-- The employment cycle at the facility. Facilities with an "on 

 again, off again" employment pattern typically attract a higher 

 proportion of single people. One example of such a facility is a 

 pipe coating yard, which may operate intensively for several 

 months and then close down until more orders are received. 

 Facilities offering long-term, continuous employment attract a 

 higher percentage of employees with families. 



Once the expected number of new families has been estimated, that 

 number is multiplied by average family size to determine the total popula- 

 tion of those families. If a study has estimated the number of households 

 instead of the number of families, a different multiplier will be used. The 

 multiplier will be substantially lower, since many households may have only 

 one person. 



Recent studies of energy development have estimated family size at 

 from 3.0 to 3.7 people [9, 16]. The figure used may be an average for the 

 locality or region, or the national average may be used. The national 

 average family size was 3.58 in 1970, 3.39 in 19/6 [17]. Table 3 shows 

 some figures used in OCS studies; Example 6 is a discussion of family 

 population in an OCS-related study. 



Table 3. Family Size Estimates in Selected Studies 



Study 



Multiplier 



Comment 



Florida Coastal Policy Study (10) 

 An analysis of the onshore 

 effects of OCS development off 

 the west coast of Florida 



3.55 Families are 0.69 times total 

 employment, and population is 

 2.45 times total employment; 

 family size is 2.45 4- 0.69, or 

 3.55. 



Brown and Root Impact Study (18) 3.5 

 A study of the effects of a 

 platform fabrication yard on a 

 rural area of coastal Virginia 



Mid Atlantic Regional Study (9) 3.0 

 An analysis of the onshore 

 effects of OCS activities in 

 the Mid Atlantic States 



Virginia average 3.57, 

 Northamampton county average 3.6, 

 and national ratio 3.5. National 

 average selected. 



Rapid Growth (16) 

 Discussion of the effects of 

 rapid population growth and 

 decline on rural communities 



3.7 



23 



