The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAPA3009[}{]~~~~c::J~[ID~~©@ IT J I T VENTURE SUS!TNA HYDROELECTRIC DOCUMENTATION REPORT SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT MODEL Volume 1 Report by Frank Orth & Associates, Inc. Under Contract to Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture Prepared Ear Alaska Power Authority Final Report June 1985 ALASKA POWER SUSITNA PROJECT s 2 1 .. 3 NTS se and tackground of the Report tions of Transportation Hir Impact Assessment Organization of the Report See r 0 2 4 2~1 tes of Secondary Data and Prima Data 2.1.1 Construction Work Force Requirements 5 2 .. 1 .. 2 Construction Work Force Socioeconomic Character t s 5 2 ... 1 .. 3 Base Year Employment and Unemployment Rates 7 2 ... 1 .. 4 Base Year Population 7 2ol.S Base Year Housing 2.106 Base Year Public Facilities and Services Characteristics 2 .. 1.7 Rase Year Fiscal Conditions 2e2 Assumptions IN METHODOLOGY 9 3e! Susitna Socioeconomic Impact Model 13 3el.l Approach 1 3~1.2 Geographical Coverage of Model Procedures 14 3..,2 Economic-Demographic Module 16 3.2.1 Approach 16 3.2.2 Enhancements in Existing Procedures 17 3.2.3 Incorporation o2 New Procedures 24 3.2 .. 3 .. 1 Consistency Checks for :mployment, Populat Net Migration, and Housing 2 3 .. 2.3.2 Capacity Constraints in Gravity Model 3 .. 2.3.3 Transmission Line Worker Procedures 27 3.2.3.4 Railhead Worker Procedures 28 3.3 Traffic Module 3.3.1 Approach 28 3.3.1.1 Traffic Module Components 29 3 .. 3 .. 2 Enhancements in Existing Procedures 32 3.3.3 Incorporation of New Procedures 32 3e4 Public Facilities and Services Module 33 3.4.1 Apprc~~h 33 3.4.2 Enhancements in Existing Procedures 34 3o463 Incorporation of New Procedures 35 3o5 Fiscal Module 35 3e5.1 Approach 35 3o5~2 Enhancements in Existing Procedures 36 3o5c3 Incorporation of New Procedures 36 l 4.4 4 5 itle Descript Economic ic 4o2.1 Differences 4G2~2 fferences 4.. .. Dif 4.2~3 .. 1 OF Conceptual ph ica 1 Enhancements to to Avoid t 1 Distribut Proce.Jures (Con 4 .. 2.3.2 Ways to Avo Infinite Cvntrol ls 4.2~3 3 Gravity 1 Procedures Differences in Incorporation of New Module fferences in Conceptual ch ) 4 .. 2 .. 4 Traff !~ .. 3" 1 4.,3 .. 2 4 .. 3.,3 Differences in Enhancements to Exist Procedures l 4 4 .. l 4.,4 .. 2 4.4.3 Differences in Incorporation of New Proce es Facilit and Services Module Differences in Conceptual Approa Differences in Enhancements to Existing Proc Differences in Incorporation of New Procedures Fiscal Module 4.5.1 fferences in Conceptual Approach 4.5.2 Differences 1n Enhancements to Existing Procedures 4.5.3 Differences in Incorporation of New Procedures cO SUMMARY AND COMPARISON OF CAR TRANSPORTATION & AIR BUS SCENARIOS 5.1 Projected Economic-Demographic Effects 5.1.1 Summary of Project Effects on oyment by Census Division 5.1.2 Summary of Project Effects on Population by Selected Communities and Census Divis 5 .. 1.3 Summary of ect Effects on Househol Selected Communities and Census Divis 5.1.4 Summary of Project Ef ts on Hous Units Selec Communities and Census D isions 5.1.5 Summary of Project Ef cts on Vacant Housing by Selected Communities and Census Divisions 5.1.6 Summary of Project Effects on Net Worker by Census Division 5.1~7 Summary of Project Effects on Net Population by Census D tston ll by Units tion Change 41 4 c· ) 45 /~5 46 46 47 47 7 l.~t 7 7 52 54 57 61 References Appendix A -Community Summaries A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 Municipali of Anchorage Mat-Su Borough (of ite) Palmer Wasilla Houston Ta tna Trapper Creek M un i c i pa 1 it y of A-9 Cantwell A-10 Healy A-ll Nenana Fairbanks iii Cont: 2 OF ( -Techn 1 1 Descript B-1 ts and Three-Character Var L t -Demographic Rowname Def ition File Traffic Rowname Definition File 1 Facilities and Servies cal Rowname f t File Base Case Economic-Demographic Model Definition File- Scenario Complementary Economic-Demogra ic Model Definit le- A us Scenario Traffic 1 Definition File-Car Scenario Traffic Model Definition File-Air/Bus Scenario Public Facilities and Services Model Definition File lV Number 2 L~ • l 5 1 5.,2 5.3 .,4 5o5 5.,6 5 .. 7 5.8 5 it 5 .. 10 5 ~ 11 5al2 5.,13 5 .. 14 5 .. 15 5 .. 16 5. 1 7 5" 18 LIST OF TABLES Title Construction WoYk Force Requirements rison of Construction Worker Survey Results Year oyment and Unemployment Rates Year Population Base Year Housing R~~~ Y~~t ¥~~1:~ F~~iliti~~ ~n~ S~~vi~~~ u~~ ~~t~~ ~n~ ~~p~giti~s B~i~ Y~at F~ Cguditious Projected Employment, Population 9 Househol , and Net igration Effects Summary Sum.ma.ry Summary Bummary Summary Summl:lTY oE Project P't'Oj~ct Project of of of Project of Project Bf P'f'BJ~ct Effects on Employment E t$ on POpylation Eff~ets on Houeeholrls Effects on Housing Units Effects on Vacant Hovsing Units Eff~cts on NeE Wor~~t MigtattQn Effects on Net Population Change Effects on Average Annual Traffic Effects on Number of Trucks Effects on Total Ace irk "'ts Injury A<..:1.. .lt s lat Volumes Summary of Project Summary of Project Summary of Project Summary of Project Sun~ary of Project Summary of Project Summary of Project Systems Effects on Effects on Effects on Animal Roaa Kill Accidents Capacity Utilization of Water Summary of Project Effects on Capacity Utilization of Sewer Systems Summary of Project Effects on Capacity Utilization for Police Services Summary of Project Effects on Capacity Utilization for Solid Waste Summary of Project Effects on Capacity Utilization for Recr~ation Facilities Summary of Project Eff~~cts en Capacity Utilization for Education Services Summary of Project Effect~ on General Fund Fiscal Balances v BACKGROUND OI fHE REPORT impact model for the Susitna Hydroelectric 1982 to ass in preparing Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC The license appl:Lcation incorporated workers would be permitted and required O\ru transportation to from Project construct would work one week on and one week offe This private ve- scenario referred to as the base case, since variations in er transportation policy and mitigation measures have been evaluated with respect to this scenarioe The socioeconomic impact model has four principal parts or modules: economic-·demographic, traffic, public facilities and services, and f:i.s- cal,. The economi.c-demographic module dissaggregates forecasts for the Fairbanks and Anchorage portions of the Railbelt to individual communi- ties likely to be affected by construction of the Susitna Project, and estimates potential socioeconomic effects on the basis of a number his economic-demographic relationships and hypotheses concerning the tendency of workers to establish residence close to their place of ~1ork The Railbelt forecasts disaggregated by the socioeconomic impact model are~ provided by the Man-In-The-·Arctic Program (HAP) Economic Model, developed and operated by the Institute of Social and Economic Research of the University of Alaska.. The MA.I, Model forecasts are also used .in electric power load forecasting for the Susitna Project. The traffic produces forecasts of average annual traffic volumes from historical data on traffic trips, population, and employment.. After the trips are deter-· mined, an allocation procedure is used to distribute trips from their place of origin to one of several destinations.. The public facilities and services and fiscal modules apply historical rates of facility re- quirements and fiscal conditions to forecasted population to estimate potential project effects on these factors .. 1 was construe recent forecasts impact worker t potential se case and a set three and bus t be us in project planning, to force management and IMPLICATIONS OF TRANSPORTATION AND HIRING SCENARI ASSESSMENT soc air transportation constructiot:'. workers would t~ construction site from rports in c ...................... , ot locations.. Work shifts would probably be a of 17 days under thiE scenario. Under bus workers bussed from Anchorage, Fairbanks, or municipalities, as as intermediate locations as Cantwell. Some bus transpo would p also supplement scenario~ Socioeconomic effects on Parks Highway communities Creek Talkeetna, Healy would be of the air or bus t ion plan than in would much less to es such as ser magni case, res close to the construction site at Watana. fact, , if any r the air trans rtat rs would ve lit , to cate outside 2 some bus plans were less socioeccnomic base case., air or bus t in either Anchorage or Fairbanks, on t Pa is necessa concerning the number workers that will H metropolitan area. To examine a broad range assumpt ratios were used: to o 77 percent of construction workers hired from Anchorage and percent of construction workers hired from Fairbanks; this rat 0 in on the time; report .. of their respective populat scenario referred to as the percent of construction workers hired from rat is ed on the use of one point of as one at case rture, such o 50 of construe workers hired from rage and of construct workers red s rat reflects tive proximi of Watana site to 3 made to permit the model to more in developing are described chapter 4.. This to the hiring workers areas.. Chapter 5 presents revised casts as as forecasts d~veloped under t scenarios. The socioeconomic ts on economic and demographic conditions, and services, and local fiscal conditions. separately bound appendices have been prepared to provide specific information and documentation the Appendix A gives a summary and comparison of Susi tna induced socioeconomic effects under the case and bus scenarios for each several Railbelt cities communi p pendix B provides a complete listing of the socioeconomic model's and parameter values and definitions. 4 t- REVI contains a discussion Project studies The 1) ject construction employment; 2) const characteristics; 3) emp~~yment; 4) population; 5) hous sties; 6) public facilities and services; and 7) fiscal resource ., 2"1 .. 1 Construction Work Force Requirements .. tna are on rae- important indic.at.or of the magnitude of Project effects on speci ........................ ties that would be affected by the construction of tht Sus Hydroelectric Project is the size of the construction work force6 During FY85, new construction work force estimates were generated.. The new estimdtes are shown in Table 2.1 .. These estimates represent a substantial (60 percent) reduction wo force size as compared to the estimates used in the License Application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).. In 1990, average annual construction empln::~ent is estimated to be 1, 417 jobs versus 3, 498 workers used in the License Application. Another reason for reduction in the newer work force estimates is related to ~he fact that peak monthly work force estimates were used in the FERC License Applica- tion and average annual numbers are now used in all FY85 forecasts. The major reason for this change was that the use of the former work force estimates represented a worst case scenario (in terms of in-migratlon) with a low probability of occurrence. The use of average annual work force estimates represents a more likely occurrence. 2.1~2 Construction Work Force Socioeconomic Characteristics. Additional data on construction worker characteristics was gathered dur- ing FY85., Because of the lack of data on Alaskan construction workers, a continuing data gathering effort spanning FY83 to FY85 was undertaken to i~prove the reasonableness of the assumptions made regarding construction ~·orker charaL ~eri' L .~so Three surveys of two projects were conducted and 5 For movers movers that from would to remain outside local area and who move their rmanent res an area obtaining employment on a ect., local ( living Su Project construction jobs was assumed to found surveys. The size of Susitna time period over which Project coD in rural areas, local residents would requisite construction can fill a specified number of jobs on any construction project. However, as the size of the construction work force rease , percentage workers that are local residents construction periods are also expected to increase uonlocal residents the ~onstruction work as immediate project vicinity have more time to become aware employment opportunities and to act on this information. declineo outside construct was assumed that the economy has matured to the point construction employment opportunities by s can adequately by residents~ However, ment opportunities induced by the would filled by a Railbelt residents and o people from outside Railbelt.., percent movers that would be accompanied by r than in r other ts because cons ruction the projects re yea.rs reas the itna Project construction r is to last to occur on employment rates for available. This informa was s , Alaska Economic Trends Orth & Associates, Inco using The data collected are shown in Table 2.3e 2 1 4 Base Year data for 1983 and limited information for 1984 became during FY85. Data for 1983 came from the Alaska 9 s publication, the 1983 Population Overview, and from the Borough Planning Department's Data for 1984 were derived Kenai Planning , the by Mat-Su Planning Department, and socioeconomic conducted Healy, Harza-Ebasco for communities of Trapper Talkeetna. Data for communities are based on asts from socioeconomic impact model .. communities are shown in Table 2.4 .. 7 was census I of and were then used to determine census division areaso 1983 and 1984 number were population by household rates were census data, survey collected on from estimates obtained from planning 6 Base Year Public Facilities and Characteristics ... data on public facilities and have each year for Mat-Su Borough communities and Cantwell During , however, additional communities had data collected on and services. These included: Healy, the School, the Rail belt School District, Anchorage, and Fairbank Data were obtained primarily through key informant interviews conducted through meetings or over the phone.. The results of data lection effort are presented in Table 2.6 for major facilities and ser- vices& Demand for each facility and service was determined fr·om historical formation that was gathered on average daily and peak use. This informa- tion was then combined with historical population estimates to determine per capita (or per household) standards that be applied to the economic-demographic of population (or households).. spe- values used for Appendix B, part 4 facility and service by community are Conditions .. ture multipliers have r capita revenue effects Project on local condit used to These multi in ject rs several budgets estimated an will be revised the present time, the budgets for FY81, Given adjustments for calendar year, calendar year fiscal conditions will be revised in capita multipliers for total revenues and expenditures 1984 are shown in Table 2 o 7.. Values fo1 specific are shown in Appendix B, part 5o 2a2 ASSUMPTIONS A change in model assumptions includes an effort to adopt consis- tent definitions of the Railbelt region as they exist in the ISER model and in the Susitna socioeconomic impact model.. The MAP model's definition of the Railbelt region includes the Anchorage area and area. The Anchorage area includes the Municipality of Anchor- age, the Kenai Peninsula Borough, and the Mat-Su Borough. The Fairbanks area was defined as the Fairbanks-North Star Borough and the SE Fairbanks Census Division .. Previous socioeconomic modeling efforts defined the Railbelt region to include the Valdez-Chitina-Whittier census division and the Railbelt portion of the Yukon-Koyukuk census area as shown in Map 1 in order to capture all significant effects of the Project. However, in subsequent modeling efforts, the effects on the Valdez-Chitina-Whittier census divi- sion were determined to be negligible with the possible exception of the community of Paxson. Significant effects were likely to occur in the Railbelt portion of the Yukon-Koyukuk census area because of certain off-site Project facilities (i.eo, the Cantwell railhead and transmission line construction) and the proximity of communities in this area to the 9 TALKEETNA -----A-T_A_N US K A-_j ENA8 PENINSULA DOROUGH YALDJ!Z=CHITINA-H CENSUS DIVI 10 MUNIBC!PALITY OF ANCHOR OE SCALE MILES OF lL BOA, RESEARCH AN() P IDEO B 1 83 1 the I sets of assumptions were changed FY85 to were obtainedG These include: 1) MAP model , population, net migration, and households; 2) origin assumptions by census divisions; 3) force origin assumptions for the communities the Railbelt portion of the Yukon-Koyukuk census area; 4) casts of unemploy"'Dent rates for census divisions in the Railbelttll The model forecasts of employment, population, and housing were upward to reflect more recent data available on these characteris- The MA~ model forecasts were prepared in December 1984 do not incorporate more recent data on population an.d employment became available in January 1985.. Because the differences between the more recent data and the ISER forecasts were sizeable (for example, ISER forecast of population in 1983 was about 20,000 people lower the Anchorage Area than more recent estimates from state sources), adjust- ments were made to the 1983 and 1984 ISER forecasts and then carried through each year of the projection period.. The rationale for making this type of adjustment was: 1) the large differences are a unique phe- nomenon related to significant population in-migration in the years 1983 and 1984; and 2) that certain socio-demographic characteristics of the population have undergone substantial change (i.e., labor force partici- pation rates have fallen~. Three other assumptions were changed to reflect consistency with the ISER MAP model forecasts, the likely distribution of support employment bene- fits from the family village at the Project s! te, and the percent of in-migrants that would be needed to fill support jobs and jobs vacated by residents taking construction jobs on the Project. 1 ers rates to reflects project is expected to employ construction is completed@ was assumed that the support employment generated residing at the village would be dispersed to , Cantwell, Fairbanks, and Anchorage.., Under the cast ~ Anchorage did not receive any of the support employment construction workersQ The FY85 forecasts have been adjusted to reflect the fact that most of the support employment would be in Anchorage because of the longer shift and rotation schedule approximately dayso In addition, support employment multipliers the rural/remote areas of the Mat-Su Borough were revised downward tv reflect the difficulty of retaining employment benefits in areas o~~~4, undiversifieds and largely non-cash economies~ the percent of workers that would in-migrate to communi ti~="' ':l in response to employment created in local support sectors and jobs vacated local residents taking Project construction jobs was adjusted. Rural areas were ex.t;~~ted to have larger percentages of workers ..:n-migrating for any support or other jobs related to the Project as compared to urban areas .. One other assumption that was changed in order to conform with the most recent data available had to do with the percentage of the construction work force that would be laborers, semi-skilled/skilled workers, and administrative or engineering professionals.. In the prior versions of the model, these percentages were assumed to be 68 percent for laborers, 18 percent for semi-skilled/skilled workers, and 14 percent for adminis- trative or engineering professionals~ These percentages were modified to 20 percent, 55 percent, and 25 percent, respectivelyD 1 soc the theoretical concepts were examined as a possible for the Susi tna. socioeconomic impact modele These location, central place, and economic base theories r; was relied upon heavily as a modeling approach because its strength lay in estimating how secondary industry sectors will to a change in direct industry sectors like energy is relevant for the Susitna Project because one of the most s cant sources of impacts will be employment and population growth is stimulated by the Project's direct employment9 In economic base theory, there are two key concepts. First, it assumes the economy may be split into two sectors: direct and secondary$ Bl...~.:nesses and other economic entities that sell goods and services to places, or people who live, outside of the local economy comprise the direct sector~ Those that sell goods and services within the local econ- omy comprise the secondary sectoro Second, it assumes that the amount of secondary activity is determined by the amount of direct activitye The method used to project impacts of the Project follows economic base theory in that secondary (support sector) impacts of the Project are estimated using employment multiplierso It is assumed that the level of secondary activity is uniquely determined by the level of direct (basic sector) activity and that a given change the level of direct activity will bring about a predictable change secondary activity (Leistritz and Murdock, 1981).. Thus, the creation a given number of construction jobs will create a predictable number of second a job~i in related industries and the service sector., areas; models to . ' household t to project standards to project ; and capita tures for multipliers to jurisdictions with and revenues the Susitna socioeconomic impact model structure is , B-3, B-4, and B-5.. However, a more thorough model approach, the techniques used to project to and narra- structure of the model, see the Procedures Working per Number ----~~~--------------------------------------------~~--- and Projection Assumptions, Methodology and prepared by Frank Orth & Associates, • for the Authority. 3 .. Procedures .. Susitna socloeconomic impact model was designed to include areas may reasonably be by construction operation Given location the Project, the ne ) and location ting , Project effects are to be concent Rail belt as section 2 2 .. , Project s will signif some, not all, 14 were , and fis of was 5 percent , these communities were excluded from impact • Traffic~ effects were not exam~ned. that had been included from cop.sideration FY85. analysis communities , and Gulkana were excluded because were not found in model runs" Employment effects on census division did not exceed 2 percent in the forecasts of workers that would in-migrate any one community four in any These effects would even smaller under one current operating assumptions in which the of the force was reduced by 40 percent all workers originate in Railbelt. community of McKinley was excluded for a different reason" According to FY84 forecasts, significant were to occur this community. However, due to land availability, it was de that significant population in-migration is precluded area .. Thus, it sense to this community from analysis FY85 redistribute populat in-migration that had previous £~recasts to other communit that accommodate 15 places their to was to start ......... ...~~. ......... u.-y.' and the of was from labor sites and transmission work at PI.·oject residence$ The choices at the place on were these of staging residence to or moving pe2~anent place of te but different from their place ers who be assigned housing at the family of workers who would relocate their to near to communities was determinad. 1be nonrelocaters who st the camp were determined by subtracting the village workers from the total number of workers who would construct The settlement patterns of the relocaters were determined allocation procedures. effects on employment were then determined for community or area aggregating over the number of project workers who would be non- reloca ters, reloca ters, railhead , or transmission workers., Baseline employment that would be to construct energy if Susitna ect is not built were subtracted from each ty as secondary employment were ter- After populat effects on employment have been each or area was forecastQ 16 t of to were of In Existing were made These included: 1~ methods used to aggregate to the area, and the Railbelt 2. the methods used to disaggregate baseline lation effects from the Project; 3 the methods userl to account for employment the without-project energy facilities; 4. methods used to account for hiring assumptions; 5. the methods used to account for employment by place of area, to 6. the methods used to determine out-migration of workers places receiving relocaters so that they can be tracked to their place of origin; 7. the methods used to determine secondary employment residence from secondary employment by place of 8. the methods used to determine Rail belt School tion; 9. the methods to avoid number in village ty procedures; 10 ... adjustments in the direct wo ( to account for and transmission g rs; tors, census was added to area; it Borough, , the Railbelt region was as the sum areas. was in order to account was carried out the on Working Procedures and the new definition for areaa More recent and current data were available on the shares of the census divisions comprise areas.. This information was incorporated into percent vari£)les (BSPP and BSEM). Second, recommendations disaggregation procedure to use each area tic were incorporated.. For example, in the case of employment in area, it was recommended that t!'le TAPS be excluded from linear regression analysis used to determine the percent share Third, the percent share trends the Fairbanks area em- and population were modified to the Yukon-Koyukuk census division into account the the of Paxson The third en.hancement was not to in casts because estimates number workers required to base- energy facilities were not ~vailable.. However, FY85, mates are culat minat were and distributed to project team$ The est in the model as ·~ BEMP .. " of direct employment s by number vacated jobs, were y or area, the the deter- t of account was so Air Bus scenarios socioeconomic impact modele were the of the model. Second, the as to the determlnation of the origin of the railhead, dam construction workers and the baseline employment as generating facilities required under fifth enhancement was made in order to more systematically cover effects by place of work;; During FY84, place of work est mates were shown for the Mat-Su Borough but for no other areas.. a consequence~ it was not clear when employment was in terms work or when employment was in terms of place of residence.. This tinction was sharpened during FY85. Because transmission line railhead workers, and dam site workers are all explicitly accounted in the Susitna socioeconomic impact model, it was very easy to develop procedures to show employment by place of worko All direct construction operations jobs occur in the Ma t-Su Borough with the exception of jobs at the Cantwell railhead and jobs associated with transmission line staging sites in Anchorage and Fairbanks. Secondary employment effects by place of work were assumed to reflect the settlement patterns of the direct construction and operations workers on the Project .. The sixth enhancement was one of the more complex of the enhancements to implemento In FY84, communities that received in-migration would aut~ matically experience out-migration when construction employment began to declineo However, communities that provided the in-migrants did not necesE-rily receive back those in-migrants in the same proportion that they were sent .. or other amount of a return of has been amount rs by local of relocaters st , then number returning would be reduced by 50 rates are described by the labeled the module As stated section 2.2, out-mig rates w·ere to be 100 percent. seventh enhancement changed the methods to secondary em- work .. had by place of residence from secondary employment by prior versions of the socioeconomic impact assumed employment by place of residence would of ...... ....,~.._..A.., it as employment by of. work. assumption was the same so that forecasts between base case and complementary models obtained. The base case model was modified so that migrating to take secondary employment opportunit and local jobs in Anchorage and rbanks had option to ............. 'l..£.u. ....... ties in Borough the portion of the cen- sus The of work in a- of the c ementary The pe this that e to recipient t te was on census division and School District serves the Yukon-Koyukuk census division Nenana has its own school district<ll the Railbelt School District was determined by Nenana from the Railbelt Portion of the census division for each yearo runs enhancement was the development of ways to avoid negative num- the village and gravity allocation procedureso During ini the economic-demographic module, negative numbers in the village procedures and gravity allocation distributions occurred cause net construction employment was being distributed., These numbers did not intuitive sense since Susitna Project construction manpower requirements were positive in every year between 1985 and 2002., This was corrected by subtracting baseline employment associated with generating facilities that would be constructed if !=he Susitna Project was not built after the village assignment procedures and gravi allocation procedures were completed in the base case model.. Such a change allowed the village houBing units to be filled and eliminated negative numbers from the gravity model allocations., The tenth enhancement was simply undertaken by adding married railhead and transmission line workers to the calculation for determining the direct in-migrating Susitna dam construction workers (DIMM). This addi- tion was necessary as these variables are used to determine the number of school children that would be associated with the construction worker population influx* The final enhancement was to more objectively quantify the attraction factors used the gravity allocation procedures.. These factors con- sisted of the availability of housing, school quality, the availabili 21 , and caseS) measures were vacant housing were of 0 to 5 was developed where 5 was assigned com- vacant housing units to house that relocate peak construe- if a community had not vacant was used between these two values to of community the and areas ive communities in those areasG rat were used to indicate school Again, 0 to 5 was used. Assignments of were based on the s shown 5 pupil-teacher ratio of 13 or lower 4 pupil-teacher ratio of 13 to 18 3 pupil-teacher ratio of 18 to 21 2 pupil-teacher ratio of 21 to 24 1 pupil-teacher ratio of 24 to 27 0 pupil-teacher ratio of 27 or more types of public facilities and services available a community determined whether a value of from 1 to 5 was assigned as the att on value this factoro Assignments of values were based on the shown below: 5 water, sewer, hospital services available, and paid police services and 4 same as five except that fire services provided by volunteers 3 2 same as four except no hospital se available same as three that now water and sewer systems available 1 no services 22 ( attraction were based on ,000 or more A were scale 4 10, to ,000 if defined economic ac reduce by one 3 2,500 to 10,000 if defined economic activity reduce by one ts, 2 100 to 2,500 if defined economic activity exists, reduce by one 1 less than 100 people availability of land in ~ community was determined by the number acres of residentail land available. A value of from 1 to 5 was assigned as the a!:"trec.4.:ion values that were allowed for this factor.. Assignments of values were based on the scale shown below: For the Anchorage area, 5 4,500 acres or more, low price, no land-use restrictions; 4 2,000 to 4,500 acres, low price, no land-uste restrictions; 3 600 to 2,000 acres, low price, no land use restrictions; 2 200 to 600, low price, no land use restrictions; 1 less than 200 acres, low price, no land use restrictions For the Fairbanks area, 5 1,500 acres or more, low price, no land-use restrictions; 4 1,000 to 1,500 acres, low price, no land-use restrictions; 3 500 to 1,000 acres, low price, no land use restrictions; 2 100 to 500, low price, no land use restrictions; 1 less than 100 acres, low price, no land use restrictions 23 ment Married of 1 were to those area, because of five were assigned to the outdoor for communities Anchorage this these enhancements were relocaters would of three., to relocate permanent weights by worker category and att of factor were Housing School Public Facilities Commercial and Services Services 3 3 3 3 1 It was assumed married rs would place more importance on , schools, public facilities and and commercial services on recreation opportunities in deciding where to The 1 than would single workers who would more opportunity to advan- tage of outdoor recreation opportunities and not as concerned about schools at point in life. new procedures were incorporated into the c-deoographic mod- ule FY85.. include: the incorporation of cont to 24 account take account on Fairbanks, Talkeetna, as off-site staging centerso In FY85, baseline and project ment, population, population migration, and housing were Anchorage and Fairbanks areas via the MAP modelo Because these ts represent the aggregated efftct of the Project, it became necessary to ensure that the Susitna socioeconomic impact model forecasts were tent with the I'"iAP model forecasts~~ Baseline employment and population numbers between ISER and the MAP model were already consistent due to regional disaggregation procedures used in prior model runs.. For more detail on these procedures, see the Working Paper on Regional Disaggrega- tion Procedures prepared by Frank Orth & Associates in 1985.. However!'/ there were no constraints in the model that ensured that the baseline household and project effect forecasts would be consistento The follow- explanation discusses the procedures that were developed to ensure consistency .. The MAP model forecasts for each worker hiring and transportation sce- nario were entered into the Susitna socioeconomic impact modele Consis- tency for the direct rcoject construction employment effects were easy to obtain as the percenta~.~e of workers that are hired in the Anchorage and Fairbanks area were explicitly entered into the model.. Operations and secondary employment estimates were assumed to be equal to the total employment effect in each area minus the direct project construction employment"' Then, initial forecasts of secondctry and operations employ- ment were made.. Adjustment factors (ADJE8AN and ADJE8FN) were then de- rived by subtracting direct construction employment effects, operations employment effects, secondary operations e~ployment effects, and second- ary construction employment effects in the Mat-Su Borough and Kenai Pen- insula Borough from the forecasts 'Jf total employment effects of the HAP 25 sure Later, area were were no for place at or of population and end of the economi variables defined as " and I'll A separate the en- Sci- ences program for the Susitna Project FY85 .. results that potential housing constraints ted com- munit of and Trapper Creek that preclude absorbing the projected amount population ( & Associates, Inc., 1985). In order to take ssibili- into account, capacity constraints were built the tna so- cioeconomic impact model. These variables are defined by "QCONo" constraints become operative only when population in-migration exceed a certain (including an allowable margin for in these communities. The percent of overflow (QOFP) that can be accommodated by nearby communities was also determined from the analysis of lr use and housing referenced above. These percentages were based on the available housing in nearby communities after they have satis all demand plus an additional share to allow for downward revi- sions the work force estimates After this information was built the model, the initial gravity model allocations workers to communi- ties were evaluated against the capacity constraints. If the constraints operative, the expected overflow (QOVF) was gravity model allocations of Creek. The derived rcentage of th2 ove to that would in nearby communities of Nenana, rbanks, racted the and accomrnodat suburban Ma t-Su Borough was added to initial ty model ions r these c ties t model continues as re at T-line did not out , they to dealt ~ regarding number of transmission ( in each category, percent to be site, the status worker was Second, numbers T-line by labor ' and by site by marital status were were assigned to communities outside could not be entered into the pool considered , the T-line workers by labor category were the t reloca- the respective labor category pools of relocaters. After the 1- assignments were conducted, the married and single T-line ers staging site were entered into the formulas that determine project employment effects by community on a place of work and place residence basis. origin T-line workers by marital status was built the based on the hiring assumptions used for the particular model run~ workers were assumed to originate from the municipalities of An- and Fairbanks only .. origin information was used to compute out-migration from Anchorage and Fairbanks and the number of jobs Anchorage and Fairbanks residents construction s., vacated Populat:ton to T-line construction and in-migrants filling second- and vacated jobs were then determined by applying the appropriate per household multipliers. T-line household ef were computed on the basis of one ine worker r household:. 27 railhead on explicitly in the model.. The procedures were to the T-line procedures outlined above* was that the residence of Railhead workers would or work camp during Pro}~ct construction"' T'nerefore ~ assumptions that had to be entered into the model were Railhead procedures as compared to the T-line prc~edures0 3e3 TRAFFIC MODULE 3 .. 1 Approach .. to basic premise of the traffic model is that traffic volumes in the study area were related to the characteristics of the s~udy area communi- ties.. In turn, forecasts of other traffic conditions like accidents were based on the forecasts of traffic volumes.. A detailed description of the is provided in an Appendix to the Traffic Analysis Report (Frank Orth & Associates, Inc., 1985). To explain the reasons for travel, aggregate historical traffic volumes were split into two parts--trip origins and destinations. Traffic volume consisted of people either traveling from their place of residence (ori- gin) to some specified destination (e .. g .. s work or shopping center) or returning to their place of residence. Therefore, traffic volume over a selected roadway or road segment was composed of people leaving for a destination or returning to their origin. As described above, trip gen- eration modules were used to project the volume of trips generated by a place, usually based on characteristics of the place's population, em- r:oyment, and land use. Trip distribution modules were used to project trip destinationsG Based on the attraction factors of a destination an~ their distance from point of trip origin, an allocation of trips from each origin was wade among the possible destinationso 28 ( generation They are interzonal trips were 0 , Incc, March 1984c). addition, sources about origins destinat December .. Datum and Dames & ' ( Engineers, May Orth & iates 1984) .. This information provided ratios bet,.;een traff trips population and employment which were then used to pro them to population employment project origin-dest ion zonesv The population and employment pro as model outputs from the economic-demographic module of socioeconomic impact model. were there were insufficient data about trip origin and destinat , a of simplifying assumptions were made to specify the interzonal trips. Since Average Annual Daily Traffic volume (AADT) as Annual Traffic Volume Reports of 1982 and 1983, prepared by the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOTPF), represented two-way traffic, it was assumed that dividing AADT two would y1eld one-way interzonal t The property of symmet so assumed, meaning travel was round-trip.. For example, a person from illa to Anchorage was assumed to return to Hasilla via same route ( tiple des ion trips were ruled out), A thi assumption was that because each one-~ay flow would be compo of trip-makers who would returning to their place of and trip-makers who would arriving from other zones, exact estimates of trip o could not 'be made .. However, ta on commuting patterns from survey reports ( ) ( zone:s were designed to determined an was c model .. attraction was created used to to employment, number of households, and services, and recreationG '"~ere gathered secondary sourcese was specified in of time places 2 was used to ermine travel time factor in The value related to often all of by and is somewhat higher than the in the economic-demographic module. used to The distri bt.: module determined the number of interzonal t each origin that are allocated to each of the destinations ~1 or community traffic areas. Based on tion's attraction and from comparison of each relative to all o ations' attractions distance from origin, percentage tination was from origin attracted to a st::ecific Once interzonal interzonal t destinations were determined, the that would occur over road se multipl by two to average traffic volumes,. 30 were trips one- were tween were assumed to model projected statistics road segment for to Traffic Division of ADOTPFG of the traffic model, the number accidents, J human fatality accidents, and each segment interest selected 2005. Total accidents included human damage only accidents, and accidents involving animal Human fatality accidents were a subset of number of human injuries and fa tali ties were not projected. 21 human injury Projections were made by determining historical ratios between: 1) numbers to AADT volumes; 2) human injury accidents to accidents; 3) human fatality accidents to total accidents; and 4) ve·- were 1/ s, J:oad kills to total accidents. Animal road kills by species were not as the vast majority (95+ percent) animal road kills valved moose. Accident and fatality ratios were assumed to continue in 1/ Each human injury accident, property damage only accident, and animal road accident was considered to a discrete evento Accidents were not double counted in the to using these classifi- cationsa 2/ Martindale, Traffic Safety Planner, personal communication, 1984 Ill This information was not readily available from the Safe Division of ADOTPF.. While information is their data base, is not reported without significant vestments time from state agency personnel.. Furthermore, number of these accidents road segment was so small that pro ions would be misleading 31 were the traffic would occur. the 2) the s, att factors, in the distribution procedureso was implemented by to and then extending the time to the operation of Knik Arm was to assume that the existing network connec the Site to communities of Paxson, Cantwell, prior to construction would remain unchanged period. the second change was implemented adjusting values the weights, attraction factors and the travel time in the trip tribution procedures that were used and adjusted in economic- demographic module. of New Procedures. No new procedures were incorporated module operates in same way the in the module .. Analys traffic Report .. to was: appropriate standards, each or for each relevant , that requirements to the size of population; 20 to assess the adequacy of existing facilities and services to quantify any over-or under~capacity using these standards; 3o to estimate future needs based on the application of these stan- dards to the population growth forecasts with and wi Susitna project; 4 0 to indicate the significance of the effect on local tions; and 5o to provide indicators of need for potential impact mit measures. The public facilities and services module uses three types of data in-· puto First, the module reads in the economic-demographic forecasts of the number of in-migrating workers~ population, and households0 Second, the assumptions on service standards are entered. Third, information on present and plann~d capacity is entered. Following these statements, per capita (per hous~nold) standards are multiplied by projected baseline and with-project population forecasts and the results are stored as service requirements for each community .. The effects of direct population in-migration (or out-migration) and the total project-related population effects are calculated independently so that direct and total effects can be separated for mitigation planning purposes o 33 termso sociates, en~..ancements were made to the public facill ties and s to improve its accuracy. These enhancements include: 1) account the unique characteristics of construction terms the number of schoolchildren accompanying in-migrating married con- struction workers; and 2) debugging the capacity procedures for the ia waste variables., The first enhancement was implemented by altering the way project-rela schoolchildren were calculated in the model.. In FY84, schoolchildren l>lere ca·lculated by applying a per capita standard to the const operation, and secondary population influx in each community.. This a proach failed to account for differences in the number of schoolchildren accompanying each type of project·-related worker.. The new procedure takes explicit account of these differences by separating out the con- struction workers and their dependents from the other project-related populations.. Assumptions about the number of schoolchildren accompanying the former group were derived from survey information gathered during FY84 and FY85 on the Anchorag0-Fairbanks Intertie Tranmission Line proj- ect and the Terror Lake Hy,:iroelectric Project (see Table 2 .. 2).. The per capita standards used for t baseline population were stilJ applied to the operations and secondary populations .. The solid waste capacity procedures were changed so that the actual ca- pacity for all Hat-Su Borough communities would be reported. The en- hancement was made by replacing the variable nACSH5HSu with nAS\~SSHSn so analysis is to s in the revenues , to or estimate the and revenues, and to use this process .. approach to analyze fiscal effects is used to analyze public fac services 1~ to develop appropriate standards, each revenue and 2 .. ture .._ategory and for relevant community, enue expenditure rec:,uiremeuts to si ~le size the tax to estimate future needs on the to the growth with :)usl tna of to significance of on local tiuns; 4\$ tc p tors of ne for tent meas s t to So rev- or stan- tiga the tax (assessed statements, capita are and with-project population forecasts fiscal requirements each community .. effects in-migration (or out-migration) and total effects are calculated independently so that direct can be separated for mitigation planning purposes .. Effects of the Project are displayed quantitatively in various ect-related requirements are compared to the requirements ject as a percent increase, and to projected baseline net fiscal ances.. For more detailed information about the assumptions and the me to produce fiscal effects, see Projection Assumptions, l'-1ethod:: ----=;..:;..