The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAPA2978.J 10 r:, i\j3,t-!:jrra {i, !; * !-iJ~k,lli;(~: -*s_-m___*-h7_--~m~7vb~~p- ~ Mw-a-----.a*-m'msw-.a=- m,*w--wd-ww" m--.-"M*r - -n.--s -mi ?" u*u7-* -~-- ------- -""-7 , - & %"*~L-~;%X&SW.F&S rML isi"-* LWP -&-v ii?.cw%---.%* rkt~~x h "d-^ji. I I lj 1 11 Pii:~stl F3Pe:iir il 'To r<3[:cjrdj EpEj$ csQfq-f"WQ&, 'bi k[EcvWic PROJECT izEDERAL EMERQY. REGULATORY COMMISSOON PROJECT NoO 7 % 14 ANcHORAGEiF NTERT E TRANSM LAKE HYBROELECTR WORKER SURVEYS: 5 HARZAmEBA8GO SUSITNA JOINT VENTURE SUSITNA BYSROEEECTRIC PROJECT ABJ~O~GE/FAIRBANKB ENTERTPE TRBNSMISSION LINE AND TEBXOR =RE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT WORKER SURVEYS: SPRING 1984 Report by Prepared for Alaska Power Authority Final Report June 1985 AMY QUESTIONS QR COMMENTS CONCERNZW THIS REPORT SHOUGD BB DXWECTED TO TEB ALASm POWER AUTHORITY SUSITNA PROJECT OFFICE TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................... 1.1 BACKROUND I ....................... APPROACH 2 ................... 1.2.1 Objectives 2 ................... 1.2.2 Procedures 2 ...... RY OF THE 1983 INTERTIE WORKER SURVEY 5 ..................... 2.1 INTRODUCTION 8 2.2 BACKGROUND ..O...O............... 8 ..................... . 2.3 iKEYFINDINGS 10 ..................... 2. 4 STUDY m%ULTS 11 .......... 2.4.1 Local and Alaska Employment 11 2.4.2 Previous Residence by Occupation and ................. Union Status 12 ............ 2.4. 4 Women in the WsrkFsrse 12 .................. 2.4.4 Union Status 18 .............. 2.4.5 Worker In-Migration 23 2.4.6 Dependents Accompanying Nan-Local Workers ... 25 .................... 2.4.7 ~ousing 28 .......... 2.4.8 Plans to Remain in Community 33 ..................... 3.1 INTRODUCTION 37 3a2 BACKGROWB seee*seaemdoe.e.oeaeee 37 ..................... 3.3 KEY FINDINGS 38 3.4 STUDYRESULTS ...................a 40 .......... 3.4.1 Local and Alaska Employment 40 3.4. 2 Women in the Work Force ............ 42 .................. 3.4.4 UnisaStatus 42 .............. 3.4.4 Worker In-~igration 47 3.4.5 Dependents Accompanying Non-Local Workers ... 49 .................... 3.4.6 Housing 52 .......... 3.4.7 Plans to~emaininCommunity 52 3.4 -8 Recrea tional and Resource Use a a . a . 55 Percent Locals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Percent of Alaska Residents . . . . . . . 60 Origin of Work Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Percent of Non-Local Workers that are Movers . 62 Percent of Movers Accompanied by Dependents . 62 Number of Dependents per Accompanied Worker and Number of School Children per Accompanied Worker. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Percent of Movers that $Pan to Remain in LocalCommunity . . . . . . . . . . 63 Summary 63 4.2 COMPARISON OF KEY FFNDINGS FROM 1983 AND 1984 ImERTIE SURVEYS AND THE TERROR LAKE SURVEY . . . . . 64 APWNDIX A: Interti2 Survey Additional Tables APPENDIX B: Terror Lake Survey - Additional Tables iii BRE VTOUS RES'EDENa PREVTBUS RESIDENCE BY OCC UPARON UNION STATUS BY PREVIOUS RESIDENm BOM OmIWG mE WORK WE# BY GENDm OCC UPATTON BY GENDER UNION STATUS BY MOm DWtTNG mE WORK WEER UNIQN STATUS BY OCCUPATION UNION STATUS BY HOUSING PROVIDED UNTO M STATUS BY AGE Worn DURING mE WORK WEEK WRKEM IN-MIGWTTON DEPENDENTS ACCOMPAMING WN-LOCAL WOkKERS ESTIIEWTED 1 N-MI G%PB%T"JC BN DEPENDENTS BY DEPENDENTSf CmRENT RESIDENa TPE OF HOUSPHG HCBm DURING 'H%E WORK WEEK BY mPE OF HOUSING 80m DURING mE WORK mEK BY HOUSING PROVUSED 'JE""HPE OF HOUSING BY DEPENDEmS UNION STATUS BY FUTURE WESIDEHE PREVIOUS RESIDEHE PMVSBUS RESIDENCE Wf UMON STATUS PRE VIOE RESIDENCE BY BCCUPAEON Page --- h 3 Page -- vm- QCGUPATTBN BY GENDER 45 OCCUPATION BY UNON STATUS 46 WORK SCEDaE BY UMBM STATUS 48 DE PEHDEmS BY DEPENDENTS ' C WRENT RESIDENm 54 BUNTING, FISHING, AND TRAPPING IN ALASKA, DURTNG 1983-84 56 PARTICIPATION TN REaUTIONAL AC"P"'E$TTES WIIWfN 10 MILES OF mE PROJEGpTB SITE BETWEEN MAY 1983 AND SmW-7 ACnmTLES DURING 1983-84 S 9 aWARISON OF SELEmEB SmVE RESnTS WIR ASSm4PTIONS USED IN mE SEITM ~CBOE~WMIG: MODEL 6% T"U " ): 2- gu* re Page -=--- - ---- -*-YIP*I Tithe 1-1 mbTSTRUCTBON kaRKER SmVE IMSTRWENT (IWERTIE) 3 1-2 wr (TERROR LAI~) 4. 2-1 IWERTIE TFANSM'dC1SSION LINE PROZU 9 3-1 rERmB LAW WY DROELEmRI C PROEGT 39 ;-a-;ka, with its abundance af resources, has been experiencing rapid growth and change catalyzed by the development of various energy-related prcjec ts. The construction and operation of the Susitna Hydroelectric Pnrojei2t will be one such project. Large-scale development such as that required by the Susitna Project, generates a variety of impacts on the physical, biological, and soc~ oeconomic enviroment. The Alaska Power Authority authorized the Social. Science Program of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project to research the numerous social impacts that the Susitna Project might have. This report will be utilized to support the needs of the Social Science Program. Although the repari presents only a small portion of the socioeconomic data that: has been collected on the construction of large-scale resource pro- jects, it can be utilized in conjunction with other socioeconomic data to beip project various impacts that may be associated with the construction and operation of the Susitna Hydroelectric Pr9 ject . Contained in this report are the results of two separate 1984 worker surveys: 1) workers anployed in the construction of the Intertie Transmis- sion Line Project and 2) workers mployed in the construetion cf the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project. In. addition, a summary of the resd ts from the 1933 Intertie Workers Survey is included, along with a comparison of the three surveys, and a comparison of the results from the three surveys with ghe assumptions used in the Susi tna socioeconomic model. The 1084 Intertie and Terror Lake surveys were developed to supplement the infomation obtained in the 1983 Intertie survey, and to malte comparisons amorag the three surveys, and to be used to help evaluate assumptions made in the Susi tna Project 's socioeconomic model. Infoma tion on the character-- istics (such as occupation, age, union status) of the construction workers was sought, in addition, the effect of project management decisions (such as eiae use of union labor and the provison of housing) on the origin, relocation, and current residence of workers and their dependents was also soughc , Questionnaires were prepared on 5" by 8" cards that were distributed by the contractors ta all workers on the Intertie and Terror Lake projects in the spring of 1984. A copy of the 1984 Intertit? questionnaire is displayed in Figure 1-1 and a copy of the Terror Lake questionnaire is displayed in ~igure 1-2. Approximately 214 Intertie questionnaires were distributed, with 119 responses being completed, for a fifty-six percent response rate from the 1984 Intertie survey. Approximately 77 Terror Lake questionnaires were distributed, with 70 responses being completed and usable, for a 91 percent response rate, I. Ydhat ds you dc an the lnlertia Project? ----- 4 \MRgt t~w~s da yeu live in nQw during the work week? --- 5. What type 01 i.r~u%ing do yeu live in during the week? (Check one) - Z Vr3val Trailer C Apaflment 2 bet - Bthar ( MobiFis Hame a Hause f L,odgelHoteflMot& 6. Is Phis Rousing provided by your emplayar? Yes; No 7. What town do you us~lally live in on weekends and sther time off work? -. % t a t e 8. What fawn did you five in before YCLI took this jab? -- State 9. Where do you plan te live after your jab on this project is completed? a btats "38. What is youp age? JF WOU HAVE OEBENaENTS, PLUSE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QhdESYT098S; 12a. What town did your dependents live in bafcre yau took this job? Town; %!ate What are the ages of each of your dependents? ; : ___ ; ; ___: ____. Haw $?any af your dependents are currently employed? "$4ANKYOUFORYCBdRCOOPERA"$30N rSestevsrs~a,~aeo~saret~~~mor~~nt~rr"Rat~ona~outtsa~sqtdr~~e~, The Alaska Power Authority requests your cooperation on completing this sumey of Inteflie workers. This survey will be used to help develop information about people who may be working an the proposed Sue-itna Hydroelectric Project. Your coopera- tion in this effort is greatly appreciated. All answers are vaiuntary and confidential. Thank You. dU4SBU POWER BPhlYPiOWlTY TERROR UKE WORKER SURVEY 1 a :, d~rl~l 13% ah is yaur job (occupatian, craft) on the Terror Lako Proje*? 2.. 18 your jab: Uwi~n; Nan-union? 3. Whst mantils did you mrk on the Tenor khe Projwt in 19W and 1913e8 (Circle months): I--$ F-M A M J J A SON $$ 1984-J F M A M 4. WJhat is your usual wark schdule at Terror bke? Cl Six-tens O Eight wks on -- two wks on Other ( ,-unvr) 5. Wihere do you liv~ now during the work wwk? --- 6. Whet vpe of housing do you live in during the week? (Check one) 3 "i"rav@i Vssiigr Apafiment eS Wark Can.aip U mher (- a Mabile Hame 6a M~UW El WotelldMsts! 7. la this housing prabridsi45a2 by your emptoyeR yes; 8. What $awn d~ you usually live in on your leave time cr other time on work? own; 40. Wh@r@ do yau plan to live atler this job is completed? ,-Town; . Stats 11. What is yaur age? 12. Ars you: C4, Mala; Q Ferna187 13. Do you have any dewndents? O Yes 3No IF YOU HAVE DEBENBENmS, PCBSE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS; ahewiss, please turn to beck of card and continue wit!? question "3 - - - - - - - - - - -w -13b. What town did your dependents live in bfore you tmk this jab? Town; - - %tats 3%. What town dgi; ~UO" d@p~d@~aPt live in nowQ -fswn; -,--.