HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA1451d~
.":..~
lrt5\cl---..:--.--=---.._--........
DRAFT
n
u
(I
U
SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT PROJECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT
UPDATED PROJECTIONS OF THE SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Under Contract to
Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture
Report by
FRANK ORTH &ASSOCIATES,INC.
Prepared for
Alaska Power Authority
1
J
]
.J
;-J
1
"I
.._/
II
.J'
TK
1425
.S8
F472
no.145ld
ARLIS
.'Alaska Resources
LIbrary &Information ServIces
Anchorage,Alaska
Final Report
March 1984
CONFIDENTIAL:PRIVILEGED WORK
PRODUCT PREPARED IN ANTICiPATION.
OF LITIGATION;RESTRICTED
DISTRIBUTION
,.
.....
.,
.....
~
j
""
,..;J
-;
]
,
d
1
:j
."d
~
j
~1
j
-,
J
-'
--
~-:;j
.-
coo
N
V
V
ooo
LC)
LC)
f'.
M
M
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Purpose
1.2 Structure of Report
2.0 Overview
2.1 Key Characteristics
2.2 Description of the Scenarios Used For Comparison
2.3 Summary of Key Modifications and Their Effects
3.0 Matanuska-Susitna Borough (Off-site)--Summary of Socioeconomic
Impact Projections
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Key Changes
4.0 Community of Ta1keetna--Summary of Socioeconomic Impact Projections
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Key Changes
5.0 Community of Trapper Creek--Summary of Socioeconomic Impact
Projections
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Key Changes
6.0 Community of Cantwe11--Summary of Socioeconomic Impact Projections
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Key Changes
7.0 Municipality of Anchorage--Summary of Socioeconomic Impact
Projections
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Key Changes
8.0 Municipality of Fairbanks--Summary of Socioeconomic Impact
Projections
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Key Changes
NOIJ.:>namUNI
I~
[
L
-,
-."
-::":!
....i
'1
-.'
,
--'
-,
~
"'-=.
.j
~
"""]
~
--"
='
-'
.;;
SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT PROJECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE
Summaries of impact projections for the Mat-Su Borough and the communi-
ties that are expected to be significantly affected by the construction
and operation of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project were conducted as part
of the Social Sciences Program to support the needs of the Alaska Power
Authority.Annual revisions of impact projections for potentially af-
fected local areas are designed to convey updated information regarding
economic,demographic,housing,facilities and services,and fiscal ef-
fects of the project as more data related to important assumptions and
parameters in the model,survey information on the communities,and an-
nual updates of other baseline data become available.This process is
part of a monitoring framework that provides updated and more accurate
information about the future for project planning efforts,state agency
review,and the public involvement process.
1.2 STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT
The Socioeconomic Impact Projections Summary Report is divided into three
major sections.The first section which consists of Chapter 1 describes
the purpose and structure of the report.The second section which con-
sists of Chapter 2 describes the key characteristics of the Susitna
model,the scenarios that.will be compared,and the key modifications
incorporated into the model since its development and use for the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)License Application.
The discussion of key characteristics focuses on how the data on current
conditions and assumptions about the future were combined to produce
baseline projections of employment,population,housing,public
1
-"
-,
..J
~
...J
--"
:..J
~
-J
-J
J
,J
"'i
J
facilities and services,and fiscal balances.The description of the
scenarios focuses on two transportation programs.The major modifica-
tions that significantly affect the projections of socioeconomic vari-
ables are discussed in the final section of Chapter 2.In addition,
their anticipated effects on the communities of interest are described.
The final section of the report consists of six chapters,each related to
an area or community of interest.Areas of interest include:1)the
Mat-Su Borough;2)Talkeetna;3)Trapper Creek;4)Cantwell;5)Anchor-
age;and 6)Fairbanks.These chapters describe the key differences in
the projections of socioeconomic variables as well as the reason for such
differences.
2
L
r
r
L
L
L
'T
...,
.,
-.i
1
.-J
--.
J
..,
i
~
;
J
,
~
-,
",J
""
,
:Jj
2.0 OVERVIEW
2.1 KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MODEL
Economic base theory was relied upon heavily for model construction be-
cause its strength lies in estimating how secondary industry sectors will
change in response to a change in direct industry sectors.This is rele-
vant for this project because one of the most significant sources of
impacts would be employment and population growth that is stimulated by
the project I s direct employment.As a result,the quantifying approach
is deterministic (causal)--relationships between the variables(s)to be
forecast and influencing factors are identified and determined,and then
incorporated into the forecasting process.
In economic base theory,there are two key concepts.First,the economy
is split into two sectors:direct and secondary.Businesses and other
economic entities that sell goods and services at places outside of the
local economy or whose demand originates from outside of the local econo-
my (e.g.,tourism)comprise the direct sector,and those that sell goods
and services wi thin the local economy comprise the secondary sec tor.
Second,the amount of secondary activity is determined by the amount of
direct activity.Thus,an increase in direct activity (e.g.,employment)
is accompanied by a corresponding,and roughly predictable,increase in
secondary activity.In the model,these predictions are based on aggre-
gate employment mul~ipliers.
The Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER)projections for
employment and population·serve as the baseline projections for the
State,Railbelt Region,and multi-borough levels.Baseline projections
for smaller areas were derived by disaggregating the ISER projections
using an historical percent share trend analysis.
The model is composed of three main modules,each containing equations
that compute baseline and with-project (construction and operations)
projections on an annual basis.This general structure mirrors economic
base theory,as the source of impacts rests in the economic-demographic
1
'"l
="1
..3
-"
-.
~
d'
"',
-~
.J
1
.:J
j
.,
oi
~
-
-'
module where the project's direct jobs induce secondary employment oppor-
tunities.Both the direct and secondary jobs may,in turn,cause inmi-
gration of people to balance labor demand and supply in the local areas.
These impacts are reflected in the public facilities and services module
and in the fiscal module.Project-related population can create demands
on the housing and public facilities and services in local impact area
communities as well as contribute to fiscal resources and increase fiscal
outlays.
In short,the model produces annual forecasts of employment,population,
housing demand,effects on operations and capacities of facilities and
services,revenues,and expenditures.Effects on housing and other so-
cioeconomic variables are primarily population-driven.That is,changes
in population directly influence changes in housing demand,the number of
police required for protection,changes in fiscal receipts and outlays,
etc •
The present structure of the model (and the computerization of its proce-
dures)was chosen for several reasons.First,it has the ability to
quantify impacts in detail,and for small geographic areas.There are
approximately 35 smaller impact areas within the region of interest.
Second,it has the ability to efficiently handle multiple scenarios such
as choice of access corridors,transportation modes to the site,and size
of the construction camp/village.Third,the model makes it relatively
easy to accommodate changes in important assumptions and to conduct sen-
sitivity analyses.'.Finally,the model can create a variety of reports
and output formats,aR important consideration that allows the model to
serve the diverse needs of the decision-maker •
2.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE SCENARIOS
Two sets of impact projections are summarized and compared in the follow-
ing chapters.The first set consists of impact projections that were
reported in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)License Ap-
plication.These projections were prepared in 1982 and were based on the
use of personal vehicles by construction workers to gain access to the
site.The second set of projections consists of two scenarios that
2
"1
.."
...;
J
--'
-3
~
..a
l
~
;;>
incorporate updates of baseline information that were available from
secondary sources and the socioeconomic surveys conducted in October of
1983,as well as enhancements that were made to the economic/demographic
module.The two scenarios are differentiated by the mode of access to
the site.One scenario considers personal vehicle transportation and the
other considers bus transportation.
The differences between the two scenarios are slight because the bus
transportation scenario assumes that stops are made in every community
between Fairbanks and the Project site.This set of pickup points does
not alter the travel times between the communities and the Project site
significantly.The net result is that the travel times for each communi-
ty are similar under the two scenarios and the observed differences in
relocation are slight.However,changes in the pick-up sites could sub-
stantially alter travel times and produce substantial differences in the
distribution of project-related impacts.
2.3 SUMMARY OF KEY MODIFICATIONS AND THEIR EFFECTS
A summary of the important changes that were made in the model routines
and procedures since its development and use in the FERC license applica-
tion are described below.The section is divided into subsections that
correspond to important socioeconomic variables such as employment,popu-
lation,etc.
2.3.1 Employment
2.3.1.1 Village Assignment Procedures.Explicit consideration of the
types of workers (by labor category,origin,and marital status)that
would be assigned to the limited number of family housing units at the
village was made to account for the effects of different housing unit
allocation schemes on population inmigration into areas that may be
significantly affected by the construction and operation of the Susi tna
Hydroelectric Project.
Effect.Reduces the number of workers that permanently relocate to local
impact area communities.Because it is assumed that family housing units
3
~
-:;
:a
~
,
,,;i
...:;
at the village will primarily be allocated to out-of-state workers,the
amount of inmigration into Anchorage and Fairbanks by these workers is
reduced in the revised set of impact projections as compared to the FERC
license application.
2.3.1.2 Work Camp Attractiveness Factors.Consideration of the attrac-
tiveness of the work camp led to an upward adjustment in the number of
single workers that may relocate their residence to places in the local
impact area (defined as the Mat-Su Borough and the Rai1be1t portion of
the Yukon-Koyukuk census area).Currently,the number of single workers
that will consider relocation within the Rai1be1t is slightly higher (10
percent)than that assumed for the FERC license application (0 percent)
and reflects a judgment by the consultant that the suburbanization of
Anchorage is not strictly limited to married people.
Effect.Slight increases in employment by place of residence and popula-
tion in communities near the project.
2.3.2 Population
2.3.2.1 Baseline Population Updates.Baseline forecasts were revised
based on socioeconomic survey results and updated ISER projections.
Effect.Baseline and with-project populations (and hence derived fac-
tors)are higher in revised forecasts than in FERC license application,
except for Anchorage.Changes vary across locations,but direction of
change is consistent,again,with the exception of Anchorage.
