HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUS328ALASKA POI1£R AlJll-()RITY
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
eNIRCNIENTAL STU) IES
PROCEDLRES t-WJUAL
SUBTASK 7, 05:
SOCIOE~Q\1IC ANALYSIS
r.,,.,,,ial
E nvitonmental
Speciali1t1,lnc.
l l,: -'.)(
:s-:./ 5
3J.7
AlASKA ~-Alm«)RITY
SUSITNA HVDROELECTRI C PROJECT
ENVIRCIMNTAL STlD IES
PROCEDl.RES ~UAL
SUBTASK 7, (5:
SOC IOECCJDU C ANALYSIS
Sutmitted by
Terrestrial FnvircrJne[ltal Speci..alists , Inc.
and
Frank Orth & Associates,· Inc .
to
Acres Jm!ri.can, Inc.
June 1980
Copy No. _\_.;;.6 __
-···----
This procedures manual is a controlled document. Each copy is
numbered and issued in trust to an individual whose name is
recorded on a distribution log maintained by Terrestrial
Environmental Specialists, Inc., in Phoenix, New York. Amendments
to this document, as they are i ssued, will be sent to the
authorized holder of each copy. Upon completion of the project
(or by December 31, 1982) all copies of the manual are to be
returned to Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc.
List of Exhibits
I. Introduction
II. Technical Proced1ures
A. Work Package 1 :
B. Work Pa c kage 2:
C. Work Pa c kage 3:
D. Work P&ckage 4:
III. Data Procedure s
IV. Quality Control
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Literature Review
Socioeconomic Profile Development
Preliminary Socioeconomic Impact
Studies
Forecast of Socioeconomic Conditions
in the Absence of the Susitna Project
A. Scope of Work Compliance
B. Data Control
C. Traceability of Analysis
D. Data Security
V. Schedule
VI. Personnel
A. Description of Qualifications
B. Key Personnel
i i
PAGE
i i i
1
5
5
7
10
12
15
20
20
20
21
21
22
24
24
Z5
EXHIBIT
1
I I -2
II-3
II -4
II-5
V-1
VI -1
LIST OF EXHIBITS
General Framework for Plan of Study
Type and Magn i tude of Impacts From Alternative
Impact Studies
"Complete" List of Potential Impacts, By Geographic Area
Most Likely Impacts, By Alternative Project and Geographic
Area: Operating Phase
Most Li kely Impacts, By Alternative Project and Geograph i c
Area: Construction of Dam Phase
Production Schedule
Allocation of Personnel and Consultants Among Work Packages
; ; ;
PAGE
4
16
17
18
19
23
31
I. INTRODUCTION
An important element of the feasibility of the Susitna Hydroelectric
Project is the socioeconomic impacts1 created by its construction and
operation. Such impacts are important not only in their own right, but also
because of the intense socioeconomic concerns so prevalent in Alaska.
The purpose of Phase I of the socioeconomic analysis is to identify and
describe the existing socioeconomic conditions2 and to determine which are
most likely to be impacted by the Susitna Hydroelectric Project, as required
under the Federal Energy Regulatory Corm1ission (FERC) regulations. Subse-
quent to the submission of the FERC license application, detailed analysis
and assessment of the socioeconomic impacts related to the Susitna Project
will be conducted (Phase II).
Completion of both phases of the socioeconomic analysis is not a pre-
requisite to submission of the FERC license application. Thus, the work
packages to be completed have been divided into those that are scheduled to
be completed prior to application submission (1 - 4 below) and those work
packages that may be completed during a later time period. The work packages
to be completed during Phases I and II are:
(1)
(2)
( 3)
(4}
(5)
( 6)
(7}
(8)
(9)
Literature review;
Socioeconomic profile development;
Preliminary socioeconomic impact studies;
Forecast of future socioeconomic conditions in the absence of
the Susitna Project;
Forecast of future socioeconomic conditions with the Susitna
Project;
Detailed analysis and asses~ment of significant socioeconomic
project impacts (excluding those impacts associated with fish and
wildlife);
Baseline economic valuations of important commercial,
recreational, and subsistence fish and wildlife resources
without the project;
Determination and evaluation of project impacts on important
commercial, recreational, and subsistence fish and wildlife
resources; and
Assessment of social significance of the economic impacts of the
project on important commercial, recreational, and subsistence
fish and wildlife resources.
As can be seen in Exhibit 1, the first phase (pre-license submission)
consists of work packages designed to identify important socioeconomic
conditions that are likely to be impacted by the project and to preliminarily
assess these impacts. Based on the findings of Phase I, in-depth analyses
and assessments of potential project impacts are performed in Phase II
(post-license submission). The phased approach ensures that only the most
relevant impacts are addressed in detail. The effort saved from not studying
1
irrelevant impacts may, therefore, be allocated to providing in-depth analy-
sis and assessment of important impacts.
Phase I is composed of four work packages. In the first work package,
impact studies of projects similar to the proposed Susitna Project are iden-
tified a~d evaluated. This evaluation provides guidance for the development
of detailed socioeconomic profiles.
Socioeconomic profiles covering the immediate vicinity of the proposed
project, broader regions, and the State of Alaska are developed in the second
work package. In these profiles, socioeconomic conditions most likely to be
impacted by the proposed project are identified and described in significant
depth. The profiles will include, where applicable, the following
socioeconomic con1itions and/or variables:
Population totals and distribution, current and projected;
Housing stock, by type of unit and price/rent levels;
Employment and income levels;
Tax rates and revenues by type of jurisdiction;
Public facilities, availability, adequacy, and cost;
Land-use patterns and trends;
Business activity, level, and trends;
Education, enrollment trends, capacity, revenues, and costs;
Transportation facilities, by type;
Fish and wildlife use patterns;
Attitudes toward life style and quality of life; and
Attitudes toward growth.
Preliminary socioeconomic impact studies are conducted in Work Package
3. The first preliminary impact study will consider several alternative
projects provided by Acres American, Inc. This preliminary assessment will
be based in part upon the experiences reported in the literature review in
Work Package 1. The second and final preliminary impact study will consider
a final alternative provided by Acres American, Inc. This impact study will
be more in-depth than the first impact study because it will benefit from the
use of projected baseline socioeconomic conditions. Potentially large, or
significant changes in the projected baseline conditions due to the selected
alternative are to be identified in this second preliminary impact study.
Work Package 4 is a forecast of the relevant socioeconomic conditions that
were profiled in Work Package 2. This forecast is made assuming that no
hydroelectric development occurs, and it is an important input to Work
Package 3.
