Social and Economic

Assessment of the Chugach

National Forest Area

Lisa K. Crone, Pat Reed, and Julie Schaefers

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest

Service

Pacific Northwest

Research Station

General Technical Report

PNW-GTR-561

December 2002
Authors

Lisa K. Crone is a research economist, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 2770 Sherwood Lane, Suite 2A,

Juneau, AK 99801-8545; Pat Reed is the regional social scientist, Alaska Region, stationed at Chugach

National Forest, 3301 “C” Street, Suite 300, Anchorage, AK 99503-3998; and Julie Schaefers is a

social scientist, Rocky Mountain Regional Office, P.O. Box 25127, Lakewood, CO 80225-0127. 
Abstract

Crone, Lisa K.; Reed, Pat; Schaefers, Julie. 2002. Social and economic assessment of the 

Chugach National Forest area. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-561. Portland, OR: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 108 p.

This is an assessment of the social and economic conditions in the Chugach National Forest area for

use as background information for forest planning. Current regional conditions and recent trends are

compared and contrasted with state and national conditions and recent trends. Regional employment

and income trends in industries that use forest-related resources are detailed with a focus on their relation to forest management. Tourism and recreation is the industry likely to be most influenced by forest management policies. 

The social and economic conditions in 14 communities, chosen because of their proximity to the 

forest, also are described. The results of two mail surveys designed to gain a better understanding of

the communities’ perceptions of themselves, their views about the management of the forest and other

public lands, and the role of these lands in their quality of life also are presented and discussed. The

survey results indicate that the communities are interested in the management of the forest and, because

of the importance of public land to their quality of life, most wish to be equal partners with management agencies in planning for the future of these lands.

Keywords: Chugach National Forest, south-central Alaska, social and economic conditions, communities, community surveys.

Summary

This document was prepared in support of the Chugach National Forest (CNF) revision of the 1984

Land and Resource Management Plan (forest plan). The assessment provides basic background descriptions and information for forest planners and the public to aid in their understanding of both qualitative and quantitative aspects of social and economic conditions in the area. Current conditions and

recent trends in south-central Alaska are compared and contrasted with state and national conditions

and recent trends. Regional employment and income trends in industries that use forest-related

resources are detailed focusing on their relation to forest management. 

The social and economic conditions in 14 communities, chosen because of their proximity to the forest, also are described. The results of two mail surveys designed to gain a better understanding of the

communities’ perceptions of themselves, their views about the management of the forest and other

public lands, and the role of these lands in their quality of life also are presented and discussed. This

summary begins with key findings from each section of the assessment followed by overall conclusions relevant to the management of the CNF, and suggestions for future research.

Regional Social and Economic Conditions

The population is increasing and aging—Population is increasing in all three borough/census areas

in south-central Alaska. It is increasing faster in communities in the Kenai Peninsula Borough than in

the municipality of Anchorage and Valdez-Cordova Census Area. Similar to national ages, the median

age increased in all three south-central Alaska areas between 1990 and 1998.

Regional employment is increasing and diversifying, real per capita income is decreasing—Total

employment (measured in annual average equivalents) continues to grow at a faster relative rate in

south-central Alaska (compared to the Nation) with the fastest relative rate in the Kenai Peninsula

Borough, followed by the municipality of Anchorage and the Valdez-Cordova Census Area (which has

shown slower growth than the Nation since 1992). Also similar to national trends, much of the increase
in employment has occurred in the services and retail trade sectors. The aging population and the large

amount of tourism in south-central Alaska may be influences. Between 1977 and 1993, economic

diversity increased in all three borough/census areas, but the Valdez-Cordova Census Area continues

to be the least diverse. Because many of the services and retail trade sectors in south-central Alaska

have a higher percentage of lower wage and seasonal jobs, as the percentage of total employment in

these sectors has increased, the gap between real per capita income in south-central Alaska and the

Nation has narrowed. 

Nonlabor income is increasing as a percentage of total income—Similar to that of the Nation,

earnings in south-central Alaska are decreasing as a percentage of total personal income while transfer

payments and property income are increasing in percentage. In the Nation as a whole, transfer payments and property income are about the same percentage of total personal income, whereas transfer

payments in Alaska’s three south-central areas account for a larger percentage than property income.

This is perhaps due to Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend.

Economic activity in the Valdez-Cordova area is the most variable—Of the three borough/census

areas, the Valdez-Cordova Census Area shows the most volatility in economic indicators such as total

employment, real per capita income, and total personal income. This is perhaps due to its lower economic diversity and the larger relative significance of resource-dependent sectors (whose economic

returns are heavily influenced by external market forces rather than state business cycles) in its economic structure.

Forest-Resource-Related Industries 

The Chugach National Forest communities had more employment in forest-resource-related

industries—In 1996, communities within or near the CNF had a much larger percentage of employment in forest-resource-related industries as compared to Anchorage or the Kenai-Soldotna communities. Of Anchorage’s total employment, about 6.1 percent was estimated to be in industries that use

forest-related resources: commercial fish harvesting and seafood processing, logging and sawmills,

minerals other than oil and gas, and the visitor industry. Of the 6.1 percent, the visitor industry was the

largest component accounting for an estimated 5.4 percent of total 1996 employment. Forest-resourcerelated industry employment in the Kenai-Soldotna area (including Sterling) was estimated at 9.4 percent of total estimated employment in 1996. The visitor industry accounted for an estimated 5.4 percent

of total employment, while commercial fishing and seafood processing accounted for an estimated 3.8

percent. Community employment in forest-resource-related industries within or near the CNF (Chenega

Bay, Cooper Landing, Cordova, Girdwood, Hope, Moose Pass, Seward, Tatitlek, Valdez, and Whittier)

accounted for an estimated 38.8 percent of total employment. The commercial fishing and seafood

processing industry accounted for an estimated 23 percent of total employment, while the visitor

industry accounted for an estimated 13.4 percent of the total employment. 

Forest management decisions likely to have largest impact on recreation and tourism industries—

The limited resource potential and high economic cost associated with accessing, extracting, and transporting wood fiber and mineral resources limit the impact forest management policies have on the

overall level of economic activity in the wood products and mineral industries. Although commercial

fishing is an important contributor to economic activity in two of the three subregions, the effects of

forest management activities on it are mainly limited to impacts on the freshwater habitat of salmon.

Currently, these impacts are small relative to other influences on the industry, such as external market

forces. The industries likely to be most influenced by forest management policies are the recreation

and tourism industries. Because of this influence and the importance of these industries in local economic structures, three other assessments (Brooks and Haynes 2001, Bowker 2001, Colt 2002) were

commissioned to analyze the current and future outlook for these industries in south-central Alaska

and their relation to CNF resources and management activities.
Social and Economic Conditions in the Communities

Although no two communities have identical demographic or economic characteristics, similarities exist between groups of communities—The largest communities also had the highest employment diversity scores, whereas the smallest communities had the lowest employment diversity scores.

The larger and more economically diverse communities of Anchorage, Kenai, Soldotna, and Valdez

will probably not experience significant changes in their overall level of economic activity from forest

management changes. They could, however, experience indirect economic and social effects from

changes that impact their quality of life such as changes in recreation opportunities. Because of the

spruce bark beetle infestation, the Kenai Peninsula communities share a common concern about fires

that may potentially endanger structures or landscapes. Forest managers should make this issue a high

priority.

Forest management activity near Chenega Bay, Tatitlek, or Hope is likely to have greater community-level economic and social impacts—These communities had the largest percentages of people

below poverty level as well as high percentages of people who were either unemployed or not in the

labor force. They also had low economic diversity scores, low median incomes, and subsistence preference. Chenega Bay and Tatitlek are Alaskan Native communities.

The Whittier community will likely experience the most change in the near future—This change

is driven by the anticipated increase in visitors to the community on completion of the Whittier road.

This road represents the first land link other than the railroad between Whittier and Anchorage. The

other communities in Prince William Sound also are concerned about increased usage of the sound

associated with the new road.

Community Surveys 

Respondents indicated an interest in preserving wild and scenic areas while welcoming minimal

growth needed for anticipated increased use of Prince William Sound—Generally, respondents

indicated they would like to see an increase in the amount of congressionally designated wilderness

and wild and scenic rivers; the current amount or less timber harvesting; construction of a few roads

on CNF land; and minimal expansion of facilities to mitigate anticipated increased use of Prince

William Sound. A majority of respondents in all communities indicated they prefer that five or more

rivers in the CNF be congressionally designated as wild and scenic. A majority of respondents in 9 of

the 12 communities (with the exception of Hope, Soldotna, and Sterling) indicated that they prefer that

1.7 million acres or more of the CNF be congressionally designated as wilderness. 

A majority of respondents in all communities indicated a preference for an annual timber harvest at or

below 2.1 million board feet, or the past 13-year average annual cut on the CNF. Among possible reasons to log in the CNF, removal of dead or infested trees, fire prevention and protection of life and

property, and creation of wildlife habitat were the most acceptable reasons to respondents in all communities. 

A majority of respondents in 8 of the 12 communities (with the exception of Anchorage, Kenai,

Soldotna, and Sterling)—including all three communities in Prince William Sound—indicated that 

the proper management response to increased use of the sound owing to the new Whittier road is to

develop minimal new facilities to mitigate impacts rather than create more facilities to enhance use.

A majority of respondents in all communities indicated a preference for creating five or fewer new

roads in the CNF. Among possible reasons to construct new roads in the CNF, vegetation management

was the reason respondents chose most in 9 of the 12 communities (with the exception of Cordova,

Valdez, and Whittier).
Respondents generally favored the current amount of open area and season in the CNF for

snowmachine and off-road vehicle use—A majority of respondents in 10 of the 12 communities

(with the exception of Sterling and Valdez) indicated a preference for the current amount of open area

and season in the CNF for snowmachine use. More communities secondarily preferred increased

access than preferred decreased access. A majority of respondents in 10 of the 12 communities (with

the exception of Anchorage and Valdez) indicated a preference for the current amount of open area

and season in the CNF for off-road vehicle use. An equal number of communities secondarily preferred increased access than preferred decreased access. 

Respondents generally rated less consumptive and noncommercial forest uses highest—In general,

respondents favored recreational and biological ecosystem values over economic values thus rating

forest uses that protect these values highest. Among 13 different forest ecosystem values recognized as

present in the CNF, recreation, life support, aesthetic, and subsistence values received the most consistently high ratings among respondents in all communities. Among 19 different forest uses, a majority

of respondents in all of the communities generally favored nonconsumptive, low-impact forest uses

(e.g., fish and wildlife habitat, camping and picnicking, and nonmotorized recreation) over consumptive, higher impact forest uses (e.g., commercial mining, oil and gas, and logging)—although none of

the uses were substantially opposed.

Respondents generally indicated they were very interested in CNF management wanting equal

representation in management decisions with preference given more to local rather than national

interests—A majority of respondents in every community indicated that they were very interested in

what happens to the CNF in the next 10 to15 years. A majority of respondents in every community

also indicated that they believed the public should be a full and equal partner in decisionmaking with

regard to planning for the CNF. Finally, a majority of respondents in 9 of the 12 communities (with

the exception of Anchorage, Cooper Landing, and Whittier) felt that local community interests deserved

more attention than national interests when planning for the use of public lands near their communities.

Respondents rely on public lands to maintain their quality of life—In all communities, at least 

two of the top five factors ranked most important to quality of life were related to public lands or were

affected by public land management activities (public land factors, or PLFs). Survey respondents indicated that the three PLFs most important to their quality of life were (1) clean air and water, (2) beauty

of the surrounding area, and (3) open undeveloped areas. These were also the three PLFs respondents

were most satisfied with. The three PLFs respondents were least satisfied with were (1) the roads and

transportation system (2) access to and use of public lands, and (3) subsistence hunting and fishing. 

Of 19 public land uses (opportunities), the uses with the highest average importance ratings across

communities were (1) fishing, (2) hunting, and (3) undeveloped land and wilderness. The lowest average importance ratings were for (1) trapping, (2) all-terrain vehicle and off-road vehicle areas, and (3)

scenic drives. The uses with the highest average satisfaction ratings across communities were (1) scenic landscapes and (2) viewing wildlife, while the lowest average satisfaction ratings were for (1) jobs

from logging and mining, (2) access for disabled people, and (3) all-terrain vehicle and off-road vehicle areas.

Respondents generally favored no change in their community’s current amount of economic

activity in the forest-resource-related sectors—In every community, the response chosen most often

regarding the desired future level of local economic activity in the mining sector was no change. In 9

out of the 12 communities, the response chosen most often for the oil and gas sector was no change.

For the forestry and forest products sector, the response chosen most often in eight communities was
no change. No change was also the response chosen most often in 7 out of the 12 communities for

both the commercial fishing sector and the tourism services sector. Whittier, Anchorage, Cordova,

Valdez, and Girdwood each had a majority of respondents favoring an increase in the tourism services

sector. In terms of overall economic activity, more respondents from Whittier, Kenai, Anchorage, and

Valdez appeared to favor additional growth in their communities, whereas Hope, Cooper Landing,

Girdwood, and Moose Pass had the fewest respondents in favor of growth.

There appears to be a positive relation between quality-of-life ratings and community resiliency ratings for the CNF communities of interest. The self-assessed overall average quality-of-life rankings 

by community for the CNF communities were (from highest to lowest) Girdwood, Cooper Landing,

Moose Pass, Hope, Sterling, Anchorage, Cordova, Seward, Kenai, Valdez, Soldotna, and Whittier.

Community resiliency rankings for the CNF communities of interest were (from highest to lowest)

Cooper Landing, Moose Pass, Anchorage, Girdwood, Seward, Hope, Cordova, Soldotna, Kenai,

Valdez, Sterling, and Whittier. The three communities rated highest in terms of quality of life (Girdwood,

Cooper Landing, and Moose Pass) also were rated in the top four for community resiliency, whereas

three of the four communities rated lowest in terms of quality of life (Whittier, Valdez, and Kenai)

also ranked in the bottom four for community resiliency.

Conclusions

We offer several management suggestions based on our findings. First, because most forest-resourcerelated employment in the communities of interest around the Chugach National Forest occurs in the

tourism and recreation and fishing and seafood processing industries, management strategies that protect or enhance the resources that support these industries should continue to sustain such employment.

Protecting these resources also should protect many of the quality-of-life factors related to public land

management that were rated high by survey respondents. Second, the survey results strongly indicate

that both residents of CNF communities of interest and other Alaska residents rate the amenity values

of the CNF higher than the commodity values. Thus, managing with an emphasis on the former

ecosystem values rather than the latter should be in the interest of both the local and state publics. Third,

the aging of the population (both locally and nationally) combined with survey results indicating the

local public’s desire for better access to the CNF as well as a better road and transportation system

suggest that improvements in this area also would serve the public interest. 

Fourth, concerning management activities near particular communities, activities that enhance growth

would be desirable near those communities that favor additional growth: Whittier, Kenai, Anchorage,

and Valdez. Activities that limit growth appear appropriate for Hope, Cooper Landing, Girdwood, and

Moose Pass. Fifth, based on the following combination of indicators—the employment diversity score,

the percentage of the population below poverty level, the median household income, the percentage of

the population that is Alaskan Native, the civilian unemployment rate, and the percentage of adults not

in the labor force—the communities of Chenega Bay, Tatitlek, and Hope are communities that may be

the most susceptible to adverse social and economic effects (on minority and low-income communities)

from forest management activities. Finally, the community of Whittier, which had both the lowest community resiliency and quality-of-life score, is also the community likely to face the greatest change in

the near future because of the opening of a new road to Prince William Sound. Forest management

strategies that allow for at least some expansion of facilities on the CNF to accommodate the increased

use of areas near Whittier would probably mitigate some of the congestion and associated problems

this community will endure as both locals and tourists funnel through the area.
Future Research

Because of the timing of this assessment, much of the data on which the description of social and economic conditions in the CNF communities of interest was based are 10 years old. A reevaluation of

community conditions after the 2000 census would give forest managers a better understanding of current community conditions. Additionally, periodic community and statewide random surveys, similar

to those undertaken for this assessment, would keep forest managers abreast of changing conditions,

values, and preferences for forest management activities. Developing methods to increase response

from Alaskan Native communities should be a priority. Finally, research that would allow comparisons

of local versus national values and preferences for the management of the CNF and other public lands

could aid decisionmakers in balancing these interests in their management strategies.
Contents

1 Introduction

1 Social and Economic Resources of the Chugach National Forest

2 Organization of the Assessment

2 Section 1: Regional Social and Economic Conditions

3 Population and Demographics

5 Employment

7 Shift-Share Analysis of Employment Growth

15 Employment Versus Earnings

17 Economic Diversity

19 Resident and Nonresident Employment

20 Personal Income

25 Regional Summary

28 Section 2: Forest-Resource-Related Industries

31 Commercial Fishing and Seafood Processing

36 Tourism and Recreation

40 Wood Products

42 Minerals

43 Oil, Gas, and Coal

44 Payments to the State

44 Forest Service Revenues

45 Forest-Resource-Related Industries Summary

46 Section 3: Community Social and Economic Conditions

46 Community Population, Demographics, and Characteristics

50 Community Housing Characteristics

51 Community Employment

54 Employment Diversity

54 Community Income

55 Community Education
55 Community Concerns

57 Individual Community Descriptions

64 Community Social and Economic Conditions Summary

65 Section 4: Community Surveys

66 “Planning for the Future of the Chugach National Forest” Survey: The Public’s Role in Forest 

Plan Revision

67 Selected Forest Management Issues

75 General Forest Uses

75 Forest Ecosystem Values 

81 Survey Summary 

81 “Your Community’s Quality of Life and Future” Survey

83 “Community” Definition and Preference for Weighting Interests in Planning

83 Community Quality of Life

91 Public Land Uses and Opportunities

91 Economic Activity

98 Community Characteristics, Community Resiliency, and Quality of Life

103 Changes in Community Desirability and Preferences for Residency

103 Survey Summary

105 References
Introduction

Ecosystem management is an ecological

approach to land management that the USDA

Forest Service uses to achieve its mandate of

multiple use on the national forests. Ecosystem

management combines the needs of people and

their environmental values with physical and

biological elements to maintain diverse, productive, and sustainable ecosystems. As a part of an

ecosystem, human conditions are shaped by it,

and in turn, shape the ecosystem. The physical

and biological parts of an ecosystem offer opportunities and impose limits for people. One area

may provide settings and resources for efficient

human use or enjoyment, whereas another area

may impose barriers preventing use owing to costs

greater than potential benefits. A critical element

in successful ecosystem management is understanding the role of humans within the ecosystem

structure and function. Blending the dynamic

human condition with the biological and physical

resources will help create a credible and inclusive

planning process.

The human story, or dimension, of an ecosystem

is complex and dynamic. The more information

we have on the social, economic, and cultural

aspects of the citizenry, the richer the story we

can tell concerning the general public and their

demand for forest resources. By concentrating

on the general public more than the few outspoken groups who have extreme or vested interests

in forest resources, we hope that the planning

process will result in better decisions.

This human story should be told at several scales,

from global to local. Information from a larger

area may mask important concerns and trends in

a smaller area. It is also important to tell the story

from the past, to the present, and into the future.

Trends, changes, and growth in an area are important to consider so that decisions are based on

dynamic, not static, conditions. The perspective

that the current situation is continually changing

provides context for future decisions. 

In telling the story, many variables, both quantitative and qualitative, are considered. This information was collected from many different sources.

It is important to note, however, the assumptions

made in both collecting and reporting the data.

Not all data are comparable, available at the scales

desired, or complete. In the following analysis,

data are introduced and assumptions are given to

allow the reader to interpret the story told within

the context of the data.

This analysis provides a description of the social

and economic environment and trends in the

south-central Alaska region surrounding the

Chugach National Forest (CNF). This comprehensive description of social and economic conditions is similar to the more traditional resource

inventories done for such concerns as recreation,

vegetation, wildlife, fish, and soils. This assessment provides forest planners and the general

public with basic background descriptions and

information about the human environment that

will aid them in evaluating the potential effects

of forest management decisions on the human

dimension of the ecosystem. The assessment is

not intended to be an analysis of the effects of

specific forest management strategies or policies.

Social and Economic Resources of

the Chugach National Forest

The present boundaries of the CNF were adjusted

six times between 1907 and 1980. The forest is

now 210 miles long and 120 miles wide and, at

5.4 million acres, is about the size of the state of

New Hampshire. It extends south and east of

Anchorage along the south-central Alaska coast,

encompassing most of Prince William Sound,

the northeast portion of the Kenai Peninsula

(including all of the Seward Highway), and the

Copper River Delta. The Seward Highway provides access to the western side of the forest

bringing visitors from Anchorage into the Kenai

Mountains and to the Prince William Sound via

the town of Whittier. Valdez is accessible from

the interior via the Richardson Highway; Chenega

Bay, Cordova (includes Eyak), Seward, Tatitlek,

Valdez, and Whittier are accessible by the Alaska

state ferry system. 

To complete a social and economic assessment

of the CNF, it is necessary to answer the question: What areas are most likely to be impacted

1
2

by forest management actions? Fourteen communities are included within the boundary of the

analysis area defined for the purpose of this

assessment as south-central Alaska: Anchorage,

Chenega Bay, Cooper Landing, Cordova (includes

Eyak), Girdwood, Hope (includes Sunrise), Kenai,

Moose Pass, Seward, Soldotna, Sterling, Tatitlek,

Valdez, and Whittier. The communities with larger

and more diverse economic structures, such as

Anchorage, Kenai, Soldotna, and Sterling, are

more likely to be impacted in terms of the social

benefits they derive from the forest. The smaller

communities and those within the CNF boundaries may experience both social and economic

impacts. 

Different segments of the local population use,

process, and consume various resources of the

CNF. Residents of south-central Alaska depend

on the wildlife and fish in the forest as well as

other natural resources for both subsistence purposes and cultural survival. South-central Alaska

residents account for much of the recreation

activity on the CNF, although nonresident tourism

may be increasing at a faster rate (Colt and others

2002). Timber from the CNF provides a small

part of the regional fiber supply for the local

wood products industry. The forest also contains

many of the salmon streams in the region, which

are an essential component in the sizable regional

salmon fishery and fish processing industry. 

Organization of the Assessment

The following assessment is composed of four

sections describing the social and economic conditions and trends in south-central Alaska. Note

that our purpose is to describe existing social and

economic conditions and recent trends and not to

forecast the future.1 The first section is a regional

assessment that serves as an overview of the

study area, including the three main political 

1 We display 10-year projections for selected variables

taken from reports by Goldsmith (1998, 1999). 

jurisdictions around the CNF—the municipality

of Anchorage, the Kenai Peninsula Borough, and

the Valdez-Cordova Census Area. Although the

14 communities of interest are within these three

areas, other communities not included in the

study area lay within these borough/census area

boundaries. 

The second section is a description of employment and income trends in industries that utilize

forest-related resources. Four principal industries

most associated with the CNF are analyzed: wood

products, commercial salmon fishing and processing, recreation and tourism, and mineral

exploration and production. Descriptions of the

industries, current industry issues, and the relation between forest management and each industry are discussed. 

The third section is an assessment of the social

and economic conditions of the 14 individual

communities. We used many sources of secondary data to provide descriptions of the individual

communities and to enable comparisons among

them in our assessment. In the final section, the

results from two mail surveys designed to gain a

better understanding of community perceptions

of themselves, their views about the management

of the CNF and other public lands, as well as the

role of these lands in their quality of life, are

presented and discussed. 

Section 1: Regional Social 

and Economic Conditions

Anchorage is the largest population center in the

state. Its economic activity is often more reflective of trends within Alaska as a whole than is

the economic activity in the smaller areas of the

Kenai Peninsula and Valdez-Cordova. When

looking at economic trends, smaller area trends

and local conditions may be swamped by the

dominance of Anchorage’s economic activity.

For this reason, it is important to examine conditions and identify trends for each of the three

borough/census areas individually. 
3

Population and Demographics

The state of Alaska represents about 0.23 percent

of the U.S. population. It is ranked 48th in population followed by Wyoming and Vermont. Alaska

is the largest of the 50 states and accounts for 16

percent of the U.S. land base. In comparison, the

second largest state, Texas, has 7 percent of the

U.S. land base. Because of the large land area,

the large amount of federal land ownership (66

percent), and the small population, Alaska’s population density is significantly lower than that of

the United States as a whole. Table 1 displays

1990 and 1998 population data for the United

States, Alaska, and the three borough/census

areas surrounding the CNF.

Of the three areas surrounding the CNF, the

municipality of Anchorage is the smallest in

terms of land area. Although occupying less than

1 percent of Alaska’s total land area, it contains

about 43 percent of the state’s population. The

Kenai Peninsula Borough and the Valdez-Cordova

Census Area together contain about 10 percent

of the state’s population and almost 10 percent

of the state’s land base. The differences in size

and population among the three areas are reflected

in population density figures. Anchorage has a

higher population density than the Kenai Peninsula

Borough or Valdez-Cordova Census Area. At

152.4 persons per square mile, the population

density of Anchorage is higher than the state

average of 1.1 and the national average of 76.4.

At the other end of the spectrum, the ValdezCordova Census Area has a population density

of 0.3 persons per square mile, owing to the

large amount of federally owned land and the

lack of road access to communities within the

census area. 

Within Alaska and the three south-central Alaska

areas, minority populations increased between

1990 and 1998. By comparison, the Alaska Native

Table 1—Population characteristics compared for the United States and Alaska, 1990 and 1998

Kenai ValdezMunicipality Peninsula Cordova

United States Alaska of Anchorage Borough Census Area

Variable 1990 1998 1990 1998 1990 1998 1990 1998 1990 1998

Population: 248,709,873 270,028,937 550,043 621,400 226,338 258,782 40,802 48,815 9,952 10,365

Percentage of the state (%) -- -- 100 100 41 43 7 8 2 2

Caucasian (%) 84 83 76 74 82 78 91 90 83 81

Native American (%) 1 1 16 17 7 8 7 7 13 14

African American (%) 12 13 4 4 7 7 1 1 1 1

Asian-Pacific Islander (%) 3 4 4 5 5 7 1 2 3 4

Hispanic origin, any 

race (%) 9 11 3 5 4 7 2 3 3 2

Persons per square mile 70.3 76.4 1.0 1.1 133.3 152.4 2.5 3 .3 .3

Persons per household 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.6

Median age 32.8 34.9 29.2 32.4 29.6 32.1 31 35.4 31.8 36.6

Males to 100 females 95 96 111 108 106 105 112 109 122 115

Education, persons 25 or 

older:

High school degree or 

higher 75.2 82.8 86.6 NA 90.4 NA 87.2 NA 83.9 NA

Bachelor degree or 

higher 20.3 24.4 23.0 NA 26.9 NA 17.9 NA 18.5 NA

NA = not available.

-- = not applicable.

Sources: Alaska Department of Labor, Research and Analysis 1999a; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 1990.
4

population within Alaska is a greater proportion

than the Native American population of the United

States. Rural Alaska tends to have a greater percentage of natives. Anchorage has a smaller

Alaska Native percentage than the state average,

whereas the Valdez-Cordova Census Area has

the highest percentage. Anchorage has a larger

percentage of Asian-Pacific Islanders within its

population than the United States average.

Alaska is generally following the national trend

in terms of an aging population and the male-tofemale ratio. The median age of the state’s population increased between 1990 and 1998, from 29.2

to 32.4 years. The ratio of males to females also

is moving toward the national average, although

rural areas continue to have a higher percentage

of males than females. This is especially true for

areas with logging camps, active mines, or other

resource processing facilities, which have traditionally employed primarily males.

In 1990, Alaska had a higher percentage of persons 25 years or older with a high school degree

or higher, as well as a higher percentage of persons in this age group with a bachelor’s degree

or higher than the U.S. percentages. This is perhaps an indication that career opportunities in

the state require a higher degree of education, or

that people with more education are moving to

Alaska for lifestyle reasons. Within south-central

Alaska, Anchorage had higher percentages in

both these categories than the state percentages

in 1990, whereas the Kenai Peninsula Borough

had a higher percentage than the state in the first

category but a lower percentage in the second

category, and the Valdez-Cordova Census Area

percentages were lower than the state percentages for each category.

Population change—There are two components

of population growth: (1) natural increase or

decrease (births and deaths) and ( 2) migration.

Natural changes in population are fairly stable 

as death and birth rates tend to change slowly.

Migration, however, is less stable, changing with

economic opportunities in the state. The number

of people who move to Alaska from other states

or countries (inmigration) increases during times

of economic growth. Recent examples include

the 1973-75 Trans-Alaska Pipeline construction

period, and the 1980-85 economic boom created

Figure 1—Population trends for the United States, Alaska, and south-central Alaska, 1979-97,

indexed to 1979 (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1999).
5

through state spending of oil revenues. The opposite occurs during economic recessions. Alaska

experienced outmigration during economic recessions in 1977 through 1980 and 1985 through

1989 as people left the state in search of better

economic opportunities. Recently, better economic opportunities in the lower 48, combined with

Alaska’s lack of income growth and continued

high cost of living, have slowed inmigration to

the state (Alaska Department of Labor 1999a).

Figure 1 displays trends in resident population

growth for 1979 through 1997, indexed to 1979.

The use of an index allows for comparisons of

changes between areas on a relative scale rather

than in absolute magnitudes. Actual populations

are displayed and discussed in the community

assessment section of this document. Although

the index is useful in comparing areas over time,

it is difficult to select an index year that is completely neutral. Throughout this analysis, the index

year 1979 is used because it is the first year population data are available for the current boundaries of all three areas. The year 1979 marks a

point between a recession and a boom period.

The selection of a different index year would

probably change the overall comparisons if a

year during a low point in a recession or a high

point in a boom period was chosen.

The U.S. population grew at a steady rate from

1979 to 1997. During this same period, the Alaska

population grew steadily except for a decline in

the mid-1980s because of an economic recession.

These same trends were mirrored in the municipality of Anchorage. Although the Kenai Peninsula

Borough followed state trends in the late 1980s

with a small decline in population, it has since

shown significant growth and is currently the

fastest growing of the three borough/census areas

surrounding the CNF. The Kenai Peninsula

Borough experienced an annual average growth

rate of 2 percent between 1990 and 1997, larger

than the state average of 1.4 percent during the

same period. The Valdez-Cordova Census Area

experienced population declines during the recession of the mid-1980s and had a slower recovery

than the other areas. 

Employment

In this analysis, all employment figures are

measured in annual equivalents, or the yearly

average of all full- and part-time jobs. A person

who works 12 months at a full-time job is counted

as one job. A person who works three seasonal

or part-time jobs during the year would be counted

as three jobs. This measure is not the same as a

full-time equivalent (FTE). An FTE is equal to

one person working full time for 12 months; three

people each working full time for 4 months would

be counted as a single FTE. In considering the

employment data presented, the annual equivalent count may overstate or understate some sectors depending on its level of seasonal or parttime hiring. The trends we present, however, still

offer a consistent and informative account of the

employment situation in the study area.

Some basic employment statistics for 1997 are

displayed in table 2. Nonfarm employment is

defined as all employment, both full and part

time, not associated with farming. Government

data made available to the public are subject to

nondisclosure rules. This applies when the data

reported may disclose the operations of a single

firm.

The distribution of employment by industry sector in Alaska shows some significant differences

from the United States as a whole. The agriculture-forestry-fishing (AFF) sector percentage is

significantly higher in Alaska and in the southcentral Alaska region owing to large commercial fishing and seafood processing operations.

The mining sector, which includes all hard rock

mining as well as oil and gas operations, and the

transportation, public utilities, and communications (TPUC) sector, each comprise a larger percentage of employment in south-central Alaska

and the state as a whole than they do in the rest

of the United States. The largest difference in

employment distribution is in the government

sector, which includes all local, state, and federal

employment. Alaska has 10 percent more of its

total nonfarm employment in this sector than the

Nation as a whole. The higher percentage of
6

employment and higher average earnings in this

sector make government an important part of

Alaska’s economy.

In terms of total employment, Alaska and most

of the south-central Alaska region have grown at

a faster rate than the Nation. The United States

has grown steadily, whereas Alaska has followed

a boom-and-bust cycle. Figure 2 displays the

general growth trends of the United States, Alaska,

and the borough/census areas. This is an index

of employment with 1979 as the index year, not

actual employment numbers. Using an index

allows trends between the areas to be compared

without reference to the absolute magnitude of

total employment figures.

Trends in employment are often related to population trends, showing a similar pattern of growth

from 1980 to 1985 followed by a decline from

1985 to 1989. The Kenai Peninsula has continued to grow since the late 1980s as employment

opportunities and population increased faster

than the state and national growth rates.

Although growth patterns in the five areas are

not identical, growth in both the services and

retail trade sectors is a common trend in all areas

(U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1999). In

Alaska, this trend may be influenced by the

growth in tourism as well as the aging of the population. Because employment opportunities in

Table 2—1997 employment by industry, for the United States, Alaska, and south-central Alaska

Nonfarm employment United South-central Municipality Kenai Valdezby sectora States Alaska Alaska of Anchorage Peninsula Cordova

Percent

AFF 1.3 3.9 2.5 1.5 7.8 9.1

Mining .5 3.0 2.6 2.3 4.9 (D)

Construction 5.4 5.1 5.5 5.5 6.2 4.4

Manufacturing 12.6 4.8 2.9 1.7 9.0 10.2

TPUC 4.9 7.7 8.5 8.6 5.9 15.5

Wholesale trade 4.7 2.6 3.6 3.9 2.2 (D)

Retail trade 17.2 16.2 17.2 17.4 17.4 12.2

FIRE 7.6 5.3 6.3 6.8 4.2 2.2

Services 31.4 30.0 29.3 30.2 24.8 24.1

Government 14.2 24.5 21.4 22.1 12.5 20.4

(D)= not available due to nondisclosure rules.

a Sectors defined according to Standard Industry Classification Manual (1987):

AFF (agricultural, forestry, and fishing services) includes businesses engaged in agricultural production, forestry, commercial fishing, hunting and trapping, and related services.

Mining includes the extraction of minerals occurring naturally, quarrying, well operations, milling, preparation at the mine site, and exploration and development of mineral properties.

Construction includes new work, additions, alterations, reconstruction, installations, and repairs of structures.

Manufacturing includes the processing of materials (products of agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining, and quarrying) into new products.

Examples include food, textiles, lumber, wood products, furniture, paper, machinery, and appliances.

Retail trade includes selling goods for personal or household consumption and rendering services incidental to the sale of the goods.

Examples include groceries, hardware, drug store, and other specialty stores.

Wholesale trade includes selling goods to retailers or other wholesalers. Wholesalers maintain inventories of goods, extend credit; physically

assemble, sort, and grade goods in large lots, break bulk goods into smaller lots, and advertise.

FIRE (finance, insurance, and real estate) includes business that operate in the fields of finance, insurance, and real estate, such as banks,

investment companies, insurance agents and brokers, real estate buyers, sellers, and developers.

Services includes businesses engaged in providing a wide variety of services for individuals, business, government, and other organizations.

Examples include hotels; health, legal, engineering, and professional services; and educational institutions.

TPUC (transportation, public utilities, and communications) includes passenger and freight transportation, communications services, electricity, gas, steam, water and sanitary services, and all establishments of the United States Postal Service.

Government includes all federal, state, and local government employees involved in executive, legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1999; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 1999.
7

these sectors are often associated with lower average earnings than in other industries, this trend

may result in a reduction in overall average earnings in the state and local areas.

During past boom-and-bust periods in the state,

the construction; retail trade; services; and

finance, insurance, and real estate (FIRE) sectors

were most affected. The other sectors appear to

be more influenced by market forces outside of

Alaska than by economic cycles within the state.

Shift-Share Analysis of Employment

Growth2

Shift-share analysis is useful for evaluating

employment changes in the borough/census

areas over a given period. Such analysis highlights important differences in the industry composition of employment growth in these smaller

regions versus growth in the Nation and state

atlarge. Before conducting shift-share analysis for

the individual areas, we first present the changes

in employment by major industry group for the

Nation and the state of Alaska for the period from

1990 to 1997, in tables 3 and 4. This period was 

2 The method and definitions used here are from Smith

(1999).

chosen because 1990 was the last census year and

1997 was the most recent year that these employment data were available. This period is similar

to the period used to analyze recent demographic

changes in the Nation, the state, and the three

borough/census areas. 

The first four columns in table 3 present employment levels and percentage share of total nonfarm employment for 1990 and 1997 by major 

industry sector for the Nation as a whole. The

last two columns report the percentage and

net change in the total number of jobs percentage increase in employment occurred in the

decrease was in the government sector. The greatest retail trade sector (30.0 percent), whereas the

largest absolute increase was in the services

sector (22,431) for each industry sector. The percentage change results by industry allow us to distinguish between the faster and slower growing

sectors irrespective of their relative importance.