- State 1W. Wh@t are the ages of eah@R of your rlepndelats7--; ~-; -,; .-,; -,; --; --.. 1%. How many af your dependents are currently employed? CONTINUED ON BACK: PLWSE GO ON TO QUESTION 14 ON 'PHE OTHER SIDE OF THIS CAWQ s 4, During 9 98H4, did you hunt, fish, or trap kr any 01 the folOowia%g animalis in AMSW? Dmr O Na El Ye+wWhere ..-- Mmse B No %I Yes-m Where - Caribu CS No El Yes-@ Where -- Btsww Bsaa &3 No El Yes-w Where Other Big Game O No Cs3 Yes--e Where - Furb3r8688rs a No &a Yess-wWRsr8 Game Birds U No El Yes-w Where King SS$!~OBS C4 Ns 13 Yes-@Where .- Other Salmon %! Nga Q Y~e~Where - Vrau84Grayling CI No U Yes-w Where Salt-water Fish Ci No Cl Yes--@Where -- , did you do any of the failowing in AUSW? Sightswing Ei No Q Yes-&Where Tourist Trips El No O Yes-+ Where Hiking gl No ba Yes-bWhere Camping a NO a ~e-b~hsre - Recreational Boating e! No El Yes-@Where pm Winter S~es El No IZ] YeebWhers 16. Bewgsn May 1983 and wow, how many times did you participi%ige in %he fe:lawinrg activitlss within abut "10 mjigs of fhg projsct site? Hunting c?0 ~31-2 Cl $10 B 41-25 O Over 25 times Fishing El0 C2b-2 C] %I&) El 11-25 a over 25 timss Boating 00 U1-2 Cl $10 Ci 11-25 G Over 25 times Hiking El0 01-2 El $40 CI 11-25 Cl Over 25 times Camping GO C31-2 El 3-90 fl 31-25 El Qver25times Wlinter Spgaifls 30 @I-2 C &I0 11-25 %i Over25tim@s THANK YOU FOR YOUR CQOPERATIBN Tne Alaska Power Authoriv requests yaur cmparation on this sunrey of Termr Lake workes. The survey will b used to help d@\rejep ififormatian &ut @=pi@ who may be v~arking on CR@ prsposd Susitafa Wgssdrwlwtric Projst. Yocar cmpefetion Bn thb s%faa is Blraatiy appr~ialsd. All answers are voluntary and confidential. Thank You. 4 F-1 ii?e dzta analyses presented here involve both respouse frequencies F~s s * 5 rngie variables and re1 at ionships between two or more variables. 3h c rel;ults from both 1984 surveys were compared to the 1983 ~ntertie survey resul ts, In general, the small size of the groups prevented the use of standard statistical tests of significance, such as the x2 (chi-square) test for goodness-of-fit. Where the x2 test was used to determine statist:ical signi ficance, it is noted in the text. The rem~inder of this section presents a summary of the most significant 3orlter characteristics from the 1983 ~ntertie Worker's Survey, while the following sections concentrate on each 1984 worker survey. Sec tio~ 2.0 del ineates the important characteristics of people working on the Intertie. Sec~ion 3-0 describes the chief characteristics of the workers on Terror Lake. A final section (section 4 A), examines the similarities and differ- ences of worker characteristics among all three surveys, and compares them with assumptions used in the Susi tna socioeconomic model, 1.3 SmMmY OF Tm 1983 INERTIE IdC)EEIEP SURVEY The 1983 Intertie Worker Survey report was prgpared by Frank Orth and Associates, Inc., under contract to Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture. The survey was conducted early in the construction process; site clearing md construction began in 1983, The overall response rate for the survey was 59 percent. The two general contractors were Susitna Constructors, wit11 prcjec t headquarters located in Cantwell, and Irby-north face Joint Venture, f project headquarters in Talkeetna. contrae COPS ;;;1:;29:i dl ,E i'erent ~JOL..~. farce managemen; techniques. Susitna Cons trueears us@cI unio? labor and provided housing for workers while I rby-north face ilsed non-union labor and provided housing only for administ rative/engineerirlg employees. 1 Key findings of the 1983 ~ntertie Survey are summarized below: 1) Eighty-nine percent of the respondents were male, II percent were female, 2) The largest categories of workers were: construction trades, mostly involved in laying tower foundat ions (24%) ; brushcut ters and tree-- Eellers (23%) ; managers '13%) : quality assurance employees (10%) ; engineering and surveying pttrsonnel ( 8%) ; and clerical workers ( 8%) . 3) Appmximately 36 percent: c f the responding worker; indicated they held union job% ~ 4) The average age af the respondents was 36 years. '1 Twenty percent of the workers hired were local people (people erho were residents of the Taikeetaa or Canwell areas before beginning work sn the project). 6) Seventy-seven percent of the workers hired were residents of Alaska before bzginning work on the project. 7) ~rjgin of the work force appeared to be correlated with union status. ~ixhty-two percent o f the workers previously from Anchorage were union manbers and 75 percent of the workers previo~lsly from Fairbanks were union mmbers. 8) As indicated above, 80 percent or 70 workers who were hired on :he Erneereie project were non-locals. ~hirty-seven of rhe 70 non-local. urorkers (53%) were movers (individuals who moved their weekend resi- dence ta the Talkeetna or CwnmeL1 area af tea: obtaining a job sn tf-ne Intertie project). Thirty-three of the 70 non-locals (47%) were weekly commuters (individuals who lived in rhe Talkeerna or Cantwell area during the work week, but commuted to their previous residence during weekends ar time off). 9) T~~enty-seven percent of the workers that moved to the Talkeetna or Cantwell area were accompanied by de pendents , 10) The survey showed an average of 0.39 dependents present in the local communl t ies (~alkee tna or Cantwell ) per non-local worker. Accompanied non-local workers in the community had 2.25 dependents. 11 ) Approximately 16 school-age children accompanied the 12 non-local workers with dependents present, This was an averege of 1.3 school children per accompanied worker. 12) In8 CanmelB, 58 percent of the work force l ived in hc8~ ..ing provided by ekae aplogrer, Ira. contrast, only 12 percent af the Talkeetna work force lived in housing provided by the employer. 13) Overall, 13 percent of the non-local workers indicated that they planned tc ranain in the community (Talkeetna or Cantwell) they were working in upon completion of the project. In addition, 79 percent of the non-locals who planned to stay indicated they would remain in Talkee tna, 14) The survey al so suggested that workers with dependents (whether dependents are present in the Talkeetna or Cantwell area or not) were more likely to remain in the local community (17%) than workers without dependents (7%). 1x1 the spring of 1984 a survey was conducted with workers employed in thg construction of the Power Authority's ~ntertie Project. he purpose of the 1984 survey was to provide further infomation on the characteristics of people working on transmission line construction in the area of the proposed Susitna Hydroelectric project's proposed transmission l ioe, As in the 1983 survey, tmrkeaa were asked questions abgut their priszr, present, asld future residence; occupation; union status; type of housing; prior work on the Tntertie project; age; and number, age, residence, and employment status of dependents , The most recent survey was conducted in the spring of 1984 near the end of construction. At the time of the survey, construction trade workers com- prised the largest component of the Intertie work force. In contrast, the 1983 survey was conducted early in the construction process, when brushcut- ters and treefellers comprised the largest component of the Intertie work forc2. The Power Authority constructed the Intert ie Transmission Line, a 170-mi le, 345 kV transmission line between Willow and Healy. Construction was com- pleted in the summer of 1984. The Intertie links the electric power distribution systems in Anchorage and Fairbanks. A map of the Inte~tie is displayed in Figure 2-1. In 1984 there were five contractors on the Intertie Project: Susitna Constructors, Alaska Internat ionat Constructors, Morrison-~nudsen Company , I rby-~orthface, and Gilbert Comonwea l th. The general contractors, sus itna Constructors and Irby-Norchface, used different work force management 7) Pifiry-seven percent ehat were union members reported (rh6%E their employer provided their housing. 8) During the work week approximately 90 percent reporred living in or wear Ta%kee tna, Cantwell, or Realy , 9) Forty-three percent were locals and 57 percent were non-locals (i.e., had not lived in the community prior to obtaining a job on the projest) , 18) Fifty-two percent of workers with dependents listed the local conrmunties (~alkeetna, Cantwell, or Hea?y) as their dependents' current residence. 11 ) There were approximately 2.4 dependents per accompanied non-local worker. Also, there were approximately 1.08 school-age children per accompanied non-local worker. 12) Thirty-six percent of the workers indicated they would choose Talkeetna as their future residence. All 36 percent of these workers were non-uni on, 2.4 STUDY RESULTS 24 Local and Alaska Employment overall, 83 percent (96) of the workers in the survey were residents of ~laskali~rior to beginning work on the project. Approxima teiy 27 per cent ( 31) of the responding workers were from Anchorage or ~airbanks. Lg~or purposes of this report, the term "Alaska resident" refers to an individual statement that they had l ived in Alaska prior to bebinning work on the project, ohokgn in Table 2-1, approximately 41 percent (4*7 workers) of the i 14 respondents were Local residents (residents ~~hs hived i.n communities near the intertie project or within daily commuting distance--TaZlxeetna, Cantwell, and Healy--prior to beginning work on the project), Of the 47 local residents hired, 37 were previous residents of 'Talkeetna while. 