The two-phase study is designed to make effective use of existing
literature, studies, models, and highly qualified researchers with socio-
economic impact analysis and Alaska experience; the first three of these
e 1 ements serve to provide basic i nf ormation and re 1 evant methode 1 og i es, and
reduce the likelihood of duplicating effort; the last element contributes
toward ensuring that the most appropriate data bases are accessed, the most
suitable methodologies applied, and that the results are evaluated and
applied in a manner which supports the objectives of the overall project.
Close coordination and frequent information exchange with other disciplines
2
of the study, specifically recreation, fisheries, wildlife, and land use,
will further enhance the study effort .
The two-phase study is also designed to ensure that current FERC license
application requirements are adequately addressed. Work Packages 1-9 of
Exhibit 1 will address all of the FERC requirements in Sections 2.3, 3.1.3,
3.2.3, and 7.3 (Socioeconomic Considerations), and 5.1 (Human Resources
Impacted) of Exhibit w.3
The methods, employed in the work packages and items, develop most fully
those socioeconomic considerations which are relevant for the proposed pro-
ject and its potentia 1 impact on the A 1 ask an environment. Utilization of
this approach will produce results which are responsive to current FERC
license application requirements as well as to the needs of the citizens of
A 1 ask a.
1Those impacts which are attributable to both the structure of society as
well as the allocation and use of society's resources.
2A state of being or situation res ulting from a certain allocat i on and use of
society's resources within a particular societal structure (see pages 2 and
8 for examples).
3FERC Order No. 415, Docket No. R-398, as amended by Order No. 415-C, Docket
No. R-398, and FERC Order No. 485, Docket No. R473.
3
EXHIBIT 1
GENERAL FRAMEWORK FOR PLAN OF STUDY
...-------PHASE I --------.. ..-----------PHASE II
I
Literature
Review
Socioeconomic
Profile
Development
Preliminary
Socioeconomic
Impact Studies
1
2
1
------
.J,
Forecast of Future
Socioeconomic
Conditions in
Absence of
Project
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
<------I
4 v
~
Baseline Eco nomic
Valuations for
Fi s h and Wildlife
l
7
5
Forecast of Future
Socioeconomic
Conditions in
Presence of One or
Two Dam Pro.1 ect
/1'
I
I
I
I
-----------------1
NOTE: Numbers above boxes correspond to work packages.
,.--------_:6::..._..., 8 I 9 Asses sme nt of
Identificat:;n Economic and Social
and Evaluation ~ Sign j fican~e of
of Project Impacts Proj ect Impacts on
Fish and Wildlife
II. TECHNICAL PROCEDURES
Technical procedures, or detailed work plans, are provided for each of
the four work packages of Phase I. These plans include a description of, and
rationale for, each work package. Further, for clarity and convenience, work
packages are divided into work items. Methods to be used in the conduct of
each work item are provided to facilitate plan implementation and to provide
for traceability of work package results.
A. WORK PACKAGE 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
Description
Socioeconomic impact studies for hydroelectric projects similar to
the range of proposed Susitna projects, current major assessments of
Alaska demographic, social, and economic conditions, and literature per-
tain i ng to the Alaska sociocultural environment are to be identified,
reviewed, and evaluated. In addition, information developed in other
Subtasks of Task 7, and other Tasks of the Susitna Hydroelectric
Project, are to be reviewed and us~d, as ~ppropriate. It is anticipated
that information from Tasks 1 (Power Stucies), 8 (Transmission) and 12
(Public Participation Program) will be particularly relevant. This work
package is to be divided into four work items:
a. Collection of studies;
b. Impacts of similar hydroelectric projects;
c. Identification, review, and assessment of data and information
concerning Alaskan socioeconomic conditions; and
d. Relevance of similar hydroelectric studies.
Rationale
It is anticipated that the literature review and interviews will
provide: {1) an inventory of socioeconomic impacts that could be
relevant in the case of the Susitna Project; (2) consideration of
alter native social and economic impact research methodologies; and
(3} information for the development of detailed socioeconomic profiles
of the areas that could be impacted by a Susitna project. These three
items will, in turn, provide: (1) guidance in the determination of
socioeconomic conditions that could be particularly sensitive to Susitna
hydroelectric development; (2) guidance in the selection and refinement
of the forecasting methodology ("''ork Package 4), and in the refinement
of profiling and preliminary impact study methodologies (Work Packages 2
and 3, respectively).
Work Item a.: Collection of studies
Socioeconomic impact studies for: (1) hydroelectric projects Slml-
lar to the range of possible Susitna projects; and (2) other types of
5
projects with major socioeconomic impacts and current major assessments
of Alaska demographic, social and economic conditions, and literature
pertaining to the Alaska sociocultural environment are to be identified
and obtained by the following method:
1. Consult Frank Orth & Associates, Inc.'s library for studies and
bibliographies.
2. Contact major entities such as the Bureau of Reclamation,
Department of Interior, Environmental Protection Agency, Army Corps of
Engineers, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Bonneville Power
Administration; obtain citations for relevant studies, and/or obtain
studies directly.
3. (If necessary.) Identify consultants with extensive experience
in social and economic impact analysis of large hydroelectric or other
energy projects of comparable scale. Tentative choices would be:
C.P. Wolf, Ph.D., editor of Social Impact Assessment --a monthly
newsletter (social); and/or Homan-McDowell Associates, Juneau, AK
(economic).
4. (If necessary.) Develop an Information Request Guide for
Consultant's use. This guide would request bibliographies, relevant
studies, and suggested strategies for further identification of relevant
studies.
5. (If necessary.) Implement Information Request Guide.
6. Prepare list of relevant socioeconomic impact studies. Follow
CBE Style Manual. This will be Exhibit II-1. (Note: This exhibit a~d
subsequent exhibits are provided below in III. DATA PROCEDURES.)
Work Item b.: Impacts of similar hydroelectric projects
The method for this work item is as follows:
1. Develop a format (matrix) to facilitate the compiliation of
impacts from alternative studies. The format is to include type of
project, size of project, and type and magnitude of impacts. A sample
format is provided in Exhibit II-2.
2. Review studies in t:xhibit II-1.
using Exhibit II-2.
Extract impact information
3. Highlight information in Exhibit II-2 that app~_rs to be
particularly relevant to A1aska and the Susitna area.