2.3.2.2 Addition of a Gravity Model.Changes in community allocation
procedures that distribute population to places in the impact area were
made.The introduction of an attraction-constrained gravity model cre-
ates the ability to trade-off travel time and community amenities,an
ability that more accurately reflects a worker's decision-making process
about the relocation of a household.Previously,allocation was deter-
mined entirely by travel time considerations •
4
...,
...,
-,
~
~
--,
~
cd
9
j
oJ
=J
~
...."
d
3
Effect.Varies across communi ties;tends to increase the with-project
population in communities with more amenities and decrease them in com-
munities with fewer amenities.
2.3.2.3 Inclusion of Additional Communi ties.The community allocation
model was modified between the FERC license application and the revised
impact projections to include more communities,thus distributing popula-
tion among a larger number of communities.Communities that were recent-
ly added include:Healy,McKinley Park,Nenana,Glennallen,Copper Cen-
ter,Gulkana,Valdez,and Paxson.The additional communities provided a
more comprehensive listing for places into which workers may choose to
relocate.
Effect.In the revised forecasts,communities that were included in the
FERC license application show lower population effects since impact popu-
lation is distributed across more communities.
2.3.2.4 Relocation Prior To 1987.In the FERC license application,
construction workers living in the Railbelt were not allowed to relocate
into the local impact area (Mat-Su Borough and Railbelt 'portion of the
Yukon-Koyukuk census area)until 1987.In the revised set of impact
projections,it was assumed that Railbelt workers could start relocation
in 1985.Potential Railbelt employees would have an incentive to reduce
their commuting time as quickly as possible once employment on the proj-
ect is obtained.Some workers would a:j..so want to move quickly in order..
to act on their pref~rence for rural lifestyle.
Effect.Varies across communities depending on whether they are inside
or outside the local impact area.Communities within the local impact
area would experience higher population impacts in 1985 and 1986 while
Anchorage and Fairbanks would experience lower population due to higher
rates of outmigration (since these communities are sending workers into
the local impact area in 1985 and 1986).
5
-,
...,
-"
~
-'
--,
'-'
d
""3
j
~.
.J
==i
~
d
-
3
2.3.2.5 Outmigration of Direct Workers.Assumptions regarding the out-
migration of direct workers from places of relocation following termina-
tion of employment were changed to reflect more current information from
other projects.In the FERC license application,the outmigration rate
for direct workers was 0 percent.Modifications to the model increased
the outmigration rate for workers of Railbelt origin to 20 percent and
the outmigration rate for workers of other Alaska and out-of-state ori-
gin to 50 percent.Studies of other construction projects have shown
that between 20 and 60 percent of relocating workers leave after their
work on a project is completed.
Effect.For the local impact area communities,increasing the out-
migration rate (reducing the retention rate)for the direct inmigrating
workers will cause population to be lower in the revised set of impact
projections than in the FERC license application projections after 1990.
For Anchorage and Fairbanks,this change tends to increase the revised
population projections compared to the projections in the FERC license
application after the year 1990.
2.3.2.6 Outmigration of·Secondary Workers.As sump tions regarding the
outmigration of secondary workers from places of relocation were also
changed to reflect both the desire of these workers to remain in places
more rural than Anchorage and their knowledge of local employment oppor-
tunities.Accordingly,outmigration rates of secondary workers who
relocated to the local impact area were changed from 100 percent in the
FERC license applic~tion to 30 percent in the revised impact projections.
Effect.For local impact area communities,the effect of reducing the
outmigration rate for secondary workers resulted in an increase in the
population impact of the project on these communities after 1990 for the
revised impact projections as compared to the projections in the FERC
license application.These workers are still tracked as project-related
population because it is assumed that they would not have relocated in
the local impact area unless they obtained long-term jobs on the Susitna
Project.
6
-,
co
~
-,
-l
--§
;:.ij
l
,
J
'"
:3
~.,l
:3
For Anchorage and Fairbanks,the effect of reducing the outmigration rate
for secondary workers re-sulted in an increase in the population effect of
the project after 1990.Because secondary employment multipliers are es-
timated to be high for these communities,this change reflects a substan-
tial percentage of the difference between the two sets of projections.
2.3.2.7 Dependents Per Construction Worker.Based on additional studies
of construction workers and their characteristics,the household size for
the project-related population during construction was increased from
3~11 persons per household in the FERC license application projections to
3.51 persons per household in the revised projections.Data from three
surveys of construction workers supported the change in the assumption.
Effect.The population associated with a given number of inmigrating
construction workers is higher in the revised set of projections for
communities experiencing net inmigration than with the assumptions used
in the FERC license application.
2·.3.2.8 Labor Force Participation Of Secondary Household Members.In
the revised forecasts,statewide data on the number of jobholders per
household were used to estimate labor force participation of other mem-
bers of secondary worker households,thus lowering the population in-
mi grAti on for secondary employment.No such adjustments were made for
the projections in the FERC license application.
Effect.This modification lowers the impact population and with-project
population forecasts for communities receiving secondary inmigration as
compared to the forecasts of population in the FERC license application.
2.3.2.9 Adjustment for Vacated Local Jobs.In the revised forecasts,an
adjustment was made to account for jobs that would be vacated by local
residents who obtained employment on the Susitna Hydroelectric Project.
An estimate of vacated local jobs,based on employment rates,was made in
order to determine the number of jobs that might require inmigration of
non1oca1 residents.These jobs are not counted as secondary employment
7
,
~
_4
"l
-:J
~
d
"I
d
"""!l
j
--,
~
--,
-'
:3
benefits of the project since they existed prior to the project.How-
ever,consideration of these jobs allows a more comprehensive approach to
be taken in specifying the labor demand in relevant impact areas,match-
ing this with the available local supply of labor,and forecasting the
amount of in-migration.
Effect.The effect of this modification is to raise the population im-
pacts forecast in the revised set of projections when compared to those
in the FERC license application.
2.3.2.10 Support Operations Workers.The number of secondary operations
workers that would reside in Mat-Su Borough communities and in Anchorage
were reestimated in the revised forecasts by developing an adjustment for
income spent by direct operations workers.First,the percentage of
income spent in each community that would provide goods and services to
the operations workers was determined.Second,these percentages were
applied to the total direct operations work force to determine the size
of the income effect and to define it in terms of employment.Third,
these employment estimates were used to project the number of secondary
operations workers that would reside in each community.
Effect.Population projections for the Mat-Su Borough and Anchorage are
higher during the operations period in the revised forecasts than com-
pared to the forecasts in the FERC license application.
2.3.2.11 Changes '.in Community Boundaries.In order to keep certain
community boundaries compatible with on-going survey and data collection
efforts,several community boundaries were changed.
Effect.The effect of this change varies by community.For example,in
the revised forecasts,the boundaries of Talkeetna were contracted to
include only the townsite rather than the area being considered for in-
corporation in 1981.Trapper Creek boundaries were changed to exclude
one area on west Petersvi11e Road and to include an area extending six
miles south on Oi1we11 Road.The net effect was a reduction in the areas
of Talkeetna and Trapper Creek,which reduced the population of these
communities in the revised forecasts.
8
,
-0
,
~
~
~
l
cd
d
.
...J
"-'
d
~
----:J
~
d
~
2.3.3 Housing
2.3.3.1 Changes in Household Size.Average household sizes for the
baseline population of the local impact area communities,Anchorage,and
Fairbanks were revised to reflect changes made by the Institute of Social
and Economic Research (ISER)in their projections for the state household
size in 2005 as well as updated information on current conditions in the
communities.It was assumed that household sizes for communities would
converge to the state household size by the year 2005.The ISER projec-
tion for Alaska's household size in 2005,which was used in the FERC
license application,was 2.556 people per household.ISER's revised
figure of 2.844 was used in the revised impact projections.Estimated
1983 household sizes were revised downward slightly for all communities
of interest,except Cantwell which dropped significantly from 2.8 to 2.38.
Effect.The net result of increased household size is that every commun-
ity except Cantwell experiences less housing demand from its baseline
population in the revised impact projections than in the projections in
the FERC license application.For Cantwell,housing demand is lower
prior to 1995 and greater thereafter when compared to the FERC license
application projections.
2.3.4 Facilities and Services
2.3.4.1 Change in Recreation Standard.The recreation standard in the
FERC license application is based on housing units.However,because of
the large number of vacant housing units in the Mat-Su Borough,it was
determined that households would be a better indicator of the need for
such facilities.
Effect.The effect of this change is to lower the need for recreation
facilities in the revised projections as compared to the projections in
the FERC license application.
9
~
-'
"1
--'
-,
~
'1
~,
-<
-J
..]
-,
~~
:=:j
2.3.4.2 Change in Number of Inmigrating Married Workers.The number of
married workers moving into the community of Cantwell was raised to be
comparable to the proportion of married workers inmigrating into other
communities.
Effect.This change raises the number of school children forecast for
Cantwell compared to the FERC license application projections.
2.3.4.3 Change in School Children Calculations.The number of school
children per accompanied inmigrating worker was raised from 0.89 in the
FERC license application to 1.003 in the revised set of projections.
Effect.This modification raises the number of school children forecast
for the Mat-Su Borough and the communi tes of Trapper Creek,Talkeetna,
and Cantwell compared to the forecasts in the FERC license application.
2.3.5 Fiscal.
2.3.5.1 Changes in Per Capita Multipliers.Per capita multipliers of
all services and for all sources of revenues were adjusted in the revised
set of impact projections to reflect updated information from budgets.
Effect.Varies across services in the Mat-Su Borough.
2.3.5.2 Changes In The Growth Rate For Areawide Assessed Valuation.The
growth rate for areawide assessed valuation in the Mat-Su Borough was.
adjusted upward from 4 percent per year to 7 percent per year to reflect
more current data on property valuation •
Effect.Raises the revenue side of the fiscal balance equation for the
Mat-Su Borough in the revised 1983 forecasts compared to the forecasts in
the FERC license application.