10 i~~~rkers were previous residents of Cantwell or Healye Local workers were employed in jobs representing all occupations of the Intertie work force excepe engineering ex able 2-21. They were strong1 y represented in the laborer and construction trade classifications. Local workers acclalanated for 72 percent ~rad 44 percent of the total jabs in those occupations, respectively. In addition, union membership appeared to be correl.ated with the origin of the non-local warP& force. -0-tkikds sf the resparadelrats who came from Fairbanks, where union hiring halls are located for the. Fairbanks subcontractor, were union =embers able 2-3). In contrast, 88 percent of the workers from Anchorage, 83 percent of the workers fgcow other parts of Alaska, and 95 percent of the workers from the ather 49 states were not union members, A chi-square stat istical test of independence supported the supposition that union membership was significantly associated with the origin sf the nsn-local work force. Of the locally sariginating workers, a$ k 37 fram Talkeetna wwe not union members, while workelrs from CanmelB car Healy indicated a 60 percent unionla percent non-union ratio able 2-3). 2.4.3 Women in the Work Force ~ight of the 114 respondents were women. Seventy-five percent of the women in the survey lived in Canh~ell or Healy during the work week able 2-41; two lived in TaZkeetna during the work week. Half of the women heid clerical posi~ions; the remaining female respondents held a variety of nsw-clerical gobs (~able 2-51, TABLE 2-1 Percent of Number Respondents Anchor age Fairbanks Other Alaska Ogbes 49 States TOTU NO response 03 Source: Harza-Ebasco Computer Run, SAS Program "Survey-06, Jaw, 1985, PNVEWBIE SURVEY PREVIOUS WESITLKNCE W KCUPAT EON Pss- Per- Pez- Per- Per- Per- Psr- Per- cent cent cent cent cent cant cent cent cent cent ,sen% cent Total b of b of eY of b ~f 4 of 4 of &a, by Ocmp. Wesp. NO, &cup- Reap, No, kcup, Resp, Na, Occup, Resp, NO. Qceup. Aesp. Mc, Occwp, Reap, Qccupatiaw Const suet ion Manages Quality Assurance All Other V 07 AL 37 100 3% 10 ICBQ 9 16 BQQ 13 I5 188 13 18 100 15 20 100 17 PP6 Note:: Resp. = Respondents Occup, = Oceupst ion U~alkeet na includes : Willow, Trapper Creek, and Montana Creek. Source: Harza-Ehseo Computer Run, SAS Program "SLIIVE?~ %jQp 'Vj8ne 1985 a INTERVIE SURVEY PREVIOUS RESWKNCE W =CUPAT ION Per- Per- Per- Per- Pes- Per- cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent csnt cant cent cent Un.ion ~otsl b of by of b of y of b of $Y of Status Resg* No. Status Reap, Ma, St at us Wesp, No, Status Resp, No, Stat us Resp, Ns, Status Resp, No, Stst us Wesp, M~nmember 94 37 BOO 3% 4 413 3 14 88 1% 5 33 4 15 83 d3 19 95 16 kmber 22 0 0 0 6 60 5 2 12 2 10 67 9 3 8'7 3 1 3 1 TOT AL El6 37 100 32 30 PO8 8 %Q 100 14 15 108 23 18 POI0 BB 20 100 17 No Response = 3 o.." Note: Wesp, = Respondents x2 = 25.4 Sig. level = .005 Df = 1 U~alkeet ns includes: Willow, Trapper Creek, and Montana Creek. TABLE 2-4 INTERTIE SURVEY HO~~/DURING THE WORK. WEEK BY GCBDER -- -- GENDE R Rome Perseat Percent of Percent Percent of During the by @om- Total by Corn- Toksl Work k1ee:k Number munity Workers Number rnun i t y Workers Fairbanks 7 7 6 Other Alaska 4 4 4 No Wespsnse == 5 own where wcrker resides during the work week. Z/~alkeetna includes: Willow, Trapper Creek, and Montana Creek. Source: Harza-Ebasco Computer Run, SAS Program "Survey 06," Jan. 1985. TABLE 2-5 IN"$RTIE SIJRVEY OCCUPATION BY GEMDE W GENDE W MALE FEULZ Percent Percent by Percent of by Percent sf Occupation Number Occup. Total Workers Number Occup. Total Workers Engineer 10 9 8 Laborer 19 15 14 Construction 18 trades- 34 314, 29 E 13 1 ~echanic 3 3 3 0 0 0 Clerical 0 0 0 4 50 3 Quality Assurance 11 10 9 (9 0 0 Manager 17 1 5 14 b 1% B. All Others 18 16 15 Ib 12 1 TOTAL 110 9921 93 8 100 7 L/ construct ion trade workers include: pipef itters, truck drivers, inspeetor linemen, drillers, piledrivers, operators, and carpenters. 2/ Total does not equal lOO% due to rounding. Note: Occup. = Occupation Source: Harza-Ebasco Computer Run, SAS Program "Survey 04, " Jan. 1985. 2,4,4 Union Seatus ~~omd/ during the work week differed dramatically by unian status (Table 2-61 A11 64 respondents that lived in Talkeetna (sou"Leesn staging area) during the work week were non-union. Of the workers living in Cantwell (northern staging area) or HeaZy during the work week, approximately half PJere la~ion and half were non-union. Overall, union employees accounted far approximately 19 percent of the total survey respondents. Approximately 45 perceae of the union workers lived in Fairbanks prior to wor-:Fng on the project (see Table 2-31. None of the engineering, clerical workers, quality assurance personnel, nor mechanics were members of a union. The only occupational category with more than ten workers belonging to a union was the construction trades category (~ab%e 2-91, Fifty-seven percent of the respondents who were union members reported that their eooployer prolrided their housing, ~ile on1 y 30 percent of the respond- eats that were of nun-union s tatus reported their housing was provided by their employer (Table 2-81. ~dditionally, it appeared that respondent age was related to union status. All respondents under the age of 20 years were non-union. Of respondents between the ages of 20-29 years, 83 percent were non-union. As age in- creased so did the percent of union membership, except for a slight decrease in the 50-59 year age category (Table 2-91. A chi-square statistical test ddes not find the relationship between union membership and age to be statistically signi ficant. 11 Town where worker resides during the work week. TABLE 2-6 HNTERTIE SURFfEY UNION STATUS BY w(~BL/ DURING WORK WEEK P - - --*------- Fairbanks Other Alaska Pel cent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Union by sf Total sf Total by of Total by of Total Status No, Status Wsrkexs No, Status Workers No, Status Workers Ma, Status Workers Nonmembers Members 0 8 0 18 49 16 3 43 3 0 0 0 b-' No Response = 7 1/~own where worker resides during the work week. Li~alkeetna includes : illo ow, Trapper Creek, end Montana Creek. Source: Warza-Ebasco Computer Run, SAS Prctgrarn "Survey 06," Jan. 1985. TABLE 2-7 INTER.%" IE SURVEY UNTO@ STATUS BY OCCUPATION UNION STATUS NONmMBE R MEMBE --- W Percent Percent sf Percent Perceut of Occupation Number by Oecup. Respondents Number by Occup. Respondeaats Laborer Construction trades 11 Secretary Quality Assurance Manager Ail Behers Wo Response = I I/ ~onstruction trade workers include: pipef itters, truck drivers, inspectors linemen, drillers, piledrivers, operators, and carpenters. Solsrce: Harza- basco Computer Run, SAS Program "Survey 06," Jan. 1985. TABLE 2-8 INTERTPE SURVEY UNION STATUS BY HOUSING PROVIDED UNION STATUS NOWEMBE R mMBE R Percent Percent Percent ~ereenr by of of Flous irng Housing Total Housing Total Provided Number Provided Workers Number Provided Workers Total 95 180 82 21 H 00 18 Ns Response = 3 Source: Aarza-Ebasco Computer Run, SAS Program "Survey 06," Jan. 1985. TARE 2-9 INTERT IE SURVEY UNION STATUS W AGE PREVIOUS RESImNGE 60 ~nd Older Per- Per- Per- Per- Per- cent Percent cent Percent cent BParceM cent Percent cent Percent $@Pc@~$ by caf by of a$ by %pf of ~j* QT No. Stetua Rgspond. No, Status Respond. No, Stetus Respond, Ma, Status Reapow, No, Stet us Respond, No, Stgtus Weapond Total by AgeGroetp 3 180 3 42 100 36 49 806) 42 13 PO0 9 9 BOO 8 2 130 2 No response - B N bJ Not s z Respond. = Rsspowdentes x2 = 1.352 Sig. level = lQ%, thssefo~e not eonsidered statist icelly significant, Df = 2 Source: Hasma-E baaco Computer Run, SAS Pasgrem *@Survey OQ,@# Jan. 1985, Brnriag the work week, approximately 91 percent of the respondents reported. living in or near Cantwell and Healy or Talkeetma. ~ifty-eight percent lived in Talkeetna while 33 percent lived in Cantwell or Nealy able 2-10), Overall, mrkers can be divided into mo groups, locals and non-locals, depending upon their relationship to the local comunities. Non-locals can be further delineated into movers end weekly comuters, as defined below: Locals - Individuals from the local work force who state that they lived in or near Cantwell, Healy, or Talkeetna prior to gaining employment on the Intertie Project. These workers did not change their place of residence due to their employment on the project and can be considered won-movers , 1, Movers: Individuals from ~utside the Local area who moved their weekend residence after obtaining this job, In most cases, these workers moved their weekend residence to @aratwel?k, Healy, or Talkeetna, 2, Weekly Cownuters - Individuals whose previous residence was with in weekend commuting distance from the work site. These workers lived in or near Talkeetna, @antwel1, 0.k~ ~.