__a_n_rl_. _Output Formats and Working Paper Number Two: T~.ch~-- _script Inc-D of the Socioeconomic Model prepared by Frank Orth & Associates, 3o5~2 Enhancements in Existing ProceduresG Aside from extensions in geographic coverage of the procedures, there was one major enhancement adopted for all communi ties analyzed in this mo~ ule 0 This enhancement added additional variables to each borough or community 9 s revenues and expenditures so that the total revenues and expenditures for each area would conform more closely with the constant value of the number presented in each jurisdiction's budget documents, In the case of the Mat-Su Borough, seven variables were added" These included: 1) state-shared service area revenues; 2) animal control rev- enues; 3) animal control expenditures; 4) miscellaneous expenditures; and 5) other local education revenues (besides property tax); 6) education grant revenues; and 7) service area transfer revenue.. For all other communities, a '1liscellaneous revenue and a miscellaneous expenditure variable were added~ 36 consumer to to most recent minor enhancement was used in calculating sales tax revenues was adjusted upward to conform Procedures .. new procedures were incorporated into the fiscal module.. The operates in the same way described in Working Paper Number Two: Technical Description of the Socioeconomic Model .. 37 be more clustered communities nearest were assumes to to 77 the area. ratio workers under the among the three assumptions. The first of the Susitna area 23 percent second and bus bus would be (AB2) ent of the Susitna construction would be a::ea and the same percentage would come area. The third air and bus scenario (AB3) assumed out assumes out the 100 the construction workers would come the Anchorage area. are The differ~nce are shown in demand, socioeconomic effects that scenarios would create enced in In 1990 4.1. The proportion employment, population, net populat migration effects would be area are to the ratio Fairbanks area would and the employment and s under hiring related to ABl scenario cent area be nario, The p lower would live at on-site po assumpt of some and work area .. For the effect£ r-, 23 per-· and see- t area 5 1 the Anchorage or Fairbanks area ment effects in other areao is substantially smaller the worker allocation ef the AB3 scenario, tl1e Fairbanks area would receive between o6 and o6 of the employment and population effects., These are. higher than the hiring ratio assumption of zero it was assumed that some the secondary employment generated by would occur in the Fairbanks area even though the almost no direct effects on this area.. In this case directional effect of the economic interdependence assumption is not offset by the village and work camp worker allocationsG e2 ECONOMIC-DEMOGRAPHIC MODULE 4o2 .. 1 Differences in Conceptual Approach The conceptual approach used for the air and bus scenarios differed several important ways as compared to the car transportation scenario" Railhead, transmission line, and dam site workers were separated as be- fore. Construction workers who would work on the dams themselves were then assigned to specific places of residence.. The choices for these workers included :t"etaining their permanent residence at the place of origin and living at the work camp or moving their permanent place of residence to the family village. These workers were not allowed to move their permanent place of residence from their place of origin as out~ migration from smaller communities to the municipalities of Anchorage and Fairbanks "vas strictly prohibited., First, workers who 'ilould be assigned housing at the f1.mily village w·ere determined., The nonrelocaters v1ho 11ould live at the work camp were determined by subtracting the village workers from the total numbe: of workers who would construct the dams., 39 ment as transmission construct was b~~fore secondary effects were determined place of residence by the values s Adding direct and secondary employment t-related effects on employment. After project effects on been determined, project-related population in each area was forecast~ fore, after the residence of direct Project workers was established, population effects were determined by applying person per e- hold multipliers to the in-migrating construction workerso ry population effects were forecast ln a differeLt way than used the Car Transportation Scenario. The number of in-migrants nec- essary to fill secondary jobs and jobs vacated by local residents project-related jobs were determined similarly to the Car Transportation Scenarioe For all communities except Anchorage and Fairbanks, it was assumed that workers in-migrating to take secondary jobs and vacated local jobs would live in the same community as their place of work., For Anchorage and Fairbanks, it was assumed that workers in-migrating to take secondary and vacated local jobs would either reside in Anchorage or Fairbanks or move to outlying communitiese Such a choice corresponds to the observed historical and current trend toward suburbanization of An- chorage and Fairbanks where people work in Anchorage or Fairbanks but live in places outside of these arease The difference occurred in the methods used to distribute these in- migrantso The method used to determine the settlement patterns of work- ers in-migrating to take secondary and vacated loc&l jobs was the attraction-constrained gravity allocation procedures.. The same proce- dures used in the base case model (which were applied to direct Project workers) were used Ln the air and bus scenarios except that the focus of f some Fairbankse Person to the in-migrat ( forecasts project effects on effects under the Car Scenarios were forecast using the same 4c2o2 Differences in Geographical Coverageo are no major differences in geographic&! coverage between Scenario and the Air and Bus Scenarios. The communities ~~~~~.~, Soldotna, Homer, Seward, Delta Junction, and North Pole the base case model and the complementary model.. It is only when procedures are employed that differences in geographic occurs.. The most significant example of a difference is the geographic coverage of the gravity allocation procedures used in the two models .. the base case model, only the communities in the Hatanuska-Susitna ough, the Railbelt portion of the Yukon-Koyukuk census division, and community of Paxson are considered for relocation. The choice of these areas relates to the fact that workers would be commuting to and from Project site by car. Thus, workers originating froo Anchorage or Fair- banks would not be inclined to move to communities in the Kenai Peninsula Borough or to places like Delta Junction or North Pole as these places would increase the amount of travel time that the-e workers would need to commute to the site. In the complemen~ary model, the six communities listed above plus Anchor- age and Fairbanks are included as candidates to receive workers in- migrating to take secondary jobs or vacated jobs by local residents in Anchorage or Fairbanks.. The rationale behind these choices is related to the facts that the location of jobs (the reason for in-migration) would be in Anchorage or Fairbanks and that historically, people with jobs in Anchorage and Fairbanks are likely to live in either of these two places 41 sense to are some to exist 1;1) in Model Infinite Numbers in Totals Procedures During initial runs negative numbers in the village and tributions occurred because net const ment was being distributed. These numbers did not make since Project construction manpower requirements were year 1985 2002. This problem was corrected t baseline employment associated energy employ- sense in sub- es would be constructed Susitna t was not lt after assignment procedures gravity model procedures were in the case Such a change allowed use housing to occur allocations .. direct ef eliminated negative employment was subtract the base case model~ from from tion case , some of were was this no d.S jobs were expected to occur \-Tere allowed to by place these worker• s set ........ ,.._ ............... numbers appear, allocations. Such model · to distribute not would occur. An adjustment was so were being lost in Anchorage and Fairbanks, the gravity model , distribute no workers through the gravity model. The ~ost ers appear after gravity model allocations were made and reflected as losses in Anchorage and Fairbanks. Thus, Project are captured and the gravity model operates consistently~ 4.2o3 .. 2 Avoid Infini '!umbers House.hold Control Employment, population, and housing s occur Project a the 2002 because of and the Pro on In order to capture was added to the zero values for municipalit of the tors ( in sect 1 3 .. 2 .. 3 .. 1) were the s ef s in employment, population, and would captured® This p eve case in to the unadjusted the same as those for Procedures~ As stated in section 4.2cl, the --------·--------~--~~~~--~~~ procedures operated differently in the as compared to the base case modele The difference shows up rs of two variables in each modelo Under the base case assump- ' direct emplo)~ent (DENR) in communities located in the local pact area (Mat-Su Borough and the Railbelt Portion of Yukon-Koyukuk sus Division) call them y would be equal to the number of original resi- dents from community y that do not relocate, plus the number of workers that relocate from other co;nmunities to community y, minue any ~Iorkers that would out-migrate from community y, and plus any transmission line and railhead workers that would be staged out of community Yo Under the complementary model, direct employment (DENR) in communi y would be equal to the number of original residents from community y that do not relocate plus any transmission line and railhead workers that would be staged out of community yo This change implies that out- migration of original residents from thes1e communties would not occur and th:t the direct workers do not relocate except for those who would live at the village, who work on the railhead, or who work on the transmission line .. The second variable that is calculated differently is the number of in- migrating secondary worker households (EINW).. Under the base case model~ the EINW values for the local impact area communities are calculated 1s a certain percentage of the in-migrating workers who would work in Anchur- age or Fairbanks (the percentage is based on population share) plus the number of sec.undary in-migrating workers that would work and live in 44 out jobs per household latter model requires the use of one new defines the total number of re ( to be zero) and before adjustment Differences in Incorporation of New Procedures new procedures were incorporated in the Air and Bus Scenarios were not already incorporated into the Car Transportation Scenarioo TRAFFIC MODULE 4 ol Differences in Conceptual Approach There were no differences in the conceptual approach between the Bus Transportation Scenarios and the FY85 Car Transrortation Scenarioe 4 ~2 Differences in Enhancements to Existing Procedures There were two changes to existing procedures in the Car Transportation Scenario required to run the Air and Bus transportation scenarios~ First, the percentage of project-related workers in Cantwell that would construct the ratlhead and the transmission lines and who would travel between Cantwell and Anchorage and Fairbanks was changed for each Air and Bus scenario to reflect worker hiring assumptions., For example, under ABl forecasts, about 77 percent of the railhead and transmission line workers were assumed to travel back to Anchorage (their assumed place of residence) when their rotations at work were over. Cne hundred percent of these workers were assumed to travel hack to ~~chorage under the AB3 scenario .. 45 over scenario and construction Therefore, a canst Houston would add to the average annual t of Trapper Creek and res res , these workers would tend to increase traffic voluwes Houston and Anchorage as the latter would as point with the lowest overall travel time to the ject te with it. The percentage of workers traveling in a would be expected to change as the elements of the air transportation program become better defined. Some workers would travel from Houston to the Project Site depending on the placement of lots and how travel costs are allocated between employers and ployeess 4.3a3 Differences in Incorporation of New Procedures. Tnere were no differences in incorporation of new procedures between Car Transportation Scenario and the Air and Bus transportation scenarios® 4.4 PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES MODULE 4G3~1 Differences in Conceptual Approach. There were no differences in conceptual approach for projecting public facilities and services effects between the Car Transportation scenario and the Air and Bus scenarios. For each facility and service, per capita (or per household) standards applied to population forecasts (or house- hold forecasts) were used to determine the effects on public facilities and seLvices in each community. 4~392 Differences in E~hancement~ to Existing Procedures There ,.;ere no differences in enhancements to existing procedures in the public facilities and services module between t~e base case model and the cornplementa modelo were no case ~1 Differences in were no differences in conceptual approach for project between the Transportation scenario and the Air see- revenue and expenditure item, per capita (or standards applied to population forecasts (or household house- were to determine the effects on fiscal conditions in each C'"' ...... "'"' ..... 4 __ o_4_Q ____ D_i_fferences in Enhancements to Existing Procedures There were no differences in enhancements to existing procedures fiscal module between the base case model and the complementary model@ 4@493 Differences in Incorporation of New Procedures ) were no differences in the incorporation of new procedures the fiscal module between the base case model and the complementary modele 47 scenarios Pro CAR analyzes have The effec'"':s that are residence, population, housing ~ worker migrationi and net po ON vacant each effect is sb')WU in a summary table at the end of this I' o a .1 Summary of Project Effects on Employment by Census Baseline and project effects on employment are shown in 5 .. 1<J , baseline employment is higher in the FY85 forecasts as compared to FY84 forecasts. These revisions are related to more recent histor cal information that shows lower growth rates for employment@ Employment forecasts for the Railbelt have generally fallen since th~ FERC forecasts were made@ The lower employment forecasts are related to the and persistent downward revisions in growth rates for the Alaskan economy that have been embodied in the ISER MAP model forecasts.. As shown in Table 5el, employment growth in the Railbelt has fallen from a pro increase of 49 percent between 1985 to 2005 under the FERC forecasts to an estimated 26 percent increase in the latest forecasts .. In 1985, the effect from the Susitna Project on employment by place of residence has fallen in each census division when comparing the FERC, FY84j and FY85 Car fore~asts with the exception of the Railbelt Portion of the Yukon-Koyukuk Census Di vlsion and the Ma t-Su Borough.. The lower employment effects under the FY85 forecasts are due mostly to the down- ward revisions in the construction manpower requirements., The forecast of the Project's effect in the Yukon-Koyukuk durtng 1985 has increas since the FERC forecasts were conducted.. This change is due to the in~· creasing sophistication with which the railhead workers have been treated within the Susitna socioeconomic effects model and in the upward revisions 48 F of sus percent r: of an program (as 5 .. 1) the the I11Ct an and t generally ies Borough t census division increased Fairbanks under the e r Anchorage use of places as debarkation ram ve car sts of concentrat Bus is nts on wo are not relocating from Ancho to ties in the Mat-Su Borough and the employment effec rce the concentrations the mun5 c s Fairbanks. worker hir assumptions (as shown in ABl, s) have overall on employment in Hat-Borough and in the Railbelt portion the Yukon-Koyukuk census Employment the Mat-Su Borough is related to employ- ment occurring at ~he village which remains fairly consistent across Air Employment in the Railbelt port of the census sion st totally ted to railhead and trans- s line employment which not under any the Air and Bus 5 of Pro ect Effects on Po ties Census ions ine and ject effects on population are sho'V.'U in 5 .. 2 In 1985, eline po tion pro tions are h r for eve census d i vi·- sion and borough under the FY85 forecasts than for the population projec- tions deve o under FERC forecasts or FY84 forec3sts For 49 reason for ty s increase in forecasts during 0, r more recent and population growth rates have been revised forecasts were preparedo In the Fairbanks area, was expected to grow by 17 percent between 1990 and 1999 cas s tse The most recent forecast suggests that an 11 percent :on rate more likely.. For the Anchorage a rea, baseline popula t was expected to reach 382,256 under the FERC forecast for an 20 percent between 1990 and 1999o Under the FY85 forecasts, in population was adjusted down to about 12 percent for same pe As shown in Table 5.2, project-related effects on population in the An- chorage and Fairbanks area under the ABl, AB2, and AB3 forecasts va in accordance with the hiring assumptions used. The FY85 Car forecast and the ABl fore.casts were expected to be similar as the worker hiring as- sumptions were identical and transportation program effects at the census division level offset each other at the area level. the borough and census division level~ population effects from the Project were generally similar for the Ma t-Su Borough under the FERC forecasts, FY84 forecasts, and the FY85 Car forecasts at 2,500 people in 1990.. Thereafter, the population effects under the FY85 Car forecasts are less than the other two forecasts as work force requirements "toJere about 50 percent higher for the latter forecasts and they assume that between 50 and 70 percent of all construction workers would not out~·· migrate after construction is completed.. The assumption used in the FY85 forecasts was that 100 percent of all construction workers would out- migrate after Susitna construction is completed. The effect of instituting an air and bus transportation program versus a car transportation program shows that population effects tend to be more versus a t or from An- to highway communities to s the under the were significantly reduced under because of the downward in construction requirements. The magnitude of Project tion 1990 was reduced 84 percent in Trapper percent 84 percent Cantwell, and 92 percent in Healy. reductions the size the Project effect on population would occur if an and transportation program were ing ject effects under the FY85 sts those for forecasts shows that project-induced population would decline from people to 24 people Trapper Creek in 1990, from 99 raople to 81 ple in 1990, from 124 people to people in Cantwell and from 23 people to 3 people in Healy 1990~ pe in would not as great as for Healy and t ss line workers these communities are by of transpor- program that be r the dam cconstruction .. 51 to note is on ll s between and except a project-induced increase 5 percent under the AB2 forecasts when s peaks in 1990 and 1999* Effects on Households Divisions 1 occurs construct Selected Baseline and project effects on households are shown in Table 5., , , baseline household projections are higher for every census 3 borough under the FY85 forecasts than for the household projections developed under the FERC forecasts or the FY84. forecasts with the exc.e tion of tlie Southeast Fairbanks census division., For example~ total Railbelt households under the FY84 forecasts would be 120,466 under the FY84 forecasts and 135,208 under the FY85 forecasts.. The major reason for the increase in household projections relates to revisions in the ISER MAP model forecasts and more recent dc:-1ta on households that capture the significant population in-mi~ration that occurred in the Municipality of Anchorage during 1983 and 1984. Baseline household growth rates have been revised downward since the FERC forecasts were prepared. In the Fairbanks area, baseline households were expected to grow by 20 percent between 1990 and 1999 under the FERC fore- casts. The most recent forecast suggests that a 12 percent growth rate is more likely. For the Anchorage area, ~aseline households were expect- ed to reach 134,071 by 1999 under the FERC forecast for an increase of about 25 percent bet·ween 1990 and 1999.. Under the FY85 forecasts, the growth rate in households was adjusted dov;n to slightly more than 15 percent .. 52 h s to a 1 .. 3 compa 2 .. 4 percent., areas were expected to were and trans to the Project effects on population, the introduct bus transportation program would tend to concentrate of an .ts the muncipalities of Anchorage and Fairbanks and away from net r communities in the Hat-Su Borough and the Railbelt portion of the Koyukuk census division as compared to the Car transportation prog1·am .. Bus transportation program would place slightly more t- households in the Kenai Peninsula Borough and in the Southeast Fairbanks census division in 1990e However, the increase in households is very small in each case at 8 households for the Ken~i Peninsula and 4 households for the Southeast Fairbanks census division. For the small Parks highway communities that were expected to be signifi- cantly affected by the Project under the FERC and FY84 forecasts, the household effects were significantly reduced under the FY85 forecasts .. Thls reduction occurred because of the downward revisions in construction work force requirements* The magnitude of the Project effect on house- holds in 1990 was reduced by 83 percent in Trapper Creek, 17 percent in Talkeetna, 88 percent in Cantwell, and 92 percent in Healy. Further reductions in the size of the Project effect on households would occur if an Air and Bus transportation program were instituteda Compar- ing Project effects under the FY85 Car forecasts with those for the FY85 ABl forecasts shows that project-induced households would decline from 15 to 9 households in Trapper Creek in 1990, from 59 to 49 households in 53 0 and 1 rease zero 1 to 5 percent to note the effect on occurs Kenai, Homer, Soldotna, Seward, Project would not exceed 1 between 1985 and 2005 except North experience a project-induced increase households 5 percent under the forecasts Project construct its in 1990 1999. and effects on housing are Table 5.40 baseline household projections are higher for eve census and borough under the forecasts for household ections developed under the forecasts or the FY84 forecasts .. upwa is ion revision housing Southeast forecasts rd that forecasts to in rates were adjus 31 percent under the census households explained from 5 percent under forecasts (see Table 2 ) rcent th rates between most recent 1999 tween 1990 rate hous units was 5.4, ef area under the ABl, on hiring assumptions usedQ The ted magnitude to those shown for households as are compared to baseline housing stock to det housing demand during construction can supply~~ In Anchorage area during 1990, p ts va s are t would range from 799 housing units under AB2 forecasts to 1 AB3 forecasts or a 0 .. 6 percent increase over units to a 1.1 percent increase over housing s, respectively. The comparable for the Fairbanks area 0 and 1.9 percent The FY85 Car forecast and the these areas were to similar as hi w~re anJ transportation program s net out at level. to ct e s on households, the roduct of an r bus trans tion program would tend to concentrate the hous nnit the muncipa ties Anchorage and Fairbanks and away from es the Ha Bo and the Rail belt ion census d on as to t rtat p ram 55 case at 8 the ject were significantly cas reduction occurred because cons work force requirements.. The magnitude of on ho~ 'ing units in 1990 ~vas reduced by 83 percent in Talkeetna, 88 percent in Cantwell, and 92 percent reductions in the size of the Project effect on ts occur if an Air and Bus transportation program were insti Project effects under the FY85 Car forecasts with those forecasts shows that project-induced housing units would 15 to 9 housing units Trapper Creek in 1990, from 59 to units in Talkeetna in 1990, from 54 to 52 housing units in Cantwell , and from 7 to 1 housing units in Healy in 1990.. :rcentage decline in the number of units in Talkeetna and Cantwell would not be as great as that for Healy and Trapper Creek because the choice of place residence for the railhead and tranmission line workers in these communi- ties is unaffected by the type of transportation program that would be implemented for construction workers at the Project siteiD Depending on the worker hiring scenario that would be chosen under an air and bus transportation program, the Project effect on housing units in 1990 would represent an increase over baseline housing units of between 5 and 9 percent for Trapper Creek, 22 and 24 percent in Talkeetna, 47 per- cent in Cantwell, and 0 and 1 percent in Healy~ By 1999, the percentage increase in housing units over baseline numbers would be reduced close to zero in Cantwell and Healy, 1 to 3 percent in Trapper Creek, and 13 to 15 percent in Talkeetna. 56 on vacant s are borough under exception the Mat- a drop in number of vacant units FY84 forecasts to 3, 6 units ts .. The drop vacant units rates that occurred since sts In , total vacant housing units in the Railbelt under casts forecasts .. be 11,876 under the The major reason for forecasts increase 26,900 vacant projections relates to projected growth rates housing ts as to households and availabilty ion at borough and census more current vacancy rate level .. Baseline vacant housing unit rates since vacant hous forecasts werP prepared units were expected to In the by 20 under the vacant housing forecasts. The most :t::-ecent ts will by 1 For Anchorage area, baseline vacant reach 8,4 by 1999 rcent tween 1990 the 9 forecast Under FY85 been over downward area baseline between and suggests is time a units were expec to an increase casts rate in ts must to effect on vacant area during il pro jec 99 housing ts under the AB2 s to ts or a -4 percent decreaqe under baseline vacant hous units to a -7 decrease under baseline vacant housing units res comparable percentages for the Fairbanks area would 0 percent 1~ The FY85 Car forecast and the ABl forecasts these areas were expected to be similar as the worker hiring assumptions were cal and transportation program effects net out at this levelc Similar to the Project effects on households, the introduction of an anQ. bus transportation program would tend to concentrate the vacan\: housing units in the muncipalities of Anchorage and Fairbanks away from the communities in the Mat-Su Borough and the Railbelt ion the Yukon-Koyukuk census division as compared to the Car trans a-· tion program. The Air and Bus traneportation program would reduce project-related vacant housing units in the Kenai Peninsula Borough in the Southeast Fairbanks census division in 1990 as compared to the Car Transportation scenario. However, the loss in vacant units is very small in each case at 8 units for the Kenai Peninsula Borough and 4 unlts for the Southeast Fairbanks census division& For the small Parks Highway communities that were expected to be signifi-· cantly affected by the Project under the FERC and FY84 forecasts~ the vacant housiug unit effects were significantly reduced under the FY85 forecastso This reduction occurred because of the downward revisions in construction work force requirements~ The magnitude of the Project ef- fect on vacant housing units in 1990 under the FY85 Car forecasts was increased by 71 units in Trapper Creek, 10 units in Talkeetna, 187 units in Cantwell, and 79 units in Healy as compared to the FY84 forecasts0 58 na, vacant to units in Talkeetna , and from increase the not be as as that Healy of place of residence the these communities is unaffected by program that would be implemented for construct at the Project siteQ on the worker hiring scenario that would be chosen under an transportatiQn program, the Project effect on vacant 1990 would represent an decrease in baseline vacant between 20 and 37 percent for Trapper Creek, 80 and 88 percent , 153 percent in Cantwell, and 4 and 8 percent in Healye the percentage decrease in vacant housing units as compared to numbers would be reduced to zero in Cantwell and 3 percent , 6 to 16 percent in Trapper Creek, anci 66 to 72 percent in Talkeet- A final point to note is the effect on vacant housing units that would occur for the communities of Kenai, Homer, Soldotna, Seward, Delta Junc- tion, and North Pole. The Project effect would not exceed plus or minus 2 percent in any of these communities between 1985 and 2005 except for Seward and North Pole& North Pole would experience a project-induced decrease in vacant housing units of between 0 and 16 percent under the AB2 forecasts w·hen Project construction would reach its peaks in 1990 and 1999§ However, the project-related number of housing units is small at 22 housing units in 1990. In Seward, baseline vacant housing units (101) would decline by 8 percent under the AB3 forecasts in 1990. 59 is by net a census ne not available any geographic tion~ Project-rela on net at census and in Table .. 6 .. The shows that p ect-related ts net worker migration in the Anchorage and Fairbanks ar"ea the , AB2 and AB3 forecasts vary in accordance wi the. hiring as used~ the Anchorage area during 1990, project-related effects on net worker ion liiould range from 829 workers under the forecasts to 1, 503 under the AB3 forecasts. The FY85 Car forecast and the ABl fore- casts for these areas were expected to be similar as the worker hiring assumptions were identical and transportation program effects at census division level offset each other at the area level~ Similar to the Project effects on population, the introduction of an air and bus transportation program would tend to concentrate migrating work- ers in the muncipalities of Anchorage and Fairbanks and away from the communities in the Mat-Su Borough and the Railbelt portion of the Yukon- Koyukuk census divislon as compared to the Car transportation program .. Net worker migration would increase by 62 percent in 1990 under the ABl forecast as compared to the FY85 Car forecast, or by 185 workers in the municipality of Anchorage. At the same time, net worker migration would decrease by 22 percent in the Mat-Su Borough or from 911 under the FY85 Car forecast to 712 under the ABl forecasto In the Fairbanks-North Star Borough, net v1orker migration would increase by 14 percent in 1990 under the ABl forecast as compared to the FY85 Car forecast while net migration in the Railbelt portion of the Yukon~-Koyukuk census division would fall by 36 percent under the respective forecasts~ The Air and Bus transportation program under ABl forecasts would increase project -related worker migration in the Kenai Peninsula Borough and in the Southeast Fairbanks census division in 1990 as compared to the Car 60 effects on net are ~7@ In ~ baseline net population census division borough under FY85 net population change projections developed under the forecasts th the exception of the Mat-Su Borough.. In change in the Railbelt under the FY84 forecasts under the FY84 forecasts and 6,961 under the FY85 forecasts. m~jor reason for the decrease in net population change over to lower projected growth rates for population in the ISER forecasts., or shown in Table 5 .. 7, project-related effects on net population change in. the Anchorage and Fairbanks area under t",e ABl, AB2, and AB3 forecasts vary in accordance with the hiring assump~_ ions used.. In the Anchorage area during 1990, project-related effects vrould range from 365 people under the AB2 forecasts to 576 under the AB3 forecasts or a 5~5 percent increase over baseline net population change to a 8 .. 6 percent increase over baseline net population change, respectively.. The comparable per- centages for the Fairbanks area would be 25 percent and 5 percent.. The FY85 Car forecast and the ABl forecasts for these areas were expected to be similar as the worker hiring assumptions were identical and transpor- tation program effects at the census division and borough level offset each other at this level .. Similar to the Project effects on population, the introduction of an Air and Bus transportation program would tend to concentrate ret population change in the muncipalities of Anchorage and Fairbanks and away from the communities in the Mat-Su Borough and the Railbelt portion of the Yukon- Koyukuk census division as compared to the Car transportation program., In the municipality of Anchorage, net population change would increase by 69 percent 1990 under the ABl forecast as compared to the FY85 Car Th net census census sec on describes sct:narios 1990 as EFFECTS analyzes the economic-demog have been used to forecast itna Proj effects that are covered include t c volumes, ruck traffic, total accidents, human road kill accidents. Information for each summary at end this chapter. Effects on Baseline and project-rela.!:ed effects on annual net e are in Table 5 .. 8 for road that connect the major communi- ties in the Rai. rc-FERC forecasts are not on t~-e Project Access Road because t projections were not conduc fc -.: any o road in s scenario .. are more recent , the Matanuska-Susi tna that occurred during 1983 an~ t~A4~ traffic volume rates have been r1evised downward were prepared based on expected t:mployment and ~ates in the most recent ISER MAP model forecasts~ In municipality of Fairbanks, baseline traffic volumes were ex- to grow by 96 percent between 1985 and 2002 under the FY84 casts~ The mvst recent forecast suggests that an 89 percent increase more likely a For the Anchorage area (Anchorage, Palmer, Wasilla, and Houston), baseline traffic volumes were expected to reach 103.,476 ( eluding volume on the Knik Arm Crossing) under the FY84 forecast .for an increase of about 83 percent between 1985 and 2002. Under the FY85 fore- casts~ the growth in baseline traffic volumes was adjusted up to 90 per- cent!ll As shown in Table 5.8, project-related effects on average annual traffic volume (AADT) in the vicinity of the municipalities of ~nchorage and Fairbanks under the AB.l, AB2, and AB3 forecasts vary in accordance with the hiring assumptions used. In the Anchorage area during 1990, project- related effects would range from 780 AADT under the AB2 forecasts to 1,422 AADT under the AB3 forecasts or a 1.4 percent increase over base- line AADT to a 2.5 percent increase over baseline AADT, respectively., The comparable percentages for the FaJ..rbanks area would be 2 perc.ent and 0$5 perce~~f .. The FY85 Car forecast and the ABl forecasts for the road segments sho"Wn in Table 5c8 were not expected to be the same even with identical worker hiring assumptionsc The primary reason for lower AADT between all com- munities relates to the fact that fewer Susitna co~struction workers in the municipalities of Anchorage and Fairbanks would rravel through other communities on their way to work under the Air and Bus transportation scenarios as compared to the FY85 Car t :::-ansporta tion scenario.. These is construction Since about would these two the:se workers more than of:fsets the other percent who would predominately travel over to these municipalities in order to fly to For along the Project Access Road in 1990, project-rela 224 under FY85 Car forecast and 168 AADT under the fore- the Cantwell to Project Access Road segment in 1990, pro t- related AADT would fall from 162 under the FY85 Car forecast to AADT under the ABl forecastG The magnitude of the project-related effect on AADT was expected to de- crease under the FY85 forecasts as compared to the FY84 forecasts for two reasons: 1) the size of the construction work force ·was substantially reduced in the latest round of data revisions; and 2) the worker shift and :;:otation schedule was lengthened which means fewer trips from the same number of worker on an average daily basis~ In 1990, on the road segment that connects Cantwell and Healy Sl the project-related increase over baseline AADT fell from 42 percent under the FY84 forecasts to 6 percent under the FY85 Car forecastse Similarly on the segment connecting Cantwell to the junction of the Project Access Road with the Denali Highway, the project-related increase of 3/+8 MDT which represented and increase of about 363 percent over baseline AADT fell to 162 AADT under the FY Car forecast or an increase of 188 percent over baseline AADT. In 1990, the Project effect on AADT in terms of percent increase over baseline declines from 19 percent to 4 percent on the Healy to Nenana segment, from 29 percent to f> percent on the Trapper Creek to Cantwell segment, and from 14 percent to 7 percent on the Talkeetna Road during 1990 when comparing the FY84 forecast to the FY85 Car forecaste t .torecasts are were not were revised to ISER MAP forecasts more recent rates volume the of Anchorage, the Fairbanks that occurred rates were based on the most recent ISER MAP model municipality of Fairbanks, baseline traffic to grow 96 percent between 1985 and 2002 under castso The most recent forecast suggests an 89 more likely,. the Anchorage area (Anchorage, Palmer, that were ex- increase uston), baseline traffic volumes were expected to reach 103,4 ( eluding volume on the Knik Arm Crossing) by 2002 un1er the FY84 for ~:::. increase of about 83 percent between 1985 and 2002. Under FY85 forecasts, the growth in baseline traffic volumes was justed up to 90 :ent .. project over on t on the traffic would range from a 0 percent rease to Fai road s to a 6 .. 7 rcent increase on the Cantwell to Project Access segment Denali Highway under the forecasts. The pro effect of 70 trucks on ter segment be related to the movement of Project materials from railhead to the Project s The Air Bus Trans rtation program (as shown the ABl recasts) t Access Effects on SQ shows baseline total acci~ents and project-related effects on accidents for the 14 road segments connecting the major Railbelt Region., FERC forecasts are not shown on this cause accident projections were not conducted for any roads ln baseline number of accidents were either revtsed up\.;ard or remained the same under the FY85 forecasts as compared to the FY84 forecasts, Upward revisions were related to upward revisions in population the most current ISER MAP model forecasts. The revisions were small in size~ numbering 1 or more accidents on each road segment except Near Anchor- age where the accidents in 1985 under the FY84 forecasts were raised 90 to 102 under the FY85 forecasts. scounting the effects of the Knik Arm Crossing on FY84 forecasts for road segments connecting Anchorage, Wasilla, and Houston, baseline trends in accidents were similar under the FY84 and FY85 forecasts except for slightly slower growth rates on the Nenana to Fairbanks road segment which reflect slower population growth rates in these two communities which in turn were based on more recent historical data on population growth and downward revisions in the population growth rate for the Fair- banks area in the most recent ISER MAP model forecastso In all, the magnitude of the Project effect on total accidents would be quite small.. In 1990, twelve accidents over the 14 road sec.. ents shown in Table 5 .. 10 would be project-related under the FY85 Car forecasts, down from the 27 that were projected under the FY84 forecasts for that year0 Under Air and Bus scenarios., the number of project-related accidents would fall even further in 1990 to 5 accidents under the ABl forecasts, 3 on shows seline human :tnjury on human injury accidents for the 14 in Railbelt RegionG segments forecasts are because accident projections were not this scenarioo The same patterns discussed in relation to total accidents to injury accidents except that there were fewer upward revisions in base- accident numbers in 1985, fewer road segments would project-related effects, and the percent increase over baseline on those segments that would experience such effects would generally smaller., Ten human injury accidents would be expected to occur during 1990 as a result of Project construction on the 14 road segments shown in 5s under the FY84 forecasts. Under the FY85 Car forecast, this number reduced to 3 human injury accidents on the Anchorage to Palmer Wasilla road segment, the Wasilla to Houston road segment, and the Cant- well to Healy road segment. Under the Air and Bus scenarios, this number would be reduced to either 0 or 1 human injury accidents~ Animal Road Kill Accident Se- lected Road Segment Table 5el2 shows baseline animal road kill accidents and project-related effects on animal road kill accidents for the 14 road segments connecting the major communities in the Railbelt Region.. FERC forecasts are not shown on this table because accident pro-jections were not conducted for any roads in this scenarioo The same patterns discussed in relation to total accidents apply to animal road kill accidents except that there 67 So FACILITIES public and scenarios is across places and SERVICES A summary for each can or communities are likely to be affected by construe currently operating or planned water systems. They r, Wasilla, Fairbanks, and Nenana.. Baseline these water systems and project effects on capacity utilization are in 5 .. 13 .. Revisions in water tem capacity occurred for Palmer and forecasts. !n Palmer, capacity was adjusted from 1,368,000 day to 1,030,000 gallons per day. In Wasilla, capacity was expanded from 864,000 gallons per to 900,000 gallons per eline revisions in water demand also occurred for lmer For Palmer, percent of current and planned capacity condition 1985 declined from 42 .. 9 to 39 .. 7 Wasilla, baseline capacity utilization rose from 53.7 percent FY84 forecasts to 87 .. 4 rcent under FY85 ts., demand are to revisions in ion est tes e- , respectively., communities not occur since t and services in. Anchorage, shovm .in Table 5~13, project-related on water terns Anchorage and Fairbanks area under the ABl, , and forecasts in accordance with the hiring assumptions used~ In the municipal! Anchorage during 1990, project-related effects on capaci.ty would range from 0 .. 3 percent under the AB2 forecasts to 0.,9 percent the AB3 forecasts of the design capacity of 36 million gallons per The comparable percentages for the municipality of Fairbanks would Oo7 percent and -0.2 percent of the design capacity of 4 million gallons day .. The introduction of an air and bus transportation proi:ram would tend to concentrate project-related effects on capacity utilization the muni- cipalities of Anchorage and Fairbanks and away from the communities the Mat-Su Borough and the Railbelt portion of the Yukon-Koyukuk census division as compared to the Car transportation program.. For examp.l , p·roject-related effects on capacity utilization in Anchorage would be 0~4 percent in 1990 under the FY85 Car forecast as compared to 0., 6 percent under the ABl forecast.. The comparable percentages for Palmer would bt= 2 .. 8 percent under the FY85 Car forecast and 1 .. 5 percent under the forecast. In ~Jasilla, project-related effects on capacity utilization would fall from 3 .. 4 percent in 1990 under the FY85 Car forecast to 1 .. 9 percent under the ABl forecast .. The project would not increase capacity utilization of the currently operating water systems by more than 3~4 percent under any of the FY85 forecastso The Air and Bus scenarios would have the beneficial effect of shifting project-related demands on water service away from the smaller communi-ties toward the municipalities of Anchorage and Fairbanks which have greater capacities to absorb the project-related populationo sewer systems .. terns and effects on 5 .. 14 .. in sewer system capacity occurred for casts~ , capacity was adjusted from 500,000 gallons 9 000 gallons per day .. Baseline revisions in water demand also occurred Palmer .. the percent of current and planned capacity used under baseline condition 1985 declined from 107 e 9 percent under the FY8l~ forecasts 99 .. percent under the FY85 forecasts.. This change in basg:;line demand related t:o the downward revision in population estirPates for this commu- Baseline revisions in capacity and use for the other communi did not occur since FY85 was the first cime that facilities and services in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Wasilla, and Nenana were projected .. Under baseline projections, the demand placed on sewer systems in Wasilla and Nenana are expected to exceed 100 percent of capacity by 1990" De- mand currently exceeds the design capacity of the sewer system in Palmera As shown in Table 5.14, project-related effects on sewer syst...:ms in the Anchorage and Fairbanks area under the ABl, AB2, and AB3 forecasts vary in accordance with the hiring assumptions used. In the municipality of Anchorage during 1990, project-related effects on capacity utilization would range from 0.3 percent under the AB2 forecasts to Oo9 percent under the AB3 forecasts of the design capacity of 34 million gallons per day. The comparable percentages for the municipality of Fairbanks would be Oe8 percent and -0 .. 1 percent of the design capacity of 6., 5 million gallons per day~ The introduction of an air and bus transportation program would tend to concentrate project-related effects on capacity utilization in the nuni- cipalities of Anchorage and Fairbanks and away from the communit in under 503 percent forecasto 1990 under the Fairbanks area, an air and bus transportation crease the project-related effect on sewer capacity ut of Fairbanks from 0.7 percent under the FY85 to 0.8 percent under the ABl forecast in 1990~ In Nenana, pro~0Lt-relat on capacity utilization would fall from 12 .. 