Work Item c.: Identification, review, and assessment of data and
information concerning Alaskan socioeconomic conditions
The method for this work item is as follows:
6
1. Develop a format for illustrating important characteristics of
economic and social data bases and information . This format should
include location of data, form for access, frequency of coverage, latest
date covered, area covered (statewide, SMSA, or village/town) and type
of data (i .e., population, projected population, housing, projected
housing growth, etc.) as presented on page 2.
2. Identify and review literature pertaining to current major
assessments of Alaslca demographic, social and econom i c conditions, and
the Alaska sociocultural environment. Limit this effort to Frank Orth &
Associates, Inc.'s library.
3. Develop an Interview Guide for use when i nterv i ewing other
authorities on Alaska economic and social data bases and conditions.
The Guide should be designed so as to effectively obtain sources of data
and information, and efficient methods for accessing such data and
information.
4. Implement the Interview Guide. Conduct interviews with:
Mr. Lawrence Kimball, Jr., Alaska Department of Community and Regiona ·,
Affairs; Dr. Lee Husky, The Institute of Social and Economic Research ,
University of Alaska; Dr. David Reaume, Alaska Department of Convnerc ·~
and Economic Development; Mr. Robert Richards, Alaska Pacific Bank;
officials of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough; and regional and loca l
authorities, as appropriate.
5. Seek v1t and review data and information identified in 4.
above. Compile in format as discussed in 'step 1.
Work Item d.: Relevance of similar hydroelectric studies
The relevance of impacts, identified and characterized in work item
1. b., for the State of Alaska will be assessed at local, regional, and
state levels . This assessment will yield a list of impacts, by Alaska
geographic area, type, and degree, which could be relevant for the pre-
liminary impact studies (see Work Package 3. below).
This work item will be conduc t ed by the following:
1. Use knowledge gained from the literature reviews and interviews
above to assess the relevance of the highlighted impacts of Exhibit II-2
for Alaska and the Susitna area.
2. Develop a list of potential impacts of the Sus i tna Project, by
geographic area.
B. WORK PACKAGE 2: SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE DEVELOPME NT
Description
A detailed profile of socioeconomic co nditions most 1 ikely to be
impacte.d by various alternative Susitna pr ojects is to be developed.
This will be accomplished through the following work items:
7
a. Identification of potential impacts peculiar to the areas;
b. Determi nation of most likely potential impacts;
c. Development of data collection guides;
d. Implementation of data collection guides;
e. Compilation of collected data; and
f. Development of detailed profile.
Rationale
The purpose of this work package is to collect and compile data on
socioeconomic conditions for utilization in the preliminary impact
studies (Work Package 3) and forecast of socioeconomic conditions
(Work Package 4). Emphasis is placed upon collecting data on only the
socioeconomic conditions that are considered to be highly susceptible to
change as a result of a Susitna project (see also Major Heading IV,
QUALITY CONTROL}. These socioeconomic conditions are to be described by
social and economic variables. The range of variables considered for
the preliminary impact analysis will include at a minimum the variables
of FERC Exhibit W, components 2.3, 3.1.3, 3.2.3, 5.1, and 7.3, and the
variables listed above in Major Heading I. INTRODUCTION. Only data for
variables that are relevant for the socioeconomic impact analysis for a
Susitna project will be collected; reasons for eliminating any of the
above variables will be elaborated.
Work Item a.: Identification of potential impacts peculiar to the areas
Potential impacts peculiar to the local area, region, and state
will be determined. This list of impacts will be combined with those of
work item 1d. to provide a complete list of potential impacts f or a
range of alternative Susitna projects. The method for this work item is
as follows:
1. Review partial list of potential Susitna project impacts.
2. Obtain input from other Susitna Project team members and review
transcripts from public participation meetings: identify conditions
that could be susceptible to change as a result of hydroelectric
development and that are not on the partial list of potentially impacted
conditions.
3. Combine conditions identified in 2. with those of the partial
list. Compile in tabular format (see Exhibit II-3}.
Work Item b.: Determination of most likely impacts
Impacts of Exhibit II-3 that appear to be most probable will be
designated as such in the Exhibit. Information obtained from the
interviews of Work Item 1.c. will be instrumental in this determination.
Work Item c.: Development of data collection guides
Data collection guides will be developed to gather information
necessary to support the production of detailed profiles of socio-
8
economic conditions most likely to be impacted. Assistance in the
design and implementation of these guides will be obtained from
consultants (Ms. Monica Thomas and Homan-McDowe 11 Associates), and Dr.
Alan Jubenville (Recreation and Land-Use Studies). It is anticipated
that there will be substantial opportunity to reduce the total
collection effort required through coordination with Dr. Jubenville.
It is further anticipated that there will be data-sharing between the
socioeconomic and recreation/land-use studies --especially for data
co 11 ected near or at the potentia 1 dam sites. Dr. B i 11 Workman wi 11
serve in a liaison capacity for this coordination and data-sharing.
This work item will be conducted by the following method:
1. Analyze most probable impacts of Exhibit II-3. Further define
the set of socioeconomic variables for which more data are required.
2. Identify sources of data for the set of variables. Separate
the variables into two categories: (1) those for which data currently
exist, and (2) those for which data could be obtained at a reasonable
cost (primary data).
3. Develop guide composed of specific work steps for accessing
(1) and develop data collection guides to obtain desired data for {2).
Guides will be designed to maximize the efficiency of the data collec-
tion and compilation effort.
Work Item d.: Implementation of data collection guides
Data collection guides are to be implemented during July, August
and September of 1980. Implementation will probably require some field
work at the Devil's Canyon and Watana Base Camps (coordinated with Dr.
Alan Jubenville}, and substantial field work in the Fairbanks-Anchorage
corridor and Anchorage.
Work Item e.: Compilation of collected data
Data are to be compiled in a format conducive to profile develop-
ment and to forecasting. The method to be used is as follows:
1. Develop compilation formats for each variable. It is expected
that ease (cost) of access to data will fall into three categories:
(1) easy --already compiled, by computer or otherwi~e; (2) moderate --
not compiled by computer, but not costly to program for aggregation or
to aggregate "by hand"; (3) difficult--not compiled by computer and
costly to program for aggregation or to aggregate "by hand." An attempt
wi 11 be made to access a 11 appropriate data, subject to the computer
budget constraint and the Work Package #2 budget. Contractor wi 11 be
promptly notified in the event that critical or highly appropriate data
cannot be accessed within budget. While it may not be financially
feasible or prudent to compile all appropriate data in the detailed
profiles, it is highly probable that omitted aoprooriate data will be
accessed if a computerized model is used in forecasting socioeconomic
conditions (Work Package 4).