10
H~no~oa VNIISnS-V~SnNVIVW
-,
...,
:"l
-'
~
~
d
~
,
j
"J
:J
j
-'
~
3.0 MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH (OFF-SITE)
SUMMARY OF SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT PROJECTIONS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter summarizes and compares the projected impacts of the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project on the Matanuska-Susitna Borough.The following
tables present the baseline,with-project,and impact forecasts for the
FERC License Application and for the two transportation scenarios in the
1983 revised projections.Table 1 presents the population forecasts for
each of these scenarios annually from 1985 to 2002.Tables 2 and 3 show
the employment,population,and housing demand forecasts for the years
1990 (peak construction)and 2002 (full operations).Tables 4 through 11
summarize the facilities/services/fiscal forecasts for the same two years.
3.2 KEY CHANGES
Table 1 presents the baseline,with-project,and impact population pro-
jections for each of the three scenarios under consideration.In all
cases,the impact population peaks in 1990 and falls until 1995 before
rising to a lower peak in 1999.Thereafter,population falls toward a
more stable long-term pattern during the operations period for the hydro-
electric project.
As shown in tables 1 through 11,the main differences between the FERC
license application projections and the revised forecasts developed in
1983 were:
1.higher baseline population projections in the 1983 forecasts,
although differences narrow after 1994;
2.higher impact population projections in every year in the 1983
forecasts except for 1987 to 1989 under the car transportation
scenario;
3.higher with-project and impact population forecasts for the bus
1
~.,
,
transportation scenario than the revised car transportation
scenario,impact population is 5 to 9 percent higher over the
projection period under the bus transportation scenario;
4.higher impact employment by place of residence in the 1983 fore-
casts through 2002,revised car and bus transportation scenarios
are 6 percent and 11 percent higher,respectively,in 1990;
5.higher baseline household projections in the 1983 forecasts
until 1996;
"1
'1
.J
-~
~
~
i
~
l.
j
,,
~
~
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
lower impact household projections in the 1983 forecasts until
1995 (see changes in outmigration rates,section 2.3.2.6)
higher baseline and impact police manpower requirements in the
1983 forecasts;
lower baseline and impact recreation facility requirements in
the 1983 forecasts (see recreation standards,section 2.3.4.1);
higher baseline and impact school children enrollments for both
the primary and secondary ages groups and higher school capacity
estimates in the 1983 forecasts;
higher baseline and impact revenues and expenditures for the
general furid in the 1983 forecasts,leading to lower deficits or
higher surpluses in the fiscal balance in the 1983 forecasts;
...J
11.lower baseline and impact service fund outlays and higher base-
line and lower impact service fund revenues,leading to greater,
positive revised baseline and impact fiscal balance forecasts;
1
-'
.J
12.
13.
higher baseline revenues and lower baseline expenditures for the
school district,leading to greater positive baseline fiscal
balances in the 1983 forecasts;and
higher impact revenues and mixed effect on impact outlays for
the school district in the 1983 forecasts,leading to greater
surpluses or lower deficits with differences narrowing over time.
j
--.i
""
~
TABLE 1
MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH (OFF-SITE)
POPULATION PROJECTIONS,FERC LICENSE APPLICATION SCENARIO,
AND 1983 REVISED CAR AND BUS TRANSPORTATION SCENARIOS,
1985-2002
Year FERC License Application Revised Impact Projections
With-Project and Impact With-Project and Impact
Population Projections Population Projections
Personal Vehicle Transportation Scenario
Transportation Scenario Car Bus
Baseline W-Proj.Impact Baseline W-Proj.Impact W-Proj.Impact
1985 31,202 31,312 110 35,224 35,620 396 35,655 431
1986 33,950 34,096 146 37,624 38,143 519 38,181 557
1987 36,894 37,615 721 39,610 40,261 651 40,304 694
1988 39,323 40,308 985 42,004 42,495 941 42,559 1,005
1989 41,543 42,650 1,107 44,163 45,248 1,085 45,327 1,164
1990 42,964 44,353 1,389 47,246 48,639 1,393 48,735 1,489
1991 45,263 46,600 1,337 49,168 50,530 1,362 50,620 1,452
1992 47,112 48,322 1,210 52,401 53,676 1,275 53,764 1,363
1993 49,734 50,747 1,013 54,797 55,964 1,167 56,040 1,243
1994 51,988 52,925 937 56,990 58,118 1,128 58,199 1,209
1995 54,607 55,498 891 58,975 60,074 1,099 60,151 1,176
1996 57,191 58,115 924 61,235 62,362 1,127 62,442 1,207
1997 60,272 61,247 975 63,675 64,858 1,183 64,929 1,254
1998 63,000 64,032 1,032 66,062 67,275 1,213 67,356 1,294
1999 66,338 67,385 1,047 68,514 69,734 1,220 69,819 1,305.
2000 69,334 70,355 1,021 71,079 72,278 1,199 72,355 1,276
2001 72,731 73,661 930 73,718 74,843 1,125 74,927 1,209
2002 76,295 77,132 .837 76,452 77,531 1,079 77,590 1,138
Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983.
3
~
-,
TABLE 2
MATANUSKA SUSITNA BOROUGH (OFF SITE)
ECONOMIC/DEMOGRAPHIC IMPACTS
WATANA PEAK CONSTRUCTION YEAR,1990
Socioeconomic
Variable
FERC License
Application Impact
Projections
(Projected in 1982)
Revised
Impact Projections
(Projected in 1983)
1/Employment (Manpower)
Transportation Scenario
Car Bus
~
'-1
-'
~;;
-'
....,
::>-i
-
d
1
J
j
~
""
Baseline
With-Project
Impact
Population (People)
Baseline
With-project Population
Impact
Households (Occupied Units)
Baseline
With-project
Impact
6,914
7,857
943
42,964
44,353
1,389
14,417
14,903
486
7,857
8,856
999
47,246
48,639
1,393
15,375
15,791
416
7,857
8,904
1,047
47,246
48,735
1,489
15,375
15,822
447
:J
-"
--<
ii
1/Employment is by place of residence.
Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983.
4
"1
TABLE 3
MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH (OFF-SITE)
ECONOMIC/DEMOGRAPHIC IMPACTS
FIRST YEAR OF FULL OPERATION,2002
Socioeconomic
Variable
FERC License
Application Impact
(Projected in 1982)
Revised Impact
Projections
(Projected in 1983)
1/Employment (Manpower)
Transportation Scenario
Car Bus
1
~
-'
..,
-.
1
:3
~
,
~
1
;;i
Baseline
With-Project
Impact
Population (People)
Baseline
With-project Population
Impact
Households (Occupied Units)
Baseline
With-project
Impact
2/
2/
6
76,295
77,132
837
28,715
29,004
289
10,976
11,021
45
76,452
77 ,531
1,079
26,454
26,781
327
10,976
11,021
45
76,452
77,590
1,138
26,454
26,799
345
..
..,
'"
,..
-"'
:j
1/Employment is by place of residence •
2/Employment was not projected for the Mat-Su Borough (off-site)in the
FERC license application.
Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983.
0356h
5
"-
TABLE 4
MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH (OFF-SITE)
FACILITIES/SERVICES IMPACTS
WATANA PEAK CONSTRUCTION YEAR,1990
Socioeconomic
Variable
FERC License
Application
Impact Projections
(Projected in 1982)
Revised Impact
Projections
(Projected in 1983)
Transportation Scenario
Car Bus
Solid Waste Disposal (Cumulative Acres):
Baseline
With-project
Impact of Project
Capacity Y
Project-related Increase (%)~/
%of Capacity Utilization 21
44.7
45.3
0.6
217.0
1.3%
21.4%
49.1
49.8
0.7
212.0
1.4%
23.5%
49.1
49.9
0.8
212.0
1.6%
23.5%
"1 Police Protection (Manpower Requirements):
-,
J
~
Baseline
With-project
Impact of Project
Number of Police Personnel Y
Project-related Increase (%j ~/
%Inc.Over Existing Staff -I
48
49
1
20
2.1%
145.0%
52.4
54.1
1.7
29.0
3.2%
86.6%
52.4
54.1
1.7
29.0
3.2%
86.6%
"'3
Recreation Facilities (Acres of Community Parks):4/
,
j
d
"'"
Bas@line
With-project
Impact of Project
Hospital Requirements,(Number of Beds):
Baseline
With-project
Impact of Project
Capacity !/
Project-related Increase (%)~
%of Capacity Utilization 37
RO.O acreR
82.0 acres
2.0 acres
60.0
61.0
1.0
23.0
1.7%
260.9%
73.8
75.4
1.6
60.5
62.3
1.8
30.0
1.4%
207.7%
73.8
75.5
1.7
60.5
62.4
1.9
30.0
1.6%
208.0%
1/
-"2/
-'3/
4/
--"
Cap~city/personnel numbers used in FERC projections were from 1981;the
similar numbers used in the revised projections were from 1983.
Calculated by dividing the impact number by the baseline number.
Calculated by dividing the with-project number by the capacity number.
Recreation facility requirements are lower in the revised projections due
to a refinement in the projection methodology.
Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983.
I:.
TABLE 5
MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH (OFF-SITE)
FACILITIES/SERVICES IMPACTS
FIRST YEAR OF FULL OPERATION,2002
Socioeconomic
Variable
FERC License
Application
Impact Projections
(Projected in 1982)
Revised Impact
Projections
(Projected in 1983)
Transportation Scenario
Car Bus
Solid Waste Disposal (Cumulative Acres):
'"
Baseline
With-project
Impact of Project
Capacity 1./
Project-related Increase (%)~
%of Capacity Utilization 17
182.4
185.3
2.9
217.0
1.6%
85.4%
194.0
197.4
3.4
212.0
1.8%
93.1%
194.0
197.6
3.6
212.0
1.9%
93.2%
Police Protection (Manpower Requirements):
-'
'"
Baseline
With-project
Impact of Project
Number of Police Personnel 1/
Project-related Increase (%j ~/
%Inc.Over Existing Staff -!