2 percent FY85 Car forecast to 1.3 under the ABl forecast. the project would not increase capacity utilization of the currently operating sewer systems by more than 12 .. 2 percent under any forecastse The Air and Bus scenarios would have the beneficial effect shifting project-related demands on sewer service away from the smaller communities toward the municipalities of Anchorage and Fairbanks greater capacities to absorb the project-related population., 5 .. 3 .. 3 Summary of Project Effects on Police Services by Selected Community Seven communities that are likely to be affected by Susitna construction have police officers or state troopers stationed in their loc~les. They i~clude Anchorage, Palmer, Trapper Creek, Fairbanks, Cantwell, Healy, and Nenana., Baseline conditions for these services and project effects on capacity utilization are shown in Table 5 .. 15 .. Changes in the number of staff occurred for Palmer and the Mat-Su Borough in the FY85 forecasts., In Palmer, staff was adjusted from 14 officers under the FY84 forecasts to 9 officers under the FY85 forecasts* Radio dispatchers which had been included in the former set of forecasts were excluded in FY85.. While Mat-Su Borough has no responsibility for police service, the total number of state troopers and police officers stationed tee of capacity) under FY85 forecasts to the downward revision in Table 5.15, the baseline demand the Mat-Su Borough has decreased in 1985 as a from 134 percent under FY84 forecasts to 13lo6 percent forecasts G No revisions occurred for Anchorage, Fairbanks, as this was 1~he first time that facilities and services communities we=e projected. baseline projections, the demand placed on police and the Mat-Su Borough currently exceed the capacity of municipality of Fairbanks and Nenana are expected to exceed 100 cent of capacity 1995 and 1990, respectively. ca- As shown in Table 5 .15, project--relateQ. effects on police protection the Anchorage. and Fairbanks area under the ABl, AB2, and AB3 forecasts vary in accordance with the hiring assumptions used. In the municipality of Anchorage during 1990, project·-related demands for police protection would require an additional 0.4 officers under the AB2 forecasts to 2.0 officers under the AB3 forecasts. The comparable projct-related demands for police protection in the municipality of Fairbanks would be 0 .. 2 of- ficers and -0 .. 8 officers. The introduction of an air and bus transportation program would tend to concentrate project-related effects on demand for police protection in the municipalities of Anchorage and Fairbanks and away from the communi- ties in the Mat-Su Borough and the Railbelt portion of the Yukon-Koyukuk census division as compared to the Car transportation programe For exam- ple, project-related dem.?tnd on police protection in Anchorage would be 0 .. 8 officers in 1990 under the FY85 Car forecast as compared to 1, 72 area, an on demand .1 officers police line program In Nenana, project-related would 0.1 under on demand FY85 officers the ABl forecasts not by more demands police in the FY85 ted not last more than two years.. The the beneficial effect of shifting 34 percent under any Cantwell in 1985 is increase on police protection away from the smaller communities toward to absorb of Anchorage and Fairbanks \vhich have greater capaci project-related population. to Bus Selected commur~itif!S or boroughs that are to be ed by tna constructiou currently operating solid waste ities.. in- clude Municipality Anchorage, Hat-Su Borough, the North Borough, Cantwell~ Baseline tions for e fac ties project on utilizat are shown in Table 5Q s acres waste Borough, the baseline conditions demand current 1985 forecasts to 8G6 percent under demand is related to the revisions es for this areaG Baseline revisions capacity use boroughs did not occur since FY85 was the t and services in the Municipality of Anchorage, and the Fairbanks-North Star Borough were projected~ Under baseline projections, demand placed on solid waste facilities in each area is not expected to exceed 100 percent of capacity during 1985 to 2005G in Table 5el6~ project-related effects on solid waste facilit Anchorage and Fairbanks area under the ABl, AB2, and AB3 forecasts in accordance with the hiring assumptions used. In the municipality of Anchorage during 1990, cumulative project-related effects on capacity utillzation would range from 0.0 percent under the AB2 forecasts to 0 .. 1 under the AB3 forecasts of the design capacity of 535 acres@ The comparable percentages for the municipality of Fairbanks would be 0 .. 3 percent and 0 .. 0 percent of the design capacity of 75 acres. The introduction of an air and bus transportation program \vould slightly concentrate project-related effects on capacity utilization in the muni- cipalities of Anchorage and Fairbanks and away from the communities in the Mat-Su Borough and the Railbelt portion of the Yukon-Koyukuk census division as compared to the Car transportation program.. For examp!~, project-related effects on capacity utilization in Anchorage would be 0@0 percent in 1990 under the FY85 Car forecast as compared to 0 .. 1 percent under the ABl forecasto The comparable percentages for the Mat-Su Bor- ough '-1ould be 1 .. 0 percent under the FY85 Car forecast and 0. 9 percent under the ABl forecastQ 74 across an utilization forecasts~ ject would not increase capacity of constant solid waste facilities more than ;1> 5 percent forecasts,_ Air and Bus scenarios 7 of shlfting project-related demands on solid waste facili-· from the smaller communities toward the municipalities Fairbanks which have greater capacities to project-related populationo 5,.3 .. 5 Summary of Project Effects on Recreation Facilities by Selected Three boroughs that are likely to be affected by Susitna construction have currently operating recreation facilities in the form of community parkso They include the Municipality of Anchoragej the Mat-Su Borough, and the Fairbanks-North Star Borough.. Baseline conditions for these fa- cilities and project effects on capacity utilization are show11 in Table 5., Revisions in recreation facility capacity occurred for the Mat-Su Borough in the FY85 forecasts. In this Borough, capacity was adjusted from 96 .. 5 acres to 236 .. 5 acres to reflect the fact that several areas were pur- chased for parks. Baseline revisions in recreation facility demand also occurred for the Mat-Su Borough. In the Borough, the percent of current and planned capa- city used under baseline conditions in 1985 decreased from 55 .. 5 percent under the FY84 forecasts to 23 .. 7 percent under the FY85 forecasts.. This change in baseline demand is related to the expansion of park acreage for this areae Baseline revisions in capacity and use for the other boroughs did not occur since FY85 was the first time that recreation facilities and services in the t ~unicipali ty of Anchorage and the Fairbanks-North 75 0 trate on of on and Fairbanks and Car transportation program .. acreso utilization in Anchorage the FY85 forecast as compared to 0 .. 4 comparable percentages for the Mat-Su percent under FY85 Car forecast and 0 .. 7 percent cast. the Fairbanks area, an and bus transportation program no change in the project-related effect on recreation utilization in the municipality Fairbanks 1990 .. The project would not increase capacity utilization the operating recreation facilities by more than 1 .. 0 percent FY85 forecasts.. The Air Bus scenarios would have of shifting project-related demands on recreation the communities toward the municipalities Anchorage banks ch greater capacities to absorb projec cone en- from are discussed in Anchorage School , the Fairbank.s-North Star are District, and the Nenana City Public for these facilities and project effects on capacity in 5., estimates are defined in terms of the number of and planned school facilities can accommodate. facili::y capacity occurred for the Mat-Su Borough In this Borough~ capacity was adjusted from 6,516 students to students to reflect the fact that several school buildings under the school construction program were completed between the development forecasts and the FY84 forecasts. Baseline revisions in school facility use also occurred for the Ma t-Su Borough.. In the Borough, the percent of current and planned capacity under baseline conditions in 1985 increased from 90o0 percent FY84 forecasts to 97.4 percent under the FY85 forecasts. This change in baseline demand is related to the upward revisions in population est mates for this area. Baseline revisions in capacity and use for the other boroughs did not occur since FY85 was the first time that facili- ties and services in the Municipality of Anchorage School District, the Fairbanks-North Star Borough School District, the Rail belt School Dis- trictj and the City of Nenana were projected. Under baseline projections, the demand placed on school facilities in the Mat-Su Borough and Nenana would exceed 100 percent of capacity by 1990 and 1999, respectively. Demand currently exceeds capacity in the Munic pality of Anchorage and the Fairbanks-~orth Star Boroughe As shown in Table 5el8, project-related effects on school facilities the Anchorage and Fairbanks area under the ABl~ AB2, and AB3 forecasts vary in accordance ith the hiring assumptions usedQ In the Municipality 77 crease Star as compared to on capacity 1990 under FY85 Car forecast as under ABl forecast. comparable percentages would 9.1 percent under the t the ABl forecast$ area, an air and bus transportation project-related effect on school facility Star Borough in 1990 from 0.8 percent under to 1.1 percent under the ABl forecaste In project-related effect on capacity utilization would rcent under the FY85 Car forecast in 1990 to 0 .. 5 percent in No change in project-related effects would occur School District as most of the effect is related to railhead transmission line workers who would remain unaffected by of an air and bus transportation program for construction workers at Project site. project would not increase capacity utilization of operating school districts by more than • 5 percent under FY85 forecasts. This relatively large effect is due to lhead con- struction and operat in Cantwell which is not expected to last more than nine years. The and Bus scenarios would have ficial of ing project-related demands on school facilities away smaller communities toward municipalities Anchorage Fai which have greater capacities to absorb the project-relat population. in revenues can Palmer, effects on Table 5e are in and net constant expenditures occurred all eight areas with Nenana as the fiscal conditions commu- were not projected prior to In the areas, upward were made in as compared to the used the FERC forecasts. 1985, baseline were by percent in Anchorage, 37 percent in the Mat-Su 34 , 7 percent Wasilla, 159 percent Houston, 35 the Municipality of Fairbankse revisions in balances occurred for some of boroughs, including the t-Su Borough, Palmer, Houston. the Mat-Su Borough, the size of baseline fi revenues as In under in 1985 increased e7 million FY84 to -~6 under FY85 forecasts, reflecting upward revisions faster ratP.s of in per revenue base year ipliers to per expenditure multipliers 8,000 in 1985 under Palmer, net in-FY84 balance to $4 ,000 under forecasts for similar reasonso , the FY84 net balance rose from ts to $618 000 under FY85 4, dollars sts., cas reason special grant revenue revisions occurred for Anchorage, to was the first time that fiscal effects were shown in Table 5.,19, project-related effects on fiscal Anchorage and Fairbanks area under the ABl, AB2, and accordance with the hiring assumptions used., In the municipality Anchorage during 1990 ~ project-related effects on fiscal range from $60,000 under the AB2 forecasts to $217,000 under forecasts compared to the baseline net fiscal balance $26~5 million~ The comparable figures for the municipal! ty of Fairbanks would be and $14~000 as compared to the baseline net fiscal balance of e6 The introduction of an air and bus transportation program would tend to concentrate project-related effects on fiscal balances in the municipal ties of Anchorage and Fairbanks and away from the communi ties Mat-Su Borough and the Railbelt portion of the Yukon-Koyukuk census sion as compared to the Car transportation program. For example 9 project-related effects on fiscal balances in Anchorage would be $89,000 in 1990 under the FY85 Car forecast as compared to $145,000 under the ABl forecast. The comparable figures for the Mat-Su Borough would be $137,000 under the FY85 Car forecast and $121,000 under the ABl fore- cast. In Palmer, Wasilla, and Houston, the project effect on fiscal balances would fall by $36,000 under the ABl forecasts as compared to the FY85 Car forecast., Thus, an air and bus transportation program would increase the project effect from 0~3 percent of the baseline net fiscal balance to 0.,5 percent in Anchorage during 1990 while reducing the proj- ect effect from 8 percent to 7 percent of the baseline net fiscal balance in the Mat-Su Borough for the same year., are not affected a car transportation program to an of Nenana by decrease the baseline net during 1990 while increasing percent for the same year@ would have the greatest absolute effect on the net FY85 Car forecast in 1999 and the great·est negative on municipality of Fairbanks in 1990 under the Air and Bus scenarios would have the beneficial effect of t-related demands on fiscal balances away from the smaller communi- the municipalities of Anchorage and Fairbanks which fiscal capacities to absorb the project-related populatione 81 l 0 istrict .. fairs .. Corre AnchorageS) 1 Districto Comprehensive Annual Finane 1 Report, 3o irbanks, Finance Department. 1983 Annual .. Fairbanks~ 1983 Municipal Utilities System Annual Budget-Fairbanks~ AK: No te 1984 Annual Budget. Fairbanks, AK: No date. ---Q 1 Municipal Utilities System Annual Budget. Fairbanks, AK: No te., it No City of HoustonG Ordinance 83-Z-1, Fiscal 1984 Capital and Operating Budget0 Houston, AK: No Date. Or~inance 84-Z-1, Fiscal 1985 Capital and Operating Budget" Houston, AK: No date ... City of Nenana .. Fiscal Year 1983 Operating Budget. Nenana, AK: No teo 1984 & FY 1985 Budgets. Nenana, AK~ No dateo City of Palmer, Office of the Mayor. Final Detail Budget Report for Fiscal Year 1983. Palmer, AK: June 1983. City of Palmer, Office of the Mayor. Final Detail Budget Report for fiscal Year 1985~ Palmer, AK: December 1984. City of Wasilla, Office of the Mayor. City of Wasilla: 1984-85 Annual budget. Wasilla, AK: June 1984 • • City of Wasilla: Budget FY83. Wasilla, AK: No datee --- Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District. Capital Improvement Program. Palmer, &~: No date • • Matanuska-Susitna Borough 1984-1985 Annual ~udget, Volumes I and 2e ---Palmer AK: April 1984. 82 f Statements Star Borough School District. t Program Anchorage, tatements schools on-base t Star Borough School trict. Financial Plan, cal Year 1 For schools and on-base schools. Fairbanks AK: 19S3e 3 June 30 -1984 .. Basel Car Area Year 1985 1986 1987 &966 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 4995 1996 &998 I Rat &belt Susttna 701 1228 867 849 I J59 1417 1752 I 370 722 301 343 356 747 885 795 932 Baseline 0 0 0 0 0 132 528 1230 366 663 336 107 0 0 107 Net Empl .. 70l 1228 867 649 1159 1285 1224 140 336 -362 1 249 747 885 688 932 90 Besaltne refers to baseline energy employment that wou i d occur if the Susitna c not but w'thout-Susttna plan tncludas construction of two coa i pI ants, sfx stmple cycle combustion turbines, and one combined cycle combustlon turbine. Net employment refers to the difference between those employed tn the w1th· .. f;usttna scenario less those who would have been employed bufld1ng coal and other thermal power plants tf Susttna were no~ bullt. Source: Harza-Ebasco Sus 1 tna JoInt Venture, dated ( ) (%) ) per Children 7 0 0 2 .. 30 0 2 .. 9 23 1 .. 30 2/ 30 2 1., 16 3 20 Local are defined as individuals who in or near re- project sites prior to gaining employment projects These do not change their of cause employment on a project.. Non-local are as who reside outside the local area to obtaining a job on Movers are defined as individuals who the local area prior to obtaining o job on a construction who move their permanent residence into the area employment on a were stay, or approximately 50 percent 3/ Survey, respondents were asked anned to after the ject was this table, was as that anyone responding '"Talkeetna,·· Cantwell " or nearby areas thin commut tance ( or Willow) to the Source Star Anchorage Fairbanks 116li 6, 10,405 1,415 33, 836 1,853 11 36,481 116,852 13,880 ,587 859 1,890 37, 120,702 ,206 .076 1/ Anchorage area consists of Anchorage Borough, the 3/ Peninsula Borough (Kenai-Cook Census Division and Division), and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. For purposes of this report, the Fairbanks area defined as Fairbanks-North Star Borough, the Southeast Fairbanks Census Railbelt portion the Yukon-Koyukuk census area, community of communities not given as data are most communities with the exception of Research Analysis AK: Frank ol Census ' & Borough 325 35,751 5SI 3,252 1,883 3,237 297,183 317,082 Fairbanks-North Star 64,810 66,733 26,629 27,413 957 1,068 Railbelt Portion of Yukon-Koyukuk 2,517 2~554 193 193 506 581 Nenana 586 549 SE Fairbanks Delta Junction Paxson 6,516 1,141 35 6~681 1,183 37 1/ The Anchorage area consists of the Anchorage Borough, the Kenai Peninsula Bo~ough (Kenai-Cook Inlet Census Division and Seward Census Division), and the Matanuska-Susi.tna Borough. 2/ For purposes of this report, the Fairbanks area is defined as the Fairbanks-North Star Borough, the Southeast Fairbanks Census Division, the Railbelt portion of the Yukon-Koyukuk census area, and Paxson& Sources: Alaska Department of Labor, Research and Analysis Section, Alaska Population Overview for 1981, 1982, and 1983. Juneau, AK: 1982, 1983, and 1984. Municipality of Anchorage Planning Department, Population Estimates for 1984, Anchorage, AK: 1984 .. Kenai Peninsula Borough Planning Department, Populatio~ Estimates for 1984, Kenai, AK: 1984. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Department.. Matanuska- Susitna Borough Annual Survey of Population and Housing for 1981, 1982, 1983, and 1984.. Palmer, AK: 1981, 1982, 1983, and 1984 .. ,575 2, 713 2. 1,286 1, 2. 1,354 1, 2o68Q 117, 23,044 23,077 2 .. 2.,886 10,537 10,476 2a 2e606 335 358 2.983 2 (Rail belt) 822 3al48 3. 81 68 2 .. 380 2. 178 3 .. 351 3 .. 205 197 2 859 2 .. 787 Cen .. Div. 2,098 2,100 3.193 3.175 442 444 2. 2 .. 659 of Paxson 12 3.078 3 .. 065 Total 003 The Anchorage area consists of the Anchorage Borough, the Kenai Peninsula (Kenai-Cook Inlet Division Seward , and the Matanuska-Susitna report, Fairbanks area is Fairbanks-North Borough, Southeast Fairbanks the Railbelt portion of the Yukon-Koyukuk census area, Sources: Department of Labor, Overview il ' Matanuska-Susitna Research 1981, Analysis and 1983 .. D .. C .. : Census 17.0 366 N/A 2H 980 6,8 34 30 N/A 20 30 237 Oe6 80 4 8 HIA N/A 1 NIA NIA 6 5 o. a 6 NIA N/A 18 NIA 4 200 0.1 ' 12 NIA I 0 NIA 0 N/A 0 0 fairbanks 01>8 41 46 N/A 46 85 6000 Scho NIA N/A NIA OaO 2 0 I 1 0 0 o .. s 0 I 20 I O.l '' I N/A 13 i 0 o.,t Henarus Pub. N/A of Anchorage service area funds) Borough School District Revenues Expenditures Palmer Expenditures of Wasi.lla Revenues t..· .......... -.-li tures Ci of Houston Revenues Expenditures FAIRBANKS AREA Municipality of Revenues Expenditures Fairbanks Community of Cantwell Revenues Expenditures City of Nenana Revenues Expenditures Nenana City Public School Revenues Expenditures Railbelt School District Revenues Expenditures 1~143,.39 lSI 1~108 .. 1,204o52 1,194 .. 67 487 .. 43 389 .. 423 .. 87 423 .. 87 577 .. 00 l,Ol0o33 108 .. 81 108 .. 81 2,055 .. 09 2,050 .. 82 13,641 .. 48 12,227 .. 86 10,464 .. 30 10,569 .. 13 5, 5, 7 .. 649 .. 1:9 113 .. 99 108 .. 2,163 .. 24 2,154 .. 79 10,500 .. 00 11,311 .. 18 10,346 .. 18 9,887 .. 87 T~bAe 41' ~ Projected Employment, Popul Househol l:brtd Net Car and Air And Bus Scenario Constructlon Worker Hiring A; 1985-2002 Scenario/Gao-Year ~aphtc Jurlsdtction !985 1986 1987 1986 1989 1990 199~ 1992 1993 !994 1995 1996 1997 1998 ~999 2000 2001 2002 Car Transportation Anchorage Area Employment 986 1895 1554 1527 1968 2227 2228 990 1159 -24 135 446 l219 1582 1581 !852 972 Popu~atton 8054 2257 2183 2249 2845 3342 3576 2449 2503 1275 1103 1303 2082 2597 2726 3106 2326 IT13 Househo Ids 362 781 763 789 999 li 77 1264 862 902 482 420 490 761 945 996 1132 869 680 Net Popa Migration 807 1090 I 05 61 499 474 271 -837 -103 -1003 -397 52 546 452 159 307 ""547 F al rbanks Area Employment 277 52l 422 416 540 606 602 248 313 -29 30 12l 336 424 414 485 226 122 Population 316 617 576 596 765 888 938 586 644 265 261 332 559 673 685 782 517 384 Households ll2 218 205 213 274 3&8 338 214 236 i02 lf"'l 127 208 250 255 290 196 150 Net Pop. Migration 235 3i8 29 18 146 138 79 -245 -30 -293 -116 15 160 132 47 90 -165 ...,160 ABi Charactertstlcs JJ Anchorage Area Emp I oym.ant 986 1895 1554 i527 1968 2227 2228 990 1159 -24 L''5 446 1219 1582 1581 1852 912 Population 1054 2257 2183 2249 2845 3342 3576 2449 2503 8275 1103 1303 2082 2597 2726 3106 2326 1773 Househo~ds 362 781 763 789 999 1177 1264 882 902 482 420 490 76~ 945 996 H32 869 680 Net Pope Mtgratlon 807 1090 I 01 61 499 474 271 -837 -!03 -1003 -397 52 546 452 i59 307 =563 =547 Fat rbanks Area Employment 277 521 422 416 540 606 602 248 313 -29 30 121 336 424 41 485 226 122 Popuiatlon 316 617 576 596 765 888 936 586 644 265 559 673 6C5 782 5!7 Households 112 218 205 213 274 318 338 214 236 102 208 250 196 150 i 132 41 90 6'; TabieA 4;> i Projected Employment 9 Popu~ation,\1 Houo:;.ahoidsn elnd Net Population Ml ion Ef Car and A1r And Bus Scenar1o Construct~on Worker Hlr~ng Aiternatl ' sraeh~c Jurisdiction 1985 i986 1987 1988 1989 J990 1991 1992 1993 1994 &995 1996 1997 ~ 998 ~999 2000 200~ AB2 Character1st1cs 2/ Anchorage Area Employment 677 1358 I t75 1&55 1462 &662 &684 645 908 90 132 334 883 t 179 !2t5 1419 840 5~5 Population 481 1262 1488 1564 1923 2321 2594 2193 2055 1487 8091 noo 1465 1867 2062 2322 2085 1694 Households 152 4!6 509 418 509 536 658 799 900 787 735 561 4&8 414 529 669 745 835 Net Pope M1gratYon 521 704 65 40 323 306 175 -541 -67 -648 -257 34 353 292 103 l99 -364 eoJ54 Fairbanks Area Employment 586 1060 79l 779 1038 1161 i 135 384 553 -148 33 233 675 829 119 918 357 166 Popt.~l at ton 885 1605 1261 1272 1677 1897 1908 836 1083 51 266 533 H71 1398 I 345 1560 755 463 Households 321 5Bl 456 462 611 693 698 308 400 22 103 202 439 525 505 586 287 !80 Net Poe. Mi~ratton 521 704 65 39 322 306 175 -541 -66 -648 -256 33 353 292 !03 ~98 -364 ""'353 AB3 Characteristics 3/ Anchorage Area Employment &241 2336 1877 1843 2398 2702 2686 IH9 1376 -114 t37 536 1503 t9t6 1884 22!0 079 593 Populatton 1525 3075 2784 2841 3633 4209 4415 2687 290& 1112 1106 1470 2596 3&99 3281 3755 2523 1839 Households 534 i080 984 i007 j289 !497 4575 970 tv50 421 422 553 954 H73 l205 L377 943 705 Net Pop. M1gratlon 1042 8408 130 79 645 6i2 350 -1082 -133 -1296 -513 67 706 584 206 397 =728 ... 707 F al rbanks Area Employment 23 78 99 99 112 13i 143 I i 9 95 60 29 29 90 HO 127 i 8 81 Populat1on -152 -196 "" 20 8 "" 81 27 105 350 249 426 258 166 76 i38 Households ... 61 -81 -15 ... 4 ... 16 ... I 28 826 88 163 100 0 0 0 u ABI--Atr and Bus Scenario/ 77% construction worker hiring 1n construction worker hiring l n Fat 2/ AB2=-A1r and Bus Scenario/ 50% construct1on worker hJring tn construction worker hiring tn fairbanks -3/ AB3--A1r and Bus Scenario/tOO% construction worker hlr1ng tn construction worker hirl 1 n Fairbanks Source: Harza-Ebasco Susitna Jo~nt Servt case December l984., Univeri of Ah:Jska entlti Susttna ect Devel h""h Table 5. I Summary of loyment I FERC Llcansa Appl1catton, FY84 Car Transportatlon 9 FY65 Car Yon~> and FY85 r and Bus Scenarios 1985-2005 Employment 1985 1990 1995 1999 2002 2005 Area/Co;nmuntty Basel l na Effect Basalt ne Effect Baseline Effect Basel 1 na Effect Bassil ne Effect Bassi I ne Eftect Anchorage Area Mun. of Anchorage F G~C Forecasts ll6, 356 99i 131,705 3~'010 t38.,434 123 150,643 I ,353 160 9 611 154 '71 0 173 N/A FY84 Forecasts 115,249 78J } 29.,493 2,502 1:~7.~~316 444 141,337 lp431 146,105 312 ' 906 223 FY85 Car Forecasts l22,615 714 127,817 I ,314 136,657 -294 142,530 685 J46l' 745 295 151,257 -2r1 FY85 ABI Forecasts 122.~~615 653 127,817 ljl526 136,657 -289 142,530 19005 1469 745 293 151,257 -207 FYP~ AB2 Forecasts 122,615 562 127,817 I ,079 136,657 -289 !42,530 689 l 745 250 151,257 -207 FY85 AB3 Forecasts t22,615 1,094 127,817 I ,923 136,657 -293 142,530 I ,263 146,745 329 151,257 -207 Mat-Su Borough FERC forecasts 5,442 136 6,914 111293 8,076 423 9p505 747 10,733 266 12;.;116 N/A FY84 forecasts 6,.322 275 7"857 1,349 9,i47 482 10,098 836 10,976 284 12,056 119 FY85 Car Forecasts 6,590 234 7,35! 846 8,379 418 9,178 656 9,790 260 !0,444 179 FY85 ABI Forecasts 6,590 81 7,351 614 8,379 412 9,178 524 9,790 263 10@444 179 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 6,590 81 7,351 534 6,379 412 9,178 494 9,790 263 101)444 179 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 6,590 81 7,351 664 81'379 412 911 !78 553 9, 79C 236 10,444 ~ 79 Kenai Penfn8 Borough FERC Foracasts 12.,904 116 15,368 349 16,969 14 191)189 159 21,055 16 N/A FY84 For·,acasts 12,097 100 i 4, 334 329 16,003 36 17, 145 155 I 252 II 0 FY85 Car Forecasts 12,514 38 13,335 67 14,572 lO 15,463 40 l6., l27 2 0 FY85 ABI Forecasts t2,. 514 52 13,335 87 !4,572 r t f5jl463 51 I 121 2 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 12,514 34 13,335 49 14,572 8 151'463 31 16.,127 2 F Y85 AB.3 forecasts 12t'514 66 139 335 li4 I 572 17 15,463 65 I 127 2 .... ei"''~nu>u·\1 of Ef FERC l1cense AppltcatJon~~ fY84 Car Transportatlon 0 FV85 Car 1985-2005 1985 1990 1995 Anchorage Area Subtotal FERC Forecasts 134,702 l,243 153,987 411652 163 11 479 FY84 forecasts 133,668 I, 156 151 ,6&5 4,.180 l 4c6 FY85 Car Fvn~casts 14 i, 7l9 986 148!1503 2,277 159,609 FY85 ABI Forecasts 141,719 986 148,503 2,227 159,609 FYS5 AB2 Forecasts 141 '719 677 148,503 I ,662 159,609 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 141,719 1,241 148,503 2,701 159,609 Fairbanks Area FaJrbank.s-N .. S .. BorG Ft.RC Forecasts 38,606 272 39,597 705 41,616 FY84 Forecasts 33, 9!5 231 37,418 800 40,286 FY85 Car Forecasts 34,746 3 38,374 499 40.935 FY85 ABl Forecasts 34,746 15 38,374 503 40,935 FY85 AB2 forecasts 34,746 318 38,374 I ,058 40,935 FY85 A83 Forec~~ts 34,746 -239 38,374 33 40,935 Rat lbelt Portion of Yukon-Koyukuk FE.RC Forecasts N/A 148 N/A 307 N/A F¥84 forecasts 629 190 725 503 837 FY85 Car Forecasts 867 2'74 977 107 1,064 FY85 ABI forecasts 867 262 977 98 i,064 FYB5 AB2 Forecasts 867 262 977 98 I 0 064 FY85 A£5 forecasts 867 262 977 98 tfl064 FY85 r i999 2002 2005 Effect 522 179t337 2,258 192,399 437 386 N/A 962 168,580 2,422 115,333 607 625 402 134 167,l7t I, 581 172 557 178,538 -28 134 167, j 71 1,580 I 558 178,538 -28 132 167" l71 lcl79 172 11 661 515 178v538 ~28 137 167,171 1,184 17211661 593 I 538 -28 31 45~361 323 48,449 40 51,710 N/A 80 4! 9 473 362 42,919 27 827 24 42,590 365 4.3,737 12! 904 c:o21 19 42,590 389 43,131 119 904 -21 22 42,590 749 43,737 163 904 ... 21 18 42,590 85 131 84 904 -21 236 N/A 240 N/A 222 N/A N/A 56 939 256 2\) I" !i 6 I f) 125 29 i 6 169 i 14 I I D f) 125 25 I, 169 3 ~a214 ll t ~ i25 25 If) t69 3 I 0 H i/1125 25 ~, B69 I ~~----~ Summary of Project Effects on FERC license Application, FY84 Car FY85 Car SE Fairbanks C.DD FERC forecasts FY84 Forecasts FY85 Car Forecasts FY85 ABl forecasts FY85 AB2 Forecasts FY85 AB3 Forecasts Fat rbanks Area FERC Forecasts FY84 forecasts fY65 Car forecasts FY85 ABI Forecasts FY85 AB2 Forecasts FY85 AB3 Forecasts Total Rat tbeit FERC Forecasts FY84 Forecasts FY85 Car Forecasts FY85 ABI Forecasts FY85 AB2 Forecasts fY85 A83 Forecasts I, 836 I ,613 I ,891 l ,891 I ,891 ',891 40,443 36,!57 37g515 37,515 .37,515 37,515 175, l45 169,825 179,234 I 79,234 179,234 179,234 2 I 0 0 6 0 422 422 277 277 586 23 2,034 j ,548 I ,263 I ,263 1,263 I ,264 ~VA--Not Avaltable or Not Appttcableo I ,883 I, 780 2,046 2,046 2,046 2,046 41,481 39,923 41,409 41 '409 4l, 409 41,409 200, 112 191,608 l89,912 189,912 189,912 189,912 5 5 0 5 5 0 I ,017 1,308 606 606 1, l61 131 5,730 5,707 2,833 2,833 2,823 2,832 1985-2005 1,979 1,916 2,l37 2,137 2,137 2,137 43.596 43,039 44,149 44,149 44;149 44,149 207,075 205,505 203,758 203,758 203!J758 203,758 0 I 0 0 0 0 267 137 30 30 33 29 439 1,163 164 164 165 166 2,157 I, 972 2,186 2.186 2el86 2,186 47,519 44,~~384 4511914 45,914 45,914 45 6 914 226,856 212,964 213 9 085 213.!1085 213 9 085 213jl085 and FY85 A1r 2 2 0 0 5 0 565 620 414 414 779 110 3,155 3,180 I 0 995 I ,994 l ,994 1,994 2,304 041 2.\!215 2 i 5 2,215 2,215 50,753 983 47 0 135 47,135 47,135 4 7,135 243,152 221.1)316 2,99796 21 796 219 9 796 219,796 0 0 0 0 0 0 262 47 122 122 166 87 460 666 679 680 681 680 2 10 014 489378 378 378 378 N/A 0 0 0 N/A 0 ... 21 I -21 -21 402 -49 ll Employment data at the community level are not avat labia; however. the Fa,rbanks area tnciudes estimated empl in P.~..,.~,..i"ll 2/ Effects under the F£RC License Application Scenario are defined by FERC Forecasts& Effects under the FY84 Car Transportation Scenar1o are defined FY84 Forecastse Effects under the FY65 Car Transportation Scenar1o are defined by FY85 Car Forecastse Effects under the FY85 Air and Bus Scenarios are defined by FY65 AS forecasts where ABI forecasts refer to Bus Scenario/ 77% constructlon worker hlring In construction worker Jr1ng 1n Fa1 effects under the Air and Bus Scenar construction worker 1ri tn constructi Fa AB3 forecasts effects under Air and Bus Scenar1o/l to construct1on wor~.;.ar hlr1ng in of FERC License Application~ FY84 Car Transportationc FY85 Car 1985-2005 Number of People Tabi 5 .. 2 of Project Effects on FERC Llcense Appiicattone An~~nnlr'1"ffi~-rton~ FY65 Car 1985-2005 5 .. 2 FERC license Application~ FY84 Car Number of Rural/Remote FERC forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A FV84 forecasts 3,450 48 4,557 i 61 5,552 125 6,228 142 6 8 726 !28 FYB5 Car Forecasts 3,489 48 3,934 83 4,323 0 745 47 899 6 rf85 ABl forecasts 3,489 27 3,934 62 4,323 5 745 32 4,899 8 fV85 AB2 Forecasts 3,489 l9 3,934 46 4,323 5 4,745 24 40 899 8 3 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 3,489 35 3,934 72 4,323 5 4,745 42 899 8 Borough Subtotal FERC Forecasts 31,202 110 42,964 2.478 54,607 111 802 66,338 2,136 76,295 1,502 FY84 Forecasts 35,224 117 41,246 2,622 58,975 1,943 68,514 2.365 76,452 I D631 FY85 Car Forecasts 35.,721 743 41 ,II 976 2,552 48,994 1,020 56,654 I 0 906 62,036 779 FY85 ABI Forecasts 35, 72l 366 41,976 1,993 48,994 1,096 56,654 1,581 62,036 756 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 35,721 248 41 '976 I, 767 48,994 111 096 56,654 l ,442 62,036 139 FY85 AB3 forecasts 35,721 458 41,976 2,172 48,994 !9 096 56,654 1,699 62,036 681 Kenai Pen. Borough Soldotna FERC forecasts N/A N/A N/A N!A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A Nil. FY85 Car Forecasts 3,752 9 4,223 II 4,757 -2 511369 3 785 -2 FY85 ABl forecasts 3,752 0 4,223 -8 757 -2 5,369 -6 785 ""2 FYe5 AB2 Forecasts 3,752 0 4,223 -6 757 0 59 369 -2 785 0 0 FY85 AB3 forecasts 3.!1752 0 4 8 223 -a 41'1757 -6 369 -6 185 -2 0 FERC l1censa Appl1cat1on9 FY84 Car 1985-2005 Number of FEr.c L1cense Application, Borough Subtotal FERC forecasts N/A 20 N/A -24 FY84 Forecasts 30,970 N/A 31,754 N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 40,312 22 45,065 -40 FY85 ABi Forecasts 40,p 312 49 45 9 065 3 fY85 AB2 Forecasts 40,3l2 29 45,065 -12 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 40,312 63 45,065 9 Anchorage Area Subtotal FERC forecasts N/A 565 320,030 2,027 FY84 Forecasts 269,300 N/A 308,196 N/~. FY85 Car Forecasts 323,270 1,054 335,809 3,342 FY85 ABI Forecasts 323,210 1,053 335,809 3,342 FY85 AB~ Forecasts 32.3,270 485 335,809 2,321 FYB5 AB3 Forecasts 323,270 1,524 335,809 4 9 211 Falrbanks Area Fairbanks-NoS .. Bora Mun. of Fa1rbanks FERC Forecasts 28,798 82 29,628 -173 FY84 Forecasts 30,370 -48 36,266 -196 FY85 Car Forecasts 27;574 -59 29,87 ~ -83 FY85 ABi forecasts 27,574 -7 29,824 15.3 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 27,574 166 29,824 320 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 27,574 -791 29,824 -90 Table 5 2 Effect:; on FY65 Car 1985=2005 N/A 43,611 50,469 50,469 50,469 50,469 N/A .335,464 351,210 .351,210 351,210 351,210 31tl886 42Di77 30 8 735 30 9 735 30,735 30,7~5 -75 N/A -59 -45 -24 -58 293 N/A 1,103 I, 103 I ~097 !,106 -323 93 -155 86 -H l91 N/A 48;080 56,729 56,729 56,729 56,729 382,256 353,531 374,946 374,946 374,946 .374,946 34,555 46 0 483 32,372 32~372 32.~~372 jJ.~372 A1r -54 -79 N/A 5Lll617 -24 950 ... 4 -2 950 -5 0 -12 60,950 -7 5 60,950 -12 957 N/A 227 N/A 368&1801 726 388 0 212 lr; 776 211726 388,212 10 113 885 2,262 388,212 i 685 3,283 212 19839 -271 37o041 -341 -3l i 216 -64 90 146 H2 249 ..... lmm$liw~v of FERC l1censa Application, FY84 Car Transportat 1985 ~990 ~rea/Community Basel 1 ne Effect BaselIne Effect North Pola FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts N/A N/A N/A NIA FY85 Car Forecasts I ,079 -5 I, 181 21 FYB5 ABI Forecasts I ,079 3 I, 181 29 FY85 AB2 Forecasts l,079 19 I, IBl 58 FY85 AB3 Forecasts l ,079 0 I, I 81 0 Borough Subtotal FERC Forecasts 69, 168 82 71ul62 -17.3 FY84 Forecasts 65,769 -48 73,516 -196 FY85 Car Forecasts 67#435 -98 73,839 666 FY85 ABI Forecasts 67.o435 -9 73,839 760 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 67,435 547 73,839 I, 768 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 67,435 -480 73,839 -90 Railbelt Portion of Yukon-Koyukuk Cantwell FERC Forecasts 194 430 214 1,000 FY84 Forecasts 201 368 222 797 FY85 Car Forecasts 197 338 217 124 FY85 ABI Forecasts l97 322 211 115 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 197 322 217 115 FY85 AB3 Forecasts !97 322 217 115 Effects FY85 Car 1985-2005 1995 Basel lne Effect N/A N/A N/A N/A I ,233 I ,233 3 I ,233 5 I ,233 5 76,585 -323 80,033 93 77,049 251 77,049 258 77,049 264 77,049 255 237 785 245 627 240 0 240 0 240 0 240 0 1999 2002 2005 Basel l ne Effect· Basel ina Effect Basel ina Effect Jt i!£ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A I ,312 t2 19351 6 I ,388 0 I, .312 19 t/J35i 8 1{)388 I ,312 36 111351 H I 9 388 I ,312 H 1,351 10 1,388 82,996 -271 88,193 -341 70! 0 83,663 ... 31 86,913 181 572 216 81,974 616 84,463 787 I 8!i'974 683 84,463 381 787 178 81 '974 1,329 8411463 460 787 178 81-974 133 84.A63 317 787 ,! 256 788 272 744 265 701 619 260 10 276 293 260 0 276 293 260 0 276 260 0 276 FERC llcense App,lcat1on, FY84 Car Healy FERC forecasts N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts 378 84 427 FY65 Car Forecasts 639 16 763 FYB5 ABI Forecasts 639 3 763 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 639 3 763 FY85 AB3 forecasts 639 3 763 Nenana FERC forecasts N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts 532 38 602 FYB5 Car Forecasts 573 46 711 FY85 ABI Forecasts 573 3 711 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 573 .3 711 F Y85 AB3 Forecasts 573 3 711 Census Area Subtotal FERC Foreca~ts N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts 2,3l6 490 29471 FY85 Car Forecasts 2,580 414 2,759 FY85 ABI Forecasts 29 580 328 2,759 FY85 AB2 F~recasts 2 0 560 328 2,759 F Y85 AB3 Forecasts 2,580 328 2,759 N/A 289 23 3 5 3 N/A 140 78 8 II 3 N/A 1,226 229 123 131 117 Table 5 .. 2 Effects on fY65 Car ~985-2005 N/A 483 884 884 884 884 N/A 68t 882 882 882 882 N/A 2,636 2,938 2,938 2li938 21'938 N/A 228 3 3 3 3 N/A 112 1 0 3 0 N/A I, 125 10 3 5 .3 r N/A N/A N/A N/A 533 252 574 225 619 995 13 1,087 0 I, 188 995 3 1,087 0 I, I 88 995 3 1,087 0 ~~~ 188 995 3 I 0 I~~ 188 N/A N/A N/A N/A 752 122 810 105 872 105 1,047 49 I fll92 3 ·~~356 1!1047 5 19192 1(1356 1,047 8 I a 192 3 i ,356 0 I ,047 5 i .!> 192 3 111356 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2,776 1,162 886 19 074 3!100i 933 3 9 092 72 3 0 222 6 3,092 5 3,222 3 3j)092 H 3!'222 3,092 5 3 FERC License Appllcationg FY84 Car 1985-2005 SE fairbanks C*DQ Delta Junct1on FERC F orecels·ts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 F orecCJsts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A FV85 Car Forecasts I, I 91 0 I ,278 0 1,309 0 I ,371 0 1,396 0 11.418 0 FY85 ABI Forecasts 1,191 0 I ,278 3 1a309 0 ijj371 0 !e396 0 !s418 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 1,191 3 1,278 5 I ,309 0 I ,371 3 L,.396 0 18 418 0 FY85 AB.3 Fort}Casts I, 191 0 I ,278 0 1,309 0 1,371 0 1;;396 0 ~ IJ I 0 Cen. Dive Subtotal FERC Forecasts 6,691 0 6,884 0 7,409 0 8e029 0 811502 0 985 0 FY84 "= orecasts 6,544 N/A 7,315 N/A 7,964 N/A 8@325 N/A 8,648 012 FY85 Car Forecasts 6,726 0 7,220 -7 7,396 0 7,7-44 -3 7a889 0 0 FY85 ABI fm·ecasts 6,726 -.3 7,220 5 7,396 0 7,744 -3 7,869 0 0 FY65 AB2 Forecasts 6, 726 10 7,220 -2 7,396 -3 7/)744 -5 7,889 0 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 6,726 0 7 9 220 0 79 396 0 75744 0 76869 0 0 Pax::rm FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts 39 N/A 51 N/A 66 N/A Bi N/A 95 N/A iH FY85 Car Forecasts 38 0 42 0 44 0 46 0 48 0 49 FY85 ABI Forec~sts 38 0 42 0 44 0 46 0 48 0 49 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 38 0 42 0 44 0 46 0 46 0 49 FY85 A83 Forecasts 38 0 42 0 44 0 46 0 48 0 49 FERC License Application, FY84 Car Tabie 5.,2 Eff~Sc~ts FV85 Car 1985=2005 Fa 1 rbanks Area FERC Forecasts 75,859 82 77~969 -172 9H -323 90,935 ... 271 FV84 Forecasts 74,668 -48 83,353 -196 90,699 9:3 94/)845 -31 FV85 Car Forecasts 761'1779 316 83,860 888 87,427 261 92 0 857 685 fY85 ABI Forecasts 76,779 316 83,860 888 87,427 261 92,857 685 FV85 AB2 Forecasts 76,779 885 8.3,860 I ,897 87,427 266 92,857 ifi345 FY85 AB3 forecasts 7..>,779 -152 83,860 27 87,427 258 92,857 t38 Total Ret I belt N/A II FERC Forecasts N/A N/A 397a999 1,867 N/A N/A 473,! 91 691 FY84 Forecas-ts 343,929 N/A 391,498 N/A 426,097 N/A 448,295 N/A FYB5 Car Forecasts 400,049 l,370 419,669 4,232 438,637 I ,362 467,803 3,414 FY85 ABI Forecasts 400,049 1/}369 419,669 4,229 438,637 1,364 467,803 3,410 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 400,049 111:370 4191}669 4,218 438,637 1,363 467,803 3,408 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 400,049 1,372 419,669 4,238 438,637 11}364 467,803 3,421 Not Ava1 labia or Not Applicable. Effects under the FERC License Application Scenarto are defined by FERC Foracastse Effects under the FY84 Car Transportation Scenario are defined by FY84 Forecastse Effects under the FY65 Car Transportation Scenario are deftned by FY85 Car Forecastse Ai 695 =341 542 181 95.~~622 384 622 384 95 0 622 463 9511622 320 N/A N/A 4671'1248 463~834 154 483,834 2lll55 4631)834 ~54 483,834 2ei::9 Effects under the FY85 Atr and Bus Scenarios are defined by FY85 AB forecasts where ABI forecasts to ef Air and Bus Scenario/ 77% construction worker hiring In Anchorage -constructton worker hiring ln Fat 178 I J78 178 l s ~ ~063 I ,063 l forecasts refer to effects under the Alr and Bus Scenario/ 50% construction worker htrlng in constructton ~'4orker~ hlrlng ln fairbanks, AB3 forecasts refer to effects under A1r and Bus Scenarto/t construction worker tring I construction worker hlrtng in fairbanks. Source: Frank Orth & Assoctates, Inc~~ 1985. FERC L 1cense FY84 and Anchorage Area Mun. of Anchorage FERC Forecasts 920 N/A 79/1028 2!3 83,923 N/A 664 -l FY84 F oracasts 72,331 50 79,232 63 82,406 483 634 16 FY65 Car Forecasts 83,603 110 86, 184 354 90 .. 647 99 93,304 367 410 FY85 ABI 83,603 209 86,184 494 90.647 66 93,304 452 415 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 83,603 49 86, l84 207 90,647 !)8 93,304 258 393 194 FV85 A83 Forecasts 83,603 573 86,184 742 90,647 12 304 613 437 194 Mat-Su Palmer FERC Forecasts I ,083 N/A 1.~~551 17 1,928 N/A 2,299 14 FY84 Forecasts i ,073 9 1,476 33 i, 762 28 2(1028 31 27 FY65 Car Forecasts 915 36 1,103 66 1,383 -2 i, 591 31 5 FY85 AB~ Forecasts 915 19 I, 103 41 I m383 2 l 591 23 3 FYB5 AB2 Forecasts 915 D i ,103 28 18383 2 I 591 15 2 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 915 25 1,103 52 I ."'83 2 I, 59! 30 Wast !1 a FERC Forecasts 930 N/A lt.~404 20 124 N/A 965 17 FY84 Forecasts l,t02 H 111615 39 2~365 32 .3 8 210 F~85 Car Forecasts I ,225 39 19 825 7~ 20 757 -3 311686 40 FY85 ABI Forecasts I ,225 22 I ,825 45 2 686 25 3 FY85 AB2 forecasts 1,225 l5 i p825 32 2 i7 3 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 1,225 26 i/1825 55 2 31 FERC License Appii FY84 Car Number Houston FERC Forecasts 308 N/A 508 15 FY84 Forecasts 254 iO 41l 36 FY85 Car Forecasts 264 19 439 35 FY85 ABI Forecasts 264 10 439 22 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 264 7 439 15 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 264 13 439 27 Talkeetna :-ERC Forecasts 246 9 334 117 FY84 Forecasts 114 16 149 59 FY85 Car Forecasts ll2 8 135 49 FY85 ABI Forecasts 112 4 135 43 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 112 2 l35 4l FY85 AB3 Forecasts H2 4 1.35 45 Trapper Creek FERC Forecasts 83 II 107 i68 FY84 Forecasts 78 2.3 97 86 FY65 Car Forecasts 71 7 92 15 FY85 ABI Forecasts 77 4 92 9 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 77 2 92 6 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 77 5 92 H Suburban FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 forecasts 7,468 34 10,!52 U6 FY85 Car Forecasts 7, 759 117 082 2l4 FY85 ABI Forecasts 759 66 9,082 I FY85 AB2 Forecasts 759 46 082 102 FY85 ABJ Forecasts 759 83 082 I facts on Households Car 985-2005 837 664 743 743 743 743 453 195 164 164 164 164 i38 121 114 114 114 114 N/A 734 511 511 10»511 5H N/A 28 -2 0 0 0 17 46 -I 0 0 0 79 67 -I 0 0 0 94 -3 10 10 I 1{}249 975 1{}088 1{}088 lil088 1,068 581 242 166 186 186 166 169 145 128 128 128 128 N/A 636 II 9 551 II ,559 li955i ~ i & 55l 13 31 20 H 7 i5 87 51 36 33 3l 34 HI 14 8 4 2 5 ~05 125 at 56 103 Air i ,67i N/A 2 N/A 1,300 28 111495 I i 11495 2 t,495 I 1,495 2 2.,024 0 683 65 792 64 284 46 334 210 I 233 =2 210 233 210 0 233 210 A 233 193 73 2~7 165 65 189 63 l46 i 162 146 0 162 146 0 0 146 j () 92 FERC License Appitcat1on, FY84 Car Rural/Remote FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts l ,074 l4 I, 46! FY85 Car Forecasts I ,308 17 111472 30 FY85 ABI Forecasts l,.308 10 i ,472 23 FY85 AB2 Forecasts I, 306 '1 1,472 17 FY85 AB3 Forecasts I ,308 13 I ,472 27 Borouyh Subtotal FERC Forecasts 9,927 38 l4,417 836 FY84 Forecasts II e 186 117 15,375 766 FY85 Car Forecasts t I ,656 ~43 14, 157 830 FY85 ABt Forecasts II ,656 135 14, l57 675 FY85 AB2 Forecasts ll ,656 92 14, 157 591 FY85 AB3 Forecasts II ,656 169 14, 157 743 Kenai Pen .. Borough Soldotna FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A NIA FY84 Forecasts N/A N/A NIA N/A FYB5 Car Forecasts ',279 3 ! ~472 4 FY85 ABl Forecasts I 0 279 0 I fj472 -3 FY85 AB2 Forecasts i, 279 0 I, 472 -2 FY85 AB3 Forecasts !,279 0 i' 472 -3 Tab 5.,3 Effects on n~.J~.Jl:::l>'!;liiiV FY85 Car 1985=2005 N/A ls834 I ,638 l,638 I ,638 I ,638 l90 371 19,678 17,327 17,327 17,327 17,327 N/A N/A l b 720 l !I 720 l,720 I, 720 N/..-\ N/A 37 2.,108 0 18 745 2 111745 2 t, 745 2 ~, 745 658 24,670 625 23,336 338 19,989 366 19,989 366 l9,989 366 ! 9, 989 N/A N/A N/A -l I ,920 -I I 9920 0 1[1920 2 jil920 and N/A N/A N/A N/A 42 320 36 548 16 lf}822 2 1,829 -3 12 1,822 3 10 829 9 I ,822 3 lr;829 16 10 822 I 11}829 716 28 11 715 527 424 719 268 454 574 632 22 0 598 271 I~ 7 539 22,598 266 I 487 2211598 258 l79 584 22,598 271 ' N/A N/A N/A N/A 122 =i -2 122 -I 2/) 122 ""2 i22 =I FERC License Application~ FY84 Car Number Seward FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A F Y84 Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A FY65 Car Forecasts 708 5 746 5 804 -2 844 4 893 925 FY85 ABl Forecasts 708 5 746 1 604 -I 844 4 893 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 708 4 746 5 804 -I 844 3 693 FY85 AB3 forecasts 708 6 746 8 804 -I 844 5 893 2 925 Horner FERC forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A fY85 Car forecasts I ,273 2 1,449 3 I ,673 -I I ,651 2 0 I FY85 ABl forecasts 1,273 4 1,449 4 1,673 0 I 8 B5i 3 2,032 0 185 FY85 AB2 Forecasts L,273 2 11)449 3 l ,673 _, i ,851 I 0 FY65 AB3 Forecasts 1,273 4 1,449 6 i ,673 -I 1,851 3 29 032 Kenai FERC forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY85 Car forecasts 2,206 2 211537 2,960 -3 3/J300 m;2 FY85 ABl Forecasts 2,206 4 2,537 3 960 -2 38300 2 -i FY85 AB2 Forecasts 2.206 2 2!'537 2 960 0 300 i -l FV85 AB3 Forecasts 2,206 5 29 537 5 960 -2 300 4 FERC License FY64 Car Borough Subtotal FERC forecasts i L,234 N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts 10,538 -II -56 12 mJ2 FY85 Car Forecasts 13,579 9 15,566 -7 1811139 -18 -4 FY85 ABI Forecasts I 579 18 15,568 e 18,139 3 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 579 II 15,568 i 18 .. 139 -7 -I fYB5 ABJ Forecasts 131'579 iB i5,568 6 180 139 -i5 4 4 .,.3 Anchore~ge Area Subtotal FERC ForecEJsts 91,081 N/A ,07,722 l,049 !20, l85 N/A N/A FY84 forecasts 94,055 156 107,559 773 H !64 i,i20 l"l2J FYB5 Car Forecasts 108,838 362 ll 909 18 i77 t 26, II l9 991 679 FYB5 AB~ forecasts 106,836 362 I J 5,909 '' 177 126, HJ 419 !JC7 991 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 108,638 152 115,909 799 12611113 418 13.3 8 507 745 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 108,838 534 JJ 909 1,497 I 113 422 t 507 079 705 fairbanks Area Fafrbanks~N.Sfi Bor. Mun. of fairbanks FERC ForecasTs N/A r J ~ 104 -56 N/A FV84 Forecasts II ,575 -6 l3/)5l7 -32 ' 427 l6 FYB5 Car Forecasts 10.545 -34 11,303 -:so H -45 FY85 A8i Forecasts !Ob545 18 II, 303 I 672 38 FY85 AB2 Forecasts l0,545 16 I i 303 ,01 n 672 -I 55 F¥85 AB3 Forecasts l 545 -202 I 303 II o 612 5 .. 3 FERC L tcanse l i cat ton, North FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts N/A N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts .364 -2 407 7 439 0 460 485 FY85 ABI Forec~sts 364 I 407 II 439 I 460 1 3 FYS5 AB2 Forecasts 364 7 407 22 439 2 460 i4 4 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 364 0 407 0 439 t 460 4 4 Borough Subtotal FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts 347 -IS 26,033 -7 32 500 -12 63 FY85 Car forecasts 399 3i 26,028 98 29D028 233 FY85 ABI Forecasts 23,399 52 26,028 261 27,888 100 29g028 254 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 23,399 257 26,028 6.35 27,888 102 2911028 499 30,41 79 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 23,399 -122 26,028 -54 27e888 99 299 028 45 4i 25 11 Railbelt Portion of Yukon-Koyukuk Cantwell FERC Forecasts 71 126 78 333 86 264 93 99 FY84 Forecasts 83 H2 88 241 93 169 98 2 I FY85 Car Forecasts 69 62 78 54 87 0 93 FY85 ABI Forecasts 69 59 78 52 67 0 93 0 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 69 59 78 52 87 0 0 0 FY85 AB3 Forecbsts 69 59 78 52 87 0 0 5 Effects FERC Llcensa Application~ FY84 Car .... ,.,,.,.,,.,.; .. -.