The net change results highlight those sectors

that contributed most to the total net change. The

overall national growth rate in nonfarm employment for the period was 12.8 percent. All sectors

except mining and manufacturing had increases

in employment, with the AFF sector having the

largest percentage increase (35.8 percent) and

the services sector having the largest absolute

Figure 2—Total employment trends for the United States, Alaska, and south-central Alaska, 1979-

97, indexed to 1979 (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1999).
8

increase (9,564,900). Table 4 is an analogous

table for the state of Alaska. The overall growth

rate of nonfarm employment in Alaska during

the same period was 11.3 percent. The mining,

government, manufacturing, and FIRE industries

had decreases in employment. The largest percentage decrease occurred in the mining sector (-10.4

percent), whereas the largest absolute decrease

was in the government sector. The greatest percentage increase in employment occurred in the

Table 4—Alaska employment change, 1990-97

Employment

Actual growth

1990 1997 in employment

Sectora Level Share Level Share Percent Net

AFF 13,894 4.1 14,708 3.9 5.9 814

Mining 12,543 3.7 11,239 2.9 -10.4 -1,304

Construction 15,789 4.6 19,409 5.1 22.9 3,620

Manufacturing 18,932 5.5 18,293 4.8 -3.4 -639

TPUC 24,580 7.2 29,316 7.7 19.3 4,736

Wholesale trade 8,636 2.5 9,836 2.6 13.9 1,200

Retail trade 47,096 13.8 61,237 16.1 30.0 14,141

FIRE 20,321 5.9 20,014 5.3 -1.5 -307

Services 79,757 23.3 102,188 26.8 28.1 22,431

Government 98,768 28.9 92,783 24.4 -6.1 -5,985

Total 342,306 381,020 11.3 38,714

a See table 2, footnote a.

Source: Chugach planning team with data from U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1999.

Table 3—United States employment change, 1990-97

Employment

Actual growth

1990 1997 in employment

Sectora Level Share Level Share Percent Net

AFF 1,452,400 1.1 1,972,400 1.3 35.8 520,000

Mining 1,042,900 .8 832,500 .5 -20.2 -210,400

Construction 7,264,000 5.3 8,365,700 5.5 15.2 1,101,700

Manufacturing 19,634,600 14.4 19,415,800 12.7 -1.1 -218,800

TPUC 6,560,600 4.8 7,550,200 4.9 15.1 989,600

Wholesale trade 6,651,900 4.9 7,177,800 4.7 7.9 525,900

Retail trade 22,840,700 16.8 26,355,900 17.2 15.4 3,515,200

FIRE 10,695,600 7.9 11,778,300 7.7 10.1 1,082,700

Services 38,662,900 28.4 48,227,800 31.4 24.7 9,564,900

Government 21,232,000 15.6 21,780,000 14.2 2.6 548,000

Total 136,039,590 153,458,397 12.8 17,418,807

a See table 2, footnote a.

Source: Chugach planning team with data from U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1999.
9

retail trade sector (30.0 percent), whereas the

largest absolute increase was in the services sector

(22,431).

Municipality of Anchorage shift-share analysis—Table 5a mirrors tables 3 and 4 for the

municipality of Anchorage. Overall nonfarm

employment in Anchorage increased by 10.3

percent. The mining, FIRE, and government sectors had decreases in employment between 1990

and 1997. The largest percentage and absolute

decrease occurred in the mining sector (-32 percent and -1,890). The largest percentage increase

in employment was in the retail trade sector

(25.3 percent), whereas the largest absolute

increase was in the services sector (9,717).

The first column of table 5b lists the national

growth rates for each sector, whereas the second

column lists the product of the first column and

the 1990 level of employment in Anchorage in

each sector. The third column is the sum of the

second column and the 1990 level of employment

in each sector for Anchorage. In other words, the

third column—Standardized employment for

1997—is the level of employment in each sector

in the municipality of Anchorage that would have

resulted if each sector had grown at the same

rate as its national counterpart since 1990. The

last three columns list the same items using the

state growth rates for each sector. Thus, the last

column shows the level of employment that would

have occurred in each sector in the municipality

of Anchorage if each had grown at the same rate

as its state counterpart since 1990. 

The underlying purpose of shift-share analysis is 

to provide a way to sort out two key differences

between growth in each borough/census area and

the Nation (state) at large. The objective is to

answer two different but interrelated questions.

First, did the difference in employment growth

arise because of initial dissimilarities in the industry composition of employment? Or, second, did

the difference arise because of disparities in the

performance of local industries compared to

their national (state) counterparts? 

The first six columns of table 5c present the

results of a shift-share analysis for the municipality of Anchorage by using national employment in the comparison. Differences between the

extent and composition of local employment

growth in comparison to that of the Nation are

broken down into three hypothetical components:

national growth, industry mix, and regional shift.

Table 5a—Municipality of Anchorage employment change, 1990-97

Employment

Actual growth

1990 1997 in employment

Sectora Level Share Level Share Percent Net

AFF 2,197 1.4 2,549 1.5 16.0 352

Mining 5,914 3.8 4,024 2.3 -32.0 -1,890

Construction 7,877 5.1 9,376 5.5 19.0 1,499

Manufacturing 2,854 1.8 2,889 1.7 1.2 35

TPUC 12,511 8.0 14,724 8.6 17.7 2,213

Wholesale trade 6,026 3.9 6,810 4.0 13.0 784

Retail trade 23,885 15.4 29,932 17.4 25.3 6,047

FIRE 12,449 8.0 11,610 6.8 -6.7 -839

Services 42,069 27.0 51,786 30.2 23.1 9,717

Government 39,754 25.6 37,925 22.1 -4.6 -1,829

Total 155,536 171,625 10.3 16,089

a See table 2, footnote a.

Source: Chugach planning team with data from U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1999.
10

Table 5c—Municipality of Anchorage components of employment growth, 1990-97

National components State of Alaska components

National growth Industry mix Regional shift State growth Industry mix Regional shift

Sectora Percent Net Percent Net Percent Net Percent Net Percent Net Percent Net

AFF 13 281 23 505 -20 -435 11 250 -6 -121 10 223

Mining 13 757 -33 -1,950 -12 -697 11 672 -22 -1,287 -22 -1,275

Construction 13 1,008 2 186 4 304 11 896 12 910 -4 -307

Manufacturing 13 365 -14 -397 2 67 11 324 -15 -421 5 131

TPUC 13 1,601 2 286 3 326 11 1,423 8 988 -2 -198

Wholesale trade 13 771 -5 -295 5 308 11 685 3 152 -1 -53

Retail trade 13 3,057 3 619 10 2,371 11 2,716 19 4,456 -5 -1,125

FIRE 13 1,593 -3 -333 -17 -2,099 11 1,415 -13 -1,604 -5 -651

Services 13 5,385 12 5,023 -2 -691 11 4,783 17 7,048 -5 -2,115

Government 13 5,089 -10 -4,062 -7 -2,855 11 4,520 -17 -6,929 1 580

Total 13 19,909 -.3 -419 -2.2 -3,401 11 17,684 2.1 3193 -3.1 -4,789

a See table 2, footnote a.

Source: Chugach planning team with data from U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1999.

Table 5b—Municipality of Anchorage standardized employment, 1997

National State of Alaska

Standardized Standardized Standardized Standardized

growth employment growth employment

Sectora Percent Net 1997 level Percent Net 1997 level

AFF 36 787 2,984 6 129 2,326

Mining -20 -1,193 4,721 -10 -615 5,299

Construction 15 1,195 9,072 23 1,806 9,683

Manufacturing -1 -32 2,822 -3 -96 2,758

TPUC 15 1,887 14,398 19 2,411 14,922

Wholesale trade 8 476 6,502 14 837 6,863

Retail trade 15 3,676 27,561 30 7,172 31,057

FIRE 10 1,260 13,709 -2 -188 12,261

Services 25 10,408 52,477 28 11,832 53,901

Government 3 1,026 40,780 -6 -2,409 37,345

Total 12.5 19,490 175,026 13.4 20,878 176,414

a See table 2, footnote a.

Source: Chugach planning team with data from U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1999.
11

Each component attempts to account for a separate aspect of the disparity between the overall

growth of employment, locally versus nationally,

between 1990 and 1997.

The first component is national growth. It measures the growth in the municipality of Anchorage

employment that may be attributed to overall

national conditions and trends. If the industry

composition and growth of employment had been

the same locally as nationally, then Anchorage

employment growth from 1990 and 1997 would

have matched the overall national rate of 12.8

percent.

The second component, industry mix, is designed

to answer the question: Did Anchorage employment growth of 10.3 percent fall behind the

overall national rate (12.8 percent) because

employment was more concentrated toward

slower growing industries when compared to the

Nation? That is, was Anchorage employment

growth from 1990 to 1997 slower than national

growth simply because its industry mix was

weighted more heavily toward industries that

experienced slower growth at the national level?

The results are derived by multiplying local

employment in each sector in 1990 by the difference between the national growth rate for each

sector and the total national growth rate (12.8

percent). The industry mix results yield positive

values for those industries that experienced

employment growth above the 12.8-percent

national average, and negative values for those

industries that grew at rates less than 12.8 percent. The most crucial result from the industry

mix calculation is the total derived from summing all industries. The negative values (-0.3

percent and -419) indicate that the industry composition of employment in Anchorage was slightly

tilted toward slower growing industries. Positive

values would have indicated just the opposite.

The third shift-share component, regional shift,

computes the gain (or loss) in local employment

from an industry growing faster (or slower) than

the same industry nationally. When employment

in a local industry grows faster (or declines less)

than its national counterpart, there is a positive

shift in the net share of national employment

captured by that local industry. The total reported

for the regional-shift component is -3,401, showing that municipality of Anchorage employment

grew 2.2 percent slower than national employment because a larger proportion of employment

was in industries that grew slower locally than

nationally.

The last six columns of table 5c show results of

the same type of shift-share analysis by using

Alaska employment in the comparison. Examining

the industry mix total, the positive values of 2.1

percent and 3,193 imply that the industry composition of employment in Anchorage was tilted

toward the industries that were growing faster at

the state level than the overall state growth rate.

The negative value of -4,789 for the regional

shift component total indicates that Anchorage

employment grew 3.1 percent slower than state

employment because a larger share of employment was in local industries that performed worse

than their state counterparts.

Kenai Peninsula Borough shift-share 

analysis—Tables 6a, 6b, and 6c present Kenai

Peninsula Borough employment change between

1990 and 1997, standardized employment in 1997,

and national and state shift-share analysis, respectively. These results were calculated by using the

same analysis procedures used for Anchorage.

Examining table 6a reveals that total nonfarm

employment in the Kenai Peninsula increased by

3,951 jobs or 17.7 percent from 1990 to 1997.

This is faster than both the state and national

growth rates. Every sector except AFF (-18.2 percent) experienced positive employment growth,

with the largest percentage (48.6 percent) and

absolute (1,493) increase occurring in the retail

trade sector. In table 6c, the positive total value

of 204 in the industry mix component of the

national shift-share analysis indicates that Kenai

Peninsula employment grew by an additional 0.9

percent above the national growth effect because

its industry composition of employment was

weighted more heavily toward industries that

were growing faster nationally than the rate of

all industries combined. Similarly, the positive
12

Table 6a—Kenai Peninsula Borough employment change, 1990-97

Employment

Actual growth

1990 1997 in employment

Sectora Level Share Level Share Percent Net

AFF 2,494 11.2 2,040 7.8 -18.2 -454

Mining 1,189 5.3 1,275 4.9 7.2 86

Construction 1,318 5.9 1,637 6.2 24.2 319

Manufacturing 2,182 9.8 2,368 9.0 8.5 186

TPUC 1,340 6.0 1,550 5.9 15.7 210

Wholesale trade 480 2.2 571 2.2 19.0 91

Retail trade 3,069 13.8 4,562 17.4 48.6 1,493

FIRE 1,053 4.7 1,105 4.2 4.9 52

Services 5,293 23.8 6,539 24.9 23.5 1,246

Government 3,867 17.4 4,589 17.5 18.7 722

Total 22,285 26,236 17.7 3,951

a See table 2, footnote a.

Source: Chugach planning team with data from U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1999.

Table 6b—Kenai Peninsula Borough standardized employment, 1997

National State of Alaska

Standardized Standardized Standardized Standardized 

growth employment growth employment

Sectora Percent Net 1997 level Percent Net 1997 level

AFF 36 893 3,387 6 146 2,640

Mining -20 -240 949 -10 -124 1,065

Construction 15 200 1,518 23 302 1,620

Manufacturing -1 -24 2,158 -3 -74 2,108

TPUC 15 202 1,542 19 258 1,598

Wholesale trade 8 38 518 14 67 547

Retail trade 15 472 3,541 30 921 3,990

FIRE 10 107 1,160 -2 -16 1,037

Services 25 1,309 6,602 28 1,489 6,782

Government 3 100 3,967 -6 -234 3,633

Total 13.7 3,057 25,342 12.3 2,736 25,021

a See table 2, footnote a.

Source: Chugach planning team with data from U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1999.
13

national comparison, with the industry mix component adding 202 jobs (0.9 percent) beyond the

state growth effect, and the regional shift component adding another 1,215 jobs (5.5 percent).

Valdez-Cordova Census Area shift-share

analysis—Employment change between 1990

and 1997, standardized employment in 1997,

and shift-share analysis (national and state) for

the Valdez-Cordova Census Area are presented

in tables 7a, 7b, and 7c, respectively. Because

employment levels for the mining and wholesale

trade sectors were not available because of disclosure rules, employment changes in these

sectors could not be calculated

Table 7a shows that the overall growth rate in

nonfarm employment for Valdez-Cordova was 6

percent, which was slower than both the national

and state growth rates. The sector with the largest

percentage decrease in employment was the FIRE

sector (-32.2 percent), whereas the government

sector had the largest absolute decrease (-181

jobs). The services sector had the largest percentage (43 percent) and absolute increase (506

jobs) in employment. 

The national shift-share analysis for the ValdezCordova area shows that the industry mix component added 67 additional jobs. This indicates

that local employment increased by an additional

1 percent (beyond the national growth effect)

because the industrial composition of local

employment was slightly tilted toward sectors

that were growing faster at the national level

than the overall national growth rate. On the

other hand, the regional-shift component resulted

in a decrease of 522 jobs, thereby suggesting that

employment in the Valdez-Cordova area grew

7.8 percent slower because a large proportion 

of local industries performed worse than their

national counterparts. The state shift-share analysis reveals that the Valdez-Cordova employment

growth between 1990 and 1997 of 6 percent fell

short of the 11.4 percent growth in employment

statewide by 5.4 percent. A small amount of this

difference (0.5 percent) was because the local

industry mix of employment was inclined toward

sectors that experienced slower growth at the

state level, whereas most of the deficit (4.9 percent) was due to local industries performing

worse than their state counterparts.

Table 6c—Kenai Peninsula Borough components of employment growth, 1990-97

National components State of Alaska components

National growth Industry mix Regional shift State growth Industry mix Regional shift

Sectora Percent Net Percent Net Percent Net Percent Net Percent Net Percent Net

AFF 13 319 23 574 -54 -1,347 11 284 -6 -137 -24 -600

Mining 13 152 -33 -392 27 326 11 135 -22 -259 18 210

Construction 13 169 2 31 9 119 11 150 12 152 1 17

Manufacturing 13 279 -14 -304 10 210 11 248 -15 -322 12 260

TPUC 13 172 2 31 1 8 11 152 8 106 -4 -48

Wholesale trade 13 61 -5 -23 11 53 11 55 3 12 5 24

Retail trade 13 393 3 79 33 1,021 11 349 19 573 19 572

FIRE 13 135 -3 -28 -5 -55 11 120 -13 -136 6 68

Services 13 678 12 632 -1 -63 11 602 17 887 -5 -243

Government 13 495 -10 -395 16 622 11 440 -17 -674 25 956

Total 13 2,852 .9 204 4 894 11 2,534 .9 202 5.5 1,215

a See table 2, footnote a.

Source: Chugach planning team with data from U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1999.
14

Table 7a—Valdez-Cordova Census Area employment change, 1990-97

Employment

Actual growth

1990 1997 in employment

Sectora Level Share Level Share Percent Net

AFF 745 11.2 642 9 -14 -103

Mining 15 .2

Construction 286 4.3 308 4 8 22

Manufacturing 817 12.2 715 10 -12 -102

TPUC 969 14.5 1,094 16 13 125

Wholesale trade 92 1.4

Retail trade 720 10.8 855 12 19 135

FIRE 230 3.4 156 2 -32 -74

Services 1,189 17.8 1,695 24 43 506

Government 1,614 24.2 1,433 20 -11 -181

Total 6,677 7,076 6 399

a See table 2, footnote a.

Source: Chugach planning team with data from U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1999.

Table 7b—Valdez-Cordova Census Area standardized employment, 1997

National State of Alaska

Standardized Standardized Standardized Standardized

growth employment growth employment

Sectora Percent Net 1997 level Percent Net 1997 level

AFF 36 267 1,012 6 44 789

Mining 0 -3 12 -10 -2 13

Construction 15 43 329 23 66 352

Manufacturing -1 -9 808 -3 -28 789

TPUC 15 146 1,115 19 187 1,156

Wholesale trade 8 7 99 14 13 105

Retail trade 15 111 831 30 216 936

FIRE 10 23 253 -2 -3 227

Services 25 294 1,483 28 334 1,523

Government 3 42 1,656 -6 -98 1,516

Total 13.8 921 7,598 10.9 729 7,406

a See table 2, footnote a.

Source: Chugach planning team with data from U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1999.
15

Summary—In all three areas, the regional shift

component outweighed the industry mix component in both the national and state shift-share

analysis for the 1990-97 period. In other words,

differences between local (borough/census area)

and national or state employment growth rates

were primarily due to local sectors growing

faster or slower than their national or state counterparts rather than the local employment growth

being concentrated in sectors that were growing

fastest or slowest at the national or state levels.

Employment Versus Earnings

Because average wages and salaries differ by

industry, a change in sector employment does

not necessarily translate to a proportional change

in earnings in that sector. In some instances, an

increase in employment in a sector over a given

period is associated with a decrease in total earnings in that sector over the same period, and vice

versa. Figures 3 through 5 present the change in

employment and income for each sector and overall, between 1990 and 1997, for the three borough/

census areas.

Figure 3 shows that overall employment in

Anchorage increased by 16,089 jobs (10.3 percent) and overall earnings increased by about

$216 million (3.7 percent). The services and

retail trade sectors had the largest increases in

employment, whereas the services and TPUC

sectors had the largest increases in earnings.

Employment in the mining sector decreased by

1,890 jobs, and earnings in the mining sector

decreased by about $160 million. Average earnings in the mining sector were actually higher in

1997 than they were in 1990.

Figure 4 shows that overall employment in the

Kenai Peninsula Borough increased by 3,916 jobs

(17.7 percent), but overall earnings decreased by

about $23 million (-3 percent). The largest

increases in employment were in the services and

retail trade sectors, whereas the largest increases

in earnings were in the government and retail

trade sectors. Although employment in the AFF

sector decreased by only 450 jobs, earnings in

this sector decreased by over $53 million. Average

earnings in this sector declined from about

$32,000 in 1990 to about $13,000 in 1997.

Table 7c—Valdez-Cordova Census Area components of employment growth, 1990-97

National components State of Alaska components

National growth Industry mix Regional shift State growth Industry mix Regional shift

Sectora Percent Net Percent Net Percent Net Percent Net Percent Net Percent Net

AFF 13 95 23 171 -50 -370 11 85 -6 -41 -20 -147

Mining 13 2 3 -5 11 2 -22 -3

Construction 13 37 2 7 -7 -21 11 33 12 33 -15 -44

Manufacturing 13 105 -14 -114 -11 -93 11 93 -15 -120 -9 -74

TPUC 13 124 2 22 -2 -21 11 110 8 77 -6 -62

Wholesale trade 13 12 -5 -5 11 10 3 2

Retail trade 13 92 3 19 3 24 11 82 19 134 -11 -81

FIRE 13 29 -3 -6 -42 -97 11 26 -13 -30 -31 -71

Services 13 152 12 142 18 212 11 135 17 199 14 172

Government 13 207 -10 -165 -14 -223 11 184 -17 -281 -5 -83

Total 13 855 1 67 -7.8 -522 11 759 -.5 -30 -4.9 -330

a See table 2, footnote a.

Source: Chugach planning team with data from U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1999.
16

Figure 3—Change in employment and income (in thousands of 1999 dollars) by sector in 

municipality of Anchorage between 1990 and 1997 (Chugach planning team with data 

from U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1999 and Economic Report of the President 2000).

Figure 4—Change in employment and income (in thousands of 1999 dollars) by sector in Kenai

Peninsula Borough between 1990 and 1997 (Chugach planning team with data from U.S. Bureau

of Economic Analysis 1999 and Economic Report of the President 2000).
17

In the Valdez-Cordova Census Area, overall

employment increased by 399 jobs (6 percent),

whereas total earnings decreased by about $26.5

million (-10 percent) (fig. 5). The services sector

drove the overall increase in employment, whereas the AFF sector was the major cause of the overall decrease in earnings. Average earnings in this

sector in the Valdez-Cordova area fell from

$45,500 in 1990 to about $21,250 in 1997. 

Figures 6a though 8b further illustrate important

differences in employment and earnings by sector in the south-central Alaska areas. Figures 6a

and 6b show the relative size of the sectors in

Anchorage in terms of employment and income,

respectively, for 1997. The retail trade and service sectors accounted for 48 percent of total

employment in Anchorage but only 35 percent

of total earnings. On the other hand, the government and mining sectors accounted for just 24

percent of total employment but 33 percent of

total earnings.

Figures 7a and 7b show that a similar relation

existed in 1997 in the Kenai Peninsula Borough.

Here, the services and retail trade sectors comprised 43 percent of total employment, but only

28 percent of total earnings. The government

and mining sectors accounted for just 22 percent

of total employment but 34 percent of total

earnings.

The employment and earnings breakdown for the

Valdez-Cordova Census Area are shown in figures 8a and 8b, respectively. Again, the services

and retail sectors make up a larger percentage of

employment (37 percent) than earnings (19 percent). The TPUC sector accounted for only 15

percent of total employment but 33 percent of

total earnings.

Economic Diversity

Economic diversity is a measure of the distribution of employment across industries in an

area. An area with high economic diversity has

employment in many different types of industries.

Economic diversity is an important element in

Figure 5—Change in employment and income (in thousands of 1999 dollars) by sector in

Valdez-Cordova Census Area between 1990 and 1997 (Chugach planning team with data

from U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1999 and Economic Report of the President 2000).
18

Figure 6a—Municipality of Anchorage employment in

1997 by sector (Chugach planning team with data

from U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1999). 

Figure 7a—Kenai Peninsula Borough employment in

1997 by sector (Chugach planning team with data

from U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1999). 

Figure 6b—Municipality of Anchorage income in 1997

by sector (Chugach planning team with data from U.S.

Bureau of Economic Analysis 1999 and Economic

Report of the President 2000).

Figure 7b—Kenai Peninsula Borough income in 1997

by sector (Chugach planning team with data from U.S.

Bureau of Economic Analysis 1999 and Economic

Report of the President 2000).
19

the economic resiliency of an area, which can be

defined as the ability to adapt to changes in economic activity caused by market or other outside

forces. An area with a majority of employment

in a single industry is vulnerable to declines

within that industry. In contrast, an area with

employment in many industries is less likely to

be severely impacted by a decline in a single

industry.

The Shannon-Weaver diversity index is a statistical method used to measure economic diversity

in an area (Shannon and Weaver 1949). Comparisons among different areas are possible with

this statistic. An area with all employment in a

single industry will have an index of zero. An

area with perfect diversity, an equal amount of

employment in each and every industry category,

will have an index of one. Table 8 displays the

results of the Shannon-Weaver diversity analysis

for the United States, Alaska, and south-central

Alaska. The data used is from the IMPLAN

(Impact Analysis for Planning) input-output model

(Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. 1999). All

part- and full-time employees are counted in the

employment total for each industry category.

The results show that the three borough/census

areas have experienced increasing diversity over

the period, as have the Nation and state. Economic

diversity is often correlated to population density

and transportation systems, especially highways.

There is evidence of this in south-central Alaska

where the Valdez-Cordova Census Area, which

has the smallest population and lacks a connecting road system, has the lowest diversity score.

Resident and Nonresident

Employment

Alaska has a long history of nonresident employment. In 1997, 20.3 percent of all wage and salary

employees in the state were considered nonresidents. The state average earnings per employee

was $22,352 in 1997, with the average for residents at $24,845 and for nonresidents $12,560.

The highest concentrations of nonresidents work

in seasonal, lower paying positions.

Figure 8a—Valdez-Cordova Census Area employment

in 1997 by sector (Chugach planning team with data

from U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1999). 

Figure 8b—Valdez-Cordova Census Area income in

1997 by sector (Chugach planning team with data

from U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1999 and

Economic Report of the President 2000).
20

Statewide, the seafood processing industry has

the highest proportion of nonresidents. In 1997,

nonresidents accounted for 76 percent of the

industry’s employees and took home 69 percent

of industry wages. Sectors related to tourism

activities also have significant nonresident

employment levels. Thirty-one percent of employment in the hotel industry was made up of nonresidents, and they received 21 percent of the

wages in 1997. In the same year, the restaurant

sector employed 30 percent nonresidents, and

they received 18 percent of total wages.

Table 9 shows total nonresident employment and

earnings for the state and for the three borough/

census areas from 1993 to 1997. Residency information is not available by sector for the borough/

census areas. Over the period, nonresident

employment and earnings as a percentage of

total employment and earnings have declined.

The Valdez-Cordova Census Area has the highest

percentage of nonresident employees, which is

probably due to the large amount of seafood processing activity in this area. The Kenai Peninsula

has a higher percentage of nonresident employment than the state average, whereas Anchorage

has a lower percentage than the state average.

Personal Income

Total personal income comprises nonfarm

income, farm income, property income, and

transfer payments. The largest component is nonfarm income, which includes all wages and

Table 8—Shannon-Weaver economic diversity index for the United States, Alaska, and 

south-central Alaskaa

Municipality of Kenai Peninsula Valdez-Cordova

Year United States Alaska Anchorage Borough Census Area

1977 0.66 0.35 0.34 NA NA

1982 .69 .56 .57 0.48 .46

1985 .72 .58 .58 .58 .49

1990 .75 .65 .64 .62 .56

1991 .74 .65 .65 .60 .55

1992 .74 .64 .63 .61 .57

1993 .74 .65 .63 .63 .57

NA = data not available.

a These indices are normalized with respect to the maximum possible index for the 528 industries (standard industry classification

codes). The Shannon-Weaver entropy function (Shannon and Weaver 1949) was used to calculate indices of economic diversity

(Attaran 1986).

Source: USDA Forest Service, Inventory and Monitoring Institute, 2150 Centre St., Fort Collins, CO 80526.

Table 9—Nonresident employment and earnings for Alaska and south-central Alaska, 1993-97

Nonresident employment Nonresident earnings

Community 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

- - - Percentage of total employment - - - - - - Percentage of total employment - - -

Alaska 22.8 26.3 26.4 21.5 20.3 11.8 15.6 15.6 11.9 11.4

Anchorage 18.3 18.8 18.5 NA 16.5 9.7 10.7 10.4 NA 9.8

Kenai Peninsula 32.0 29.9 31.8 NA 26.4 17.1 13.7 14.9 NA 12.2

Valdez-Cordova 45.4 40.1 39.3 NA 38.7 27.9 28.0 22.1 NA 25.3

NA = not available.

Source: Hadland 1999.
salaries that are not directly associated with

farming activity. Farm income includes proprietor’s net farm income, wages and paymentsin-kind for farm labor, and salaries of officers

of corporate farms. In 1997, nonfarm income

was 65.7 percent and farm income was about 1

percent of U.S. total personal income. Property

income includes all rents, dividends, and earnings not associated with employment. The 1997

property income portion of U.S. total personal

income was 17.2 percent. Transfer payments

include retirement and disability payments (social

security; workers compensation; federal, state,

and local government retirement); medical payments (Medicare); income maintenance (aid to

families with dependent children, food stamps,

and supplemental security income); unemployment insurance; and other benefits (veterans

benefits, federal education and training, Bureau

of Indian affairs, and Alaska permanent dividends). Transfer payments accounted for about

16.4 percent of the 1997 U.S. total personal

income. Table 10 summarizes total personal

income in 1997 for the United States, Alaska,

and the study area.

Alaska has a higher percentage of total personal

income in nonfarm income and a lower percentage in property income compared to the United

States as a whole. Transfer payments are similar

in total, but of the five subcategories, Alaska

receives a greater proportion in the “other benefits” category. This includes payment of the permanent fund dividend, which is received by all

residents of Alaska.

The composition of total personal income for

1979 to 1997 for the United States, Alaska, and

the three borough/census areas are shown in figures 9a through 9e. The three categories shown

are earnings (includes farm and nonfarm income),

property income, and transfer payments. In all

five areas, earnings have decreased, whereas

property income and transfer payments have

increased in percentage terms over the period.

Much of the shift in the share of income from

earnings to transfer payments is probably due to

the aging of the population.

Figure 10 displays the 1979-97 trends in total

personal income as an index, adjusted for inflation, for examining all areas in terms of growth

over time rather than with respect to the absolute

magnitude of total figures. Again, 1979 is used

as the index year.

Personal income in Alaska fluctuated more than

the fairly steady growth in U.S. personal income.

A peak occurred in the mid-1980s when the state

government spent oil revenues on infrastructure

throughout Alaska. When oil prices dropped in

the late 1980s, state personal income fell as

well. Recovering in the early 1990s, Alaska’s

Table 10—Components of total personal income for the United States, Alaska, and south-central Alaska,

1997

United South-central Municipality Kenai ValdezIncome component States Alaska Alaska of Anchorage Peninsula Cordova

Percent

Nonfarm income 65.7 67.9 69.5 70.2 65.0 67.6

Farm income .7 .1 .0 .0 .01 .0

Property income 17.2 12.8 13.2 13.1 13.3 13.7

Transfer payments: 16.4 19.3 17.3 16.6 21.8 18.7

Retirement and disability 7.8 6.9 6.7 6.6 7.3 7.4

Medical payments 5.6 3.7 3.1 3.0 4.0 2.2

Income maintenance 1.4 1.6 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.0

Unemployment insurance .3 .7 .6 .3 1.8 2.1

Other benefit payments 1.2 6.5 5.7 5.5 7.3 6.0

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1999.

21
22

Figure 9a—Composition of total

personal income in the United

States, 1979-97 (Chugach planning team with data from U.S.

Bureau of Economic Analysis

1999, Economic Report of the

President 2000).

Figure 9b—Composition of total

personal income in Alaska, 1979-

97 (Chugach planning team with

data from U.S. Bureau of Economic

Analysis 1999, Economic Report

of the President 2000).

Figure 9c—Composition of total

personal income in municipality of

Anchorage, 1979-97 (Chugach

planning team with data from U.S.

Bureau of Economic Analysis 1999,

Economic Report of the President

2000).
23

Figure 10—Total personal income (1999 dollars) in the United States, Alaska, and south-central Alaska, 1979-97, indexed to 1979. (Chugach planning team with data from U.S. Bureau of

Economic Analysis 1999, Economic Report of the President 2000).

Figure 9d—Composition of total 

personal income in Kenai Peninsula

Borough, 1979-97 (Chugach planning team with data from U.S.

Bureau of Economic Analysis 1999,

Economic Report of the President

2000). 

Figure 9e—Composition of total

personal income in Valdez-Cordova

Census Area, 1979-97 (Chugach

planning team with data from U.S.

Bureau of Economic Analysis 1999,

Economic Report of the President

2000).
24

total personal income has seen fairly stable

growth into the present. Personal incomes in the

Anchorage and Kenai Peninsula Borough areas

have roughly followed the same trends as the

state, although personal income has grown proportionately faster in the Kenai Peninsula

Borough.

The Valdez-Cordova Census Area is not in line

with the other areas or with state trends. The

area shows more volatility in personal income

through the early 1990s with a 1989 spike associated with cleanup efforts related to the ExxonValdez oil spill. Personal income increased after

the spill but has declined again in recent years.

This area is linked to the harvesting and manufacturing of wood products, fishing, and mining.

Income trends in the area may more closely follow trends in these industries rather than state

income trends.

Per capita personal income is a measure that

includes trends in population and total personal

income. This measure is often used as an indicator of socioeconomic well-being in an area. In

the past, people from the lower 48 states have

been enticed to come and work in Alaska by the

promise of higher wages and a higher standard

of living. Over the years, the difference between

average incomes in the United States and income

in Alaska has decreased, although some areas

maintain a larger gap. Figure 11 displays the

trends in per capita income for the United States,

Alaska, and south-central Alaska from 1979 to

1997. These values are adjusted for inflation, so

the values of each year are comparable in 1999

dollars. It is easy to see the closing gap between

Alaska per capita income and U.S. per capita

income. The United States displays an increasing

trend, whereas Alaska fluctuates more with overall economic trends. More recently, the per capita

incomes at the state level and in Anchorage have

remained fairly stable, whereas Valdez-Cordova

and the Kenai Peninsula areas have had slightly

declining per capita income levels. 

Table 11 displays 1997 per capita income statistics for the United States, Alaska, and south-central Alaska. The per capita income in the Kenai

Peninsula was only 82 percent of the U.S. average, whereas the per capita income in the municipality of Anchorage was 18 percent higher than

the U.S average. Without cost of living estimates,

it is difficult to determine whether Alaskans are

relatively better off than the average U.S. citizen.

Figure 11—Per capita personal income (1999 dollars) in the United States, Alaska, and south-central

Alaska, 1979-97 (Chugach planning team with data from U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1999,

Economic Report of the President 2000).
25

Table 11—1997 per capita income statistics for the United States, Alaska, and south-central Alaska

United Municipality Kenai ValdezVariable States Alaska of Anchorage Peninsula Cordova

Per capita personal income $25,288 $24,969 $29,765 $23,143 $26,743

Percentage of U.S. per capita 

income 100 99 118 82 106

Percentage of Alaska per capita 

income -- 100 119 93 107

Annual average growth 

in per capita income, 1987-97 4.7 3.3 3.5 3.6 3.4

Annual average growth 

in per capita income, 1996-97 4.7 2.7 3.7 1.4 3.4

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1999, Economic Report of the President 2000.

Regional Summary

Figures 12a through 12e present a summary look

at population, employment, total personal income,

and per capita personal income in the United

States, Alaska, and south-central Alaska from

1979 to 1997. Again, 1979 is used as the index

year, and the income values have been converted

to 1999 dollars. Figure 12a shows that in the

United States, since 1984, employment has been

increasing at the fastest rate, followed by total

personal and per capita incomes, which have been

increasing at about the same rate. Population has

been increasing at the slowest rate and has grown

at about the same rate throughout the period.

Figure 12b shows that in Alaska, employment,

total personal income, and population increased

fairly rapidly until the recession of the mid to

late 1980s when these indicators decreased or

leveled off. All three indicators, however, following this recessionary period, have increased.

Per capita income in Alaska began to decrease in

1983, reaching a low in 1988 before increasing

slightly and then remaining fairly constant

through 1997.

As shown in figure 12c, Anchorage has followed

the same general trends as the state with respect

to the first three indicators, although employment and total personal income have increased

relatively more than population. The dips in

per capita income were more pronounced in

Anchorage relative to the state as a whole. 

Figure 12d shows that in the Kenai Peninsula

Borough, the first three indicators were increasing at roughly the same rate until the recession

of the mid to late 1980s. Since 1989, population

and total personal income have grown at roughly

the same rate whereas employment is growing at

a slower rate. This may be indicative of a growing number of retirees in the area. Per capita

income has followed a slightly decreasing trend

in the 1990s.

Figure 12e reveals that the Valdez-Cordova

Census Area exhibited the most volatility in the

indicators up until 1990. Total personal income,

employment, and per capita personal income all

spiked with the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill cleanup efforts. Since 1990, total personal income and

employment have experienced slight decreases

and increases but have remained above their prespill levels. Per capita income also has vacillated

in the 1990s but, except for 1992, has remained

below its pre-spill level. Since 1988, population

has increased at a fairly slow rate. The higher variability in the employment and personal income

indicators for the Valdez-Cordova Census Area,

relative to the other areas, is perhaps a result of

the lower economic diversity and larger relative

significance of resource-dependent sectors in its

economic structure. 

The dissimilarities between the three south-central Alaska areas, as shown in these summary

figures and the accompanying discussion, indicate that the three areas are likely to be impacted
26

Figure 12a—Population, employment, and total and per capita personal income (1999 dollars) for the

United States, 1979-97, indexed to

1979 (Chugach planning team with

data from U.S. Bureau of Economic

Analysis 1999, Economic Report of

the President 2000).

Figure 12b—Population, employment, and total and per capita personal income (1999 dollars) for

Alaska, 1979-97, indexed to 1979

(Chugach planning team with data

from U.S. Bureau of Economic

Analysis 1999, Economic Report of

the President 2000).

Figure 12c—Population, employment, and total and per capita personal income (1999 dollars) for the

municipality of Anchorage, 1979-97,

indexed to 1979 (Chugach planning

team with data from U.S. Bureau of

Economic Analysis 1999, Economic

Report of the President 2000).
27

and respond to forest management changes in

different ways and to different degrees.