87
88
1
20
1.1%
345.0%
87.3
88.6
1.3
29.0
1.5%
205.5%
87.3
88.6
1.3
29.0
1.5%
205.5%
Recreation Facilities (Acres of Community Parks):4/
...
'"
~
Basellue
With-project
Impact of Project
Hospital Requirements·(Number of Beds):
Baseline
With-project
Impact of Project
Capacity ~/
Project-related Increase (%)l/
%of Capacitr Utilization 17
15/,. 2 acres
155.6 acres
1.4 acres
128.0
129.0
1.0
23.0
0.7%
560.9%
126.9
128.2
1.3
128.5
130.3
1.8
30.0
1.4%
434.3%
17n.Q
128.3
1.3
128.5
130.4
1.9
30.0
1.5%
434.8%
1/Capacity/personnel numbers used in FERC projections were from 1981;
the similar numbers used in the revised projections were from 1983.
-l
2/
3/
4/
Calculated by dividing the impact number by the baseline number.
Calculated by dividing the with-project number by the capacity number.
Recreation facility requirements are lower in the revised projections
due to a refinement in the projection methodology.
Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983.
TABLE 6
MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH (OFF-SITE)
FACILITIES/SERVICES IMPACTS
WATANA PEAK CONSTRUCTION YEAR,1990
Socioeconomic
Variable
FERC License
Applica tion
Impact Projections
(Projected in 1982)
Revised Impact
Projections
(Projected in 1983)
Transportation Scenario
Car Bus
Primary School Children:
10,011
10,372
361
6,516
3.6%
159.2%
"1
l
d
~
c3
£
,..
,
=>
Baseline
With-project
Impact of lroject
Capacity 1:.
Projec.t-Related Increase Y
Percent of Capacity Utilization2!
Secondary School Children:
Baseline
With-project
Impact of Project
Capacity 11
Project-Related Increase Y
Percent of Capacity Utilization2!
Total School Enrollment:
Baseline
With-project
Impact of Project
Capacity 1:./
Project-Related Increase (%)Y
Percent of Capacity Utilizatio~/
5,406
5,608
202
3,136
3.7%
178.8%
4,605
4,764
159
3,380
3.5%
140.9%
5,911
6,117
206
4,835
3.5%
126.5%
5,036
5,211
175
4,080
3.5%
127.7%
10,947
11,328
381
8,915
3.5%
127.0%
5,911
6,131
220
4,835
3.7%
126.8%
5,036
5,224
188
4,080
3.7%
128.0%
10,947
11,355
408
8,915
3.7%
127.3%
d
~
::iii
1:./
]j
Includes existing and planned capacity.Capacity estimates for FERC
projections were from 1981.Estimates for revised projections were from
1983.
Calculated by dividing the impact number by the baseline number.
~
.:j
1/Calculated by dividing the with-project number by the capacity number.
Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983.
8
TABLE 7
MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH (OFF-SITE)
FACILITIES/SERVICES IMPACTS
FIRST FULL YEAR OF OPERATION,2002
Socioeconomic
Variable
FERC License
Application
Impact Projections
(Projected in 1982)
Revised Impact
Projections
(Projected in 1983)
Transportation Scenario
Car Bus
Primary School Children:
-,
1
='
Baseline
With-pro jec t
Impact of Project
Capacity Y
Project-Related Increase ~
Percent of Capacity Uti1ization1!
Secondary School Children:
10,300
10,402
102
3,136
1.0%
331.7%
10,321
10,483
162
4,835
1.6%
216.8%
10,321
10,492
171
4,835
1.7%
217.0%
19,074
19,263
189
6,516
3.6%
295.6%
~
~:j
"?
,
:.:./II
--;
'.;~
Baseline
With-project
Impact of Project
Capacity Y
Project-Related Increase ~
Percent of Capacity Uti1izatio~/
Total School Enrollment:
Baseline
With-pro jec t
Impact of Project
Capacity Y
Project-Related Increase (%)~
Percent of Capacity Uti1izatio~/
8,774
8,861
87
3,380
1.0%
262.2%
8,792
8,930
138
4,080
1.6%
218.8%
19,113
19,413
300
8,915
3.5%
217.7%
8,792
8,937
145
4,080
1.6%
219.0%
19,113
19,429
316
8,915
3.7%
217.9%
J
c3
-,
o~
1./
2/
3/
Includes existing and planned capacity.Capacity estimates for FERC
projections were from 1981.Estimates for revised projections were from
1983.
Calculated by dividing the impact number by the baseline number.
Calculated by dividing the with-project number by the capacity number.
J
d
Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983.
9
-"'I
Socioeconomic
Variable
TABLE 8
MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH (OFF-SITE)
FISCAL IMPACTS
WATANA PEAK CONSTRUCTION YEAR,1990
FERCLicense
Application
Impact Projections
(Projected in 1982)
Revised Impact
Projections
(Projected in 1983)
~
:--J
..,
d
='
oj
,
--"
J
--,
Transportation Scenario
Car Bus
General Fund (thousands of dollars):
Baseline Revenues 28000 39068 39068
With-project Revenues 29000 40220 40301
Impact on Revenues 1000 1151 1231
Baseline Expenditures 33100 42873 42873
With-project Expend.34200 44138 44224
Impact on Expend.1100 1265 1351
Net Fiscal Balance (baseline)-5100 -3805 -3805
Net Fiscal Balance (w-project)-5200 -3918 -3923
Project Impact -100 -113 -118
Service Area Fund (thousands of dollars):
Baseline Revenues 2700 5186 5186
With-project Service Area Rev.3400 5229 5233
Impact on Service Area Revenues 700 44 47
Baseline Service Area Expend.9400 5025 5025
With-project Ser.Area Expend.9600 5064 5067
Impact on Service Area Expend.200 39 42
Net Fiscal Balance (baseline)-6700 161 161
Net Fiscal Balance (w-project)-6200 165 166
Project Impact 500 4 5
Note:Sums may not equal totals due to independent rounding.
Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983.
TABLE 9
MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH (OFF-SITE)
FISCAL IMPACTS
FIRST YEAR OF FULL OPERATION,2002
Socioeconomic
Variable
FERC License
Application
Impact Projections
(Projected in 1982)
Revised Impact
Projections
(Projected in 1983)
Transportation Scenario
Car Bus
1
-,
-'
-,
General Fund (thousands of dollars):
Baseline Revenues 46500 86202 86202
With-project Revenues 47400 87420 87487
Impact on Revenues 900 1216 1283
Baseline Expenditures 58800 76247 76247
With-project Expend.59400 77324 77382
Impact on Expend.600 1076 1135
Net Fiscal Balance (baseline)-12300 9955 9955
Net Fiscal Balance (w-project)-12000 10096 10105
Project Impact 300 141 150
:::j
20223
20278
54
19284
19325
40
939
953
14
20223
20275
51
19284
19322
38
939
953
14
4200
5200
1000
19200
19300
100
-15000
-14100
900
With-project Service Area Rev.
Impact on Service Area Revenues
Baseline Service Area Expend.
With-project Ser.Area Expend.
Impact on Service Area Expend.
Net Fiscal Balance (baseline)
Net Fiscal Balance (w-project)
Project ImEact
Service Area Fund (thousands of dollars):
Baseline Revenues
~
"""'
-~
~
'"
Note:Sums may not equal totals due to independent rounding.
--<i
Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983.
-:J
0344h
11
TABLE 10
MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
FISCAL IMPACTS
WATANA PEAK CONSTRUCTION YEAR,1990
Socioeconomic
Variable
FERC License
Application
Impact Projections
(Projected in 1982)
Revised Impact
Projections
(Projected in 1983)
Transportation Scenario
Car Bus
~..
"l
...j
j
=i
~
,
~
,
='
-,
"~
-'
~
School District Fund (thousands of dollars):
Baseline Revenues 50300 57972 57972
With-project Revenues 53400 62523 62648
Impact on Revenues 3100 4552 4676
Baseline Expenditures 61100 56804 56804
With-project Expend.65100 60608 60742
Impact on Expend.4000 3804 3938
Net Fiscal Balance (baseline)-10800 1168 1168
Net Fiscal Balance (w-project)-11700 1915 1906
Project Impact -900 747 738
Note:Sums may not equal totals due to independent rounding.
Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983.
12
1
-,
TABLE 11
MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
FISCAL IMPACTS
FIRST YEAR OF FULL OPERATION,2002
Socioeconomic
Variable
FERC·License
Applica tion
Impact Projections
(Projected in 1982)
Revised Impact
Projections
(Projected in 1983)
Transportation Scenario
Car Bus
-,
-,
;..;l
-,
_ci
-,
u
-~
ci
::::i
-.,
--'
-d
School District Fund (thousands of dollars):
Baseline Revenues 93400 110885 110885
With-project Revenues 95100 113509 113595
Impact on Revenues 1700 2624 2711
Baseline Expenditures 116400 99177 99177
With-project Expend.118600 101533 101611
Impact on Expend.2200 2356 2434
Net Fiscal Balance (baseline)-23000 11708 11708
Net Fiscal Balance (w-project)-23500 11976 11985
Percent Increase in Deficits -500 268 277
Note:Sums may not equal totals due to independent rounding.
Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983.
13
VN133~lVl ~O AIINnWWOJ
L
L
r
-,
,
cJ
=oil
..:..if
-,
,
~-3
""1
J
~
-'i
.j
4.0 COMMUNITY OF TALKEETNA
SUMMARY OF SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT PROJECTIONS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter summarizes and compares the projected impacts of the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project on the community of Talkeetna.The following
tables present the baseline,with-project,and impact forecasts for the
FERC License Application and for the two transportation scenarios in the
1983 revised projections.Table 1 presents the population forecasts for
each of these scenarios annually from 1985 to 2002.Tables 2 and 3 show
the employment,population,and housing demand forecasts for the years
1990 (peak construction)and 2002 (full operations).Tables 4 through 5
summarize the facilities/services forecasts for the same two years.