9
2. Apply compilation formats to accessible data.
Work Item f.: Development of detailed profile
The detailed profile is to be designed to be easily used as a
source of information for the preliminary socioeconomic impact studies
of alternative types of hydroe 1 ectri c deve 1 opments, and as an input to
the forecast. Thus, the data and information must be presented
concisely and as comprehensively as possible. This work item is to be
performed as follows:
1. Review data compiled in Work Item e.
2. Develop an outline for the detailed profiles. To the extent
possible, arrange data by relevant geographic area. Segregate data
available in computer files. Further, where appropriate, separate
secondary data from primary data.
3. Draft detailed profiles.
C. WORK PACKAGE 3: PRELIMINARY SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT STUDIES
Description
This work package is to provide a preliminary analysis of potential
impacts of alternative hydroelectric developments. Substantial physical
specification and other information is to be made available for each
alternative development from Acres American, Inc. and other Susitna
Project team members. This information will be used, along with the
experiences reported in the literature reviewed, to determine the types
and relative magnitude of impacts for each alternative. These results
will be presented by geographic area to the extent information developed
to this point allows. This work package is to be divided into four work
items:
a. Determination of conditions most likely to be impacted by
each alternative.
b. Determination of impacts for each alternative.
c. Comparison of impacts of alternatives.
d. Determination and assessment of impacts of alternative
selected by the Alaska Power Authority and Acres American, Inc.
Rationale
Socioeconomic impacts are one of many types of impacts that could
result from hydroelectric development. To choose from among alternative
hydroelectric developments, it is desirable to determine the most
probable socioeconomic and other impacts of each alternative. This
information could contribute substantially to the basis for selecting
certain preferred alternatives for further consideration.
10
Work Item a.: Determination of conditions most likely to be impacted
The method for this work item is as follows:
1. Review information on alternative developments.
2. Review Exhibit II-3 of Work Package 2, Work Item b.
3. Determine what conditions (variables) are most l i kely to be
impacted by each alternative.
Work Item b.: Determination of impacts for each alternative
This work item is to be performed as follows:
1. For each alternative, determine what conditions are most likely
to be impacted in the long term (operating phase) .Qi: geographic area.
Develop and fill in a matrix that will facilitate comparison of impacts
across alternatives (see Exhibit II-4).
2. As available information permits, determine the construction
phase impacts for each alternative. Develop and fill in a matrix that
will facilitate comparison of impacts across alternatives (see Exhibit
II-5).
Work Item c.: Comparison of impacts of alternatives
This work item is to be conducted as fol l ows :
1. Using the information developed in Work Item b., compare and
contrast the impacts of each alternative. Emphasize, if appropriate:
(1) the potential impacts created by the influx and efflux of construc-
tion and operations work forces; (2) potential financial impacts on
borough and/or municipal governments; and (3) potential impacts on
transportat i on systems and fish and wildlife use patterns.
2. Provide other Project team members with the result~ of · the
comparison.
Work Item d.: Determination and assessment of impacts of selected
alternative
After rece1v1ng detailed information concerning the selected
project (this information must be received by October 1, 1981, to be
able to perform this work item within schedule and budget), and
upon completion of Work Package 4 (below), the potent i al impacts of the
selected alternative are to b~ determined and assessed. The analysis
will differ from that of Work Items a. and b. because it will have the
benefit of the forecast of socioeconomic conditions. Thus, a more in-
depth analysis is to be conducted. This work item will be performed as
follows:
11
1. Review information received concerning the selected alter-
native.
2. Review impact determination for this alternative previously
conducted in Work Items a. and b.
3. Review forecast.
4. Determine potential changes in forecast of baseline conditions
(variables) that are expected to result from the selected alternative .
Determine these changes by geographic area and time period (phase of
project) to the extent information developed in Work Item b. allows.
5. Briefly discuss the economic and social sign ificance of the
changes in the forecasted conditions.
D. WORK PACKAGE 4: FORECAST OF SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN THE ABSENCE OF
THE SUSITNA PROJECT
Description
Assum i ng no hydroelectric development, socioeconomic conditions are
to be forecast. It is anticipated that the forecasting methodology to
be used in this work package will be borrowed directly from, or modified
slightly from methodologies used by Alaska government or academic
institutions. Further, relevant results already generated by accept-
able methodologies are to be adopted. Where certain desired resl'lt s
are lacking, ex isting methodologies will have to be modified and imp l ~
mented t o produc e such results. This work package is to be divided into
six work items:
a. Literature search
b. Literature review and evaluation
c. Development and application of methodology evaluation criteri a
d. Selection of studies and studies' results for adoption
e. (If necessary) Methodology revision
f. (If necessary) Implementation of methodology
Rationale
To produce a forecast of socioeconomic conditions at minimum cost,
it is highly desirable to i nvestigate the relevance and acceptability
of recent and current forecasts. To the extent that these forecasts are
appropriate, little or no incremental work may be required.
The forecast will allow for a more rigorous impact analysis for the
selected alternative than was possible for the initial impact analyses
for alternative projects (Work Package 3, Work Items a., b. and c.).
While this impact analysis will not be as detailed as those of Phase II,
it shou 1 d provide the depth necessary for the submission of the FERC
license application.
12
Work Item a.: literature search
This work item is to be conducted as follows:
1. Review Exhibit II-1 for studies (and models) that forecasted
socioeconomic conditions.
2. Contact knowledgeable Alaskan social scientists who have
participated in forecasting efforts. Solicit titles of studies from
these persons.
3. Develop a list of Alaskan studies that forecast socioeconomic
and related conditions.
Work Item b.: literature review and evaluation
This work item is to be conducted as follows:
1. Review studies' results for level of geographic disaggregation
and currency.
2. Develop a list of studies (to be Exhibit II-6) that have
appropriate geographic disaggregation (must be reasonably consistent
with the geographic areas of this study) and that are current enough to
be relevant. A couple of models that should be considered include the
Alaska Institute for Social and Economic Research's "MAP" model and a
model used by Alaska Division of Economic Enterprise.
Work Item c.: Development and application of methodology evaluation
criteria
This work item is to be performed as follows ·
1. Develop methodology evaluation criteria.
2. Apply criteria to studies listed in Exhib i t II-6.
3. Prepare a list of studies that meet the criteria.
Exhibit II-7.)
Work Item d.: Selection of studies for adoption
This work item is to be performed as follows·
(To be
1. Prepare a list of studies that are common to both Exhibit II-6
and Exhibit II-7. Adopt results from studies to serve as partial (or
complete) forecast of socioeconomic conditions.
