTATION SCENARIOS,
1985-2002
~
Year Transportation Program
Air From
Air From Air From Fairbanks Choice of
Car Fairbanks Anchorage or Anchorage Car or Air
1985 142 239 674 660 649
1986 153 201 851 835 824
~1987 -179 -106 I,III ,,094 1,088
1988 9 91 1,524 1,507 1,496
1989 92 139 1,710 1,686 J .678
1990 180 340 2.139 2.I J I 2.097
1991 197 353 2.093 2.063 2.056
1992 331 447 1,950 1.926 1,916
1993 840 936 '.959 1.936 1,926
1994 1,264 1.360 2,121 2,104 2.101
1995 '.366 1,465 2.061 2,047 2,040
1996 1.263 1.356 2.124 2.106 2,100
1997 1,222 1.298 2.258 2.2.38 2.228
1998 1.194 1.244 2.331 2.308 2.301
1999 1.180 1.236 2.349 2.329 2.319
2000 1.200 1.243 2.314 2.294 2.287
2001 1.284 1.354 2.186 2.169 2.159
2002 1.673 1,721 2.140 2.122 2.116
-.
......
-.
Source:Frank Orth &Associates.Inc ••1984.
38
TABLE 17
MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE
ECONOM IC/OEMOGRAPH IC I!>'PACTS
WATANA PEAK CONSTRUCTION YEAR,1990
Socioeconomic Variable Transportation Program,
Air From-Air Fran Air Fran Fairbanks Choice of
Car Fairbanks Anchorage or Anchorage Car or Air
1/Employment (Manpower)-
Baseline 129,493 129,493 129,493 129,493 129,493
With-Project 131,995 132,101 133,25B 133,240 133,233
Impact of Project 2,502 2,60B 3,765 3,747 3,740
Population (People)
~
Baseline 223,196 223,196 223,196 223,196 223,196
With-Project 223,376 223,536 225,335 225,307 225,293
~
Impact of Project 180 340 2,139 2,111 2,097
,...,
Households (Occupied Units)
.....Basel I ne 79,232 79,232 79,232 79,232 79,232
Wlth-Project 79,295 79,352 79,982 79,972 79,968
Impact of Project 63 120 750 740 736
-1/Employment by place of residence.
Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1984.
39
-
.-
-
MUNICIPALITY OF FAIRBANKS
7.0 MUNICIPALITY OF FAIRBANKS
SUMMARY OF SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT
PROJECTIONS
7.0 MUNICIPALITY OF FAIRBANKS
SUMMARY OF 'SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT PROJECTIONS
7.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter summarizes and compares the projected impacts of the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project on the Muncipa1ity of Fairbanks.The following
tables present the baseline,with-project,and impact projections for
each of the five transportation scenarios.
Table 18 presents the projections of cumulative population influx related
to the Project during the project construction period (1985 to 2002)for
each of the five scenarios.Table 19 shows the employment,population,
and housing demand forecasts for the peak construction year of 1990.
7.2 KEY DIFFERENCES
1.Under the "Car"scenario,Fairbanks is expected to experience a net
decline in project-related population by 1990 of 196 people.Under
the "Air From Anchorage"scenario,this population efflux would be
decreased.Under the other three air transportation scenarios,
Fairbanks would experience net growth in project-related population
of between 198 and 411 people by 1990.This occurs because,with the
provision of air transport from Fairbanks,workers from Fairbanks
have little incentive to relocate closer to the construction site,
and because the travel time from Fairbanks is low enough to attract
in-migration from other areas.
By the year 2002,the net population influx as a result of the Pro-
r ject would be positive under all of the scenarios.The net popula-
tion influx in 2002 would be greatest under the "Air From Fairbanks"
.-scenario (255 people)and lowest under the "Air From Anchorage"
scenario (83 people).
2.Project-related employment in Fairbanks,by place of residence,would
40
-
,piIlll
....
....
be highest under the "Air From Fairbanks"scenario and lowest under
the "Air From Anchorage"scenario.
3.The project-related demand for housing would parallel the population
trends.Demand for housing will decline,as a result of the Project,
under the "Car"and the "Air From Anchorage"scenarios.The demand
for housing would increase as a result of the other scenarios.
0460h
41
.-
TABLE 18
PROJECTIONS OF CUMULATIVE PCPULATION INFLUX
INTO THE MUNICIPALITY OF FAIRBANKS UNDER THE CAR
AND FOUR AIR TRANSPORTATION SCENARIOS,
1985-2002
Year Transportation Program
Air From
Air From Air From Fairbanks Choice of
Car Fairbanks Anchorage or Anchorage Car or Air
1985 -48 191 -9 70 67
1986 -79 221 -32 85 81
1987 -178 210 -108 99 99
1988 -240 282 -142 130 130
1989 -268 321 -164 154 150
1990 -196 411 -155 202 198
1991 -163 402 -140 200 196
1992 -160 365 -114 186 186
1993 -37 305 -19 /60 155
1994 53 292 21 152 151
1995 93 268 49 143 143
1996 59 282 19 152 152
1997 28 303 -24 163 158
1998 -28 327 -57 171 170
1999 -31 330 -68 175 171
2000 -6 327 -60 /72 171
2001 76 284 -4 157 154
2002 181 255 83 143 139
~Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1984.