4.2 KEY CHANGES
Table 1 presents the baseline,with-project,and impact population pro-
jections for each of the three scenarios under consideration.In all
cases,the impact population peaks in 1990 and falls until 1995 before
rising to a lower peak in 1999.Thereafter,population falls toward a
more stable long-term pattern during the operations period for the hydro-
electric project.
As shown in these tables,the main differences between the FERC license
application projections and the revised forecasts developed in 1983 are:
1.lower baseline population projections in the 1983 forecasts (see
changes in community boundaries,section 2.3.2.11);
2.lower with-project and impact population projections in the 1983
forecasts except for 1985 and 1986;
1
-,
-,
3.higher with-project and impact population forecasts for the bus
transportation scenario than the revised car transportation
scenario t impact population is 5 to 14 percent higher over the
projection period under the bus transportation scenario;
4.lower impact employment by place of residence in the 1983 fore-
casts t revised car and bus transportation scenarios are 40 per-
cent and 43 percent of the FERC projections,respectively,in
1990;
5.lower baseline,with-project t and impact household projections
in the 1983 forecasts;
--'
j
1
-,
~
i-"
J
-,
=:i
·8
.Ji
6.
7.
lower baseline and impact school children enrollments for both
the primary and secondary ages groups but higher percent in-
crease over baseline in the 1983 forecasts;and
lower school capacity estimates in the 1983 forecasts.
2
~
j
1
-,
""
-,
3
'"
'1
,
J
a
J
-,
'"
:::
-'
:i
TABLE 1
COMMUNITY OF TALKEETNA
POPULATION PROJECTIONS,FERC LICENSE APPLICATION SCENARIO,
AND 1983 REVISED CAR AND BUS TRANSPORTATION SCENARIOS,
1985-2002
Year FERC License Application Revised Impact Projections
With-Project and Impact With-Project and Impact
Population Projections Population Projections
Personal Vehicle Transportation Scenario
Transportation Scenario Car Bus
Baseline W-Proj.Impact Baseline W-Proj.Impact W-Proj.Impact
1985 780 805 25 358 410 52 416 58
1986 820 853 33 376 446 70 456 80
1987 862 1,036 174 395 485 90 493 98
1988 .906 1,143 237 415 547 132 557 142
1989 952 1,219 267 436 588 152 599 163
1990 1,000 1,335 335 457 652 -195 666 209
1991 1,051 1,374 323 480 670 190 684 204
1992 1,104 1,398 294 504 684 180 694 190
1993 1,160 1,410 250 529 691 162 698 169
1994 1,219 1,452 233 556 711 155 721 165
1995 1,281 1,503 222 584 732 148 746 162
1996 1,347 1,576 229 613 768 155 778 165
1997 1,41'1 1,n'1'1 240 643 805 162 815 172
1998 1,487 1,740 253 676 841 165 859 183
1999 1,563 1,820 257 709 873 164 891 182
2000 1,642 1,8'93 251 745 909 164 924 179
2001 1,726 1,956·230 782 933 151 950 168
2002 1,814 2,023 209 821 968 147 975 154
Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983.
TABLE 2
COMMUNITY OF TALKEETNA
ECONOMIC/DEMOGRAPHIC IMPACTS
WATANA PEAK CONSTRUCTION YEAR,1990
Socioeconomic
Variable
FERC License
Application Impact
Projections
(Projected in 1982)
Revised Impact
Projections
(Projected in 1983)
Employment (Manpower)1/
Transportation Scenario
Car Bus
.,
..,
-,
-J
-,
Baseline
With-Project
Impact
Population (People)
Baseline
With-project Population
Impact
Households (Occupied Units)
Baseline
With-project
Impact
2/
2/
240
1,000
1,335
335
334
451
117
2/
2/
95
457
652
195
149
208
59
2/
2/
103
457
666
209
149
214
65
d
,
:3
'='
=1i
-~
J
~
l/Employment is by place of residence.
2/Employment at the community level was not projected.
Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983.
b.
TABLE 3
COMMUNITY OF TALKEETNA
ECONOMIC/DEMOGRAPHIC IMPACTS
FIRST YEAR OF FULL OPERATION,2002
Socioeconomic
Variable
FERC License
Application Impact
Projections
(Projected in 1982)
Revised Impact
Projections
(Projected in 1983)
Employment (Manpower)1/
Transportation Scenario
Car Bus
Baseline
With-Project
Impact
Population (People).
Baseline
With-project Population
Impact
Households (Occupied Units)
Baseline
With-project
Impact
2/
2/
6
1,814
2,023
209
683
755
72
2/
2/
4
821
968
147
284
330
46
2/
2/
4
821
975
154
284
332
48
1/Employment is by place of residence.
2/Employment at the community level was not projected.
Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983.
0354h
')
-,
Socioeconomic
Variable
TABLE 4
COMMUNITY OF TALKEETNA 1./
FACILITIES/SERVICES IMPACTS
WATANA PEAK CONSTRUCTION YEAR,1990
FERC License
Application
Impact Projections
(Projected in 1982)
Revised Impact
Projections
(Projected in 1983)
Primary School Children:
Transportation Scenario
Car Bus
..,
"
-,
--'
4
3
~
;
.J
,
Baseline
With-project
Impact of Project
Capacity l:../
Project-Related Increase 11
Percent of Capacity Utilizatio~
Secondary School Children:5/
Baseline
With-pro ject
Impact of Project
Project-Related Increase 3/
Total School Enrollment:
Baseline
With-project
Impact ot ~roject
Project-Related Increase 3/
126
164
48
120
30.2%
136.6%
107
138
41
38.3%
233
302
69
29.6%
57
86
29
100
50.8%
86.0%
49
74
25
44.9%
106
160
54
50.9%
57
88
31
100
54.3%
88.0%
49
75
26
53.0%
106
163
57
53.7%
--,
='
-'
1/
2/
1.1
4/
5/
The Talkeetna area was defined differently in the license application and
in the current version of the Susitna model.In the current version,the
Talkeetna area corresponds to the townsite area or that used in the
socioeconomic surveys.In the license application,the Talkeetna area
also included the area along the Talkeetna Spur Road.
Includes existing and planned capacity.Capacity estimates for FERC
projections were from 1981.Estimates for revised projections were from
1983.
Calculated by dividing the impact number by the baseline number.
Calculated by dividing the with-project number by the capacity number.
There are no secondary schools located in Talkeetna.
J
Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983.
6
Socioeconomic
Variable
TABLE 5
COMMUNITY OF TALKEETNA 1./
FACILITIES/SERVICES IMPACTS
FIRST FULL YEAR OF OPERATION,2002
FERC License
Application
Impact Projections
(Projected in 1982)
Revised Impact
Projections
(Projected in 1983)
Primary School Children:
Transportation Scenario
Car Bus
'"
....i
'"
-'
-'
",..:I
l
-"
Baseline
With-project
Impact of Project
Capacity Y
Project-Related Increase 11
Percent of Capacity Utilizatio~/
Secondary School Children:5/
Baseline
With-project
Impact of Project
Project-Related Increase 11
Total School Enrollment:
Baseline
With-project
lmpact of Project
Project-Related Increase 3/
245
270
25
120
10.2%
225.0%
209
231
22
11.0%
454
501
47
10.4%
III
133
22
100
19.8%
133.0%
94
113
19
20.2%
205
246
41
20.0%
III
135
24
100
21.6%
135.0%
94
114
20
21.2%
205
249
44
21.4%
~
~
3
1./
2/
3/
4/
5/
The Talkeetna area was defined differently in the license application and
in the current version of the Susitna model.In the current version,the
Talkeetna area corresponds to the townsite area or that used in the
socioeconomic surveys.In the license application,the Talkeetna area
also included the area along the Talkeetna Spur Road.
Includes existing and planned capacity.Capacity estimates for FERC
projections were from 1981.Estimates for revised projections were from
1983.
Calculated by dividing the impact number by the baseline number.
Calculated by dividing the with-project number by the capacity number.
There are no secondary schools located in Talkeetna.
:::l
Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983.
7
~33MJ M3ddVMl 30 AIINnWWOJ
..
L
L
~
=i
~
...
~
5.0 COMMUNITY OF TRAPPER CREEK
SUMMARY OF SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT PROJECTIONS
5.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter summarizes and compares the projected impacts of the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project on the community of Trapper Creek.The following
tables present the baseline,with-project,and impact forecasts for the
FERC License Application and for the two transportation scenarios in the
1983 revised projections.Table 1 presents the population forecasts for
each of these scenarios annually from 1985 to 2002.Tables 2 and 3 show
the employment,population,and housing demand forecasts for the years
1990 (peak construction)and 2002 (full operations).Tables 4 through 5
summarize the facilities/services forecasts for the same two years.
5.2 KEY CHANGES
Table 1 presents the baseline,with-project,and impact population pro-
jections for each of the three scenarios under consideration.In all
cases,the impact population peaks in 1990 and falls until 1995 before
rising to a lower peak in 1999.Thereafter,population falls toward a
more stable long-term pattern during the operations period for the hydro-
electric project.
As shown in these tables,the main differences between the FERC license
application projections and the revised forecasts developed in 1983 are:
;:::.
----<i
~
1.
2.
lower baseline population projections in the 1983 forecasts (see
changes in community boundaries,section 2.3.2.ll);
lower with-project and impact population projections in the 1983
forecasts except for 1985 and 1986,although differences in
impact population narrow after 1990 (see changes in outmigration
rates,section 2.3.2.6);
1
~-~~~
3.higher with-project and impact population forecasts for the bus
transportation scenario than the revised car transportation
scenario,impact population is 6 to 10 percent higher over the
projection period under the bus transportation scenario;
4.lower impact employment by place of residence in the 1983 fore-
casts,revised car and bus transportation scenarios are 46 per-
cent and 50 percent of the FERC projections,respectively,in
1990;
5.lower baseline,with-project,and impact household projections
in the 1983 forecasts;
'"
j
"1
-"
"'
.:J
"1,
~
-'
c1
-~
j
dI
'"
,
---i
--Jl
6.