Growth in both population and employment opportunities are higher in the region than in much of

the rest of the country. The largest employment

increases are in the retail trade and services sector. Although employment has increased, real per

capita incomes have declined toward the national

average because many of the new jobs are seasonal or pay lower wages than other year-round

opportunities. If regional economic activity continues to follow the current patterns of change,

the region will likely more closely resemble the

United States in the future. This could mean

further reduction of per capita income, but

increased economic diversification. 

Table 12 shows projected annual growth rates for

Alaska and the three borough/census areas for

population and selected economic indicators for

the next 10 years. These are the base-case projections from Goldsmith (1998, 1999) and are

derived from a set of assumptions regarding the

most likely future levels of basic industry activity

within the state, national variables, and state

fiscal policy variables.

The Valdez-Cordova area has the lowest projected

annual growth rate for population, employment,

and total personal income as well as the largest

projected negative annual growth rate for per capita

income.Of the three areas, the Kenai Peninsula

Borough has the largest projected annual growth

rate for population and employment, whereas

Anchorage has the largest projected annual growth

rate for total personal income. In relative terms,

Figure 12d—Population, employment, and total and per capita personal income (1999 dollars) for

the Kenai Peninsula Borough,

1979-97, indexed to 1979

(Chugach planning team with data

from U.S. Bureau of Economic

Analysis 1999, Economic Report of

the President 2000).

Figure 12e—Population, employment, and total and per capita personal income (1999 dollars) for the

Valdez-Cordova Census Area,

1979-97, indexed to 1979 (Chugach

planning team with data from U.S.

Bureau of Economic Analysis 1999,

Economic Report of the President

2000).
28

the projected employment growth rates are

similar to those for the 1990-97 period except

that the projected Kenai Peninsula rate is lower

than that projected for the state. If the shiftshare patterns of 1990 through 1997 continue,

this would imply that in all three borough/census

areas, most sectors will experience slower

employment growth locally than at the state

level.

This regional overview has provided a general

analysis of the economic and social structure of

both the south-central Alaska region and the

individual borough/census areas. At this stage,

however, it is premature to analyze the manners

or degree to which forest resources and management policies influence or are influenced by these

structures. To do this, we must first take a closer

look at both the resources and uses of the CNF

and the characteristics of the industries and communities that use or enjoy these resources. In

section 2, we will provide more detailed descriptions of industries that use forest-related resources

as inputs.

Section 2: Forest-ResourceRelated Industries

This section concentrates on four industries:

commercial fishing and processing, tourism and

recreation, wood products, and minerals (including oil and gas) that use forest resources in production. These industries are directly dependent

on forest-related resources and are the most

likely to be impacted (positively or negatively)

by CNF management. These industries require

different levels of infrastructure development

and amounts of forest-related resources in their

production processes. The CNF provides habitat

for salmon that require fresh water for the reproductive part of their life cycle. The CNF also provides settings and opportunities for tourism and

recreation activities. Harvesting of trees from the

CNF provides resources used in wood production

activities. Extraction of mineral resources from

the CNF is regulated by specific legislation and

differs by surface and subsurface ownerships.

These industry activities occur inside and outside the CNF, and in many cases, the CNF is not

the only source of the resource.

Data for the following analysis are from IMPLAN

Pro ZIP Code models and data (Minnesota

IMPLAN Group, Inc. 1999). These data allow

for the separation of communities and include

detailed information not available from other

state or federal data sources. The tradeoff is that

the latest data available are for 1996. Other

sources of current data are available and are used

elsewhere in this assessment. The data in these

sources, however, are at a larger scale, include

communities not in the study area, and are not

always available for specific sectors. IMPLAN

allows communities to be combined so the model

area can be tailored specifically to the study area.

Table 12—Population, employment, and income projections for Alaska and south-central 

Alaska (annual average growth rate, 2000-2010)

Kenai ValdezMunicipality Peninsula Cordova

Variable Alaska of Anchorage Borough Census Area

Percent

Population 1.46 1.33 1.48 1.30

Wage and salary employment 1.14 .99 1.08 .90

Total personal income 1.42 1.27 1.22 .99

Real per capita personal income 

(1995 dollars) NA -.06 -.25 -.32

NA = not available.

Source: Alaska data is from Goldsmith 1999; south-central Alaska data is from Goldsmith 1998.
29

For this analysis, the study area is divided 

into three smaller areas for separate analysis:

Anchorage, Kenai-Soldotna (including Sterling),

and communities within or near the CNF boundary (Chenega Bay, Cooper Landing, Cordova,

Girdwood, Hope, Moose Pass, Seward, Tatitlek,

Valdez, and Whittier). These three groupings

were chosen to prevent the larger areas of

Anchorage and Kenai-Soldotna from overshadowing employment conditions in the smaller

communities and to highlight differences in

employment in the three areas. 

Figures 13, 14, and 15 display percentage of total

employment by sector with industries dependent

on forest resources summarized as a separate

“forest-related” category. The forest-related category is further broken out by forest-resourcerelated sectors shown in the smaller charts. The

forest-related category includes commercial fishing (commercial fishing and seafood processing),

wood products (logging and sawmills), minerals

other than gas and oil, and the visitor industry.

The visitor industry was constructed based on a

1991 McDowell Group survey of Alaska businesses involved in providing goods and services

to visitors (McDowell Group 1999a). This category includes both tourists and business travelers but does not include resident recreation.

McDowell’s survey indicates that about 73 percent of the total visitor industry is associated

with tourism. This analysis highlights those

industries that use forest-related resources in

their production process, but does not isolate the

proportion of the forest-related resource used by

each industry that comes specifically from the

CNF. 

Anchorage has both the largest population base

and the largest workforce in Alaska. As displayed in figure 13, in 1996, 6 percent of total

employment came from industries that use forestrelated resources. Of this forest-resource-related

employment, most (5.4 percent of total employment) was within the visitor industry. Anchorage

serves as a hub for tourism activity with extensive retail, service, and transportation businesses,

including an international airport. Little of

Anchorage’s workforce was employed in manufacturing or production activities that use forestrelated resources as there was less than one

percent employment in both the wood products

and commercial fishing industries. Given the

Figure 13—Estimated composition of employment by sector for Anchorage in 1996 (Chugach planning team with

data from Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. 1999, McDowell Group 1991).
30

small proportion of total employment in industries that use forest-related resources, it is

unlikely that CNF management activities will

affect the overall level of economic activity in

Anchorage.

The Kenai-Soldotna area also has a fairly large

population base and serves as an economic 

hub to the smaller communities on the Kenai

Peninsula. Figure 14 shows that this area had a

larger proportion (9.4 percent) of total employment in forest-resource-related industries than

Anchorage. An estimated 5.4 percent of total

employment was in the visitor industry, and 3.8

percent was estimated in the commercial fishing industry. These findings highlight both the

world-class sport fishing opportunities and the

well-established commercial salmon fishing fleet

and seafood processing infrastructure in the area.

This area is similar to Anchorage in that changes

in CNF management would likely have a limited

impact on overall economic activity. 

The remaining communities within the study area

are smaller and, as a group, have significantly

more employment in forest-resource-related

sectors when compared to the Anchorage and

Kenai-Soldotna areas. Figure 15 shows that 

38.3 percent of total employment was in forestresource-related industries. Employment in the

commercial fishing industry accounted for over

half the forest-resource-related employment. The

communities of Cordova and Seward have large

fishing fleets and several seafood processing

plants. In the smaller, inland communities of

Hope, Girdwood, Moose Pass, and Cooper

Landing, residents also are involved in the commercial fishing industry. Although the visitor

industry does not account for the largest share of

employment in forest-resource-related industries,

the percentage of total employment in the visitor

industry is actually larger in this group of communities than it was in the Anchorage and KenaiSoldotna areas. Several communities have large

tourist attractions, such as the Alyeska ski resort

in Girdwood, the Sealife Center in Seward, and

sport fishing opportunities near Cooper Landing.

Wood products employment is a small proportion of the forest-resource-related employment.

Most of this employment is in logging and is primarily associated with harvests from Native corporation lands and other private lands.

Figure 14—Estimated composition of employment by sector for Kenai-Soldotna in 1996 (Chugach planning team

with data from Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. 1999, McDowell Group 1991).
31

With the forest-resource-related industries considered in the context of the larger south-central

Alaska economy, the role that the CNF plays in

providing employment opportunities is relatively

small. Many people in the smaller and more isolated communities, however, are employed in

forest-resource-related industries. For the visitor

industry, the USDA Forest Service may not be

directly involved in providing employment opportunities, but it is a significant provider of resources

such as scenery, recreation settings, and fish and

wildlife habitat. 

In the following sections, the forest-resourcerelated industries are discussed in detail by using

available information. Each industry is described

in terms of its history, trends, and current situation. Comparisons are made between the state

and the three regional areas where appropriate.

Elements of resource supply and demand are

discussed in general and with respect to the

resources of the CNF. Estimates of 1996 direct

employment, direct income, and average income

are provided for each forest-resource-related

industry and the sectors in that industry for each

of the three areas. 

Commercial Fishing and Seafood

Processing

The commercial fishery of south-central Alaska

is an integral part of the region’s economic activity. Existing commercial fisheries include five

species of Pacific salmon, king crab, tanner crab,

Dungeness crab, shrimp, herring, clams, halibut,

and other bottom fish. The major emphasis of

this assessment is given to commercial salmon

fishing because it comprises most of south-central Alaska’s commercial fishing industry and

because this fishery is most influenced by forest

land use. Salmon inhabit the fresh water of Prince

William Sound streams and lakes at various

times during their life cycle. Several species of

wildlife and fish depend on the annual return of

salmon and on the juvenile salmon produced in

Prince William Sound streams and lakes.

The salmon industry in Alaska is heavily regulated by the state. The length of boats, nets, seasons, take, entry permits, and locations are all

regulated for different fisheries. The permit system is designed to keep the number of people

involved in commercial salmon harvesting at a

Figure 15—Estimated composition of employment by sector for communities within or adjacent to the Chugach

National Forest boundary in 1996 (Chugach planning team with data from Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. 1999,

McDowell Group 1991).
32

stable level, with employment and revenue distributed among a consistent number of operators.

The state’s involvement is to ensure adequate

escapement for future salmon runs, allow sport

fishery and subsistence users access to fish, and

protect other resources. Several international

agreements also come into play in determining

allowable Alaska harvest levels. Within the confines of state regulations and permits, commercial

salmon fishers continuously look for technological advancements and increased efficiency

to decrease costs and increase pounds of fish per

trip to remain competitive in the global salmon

market.

Most salmon fishing in Alaska is made up of

drift gill nets, set gill nets, and purse seiners.

Most drift gill net and set gill net operators are

small, employing one or two persons per permit,

whereas purse seiners are larger with an average

crew size of four to five persons per permit

(McDowell Group 1989). Drift gill net and set

gill net operators held about 80 percent of Alaska

permits fished in 1997. The purse seiners, while

holding only 10 percent of the permits fished in

Alaska in 1997, landed about 52 percent of the

total salmon volume in the state (McDowell

Group 1999b). 

The state does not allow finfish farming in 

state-managed waters. All salmon caught and

processed in Alaska are considered wild—including the hatchery fish once they are released into

the open ocean. Fish farming in other coastal states

and in other countries has steadily increased since

the early 1990s. The unpredictable year-to-year

fluctuation in wild stocks is a permanent source of

market instability, which increases the risk associated with investments in processing and marketing. Every decline in wild stocks creates an

opportunity for farmed-fish operators to increase

their market share.

Farmed fish are available year-round, can be

transported fresh, have a predictable and reliable

supply, and are generally cheaper than Alaska

wild salmon (Hutchison 1999b). As more fish

farms come on line and supply increases, prices

will continue to drop, creating difficult times for

Alaska salmon harvesters and processors. The

demand for farmed salmon is increasing. Most

people who eat salmon prefer the farmed salmon

because of its lighter taste compared to wild

salmon (Hutchison 1999c). People also seem to

prefer farmed salmon because of its controlled

sources of food, water, and living conditions as

well as its cheaper prices (Hutchison 1999c).

There is also an increase in public disapproval of

commercial fishing because of over fishing, bycatch waste, ecological damage, endangered wild

salmon and the competition with subsistence and

sport fishing (Hutchison 1999a, 1999d, 1999e,

1999f, 1999g, 1999h, 1999i). The future of

Alaska wild salmon may depend on finding a

niche market where buyers are brand loyal and

willing to pay more for wild salmon.

The wild salmon harvest from Alaska is about 90 

percent of the total wild harvest in the United

States, and about 42 percent of the world’s wild

salmon supply. However, Alaska’s share of total

world salmon supply, including farmed fish,

declined 18 percent between 1996 and 1998,

while the total tons of salmon harvested

increased by 25 percent. Farmed fish are entering the salmon market and having significant

impacts. Between 1985 and 1997, the market

share of farmed fish increased from 7 to 46 percent (Salmon Market Information Service 1998).

The total Alaska commercial harvest of the

five salmon species (chinook, coho, sockeye,

pink, and chum) and prices paid from 1980 to

1997 are displayed in figure 16. Trends in prices

are similar between species with all showing a

general decline since 1992. The high prices in

1988 were due to a combination of lower harvests and the favorable exchange rate of the

Japanese yen. After 1992, prices for all salmon

species harvested in Alaska declined owing to

both the global increase in farmed fish and the

downturn in the Asian market. 

The commercial fishery numbers included here 

at south-central Alaska are from only the Alaska

Department of Fish and Game commercial fishing management areas of Prince William Sound

because the CNF borders this area. Resurrection
33

Bay and Cook Inlet also are bordered by the CNF

but are not included because most of the freshwater habitat is managed by land ownerships other

than the Forest Service.

Several communities in the study area have a lot 

of employment in salmon harvesting and processing activities. Cordova has a large commercial

fishing fleet, seafood-processing facilities, and

serves as the headquarters for the Prince William

Sound aquaculture operation. In Cordova, half of

all households had someone working in commercial fishing, processing, or hatcheries in 1998

(Alaska Department of Labor 1998). KenaiSoldotna, Valdez, Whittier, and Seward also

have commercial fleets and seafood processing

facilities. There are several large processing

facilities and hatchery operations in Anchorage.

Chenega Bay and Tatitlek do not have processing

facilities. However, some people in these villages

have commercial fishing permits, and there is

some oyster farming activity. 

In table 13, the 1997 number of commercial

salmon fishing permit holders for each of the

study area communities is displayed in terms of

both the absolute number of permit holders and

as a percentage of community population. Cordova

had the largest percentage of its population holding permits. Anchorage had the largest number

of permit holders but is tied with Sterling for

having the lowest number of permits per capita. 

There are three major types of commercial

salmon permits used in Prince William Sound:

purse seine, drift gill net, and set gill net. Table

14 summarizes the high and low prices and permits fished by type. Alaska residents own most

of the permits; however, the number of Alaska

residents who actually use their permits in any

given year is not tracked. Commercial fishing is

a volatile industry as operators move in or out 

of the industry depending on each year’s prices,

catch, regulations, and other industry conditions.

The number of purse seine permits fished is

declining. In 1999, there were 37 people with

intent to transfer or sell their permits; 19 of

those people were from study area communities.

Statewide, gillnetting had the most permits issued.

Of the 56 people in south-central Alaska who

wanted to transfer their permits, 30 were from

study area communities. Set gill netting shows

the largest percentage variation in the number

of permits fished. The 1989 Exxon-Valdez oil

spill shut the fishery down for that year, and in

the late 1970s, there were several years with

few permits active. Currently there are four

Figure 16—Alaska commercial salmon harvest and average price (1999 dollars) by species, 1980-97

(South-central Alaska numbers exclude Resurrection Bay and Cook Inlet because the related freshwater habitat is not managed by the Forest Service.) (Chugach planning team with data from Salmon

Market Information Service 1999a,1999b; Economic Report of the President 2000).
people with intent to transfer their set gill net

permits, and three of those are from study area

communities (Alaska Commercial Fisheries

Entry Commission 1999c).

Figure 17 displays an estimate of employment

based on permit type and average crew employment and an income per employee figure based

on yearly salmon revenues. Despite the permit

system, employment has been less stable and

income has been low since 1989. This perhaps is

due to the 1989 Exxon-Valdez oil spill. The area

is still in recovery 10 years later, and debate continues as to the total impact of the event on the

fisheries in Prince William Sound. Fish harvests

have been lower in recent years throughout Alaska.

(Hutchison 1999c). This may be attributable to

many factors including the 20-year cycle of ocean

currents affecting salmon returns, farmed fish

affecting supply, and the recent collapse of the

Asian market affecting demand. Whatever the

reasons, commercial salmon fishing in southcentral Alaska is not as strong today as in the

past. This trend will have the most impact in

those communities in which salmon harvesting

and seafood processing is a large contributor to

economic activity.

Table 13—Commercial salmon fishing permits by community, 1997

No. of people Percentage of

Community holding permits 1997 population

Municipality of Anchorage 902 0.35

Kenai Peninsula:

Cooper Landing 4 1.48

Hope 1 .66

Kenai 223 2.39

Moose Pass 4 3.45

Seward 81 2.70

Soldotna 170 4.15

Sterling 20 .35

Prince William Sound:

Chenega Bay 5 5.49

Cordovaa 393 15.93

Tatitlek 3 3.03

Valdez 49 1.17

Whittier 14 4.84

a Eyak was annexed into Cordova in 1993.

Source: Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission 1999b.

Table 14—Prince William Sound commercial salmon permit statistics, 1977-97

Most Least 1997

Prince William Total Alaska permits permits High average Low average permit

Sound permits permits resident fished fished permit price permit price price

Permits Percent - - - - Permits (year) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1999 dollars - - - - - - - - - - -

Purse seine 269 71 268 (1981) 90 (1996) 290,227 (1989) 35,825 (1996) 37,292

Drift gillnet 541 74 533 (1985) 393 (1980) 193,907 (1990) 24,254 (1977) 69,558

Set gillnet 30 90 30 (1992-3) 2 (1978) 45,775 (1982) 31,427 (1984) NA

NA = not available. Data for set net permits is not available for all years due to the small number of people involved.

Source: Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission 1999a, Economic Report of the President 2000.

34
35

Table 15 highlights employment and income differences between the three community groups in

the study area in 1996. The communities within

or near the CNF boundary had more employment

in this industry than the other two areas. The

average commercial fishing income in the three

areas was roughly equivalent. The communities

within or near the CNF boundary had the highest

seafood processing average income. The differences in average income highlight the differences between commercial fishing (average of

boat owners and crew combined) and seafood

processing. It is important to note that commercial fishing income depends heavily on market

prices and the volume of fish caught. The 1996

figures reflect a good fishing year. 

Figure 17—Employment and average income estimates (1999 dollars) for the Prince William Sound salmon

industry, 1977-97 (Chugach planning team with data from McDowell Group 1989, Alaska Commercial

Fisheries Entry Commission 1999a, Economic Report of the President 2000). 

Table 15—Employment and income of commercial fishing and seafood 

processing in the study area groups, 1996

1996 direct 1996 direct Average

Industry employment income income

No. of jobs - - - - -1999 dollars - - - - -

Anchorage area:

Commercial fishing 19 802,146 42,218

Seafood processing 77 1,642,937 21,337

Kenai-Soldotna area:

Commercial fishing 27 1,087,284 40,270

Seafood processing 218 5,830,179 26,744

Chugach communities:

Commercial fishing 507 20,791,034 41,008

Seafood processing 1,071 31,266,974 29,194

Source: Chugach planning team with data from Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. 1999.
36

The commercial fishing and seafood processing

sectors have some of the highest percentages of

nonresident workers of all industries in the state.

In 1997, the commercial fishing workforce was

47.1 percent nonresident, who were paid 34.8

percent of the total wages in the sector. The seafood-processing sector had an even higher percentage of nonresidents, 75.1 percent, in 1997.

These workers received 64.9 percent of the wages

(Hadland 1998). Seafood processing also had one

of the lowest percentages of 1996 nonresident

workers who became residents in 1997 (Hadland

1999). In general, nonresident seasonal work

decreases the stimulus to local area economic

activity as much of the income flows out of the

area.

Currently, the major influences on commercial

fishing in Prince William Sound are from factors

other than Forest Service management. These

factors include ocean currents, international fisheries, farmed salmon trends, state management

of hatchery and finfish operations, and global

demand for and supply of salmon. Although the

outcome of these situations will affect the study

communities, the USDA Forest Service may

only be indirectly involved. 

Although the USDA Forest Service is not

directly involved in management of commercial

fishing, it does manage much of the upland habitat for salmon. Salmon streams in the CNF are

currently considered at maximum productivity

with little possibility of improving natural production. Riparian and aquatic habitats are protected

in all activities that have potential to affect fish

habitat through the application of Forest Service

Region 10 (the Alaska Region) aquatic ecosystem protection standards and best management

practices. Forest processes such as bark beetle

kill, windthrow, landslide, or culvert failure may

significantly alter fish habitat in the areas in

which they occur. Although such localized impacts

would not affect all upland habitats at once, the

potential exists for long-term cumulative impacts

to the fisheries.

Tourism and Recreation

Throughout this analysis, tourism refers to visitors from outside the state of Alaska, and recreation refers to residents of Alaska engaging in

outdoor recreation pursuits. Recreation is often

not considered as an economic impact to local

areas because it is considered a circulation of

local money rather than an inflow of outside

money. Residents who decide to buy groceries

for a picnic would probably have spent that

money on local food anyway, so the opportunity to recreate is not likely to generate additional economic activity. Tourism is considered

an export of local goods and services to visitors

who bring outside money into the local area.

People who decide to visit Alaska from elsewhere bring the money they would have spent

at home or on other vacation opportunities to

Alaska. Thus, tourism activity generates additional economic activity in the local area. 

Owing to the large and increasing amount and

types of recreation and tourism activities taking

place in and around the CNF, as well as their

economic and social importance to communities

in the area, a separate set of assessments was

conducted to focus specifically on these activities. The Pacific Northwest Research Station in

support of the CNF land management planning

effort commissioned two studies examining

recreation and tourism. The first, Colt and others

(2002), uses a sectoral approach to examine patterns and trends in recreation and tourism in

south-central Alaska. The second, Bowker (2001),

uses a formal, model-based approach to analyze

recreation demand in Alaska, by activity. These

studies are summarized and synthesized in Brooks

and Haynes (2001) who also provide a comprehensive look at the recreation and tourism industry in south-central Alaska as well as the current

and potential role of the CNF in this industry.

Although some of the major findings of these

assessments are incorporated in this section,

interested readers are referred to the original

documents for an indepth analysis of the industry

and associated implications for CNF management activities.
37

The industry associated with serving visitors and

residents is not easily identified. It is a mix of

many industries. The research completed by the

McDowell Group (McDowell Group 1991) is

used here as a consistent definition of the visitor

industry and includes the following: local and

interurban transit, water and air transportation,

transportation services, general retail, clothing

stores, food stores, eating and drinking places,

service stations, hotels and other lodging, personal services, auto repair, car rentals, and

amusement and recreation services. 

In the last 8 years, the McDowell Group (1999a)

reports an average annual growth of about 5 percent in the visitor industry. About 80 percent of

visitors move through Alaska in the summer (May

through September). Southeast and south-central

Alaska have the highest levels of visitors owing

to cruise ship activities. South-central Alaska,

which includes Anchorage, has the highest percentage of visitors in business travel. Along with

the increase in tourism, the population of Alaska

has increased. Population has increased at an

average annual rate of 1.5 percent since 1990

(Alaska Department of Labor, Research and

Analysis 1999a). Some of the largest increases

are in south-central Alaska’s Kenai Peninsula

Borough and the municipality of Anchorage.

The growing local population increases the

number of residents looking for recreation

opportunities on the CNF. As reported in Colt

and others (2002), resident recreational use of

the CNF is potentially four times that of tourist

use.

According to the McDowell report (McDowell

Group, 1999a), the 1998 visitor industry generated about 20,300 direct jobs and about $390

million in earnings in Alaska. The authors calculated that 8 percent of all state employment and

5 percent of total state earnings were directly

related to visitor activities. Just over 50 percent

of visitor-related jobs, about 10,800, were based

in south-central Alaska (municipality of

Anchorage, Mat-Su Borough, Kenai Peninsula

Borough, and Valdez-Cordova Census Area). 

The CNF contributes to south-central Alaska

recreation and tourism activities by providing

resources and opportunities for residents and

visitors. The forest contributes to local quality

of life by providing communities with recreation

opportunities in their “backyards.” Tourism

opportunities also are provided through scenery

management, access to resources and facilities,

and permitted commercial uses. The CNF land

base is inventoried through the recreation opportunity spectrum into nine general types of settings available to people engaging in outdoor

experiences. For details on this inventory and the

types of settings, see Colt and others (2002).

Based on the management of this supply of settings, future opportunities will change. As activities and technology change, people may demand

different settings from the CNF. For example,

the move from nonmotorized access to motorized

activities including snow machines, ATVs, and

helicopter use. Allowing these activities could

change current settings and possibly displace

current nonmotorized uses to other areas in the

CNF. The visitor industry is likely to take advantage of these different settings by providing

visitors and residents with various outdoor

opportunities. Communities often benefit economically from jobs and increased money flowing through the local economy from visitor

industry use of the CNF. However, the same

community also may have their local quality

of life compromised in terms of crowding, displacement, declined success in subsistence activities, and inflated prices.

By staying abreast of local, regional, and

national changes in demographics, economic

conditions, tastes and preferences, and technologies, the Forest Service can tailor its land management strategies to account for user demand.

A different mix of resource opportunities can be

offered through the building of facilities, management of access, hardening sites to accommodate

increasing use, or dispersing people in areas to

prevent resource damage, crowding, or displacement of current users. Tourism and recreation

interests such as access, scenery, and solitude

need to be balanced with management of wildlife
38

Table 16—Employment and income of recreation- and tourism-related sectors in the study 

area groups, 1996 

Area and 1996 Recreation—tourism

industry direct employmenta Average sector incomeb

No. of jobs 1999 dollars

Anchorage area:

Local transport 780 18,187

Water transport 286 53,192

Air transport 1,470 55,563

Transport services 343 26,024

General merchandise 245 22,102

Clothing stores 40 16,683

Food stores 82 28,103

Eating and drinking 1,690 17,679

Service stations 200 33,703

Miscellaneous retail 431 15,879

Hotels—lodging 1,224 19,675

Personal services 9 22,436

Auto repair and car rental 78 20,868

Recreation services 1,763 14,174

Kenai-Soldotna area:

Local transport 20 17,905

Water transport 4 32,610

Air transport 34 38,403

Transport services 11 34,728

General merchandise 20 17,332

Clothing stores 4 14,492

Food stores 13 25,255

Eating and drinking 125 14,261

Service stations 19 24,645

Miscellaneous retail 58 18,239

Hotels—lodging 263 13,301

Personal services 0 8,530

Auto repair and car rental 5 22,489

Recreation services 152 14,405

Chugach communities:

Local transport 38 19,234

Water transport 97 39,791

Air transport 20 40,850

Transport services 17 49,834

General merchandise 1 18,148

Clothing stores 1 11,663

Food stores 5 25,519

Eating and drinking 105 15,285

Service stations 8 24,380

Miscellaneous retail 27 16,481
39

and their habitat, subsistence use, resource development and extraction, watershed protection, and

other resource regulations and uses. 

As mentioned earlier, it is difficult to collect

employment and income statistics for the economic activity associated with recreation and

tourism because the activity occurs in many different sectors. Table 16 displays estimated 1996

employment and income for the sectors identified

by the McDowell Group’s 1991 tourism study

as representative of the tourism and recreation

industry. These estimates include all activity in

these sectors, not just tourism-related employment

and income. Table 16 reveals some interesting

aspects of the employment and income related to

recreation and tourism activity.

Although the proportion of employment and

income in individual sectors differs across the

three groups of communities, there are a few

similarities. In all three areas, the highest average

incomes occur in the water transport, air transport, or transport services sectors. All three groups

of communities also have several of the same

sectors in which average incomes are less than

$20,000. Two of these lower-average-income

sectors (eating and drinking, and miscellaneous

retail) have some of the highest levels of employment in all three areas. There are only slight variations in individual sector average incomes across

the three areas. Anchorage generally has higher

average incomes, especially in the water and air

transportation sectors. This likely is due to the

relatively large dock facilities, international airport/cargo service, and location of business headquarters and meetings in the area rather than to

tourism-related activities. Similarly, the high

average income in the Chugach communities is

mostly due to the Trans Alaska pipeline terminus

in Valdez rather than to tourism activities.

Similar to the salmon harvesting and processing

industry, tourism in south-central Alaska is

largely a seasonal business and attracts a large

portion of nonresident workers. The highest nonresident proportions are seen in the hotel/motel

sector with nonresidents holding almost 33 percent of employment and earning 20.5 percent of

sector wages. The eating and drinking sector is

slightly lower with their workforce employing

29.8 percent nonresidents who earn 17.6 percent

of the wages. Of the workforce employed in recreation jobs (outfitters and guides), 27.8 percent

were nonresidents taking in 15.8 percent of these

wages. Local transportation had the lowest nonresident proportions with 20.2 percent of nonresidents employed, earning 14.7 percent of the

sector wages (Hadland 1998). As stated earlier in

the commercial fishing section, generally the

larger the proportion of nonresidents employed

in an industry, the less local impact there will be

as much of the nonresident wages are likely to

leave the state. 

Recreation and tourism are important economic

activities in the study area communities, and

future management will continue to influence

use of the CNF by resident recreationists and

Table 16—Employment and income of recreation- and tourism-related sectors in the study 

area groups, 1996 (continued)

Area and 1996 Recreation—tourism

industry direct employmenta Average sector incomeb

No. of jobs 1999 dollars

Hotels—lodging 871 18,231

Personal services 0 28,592

Auto repair and car rental 1 24,584

Recreation services 220 14,485

a Employment represents the jobs associated with recreation and tourism activity (McDowell 1991).

b Income represents the average income (per job) associated with the entire sector, not specifically with recreation and

tourism employment in that sector.

Source: Chugach planning team with data from Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. 1999. 
40

tourists. Brooks and Haynes (2001) suggest that

relatively higher rates of economic growth and

growth in per capita income in the lower 48

states, as compared to Alaska, lead to higher

rates of growth in tourism as compared to resident

recreation. Current trends, as outlined in Colt

and others (2002), suggest that growth is slowing for some types of tourism, such as cruise

ships, but increasing for other activities, such as

soft adventure and winter sports. Some communities are interested in structuring their development activities to take advantage of opportunities

to attract visitors to their area. Some small operators are tailoring tour packages to meet the

desires of the time-poor and money-rich independent travelers and Alaska residents who visit

the area.

The CNF will play a significant role in future

patterns and trends in recreation and tourism in

south-central Alaska by providing opportunities

through infrastructure and access. Wildlife viewing and scenery are the primary uses of the CNF

by both residents and nonresidents (Colt and

others 2002). Decisions that affect CNF resources

could have significant impacts on both the quantity and quality of user experiences. The CNF

cannot, by itself, ensure any specific future for

the tourism industry as decisions to take advantage of forest-related resources also are based

on private sector influences. The level and location of many future recreation and tourism activities, and developments are likely to depend on

the interaction of both public and private sector

infrastructure development and land management choices. This is especially true because the

Forest Service has a policy of not developing

opportunities that would directly compete with

private developers.

Wood Products

The wood products industry in Alaska began 

in the early 1900s in support of other industry

growth. Construction of the railroads, pilings for

fish canneries, and timbers for mining structures

demanded significant wood products from the

local area. Development of communities around

these industries also required wood products. Most

communities had small mills for construction

of houses and other community infrastructure.

These small mills were abandoned as readily

accessible timber was depleted and lumber from

outside Alaska was made available. As the mining and railroad industries declined, and wood

substitutes were found for fishing boxes, demand

for local wood products declined and the wood

products industry searched for new markets. 

Beginning in 1926, sawmills in Seward, Hope,

Bird Creek, Cooper Landing, and Cordova were

operated to process CNF timber into cants (round

logs cut lengthwise into quarters) for export.

Today, there are three small sawmills using some

CNF timber in the production of rough-sawn

dimension lumber and timbers, house logs, and

chips. Timber from the national forest has the

additional requirement of primary processing

within the local area (36 CFR 223.201). This

increases opportunities for sawmill employment,

but in south-central Alaska, it also may decrease

the competitiveness of the final wood product.

The three sawmills currently operating (including one in Anchorage and one in Cooper Landing

within the study area) have a combined estimated

installed capacity of 2 million board feet (MMBF)

per year. The Alaska Spruce Products mill

employs about 30 people, filling a niche market

by supplying finished lumber to Home Depot

and Artic Builders Supply in Anchorage (Fried

and Windisch-Cole 1999).

The timber supply figures for the CNF, the state,

and private lands in south-central Alaska are displayed for fiscal years 1987 through 1998 in

table 17. Most of the south-central Alaska timber

supply comes from 40 million acres of land

owned by various Native corporations. About 1

percent of total south-central Alaska timber

comes from the CNF and 2 percent from state

lands. In recent years, the harvest of state saw

logs has increased owing to the spruce bark beetle

(Dendroctonus rufipennis Kirby) infestation and

forest health issues. On average, the CNF has

supplied an even mix of sawtimber and utility

wood over the last 10 years with a total annual

average harvest of 2.1 MMBF. By comparison,

timber supply from Native corporation lands

began in earnest in 1986 and continues with an

average annual volume over the last 10 years of
41

about 164 MMBF. Timber harvested on Native

corporation lands does not require primary processing by law and is generally exported as saw

logs. Over the past 10 years, saw log exports

accounted for about 90 percent of all Native corporation timber harvest. Recently, however, the

mix between saw log and pulp log is about even.

This decline in log exports follows a state trend

and is perhaps reflective of troubled financial

markets abroad (Brooks and Haynes 1997).

Table 18 displays the CNF allowable sale quantity (ASQ) (the quantity of timber that may be

sold from a designated area covered by a Forest

Service land use plan for a specified period) and

the timber offered, sold, and cut for the 1985-99

period. The 1986 forest plan amendment limited

timber sale offerings to an average of 6.3 MMBF

per year for 1985 through 1989 and 10.6 MMBF

per year for 1990 through the present. In the first

10 years of the plan, 1984 to 1993, an average 

of 2.3 MMBF was harvested annually—significantly less than the ASQ ceiling. The high offered

and cut volumes in fiscal year 1997 were related

to the high market prices in the mid-1990s. During

that time, the CNF prepared a large amount of

volume under contract, much of it cut. Both prices

and volumes have declined since then. The currently installed sawmill capacity to process timber

in south-central Alaska is about 2 MMBF per

year. Most recent sales are related to forest stewardship, personal use firewood, fire protection

and management, road right-of-way clearings,

and spruce bark beetle infestation rather than for

the commercial timber industry. 

Aside from commercial timber production, the

CNF supports a significant amount of personal

use (house logs, posts, poles) and Alaska freeuse (firewood) wood permits. Although the

CNF receives no payment for these activities,

the personal- and free-use supply supports some

local economic activity as people hire loggers

and mills to custom process or deliver wood.

Most of the personal-use activity occurs on the

Kenai Peninsula owing to timber resources and

access from the existing road system.

Personal-use permits have accounted for 100 to

500 thousand board feet (MBF) per year over the

last 13 years. Free-use permits between 1994 and

1997 have averaged 555 MBF per year, with an

Table 17—South-central Alaska timber harvesting, fiscal years 1987-98

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Millions of board feet

Chugach National Forest:

Sawtimber 0.7 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.5 1.7 0.0 1.1 1.3 0.8 0.8

Utility .0 .0 .4 .4 .4 .0 .0 6.5 .8 2.0 1.4 .7

Total 0.7 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.5 1.7 6.5 1.9 3.3 2.2 1.5

State of Alaska:

Sawtimber 1.1 .5 .5 .4 1.7 .8 .0 .0 2.6 8.1 8.6 5.0

Utility .8 1.6 1.6 .6 .8 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1

Total 1.9 2.1 2.1 1.0 2.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 8.1 8.6 5.1

Private:

Export saw logs 44.2 79.2 120.0 105.1 134.5 123.5 127.2 186.0 210.6 199.6 197.6 88.7

Pulp logs .0 6.4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 19.5 8.0 39.7 83.5

Total 44.2 85.6 120.0 105.1 134.5 123.5 127.2 186.0 230.1 207.6 237.3 172.2

Total sawtimber harvest 46.0 80.7 121.6 106.6 137.3 124.8 128.9 186.0 214.3 209.0 206.8 94.5

Total harvest 46.8 88.7 123.6 107.6 138.5 125.0 128.9 192.5 234.6 219.0 247.9 178.8

Source: USDA Forest Service 1998b.
42

additional 50 to 100 MBF per year of dead and

downed wood for which no permit is needed.

Future personal- and free-use demand is estimated

at 655 MBF annually and is likely to increase

over the years as the populations of communities

surrounding the CNF continue to increase (USDA

Forest Service 1998a).

In 1997, there was an annual average of 1,900

logging and sawmill jobs in Alaska, 2,400 during the August-September peak. This is a significant decrease from the 1990 high annual average

of 4,000 jobs. This decline is associated with

decreases in annual harvest levels and the closure of both pulp mills in the southeast region.