-;on~ FY85 Ccr 1985-2005 Hersly FERC Foreca~ts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FV84 Forecasts 122 25 t 4~ 86 163 67 182 74 199 f,6 218 FY85 Car Forecasts 198 5 246 7 301 I 339 4 384 " 428 u FY85 ABl Forecasts l98 I 246 I 301 I 339 I 384 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 198 246 2 301 339 384 0 FY65 AB3 Forecasts i96 246 I 301 339 384 0 Nenana FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 forecasts 185 ll 210 41 238 33 264 36 284 31 31 FYB5 Car Forecasts 206 14 257 25 324 2 374 16 43t FY85 ABl Forecasts 206 257 3 324 0 374 2 431 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 206 257 4 324 374 3 431 489 FY85 A83 forecasts 206 257 I 324 0 374 2 431 0 Census Area Subtotal FERC forecasts N/A N/!. N/A N!A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts 741 172 609 452 883 355 948 394 11)000 346 FY85 Car Forecasts 828 61 9i6 86 I ,021 3 lf)069 23 1~,~ i46 2 0 FY85 ABI Forecasts 828 61 916 55 I 0 02i i I 2 19 146 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 828 61 9l6 58 l "021 2 ',069 4 L, l F¥85 AB3 Forecasts 828 61 916 53 I ,021 I 19 069 2 l D ~ FERC L tcensa FY84 i 985-2005 SE Fe. 1 r·banks C I> D .. Delta Junction FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FV85 Car Forecasts 447 0 478 0 493 0 497 0 509 51 I FY85 ABl Forecasts 447 0 478 I 493 0 497 0 509 0 511 FYB5 AB2 Forecasts 447 I 478 2 493 0 497 I 509 0 II 0 FYB5 AB3 forecasts 447 0 478 0 493 0 497 0 509 0 0 Cen. Dlv. Subtotal FERC Forecasts N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 forecasts 323 590 5 81.3 2 935 3 045 FY85 Car Forecasts 13! 0 2,374 -2 2g554 0 2,664 -I 29800 FY85 ABl Forecasts 2.131 -l 2,374 2 2~554 0 21)664 -I 2/1800 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 2.,131 3 2,374 0 2,554 -i 2!!664 2 0 FY85 AB3 forecasts 2j) 131 0 2,.374 0 211554 0 2,664 0 0 Paxson FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FYB4 Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY85 Car forecasts 12 0 14 0 15 0 l6 0 17 18 FYB5 ABl forecasts 12 0 14 0 15 0 l6 0 i7 i FY85 AB2 Forecasts 12 0 14 0 15 0 16 0 l7 I FY85 AB3 forecasts 12 0 14 0 15 0 I 0 FERC License Appi1cation9 FY84 Car Table 5,. Effects on HOIJSE1no FY85 i985-2005 FaT rbanks Area FERC Forecasts 25,554 N/A 26..,673 N/A 29.~~133 N/A 31.~~950 N/A FY84 Forecasts 25,670 152 26!1623 386 31 8 083 389 32,435 .385 FY85 Car Forecasts 26,370 112 29,.332 318 31,478 tel 32,777 255 FY85 ABI Forecasts 26,370 112 29"332 318 31,478 tO I 32,777 255 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 26,370 321 29,332 6~4 31,418 103 32 9 777 505 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 26.370 -61 29-332 _, 3l,478 tOO 3211111 47 Total Rallbelt N/A 1/ FERC Forecasts !20,801 N/A 138,938 675 1549518 N/A i 71,895 261 FY84 Forecasts 120,466 308 136,991 I, 159 149, 130 1,509 157.;~089 111 508 FY85 Car Forecasts l35,208 630 145,241 I ,657 157,591 I,Oi6 166,284 J '521 FY85 ABI Forecasts 135,208 629 !45,241 I ,657 157,591 1,016 166,284 11}523 FY85 AB2 Forecasts l35,208 629 !45!1241 1,654 157,59l ',016 166,284 '' 523 FY85 A83 Forecasts 135,208 628 145,241 1,658 157,591 1,016 166 11 284 I ,525 Not Available or Not Applicable. Effects under the FERC Ltcense Application Scenario are defined by FERC Forecasts& Effects under the F¥64 Car Transportatlon Scenarto are def,ned by FY64 Forecastse Effects under the FY85 Car Transportation Scenario are defined by FY85 Car ForecastsD r 392 648 410 34,377 150 34 9 377 150 311 180 377 126 670 N/A 957 19598 176,456 999 176 0 456 999 \76,456 999 176e456 1,001 Effects under the F¥85 ATr and Bus Scenarios are defined by FY85 AB forecasts where AB~ forecasts Air and Bus Scenario/ 77% construction worker h1rtng tn Anchorage -construction worker hiring forecasts refer to effects under the Air and Bus Scenario/ 50% construction worker hfrlng 'n worlt.er htrtng tn Fatrbanks, AB3 forecasts refer to effects under Air and Bus ScenarYo/1 construction AnchoraRe-O% construct1on worker hfring tn Fafrbankss Source: Frank Orth & Assoctates, lnc.D 1985c 77 2041)320 N/A I @552 620 Tab I ect Ef tects on FERC L1cense Appllcatione FY84 Car FY85 ~ 985-2005 Anchorage Area Mun. of Anchorage FERC Forecasts 73,416 N/A 83,061 213 88,119 N/A 94 9 147 N/A 102 -171 479 FY84 forecasts 788 196 50 65,656 63 89,088 483 90,415 416 91 0 594 589 361 FY85 Car Forecasts 95,623 110 98,014 354 102,507 99 105v037 361 109,017 410 H 976 FY85 ABI Forecasts 95 6 623 209 98,014 494 102,507 66 105.037 452 I 017 4~5 110,976 FY85 A82 forecasts 95,623 49 98,014 207 102,507 58 105 0 037 256 109,0\7 393 ll011 976 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 95,623 573 98,014 742 102,507 72 1059 037 613 109 0 017 437 H 976 Mat-Su Borough Palmer FERC Forecasts 1,137 N/A I ,628 17 2,024 N/A 2o413 14 2,702 FY84 F on~casts I, 103 9 l '517 33 t 9 811 28 2,084 3l 211318 27 FYB5 Car Forecasts 1,000 36 I, 196 66 I ,500 -2 19 726 37 1,983 5 FY65 ABi Forecasts 1,000 19 I, 196 41 i 9 500 2 i (J 126 23 i ,983 3 fYB5 AB2 Forecasts l,OOO 13 I, 196 28 I, 500 ...., 1. 726 15 10 983 2 &.. FY85 A83 Forecasts 1,000 25 11>196 52 19 500 2 ~ 11726 30 1,983 4 Wasl i Ia FERC Forecasts 976 N/A ',474 20 2,230 N/A 3~ l l3 17 N/}1. FY84 Forecasts 1,258 II t ,844 39 2,700 32 311664 35 30 FY85 Car Forecasts I, 346 39 2,005 71 311030 -3 051 40 5 ""'9 FY85 ABI Forecasts I, 346 22 2,005 45 3,030 2 05l 25 3 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 1,346 15 2.o005 32 3,030 2 051 17 3 FY85 AB3 forecasts i,346 26 2,005 55 ~ 051 :Si FERC License Appllcatione FV04 Car Table 5 ect Effects on Housing Units FY85 Car 985~2005 Table 5s eci" Ef facts on Hous f ng Urli FERC l1cense AppllcationD FY84 Car ionw FY85 Car AI Bus 1985-2005 Number of Housing 1985 1990 1995 1999 ffect Basel I Rural/Remote FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FYB4 Forecasts 1,969 14 1,969 47 2,293 37 241596 42 826 38 31 FYB5 Car Forecasts I ,86t 17 2,008 30 2,l47 0 2,217 16 2s263 2 FY85 ABl Forecasts is 861 lO 21'1008 23 2,147 2 2,217 12 2,263 3 FY85 AB2 Forecasts I ,86l 1 2,008 11 2,147 2 2 0 217 9 2,263 3 FY85 AB3 forec~~ts l 8 86l 13 2,008 27 211147 2 2 8 217 16 211263 I Borough Subtotal FERC Forecasts II, 730 38 16,754 836 22,043 658 27,672 716 3211115 527 023 424 FY84 Forecasts 15,048 117 19,674 766 24,653 625 28,847 719 32fJ377 574 436 FYB5 Car Forecasts 15,502 243 18,242 830 21,791 338 24,717 632 27~586 271 161 H FY85 ABI Forecasts 15,502 135 18,242 675 21,791 366 24,717 539 27,586 266 ! 79 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 15,502 92 18-242 59i 2L, 791 366 24,717 487 27,586 258 30 0 61 a FY85 AB3 Forecasts 15,502 169 18,242 743 21 '791 366 24,7&7 584 27fJ586 271 161 Kenai Pen. Borough Soldotna FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts NIA Nit\ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts I ,505 3 I, 1~ 2 4 1!1978 -I 211188 I 40! .,. FYB5 ABI Forecasts I, 505 0 I, 712 -3 I 9 978 =i 2 0 188 -2 401 """' 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 1,505 0 I, 7i 2 -2 I ,978 0 211 ~88 ""'' 40l FY85 AB3 forecasts I ,505 0 I, 712 -3 le978 2 lSB -2 401 -I 5 FERC L 1cense licatlon, FY84 Car Seward FE.RC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A Car forecasts 828 5 847 5 903 -2 940 988 ABI Forecasts 828 5 847 7 903 -I 940 4 988 0 FY85 AB2 Foracasts 828 4 847 5 903 -I 940 3 988 0 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 828 6 847 8 903 -l 940 5 988 ? 0 &. Homer FERC Forecasts N/A NlA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts ~, 549 2 '' 732 3 l ,965 -i 2,143 2 2 0 ABI Forecasts I 1!549 4 I" 732 4 1,965 0 2,t43 3 329 0 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts !,549 2 I D 732 3 I 11 965 -l 2~143 l 2,329 0 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts I ,549 4 I, 732 6 1,965 -I 143 3 329 0 0 Kenai FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A FY84 forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A WA N/A N/A N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 2!1714 2 046 ! 471 798 FY85 I Forecasts 21!714 4 3,046 3 471 -2 798 -I FY85 A82 Forecasts 2, 714 2 38046 2 3.s47l 0 3$798 FY85 A83 Forecasts 2,714 5 3,046 5 3,471 -2 3 11 798 4 0 FERC Llcense Appllcatton, FY84 Car Subtotal FERC Forecasts II, 796 NIA 14.,991 N/A FY84 Forecasts 11,093 -H 13,634 -56 F¥85 Car Forecasts 18,122 9 20,.369 -7 FY85 ABI Forecasts I 122 18 20,369 8 FY85 AB2 Forecasts I 122 H 20,369 I FY85 A83 Forecasts I 8,122 18 20,369 6 Area Subtotal FERC forecasts 96,942 NIA 114,806 J ,049 FY84 F orec(lsts 104,337 156 II 8, 964 713 FY85 Car Forecasts l 247 362 1:36,625 I, 177 FY85 ABI Forecasts 129,247 362 136-625 1,!77 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 129,247 152 136,625 799 FY85 AB3 Forecasts i 534 136,625 ! ,497 Falrbanks Area Fa' rbanks-N S .. Bar~ Mun. of Falrbanks FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A -56 FY84 Forecasts l2,500 -6 14,619 -32 FY85 Car Forecasts 11 388 -34 12,206 -30 FYe5 ABl Forecasts ll 388 18 I ,206 44 FY85 AB2 Forecasts t 1,388 76 1 ,206 iOI FY85 AB3 forecasts 11,388 -202 12,206 -54 Ef FY85 Car 1985-2005 17,736 15,873 2.3,276 276 23,276 23,276 127,898 129.614 147,574 l47,574 147.,574 I 574 N/A N/A 12 -18 -13 -1 -15 N/A l,i20 419 419 418 422 N/A I 38 -j 79 20,724 t 7, 617 545 545 545 25,545 543 136,679 155,299 N/A 070 741 741 12$741 i 74 N/A 123 -I 086 25 -4 883 I -~ 4 883 -I -I 27 8 883 -2 27;883 -3 N/A 307 468 074 N/A l' '23 14301057 '$ i 68 997 t64,486 997 486 679 745 486 649 1,206 486 705 N/A N/A 8 38 35 61 55 FERC License Appltcat1on, FV84 Car FY85 North Poia FERC Forecasts N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A F 184 Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FYB5 Car Forecasts 497 -2 545 1 576 0 595 620 632 FY85 ABt Forecasts 497 I 545 i I 576 I 595 7 620 632 FYB5 AB2 Forecasts 497 7 545 22 576 2 595 620 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 497 0 545 0 576 I 595 620 Subtotal FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forec~sts 24,576 -18 27,403 -71 29,758 32 3l,053 -12 63 75 FY85 Car Forecasts 28,661 31 31,496 234 343 98 311 233 764 !48 11 FY85 ABJ Forecasts 661 52 3l '496 261 343 tOO 377 254 764 i 77 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 661 257 31,496 635 343 !02 377 499 764 179 FY85 A83 Forecasts 661 -122 31,496 -54 343 99 377 45 76,4 Rallbelt Portion of Yukon-Koyukuk Cantwell FERC Forecasts 97 126 105 33.3 ll4 264 264 250 FYB4 Forecasts i27 112 13l 241 135 189 39 2 i ~ FY85 Car Forecasts t02 62 tl2 54 121 0 27 3 134 0 i40 FY85 ABI Forecasts 102 59 i12 52 l2i 0 l27 0 L34 i FYS5 AB2 Forecasts 102 59 112 52 l21 0 127 134 i40 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 102 59 112 52 i2 0 i27 34 Tabie Summ(jry of Effects on Housing Units FERC License Apptlcatton~ FY84 Car Transportat1on, FYB5 Car and FY85 Air and Sce&~cu~Jos t985-2005 ~ ~~--·-·-·-· Number of Housing Units 1985 1990 1995 l999 2002 2005 Effect BaselIne E Healy FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts l62 25 187 86 216 67 242 74 264 66 290 FY85 Car Forecasts 219 5 272 7 333 375 4 425 0 473 0 FY85 ABl Forecasts 219 ~ 272 I .333 375 I 425 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 2l9 272 2 333 375 425 0 473 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 219 272 l 333 375 425 0 473 0 Nenana FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Nil\ FYB4 Forecasts 246 II 279 41 316 33 35! 36 377 31 408 FY85 Car Forecasts 227 l4 283 25 357 2 4i2 16 475 ' 539 0 FYB5 ABI Forecasts 227 283 3 357 0 412 2 475 539 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 227 283 4 357 412 3 475 539 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 227 283 I 357 0 412 2 475 539 0 Census Area Subtotal FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts 984 172 I ,074 452 L 173 .355 I ~259 394 le328 346 i)40i 340 FY85 Car Forecasts 1,000 81 l ,216 86 ! ~ 356 3 1,420 23 'IJ522 2 1;;602 0 FY85 ABI Forecasts I ,000 6i I ,216 55 I $356 l 111420 2 1_.,522 FY85 AB2 Forecasts I ,000 61 1,2!6 58 I ,356 2 1!1420 4 i, 522 I r602 0 FY85 A83 Forecasts I ~000 6! l,216 53 I ,356 I L~420 2 11,522 lg,602 0 Tab~e 5 Effects on Hou~fng FERC License Appltcation 9 FYB4 C~r nr..r·!l"""'vl on@ FY85 Car I SE Fairbanks C$0. Delta Junction FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A IVA N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 598 0 627 0 634 0 629 0 637 0 FY85 ABI Forecasts 598 0 627 634 0 629 0 637 0 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 598 627 2 634 0 629 I 637 0 633 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 598 0 627 0 634 0 629 0 637 0 0 Cen. Otv. Subtotal FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts 2,445 2,726 5 2,96l 2 3.,089 3 205 I FY85 Car For~casts 3,087 0 3,389 -2 3[J595 0 3, 708 -I 865 0 FY85 ABI Forecasts 3,087 -I 3,389 2 3,595 0 3,708 -l 3@865 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts .3, 087 3 3,389 0 3,595 -I 3~708 2 865 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 3,087 0 3,389 0 3.,595 0 708 0 865 0 3~953 Paxson FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Foracasts N/A N/A N.IA N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A FY85 Ccu-Forecasts 13 0 i5 0 16 0 17 0 iB FY85 ABl Forecasts 13 0 15 0 i6 0 t7 0 !8 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 13 0 15 0 16 0 17 0 18 0 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 13 0 l5 0 16 0 !7 0 i 8 19 0 FERC license Appl1cat FY84 Car and F a1rbanks Area FERC Forecasts 832 N/A 26,007 N/A 598 N/A 548 FY84 Forecasts 021 l52 129 386 719 389 142 385 FYB5 Car Forecasts 32,86t I 12 36, ll6 318 310 lOI 522 255 FY85 ABt forecasts 32,861 ll2 36 .. 116 318 38,310 lOi 522 255 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 32,86l 32~ 36., ll6 694 310 i03 522 505 FY85 A83 Forecasts 32,861 -61 36, t 16 -I 38,310 00 522 47 Total RaJ I belt l/ FERC forecasts 148 N/A 147,583 675 163,948 N/A J 82 11 239 261 F Y84 forecasts 342 308 150, 167 J, 159 ' 500 1»509 172,280 t J 508 FY85 Car Forecasts 162, lOS 630 172,741 1.657 J 884 18 016 i 821 I ,52! FY85 ABI Forecasts i62 108 629 n2, 74t I ,657 185,864 l ,0!6 821 1[1523 FY85 AB2 Forecasts i62, 108 629 172,741 I ,654 18511884 i,OI6 821 i 1)523 FV85 AB3 Forecasts 162, i08 628 172,741 I 658 185-884 i' 016 821 1,525 Not Avatlable or Not Appl!cable- Effects under the FERC Lfcense Application Scenario are deffned by FERC Forecastse E fects under the FYB4 Car Transportation Scenario are deflned by FY84 forecasts~ Effects under the FY85 Car Transportatlon Scenar1o are defined by FY85 Car forecasts@ Effects under· the FY8S Alr and Bus Scenarios are def1ned FY85 AB forecasts Air and Bus Scenario/ construct on worker htr1ng in Anchorage - forecasts refer to effects under the Alr and Bus Scenar constructlon worker hirtng tn Fairbanks, AB3 forecasts to effects under Alr and construction worker htrtng s .. Source Frank Orth & Assoc1 Inc .. , 1985~ 2!2 41 50 41 100 4t 126 202~ l68 I 804 655 655 999 205 655 999 620 655 19 001 FERC license Appl1catton, Anchorage Area Mun. of Anchorage FERC Forecasts 3,496 N/A FY84 Forecas·ts 5,865 -50 FY85 Car Forecasts 12,020 -110 FY85 ABI Forecasts 12,020 -209 FYB5 AB2 Forecasts 12,020 -49 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 12a020 -573 Mat-Su Borough Palmer FERC Forecasts 54 N/A FY84 Forecasts 30 ... g FY85 Car Forecasts 85 -36 FY85 ABI Forecasts 85 -19 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 85 -13 FYB5 AB3 Forecasts 85 -25 Wasilla FERC Forecasts 46 N/A FY84 Forecasts 156 -II FY85 Car Forecasts 121 -39 FY85 ABI Forecasts 121 -22 FY85 A82 Forecasts 121 -!5 FY85 A83 Forecasts 121 -26 4,033 6,424 11,830 II ,830 ll ,830 I I ,830 78 41 93 93 93 93 70 229 lBO 180 180 180 Tabla 5.5 on" FY85 1985-2005 Vacant Housing Unl·ts 1995 -213 4,196 N/A -63 6,682 -483 -354 11.;860 -99 -494 II ,860 -66 -207 i I ,860 -58 -742 I i ,860 -72 -17 96 N/A -33 49 -28 -66 117 2 -4! 117 ~2 -28 117 -2 -52 I i 7 -2 -20 106 N/A -39 335 -32 -71 273 3 -45 273 -2 -.32 273 -2 -55 273 -2 and 483 N/A 860 -i7 6,781 -416 611810 -589 I i "733 -367 II ,850 -410 11,733 -452 I ,850 -435 I i, 730 -!94 II, 733 .... 258 I ~ s . d .. -393 H 730 -I I I, 733 -613 n Be;.., "~-I~, 730 -19·~ 115 -14 129 t43 56 -31 63 -27 70 ~27 135 -37 155 I 75 135 -23 i55 ""':s 175 l35 -!5 55 -2 75 1.35 =30 155 75 148 ..,!7 184 NIP, 454 -35 572 =30 365 -40 469 ~5 365 -25 469 365 -l7 469 '"'3 365 -31 469 i ~•a-~ 0</.,c~ ·~I FERC LJcer.se Applt Houston FERC Forecasts 15 N/A 25 -15 FY84 forecasts 63 -10 102 -36 FY85 Car 97 -19 128 -35 FY85 ABI 97 -10 l28 -22 FYtl5 AB2 Forecasts 97 -7 128 -j5 FY85 AB) Forecasts 97 -t3 l28 -27 Talkeetna FERC Forecasts 5 -7 7 -87 FY84 26 -l6 2! -59 FY85 Car Forecasts 56 -a 51 -49 FY85 ABl Forecasts 56 -4 5l -43 FY85 AB2 forecasts 56 -2 5l -4l FY85 AB3 56 -4 51 -45 Creek FERC Forecasts -9 -i 14 FY84 Forecasts 9 -23 lO -86 FY85 Car foreca~ts 29 -7 30 -15 FY85 ABI Forecasts 29 -4 30 -9 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 29 -2 30 -6 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 29 -5 30 -ll Suburban FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts 2,706 -34 3,402 1 i FY85 Car Forecasts I -I I 1 FY85 ABI Forecasts 90l -66 -142 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 2 -46 -102 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 901 -8.3 ~t76 on Vacant FY85 Car 1985-2005 Vacant 42 165 217 217 217 217 9 24 50 50 50 50 12 32 32 32 32 Nit\ 934 283 3,283 ng UnJts N/A -28 2 0 0 0 -67 -46 -I 0 0 0 -70 -67 0 0 0 0 0 =10 62 i2 26 47 2 l2 32 32 Bus -13 -31 -28 -20 -11 -2 0 -7 0 -15 ..... 2 -77 14 16 -51 27 28 -36 45 42 -33 45 -i -31 45 0 -34 -I 0 !3 14 -8 33 33 -4 -2 -5 Table 5~ 5 ect Effects on Vacant Housi FERC License Application~ FY84 Car Jon, FY85 Car FY85 1985-2005 ~-""'--· .~·-~· ---~~"''"'-~"'"'~"""" Vacant Housing Units &995 Rura 1/Remc.Yte FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts 895 ... 14 508 -47 459 -37 488 -42 506 -38 522 F¥85 Car Forecasts 553 -17 536 -30 509 0 472 -16 441 -2 FY85 ABI Forecasts 553 -10 536 --23 509 -2 472 -l2 441 -3 FYB5 AB2 Forecasts 553 -7 536 -17 509 -2 472 -9 441 -3 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 553 -13 536 -27 509 -2 472 -16 441 -I 393 Borough Subtotal FERC F or·ecasts I ,803 -38 2,336 -836 2,672 -658 3,002 -116 400 -527 FY84 Forecasts 3,862 -111 4,299 -766 4D975 -625 51 I -719 923 -574 310 FY85 Car Forecasts 3,846 -243 4,085 . -630 4,464 -338 4,728 -632 988 -271 157 FY85 ABt Forecasts 3,846 -135 4,085 -675 4,464 -366 4,728 -539 988 -266 157 79 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 3,846 -92 4fJ085 -591 4/)464 -366 4,728 -487 988 -258 157 .,.179 FY85 AB3 forecasts 30 846 -169 4,085 -743 464 -366 4,728 -584 988 157 -t 19 Kenai PenA Borough Soldotna FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N./A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/P,, FY84 Forecasts N!A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Nff,. N/1\ FY85 Car Forecasts 226 -3 240 -4 258 268 -i 279 s FY85 ABl Forecasts 226 0 240 3 258 268 2 279 FYe5 AB2 Forecasts 226 0 240 2 258 0 268 279 0 285 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 226 0 240 3 258 -2 268 279 0 FERC License Appltcatton, FY84 Car Saward FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 120 -5 lOI -5 FY85 ABI Forecasts 120 -5 101 -7 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 120 -4 101 -5 FY85 AB3 forecasts ,20 -6 101 -8 Homer FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 276 -2 283 -3 FY85 ABl Forecasts 276 -4 283 -4 FY85 A82 Forecasts 276 -2 283 -3 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 276 -4 283 -6 Kenal FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 506 -2 509 _, FY85 ABl Forecasts 508 -4 509 -3 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 508 -2 509 -2 FV85 A83 Forecasts 508 -5 509 -5 Table 5 .. 5 Effects on Vacant ~~using Un FY85 Car on~ ~985~2005 Vacant Housing Units 1995 N/A N/A WA N/A 99 2 99 I 99 i 99 N/A N/A N/A N/A 292 I 292 0 292 I 292 l N/A N/A N/A N/A 5!1 3 5il 2 511 0 51 t 2 N/A 96 96 96 96 N/A N/A 292 292 292 292 N/A N/A 498 498 498 498 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ... 4 95 -I I -4 95 -i -3 95 0 91 -5 95 -2 91 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A -2 297 0 293 -3 297 293 0 ... , 297 0 293 0 -3 297 0 0 N/A N/A 'N/A N/A N/A -I 493 -2 493 -l 493 -4 493 473 -~-·---··~. Effects on Vacant Housing FERC Ltcense Appl1catfon, .,.nc:n.r.r1r•~1r~On 11 FV85 Car FY85 1985-2005 Healy FERC F on~casts N/A ~VA N/A FY84 Forecasts 40 -25 46 FY85 Car Forecasts 21 -5 26 FY85 ABI Forecasts 2! -f 26 FYB5 AB2 Forecasts 2l -I 26 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 21 -I 26 Nenana FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A FY84 forecasts 61 -II 69 FY85 Car Forecasts 21 -!4 26 FY85 ABI Forecasts 21 -i 26 FY85 A82 Forecasts 21 -I 26 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 21 -I 26 Census Area Subtotal FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts 243 -172 265 FY85 Car Forecasts 272 -81 300 FY65 ABi forecasts 272 =6i 300 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 272 -61 300 FY85 A83 Forecasts 272 -61 300 N/A -86 -7 -I -2 -I N/A -4! =25 -3 -4 -i N/A -452 -86 -55 -58 -53 Tab 5 .. 5 Effects on Vacant fYB5 Car 1985-2005 Vacant Housing Units l995 N/A NIA 53 -67 32 32 -I 32 -i 32 -i NIA 7& -33 33 ,-'2 33 0 33 -i 33 0 N/A N/A 290 -355 335 -3 335 -! 335 -2 335 -j N/A N/A Nil\ N/A N/A 60 -74 65 -66 72 36 -4 41 45 36 -I I 0 36 -I 41 0 45 36 ... I 41 0 45 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 87 -36 93 -:::H !01 ..,31 38 -16 44 ~,. i 50 38 -2 44 ""' 50 38 -3 44 -I 50 0 38 -2 44 50 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 31 I -394 328 -346 35! -23 376 -2 396 351 <»2 376 ~I 0 351 ~4 376 -l 396 35! -2 376 -I Surnmf'ry of Effects on V~5cant Housing Un 1 ts FERC Ltcer.se Applicat1on, FY84 Car Transportat1onD FY85 Car A1r !985-2005 SE Fairbanks CoOs De I tc~ Junct Jon FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ~/A M/A FY84 forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 151 0 l49 0 141 0 132 0 126 0 122 0 FY85 ABI Forecasts 151 0 149 -J 14l 0 132 0 126 0 122 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts '51 -i 149 -2 141 0 132 -I 128 0 J22 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts l51 0 i49 0 141 0 132 0 128 0 122 0 Cen, DJv. Subtotal FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts 122 -I 136 -5 !48 -2 154 -3 !60 -I -I FY85 Car Forecasts 956 0 I ,015 2 1,041 0 I ,044 i 1,065 0 FY85 AB! Forecasts 956 i I ,015 -2 I ,041 0 I ,044 i 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 956 -3 I ,015 0 1,041 l I 044 -2 i !1065 0 I ,066 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 956 0 I ,015 0 1,041 0 i ,044 0 I 0 I ,066 0 Paxson FERC Forecasts N/A t.l/ A N/A N/A N/A N/A ~'i/A N/A F YB4 Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A WA N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 0 0 0 i 0 0 0 FY85 ABI Forecasts 0 0 0 0 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 0 0 0 0 0 0 FY85 AB3 Foreca~ts 0 0 0 0 0 FERC License Appl1catlon, FY84 C~r Efracts on FY85 Car 1985-2005 Vacant Hous1ng Untts 1995 fairbanks Area fERC Forecasts ~ 11278 N/A I ,334 N/A ! .~~457 N/A 1,598 NJA FY84 Forecasts I, 351 17 I ,506 66 l ,636 -34 ~ 11707 9 FY85 Car Forecasts 6,49' -112 6,784 -318 6,832 -101 6, 745 -255 FY85 ABI Forecasts 6,491 -112 6,784 -318 6,832 -101 6,745 -255 FYB5 AB2 Forecasts 6,49l -321 6,784 -694 6,832 -103 6s 745 -505 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 6,491 61 6,784 l 6,832 -100 6,745 -41 Total Rai I belt N/A II FERC Forecasts 7,347 N/A 8,645 N/A 9,430 N/A 10,344 -261 FY84 Forecasts II ,876 -308 13,176 -l,159 14,376 -1,509 15,191 -1,508 FY85 Car Forecasts 26,900 -630 27,500 -l,657 28,293 -I ,016 28,537 -1,521 FY85 ABI Forecasts 26,900 -629 27,500 -1,657 28,29.3 -1,016 28,537 -a.., 523 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 26,900 -629 27,500 -I' 654 28,29' -1,016 28,537 -&,523 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 26,900 -628 27,500 -l,658 28,293 -1 11 0!6 28,537 -I ,525 Not Ava1 iable or Not Appltcablee Effects under the fERC Ltcense Application Scenario are deftned by FERC Forecastse Effects under the FY84 Car Transportatlon Scenarto are defined by FY84 forecastse Effects under the FYB5 Car Transportation Scenario are def1ned by FY85 Car forecasts. ',820 NIA l '77' -64 792 -150 6,792 -150 792 -HID 61i792 -126 I; ,496 N/A 15,647 -1 9 598 29,~99 -999 29,199 -999 29a199 -999 29mi99 -1,001 Effects under the FY85 Air and Bus Sc..;,,arros are detlned by FY85 AS forecasts where AB! forecasts refer Alr and Bus Scenarlo/ 77% construct1on worker hlring ln Anchorage-construct worker htr1 1 forecasts refer to effects under the Air and Bus Scenario/ 50% construction worker htrlng tn worker hlr1ng 1n Fatrbanks, AB3 forecasts refer to affects under Air and Bus Scanar t constructlon Anchorage -0% construction worker hJrJng Jn Fafrbankso Source: Frank Orth & Assoclates, Inc., 1985~ i 1)933 i ,843 -76 706 -11 706 -11 706 706 -1.,552 -620 -620 -620 Table 5a6 Effects on Net Worker Mi on FERC Llcense Applfcat1on, FY84 Car FY85 Car Air Seen ar § os J.! 1985-2005 Number of Migrating Workers 1985 1990 1995 1999 2002 2005 ~rea/Copmupttt Baseline Effect Basel t ne Effect Basel Ina Effect 8asel1 ne Effect Baseline Effect Basalt ne Ef Anchorage Area Mun. of Anchorage FERC Forecasts N/A l55 N/A 250 N/A -179 N/A -12 N/A -182 N/A -l04 FY84 Forecasts N/A 99 N/A 225 N/A 485 N/A 421 N/A 598 625 FYB5 Car Forecasts N/A 103 N/A 296 N/A 51 N/A 301 N/A 358 198 FY85 ABI Forecasts N/A 228 N/A 481 WA 19 N/A 410 N/A 365 !29 FY85 AB2 Forecasts N/A 73 N/A 202 N/A 8 N/A 226 N/A 344 129 FY85 A83 Forecasts N/A 359 N/A 724 N/A 24 NIA 563 N/A 387 J29 Mat-Su Borough FERC Forecasts N/A 38 N/A 836 N/A 658 N/A 716 N/A 528 FY84 Forecasts N/A 122 N/A 789 N/A 693 N/A 845 N/A 583 N/A 170 FY85 Car Forecasts N/A 247 N/A 9!1 N/A 364 N/A 68l N/A 278 N/A 179 FY85 ABI Forecasts N/A t35 N/A 712 N/A 391 N/A 565 N/A 270 179 FYB5 AB2 Forecasts N/A 93 N/A 631 N/A 392 N/A 515 N/A 264 N/A 179 FY85 AB3 Forecasts N/A 169 N/A 776 N/A 391 N/A 607 N/A 271 N/A I Kenai Penln. Borough FERC Forecasts N/A 1 N/A -7 N/A -26 N/A -18 N/A -27 N/A FY84 Forecasts N/A -7 N/A -43 N/A 22 N/A -2 N/A 34 FY85 Car Forecasts N/A 8 N/A -44 N/A -21 N/A -9 N/A -I N/A -7 FY85 ABI Forecasts N/A !8 N/A l N/A -l6 N/A -l -2 0 FYb5 AB2 Forecasts N/A 10 N/A -4 N/A -9 N/A =4 N/A -2 N/A 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts N/A 23 N/A 3 N/A -21 N/A 2 N/A =4 N/A Tab 5.,6 on- FERC L1censa Appiicatton, FY84 Car and 1965.,.2005 Table 5.6 Summary of Project Effects on Net Worker Mt FERC License Application, FY84 Cor Transportatlone FY65 Car Transportation~ and FY85 Afr and Bus Scenarios 1985-2005 Number of Migrating Workers 1985 i990 1995 199~ 2002 2005 Area/Communlty Baseltne Effect Baseline Effect Basel Ina Effect Baseline Effect Baseline Effect BasaiYna Effect SE Fairbanks C.D. FERC Forecasts FY84 Forecasts FY85 Car forecasts FY85 ABI Forecasts FY65 AB2 Forecasts FY85 AB3 Forecasts Falrbanks Area Subtotal FERC Forecasts FY84 Forecasts FY85 Car Forecasts FY85 AB! Forecasts FY85 A82 Forecasts FYB5 AB3 Forecasts Tot a I Ra r I be I t FERC Forecasts FY84 Forecasts FY85 Car Forecasts FY85 ABI Forecasts FY85 AB2 Forecasts FY85 A83 Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 I 0 -3 8 0 29 16i 215 210 413 40 229 375 573 59! 589 591 N/A Not Available or Not Applicable. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NJA N/A N/A 0 5 -7 2 -5 0 -58 401 309 319 663 22 N/A I ,021 N/A I ,372 N/A 1,502 N/A 1,5i3 N/A 1,492 N/A l, 525 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 2 0 -3 0 -Ill 40l 90 90 89 89 N/A 342 N/A i ,601 N/A 484 N/A 484 N/A 482 N/A 482 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA 0 3 -3 -3 2 0 -92 395 235 235 464 48 N/A 596 N/A I ,659 N/A I, 208 N/A 1,209 N/A I, 195 N/A 1,218 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 I 0 0 0 0 -117 418 r52 132 160 HO N/A 202 N/A I ~633 N/A 767 N/A 765 N/A 766 N/A 764 1/ Worker mlgratfon 1s defJned as the net number of workers that in-migrate to, or out-m1grate mlgratfon at the communfty level fs not avatlable. 2/ Effects under the FERC License Application Scenarto are defined by FERC Forecasts. Effects under the FY84 Car Transportation Scenario are defined by FY84 Forecastse Effects under the FY85 Car Transportatlon Scenario are defined by FY85 Car Forecasts. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A WA N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 424 6t 61 61 61 N/A N/A N/A I ~'219 N/A 431 N/A 369 N/A 369 WA 369 each area. Worker Effects under the FY85 Alr and Bus Scenarios are deftned FY85 AB forecasts where AB! forecasts refer to ef1ects under Air and Bus Scenarlo/ 77% construction worker hlrlng ln Anchorage -23% construct1on worker hlring tn Fairbanks, forecasts refer to effects under the A!r end Bus Scenarto/ 50% construction worker hlring ln constructlon worker hlring In Fairbanks, A83 forecasts refer to effects under Air and Bus Scenario/! Anchorage-0$ constructlon worker hiring in Fairbanks. construct~on ~orker hlrt Table 5o7 Summary of Project Effects on Net Popuiat,on FERC L1cense Appltcatton, FY84 Car Transportation, FY85 Car Transportation~ and FY85 Air 1985-2005 Number of People i985 1990 1995 1999 2002 2005 Area/Community BaselIne Effect Baseline Effect BaselIne Effect Basel J ne Effect Basel ina Effect Basel t ne EftfJCt Anchorage Area Mun. of Anchorage FERC Forecasts N/A 435 -795 126 2,208 ··118 3f634 39 3,565 -199 N/A N/A FY84 forecasts 511698 142 6,477 88 -73 102 955 -14 I ,276 369 I ,837 FY85 Car Forecasts 3,211 289 3,362 232 -I, 937 -292 -537 166 557 ~22 I~ 174 -165 FYB5 ABl Forecast• 3,211 639 3.~~2 392 -I .II 937 -229 -537 128 557 -6 I, I 74 -197 FYB5 AB2 Forecasts 3,2l I 204 3/1362 316 -1,937 -443 -537 183 557 120 I, 174 -197 F vs:; AB3 Forecasts 3,21 I I 0 004 3,:362 480 -1,937 -66 -537 97 557 -105 ~ 11174 -197 Mat-·Su Borough FERC Forecasts 3,127 110 j jl421 282 2,619 -46 3,338 l5 3§564 -93 4 8 i 14 N/A FY84 Forecasts 2,427 1,340 3,083 888 1,.985 -466 2,452 92 2,734 -I ,044 3 0 149 -I FY85 Car Forecasts I ,603 743 I, 788 268 971 59 1,353 -46 1,678 -286 ~ ,924 ~29 FY85 ABI Forecasts I ,603 366 I, 788 8J 971 -I I ,353 -7 10 678 -!52 1,924 0 FYB5 AB2 Forecasts I ,603 248 I, 788 61 971 -I I ,353 10 L,678 -1 i2 a g 924 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts i ,603 458 I" 788 88 971 -& 1,353 -12 I 0 678 -170 !,924 0 Kenai Penin. Borough FERC Forecasts N/A 20 N/A -5 N/A -6 N/A 2 N/A -12 N/A i'l./A FY84 Forecasts 11497 N/A I ,841 N/A 860 N/A I II 142 N/A I 0 290 N/A I D::H4 N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 1,375 22 I ,520 ···3 618 10 981 9 t,284 35 j ,501 -3 FY85 ABI Forecasts ~ ~ 375 49 ~, 520 24 618 7 98! 8 1,284 29 I 0 FY85 AB2 For·ecasts I, 375 29 I, 520 -i2 618 4 981 2 I 8 284 22 I D 501 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts i ,375 63 1 '520 8 618 -6 981 -3 I p284 J7 I p501 0 Table 5o7 Summary of Project Effects on Net Population FERC License Appllcatton~ FY84 Car Transportation, fY85 Car and FY85 Air ScenfJrYos 1985-2005 """"----~-Number of People 1985 1990 ;995 1999 2002 2005 Area/Community Baseline Effect Baseline Effect Basal l ne Effect Basel t ne Effect Basel f ne Effect Basal 1ne Effect Anchorage Area Subtotal FERC Forecasts N/A 565 N/A 403 NIA -no N/A 57 N/A -30.3 N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts 9,622 N/A II, 401 NN\ 2,772 N/A 4,549 N/A 5,300 N/A 6,500 N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 6,188 l ,054 6,671 497 -347 -223 I, 798 129 3,518 -129 4,599 -197 FY85 ABI Forecasts 6,J88 ',054 6,671 497 -347 -223 I, 798 129 3,518 -129 4,599 -197 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 6,l86 481 6,671 365 -347 -440 I, 798 195 3,518 30 4~599 -197 FY85 AB3 forecasts 6,188 I, 525 6,671 576 -347 -73 I, 798 82 311518 -256 41)599 -197 Fairbanks Area Folrbanks-N.S~ Bor. FERC Foracasts 7, i 95 WA i45 -37 I ?&:\7 . , ........ -17 I • 710 5 I, 763 -32 1,873 N/A FY84 forecasts I ,628 -48 2,381 72 510 40 879 -3 i 9! 15 105 I 0 FY85 Car Forecasts 702 -98 798 92 -481 -II 479 19 550 -IH 775 -38 FY85 AB! Forecasts 702 -9 798 114 -481 -1 479 iS 550 -134 775 -38 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 702 547 798 224 -481 2i0 479 -51 550 -297 775 -38 FYB5 AB3 Forecasts 102 -480 798 42 -481 -171 479 62 550 I 775 -38 Rallbeit Portion of Yukon-Koyukuk FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FYB4 Forecasts 30 500 32 270 34 -20 36 12 37 -49 39 I FY85 Car Forecasts 26 414 37 35 36 7 36 -7 49 -25 49 0 FY85 ABI Forecasts 26 328 37 0 36 3 36 -3 49 -2 49 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 26 328 37 0 36 5 36 -2 49 -2 49 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 26 328 31 2 36 3 36 0 49 -2 49 0 Table 5.7 Summary of Project Effects on Net Population FERC L1cense Appl1cattone FY84 Car Transportation, FY85 Car and FY85 Air and 1985-2005 of Peopie 1985 1990 1995 !999 ~rea/Commun1ty Basel1ne Effect BaselIne Effect Baseline Effect Basel 1 ne Effect SE Fatrbanks CoD. FERC Forecasts 696 N/A 14 • 122 0 165 0 FY84 Forecasts 162 N/A 237 N/A 61 N/A 88 N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 45 0 51 -4 -70 0 16 0 FY85 ABI Forecasts 45 -3 51 9 -70 0 16 ... :; FYB5 AB2 Forecasts 45 10 51 0 -70 0 16 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 45 0 51 0 -70 0 16 0 Falrbanks Area FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A -36 N/A -17 N/A 5 FY84 forecasts I, 790 N/A 2,618 N/A 571 Nl:\ 967 N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 773 316 887 123 -515 -4 532 12 FY85 ABi Forecasts 773 316 887 123 -515 -4 532 12 FYB5 AB2 Forecasts 773 885 887 224 -515 215 532 -53 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 773 -152 887 44 -515 -168 532 62 Total Rat I belt FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts il,442 N/A 14,05l N/A 3,377 N/A 5,552 N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 6, 961 I ,370 7,558 619 -862 -178 2.,330 146 FY85 ABI Forecasts 6,961 I ,369 7,558 620 -862 -173 2,330 138 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 6,961 I ,370 7,558 615 -862 -172 2/}330 141 FY85 A83 Forecasts 6,961 I, 372 7,558 621 -862 -171 2 .. .330 143 NIA Not Ava! lable or Not Appl1cable. 1/ Effects under the FERC License Application Scenario are defined by FERC Forecastsa Effects under the FY84 Car lransportatton Scenario are defined by FY84 Forecasts. Effects under the FY85 Csr Transportation Scenario are deftned by FY85 Car Forecasts. 2002 BaselIne Effect 156 0 ill N/A 23 3 23 3 23 7 23 0 N/A -32 1,226 N/A 623 -133 623 -133 623 -292 623 -I N/A N/A 6 11 563 N/A 4 8 141 -692 41' 141 -686 4,141 -684 4,!41 -688 2005 Base!~ ne feci· -q~--0---- !64 NIA 129 NIA 41 0 I 0 41 0 41 0 N/A N/A lc42E· N!A 666 -38 866 -38 866 ~:sa 866 "'38 N/A N/A 7,967 N/A 511 465 =234 5 11 465 ~235 59465 ~235 ~235 Effects under the FY85 Atr and Bus Scenarios are defined by FY85 AB forecasts where AB& forecasts refer to effects under Air and Bus Scenario/ 11% construction worker hiring in Anchorage -23% construction \i'~Orksr htrtng ln Fi:lt-:_a:lksn AB2 forecasts refer to effects under the Atr and Bus Scenario/ construction worker htrfng in construct worker htrtng tn Fairbanks, AB3 forecasts refer to effects under Atr and Bus Scenarto/1 Anchorage -O% construction worker hiring tn Fairbanks. Source: Frank Orth & Associates~ inc a 1985. constructlon worker rir.g tn Tabla 5.,8 of Project Effects on Average Annual Tratf lc Vo I umes FY84 C~r Transportation, FY85 Car Transportation!' FY85 r and Bus Scenarios J! 1985-2005 Number of TrIps 1985 1990 1995 1999 2002 2005 Anchorage Area Anch. to Palmer/Wastlla FY84 Forecasts 12,958 130 19,388 422 7,694 60 9,422 70 10,670 so N/A N/A FY85 Car forecasts 14,716 172 20,144 358 26,194 20 32,324 . ~6 036 140 U2 -72 FY85 ABI Forecasts 14,716 no 20,144 302 26,194 72 32!1'324 ·6 3711036 140 lt2 FY85 A82 Forecasts 14,716 86 20, 144 202 26,194 58 32,324 I 8 37,036 128 112 66 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 14, 7&6 160 20,144 390 26,194 84 32,324 3. 4 31,036 152 42,112 66 Palmer to Anch./Wasrlla FY84 Forecasts 7,578 42 II, 024 l46 13,224 132 151)914 1:14 l8,212 130 N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 7,998 128 10,456 272 i 3,336 8 16,268 I fJ4 I 8,570 58 21,.094 -6 FY85 ABI Forecasts 7,998 80 10,456 208 13~338 28 16,268 l50 18,570 56 21, 0~ 4 26 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 7,998 54 i0,456 138 I 3, 338 24 16.,268 100 18,570 50 21,09· 26 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 7,998 106 10,456 268 t3,338 34 I 188 18,570 62 21 26 Wast I Ia to Anch./Palmer FY84 Forecasts I I, 484 148 16,944 460 5,330 72 6,492 84 7..,542 70 N/,4. N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 12,570 216 16-904 414 21,944 4 27,184 288 31,358 98 36e01 -26 FY85 ABt Forecasts 12,570 150 16,904 318 2l, 944 52 27,184 236 3l,358 98 36,01 46 FY85 A82 Forecasts 12.570 108 16,904 224 21,944 42 184 158 31 '358 86 01} FY85 AB3 Forecasts 12,570 178 16,904 402 21 J 944 58 184 294 31,358 106 3 Tc.,b ie 5o6 Annual Traffic Volumes FY84 Car Transportattonc FY85 Car and FY85 Air and Bus Scenarlos 1965·"2005 Number of Trips 1985 1990 1995 1999 2002 .2005 Area/Ccmmuntty Basel1 ne Effect Baseltne Effect Basellne Effect Basal ine Effect Basal ina Effect BaselY ne Effect Wasilla to Houston FYB4 Forecasts 6,096 192 9, 102 608 22;'790 272 28,652 316 3311938 294 /A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 6,630 252 9,342 436 13,038 -16 17,266 248 21,248 36 26,; 74 28 FY85 ABI Forecasts 6,630 l58 9,342 298 13,038 IB 17,266 164 21,248 46 26;):1..74 16 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 6,630 122 9,342 2i6 13,038 14 17,266 lOB 21,248 34 26,274 16 FY85 A83 Forecasts 6,630 166 9,342 362 !3,038 16 17.,266 210 21,248 48 26,274 16 Houston to TK Spur Road FY84 Forecasts i 1732 144 2p402 432 3,106 248 3,740 328 4,280 238 N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 1,898 J02 2,490 130 3,154 -10 3,634 70 4,378 &2 4,994 -4 FY85 ABI Forecasts I ,898 72 2.490 80 3,154 8 3,834 38 4,378 16 4,994 6 FY85 AB2 Forecasts l ,898 64 2,490 66 3,154 6 3,834 30 4,378 10 41 994 6 FY85 AB3 Forecasts I, 898 70 2.490 92 3,154 4 3,834 52 4,378 16 4,994 6 TK Rd. Spur toT. Creek FY84 Forecasts I, 352 154 1,816 472 2.,250 268 2,670 342 3,028 250 N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 1,486 I 12 1.894 116 2,346 -12 2,806 52 3,174 10 3,592 0 FY85 ABI Forecasts I ,486 80 1.~~894 68 2,346 6 2,806 18 3, l74 14 3,592 4 FY85 AB2 forecasts I ,486 74 I !J894 50 2,346 4 2,806 16 3,&74 6 3,592 FY85 AB3 Forecasts I ,486 78 1.894 72 2,346 2 2.806 32 3,£74 14 31'592 4 T a I keetna Road FY84 Forecasts 676 38 950 128 111264 88 I I 538 98 10 780 84 N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 704 22 932 62 ,, l92 2 ! ~460 38 18680 0 ifJ930 0 FYB5 ABI Forecast~ 704 20 932 46 I, 192 2 I, 460 32 1,680 6 111 930 2 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 704 14 932 36 19 192 2 !,460 26 1,680 4 i 2 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 704 20 932 56 I, 192 2 1»460 36 I ,680 6 !0 930 2 Tebie 5.8 Summary of Project Effects on Average Annual Tratf tc VohAmes FY84 Car Transportat1on, FY85 Car Transportat!on, and FY85 Alr and Bus Scenarios 1985-2005 Number ips 1985 1990 &995 1999 2002 2005 Area/Community Base 11 ne Effect Base ll ne Effect Basel J ne Effect Basel t ne Effect Baseline Effect Baseline Effect , ___ Trapper Cr. to Cantwell F !84 F oracasts I ,022 130 I, 354 390 i ~646 218 I ,944 294 311198 204 N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts I, 136 110 1,446 84 lp 782 -12 2,120 36 2,396 10 2117l4 4 FY85 ABl Forecasts I I 136 84 I, 446 44 I, 782 4 2,120 8 2,396 12 2!1714 2 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 1,136 78 1;446 38 I ,782 4 2,120 12 211396 4 2,714 2 FY85 AB3 Forecasts I, 136 78 I ,446 44 I, 782 0 2,120 20 2 0 396 l4 714 2 Fairbanks Area Cantwell to Healy FY84 Forecasts 1,176 224 I, 5.30 644 I, 918 472 2,270 566 2,586 482 N/A N/P. FY85 Car Forecasts I ,508 196 I ,960 118 2,488 -2 3,0t8 42 3,482 4 4s002 -2 FY85 ABl Forecasts I ~508 168 111960 72 2,488 4 3,018 10 311482 6 4,002 0 FY85 A82 Forecasts 11508 166 I ,960 74 2,468 6 3,018 12 3,482 6 4,002 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 1,508 160 I ,960 68 2,488 4 3,018 10 3,482 6 4DQQ2 0 He a I y to Nenana FY84 Forecasts 924 68 I, &90 230 1,472 152 I, 724 196 ~, ~46 i62 N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts I ,038 46 1,310 50 I ,624 -4 I ,948 26 21'228 4 2,552 -2 FY85 ABI Forecasts I ,038 32 I, 310 20 I j/624 4 I ,948 10 2 9 228 6 2.,552 2 FY85 AB2 Forecasts I ,038 36 1,310 26 I ,624 6 I, 948 12 21l228 6 2 0 552 2 FY85 AB3 Forecasts I ,038 18 I ,310 1'2 I ,.624 2 I ,948 10 2,228 6 2»552 '2 Nenana to Fairbanks FY8t'; r vr-ecasts I I 316 48 1,656 168 2,000 112 2,316 146 2c584 118 N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts I, 310 36 I ,580 46 1,878 -4 2,200 28 211'476 8 211798 FY85 ABI Forecasts I, 310 24 I, 580 20 1,878 8 2,200 10 2e476 8 2"798 4 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 16 310 32 I ,580 32 j ,878 12 2,200 16 2,476 10 2,798 4 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 1,310 -2 I, 580 8 I ,878 21 2,200 10 2,476 10 2~798 ~u~u~ .. ,~ Annual Traff Volumes FY84 Summary of Transportatton~ and FV85 and Bus Scenar 1985 Cantwell to Project AR FY84 Forecasts 70 118 FY85 Car Forecasts 74 146 FY85 ABI Forecasts 74 102 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 74 !02 FYS5 AB3 Forecasts 74 102 Paxson to Project AR FY84 Forecasts 70 8 FY85 Car Forecasts 74 2 FY85 ABI Forecasts 4 2 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 74 2 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 74 2 Project Access Road FERC Forecasts 2/ 0 N/A FYB4 Forecasts 0 308 FYB5 Car Forecasts 0 .. 186 FY85 ABI Forecasts 0 144 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 0 144 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 0 144 N/A Not Avatlable or Not Appltcablee AR Access Road 1990 96 86 86 86 86 9b 86 86 86 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 Number of t ps 1995 348 120 162 100 102 100 102 100 102 iOO 22 120 2 100 2 100 2 100 2 100 706 0 724 0 224 0 168 0 168 0 166 0 t/ Effects under the FERC Ltcense Appl1cat1on Scenarlo are defined Effects under the FY84 Car Transportation Scenarto are def,ned by 1999 D2 146 224 86 110 62 32 110 32 32 110 32 32 I tO 32 10 146 16 2 ItO 2 2 110 2 2 110 2 2 llO 2 N/A 0 N/A 168 0 396 26 0 98 44 0 70 44 0 70 44 0 68 FERC Forecasts. FY84 Forecasts. Effects under the FY85 Car Transportatlon Scenarto are defined by FY85 Car Forecasts~ Effects under the FY65 Air and Bus Scenartos are defined by FY85 AB forecasts where AB! Afr and Bus Scenarlo/ 77'/; constructfon worker hfring tn Anchorage -23% construct ton forecasts refer to effects under the Alr and Bus Scenario/ constructton worker hfr!ng 2002 168 120 120 120 l20 168 120 !20 120 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 worker h in !16 32 32 32 32 0 0 0 0 N/A 120 34 34 34 34 worker htrtng fn Fatrbanks, AB3 forecasts refer to effects under Atr and Bus Scenarto/1 construct ton Anchorage -0% construct1on worker hfrtng fn Fairbanks. 21 Etfec..ts under the FERC L t cense provlded under the FERC forecasts for the only~ Forecasts for other road were not' So11rce: Frt1nk Or+h 1\ A ..:;c.;r.r t ?!fAc lOR') 2005 N/A N/A !32 2 132 2 32 2 132 2 N/A 132 0 132 0 \32 0 132 0 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 Table 5.9 ~ummary of Effects on Number of Trucks FY84 Car Transportation, FY85 Car Transportatlon, and FY85 Air and Bus Scenarios 1985-2005 1905 1990 1995 1999 2002 2005 Area/Road Segment Basell ne Effect Basellne Effect BaselIne Effect Bose II ne Effect Basel t ne Effect Baseline Effect Anchorage Area Anch. to Palmer/Wasilla FY84 Forecasts 668 5 969 16 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ·,~/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 736 8 I ,007 n I, 310 2 I ,616 14 I ,852 7 2" 106 -4 FY85 ABi Forecasts 736 6 1,007 15 I ,310 4 I ,6l6 13 1,852 7 2,106 3 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 736 4 I ,007 10 I ,310 3 1;,616 9 I, 852-6 2!1106 3 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 736 7 I ,007 19 I ,310 4 I ,6l 6 !6 I D852 8 2,106 3 Palmer to Anch./Wastlla FY84 Forecasts 799 4 I, 102 10 l ,384 12 1,660 12 1,894 12 N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts BOO 13 I ,046 27 l ,334 I I ,627 18 1,857 6 i09 -I FY85 AB! Forecasts 800 8 t ,046 21 1,334 3 I ,627 15 I ,857 6 2,109 3 FY85 A82 Forecasts 600 5 I ,046 14 1,334 2 I ,627 10 111857 5 2 11 109 .3 FY85 A83 Forecasts 800 II I ,046 27 ',334 3 I ,627 19 I ,857 6 2,109 3 Wasilla to Anche/Palmer FY84 Forecasts 734 8 I ,017 22 354 6 428 1 494 6 N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 754 12 I ,014 23 i ,317 I l.,631 16 1,88l 6 2p 161 -2 FY85 ABI Forecasts 754 b I ,014 18 1,317 3 I ,631 14 i ,881 6 2 8 161 3 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 754 6 I ,Ol4 13 t, 317 2 I ,631 9 itl881 5 2/.!161 3 FY85 A83 Forecasts 754 10 I ,014 23 I, 317 3 1,631 17 l ,88i 6 2"i61 3 FY84 Car Transportatlonu 1985 1990 Wos1' Ia to Houston FY84 Forecasts 372 12 546 FY85 Car Forecasts 398 14 561 FY85 ABl Forecasts 398 9 561 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 398 1 561 FY85 A83 Forecasts 398 10 56i Houston to TK Spur Road FY84 Forecasts 221 18 312 FY85 Car Forecasts 247 10 324 FY85 ABI Forecasts 247 8 324 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 247 B 324 FY85 ABJ Forecasts 247 8 324 TK Rd. Spur toT~ Creek FYB4 Forecasts 170 20 236 FY85 Car Forecasts 193 I J 246 FY85 ABI Forecasts 193 9 246 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 193 9 246 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 193 9 246 Talkeetna Road FY84 Forecasts 88 7 124 FY85 Car Forecasts 92 3 121 FY85 ABI Forecasts 92 3 121 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 92 2 121 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 92 .3 121 Table 5 .. 