7.
lower baseline and impact school children enrollments for both
the primary and secondary ages groups in the 1983 forecasts but
differences in the number of impact school children become
smaller under 1983 forecasts after 1990;and
higher school capacity estimates in the 1983 forecasts.
2
,
j
1
~
,
"'
3
~
i
j
"'
~
j
TABLE 1
COMMUNITY OF TRAPPER CREEK
POPULATION PROJECTIONS,FERC LICENSE APPLICATION SCENARIO,
AND 1983 REVISED CAR AND BUS TRANSPORTATION SCEN.6RIOS,
1985-2002
Year FERC License Application Revised Impact Projections
With-Project and Impact With-Project and Impact
Population Projections Population Projections
Personal Vehicle Transportation Scenario
Transportation Scenario Car Bus
Baseline W-Proj.Impact Baseline W-Proj.Impact W-Proj.Impact
1985 263 295 32 246 324 78 332 86
1986 274 317 43 255 362 107 368 113
1987 285 526 241 266 396 130 409 143
1988 296 633 337 276 469 193 479 203
1989 308 686 378 287 504 217 528 241
1990 320 795 475 299 584 285 608 309
1991 333 784 451 311 589 278 613 302
1992 346 733 387 323 583 260 604 281
1993 360 648 288 336 569 233 589 253
1994 375 625 250 349 571 222 592 243
1995 390 617 227 363 582 219 595 232
1996 406 653 247 378 600 222 620 242
1997 422 700 n?193 628 235 644 251
1998 439 745 306 409 650 241 667 258
1999 456 770 314 425 666 241 689 264
2000 474 7-76 302 442 679 237 696 254
2001 493 749 256 460 680 220 700 240
2002 513 725 212 478 689 211 702 224
Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983.
TABLE 2
COMMUNITY OF TRAPPER CREEK
ECONOMIC/DEMOGRAPHIC IMPACTS
WATANA PEAK CONSTRUCTION YEAR,1990
Socioeconomic
Variable
FERC License
Application Impact
Projections
(Projected in 1982)
Revised Impact
Projections
(Projected in 1983)
Employment (Manpower)1/
Transportation Scenario
Car Bus
:l
Baseline
With-Project
Impact
Population (People)
Baseline
With-project Population
Impact
Households (Occupied Units)
Baseline
With-project
Impact
2/
2/
239
320
795
475
107
275
168
2/
'!:../
110
299
584
285
97
183
86
2/
2/
120
299
608
309
97
191
94
1
-'
J
J
-,
:;j
~
j
...
1/Employment is by place of residence.
2/Employment at the community level was not projected.
Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983.
TABLE 3
COMMUNITY OF TRAPPER CREEK
ECONOMIC/DEMOGRAPHIC IMPACTS
FIRST YEAR OF FULL OPERATION,2002
Socioeconomic
Variable
FERC License
Application Impact
Projections
(Projected in 1982)
Revised Impact
Projections
(Projected in 1983)
Employment (Manpower)1/
Transportation Scenario
Car Bus
...Jl
~
-"
:::iI
1
~
Baseline
With-Project
Impact
Population (People)
Baseline
With-project Population
Impact
Households (Occupied Units)
Baseline
With-project
Impact
2/
2/
6
513
725
212
193
266
73
2/
2/
4
478
689
211
165
230
65
2/
2/
4
478
702
224
165
234
69
~,
~
J
:]
..;
,.j
J
-"
1/Employment is by place of residence.
2/Employment at the community level was not projected.
Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983.
0355h
TABLE 4
COMMUNITY OF TRAPPER CREEK
FACILITIES/SERVICES IMPACTS
WATANA PEAK CONSTRUCTION YEAR,1990
Socioeconomic
Variable
FERC License
Application
Impact Projections
(Projected in 1982)
Revised Impact
Projections
(Projected in 1983)
Primary School Children:
Transportation Scenario
Car Bus
"1
~
~
-"
~
1
-
~
Baseline
With-project
Impact of Project
Capacity 1:..1
Project-Related Increase 3/
Percent of Capacity Utilizatio~
Secondary School Children:~
Baseline
With-project
Impact of Project
Project-Related Increase 3/
Total School Enrollment:
40 Y
153
75
30
282.5%
510.0%
34
92
58
170.5%
37
78
41
50
110.8%
156.0%
32
67
35
109.3%
37
81
44
50
118.9%
162.0%
32
70
38
118.7%
The FERC License Application projections included an estimate of school
children from Trapper Creek,shown above,and in addition,a projection
of the enrollment in the Trapper Creek elementary school of 78 students
in 1990.The Trapper Creek elementary school serves a wide area in the
northern part of the Mat-Su Borough.The numbers in this table only
refer to the school children expected to be living in Trapper Creek.
j
~
d
};j
Baseline
With-project
Impact ot Project
Project-Related Increase 3/
112
245
133
118.8%
69
145
76
110.1%
69
151
82
118.8%
J
J
~
J:j
2/
4/
5/
Includes existing and planned capacity.Capacity estimates for FERC
projections were from 1981.Estimates for revised projections were from
1983.
Calculated by dividing the impact number by the baseline number.
Calculated by dividing the with-project number by the capacity number.
There are no secondary schools located in Trapper Creek.
~
..,
Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983.
6
[
[
IL_
TABLE 5
COMMUNITY OF TRAPPER CREEK
FACILITIES/SERVICES IMPACTS
FIRST YEAR OF FULL OPERATION,2002
"
Socioeconomic
Variable
FERC License
Application
Impact Projections
(Projected in 1982)
Revised Impact
Projections
(Projected in 1983)
Primary School Children:
Transportation Scenario
Car Bus
:::=;
-.J
~
--'
--,
--'
'1
o.:J
~
--#
-'
Baseline
With-project
Impact of Project
Capacity 2:..1
Project-Related Increase 11
Percent of Capacity Utilizatio~/
Secondary School Children:5/
Baseline
With-project
Impact of Project
Project-Related Increase 3/
Total School Enrollment:
Baseline
With-project
Impact of Project
Project-Related Increase 3/
69 Y
94
25
30
36.2%
313.0%
59
81
22
37.7%
128
175
47
26.9%
65
96
31
50
47.6%
192.0%
55
82
27
49.0%
120
178
38
48.3%
65
98
33
50
50.7%
196.0%
55
83
28
50.9%
120
181
61
50.8%
::;
:..i
}j
2/
3/
4/
51
The FERC License Application projections included an estimate of school
children from Tr.apper Creek,shown above,and in addition,a projection
of the enrollment in the Trapper Creek elementary school of 78 students
in 1990.The Trapper Creek elementary school serves a wide area in the
northern part of the Mat-Su Borough.The numbers in this table only
refer to the school children expected to be living in Trapper Creek.
Includes existing and planned capacity.Capacity estimates for FERC
projections were from 1981.Estimates for revised projections were from
1983.
Calculated by dividing the impact number by the baseline number.
Calculated by dividing the with-project number by the capacity number.
There are no secondary schools located in Trapper Creek.
j Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983.
6
113MlNV~~O AIINnWWO~
L
,
L
r
-""
~
-"
"
1
~
.J
oJ
3
.J
~
6.0 COMMUNITY OF CANTWELL
SUMMARY OF SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT PROJECTIONS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter summarizes and compares the projected impacts of the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project on the community of Cantwell.In the Federal Ener-
gy Regulatory Commission (FERC)license application,two scenarios re-
lated to the presence or absence of a land constraint in Cantwell were
reported.Presently,the Ahtna Native Regional Corporation owns most of
the private land in the community so that any significant expansion will
require the consent of,and support by,the Corporation.This aspect of
the community's response to the Susitna Hydroelectric Project was dis-
cussed in the FERC license application and has not been repeated here.
In the 1983 revised projections,two transportation scenarios that in-
clude a "no land constraint"assumption were presented.One scenario
considers personal vehicle transportation and the other considers bus
transportation.These two scenarios reflect updates of baseline informa-
tion that were available from secondary sources and the socioeconomic
surveys conducted in October 1983,as well as enhancements that were made
to the economic-demographic module used for project planning.
The present model ~ses an attraction-constrained gravity model to redis-
tribute population among local impact area communities and is not capable
of dealing with supply constraints such as the availability of land.
However,it is expected that impact projections using updated baseline
information would be about the same as those shown in the FERC license
application scenario that includes a land constraint •
The following tables present the baseline,with-project,and impact fore-
casts for the FERC License Application and for the two transportation
scenarios in the 1983 revised projections.
1
1
:j
-'
-,
Table 1 presents the population forecasts for each of these scenarios
annually from 1985 to 2002.Tables 2 and 3 show the employment,popula-
tion,and housing demand forecasts for the years 1990 (peak construction)
and 2002 (full operations).Tables 4 through 5 summarize the facilities/
services forecasts for the same two years.
6.2 KEY CHANGES
Table 1 presents the baseline,with-project,and impact population pro-
jections for each of the four scenarios under consideration.In all
cases,the impact population peaks in 1990 and falls until 1995 before
rising to a lower peak in 1999.Thereafter,population falls toward a
more stable long-term pattern during the operations period of the hydro-
electric project.
As shown in these tables,the main differences between the FERC license
application projections and the revised forecasts developed in 1983 are:
1.higher baseline population projections in the 1983 forecasts;
-
3
-.J
...
.J
~
2.
3.