From 1985 to 1995, less than 3 percent of the

state’s total timber harvest was from the CNF. In

1997, there were almost 300 jobs in the wood

products industry within the three borough/census areas, with most of these jobs associated

with logging operations on Native corporation

lands (Alaska Department of Labor, Research 

and Analysis 1999b, USDA Forest Service 1998b).

Table 19 shows that there is some variation 

in the average income for wood product jobs

between the three areas. Native corporation harvesting supports most logging in the communities

within or near the CNF boundary. The CNF is a

small supplier to this industry. Market conditions have changed since 1996 so employment

figures in table 19 may not reflect the current situation, but average incomes are probably similar.

In 1997, nonresidents made up about 40 percent

of the wood products industry workforce with

most of those workers employed in the logging

sector (Hadland 1999). Based on permanent fund

dividend returns, about 10 percent of these nonresident workers became residents.

The CNF is likely to remain a small supplier 

to the wood products industry in the future with

timber harvest a byproduct of other resource

management objectives such as forest health. 

Minerals

There are three types of activities associated

with the minerals industry in Alaska—development, production, and exploration. Development

Table 18—Chugach National Forest timber offered, sold, and cut, fiscal years 1985-99

Fiscal Allowable Volume Volume

year sale quantity offered sold Volume cut

Millions of board feet

1999 10.6 0.5 0.2 0.4

1998 10.6 .1 .2 1.4

1997 10.6 14.5 9.5 2.2

1996 10.6 2.1 2.7 3.3

1995 10.6 5.6 3.6 1.9

1994 10.6 1.2 2.8 6.6

1993 10.6 2.8 11.8 6.1

1992 10.6 5.0 2.3 2.4

1991 10.6 7.1 1.3 .9

1990 10.6 4.0 4.2 .5

1989 6.3 1.1 3.3 1.5

1988 6.3 2.0 .8 1.0

1987 6.3 3.1 1.5 .7

1986 6.3 2.0 .8 .8

1985 6.3 2.0 .1 .7

Average -- 3.5 3.0 2.0

Source: USDA Forest Service 2000.
43

activity—the construction of infrastructure associated with new sites—has recently declined

sharply with the completion of several large

projects. Owing to low mineral prices in 1998,

no new large development projects are currently

being considered. Most employment in the mineral industry is associated with the development

phase. Once development is completed, operations move into production. Changes in global

markets and commodity prices affect mineral

development most. Mineral production activities

in 1998 were valued at $903.6 million, which

was a 3.5-percent decrease from 1997. Although

equal or higher quantities were produced in

1998, overall revenues were lower because of

low prices. Exploration activities, or searching

for potentially productive sites, are not as directly

linked to global markets and commodity prices

as the other two activities and tend to be more

stable over time. In 1998, the exploration activity in Alaska declined only 2 percent from 1997

levels. Total statewide employment associated

with all mineral activity was estimated at 3,452

full-time equivalents in 1998, down 11 percent

from the decade high in 1997 (Szumigala and

Swainbank 1999). 

In south-central Alaska, there is a long history

of mining. Currently on CNF system lands, there

are between 70 and 90 active plans of operation,

mostly for seasonal or part-time placer gold mining, producing about 700 ounces per year. In

addition, there are a few small-scale lode gold

explorations at historic gold mines, and five

industrial sand and gravel pits. Mining activity

on the CNF accounts for less than 1 percent of

the total mineral industry in Alaska. Commercial

mining on the CNF is expected to remain at this

small scale. Residents are becoming more interested in recreational gold panning on the CNF,

and the potential exists for increased visitor use

within the expanding tourism industry (USDA

Forest Service 1998a). 

Oil, Gas, and Coal

At the global scale, the United States was the

third leading oil producer in 1998. Total U.S. oil

production was 6.4 million barrels per day, with

Alaska producing about 20 percent of that or 1.3

million barrels per day (Alaska Division of

Trade and Development 1999b). Alaska accounts

for about 30 percent of all oil reserves and 21

percent of total gas reserves in the United States.

Historically, some oil was produced off the CNF

at the Katalla/Controller Bay area. Currently,

there are no producing wells, no recent production, and there have been no lease requests since

1997. Of the total acreage of the CNF, 97.5 percent has no oil or gas potential (USDA Forest

Service 1998a).

The Trans Alaska pipeline impacts the regional

south-central Alaska economy. Twenty-three

percent of the Nation’s domestic oil supply is

Table 19—Employment and income of the wood products industry in the study area groups, 1996

Industry 1996 direct employment 1996 direct income Average income

No. of jobs - - - - - - - - - -1999 dollars- - - - - - - - - -

Anchorage area:

Logging 54 2,784,532 51,565

Sawmills 38 1,369,288 36,034

Kenai-Soldotna area:

Logging 22 1,069,528 48,615

Sawmills -- -- --

Chugach communities:

Logging 173 10,128,135 58,544

Sawmills 16 651,743 40,734

Source: Chugach planning team with data from Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. 1999.
Table 20—Employment and income of the minerals industry in the 

study area, 1996

1996 direct 1996 direct Average

Industry employment income income

No. of jobs - - - - -1999 dollars- - - - -

Sand and gravel 6 177,558 29,593

Source: Chugach planning team with data from Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. 1999.

carried through Valdez. With 81 percent of the

funding for state government derived from royalties and taxes on oil, the communities surrounding the CNF benefit from oil and gas in

terms of state programs and financial support

(Alaska Division of Trade and Development

1999b). In the Bering River area on the east side

of the CNF, coal deposits are classified as having substantiated resource potential. The deposit

totals 37,000 acres with about 10,000 acres

within the CNF boundary. There are no active

coal mines or leases on the CNF in this area

owing to the high cost of getting the coal out

(USDA Forest Service 1998a). Coal is seen as

a growth area for the minerals industry, which

may increase future lease requests within the

CNF coalfields (Alaska Division of Trade and

Development 1999a).

With limited activity and mineral resources on

the CNF, current levels of employment and

income are relatively small. Oil and gas industry

employment and income are fairly large in the

Kenai-Soldotna, Anchorage, and Valdez areas.

These mineral activities are outside the CNF

and are not highlighted here. 

Table 20 shows employment and income in the

sand and gravel sector within the study area in

1996. Most of this activity occurs in the smaller

communities within the CNF boundary. As for

wood products, the market conditions for sand

and gravel have changed since 1996, so employment and income figures may not reflect the current situation. Large projects such as the Whittier

road and other state road upgrades and projects

since 1996 have increased recent activity in this

sector. Nonresident employment in sand and

gravel is relatively small; most income earned in

this industry is likely to stay in the state.

Payments to the State

The National Forest Receipts Program, authorized by federal and state law in 1908, requires

national forests to distribute 25 percent of all

revenue earned from activities within the national

forest to boroughs, cities, and regional educational

attendance areas located within the national forest. These 25-percent funds are expended only for

public roads and schools. Borough governments

are given a lump sum and allowed to allocate the

money between roads and schools, generally

using the entire payment for schools. Communities

within census areas are assigned road payments

based on the total miles of road in the area, whereas school funds are allocated to each district based

on total enrollment. 

Forest Service Revenues

The total revenue from the CNF from 1980

through 1998 (in 1999 dollars) is displayed in

figure 18. The 25-percent payment is based on

two sources of revenue to the CNF: forest receipts

and capital improvements. Forest receipts include

the receipts the forest collects from commercial

uses of the forest such as power production facilities, minerals, timber sales, tourism special uses,

and for individual uses of facilities such as campground fees. Capital improvements revenue

includes collections for activities such as brush

disposal, salvage sales, silviculture, timber sale

improvements, and purchaser road credits. 

Capital improvements generally make up about

15 percent of total forest revenue with salvage

sales and silvicultural activities the largest components of capital improvements. Forest receipts

have accounted for over 85 percent of total forest revenue in all years except in 1988, when

purchaser road credits were 50 percent of total

44
45

Figure 18—Chugach National Forest total revenue (1999 dollars), fiscal years 1980-98 (USDA Forest

Service 1999, Economic Report of the President 2000).

revenue, and in 1996, when salvage sales were

25 percent of total revenue. Tourism and recreation-related receipts are generally the largest

proportion of forest receipts, accounting for over

50 percent of the total in most years. In years

with large mineral or timber sale projects, the

recreation and tourism percentage declines. Forest

receipts averaged $296,600 between 1990 and

1998, which is 93 percent of average total forest

revenue over the same period. 

In 1999, purchaser road credits were eliminated

from the commercial timber program and therefore are no longer counted as revenue to the CNF.

Declines in total payments to states throughout

the United States owing to declining timber harvests and lost road credits has led to a proposal

to stabilize payments at the 1997 level. Such a

change could have significant effects on future

payment levels to the communities surrounding

the CNF. 

Forest-Resource-Related 

Industries Summary 

This section focuses on industries likely to be

most directly affected by CNF management policies. The limited resource potential and high cost

associated with accessing, extracting, and transporting wood fiber and mineral resources limit

the impact forest management policies can have

on the overall level of economic activity in the

wood products and mineral industries. Commercial

fishing is an important contributor to economic

activity in two of the three subregions. The

major impacts CNF management activities can

have on this industry is through the effects these

activities have on the freshwater habitat of

salmon. Currently, these impacts are small relative to other influences on the industry such as

external market forces. Recreation and tourism

are the forest-resource-related industries likely to

be most affected by forest management policies.
See Brooks and Haynes’ (2001) assessment for

a synthesis of the current and future outlook for

these industries in south-central Alaska and their

relation to CNF resources and management

activities.

In Section 2, we concentrate on providing both

regional and subregional descriptions of the

industries that use forest-related resources. In

Sections 3 and 4, the geographic scale of analysis narrows to individual communities, whereas

the scope of descriptive characteristics widens to

include social and economic conditions as well

as values, perceptions, and interests.

Section 3: Community Social

and Economic Conditions

This section serves as a comparison and description of the social and economic conditions of

communities within or near the Chugach National

Forest. Because each community has its own

history, current identity, and social and economic

trends and conditions, it is important to make

forest plan decisions with knowledge of these

forest communities

Communities come in many shapes and sizes.

The places where, and people with whom, you

live, work, recreate, and have an interest can all

serve as communities. This analysis focuses on

communities defined at a political boundary,

such as a borough, census area, city, and town.

Although such a boundary may not encompass

the entire economic or social network of a community, it is a unit for which social and economic

data are collected and available. As discussed in

the following community surveys section, when

asked to define their communities, many residents do not use political boundaries but instead

use common geographical areas.

In this analysis, 1990 national census data (collected for Alaska in 1989) is used as a baseline

to compare more recent trends and information.

The national census is taken every 10 years and

is the only source of complete employment and

income data available at the community level.

Annual employment data that are available from

the Alaska Department of Labor do not include

self-employed people and therefore are not

reported at the community level. Income data

are not releasable by the department in any

detail owing to state nondisclosure laws that are

enforced to protect the privacy of individual firms.

This is particularly troublesome when many of the

communities of interest are so small that most

information is not disclosed. The data that are

available are analyzed and presented to update

census data. 

The section first provides comparisons of community populations, subsistence preference,

demographics, housing characteristics, employment, income, and education. Next, the major

community concerns identified by the CNF planning team through scoping, public meetings, correspondence, and other personal communications

with citizens, local business people, forest managers, and policymakers are outlined. Brief

descriptions of each community then follow.

Community Population,

Demographics, and Characteristics

The communities included in the assessment are

within or near the CNF. They are the municipality

of Anchorage (includes Girdwood, Indian, and

Portage), Chenega Bay, Cooper Landing, Cordova,

Hope, Kenai, Moose Pass, Seward, Soldotna,

Sterling, Tatitlek, Valdez, and Whittier. These

communities are diverse in terms of size, location, access, demographics, economic structure,

and other social characteristics. Table 21 illustrates some differences by comparing a few social

and economic variables for each of the 14 communities grouped by their larger geographic area:

municipality of Anchorage, the Kenai Peninsula,

and the Prince William Sound. These geographical groupings are roughly equivalent but do not

encompass as much area or as many communities as the municipality of Anchorage, the Kenai

Peninsula Borough, and the Valdez-Cordova

Census Area groupings used in Section 1. 

The population in almost all of the communities

has increased since 1980, but the Kenai Peninsula

communities have grown the most. Access to

highways and road expansion tends to support

greater growth in communities. Such a pattern

46
47

holds for the municipality of Anchorage and the

communities on the Kenai Peninsula. Seward,

Hope, and Valdez, which are endpoints on highways, have slower population growth than the

communities along highways. The communities

in Prince William Sound also have increased in

population, but not to the extent of those areas

with highway access. Cordova’s increase in population includes its annexation of the Native

community of Eyak in 1993. Without the inclusion of Eyak, Cordova’s population increased by

12 percent between 1990 and 1998.

The civilian labor force is defined as all people

16 years and older who are not members of the

Armed Forces, and are either employed or unemployed but actively looking for work. People in

the civilian labor force plus people in the Armed

Forces together constitute the total labor force.

Those not in the labor force are mainly students,

homemakers, retired workers, seasonal workers

who were not working and not looking for work

at the time the census was taken, institutionalized persons, and persons doing only incidental

unpaid family work. In some Alaska communities, this category also may include people who

engage in a noncash-based subsistence lifestyle.

Some communities have fairly low civilian unemployment but a high percentage of the population

(16 years and older) not in the labor force. Cooper

Landing, Hope, Chenega Bay, and Tatitlek have

high levels of civilian unemployment, or high

levels of people not in the labor force, or both.

These communities have seasonal industries and

often few employment opportunities. Chenega

Table 21—Overview of Chugach National Forest community characteristics

1990 not

1990-98 1990 1990 civilian in labor Subsistence

Community 1980 1990 1998 change female unemployed force Accessa preference

- - - - - -Population- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Municipality of 174,431 226,338 258,782 14 49 7 26 Road Nonrural

Anchorage:

Girdwood 577 1,115 1,778 59 43 NA NA Road Nonrural

Kenai Peninsula: 

Cooper Landing 116 243 283 16 44 0 53 Road Rural

Hope 103 161 135 -16 41 38 50 Road Rural

Kenai 4,324 6,327 7,058 12 48 12 38 Road Nonrural

Moose Pass 76 81 134 65 43 25 25 Road Nonrural

Seward 1,843 2,699 3,040 13 41 9 44 Road/ferry Nonrural

Soldotnab 2,320 5,526 6,515 18 50 8 33 Road Nonrural

Sterling 919 3,802 5,888 55 47 7 38 Road Nonrural

Prince William 

Sound:

Chenega Bayc 0 94 69 -27 45 14 42 Ferry Rural

Cordovad 1,879 2,110 2,571 22 46 3 23 Ferry Rural

Tatitlek 68 119 110 -8 53 0 75 Ferry Rural

Valdez 3,079 4,068 4,155 2 45 8 26 Road/ferry Nonrural

Whittier 198 243 288 19 43 8 37 Train/ferry Rural

NA = not available.

a All of the communities have some form of aircraft access within 10 miles.

b Soldotna figures include Ridgeway.

c Chenega Bay was built in its present location in the mid-1980s owing to the destruction of the old village site in 1964.

d Cordova annexed Eyak in 1993.

Sources: Alaska Department of Labor, Research and Analysis 1999a; Alaska Department of Labor 1998; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau

of the Census 1980, 1990; USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1998.
48

Bay and Tatitlek are small communities with little industry and whose remoteness isolates them

from other communities and opportunities for

commuting to other areas to work. Maintaining

and creating local jobs in order to keep the

younger population from leaving the area is often

an issue of significant concern in these communities. Because the CNF surrounds these areas,

future employment opportunities are likely to be

impacted by future planning decisions affecting

access and resource use.

Rural communities have access to subsistence

resources and activities throughout the year and

preference in times of shortage. The Federal

Subsistence Board determines subsistence use

and regulation for rural communities. Rural

determination by the subsistence board is based

on the following guidelines from the Federal

Subsistence Management Program Operations

Manual (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1998):

• Communities or areas with populations of

2,500 or fewer people are rural—unless they

have significant characteristics of nonrural

nature or are considered to be socially or economically part of an urbanized area.

• Communities or areas with populations over

7,000 people are nonrural—unless they have

significant characteristics of a rural nature.

• Communities or areas with population above

2,500 but below 7,000 are evaluated on a

case-by-case basis.

• The characteristics that the board considers

include the use of fish and wildlife, the development and diversification of the economy,

the community infrastructure, transportation,

and educational institutions.

• Population figures come from the most recent

federal census, updated by the Alaska

Department of Labor.

The subsistence board last made rural and nonrural determinations in 1991. The current rural

determinations will be reevaluated after the 2000

census, or as necessary. Currently, the board is

completing a reevaluation of the communities on

the Kenai Peninsula, including several communities in the study area.

Age composition of communities—The age

distribution of a community’s population can be

reflective of many factors. People of different

age groups select areas with characteristics that

fit their needs and lifestyle. Older age groups are

often concerned about access to shopping and

health care, weather conditions, property taxes,

housing availability and costs, and retirement

benefits such as the Alaska longevity program.

This program is state sponsored and includes six

Alaska Pioneer Homes and a monthly check to

seniors 65 and over. The Pioneer Homes provide

residential, assisted living, and nursing care for

seniors 65 and over who have resided in the state

for at least one year. Families with young children may consider many of these attributes as

well, but they may also be interested in schools,

job opportunities, and community events and

facilities.

Table 22 displays a breakdown of the population

within age categories at the time of the 1990

census. The communities on the Kenai Peninsula

show larger percentages of the population within

the older age groups than those communities in

Prince William Sound or Anchorage. The Alaska

Native villages have some of the higher percentages of populations within the youngest age

groups. Communities associated with forestresource-related industries also tend to have

younger populations.

Racial composition of communities—Southcentral Alaska does not have much racial diversity. Table 23 is a summary of each community’s

racial composition based on the 1990 census. The

municipality of Anchorage is the most diverse

and also has a racial composition most similar

to that of the United States in 1990. According

to state estimates, Anchorage’s populations of

African Americans and Asian-Pacific Islanders

have increased slightly since the census (Alaska

Department of Labor, Research and Analysis

1996). Chenega Bay and Tatitlek, both Native
49

Table 22—Age composition of Chugach National Forest communities, 1990

Community < 10 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70- and over

Percentage of total population

Municipality of 

Anchorage 18.1 13.9 17.8 21.9 15.0 7.5 3.8 2.0

Kenai Peninsula:

Cooper Landing 15.9 14.8 4.4 16.2 7.7 19.6 13.7 7.7

Hope 8.9 12.7 5.7 30.4 9.5 5.7 22.8 4.4

Kenai 20.0 15.6 16.3 20.8 12.9 7.6 2.8 4.0

Moose Pass 16.3 20.4 .0 28.6 34.7 .0 .0 .0

Seward 14.3 11.0 19.8 22.4 16.0 6.9 6.0 3.7

Soldotna 19.1 17.3 14.0 19.4 14.4 8.0 2.3 5.6

Sterling 19.8 16.9 8.8 21.4 16.9 7.6 3.8 4.9

Prince William Sound:

Chenega Bay 12.8 25.5 24.5 18.1 10.6 5.3 3.2 .0

Cordova 19.6 13.1 17.4 29.1 3.9 7.9 5.3 3.7

Tatitlek 27.0 27.0 12.6 23.4 4.5 4.5 .9 .0

Valdez 16.6 14.8 13.8 26.0 16.6 6.1 5.0 1.1

Whittier 13.9 17.1 13.9 20.0 19.2 6.9 6.5 2.4

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 1990.

Table 23—Racial composition of Chugach National Forest communities, 1990 

American Indian, African Asian-Pacific Other

Community Caucasian Eskimo and Aleut American Island ethnic

Municipality of 

Anchorage 81 6 6 5 2

Kenai Peninsula:

Cooper Landing 98 1 0 1 0

Hope 94 3 1 2 0

Kenai 89 8 1 2 1

Moose Pass 89 11 0 0 0

Seward 81 15 3 1 0

Soldotna 94 4 0 1 0

Sterling 97 2 0 1 0

Prince William 

Sound:

Chenega Bay 31 69 0 0 0

Cordova 80 11 0 8 1

Tatitlek 13 86 0 0 0

Valdez 89 5 1 3 1

Whittier 81 12 2 5 1

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 1990.
50

communities, had significant Native populations

in 1990 accounting for 69 and 86 percent of the

population, respectively. Over the past decades,

Alaska Native populations have shown only

slight geographic redistribution throughout the

state, so it is likely that these two communities

have retained a race composition similar to the

1990 census (Alaska Department of Labor,

Research and Analysis 1996). The 1990 populations of Cordova, Moose Pass, Seward, and

Whittier were between 10 and 15 percent Alaska

Native. Cordova, Whittier, Anchorage, and Valdez

have the highest percentages of Asian-Pacific

Islanders. The remaining communities within the

Kenai Peninsula and the Prince William Sound

areas had little or no 1990 population within the

Native Alaskan, African American, Asian-Pacific

Island or other ethnic race categories. The racial

compositions of populations tend to change

slowly, so it is unlikely that the communities

have changed significantly since the 1990 census

(Alaska Department of Labor, Research and

Analysis 1996).

Community Housing 

Characteristics

The differences and similarities between communities are often related to access, size, and culture.

The variables presented in table 24 allow a comparison between community housing characteristics. Differences between housing variables can

aid in comparing and contrasting communities

as well as highlighting unique characteristics of

individual communities that may attract and keep

people in an area.

Persons per household is a measure of the average number of people living together—either as

a family or other group—in the same residence.

The communities with the largest number of

people per household are the Native communities

Table 24—Community housing characteristics, 1990

Houses

Total Persons per Occupied Owner Median value Median without

households, household, housing, occupied, of house, rent paid, plumbing,

Community 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990

- - - - -Percent - - - - - - - - - 1990 dollars - - - - Percent

Municipality of 

Anchorage 82,702 2.68 88 53 109,700 528 0.4

Kenai Peninsula:

Cooper Landing 101 2.41 36 77 105,800 263 37

Hope 72 2.24 44 58 55,000 242 74

Kenai 2,329 2.70 87 55 82,200 414 .8

Moose Pass 33 2.45 65 55 87,500 392 23

Seward 886 2.47 88 47 92,400 434 .9

Soldotna 1,284 2.69 88 58 82,600 430 .5

Sterling 1,283 2.96 59 86 83,600 407 19

Prince William 

Sound:

Chenega Bay 29 3.03 85 72 88,300 475 9

Cordova 773 2.61 88 55 109,400 448 2

Tatitlek 33 3.61 63 82 60,000 475 11

Valdez 1,277 2.90 85 66 109,000 589 2

Whittier 112 2.16 42 36 NA 372 4

NA = not available.

Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development 1998, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 1990.
51

of Tatitlek and Chenega Bay. The communities

with the fewest number of people per household—

Whittier, Hope, Cooper Landing, and Moose

Pass—are communities associated with seasonal

resource employment and activities, especially

fishing, and seasonal homeowners.

Occupied housing is a measure of the number

of structures in a community lived in at the time

of the 1990 census. A low percentage of occupied homes can indicate a larger proportion of

seasonal or second homes for retirees. Cooper

Landing and Hope are examples with less than

50 percent of housing occupied. Communities

that have a part of the community involved in

seasonal work or subsistence activity, such as

Tatitlek and Whittier, also had a low percentage

of homes occupied at the time of the census.

Communities with well-developed service and

trade sectors and year-round employment opportunities have higher percentages of occupied

housing. Anchorage, Cordova, Kenai-Soldotna,

Seward, and Valdez all had over 80 percent of

housing. Chenega Bay, although a small community with limited services and employment

opportunities, also has a high percentage of

housing occupied.

Owner-occupied housing measures the percentage of occupied homes in which the owner is

living in the home at the time of the census. The

Bureau of the Census considers housing occupied not occupied by the owner to be a rental.

Cooper Landing had only 36 percent of occupied

housing. Seventy-two percent of that housing

was owner occupied. Therefore, very few people

were renting homes in the community. The number of owners living in the community may be

indicative of how much stake people have in the

community and the level of commitment they

have to staying in the area. Homeowners are

generally interested in maintaining an adequate

level of economic activity to provide jobs and

income in the community. They also may be

interested in changes in the amenities that led

them to purchase a home in the community. The

ability to buy a home also affects the percentage

of owner-occupied housing. Whittier had over 60

percent renters because there is little property

available for purchase. In Seward, the median

price for a home is fairly high, so renting may be

a more reasonable option for people even if they

are committed to staying in the area. 

Community Employment 

The 1990 census employment data are displayed

in table 25. The sectors used in the census are

not identical to those defined in the regional section of this assessment. Additionally, the census

data are a measure of the people in each industry,

not the number of jobs as defined in the regional

section. Employment may be useful as an indicator of the economic structure of a community

and for predicting how forest management might

affect future economic conditions. This analysis

of 1990 employment data has been supplemented

with employment trend data for 1990-96 from

the Alaska Department of Labor. Although these

additional data do not include self-employed

persons and, in some cases, are not available at

the community level, they are useful in examining changes in employment trends.

Although some trends are common to most southcentral Alaska communities, trends may impact

each community differently. In south-central

Alaska, the AFF sector is primarily composed of

fish harvesters. Because most fish harvesters are

considered to be self-employed, they are not

included in Alaska Department of Labor statistics,

but are included in the census figures in table 24.

Employment within fish harvesting fluctuates

greatly with the market demand, price, and condition of the various fisheries. 

Seafood processing is another large industry in

south-central Alaska. Employment in this industry

is included in the manufacturing sector in table

24 along with the wood products industry.

Employment in seafood processing also fluctuates in response to global fish markets. After the

Tyson Seafoods3 processing plant in Kodiak

burned down in early 1996, employment increased

in this sector in south-central Alaska (Mosher

1998). Communities with seafood-processing 

3 Use of firm or trade names in this publication is for reader

information and does not imply endorsement by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture of any product or service. 
52Table 25—Community employment by economic sector, 1990 

Agriculture,

forestry, and Communications, Wholesale Retail Public

Community fishing Mining Construction Manufacturing transport, utilities trade trade FIREa Services administration

Percentage of workforce

Municipality of 

Anchorage 1 5 6 4 11 4 17 6 34 12

Kenai Peninsula: 

Cooper Landing 28 0 14 0 0 0 10 0 35 13Hope 0 0 11 15 0 11 34 0 28 0Kenai 4 13 5 12 5 4 20 3 27 7Moose Pass 26 0 0 0 0 0 74 0 0 0Seward 9 2 4 12 9 3 18 3 28 12Soldotna 2 7 5 5 4 3 24 4 37 9Sterling 1 11 12 5 7 4 20 1 32 9

Prince William 

Sound:Chenega Bay 56 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 25 11Cordova 25 0 6 12 11 2 11 3 23 7Tatitlek 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 53Valdez 3 5 10 4 23 2 12 2 31 9Whittier 11 3 10 2 26 0 8 7 21 11

a See table 2, footnote a.

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 1990.
53

plants include Anchorage, Cordova, KenaiSoldotna, Seward, Valdez, and Whittier. Chenega

Bay and Tatitlek are both involved in seafood

harvesting and processing, including some oyster

farming.

Mining includes oil and gas as well as hard rock

mineral activities. In south-central Alaska, most

employment within the mining sector is related

to oil and gas and is concentrated in KenaiSoldotna, Sterling, and Valdez, with Anchorage

serving as headquarters for several related companies. Employment opportunities within this

sector also fluctuate with markets and access to

resources. Employment within the mining sector

has declined within the municipality of Anchorage,

Kenai, and Valdez since 1990. Sterling and

Soldotna, however, have had increases in mining

employment as resource exploration and development continues in the area. 

Construction sector employment levels depend

on community needs, federal, state, and local

budgets for building infrastructure and repairing

or upgrading existing structures. More recent

trends highlight construction in Seward where

several projects, including a dock, a prison, and

the Sealife Center have led to continued employment opportunities in this sector. Kenai, Soldotna,

and Sterling also have significant employment in

construction owing to both population growth

and the development of several service/retail

structures since 1990. 

As mentioned earlier, the manufacturing sector

includes logging and sawmill operations. Similar

to the fishing industry, many people employed as 

loggers or who have portable sawmills are selfemployed and not counted in the state statistics

but are included in the census data in table 24.

Currently in south-central Alaska, there are a few

small mills on the Kenai Peninsula employing a

few people. The sawmill in Seward employed

over 100 people in 1990 but closed in the mid1990s when increases in export log prices made

exporting raw logs more profitable than processing them. A sizable proportion of people in

Tatitlek are employed in logging, with smaller

percentages in Anchorage, Cordova, Kenai,

Seward, Soldotna, Sterling, and Valdez. Logging

employment can be transient. Communities with

active timber harvesting will show a large amount

of employment in logging while harvesting is

occurring, but after the sale is over, employment

shifts to the next sale area. 

The wholesale trade, retail trade, financial-insurance-real estate and services sectors all have

increased in absolute size, with retail trade and

services increasing to a greater extent than the

other sectors. This is a state as well as a national

trend, arising from more people having more

money to spend on goods and services. In southcentral Alaska, the communities with highway

access have shown the most growth since 1990

as these areas service more remote areas. Communities directly connected to tourism activities,

such as Girdwood, Cooper Landing, KenaiSoldotna, Sterling, and Seward have experienced

more than a 100-percent increase in retail trade

and services sector employment since 1990.

Even communities with little or no employment

in these sectors in 1990, such as Chenega Bay,

Moose Pass, and Tatitlek have seen increases in

employment in these sectors. These trends highlight not only an overall increase in visitors

demanding services but also an effort on the part

of communities to create a tourism industry. 

People who are not necessarily attached to a 

single location for work, as well as retirees with

outside incomes, are finding south-central Alaska

communities attractive places to live and work.

These people are creating employment opportunities in health and social services, as well as

many other services. 

Local education, which is included in the services sector in table 25, and the government sector are also important sources of employment in

many of the south-central Alaska communities.

In some of the smaller communities, such as

Chenega Bay, Hope, Tatitlek, and Whittier, education offers one of the few permanent job

opportunities in the community. Government

employment is year round and tends to pay
54

Table 26—Community employment diversity scores, 1990

Number of Industry sectors Normalized

Community industry sectors in community score

Percent

Municipality of 

Anchorage 17 100.0 0.926

Kenai Peninsula:

Cooper Landing 6 35.3 .604

Hope 5 29.4 .530

Kenai 17 100.0 .916

Moose Pass 2 11.8 .203

Seward 17 100.0 .913

Soldotna 17 100.0 .889

Sterling 17 100.0 .888

Prince William Sound:

Chenega Bay 8 47.1 .560

Cordova 17 100.0 .872

Tatitlek 3 17.6 .311

Valdez 17 100.0 .898

Whittier 12 70.6 .774

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 1990.

well—moderating some of the effects of seasonal

and lower wage employment within a community. Overall, however, government employment

is slowly declining as federal, state, and local

budgets decline. 

Employment Diversity

The Shannon-Weaver (S-W) diversity index is

a method of measuring how evenly a variable is

distributed across the categories in which it is

reported (Shannon and Weaver 1949). In this

analysis, the S-W method is used to provide a

measure of a community’s employment diversity,

similar to the regional analysis. The employment

within an industry was measured relative to the

total employment in the community. A community with employment in many different industries will have a higher S-W index score than a

community with substantial concentrations of

employment in a single industry. Whereas no

community, even an extremely diverse one, will

have a perfect distribution of employment—the

S-W index is useful in comparing communities

within the same area. Table 26 displays the normalized results of the community-level diversity

analysis by using 1990 census data. 

Analyzing the 1990 community population figures from table 21 together with the employment

diversity scores in table 26 reveals that, for the

CNF communities of interest, the two are closely

correlated. The communities with the lowest

employment diversity scores—Moose Pass,

Tatitlek, Hope, and Chenega Bay—also had the

smallest populations in 1990. Similarly, Anchorage

and Kenai had both the highest diversity scores

and the largest populations. Whittier, Seward, and

Valdez had higher employment diversity scores

than their population sizes would suggest, which

may be due to their favorable locations for transportation-related economic activity.

Community Income

The 1990 census income statistics for southcentral Alaska communities are displayed in table

26. In those south-central Alaska communities

with significant employment in fish harvesting,

income can vary widely from year to year depending on conditions of the fisheries as well as market conditions. The census data were collected

during a good year for the fisheries, so communities like Cordova, which had a large amount of

fish harvesting employment, had a fairly high
55

median income. In general, the highest incomes

in south-central Alaska were related to employment and activity within the oil, gas, and minerals industry. Sterling and Kenai on the Kenai

Peninsula and Valdez in Prince William Sound

had the highest median incomes in the study

area. The level of activity in these industries is

primarily determined by outside forces, with

the management of CNF lands having little

impact on activity levels.

The second column of table 27 shows the estimated percentage of individuals below poverty

level (as defined by the Bureau of the Census) in

1990. Some of the individuals in this category

are perhaps engaged in subsistence or other noncash based activities. Communities containing a

large percentage of individuals living below the

poverty level who depend on subsistence activities are potentially more sensitive to forest plan

changes. 

Community Education

In general, the state of Alaska has a higher level

of educational attainment than the U.S. average.

Table 28 summarizes the 1990 educational

achievement of south-central Alaska communities. Within south-central Alaska, the municipality of Anchorage had the largest percentage of

advanced degrees (graduate or professional) in

1990, with most other communities having at

least 5 percent of their population holding

advanced degrees. Moose Pass, Chenega Bay,

and Tatitlek have the highest percentage of residents without high school diplomas. Tatitlek also

has the lowest percentage of college degrees.

This may indicate that there are lifestyle or cultural reasons for living in the area and that

receiving an education that would prepare one

for employment in a cash-based economy is not

a high priority.

Table 29 displays the enrollment history of the

south-central Alaska school districts. Although

this is not a community-by-community record, it

is an indicator of educational trends in the area.

In general, enrollment numbers are increasing,

following patterns similar to population growth.

The largest increase is seen in correspondence

enrollment. This is probably reflective of both a

national trend of more parents home schooling

their children, and more families in south-central

Alaska moving to more remote areas without

access to a school. Enrollment numbers are often

important to communities as most state and federal financial support of educational programs is

directly tied to these numbers. If communities

lose families to industry layoffs, there is a chance

that enrollment and funding will decline.

Community Concerns

The communities of Anchorage, Kenai, Soldotna,

and Sterling are fairly large and economically

diverse; the resource industry activity associated

with CNF outputs accounts for a small portion of

the total economic activity in these areas. Thus,

forest decisions will not likely affect their overall level of economic activity. However, the CNF

does provide many social benefits to the residents

of these communities, and many community members expressed concern about forest management

decisions that may affect their quality of life or

lifestyle.

Residents of Girdwood and Seward were concerned about both employment opportunities and

access to forest resources. Many were interested

in maintaining viable tourism industries without

sacrificing resident recreation opportunities and

other local forest uses. One of the largest concerns for the Whittier community was the completion of the road connecting Whittier to the

Seward Highway. Many people believed that

traffic to Whittier would increase dramatically.

The other communities on Prince William Sound

also were concerned about the increased usage

of the sound this road might create.

Because of the spruce bark beetle infestation,

many residents of the communities on the Kenai

Peninsula were concerned about the possibility

of large forest fires that may endanger structures

or landscapes. Some residents of Hope were concerned about potential restrictions on mining

activity, whereas others were concerned about the

effects of mining activity on their natural surroundings. The Native communities of Chenega

Bay and Tatitlek were concerned about protecting
56Table 27—Chugach National Forest 1990 income by community 

Median Individuals

household below Income Income Income Income Income Income Income Income Income

income, poverty $0— $11,000— $21,000— $31,000— $41,000— $51,000 – $61,000— $75,000— $101,000

Community 1990 level 10,000 20,000 30,000 $40,000 50,000 60,000 $75,000 100,000 and above

Dollars Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percentage of households in 1990 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Municipality of 

Anchorage 43,946 7 5 10 12 12 12 10 14 15 11

Kenai Peninsula:

Cooper Landing 42,250 3 0 0 14 0 14 0 34 0 39Hope 17,250 33 0 30 23 23 0 0 0 0 23Kenai 42,889 7 6 9 11 12 13 13 14 13 10Moose Pass 22,083 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0Seward 37,049 10 7 11 11 13 12 10 11 14 11Soldotna 38,004 5 4 13 12 14 12 9 19 13 4Sterling 51,145 7 6 7 11 9 13 12 20 15 7

Prince William 

Sound:Chenega Bay 22,083 26 6 25 19 0 13 25 0 13 0Cordova 46,304 4 5 10 13 8 14 10 15 13 14

Tatitlek 27,188 19 26 11 15 0 4 22 11 11 0Valdez 68,570 5 3 5 4 8 9 12 12 24 22Whittier 33,636 13 5 12 21 9 9 23 9 7 5

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 1990.
57

Table 28—Community educational achievement, 1990 census

Graduate or

Less than High school High school Some college Associate Bachelor professional

Community 9th grade (no diploma) (diploma) (no diploma) degree degree degree

Percentage of residents 25 years and older

Municipality of 

Anchorage 2.8 6.8 25.8 29.8 8.4 17.3 9.5

Kenai Peninsula:

Cooper Landing 7.4 0. 43.6 10.6 0. 31.4 6.9

Hope 0. 7.3 28.2 45.2 6.5 7.3 5.6

Kenai 3.0 9.0 37.0 29.0 7.0 10.0 5.0

Moose Pass 25.8 0. 29.0 0. 0. 45.2 0 . 