2. Qualify results in 1. above, as appropriate.
Work Item e.: Methodology revision
13
To the extent that the forecast produced in d. above is partial,
the methodology(s) used in obtaining the partial foreca st may need to be
(1) used to generate forecasts for remaining variables, or (2) revised/
modified to be used to generate forecasts for remaining variables. If
(2) is the case, the appropriate methodology(s) will be revised/
modified in this work item for use in Work Item f. below. Reasons for
revision include inappropriate geographic disaggregation, new factors of
changes, etc.
Work Item f.: Implementation of methodology
In this work item the methodology(s) from d . and/or e. above will
be implemented to produce forecasts for the remaining variables.
14
III. DATA PROCEDURES
Sample table formats to be used when compiling and presenting
interpreted and analyzed data are provided in the following exhibits. These
exhibits are to be used in performing several of the work items discussed
above in TECHNICAL PROCEDURES. Sample interview outlines will be developed
after Work Package 1 commences.
15
EXHIBIT II-2 (SAMPLE FORMAT)
TYPE AND MAGNITUDE OF IMPACTS FROH ALTERNATIVE IMPACT STUDIES
DIRECT IMPACTS INDIRECT IMPACTS
IMPACT/STUDY SIZE OF FISH AND INDUSTRIAL PUBLIC
PROJ ECT PROJECT1 VILDLIFE HOUSING RE CREATION ETC. GROin'H FACILITIES TAX BASE ETC.
Feu1bllity $1 billion, $ gained or I raJD1lie:! Opportuni tie Type and I Change in Change in
or HooYer 80,000 aoru lost; types displaced; gained ahd or new demand; new tax revenue
Daa 10 megawatte gained and 31z:e or area forfeited; indu3tr1ee; raoilitles
eto . lost; eto. illpaoted, size or area type and I needed, eto.
eto. impacted; or displaced
etc. industries;
e tc .
1eonstruotion oost, reservoir aoreage, annual power generation, eto.
EXHIBIT II-3 (SAMPLE FORMAT)
"COMPLETE" LIST OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS, BY GEOGRAPHIC AREA
GEOGRAPHIC AREA
IMPACTS LOCAL1 REGIONAL2 STATEWIDE
DIRECT INDIRECT DIRECT INDIRECT DIRECT INDIRECT
Land-use X X
Industrial DeveJopment X X X
Transportation X X X
Recreation X X X
Fish X X X
Wildlife X X
Displaced Individuals X X
Displaced Institutions X
Etc.
I
1The area surrounding the potential dam site(s) and reservoir~ --the delineation or
the local area will be coordinated to the extent possible with boundaries or zone~
already established by other Susitna Project team members.
2The zone surrounding the local area, including the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, as
well as the Fairbanks/Tanana and Anchorage/Cook Inlet regions.
17
EXHIBIT II-4 {SAMPLE FORMAT)
HOST LIKELY IMPACTS, BY ALTERNATIVE PROJECT AND
GEOGRAPHIC AREA: OPERATING PHASE
GEOGRAPHIC AREA
IMPACT/ALTERNATIVE LOCAL1 REGIONAL2 STATEWIDE
PROJECT I
DIRECT INDIRECT DIRECT INDIRECT DIRECT INDIRECT
Recreation
Alternative 01 L+3 S+ N+6
Alternative 12 M+4 S+ N+
Alternative #3 M+5 S+ N+
Fish
Alternative #1 L-H-S-
Alternative 12 L-H-S-
Alternat ive /13 H-S-N-
Etc.
1The area surrounding the potential dam site(s) and reservoirs --the deli neation of
the local area will be coordinated to the extent possible with boundaries or zones
already established by other Susitna Project team members.
2The zone surrounding the local area, including the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, as
well as the Fairbanks/Tanana and Anchorage/Cook Inlet regions.
3Large impact
!!Medium impact
5small impact
6Negligible impact
An attempt will be made to provide a numerical range of values
for a meaningful quantifiable dimension of each impacted social
and economic condition. For example, a large positive recrea-
tional impact might be the creation or availability of at least
20,000 user-days per year; medium: 10,000-19,999; small: 100-
9,999; and negligible: 0-99. Where quantifi cation is not pos-
sible, qualitative judgements would be elaborated.
18
EXHIBIT II-5 (SAMPLE FORMAT)
MOST LIKELY IMPACTS, BY ALTERNATIVE PROJECT AND
GEOGRAPHIC AREA: CONSTRUCTION OF DAM PHASE
GEOGRAPHIC AREA
IMPACT/ALTERNATIVE LOCAL1 REGIONAL2 STATEWIDE
PROJECT I
DIRECT INDIRECT DIRECT INDIRECT DIRECT INDIRECT
Recreation
Alternative #1 L+3 S+ N+6
Alternative IJ2 M+4 S+ N+
Alternative 13 M+5 S+ N+
Fish
Alternative Ill L-M-S-
Alternative 12 L-M-S-
Alternative IJ3 M-S-N-
Etc.
1The area surrounding the potential dam site(s) and reservoirs --the delineation or
the local area will be coordinated to the extent possible with boundaries or zones
already established by other Susitna Project team members.
2The zone surrounding the local area, including the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, as
well as the Fairbanks/Tanana and Anchorage/Cook Inlet regions.
3Large impact
4Medium impact
5small impact
6Negligible impac t
An attempt will be made to provide a numerical range or values
for a meaningful quantifiable dimension or each impacted social
and econ~mic condition. For example, a large positive recrea-
tional impact might be the creation or availability of at least
20,000 user-days per year; medium: 10,000-19,999; small: 100-
9,999; and negligible: 0-99. Where quantification is not pos-
sible, qualitative judgements would be elaborated.
19
IV. QUALITY CONTROL
A. SCOPE OF WORK COMPLIANCE
Frank Orth & Associates, Inc. will assure compliance with the
identified scope of work through an intensive and iterative review
process. It is anticipated that each section of the socioeconomic study
will go through a minimum of two draft stages before a final report is
produced. After a first draft is produced it will be reviewed by
selected professional members of the staff. These individuals will in
some cases have participated in that portion of the study, and in every
case will be knowledgeable concerning the subject matter. After this
review is completed, the Draft Phase I report will be produced. This
will be reviewed by appropriate consultants and the Discipline
Coordinator. After this review is completed the Final Phase I report
will be produced. It is recognized that, if in certain cases coiiiTlents
from the in-house or consultant review are major in nature, additional
drafts may be required.