%g~ly during the work week and commuted to their previous residmce during their time off, overall, 43 percent of the repondents (47 workers) were locals and 57 percent (62 workers) were non-locals. Of the 62 non-locals, 19 percent (21 TABLE 2-18 PNTERTZE SURaP HO~A/ DURING. WORK WEER Percent of 37 33 Fairbanks 7 6 Other Alaska 4 3 No response = 5 li~own where worker resides during the work week. zl~alkeetna includes : ~ilLov, Trapper Creek, and Montana Creek. Source: Harza-Ebasco Computer Run, SAS Program "Survey 06," Jan. 1985. cforkers) were weekly cownuters and 30 percent (33 workers) were movers, Seven percent (8 workers) responded that they lived during the work week, on weekends, and other time off in Fairbanks and ather parks of Alaska, Using these data and the information on response rates (Section 1.2,2), the total in-migrat ion (including survey respondents and workers that did not respond) into the cornunities of Talkeetna, Cantwell, or NeaGy can be e~tj~mated. If the survey results are representative of Che overall work force, approximately 59 workers were movers while 38 workers comute weekly to the comunities, mis information is summarized in Table 2-11. As previously indicated, 57 percent of the responding workers were non- locals (i.e., had not Lived in the community prior to obtaining a job on the project). Workers were also questioned about their dependents in order to obtain infomation on the population influx into the communities of Talkeetna, Cantwell, or Healy. The responses are tabulated in Table 2-12. Dependents could include spouses, children, or other individuals that lived vi th the worker or that were stherwise dependent on the worker. Hawever , in this survey, it was found that many respondents did not list a spouse as a dependent, instead they listed only their children as dependents. As indicated by the tabulations above, 60 percent of the in-migrant workers that were surveyed answered that they had dependents, Of this 60 percent (37 workers), only 19 percent (12 workers) of all non-local workers were accompanied by de penden ts . The survey showed an average of 047 dependents per worker present in the coma~unities of Talkeetna, Cantwe%E, and Mealy for all nan-local workers, 2.4 dependents per accompanied non-local worker. Tne average number of dependents was 2.6 dependents per accompanied mover and 2.0 dependents per ~ TABLE 2-1 1 INTERTHE SURVEY WORmR IN-MIGMTION 140vers into Tafkeetna, Centwell, and Bealy 30 54 !lovers into Ocher Areas 3 v 5 - Subtotal of Hovers 33 59 Weekly Comuters 21 38 Intertie Workers in Fairbanks and Other Alaska Areas 8 7 14 7 TOTAL RON-LOCAL WBRm B 62 $11 Source: Harza-Ebasca Computer Run, SAS Program "Survey 06," Jan. 1985. TABLE 2-12 INTERTIE SURVEY DEPENDENTS ACCOMPMYING MON-LOCAL WOKERS Percent of Percent of Total Non-Hoeal Total Number Respondents Respondents - Won-Local Workers w/~ependents 37 60 31 Nsn-Local Workers w/Bapendents Present Source: Harza-Ebasco Computer Run, SAS Program ''~urvey 06," Jan. 1985. accompanied weekly coromuter < i .e., those individuals, accompanied by their dependents, who li~red in or near Tallneetlla, Cantwell, or Healy during the i~ork ~~eek end commuted to their previous residence during their time off). Approximately 13 school-age children accompanied the 12 non-local workers with dependents present. This was an average of 1.08 school-age children per accompanied non-local worker. Table 2-13 shows the population in-migration for the survey respondents and the estimated in-migration associated with the total work force. Table 2-14 presents a breakdown of the comuni ties where workers ' dependents currently reside. Forty percent of the responding wrkers indicated that Talkeetna was their dependent's current residence, while only 12 percent responded that Cantwell or HeaZy was their dependent's current residence. Overall, approximately half of the workers responding said their dependent a currently lived in the local communities. Ikenty-three percenl: of respond- ing workers identi fied other states as their dependents "current residence. Only 4 of the 29 nowlocal dependents that in-migrated into the loss1 communities were employed. This resulted in approximately 0.33 employed dependents per accompanied non-local worker. Overall, 39 percent of the respondents reported they lived in single-family dwelling units, 24 percent in mobile homes, 13 percent in apartments, while a total of 24 percent reported living in hotel/motel, work camp, and other types of housing able 2-15). The majority (71%) of the respondents from Talkeetna lived in single-family dwelli-ng units or mobile homes, with no respondents reporting that they lived in a mctel/hoeel able 2-16). In contrast, 32 percent of the respon- dents in Cantwell or Healy lived in a motel/hotet. These differences appear TABLE 2-13 INTERTHE SURmY ESTIMTED IM-MIGUTION HNTEKfIE WORK FORCE - - Estimated Number in the Surveyed Number Total Work Force Total Mon-Local Worker 62 Total Accompanied Nan-Local Workers 12 Accompanied Movers 8 Accompanied Weekly Comuters 4 Total ~n-~igrating Dependents 29 In-Migrat ing -2.1 School-Age Children a/ 1,-migrating includes only those dependents that have their current residence in Talkeetna, Wealy, or Cantwell. Source: Harza-Ebasco Computer Run, SAS Program "Survey 06," Jan. 1985. 1 TABLE 2-14 INTERTIE SURmY DEPENDENTS BY DEPENDENTS' CURRENT WSIDENCE -- LBC~ t id~?~ with Dependents Total Respondents -- ~alkeetnd 40 20 ~ Anchorage 8 4 Fairbanks ~ Other Alaska 7 3 Other 49 States 23 12 No response and/or respoudents with no dependents = 59. Responses = 60. Ll~alkeetna includes : Willow, Trapper Creek, and Montana Creek. Source: Harza-Ebasco Computer Run, SAS Program "survey 06," Jan 1985. TABLE 2-15 INTERTIE SURVEY TYPE OF HOUSING *- Percent of Type of Housing Number Respondents Iqobile Wome and Travel Trailer 28 24 Single: Famiby Dwelling Unit Other (~ncludes ~ent) 'i k No response = 3 Source: Harza-Ebasco Computer Run, SAS Program "Survey 06," Jane 1985. TABLE 2-16 INTERTIE SURVEY HOME^/ DURING THE WORK WEEIC BY TYPE OF HOUSING Type csf Housing H0m DURING THE WORK MEK (Usual Residence) ~alkee tnazl Fairbanks Other Alaska Percent Percent Percent Pereent Percent Percent Percent Percent by TYP~ bgr by Type by ~YTJPP~ by by Type of Total sf Total of Total of Total No. ~ousing Workers No. Nousing Workers No. Mousing Workers No. Housing Workers Mobile Hone and Travel Trailer 17 26 IS 10 27 9 1 14 1 8 0 0 Q Work Camp 1 2 1 2 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ste%f~stel$ Lodge 0 0 0 12, 33 10 1 14 1 0 0 0 Other ( iwqcBudes tent) 8 12 7 3 8 3 0 Q 0 0 0 8 TOTAL by Usual Residence 66 100 56 57 100 33 7 BOO 7 4 PO0 4 No Response = 5 k/~own where worker resides during the work week. Zi~alkeetna inclu6zs : ill ow, Trapper Creek, and Montana Creek. Source: Harza-Ebasco Computer Run, SAS Program '"urarey 06, '' Jan. 1985. Ca result from differences in housing policies by the employers. In Cansb~ehl and Healy, at Least 58 percent of the work force lived in housing provided by the employer, whereas in Talkeetna only 30 percent of Che work force lived in housing provided by the employer able 2-17). As would be expected, the majority of ~roject workers that were accompanied by their families resided in single family dwelling units and mobile homes (6QX) (~ab%e 2-18], 2,4,8 Plans to ~emain in Community Four percent of the non-local workers who responded to this question indicated that they planned to remin in the communities of Talkeetna, Cantwell, or Wealy upon completion of the Intertie. Furthermore, 75 percent of those remaining planned to stay in the cornunity of Taikeetna. Twenty-one percent did not respond or were uncertain where they would live after completion sf the project, The intentiow to remain in the camuni$ies sf QnmeP1, HeaPy, or Talkeetna was higher among movers Chan among cormnuters. However, the vast majority of noa-local workrs indicated other areas such as Anchorage, Fairbanks, and the other 49 states as their intended future residence, The survey also showed that 36 percent of the total workers who responded to this question indicated they would choose Talke~tna as their future residence. Of this 36 percent, none were union members able 2-19). In addition, the survey revealed that 4.1 percent of the workerg with dependents reported Talkeetna, Cantwell, or Healy as their intended future residence. Furthermore, 78 percent a f the workers accompanied by dependents in the local communities (~alkee tna, Cantwell, and ~ealy) responded that they intended to stay in the local cornunities after the Intertie pr~ject was sompleted, TABLE 2-17 INTERTEE SURVEY NOMI/ DURING THE WORK GJEEK BY HOUSING PROVIDED HOUSING PROVIDED YES Percent Percent Percent Percent of by of Home During the Wous ing Total Nous ing Total Work bleek Number Provided Workers Number Provided Workers Fairbanks Other Alaska 3 4 3 1 3 1 No Response = 6 k/~om where worker resides during the work week. Zl~alkeetna includes : Willow, Trapper Creek, and Montana Creek. 2j~otal does not equal 100% due to rounding. Source: Harza-Ebasco Computer Run, SAS Program "survey 06," Jan. 1985. TABLE 2-18 INTERTIE SURVEY TYPE OF HOUSING BY DEPENDENTS -me-- -- DEPENDENTS Percent Percent - %Y Type b%r Type of Percent of of Percent of Number Housing Respondents IJumber Hous ing Kes pondent Type of Houe ing Mabile Home and Travel Trailer 13 24 S I. 1% 25 13 Apartment Single Family Dwelling Unit Work Camp Other ( includes tent) 8. 