Seward 3.0 8.7 38.6 28.3 6.1 10.0 5.4

Soldotna 3.0 8.0 49.0 4.0 10.0 19.0 7.0

Sterling 3.0 9.0 31.0 25.0 12.0 14.0 6.0

Prince William 

Sound:

Chenega Bay 31.7 9.8 24.4 14.6 0. 14.6 4.9

Cordova 5.4 9.3 34.1 25.6 8.2 12.5 5.0

Tatitlek 13.6 18.2 43.2 15.9 0. 9.1 0 .

Valdez 4.5 10.7 30.1 28.2 8.3 13.4 4.8

Whittier 2.8 17.2 39.3 26.2 4.1 4.8 5.5

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 1990.

and maintaining subsistence resources and access

to these resources. Protection of cultural and historic resources is also important to these communities.

Individual Community Descriptions 

The following section includes brief descriptions

of individual communities—including aspects

of their history, population, economic structure,

housing characteristics, and community infrastructure. Recognizing that the CNF is a national

resource and is valued by people residing outside

of south-central Alaska, it remains important for

decisionmakers to be informed about the conditions of the communities in or near the forest as

forest management decisions can have social and

economic impacts on these communities. Most

of the information presented here is taken from

Alaska Department of Labor Community

Information Summaries (1998).

Municipality of Anchorage—Located at the

head of Cook Inlet, the municipality of Anchorage

is Alaska’s largest city. With a population of

258,782 (Alaska Department of Labor, Research

and Analysis 1999a), Anchorage dominates any

regional-scale, aggregate assessment of economic

and social characteristics of the 14 communities

most directly affected by CNF activity. The

municipality of Anchorage (which includes the

community of Girdwood, population 1,778, to the

south) accounts for nearly 95 percent of the total

population of communities within or adjacent to

the CNF. Anchorage is accessible by highway,

railroad, commercial or chartered aircraft, and

ocean-going cruise ships. The Supervisor’s

Office of the CNF is located in Anchorage, and

the Glacier Ranger District headquarters is in

Girdwood. The headquarters of Chugach Alaska

Native Corporation is also in Anchorage.
58Table 29—South-Central Alaska school enrollment, 1986-99

School 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99Anchorage District 39,785 37,356 40,007 40,924 41,992 44,406 45,870 46,883 47,205 47,318 48,109 48,888 49,587Chugach District:

Chenega Bay 19 13 18 27 21 19 22 26 13 16 14 8 14Chugach extension

correspondence 16 8 25 28 26 17 19 35 62 79 89

Tatitlek 31 24 17 23 18 24 28 32 31 30 29 31 28Whittier 52 53 41 49 43 44 38 37 39 49 34 42 38

Cordova city schools 435 443 433 441 424 474 481 498 511 527 535 505 485

Kenai Peninsula

Borough schools:

Cooper Landing 24 14 15 24 30 41 47 49 43 40 37 36 35Hope 18 19 23 23 26 30 32 31 44 35 32 20 24Kenai 1,463 1,221 884 839 855 1,011 1,012 1,716 1,803 1,785 1,794 1,780 1,815Moose Pass 21 18 22 28 27 42 31 34 32 39 39 37 34Seward 554 544 588 668 764 797 806 848 879 896 880 854 876Soldotna 1,229 1,735 1,814 1,850 1,502 1,458 1,470 2,939 3,075 3,106 3,216 3,241 3,226Sterling 378 254 264 279 292 306 322 351 369 384 355 334 314 

Valdez city schools 761 757 755 829 816 905 959 896 911 903 888 890 852

Total 44,786 42,451 44,881 46,012 46,835 49,585 51,144 54,357 54,974 55,163 56,024 56,745 57,417

Enrollment is taken on October 1 of each school year.Source: Alaska Department of Education and Early Development 1999.
The municipality of Anchorage is the largest and

most economically diverse community of those

surrounding the CNF. It is a major international

hub for commercial air traffic, connecting much

of the lower 48 states and Canada with northern

Pacific Rim nations such as Japan, Korea, China,

and the Russian Far East. Anchorage is the

regional center for many state and national enterprises. 

Girdwood is a small community included within

the municipality of Anchorage but, in some

aspects, is not directly tied to the larger economic

area of Anchorage. Girdwood’s economic activity

is centered on tourism. Girdwood is home to the

Alyeska Ski Resort and the four-star Princess

Hotel as well as several sightseeing and flightseeing operations. Services and retail business

make up a large portion of the economic activity. 

In 1990, Anchorage had 94,153 total housing

units; 11,451 were vacant. The municipality of

Anchorage has the infrastructure of a metropolitan city, including municipal water and sewer

systems and a municipal landfill, natural gas,

electricity, hospitals and health clinics, city bus

service, universities, national retail chain stores,

fast-food franchises, and entertainment venues. 

Chenega Bay—Chenega Bay, a small, unincorporated Alaskan Native village of 69 residents

(Alaska Department of Labor, Research and

Analysis 1999a) is primarily a fishing and subsistence community. Chenega Bay is located 

on Evans Island, about 40 miles southeast of

Whittier in the Prince William Sound. It is accessible by chartered aircraft, boat, and the state

ferry. The village was reestablished in the mid1980s at its present location after tsunamis from

the 1964 earthquake destroyed the original village. The Exxon Valdez oil spill had significant

economic, social, and psychological impacts on

members of this community. See Picou and Gill

(1996), Picou and others (1999), and Davidson

(1990) as well as the many references cited

therein for assessments of the scope and magnitude of these impacts.

Chenega Bay’s economic activity includes fishing, oyster farming, education, and subsistence

activities. The community has a small boat harbor and dock. There is both a floatplane landing

area and a new gravel airstrip. Services are limited, but both retail and service sector employment has increased since 1990. 

Chenega Bay has a majority of owner-occupied

housing, with an average household size of about

three people. In 1990, 47 percent of Chenega

Bay residents 5 years or older had lived in the

same dwelling for the past 5 years. The community has a health clinic, electricity, plumbing,

garbage collection services, television, and telephone service. Over 80 percent of the homes are

completely plumbed with sewage piped to a community septic tank. The rest of the homes have

individual septic tanks or outhouses. The community is currently raising funds for an incinerator. Electricity is provided by the Chenega Bay

Village Council utilities through the diesel power

plant. 

Cooper Landing—Cooper Landing is a small,

unincorporated community located along the

northwestern shore of Kenai Lake, about 30 miles

northwest of Seward on the Sterling Highway. Its

population of 283 (Alaska Department of Labor,

Research and Analysis 1999a) grows substantially during summer with the influx of summer

homeowners, tourists, and visitors who come to

fish the summer runs of the Kenai and Russian

Rivers and enjoy the Kenai Mountains. Cooper

Landing is a subsistence community accessible

by the Sterling Highway and chartered aircraft.

The major industrial sectors of Cooper Landing’s

economy in 1990 were forestry, fishing, and

services. Both the opening of the Kenai Princess

Lodge and an increase in the number of visitors

driving through on the highway have led to

increased employment in the service and retail

trade sectors. Commercial fishing and guided

sport fishing tours have offered additional

employment opportunities since 1990. There is

still some employment in forestry and oil and

gas production and processing.

59
60

Only 36 percent of all Cooper Landing housing

units were occupied in 1990, with 77 percent

occupied by owners. The average household size

was 2.4 people. In 1990, 79 percent of Cooper

Landing residents (5 years or older) had lived in

the same dwelling for the past 5 years. The community has electricity, television, and telephone

service. Over 65 percent of the homes are completely plumbed with individual wells and septic

tank systems. The rest of the homes haul water

and use outhouses, many are seasonal homes.

The community does not have a health clinic but

does have a rescue service. Both Soldotna and

Seward are accessible for health care needs. 

Cordova—Cordova is located 150 air miles

southeast of Anchorage in Orca Inlet at the

southeastern end of Prince William Sound.

Cordova began as a fishing community in the

late 1880s. The town experienced significant

growth in the early 1890s as the railroad terminus and shipping center for the Kennicott

Copper Mine. Presently, Cordova has a population of 2,571 residents (Alaska Department of

Labor, Research and Analysis 1999a) and is primarily a fishing community. Subsistence is an

important part of the Cordova lifestyle. Although

the community has a majority of nonnatives, the

Alaska Native village of Eyak was incorporated

into Cordova’s boundaries in 1993. The Eyak

village council represents the views and concerns

of Alaska Natives in the larger community. No

roads link Cordova to other communities and

access is by commercial airline, boat, and state

ferry. Cordova is the headquarters for the CNF

Cordova Ranger District. The Exxon Valdez oil

spill also had significant economic, social, and

psychological impacts on members of this community. For details, see references cited for

Chenega Bay.

The major industrial sector in Cordova was 

historically fishing and seafood processing. In

the past, over 50 percent of the community’s

employment was directly related to commercial

fish harvesting and seafood processing. Today,

the community is more diverse, although commercial fishing and processing still plays a major

role. Although the salmon supply has not changed,

the continued downturn of the Asian market

has decreased the demand for it, thus causing a

decrease in prices. Government activity, although

it has declined over the past few years, is the

second most important industry. The wood products industry was also a significant sector in

Cordova’s economic structure until the Eyak

sawmill closed. Recently, there has been a surge

of timber harvesting on Eyak corporation lands,

which may revitalize the wood products sector.

Services, retail trade, and transportation have

increased in importance as Cordova’s tourism

industry develops. Cordova’s character and economic structure may change if the Copper River

Highway is extended to Chitina, opening the area

to highway access. There is also discussion of a

deep-water port permitting cruise ships to dock

in Cordova. 

In 1990, 88 percent of all Cordova households

were occupied, with 49 percent occupied by

owners. The average household size was 2.6

people. Forty percent of Cordova residents 5

years and older had lived in the same dwelling

for the past 5 years. Cordova has year-round

barge services, but state ferry service only in

summer. There are daily scheduled jet flights

and air taxies from the airport. In support of the

fishing fleet, there is a boat harbor and marine

repair services. A city water and sewage system

connects over 90 percent of homes in the community. Electricity is supplied through two

diesel power plants and a hydroelectric facility.

Community services include a hospital, health

clinic, volunteer fire department, and emergency

medical services.

Hope—Hope is a small, unincorporated community of 135 residents (Alaska Department of

Labor, Research and Analysis 1999a) located

along the southern shore of Turnagain Arm near

the mouth of Resurrection Creek. Most of the

residents are non-Natives. Hope began as a mining camp and some mining still occurs. There are

many seasonal homeowners in the area. Hope is

accessible by highway and chartered aircraft. 

Hope has limited economic opportunities for

its residents. The community school and retail

businesses provide most of the employment.
61

The community has a small, seasonal sawmill

that provides lumber mainly for local projects.

Similarly, the amount of construction employment

varies with projects in the area and does not usually offer year-round employment. Increases in

visitors and seasonal homes have provided some

growth to the area in the retail trade, transportation, and service sectors.

In 1990, 44 percent of all Hope housing units

were occupied, with 58 percent occupied by owners. The average household size was 2.2 people.

Forty-six percent of Hope residents 5 years and

older had lived in the same dwelling for the past

5 years. Hope has two community associations,

indicating there is a high level of organization

from people concerned about their area. Only 25

percent of the homes in Hope are fully plumbed.

Many of those without plumbing are seasonal

homes. Electricity is provided through a hydro

power plant. The community of Hope does not

have a health clinic, but there is an emergency

medical service available.

Kenai—Kenai is located 155 miles southwest of

Anchorage on the northwest coast of the Kenai

Peninsula at the mouth of the Kenai River. It was

founded as a Russian fur trading post in 1791. In

1869, the U.S. military established a post, which

was abandoned in 1870 after Alaska was purchased from the Russians. By the 1920s, commercial fishing was the primary activity. In 1957,

oil was discovered—the first major Alaska oil

strike, and Kenai began growing as a center for

oil exploration and production. Kenai has a population of 7,058 (Alaska Department of Labor,

Research and Analysis 1999a). The population

is mostly non-Native.

Oil and gas exploration and production still play

a major role in Kenai’s economic activity. The

city is the entrance point for services and supplies for oil drilling and exploration in Cook

Inlet. Several oil and natural gas deposits have

been discovered in the area since 1991. Although

the area has diversified since the oil market

crash in the mid-1980s, the community is still

influenced by oil markets. Commercial fish harvesting and processing, as well as sport fishing,

have become important economic activities. The

Kenai River is a major fishing location for residents and tourists as trophy king (Oncorhynchus

tshawytscha) and silver (Oncorhynchus kisutch)

salmon attract tourists to the area. The larger

tourism industry also has created opportunities

for growth within the transportation, construction, retail trade, and services sectors.

In 1990, 87 percent of all Kenai households were

occupied, with 54 percent occupied by owners. The

average household size was 2.7 people. Thirtynine percent of Kenai residents 5 years or older

had lived in the same dwelling for the past 5

years. Kenai has a municipal water and sewer

system. Natural gas and electricity are available.

There is an emergency medical service in the

community, and health care facilities are available at a hospital in Soldotna.

Moose Pass—Moose Pass is a small, unincorporated community located 26 miles north of

Seward along the Seward Highway. Moose Pass

is home to 134 residents (Alaska Department of

Labor, Research and Analysis 1999a) with the

population increasing during summer as seasonal

homeowners return to the area. The community

is primarily non-Native. First named as a station

on the Alaska Railroad, the rail and highway

accessibility continues to generate commerce

for Moose Pass businesses.

The major sectors in Moose Pass are retail trade,

services, forestry (logging), and government.

The Alaska State Division of forestry, local businesses, and the school provide most of the yearround employment.

In 1990, 65 percent of all Moose Pass housing

units were occupied, with 55 percent occupied

by owners. The average household size was 2.5

people. In 1990, 71 percent of Moose Pass residents 5 years and older had lived in the same

dwelling for the past 5 years. Moose Pass has

electricity but no community water or sewer system. A majority of homes use individual water

wells and septic tank systems, and over 50 percent are fully plumbed. The community does

have an emergency medical service but no health

clinic or hospital. 
62

Seward—Seward is located on Resurrection Bay

at the end of the Seward Highway, 128 miles

south of Anchorage. The community serves as

the Gateway to the Kenai Fjords National Park

as well as the ocean terminus of the Alaska

Railroad. Seward has a total population of 3,040

(Alaska Department of Labor, Research and

Analysis 1999a), with a significant Alaska

Native community. Seward is accessible by

highway, railroad, state ferry, and chartered air

service. The community is the headquarters for

the CNF Seward Ranger District. The annual

Mount Marathon race over the 4th of July weekend attracts people from Alaska and beyond to 

compete.

Seward is economically diverse although most

economic activity is related to the community’s

location and accessibility. As an ice-free seaport

serving Anchorage and interior Alaska by both

railway and highway, Seward serves as a transportation center for both cargo and people.

Because of the deep port facilities, there is significant cargo-ship traffic, ship repair services,

tourism activity, and other services activity.

Seward is the major cruise ship entrance point

and ferry stop for visitors to south-central Alaska.

The area also has a fish processing plant, a coal

export facility, state prison, part of the University

of Alaska’s marine sciences facilities, and the

newly opened Sealife Center. Economic activity

associated with these facilities has generated

additional employment in the transportation,

retail trade, and services sectors.

In 1990, 88 percent of all Seward housing units

were occupied, with 30 percent occupied by

owners. The average household size was 2.5

people. In 1990, 31 percent of Seward residents

5 years or older had lived in the same dwelling

for the past 5 years. Electricity and natural gas

are available in the community. There is a city

water and sewer system. Almost all homes are

fully plumbed. The community has a hospital,

health clinic, and an emergency medical service.

Soldotna—Soldotna is located on the Kenai

Peninsula, 150 miles south of Anchorage on

the Seward Highway. The population of 6,515

(Alaska Department of Labor, Research and

Analysis 1999a) is primarily composed of nonNative, year-round residents. The Kenai-Soldotna

area serves as a hub for both residents of the

Kenai Peninsula and visitors to the area. The airport provides daily shuttle flights to and from

Anchorage.

Oil and gas exploration and production play a

major role in the area’s economy. Although the

area has diversified since the oil market crash in

the mid-1980s, the community is still influenced

by oil markets. New deposit discoveries and

exploration have increased employment in the

mining sector. The openings of national retail

chain stores and restaurant franchises also have

created employment opportunities in the trade,

services, and construction sectors. As the KenaiSoldotna area continues to develop as a regional

hub for smaller communities on the peninsula,

further growth and diversification is expected.

The tourism industry also has created opportunities for growth within the transportation, construction, retail trade, and services sectors. The

Kenai Convention and Visitors Bureau reported

800 visitors a day in July 1993—and that number has probably increased each summer thereafter.

In 1990, 88 percent of all Soldotna housing 

units were occupied, with 58 percent occupied

by owners. The average household size was 2.7

people. In 1990, 42 percent of Soldotna residents

5 years or older had lived in the same dwelling

for the past 5 years. Natural gas is available and

electricity is provided through a hydro and natural gas power plant. All homes are completely

plumbed, and there are city water and sewer systems. There is also city refuse collection. There

are several health clinics and hospitals in the

area. 

Sterling—Sterling is located 18 miles east of

Kenai on the Sterling Highway, at the junction

of the Moose and Kenai Rivers. The community

is unincorporated and currently has a population

of 5,888 (Alaska Department of Labor, Research

and Analysis 1999a), mostly non-Native and

year-round residents. Sterling is accessible by

chartered aircraft and highway. The community

was originally a supply center for oil and mining
63

exploration in the area. Today, it caters to the

sport fishing industry and summer recreational

enthusiasts.

Economic activity in Sterling is similar to, if

not connected to, the activity in Kenai-Soldotna.

Much of the employment is related to oil and gas

exploration and production, so oil markets affect

the level of employment. Tourism also plays a

large role in the community with visitors coming from all over the world to fish in the area.

Tourism generates employment in the retail trade,

services, construction, and transportation sectors.

There is some logging employment in the community, which is mostly attributable to timber

harvests from local private lands.

In 1990, 59 percent of all Sterling housing units

were occupied, with 86 percent occupied by

owners. The average household size was 3.0

people. In 1990, 55 percent of Sterling residents

5 years or older had lived in the same dwelling

for the past 5 years. Natural gas is available, and

electricity is provided through a hydro and natural gas power plant. The area does not have

community water or sewer systems. About 80

percent of the homes in Sterling are completely

plumbed. Many homes in the community are

used only seasonally. There is an Emergency

Medical Service available, and health clinics and

hospitals are available in Kenai-Soldotna. 

Tatitlek—Tatitlek is a small, unincorporated

Alaskan Native village of 110 residents (Alaska

Department of Labor, Research and Analysis

1999a). The community is located on the northwest shore of Tatitlek Narrows on the Alaska

mainland in Prince William Sound, 30 miles

southwest of Valdez. Tatitlek is primarily a fishing and subsistence community with access by

chartered aircraft, boat, and state ferry. The sale

or importation of alcohol is banned within the

community. Without highway access, boats are

the primary source of local transportation. The

community recently completed construction of a

breakwater and boat harbor. The Exxon Valdez

oil spill also had significant economic, social,

and psychological impacts on members of this

community. For details, see references cited for

Chenega Bay.

Tatitlek has a fishing and subsistence-based culture, and the community does not operate completely on a cash-based economic system. There

are a few service and retail businesses and a school

that offer year-round employment opportunities.

Local fish processing and oyster farming also

provide some employment. 

In 1990, 64 percent of all Tatitlek households

were occupied, with 82 percent occupied by

owners. The average household size was 3.6

people. In 1990, 63 percent of Tatitlek residents

5 years and older had lived in the same dwelling

for the past 5 years. Electricity is available

through a diesel power plant. A dam provides

piped water and sewer system services for 34

homes. About 80 percent of the homes are fully

plumbed. The community has a local landfill,

but there is no garbage collection. In 1998, the

village received funds for water and solid waste

improvements. There is a health clinic in the

community. 

Valdez—Valdez is located 120 air miles east of

Anchorage in Prince William Sound. It is 305

highway miles from Anchorage via the Richardson

and Glenn Highways and serves as the southern

terminus for the Trans Alaska Pipeline, which

was completed in the 1970s. The oil industry is

responsible for the high municipal tax base in

the community. The community is incorporated

with a primarily non-Native population of 4,155

residents (Alaska Department of Labor, Research

and Analysis 1999a). Valdez began as a point of

entrance to the Klondike gold fields. The original

city was destroyed in the 1964 earthquake and

rebuilt in its present location. Valdez is accessible by highway, commercial airline, and state

ferry. Cruise ships also dock at Valdez during the

summer. The Exxon Valdez oil spill also had significant economic, social, and psychological

impacts on members of this community. For

details, see references cited for Chenega Bay.

Valdez has the largest concrete dock in the world,

and is the endpoint of the Richardson Highway

and the Trans Alaska Pipeline. Much of Valdez’s

economic activity is derivative of the transportation of resources and people. Transportation,
64

construction, and seafood processing are all

large sectors in the area. Retail trade and services also have become important sectors as both

resident population and total visitors to the area

have increased.

In 1990, 85 percent of all Valdez households

were occupied, with 43 percent occupied by

owners. The average household size was 2.9

people. In 1990, 43 percent of the residents 5

years or older had lived in the same dwelling for

the past 5 years. Electricity is provided through a

hydro power plant with diesel backup. The city

provides piped water and sewer systems. About

95 percent of all homes are fully plumbed. The

city also operates a local landfill and collects

refuse. In 1998, an oil and hazardous waste recycling center was completed. The community has

a hospital, health clinic, and other health and

social services.

Whittier—Whittier is located on the northeast

shore of the Kenai Peninsula, at the head of

Passage Canal. On the west side of Prince

William Sound, Whittier is only 50 miles southeast of Anchorage, but has limited access via the

Alaskan Railroad, charter aircraft, and state ferry.

Whittier began as an ice-free port and railroad

terminus established during World War II. Commercial cruise ships also dock at Whittier during

the summer. Whittier is an incorporated and primarily non-Native community, with a population

of 306 (Alaska Department of Labor, Research

and Analysis 1999a). It is now a major point of

entry for barge shipping of goods and fuel for

Anchorage and interior Alaska.

The major industrial sectors in Whittier are

transportation and fishing. Most of the transportation is associated with moving visitors to

and from Prince William Sound. When the road

to Whittier is finished, there may be a greater

impact on the community as even more visitors

use it as a gateway to Prince William Sound.

Many Whittier residents participate in a subsistence lifestyle rather than in the cash-based

economy. With completion of the road, the community may be reclassified as urban based on the

improved access.

In 1990, 42 percent of all Whittier housing units 

were occupied, with 35 percent occupied by owners. Nearly all of the housing units are located

within a single high-rise building (The Begich

Towers). The average household size was 2.2

people. In 1990, 25 percent of Whittier residents

5 years and older had lived in the same dwelling

for the past 5 years. A hydropower plant provides

electricity. There are public water and sewer

systems. About 95 percent of the homes are fully

plumbed. The community has refuse collection

but there is no landfill. Whittier has a health

clinic and a Volunteer Ambulance Corps.

Community Social and Economic

Conditions Summary

This section has provided a closer look at the

social and economic conditions of the individual

communities in or near the CNF. This examination revealed both the differences that exist

between communities as well as some similarities between groups of communities. For example, although no two communities have identical

demographic or economic characteristics, the

largest communities had the highest employment

diversity scores, whereas the smallest communities had the lowest employment diversity scores.

The communities of Hope, Chenega Bay, and

Tatitlek had the largest percentages of individuals below poverty level as well as high percentages of people who were either unemployed or

not in the labor force. These communities have

subsistence preference, thus their lower level

of labor force participation and lower median

incomes may reflect higher levels of subsistence

activities. Chenega Bay and Tatitlek are also

Native communities. Forest management actions

located near these communities are likely to have

a greater economic and social impact on them

than on communities that have larger populations,

more diverse economies, and higher income

levels. The community likely to experience the

most change in the next few years is Whittier

because of the new road. Other communities

also are concerned about impacts from the

increased number of visitors to Prince William

Sound that may accompany this new road.
65

As discussed in Section 2, the CNF-related

resources that play the largest role in the economic structure of many of the smaller communities are those associated with the recreation

and tourism industry. Although most of the

larger communities would probably not experience significant changes in their overall level

of economic activity from CNF management

changes, they could experience indirect economic and social effects through changes that

impact their quality of life such as changes in

recreation opportunities. As yet, community

views about specific forest management issues

and the role of the CNF in the quality of life of

community residents are not addressed. In the

next section we provide a more thorough investigation of these issues as well as an examination

of residents’ perceptions of their communities. 

Section 4: Community

Surveys

Under the provisions of the 1969 National

Environmental Policy Act and the 1976 National

Forest Management Act, the public’s opinions and

concerns about forest planning are discovered

through the scoping process. Scoping traditionally involves the solicitation of public comments

through community meetings and written letters

or documents filed with the Forest Service. One

of the chief limitations of this approach is that it

is not possible to extrapolate the relative proportion of comments received to the true proportion

among the population because scoping is not a

true sampling technique. That is, simply because

two-thirds of the comments received are positive,

it is a mistake to infer that two-thirds of the general population are also positive. Conducting

probability samples4 of the general population

can reduce this problem.

In early 1998, Alaska Pacific University (APU)

and CNF cooperatively conducted a social survey of residents of 15 communities neighboring 

4 Probability sampling methods are procedures where some

mechanism involving chance is used to determine the sample members and the probability of any particular sample

being drawn is known (Newbold 1991).

the CNF. The purpose of the survey, entitled

“Planning for the Future of the Chugach National

Forest,” was to get a better understanding of resident’s attitudes regarding the role of the public

in forest plan revision, specific forest management and allocation issues, general forest uses,

and ecosystem values of the CNF. Few, if any,

surveys were returned from the Alaska Native

communities of Chenega Bay, Eyak, and Tatitlek

and therefore are not reported. One of the challenges for CNF planners and decisionmakers is

to identify ways to reach these communities so

that their input is effectively incorporated.

More than 2,300 households from the 12 communities were surveyed. Households were randomly selected from a sampling frame of all

community households with at least one household member in the 1998 Alaska permanent

fund dividend (PFD) database. This database

contains the names and addresses of an estimated 90 percent of Alaska residents. The PFD

database underrepresents residents who have

lived in Alaska less than 2 years. Thus, newcomers to Alaska are excluded from the sample.

In addition to the 12 community samples, an

Alaska statewide sample was selected from all

households in other Alaska communities with at

least one household member in the 1998 PFD

database. The overall response rate from the 12

communities was about 32 percent, ranging from

a high of 44 percent for Cooper Landing and

Moose Pass to a low of 23 percent for Whittier. 

In April 1999, APU conducted another survey

of Alaskan communities. This survey, entitled

“Your Community’s Quality of Life,” focused on

residents’ attitudes about the importance of, and

satisfaction with various social, economic, and

environmental attributes of their community;

preferences for growth in various economic

sectors; and evaluations of selected community

characteristics. This survey was mailed to about

2,800 households in 17 communities in southcentral and southeast Alaska. Only the findings

for the CNF communities of interest are reported

here. These households were randomly selected

from the 1999 PFD database in the same manner

as that described for the previous survey. Once
66

again, there were few, if any, surveys returned

from the Alaska Native communities of Chenega

Bay, Eyak, and Tatitlek and, therefore, they are

not reported. The overall response rate from the

12 communities was about 24 percent, ranging

from a high of 34 percent for Cooper Landing to

a low of 18 percent for Whittier.

The low survey response rates introduce the potential for nonresponse bias. One way to account for

nonresponse bias is to assess the representativeness of respondents by comparing their characteristics with community characteristics from

census data. Unfortunately, because the census

data available for the individual communities

were almost 10 years old, most of the census

data were based on a sampling frame of all

individuals rather than all PFD households.

Additionally, the measurement scales for socioeconomic characteristics in the census data

differed from those used in the APU surveys;

therefore, such comparisons are not meaningful

in this case. Because of the possibility of nonresponse bias, however, APU researchers conducted followup phone interviews and did not

uncover any systematic bias (Brown 2001).

Because the main objective of these two surveys

was more to learn about the individual communities rather than to derive a single forest-wide

perspective, the sampling plans for both surveys

were prepared as individual random samples

from each community. They were not stratified

or weighted by community population when

arriving at forest-wide summary statistics. If

community results were weighted by their populations, the forest-wide results would have been

strongly biased toward the attitudes of Anchorage

residents as its population accounts for about 90

percent of the 12-community total population.

Our intent here is to summarize the results as

concisely as possible without compromising the

information derived from the surveys. In our presentation of the survey results, we do not carry out

tests for statistically significant differences in

responses to individual questions within a community or between communities. Although such

tests might interest readers, the enormous number of tests required outweighs their value for our

purpose. For example, for one question, there are

1,482 possible pairwise tests between communities. For most questions, however, we do report

95 percent confidence intervals for the results

from each community except in cases where table

clutter would be excessive. Where not reported,

these confidence interval estimates are available

from the authors. In general, in communities

where the response rates were the lowest, the

confidence intervals around the estimates are

widest. We emphasize, that our purpose here is

not to provide a rigorous statistical analysis of

the survey results. Rather, the survey estimates

are offered as an additional source of information useful in understanding community residents’ interests, values, and perceptions. Again,

although response rates for the surveys were less

than optimal, the estimates represent the best indicators we have of how residents of each community feel about the surveyed topics. We turn now

to these topics and results, beginning with the

first survey.5

“Planning for the Future of the

Chugach National Forest” Survey:

The Public’s Role in Forest Plan

Revision

General interest in public land planning and

management appears to be increasing throughout

the country. The APU survey asked community

residents two questions about their involvement

in revising the forest plan. The first question

concerned whether the respondent was interested in what happens to the CNF in the next

10 to 15 years. Results from this question are

displayed in table 30. Forest wide, a clear

majority of the respondents from the 12 CNF

communities of interest (80 percent) indicated

that they are very interested in what happens to

the CNF during the next 10 to 15 years (the

2000 forest plan timespan). Less than 5 percent

are only somewhat or not at all interested. For

comparative purposes, a majority of the respondents from the other Alaska communities sur

5 Additional information from the surveys, including

response rates and socioeconomic characteristics of respondents from each community, are provided in Brown (1999).
67

veyed are also very interested in the future of the

CNF. This result is not too surprising given that

those who were not interested in the future of the

CNF likely would not have returned the survey.

The second question regarded the role that the

public should play in the planning of the CNF.

Table 31, shows that, forest-wide, a majority of

the respondents from the 12 CNF communities

of interest (57 percent) want equal partnership

with the Forest Service in developing the 2000

forest plan (table 31). About 27 percent of the

respondents prefer only to provide suggestions

to the Forest Service. Fourteen percent of the

respondents prefer to make decisions and have

the Forest Service carry them out.

Selected Forest Management Issues

The APU survey of communities was completed

before the formal identification of issues through

the National Environmental Policy Act scoping

process. It does not, therefore, address all issues

subsequently identified through the scoping

process. Nevertheless, these selected issues—

wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, timber management, road construction, new vehicular access

to Prince William Sound, and snowmachine and

all-terrain or off-road vehicle access—represented, at the time, the chief public concerns

identified by CNF planning staff.

Wilderness—Currently, there is no congressionally designated wilderness on the CNF. In 1980,

the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation

Act (ANILCA) created 14 wilderness areas on

the Tongass National Forest but only named the

1.97-million-acre Nellie Juan-College Fjord

Wilderness Study Area in western Prince William

Sound on the CNF. Of the nearly 2.0 million

acres, the 1984 forest plan recommends 1.7 million acres be designated as wilderness by Congress.

The 1984 forest plan also states that pending

action by the U.S. Congress, lands within the

1.97-million-acre study area be managed “to

maintain presently existing wilderness character

and potential for inclusion in the National

Wilderness Preservation System” and to “follow

the direction established in the Alaska National

Interest Lands Conservation Act for wilderness

management in Alaska” (USDA Forest Service

1998a).

The management of designated wilderness under

ANILCA is potentially different than the management of most wilderness areas. Motorized forms

of access (snowmobiles, ATVs, and aircraft) for

allowed traditional and subsistence uses distinguish Alaska wilderness from non-Alaska

wilderness.

The APU public survey included a question about

preference of community residents for the amount

of designated wilderness that should be recommended in the 2000 forest plan. Table 32 reveals

that forest-wide, respondents from the 12 CNF

communities of interest are nearly evenly split in

their preferences for congressionally designated

wilderness on the CNF. Thirty-two percent prefer that more than 1.7 million acres (the amount

recommended to Congress in the 1984 forest

plan) be recommended for wilderness designation in the 2000 forest plan. Another 30 percent

favor 1.7 million acres; 20 percent prefer that no

acreage be recommended for wilderness designation; and 14 percent prefer less than 1.7 million

acres be recommended for designated wilderness. Among respondents from other Alaska

communities, one-third favor the amount recommended in the 1984 forest plan, 28 percent prefer

more than 1.7 million acres, and 21 percent favor

no wilderness at all. 

Communities where most respondents support

additional wilderness (more than 1.7 million

acres) include Anchorage (41 percent), Cordova

(41 percent), Girdwood (40 percent), Hope (31

percent), Seward (35 percent), and Valdez (33

percent). Communities that are most in favor of

the current recommendation of 1.7 million acres

are Cooper Landing (42 percent), Whittier (40

percent), Kenai (35 percent), and Moose Pass (34

percent). Soldotna is the only community where

respondents prefer less wilderness acreage (none

or less than 1.7 million acres). Respondents from

Sterling were nearly evenly divided among the

four options.
Table 31—Preference for the role the public should play in Chugach National Forest (CNF) planning by community

Cooper Moose Forest- Other Alaska

Anchorage Landing Cordova Girdwood Hope Kenai Pass Seward Soldotna Sterling Valdez Whittier wide communities

Role (n=78) (n=62) (n=76) (n=79) (n=27) (n=71) (n=40) (n=74) (n=79) (n=83) (n=63) (n=25) (n=757) (n=61)

Percent (and 95 percent confidence interval) 

None 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2

(0-9) (0-9) (0-8) (0-1) (0-11)

Provide suggestions only 33 29 26 27 22 34 23 30 27 22 29 12 27 30

(20-48) (16-44) (14-40) (14-41) (6-45) (20-49) (8-41) (17-44) (15-40) (11-35) (15-44) (1-35) (23-32) (15-46)

Equal partner with CNF 56 60 54 52 48 48 68 76 54 63 57 72 57 51

(41-70) (43-74) (38-68) (36-66) (24-71) (32-63) (46-83) (48-76) (10-67) (47-75) (41-71) (43-90) (52-62) (33-67)

Make decisions 8 11 14 18 30 15 10 17 19 13 14 12 14 13

(2-18) (3-24) (6-27) (8-31) (10-53) (6-29) (2-26) (1-17) (9-31) (5-25) (5-27) (1-35) (11-17) (4-27)

No opinion 1 0 5 3 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 4 1 5

(0-9) (1-15) (0-11) (0-12) (0-8) (0-24) (1-3) (0-16)

Source: Crone 1999a.

68Table 30—Interest in what happens to Chugach National Forest in the next 10 to 15 years by community

Cooper Moose Forest- Other Alaska

Anchorage Landing Cordova Girdwood Hope Kenai Pass Seward Soldotna Sterling Valdez Whittier wide communities

Interest (n=76) (n=65) (n=77) (n=79) (n=25) (n=71) (n=40) (n=73) (n=78) (n=83) (n=63) (n=25) (n=755) (n=61)

Percent (and 95 percent confidence interval) 

None 0 0 3 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 2

(0-11) (0-9) (0-15) (0-2) (0-11)

Somewhat interested 11 3 1 0 0 4 0 0 4 2 2 0 3 10

(3-21) (0-12) (0-9) (0-14) (0-13) (0-10) (0-10) (1-4) (2-23)

Moderately interested 25 14 8 9 4 23 5 10 19 19 25 24 16 38

(14-38) (5-27) (2-19) (3-18) (0-22) (11-37) (0-19) (3-5) (9-32) (10-31) (13-40) (6-48) (13-20) (22-54)

Very interested 64 83 86 91 96 72 93 89 76 78 73 72 80 51

(50-77) (68-92) (72-94) (81-97) (74-100) (56-84) (74-99) (76-96) (61-86) (65-88) (57-85) (44-89) (76-84) (34-66)

No opinion 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 4 1 0

(0-10) (0-9) (0-8) (0-23) (0-2)

Source: Crone 1999a.
69

Wild and scenic rivers—Currently, there are

no designated wild and scenic rivers on the CNF.

The 1984 forest plan did not consider any rivers

or streams for designation under the 1968 National

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Currently, there are

23 rivers (or river segments) and three glaciers

identified as possessing “outstandingly remarkable” resource value(s) and eligible for consideration and inclusion into the National Wild and

Scenic Rivers System (USDA Forest Service

1998a.) The final number of rivers recommended

for the 2000 forest plan was not yet finalized

when we wrote this report.