B. DATA CONTROL
Data control is viewed as consisting of two dimensions: (1)
assuring that only high quality data (or, where required, best quality
data) are used in analysis, and (2) assuring that only relevant data are
collected in order to prevent technical and financial problems
associated with "untargeted" data collection.
We will rely heavily on the judgment of the in-house professional
staff and consultants to assure the use of the highest quality data. In
particular, we will rely on Ms. Monica Thomas and Homan-McDowell
Associates. Each of these consultants has had extensive experience in
the use of various Alaska economic data bases. They will be consulted
prior to accessing economic data bases or collecting primary data to
make such efforts more efficient. A consultant wil I be similarly
utilized for social data availability and access.
In order to assure that only relevant data are collected, we will
rely on the use of a modified Management by Objectives approach and data
collection guides. Management by Objectives (M.B.O.) is a management
philosophy whereby management of an operation is developed in an
objective-oriented manner. That is, the basic reason for the operation,
and the products needed, serve as the basis for all work performed
within that operation. By developing the reasons for the data collec-
tion effort, we will be able to identify the particular types of data
necessary. After this is done, we will develop data collection guides
(see Major Heading III) which will serve as an outline for field
personnel collecting data. The detailed work plans of Major Heading II
will contribute toward the precise definition of data requirements for
each work item.
20
C. TRACEABILITY OF ANALYSIS
Traceability of analyses performed will be assured through the use
of thorough referencing combined with the use of content footnotes and
Technical Appendices. References will refer the reader to various
publications, reports, etc. or to parts of the Technical Appendix. The
reader will be able to trace the logic of, and methods for, each work
package or item by the combined use of text explanation and description,
references, content footnotes and technical appendices. Technical
appendices will be sufficiently comprehensive to document the data used
and rationale for the methodologies selected.
D. DATA SECURITY
Inasmuch as the study area is relatively undeveloped economically,
the number of individuals and entities contacted will be low. There-
fore, care will have to be taken to prevent descr i ptions of impacts on
particular types of economic activities or groups of individuals from
identifying confidentia l information. In presenting such data we will
group areas sufficiently to prevent individual identification. Dr. Orth
and project consultants have encountered similar problems in previous
research and analysis projects performed in Alaska, and they are
experienced in dealing with them in a manner which both respects con-
fidentiality and allows the maximum use of data for the purpose at hand.
Whatever pr i mary data are collected will be stored in our fire-
resistant four-drawer vertical file during the research period.
In cases where collection of primary data is conditioned upon eventual
destruction, such data wi 11 be promptly destroyed after they have been
fully utilized and the outputs derived from them have been reviewed and
accepted by the client.
21
V. SCHEDULE
The production schedule for Phase I of this study is presented in
Exhibit V-1. Here it can be seen that a schedule is provided for each work
package, work item, and deliverable.
The work packages and work items are scheduled to be responsive to two
key events: (1) the receipt of information on alternative hydroelectric
projects being considered by Acres American, Inc. and (2) receipt of
information on the project selected for further study by Acres American, Inc.
and the Alaska Power Authority. The expected timing of the first of these
events requires that Work Packages 1 and 2 be nearly complete by November 1,
1980. According to the schedule, the draft profile of general socioeconomic
conditions will be in a final drafting process (see Work Package 2, Work Item
f) during the early part of November, 1980. This will allow work to begin on
the preliminary socioeconomic impact studies of alternative projects. The
expected timing of the second event requires that a forecast of socioeconomic
conditions (assuming no hydroelectric development) be made prior to October
1, 1981. To ensure that this timetable is met, work on the forecast (Work
Package 4) is to commence on March 1, 1981 and end by September 1, 1981 --
one full month ahead of schedule. This scheduling provides some protection
should unexpected delays occur.
22
N
w
EXHIBIT V-1
PRODUCTION SCHEDULE .
ACTIVITY PIIASE I
1980 ------1-------1981
H J J A s 0 N D J F H A H J
I •· b Work Paokase 11 I
Literature Review I c ld I
Work Paokage 21 rw1 SooioeoonOIIio Prot'Ue d leI t'
Denlopcent
Work Paokage 31 l a bin Prelimlnarr Soo1oeoon0111o
Impaot Studies
-------------Work Paokage II: ~.i, c. I d I -------------Forecast ot' Sooioeoonomio
Conditions 1n Absenoe ot'
Proposed Susitna Project
Monthly Progreaa Reports 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Semiannual Reports D D Annua.l Report
Draft Phase I Report
Final Phase I Report1
Letter• within boxes oorreapond to work items ot' work packpges .
Reoeive information on alternative projects from Acres, TES, and other project partioipants.
Submit to TES,
Receive information on seleoted project trom Acres, TES, and other projeot participants,
1submit to TES, Ino. within 30 days or receiving comments on Drart Phase I Report.
e I
--------1
J A s 0 N D Month
I
<S
d
t' I
0 0 0 0 0 0
0
D
VI. PERSOti~IEL
Descriptions of qualifications required to perform Phase I, Socio-
economic Analysis, and each of its work packages are orovided in the
following section. These descriptions are provided at the work package
1 evel of detail and frequently at the work i tern 1 evel of detail for work
items that require special skills and/or experience.
The second section presents key personnel and their experience in socio-
economic analysis and related work. This section concludes with an exhibit
that links personnel to work packages and work items.
A. DESCRIPTIONS OF QUALIFICATIONS
This study requires that personnel be able to: (1) efficiently
gather and interpret secondary .data from all relevant sources ; (2) gather
and analyze primary data; and (3) develop and successfully implement a
forecasting methodology. Further, it requires that a Project Manager
(Principal Investigator) be able to manage and coordinate personnel
efforts in a manner consistent wi~h budget and time constraints. This
includes ensuring that: (1) the best data are available for use in the
study; (2) these data are collected in a cost-effective manner (i.e .,
properly sequenced in time and place to use professional time
efficiently); and (3) forecasting methods are consistent with the data
available and responsive to information (contract) requirements. I t may
be desirable on efficiency (cost) grounds for the Project Manager
(Principal Investigator) to assign some of these responsibilities to a
Project Leader.
Work Package 1: Literature Review
This work package requires personnel who are: (1) familiar
with economic and social impact literature, including hydroelectric
impact studies; (2) experienced in 1 iterature search techniaues ;
(3) effective in telephone interviews; (4) able to review massive
studies quickly and efficiently; (5) experienced in interview
preparation and procedures; and (6) able to synthesize information
from many sources into a concise, usable document. It also
requires a person to lead (manage) personnel who participate in
different elements of the work package.