3 5 3 TOTAL l/.rotal does not equal lOOX due to rounding. No Response = 4 Source: Harza-Ebasco Computer Run, SAS Program "Survey 06," h~an. 1985. IMEWBIE SURVEY UNION STATUS BY FUTURE RESIPKNCE Bai r beaks m Per- Psr- cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent ceot cent cent cent. Uwisn sf;.83. BY b bj b b 4 b b Status No, Status Resp, No, Ste$.us Resp. Na, Status Resp. No, Statass Resp, No, Status Reap Mrs, Status Wgsp, * No Wsspsnse or Undecided = 20 Ld Note r Resp, = Respondant a U~alkeet ne includes: Willow, Trapper Creek, and Montana Creek. Source: Hssma-Ebaseo Computes Run, SAS Program "Survey 84," Jan, 1985, hi survey of workers employed in the construction of the Terror Lake Project b$as conducted in the spring of 1984. The purpose of the survey QJas to provide information on the characteristics of peo~ie working on the 'l"err42-c Lake prdjecl:, located on Kodiak Island, 25 miles southwest of the community of Kadiale. Workers were asked questions about their prior, presene, and future residence; occupation; union status; type of housing; age; number, residence, and employment status of dependents; and recreational activities, ' This survey was conducted late in the construction process, past the peak work force phase of 300 employees. At the time of the survey, construction trade workers comprised the largest component of the 7 7 person raork force. I t: should be noted that: the composition of .the work force ?robably varied over the course of constru~ti~n, Infomarion gained from this survey will be compared to the assumptions on work force characteristics and relocation patterns that are appl ied in the model used to project socioeconomic impacts of the Susi tna Hydroelectric Prcejmt, 3,2 BACKGROUND The Power Authority constructed the $190 million project, which is maintain- ed and operated by ~odiak Electric Association. A map of the Terror Lake Projec~ area is disgla-gzd in Figure 3-1. There were three geraer el contractors on the Terror Lake project: Boatel Alaska, Ebasco Services, and k?eter Kiewit, The profile of respondents indicates the following (see Appendix B for frequency tables) : 1. Ninety-six percent were male, four percent were female. 2, Thz largest categories of workers were: construction trades (29 per eent ) ; supervisors (23 percent) ; laborers ( 16 percent ) ; and engineering acd surveying personnel ( 13 percent) . 3. Approximately 64 percent of the workers indicated they held union jobs. In addition, 86 percent of the local. ly hired work force were union members. The non-local hire also had a majority of workers belonging to the union (62 percent union and 39 percent non-union). 4, The average age was 40 years, 5. Thirty-nine percent had worked on the Terror Lake project for at Least 17 months, 6. Forty-three petcent worked six 10-hour days per week. 7. ~uring the work week, 92 percent lived at the work camp near the construction site at Terror Lake, The remining 8 percent lived in Rodiak during the work week. 8, ~ine ty percent were non-locals (i .e. , stated that they had not. l ived in the Kodiak area prior to obtaining a job on Terror ~ake) and 10 percent were locals, PROJECT FEATURES 4 1 Y 9 'Ihirky percene of the workers with dependents listed the local co~urlity of Kadiak as their dependents ' current residenee. 10. There were approximately 3 -0 dependents per accompanied non--local w Also, there were approximately 1.7 school-age children per accompanied now-local worker 12. Forty percenr of the workers indicated they would choose the Anchorage/~enai area as their future residence. 12, 11: iappars that the majority of workers did not fish or hunt in Alaska En % 983-W, 113. The majority of workers did not engage in the other types of recreational activities identified in this survey. For example, in 1983-84, 45 percent reported sightseeing, 30 percent reported recrezpeions91. boating, 23 percent reported hiking, 13 percent reported camping and winter sports, and 12 percent reported taking tourist trips, 3,4 STUDY ESULn Overall, 60 percent of the workers in the survey were residents of ~~askal/ prior to beginning work on the project. Forty percent of the workers on Terror Lake were not residents of Alaska; of this 40 percent, 22 percent came from the state of Washington. As shown in Table 3-1, snly 10 percent of the workers hired were local residents (residents of the cornunities near the Terror Lake project or within daily comuting distance). me low percentage of local hiring on Terror Lake relative to other large construction projects is not surprising. Tbe project is located on the TABLE a-a TERROR %$Am SURmY PWVIQUS ESIDENCE Percent of L~ca t ion Number Ksdiak area 7 16 Anehorage/~enai area 26 39 Other Alaska 7 10 Washington State 15 Other (U.S. or non-U.$. sites) 12 18 TOTa 67 99 No response = 3 Source: Narza-Ebasco Computer Run, SAS Program "Survey 03," Jan, 1985, i~lsnd oE Kodiak, which is a remote area where only 13,000 people reside, moskly near the eown of Kodiak. Home for Alaska's largest fishing fleet, it: also contains a 2,780 square mile National Wildlife Refuge and a U.S. C3ast Guard Support Center. Therefore, most. of ~odiak's relativ~ely small work force were already employed and local construction workers were seldom available EOP eke Terror Lake Project. In addition, of the seven workers hi.red from Kodiak (local area), sir (86 percent) were union members and only one was non-union (Table 3-21, Local workers were employed in only three of the eight occupational categories listed in Table 3-3. These three included engineer, laborer, and construc- tion tlades, Table 3-3 also illustrates that 55 percent sf the workers from non-Alaskan areas were supervisors and 18 percent of the workers from non- Alaskan area8 were engineers, Three of the seventy respondents were women. The fernale respondents were ~ represented in the occupational categories of engineer, secretary, and other 3,4,3 Uwisn Status Overall, union employees accounted for 64 percent (44) of the survey respondents , ~iffesemes in mion status by various occupations are presented in Table 3-5. A11 19 of the workers in the occupational categories of laborer, mechanic, and food service personnel were union members. In contrast, the majority (19 of 30) of engineers and supervisors were not union members, 11 For purposes of this report, the term "Alaska resident" refers to an .individual statement that they had lived in Alaska prior to beginning work an the project TABLE 3-2 TERROR LAm SURVEY PREVIOUS ESIDENCE BY UNION STATUS ONION STATUS - NONHEMBE R --- Percent Percent Percent Percent previous of by sf Residence Number Res id. Respond. Number Besid, Respond, Kodiak I 4 1 6 14 9 Anchorage/~enai 2 8 3 5 12 8 Other Alaska 2 8 3 24 57 36 Nsn-Alaskan 19 79 29 7 17 I I TOTAL 24 99- 1 1 36 42 100 64 liyrotal does not equal 100% due to rounding. Note: Resid, = Residence Respond, = Respondents Source: Harza-Ebasco Computer Run, SAS Program "Survey 03," Jan. 1985. TERROR LAKE SURVEY PREVIOUS RESIEMCE W ECUPAT ION Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent by OF of kY of or Numb@$ Occeap. Respondents NU~~IP Occup. Respondents Nrsmkr Occup, Rsaponatl~nt~ &dwber Oceup, Respondents Engineer 1 %4 8 a 4 1 1 14 1 5 18 7 Const suet isw ~rads& 3 43 4 122 46 18 1 14 1 3 11 4 Mechanic 0 0 0 2 63 3 0 8 0 1 4 1 &-- Secretarial 0. No Response = 3 Note: Qccup, = Oeeupekion d/~onstruction trade workers include: pipefitters, truck drivers, and inspectors. a~otsl does not equal 100% due to rounding. Sowee: Hsszs-Ebsee Computer Run, SWS Program $5urvay 883," Anan, $985. TERROR LAKE SURVEY OCCUPATION BY GENDER UNION STATUS FEMLE PP- Percent Percent Percent Percent by of by of Occupation Number Occup. Respond. Number Occup. Respond. ---I- Laborer TOTAL 67 10 12/ 96 3 9921 3 Note: Resp, = Respondents Occup. = Occupation Ll~onstruction trade workers include: pipefitters, truck drivers, and inspectors. z/~otal does not equal 100% due to rounding. Source: Harza-Ebasco Computer Run, SAS Program "Survey 03," Jan. 1985. TABLE 3-4 TERROR LAa SURVEY OCCUPATION BY GENDER UNION STATUS MALE PV FEMLE Percent Percent percent Percent by of by of Oecup , Respond, Number Bccup, Respond, Construction 1 B Trades- Mechanic Secretarial Superviaor 811 Others TOTAL Note; Wesp, = Respondents Oceup. = Occupation Ll~onstruction trade workers include: pipefit ters, truck drivers, and inspee tors, 21~otal does not equal 100% due to rounding. Source: Harza-Ebasco Computer Run, SAS Program "Survey 03," Jan. 1985. TABLE 3-5 TERRO R LAKE S URVEY QGCWATTON BY WZ ON STATUS UNION STATUS NOBrnrnER W9rnER - Percent Percent Percent Percent of of Oec upa tion Hmber Occukp, Respond. Number Occup, Weapsncl , Engineer Laborer Construction ~rade sl/ Mec ha ni e. Food Service Seere tari a% Seigpervisor Alh Others 7% QAL 25 BOO 35 44 992/ 63 No response = 1 Mate: Wesp. = Response g~onstruction crade workers include: pipefi tters, truck drivers, and inspeetors. 2j~oeal does not equal 100% due to rounding. Source: Harza-Ebasco Computer Run, SAS Program "Survey 03, " .Jan. 1985. Differences in work schedules by union status are displayed in Table 3-6, Seventy-seven percent ofo the -sespond@nts working six 16s-hour days per %$leek were unionized, In contrast, of the %O respondents warking eigha: weeks on/two weeks off, 80 percent were non-union. 