Like designated wilderness, designated wild

and scenic rivers are often perceived as restricting access to and development of public lands.

Because ANILCA did not recommend any wild

and scenic rivers on national forest lands, many

believe that river designation is not needed. It is

the position of the Forest Service that the 1976

National Forest Management Act requires it to

consider the designation of wild and scenic rivers

when preparing or revising forest plans. The APU

public survey included a question about the preference of community residents for the number of

new designated wild and scenic rivers that should

be recommended in the 2000 forest plan. Table

33 shows that half of all respondents from the 12

CNF communities of interest favor the designation of many, if not all, eligible rivers as wild and

scenic in the 2000 forest plan. Some 27 percent

favor the designation of a few (five or less) eligible rivers. About 19 percent do not favor the designation of any wild and scenic rivers. In general,

support for wild and scenic rivers seems somewhat greater than for designated wilderness areas.

Responses from residents of other Alaska communities reveal that 43 percent of this sample

favor recommending all eligible rivers, whereas

only 13 percent favor not recommending any

designated wild and scenic rivers.

Communities where the largest percentage of

respondents support many (five or more) new designated wild and scenic rivers include Girdwood

(71 percent), Cordova (57 percent), Seward (56

percent), Hope (54 percent), Kenai (54 percent),

Valdez (51 percent), Anchorage (48 percent),

Moose Pass (46 percent), Whittier (42 percent),

and Soldotna (38 percent). The only community

preferring five or fewer new wild and scenic

rivers is Sterling (40 percent). Opposition to any

new wild and scenic rivers is greatest in Soldotna

(25 percent), Whittier (25 percent), Kenai (24

percent), Hope (23 percent), Sterling (23 percent), and Valdez (22 percent). 

Timber management—The amended 1984 forest plan set an ASQ of timber at an average of

8.5 MMBF per year for the first 10 years and an

average of 16.9 MMBF per year thereafter (USDA

Forest Service 1998a.) Market conditions and

environmental changes (particularly an infestation of the spruce bark beetle) have resulted in

an actual removal of about an average 2.1 MMBF

per year over the past 13 years.

Public support or opposition to cutting timber

on the CNF is often a function of the purpose of

the cut, as well as whether the timber sales were

“below cost,” (that is, costing CNF more to

administer the sale than it receives in payment).

This issue mirrors a nationwide concern. The

scope of the issue does not seem as great as it is

on the Tongass National Forest because the volume of the cut is significantly lower and none of

the 14 communities is economically dependent

on the timber industry. 

The APU survey included a question about

preferences for the amount of timber for annual

cutting, and a question concerning acceptable

reasons for cutting. Table 34 shows that, forestwide, most respondents from the 12 CNF communities of interest (31 percent) feel that the

current actual average cut of 2.1 million board

feet per year is the most appropriate level for the

2000 forest plan ASQ. Twenty-one percent favor

an ASQ of less than 2.1 million board feet per

year, whereas another 20 percent would like to

see an ASQ of 8.5 million board feet per year

(the ASQ in the 1984 forest plan.) Fourteen percent wish to see no timber cut at all, and 5 percent favor increasing the ASQ beyond 8.5

million board feet annually.
70Table 32—-Preference for designated wilderness by community

Cooper Moose Forest- Other Alaska

Amount of Anchorage Landing Cordova Girdwood Hope Kenai Pass Seward Soldotna Sterling Valdez Whittier wide communities

wilderness (n=78) (n=64) (n=74) (n=80) (n=26) (n=71) (n=38) (n=74) (n=77) (n=81) (n=63) (n=25) (n=751) (n=61)

Percent (and 95 percent confidence interval) 

None 15 11 15 10 23 21 24 23 30 25 24 24 20 21

(6-28) (3-24) (6-28) (3-21) (5-48) (10-35) (8-44) (11-37) (17-44) (13-38) (11-39) (5-50) (16-24) (9-37)

Less than 1.7 million 

acres 15 19 12 13 19 13 11 8 17 21 16 4 14 10

(6-28) (8-34) (4-25) (4-24) (3-44) (4-25) (1-29) (2-19) (7-30) (10-34) (6-30) (0-25) (11-18) (2-23)

1.7 million acres 30 42 27 36 19 35 34 28 22 25 24 40 30 33

(15-41) (26-58) (14-42) (22-51) (3-44) (21-51) (15-55) (15-43) (11-36) (13-38) (11-39) (15-65) (25-34) (17-49)

More than 1.7 million 

acres 41 22 41 40 31 25 26 35 26 25 33 28 32 28

(26-56) (10-37) (26-56) (26-54) (10-56) (13-40) (10-47) (21-50) (14-40) (13-38) (18-50) (8-54) (27-36) (14-44)

No opinion 1 6 5 1 8 6 5 5 5 5 3 4 4 8

(0-9) (1-18) (1-16) (0-8) ( 0-30) (1-16) (0-21) (1-16) (1-15) (1-14) (0-13) (0-25) (3-7) (1-21)

Source: Crone 1999a.Table 33—Preference for designated wild and scenic rivers by community

Cooper Moose Forest- Other Alaska

Anchorage Landing Cordova Girdwood Hope Kenai Pass Seward Soldotna Sterling Valdez Whittier wide communities

Number of rivers (n=77) (n=64) (n=77) (n=80) (n=26) (n=71) (n=39) (n=73) (n=79) (n=82) (n=63) (n=24) (n=755) (n=60)

Percent (and 95 percent confidence interval) 

None 17 16 16 8 23 24 18 19 25 23 22 25 19 13

(7-30) (6-29) (6-28) (2-18) (6-48) (12-38) (5-37) (9-33) (14-39) (12-36) (10-37) (6-51) (16-23) (4-27)

Few (5 or less) 33 27 22 20 19 21 31 22 35 40 24 25 27 35

(19-47) (14-42) (11-35) (10-33) (4-43) (10-35) (13-51) (11-36) (22-50) (26-54) (11-39) (6-51) (23-31) (20-51)

Many (all suitable) 48 53 57 71 54 54 46 56 38 31 51 42 50 43

(33-62) (36-68) (42-71) (56-82) (27-76) (38-68) (25-66) (40-70) (24-52) (18-44) (34-66) (17-70) (46-55) (27-59)

No opinion 3 5 5 1 4 1 5 3 1 6 3 8 3 8

(0-11) (0-15) (1-15) (0-8) (0-23) (0-9) (0-20) (0-11) (0-8) (1-16) (0-13) (0-31) (2-5) (2-21)

Source: Crone 1999a.
71

Table 34—Preference for amount of timber harvesting by community

Cooper Moose Forest- Other Alaska

Anchorage Landing Cordova Girdwood Hope Kenai Pass Seward Soldotna Sterling Valdez Whittier wide communities

Amount of timber (n=78) (n=63) (n=74) (n=80) (n=26) (n=71) (n=38) (n=72) (n=78) (n=82) (n=62) (n=25) (n=750) (n=60)

Percent (and 95 percent confidence interval) 

None 12 8 19 29 0 13 13 17 17 5 16 8 14 18

(4-24) (1-21) (8-33) (16-43) (4-26) (2-32) (7-30) (7-30) (1-15) (5-31) (0-31) (11-18) (7-34)

Less than 2.1 

MMBF/year 13 14 38 30 15 11 24 19 19 18 29 20 21 23

(4-25) (5-29) (23-53) (17-44) (2-39) (3-24) (8-45) (8-34) (9-33) (8-31) (14-45) (4-45) (17-25) (10-40)

2.1 MMBF/year 45 38 23 28 35 35 16 29 28 31 29 40 31 20

(29-60) (22-55) (11-37) (15-42) (12-60) (20-51) (3-36) (16-44) (15-43) (17-45) (14-45) (15-65) (27-36) (8-36)

8.5 MMBF/year 19 24 7 11 27 30 29 21 25 28 11 24 20 22

(9-33) (11-40) (1-18) (4-23) (7-52) (16-45) (11-50) (9-35) (12-39) (16-42) (3-25) (5-50) (17-24) (9-38)

More than 8.5 

MMBF/year 4 6 1 0 12 3 5 8 5 9 5 0 5 2

(0-13) (1-18) (0-9) (1-35) (0-12) (0-22) (2-20) (1-15) (2-19) (0-16) (3-7) (0-11)

No opinion 8 10 12 3 12 9 13 6 6 10 11 8 8 15

(2-19) (2-23) (4-25) (0-11) (1-35) (2-20) (2-32) (1-16) (1-17) (3-21) (3-25) (0-31) (6-11) (5-30)

Source: Crone 1999a.
72

Support for increasing the timber cut beyond

8.5 million board feet per year in the 12 CNF

communities is strongest in Hope (12 percent),

Sterling (9 percent), and Seward (8 percent).

Support for no timber cutting is strongest in

Girdwood (29 percent), Cordova (19 percent),

and Soldotna and Seward (17 percent each). Many

residents of Anchorage (45 percent), Cooper

Landing (38 percent), Hope (35 percent), Kenai

(35 percent), Sterling (31 percent), Seward (29

percent), and Soldotna (28 percent) favor continuing to cut timber at the historic average of 2.1

million board feet per year.

Of respondents from other Alaska communities,

the largest group (23 percent) favors the cutting

of less than 2.1 million board feet per year.

Twenty-two percent prefer 8.5 million board feet,

20 percent prefer 2.1 million board feet, and 18

percent favor no timber cutting at all. Less than 2

percent favor cutting more than 8.5 million board

feet of timber on average. Table 35 shows that

across all respondents from the 12 CNF communities, the most acceptable condition for cutting

timber is for the removal of dead or insectinfested trees (80 percent), followed by the prevention of fire and the subsequent protection of

life and personal property (74 percent), and creating or improving wildlife habitat (68 percent).

Cutting timber for commercial profit was the

least acceptable condition (23 percent). Eight

percent feel there are no acceptable reasons for

cutting timber. 

Table 35 also shows that respondents from other

Alaska communities feel that the most acceptable condition for cutting timber is for the removal

of dead or insect-infested trees (79 percent), followed by creating or improving wildlife habitat

(67 percent), prevention of fire and the subsequent protection of life and personal property

(59 percent), and commercial profit (26 percent.)

Ten percent feel there is no acceptable reason for

cutting timber.

Road construction—The CNF is inventoried

as 98 percent roadless (USDA Forest Service

1998a.) Within its boundaries, public access is

primarily by on-road automobile along the 95

miles of the Seward and Sterling state highways. About 59 miles of forest road in the Kenai

Peninsula and across the Copper River Delta east

of Cordova, and an additional 586 miles of forest development roads exist within the CNF. This

is offset by provisions of the 1980 ANILCA,

which permits the use of other motorized forms

of access, including snowmobiles, all-terrain

vehicle (ATVs), motorboats, and aircraft, on

CNF for “traditional” and subsistence purposes.

The use of such motorized forms of transportation solely for recreation, however, does not

enjoy the same consideration. The use of motorized transportation for recreation is often viewed

as incompatible with subsistence uses of motorized transportation, and both are often viewed as

incompatible with nonmotorized forms of recreation and the desire for solitude. 

As shown in table 36, most of respondents in all

communities favored constructing a few (five or

fewer) new roads. Communities most in favor of

five or more new roads are Sterling (28 percent),

Moose Pass (23 percent), Seward (22 percent),

and Anchorage (21 percent). Communities most

in favor of not constructing new roads are Cordova

(37 percent), Hope (31 percent), and Moose Pass

(28 percent).

Table 37 reveals that 76 percent of all respondents from the 12 CNF communities thought

that new roads should be built for vegetation

management. Preferences for other road purposes include scenic road touring (60 percent),

hunting and fishing access (55 percent), off-road

vehicle access (43 percent), and commercial timber (37 percent). Again, respondents from other

Alaska communities express nearly identical

preferences. 

Prince William Sound Access—Construction

of direct vehicular access to Whittier through

existing railroad tunnels is expected to be completed in mid-2000 (USDA Forest Service 1998a).

Projections of up to a million additional people

will enter Prince William Sound each year through

Whittier because of the new road. The Whittier

community is in turn planning to double the

size of its small boat harbor. The community of

Chenega Bay has installed a fuel dock to service

and attract the anticipated increase in boat use as

it spreads throughout the sound. The significant
73

Table 35—Acceptable conditions for timber harvest by community

Cooper Moose Forest- Other Alaska

Anchorage Landing Cordova Girdwood Hope Kenai Pass Seward Soldotna Sterling Valdez Whittier wide communities

Condition (n=78) (n=63) (n=76) (n=80) (n=26) (n=70) (n=40) (n=73) (n=79) (n=83) (n=63) (n=25) (n=756) (n=61)

Percent (and 95 percent confidence interval) 

None 1 5 11 18 0 10 8 10 13 1 10 0 8 10

(0-4) (0-10) (3-18) (9-26) (3-17) (0-16) (3-16) (5-20) (0-4) (2-17) (6-10) (2-17)

Commercial profit 27 21 30 15 12 24 30 23 18 30 17 36 23 26

(10-37) (10-31) (20-41) (7-23) (0-25) (14-35) (15-45) (13-33) (9-26) (20-40) (8-27) (16-56) (20-26) (15-38)

Create wildlife

habitat 73 68 62 51 81 76 65 71 67 75 70 64 68 67

(63-83) (56-80) (51-73) (4-62) (64-97) (65-86) (50-80) (61-82) (56-78) (65-84) (58-81) (44-84) (65-71) (55-79)

Remove dead or 

insect-infested trees 86 87 68 66 92 81 65 79 81 89 78 96 80 79

(78-94) (79-96) (58-79) (56-77) (81-100) (72-91) (50-80) (70-89) (72-90) (82-96) (67-88) (88-100) (77-83) (68-89)

Fire prevention/life 

and property 86 71 71 64 88 69 90 79 68 77 62 80 74 59

(77-93) (60-83) (61-81) (53-74) (75-100) (57-80) (80-100) (70-89) (58-79) (68-86) (50-74) (63-97) (71-77) (46-72)

No opinion 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 7

(0-4) (61-81) (0-4) (0-6) (0-5) (0-2) (0-13)

Source: Crone 1999a.
74Table 36—Preference for amount of new roads by community

Cooper Moose Forest- Other Alaska

Number of new Anchorage Landing Cordova Girdwood Hope Kenai Pass Seward Soldotna Sterling Valdez Whittier wide communities

roads (n=78) (n=64) (n=73) (n=76) (n=26) (n=68) (n=39) (n=74) (n=78) (n=82) (n=63) (n=24) (n=745) (n=61)

Percent (and 95 percent confidence interval) 

None 9 22 37 26 31 13 28 22 21 18 24 17 22 28

(2-20) (10-37) (23-52) (15-40) (10-56) (5-26) (12-48) (11-35) (10-33) (9-31) (12-38) (3-41) (18-26) (14-44)

Few (5 or less) 65 67 52 61 50 68 49 54 63 52 59 97 60 56

(50-78) (50-80) (36-66) (46-73) (24-73) (51-80) (28-68) (38-68) (48-75) (38-66) (42-73) (51-94) (55-64) (38-71)

Many (5 or more) 21 9 7 13 15 16 23 22 17 28 18 4 17 12

(10-34) (2-22) (1-17) (5-25) (2-39) (6-30) (9-42) (11-35) (8-29) (16-42) (7-31) (0-24) (13-20) (3-25)

No opinion 5 2 4 0 4 3 0 3 0 1 0 0 2 5

(1-14) (0-10) (0-13) (0-23) (0-12) (0-11) (0-8) (1-3) (0-16)

Source: Crone 1999a.

Table 37—Acceptable purposes for constructing new roads by community

Cooper Moose Forest- Other Alaska

Anchorage Landing Cordova Girdwood Hope Kenai Pass Seward Soldotna Sterling Valdez Whittier wide communities

Purpose (n=70) (n=54) (n=50) (n=61) (n=18) (n=63) (n=30) (n=59) (n=66) (n=70) (n=47) (n=23) (n=611) (n=47)

Percent (and 95 percent confidence interval) 

Commercial timber 36 37 40 26 44 40 47 44 33 47 32 17 37 34

(24-47) (24-50) (26-54) (15-38) (19-70) (27-52) (28-66) (31-57) (22-45) (35-59) (18-46) (1-34) (33-41) (20-48)

Off-road vehicle 

access 41 37 42 39 28 40 47 39 42 54 64 30 43 40

(30-53) (24-50) (28-56) (27-52) (5-51) (27-52) (28-66) (26-52) (30-55) (42-66) (50-78) (10-51) (39-47) (26-55)

Scenic road touring 77 48 56 49 61 65 40 51 65 63 81 48 60 68

(67-87) (34-62) (42-70) (36-62) (36-86) (53-77) (21-59) (38-64) (53-77) (52-74) (69-92) (26-70) (56-64) (54-82)

Hunting and fishing 63 35 62 48 50 62 37 59 53 66 57 57 55 64

(51-74) (22-48) (48-76) (35-60) (24-76) (50-74) (18-55) (46-72) (41-65) (54-77) (43-72) (35-78) (51-59) (50-78)

Vegetation 

management 80 83 54 77 89 76 77 86 82 79 70 52 76 81

(70-90) (73-94) (40-68) (66-88) (73-100) (65-87) (61-93) (77-95) (72-91) (69-88) (57-84) (30-74) (73-80) (69-92)

No opinion 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 2 9 2 4

(0-7) (0-6) (0-16) (0-5) (0-4) (0-6) (0-21) (1-3) (0-10)

Source: Crone 1999a.
75

increase in new use is expected to create various recreation management problems related to

the condition of the Nellie Juan-College Fiord

Wilderness Study Area, overcrowding and displacement of existing users, impacts on upland

areas adjacent to the sound, and public facilities

throughout the sound. 

The APU survey included a question about

how CNF should respond to the expected new

demand and associated impacts to the uplands

and coastline. Results from this question are

shown in table 38. Forest-wide, nearly half of

the respondents from the 12 CNF communities

felt that CNF should only create new facilities

for mitigating expected adverse environmental

impacts. Thirty-seven percent favor creating

additional facilities that would not only mitigate

expected impacts but would also expand public

recreation opportunities throughout the sound.

Another 11 percent recommend no action.

Respondents from other Alaska communities

agreed with respondents from the 12 CNF communities of interest in terms of their preference

for action (53 percent favor minimal facilities,

27 percent favor expanded facilities, and 13 percent favor no action).

Communities most in favor of expanding recreation facilities are Soldotna (55 percent), Sterling

(51 percent), and Anchorage (50 percent.) Communities most preferring minimal facilities for

mitigation purposes are Girdwood (71 percent)

and Seward (60 percent). Additionally, at least

50 percent of the respondents from the communities of Cooper Landing, Cordova, Hope, and

Moose Pass favor the minimal facility approach. 

Open areas for snowmachines and all-terrain

or off-road vehicles—Currently, by forest order,

most of the CNF is closed to ATV or off-road

vehicle (ORV) use. A large portion of the forest

is open east and northeast of Cordova. Conversely, most of the CNF is open to snowmobiles

for traditional and subsistence uses (provided

there is adequate snow cover) under provisions

of the 1980 ANILCA. The use of these forms of

motorized access generates much debate about

their appropriateness and the nature of environmental and social impacts associated with their

use. For example, the noise associated with snowmachines and ATVs or ORVs is a major issue for those

wishing to experience solitude in a forest setting.

The APU survey asked respondents their preferences for the amount of area within the CNF that

should be open to the use of snowmachines and

ATVs or ORVs. Preferences of respondents for

the amount of area open to snowmachine use and

ATV or ORV use are shown in tables 39 and 40,

respectively. Forest-wide, the response chosen

most often was the current amount for both snowmachine area (41 percent) and ATV or ORV areas

(37 percent). Thirty-one percent of respondents

would like more areas open to snowmachines,

and 26 percent would like more areas open to

ATVS or ORVs. More respondents are in favor

of reducing the amount of forest open to ATV

and ORV use (28 percent) than to snowmachine

use (17 percent). Eleven percent of the respondents are undecided about the appropriate area

for snowmachine use, whereas 9 percent are

undecided about the appropriate area for ATV

and ORV use. The preferences of respondents

from other communities in Alaska closely follow

those of forest-wide respondents, although a

higher percentage of respondents have no opinion on snowmachine use (22 percent) and ATV

or ORV use (18 percent).

Communities most in favor of increased snowmachine access are Sterling (47 percent), Valdez

(41 percent), and Soldotna (36 percent), whereas

the communities of Cooper Landing (25 percent)

and Whittier (24 percent) are most in favor of

decreased snowmachine access. Forty-two percent of the Valdez respondents are in favor of

increased ATV or ORV access, followed by

Sterling (33 percent), and Cordova (31 percent).

Respondents from Girdwood (35 percent) are

most in favor of decreased ATV or ORV use, followed closely by Anchorage (34 percent), and

Hope and Moose Pass (both 33 percent). 

General Forest Uses

A second area of interest in the APU survey is

an examination of general forest uses—without

respect to the specific management issues identified in the previous section. The survey presented
Table 38—Preference for management response to Whittier access road to Prince William Sound by community

Cooper Moose Forest- Other Alaska

Management Anchorage Landing Cordova Girdwood Hope Kenai Pass Seward Soldotna Sterling Valdez Whittier wide communities

response (n=78) (n=64) (n=76) (n=79) (n=27) (n=71) (n=40) (n=74) (n=78) (n=82) (n=62) (n=25) (n=756) (n=60)

Percent (and 95 percent confidence interval) 

No action 6 8 22 5 7 11 8 8 9 11 18 12 11 13

(1-16) (1-20) (11-36) (1-14) (0-28) (4-23) (0-23) (2-20) (2-20) (4-22) (7-32) (1-35) (8-14) (4-27)

Minimal facilities 

to mitigate 40 53 55 71 56 35 55 60 41 33 44 44 48 53

(26-54) (36-68) (40-69) (56-82) (29-77) (21-50) (33-73) (44-73) (27-55) (20-47) (27-59) (19-69) (44-53) (36-69)

Expand facilities

to enhance 50 34 15 24 33 49 33 30 55 51 37 40 37 27

(35-64) (20-50) (6-27) (13-37) (12-58) (34-64) (15-52) (17-44) (30-59) (37-65) (22-53) (16-65) (33-42) (13-43)

No opinion 4 5 8 0 4 4 5 3 5 5 2 4 4 7

(0-13) (0-15) (2-18) (0-22) (0-14) (0-20) (0-11) (0-14) (1-14) (0-10) (0-24) (2-6) (1-19)

Source: Crone 1999a.

76

Table 39—Preference for open areas for snowmachines by community

Cooper Moose Forest- Other Alaska

Amount of Anchorage Landing Cordova Girdwood Hope Kenai Pass Seward Soldotna Sterling Valdez Whittier wide communities

open area (n=79) (n=64) (n=76) (n=79) (n=26) (n=71) (n=40) (n=73) (n=78) (n=83) (n=63) (n=25) (n=757) (n=60)

Percent (and 95 percent confidence interval) 

Current amount 33 47 43 49 46 39 53 48 37 35 30 32 41 38

(20-47) (31-62) (29-58) (34-63) (21-70) (25-54) (31-71) (32-62) (23-51) (22-49) (16-46) (10-57) (36-45) (23-55)

Increase area or 

season 33 22 25 20 35 28 28 27 36 47 41 20 31 23

(20-47) (10-37) (13-40) (9-33) (13-59) (15-43) (11-47) (14-42) (22-50) (33-61) (25-57) (4-45) (26-35) (11-39)

Decrease area or 

season 17 25 21 20 12 13 15 19 18 8 13 24 17 17

(7-29) (12-40) (10-34) (9-33) (1-34) (4-25) (4-33) (8-33) (8-31) (2-19) (4-26) (6-49) (13-21) (6-31)

No opinion 18 6 11 10 8 20 5 6 9 10 16 24 11 22

(8-30) (1-17) (3-22) (0-8) (0-29) (9-33) (0-20) (1-16) (2-20) ( 3-20) (6-30) (6-49) (9-15) (10-37)

Source: Crone 1999a.
77

Table 40—Preference for open areas for off-road vehicles by community

Cooper Moose Forest- Other Alaska

Amount of open Anchorage Landing Cordova Girdwood Hope Kenai Pass Seward Soldotna Sterling Valdez Whittier wide communities

area

(n=79) (n=63) (n=77) (n=79) (n=27) (n=71) (n=40) (n=72) (n=79) (n=83) (n=62) (n=25) (n=759) (n=60)

Percent (and 95 percent confidence interval) 

Current amount 30 41 33 43 44 37 45 42 38 40 24 36 37 42

(18-44) (25-57) (19-47) (28-57) (20-68) (22-52) (25-64) (26-56) (24-52) (26-54) (12-40) (13-61) (33-42) (25-58)

Increase area or 

season 24 16 31 13 19 25 23 29 29 33 42 12 26 13

(13-37) (6-30) (18-45) (5-24) (4-42) (13-40) (8-41) (17-45) (17-43) (20-46) (26-58) (1-35) (22-30) (4-27)

Decrease area or 

season 34 30 29 35 33 23 33 26 24 17 26 28 28 27

(21-48) (16-46) (16-43) (23-50) (12-58) (11-37) (15-52) (14-40) (13-37) (8-29) (13-41) (8-53) (24-32) (13-43)

No opinion 11 13 8 9 4 16 0 3 9 11 8 24 9 18

(4-23) (4-26) (2-18) (2-19) (0-23) (6-29) (0-11) (2-19) (4-22) (2-20) (6-49) (7-12) (7-33)

Source: Crone 1999a.
78

a list of 19 general forest uses and asked respondents whether they favored or opposed such general forest use, and to what degree (on a scale

where 5 = “strongly favor,” 3 = “neither favored

or opposed,” and 1 = “strongly oppose”). Again,

these general forest uses were felt at the time of

the survey to be the most likely uses of CNF in

the future. 

As shown in table 41, forest-wide, the most

publicly favored general forest uses—fish and

wildlife habitat (4.6), camping and picnicking

(4.4), nonmotorized recreation (4.3), wildlife

viewing and observation (4.3), and gathering

forest products (4.3)—are less resource consumptive than the most opposed uses. The most

opposed general forest uses, which are mostly

commercial, include mining (2.5), oil and gas

(2.6), logging (2.7), outfitting and guiding (3.2),

motorized recreation (3.2), communication sites

and utility easements (3.2), and helicopter skiing

and hiking (3.2). Note that although the commercial forest uses are more opposed relative to the

other general forest uses, they are, in general,

rated as neither favored nor opposed on the

absolute rating scale ranging from strongly

favored to strongly opposed. Respondents from

other Alaska communities expressed similar

opinions.

Beyond the near universal ranking of fish and

wildlife habitat as the most favored general forest

use, some differences exist between the respondent ratings of the 12 CNF communities. Notable

are the high ratings for subsistence hunting and

fishing by respondents from Cordova (4.5) and

Whittier (4.4). Commercial tourism is rated lowest by respondents from Cordova (3.0) and

Sterling (3.0). 

A factor analysis of the data indicates that the

19 individual general forest uses may be combined to produce five significant groups of uses,

which together explain an even greater amount

of variance in the data than individual uses. The

five groupings (as labeled by APU and CNF

researchers) represent (1) “nonconsumptive commercial” uses (commercial outfitting and guiding,

and helicopter skiing and hiking); (2) “consumptive commercial” uses (oil and gas drilling, commercial mining, commercial logging, and (in an

inverse relationship) wilderness; (3) “sport hunting and fishing”; (4) “subsistence” (subsistence

hunting and fishing, gathering forest products,

and providing clean water); and (5) “recreation”

(fish and wildlife habitat, nonmotorized recreation, and motorized recreation). 

Forest Ecosystem Values

The view that the sole purpose of national forests

is to provide a supply of natural resources for the

production of commodities no longer adequately

represents how society regards these public lands.

Ecosystem values are different than general forest uses and there is not necessarily a one-to-one

correspondence between the two.

The APU survey asked respondents to rate the

importance of 13 distinct forest ecosystem values taken from Rolston (1988) and shown in

figure 19. Specifically, respondents were asked

to allocate a sum of $100 among the 13 values in

Figure 19—Definitions of forest ecosystem values (Developed by Chugach planning team based on Rolston 1988).

Ecosystem Value Ecosystem Definition

Aesthetic “I value the forest because I enjoy the forest scenery, sights, sounds, smells, etc.”

Biological diversity “I value the forest because it provides a variety of fish, wildlife, plant life, etc.”

Cultural “I value the forest because it is a place for me to continue and pass down the wisdom and knowledge, traditions, and way of life of my ancestors.”

Economic “I value the forest because it provides timber, fisheries, minerals, or tourism opportunities such as outfitting and guiding.”

Future “I value the forest because it allows future generations to know and experience the forest as it is now.”

Historic “I value the forest because it has places and things of natural and human history that matter to me, others, and the Nation.”

Intrinsic “I value the forest in and of itself for its existence, no mater what I or others think about the forest.”

Learning “I value the forest because we can learn about the environment through scientific observation or experimentation.”

Life support “I value the forest because it helps produce, preserve, clean, and renew air, soil, and water.”

Recreation “I value the forest because it provides a place for my favorite outdoor recreation activities.”

Spiritual “I value the forest because it is a sacred, religious, or spiritually special place to me or because I feel reverence and respect for nature there.”

Subsistence “I value the forest because it provides necessary food and supplies to sustain my life.”

Therapeutic “I value the forest because it makes me feel better, physically and/or mentally.”
79

Table 41—Preferences for selected forest uses by community 

Cooper Moose Forest- Other Alaska

Anchorage Landing Cordova Girdwood Hope Kenai Pass Seward Soldotna Sterling Valdez Whittier wide communities

Forest use (n=77) (n=65) (n=74) (n=80) (n=26) (n=71) (n=40) (n=74) (n=79) (n=80) (n = 63) (n=25) (n=752) (n=61)

Scale: 5 = “strongly favor” to 1 = “strongly oppose” (and 95 percent confidence interval)

Fish and wildlife 

habitat 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.4 4.7 4.5 4.6 4.4

(4.5-4.7) (4.5-4.8) (4.5-4.8) (4.6-4.8) (4.1-4.8) (4.4-4.7) (4.4-4.8) (4.3-4.7) (4.4-4.7) (4.3-4.6) (4.4-4.8) (4.3-4.7) (4.53-4.62) (4.2-4.5)

Camping and 

picnicking 4.5 4.3 4.3 4.5 4.2 4.5 4.3 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.2

(4.4-4.7) (4.2-4.5) (4.2-4.5) (4.3-4.6) (3.8-4.5) (4.3-4.7) (4.1-4.5) (4.2-4.5) (4.3-4.5) (4.3-4.5) (4.1-4.5) (4.1-4.5) (4.34-4.44) (4.0-4.3)

Nonmotorized

recreation 4.5 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.4 4.3 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.3 4.0

(4.3-4.6) (4.3-4.6) (4.2-4.6) (4.3-4.7) (3.9-4.7) (4.1-4.6) (3.9-4.5) (4.2-4.6) (4.1-4.5) (4.0-4.4) (3.8-4.3) (3.8-4.4) (4.27-4.40) (3.8-4.3)

Wildlife viewing 

and observation 4.5 4.3 4.3 4.6 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.2

(4.3-4.6) (4.1-4.5) (4.1-4.5) (4.4-4.7) (3.7-4.6) (4.1-4.4) (4.1-4.5) (4.2-4.5) (4.0-4.4) (4.1-4.4) (3.9-4.4) (4.0-4.5) (4.27-4.37) (4.1-4.4)

Gathering forest 

products 4.3 4.2 4.5 4.2 4.3 4.1 4.3 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.0

(4.2-4.5) (4.0-4.4) (4.4-4.7) (4.1-4.4) (4.0-4.7) (3.9-4.3) (4.0-4.5) (4.2-4.6) (4.0-4.4) (4.2-4.4) (4.0-4.4) (4.0-4.5) (4.24-4.34) (3.8-4.2)

Providing fresh water 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.0 4.1 4.3 4.4 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.9 4.2 4.0

(4.2-4.5) (4.0-4.4) (4.1-4.5) (4.0-4.4) (3.6-4.4) (4.0-4.3) (4.0-4.6) (4.3-4.6) (3.8-4.2) (4.0-4.3) (3.8-4.3) (3.6-4.2) (4.14-4.26) (3.8-4.3)

Sport fishing 4.3 4.3 3.9 4.0 3.7 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.3 4.1 4.2 4.1 4.0

(4.0-4.4) (4.1-4.4) (3.7-4.1) (3.9-4.2) (3.2-4.1) (4.0-4.4) (3.9-4.4) (3.8-4.3) (3.9-4.3) (4.1-4.5) (3.9-4.3) (3.9-4.5) (4.05-4.18) (3.8-4.3)

Sightseeing 4.3 3.9 4.0 3.9 3.8 4.2 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.2 4.2 3.8 4.1 4.0

(4.2-4.5) (3.7-4.1) (3.8-4.2) (3.6-4.1) (3.5-4.2) (4.0-4.4) (3.7-4.2) (3.8-4.3) (3.9-4.3) (4.0-4.4) (4.1-4.4) (3.5-4.2) (4.01-4.13) (3.8-4.2)

Wilderness 4.0 3.9 4.2 4.2 3.7 3.8 4.0 4.0 3.9 3.8 3.7 4.0 3.9 3.7

(3.7-4.2) (3.6-4.2) (3.9-4.4) (4.0-4.5) 3.1-4.2 (3.6-4.1) (3.6-4.3) (3.7-4.3) (3.6-4.1) (3.5-4.0) (3.4-4.0) (3.5-4.5) (3.85-4.02) (3.4-4.0)

Sport hunting 3.6 3.9 3.7 3.4 3.3 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.2 3.9 4.0 3.8 3.7

(3.4-3.9) (3.7-4.2) (3.4-4.0) (3.1-3.7) (2.8-3.9) (3.7-4.2) (3.8-4.4) (3.7-4.3) (3.6-4.1) (4.0-4.4) (3.6-4.1) (3.7-4.2) (3.76-3.92) (3.4-4.0)

Subsistence fishing 

and hunting 3.8 3.5 4.5 3.8 3.9 3.6 4.0 3.9 3.5 3.7 3.9 4.4 3.8 3.8

(3.6-4.0) (3.2-3.8) (4.3-4.6) (3.6-4.0) (3.4-4.3) (3.3-3.9) (3.6-4.3) (3.7-4.2) (3.3-3.8) (3.4-3.9) (3.6-4.2) (4.1-4.6) (3.75-3.91) (3.5-4.0)
80Table 41—Preferences for selected forest uses by community (continued)

Cooper Moose Forest- Other Alaska

Anchorage Landing Cordova Girdwood Hope Kenai Pass Seward Soldotna Sterling Valdez Whittier wide communities

Forest use (n=77) (n=65) (n=74) (n=80) (n=26) (n=71) (n=40) (n=74) (n=79) (n=80) (n = 63) (n=25) (n=752) (n=61)

Scale: 5 = “strongly favor” to 1 = “strongly oppose” (and 95 percent confidence interval)

Commercial tourism 3.4 3.3 3.0 3.4 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.0 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.1

(3.2-3.6) (3.1-3.6) (2.7-3.3) (3.2-3.7) (2.8-3.7) (3.1-3.6) (2.9-3.6) (3.0-3.5) (2.8-3.3) (2.7-3.2) (3.2-3.7) (3.0-3.8) (3.2-3.3) (2.9-3.4)

Helicopter skiing 

and hiking 3.4 2.9 3.3 3.5 2.8 3.4 2.8 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.5 3.2 3.2 3.3

(3.2-3.6) (2.6-3.1) (3.1-3.5) (3.2-3.7) (2.5-3.1) (3.1-3.6) (2.5-3.2) (2.8-3.3) (2.9-3.4) (3.0-3.4) (3.3-3.8) (2.8-3.7) (3.1-3.3) (3.1-3.6)

Communications 

and utilities 3.2 3.2 3.4 3.1 3.1 3.3 3.1 3.1 2.9 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.0

(3.0-3.4) (3.0-3.4) (3.1-3.6) (2.8-3.3) (2.7-3.5) (3.1-3.5) (2.8-3.4) (2.9-3.4) (2.7-3.1) (3.0-3.4) (3.1-3.5) (2.9-3.8) (3.1-3.2) (2.7-3.2)

Motorized recreation 3.1 3.0 3.1 2.9 3.0 3.2 3.3 3.1 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.0 3.2 3.1

(2.8-3.4) (2.7-3.3) (2.8-3.4) (2.6-3.2) (2.5-3.5) (2.9-3.5) (2.8-3.7) (2.8-3.5) (3.1-3.6) (3.1-3.7) (2.9-3.6) (2.5-3.5) (3.1-3.3) (2.8-3.4)

Commercial 

outfitting/guiding 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.4 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.2 2.7 3.0 3.3 3.6 3.2 3.0

(3.0-3.4) (3.0-3.5) (2.8-3.4) (3.2-3.7) (2.4-3.5) (2.9-3.4) (2.9-3.6) (3.0-3.5) (2.5-3.0) (2.8-3.3) (3.0-3.5) (3.2-4.0) (3.1-3.2) (2.7-3.3)

Commercial logging 2.7 3.0 2.4 2.3 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.8 3.1 2.6 2.8 2.7 2.6

(2.5-3.0) (2.7-3.3) (2.1-2.7) (2.0-2.5) (2.3-3.4) (2.6-3.2) (2.5-3.3) (2.4-3.0) (2.5-3.0) (2.8-3.4) (2.3-2.9) (2.3-3.3) (2.6-2.8) (2.2-2.9)

Commercial oil 

and gas 2.7 2.7 2.3 2.3 2.3 3.0 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.4

(2.4-2.9) (2.4-2.9) (2.1-2.6) (2.0-2.6) (1.8-2.8) (2.7-3.3) (2.2-3.0) (2.2-2.7) (2.3-2.9) (2.5-3.1) (2.3-2.9) (2.1-3.2) (2.5-2.7) (2.1-2.7)

Commercial mining 2.6 2.3 2.4 2.2 2.5 2.7 2.5 2.7 2.5 2.8 2.6 3.0 2.5 2.5

(2.3-2.8) (2.1-2.6) (2.1-2.7) (1.9-2.4) (1.9-3.0) (2.4-2.9) (2.1-2.9) (2.4-2.9) (2.3-2.7) (2.5-3.0) (2.4-2.9) (2.5-3.4) (2.4-2.6) (2.2-2.8)

Source: Crone 1999a.
81

order to ensure that the value is retained in the

2000 forest plan. Because the sum was equal to

$100, the dollar values are the same as percentage

values. The results of this question are shown in

table 42.