Work Package 2: Socioeconomic Profile Development
Work Items a. and b. require personnel who are familiar w1th
Alaska and the Fairbanks/Anchorage corridor. T~ese personnel must
also be very perceptive and be able to think in broad as well as
narrow, or detailed, terms.
Work Item c. requires personnel who have knowledge of relevant
secondary and primary sources of data and who have experience in
assessing these or similar sources of data . Work Item d., on the other
24
hand, only reouires personnel who have experience in efficiently
accessing these data. The person(s) assigned to collect primary data at
or near the potential dam site(s) should be accustomed to outdoor living
and the outdoor environment.
Work Item e. requires personnel who can efficiently compile data,
and Work Item f. requires personnel who are able to synthesize infor-
mation from different types of sources into a concise, usable document.
Finally, a Work Packge Leader is needed who is experienced in
profile development processes.
Work Package 3: Preliminary Socioeconomic Impact Studies
This work package requires personnel who are experienced and
skilled at performing economic and social impact analyses with and
without the benefit of baseline projections. These personnel should
have been involved to a substantial degree in Work Packages 1 and 2.
A Work Package Leader should be assigned to this work package, as
Work Item d. has the potential for being ouite complex.
Work Package 4: Forecast of Socioeconomic Conditions in the Absence of
the Sus1tna ProJect
This \II/Ork package requires personnel who are trained, experienced,
and skilled with forecasting methodology development and application.
One of these personnel should be familiar with economic and social
forecasting methodologies utili·zed in Alaska government, academic, and
private sector institutions. It would be desirable for one of the
personnel to be knowledgable of the results of these forecasts.
As with the preceding work packges, a Work Package Leader is
necessary. This person should have a workinq knowledge of forecasting
techniques, but not necesarily those used by Alaska institutions.
B. KEY PERSONNEL
Robert L. Anderson, Group Leader (TES)
~1r . .A.nderson is responsible for coordination of the socioeconomic
analysis effort with that of related disciplines, and for ensuring
consistency of this effort with the overall project objectives and
procedures. Mr. Anderson's background includes formal training in land-
use, environmental, and social policies planning. He has extensive
experience in directing project studies involving varied disciplines,
and conducting environmental and socioeconomic impact ana lyses.
Examples of previous experience relevant to this project include:
Principal Investigator on stuc1y to analyze and develop pro.iec-
tion of tax and municipal fiscal impacts of growth and develop-
ment for three coastal communities. For Coastal Consultants,
Ltd., 1980.
25
Served as consultant on study to assess growth, municipal service
structure, and fiscal and social impacts of major steel plant
construction. For Davenport-Galla Associates, 1979.
Project Manager of program to develop methodology for determining
primary and consequent environmental and economic impacts of land
and water uses in coastal area. For St. Lawrence -Eastern
Ontario Commission, 1977.
Principal Investigator in development and implementation of meth-
odology to determine areas of concern based on environmental,
economic, and cultural factors in a coastal area. For St.
Lawrence -Eastern Ontario Commission, 1976.
Coordinated and directed environmental and comprehensive plannina
programs throughout three-year study period for five-county area,
for a regional planning and economic development board,
1973-76.
Frank Orth, Ph.D., Principal Investigator
Dr. Orth is responsible for management of the socioeconomic analysis
that is being performed by Frank Orth & Associates, Inc. Previous
experience relevant to this project includes:
Managed study of the market structure of Alaska's seafood pro-
cessing sector. Study included extensive primary data collection
from the .\1 ask a Department of Fish and Game and from private
industry. For the University of Alaska Sea Grant Program,
1977-79.
Project Manager on study to deternine the economic impact of
Outer Contin~ntal Shelf Oil Development on the razor clam fishery
of the Northern and Western Gulf of Alaska. For Alaska Sea Grant
Program and the U.S. Bureau of Land r~anagement, 1978-79 .
An analysis of economic impact of proposed civic, recreation, and
convention center on economy of Cordova, Alaska. For Linck-
Thomoson Engineers and Planners, 1973.
Orth, F. L. (contributor). 1974.
Projections." Alaska Power Survey.
"Economic .Analysis and Load
Federal Power Commission.
Project Manager and analyst on study to estimate benefits and
costs, and macroeconomic impacts, of 1J.S. fisheries development.
Developed methodology for analysis, directed and coordinated
staff research and prcject integraton. For National r~arine
Fisheries Service and U.S. Department of Commerce Task Force on
Fisheries Development, 1979.
Estimated current and future levels of credit demand from the
commercial fisheries and agriculture industries of Alaska. For
Federal Intermediate Credit Bank of Spokane, Washington,
1978-79.
26
Developed and implemented methodology to estimate capital re-
quirements of the Alaska Corrmercial Fisheries and Agriculture
Bank. For Alaska Department of Corrmerce and Economic
Development, 1978-79.
Project Manager on study to identify foreign investment in Alaska
seafood processing sector, to evaluate the corporate reporting
requirements, and to assess the economic implications of foreign
investment. For House Interil"' Corrmittee on Foreign Investment,
Alaska Legislature, 1979-80.
Orth, F. L., January, 1974 . "The Fairbanks Economy in the
1970's." Alaska Construction and Oil.
Peter Rogers, Project Leader
Mr. Rogers has over five years of experience that has included
development and imp 1 ementati on of research strategies for forecasting
industry activity levels, social and economic impact analysis, and
cost/benefit analysis. Some examples of his work related to this project
include:
Project Leader --detennined the economic impact of outer con-
tinental shelf oil development on the razor clam industry of the
Northern and Western Gulf of Alaska. Developed and utilized a
methodology to forecast biological and economic variables.
Variables forecasted included employment of capital and labor,
values and volumes of harvested and processed products, resource
availability, availability of support sector facilities, and
income. For Alaska Sea Grant Program and U.S. Bureau of Land
Management, 1978-79.
Work Package Leader--determined capital requirements for the
Alaska agriculture industry to the year 1990. Participated in
the valuation of Alaska's fishing fleet utilizing regression
techniques; conducted vessel value survey as a prerequisite to
the valuation exercise. For Department of Commerce and Economic
Development, State of Alaska, 1978-79.
Project Leader --rleveloped social criteria for the evaluation of
potential investments and ongoing and completed projects in
Alaska renewable resource industries. Incorporated social
criteria into a comprehensive and consistent socia~ evaluation
systel"'. The system was designed to interface with financial and
economic evaluation systems. For Alaska Renewable Resources
Corporation, 1979.