3,4,4. Worker Ira-~iaratisn During the work week, all but ~o of the respondents on the Terror Lake Reject Lived at the construction site camp (Terror Lake barracks). Overall, workers can be divided into two groups, locals and non-locals, depending upon their relationship 60 the local communities. Non-locals can be further delineated into movers and weekly comuters, as defined below: Locals - Individuals from the Local work force who Lived on Kodiak Island prior to gaining employment on Terror Lake. These workers did not change their place of residence due to their employment on the project and can also be consider@$ non-movers, 1. Wvers: ~gadivideaafs from outside the local area wha moved their veekend residence after obtaining this job. In most cases, these workers moved their weekend residence to the Kodiak area, 2, Weekly Comuters : Indiv iduals whose previous res ide~ce was within weekend commuting distance from the staging site . These workers Lived on Kodiak Island during the work week, b*~t somuted ta their previous residence during their time off. Overall, 12 percent of the respondents (7 workers) were locals, and 88 percenk (51 workers) were non-locals. Of the non-locals, 90 percent (46 workers) were weekly commuters and 10 percent (5 workers) were movers. TERROR LAKE SURVEY b4ti%RK SCHEDULE iUY IINION STATUS -*m*x-m-s-p , We-- a- we=-- P~*--__II~- WORK SCHEDULE Percent Percent Parcent Per~cei.at bib Percent by Psrcsrat U ni an of Uniai-l of Qnian af UR~O~ $$Q~UB h!@mbr Status Respondc Numbf Status Respond. Nuwbr St a$ us W88isond. -%--- -----rx- T 0T4qL 30 100 43 101 100 15 29 100 42 No response = f .Vather Schedules include: combinations of six 10-hour/dsys and 8 weeks on$2 weeks sf$; 13 weeks an12 ~eeks off; 6 weeks onJ2 weeks sff; 7 days a week; and cowtinusus, Sotlrce: Harsa-EOasco Computer Run, %S Prggram "Survey Q3," Jan, 1985, U~ivg tktese data and the information on response rates (see Section 1 .: ,2), the Cots: in-t~rigration (including survey res;,ndents and rjorkers thet did not respond) into the island of Kodiak can be estin~a~ed, Tf t!sE survey resul t; are representative of the overal l work force, approx ha teiy 6 biorkers were inovers while 50 workers commuted weekly to the community. This informa~ion is sumarized below able 3-71. 3.4.5 Dependents Accompanvinn Non-Local Workers 4s previotlsly indicated, 88 percent of the responding workers were non- locals fi.e., stated that they had not lived in the community of Kodiak or on the island prior to obtaining a job on the Terror Lake ~roject). Workers were also questioned about their dependents in order to obtain additional infomation on the population influx into the community of iiodiak and the surrounding area of the island. The responses are tabulated in Table 3-8. Dependents could include spouses, children, or other individuals who lived with the warker or that were otherwise depenJent on the worker. However, in this survey it was found that many responderrts did not list a spouse as a dependent; instead, they listed only their children as dependents. As indicated by the tabulations above, 53 percent of the in-migrant workers that were surveyed answered that they had dependents, Of this 53 percent (27 non-local workers), only 6 percent (3 workers) were accompanied by de gzeadewts. The survey showed an average of 0.18 dependents per non-local worker preseu t in the community of Kodiak, or 3.0 dependents per accompani~d non--local worker (mover) present in Kodiak. None of the weekly commuters (i.e., thcse individuals who lived at the campsite or in the cornunity of Kodiak during the ~~csrk week and co~~~muted to their previous residence during their time off) were accompanied by their dependents. Approximately five school-age children accompanied the three non-local workers with dependents present. his was an average of 1.7 school-age children per accompanied non-local worker-, TABLE 3-7 TERROR LAKE &0$0RI< FORCE PPV PpP--.-,- Survey Respondents Estimated Total Mavers into Ksdi~k Weekly Cowmut ess TOTNd on-~~caf Workers Source: Harza-Ebssco Computer Run, SAS Program ''~urve~ 01, " ..Jane 1985. TABLE 3-8 TERROR LAKE SURVEY DEPESDENTS ACCOMBMYINrS NON-LOCAL WORKERS Percent of Percent Total Son-Local af Total Number Workers Respondents Nan-140cal Workers w/ Dependents Nan-=Local kJorkers w/~ependents Present Source: Harza-Ebasco Computer Run, SAS Program "Survey 03," Jan. 1985. The tabulation on the foilowing able 3-9) shows the popiilaiioil in-miprat ion for the survey respondents and the estimated in-migrat ion associated with the total work force, Table 3-10 ?resents a breakdown of the communities where the responding worker's dependents resided at the time of the survey. Thirty percent of the responding workers replied that Kodiak was their dependents' currenE residence, 38 percent noted the ~nchorage/~enai area, and 32 percent noted non-Alaska as their dependents' current residence. Only one of the nine dependents that in-migrated into the local community of Kod i ak wa s employed . Because the prsject ::ire is situated in a remote, narrow mountain valley about 25 miles southwest of the city of Kodiak, an overwhelming majority (92 percent) of the respondents reported living in a work camp near the project site, Portable housing other than barracks was also locatel! at the project site. Three workers indicated living in single family dwala'ing units, one worker indicated living in a mobile home, one worker indicated an apartment and one worker indicated "other" as the type sf housing, Only one non-local worker (2 percent of all non-lscal workers) who responded to this question planned to remain in the community of Kodiak after completi~n of the project. Forty-six percent of the non-local workers who responded to this question indicated the Anchorage/~enai area as their intended future residence, 40 ~yereent indicated a non-Alaskan pf ace as their inceded future residence, and 12 gerceat indicated other parts of Alaska as their intended future residence. The low percentage of non-locals choosing Ksdiak r!s their future residence is not surprising since f 09: the TABLE 3-9 TERROR E,AKE SURVEY ESTItUTE D IN-MIGRATPBFJ WORl< FORCE a& W Survey ~es~o~zs~ Estimated Total Tot a% Accowpanied NQn-Lacah Workers 3 AG cgmpanied Mover a 3 Acsompanied Weekly Comu ters 44 Total ~n-~i~ratin~l/ Dependents 9 In-~i~ratin&/ School-age children 5 1/1n-mitrating includes only those dependents that maintain a current residence in ~odiak, Source:: Harza-Ebasco Computer Run, SAS Program 8gS~rveg7 013 Jan. 1985, ~ TABLE 3-16 TERROR LAKE SURVEY DEPENDENTS BY DEPENDENTSQURMEWT aSkDENCE Lscat ion Number Percent -- - -_____YII-- - ---- No response or no dependents = 33 Source: Harza-Ebasco Computer Run, SAS Program "Survey 03," Jan. 1985. non-local workers brought their dependents vi th rhem to ~od iak, ~int?~rea percenil ixldiceted they were uncertain where they would live after the pi-sjec t is csxaplgted, In addition, all three of the non-local vorkers %~h.lhose dependents Lived in Kodiak reported ~odiak as their intended fu~ure residence. The over~qhelming majority of responding workers, $~hether their depenc'ents vere -sent in Kodiak or not, reported Anchorage/Kensi, other places in Alaska, or non-Alaskan places as their intended future residence and not the community of Kodiak, 3,4,8 Recreational and Resource Use Fishing Activity M Overall, fifteen percent oE the respondents repcrted they had fished fok king salinon during 1983-84; 26 percent fished for other types ~f salmor., 17 percent for trout and grayling, and 43 percent for salt-water fish able 3-11). Ira addition, 15 percent of the respondents reported they had fished 3 to 10 times within 10 miles of the project site since May 1983; 13 percent reported fishing 11 to 25 times within 10 miles of the project site, and 8 percent reported fishing more than 25 times able 3-12). Hunting Activity As showrl in Table 3-11 there was even less hunting than fishing reported by the respondents of this survey. OveraP1, owhy four percent of the respondents reported hunting deer and four percent reported hunting moose. None of the 70 respondents reported hunting caribou, brown bear, other big game, or game birds; nor did any of the respondents report having trapped furbearers during 1983-84. In addition, only 3 percent of the respondents reported they had hunted 3 to 10 times within 10 miles of the project site since May 1983 (Table 3-12). B TABLE 3-11 TERROR LAIm SURVEY HUNTING, FISHING, AND TRAPPING IN ALASKA DURING 1933-34 Type sf Animal -- PARTICIPANTS ----- Percent of Percetnl; of Number Res pondemt s Number Respondents Deer Moose Caribou Brown Bear Other Big Game Furbearera Game Birds King alnnon Other Sa! mon ~rcut/~rayling Saltwaker Fish Ssurce: Harza-Ebasco Computer Run, SAS Pragram "Survey 03," hn, 1985, BARE 3-12 TERROR LAKE SURVEY PBRIICIPAYH6N IN RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES WITHIN %O Mf LLS OF THE PROSECT SITE E"%EEN MY 1983 AND SURVEY FREQUENCY ACTIVETIES Mare than 1 ype of Psrslsnt of Passsnt of Percent of Percent of 4ct~~it;~ No, Reapand, Ma, Respond, No, Respond, No, Respond, No, Respond, Hunt bnq 80 97 Q 0 2 3 0 0 B Q Fishing 35 57 5 8 9 15 8 13 5 8 Boatiq 37 60 6 kO 9 15 6 10 4 7 Hiking 44 71 B, 2 8 13 6 10 3 5 58 94 3 5 $1 0 0 0 1. Camping 4 & Winter Sports 55 89 2 3 4 7 0 0 1 2 NQO e: WQ Respanse = 8 No, = Ng~rnbk Wespsnd , = Respondents Ssu~ee: Herza-Ebscs Computer Run, SA5 Program qtSusarey 03,t0 Jan. 1985,, Wecrea&iona% Activity -"w-~a~~-BnmrPIY~ Respondents of the survey were asked if they had partici:~ated in the fo%Eawiag recreatisnab activities duriwg 1983-84: sigh $seeing, tourist trips, hiking, camping, recreational boating, and winter sports. ~orty-six percent csf the respondents reported sightseeing using 1'383-84; 30 percewE: reported recreational bating, 23 percent reported hiking, 13 prcent reported camping and winter sports, respectively, and 12 percent reported taking tourist trips able 3-13). "$he recreational activities listed in Table 3-013 are more popular with responding workers than are hunting or fishing. Sightseeing, recreational boating, and hiking appear to be the Favorite types of recreational activities. But, overall, Table 3-13 does not show a majority of the responding workers participating in any of the 1 isted recreations 1 ac~ivities in 1983-84, Table 3-12 summarizes participation of responding workers in recreational activities within 10 miles of the project site. Small prcentages of r@spoding wsrkars participated in fi shiag, boat i-mg , and hiking actilai t ies wi~hbn 10 miles of the project site. A mjorityl. aE workers responded that they had not participated in any of the recreational activities since May 1983, IP~ is possible that with the type sf work schedules construcfisn workers maiotained on th is project, the majority of workers had insufficient Leisure time to participate in recreational activities near the project site. Surprisingly, hunting and fishing in other parts af Alaska are no more frequent than hunting and fishing with in 10 miles of the project si te. ~ Becrcat-anal Activity "-"---- -a--mw-w~~~.aw~ --- -*- 13 n%..ap~$g~;denE~ Ilsc- of the survey were asked if: ti~ey had participated in the following recreational activities duriog 1983-84: sightseeing, kourrist trips, hiking, camping, recreational boating, and winter sports. ~orty-six percent of the respondents reported sightseeing during 1983-84; 30 percent reported recreat ional boat ing, 23 per cent reported hiking, 13 ,>ereen t reported camping and winter sports, respectively, and 12 percent reported taking tourist trips able 3-13). The recreational actixrities listed in Table 3-13 are more popular tgith responding worlrers than are hunting or fishing. sightseeing, recreational boatirz, and hiking appar to be the favorite types of recreational act:ivities. But, overall, Table 3-13 does not show a majority of the responding workers participating in any of the l isted recreations l aetivi ties in 1983-84, Tabh 3-12 summarizes participation of responding workers in recreational activi~ies within 10 miles of the project site. Small percentages of responding workers participated in fishing, boating, and hiking activities within 10 miles of the project site. A mjority of workers responded that they had not participated in any of the recreational activities since May 1983, It is paasible that taith the type of work schedules construstion workers maintained ow this project, the majority of workelcs had insufficient keisure time to participate in recreational activities near the project site. ~~rprisingly, hunting and fishing in other parts of Alaska are no more frequent than hunting and fishing within 10 miles of the project site. TABLE 3-13 TERROR LAKE SURVEY RE6;9mlArr TC~tqtli~ ACTIVITIES DURING 11983-84 -"--ma- -- - NBN-PARTIC ZPAWTS PARTICIPANTS ---- Type sf Percent of Percent sf Aetiivity Number Respondents Number Res psnden t s Sightseeing 37 54 Tourist Trips 61 88 ~iking 53 77 Camping 60 87 ~ecreationak Boat i-n.g 48 70 Winter Sports 60 87 No response = 1 Source: Harza-Ebasco Computer Run, SAS Program "Survey 03," Jan, 1985, $ i 6omgari sons ---- Table 4-1 contains a comparison of data from the 1983 and 1984 ~ntertie surveys, the 1984 Terror Lake survey, and the assumptions used in the Sus i~na ssciseccanaamic model that were related to eons truetion wt3rker charac teris tias, 4,1, % Percent Locals The ssciseeorasmic mdel assumes that six pePcent of the work E~rce will be comprised of locals (residen%s of the local impact area or within daily comuting distance). Each of the surveys (1933 and 1984 Intertie surveys and Terror Lake survey) showed a greacer percentage of locals constituting the p~oject work force. The Terror Lake survey data were closer to rhe Susitas model in terms of percentage of locals in the project work force (10 percent and 6 percent, respectively), than were the 1983 or 1984 Intertie surveys, It seems reasonable that a low percentage of locals were emflayed on the Terror Lake project, since it was constructed on the remote island sf KodiaLk, where a large portion of the local people are currently, and have been for years, employed in commercial fishing. 4,5,2 Percent sf Alaska Residents The sociaecon~mic mode% assmption and data from the 1883 and 1984 Faatertie surveys were fairly close in estimating the percentage of Alaskan renj- dents that comprised the project work force (86 percent, 77 percent, end 33 percent, respectively). The Terror Lake survey data showed a lower wr~21~t- age, with only 60 percent of the project's work force comprised of Alaskan residen~s, CO!@ARISON OC SELECTED SURVEY RESULTS i4fW HBSSUWTIBNS USED IN THE %SITMA SOCHCECBNOMIC @4QW& 5980 Terror Lake --* Percent ABwske Residents 84 7'7 83 60 Origin of Wcrk Fakc$ Wel P b1B Other Alaska Out -of -St ate Pereont of Msn-Local Workers that are bvess 33 Percent of Movers that are Aecoqanied by Dependents 90 Mumbr a$ Dependents per Aecompansed Work@ r 2,54. 2.25 Numbr af School Childsen per Aecswanied Wsrker 1.OQ3 %,3 Percent of Movers that Plan ts Rsmin in the ~oee f Carramunit y 74 2n2/ I@ u~roa the Susiti,e Hydroelact ric Project Socioeconomic Impact nodel (December 1983 Update, Car Yas~~sportatissn ad~n the 1983 Intertie Survey, respondents answered that they were planning to stay, not planning to stay, ar uncertain, Far purposes af this tabre, iP nes assumed that sppmximetel.y 58 psrcent of those answering wuncer$eLntt would remain, iu~n the 1984 Intertie Survey, respondents were asked where thay planned to live after the pra$eek nas csm&aPsked, Far purposes of' this table, it was assumd that anyone responding DPTalkestne, GankwelP," ar nearby areas within daily commuting distance (HeaHy or HilBepw) planned to rsmgin in the camunity, Appendix Table B.6 for Previous Residence without the locat ions presented in collapsed (gssuped) Farm, Sdcrureteer Hara-Ehscet Cawuter Run, %S Prag:=aa ''Survey Q6'@ and @"%\9$~ey Q3gqa9 Jan, 1985, 6A,3 Brigin of Work Force Pv-P P The socioeconomic model assumptions were closer to the data from the 1983 and 1984 Intertie surxley than the Terror Lake survey. Reasons for the difference in origin of work force on the Terror i,ake project: can be surmised because the Terror Lake project was constructed on a remote island, hereas as the Intertie project was constructed on the mainland, as will the Susitna Project. Twenry-two percent of the Terror Lake work force \$ere previously from Weshington State . The locat ion of the contract ?r s sorile office in Washingtan probably accounts for the large percentage of Washington workers in the Terror Lake work force. 4.1.4 Perse~t of Ron-Local Workers that Movers The socioeconomic model assumes that approximately 33 percent of ehe won-local work force would be movers. This is similar to the data obkained from the 1984 Intertie survey, in which 30 percent of the non-local work force were movers. It can be presumed that the low .percentage ( 10%) of non-locals that are movers on the Terror Lake i\roject can be attributed to remote Location of the project and the fact that the nearby local communities are vary small (all under 1,000 people). 4.1.5 Percent of Movers Accompanied by Dependents The most striking difference be meen the Susi tna s~cioeeonomic model assumptions axad the other three surveys is ehat the model assumed that $0 percent of the movers would be accompanied by dependents. The 1983 and 1984 latertie survey results psinted out that only 27 percent of the movers on the Intertie project were accompanied by dependents. The Terror Lake survey results showed that only 56 percent of the movers brought their dependents with them. The Intertie and Terror Lake projects were of much shorter duration, however, than the Susi tna Project 's 17-year cons ttuc tion schedule. The duration of Susitna construction is likely to result in more workers being accompanied by their de penden ts , Accompanied Worker and Number sf School - - The Susitna socioeconomic model assumptions and the results from the other khree surveys appeared very similar on the number of dependents and number of school children that accompany the construction worker. 