9 Effects on Number of Trucks 1985-2005 Number of Trucks 1995 28 1,499 24 782 IS 782 13 782 21 782 38 398 12 410 10 410 a 410 ll 4l0 43 285 10 305 9 305 6 305 9 305 16 l65 8 155 6 155 4 155 7 155 and FYB5 Air Bus 1999 16 !.862 11 0 I D036 l4 1.036 10 I ,036 6 1,036 !2 41 478 46 0 498 6 I 498 5 I 498 4 498 7 43 338 49 0 365 4 365 2 365 2 0 365 16 l99 17 0 190 5 0 l90 4 0 190 3 0 190 4 ios 2002 2005 186 N/A N/A 2 i ,576 2 I ,275 3 l I 1,275 2 576 I 1,275 3 546 41 N/A N/A 569 2 649 -I 569 2 649 569 I 649 569 2 649 383 43 N/A N/A 413 I 467 13 2 467 413 I 413 2 230 36 21 ~ 218 250 218 250 0 218 Table 5.,9 Sum~ary of Project Effects on Number of Trucks FY84 Car Transportat1c>n, FYB5 Car Transportation: and FYG5 Atr and Bus Scsnarfos 1985-2005 1985 1990 l995 !999 2002 2005 Area/Communlty Basei I ne Effect Baseltne Effect BaselIne Effect Basel i rae Effect Basei tne Effect BaselY ne Effect Tr~pper Cr. to Cantwell FY84 Forecasts 160 21 227 40 260 44 308 52 348 46 N/A N/A FYB5 Car Forecasts 191 14 243 7 299 0 356 2 403 2 456 FY85 ABl Forecasts 191 13 243 7 299 I 356 1 403 2 456 0 F Y85 AB2 Forecasts 191 12 243 6 299 356 2 403 I 456 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 191 II 243 7 299 0 356 3 403 2 456 0 Fairbanks Area Cantwell to Healy FY84 Forecasts 142 44 205 79 258 97 314 I 14 364 104 N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 202 25 263 l4 333 0 404 5 467 a 536 0 FY85 AB1 Forecasts 202 22 263 10 333 I 404 I 467 536 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 202 22 263 10 333 404 2 467 536 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 202 21 263 9 333 404 I 467 536 0 Healy to Nenana FY84 Forecasts 1.37 II 159 25 235 33 281 39 322 37 N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 139 5 176 5 218 0 261 3 299 I 342 0 FY85 ABI Forecasts 139 4 176 3 218 I 261 299 342 0 FY85 A82 Forecasts 139 4 176 3 218 26) 2 299 _/ 342 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 139 2 176 2 248 0 261 I 299 342 0 Nenana to Falrbanks FY84 Forecasts 145 5 l66 13 210 ll 236 12 259 12 N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 136 3 158 3 188 0 220 2 248 280 0 FYB5 ABl Forecasts 131 2 158 2 188 I 220 I 248 280 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts !31 3 158 3 188 220 2 248 280 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 13! 0 158 ! 188 0 220 I 248 280 0 Table 5.9 Summary of Effects on Number Trucks FY84 Car Transportation, FY85 and FY85 Alr and Bus 1985 ConTwell to Project AR FY84 Forecasts 12 72 FY85 Car Forecasts 13 70 FY85 ABI Forecasts 13 70 FYB5 AB2 Forecasts 13 70 FY~5 AB3 Forecasts 13 70 Paxson to Project AR FY84 Forecasts 12 2 FY85 Car Forecasts 13 0 FY85 ABI Forecasts 13 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 13 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 13 0 Project Access Road FY84 Forecasts 0 70 F¥85 Car Forecasts 0 70 FYB5 ABt Forecasts 0 70 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 0 70 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 0 70 NIA AR Not Availabie or Not Appltcablee Access Road !990 16 15 15 15 15 16 15 15 15 15 0 0 0 0 0 1985-2005 Number of Trucks 1995 1999 72 20 73 24 70 17 0 19 70 17 0 19 70 17 0 19 70 17 0 19 2 20 3 24 0 17 0 19 0 17 0 19 0 17 0 19 0 17 0 19 70 0 70 0 70 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 1/ Effects under the FERC License Appltcatlon,Scanar1o are deftned by FERC Forecasts~ Effects under the FY84 Car Transportation Scenarfo are deftned FY84 Forecasts .. 74 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 0 Effects under the FY85 Car Transportat1on Scenarlo are defined by FY85 Car Forecasts* 2002 28 20 20 20 20 28 20 20 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 Effects under the FY85 Air and Bus Scenarios are defined by FY85 AB forecasts where ABI forecasts 73 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 0 Air and Bus Scenario/ construction worker hfrfng in -23% constructfon worker h1r1ng forecasts refer to effects under the Alr and Bus Scenarto/ construction worker hlring 1n worker htrtng In Fairbanks, AB3 forecasts refer to effects under At and Bus Scenarlo/1 construction Anchorage-construction worker hVrtng tn Fairbanks. Source: Frank Orth A Assocfates, Inc. 1985. 2005 Effect N/A N/A 22 0 22 0 22 0 22 0 N/A N/A 22 0 22 0 22 0 22 0 N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table 5el0 Summary of Project Effects on Total Accidents FYB4 Car Transport at h:m, FY85 Car Transportation, and fY85 Alr and Bus Scenarios 1985-2005 Number of Ace 1985 1990 1995 1999 2002 2005 Area/Road Segment Baseline Effect Base! f ne Effect Basel J ne Effect Baseline Effect BaselIne Effect Basel W ne Effect -- Anchorage Area Anch. to Palmer/Wasilla FY84 Forecasts 90 135 3 55 0 66 0 14 I N/A N/A FYB5 Car Forecasts 102 140 2 182 0 225 2 258 -I 293 0 FY85 ABI Forecasts 102 140 2 182 I 225 2 256 293 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 102 140 I 162 0 225 I 258 293 0 FY85 AB::S Forecasts 102 140 3 182 I 225 2 256 293 0 Palmer to Anch./Wastlla FYB4 Forecasts 16 0 24 0 29 0 34 0 39 0 N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts l7 0 23 I 29 0 35 0 40 0 46 0 FYB5 ABI Forecasts 17 0 23 0 29 0 35 0 40 0 46 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts i7 0 23 0 29 0 35 0 40 0 46 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 17 0 23 l 29 0 35 0 40 0 46 0 Wast I Ia to Anch./Palmer FY84 F orocasts 6 0 9 0 3 0 4 0 4 0 N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 7 0 9 0 !2 0 i 5 0 n 0 20 0 FYB5 ABI Forecasts 7 0 9 0 12 0 15 0 17 0 20 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 7 0 9 0 t2 0 15 0 11 0 20 0 FYB5 AB3 Forecasts 7 0 9 0 12 0 !5 0 41 0 20 0 Table 5,.10 Summary of Project Effects on Tot a Accidents FY84 Car Transportation~ FY85 Car and FY85 Air and Bus Scenarios 1985=2005 Number of AccideNts 1965 1990 1995 1999 2002 2005 Area/Commun tty Baseline Effect Baseline Effect Basel Ina Effect Basel Ina Effect Basel 1 ne Effect Basel J ne Effect Wasil Ia to Houston FY84 forecasts 24 36 2 90 113 !34 N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 26 37 2 52 0 68 84 0 104 0 FY85 ABI Forecasts 26 37 i 52 0 68 84 0 104 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 26 0 37 I 52 0 68 0 84 0 i04 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 26 I 37 52 0 68 I 84 0 !04 0 Houston to TK Spur Road FY84 Forecasts 5 0 6 10 12 14 N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 6 0 8 0 10 0 42 0 i4 0 16 0 FY85 ABI Forecasts 6 0 8 0 10 0 12 0 14 0 16 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 6 0 8 0 10 0 12 0 l4 0 16 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 6 0 8 0 10 0 12 0 14 0 16 0 TK Rd. Spur toT. Creek FY84 Forecasts 10 14 4 !7 2 20 3 23 2 N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts II 14 I 18 0 21 0 24 0 27 0 FY85 ABI forecasts II 14 18 0 21 0 24 0 27 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts II 14 0 18 0 21 0 24 0 27 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts II 14 I IB 0 21 0 24 0 27 0 Talkeetna Road FY84 Forecasts 5 0 8 10 12 14 N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 6 0 8 10 0 12 0 14 0 16 0 FY85 ABl Forecasts 6 0 8 0 10 0 12 0 14 0 16 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 6 0 8 0 10 0 12 0 14 0 16 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 6 0 8 0 10 0 12 0 14 0 !6 0 Table 5c iO Summary of Proj&ct Effects on Totai Accidents FY84 Car Transportat1ong FV85 Car Transportat 'on, and FY85 Atr and Bus Scenarios !985-2005 Number i985 1990 1995 1999 2002 2005 Area/Commun1ty BaselIne Effect Baseline Effect Baseline Effect Baseline Effect Base~ ina Effect Basel Jne Effect Trapper Cr. to Cantwell FY84 For-ecasts 9 II 3 14 2 l6 2 l9 2 NIP. N/A FYB5 Car Forecasts 10 12 I 15 0 18 0 20 0 23 0 FY85 ABl Forecasts iO 12 0 I~ 0 18 0 20 0 23 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 10 12 0 15 0 18 0 20 0 23 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 10 12 0 15 0 18 0 20 0 23 0 Fatrbanks Area Cant~ell to Healy FY84 Forecasts 6 8 3 10 2 12 3 13 2 N/A N/A FY85 Car forecasts 8 10 I 13 0 16 0 18 0 21 0 FYB5 ABI Forecasts 8 to 0 13 0 16 0 18 0 21 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 8 10 0 13 0 16 0 18 0 21 0 FYB5 AB3 Forecasts 8 10 0 13 0 16 0 16 0 21 0 Healy to Nenana FYB4 Forecasts 12 16 3 i9 2 23 3 26 2 N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 14 17 A 21 0 26 0 29 0 .34 0 FY85 ABI Forecasts 14 0 17 0 2! 0 26 0 29 0 34 0 FY85 AB2 forecasts 14 0 17 0 21 0 26 0 29 0 34 0 FYB5 AB3 Forecasts 14 0 17 0 2& 0 26 0 29 0 34 0 Nenana to Fairbanks FY84 Forecasts 10 0 12 15 17 19 N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts lO 0 12 0 14 0 16 0 18 0 21 0 FY85 ABi Forecasts 10 0 12 0 l4 0 16 0 18 0 21 0 FYB5 AB2 Forecasts 10 0 12 0 14 0 16 0 18 0 21 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 10 0 12 0 14 0 16 0 18 0 21 0 Tabla 5oi0 Summary of Project Effects on Total Acctdents fY84 Car Transportat~on, FY85 Car Transport at ton.~~ and FY85 Atr and Bus Scenarios 1985-2005 1985 1990 1995 &999 2002 2005 Araa/Cornmu!'1ty Basel t ne Effect Basel 1 ne Effect Basel ina Effect Baseline Effect Base11ne Effect Baseline Effect Cantweli to Project AR FY84 Forecasts 2 FY85 Car Forecasts 2 FY85 ABI Forecasts I FY85 AB2 Forecasts I FY85 AB3 Forecasts Paxson to Project AR FY84 Forecasts 0 FY65 Car Forecasts 0 FY85 ABI Forecasts 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 0 FYB5 AB3 Forecasts 0 Project Access Road FY84 Forecasts 0 0 FY85 Car Forecasts 0 0 FY85 ABI Forecasts 0 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 0 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 0 0 N/A AR Not Available or Not Applicable~ Access Road 5 2 2 2 I I I 2 0 2 0 I 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1/ Effects under the FERC Ltcense Appltcatlon Scenario are detlnad by FERC Forecasts. Effects under the FY84 Car Transportat1on Scenario are deftnad by FY84 Forecasts .. Effects under the FY85 Car Transportation Scenario are detlned by FY85 Car Forecastse 3 2 2 2 2 I I 2 2 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Effects under· the FY85 Atr and Bus Scenarios are defined by FY85 AB forecasts where ABI forecasts refer to Alr and Bus Scenario/ 77% construct1on worker hiring in Anchorage -23% construction worker htrfng in N/A 2 ") ... 2 2 N/A 2 2 2 2. N/A 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 0 0 0 under AB2 forecasts refer to effects under the Air and Bus Scenario/ 50% construction worker htr1ng in worker htrlng In Fairbanks, AB3 forecasts refer to effects under Atr and Bus Scenarfo/1 constructto~ worker htrlng t Anchorage-0% construct1on worker hirtng tn Fairbanks. Source: Frank Orth A Associates, inc., &98,. Table 5~ I! Summary of Project Effects on Injury Ace t dents FY84 Car Transportatton, FY85 Car Transport at I on,. and FV85 Alr and Bus Scenarios 1985-2005 l9B5 1990 1999 2002 2005 ~~a/Road Segment Basalt ne Effect Baseline Effect Basel J ne Effect Basel t ne Effect Base! lne Effect Baseline Effect Anchorage Area Anch. to Palmer/Wasilla FY84 Forecasts 27 0 41 17 0 20 0 22 0 N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 3~ 0 42 55 0 68 78 0 89 0 FYB5 ABI Forecasts 31 0 42 55 0 68 78 0 89 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 3i 0 42 0 55 0 68 0 78 0 89 0 FYB5 A83 Forecasts .31 0 42 t 55 0 68 I 76 0 89 0 Palmer to Anch~/Wasllla FY84 Forecasts 7 0 I i 0 l4 0 16 0 iS 0 N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 8 0 II 0 43 0 16 0 18 0 21 0 FY85 A8i Forecasts 8 0 'i 0 13 0 16 0 38 0 21 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 8 0 II 0 13 0 16 0 18 0 21 0 FY85 AB3 forecasts 8 0 II 0 13 0 16 0 18 0 21 0 Wasilla to Anch./Paimer FY84 f(.)("ecasts 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A FV85 Car Forecasts 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 3 0 FY85 ABI Forecasts 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 3 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 3 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 3 0 Table 5~i Summary of Project Effects on Injury ~,cc 'dents FY84 Car Transportatlonp fYB5 Ce~r Transpor·tatlon, and FY85 Air and Bus Scenarios 1985-2005 Number of lnj ury Ace dents 1985 1990 i995 1999 2002 2005 AraajCommun t t:t Baseline Effect Basel t ne Effect Basell ne Effect Basel J ne Effect Basel! ne Effect Baset i ne Effect . ~ Wasllla to Houston FY84 Forecasts 6 0 10 24 0 30 0 35 0 N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 7 0 JO !4 0 Hl 0 22 0 21 0 FY85 ABI Forecasts 7 0 10 0 14 0 18 0 22 0 27 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 1 0 10 0 14 0 !8 0 22 0 27 0 FYB5 AB3 Forecasts 7 0 10 0 l4 0 18 0 22 0 27 0 Houston to TK Spur Road FYB4 Forecasts 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 FY85 ABI Forecasts 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 FY85 AB2 forecasts 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 TK Rd. Spur to T. Creek FYB4 Forecasts 2 0 3 4 0 4 5 N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 5 0 6 0 FY85 ABI Forecasts 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 5 0 6 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 5 0 6 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 5 0 6 0 Talkeetna Road FY84 Forecasts 2 3 4 5 6 0 N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 3 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 FY85 ABI Forecasts 3 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 3 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 FYB5 A83 Forecasts 3 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 Tabla 5.1! Summary of Project Effects on injury Accidents fY84 Car Transportation, FY85 Car Transportation, and fY85 Air and Bus Scenarios 1965-2005 1985 1990 1999 2002 2005 Area/Comrnun tt~ Base~ 1 ne Effect Baseline Effect Basel lne Effect Basel V ne Effect Baseline Effect Basel tne Effect Trapper Cro to Cantwell F YB4 Forecasts 3 0 3 2 4 5 6 0 N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 6 0 7 0 FY85 ABI Forecasts 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 6 0 7 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 6 0 7 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 6 0 7 0 Fairbanks Area Cantweli to Healy FY84 forecasts 4 5 2 6 8 2 8 I N/A N/A FYB5 Car Forecasts 5 6 t 8 0 10 0 H 0 !3 0 FY85 ABI forecasts 5 6 0 8 0 10 0 II 0 13 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 5 6 0 8 0 10 0 ll 0 13 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 5 6 0 8 0 10 0 II 0 13 0 Healy to Nenana FY84 Forecasts 3 0 4 5 6 7 N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 FY85 ABI Forecasts 4 0 5 0 6 0 1 0 8 0 9 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 Nenana to Fairbanks FY84 forecasts 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 5 0 6 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 10 0 FY85 ABI Forecasts 5 0 6 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 10 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 5 0 6 0 6 0 7 0 B 0 10 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 5 0 6 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 I Tabie fie H Summary of Project Effects on Injury Accidents FY84 Car Transportatlors, FY65 Car Transportation~~ and FY85 AJr and Bus 1985-2005 1985 1990 1999 Area/Community Basal I ne Effect Baseline Effect Basel tne Effect Basel l na Effect Cantwet I to Project AR FYB4 Forecasts 0 0 FY85 Car Forecasts 0 0 FY85 ABI Forecasts 0 0 FY65 AB2 Forecasts 0 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 0 0 Paxson to Project AR FY84 forecasts 0 0 FY85 Car Forecasts 0 0 fY85 ABI Forecasts 0 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 0 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 0 0 Project Access Road FY84 Forecasts 0 0 FY85 Car Forecasts 0 0 FY85 ABI Forecasts 0 0 FY85 A82 Forecasts 0 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 0 0 N/A AR Not Available or Not Applicable. Access Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c c 0 1/ Effects under the FERC Llcense Appllcatlon Scenar1o are defined by FERC Forecasts. Effects under the FY84 Car Transportation Scenarfo are defined by FY84 Forecastse Effects under the FY85 Car Transportation Scenar1o are deftned by FY85 Car Forecasts. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sr.:anar1os 2002 2005 Baseline Effect Basel Jne Effec·t 0 0 N/A N/A 0 ,0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Effects under the FY85 Air and Bus Scenarlos are deflned by FY85 AB forecasts where ABI forecasts refer to ef under Alr and Bus Scenarto/ 77% construction worker h1r1ng in Anchorage -23% constructton worker hirlng 1n falrbankso forecasts refer to effect!':. under the Atr and Bus Scenarto/ 50% construction worker hlrtnJ in construct~on worker hiring tn Falrbanks, AB3 forecasts refer to effects under Alr and Bus Scenarlo/1 Anchorage-0~ constructton worker hlrlng tn Fairbanks. Source: Frank Orth A Associates» inc., 1985. constructJon worker hfr~ TabAa 5 .. ~2 Summary of Project Effects on An1mal Road Kt I I Ace FY84 Car Transportetlon, FY85 Car Transportation, and FY85 Air and Bus Scenarios 1985-2005 Number 1985 1990 1995 1999 2002 2005 Area/Road Segment Basel t na Effect Basel t ne Effect Basel t ne Effect Basel fne Effect Base& ina Efiect Basel ina Effect Anchorage Area Anch. to Palmer/Was111a FY84 Forecasts 13 0 20 0 B 0 9 0 H '.,) N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 14 0 20 0 26 0 32 0 37 0 42 0 FYB5 ABl Forecasts 14 0 20 0 26 0 32 0 ~1 0 42 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 14 0 20 0 26 0 32 0 3J 0 42 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 14 0 20 0 26 0 32 0 37 0 42 0 Palmer to Anch./Wastlia FY84 Forecasts 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 N/A Nil\ FY85 Car Forecasts 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 FY85 ABI Forecasts 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 Wasilla to Anch./Palmer FY84 Forecasts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FY85 ABI Forecasts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FYB5 AB3 Forecasts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table 5"' 2 Summary of Project Effects on Animal Road KJ I dents FY84 Car FY85 Car and FY85 1985-2005 1985 &990 l995 &999 2002 2005 Wasllla to Houston FY84 Forecasts 7 ll 27 0 34 40 0 N/A FYB5 Car Forecasts B 0 II 16 0 21 0 25 0 0 FY85 ABI Forecasts 8 0 11 0 l6 0 21 0 25 0 31 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 8 0 II 0 16 0 21 0 25 0 31 FY85 AB3 Forecasts B 0 II 0 16 0 21 0 25 0 31 Houston to TK Spur Ro~d FYB4 Forecasts 0 2 0 .3 0 3 0 4 0 N/A N/A FYB5 Car Forecasts 2 0 2 0 3 0 3 0 4 0 0 FYB5 ABI Forecasts 2 0 2 0 3 0 3 0 0 4 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 2 0 2 0 3 0 .3 0 4 0 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 2 0 2 0 .3 0 3 0 4 0 4 0 TK Rd. Spur to T. Creek FY84 Forecasts 4 0 5 6 7 8 N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 4 0 5 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 10 0 FYB5 ABI Forecasts 4 0 5 0 1 0 8 0 9 0 10 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 4 0 5 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 10 FYB5 AB3 Forecasts 4 0 5 0 7 0 8 0 0 Talkeetna Road FY84 Forecasts 2 0 3 0 3 0 0 5 0 N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 2 0 3 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 FY85 AB& Forecasts 2 0 3 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 5 FY65 AB2 Forecasts 2 0 3 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 5 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 2 0 3 0 .3 0 4 0 5 0 5 Table 5el2 Summary of Effects on Animal Road Ktj& Accidents FYe4 Car Transportat:on~ FV85 Car Transportatt on" and FY85 Air and Bus Scenar l985-2005 Number of Animal Road K1 1985 1990 1995 1999 2002 2005 Area/Communit:t Baseline Effect Base& t ne Effect Baseline Effect Basei i ne Effect Baseline Eff(7ct Basel ina Effect Trapper Cr~ to Cantwell FY84 Forecasts 2 0 2 ' 3 0 3 0 4 0 N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 2 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 4 0 5 0 FY85 ABI Forecasts 2 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 4 0 5 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 2 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 4 0 5 0 FY85 AB3 forecasts 2 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 4 0 5 0 Falrbanks Area Cantwell to Healy FY84 forecasts 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 l 0 FY85 ABI Forecasts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hea'y to Nenana FY84 forecasts 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 FY85 ABI Forecasts 0 0 0 0 0 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 0 0 0 0 0 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nenana to Fa1rbanks FY84 Forecasts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A FY85 Car Furecasts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FY85 ABl Forecasts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tabla 5o 12 S!Jmnltu .. y of Project Effects on Animal Road Kill Accfdents FY84 Car Transportat1on~ FY65 Car Transportation., and FV85 Air and Bus 1985-2005 Number of Antmai Road KT 1965 1990 1995 1999 Area/Ccmmun1ty BaselIne Effect Baseline Effect Basel t ne Effect Basel1 ne Effect Cantwell to Project AR FYB4 Forecasts 0 0 FY85 Car Forecasts 0 0 FYB5 ABI Forecasts 0 0 FY85 AB2 forecasts 0 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 0 0 Paxson to Project AR FYB4 Forecasts 0 0 FYB5 Car Forecasts 0 0 FY85 ABI Forecasts 0 0 FY85 AB2 Fore1casts 0 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 0 0 Project Access Road FY84 forecasts 0 0 FY85 Car Forecasts 0 0 FY05 ABI Forecasts 0 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 0 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 0 0 N/A AR Not Ava1 lable or Not Applicable. Access Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1/ Effects under the FERC License Application Scenarto are defined by FERC F~ Jcasts. Effects under the FY84 Car Transportation Scenario are deflned by fY84 forecasts .. Effects under the FY85 Car Transportation Scenar1o are defined by FY85 Car Forecasts. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scenarios 2002 2005 Basal I ne Effect Basel ina Effect 0 0 N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Effects under the FY85 Atr and Bus Scenarlos are defined by FY85 AB forecasts where ABl forecasts refer to effects under Alr and Bus Scenario/ 77% construction worker hfrtng tn Anchorage -23% constructton ~orker htf"Yng 1n Fairbanks~' AB2 forecasts refer to effects under the Air and Bus Scenarto/ 50% constructton worker htrtng 1n Anchorage - worker hlr1ng 1n FaTrbanks, AB3 forecasts refer to effects under A1r and Bus Scenarto/l Anchorage-O% construction worker hfrtng in Fairbanks. Source: Fra~k Orth A Assoclates, lnc.p 1985. construction Table 5& 13 Summary of Project Effects on Capac tty Utl11 zat1on o·f ~late~~ FERC License Appl tcat1on, FY84 Car Transportat1onfi FY85 Car Transportatto11 11 and FY85 Air and Bus 1985-2005 Day 1985 1985 1990 1995 Current Baseline Proj act Effect Basel f ne Project Effect Basel ina Proj act E f feet & Planned % Capacity % Capaclty % Capaclty % Capacity % Capac1ty Capacity Area/Communtty Capac1ty Used Used Used Used Used Used Anchorage Area Mun. of Anchorage FERC forecast5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 36,000,000 82.4 o. I 82.9 0.4 83 .. 9 0.1 FY85 ABI forecasts 36,00011000 82.4 0.3 82e9 0.6 83.9 OeO FYB5 AB2 Forecasts 36,000,000 82 .. 4 0. I 82.9 0.3 83 .. 9 0~0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 36,000,000 82.4 0$4 82.9 0.9 83 .. 9 OcO Palmer FERC Forecasts I, 368,000 N/A N/A 44.4 0.5 N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts ! ,030,000 42 .. 9 Oe4 59.8 I. 5 72 .. 3 1 .. 3 FY85 Car Forecasts I, 030,000 39.7 I. 5 46.9 2.8 56.7 ""Ool FY85 AB! Forecasts l ,030,000 39.7 0 .. 7 46.9 lo5 56e7 0 .. 1 FY85 AB2 Forecasts I, 030,000 39.7 0.4 46.9 Lt 56o7 0. I FY85 AB3 Forecasts 1,030 .. 000 39.7 0.9 46.9 2.0 56o7 Oo I Wasilla FERC forecasts 864 .• 000 N/A N/A 64.7 Oe9 N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts 9001000 53.7 0.6 78a5 2e! It 4. 8 1.8 FY85 Car Forecast~ 90\1,000 87.4 1.9 88.' 3.4 l28o7 I FYB5 ABI Forecasts 900,000 87 .. 4 0.9 68ol 1 .. 9 128.7 Oo l FY85 AB2 Forecasts 900,000 87.4 0.6 88.1 l.4 128.7 Oo I FYB5 AB3 Forecasts 900,000 87.4 I • I 88.1 2e4 128.7 0.1 ---~----~"~ Table 5. L5 Summary of Project Effects on Capacity Utfl1zat1on of Water FERC Llcense Appllcatfon, FY84 Car Transportat1onp FY65 Car TransportationD and fY85 Atr and Bus S<:encrtos 1985=2005 Gal 1965 1999 2002 2005 Current Basel t ne Project Effect Basel t ne Project Effect Basel tne & Planned % Capactty % Capacity % Capaclty % Capacity % Capacity Area/Communlty Capac tty Used Used Used Used Used Used Anchorage Area Mun. of Anchorage FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 36,000,000 87.2 0.4 88 .. 4 0 .. 4 B9o4 0 .. 2 FY85 ABl Forecasts 36,000,000 67.2 0 .. 5 88 .. 4 0.,5 89 .. 4 0,2 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 36,000,000 87.2 0.3 88o4 0.4 89 .. 4 0.,2 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 36,000,000 87 .. 2 Oa7 88.4 0 .. 5 89 .. 4 Oo2 Palmer FERC Forecasts 111368,000 67.0 0.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts I ,030,000 84.2 I .. 5 93 .. 6 1 .. 3 103c8 L,3 FY85 Car Forecasts I, 030,000 65.9 1.6 13.4 0.2 81o3 ""Oe3 FY85 ABi Forecasts I ,030,000 65.9 0.9 73 .. 4 0 .. 1 Sf o3 0.,0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts t, 030,000 65 .. 9 0.6 73 ... 4 O. I 81..3 000 FY85 AB3 Forecasts l, 030,000 65.9 I • 2 73.4 Ou2 Sf o:S OeO Wast II a FERC Forecasts 864,000 137*3 O.B N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts 900,000 155.5 2.0 i93e9 j.,7 240 .. 9 IQ7 FY85 Car Forecasts 900,000 174.3 2o0 217.3 0.2 270 .. 0 =004 FY85 ABI Forecasts 900,000 174 .. 3 J.l 217 .. 3 0 .. 1 27060 0 .. 1 FYB5 AB2 Forecasts 900 8 000 174 .. 3 0.1 217.3 0. I 270o0 OoO FYB5 AB3 Forecasts 900,000 174.3 i .4 217.3 Oe2 270s0 Oe I Effects on FERC l1cense I tcatton, FV85 Car 985-2005 1985 1985 !990 Current Basei I ne Effect Basel t ne Basa11ne & Planned % Capacity 'S Capacity Capactt~1 % Fed rbank s Area Mun. of Fa1rbanks FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY64 Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ti/A FYB5 Car Forecasts 4,000,000 60.7 -0 .. 1 65~6 "'0.2 67 .. 6 -o.:s FY85 ABI Forecasts 4,000,000 60.7 o.o 65.6 0 .. 3 67a6 0.,2 FYB5 AB2 Forecasts 4,000,000 60.7 0.4 65.6 0 .. 7 67e6 0 .. 0 FV85 AB3 Forecasts 4,000,000 60.7 -I. 7 65 .. 6 -0.2 67 .. 6 004 Nenana F£RC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 430,000 12.3 1.0 15 .. 7 L.7 20e0 0.,2 FY85 ABI Forecasts 430,000 12.3 0 .. 1 15 .. 7 0.,2 20.0 o .. o FY85 AB2 Forecasts 430,000 12.3 0.1 15 .. 7 0 ·~ .. .~. 20 .. 0 Oe I FY85 AB3 forecasts 430,000 l2 .. 3 0.,, 15 .. 7 0.2 20 .. 0 0,0 FERC License Application, 1985 1999 2002 • Current Basel lne Project Effect Baset Ina Effee;t & Planned % Capac1ty % Capacity % Capacity % Capacity Fairbanks Area Mun. of Falrbanks FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 4,000,000 71.2 -0.1 72.6 FY85 ABI Forecasts 4,000,000 1l ~2 0.2 72.6 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 4,000,000 71..2 0.3 72 .. 6 F Y85 AOJ Forecasts 4,000,000 7L2 0 .. 2 72.8 Nenana FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A FYB5 Car Forecasts 430,000 24 .. 2 l.. I 27.7 FY8? ABI Forecasts 430,000 24.2 0, I 21 .. 7 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 430,000 24.2 0 .. 2 27 .. 7 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 4301'000 24G2 O. I 27 .. 7 N/A--Not Ava~lable or Not Appl1cabla. 1/ Effects under the FERC License Appltcatton Scenario are defined by fERC Forecasts* Effects under the FY84 Car Transportation Scenario are defined by FY84 forecasts. Effects under the FY85 Car Transportatlon Scenarto are defined FY85 Car Forecasts. N/A N/A 0.2 Oo3 0.4 0.5 N/A N/A 0. I Oe I O .. l 0.1 2005 Basel fne % N/A N/A 74 .. 2 74.,2 74.2 74 .. 2 N/A N/A 31.5 31 .. 5 31.,5 31..5 Effects under the FY85 Atr and Bus Scenarios are defined by FY85 AB forecasts where ABI forecasts refer to effects Bus Scenarto/ construction worker h1rtng tn Anchorage -constructton worker hfr in effects under the Atr and Bus Scenario/ 50~ constructJon worker htr'ing in Fairbanks, AB3 forecasts refer to effects under Air and Bus Scenarto/t to construction worker constructlon worker hiring tn Falrbanks. Source: Frank Orth ~ Assoclateso Inc., 1985e N/A N/A 0 .. 2 0 ... 4 0 .. 4 0 .. 4 N/A N/A o.o o .. o 0.,0 Table 5 .. 14 Summary of Project Effects on Capacity Utllfzatfon 1or Sewer FERC License Appltcat1on, FY84 Car Transportatlon~ FY85 Car Transportationp and fY85 Afr and Scenarios 1985-2005 Per Day 1965 1985 1990 1995 Current Basel t ne Project Effect Baseline Project E f feet' Base~ ine ProJect E f feet & Planned % Capacity % Capacity % Capacity % Capacity % Capaclty ~ Area/Communtty Capt4clty Used Used Used Used Used Used Anchorage Area Mun. of Anchorage FERC forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 34,000.000 81 .. 2 0. I 81.1 0 .. 4 82 .. 6 0 .. 1 FY85 ABl Forecasts 34,000,000 81 .. 2 0.3 810 7 0 .. 6 82 .. 6 o .. o FY85 AB2 Forecasts 34,000,000 81 .. 2 0. I 81.1 Oc3 82 .. 6 o.o FY85 AB3 Forecasts 34,000,000 Bl .2 0.5 81.7 0.9 82 .. 6 OuO Pa I mer FERC Forecasts 500,000 N/A N/A 108.6 I .2 N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts 300,000 107.9 I • I l55o3 4 .. 0 193 .. 3 3~5 FY85 Car Forecasts 300.000 99.9 3.4 121 01 7 .. 3 151 0 5 -0~2 FY85 ABI Forecasts 300~000 99.9 I e8 12101 4.0 1510 5 Oo2 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 300,000 99.9 1 .. 2 121 G 7 2 .. 7 '51. 5 0$2 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 300,000 99.9 2.3 121 e 7 5 .. I I 5le 5 Oe2 Wast lla FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA FY84 Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 441,000 90.1 2.6 136.0 5.3 204.5 -Oc2 FY85 ABI Forecasts 441 .ooo 90 .. I I .4 136.0 3e0 204e5 0~2 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 441,000 90. I 1.0 136.0 2.,1 204.5 0.2 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 441,000 90 .. 1 1.4 136.0 3~7 204 .. 5 Oe2 Summary of fERC License Appllcatton, FY84 Car 1985 Current Basel l ne & Planned % Capacity Anchorage Area Mun. of Anchorage FERC forecasts N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 34,000,000 85.,9 FY85 ABi Forecasts 34,000,000 85.9 FYB5 AB2 forecasts 34,000,000 85.9 FY85 AB3 forecasts 34.000,000 85.9 Palmer FERC forecasts 500,000 148 .. 0 FY84 Forecasts 300,000 229.9 FY65 Car Forecasts 300,000 180.2 FY85 ABl Forecasts 300,000 180.2 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 300,000 180.2 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 300,000 180.2 Wasilla FERC Forecasts N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts 0 N/A FY65 Car Forecasts 44 LtOOO 283 .. 0 FY85 ABI Forecasts 44l ,000 283.0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 441,000 283.0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 441,000 283o0 l999 Project E f feet J Capacity N/A N/A 0.4 0 .. 5 Oo3 0 .. 7 L.O 4 .. 1 4.4 2 .. 4 I. 6 3o2 N/A N/A 3.2 i .. B 1.2 2.2 Basal tne % Capac N/A N/A 87 .. I 87 .. l 87 .. 1 87 .. , N/A 257 .. 2 201.5 20i .5 201 .. 5 201 .. 5 N/A N/A 354 .. 9 354 .. 9 354.,9 354 .. 9 for Sewer -.;.,~,~~~"'"' and FY85 Air 20C2 N/A N/A 0 .. 5 0 .. 5 0~4 0.5 N/A 3 .. 6 0.5 0 .. 3 Oo2 0,,4 N/A N/A Oe4 0 .. 2 0.,2 Oc3 2005 Basel t ne N/A N/A N/A N/A 88 .. 0 Oo3 88o0 0.,2 88.,0 0.2 88 .. 0 0 .. 2 N/A N/A 285 .. 2 3 .. 6 223 .. 4 -o.9 223 .. 4 o.,t 223 .. 4 0 .. I 223.,4 0 .. 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A 440oB -o .. 440 .. 8 440.,8 O.,i 440 .. 8 0 .. 1 Table 5ol4 Summary of Project Effeci·s on Capacity Uti i hatton for Sewer· FERC L lcensa Appl katlonp FY64 Car Transportation, FY85 Car Transportatton 9 and FY85 Air and Bus Scenarios 1965-2005 lIons Per Da'f 1985 1965 1990 1995 Current Basa!lne1 Project Effect Basel ina Proj act E f 1ect Basel t ne Project· Efie•ct & Planned % Capac1't"y % Capactty % Capacity % Capc~cfty % Capacity Capac it~· Area/Community Capactt~. Used U:sed Used Used Used Used Fairbanks Area Mun. of Fa1rbanks FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts N/A N/A IN/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 6,500,000 54.5 -0.1 59.6 Os7 62 .. 2 0 .. 3 -· FY85 ABi Forecasts 6,500,000 54o5 o.o 59 .. 6 o .. a 62 .. 2 0.,3 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 6,500,000 54e5 0.6 59.6 1 .. 9 6292 0.,3 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 6,500,000 54.5 -Oe5 59.6 -0 .. 1 62 .. 2 0,3 Nenana FERC Forecasts N/A N/A WA N/A N/A N/A N/A FYB4 Forecasts WA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 60.000 88.0 7.0 112 .. 3 12 .. 2 143 .. 1 L,2 FY85 ABI Forecasts 60,000 86.0 0.5 I 12 .. 3 I a3 143 .. 1 0~0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 60,000 88.0 0.5 112 .. 3 I .. 1 143 .. 1 Oe5 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 60,000 88 .• 0 0.5 112 .. 3 0 .. 5 14~5 .. I OoO Tobie 5 .. I Summary of Effects on UtJ It zat1on for FERC License Appltcationp fY84 Car Transportation, FY85 Car 1985-2005 1985 1999 2002 Current Basal i ne Project Effect Basel! ne & Planned % Capaclty % Capacity % lty Fa1rbanks Area Mun. of Falrbanks FERC forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 69500,000 66 .. 2 0.1 68.2 FY85 ABI Forecasts 6,500,000 66.2 0.7 68 .. 2 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 6,500,000 66.2 1.4 68 .. 2 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 6,500,000 66 .. 2 o .. l 68 .. 2 Nenana FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 60,000 173 .. 5 8.2 198 .. 7 FY85 ABI Forecasts 60.,000 173 .. 5 O.B 198.7 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 601)000 173,5 I~ 3 198.7 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 60,000 lJ3e5 0.8 198 .. 7 N/A--Not Available or Not Applicable. 1/ Effects under the FERC Llcense Appllcatton Scenar~o are deftned by fERC Forecasts. Effects under the FY84 Car Transportation Scenar1o are defined by FY84 Forecasts~ Effects under the FY85 Car Transportation Scenario are defined by fY85 Car Forecastse 2005 Baseline % N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 .. 4 JOel 0 .. 4 70 .. 1 0.5 70o I 0~3 70.,1 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 .. 5 226 .. 0 0 .. 5 226.0 0 .. 5 226e0 0 .. 5 226 .. 0 Effects under the FY85 Atr and Bus Scenartos are deftned by F¥85 AB forecasts where ABl forecasts refer to Bus Scenario/ construction worKer htr,ng tn Anchorage -construction worker htr1ng 1n Fal effects under the A 1 r and Bus Scenar 1 o/ construct l on worker h t r f ng f n Fafrbanks, AB3 forecasts refer to effects under Air and Bus Scenarlo/100% to construction construction worker hiring In Fairbanks. Source: Frank Orth & Associates, Inc., 1985. Used N/A N/A o .. o 0.,2 0 .. 2 Oo2 N/A N/A 0.,0 0.,0 0.,0 0.,0 ......... ""'"''-" of FERC L 1cense 11catlon11 FY84 t985 1985 Current Basel fne Basst fne & Planned % Capacity ~ Anchorage Area Mun. of Anchorage FERC forecasts N/A N/A N/A tVA N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 393 125.8 o. l l26 .. 6 0 .. 2 128 .. 1 OoO FY85 ABI Forecasts 393 125.8 0.2 126.6 0 .. 3 i28 .. 1 o.o FY85 AB2 Forecas·ts 393 125.8 0.1 126 .. 6 O .. l l28 .. t o .. o FY85 AB3 Forecasts 393 125.8 0 .. 3 126 .. 6 0 .. 5 128., t o .. o Palmer FERC Forecasts 9 N/A N/A 88 .. 9 0"0 N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts l4 33.3 0.4 45.6 I .2 54 .. l .,o FY85 Car Forecasts 9 47 .. 9 I. 9 55 .. 6 3 .. 3 66 .. 0 -O~i FY85 ABl Forecasts 9 47.9 0.9 55 .. 6 I o9 66 .. 0 0 .. 1 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 9 47.9 0.6 55.6 1..2 66 .. 0 0., I FY85 AB3 forecasts 9 47 .. 9 l . I 55.6 263 66 .. 0 o .. Matanuska-Susttna Borough FERC Forecasts 20 N/A N/A 240.0 5 .. 0 N/A N/A FY64 Forecasts 29 13480 4.5 l80 .. 7 17 .. 7 227a4 7 .. 3 FY85 Car Forecasts 30 131.6 4.0 t56e7 10$6 !86 .. 5 3.8 FYB5 ABl Forecasts 30 131.6 3.2 156 .. 7 9 .. 5 186 .. 5 4.,0 FY85 AB2 forecasts 30 131.6 2 .. 9 156.7 a .. a 186 .. 5 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 30 I3L.6 3 .. 5 156 .. 7 lO.O IB6o5 4 .. 0 Table 56 ~5 Summary of Project Effects on Capacity Uttllzatlon for Pol ice FERC license Appllcai1ono FY84 Car Transportation~ FY85 Car and fY85 A.tr Bus 1985-2005 1985 1999 2002 2005 Current Basel Jne Project Effect Basalt ne Project Effect Basel tne Effect & Planned % Capacity % Capacity % Capactty % Capactty % Cape~city % Capacity Area/Community Capacity Used Used Used Used Used Used Anchorage Area Mun. of Anchorage FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 393 133 .. 1 0.2 135,.0 0.3 136 .. 4 0 .. 1 FY85 ABI Forecasts 393 133 .. 1 0.3 135.0 0 .. 3 136 .. 4 0 .. 1 FY85 A82 Fore~asts 393 1.33 .. 1 0.2 135.0 0 .. 3 i36 .. 4 0 .. 1 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 393 133.1 0.4 135.0 0 .. 3 l36 .. 4 0, I Palmer FERC Forecasts 9 100.0 o.o N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts !4 62a I I • I 68.9 I .. 0 76e4 L.O FY85 Car Forecasts 9 75.8 1 .. 9 84.0 Oe2 93 .. I ""OoJ FY85 ABI Forecasts 9 75.8 I .,0 84 .. 0 0= I 93 .. 1 000 FYB5 AB2 Forecasts 9 75.8 Oo7 84.0 O. I 93e I o.o FY85 AB3 Forecasts 9 75.8 I .. 3 84e0 0.2 93.,, O~O Matanuska-Susltna Borough FERC Forecasts 20 375.0 5.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts 29 279 .. 3 12 .. I 301 .2 5.9 340 .. 6 5 .. ~ FY85 Car Forecasts 30 219. I 7.5 243.8 2.6 270a5 I ~2 FY85 ABI Forecasts 30 219. I 6.6 243.8 2 .. 5 270e5 L.7 FYB5 AB2 Forecasts 30 219.1 6.4 243.8 2.5 27095 1..7 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 30 219. I 1. I 24Jo8 2 .. 6 270e5 L, 7 Table 5 .. l5 Summary of Project Effects on Capacity Utll fzatfon tor Poi ice Services FERC L1cense Application, FY84 Car TransportatlonD FY85 Car Transportat and F¥85 r Seen ados 1985-2005 1965 1965 1990 1995 Current Basel t ne ProJect Effect Basel tne Project Effect Baseline Project Effect & Planned % Capacity % Capacity % Capacity % Capac1ty % Capacity % Area/Community Capacity Used Used Used Used Used Used Trapper Creek FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts 3 8.3 2.7 10 .. 0 9 .. 7 12.,0 1 .. 3 FY85 Car forecasts 3 6 .. 0 0.7 9.3 t .. 7 I i oO OoO FY85 ABI Forecasts 3 8 .. 0 0.3 9o3 0.7 II .,0 o.o FY85 AB2 Forecasts 3 8.0 0.3 9 .. 3 0.1 II .. 0 OoO FY85 AB3 Forecasts 3 8.0 OG3 9 .. 3 I oO HoO o .. o Fairbanks Area Mun. of Fairbanks FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts NIA NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 46 89.9 -o .. l 97.3 -Oo2 !00 .. 2 -o .. 3 FY85 ABI Forecasts 46 89 .. 9 OeO 97.3 0 .. 3 i00o2 0.,2 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 46 89.9 0.4 97 .. 3 Oe7 IOOG2 OoO FY85 AB3 Forecasts 46 89 .. 9 -I. 7 97 .. 3 -0 .. 2 100~2 0 .. 4 Cantwell FERC Forecasts N/A N/A 100 .. 0 500 .. 0 N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts 20.0 37e0 22o0 80.0 25o0 6Jo0 FY85 Car Forecasts 20.0 34.0 22.0 12.0 24 .. 0 OoO FY85 ABI Forecasts 20.0 32.0 22.0 12~0 24 .. 0 OoO FY85 AB2 Forecasts 20.0 32.0 22.0 12&0 24e0 o .. o FY85 AB3 Forecasts 20 .. 0 32.0 22o0 l2o0 24a0 o .. o T~ble 5o i5 Summary of Project Effects on Capac Uti I izatfon for Police Services FERC License AppltcationD FY84 Car Transportatton 9 FY85 Car TransportatJonp and FVS5 Air and Bus Scenarios 1985-2005 Number of Pol 1985 1999 2002 2005 Current Basel tne Project Effect Baseline Project Effect Basel ina & Planned % Capacity % Capacity % Capacity % Capacity % CapacJty Area/Community Capacity Used Used Used Used Used Used Trapper Creek FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A F YB4 Forecasts 3 14.3 s.o !6o0 7.0 18.0 6.,7 FY85 Car Forecasts 3 12.3 Oe7 13.3 o.o 14~7 ... 0 .. 3 FYB5 ABI Forecasts 3 12.3 o .. o 13 .. 3 o .. o 14 .. '1 OoO FY85 AB2 forecasts 3 12.3 0 .. 3 13 .. 3 o.o 14 .. 1 0&0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 3 12.3 Oe3 13 .. 3 o.o 14 .. 7 OoO Fairbanks Area Mune of Fairbanks FERC Forecasts NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 46 105.6 -o. 1 107o9 Oe2 HO .. O Oa2 FY85 ABI Forecasts 46 105.6 Oe2 107 .. 9 0 .. 3 110 .. 0 0 .. 4 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 46 105.6 0,3 107e9 0 .. 4 110,0 0 .. 4 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 46 105.6 0.2 l07 .. 9 0 .. 5 HO .. O Om4 Cantwell FERC Forecasts IOOeO 300e0 N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts 27o0 10a0 28e0 62 .. 0 30 .. 0 61a0 FY85 Car Forecasts 26o0 I oO 28.0 0~0 29 .. 0 OoO FY85 ABI Forecasts 26 .. 0 o .. o 28 .. 0 0.,0 29 .. 0 o .. o FY85 AB2 Forecasts 26.0 0~0 2Bo0 o.o 29"0 OQO FY85 AB3 Forecasts 26.0 o .. o 28&0 obo 29.,0 o,.o Table 5., i5 Surnrnar·y of Project Effects on Capacity Uti I izat1on for Pollee Sendces FERC Ltcense Appllcattono FY84 Car Transportat1on~ FY85 Car Transportationp and FY85 Air and 1985-2005 l985 l985 1990 Current Basel tne Project Effect Base I l ne Project Effect BBsel t ne & Planned % Capacity % Capacity % Capacity % Capacity % Capaclty Area/Community Capac tty Usod Used Used Used Used Nenana FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A NfJ>, N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FYB5 Car Forecasts 56 .. 0 7e0 107.0 ~2 .. 0 132 .. 0 FY85 ABI Forecasts 56.0 o.o 107.0 ' .. 0 132 .. 0 rY85 AB2 Forecasts 56.0 o.o !07.0 2.0 132 .. 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 56.0 o.o 107.0 o .. o 1:32 .. 0 Healy FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/,1\ FY85 Car Forecasts 64.0 2.0 76c0 2.0 88 .. 0 FY85 ABI Forecasts 64.0 o.o 76~0 o .. o 88 .. 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 64.0 o.o 76 .. 0 ! .. 0 ea .. o FY85 AB3 Forecasts 64.0 o.o 76c0 OoO 88a0 1995 Project E 1 fact % Used N/A N/A I uO OeO OoO 0@0 N/A N/A o .. o o .. o o .. o o .. o Table 5., 15 FERC L~cense Appl D985 1999 2002 Current Basel tne Project E f feet Baseline a. Planned % Capac1ty % Capaclt\' Capac5ty Nenana FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts NIA N/A N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts I 157 .. 0 1.0 179 .. 0 FY85 ABl Forecasts 157.0 1..0 l79 .. 0 FY65 AB2 Forecasts 157.0 L.O 179~0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 157.0 o .. o 179 .. 0 Healy FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A FY85 Car forecasts IOOeO 1.0 109 .. 0 FY85 ABI Forecasts 100.0 o.o 109.0 FY65 AB2 Forecasts 100.0 o .. o 109 .. 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 100.0 o .. o 109.,0 N/A--Not Available or Not Appitcablee 1/ Effects under the FERC Llcense Appltcatton Scenarlo are ~dftned by FERC Forec~stse Effects under the FY84 Car Transportation Scenario are defined by FY84 Forecastse Effects under the FYB5 Car Transportation Scenario are deflned by FY65 Car Forecasts. 2005 Baset lne % N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A o .. o 203 .. 0 o .. o o.o 203.0 o,.o 0 .. 0 203o0 OuO 1 .. 0 203.,0 L.O N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A o .. o ll9 .. 0 o .. o o .. o 119 .. 0 o .. o o .. o i 19~0 OeO o .. o H9 .. 0 o .. o Effects under the FY65 Atr and Bus Scenarios are deftned by FY85 AB forecasts where ABI forecasts refer to effects under Bus Scenario/ 77% construction worker htrtng rn Anchorage -construction worker hiring tn Fairbanks, AB2 forecasts effects under the Air and Bus Scenario/ 50% constructlon worker hiring ln -50% construct,on worker Fafrban!-.s, AB3 forecasts refer to effects under Atr and Bus Scenarlo/100% to construction worker hiring ln constructlon worker htrtng in Fairbanks. Source: Frank Orth & Associates, Inc., 1985a Table 5 .. 16 Summary of Effects on Uti i I zat ion for Solid FERC Ltcense Application, FY84 Car Transportation, FY85 Car and 1985=2005 1985 1985 1990 Current Baseline Project Effect Baseline Basel tne & Planned % Capacity % Capacity :& Capacity % Anchorage Area Mun. of Anchorage FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A F '164 Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FYB5 Car Forecasts 535 14.5 o.o 30.7 o .. o 47.,3 0 .. 1 FYB5 ABI Forecasts 535 14 .. 5 0.0 30 .. 7 o .. l 47.3 o .. FY85 AB2 Forecasts 535 14.5 o.o 30.7 o .. o 47.3 0 .. 1 FYB5 AB3 Forecasts 535 14.5 o .. o 30 .. 7 0 .. 1 47 .. 3 0 .. 2 Mat-Su Borough FERC F orecdsts 617 N/A N/A 10 .. 2 0 .. 3 N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts 2l2 8.5 o.' 23.2 I o4 45 .. 4 2 .. 8 F¥85 Car Forecasts 212 8.6 0. I 22.3 !.,0 4L,4 L.9 FY85 ABI Forecasts 212 8.6 O. I 22.3 0.9 41..4 1.,7 FYB5 AB2 Forecasts 2l2 8.6 o. I 22.3 o .. s 4L.4 L.6 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 212 8.6 o .. t 22 .. 3 0 .. 9 41 .. 4 L,8 Table 5.16 Summary of Project Effects on Capac1ty Ut111zat,on .for Sot f d ~Jaste FERC License Appt1cat1on~ FY84 Car lransportat1on, FY85 Car and FY85 A~ and Bus Scenarios !985-2005 i985 1999 2002 2005 Current Basel1ne Project Effect BaselIne Project Effect Baseline Proj act E f feet & P~anned % Ct:ipactty % Capacity % Capacity % CapijCl $Capacity $ Capacity Area/Communli"y Cape~cJty Used Used Used Use;;:d Used Used Anchorage Area Mun. of Anchorage FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecast~ 535 60.9 0. I 71 .. 2 Oe I 8L.7 0.2 FY85 ABI Forecasts 535 60.9 0.2 71 .. 2 0.2 BL, 1 0@2 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 535 60.9 0. I 71 .. 2 0 .. 1 8L7 Oe I FY85 AB3 Forecasts 535 60.9 0.2 71 .. 2 0 .. 3 81 e 1 Oo3 Mat-Su Borough FERC Forecasts 617 30.0 0.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts 212 69.6 4.0 91 .. 5 4o8 116 .. 0 5 .. 3 FY85 Car Forecasts 212 61.5 2o7 79.4 302 98.9 3o3 FY85 ABI Forecasts 212 61.5 2.4 79.4 2 .. 9 98 .. 9 3.,0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 2l2 61.5 2.3 79 .. 4 2 .. 7 98 .. 9 2o9 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 212 61 .. 5 2 .. 5 79~4 3 .. 0 98 .. 9 3 .. 2 Table 5 .. 16 Summary of Project Effects on Capacity Utllfzatlon for Solid FERC Llcense Application~' FYB4 Cal"" Transportation, FY85 Car and FY85 Air and B~s !985-2005 1985 1985 1990 1995 Current Basel t ne Project Effect Basel t ne Project Effect Baseline Project Effect & Planned % Capacity % Capacity % Capacity % Capacity % Capacity % Capacity Area/Community Capac tty Used Used Used Used Used Used Fatrbanks Area faIrbanks-North Star Bor. F ERG Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY65 Car Forecasts 75 12.7 o.o 27.3 0 .. 1 42 .. 6 0 .. 2 FY85 ABI Forecasts 75 12.7 o .. o 27 .. 3 O. I 42.6 0 .. 2 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 75 12.7 0.0 27.3 0 .. 3 42.6 Oo5 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 75 12 .. 7 o.o 27 .. 3 o .. o 42a6 o .. o Cantwel i FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A F'i84 Forecasts 2 5.5 2 .. 5 13 .. 0 23 .. 5 23.5 6 .. 0 FY85 Car Forecasts 2 5 .. 5 2o0 13 .. 0 7,.5 23.0 10 .. 0 FY85 ABI Forecasts 2 5 .. 5 2.0 13 .. 0 7c5 23o0 10 .. 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 2 5.5 2.0 l3c0 7~5 23e0 10.,0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 2 5 .. 5 2.0 13.0 7 .. 5 23e0 10 .. 