42
,.-
TABLE 19
-MUNICIPALITY OF FAIRBANKS
ECONOM IC/DEMOGRAPH IC I!>PACTS
WATANA PEAK CONSTRUCTION YEAR.1990
Socioeconomic Variable Transportation Program
Air From
,~Air Fran Air From Fairbanks Choice of
Car Fairbanks Anchorage or Anchorage Car or Air
1/Employment (Manpower)-
Basel Ina 2/2/2/2/2/
Wlth-Project 2/2/2/2/2/
Impact of Proj ect 800 3/1.195 3/727 3/1.099 3/1,098 3/
Population (People)
Baseline 36.266 36,265 36.265 36.265 36.265
Wlth-Project 36.070 36.676 36.110 36.467 36.463
Impact of Project -196 411 -155 202 /98
Households (Occupied Units)
Baseline 13,537 13,537 13.537 13.537 13,537
Wlth-Project 13,505 13,673 13.479 /3,609 13.608-Impact of Project -32 136 -58 72 71
.-1/Employment by place of residence.
2/Baseline employment at the community level was not projected.
3/Project-related employment In the Munclpallty Is assumed to be equal to Project-related
employment In the Fairbanks-North Star Borough.
Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc ••1984.
0456h 43
I'"'"'
I
~
.....
,
,-I
t
r
8.0 SUMMARY OF TRANSPORTATION
POLICY EFFECTS
""...
-
-
r
I
8.0 SUMMARY OF TRANSPORTATION POLICY EFFECTS
8.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter summarizes and compares the projected impacts of the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project on all communi ties from changes in the transporta-
tion policy.Table 20 presents the projections of population impact
related to the Project during the peak construction period (1990)for
each of the five transportation scenarios.The percent values shown in
the table,represent the relative size of the population impact to the
baseline population for each area.
8.2 KEY DIFFERENCES
The table clearly shows the benefits of establishing an air transporta-
tion policy for the majority of workers.In general,the smallest local
impact area communities have lower population impacts from the Project if
some form of air transportation policy is put into effect.The only
exceptions to this statement are for Nenana and McKinley Park under the
"Air From Fairbanks"Scenario.In these two communities,the loss of re-
locating project workers from Fairbanks is more than offset by relocating
Anchorage workers.
Anchorage and Fairbanks would experience greater relative impacts from
the implementation of an air transportation policy,however,the signifi-
cance of the impacts in each case never exceed 3 percent for Fairbanks or
1 percent for Anchorage.
The "Air from Fairbanks and Anchorage"scenario demonstrates the best
distribution of impacts in relative terms from employing an air transpor-
tation policy.Under this scenario,the relative impact on the Local
Impact Area,excluding the workers who live at the work camp,can be
reduced from 8 percent over baseline population to 4 percent over base-
line population.In addition,no local impact area community experiences
more than a 4 percent increase over baseline in 1990 with the exception
of McKinley Park (10%).However,the large percent value for this com-
munity is a reflection of the small absolute baseline population of 40.
44
I""'"
i
Table 20
Transportation Scenario Impact Summary
Population Impact by Community and Percent of Impact Over Baseline Population
(1990)
i'Community Car Air From Air From Air From Choice of
Fairbanks Anchorage Fairbanks Car or Air
of Anchorage
Mat-Su Borough 1,393 3%869 2%775 2%261 1%258 1%
(Off-site)
Talkeetna 195 43%107 23%34 7%13 3%13 3%
~Trapper Creek 285 95%142 48%40 13%13 4%13 4%
Palmer 110 3%76 2%124 3%37 1%37 1%
I""'"Wasilla 132 3%87 2%133 3%37 1%37 1%
Houston 122 10%77 7%74 6%21 2%21 2%
Mat-Su Suburban 388 1%268 1%350 1%130 0%127 0%
F""
Mat-Su Rural 161 4%112 3%20 0%10 0%10 0%
t
Anchorage 180 0%340 0%2,139 1%2,111 1%2,097 1%
""'"Fairbanks -196 -1%411 3%-155 0%202 1%198 1%!
Cantwell 797 359%164 74%12 5%7 3%19 9%
....
i Healy 289 68%200 47%7 2%7 2%10 2%
Nenana 140 23%192 32%10 2%13 2%13 2%
McKinley Park 282 688%342 834%4 10%4 10%7 17%
.-Fairbanks-North -196 0%584 1%-336 -1%375 1%371 1%
Star Borough
.-Village 1,229 1,229 1,229 1,229 1,229
Local Impact 4,130 8%2,996 6%2,037 4%1,521 4%1,536 4%
Area (ex.work-
ers at work
camp)
.-
Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1984.
45