4.1.7 Percent of Movers that Plan to ~emain in Local Cornunity The Susitna socioeconomic model assumes 74 percent of the movers will ranain in the Local cornunity after completion of the Pr-sject. Th e results from the surveys are considerably lower than the 74 percent assumed in the Susitna model. The extended construction period of the Susitna Project makes it reasonable, however, to assume that a higher percentage of workers may choose to remain in the local area, 4,L,Q Summary mere are several possible reasons POT the differences between tire Susitna socioeconomic model projections and the 1983 and 1984 Intert ie surveys and Terror Lake survey. First, the 1983 and 1984 Intertie work force had few union positions, while the majority of workers on the Terror Lake project were unionized, and thus origin of the wk force was different between the 3 surveys and the Susitrna model projections, (IShe Susitna model assumed a unionized work force.) In addition, the Terror Lake Project was constructed in a remote geographic location relative to the Intertie Project and the proposed Susitna Project. Also, the small number of people in each work force surveyed causes some uncertainty as to whether the survey results are representative of the overall work force. Finally, there is a significant difference in the length and type of the various construction projects. The two-year construction period and relatively small size of the Intercie and Terror Lake projects wauld be expected ts attract different wosleers with different characteristics than the Susitna Project, &ich will have a larger workfarce and be built ovens a 17-year period, 1,2 CCJPBPARXSON OF KEY FINDINGS FROM THE 1983 M9D 1984 1 WmRTIE SURVEY'S ---. AND ICey findings from the surveys indicate that the gender of the work force was siniilar in all three surveys, a~ith a large majority of male project iaor kers. The largest occupational categories of workers vt re very similar in all three sur3seys, with the largest two categories in all three surveys being construction trades and managers/supervisors. The use of union labor did differ bemeen projects. Survey results revealed that 64 percent of ehe responding Terror Lake project workers held union jobs, while only 36 and 19 gezcent 0%: the responding 1983 and 1984 Intertie project workers indicated they held union jobs, tespectivefy. Some of the dif fexences among the three surveys, &i~h are highlighted in the key findings sections, may be associ- ated with the difference in work force management techniques (using union labor Venus non-union labor). Far examplle, 91 prcent of the respondents on the Terror Lake project reported Z iving at the company provided work camp during the work week, while only 34 percent of respondents from the 1984 Intertie survey reported that their housing was provided by their employer. Intertie Survey Addi t iona% Tables TABLE A-1 ENTERTIE SURVEY UNION STATUS ---- -- Ferbzent of Number Respondents Member Nan-Membex No Response = 1 Source: Harza-Ebasco Computer Run, SAS Program '"urvey 06," Jan. 1985. TABLE A-2 INTEWIE SUWmY ES PONDENT GENDER Percent sf Number Wespsndent s Male Female Source:: Barza-Ebasco Computer Run, SAS Pr~gram "'Survey 04," Jan, 1985, - -- TABLE 8-3 INTERTIE SURVEY WORM", R OCGTSPATIONS Percent af Occupation Nunaberc. Respondents Engineer, Surveyor, or Staker 10 8 Laborer Cons true t ion ~radeskl Mechanics 3 3 Clerical and Secretaries 4 3 Managers and Foremen 18 15 Quzlity Assurance Pzrsonnel I I 9 TOTAL No Response = B l/~onstruction trades includes: pipef itters, truck drivers, inspectors, linemen, drillers, piledrivers, operators, and carpenters. a/~otal does not equal 100% due to rounding. Source: Harza-Ebasco Computer Run, SAS Program "Survey 06," Jan. 1985. TABLE A-4 PNTERTPE SURVEY MSPCSNDENT AGE Age (Years ) Percent of Number Respondents <20 20-29 36-39 40-49 58-59 $8 and greater Mo Response 1 Average age of respondent = 33 years, Source: Harza-Ebasco Computei Run, SAS Program "Survey 06," Jan. 1985. MPEHDXX TABLE A-5 INTERTIE SURVEY Haus rMe PROVIDED BY EMPLOYE R Percent of Number Respoadents & Provided by Employer 48 35 Nag Provided by Employer 76 65 No Response = 3 Source: Narza-Ebasco Computer Run, SAS Program "Survey 06," Jan. 1985, TABLE A-6 FMTERTIE SURVEY P ON PHTERTIE IN 198 -7 P Percent of Number Respaadeats Yes No Response = 1 Source: Warza-Ebasco Computer Run, SAS Program "Survey 06," Jan. 1985. TABLE A-7 ENTERTXS SURWU WWEM WOWERS LIVED ON TflEKENDS AND QTKER TIE OFF (USUAL AWS~DEMCE) Location Percent sf Number Respondents Cantweil/~ealy ~alkeetnakl Anehesr age Fairbanks Other Alaska Ocher 49 States No Response - 4 Ll~alkeetna includes Willow, Trapper Creek, and Montana Creek. Source: Harza-Ebasco Computer Run, SAS Program "Survey 06," Jan. 1985. TABLE A-8 INTERTIE SURWY Y-h ---- Percent of Number Responden- -- Yes No Response = 3 source: Harza-Ebasco Conputsr Run, SAS Program "Survey 06," Jan 1985. TABLE A--9 INTERTIE SURVEY NUl3BER QF DEBEMDENTS Number Percent of Number of Dependents of Workers All Workers TOT& 119 BOO All Workers 119 Workers with Dependents 6% Avemge Dependents per Worker with Depewdents 2,4 Standard Deviation ]k,P Average Dependents per Worker %,3 Source; Harza-Ebascs Computer: Run, SAS Propam ''Survey 06," Jaam, 1985, TABLE A-10 INTERTIE SURVEY DEPENDENTS ' PRIOR ES IDEMCE Percent of Number Respondent 8 Gantwell/~ealy ~alkeetnal/ Anchorage Fairbanks Other APasqm Other 49 States Ns Response - 57' Lllalkeetna includes Willow, Trapper Creek, and Montana Creek. So~tce: Harza-Ebasco Computer Run, SAS Program "Survey 06," Jan. 1985. TABLE A-11 INTERTIE SURVEY DEPENDENTS ' CURWNT MS TDENCE Persent of Number Re% ponden t s Cantwell/~ealy ~alkeetnakl Anchorage Fairbanks Other Alaska Other 49 States Ns Response = 59 k/~alkeetna includes Willow, Trapper Creek, and Montana Creek. 1 Source: Harza-Ebasco Computer Run, SAS Program "S~~rvey 06," Jan, 1985. TABLE 8-12 FWERTZE SmVm WC;dRiEW % ' FWIJRE RESIDENCE Location Percent a f Number Res pondents Cantwel llilealy ~alkee tnaL1 Anchorage Fairbanks 0 ther Alaska Other 49 States No Wespsnse = 20 k/~alkeetna includes Willow, Trapper Creek, and Montana Creek. a/~otal does not equal 100% due to rounding. Source: Harza-Ebasco Computer Run, SAS Program "Survey 06 ," Jan. 1985. Terror Lake Survey Additional Tables TABLE B-l TERROR LAm SURVEY WORiCER OCCUPATIONS Occupation Percent of NumbGr Respondents Engineer, Surveyor or Staker Clerical d Secretaries Managers & Foremen Cons true t ion ~radesll ~echanics Food Service Lhbsrer All Other TOT AT* 70 100 L/~ons traction trade workers include: pipef i t ters , truck drivers, and inspectors. Source: Marea-Ebasco Computer Run, SAS Program "Survey 03," Jan n, 1985, TABLE B-2 TERROR LAKE SURVEY TYPE OF MOUSING Percent of Number Respondents 14sbihe Home 1. 1 Agar tment 1 1 Single-family Dwelling Unit 3 4 Work Camp (~arracks) 64 82 Other 9. 1 TOTAL 70 9911 Li~otal does not equal lOOX due to rounding. Source: Barza-Ebasca Computer Run, SAS Program "Survey 83," Jan, 1985, TABLE B.-3 TERROR LAKE SURVEY HOUS ING PROVIDED BY EMPLOYE R Housing Provided Percent e% Number Respondents Provided by Employer 65 94 Rot Provided by Employer 4 6 ~~yfi, 69 100 Ns response = 1 Source: Barza-Ebasco Computer Run, SAS Program "Survey 03," Jan. 1985. TABLE B-4 TERROR LAU SURVEY WOE SCHEDULE k$~rk Schedule Percent of Number Respondents Six 10-hour days per week Eight aeeks on12 weeks off Other Source: Harza-Ebasco Computer Run, SAS Program "Survey 03," Jan. 1985. TABLE B-5 TERROR LAKE SURVEY TOTAL MONTHS WQmED ON TERROR LME IN 1983 MD 1984 Months Wsrked Percent of Number Respondents 1983 <-- Ha MsnCh 2 Pfsnths 3 Months 4 Hsnths 5 Months 6 Mogaths 7 Months 8 Months 9 X~~jltks 10 Months %P Months 12 Months 1983 Subtotal 1984 P 13 Months 14 Months 25 Mowtbs 16 Hontks 17 Months 1984 Subtotab TOTAL 70 9911 L/~otal does not equal 100% due to rounding. Source: Hsrea-Ebasca Canaputc;~ Run, SAS Program "Survey 03, 'VS~PI, 1985, TERROR LAKE SmllEY PREVI ous RES IDENCEI-/ Percent of L~catian Number Respondents Kenai area 5 8 Other Alaska 5 8 WashEngtan State Ib 5 22 Other 48 States 8 B 2 Nan-U,S,A, site 3 5 No Response = 3 k/~i thout col Lapsing location. Source: Harza-Ebasco Computer Run, SAS bogram "Survey 03, Jan, 1985, TABLE B-7 TERROR LAKE SURmY WHEW WOMES LIVED ON LEAVE Tim OR OTHER TIM OFF WOK (usual ~es idence) Percent sf Usual Wes idence Number Respondents Kodiak area 18 26 Other Alasb 4 6 Washington State I P I6 Other (U,S, and aon-U,S, sites) 5 7 No Response = 1 Source: Harza-Ebaseo Computer Run, SAS Program "Survey 03$" Jan, 8985, TABLE 8-8 TERROR LAKE SPRVEY wOBERS' PUTmE RESIDENCE Persent of Number Res psnden ts Kodiak area 7 &tlchorage/~enai area ' 27 8 her Alaska 6 Washington State 3 Other (U.So and nsn-U,S, sites) 5 Uns peri fied/~nsure 20 So Response = 2 L/~otal does not equal 100% due to rounding. Source: Barza-Ebasco Computer Run, SAS Program "Survey 03 '' Jaw, 2985, TABLE B-9 TERROR LAm SURVEY WOWERS WITH DEPENDENTS P2rcent of Respondents TOTAL Source: Harza-Ebasco Computer Run, SAS Program "~urvey 03," Jan. 1985. TABLE B-10 TERROR LAKE SURVEY NUMBE W OF DEPENDENTS Dependents Percent of Number Respsndents Number of dependents Workers with Dependents Average Dependents per Kcsrker with Dependents Standard Deviation Average Dependents per Worker - Source: Harza-Ebas@o Gmputek Run, SAS Program "Survey 03," "$an, f985, TABLE B-A 1 TERROR LAKE SURWY DEPENDENTS ' PRIOR mSZDENCE Location Percenmof Number Respondents K~diak area 4 ~nchoragel~enai area 12 Other Alash 1 Washington State 9 Bther(U,S,ornon-U,S,sites) kl SQFBHC~: Harza-Ebasco Computer Run, SAS Pk-og~am ""Survey 03,'" Jan, 1985, TABLE B-12 TERROR LME SURVEY DEBEMDENTS ' CURMNT WS ZDEMCE Percent of Location Number Respondents Rodiak area d~nshorage/~enai area 64 38 Washington State 6 16 Other (u.S. cr non-U.S. sites) 6 No Response = 33 Source: Warza-Ebasco Computer Run, SAS Program "Survey 03, " Jan, 1985,