Vantage to Pomona FEIS Index 34 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Vantage to Pomona Heights Chapter 4 230 kV Transmission Line Project FEIS Environmental Consequences PAGE 4-225 4.9 SOCIOECONOMICS 4.9.1 Methods and Impact Types The socioeconomic impact analysis used data on wages, employment, purchases of goods and services, and total value for the Project Alternatives. These characteristics would be the primary stimulants to the local economy. Workers deriving income from the construction and operation of the Project would spend a portion of their wages in the Study Region (defined as Grant, Kittitas, and Yakima counties). Benton County is included when being considered for total costs or taxes. These spent wages would then circulate in the local economy, creating multiplier or ripple effects, whereby the ultimate increase to local employment and income would be a multiple of the original stimulus (number of jobs, wages of Project workers, or purchases of goods and services needed for construction). These impacts were quantified through the application of the IMPLAN model (MIG, Inc. 2011) to develop estimates of the initial employment, income, and expenditures for goods and services for the Action Alternatives. IMPLAN is an economic input-output model that is widely used to evaluate the impacts of projects on their regions' economies, providing estimates of impacts on employment, income, and other economic indicators. The socioeconomic impacts of operation would be minimal because the constructed line would require relatively little operation and maintenance expenditure. Operation and maintenance would largely consist of visual inspection via helicopter and road vehicles and periodic repair and/or replacement of worn components. The miles of new transmission line would be a small proportion of the Proponent's total transmission line mileage and, thus, operation and maintenance would likely be performed by existing crews with any apportionment of cost to the Action Alternatives being very small (on the order of one job per year). Therefore, the socioeconomic impact analysis did not address impacts during the operating period, except for its payment of local taxes. Because the Action Alternatives presented in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS; Alternatives A-H) are so close to one another in terms of total investment and work forces, the socioeconomic impact analysis used a “prototype” project, rather than specifically analyzing each of these Action Alternatives. The “prototype” project was Alternative F as it presented the midrange in terms of labor costs. Since the DEIS Action Alternatives are being analyzed together, they will be referred to as “Alternatives A-H.” The New Northern Route (NNR) Alternative and NNR Alternative – Manastash Ridge (MR) Subroute were analyzed independently and are presented as such. The primary distinction among the Action Alternatives in terms of their impacts on employment and income would arise from their locations. The Action Alternatives with activities on the east side of the Columbia River, in Grant County, would create some of their impacts in Grant County while the other Action Alternatives would create impacts in Yakima and Kittitas counties with very little effect in Grant County. To facilitate a comparison of impacts among all Action Alternatives, differences were qualitatively assessed, based on the impacts of the “prototype” project. 4.9.2 Estimated Construction Cost (by Action Alternative) Estimated construction costs vary slightly among Action Alternatives due to their different lengths, configuration of poles and roads, and terrain. Estimates of the total cost of construction by Action Alternative indicate a range of $17.3 million (NNR Alternative – Overhead Design Option) and $31.3 million (Alternative G). Construction costs are summarized in Table 4.9-1. These estimates show that approximately $17.3 to $31.3 million of the total cost would be for the purchases of goods and services.