0 Tab I • 16 Ut i I iz at 1 on Sol FERC License onlil FY85 Car Sus !985-2005 1985 1999 2002 2005 Current Basel Jne Project Effect Basei t ne & Planned % Capacity % Capac1ty Capacity Fairbanks Area Falrbanks-North Star Bor .. FE.RC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FYB5 Car Forecasts 75 55~5 0 .. 3 65.,6 0 .. 3 75.,9 FY85 ABI Forecasts 75 55 .. 5 0.3 65.,6 0.,4 75 .. 9 FY85 A82 Forecasts 75 55 .. ·5. 0.6 65.,6 0 .. 7 75 .. 9 FY85 AB3 F on~casts 75 55 .. 5 o .. o 65 .. 6 o.o 75 .. 9 Cantwell FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts 2 33.5 7.0 42 .. 5 6 .. 5 5L,5 FY85 Car Forecasts 2 33 .. 0 IOeO 42 .. 0 10.,0 51..0 FY85 ABI Forecasts 2 33 .. 0 10 .. 0 42 .. 0 10 .. 0 51 .. 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 2 33 .. 0 10 .. 0 42 .. 0 w.o 5LO FY05 AB3 Forecasts 2 33.0 10.0 42 .. 0 10.0 51..0 N/A--Not Avatlable or Not Appllcab&e$ Es-tfmates for capacity are shown as acres of landfill. Percent of capacity used ts measured in terms of the of acres of landfill that have been used of the extstfng capacttye Effects under the FERC License Appllcation Scenarto are defined FERC Forecasts~ Effects under the FY84 Car Transportation Scenario are defined by FY84 Forecastsw Effects under the FY85 Car Transportat1on Scenario are defined FY85 Car Forecasts& Effects under the FY85 Air and Bus Scenarios are defined by FY85 AB forecasts where forecasts Bus Scenarto/ 11% construction worker htr1ng ~n Anchorage constructton worker h~rlng ln Fa1 effects under the A1r and Bus Scenario/ constructton worker hirl 1n Fairbanks, AB3 forecasts refer to effects under Air and Bus Scenar construction worker hiring in Fairbanks. Source: Frank Orth & Associates~ Inc. 1985~ to construct1on N/A N/A Oo4 Oo4 0 .. 8 0., N/A 6,.5 IOoO 10 .. 0 to .. o 10.,0 Tabl n ..... morn ... v~u of FERC L 1 censa licatton~ FYB4 Car Bus 1985 1965 1990 1995 Current Baseline Effect Basel J ne & Planned % Capactty % CapacJty Capacity Anchorage Area Mun. of Anchorage FERC F ort~casts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 forecasts N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 910.2 67 .. 9 0 .. 1 68.3 0 .. 2 69 .. 1 0.,0 FY85 ABI Forecasts 910.,2 67 .. 9 0.2 68 .. 3 0 .. 4 69 .. 1 o.,o FY85 A82 Forecasts 910.2 67.9 O. I 68 .. 3 0 .. 2 69 .. 1 0.,0 F¥85 AB3 Forecasts 910.2 67.9 0.3 68 .. 3 0.,6 69.1 Mat-Su Bor·ough FERC Forecasts NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts 96 .. 5 55 .. 5 0 .. 4 76 .. 5 I. 7 94 .. 1 1 .. 3 FY85 Car Forecasts 236 .. 5 23.7 0 .. 5 28.7 1 .. 0 35 .. 2 0.,0 FY85 ABl Forecasts 236.5 23 .. 7 0.3 28 .. 7 0.,7 35 .. 2 o.,o FY85 AB2 Forecasts 236.5 23 .. 7 0.2 28 .. 7 Oo5 J5o2 o .. o FYB5 AB3 Forecasts 236.5 23 .. 7 0 .. 3 28 .. 1 OeB 35 .. 2 0.,0 Tatde 5., i 7 Summary of Project Effects on Capac1ty Utilization for Recreation Fact~ It FERC License Application~ FY84 Car Transportat1on, FVB5 Car and FY85 Air and Bus Scenar 1985-2005 Acres n 1985 1999 2002 2005 Current Basel tne Project Effect Base it ne Project Effect Baseline & Planned % Capacity % Capacity % Capaclty ,; Capacity Capact Area/Community Capacity Used Used Used Used Used Used Anchorage Area Mun. of Anchorage FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 910.2 71.8 0 .. 2 72 .. 9 0.3 73.6 0 .. 2 FY85 ABI Forecasts 910.2 71.8 0.3 72 .. 9 0 .. 3 73o6 O .. i F'f8 ... AB2 Forecasts 910 .. 2 71.8 0.2 72.9 0 .. 3 73G6 0., I FY85 A83 Forecasts 910.2 71 .. 8 0.4 72 .. 9 0.3 73.6 0..,1 Mat-Su Borough FERC Forecasts N/A "I II N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A .... •'- FY84 Forecasts 96.5 116 .. I I. 5 131..5 1.3 ;49 .. 5 1..2 FY65 Car Forecasts 236~5 40 .. 6 Oe6 45o9 0 .. I 50.7 ~o .. 1 FY85 ABI Forecasts 236.5 40 .. 6 Oe4 45 .. 9 Oa I 50 .. 7 o .. o FY85 AB2 Forecasts 236.5 40 .. 6 Oo3 45 .. 9 OoO 50o7 o .. o FY85 AB3 Forecasts 236.5 40.6 Oe5 45 .. 9 Oel 50., 7 o.,o Table 5 i7 Summary of FERC license ltcatlon, FY84 Car 1985-2005 1965 1985 1990 1995 Current Basel t ne Project Effect Baseline & Planned % Capacity % Capac Capac tty Fairbanks Area Mun. of Fairbanks F£RC Forecasts N/A ~/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N./A FYB5 Car Forecasts 6,000 2e8 0 .. 0 :L I o.o 3,2 0.,0 FY85 ABI Forecasts 6,000 2 .. 8 o .. o 3 .. 1 o .. o 3 .. 2 0,.0 FYU5 AB2 Forecasts 6,000 2.8 o.o 3.1 0~ I 3 .. 2 OeO FY85 AB3 Forecasts 6,000 2.8 o .. o 3 .. 1 o .. o 3 .. 2 0~0 Summary of Project Effects on FERC L1cense Application~ FY84 Car Transportat for Recreation FacJiltles and FY85 Air BMs 1985 1999 2002 Current Baseline Project Effec't BaselIne Project Effect & Planned % Capacity % Capacity % Capacity % Capacity Area/Communlty Capacity Used Used Used Used Fairbanks Area Mune of Fatrbanks FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts NIA NIA N/A N/A N/A fY85 Car Forecasts 6,000 3.4 0.0 3 .. 5 o.o FY85 ABI Forecasts 6,000 3.4 o .. o 3 .. 5 o.o FYB5 AB2 Forecasts 6,000 3.4 O. I 3.5 OoO FY85 AB3 Forecasts 6,000 3.4 o.o 3 .. 5 o.o N/A--Not Available or Not Applicable. 1/ Effects under the FERC Lt~ense Appllcatlon Scenarto are deflned by FERC Forecastss Effects under the FY84 Car Transportation Scenario are deftned by FY84 Forecasts. Effects under the FY85 Car Transportation Scenario are defined by FY85 Car Forecasts. BaselY ne % Capacity Used N/A N/A 3e6 3.,6 3o6 3.,6 2005 Used N/A N/A o .. o o .. o 0.,0 0.,0 Effects under the FY85 Atr and Bus Scenarios are defined by FYB5 AB forecasts where ABI forecasts refer to effects under Air and Bus Scenario/ 77% constructton worker hiring tn Anchorage -23% construction worker htring in Fairbanks~ AB2 forecasts refer to effects under the Air and Bus Scenario/ 50% construction worker htrtng tn Anchorage -50% construction ~'4orker h~ring Fairbanks, AB3 forecasts refer to effects under Air and Bus Scenarlo/100% to construct1on worker hlrtng In construction worker hiring tn Fatrbankse Source: Frank Orth & Associates, lnc.p 1985. Tab 18 of FERC s kense App I FY84 Car 1985 1985 990 1995 Current Basell na Effect Base11 ne Basalt n(j) & Planned % Capacity % Capacity ty tty Anchorage Area Mun. of Anchorage FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecas+s N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 37,440 't2 • .3 o.o H3 .. 0 0.,, 114 .. 4 0.,5 FY85 ABI Forecasts .:n~~440 112a3 0.3 113 .. 0 0~5 114 .. 4 0 .. 4 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 440 H2 .. 3 0.1 11.3 .. 0 0 .. 1 I i4 .. 4 Oo3 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 440 H2.3 0 .. 4 113 .. 0 o.,a 114 .. 4 0.5 Mat-Su Borough FERC Forecasts 6,516 N/A N/A 153 .. 6 5 .. 5 N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts 6,915 90.0 1 .. 2 122.8 8 .. 2 159 .. 3 5 .. 8 FY85 Car Forecasts 8,915 97.4 2o4 li 4.4 9. I 13365 FY85 ABI Forecasts 8.915 97.4 2 .. 4 l t 4.4 9 .. l l:.t'5o5 3"6 FYe5 AB2 Forecasts 8,915 97 .. 4 2.4 114.4 9. I 133 .. 5 3.6 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 8,915 97 .. 4 2.4 114.,4 9 .. I 13.3 .. 5 )o6 Fairbanks Area Mun. of Fairbanks FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 forecasts N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A NIA FY85 Car Forecasts l0,~~267 105 .. 1 -0 .. 3 I l 5. i 0.8 i20., t Oo6 FY85 ABI Forecasts 10lt267 !05., I -0.1 115 .. 1 I., I 120 .. 1 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 10,267 105 .. 1 0.8 ll5 .. I 2.6 t20D FY85 ABJ Forecasts 10,267 105 .. I -0.,7 U5e I ""'Ool 120,1 Tabla 5 .. 18 Summary of Utt I h:atfon fERC llcense Apptlcatton, FY84 Car Car and 1Su5-2005 l985 1999 2002 Current Basel' ne Project Effect Basal ine & Planned ~ Capaclty % Capacity Capac1ty Anchorage Area Mun. of Anchorage FERC Forecast~ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NlA F Y84 Forecasts N/A N/A NIA WA N/A N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 37,440 118 .. 8 0 .. 5 120 .. 4 0 .. 6 i21. 7 0.,5 FY85 ABl Forecasts 37,440 "118 .. 8 0 .. 7 120 .. 4 0 .. 6 12L~ 7 OQ)4 FYB5 AB2 forecasts 440 liB .. a 0 .. 4 120 .. 4 086 l2L,7 FY85 AB:S Forecasts 440 IIB .. B 0.9 120.,4 0 .. 1 1210 7 0.,4 Mat-Su Borough FERC Forecasts 6,516 252.5 4.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts 8,915 190 .. 7 7.3 214 .. 4 5 .. 1 239 .. 8 4 .. 6 FY85 Car Forecasts 8,9t5 154 .. 4 6.4 169.1 2 .. 3 184.,1 .. o FY85 ABI Forecasts 8,915 154 .. 4 5 .. 2 169 .. 1 2 .. 2 184 .. 1 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 8,915 i54 .. 4 4u8 169., I 1 2 184., I L,4 FY85 AB3 Forecasts e_915 154 .. 4 5 .. 5 169. I 2o3 184 .. 1 L.4 Fairbanks Area Mun. of fairbanks FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 10,267 !27 .. 7 0.9 131.6 0 .. 5 135 .. 2 Oe3 FY85 ABI Forecasts 10,267 127o 7 L.i 131 6 0.,5 135 .. 2 0 .. 3 FY85 A82 Forecasts 10,267 127~7 2., I 13L.6 Oe6 !35c2 0 .. 3 FY85 AB3 Forecasts I 127.7 0.,2 1.31 .6 0.,5 I Tabla 5.18 Suwmary of Project Effects on ity Utf H zatton for Education Services FERC L1canse Application~ FY84 Car Transportat1on, FY85 Car and FY85 Air and 1985-2005 -Number of Students l985 1985 !990 1995 Current Baseline Project Ef feet BaselIne Project Effect Basel 1 ne Proj act Effect & Planned % Capacity % CapacJty % Capacity % Capacity Ce,pacfty Area/Communtty Capacity Used Used Used Used Used Used Nenana Ctty Public School FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FYB5 Car forecasts 400 57.3 l. 3 71.2 2 .. 3 88.3 0.5 FY85 ABI Forecasts 400 57.3 o .. o 71 .. 2 0.5 88 .. 3 o,o FY85 AB2 Forecasts 400 57.3 o.o 71 .. 2 0 .. 5 88 .. 3 OoO FY85 AB3 Forecasts 400 57 .. 3 o.o 71 .. 2 o .. o 88o3 o .. o Rallbelt School District FE.RC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts .410 84.6 II. 5 86.3 9e5 86~8 Oa5 FYB5 ABI Forecasts 410 84.6 9 .. 0 86.3 6.7 B6o8 o .. o FY85 AB2 Forecasts 410 84.6 9.0 86 .. 3 6*7 86 .. 8 0&0 FYB5 AB3 Forecasts 410 84.6 9.0 86 .. 3 6.3 86 .. 8 o .. o Table ~L Hl Summary of Project Effects on Capacity Utll1zatlon for Educatlon Ser~lces FERC L1cense Appllcat1on@ FV84 Car Transportatton 9 FY85 Car Transportatlon~ and FY85 Air Qnd Bus i 965=2005 1985 1999 2002 2005 Current Basel1ne Project Ef:fect Baseline Project E f fact Basel t ne Proj act E f feet & Planned % Capacity % Capacity % Capactty % Capac1ty % Capacity % Capacity Area/Communtty Capacity Used l!sed Used Used Used Used Nenana City Publ1c School FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A F Y84 Forecasts N/A · N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 400 104.8 I. 5 119.0 o.o 135.8 o.o FYB5 ABI Forecasts 400 104.,8 0.5 119.0 o .. o !.35 .. 8 060 FYB5 AB2 Forecasts 400 104 .a 0.5 ll9.0 o .. o 135 .. 8 o .. o FY85 AB3 Forecasts 400 104.8 0.5 119 .. 0 o.o 135 .. 8 o.o Railbelt School District FERC Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 410 86.3 I a 7 85 .. 9 OeO 84 .. 1 o.o FY85 ABI Forecasts 410 86 .. 3 o.o 85 .. 9 o.o 84 .. 1 OaO FY85 AB2 Forecasts 410 86.3 o.o 85.9 o.o 84. I OoO FY85 AB3 Forecasts 410 86 .. 3 o.o 85 .. 9 OoO 84 .. 1 OoO N/A--Not Available or Not Appl1cable. 1/ 2/ Education services refer to school fad I ittes located In the Mun1c1pallty of Anchorage 11 Fl!llrbanks-North Star Matanuska-Susttna Borough~ and the Rat I belt Port ton of the Yukon-Koyukuk Census 01 vtslon and their abl I tty to handle the projected number of students that would attend 1n each areae Effects under the FERC Ltcense App1Jcat1on Scenario are defined by FERC Forecastse Effects under the FY84 Car Transportatton Scenarto are defined by FY84 Forecasts. Effects under the FY85 Car Transportation Scenarto are defined by FY85 Car Forecastsa Effects under the FY85 Air and Bus Scenartos are defined by FY85 AB forecasts where ABI forecasts refer to effects u~der Air and Bus Scenario/ 77% constructlon worker hJrlng In Anchorage -23% constructton worker hfrfng tn Fairbanks, AB2 forecas. refer to effects under the Air and Bus Scenario/ 50% construction worker hiring in Anchorage ... construction worker h1rtng Fairbanks, AB3 forecasts refer to effects under Atr and Bus Scenarlo/100% to construction worker htr1ng in construction worker hlrJng Jn fairbanks. Source: frank Orth & Associates~ lnc.p 1985. Summary of FERC license Appilcat1on, FY84 Car 1985 Anchorage /4rea Mun. of A~chorage FERC Forecasts $139,789 N/A FY84 Forecasts 184,227 N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 207,759 $-1-088 FY85 ABI Forecasts 207,759 -1,088 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 207,759 -1,088 FYB5 AB3 Forecasts 207,759 -I ,088 Mat-Su Borough FERC Forecasts $ 24,. 100 $-4,600 FY84 Forecasts 31,396 2,674 FY85 Car Forecasts 32,898 -629 FY85 ABI Forecasts 32,898 -629 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 898 -629 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 32,898 -629 Paimer FERC forecasts $ 2,991 S-L. 166 FY84 Forecasts 4B506 178 FY85 Car forecasts 3,901 496 FY85 AB! Forecasts 3,90i 496 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 3,901 496 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 3,901 496 1985-2005 N/A $160,400 N/A 202,449 S-2 226,659 -I 226,659 0 226,659 -2 226,659 $ 600 $ 33jll00 -27 42,.873 -18 39,194 -15 39,194 -12 39,194 -20 39,194 $ 459 $ 4,198 5 7,104 l5 5,929 6 5,929 6 5,929 H 5,929 Iars 1990 N/A N/A 490 ti26,490 $26,490 626,490 100 -3,805 1,7l4 I, 714 I, 714 111714 $-I ,697 -484 893 893 893 893 N/A N/A 89 145 60 2t1 300 -113 137 121 HO 128 $622 7 49 27 18 36 1995 $1 N/A N/;A N/A N/A 247,715 $27 247.1)715 247.715 $52,554 6 247,715 tl52,554 !4 N/A N/A N/A S55,036 -638 $ =12 46,401 207 401 221 401 221 401 223 741 9,819 958 17 8,907 ip387 ~~387 3 0 s.1m'm"'r·v o·t Project Effects General Fund Fiscal FERC l tcense Appllcatton, FV84 Car FY85 Car and FY85 Bus 1999 Anchorage Area Mun. of Anchorage FERC Forecasts $177,156 N/A N/A F Y84 Forecasts 214,9~3 N/A NIA FY85 Car Forecasts 272,970 $68,288 $ 216 FY85 ABI forecasts 272,970 £68,288 299 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 272,970 $68,288 165 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 970 S68,2B8 411 Mat-Su Borough FERC Forecasts $ 51,200 $-10,200 $ 800 FY84 Forecasts 66,089 4,615 81 FY85 Car Forecasts 54,287 16,821 703 FY85 ABi Forecasts 54,287 16,821 624 FYB5 AB2 Forecasts 54,287 16,821 583 FY65 AB3 Forecasts 54,267 16,821 659 Palmer FERC Forecasts $ 5,725$-2,316 $ 85) F Y84 Forecasts 12,815 I ,555 17 FY85 Car Forecasts 12,159 ',847 44 FY85 ABI Forecasts 12,159 I ,847 22 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 12,159 I ,847 15 FY85 AB3 Forecasts !2,,59 '-847 34 1985-2005 $l64.,086 2t 8~ 174 288,65.3 288,853 288,.853 288,853 ars 2002 N/A N/A $8t ,507 81,507 81.507 81,~~507 $ 58,800 $-12,300 76,547 9,955 59,980 832 59,980 832 59,980 25tt832 59,980 25,832 6,348 $ -2,568 '5, 715 2,192 159302 15,302 15,302 l5.,302 6 N/A SI~L~934 N/1, 222.,276 309 3l7 296 334 $ 900 N/A l4l $8811995 329 65,903 317 65,903 310 325 $ 946 038 28 191)337 4 i 242 5 l9j>242 3 I 6 2005 '798 798 798 28 94&1798 128 N/A $ 201 199 37,816 19 049 35 ~t FERC L t cense Wasilla FERC Forecasts FY84 Forec~sts FY85 Car Forecasts FY85 ABI Forecasts FY85 AB2 Forecasts FY85 AB3 Forecasts Houston FERC Forecasts FY84 Forecasts FY85 Car Forecasts FY85 ABI ~-orecasts FY85 AB2 Forecasts FY85 AB3 Fc~ecasts Fairbanks Area Mun. of Fairbanks FERC forecasts FY84 Forecasts FY85 Car Forecasts FY85 ABI Forecasts FY85 AB2 For~casts FY65 AS3 rorecasts Summary of I fcatlonq FY84 Car lSi85 $ 906 $ -26 I ,213 134 966 618 966 618 966 618 966 618 $ 101 N/A 263 $ 44 262 -7 262 -7 262 -7 262 -7 $ 21,315 NIA 29,010 N/A 28,881 $-8,421 28,(168i l>-811421 28,881 $-8,421 28,881 421 Table 5., 9 Effeats on General $ 0 I 23 10 9 II N/A $ 0 -2 0 -2 -I N/A N/A $ 21 $ 3 $ -51 $ 242 FY85 Car l985-2005 1,'.308 1,847 1,409 1,409 1,409 1,409 $ 166 425 422 422 422 422 $ 702 516 32,738 32,738 32,736 :n .. 738 $ ars 1990 -45 188 928 928 928 928 N/A $ 68 -20 -20 -20 -20 Nl N/A $ 0 3 36 20 15 24 N/A $ 8 -3 -I -2 -I N/A N/A s II $ -24 $ -52 I $ 1,878 -65 0 2,819 274 5 2,055 1,429 -I 2,055 I 429 2 2,055 I 429 2 2,055 1,429 I 269 N/A N/A 684 s no 5 680 ·-45 i 680 -45 0 680 -45 0 680 -45 0 24,463 N/A N/A 831 N/A N/A 309 $-21 309 S-21 $ ~:z 309 $-210 35:o309 v Table 5. i 9 Summary of Project Effects on General Fund Ff seed FERC Ucense Appl icat!on&o FY84 Car Transportation~> FY85 Car ion, e~nd FY85 Ai and Bu~ ScenarJos 1985-2005 Constant 1983 D0ilars 1999 2002 2005 Basel lne Project Basel t na Project Expendt-Ftscal Effect on Expend I-Fiscal Effect on seal Effect on Area/Communlty ture Balance Fiscal Balance ture Balance Fiscal Balance tura Sa lance Fiscal Balance Wast I Ia FERC Forect'lc:>ts $ 2,511 $ -88 $ 0 $ 3,074 $ -108 $ 0 $ 3,797 $ -i33 -I FY84 Forecasts 3,959 .388 8 5,108 522 4 6,597 713 4 FY85 Car Fore\..asts 2,779 2,056 23 3,486 2,719 4 4,370 3.1'625 -6 FY85 ABI Forecasts 2,779 2,056 w 3,486 2p719 4 4,370 311625 2 FY85 AB?. Forecasts 2~ 779 2,056 7 .31'466 2,719 4 4,370 31'625 2 FY85 AB3 forecasts 21779 2,056 15 3,486 2,7l9 2 4.~~370 3,625 0 Houston FERC Forecasts $ 394 N/A N/A $ 525 N/A N/A $ 699 N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts I ,000 $162 $ 6 I ,331 $ 2l4 $ 6 I, Tl2 $ 284 <t ;;fj 7 fYB5 Car Forecasts 996 -81 0 I ,326 -120 0 I, 764 -176 FY85 ABI Forecasts 996 -81 0 111326 -120 I I !I 764 -176 0 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 996 -81 0 I ,326 -120 0 I~ 764 -176 0 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 996 -81 0 1,326 -120 -2 j;; 764 -176 Fairbanks A.r-~ Mun. of Fatrbanks fERC Forecasts $ 26~564 N/A N(A $ 28D !90 N/A N/A $ 29,. 952 N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts 51,642 N/A N/A 5711734 N/A N/A 64,769 N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts 38,530 $ 3,619 $ -9 40,436 $ 6,633 $ 20 42,286 747 20 FY85 ABI Forecasts 38,530 $ 3,619 $ 8 40,436 $ 6,633 $ 31 42,286 91) 747 52 FYB5 AB2 forecasts 38,530 $ 3,619 $ 16 40,436 $ 69633 $ 40 421'286 9,747 $ 52 FY85 AB3 forecasts 38,530 $ 3ll619 $ !2 40p436 $ 6D633 $ 49 42 286 91'747 52 Summary of FERC License Appllcatton, FY84 Car 1985 Cantwell FERC forecasts N/A N/A FY84 Forecasts N/A N/A FY85 Car Forecasts $ 22 $ FY85 ABl Forecasts 22 FY85 AB2 Forecasts 22 FY85 AB3 Forecasts 22 Nenana FERC Forecasts N/A N./A FY84 Forecasts N/A N/A FYB5 Car Forecasts $1,246 $ B FY85 ABI Forecasts I ,246 8 FY85 AB2 Forecasts I ,246 8 FY85 AB3 Forecasts I ,246 8 Table ect Effects on General N/A N/A $ 2 3 3 2 N/A N/A $ 4 2 2 I FY85 Car i 985-2005 N/A N/A $ 25 25 25 25 N/A N/A $1' 717 I, 717 I, 717 I, 717 $ ars 1990 N/A N/A 6 6 6 6 N/A N/A $ -18 -18 -18 -18 I Balances N/A N/A $ 2 2 3 N/A N/A $ -5 -2 -2 I Bus 1995 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $ 29 I $ 0 28 13 28 13 0 28 13 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $21J367 $ -74 -I 367 -74 0 2,367 -74 21'367 -74 Table 5e 19 Summary of Project Efiects on Genera' Fund Ftscal Ba FERC License Appl teat ion, FY84 Car TrclllsportattonD FY65 Car Transportation, and FY85 Air and Bus Scenarios 1985-2005 Thousands 1999 Base I i ne Constant 1983 Dollars 2002 Baseline Project 2005 ne Expendf-Ftscal Project E1fect on Expendi-Flscal Effect on Expendi-Fiscal Effect on ~rea/Communtt~y------------~t~u~r~e--~B~a~i~a~nc~e~~F~l~s~c~a~I~B~e~l~a~n~ce~--~t~u~re~---~B~a~l~an~c~a~~F~t~s~c~al Balance ·tura Be i a nee F i sea I Ba i a nee Cantwell FERC Forecasts FY84 Forecasts FY85 Car Forecasts FY85 ABI Forecasts FY65 AB2 Forecasts FY65 AB3 Forecasts Nenana FERC Forecasts FY84 Forecasts FY85 Car Forecasts FY85 ABI Forecasts FY85 A82 Forecasts FY85 AB3 Forecasts N/A N/A $ 33 33 33 33 N/A N/A $3,065 3,065 3,065 3,065 N/A-~Not Ava! labia or Not Appltcable. NIA WA $ 18 18 18 18 WA N/A $ -145 -145 -145 -145 N/A N/A $ N/A N/A $ -2 2 0 0 N/A N/A $ 36 36 36 36 N/A N/A $311721 3, 721 3, 721 3,721 N/A N/A $ 25 25 25 25 N/A N/A $-206 -206 -206 -206 1/ Effects under the FERC License Application Scenarlo are deflned by FERC Forecasts. Effects under the FY84 Car Transportation Scenario are defined by FY84 Forecasts. Effects under the FY85 Car Transportatlon Scenario are defined by FY85 Car Forecasts. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $ 0 $ 40 $ 33 $ 0 0 40 33 0 0 40 33 0 0 40 33 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $ -3 522 $-554 $ 0 -3 411522 -554 0 -3 4~522 -554 0 I 4,522 -554 0 Effects under the FY85 Air and Bus Scenar1os are deflned by FYB5 AB forscasts where ABI forecasts refer to effects under Air and FJus Scenario/ 77% construction worker htrlng In Anchorage -23% constructlon worker htrtng In Fairbanksp AB2 forecasts refer to effects under the Alr and Bus Scenario/ 50% construction worker hiring tn Anchorage -construction w1orker htr~ng in 2/ Fairbanks, A83 forecasts refer to effects under AJr end Bus Scenarto/100% to construction worker hiring in construction worker hiring In fairbanks. The Matanuska-Susttna Borough does not represent the sum total of Palmerp Wast! Ia, and Houston. for providing Its own set of distinctive public services that are not provided by the cities. The Source: frank Orth & Associates, inc., 1985" b!e A0 PENDIX A tTY SUMMARIES 1/ Effects under the FERC License Apptfcatfon Scenarlo are deflned by FERC Forecas+sQ Effects under the FY84 Car TransportatTon Scenarto are deflned by FY84 Car Forecastse Effects under the FY85 Car Transportation Scenario are defined by FY85 Car Forecasts. Effects under the FY85 Air and Bus Scenarios are deftned by FY85 AB forecasts where Af!.J forecasts refer to effects under A l r and Bus Scenar l o/77% construct l on worker hfrfng ln Anchorage -23% construction worker hirfng ln Fairbanks, AB2 forecasts refer to effects unde1R the Alr and Bus ScenarJo/50% construction worker hTrTng Tn Anchorage -50S constructlon worker hfrfng fn Fairbanks, AB3 forecasts refer to effects under Air and Bus Scenarto/IOOS construction worker hTrTng Anchorage -O% construction worker hirlng ln Fairbanks. Source: Frank Orth & Associates, IncA, 1985. Baseline Effect lai·ton Basel t ne W i 1·h-Proj ect Effect FERC 131,705 134Jl'7l5 3,010 224;>027 224,690 663 Table 2 Econom' .... -.,,,..U,H lee-ted Sconarios 1990 FY84 Car 129,493 131 .. 995 2,502 223,l96 223,.376 180 FYB5 Car 129, L3i 11'314 248,767 249,597 8.30 ABI I ,526 248 8 767 250, 11.3 I ,346 AB2 1271>817 128s;896 l ,079 248;>767 249,333 566 A83 127..,817 1291'740 1.,923 767 230jll 795 2$'028 3/ Household,-s ~ I 2/ 3/ Baseline 79,028 791'232 86,184 861' 184 184 86, 164 With-Project 79,24l 79,295 86,538 861)678 _86,391 86,926 Effect 213 63 354 494 207 742 Effec-ts under the FERC Llcense Appltcatton Scenario are defined by FERC Forecastse Effects ~nder the FY84 Car Transportation Scenario are deftned by FY84 Car Forecasts. Effects under the FY85 Car Transportation Scenario are deflned by FY85 Car Forecas~s. Effects under the FY85 Atr and Bus Scenarios are deflned by FY85 AB forecasts where AB i forecasts refer to ef facts under AT r and Bus Scenar t o/77% construct l on worker hfring in Anchorage -23% construction worker hlrfng fn Falrbanksp AB2 forecasts refer to effects under the Atr and Bus Scenarlo/ 50% constructton worker hlr1ng tn Anchorage -50% construction worker hlrtng in Fairbanks, AB3 forecasts refer to effects under Alr and Bus Scenario/100% construction worker htrlng Anchorage -0% construct1on worker hiring in Fairbanks. Emp I oyment represents number of worl~ers by pI ace of rest dence. Households represents the number of occupted houslng urdts .. Source: Frank Orth & Assoclates, lnc.p !985. 2 Dt Acres) N/A N/A 164e2 164 .. 2 .2 N/A N/A 164.2 164.7 ~2 N/A HIA OoO 0 .. 5 0 ... 0 2/ N/A t-.V!-. 535 .. 0 535o0 535 .. 0 N/A N/A 0.,0 0~3 0.,0 N/A N/A 126e8 126~9 126~7 Po~ ice Protection 5/ N./A N/A 497 .. 5 497.,5 497.5 N/A N/A 498 .. 3 498 .. 7 497 .. 5 N/A N/A 0.,8 L.2 0., Base Year Staff N/A N/A 393 .. 0 393 .. 0 393,0 PercenT E f feet N/A N/A 0.,2 0.2 0., I Increase Over Base Year Staff Nl.A N/A 126 .. 8 126.9 126.,7 Recreation FacilIties 2f Baseline N/A N/A 62\.7 621.7 621.7 Wtth-project N/A N/A 623 .. 5 625 .. 3 62Jo5 N/A NIA-Not Available or Not Applicable. 1/ Effects under the FERC Ltcense Appltcatlon Scenarlo are def1ned by FERC Forecasts. Effects under the FY84 Car Transportation Scenarlo are defined by FY84 Car Forecastse Effects under the FY85 Car Transportation Scenario are deftned by FY85 Car Forecasts .. Forecasts 0.3 497.5 499~5 2.0 393.0 127.i 621. 627o2 Effects under the FY85 Air and Bus Scenarlos are deftned by FY85 AS forecast's where ABI fonscasts refer to effec-ts under Atr and Bus Scenarfo/77$ construction worker hJrfng ln Anchorage -23% construction worker htrfng Jn Fatrbanks, AB2 forecasts refer to effects under the Air and Bus Scenario/ 50% construction worker htrtng In Anchorage -construction worker hiring fn FaJrbanks,. AB3 forecasts refer to effects under ,A.tr and Bus Scenario/!00% constructton worker htrlng Anchorage -0~ constructfon worker hiring ln Fairbanks. 2/ Capacity/staff numbers used in FERC forecasts were from 1981; the stmilar numbers used in the revfsed. base case, and worker hiring project!ons ~ere from 1983/!984. 31 Calculated by dlvtding effect by baseiine forecast. 4/ Calculated by dlvfding with-project forecast by capacTty. ~I Poltce Protection requirements are ln terms of manpower. 6/ Recreatton facility requirements are tn terms ot acres of community parks; FY85 factltty requirements dlffer between the FERC Ltcense appllcatlon and subsequent projections due to a change in ection meihodotogy as wei I as revised population forecasts. Source: Frank Orth Associatesp lncop 1985. lab I 0 ti Munici !fty of ?ubI ic Fact ttles/Servlces Effoc1"'s Sa I ected Scemar 1 os 199() FERC FY84 Car FY85 Car ABI AB2 e !tal Trements Number at Beds) Base! ne N/A N/A 394.1 394., I 394~ I WI thw·proj ect N/A N/A 396 .. 3 396 .. 6 395~3 Etfe~' N/A N/A 2s2 2~5 L2 Bas'" .aar Capacity N/A N/A 692.0 692.,0 692.,0 Per·cent Effect 3/ N/A N/A Oo6 0.6 0.,3 % Capac tty Uttllzatton 4/ N/A N/A 57 .. 3 57.,3 57.,1 ~~ater Sendee <000 ga I a/day> Basel tna N/A N/A 29~852o0 29,852~0 29.1>852 .. 0 With-project N/A N/A 29,984~8 30,067 c4 29,942~6 Effe~t N/A N/A 132 .. 5 215.4 90 .. 6 Base 'i'Aar Capac 2J N/A N/A 36,000~0 36,000.,0 36,000 .. 0 Percent £ f fee' N/A N/A 0~4 0.7 Oe3 of Capactty Utilization .Y N/A N/A 83~3 83.5 8."L2 Sewer Service WOO ga I ./day> Basel t ne N/A N/A 27, 762.,4 27, 762e4 27,762.4 Wfth-project N/A N/A 27, 89L, t 27,971.0 271'850 .. 1 Effect N/A N/A 128e7 208.6 87o7 Base Year Capacity 2/ N/A N/A 34,.QOOoO 34,QOOcQ 34-I'QOQoQ Percent Effect 3/ NIA N/A Oo5 0.,8 0~3 ~ of Capacity Utt If zatt on 4/ N/A N/A 82 .. 0 82e3 81 .9 NIA-Not Available or Not Appltcablee II Effects under the FERC License Appilcatfon Scenario are defined by FERC Forecasts. Effects under the FY84 Car Transportation Scenarto are deflned by FY84 Car ForecastsQ Effects under the FY85 Car Transportation Scenarfo are deftned by FY85 Car Forecasts~ A83 Forecas·~s 394 .I 397~7 .6 692.0 0.,9 57e5 29,Hli2.0 30,176c5 324.5 36,000.0 • I 83.8 27,762.4 28p076 .. 7 314.3 34,000.0 I. I 82.6 Effects under the FY85 Afr and Bus Scenarlos are deffned by FY85 AB forecasts where ABI fore- casts refer to effects under Atr and Bus Scenarto/77% construction worker hlrtng ln Anchorage -23% constructTon worker hirtng Tn Fairbanks, A82 forecasts refer to effects under the Atr and Bus Scenario/ 50% construction worker hiring in Anchorage -50% constructlon worker htrTng in FaTrbanksp A83 forecasts refer to effects under Atr and Bus Scenarlo/100% constructlon worker htrtng Anchorage-O% construction worker hirlng in Fairbanks. 21 Capacfty/staff numbers used in FERC forecasts were from !981; the similar· numbers used ln the revlsed, base case, and worker hiring projections were from !983/1984. 3/ Calculated by dlvlding effect by baseline forecast. 4/ Calculated by dlvidfng with-project forecast by capacity. Source: Frank Orth & AssocTatesp lnCop 1985. 4 Tab L5 Munlclpal t of Pubi ic FacTI Tttes/Ser·vfces EHects Selected Scanarfos 1990 Soctoeconomtc FERC FY84 Car FY85 Car AB' AB2 AB3 Fonx::asts Forecasi·s Schoo! Chlldran Baseline N/A N/A 23,260 23,260 23~260 With-project N/A N/A 23,288 23,357 231'287 Effect N/A N./A 28 97 27 Base Year Capaci-ty 3! N/A N/A 22jlll00 22f 100 22:. lOO Percent Effect 3/ N/A N/A Oe I Oo4 0. I of Capacit-y Utt llzatton ~ N/A N/A 105~4 !0So7 I 05 .. 4 Secondary School ChT !dren Basel fne N/A N/A 19,031 19,031 19,031 \~ i th-proj ect N/A N/A 19,054 19, I 10 19,053 Effect N/A N/A 23 79 22 8ase Year Capacity 2/ N/A N/A 15,340 !5,340 15,340 Percent Effect 3/ N/A N/A o.' 0 .. 4 Oo' % of Capacity UtllfzatTon 4/ N/A N/A 124.2 124 .. 6 124a2 Total School Enrollment Basel t ne N/A tVA 42,291 42,291 42,291 With-project N/A N./A 42,342 42,467 4:~, 340 Effect N.IA N/A 51 l76 49 Base Year Capacity 21 N/A N/A 37,440 37,440 37,440 Percent Effect 3/ N/A N/A 0 .. 1 0.4 Oo J :£ of Capacity Utll t zatTon ~ N/A N/A 113. I 113.4 113~ I N/A-Not Available or Not Appllcabte. 1/ Effects under the FERC LTcense Application Scenario are deffned by FERC Forecasts. Effects under the FY84 Car Transportation Scenarlo are deflned by FY84 Car Forecastso Effects under the FY85 Car Transportation Scenario are defTned by FY85 Car Forecasts. Effect-s under the FY85 Air and Bus ScenarTos are deftned by FY85 AB forecasts where ABI forecasts refer to effects under Alr and Bus Scenarto/77% construction ~;orker hirtng in Anchorage-23% construction worker tr1ng ln Falrbanks, AB2 forecasts refer to effects under the Air and Bus Scenario/ 50% constructlon worker hTrTng Tn Anchorage -50% consi·ructlon worker hirJng Tn FatrLanks, AB3 forecasts refer to effects under Atr and Bus Scenarfo/IOOS construction worker hirtng Anchorage -OS construction worker hiring fn Fairbanks~ 21 Capacity/staff numbers used in FERC forecasts were from !98\; the s~mTiar numbers used Jn the revfsed, base case, and ~orker h1ring projections were from 1983/1984. 3/ Calculated by dlvlding effect by baseline forecastQ 4/ Ca\cu\ated by dtvtding with~project forecast by capacity. Source: Frank Orth & Assoclatesp !neG$ 1985~ 23~260 419 159 22,100 0,7 I 06~0 l9p 031 19$' 162 131 15.1!'340 0.7 124.9 42p291 42 .. 581 290 37,440 0.7 113~ 7 e I. Muntct of Anchora9e F t sea i E tfects 1990. <thousands of constan·t i 983 do II c:~r s) FERC FY84 Car FY85 Car ABt A82 AB3 Genera Fund Tne Revenues $ WA tVA $ 149 253,149 253.,149 253., 49 \'~ l Revenues N/A N/A 253jl993 254p519 2531' 726 2551'214 Basel t ns Expenditures 159,590 202,,449 226,659 226,659 2261>659 2261>659 Expendt""' tun~s 160,400 202,613 227,414 22.7/1884 227,176 228,506 Net Baseline Fiscal Balance N/A N/A 26,490 26,490 261'490 26,490 Net ( w/ project> ~\'---.A Balance N/A Nil\ 26,579 26,6:')5 26,550 26!'708 1· I::II..Qi ect Effect Note: Sums may not equal totals due to roundtng dTffer·encese N/A-Not Available or Not Appllcableo II Effects under ihe FERC Gicense AppltcatTon Scenarto are defined by FERC Forecasts. Effects under the FY64 Car· Transportatton Scenar·lo are deft ned by FY84 Car Forecasts~ Effects under the FY85 Car TransportatTon ScenarTo are deflned by FY85 Car Forecasts. Effects under the FY85 Air and Bus Scenarios are defined by FY85 AS forecasts where A8l forecasts refer to et facts under A r r and Bus Scenar r o/77% construct Ton v.orker hirfng fn Anchorage-23S construction worker" hlrlng Tn Fatrbanks~" A82 forecasts refer to effects under the AJr and Bus Scenario/ 50% constructton worker hfring Tn Anchorage = 50S construction worker hfrtng Tn Fairbanks, AB3 forecasts refer to effects under A1r and Bus Scenarto/100% construction worker htrlng Anchorage-0$ constructlon worker hiring fn Fatrbankss Source: Frank Orth & Associates, lnce, 1985. 6 1990 1995 !997 1998 999 2000 2001 2002 FERC 31 202 33..,950 36~984 39.$132.3 543 964 263 I !2 49,734 51 988 54,607 191 60,272 63.1'000 66,3.38 69,334 72,731 76,295 HO I 72l 985 107 1,389 111337 11'210 !,013 937 891 924 975 I ,032 11'047 1,021 930 837 Tab I Forecasts 39.1'610 44,163 58,975 61,235 63,675 66,062 681'514 71,079 718 452 396 519 65l 941 1,085 1,393 i ,362 t ,275 I, 167 1,128 !,099 I 127 1;183 1,2!3 1,220 I, !99 1-125 1,079 721 37;.!87 38,036 39;082 188 41,976 181 451'801 458 48,023 48,994 51,354 53,306 55,301 56;654 58.,472 60,358 0.36 743 402 803 775 I p 129 I ~397 t ,605 819 500 -9i -32 82 616 847 801 993 381 95 366 675 509 506 757 818 472 334 45 44 44 345 483 476 5 4 227 75 248 458 829 365 62t 356 61 551 929 612 ijl0l7 599 995 370 252 45 44 44 44 82 212 45i 327 606 337 594 .367 639 167 259 55 89 Effects under the FERC License Appltcatlon Scanarto are defined by FERC Forecastse Effects under the FY84 Car Transpoit6tton Scenario are deflned by FY84 Car Forecastso Effects under the FY85 Car Transportation Scenario are d~ffned by FY85 Car Forecasts. EffecTs under the FY85 Atr and Bus Scenarlos are defined by FY85 AS forecasts where ABI forecasts refer to effects under Air and Bus Scenario/77% constructton worker hir1ng tn Anchorage -23~ constr~ctton worker hirlng tn Fairbanks~ AB2 forecasts refer to effects under the Air and Bus Scenario/50~ construction worker htrtng tn constructlon worker hlrlng 1n Fairbanks, AB3 forecasts refer to effects under Alr and Bus ScenarJo/100% constructfon ~orker hfring Anchorage -OS constructTon worker hlrtng ln Fairbank~. Source: Frank Orth & Associates, inc., t985. (off-site) C"-!t),n.".lifnntlrl'•nnlc Effects ectad Sceru::u·· t os ..!! 1990 '"'"-~· --,-----------·---------------------~-- EffeC't l"tton Based l ne ect Effect FERC 6,914 7~857 943 42,964 45p442 2,478 FY84 Car 1, 857 8,856 999 47.,246 49,868 211622 FY85 Car 7,351 8,197 846 41,976 44,528 2,552 AB! 41 p 976 43,969 I ,993 A82 7, 351 7~535 184 41,976 43,743 I p 767 AB3 Forecasts 71'351 7 p 66~1 314 41 r 976 44,!48 2, 172 Households 2/ 31 Basel f ne 1411417 15,.375 14, 157 14,157 14v 157 ! 4. 157 Wttn-Project ! 5,253 !6, 141 14,987 14,832 14.,748 14,900 Effect 8:)6 766 830 675 591 743 Effects under the FERC License ApplicatTon Scenarlo are defined by FERC Forecasts~ Effects under the FY84 Car Transportatlon Scenarlo are deflned by FY84 Car Forecasts@ Effects under the FY85 Car Transportatto~ Scenarlo are deftned by FY85 Car Forecasts. Effects under the FY85 Air and Bus Scenartos are defined by FY85 AB forecasts where AB I forecasts refer to effects under At r and Bus Scenar i o/77% construct l on worker hiring In Anchorage -23% construction worker hlrtng ln Fairbanks, A82 forecasts refer to effects under the Alr and Bus Scenarlo/ 50% constructlon ~orker hlrlng in Anchorage -50~ co~structton worker hfrlng tn Fairbanks, AB3 forecasts rater to effects under Air and Bus Scenarto/100" construction worker htrfng Anchorage-O% constructlon worker hiring '" Fairbanks. Employment represents number of workers by place oi residence. Households represents the number ot occupied houslng unlts~ Source: Frank Orth & Associates, Inc~, 1985~ 8 So t Waste latl Acres) Per~ cent E f feet _ of UtTIJzatton 4/ Pollee Protection 5/ Basel Jne Effect Base Year Staff 21 Percent E ftect Increase Over Base Year Staff 4/ Recreation fact I itles 6/ Baseline Wtth-project Effect i'~atanuska-Susttna nrl!'l~rulnn Publ k FacTi YtJes/Servtces Effeei·s 62o9 64 .. 8 L,9 617.0 3 .. 0 10.,5 48 .. 0 49.0 L.O 20.0 2 .. 1 245.0 N/A N/A N/A Se Scenarios !990 49~2 52 .. 2 3 .. 0 212 .. 0 6., I 24.6 52.4 54 .. 0 1.,6 29.0 2.,1 186 .. 2 73 .. 8 75o4 1.6 49.2 51..3 2 .. 1 212~0 4,3 23,,3 47o0 48.,7 I~ 7 30.0 3 .. 6 162 .. 3 67.,9 70 .. 3 2 N/A-Not Avatlab!e or Not Appllcable. 49.,2 !51 c I I 9 12 .. 0 3~9 23 .. 2 47 .. 0 48.0 1.,0 30 .. 0 2 e I 160 .. 0 67.,9 69.,6 .. 7 23e ~ 47.0 ]., 1 0~7 30 .. 0 l .,5 159 .. 0 67.,9 69.1 .. 2 Effects under the FERC License Appttcatton Scenarlo are deflned by FERC Forecasts~ Effects under the FY84 Car Transpor~ation Scenarto are defined by FY84 Car Forecasts. Effects undei ~he FY85 Car Transportation Scenarto are deftned by FY85 Car Forecasts. 3 9 23e2 0 48.,2 o2 30.0 3~6 J60o Effects under the FY85 Alr and Bus Scenarlos are def1ned FY85 AB forecasts where ABI forecasts refer to effects under Air and Bus Scenarto/77% construction worker hlring in Anchorage -23% constructlon worker hirtng in Fatrbanks» AB2 forecasts refer to effects ufider the Air and Bus Scenario/ 50% constructton worker hirfng ln Anchorage -construction ~orker hlrfng In Fair·banksp AB3 forecasts refer to effects under Atr and Bus Scenarlo/JOO~ construction worker hiring Anchorage-constructton worker htrTng in Falrbanks. 21 Capacity/staff numbers used tn FERC forecasts were fro~ 1981; the stmTJar numbers used in the revisedp base casep and worker hTrTng projections were from 1983/!984. Calculated by divtdtng effect by baseline forecast. 3/ 4/ Calculated by dividing wi forecast by capacity. 5/ Pollee Protection requirements are tn terms of manpower. 6/ Recreatton facTiity requirements are tn terms of acres of community parks; FY85 facll ity requiremants differ between the FERC Ltcense appl icatlon and subsequent projact!ons due to a change in projection methodology as well as revised populatlon forecastso Source: Frank Orth & Assoctates~ Inc.~ 1985. Tab A-2. Ma~anuska-Susitna (ott~,site) Pub! FacllltTes/Servicas facts Selected ScenarJos 1990 h::: Ttai irements <Number of Beds) Basalt ne 48.,0 60.,5 53, " .,7 53g7 49e0 62 .. 3 55,5 54o8 54.,5 Effect I aO I .,8 I cB I 0 I 0~8 Base Year Capactty 21 20 .. 0 30~0 30.,0 30.,0 30.,0 Percent Effect 3/ 2.1 3~0 3..4 LoO I., 5 of Capactty Uttltzatton 4/ 245.0 206.7 185.,0 i 82., 7 I 81 ~ 7 Water Service (000 ga I ./day) Base IT ne N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A With-project N/A N.-'A N/A N/A N/A Effect N/A N/A N/A IVA N/A Base Year Capacity 2/ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Percent Effect 3/ N/A N/A N./A N/A N/A of Capactty Utl I ization 4/ N/A N/A N/A NJJ, N/A Sewer Servfce {000 ga I ./day) Basel Jne NiA N/A N/A N/A N/A With-project N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Effect N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Base Year Capacity~( N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA Percent Effect 1! N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A % of Capacity Utf It zatlon ~~ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA-Not Available or Not Applfcableo II Effects under the FERC License Appltcatton Scenarto are defTned by FERC Forecasts~ Effects under the FY84 Car Tt~ansportatl on Scenar to are def l ned by FY84 Car Forecasts~ Effects under the FY85 Car Transportation Scenarto are defined by FY85 Car Forecasts~ 53.7 55~0 i. 3 30"0 2.4 183e3 N/A NJA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Nil\ Effects under the FY85 Atr and Bus Scenarios are deflned by FY85 AB forecasts where ABI fore- casts refer to effects ~nder ATr and Bus Scenarlo/77% corstructlon worker hlrlng In Anchorage -23% construction workar hiring In Fairbanks. AB2 forecasts refer to effects under the Air and Bus Scenarfo/ 50% construction worker htrtng tn Anchorage -50% construction worker h1r1ng Tn Fafrbanks, A83 forecasts refer to effects under Alr and Bus Scenario/100% con::atructlon worker hiring Anchorage-0% construction worker hirtng in Fairbanks~ 21 Capactty/statf numbers used in FERC forecasts were from 1981; the similar numbers used ln the revised~ base case, and worker hirtng projections were from 1983/1984. Calculated by dtvldtng effect by baselir.e forecast. 3/ 4/ Calculated by dfvld!ng with-project forecast by capacity. Source: Frank Orth & Associates~ lnc.D 1985. 10 Tabi A-2o5 Matanuska-Susftna Borough (off-site> Public Facfiittas/Servlces Effects Selected Sce~arlos 1990 oeconomlc FERC FY84 Car Car ASI AB2 A83 Variable Forecasts Forecasts Forecasts Forecasts Forscast·s Forecasts ~~' Pr Schoo~ Ch J ldren Baseline 5,406 5,91 I 5,.712 51'712 5,7!2 Wtth"'projec:t 5,608 6,117 5.!1838 5!1820 511789 Effec-t 202 206 126 106 17 Base Year Capacity 21 3,136 4,835 4,8.35 4~8.35 4"835 Percent Effect 3/ 3 .. 7 3 .. 5 2 .. 2 I~ 9 1.,3 of Capacity Utt ll.zat ion 4/ 178 .. 8 126.,5 120 .. 7 120e4 !19G 7 Secondary School Children Basel t ne 4,605 5,036 4/1488 411488 4!/488 Wt_th-project 41'764 5,211 4,587 4,573 4,549 Effect 159 l75 99 85 61 Base Year Capacity 1! 3~380 4,080 4,080 4,080 4,080 Percent Effect 3/ 3.5 3 .. 5 2o2 ! .. 9 1 .. 4 of Capacity Utt llzation 4/ 140 .. 9 127.7 I 12,4 112el ilLS Total School Enrol tment Basel1 ne 10,.011 10,947 10,200 10,200 10,200 \:ll th-proj ect l0,.372 11,.328 10,.425 10,393 10,338 Effect 361 381 225 193 138 Base Year Capactty 2/ 6,516 8,915 8,915 8,915 8,915 Percent Effect 3/ 3 .. 6 3.,5 2 .. 2 ! ~ 9 le4 $ of Capacity U'tftlzation 4/ 159.2 127.0 116.9 116.6 116 .. 0 N/A-Not Avatlabie or Not Applicable. J/ Effec-ts under the FERC L tcense Appl Teat· Jon Scenario are de1 !ned by FERC Fora,t:l!lsts .. Effects >Jnder the FY84 Car Transportatton Scenar·to are deflnad by FY84 Car Forecasts .. Effects under the FYB5 Car Transportetlon Scenarto are deftned by FY85 Car Forecasts. E tfects under the FY85 A f r and Bus Scenar T os are deft ned by FY85 AB forecasts \Jhere ABl forecasts refer to effects under Atr and Bus Scenario/77% constructlon worker htrlng tn Anchorage -23% construct1on worker htrtng 1n Fairbanks, A82 forecasts refer to effects under the Atr and Bus Scenario/ 50% construction ~orker hTring Tn Anchor.age -50% construction worker htrJng tn Falrbanks, AB3 forecasts refer to effects under A l r and Bus Scenar T o/l 00% construct l on wori-;.er h T ring Anchor age -O% construct ton worker htrlng tn Fairbanks. 21 Capacity/staff numbers used !n FERC forecasts were from 1981; the stmllar numbers used ln the re~rsed, base case, and worker hirtng projections were from 1983/1984. 31 Calculated by dlvtdlng effect by baseltne forecasts 4 / Calculated by dlvlding ~rth-project forecast by capaclty. Source: Frc:;nk Orth & Associates, inc .. ., 1985 .. 5!1 7i 2 5!1844 132 4,835 2 .. 3 120.,9 4fJ488 4!1592 104 4,080 :L3 112.,5 I 0, 200 10,436 236 81'915 2.3 117., I Baseline fiscal a nee Fi sea I Ba I a nee Servtce Area ~und Baseline Revenues Revenues fne Expenditures ect Expendt- tures Baseline Flscai Balance Net { Fiscal Balance School Dfstrtct Fund Tab Matanuska-Susttna (of Ft I Effects J! 990 (thousands constant i 98 3 do I I ar s> $ .391>066 908 40,220 42,270 .39.,739 200 138 41,062 100 805 J, 69 3.,918 I ,208 $ 5,166 $ 4,227 4,.:568 3~ 771 9,600 064 896 -6,700 -161 456 200 -165 472 908 $ 908 41 727 41.,506 41,90t 7.:59 739 39~ 739 40$1532 9 401"704 I, !69 I" 69 l I I, i 95 I, 187 I,~~ I $ 41'227 4p311 4s330 3,77i .3,771 3p845 .!\,825 3,862 456 456 456 466 464 468 Baseline Revenues s 50,300 s 57,972 $ 55,843 $ 84:5 $ 55,843 55, 843 Revenues 53,.400 523 60,233 59,323 59,024 59,562 Baseline Expenditures 61,100 804 57,707 57,707 57p707 57,707 With-Project Expendf- tures 65,.}00 60,608 62j)272 61,180 60,869 6!,424 Net Basellne Flscai Bala1ce -10,800 -I, 168 -1,864 -11'864 -! ,864 _, 864 N.at ( w/ proj ec?) F a nee 700 Note: Sums may not equal totals due to roundfng dffferences. N/A~,Not Ava t I ab Ia or Not App It cab I e .. Effects under the FERC License Appltcatfon Scenario are defined by FERC forecasts~ Effects under the FY84 Car Transportatlon Scenario are defined by FY84 Car Forecasts. Effects under the FY85 Car Transportat1on Scenarto are def~ned by FYB5 Car Forecasts. Effects under the FY85 Atr and Bus Scenarios are defined by FY85 AS forecasts where ABI forecasts refer to effects under Air and Bus Scenarto/77% construction worker· htrlng in Anchorage -constructfon worker htrtng Tn Fat AB2 forecasts refer to effects under the Atr and Bus Scenario/ construction worker hiring Tn Anchorage construction worker htrlng in Fairbanks~ AB3 forecasts refer to effects under Atr and Bus Scenarlo/100$ construction worker hlrtng Anchorage -O% construction worker hirJng tn Fairbanks. Source: Frank Orth Asscc1ates, lnc~P l985e Table City of FERC Ltcense Ulcat1onp FV84 Car FY85 Car Transportatlon11 and A1r and Bus 1985-2002 Year FERC FY84 Car FY85 ~If' Ton Scenario Forecasts Forecasts and Air and Bus Scen~rJo Forecasts Basel Jne Effects Basel lne Effects Basel t ne 1985 3,302 5 3,.106 31 2D876 Hi 51 35 68 1986 31'5~7 6 3,307 41 2,962 211 95 68 119 l987 3,746 26 3,522 53 3,051 121 73 4~ 89 1988 3,989 35 3,.751 73 .3, 142 115 73 48 89 1989 4,248 39 3"995 87 3,237 164 99 67 126 1990 4,525 49 4,255 110 3,.334 20i HO 75 139 i99i 4,683 48 4,404 110 3,.451 229 107 72 L34 i992 ~"'&47 44 4,558 l04 3,571 113 56 40 69 1993 5,0!7 39 4, 7i 8 94 3,696 71 53 35 72 1994 5,193 37 4,683 92 3,826 -13 6 6 6 1995 5,.374 .35 5,054 92 3,960 -5 6 6 6 1996 5,562 36 5,.230 92 41'098 13 6 6 H 1997 51'757 37 5,414 96 4,242 84 40 32 59 1998 5, 959 .39 5,603 99 4,390 117 59 35 77 1999 6,167 39 5,799 103 4,.544 110 61 40 80 2000 6,383 39 6,002 96 4,.703 150 71 48 9.3 200t 6,606 36 6,212 92 4,868 55 29 21 37 2002 6,838 33 6,430 90 511038 14 8 6 II II Effects under the FERC License Application Scenarto are defined by FERC Forecastso Effects under the FY84 Car Transportation Scenario are deftned by FY84 Car Forecasts. Effects under the FY85 Car Transportation Scenarfo are deflned by FY85 Car Forecasts. Effects under the FY85 A 1 r and Bus Scenar 1 os are deft ned by FY85 AB forecasts where ABI forecasts refer to effects under Alr and Bus Scenarlo/77% construction worker htrJng tn Anchorage -23!1 cons-truci"ton worker htrfng tn Falrbank.s~' AB2 forecasts refer to effects under the Alr and Bus Scenarfo/50% construction worker hfrlng Tn Anchorage -50% constructfon worker htrlng in Falrbanks, A83 forecasts refer to effects under Air and Bus Scenarfo/100% construction worker hfrTng Anc,horage -0% construction worker hlrlng ln Fairbanks. Source: Frank Orth & Assoctates, Inc., 1985. Basel t ne lation Basel Jne Effect 31 Households- Basel t ne Effect N/A N/A NJA 4,525 4,574 49 IJI551 l,568 17 N/A-Not AvaT I able or Not Appi Tcable. Tab NJA NIA N/A 4.,255 4,365 i JO I ,476 1,509 33 NIA N/A 334 3,.535 201 I, !03 I, 169 66 NIA N/A N.IA 334 3,444 110 I, 103 151144 41 N/A N/A 3f334 3JI409 75 I, 103 I,. 13t 28 N/A NIA N/A 334 3t'413 L39 i" 103 !55 52 Effects under the FERC Ltcense Application Scenarto are defTned by FERC Forecasts. Effects under the FYB4 Car Transportatlon Scenario are defined by FY84 Car Forecas'ts .. Effects under the FY85 Car Transportation Scenario are defined by FY85 Car Forecasts~ Effects under the FY85 AJr and Sus Scenarios are deflned by FY85 AB forecasts where ABI forecasts refer to effects under Atr and Bus Scenarto/77% constructlon worker htrfng In Anchorage -constructlon worker htrtng tn Fatrbanks, AB2 forecasts refer to ef1ects under the Atr and Bus Scenario/ 50% construction worker hlrlng Tn Anchorage -50~ constructton worker hfrfng In Fairbanks, A83 forecasts refer to effects under Air and Bus Scenarlo/100$ constructton worker hfrtng Anchorage -construction worker hlrtng tn Fairbanks. Employment represents number of workers by place of residence. 