4.
lower with-project and impact population projections in the 1983
forecasts except for 1986,although differences in impact popu-
lation narrow after 1990 (see changes in outmigration rates,
section 2.3.2.6);
higher with-project and impact population forecasts for the bus
transportation scenario than the revised car transportation
scenario,impact population is 6 to 8 percent higher over the
projection period under the bus transportation scenario;
lower impact employment by place of residence in the 1983 fore-
casts,revised car and bus transportation scenarios are 88 per-
cent and 95 percent of the FERC projections,respectively,in
1990;
2
-l
~
~
-i
:.i
J
5.higher baseline and lower with-project and impact household
projections in the 1983 forecasts;and
6.higher baseline,with-project,and impact school children en-
rollments in the 1983 forecasts.
3
=l
.J
..,
-.
J
j
..,
-il
~
--'
-'
TABLE 1
COMMUNITY OF CANTWELL
POPULATION PROJECTIONS,FERC LICENSE APPLICATION SCENARIO,
AND 1983 REVISED CAR AND BUS TRANSPORTATION SCENARIOS,
1985-2002
Year FERC License Application Revised Impact Projections
With-Project and Impact With-Project and Impact
Population Projections Population Projections
Land No Land Transportation Scenario
Constraint Constraint Car Bus
Basel.W-Proj.Impact W-Proj.Impact Basel.W-Proj.Impact W-Proj.Impact
1985 194 424 230 624 430 201 569 368 596 395
1986 198 428 230 653 455 205 693 488 720 515
1987 202 367 165 840 638 209 581 372 611 402
1988 206 384 178 980 774 213 748 535 786 573
1989 210 394 184 1,053 843 217 835 618 880 663
1990 214 412 198 1,214 1,000 222 1,019 797 1,080 858
1991 219 416 .197 1,203 984 226 1,006 780 1,068 842
1992 223 417 194 1,184 961 231 964 733 1,020 789
1993 228 418 190 1,148 920 235 901 666 949 714
1994 232 362 130 1,026 794 240 880 640 930 690
1995 237 366 129 1,022 785 245 872 627 919 674
1996 241 370 129 1,026 785 250 891 6H 941 691
1997 246 375 129 1,039 793 255 926 671 975 720
1998 251 381 130 1,047 796 260 952 692 1,001 741
1999 256 386 130 1,044 788 265 966 701 1,019 754
2000 261 391 130 1,028 767 270 962 692 1,013 743
2001 267 395 128 1,011 744 276 925 649 973 697
2002 262 387 125 1,016 744 281 900 619 938 657
Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983.
TABLE 2
COMMUNITY OF CANTWELL
ECONOMIC/DEMOGRAPHIC IMPACTS
WATANA PEAK CONSTRUCTION YEAR,1990
Socioeconomic
Variable
1/Employment (Manpower)
FERC License Application
Impact Projections
(Projected in 1982)
Land No Land
Constraint Constraint
Revised Impact
Projections
(Projected in 1983)
Transportation Scenario
Car Bus
.,
-'
]
_1
Baseline
With-Project
Impact
Population (People)
2/
2/
85
2/
2/
287
2/
2/
253
2/
2/
272
.,
'"'
.,
~
;j
-,
Baseline 214
With-project Population 412
Impact 198
Households (Occupied Units)
214
1,214
1,000
222
1,019
.797
222
1,080
858
-'
~]
~
Baseline
With-project
Impact
78
139
61
78
411
333
88
329
241
88
349
261
.J
"
--'
-'
1/Employment is by place of residence •
2/Employment at the community level was not projected.
Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983.
5
-,
TABLE 3
COMMUNITY OF CANTWELL
ECONOMIC/DEMOGRAPHIC IMPACTS
FIRST YEAR OF FULL OPERATION,2002
-,
Socioeconomic
Variable
Employment (Manpower)1/
FERC License Application
Impact Projections
(Projected in 1982)
Land No Land
Constraint Constraint
Revised Impact
Projections
(Projected in 1983)
Transportation Scenario
Car Bus
-:'J
-'
:"2,
J
Baseline
With-Project
Impact
Population (People)
l;'!
2/
7
2/
2/
16
2/
2/
10
2/
2/
10
-,
:.JI
-'
""
Baseline 272
With-project Population 397
Impact 125
Households (Occupied Units)
272
1,016
744
281
900
619
281
938
657
j
::l
Baseline
Wi th-project
Impact
99
141
42
yy
349
250
lUl
287
186
101
298
197
j
-,
..
"~
.-.=J
;ii
1/Employment is by place of residence.
2/Employment at the community level was not projected.
Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983 •
6
TABLE 4
COMMUNITY OF CANTWELL
FACILITIES/SERVICES IMPACTS
WATANA PEAK CONSTRUCTION YEAR,1990
Socioeconomic
Variable
FERC License Application
Impact Projections
(Projected in 1982)
Revised Impact
Projections
(Projected in 1983)
School Children:1/
Land
Constraint
No Land
Constraint
Transportation Scenario
Car Bus
1 1 1
6 6 6
5 5 5
1 1 1
500.0%500.0% 500.0%
600.0%600.0% 600.0%
~
~
~~
oJ
Baseline
With-project
Impact of Project
Capacity l!
Project-ReI.Increase 4~
%of Cap.Utilization l
Police:E!
Baseline
With-project
Impact of Project
No.of Police Personnel
Project-ReI.Increase ~/
%Inc.Over Existing
Staff l/
2/
2/
2/
2/
2/
2/
2/
2/
2/
2/
2/
2/
39
189
150
60
384.6%
315.0%
40
257
217
60
542.5%
428.3%
40
274
234
60
585.0%
456.7%
...,
'"
1/
2/
3/
Cantwell has only one school that contains grades K-12.
Facili ty and service requirements were only projected for the No Land
Constraint scenario.
Includes existing and planned capacity.Capacity estimates for FERC
projections were from 1981.Estimates for revised projections were from
1983 •
•-:3
4/
5/
6/
Calculated by dividing the impact number by the baseline number.
Calculated by dividing the with-project number by the capacity number.
The requirements for police at the Cantwell State Trooper post,related
to the project,are calculated by adding the requirements related to
project personnel projected to live in Cantwell and the requirements of
the work camps.The work camps/village are expected to affect the
Cantwell post because it will be the closest post to the work sites,by
road.
'"
Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983.
7
TABLE 5
COMMUNITY OF CANTWELL
FACILITIES/SERVICES IMPACTS
FIRST YEAR OF FULL OPERATION,2002
Socioeconomic
Variable
FERC License Application
Impact Projections
(Projected in 1982)
Revised Impact
Projections
(Projected in 1983)
School Children:!/
Land
Constraint
No Land
Constraint
Transportation Scenario
Car Bus
"
-"'
Baseline
With-pro jec t
Impact of Project
Capac!ty 11
Project-ReI.Increase 4/
%of Cap.Utilization 2!
Police:~
2/
2/
2/
2/
2/
2/
49
117
68
60
138.8%
195.0%
50
218
168
60
336.0%
363.3%
50
228
178
60
356.0%
380.0%
-"
Baseline
Wi th-project
Impact of Project
No.of Police Personnel
Project-ReI.Increase ~
%Inc.Over Existing
Staff 5/
2/
2/
2/
2/
2/
2/
1 1 1
6 6 6
5 5 5
1 1 1
500.0%500.0%500.0%
600.0%600.0%600.0%
1
,,..
1
:.l
-'
1/
2/
3/
4/
5/
6/
Cantwell has only one school that contains grades K-12.
Facility and service requirements were only projected for the No Land
Constraint scenario.
Includes existing and planned capacity.Capacity estimates for FERC
projections were from 1981.Estimates for revised projections were from
1983.
Calculated by dividing the impact number by the baseline number.
Calculated by dividing the with-project number by the capacity number.
The requirements for police at the Cantwell State Trooper post,related
to the project,are calculated by adding the requirements related to
project personnel projected to live in Cantwell and the requirements of
the work camps.The work camps/village are expected to affect the
Cantwell post because it will be the closest post to the work sites,by
road.
J
Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983.
8
&~VHOH~NV 40 XII1VdI~INITR
'-
r,
.....,
L
L
L
L
1
~
-,
~
1
i
~
1
-'
."
.iI
"'
-'
~
"
"'
~
~
."
..ii'
7.0 MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE
SUMMARY OF SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT PROJECTIONS
7.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter summarizes and compares the projected impacts of the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project on the municipality of Anchorage.The following
tables present the baseline,with-project,and impact forecasts for the
FERC License Application and for the two transportation scenarios in the
1983 revised projections.Table 1 presents the population forecasts for
each of these scenarios annually from 1985 to 2002.Tables 2 and 3 show
the employment,population,and housing demand forecasts for the years
1990 (peak construction)and 2002 (full operations).
7.2 KEY CHANGES
Table 1 presents the baseline,with-project,and impact population pro-
jections for each of the.three scenarios under consideration.For the
FERC forecasts,the cumulative population influx peaks in 1990 and falls
until 1995 before rising to a lower peak in 1999.Thereafter,population
falls toward a more stable long-term pattern during the operations period
tor the hydroelectric project.For Lhe 1983 [uJ.ecasls,the impa.ct popu-
lation grows after 1990 until 1995,before declining to a lower level in
1999.Thereafter,the impact population grows until 2002 before sta-
bilizing.
As shown in these tables,the main differences between the FERC license
application projections and the revised forecasts developed in 1983 are:
]
1.lower baseline population projections in the 1983 forecasts
except for 1985 and 1994;
..
2.lower with-project population projections in the 1983 forecasts
except for 1985 and 1992 to 1995;
1
3.lower impact population projections in the 1983 forecasts until
1992,differences between impact population projections widen
until 1995,narrow until 1999,and widen after 1999 (see changes
in outmigration rates,sections 2.3.2.5 and 2.3.2.6);
3.higher with-project and impact population forecasts for the bus
transportation scenario than the revised car transportation
scenario in the years 1985,1992, 1999,and 2002,travel time to
project site does not change between scenarios,but relative
travel time compared to Fairbanks does change slightly;
4.lower impact employment by place of residence in the 1983 fore-
casts until 1994,revised car and bus transportation scenarios
are each 83 percent of the FERCprojections in 1990;
~
~
~
j
~
J
~
.J
,
J
co
5.