Forest-wide, respondents from the 12 CNF communities rated recreation ($14.90 or 14.9 percent)

as the most important forest ecosystem value of

the CNF, followed by life support (13.3 percent),

and aesthetic (12.4 percent). The least important

forest ecosystem values are cultural (2.2 percent)

and historic (3.3 percent). Respondents from other

Alaska communities often agreed with respondents from the 12 CNF communities of interest.

As with general forest uses, the perceptions of

the respondents from the 12 CNF communities

also differed by community. Cordova respondents

consider the subsistence ecosystem value to be

the most important in their community (13.5 percent). Respondents from Sterling (20.6 percent),

Kenai (18.5 percent), and Anchorage (17.5 percent) rate recreation as the most important forest

ecosystem value, while respondents from Hope

(8.1 percent) and Whittier (9.3 percent) rate it

much lower. Economic value is rated highest in

Whittier (14.5 percent) and Sterling (10.8 percent) and lowest in Moose Pass (5.5 percent) and

Valdez (5.8 percent). Spiritual value is rated

highest in Hope (6.1 percent), Seward (6.1 percent) and Girdwood (6.0 percent) and lowest in

Sterling (2.0 percent) and Valdez (2.3).

Unlike the case with general forest uses, a factor

analysis of the forest ecosystem value data indicates that the 13 individual forest ecosystem

values may not be significantly combined to produce a smaller number of groups of values that

together better explain variance in the data than

individual values. This finding lends support to

the idea that the ecosystem values are indeed

exclusive of each other; that is, they do not

duplicate the same basic value.

Survey Summary

Considering this survey data and assuming that

the respondents were representative of the general public, several broad conclusions may serve

as useful “sideboards” for the 2000 forest plan:

• A significant portion of the public is interested 

in how the CNF is managed and wishes to be

involved as a partner in its planning.

• Major conceptual changes to the current forest

management situation are probably not warranted, although some specific changes appear

to be desired. 

• Community residents appreciate the amenity

values, such as recreation, life support, and

aesthetic values, of CNF more than the commodity values more traditionally examined in

forest planning.

“Your Community’s Quality of 

Life and Future” Survey

This summary of results will focus on those

survey elements that may be important to CNF

managers in terms of both understanding the

underlying characteristics of the communities of

interest as well as understanding potential effects

their land management activities may have on

these communities. We begin with a discussion

of what the word “community” means as well as

how the communities believe local and national

interests should be weighted in forest planning.

This is followed by community importance and

satisfaction ratings of 30 preselected quality-oflife elements, with a focus on the elements over

which the CNF has the most influence. Next, we

discuss similar rankings of the importance of,

and satisfaction with, 19 preselected public land

uses or opportunities by community. Community

preferences for changes in various economic sectors are then presented, with the discussion again

focusing on those sectors that are potentially

more influenced by CNF management activities.

In the next section, the results of the perceptions

of residents about selected community characteristics thought to be important in determining

community resiliency are presented along with

various summary measures of quality of life and

community resiliency. Finally, the results of two

questions concerning changes in the desirability

of communities and preferences of residents for

staying in their communities are discussed.
82Table 42—Importance of forest ecosystem values by community

Cooper Moose Forest- Other Alaska

Anchorage Landing Cordova Girdwood Hope Kenai Pass Seward Soldotna Sterling Valdez Whittier wide communities

Ecosystem valuea (n=79) (n=65) (n=79) (n=80) (n=27) (n=72) (n=40) (n=74) (n=79) (n=87) (n=61) (n=24) (n=752) (n=63)

Percent (and 95 percent confidence interval) 

Recreation 17.5 13.4 11.2 12.8 8.1 18.5 13.1 12.9 16.7 20.6 14.7 9.3 14.9 16.4

(14-21) (10-17) (9-13) (10-15) (5-11) (14-23) (7-19) (9-16) (13-20) (16-25) (11-18) (3-15) (14-16) (11-22)

Life support 15.5 14.1 10.5 14.2 12.8 11.3 14.4 15.1 13.4 11.4 15.4 14.8 13.5 13.3

(12-19) (11-17) (8-13) (10-18) (8-17) (8-14) (10-19) (12-18) (10-17) (9-14) (11-20) (7-23) (12-14) (9-18)

Aesthetic 12.4 12.0 12.4 12.7 12.0 14.1 15.4 13.1 12.0 10.4 11.4 10.7 12.4 16.4

(10-15) (9-15) (10-15) (10-15) (8-16) (11-17) (11-20) (10-16) (9-15) (8-13) (9-14) (4-17) (12-13) (12-21)

Biological diversity 9.7 15.1 12.4 11.8 10.4 11.1 8.2 9.9 11.0 11.1 10.9 6.3 11.0 9.3

(8-12) (12-18) (9-15) (8-15) (7-14) (9-14) (6-10) (7-12) (9-13) (9-14) (8-13) (3-9) (10-12) (7-11)

Future 10.5 8.5 8.3 9.2 7.0 8.2 6.7 8.1 9.0 8.8 10.9 12.0 8.9 9.9

(8-13) (6-11) (6-11) (7-11) (4-10) (6-11) (4-9) (6-10) (6-12) (6-12) (8-14) (3-21) (8-10) (7-13)

Economic 8.0 8.2 8.1 6.1 7.5 8.0 5.5 7.0 8.1 10.8 5.8 14.5 7.9 6.9

(5-10) (5-11) (5-11) (4-9) (2-13) (4-12) (3-8) (4-10) (5-12) (8-14) (4-8) (6-23) (7-9) (4-10)

Subsistence 2.5 6.6 13.5 3.7 12.3 6.4 14.9 8.2 6.8 9.5 8.0 8.4 7.8 7.3

(1-4) (4-9) (11-16) (2-5) (4-21) (3-9) (8-22) (5-12) (5-9) (6-13) (5-11) (3-14) (7-9) (4-10)

Therapeutic 5.6 4.1 4.1 5.4 6.4 5.9 4.3 6.4 5.4 3.8 5.9 3.0 5.1 3.6

(4-8) (3-5) (3-5) (4-7) (2-11) (4-8) (3-6) (5-8) (4-7) (2-5) (4-8) (1-5) (5-6) (2-5)

Intrinsic 5.8 5.6 4.3 6.8 6.3 3.1 2.8 4.5 3.9 3.9 4.8 3.0 4.7 5.6

(4-8) (3-8) (3-6) (4-10) (3-9) (2-4) (1-4) (3-6) (2-6) (2-5) (3-7) (0-6) (4-5) (2-9)

Spiritual 3.4 3.6 4.4 6.0 6.1 5.2 3.6 6.1 2.6 2.0 2.3 4.5 4.0 3.2

(2-5) (2-5) (2-6) (4-8) (2-10) (3-8) (2-6) (4-8) (1-4) (1-3) (1-4) (1-8) (3-5) (1-5)

Learning 3.5 4.1 4.5 5.5 5.3 4.1 2.9 3.8 3.8 3.0 4.1 2.9 4.0 4.8

(2-5) (3-5) (3-6) (4-7) (3-8) (3-5) (1-5) (3-5) (3-5) (2-4) (3-6) (1-4) (3.6-4.4) (3-7)

Historic 4.5 3.1 2.5 4.2 3.5 2.3 3.1 3.2 3.4 2.8 3.7 2.4 3.3 1.8

(2-7) (2-4) (1-4) (1-7) (2-5) (1-3) (2-5) (2-4) (2-5) (2-4) (2-6) (0-5) (3-4) (1-3)

Cultural 1.6 1.6 3.4 2.5 2.3 1.5 2.5 1.8 2.5 1.6 1.9 6.0 2.2 1.5

(1-3) (1-3) (2-5) (1-4) (0-4) (1-2) (1-4) (1-3) (1-4) (1-3) (1-3) (3-15) (2-3) (0-2)

a Mean values were specified as a portion of $100 total. Therefore, means also may be considered as percentages.

Source: Crone 1999a.
“Community” Definition and

Preference for Weighting Interests

in Planning

Table 43 shows responses of residents to the

question of which definition of “community”

makes the most sense for their community. In

every community the definition chosen most

often was “common geographical area.” Girdwood,

Cooper Landing, and Hope had the largest percentages of respondents choosing the definition

“common values, attitudes, and lifestyles,”

whereas Cordova and Seward had the largest

percentages of respondents choosing the definition, “common livelihood.”

Another survey question asked respondents

what interests should be considered in public

land use planning near their community. Table

44 reveals that in most communities, the majority

of respondents felt that local community interests

should be given more attention than national

interests. In Whittier, Cooper Landing, and

Anchorage, however, the response chosen most

often was for local and national interests to be

equally balanced.

Community Quality of Life

Respondents were asked to rate each of 30 quality-of-life factors in terms of its importance to

their quality of life under the assumption that

they could select and live in any community. The

rating system ranged from 1 to 4 with 1 representing ”extremely important” and 4 representing “not at all important.” Table 45 lists the

average rating for each factor for each community. Factors that are related to public lands or

that may be directly affected by public land

management decisions or activities are denoted

with an asterisk. Obviously, the extent to which

each factor is related to public lands or affected

by public land management activities differs across

factors and locations. For simplicity, we refer to

these factors as public land factors or PLFs. 

In three communities, two out of the five highest

ranked factors were PLFs. In eight of the communities, three out of the five highest ranked

factors were in this category, and in one community, Cordova, four out of the five highest ranked

quality-of-life factors were PLFs. These results

suggest that the high degree of interest in CNF

management decisions (as discussed in the analysis of the first survey above) may stem from the

importance of public lands to quality of life.

Taking the average across all 12 of the CNF communities, the three most important PLFs were

clean air and water, the beauty of the surrounding area, and open undeveloped areas. The three

lowest ranked PLFs were subsistence gathering,

subsistence hunting and fishing, and sport hunting and fishing.

For the same 30 quality-of-life factors, respondents were asked to rate their level of satisfaction

with each element in their community. This rating system ranged from 1 to 5 with 1 representing “very satisfied” and 5 representing “very

unsatisfied.” Average satisfaction ratings for

each factor in each community are shown in

table 46. Because these ratings differ by community, it is difficult to make broad statements about

satisfaction levels. As to the quality-of-life factors influenced by public lands, however, respondents from the communities around the CNF

seem most satisfied with the beauty of the surrounding area, the clean air and water, and the

open, undeveloped areas. They seem least satisfied with the roads/transportation system, access

to and use of public lands, and subsistence hunting and fishing.

In table 47, differences between average satisfaction ratings and average importance ratings

for the public land influenced quality-of-life factors are shown.6 The largest average differences

for all CNF respondents occurred for job and

employment opportunities, the roads/transportation system, and clean air/water. If we examine

this difference on a community basis and then

take the average across communities, the same

three factors in the same order top the list. These

differences vary across communities, so to analyze the impacts of CNF management activities

on the quality of life in communities nearest the 

6 The importance ratings for each respondent were rescaled

from a 1 to 4 scale to a 1 to 5 scale for consistency with the

satisfaction rating scale of 1 to 5.

83
84Table 43—Preference for definition of the word “community” by community

Cooper Moose Average

Anchorage Landing Cordova Girdwood Hope Kenai Pass Seward Soldotna Sterling Valdez Whittier across

Definition (n=50) (n=46) (n=56) (n=58) (n=18) (n=46) (n=22) (n=52) (n=51) (n=36) (n=47) (n=19) communities

Percent (and 95 percent confidence interval) 

Common cultural 

heritage 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0

(0-12) (0-13)

Common 

geographical area 90 57 41 55 67 46 77 54 59 78 47 58 61

(74-97) (36-74) (24-58) (38-70) (34-88) (27-64) (47-93) (35-70) (39-75) (56-91) (28-65) (26-82)

Common livelihood 4 2 36 0 0 11 0 19 2 0 11 11 8

(0-16) (0-14) (19-53) (2-26) (7-36) (0-13) (2-26) (0-38)

Common political 

boundary 6 7 7 3 6 35 5 13 24 6 19 26 13

(0-19) (0-21) (1-20) (0-14) (0-31) (18-53) (0-26) (4-29) (10-41) (0-21) (7-36) (5-56)

Common values/

attitudes/lifestyles 0 35 14 41 28 9 18 13 14 17 23 5 18

(18-53) (4-29) (26-57) (6-57) (1-24) (3-44) (4-29) (4-30) (4-36) (9-41) (0-30)

Source: Crone 1999b.
85

Table 44—Preference for whose interests should take precedence in public land use planning, by community

Cooper Moose Average

Anchorage Landing Cordova Girdwood Hope Kenai Pass Seward Soldotna Sterling Valdez Whittier across

Interests (n=49) (n=51) (n=57) (n=59) (n=18) (n=48) (n=23) (n=57) (n=59) (n=37) (n=45) (n=19) communities

Percent (and 95 percent confidence interval) 

Local only 12 12 12 14 0 10 9 9 10 8 7 11 9

(3-28) (3-26) (3-26) (4-28) (2-26) (0-31) (2-22) (2-24) (1-25) (1-20) (0-38)

More to local 39 39 58 51 67 56 65 44 59 59 53 32 52

(21-57) (23-56) (40-73) (33-67) (36-88) (36-73) (36-85) (27-60) (41-75) (36-78) (34-70) (8-61)

Balance local and 

national 47 49 26 34 33 29 26 42 27 27 40 53 36

(28-65) (31-66) (13-43) (19-50) (10-61) (14-47) (7-52) (25-59) (13-44) (10-48) (22-58) (22-79)

More to national 2 0 4 2 040 5 2 5 0 0 2

(0-13) (0-14) (0-11) (0-17) (0-17) (0-11) (0-21)

National only 0 0 0 0 000 0 2 0 0 5 1

(0-11) (0-30)

Source: Crone 1999b.
86Table 45—Importance of quality of life factors by community 

Cooper Moose Average 

Anchorage Landing Cordova Girdwood Hope Kenai Pass Seward Soldotna Sterling Valdez Whittier across

Factorsa (n=52) (n=51) (n=57) (n=62) (n=18) (n=48) (n=24) (n=59) (n=60) (n=38) (n=49) (n=20) communities

Scale: 1= “extremely important” to 4 = “not at all important”

*Access/use of 

nearby public lands 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.8 2.0 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.0 1.7 1.8

*Beauty of surrounding 

area 1.5 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.3

*Clean air/water 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.3*Job/employment 

opportunities 1.5 2.5 1.7 2.3 3.2 1.5 2.4 1.7 1.8 2.1 1.4 1.5 2.0

*Local recreational 

trails 1.8 1.7 1.9 1.6 1.8 2.2 1.8 1.6 2.0 2.6 1.9 1.9 1.9

*Open, undeveloped 

areas 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.8 1.3 1.4 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.5

*Roads/transportation 

system 1.9 1.8 2.3 2.2 2.3 1.8 2.1 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.8 2.1 2.0

*Sport hunting/fishing 2.6 2.1 1.9 2.9 2.6 2.4 2.0 2.3 2.2 1.8 2.3 2.0 2.3*Subsistence gathering 3.2 2.9 1.9 3.1 2.5 2.9 2.6 2.5 2.8 2.7 2.9 2.3 2.7*Subsistence 

hunting/fishing 3.0 2.9 1.8 3.2 2.6 2.8 2.5 2.4 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.0 2.6

Art/cultural events 2.4 2.9 2.7 2.7 3.2 2.8 3.3 2.6 2.8 3.4 2.9 2.8 2.9Business opportunities 2.1 2.5 2.1 2.4 3.2 2.0 2.6 2.1 2.1 2.5 2.0 1.9 2.3Church/spiritual groups 2.7 2.6 2.6 3.1 3.4 2.4 3.1 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.8 2.7College/university 

nearby 2.3 3.2 2.8 3.2 3.1 2.5 3.3 2.9 2.3 3.3 2.5 3.2 2.9

Community 

events/gatherings 2.8 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.3 2.4 2.8 3.2 2.8 2.5 2.6

Developed parks 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.4 3.2 2.4 3.0 2.1 2.2 2.9 2.4 2.3 2.5Diverse and affordable 

housing 1.6 2.5 1.7 2.2 3.2 1.7 2.5 1.7 2.0 2.5 1.6 1.4 2.1

Diverse and affordable 

shopping 2.1 2.9 2.4 3.0 3.3 1.8 3.0 2.2 2.0 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.4
87

Table 45—Importance of quality of life factors by community (continued)

Cooper Moose Average 

Anchorage Landing Cordova Girdwood Hope Kenai Pass Seward Soldotna Sterling Valdez Whittier across

Factorsa (n=52) (n=51) (n=57) (n=62) (n=18) (n=48) (n=24) (n=59) (n=60) (n=38) (n=49) (n=20) communities

Scale: 1= “extremely important” to 4 = “not at all important”

Diverse ethnic 

populations 2.9 3.4 2.9 3.3 3.5 3.0 3.3 2.9 2.9 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.1

Entertainment 2.4 2.8 2.8 2.7 3.5 2.7 3.3 2.7 2.8 3.3 2.8 2.7 2.9Good health 

care/hospitals 2.0 2.4 2.0 2.6 2.7 1.9 2.6 1.9 1.8 2.4 1.8 2.1 2.2

Living near 

family/friends 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.6 2.7 2.3 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.4 2.2 2.6 2.4

Planning/zoning 

regulations 2.2 2.2 2.6 2.0 3.4 2.5 2.9 2.2 2.4 3.2 2.4 2.4 2.5

Programs/activities 

for youth 2.1 2.5 2.1 2.3 2.7 2.2 2.3 2.0 1.8 2.7 2.1 1.7 2.2

Property/local tax rates 1.7 2.1 1.9 2.1 2.1 1.8 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.9Quality of public 

schools 1.8 2.0 1.9 2.2 2.2 1.8 1.7 1.9 1.8 2.4 1.8 1.7 1.9

Responsive local 

government 1.9 2.0 1.9 1.9 2.8 2.0 2.3 1.9 1.7 2.3 2.0 1.5 2.0

Safety, low crime rate 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.4Size/growth of 

community 2.4 2.0 2.1 1.7 2.6 2.0 2.4 1.9 2.2 2.5 2.2 1.9 2.2

Trustworthy neighbors 1.5 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.8 1.6 1.3 1.4 1.7 1.3 1.6 1.4 1.5

a * = Factors that are related to public lands or that may be directly affected by public land management decisions or activities.

Source: Crone 1999b.
88Table 46—Satisfaction with quality of life factors by community 

Cooper Moose Average 

Anchorage Landing Cordova Girdwood Hope Kenai Pass Seward Soldotna Sterling Valdez Whittier across

Factorsa (n=52) (n=51) (n=57) (n=62) (n=18) (n=48) (n=24) (n=59) (n=60) (n=38) (n=49) (n=20) communities

Scale: 1= “very satisfied” to 5 = “very unsatisfied”

*Access/use of nearby 

public lands 2.7 2.1 2.5 2.0 1.8 2.6 2.0 2.5 2.8 3.1 2.6 2.8 2.5

*Beauty of surrounding

area 2.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.7 1.2 1.3 1.9 1.6 1.3 1.5 1.4

*Clean air/water 2.5 1.2 1.6 1.6 1.5 2.1 1.3 1.8 2.0 1.6 2.6 1.3 1.8*Job/employment 

opportunities 2.2 3.1 2.8 2.7 3.1 2.8 3.0 2.7 3.2 2.9 2.7 3.4 2.9

*Local recreational 

trails 2.0 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 2.4 1.7 2.2 2.4 2.5 2.2 2.6 2.0

*Open, undeveloped 

areas 2.5 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.4 2.3 1.6 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.2 2.0 1.9

*Roads/transportation 

system 2.8 2.6 2.9 2.6 2.4 3.0 2.5 2.6 3.0 2.9 2.5 4.1 2.8

*Sport hunting/fishing 2.7 2.0 1.8 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.2 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.4 2.1 2.4*Subsistence gathering 2.9 2.4 1.9 2.6 2.4 2.8 2.0 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.6*Subsistence 

hunting/fishing 2.9 2.6 1.9 2.7 2.6 2.9 2.6 2.9 2.8 2.9 2.7 2.6 2.7

Art/cultural events 2.1 2.9 2.7 2.8 3.0 2.9 3.0 2.7 2.9 2.7 2.7 3.6 2.8Business opportunities 2.4 2.8 2.9 2.9 3.1 2.8 2.6 3.0 3.1 2.7 3.3 3.4 2.9Church/spiritual groups 2.3 2.4 2.2 2.6 2.9 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.1 2.5 3.2 2.4College/university 

nearby 2.3 2.8 2.4 2.6 3.2 2.5 3.0 3.1 2.4 2.3 2.5 3.6 2.7

Community 

events/gatherings 2.2 1.7 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.6 2.1 2.6 2.9 2.6 2.6 3.1 2.4

Developed parks 2.3 2.1 2.5 2.3 2.7 2.2 2.7 2.9 2.4 2.9 2.5 4.1 2.6Diverse and affordable 

housing 2.6 3.1 3.3 3.1 2.7 2.4 2.9 3.4 2.7 2.6 3.6 3.6 3.0
89

Table 46—Satisfaction with quality of life factors by community (continued)

Cooper Moose Average 

Anchorage Landing Cordova Girdwood Hope Kenai Pass Seward Soldotna Sterling Valdez Whittier across

Factorsa (n=52) (n=51) (n=57) (n=62) (n=18) (n=48) (n=24) (n=59) (n=60) (n=38) (n=49) (n=20) communities

Scale: 1= “very satisfied” to 5 = “very unsatisfied”

Diverse and affordable 

shopping 2.0 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.0 3.3 3.8 2.7 2.6 3.9 4.1 3.2

Diverse ethnic 

populations 2.3 2.7 2.3 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.2 2.6 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.6

Entertainment 2.1 2.6 2.8 2.8 3.1 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.9 2.6 3.2 3.7 2.8Good health 

care/hospitals 2.0 2.9 2.4 2.6 3.4 2.5 2.8 2.9 2.3 2.4 2.9 3.9 2.8

Living near 

family/friends 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.3 1.9 2.2 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.0 2.6 2.8 2.3

Planning/zoning 

regulations 2.9 3.2 2.9 3.3 2.5 2.9 2.4 3.5 3.1 2.7 3.2 3.4 3.0

Programs/activities 

for youth 2.4 2.6 2.9 2.4 2.9 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.9 2.8 2.8 3.7 2.8

Property/local tax rates 3.1 2.5 3.5 3.1 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.9 3.2 2.9 3.7 2.9 3.0Quality of public 

schools 2.4 1.7 2.3 2.5 2.8 2.6 2.3 2.6 2.5 2.8 2.1 2.3 2.4

Responsive local 

government 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.2 2.9 3.2 2.8 3.4 3.1 2.9 3.2 3.7 3.1

Safety, low crime rate 2.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.1 1.9 2.0Size/growth of 

community 2.8 2.3 2.5 3.0 2.1 2.6 2.5 3.0 3.0 2.7 2.7 3.3 2.7

Trustworthy neighbors 2.2 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.0 1.8 2.1 2.2 1.9a * = Factors that are related to public lands or that may be directly affected by public land management decisions or activities.

Source: Crone 1999b.
90Table 47—Difference between satisfaction and importance for public land quality-of-life factors by community

Cooper Moose

Anchorage Landing Cordova Girdwood Hope Kenai Pass Seward Soldotna Sterling Valdez Whittier

Factorsa (n=52) (n=51) (n=57) (n=62) (n=18) (n=48) (n=24) (n=59) (n=60) (n=38) (n=49) (n=20) Average

Scale: -4 = minimum difference to 4 = maximum difference

*Access/use of 

nearby public lands 0.6 0.1 .5 0.0 -0.3 0.2 -0.1 0.4 0.7 1.0 0.3 0.9 0.4

*Beauty of 

surrounding area .4 -.1 -.2 0 . -.2 .1 -.1 0 . .4 -.2 -.2 .1 0

*Clean air/water 1.2 0 . .3 .3 .1 .5 .1 .5 .8 .2 1.2 -.1 .4*Job/employment 

opportunities .6 .1 .9 0 . -.9 1.1 0 . .8 1.2 .4 1.1 1.8 .6

*Local recreational 

trails 0 -.4 -.6 -.1 -.4 -.3 -.3 .3 0 . -.6 0 . .3 -.2

*Open, undeveloped 

areas .8 -.2 -.1 0 . .1 .2 .2 .4 .2 0 . .3 .2 .2

*Roads/transportation 

system .6 .5 .2 .1 -.3 1.0 .1 .5 .8 .7 .4 1.7 .5

*Sport hunting/

fishing -.4 -.5 -.4 -1.0 -.6 -.1 -.2 -.2 0 . .5 -.3 -.2 -.3

*Subsistence 

gathering -1.0 -1.2 -.3 -1.2 -.6 -.7 -1.1 -.3 -.7 -.6 -.7 -.1 -.7

*Subsistence 

hunting/fishing -1.0 -1.0 0 . -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 0 . 0 . -1.0 0 . -1.0 0 . -1.0

a * = Factors that are related to public lands or that may be directly affected by public land management decisions or activities.

Source: Crone 1999b.
91

location of proposed activities, it may be important to consider the divergence between satisfaction and importance ratings for individual

communities.

Public Land Uses and Opportunities

To determine the relative importance of various

public land uses (opportunities) in the quality of

life of the citizens of the CNF communities of

interest, respondents were asked to allocate 100

points among a list of 19 uses. Table 48 displays

the average importance rating for each use (opportunity) for each community. The average importance ratings varied across communities. Taking

the average of the averages for each public land

use (opportunity), the uses with the highest importance ratings were clean air and water (12.3), fishing (11.9), and hiking, backpacking, and skiing

trails (8.7). The uses (opportunities) with the

lowest importance ratings were trapping (0.6),

ATV/ORV areas (1.3), and jobs from logging

and mining (1.7).

For the same 19 public land uses (opportunities),

respondents were asked to rate their level of satisfaction with each use (opportunity) near their

particular community. The rating scale was the

same as that given above for the general quality

of life factor satisfaction rating. Table 49 shows

the average satisfaction ratings for each use (opportunity) for each community. Taking the average

of the averages, the uses (opportunities) with the

highest satisfaction ratings were scenic landscapes (1.7), and viewing wildlife (1.7). The

uses (opportunities) with the lowest average

satisfaction ratings were jobs from logging and

mining (3.3), access for disabled people (3.1),

and ATV/ORV areas (3.1).

Table 50 presents the differences between average

satisfaction ratings and average importance ratings for the public land uses.7 Fishing; clean air

and water resources; and hiking, backpacking,

and skiing trails show the largest differences

between satisfaction and importance. Again, these

differences vary across communities. To analyze

7 The average importance ratings for each community were

converted to a 1 to 5 scale for consistency with the satisfaction scale of 1 to 5.

quality of life impacts, it may be important to

consider the divergence between satisfaction and

importance ratings for individual communities.

Economic Activity

In another survey question, respondents were

asked whether they would like to see an increase,

decrease, or no change in the level of economic

activity in their community in each of 12 economic sectors.8 Table 51 shows the percentage

of respondents choosing each option for each

sector in each community. The sectors on which

forest planning decisions may have the most

impact are forestry and forest products; mining,

oil and gas; and tourism services. In 8 of the 12

communities, the response chosen most often

was for no change in the forestry and forest

products sector. In every community, a larger

percentage of respondents favored an increase

rather than a decrease in this sector. 

For the mining sector, the response chosen most

often in every community was no change. Cooper

Landing, Hope, Moose Pass, and Soldotna had

larger percentages of respondents favoring a

decrease rather than an increase in mining activity in their communities. In the communities of

Kenai, Sterling, and Soldotna, the largest percentage of respondents favored an increase in oil

and gas activity in their communities, whereas in

all other communities, the response chosen most

often was for no change in the level of activity.

Only in the communities of Moose Pass and

Cooper Landing was a decrease in oil and gas

activity favored more often than an increase. In

7 of the 12 communities, the response chosen

most often for the fishing sector was no change.

Whittier, Cordova, Kenai, and Seward each had

a majority of respondents in favor of an increase

in this sector, whereas in Sterling, more respondents favored a decrease.

8 Some of the economic sectors identified in the survey

question were more detailed than the SIC classifications

used earlier in this document. This was done in order to

focus on the economic activity in the specific sectors most

associated with forest resources, such as tourism services,

forestry and forest products, commercial fishing, oil and

gas, and mining. 
92Table 48—Importance of public land use/opportunities by community

Cooper Moose Average 

Anchorage Landing Cordova Girdwood Hope Kenai Pass Seward Soldotna Sterling Valdez Whittier across

Factors (n=45) (n=39) (n=46) (n=55) (n=16) (n=37) (n=20) (n=43) (n=47) (n=28) (n=43) (n=14) communities

Percent (and 95 percent confidence interval)

Access for 

disabled people 1.4 1.0 1.2 0.8 0.0 1.5 2.6 2.0 4.4 1.7 2.7 1.8 1.8

(1-2) (0-2) (0-2) (0-1) (0-3) (0-5) (1-4) (1-7) (0-4) (1-4) (0-6)

ATV/ORV areas 0.2 0.3 1.2 0.5 1.6 1.1 3.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 3.0 0.0 1.3

(0-.5) (0-1) (0-2) (0-1) (0-3) (0-3) (0-7) (0-3) (0-3) (0-3) (1-4)

Campgrounds/

picnic areas 5.7 5.3 3.3 4.2 5.0 5.9 1.3 4.4 8.0 4.6 4.3 3.2 4.6

(4-8) (3-8) (2-5) (3-6) (2-8) (3-9) (0-2) (3-6) (5-11) (1-9) (3-6) (0-7)

Clean air and water 

resources 10.7 12.4 12.1 12.6 12.3 11.9 10.8 10.7 15.6 7.8 13.7 16.8 12.3

(7-14) (9-16) (8-16) (10-16) (6-19) (7-17) (7-15) (8-13) (11-20) (4-11) (9-18) (7-27)

Fishing 10.8 14.9 15.0 6.5 7.2 14.2 10.6 8.6 13.5 18.4 11.1 12.1 11.9

(6-15) (9-20) (11-19) (4-9) (1-13) (9-19) (7-15) (5-12) (8-20) (11-25) (8-15) (3-22)

Hiking/backpacking/

skiing trail 12.2 7.6 6.6 15.2 8.4 8.2 7.5 15.5 6.2 3.4 5.6 8.2 8.7

(7-17) (5-10) (4-9) (12-18) (2-15) (3-13) (3-12) (10-21) (4-9) (2-5) (3-8) (0-17)

Hunting 2.9 4.3 9.6 3.0 5.0 4.5 8.7 4.2 5.8 15.2 8.5 2.5 6.2

(1-5) (1-7) (7-13) (1-5) (1-9) (2-7) (5-13) (1-4) (3-9) (10-20) (4-12) (0-5)

Jobs from logging/ 

mining 1.5 1.9 2.6 0.5 3.4 3.3 1.5 2.2 0.6 2.0 0.4 0.7 1.7

(0-3) (0-5) (0-5) (0-1) (0-8) (0-8) (0-3) (0-5) (0-1) (0-4) (0-1) (0-2)

Jobs from oil/gas 

drilling 8.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.0 7.7 0.3 0.8 4.4 6.0 9.3 0.0 3.2

(4-13) (0-1) (0-1) (0-1) (2-13) (0-1) (0-1) (1-8) (0-11) (3-15)

Jobs from tourism 

attractions 3.4 5.8 1.2 7.8 2.8 2.6 5.3 4.1 3.1 1.8 3.9 8.2 4.2

(2-5) (3-8) (0-2) (5-11) (0-6) (0-6) (1-9) (1-7) (1-5) (0-3) (1-7) (2-15)
93

Table 48—Importance of public land use/opportunities by community (continued)

Cooper Moose Average 

Anchorage Landing Cordova Girdwood Hope Kenai Pass Seward Soldotna Sterling Valdez Whittier across

Factors (n=45) (n=39) (n=46) (n=55) (n=16) (n=37) (n=20) (n=43) (n=47) (n=28) (n=43) (n=14) communities

Percent (and 95 percent confidence interval)

Quiet areas 4.8 8.1 3.7 9.5 7.1 4.8 6.9 8.2 4.2 5.1 4.3 6.8 6.1

(3-7) (6-10) (2-5) (6-14) (3-11) (2-7) (4-10) (4-12) (2-6) (2-8) (2-6) (1-13)

Roads into 

backcountry 3.4 1.8 2.5 2.7 3.1 2.2 2.3 1.8 2.1 4.3 4.9 3.6 2.9

(1-6) (0-3) (1-4) (1-4) (0-5) (1-3) (0-5) (1-3) (0-4) (0-8) (3-7) (0-9)

Scenic drives 6.8 2.7 3.8 4.1 4.0 7.5 2.4 4.8 3.8 3.8 2.7 1.1 4.0

(4-9) (1-4) (2-6) (3-6) (2-6) (2-13) (1-4) (3-6) (2-6) (1-6) (2-4) (0-3)

Scenic landscapes 8.0 6.9 5.0 8.5 6.4 3.2 6.2 6.2 3.7 2.7 5.3 7.5 5.8

(6-10) (5-9) (3-7) (6-10) (2-11) (1-5) (3-10) (4-8) (2-5) (1-4) (3-8) (2-13)

Snowmachine areas 2.3 4.3 0.8 2.8 3.4 2.7 4.9 2.8 4.3 3.4 3.4 2.5 3.1

(0-5) (1-8) (0-2) (1-4) (0-7) (0-5) (2-8) (1-5) (1-7) (1-6) (2-5) (0-6)

Subsistence use 1.7 3.0 7.4 1.3 4.4 1.2 3.3 1.6 2.7 0.8 0.7 1.4 2.5

(0-3) (0-6) (4-11) (0-2) (0-9) (0-3) (1-6) (1-3) (0-5) (0-1) (0-1) (0-4)

Trapping 0.3 0.2 1.5 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.3 2.3 0.2 0.0 0.6

(0-1) (0-1) (0-3) (0-1) (0-2) (0-1) (0-1) (0-1) (0-1) (0-4) (0-1)

Undeveloped 

land/wilderness 7.6 10.0 9.1 10.8 12.4 5.5 14.5 7.9 4.5 7.1 7.1 6.1 8.6

(5-10) (5-15) (6-12) (7-14) (5-19) (3-8) (5-24) (5-11) (2-7) (3-11) (4-10) (1-12)

Viewing wildlife 7.7 9.0 9.1 8.1 11.3 11.2 6.5 10.6 10.1 7.6 6.9 15.0 9.4

(4-11) (6-12) (7-11) (6-10) (3-19) (7-16) (4-9) (7-14) (7-13) (4-11) (4-10) (5-25)

Source: Crone 1999b.
94Table 49—Satisfaction with public land uses/opportunities by community

Cooper Moose Average 

Anchorage Landing Cordova Girdwood Hope Kenai Pass Seward Soldotna Sterling Valdez Whittier across

Factors (n=47) (n=44) (n=54) (n=52) (n=17) (n=40) (n=21) (n=55) (n=54) (n=33) (n=42) (n=17) communities

Scale: 1= “very satisfied” to 5 = “very unsatisfied”

Access for 

disabled people 3.3 2.6 3.1 2.9 3.3 2.7 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.7 3.9 3.1

ATV/ORV areas 3.1 2.4 3.0 3.1 2.9 3.4 3.1 3.2 3.0 3.5 3.5 2.7 3.1Campgrounds/picnic 

areas 2.5 1.7 2.4 2.7 1.7 2.2 2.0 2.3 2.6 3.1 2.8 3.3 2.4

Clean air and water 

resources 2.3 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 2.3 1.5 2.0 2.6 1.9 2.5 1.2 1.9