Project Leader on study that analyzed the relation between for-
eign equity investment and foreign control of the Alaska seafood
processing industry. Developed and compared foreign investment
policy options available to the State of Alaska. Coordinated
project efforts and prepared draft and final reports. For House
Interim Committee on Foreign Investment of the Alask~
Legislature, 1978-80.
27
Reviewed and inteqrated recent studies concerning market struc-
ture of the U.S. seafood processing industry. Presented indus-
trial organization theory in a manner understandable to a varied
audience. For Alaska Sea Grant Program, 1978.
Analyzed the economic impact of limitinQ vessel entry into the
Washington State salmon fishing industry. Developed and imple-
mented methodology, and coordinated the project in its early and
middle stages. For Washington Sea Grant Program, Washin9ton,
1976-77.
Analyzed and assessed the domestic market potential of currently
under-utilized fish and shellfish species under U.S. jurisdic-
tion. Analysis based upon trend analysis of import, export, and
domestic production data. Assessed relative importance of consumer
characteristics, resource availability, institutional structure,
and state of technology as impediments to market development. Also
reviewed and synthesized literature on U.S. seafood consumers. For
National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Department of ColliTlerce,
1978-79 .
Irene Gendron, Work Package Leader
Ms. Gendron has over eight years of experience in econom i c and
financial analysis, market planning, data processing, and administrati :m.
Her work includes economic forecasts of prices, i nterest rates, a nd
corporate income for a variety of industries . Some examples of her work
related t1 this project include:
Pruject Leader and researcher for an inventory of informati on on
the socioeconomic ch 1racteristi c s of the co11111er c ial and recrea-
tional fisheries off Washington, Oreqon , and California. For
Pacific Fishery Management Council, 197 8 .
Work Package Leader --analyzed the market structure of the
Hawaiian fisheries and recommended a plan of new market develop-
ment for currently under-utilized spe cies . Recommendations were
formulated to counteract major impediments to development while
preserving the unique c ultural integrity of the Hawai i an fishi ng
industry. For Hawaii Fish and Game Division, Department of Land
and Natural Resources, 1979.
Projec t Leader for a bottomfish and salmon
lity analysis. Selected species and product
on resourc e availability and market factors.
1979 -present.
Assisted in the development of progra11111ing
loan maturities and yields . 197 5 .
fish plant feasibi-
forms for p 1 ant based
For a pr i vate client,
models for sc hedulinq
Participated in
for projecting
deposits, and
interest rate
statu s reports
develop i ng and imp l ementin g a computerized mod el
bank income , margin-on-funds, loan and dem a nd
other balance sheet items based on alternat i ve
scenarios. Updated the model month l y and prepare d
for management. 1973 -75 .
28
Conducted an inventory and market potential analysis for develop-
ing Northwest Indian-controlled resources. For the United Indians
of All Tribes Foundation, Seattle, 1978-79.
Prepared marketing programs for bottomfish development for several
private corporations in Alaska. Analyzed world supply and demand
conditions for various bottomfish species/product forms. Studied
capacity, routing, and cost attributes of the Alaska transpor-
tation system and recommended the most cost-effective di stri but ion
for each plant. Various private clients, 1976-78.
Consultants
Consultants will provide advice and direction to individual work
items, as appropriate. Consultants will also review working drafts and
draft reports on request. Descriptions of consultants and their primary
project roles are presented below.
Monica Thomas
Ms. Thomas is an economist and is affiliated l'lith the University of
Alaska. She has extensive experience in socioeconomic research in
A 1 ask a, and has expertise in data base development and modeling of the
Alaskan economy. Her primary role will be to as~.ist in identifying and
accessing data bases, and in reviewing soci oeconornic profiles and impact
analyses.
Homan-McOowell Associates
Homan-McOowell Associates is an Alaskan economic and business
consulting firm based in Juneau since 1971. One of its strongest assets
is its knowledge of local, regional, and statewide economics, and
detailed knowledge of economic data sources, their quality, and their
application. Its primary role will be to assist with literature
searches, sources of data, and evaluations of forecasting methodologies.
William Workman, Ph.D.
Or. Workman is an Associate Professor with the University of
Alaska. He has studied in the areas of agricultural and natural
resource economics, quantitative methods, and economic theory. He
has taught courses in each of these areas as well as in managerial
economics. His research and publications cover topics in human res ource
development, agricultural marketing, outdoor recreation management, for-
estry economics, and land-use economics and planning. Or. Workman's re-
search efforts have been directed toward providing both private and
public entities with information to aid in decision-making processes
and to improve resource allocation. His primary role will be to review
resource valuations and impact analyses.
Joseph Terry, Ph.D.
Or. Terry is an Assistant
Alaska, and has studied in the
development, and economic theory.
29
Professor with the University of
areas of public finance, economic
He has 1 ectu red in each of these
subjects. His research and publications include topics in oublic
finance, resource development, and community impact analysis. Dr.
Terry conducted applied economic research for both federal and state
governments. Of particular note, he developed and applied community
impact analyses. His primary roles will be to assist in the
evaluation and development of forecasting methodologies , and to
review the impact analysis.
Other
An as yet to be identified consultant that has substantial
experience in determining and assessing social impacts of natural
resource development will review the social impact methodology and
results.
Personnel Assignments
Exhibit VI-1 shows how personnel and consultants are to be
allocated among work packages. In addition, a Work Package Leader
is designated for each work package.
30
w ......
EXHIBIT VI-1
ALLOCATION OF PERSONNEL AND CONSULTANTS AMONG WORK PACKAGES
WORK PACKAGE
WORK
PACKAGE LEADER
1. Literature Review Irene Gendron
2. Socioeconomic Peter Rogers
Profile
Development
3. Pre 1 imi nary Peter Rogers
Socioeconomic
Impact Studies
4. Forecast of Frank Orth
Socieconomic
Conditions in
Absence of
Sus itna Project
KEY
STAFF SUPPORT
Frank Orth
Peter Rogers
Frank Orth
Irene Gendron
Frank Orth
Irene Gendron
Irene Gendron
Peter Rogers
OTHER
STAFF SUPPORT
David Davies
Wendy Harris
Sandi McKenzie
David Davies
Larry Johnson
Wendy Harris
David Davies
David Davies
CONSULTANT
Homan-McDowell Associates
Monica Thomas
~oman-McDowell Associates
Willi am Workman
Joseph Terry
Homan-McDowell Associates