Q.
lower baseline and with-project household projections in the
1983 forecasts except in 1990 to 1995;and
lower impact household projections in the 1983 forecasts until
1992.
2
:,J
"1
,
...
1
:l
j
-,
j
TABLE 1
MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE
POPULATION PROJECTIONS,FERC LICENSE APPLICATION SCENARIO,
AND 1983 REVISED CAR AND BUS TRANSPORTATION SCENARIOS,
1985-2002
Year FERC License Application Revised Impact Projections
With-Project and Impact With-Project and Impact
Population Projections Population Projections
Personal Vehicle Transportation Scenario
Transportation Scenario Car Bus
Baseline W-Proj.Impact Baseline W-Proj.Impact W-Proj.Impact
1985 200,962 201,394 432 203,106 203,248 142 203,251 145
1986 209,820 210,409 589 208,061 208,214 153 208,214 153
1987 217,298 217,623 325 210,290 210,111 -179 210,111 -179
1988 222,731 223,213 482 212,003 212,012 9 212,012 9
1989 224,822 225,359 537 216,719 216,811 92 216,811 92
1990 224,027 224,690 663 223,196 223,376 180 223,376 180
1991 226,005 226,561 556 223,780 223,977 197 223,977 197
1992 227,024 227,278 254 229,944 230,275 331 230,279 335
1993 229,940 229,721 -219 232,002 232,842 840 232,842 840
1994 232,299 231,894 -405 232,952 234,216 1,264 234,216 1,264
1995 234,507 233,984 -523 232,879 234,245 1,366 234,245 1,366
1996 237,668 237,257 -411 233,733 234,996 1,263 234,996 1,Z63
1997 241,086 240,867 -219 235,060 236,282 1,222 236,282 1,222
1998 244,125 244,050 -75 235,981 237,175 1,194 237,175 1,194
1999 247,759 247.,723 -36 236,936 238,116 1,180 238,119 1,183
2000 251,102 251,010 -92 238,077 239,277 1,200 239,277 1,200
2001 254,617 254,284 -333 239,256 240,540 1,284 240,540 1,284
2002 258,182 257,650 '-532 240,532 242,205 1,673 242,208 1,676
Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983.
3
TABLE 2
MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE
ECONOMIC/DEMOGRAPHIC IMPACTS
WATANA PEAK CONSTRUCTION YEAR,1990
Socioeconomic
Variable
FERC License
Application Impact
Projections
(Projected in 1982)
Revised Impact
Projections
(Projected in 1983)
1/Employment (Manpower)
Transportation Scenario
Car Bus
Baseline
With-Project
Impact
131,705
134,715
3,010
129,493
131,995
2,502
129,493
131,995
2,502
oJ
..
~...
Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983.
'1
'1
TABLE 3
MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE
ECONOMIC/DEMOGRAPHIC IMPACTS
FIRST FULL YEAR OF OPERATION,2002
Socioeconomic
Variable
FERC License
Application Impact
Projections
(Projected in 1982)
Revised Impact
Projections
(Projected in 1983)
1/Employment (Manpower)
Transportation Scenario
Car Bus
-,
OJ
-'
..,
-
..i
"
";
..
,
:l
Baseline
With-Project
Impact
Population (People)
Baseline
With-project Population
Impact
Households (Occupied Units)
Baseline
With-project
Impact
160,611
160,765
154
258,182
257,650
-532
97,209
97,038
-171
146,105
146,417
312
240,532
242,205
1,673
84,724
85,313
589
146,105
146,417
312
240,532
242,208
1,676
84,724
85,314
590
~
-,
.j
1/Employment is by place of residence.
Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983 •
0357h
5
S~NV8~IV3 30 AII1VdIJINnW
~
-,
~
1
~
j
~
l
j
..,
j
~
~
.:i
'!
"
j
;j
8.0 MUNICIPALITY OF FAIRBANKS
SUMMARY OF SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT PROJECTIONS
8.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter summarizes and compares the projected impacts of the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project on the municipality of Fairbanks.The following
tables present the baseline,with-project,and impact forecasts for the
FERC License Application and for the two transportation scenarios in the
1983 revised projections.Table 1 presents the population forecasts for
each of these scenarios annually from 1985 to 2002.Tables 2 and 3 show
the employment,population,and housing demand forecasts for the years
1990 (peak construction)and 2002 (full operations).
8.2 KEY CHANGES
Table 1 presents the baseline,with-project,and impact population pro-
jec tions for each of the·three scenarios under consideration.In the
FERC forecasts,the project's population impact is positive only in 1985
and 1986.The project causes net outmigration in all other years of the
projection.In the 1983 forecasts,the population impact of the project
is negative between 1985 and 1993 and between 1998 and 2000.The project
causes a positive population impact between 1994 and 1997 and after 2001.
As shown in these tables,the main differences between the FERC license
application projections and the revised forecasts developed in 1983 are:
1.higher baseline and with-project population projections in the
1983 forecasts;
2.lower impact population projections in the 1983 forecasts until
1991;
1
3.slightly lower with-project and impact population forecasts for
the bus transportation scenario than the revised car transpor-
tation scenario in most years;travel time to project site in-
creases slightly in the bus transportation scenario compared to
the car transportation scenario;
4.higher impact employment by place of residence in the 1983 fore-
casts until 2002,revised car and bus transportation scenarios
are over 13 percent higher than the FERC projections in 1990,
net outmigration occurs because all workers originally from
Fairbanks do not remain,some relocate to the local impact area;
=1
-"
1
~
4
l
,
~
-'
~
::;;
j
J
5.
6.
higher baseline and with-project household projections in the
1983 forecasts;and
higher impact household projections in the 1983 forecasts after
1989.
?
-,
-,
=1
-'
-,
...J
-,
~
,
1...
--
di
-,
~
J
J
TABLE 1
MUNICIPALITY OF FAIRBANKS
POPULATION PROJECTIONS,FERC LICENSE APPLICATION SCENARIO,
AND 1983 REVISED CAR AND BUS TRANSPORTATION SCENARIOS,
1985-2002
Year FERC License Application Revised Impact Projections
With-Project and Impact With-Project and Impact
Population Projections Population Projections
Personal Vehicle Transportation Scenario
Transportation Scenario Car Bus
Baseline W-Proj.Impact Baseline W-Proj.Impact W-Proj.Impact
1985 28,798 28,880 82 30,370 30,322 -48 30,318 -52
1986 31,807 31,914 107 31,536 31,457 -79 31,453 -83
1987 31,392 31,303 -89 32,654 32,476 -178 32,469 -185
1988 29,485 29,365 -120 33,478 33,238 -240 33,232 -246
1989 29,568 29,432 -136 34,631 34,363 -268 34,360 -271
1990 29,628 29,455 -173 36,266 36,070 -196 36,066 -200
1991 29,892 29,721 -171 37,149 36,986 -163 36,982 -167
1992 30,312 30,099 -213 38,295 38,135 -160 38,131 -164
1993 30,887 30,607 -280 39,803 39,766 -37 39,763 -40
1994 31,366 31,060 -306 41,358 41,411 53 41,411 53
1995 31,886 31,563 -323 42,177 42,270 93 42,266 89
1996 32,496 3?t 184 -~1?41,198 43,257 59 43,257 59
1997 33,145 32,850 -295 44,320 44,348 28 44,345 25
1998 33,844 33,568 -276 45,391 45,363 -28 45,360 -31
1999 34,555 34;284 -271 46,483 46,452 -31 46,449 -34
2000 35,266 34,993--273 47,681 47,675 -6 47,672 -9
2001 36,300 35,991 -309 49,097 49,021 76 49,021 76
2002 37,041 36,700 -341 50,241 50,422 181 50,418 177
Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983.
3
TABLE 2
MUNICIPALITY OF FAIRBANKS
ECONOMIC/DEMOGRAPHIC IMPACTS
WATANA PEAK CONSTRUCTION YEAR,1990
Socioeconomic
Variable
FERC License
Application Impact
Projections
(Projected in 1982)
Revised Impact
Projections
(Projected in 1983)
1/Employment (Manpower)
Transportation Scenario
Car Bus
"
i
-'
1
-,
~
?
d
,
,
-'
-'
"
Baseline
With-Project
Impact
Population (People)
Baseline
With-project Population
Impact
Households (Occupied Units)
Baseline
With-project
Impact
2/
2/
705
29,628
29,455
-173
11,104
11,048
-56
2/
2/
800
36,266
36,070
-196
13,537
13,505
-32
2/
2/
798
36,266
36,066
-200
13,537
13,504
-33
'"
-
j
-"
3
1/Employment is by place of residence.
2/Employment at the community level was not projected.
Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983.
4
TABLE 3
MUNICIPALITY OF FAIRBANKS
ECONOMIC/DEMOGRAPHIC IMPACTS
FIRST FULL YEAR OF OPERATION,2002
Socioeconomic
Variable
FERC License
Application Impact
Projections
(Projected in 1982)
Revised Impact
Projections
(Projected in 1983)
1 1/Employment (Manpower)
Transportation Scenario
Car Bus
1
j
1
-'i
oil
~
1
J
1
,;;
~
Baseline
With-Project
Impact
Population (People)
Baseline
With-project Population
Impact
Households (Occupied Units)
Baseline
With-project
Impact
2/
2/
40
37,041
36,700
-341
15,287
15,177
-110
2/
2/
31
50,.241
50,422
181
17,874
17,905
31
2/
2/
30
50,241
50,418
177
17,874
17,904
30
,
oJ;
'"
..M
~
jj
3
'"
1/Employment is by place of residence.
2/Employment at the community level was not projected.
Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.,1983.
0358h
5