3/ Households represents the number of occupled houstng unttso Source: Frank Orth & Associates, Inc~, l985s ~4aste DT <Cumulative Acres) Basel t ne With-project Effec't Year Capacity 21 Percent Effect 3/ of Capacity uti llzatJon ~ Po I t ce Protect f on 5/ Basel T ne With-project Ef'fect Bast' Year Staff 21 Percent Effect 3/ ~ Increase Over Ba.se Year Staff~ Recreatlon FaciJitJes 6/ Basel J ne With-project Effect of Palmer Publtc Facilftles/Services Effects Se I ectad Scanar i os .!! 1990 FY84 Car FY85 Car N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 8.0 6e4 5o0 8.0 6.6 5 .. 3 0~0 0.2 0.3 9.,0 14.0 9 .. 0 0.0 3 .. 1 6.0 88 .. 9 46.8 58.9 N/A 4.8 3.6 N/A 4 .. 9 3.9 NIA 0 .. i 0.3 N/A-Not Available or Not Appltcable. ABi AB2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5.0 5.0 5.2 5 .. I 0.2 0 .. 1 9.0 9.,0 4 .. 0 2.0 57 .. 5 56.8 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.7 0. I 0. I 1/ Effects under the fERC Lfcense Appttcatlon Scenarfo are deftnad by FERC Forecasts. Effects under the FY84 Car Transportation Scenario are deflned by FY84 Car Forecasts. Effects under the FY85 Car Transportation Scenarlo are defTned by FY85 Car Forec~sts. AB3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A I'VA !) • 0 ~; "2 0~2 9 .. 0 4.0 57.9 3.6 3.8 0.2 Et1ec1's under the FY85 Atr and Bus Scenartos are defined by FY85 AB forecasts where ABI forecasts refer to effects under Air and Bus Scenarfo/77% constructTon worker hfrlng tn Anchorage -23% construction worker h1rtng 1n Fatrbanksp AB2 forecasts refer to effects under the Air and Bus Scenarlo/ 50% constructfon worker hirlng Tn Anchorage -50% constructTon worker hiring in Fairbanksp A83 forecasts refer to effects under ATr and Bus ScenarTo/100% constructlon \IJOrker hiring Anchorage-O% construction worker htrlng tn Fairbanks .. 21 Capacity/staff numbers used Jn FERC forecasts were from 1981; the similar numbers used Tn the revised, base case, and worker hiring projectlons were from 1983/1984. 3/ Calculated by dfvldlng effect by baseline forecast. 4/ Calculated by divldtng with-project forecast by capacity. 5/ 6/ Pollee Protection requirements are ln terms of manpower. Recreation factiTty requirements are Tn terms of acres of neighborhood parks for Palmet·; FY85 facJ!tty requirements differ between the FERC lfcense appiicatton and subsequent projecttons due to a change tn projection methodology as well as revlsed population forecas-t·s .. Source: Frank Orth & Associates, Inc., 1985. Table A-3Q4 Clty of Palmar Publtc FectlitYas/Services Effects Selected Scenarlos 1990 c FERC FY84 Car ABI A82 Varlabla Forecasts Forecasts Foreca ... -ts Forecasts Forecasts ltai Requfrements (Nwnl::>er of Be-ds> Basell ne N/1, N/A N/A N/A N/A Wtth-project N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Eff,sct N/A NIA N/A N/A NIA Bast:~ Year Capac l ty 21 N/A N/A N/A WA N/A Percent Effect 3/ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A of Capacity Ut11Tzatlon 41 NIA N/A N/A N/A NIA Water Servtce (000 gal./day> Bas(el Jne 608o0 615.,9 482.6 482.6 482~6 W f t:n-proj ect 615.0 63L.8 51 1.6 498c5 493 .. 4 Etf~S\Ct 1.0 15.9 29.0 !5.,9 10.8 Ba54~ Year Capac J ty 21 300.,0 I 1 030o0 1 9 030.,0 I, 030 .. 0 I, 030.,0 Percen~ Effect ~ 1.2 2.6 6.0 3.3 2.2 o1; Capac f ty U-t·f ll ze1t ion 41 205 .. 0 61..3 49~7 48.4 47.9 Sewer ServTce <000 gal ./day> Basel Tne 543.,0 465 .. 8 365.0 365~0 365.,0 W T th-·proj ect 549.0 477,.9 387c0 377.,0 373 .. 2 Effect 6.0 J 2 .I 22 .. 0 12.0 8@2 Base Year CapacTty 2/ 300.0 300.0 300o0 300.0 300~0 Percent Effect 3/ I. I 2 .. 6 3.3 3.3 2.2 S of Capacity Utlll zatfon ~ 163 .. 0 159 .. 3 129.0 125 .. 7 124 • .4 N/A-Not Avatlabie or Not Applfcable. u Effects under the FERC License Appllcatlon Scenarlo are deffned by FERC Forecasts~ Effects under the FY84 Car Transportation Scenarto are deflned by FY84 Car Forecasts~ Effects under the FY85 Ca,r T1·ansportation Scenario are defT ned by FY85 Car Forecasts. Forecas·ts N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A NIA 482.,6 502 .. 7 20.,1 \,030 .. 0 4.2 48.8 365o0 380o2 15.2 300.0 4.2 126.7 Effects under the FY85 Air and Bus Scenartos are deftned by FY85 AB forecasts where ABI fore- casts refer to effects under Atr and Bus Scenarlo/77% constructlon worker hirlng ln Anchorage -23" construction worker· htrlng ln Falrbanks,. AB2 forecasts refer to effects under the~ Air and Bus ScenarTo/ 50% constructlon worker hlring in Anchorage -50% construction worker hTrTng tn Fairbanks, AS3 forecasts refer to effects under ATr and Bus Scenarto/100" construci"Ton worker hiring Anchorage -O% construction worker hlrlng ln FaTrbankse 21 Capactty/statt numbers used tn FERC forecasts were from 198l; the similar numbers used ln the revised, base case, and worker hlrlng projections were from !983/1984. Calculated by dtvldlng effect by baseiTne forecast. 3/ 4/ Calculated by dtvJding wTth~project forecast oy capacity. Source: Frank Orth & AssocJatesso Inc., 1985 .. of Pa i Jc t t·Hes/Sendces Chi !dren 569 N/A N/A t.V.~\ N/A Utilization N/A School Ch T ldren 485 N./A N/A Base Capacity N/A Percent Effect 3/ N/A of Capacity Utt IT zatton 4/ N/A Total School Enrollment' Basel Jne 1,054 N/A Effect N/A B~se Year Capactty ~ N/A Percent Effect ~ N/A of Capacity u-tn izatlon ~ N/A NIA-Not Available or Not Appilcablee Scenartos l! 1990 532 454 549 486 ,., 32 725 3.,2 1 .. 0 75 .. 7 39 .. 7 454 356 467 381 13 25 1,600 1,600 2.9 7 .. 0 29.2 23o8 986 810 1,016 867 30 57 325 2,825 3 .. 0 7.0 43.7 30.1 454 464 15 '0 t ,225 225 3 ... 3 2 .. 2 38 .. 3 37 .. 9 356 356 368 364 12 8 I ,600 1,600 .3 .. 4 2 .. 2 23 .. 0 22e8 8l0 810 837 828 27 18 2,825 825 3 .. 3 2 .. 2 29.6 :29 .. 3 Effects under the FERC Ltcense Application Scenario are defined by FERC forecasts. Effects under the FY84 Car Transportation Scenario are defJned by FY84 Car Forecasts. Effects under the FY85 Car Transportation Scenario are deflned by FY85 Car Forecasts. Effects under the FY85 Alr and Bus Scenarios are deftned by FY85 AB forecasts where ABI forecasts refer to effecTs under Alr and Bus Scenarto/77% constructlon work,er hlrlng ln Anchorage -23% construcTion worker hlrfng tn Fatrbanks-AB2 forecasts refer to affects under the Atr and Bus Scenario/ 50J construction worker htrlng Tn Anchorage -50S construction worker htrfng tn Fatrbanks, AB3 forecasts refer to effect's under Alr and Bus Scenario/100% constructlon worker h1rlng Anchorage -constructton worker hfring in Fairbanks. f numbers used tn FERC forecasts were from 1981; the stmtlar numbers used tn the revised; base case, and worker hlrJng were from !983/l984e 3/ Calculated by dividing effect by baseltne forecast. 4/ Calculated by dlvlding ~ith-project forecast by capacity. Source: Frank Orth Assocfates, lnCop 1985. 454 19 lr;225 o2 356 371 15 1,600 .. 2 23 .. 2 610 844 .34 2,825 4e2 29.9 of hner FJ I Effects 990 (thousands of constant 1983 dol Iars) Soctoeconomie Revenues Revenues tne rtures Wfth-ProjecY Expendi- tures Net Baseline Fiscal Sa lance F1scal Balance $ 131 3,160 4,197 -I ,076 $ 7,588 7,788 7,i04 -484 -501 7,231 5,929 942 Note: Sums may not equal totals due to rounding dlfferencesc NIA-Na1· Avai table or Not Appl Tcable. 6,822 7,045 5,929 125 893 920 $ 6,822 974 929 893 Effects under the FERC Llcense Appllcatlon Scenario are defined by FERC Forecasts~ Effects under the FY84 Car Transportatl on Scenar to are defY ned by FY84 Car Forecastso Efiects under the FY85 Car Transportation Scenarlo are deftned by FY85 Car Forecasts. Effects under the FY85 Alr and Bus Scenarios are defined by FY85 AS forecasts ~here ABt forecasts refer to effects under Atr end Bus Scenarto/77% construct1on worker hlrTng In Anchorage ~ 23~ constructfon worker hirtng ln Fairbanks, AB2 forecasts refer to effects under the Air and Bus Scenarto/ 50~ constructlon worker hlrtog 1n cons·:-:-~ctfon worker htrfng ln Fairbanks, A83 forecasts refer to effects under Air and Bus Scenarlo/IOOS constructton worker htrtng Anchorage -O% constructlon worker hiring in Fairbanks. Source: Frank Orth & Assocl~tes, lncG 6 1985~ IS 6,822 1:o )05 51'929 893 927 !990 ~99~ 1992 !996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 fERC Forecasts 2,895 35'! l2 3.,346 5,164 51>55t 5.,967 6,415 6,896 3 7,969 81'474 9,093 9, 750 1 31 42 41 59 57 54 48 46 44 45 46 48 48 47 44 42 fYS4 Car Forecasts .:5,402 3,657 30 932 41'226 4,543 4,884 6,52.3 7,012 7,538 ajllo3 8, 7t I 9,364 10,067 10,822 II, 6.33 Tab 38 48 (;l.J 87 I 01 132 128 H8 Ill 107 107 107 114 114 118 114 107 iOI 31'814 4,100 4,408 4,738 5;.094 5,476 5,886 328 6,802 7,313 7,861 8,451 9,084 9, 766 10,498 I 1,295 12,.132 13,042 Car and Air tmd Bus Scanarto 120 223 1.30 123 169 214 244 121 77 -L3 -7 1.3 90 126 120 156 61 14 60 108 81 81 110 121 115 64 59 6 6 6 45 64 66 79 37 8 76 57 57 75 86 80 45 37 6 6 6 . 24 31 45 56 27 8 70 127 97 94 134 147 139 75 75 6 II 59 82 82 95 40 I i/ Effects under the FERC License Appltcatton Scenarlo are detlned by FERC Forecasts .. Effects under the FYB4 Car Transportation Scenario are defined by FY84 ~r Foracastsg Effects under the FY85 Car Transportation Scenarlo are deftned by FY85 Car Forecastso Effects under the FY85 Atr and Bus Scenarlos are deftned by FY85 AB forecasts where ABI forecasts refer TO effects under Alr l!lnd Bus Scenarto/77:£ constructton worker hlrJng fn Anchorage -23$ construction worker htrlng tn Fairbanks, AB2 forecasts refer to e1fects under the Atr and Bus Scenarlo/50% construction worker hlrtng Tn -50% construction worker htrfng in Fairbanks, A83 forecasts refer to effects under Atr and Bus Scenarlo/100% construction worker hfrtng Anchorage -O% construction worker hfrtng tn Fairbanks~ Source: Frank Orth & Assoctates, Inc., 1985. llne lation Basell ne Effect Households Basel tne Effect N/A NIA N/A 157 59 11'404 1,424 20 NIA-Not Avafiabie or Not Applicable. Se Scenarios N/A N/A 4,884 5,016 132 t ,615 1,654 39 i990 N/A N/A N/A 5p476 5,690 214 1,625 1,896 71 N/A NIA 476 !5,597 121 i ,825 !,870 45 N/A 5~476 5,562 86 I ,825 J p857 32 NIA N/A N/A 5,476 147 11'825 1[)880 55 Effects under the FERC Ltcense Ap~l1catlon Scenarlo are deftned by FERC Forecasts. Effects under the FY84 Car Transportation Scenario are defined by FY84 Car Forecasts¢ f"ffects under the FY85 Car n ansportatfon Scenarto are defined by FY85 Car Forecasts .. Effects under the FY85 Air and Bus Scenartos are deftned by FY85 AB forecasts where ABI foracasts refer to effects under Atr and Bus Scenarto/77,C construction worker hiring tn Anchorage -23% constructlon worker hirtng ln Fairbanks, AB2 forecasts refer to effects under the Atr and Bus Scenario/ 50% constructfon \l!GOrker hlrlng fn Anchorage -50~ constructton ~rker hlrfng tn Fairbanks, AB3 forecasts refer to effects under A.tr and Bus Scenario/100% constructlon worker htrtng Anchorage -constructton worker hiring tn Fafrbanks~ 21 Employment represents number of workers by place of residence~ 3/ Households represents The number of occupied housing untts. Source: Frank Orth & Associates, inc., 1985. 20 So~fd Waste Olsposal {Cumulative Acres) Effect Year Capacity 21 Percent E ·f feet 3/ of ity Utllizatton 41 Pollee Protectlon 5/ Basel t ne With-project EHect Base Year Staff 2/ Percent Effect 3/ Increase Over Base Year StaH 4/ Recreation Factlttles 61 Basel tne W t th-proj act Effect City of n Ia Pub I fc Fact I f't·tes/Servfces Effects Selected Scenarios N/A N/A N/A WA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ! N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5 .. 3 5.4 0. I N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 6.0 6 .. 3 0 .. 3 N/A-Not Avaflable or Not Applicable. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A 6 .. 0 6.2 0.2 N/A NJA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA 6 .. 0 6.,! 0.1 1/ EffecTs under the FERC Ltcense AppJtcatlon Scenario are defTned by FERC Forecastso Effects under the FY84 Car Transportation Scenarto are deflned by FY84 Car Forecastse Effects under the FY85 Car Transportatlcn ScenarTo are deftned by FY85 Car Forecasts. Forecasts N/A. NIA N/A N/A N/A N./A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A Effects under the FY85 Atr and Bus Scenarios are defined by FY85 AB forecasts where ABI forecasts refer to effects under Alr a~d Bus Scenarto/77~ construction worker hfrlng 1n Anchorage -23% construction worker hkl11g in Fairbanks, AB2 forecasts refer to effects under the Air and Bus Scenarto/ 50% construction worker hfrlng tn Anchorage -50% construction worker hiring ln Fairbanks, AB3 forecasts refer to effects under Air and Bus Scenarlo/tOO% construction worker h1rtng Anchorage-O% constructlon wo.rker htring fn Fairbanks. 2/ Capactty/staff numbers used In FERC forecasts were from l98l; the slmiiar numbers used ln the revJsedp base casep and worker hiring projecttons were from 1983/1984. 3/ Calculated by dfvtdtng effect by basaltne forecast& 4/ Calculated by divfdtng wtth-project forecast by capacJty. 5/ Pollee Protactton requirements are tn terms of manpowero 6/ Recreation facJiity requtrements are ln terms of acres of neighborhood parks for Wasil Ia; FY85 facility requirements dlffer between the FERC Llcense application and subsequent proje~~Tons due i"o a change ln projection f;1ethodology as well as revised population forecasts. Source: Frank Orth & Assocfatesp lnc9~ 1985. 71 tc re1nents N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2/ NIA NIA NIA N/A N/A. N/A N/A Uti it zation 4/ N/A Nli\ N/A N/A N/A Water Service \000 ga I .. /day) Baseline 559.0 706 .. 9 792 .. 6 792.,6 792.,6 567 .. 0 726 .. 0 823 .. 6 810 .. 1 805 .. 0 Effect 6 .. 0 19., I .:SL.O I 7.,5 I 2,,4 Base Year Capactty 2/ N/A 900 .. 0 900.,0 900~0 900.,0 Percent Effect 3/ 1.4 2 .. 7 3o9 2 .. 2 t 6 Utlll zat1on !:! NIA 80 .. 7 9L,5 90~0 89 .. 4 Sewer Servtce <000 ga I ./day I Basel fne NIA 534.7 599.,5 599.,5 599.,5 With-projecT N/A 549 .. 1 622.9 612 .. 7 608 .. 9 Effect N/A 14 .. 4 23 .. 4 IJo2 9 .. 4 Base Year Capacity 2/ N/A N/A 441 .. 0 441 oO 441 .. o Percent Effect 3/ NIA 2c7 3 .. 9 2,6 L.6 of Capacity Uti i i zation 4/ N/A N/A 141..2 136.9 1.38 .. 1 N/A-Not AvaflabJe or Not Applicable. 1/ Effects under the FERC Llcense Appltcatlon Scenarfo are deflned by FERC Forecasts. Effects under the FY84 Car Transportation Scenarfo are defined by FY84 Car Forecasts. Effects under the FY85 Car Transportation Scenario are deflned by FY85 Car Forecasts$ N/A NIA N/A N/A 792 .. 6 8~ 2L,3 0 90.,4 599c5 6t5 .. 6 44J eO 2.,7 J39 .. 6 E ffec'ts under the FY85 At r and Bus Scenart os are defined by FY85 AB forecasts \'II here ASI fore- casts refer to effects under Atr and Bus Scenarto/77% construction worker hlr}ng in -23% construction worker hfrTng rn Fafrbanks, AB2 forecasts refer to effects under the Air and Bus Scenario/ 50% construction worker htrlng in Anchorage -50% constructlon worker htrlng tn Fairbanks, AB3 forecasts refer to effec-ts under A1r and Bus Scenarlo/ worker htrTng Anchorage -O% construction worker hlrlng fn Fairbanks. 2/ Tty/staff numbers used'" FERC forecasts were from 198!; the sfmt!ar numbers used ln the revised, base case, and worker hJrtng projections were from 1983/!984. 31 Calculated by dlvtding effect by baseline forecast. 4/ Calculated by dlvtdfng with-project forecast by capacity. Source: Frank Orth & Assoctates2 Inc., ~985. 22 construction Ch t ldren UtJitzatton School Ch t ldren Baseline Year Capaclty Percent Effect 3/ Capacity l.rtilfzatton Total School Enrollment Basel tne Effect Base Year Capacity Percent Effect 3/ of Capacity UtJitzation 4/ 523 N/A Nil'~ N/A N/A f\l/Ji, 446 N/A N/A ~A N/A N/A 969 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A-Not Avaflabie or Not Applfceble. Table of tc Facilities/Services Ef Scenarios 1990 611 745 631 779 20 34 1,050 I ~550 3 .. 3 4G6 60 .. 1 50 .. 3 521 585 5.38 611 17 26 1,800 I ,800 3 .. 3 4 .. 4 29 .. 9 33.9 I, t 32 I ,330 I, 169 I ,390 37 60 2,850 .3.350 3.3 4.5 41.0 41.5 745 761 757 16 12 I ,550 2 .. 1 49 .. 1 48~8 585 585 598 594 !.3 9 I ,800 I ,800 2.2 1.,5 33,2 3J .. O I ,330 I ,330 1,359 I I 29 21 3,350 350 2 .. 2 1..6 40 .. 6 40 .. 3 1/ Effects under the FERC License Appltcattcn Scenarto are deflned by FERC Forecasts. Effects under the FYB4 Car Transpor+atfon Scenario are detfned by FY84 Car Forecasts. Effects under the FY85 Car Transportation Scenario are defined by FY85 Car Forecas-ts .. Effects under the FY85 Air and Bus Scenarlos are defined by FY65 AB forecasts where ABI forecas-ts refer to effects under Air and Bus Scenarto/77$ construc·tfon worker hlrfng tn -23$ construction worker hJrlng ln Fairbanks, AB2 forecasts refer to effects under the Atr and Bus Scenario/ 50$ construction worker hlrtng tn Anchorage -50~ construction worker htrtng tn Fatrbanks, AB3 forecasts refer to effects under Atr and Bus Scenario/100% constructlon worker hirlng Anchorage -construction worker htrlng Jn fairbanks. 2/ Capacity/staff numbers used tn FERC forecasts were from 1981; the slmllar numbers used In the revised, base case, and worker htrtng projections were from 1983/!984. 3/ Calculated by dtvld1ng effect by baseline forecast. 4/ Calculated by dividing with-project forecast by capacity. Source: r~ ,· ·:mk Orth Associates~ Inc:. 1985 .. 23 745 765 20 I 1}550 585 601 33.,4 I ,330 1,366 36 31>350 2 .. 7 40.8 Ci of Wast' Fisca~ Effects l! I (thousands of constant 1983 dollars) FERC FYS4 Car FY85 Car Genl:llt"'al Fund Basellne Revenues s 1,264 $ 2,0.35 s 21'337 W~th-project Revenues i ,279 2,089 2.1'429 Baselfne Expenditures lfi308 11"847 i .1'409 Expendl- tures 1,324 i ,898 1,465 Net Basellne Flscal Balance -44 -188 928 Net (t1/project) Flscal Bala11ce -45 -191 964 Note: Sums may not equal totals due to rounding dlfferences. N/A-Not Avat I able or Not Applicable. 2e337 2,388 1.,409 lr;440 928 948 AB2 $ I 0 409 b'431 928 943 Effects under the FERC License Appltcatlon Scenarto are defined by FERC Forecasts. Effects under the FY84 Car Transportation Scenario are defTnecl by FY84 Car Forecastse E Hects under the FY85 Car Transportatlon Scenar f o are defT ned by FY85 Car Forecasts .. EffecTs under the FY85 Atr and Bus Scenarios are defined by FY85 AB forecasts where AS! forecasts refer to effects under Atr and Bus Scenarto/77% construction worker hiring in Anchorage-23% constructfon worker hirfng ln Fafrbanks, AB2 forecasts refer to effects under the Atr and Bus Scenarfo/ 50% constructton worker hfring tn Anchorage -50S constructYon worker hfrtng ln Fatrbanksv AB3 forecasts refer to effects under Air and Bus Scenar i o/1 00$ construct Ton worker hi r f ng Anchor age -O% construct ton worker htrfng tn Fatrbanks. Source: Frank Orth & Associates~ Inc., 1985. 24 2w337 21'400 t 409 I , 928 954 5988 I i990 199~ 1992 1995 1996 1997 !998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Forecasts 878 966 Ill' !69 1,. 5 1,556 1, 712 !~003 2,071 2D278 3,669 4,036 4,439 5 23 31 35 44 42 40 31 .36 35 35 .36 37 37 35 35 33 FY64 Car Forecasts 733 801 887 976 I" 181 I ,299 I I -572 I(# 729 1,.902 2,092 2,30i 2,785 3;063' 3,.369 3,.706 r and Bus Scsn~rfos 1985-2002 35 45 60 84 95 122 122 H2 102 95 95 95 102 105 105 105 98 95 FY85 Car and A1r 813 894 984 1,190 1,309 1,.440 1,.584 'p 743 I 7 2,!08 21'319 I 2,806 3,087 3,396 3,735 4,109 59 H!i 62 59 83 105 118 60 39 -II -6 3 44 58 58 74 27 3 27 !H .:sa )8 54 59 54 29 27 0 0 0 J9 29 29 37 16 5 19 35 27 21 38 40 35 21 19 0 0 0 a 19 U3 24 8 3 35 62 46 64 72 6.1 35 35 0 0 3 26 40 45 16 5 I/ E1fects under the FERC Ltcense Appit~atton Scenarto are deftned by FERC Forec~sts. Effects under the FYB4 Car Transport~t1on Scenarto are deftned by FY84 C~r Forecasts. Effects under the FY85 Car Transportation Scenario are deflned by FY85 Car Forecasts .. Effects under the FY85 Alr and Bus Scenarios are defined by FY85 AB forecast$ where ABI forecasts refer to E'f1ec1's under Atr and Bus Scenario/77% constructlon work.er hiring In Anchorage -23$ construction worker hirtng tn Falrbanks~ A82 forecasts refer to effects under the Air and Bus Scenario/50~ construction ~orker htrtng in Anchorage -50S construction worker htring tn Fafrb~nks 1 AB3 forecasts refer to effects under Atr and Bus Scenarlo/IOOS construction worker hfrtng Anchorage -construction worker hlrtng fn Fairbanks. Source: Frank Orth & Associates. Inc., l985. 25 N/A ~~tlon Basel Jne 1,415 44 Households Baset ine 508 523 Effect !5 N/A-Not Available or Not Appllcableo NIA NIA N/A l, 181 1,303 122 411 447 36 N/A N/A N/A le309 1,414 105 439 474 35 N/A N/A 1,309 lj)368 59 439 461 22 N/A NJA ,309 11'349 40 439 454 15 N/A N/A i,309 47 439, 494 55 Effects under the FERC License Appltcatton ScenarJo are defined by FERC Forecasts. Effects under the FY84 Car Transportation Scenario are defined by FY84 Car Forecasts. Effects under the FY65 Car Transportation Scenarto are deflned by FY65 Car Forecastsc Effects under the FY85 A~r and Bus Scenarios are deftned by FY85 AB forecasts where ABl forecasts refer to effect;:; under Atr and Bus Scenario/77% construct~on worker hfrlng Jn Anchorage -construction worker hiring Tn Fairbanks,. AB2 forecasts refer to effects under the A1r and Bus Scenario/ const~uction worker htrJng tn Anchorage construction worker hlrtng tn Falrbanks~ AB3 forecasts refer to effects under Atr and Bus Scenarlo/IOOJ constructton worker hiring Anchorage ~ O% construc"tlon 'IIOrker h t rIng l r1 Fat rbankso I oymen't if"'Af'\F"t::loC.AII'\1'1::: Households rAr'\r.-:~,c.AinTo:: number of workers by place of residence~ the number of occupied housing unttse Source: Frank Orth & Assocta'tes, lnce, 1985. 26 Sol fd Waste 01 <Cumulati Acres) Bassil ne Effect U-tllt :zetion 41 Police Protection Basel tne With-project Effect Base Year Staff 21 Percent Effect Increase Over Base Year Staff 4/ Recreation Fact I ttfes 61 Basel tne Wi th-proJ ec:· NIA N/A NIA N/A NIA N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA-Not Avatlable or Not Applt~bl9o Selected Scenarios 1990 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1..5 1.,6 NIA N/A NIA N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Nil\ t .. 5 1 .. 6 N/A N/A NIA NIA N/A NJA N/A N/A N/A 1 .. 5 L.5 I/ Effects under the FERC Llcanse Appitcatlon Scenarlo are defined by FERC Forecasts~ Effects under the FY84 Car Transportation Scenarlo are deflned by FY84 Car Forecasts. Effects under the FY85 Car Transportatlo~ Scenario are defined by FY85 Car ForecastsQ N/A N/A N/A N/A 5 EffecTs under the FY85 Atr and Bus Scenarios are deft ned by FY65 AB forecasts where ABI forecasts reter to effects under Atr and Bus Scenarto/77% constructton worker htrlng tn Anchorage -construc~Jon worker hiring In Falrbanksp A82 forEK~asts refer to effects under the Atr and Bus Scenarto/ 50% construcTion worker hfrtng in Anchorage -consTruction worker hlrlng fn fairbank~~ A83 fa~ecasts refer to effects under Alr and Bus Scenerto/100% construction worker hlrJng Anchorage -OS construction worker htrtng tn Falrbanks. 21 Capacity/staff numbers used tn FERC forecasts w~re from 1981; the stmtiar numbers used Jn the revtsed, base case, and \:!Orker hlrlng projections were from 1983/l984 .. Calculated by drvfding effect by baseline forecast .. Calculated by divtdtng ~tth-project forecast by capacity. Poltce Protectlon requirements are fn terms of manpower. Recreation facility requirements are in terms of acres of neighborhood parks for Houston; FY85 factilty requirements differ between the FERC Lfcense applfcatfon and subsequent due to a change In projection methodology as well as revtsed population torecas~rs .. Source: Frank Orth & Associates~ lnc-p 1985. ltat Requtr~nents <Number of Beds) Basalt ne With=project Effect Base Year Capacity 21 Par·cent Etfect 3/ % o1 Capacrty Ut t i i z et ion 41 \~ater Service <000 ga I ./day) Basel Tne With-project Effect Base Year Capaclty 21 Percent Effect 3/ of CapacJty Ut1l t zatton 41 Sewer Servtce WOO ga I./day) Basel !ne W i th-proj set Effect Base Year CapacJty 21 Percent Effect 3/ % of Capacity Utf I Lzatton 4/ of Housi'on Public Facl§itlss/Services EffecTs Selected Scenarfos l! 1990 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A NIA-Not Avaflab!a or Not Applicable. N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A r"/A NIA N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1/ Effects under the FERC Ltcense Appllcatton Scenarto are deftned by FERC Forecasts. Effects under the FY84 Car Transportatt on Scenar to are deft ned by FY84 Car Forecas-ts., Effects under the FY85 Car Transportation Scenarto are deftned by FY85 Car Forecasts. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A NIA N/A NIA N/A NIA N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A Effects under the FY85 Atr and Bus Scenartos are deftned by FY85 AB forecasts where ABI fore- casts refer to effects under Atr and Bus Scenarlo/77% constructton worker htrtng ln Anchorage -23% construction worker htrfng ln Falrbanks, AB2 forecasts refer to effects under the Atr and Bus Scenario/ 50% construction ~orker htrtng ln Anchorage -50% constructton worker hfrtng tn Fairbanks, AB3 forecasts refer to effects under Atr and Bus Scenarto/100% constructfon ~orker htrtng Anchorage -O% constructton worker htrtng tn Fairbanks. 21 Capacity/staff numbers used tn FERC forecasts were from 1981; the simJfar numbers used In the revtsed, base case, and worker htrtng projections were from 1983/1984. 3/ Calculated by dlvtdtng effect by baseltne forecast. 4/ Calculated by dtvldlng ~tth-project forecast by capacity. Source: Frank Ort,, & Associates@ Inc .. , 1985 .. 28 I Ch Y ldren Effect Base Year Percent Effect of uttllzatton Bsset tne Wtth-proj ect Effect Base Year Percen-t Effect % of Utf! t zatlon Total School Enrollment Basel Jne With-project Effect Base YGar Capacfty Percent Effect 3/ !& of Capacf"ty U1'tll zatfon 4/ Pub I tc 178 WA WA 21 N/A N/A NIA 152 NIA NIA 2/ N/A ~Vi\ N/A 330 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA-Not Available or Not Appllcable. of Houston I ti· ias/Servl Selected Scenarios 1990 148 166 iS 0 J2o2 o.o 126 142 16 600 12 .. 7 23 .. 7 274 308 34 118 195 17 525 9 .. 6 37 .. 1 t40 154 i4 600 10.,0 25 .. 7 3l8 349 .31 600 I, 125 12 .. 4 9.7 51. . .3 31.0 178 186 ~83 8 5 525 525 4 .. 5 2 .. 8 35.4 34.,9 !40 ;40 146 44 6 600 600 4 .. 3 2 .. 9 24 .. 3 24 .. 0 318 318 332 327 14 9 t~ 125 ! , 125 4.4 2o8 29 .. 5 29 .. 1 Effects under the FERC Ltcense Applfcatlon Scenarlo are deffned by FERC Forecasts. Effects under the FY84 Car Transportation Scenarlo are deftned by FY84 Car Forecasts4 Effects under the FY85 Car Transportation Scenario are defined by FY85 Car Forecasts. Effects under the FY85 Atr and Bus Scenarios are deftned by FY85 AS forecasts where ABI forecasts refer to effects under Atr and Bus Scenarlo/77% constructlon worker htring tn Anchorage -23% construction worker hlrJng tn Fairbanks, AB2 forecasts refer to effects under the Alr and bus Scenario/ construction worker htrtng 1n -50% construction worker htrtng tn Fairbanks, AB3 forecasts rafer to affects under Atr and Bus Scenarfoll construction worker hlrfng Anchorage -O% constructton ~or·ker hiring t n Fa l rbanks .. Capacity/staff numbers used Tn FERC forecasts were fr·oo1 1981; ·the similar numbeFs used tn the revised, base case~ and worker hirtng projectlons were from 1983/1984& Calculated by dtviding effect by baseltne forecast. Calculated by dtvidlng wt forecast by Source: Frank Orth & Assocfatesp Inc., 1985. 29 :5,6 35o8 8 600 5 .. 7 24 .. 7 318 336 I I , ~ 5 .. 7 29 .. 9 of Houston Fhcan Effects 1990 (thousands of constant 1983 dollars> Sociooconomic FERC FY84 Car FV85 Car ABI AB2 AB3 Forecas1·s I Fund Basellne Revenues N/A s 493 $ 402 $ 402 $ 402 Revenues N/A 544 4.34 420 41 Basetlne Jtures N/A 425 422 422 422 Wlth-?roject Expendi- tures N/A 468 457 441 436 Nat Baseline Flscal Balance N/A -66 -20 -20 -20 Net ('ill proJ act) Flscal Balance NlA -76 =23 -2~ ~22 Note: Sums may not equal totals due to rounding dJfferencesQ NIA-Not Available or Not Applicable. 1/ Effects under the FERC License Appllcatton Scenario are defined by FERC Forecasts. Effects under ·the FY84 Car Transportation Scenario are def!nad by FY84 Car Forecasts .. Effects under the FY85 Car Transportatlon Scenario are deflned by FY85 Car Forecasts$ Effects under the FYB5 Air and Bus Scenarios are defined by FY85 AB forecasts where ABI forecasts refer to effects under Afr and Bus Scenarto/77% construction ~ork.er hlring in Anchorage"" 23% cons·tructfon worker hlrlng Jn Fafr·banks.l" AB2 forecasts refer to effects under the Afr and Bus Scenario/ 50% construction worker hirtng in Anchorage -50% C011structton ~orker hlrlng in Fairbanks, AB3 forecasts refer to effects under ATr and Bus Scenario/100% constructJon worker hJring Anchorage -O% construction worker· hlrtng tn Fairbanks .. $ 402 423 422 445 -20 -22 1989 1990 1991 j 1994 1995 l 1997 1998 i999 2000 2001 2002 FERC Forecasts 263 274 285 296 308 320 333 346 360 375 390 406 422 4~9 456 474 493 513 32 4J 141 337 378 475 451 387 288 250 227 247 278 306 314 302 256 212 Tab ,r,. .. .,,.,,,,,-Creek FY84 Car Forecasts FY84 Car Effects 246 255 266 276 287 299 311 323 336 349 363 378 393 409 425 442 460 478 78 107 130 193 217 285 218 260 233 222 219 222 235 241 241 237 220 211 243 250 258 266 274 282 290 299 308 317 327 336 347 357 368 319 390 402 22 47 25 25 34 56 25 18 -6 -3 0 16 24 33 12 3 19 13 '' 21 24 21 n II 0 0 0 8 II II 16 5 0 16 8 8 us 16 16 II 5 0 0 0 3 5 5 II 3 0 14 21 16 i6 27 27 0 0 0 II 13 !3 18 5 3 Effects under the F~RC License Appltcat1on Scenarlo are deftned by FERC Forecastse Ef1ects under the FY84 Car Transportatlon Scenario are deffned by FY84 Car Forecastse Effects under the FYB5 Car Transportation Scenario are deflned by FY85 Car Forecasts. EffecT$ under the FY85 Air and Bus Scenartos are deffned by FY85 AB forecasts where ABI forecasts refer to effects under Air and Bus Scenarto/77% construc-tion worker hiring tn Anchorage -construction worker hlrtng tn AB2 forecasts refer to effects under the Alr and Bus Scenario/50% constructton worker hfrlng 1n -50% constructfon worker hlrJng tn Fairbanks, AB3 forecasts refer to effects under Air and Bus Scenario/100% construction worker hirtng Anchorage -o,; construct1on worker htrfng tn Fatrbanks. Source: Frank Orth & Assoctates, Inc., 1985. Aa'tion Basel lne Effec-t Households Basel tne Effect N/A NIA NIA 320 795 475 107 275 168 N/A-Not Avai I able or Not Applicable .. N/A N/A N/A 299 584 285 97 183 86 N/A N/A NIA 282 329 47 92 107 l5 N/A NIA N/A 282 306 24 92 101 9 N/A N/A NIA 282 298 16 92 98 6 N/A N/A 282 3H 29 92 103 u Effects under the FERC Ltcense Appttcatton Scenario are de1tned by FERC Forecasts. Effects under the FYd4 Car Transportation Scenarfo are deftned by FY84 Car Forecasts. Effects under the FY85 Car Transportation Scenario are de·fJned by FY85 Car Forecasts .. Effects under the FY85 A1r and Bus Scenarios are detlned by FY85 AB forecasts where ABA forecasts refer to effects under Atr and Bus Scenarto/77!C construction worker htrtng tn Anchorage -construction worker hfr1ng in Fairbanksp AB2 forecasts refer to effects under the Alr and Bus Scenarto/ 50% constructton worker htrtng ln Anchorage -50% construction worker htrlng in Fairbanksp AB3 forecasts refer to effects under Atr and Bus Scenarto/1 00$ construction worker h l rt ng Anchorage - worker hiring Jn Fairbanks. Employment represents number of workers by place of residence. 3/ Households represents the number of occupied houstng unl~s$ Source: Frank Orth & Inc .. , 1985 .. 32 construct ton Table A-6 .. 3 of Creel( -Pub!Wc Facili~tes/Servfces Effects Select:3d Scenarios 1990 .FERC .FY84 «.;~r FY85 Car ABl AB2 Forecasts td Waste Dtsposal {Cumulative Acres) Basel t ne N/A 0 .. 4 063 0 .. 3 0 .. 3 With-project NJA 0 .. 5 0 'll' ..... 0 .. 3 0.,3 Effect N/A 0 .. 2 0.,0 o .. o OoO Base Year Capacity 21 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Percent Effect 3/ N/A 50 .. 0 o .. o o .. o o .. o % of Capacity Uttllzatton 4/ N/A N.IA N/A N.IA N/A Police Protectton 5/ Basel Jne N/A 0 .. 3 0 .. 3 0 .. 3 0.3 With-project N/A 0 .. 6 0 .. .3 0 .. 3 0 .. 3 Effect N/A 0.3 0 .. 0 o .. o 0.,0 Base Year Staff 21 NIA .:s .. o 3 .. 0 3o0 3.,0 Percent Effect 3/ NIA 100.0 o .. o o .. o 0.,0 J Increase Over Base Year Staff 4 / N/A 20 .. 0 !0.0 10 .. 0 10 .. 0 Recre~Jtion Fact I itles 61 Basel Jne N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA With-proj act N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Effect N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA NIA-Not Available or Not Appttcab~e. 1/ Effects under the FERC License Appltcation Scenario are deffned by FERC Forecastso Effects under the FY84 Car Transportation Scenario are defined by FY84 Car Forecasts. Effects under the FY65 Car Transportation Scenario are defined by FY85 Car Forecastse Forecasts 003 0.,3 0.,0 N/A o .. o N/A 0 .. 3 0.,3 0.,0 3,0 0.,0 10@0 N/A N/A N/A Effects under the FY85 Atr and Bus Scenarios are defined by FY85 AB forecasts where .A.Bi forec~sts refer to effects under Air and Bus Scenarto/77% constructlon worker hlrlng ln Anchorage -23% construction worker htrtng in Falrbanks, AB2 forecasts refer to effects under the Atr and Bus Scenarto/ 50S construction worker hlrTng in Anchorage -50% constructton worl(.er htrfng In Fatrbanks, AB3 forecasts refer to effects under Atr and Bus Scenarlo/100% constructfon worker htrtng Anchorage -O% construction worker htrlng tn Falrbankso 21 Cspaclty/staff numbers used ln FERC forecasts were from 1981; the sfmTiar numbers used tn the revised, base case, and worker htrfng projections were from 1983/i984o 31 Calculated by dlvtdlng effect by basellne forecasta 4/ Calculated by divldtng with-project forecast by capacity. 5/ Police Protectton requirements are 1n terms of manpower. 6/ Recreation faclltty requirements are 1n terms of acres o1 neighborhood parks; FY85 facliTty requirements dlffer between the FERC License appltcatton and subsequent projections due to B change tn projection methodology as well as revised population forecasts. Source: Frank Orth & Assoclates~ Inc.~ l985a 33 L irements <rh.mber of Beds) Basel tne Wtth-project Effect Base Year Capactty Percent Effect 3/ o1 Capacity utn tzatton 4/ Wa'ter Servtce <000 ga I .I day) Baseline Wfth-prcj ect Effect Base Year Capacity 2/ Percent Effect 3/ :S of Capac 11-y uttiJzatlon 4/ Sewer Service (000 ga I .. Ida'(> Basal lne With-proJect Effect Base Year Capacity Percent Effect 3/ ~ of Capacity Uti ltzatJon 41 of Cre~A Publtc Fa~tl1ties/ServJces EffecTs Selected Scer.arfos 1990 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A-Not Avaflable or Not Applicable. NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A. N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Effects under th,'t FERC Ltcense Appl tcatton Scenario are deft ned by FERC Forecasts .. Effects under the FY84 Car Transportation Scenario are defined by FYS4 Car Forecasts. Effects under the FY85 Car Transportation Scenarto are deftned by f'Y85 Car Forecastse N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Effects under the FY85 Air and Bus Scen~rfos are defined by FY65 AS forecasts where ABl fore- casts refer to effects under Alr and Bus Scenarlo/77J construction worker htrfng Jn Anchorage construction worker htrtng tn Fatrbanks~ AB2 forecasts refer to effects under ~he Atr and Bus Scenarto/ 50$ constructlon worker hirfng in Anchorage -50% construction worker htrlng in Fatrbanks, A83 forecasts refer to effects under Atr and Bus Scenario/JOO% constructlon ~orker hirtng Anchorage -O% constructlon worker hfrfng ln Fairbanks. Capacity/staff numbers used tn FERC forecasts were tram l98l; the slmtlar numbers used tn the rev,sed, base case, and worker hirlng ecttons were from 1983/1984@ Calculated by dividing effect by baseline forecast. 4/ Calculated by dfvldlng with-projecT forecast by capacttyo Source: Frank Orth & Associ Inc .. ~' J 985., School Chf ldren Year Capaci-ty Percent Effect 3/ % of lr'----"·""-- Uttl h:at1on 4/ Schoo t Ch t ldren Basel tne With-project EHect Base Year Capacity 21 Percent Effect 3/ of litt It zatlon 4/ Toi"ai Schooi Enrol iment Basel 1ne With-project Effect Base Year Capacity 21 Percent Effect~ ~ of Capactty Utlltzatton 40 115 75 30 187.,5 383 .. 3 34 92 58 N/A 170 .. 6 N/A 74 207 133 N/A 179.7 NIA NIA-Not Available or Not Applicable .. 31 78 41 50 110 .. 8 156 .. 0 32 67 35 0 109 .. 4 o .. o 69 145 76 50 110 .. 1 290 .. 0 38 38 38 45 41 40 1 3 2 50 50 50 i8 .. 4 7 .. 9 5.,3 90 .. 0 82 .. 0 ao .. o 30 30 30 36 33 32 6 3 2 0 0 0 20 .. 0 10 .. 0 6 .. 7 o.o ' o .. o 0 .. 0 68 68 68 81 74 72 IJ 6 4 50 50 50 19 .. 1 a .. a 5 .. 9 162.0 148.0 144 .. 0 1/ Effects under the FERC Lfcense Application Scenario are de1fned by FERC Forecasts0 Effects under the FY84 Car Transportation Scenarto are defined by FY84 Car Forecastse Effects under 'the FY85 Car Transportation Scenarlo are defined by FYB5 Car Forecasts. Effects under the FYS5 Air and Bus Scenartos are deftned by FY85 AB forecasts where ABI forecasTs refer to effects under Air and Bus Scenarto/77S construction worker hiring fn Anchorage ~ construction worker hlr1ng Jn Fairbanks, AB2 forecasts refer to effects under the Air and Bus Scenarfo/ 50$ construction worker htrlng in -50~ construction worker hiring in Fairbanks, ABJ forecasts refer to effects under Atr and Bus Scenarto/100% construction worker hTrfng Anchorage -construction worker hlrlng tn Fairbanks. Capacity/staff numbers used tn FERC forecasts were from 1981; the stmllar numbers used in the revised, base case, and worker hlrtng were from 1983/1984. 31 Calculated by dJvtdlng effect by baseline forecast. 4 / Calculated dlvidlng wlth-project forecas·t by capactty .. Source: Frank Orth & Inc .. , i985 .. 10 .. 5 84.,0 30 0 JO .. O 0.,0 75 50 10 .. 3 150,0 Gen~ral Fund Baseline Revenues N/A N/A Tab constanT 1983 dot I N/A NIA N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N.l A N/A Baseline Fiscal Balance Net Fiscal Balance N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Nh\ Sums may noT equal totals due to rounding differences. N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA NIA-Not Available or Not Appllcab!ea i/ Effects under the FERC Llcen.se Appl Jcation Scenarlo ar·e defTned by FERC Forecasts .. Effects under the FY84 Car TransportatJon Scenarfo are deftned FY84 Car Forecastsv Effects under the FY85 Car Transportation Scenario are defined FY85 Car Forecasts. Effects under the FY85 Alr and Bus Scenarfos are deftned by FY85 AS forecasts where ABI forecasts refer to effects under Air and Bus ScenarJo/77S construction worker fn Anchorage -23% construction worker hiring tn FalrbanKs, AB2 forecasts refer to effects under the Air· and Bus Scenario/ 50% construction worker hJrfng ln Anchorage 50% construction worker hlrlng In FaTrbanks, A83 forecasts refer to effects under Air and Bus Scenar1o/IOO% construction worker htrlng Anchorage -0~ construction ~orker hiring in Fatrbanks. Source: Frank Orth & Associates, Inc., i985o N/A N/A N/A rERC L Forecasts Effects 780 25 820 33 862 174 906 237 952 267 l990 335 1991 323 !992 I, 104 294 I, 160 250 1.!1'219 2.33 I ,281 222 1,347 229 I ,415 240 11>487 253 1999 I ,56.3 257 2000 !,642 251 200l I, 726 230 2002 1,814 209 Tab of Talkeetna FY84 Car Forecasts 358 316 395 415 436 457 480 504 529 556 584 61.3 643 676 709 745 782 821 52 70 90 1.32 152 l95 190 180 162 155 148 155 162 165 164 164 l51 147 288 22 n u 300 40 19 !4 24 312 22 13 I 19 324 22 13 II 19 337 84 76 11 350 99 81 75 365 109 85 77 319 78 69 66 72 394 JJ n 5 Ll 410 -5 0 0 0 426 -3 0 0 0 443 0 0 0 3 461 64 57 51 59 480 87 76 11 79 499 72 62 56 64 519 29 13 II 18 540 a 5 5 5 561 3 3 0 :s Effects under the FERC License Application Scenario are deflned by FERC Forecasts~ Effects under the FY84 Car Transportation Scenario are defined by FY84 Car Forecastse Effects under the FY85 Car TransporTation Scenario are deffned by FY85 Car Forecasts~ Effects under the FY85 Alr and Bus Scenarios are defined by FY85 AB forecasts wher.e ASI forecasts refer to effects under A I r and Bus Scenarto/77~ construction worker hiring 1n Anchorage -23~ construction worker hiring 1n Fairbanks, AB2 forecasts refer to effects under the Atr and Bus Scenarfo/50% construc:.Tfon worker hlrtng In constructfon worker hiring tn Fairbanks,. AB3 forecasts refer to effects under Alr and Bus Scenar t o/1 00% construct! on worker hlrlng Anchorage -OS construct ton worker hiring tn Fatrbanks. Source: Frank Orth & Assoclates,. Inc., 1985 .. 37 21 lne Effec't at ton Basel tne Wtth-ProjecT Effect N/A N/A N/A 1,000 11'335 335 N/A N/A N/A 457 652 195 N/A NIA N/A 350 449 99 N/A f<J./A 350 431 8\ N/A 350 350 425 436 75 86 Households Baseline 334 149 135 135 135 !.35 451 208 184 178 176 ISO Effect 117 59 {,'; 43 45 N/A-Not Available or Not Applicable. !I Effects under the FERC License Application Scenario are deftned by FERC Forecasts. Effects under the FY84 Car Transportation Scenario are deffned by FY84 Car Forecasts. Effects under the FY85 Car Transportatt on Scenar to are ~lett ned by FY85 Car t-·orecasts .. Effects under the FY85 Alr and Bus Scenarlos are defln~~ by FY85 AD forecasts where ABl forecasts refer to effects under Air and Bus Scenarfo/77% construction worker h!ring Jn Anchorage-23% construction worker hfrtng tn Fairbanks, AB2 forecasts refer to effects under the Atr and Bus Scenario/ 50% constructtor. worker ~tr ln Anchorage -50~ construction worker hiring tn Fairbank~, AB3 forecasts refer to effects under Atr and Bus ScenarfollOO% construction worker h trt ng Anchorage -OS construct1on worker hirfng Jn Fairbanks. 21 Employment represents number of workers by p\ace of residence. 3/ Households represents the number of occupled houstng unfts. Source: Frank Orth & Assoctates, lnco, 1985. 38 Effect Base Capacity ~ Percent Ei'fer-1' 3/ of Uttl t zetton ~ Protec-t ton Effect Base Year Staff 21 Percent Effect 3/ Increase Over Base Year Staff~ Recreation FacJJittes Basel fne W t th-proj ect Nil' NIA N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ~/I\ N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA-Not Aval~~ble or Not Applicable~ 0.,5 0.,4 0.,4 0.,4 0 .. 6 0 .. 5 0.,4 0.,4 0.,1 0 .. 1 o .. o 0.,0 5 .. 0 5 .. 0 5 .. 0 5.,0 10 .. 0 25,.0 0.,0 o .. o 12 .. 0 10 .. 0 8 .. 0 e .. o N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A t-J./A N./A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A II E1fects under the FERC License App!Jcation Scenarto are defined by FERC Forecasts. Effects under the FY84 Car Transportation Scenario are defined by FY84 Car Forecastse Effects under the FY85 Car Transportation Scenarlo are defTned by FY85 Car Forecasts. 0 .. 4 0.,0 5~0 0.,0 8.,0 N/A N./A NIA N/A N/A Effects under the FY85 Air and Bus Scenarios are defined by FY85 AB forecasts where ABI forecasts refer to effects under Air and Bus Scenarlo/77% constructfon worker hlrtng in Anchorage -construction worker hiring fn Fairbanks~ AB2 forecasts refer to effects under the Afr and Bus Scenario/ construction worker hirtng tn -50S construction worker hfrfng in fairbanks~ AB3 forecasts refer to effects under Air and Bus Scenarto/100~ constructlon worker Anchorage-construction worker hiring ln Fairbanks .. ity/staff n~~bers used in fERC forecasts were from 1981; the stmllar numbers used ln the rev1 base case, and worker htring projectfons were from 1983/1984. Calculated by di effect by baseline forecasto Calculated by dividing with-project forecast by Police Protection requirements are tn terms of manpower. Recreation facility requirements are tn terms of acres ~f neighborhood parks; FY85 facl requiranen1's dtffer between tha FERC License appllcatlon and subsequent due to a change ln methodology as ~eJ I as revfsed populatlon forecas·rso Source: frank Orth & Assoct T~bfie A-7J~ ot T!!':likeetna PubAWc Fac1litfes/Servtces Effects Se i ected ScenarIos J! 1990 FERC FY84 Car FY85 Car Var-i atde Forecasts Forac:asts Forecasts Forecasts Forecasts tal Requirements (Number of Beds) Basel 1 r&e N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ~tth ... project N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Effect WA N/A N/A N/A N/A Base Year Capacity ~ N/A N/A N/A N/A NJ'Jl, Percent Effect 3/ N/A N./A NIA N/A N/A ~ of Capacity Uti I i zatton 41 N/A Nil\ N/A N/A NIA Water Servtce <000 gal .,/day> Basel fne N/A N/A NIA o.J/A N/A With-project N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A Effeci" N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Base Year Capacl~ 1! N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Percent Effect 3/ NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A % of Capactty utilization 4/ N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA Sewer ServJce (000 ga I ./day> Basel tne NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A W t th-proj ect NIA N/A NIA N/A N/A Effect N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Base Year Capacity 2/ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Percent Effect 3/ N/A N/A N/A NIA Nl~ S of Capacity U1" f I l z at J on 4/ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A-Not Available or Not Applicable. J/ Effects under the FERC License AppiJcatton Scenarto are defined by FERC Forecasts. Effects under the FY84 Car Transportation Scenarfo are defined by FY84 Car Forecas-ts .. Effect~ under the FY85 Car Transportation Scenario are deflned by FY85 Car Forecastse AB3 Forecasts N/A N/A Nil\ N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A Effect~ under the FY85 AJr and Bus Scenarios are defined by FY85 AB forecasts where ABI fore- casts refer to effects under Air and Bus Scenarfo/77% construction worker hlrtng ln Anchorage -23% construction worker hfr1ng ln Fairbanks» A82 forecasts refer to effects under the Atr and Bus Scenario/ 50% constructlon worker htrtng ln Anchorage -50% constructlon worker hlrtng t n FaIrbanks, A83 forecasts refer to effects under A 1 r and Bus Scenar l oil 00% construct Yon ~orker hiring Anchorage-0% construction worker hJrlng tn Fairbanks. 2/ Capacity/staff numbers used tn FERC forecasts were from 198l; the sfmtlar numbers used In the rev1sed~ base casep and worker htrtng project1ons were from 1983/1984o 31 Calculated by dlvlding effect by baseline forecasto 4/ Calculated by dtvidlng with-project forecast by capacity. Source; Frank Orth A Assoctatesp Inc., 1985. 40 5 of Tal Facllttfes/Servlces Effects Selected Scenarios l990 Forecas'ts School Children !26 57 48 48 164 86 61 58 57 Effect 38 29 13 10 9 Base Year 120 100 100 100 iOO Percen-t Effect 30 .. 2 50 .. 9 27 .. 1 20.,8 18 .. 8 J Util t zatlon 4/ 136 .. 7 86 .. 0 6L.O 58 .. 0 57 .. 0 School Chf idren Basel tne W1 49 37 31 31 With-proJect 1.38 74 47 45 44 Effect 31 25 10 8 7 Base Year 21 N/A 0 0 0 0 Percent Effect 29 .. 0 51..0 27 .. 0 2l .. 6 18 .. 9 " of Utllfzatton N/A 0.0 o .. o o .. o o .. o To'tal Scho:ll Enrollment Basellne 233 106 85 65 85 Wtth-proJect 302 160 108 103 iOI Effoct 69 54 23 l8 16 Base Year Capacity ~ N/A 100 100 100 !00 Percent Effect ~ 29.6 50 .. 9 27 .. 1 21 .. 2 i8 .. 8 % of CapaeJi'y UTil t zatton 4/ N/A 160 .. 0 108 .. 0 !03 .. 