Fishing 2.4 2.0 1.7 2.2 1.8 2.4 2.1 2.1 2.7 2.9 1.7 1.8 2.1Hiking/backpacking/

skiing trail 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.8 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.4 1.9

Hunting 2.5 2.2 1.7 2.6 2.5 3.1 2.1 2.6 2.9 2.7 2.8 1.7 2.4Jobs from logging, 

mining 2.9 3.2 3.3 3.0 3.3 3.8 3.2 4.0 3.2 3.1 3.7 3.3 3.3

Jobs from oil/gas 

drilling 2.9 2.6 2.9 2.8 3.2 3.1 3.0 3.5 3.1 2.7 2.2 3.0 2.9

Jobs from tourism 

attractions 2.7 1.9 2.9 2.3 2.5 2.9 2.4 2.2 2.6 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.5

Quiet areas 2.4 1.7 1.5 1.9 1.6 2.0 1.9 2.0 2.5 2.4 2.3 1.5 2.0Roads into 

backcountry 3.2 2.9 2.3 2.6 2.2 2.7 2.9 2.9 3.4 3.5 3.4 4.0 3.0

Scenic drives 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.6 2.1 1.9 2.0 2.3 2.3 2.2 3.7 2.1Scenic landscapes 1.8 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.5 2.0 1.5 1.6 2.2 2.1 1.6 1.9 1.7Snowmachine areas 2.8 2.2 2.6 3.1 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.6 2.6 2.2 2.2 2.5Subsistence use 2.9 2.7 2.0 3.2 2.5 2.9 3.5 3.1 2.7 3.2 2.9 2.8 2.9Trapping 2.8 1.9 2.1 2.7 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.7 3.1 3.0 2.5 2.7Undeveloped 

land/wilderness 2.2 1.6 1.5 1.8 1.5 2.5 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.2 2.0 1.5 1.9

Viewing wildlife 1.9 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.5 1.6 2.0 1.8 1.9 1.5 1.7

Source: Crone 1999b.
95

Table 50—Difference between satisfaction and importance for public land uses and opportunities by community

Cooper Moose

Anchorage Landing Cordova Girdwood Hope Kenai Pass Seward Soldotna Sterling Valdez Whittier

Factors (n=47) (n=44) (n=54) (n=52) (n=17) (n=40) (n=21) (n=55) (n=54) (n=33) (n=42) (n=17) Average

Scale: -4 = minimum difference to 4 = maximum difference

Access for 

disabled people -1.4 -2.2 -1.7 -1.2 -1.7 -2.0 -1.6 -1.6 -0.9 -1.6 -0.8 -0.7 -1.5

ATV/ORV areas -1.9 -2.5 -1.7 -1.0 -1.8 -1.3 -1.2 -1.5 -1.7 -1.2 -.8 -2.3 -1.6Campgrounds/picnic 

areas -1.3 -2.2 -1.9 -1.0 -2.2 -1.5 -2.7 -1.8 -.6 -.9 -1.3 -1.0 -1.6

Clean air and water 

resources -.3 -.7 -.7 -1.1 -.8 -.2 -1.1 -.7 1.0 -1.4 .4 -.2 -.4

Fishing -.3 .2 -.1 -.8 -1.7 .5 -.6 -1.0 .7 1.9 -.9 -.6 -.3Hiking/backpacking/

skiing trail -.4 -1.6 -2.0 -.9 -1.5 -1.5 -1.5 .2 -1.4 -1.9 -1.5 -.8 -1.2

Hunting -1.9 -1.8 -1.2 -.6 -1.4 -.9 -1.1 -1.4 -.9 1.0 -.4 -2.8 -1.2Jobs from logging, 

mining -1.7 -1.4 -1.2 -.8 -1.0 -.5 -1.5 -.6 -1.7 -1.5 -1.2 -1.5 -1.3

Jobs from oil/gas 

drilling -.3 -2.3 -2.0 -1.3 -1.8 -.2 -1.9 -1.3 -.9 -1.0 -.8 -2.0 -1.4

Jobs from tourism 

attractions -1.6 -1.8 -1.8 -.4 -1.9 -1.5 -1.4 -1.9 -1.7 -1.8 -1.6 -.5 -1.5

Quiet areas -1.5 -1.6 -2.7 -1.1 -1.9 -2.0 -1.6 -1.2 -1.6 -1.5 -1.8 -2.0 -1.7Roads into 

backcountry -1.1 -1.7 -2.2 -1.1 -2.1 -1.8 -1.6 -1.7 -1.1 -.6 -.6 -.2 -1.4

Scenic drives -1.6 -2.5 -2.4 -1.9 -2.5 -1.2 -2.6 -1.9 -1.9 -1.9 -2.2 -1.0 -2.0Scenic landscapes -1.4 -2.0 -2.6 -1.8 -2.1 -2.3 -2.2 -2.1 -2.0 -2.3 -2.3 -1.4 -2.0Snowmachine areas -1.8 -1.9 -2.2 -.3 -1.8 -1.9 -1.4 -2.0 -1.5 -1.7 -2.0 -2.2 -1.8Subsistence use -1.7 -1.6 -1.4 -.3 -1.5 -1.8 -.7 -1.5 -1.7 -1.6 -1.9 -1.9 -1.6Trapping -2.1 -3.0 -2.6 -1.2 -2.0 -2.0 -2.2 -2.2 -2.2 -1.4 -1.9 -2.5 -2.2Undeveloped 

land/wilderness -1.2 -1.2 -1.5 -1.1 -.8 -1.3 .2 -1.1 -1.7 -1.3 -1.4 -2.2 -1.2

Viewing wildlife -1.5 -1.6 -1.6 -1.7 -1.0 -.7 -2.1 -1.0 -.8 -1.5 -1.6 -.2 -1.3

Source: Crone 1999b.
96Table 51—Preference for change in local economic sectors by community

Cooper Moose Average 

Anchorage Landing Cordova Girdwood Hope Kenai Pass Seward Soldotna Sterling Valdez Whittier across

Economic sector (n=49) (n=48) (n=57) (n=61) (n=16) (n=46) (n=22) (n=59) (n=58) (n=37) (n=48) (n=19) communities

Percent

Forestry/forest Decrease 18 15 32 14 13 11 18 10 14 22 27 21 18

products No change 45 50 30 66 53 46 45 36 34 30 44 53 44

Increase 37 35 38 21 33 43 36 53 52 49 29 26 38

Mining Decrease 15 33 18 10 38 9 27 15 21 17 11 13 19

No change 54 59 59 78 44 67 59 69 61 46 53 56 59Increase 31 9 23 12 19 24 14 15 18 37 36 31 22

Commercial Decrease 18 35 5 17 25 26 23 20 29 44 10 5 22

fishing No change 59 60 30 79 75 33 73 39 38 39 50 21 50

Increase 22 5 65 3 0 41 5 41 33 17 40 74 29

Construction Decrease 12 6 11 13 13 13 14 17 18 22 10 0 12

No change 51 43 38 56 63 37 59 40 49 43 42 11 44Increase 37 51 51 31 25 50 27 43 33 35 48 89 43

Finance/ Decrease 18 9 4 12 0 13 5 5 9 20 4 6 9

insurance/real No change 55 80 88 63 100 65 90 75 83 66 77 24 72estate Increase 27 11 9 25 0 22 5 20 9 14 19 71 19

Government Decrease 37 28 23 25 25 39 38 24 48 62 44 33 36

No change 59 67 63 68 69 50 52 64 45 35 44 27 54Increase 4 4 14 7 6 11 10 12 7 3 13 40 11

Manufacturing Decrease 6 11 5 12 7 7 9 5 3 12 8 6 8

No change 29 75 48 71 93 29 64 51 31 35 50 67 54Increase 65 14 46 17 0 64 27 44 66 53 42 28 39
97

Table 51—Preference for change in local economic sectors by community (continued)

Cooper Moose Average 

Anchorage Landing Cordova Girdwood Hope Kenai Pass Seward Soldotna Sterling Valdez Whittier across

Economic sector (n=49) (n=48) (n=57) (n=61) (n=16) (n=46) (n=22) (n=59) (n=58) (n=37) (n=48) (n=19) communities

Percent

Oil/gas Decrease 4 10 18 7 7 4 14 14 12 16 17 18 12

No change 56 83 57 78 73 37 77 64 40 35 46 65 59Increase 40 7 25 16 20 59 9 22 48 49 38 18 29

Other services Decrease 2 4 2 0 0 2 5 2 5 3 4 0 2

No change 35 56 32 49 50 41 38 50 53 41 31 12 41Increase 63 40 66 51 50 57 57 48 41 57 65 88 57

Tourism Decrease 8 6 18 13 6 22 14 32 33 30 15 6 17

services No change 35 58 37 43 56 46 48 44 40 51 40 11 42

Increase 57 35 46 44 38 33 38 24 26 19 46 83 41

Trade Decrease 8 4 2 0 0 4 5 10 5 6 4 5 4

No change 41 60 46 37 63 37 41 42 52 51 31 16 43Increase 51 36 52 63 38 59 55 47 43 43 65 79 52

Transport/ Decrease 4 7 5 3 0 9 5 5 5 3 8 6 5

communication/ No change 29 53 39 57 63 39 41 46 38 50 35 24 43utilities Increase 67 40 56 40 38 52 55 49 57 47 56 71 52

Average percentage

of respondentsin favor of increaseacross sectors 42 24 41 28 22 43 28 35 36 35 41 58

Source: Crone 1999b.
98

Whittier, Anchorage, Cordova, Valdez, and

Girdwood each had a majority of respondents

favoring an increase in the tourism services 

sector, whereas in all other communities respondents favored no change in this sector in their

community. The communities of Soldotna, Seward,

and Sterling each had more respondents favoring

a decrease in tourism services than an increase.

These communities are perhaps approaching a

saturation point where the drawbacks associated

with tourism, such as increased traffic, crowds,

and prices, are beginning to outweigh the benefits of increased employment and inflow of outside money.

The average of the percentage of respondents

who favor an increase in economic activity

across all sectors can be used as a comparative

indicator of the preference of a community for

growth. Using such an indicator reveals that

Whittier, Kenai, Anchorage, and Valdez seem

most in favor of additional growth. Hope, Cooper

Landing, Girdwood, and Moose Pass have the

smallest percentage of respondents in favor of

additional growth.

If we take the average of the percentage of respondents who favor an increase in a particular sector

across all communities, we have a comparative

indicator of overall support for growth in that

sector. The other services; trade; and transportation, communication, and utilities sectors have

the most overall support for additional growth.

The government; finance, insurance, and real

estate; and mining sectors have the least overall

support for additional growth.

Community Characteristics,

Community Resiliency, and Quality

of Life

To compare quality of life and community

resiliency for the CNF communities of interest,

respondents were asked to rate their community

in the following 14 areas: 

• Attractiveness (compared to other Alaska

communities)

• Importance of surrounding scenery to the

character of their community

Abundance of special places nearby

• Their attachment to the community

• Cohesiveness

• Adequacy of public services

• Autonomy

• Economic diversity (compared to other Alaska

communities)

• Economic dependence on natural resources

• Attractiveness for businesses

• Preparedness for the future

• Effectiveness of community leaders

• Effectiveness of community government

• Overall quality of life

Table 52 displays the average ratings for each of

the 14 questions in each community. 

We calculated regional amenity ratings by summing the average ratings of the importance of

scenery near the community and the abundance

of special places near the community. Economic

structure ratings are calculated by summing the

average ratings of autonomy, economic diversity,

and attractiveness for business. Summing the

effectiveness of community leaders and effectiveness of community government average ratings yields a rating of civic leadership. Finally,

we combine the average ratings of personal

attachment to the community and community

cohesiveness to measure the degree of social

organization in the community. The scores for

these four items are shown for each community

in the first four columns in table 53.

Harris and others (2000) define community

resiliency as the ability of a community to adapt

and respond to change. In their study, they used

measurements of the first four items in table 53

to come up with community resiliency indices for

192 of the communities in the interior Columbia

River basin. This index is based on the hypotheses that the resiliency of a community is positively correlated with its regional amenities—the

surrounding scenery and attractions in the area;
99

Table 52—Perceptions of community characteristics by community

Cooper Moose Average 

Anchorage Landing Cordova Girdwood Hope Kenai Pass Seward Soldotna Sterling Valdez Whittier across

Characteristic (n=52) (n=50) (n=57) (n=61) (n=18) (n=48) (n=24) (n=58) (n=60) (n=37) (n=49) (n=20) communities

Scale: 7 = “very...” (positive) to 1 = “very...” (negative) (and 95 percent confidence interval)

“How attractive is your 

community comparedto other communities in Alaska?”a 4.9 5.3 4.7 5.6 5.3 5.0 4.4 4.9 4.5 4.5 4.5 2.6 4.7

(4.5-5.3) (4.9-5.7) (4.4-5.1) (5.4-5.9) (4.7-6.0) (4.6-5.4) (3.8-5.1) (4.5-5.2) (4.2-4.9) (4.0-4.9) (4.1-4.9) (1.8-3.3)

“How important is the 

scenery outside your community to the overall character of 

your community?”b 6.2 5.8 5.8 6.2 6.2 5.6 6.3 5.7 5.6 5.6 6.0 6.1 5.9

(5.8-6.5) (5.4-6.2) (5.2-6.3) (5.9-6.5) (5.8-6.6) (5.2-6.0) (5.8-6.8) (5.2-6.1) (5.2-5.9) (5.1-6.2) (5.7-6.3) (5.2-6.9)

“How abundant are

special places outside your community?”c 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.2 5.7 4.7 5.6 5.2 4.9 5.3 4.9 6.1 5.5

(5.1-5.8) (5.2-6.0) (5.4-6.3) (5.9-6.4) (5.0-6.3) (4.3-5.2) (5.1-6.1) (4.7-5.6) (4.4-5.3) (4.8-5.9) (4.5-5.4) (5.3-6.8)

“How attached are 

you to your community?”d 4.3 5.7 5.5 5.6 5.5 4.8 5.8 5.1 4.5 4.8 4.3 4.8 5.1

(3.8-4.8) (5.3-6.0) (5.1-5.9) (5.3-5.9) (4.8-6.2) (4.3-5.3) (5.3-6.3) (4.6-5.5) (4.1-4.9) (4.4-5.3) (3.8-4.9) (3.9-5.7)

“How would you 

rate the overall cohesiveness of your community?”e 4.1 5.6 4.3 5.0 4.6 4.3 5.4 4.6 4.3 4.0 4.3 2.5 4.4

(3.7-4.6) (5.3-6.0) (3.9-4.8) (4.6-5.4) (3.7-5.5) (3.8-4.8) (4.8-6.0) (4.2-5.0) (3.9-4.7) (3.5-4.5) (4.0-4.7) (1.8-3.1)

“How adequate are 

the public services in your community?”f 5.1 4.8 4.9 5.4 3.6 5.1 4.7 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.4 4.0 4.8

(4.8-5.4) (4.4-5.1) (4.5-5.3) (5.1-5.7) (2.6-4.5) (4.6-5.5) (4.0-5.4) (4.7-5.3) (4.7-5.3) (4.6-5.4) (5.1-5.7) (3.3-4.7)
100Table 52—Perceptions of community characteristics by community (continued)

Cooper Moose Average 

Anchorage Landing Cordova Girdwood Hope Kenai Pass Seward Soldotna Sterling Valdez Whittier across

Characteristic (n=52) (n=50) (n=57) (n=61) (n=18) (n=48) (n=24) (n=58) (n=60) (n=37) (n=49) (n=20) communities

Scale: 7 = “very...” (positive) to 1 = “very...” (negative) (and 95 percent confidence interval)

“How autonomous is 

your community?”g 4.6 4.1 5.0 3.8 4.6 4.3 4.1 4.3 4.0 3.4 4.6 4.3 4.3

(4.1-5.0) (3.7-4.5) (4.5-5.4) (3.4-4.2) (3.8-5.5) (3.8-4.7) (3.5-4.7) (3.9-4.8) (3.6-4.4) (2.8-4.0) (4.2-5.1) (3.2-5.5)

"How economically 

diverse is your community compared to others in Alaska?"h 5.5 2.8 2.9 3.0 2.4 3.7 3.2 3.9 3.9 2.6 3.1 2.4 3.3

(5.2-5.8) (2.5-3.1) (2.5-3.1) (2.7-3.4) (1.8-3.1) (3.3-4.2) (2.6-3.7) (3.5-4.3) (3.6-4.3) (2.2-3.1) (2.7-3.5) (1.6-3.2)

“What do you think is 

the overall economic dependence of your community on natural resources?”i 3.1 2.7 1.9 2.8 3.7 3.0 3.8 3.3 2.1 2.9 2.1 3.9 2.9

(2.6-3.5) (2.2-3.2) (1.5-2.3) (2.2-3.2) (2.7-4.7) (2.4-3.6) (3.3-3.4) (2.9-3.7) (1.7-2.4) (2.3-3.4) (1.7-2.6) (3.0-4.8)

“How attractive is your 

community for business compared to other communities in 

Alaska?”j 5.0 4.3 3.6 4.7 3.4 4.2 3.9 4.7 4.7 3.9 3.9 3.7 4.2

(4.6-5.4) (3.9-4.7) (3.2-4.0) (4.3-5.1) (2.6-4.2) (3.8-4.7) (3.2-4.5) (4.4-5.0) (4.3-5.0) (3.2-4.5) (3.4-4.3) (2.8-4.5)

“How prepared for the 

future is your community?”k 4.2 4.5 3.6 4.2 2.9 3.9 3.5 4.1 3.8 3.1 3.4 3.4 3.7

(3.9-4.6) (4.1-4.9) (3.2-4.0) (3.8-4.6) (2.1-3.7) (3.4-4.3) (2.9-4.2) (3.8-4.5) (3.5-4.1) (2.7-3.4) (3.0-3.8) (2.5-4.3)

“How effective are your 

community leaders?”l 4.1 4.4 3.5 3.7 3.9 3.6 4.1 3.9 3.8 3.5 3.6 2.7 3.7

(3.6-4.5) (4.0-4.7) (3.1-3.9) (3.3-4.0) (3.0-4.8) (3.1-4.1) (3.6-4.5) (3.6-4.3) (3.5-4.1) (3.0-4.1) (3.2-4.1) (1.8-3.5)
101

Table 52—Perceptions of community characteristics by community (continued)

Cooper Moose Average 

Anchorage Landing Cordova Girdwood Hope Kenai Pass Seward Soldotna Sterling Valdez Whittier across

Characteristic (n=52) (n=50) (n=57) (n=61) (n=18) (n=48) (n=24) (n=58) (n=60) (n=37) (n=49) (n=20) communities

Scale: 7 = “very...” (positive) to 1 = “very...” (negative) (and 95 percent confidence interval)

“How effective is

your community government?”m 3.9 3.8 3.6 3.5 3.7 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.6 3.2 3.6 2.9 3.6

(3.5-4.3) (3.3-4.2) (3.2-4.0) (3.1-3.9) (2.7-4.7) (3.1-4.1) (3.1-4.3) (3.4-4.1) (3.3-4.0) (2.7-3.7) (3.1-4.0) (2.1-3.7)

“How would you rate 

the overall quality of life for your community?”n 5.1 5.6 5.1 5.7 5.2 4.8 5.5 4.9 4.7 5.1 4.8 4.0 5.1

(4.8-5.5) (5.3-5.9) (4.7-5.4) (5.5-5.9) (4.4-6.0) (4.4-5.2) (5.1-6.0) (4.6-5.2) (4.4-5.1) (4.8-5.5) (4.5-5.1) (3.3-4.7)

a Scale: 7 = “extremely attractive” to 1 = “extremely unattractive.”b Scale: 7 = “extremely important” to 1 = “extremely unimportant.”c Scale: 7 = “extremely abundant” to 1 = “not at all abundant.”d Scale: 7 = “extremely attached” to 1 = “extremely unattached.”e Scale: 7 = “extremely strong sense of community” to 1 = “extremely weak sense of community.”f Scale: 7 = “extremely adequate” to 1 = "extremely inadequate.”g Scale: 7 = “extremely independent and self-reliant” to 1 = “extremely dependent and linked.”h Scale: 7 = “extremely diversified” to 1 = “extremely undiversified.”i Scale: 7 = “extremely independent” to 1 = “extremely dependent.”j Scale: 7 = “extremely attractive” to 1 = “extremely unattractive.”k Scale: 7 = “totally prepared” to 1 = “totally unprepared.”l Scale: 7 = “extremely effective” to 1 = “extremely ineffective.”m Scale: 7 = “extremely effective” to 1 = “extremely ineffective.”n Scale: 7 = “extremely high QOL” to 1 = "extremely low QOL.”Source: Crone 1999b.
102

social organization—the degree of consensus in

values and goals and the ability to work together

to achieve those goals; economic structure—the

degree of autonomy, economic diversity and

attractiveness for business; and civic leadership—

the degree of commitment and involvement of

leaders and groups to create or respond to change.

Adopting the same hypotheses, we computed community resiliency scores by summing the ratings

in the first four columns for each community in

table 53.9 The relative community resiliency

ranking from highest to lowest is Cooper Landing,

Moose Pass, Anchorage, Girdwood, Seward,

Hope, Cordova, Soldotna, Kenai, Valdez,

Sterling, and Whittier.

Two measures can be used and compared to

assess feelings of respondents about the overall

quality of life in their community. The first

measure is the average quality-of-life ratings

shown in the last row of table 52. A second

measure is derived by weighting the 30 qualityof-life average satisfaction ratings from table 46

by their respective average importance ratings 

9 The economic structure measurement was converted to a

14-point scale to be weighted equally with the other three

factors.

from table 45 and summing these weighted ratings for each community.10 These quality-of-life

ratings are shown in table 53. The relative quality-of-life ranking using the first measure is

Girdwood, Cooper Landing, Moose Pass, Hope,

Sterling, Anchorage, Cordova, Seward, Kenai,

Valdez, Soldotna, and Whittier. The relative

quality-of-life ranking using the second measure

is Cordova, Cooper Landing, Girdwood, Hope,

Moose Pass, Anchorage, Kenai, Soldotna, Sterling,

Seward, Valdez, and Whittier. The relative rankings are similar for most of the communities,

with the exceptions of Cordova and Sterling.

Cordova was ranked seventh with the first measure, but first with the second measure. Valdez

was ranked fifth with the first measure but fell

to ninth using the second measure.

10 The importance ratings for each respondent were converted from a 1 (= extremely important) to 4 (= not at all

important) scale to a 0 (= not at all important) to 3 (=

extremely important) scale. The satisfaction ratings were

converted from a 1 (= very satisfied) to 5 (= very unsatisfied) scale to a 2 (= very satisfied) to –2 (= very unsatisfied) scale.

Table 53—Community resiliency and quality of life

Regional Social Economic Civic Community Quality of life Quality of life

Community amenities organization structure leadership resiliency measure 1 measure 2

Anchorage 11.6 8.4 15.0 7.9 37.9 5.1 28.5

Cooper Landing 11.5 11.3 11.2 8.1 38.4 5.6 36.5

Cordova 11.6 9.8 11.5 7.1 36.1 5.1 39.1

Girdwood 12.4 10.6 11.5 7.2 37.8 5.7 29.9

Hope-Sunrise 11.9 10.1 10.4 7.7 36.6 5.2 29.6

Kenai 10.3 9.1 12.2 7.2 34.8 4.8 23.5

Moose Pass 11.9 11.2 11.1 7.8 38.3 5.5 29.1

Seward 10.8 9.7 12.9 7.7 36.8 4.9 19.2

Soldotna 10.5 8.8 12.6 7.4 35.1 4.7 20.2

Sterling 10.9 8.9 10.0 6.7 33.2 5.1 19.6

Valdez 10.9 8.7 11.6 7.2 34.5 4.8 15.0

Whittier 12.1 7.3 10.4 5.6 31.8 4.0 7.8

Source: Crone 1999b.
103

Changes in Community Desirability

and Preferences for Residency

Table 54 displays the percentages of respondents 

who felt their community had become more

desirable, stayed the same, or become less desirable since they had lived there. Only in Hope did

the largest percentage of respondents feel their

community had become more desirable. The

response chosen most often in the communities

of Anchorage, Cooper Landing, Girdwood, and

Moose Pass was “stayed the same.” In all other

communities, the largest proportion of respondents felt their communities “were less desirable.” Whittier and Cordova had the smallest

proportion of respondents who felt their community had become more desirable (5 and 14 percent, respectively).

Table 55 shows the percentages of respondents

who would stay in their community, move to

another community in Alaska, or move to another

community outside of Alaska, if they had the

ability to live anywhere with the same standard

of living. Girdwood, Cooper Landing and Sterling

had the highest percentages of respondents who

would remain in the same community (88, 86,

and 84 percent, respectively). Valdez, Anchorage,

and Whittier had the highest percentages of

respondents who would move elsewhere (55, 44,

and 39 percent, respectively). Fifty-four percent

of the respondents who would move from

Anchorage would leave the state, whereas 36

percent of the movers from Valdez and 15 percent

from Whittier would leave the state.

Survey Summary

Results from this survey which may be useful in

the planning process, include:

• In most communities, respondents felt that

local community interests should be given

more attention than national interests in public

land use planning near their community.

• The quality of life in the CNF communities of

interest is heavily influenced by factors that

are related to public lands or affected by public land management activities.

• In most communities, survey respondents

favored the current amount of economic activity in the sectors most associated with forest

resources.

• Whittier, Kenai, Anchorage, and Valdez seem

the most in favor of additional growth in their

communities, whereas Hope, Cooper Landing,

Girdwood, and Moose Pass seem the least in

favor of additional growth.

• The quality of life and community resiliency

of the CNF communities of interest is generally high, although the community of Whittier

had both the lowest quality of life ranking and

the lowest community resiliency score.
104Table 54—Changes in desirability of community

Cooper Moose Average 

Anchorage Landing Cordova Girdwood Hope Kenai Pass Seward Soldotna Sterling Valdez Whittier across

Status (n=51) (n=46) (n=56) (n=61) (n=17) (n=47) (n=21) (n=58) (n=58) (n=38) (n=47) (n=19) communities

Percent (and 95 percent confidence interval)

More desirable 24 33 14 33 47 30 29 33 22 24 26 5 27

(10-40) (17-51) (5-28) (19-48) (17-75) (15-47) (8-55) (18-49) (10-38) (9-43) (11-43) (0-30)

Stayed the same 39 43 41 36 35 32 43 22 29 37 36 42 36

(23-56) (25-61) (25-57) (21-52) (10-65) (16-50) (17-69) (10-38) (16-45) (18-57) (20-54) (15-69)

Less desirable 37 24 45 31 18 38 29 45 48 39 38 53 37

(21-54) (10-41) (28-61) (17-47) (1-47) (21-56) (8-55) (29-61) (32-64) (20-59) (21-56) (23-78)

Source: Crone 1999b.

Table 55—Preferences for residency

Cooper Moose Average 

Anchorage Landing Cordova Girdwood Hope Kenai Pass Seward Soldotna Sterling Valdez Whittier across

Location (n=50) (n=51) (n=56) (n=58) (n=17) (n=48) (n=23) (n=55) (n=57) (n=38) (n=49) (n=18) communities

Percent (and 95 percent confidence interval)

Same community 56 86 71 88 82 73 83 71 70 84 45 61 73

(37-72) (70-95) (54-84) (73-96) (50-97) (54-86) (54-96) (53-84) (53-83) (64-95) (27-62) (29-85)

Another community

in Alaska 20 12 16 9 18 13 13 15 7 11 35 33 17

(8-36) (3-26) (6-31) (2-21) (2-46) (3-28) (1-37) (5-29) (1-19) (2-27) (19-52) (9-62)

Outside of Alaska 24 2 13 3 0 15 4 15 23 5 20 6 11

(11-41) (0-12) (4-26) (0-14) (4-30) (0-25) (5-29) (11-38) (0-20) (8-37) (0-31)

Source: Crone 1999b.
105

References

Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission. 1999a. Basic information tables. www.cfec.state. 

ak/bit/. [Date accessed unknown].

Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission. 1999b. Commercial fishing catch data aggregated

by Alaska census division and city. http://www. cfec.state.ak/cenge/. [Date accessed unknown].

Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission. 1999c. Notice of intent list. http://www.cfec.state.

ak/intents/. [Date accessed unknown].

Alaska Department of Education and Early Development. 1999. Public school enrollments. 

http://www.educ.state.ak.us/stats/home.html. [Date accessed unknown].

Alaska Department of Labor. 1998. Alaska community database. community information summaries. http:// www.comregaf.state.ak.us/mra/CF_COMDB.htm. [Date accessed unknown].

Alaska Department of Labor, Research and Analysis. 1996. Alaska population overview, 1996 

estimates. Juneau, AK. 140 p.

Alaska Department of Labor, Research and Analysis. 1999a. Alaska population overview, 1998 

estimates. Juneau, AK. 150 p. Vol. 18.

Alaska Department of Labor, Research and Analysis. 1999b. Employment and earnings summary 

report, 1997. Juneau, AK. 60 p.

Alaska Division of Trade and Development. 1999a. Alaska energy industries: oil, gas, and coal. 

Juneau, AK: Department of Commerce and Economic Development. 8 p.

Alaska Division of Trade and Development. 1999b. Mining and Minerals. http://www.dced. 

state.ak.us/trade/mine.htm. [Date accessed unknown].

Attaran, M. 1986. Industrial diversity and economic performance in U.S. areas. Annals of Regional 

Science. 20(2): 44-45.

Bowker, J.M. 2001. Outdoor recreation participation and use by Alaskans: projections 2000-2020. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-527. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 22 p.

Brooks, D.; Haynes, R. 1997. Timber products output and timber harvests in Alaska: projects for 

1992-2010. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-409. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 17 p.

Brooks, D.; Haynes, R. 2001. Recreation and tourism in south-central Alaska: synthesis of recent 

trends and prospects. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-409. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 19 p.

Brown, G. 2001. Personal communication. Associate professor, Alaska Pacific University, 4101 

University Drive, Anchorage, AK 99508.

Brown, G. 1999. Alaska community quality of life study (detailed responses), and Chugach National 

Forest planning study (detailed responses). http://polar.alaska.pacific.edu/gregb/research.htm. [Date

accessed unknown].

Colt, S.; Martin, S.; Mieren, J.; Tomeo, M. 2002. Recreation and tourism in south-central Alaska: 

patterns and prospects. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-551. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 77 p.
106

Crone, L. 1999a. Unpublished data based on responses to “Planning for the Future of the Chugach 

National Forest” survey. On file with: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station,

2770 Sherwood Lane, Suite 2A, Juneau, AK 99801.

Crone, L. 1999b. Unpublished data based on responses to “Your Community’s Quality of Life and 

Future” survey. On file with: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 2770

Sherwood Lane, Suite 2A, Juneau, AK 99801.

Davidson, A. 1990. In the wake of the Exxon Valdez: the devastating impact of the Alaska oil spill. 

San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. 333 p.

Economic Report of the President. 2000. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing 

Office. 432 p.

Fried, N.; Windisch-Cole, B. 1999. The Kenai Peninsula. Alaska Economic Trends. 19(10): 

3-15.

Goldsmith, S. 1998. Population, employment, and income projections for Alaska census areas. 

Anchorage, AK: University of Alaska, Institute for Social and Economic Research. 16 p.

Goldsmith, S. 1999. Economic projections for Alaska and the southern railbelt 1999-2025. 

Anchorage, AK: University of Alaska, Institute for Social and Economic Research. 13 p.

Hadland, J. 1998. Alaska’s resident workforce increases. Alaska Economic Trends. 18(3): 1-8. 

Hadland, J. 1999. Nonresidents working in Alaska—1997. Juneau, AK: [Publisher unknown]; report 

prepared by Alaska Department of Labor, Research and Analysis Section. 29 p.

Harris, C.; McLaughlin, W.; Brown, G.; Becker, D. 2000. Rural communities in the inland 

Northwest: an assessment of small rural communities in the interior and upper Columbia River

basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-477. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. (Quigley, T.M., ed.; Interior Columbia Basin

Ecosystem Management Project: scientific assessment). 120 p.

Hutchison, K. 1999a. Are fishermen on endangered list? Juneau Empire. May 2; Sect. A: 1 (col. 1). 

Hutchison, K. 1999b. A salmon’s life, down on the farm. Juneau Empire. May 2; Sect. C: 1 (col. 4). 

Hutchison, K. 1999c. Delivering salmon customers want. Juneau Empire. May 5; Sect. A: 1 (col. 1). 

Hutchison, K. 1999d. Fish farms reshaping people’s lives. Juneau Empire. May 6; Sect. A: 1 (col. 1). 

Hutchison, K. 1999e. Fishin’ gone? Juneau Empire. May 2; Sect. C: 1 (col. 2). 

Hutchison, K. 1999f. The next generation: where the global seafood industry is going. Juneau 

Empire. May 7; Sect. A: 5 (col. 4). 

Hutchison, K. 1999g. Pinching pennies for a market edge. Juneau Empire. May 4; Sect. A: 1 (col. 3). 

Hutchison, K. 1999h. Reshaping fishing’s future. Juneau Empire. May 7; Sect. A: 1 (col. 3). 

Hutchison, K. 1999i. Spawning environmental worries. Juneau Empire. May 3; Sect. A: 1 (col. 1). 

McDowell Group. 1989. Alaska seafood industry study—a technical report: an economic profile of 

the seafood industry in Alaska. Juneau, AK. 57 p.

McDowell Group. 1991. Alaska’s visitor industry: an economic profile. Juneau, AK. Prepared 

for Alaska Division of Tourism, Department of Commerce and Economic Development. 132 p.
107

McDowell Group. 1999a. Alaska visitor industry: economic impact study, 1999 update. Juneau, AK. 

Prepared for Alaska Division of Tourism, Department of Commerce and Economic Development.

44 p.

McDowell Group. 1999b. Salmon market bulletin. Juneau, AK: Salmon Market Information Service. 

1(2): 1-4.

Minnesota IMPLAN Group, INC. 1999. IMPLAN ProfessionalTM. Version 2.0. Stillwater, MN.

Mosher, T. 1998. Seafood processing leads rebound in new hires during first quarter of 1997. Alaska 

Economic Trends. 18(3): 7-10.

Newbold, P. 1991. Statistics for business and economics. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 

930 p.

Picou, J.S.; Gill, D.A. 1996. The Exxon Valdez oil spill and chronic psychological stress. In: Rice, 

S.D., ed. Proceedings of the Exxon Valdez oil spill symposium. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries

Society Symposium. 18: 879–873.

Picou, J.S.; Gill, D.A.; Cohen, M.J., eds. 1999. The Exxon Valdez disaster: readings on a modern 

social problem. 2nd ed. Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt Publishers. 337 p.

Rolston, H. 1988. Environmental ethics: duties to and values in the natural world. Philadelphia, PA:

Temple University Press. 391 p.

Salmon Market Information Service. 1998. Salmon Market Bulletin. University of Anchorage: 

Number 31. 8 p.

Salmon Market Information Service. 1999a. Alaska salmon harvest: average price. http://shiva. 

its.uaa.alaska.edu/smis/. [Date accessed unknown].

Salmon Market Information Service. 1999b. Alaska salmon harvest: harvest volume. http://shiva. 

its.uaa.alaska.edu/smis/. [Date accessed unknown].

Shannon, C.E.; Weaver, W. 1949. The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, IL: The 

University of Illinois Press. 117 p.

Smith, G. 1999. Northwest Income Indicators Project Web Site. Shift share analysis. http://niip.wsu. 

edu/washington/ssharewa.htm. [Date accessed unknown].

Szumigala, D.J.; Swainbank, R.C. 1999. Alaska mineral industry 1998: a summary. Information 

Circular 45. Fairbanks, AK: Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological and

Geophysical Surveys. 13 p.

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1999. Regional economic information system, 1969-1997. 

[CD-ROM].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1998a. Analysis of the management situation. 

R10-MB-372. Anchorage, AK: Alaska Region. 106 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1998b. Timber supply and demand, 1998; report to 

Congress, ANILCA Section 706(a). Juneau, AK: Alaska Region. 31 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1999. Payments to the state regional database. 

Juneau, AK: Alaska Region.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2000. Timber volume cut and sold regional database. Juneau, AK: Alaska Region.
108

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1980. 1980 census of population, general 

social and economic characteristics of Alaska. Washington, DC. 233 p.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1990. 1990 census of population, social and 

economic characteristics of Alaska. http://factfinder.census.gov/. [Date accessed unknown].

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1999. Statistical abstract of the United 

States: 1998. Washington, DC. 1020 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Federal subsistence management 

program operations manual for regional council members. Anchorage, AK: Fish and Wildlife

Service, Office of Subsistence Management. 102 p.
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle

of multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of

wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation

with the States and private forest owners, and management of the National Forests

and National Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly

greater service to a growing Nation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs

and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability,

political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases

apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for

communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should

contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights,

Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC

20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity

provider and employer.

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw

Telephone (503) 808-2592

Publication requests (503) 808-2138

FAX (503) 808-2130

E-mail pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Pacific Northwest Research Station

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 S.W. First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300