0 lOI .. O N/A-Not Avallabl~ ~r Not Applicable .. Effects under the FERC Llcense Appltcatlon Scenario are deftned by FERC Forecastso Effects under the FYS4 Car Transportation Scenarto are defined by FYB4 Car Forecastso Effects under the FY85 Car Transportatton Scenario are defined by FY85 Car Forecasts~ Effects under the FYS5 Air and Bus Scenarios ere defined by FY85 AS forecasts ~here ASI forecasts refer To effects under Air and Bus Scenar1o/77% consi'ructlon worker hTrfng tn Anchorage -construction worker hirtng fn AS2 forecasts refer to effects under the A fr and Bus Scenario/ construction worker hiring t n Anr'~v-~.,,-ar•• construction worker hiring In AB3 forecasts refer to effects under Air and Bus Scenarto/IOOS construction worker hfrfng Anchorage -construction worker htrtng ln FaJrbankso Capacity/staff nun;bers used tn FERC forecasts wer3 from 1981; the stmllar numbers used tn the revised, base case, and worker hlrlng projections were from 1983/1984~ Calculated by dtvtdtng effect by baseline forecast. 4/ Calculated by dtvJdtng w forecast by ~ource: Frank Orth & Associ Inc .. " 1985., 20.,8 58.,0 45 8 0 2L6 o .. o 85 103 I 100 21.,2 103.,0 t:lf T a i keetna Fiscal Effeci's 1990 (thousand~ of constant 1983 dollars) FERC FY84· Car FY85 Car I Fund Baseitne Revenues N/A $ l,i43 s 876 W t th=proJ e<:t Revenues N/A s I ,632 I, ~24 Base~ina Expenditures N/A N/A N/A WWth-Projec1· Expendi- tun~s N/A N/A N/A Net Baseltna Fiscal Balance N/A N/A N/A Net (w/project) Ffscat Balance N/A N/A N/A Note: Sums may not equal totals due to roundtng dtf1erences .. NIA-Not Avai h!ible or Not Appl tcat:de .. ABI AB2 $ 876 $ 876 1,079 1,063 N/A NIA N/A NIA N/A Nlf N/A N/A II Revenues shottn for Talkeetna represent revenued collected by the Mat-Su Borough on behalf of Talkeetna.. Talkeetna does not have any current ftsca\ responslbt I t-ty to provide public facJitties and services. 21 Effects under the FERC Llcense Application Scenario are deflned by FERC Forecastse Effects under the FY84 Car Transportation Scenarlo are defined by FY84 Car ForecasTs~ Effects under the FY85 Car Transportation Scenario are defined by FY85 Car Forecasts., Effects IJnder the FY85 Air and Bus Scenarios are defined by FY85 AS forecasts tthare ABJ forecasts refer to effects under Afr and Bus Scenarlo/77% constructJon worker hiring Jn Anchorage.,. 23% construction worker hfrJng tn Fairbanks, AB2 forecasts refer to eff~ts under the Air and Bus Scenario/ 50% constructton worker hlrTng in Anchorage ~ 50% construction worker hiring tn Fairbanks, AB3 forecasts refer to effects under Air and Bus Scenarlo/100% construction worker hfrJng Anchorage -O% constructton worker hirtng fn Fairbanks. 42 816 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1986 I i988 989 1990 1991 ~992 1993 1994 1995 §996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Mun~ct of Fairbanks FERC License Appllcattonp FY84 Car FERC Forecasts 798 31,007 31,392 29,485 29,.568 29,628 2911692 30,3!2 30,881 31,.366 3L.886 32,496 33ul45 33,844 .34, 555 35,.266 36,.300 37"041 82 107 -89 ~t20 -136 -173 -17i -21.3 -260 -306 -323 -312 -295 -276 -271 -27.3 -309 -341 FY84 Car Forecasts 30,.310 31,536 32,654 33.9478 .34~6:Sl 36,266 37,.149 38,295 39,00.3 41,358 42,177 43,J98 44,320 45,391 46,48.3 47,68l 49,.097 50,241 and Air and Bus Scenarios ~985-2002 FY85 Car Scanarfo -48 -79 -178 -240 -268 -196 -163 -160 -37 5.3 9.3 59 28 -28 -31 -6 76 181 27,574 29,855 29,.644 29,682 29"574 29,824 .30,.348 .30,648 .30,606 .31, 004 30,.735 .31,459 31., 807 32,264 32,372 32,67.3 32,969 33,101 and Air· and Bus Scenario -59 -50 1 13 l9 -83 -481 -604 ... 5 -556 -155 -578 27 36 -64 45 -397 88 -7 77 958 !67 229 153 166 -79i 378 -699 351 25 338. 25 508 ... ,32 320 -90 ... 234 -648 -16 -616 -1,471 -90 -272 -691 -1,076 86 -11 ~548 -1,437 176 356 198 427 90 146 243 456 -318 -991 148 196 234 §52 361 ISH 122 41 56 112 109 249 249 J/ Effects under the FERC ltcense Appltcation Scenario are defined by FERC Forecasts~ Effects under the FY84 Car Transportation Scenario are defined by FY84 Car Forecastso Effects under the FY85 Car Transportation Scenarto are deflned by FY85 Car Forecastso Effects under the FY85 Air and Bus Scenarios are defined by FY85 AS forecasts where ABI forecasts refer to effects under Atr and Bus Scenarlo/77% construct1on worker hiring In Anchorage -23% construction worker hfrlng tn Fairbanks, A82 forecasts refer to effects under the Atr and Bus Scenarto/50% constructlon worker hlrtng ln Anchorage -50~ construction worker htrtng tn Fairbanks~ AB3 forecasts refer to effects under Air and Bus Scenario/100% construction worker hlrtng Anchorage -O% construction worker hlrJng tn Fairbanksa Source: Frank Orth & Associates, Inc., l985. 43 latlorra Basel tne Effect 31 Housshoids ~ Basel tne Wlth=Projact Effect WA N/A 705 29,628 29,455 ~173 I!, J04 11,048 -56 N/A-Not Avatlable or Not Applicable. N/A N/A 800 36!'266 36,070 -196 13,.537 13,505 -.32 29.,824 29,741 -63 I 1,.303 11,273 -30 15 .. 499 15,703 204 29,824 29,977 153 ll/)30.3 I 111 .347 44 15,879 380 291'824 30,144 320 11 .. 30.3 11,404 101 29s;824 29&>734 -90 I 1,303 11,249 -54 1/ Effects under the FERC License Application Scenario are deflned by FERC Forecastse Effects under the FYB4 Car Transportat1on Scenario are def,ned by FY84 Car Forecasts. Effects under the FY85 Car Transportatlon Scenario are defined by FY85 Car Farecastsc Effects under the FY85 Air and Bus Scenarfos are def1ned by FYB5 AB forecasts where ABI forecasts refer -to effects under Alr and Bus Scenarlo/77% construction worker hJrtng fn Anchorage -23% construc~fon worker hTrfng in Fairbanks, AB2 forecasts refer to effects under the Atr and Bus Scenario/ 50% constructton worker hiring fn Anchorage = 50% construction ~:~orker hfrlng in Fafrbanks, J\83 forecasts ref.ar to effec-t-s under Air' and Bus Scenario/tOO% construction work.er hirtng Anchorage -0$ constructton ~orker hlring in Falrbankso 21 Employment represents number of workers by place of resldenceo 31 Households represents the number of occuptsd housing unttse Sourca: Frank Orth & Associates, Inc~, 1985. 44 """""" .---.-...... Sceru:r t os 1990 01 Acres) N/A NIA N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA NIA N/A N/A N/A MIA NIA N/A N/A N/A NIA NIA N/A N/A N/A NIA Po I f ce ProtEK.'t ton 1! N/A N/A 44,7 44.,7 44 .. 7 NJA N/A 44 .. 7 44 .. 9 45 .. 0 Effect N/A N/A o .. o 0 .. 2 0 .. 3 Base Year Staff N/A N/A 46 .. 0 46 .. 0 46 .. 0 Percent Effect N/A N/A o .. o 0 .. 4 0 .. 7 % Increase Over Base Year Staff N/A N/A 97 .. 2 97 .. 6 97 .. 8 Recre~tJon Facr I ttJes 6/ Baseline Nil\ N/A 74o6 74 .. 6 74.6 With-project N/A N/A 74 .. 4 75.0 75 .. 4 N/A-Not Available or Not Applicabie~ i/ Effects under the FERC license Appllcatfon Scenario are defined by FERC Forecasts .. Effects under the FY84 Car Transportation Scenario are defined by FY84 Car Forecasts. Effects under the FY85 Car Transportation Scenarto are defined by FY85 Car Forecasts .. Nil' 44.,7 44..,7 O~O 46 .. 0 0.,0 97 .. 2 74.,6 74.,4 Effects under the FY85 Air and Bus Scenarlos are deft ned by FY85 AB forecasts where ABI forecasts refer to effec1's under Air and Bus Scenarto/771 construction worker hfrlng ln Anchorage -23S construction worker hJrtng tn Fairbanks, AB2 forecasts refer to effects under the Atr and Sus Scenario/ 50$ construction worker htrfng ln Anchorage -construction worker hiring tn Fairbanks9 ABJ forecasts refer to effects under Atr and Bus Scenarlo/100% constructton worker hiring Anchorage -0~ construction worker htr1ng Jn Falrbankso 2/ Capacity/staff numbers used tn FERC forecasts were from 1961; the similar numbers used in the revfsedp base case, and worker hJrtng proJections were from l ~83/!984$ 3/ Ca!culated by dividing effect by baseline forecast. 4/ Catculated by dividing with-project forecast by capacity., 51 Pollee Protection requirements are Tn terms of manpower~ 6/ Recreatfon factlfty requirements are Tn terms of acres of neighborhood parks; FYS5 facill~y requirements dlffer between the FEFC Ltcense appltcat1on and subsequent projections due to a change Jn projection methodology as well as revised population forecasts. Source: Frank Orth & Associates~ lnco~ 1985. labie N/A N/A 118 • .4 I 8 .. 4 N/A MIA 121 <11 I i21.,2 MIA N/A 2.,7 2 .. 8 N/A N/A 147 .. 0 141 .. 0 l47 .. 0 NIA N/A 2 .. l 2 .. 4 3.,7 of utilization N/A N/A 82 .. 4 82 83 .. 5 Water Servlce (000 gat .. /day> N/A N/A 2,624 .. 5 2,.624 .. 5 N/A NIA 2,617 .. 2 2,638 .. 0 Nil\ N/A -7.,3 1:5 .. 5 28 .. 2 Base Year N/A N/A 4,000 .. 0 4,000 .. 0 000 .. 0 Percent Effect N/A N/A -o .. 3 0 .. 5 L.l of Capacity Uttllz.atton N/A N/A 65 .. 4 66 .. 0 66 .. 3 Sewer Serv t ce (000 gal ./day) Basel tne N/A N/A 3,876 .. 5 3,876 .. 5 3p876 .. 5 Wi 111-proJ eci' N/A N/A 3,923 .. 2 3,.929 .. 7 4,000 .. 3 Effect N/A N/A 46 .. 7 53.2 123 .. 8 Base Year Capacity ~ N/A N/A 6,.500,0 6,.500 .. 0 6,.500 .. 0 Percent Effect 31 N/A N/A 1..2 1.4 3 .. 2 of Capacity lH"Y It zat ion .!f N/A N/A 60.4 60 .. 4 61..5 NIA-Not Available or Not Applfcable. 1/ Effects under the FERC License Appltcation Scenario are deftned by FERC Forecastsc Effects under the FYB4 Car Transportation Scenario are deffned by FY84 Car Forecasts~ Effects under the FYB5 Car Transportation Scenario are defined by FY85 Car Forecasts~ il8o4 n9 .. s SL. .. 5 -o.,:s 65o4 3,876 .. 5 3,870 .. 2 -6.,3 6,500$0 -o.,2 59.,5 Effects under the FY85 Alr and Bus Scenartos are deflned by FY85 AB forecasts ~here ABI fore- casts refer to effects under Air and Bus Scenarto/77% construction worker htrtng tn -23% constructlon worker hiring Jn Falrbanksp AB2 forecasts refer to effects under the Air and Bus Scenario/ 50~ construction worker htrtng in Anchorage -construction worker hiring in Fairbanks, AB3 forecasts refer to effects under Atr and Bus Scenarto/1 constructlon ~rker hirfng Anchorage -0~ construction worker htr1ng 1n Fairbanks. 21 Capacity/staff numbers used In FERC forecasts war~ from 9tH: 'the sfmi lar numbers used In the revised, base case, and worker hlrtng projections were from 1983/1984~ Calculated by dlvldlng effect by baseline forecast. Calculated by dtv1d1ng with-proJect forecast by cap~city. Source: frank Orth & Assoctatesp Inc.~ 1985. 46 Children Yetlf" Percent Effect $ of Utilization 4/ Basel tne of U"tl I J zatfon ~ 2/ 2/ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA MIA NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NJA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A NIA WA N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A WA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total School Enrollment Basel tne Wtth-project Effect Base Year Capacity 21 Percent Effect l! % of Capacity Uti ltzatfon 4/ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/,1\ N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A WA N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA-Not Available or Not Applicable. 21 Effects under the FERC License Appllcatlon Scenario are deftned by FERC Forecasts. Effects under the FY84 Car Transportation Scenarto are defined by FY84 Car Forecasts. Effects under the FY85 Car Transportation Scenario are deft ned by FY85 Car Forecasts .. Effects under the FY85 Air and Bus Scanartos are defined by FY85 AB forecasts where ABI forecasts refer to effects under Atr and Bus Scanarto/77% construction worker htring tn Anchorage -23S construction worker htrtng ln Falrbanksp AB2 forecasts refer to efft:leis tinder the Alr and Bus Scenarfo/ construction worker hiring Tn -50$ construction worker htrfng tn AB3 forecasts refer to effects under Air and Bus Scenarlo/1 construction worker htrlng -O% construction worker· h t ring in Fairbanks .. lty/st~ff numbers used in FERC forecasts were from 1981; the simllar numbers used tn the revtsed, base case, and worker htrtng proJect1ons were from 1983/1984e 3/ Calculated by dividing effect by baseiTne forecast. Calcylated by divfdfng ~lth-project forecast by Source: Frank Orth & Associ Inc .. $' 1985 .. N/A N/A NIA N/A NIA N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A Tabla 6 Mun of fafrbanks Fiscal Effects 1990 ('thousands of constant i98J lers) Gene~raA Fund Sasellne Revenues s NIA s NJA 28,094 $ 28.,094 N/A N/A 28,016 28,395 22~505 36.,516 32.,738 321-'7J8 'tures 22.,702 3.2,907 Basel ins Fiscal Balance N/A N/A -4,644 Net' Ffscai Balance N/A N/A -4,633 Sums may not equal totals due to rounding differencese N/A~Not Available or Not Appltcabie. Effects under the FERC Llcense Application Scenarto are deftned FERC Forecasts. Effects under the FY84 Car Transportation Scenario are deffned by FY84 Car Forecasts. Effects under the FY85 Car Transportatlon Scenario are deflned by FY85 Car Forecasts. Effects under the FY85 Alr and Bus Scenar1os are de1tned by FY85 AB forecasts where ABI forecasts refer to effeci"s under Alr and Bus Scenario/77J construction worker htrtng in Anchorage = 23% construction worker hJrTng Jn Fairbanks, AB2 forecasts refer to effects under the Alr and Bus Scenarto/ 50J constructlon worker htrtng in Anchorage -50~ construct,on worker hiring Jn Fairbanks, AB3 forecasts refer to effects under Air and Bus Sc:enario/100% constructlon worker hiring Anchorage ... O% construction worker htrfng in Fairbanks. Source; Frank Orth & Assoctatesp Inc., 1965. 48 and Air and Bus Scenarios 198~-2002 FERC FY84 Car FY85 Car Transportation Scenario Forecasts forecasts and Atr and Bus Scenarlo Effects Baseline !985 194 no 201 368 197 338 322 322 322 1986 198 230 205 488 201 396 379 319 379 !987 202 165 209 372 205 54 50 50 50 ~988 206 118 213 535 209 54 50 50 50 1989 210 184 217 618 213 119 113 115 n:s l 214 198 222 797 217 124 H5 115 115 1991 2l9 197 226 780 222 137 116 116 116 1992 223 194 231 733 226 120 113 113 HI 1993 228 l90 235 666 231 5l 53 53 50 J994 232 130 240 640 235 0 0 0 0 1995 237 129 245 627 240 0 0 0 0 1996 241 129 250 641 245 0 0 0 0 ~997 246 129 255 671 250 7 0 0 0 1998 251 130 260 692 255 7 0 0 0 1999 256 130 265 701 260 10 0 0 0 2000 261 130 270 692 265 13 0 0 0 2001 267 128 276 649 270 3 0 0 0 2002 272 125 281 619 276 0 0 0 0 1/ Effects under the FERC llcense Application Scenario are defined by FERC Forecastse Effects under the FY84 Car Transportatlon Scenario are deflned by FY84 Car Forecasts .. Effects under the FYB5 Car Transportation Scenario are deflned by FYB5 Car Forecasts .. Effects under the FY85 Air and Bus Scenarios are deffned by FY85 AB forecasts where ABi forecasts refer to effects under Afr and Bus Scenario/77% construction worker hir,ng tn Anchorage -23~ construction worker hlrtng tn Fairbanks, AB2 forecasts refer to effects under the Air and Bus ScenarJo/50% constructYon worker htring Tn Anchorage -50$ construction worker hiring tn Fairbanks~ AB3 forecasts refer to effects under Air and Bus Scenario/tOO% construction worker hlring Anchorage -0% constructlon worker hiring in Fairbanks .. Source: Frank Orth & Associates, Inc., 1985. 49 Base~ 1 ne With-Project Effect 31 Households- Basel tne W lth -ProJ act Effect N/A N/A 85 214 1,214 1,000 78 411 333 N/A-Not Available or Not Applicable. c-l~IOOir ar~h f c Effect's Selected Scenarios N/A N/A 253 222 18'019 797 88 329 241 1990 !5,499 15,702 20.3 217 34! 124 78 1.32 54 217 332 H5 78 130 52 15,499 15,879 300 217 332 115 78 130 52 1/ Effects under the FERC Ltcense Appltcatton Scenario are defined by FERC Forecasts. !5.,499 15,532 :5.3 217 332 115 78 130 52 Effects under the FY84 Car Transportation Scenarto are defined by FY84 Car Forecastso Effects under the FY85 Car Transportation Scenario are def1ned by FYB5 Car Forecasts. Effects under the FY85 Air and Bus Scenarios are defined by FY85 AS forecasts where ABI forecasts refer to effects under Atr and Bus Scenarlo/77% construction worker h!rlng tn Anchorage -23% construction worker hiring in Fairbanks, AB2 forecasts refer to effeci':ii under the Atr ~md Bus Scenario/ 50S construction wc1rker htr1ng ln Anchorage -50% construction worker htrtng Yn Fairbanks, AB3 forecasts refer to effects under Atr and Bus Scenarto/100~ construction worker htring Anchorage -O% constructlon worker hiring ln Falrbankse 21 Employment represents number of workers by place of residence. 31 Households represents the number of occupied houstng units. Source: Frank Orth & Associates, Inc., 1985. 50 SoUd Waste 01 <Cumulative Acres) Effect Base Year Capacity 21 Percent Effect 11 of Capacity Uti It zatlon ~ Basel fne Wtth""project Effect Base Year Staff 21 Percent Effect 3/ Increase Over Base Year Staff 41 Recreation FaciiTties 61 Basalt ne With-project Effect Commun of Cant11~e I i Public Faciiit,es/Services Effects Selected Scenar1os J! N/A N/A N/A NJA NJA N/A 1 .. 0 6 .. 0 5 .. 0 J .. O 500.0 600.0 N/A N/A N/A 1990 0 .. 3 0 .. 1 0 .. 4 2 .. 0 133 .. 3 35,.0 0 .. 2 1 .. 0 0 .. 8 1..0 400.0 iOO .. O 0.2 I .0 0 .. 8 0 .. 3 0 .. 4 0 .. 1 2.,0 33 .. 3 20 .. 0 0 .. 2 0 .. 3 0 .. I L.O 50 .. 0 30 .. 0 0.3 0.4 0 .. 1 NIA-Not Available or Not Applicable. 0 .. 3 0 .. 5 0 .. 2 2 .. 0 66.,7 25.0 0 .. 2 0 .. 3 0 .. 1 1 .. 0 50.,0 30 .. 0 0 .. 3 0 .. 5 0.2 0 .. 3 Oo5 0 .. 2 2 .. 0 66 .. 7 25 .. 0 0 .. 2 0 .. 2 0,1 L.O 50 .. 0 ~JO .. O 0.,3 0.,3 o .. o 1/ Effects under the FERC ltcenss Application Scenario are defined by FERC For·ecasts .. Effects under the FY84 Car Transportation Scenario are defined by FY84 Car ForecasTsa Effects under the FY85 Car Transportation Scenario are defined by FY85 Car Forecastso (),:') o .. Oe2 2 .. 0 66 .. 7 25,0 0 .. 2 0 .. 3 O~l L,O 50.,0 30o0 0 .. 3 0.,4 0., I Effects under the FY85 Afr and Bus Scenarios are deftned by FYB5 I~ forecasts where ASi forecasts refer to effects under Afr and Bus Scenarto/77% construction worker hiring tn Anchorage -23% construction worker hiring tn Fairbanks~ AB2 forecasts refer to effects under the Air and Bus Scenario/ 50S construction worker htrtng In Anchorage ·-50% construction worker hfrlng tn Fairbanks, ABJ forecasts refer to affects under AYr and Bus Scenarto/!OOS constructton worker hfring Anchorage -OS construction worker hiring Jn Fairbanks. 2/ Capacfty/staff numbers used 1n FERC forecasts were from 1981; the simTiar numbers used ln the revised., base case, and worker hJrfng projections were from 1983/1984 .. 31 Calculated by dtvtdtng effect by baseline forecast. 4/ Calcu!ated by d1vldtng wtth-project forecast by capaclty$ 5/ Police Protection requirements are fn terms of manpower. 6/ Recreatton fac~ Jlty requlrements are ln terrns of acres of neighborhood parks; FY85 fact ll'ty requirement~ dfffer between the FERC Ltcanse appl icatfon and subsequent' projectfons due to a change in projection methodology as well as revised population forecastse Source: Frank. Orth & Associates, lncq J985o N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA HIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Water Service (000 gal .. /day) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A uttiJzatton N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Sewer Serv1ce <000 ga I ./day) Basel tne N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NJA N/A N/A NIA N/A Effect N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Base Year Capacity N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Percent Effect 1! N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A of Capeac I ty UTt llzatlon N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA-Not Available or Not Appltcabte. 1/ Effects under the FERC License Application Scenario are defined by FERC Forecastse Effects under the FY84 Car Transportation Scenario are defined by FY64 Car Forecasts. Effects under the FY85 Car Transportation Scenarto are defined by FY85 Car Forecas1"s .. N/A NIA N/A N/A N./A N/A Effects under the FY85 Air and Bus Scenerlos are defined by FY85 AB forecasts where ABi fore- casts refer to effects under Atr and Bus Scanarto/77~ constructton worker hiring tn -23$ construction worker htr tn Fairbanks, A82 forecasts refer to effects under the Air and Bus Scenario/ 50% cons:tructton worker htrfng tn Anchorage -construction worker hirlng Jn Fairbanks, AB3 forecasts refer to effects under Alr and Bus Scenarfo/1 constructfon worker hlrtng Anchorage -construction worker hfrlng fn Fatrb~nks. 2/ Capacity/staff numbers used Jn FERC forecasts were from i98!; the s'lmt lar numbers used ln the revised, base case, and worker hlrlng projections were from 1983/!984~ 31 Calculated by dlvtding effect by baseline forecast. Ca leu I a'ted by d t vJd l ng w lth~~proJect forecas;t' by cZJpac1 Source: Frank Orth Associates, Inc •• 1985. 52 Pr School Chi ldran Effect Year Capac1ty Percent Effect ~ of Capactty uti i zat1on !! School Ch~ ldren Baseline With-project Effect Base Year Capacity Percent Effect 3/ of Capacity Uti I J za+ton 4/ . ~ntwell Publ Facllfties/Servfces Effects Selected Scenarios 1990 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NlA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ~VA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total School Enrollment jf Basel tne :59 40 39 39 39 Wlth-projecT 189 257 46 46 46 Effect !50 217 7 7 7 Base Year Capacity ~ 60 60 60 60 60 Percen? Effect 3/ 384.6 542 .. 5 17 .. 9 l7 .. 9 17 .. 9 of Capacity Utt I i.zatlon 41 315.0 428.3 76.7 76 .. 7 76 .. 7 NIA-Not Av~ttable or Not Applicable. Effects under ·~he FERC L lcense App l! catfon ScEU1arlo are deft ned by FERC Forecasts. Effects under i'he FY8~ Car Transportatton Scenario are defined by FY84 Car Fo:"'ecasts., Effects ynder the FY85 Car Transportation Scenario are deflned by FY85 Car Forecasts. Ef1acts under the FY85 A1r and Bus Scenarios are deftned by FY85 AB forecasts where Aal forecasts r~fer to effects under Atr and Bus Scenarto/77$ construc:tlon worker htrtng Jn Anchorage -23S construction worker hJrtng fn Fairbanks, AB2 forecasts refer to effects under tile Air and Bus Scenario/ 50S construction worker hfring Jn construction worker hiring fn Fatrbanks, AB3 forecasts refer to effects under Air emd Bus Scenarfo/100~ construction worker h(rfng Anchorage -0% constructYon worker hirtng tn Fatrbanks .. Capac~ty/staff numbers used tn FERC forecasts were from 198i; the sfmllar numbers used In the revlsedp base case, and worker htrtng projections ~ere from 1983/i984. Calculated by dlvJdlng effect by baseline forecast. 4/ Calculated by divtdfng w1th-project forecast by capactty. 5/ Cantwell has only one school that contains grades K-l20 Source: Frank Or~h & Assoct N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 39 46 1 60 17,9 76 .. 7 Community of Cantwe'l FV seal E 1 feci's i990 (i'housands of constant 1983 dollars> ~------,--------------~·---------------- Soc l o;aconcm 1 c FERC FY84 Car FY85 Car ABI A82 ABJ VrJrlable forecasts Forecasts Forecasts f=-orecasts Forecasts Foreca~ri·s __ _,._. Gei"iGra I Fund Baseline Re~enues N/A N/A 5 :Sl 31 $ 31 W1th-project Revenues NIA N/A 48 47 47 ease i 'ne Expand J turftS N/A ~~~~~ 25 25 25 W1th-Project Expendl- tures N/A N/A 39 39 39 N®t Baseline Ftscal Balance N/A N/A 6 6 6 Net ( w/ project) Fiscal Balance N/A N/A 9 8 8 Note~ Sums may not equ~l totals due to roundlng dlfterences. N/A~Not Avat labia or No·~ App! fc:able .. Effects under the FERC llc:ense Application Scenarto are deffned by FERC Forecastso Effects under the FY84 Car Transportatton Scenarlo are defined by FY84 Car Forecasts .. Effects under the FYS5 Car Transportation Scenarlo are def1nad by FY85 Car Forecastse Effects under ·the FY85 Air and Bus Scenarios a.re defJned by FY85 AB forecasts where ABI for·ecasts refer to effects under Air and Bus Scenar!o/77% construction worker hiring Yn Anchorage • 23J construction worker htrJ~g tn Falrbanks, AB2 forecas-t-s refer to effects under the Alr and Bus Scenario/ 50% construction worker hlrtng In Anchorage -50~ construction w~rker hiring Jn Fairbanks, A83 forecasts refer to effects under Ali and Bus Scenarlo/100% construci"ton worker hlrJng Anchorage -O% construct1on \;!Orker ntrtng tn Fatrbanks .. Source: Frank Orth & Assoc1ates, Inc., 1985~ 54 3i 41 25 39 6 a Table A""'iOQ I of Hea!y 91catton 9 FY84 Car and F"i'85 C~r TransporhttJon~~> and ;\fr and Bus Scenarios l! 1985-2002 FERC FYS4 Car FYS5 Car Scanarto Forecasts Forecasts and Atr and Bus Scenario Baseline Effects Basel t ne 1985 NIA NIA 378 84 639 16 3 3 N/A N/A 387 112 671 29 3 3 3 i987 N/A N/A 397 137 698 13 3 5 3 1988 N/A NIA 407 198 719 10 3 5 3 1989 N/A N/A 417 229 740 16 3 5 3 l990 N/A N/A 427 289 763 23 .3 5 3 §99~ N/A NIA 4.38 286 785 32 3 3 3 1992 NIA NIA 449 268 809 )6 3 8 3 1993 N/A N/A 460 242 833 3 3 a 3 i994 N/A N/A 471 235 858 0 0 0 0 1995 N/A N/A 483 228 884 .3 3 3 3 1996 N/A N/A 495 2.35 9H 3 3 3 3 1997 N/A N/A 508 242 938 13 3 5 3 1998 N/A N/A 520 252 966 16 3 5 3 1999 N/A NIA 533 252 995 13 3 3 3 2000 N/A N/A 547 252 I ,025 23 3 5 3 2001 NIA N/A 560 2.37 1,056 10 3 3 3 2002 N/A N/A 574 225 t,087 0 0 0 0 N/A-Not Available or Not Applicable. 1/ Effects under the FERC License App!tcat1on Scenarto are defined by FERC Forecastse Effects under the FY84 Car Transportation Scenario are def1ned by FY84 Car Forecasts. Effects under the FY85 Car Transportation Scenario are defined by FY85 Car Forecas'tso EffecTs under the FY85 Atr and Bus Scenarios are deftned by FY85 AB forecasts ~here ABt forecasts refer to effects under Air and Bus Scenarto/77% consi'ruci'lon worker hiring fn Anchorage-23% construction worker hiring tn Fairbanks, AB2 forecasts refer to effects under the Air and Bus Scenarlo/50% constructlon ~orker htr1ng 1n Anc~~rage -50~ construction worker hlrfng tn Fairbanks,. AB3 forecasts refer to effects under AJr srtd Bus Scenarto/100% construci"ton worker htrlng Anchorage -0~ cons'tructton worker htrtng tn Fairbanks$ Source: Frank Orth & Associates, Inc., 1985c Community of Healy Economtc-Osmographlc E1fects Se I acted Seen 1!8' t os 1990 Scctoeoonomic FERC FY84 Car FY85 Car ABI AB3 Variable Forecasts Forecasts Forecasts Forecasts Forecasts Forecasts ----~~~--------~~~~~----~~~~--~~~~~~--~~~------------------- 21 Emp I oyment - Basei 1 ne ~~ t th -ProJ act Effect Population Baseline With-Project Effect 31 Househo Ids - Basalt ne \Vi th-Proj ect Effect N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A-Not Available or Not Applicable~ N/A N/A N/A ~21 716 289 14l 227 86 N/A N/A N/A 763 786 2.3 246 253 7 Nil\ N/A N/A 763 766 3 246 247 N/A N/A N/A 763 768 5 245 248 2 1/ Effects under the FERC L1cense Appllcat1on Scenarlo are defined by FERC Forecasts .. N/A N/A N/A 163 766 3 246 247 Effects under the FY84 Car 1 ransportatlon Scenario are deflned by FY84 Car Forecastse Effects under the FY85 Car Transportation Scenario are defined by FY85 Car forecastsG Effects under the FY85 Air and Bus Scenarlos are def1ned by FY85 AB forecasts where AS l forecasts refer to ef feci's under Air and Bus Seen art o/77% construct 1 on worker hirlng in Anchorage -23~ construction worker htrtng in Fairbanks, AB2 forecasts refer to effects under the Atr and Bus Scenarto/ 50~ construction ~orker hlrtng ln Anchorage -50' construction worker htrtng tn Fairbanks, AB:S torecasts refer to af·fects under AJr and Bus Scenario/tOO% construction worker hiring Anchorage-· O% construction worker hiring ln fairbanks. 21 Employment represents number of workers by place of residence. 31 Households represents the number of occupled houslng unitso Source: Frank Orth & Associates, Inc., 1985. 56 Solid ~~ste Di (Cumu I atl ve Acres) Effect B~se Year Percent Effect of Uti I h:ation 41 Baseline With-project Effect Base Year Staff Y Percent Effect 31 21 Increase Over Base Year Staff 4/ Recreation FacllJtte5 Communtty of Healy PubiYc Facllittes/Services Effects Selected Scenarios 1990 N/A N/A 0.,8 N/A NlA o .. s N/A N/A 0.,0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.,0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 .. 8 N/A N/A o .. e N/A N/A o .. o N/A N/A 1 .. 0 N/A N/A o .. o N/A N/A 80.0 0 .. 8 0 .. 8 0 .. 8 0 .. 8 0.,8 o .. o 0.,0 o .. o N/A N/A N/A o .. o 0.,0 0.,0 NIA N/A N/A o .. a o .. a o .. s 0 .. 8 0 .. 8 0 .. 8 o,.o 0.,0 o .. o i..O 1 .. 0 1.,0 o .. o 0.,0 0,0 eo.o 80.,0 80@0 Baseline N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Wlth-project N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ____ E_f_f~~----------------~N/~A __________ N~IA ______ ~N~/~A------~N/~A~----~N~/~A ______ ~N/A NIA-Not Available or Not Applicable. !/ Effects under the FERC Llcense Appltcatton Scenario are defined by FERC Forecastso Efiects under the FY84 Car Transportatton Scenario are deflned by FY84 Car Forecasts. Effects under the FY85 Car Transportation Scenario are defined by FYB5 Car Forecasts. Effects under the FY85 Afr and Bus Scenarios are deffned by FY85 AB forecasts where ABI forecasts refer to effects under Atr and Bus Sc:enarto/77% construction \IIOrker hlrfng hn Anchorage .... 23% construction tworker hiring in Fairbanks, A82 forecasts refer to effects under the Air and Bus Scenario/ 50% construction worker hiring ln Anchorage -50% construction worker hlrfng Jn Fairbanks, AB3 forecasts refer to affects under AYr and Bus Scenario/100% construction worker hiring Anchorage -O% construct1on worker hlrtng tn Fatrbankso 2/ Capacity/staff numbers used tn FERC forecasts were from 1981; the sfmilar numbers used Jn the revised, base case, and worker htrlng projectlons were from 1983/1984. 31 Calculated by dividing effect by base11ne forecast. 4/ Calculated by div[dfng ~Jtn-project forecasT by capacity. 5/ Pollee ?ro+ection requlrements are ln terms of manpowero 6/ Recreation facrltty requirements are in terms of acres of nelghborhood parks; FY85 factllty requ i remen"ts d l f fer between the FERC L t cense app! i cat ton and subsequeni' proj oct tons due to a change in projectton methodology as well as revtsed population foracas"tso Source: Frank Orth & Assoctates, Inc~~ 1985o 51 Requirements of Beds) Basel lne Effect Year Capacity 21 Percent Effect 31 of Utt l h:atfon 41 Water Servtce <000 gal .. /day) Baseline Wtth-project Efiect Base Year Capacity ~ Percent Effect 31 S Qf Capac1ty ut ll i zat ion 4/ Se1rder Service <000 ga I .,/day) Base! lne With-project Effect Base Year Capacity 21 Percent Effect 3/ J of Capactty uti Hzatfon 4/ of He~il y Pub We faci~Jties/Servlces Effects Selected Scenarios J! i990 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NJA N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A tVA N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A NIA-Not Avat!able or Not Applicable. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1/ Effects under the FERC license Appllcatton Scenario are deftned by fERC Forecastso EffecTs under the FY84 Car Transportation Scenario are daftned by FY84 Car Forecasts~ Effects under The FY85 Car Transportation Scenarto are def1ned by FY85 Car Forecasts .. Nh\ N/A N/A N/A NIJ\ N/i\ NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A Effects under the FY85 Atr and Bus Scenartos are defined by FY85 AB forecasts where ABI fore- casts t-efer to effects under Air and Bus Scenarlo/77% constr"uctlon worker hiring ln Anchorage -23% construction worker hlrlng ln Fatrbanks, A82 forecasts refer to effects under the Alr and Bus Scenario/ 50% construction worker hlrtng 1n Anchorage -50% constructlon worker hTrtng 1n Fairbanks, A83 forecasts refer to effects under Air and Bus Scenarlo/100% construction worker hiring Anchorage-construction worker hJrJng in Fairbanks. 2/ Capacity/staff numbers used tn FERC forecasts were from l981; the s1mllar numbers used in the revised, base casep and worker hiring projections were from 1983/1984e 3/ Calculated by dlvlding e, feet by baseltne forecast. 41 Calculated by dfvldlng ~ith-project forecasT by capacity. 58 Schoo I ChI ~dren Basel tne \!Hth-project Effect Base Year Capacity 2/ Percent Effect 3/ of Capacity UTU tzatlf\n 4/ School ChI !dren Basel fne With-project Effect Base Year Capactty 21 Percent Effect 3/ % of Capacity ut1 t hatton 41 Total School Enrol Jment Baseltne Wtth ... project Effect Basa Year Capacity 21 Percent Effect 3/ % of Capacity uti It :ze:rt"ton 4/ Tab A=!0.,5 Community of ly Public Factllties/Servfces Effects Se~ected ScenarYos 1990 N/A N/A 82 N/A NIA 82 N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A !00 N/A N/A o .. o N/A N/A 82 .. 0 N/A N/A 70 N/A N/A 10 N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A !00 N/A N/A o .. o N/A N/A 70 .. 0 N/A N/A 152 N/A NIA l52 N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A 200 NIA N/A o.o N/A N/A 76 .. 0 N/A-Not Available or Not Appitcableo 82 82 82 8.3 0 i 100 lOO o .. o L.2 82 .. 0 83 .. 0 70 70 70 10 0 0 100 100 o .. o o .. o 70.0 70 .. 0 152 152 !52 i53 0 I 200 200 o .. o Oe7 76e0 76 .. 5 II Effects under the FERC License App1Jcat1on Scenario are defined by FERC Forecas~s. Effects under the FY84 Car Transportation Scenarlo are dGffned by FY84 Car Forecas~s~ Effects under the FY85 Car Transportation Scenarlo are deftned by FY85 Car Forecasts. Effects under the FY85 Air and Bus Scenarfos are defined by FY85 AS 1oreca~ts where ABI forecasts refer to effects under Air and Bus Scenorlo/77% constructlon worker hiring Jn Anchorage ... 23% cons.,tructton worker h1ring in Falrbanksp AB2 forecasts refer to effects under the Alr and Bus Scenario/ 50% constructton worker htrlng in Anchorage -50% construction worker hiring tn Fairbanks, AB3 foreca~ts refer to effects under A tr and Bus Scenar t c/1 00% construct ton worker h fr t ng Anchor age -0% construct 1 on ~orker hiring in Fairbanks. 21 Capacity/staff numbers used ln FERC forecasts were from 1981; the slmtlar numbers used in the revised, base case, and worker hlrtng projecttons were from \983/1984~ 3/ Calculated by dhddtng effect by baseline forecast. 4/ Calculated by d1vJdlng ~ith-project forecast by capacity .. 82 82 0 100 0.,0 82@0 70 70 0 100 0=0 70e0 j 52 !52 0 200 o .. o 76 .. 0 A-iO .. of l-ea Fisc~~ Effec'ts 1990 (thousands of constant !9R3 doliars) FERIC FY64 Car fY85 Car ABI AB2 AB3 Soc' oeconom ~ c VarYabie Forecasts Forecasts Forecasts Forecasts rorecasi~s Forecasts General Fund Basellne Revenues With-project Revenues Base!lne Expend1~ures With-ProJect Expend1- ·tures Net Baseline Fiscal Bahmce Net (w/proJect> Fiscal Bah~mce N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Note~ Sums may not aqua I tot a I s due to round t ng differences .. N/A-Not Avallable or Not Applicable .. N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA NIA N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A l/ Effects under the FERC Ltcense Appllcatton Scenario are de11ned by FERC Forecasts~ Effects under the FY84 Car Transportation Scanarlo are defined by FY84 Car Forecastse Effects under the FY85 Car Transportatlon Scenario are defined by FY85 Car Forecasts~ E. ffec'ts under the FY85 A 1 r and Bus Seen ados are deft ned by FY85 AS forecas1'·s where ABA forecasts refer to effects under Alr and Bus Scenarto/77% constructto11 worker hiring In Anchorage -23% constructfon worker hfrfng fn Fairbanks, AB2 forecasts refer to effec'ts under the Atr and Bus Scenarlo/ 50% constructton worker hlring ln Anchorage construction worker htrlng tn Fairbanks, AB3 forecasts refer to effecTs under A It-and Bus Scenar l oil 00% construct ton worker h t r t ng Anchor age -0% construct l on worker hlring Jn Fairbanks. Source: Frank Orth & Associates, Inc., 1985. N/A N/A N/A N/A tVA WA Tabt@ L,l Ctty of Nenana i.ation FERC License A1cat1onu FY84 Car Transportation$ and FY85 Car Transportatfonjll and 1\t r and Bus ScenarIos .J! 1985-2002 Year FERC FY84 Car f'V85 Car l'ransportstlon Scenario Forecasts For,ecasts and Air and Bus Scenario Basel 1 ne Effects Basel 1 ne Effects Basel1ne EffEK.-i"S ---FY85 Car ASI AB2 AB3 §985 N/A N/A 532 38 573 46 3 3 3 !986 N/A N/A 545 56 598 95 3 8 3 ~937 N/A N/A 559 67 625 -40 5 H .3 1988 N/A NIA 573 95 652 37 5 II 3 i989 N/A N/A 587 109 681 55 8 13 3 i990 NIA N/A 602 140 71 I 78 8 H 3 i99l NIA N/A 617 136 742 109 3 3 3 1992 N/A N/A 632 129 775 57 n S9 3 199.3 N/A N/A 648 116 809 l6 l:S 24 ] 1994 N/A N/A 664 H2 844 3 0 0 0 1995 N/A N/A 68i 112 882 1 0 3 0 l996 N/A N/A 698 I 12 920 0 0 0 ~991 N/A N/A 716 li6 961 40 5 8 3 1998 N/A N/A 733 119 1,003 55 5 H 5 1999 N/A NIA 752 122 '~047 49 5 8 5 2000 N/A N/A 771 H6 1,098 68 5 II 5 2001 N/A N/A 790 H2 1,142 21 3 3 5 2002 N/A N/A 810 105 I ,192 3 3 'YI .3 .;1 NIA-Not AvaJiable or Not Appltcable. i/ Effects under the FERC License Application Scenar1o are deflned by FERC forecaSTSo Effects under the FY84 Car Transportatt on Scenar 1o are def f ned by FY84 Car Forecastsc Effects under the FY85 Car Transportatlon Scenarlo are deftned by FY85 Car Forecasts. Effects under the FY85 Air and Bus Scenar1os are defJned by FY85 AB forecasts where ABI forecasts refer to effects under Air and Bus Scenarto/77% construction worker hirJng in Anchorage -23~ constructfon worker htrtng tn Fairbanks, AB2 forecasts refer to effects under the Alr and Bus Scenario/50% construction worker htrlng tn Anchorage -50$ constructlon worker htrfng 1n Fairbanks, A83 forac~sts r&iQI to affects under Alr and Bus Scenarfo/100$ consi"ructlon worker htr1ng Anchorage ... O% construction worker htrtng in Fairbanks. Source: Frank Orth & Assoclates, lnc., 1985. City of Nsnan~J Econamtc-Demographlc Effec?s Se I ectad Seen ar i os J! 1990 FYM Car FY85 Car AE·l AB:S Soc t ooconcm t c Variable FERC Forecasts Forecasts Forecasts Forecasts Forecasts Forecas1·s ~oyment Basel t With-Project EU~~ N/A tJ./A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A WA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Poputatton Basel tne NJA 602 711 7H 711 711 With-Project NIA 742 789 719 722 714 Effect N/A 140 78 a ll .3 31 Househotds - Baseline N/A 210 257 257 257 257 With-ProJect N/A 251 282 260 261 258 Effe<:T N/A 41 25 3 4 N/A-Not Avatlab!e or Not Appllcablee i/ Effects under the FERC Ltcense Application Scenarlo are detlned by FERC Forecasts~ Effects under the FY84 Car Transportat1on Scenar'o are deflned by FYB4 car Forecasts. Effects under the FY85 Car Transportatlon Scenario are defined by FY85 Car Forecasts~ Effects under the FY85 At r and Bus Scenar t os are defined by FY85 AB forecas-ts whe1~e ABl forecasts refer to effects under Air and Bus Scenarto/77% construction worker hiring in Anchorage -23% constructton worker hlr1ng Tn Fairbanksp AB2 forecasts refer to effects under the A1r and Bus Scenarlo/ 50~ construct1on worker hlrlng ln Anchorage -50S construction worker hlrtng Jn Fairbanks, A83 forecasts refer to effects under Air and Bus Scenarlo/100% construction worker hlrtng Anchorage -0% const'ructton worker hiring Tn Fairbanksc 21 Employment represents number cf workers by place of resfdence. 31 Households represents the number of cccupled hous1ng unlts. Source: Frank Orth & Associatesp Inca, 1985. 62 Tab A-U.,3 Ci of Nenam11 Public Factltttes/Servtces Effects Selected Scenar1os J! 1990 FERC fY84 Car ASI AB2 Var1ab'e Forecasts Forecasts Forecasts Forecasts Forecasts Solid Waste Disposal <Cumulattve Acres) Basel tne N/A N/A 0 .. 8 0 .. 8 0.,8 With-project N/A N/A 0.,9 0 .. 8 o.a Effect N/A N/A Ool 0.,0 0.,0 Base Year Capac1ty 21 N/A N/A 35 .. 0 35 .. 0 35 .. 0 Percent Effect ~ N/A N/A HS., 7 o .. o 0.,0 ~ O'f Capacity IJtt I l zatton ~ N/A N/A 2.6 2 .. 3 2.,3 Po I J ce Protect ton 5/ Base! tne N/A N/A L.! l., I l, I With-project N/A WA 1..2 1 .. 1 1 .. 1 Effect N/A N/A 0 .. 1 o.o o.o Base Year Staff 2/ NIA N/A L.O 1..0 l cO Percent Effect 3/ N/A N/A 9.0 o.o o .. o Increase Over Base Year Staff~ N/A N/A 120 .. 0 110.0 liO .. O Recreation FacfiJtfes 6/ Baseline N/A N/A 0 .. 9 0 .. 9 0.,9 With-project N/A N/A 0 .. 9 0 .. 9 0 .. 9 Effeci N/A N/A o .. o 0.0 OoO NIA-Not Available or Not Appl1cable9 1/ Effects under the FERC License Appltcatton Scenario are deflned by FERC Forecasts~ Effects under the FY84 Car Transportation Scenario are defined by FY84 Gar Forecasts. Effects under the FY85 C~r Transportation Scenario are deffned by FY85 Car Forecas~se ABJ Forecasts 0.,8 0.,8 OcO 35e0 0,0 2.,3 L,l L,i 0.,0 L,O o .. o I\ OeO 0~9 0.,9 o.o EffecTs under the FY85 A I r and Bus Scenart os are defined by FY85 AS forecasts where AB I forecasts refer to eff~-ts under A1r and Bus Scenarto/77% construction worker hiring in Anchorage -23% construction worker hirtng in Fairbanks~ AB2 forecasts refer to effects under ths Air and Sus ScenarJo/ 50% construction worker hlrtng 1n Anchorage -50% construction ~orker htr1ng tn Fairbanks, AB3 forecasts refer to effects under Air and Bus Scenarto/100~ construction worker hlrtng Anchorage -0$ construction worker hlr1ng ln Fatrbanks0 2/ Cap~ctTy/staff numbers used tn FERC forecasts were from 1981; the sfmtlar numbers used in the~ .;,vised, base case, and worker hlrlng projectlons were from 1983/1984,. 3/ Calculated by oivtdtng effect by baseline forecast. 4/ Calculated bv Jtvlding wlth-project forecast by capacity. 5/ Poi tee Pro·rectton requ l rame.,ts ~re l n terms of manpo\!Jer .. 61 Recreai ior1 fact 11ty requirements ar~ tn terms of acres of neTghborhood parks; FY85 fac1 i t-ty requtremen"T$ dtffer between the FERC License appJ ication and subsequent projecttons due to l!l change ln projection methodology as ~etl as revtsed populatton iorecasts. Source: Frank Orth & Associates~ lncep 1985. 63 City of Nenana Public Facilities/Services Effects Se~ected Scenm-ios J.! 1990 Socioeconomic FERC FYS4 Car FY85 Car ASI AB2 AB3 _.;,VtJ.;;.;r...;t~a;.;;;;.b.;;..~e;;....... _______ ;;..F.:;;or:...;ec:;;.;;;.;a;.;;;s..;.t.;;..s. __ .;...Fo;;;.;r_;ec;;;.;;.;s;.;;;s..;..t.;;..s_..;..F.;;o.;...rec.;;;..;;..a;;..;s;..;;t..;s;;_..;..F...;or;..;....;,e..;..ca.;...s_t_s __ F_o_r_eca~ts_ ~~~.!. Hospttai Requirements (Number of B-eds) Basel1oo \'11 tn~proj ec:t Effec-t B~se Year Capacity 21 Percent Effect lt % of Capaclty litH T :s.:atlon ~ Water Service (000 gal .. /day) Basel t ne With-proJect Effect Base Year Capac1ty 21 Percent Effect l! $ of Capacity Ui'l i l zatlon 41 Sewer Service COOO gai./day) Baseline With-project Effect Base Year Capacity JJ Percent Effect 3/ J of Capacity Ut1 t l zatlon 4/ NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA NIA N/A NIA NiA NIA NIA-Not Avallable or Not l~pllcabte. N/A NJA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 61.4 74.8 7 .. 4 430.,0 II .,0 67.,4 7~ .. 8 0.,4 60 .. 0 11 .. 0 124.,7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 67,.4 68., i 0 .. 7 430 .. 0 1.,0 67 .. 4 68.,1 0.,7 60.,0 1,, 0 113.,5 N/A NIA N/A N/A NIA N/A 67e4 68 .. 4 l.,O 430.,0 I., 5 67.,4 68s4 L,O 60 .. 0 I., 5 114 .. 0 1/ Effects under the FERC License Appllcat1on Scenario are def1ned by FERC Forecasts~ Effects under the FY84 Car Transportat1on Scenario are defined by FY84 Car Forecasts& Effects under the FY85 Car Transportation Scenarlo are defined by FY85 Car Forecasts., N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A 67 .. 4 67 .. 6 Oo2 430®0 0~3 67o4 67~6 Oo2 60~0 0,3 112.7 Effects under the FY85 Air ~nd Bus Scenarios ~re deftnad by FY85 AB forecasts where ABI fore- casts refer to e t facts under A l r and Bus Scel"'ar I o./77% construct I on 'tl!Orker h 1 r l ng 1 n Anchor age -23% construction worker htr1ng tn Fairbanks. AB2 forecasts refer to effects under the A1r and Bus S.::enarto/ 50% construction worker htrJng tn Anchorage -50~ construction wor·kAr htrlng Jn Fairbanks~ AB3 forecasts refer to effects under Alr and Bus Scanarlo/100% constructlon worker hiring Anchorage -O% construction worker hlrlng tn Fal~banks~ 2/ Capacity/staff numbers used tn FERC forecasts were from 1981; the similar numbers used in the revJsed~ base case, and worker h1rtng projections were from 1983/l984. 31 Calculated by dlvidlng effect-by baseline forecast. 4/ Calculated by dtvid,ng ~Jth-project forecast by capac1tyc Source: Frank Orth & Associates, Inc~, 1985~ Schoo I Ch t I dren Baseline With-project Effect Base Year Capacity 21 Percent Effect 3/ of Capacity Util lzation ~ Schoo I ChI I dren Baseline With-project Effect Base Year Capacity 21 Percent Effect 3/ % of Capacity utH hatton 4/ Total School Enrollment Basel tne Wlth-proj act Effect Base Year Capacity 21 Parcent Effect 3/ % of Capac1 ty U1" t I t:urt I on 41 of NefiJana Pubi ic Faci lltVes/Servlces E·Hects Selected Scenarios 1990 N/A N/A 154 N/A N/A 159 N/A N/A 5 N/A N/A 200 N/A N/A 3 .. 2 N/A N/A 79 .. 5 N/A N/A 131 NIA N/A 135 N/A N/A j' N/A N/A 200 N/A N/A 3 .. i N/A N/A 67 .. 5 N/A N/A 285 N/A N/A 294 N/A NIA 9 N/A N/A 400 N/A N/A 3 .. 2 N/A N/A 73 .. 5 N/A-Not Available or Not Applicable. 154 l54 155 155 i I 200 200 0.,6 0.,6 11 .. 5 77.,5 131 131 132 ~32 I I 200 200 O .. B 0 .. 8 66 .. 0 66 .. 0 285 285 287 287 2 2 400 400 0 .. 1 0 .. 1 7l.8 7L.8 1/ Effects under the FERC Llcense App!tcatlon Scenar1o are defined by FERC Forecasts. Effects under the FY84 Car Transportatlon Scenario are deflned by FY84 Car Forecastsu Effects under the FY85 Car Transportation Scenario are deftned by FY85 Car Foracastse Effects under the FY85 Air and Bus Scenartos are deflned by FY85 AB forecasts where ABI forecasTs refer to effects under A1r and Bus Scenarto/77% construc'tlon worker htrtng ln Anchorage -23% constructlon worker hlrtng tn Fatrbanks, AB2 forecasts refer to effects under the Alr and Bus ScenarJo/ 50% construction worker htrlng tn Anchorage -5U% construction worker htrlng In Fairbanks, AB3 forecasts refer to effects under All"' and Bus Scenarto/tOO% construction worker hlrtng Anchorage ... 0% construction worker htrtng in Fairbanks. 21 Capacity/staff numbers used tn FERC forecasts ~ere from 1981; the similar numbers used 1n the revfsed, base case, and ~orker hlring projecttons were from 1983/1984~ 3/ Calculated by d1vldlng effect by baseline forecast .. 41 Calculated by dtvldlng with-project forecast by capacityo ~54 154 0 200 o .. o 77.,0 131 1:31 0 200 o .. o 65.,5 285 285 0 400 0$0 7L.3 F1scal Balance OlstrTct Fund Baseline Revenues tures Net Baseline Ftscal Sa lance ('fiJ/proJect> Jscal Balance of Nenana Effec-t's 1990 <thousands of constant l N/A N/A $ N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,699 i 684 1.9717 !,907 =18 -23 3,204 3.,.306 -241 -247 Note: Sums may not equal totals due to rounding differences. N/A-Not Available or Not AppiJcabJeo s 699 ~b'7i7 p 725 I f) 7i 7 1,717 i ~ 737 liP 745 -18 -20 -20 $ 2,963 3,204 -241 -241 -244 -244 1/ Effects under the FERC Ltcense Appltcatton Scenarlo are defined FERC Forecasts. Effects under the FY84 Car Transportation Scenario are defined by FY84 Car Forecasts9 Effects under the FYS5 Car Transportation Scenario are def1ned FY85 Car Forecasts. Effects under the FY85 Atr and Bus Scenarios are deftned FY85 AB forecasTs where ABl 'forecasts refer to effects under Air and Bus Scenarto/77% e-.onstruction worker hiring In -231 construction worker hir1ng tn Fairbanks~ AB2 forecasts refer to effects under the Air and Bus Scenario/ 50% constructton worker hlrtng ln Anchorage -50~ constructton worker htr!ng in Fairbanks, ABJ forecasts refer to effects under A Jr and Bus Scenar t o/1 00% construct 1 on worker h 1 r 1 ng Anchor age -OS construct Jon worker t n fa J rbanks. Source: Frank Orth & Associates, Inc., !985. ~I' 705 -18 -20 3,204 ~241